He then attacked Harlos.
His first ruling:
Dear Colleagues,
As of this month, we are operating at a deficit of over $15,000. The operational review conducted by Strategists Inc. has made it clear that internal board behavior, including personal conflicts and public infighting, is materially harming our ability to fundraise, govern effectively, and maintain the confidence of our members and donors.
The ongoing conflict between Mr. Malagon and Ms. Harlos has now escalated to competing motions that, in my judgment, are not designed to advance party business but instead perpetuate personal grievances. These motions, levied against each other, serve no constructive organizational purpose and distract from the business we are here to execute.
Under Robert’s Rules of Order, a motion is dilatory if it is clearly intended to obstruct or harass rather than to facilitate the assembly’s work. As Chair, I am ruling both motions to form investigatory committees dilatory and removing them from the agenda. This ruling is not a judgment on the facts of either dispute, but a necessary step to protect the functionality of this body and our ability to serve the Party.
Should other members believe that either matter deserves further consideration, they are free to notice a new motion and, if it garners sufficient support, it may be added to the agenda for deliberation.
Let’s return our focus to the urgent work ahead: financial recovery, political impact, and principled leadership as Debbie suggested and donors’ demand.
Harlos thanked Nekhaila for his ruling.
Malagon instead answered: One of those motions was a clear and legitimate consequence of a member committing a fraudulent act (see attached letter), the other, was in fact dilatory. I won’t bother arguing with the fecklessness of this Board, however. Part of our financial woes stem from not just ignoring blatant malice out of fear or “optics,” but rewarding it time and time again. This Board does so at its own peril.
Dassing appealed the Chair’s ruling: I think it’s important enough, so I appeal the ruling of the chair.
The Chair then overturned his own ruling, writing: There is a motion to appeal the ruling of the Chair, however, as promised, seeing that there is support for the motions, I will drop by dilatory ruling and allow the motions to continue to the agenda.
We do not know where Nekhaila made the referenced promise.
Nekhaila then attacked Harlos (but did not attack Malagon):
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2025
Secretary Harlos,
To be absolutely clear, my ruling that the recent motions were dilatory was not an endorsement of your conduct, nor does it absolve you from responsibility for your role in this ongoing conflict.
You have made inflammatory accusations, circulated emotionally charged statements, and contributed to a pattern of disruption that is now interfering with the board’s ability to function. Your position as Secretary does not place you beyond accountability, it raises the standard by which your behavior is measured.
I’ve taken appropriate steps within my authority to curb this situation. But I am not a referee for personal grievances, and I will not be pulled into cycles of escalation. It is now on you to decide how you react and whether you are going to help stabilize this board, or continue adding to the chaos.
If you believe wrongdoing has occurred, you are free to bring forward a formal motion using the proper process. But ongoing personal attacks, whether on public lists or through informal pressure campaigns, will not be tolerated as standard operating procedure.
It’s time to stop pointing fingers and start showing leadership.
Steven Nekhaila
Chairman, Libertarian National Committee
Can the LNC just dissolve itself so that Angela can get her ‘W’ so the party can start over?
I saw a comment from an anonymous source elsewhere that Caryn Ann has resigned her position as Secretary of the LNC. I only saw one person say this in one place so far. He did not say whether the resignation was also from any and all other titles in the party or from the party as a whole, etc, he simply said she resigned without further details.
It’s not particularly important to me in any way at all, but since this forum insists on focusing so incessantly and relentlessly on internal Libertarian and Liberal party matters to the virtual exclusion of other minor parties and generic minor party related topics, I may as well seek confirmation, denial, discussion, details, etc. It’s entirely likely that this will already occur here without my prompting by the time this comment is even considered for publication, but just in case it does not, there it is.
I at least thank the editor for the increasingly rare diversion from matters of 1990s vintage. I’ve read a number of comments from others that they find that focus useful and enlightening, so I’m glad their needs are being met, no matter how different they are from mine.
