|
3.
There was no warning from the GRCA about potential
liability, unhealthy puppies and/or cautioning local affiliates, please see
Plaintiff’s Exhibit 40, which wasn’t published until June 2005. Plaintiffs
were not present at this regular membership meeting.
4.
This is the same paragraph as 3, whoever prepared
this was not very detail oriented except for the conspiracy details. There
was no warning from the GRCA about potential liability, unhealthy puppies
and/or cautioning local affiliates, please see Exhibit 40, which wasn’t
published until June 2005. Plaintiffs were not present at this regular
membership meeting.
5.
There was no misuse of the puppy referral services by
Plaintiffs, Plaintiff’s had a valid 8 week contract for their litter
listing. Plaintiff’s complied with the Club’s Bylaws and Standing Rules for
Puppy Referral. Board cannot have an impromptu board meeting via email,
violation of the Bylaws, Article III, Section 4 and Article XI,
Parliamentary Authority.
6.
Please note that Defendant’s Exhibits E and F do not
match in their appendix. Exhibit E is date stamped, Exhibit F is not. It
is Plaintiff’s contention that the Board conspired and wrote the charges at
the Board meeting and there was no ‘impromptu’ board meeting and that
Defendant’s are just trying to cover themselves in hindsight. Why is only
one sheet date stamped. Plaintiff’s copy of the charges is also not date
stamped.
8.
Defendant’s Exhibits E and F do not match in the appendix and Plaintiff’s
copy is also not date stamped.
9.
Board did not hear testimony from Ellen Meyer, only Alan Meyer was addressed
by Lynda Williams with regards to present his information and he attempted
to testify. Ellen Meyer was not addressed by Lynda Williams to present her
defense. As there was no legal counsel allowed for either side, Alan Meyer
did not represent Ellen Meyer.
11.
DFWMGRC Bylaws ARTICLE VII, Section 2 states: The Recording Secretary shall
promptly send a copy of the charges to each member of the Board and the
Board shall schedule a meeting (or may instead consider them at its next
regularly scheduled Board meeting) to first vote upon whether the actions
alleged in the charges, if proven, might constitute conduct prejudicial to
the best interests of the Club or the Breed. In Judy Word’s affidavit
(paragraph 18), she states that Sherri Farmer ‘informed’ the board that she
had received a written complaint from Debbie complaining about the Meyer’s
conduct. Sherri Farmer’s affidavit states (paragraph 7) “I notified the
Club’s president of the formal complaint letter. She notified the board of
the complaint asking for a vote on whether to entertain jurisdiction of the
charges. The board of directors voted to pursue the complaint and set up a
hearing as provided for in the Bylaws.” According to the Bylaws, Sherri
Farmer was to have mailed a copy of the charges to each member of the Board
and for the Board to consider them at either its next meeting or a Special
Board meeting. This was not done. According to Sherri Farmer’s affidavit,
she only notified the Club’s president and the Club president notified the
board of the complaint. No mention of copies being sent to the Board
members. Could that be because they already discussed the charges they all
wanted Debra Allen to officially prefer in writing so they didn’t need to
see an actual copy after Debra Allen submitted them to Sherri Farmer? This
paragraph states that the board of directors voted to pursue the complaint
and set up a hearing as provided for n the Bylaws. Not only was a copy of
the charges not mailed to the Board members but there was also no meeting to
discuss the charges. Sherri Farmer admits here that on June 24, 2005, she
received the written complaint, yet then also says on June 28, pursuant to
the Club’s Bylaws she sent a letter to Plaintiffs setting forth the charges,
etc. Per the Club’s Bylaws, Article III, Section 4, notice of a Special
Board meetings must be postmarked at leave five days prior to the date of
the meeting. It was impossible for that procedure to have been followed
with Sherri Farmer receiving Debra Allen’s written complaint on June 24 2005
and then subsequently sending a letter to the Plaintiffs on June 28 2005.
As stated in paragraph 5 above, the regularly scheduled Board meeting
occurred on June 21 2005. This is just one example of the blatant
violations of the Bylaws by the DFWMGRC 2005 Board whereby they deny due
process to the Plaintiffs as admitted here by Sherri Farmer!!! The hearing
itself was totally out of order, not in accordance with Roberts Rules Of
Order and not in compliance with ARTICLE VII, Section 3. The hearing tape
and/or transcript is prima facie evidence of the lack of due process, lack
of an impartial tribunal, and sanctions imposed in bad faith and with
malice based on the fact that during the hearing the Board concedes
Plaintiff’s timeline and numerous times Defendants state that it doesn’t
matter if its true or not. The Clubs Bylaws, ARTICLE XI states: The rules
contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised,
shall govern the Club in all cases to which they are applicable and in which
they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any other special rules or
order the Club may adopt. The entire procedure the Board utilized leading
up to the charges were in total violation of the DFWMGRC Constitution and
Bylaws, and of RRNR, Chapter XX, Discipline which is mandated by the
Bylaws. Total lack of Due Process towards the Plaintiffs.
|
