Total Pageviews

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

A RESIDENT'S THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS - LAWSUIT BROUGHT AGAINST BOARD MEMBER JOHNSON, ARC CHAIR




***************************************************
Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com.  We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it.  P.S.  If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
***************************************************************************
HERE IS A RESIDENT'S VIEW OF WHAT HAPPENED IN COURT, ALONG WITH THE FILING TO THE COURT:





Monday, September 18, 2017

PART I OF A THREE PART SERIES: THIS BOARD IS SO ILLEGAL THAT THEY DENY INFORMATION, AND A FELLOW BOARD MEMBER'S RIGHT TO KNOW, AND REVIEW. THERE ARE THREE BOARD SEATS UP FOR A VOTE. TWO OF THE CURRENT BOARD MEMBERS ARE NOT RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION. ONE, MCMILLIN IS. FREE OUR GOVERNANCE OF HIS ILLEGAL MOVES, AND GIVE WEDGEFIELD A FRESH START




***************************************************
Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com.  We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it.  P.S.  If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
***************************************************************************
A direct quote from,

"HOMEOWNER SUITS AGAINST COMMUNITY ASSOCIATIONS"   "Directors must exercise reasonable diligence in following through and carrying out the responsibilities assumed by or assigned to them under the governing legal documents.  Generally, directors must remain informed about the community association’s business at all times, be knowledgeable about the legal documents governing the affairs of the association, and attend and participate in the association meetings.  Directors may be held responsible for obtaining and reading the minutes of those association meetings the director was unable to attend.  Directors must also vote against actions taken or adopted by the Board of Directors that they are in disagreement with and record their disagreement in the meeting minutes.  Failure to perform any of these duties in a reasonably diligent and prudent manner could expose the director to liability to homeowners for breach of fiduciary duty." 

Our board needs some new "govern in the best interests of Wedgefield, under our governing documents" board members to bring good, open governance back to Wedgefield.  The unscrupulous management of the dock saga partially related below, puts the picture of this ruthless board in focus.  You can read the drama of the entire dock story by going to the bottom of the blog to January 2013 through about July, and each board meeting, is as ridiculous, and illegal as the transcription of the board's actions provided below.  The committee at fault in this escapade is the water amenities committee.  The supporting offenders ???? - every member of the board minus the one questioning board member, who at the time is also a member of the water amenities committee.  What is the problem?  Continuously, this board denies another board member to his right to information necessary to do his job legally, and ethically.  Not only that, they make sure that he'll have even less information which will further uncover their illegal actions - the chair of this miserable committee throws him off the committee, at the end of the report in retaliation for asking questions!  Where was our president, our legal chair, our board officers, and fellow committee members?  Read and see, and it isn't anything but more work on a HIDDEN agenda.

We have three board seats open.  Note Cline's reaction.  Her seat is open, and she isn't running again.  Good.  She laughs - doesn't defend, and helps the others.  Fill her seat with someone new, and not a ringer to help those that continue.  Fill Ebert's seat the same way.  McMillin's seat is the third seat.  He sat on the water amenities committee then, and now.  What did he do to stop the injustice then?  NOTHING, he was working to help his crew, and not defend any of legality in this whole mess.  Get him off the board.  

HERE'S THE TRANSCRIPTION AND DETAIL FROM 2013:

Transcriptions from the tape of the June 2013 Board Meeting:
John Walton is the Water Amenities Chair.  John Walton, "The old dock has been sold.  The bill of sale was generated and a copy was given to the new owner.  The dock is no longer a responsibility of the WPA.  The funds received were deposited to the WPA.  The new owner is prepared to remove it to it's new home.  Many thanks to the (He names a resident.  I have withheld the name to protect their privacy. The resident is a member of the Water Amenities Committee.) for its keep until it could be transported."  John Walton now moves his report to a boat landing update. This portion is not transcribed but I will relate the information to the best of my ability.  You should listen to the tape. He discusses a card reader that will use the cards we already have.  A motion is made and passed to spend no more than $100.00 including shipping to purchase the card reader.  He thanks Dave Hastings for his research into the product.  During this portion questions and exchange of information flows freely as President Walton, Garrison, and DeMarchi have questions or provide comment.  Keep this in mind as we move forward.  Next, John Walton moves to a discussion of the landing road. Here there is exchange of information and ideas from McMillin and  DeMarchi.  Again, respect and information flows freely.  Again, keep this in mind.  We go back to transcription as McBride has a question.

