So was it a Data Breach?

I went on the Internet and did a quick check. The data breach is actually worse than first reported.

This is what I found from the General Services Administration, a Federal Agency

Here are their definitions:
Personally Identifiable Information (PII) – information about a person that contains some unique identifier, including but not limited to name or Social Security Number, from which the identity of the person can be determined. OMB Memorandum M-10-23 (June 25, 2010), updated the term “PII”: “The definition of PII is not anchored to any single category of information or technology. Rather, it requires a case-by-case assessment of the specific risk that an individual can be identified. In performing this assessment, it is important for an agency to recognize that non-PII can become PII whenever additional information is made publicly available — in any medium and from any source — that, when combined with other available information, could be used to identify an individual.”

Data Breach – Includes the loss of control, compromise, unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized acquisition, unauthorized access, or any similar term referring to situations where persons other than authorized users with an authorized purpose have access or potential access to Personally Identifiable Information, whether physical or electronic. In the case of this policy, the term “breach” and “incident” mean the same.

The following list contains examples of information that may be considered PII.
• Name, such as full name, maiden name, mother‘s maiden name, or alias
• Personal identification number, such as social security number (SSN), passport number, driver‘s license number, taxpayer identification number, patient identification number, and financial account or credit card number
• Address information, such as street address or email address
• Asset information, such as Internet Protocol (IP) or Media Access Control (MAC) address or other host-specific persistent static identifier that consistently links to a particular person or small, well-defined group of people
• Telephone numbers, including mobile, business, and personal numbers
• Personal characteristics, including photographic image (especially of face or other distinguishing characteristic), x-rays, fingerprints, or other biometric image or template data (e.g., retina scan, voice signature, facial geometry)
• Information identifying personally owned property, such as vehicle registration number or title number and related information
• Information about an individual that is linked or linkable to one of the above (e.g., date of birth, place of birth, race, religion, weight, activities, geographical indicators, employment information, medical information, education information, financial information).
Guide to Protection the Confidentiality of PII

Organizations should develop an incident response plan to handle breaches involving PII.
Breaches involving PII are hazardous to both individuals and organizations. Harm to individuals and organizations can be contained and minimized through the development of effective incident response plans for breaches involving PII. Organizations should develop plans that include elements such as determining when and how individuals should be notified, how a breach should be reported, and whether to provide remedial services, such as credit monitoring, to affected individuals.
Guide to Protection the Confidentiality of PII

PII is in two types

Linked
Linked information is information about or related to an individual that is logically associated with other information about the individual.

Linkable
Linkable information is information about or related to an individual for which there is a possibility of logical association with other information about the individual.

For example, if two databases contain different PII elements, then someone with access to both databases may be able to link the information from the two databases and identify individuals, as well as access additional information about or relating to the individuals. If the secondary information source is present on the same system or a closely-related system and does not have security controls that effectively segregate the information sources, then the data is considered linked. If the secondary information source is maintained more remotely, such as in an unrelated system within the organization, available in public records, or otherwise readily obtainable (e.g., internet search engine), then the data is considered linkable.
Guide to Protection the Confidentiality of PII

The same document quoted above goes on to state, “Federal agencies are required to report all known or suspected breaches involving PII, in any format, to US-CERT within one hour. To meet this obligation, organizations should proactively plan their breach notification response. A breach involving PII may require notification to persons external to the organization, such as law enforcement, financial institutions, affected individuals, the media, and the public.”

CRA on the other hand thinks it is exempt from reporting any release of PII.

The PII article on Wikipedia.org is interesting; especially footnote #19. ”In 2011, the California State Supreme Court ruled that a person’s ZIP code is PII”
Wikipedia Personally Identifiable Information

Under this ruling, not only was the disclosure of bank routing and account numbers a disclosure of PII but also all the member spreadsheets and membership forms that were scanned and posted on the Internet.

Based on the above, the Park brothers appear to have a serious problem.

