. mr. no. mr. apologies. please let me kw if thi is messing you up. we're trying to get coordinated here. shets to amend the agenda to go with treasurers report ten minutes, audit committee report ten minutes, followed by election of the party officers and the national committee. there's no time certain for followed by nominations of party candidates for president and vice president. there's no time certain for that. foy b rules committee report. no time certain. followed by platform. followed by resolutions. no time certain. followed by other business. no time certain.

tomorrow morning at 7:30 a.m. we want to put our presidential debate. the question is i think our secondaryderstand what do we put -- how do we actually order this written down? i thini unrstand it perfectly. okay. so i'm going to anticipate that we're going through elections through the end of the day. then we're going to tomorrow morning with a debate.does that work? >> madame chair, microphone one. >> got it.

>> point of information. microphone four. y. okay. so the issue raised that mr. redtop assortedder is special order. they are an agenda amendment. they are not the same. they should be voted on separately. >> please state your name.

i don't believe mr. redtop's motion was seconded. we do not have an agenda at the perhaps mr. red it? >> that's fine. can i clarify my motion? my motion -- i know. >> i know exactly what your motion is.>> my motion is that order of business period. >> excuse me. i'm sorry. >> okay. >> point of inquiry. >> yes. my motion not get a second? >> it is seconded. i thought it got a second. >> all right. how about we voton treha quick. then wet al vote on the motion real >> madame chair, point of order. microphone >> delegate from michigan. my point of order is regarding the business earlier today. per the national bylaws, article i, section 4e, the's 7/8

vote required to seat delegates and alternates that are not entitled to be seated preprejudice sterred. as such the submission of the delegate from oklahoma and washington a the bylaws. >> point of order, microphone this motion is delegatory, madame chair. there's been about 25 bites of thele now. the motion is dilatory. as the point violations of the bylaws. they are continuing in nature. the delegations from oklahoma and washington the additions that were made to them aviolations of the bylaws and should beú >> i think we need to come back

to the point of order after we dispose of thehank you. >> all right. mr. redtop had a motion. it did have a second. >> microphone one. >> point of order.>> it was essentially to get our debate, presidential debate happening from 9:30 to 10:00 tomorrow. i want to do this tamelessly. it was to this as painlessly as possible. it is not technically ine it out of order. you are going touickly rule -- you are going to do what you are going to do. we are going to mo forward; right? because i have to follow the bylaws. we need to kind of get this happening; right? the motion is out of do you have a second? do we need to debate it? real quick?

you are all appealing my ruling. i'm this backwards. you hate the rule and you see the debate happening, am i correct? fantastic. sit down. thank you. i apologize. i did this in reverse. those of you who are no, no -- i hate -- just, no. we've got to make it go slow stand up real quick. >> madame chair, microphone four. >> thank you. the appeal is -- my ruling is overnder. so this motion is in order. now we're going to go back to the motion. we're going to vote all of those in favor of mr. redtop's motion which is to stick our presidential debate tomorrow morning time certain from 9:00 to 10:30 and include mr. mike, aye. >> aye. >> opposed. >> i apologize. but the ayes have it.

>> madame chair, microphone four. >> yesir. my understanding is we aren's order. i call to question. >> madame chair, i wanted this to be recognized before. i want to debateanted to? >> i want to debate the robson motion. it has some flaws. >> your objection has been called to question. >> it has some flaws i would like to point out.tl >> there's objections. we need to discuss -- we have a concern there's some flaws in this. been some other issues of business, i think it would be in order. objections to call into question? any additional ones? ok the question and move forward without considering any more bylaws violations? since it is a problem? all of those opposed to climate discuss

this and make sure we're doing things properly. >>th question? >> do you want to call a question, say aye. if you don't, say nay. aye? >> nay? >> nay. >> thank you. have it. >> madame chair >> i'm not convinced that was a 2/3. i'm not convinced there was not 2/3s in favor madame chair. >> this might be quicker. >> it'll take longer to figure that out -- >> i'm soru think it needed to be 2/3? >> 2/3 in favor, madame chair. >> exactly. 2/3. we are on debate. >> thanktar, california delegate. there's a reason why we haenda the order is that it is

