Prologue: Thanks to all for the record traffic on my recent blog posts. I appreciate your patronage.
Apparently Tom Hudson is trying to cover himself for his rogue rampage. He has acted on his own without the approval of the CRA Board of Directors when threatening local charities, local activists and local electeds in Placer County. Now he is in a bear trap – and it appears that other CRA Board Members in their rage can’t see the landmine they have stepped on.
He asked the CRA’s board to give him and a committee of 5 other people the ability to sue and threaten people on their behalf. Don’t take my word for it – read the on line board vote he requested.
Craig Alexander is now claiming that starting a letter with the claim he has been retained by the PCRA and CRA is not a “demand” but rather a request. This is lawyer-speak for I got caught and now I am using a dictionary to escape accountability. You don’t send people letters on legal stationery asking for money back without them or others construing it as a demand. It does not matter what a legal dictionary says (or the definition of is) – it is how the thousands of people that read this blog are reacting to Craig’s actions.
The fight between us and Thomas N Hudson started with the McClintock non-endorsement. Because Tom Hudson is a bully with no conscience (also known as a sociopath), he has pulled the Congressman in to the middle of the fray. The Congressman was an unfortunate part of this until his staff bought in as well. Barry Pruett, the husband of a McClintock staffer is the President of a fake unit in Nevada County that Tom helped cover up. In addition, Pruett filed one of the complaints used as the basis to expel us for life.
Sorry Tom McClintock – you really should thank Tom Hudson and your staff for all of this. You have been issued your own piece of political hell courtesy of them.
It looks like the brain-drain from the CRA Board of Directors after the 5/30 lynching may well lead them to bow to Hudson’s deception. If they cede their oversight to Thomas N Hudson and Craig Alexander (and three rabid dogs) with regard to legal action – they may as well get the deeds to their houses out along with any investment statements, valuable articles and the like.
The CRA has no insurance, thanks again to Tom Hudson convincing enough “fiscally conservative” anti-insurance board members that buying insurance would lead to a lawsuit. I have news for all of them – If Tom and Craig come after George and I, it’s on. Buying Insurance is smart, suing people when you don’t have any is not smart. (even if you can act as your own lawyer)
Tom McClintock and his staff emboldened Tom Hudson. Alice Khosravy, Tim Thiesen, Carl Brickey, Wendy Albright, David Gauny, Mark Gardner and others on the CRA’s board emboldened Tom Hudson. Now it is payday. There aren’t enough of you in the CRA to deal with what is coming. You could have stopped at any time, but you did not.
The CRA and its’ board members are on a collision course with being right at the expense of their non-existent integrity and financial ruin. For what? Because it wasn’t enough to toss us from CRA, they needed to destroy us.
The CRA is not just right, they are really right. This is why they could not stop. They can’t. They have gone way too far and the only way out without having to admit fault is through us.
Tom Hudson sent an email to the CRA’s board after a couple of board members rightly pointed out the following risks to CRA:
1. CRA losing its’ charter
2. CRA members losing their CRP delegate status
3. Putting the $37k currently in the CRA’s operating account at risk (ironically, 24k of it I raised)
4. Putting the board members of the CRA at risk.
5. Irrepairable political damage from Tom Hudson’s rampage. (Threatening Acres of Hope, Courage Worldwide and Lighthouse Family Counseling in the name of CRA)
The text of Hudson’s Email follows:
Dear John and fellow CRA Board members,John Briscoe and Benita Gagne are both opposing a Special Litigation Committee that is identical to similar committees that they have both previously supported TWICE.What is different this time? That blog. Apparently, despite (sic) reputation for lying and then apologizing for it, some people still believe whatever he tells them. (I am not calling anyone a puppet of the Parks; I am just reporting the facts.)Rest assured that I am in no hurry to engage in litigation and neither is anyone else on the current Board or on the proposed committee. As most of you know, I personally drafted the sections of the CRA Bylaws that prohibit litigation and I was closely involved in the process of creating the California Republican Party’s alternative dispute resolution process.Voting to approve the proposed Special Litigation Committee will not amend the CRA Bylaws or the CRP Bylaws and it will not encourage litigation. Voting to oppose the committee will not prevent litigation, as a matter of law. If you don’t believe me, please consider the fact that we have had a committee of this nature for many years and no one has been sued by us. We were sued at a time that no such committee existed. This committee is simply a way for us to get things done and be prepared to defend CRA’s interests in a manner that is consistent with corporate law and the attorney-client privilege. That’s why John Briscoe and Benita Gagne supported this kind of committee in the past. Nothing has changed.I would urge you to vote YES on this committee and let’s move on.