In March 2025, the outgoing administration of the Colorado Republican Party deleted 200 GB of workspace data across 19 accounts (per the 60-Day Report, public record). In February 2026, individuals documented in that transition reappear in coordination emails targeting the removal of the sitting chairwoman. The deletions, the emails, the logins, and the draft versions are documented below.
Current and former party officers coordinated to remove the sitting chairwoman through the party secretary. This examination cross-referenced 2,355 emails, administrative audit logs, court filings, and public records. Eight procedural violations were identified. The deleted communications, recovered from Google Vault, are cited below with Gmail message IDs and timestamps.
The email record documents coordination between a former chairman who holds no current party office, the current Secretary, the former Secretary, and the outgoing Vice-Chair regarding the removal of the current chairwoman. Their roles are documented in their own emails.
Former CRC Chairman and state representative. Contested removal vote on July 27, 2024, invalidated by Judge Eric Bentley for procedural deficiencies (Case 2024CV31638). During the March–April 2025 transition, the workspace logged 19 account deletions, 9,252 file deletion events, and 4 OAuth data migration authorizations. Now a federal political appointee at the International Trade Administration in Washington, DC.
On November 17, 2025, Andrews reported that the congressional delegation had met with Williams and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles before Williams’ appointment, and that Williams was “prohibited from participating in CO politics in any way, shape or form” as a condition of his position. Andrews also reported that the White House had initiated an Inspector General investigation into Williams. [Reported — Andrews’ account of information from Rep. Jeff Hurd’s office]
In February 2026 — three months after that warning — the email record shows Williams providing petition templates from “the last administration,” answering SCC member questions on Andrews’ behalf, instructing Ferguson to create forms, and telling Ensz to distribute them. Holds no current party office.
Key email: Feb 13, 2026 (Gmail ID: 19c596edd3510e5c) — assigns specific roles to each participant and provides petition infrastructure from his former administration.
Holds dual control: membership roster, petition verification, meeting logistics, and party finances. Replaced Anna Ferguson as Secretary — the same person he now coordinates with. From Carbondale, Garfield County, where his email editor Evan Morris is county Vice-Chair. Former candidate for State Representative, HD-57.
Issued what he titled an “Official Call” for a removal meeting on February 8. The bylaws do not grant the Secretary independent authority to call meetings (Art. VII, §D(2)). 86% of Williams-related emails (12 of 14) were deleted from his account, compared to 25% of the overall mailbox.
On November 17, 2025, Andrews warned party leadership that Williams was under an Inspector General investigation, that the congressional delegation feared “legal issues” from interacting with him, and referred to Williams as “the toilet bug.” Three months later, Andrews was executing Williams’ petition plan.
On Feb 13, wrote “I will resign NEVER” to a critic and “I will happily resign” to a supporter within one hour. Both emails deleted. See Act III, Step 6.
Full Andrews Investigative Findings →Served as Secretary under the Williams administration. After that administration ended, she registered grassrootsconnect.us in September 2024 and operates Restore REAL Colorado (RRC), which presents itself as an independent grassroots voice. Public domain records confirm Ferguson is the registrant (EX-007, WHOIS). Co-plaintiff in Ferguson v. Horn/Bremer (Case 2025CV30292, dismissed July 2025).
Williams directed her to customize the removal petition form. She distributed it via RRC to approximately 450 SCC members (per sent folder analysis) — the same day Andrews sent his “Meeting to Proceed” BCC blast.
Maintained concurrent communication with Williams over a five-month period while serving in Horn’s executive team. On October 2, when Horn asked to see his Williams conversations, Holtorf refused, citing legal counsel. He confirmed the texts existed. He attended a November meeting at JeffCo GOP HQ with Williams, Ferguson, Chuck Bonniwell, and Rich Wyatt, reporting back to Horn that he went “as an individual citizen.” He was CRC Vice-Chair.
Sent his draft resignation to Andrews for review before notifying the Chair (Gmail ID: 19c250ffee948484; EX-002). Within 18 hours, Ferguson’s RRC newsletter published “Holtorf Resigns!! — Brita is Toxic.”
His resignation vacated the Vice-Chair position, making Andrews the senior officer below the Chair.
