Members of STARFLEET,

I have been nominated for the position of STARFLEET Judge Advocate General along with John Christian from Region 5. The AB is currently debating the topic and will be voting soon.

Some have asked me to clarify what I would do with the JAG position were I selected to assume the duties of this post. Below are a few ideas that I have that I ask you to consider when making your decision.

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Not all instances need to bog down the already too busy AB with matters that can simply be resolved by apologies and documentation or some sort of compromise between the two parties that does not have to have the AB sign off or vote on it. Like if person A calls person B a name on a list and it goes to the IG... the IG and the JAG can work together with the parties to find a middle ground of compromise that will not entail the AB having to vote on member suspension or expulsion. There are many steps that can be taken before such extreme measures like suspension and expulsion are considered. These can range from a simple public apology that is documented under a "Three Strikes Rule" to a voluntary temporary demotion of one grade in rank for a certain period of time during which nothing bad happens and the offender is allowed to resume their original rank. I believe that this type of mediation could go a long way toward releiving the AB of having to deal with such matters when the body has much more critical items on its agenda.

DISCOVERY
In any adversarial system, there is a process known as "Discovery" wherein the prosecution turns over relevant proof to the defense so that a proper case can be made. In the case of the JAG Office, the IG and JAG could share information so that both sides of the issue can be brought to light with the intent of solving the issue at the ADR level mentioned above, or releasing a joint finding to the CS composed of both sides of the issue so that the CS will have the most information possible with which to render a decision.

REGIONAL JAG OFFICERS
I would like to see the JAG Officer be allowed to appoint one JAG Officer per region to help assist in investigations and dispute resolution. The reason behind this is simple... no one JAG officer can know everyone in fleet and to have someone local on the regional level would be a great asset towards helping interview witnesses and getting documentation prepared for a JAG report to the CS in conjunction with the corresponding IG report. Again, this involves the IG and JAG working together not as adversaries, but as a team designed to bring both sides of the story to light for the best possible resolution. The IG has the Deputy IG and Assistant IGs... therefore I believe that the JAG Office should be allowed to appoint similar officers to help in these areas.

COOPERATION
To many, the IG lives in a dark shell and conducts secret investigations that are only known to the IG and CS. This gives the membership the impression that these officers are the final say on what is presented to the EC or AB in any conflict. By utilizing the JAG Office as a cooperative unit in conjunction with the IG, then information can be exchanged and alternatives and compromised can be discussed before the final resolution or report is made to the CS and AB. Now I know that this will not always happen and I am a realist so I know that there will be times that the IG and JAG will have to work on opposite sides of an issue. But the idea here is to avoid that as much as possible and then only in extreme cases. Having these two offices working together to solve problems will take a lot of materia off the EC and AB's plate and allow them to concentrate on more important matters of administrating the Fleet and creating and implementing policy for the membership.

These are just some of the ideas that I have to make the JAG Office a more viable source of dispute resolution and to avoid any perception of "Court Marshal" Proceedings or any other derogatory opinions about the operational duties of the IG and JAG systems.

I hope this will show more of my intent and why I would hope that you find me the best qualified applicant for this position.

Below you will find my STARFLEET Resume.

Just a friendly reminder that anonymous postings are prohibited here on FLEETWATCH. If you are not an LJ member and would like to comment you can use the anonymous option, just please sign your comment with your name and chapter so that we know who you are.

We would appreciate no flaming, but we understand that sometimes topics can provoke passion in our readers, so please bear that in mind if you are new to this site.

Thanks!

-FW

FLEETWATCH has just been informed of the removal of Regional Coordinators from R4, R6 and R14 for "Failure to Report" by the sittinc CS, Sal Lizard.

As many of you are aware, this happened before in 1995 by then CS Dan McGinnis in an effort to stifle opposition to his regime.

Those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

We are reliving those dark times now at this very moment. The Administration hides behind legal advice that it will not release to the membership even though the membership has been calling for this for over 15 months now.

The parallels between the Lizard and McGinnis regimes are many and some are available here on FLEETWATCH for you to peruse. I suggest that you read through the archives and learn of the dastardly deeds that this administration has committed in the attempt to usurp the rights of the membership and conduct its witch hunts and vendettas with impunity claming that the operating documents apply to everyone else but themselves.

Where will it all end? No one knows. This latest round of  "Shadow Government" tactics has not sat well with the membership, as evidenced on many lists throughout the fleet.

