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

Diane vs. Nola

Diane vs. Nola

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike & Diane"
To: usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com
Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2010 2:32 PM
Subject: Speaking of copyright violations

Hi all,

As some of you know I used to be the NCGenWeb State Coordinator but due to the directions the board was heading and the decisions that were being made behind my back as well as behind the backs of the CC's I chose to resign after due pressure from some of the board members. I removed all of my sites from their servers, moved them to the Rootsweb servers, sent my resignation letter to the NCGenWeb Business list and resigned.

Katherine Benbow [current State Coordinator] then proceeded to start an email writing campaign slandering me to all of the SCs in the USGWP and Nola [Duffy] started one with the researchers telling them I had stolen the information, it would no longer be available online, I was not a real person, etc. Little does Nola know that most of the people she sent the emails to I had met in person, are a relative of mine or we have had extensive phone conversations and we have exchanged family photographs, histories, etc. Boy was she made a fool of!

I then started receiving harrassing phone calls and emails from Members of the Board as well as one of the "honorary board members".

They also started posting some not so nice messages on mailing lists and message boards and researchers were not very happy about this. Some of them wrote an email and asked me to forward to the NCGenWeb Board which I did with a note stating forward as requested. I was then attacked by a pack of wolves called the NCGenWeb Board as well as their "honorary board member" [Derick Hartshorn].

They were relentless in their attacks until I said some things back and then told them the conversation was over I wanted nothing more to do with them. I received a couple more phone calls afterwards. Then nothing further.

A few days later I received an email from a researcher that my sites were being copied by NCGenWeb and that some of their information had been copied even though they had been emailed by one Nola Duffy and she told Nola in no uncertain terms that her work had better not be copied or there would be trouble. Nola wrote back and said she respected that and they wouldn't copy it.

Well, as you would expect NCGenWeb did in fact copy this persons work as well as many other researchers information. I received a lot of emails of complaints about it. I told them I would take care of it. So, I wrote to each member of the AB and explained to them about the copyright violations, sent them copies of the emails from Nola Duffy and this researcher where she had plainly stated do not copy my information, as well as an email from another researcher stating the same thing and links to ever page that had been copied as well as the link to the original page on my site.

Well, needless to say later that same day I found another entire site copied by the Co-State Coordinator Deloris Williams. She copied the whole site page by page up to and including photographs which we all know are completely covered by copyright laws to the photographer or the person that owns the photographs.

So, again I wrote to the entire AB to let them know this. Sherri [USGenWeb National Coordinator] wrote me back stating they would need more than 24 hours to make a decision. Meanwhile Tina Vickery USGenWeb Representative at Large] started emailing me demanding that I send her all of the emails that I received from researchers stating I could have their work posted on my sites. There was no way in hell I was going to send these to her for NCGenWeb to be able to get the email addresses of all of my researchers to contact them and spread more lies than what they had already done. So I ignored every single one of Tina's emails because I had already spoken with the researchers and had their permission to have the information on the sites no matter where the sites were housed.

Then Sherri and Tina came back and said that NCGenWeb had permission to copy any and all pages from any of my sites that they so desired. Well, needless to say I was very po'd. I pulled the United States Copyright Laws Title 17 and copied each one pertaining to me and the sites and emailed them to Tina, Sherri and each member of the NCGenWeb Board stating that they are breaking United States Copyright Laws and I once again demand that my information be removed from every single one of the NCGenWeb county sites up to and including graphics and backgrounds that I use on my sites and how I compile the information.

Needless to say I have never heard a word back from any of them because they all know they are guilty as hell. The laws can be found here:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/

Now, I can still visit various sites within the NCGenWeb and still see some of my pages used on their county sites so they are still breaking the US Copyright Laws and obviously they are being backed by the National Coodinator and the Representative at Large.

This is why the USGWP has earned such a horrible reputation, because they will break their own bylaws of copyright as well as those of the United States of America.

