GC Corruption

Grievance Committee Corruption

Fact or Truth -- You Decide

The issue of Grievance Confidentiality may resume discussion by the Advisory Board shortly, having been postponed (Motion 2009/10-23) to take care of more urgent business, "Naming of the NWPL SC Representative, the appointment of a permanent Secretary and the approval of the CC/SC Guidelines document...." The Rep was named, the Secretary approved, and discussion of the Guidelines was postponed.

The central issue of grievance confidentiality appears to be some members of the AB, and others in positions of leadership, want to make the entire grievance process confidential thereby hiding issues of corruption within the USGenWeb from the membership. "Out of sight, out of mind" has been a long-standing policy of some leaders as the preferred method of dealing with USGenWeb corruption.

"We must protect the innocent!" is the cry of those who seek to hide corruption. But the sad reality is, "We must protect the guilty!"

Take a look at your local TV news and newspaper. Do they censor news of corruption in your community? Or do they report on it and expose it, to help stomp it out? Isn't doing so sending out a message, "If you're bad, we're going to tell your friends and neighbor's, so you better be good and follow the rules!"

Do members have the right to know of corruption? "Failure or refusal to disclose necessary information on matters of organizational business" is a valid cause for removal from office (Sturgis pg 174). What is "necessary"? One example is the necessity of member's running for positions on the AB to be "In good standing ... demonstrated by ... serving as a good example of the guidelines and standards of The USGenWeb Project" (USGenWeb Bylaw VI).

Do members have the right to report on corruption? From Sturgis page 2: "Parliamentary law is the procedural safeguard that protects the individual and the group in their exercise of the rights of free speech...." Our right of free speech is also guaranteed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers."

So yes, members have the right to know what's going on in the USGenWeb and members have the right to report what's going on.

The other element of corruption some wish to hide, is corruption of the Grievance Committee itself in the way grievances are handled. This included, but it not limited to; reports of denial of the right to have a Representative during a hearing, denial of the right to refuse a mediator who may be biased, and the denial of the right to a fair hearing.

Grievance Committee Scam

The GC has been caught many times pre-judging a grievance based upon the parties involved, instead of the rules alleged to have been broken. When the GC receives a grievance they are to "assume that the facts stated in the complaint are true, and the determination of the viability of the grievance made based upon the assumption that the complaint is true and a review of the by-laws, policies, or procedures alleged to have been violated." (USGenWeb Standard Rules, Grievance Procedures)

The GC Assistant Chair seems to provide an example of the GC discussing the merits of the person filing the grievance rather than of the grievance itself, in this message of his to the rest of the GC...

> [Original Message]
> From: Joel Newport
> To: usgw-gc@rootsweb.com
> Date: 1/6/2009 1:22:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [USGW-GC] Grievance 2008/09-02
>
> Group,
>
> I am standing by my original assessment that Daryl
> does have a legitimate claim. I realize that I am
> definitely in the minority here and that my opinion
> will more than likely not matter as a majority
> vote is all that is/was needed. I do just want to
> ask that everyone, especially those who know Daryl
> or have heard of him through reputation, make sure
> that you truly believe that he doesn't have a case
> here and that you are not just dismissing his claim
> because of personal feelings toward him. We really
> owe it to the process to be sure that we are fair
> in the assessment of this issue.
>
> Also, please understand that I am not accusing
> anyone on this list nor am I looking to create a
> problem. Just bringing it up to be sure that we all
> take a look at it honestly.
>
> So I guess I will officially make a motion to
> accept Grievance 2008/09-02. I should have done
> that for the record last time, but I did not.

Despite this the grievance was rejected, and upon appeal to the AB the AB upheld the GC decision, thereby the AB upholding the denial of the right to a fair hearing.

So your grievance gets accepted, now what? Does that mean you will receive a fair hearing based upon rules of the USGenWeb? One grievant reports their mediator, Dorman Holub, ignored the rules as written and confessed, "Mediation is a matter of opinion concerning whether the letter of the bylaws should be upheld or the spirit of the bylaws are upheld."

If all members are not treated in accordance with the rules as written, then how can there be fair hearings when different mediators interpret different rules differently? In the above case, Dorman also refused to honor the grievant's right to reject his mediation decisions and proceed to arbitration, hoping to be treated more fairly during that process. But instead, the grievant was railroaded into being forced to accept Dorman's decision, which led to the grievant being expelled from their state.

If the GC or mediator/arbitrator denies you your rights to a fair hearing procedure and you refuse to participate in a corrupt hearing, "Failure of either party to proceed with mediation in good faith is grounds for terminating the process," in which case it goes to arbitration and, "Failure of one party to participate in the arbitration process will result in the decision being made against the non-participating party in accordance with the information presented."

What of the right to appeal decisions of the GC to the AB? According to the GC Status of Filed Grievances page every single appeal has resulted in the AB upholding the decision of the GC.

What if you decide to reveal what happened during your corrupt grievance process to the membership? You run the risk of being declared a Member Not In Good Standing by the AB, for breech of grievance confidentiality.

And so a goal of total grievance confidentiality is to hide corruption of the Grievance Committee itself, and via Appel the AB sanctioning a corrupt grievance process. It's a Catch-22 situation where if you are not a member of the proper USGenWeb political clique, you stand little chance if any of obtaining a fair hearing.

Mediators/Arbitrators

are supposed to be selected by the GC, not the AB nor the National Coordinator. The intent of this rule was to help ensure a fair hearing untainted by the AB or the NC. That is of course, if you happen to get your grievance accepted in the first place.

> [Original Message]
> From: Sherri
> To: usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com
> Date: 5/15/2010 3:32:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-SW]
> The record - Ex-officio Member
>
> .... The AB does not approve the mediators or
> arbitrators. Those are selected by the GC. The only
> one on the AB that would know of them would be the
> NC as ex-officio of the committee.


> [Original Message]
> From: Daryl Lytton
> To: usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com
> Date: 6/7/2010 1:46:33 PM
> Subject: [USGENWEB-SW] Grievance Committee
>
> > From: Billie Walsh
> >
> > As I've said, the system needs an overhaul.
> > Disband the GC, rewrite and clarify the rules,
> > get them approved, then seat a new committee.
>
> To which I will add ...
>
> #1 There needs to be a way to make the GC follow
> and abide by their own rules.
>
> #2 The AB needs to be removed from the grievance
> process.
>
> The GC was formed to take the process out of the
> hands of the AB. But ... the AB appoints GC
> members; the NC has interfered with the GC
> selecting mediators; the AB hears Appeals which
> often results in the AB upholding the GC breaking
> their rules.
>
> I had thought that when the Grievance Bylaw was
> voted into place, it gave The People an additional
> right to a fair hearing besides such being a Rights
> of Members. I was wrong, some members are being
> denied their rights to fair hearings, and the AB
> has upheld those denials of rights.


