I’d like to start by thanking Art Pedroza and Vern Nelson for the opportunity to participate in the Orange Juice Blog.
I rarely contribute to this blog as I live some 450 miles north of Orange County in Rocklin, CA. If you’re curious click here for more info on Rocklin, CA.
But, I have a few things to say…
I came to the OJ Blog via the Meg County Blog. I was thrown off the Meg County Blog for working for Steve Poizner – a good man who I still believe in. Chip Hanlon found out because I disclosed to him my arrangement.
I now fully understand why Mr. Hanlon sold his blog to Whitman for $120K. (I was tossed 6 days after the first payments from Whitman) The OC register story shows that Mr. Hanlon’s house of cards had been unraveling.
I used to have a securities license and I am still an insurance broker – I can tell you that you do not get your securities license suspended easily. You have to be in the bottom 1% to have that happen. Secondly, he lost a lawsuit for $350K, again that is extreme because 95% of lawsuits get settled out of court or tossed.
It has been frustrating to grit my teeth for two years as the Meg County people have self-righteously posted and have repeated character attacks against myself and others. This is called poetic justice.
THE CRA
Speaking of fraud. Matt Cunningham and his crew are supporting Karen England and my opponent amongst others for CRA office. While my opponent is a good man who was drawn in to a fight – he is very new to CRA and still does not understand the history.
Karen England and crew are fighting to protect the fraud in the CRA endorsement process many of you at the OJ have written about.
“Hide-n-Seek” Harry, Van Tran, etc. were endorsed by CRA – influenced by units such as Huntington Beach, Stanton, Ladera Ranch and others that do not meet and exist only for sending delegates to endorsing conventions. These units are controlled by a CRA Vice President with ties to a lot of consultants.
CRA President Celeste Greig, myself and a group of others formed the “Contract with the CRA” in a response to deal with the chicanery.
I am airing CRA dirty laundry because those of us wanting to stop the fraud have been besieged in the Blogs, attacked via anonymous email, have gotten threatening phone calls and the like.
In addition, we found out that our opponents complained to the National Republican Assembly Board, they got a legal opinion from Kamala Harris’ lawyer and as I write this are claiming an FBI investigation and are pursuing other legal options.
So you’re probably asking yourself, “what the hell is going on here!?”
Power and control bring out the worst in people.
What about the fraud? In the lead up to this weekend’s convention (it is April 15-17 in Sacramento) we got delegation lists that had several gross irregularities:
Non-Republicans
People assigned to multiple units
People who never transferred who were assigned to other units
People from my home county (Placer) assigned to Arcadia RA, Glendora RA, Monrovia RA, Corona RA, Temescal Valley RA, San Diego RA… you get the idea.
I am sure the non-Republicans on this blog will have a field day with this – but remember, if you’re a Democrat, you’ve seen this stuff before – it is usually done by the SEIU or the Teamsters.
Its’ very simple OJ readers – Celeste Greig, my Brother and I have been subjected to almost a month of abuse at the hands of people close to legislators, political consultants and the like because we believe in the Real CRA.
The real CRA is something Vern, Art and others can respect even despite the disagreements… but endorsing assclowns when everyone knows those rendering the endorsement are bought is an embarrassment.
I appreciate your support as we endeavor to clean up the CRA and return it to the real Conservative core that always has been CRA.
Conclusion:
People like Matt Cunningham and Chip Hanlon are the reason why a lot of people register DTS or Libertarian out of disgust. I choose to stay and fight for the only political party I have ever known – the GOP.
I was recruited in to the GOP and the CRA at the same time in 1998. The only way to effect change is to stay in the game. I bring a lot of the abuse I get on myself because of my forthright and aggressive style… it is a choice I made years ago. Thanks again OJ for letting me tell some of my story here and for letting me be a part of.
If there is such rampant fraud in the CRA, why didn’t the current President and the author of the post, try to do something about the fraud, until one week before their reelection to their position? It seems to me that they are about to lose and now want to rig the election. The real fraud is Mr. park and Ms. Greig. What a shame these folks want to tear apart the CRA for their own benefit.
Blogger’s Note: We blew the whistle 2 weeks ago as the deadline for delegate rosters was then. It was impossible to know about the fraud until we saw it. Please try again later.
The previous comment was brought to you by a consultant or a legislative staffer who is upset they can’t be a delegate anymore.
Please also note that Celeste has only been President of CRA for one year, not even a full term.
