User talk:Wallyworld3

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LITIGATION BETWEEN THE MINUTEMAN PROJECT, INC. AND ITS FORMER VOLUNTEERS'''

'''1. Why did Jim Gilchrist bring lawsuit(s) against the former volunteers?

When Jim terminated defendants Marvin Stewart, Deborah Peterson (alias Courtney), and Barbara Coe on February 2, 2007 from their advisory positions he expected they would simply act as mature adults and move on to something else to further the cause of the immigration law advocacy movement.

Instead, they filed a fraudulent document with the Delaware Secretary of State’s office falsely claiming to be the board of directors of Minuteman Project, Inc. (MMP). They then went to MMP’s bank with a copy of that fraudulent document, and phony corporate minutes they created that illegally claimed they had signatory rights on the Minuteman bank account. With the approval of a timid and unaware Washington Mutual Bank clerk, they illegally took over the bank accounts. They withdrew most of the Minuteman Project’s money, while being filmed by a bank surveillance camera, causing all of Minuteman’s outstanding checks to bounce.

They also used the fraudulent documents to trick the ISP that hosted Jim’s Minuteman Project web site into letting them seize and take control of Jim’s web site. Shortly thereafter, MMP lawyers, citing the fraud, got the ISP to return the web site to Jim’s control.

Concurrently, using the Minuteman Project’s confidential email list that they covertly downloaded from MMP computer systems, the defendants launched a national email and media propaganda campaign of blatant lies apparently designed to severely and irreparably damage the reputation of Jim Gilchrist, his wife, his consultants, and the Minuteman Project membership in an apparent attempt to destroy the MMP and cripple the national movement it had spawned across the nation.

The defendants recruited the help of Robert Vasquez, Republican – Idaho, to write and broadcast propaganda emails loaded with every lie one could spin.

To stop this unlawful conduct, Minuteman Project, Inc. immediately filed lawsuits for fraud, conversion (theft), and interference with the contracts between Minuteman and third parties, and for malicious defamation. Minuteman Project, Inc. also sued the perpetrators for injunctive relief (an order to stop), which was granted by the court.

== Four consecutive law firms fire the hijackers as clients ==

The attorney originally defending the hijackers, James Lacy, is a career Republican and a former city councilman for the city of Dana Point, Ca. He fired the hijackers as clients about six weeks after beginning to represent them. Thereafter, the Temecula, Ca. law firm of Ackerman and Lively fired the hijackers and rfused to defend them. Then, a third firm in MAryland, defending felon Paul Sielski, fired him as a client during his trial (where he was found guilty and sentenced to five years. The hijackers desperately sought out yet a fourth firm, Gilbert and Marlowe of Santa Ana, Ca.  They, too, fired the hijackers after being stuck with thousands of dollars of unpaid bills and apparently realizing the hijackers had no plausible defense against the civil and criminal complaints brought against them by Jim Gilchrist and his Minuteman Project.

Participation of local newspaper and a “dirty” journalist in the takeover attempt:

The defendants apparently used a friendship with pro-illegal alien invasion columnist Frank Mickadeit, of the Orange County (Ca.) Register newspaper, to publish defamatory lies, innuendos and distortions proffered by the defendants in his newspaper commentaries.

Frank Mickadeit purposely neglected to query Gilchrist, the MMP staff, or MMP attorneys, for any rebuttals to the maliciously defaming claims published in his commentaries.

Unfortunately, it was not known that the defendants were close friends or acquaintances of a biased, “dirty” newspaper reporter harboring obsessive hostilities toward the Minuteman Project and similar organizations.

After MMP attorneys put the newspaper on notice for malicious defamation and interference with legal proceedings, 'pro-illegal alien invasion' columnist Frank Mickadeit put his venom-pen away rather than risk him and the Orange County Register newspaper to any further exposure to a pending law suit for intentional and malicious libel and defamation.

While professional canons of journalism expect verification of alleged facts, some members of the media routinely ignore that protocol and frequently engage in malicious defamation, purposely distorting the truth to present unsubstantiated and severely injurious claims in their writings. These journalists are referred to as “dirty” journalists who live in the delusional world of an anarchist who thinks he has the power to intimidate the public and control freedom of speech by deliberately disseminating lies and blatantly violating professional standards of journalism. And if one were to challenge that journalist, then one finds him or her self in the journalist’s crosshairs and the target of whatever garbage the journalist can spew forth into the mainstream media.

Claiming the over-rated title of journalist should not entitle one to engage in deceptive practices while falsely pursuing one’s selfish agenda under the guise of “objectivity…fairness…balance.”

2.	Were the former volunteers ever voting members of the board of directors?

No. They served in a volunteer advisory capacity only. They were entitled to offer only their opinions and advice to help plan events and to help move the momentum of the mission. They knew, and were repeatedly reminded, that they were strictly volunteers who had no governing power whatsoever, regardless of what titles they may have given themselves.

Initially, Jim and his wife were the two directors, when Jim incorporated the MMP in Delaware shortly after he returned from the original Minuteman Project event he launched in Arizona in April 2005. On June 6, 2005 Jim became the sole voting director and subsequently filed the proper corporate amendment with the Delaware Secretary of State’s office. Although they voted on the seven member volunteer advisory board, each member knew that Jim’s vote was the only vote that counted.

3.	On what basis could defendants claim they control the board of directors?

Delusions? Jealousy? Greed? It’s hard to get into the mind of anyone, much less those with delusions of grandeur. The three defendants, in a private meeting, claim they voted 3-0 to vote off the other 4 members of their so-called “board”, including Jim. Then they voted to fire Jim, and two other members of Jim’s staff, from the very organization that Jim had created. Finally, the trio declared Marvin Stewart as president and leader of the Minuteman Project.