Succeeded Williams as Chair at the March 2025 reorganization. Connected to three parties in this network: Williams (whom she replaced), Holtorf (who resigned citing her), and Andrews (who issued the removal meeting call). Declared the February 21 meeting “invalid and without any legal authority.”
The bylaws require both the Chairman and Vice-Chairman to be “absent or unable to act” before the Secretary may call a meeting (Art. VII, §D(2)). Horn’s Declaration (Feb 2, 2026, Case 2025CV30292) states she was available and active in her role at the time Andrews issued the call.
Holds three simultaneous party offices. Williams sent the petition form directly to him on February 13 with instructions to “work with Anna to distribute it the entire membership via email” (Gmail ID: 19c596edd3510e5c).
Collected 137 of 502 voting member signatures in October 2025, exceeding the 25% threshold (126, per Art. VII, §D(3)). The Executive Committee voted 14–8 that the petition was invalid — wrong form used. Garcia appealed to the full CRC, which has not yet heard his appeal. Andrews unilaterally declared the petition valid in February 2026. Also provides content to Restore REAL Colorado.
Presents as an independent grassroots voice. Public domain records confirm Ferguson is the operator (EX-007 WHOIS). Distributed the removal petition to the full SCC membership. See Act III, Step 5 for the full distribution infrastructure and team roster.
Evan Morris (Vice-Chair, Garfield County GOP) — Andrews’ personal assistant and email editor. Maintains the Red Book on Andrews’ behalf, paid at “the TCFG rate” from Andrews’ private professional rate structure. Edited the “AIRING DIRTY LAUNDRY” drafts. Same county as Andrews.
Julie & Chuck Bonniwell — RRC content and media. Julie is a 3x Emmy journalist (KMGH-TV, KDVR Fox-31). Chuck is a former trial attorney and publisher. Co-hosts of the “Chuck and Julie Show” podcast. Provide the professional media production for RRC’s newsletter operation.
Cody LeBlanc, Bridget Hulcom, Jeremy Goodall — meeting operations team for the February 21 session.
Ferguson served as Secretary under Williams. When Williams’ administration ended, Andrews was elected to the same role Ferguson vacated. Andrews now coordinates with both Williams (former Chair) and Ferguson (former Secretary) to remove Horn (current Chair). Two of the three executive officers serving under Horn — Andrews (elected March 2025) and Holtorf (elected July 2025 to fill a vacancy) — are documented in contact with the previous administration regarding the removal effort.
On March 29, 2025, the Colorado Republican Party held its leadership election. Brita Horn was elected Chair. Russ Andrews was elected Secretary. Darrel Phelan was elected Vice-Chair. Dave Williams’ chairmanship ended. Phelan resigned in June 2025 after approximately 2.5 months. Richard Holtorf was elected to fill the vacancy in July 2025.
Between March 4 and April 1, the following events were recorded in the Google Workspace administrative audit logs.
In March 2025, the outgoing administration systematically deleted 200 GB of Colorado GOP workspace data — emails, documents, calendars — across 19 accounts. Access was delayed 20 days, exceeding Google's recovery window. The 60-Day Report documented this in full and is public record.
Nineteen user accounts deleted: personal accounts (Shana, jon, eric, darcy, liz, Patrick, anna, hope, greg, Tom) and organizational infrastructure (electionsecurity@cologop.org, Volunteer@cologop.org, mail@colo-gop.org). Deleted by three actors across two domains: dave@cologop.org (12 accounts on the original domain), dave@colo-gop.org (3 accounts after the domain transition), and info@colo-gop.org (2 accounts, including Williams’ own). When it was done, one account remained active out of eighteen: info@colo-gop.org.
The deletions occurred across four dates: three accounts on March 4, two on March 26, seven on March 30, then four more overnight into March 31 on the new colo-gop.org domain. The last deletion was April 1.
The deletion rate for Williams-related emails was significantly higher than the overall mailbox rate.
In Andrews' email account, 86% of Williams-related emails were deleted (12 of 14) — compared to 25% (~588 of 2,355) of the overall mailbox. Every one-on-one email between Andrews and Williams was gone. The two Williams emails that survived were both sent to multiple recipients. Seven of eight key coordination emails were deleted. The one that survived was sent to multiple recipients, including at least one copy outside Andrews’ account.