The time has come for change. Regime change. When the Administration blatantly acts in the worst interests of the organization and seeks to openly and illegally remove elected members from its Board of Directors then the time has come to show them the door.

The fact that this latest round of antics comes about a month before the annual business meeting at the International Conference is no coincidence. The Admin plans to introduce legislation that will radically change the way we operate and remove the safeguards that were put into place after the McGinnis regime tried to do exactly what the Lizard regime is doing currently.

Live by the lawyer... die by the lawyer. It will be Sal's legacy that he will leave behind as he surpasses Dan McGinnis and Mandi Livingston as the worst president in the history of this organization.

On another note, FLEETWATCH has received numerous emails regarding situations alleging that the administration has tampered with RC elections, fixed IG investigations to suit the desired outcome of the CS and that the IG is allowing confidential information to be leaked through family members who allow their passion to get the better of them. Something I myself have been guilty of - but I am not the IG and I am not entrusted to the confidential information that the IG is.

The appearance of a conflict of interest IS a conflict of interest. Based on the last 16 months, the policies of this regime are in and of themselves one conflict after another.

How many more chapters and members will we lose before Sal can have his 30 pieces of silver?

Time (and the ECAB meeting) will tell.

Comments welcomed.

-FW

Hidey ho, Fleeters,

If you have downloaded and read the most recent issue of the CQ, you may have noticed that FLEETWATCH was the subject of biased criticism on the part of the CS. This stems from documents that were reposted here from STARFLEET FAIL and given to me by an EX-EC member. These documents were from Sal's STARFLEET Attorney and concerned happenings that the membership were not made aware of. In the interest of public disclosure, I reposted those links here on FLEETWATCH so that the membership would be empowered with the knowledge that the EC wasn't telling them about things relating to policy and the harrassment of Scott Akers that have been an ongoing vendetta of this organization since 2 months into this administration's term.

Instead of reprinting here what was said, just read page 29 of CQ#152 and you will see that I am blamed for releasing this information when in reality it was already released and up for everyone to see. If I am guilty of anything, it is reposting what I was sent and what I found on another site after I made inquiries as to the validity of the information.

Knowledge is power and the membership deserves to know the truth behind the scenes of this administration and how they are trampling all over member's rights in their mad quest to change our governing documents to suit their political agenda of policing STARFLEET and ousting all those who do not subscribe to their political agenda.

I have respectfully asked that an apology and retraction be printed in the next CQ because of the damage to my reputation and my 18 years of working to make STARFLEET a better organization for us all.

Keep in mind that this is not the first time I have been blamed by the administration for things that I did not say or do. Sal's infamous "Threats to STARFLEET" letter was openly blamed on me by Sal on the official list when he said that I was collecting signatures to remove him. That was well over a year ago and to the best of my knowledge, not one signature has been officially collected on a formal VoC per the rules of the constitution.

More fear mongering.

When an administration that is elected and entrusted to look out for the rights of all members equally uses a different set of standards for those who support them versus those who do not, then a double standard is set. This administration has consistently used double standards to defend their agenda and will continue to do so until their term expires or they are voted out of office.

The thing they fear most is the truth. And that, my friends is what FLEETWATCH is all about.

The First Duty of every STARFLEET Officer.

Now I won't go into the multitude of questions asked about our governing documents being out of compliance with North Carolina or the many other questions that members have been repeatedly asking the administration for 15+ months. The fact remains that the administration has spent over 10K on legal fees with nary a thing to show for it. In fact, the AB had to recently approve another thousand dollars of your money so that the lawyer could write up a summary of our documents and where they are out of compliance. I ask you, shouldn't this have been done from the start? If you spent 10K on something, wouldn't you at least have documentation on what it was that your money went for? 

I believe in the "6P Rule" for leadership which dictates that "Proper Preparation Prevents Piss Poor Performance".

Do you?

It is no secret that I have applied for the Judge Advocate General position in STARFLEET because I firmly believe that someone needs to be there to stand up for the rights of the membership. Some on the AB are using this blog as a means to tell others that I am against the organization and that I am not the best choice for the position simply because I have the guts to tell the truth to the members in a public forum. STARFLEET is not perfect. I doubt it will ever be. But until we have ethical leadership that puts the membership first before the agenda of the CS, we won't be headed in the right direction and our organiztion will suffer even more for it.

