Geez, oh, pete...

I came home yesterday to find a notice of a certified letter waiting for me. It seems that the office of Joni Fixel has decided to violate the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct by contacting me directly, rather than communicating with my legal representative.

Rule 4.2 Communication with Person Represented by CounselIn representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a party whom the lawyer knows to be represented in the matter by another lawyer, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized by law to do so.

Of course, Joni knows that my attorney is the respected Kevin Winters of Foster, Zack and Lowe as she has communicated with him on many occasions and appeared in Court across the aisle from him when MCRGO's Executive Director, Anti-Gunner, Charles R. Perricone (you remember - he used to be the Speaker of the House, an office the Michigan Daily newspaper says was sort of expensive for him to buy his way into) tried to get away with claiming I was "infatuated and obsessed" with him due to his being part of a two-year long lawsuit (and now, an additional lawsuit for defamation and slander) in which I have been found to be on the right side of the law every step of the way.

Oddly enough, it appears Joni is unaware that there is a Court Order in place that addresses this matter. You see, they "terminated" my membership once before but finally offered it back to me (I suspect they knew that was a losing battle) and an order was entered in July of this year that contains language that says:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the only remaining issues in this case, that being the termination of the membership of Neva Li from MCRGO, is resolved by virtue of MCRGO reinstating Neva Li as member of MCRGO subject to all terms and conditions of membership. MCRGO will not terminate Neva Li's membership in a manner inconsistent with both Michigan Law and MCRGO Bylaws.

Michigan Law. Wouldn't that be an idea for the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, its Executive Director and its attorneys? Just follow the law.

Now, why would they want to try yet again to remove me as a member? The recent election results explain that pretty clearly. Seven hundred sixty seven votes for me as a Director. Almost fifty percent of the ballots that were returned contained a vote for me. Two spots open up in my region next year and I intend to run again.

And in the case of MCRGO's attorneys, my suggestion is, follow the Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct. I understand that the MCRGO Board of Directors and its Executive Director are bound by no such rules of ethics, but Ms. Fixel certainly is.

One last suggestion, for now: Ms. Fixel and Mr. Naumcheff need to read the Court records surrounding this case, they really do. I've posted a lot of the relevant orders and records in this directory, but they really need to review everything that has gone on up to this date and try to get their client, who appears to be Mr. Perricone primarily, to be a little more forthcoming in the real truths behind all of this.

And one final comment. Mr. Naumcheff didn't quite tell the membership the truth the other day at one of the meetings. He told us that any document "not signed was not public." Untrue, of course. Many of the documents filed with the Court are not signed. They're still public. Of course, I also have the right to make things like my own deposition public. I know it, you know it, the Judge has reinforced the concept repeatedly. It's only MCRGO and its continuously changing teams of attorneys that don't seem to get it.

Trust me - it isn't infatuation, no matter what he tells his wife...

Mr. Charles R. Perricone - you remember him, perhaps because, some years ago, he paid good money to be the Speaker of the House for a short time - according to the Michigan Daily at the time, he won by "contributing $4,500 to each" Republican lawmaker - claims I am infatuated with him.

This is the Executive Director of MCRGO that disarmed me with a spurious PPO a month or so ago - see this file for details.

Of interest in the continuing saga of his fabrications and manipulations is this transcript of the PPO hearing.

I cannot imagine how his wife believes some of the tripe he feeds her. Just a little bit of applied logic would seem necessary here at some point in time.

As I told some friends of mine earlier today when we pondered him actually saying out loud that I am supposedly infatuated with him:

... he has to tell his wife something about all of this so telling her that I am infatuated with him worked, I guess, for someone not intuitive enough to ask the next question(s). "So, what's your obsession with her? Why are you always writing about her in the On Target and in emails? Why do you keep trying to get other groups to trash her? Why do you have people spying on her? Why don't you just comply with the law and the Judge's orders and do what you should be doing?"

If my husband had spent two years in Court constantly being told by the Judge that the organization he was responsible for directing was not following the law, and whose actions helped place the organization in that position, we'd have more to discuss than the woman who filed the suit.

But that would never happen because I am married to an ethical man.