The emails documenting the coordination — the Official Call, the strategy correspondence, the "Dirty Laundry" email — were all removed. The emails remained in Google Vault under litigation hold. Each is cited by Gmail ID in Act III.
On March 30, midway through the mass deletions, the workspace underwent a domain transition. The organization's primary domain shifted from cologop.org to colo-gop.org. All email accounts, settings, and administrative controls migrated to the new domain name.
The administrative actions were: admin role removed from info@cologop.org at 19:06 UTC. Primary admin transferred to dave@colo-gop.org at 19:55 UTC. Admin role assigned to info@colo-gop.org at 21:58 UTC. Primary admin transferred to info@colo-gop.org at 22:28 UTC. A six-hour gap separated the last action on the old domain from the first action on the new one. Then info@colo-gop.org deleted dave@colo-gop.org.
Before the mass deletions, on March 9–10, four OAuth clients — third-party applications granted access to Gmail data — were authorized for "Data Migration (New)" — Google's built-in tool for copying email data between systems. The authorization happened over an eight-hour window. Nineteen migration operations were recorded: 4 setup, 4 start, 3 report downloads. All authorized by dave@cologop.org.
Three of the four clients were granted full Gmail access: modify, insert, readonly, labels, compose. As of May 28, 2025, all four OAuth clients remained active with domain-wide delegation and Gmail scopes intact.
Google allows 20 days to restore deleted user accounts. After that, the accounts and their data are permanently gone.
The last account deletion occurred on April 1, 2025. Google's 20-day recovery window would expire on April 21. New leadership received workspace access on April 20 — day 20. One day before the window closed.
| Event | Date | Days from Last Deletion |
|---|---|---|
| Last user deletion (Tom@colo-gop.org) | April 1, 2025 | 0 |
| Google 20-day recovery window expires | April 21, 2025 | 20 |
| Access provided to new leadership | April 20, 2025 | Day 20 |
| Examination screenshots taken | May 28, 2025 | 57 |
| Analysis commenced | June 30, 2025 | 90 |
By the time the examination began: “Recently deleted users: No users match your current selection.” Recovery count: zero. One active user out of 18 licensed accounts. 5.6% utilization. The deleted accounts included electionsecurity@cologop.org, Volunteer@cologop.org, and mail@colo-gop.org.
This document exists because of a security review — a routine examination of the party’s Google Workspace infrastructure during the leadership transition.
The emails were deleted from Andrews' inbox. They remained in Google Vault, where litigation holds had been activated during the security review. Each email cited in this briefing is reproduced with its original headers, timestamps, recipients, Gmail message ID, and content.
This is what the new leadership inherited: a workspace with 200 GB of deleted data across 19 accounts, a primary domain that had been transferred, OAuth (third-party access) tokens still connected, and a 20-day recovery window that was one day from expiring when access was granted. The 60-Day Report (public record) documented the deletions. The coordination that followed — documented in the next section — used the party’s own email accounts.
Six steps. Fourteen days. Documented in the email record.
Between February 7 and February 16, 2026, six documented events occurred involving overlapping participants. The evidence for each is drawn from emails, audit logs, and public records — much of it deleted from party accounts but preserved through forensic extraction.
October 2025
Raymond Garcia, Chairman of the Colorado Hispanic Republicans and member of the El Paso County Republican Party, files a recall petition under COGOP bylaws. He gathers 137 of 502 voting member signatures, exceeding the 25% threshold of 126 required to force a special meeting. The petition is submitted to the Executive Committee for verification.
In November, the Executive Committee votes 14–8 that the petition is invalid — wrong form used. Under the bylaws (Article VII, Section D.3), when a petition “has been challenged before the Executive Committee, the period for issuing the call shall be extended while the challenge is pending.” Garcia appeals to the full CRC. As of Horn’s Declaration (February 2, 2026, Case 2025CV30292), the CRC “has not yet heard his appeal.” The challenge remains pending.
The petition exists. The Executive Committee has ruled it insufficient. That ruling has not been overturned by the full CRC.
February 7, 2026
Months after the Executive Committee’s ruling, Secretary Russ Andrews unilaterally declares the petition valid, setting aside the EC’s determination. The bylaws do not specify a mechanism for a single officer to override the Executive Committee.