The paralells between this administration and the McGinnis administration have been well documented by many over the time since this administration took office. Look for yourself and see.

The biggest threat to this administration is not open blogs that do not allow anonymous attacks like we have seen in the past. The biggest threat to this administration is the truth.

This is merely my opinion. I leave it for you to decide.
 

-FW

As many have realized and pointed out to me recently, FLEETWATCH has not been updated in many months. The reasons for this are simple enough to understand. First, we have have changes in the EC with people who are communicative and are doing the job they were appointed to. Second, the CQ has been greatly improved visually and is getting out to the members on a timely basis. Third, membership numbers are starting to come back up due largely to the success of the new film and last but not least, we have not seen the frivolous spending on legal fees or needless letters to the membership that contain no time critical information but merely a propaganda tool designed to instill fear in the minds of the membership.

For these reasons and others, I have been less vocal and less critical of the administration because they are actually doing some things right. Many who know me know that I am fair and when I see a problem I speak out, but that on the flip side when I see progress I also speak out in praise of those who work hard to better our organization.

A few individuals have erroneously compared FLEETWATCH to Attack Sites such as Vic's Place, STARFLEET FAIL , TWEENDECKS and STARFLEET FAIL FAIL. Whereas each of those sites are speculatory and divisive in nature, FLEETWATCH is based in fact and does not allow anonymous posting or flaming. FLEETWATCH is merely a resource tool for the members to get information that would otherwise be denied them or spun into the agenda of the administration by one of its supporters.

Knowledge is power and the membership of STARFLEET deserves to be empowered to know what our elected and appointed leaders are doing and how their decisions impact the membership and the future of our organization.

Recently, Scott Akers was handed a punishment of a one rank demotion by the EC for Conduct Unbecoming an Officer based on the Officer's Code of Conduct that even the author of which stated that was never intended to be an enforcable code... rather guidelines to strive for. Even more recently, Mr. Akers was handed a 3 year suspension in a tie vote of the AB which the Commander STARFLEET used his tie breaking power to vote in favor of suspending this member. Now what people do not know is that the supposed infraction of slander that Scott Akers was tried and convicted for was a real life criminal matter that the IG should not have investigated (Read the IG manual regarding real life crimes and the IG's jurisdiction in such matters). What is also not known is that the previous IG had been requested to investigate this matter which occured over 3 years ago and told the Commander STARFLEET that the IG is not tasked to investigate real world crimes and if such were actually committed that it would be a matter for the real world authorities to handle... not a not for profit corporation that imitates a fan club.

Which brings me to the point... the AB has just set a very dangerous precedent in voting for the suspension of Scott Akers. Suspension is not defined in the Membership Handbook, nor the Constitution. Suspension has been used previously (even in the case of the person who brought the complaint against Scott Akers to the CS) and was overturned by the ECAB at IC07 because it was found that the suspensions were undefined and the matters were not handelled correctly by the AB in their rush to judgement.

So now we are at a turning point. Whenever someone calls someone a name on an email list, said member risks his or her "career" in STARFLEET and all the work that they may have done for the organization for as long as they have been a member. In Scott Aker's case, none of his contributions were taken into account during the administration's constant 15 month harassment and persecution of Mr. Akers. The night of the long knives were rendered sharply and without thought of the repercussions of the actions of the AB.

The AB is supposed to be the check and balance to the EC, but it appears that the AB is becoming a rubber stamp to the political agenda of the administration. These are the same folks that tried illegally to kick Mr. Akers out of STARFLEET 3 months into this administration's term. These are the same folks that approved an official list with rules that violate the rights of every member of STARFLEET. These are the same folks that in my opinion think that they are doing right by the membership, but lack the experience of being an AB member and fully understanding what that responsibility entails.

Now I have been an AB member and an EC member and have more qualifications for STARFLEET leadership than I have space to display them. I have made countless contributions over my 18 years as a member and I have helped to bring many new chapters and members to this fine organization (ever read the START or MOM Manuals?).

So now I have applied for the position of Judge Advocate General, STARFLEET. This is a position that is poorly defined and has little power when contrasted to the power of the IG, which sits on the other side of the fiction courtroom. The IG works for the CS... therefore the JAG should work for the member and have access to the same information and be given the same power to advocate for the member that the IG has to conduct those infamous secret investigations that we have all come to know and loathe.

Do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that the IG is not doing the job that the CS has tasked him with. Rather that the IG should know the boundaries of his position and what he is and is not allowed by the MHB to do.