I found out about an hour ago that four CRA units’ delegations were all faxed in from the office of a prominent GOP fundraiser and their delegations do indeed read like a roster of the staff of a certain State Senator. Details will be following on this revelation soon…
So, please keep the anon comments coming…
Sgt. York.
Don’t open that old sore. I quit the CRA (Saddleback RA) unit because of 3-4 phantom units created in the same city in 48 hours simply to get delegates to support an Assembly candidate. That “gaming” the system resulted in his getting the CRA endorsement which he WON in the regional CRA voting. He is now serving in SAC.
Larry Gilbert termed out president SRA 1997-99; 2001-2002
“Larry Gilbert termed out president SRA 1997-99; 2001-2002″…….. Hmmm
The era when public unions got heir sweet deal which is now choking us and Davis-Stirling Act got some devastating draconian amendments.
What is your pension for your service Gilbert?
Stanley. My CRA pension is triple my CRA salary.
ZERO
Stanley. The issue of the post relates to some CRA insider wheeling and dealing.
I will refrain from naming those whose fingerprints were on the acts I reference.
I recall that John & Ken, had your Head on a Stick.
Stanley.
I covered the Tea Party in Fullerton for the Juice when they began this practice. At that time I told them your head was larger than mine and that I would try to get you to this years’ rally [on the 15th] so that they could determine if you measure up for this special recognition.
I am not republican …… the democrat’s ass kisser.
The result of inbreeding folks. Witness it live! Here!
Well taken from Midget Giant Man.
@ Sgt York:
Thank you for sharing. I look forward to your updates.
barraganfj@gmail.com
Francisco “Paco”
Gotcha Paco – one of these days, I shall have to come down the the OC and meet all of you guys.
Is the battle about who is president of CRA? Why do some people want Karen England to be the president — is it only because she condones phony units? If not, please explain why Karen England’s supporters would go to such great lengths to put her into office. Also, who is paying for all this — creating phony units to rig the election for Karen?
HI Guys –
We have a lawsuit being filed in an attempt to force us to seat the fraudulent delegates that is being funded by a well known slate mail vendor.
I have obesrved staff of three members of the state legislature distributed amongst about 10 CRA units.
As to Karen England for CRA President – she will not upset the apple cart. She won’t shut down the fake/zombie units and will allow the consultants that control parts of the CRA to continue doing business.
This is why “my side” is getting harrassed, libeled, attacked, sued, etc. There apparently is a lot of money riding on the control.
I can not be more specific at this time with names, but will be happy to after the elections are over…
“I am airing CRA dirty laundry because those of us wanting to stop the fraud have been besieged in the Blogs, attacked via anonymous email, have gotten threatening phone calls and the like.”
“Power and control bring out the worst in people.”
I find those two quotes from you the most interesting. Perhaps you should turn a mirror on yourself and your friends the next time you utter them. Maybe then you can explain how your side has violated the CRA’s bylaws in ramming a new convention delegate policy down the Executive Board’s throat without the notice required by the bylaws. And maybe you can explain to the people who have paid for the convention, airfare, hotel, etc. with the expectation that they will be delegates based on the long-existing delegate policy, only to have your side try to circumvent the process with the proposed Executive Board policy on convention delegates that was made after the delegate lists were submitted (the conspiracy theorist in me would wonder if your side got ahold of the lists and realized that it looked bad for you guys, leading to the new policy [that violates the CRA bylaws], but that’s just the conspiracy theorist in me – right?).
By the way, you neglected to mention that, before your side proposed the new delegate policy that violates the CRA bylaws, delegates could be selected from any unit that the delegate was a member of. There were no geographic boundaries. So, as long as they were members in good standing, the delegates you note from other geographic areas were well-within the CRA bylaws (unlike your proposal). How long was that policy in place? I ask because I’m newer to the CRA than you.
I don’t mind you airing the CRA’s “dirty laundry.” I do, however, mind when you skew the facts or omit relevant facts in an attempt to portray your side as the good one.
The above quote – and I recognize the writing style – is written by a consultant that controls a fake unit in NorCal.
People like the above commenter stand to lose a ton when the elections are held on Sunday.
So the rest of you understand – there are over 100 delegates from Northern California distributed amongst SoCal Units. This is the fraud this anon commenter is defending.
My Unit (Placer) has been hit the hardest by the mass exodus. I just found four more people from Placer County in today’s research on delegates.
