On April 17, LNC members Tony Ryan, Julie Fox, Rachel Hawkridge, and Mary Ruwart offered a motion drafted by LNC alternate Jake Porter.  The motion read:

Because the Libertarian National Committee has passed no vote to remove Lee Wrights from his position as an At-Large Representative, that he remains an At-Large Representative, that his name shall be reinstated to the Libertarian Party Leadership webpage, and that his e-mail access to the Libertarian National Committee discussion list be restored.

The motion was promptly ruled out of order by William Redpath as Chair.  Redpath claimed that the motion was out of order because the motion violated the bylaws.  Mary Ruwart promptly appealed the decision of the chair.

The vote on the appeal of the decision of the Chair took until May 2.  Remember that this is a vote on whether or not it is in order to consider a motion on whether or not Wrights is an LNC member, not a vote on whether or not Wrights was an LNC member at this point.  Also, note that several days earlier the Judicial Committee had apparently issued a statement that an LNC member can only be removed by consecutive absences or for cause by 2/3 vote of the, per the Bylaws, and that Wrights is in fact still a member of the LNC. This statement exactly contradicted Redpath's position in ruling the appeal out of order. Source: independentpoliticalreport.com/2009/04/statement-from-the-lp-judicial-committee-regarding-wrights/)

Voting with LNC member Mary Ruwart that it was in order to consider a motion were LNC members Ruwart, Ryan, Hinkle, Fox, and Hawkridge.  Voting against Ruwart's appeal of the Chair's decision were LNC members Jingozian, Starr, Sullentrup, Dixon, Colley, Mattson, Sink-Burris, Flood, Lark, and Karlan. Redpath did not vote, but de facto supported his own decision, since he could have revoked it at any time and did not do so.

We now step back to April 18.  Lee Wrights appealed his removal from the LNC to the Judicial Committee, without conceding that he had in fact been removed, in order to establish that an appeal had been made.

On April 21, Aaron Starr sent a detailed memo to the LNC claiming that in April 2008 Lee Wrights' dues had been paid by Sean Haugh, and that this payment was invalid because it was in violation of FEC Regulations.  The actual memo is nine pages long, so if you want to read it, go to independentpoliticalreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/2009-04-21-lee-wrights.pdf  It is a PDF file, so you will need a PDF reader installed.

The memo appears to claim: that Sean Haugh paid Wrights' sustaining membership dues in April 2008, that FEC regulations prohibit contributions to a party on behalf of another, and that Haugh's payments of Wrights' dues was therefore not allowed under FEC regulations.  Starr further published what he claimed were Wrights' dues payments, leading Starr to conclude that Wrights had not been elected as LNC Vice Chair, a post that Wrights held for two years.  Wrights has vigorously challenged the accuracy of Starr's claims.

Starr's memo closes with the paragraph:

"Because we cannot legally accept a contribution in the name of another, on the advice of Paula Edwards, our FEC consultant, and with the affirmation of the Chair, I have instructed Robert Kraus to refund the $25 to Sean Haugh. I have attached a copy of the correspondence, the original check from Sean Haugh, and our refund check."

Starr's claim  that gift memberships are illegal was promptly and extensively contested.  The Michigan party referred the question to its legal counsel, resulting in a memo that was widely circulated in the libertarian community.  The memo as forwarded here read

date  Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:59 AM
subject     FEC regulations and gift memberships

Aaron,
RE: Your April 21 memo to the LNC regarding R. LEE Wrights

The Libertarian Party of Michigan Executive Committee referred your April 21 memo to me for my professional opinion.

1. FEC Regulations

FEC regulations require that a political committee accurately record and report the person who made a contribution. As long as a political committee spends contributions for lawful purposes, it doesn't matter which lawful purpose a contribution is spent for. There is nothing unlawful about gift memberships. Therefore, as long as the Party properly records and reports that Sean Haugh's contribution was made by Sean Haugh, it doesn't matter that the money was used for a gift membership.

2. Gift Memberships
I think that gift memberships should not merely be allowed, but also should be encouraged.  Gift memberships for young libertarians can encourage them to become active in the Party. Gift memberships for Libertarian Party activists who have fallen on hard times financially can encourage them to remain active.