Many are telling me that I am meeting resistance on the AB because of my stance against some of the administration's decisions, my participation in STARFLEET FAIL (which was always under my own name and never anonymous like some of the administraition's former EC members and most staunch supporters) and the fact that FLEETWATCH shares information that makes some of the leadership look bad by exposing their mistakes in judgement.

I would think that the AB would want a JAG that has the AB and EC experience that our membership deserves to advocate on their behalf. I would not think that the AB would want a JAG who has never served in an position of responsibility on a fleet level. I also would not think that the AB would want a JAG who would be a rubber stamp for the administration.

So, talk to your RCs and get involved. Ask them questions about the candidates and their STARFLEET experience and qualifications and ask them who they think would serve the interests of the members who are suppose to matter and not the special interests of the administration and leadership's agenda.

After all, isn't this YOUR STARFLEET TOO?

Respectfully submitted for your consideration,

Admiral Johnathan Simmons
Director, FLEETWATCH

In a recent post by one "T'Plon" of Region 6, the following was revealed...

Capt. T'Plon Makh-zhuksu to Official SFI List

Dec 13

Greetings,

[snip]
[snip]

Neal, you wanted a list?  Here you go:

"Gumby"
Emmet Plant
Tony Lopes
Tony Rowley
Rahadyan Sastrowardoyo
Neal F. Fischer
Dave Lowe
Chrissy Killian
Martin Lessem
Michael Dugas
Mark H. Anbinder
Matthew Baillie

Are there others?  Probably, but this was just a quick list.

Hmm, do you see a theme here?  I know I do.

Capt. T'Plon Makh-zhuksu, SCC# 61084
tplon2001@gmail.com
Commanding Officer, USS Vre'kasht NCC-33187

* * * 

The theme I see here is that anyone with the guts to speak out against the injustices and willful disregard for our rules by this farce of an administration are the ones who are constantly harassed by those who have partaken of the kool aid.

I found it highly amusing that I myself top the list of this "Dirty Dozen" and I consider myself in good company in spite of the fact that there are a great many more who should have made this list such as Scott Akers, Liz Woolf, Ricky Bruckman, Todd Brugmans and Kirylyn Dreamer, among others.

I am also impressed that she spelled Tim's name right... thank the stars for copy/paste!

The Cult of Personality will stop at nothing.

Comments welcomed...

-Illuminatus Primus

FLEETWATCH was very disturbed to receive the following email from CS Sal Lizard. It was directed to Dave Blaser and other members of the Admiralty Board just a few weeks ago. We believe this lends great insight into the thought processes of Mr. Lizard and the lies that he is spreading in his attempt to further divide our organization.

For example, I am also a member of the 501st and have many, many friends in the Legion and they have their share of troublemakers there that have remained part of the legion for years. Altho I am not a member of STARFLEET COMMAND, I have many friends who are. SFC also has its share of troublemakers just as every organization on the face of the planet does.  What Sal says below about the leaders of the 501st and STARFLEET COMMAND telling him “We get rid of troublemakers in our organization” is a bald faced lie.

Another example of Sal's lies is the part where he tells Dave that his email is the only one he received asking him to resign. I know for a fact this is another of Sal's famous lies because I myself have sent him emails asking him to resign for the good of the organization. I also know of a few others who have done the same. Again, more lies from our paranoid quasi leader.

Read his rant to the AB for yourself in his own words, then make up your own mind about the content of his message as CS and this disturbed individual.

Oh, and contrary to what Sal's paranoia states in his last sentence, FLEETWATCH is not an "Anti-STARFLEET Blog", in fact FLEETWATCH is quite the contrary and very PRO-STARFLEET..

Comments welcomed...

Admiral Johnathan Simmons
Director, FLEETWATCH

* * * * *

From: FADM Sal Lizard
To: Ab-l@sfi.org
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 7:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Ab-L] SFI-L

Dave,

Now let *me* vent!

What have I said that was incorrect? Does the truth hurt? I am criticised for the SFI-L and members there are asking me to do something to keep the peace there. There is lots of misinformation and assumptions that need to be clarified.

On a daily basis, I get more letters of support from members of STARFLEET than I get letters of complaint (unless you count the too numerous to count emails from a few who seem determined to keep things stirred up.

