|
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.
|
