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.

Director of MCRGO, Kerry Miller

Kerry Miller wrote to me and asked me to post this:

Please post this is what they want me to sign this, so I would have to lie to
protect Chuck. I will stand up for MCRGO because the members have only listened
to Chucks lie's and we should not pay this guy 75% of the money we take in.

The following two letters were attached:

http://www.cpltrainer.com/mcrgo/MCRGOconflictletter.pdf
http://www.cpltrainer.com/mcrgo/MCRGOWAIVER.pdf

Seven Days

This order was signed by the Judge in this case yesterday, December 16, 2005:

THIS MATTER coming before the Court on Ms. Neva Li’s (“Ms. Li”) request for costs and fees pursuant to this Court’s Orders of September 1, 2005, and October 26, 2005, the Court having reviewed the Bill of Costs and Supporting Affidavit, and being fully advised in the premises, Now Therefore:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that attorneys’ fees and costs in the total amount of $13,822.92 are awarded and are to be made payable to Ms. Li and sent to Foster Zack & Lowe, P.C. within seven days of the date of this Order.

Friday, December 23, 2005. Pay up or we're back in Court for the third or fourth time on Contempt. Next comes a Show Cause hearing on failure to provided all documents as ordered (despite two trips to the office to copy) and a myriad of other issues, which I will detail here in the next few days.

Meanwhile, our responses to their appeals can be found here:

1. Amendment to Appeals Brief - mine
2. Brief in Support of my Motion to Affirm the Judgement
3. Motion to affirm - a sort of request for permission type document.

And then, there is the following letter to their new attorneys in response to their "response" to my defamation/slander lawsuit. Interestingly enough, their response includes a countersuit on Mr. Perricone's behalf, which apparently the members are supposed to pay the attorney's fees for.

Dear Joni and Brett:

I have reviewed the above document in preparation of an Answer. I thought it would be better and more of a professional courtesy to send you this letter before I move for an immediate Motion for Summary Disposition. My Motion for Summary Disposition at this point would be based on the defects in the pleading that relate to the defamation Count I - Business Defamation of MCRGO and Count II [sic] – Personal Defamation as to Defendant/Counter Plaintiff Perricone. Pleadings that allege defamation must be specific. In other words, the pleading is defective if it does not contain the defamatory words specifically - verbatim. The elements of defamation must be specifically plead including the allegations of the defamatory words and the connections between the parties (Pierson v Ahern, 2005 WL 1685103) (Mich App, Jul 19, 2005) (NL. 260661) Hightower and Hightower, Inc. v Community Living Services 2004 WL 2452008( Mich App, Nov 02, 2004) (NO 248882) Rouch v Enquirer and News of Battle Creek Michigan 440 Mich 238, 487 NW 2d 205, 20 Media L.Rep. 2265 (Mich Jul 15, 1992) (NL. 89799). The defamatory statement must be specifically verbatim without exception. My notes indicate that I have somewhere around the 28th of December to provide an Answer. As a Christmas present I would like to give you the opportunity to correct the defects in your pleading. Provide me an amended pleading with the specific verbatim allegations no later than December 20, 2005. If you do not wish to amend your pleading, I will move for Summary Disposition on those 2 counts for lack of specificity and include a Motion for Summary Disposition on tortuous interference before my Answer.

The second issue in this letter concerns the private affirmative claim for Mr. Perricone, individually. Mr. Perricone cannot bring his own private claims that are paid for by MCRGO. The question is whether the Board of Directors is paying for an affirmative action that only Mr. Perricone stands to benefit from. If this is the case, it is well beyond the authorization of the Articles of Incorporation and well beyond the indemnification as set out in the Bylaws. Please provide us a copy of the Board resolution passed, adopted and approved consistent with the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws of MCRGO (not the Ops Committee) where the Board authorized the payment of attorney fees advance, (which is not indemnification) of individual Board members and where they authorized payment of attorney fees for an independent, individual affirmative action on behalf of Mr. Perricone. If you wish, I can send a discovery request Monday morning and get the documents.

