Jun 022015
 

Why is it that being involved with the CRA involves getting semi-annual letters from Lawyers?

In this case – this is a sad epitaph to the CRA.

Two legal threat letters were sent to us by CRA Exec VP Craig Alexander – who, incidentally hates George and I, over the ouster of Celeste Greig. In a sad irony, Mr. Alexander should really direct his personal vitriol towards Alice Khosravy whose fraud in the SCVRA in 2013 likely cost Celeste Greig her election. Mr. Alexander is also the legal counsel of the CRA now, it is my belief that Tom Hudson arranged for this so he would not have to send these letters himself. (See Letter #1 threatening the former Placer CRA, and Letter #2 threatening George and I personally)

On Saturday, George and I discussed the possibility of the CRA Board attempting to seek revenge for the unit leaving and the resulting embarrassment. We have our answer. While I was not on the board of the Placer CRA – I can tell you that the demand for the money by Mr. Alexander is as absurd as his misplaced personal hatred of us. He should have read the Placer CRA’s bylaws.

Of dramatic irony is how Alice Khosravy and other CRA board members argued local control as the excuse for papering over the fraud in the Pasadena, Ventura and Nevada RA’s – but in the case of Placer who attempted to follow the rules the board is suddenly worried about by-laws. The 80-year-old by-laws of CRA are poorly written and as long as people like Mark Gardner are in charge of interpreting them, no one is safe from a legal threat.

The bottom line – the Placer CRA Quit. The CRA Board got embarrassed and is now lashing out. The basis of the threat against the Placer RA gets even worse with the assertion that it is still a unit as the decision to ratify the disbursements of the funds were made by valid board votes with valid board members at the time they were made.

Lastly – the threat is also intended as a shot across the bow of other units as the board of the failing CRA is lashing out in an attempt to stop the bleeding their behavior has caused. When you are on a pseudo-religious crusade to destroy people, you often are oblivious to how you look or the effects of your rampage. (Witness Facebook Posts from CRA Board Members referring to George and I as evil – suggesting that the CRA has devolved in to fanaticism)

The second legal threat letter – directed at George and I personally is the key letter. This is the poster child for what the CRA has now become, a group about power and control.

Mr. Alexander basically admits in this letter that this blog has been devastatingly effective in getting the message out about the malfeasance of CRA.

In the second letter, Mr. Alexander repeats a lot of the hyperbolae of the CRA Lynch Mob – in particular, the “data breech” that no one has proven. The burden of proof is on the CRA or someone who thinks they were exposed – however, there have been several lies propagated including FBI Investigations and DA Investigations. It is surprising to see Mr. Alexander repeat and dedicate a full page of his threat letter to a semi-vetted claim that I have debunked as a lie.

Secondly, Mr. Alexander makes a demand that we stop blogging about the CRA. As board members, we had a fiduciary responsibility to the organization to make sure its’ own by-laws were being followed with regard to its’ corporate governance. If we made our claims of fraud with no backing evidence, they could have easily been dismissed. Mr. Alexander’s logic for demanding we stop proving fraud is ironically the same basis that CRA VP Alice Khosravy used in an attempt to get all of John Briscoe’s emails.

We have proven that the CRA elected six board members in violation of its’ own by-laws whose votes were pivotal in our expulsion from CRA. We were accused of mistreating a CRA unit, which we proved false – leading to the original claims of a “data breech”. In essence, the poor behavior of the CRA’s board has led to the problems that Mr. Alexander has attempted (along with the rest of the lynch mob) to pin on us.

When a corporate officer of a non-profit is committing membership fraud, which could affect organizational governance (see also officer elections) and you find out about it – you have a responsibility to expose it. It is not our fault many on the CRA’s board did not want to listen or got angry at us for raising the issue.

Now, Mr. Alexander has cited some legal precedents and demanded that I stop blogging about the fraud within the CRA. The fact is that the CRA had no privacy policy and no confidentiality policy. That box has been opened forever. Had the lynch mob not been so consumed with their pseudo-religious fervor and left us on the CRA’s board – Mr. Alexander may well have been able to enforce the demands of us to stop blogging.

However, what we have now is political speech about an organization that has committed political suicide and adopted a culture of fraud, deception and systematic purges.

I’d like to remind Mr. Alexander that a non-profit corporation that does not follow its’ own By-Laws can get its’ corporate veil pierced with relative ease in court – thus exposing all of its’ officers to personal liability. Since CRA President Tom Hudson was a vocal opponent against purchasing D&O insurance, the CRA’s board is exposed. This is not a good situation – and I’d suggest that Mrs. Hudson and Alexander deal with the rampant violations of the by-laws that have been institutionalized.

This is the CRA – we were expelled because some resented our influence in the organization, while others needed to cover up their bad behavior. It is not good enough just the purge the evil (quoting some board members) – in order to prove total supremacy, its’ time to roll the lawyers in.

Why would anyone want to join CRA now? If people re-join CRA because they hate George and I (which has been the spin), then that even further makes the case about the death of the organization.

The bottom line – the CRA’s board of directors is afraid of this blog. They should be. I don’t lie and the facts (as I see them and post them on this blog) are stubborn things.

P.S. In 2011, I received my first legal threat letter of my political career related to my blogging. Ironically, I posted that letter on the advice of Tom Hudson and Craig Alexander.

  One Response to “CRA: Update – A Lifetime Ban is Not Enough, Here Come the Lawyers!”

  1. Leaders pull the wet noodle not push it. Fight for what is right and promote your ideology. Find champions and elect them to public office and ignore the back stabbers.
    Again thank you again for collecting 36,000 signatures for recall of Gray Davis.
    As the Recall project manager I will also be reminded of your leadership of action and not BS.> .

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.