Who’s Being Frank?

On April 30, 2015, Aaron Park posts an “Apology to Steve Frank”
http://www.rightondaily.com/2015/04/the-background-of-the-cra-coup-part-1-apology-to-steve-frank-and-celeste-greig/

“I think I owe Steve Frank … an apology.”

“Yeah – I screwed Steve Frank … over…”

“For that, I apologize to Steve Frank…”

Two days later, May 2, 2015, Aaron is singing a different tune. Park in now accusing Steve Frank of extortion.

Why? Steve Frank sent a private email to John Briscoe about the Parks releasing personally identifiable information, then Aaron gets a copy of the email, posts it on his blog, and says, “Where I come from – we call this extortion.”

Frank is a personal friend of one of the folks that had their banking information published on the Internet from April 17 to April 24. Per California and from what I can ascertain, Federal law, CRA is obligated to report that private information was released, notify the individuals, etc.

Mr. Frank is trying to give John Briscoe—who per his resignation letter is CRA President until his two weeks is up—an opportunity to do the right thing. Clearly John has no interest in this or he wouldn’t forward this private communication to the Parks.

Park concludes his blog by saying, “…you read it here first!”

Sorry Aaron. I published this here on April 26th.

Furthermore, said act of releasing personal information has been reported to the FBI, Attorney General of the State of California, and local law enforcement. Some media outlets are also aware of this situation. This too is a fact and one that CRA does not take seriously.

facts-subborn_things_that_just_wont_go_away

The question is not whether this has been reported to the FBI, because I know it has. The issue is that CRA has not been the ones doing the reporting. Both John Briscoe and Tom Hudson have failed to express a willingness to do their duty under the law and report this. They may not like it, but it’s part of the job as President of a corporation.

On this blog, I keep using the phrases “fiduciary responsibility” and “a reasonable person” for a reason. These are legal terms. And whether by criminal or civil action, I think that the four of you (Park, Park, Briscoe, & Hudson) will be hearing that phrase a lot more sometime soon.

That Steve Frank is acting in a caring way for a friend should be praised not ridiculed. Steve has been patiently trying to give CRA time to distance themselves from the actions of the Parks but CRA has not moved. I think May 30th will be too late to avoid implicating the whole Board.

Santa Clarita Delegates

Response to Aaron Park’s posts of April 17th: Part 2

This portion is edited from a longer email that I sent to a Park supporter about a week ago.

Let’s take the Santa Clarita delegate issue.

Aaron claims that Santa Clarita RA Bylaws require members to be in the club for 90 days before they can be Convention delegates. The Credentials Committee could have caught this if they were provided the records; but George refused them access. Nevertheless, let’s say Aaron is right in this instance, here are things that might have happened.

1. Santa Clarita could have voted to suspend their Bylaws by a super majority and allow these folks to be delegates. This is perfectly legal under Robert’s Rules. What if this did happen but the Secretary forgot to put it in the minutes. Credentials gets a clarification and everything is good. No fraud just bad minutes.
2. Santa Clarita could have been made aware of the Bylaw issue and called a special meeting to suspend Bylaws, again everything is good.
3. Santa Clarita can’t fix the issue for whatever reason, and as a result, only part of delegates can be seated. This can be brought before the Convention and if Convention votes to do so, they can seat all delegates. Again, everything is good, no fraud just sloppy parliamentary procedure, do better next year.

But since George locked Credentials out of the records we automatically get claims of fraud. Why can’t it be something lesser such as I described above?

Nothing deceitful is happening, just people in a volunteer group that don’t know how to run a meeting under Robert’s Rules. Why must we vilify everyone just because they made a mistake? It looks to me from the minutes that Aaron posted that Santa Clarita had trouble finding folks that were willing to go to the convention in Sacramento so they opened it up to anyone willing to go. This is no conspiracy.

