Results of Lawsuit: LeCody vs. Anderson, Baber, Kessinger, and Blanchard

DMS General
#1

As you may know, in early 2019, Mr. Andrew LeCody filed a lawsuit against four former board members of DMS – Myself, Charles Baber, David Kessinger, and Steve Blanchard – in which Mr. LeCody accused the defendants of libel, slander, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress. The board members denied all of the claims and immediately filed a motion asking the Court to dismiss the claims as factually and legally baseless. Both sides presented their case at a hearing on November 8, 2019. On November 19, the Court agreed with the defendants and entered an order dismissing all of Mr. LeCody’s claims with prejudice. On December 19, the Court entered a final judgment, confirming the dismissal and also ordering Mr. LeCody to pay over $12,000 in attorneys’ fees to the defendants.

We would like to thank John Barclus as legal representation for Dallas Makerspace for handling this court case. The results can be found online on the Denton County records page.

2 Likes
#2

Weird that you’d want to brag about rejecting a $0 settlement that only required an apology, and instead want to make someone paying for chemo pay $12k. But ok.

#3

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

1 Like
#4

Sometimes you’ve got to pick your battles, if you lost you rolled the dice and were legally in the wrong, nobody made you do it Also keep in mind you may have targeted indaviduals but the space would have paid for it. If you need help with unrelated medical issues, ask, don’t throw it around as reasons you should win an unrelated legal battle. Seriously don’t be afraid to reach out.

4 Likes
#5

You’re the one who tried to sue regardless of you paying for chemotherapy you were given a judgement and now must honor it. Man up pay your fine and quit trying to get pity from people about your other financial obligations.

3 Likes
#6

Have you made your apology? Have you made said apology public (To DMS)? You certainly aired your grievances publicly (To DMS) to the best of my recollection as a new (at the time) member. I don’t really see a brag in the statements Kris made. Just a recounting of the events of the action in question.

4 Likes
#7

This is incorrect, the lawyer was working for the defendants via our D&O insurance provider Great American NOT directly on behalf of the Makerspace.

Stop trying to shade this as you being the good guys because this was the result of the BoD banning Andrew, Robert and myself. Primarily for asking questions and for pointing out your hiding a lack of any financial planning for the expansion. Also implying that PureTax had reviewed expansion plans and gave the green light when they certainly did not. If we had proceeded with your expansion plans DMS would be broke and closed. Expansion was not sabotaged by any of the finance team asking legitimate questions.

15 Likes
#8

If you wreck your car, and insurance pays to fix it, are they fixing it for the insurance company, or the insured? The lawyer represented the affected, insured parties-not the insurance company. Regardless, the case was dismissed “with prejudice”, meaning the judge thought the case had no merit, and was a waste of the court’s and defendants time, and that the plaintiff should pay for wasting said time.

Really?? Wouldn’t that make you a party to the legal proceedings? You may not have been named in the suit, but if it was filed in retaliation for the disciplinary measures taken as a result of you and your colleagues alleged actions, and you have full knowledge of that fact, you were at least involved. Seems like being involved in a frivolous lawsuit filed against the company you represent as a director would be a serious conflict of interest. Not to mention that you were representing the space as a director after the precedent has already been set (by the board on which you reside) that a member cannot hold a position of authority while involved in legal proceedings that involve DMS. Tell me again about shading yourself as the good guy?

This is purely speculation as there has not been a competent treasurer in office in the 2+ years since I have been a member at DMS.
One thing that is not speculation is that the decisions of the current D&O have taken the responsibility and liability of expansion and placed it in the hands of the membership at large instead of a licensed and bonded construction company who would be liable for any problems or mistakes made in the build-out.

No, it was sabotaged by—You know what? I’m going to stop before I get banned for sedition. This board has also set the precedent that they will ban you if they don’t like the nature of the complaint you file.
-Removal of opposition
-Consolidation of power
-Censorship of public forums
-Cliquish, bully mentality
-Control! Control! Control!
These are the main complaints I hear from the general membership about the current D&O on almost a daily basis.
This also sounds like the playbook for just about every oppressive regime or fanatical fascist oligarchy I studied in school.
This is not a legacy I would want to leave behind.

2 Likes
#9

Let’s be honest, that’s just the Dallas Makerspace mo.

3 Likes
#10

So what is the goal of this post?