in. you want bylaws to be before officer election. the bylaws cannge the compensation of the officers and officer holders. that's why you have to do before. can everyone hear me? i'm going to again. is this better? can you hear me?ay. so the reason why you do by laws before the officer election is because they might change the bylaws of the lnc. typically bylaws go into effect immediately until there's me is why you want to do bylawse election. to do before the platform before nominations for president or vice president. that's their contract with us. we're -- you don't elect somebody to represent you and then later on say, oh, by the way, this is what you stand for. they aren our

platform. to define our platform first. that's why i'm opposed to the motion. thank you. >> thank you. we have mr. brown. >> yes. i want to speak in favor of the robson proposal. it is on practic to do the business. especially with adding the pral debate, we barely have any floor time to consider our elections, let alone the bylaws and platforms. we need to adopt this to go forward and el that we need to elect.

>> okay. questions have been called. we're going to call the vote. the motion already passed. business. notwithstanding the special order. if that makes sense. i hope it does. all in favor of approving this agenda? aye. requires at least 2/3 of the votes. okay. it. [applause] >> that was >> point of information. >> he has been waiting. we're going to go back. >> thank you, madame chair. as stated e a point of order. regarding conducted earlier today, there's a 7/8

vote delegates. seat delegates and entitled to be registered. as such the submission of delegation from oklahoma are in violation of the bylaws. i'm sorry. the amendments adopted to the of oklahoma and washington are in violation of the bylaws. violation of the continuing nature. therefore those actions must be ruled null and void. >> okay. we're going to take a sec i'm going to discuss it. what i'm going to do is when i come back, we're doing to offer a solution so weon't descend into chaos.bad thing. we're going to have a solution one way or the other.ng

[iudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> all right. we are going to get atl liti'm requestingrmation

from the credentials committee. here is my concern, someone has suggested we are in a continuing breach of our bylaws because we chair ruling overturned in violation of our bylaws that i should not have ruled on 7/8 but it is completely outf order. it is convoluted. my concern is if we do not handle this appropriately, our presidential elections and obviously other elections will be contested. whatever happens, i believe --no, you can wait --i b amendment would fix it, so i will not tell everybody to pound sand. we will hear from the credentials chair on why he rolled washington and oklahoma thank you, madam chair. the reason washington and oklahoma

were rolled ineligible is once again in theirstateds clear and we seem unanimous acr that at convention or during convention,á after the gavel in call to order, in those bylaws, that was allowable once we came to convention. committee ruled those delegatenow we are atn. this is why it was ruled ineligible. everything happened before convention, during convention, at convention. >> parliamentary inquiry. is this debatable? are we in debate? >> we are not in debate. of order that will have serious qmifications one way or the other. >> microphone four.

billy pierce delegate from texas. i would like to point they were not unanimous, those votes were not unanimous ause] >> let the committee reach a correcting the record of the chair that it was not unanimous. >> parliamentary inquiry. >> microphone four. >> arthur from texas. what is the parliamentarians' opinion about this question. >> i'm the one with the parliamentarian and two other parliamentarians. [applause] [laughter] >> microphone one. >> star child, delegate from california. this is an unrel matter but it is timely so i would like to ask itowe8 regarding the submission of tokens for platform to leash i'm

curious how none of the above votes would be -- >> middle of serious business. please wait. >> point of information, madam chair, microphone two. !,[inaudible conversations]

