Filth and Lies
Filth and Lies
Copied from the Internet verbatim; Author: Karen Mitchell, State Coordinator of NMGenWeb
http://www.rootsweb.com/~nmgenweb/doc5.html
(My opinions continue in red boxes. I xxxx-ed out family names below that Karen Mitchell published.)
Quote begins: To the USGenWeb Advisory Board.
-----------------------------------------
An expose on Charles Barnum. Tendered to me by a concerned USGW member. Name has been withheld due to threats of law suit.
On the Riverside, California message board 6-1-2005
Can anyone assist me in obtaining the obituary for Neil Thompson, Died: Corona, Riverside, Calif, 2 January 1949. He had a Military Funeral. I was five years old at the time, but I remember the soldiers firing their rifles while standing under under large trees. I'm trying to find his wife's name. Alyce O. ? Neil apparently died from injuries received in WWII.
I'll gladly pay expenses.
Much appreciated.
Charles Barnum
*****************************
So this says that Barnum was born in 1944. He's now 62. So his oldest child could be about 42 now, right? That would make his grandchildren in their young 20's maybe, right? Or even younger. And his mother would be at least in her 80's.
According to his Family Gedcom on the internet, http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~thompson1/dat14.htm
Charles married Janet xxxxx.
His kids are: xxxx xxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx, xxxxxxx xxxx xxxxxx, xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx.
His grandchildren are: xxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx, xxxxxx xxxxxx xxxxxx.
His mother was xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxx.
1. Janet xxxxx is another name for Janet xxxxxx.
2. xxxx xxxx xxxxxx
3. xxxxxxx xxxxxx
4. xxxx xxxxxx
5. xxxxxx xxxxxx
6. xxxxxxx Thompson is another name for xxxxxx Thompson
Now look at his pages on
ALHN http://www.rootsweb.com/~nma/
Kit Carson County, Co pages http://www.rootsweb.com/~cokitcar/
Yuma County, Arizona pages http://www.rootsweb.com/~azyuma/resourcepage.htm
How many times can you find the above names on his pages as contributors? It's highly UNLIKELY that all of his kin are involved in genealogy. No, it's not IMPOSSIBLE but I really doubt ALL of them have done this much work.
So, you ask, why would someone bother to use all of these names instead of his own? Well the most likely explanation is that he has harvested all this data from other places and placed his families names on them. If they ever get sued for copyright infringement, they can honestly say they never had anything to do with genealogy. They probably don't even know their names are being used. Makes perfect sense. He could also use these names to obtain extra votes in USGW....remember he still has Counties in Colorado and Arizona.
It would be interesting to know if these names are registered voters of the USGW project.
It also has to be remembered that his pages on Gennet (sic) were closed due to harvesting material. He also tried to claim the NM Death Index as his work by seperating (sic) it out into Counties and "contributing" it to USDATA. And after he was delinked from NM he placed a web page on the Lincoln County site that included extreme profanity and Rootsweb closed his account.
That author, above, is a lying degenerate.
The attack on my family is disgusting. Karen Mitchell took a simple genealogy query on an Ancestry.com message board and concluded that my 90 year old Mother was using an alias. She further concluded that two different people who have the first name of "Janet" were using an alias for voter fraud. Karen Mitchell is a disseminator of lies and is therefore a liar. This section of her dossier reveals more about her ethical degeneracy than any other.
Fact: I'm the only person in my family associated with USGenWeb.
Fact: I no longer vote in USGenWeb elections. It's a waste of time.
Fact: I have never committed voter fraud.
Fact: No person in my family uses aliases.
Fact: No family member is now or has ever been on my Colorado or Arizona web sites.
Fact: My USGenNet account was not closed for harvesting data.
Fact: I have never claimed to have compiled the NMDI.
Karen sank to a moral low previously unknown in USGenWeb. She accused me of voter fraud, copyright infringement, dishonesty and using alias, based only on the filth she pulled from her scheming mind.
My Opinions continued:
Liar: My account at USGenNet (not to be confused with USGenWeb) was closed because of Karen Mitchell's influence at that organization, and it was concurrent with Karen Mitchell's expelling me from NMGenWeb. I stole no data and placed it on the USGenNet server site. That site had no data on it!! It only had links to other sites. Links are Public Domain.
Liar: I have never claimed that I compiled the NMDI. It's Public Domain.
Harvesting: Every person in genealogy harvests data. That is the nature of genealogy. To gather data. Look at this page: http://hidalgocounty.org/VirdenMTC.html
The CC published the contents of a cemetery book on the Virden-San Antonio Cemetery. I spoke with the author of that book in April 2007. The author said she denied the CC permission to use her material. But there it is. (Stone throwers should pay more attention to their own asses.)
Show me a copy of the extreme profanity used on the rootsweb.com account !
However, Karen Mitchell used the "F...." word spelled out in FULL on Rootsweb.com at this link: http://www.rootsweb.com/~nmgenweb/doc4.html (now deleted)
She is a schemer and a liar, an ethical degenerate.
She hides behind anonymous liars and cowards.
Is this all Karen Mitchell could find after years of investigating my family and my emails? Name-calling, slander, jealousy, hearsay, anonymous statements, gossip, lies, disconnected emails, irrelevant nonsense, political discussions and people's opinions. That's it? Nothing more?
This matter is not about Barnum. It's about Karen Mitchell using her power as the State Coordinator of New Mexico (NMGenWeb) to take revenge for losing the 2004 USGenWeb election. She is a skillful person, however. She has been gathering information about me since her defeat in 2004 and has solicited support from the clique at NMGenWeb drawing them into her scheme. She has used the NMGenWeb Project for her own perversion.
