← The Public Record · The Arithmetic of April 9
Sworn testimony from the Preliminary Injunction Hearing — Court of Common Pleas of Pennsylvania, Orphans’ Court, before the Hon. Stella M. Tsai. July 2–3, 2025.
On July 2 and 3, 2025, officers of the institution testified under oath before the Court. What follows is a portion of that record. Each entry states a fact, then places beneath it the sworn words that establish it — with the witness, the date, and the transcript page. The reader is invited to weigh the testimony directly. Nothing here is characterized; the words are the witnesses’ own.
The rule the testimony turns on
Removing a member of the Grand Board is not a matter of carrying the room. Bylaw 2, §4G measures the vote against the entire Grand Board — all fourteen members, not only those who cast a ballot. That one word, entire, decides everything that follows.
Footnote 10 to the section fixes the threshold accordingly: ten affirmative votes. Not ten of those voting — ten of fourteen.
On April 9, eight members voted to remove. Eight may be a supermajority of the room. But the rule does not count the room; it counts the board. Eight is not ten.
What follows is the board’s own officers, under oath — on the recommendation that was never written, the dissenting vote that was set aside, and, above all, the number they did not reach: ten of fourteen.
Entry 01
In the investigative committee report, is there a recommendation that says, in the aggregate, our recommendation is to remove Mr. Douglass?
That report does not make that statement.
Jesse Tyson — presiding officer, April 9 meeting · Hearing, July 3, 2025 · Tr. 25–26
Entry 02
So based upon that provision, would you agree that Archon Bradley’s vote could not be accepted?
If he had voted, I agree, it could not have been accepted. I don’t really think this is actually a vote. But, yes, I agree with that.
Regardless of even if we assume it’s a vote, it still couldn’t be counted because he wasn’t in the meeting?
Correct.
Jesse Tyson — presiding officer, April 9 meeting · Hearing, July 3, 2025 · Tr. 66
Entry 03
And then Mr. Searcy typed in “ineligible to vote due to early departure.” Did I read that correctly?
That’s what he has typed.
· · ·
… it would have been a 8-to-5 decision instead of 8 to 4.
Under your meeting, would it still have failed anyway?
Yes, it would have failed because it still would not have reached the ten.
· · ·
Because it’s not two-thirds of a majority?
Which it was 10 of 14.
Abraham J. Turner — Grand Agogos; Major General (Ret.), United States Army · Hearing, July 2, 2025 · Tr. 54
Entry 04
And what was the vote?
The vote was 8 to 4.
And percentage-wise, what is a vote of 8 to 4?
Sixty-six, sixty-seven. I don’t do math.
That would be a fraction; two-thirds?
It was a super majority of the board.
Darrell Searcy — Grand Grammateus; seconded the motion; kept the minutes · Hearing, July 2, 2025 · Tr. 185
These excerpts may be read against the documents they concern — the executive-session minutes and The Arithmetic of April 9. The complete transcripts are part of the Court’s record.