>> rhtwe have a potential solution for this. >> i would like to introduce a possible solution. >> before i rule, we will hear the potential solution to this point of order. >> if you were to rule that the point of order is in order, what i would do at that point is propose a bylaw change so we can fix this and do things legitimatelyitho right now it takes a 7/8 vote for the convention to a roof propose to change that language to to 2/3, that way we can seek more people, be in compliance with the bylaws, we do not get people challeng the presidential and vice presidential ninees. if you were to rule this way that is the motion i would

propose. >> all right. his point is unfortunately well taken. >> point of order, madam chair. >> madam chair, if i can make that motion. >> nonappealable and i will not entertain the appeal. >> i will put it to the body myself if you do not allow this appeal. >> madam chair, i would like to make a motion. >> he is right in the middle of this. >> motion to suspend the rules to changebylaw article 10, section 4-e, replacing 7/8 with 2/3 2/3 cion

may approve additional delegates who are submitted to the credal committee during the convention. if we do that, we can solve all these issues. is there a second? >> requesting information scott lieberman, california. is mr. starr's bylaw amendment for this convention or the future? >> my understanding >> actually i have made it f change. if a future convention wants to change it back, they can. my motion is just a change from 7/8 to 2/3. if we, i think we have 2/3 in the room will receipt these people. >> point of measure, madam chair. >> microphone four.

> entertaining bylaws changes at this time is out of order. >> it would require an mmn change and take 2 -- it would an amendment change. >> his point of order is incorrect. >> i disagree, i hated it and it sucked and i thought it was also in order. >>ruling of the chair on that. >> i will not entertain a challenge to my ruling but i will entertain -- that is within my right -- i said i would present a solution which is exactly what i'm doing. >> appeal the ruling of the chair. >> madam chair, if my motion on the floor could be voted on. speak up a little. >> if my time. >> it needs a second. >> request for information microphone two. thank you.

i agree with his motion but a lot of this is a rising over confusion this morning, we were stand up, sit down, majority, civil majority. -- simple majority. what happened this morning8 approve these delegates, and then the appeal only required a simple majority. is that what happened or where the delegate elected by simple majority? >> was it took 7/8 washington and oklahoma. my ruling was appealed anda point of order has been raised that we are breach of our bylaws and my ruling should not have been on 7/8, but whether they were eligible at all and they remained ineligible. they were not pre-credentialed even though that is not a term we should technically be using. they were never presented and stricken, they did not qualify according to theirwntate >> to add them according to the

lnc bylaws -- >> it would have taken 7/8. >> that was the bylaws, that would have taken2/3 majority. >> it would take only 2/3, not 7/8. >> it would not have been a civil majority to overrule your ruling but a 2/3 majority. that is where we are running into confusion. this gentleman's motion to change the bylaws to 2/3 is that retroactive to this morning or do we have to do again? >> it would be easy to pass now if it was retroactive. >> i agree, which is why i'm asking. d be fine. >> point of order. >> normally bylaw changes our perspective, you do not usuay adopt a bylaw change.

>> it is not retroactive. >> here is how ievents have unfolded so far. currentlye you are finding that some delegates were not eligible at the time they were seated, and that is a ongoing bylaw violation and cannot be overturned by this body. however, this bylawhange can help clean this all up. we will have 2/3 of the folks here willing to vote for this so we can move on and go through the votes of actuaese people properly. -- actually seating these people properly. >> point of order. >> my understanding, mr. starr i want to make sure i understand correctly, it is not retroactive but it does lower the thred from 7/8 to 2/3we could add in those delegates by 2/3e should be able to do, we should not are on our way

and no one will raise continuing breach of bylaws again. >> point of order. microphone two. >> from maryland. you cannot, when there is a high threshold for something to be done in changing the bylaws is a lower threshold, you cannot change that bylaw with a lower threshold. you have to use the higher one. this issue comes up repeatedly in these conventions in the past with regard to changing the statement of priyou cannot change the 7/8 by a 2/3 bylaw change. true. we changed the bylaws. >> folks, this is a trap. vote no. >> point of order. microphone four.