My club is only a few minutes away from Sacramento and we couldn’t get enough people to be delegates. I imagine that it would be even harder when you live on the other end of the state.

To me, Aaron’s whole premise is backwards. Investigate first, look at evidence and then if a pattern emerges you need to see if it is human error or purposeful deceit. I submit that often it is hard to tell the difference.

Aaron’s posts on April 17th were part of a campaign blitz not a detailed factual analysis of wrong doing presented to the Board. It was an emotional campaign piece designed to make an impression on readers to influence their vote. “Sell the sizzle not the steak” is an old advertising axiom.

If there was a campaign to show wrong doing in CRA, it would be rolled-out much slower, more deliberately and more detailed. Also a case would need to be made for a pattern of wrong doing not a single instance. Such a campaign would not be presented in a matter of hours but over a few weeks.

I have said this before, I don’t hate the Parks. I think they have made some poor decisions recently. Sometimes I agree with them and sometimes I don’t. By the way, I did vote for George as Membership Secretary at the last convention. Of the two candidates, he was the better choice. This might be a surprise to some folks who are reading my blog but like I have stated before, I go with principle over people. When people fall short of principle I have to call them on it.

Park Indictment Sent

Last night as folks were turning in for the night and David Letterman was wrapping up his evening program, an email was dispatched to George and Aaron Park with the first batch of charges to be made against them at the CRA Board meeting to be held May 30th. The initial email was sent to a small group and later today might be sent to the whole Board. I do know that more complaints are in the “pipeline” and will be forthcoming.

From what I know PII (Personally Identifiable Information) is looking like the thing that will hang them on a gallows of their own creation. The irony is that this wasn’t even on the radar when the May 30 meeting was called.

It will be interesting to see if the Parks regard this procedure as a crock and boycott the meeting or stand and fight. Perhaps they will just pick-up their toys and go home. In thirty days or less we will know.

Fraud Claim Falls Short of Definition

Aaron Park circulated a series of campaign tracts to members of the CRA Board and then posted them on his blog on April 17th. This begins my analysis of Aaron Park’s political tracts.

CRA Coup Attempt Exposed – Part One
http://www.rightondaily.com/2015/04/cra-coup-attempt-exposed-part-one/

Why the push for a May 30th Board Meeting to Oust George and Aaron?

The push for the May 30th meeting was begun by John Briscoe. He backed down and seven of the CRA VPs and some others felt that the meeting was overdue. The meeting after the CRA Convention was not valid—no quorum was established—and the necessary appointments needed to fill Committees created by the Bylaws were left vacant. The Parks were not invited to this conference call because their fate was part of the discussion.

Prior to resigning, Briscoe had asked the Parks to resign several times.

I go thru all this to say that Aaron does have reason to feel that the May 30 meeting is to oust him and his brother. They can still resign from the Board, that way they might stay in CRA but be confined to Placer County. Some say they have burned that bridge too and they just need to go.

And this brings us to the main topic of this tract, the alleged fraud of Santa Clarita RA. Aaron proclaims:

Massive Fraud in Santa Clarita RA!

It is simple. Alice Khosravy, Wendy Albright, David Gauny, Dana Schlumpberger and John Rogers from the Santa Clarita Valley RA are hiding something huge. They along with Mark Gardner, Tim Thiesen and Carl Brickey want George and Aaron Park out of CRA badly:

Why, because – “over 10% of the SCVRA’s Membership is fraudulent.”

Ok, let’s define terms and then see if Aaron’s claim holds up.

Fraudulent: The description of a willful act commenced with the Specific Intent to deceive or cheat, in order to cause some financial detriment to another and to engender personal financial gain.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/fraudulent

The same website also defines Specific Intent: The term specific intent is commonly used in criminal and Tort Law to designate a special state of mind that is required, along with a physical act, to constitute certain crimes or torts. Specific intent is usually interpreted to mean intentionally or knowingly.