I do have the email from Sherri stating NCGenWeb can copy my Information if anyone needs it for further proofs. You can also check the NCGenWeb Pender County site, Lenoir County site, Wayne County site, Craven County site, and I am sure there are others and match them up to mine hosted on Rootsweb and located here:
http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~nctttp/countylist.htm
to see the blatant copyright violations.

I hereby demand the resignation of Sherri Bradley and Tina Vickery on the grounds of them breaking the USGWP copyright bylaws as well as the U.S. Copyright Laws Title 17.

Yes, Tina I do still have some projects within USGW. Much to your surprise I must say because you blatantly stated I resigned from all of my projects which is another blatant lie on your part.

Diane Siniard

Feel free to share on any lists, sites or blogs you feel are appropriate.

***************

-------Original Message-------
From: Nola Duffy
Date: 4/24/2010 5:22:36 PM
To: usgenweb-discuss@rootsweb.com
Cc: Mike & Diane
Subject: Re: Speaking of copyright violations

Diane,

I am very disappointed to see this post. When reviewing your new sites I have found one file that I personally transcribed and you obviously did not ask to copy it but it is there and shown as "submitted by Nola Duffy" which is simply false. You claimed to have asked all the prior contributors for permission but that has proven to be simply false - just as you tried to claim Gates. I realize that you have been ill and are extremely busy trying to get your new project up and running. However, many of your links are still to the NCGenWeb which you had no part in posting and some are copied from the NCGenWeb without permission of the parties who initially submitted them. Others are copied from the Archives without permission. Some are from sites you were "baby-sitting" and you simply copied and claimed as your own. Some still bear a date before you were even in the NCGenWeb. Other sites that you were "baby-sitting" were simply left trashed - just because you could. It was as if you wanted to show just how much damage you could do on your way out the door.

I honestly looked upon you as a friend for a long time and am sincerely sorry to see this personal vindictiveness. Yes, we could try to play tit for tat and demand that each and every purloined page from the NCGenWeb be removed from your new sites and ask that RootsWeb remove them but frankly I am not interested in your games but it would not take much more of this type of public posturing before I could change my mind. Is that something you really think will be helpful to anyone? Don't think so. If you really want this game, I suppose the CCs of the NCGenWeb might start demanding their material be removed from your sites but I had rather see all simply try to clean their own house before trying to stir the pot - simply because it gives you some personal satisfaction. You simply can't claim material submitted to the NCGenWeb years ago, in some cases by people who are now dead but that is exactly what you have done - just to have material for "your" new pages.

Remember, you are still claiming the county mailing lists as if they were your personal property. RootsWeb has already said they will take action if you continue to refuse to allow any member of the NCGenWeb to post to the lists. These are RootsWeb lists and NOT your personal private lists. Again, my three, yes 3 attempts, to join a mailing list you manage in a county where I have many relatives have been ignored. I have not asked RootsWeb to intervene simply because I thought you might calm down eventually but instead, here you are trying your best to stir things up again and it really is a kettle trying to call the pot black - even if the pot is made of stainless steel.

Please, act like the logical human you were until you went off the deep end and everyone will be better, including you. Your fury and hatred can't be beneficial to your health.

I do hope you will be happy in your new home where you and you alone are the sole boss since it obviously suits you a lot better than working with a group. Enjoy your new project and please, stop trying to make brownie points with the same folks you once saw as the bottom of the barrel. Remember the anonymous phone calls you told me about? Two months ago I would have thought it impossible that you could stoop to the level you have but as I told you privately, I have lost all respect which is sad. I still don't think you are being the normal person I once knew.

Nola

***************

"Normal person"? Diane and Nola apparently do not agree on what that is, and so did not reply to Nola. Instead, Diane sent me the below as a cover letter to the above two messages she included. --mw

***************

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike & Diane
To: Mary White
Sent: 4/24/2010 2:53:02 PM
Subject: Re: Speaking of copyright violations

Nola was forever sending me stuff to post on my sites and now she claims she didn't give it to me to post? What a crock of s[xxx]!