Please try again Mr. Anon commenter.
Wow, the black helicopters are really circling up there in NorCal, aren’t they Sgt.? Feel free to verify with Vern or Larry Gilbert that I am definitely not a consultant, nor do I control a fake unit in NorCal (or anywhere else for that matter).
Unfortunately, the biggest losers are all CRA members when the leadership forces a policy on the membership on the eve of the convention in violation of the bylaws. I note that you totally ignore my point, so I will be clear: please explain how the delegate policy that recently “passed” does not violate the notice provisions of Section 9.04 of the bylaws that says that the Executive Board “may, without meeting together, transact business by mail, by voting on questions submitted to them by or with the approval of the President. Fifteen days shall be allowed for the return of the votes by mail, facsimile, or electronic mail to the Corresponding Secretary.” The proposed policy change was sent to the Executive Board and members were given only two or three days to respond, far less than the 15 required by the bylaws. How is that not a violation?
Blogger’s Note: We’ve have hundreds of online board votes and the 15 day rule was never made an issue of. Since the lawyers that Karen England and her crew are flailing about – they cite this. Please note that 15 days expire tomorrow and the board vote is 31-15 in favor of eliminating the fraud. Checkmate.
Wow, this is the first “Blogger’s note” I’ve seen. I’m assuming that’s the Sgt. who would rather append a tiny response at the end of my comment than address it in his own comment. I can say this about my analysis. I am a lawyer, but have no affiliation with Karen England at all. When the facts were presented to me, I simply read the bylaws to see if they were followed. I don’t care about prior votes, because if they violated the bylaws, they should have been challenged as well (typical non sequitor from someone caught in the act). THIS policy proposal was made and the Board was given only two or three days to act. Then, the Sgt.’s side declare victory. When they realized they ran afoul of the 15 day rule, they purportedly gave the full 15 days notice, but only AFTER already declaring the new policy in effect. Good luck with that one in court. Clear violation of the bylaws; hence the lawsuit. It’s funny how easy it is to catch someone in a half-truth when you know the facts.
Blogger’s Note – this is how I run my own blog when I respond to a commenter directly, like this anonymous lawyer.
You have a problem, Mr. Lawyer – there is ample precedent for On-Line CRA Board votes. Hundreds have been done over the years with ample documentation – now I’d know that, not you.
Trying to hang a legal hat on saying we can’t have a board vote is absurd, but it is your only chance to claim rules were violated.
BTW – I have not seen the threatened lawsuit – but I have heard plenty about it. All parties agree that April 12th is the cutoff.
Wow, are you having a problem reading my posts or are you purposely mis-characterizing them (I suspect it’s the latter)? I clearly note that the bylaws give the Board the ability to vote by email. However, they require 15 days notice (something I also made clear in my post). That is what I am contending did not happen here. And the cut off is not April 12. The cut off originally given to the Board was March 31. After your side was called out for improper notice, and after your side already had declared victory, THEN the Board was told the vote was actually done on April 12. But as I understand it, they were never told they could change their vote (which would be difficult given that your side had declared the policy passed). Again, I say good luck with that argument in court.
Here’s another update – we found out that a State Senator assigned members of his staff to the delegations of Four CRA Units.
Three of the four were dormant units that had not met nor sent delegates to a CRA Convention in years.
All Four Delegation lists were faxed from the same Fax Machine and written in the exact same handwriting – the fax number was from a prominent GOP fundraiser’s office in Sacramento.
In addition – one of my club members showed up as a delegate from the Seal Beach RA – without noticing me of the “transfer”, and the Seal Beach unit also lists Karen England’s secretary as a delegate. (The Secretary lives in Roseville, 420 miles away from Seal Beach)
Remember – the above is what the anon commenters are defending. It is indefensible
If they were dormant units, then why didn’t Celeste try to shut them down during her tenure? Any RA that fails to comply with the bylaws (like the quarterly meeting requirement) can be terminated by the Executive Board. Was any request made to the Board during the past year to terminate these “paper” units? If not, why wait until less than two weeks before the convention to advance a policy for a vote that violates the notice requirements of the bylaws?
And if your club member showed up as a delegate from the Seal Beach RA without noticing you, that would violate Section 4.06 of the bylaws and that delegate will presumably not be seated when the Credentials Committee reviews the delegate list. So what’s your point? The system in place would take care of that problem without the need for any policy change that violates the bylaws.
