Former board members purposely defrauded BJP

Home Forums Diamondhead Legal Forum Diamondhead POA vs Bay Jourdan Publishing Former board members purposely defrauded BJP

This topic contains 11 replies, has 545 voices, and was last updated by  Editor 13 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1498

    Editor
    Moderator

    Documents obtained recently by the Bay Jourdan Publishing Company will definatively prove that a group of board members serving after the 1996 election, defrauded the publishers and entered into negotiations with the Sun Herald months before the alledged breach of contract.

    #1497

    Anonymous

    I am so NOT shocked.

    #1535

    allycat
    Member

    Thats a former President for you

    #1606

    Anonymous

    Was there an issue of non-payment to the POA for advetising money owed by BJP? Rumors abound in Diamondhead, so I would like an opposing opinion or other information if available.

    #1607

    Editor
    Moderator

    The issue was non payment by the POA to Bay Jourdan. On June 3, 1997, the Diamondhead Country and Property Owners Association, Inc. was obligated by a joint venture contract to pay The Bay Jourdan Publishing Company $2,700. See contract at: http://www.diamondheadnews.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=162&z=15 .

    #1608

    Anonymous

    I read the contract you sent, but the only reference to $2700 was what was to be paid to BJP for publishing, distribution, and prepaid mailing. I understand that there were advertising monies collected by BJP that the POA was entitled to a percentage of, but that BJP never paid this money to the POA. Any truth at all to this or just another Diamondhead urban legend?

    #1609

    Editor
    Moderator

    They have rumors, we have facts. That is why they avoid court and depositions at all costs. And the legal fees are being paid by the membership.

    Even Thomas Teel did not buy that one. Read his ruling. Despite no evidence being presented by the POA, Teel found that monies were taken out of an account by Bay Jourdan without the POA’s permission. Teel’s ruling has been disproved by the fact that only nine checks were issued on the account the POA claimed was a joint account. All had valid signatures of officers of the POA and are in the court file waiting for a hearing.

    Certain former board members have contended that BJP never deposited monies into a “joint account”. These same board members altered the account originally applied for at then Merchants Bank and changed the application to a single entity account. These former board members were in negotiations with the Sun Herald for at least four months before the attempt to cancel the contract with BJP. When their deceit was discovered they moved to have an injunction placed against BJP. The injunction hearing was set the same day that a half page article was published in the Sun Herald praising Thomas Teel’s abilities on the bench. The article was little more than an advertisement for the now disgraced former judge. I call it a bribe. Any objective observer would also call it a bribe.

    (§ 97-11-11. Bribery; offer, promise or gift of property to candidate, officer, agent or trustee to influence his action Every person who shall promise, offer or give to any officer, agent or trustee, either public or private, while holding such office, agency or trust, or after he has become a candidate or applicant for the same, any money, goods, chattels, right in action, or other property, real or personal, with intent to influence his vote, opinion, action or judgment on any question, matter, cause or proceeding which may be then pending, or may be thereafter subject to vote, opinion, action or judgment of such officer, agent or trustee, shall, on conviction, be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than ten (10) years, or fined not more than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), or both, and shall be forever disqualified from holding any public office, trust or appointment, and shall forfeit his office, if any be held.)

    Teel was removed from the bench in a plea bargain to avoid prosecution for misuse of public funds.

    To this day and after repeated attempts at discovery, no documents have been produced by the POA or any advertiser demonstrating that BJP held advertising monies.

    BJP did publish the July 1997 issue of the print edition of the Diamondhead News and is still waiting for its $2,700. If you read the entire contract, you will find that it can not be terminated without arbitration and continues on a month to month basis. BJP is waiting for that $2,700 and $,2,700 for every month since July 1997 along with half of all advertising revenues since July 1997, interest and attorney fees.

    #1610

    Anonymous

    So, the reality is that a court of law found and ruled that Bay Jourdan Publishing did indeed withhold payments or illegally take money that was due the Diamondhead POA. Did Bay Jourdan Publishing ever not deposit advertising revenues or other monies that should have been deposited into that account? You say that this ruling has been disproved. Has it legally been disproved or just disproved with you and your subsequent investigation? Without opposing commentary on the subject, all we have is your side, and one persons “facts” can be another persons “urban legend”. Where are the other people involved and where is their commentary? Surely they read these posts. Are they too afraid to comment or is their silence a scream of their guilt? Let the truth set us all free here, if people are courageous enough to tell the truth.

