Department Commander Van Kuran decides "not to entertain" Trial Manual action on the handling of the move from
San Francisco to $anger.
Comrades, Colleagues, and Patriots:
I am forwarding for your consideration, amusement, bemusement, or angrification, as the case may be, my response to American Legion Department of California Commander Larry Van Kuran, to his notice, by and through his Judge Advocate Autrey James, that the Dept. Board of Review has decided "not to entertain," i.e., not to hold a hearing on, Trial Manual ("TM") Complaints alleging serious charges for dishonesty, neglect of duty, violation of fiduciary duties, including the duty of candor, and conduct unbecoming a member (and officer) of the American Legion, against Jr. Past Commander Janet Wilson and her-then Judge Advocate, John Bart, in connection with the Sanger Contract.
More particularly: The Complaints are in connection with the acts of Wilson and Bart, and each of them, in inducing (seducing?) the Department Executive Committee at its meeting of March 14, 2015 to approve a Wilson initiated motion to "accept the contract" -- as Wilson stated the motion -- to purchase an abandoned bank in Sanger, CA, for "$860,000"and move the Department Headquarters there from the San Francisco War Memorial Building where the cost was a $500 per month donation -- all without Wilson or Bart providing that $860,000 contract to the members of the DEC who were called upon, and did, vote to approve it sight unseen.
So mislead by Wilson and Bart were members of the DEC that some honorable and dedicated members did and do insist (as will be proved at trial) that they did not vote to accept the $860,000 "contract," but only to authorize Wilson to enter negotiations for a contract.
The indisputable facts, however, are that the contract was already signed. That is: (1) the Agreement For Purchase Of Commercial Real Estate was signed by Janet Wilson, for the Department as buyer, on "March 6, 2015," offering to buy the abandoned bank for $860,000; and (2) the contract was signed by the seller on "March 10, 2015," accepting the Departments $860,000 offer. With that offer and acceptance, there was a contract, binding the parties to its terms; subject only to acceptance by the DEC of what Wilson had already wrought.
At the March 14, 2015 DEC meeting, Wilson and Bart achieved a DEC vote to "accept the contract" without ever telling the DEC member voters that the contract had already been signed prior to the DEC meeting, and without giving them a copy of the agreement to consider before voting to accept it. Although Wilson and Bart each had fiduciary duties of honesty and candor to the DEC, and each member of the DEC, i.e., the Board of Directors of the non-profit Department corporation, had a fiduciary duty of reasonable prudence, Wilson and Bart never provided the contract to the DEC, and members voted to approve the motion Wilson presented without ever seeing the terms of the $860,000 contract. (Would you sign an $860,000 contract without reviewing it? Especially if acting as a fiduciary to another person, as a member of the board of a non-profit corporation?
Richard (Rick) Martin was a member of that DEC as Commander of District 28. He realized after that meeting that he had been misled into believing they were only authorizing Wilson to enter negotiations to buy for $860,000, not accepting an already completed contract. He notified Wilson of his objection to the process. She refused any action. It was a done deal.
The Sanger Contract and move from the San Francisco War Memorial Building became what has been characterized as "the most controversial and decisive issue" in Department memory, with members deeply split over (1) the move to Sanger itself, and/or (2) the process of how Wilson and Bart got the DC to approve the contract and the move Sanger. (More background on the Sanger Contract and move is available at www.BlueCapPatriots.com)
At the 2015 Convention, the DEC, this time presented with the contract, approved the move in a divided and disputed vote. Nothing was done, however, to hold Wilson and Bart accountable for their wrongful acts at the March 14, 2015 vote to accept the contract, and to repudiate those acts, which are degrading to the integrity of The American Legion. Therefore, Past District 28 Commander Rick Martin and I filed complaints against Janet Wilson (on August 21, 2015), and against John Bart (Sept. 2, 2015, pursuant to right under the Department Trial Manual.
