Folks – this is what the Contract with the CRA fought for.

This is what the Consultants sued the CRA to stop.

David Stafford Reade, Karen England and some of their lieutenants were expelled from CRA for 5-10 years for fraud. Had the below package of CRA by-laws been in place, Reade may still be a CRA member – but it is more likely he’d have had nothing to do with CRA at all.

A one-day CRA Convention was held at the LaQunita Inn on Century Blvd right outside of LAX. All we did was debate By-Laws. (and endorse Linda Ackerman and Shawn Steel for re-election to their CRP positions) This convention occurred on 11/19/2011.

We did a fix to our by-laws to get ourselves in compliance with state law (heaven forbid we get sued over that) – by making deputy senate district directors voting board members and limiting presidential appointments to the board to 10. The first three are confirmed with a simple majority of the CRA board, the remaining 7 require a 2/3 vote. The amendment also eliminated non-voting board members in their entirety.

This also addresses past practices of loading the CRA board with political allies by a CRA President.

In addition, another by-law amendment was passed that clarified how vacant CRA board seats that vacate mid-term are supposed to be filled. This is a transparency move.

One By-Law Amendment that was submitted by Mike Spence and deliberately targeted at George and I was destroyed outright and a second by-law amendment concerning confidentiality was referred to the board. In the version written by Mr. Spence – that by-law amendment could have prevented revelation of the fraud that was attempted at the April 2011 convention in the name of confidentiality.

The biggest amendments that passed were:

Changing the timeline for an email / online CRA board vote to 5 days instead of 15. This was one thing the lawyers for Karen England and the fraudsters hung their hat on in order to sue us.

We also modified the notice requirement for discipline to include phone calls, email, faxes, alternate mail, regular mail in addition to Certified Mail. This is a matter of efficiency and a cost-savings to the CRA. Again, this will protect the CRA from being sued over what constitutes “notice”. It still requires a 2/3 CRA board vote to act on any request for discipline.

We banned unit proxies. Mike Spence showed up with 2 unit proxies and Gwen Dyrud (who led the Chartered Busses that transported the delegates from dubious SoCal CRA units to the April 2011 convention) had 3. People saw this and this basically made the case for the ban.

Later analysis has shown that several units had less than 11 members paid and were being kept alive by Peggy Mew (the deposed former membership secretary) for purposes of giving her extra convention votes or to be given to Mike Spence. Those were to have been a significant part of the “delegates” Karen and the fraudsters were counting on in order to maintain the fraud in the CRA.

We toughened the requirements for chartering a new CRA unit. In most cases, it will take 4 meetings to charter a new unit and will require notifying more than one CRA Board member of said meetings. This adds a considerable amount of effort to what it takes to charter a new CRA unit.

The primary reason why Karen England and her lawyer friends sued us was that we attempted to create a residency rule requiring the convention delegates to actually live within the boundaries of the unit they purported to represent.

We did two things to address the grounds upon which Karen England and her fraudsters sued us over -

1. We modified the by-laws to include a provision that explicitly allows the CRA board to establish standing rules. This way, no lawyer can claim that a board rule is in violation of the CRA By-Laws, and:

2. We installed a 2/3 residency requirement for delegates of CRA units for Conventions (local and state) to have to reside within the boundaries of the CRA unit they represent. This would have rendered almost all of the fake CRA units useless to their Consultant Masters.

The CRA is already growing- this is because we have taken bold moves to address the problems that had beset the CRA over the last 10 years. Now, we have reforms in place to ensure that the CRA is run by activists and to make consultant manipulation extremely difficult.

A CRA endorsement will mean something again – and this is why the Consultants are creating a new Conservative “Group” (that I refer to as “CROCK”) to protect their commercial enterprise.

Karen England was endorsed by Phyllis Schlafly, Richard Giguere, John Eastman, Chuck DeVore, Assemblyman Mike Morrell and Assemblymember Tim Donnelly – amongst others in her run for CRA President.

You’d think the above list would be an indicator of a Conservative’s Conservative.

There’s a problem – one of compromise. As Revealed earlier – David Stafford Reade has been exposed as a paid lackey of Charles Munger who lied to people and ran a drill to twist Conservative proxies in to the hands of liberals in order to destroy the California Republican Party Platform.

Karen England thinks I’m lying – she wrote the following words in an email tirade to me: “another FACT:  the proxies did not matter in  the most recent CRP meeting so it doesn’t matter who had them, it was impossible for them to be used on the platform committee or on the floor for the purpose of platform.”

Karen England has a problem – she is the executive director of the Capitol Resource Institute. David Stafford Reade sits on their board of directors.

Doug LaMalfa is one of their largest donors.

David Reade’s actions are well documented – while serving on the board of a “family values” organization – he took substantial pay to lie, cheat and steal a result to undermine those very values.

Doug LaMalfa’s staff were caught red-handed in the middle of it.

Karen Emailed me unsolicited to tell me I was lying because the proxy drill did not matter.