She does a disservice to Genealogy and to NMGenWeb. She exposed her devious self. She carelessly exposed the names of the clique members. Her slander, judges her. Her hatred, rules her. Her jealousy, torments her. Her lies condemn her.
The words of 2004 ring true:
A vote for Karen Mitchell is a vote for corruption. Charles Barnum, 2004 National campaign.
Rights of members: A member has the following fundamental rights under common parliamentary law, subject only to any specific limitations contained in the bylaws: 1. To be sent notices
2. To attend meetings
3. To present motions
*4. To speak on debatable questions
*5. To vote
*6. To nominate 7. To be a candidate for office
8. To inspect official records of the organization
*9. To insist on the enforcement of the rules of the organization and of parliamentary law 10. To resign from an office or from the organization itself.
*11. To have a fair hearing before expulsion or other penalties are applied. 12. To receive or have the right to inspect an up-to-date copy of the bylaws, charter, rules, and minutes of the organization
*13. To exercise any other rights or privileges given to the members by the law, by the bylaws, or by the rules of the organization
*If any of the associational, property, or parliamentary rights of a member are violated, legal action may be taken against the organization
-----------------
I violated no USGenWeb Bylaws, nor any law of the United States. My offense was exercising free speech. I hide nothing and I retract nothing. My name appears on my statements. Liars and slanderers sneak around in the shadows of the anonymous.
I forgive them. May Blessings and Goodwill follow them.
May God grant them Grace.
Charles Barnum email
A ruling from The Advisory Board of USGenWeb. Permission was granted by a Board member for publication.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Burow [mailto:sburow@swbell.net]
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:35 PM
To: jcnreno@charter.net; km1109@ghvalley.net; detict@cox.net
Subject: Ruling of the USGenWeb Advisory Board - Barnum v. Mitchell
In the matter of the grievance filed by Charles Barnum against Karen Mitchell as State Coordinator of the NMGenWeb Project the USGenWeb Advisory Board has reviewed the information provided by both parties and makes the following findings:
1] that over a period of time previous to delinking, Charles Barnum's communications within the NMGenWeb Project were of an adversarial nature; (I agree in part, but did the Board Members read the 70 adversarial statements by a minority of NMGenWeb CCs? Did they see the Open Season remarks by the State Coordinator? Am I supposed to sit back and take it?)
2] that instead of giving warning to Charles Barnum and providing a period of time to stop his unacceptable actions, and not restart them, Karen Mitchell delinked Charles Barnum's county website without providing reasons;
3] that Charles Barnum filed a grievance under the USGenWeb Bylaws as a former member indicating he was improperly delinked and that since NMGenWeb and USGenWeb lacked bylaws addressing delinking, he was using Sturgis as his authority seeking resolution;
4] that the Advisory Board finds that both parties contributed negatively to the issue and further finds no legal foundation for ruling in favor of either party; and (See legal opinion below.)
5] that the Advisory Board encourages the NMGenWeb State Coordinator to reconsider the drastic action providing both parties can arrive at a compromise position and can mitigate their mutual hostility whereby the purposes of the NMGenWeb project would be better served.
Further, as a result of this and similar issues brought before this Advisory Board, it is recommended as strongly as possible that each XXGenWeb develop or amend XXGenWeb Bylaws which cover, at a minimum, the rules and processes for removing/delinking members and for mailing list behavior. (Insert: That's what I have been advocating in NMGenWeb since 1998! However, what mailing list behavior are you referring to? I saw only private emails and legitimate mailing list posts in Mitchell's pages of lies. Why did you not ask me about each and every list post and email? Answer: Because you did not want to know the truth about Mitchell's lies and filth. Further, if you found no way to rule for either side, then the parties should have been restored to their original status. Ruling that both sides were at fault and taking no action allows the illegal expulsion to stand and rewards Mitchell for her misbehavior. Too bad for USGenWeb that CCs are not equally regarded as SCs. CCs to this day have no rights.)
Agreed and Signed:
Linda Blum-Barton
Karen De Groote-Johnson
Bettie Wood
Freddie Spradlin
Greta Thompson
Cyndie Enfinger
Suzanne Shephard
Larry Flesher
Mike Peterson
Sundee Maynez
Jan Cortez
Alice Allen
George Waller
Member Recused:
Phyllis Rippee
Submitted to the parties this 24th day of April, 2007
Scott Burow
National Coordinator
USGenWeb Project
End
(Board Members. You did what you thought best for USGenWeb. But it was not justice under the rules.
You had the power to make a just ruling. Your conscious follows you. Blessings and forgiveness.)
From my advisor, (abridged):
I don't agree with "Ruling of the USGenWeb Advisory Board - Barnum v. Mitchell" item #4 "that the Advisory Board finds no legal foundation for ruling in favor of either party."
The AB is required to follow Sturgis, which is "Parliamentary Law" (pg. 1), and your legal "Rights of Members" were violated by Karen on several items of said Rights. The AB adopted Sturgis, and the courts hold that the AB must follow parliamentary law." (Sturgis, pg. 4). Contrary to item #4, Sturgis is the legal foundation for ruling.
Furthermore, If any of the parliamentary rights of a member are violated, legal action may be taken against the organization. (Sturgis, pg. 222). And, you have fulfilled the courts requirement that they usually won't adjudicate such actions until you have exhausted USGenWeb (AB) means of enforcing the rights of members, you followed the USGenWeb rules and filed a grievance, Karen filed no grievance but instead broke the rules.
The USGenWeb did not follow their own rules. Sturgis gives members the right for legal action if the AB refuses to follow their own rules. (end of opinion)
For the record, I had no opportunity to question any witness in this matter, nor did the Advisory Board bother to ask me even one question concerning my private emails, list postings or any other question.
Playing Dodge ball with the AB
That GenWeb Feeling