I agree with pretty much everything Chuck wrote above, except the part where he suggests Mike is being disingenuous. I don't doubt that Mike sincerely believes everything he wrote.
Tom, I'm not sure what else I would need to write for you, other than to repeat this paragraph and its unanswered questions:
Wrights apparently does not dispute that his sustaining membership lapsed, so I’m not sure what a for-cause vote here would decide. Is the LNC free to make up its own rules, or just its own facts? Why would we read the rules as saying the LNC can vote to make up its own facts about a lapse in sustaining membership, but not about a lapse in attendance?
I guess I would also repeat: given that Wrights has disavowed the idea that the LP is not to be donated to, he should be appointed to fill any vacancy created by his lapse in sustaining membership.