> [Original Message]
> From: Daryl Lytton
> To: usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com
> Date: 6/8/2010 3:02:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-SW] Grievance Committee
>
> > From: Larry Flesher
> >
> > Daryl wrote, in part:
> > "the NC has interfered with the GC selecting
> > mediators"
> >
> > Daryl, how do you know this?
>
> From the message NC Sherri sent to one of the GC
> members in regards to me applying to be a mediator:
>
> "Yep, I think he'd applied before. I'm sure you know
> where I stand as to whether he's acceptable or not!
> I can't think of anyone in their right minds that
> would seat him! (shudder)"

Sweeping corruption under the rug, censoring knowledge of it or trying to hide it, is doing the USGenWeb a great disservice and does nothing to help make the USGenWeb a better place for all.

Why is it proper to honor those who served our United States by "Fighting for Truth, Justice, and the American Way," but proper to do exactly the opposite to those in the United States GenWeb who fight for the same principals by exposing corruption?

Mary White

New Rules

Bylaw Amendment

IX. GUIDELINES/STANDARDS FOR WEBSITES/MEMBERS

CURRENT/OLD:
A. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo on the home page. A state project logo may be required depending on the guidelines/standards in effect for that state.

To be replaced by:

REVISED/NEW:
A. All websites shall include prominent display of The USGenWeb Project logo on the home page. If linked, this logo may only be linked to the USGenWeb National site. A state project logo may be required depending on the guidelines/standards in effect for that state. If linked, a state project logo may only be linked to the appropriate state site.

This has been a long-standing issue for Tina Vickery, the current USGenWeb Representative at Large, with Teresa Lindquist (a past RAL), who wrote about the USGenWeb in her The Daily Board Show (see link at bottom of our site), and at one time used the USGenWeb logo as a link to the DBS. Teresa's articles did not always make the Advisory Board look good, nor Tina who has been a members of the AB previously.

But at least the DBS spoke the truth and was oft times the only place to find out the truth about what was going on in the USGenWeb.

We believe it was Tina who twice tried to get the current AB to pass a motion, which included the logo-linking issue be added to the Guidelines as a new requirement. But alas, enough members of the AB were smart enough to know the new rule was actually a bylaw amendment (see below), and the motion was voted down twice.

So an effort was put forth to get enough states to co-sponsor the amendment. If passed by the membership, will it solve Tina's issue? No! The amendment does not make the new rule retroactive, it becomes effective the day the results of the voting are announced. If passed, the amendment actually gives protection for anyone using the logo as a link to anything other than the USGenWeb National site before the voting results are announced.

We expect the amendment to pass, and our hat is off to Tina who will have successfully defeated her own personal grudge against Teresa.

========================================

faux pas

Blunder; especially a social blunder (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).

Paux Pas: Letting one's true nature show through by speaking without thinking. Often occurs after having too much alcohol (Urban Dictionary).

Meanwhile - The AB had created a Guidelines Committee to revamp and simplify the existing SC and CC Guidelines into one document. That was done, and National Coordinator Sherri opened the item for discussion on May 23.

The Guidelines Committee was to have operated in the open on a list all USGenWeb members could subscribe and watch the process, in read-only mode with comments and suggestions being sent directly to the Committee members.

The Committee was not charged with creating new requirements, but Daryl Lytton discovered that someone had indeed added a new requirement - County Coordinators, State File Managers and File Managers, must provide their home address and phone number to their State Coordinator (and Archives equivalent).

Daryl noted on the USGenWeb SW Regional list, that such a new rule constitutes a bylaw amendment. This sparked a lively debate between Daryl, and Pat Asher who is widely known to be a pet of Sherri and for sending a message to the Grievance Committee, "I think there are grounds for declaring him [Daryl] MNIGS," Member Not In Good Standing, for having a USGenWeb site not updated for a year. (See our Apr 29 2010 "Massacre Part 2/4" post)

Pat took the side of the AB (14 members) being allowed to vote into place a new requirement for all USGenWeb members (about 2,000) without letting the membership voting for it them selves. 'It's not an amendment, it's just a new rule' was Pat's position, to which Daryl replied:

> [Original Message]
> From: Daryl Lytton
> To: usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com
> Date: 5/29/2010 1:25:36 PM
> Subject: [USGENWEB-SW] It's a Bylaw Amendment
>
> > From: Pat Asher
> >
> > Since when does adding/changing a rule constitute
> > a Bylaw Amendment?
>
> When you take existing Bylaws and add something to
> it, change it, or add a new rule. Quoting from the
> proposed CC/SC Guidelines document:
>
> "REQUIRED
> (Bylaws XII. D.) You must provide your full name,
> current home address, telephone number to the
> National Coordinator if you represent a state ....
> All coordinators must provide same to the State/Project
> coordinator to which she/he belongs."
>
> Amend - "To alter especially in phraseology; especially:
> to alter formally by modification, deletion, or
> addition." Amendment - "An alteration proposed or
> effected by this process." (Free Merriam-Webster)
>
> Amendment - "The process of formally altering or
> adding to a document or record. An addition,
> alteration, or improvement to a motion, document,
> etc." (TheFreeDictionary)
>
> Amendment - "Change in a legal document made by
> adding, altering, or omitting a certain part or term."
> (BusinessDictionary.com)
>
> Amendment - "A change made to a previously adopted
> law or motion." (Wikipedia) "An amendment is a
> formal or official change made to a law, contract,
> constitution, or other legal document." (Simple English
> Wikipedia)
>
> Amendment - "The modification of materials by the
> addition of supplemental information." (West's
> Encyclopedia of American Law)
>
> Amendment - "The addition, deletion, correction, or
> other changes proposed or made to a document."
> (Webster's New World Law Dictionary)
>
> Daryl

Daryl tried, and tried and tried and tried, to get Pat to follow a logical, step-by-step thought process on the SW list to show Pat why the new rule was an amendment; but Pat consistently refused the challenge. NC Sherri wants it, RAL Tina wants it, so Pat wants it.

By reading archives of the list the Guidelines Committee used, Daryl then discovered that the Committee never discussed in public adding that requirement. He checked all of the revisions of the Guidelines, and of the new rule reported:

The new requirement was NOT in "orig-version.htm" or "2-14-10-rev.htm" both last modified Feb 14 2010 at 17:54. IS in "17Feb-CCguidelines.htm" and "cc-copied.htm" both Feb 18 2010 at 20:32 and both are "NCGenWeb Procedures". NOT in the four documents Feb 18 2010 at 20:32. IS in "cc-20Feb2010.htm" Feb 21 at 14:38. NOT in "ccguidelines-new.htm" Feb 23 2010 at 18:29. IS in "ccguidelines-23Feb20.." Feb 23 2010 at 22:03 and all succeeding files.

This touched off another discussion between Pat and Daryl on the SW list. Of coure, Pat saw nothing wrong with an AB-appointed committee breaking their own rules. Pat didn't even see something wrong with one unknown person making a new requirement for nearly 2,000 members, without the membership being allowed to vote on it.

Having also sent his report to the AB, Daryl persisted pursuing it on the SW list, wanting to know who the person was that broke the Committee rules, added that new requirement behind the backs of the CCs; and why would someone feel the need to do it that way?

