Is Hank Wrong??? How Could That Be???

This morn­ing, a very good friend wrote me the fol­low­ing:

Just to inform you, peo­ple are say­ing your Sub­stack is wrong about the exec­u­tive ses­sion. Yes, Roberts Rules of Order requires all dis­ci­pli­nary hear­ings against mem­bers to be held in Exec­u­tive Ses­sion. It is not option­al. This is not a spe­cial arrange­ment for BKP. Its for every­one for all orga­ni­za­tions that use Roberts Rules, unless the bylaw spec­i­fy oth­er­wise.

I thank my friend very much for let­ting me know what peo­ple are say­ing. I dont know why peo­ple dont say those things to me direct­ly, and do it as con­struc­tive­ly, but that is anoth­er sub­ject.

My first, very sim­ple answer, total­ly refut­ing any mis­take in my recent Sub­stack enti­tled,Secret Tri­al of Bri­an Pritchard to Enter ‘Gulag Mode’ If Patri­ots Do Not Resistis found in the draft res­o­lu­tion sent by Chair­man McK­oon in his 32-day notice,sent with­out an approved agen­da, call­ing the State Com­mit­tee to order. The res­o­lu­tion reads:

A RESOLUTION OF THE STATE COMMITTEE OF THE GEORGIA REPUBLICAN PARTY

WHEREAS, pur­suant to Rule 7.5(a) of the Rules of the Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty, charges have been made against the First Vice Chair­man of the Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty; and

WHEREAS, notice was issued and served in accor­dance with Rule 7.5(a) of the Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty upon the First Vice Chair­man of a State Com­mit­tee meet­ing to con­sid­er the charges against him and pro­vide him with an oppor­tu­ni­ty to be heard; and

WHEREAS, the Rules of the Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty do not spec­i­fy pro­ce­dures for the con­duct of a tri­al upon charges brought under Rule 7.5(a); and

WHEREAS, spe­cif­ic pro­ce­dures should be adopt­ed to con­duct the tri­al as required by the Rules of the Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty;

THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED THAT:

That the tri­al shall be in exec­u­tive ses­sion;

Thus, if this res­o­lu­tion does not pass by a vote of the State Com­mit­tee fol­low­ing every pro­ce­dure I out­lined in my pre­vi­ous Sub­stack, exec­u­tive ses­sion can­not be invoked. Fur­ther­more, if this res­o­lu­tion does not pass by a vote of the State Com­mit­tee, fol­low­ing every pro­ce­dure I pre­vi­ous­ly out­line, there is no busi­ness to tend to and any meet­ing invoked at that time must adjourn. I have proven my point.

But it gets so much worse, espe­cial­ly for the Chair­man.

In call­ing this meet­ing as he did, Chair­man McK­oon has made numer­ous cat­a­stroph­ic errors. And, obvi­ous­ly, he hopes he can slide all those errors by and have the State Com­mit­tee do all the work skipped over in bring­ing this action. Regard­less the words the Chair­man wrote in his notice to State Com­mit­tee mem­bers, this meet­ing is not autho­rized under the pub­li­cized rules on the GAGOP web­site, even if all of us, for a short time, con­sid­er those rules to be the legit­i­mate Repub­li­can Par­ty Rules, which in real­i­ty they are not.

First of all, the 32-day notice must pro­vide an agen­da. That agen­da is not any­thing the Chair­man pro­duces. The agen­da is pro­duced by the State Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee, duly-enact­ed by a res­o­lu­tion under that com­mit­tee while it is IN SESSION. More on what that means below.

Under Rule 3.1, the author­i­ty to deter­minewhen the needs of the GRP require,which you will find on line 15, resides with the State Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee, not the Chair­man.And for the pur­pose of ren­der­ing judge­ment that the needs of the GRP require, unfor­tu­nate­ly for Chair­man McK­oon, a meet­ing of the State Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee, to direct the him as to that need with a res­o­lu­tion, must be in ses­sion.The Chair­man has nev­er called the State Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee into ses­sion to ren­der judg­ments on any of this. The State Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee must be in ses­sion, per­form­ing the task of autho­riz­ing the Chair­man to exe­cute a call of the State Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee, or that call can­not be made. Call­ing the State Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee into ses­sion would take a pre­cious 12-days, which the Chair­man does not have, and still accom­plish the goal forced on him to remove Bri­an Pritchard from office BEFORE the State Con­ven­tion.