>> microphone one, you had your hand up first. >> i wanted to correct him, what he is talking aboutthis is a change in the bylaws. you can change bylaws with a 2/3 d even in cases where it would require a higher threshold. that is why in some cases in our bylaws we specifically state requires a higher threshold than 2/3. >> someone had a point of order. go ahead. >> it is my understanding -- let me step back -- this thing is a motion to reconsider, and it has to be moved by somebody from the wi he was on the losing side. >> i disagree. he is not, and i discussed it

for the entir period. >> appeal the ruling of the chair. microphone thr, kentucky. appeal the ruling of the chair. >> ok. >> when to become to my vote to suspend the rule this? >> i would like to come to a vote vote and pass a i'm appealing the ruling of the chthat this is not a reconsideration. >> i'm not going to entertain it because we are regarding a breach of the bylaws. >> it is not your determination, it is the body yours. [applause] >> leave the room! >> all right. mr. starr, are you ready to go

to a vote? ready for a vote on this? >> point of information. >> microphone four. >>e. >> microphone two. if we really wanted to do this right, move that number instead of 2/3 move it to majority, it should be 50% not 66. this is an attempt toid earlier tonight that is all this is because you cannot get 50 +1. move it to 50 +1 and we will vote for it. >> request for information microphone three. >> is hisnt a motion to amend the item we are currently voting on to change 2/3 to majority? >> it was not framed that way

but he >> can you ask esther craig if he wants to do that now? >> mr. craig, were you trying to do an amendment and please consider this well? >> i would like a friendly amendment instead of being 2/3 to 50% majority rules. >> you want to amend mr. starr 's amendment. >> point of order. >> microphone four. >> hang tight, we will jump from this point of order, then that one. >> madam chair, i do not have a point of order but i want to br up a different solution that maybe makes everybody happy because geordie do n-- majority does not work. we can combine my motion to suspend the rules to change the bylaws to 2/3 and with that same 2/3 agreed to seat the delegates we tried to seat this

morning. the only way this bylaw can change is if at the same time you are seating these delega>> point of order, madam chair. >> you anyway to adopt a change from texas, mr. starr made a motion to suspend the rules, we never voted to suspend the rules. >> it was to suspend the rules to consider a particular bylaw. >> we would need a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules, and then 2/3 to pass it. >> i believe we rolled it into one. that is not what it says on the screen. >> it was to suspend the rules and adopt the following bylaws change. correct, suspend the rules, adopt the change. i would like at the same time agree that with this 2/3 vote we will seat all the people in question. >> and mm it may be change it from 2/3 anchanged from 2/3 --

all right. >> parliamentary inquiry. >> i will hear this the mentor he inquiry, then wwill go to -- parliamentary inquiry. >> from texas. >> madam chair, what willte threshold, not 7/8. >> if the chair rules that this vote succeeded with a 2/3 vote, i will raise a point of orderppens after that. >> parliamentary inquiry. >> are you? >> microphone two. >> can the motion he clarified inquiry? >> can you speak up. we need to go through this quickly and not get sued. we need to do this so we are all correct.

>> can the motion before the body be clarified and follow-up parliamentaryuiry. point >> weight. -- wait. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> all right.great. amendment and point of personal privilege -- mo to suspend

the rules is not debatable. it is not amendable. i did consult with the the point of personal privilege -- and then we will jump back to mr. starr. >> privilege. we were unable to hear because of the chaos in this room. a number of have no idea what is going on because there is too much noise. please try to control the delegation. >> guys, we need to be quiet. i am tried to move u quickly through this as possible. some of you think it people. i'm trying to do the bestwhy i'm trying to negotiate this and facilitate dialogue as opposed to steamrolling it. please work with me to make this happen. just like we did on the agenda. you know i have worked with for three weeks to make the agenda work. i'm trying to work with you on

this too.mr. starr, the amendment to your approval is not in order, we are back to your motion. it is not too late and there is nont to make sure that this is vote that also seats the people who wer earlier. we are changing the bylaw to 2/3 andorning. >> we are changing the threshold fr 7/8 to 2/3 and seating twashington and oklahoma people at the same time. >> point of order microphone two. >> hold on. ington and oklahoma were seated improperly so it will take 2/3 to pass the bylaws amendment. then we will do a quick 2/3. >> point of order. microphone four.

to suspend the rules, it may notamended in the middle. >> agree, we just need to go t here. point of order. >> point of inquiry. point of parliamentary inquiry microphone three. >>a i would like mr. starr to reiterate what he said that you try tour place because he is making the motion. please tell us again your amendment. >> my intended motion is to change rules -- to change the bylaws so it reads 2/3 instead of 7/ seat additional deleges at this time and seat the people from this morning all in one combined motion.