The defendants then apparently forged corporate documents to begin their fraudulent attempt to take over Jim’s Minuteman Project.

If it were not so costly to the movement in a time of great danger to our country, the defendants’ actions would be as comical as an episode of The Three Stooges.

Even if they were right that the seven member non-voting, non-governing, volunteer advisory board was somehow, as a rare and obscure matter of law or fantasy, a governing board of directors, their minority vote of 3-0 was meaningless.

The defendants did not have a quorum at their private meeting, as opined by counsel of Delaware corporate law. The secret meeting was at a location undisclosed to Jim or his staff (a local fish restaurant). No required notice of that meeting was given to the four other members of the advisory board, as required by law. Under Delaware law, without a quorum, the so-called “vote” had no effect.

4.	What did the court rule?

After hearing all the evidence on the MMP’s motion for a preliminary injunction on March 21, the court ruled that MMP had proven that it was “most likely to succeed” at trial.

The court enjoined (an order to stop) defendants from spending, diverting, dissipating or otherwise directing any Minuteman funds or property.

The defendants also were ordered by the court not to use Minuteman Project letterhead and stationery, which they had covertly taken shortly before the fraudulent corporate documents were filed in Delaware.

Despite the court’s injunctive orders of March 21, defendant Marvin Stewart, in an apparent contempt of the court’s orders, subsequently filed a fraudulent change of address form on April 3 with the post office in an attempt to divert Jim Gilchrist’s personal mail and MMP donations from the MMP P.O. Box to Stewart’s own postal address in Long Beach, Ca.

An alert mail clerk foiled that attempt and advised the MMP to refer the incident to both local and federal law enforcement. Criminal complaints were filed with the Orange County Sheriff’s fraud division and the U.S. Postal Service against Marvin Stewart. Also, because Marvin Stewart is a federal employee, who works for the Dept. of Veteran's Affairs, with access to private information on millions of veterans, it was deemed appropriate to file notices of complaint with four separate security departments at the Dept. of Veteran's Affairs Headquarters. Marvin Stewart is employed as a clerk at the VA Medical Center in Long Beach, Ca.

5.	Why did The Minuteman Project dismiss the action against the defendants?

The court’s ruling on March 21 was powerful and decimated the defendants’ pretenses.

Jim Gilchrist faced a choice: expend MMP energy and resources on lawyers and chasing bandits, or focus on the MMP’s primary mission to stop the chaotic neglect of U.S. immigration laws and reverse illegal immigration.

Our nation’s existence is in mortal danger due to the reckless disregard of its immigration laws by our political governors at all levels of government. Jim’s choice was for the greater good; to focus on preserving our nation’s sovereignty, independence, security, domestic tranquility, and encouraging the resolute enforcement of U.S. immigration laws.

6.	What does the Minuteman Project, Inc. expect to happen now that the defendants have been defeated?

Jim wanted to end any ambiguity created by the defendants’ outrageous and fraudulent claims. He wanted to distinguish MMP from the nearly 1500 other organizations using “Minuteman” in their name. By using Jim Gilchrist’s name in the corporate name, there now is no doubt it is                 controlled by Jim.

Any one attempting to use the Minuteman Project name, or officer’s title, does so illegally and becomes subject to the perils of the court.

While the defendants squeal in defiance of the reasonable rule of           law…laws undeniably in favor of Jim Gilchrist and The Minuteman Project he created, they have essentially been “left out in the cold.”

The defendants were officially terminated in late January and early February. Whether they end up in jail as a result of any criminal prosecution will be left to the decision of law enforcement agencies and the Orange County District Attorney.

Paul Sielski, one of the defendants’ accomplices in this attempt to illegally commandeer The Minuteman Project, has already been arrested by the efficient work of an Orange County Sheriff’s Department Fugitive Task Force and is facing extradition to Maryland for trial on a felony warrant. He faces up to 20 years in a Maryland prison if convicted for his alleged crimes. Sielski claims to be a co-owner of a Maryland company named AACompSec, Inc. with a long-time friend, Karl J. Vesterling. The last known address of AACompSec was in Frederick, Md.  Relatives of Paul Sielski claim that Vesterling and Sielski are professional computer hackers with a history of hacking into business and personal computer systems. One relative claims he caught them red-handed hacking into his company's business computer systems in an attempt to divert corporate bank account funds to a secret offshore account by using a Miami, Florida criminal enterprise as a transferee of those funds. It is not known at this time the depth of involvement, if any, that Karl Vesterling and AACompSec, Inc. had in the attempt to steal cash and property from Jim gilchrist's Minuteman Project. Jim continues to work with law enforcement officials from Maryland, California, Delaware, Virginia and Florida to piece together any possible conspiracy to defraud by the computer hacking duo.

7.	Can you file another lawsuit(s) against the defendants?

Yes. We can re-file our previous lawsuits for each cause of action at any time. When the auditor’s report is complete, the Minuteman Project expects to re-open its malicious defamation suit against several defendants, including the Orange County Register newspaper. 8.	What will the MMP do if the defendants continue to pose as officers of Jim’s Minuteman Project, or continue broadcasting the dozens of defamatory emails with all those lies about Jim, his wife, Sandy, and other members of the MMP membership?

Jim will seek redress again and file suit against them in the applicable state and federal courts. Currently, the Minuteman Project has undergone an audit by a certified public accounting firm. The positive results of that audit established the integrity of Jim Gilchrist and the Minuteman Project membership and exposed the defendants and their accomplices for engaging in a hysterical 21st century witch hunt.'''