Hmmm – If Karen cared about the conservative movement – why isn’t she concerned about where LaMalfa’s staff’s proxies went?

Why isn’t she concerned about the LaMalfa staff participation in getting the Proxies of Conservatives in the hands of Bay Area Liberals?

Why isn’t she asking the critical questions? “Why did Munger pay for this proxy drill if it didn’t matter?”

Here is her original email:

Aaron,

What!? How could the 100% CRA Scorecard Doug LaMalfa be guilty of such a thing!?

Please read the next series of posts with an open mind and decide for yourself – who is Doug LaMalfa loyal to – the Conservative Movement or those looking to throw conservatives out of the GOP?

Have a look at the recent California Republican Party platform fight for starters.

First off – the Sacramento Bee highlighted Liberal Billionaire Charles Munger and his all-out effort to gut the California Republican Party platform. They praised Munger’s knowledge of the By-Laws and the rules of the California Republican Party. Munger managed to rig a majority on the drafting committee that came out with a platform that basically said nothing.

The problem is that the CRA maintained a solid majority on the entire platform committee where ‘Munger’s platform’ died. It was substituted for the “Pruner” platform by a 66-50 vote that was previously highlighted on this blog.

Here’s where team Doug LaMalfa comes in.

Let’s say that the full platform committee voted the Munger platform out to the floor. According to what I have seen from the delegates in attendance and the proxies assigned – the Moderates had a majority and could have blocked any attempt to override the decision of the Platform Committee.

That’s right – I indicated that the Moderates had a majority of VOTES, not delegates. How did they do that?

Enter David Stafford Reade. David Reade is an ethically-challenged political consultant. David Reade’s specialty is manipulating the outcomes of endorsements and elections within Republican organizations. David Reade was expelled from the CRA for maintaining fraudulent CRA units in the North State and was also undeniably the Quarterback of the effort that netted Mitt Romney a CRA endorsement in 2007.

Reade is also a smear merchant – as reported to me by staffers, in 1999 he created a fake newspaper to accuse Conservative former State Senator Rico Oller of spousal abuse after first floating rumors of an FBI investigation in to Rico Oller. (12 years later, still no visit from the FBI)

In Placer County, the Conservatives that control our local Central Committee have been treated tactics similar to David Reade’s, apparently aided and abetted by Doug LaMalfa and LaMalfa’s Chief of Staff Mark Spannagel. (also previously documented on this blog, and here’s another for good measure)

However, with a fight engaged for the heart and soul of the California Republican Party – it appears that Doug LaMalfa+staff betrayed us all again.

Insider sources tell me that David Reade was on Charles Munger’s payroll – running a proxy drill to collect the votes of California Republican Party members in order to assure his benefactor of a victory in a convention floor fight.

There is ample evidence to suggest that David Stafford Reade enlisted Mark Spannagel and Lisa Buescher – both senior staff of Doug LaMalfa in the effort.

In part two of this post – I will detail the Conservatives who were lied to and made to believe their proxies were going to Doug LaMalfa. The fact that two of LaMalfa’s senior staff and his former campaign manager were undeniably involved in this begs the questions… Did Doug LaMalfa know about this? Why didn’t he do anything? If Doug LaMalfa didn’t know what his staff was doing, what is he going to do now?

It appears that Doug LaMalfa has never attempted to check David Reade. I have seen LaMalfa’s staff follow whatever client David Reade is working for – (you know, on the side and not at taxpayer’s expense as Reade claimed to the Redding Record Searchlight) and the pattern has re-manifest time and again.

It gets better – Charles Munger is also purported, again from several insider sources to have offered large amounts of money (that dwarf Reade’s payoff) for support of his new destroyed California Republican Party platform. How much? and to whom? Coming in Part 2.

There are 207 members of the committee – 87 did not show.

Please also note that Charles Munger is reputed to have spent $75K to as much as $150K on this effort – to lost by 16 votes. Four years ago, the margin was only 5 votes.

