Editor's note: The following synopsis of the trial of Richard Pettys was taken from materials provided by Mr. Pettys and from my own records of the proceedings. I was privileged to be originally selected as Mr. Pettys's representative; when the Board summarily denied this choice, Mr. Pettys asked me instead to serve as his advisor, a position which I held throughout the trial. Thus, I have been intimately involved with the conduct of this trial from its inception.

As in the case of Tim Stowell's trial, the Board conducted the entirety of the trial in secrecy and because Mr. Pettys refused to participate in a closed trial he was not allowed to view the Board's clandestine deliberations. The National Coordinator during the trial, Shari Handley, removed the Board member believed to have leaked the records of Tim's trial from the secret Board lists. In this record you will not be treated to the Board's candid impressions of the defendant, the witnesses, or the charges themselves.

Materials provided by Mr. Pettys and Ms. Carpenter are reprinted below in their entirety and with their permission. Materials authored by Board members, witnesses, and others are redacted. Any supplemental materials are welcome and the identity of correspondents will be kept confidential.

As always, all editorial comments are mine own personal opinion. Read at your own risk!

The Devil Went Down To Georgia: The Trial of Richard Pettys

JUNE 2004--Prologue

On June 1, 2004, the USGenWeb Advisory Board, then led by National Coordinator Richard Harrison, moved to take control of two states projects within USGenWeb. Tim Stowell was State Coordinator of both GAGenWeb and NDGenWeb and the Board had been trying for two years to remove him from the state coordinatorship in Georgia. After failing to do so using the methods required by the Project's bylaws and the Board's own Standing Procedures, the Board basically confiscated both GAGenWeb and NDGenWeb. When Tim was removed from office, his Assistant State Coordinator, Richard Pettys, Jr., and one Regional Coordinator, Brenda Pierce, were also suspended from membership in the USGenWeb Project "for a period of 60 days or until the results of a removal hearing are known." As with Tim, neither Richard nor Brenda were initially informed of the charges against them, although they were summarily removed from all their counties and any positions they held within GAGenWeb. [Brenda resigned from USGenWeb shortly thereafter and thus was not tried by the Board.--Ed.] By June 2, interim SCs had been approved for both NDGenWeb and GAGenWeb, forced resignations had begun, and Tim's supporters were being removed from the project mailing lists. The coup was complete.

On June 3rd, Tim Stowell and Richard Pettys received notice from Richard Harrison that "Within the next few days" the Board would provide them with "a complete Statement of Charges." They would be given 15 days to respond to the charges should they dare to refute them. They were also notified that "Hearings will begin 15 days after the charges have been sent to you. The hearings will be conducted on a list dedicated to that purpose. You have the right to be subscribed to that list, at your request, and to receive a transcript of the hearing." Throughout the rest of June and the entirety of July the Board was silent on the matter of charges, although they did have the Election Committee run elections to permanently replace Tim Stowell in both GAGenWeb and NDGenWeb.

[Ed. Note. Richard Pettys first contacted me on June 1, 2004 shortly after the vote on Motion 04-14 concluded and the Board had seized GAGenWeb and NDGenWeb. He initially indicated that he was looking into taking legal action against Richard Harrison and the Board and asked if I would like to serve as the chronicler of any lawsuit he might bring by "posting the correspondence from counsel to the NC and other associated and related information." I agreed to do so, and this is the last record of correspondence I have with Richard until much later in the summer.]

AUGUST 2004

Somewhat more than a "few days" later [61 to be exact--Ed.], on August 3, 2004, the Board finally forwarded charges to Tim and Richard. Richard and Tim were accused of essentially the same violations; the Board made no attempt to ascribe certain actions to either of the defendants [most likely because the suspensions themselves were originally directed at the GAGenWeb management in its entirety, and also because the Board is both lazy and sloppy.--Ed.] Here are the charges in full:

Complaint against Tim Stowell and Richard Pettys, Jr.

SUMMARY:

Tim Stowell, in his position as State Coordinator of GAGenWeb has violated the Bylaws of the USGenWeb Project and the Guidelines of GAGenWeb, and has allowed the same Bylaws and Guidelines to be violated by those he appointed to the positions of Assistant State Coordinator and Regional Coordinators.

Richard Pettys, Jr., in his position as 2nd Assistant State Coordinator and as a Regional Coordinator in GAGenWeb has violated the Bylaws of The USGenWeb Project and the Guidelines of GAGenWeb.

The USGenWeb Project Bylaws Violated are Article I, II, XI - Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4; Article XII - Sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. GAGenWeb Project Guidelines violated are Numbers 1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14 and 16.

Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys have used unfair, discriminatory, and deceitful management practices and have created an atmosphere of secrecy, oppression, distrust and fear among the CCs of GAGenWeb. In doing so, they have ignored their responsibilities and duties in the positions of State Coordinator and Assistant State Coordinator, respectively, and have violated the rights of CC's.

The above violates both the letter and the spirit of The USGenWeb Project and has done harm to both the volunteers and the researchers of the GAGenWeb Project.

CHARGES:

(1) While Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys held the positions of State Coordinator, Assistant State Coordinator, and Regional Coordinator within GAGenWeb, they used their positions not to further the quality and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes. This was achieved largely by actions that effectively manipulated the vote within the GAGenWeb Project.
(a) County Coordinators were not subscribed to the mail lists and may or may not have ever received information from the Election Committee.
(b) Despite repeated requests County Coordinators were not subscribed to the GAGEN-L as required by GAGenWeb Guidelines and USGenWeb Bylaws. At the same time, people were permitted to remain as subscribers even though they were not members of GAGenWeb Project.
(c) A number of county websites within GAGenWeb were allowed to go for years without being updated or brought into compliance with GAGenWeb guidelines, thus permitting these coordinators to continue to "hold" a place or vote. This helped prevent a quorum from being reached when required.
(d) State Coordinator Stowell continued to adopt counties beyond the limit of 3 stated in GAGenWeb Guidelines and permitted the Regional Coordinators to do the same, thus preventing GAGenWeb from bringing in new CCs who would have held a vote. Other GAGenWeb CCs who met all the requirements and held fewer than 3 counties had requests to adopt another county denied or ignored. Numerous people have stated that their requests to adopt counties were ignored or denied when they tried to adopt counties that were shown as "Up for Adoption," sometimes for extended periods.
(e) GAGenWeb Guidelines provide for the use of Co-CC's and Asst CC's within the project. Requests for the approval of Co-CCs and Assistant CCs from the Regional Coordinators and the ASCs were generally approved, but similar requests from coordinators were generally denied or ignored.
(f) CCs were placed who were never announced as new CC's on GAGEN-L, did not post to GAGEN-L, did not respond to researchers or other CCs, and/or did not update websites. There are indications that at least some of these "phantom CCs" were actually existing RC's using an assumed name and email address to hold a county so that it did not become available for adoption. Permitting these "phantom CCs" to continue to hold a place or vote helped prevent quorums on controversial votes/issues.

(2) Mr. Stowell and Mr. Pettys ignored the results of a poll of the GAGenWeb CCs.

In 2003,Mr. Pettys started a Guidelines Revision Committee (GRC). The GRC worked to revise GAGenWeb guidelines to provide further protection for CC rights within the project, and to establish a grievance procedure that did not involve the State Coordinator or the appointed ASCs and RCs. The Committee asked for input from CC's throughout their work. Mr. Pettys threatened to stop the work of the committee, and did disband the committee before their work could be completed. Following this action, Mr. Stowell announced a vote to be taken on GAGEN-L. The vote, which was counted by Mr. Stowell and Mari Byers of TNGenWeb, indicated that the majority of CC's wanted the GRC to continue their work, but Mr. Stowell announced that the committee would not be reinstated, and at that time characterized the vote as a non-binding poll.

(3) The most recent dismissals of County Coordinators were in violation of GAGenWeb Guidelines.
(a) IN THE CASE OF SYLVIA RANKIN, LINDA GEIGER and DEBRA CROSBY. The GAGenWeb Guidelines do not state that "feelings that are burdensome to us as a whole" or feelings of being "extremely disgruntled and unhappy in the GAGenWeb Project" are reasons for dismissal. Nor is there a clause sanctioning dismissal for additional, unspecified reasons as determined by the SC or the GAGenWeb Council. The following are the only reasons specified in the GAGenWeb Guidelines for dismissal: Section 14: abandonment of the site (defined in Section 13) and/or violations of these guidelines. Section 15 Offering Items for Sale on County Sites: "Persistent complaints to GAGenWeb about failure to deliver the proper items and/or refunds where applicable could result in dismissal from GAGenWeb. A coordinator who sells, or solicits items not covered within the exceptions above will be immediately dismissed from GAGenWeb." Section 19 (GAGEN Email list): Violation of rules of common courtesy on the email list "may subject the offender to loss of posting privileges or dismissal from GAGenWeb for a repeated pattern." Section 11 Settlement of Grievances: In the event of a disagreement involving a GAGenWeb site, or a disagreement over genealogical data stored on, or proposed for, a GAGenWeb site a coordinator has the right to ask the coordinator in the next highest position to settle the grievance up through the SC to the GAGenWeb Council. "After exhausting GAGenWeb's grievance procedures, a party may have recourse under the USGenWeb Bylaws." The fact that Sylvia Rankin, Linda Geiger, and Debra Crosby were unsubscribed from the GAGenWeb list before SC Tim Stowell announced their dismissal and within "an hour or so" of the time that the GAGenWeb Council was notified indicates that none of them saw the statement that dismissed them. Finally, coordinators in violation of any page requirements "will be given warning and 30 days to correct the infraction" (Section 16; cf. Section 20f). While "feelings that are burdensome" are not one of the requirements, the abrupt dismissal of the coordinators certainly violates the spirit of the stated rights of coordinators.
(b) IN THE CASE OF CAROLYN GOLOWKA: Brenda Pierce, in her position as ASC, engaged in a campaign to create or manufacture evidence against Kay Stowe, as evidenced by her letter to Kay Stowe and by the case of the Bible records data. Standards applied by Brenda Pierce in the case of Carolyn Golowka's site were not applied uniformly to the counties in her region, including county(ies) coordinated by Tim Stowell. Section 13 of the GAGenWeb Guidelines states that "new links to GAGenWeb Archives files, pertaining to the county in question, may be considered an update." Clear warning and sufficient time (30 days) to correct problems were not provided before Carolyn was dismissed. Tim Stowell approved of and supported Brenda's action and referenced Section 6 of the By-laws in writing to Richard Howland.