Under the Trial Manual, every member has a right (not a privilege) to file charges of misconduct against any other member--or officer, of the Department. Pursuant to that right, as attorney for Martin and a plaintiff in pro per, I called upon the Department to convene the trial on our Trial Manual complaints. Commander Van Kuran refused, through JA James. He advised that nothing would be done because "two members of the Board of Review resigned." I pointed out that there were supposed to be five members of the Board, i.e., three members plus two alternates. Notwithstanding, the Department delayed any action by the Board of Review. Instead of immediately filing a lawsuit to compel Board of Review action, Martin and I patiently waited for Van Kuran to cease delaying action by the Board of Review, and schedule hearing.
It was not until March 28, 2016 -- bringing to mind the maximum that "justice delayed is justice denied" -- that I received notice from Van Kuran by JA James that the Board of Review had voted not "to entertain" our complaints against Wilson and Bart.
There was no information of when or where the BOR had convened to consider the TM Complaint, or prior notice to Plaintiffs that the BOR would be acting on the complaints. Rather, that notice refers opaquely to TM Title IV, Sec. 7-- which pertains only to the authority of the BOR to establish Trial Manual rules of proceedings, subject to DEC approval, but states nothing whatsoever about the BOR's authority to dismiss complaints without a hearing; and to Title I(d), which pertains to TM complaints filed at the Post level, and authorizes a Commander--working with the "Executive Board"--not to entertain a complaint. However, this can be done only on very narrow grounds: A finding that the charges are "frivolous;" or, if not frivolous, that the charges do not amount to conduct unbecoming. (The "3-28-16" notice of JA James is attached in full as a file, below.)
Further, I telephoned JA James on April 19, 2016 to inquire what is the Department's position on whether there is a "right to appeal" from a dismissal by the Board of Review without a hearing of complaints filed against officers directly with the Board of Review for trial as required by Title IV, Sec. 6, of the TM. I stated I did so because, if there is a right of appeal, Martin and I wanted to appeal internally; if there is no right of appeal, and court litigation was decided upon, I did not want to encounter a motion to dismiss for failure to file an internal appeal.
JA Autry James informed me that it is the position of the Department under Van Kuran that there is no right of appeal. I confirmed that in e-mail to James. (My "4-21-16 Confirmation of No Appeal is attached below.)
Thus, the Department of California, in what is intended to be a democratic American Legion, under a Trial Manual that is intended to guarantee a "right" of every member to file a complaint for misconduct against any other member--or officer, has now descended into an organization in which complaints against officers must be filed with the Board of Review as the hearing board with jurisdiction over officers under Title IV; and that the Board of Review may dismiss complaints against officers without prior notice to the complaining members or opportunity to be heard; and that there is no right of appeal from that decision. It makes a mockery of the "right" of members to bring charges against misconduct against officers committing misconduct, abusing their office, even outright corruption. To call such a process a Kangaroo Court would be an insult to the kangaroos.
The Trial Manual Complaints against Wilson and Bart are serious, indeed, and arose in the serious matter of the Sanger Contract. I do not believe that anyone acting in good faith could reasonably conclude that these charges, are not serious matters but "frivolous;" or that they do not rise to the level of conduct unbecoming. The Complaints against Wilson and Bart are attached. Please review them, ask yourself if these allegations are serious, or "frivolous;" or do not constitute conduct unbecoming if proven at trial. If they are but "frivolous," then trial before the BOR would be a day at the beach for Wilson for Bart to refute. If they are serious -- which I don't believe can be reasonably denied in good faith -- then they must be admitted to or tried to get at the truth and not leave a stain on the Department.
This process of denying a hearing on the charges against Wilson and Bart is, I believe, as foul and odoriferous as was the process of acceptance of the Sanger Contract and move which Wilson and Bart engineered at the DEC on March 14, 2015. There, Wilson and Bart exploited the good faith and trust of the DEC members by not revealing the truth that the contract had already been signed and presenting it to them for review, demeaning DEC members thereby, treating them not like honorable people to be truthfully persuaded, but as “sheeple” to be tricked, misled, and herded to accept the Sanger Contract without truthfully stating the fact that the contract had already been signed and providing them with a copy of it.