However, please note just in case anyone cares, I shall not follow a bunch of links elsewhere, particularly to extensive materials, and no links whatsoever to so called social media or video or audio anything. Of course, others reading might, so please don’t let my personal preferences stop you.
I’m just saying that if anyone cares to enlighten me in particular, that won’t be the way to do so, and perhaps I should add, regardless of anything anyone says or does, I won’t ever again be calling myself a libertarian, sending them any money, attending their events or gatherings, volunteering for them, registering to vote as one if I register to vote in a state that has partisan voter registration, etc, much less taking sides in their internal factional or personal conflicts. Everything I read on this forum only reinforces that conclusion, which has remained steadfast for about 15-16 years or so. However, I remain a signature member of the national party for the last 38 years, and probably of a state libertarian party or two or three, only because it’s more trouble than it’s worth to formally revoke those signatures.
But while there’s no chance of persuading me to any conceivable side, I’m still marginally interested in whatever additional details and opinions anyone cares to add, and others reading might be more interested than I am and perhaps persuadable to your opinions, whatever they are.
One last note, because it’s awkward for me, and because I didn’t explain this adequately before and she’s part of the subject of this article: I’m calling her Caryn Ann because she specifically asked me to call her that rather than Mrs. Harlos, as would be my normal default and preference for anyone I “met” very briefly on an internet message forum. I would normally consider it unacceptably rude to presume to address such folks as if they were close friends, relatives, or children. Where I’m from and have lived all my life we often even call little kids, including our own, Sir or Ma’am, and the only time I’d be calling her Caryn Ann would be either if she was a young lady (ie child) who I was in a position to reprimand and had done something which called for doing so, sometimes right before repeating and adding a family name and instructions to go cut a switch, or at least a close personal friend or acquaintance. However, it would be even more rude to insist on calling her Mrs. Harlos when she specifically asked me not to. It’s not like she asked me to call her Her/Your Royal Highness or some slur or cussword or something unreasonably lengthy etc.
What makes this particularly awkward is that 1) I’ve resolved not to reveal on the internet whether I’m a man or a woman myself, and to not allow anyone to presume without correction, because I don’t want my opinions judged on the basis of knowing or presuming to know, as would be inevitable in any male dominated forum and 2) I’m trying to the best of my abilities to specifically not treat women and their opinions differently from men and theirs or those who don’t choose to reveal which one they are and theirs, and to avoid any impression that I’m doing otherwise.
Thus, for anyone who cares to be polite, addressing me as “Mr. Jones” or “Mrs. Jones” as I would expect from strangers in real life would not be correct, even though it’s definitely one or the other – I just don’t want anyone here to know which one. Any of the following would be correct, therefore: “Mr. or Mrs. Jones,” “Pat,” “PJ,” “Jones,” or “Patty.” Less polite forms of address won’t bother me or be returned in kind.
Luckily, Michael Wilson made it slightly less awkward for me by, to my understanding at least, expressing a preference to be addressed as Mike rather than as Mr. Wilson.
I did attempt to read “Pat” Jones’ latest essay but gave up because it had absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Is there a way for moderators to step up?
The moderator stepped up. To my knowledge there’s only one. In a separate comment that wasn’t published I asked for something to be done with it since I spent considerable time, and that’s what was done with it. What it has to do with the topic is that it’s about Caryn Ann Harlos, part of the subject of the post, and started out as seeking confirmation she resigned and added detail and comments, before I had made it far enough down the page to see that was already done elsewhere after I submitted it.
None of my comments are even close to being essays, and no one forces you to strain your reading comprehension abilities in attempting to read or understand them. If someone else reads them and finds them useful in any way, great! If not, oh well, I tried. I read a great deal of things here that I don’t find useful, and many seem off topic at times, but I don’t generally complain; I sift through it for what I find useful in some manner.
For those who want to the full context, read the LNC business list.
Or read the comments here in an adjoining post.