Finally, as to the first Li v MCRGO litigation, we are in the process of finishing the inventory of the documents that we copied at MCRGO. I will be sending that to you in a couple of days with an Affidavit as to what we received as well as a request for MCRGO to provide what is still lacking consistent with all the Orders. At that point we can see what we can do to get the rest of the information in the next week or two.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. Looking forward to hearing from you.

I look forward to hearing from them as well.

Now, I am off to the meeting where they will "announce" the new Board members. Considering the endless character assassination that the Chairman of the Board and Mr. Perricone have engaged in for the last two years, and the fact that they control the vote count process, I hardly expect to be successful in my bid but I will be attending the meeting.

Charles R. Perricone, Who was ONCE Speaker of the MI House

He signs his name "Honorable" but I reserve that title for those who are.

Not those who pretend to be "Pro-Gun" while disarming woman and engineer the law so that it creates zones where law-abiding citizens must go unarmed and unprotected.

I read a quote today that fit him so perfectly - fit what he has done to MCRGO so neatly, that I felt I must share it with all of you.

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. As enemy at the gates is lessformidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself." ---Marcus Tullius Cicero

This is the man who refuses to bring the Secretary's Book out of the safe at A&E Printers of Lansing, Michigan, where he put it two years ago after illegally removing it from the office. This is the man who refuses to provide legitimate documents to Board members when they request them of him. This is the man who keeps the membership database locked away at A&E Printers in Lansing, Michigan, rather than in the principal office as required by State Law. I wonder if any Board member has ever gotten around to ordering him to return them, as required by Law, or if they are just going to continue to allow him to flaunt the Law and the organization's Bylaws.

And this is the man who tells us over and over again that he is a former lawmaker. Former, as in done, over, not one any longer and, in my opinion, never should have been one in the first place.

But this is also the man who deems himself above the law and will come back to face a Judge and explain to him exactly why he attempted to interfere with the Court's Orders with his obviously spurious attempt to place a Personal Protection Order against me for a year.

Read the Judge's discussion of the Order in the transcript where he says, "I’ll tell you, this would appear to have all the earmarks of an intent -- an effort to interfere with and disrupt this Court’s jurisdiction and power to enforce its orders."

Maybe this time he won't be able to hide behind his claim that it is all the Board of Directors' fault.

I know he won't be able to when it comes to the slander and defamation suit because the evidence is going to clearly show exactly who he is and what he has done.

And I, for one, look forward to my Day in Court.

The Rights of the People...

The Second Amendment states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You may have heard it said that the Second Amendment protects the First:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
------ (Emphasis mine.)

On October 21, 2005, both of those rights were slammed into abeyance for me.

Charles R. Perricone, one-time transitory Speaker of the House (who purchased the job with well-placed gifts and contributions), retaliated for our continued success in Court. Our efforts to force the Board and its Executive Director, Mr. Perricone to comply with the law, the Bylaws and numerous Court orders did not go unnoticed by Mr. Perricone, despite his failure to actually acknowledge any of them.

His response to them, however, was not quite what the Judge (or we) in this case hoped for. His path was to fabricate a tale of woe and attempt to have me stripped of both my First and Second Amendment rights.

A moment's pause here. Please take a few moments to read through these records and our motion.

I'd been asked for details on why my Concealed Pistols License was suspended but because Mr. Perricone apparently did not want his statement to come into the public eye (and how does that work anyway, when a document is filed in a public matter?) perhaps because it so obviously reveals his anti-gun stance, or perhaps because he admits that he does not have a Concealed Pistols License himself - while serving as the Executive Director of a pro-firearms rights organization and claiming to be the reason we have Shall Issue in Michigan today.

In any case, until we won our dismissal today, I was not allowed to speak on this matter, although I did speak openly about my loss of CPL - or as openly as I was allowed to.

Just a quick reminder on the idea of Mr. Perricone's claims that he is the reason we have Shall Issue in Michigan today. He is the reason we have Criminal Empowerment Zones, certainly, and must continue to fight for our rights under both the United States and Michigan Constitutions.