McBride, "I have a question for John.  How much did we get for the dock?".  John Walton, "That's in the correspondence file."  McBride, "How much.....?"  John Walton, "It is in the correspondence file."  McBride, "Well I just think we all ought to know....."  John Walton, "Its in the correspondence file."  Around this point and time McBride gets up to go to the correspondence file.  He stops.  I believe I heard someone question what the problem would be.  I also watched it for myself at the meeting.  Back to transcription.  McBride, "Al, did you get any money for the dock?"  DeMarchi, "I have not seen the money.  I understand it has been received and deposited, but I have been busy with relatives and grandchildren."  Does DeMarchi know?  You be the judge.  DeMarchi sat in a room with me, President Walton, and Garrison almost a week prior to this meeting and they told me the dock was sold.  I did not ask how much, but I think they all knew.  If they didn't know how much it sold for how could anyone have given John Walton approval to sell it for any amount, on behalf of the WPA?  Who signed the bill of sale?  Who is authorized to sign it?  Think about it.  Walton has the board approve up to $100.00 of expense.  How would the members do anything but expect than that he secure permission and inform the entire board of the amount received for the sale of WPA property?  Additionally, at this very meeting and many in the past, when DeMarchi doesn't  have a figure he asks the staff person, Kathy to get it for him.  Why not now?  Back to transcription.  McBride, "I think somebody here ought to know and be able to report to the board how much we got for that dock."  Someone on the board asks, "Is it a problem?"  Someone on the board says, "It's not a problem.  It was $1,200."  Barrier, "That's awesome.  Great job!"  There is a lot of laughter.  McBride, "What are we going to do with it?"  Cline laughs.  McBride, "Now, I have another question.  It is important.  You, no longer own that dock.  Its owned by someone else.  Who is that?  Is it someone near here?"  President Walton, "The dock will be moved off of the WPA property and out of the canal as early as convenient.  It will not be on or near the WPA."  McBride,  "The question that this person asked me, and I assured them at the time that I was right, was, what if this dock were to break loose for some reason and come across and crush their boat, would the WPA be responsible for that?  I said yes we owned that property and we would be responsible for it, but now..."   President Walton, "But not....belongs to someone else."  McBride, "Its in our canal so what happens?"  Barrier, "Not our canal.  Its a canal."  Cline laughs.  More laughter.  Cline, "Well let's not talk about that now."  McBride, What happens if it breaks loose?"  Cline, "Let's wait an see"  She laughs again.  Garrison, "That's between him and the new owner."  Cline, "Hopefully, the new owner has insurance on his new property."  Garrison, "I want to see it out of here as soon as possible,.  When do we expect that?"  President Walton, "The time frame is set for that is going to be as soon as possible, as soon as they get a chance to get it moved, they are."  McBride, "Any expectation?"  John Walton, "OK, before I end my report, JOHN MCBRIDE IS NO LONGER A COMMITTEE MEBER OF THE WATER AMENITIES COMMITTEE.  End of report."  President Walton, "Thank you John (Walton)."

Saturday, September 16, 2017

YOU JUST CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP! RECENTLY I WROTE AN ARTICLE ASKING WHETHER YOU SHOULD EVEN BOTHER TO SUBMIT, OR VOTE ON BY-LAW AMENDMENTS? HERE IS A 2013 DOCUMENTED ARTICLE THAT SHOWS GARRISON AS LEGAL CHAIR, AND HIS CONCERNED CITIZEN ADVISOR ADMONISHING HIM FOR POSSIBLY BREACHING THE COVENANTS, AND THEN GOING "OH WHAT TO HELL, GO FOR IT"


Readers, I don't have a lot of time this morning, but I was researching for another article, and came across this one.  Recently, I had published an article asking you if we should even bother as residents to propose by-law amendments, or vote on them.  I said a few weeks ago that we had a tainted history, particularly with some of the current board members who have been in their seats for far too long, failing to provide governance in our best interests, and with hidden agendas.  Review this documented article.  I was writing about it in 2013, and reflecting at the time as far back as 2010.