>> point of order. that was not stated in the original mot vote on the suspension of the rules now. that was not the original motion. >>et me suggest something. can i suggest -- >> point of parliamentary inquiry. >> can we vote down my motion and then be recognized to represent this motion -- >> we need to proceed to a >> point of parliamentary inquiry. how many of those would you like me to entertain before we go to a vot i have a better solution than a bylaws amendment. when there is ambiguity in the bylaws like the definition of -- what the national commission means, a civil majority vote can solve that problem. cruelly there is ambiguitye. -- clearly there is ambiguity here. it is multiple states to have

different interpretations. your own website h business happening yesterday that is not ambiguous. we have a motion for our bylaws committee that specifically said after this convention is brought to order, that is different than at the national convention different language. this is ambiguous. we need to go to a 2/3 vote. >> point o it is 2/3 point of order. as everyday know what they are voting on? >> thank you, i am getting there. look at the screen. by 2/3 vote the convention may seek additional delegates. -- seat additional delegates. >> point of order on microone

four. >> we are going to a vote. >> it is vital as to how my vote goes. if there was objection to calling the question. >>not have been a question call because it it is not debatable, we should just go to a vote. let's vote. let's vote. i told you you would get a solution, we vote. all of those in favor this bylaws amendment please stand up, and all of those opposed sit down. this is to suspend the rules too. this is to suspend the rules, you can roll it into one motion. it is on the screen. it should say suspend the rules on the screen.

everybody be seated. thank you. some of you are standing and talking. all of those opposed please stand. >> divide the question. >> the motion failed. >> madam chair, can i get my point of information? >> yes. >> you stated you had a solution liked to hurt your solution. >> should change the byl suspend the rules to change it from a 7/8 vote to 2/3, and make it only for this convention. then weuld vote yes and immediately revisit the oklahoma and washington delegation.

we added and the others quickly. there are more people in the room, we can get an update. >> to be clear, your solution was his solution. >> close. someone else tried to make an amendment microphone one. and i'm having trouble figuring out what we are votg on. it is important for you to make sure you read the motion every time we vote so we know what we are voting on. >> ok. >> madam chair. the robert f. kennedy, jr. starting in 15 minutes. >> microphone one. thank you. i want to thank everybody voting

down the motion so i can re -present it combined. my combined motion is to suspend the and -- please don't interrupt me -- and to seat the people from this morning that were deemed ineligible. d motion. i think 2/3 of the room want to do that. >> second. [inaudible conversations] >> if we although yes on this it gets the job done and we move on. i know it is not our favorite solution, just saying.

>> point of information. point of information, microphone three. was mr. starr's motion a privileged motion? >> mr. starr can we get his mo up. it moves to suspend the rules to amend the by 2/3 vote the convention may seat the oklahoma my point of information was

is his motion to suspend the rules a privileged motn? >> no. >> then why was he recognized again prior to other folks waiting t has? >>that again. >> if his motion was not a privileged motion, why was he recognized prior to other delegates waiting longer to be recognized than he had been. >> because i cannot see or hear you. speaking -- that is the reality. of information. >> microphone one. >> elizabeth, california. a point of information are you under the impression they are already seated and were not deemed ineligible?