So, if we combine the two then fraud is: The description of a willful act commenced with the state of mind to intentionally or knowingly deceive or cheat, in order to cause some financial detriment to another and to engender personal financial gain.

I will stipulate that “financial” is not the type of gain that Park is alleging here so what can it be?

I don’t think bragging rights to who has the largest CRA chapter is the issue so I can only conclude that the fraud that Park is alleging is related to Convention delegates.

The important question, is Park’s allegation true?

Look at the CRA Bylaws:

Section 11.06. Representation and Quorum. Each chartered Republican Assembly in good standing shall be entitled to select Delegates to each CRA Convention as follows: three Delegates for the first fifteen members and one Delegate for each ten additional members. Representation shall be determined by the records maintained by the Membership Secretary, as of thirty days prior to the Convention.

So for each ten members, Santa Clarita Valley is entitled to another Convention delegate. Assuming Aaron it correct that twenty odd folks should not be on the Santa Clarita rolls, then The Santa Clarita could send an extra two delegates to the convention.

So at this point I think it is fair to ask, did Santa Clarita send delegates to the Convention that they were not entitled to send?

Membership Secretary George Park determined that Santa Clarita could send sixteen delegates to the convention. So if fraud is the motivation for the inflated membership numbers that Park alleges then a reasonable person would expect that Santa Clarita would have maxed-out on their Convention delegates to take advantage of the fraud they are perpetrating, right?

Unfortunately for Park, Santa Clarita could only muster twelve delegates. Therefore, Park would have to rule out all other possible errors in the membership records and then disqualify fifty members before the delegate count might qualify as fraudulent. Plus he would still have to prove knowingly deceiving or cheating.

Now please remember that the Credentials Committee was not allowed access to the membership records to verify any delegate counts because George Park did not want the privacy of member records to be breached and for any membership information to become public.

Or was it just to keep the Placer RA records from scrutiny? You see this issue cuts both ways. Credentials had reports that Placer was the group cooking the books and when folks expressed interest in their records that’s when Park pulled the plug on any access.

The other issue that may be at play here is that George invoiced clubs all over the state for membership dues in 2015. These dues were based on old membership lists and his only instructions to the chapters was to add new members and pay the balance. He did not asked that people that had not paid dues be deleted or the list of members be verified before submission.

My chapter was invoiced for 35 members but only 24 had renewed their membership. Thus George’s membership roster contained a 31 percent error from 2014 to 2015. The membership difference in Santa Clarita seems to be within this margin of error.

But again, George was OK with the Santa Clarita delegate number 30 days prior to the Convention and had there been a problem it should have been given to the Credential Committee and not to his brother 30 plus days after the convention.

Park Family Shakedown: Money, Blogs, and Phony Members

In my last blog, we established that the dictionary definition of fraud involves intentionally or knowingly deceive or cheat, in order to cause some financial detriment to another and to engender personal financial gain.

And that got me to thinking. In his posts, Aaron often tells us more about his motivations than he actually does about the actions of others. Rush Limbaugh has the same observation about Democrats. They accuse others of what actually motivates them.

Over the last few weeks, Aaron’s whole campaign is that everyone in CRA commits fraud and only he and George can protect CRA from this evil. After posting my blog last night, I got to thinking about fraud and the Parks and the one name popped into my head and I said “gotcha.” That name is Igor Birman.

As we all know, much of the animosity that Aaron has with Nevada Republican Assembly concerns the endorsement or rather non-endorsement of Tom McClintock prior to the June election last year. Nevada RA thinks Tom McClintock is a rock solid conservative and Aaron helped to block McClintock’s endorsement by the local CRA endorsing convention. This was the “local” endorsing convention held at the CRA convention in southern California—the better part of 400 miles from CD-4. As you recall, John Briscoe was not happy with the result and had the CRA Board pass a resolution thanking Tom for being a great Conservative at the Board meeting on March 15, 2014 in Burlingame last year.