That evening, something unusual happens. At 4:19 PM MST, Andrews’ account is accessed via ProtonVPN — IP 205.147.22.13, ASN 208172 (Proton AG), Miami exit node. Google flags the login as suspicious and triggers a device prompt challenge, which is passed. Sixty-six seconds later, the account forwards the confidential Red Book — the party’s member directory containing names, roles, personal addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses for every SCC member — to aferg121@aol.com, Anna Ferguson’s old AOL address. The email bounces. The sender used her outdated Williams-era contact, not her current email.
This is the only VPN login in Andrews’ 28 recorded logins over 6 months. Every other login uses his Carbondale residential ISP (15 logins) or standard travel connections. The VPN appeared once, produced one action, and never appeared again. Three days later, Andrews logged in from Mexico — without a VPN.
February 8, 2026
Andrews sends what he titles an “Official Call” for February 21 to the full SCC membership — addressed to himself, with all recipients BCC’d so no member can see who else received it. Williams is CC’d on the thread.
When a member asks procedural questions, Williams replies on Andrews’ behalf: “Russ is traveling.” Williams describes which items are being tabled, why, and the strategic intent behind the no-confidence vote — a level of detail consistent with involvement in designing the agenda [Inference]. He characterizes the confidence vote as “symbolic.”
When John Fielding pushes back asking for an “official” position, Williams concedes: “That’s fair” — acknowledging Fielding’s point.
The entire thread was deleted from Andrews’ account.
February 13, 2026 at 4:55 PM MST
Four principals — Williams, Andrews, Ferguson, and Ensz — on one thread. Williams directing the operation. Each participant assigned a specific role. Seven of eight key coordination emails were deleted from party accounts. This one was sent to multiple recipients, and at least one copy remained in Google Vault.
Williams provides the petition form and identifies it as infrastructure from his former chairmanship. Ferguson has already customized it with the removal question. A Google Form for electronic signatures has already been built (forms.gle/bhS9JJg29LufWWf38). Williams assigns roles: Ensz circulates, Ferguson distributes, Andrews approves. He closes with: “I’ll sign it whenever you put it forward.”
At the time of this email, the form has already been customized, the Google Form has already been built, and the distribution plan has already been set. Andrews’ approval is referenced as a future step, but the operational infrastructure was in place before he acted. The email was sent from repdavewilliams@gmail.com — a personal Gmail account, not a party address. The recipients were on party accounts subject to Google Vault litigation holds. The email is reproduced above with its Gmail message ID.
Context: Three months earlier
On November 17, Andrews refused to join a call because of the legal risk of interacting with Williams. He referred to Williams as “the toilet bug.” Eighty-eight days later, he was executing Williams’ petition plan.
February 15, 2026
Andrews sends “Meeting to Proceed” to approximately 450 BCC recipients (per sent folder analysis) confirming the meeting. The same day, Ferguson’s newsletter (Restore REAL Colorado) distributes the petition form to the same audience. Both distributions were deleted from Andrews’ account.
To distribute a petition to “the entire membership via email” (Williams’ instruction in Step 4), Ferguson needs the membership email list. That list is the Red Book — the party’s confidential internal directory containing names, roles, personal addresses, personal phone numbers, and personal email addresses for every SCC member, state legislator, district attorney, and county party officer statewide. It is not a public document.
February 13–16, 2026
Between February 13 and 16, Andrews sent a series of emails that describe the parties involved, the replacement candidate, the timeline, and his personal role. All were deleted from his account and recovered from Google Vault.
Andrews describes the Feb 21 meeting as a “test vote” to gauge whether a full removal at the Assembly is viable.
“The Davidians” is Andrews’ own term for Williams’ faction. “Richard” is Rep. Richard Holtorf. The Chair hasn’t been removed yet — the vote hasn’t happened — but the replacement candidate has already been recruited and has accepted. The sequence is documented in Andrews’ own words.
Vice-Chair Richard Holtorf maintained concurrent communication with Williams over a five-month period while serving in Horn’s executive team. The email record documents the progression of this relationship and the timing of his resignation relative to the removal effort.
