The Plot to Take Down Pritchard, Part 6 …‘With a Red Hot Poker’

In Part 6 ofThe Plot to Take Down Pritchard,Im going to look at the judge who wrote the so-called, judi­cial find­ing an expres­sion used by Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty Chair­man Josh McK­oon in an attempt to jus­ti­fy remov­ing par­ty 1st Vice Chair­man Bri­an Pritchard from his DULY ELECTED OFFICE. But before I get start­ed, please, do not begin­ning your jour­ney of under­stand­ing with this episode. If you do, you will be lost. In my pre­vi­ous five Sub­stacks in this series, I have giv­en you the facts and cir­cum­stances, and the analy­sis nec­es­sary to under­stand the man­ner in which Repub­li­can Par­ty Chair­man Josh McK­oon, aid­ed by numer­ous oth­ers, has been plan­ning for many months to remove the Trump-sup­port­ing, Elli­jay-based polit­i­cal web­cast­er, Bri­an Pritchard, from office. Pritchards crime is sim­ply telling the truth. The Uni­par­ty, the Geor­gia Rul­ing Class, does not like that.Gov­er­nor Bri­an Kemp does not like his par­tys 1st vice chair­man dai­ly remind­ing lis­ten­ers that the gov­er­nor cer­ti­fied a fraud­u­lent elec­tion.And that is the truth Bri­an Pritchard opens up express­ing each morn­ing, five days a week, on his con­ser­v­a­tive, Trump-sup­port­ing web­cast. Because Josh McK­oon owes his liveli­hood to Bri­an Kemp, McK­oon does what his boss says, or risks mak­ing the gov­er­nor as mad as Pritchard does. Thats the equa­tion. If McK­oons boss says Bri­an Pritchard must go, it is McK­oons job to make that hap­pen. Josh McK­oon works at the plea­sure of Bri­an Kemp. There is no deny­ing that.

But Repub­li­can Par­ty Chair­man McK­oon cant just wave his hand to get rid of Pritchard. To remove Bri­an Pritchard from the State Repub­li­can Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee, McK­oon must offer a rea­son­able expla­na­tion and have the pub­lic, includ­ing the State Com­mit­tee, buy it. Enter Lisa Bog­gs, Admin­is­tra­tive Judge employed by the Office of State Admin­is­tra­tive Hear­ings (OSAH). Lisa Bog­gs is the indi­vid­ual fill­ing the roll of pro­vid­ing Josh McK­oon the jus­ti­fi­ca­tion he needs to van­quish Pritchard.

The Boggs Decision

Now, polit­i­cal­ly, Josh McK­oon would like you to believe that Lisa Bog­gs is a judge, in the clas­sic sense of the term, who issued a doc­u­ment McK­oon refers below as a, judi­cial find­ing. He wrote that on his Face­book page when he advised the world that he was seek­ing Pritchards res­ig­na­tion.

Select­ing that term, judi­cial find­ing, Josh McK­oon implies this was a case before the Geor­gia courts. He would like you to believe the doc­u­ment Lisa Bog­gs authored is a prod­uct of thejudi­cial branchof Geor­gia Gov­ern­ment, as if the Pritchard case involved a crim­i­nal offense. It did not. The ques­tion before Lisa Bog­gs was to deter­mine whether Bri­an Pritchard com­mit­ted an admin­is­tra­tive offense, much less severe in nature than any crim­i­nal offense. Fur­ther­more, Lisa Bog­gs does not write judi­cial find­ings. She does not write judi­cial opin­ions. In fact, Lisa Bog­gs does not write any­thing using the author­i­ty nor­mal­ly equat­ed with the term, judi­cial. The law gov­ern­ing the work of Lisa Bog­gs only uses the term, judi­cial when it is con­ceiv­ably Lisa Bog­gs work that may come under judi­cial review by real Geor­gia Courts, presided by real, ELECTED, judges in the judi­cial branch of Geor­gia Gov­ern­ment. An aggriev­ed par­ty can take Ms. Bog­gs work to supe­ri­or court in the real Geor­gia court sys­tem, and have a real judge,elect­ed by the peo­ple, review it to ver­i­fy its cor­rect­ness. Appar­ent­ly, that is what Bri­an Pritchard has cho­sen to do, but it takes time. As you see below, Lisa Bog­gs authored a mereini­tial deci­sion.She is not an elect­ed judge. She is appoint­ed, just like her boss, Chief Admin­is­tra­tive Judge Michael Mil­i­hi, who was re-appoint­ed in 2021 by his long-time polit­i­cal friend and ally, Gov­er­nor Bri­an Kemp.

