Two days of examination under oath, on the record, subject to cross-examination. Posted here complete and unedited.
No summary can substitute for a record — but 508 pages should not be the price of entry, either. Below is a plain map of what the two days covered, witness by witness; then four passages to begin with, quoted exactly; then the complete volumes. This page characterizes nothing. Every subject listed can be read in full at the pages given.
Read for yourself what was said under oath — and compare it with what you have been told.
“We objected to the 8-to-4 vote to remove Loren Douglass. … Because I wasn’t certain at the time that they had reached the threshold that’s required by our law.”
The vote count — eight to four — is in the sworn record. So are two objections raised in the room that day: one to the voting threshold, one to the time given to review the charges (p. 47, lines 10–13; pp. 84–85).
The Fraternity’s own General Counsel at the time put his assessment in writing to the Grand Board: “a fixed minimum of ten votes are required to remove a grand officer” (p. 136, lines 4–6). Asked what happened after that opinion was circulated to the Board on April 21, 2025: “Nothing took place and his report was dismissed as not having been requested” (p. 137, lines 16–17).
On the officer who presided over the investigation, the sworn testimony reads: “He was the lead head of the subcommittee that did the investigation for the six charges” … “his vote meant whether or not Douglass would stay in or out and he was an eighth vote entered into this voting process” … “As the head of that subcommittee, yes, I felt he should have recused himself” (lines 16–23).
Asked directly whether — with the vote at eight, and Archon Bradley a no — there would have been enough votes to remove (lines 5–7), the answer under oath was: “I can give you a yes, no, or maybe to that question. And they all would be accurate” (lines 14–15).
The testimony reflects that before April 9, no one told the Grand Sire Archon that Bylaw 2, Section 4G was considered ambiguous. The discussion of ambiguity appears only after the vote had already been taken.
The corporate secretary confirmed the count: “The vote was 8 to 4” (line 19). Asked on the witness stand, by the institution’s own lawyer, what that is percentage-wise: “Sixty-six, sixty-seven. I don’t do math” (lines 20–22); the examining lawyer supplied the figure himself — “That would be a fraction; two-thirds?” (line 23). The percentage under discussion proceeds from the twelve members remaining at the April 9 meeting (lines 3–7). The Grand Agogos’ sworn testimony on the requirement reads: “we needed 10 of 14 members in order to remove a Grand Board member” (p. 135, lines 17–18).
In full: eight yes, four no — twelve votes, from the twelve then present. The other two members of the fourteen: Archon Bradley, whose message and departure appear at Vol. I, pp. 53–55, and the Grand Sire Archon himself, who testified that he left before the vote expecting to be called back, and that the call never came (Vol. II, pp. 180–181).
Before the vote, a screenshot in evidence shows Archon Bradley texted the subcommittee members — Board members present that day, including the subcommittee’s chair — “My vote is against removal (in the aggregate) if I don’t make it back”, adding at 12:22, “Please let it be known if you-all get to that before I return” (p. 53, line 13 – p. 54, line 10). The minutes record his attendance to 12:23 and carry the notation “ineligible to vote due to early departure” (p. 54, lines 14–25). He asked for the Zoom link to be extended because he could not get back in (p. 55, lines 2–6). The Grand Agogos testified that he brought the text to the attention of the officer who assumed the chair: “I felt it was a travesty of justice to not include his vote” (p. 55, lines 9–17).
Asked whether anyone else gave an opinion on the interpretation of Bylaw 2, Section 4G after the vote: “We had several folks. There were folks that were giving interpretations all over the place” (p. 192, lines 21–22) — until the Constitution and Bylaws Committee “was brought in to help the board make their final interpretation” (p. 193, lines 1–2).
Asked whether he was given the opportunity on April 9 to a formal hearing: “No” (p. 141, lines 7–9). Whether he was given a copy of the investigative committee’s report prior to April 8: “No” (lines 10–12). And the record reflects that his recorded interview was not part of the packet before the Grand Board at the time of the vote (p. 141, line 24 – p. 142, line 5).
Posted in full — every question and every answer, unedited — so that no one has to take anyone’s word for what was said under oath.