Why Was Invited Clubs Involved?

---

One of the most unusual aspects of the litigation involving former Invited Clubs executive Mamee Groves is not that a Protective Order was sought.

It is what happened afterward.

To understand why that question matters, it is important to understand how this case began.

In January 2025, Mamee Groves personally appeared before the Loudoun County General District Court and submitted an affidavit seeking a Protective Order.

The affidavit was not prepared by Invited Clubs.

It was not prepared by company counsel.

It was prepared, signed, and submitted by Ms. Groves herself.

In the affidavit, Ms. Groves referenced my social media activity, my website, my communications concerning former colleagues, and what she described as concerns for her safety.

The affidavit also referenced the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Specifically, Ms. Groves stated that the FBI had contacted her regarding the situation and expressed concern for her safety.

At the time, that reference appeared intended to add weight and credibility to the allegations being presented to the Court. A reasonable reader could conclude that the mention of the FBI was offered as evidence that federal authorities viewed the situation as serious.

The issue was never whether the FBI had spoken to Ms. Groves.

The issue became how that contact was being characterized and whether later testimony remained consistent with the narrative initially presented to the Court.

As the litigation progressed, testimony and documentary evidence created questions regarding those representations. The issue became significant enough that credibility itself became a subject of dispute before the Court.

My attorney immediately recognized the inconsistency and confronted it.

The record speaks for itself.

Readers will ultimately be able to review the affidavit, transcripts, exhibits, and court filings and draw their own conclusions.

Protective Orders serve an important purpose. They exist to protect individuals who genuinely fear violence, threats, harassment, or continued harm.

For that reason, allegations supporting a Protective Order should be taken seriously.

I took them seriously.

What followed, however, raised questions.

During the proceedings, text messages from Ms. Groves' phone were displayed in open court. Those messages included statements such as:

"I got a protective order!"

Other messages expressed hope that a two-year Protective Order would be granted.

Additional communications referenced learning how to screen record and ensuring that others would "have my back just in case."

Readers may view those communications differently.

Some may see a person documenting concerns.

Others may see preparation for a legal conflict and celebration of a legal outcome.

I encourage readers to review the communications themselves and decide what significance, if any, they should be given.

What I can say is that I found the tone of those communications difficult to reconcile with the level of fear and concern that Protective Orders are intended to address.

One question has lingered in my mind since the beginning of this case.

Why was the Protective Order filed in the first place?

I do not claim to know the answer.

What I do know is that the filing was made personally by Ms. Groves, before any attorneys appeared on her behalf.

The messages shown above indicate that others were aware of the proceedings and interested in the outcome.

Was the filing entirely her idea?

Did others encourage it?

Did anyone suggest that obtaining a Protective Order would provide advantages beyond the purpose for which Protective Orders are intended?

I do not know.

Those are questions, not conclusions.

My personal opinion is that the filing may have been encouraged or influenced by individuals other than Ms. Groves. To be clear, I do not have evidence that Invited Clubs directed her to file the petition. In fact, the sequence of events suggests another possibility.

The affidavit was filed first.

The company appeared later.

That distinction matters.

After the Protective Order was issued, I exercised my right to appeal.

I retained counsel.

The case moved forward.

The result is not disputed.

The Protective Order was ultimately dissolved.

The plaintiff did not prevail.

That outcome, however, created a much larger question.

If this was a personal dispute between two individuals, why did a major corporation become involved?

The most important fact regarding Invited Clubs' involvement did not come from me.

It came from Ms. Groves' own attorneys.

In discovery responses filed with the Circuit Court, counsel stated:

"The Affidavit of Petitioner and Temporary Protective Order were filed and awarded to Petitioner without counsel, and Petitioner's former employer subsequently retained counsel for Petitioner."

That statement is important for several reasons.

First, it confirms that Ms. Groves filed the affidavit herself.

Second, it confirms that counsel was not involved when the Protective Order was initially sought.

Third, it confirms that her former employer later retained counsel on her behalf.

At the time, Ms. Groves had testified that she had left Invited Clubs months earlier.

The proceeding was not an employment lawsuit.

It was not an EEOC complaint.

It was not a discrimination claim.

It was not a wrongful termination action.

It was not a lawsuit against Invited Clubs.

It was a Protective Order proceeding between two private individuals.

Yet company-sponsored counsel appeared and litigated the matter.

Why?

The attorneys who appeared for Ms. Groves were employment attorneys from Ogletree Deakins.

They were not attorneys who regularly handle Protective Order proceedings.

Their practice is primarily focused on representing employers in employment disputes.

That naturally raises additional questions.

Why were employment lawyers involved in a personal Protective Order case?

What corporate interest was being protected?

Who authorized the expenditure?

Was there a written indemnification agreement?

If so, why would such an agreement apply to a personal Protective Order proceeding involving a former employee?

If not, why was the company involved at all?

The discovery process raised additional concerns.

The company-sponsored attorneys served extensive discovery requests seeking information from me, including social media archives, communications with current and former Invited employees, email accounts, telephone numbers, firearms information, information relating to firearms owned by my parents, prior legal matters, witnesses, and evidence supporting my defenses.