On August 18, Richard Petty forwarded the following response to the charges against him. [Be warned: Richard claims to have a DJ from John Marshall Law School and is perhaps a bit over-fond of legal-ly language. Also, his response is very, very long.--Ed.]

Response of Richard R. Pettys, Jr. to Complaint Against Tim Stowell and Richard Pettys, Jr.

Mr. Pettys denies all allegations of wrongdoing on his part as set forth in the Complaint. Each separate allegation will be responded to hereinbelow.

First Defense

The actions of the Advisory Board are in violation of the very same bylaws of the USGenWeb Project of which the Advisory Board accuses Respondent Pettys of having violated.

Second Defense

The actions of the Advisory Board are in absolute violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the USGenWeb Bylaws, which states, “(t)he only requirement for membership in the USGenWeb Project is a desire to assist in gathering and disseminating genealogical and historical information for free online access by researchers.” The Advisory Board has suspended Respondent from membership without first ascertaining whether that “desire” continues to exist. Moreover, the Bylaws of the USGenWeb Project do not give the Advisory Board the authority to remove a member for any reason whatsoever.

Third Defense

The Advisory Board has gone outside of the Bylaws of the USGenWeb Project by utilizing a section of Sturgis which is not included in the said Bylaws. In fact, the said Bylaws are silent to any such action. As such, the action is in violation of the Bylaws, particularly when viewed in light of Article XV of the Bylaws, which states, “The UsgenWeb Project shall be governed by accepted parliamentary procedure, except in those cases where such procedure conflicts with the existing bylaws of the USGenWeb Project. The action taken by the Advisory Board is in direct conflict with Article XIV.

Fourth Defense

This accused shows that he could not have possibly violated Article I of the Bylaws of the USGenWeb Project. This article deals with the NAME of the project. This accused has taken no steps which interfere with or hamper the name of the project. While the approved logo may have stated Georgia GenWeb, all other documents and pages utilized by this Respondent always said “GAGenWeb.” The logo was a standard logo that had been in use for more than five (5) years and was to be used by all CC’s. Further, as has been stated by Mr. Stowell, a number of state projects use the state name as opposed to the postal abbreviation, and some have no logo whatsoever. A list of these states may be found at http://www.geocities.com/usgwtruth/Exhibit2.doc. This exhibit was produced courtesy of Mr. Stowell. [see below.--Ed.]

Fifth Defense

This accused shows that he could not have possibly violated Article II of the Bylaws of the USGenWeb Project. This article deals with the PURPOSE of the project. This accused has taken no steps which interfere with or hamper the purpose of the project. This can be proved by reviewing this Respondent’s county pages: Cobb County, GA (http://www.rootsweb.com/~gacobb/); Gilmer County, GA (http://www.rootsweb.com/~gagilmer/); Liberty County (http://www.rootsweb.com/~galiber2/); and McItnosh County (http://www.rootsweb.com/~gamcinto/). Although this Respondent has joined a different project, the same was necessitated by the suspension of him by this Advisory Board, thus nothing may be construed by his removal of USGenWeb Project logo’s and subsequent placement of AHGP logo’s. The sites have not moved and will not move.

Sixth Defense

This accused shows that he could not have possibly violated Article XI of the Bylaws of the USGenWeb Project. This article deals with the local projects. This accused has taken no steps which interfere with or hamper any state or local project project. Again, Respondent directs AB members to his various local websites, created during a time in which he was not suspended from membership in the USGenWeb Project.

Seventh Defense

This accused shows that he could not have possibly violated Article I of the Bylaws of the USGenWeb Project. This article deals with the state projects. This accused has taken no steps which interfere with or hamper the state projects. In fact, this respondent, in an effort to bring the members of the GAGenWeb Project together, created a Guidelines Revision Committee. This committee was disbanded after almost one year because this Respondent felt that nothing was being accomplished. As such, he sought consent and approval of the GAGenWeb Council to disband the said committee, the same being granted, although it was not required.

Eighth Defense

This accused shows that he could not have possibly violated Section 1 of the GAGenWeb Guidelines. This section deals with membership in the GAGenWeb Project. This Respondent has never released or terminated any member of the GAGenWeb Project, period. This Respondent does, however, admit that he has been involved in the release of County Coordinators in terms of discussions of the same and has supported, endorsed and embraced the said terminations. In fact, this accused wrote the letters that were sent to those members terminated by the leadership of the GAGenWeb Project in late May, as well as the notice that was placed on the GAGEN list by Tim Stowell. Clearly, the Advisory Board has received but one side of the story and has chosen not to seek the remainder of the story, given its actions of executing the accused before trial.

Ninth Defense

This accused has not in any way interfered with the voting privileges of any member. By way of further response, this Respondent shows that this specific issue was resolved by the Advisory Board on or about June 12, 2003. Moreover, to the extent that the accusation resolved on June 12, 2003 was in regard to allegedly stuffing the ballot box with “fake” or “phantom” CC’s, there is no circumstance under which this could have been true, as the leadership of the GAGenWeb Project was not notified which voter list would be used until mere days before the election, and certainly with no time to “hire” “phantom” CC’s.

Tenth Defense

This Advisory Board has accused this Respondent of having not followed a straw poll on the issue of a Guidelines Revision Committee. This same Advisory Board staged a “preference poll” to determine the preference of regional voters with regard to members to fill out the terms of Advisory Board members who had resigned. This preference poll was not followed, as Heather DeGeorge was seated on the Advisory Board instead of Bettie Wood, who had won the preference poll.

Eleventh Defense

This Advisory Board has also accused this Respondent of having violated the rights of CC’s and been involved in the termination of one or more County Coordinators under what it terms to be “questionable” circumstances and upon which one or more grievances were filed. However, this same Advisory Board has deemed it appropriate to ignore and turn a blind eye upon similar actions by one of its own, namely Jan Cortez, with regard to Pam Rietsch.

Twelfth Defense

This Respondent requests and demands a more definite statement as to the exact charges against him, as opposed to the vague and ambiguous statement that was issued. This Respondent is entitled to a specific and definite statement of each and every act, without regard to whether it was an act of commission or and act of omission which is being alleged.

Thirteenth Defense

This Respondent objects to the following documents attached to the Complaint for the basis set forth:

Document: Exhibit A
Basis of Objection: Potential violation of copyright, irrelevant to any claims against this Respondent, and a document that was not received by this Respondent.
Exhibit B: Irrelevant to any claims against this Respondent.
Exhibit C: Potential violation of copyright, irrelevant to any claims against this Respondent, and a document that was not received by this Respondent.
Exhibit D: Potential violation of copyright, irrelevant to any claims against this Respondent, and a document that was not received by this Respondent.
Exhibit E: Potential violation of copyright, irrelevant to any claims against this Respondent, and a document that was not received by this Respondent.
Exhibit F: Potential violation of copyright, irrelevant to any claims against this Respondent, and a document that was not received by this Respondent.
Exhibit G: Potential violation of copyright, irrelevant to any claims against this Respondent, and a document that was not received by this Respondent.

This Respondent notes that each of his Exhibits was obtained through the internet, that all of the attached exhibits are placed for public use, and that there is no copyright which is being violated.

Fourteenth Defense

This Respondent hereby places each member of the Advisory Board that, unless he is immediately returned to all of his positions held within the USGenWeb Project as of May 20, 2004, he will seek redress in an appropriate federal court in which he will name the National Coordinator, each member of the Advisory Board as of May 20, 2004, and the USGenWeb Project. In bringing litigation against the USGenWeb Project, each and every individual member of the project may be held liable for the actions of this Advisory Board. To that end, I hereby demand full legal names and home addresses at which service may be had and perfected by an appropriate officer designated and authorized to perfect such service of process.

Fifteenth Defense

Neither this Respondent nor his Co-Respondent were given any notice of any violation, as required by the Bylaws and the Guidelines, and, as such, specifically deny those associated charges to the extent that no “cure time” was granted.

Sixteenth Defense

This Respondent declines to answer for any actions, real or perceived, which accrued after July 1, 2004, inasmuch as said Respondent was suspended from membership and never left the USGenWeb Project. Rather, he was forcefully removed.

Seventeenth Defense

The named Respondent herein hereby responds to each paragraph of the accusation as follows:

Said Respondent is not responding to the “Summary” section inasmuch as it appears to be nothing more than a summary of that which is alleged thereinbelow.

(1) Denied as stated. By way of further response, this Respondent denies having used his position in the GAGenWeb Project for any purposes other than to serve the users of the GAGenWeb Project’s services. At no time was this Respondent concerned with anything other than the quality of the product available to the usership as a whole. At no time did this Respondent take any steps to assure the outcome of any votes or to otherwise gerrymander election results.

(1)(a) Denied. By way of further response, this Respondent shows that he did not exercise control or dominion over the GAGEN list. This Respondent did have the password to the list and, for a time, was responsible for maintaining the list in terms of placing members on a moderated status when necessary, or to moderate the totality of the list as circumstances dictated, but was not empowered or authorized to add or remove members from the said list.

(1)(b) Denied. This Respondent is not aware of any such “repeated” requests. By way of further response, this Respondent shows that none of these “repeated” requests for subscription were included in the exhibits. The same, if they exist, are hereby demanded.

(1)(c) Denied.

(1)(d) This Respondent lacks sufficient knowledge, information or belief to admit or deny the allegations set forth in paragraph (1)(c). However, by way of further response, this Respondent shows that additional county sites may have been taken by Mr. Stowell for one or more reasons, including “placeholder” status, or because Donna Parrish demanded the same when she resigned. Some GAGenWeb CC’s were denied additional counties. This was because they had shown that their interest was in padding the files of the USGenWeb Archives Project, and the county sites which they maintained primarily consisted of links to the archives as opposed to real data. On more than one occasion, as in the case of Ms. Grolowka, these CC’s are believed to have refused donations of data, referring them to the archives project. When contacted about these issues, these CC’s have commonly stated that all data belongs in the Archives and that they can link to them, in spite of the requirement that county pages contain data under the GAGenWeb Guidelines in place as of May 31, 2004.

(1)(e) This paragraph is denied as stated. At some point in early 2004, a decision was made by the GAGenWeb Council to limit the use of Co-CC’s and ACC’s. This was done because of a stated intent to eliminate these positions, as they were deemed to be unnecessary. Of course, those Co-CC’s and ACC’s who were in existence prior to that time, including my wife, Kathleen Pettys, were to be “grandfathered” and allowed to continue in their service.

