The "Stalker" is Back

When I first learned of the lawsuit the pseudo-sanctuary (ps) filed against the on-line newspaper, I just knew the only reason why the directors choose to sue the paper was so she could learn the names of his source(s). I suspected the ps directors are hell bent on getting to me, some how, some way--especially since I suspected the directors read my blog.

Sure enough, it was confirmed, the only reason why the ps directors sued the on-line newspaper is because they want to get to me. I learned the female director read my blog, along with the workers, and were allegedly in a rage over what I wrote. One of the workers commented that the blog had a "ring of truth" and was stunned to learn what was happening at the organization. Now that the workers know the truth, there is no way they can claim ignorance. Finally, the workers have "seen the light!"

Apparently, in a fit of paranoia, the directors removed all the animal and financial files to their personal home and changed all the locks. I even learned the female director claimed there is "some guy hanging around the outside," insinuating that she is being stalked. It's my opinion that she is implying, to others, that the on-line newspaper editor is "stalking" her in an attempt to discredit him before they even go to court.

Gee, where have I heard THIS before? On June 8, 2006, the female ps wrote an email in which she claimed I violated "safety standards by entering a restricted quarantine area that housed infected primates, " that I "threw a temper tantrum" when I was allegedly asked to leave, and "I was "escorted off the property." She went on to say I was "voted off the board because of her [my] irrational behavior" and for the pie topper, she claimed "since then she has taken to stalking my kids and parking outside the sanctuary office for hours. Police reports have been filed and we are in the process of obtaining a restraining order."

Everything she wrote about me was a complete lie and fortunately I have the documentation and audio tape from the emergency board meeting to prove she purposely lied to outside parties. All documentation, including this extremely libel and slanderous email was sent to the OAG. Of course, the female ps did not stop there--she filed false reports about me to OSHA and Wage and Earnings. The board of directors were fed a pack of lies, which they accepted without question or without investigating which, in my opinion, makes them just as complicate as the ps director. I mean really, I "parked outside the [ps] and has left quickly when observed" after being threatened by the male ps at the emergency board meeting in January 2006 not to ever return again. What kind of twisted minds come up this garbage?

So, now there is a "new" stalker in town...wonder if a temporary restraining order was filed yet!!??

Bad news for the employees. I learned the VP was thinking about having a meeting with the workers and the board members, minus the ps male and female directors. Then I heard he decided to let the workers swing in the wind without any help or support until after the lawsuit. Apparently, he was concerned how this might look in light of the lawsuit. Oh, on that same note, the VP decided not to quit just yet -- again, it wouldn't look good if the VP quit right before the lawsuit. So I guess that means there will be no board meeting either until after the suit as the directors probably fear it would be fair game at discovery.

So while the workers are out slaving outside in the heat or rain for around $7.50 - $14.00 per hour, I learned the ps directors earned around $7k - $8k per month for the first half of the year. Looks like they plan to collect their full $100k each this year...and at what cost?

I found on the Internet an abstract of judgment against the ps for failure to pay taxes on land that is not covered under the non-profit exclusion rules. According to the document, the ps owed $2,008.95 in back taxes and $486.01 in court costs. 12% per annum from Feb 28, 2008 applies against the overdue amount until paid! The small piece of land has two mobile homes, (at least one animal caretaker lives in one of the run-down mobile home and the ps director's oldest adult child, husband, and toddler lives in the other one) whereas the rent, in October 2007, was $400 per month per mobile home. That's $800 per month that should have been applied towards the county taxes. According to the Internet tax records, it appears the ps has not paid one thin dime towards this ever growing amount due. Gee, I wonder if the board of directors know about this little 'problem." Highly doubtful. So now the animals have to pay this too.