The Missouri Cure

 

Image: Milorganite

By Gretchen Garrity

A pointed and well-referenced amicus brief has been submitted to the RNC Committee on Contests in support of the July 5, 2024 Coby Cullin Appeal. The appeal and supporting amicus brief are in response to a recommendation from the RNC that vacated the duly-elected slate of delegates and alternates to the national convention, which begins July 15. Link to the Amicus Brief HERE.

Read about the challenges to the grassroots slate of delegates in The Gateway Pundit article “Missouri Republican Party in Turmoil: Grassroots Delegates Challenge Corrupt Committee Decisions,” which includes a copy of the Cullin appeal, as well as background information.

Submitted by a group of mostly state delegates who attended the 2024 Missouri GOP convention, the brief asserts the Derrick Good and Daniel O’Sullivan challenges to the duly-elected slate of delegates should have been disqualified and dismissed, and the original slate retained. While the brief acknowledges the “incredible shortcomings of the State Chair and the MRSC to execute the state convention in a timely and organized manner, we contend that the issues with credentialing were CURED prior to the vote on the Credentials Report.”

ATTORNEY DERRICK GOOD

 

Image: Thurman Law

 

The brief wastes no time getting to key issues regarding the challenges and RNC response. On page 2 of the brief, number 10 states, “We request that the Challenge submitted by Contestant Derrick Good be disqualified without consideration. We contend that Good has a serious conflict of interest which was omitted from his challenge, and he misrepresented incidents about the convention. If Good had not omitted the conflict of interest or made misrepresentations, we believe that the Committee would have either disqualified Good’s challenge on their own or, at the least, come to a different conclusion.”

The brief goes on to reveal that Derrick Good, an attorney from Congressional District 3, provides legal counsel to the Missouri Republican State Committee (MSRC). According to the brief, Good’s challenge omitted mention of his relationship with the MSRC, and was submitted as if he was “just any” delegate. It notes he used his home address in the submitted challenge, but “On the other hand, the copies of the challenge that Good sent via email to the Delegates and Alternates were sent via his law firm email account, giving the impression to a layperson who is unfamiliar with legal documents that they might be subjected to lawfare...”

A KEY POINT

The amicus brief goes on to note another omission by Attorney Good. “Also omitted by Good in his challenge is information about his role, as legal counsel, in drafting the very rules which caused the conflict between the standing rules and the convention rules on delegate slates. The conflicting rules were subsequently addressed by the Missouri Republican Party Rules Committee on the afternoon of April 26, 2024, leaving a mere 5 business days for review and analysis by delegates and others.”

At the April 26 meeting of the state rules committee, a motion was passed that stated, “The Rules Committee met to clarify the convention Rules and Standing rules that the Missouri Republican Party Chairman has a slate of 16 delegates and 16 alternates that will be named by the State Party Chairman, and additionally, there will be a slate of 11 delegates and 11 alternates. Once both slates are approved that will make the complete slate of 27 delegates and 27 alternates that will be voted on by the convention.”

Oddly, this motion did not reconcile the issues with the Standing Rules and the Rules of Convention. It took three parliamentarians at the state convention to come to a “concurrence” on them. The Standing Rules state, “To be considered full and complete, a proposed slate must include 27 names for At-large Delegates and 27 names for At-large Alternates.”

Yet, the amendment passed in the April meeting allows the state chairman (currently Nick Myers) to choose a slate of 16 with a slate of only 11 to be elected by convention delegates. This smacks of the selling of delegate seats, a common but unethical practice in many state parties that suppresses the ability of voters to choose who represents them at the national convention.

CONFLICTING REPRESENTATIONS

The amicus brief continues its focus on Derrick Good by noting he is a member of the National Trial Lawyers Association with a ranking in the Top 100. “That makes Good’s representations about the lunch break, the venue doors being locked, and delegates/alternates being turned away very perplexing.” The brief notes the lack of cross-examination in Good’s account by the providing its own cross-examination:

1) Which Convention Chair gave the instructions (the temporary or the permanent Chair)?

2) Did the volunteers know the actual Chair at that time instructions were given to lock the doors?