At the same time Aaron is going out of his way to throw “bricks” at Tom McClintock, Aaron is on his blog singing the praises of McClintock’s Chief of Staff, Igor Birman, who is running for congress in a neighboring Congressional District. On his blog, Aaron proclaimed over and over that Igor was the only true conservative in the race. The other conservative, Elizabeth Emken, was constantly portrayed by Park as a RINO despite the fact she was in agreement with Birman on most issues.

Can you see the logical dilemma here?
Igor’s claim to fame and qualification to run for Congress is his association with McClintock.
Simultaneously Park denies McClintock’s endorsement by CRA because McClintock is unfit.

How can both be true? What is the difference?

Money.

It is no secret that Park accepts money from candidates for favorable treatment on his blog. It also may be the case that refusal to utilize his “consulting services” might create unfavorable treatment on the blog.

But in the case of Birman there was more at work than favorable treatment on a blog.

During the same period of time that Park was singing the praises of Birman, a CRA chapter in the district in which Birman was campaigning experienced a sudden and unexplained growth spurt. This growth was so remarkable that at the March 2014 board meeting in Burlingame, George Park sang their praises as the largest percentage of growth in all of California. In fact, the Sacramento Republican Assembly doubled in membership in the first part of 2014.

Let’s look at this growth:
• None of these new members ever attended a meeting before joining.
• Only about two ever came to a meeting after joining. Both were associated with Birman.
• All paid cash for their memberships.
• No dues or membership applications were submitted to club officers. Not the President, VP, Secretary, or Treasurer.
• All money and membership applications were reportedly give directly to George Park.
• Park does not live or work in Sacramento County. The new members reportedly went to the offices of Park Family Insurance to pay their dues.
• This happened over 25 times.
• When Birman came in third in June, all these folks simply vanished.

The SRA membership drive seemed like an aborted effort to insure that Birman’s campaign had a stranglehold on the chapter for the purposes of an endorsement. If the newly created Investigative Committee wants to find some real fraud, I suggest that they dig into this matter.

When it comes to the Parks and fraud, Methinks thou dost protest too much.

Intro to Park’s Political Tracts

Now that CRA has adopted the Investigative Committee as a delay tactic and bought some individuals some time they don’t deserve to re-group, let’s do something that hasn’t been done yet, let’s go thru Aaron’s five posts from April 17th.

First, what is the purpose of the five posts and what type of evidence is actually presented?

Well, the first thing that you notice is that all five posts have a common theme and conclusion.
The theme is that there is rampant fraud in CRA, these guys therefore are bad (Alice Khosravy, Wendy Albright, Tim Thiesen, Mark Gardner, and Carl Brickey) and out to get Aaron and George Park.
Aaron & George are they only ones that can protect CRA from this evil. In other words, this is a campaign tract.

The five political tracks are nothing but a series of hit-pieces designed to evoke an emotional response so that Board members would vote YES to the proposed July 25th meeting.

I have had extensive email exchanges with a devout Park supporter that actually thinks Aaron deserves a Pulitzer for the journalistic expose’ that he has presented. Amazing. Furthermore, this individual thinks this whole thing is my fault because my blog post of the previous day goes after the Park brothers and John Briscoe. I have no power, I’m just a guy with a keyboard.

Park’s logical fallacies are too numerous to dissect, his leaps in logic and guilt by association are laughable.

Aaron’s overall theme is erecting the straw man of fraud and the wrapper is vote Yes.

Here are the variations of the conclusions from the five tracts. Each repeats the same lie. A vote YES will move the Board meeting from May 3o in Santa Barbara to Fresno on July 25th. No, it actually would create a second Board meeting at Harris Ranch which is nowhere near Fresno.

#1
Want to stop the Fraud and the Lynching? Vote Yes and support John Briscoe and give the Parks a fighting chance to defend themselves versus the Alice Khosravy / Wendy Albright / Tim Thiesen / Mark Gardner / Carl Brickey Kangaroo Court – move the board meeting to July 25th in Fresno.