>> i ruled what happened was out of order continuing breach of bylaws. the whole reason we are doing cure the breach of bylaws and find a way to seat them. >> i thought i heard mr. starr say they were -- i believed that they were -- >> point of information. number. >> microphone four. >> south carolina. passed, with that donece those delegates were seated earlier this morning? >> what has been done? >> we what with the impactng that has happened since then would all have to be redone? >> let me do a quick>> microphone

number three question of privilege. madam chair, delegate from connecticut. i have a time sensitive motion pertains to donald trump's speaking time, the motion was amended hours in advance and we filibustered our way out of the motion cosponsored by 43 delegates that everyone wants to hear and debate. >> point of order. >> your point of orders not >> yes, it is. >> it is not a point of order. >> you were going to alienate 43 cosponsoring delegates, you are no, because the boat is 29 people -- >> propose we tell donald trump to go fuckhimself.

[cheers applause] >> that is my motion are a libertarianonvention looking to nominate a libertarian. this is not a jailbait convention. i move to vacate the chair. >> point of order. [cheers and applause] >> point of order. >>point of order and i had a good answer. the number of delegates in question would not invalidate any of results because it required 2/3 and we hait would not have reached the es that make sense? >> no. it was for the motion to be vacated. ed to, to vacate the chair.

ignored like>> my motion has the floor right now. we need to dispose of the motion, then you can do whatever the heck you want to do. right now thisn the floor. vote in favor of this. seat these delegates and let's get some god business done. >> i would l the motion, the question has been called, any objection. please don't. we should not really be debating it. wed 2/3. there is an calling the question even though it is non-debatable. we are going to go to the boat and we need 2/3 to suspend thethe bylaws say by 2/3 vote the

convention may name additional delegates named during conven and seat the washington and oklahoma delegations. all in favor, please stand. requires 2/3. >> they said so please vote yes. >> please, be seated. all those opposed, please stand. do you need me to repeat the motion? it is on the screen. pcwe have said it7jhe suspend the

bylaws move to suspend the rules to amend the bylaws as follows instead of 7/8 vote the convention choose additional delegates named during the convention, and seek the washington and oklahoma delegate at issue. -- addition. those of you standing are opposed to that right now. we wl start over. if you are it takes 2/3. thought we did this already. >> yes there were a go everybody is standing. all right. >> let's be ungovernable. let's prove ungovernable. >> we are ungovernable. >> ungovernable. let's do this. >> those of you opposed, stand up. have 2/3 passage, thank you. [applause]

>> microphone four. >> my motion touspend the rules to add to the agenda and item following its acceptance to consider the ratification of region one. >> boo! >> we need an agenda first. >> we have an agenda.a long time ago. >> that is out of order. it is not up to the people in region wan vote on who is in region one. >> madam chair, he is not asking that, he is asking to consider the lnc's move that ratified region one. ok, can you be>> how do you want me to be any more clear? >>motion. >> rules to add to the agenda aimconsider and

debate the lnc's move to ratify region one against the will of some of their members. >> inquiry microphone one. >> does it have a second. >>, from texaagain. we finally adopt our agenda earlier? >> yes, we had an agenda. >> the answer is yes? >> absolutely. >> microphone three. delegate from indiana. i amend the agenda timewise to extend business today and tomorrow to 5:00 p.m. each day.

>> we were on the motion regarding region one. >> microphone one. >> i need to know who made that on wisconsin. point of order. microphone one. question. during the last kerfuffle there was a motion to vacate the chair. would that become the next agenda item? want to make sureare doing things correct. >> it was notnize because it was not in order at the time. >> it was in order at the time. >> right now we are on region one. >> madam chair, i think it would be more accurate to say this is not an amendment to the agenda but a suspension of the rules to take up a question about this move.

it will still require 2/3. >>ieve your motion is in ordeere was a particular consequence to it but we can deliberate it ift you would like. someone speaking in favor or against the motion? >> madam delegate from virginia. can you >> a move to suspend the rules to take up consideration of t move to ratify region one. >> thank you. and to take it up now not at a particular was there a second? >> moved and seconded. >> madam chair, point of order on microphone two. we have to follow the agenda and the next thing is the treasurers report. we should go to the treasurers report because we have to follow thend thank you.

