Mr. Chair, I have three Points of Order I wish to raise. Please advise if you would like them separately to rule on separately as they involve different issues which do not substantively overlap or whether you would like all three at once. Please let me know your pleasure.
Mr. Chair, if the prior ruling of the chair is based on the Robert-Balche opinion of 2008 that an officer may be removed by motion, I raise the following two points of order, which are separate.
Point of Order 1. The motion to remove any officer of the LNC is subject to previous notice to the officer in which, in the words of the chair’s opinion, must give “adequate notice for the subject to prepare a defense.” This motion is out of order on that ground as it does not give adequate notice.
Point of Order 2. The motion to remove any officer of the LNC is subject to amendment. The chair, citing the 2008 Robert-Balche opinion, noted “’As with any other main motion, a motion to suspend a member-at-large is debatable under the usual rules for debate and is amendable (for example, so as to substitute a lesser penalty such as a reprimand).’ [emphasis added].” Under our current process, a motion brought by electronic mail is not subject to amendment. The motion is out of order on the ground that it does not present the opportunity to be amended.
Separate and apart from the above two Points of Order, I additionally raise this:
Point of Order 3: This motion continues to be technically deficient as it asks for both suspension from office and removal from committees as both being governed under Bylaws Article 6.7 yet that Article has nothing to do with removal from committees. I would also note that my role is listed incorrectly as I am both Secretary of the LNC and of the National Libertarian Party.
I also note that the 2008 opinion is from a different set of bylaws, and an edition of RONR two editions ago in which the pertinent sections have undergone a LOT of revision. Further, that opinion neglected an entire line of argument which was in the opinion previously submitted. If I need to appeal, I can explicate all of that, but that is not procedurally appropriate at this time.
There is something I want to say to the body. I am pressing this issue of due process so hard because I firmly believe that even IF someone believes our bylaws and RONR don't require it (I disagree) our PRINCIPLES demand that we CHOOSE to give it. Nowhere do our bylaws or RONR say it MUST be refused. I believe we are violating the Statement of Principles here. And this will set a precedent for the future. Maybe even for one of you. I have been told that this "delay" is making people turn against me. On that point, I can't care. This is a fundamental principle to me, and fundamental principle is not up for a vote. I believe that anyone who votes yes without due process is violating our fundamental principles. I obviously disagree with the charges as well but that is a separate issue. Even if I believed that the charges were valid, if I were in your position, I would never vote affirmatively on anything that denied due process. I would abstain. I do obviously believe the charges are wrong, and beyond that vindictive and attempting to destroy my entire body of work, including my historical work, and that cuts me to the heart in a way you cannot imagine. If anyone intended to wound me more than I have ever been in my life, you succeeded. This overkill is not unconscionable. Even minus that, I would disagree, but that is just salt on the wound. And I cannot believe that each of you does not see this, nor do I believe that each of you does not see the terrible optics. I firmly believe I am a whistleblower. As does a large majority of the type of people who actually come to conventions. You may not agree that I am. But anyone can see these optics are horrible and look far worse than any alleged indecorum.
I am traveling. I have a right to appeal if necessary if any or all of the points of order are not sustained. And since raised before a ballot started, I have the right to have them dealt with first.