(1)(f) There were CC’s who were admitted into the GAGenWeb family who were not announced on the GAGEN list. The practice of not announcing new CC’s came to be sometime in June or July of 2003. This was done in an effort to lessen the flow of email on the GAGEN list, which was receiving hundreds of pieces of email a month, most of it unnecessary and unrelated to the ongoing work of the project. This Respondent vehemently denies the existence of any “phantom CC’s”. By way of further response, this accusation was initially made by Jimmy Epperson and, eventually, withdrawn by him. It also failed to garner sufficient votes for action to be taken in June 2003. As such, it appears that this Advisory Board is engaging in double jeopardy and the same is objected to herein.

(2) This Respondent admits that he did not follow the results of a STRAW poll, that was announced as a non-binding straw poll, with regard to the re-establishment of a Guidelines Revision Committee. However, Mr. Stowell did not ignore those results. In fact, he contacted Jacki Jonas with regard to the re-constitution of such a committee, with her being Chair of such committee, shortly after the vote was announced. This Respondent admits that he did create a Guidelines Revision Committee, that was authorized after he stated that one would be forming in short order. And for almost a year, this Guidelines Revision Committee accomplished little, if anything. When the Guidelines Revision Committee began bickering about small and minute issues unrelated to the ongoing work, this Respondent sought sanction from the GAGenWeb Council to disband the said committee. While no sanction was necessary, the same was granted. After taking time to reconsider and ponder the dissolution of the Committee, this Respondent made a decision that there was no choice in the matter and disbanded the Guidelines Revision Committee. Perhaps it would have been better to resign as Chair of the committee. However, this Respondent made the decision he made and stands beside that decision.

(3) Denied in its entirety as stated. While the primary reason for the release of Ms. Crosby, Ms. Geiger and Ms. Rankin was their being clearly disgruntled, the decision was made because their disgruntled nature showed in their work product. Moreover, on more than one occasion, these CC’s are believed to have refused donations of data, referring them to the archives project, and declining to place them on the local county site in contravention of the GAGenWeb Guidelines and in absolute violation of the policy of the GAGenWeb Project that the county site was to be the primary repository for data. When contacted about these issues, these CC’s stated that all data belongs in the Archives and that they can link to them as opposed to posting and storing them, in spite of the requirement that county pages contain data under the GAGenWeb Guidelines in place as of May 31, 2004. Moreover, in the case of Ms. Rankin, there were numerous issues of harassment of this Respondent, which greatly contributed to this Respondent’s agreement with her release. Were he alive, Bill Clody could have and would have testified to this fact. Finally, Ms. Rankin’s page and Ms. Geiger’s page were not in compliance with the GAGenWeb Guidelines. They were notified of this fact on more than one occasion and more than thirty (30) days prior to their release. They chose not to cure the objection. In the case of Ms. Crosby, a contributing factor in this Respondent’s consent to her release was the fact that, from Baker County, GAGenWeb, Ms. Crosby linked to her website of poohbos.com, on which there were links of a questionable and sexually enticing nature. This Respondent absolutely felt that these links were inappropriate for a genealogy page that, hopefully, attracted the interest of people from all walks of life and all ages of people. This Respondent denies that the presented list is the only basis for the release of a County Coordinator. However, the reasons for the release of these three County Coordinators were clearly set forth in the Guidelines, and the Guidelines were followed. Because this Respondent was not familiar with the circumstances surrounding the release of Carolyn Grolowka, he is unable to respond to the truth and veracity of the allegations set forth therein. Moreover, inasmuch as the charge that appears to be levied therein does not appear to be aimed at this Respondent, it may be possible that no response is necessary. However, subject to and without waiving the foregoing, this Respondent denies that the release of Ms. Grolowka was improper under any set of circumstances. In fact, the very emails that the Advisory Board has used in order to attempt to vilify and convict Tim Stowell also show exactly what occurred. As with other CC’s involved in these proceedings, Ms. Grolowka refused to accept donations made to her county website, referring them instead to the archives. As such, this Respondent agrees with the release of Ms. Grolowka.

On August 19, Richard sent the following message to the Advisory Board:

I hereby object to the form of the hearings and the separation of Tim and I for your hearing purposes. Tim and I were suspended together, charged together and should be tried together. Therefore, I hereby object to the form of the hearing and demand that the hearings be held together.

[Ed. Note: Also on August 19, Richard contacted me again regarding his trial and sent the following note: "Would you like to be my personal representative with respect to this AB junk? They would absolutely hate it, because their hatred for you is second only to their hatred of Tim and me. I will, in advance, give you permission to publish the totality of the transcripts as you see fit." My response was tepid; at that point I was in a bit of an extended sabbatical from USGenWeb and I wasn't all that interested in rejoining the fray. Thus my response: "I'm not sure that having me as your representative is in your best interests. I really do not follow USGW business much anymore. I read your response to their silly charges and it appears that you had professional legal advice in the construction of that document. I suggest that whoever you got to help you with that document should represent you in front of the Board. If that person is actually a real lawyer, then I can bet that the Board will simultaneously wet their drawers. I am, however, deeply curious as to what their reaction will be if you put forward my name as your representative. You are free to run the idea past the Board, but my guess is that they will deny the request because 1) I am a member not in good standing and always will be, which pretty much precludes me from doing anything in the project they don't want me to do; 2) they will consider it frivolous and confrontive and will deny it out of hand; and 3) I will not consent to secrecy agreements and gag orders, which is the only way the Board does business. If you refuse to have any other representative than myself they will most likely consider you to be representing yourself. Once they rubber-stamp your final and formal dismissal from the project, you can use this against them in any further action you may choose to follow. After all, I myself was improperly declared not in good standing and have never been allowed to respond to any specific charges. The only perk of membership that is denied members not in good standing is that of running for office. So they have no real leg to stand on in denying you any legitimate representation you choose. My guess is that Roger the Court Jester will cobble something out of Sturgis to please King Richard. In any case, I am happy to publish any proceedings you see fit to share with me. Same goes for Tim, since it looks like they are going to hang you separately."]

On August 19, 2004 Richard sent the following notice to Greta Thompson:

Please take notice that I hereby place the Committee on notice that I wish to be represented in these proceedings by Teresa Lindquist. Ms. Lindquist may be reached through her email at merope@radix.net. All further communication should be sent both to Ms. Lindquist and myself. All communication from me shall be through my personal representative, Teresa Lindquist.

OCTOBER 2004

The Board formally announced its verdicts against Tim on October 23, 2004. Two days later the transcripts of Tim's trial were leaked on the onebatcave blog and the Board and its various minions flew into spectacular tizzies. Richard Howland was unsubbed from the secret lists. Tina Vickery instituted a new rule on the DISCUSS list threatening instant banishment if certain URLs appeared anywhere in list messages. And the messages from Shari Handley to the remaining defendant became increasingly nasty.

[Ed. Note. On October 25, Richard contacted me again and reaffirmed both that he wanted me to serve as his personal representative and that I would be free to publish anything from the trial. In this message he elaborated on some of his proposed motions, which mostly involved trying to force several Board members to recuse themselves due to conflict of interest, and insisting on a list of the evidence against him prior to the trial and an open hearing. On the last point, he indicated, "...to the extent that I waive the right to privacy, I want the hearing as an open hearing. I will not participate in a closed hearing. I've nothing to hide and everything to gain by members of the project seeing what these horrid people are doing." I indicated that I was still willing to help him out, but felt pretty strongly that the Board would not agree to any of his requests. And I was right.]

On October 26, correspondence began between Richard, Shari Handley, Greta Thompson, and myself:

Richard to Shari, 26 October 2004: "I have waited long enough. Please contact my representative and let's get this hearing going. My representative is Teresa Lindquist - mreope@radix.net. I truly want this hearing completed in the shortest amount of time possible.:

Shari to Richard, 27 October 2004: "I will contact you when the AB is ready to begin the hearing...The AB also desires as swift and fair a resolution as possible...The hearing is confidential and will take place on a confidential, unarchived list. All participants will be expected to...honor the confidentiality of the hearing...Teresa Lindquist was declared MNIGS due to her breech of confidentiality of the BOARD-EXEC list, and remains MNIGS...Ms. Lindquist cannot be reasonably trusted to uphold the hearing's confidentiality, and will therefore not be allowed to be subscribed to the hearing list...let us know if there is someone else you wish to designate as your representative. Whoever it may be must be willing to pledge to uphold and maintain the confidentiality of the hearing." [Note that Shari did not say I could not represent Richard, just that I would not be subscribed to the trial list.--Ed.]

Richard to Shari, 27 October 2004: "Teresa Lindquist is my choice. At least she is a member of the project. She is, in fact, my choice for the very reason that she will not agree to closed-door, backroom dealing. In the event that she is denied, then I recommend that you hold your hearing in absentia and do whatever it is you intend to do. I will not agree to any confidentiality agreement before, during or after the hearing. I waive the right to privacy in this matter. The members of the AB have no privacy to protect. It is my firm belief that the members of the Project deserve to know what transpires. The members of the Project have an absolute right to know exactly what their AB members are saying and doing. The members of the Project have an absolute right to know how their elected AB members vote, just as all Americans have the right to know how their elected representatives vote and how they conduct themselves in hearings. This is not a matter of national security and I have waived my right to privacy in this matter. If the Ab members are unwilling to waive that right, what does that say? I will have several motions to be filed through my representative, Ms. Lindquist."

Shari to Richard, 27 October 2004: "Ms. Lindquist will not be subscribed to the hearing list...confidentiality is for the protection of all involved. That includes not only you, but others named or involved or mentioned...In light of your statement that you will not honor the confidentiality of the list, I will consult with the AB and will notify you of their decision regarding your participation..."

Richard to Shari, 27 October 2004: "I see no need to contact me further with regards to this matter. The AB is afraid of its constituency seeing the manner in which this is handled and even insists that *I* be subjected to a gag order. I have nothing to hide or be afraid of. The AB does. The AB can not hold the hearings without me. That would only be further proof of the bad faith that is ongoing in this "hearing". You may contact my representative, Teresa Lindquist (merope@radix.net)."

Richard Pettys to the Advisory Board, via Teresa Lindquist, 28 October 2004,RE "Motion to Recuse":

"In the Matter of UsGenWeb Project versus Richard R. Pettys, Jr.