I have from the beginning insisted that, in terms of the integrity of the Legion, the process by which the Department was led by Wilson and Bart to Sanger is as important an issue as the move itself. As to the move to Sanger itself, I have offered an easy challenge: if the $860,000 Sanger Contract is "the deal of a lifetime" as Wilson claimed, then put the Sanger bank back on the market. See what the offers are to buy it. If Wilson is right, then offers will be received substantially over $1-million. The offers, if any, will evidence whether it is a good, or bad, deal. Take the challenge. There might even be a substantial profit in unloading it.
But this case is about the move but the "process" of that move by the acts of Wilson and Bart at the March 14, 2015, DEC, as charged in the complaints of Rick Martin and me under the Trial Manual. That process, in my view, is a disgrace, tainting the integrity of the Legion, which must be repudiated, and for which Wilson and Bart, and each of them, must be held accountable. It should never be condoned, which it has been. It should never be repeated, but can be if not remedied and repudiated.
As to the process of the BOR denying hearing of the Trial Manual Complaints against Wilson and against Bart, and the denial of any appeal from such an action by the Department through Van Kuran, it, too, is a disgrace damaging to the integrity of the Legion and the claim to democracy in the Legion.
Indeed: That process is a perfect prescription for covering-up misconduct by Department Officers, shielding them from evidentiary hearings in which charges against them by Blue Cap members can be proved or disproved, preventing Blue Cap members from bringing Officers to justice, and allowing Officers, and their political cronies, to sweep under the rug officer misconduct and abuse of their offices, hoping the Blue Cap members generally will not be informed of the truth of what is happening.
It is, therefore, in my view, a degrading, disgraceful stain on the Department's integrity. This decision establishes a policy which (1) compels Blue Cap members to file complaints against officers with the Board of Review for trial in the first instance; (2) then allows the Board of Review to dismiss those complaints without hearing and without any opportunity to be heard by the complaining Blue Cap member(s) before that dismissal; and (3) thereafter, it denies the Blue Cap member(s) any right to appeal from the decision to dismiss their complaints without hearing. It affects all members, now and in future, not just complaining parties in this case of Wilson and Bart. It sets a terrible precedent. If allowed to stand, it will be all but impossible for Blue Cap Legionnaires to protect themselves from officer misconduct, abuse of office, or outright corruption, through internal Trial Manual complaints. It must not stand.
Therefore, I write this so that the facts are clear, and it is clear to each person receiving this, that if, due to the decision of the Department through Commander Larry Kuran to uphold BOR's denial hearing on the Trial Manual Complaints against Wilson and Bart without notice to complainants or opportunity to be heard -- Van Kuran's decision to deny appeal from such a denial of hearing -- judicial relief must be sought against the Department, and court costs and attorney fees from members' dues are expended by the Department to shield Janet Wilson and John Bart from having to answer to the charges of misconduct against them by trial under the Trial Manual on the attached Complaints, such costs, attorney fees, and other consequences of such litigation, are solely and exclusively caused by those responsible for these decisions, for which Commander Larry Kuran is ultimately responsible as chief executive officer implementing them.
Finally, it has long been a maxim of the law that "the appearance of evil is as damaging to the institution of justice as is actual evil." This case is precisely within that maxim. The appearance of evil which is manifest here, even if not actual evil is as damaging to the institution of the American Legion as it is to the institution of justice.
Rees Lloyd
[Please note: If you want more information, wish to comment, or have difficulty opening the files, I am posting this and related information on www.BlueCapPatriots.com.]