You have accused me of extremism and yet, I’ve only done what previous CS’s have done, ran the EC, paid the bills, and promote members. Neither I nor my EC have kicked anyone out of STARFLEET, demoted anyone, or even pushed for needed changes in the Constitution — yet. But you paint me as this terrible person who has the sole responsibility to heal STARFLEET. You know, I have offered an olive brance to the “opposition” on several occassions but there come a time when the tree starts to die from loosing its branches. I have turned the other cheeck so many time my jaws hurt.

As I’ve said before, when I was elected, I was told that if I Cooperated with the “political machine” of STARFLEET, I could have an easy tenure as CS. Now you tell me that STARFLEET needs a moderate in charge. You are also a candidate for the VCS position so i should assume that if you take that spot you’ll constantly be trying to get me to step down so you can be the CS?

I’m a big fan of Robert Heinlein and his fictional character Lazarus Long reminds me of one of my greatest hearoes and mentors in my formative years when they both said, more or less, “Moderation is for monks, take big bites in life.” I am not a moderate, and I never ran as one.

Moderate attitudes have gotten this organization where it is. STARFLEET has been bad-mouthed by its members and other groups long before I took over as CS. Moderation is what allowed members to hurt each other and get away with it. moderation is what allows members to post internal, confidential STARFLEET information on public websites, moderation is what allows a former corporate officer to break the confidence of his position. Moderation is what’s hurting this organization!

Damn it! Somebody needs to make a stand! How did STARFLEET ever survive without the Interenet?!? I’ll tell you how, the members focused more on their chapters and regions. Most of our contact in STARFLEET was with other members in our own immediate (or drivable) area and when we heard from HQ it was in the Communique or from our regional coordinator. The Constitution hasn’t changed and yet you and “the online social club” expect me to meet you on your terms or get out of office?!

I was elected as the CS amidst complaints from the online community that I wouldn’t “hang out” with them. But I still won more than twice as many votes as my closest “moderate” competitor! What about my rights as the CS? I don’t recall ever giving them up. And what would happen if the regions started acting like the online community and demanding that I attend *their* functions? You can argue that it costs me money to travel on the national highways but not the cyber highway but if i have to take time away from my livelihood to answer all of the questions that some online members like to barrage me with, then I still pay.

And if I’m hurting STARFLEET so much, why isn’t a member who sits in the chat areas bad-mouthing STARFLEET while building up his own organization?

Yeah, I’m gonna step down — NOT!! I promised my supporters that I would work for the good of the whole STARFLEET, not cover and crawl away because some small, but very loud, individuals call for it.

By the way, Dave, to date, yours is the only email I’ve received asking me to step down. All the rest were directed at inciting members.

For you that don’t like the tone of my message, I’m sorry. But I’m pissed off and it’s about time I quit being the gentle Santa and start acting like I promised during the election. Which i won, by the way. A leader also has to stand up for himself aginst the opposition. Until my term ends or I get impeached, I’m not quitting STARFLEET and I’m not going to let the malcontents who lost the election make everyone else suffer. People may resist change but change is inevitable. If this organization doesn’t change, or won’t change, it will suffer and die.

We are the leaders and it’s up to all of us to help those changes occur not retard them. If I’m going to communicate, I’m going to communicate honestly. I’m not going to “pussy-foot around” just because the truth might hurt somebody’s feelings. This STARFLEET is not in sync with the needs of the membership because it is so slow to change. During my campaign, I spoke about how slowly change comes to STARFLEET and that I would bring about those changes more quickly. Some members ask when I’m going to quit dragging my feet.

I also hear members talk about how other groups are growing. They say that we need to talk to other organizations to see what they are doing right. well, I’ve talked to leaders of the 501st and Starfleet Command and the very first thing they told me was that they felt STARFLEET was doomed because of all of the crap we put up with — “We get rid of troublemakers in our organization” was more or less the answer from both of these leaders.

Now, can I still count on my ability to be honest, and sometimes blunt with this body or should I wonder which of you will now post this one, or leak it to a public anti-STARFLEET blog?

Sal Lizard,
CS@SFI.Org

Recently, the AB passed motion AB08-06 "Revised Academy Policy and Procedures". This, in effect, gives the power to the Academy to restrict the level of participation of STARFLEET members who are "found" guilty of cheating on open book academy exams.

