Getting Your Money’s Worth?
Earlier this month, we reported that $330 on lawyers was spent in July of 2008 for a total of $9,407 since the Lizard/Halverson team took office. This report was dated July 31, 2008. We were told that the law firm was retained for STARFLEET to review our corporation’s documents and bring them into compliance with North Carolina’s laws regarding not for profit corporations. We have still not been told how these documents are wrong.
We were assured by Sal Lizard and the administration that this money was not being spent on vendettas against members.
When that post hit the site on September 13th, I sent a copy to my Regional Coordinator asking what that $330 was used for. At that time, the last financial report released on SFI.ORG were dated April 30, 2008 and the last financial report in CQ 147 were dated March 30, 2008. These figures have still not been updated to the membership.
Apparently, many readers of STARFLEET Fail wanted to know why and what for. They were asking the tough questions to their RCs as well. Ruth Green, Regional Coordinator for Region One, finally got an answer from STARFLEET CFO Mike Stein on what some of these charges were for. Her answers were posted to the COs of Region One on their ECAB discussion list.
Mike Stien replied:
“As to the legal fees, the $330 was spent on counsel with our CS in regards to Dave Lowe and his Starfleet Fail website, as to defamation, trademark and a cease and desist reply. It also included reviewing Dave’s site by our attorney and telephone conversations with Sal regarding the handling of this issue.”
Well, at least now we know. It’s comforting that Sal consulted an attorney before sending me this letter on July 7, 2008. On July 13, 2008, I received an apology from Sal Lizard. Sal cited, quite simply, that he has been overwhelmed with some situations in his personal life. He overreacted. And he has no intention of following through with any legal action against me or STARFLEET Fail.
Does that mean STARFLEET gets their $330 back? Or will Sal pay that back at $50 a month like he said he was going to do to pat back the costs of that other letter enumerating “The Threats to STARFLEET” that he sent to all the members back in March?
Something has got to give.
(8 votes, average: 4.25 out of 5)
Loading ...
September 29th, 2008 at 7:09 am
This is actually more damning than it appears, especially given information in Sal’s E-mail. For instance:
“Furthermore, the name STARFLEET and its logo are assets of STARFLEET, and Starfleet has a valid and enforcebable trademark on both.”
That’s not quite true. At the very least, I’ve seen no proof of it. As far as I can tell, that logo belongs to Tigger and was licensed to STARFLEET under certain terms — Not owned by STARFLEET.
If our lawyer doesn’t know this, that’s a big problem. If our lawyer thinks this is the case, there’s only one place she could have gotten that information in the first place — Her client.
I wonder if this E-mail actually reflects the lawyer’s advice, or if it’s what Sal decided to do in spite of her advice. I don’t know if we’ll ever know, but this is clearly a case of Sal using our dues in order to bring legal pressure to bear on those he feels are against him.
September 29th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I would like to repost this to the FLEETWATCH blog… may I?
I believe that in light of Sal’s recent letter to the *real* fleetlist, the entire membership needs to know Sal’s true intentions with the lawyer and that he truly is (despite his claims otherwise) using our money against members that speak out against him.
The Threat letter was put off as my fault by Sal at the cost of 900 bucks, Scott got a letter but I don;t know how much that cost Fleet. Now you and 330 bucks… how far does it go…. where will it all end?
Will STARFLEET even survive Sal at this rate?
September 29th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
Dave, you should post that to the FAIL LIST. It might just open a few more eyes.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
nice to see he paid so highly for advice that wasnt even accurate.
September 29th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
And you expected less?
September 29th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Why is it that whenever Sal “feels” threatened, our bank account declines?
September 29th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
what i meant was. if theya re so innacurate about this. then how innacurat where they about the $9K+ other stuff.
September 29th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Now that is a very good question.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Just remember, the lawyer is only acting on information that Sal is providing. Your only as good as your source.
September 29th, 2008 at 10:51 pm
but it says he paid for her to look over the blog. obviously if she “looked it over” she had to form some basis of her own opinion not biased by what she was hearing.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Yes, but did Sal inform her the logo that Dave uses is not in fact owned by STARFLEET? I think not considering one of the basis for this review was the use of the logo.
I imagine she was told that this site construes Libel and unauthorized use of fleet property, and proceeded on that assumption.
September 30th, 2008 at 12:53 am
The ultimate defense against defamation (slander, libel, etc) in legal systems influenced by English common law is the truth. Besides that, STARFLEET Fail has other reasonable defenses. Mistake of fact, opinions, and fair comment come to mind quickly. Plus, with the comments you’ve made, I think stuff will come out in the discovery phase of any trial. Still, keep your eyes open…
DISCLAIMER: Not a lawyer…