Jim Davidson, please reread the word "shall" in 8.4, and contrast with the word "may" in 8.5, until comprehension occurs. :-)
I've of course never made the mistake of saying failure to meet the 8.4 qualifications is an 8.5 "cause" for which one may be removed. In the future, if you want to talk about my "assertions", please type a quotation mark, copy and paste something I've actually written, and then type another quotation mark.
After Sullentrup's letter, I didn't accept his account as authoritative, and instead I immediately called on LNC members to be questioned in order to resolve the he-said-she-said dispute over whether Wrights says the LP is not to be donated to. When Wrights disavowed his alleged remarks, I said he should be rubber-stamped back into his seat. I've also said I disagree with Redpath's ruling that his interpretation of 8.4 is not subject to appeal.
Your snark about "shame" in connection with shadowcabinet.us breaks my irony meter. With all your rabid yet tedious vilifications of me, it's refreshingly amusing that you would think I would put my serious policy analysis on a site that pretends you're fit to sit at a table with me. Thanks for reminding me I need to resign from that particular game of make-believe.