that is a reasonable given. >> i move to call the question. moved andion? >> i object. the motion has not had a chance to speak in favor of the motion yet. >> you are right, it is not debatable, we are just hearing points of order and information although most are trying to argue. it is what it is. i would like to speak in should we go to a vote. >>need to suspend the rules to take up consideration. this is a two parter, not rolled into one. i'm looking at it on the screen. i need 2/3. we will go to a vall those in favor standup. i'm sorry it is like church but it is easier.

all these are the people who want to do this, to suspend the rules. sit down. >> point of orde this is mary from santa clara california. people who do not have delegate badges displayed are voting. please ask them not to do that. that is an issue. >>check your delegation. >> madam chair. >> microphone four. >> i call for the order of the next item on the agenda is the treasurer's[applause] >> madam!dh/ question of urgent privilege, time sensitive, 10 minutes from now microphone three from connecticut. i ha submitted a motion that was cosponsored by 43 h now

alienated and disaffected delegates. that motion seeks to give back the time to rfk trump libertarian candidates we run against these individuals. >> your motion i appeal the ruling of this rogue republican chair. [cheers] >> i can also be a plaintiff if you want. >> that is fine. fuck you. angela, suck cock. >> out of order. >> that is out of border and a violation. >> you can kiss my ass. [screams and assault! assault!

assault! >> sergeant at arms, please escort anybody come been rowdy to hotel security. >> madam chair, do we have a sergeant? have you identified who that person i know? >> i see ollie richard. ollie is doing a fantastic job. it is 3:30. we had a scheduled day. kennedy is talking. reading the room, it looks like most of you want to continue. >> microphone one. >> my suggestion is for those of you who would like to so at this time. is that reasonable? >> madam chair, i have a highly privileged motion at microphone

four. i'm going to make a motion that we need because not have a vme-b i will make a motion to fix the time in which to adjourn. i move that when this meeting adjourns, whenever that is, we adjourn to meet at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. >> actually, that is already in order because that was part of the special order. >> i did not know that wasanted to clarify that. thank you. >> pointf information, microphone one. >> can wuenfi our treasurer and, yes. >> starchild, delegate from california. another time sensitive matter that it will ask again now -- i will make for quiet in the room. thank you. inquiring as to how votes for none of the cast plank

retention token will be counted. can people vote for none of the above for that if they don't want to delete anything from the current platform and have those votes counted?>> i don't believe that is in order for platform tokens. >> like, if i could, get a parliamentarian ruling on that. >> not going to happen. >> some of us would like to stop stuff from being deleted, and if we can vote none of the above in terms of the tokens, otherwise they do not have >> could you wait one second so i it. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

>>information. >> it is it is not in order. >> madam chair microphone four point of information, illinois. what is this supposed to end today? i do not have a schedule in front of me. >> 5:0ñd nk you. >> madam chair >> that is when business should end. check the schedule that you are not overstepping. madam chair. motion to recess for 10 minutes

so people cane hell down. >> minutes? >> no! >> i'm not sure people want to take a recess for 10 minutes just why i have not called one. i do not hear any seconds on that. i believe our next item is the report. >> microphone three. >> we are going to the treasurer' ok microphone e. >> thank you for recognizing me after waiting in line f over an hour. i would like to make a motion to rules to extend tomorrow's times of adjournment from 5:00 p.m.., and to rescind the invitation to foer president and wwe hall of famer, donald trump. >> second! >> i second that! >> it is not in order.

he is not part of convention business. >> point of information. >> last one. we are going to go to the treasurer's report. >> the parliamentarian whether or not that is in order? >> i have already discussed it many times, it is not in order. >> it is part of the convention, which is allowed and controlled by the delegates, correct? >> we are moving on. i'm going to keep this fairly short. not nearly as rowdy. i have submitted a treasurers report that charts, facts and figures.