Judges Appointed By Brian Kemp

Now, I am not writ­ing to demean Ms. Bog­gs. I am writ­ing to show you the dis­hon­esty of Josh McK­oon, and the actu­al lev­el of author­i­ty of what what might be termed an ini­tial deci­sion in the case of Bri­an Pritchard, ver­sus what Chair­man McK­oon, an attor­ney who should there­fore know bet­ter, claims to be a judi­cial find­ing, a term he uses to plant high degrees of seri­ous­ness to any offense of Pritchard, in the pub­lic mind.

Michael Mal­i­hi was RE-APPOINTED by GOVERNOR BRIAN KEMP to his posi­tion in Feb­ru­ary 2021.

Ms. Bog­gs was APPOINTED to her posi­tion in 2021 by Chief Admin­is­tra­tive Judge Mal­i­hi.

So, here we have two char­ac­ters in this dra­ma, Josh McK­oon and Lisa Bog­gs, both who fig­ure promi­nent­ly in the plot, and both who were appoint­ed by direct Kemp appointees, and both who are one-step away from being direct appointees of Bri­an Kemp.

Kemp and Malihi Go Way Back- The Obama Birth Certificate Case

But the Kemp direct re-appoint­ment of Michael Mil­i­hi should not be a sur­prise. The two have a long his­to­ry togeth­er. Twelve years ago, in 2012, Michael Mal­i­hi worked under Gov­er­nor Nathan Deal in the capac­i­ty of Deputy Chief Admin­is­tra­tive Judge. At that time,Bri­an Kemp held the elect­ed office of Geor­gia Sec­re­tary of State.In his capac­i­ty, Mal­i­hi received an inter­est­ing case refer­ral from Kemp. Dur­ing that time, many will remem­ber, Pres­i­dent Barack Oba­ma was run­ning for a sec­ond term, and his eli­gi­bil­i­ty to do so, based upon birth, was place into ques­tion in sev­er­al states, one being Geor­gia. As it turns out Michael Mil­i­hi, Lisa Bog­gs present boss, would be the admin­is­tra­tive judge Bri­an Kemp would select to hear the case.

In 2011, the White House had reluc­tant­ly pub­lished a copy of a birth cer­tifi­cate for an infant pur­port­ed­ly born in Hawaii in 1960 car­ry­ing the name Barack Hus­sein Oba­ma. Upon exam­i­na­tion, how­ev­er, it turns out the cer­tifi­cate was a forgery, and a fraud, and Im not just say­ing that. Nei­ther the press, nor any state in the union, how­ev­er, would acknowl­edge its fal­si­ty. At the time, I down­load­ing the fake Barack Oba­ma birth cer­tifi­cate to exam­ine it myself. I made the fol­low­ing video of my dis­cov­er­ies, which any­one with Pho­to­shop could do. Here is my 12-year old video:

What I show you in the video is the same fake birth cer­tifi­cate, down­loaded from whitehouse.gov, pre­sent­ed dur­ing the hear­ing to Admin­is­tra­tive Judge Michael Mil­i­hi. That hear­ing would be held Jan­u­ary 26, 2012. Appear­ing tough-mind­ed toward the pres­i­dents case, three days pri­or to the hear­ing, Mil­i­hi turned down Oba­mas attor­neys motion to dis­miss. On Jan­u­ary 25, Sec­re­tary of State Bri­an Kemp fol­lowed suit, deny­ing Oba­mas attor­neys request to stop the next-day pro­ceed­ings, Kemp dis­play­ing high­ly-pub­li­cized deter­mi­na­tion to seek jus­tice. In their request to Kemp, Oba­mas attor­neys informed both the Sec­re­tary of State and pre­sid­ing Judge Mil­i­hi thatBarack Oba­ma would nei­ther be present nor rep­re­sent­ed dur­ing the hear­ing. Kemps answer to Oba­mas attor­neys warned of dire con­se­quences for the pres­i­dent should he choose not to par­tic­i­pate, express­ing that Oba­mas deci­sion would be at his own per­il.

Now, how many times have I warned not to trust what politi­cians say, only what they do. Peo­ple under­stand that, but there appears to be some­thing about the spo­ken word that con­vinces them that what they hear with the ear is truth­ful, even know­ing intel­lec­tu­al­ly it is not. To that point,in my first arti­cle in this series, I offered a prime exam­ple of Bri­an Kemp talk­ing tough-talk on ille­gal immi­gra­tion, but then fail­ing mis­er­ably to live up to his rhetoric once elect­ed. The results of the 2012 Oba­ma hear­ing would be no dif­fer­ent. True to their word, the pres­i­dents attor­neys did not show up. There­fore, no defense to the charges was ever offered. Nor­mal­ly, that would bring about a law­ful assump­tion of truth­ful­ness to the alle­ga­tions. The fraud­u­lent birth cer­tifi­cate you see in my 12-year-old video came into evi­dence. Oba­mas attor­neys were nev­er required to answer to the fact of the fraud­u­lent doc­u­ment pushed out by the White House. Of course, that was by design because there is no defense. Had Oba­mas attor­neys shown up, they would be forced to lie. They could go to prison for that and chose to stay home.

But none of that mat­tered, as the fol­low­ing week Michael Mil­i­hi rec­om­mend­ed Kemp leave Oba­ma on the bal­lot, writ­ing,“The Court finds the tes­ti­mo­ny of the wit­ness­es, as well as the exhibits ten­dered, to be of lit­tle, if any, pro­ba­tive val­ue, and thus whol­ly insuf­fi­cient to sup­port plain­tiffs alle­ga­tions.“Tough talk notwith­stand­ing, Judge Mal­i­hi hand­ed Sec­re­tary of State Bri­an Kemp his escape. Just like he received from Sec­re­tary of State Raf­fensperg­er in 2020, Bri­an Kemp had a scape­goat, that time, Michael Mil­i­hi, the Deputy Chief Admin­is­tra­tive Judge who would be the one receiv­ing all the crit­i­cism. In mere­ly accept­ing Mil­i­his rec­om­men­da­tion three days lat­er, Kemps hands remained clean.

And Mil­i­hi did receive heat for his appar­ent bend­ing to pres­sure. One crit­i­cism came at him from con­sti­tu­tion­al attor­ney Mario Appuz­zo, whose sting­ing dis­sent­ing rebuke can be foundhere.

Estab­lish­ment pro­pa­gan­dists quick­ly came to Mil­i­hisdefense, offer­ing that to do oth­er­wise would be to accept the word of con­spir­a­cy the­o­rists.

Geor­gia Admin­is­tra­tive Law Asso­ciate Judge Mil­i­his job was done. Despite the evi­dence of fraud on the part of those cre­at­ing the birth cer­tifi­cate, nev­er explained by Oba­mas attor­neys,Barack Oba­ma won Mil­i­his deci­sion with­out even show­ing up. Bri­an Kemp was off the hook, and hard­ly any­one today would remem­ber the name of Michael Mil­i­hi and his involve­ment in the case. Had Bri­an Kemp no scape­goat in this mat­ter, it is doubt­ful he could have won the gov­er­nor­ship in 2018, and he would not have received Don­ald Trumps endorse­ment. That is how the rul­ing class does things.