Who was on the board in 2010, 2013, and now?  McMillin!  Who was legal chair in 2013, and now?  Garrison!  Who gave me the email that is quoted below?  A water amenities committee member gave me the email.  Sometime during all this mess we bring in President Walton who keeps naming Garrison chair of legal and compliance! 

I am not a paranoid person, because I really don't care what you think of me, and my writings, but I have followed this crew for too long, and attended almost all board meetings and quoted these board members from tapes, and documents, and our governing documents.  Garrison has driven a plan, brought selfish board members into line by plumping their egos toward adoration gained by allowing them to push their favorite projects - no matter how illegally constructed, to get his long term agenda completed - no more dredging ever!  He's bought them and you, with the promise of just one more dredge, and no more.  Common sense, and legality have been thrown out the window.  What is sick, is you don't care how they get done what you want done in the moment, you just want it done, despite the fact that you are helping them erase any sort of hope for Wedgefield.

Look at the date of this 2013 article, and you should note that it was time to vote again, as it is now.  Get rid of McMillin as you vote, and be careful, which of the new people you vote for.  Recently, one of the residents wrote this to the blog, "The board looks to seat their buddies and keep the good ol' boy system in place."  The resident stated this about one of the new candidates, "Steve Vasey, (board candidate, ringer, and neighbor of McMillan)".  It should be noted that Vasey has sat on the ARC committee since Feb. 2017.  As a committee member he then sat back and watched as ARC went after a resident who dared to complain about a fence, with made up, undocumented claims against his property.  The resident, who tried to mediate the illegal mess went unheard, and has resorted to suing the ARC chair.  Have we fallen so far, that we don't care what this board does, as long as we get what we want in the moment?

Here is the documented article:

Tuesday, November 5, 2013


AS PROMISED: DOES WEDGEFIELD'S TWISTED BY-LAW AMENDMENT HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF? DO MEMBERS OF THIS CURRENT COHESIVE BOARD SUPPORT THE POTENTIAL ILLEGAL MOVES OF SOME ON THIS BOARD TO KEEP THEIR PET PROJECTS COMING? WILL OUR PRESIDENT INVESTIGATE BY TAKING THE NECESSARY STEPS TO MAKE SURE THAT A PROPOSED BY-LAW CHANGE DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH OUR COVENANTS? WHAT IS THE TAINTED HISTORY OF THE CONCERNED CITIZENS IN A CHANGE THAT COULD CONFLICT WITH OUR COVENANTS?

DOES WEDGEFIELD'S TWISTED BY-LAW AMENDMENT HISTORY REPEAT ITSELF?
The Wedgefield Examiner has gone back in the history of proposed by-law changes and firmly believes that we are in another twisted period, possibly illegal period - again.  Many of the players and moves remain the same.  We only have to go back to the 2010 Annual Meeting.  Then treasurer, Roger Armistead along with current board member Garrison, supported by the Concerned Citizens, put forth four by-law amendments.  For a complete review of the amendments proposed in 2010, go to The Wedgefield Times, article #29, "Preview of Proposed WPA By-Law Amendments".  Here are the first few lines of each of the Armistead/ Garrison/Concerned Citizen Amendments:

1.  "Under no circumstance shall the Board of Directors incur any debt service or indenture to any lender, (etc.) public or private, without securing the approval of the membership of the Association by a referendum, executed at a duly called meeting of said membership......"

2.  "The Board of Directors shall be prohibited from raising the annual assessment to property owners in any given year (defined by billing cycle for annual assessments) by more than 10% in any given year, or by more than 30% in any five consecutive year periods......"

3.  "The Board of Directors shall authorize no expenditure in excess of $50,000 except for the following....."

4)  "Reserve Fund Accounts shall be designated by specific category.  A reserve study shall determine the required categories and the amounts of each category.  No transfer of funds between or among fund categories shall be made, nor shall any category be deleted and funds assigned to that category be designated unallocated, unless approved by the membership......."