COMES NOW, Richard Pettys, Jr., Respondent in the above-captioned matter, by and through the undersigned representative, and files this, his Motion To Recuse Bettie Wood, Linda Barton, Jan Cortez and Angie Rayfield, as follows:

Respondent shows that he has been guaranteed a fair hearing by the Advisory Board of the USGenWeb Project. To that end, Respondent has identified four current members of the Advisory Board with whom he has serious doubts regarding their ability to be impartial hearing officers in this matter. Because of this obvious and blatant inability to be impartial, the presence of these members jeopardizes any opportunity Respondent has for a fair trial. A separate motion will be filed regarding the Chair, inasmuch as she is not a voting member of the tribunal empaneled to hear the case against Respondent.

Ms. Barton, Ms. Cortez and Ms. Rayfield are on record as having made statements that they question the truth and veracity of the Respondent. This is clearly indicative of their inability to give and credence to Respondent's responses and/or answers to the charges and questions which may be asked of him. Thus, he is unable to obtain a fair trial in this matter. As to Ms. Wood, she was a complainant in at least one complaint against the GAGenWeb leadership when she was declared not to be a member in good standing of the GAGenWeb project, preventing her from running for a SEMA CC Rep seat. Moreover, she has made inflammatory statements, such as the "firecrackers between the toes" comment and a comment on Board-L that the hatchet had not been buried. Thus, it is clear that Ms. Wood is unable to be a fair and impartial juror in this matter.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, Respondent requests that Bettie Wood, Linda Barton, Jan Cortez and Angie Rayfield be recused from these hearings. As a point of order, it would be improper for this motion to be voted upon by these four ladies."

Richard to the USGenWeb Advisory via Teresa Lindquist, 28 October 2004, RE "Motion to Recuse Sharyn Handley"

"In the Matter of UsGenWeb Project versus Richard R. Pettys, Jr.

COMES NOW, Richard Pettys, Jr., Respondent in the above-captioned matter, by and through the undersigned representative, and files this, his Motion To Sharyn Handley as presider, as follows:

Respondent shows that Sharyn Handley, then Representative at Large to the Advisory Board of the USGenWeb Project, filed a motion to suspend Tim Stowell, Brenda Pierce and Richard Pettys pending hearings into alleged improper conduct. That motion formed the basis for the charges against Richard Pettys, Jr., which serve, inter alia, to create in Sharyn handley, now the National Coordinator and party presiding over the hearings, the Complainant or Plaintiff in this matter. Nowhere in the history of this country has a Complainant been allowed to serve as judge in the case in which s/he is Complainant. This matter is no different. For Sharyn Handley, the party who filed the motion giving rise to this action, to now sit as judge over this hearing, is improper.

WHEREFORE, Respondent moves that Shraryn Handley be recused from presiding over this matter. As a point of order, Sharyn Handley should be required to designate an appointee to present and preside over the deliberation on this motion."

Teresa Lindquist to the USGenWeb Advisory Board, 28 October 2004: "While I understand that neither my principal nor myself will be allowed to join the hearing list because we have waived privacy and are refusing to enter into a confidentiality agreement, the Advisory Board has not denied Mr. Pettys the right to utilize my services as his personal representative. To that end, it is my expectation that any and all questions will be sent through me as this is the expressed wish of Mr. Pettys and he is desirous of participating in this hearing to the best of his ability, with the sole exception being his refusal to be bound by a confidentiality agreement. We also request that any and all documents which the Advisory Board intends to produce at a hearing will be forwarded to myself and Mr. Pettys without further delay so that we may consider our response. We also remind the Board that if it intends to call any witnesses forth in this matter, Mr. Pettys has a right to question those witnesses; we refer the Board to Sturgis, Chapter 27 ("Discipline & Expulsion of Members")."

Greta Thompson to Richard Pettys, 29 October 2004: "...Shari Handley has asked me to send you the Statement of Charges against you and to copy the Advisory Board...I have included those charges, and only those charges, that apply to you. If I have inadvertently included something irrelevant or omitted something germane, I will correct the Statement as soon as this is drawn to my attention. I have asked for a receipt indicating that you have read this Statement."

Shari to Richard, 30 October 2004: "Teresa Lindquist is excluded from participating in any manner in the impending hearing...Ms. Lindquist's status in this organization at this time is as a member not in good standing. She has also stated her intention not to honor the confidentiality...These issues, along with her continued refusal to comply with rules and requirements and to work within the framework of our organization, necessitate her exclusion. The Advisory Board will disregard any further correspondence from her...Both you and Ms. Lindquist have made abundantly clear that you do NOT intend to honor the requirement of confidentiality. The AB is obligated...to take whatever steps are necessary to keep the proceedings confidential...Parliamentary law provides that the accused has the right to counsel. However, the organization is within its rights to withhold approval of said counsel...The AB must give the you the opportunity to be represented by counsel...It is the responsibility of the accused to select acceptable counsel...since you have refused to comply with the requirements of the hearing, you have...waived your rights to fully participate. Given your intention to breech the confidentiality of the hearing, there is no way to protect those involved and allow you full access to the hearing...You will be provided a copy of the charges against you in a separate email following this one. You will be allowed up to one week to present a statement on your own behalf in answer to the charges. The AB will then proceed with the hearing and will notify you of its determination...The motions to recuse AB members are out of order...To allow such recusals would interfere with the right of the organization to discipline its members. There is no personal gain evident to warrant denial of any board member to participate thus no conflict of interest exists. This correspondence is part of the hearing, and is therefore confidential and intended for you only. Permission to forward, copy, or otherwise share the contents is expressly denied. Failure to honor this requirement may be grounds for expulsion from The USGenWeb Project."

NOVEMBER 2004

The correspondence between Richard, Teresa Lindquist, and the Board continues.

Richard to Shari, 1 November 2004: "I have advised you that I choose to be represented by Ms. Lindquist during these hearings. That is my decision and my decision alone. I dispute the right of the AB to deny me my choice of counsel. Moreover, my motions are not out of order and I insist on a ruling on the same. There will be further motions which shall be submitted later today, as well as other pleadings. Neither my representative nor I will engage in closed-door, backroom hearings. I waive my right to privacy and insist on a public trial. The members of the AB do not have a right to privacy. Moreover, none of the alleged complainants and witnesses have a right to privacy, unless the rape-shield laws are being invoked, which is impossible in this hearing. As I have previously requested, there shall be no further contact between you and me. Rather, any contact shall be through my representative, Teresa Lindquist. The reality is that this matter is headed to federal court, like it or not. I recommend that you and each member of the AB provide for that contingency."

Teresa Lindquist to the USGenWeb Advisory Board, 1 November 2004: "Response of Richard R. Pettys, Jr. to Complaint Against Tim Stowell and Richard Pettys, Jr." [this is a duplicate of Richard's initial response to the charges back in August, including the response to Charge #3, which the Board deleted when they sent the charges to Richard in August.--Ed.]

Teresa to the USGenWeb Advisory Board, 1 November 2004: "The attached exhibits are sent in support of Mr. Pettys' response to the charges against him, which you have previously received." [This message includes the exhibits attached to Mr. Pettys' initial response in August.--Ed.]

Shari to Richard, 3 November 2004: "...Ms. Lindquist has been designated a Member Not In Good Standing. She has shown consistant disregard for damage done to the project through her actions...She is NOT recognized as your representative during this hearing...any correspondence from her has been, is being, and will be disregarded. By insisting upon being represented by a member who is Not In Good Standing and who has stated her intention not to honor the confidentiality requirement, you seek to undermine the hearing process and...USGenWeb itself...Any further insistance that Ms. Lindquist be allowed to represent you will not be ...acknowledged...5 days remain for you to respond to the charges. The deadline is 11/6/04 at 11:00 a.m. When and if, during this time, you choose an acceptable representative to present them, or you present them yourself, your motions may again be presented for ruling...You are not being denied your right of counsel. You may select any person to represent you, as long as they are not designated "Not In Good Standing" in our organization, and as long as they will agree to honor the confidentiality of the hearing...This correspondence is part of the hearing, and is therefore confidential and intended for you only. Permission to forward, copy, or otherwise share the contents is expressly denied. Failure to honor this requirement will be considered to be damaging to The USGenWeb Project and may be grounds for immediate expulsion from The USGenWeb Project."

Richard to Shari, 3 November 2004: "First of all, please take note that I have twice asked that you not communicate with me. Your message is being forwarded to your ISP along with my two previous emails requesting that you not contact me on the basis of harassment. Please refrain from emailing me in the future. Interestingly, the AB is accusing me of attempting to undermine the hearing process in insisting on my representative of choice despite the fact that neither of us desires to be on the hearing list. Rather, we desire to submit our evidence and answer any questions on the matter. It is my position that the AB is attempting to undermine the process by concealing from the membership what is truly going on. As such, the AB is undermining the process and is showing its total inflexibility in this situation. For the AB to wait until the hearing is convened to deny my choice of counsel is inappropriate, particularly given that I advised the AB several months ago that she was my choice. That would have been the appropriate time to make that pronouncement. It is not an appropriate time now that we have spent three months preparing for trial, preparing motions, gathering evidence and strategizing. This has placed me in a patently unfair situation. However, that has been the intent of the AB all along. I will note that your first email stated to me that Ms. Lindquist would not be allowed to be subscribed to your hearing list, and that I would not, either. You did not say that she could not represent me until the second email. At this point, I continue to identify her as my representative. Even if I chose someone else, it would be with instruction not to agree to the gag order which the AB desires. I will not participate in backroom, private list deals. It is a matter of principal. If this AB were truly interested in a fair trial, it would be willing to meet me half-way. But it is not. It wants to play these sand-box games. I grow weary of the kindergarten mentality of this AB. Meeting me halfway would entail allowing my chosen representative to submit the motions that I wish to have submitted and responding to written questions submitted by the AB. But instead of doing the right thing, this AB is more interested in hiding behind some shield of privacy. If the AB is not willing to meet me on this and insists on some confidentiality agreement, then perhaps it is best that the AB try me in absentia and sentence me. Because I am not agreeing to your confidentiality order and am not participating in the trial, no emails will be considered confidential. Your copyright will, however, be honored. However, I will forward your emails to my chosen representative and/or any attorney that I choose to retain. As a matter of record, I note that my answer to the charges was filed with the AB over three months ago. Unless these charges are different from the original charges, then I submit that the answer I filed is sufficient. It is the exact same answer that was served by Ms. Lindquist in her continuing role as my representative. I incorporate the motions that were filed by Ms. Lindquist by reference as if they were fully set forth herein and ask that they be accepted as if they were filed by me. There are two ways to do this. One is to play by an agreed-upon set of rules. The other is to let the AB play by its undefined set of rules and conduct a hearing in absentia."