Poor Daryl - No one confessed. Not even the AB, and it was their sub-committee. It was beginning to look like no one added it, it just magically appeared, when finally NC Sherri (who as NC was a member of the Committee) came to Daryl's rescue and confessed that no one had added it:

> [Original Message]
> From: Daryl Lytton
> To: Sherri; usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com
> Date: 6/2/2010 6:40:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-SW] Opinions on the
> merits?
>
> > From: Sherri
> > To: Daryl; usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com
> > Date: 6/2/2010 5:41:55 PM
> > Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-SW] Opinions on the
> > merits?
> >
> > There was not any *one* person that made any changes
> > to the guidelines document. The committee reviewed
> > the documents over and over and nothing was ever
> > brought up as being an issue with the committee
> > members in regards to the reqauirement for the CC's
> > providing their address & phone numbers to their
> > CCs [sic: SCs].
>
> I don't know if the Committee reviewed the document.
> I didn't review it, because the AB told the committee to
> conduct its business in the open on a public list. And
> because of that, I had no reason to check the revisions
> to see if someone had snuck in a new requirement
> without the Committee discussing adding it, nor any
> reason to suspect that that might happen. In hindsight
> I realize my error, it was an AB-appointed committee.
>
> Why can't we trust a Committee charged with
> conducting business in the open, to do so? Shouldn't
> we be able to?
>
> Since the Committee never discussed in public adding
> it, are you saying that you don't know the name of the
> person who did add it? All I'm looking for is the Truth.
> Is there something wrong with Truth? Do you know the
> Truth about the incident? Do you know the names of the
> people who were able to edit the documents?
>
> Daryl

From comments posted by members of the AB, that rule will probably either be removed or re-worded. It should be the business of the States, not an unknown single person, to make that requirement, and only if the CCs vote to approve it.

But as of right now still no one has confessed, or admitted they know the truth. And they want us to trust them with our address and phone number?

Mary White

FLGenWeb: Charles

The Future of Florida, an Opinion

by Charles Barnum
.

FLGenWeb CC at the time of events
and eye witness to what transpired

May 14 2010

The sand is settling in the Sunshine State.

What is the future of Florida, FLGenWeb?

1--We currently have two FLGenWebs, the corporation and the legitimate XXGenWeb of Florida.

First, let us examine the future of the corporation. In a word, they are dead. They died when people forgot that the purpose of online genealogy was and is to put genealogical data online for the researching public. A struggle for control grew and got nasty. The problem with forming a corporation by amateurs is they are exactly that, amateurs. When one group starts taking advice from a so-called expert, they find themselves in jeopardy. Something is foreign about a state being a corporation in USGenWeb. It’s like crossing the border without a green card.

The corporation will exist a few more weeks or a few months. It’s essentially dead, but they do not know it yet. One problem IS “ceasing” to be a corporation. It costs money to un-incorporate. The Officers are liable for the corporation; they are accountable to the public and to the state of Florida. Some have already departed the corporation. They resigned and got the hell out. A couple of Officers is all that remain. I’m not sure they can even quit, legally.

A few CCs are hanging onto the corporation for now. I expect that to last no more than 30 days. A real question that the legitimate XXGenWeb of Florida has not asked out loud is this. “Are we going to allow dual affiliation?” Are they going to allow CCs to be members of the legitimate FLGenWeb who are at the same time members of the old, dead FLGenWeb, Inc?

If they make the tragic mistake of allowing dual membership, they will be plagued until the end of time. FLGenWeb should not admit anyone as CC who is a member of the defunct corporation. To do so would be extreme folly. You do remember GAGenWeb after the massacre. The perceived trouble makers from the old organization were not allowed into the new legitimate organization. To do so would have invited an endless civil war.

The way things are currently being done in Florida is to ask the existing CCs if they want to be part of the legitimate FLGenWeb. What they are not doing, unless I am ignorant of the facts, is requiring resignations from the old Corporation. That is why the CC list is changing daily. The CC list IS growing for the legitimate FLGenWeb. The Corporation’s list does not seem to be changing. Is it being maintained?

After Sherri and Tina are kicked out of FLGenWeb, the new SC should announce that dual membership will not be permitted. The SC has that administrative authority. She could take a vote on it to make it a bit more legitimate. This I promise you, if any of the defiant officers from the corporation’s group remain in the legitimate FLGenWeb organization, they will cause trouble.

2--The FLGenWeb’s future looks bright. Florida has some of the best and dedicated CCs in USGenWeb. I had searched for an ancestor for years. I contacted a number of counties of USGenWeb and was disappointed in the Non-help I got and the Non-data on the web sites. Some clues led me to Florida. I decided to check with FLGenWeb but expected to receive NO help as was usual for USGenWeb. I was wrong. I got more help than I could believe. They even researched other states to help me. Then they found the person I was looking for. A major brick wall, more like the Berlin wall had fallen.

FLGenWeb, after they dump Sherri and Tina, (and God forbid that they stay on as a CC!!), will grow in respect and stature in the genealogy community; deservedly so. They are a great group, the cream of the crop. They will put the distasteful episode of ill-corporation far-far behind them. They will do just fine. The empty counties will quickly fill with qualified representatives, as long as they can keep the trouble makers OUT and keep Sherri and Tina OUT. Florida DOES have one legitimate AB member as a CC. Being a member of the AB does not make one UnHoly. Several people on the AB are actual human beings. It is the misguided collective action of the group-- as in Barnum vs. NM SC, that taints the AB and anyone who is a party thereto.

3--The AB got this case right. I would have felt better if they had screwed it up beyond repair, but they did not. This result was made possible by a few brave ABers who stood up for what was right. They did not blindly support the SC believing she was the NM SC incarnated. No, this is a new day and a fair ruling.

4--But that brings us to another offshoot of this episode: The misbehavior of the GC. It would not surprise me if our former GC Chairperson had a grievance filed against her, or even a civil action. We shall see. I call ‘em like I see ‘em. Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead.

========================================

Some chatter from Florida #1
May 18 2010

[Here are edited snips from FLGenWeb Inc people. --cb]

Patrice still is subed to this group (the Inc side). Not sure why she would not resigned by now, the others have, Jeff, Jo, Denise, Tom, figured she would go, guess she will just linger. They just moved every person listed in this group over to that [new FLGenWeb] site, then made them state they did not want to be there. Their motto is "do first then make them ask to leave". Think she is just busy stripping all the list, placing what she wishes to leave in files, archived-, copying list for her own use, whatever, but dual membership and she is an ASC for both sites - DUH. You know that site of theirs is looking pretty sad with Lavernes name all over it. I would not sign up for a county with that group - Patrice running things with Laverne pushing and Denise barking - and all of them pushing the bylaws they all broke - double DUH. A CC would have to be nuts to enter that cave without an escape hatch.

Some chatter from Florida #2
(undated)

I have been frustrated with you .... I think the first time was the thing about Laverne .... I could not figure how you got sucked into their ploy, since you or the others were not privy to everything.