Briefly, the Armistead/Garrison/Concerned Citizen amendments restricted the ability of the board in spending our assessment dollars, as the current proposed amendment does. Many felt that they violated # 9 of the Covenants.  At one point the 2010 board pulled the 4 amendments and after some battle, put them back on the ballot.  Then, the board would not answer questions regarding violation of the Covenants.  Residents also submitted 5 additional amendment changes.  At least one of the resident amendments was pulled off the ballot by the 2010 board.  At the same time the Concerned Citizens were holding meetings and sending letters endorsing a vote for the Armistead/Garrison/Concerned Citizen amendments.  You might say, "well there were opinions on both sides."  One of the key players in both the promotion of Concerned Citizen Candidates and the 4 amendments was Ms.  Zieske.  In the midst of all of this, prior to the annual meeting, she sent the following to approximately 50 Concerned Citizens, and Garrison, Wilson and Thomas.

Sent Sunday, October 17, 2010 @ 9:38 PM, Subject:  Amendments to Our ByLaws (Quoted and typed as printed.  Underlines added in key areas.):  "Hey Guys:  First of all, I am done trying to help these guys on this Board.  I give up!  They think they know it all, so be it.  You will not hear from me again.  I have no idea when we will get to court or how those issues will be resolved.

To my knowledge you cannot approve an amendment to our Bylaws that is in conflict with our Covenants.  This has been supported by my research, but at any rate we need our attorney's opinion.  I would really like the amendments that Roger and Bob Garrison approved, but not at the cost of violating our Covenants.  If the legal committee approved the first four amendments provided on the ballot without legal counsel then they could be accused of "not acting in good faith" Everything I have been able to research is that the Covenants trump the Bylaws. 

I have advised this Board to only put forward only one amendment that would allow for a Special Meeting to be held a few months from now to properly address these proposed changes.  That would give them the time to get proper legal counsel.  However, they ignored my advice and are going to put all of the nine on the ballot.  Consequently, I am no longer in a position where I can promote their election to the Board.

I will not be sending out a letter to promote our slate.  They will be defeated and you will end up with board members that are canal property owners or supporters I am totally defeated.  As ever, Carol"

The same person who then board member Armistead insisted on calling "advisor", was provided unfettered access to your records (Some of our records are missing now and DeMarchi thanks her for providing them.), is telling them that they are failing "to act in good faith" and may be violating our covenants.  She tells the Concerned Citizens that Armistead and Garrison's amendments are a problem.  So at times in the run up to the 2010 Annual Meeting they cut the resident by-law submissions and then put them back again, except one.

Here we are again with a submission that appears to be in violation of our Covenants and Garrison is telling us the attorney reviewed them.  He probably did.  Can you trust the opinion?  The Concerned Citizen Board of 2010-11 - Wilson, Huggins, Barrier, Thomas, etc., lawyer shopped and through out board attorney of record - Moran for Moody, after Moran wrote an opinion stating the 2011 recall petitions were valid, as they were called under the same state law that allowed the Concerned Citizen recall of 2010. 

  Back to 2010, Ms. Zieske wasn't done yet.  After standing on principle, she changes her mind and will support them, regardless.  All ethics go out the door the following morning and she sends the following to the group noted above.

Mon, Oct 18, 2010 @ 11:20AM, "Subject:  I was angry and upset"
"Hey Guys:  Most of you do not know about the additional five amendments that their group put forward to be voted on (NOTE RESIDENT SUBMISSIONS).  Those are terrible and should not even be approved by the Legal Committee to be included on the ballot.  However, if our guys send out only the ones we want approved, then they will catch "hell" from that group.  I was trying to get them to "buy us some time" to properly educate our membership on the ones we want passed and to get them to vote no on the ones that are terrible.  I lost and I was angry.  I have had two years of this stress and I "lost it".

So forget my prior email.  I am still out there working hard to get our guys re-elected.  We must get them elected!  The other four people are all canal supporters.  Carol"

Zieske's's letters were shared with current sitting board members.  Some were amongst those she sent it to.  Others received a copy through me.  One of the apparent authors of the suspect amendments in 2010 according to Ms. Zieske herself, is our very own current legal chair, Garrison.  What is he promoting now?  Another suspicious amendment that appears to be in violation of our Covenants.  McMillin, Garrison, Barrier, were all on the board when this was coming down.  They've seen first hand just how far this group will go to get what they want.  Is Garrison at it again?  Where is your board?  Many sitting at the board table today were provided this information.