She also states that some of my pages bear dates before I was a member? That is crazy as well. I have reworked every page on every site to be my own creations and when people transcribed things of course dates are going to be back in the 80's, 90's etc. But when they contribute them is another matter. Does she really think I am that freaking stupid and naive?

As for sites that I trashed? I only removed all of my info and compilations. I left nothing for them that I had worked on. It was all copyrighted to me and the researchers, not to NCGenWeb. They have no right to the materials, unless they receive it from the researchers just like I did.

When I first took over Duplin County back in 2005 it had 5 pages. An index page, a will page with a will that had 1/2 of it missing, well it did have quite a few query pages and I will give them those if they want but all they will do with those is delete them although people love going through them looking for info, a mystery pics page with one photo with no contact info on who sent it in, a page of Rev. War vets sent in by Jerome Tew who gave me permission to keep it, and some other page that made no sense what so ever and I deleted that one. Same with the other sites I picked up along the way. They had between 5-10 pages each of much of nothing.

NCGenWeb is just jealous of what I have done with the sites and were just days away from locking me out of them. Too bad sooo sad for them. I took them and left before they could take them for something made up!

***************

"Something made up"? Thus one of the USGenWeb problems, to be addressed in my next post.

Mary White

Massacre Part 4/4

Saturday Night Massacre -- Part 4

Donated by
http://usgenweb-cc.org/index.html

Email #19

-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 1/31/2010 6:46:07 PM
To:
Cc: garebel@roadrunner.com
Subject: RE: greivance

[name removed],

I’m sorry to have taken so long to get back with you. I’ve gone over and over the GC procedures and the USGenWeb Project bylaws and they are going to be the guide that must be followed to settle this grievance.

The original grievance will not be provided as it was not accepted by the Grievance Committee. The grievance, as accepted by the committee, is the only one that will be dealt with.

Per the USGenWeb Project bylaws, Section XII, E (http://usgenweb.org/volunteers/bylaws.shtml), states may develop their own bylaws so long as they DO NOT CONFLICT with the USGenWeb Project bylaws. Since the USGenWeb Project has in its bylaws the Grievance Procedures, those are the ones that must be followed.

Per the USGenWeb Grievance Procedures, section XIV, F.2, when a member is dismissed from a position in a state project, that member’s position may NOT filled unless the grievance resolution against the member calls for the member to lose that position. Reviewing the XXGenWeb list of counties, all of Laverne’s counties have been reassigned to others. This action is clearly against the bylaws until this grievance is resolved.

The ball’s in your court. If you’re ready to proceed in accordance with the USGenWeb Project’s bylaws, a mediator and arbitrators will be assigned and this grievance will move forward toward resolution. If you choose not to proceed in accordance with the USGenWeb Project’s bylaws, this will be referred to the Advisory Board for them to handle.

Sherri Bradley
National Coordinator
USGenWeb Project

-------Original Message-------
Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 8:59 PM
To: usgenwebnc@windstream.net
Subject: greivance

Hi Sherri,

I am going to respond to you in line. Before we begin the mediation process we want several things made clear to us. After it is started we understood we could not question things.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sherri
To:
Cc: garebel@roadrunner.com
Sent: Mon, Jan 4, 2010 9:06 PM
Subject: RE: Grievance

[name removed],

There are several problems with your response to my previous email.

It is the choice of the grievant as to who is named in a grievance. [name removed] chose not to include the entire board in the grievance she filed, and that is entirely her right. There is no requirement that a grievance must be filed against an entire group of people, as you and [name removed] are trying to claim.

***************

1.) The grievant stated: "I am asking for a review and arbitration of the actions taken by the XXGenWeb Project, Inc., board of directors against me as XXGenWeb has no Greivance system in place."

[name removed] has clearly stated she is asking for a review of actions taken by the XXGenWeb Project, Inc. Board of directors. How is it possible that she can then remove some of them when she clearly states them in her beginning premise. This is one problem with which we are dealing. She cannot countermand her request in the same document. She was correct according to XX Law with her opening statement as she well knows. Perhaps someone on USGW advised her to change her words.