Richard to Greta Thompson, 8 November 2004: "Madame Secretary: Attached is my answer and documents which are responsive for use as evidence. Given the AB's refusal to allow Teresa Lindquist to serve as my representative, I shall require additional time to identify my representative and fully prepare my case. I believe through next Monday should be sufficient, although I will name my new representative not later than Wednesday. The new representative shall not be subscribed to the list, but shall answer specific questions which are directed to her and shall submit all argument via email to you or whomever the NC appoints. This is a matter of principle and I believe that the members have a right to know what the AB is doing on this matter. In the event that the AB desires a motion, please accept this as said motion, despite the format thereof. As argument, in the event that a court denied a legal representative to proceed in a case, the accused would certainly be granted somwhat of an extension in order to secure appropriate counsel."

Shari Handley to USGW-CONF2, 8 November 2004: "...[Richard's] request for an extension in order to secure an acceptible representative is approved. The hearing will reconvene on Monday, November 15, 2004."

Paulette Carpenter to Greta Thompson and Shari Handley, 10 November 2004: "BEFORE THE USGENWEB ADVISORY BOARD USGENWEB PROJECT, Complainant, versus RICHARD R. PETTYS, JR., Respondent/Accused. NOTICE OF ENTRY OF APPEARANCE COMES NOW Paulette Carpenter and brings this, her ENTRY OF APPEARANCE in the above-captioned matter on behalf of the Respondent, RICHARD R. PETTYS, JR. The undersigned is serving as REPRESENTATIVE for RICHARD R. PETTYS, JR. All discussion regarding the charges should be directed to the undersigned at her email address, parcarp@comcast.net. Respectfully submitted this 10th day of November 2004. /S/ Paulette Carpenter Representative for Richard R. Pettys, Jr. By Designation

Paulette Carpenter to Greta Thompson and Shari Handley, 10 November 2004: "In the Matter of UsGenWeb Project versus Richard R. Pettys, Jr. COMES NOW, Richard Pettys, Jr., Respondent in the above-captioned matter, by and through the undersigned representative, and files this, his Motion To Recuse Bettie Wood, Linda Barton, Jan Cortez and Angie Rayfield, as follows: Respondent shows that he has been guaranteed a fair hearing by the Advisory Board of the USGenWeb Project. To that end, Respondent has identified four current members of the Advisory Board with whom he has serious doubts regarding their ability to be impartial hearing officers in this matter. Because of this obvious and blatant inability to be impartial, the presence of these members jeopardizes any opportunity Respondent has for a fair trial. A separate motion will be filed regarding the Chair, inasmuch as she is not a voting member of the tribunal empaneled to hear the case against Respondent. Ms. Barton, Ms. Cortez and Ms. Rayfield are on record as having made statements that they question the truth and veracity of the Respondent. This is clearly indicative of their inability to give and credence to Respondent's responses and/or answers to the charges and questions which may be asked of him. Thus, he is unable to obtain a fair trial in this matter. As to Ms. Wood, she was a complainant in at least one complaint against the GAGenWeb leadership when she was declared not to be a member in good standing of the GAGenWeb project, preventing her from running for a SEMA CC Rep seat. Moreover, she has made inflammatory statements, such as the "firecrackers between the toes" comment and a comment on Board-L that the hatchet had not been buried. Thus, it is clear that Ms. Wood is unable to be a fair and impartial juror in this matter. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, Respondent requests that Bettie Wood, Linda Barton, Jan Cortez and Angie Rayfield be recused from these hearings. As a point of order, it would be improper for this motion to be voted upon by these four ladies."

Paulette Carpenter to Greta Thompson and Shari Handley, 10 November 2004: "Respondent shows that Sharyn Handley, then Representative at Large to the Advisory Board of the USGenWeb Project, filed a motion to suspend Tim Stowell, Brenda Pierce and Richard Pettys pending hearings into alleged improper conduct. That motion formed the basis for the charges against Richard Pettys, Jr., which serve, inter alia, to create in Sharyn Handley, now the National Coordinator and party presiding over the hearings, the Complainant or Plaintiff in this matter. Nowhere in the history of this country has a Complainant been allowed to serve as judge in the case in which s/he is Complainant. This matter is no different. For Sharyn Handley, the party who filed the motion giving rise to this action, to now sit as judge over this hearing, is improper. WHEREFORE, Respondent moves that Sharyn Handley be recused from presiding over this matter. As a point of order, Sharyn Handley should be required to designate an appointee to present and preside over the deliberation on this motion."

Paulette Carpenter to Greta Thompson and Shari Handley, 15 November 2004:

"In the Matter of UsGenWeb Project versus Richard R. Pettys, Jr.

NOTICE TO PRODUCE

To: The USGenWeb Project and the Members of the Advisory Board and the National Coordinator, served contemporaneously with the Summons and Complaint in this action. Respondent Richard Pettys, Jr., pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rules 26 and 34, hereby request that Complainant USGenWeb Project produce for purposes of inspection and copying the documents and things described hereinbelow to Representative for the Respondent, within the time allotted under the Federal Rules of Civil procedure.

I. INSTRUCTIONS

1. If Complainant claims any of the documents requested hereinbelow or any part of such document is privileged, or if Complainant would otherwise withhold or redact any documents or part thereof, then, with respect to each such document or part thereof, Complainant shall prepare a “privilege log” which specifically identifies and describes the document, identifies each person who sent or received a copy, and describes in detail the basis for your claim of privilege.
2. To the extent that a response calls for information that cannot now be precisely and completely furnished, such information as can be furnished should be included in the response together with a statement that further information cannot be furnished and a statement as to the reasons therefore. If the information that cannot now be furnished is believed to be available from another person, identify the person by name, address, and telephone number as well as setting forth the reasons upon which you rest your belief that the person has access to the described or requested information.
3. Each response shall be preceded by a verbatim quotation of the request to which response is made.

II. DEFINITIONS

A. These requests for production of documents and things shall be deemed continuing in nature so as to require supplemental answers if further or different information is obtained between the time the answers are served and the time of trial or hearing.
B. “Complainant” or any synonym thereof, including, without limitation, “you”, “your”, or “yours” is intended to entail, embrace and include, in addition to the USGenWeb Project or its parliamentarian and/or prosecutors, all agents, servants, employees, representative, investigators, contractors, corporate entities, and other persons or agencies who are in possession of or have obtained information for or on behalf of said Complainant, including individual members of the Advisory Board and the National Coordinator.
C. Wherever appropriate, the singular form of a word should be interpreted in the plural and vice versa. All words and phrase shall be construed as masculine, feminine, or gender neutral, according to the context. “And” as well as “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of this Request any documents which might otherwise be construed to be outside the scope of the same.
D. “Document” means every writing or record of every type and description that is or has been in possession of Complainant, within Complainant’s control or custody, or of which Complainant has knowledge, including, but not limited to any copy of the original, of writings of every kind, including, but not limited to, every correspondence, drawings, changes to such drawings, sketches, books, records, logs, reports, memoranda, abstracts, advertisements, agreements, appointment records, audio recordings, whether transcribed or not, balance sheets, bills, bills of lading, blanks, books of account, cablegrams, certificates, charters, communications, charts, checks, compilations from which information can or may be obtained or translated through detection devices, papers, transcriptions of summaries of conversations, delivery records, diaries, drafts, drafts of documents, electronic or mechanical recordation in whatever medium, discs, plans and specifications, graphs, tapes, slides, cards, wires, expense records, expense reports, computer printouts, computer programs, computer records, electronic mail and/or email, compact discs, writable compact discs, re-writable compact discs, mini-discs, super discs, zip discs, jazz discs any computer or digital storage medium, entries, field notes, estimates, films, financial analyses, financial statements, banking statements, forms, handbooks, telegrams, income statements, indices, journals, letters, licenses, manuals, maps, meeting reports, napkins on which notes have been jotted or memorialized, minutes, notes, order forms, orders, opinions, payroll records, permits, photocopies, photographs, planographs, digital photographs, tintypes, video recordings, receipts, press releases, prospectuses, publications, recordings, records of account, reports, requisitions, resolutions, statements, statistical records, studies, summaries, system analyses, time records, time reports, training manuals, evaluations, warehouse receipts, wire transfers, money transfers, bank money transfers, records of wire transfers, records of bank transfers, and any other electronic, digital or mechanical recordings or transcripts of any other device or instrument from which information can or may be perceived, or which is or can be used to memorialize human thought, speech, or action in the custody, control or possession of the responding party, wherever they may be including, without limitation, the party’s home, former home, real property, former real property, automobile, former automobile, safe deposit box, attorney, friend or acquaintance for safe keeping, including any and all drafts and reproductions. If any discs, tapes, cards, wire or other electronic or mechanical recording is produced, the responding party shall also produce such equipment, programs, and machines as are necessary to retrieve data, play, decoding, printing or converting such documents into a usable format.
E. “Person” means any natural person, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, association, governmental entity, agency, group, organization or group of persons.
F. “Communication” means to describe statements and communications by: (1) stating when and where they were made; (2) if oral, the identity of the individual(s) who participated in such communication; (3) the exact substance of any such communication; (4) if oral, the identity of all documents evidencing the communication or any matter relating to such communication; (5) if written, the sender and recipient of such communication; and (6) if written, identify all of the documents evidencing, or in any matter relating to such communication.
G. Minutes shall be defined as recorded events of meetings without regard to the form thereof, whether in video, audio, or written form.
H. “Financial records” shall be deemed to include, without limitation, all statements issued by any financial institution, all tax returns (federal and state), all financial statements prepared on behalf of Complainant for presentation to any other party for any reason whatsoever, all reconciliation statements, and all checking, money market or savings registers.
I. Where no definition has been given, the word or term shall have its commonly understood meaning or definition as set forth in the most recent edition of Webster’s Abridged Dictionary.