If the members could not read everything those 2 women did, then just how were they to know that we were right and Laverne and Patrice were in fact very wrong in what they continued doing .... was as one sided what the AB got from the GC [Grievance Committee], and the NC, very one sided .... Laverne and Stan held this entire group hostage over a server they hid secrets.

Fran found those secrets as Ray found a few more she held, thus the fight began, and now basically we are free of the 2 except for Patrice hanging out.

I figure she is not yet through stripping what she can. She is moving and reusing the list she made up for this group to the pirate group....

I am waiting to see if Laverne puts material back on her sites she had before. I did find she did not have permission for some of it, she puts her name on the work of others....
figure (they) will start their smear campaign soon....

========================================

Put it to Rest
May 18 2010
(blind copy)

Here is -I hope- my last email about Florida. It is a snipped copy of an email to one of the [above] players.

I guess this will wrap up our conversation about this matter.

The people in Florida got their personal feelings mixed up with reality.

I do not see where Laverne did anything wrong or illegal or unethical. She did not steal, she did conceal some things, but they were her things to conceal. The Corporation does not have a right to access every facet of her life.

Not-being-liked is not a legitimate reason to de-link someone much less kick them out of the project. That is why I stood up for Laverne. The corporation overstepped. They had a lapse of judgment.

I stood up for the corporation because the grievance process had been compromised. But the corporation misstepped again. They were getting bad advice from you-know-who.

If the corporation wanted to avoid the grievance process, they should have just said that they chose not to participate in the grievance process. What they did was make frivolous statements, like we are not part of USGenWeb. The corporation relied on BAD advice.

I stood against Tina and the AB because Tina is a rotten, back-stabbing person, and I happen to hate the AB. I have been true to my beliefs. I have stood up for people based on principals not because they are good or bad except in the case of Tina who is part of the AB whom I hate. She is the AB. If you think Sherri is running the show you are wrong. Scott (in the background) and Tina are running the show. The AB is helpless against them, because Tina and company have the support when it comes to elections. Again, just my opinions.

I never supported the alleged hacker. What he did was illegal and unethical in my opinion. He went digging around in accounts that did not belong to him. I suspect he did this with the pre-knowledge of the Corporation.

If Patrice is stripping anything from the corporation, then it should be stated clearly and openly. Again, I think the corporation is getting their personal feelings mixed up with reality. If the corporation is going to fight, they need to fight with Bylaws, laws and facts, not with feelings.

If Laverne is taking data that is not hers, then that should be addressed in an cross-project grievance. It must be based on facts and copyright law, not on feelings.

I do not believe the FLGenWeb Project will start a smear campaign against anyone. That would be foolish. What Florida GenWeb should be worrying about is getting Tina and Sherri to hell out of their state. They will turn it into another arm of the Archives Project.

That probably kills this subject. The corporation lost to the AB. I lost to a corrupt AB in my grievance against Karen Mitchell. I suggest that the corporation go its own way and never mention the FLGenWeb Project again. The decision of Mitchel over Barnum has been costly to the USGenWeb Project in the public eye, but the corporation is in a different class. Best for them to let this subject go. They can not fight the AB like I do.

Do as I say, not as I do, ya' hear?

Charles Barnum

FLGenWeb

USGenWeb vs. FLGenWeb

From: Sherri
To: board@rootsweb.com
Subject: [BOARD] Disciplinary Hearing
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 21:23:29 -0400

The Advisory Board has been in executive session discussing the resolution of grievance 2009-08-15. This discussion was based on the final determination report that the Grievance Committee submitted. Normally the Advisory Board does not receive any information or a final report about a grievance, but in this case because of the problems encountered during the grievance process, they did.

In regards to grievance 2009-08-15, filed by a FLGenWeb County Coordinator against six members of the FLGenWeb board, and the report that the Advisory Board received from the Grievance Committee dealing with problems encountered during handling of the grievance, a formal hearing will be held to determine if disciplinary action should be taken against two of the FLGenWeb board members named in the grievance.

Charges against Fran Smith:

1 - Refusal to participate in good faith in the mediation and arbitration phases of grievance 2009-08-15, filed by Ms. Laverne Tornow against six individual FLGenWeb board members, as demonstrated by attempts to introduce issues outside of the scope of the mediation and arbitration portions of the grievance, raising repeated objections to questions posed by both the mediator and the arbitrators and refusing to answer specific questions posed by the grievance committee team and the insistence that the USGenWeb Project's Grievance Process was not the proper venue to handle a grievance, that all grievances must be filed in a court of law in the state of Florida.

2 - Repeated breaches of the confidentiality of the grievance, despite repeated warnings during both the mediation and arbitration phases of the grievance process by contacting those outside of the mediator, the arbitrators and the GC representative handling the grievance.

3 - Failure to reinstate Ms. Laverne Tornow to all previous positions as County Coordinator for the counties of Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Citrus, Hamilton, Laayette, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, Seminole and Union counties that she held immediately prior to her removal from the project as directed in the final determination of the Grievance Committee's report. The USGenWeb Project bylaws and the Grievance Committee Procedures clearly state that the decision of the Grievance Committee is binding upon all members of the USGeWeb Project, therefore Ms. Smith is not in compliance with the bylaws since Ms. Tornow has not been reinstated.

Charges against Dennis Gries:

1 - Refusal to participate in good faith in the mediation and arbitration phases of grievance 2009-08-15, filed by Ms. Laverne Tornow against six individual FLGenWeb board members, as demonstrated by attempts to introduce issues outside of the scope of the mediation and arbitration portions of the grievance, raising repeated objections to questions posed by both the mediator and the arbitrators and refusing to answer specific questions posed by the grievance committee team and the insistence that the USGenWeb Project's Grievance Process was not the proper venue to handle a grievance, that all grievances must be filed in a court of law in the state of Florida.

2 - Repeated breaches of the confidentiality of the grievance, despite repeated warnings during both the mediation and arbitration phases of the grievance process by contacting those outside of the mediator, the arbitrators and the GC representative handling the grievance. The breaching of the confidentiality continues to this day.

3 - Mr. Gries' insistence during the grievance process that he was not a member of the USGenWeb Project, despite being a member of the FLGenWeb Project, and as such, the USGenWeb Project's bylaws did not apply to him, and that the grievance process was an illegal attempt to circumvent the FL Corporate laws.

Sturgis states that " . . . every organization has the inherent right to discipline, suspend or expel a member for valid cause, even if provisions for doing so are not included in the bylaws" and "A membership can be terminated and a member expelled because of violation of an important duty to the organization, a breach of a fundamental rule or principle of the organization, or for any violation stated in the bylaws as a ground for expulsion. In general, termination of membership is justified if a member fails or refuses to work within the framework of the organization."

If a State Coordinator (or the managing board of a XXGenWeb Project has engaged in removal of dissenting CCs, thereby taking away the state project's ability to take advantage of the protections our bylaws provide, we must fall back on the protections and disciplinary procedures outlined in our parliamentary authority, Sturgis.

