Since I have had many conversations with many of you in favor of a bifurcated convention, I want to let you know of a fact that I only now became aware of which may change my support, and that is the certificate of nomination. My reason for supporting bifurcation is that we can avoid the deadline issues for several states, but if those states require a certificate of nomination from the national party, no we won't, because I cannot sign that certification until the nomination is ratified. I have been provided a sample couple and it requires me to swear to a duly held convention of the Party. Duly meaning lawfully under our bylaws. I will not commit perjury for this party or anyone else. I have not withdrawn my support at this point as I am waiting to hear debate. Seeing the written opinion of the professional parliamentarian that Mr. Hall eluded to is something I also would need to see. Perhaps that opinion would change my mind. I do know that a legal opinion from a non-parliamentarian does not. Particularly when I have over two decades of legal experience in contract law (which bylaws are a species of myself, and I believe his analysis is dead wrong - despite being a non-attorney myself, I think most attorneys will concede that many paralegals know just as much minus the piece of paper from the magical license bureau in the sky). If the LNC attempts to put me in a position where I cannot sign that certificate, I will be forced to retain personal counsel. * In Liberty,* * Personal Note: I have what is commonly known as Asperger's Syndrome (part of the autism spectrum). This can affect inter-personal communication skills in both personal and electronic arenas. If anyone found anything offensive or overly off-putting (or some other social faux pas) in an actual email, please contact me privately and let me know. *