You can read the motion and see how your region voted by going to:
http://historian.sfi.org/AB

This motion was railroaded through the AB by Admiral Peg Pellerin after *2* cases of supposed cheating occured although no timeframe was mentioned. We watched this transpire on the ECAB list and everytime the rights of the member or the fact that in order to enact this resolution, a vote of the general membership would be required was not good enough for Admiral Pellerin, who sought to browbeat those who objected and to constantly rewrite the verbiage of the motion until it passed the kool-aid litmus test. In fact, she said that she didn't want to wait the time it would take for the membership to vote.

2 cases of alleged cheating on open book exams derail and defocus the entire AB from issues that are far more important and critical to our organization so that Admiral Pellerin can enact punishment of members in direct violation of the constitution... and the AB let her get away with this?

Sadly, yes.

The AB voted 13-3-0 to enact this policy which is in direct violation of the constitution because it restricts the rights of the member to participate to the extent desired in all STARFLEET services. And no matter what one tells you, the Academy is just a *service* to the membership designed for entertainment.

FLEETWATCH is appalled that this makes the second time that the Admiralty Board has voted against the rights of the member (the Scott Akers fiasco being the first).

Which begs the question... If the majority of the AB is not looking out for the rights of the membership and is basically the EC's welcome mat... who is looking out for us and our rights?

The AB is not Sal's personal rubber stamp. In fact it is quite the opposite. It is a check and balance system. So far they are writing the checks and we are paying the balance with our membership dues, donations, and now our membership rights

FLEETWATCH commends the RCs of Regions 4, 11 and 12 for remembering the constitution and for upholding the rights of the members. The other regional coordinators need to seriously rethink thier positions and read the constitution before giving the power to punish members to service departments such as the Academy in clear violation of our constitution.

No Academy is an Island.

Now I don't want to get off on a rant here...
But wouldn't you think that we have plenty of more pressing issues to deal with and questions that have gone unanswered for months, rampant irresponsible spending on legal advice that according to the CS "Was not acted on in the best fashion", and of course the continued lack of services being performed by EC members such as CompOps, OPS to include website information that is months our of date and DB updates regarding chapters who have decommissioned yet still have not been removed as of this entry.

Add to the above that the much promised "Monthly VR" is out of date and that ShOC is relying on its' "backup" site which in also sorely lacking in timeliness. The SFI.ORG site is behind in updates and even the Academy website is having a series of its' own issues, yet the cheating policy must take precedent. Why?

We have witnessed repeated poor decision after poor decision from our leadership over the last 11 months and the time has come for change. Do we allow our leadership to consistently trample upon our rights as paying members or do we organize and start fighting back against these injustices?

Perhaps it is time to use the power of the constitution to petition for removal of these EC officers that are not doing thier jobs and start a formal Vote of Confidence on CS Sal Lizard who will be even less communicative now that we are about to enter the Christmas season.

How much longer must we stand and accept such incompetence and ignorance from our elected leadership? How long must we be walked on by our RCs who are inexperienced and choose to ride on the SalBoat?

Comments welcomed... Please remember to sign your post even if you are an LJ member.

-FW

Members of STARFLEET,

Many remember "Vic's Place" from the last election. It was an anonymous blog where cyberbullies posting as "Vic Fontaine" lambasted anyone and everyone who stood against them, to include using information that was only given to very small circles of people. Many members were engaged in this free for all blogsite and some members experienced very real damage to their lives, most notably Dave Lowe of Region Two.

When Mike Urvand was fired from the Lizard Administration as Chief of Operations and replaced by VAdm. Kim Donohoe, many had already speculated that he knew something as to the identity of "Vic" and that he may have even been complicit in the anonymous cyberbullying of STARFLEET members while hiding behind a pseudonym.

Recently, FLEETWATCH learned the following information, posted publicly on an open blog at http://starfleetfail.com/sal-lizard-on-vic/#comments...

Mike Urvand Says:
October 15th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

I was sitting here at work and realized that Trillian, the IM I use here, logs all IMs. You’ll never guess the little exchange that I got for posterity. I am redacting one of the names to protect one person who really isn’t doing much in fleet anymore..

Session Start (commmu@hotmail.com:Kimi): Wed Feb 20 09:11:28 2008

[10:39]Kimi: I heard from XXXXX.
[10:40] Kimi: She didn’t change the password she said, so we have no idea who’s controlling Vic.
[10:40] Mike Urvand: lovely
[10:40] Kimi: She didn’t tell me who all she gave it to. I’m trying not to let it bother me. I wish I could be more like you.