Therefore, to protect the rights of the County Coordinators in Florida, the provisions for redress outlined in Sturgis must take precedence. Because I received many of the emails that were a part of the breaches of the confidentiality of the grievance, I will not be participating in the disciplinary hearing. Tina Vickery, as RAL will be handling the investigation and hearing.

I will be subscribing the members of the AB, Fran Smith and Dennis Gries to the USGWCONF mail list, which is unarchived. which is where the hearing on the charges will be discussed. In addition, the option for subbing the Grievance Team (the moderator, arbitrators and the GC representative that chaired the grievance) to the list if it is determined that their input is required.

Sherri Bradley
National Coordinator
USGenWeb Project

========================================

From: Sherri
To: board@rootsweb.com
Date: 5/12/2010 8:34:18 PM
Subject: [BOARD] ANNOUNCEMENT: FLGenweb

For the record:

Per Section XIV, E of the USGenWeb Project bylaws, the resolution of a grievance is binding upon the membership. Due to the failure of some of FLGenWeb Inc's board members to abide by the USGenWeb Project bylaws, the Advisory Board was contacted to enforce the ruling. FLGenWeb Inc. was put on notice that they had until 11 May 2010 to implement the resolution of the grievance, or the state project would be delinked and a new state site would be created and linked to from the USGenWeb Project's National site.

FLGenWeb Inc.'s site has been delinked and a newly created FLGenWeb site has been set up and the CCs, unless they've chosen not to remain with USGenWeb, have had their sites linked to the new site.

This action is not something that the Advisory Board has taken lightly, or without a lot of thought. The FLGenWeb membership was contacted with the options laid out for them, so this is not something that will take any of them by surprise (at least if they've kept appraised of what's going on in their state).

Sherri Bradley
National Coordinator
USGenWeb Project

========================================

From: Anonymous
Sent: 5/14/2010 12:09:04 PM

Questions: In regards to the emails released earlier from the grievance process, what is being done about this by the AB? If in fact, the process rules were broken, what is being done about those who broke the grievance process rules? What effect would AB interference have on any grievance outcomes - past, present or future? If the process rules were broken, how will this affect the legality of the recent FLGenWeb delinking by the AB? When was the vote taken pertaining to the FLGenWeb delinking? Where was the vote taken? Was the vote recorded on the public AB list for the membership to see? Lots of volunteers deserve answers rather than secrecy.

Tina vs. Daryl

Tina vs. Daryl

From the Sekrit GenWebStalkers Archives:

> Date: 29 Jan 2009
>
> I am tired of all of this. I am going to file a
> grievance on to ban from it's membership Charles
> Barnum and Daryl Lytton. I refuse to be a party to
> any of this any longer. I will not condone these
> narcissistic members of the project to continue to
> provide such trash as http://www.genwebstalkers.com/
> any longer nor will I allow them to incessantly
> harass our project members. The remedy I will
> request is delinking of any state project that has
> these individuals as a member. Enough is enough.
> Both of them are in their sick and destructive ways
> using our trademarked USGenWeb Project name to
> defame and exploit the Project. We are derelict in
> our duties if we let this behavior continue.
>
> Sincerely,
> Tina Vickery
> National Coordinator
> USGenWeb Project

Speaking of "narcissistic members" this is the same Tima who, before becomming NC, petitioned the entire Advisory Board to force Daryl to remove the word "Wisconsin" from one of his USGenWeb pages because she was the WIGenWeb State Coordinator. Tina's demand resulted in no action by the AB, they did not even notify Daryl of it.

That incident, plus her above message advocating USGenWeb states be delinked because of what their County Coordinator's do in their private, non-USGenWeb lives reminds us of Nola's "obsessive delusions" in our precious Blog post. Tina apparently believes she can personally deny the rights of United States citizens to report facts, and express observations and opinions.

In a seemingly radical turn-about, a mere 15 months later, Tina in her below message indicates a deep respect, admiration, and support of Daryl. It's not ofter enough that a member of the AB, much less the RAL, gives proper credit to a mere CC for proposing a way to "solve a lot of the problems" in the USGenWeb.

Mary White

> [Original Message]
> From: Daryl Lytton
> To: usgenweb-sw@rootsweb.com
> Date: 4/28/2010 7:47:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [USGENWEB-SW] GC
>
> > From: Tina S. Vickery
> >
> > Well, I have to admit Daryl, if you were on the
> > committee or even chair that would solve a lot of
> > the problems .. the most prominent being that we
> > could repeal the Grievance Procedures, with you on
> > the committee or as chair 99.9999 percent of
> > grievances would not exist!
> Well, yes, that is true. I estimate that within 2-3
> months of spreading the word around the Project that
> Daryl Lytton is the Chair, at least 95% of the
> grievances would stop. That's how it worked in those
> old Western movies, too ... "The Law is here! The
> Law is here!" and finally after years of terror by
> outlaw gangs, the residents feel at peace and
> harmony.
>
> > Now that's a concept that I might be able to
> > support.
> As being in the best interests of The People, it's
> only logical that the RAL support the concept...but
> I do appreciate the warm fuzzy feelings, also.
>
> > With you as chair, no need for the committee
> Well, I wouldn't go quite as far as saying that.
> With me as Chair, the GC would be swamped with
> volunteers. Luckily, Sturgis lets us create our
> own sub-committee without the interference from
> the AB. We would create a USGenWeb-House Ethics
> Committee, and see what other areas of the USGenWeb
> we could help to improve.
>
> Daryl

Nola vs. Nola

Nola vs. Nola

Some USGenWeb members will believe other members based upon how much stuff they have on their USGenWeb sites. It doesn't make any difference what the other member says, if their sites have lots of stuff they must be a believable person, no matter what they say. During elections some members will visit candidate's sites, and vote for the one who has the most stuff online.

Nola has a reputation for putting lots of stuff on her sites, as well as a reputation for spreading stories among members she thinks might believe her, about other members she is convinved are members simply to destroy the USGenWeb. It doesn't make any difference if what Nola says is true or not, her stories must be believed because she has lots of stuff on her sites. The remainder of this post is an example of one reality verses Nola's reality.


> [Original Message]
> From: Nola Duffy
> To: CC Discussion List
> Date: 4/22/2010 5:55:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] You mean that Board?
>
> Mary, Mary,
>
> Enough! Some things are simply impossible!
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Daryl Lytton
> > To: CC Discussion List
> > Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2010 4:36 PM
> > Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] You mean that Board?
> >
> > It's people like you [Fred Smoot], who make
> > people like me look good.
> >
> > D.A.R.Y.L.

========================================

[Original Message]
From: Daryl Lytton
To: CC Discussion List
Date: 4/22/2010 6:29:00 PM
Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] You mean that Board?