Blogger’s Note – Celeste has only been president for a year. The membership secretary has refused to provide requested records – therefore we are having to canvass units and board members to find fraud. There is a ton of it under so many sections of the by-laws, it is stunning.
But – they seem to be suing in an attempt to force seating all submitted delegates.
As I understand it, the bylaws only require that you be a member of only one CRA unit at a time and that the Membership Secretary determine membership as of 30 days before the convention. If this is complied with, the bylaws allow the delegates to be chosen by the membership of the unit or the President or Board of the unit. If the bylaw requirements are not met, then the delegate should not be approved. Where is the fraud in that? You have raised a lot of points claiming fraud, but if delegates are chosed in conformity with the existing bylaws, then you change the bylaws in the proper way, not by ramming a policy down the Board’s throat that violates the bylaws simply because you are afraid you are going to lose.
You discuss the fraud being perpretrated and I can easily address the basis for the rule.
To the rest of you – this is the argument being put forth. No one wants to discuss the fraud, they just want to discuss the rule and the timing of it.
Interestingly enough, Karen and her friends are threatening a lawsuit over this. Aka – they are suing for the right to have legislative staff, consultants and people who live 400+ miles away to be allowed as delegates!
Sound absurd – this is what the anonymous commenter is arguing in favor of.
Typical response from someone caught breaking the rules. Justify your breaking the bylaws by trying to take the moral high ground. The irony is, you may have been able to get a bylaw amendment passed at the convention if you had followed the rules. But since you were afraid to lose power under the existing rules, you tried to change them in violation of those same rules you tout. Priceless.
Blogger’s Note – easy cheap shot from an anon commenter.
Not a cheap shot, simply stating the facts. I’ve been on here long enough (and written enough legal briefs) to know that when someone can’t respond to the relevant facts, they resort to other means. Here, you have mis-cast my comments (see the post above) and tried to take the focus off the issue I have raised – the violation of the notice requirements of the bylaws. The fact that you do it in the name of the moral high ground is laughable.
By the way, I’m happy to discuss the alleged fraud. If you think people are trying to pack delegates, let’s talk about whether that’s proper or not. The fact is, it is possible under the bylaws (and I suspect all sides have done it in some fashion in the past). I personally agree that the policy of having delegates come from your own geographic region is a good idea. However, you do not try to fix the problem by violating the bylaws yourself (a fraud in itself) in what appears to me to be a desperate attempt to hold on to power. You pass a new bylaw properly. This cannot be a new issue in the CRA which begs the question why you didn’t try to take care of this problem well before the convention the proper way but instead chose to force a Board vote in a very short period of time to the detriment of many people who have spent a lot of money in reliance on the fact that they were going to be a delegate at the convention.
Love the smell of Republican infighting in the morning. Smells like… victory!
You got that right, Vern. The same woman that helped Gavin get elected is the same woman at the core of the CRA fight.
Vern,
Everyone, Republican, Democrat, whoever, should be held accountable for their actions. If the good Sergeant wants to put it out there, he should be willing to accept responsibility for his actions.
Keep writing posts like this and you’ll never get to canoodle with the power players in suite C.
Newbie – thank you for confirming the stereotype of lawyers. I am an insurance agent – I do not deal with the hair-splitting logical angels on the head of a pin to win an argument.
To the layperson – someone is running to a judge to try and win election to lead a conservative group.
There is a difference between the Board, the Convention Rules, the Credentials Committee, the Corresponding Secretary and the President of CRA. Therein lies your trouble in trying to claim the board broke the rules.
Again, I am not a lawyer – I do not live in the high-minded arrogance of splitting hairs to win a pidgeon-holed argument in front of a judge.
However, Real CRA activists will not and are not tolerating this fraud. This is another difference between the legal world and the real world – the lawyers make arguments to justify what the rank-and-file see as wrong.
I will be writing another post soon – but suffice to say, our side would have and will win either way – but that’s not the point… the lid had to be blown off what had been done to CRA.
And that is something no legal argument or judge can prevent.
So abiding by the bylaws is hair splitting or pidgeon holing? Well at least that says something about how you feel the CRA should operate (though it’s ironic you would be claiming the moral high ground while apparently showing little care for the bylaws that govern the CRA).
