Admission at last!!
But no Apology for his lies.....
On the 4th of November, I had notification that there has been a letter received, by my solicitor, in which, apparently, Mcmenamin has admitted he 'was mistaken', 'incorrect', misinformed' or some other such euphemism for falsely telling everyone I had 'misappropriated' the web space. Stolen it, to you and me.
It has taken over 10 months of stalling, prevarication and silliness for him to say what he should have done at the start. He was wrong. I wait for the 'I'm sorry bit', but will not hold my breath. He also told you all that I stalled, in refusing to hand over the passwords, again totally false, (I had passed them on to the webmaster for his use, and was not even in possession of them.) I had, much earlier, sent a copy to the treasurer, for safe keeping, this appears to have been conveniently overlooked.
The webmaster called for a letter of permission, to pass the code on, time and time again. It was not till I got the presidents letter admitting he had not sent the letter of authority, that eventually he wrote to the Webmaster. 6 weeks later! As you can see he is a past master at stalling himself!
There is also the allegation that I secreted the passwords from the eoa, (totally false, as I gave them to the treasurer years before) ... I'll doubtless wait forever for the apology for that lie too.
When I have the full letter of apology I will print it here, however that might take a while, judging from past experience with the man. I have not seen any evidence of honour yet.
The sad thing is that now he is trying to blame all the members of the eoa committee of the time. They were all asked if they had any knowledge of this letter at the AGM, and all denied it, then later when asked in letter, by me and then my solicitor, none would confirm any prior knowledge. Indeed many contacted me or my solicitor confirming this action was that of Mcmenamin alone, nothing to do with the eoa. He simply wrote on eoa letter headed paper. This being the case, if there are attempts to use eoa funds to finance his folly, might this not be considered a criminal offence? I would have thought so.
This has cost me dearly to get this far, in solicitors fees alone, all totally unnecessary if the man who contrived the letter had simply said sorry, when first asked, 10 months earlier. I have put the serving of the writ on abeyance for now, I am an honest man, and outraged at his behaviour. As many ex members have said to me, when one tries to be honest it is difficult to accept others may not be. I now feel it pointless trying to pursue him for an apology, I'm not sure it is in his vocabulary. As more find out the truth, more have come to speak and join us, what a sad way to end 40 years of devotion to a cause.
I am very grateful for the support of all the friends out there, the former members of the eoa and the past committee members who came forward to confirm that he did it all without their approval or permission. To all who have written to me expressing their concern and even offering donations to bring him to justice. Thank you. This has been a long and unpleasant affair.
January 23rd 2004.
Today I received the substantive letter from Menamin's solicitor. He is still claiming that the committee were in on his letter, passing the buck, giving the grounds that his letter was on headed paper so it must have been from the committee as a whole. What rot. Anyone with a scanner can copy that letterhead and duplicate it, will that mean their writings will have the sanction of the whole committee? Of course not. As the committee have denied all knowledge, it will be a travesty if Menamin is allowed to claim otherwise and be reimbursed his private legal costs, from eoa funds, for the lie he perpetuated for 10 months.
I have still never had a personal apology, though a sort of one was circulated to some eoa members. He is not a man of honour.
In this letter there are other false statements. He states that I am in dispute with the eoa. This is not true. I have never been in dispute with the eoa. I might not agree with some of the things they have done and the rudeness of some of their committee, but my 'Dispute' has always been with Mcmenamin himself. I threatened to sue him as an individual. HE alone has chosen to involve the eoa, I have been at pains to make it clear, via my solicitors letters, that my disagreement has always ever been with him personally. To say other wise is yet another lie and perhaps the excuse for my expulsion?
I never sought to harm the eoa, in fact, had I pushed for any personal damages from the man, I had already arranged for all the funds so won, to go to the eoa! This nonsense must stop!
In the letter I and Barry were also, almost openly accused of putting a virus on Jone's computer! These people live in cloud cuckoo land. Wish that it were possible. No, Jones's inability to work his machine or a website is his lack of knowledge, that's all. Saymore Jones has been spoken to and admits he had no such virus. He also denies knowledge of McMenamins letter. What is going on here? We are also told menamin was asked to leave and that we will have a full pardon, as they had realised they were lied to.... We will see.
They add more red herrings still in the letter, all of which had nothing to do with my personal libel case against Menamin. Total time wasters. for example:
I am also accused of entering an item on their guest page 38 times. No, I did it once, but I do know that others have 'copied' and 'pasted' it back every time it was deleted, nothing to do with me. They do not understand the technology, nor what open guest pages are about. Perhaps if all the other 5 items on their site reappeared 38 times they will consider that the original writer must have placed his own words back there 38 times?, I ask you, the ignorance. If they do not want anyone to leave messages on their pages, why have them? The message I left for them, pointed out the mistakes on their site and asked for the courtesy of acknowledgements for the pictures they have ripped off. They deleted the message but left the mistakes, including their committee members address, that is still wrong to this day?? I expect that means I have re-infected his computer with another special virus.....
I strongly suspect they are simply unable to cope with a web site.
I am still falsely accused of failing to reveal the passwords.
I have now obtained a copy of the correspondence from the service provider, sent to the treasurer years ago. In it, the 'pass words' for the web space are clearly shown. So much for failing to reveal them to the committee. I suspect it is a case of 'none so blind'.
I see I will never have any proper apology from the man that lied, so have washed my hands of him and his ilk. Now the truth is coming out he will no doubt disappear.
As for the eoa, as far as I am concerned I will never have anything more to do with the committee members that were so rude, save that they make public apologies for their appalling conduct. We are gradually removing all traces of comment about them, just leaving the vital information on just selected pages, to inform you of the facts..
This will include removing the address of their plans secretary, sadly, as it has been made apparent they do not wish us to mention them. They actually have said that they believed we were 'claiming to sell the plans'?? Where do they get all this rubbish from? Give you three guesses! Unless there is a great change in the eoa, they have now gone. We await an apology now from the committee of the eoa, for failing to listen to our truth, being so rude to owners and believing Mcmenamin's lies.
February 2018, we are saddened to announce the old association has folded. Saddened because the writing has been on the wall for years. 2 years ago we were approached and offered the assets of the old eoa to buy! We refused as these were donated to the owners, not to be sold as chattels. We then wondered who would ultimately benefit from this sale? After the dishonesty displayed by some of the old committee......
Instead we offered the hand of conciliation and asked that they simply joined us on our terms. They declined.
The end of the eoa was inevitable given the committee did not have the commitment o actually own one of these designs. The surprise is that it took so long.