You're [Nola Duffy] another one whose only apparent reason for being in the USGenWeb, is to make me look good. How long has it been ... 7 years? ... you've been accusing me of being a member of the USGenWeb only for the reason of trying to destroy it. How many pages was your grievance against me ... 8? 10? 15? ... full of nothing but illogical accusations with no foundation, you couldn't even state what rules(s) I had broken, and so your grievance was tossed out as being invalid, because I broke no rules.

All those years of you harassing me, judged to be invalid by the GC [Grievance Committee]. Luckily we got the most corrupt members confined to NCGenWeb, some of the honest ones left to join Trails to the Past.

I wouldn't want to see all the work you spent on your corrupt grievance going to a waste though, and so I'll add it to the Stalkers website as soon as I have the time. Then everyone else can laugh at you, also. I'm the one who manages the site, Mary does the blog.

Daryl

========================================

[Original Message]
From: Nola Duffy
To: CC Discussion List
Date: 4/22/2010 8:35:44 PM
Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] You mean that Board?

Daryl,

I did not address anything to you - only to your alter ego of Mary.

As for my grievance, get it straight. It was NOT tossed out. I decided to simply drop it rather than waste more time on you. I hope you are happy with Trails to the Past. Be happy and productive in the group of your choice and leave the USGenWeb in peace and you will be simply a bad memory. I believe posting my grievance is against the rules but that has never stopped you. You just choose another name so you can not be blamed. However, posting the words of my grievance was gainst the rules the last time I checked and although I said nothing I am ashamed of, embarrass yourself if you wish so I can then ask that you be removed from the USGenWeb for violation of the GC rules....

Nola

We are unable to find anything in the Grievance Bylaw or Procedures related to posting the contents of a grievance that is not a grievance. More about this below, including Nola's contention she never filed a grievance but only thought about doing so. --mw

========================================

[Original Message]
From: Daryl Lytton
To: CC Discussion List
Date: 4/24/2010 5:31:59 PM
Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] In like Wow!

[....] if in your mind you think you have any valid reasons to file a grievance against me, you're always welcome to file another 15-pager that says nothing. I actually feel sorry for you spending all that time compiling your grievance in pdf format, only to realize that I was right and you were wrong ... you were unable to state any rules I had broken.

Daryl

========================================

[Original Message]
From: Nola Duffy
To: CC Discussion List
Date: 4/25/2010 12:39:14 PM
Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] Just a new opinion

After reading all the various posts about the new proposed "gag rule" being discussed in areas across the USGenWeb, I have had a change of heart. I intend to write to my ABs representatives proposing that all gag rules be relegated to the trash bin and, to the contrary, I propose that all grievances be completely public. Those who are screaming the loudest about the gag rules will be the first to change their tune the moment their many threats are exposed for the entire membership to see. Anyone who has been exposed to their threats against every member of the AB for the past 7, almost 8 years, would certainly have a completely different opinion of the character and credibility behind the threats. For example, a majority of all grievances filed over the years since day one have been filed by not more than 3 or 4 members out of a membership of 2000 +/- at any given point in time. However, the same 3 or 4 individuals have written thousands upon thousands of letters threating members of the AB, year after year. Over the years the project has lost a lot of good talent and leadership simply because they have decided life is too short to have 3 or 4 individuals monopolize the attention of the entire project, year after year after year. I think it might shed some real light on how much time is taken by the same 3-4 members, under whatever name they are using at the moment, to monopolize the agenda of the entire USGenWeb year after year.

Just curious, how do others feel? Obviously there is a leak, either on the GC or AB, that placed a copy a grievance I was contemplating in the hands of Daryl and yes, I do believe he has the copy he is bragging about and can even make an educated guess about who provided it. Daryl has threatened to post his illegal copy but instead of being upset, I would not mind at all if it was public. That has never been done but why not? If anyone really has a true basis for a grievance beyond just promoting one or more personal agendas, they should not be ashamed to say so. I am certainly not ashamed of the grievance that I contemplated but then dropped. I also determined that it was not worth my time but if we all take that attitude, we are doing the entire project a disservice. I would only redact the names of 3rd parties who are not part of the grievance but let the rest hang out.

Rather than let one person continue to assert their version of what the By-Laws permit or do not permit, I also propose that an actual attorney or paralegal with broad experience make the determination about the merits of the grievances before they are either accepted or rejected. Yes, I mean a REAL attorney and not one hiding behind an anonymous e-mail quickly obtained from one of the providers of anonymous e-mail accounts.

I also propose that no one be allowed to file a grievance or serve on any national committee without providing the AB and/or a non-biased attorney valid contact information that has been verified. That would at least stop all the grievances filed by aliases. According to Daryl, there must still be aliases hiding in the NCGenWeb as evidenced by his boasting, self-serving statements about his many "spies". Now tell me, why would anyone who has not been a member of the NCGenWeb since 2002 be so obsessed about the NCGenWeb that they want "spies" to report the internal workings of the project to them. I honestly thought we had gotten rid of the last aliases when one of most notorious of the "alias" CCs using various names left quickly when they lost their protective AOL account with 7 screen names. They were not dismissed but simply left - all at once in one day - without any prompting. Still, I was wrong, there was one left and yes, he/she did file a grievance when they were removed by the former SC who did not even ask the current board in advance but only announced the removal after the fact. I am not on the NCGenWeb board any longer and am glad to be free from the normal constraints that responsible board members have always adhered to. In fact, the ONLY reason the same individuals have survived as members in the USGenWeb is because there is no collective memory or record of all their past mis-deeds.

Funny how politics makes strange bed-fellows since Daryl now embraces the same SC who in turn finds his hate blog a convenient out-let for posting her version of the truth. Since both personalities obviously have control issues, it should be interesting to see how long this friendship will last once each starts jockying for control in their new home. At the moment they are happy since Daryl is finally a SC and Diane Siniard is also a SC on Trails to the Past. This strange coincidence will last only so long as neither of them decide they want more control over their new project and then the same trash will start again. Daryl had no interest in the USGenWeb until after he had destroyed IIGS and then abandoned it on the trash heap of history. No, IIGS was no longer a place to vent his particular frustrations with his world but he quickly decided that there was a new project, the USGenWeb that would serve as his new target. If he ever manages to destroy the USGenWeb, it will also be relagated to the trash heap of history and he will move on to the successor.

What if the true CCs across the country decided to start their own blog with anonymous posts of their own interactions and horrific experiences with Daryl over the years and started telling their own stories. Geez, that should be fun! Naturally just like Daryl, we would NOT allow the 3 or 4 individuals who he treasures to post. Daryl even blocked his nearest and dearest buddy, Diane Mason Kelly, from responding to Diane Sinaird's posts since it does not fit into his latest scheme. Why should 2000+ members have to put up with 3 or 4 whose sole purpose is to destroy the USGenWeb. Sounds like a good plan but you can believe, it will not happen. Normal people spend time doing genealogy instead of living a sad excuse of a life trying to be top dog.

Any thoughts?