REES LLOYD
Attorney
California State Bar No. 090538*
Please respond to address checked
1701 E. Monticello Court, Ontario, CA 91761
√ 3232 NW Luray Terrace, Portland, OR 97210
951-867-1551; Fax: 503-223-8560
[email protected]
(*Practice limited to California and Federal Courts)
April 21, 2016 By E-mail and Mail
Autrey James, Judge Advocate [e-mail: [email protected]]
American Legion Department of California [e-mail: [email protected]]
1601 7th Street,
Sanger, CA 93657 (559-8675
1601 7th Street, Sanger, CA 93657
(559) 875-8387
Copy: Larry Van Kuran, Commander, Dept. of California
Re: Confirming Denial Of Trial Manual Hearing By Decision Of The Board Of Review And Implemented by Department Commander Larry Van Kuran On Trial Manual Complaints of Rick Martin and Rees Lloyd Against Past Commander Janet Wilson (2014-2015), and Against Past Judge Advocate John Bart (2014-2015), For Conduct Unbecoming A Member (and Officer) Based On Acts In Connection With The Contract To Move Department Headquarters of The American Legion from the San Francisco War Memorial Building To An Abandoned Bank In Sanger, CA, for $860,000; and,
Confirming Determination By Department Judge Advocate Autrey James, Communicated To Plaintiffs’ Attorney Rees Lloyd on March 19, 2016, By Telephone That It Is The Position Of Department That There Is No Appeal From Said Decision To Deny Hearing.
Please see attached documents:
1) 4-21-16 Confirming No Appeal From Denial of Hearing On Complaints [Full document]
2) 3-28-16 Notice of Denial of Hearing On Complaints
3) 3-31-15 Trial Manual Complaint Against Janet Wilson
4) 9-02-15 Trial Manual Complaint Against John Bart.
Rees Lloyd
REES LLOYD, Attorney
For Plaintiff RICK MARTIN, and Plaintiff in pro per
I am forwarding for your consideration, amusement, bemusement, or angrification, as the case may be, my response to American Legion Department of California Commander Larry Van Kuran, to his notice, by and through his Judge Advocate Autrey James, that the Dept. Board of Review has decided "not to entertain," i.e., not to hold a hearing on, Trial Manual ("TM") Complaints alleging serious charges for dishonesty, neglect of duty, violation of fiduciary duties, including the duty of candor, and conduct unbecoming a member (and officer) of the American Legion, against Jr. Past Commander Janet Wilson and her-then Judge Advocate, John Bart, in connection with the Sanger Contract.
More particularly: The Complaints are in connection with the acts of Wilson and Bart, and each of them, in inducing (seducing?) the Department Executive Committee at its meeting of March 14, 2015 to approve a Wilson initiated motion to "accept the contract" -- as Wilson stated the motion -- to purchase an abandoned bank in Sanger, CA, for "$860,000"and move the Department Headquarters there from the San Francisco War Memorial Building where the cost was a $500 per month donation -- all without Wilson or Bart providing that $860,000 contract to the members of the DEC who were called upon, and did, vote to approve it sight unseen.
So mislead by Wilson and Bart were members of the DEC that some honorable and dedicated members did and do insist (as will be proved at trial) that they did not vote to accept the $860,000 "contract," but only to authorize Wilson to enter negotiations for a contract.
The indisputable facts, however, are that the contract was already signed. That is: (1) the Agreement For Purchase Of Commercial Real Estate was signed by Janet Wilson, for the Department as buyer, on "March 6, 2015," offering to buy the abandoned bank for $860,000; and (2) the contract was signed by the seller on "March 10, 2015," accepting the Departments $860,000 offer. With that offer and acceptance, there was a contract, binding the parties to its terms; subject only to acceptance by the DEC of what Wilson had already wrought.
At the March 14, 2015 DEC meeting, Wilson and Bart achieved a DEC vote to "accept the contract" without ever telling the DEC member voters that the contract had already been signed prior to the DEC meeting, and without giving them a copy of the agreement to consider before voting to accept it. Although Wilson and Bart each had fiduciary duties of honesty and candor to the DEC, and each member of the DEC, i.e., the Board of Directors of the non-profit Department corporation, had a fiduciary duty of reasonable prudence, Wilson and Bart never provided the contract to the DEC, and members voted to approve the motion Wilson presented without ever seeing the terms of the $860,000 contract. (Would you sign an $860,000 contract without reviewing it? Especially if acting as a fiduciary to another person, as a member of the board of a non-profit corporation?