today i will go through the first two pages, the summary. treasurer's .b summary statements of activities and changes. you will have statement of cash flows, an auditors opinion a clean audit, term accomplishments. the next page is the letter from the treasurer. the treasurer of the is responsible for the oversight of all financial functions including bu to receipts disbursements internal and external reporting. i'm happy to announce the following results. we have a clean bill of health. we have had the cleanest august in several years with no significant deficiencies. mortgage that we previously took out. [applause]

we have outsourced our accounting department that led to that clean audit. [applause] we complaints wrongly filed, unanimously in our favor. [applause] and we have the highest sustained cash balances that we have had in years. the bottom line is this party is financially strong despite rumors to th done a good job. [applause] all, i appreciate it. that is the treasurer's report. i will take questions. >>on, a quick question at microphone fourfrom texas. would it be accurate tozç revenue in 20han

in any of the previous 20 years? i do not know if it was lower than in any of the previous 20 years but it was certainly low. >> was it lower than almost any of the previous 20 y that is probably accurate. >>ould y please give us the projected revenue for 2024? be in the arena $1.6 million to $1.7 million in 2024, potentihigher based on [applause] >> and for comparison purposes, mr. treasurer, do you happen to know the revenue for 2020? >> i do not on 2020. e 2022 was just over 2 million. microphone four. speaker out of south carolina. it ss paid off the mortgage balance he inherited.

wasn't that a loan against business assets and not atty sure they ended up not doing the mortgage. >> i apologize, there was a lien, not a mortgage. >> line of credit based on business assets? >> >> point of personali was wondering if you have an es o the libertarian party and has rais in the we have raised over $400,000 this month. raised over $200,000 in the last 2.5 d >> well done. >> microphone four. leap years from texas. could you please tell us how much of the libertarian party on valid access and candidates? >> i would have to look at the reports for that. i that, but it is in all of the monthly reports i have been submitting. >> question, microphone one

does the report changes so if there was a per decrease over time from last year or two years ago do you have any those? >> the report was base what previous reports of flight, so what it will show is 2022, 2023, and here today 2024, which is what we have always shown. you can always email me with more questions from previous reports or all the financial reports fr years. >> thank you so much. >> microphone four mike chair michigan. mr. treasurer, can you please tell us how much of the lnc has spent on suing me and the rest of the michigan >> spending not cut so that question is moot. >> how much did you spend on

suing us? >> [indiscernible] >> john thomas, i move that we accept the treasurer's report. [applause] it is not in order. i appreciate the cheering. >> next>> point of microphone four. i guess it is a parliamentary inquiry. what part bylaws makes it out of order to westgate treasurer about a budget itemsuch as how much money was spent by the lnc to sue other libertarians in order to intellectual property is a concept? >> nobody said it was out of order. >> question, microphone four.

>> john phillips. how much was raised in the presidential straw poll this weekend? like to thank our presidential candidates for all their fundraising efforts. i believe the number was $183,000. >> great job, presidential candidates. great job bailing us out. >> any more questions? >> microphone three. i recall you mentioning the outsourcing was more expensive than anticipated. is that an ongoing expense over short-term one? >> we are hoping it is short-term. that they have been going down and dow in cause. it had to do with the fec portion of the accounting and accounting portion of the it took longer to get them up to speed by the fec portion, so in addition what we get whenhave to go

through audits or when we need additional information for the fec, every bit of that cost money, so when we have a challenge that is ridiculous, that cost us money. >> microphone one. >> yes sir. >> mark, national chair california. in the last two years did the lnc pay any to the fec? >> no, we did not. >> mr., microphone one. related to previous comment about alledge at a bailout of this convention, was the convention is it possible without that fundraising from the pr we will not know until the end of the could you speculate? >> yes, believe this convention will bes of the $183000. >> i move to go to the next agenda item, which i believe is

the audit committee report. >> moving to the audit committee report? hearing none, we will go to the audit committee report. thank you. here comes our audit committee chair.