Leonard Schwartz, attorney at law
LP Michigan campaign finance law adviser since 1999 LP Michigan Political Director since 2005 LP member since 1980

The Starr memo also raised troubling issues about LNC spending.  Recall that the Paula Edwards whose name is invoked in the Starr memo is the LNC's FEC consultant, who is paid by the LNC a substantial yearly sum for her knowledgeable advice on Federal Election Commission findings.  Now we have the consultant allegedly giving advice -- we have not seen an actual memo from her -- whose accuracy is under challenge.  LNC At-Large Representative Mary Ruwart promptly wrote LNC Chair Bill Redpath, via a memo to LNC-DISCUSS that has since reached this newsletter:

Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 9:31 PMCc: lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org
Subject: Please forward to Paula Edwards for her response

Dear Ms. Edwards:
Recently, it came to the attention of the Libertarian National Committee (LNC) that one of our members (Sean Haugh) had paid membership dues for another member (R. Lee Wrights).  In reporting this finding to the LNC, Mr. Aaron Starr indicated in a memo to us that:

1) Because we cannot legally accept a contribution in the name of another, on the advice of Paula Edwards, our FEC consultant, and with the affirmation of the Chair, I have instructed Robert Kraus to refund the $25 to Sean Haugh.

Myself and other members of the LNC find this quite troubling, as gift memberships have been accepted and even encouraged by the LP for years.  In investigating this further we found that other FEC advisors had a different opinion:

Ruwart then quoted the Schwartz memo above, and continued

Indeed, one LNC member actually called the FEC and reported to us that:   "After speaking to the FEC, I am here to report to you that . . .

So long as the money is reported to them accurately as to who it came from, they don't care who we give credit for money to internally.  So long as we reported accurately to the FEC that Sean Haugh gave that $25 if we were required to, that is all that matters.  (You, of course, know that if Sean's combined contributions do not total $200, no reporting is necessary.)"

Based on the phone conversation with the FEC and Mr. Schwartz's analysis, it appears that the advice that Mr. Starr ascribed to you is in error.   Naturally, it is crucial to the LNC to receive accurate information about FEC requirements from their paid consultant.  Can you kindly explain the discrepancy between the opinion attributed to you by Mr. Starr and the contradictory opinion of Mr. Schwartz and the FEC itself?

Thank you in advance for providing this important clarification.    
---Mary J. Ruwart, Ph.D

Redpath soon responded on the same list, according to our unimpeachable source, who here remains anonymous:

Mary:  I have a voicemail into Paula Edwards on this, but she has not returned my call.  I just received a voicemail on this issue from LNC Counsel Gary Sinawski, who said that there is not a legal problem with gift memberships.  If I do not hear from Paula Edwards by tomorrow, I will call her again.  Bill Redpath

Our source reports that Ruwart soon responded characterizing Starr's statements as "fraudulent";

Date: Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: [Lnc-discuss] Forward to Paula Edwards
To: William Redpath <bredpath@bia.com>
Cc: lnc-discuss@hq.lp.org
Thank you for your promptness and keeping me in the loop, Mr. Chair.  I concur with Mr. Karlan that we should have both Ms. Edwards and Mr. Sinawski present for our July meeting to resolve any discrepancies.

Since, according to Ms. Hawkridge's conversation with the FEC,  there does not seem to be a problem with gift memberships, it seems appropriate for Mr. Starr (or yourself in his stead) to issue a public statement explaining that there was not, contrary to statements made by Mr. Starr, an "illegal contribution" by Mr. Haugh on behalf of Mr. Wrights as claimed in Mr. Starr's April 21st memo.

Furthermore, I'd like to call your attention to the fact that Mr. Starr publicized Mr. Wrights' gifting history to the LP without his permission.  Besides the violation of privacy and confidentiality that this entails, Mr. Starr did not confirm whether the data base entries were correct prior to making Mr. Wrights' confidential information public knowledge.  As Mr. Wrights indicated in his talk to the TN LP, the information was largely erroneous.   Based on this erroneous information, Mr. Starr made false claims that Mr. Wrights was "ineligible to be elected for the position" of Vice Chair to which he was elected in 2004.

Mr. Starr's fraudulent statements, based on a release of confidential financial information, have been highly publicized throughout the libertarian community.  From the remarks I've seen on the blogs, these false representations have cast unwarranted aspersions upon Mr. Wrights' good name.

I personally find Mr. Starr's actions deplorable as he attempted to unseat Ms. Keaton for alleged breach of confidentiality and unseemly remarks.   (Once again, the phrase "rules for thee, but not for me" comes to mind.) Our Treasurer's release of confidential financial information to which his position gives him unique access, especially without confirming its accuracy, and its use to unjustly harm Mr. Wrights' reputation is a serious ethical, if not legal, breach of his fiduciary responsibility to the LP.  [Editor: Emphasis Added]