    #1611

    Editor
    Moderator

    Your perception of reality is skewed. Only in Mississippi would what Teel ran be considered a court of law.

    What account are your referring and what monies? Produce documents please and we will post them. Where are the checks, the receipts the bank statements? Provide records where a joint account even existed. If you have proof, present it.

    Our facts are based on documents and recordings. The rumors you reference are based upon fantasies manufactured by a convicted former Louisiana sheriff, a fired Louisiana hospital administrator and a bigoted appointed Mississippi judge, among others. These “pillars of the community” got a crooked Mississippi judge to issue a preliminary injuction without bond and without evidence. You do know what a preliminary injunction is don’t you. Do you understand the concept of preliminary? If you don’t, the current POA attorney, Chip Westbrook just got an expensive lesson paid for by POA member’s dues. See: http://www.diamondheadnews.com/absolutenm/templates/DheadCases.asp?articleid=190&zoneid=15 Our sources tell us that this brilliant piece of legal work cost the POA over $5000 just for a one day court appearance. You should take a look at it. It is illegal to issue a preliminary injunction with out a bond in Mississippi. Tom Teel’s brother just so happened to be a partner in the same law firm as the POA’s attorney back in 1997. He, who is also a former judge Wes Teel, is now under federal indictment. He was also found unfit to practice law by the MS bar. Tom Teel, the judge who issued the illegal injunction, was removed from the bench for misuse of public funds in1999.

    What part of this are you not getting?

    We deal in facts and those who deal in fantasy are running for cover every time a court date or deposition is announced. I doubt very seriously they would choose to confront us here in open forum when they are so well represented by you, Mr. Cook.

    #1612

    Anonymous

    Once again Skip, you refuse to directly answer a question that simply requires a yes or no. Instead, you muddy the water with issues that have nothing to do with the question. I resent your implication that I am representing anyone other than myself, and I challenge you to find any association between myself and the people you so falsely affiliate me with. But that is just another one of your dodgeball tactics, Skip. Just as a felon explains his running from the police as “I was scared” rather than being truthful with the police and with themselves. You can label the court whatever you want, and talk about this Teel guy all you want, but a legal decision was handed down as to BJP taking money when it should not have taken it, right or wrong? The question is simple and direct, yet your answers seem to be evasive. Why is that? Give us a break Skip and let someone else join in. We all know your story by now. In the meantime, I will watch my dog chase his tail and think fondly of you………

    #1613

    Editor
    Moderator

    My friends call me Skip, Mr. Cook. You are not to be found on that roster. Even though you obviously were brought up with out the benefit of courtesy or manners, we will insist that you to exercise some here. Of course you can get mad again and try to remove all of your posts, but be forewarned you will banned this time.

    The answer in case you can’t read or comprehend, has been and is no. No joint account existed, no monies were withheld, no crime was committed by BJP.

    Logic and reason, Mr. Cook will clear all waters that you have muddied. Think about it, Mr. Cook, even though I know that the attempt may pain you. If we had withheld monies or taken money from the POA, the members of the board had a fiduciary duty to prosecute. They had no choice. Their duty was to retrieve the money. When they did not they betrayed the membership and deprived them of their rights to the alleged withheld monies. The reason they did not prosecute is simply because the only judge they had in their pocket, courtesy of that infamous article, was Teel. Their whole case is a lie. It’s just plain logic and reason, Mr. Cook, the tools of rational men and women.

    #1614

    Anonymous

    I have frozen this thread due to abusive behavior and threats being issued by Fibrerus in his blatant attempt to smear our company and this website.

    The Bay Jourdan Publishing Company has answered all accusations in their court filings concerning this matter. Our answer to the specific issue recited by this user can be found at: http://www.diamondheadnews.com/articles/legal/DHPOAvBJP/amendmotsetaside.mht

    We are in the process of publishing the complete court files of Case no. 97-0420 (Diamondhead POA vs Bay Jourdan Publishing) along with other cases and pertinent documents so that our subscribers can decide these issues for themselves.

    Anne Alfonso

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.