On February 6, 2025, a protective order hearing was held in Loudoun County, Virginia between Mamee Groves and me, Jason Voit.

The hearing generated more than 130 pages of testimony, multiple binders of exhibits, videos, Facebook posts, website printouts, and extensive legal argument.

The full transcript appears below exactly as produced by the court reporter.

I encourage every reader to review it personally.

Not because I expect everyone to agree with me.

But because I believe the transcript raises serious questions that were never adequately answered.

According to Ms. Groves and her attorneys, this case was about fear.

According to me, this case was about something very different.

It was about silencing criticism.

It was about controlling a narrative.

And it was about protecting people and institutions that did not want uncomfortable questions asked.

Readers can decide for themselves which interpretation is supported by the evidence.

I was angry.

Very angry.

The transcript reflects that.

My videos were emotional.

The transcript reflects that.

I used profanity.

The transcript reflects that.

I openly criticized Invited Clubs, Apollo, Ogletree Deakins, and Mamee Groves.

The transcript reflects that as well.

I am not denying any of it.

What I dispute is the idea that anger is the same thing as a threat.

Because they are not the same thing.

As you review the testimony below, I encourage you to pay attention not only to the answers given, but also to the questions being asked.

One of the things that stood out to me while reviewing the transcript was how frequently the testimony appears guided by counsel.

Readers should ask themselves:

Was Ms. Groves being asked to tell her story in her own words?

Or was she being asked to confirm conclusions already suggested by counsel?

For example, there is a significant difference between:

"What did you think when you saw this video?"

and

"Did this video scare you?"
 

One invites explanation.

The other invites agreement.

Before Ms. Groves ever testified, her attorneys told the Court what they intended to prove:

• That she had no involvement in my termination. 
• That she feared for her safety. 
• That the Court should focus on how she interpreted my statements rather than what I intended. 
• That there was no logical explanation for my conduct. 

Readers should pay close attention to whether the testimony develops independently from the evidence or follows the framework established by counsel before any evidence was introduced.

I am not suggesting that lawyers should not prepare witnesses.

That is part of the legal process.

I am suggesting that readers should pay attention to the difference between testimony that emerges naturally and testimony that appears guided toward a predetermined conclusion.

As you read the transcript, ask yourself:

Was Ms. Groves telling her story?

Or was counsel telling it for her?

Where is the threat?

Not the interpretation.

Not the speculation.

Not the assumption.

The actual threat.

Readers should ask themselves:

• Did the videos express anger?
• Did they express frustration?
• Did they express criticism?
• Did they express outrage?
• Did they express accusations?

Or did they contain actual threats of violence?

That distinction matters.

Criticism is protected speech.

Anger is protected speech.

Profanity is protected speech.

Threats are not.

One of the central questions throughout this hearing is whether that distinction was respected.

One of the most important sections of the transcript concerns a private meeting between Ms. Groves and one of my direct reports only days before my termination.

According to Ms. Groves' testimony:

• A subordinate contacted her directly.
• The subordinate requested a private meeting.
• The subordinate did not want to meet on company property.
• The subordinate allegedly did not want anyone to know they were speaking with her.
• The meeting occurred at Starbucks.
• Allegations concerning me were discussed.

At the time of the hearing, the identity of that subordinate was not disclosed.

Today I identify that individual as Joseph Vivona.

What makes this testimony especially significant is that, to my knowledge, Joseph Vivona and Mamee Groves had no prior working relationship, no reporting relationship, and no meaningful history of interaction before this meeting.

That raises an obvious question:

Why?

Why would one of my direct reports seek out a regional executive with whom he had no established relationship?

Why did the meeting occur away from company property?

Why did he allegedly not want anyone to know it occurred?

Why did it happen immediately before my termination?

And why was the person who initiated that meeting never called as a witness?

Readers should think carefully about that sequence of events.

Because it is difficult to reconcile those facts with the claim that Ms. Groves had no involvement in what followed.

Throughout the hearing, Ms. Groves repeatedly testified that she:

• Did not hire me.
• Did not supervise me.
• Did not evaluate me.
• Did not terminate me.
• Did not participate in the investigation.
• Had no authority to fire me.

Those statements are in the transcript.

The same transcript also establishes that she met privately with one of my direct reports, received allegations concerning me, and communicated those allegations into the corporate chain of command.

Readers should ask themselves:

If a regional executive receives allegations from a subordinate, passes those allegations forward, and becomes part of the information flow that leads to corporate action, can that person reasonably be described as having "no involvement"?

I believe the answer is obvious.

Readers may reach their own conclusions.