Requests for Production

1. Produce all documents which will be introduced into evidence against the Respondent.
2. For each email or private document which you intend to use, produce documentation that such use has been permitted by all parties to said email.
3. Produce all documents which you contend prove that Richard R. Pettys, Jr. violated the Georgia guidelines.
4. Produce all documents in your possession which you contend prove that Richard R. Pettys, Jr. violated the bylaws of the USGenWeb Project.
5. Produce all grievances filed with the Advisory Board that name Richard R. Pettys, Jr. as a party.
6. Produce all documents in your possession which you contend prove that Richard R. Pettys, Jr. is guilty of any of the charges alleged in the charging document.
7. Produce all documents in your possession which illustrate your efforts to mediate this dispute prior to the suspension of Richard R. Pettys, Jr.
8. Produce any and all documents which set forth the job description of an Assistant State Coordinator within the USGenWeb Project.
9. Produce copies of any and all documents which you contend prove that Richard R. Pettys, Jr. violated his duties as an Assistant State Coordinator within the USGenWeb Project.
10. Produce any and all documents in your possession which are the result of an investigation into the allegations regarding Mr. Pettys which you contend are the work of the investigational committee that was charged with reviewing this matter.
11. Produce any and all documents that constitute any statement made by Jan Cortez, Bettie Wood, Angie Rayfield, Linda Barton and/or Shari Handley regarding Richard R. Pettys, jr. or his character in any way, shape or form within the past sixty (60) days."

Paulette Carpenter to Greta Thompson and Shari Handley, 15 November 2004:

"In the Matter of USGenWeb Project versus Richard R. Pettys, Jr.

RESPONDENT’S FIRST CONTINUING INTERROGATORIES TO The USGENWEB PROJECT, THE ADVISORY BOARD AND THE NATIONAL COORDINATOR

To: The USGenWeb Project, the members of the Advisory Board and the National Coordinator.

COMES NOW, Richard R. Pettys, Jr., Respondent in the above-captioned matter, by and through his Representative, Paulette Carpenter, and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rules 26 and 33 propounds the following interrogatories unto Complainant USGenWeb Project, the Advisory Board and the National Coordinator to be answered in writing and under oath, within the time required by law:

INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS

A. These interrogatories shall be deemed continuing in nature so as to require supplemental answers if further or different information is obtained between the time the answers are served and the time of trial or hearing.
B. “Complainant” or any synonym thereof, including, without limitation, “you”, “your” or “yours” is intended to entail, embrace and include, in addition to The USGenWeb project or its counsel or representative of record, all officers, agents, servants, employees, representative, investigators and other persons or agencies who are in possession of or have obtained information for or on behalf of said Complainant.
C. “Document” means every writing or record of every type and description that is or has been in Complainant’s possession, control or custody, or of which Complainant has knowledge, including, but not limited to, correspondence, reports, memoranda, tapes, stenographic or handwritten notes, studies, publications, books, pamphlets, voice recordings, minutes or statistical compilations, files, or any other recorded or graphic material in whatever form, including any and all drafts and reproductions.
D. “Person” means any natural person, corporation, partnership, proprietorship, association, governmental entity, agency, group, organization or group of persons.
E. To “Identify” a “document” means to provide the following information with sufficient specificity as to properly identify a document, irrespective of whether the document is deemed privileged or subject to any claim of privilege: 1. the title or other means of identification of each such document; 2. the date of each such document; 3. the author of each such document; 4. the recipient of each such document, including, but not limited to, Complainant or any representative of Complainant; 5. the present location of any and all copies of each such document in the care, custody, or control of Complainant; 6. the names and current addresses of any and all persons who have custody or control of each such document or any copies thereof; 7. if all copies of the document have been destroyed, the names and current addresses of the person or persons authorizing the destruction of the document and the date the destroyed; and 8. if a privilege is claimed, state the specific basis thereof.
F. In lieu of “Identifying” any “document”, it shall be deemed sufficient compliance with these interrogatories to: produce a copy of each document and reference said document to the particular interrogatory to which the document is responsive.
G. To “Identify” a natural person means to state that person’s full name, title or affiliation, last known address and telephone number, email address, and place of employment. To “Identify” a person that is a business, organization or group of persons means to state the full name of such business, organization or group of persons, the form of the business, organization or group of persons (e.g. corporation, partnership, agency, or unincorporated group, or units, etc.) and to identify the natural person(s) who would have knowledge of the information sought by the interrogatory.
H. “Communication” means to describe statements and communications by: 1. stating when and where they were made; 2. if oral, the identity of the individual(s) who participated in such communication; 3. the exact substance of any such communication; 4. if oral, the identity of all documents evidencing the communication or any matter relating to such communication; 5. if written, the sender and recipient of such communication; and 6. if written, identify all of the documents evidencing, or in any matter relating to such communication.
I. To “state” or “describe” means to provide with detail and particularity information about the event, incident or occurrence, including, but not limited to, the identity of all persons involved, what the event, incident or occurrence was, how it arose, the exact location of the event, incident or occurrence, the date(s) and time(s) involved, why you believe the event, incident or occurrence took place, and the resolution or end result or impact of the event, incident or occurrence.
J. Each interrogatory is addressed to personal knowledge of the named Complainant, as well as to the information and belief of Complainant, investigators, agents or other representatives.
K. The answer to each interrogatory should be preceded by the number and verbatim quotation of the interrogatory to which the answer responds.
L. Whenever a full and complete answer to any interrogatory or sub-part thereof is contained in a document or documents, such document or group of documents, appropriately identified as answering a specific numbered interrogatory or sub-part thereof, may be supplied in lieu of written answer.
M. Interrogatories calling for numerical or chronological information shall be deemed, to the extent that precise figures or dates are not known to Complainant, to call for best estimates, if any exist. In each instance that an estimate is given, it should be identified as such together with the source of information underlying the estimate.
N. Unless otherwise required by the context, each interrogatory should be construed independently and not by reference to any other interrogatory contained herein for the purposes of limitation.
O. If you object to answering any interrogatory calling for certain information or to the identification of certain information or to the identification of certain documents on the grounds of either attorney/client privilege or the work product doctrine, or both, or any other claim of privilege, then as to such information or such documents allegedly subject to such asserted objections, Complainant is requested to supply an identification of such information or such documents, in writing, with sufficient specificity to permit the Court to reach a determination in the event of a motion to compel as to the applicability of the asserted objection, together with an indication of the asserted basis for the assertion of the objection based on the privilege claimed. In the case of documents, the full identification of which is objected to because of privilege and/or the work product doctrine, such partial identification called for by this instruction shall include the type of document (e.g., inter-office memoranda, correspondence, reports, etc.), the sender or author, the recipient of each copy, the date, the name of each person to whom it was circulated, the names appearing on any circulation list associated with such document and a summary statement of the subject matter of the document in sufficient detail to permit the court to reach a determination in the event of a motion to compel, but not so complete as to vitiate the effectiveness of the assertion of the objection.
P. Where no definition has been given, the word or term shall have its commonly understood meaning or definition.

Interrogatories

1. State with specificity each and every charge that has been raised against Respondent Richard R. Pettys, Jr. For each such charge, state the following: a. The exact manner in which it is alleged that Mr. Pettys violated such rule; b. Each and every element of the said charge; c. The specific basis of each such charge; and d. The capacity in which Mr. Pettys is alleged to have violated such duty.
2. Identify each and every member of the USGenWeb project who has even been tried in a similar manner and/or for similar charges.
3. Inasmuch as Tim Stowell was found responsible for the charges brought against him, which are identical to the current charges, state with specificity the capacity in which Mr. Stowell was found responsible.
4. Identify each person whom you believe has any knowledge whatsoever regarding the charges pending against Mr. Pettys.
5. Identify each email which you intend to introduce against Mr. Pettys. For each such email, state the following: a. Originator of the email; b. All recipients of the email; c. That date of the email; d. The source from which the said email was acquired; and e. Whether permission has been granted to use the same.
6. State with specificity the job description of an Assistant State Coordinator within the US GenWeb Project.
7. Identify each and every member of any investigative committee that investigated the claims against Richard R. Pettys, Jr.
8. Identify each and every emergent situation which led to the motion filed against Mr. Pettys which denied him the ability to run for an office and denied him the right to suffrage within the project.
9. Identify each and every complaint naming Richard R. Pettys, jr. filed with the AB. For each such complaint, state the following: a. Name of complaining party; b. Date complaint was filed; c. Nature of the complaint; and d. Final outcome of each said complaint.
10. Identify each complaint filed by Richard R. Pettys, Jr. against Isaiah Harrison with the Advisory Board. For each such complaint, state the following: a. Date the complaint was filed; b. Nature of the complaint; and c. Status of the said complaint."

Paulette to Shari Handley and Greta Thompson, 16 November 2004; Re: Request to be Notified of Hearing: "Since the AB was to begin meetings again on November 15, 2004, in the matter of USGW vs Richard Pettys Jr., I hereby request that the Recording Secretary notify Mr. Pettys and myself via email when the AB begins a daily meeting in regards to the above mentioned hearing. This can and will ensure that we are available for questions, and to recieve the evidence as the AB does. Mr. Pettys and myself will not be subscribed to the hearing list, nor will we communicate via IRC, communication is to be through email only. Your approval of the above request is appreciated."

Shari Handley to Paulette Cooper via Greta Thompson, 17 November 2004: "Results of motions...to recuse Cortez, Rayfield, Barton and Wood -FAILED...to recuse Handley -FAILED...None...voted on their own recusals...the RAL handled the Handley recusal...This is an internal administrative disciplinary hearing, and is not bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If you have requests to make, please make them in simple English and without the quasi-legal trappings. The AB is now resuming discussion...If there are any questions for Mr. Pettys, we will send them through Ms. Carpenter."

Paulette to Shari via Greta, 17 November 2004: "Mr. Pettys and Ms. Carpenter request clarification of the notice received today from the secretary in regards to 'Regarding the other requests ("Notice to Produce", "Interrogatories")..This is an internal administrative disciplinary hearing, and is not bound by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If you have requests to make, please make them in simple English and without the quasi-legal trappings.' Is this a request for simple English for future communications, or for resubmission of the Notice to Produce and Interrogatories? Please advise. Notification: Mr. Pettys has been in contact with me regarding a family member who is very ill, and the possibility of death is eminent. His family will be meeting with physicians this coming Monday for determination of how to handle the situation. Please use this notification as advisement that we could be asking for an adjournment in order for him to attend to his family needs. I trust the AB will be considerate of this notification."