Nola

Thoughts? The "illegal copy" of the grievance Nola Duffy claims "was contemplating" to file against Daryl Lytton, needs no "educated guess about who provided it". --mw

----- Original Message -----
From: Joel Newport
To: Nola Duffy; Daryl Lytton
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 8:00 PM
Subject: Notification of Acceptance of Grievance 2009/12-30

Daryl,

This is to inform you that a grievance has been filed against you. The grievance is being referred to as grievance 2009/12-30. Attached is a copy of the grievance against you. You will be contacted by a mediator once we have assigned one to this grievance so that mediations can begin....

Joel Newport
Assistant Coordinator
Grievance Committee

Daryl protested the grievance violated his Rights of Due Process because the grievance failed to state what rules he had violated (see Daryl's message in my "Massacre Part 2/4" post). The below came with no apology to Daryl, nor an explaination of how the grievance came to be accepted. --mw

[Original Message]
From: Joel Newport
To: Nola Duffy; Daryl Lytton
Cc: Sherri
Date: 2/10/2010 2:54:15 PM
Subject: Notification of withdrawal of Grievance 2009/12-30

This email is to inform both parties that Grievance 2009/12-30 has been withdrawn.

Joel Newport
Assistant GC Chair

========================================

[Original Message]
From: Nola Duffy
To: CC Discussion List
Date: 4/25/2010 3:11:50 PM
Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] New

Daryl,

Yes, do go work on the GenWebStalkers site. I would be ashamed to even use the name when it clearly says you want to stalk USGenWeb members and then hide behind a screen because you are too cowardly to admit you are responsible. It was o.k. for you as long as only Charles could be blamed for the trash and lies but here you are actually bragging about it. I could not be happier.

Well, if your high crimes and misdemeanors are not worthy of an arrest in NV, then I think I am safe. Besides, at my age it would be an easy way to get 3 good meals a day and a warm bed without worrying about paying for it. I would then have a lot more money left to support the USGenWeb.

Nola

Most people know when they need glasses to see what is in front of their face. In reality, "it clearly says you want to stalk USGenWeb members," says, "Stalking the Truth About the USGenWeb". But then some people only see what they want to see, and Nola was also unable to read that I do the Blog and Daryl does the Web site. --mw

========================================

[Original Message]
From: Nola Duffy
To: CC Discussion List
Date: 4/25/2010 8:44:17 PM
Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] New

Daryl,

For some reason, the contents of your blog seem to have done a strange vanishing act. Sure am glad I d/l everything before I confronted you. Apparently you decided a lot of the trash and filth might not be true on closer examination and just deleted gobs of it. If you think that will stop me, dream on.. I already had every hate filled filthy word from each of the blogs. The only thing that will save you is the promise to delete them entirely and swear to never start another of threaten the NCGenWeb or AB with another law suit. Since I don't believe you are mentally capable of actually admiting guilt and issueing an apology on all USGenWeb lists, nothing has changed. There are still lies on many of the lists I am not even subbed to but can and have read.

If you do have an attorney, please have him contact me so that I can give him my attorney's name. Same for you Charles!

Short of that, I guess we will meet in person unless my attorney can handle it all without my personal appearance. Your own word, with the help of your few close friends, are all any court really needs to see but I will also provide money for any depositions the attorneys think might be helpful.

BTW, if anyone has anything they are willing to share that relate to Daryl's past threats please let me know. I don't even need to see them but will give anyone with information the address for my attorney. I am aware of some of the threats he has made over the years but not all by any means. It would take a full time asst. just to keep up with them since threats to the AB is almost a full time job for Daryl. Still, seems he has found time to start cleaning up the latest GenStalkers so if anyone wants to see the trash they had better hurry before it is all gone.

Why am I interested in his numerous threats to the AB members over the years, because I may just foot the bill for them to join as a body to seek damages from Daryl for his many threats.

Daryl, what an absolutely sniveling coward you are. As long as I did not get on here and raise hell about your trash, filth, lies and libel, you were having a ball but the moment you think it may actually get you into court, you run like a scared puppy dog.

Still thanks for cleaning it a bit but it will not stop me. My attorney already has all the trash and filth - before you hasty house cleaning!

Want to make a public apology and promise on threat of removal from the USGenWeb for life? We might have something to actually negotiate but it will only be in a formal document that is signed, sealed and notarized.

Nola

We know of no Blog posts that have done a "strange vanishing act" nor any other type of vanishing act, including being edited to remove material individuals perceive as being personally offensive. We report truths and facts as they are, we do not alter reality.

We did ask Daryl for an explaination for what Nola claims as "threats" and his reply was: "I know just as much as Nola does about the facts of the actions and events she accuses me of, i.e., nothing. As for the threats, they are USGenWeb Rights of Members as stated in the Bylaws and the Sturgis Rights of Members ... to insist that the rules be enforced, and to file a suit if they [the USGenWeb] refuse to do so.

We then asked Daryl if Nola has ever threatened him, and received the following:

> From: Nola Duffy nduffy@patch.net
> To: dlytton@mindspring.com; usgwp-cc@usgwp.org
> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 6:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] Killing the golden goose
>
> > Daryl said:
> > ....You had also stated that you intentionally post
> > and send messages to deliberately cause me emotional
> > duress.
> >
> > Daryl,
>
> I plead guilty to those statements that are my direct
> quotes and as for saying I would intentionally cause
> you emotional duress, it was part of a private message...
>
> Nola

So what is the threat? Nola knowing Daryl is disabled from anxiety and depression, using the Internet for threats of physical harm. Yes, the mind is part of our bodies. I am no lawyer but I do know Aggravated Internet Stalking is an category C felony in the state Daryl lives.

Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 200.581. "Harassment, stalking or aggravated stalking shall be deemed to have been committed where the conduct occurred or where the person who was affected by the conduct was located at the time that the conduct occurred."

========================================

Nola, apparently talking to herself, and still unaware that the truth is not libel.

[Original Message]
From: Nola Duffy
To: CC Discussion List
Date: 4/25/2010 10:20:14 PM
Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] New

Well it looks like our brave men have retired for the night so this little old lady will do the same. Stay tuned if you want to read more of the same but hopefully this list will return to the quiet peaceful place it was before Daryl and Charles decided to claim it as their own to advertise their trash, filth, lies and libel.

I have checked once more and there are still libelous statements on the site although they have tried their best to clean it up and Charles has suddenly become and innocent babe that has no idea what I am even complaining about. Oh how he must hope this will give him deniability but he just does not get it. Posting a "who me" after years of lies, trash and filth is certainly not going to save his fat a--!

Wonder where they will decide to start their new list of trash, filth, lies and libel! Stay tuned. One thing we do know is that Daryl never changes and where Daryl leads, Charles will follow. Funny, Gail seems to keep her head low but no doubt she is watching this closely.

Good night all!

Nola

========================================

[Original Message]
From: Nola Duffy
To: CC Discussion List
Date: 4/25/2010 10:59:33 PM
Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] Good Morning Friends

I missed this one. NO PROOF! Daryl has admitted is here on this list but you still want to say it is untrue. Do you really think there is no one in the USGenWeb with an ounce of brain other than you and your hero, Daryl Lytton!