The Starbucks meeting was one of the most important events discussed during the hearing.

Yet Joseph Vivona was never called as a witness.

No testimony.

No cross-examination.

No explanation.

Readers should ask:

Why?

Why was the individual who allegedly initiated the process absent from the courtroom?

Why was the court asked to rely on secondhand descriptions of what he supposedly said?

Would his testimony have helped clarify the truth?

Or complicated the narrative?

Those questions remain unanswered.

Another issue stands out immediately.

By the time of this hearing, Mamee Groves was no longer employed by Invited Clubs.

Yet she appeared represented by two attorneys from Ogletree Deakins.

Readers should ask:

Why?

Why was a former employee represented by attorneys associated with Invited Clubs?

Who paid for that representation?

Why would a corporation fund attorneys for a former employee in what was presented as a personal protective-order matter?

What corporate interest existed in this case?

The transcript does not provide an answer.

As I reviewed the transcript, one question kept resurfacing:

What was this hearing actually about?

The stated purpose of a protective-order hearing is straightforward.

Did the respondent engage in conduct that reasonably places another person in fear of violence, bodily injury, or similar harm?

That should have been the focus.

Instead, readers will find substantial discussion regarding:

• Alleged gambling.
• Alleged debts.
• Alcohol use.
• Workplace rumors.
• Alleged drug activity.
• Employment disputes.
• My termination.
• My lifestyle.
• My personal habits.
• My character.

Readers should ask a simple question:

How much of that has anything to do with whether I threatened Mamee Groves?

If the issue was fear, why was so much time devoted to topics that appear designed to portray me as irresponsible, reckless, or morally flawed?

If the issue was safety, why was so much effort devoted to discussing who I was rather than what I allegedly threatened to do?

Even more importantly, readers should note that numerous objections were raised throughout the proceeding, several of which were sustained.

That means the court itself determined that certain lines of questioning or testimony were improper under the rules of evidence.

I was not an attorney.

I appeared pro se against two experienced attorneys from a major law firm.

Yet even under those circumstances, portions of the effort to introduce character-based evidence drew successful objections.

That raises another question:

Why was that evidence being pursued in the first place?

Was it because it established a threat?

Or was it because it painted an unfavorable picture of me?

Readers should pay close attention to that distinction as they review the transcript.

Because there is a significant difference between proving that someone is dangerous and attempting to convince a court that someone is unlikeable.

Most protective-order hearings are relatively brief.

This hearing generated more than 130 pages of testimony.

It involved:

• Corporate lawyers.
• Extensive exhibits.
• Website printouts.
• Facebook posts.
• Videos.
• Employment history.
• Corporate testimony.
• Detailed argument.

Readers should ask themselves:

Why did a supposedly straightforward protective-order case require this level of preparation?

Why were corporate resources involved?

Why did an employment dispute appear repeatedly throughout the proceeding?

And why did the hearing feel more like a civil lawsuit than a routine protective-order request?

There is no question that Ms. Groves testified that she was afraid.

The transcript reflects that repeatedly.

The question is whether the evidence justified that fear.

Those are not the same thing.

A person can sincerely feel afraid.

That does not automatically mean a threat occurred.

Readers should carefully evaluate the evidence and decide whether the facts presented support the conclusions that were requested.

This hearing was not the end of the story.

The matter was appealed.

The protective order that resulted from this proceeding was ultimately dissolved.

Subsequent efforts to obtain additional protective-order relief were unsuccessful.

That procedural history matters.

Readers should ask themselves:

If the evidence presented here was as overwhelming as claimed, why did the case ultimately fail to survive the full appellate process?

That is a question worth considering as you read the transcript below.

I am publishing this transcript because I believe sunlight is the best disinfectant.

I believe readers deserve access to the actual testimony rather than selective descriptions of it.

I am not asking anyone to agree with me.

I am asking them to read.

As you review the transcript, ask yourself:

• Was Ms. Groves truly uninvolved?
• Why was the Starbucks meeting held?
• Why did Joseph Vivona contact a regional executive with whom he had no prior relationship?
• Why was Joseph Vivona never called as a witness?
• Why was a former employee represented by corporate counsel?
• Who funded the litigation?
• Why were gambling, debts, rumors, alcohol, employment issues, and character attacks discussed in a proceeding supposedly focused on fear?
• Was this hearing about safety?
• Or was it about criticism and speech?
• Did the evidence establish actual danger?
• Or merely perceived danger?

Most importantly:

After reading the transcript, ask yourself whether the evidence supports the conclusions that the parties wanted the court to reach.

Then decide for yourself.