Earlier this month, we published a story detailing the outcome of a lawsuit between a Fort Smith woman who runs a non-profit and woman she sued for slander, libel and defamation, knowing full well that doing so was going to return the management of Today in Fort Smith, both professionally and personally, into the eye of the storm, so to speak.
The lawsuit itself had been settled in late June. For whatever reason, access to the Agreed Order in the settlement was not available to us until late July. Once we had obtained the documents from the court we held on to them for a while as we tried to ascertain if the publication of a truthful and legitimate news story on the case would be worth the s***storm we knew would result from making the information available.
Having experienced the delusional rantings of the individuals involved and the attacks of those that still support her despite all of the proof to the contrary of her outlandish claims, we had just about decided to let it go. Because, to quote the Oak Ridge Boys from 1980 "sometimes the pleasure ain't worth the strain".
On August 3 of this year a Facebook post appeared from the parties concerned declaring a "win" in the lawsuit in which a redacted copy of the Agreed Order also appeared. The lawsuit had been dismissed with predjudice and the order itself enjoined both the parties from engaging in behavior that criticized or maligned the other parties.
In other words the court basically declared there were no valid claims by the plaintiff and in order to get it off a crowded court docket she was basically told to "go forth and sin no more".
I have talked with a half dozen lawyers and legal experts and court officials in three counties. To a person they have all agreed that if anyone "won" the case it was the defendant since the case was dismissed and cannot be filed again.
Here is the entire post, in it's entirety, that is still available on the organization's Facebook page as of 7 p.m. on August 18:
"Announcements Immediate media release. We have completed the court case against the party involved with the rumors that have led to the set backs, massive comments and post made by some members of this community. Since January 19th of 2019 Pay It Forward Fort Smith has been fighting to mend what this defendant purposely set out to tear down. The rumors and false allegations perpetuated by the defendant were false from the beginning and made out of malice and disregard for those we serve/help. These false allegations were made to which the defendant had hoped to be the demise of the nonprofit and the defendant to take over Pay It Forward Fort Smith nonprofit as President. These false rumors were spread throughout the community and it has placed a stain on Pay It Forward Fort Smith in way of no help from the large event fundraisers held within the community. Because of the defendant we struggle every day to work with the community we love and care for. We are now releasing the final court papers showing defendant was in fact found to be in the wrong and was found guilty of the actions of falsehoods. We hope that in the future this shows that you can not attack a nonprofit out of malice with mass emails, falsehoods, social media, text and private conversations.. We will continue to work very hard with the understanding that we are the low man on the nonprofit totem pole. We also hope that the community comes to understand that we will not accept attacks on the nonprofit from businesses, other nonprofits or residents, we do not care about your social status, we will in deed fight back. Thank you for your time and consideration. We would like to thank our Attorney Mr. Brad for standing with us on this case and all other cases we may have in the near future. We would also like to add we gained no monetary value from this lawsuit. This lawsuit was set on principal."
Here is also the cut and pasted screenshot of the Agreed Order (which is still available on their Facebook page):
If you will compare that screenshot to the actual PDF of the Agreed Order, you will find that the bottom third of the document is missing, telling the plaintiffs they are also enjoined from "making. issuing, or publishing disparaging remarks" with both parties being liable to be held in contempt should they violate the court mandate.
You can read the entire PDF of the court document (Taken from public records and sources) by clicking the following link:
It doesn't take a legal degree to recognize pertinent information in the Agreed Order was left off the screenshot provided by the organization on their Facebook page.
Whether by accident or on purpose, the end result ballyhoos a win that just does not exist.
In addition, we printed a screenshot of a search result form the Secretary of State website that indicated the organization WAS NOT current and in good standing with the state of Arkansas as a registered charitable entity at the time.
.
Because we are professional in what we do, we spoke by phone to people in the charities division of the SOS on August 3 and on two other occasions before publishing our story. All three time we were verbally told by staff members the organization was NOT IN COMPLIANCE because of "paperwork concerns". (The SOS office says the organization is now current and the paperwork has been backdated to reflect the next due date as June 30, 2022.)
That was the extent of our story. That the dismissal of the lawsuit was not a "win", that both parties had been equally enjoined at the risk of contempt and the organization WAS Not in compliance. All true and all verified.
We even went so far as to point out the Fort Smith Police Department had declared the accusations that spawned the lawsuit "unfounded" in their original investigation. We didn't editorialize or offer an opinion...we just laid out the facts for the reader to formulate their own opinion.
Of course, the aforementioned expected excrement explosion didn't disappoint. Even to the point of thinly veiled accusations that my wife and I had driven to the person in question's home so I could "stalk" her after the fact. This fairy tale came with illustrations on social media.
The incident supposedly happened at 9:20 pm one night. The photograph of the "stalking vehicle with the short, bald guy and the brown haired woman" was the same color SUV we drive. It was the wrong year model and didn't have the prominent "Katrina" tag with the rusted, impossible to remove screws on the front as ours, and it was also a heck of a well lighted picture for having been taken at 9:20 p.m.
I also have time stamps on mugshots I was posting at 9:20 p.m. on the night in question.
But I digress. And I'm trying to establish a pattern here.
During the same aforementioned Facebook rant when the individual wrongly took credit for the legal "win" the following line was also included:
"We would also like to add we gained no monetary value from this lawsuit. This lawsuit was set on principal (sic).
She is perfectly correct in her first sentence. They gained no monetary value because there are seldom any to be had when a lawsuit is dismissed after having found to be without merit. But the fact there was no monetary gain wasn't from lack of trying.
Having been a part of the plaintiff's organization for a year (before I came to my senses) I can recount endless times the plaintiff gleefully listed all the wonderful things she planned to do after she owned the defendant's "house, cars and all her dreams".
And I wasn't the only person privy to those aspirations. There were several others. One would hope they wouldn't be willing to lie under oath about that fact, but the sway on the cult is strong.
I know. I drank the Kool Aid for almost a year. People that were berated and treated like dogs kept (and keep) going back for more. When I got out, I had to call several people and organizations and make apologies because I felt like I stood by and let it all happen.
So we want to talk about stuff being "set on 'principal'"? How much principle do you have when you declare you weren't seeking punitive damages when that very fact is refuted by the original lawsuit?
Here it is....
Here is a link to the original PDF of the lawsuit. The screenshot above is from the bottom of Page 8.
My sober grandpa used to tell me that the "number, scope and magnitude of the lies you tell is not what makes you a liar...it's that first one you tell." In other words, one lie is enough to establish your "principal", so to speak. After you tell so many, they all start to run together to the point of lying about lying to cover up lies.
I could publish a lot of supporting material, I have chosen not to at this point, because that same grandpa used to tell me that being the better person is the only time you should be allowed to have a prideful spirit.
Despite the lies, allegations, half-truths, false police reports, slander, libel, threats by the scary motorcycle man and ACTUAL ongoing defamation I, the defendant and others have been subjected to, I have tried to be the bigger person through all of this.
I have enough evidence that I could actually win damages in a lawsuit in which a lot of people would get called to the witness stand and have to discuss a lot of embarrassing matters under oath.
Most of ya'll know me. And most of ya'll know I couldn't give a tinker's damn of anyone's opinion of me because I know who and what I am. And to quote Ricky Nelson, "you can't please everyone so you got to please yourself."
Having said all that I will say all this. i wrote and am publishing this against the advice of my legal counsel, who says It's just going to refuel the crazy and fan the flames of insanity.
But like Billy Joel said...You may be right, I may be crazy, but I just may be a lunatic you're looking for...