I’m not sure that Sal will ever see this, but I can now say to Mr. Nowlin…you asked for proof. Here it is.

* * * 

I personally commend Admiral Urvand for having the character to come forward at last with this information. Now that we know that Vice Admiral Kim Donohoe and Mike Urvand were two of the three "Vic"s, our investigation turns to who the mysterious woman is that masqueraded as the third "Vic".

We also call upon Fleet Admiral Sal Lizard to remove VAdm. Donohoe from the Executive Committee as STARFLEET Chief of Operations pending a full investigation conducted by the STARFLEET IG. After all, Fleet Admiral Lizard ran on a campaign whose cornerstone was removing the cyberbullies from STARFLEET.

Fleet Admiral Lizard, now that you know that VAdm. Donohoe was complicit in this scandal, when can the membership expect an IG investigation into "Vic's Place" and the cyberharrassment of STARFLEET members allegedly conducted by former and current members of your administration? After the scandal with the attempted removal of Scott Akers, I would encourage that VAdm. Donohoe's membership rights be respected and the process be carried out openly and fairly.

Furthermore, who is this mysterious third person who was also "Vic"? Fleet Admiral Lizard claimed in January on his LiveJournal blog that he had no idea who "Vic" was. Is it possible that he didn't know that his third in command was in fact one of the very cyberbullies that he campaigned against?

Admiral Urvand says that he redacted the name of this third person. Perhaps now is the time for us to put to rest once and for all the very disturbing scandal that we now call VICGATE. If this woman is not doing very much in STARFLEET anymore as Admiral Urvand claims, then what is the harm in telling us the real story?

More on this very important development as it happens. Please feel free to discuss your thoughts here. Just remember to SIGN YOUR NAME to your comments, even if you are an LJ User.

In service to the first duty,

Admiral Johnathan Simmons
Director, FLEETWATCH
A division of Section 31
gumbysan at gmail dot com

Poll #1278340
Open to: All, detailed results viewable to: All

Do you believe that Sal Lizard should resign as Commander, STARFLEET?

I received this warning from the Senior Moderator of the "Official" STARFLEET List today...

For your consideration, I have also included my response and my request for AB action on this matter.

* * * 

I also asked this on both STARFLEET lists...

With all the rampant spending that this administration has allotted to questionable things like the divisive "THREATS TO STARFLEET" Letter, Attorney's Fees for legal advice that was not "acted upon in the best manner", a theoretical rubber stamp and the like... I would like to inquire as to the status of the constitutionally-mandated annual review of our books by an outside CPA.

I remember Sal stating during his campaign that this was one of the things that would be a top priority.

So I have two questions: One, have we had an outside CPA review our books?

Two, when was the last time our books were reviewed by an outside CPA?

Thanks in advance for the answers, oh and anyone who replies "Molly Baxter, 1995" will get no Jell-O :-)

If and when I get an answer, I will post it here.

-FW

After many requests from non subscribers to LJ, I have changed the settings to allow for anyone to comment.

One Caveat: You must sign your name to your post or I will delete it within 24 hours.

Even if you have an LJ account and or have FLEETWATCH on your Friends List, you must sign your name to your posts. If you say it, own it.

Thank you for your continued support

FLEETWATCH

Because many of you have asked to see more membership numbers and Sal's claim that the DataBase numbers are incorrect... I think this speaks for itself...

2008 Membership Trend Chart (Thanks to FW member Matt Baillie)

Or you can see back to 2004 by going to: http://starfleetfail.com/hard-numbers/

Anyone care to comment?

Uploaded with the permission of Mr. Akers...

Scott's C&D Letter

At an estimated $400.00 per hour, we have no idea exactly how much this letter cost YOU, the members of STARFLEET.

The total monies spent to date on legal fees now stands at $9,407.00, which is about 1/5th of our yearly operating budget. You can also find other documents from the attorney to the Commander, STARFLEET on this site.

Ask yourself, is this what your membership dollars should be spent on?

You be the judge.

FW Note: This is being reprinted with permission from FCAPT Unicorn Escobedo from his post on the Region 4 list...

CQ Editor = Removed within 45 days of appointment.  No explanation from Sal ever given to the membership, event thought several were made publicly and privately about this matter.

Chief of Communications announced replaced on August 1th, 2008 =  Former chief steps down due to personal reason and is replaced by Jon Lane of R4.  Mr. Christian’s explanation is in CQ 147 page 4.