3) Which volunteers spoke with Good?

4) Since the newly-elected Permanent Chair, Sophia Shore, did not leave the main room, from whom/where did the volunteers get instructions?

5) Good admits he was not locked out, and fails to collect the names of any delegates who “walked away.”

6) Who was the point of contact for the venue, and how did it come about that the staff were instructed to lock the doors?

And finally, the single affidavit Good submitted is written by Aliana Good, who is believed to be his daughter!

RULESFARE

The brief begins the wrap up of the section pertaining to Good with a summation:

1) The original rules allowed for delegates and alternates to be elected at the 2024 state convention.

2) The state committee submits a “clarification” that allows the state chair to choose 16 of the 27 delegates and 16 alternates to the national convention.

3) Because of the conflict and subsequent resolution of the rules, the state chair’s slate of 16/16 is given back to the convention delegates to elect.

Here is the kicker, “But some promises might have already been made for delegate seats, perhaps some money changed hands. Who would you turn to for help? Your lawyer? Perhaps the same lawyer who drafted the very rules that caused the conflict?”

Further, the brief states, “We contend that there are arguments and details in Good’s challenge that would not be available to him, except in his role as legal counsel for MRSC.” It notes that the MRSC, in some instances, has declined to share information with committeemen and women but “Good obtained some very specific details for his challenge that could have only come from the MRSC.”

Finally, the amicus brief states, “The foregoing leaves us with no other conclusion than that Good’s challenge is actually submitted on behalf of the MRSC and should be disqualified without consideration.”

DISMISSING O’SULLIVAN’S CHALLENGE

Noting that Daniel O’Sullivan’s challenge is based entirely on the claim “that ALL business transacted at the State Convention was invalid because the seated body was not properly credentialed,” the brief seeks to have it dismissed through the evidence it presents that the credentialing issues were CURED and the Credentials Report approved.

OH NUTS!

Image: Fast-growing Trees

 The amicus brief next addresses several issues pertaining to National Committeewoman Carrie Almond, including statements in a letter she read to the Missouri Federation of Republican Women.

It must be noted that Almond is a member of the RNC Committee on Contests, the same committee that vacated the grassroots-elected delegates and alternates. She is also on the RNC committees for Arrangements, Faith Engagements, and Grassroots.

Almond made inappropriate public comments and “even a threat against the delegates to the State Convention.” Almond stated ,“Firing the so-called establishment will have consequences,” as well as reportedly telling different groups that the RNC would overturn the convention.

At the state convention during her nomination speech, Almond named all four committees she serves on; but the next month when she spoke to the MRSC she omitted mentioning she serves on the Committee on Contests.

In the Cullin appeal to the RNC’s report, submitted on July 5, 2024, it is noted that, “We have reason to believe that she did recuse herself from the vote, but has failed to recuse herself from the discussion about this contest.”

The Cullin appeal further states “We believe allowing Ms. Almond to discuss this case with anyone on the committee is a breach of ethics. It would be practically impossible for the respondents to receive a fair hearing when someone on the inside was speaking against us.”

THE AMICUS BRIEF CONCLUDES

The 53-page brief includes numerous footnotes and references to video and other evidence, as well as affidavits from nine individuals well known in local, state, and even national politics. It concludes with the following requests to the Committee on Contests: withdraw the June 28, 2024 report; disqualify the challenge of attorney/delegate Derrick Good; dismiss the challenge of Daniel O’Sullivan; and remove Carrie Almond from the RNC Committee on Contests.

Further, it states if the requests are not honored, “...then we consider this matter open for as long as needed, and we will be pursuing all legal recourses available to us.”

Click on image for clarity

NOT BACKING DOWN

Now that the RNC and the Missouri GOP have destroyed their credibility with millions of Missourians and beyond, it would behoove them to walk back their actions and reinstate the original slate of 27 grassroots-elected delegates and 27 alternates. Those directly involved in the debacle: Nick Myers, Carrie Almond, Derrick Good, Daniel O’Sullivan, et al, should reflect on their actions, take humble and appropriate action to rectify them, and get out of the way of the Grassroots.