Richard (Rick) Martin was a member of that DEC as Commander of District 28. He realized after that meeting that he had been misled into believing they were only authorizing Wilson to enter negotiations to buy for $860,000, not accepting an already completed contract. He notified Wilson of his objection to the process. She refused any action. It was a done deal.
The Sanger Contract and move from the San Francisco War Memorial Building became what has been characterized as "the most controversial and decisive issue" in Department memory, with members deeply split over (1) the move to Sanger itself, and/or (2) the process of how Wilson and Bart got the DC to approve the contract and the move Sanger. (More background on the Sanger Contract and move is available at www.BlueCapPatriots.com)
At the 2015 Convention, the DEC, this time presented with the contract, approved the move in a divided and disputed vote. Nothing was done, however, to hold Wilson and Bart accountable for their wrongful acts at the March 14, 2015 vote to accept the contract, and to repudiate those acts, which are degrading to the integrity of The American Legion. Therefore, Past District 28 Commander Rick Martin and I filed complaints against Janet Wilson (on August 21, 2015), and against John Bart (Sept. 2, 2015, pursuant to right under the Department Trial Manual.
Under the Trial Manual, every member has a right (not a privilege) to file charges of misconduct against any other member--or officer, of the Department. Pursuant to that right, as attorney for Martin and a plaintiff in pro per, I called upon the Department to convene the trial on our Trial Manual complaints. Commander Van Kuran refused, through JA James. He advised that nothing would be done because "two members of the Board of Review resigned." I pointed out that there were supposed to be five members of the Board, i.e., three members plus two alternates. Notwithstanding, the Department delayed any action by the Board of Review. Instead of immediately filing a lawsuit to compel Board of Review action, Martin and I patiently waited for Van Kuran to cease delaying action by the Board of Review, and schedule hearing.
It was not until March 28, 2016 -- bringing to mind the maximum that "justice delayed is justice denied" -- that I received notice from Van Kuran by JA James that the Board of Review had voted not "to entertain" our complaints against Wilson and Bart.
There was no information of when or where the BOR had convened to consider the TM Complaint, or prior notice to Plaintiffs that the BOR would be acting on the complaints. Rather, that notice refers opaquely to TM Title IV, Sec. 7-- which pertains only to the authority of the BOR to establish Trial Manual rules of proceedings, subject to DEC approval, but states nothing whatsoever about the BOR's authority to dismiss complaints without a hearing; and to Title I(d), which pertains to TM complaints filed at the Post level, and authorizes a Commander--working with the "Executive Board"--not to entertain a complaint. However, this can be done only on very narrow grounds: A finding that the charges are "frivolous;" or, if not frivolous, that the charges do not amount to conduct unbecoming. (The "3-28-16" notice of JA James is attached in full as a file, below.)
Further, I telephoned JA James on April 19, 2016 to inquire what is the Department's position on whether there is a "right to appeal" from a dismissal by the Board of Review without a hearing of complaints filed against officers directly with the Board of Review for trial as required by Title IV, Sec. 6, of the TM. I stated I did so because, if there is a right of appeal, Martin and I wanted to appeal internally; if there is no right of appeal, and court litigation was decided upon, I did not want to encounter a motion to dismiss for failure to file an internal appeal.
JA Autry James informed me that it is the position of the Department under Van Kuran that there is no right of appeal. I confirmed that in e-mail to James. (My "4-21-16 Confirmation of No Appeal is attached below.)
Thus, the Department of California, in what is intended to be a democratic American Legion, under a Trial Manual that is intended to guarantee a "right" of every member to file a complaint for misconduct against any other member--or officer, has now descended into an organization in which complaints against officers must be filed with the Board of Review as the hearing board with jurisdiction over officers under Title IV; and that the Board of Review may dismiss complaints against officers without prior notice to the complaining members or opportunity to be heard; and that there is no right of appeal from that decision. It makes a mockery of the "right" of members to bring charges against misconduct against officers committing misconduct, abusing their office, even outright corruption. To call such a process a Kangaroo Court would be an insult to the kangaroos.