But his fabrications and fantasies hit bottom today and were soundly rejected. We will continue our fight to clean up MCRGO unabated and I will enjoy the same rights and responsibilites as every other law-abiding Michigan citizen, despite the efforts of the Once and Thank Heaven Never in the Future Former Speaker of the House.

And now a short public service announcement. If you are ever looking for an attorney who will be a pit bull for your rights, I want to recommend Mr. J. Kevin Winters of the Okemos firm of Foster, Zack and Lowe. He is incredible and he not only fights for me, he seems to believe in me. He's smart and he's dedicated and he has been incredibly patient and hard-working in this matter.

I'd like to also add my thanks to Jim Simmons, pro-gun attorney extraordinaire, for his invaluable assistance in walking this through the system on this side of the state while Kevin, another pro-gun attorney extraordinaire, was finishing up handing Mr. Perricone his hat and sending him home empty-handed on the other side of the state.

Kudoes to the Oakland County Gun Board for their immediate - within moments - reinstatement of my Concealed Pistols License.

Today, the system worked.

Friday...

Veteran's Day.

Plan something good for the veteran you know or one you don't.

Send a card, send some popcorn and a movie, contribute to a veteran's group or even stop by a veteran's hospital.

If nothing else, pause in your day and say a prayer of thanks.

You owe your daily freedom to each and every one of them.

Miss you, Doc, I really do....

Explain this to me - and your constituents...

All of the following are good Bills, but not going anywhere. Why? Stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by supposedly Pro-Gun Senator, Alan Cropsey.

Could it be because MCRGO didn't develop them and no Pro-Gun Bill that they didn't develop isn't going to be allowed to move? Could it be that because the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is more concerned with making MCRGO look good, while he uses his office to slander me and interfere with my Civil Rights, than he does about good, solid, pro-gun legislation?

HB 4186 of 2005 House Bill Weapons; concealed; renewal date of concealed pistol permit; establish as same day as expiration of permit when renewed prior to expiration date. Amends sec. 5l of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425l).

HB 4186

3/24/2005 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY - STALLED

HB 4643 of 2005 House Bill Weapons; licensing; issuance of concealed pistol license renewal; require within certain period of time. Amends sec. 5l of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.425l).

HB 4643

8/31/2005 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY -STALLED

HB 4642 of 2005 House Bill Weapons; other; licensed spouse to carry or transport another licensed spouse's inspected pistol; allow. Amends sec. 12 of 1927 PA 372 (MCL 28.432).

HB 4642

9/14/2005 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY - STALLED

None of them were "developed" by MCRGO and none of them are moving. Why? Whose Committee is not moving them?

If the only pro-gun bills that are allowed to move are those originating from MCRGO, then the folks blocking them are not pro-gun, they're only pro-MCRGO and that's not good enough.

Someone commented to me this morning, "My Dad is now 82 years old. I was so proud to help him get his CPL."

I've helped hundreds get their CPLs and I've been very proud of that as well. I've worked with hundreds of children via the Eddie Eagle program as well, but Mr. Perricone, the Fugacious Former Speaker of the House (an office which he is widely known to have purchased, by the way), blocked that program from becoming a part of every child's life in one Michigan County. Why? Because I would have done the training and he couldn't have that once he became irritated with me. He has worked, it would seem non-stop, to block every effort I made since October of 2003 to work on any firearms rights issue.

What happened in October of 2003? I found out that he wanted to put Ralph Mabry on our Board of Directors, and then went on to find out that Mr. Perricone had lied to me on many, many occasions. Character assassination is his stock-in-trade, I am afraid.
Who is Ralph Mabry? That's for another day, but for a start, Google up the words Ralph Mabry fraud department justice and see what you get. The man isn't even allowed to get anywhere near the pension fund of the Union he is President of and Mr. Perricone wants him on our Board? He heads up a Union that has endorsed Anti-Gun candidates to the tune of millions of dollars worth of donations over the years and Mr. Perricone wants him on our Board?