The selective deletion pattern documented in Act II is concentrated on the coordination evidence. What follows is the specific email inventory — which messages were deleted, and which survived.
The workspace destruction is documented in Act II: The Inheritance — 19 accounts deleted, 9,252 file deletion events, new leadership received access on day 20 of Google’s 20-day recovery window.
A similar removal attempt was made on July 27, 2024. Williams himself was the target. That attempt was invalidated by Judge Eric Bentley for procedural deficiencies (Case 2024CV31638). The current attempt follows the same path with additional procedural issues. See Act V: The Precedent for the full side-by-side comparison.
Two examination periods shown as a single continuum. The Workspace audit covers the March–April 2025 transition. The email examination covers August 2025 through February 2026.
February 21, 2026. The Colorado Republican State Central Committee convenes.
On February 21, 2026, members of the Colorado Republican State Central Committee held a special meeting to vote on three measures against Chairwoman Brita Horn: suspending her spending authority, ceasing party litigation, and a motion of no confidence calling for her resignation. All three passed with 90–94% support from those voting.
246 members were credentialed for a two-hour meeting. The organizing team tested the Zoom infrastructure daily for two weeks. A petition was circulated statewide. A YouTube live stream was set up independently from official party channels. The resulting no-confidence vote has no provision in the bylaws. The spending vote invoked authority that belongs to a different body. Removal was not attempted — it requires 302 votes and only 246 were present.
One member stated on the record:
The meeting was called by Secretary Russ Andrews under Article VII, Section D(3) of the COGOP bylaws, which allows a special meeting upon written request of one-quarter of voting members. Andrews also chaired the meeting. It was held over Zoom — not on the official COGOP Zoom account, but on infrastructure provided by an entity called CB Strategic Consulting. The meeting was live-streamed on YouTube (2:09:29 runtime).
Andrews appointed every operational role for the meeting.
During his six-minute speech, Andrews handed the gavel to Goodall as Chairman Pro Tem. When Andrews finished and asked for the gavel back, Goodall declined, stating it was “more appropriate for me to conduct business from this point on.” Goodall chaired for approximately 23 minutes before eventually returning control to Andrews for the final credentials vote and adjournment. All four operational roles were held by people Andrews appointed.
The person who verified the petition, called the meeting, chaired the meeting, appointed all committee positions, and delivered the speech arguing against the Chair was the same person: Russ Andrews.
Five people ran the meeting. All were appointed by Andrews.
The February 21 meeting followed a sequence where each step depended on the one before it. Some of these steps used legitimate bylaws mechanisms. Others are disputed. And some of the legitimate steps were carried out by a single person who held conflicting roles.
What the bylaws say: One-quarter of voting members (126 of 502) can petition for a special meeting. The petition must use “a form to be developed and authorized by the Secretary.” The Secretary “shall have authority to verify any signature or other indication of assent.” (Art. VII, §D(3))
What happened: Raymond Garcia circulated the petition and collected signatures. Andrews, as Secretary, verified the signatures and confirmed the petition met the threshold.
The bylaws assign petition verification to the Secretary. Andrews is the Secretary. Andrews also distributed the petition on February 13, exchanged 14 emails with former Chair Williams about the effort in the weeks before, and then verified the signatures on the same petition he helped organize. The bylaws do not contemplate a scenario where the Secretary is also a participant in the petition effort.
What the bylaws say: “Any such meeting request may be challenged by any voting member and such challenge shall be heard and determined as provided by Article XV.” Critically: “If the meeting request has been challenged before the Executive Committee, the period for issuing the call shall be extended while the challenge is pending (including any subsequent appeal from the Executive Committee).” (Art. VII, §D(3))
What happened: Horn’s Executive Committee declared the petition “irregular” — a challenge under the bylaws. Under the provision above, this should have extended the deadline for calling the meeting while the challenge was resolved.
What the bylaws say: If unchallenged, “the meeting shall be called by the Chairman within ten days.” If the Chairman fails to call it, “any voting member may issue the call.” The Secretary can call meetings only “in the event when both Chairman and Vice-Chairman are absent or unable to act.” (Art. VII, §D(2)–(3))
What happened: Andrews issued the meeting call before the EC’s challenge was resolved. The petitioners’ position is that Horn failed to call the meeting within the required time, forfeiting her authority. Horn’s position is that the EC challenge extended the deadline, so she had not yet “failed” to act.
