I'm glad to hear that the LNC has made sure that Wrights does not end up off the LNC merely because of a snail-mail problem combined with a misunderstanding about whether he thinks the LP deserves donations. However, I remain amused by continuing claims that 1) the applicable rules here have zero ambiguity and 2) facts pertinent to the operation of the Bylaws aren't really facts until a 2/3 vote of the LNC creates them.
As far as I can tell, Wrights never disputed that his sustaining membership lapsed. So does it require a 2/3 vote of the LNC to recognize that a resignation letter wasn't forged? Approval of minutes requires only a majority, which is less than the 2/3 threshold for removal-for-cause. If an LNC majority approves minutes that blatantly lie about a consecutive absence, is the Judicial Committee not allowed to correct the situation? And if they are, then how is that any different from correcting a false decredentialing by the Chair or Secretary?
Why would anyone be involved with the LP if he thinks that the LP isn't institutionally capable of detecting and correcting things like forged resignation letters or false accusations of lapses in membership?
I repeat yet again: the three requirements (attendance, dues, not running for office under another party) apply to all LNC members, whereas the suspension-for-cause process does not apply to regional reps. Are we to believe that if a regional rep shirks his dues or runs for office as a Republican, nothing can happen until the region’s affiliates notice? And if a region decides to ignore 8.4, is there really no way that even the unanimous objection of the rest of the LP (including the Judicial Committee) can be invoked to enforce 8.4?
(For the arithmetic impaired, there are six questions above. Spare us blather about "shame-o-meters" if you can't muster substantive answers to all six.)