[name removed] was the one who told us from the beginning if we were acting as the board, there was no way to make us individually liable for doing our jobs. She stressed that many times as we were debating our incorporation. XX Statutes confirm what she told us. We have requested you speak with an attorney familiar with XX Law as we would not want you to break any XX Laws in this matter.

***************

"You don’t have the choice of whether you are bound by the confidentiality of the grievance process. The bylaws and Grievence Procedures clearly state that the process is confidential and can’t be discussed outside of the involved parties, the mediators and others directly involved in the process. Your claim that you have the right to discuss this with all of the XXGenWeb CCs or with the rest of the board of XXGenWeb is not valid.

"You were all subbed to the mail list that was set up for the grievance mediation. All involved parties, on both sides, the assigned mediator and the GC representative were subbed. The mediation was ready to move forward as far as the Grievance Committee was concerned, until [name removed] notified Diane that he, speaking for all of the rest of you, would not accept the identified mediator. He went on to state that ANY mediator assigned would be deemed unacceptable. I don’t understand your statement that you were waiting for the mediation to move forward since the only reason that it hadn’t begun was because of [name removed]’ actions."

***************

2.) We have awaited notice that a new mediator was seated as requested. All we viewed as far as email was the unsubbing of someone from the group. Who was that person and what position was he/she in? That is what we have been waiting for. That question was asked in an earlier email and you failed to comment on it.

3.) We want to see the original grievance filed since that was the initial complaint no matter how it was rewritten. The date remains tied to that first document. It is our right to see what has been presented. If other documents have been added we need to view those also.

4.) In the USGW grievance procedures it states: The review at this level should 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.

Has the grievance committee read the XXGenWeb Project, Inc. By-laws at /volunteers/bylaws.html particularly noting: Article III Section F -
RESIGNATION, TERMINATION, AND REINSTATEMENT:
Any member who fails to abide by these bylaws or acts to the detriment of the Project may have membership terminated by the Board. Board approval must be obtained before re-admission of a member whose membership has been so terminated.

Article VII- DUTIES OF DIRECTORS
Section A - DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS:
Maintain the physical presence of FLGenWeb on the Internet, oversee Special Projects, provide technical support as needed and other duties as required.

and

Article IV - OFFICERS
Section E - NONFEASANCE:
Any officer or director who fails to perform the duties of the position in a satisfactory manner may be removed from office by the Board.

If these were read, how was a grievance allowed to be filed? We ask for a dismissal of the grievance based on your guidelines.

***************

"The USGenWeb Project’s Grievance process was approved by the entire membership. It is not your right to refuse to participate in the grievance process by stating that 'it won’t work' for you. All USGenWeb Project members are covered by and required to follow the process. You must follow and abide by the procedures as USGenWeb Project members."

***************

I stated in my letter to you we were ready to participate. We certainly want to abide by your laws but we also have to abide by the laws of the State of Florida. We are hoping that those 2 can work side by side to see this process completed shortly as it did with our action that precipitated this grievance. We take very seriously the grievance that she has brought. The Board did not make the decision with haste. We spent over a week deliberating and Laverne was subbed to the list the whole time and posted copiously. Now we have spent hours making sure that we have the facts accurate.

***************

"The ball’s now in your court. If you’re ready to proceed with the grievance, as filed, by accepting a mediator and participating in the member-approved grievance procedures, we’ll move forward with the mediation step of the grievance. Should you all continue to refuse to accept an assigned ediator and/or to participate in and abide by the USGenWeb Project’s grievance procedures, the next step will be that the Advisory Board is asked to step in and disciplinary action be taken against each of you individually for this refusal."

***************

We, as was stated before, have been ready to proceed. We have been waiting for a USGW response to the things [name removed] brought forth to begin with. Once we have the things understood by our group, then we can in good conscience proceed. We are dismayed that you have only mentioned one thing [name removed] requested and not all of them. I hope the communications after we start are more easily handled.