#2
If you believe in Fairness, if you want to see the fraud dealt with – then vote Yes on the motion to move the board meeting from Santa Barbara to Fresno. If you support the fraud and you are interested in the lynching of the Park Brothers then join Alice Khosravy, Wendy Albright and their crew and vote no.

#3
If you believe in Fairness, if you want to see the fraud dealt with – then vote Yes on the motion to move the board meeting from Santa Barbara to Fresno. If you support the fraud and you are interested in the lynching of the Park Brothers then join Alice Khosravy, Wendy Albright and their crew and vote no.

#4
If you believe in Fairness, if you want to see the fraud dealt with – then vote Yes on the motion to move the board meeting from Santa Barbara to Fresno. If you support the fraud and you are interested in the lynching of the Park Brothers then join Alice Khosravy, Wendy Albright and their crew and vote no.

#5
If you believe in Fairness, if you want to see the fraud dealt with – then vote Yes on the motion to move the board meeting from Santa Barbara to Fresno. If you support the fraud and you are interested in the lynching of the Park Brothers then join Alice Khosravy, Wendy Albright and their crew and vote no.

I plan to go thru the five tracks only because they are now the starting point of the mandate for the Investigative Committee. Please note that blogging is my hobby not my source of income as it sometimes is for Mr. Park so I may not get to them all in the next week.

Facts-Subborn Things That Just Won’t Go Away

I was minding my own business today and decided to read my email. Typically, Sunday is a slow day for news but wow! What my friend sent me was a bombshell. After reading it, all I could think of was the line from Forest Gump, “Stupid is as stupid does.”

What the email contained was just as ridiculous as the idea of giving 7th century barbarians supersonic jets and nuclear weapons; …but enough about Obama’s foreign policy.

It was the vote totals for the online vote to approve the Briscoe/Park delay and witch hunt committee. Depending on how you count it, the vote result is somewhere between 28 to 32 Yes votes and 28 No. The variance is due to four folks voting and then resigning from the Board before the voting period closed. A question has been raised if votes by people no longer on the Board should be counted.

The vote totals were announced by Tom Hudson as 32 Yes, 28 No. Hudson, who is not even president yet (Briscoe’s resignation date has not happened yet), has decreed it to be so.

The practical effect of this vote is that CRA will not inform authorities or the five Ventura folks that their data was posted on the Internet because this has now been classified as an email rumor that needs investigation and verification.

The Investigative Committee’s Mandate

I am asking for your Yes vote to approve a committee which will have full authority to investigate any and all allegations in email/blogs published/sent Friday, April 17.

Serious allegations have been raised both regarding the content and proprietary information used in the emails by the authors. This committee’s work will not be limited to Friday’s allegations but wherever else their investigation may lead from the allegations.

The committee will be charged to report to the entire CRA board at the next board meeting the results of their investigation to date. By passing this, the board directs all CRA units, board members and others associated with CRA to provide whatever records or documents that are requested by the committee in a timely manner. This committee is not intended to circumvent any other pending board action.

The following board members shall be appointed:

Chair, Vice President Dale Tyler

37th Senate District Director Jay Peterson

Recording Secretary Greg Powers

This committee is designed to remove the data breach as an issue between now and the May meeting.

The other day a Board member told me that the Board can’t act between meetings only the President. Well I think they found a way. As a result of this vote, not just individuals can be held liable for what happened but now the entire Board has put themselves on the hook for this release of private information.

Concerning this committee, Tom Hudson wrote on April 22, 2015:

The facts are in dispute and John Briscoe is in the process of appointing a committee to investigate the facts and report back to the CRA Board.

John Briscoe has not refused to comply with California law—and at this point, we do not have the facts to support the assertion that any laws have been broken.  We’ll see.