Nola

========================================

We do not question there are USGenWeb members with at least an ounce of brain, the question is how does one go about addressing the member's who have less than an ounce? --mw

[Original Message]
From: Daryl Lytton
To: CC Discussion List
Date: 4/26/2010 12:01:37 AM
Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] Good Morning Friends

Nola Nola Nola ... sigh ... you have no idea how sorry I feel for your mental condition. You constantly claim to have proof of this and proof of that. Just like the 15 page grievance you filed against me, convinced in your mind that I had done something wrong, yet you were unable to say what, or what rules I had broken. I've never known someone to loose as many emails of "proof" as you claim you have received. Perhaps you are the only one able to see all of those emails?

The "proof" you claim below [above], happened during the last 24 [sic] hours. Please provide us with a copy of my message where I admitted that I was Mary. Or did that message also magically disappear from your computer?

Daryl

========================================

[Original Message]
From: Nola Duffy
To: CC Discussion List
Date: 4/26/2010 12:12:09 AM
Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] Good Morning Friends

Daryl,

We will simply let the courts decide so don't fret your poor mind about it since you are much to busy threatening the AB once again. Do you never tire of trying to destroy anyone and everyone who simply gets in your way? You have done nothing else your entire adult life and apparently it did start in your teens according to your own court records. BTW, I thought you were going to post my proposed grievance. What happened to that threat?

Nola

========================================

[Original Message]
From: Daryl Lytton
To: CC Discussion List
Date: 4/26/2010 12:51:03 AM
Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] Good Morning Friends

yes ... your attorney ... the one who never showed up on the grievance list we were subbed to. Does he exist in the left, or the right part of your imagination? I know that you have an attorney [....] And I know he declined to participate in the grievance after he found out who I was.

And I know why he is your attorney ... because you pay him. You can't buy friends Nola. You can't buy the NCGenWeb by paying for the server. You can't buy the USGenWeb by giving money to Joy Fisher for the server. You can't buy Joy Fisher by letting her stay at your condo.

My friends are my friends because we respect each other. I could never buy the friends that I have. I'm so sorry that you believe you can buy friendship.

Daryl

========================================

[Original Message]
From: Nola Duffy
To: CC Discussion List
Date: 4/26/2010 12:20:48 AM
Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] Good Morning Friends

Daryl,

Actually, this list will probably get a much need break from our sparing match as of tomorrow. I would expect that my attorney will instruct me to no communicate with anyone once the legal work is underway so you will not have to listen to me and can just continue threatening, scheming and destruction without having to concern yourself with my posts and obviously my attorney will advise me not to respond to anything. I also plan to let any AB member know that I will provide an attorney to represent any AB member you threaten to sue so I would image they will be told to block all your e-mail as well after telling you they have been advised not to respond to any further threats from you and to block your e-mail. However, that is only my thoughts if the AB should decide to ignore your threats and simply wait for your threatened litigation. It would certainly free much of their time because once again, your obsession is to destroy anything and anyone you can not threaten into agreeing with you.

You are too sick for any sympathy but too dangerous to ignore.

Nola

========================================

[Original Message]
From: Daryl Lytton
To: CC Discussion List
Date: 4/26/2010 12:27:16 AM
Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] Good Morning Friends

So once again ... the proof you claim to have seen here on this list, posted within the last 24 [sic] hours, of me claiming to be Mary, has magically vanished from your computer.

I really feel very sorry for you Nola. I just can't tell you how sorry I am. Nope, I really can't tell you.

Daryl

========================================

[Original Message]
From: Nola Duffy
To: CC Discussion List
Date: 4/26/2010 12:38:24 AM
Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] Good Morning Friends

Save your pity for yourself since you will need it once the courts are through with you. Unlike you, I will say it publicly and not try to hide behind idle threats. You were given every opportunity to decide you would clean up your act but you are so full of yourself and believe our threats can dictate the agenda for a project of 2000 members. Instead, you want to be able to simply threaten every AB, year after year after year. I can't speak for any AB but I can say this old lady will not tolerate one more moment of your lies and libel. Now I am going to bed so go do your thing, post your trash and filth and who the world what an impotent ogre you really are!

Nola

========================================

[Original Message]
From: Nola Duffy
To: CC Discussion List
Date: 4/26/2010 2:27:50 PM
Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] My Wonderful Memories

To the relief of many I can honestly say this will be my last post on this list for sometime, maybe ever. As previously stated, once it was in the hands of my attorney, I would not communicate further with either Daryl or Charles. I finished a conference with the law firm representing me within the past hour and the decisions were made about exactly the way this would proceed. If they have anything to communicate it will only be through my attorney(s). The first notice from my attorney will be sent by certified mail to both no later than in the morning. At that point, they will have my attorney's name and address to provide to their own attorney or attorneys as the case may be so if they have any smarts at all, the trash, filth, lies and libel from these two will stop. Do I believe it will - NO! I don't think either of them are smart enough to realize what legal liability they have exposed themselves to. Even if they don't have a dime to be attached for any damages recovered, it is going to cost them legal fees to avoid a default judgment to say nothing of the costs for representation for interrogatories and the courts will not appoint free legal representation in civil matters. Apparently they long ago determined that it was a price they were willing to pay for their crimes and pay it they can! Each was given a last chance on this list to cease and desist and obviously it is easy for all to see that their answer was a resounding NO!

Daryl has often tried the ploy of asking if the person he was threatening at the moment would agree to leave the USGenWeb forever if they lost. Now I will ask the same question of Daryl. Will he leave the USGenWeb in peace without more threats if he loses? I honestly don't think he can because of his own obsessive delusions but we will see. He did promise once that he would not run for any office for 10 years but we all know how long that latest - just long enough for him to get out of jail and start his next round of filth, lies and libel.

I will not be surprised to hear that Daryl's defence is his mental disability and no doubt my attorney will probably get a letter from his supposed attorney or lawyer saying that Daryl is mentally incapable of standing trial but the ploy will not work this time.

I will only post again once this matter has come to a conclusion, either through binding arbitration based on condition of incarceration for violating the agreement or by a final non-appealable judgement of the courts.

Bye my friends!

Nola

We assume Nola speaks of "obsessive delusions" with great authority. --nw

========================================

[Original Message]
From: Daryl Lytton
To: CC Discussion List
Date: 4/26/2010 3:09:47 PM
Subject: Re: [USGWP-CC] My Wonderful Memories

I only read the first sentence of your message, because I already know it's worthless to read any more.

I've lost track of how many times you've said "I can honestly say" but all of the emails you claim to have supporting your delusions can't be found on your computer.

And I've lost track of how many times you've said "this will be my last post" on both this and the Discuss lists. How you can "honestly" claim "last post" in the same sentence is beyond me, but then I'm sane.

Good bye, and I hope reading your imaginary emails keeps you busy.

Daryl

========================================

That list returned to peace with an unanswered question: Who is Nola's worst enemy? Daryl, or Nola herseslf? We reported, you decide. --mw