If it is to inform, then who benefits from this information?

If it is to thank, then why not thank directly?

If it is to shame or gloat, then why engage in this banter rather than settle your victory with grace?

Andrew LeCody is a good man and I see no reason why you nor other people in this chat can’t simply behave in a way that is conducive to solidarity. Complaining about someone behind their back is one thing, but open provocation both must be necessary and in the furtherance of DMS’s strategic goals. Losing anyone in this chat would be a hit to DMS overall, regardless of the personal, temporary psychological benefit it may bring to certain members.

6 Likes
#11

While I respect everyone in this chat (including Kris), I simply can’t see how this post can be viewed in a positive light. Suppose we wanted to give Kris the benefit of the doubt, could you drum up a believable account for why the original post was made that does not involve malice or gloating? It would certainly take a more intelligent man than myself to do so. To my knowledge, Kris is neither a journalist nor an anchor, so why is she recounting events and why these events rather than some other event? Who benefits from this post? A brag is the most generous way you could interpret this post and I hope that everyone here can set aside their differences and just get along.

I think everyone in this thread is a good person and it greatly frustrates me to see that good people are needlessly provoking each other.

2 Likes
#12

Usually, a victor can choose how they want to win. No fight is as simple as “winning” or “losing”. There is a right way to win and a wrong way to win, even if we suppose that the opposition is in the wrong. Andrew LeCody seems to be implying that the defendants chose the wrong way to win, which I think is a philosophically defensible position (though highly debatable). I can honestly see the argument from both sides and thus feel sad that such a situation had occurred. My initial instincts when faced with harsh situation is to behave in a cruel manner, so I often feel a need to make a conscious effort to be more merciful than I may feel necessary. Given that, I would’ve probably chosen to just give the apology after much reflection.

Hardly anyone goes through the wildcard that is the American legal system unless they feel truly damaged and hurt by the actions of the defendants. The mere fact that this actually went to court indicates to me that Andrew felt strongly about the matter. No machiavellian would get into a fight like this and try to settle with a mere apology and $0. So why not apologize, at the very least?

There might be facts that could change my mind on this, but they have not been mentioned and thus I doubt that they are there.

2 Likes
#13

An insincere apology is worse than useless.

1 Like
#14

Regardless of opinions, this case was dismissed with prejudice in favor of our duly elected Dallas Makerspace leadership. The verdict was a court justified sanction to the effect of an abuse of our legal process. This was to send a message. And personally, the message I deduced when I learned of this verdict was that opposing the decisions of our duly elected Dallas Makerspace leadership should never justify abusing our legal system with frivolous lawsuits to support our own damaged egos and personal agendas.

For nearly a decade, there has been very little for any of our duly elected Dallas Makerspace leadership to apologize for. They each acted and voted in the interest of Dallas Makerspace. Everyone who has ever volunteered in service to our membership has sacrificed their time and mental health to keep things moving forward. And every year, our duly elected Dallas Makerspace leadership should be held accountable for the decisions they make. But, we must be absolutely sure that the manner in which we hold them accountable is honest and untangled from our own fragile egos.

I’m begging everyone to stop this destructive nonsense. We are better than this! Let us all please move forward and forgive one another. Our creative energies can be used to rebuild bridges to support our damaged friendships. I believe we will learn from our mistakes and become a better community of artists, engineers, makers, and thinkers.

At various points in our history, I like to think that Dallas Makerspace has made an effort to become the most accepting, tolerant, and diverse community on the planet. I’d like to be able to brag about that someday and it actually be true.

11 Likes
#15

This thread does nothing but further inflame relationships at DMS.

@Team_Moderators, can you please close it?

2 Likes
#16

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

2 Likes
#17

It serves to inform that all parties involved are again eligible to hold leadership positions.

3 Likes
#18

Whether or not it belong on talk I think should depends on 2 things, is it relevant and does it violate a user agreement. Unfortunately I think the precedent has been set that if the right person’s feelings are hurt or a few people coordinate flagging, nothing else matters.

1 Like
#19

About all you need to know is “dismissed with prejudice”. That pretty much covers it.

#20

I’m going to guess that no one, including Kris, bothered to actually look at the court records (especially note the date):

01/03/2020 Court of Appeals Correspondence

Appeal is continued

:rofl: Great thread though, see y’all in a few months when it’s actually settled.