Whether every request was legally proper is for others to decide.

What stood out to me was the imbalance.

Extensive information was requested from me.

Much less was provided in return.

Many of my discovery requests were met with objections. Others were referred back to previously produced materials. Numerous substantive questions went unanswered.

For years I have asked a simple question:

If the facts support the allegations, why not allow both sides to fully present them?

Why not adopt a simple principle:

"You show me yours, and I'll show you mine."

Let the facts speak for themselves.

What happened next was perhaps even more unusual.

Immediately after the Protective Order was dissolved, Ms. Groves and her counsel filed a second Protective Order petition.

This occurred after they had just completed a full hearing on the merits.

The Court had heard the evidence.

The Court had dissolved the Protective Order.

Yet a new petition was filed almost immediately thereafter.

According to my recollection, the new petition relied upon substantially the same allegations that had just failed to sustain the original Protective Order.

As I recall, the judge questioned how a new Protective Order could be justified when the previous one had just been dissolved moments earlier.

The question was straightforward:

"You filed a new protective order while Mr. Voit was still in court. What new evidence could there have been?"

It was a fair question.

What had changed?

What new facts existed?

What new conduct had occurred?

What new evidence justified a second filing?

The Court ultimately declined to issue the new Protective Order.

Readers may draw their own conclusions.

What is not disputed is that the first Protective Order was dissolved and the second attempt was unsuccessful.

The Protective Order litigation did not end there.

A criminal allegation was later brought against me claiming that I violated the Protective Order through a mailed package allegedly delivered to Ms. Groves' residence.

UPS records show that the parcel was delivered on March 1, 2025 at 2:54 PM.

According to my recollection of the testimony, Ms. Groves stated in court that she immediately contacted law enforcement after receiving the package.

The delivery records raise questions.

If the package was delivered on March 1, 2025, what occurred between delivery and the subsequent legal action?

Who was consulted?

Were attorneys involved?

Was Invited Clubs involved?

Were strategic discussions taking place?

I do not know.

Those are questions, not conclusions.

Another issue arose during testimony.

According to my recollection, Ms. Groves testified that she knew the package came from me because of the sender address displayed on the parcel.

When my attorney asked whether that was my address, she confirmed that it was.

My attorney then pointed out that the address in question was a UPS Store address rather than my residence.

For me, that became another credibility issue.

The point is not whether readers agree with my interpretation.

The point is that the testimony, the tracking records, and the surrounding timeline raise questions that deserve examination.

The criminal allegation ultimately failed.

No conviction resulted.

I do not know why Invited Clubs ultimately decided to provide legal representation.

What I do know is that the company became involved only after the Protective Order had already been filed and obtained.

That raises another possibility.

Perhaps Invited Clubs did not create the situation.

Perhaps they inherited it.

Perhaps company leadership saw a developing legal and public-relations problem and decided that leaving a former employee to navigate litigation alone presented risks of its own.

I do not know if that is what happened.

It is simply one possible explanation among many.

If true, it would raise yet another question:

What was the company concerned might be revealed?

Again, I do not know the answer.

But the question remains.

The Court proceedings concluded.

The Protective Order was dissolved.

The second Protective Order was not granted.

The alleged violation proceeding failed.

Yet one question remains unanswered.

Why did Invited Clubs involve itself in a personal Protective Order dispute initiated by a former employee months after her alleged resignation?

Why did company-sponsored employment attorneys become involved?

What corporate interest justified that involvement?

To date, no public explanation has been provided.

This page is not intended to answer those questions.

It exists because those questions remain.

Readers are encouraged to review the affidavits, transcripts, text messages, discovery responses, tracking records, court filings, and outcomes for themselves and draw their own conclusions.

The following screenshot was displayed in open court and was taken from Ms. Groves' phone.

Readers can evaluate it for themselves.

What immediately stands out is the timing and nature of the communications.

One message states:

"I got a protective order!"

Another message expresses hope that:

"Hopefully he will grant a two year protection order." (The judge was female by the way.)

Another states:

"You all will have my back just in case."

I am not suggesting that any one of these messages proves anything by itself.

However, they raise questions.

If the purpose of a Protective Order is to obtain protection from a genuine fear of harm, what should one expect to see immediately afterward?

Relief?

Fear?

Concern?

Caution?

Or celebration?

Why were multiple individuals apparently aware of the proceedings and discussing the anticipated outcome?

How many people knew about the filing before it occurred?

Were these individuals simply friends offering support?

Or were they involved in discussions leading up to the filing itself?

What exactly was meant by:

"You all will have my back just in case"?

Just in case of what?

Again, I do not claim to know the answers.

I simply believe these are fair questions for readers to consider when evaluating the circumstances surrounding the Protective Order and the events that followed.

The screenshot appears exactly as it was presented.

One contact visible in the screenshot is identified only as "Chuck." I do not know with certainty whether this individual is the same Chuck Feddersen who served as an executive with Invited Clubs. If it is, additional questions naturally arise regarding why a senior executive would be communicating with Ms. Groves during the period surrounding these proceedings. At present, however, I do not have sufficient information to make that identification and therefore leave that question open.