One word. "WHY?"

And as I said to the poster on my site’s forum, “Proud of your dad getting his CPL? My family was proud of me, too.”




What kind of man disarms a woman because she wins a court case against him? What kind of so-called Conservative, albeit transitory, Legislator puts so much work into silencing one woman?

Well, to quote another poster of my site, "That would be an inadequate "girly-man."

Ten Days...

Ten days until the First and Second Amendments of our Constitution are reinstated for me.

I can't wait.


<

How Could She Sue a Pro-Gun Senator?

I've watched slam after slam (mostly from the self-serving Charles R. Perricone, once-upon-a-time Speaker of the House) on how I am such a terrible person because I have included in my suit a supposedly pro-gun Senator, Alan Cropsey.

Short answer is, I believe in the law and Senator Cropsey isn't following it. He's one of the people who sat back and watched the law be broken and was fully aware of it.

But there's a longer answer as well.

Despite Mr Kliemann, also on MCRGO's Board of Directors, and his demand that I stop emailing any member of the Board that was also a sitting Legislator, I know who I sent emails, letters, etc. to. Senator Cropsey made the same decision to violate the laws and Bylaws that various other members of the Board did. If anything, frankly, I would think that his ethics, as a sitting Legislator, would demand that he follow the law, which he knew was legitimate, and the Bylaws of the organization he professes to love so well, not to mention those Court Orders that keep coming down the pipe.

Years ago, I explained to him that our Bylaws didn't allow for him to be the Legislative Chair. I pointed out the Bylaw, quoted the Bylaw - but no, the good Senator decided to heck with any of that. He'd do as he pleased and as Mr. Perricone pleased and on with the show.

Of late, he has even used his office to personally attack me to tens of thousands of Michigan citizens in an attempt to make them believe that I am wrong for expecting our organization, his and mine, to follow the law, the Bylaws and standing Court orders.

That would seem like enough, wouldn't it? Well, frankly, it is.

But let's take a look at that "Pro-Gun Senator" idea.

For the last seven months a very good Bill has been stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee, of which the Senator is Chair. For those of you who know how committees work, you know that if the Chair wants it to move, it will move.

H.B. 4186 would give everyone the full 5 years they are paying for when they apply for the Concealed Pistols License and was passed by the House 109-0 on March 23rd.

109-0.

As it stands now, if someone has a CPL and then has to apply for a renewal, and they apply early to avoid letting their CPL run out before their renewal comes through, it is entirely possible to lose a month or two or even, as I did, four or more months. Introduced by Representative Tory Rocca in the first few days of February, 2005, the Bill would establish that when a person renews an expiring CPL, the starting date of the renewed license will be the expiration date of the old one, even if the person renews the license before it has expired.

Good Bill, seems sensible, no big deal, really. However, it was developed and offered by a Pro-Gun group that Senator Cropsey and Mr. Perricone, who served briefly as Speaker of the House and was then sent home, have decided are their "competition." How that works, I have no idea, but it's past time Senator Cropsey abandon that ill-founded idea and do more than give lip-service to the idea of being Pro-Gun.

Certainly, Mr. Perricone has been demonstrating for years that he was an Anti-Gunner, from working to establish Criminal Empowerment Zones to his recent interference with my Right to Keep and Bear Arms as a law abiding citizen.

But with Senator Cropsey heralding the Castle Doctrine Bill (also a good Bill) and shouting from the rooftops how Pro-Gun he is, I'm asking for some proof and so are a lot of other Pro-Gun activists.

H.B. 4186 is an excellent common sense Bill. It's been sitting waiting for a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee since March 24th. Two-hundred-twenty-two days.

Move it, Senator Cropsey - the ball is in your Court, so to speak. Make it happen; you know you can. Put aside your feelings about the so-called competition and guide this Bill though to the success it deserves. Give CPL holders their money's worth.

Heaven knows gun owners are the reason you're in office. How about a little loyalty to your constituents?