Resignation of Inspector General announced September 21^st, 2008 =  According to Sal’s post ‘Robert has expressed his reasons which include real-life stress from his job with the US Marshall's service, his lack of  adequate free time, and the demands of conducting STARFLEET  investigations in today's environment.”

Resignation of Chief of Operations announced September 21^st, 2008 =  According to Sal’s post ‘Mike has cited resent health and other personal concerns that interfere with his work in Operations.’

Resignation of Vice Commander STARFLEET announced today, October 2^nd, 2008 =  VCE steps down due to personal reasons and personal employment advancement according to his own statement. 

Did I miss anyone?

Now let me look into the Guardian to see who is ‘next’?

Unicorn Escobedo, FCPT
Communications - USS Angeles - R4
unicorn1701@att.net

 

From the Region 5 list...

To the ECAB and STARFLEET members

 

As one of the two EC members elected by the membership, Sal thought it appropriate that I make this announcement personally. Every once in a while something happens that can be life changing. At times it can come unexpected and this has happened to me. Recently I have been offered and have accepted a new promotion within my company. This new job is significant, very demanding, time consuming and will require the bulk of my time and energy to accomplish.

 

This new assignment also requires me to move out to California two years before my family can relocate because of circumstances, which will make this assignment even more challenging. This means what extra time I have will be spent with my family as a husband and a father.

 

Thus with regret, I need to announce my resignation as Vive Commander, STARFLEET effective November 1^st. Fleet Admiral Sal Lizard is in the process of selecting a replacement and I will do all in my power to insure that there is a smooth transition.

 

One point I would like to make perfectly clear. This resignation was purely made on my own personal circumstances and not due to anything other than that. I respect Sal and I still strongly believe in what he believes and I was fully intending on carrying his banner of “Members Matter”. However this promotion will take up significant amounts of my time and I would not be able to adequately serve the membership of this organization. In fact to try to do so would result in a disservice to the membership because of a lack of response to those needs.

 

I wish to thank all those who have supported and encouraged me and it is my sincerest hope that all members of STARFLEET can come together and help make this organization as great as I know it can be.

 

Thank you

Gary Halverson
 

VADM Garrick Halverson
Vice Commander STARFLEET

Recently, there was a discussion between Craig Wood and our esteemed yet new Chief of Operations, VAdm. Kimberly Donahoe regarding the regularity of the Vessel Registry. The Vessel Registry is supposed to be produced on a monthly basis by the Operations Department and in all honestly, many Operations administrations, including my brief tenure as OPS, failed to produce the VR on a monthly basis.

Craig recently received the following email from the Chief of Operations...

Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 09:36:48 -0400
From: “Kimberly Donohoe” <ops@sfi.org>
To: “Craig Wood” <oak3@twave.net>
Subject: Re: VR

Not arguing, but if you’re going to make a bold statement like that, back it up. You can’t. If you’re retired, stay that way.

Have a super day!

Kim
 

* * * 

That's right folks, she actually told an expired member of STARFLEET to "stay that way."

Is this the kind of leadership that you want from your EC members?

I guess Mr. Wood is a member who didn't matter.

Discuss.

* * * 

In 4 days it will be TEN MONTHS and we have yet to see any "demonstrable evidence" as promised by Sal.

Will we ever?

Discuss.

I received this rather DISTURBING email from Emmett Plant, CO of the USS Blackheart yesterday. I am still quite stunned that this officer is not in jail, let alone allowed to retain his position as VRC or Region 7.

Judge for yourself...

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:  <ChalngrCmd@aol.com>
Date: Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 8:28 AM
Subject: Re: That didn't take long.
To: wayneaugustson@yahoo.com, tetrisblock@gmail.com, mutara2@earthlink.net
Cc: jvictor930@gmail.com


You guys got my response on the matter plus my little follow up.
Basically, as we all know. Plant can go to hell.

I responded before seeing or reading his initial e-mail calling us
insane which I felt we should confirm that we are.

After seeing Dark Knight I kind of wanted to play the part of the
Joker and stick a knife in Plant's mouth and say "why so serious" see
the movie and you'll see why. <G>
Bob

* * * 

Regardless of whether or not this is a sick joke, in today's violent world any physical threat upon a member of STARFLEET should be dealt with swiftly and harshly. We need regional administrations that are helpful to new chapters, not ones that threaten to stick knives in the mouths of their COs.

Discuss.