NV Sanders supporters and the NV DNC had already gone to court in an attempt to settle a question of deadline for candidacy to the Executive Board and a rule that made local leadership elections only possible if someone left their position.

I know this, and the case was thrown out because the complaint was not valid. The judge ruled that the organization had the right to set the rules, and that the fact that the applicants missed the deadline was disqualifying per the rules.

Qarum for the first vote, the early scheduling of it and the elimination of the margin of victory from the conference in April and many other issues is clear overreach of authority and should be protested by any Democratic delegate or they would simply not have done their job. Signing petitions and having them submitted is also their 'job'. No fault for them insisting on due process as this was why they were sent there in the first place.

Quorum was 40%, which they had. And, again, the point that you are not addressing: the only alternative to the adoption would have been an amendment, which neither delegation had the majority required to pass. There was literally no possible alternative outcome had they waited. It just would have provided more opportunity for people to be disruptive, because they did not understand these rules.

The same applies to the petitions. Despite the signatures, the supermajority required was not obtained. It may have been their JOB, but they needed to recognize when their efforts were going to go unrewarded. But, again, they didn't really seem to understand these rules.

The discussion of political issues seem to be another key difference where Sanders delegates felt the need to mend the party program and also have a "visionary discussion" on how to go about future elections (banning super delegates and such). They also saw this as an opportunity to raise party political questions and I imagine that this was partly the result of not having agreed on a common platform before the conference.

I'm starting to feel like you, also, still do not understand the rules. I mean no offense, but I am starting to feel like a bit of a broken record having to address the same rules problem over and over.

Amending the agenda to add this item would ALSO have required the 2/3rds majority that the delegation didn't have.

ANY modification to the rules or the agenda required the super-majority, per the rules.

There was an organized effort to disenfranchise Sanders delegates but that has come to be expected from the Hillary campaign and DNC by now. The criticism from the Minority Report should be taken seriously and its recommendations seemed fair.

The letter discredits this claim, and based on the actual evidence here, I am inclined to agree with it. The minority report, assuming that the letter's account of the 64 delegates is accurate, was ENTIRELY wrong. 64 delegates, in total, were disqualified by the cross-campaign committee alongside an unknown number of Clinton delegates. Out of those delegates, only EIGHT showed up to register for the event, and of those 8, SIX were given seats when they were able to provide documentation.

If this account is accurate, than the minority report was, exactly as the letter claims, an entirely unnecessary bit of showboating.

For disclosure: I find the OVERWHELMING majority of disenfranchisement claims by Sanders supporters to be dishonest. It often seems to be to be the case that they simply do not understand rules and procedures. Whether this is a personal failure to research facts, or the fault of the campaign for providing inaccurate or incomplete instructions to their delegates, I have no idea.

Despite intentions to "ensure an efficient meeting of the minds" this utterly failed by the chair and the organization around the convention.

I see no evidence that this was in any way the fault of either the procedures or the chair. Rather, it seems entirely apparent to me, from the videos, that proper parliamentary procedure had been entirely discarded by a solid chunk, if not the majority, of the Sanders delegation. Having been a chair, in that position, the only thing the chair could have done would have been to have them thrown out. Maybe she should have. She had every right to, per the disruptions section in the rules that apparently nobody read.

But also because NV DNC didn't want to discuss politics but have a "work meeting" and not a political venue for airing and reconcilíng differences of opinions.

The point of these conventions is not to have a working discussion. And the neither the rules as adopted, nor the format of the convention, support such a meeting.

This was not a caucus. The delegates were not supposed to be here to raise objections and make changes. The Nevada voters had already spoken. This convention was simply to assemble the state's delegation for the national convention.

Since the Sanders delegation lacked the requisite super majority to make any changes, the chair was, in my view, right to simply move forward with that process.

There need to be a dialog between Sanders and Hillary supporters and in absence of such a dialog and venue - you will have this angry and high tensions.

This convention was not the appropriate location to do that. You do not have meaningful and productive political discussion with a few thousand people in a ballroom.

I realize that the Sanders delegation WANTED that, but that wasn't the point here, and they did not have the political power to change it. Thus, they were simply being disruptive.

With Bernie Sanders being a unique candidate, according to his supporters, in that he is principled and honest. He does not try to seek every advantage possible to secure a delegate here or there. Attack the character of opponents or obfuscate their political plan.

I vehemently and empirically disagree with this. I think it is intellectually dishonest to even say.

I also just think the rest of the conjecture here is...imaginative.