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.