The Trial Manual Complaints against Wilson and Bart are serious, indeed, and arose in the serious matter of the Sanger Contract. I do not believe that anyone acting in good faith could reasonably conclude that these charges, are not serious matters but "frivolous;" or that they do not rise to the level of conduct unbecoming. The Complaints against Wilson and Bart are attached. Please review them, ask yourself if these allegations are serious, or "frivolous;" or do not constitute conduct unbecoming if proven at trial. If they are but "frivolous," then trial before the BOR would be a day at the beach for Wilson for Bart to refute. If they are serious -- which I don't believe can be reasonably denied in good faith -- then they must be admitted to or tried to get at the truth and not leave a stain on the Department.
This process of denying a hearing on the charges against Wilson and Bart is, I believe, as foul and odoriferous as was the process of acceptance of the Sanger Contract and move which Wilson and Bart engineered at the DEC on March 14, 2015. There, Wilson and Bart exploited the good faith and trust of the DEC members by not revealing the truth that the contract had already been signed and presenting it to them for review, demeaning DEC members thereby, treating them not like honorable people to be truthfully persuaded, but as “sheeple” to be tricked, misled, and herded to accept the Sanger Contract without truthfully stating the fact that the contract had already been signed and providing them with a copy of it.
I have from the beginning insisted that, in terms of the integrity of the Legion, the process by which the Department was led by Wilson and Bart to Sanger is as important an issue as the move itself. As to the move to Sanger itself, I have offered an easy challenge: if the $860,000 Sanger Contract is "the deal of a lifetime" as Wilson claimed, then put the Sanger bank back on the market. See what the offers are to buy it. If Wilson is right, then offers will be received substantially over $1-million. The offers, if any, will evidence whether it is a good, or bad, deal. Take the challenge. There might even be a substantial profit in unloading it.
But this case is about the move but the "process" of that move by the acts of Wilson and Bart at the March 14, 2015, DEC, as charged in the complaints of Rick Martin and me under the Trial Manual. That process, in my view, is a disgrace, tainting the integrity of the Legion, which must be repudiated, and for which Wilson and Bart, and each of them, must be held accountable. It should never be condoned, which it has been. It should never be repeated, but can be if not remedied and repudiated.
As to the process of the BOR denying hearing of the Trial Manual Complaints against Wilson and against Bart, and the denial of any appeal from such an action by the Department through Van Kuran, it, too, is a disgrace damaging to the integrity of the Legion and the claim to democracy in the Legion.
Indeed: That process is a perfect prescription for covering-up misconduct by Department Officers, shielding them from evidentiary hearings in which charges against them by Blue Cap members can be proved or disproved, preventing Blue Cap members from bringing Officers to justice, and allowing Officers, and their political cronies, to sweep under the rug officer misconduct and abuse of their offices, hoping the Blue Cap members generally will not be informed of the truth of what is happening.
It is, therefore, in my view, a degrading, disgraceful stain on the Department's integrity. This decision establishes a policy which (1) compels Blue Cap members to file complaints against officers with the Board of Review for trial in the first instance; (2) then allows the Board of Review to dismiss those complaints without hearing and without any opportunity to be heard by the complaining Blue Cap member(s) before that dismissal; and (3) thereafter, it denies the Blue Cap member(s) any right to appeal from the decision to dismiss their complaints without hearing. It affects all members, now and in future, not just complaining parties in this case of Wilson and Bart. It sets a terrible precedent. If allowed to stand, it will be all but impossible for Blue Cap Legionnaires to protect themselves from officer misconduct, abuse of office, or outright corruption, through internal Trial Manual complaints. It must not stand.
Therefore, I write this so that the facts are clear, and it is clear to each person receiving this, that if, due to the decision of the Department through Commander Larry Kuran to uphold BOR's denial hearing on the Trial Manual Complaints against Wilson and Bart without notice to complainants or opportunity to be heard -- Van Kuran's decision to deny appeal from such a denial of hearing -- judicial relief must be sought against the Department, and court costs and attorney fees from members' dues are expended by the Department to shield Janet Wilson and John Bart from having to answer to the charges of misconduct against them by trial under the Trial Manual on the attached Complaints, such costs, attorney fees, and other consequences of such litigation, are solely and exclusively caused by those responsible for these decisions, for which Commander Larry Kuran is ultimately responsible as chief executive officer implementing them.