***************

"You have until 9:00 p.m. on 7 January 2010 to decide what you want to do and let me know."

We want answers to our questions before we begin. We are also expecting to hear that the grievance has been dismissed per your guidelines. After looking at our bylaws as stated above, there can be no doubt that we acted within the bylaws when the Board acted, thus, the grievance is not valid.

We have not been in contact with [name removed] and feel he is out of communication range at present as he is several times a year.

[name removed],
President/State Coordinator,
XXGenWeb Project, Inc. spokesperson.

-----Original Message-----
From:
Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2009 10:26 PM
To: usgenwebnc@windstream.net; Cc: garebel@roadrunner.com
Subject: Re: Grievance 2009/08-15

Dear Sherri,

As President/SC of XXGenWeb Project, Inc. and also as a co-named person, I am writing to you on behalf of the entire Board of Directors of the XXGenWeb Project, Inc., in my official capacity. This is our official corporate communication and should be deemed to be a consensus response.

[name removed] sent a list of things we wished clarified. None has been answered so far. I have been very happy for him to respond to the grievance requests. Anyone with objections would have sent a message stating that to Diane.

We are very willing to answer for our actions as a Board. That is the way the XX Statutes say it is to be done. However, we are not willing to engage in defending any action against the individuals named in this claim that was not committed by, and could not have been committed by, any one of us, or any combination of us, because there is no mechanism by which the claimed action could have been committed by those individuals.

The grievant was dismissed by the BOARD under due process, strictly following our bylaws and the applicable XX statutes. There is no mechanism for some collection of individuals to dismiss a member. We are not a street gang; we are a deliberative body. It is not possible for the named individuals to defend themselves against such a claim, because none of the named defendants dismissed the grievant. She was, in fact, dismissed by a majority vote of the Board after extended debate and deliberation in her presence.

Therefore, this action is null and void because it does not name the appropriate party.

[name removed] has put both the XXGenWeb Project, Inc. and us individually in her grievance making it hard to leave the other members of the board out of the process. I am sure you can see our dilemma.

Reading in the mediation section it seems these questions are to be decided before we start mediation.

Sec 5 F-All discussion regarding the issues during the grievance process is to be considered privileged and private, and shall not be disclosed during or after the process
by either the team or either party, except as allowed by these procedures.

From Section 6-The mediation process is confidential, and parties involved must agree to uphold that confidentiality unless ALL parties agree to the contrary.

This statement is not going to work with our process. The outcome of the deliberations will have a direct bearing on every single member of XXGWP. If you side either way, the membership has a right to know what affects them individually. This procedure is not a personnel problem. It is an attempt to dispute our bylaws which were crafted by Laverne and 2 others.

This process has been in front of our whole membership from the beginning. The motion was brought on the Board list where the membership may read-only and [name removed] posted to the Membership list so they were all aware of what the Board was
doing. The decisions of the Board action have been clearly shown to our membership. How can you now state our members are not to know what you have done to our project?

Sec. 5F - When the team is seated, the parties shall be so advised by the Mediator.

We have seen one person unsub from the list. Who was that person? That is all we have seen. We have been waiting for some indication that the Grievance process is ready to go forward.

[name removed] provided Diane with the applicable XX Statute and also our bylaws. There has been no response from Diane indicating any decision. All we have had was notice that we were subbed to a list. No other instructions have been forthcoming. We thought Diane would respond to [name removed]' questions. He suggested she check with legal counsel to see if the USGW position was correct and said he was awaiting a reply. These were preliminary to our joining the mediation process. USGW guidelines says one of us is to respond to the mediation not all- is that correct?

The questions and answers are to be before the mediation process begins. Once his questions have been addressed and procedure corrected, we are more than happy to go forward as stated above. Is not [name removed] to also be subbed to this process? Her name has not appeared on any email so far which suggests she has not signed in.

This is not a statement of any answer to the charges. I am merely trying to find out what is to happen next. I have never been involved in anything like this and want to do it correctly.