Shari to Paulette via Greta, 18 November 2004: "...The AB requests that any future communications from you and Mr. Pettys be in plain English...resubmit any of your requests or motions in plain English as well, keeping in mind that this is an internal administrative disciplinary hearing...The AB is currently discussing the charges, and will continue to do so. In the event that Mr. Pettys needs to attend to family matters, we will wait until he is available again to ask any questions or request any information that may be needed from him. Please express our condolences to him...THIS EMAIL, AS WELL AS ANY AND ALL OTHER MESSAGES THAT ARE A PART OF OR IN REGARDS TO THIS HEARING, ARE CONFIDENTIAL AND MAY NOT BE FORWARDED, POSTED ON A WEB SITE, OR IN ANY WAY SHARED WITH ANYONE ELSE. FAILURE TO ABIDE BY THIS RESTRICTION MAY BE CAUSE FOR EXPULSION FROM THE USGENWEB PROJECT." [Shouting in the original.--Ed.]

Paulette to the Board, via Greta, 19 November 2004: "Mr. Pettys and myself request: " 1)That the board identify to us which charges they have reviewed, and which charge they are currently on. 2)That the AB identify who the evidence has been presented by with each charge. 3)That in the charge #1, section D, specifies Mr. Tim Stowell as charged, we request that this charge be removed from Mr. Pettys' charges. Following this message will be a simple English request for evidence from the Notice to produce. It is outlined per charge. Mr. Pettys thanks the AB for its condolences with regard to the illness and imminent death of his grandfather. He will have more details after the meeting on Monday and will advise of any updates at that time. In order allow him to spend significant quality time with his grandfather, he requests an adjournment until Tuesday, November 23, 2004, at which point he will advise the AB of the situation and his familial obligations. Thank you for your cooperation"

Paulette to the Board, via Greta, 19 November 2004: "Please submit the following to the Advisory Board. With appreciation,

To the USGW National Coordinator and the USGW Advisory Board Members

Below is the resubmission of the Notice to Produce that was previously submitted, with the use of simple English per your request. We understand that some of the matters are currently under way, and we would appreciate the evidence on those sent to us asap. We also appreciate that there are still matters before the hearing, which have not been presented, and we appreciate the evidence forwarded to us when it is presented to the board. Even though Mr. Pettys has requested an adjournment, he requests that we be provided all current evidence/issues that have been discussed in regards to his hearing before November 15, 2004, and beginning November 15, 2004. Your Cooperation is continually appreciated, Paulette Carpenter

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating Article I of the USGenWeb Project Bylaws. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating Article II of the USGenWeb Project Bylaws. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating Article XI, Section 1 of the USGenWeb Project Bylaws. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating Article XI, Section 2 of the USGenWeb Project Bylaws. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating Article XI, Section 3 of the USGenWeb Project Bylaws. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating Article XI, Section 4 of the USGenWeb Project Bylaws. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating Article XII, Section 2 of the USGenWeb Project Bylaws. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating Article XII, Section 3 of the USGenWeb Project Bylaws. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating Article XII, Section 4 of the USGenWeb Project Bylaws. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating Article XII, Section 5 of the USGenWeb Project Bylaws. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating Article XII, Section 6 of the USGenWeb Project Bylaws. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating Article XII, Section 7 of the USGenWeb Project Bylaws. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating GAGenWeb Guideline #1. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating GAGenWeb Guideline #3. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating GAGenWeb Guideline #6. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating GAGenWeb Guideline #7. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating GAGenWeb Guideline #10. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating GAGenWeb Guideline #12. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating GAGenWeb Guideline #13. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating GAGenWeb Guideline #14. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of violating GAGenWeb Guideline #16. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of using his position not to further the quality and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes, by a) failing to subscribe county coordinators to the mail list. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of using his position not to further the quality and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes, by b) failing to subscribe county coordinators to the the GAGEN-L as required by GAGenWeb Guidelines and USGenWeb Bylaws while permitting people to remain as subscribers even though they were not members of GAGenWeb Project." Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of using his position not to further the quality and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes, by c) allowing a number of county websites within GAGenWeb to go for years without being updated or brought into compliance with GAGenWeb guidelines, thus permitting these coordinators to continue to "hold" a place or vote and preventing a quorum from being reached when required. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of using his position not to further the quality and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes, by e) denying or ignoring requests from coordinators for approval of Co-CCs and Assistant CCs, while approving such requests from Regional Coordinators and the ASCs. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of using his position not to further the quality and purpose of GAGenWeb as stated in The USGenWeb Bylaws and the GAGenWeb Guidelines, but to insure preferred outcomes, by f) placing CCs who were never announced as new CC's on GAGEN-L, did not post to GAGEN-L, did not respond to researchers or other CCs, and/or did not update websites. There are indications that at least some of these "phantom CCs" were actually existing RC's using an assumed name and email address to hold a county so that it did not become available for adoption. Permitting these "phantom CCs" to continue to hold a place or vote helped prevent quorums on controversial votes/issues. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

Richard Pettys is accused by the USGenWeb Advisory Board of ignoring the results of a poll of the GAGenWeb CCs. Please provide copies of all evidence that the Committee is considering in regards to this charge.

DECEMBER 2004

Around this time, Board member David Morgan publicly notified the Project, via the DISCUSS list, that he had unsubscribed himself from both BOARD-EXEC and the secret trial list. Since he did not tell the Project why he did this, members speculated that 1) he unsubbed on the principle that doing things in secret is wrong; or 2) he had some sort of tiff with Shari and unsubbed in a huff. I emailed him and asked him directly why he left the lists and his only response was a sarcastic "And I should trust you? hohoho!" Several others to whom he did respond to were kind enough to forward his replies, and from them it was apparent that Door #2 was the correct answer. Apparently Shari found David's wit to be too sarcastic and he felt it was a matter of time before she removed or moderated him. His response to Richard Pettys was particularly interesting: "...me not being on the hearing list is your loss. I would have voted you NOT RESPONSIBLE on all charges. I doubt if anyone else on the AB will vote the same way...I tried my best to recuse myself from that hearing, but Shari kept subscribing me back to the list. Until this last time, of course." He also noted that he could not wait to be declared MNIGS [Its a small club...only the best get in.--Ed].

On December 8, correspondence with the Board resumed, but was sporadic and did not serve to move the trial forward.

Shari Handley to Paulette Carpenter, 8 December 2004: "The AB has not yet considered any evidence presented by anyone on any charges yet. Mr. Pettys will be given the information necessary as it is presented...the AB will not identify who the evidence has been presented by with each charge...Mr. Pettys has waived the privilege of having access to this information. Since charge #1d was specifically against Mr. Stowell, it is removed...from the list of charges against Mr. Pettys...The AB reminds Mr. Pettys that...this proceding is not a governmental trial. These are not real-time meetings, and Mr. Pettys and you...have been precluded from attending them...The AB will begin to hear evidence and will forward requests to him...and we will allow an appropriate amount of time for his response. If you have any material to pursuant to charge #1, please present it at this time."

Paulette to the Board, via Greta, 9 December 2003: "First of all Richard and I extend our gratitude to the AB for dropping charge #1D. Second, we would present to the AB at this time a consideration from Sturgis regarding evidence in a hearing: Page 225 '4. Hearing. In conducting the hearing the committee should preserve decorum and fair play, restrict evidence and testimony to the written charges, and uphold the right of the accused member to present a defense, to cross examine witnesses and to refute the charges which have been made.' Mr. Pettys may not have agreed to confidentiality of the hearing list, however he did not give up his rights to see the evidence, or to question witnesses against him. Because providing Mr. Pettys with incomplete evidence could affect his ability to properly defend himself in this hearing, we request that the evidence be forwarded in it's entirety, and if refused, please state under Sturgis supporting evidence to your decision. Third, we have been waiting for notification from the committee as to the status of current discussion and for evidence to be submitted. We were under the impression that the committee was already looking at evidence. It will take us a few days to finish compiling our evidence to Charge #1. In the meantime, we request that any evidence being submitted to the AB on this charge be forwarded to us immediately so that we may respond as soon as possible. We also reserve the right to view and to respond to any rebuttal concerning the evidence which we will submit. Fourth, Mr. Pettys and I both have holiday plans with our families and we might not be able to be online. He will be spending this time with his grandfather. We ask at this time that the NC consider a recess for Dec 22 through Dec 29 to accommodate these plans. Thank you very much for your considerations."

We did not hear from the Board again until after Christmas. On December 22, Richard, Paulette, and I began to discuss the possibility of asking the Board to drop the charges against Richard. Richard was adamant that he have his counties restored to him, but did offer to forgo reinstatement as ASC of GAGenWeb and to relinquish his right to address evidence against him. [Easy enough to do, since the Board apparently didn't have any.--Ed.] On December 27th, Paulette sent the following message to the Board, via Greta:

The charges against Mr. Pettys have been pending for almost six months, with this situation having been initiated almost seven months ago. At the moment, there is no end in sight. To that end, Mr. Pettys is making the following offer to resolve this matter: The AB dismisses the charges against Mr. Pettys with prejudice, meaning that these charges can never again be raised. In exchange, Mr. Pettys agrees not to seek restoration to his previous position as ASC of GAGenWeb. He is, however, immediately restored of his counties and his name cleared. There shall be no sanction imposed upon him and he is free to seek election within the USGWP with no restriction set forth therein. While Mr. Pettys would like a statement from the AB that the charges were brought in error, he knows that the same is not possible. As such, he will accept a statement that the charges were not sustainable. This offer shall remain open until 12:00 P.M. EST on December 28, 2004, response is expected."

"...The Advisory Board is unable to accept Mr. Pettys' offer. There have been a number of causes for the delay in resolution of the hearing, not least of which has been our accomodation of Mr. Pettys' own requests for more time because of personal matters...since evidence has not been fully presented, and the charges have not been adequately discussed, it would be impossible for us to make any kind of determination as to the sustainability of the charges...the Advisory Board would be agreeable to an immediate dropping of the charges without a finding or admission of guilt with the following conditions...Mr. Pettys must agree not to seek restoration to his previous position as ASC of GAGenWeb...since his was an appointed ASC position, he has no independent claim to the office, and his term ended with the former SC's term...he must acknowledge that acceptance or rejection of any application for reinstatement to any of his former CC positions (as well as applications to any new county or counties) is completely at the discretion of the State Coordinator(s), and...the decision of the State Coordinator to accept or reject his application is final and not subject to appeal."