Con­found­ing the chair­mans dif­fi­cul­ties, in absence of par­ty rules pre­scrib­ing a pro­ce­dure to hold a tri­al to dis­ci­pline a par­ty offi­cial, Roberts Rules require that first, the Soci­ety, rep­re­sent­ed in this case by the State Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee, cre­ate by res­o­lu­tion an Inves­ti­ga­tion Com­mit­tee, (See 63:9). That Inves­ti­ga­tion Com­mit­tee must hold meet­ings to orga­nize the task of gath­er­ing evi­dence against the poten­tial accused. Once gath­ered, the Inves­ti­ga­tion Com­mit­tee must hold a meet­ing, in ses­sion, which requires notice giv­en to all of its mem­bers, at which it must pass a res­o­lu­tion to report its find­ings and rec­om­men­da­tions to the Soci­ety, once again, the State Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee. Once that occurs, and the State Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee receives a com­mit­tee res­o­lu­tion rec­om­mend­ing a tri­al of the evi­dence, the State Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee must autho­rize the Rules Com­mit­tee to prop­er­ly con­struct rules for the impend­ing tri­al, duly pass those rules out of com­mit­tee to the State Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee, for the State Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee to come into ses­sion to receive and under­stand. (63:13–14) Once that hap­pens, the State Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee must approve those tri­al rules, and sub­se­quent­ly pass a res­o­lu­tion to to noti­fy the accused to appear at a tri­al (63:15). That res­o­lu­tion would empow­er the chief exec­u­tive offi­cer, in this case Josh McK­oon, to issue such a notice to the accused, Bri­an Pritchard.

Now, for the May 10 meet­ing to enter direct­ly into exec­u­tive ses­sion, with­out a vote, the res­o­lu­tion autho­riz­ing the Chair­man to issue the notice to Pritchard would also spec­i­fy that the meet­ing shall be con­duct­ed in exec­u­tive ses­sion. All that I describe has to be passed by the State Exec­u­tive Com­mit­tee. And because none of those pro­ce­dures were fol­lowed, I mean not even ONE of those pro­ce­dures, Chair­man McK­oon has some­how invoked author­i­ty out of that place to which the sun has no access and done that which I describe, all by his lone­some, includ­ing issu­ing a call for a May 10 meet­ing osten­si­bly to con­duct a tri­al of Bri­an Pritchard. Josh McK­oon does not have the author­i­ty as Chair­man to do any of that. The meet­ing for tomor­row is a kan­ga­roo court called by the head kan­ga­roo. Thats it. None of this is autho­rized.

State Committee Members Could Wind Up in Big Trouble

But, look, if the atten­dees tomor­row are not care­ful, they could wind up in very big trou­ble. Because the Chair­man has short-cir­cuit­ed every require­ment in the book, and every require­ment in the rules, appar­ent­ly he and oth­ers in his inner cir­cle, per­haps his gen­er­al coun­sel in par­tic­u­lar, are hop­ing they can keep all this silent, and obtain the agree­ment of the State Com­mit­tee, once called into ses­sion, to rat­i­fy McK­oons usurpa­tions, thus clear­ing him of respon­si­bil­i­ty, and roll all of those par­lia­men­tary require­ments it all into a ball in the form of a sin­gle res­o­lu­tion he hopes upon every hope in his body he can get the State Com­mit­tee to pass. That is the res­o­lu­tion he sent to all State Com­mit­tee mem­bers.

That is what is going on here. As I have writ­ten many times now, this cha­rade is a rail­road job of epic pro­por­tions. Every­one, includ­ing Pritchard detrac­tors, has been deceived.

Heres where every­one involved here, includ­ing the Pritchard detrac­tors, poten­tial­ly get intodeephot water. What no one seems to rec­og­nize is that this polit­i­cal par­ty thing, if that is what we agree for the moment it is, is a prod­uct of LAW, specif­i­cal­ly, OCGA 21–2‑111. That statute grants author­i­ty from the peo­ple of the State of Geor­gia to an enti­ty known at least at one time as the Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty. That law cre­ates the author­i­ty for those con­sid­ered among the par­ty to cre­ate the rules we are talk­ing about. The prob­lem that could arise for any­one tak­ing part in this mar­su­pi­al pro­duc­tion is that if the ensu­ing pro­ceed­ings actu­al­ly harm Bri­an Pritchard in ways he can apt­ly describe in future legal pro­ceed­ings, every one of them, state offi­cers, State Com­mit­tee mem­bers, Exec­u­tive mem­bers, etc., could be found to have com­mit­ted civ­il wrong-doing of Mr.Pritchard, and also found guilty of vio­lat­ing elec­tion law by the State Elec­tion Board, pos­si­bly lead­ing to a refer­ral to the Attor­ney Gen­er­al. But of course, we dont real­ly have an oper­at­ing State Elec­tion Board, or an Attor­ney Gen­er­al who at this point would decide against any­one involved in remov­ing Bri­an Pritchard from office. I have not looked up the statute of lim­i­ta­tions on any of this. But, I expect that would be a good idea for any­one involved to do.

I hope I have been able to clear up any ques­tions remain­ing from my last Sub­stack. I apol­o­gize if any­thing I wrote was less than clear.