Beth Vest commented today on the relationship between her derivative suit and former LNC Chair Nicholas Sarwark. There had been recent accusations that Sarwark, in his campaign to be elected to the LNC, had failed to disclose that he was representing her in his letters to the LNC. Vest wrote:
To be clear, Nick doesn’t represent me. He’s not even licensed in the local where my suit is filed. He is trying to encourage LNC members to do the right thing, but he neither consulted me about anything he’s doing, nor is it on my behalf. I heard about it when you posted your FB post. I wanted to make that clear. Not that I don’t respect what he’s trying to do, but he doesn’t inform me about anything. He’s not my representative.
His interest is the LNC, as its always been.
According to a public post on the business list: “Nick Sarwark is not the legal respresentative of the case, but is serving in capacity as a front man for Ms. Vest. ” This comment is from the Chair.
Some years ago, at a Libertarian state convention here in Florida, I had a long conversation with Nick Sarwark. His dedication to our Party and his panoply of skills were on full display.
I do not begin to understand the Sea of Snark that has been visited upon him in the recent past. He is a Libertarian asset and deserves to be treated as such.
I will say that there is a continuing sickness in our Libertarian DNA, probably non-fatal, but it is a continuing distraction. Maybe it is a form of self-loathing.
Anyway, we will finally be rid of it someday, but that day cannot come soon enough.
See y’all at the Barricades.
Mr. Sarwark did not represent me. I had the same attorneys as Vest and signed a representation agreement with them. If I had known Nekhaila would be McArdle lite (and no embezzlement) and not foolishly trusted him, I would likely would not have dropped my case. Hard to say as there were some other factors, including health issues of myself and my family, but now that those are cleared up and seeing what a dumpster fire the LNC has remained, if I could make that decision today, I would not have dropped.
A case of attorneys being too smart for their own good. This is too many words. They are working together and have been clearly been doing so for a long time. There is nothing wrong with that. Mr. Sarwark is not doing anything wrong by simply acting as a middle man to resolve the dispute.
If anyone wonders why there is so much distrust for Mr. Sarwark it is because of responses like these.