On December 30th, Paulette sent the following response to Shari:

Mr. Pettys and I are in receipt of your counteroffer. While we are getting close to an agreement in principal, Mr. Pettys maintains that he should be restored to his counties. Mr. Pettys wishes to show the AB that he has labored tirelessly over his sites, particularly the Cobb County website, where he has been photographing the cemeteries and uploading those pictures for researchers. None of the information Mr. Pettys has provided is currently available to genealogists via GAGenWeb. Mr. Pettys was suspended by a vote of the AB pending resolution of two trials. He was suspended for alleged actions taken in his capacity as ASC and RC for GAGenWeb. He was not suspended for his actions as CC of Cobb County, GAGenWeb or Gilmer County, GAGenWeb. In exchange for a dismissal with prejudice of these charges and the restoration to him of Cobb and Gilmer counties in GAGenWeb, Mr. Pettys will agree to the following: 1) that his term as ASC and RC expired upon the termination of the term of the former SC Tim Stowell; 2) that he will give up the right to view the evidence to be presented against him and the right to be exonerated based upon the evidence and arguments presented in a hearing; 3) that he will agree to be declared a Member Not In Good Standing for a period of six months, which status shall be reviewed at the conclusion of that period by the AB, and which may or may not be lifted based on his conduct within the project. Declaring him MNIGS, even voluntarily, would prohibit him from seeking any elective office within the USGenWeb Project for at least the next election cycle, and longer if the AB chooses to not remove the MNIGS label from him. While the AB may be of the position that it can not restore him of his counties, it is our position that, inasmuch as the AB removed him, the AB can restore him."

The coming of the new year did not bring a swift resolution of the trial, nor did it improve communications between the Board and the trial team. On January 5, for example, Shari Handley announced that "The closed-session disciplinary hearing will reconvene shortly, after a short break for the holidays. It has been slow going due to some requested recesses, as well as some new time constraints on my part. I am grateful to Darilee [Bednar] for volunteering to step in as moderator/chair of the hearing. It is anticipated that, with Darilee's help, work on the hearing can move at a more steady pace toward a conclusion." This was the first notice that Richard and Paulette received that Shari was no longer serving as the Chair of the trial judges, and it was not sent directly to them, but was instead posted to the BOARD-L mailing list as part of Shari's new "National Coordinator Report." Also on January 5, Darilee posted her "AB report" on the USGENWEB-SW list: "I volunteered to chair the hearing committee and have reconvened the hearing...Yes, I've been working on it and seriously hope to be able to make an announcement next week..." There was also no formal notification of the change in Chair from her.

After a week passed with no further communication from the Board, Richard asked me to publish the following statement in the Daily Board Show:

"I would like to clarify something Shari said in the NC Report. While it is true that we have requested a couple of recesses, the delays on our side have been few and far between. After my first choice for my representative was denied, I asked for a brief recess in order to select an alternative representative and to give her time to come up to speed and the AB granted recess of a week. Thereafter, Paulette notified them that a recess might be necesary because of what appeared to be the impending death of my grandfather. Thankfully, he remains among the living, although his condition is not improving and will not improve. My sincere thanks to those who have been a source of comfort. The AB's response was that they would continue with their deliberations during this period. A couple of days later we did request a four-day recess. The AB did not respond to this request, and later adjourned the monthly meeting. Finally, a recess was requested for a week around Christmas time. No response was ever had to that request."

On January 20, Shari sent the following message to Paulette regarding the now three-weeks old proposal:

"The Advisory Board...has reviewed the counteroffer...and appreciates Mr. Pettys willingness to work in the best interest of the Project. The Advisory Board accepts Mr. Pettys' offer...Mr. Pettys will agree to the following: (1)...Mr. Pettys gives up the right to view the evidence presented against him, as well as the right to be exonerated based upon the evidence and arguments presented in a hearing...(2)...as an appointee to the positions of ASC and RC in the state of Georgia, his appointment ended upon the termination of the term of the appointing SC...and...Mr. Pettys has no further claim upon these position...(3)...Mr. Pettys will be declared a Member Not In Good Standing for a period of six months...which status shall be reviewed at the conclusion of that period by the AB, and which may or may not be lifted based on his conduct within the project...The Georgia Leadership required all Georgia CC's to reapply for their counties and all of them have done so. The Georgia Leadership has held Mr. Pettys' counties. The return of Mr. Pettys to the GAGenWeb Project will be at the discretion of the current Georgia leadership. In return the Advisory Board will consider this matter closed."

We considered for several days how best to approach this non-offer. A big sticking point was the Board's insistence that it could not return the counties it took from Richard, whether they found him guilty or not. This was especially surprising in light of the comments that some Board members had made back in August before Tim's trial started:

If they are cleared of the charges, they would be reinstated as project members. Their counties have been held "frozen" until the hearings are over -- if they are cleared, the counties will be returned. They would also be eligible to run for office in elections, or to be appointed to positions such as ASC." -- Angie Rayfield, USGENWEB-DISCUSS, 27 Aug 2004

"To my knowledge the suspended members are still functioning as county coordinators in GAGenWeb." --Roger Swafford, USGENWEB-DISCUSS, 20 August 2004

"...I agree that it would be very hard to reinstate, to the SC and ASC positions, however, the fact remains that both, if cleared of all charges will be able to run for election if they so desire in less than a year...It should also be noted that websites held by the suspendees have been held open in a pending category, so that those sites could be reinstated, if cleared of the charges." --Jan Cortez, USGENWEB-DISCUSS, 26 Aug 2004

After some discussion, Paulette sent the following counter-offer to the Board on January 24th. [You will note that although it generally takes the Board weeks to even acknowledge our mail to them, we are usually fairly quick to respond.--Ed.]

"Mr. Pettys thanks the Advisory Board for its careful consideration of his latest proposal. However, he regrets to inform the AB that the proposal it accepted is not the one that Mr. Pettys offered. In his December 30, 2004 proposal, Mr. Pettys made it clear that the guaranteed return of his counties is of primary importance to him and he also requested that all charges be dismissed with prejudice, meaning they cannot ever be reinstated. These were the only two terms that Mr. Pettys requested in order to resolve this issue between himself and the AB, including some rather harsh conditions drafted by Mr. Pettys, all of which have negative connotations for him. In fact, in an effort to offer something of value to the AB, Mr. Pettys agreed to be labeled MNIGS for an indefinate period, but reviewable at 6 month intervals. Mr. Pettys believed that this would be of interest to the AB because it would allow the AB to determine at what point Mr. Pettys had paid an appropriate penalty for his actions. The AB has removed all of the items from the proposal that would benefit Mr. Pettys, but has adopted the language offered by Mr. Pettys regarding the MNIGS status.

Mr. Pettys sincerely regrets that he cannot accept the Advisory Board's proposal at this time and he again extends his December 30, 2004 proposal to the AB for its consideration. Mr. Pettys prefers that the AB accept it as is. Public statements have been made by several AB members that led Mr. Pettys to believe he would receive his counties back if the AB did not find him guilty of the charges. Moreover, Mr. Pettys notes that his Georgia counties have been left open, pending the outcome of the hearing, an action that Mr. Pettys believes was undertaken on the instruction of the AB.

Nonetheless, Mr. Pettys recognizes that the AB may not consider itself in a position to return that which it took from him. Therefore he will consider the following amendments to his proposal: 1) in lieu of the actual return of Cobb and Gilmer counties to Mr. Pettys, he will accept a formal and public recommendation by the Board that those counties be returned to him upon the settlement of the hearing; 2) he requests a statement that any agreement reached between himself and the AB constitutes neither an admission nor a finding of guilt, 3) he again requests that all charges against him be dismissed with prejudice, and 4) there would be no finding of MNIGS under these circumstances."

"I get several emails everyday from inquiring minds wanting to know what is going on with my trial. In an effort to save what fingers I have left after all of this typing, I would like to answer all here. We are negotiating and trying to find some common ground. I believe that we are very close and look forward to resolving this matter in an amicable matter so that we may all go forward in the best interests of the USGWP."

"At the request of members of the Advisory Board...We will continue the hearing on Mr. Pettys...Mr. Pettys will be given 48 hours to answer to each charge. He will not be presented any evidence because he has refused to keep the hearing confidential...After 48 hours the Advisory Board will hold a discussion and then vote. The charges will be decided by a majority vote...Once a charge has been...voted on no other information will be reviewed on that charge...If Mr. Pettys is found guilty...the Advisory Board's penalty decision will not limited to the offer made to Mr. Pettys. Nor will be be limited to a penalty similiar to Mr. Stowell's."

Paulette wrote back to Darilee on the same day, and copied the message to Roger Swafford, the Board's parliamentarian.

"I awoke this morning to find your message, and am confused on some of the details.

First of all, there is no explanation of why this hearing has all of a sudden been thrust forward. There is no formal decline of the last proposal that was sent, after the AB basically accepted some of the terms.

Second, neither Richard or I have been formally notified of who is actually chairing this hearing, and in that respect exactly who communications should be formally addressed to. Shari announced that you would be taking over chair on BoardL, however, after that posting, it was Shari who forwarded communications up until today.

Third, in reference to your comments on Richard and I not receiving evidence. In the three months that this hearing has been going on, neither of us were told we would not receive evidence. We thought that we understood that evidence would be forwarded with certain protections of privacy in place, which we interpreted to mean names would be removed. Now, your message states that his basic rights as a defendant are being denied.

Fourth, as for the terms of the hearing, in regards specifically to the response time of 48 hours, I don't believe that there was any kind of time limit in place for either side to present communications in the last three months. You are setting a time standard that cannot possibly be kept by either side. As well as not indicating what time standards the AB has set for itself. If there are going to be a time standard for communications, I would ask that you reconsider the 48 hours. At a very minimum 72 hours would be a better bet. Richard is still involved in the care of his grandfather, and time with him is critical right now. While we all know that death does not make an appointment, I am sure that if the situation were on any of the rest of us involved in this hearing, we would appreciate consideration and leniency with something so delicate. In fact, anything that would be sent to us on a Friday would not seen by Richard until Monday. He is with his grandfather during that time.

Fifth, we have not been notified that one of the AB members is not a participant in this hearing. When the last communication went out to all AB members, since we are not sub'd to the hearing list, I received a message back from Richard Howland explaining to me that he is not in any way shape or form involved in this hearing. We were not no