[UC] Threat of lawsuit from FOCP

[Glenn moyer]

Dear neighbors,

I've received what might be a letter of intent to sue me for libel because of 
my recent letter exposing FOCP.  I had been ordered to a coffee meeting 
yesterday and I disobeyed.  What do you think, it's strangely worded:  

 "I am preparing a line-by-line refutation of your letter to the UCReview, and 
I hope you are prepared to defend yourself against libel.  I am ready to call 
you on your lies about the Friends of Clark Park, though of course I would 
prefer a non-confrontational approach."


I always thought the bogus trash tickets would be my demise or that I'd end up 
with one of those orange suits in the chain gang-hahaha.  Since I mentioned no 
names in my letter except the organizations FOCP and UCD, I assume that it will 
be the organizations, and not the individual suing me. (Pay your dues!)

If I go up against the powerful institutional lawyers; however, it doesn't 
matter how frivolous the lawsuit is to attempt to destroy me.  It's a technique 
called attrition. 


Since my defense will require a thorough public review of several points in 
neighborhood history, I will need to prepare by making a public record and 
discussion of the issues about several FOCP surveys, and the conclusions which 
can be drawn from the patterns. The first was from 2002 and led to new Dept. of 
Recreation regulations against festivals.  It was reported in the City Paper, 
but I decided not to sue for libel.  (My profession had long been health care 
research and my character and integrity, as a research professional, was 
attacked by the FOCP president, using my name, when she couldn't possibly 
justify using their survey as they had.) 

The records of the first UCD master plan steering committee will be requested 
during discovery, as will the records of the UCD/FOCP Quality of Life task 
force.  (I think you will find the truth fascinating.)  

The minutes of FOCP meetings and motions for many years will also see the 
sunshine.  (It was 2003 when the FOCP members ordered FOCP leaders to publish 
board meeting notices in the local paper.  It was then that the FOCP members 
also approved a motion to hear a proposal from an ad hoc committee to be formed 
by me:
to propose a method to include park stakeholders and the general public in 
important meetings relevant to the entire park and community.)  People were 
still very angry at the secret back room process, and hand picked 
representatives on the closed secret master plan steering committee.   

The current plan to redesign Clark Park this spring is just such an issue that 
is public community business, and not the private business of a closed FOCP 
planning committee.  

(Please note: I once again asked today for permission to deliver a "community 
engagement" proposal to the FOCP members for their consideration.  This needs 
to be done before action on the original UCD park plan can move forward.  The 
FOCP members have been waiting for seven years.  The proposal is largely based 
on a community partnership process developed and researched at the University 
of Pennsylvania.)

I will also need to subpoena many past FOCP board members, survey researchers, 
and witnesses.  My letter covered the FOCP patterns of the past decade, so I 
expect the case will get lengthy in order to prove my innocence.

I will need to subpoena several of you, who attended the FOCP dog park vote and 
witnessed the votes added after the public vote.  The dog park survey data that 
was misplaced that night will be required, (findings: 80% of the community 
wanted a dog park in Clark Park.)  Of course, the public vote showed that only 
17 people wanted a dog park while nearly 100 angry neighbors paid a lot of 
money to FOCP to vote against it. (Six extra votes were added to the 17 when 
the official tally was reported the next day.) (Does anyone know the name of 
the survey respondent, who publicly disclosed that she felt tricked by the dog 
park survey?)  

I'm sorry if this confuses many people, but I will need to defend myself and 
many of you are going to be involved. I know the FOCP leaders will be called as 
hostile witnesses, but I expect to get a lot of support from the people who 
have paid FOCP, out of fear, over the years.  The documentation, which has not 
been shredded, will support my innocence.  But the testimony about those 
documents and occurrences will be required under oath.

  I will be counter suing for the damages caused by a frivolous lawsuit.  (I 
think the FOCP members should carefully consider this lawsuit!)

Thanks in advance and stay tuned,
Glenn



----
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the
list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see
<http://www.purple.com/list.html>.