Georgia Republican Party, “INC.” Up Against Hard Deadline to Explain Its Purposes

Ear­li­er this month, you may recall, I report­ed on an attempt by the Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty, Inc. to seal the con­tents of a set­tle­ment agree­ment between GRP, Inc. and for­mer Chair­man of the Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty, the actu­al orga­niz­er of Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty, Inc., John Pad­gett. In my August 4 Sub­stack enti­tled, “Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty, Inc. Files Motion to Seal Court Records…Forever,” you will read the details and the his­to­ry of this case, and also bring you up to speed on GRP, Inc.’s “Motion to Seal” cer­tain set­tle­ment doc­u­ments from the pub­lic, in per­pe­tu­ity. In that Sub­stack you will find the entire read­ing list of arti­cles I have writ­ten on the sub­ject of GRP, Inc. and its con­tin­u­ing mas­quer­ade, claim­ing to be both a Title 14 Cor­po­ra­tion, as well as a Title 21 Polit­i­cal Par­ty. In short, an orga­ni­za­tion can be one or the oth­er, but can­not be both. Here I will just say that, accord­ing to present and for­mer GRP/GRP., Inc. offi­cials, it is this case with John Pad­gett that is the rea­son the “Inc” issue has nev­er been resolved. That is all that Repub­li­can Par­ty Chairman/GRP, Inc. CEO Josh McK­oon, or oth­ers who obvi­ous­ly know the answers, will say.

And so we appear to be get­ting close to the end of this intrigu­ing mys­tery. Adding to the intrigue is the prospect that the con­tents of the set­tle­ment agree­ment Josh McK­oon desires to seal, appar­ent­ly agreed by both par­ties, may offer the answer(s) to our ques­tion.

Our ques­tion is sim­ply, why? Why does the Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty, Inc. con­tin­ue to mas­quer­ade as the Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty? What is all this all about in the first place? Because Chairman/CEO (yeah, what­ev­er) Josh McK­oon and oth­ers have indi­cat­ed the “Inc” can­not be resolved while this case remains unset­tled, our nature makes us more than curi­ous to know what it is about the agreed set­tle­ment that McK­oon and oth­ers do not want pub­licly known.

Sev­er­al of us feel the pub­lic, and in par­tic­u­lar the mem­bers and donors of the Geor­gia Repub­li­can Par­ty, what­ev­er that phrase even means at this point, have a right to know the terms of this set­tle­ment agree­ment. Donors to this appar­ent­ly unlaw­ful­ly-blend­ed polit­i­cal enti­ty have a right to know whether their dona­tions have been used to fur­ther the pur­pos­es for which they were giv­en, which would be to elect Repub­li­cans to pub­lic office, and/or whether any or all of those funds, were used to pay legal fees in the case against John Pad­gett, and whether that mon­ey will be recov­ered, and under what terms.

Thus, we (James Abely, William Quinn, Geor­gia Record/CDM Media, myself and hanksullivan.substack.com) filed an ami­cus brief on behalf of the public’s right-to-know the terms of the set­tle­ment. Yes­ter­day in court, inter­est­ing­ly enough, the attor­ney for Mr. Pad­gett filed a response IN FAVOR OF OUR BRIEF. GRP/GRP, Inc. (yeah, what­ev­er) attor­ney Alex Kauf­man has been giv­en until Fri­day to explain to the court what it is about this par­tic­u­lar set­tle­ment agree­ment that places its terms beyond and supe­ri­or to the public’s right-to-know. I will con­tin­ue to report on these cir­cum­stances as events hap­pen. Many thanks to patri­ot James Abely for his hard work and forth­right ded­i­ca­tion in shed­ding light on the truths sur­round­ing this impor­tant case.