[name removed]
President/SC XXGenWeb Project, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sherri
To:
Cc: 'Mike & Diane'
Sent: Wed, Dec 9, 2009 9:53 pm
Subject: Grievance 2009/08-15

As you’ve been notified by Diane Siniard, the Grievance Committee Chairperson, a grievance was filed against you all by a former CC of the XXGenWeb Project. The AB was contacted by Diane Siniard because there has been less than acceptable cooperation by the group of you in trying to move this grievance forward into mediation.

I will remind you all that per the USGenWeb Project Bylaws, Article XIV, Grievance Procedures and Appeals Process, that the Grievance Committee is tasked with administering a fair, orderly and timely resolution of a grievance. Article XIV, Section 6 (2) states that when a member is dismissed from a position in a State, Local or Special Project, that the position may not be filled until the expiration of the time for that member to file a grievance and that when the said member files a grievance, that position may not be filled unless the grievance resolution calls for the member to lose
the position.

The Standard Rules, Section V, Grievance Procedures also states the following: “When a conflict arises between two members of the USGenWeb Project that cannot be resolved informally, either party has the option of requesting a review of the dispute by the Grievance Committee. It further goes on to state that the final decision of the Grievance Committee is binding on all parties.

I realize that XXGenWeb is incorportated, but your Project, therefore all of you, are members of the USGenWeb Project. This is proven by the fact that the XXGenWeb Project displays the logo of the USGenWeb Project, as well as participating in the annual elections that are held.

Grievance 2009/08-15 was filed within the 14 day time limit stated in the Grievance Committee Procedures, so the fact that you’ve all been named in the grievance cannot be ignored or allowed to continue to languish due to the fact that Mr. [name removed] has made some rather sweeping statements that he is speaking for you all as a group, but there’s been no proof of this authorization for him to speak for the rest of you. Ms. Siniard has requested the information and responses from the group, but has met with no success in receiving a response.

When you all were notified that a grievance had been filed, you were also notified that the grievance process is covered by confidentiality rules as stated in Section 5F states: “All discussion regarding the issues during the grievance process is to be considered privileged and private, and shall not be disclosed during or after the process by either the team or either party, except as allowed by these procedures.” The AB has received several reports that the confidentiality of the process, as required by the bylaws and Grievance Procedures, has been breached. This is a serious problem and cannot continue to occur.

[name removed] has indicated in at least a couple of messages that he speaks for the group, yet in others, he says he is speaking only for himself. He has stated that he rejects the first mediator assigned, Dorman Holub, and will continue to reject ANY mediator that is presented.

I need to hear from EACH of you, SEPARATELY, if there is a spokesman for the group, and if so, whom it is. You should all realize and know that the Advisory Board takes the responsibility of ensuring that there is an operating the Grievance Process very seriously. It is not something that can be ignored, or only responded to if it appears that one side or the other is the one that will prevail. If you fail to act in good faith in regards to complying with the member-approved Grievance Procedures, the Advisory Board is ready to consider disciplinary action against those named in this grievance that fail to participate in the process.

Sherri Bradley
National Coordinator
USGenWeb Project

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

Email #20

-------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 2/6/2010 9:23:47 PM
To: 'Mike & Diane'
Subject: RE: Re: Grievance Response

Go with the mediation.

Sherri

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike & Diane
Sent: Saturday, February 06, 2010 7:52 PM
To: Sherri
Subject: Fw: Re: Grievance Response

Sherri,

Since they are still threatening to tell the membership about this grievance do you think I should go ahead and inform the AB or try to go ahead with another mediation and see what they do?

Diane
NCGenWeb SC
NCGenWeb CC
NCGenWeb Special Projects

-------Original Message-------
From:
Date: 2/5/2010 4:56:47 PM
To: garebel@roadrunner.com;
Cc: kyvitals@windstream.net; joelnewport@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Grievance Response

Diane,

I have talked with the Department of State for the State of XX. The only way to file this greivance is in a court of law and the judge upon hearing the grievance and reading the statute would throw it out. This statute is to protect the director from any personal liability in the perfomance of their duties. The statute is very specific in this matter.