To the layperson – someone is running to a judge because the Sgt.’s side violated the bylaws and failed to give proper notice in forcing a vote from the Board on a dramatic change to the rules in how to select convention delegates, after they got ahold of the delegate list and apparently didn’t like what they saw. (See, I can play your game as well).
I agree there is a difference between the bodies you reference. However, you again mis-cast my argument (it’s getting tedious to correct you, but I will as long as you fail to address the issue). I am not saying the Board violated the bylaws. I am saying the Corresponding Secretary, the President, the Parliamentarian and/or whomever they were acting at the behest of (it is only their names on the correspondence requiring the vote in a shorter time than the bylaws state) who violated the bylaws.
You like to smear lawyers, but since the individuals above were the ones who violated the bylaws and will not retract their violation, a lawsuit is unfortunately the only way to prove that the action taken by the Board was void and insure that the valid delegate selection method is enforced. If the “Real” activists want to change the system, I look forward to a vigorous debate at the next convention, per the bylaws. Do you not see the irony in accusing people of fraud in the delegate process when your side has committed fraud against the entire CRA by their disdain for complying with the CRA’s bylaws? Or in wiping a large slate of delegates just by claiming “fraud” with no real support? From what I have seen, you have a few delegates who should be disqualified because they are members of more than one unit, or they are not registered Republicans. Other than that, you complain about delegates being chosen from units located hundreds of miles from where they live. If that’s true, I agree that’s a problem. But you had to address that problem in the proper way, not by fiat from above which makes your side as bad as the other.
I can’t wait for your next post. I just hope you provide all the facts and have better arguments than the moral high ground when your side’s actions put you in no better a light than those you are hurling accusations at.
Opinions vary on the bylaws – that’s why your friends are running to court.
There are multiple reasons and multiple methods of fraud – I will not release the details at this time, but suffice to say… there will be quite a few of their delegates disqualified for reasons other than where they live.
It is however, good to get an entree in to arrogance – such as your legal arguments against common sense.
And since I know you will come back to have another last word – people can look at our arguments and compare them.
You’re supporting fraud by claiming we are breaking the by-laws to prevent it. Classic lawyer talk… and then ridiculing me for making a moral argument (like any conservative should do).
Well at least I can comprehend and accurately represent your posts, a skill that seems to elude you. And yes, I will keep coming back to correct your inaccuracies as long as you make them. Opinions may vary on whether the Board can enact a policy that affects convention delegates, or whether a bylaw amendment is required. I could care less because opinions cannot vary (logically) on the bylaw that requires 15 days notice for every action taken by email by the Board. Opinions (for those who have actually read the correspondence regarding the vote on the proposed policy) cannot vary as to the fact that the requested vote from the Board stated that a decision had to be made no later than March 31 – many days short of the 15 that even you admit runs today. By the way, this is the only comment you have had in your missives that addresses the facts about whether the required notice was given. I am happy to let readers decide whether you have been telling the entire story or not.
As for the purported fraud, I hope you can come forward with real evidence if it does indeed exist. However, to date your definition of fraud is actually full compliance with the bylaws. As I have said, if you don’t like the bylaws, try to amend them properly. Do not try to steal an election by Presidential fiat.
And your lies about me supporting fraud don’t hold water either. I have never agreed on your definition of fraud. I have, however, said that I agree that geographic boundary requirements for delegates will help avoid candidates stacking units with their candidates (again, I have little doubt this goes on with both sides). That is not what the bylaws say. And you cannot commit an act of fraud (by violating the bylaws) to correct what you perceive is an act of fraud by others. If you have real fraud (selling votes, for example), then bring it before the Board and have the member(s) responsible expelled from the CRA. But simply trying to change an election because you don’t like what you think the results will be is not a reason to unilaterally ignore the bylaws.
Blogger’s Note – the real agenda comes out. Look at the last sentence – now the lawyer is injecting his own opinion after railing on me for mine.
I note that you don’t refute my last line, you simply claim I have some agenda. My agenda is to make sure that these types of shenanigans don’t happen again. I would be happy to support a bylaw amendment that requires that most or all of the delegates be from the geographic region of the unit they are a part of. I would also like to make the VPs and senate reps responsible for monitoring assigned units to make sure they are not paper units. And we should hold the monitors responsible if they fail to meet their duties. I’m also open to other suggestions to make sure that the officer election process is as honorable as it can be.
I hear the case has been submitted to the judge and I expect a ruling before Friday. I am willing to live with the judge’s decision, are you?