This is the central procedural question. The bylaws explicitly state that a challenge extends the calling period. If that extension applied, Andrews called the meeting before he had the authority to do so. If it did not — because the petitioners consider the challenge itself improper — then the fallback provision allowed any voting member to issue the call. Both sides cite the same bylaws section to reach opposite conclusions.
What the bylaws say: The Chairman shall “Issue the call and preside at all meetings of the CRC and the Executive Committee.” (Art. V, §B.1.b)
What happened: Horn was not present. Andrews chaired the meeting. He appointed all committee positions (LeBlanc, Hulcom, Goodall, Ferguson), controlled the agenda, and temporarily handed the gavel to Goodall during his own roughly six-minute speech. When Andrews finished and asked for the gavel back, Goodall declined, stating it was “more appropriate” for him to continue chairing. Goodall chaired for approximately 23 minutes — through the amendment debate and vote — before eventually returning control to Andrews for the final credentials vote and adjournment.
At this point, one person — Andrews — had verified the petition, called the meeting, chaired the meeting, appointed all the supporting roles, and was about to deliver the speech making the case against the Chair.
Every vote taken at this meeting depends on the meeting having been properly called. If the meeting call is disputed, the authority of the votes is disputed.
Andrews coordinated with Williams via party email → security review discovered the communications → Andrews’ email suspended during the review → Andrews attributed the suspension to Horn without disclosing the review or its findings → Garcia circulated petition → Andrews verified the petition he helped organize → EC challenged the petition → Andrews called the meeting before the challenge was resolved → Andrews chaired the meeting he called → Andrews appointed all committee positions → Andrews delivered the speech arguing for removal → votes taken at a meeting whose authority is in dispute.
The bylaws provide a legitimate mechanism for members to petition for a special meeting. That mechanism was used. But the person who verified it, called it, chaired it, and argued at it was the same person — and the challenge process that should have paused the timeline was bypassed. Whether the resulting votes carry legal weight depends on whether the meeting was properly called. That question is unresolved.
The meeting was hosted on a Zoom account belonging to CB Strategic Consulting and live-streamed on their YouTube channel. No public record of this entity exists.
Dave Williams was not part of the operations team. He did not chair the meeting, run the polls, or manage credentials. But he was on the call — and Andrews recognized him by name from the chair.
Williams spoke three times during the meeting, all on the budget suspension item. He did not speak on the no-confidence vote, the cease-legal-action vote (which involved parties connected to the organizing effort — Ferguson was a co-plaintiff in the El Paso County case, Klenda a defendant), or the bylaws amendment. All three statements concerned practical fiscal questions about keeping the caucus and assembly running.
He proposed practical amendments, was gracious when asked to modify them, calmed confusion, and kept things moving. Other members deferred to him — Holtorf referenced “extraordinary circumstances as Mr. Williams mentioned”; Cherry Porter said “Dave just said what I was going to say.”
Meanwhile, his coordination with Andrews before the meeting — 14 emails, 86% (12 of 14) subsequently deleted — and his direction to Ferguson to include the removal question on the petition form are documented in the prior acts.
Public reporting and Williams’ own social media confirm the picture. On February 28, 2025, the Colorado Springs Gazette reported that “Republican sources told Colorado Politics that Williams has landed a job with the Trump administration but couldn’t provide specifics.” Williams’ Facebook profile now provides those specifics: he lists his current position as Senior Advisor, International Trade Administration (ITA), Department of Commerce, effective July 1, 2025. His bio reads: “Senior Advisor to the ITA at Trump #47.” This is a political appointee role. The ITA is headquartered at 1401 Constitution Ave NW, Washington, DC.
Williams’ Facebook still lists his location as “Colorado Springs, CO” — it does not confirm a move. However, Senior Advisor roles at federal agencies typically require physical presence in Washington. Inference He likely maintains a Colorado Springs address while working in DC. His voter registration remains active at the same Colorado Springs address the Red Book lists.