In the case of the Barack Oba­ma fake birth cer­tifi­cate, it is doubt­ful Michael Mil­i­hi had much of a choice in decid­ing to rec­om­mend Oba­ma to remain on the Geor­gia pres­i­den­tial bal­lot. In 2012, Michael Mil­i­hi occu­pied the same posi­tion Lisa Bog­gs occu­pies today. Mil­i­hi, then, and Bog­gs, now, was and are, respec­tive­ly, appointees one step removed from the Gov­er­nor. Do we imag­ine that Michael Mil­i­hi wrote his deci­sion in a vac­u­um, unin­flu­enced by the pow­er over his future exer­cised by Gov­er­nor Nathan Deal, or the wish­es of Sec­re­tary of State Bri­an Kemp, in the mon­u­men­tal ques­tion whether Barack Oba­ma would actu­al­ly be removed from the Geor­gia bal­lot? No, that would be incon­ceiv­able for Michael Mil­i­hi to decide con­trary to the will of the Sec­re­tary of State and the Gov­er­nor on such a weighty mat­ter.

Yet, in the case of Bri­an Pritchard, a mere pri­vate cit­i­zen, essen­tial­ly pow­er­less in front of rul­ing class actors at work in these events, being judged by an indi­vid­ual, Lisa Bog­gs, occu­py­ing the very same office as Mil­i­hi in 2012, we are sup­posed to believe she wrote her deci­sion in a vac­u­um, unaf­fect­ed by the pow­er and will of her imme­di­ate boss, unaf­fect­ed by the pow­er over her future that could be exer­cised by his boss, the Gov­er­nor of Geor­gia, the very same Bri­an Kemp, who Bog­gs imme­di­ate boss, Mil­i­hi, saved from a per­ilous polit­i­cal out­come 12 years ago? Noth­ing to write about here, folks, right?

The People Versus the Ruling Class

Friends, we are deal­ing with a rul­ing class here, the Uni­par­ty. They do what they are told by those who have pow­er over their futures. And that truth even applies to the gov­er­nor. That is how this works. In a world with a rul­ing class, noth­ing is left to chance. The peo­ple out­num­ber the rul­ing class 300 mil­lion to 1. Do you see why the ele­ment of plau­si­ble deni­a­bil­i­ty is so impor­tant to our rulers? Do you see how the prac­tice of always hav­ing a will­ing polit­i­cal scape­goat is so vital? They are afraid of los­ing con­trol.

And at the very bot­tom of the totem pole of polit­i­cal pow­er in our state and nation is each indi­vid­ual cit­i­zen like you and me, like Bri­an Pritchard, like David Cross and Susan Opraseuth, who once elect­ed by the peo­ple dare to speak truth to pow­er. The day of reck­on­ing in the case of Bri­an Pritchard is steadi­ly approach­ing. May 10th is less than 2 weeks away. The rul­ing class wants you to be silent. If you remain silent, you bet­ter stock up on Prepa­ra­tion H. That is because they are prepar­ing to stick you with a red-hot pok­er and dare you to whim­per.

You Have the Power-Use it

If you are a mem­ber of your local dis­trict, coun­ty or munic­i­pal Repub­li­can Par­ty, or if you are a mem­ber of the Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty, you have rep­re­sen­ta­tives on the Geor­gia Repub­li­can State Com­mit­tee. Josh McK­oon and his Uni­par­ty, Kemp-sup­port­ing accom­plices on the State Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee, and their oper­a­tives around the state, do not want you to have access to those names or con­tact infor­ma­tion. They have hid­den it from even the State Com­mit­tee mem­bers them­selves. Knowl­edge in their hands is dan­ger­ous to the Uni­par­ty. But you are enti­tled to that infor­ma­tion under state law GA Code 21–2‑110(a)(5). Mem­bers of the State Com­mit­tee are PUBLIC INFORMATION AND FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE. So, do not let them fool you. I urge you to find out who your State Com­mit­tee mem­bers are and con­tact them urg­ing each to VOTE NO on the removal of DULY-ELECTED FIRST VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE GEORGIA REPUBLICAN PARTY, BRIAN PRITCHARD.