The attorney has so far not returned my call.

Ample documentation can be presented that would show beyond a shadow of a doubt that the board acted as it should and that the charges were valid.

We do not wish to sever our relationship with you but if you continue in this process against the XX Statutes, our membership will have to be told and they can vote how they wish us to proceed.

We will proceed under protest unless our attorney advises us otherwise. We have been ready for some time with rebuttal of all of the charges. I understand [name removed] has to prove her case agains us not the other way around.

[name removed]

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

Email #21

------Original Message-------
From: Sherri
Date: 2/22/2010 9:42:19 PM
To: shirlcullum@sbcglobal.net; 'Mike & Diane'
Subject: RE: Grievance

Shirley,

[name removed] and the rest of the XXGenWeb Board members have already have these questions answered, by both Denise and me (or should it be I?). To wit, they were told that:

· They will not be provided with a copy of the original grievance that was rejected and resubmitted within the 10-day time period, nor will they be provided a time line as they’ve requested in an effort to try to figure out a way to wiggle out of this action.

· They were told that [name removed] can/could file a grievance however she wanted – against the board as a whole, or against individual members. If she chooses not to include some Board members, for whatever reason, it’s her prerogative to do so.

· Their state project has the USGenWeb Project logo on it and they purport to be a part of this Project. They don’t get to make their own rules or be treated differently than any other state project.

· That we will not be seeking legal advice as they told us to do. This is a volunteer project and if their state project is going to be a part of it, we require that they follow the bylaws. The bylaws clearly state that no state project bylaws can be in conflict with the USGenWeb Project bylaws.

· The Grievance Procedures specify that either of the parties can object to any assigned mediator or arbitrator that is a part of the “team”, but do not state that a party can object to the grievance itself.

· The bylaws, in section, XIV, F.1 clearly state: “A member may choose to act as his or her own representative, or may select someone to act as his or her representative.”

· With the bylaws stating that a representative may be appointed during the process, [name removed] being advised of the details of the grievance as [name removed]’s representative is an acceptable action. The XXGenWeb Board insisting that they also be allowed to present notice to the entire XXGenWeb Project membership is not acceptable.

· If they refuse to participate in the grievance process then the grievance will be decided in [name removed]’s favor and the AB will be asked to step in and enforce the resolution on the XXGenWeb Project. This would include de-linking the state if they refuse to participate in the grievance process in good faith. Stonewalling the grievance more than they’ve already done will not be tolerated. They were told to that this was non-negotiable.

· All XXGenWeb members named in the grievance have sent me notices that [name removed] would be their representative in discussing the grievance. I now see that [name removed] is trying to stonewall the whole thing by stating he will refuse any mediator and/or arbitrator assigned. That’s what got me involved in the first place as they were running Diane around in circles by refusing to participate in the grievance in good faith. That was back in September/October. We’re no further along than we were then.

(Not mentioned, but it may come up) That because XXGenWeb did not have a grievance process in place when [name removed] was removed from the project, the grievance being filed with National was the correct course of action. It matters not if they now have a grievance process in place, it is not retro-active so they can’t go back, now, and put her dismissal through their brand new, created just for this, grievance process so they are not responsible to the USGenWeb Project.

I agree, their actions are definitely intended to hold up the grievance process.

Sherri

------Original Message-------
From: Shirley Cullum
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2010 12:38 PM
To: Sherri Bradley; Diane Siniard
Subject: Fw: Grievance

I need help/advice on the request from Fran.

Thanks,
Shirley

On Mon, 2/22/10, xxxxx wrote:
From:
Subject: Grievance
To: shirlcullum@sbcglobal.net, grievance-mediation@yahoogroups.com
Date: Monday, February 22, 2010, 10:38 AM

Shirley,

I can see you already have the previous email stating what we want to know.

Please provide us with the timeline of events from August 5 forward until now.

Thank you,
[name removed]

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