Williams is a federal political appointee who took a position in Washington, DC, while continuing to coordinate state party removal operations via email (documented: proxy responses on behalf of Andrews, petition forms to county chairs, all from repdavewilliams@gmail.com).
The credentials committee was chaired by Hulcom, appointed by Andrews. Williams participated in the meeting and was recognized by Andrews from the chair. The Red Book lists Williams as a former member. The El Paso County bylaws state that moving from the county is cause for removal. Williams’ own Facebook profile identifies him as a Senior Advisor at the International Trade Administration in Washington, DC — a federal political appointee since July 1, 2025. Williams’ standing to participate in the meeting and the authorization for his credentialing are not documented in the materials reviewed.
Chairwoman Horn called the legitimate SCC meeting for Monday, March 2. The unauthorized group scheduled a separate parallel meeting for Tuesday, March 3. CB Strategic Consulting has a live stream pre-scheduled for March 3. The Restore Real Colorado newsletter (Feb 25; Gmail ID: 19c97945523855d8) directed members to attend “Brita’s Monday, March 2 zoom meeting” and “send the same message to her.”
After the meeting formally ended, the YouTube stream kept running. Participants discussed their strategy for the next meeting openly, not realizing they were still being broadcast.
What they discussed: attend Horn’s March 2 SCC meeting, then hold their own meeting on March 3 and vote on the same three agenda items again.
CB Strategic Consulting already has a live stream scheduled for March 3.
Removal requires 302 yes votes (3/5 of all 502 members). 246 were credentialed. Removal was not attempted. See Act V: The Math for the full accounting of what this meeting cost and what it produced.
Quantified outcomes and procedural analysis.
Removal of the Chair requires three-fifths of the entire voting membership of the State Central Committee. Not three-fifths of those present. Three-fifths of all 502 voting members. That number is 302.
246 members were credentialed on February 21.
Even if every single credentialed member voted to remove Horn — unanimously, without a single dissent — the count would be 246. The threshold is 302. The gap is 56.
A similar removal attempt was made on July 27, 2024. A faction within the party attempted to remove then-Chairman Dave Williams using the same bylaws provisions. That attempt went to court. Judge Eric Bentley invalidated it for procedural deficiencies (Case 2024CV31638) — the meeting did not reach the three-fifths threshold of the entire membership, and the process was challenged on multiple procedural grounds. A related ruling by Judge Henderson dismissed jurisdictional claims, holding that courts cannot adjudicate internal party disputes (Case 2024CV31549; EX-006).
The current attempt follows the same path. The same bylaws questions. The same structural problems. With additional procedural issues layered on top: a Secretary overriding the Executive Committee, selecting the meeting format without Chair authorization, and providing insufficient notice.
Eight distinct bylaws violations have been identified in the February 21 meeting call and process. They span the chain of authority for calling meetings, the validity of the underlying petition, notice requirements, meeting format selection, amendment procedures, and proxy rules. Each one is documented against specific articles and sections of the COGOP Bylaws as amended August 31, 2024 (effective January 1, 2025), filed as Exhibit A in Case 2025CV30292.
246 credentialed members gave up a Saturday morning for this meeting. Credentialing opened at 8:00 AM. The meeting convened at 10:30 AM. The proceedings ran past noon. That is a minimum of 2.5 hours per attendee — not counting preparation, travel time for those who gathered at watch locations, or the weeks of organizational effort that preceded it.
246 members attended a meeting lasting approximately 2.5 hours. The 302-vote removal threshold could not have been reached with 246 members present. Zero votes were taken on the removal question. Zero bylaws were amended. Zero organizational decisions were made.
$2.4 million total executive board budget (per Feb 21 meeting agenda, Agenda Item #1). Two Vice-Chairs have resigned in less than 12 months. Multiple departures from party leadership and volunteer positions during the current term. Democrats hold a near-supermajority in the Colorado General Assembly. The 2026 election cycle is underway.
As of the date of this report, the individuals documented in this briefing continue to hold party offices. The procedural and communication methods described — petition distribution, BCC lists, RRC newsletter, meeting operations — were employed through publicly available party infrastructure.
Sources for every claim are cited inline: Gmail message IDs, administrative audit log timestamps, court case numbers, and public record references. Any party officer with administrative access to the Google Workspace can verify the email evidence independently.