Blogger’s Note: It was obvious to me this past weekend that this “anonymous” commenter was part of the team suing CRA in order to allow the massive fraud to continue. This comment proves it further.
Mr. Anon Lawyer – your assertion that you’d support reforms later is absurd since a lot of the consultant-controlled units are trying to come to convention specifically to vote against by-law ammendments that have been proposed! Another reason why people believe lawyers speak with forked tongue.
Running to a judge to get your own way – now, that’s a conservative value!
I am not going to comment on the legal case – but trust me, I’ll have plenty to say later.
Newbie.
I’ve tried to stay out of the fray but offer the following for reader consideration.
To serve as an elected official on a city council you must live in that city.
Using the same thought process to be an elected board member of a CRA unit I would argue that the same basic requirement must apply. Live where you serve.
During my terms in office our SRA unit included the city’s of Aliso Viejo, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills and Mission Viejo. Every member of my board lived within those cities.
I can’t wait to hear what you have to say, since you obviously have no idea what you’re saying on here. I am not part of the “team” suing the CRA. I am an attorney (as I have freely admitted) and I have accessed the papers filed by both sides as they are public records for anyone to see.
In reading the papers, I discovered the proposed bylaw that will apparently be offered at the convention that largely mirrors the policy illegally enacted by the Board. Let me first say that I support it and I will vote for it at the convention. I would not normally mention this, since I support it, but since I am so disgusted by the actions of your side in flaunting the bylaws, I have to say that I suspect the proposed amendment was not submitted at least 50 days before the convention as required by the bylaws. However, if it does make it to the floor for a vote, I will vote in favor of it.
If the delegates are stacked against the amendment as you allege, I would also be willing to consider a Board policy that is properly approved, with the required notice. Unfortunately, the incompetent attorney the CRA hired (I truly hope he is doing this pro bono) stated in his opposition that the Board policies are merely non-binding recommendations, so it will have to be done through a bylaw amendment.
The only reason that the plaintiffs had to go to a judge is because your side blatantly violated the bylaws and disenfranchised many of us who really do want to vote and aren’t beholden to anyone other than those candidates we support.
Blogger’s Note: And so the legal arrogance continues.
It is always more fun when you have both the facts and the law on your side.
Larry,
I’m totally on board with your suggestion. I hope the delegates approve the proposed bylaw change that is apparently going to be advanced at the convention (I’m voting yes) that will require delegates to be from the geographic region where their unit is located. I think it should be extended to service as an elected officer as you propose.
Newbie – I got a copy of the decision, I think you’re reaching quite a bit in your gleeful statement.
So granting the injunction and preventing your side from implementing the illegal policy is “reaching”? Can’t wait to hear this one …
BREAKING NEWS – TOTAL VICTORY FOR ADHERING TO THE CRA BYLAWS
Judge David Brown of the Superior Court of Sacramento issued the following order at 8:48 am today:
“For the following reasons, the application for an order to show cause re preliminary injunction and for a temporary restraining order is granted in part.”
In other words, the Sgt. and his friends’ attempt to disenfranchise delegates has failed and all properly noticed delegates will be seated at the convention. Some of my favorite parts of the ruling:
“the policy approved by the CRA board … appears to improperly effect an amendment to the CRA bylaws without following the procedures set forth in the bylaws for such amendments.”
“Should the policy be implemented … plaintiff [] will be seriously and irreversibly deprived of representation by its selected delegates residing outside its geographical boundaries in the election … This harm far outweighs the concern of the CRA president in proposing the policy …”
The Court did address the Sgt.’s concerns:
“The few cases identified by defendant CRA of irregularity in the RA delegate selection process can be appropriately dealt with by the CRA Credentials Committee without the wholesale deprivation of voting rights by delegates selected to represent their RA pursuant to the existing bylaws.”
Apparently the Sgt. didn’t give as many examples of the purported fraud to his brother (I’m assuming George Park is the Sgt.’s brother, but I could be wrong) as he has alleged on here. Well, here’s hoping that George Park will not abuse his authority on the Credentials Committee like his side has abused the bylaws so we have another dispute.
Perhaps we can put this behind us (sadly though I doubt it) and I expect whoever is elected to address the problems the Sgt. has raised as well as advance real proposals to insure the integrity of the CRA election process.
I’m sure we’ll hear a lot more from the Sgt. on this “travesty of justice.” Stay tuned.