Email from LCI Legal and my response

 

On Wednesday, 19 March 2025 at 04:40:32 GMT+8, Seaholm, Emily <emily.seaholm@lionsclubs.org> wrote:

Hello,

I have received multiple emails from you regarding your concerns with local Lions Clubs. As you may be aware, Lions Clubs International (LCI) charters clubs worldwide, but each club operates autonomously. This means that each club is responsible for its own day-to-day management and compliance with applicable laws within its jurisdiction.

As previously advised, if an individual believes their removal from a club was in violation of the Club’s Constitution & By-Laws and cannot resolve the issue through other amicable means, they may seek resolution through the Club Dispute Resolution Procedure. The complaint must be filed within 30 days of the event in question and must be submitted by the affected member to the District Governor. However, based on my understanding, you have not been a member of the association for some time and, therefore, do not meet the criteria to file such a complaint.

Please consider this our final correspondence on this matter.

Thank you,

Emily

Emily Seaholm

Attorney  // Legal Division

Lions Clubs International

The above reply is similar to LCI's reply in 2016/2017 on my complaint about misappropriation of funds by LCKKHost via secret bank accounts. 

 

The following is my reply now to the email above:

From:luqmanm2002@yahoo.co.uk

To:Seaholm, Emily

Cc:Eurafrican,IberoAmerican,PacificAsian,ClubOfficers,District Administration

Wed 19 Mar at 08:00

 

Dear Emily Seaholm,

I am in receipt of your email dated March 19, 2025, which you have labeled as your "final correspondence" on the matter of my concerns with local Lions Clubs. 

While I appreciate your attempt to clarify the operational structure of Lions Clubs International (LCI), your response demonstrates a troubling lack of comprehension regarding the issues I have raised—issues that extend beyond the simplistic framework you’ve outlined.

You assert that each club operates autonomously and is responsible for its own management and legal compliance. This is precisely the point: if autonomy is the standard, then LCI cannot wash its hands of responsibility when clubs fail to uphold the principles and bylaws that govern the organization as a whole. My communications have consistently highlighted apparent irregularities that suggest either gross mismanagement or willful disregard for those standards—concerns you have sidestepped with bureaucratic platitudes rather than substantive engagement.

Your reference to the Club Dispute Resolution Procedure is equally perplexing. You claim I do not meet the criteria to file a complaint because I am no longer a member. This conveniently ignores the fact that my departure from the association was itself a consequence of the very issues I’ve brought to your attention—issues that, had they been addressed with any degree of competence or integrity, might not have escalated to this point. To suggest that my current non-membership disqualifies me from seeking accountability is a circular argument that borders on absurdity. It’s akin to telling a whistleblower they can’t report a fire because they’ve already fled the burning building. 

If LCI’s Legal Division is content to hide behind procedural technicalities rather than investigate legitimate grievances, then it speaks volumes about the organization’s commitment to its stated values. I had hoped for a response that demonstrated some grasp of the situation, rather than a dismissive note that mischaracterises both my position and the broader implications for LCI’s credibility.

Consider this my reply—not final, but a call for you to reconsider your approach. Should you persist in treating serious matters with such cavalier indifference, I will have no choice but to escalate this further, potentially beyond the insular channels of LCI correspondence.

Regards,
Luqman Michel