The good news is that everyone is taking this very seriously and I think we will get to the bottom of it fairly soon.

Misters Park, Park, Briscoe, Hudson, et al., The fact is that personal information of five members of Ventura Republican Assembly were posted on the Internet for just over seven days; From April 17 to April 24, 2015. It is the FACT that the information was released not why that is the issue.

CRA released private and personal information of members simply because they paid their dues to Ventura RA. They had an expectation of privacy when they paid their dues. Their private information was released. Such a violation is not limited to release on the Internet. For whatever reason, CRA lost control of the information, it was compromised. This triggers the statute. This is a fact.

Mister A. Park, got the information from G. Park—who happens to be the statewide Membership Secretary of CRA and the brother of A. Park. This is a fact.

Furthermore, said act of releasing personal information has been reported to the FBI, Attorney General of the State of California, and local law enforcement. Some media outlets are also aware of this situation. This too is a fact and one that CRA does not take seriously.

One of my sources-that also was going to report this incident to law enforcement—says that per statute, CRA is facing $5,000 per day fines until the release of information is reported to authorities. At that rate, ya’ll will be approaching a quarter million dollar fine by the May 30th Board meeting. I hear the Treasurer is good but you might need a good attorney by then.

Is It Really Over?

Is the dust-up about the release of personal information in the rearview mirror now that the file is off the Internet blog site?

Unfortunately, “No.”

As far as I know:
• CRA has yet to report this incident to the authorities.
• CRA has not informed the five people directly affected that their information was out on the Internet.
• CRA has not offered the five people identity theft protection. I think they need to offer to pay any costs for people to secure their bank accounts; including paying for the printing of checks for these folks; especially if they had to open new accounts as a precaution.
• CRA has yet to secure and transfer the membership records from those responsible for the release of information so this won’t happen again.
• CRA also may have a problem because they did not already have a policy in place in case of an unauthorized disclosure of personal financial information.

This is the minimum that CRA should do. Most of the above are statutory requirements.

Also, CRA has not informed their membership (including the Board) about this breach.

This incident is far from over. I fully expect some legal repercussions for those involved but what form that will take only time will tell.

Crossing the Rubicon

Once upon a time, a “third rate burglary” –a crime of little importance—brought down a US President and his closest advisors. Why? It wasn’t the crime but the cover-up that created the legal difficulties that eventually send many to prison and forced Richard M. Nixon to resign.

Is history about to repeat itself because some can’t learn from its lessons?

I think Aaron Park’s posting of financial information on the Internet on April 17th is bringing about the same phenomenon. CRA’s leadership has become complicit by their conspiracy of silence on this matter. The Board Members of CRA are personally liable for any criminal or civil fines brought as a result of Park’s actions.

I would think in a state were Democrats dominate all parts of government that a Republican group would need to act in a manner above reproach but maybe that’s just me.

Mr. Park knew it was wrong so he created a second file and linked it to his blog on April 20th. This is called an admission against interest. He knew what he did was wrong but will not own up to it.
Original file Ventura-RA-Documents.pdf
New file Ventura-RA-Documents1.pdf

As I have written elsewhere, the top two leaders in CRA have chosen to do nothing to remedy this situation or to make restitution to the five people whose information is still on the web a week later.

Furthermore, I think it is clear that the CRA Board has “crossed the Rubicon” because they too have known about this and failed to act. As a group, they seem to be fine with ignoring the moral and legal obligation to right this wrong.

CRA keeps calling itself the conscience of the Republican Party. I think CRA has a severe case of Alzheimer disease and can only remember the glory days of old that never were. The legislature is about to make euthanasia legal, maybe CRA should be the first to exercise this new rite in California.

Addendum
A Board member has contacted me to dispute my attack on the Board as a whole. He states that the Board has done the only thing they can do under the Bylaws which is to call a meeting. Outside of a formal meeting only the President can act on behalf of the CRA.