Finally, it has long been a maxim of the law that "the appearance of evil is as damaging to the institution of justice as is actual evil." This case is precisely within that maxim. The appearance of evil which is manifest here, even if not actual evil is as damaging to the institution of the American Legion as it is to the institution of justice.
Rees Lloyd
[Please note: If you want more information, wish to comment, or have difficulty opening the files, I am posting this and related information on www.BlueCapPatriots.com.]
REES LLOYD
Attorney
California State Bar No. 090538*
Please respond to address checked
1701 E. Monticello Court, Ontario, CA 91761
√ 3232 NW Luray Terrace, Portland, OR 97210
951-867-1551; Fax: 503-223-8560
[email protected]
(*Practice limited to California and Federal Courts)
April 21, 2016 By E-mail and Mail
Autrey James, Judge Advocate [e-mail: [email protected]]
American Legion Department of California [e-mail: [email protected]]
1601 7th Street,
Sanger, CA 93657 (559-8675
1601 7th Street, Sanger, CA 93657
(559) 875-8387
Copy: Larry Van Kuran, Commander, Dept. of California
Re: Confirming Denial Of Trial Manual Hearing By Decision Of The Board Of Review And Implemented by Department Commander Larry Van Kuran On Trial Manual Complaints of Rick Martin and Rees Lloyd Against Past Commander Janet Wilson (2014-2015), and Against Past Judge Advocate John Bart (2014-2015), For Conduct Unbecoming A Member (and Officer) Based On Acts In Connection With The Contract To Move Department Headquarters of The American Legion from the San Francisco War Memorial Building To An Abandoned Bank In Sanger, CA, for $860,000; and,
Confirming Determination By Department Judge Advocate Autrey James, Communicated To Plaintiffs’ Attorney Rees Lloyd on March 19, 2016, By Telephone That It Is The Position Of Department That There Is No Appeal From Said Decision To Deny Hearing.
Please see attached documents:
1) 4-21-16 Confirming No Appeal From Denial of Hearing On Complaints [Full document]
2) 3-28-16 Notice of Denial of Hearing On Complaints
3) 3-31-15 Trial Manual Complaint Against Janet Wilson
4) 9-02-15 Trial Manual Complaint Against John Bart.
Rees Lloyd
REES LLOYD, Attorney
For Plaintiff RICK MARTIN, and Plaintiff in pro per
|
|
|
| ||||||||
The D.E.C. that never was!
During the weekend of 21-23 (2015) August many of us could be found walking around the streets of Bakersfield asking, "What was that all about?" We had just come from a Department convention in Ontario where we heard a newly elected Commander Larry Van Kuran promise us total transparency and an accounting of the spending of our monies on our moving of Headquarters in San Francisco where we had enjoyed a home since 1932 to $anger (where the hell is $anger), California! We were told that monies had already been paid out for this move even as he rose his hand and promised to look after our Legion in California!
Well, all we received in Bakersfield for 3 days were excuses and "bare with us; after all we are relocating", "things are a bit unsettled at the moment", "Mary Long is still on medical leave", and so forth! Is this your transparency Commander?
Are we now to wait until the March 2016 D.E.C. to get the information we had been promised in June? By then it may be too late! Does anyone think that something is a bit amiss? Would a simple breakdown been too much to ask of a Commander who has told us of his management skills and business sense? ~~ Editor
Well, all we received in Bakersfield for 3 days were excuses and "bare with us; after all we are relocating", "things are a bit unsettled at the moment", "Mary Long is still on medical leave", and so forth! Is this your transparency Commander?
