Mike Seebeck, your list @121 is broken in two ways. First, as I already pointed out, a region can remove its rep under 8.7 -- a fact your list glaringly omits. Second, your list also omits the fact that any LNC member gets automatically removed by missing consecutive meetings. Even Mr. Knapp says that removal for consecutive absences is a different process -- with a different voting threshold -- than removal for cause, so if you think that absences fall under the for-cause process, then you need to start aiming your insults in Tom's direction instead of mine.
My contention is that automatic removal by failure to maintain qualification is exactly analogous to automatic removal by missing consecutive meetings. There is nothing "convoluted" about that contention. You tell me who effects the removal for missing consecutive meetings, and that is the answer to your question @121 about who effects removal for failure to maintain 8.4 qualifications.
It's flatly false to say that "the Secretary claimed that arbitrary power [of removal]". What the Secretary did was cite the Bylaw that “a National Committee member shall be a sustaining member of the Party”, and then act in his capacity as "the recording officer of the Party” who shall “keep such minutes and records as necessary”. The Secretary did not claim the power to remove somebody because of a bad hairstyle, for example. You're confusing an "arbitrary" power of removal with the power of the recording officer to record that a very specific kind of self-disqualification has taken place.
Just as I predicted, you again resorted to insults rather than confront the second fundamental principle of interpretation (RRONR p.570): “When a provision of the bylaws is susceptible to two meanings, one of which conflicts with or renders absurd another bylaw provision, and the other meaning does not, the latter must be taken as the true meaning.” You can keep putting your fingers in your ears and singing that you don't care about the absurdities your reading creates regarding regional reps, but closing your eyes doesn't make you invisible -- as even my 3-year-old has figured out.
Tom Sipos is so cute. He follows me around on IPR like a stray dog, barking at me in response to my conversations with other people (like right here) -- and then he claims that _I_ am obsessed with _him_. I don't even read Sipos's blog, and I ignore as much of his LPCA newspaper as I can, but Sipos apparently reads my blogs somewhat closely. Yes, every time I swat his nose with a rolled-up newspaper in an IPR comment, I turn that into a blog posting, but only because I log every single comment I make on any blog anywhere at my log-blog More.LibertarianIntelligence.com. The simple fact is that nearly everything I say to or about Sipos is a direct response to him barking something at or about me, whereas Sipos continuously follows me around IPR comment threads and barks at me in the middle of my conversations with others. Down, boy, down.
Sipos's "freaked out" characterization is a good example of what passes for reporting in his LPCA tabloid. I invite readers to test that characterization by reading my blog posting in question:
Sipos the drive-by pot-shot artist has of course never substantively replied to the arguments I make therein. He's embarrassed that I have on a few occasions since then pointed out this failure, so he says I'm "crying". Readers can decide for themselves which of us is being puerile here.