1. Susan Abato - N
2. Adam Abrams – Y
3. Linda Ackerman – NV
4. Walter Allen – N
5. Ivan Altamura – N
6. Christian Amsberry – N
7. Joel Anderson – Y
8. Martin Avila – Y
9. Darlene Ayers-Hohnson – N
10. Hector Barajas – N
11. Steve Baric – Y
12. Jane Barnett – Y
13. Claudia Bermudez – N
14. Rob Bernosky – N
15. Sam Blakeslee – N
16. Matthew Braman – N
17. Cuong Cao – Y
18. Gene Champagne – Y
19. Eric Chan – Y
20. Jo Ellen Chatham – Y
21. Shane Patrick Connolly – N
22. Michelle Connor – N
23. Terri Cousins – Y
24. Paul Cummings, Jr. – N
25. Arie Dana – Y
26. Alvaro Day – Y
27. Tom Del Beccaro – Y
28. Earl DeVries – Y
29. Dennis DeYoung – N
30. Jim DiSanto – N
31. Margaret Dominici – N
32. Tim Donnelly – Y
33. Don Donnelly – N
34. Prudence Eiland – Y
35. Jeane Ensley – Y
36. Kathleen “Suzy” Evans – Y
37. Jim Fiason – N
38. John Fer – Y
39. Jon Fleischman – Y
40. Gregory Gandrud – N
41. Doris Gentry – N
42. Dillon Gibbons – N
43. Brian Gutierrez – NV
44. Lydia Gutierrez – Y
45. Adele Harrison – Y
46. Ryan Hatcher - N
47. Michael Havig – N
48. Darin Henry – Y
49. Eric Hickok – N
50. Randall Hough – NV
51. Martha House – N
52. Ashley Ingram – Y
53. Beatric Jett – N
54. Brian Johsz – Y
55. Brian Jones – Y
56. Marvin Jones – N
57. Morgan Kelley – N
58. Virginia Chang Kiraly – N
59. Janet Kirtlink – Y
60. Jared Kopp – Y
61. Kevin Krick – N
62. Tony Krvaric – Y
63. Leonard Lanzi – N
64. Darcy Linn – Y
65. Dan Logue – Y
66. Benjamin Lopez – Y
67. Allan Mansoor – Y
68. Mark McCurdy – Y
69. Chuck McDougald – N
70. Sashi McEntee – N
71. Michael McSweeney – Y
72. Nathan Mintz – NV
73. Mike Morrell – Y
74. Lisa Moulton – Y
75. Richard Mountjoy – Y
76. Mike Munzing – Y
77. Jim Nielsen – Y
78. Mary Osborn – N
79. Mike Osborn – N
80. Tommy Owens – N
81. Mary Park – Y
82. John Peschong – N
83. Laura Peter – N
84. Sergio Picchio – Y
85. Kimberly Pruett – Y
86. Mark Pruner – Y
87. Stephen Puetz – Y
88. Dana Reed – N
89. Derrick Roach – Y
90. Elizabeth Roach – Y
91. Michael Rossiter – Y
92. George Runner – Y
93. Sharon Runner – Y
94. Atul Saini – N
95. Pat Shuff – Y
96. Stephen Smith – Y
97. Clinton Soffer – N
98. Mike Spence – Y
99. Michelle Steel – Y
100. Shawn Steel – Y
101. Jay Stern – Y
102. Justin Stoner – Y
103. Bradley Taylor – N
104. Tim Thiesen – Y
105. Mary Toman-Miller – N
106. Brad Torgan – N
107. Ryan Trabuco – N
108. Dan Trimble – N
109. Lynn Vakay-Haueter - Y
110. Robert VanCleef – N
111. Fred Vanderhoof – Y
112. Christine Vinquist – N
113. Don Wagner – Y
114. Patricia Welch – Y
115. Kirby Wells – N
116. Richard Westfall – Y
117. Lawrence Wiesner – Y
118. Warren Willis – Y
119. Abram Wilson – N
120. Allen Wood – Y

Have you seen the recent STOP SB48 emails bearing the name of Doug LaMalfa and Gentlemen Jim Nielsen?

For those of you familiar with Jim Nielsen’s role in the attempted gutting of the 2012 CRP Platform – including eliminating any mention of a stand on “Homosexual Issues” – you’d wonder why Nielsen is suddenly interested in a referendum against forced Homosexual indoctrination of our children…

Allow your intrepid blogger to focus the issue. Occasionally a busted clock gets something right – this being the Capitol Resource Institute. We have highlighted the Capitol Resource Institute and their astounding conflicts of interest and connections to electeds. (In particular, Doug LaMalfa and Jim Nielsen)

Nielsen has been getting hammered – including by yours truly on the front page of the California Republican Assembly’s newsletter for his role in the attempted evisceration of the CRP Platform. Nielsen is obviously feeling the heat and the recent email from the CRI regarding their SB48 issue that is signed by Gentleman Jim is 100% a by-product of the pain the real CRA is inflicting on him because of his actions.

This is a by-product of reforming CRA, Nielsen and David Stafford Reade can no longer manipulate CRA – now they have accountability for their actions.

The CRI is 100% right to be leading the SB48 referendum – however, if this is like their fake Prop 8 site or the SB777 Referendum, they should be sued for screwing over California. The SB48 thing needs to qualify as the homosexual lobby has gone to communist extremes to force their agenda down people’s throats – if the CRI is simply using this issue to raise money, then they should burn in hell. If the CRI is serious and gets this thing across the finish line – I will applaud them as everyone else that values freedom and the rights of parents to educate their children should.

Nielsen? He’s a liberal that parades around his district as a conservative. His Chief of Staff – the ethically-challenged David Stafford Reade is on the CRI’s board of directors. There’s your nexus.

… and the Platform Fight? It has gone national – look here for One News Now coverage that features a quote from Real CRA President Celeste Grieg.

What is the platform that Jim Nielsen helped create for the CRP? Click here to see a fantastic analysis from CRA Senate District Director Rohit Joy. Nielsen is now outed is a liberal, no matter how many emails he signs.

Ouch.