Are we now to wait until the March 2016 D.E.C. to get the information we had been promised in June? By then it may be too late! Does anyone think that something is a bit amiss? Would a simple breakdown been too much to ask of a Commander who has told us of his management skills and business sense? ~~ Editor
Sanger Move
SWORN TRIAL MANUAL COMPLAINT ACCUSES JR PAST DEPARTMENT COMMANDER JANET WILSON OF DISHONESTY, NEGLECT OF DUTY, CONDUCT UNBECOMING IN HER PROCESS MOVING DEPT. HQ TO SANGER
Many questions have been
asked and gone unanswered about the process by which Commander Janet Wilson
(2014-2015)-- aided and abetted by such White and Red Caps as her Judge Advocate
John Bart, NEC-man Hugh Crooks, and former NEC-man Al Lennox -- led the American
Legion Department of California into a $860,00 contract to buy an abandoned bank
in Sanger, CA, and move the Department Headquarters to Sanger from the newly
renovated (at a cost over $200-million) War Memorial Building in San
Francisco, where the HQ had been located since 1932 and where some 4,500 feet of
office space was provided for a donation of $500 per month.
That process to Sanger led
by Janet Wilson is detailed -- and denounced -- in the attached sworn
Department Trial Complaint against Wilson filed on August 28, 2015,
charging Wilson with dishonesty, neglect of duty, including by violation of her
fiduciary duty of candor and honesty, and conduct unbecoming a member of the
American Legion.
The Trial Manual complaint
was filed by Blue Cap Legionnaires Rick Martin, Jr. Past Commander of District
28, who was a member of the DEC for 2014-15 as District Commander; and by Rees
Lloyd, as Attorney for Rick Martin and as his own attorney as a complainant
against Wilson.
The allegations against
Janet Wilson in the complaint for her acts regarding the Sanger contract and
move are made "under penalty of perjury" by Lloyd.
Too many questions have
gone unanswered by Janet Wilson, John Bart, Hugh Crooks, and Al Lennox. Now,
Janet Wilson will be compelled to answer these questions, and the allegations
of her wrongful misconduct in the complaint, "under oath" for the first
time.
Do not rely on rumors, or
lies. The true facts of Janet Wilson's actions in the Sanger move are stated in
the attached Trial Manual complaint "under penalty of perjury." If anyone dares
to claim the allegations of the complaint are false, demand that they do it
"under penalty of perjury." If they won't, they are unworthy of belief. Read for
yourself the sworn complaint against Janet Wilson. Feel free to express your
view or comments, and to join with Blue Cap Patriots to take a stand against
Wilson's Sanger move. -- Editor
| Wilson TM Complaint re Sanger.pdf |
TRIAL MANUAL COMPLAINT
FILED AGAINST
JOHN BART OVER SANGER MOVE
On Sept. 2, 2015, an American Legion Department
of California Trial Manual Complaint was filed against John Bart, as Janet
Wilson's JA, by Legionnaires Rick Martin and Rees Lloyd, as Attorney for Rick
Martin and as his own attorney as a plaintiff. The complaint charges that Bart
is guilty of dishonesty, neglect of duty -- including by violation of his
fiduciary duties of prudence, care, honesty and candor-- and conduct unbecoming
a member of The American Legion by his acts, and failures to act, in the process
of moving the Department of California Headquarters from San Francisco to
Sanger. The allegations against Bart are made "under penalty of perjury." John
Bart, like Janet Wilson, against whom a Trial Manual Complaint was filed on
August 28, 2015, will now have to answer for his conduct "under oath" for the
first time regarding the process of followed by Wilson and Bart in the Sanger
contract and move. BCP is publishing the Trial Complaint against John Bart in
its entirety as a service to Blue Cap Legionnaires who have had few if
any answers to the many questions surrounding the process in the Sanger affair
of Janet Wilson and John Bart.
-- Editor.
| bart - tm complaint against.pdf |
Rees Lloyd gives details behind Trial Manual action!
| Rees Llody explains TM complaint action.docx |
Sanger Mayor Resigns
Amid Racial Tensions, State Investigation
(To see complete article download file)
| Sanger mayor resigns race corruption.docx |