Friday, September 15, 2017

THREE NEW ARTICLES WERE ADDED IN THE LAST 24 HOURS


THE WEDGEFIELD EXAMINER MASCOT, BRADY SAYS, "I'M STILL HEALING, BUT EVEN I STAY UP ON THE ISSUES OF MY COMMUNITY."

HERE'S WHAT WE'VE ADDED IN THE LAST 24 HOURS:

1) Golf Course Update

2) A resident email to the blog about the Wedgefield swamp.  The resident writer states "This message is not for the faint of heart, but someone needs to put it out there and say it."

3) A rainbow over the court hearing yesterday.

A GOLF COURSE UPDATE

1) The projected opening for the golf course is May 1.

2)  Work begins on the course within the week.

3)  Mitch Thompkins will operate the golf course, tennis, and the pool.

RESIDENT WRITES "WAKE UP WEDGEFIELD. WEDGE FIELD IS GOVERNED BY THE SWAMP"

THREE NOTES:  1) The Wedgefield Examiner selected the picture after I read the resident article.  2) This resident appears fed up, and has a right to write the blog, and speak out.  I did not write the article.  3) The email goes out of print balance at points.  It is readable, and that is what happens to emails sometimes when they are copied and pasted when it enters the blog format.  I thank the resident for writing and sharing their opinion.


***************************************************
Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com.  We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it.  P.S.  If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.


***************************************************************************
HERE IS THE UNEDITED RESIDENT MESSAGE,
WAKE UP WEDGEFIELD.    This message is not for the faint of heart, but someone needs to put it out there and say it.

Share this message with your friends and neighbors.  Make copies, pass them out, discuss, and stand up.  

Wedgefield is governed by the "Swamp."   Now I know a lot of you voted for Trump, so you know exactly what I'm saying.  We've had the same governing "cliques" for too too long and I have to get on my boots because the swamp is getting pretty thick... and STINKY.  We've become complacent, non-existent to board members, and we no longer have no voice or are relevant in this community because a group of people are calling all the shots.   No one questions the board and they are  running amok.    I get it...... you've known some of these board members for years.  You think you can trust them.  They are your boat club buddies, WOW members, business owners, the parents or grandparents to your children, grandchildren, high school alumni, long time neighbors, etc...... how ever you know them and for how long.   But it doesn't mean they are looking out in your best interest and spending YOUR assessment dollars in YOUR best interest.   It doesn't mean you are NOT part of their agenda.     

Wedgefield is divided.  We have the cool cliques and the uncool regular folks, North versus South, (as nauseating as it makes me to say this), native Georgetownians versus Transplants, (again nauseating), and it goes on......  Board members are not voted in by experience, intelligence, or qualifications....... but by who they know and how well they will stand in line with the existing members.  The board looks to seat their buddies and keep the good ol' boy system in place. 

PAY ATTENTION RESIDENTS, this is the web we've allowed the board to weave..... and as a result there are NO CHECKS AND BALANCES.     There is no longer any transparency with our HOA board and no one is standing up to call out violations of our policies and covenants.  

Look carefully at our incestuous board and their committees that we've allowed to breed by being complacent, inactive, and too lazy to deal with wrong doings or speak up!   

I ask you residents of Wedgefield, why are the same players on the board and committees for term after term after term.  Why isn't anyone extending a hand to residents who can bring about positive changes and move Wedgefield forward?   Why aren't committee position posted for all to pursue?  Because we don't stop the nonsense.   We turn our backs to our future.  Now I don't want to disregard those legitimate, well meaning committee members and we all know who they are, BUT board members acting as committee members, their hand pick good ol' buddies by their side, and the same "players" on multiple committees is UNACCEPTABLE and unethical and can no longer be business as usual.    This only adds height to the wall the board has built between THEMSELVES and US and the suspicion some have toward our board members.   So how long will you let our community regress and be governed by self serving board members who interpret the bylaws and convenants to their advantage or however the wind happens to blow?   And members who are driving the value of our community down because their expectations are lower than written policies. 

Let's look  very closely at this web of power.  

Legal Committee:              Bob Garrison, board VP who demonized a resident who is suing a board member, (Keith Johnson) openly                                                      during a board meeting.    Extremely short of professionalism and fairness. 
                                           Adam Anderson, board member who has a track record of ineffectiveness, procrastination, and ignoring resident                                            concerns and emails.
                                           Jacky Walton, board President who gavels down those who dare to question the board. 

Finance Committee:           Al DiMarchi, (former member who resigned from the board August 2016.)
                                           Sue Hastings
                                           Bob Garrison, (current board member)
                                           Peg Phillips, (committee chairperson and current board member)

Water Committee:              Jacky Walton, (current board member)
                                           Chris Carroll
                                           James Cristello
                                           Keith Johnson, (current board member being sued by a resident, alleged abuse of convenants and policies)
                                           Larry McMillan, (current board member)
                                           Ed Wozniak
                                           Steve Vasey, (added 2/21/17, running for board, ringer, and neighbor of McMillan)

Compliance Committee:     Peggy Phillips, (perhaps more members, the website isn't up for reference).

Drainage Committee:         Al DeMarchi, (former board member)
                                           Jacky notes in the board meeting that he would "like to get a couple more on the committee."  (Since the website                                            has been stripped of information, it's unknown if this was ever accomplished)

Grounds Committee:         Larry McMillan, (current board member, running for re-election for just too many exhausting times)
                                          Peg Phillips, (current board member)
                                          Bob and Neena McMahon
                                          Steve Vasey, (board candidate, ringer, and neighbor of McMillan)

ARC Committee:              Bob Garrison, (current board member)
                                          Walton, (current board member)
                                          DiMarchi, (former board member)
                                          Steve Vasey, (board candidate, ringer, and neighbor of McMillan)
                                          ON COMMITTEE AT TIME OF DECISIONS THAT CAUSED
                                          MEMBER TO SUE THE CHAIR

Welcome Committee:     Inge, (exiting board member and chair)
                                       Vivian Segelken

Names sound familiar, over and over again?   Disgusted at what you see when you drive around Wedgefield?   Time to drain the swamp??    You decide.    Get involved.   And stand up for a Better Wedgefield. 

Thursday, September 14, 2017

SOME RESULTS FROM THE HEARING IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TODAY, MAKE ME THINK THAT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN A RAINBOW SOME WHERE IN GEORGETOWN TODAY


YES, SOMETIMES EVEN IN THE GREY CLOUDS OF LEGALITY, LAWYERS, AND COURTS, YOU ARE LEFT WITH A RAINBOW!

Today, I went to the Court of Common Pleas, Judge Hyman's court.  I will relay what happened to the best of my ability, using the notes that I took.  The case was the lawsuit brought by a resident against board member Johnson, ARC chair.  I've provided you with the filings, name removed, of our resident in previous postings.  As noted before, I had never spoken to this resident about this case, or anything else that is happening in Wedgefield.  As I followed, and documented what had happened leading up to the filing of the lawsuit, I was proud of this resident.  Today, even more than before.

Judge Hyman quickly handled some other cases, and then called the Johnson case. He said the resident was pro se (researched definition to provide in article -
"For one's own behalf; in person. Appearing for oneself, as in the case of one who does not retain a lawyer and appears for himself or herself in court."). He stated that the resident was a nice man and had tried to do something in a very complex section of the law.  He recommended that the resident get an attorney.  The court must dismiss action that doesn't properly set out significant things that must be plead, and pro se does not allow that - everyone must follow the same rule.  

Judge Hyman said he could dismiss with prejudice, or dismiss with lead to restore.  He then went on to talk a little bit of his experience with the law, and said he started doing this law business before these young guys were even born.  He went on to tell the resident that somethings research on their own, but he strongly urged him to get the advice of counsel to bring his case to proper form.  He then told a court clerk to use form 4, dismissal without prejudice with lead to restore (phrase typed as I heard it).

It appears that the resident can bring his case back, in proper form - the rainbow of justice.  While I spoke to the resident after the hearing ended, whether he will hire an attorney and bring the case back is his business.  The Wedgefield world will have to wait and see.