The Irony of All Ironies

---

Date of update: June 9, 2026

White Flag Warrior began as an effort to document what I contend was years of targeted conduct, discrimination, retaliation, and institutional failure inside Invited. Much of that story involves my history with Mamee Groves, the company’s response to my complaints and warnings, and the way internal narratives about me were created, repeated, and ultimately used against me.

This update does not replace that broader story. It helps connect it.

As part of my continuing effort to document the events surrounding my termination from Hamlet Golf & Country Club and the related law-enforcement response in July 2023, I recently obtained and reviewed a Suffolk County CAD / incident record connected to the July 1, 2023 response at the property.

On June 9, 2026, I learned for the first time that the CAD identifies Theresa Addington, then a senior human-resources representative for Invited, as the complainant.

That information is significant to me because, after my termination, I communicated with Ms. Addington and others at Invited many times while trying to understand what had occurred. During those communications, I did not know that Ms. Addington was identified as the complainant in the underlying law-enforcement record.

The CAD contains language indicating that the company was concerned about an alleged “change in behavior.” Because Ms. Addington was not located at Hamlet Golf & Country Club and, to my knowledge, was not personally observing my conduct at the property, this raises an important question: who provided that characterization, when was it provided, and what specific conduct was described?

The underlying call recordings, dispatch materials, body-camera footage, and related records should help answer that question. I have requested those materials through the appropriate public-records process, and I understand they are being provided. Once received, they may supply the missing context regarding who provided the information, what was actually said, and how the narrative was communicated to law enforcement.

The “change in behavior” language is especially important because, to my knowledge, there was no sudden change in my behavior. I had disclosed the existence of the gun to my leadership team in or around Q4 2022, including Joseph Vivona. No one treated it as an urgent concern at that time. No one reacted as though I was dangerous, unstable, or behaving differently.

That changed only after Ms. Groves entered the Hamlet situation and after Mr. Vivona became involved in the events that led to the July 1, 2023 CAD record. That timing matters. If the gun was known months earlier and my behavior had not changed, then the central question becomes why the issue was suddenly reframed as a law-enforcement concern in July 2023.

I strongly dispute the “change in behavior” characterization. I believe numerous people who worked with me at Hamlet during that period would confirm that there was no sudden behavioral change, no threat, and no basis to portray me as a danger. That is why the source of that characterization is so important.

That question matters to the larger White Flag Warrior story because I have long contended that the narrative about me was shaped internally by individuals who had their own interests, motives, or reasons to deflect attention from what had occurred. If the “change in behavior” characterization came from people involved in the same internal conflict, then the source of that characterization becomes central to understanding how an employment dispute became a law-enforcement matter.

The CAD also appears to reference my termination or anticipated termination on or about July 1, 2023, although I was not formally terminated until July 3, 2023. That timing raises additional questions about who knew, as of July 1, that termination was planned or effectively decided, and whether that information was communicated to law enforcement before it was communicated to me.

The CAD further directs responding officers to Joseph Vivona, Director of Maintenance, on scene. That fact is now being reviewed together with written communications from Fadi Yako, who later told me that he was not the first person to provide a police report and that “Joe did.” Mr. Yako also stated that he was asked to provide a statement, that he was “forced in at the end,” and that he was convinced by others to file or participate in the report despite not wanting to do so.

This is especially important because the written police-related materials attributed to Mr. Yako appear materially different from the statements he later made to me personally in writing. His later statements raise questions about the sequence of witness participation, who initiated the reporting process, and whether any witness was pressured, influenced, encouraged, or directed by others.

Theresa Addington’s role is especially difficult for me to reconcile.

Ms. Addington knew about my history and struggles involving Mamee Groves. She knew I had raised concerns about Ms. Groves. She also knew that I had tried to navigate around Ms. Groves when necessary, including when Ms. Addington helped me obtain a beverage cart for Hamlet Golf & Country Club that Ms. Groves had not been able to secure.

At the time, I viewed Ms. Addington as someone inside Invited who understood at least part of the history. I believed she knew enough to recognize that the situation involving Ms. Groves was not simple, isolated, or one-sided.

That is why learning on June 9, 2026, that the Suffolk County CAD identifies Ms. Addington as the complainant was so significant.

To my knowledge, Ms. Addington was not located at Hamlet and was not personally observing my conduct at the property. If she was the complainant, then the central question becomes: what information was she given, who gave it to her, when was it given, and what context was left out?

The CAD states that the company was concerned about an alleged “change in behavior.” I strongly dispute any narrative that was created or repeated without the full context of what had occurred involving Ms. Groves, Hamlet, Joseph Vivona, witness participation, and the events leading to my termination.

I believe Ms. Addington was fed a narrative that was incomplete, inaccurate, and damaging. I am shocked that she was identified as the complainant because, based on my prior communications with her and what she knew about my concerns involving Ms. Groves, I believed she understood there was a much deeper history.

I also contend that Invited has since had opportunities to recognize that the narrative used against me was flawed, incomplete, or false, yet continued to protect it. In my view, this has evolved into something far larger than one employment decision or one police response.

This now raises issues with potential civil and criminal implications. It involves the origin of the law-enforcement report, the source of the information provided to human resources and police, the handling of witness statements, the later protective-order litigation, and what I contend was a years-long effort to avoid accountability for the race-based narrative and targeting that I tried to warn the company about.

In short, if Invited had simply addressed the gun issue as an employment matter and made its decision based on that fact alone, this likely would have ended there.

Instead, the company chose to run what I believe was a flawed and deeply damaging investigation based largely on information supplied by people who had their own interests, motives, or history with me. That decision transformed what could have been a straightforward employment issue into something far larger: a law-enforcement matter, a narrative about my character and behavior, witness statements I believe require scrutiny, later protective-order litigation, and years of reputational, legal, and personal damage.

That is why the source of the information matters. The question is not simply whether the company had the right to terminate me. The question is why the company went beyond that, who shaped the narrative, who supplied the allegations, who benefited from the outcome, and why information from my adversaries appears to have been treated as reliable while my warnings were ignored.

And right in the middle of it all is Mamee Groves.

The original history, the years of conduct I have documented, the internal complaints and warnings, the alleged narrative about my behavior, the protective-order proceedings, the later testimony that revealed additional connections, and the broader effort to portray me as the problem all trace back, in one way or another, to the conflict involving Ms. Groves.

That includes the call to the FBI, the alleged celebration of obtaining the protective order, incoming text messages from Heather Ellis, testimony that I believe was inconsistent with other evidence, the company’s apparent support or funding of litigation involving Ms. Groves, the involvement of Ogletree Deakins, and what I believe were serious mistakes made throughout the related court proceedings.

But central to the Hamlet escalation is also Joseph Vivona.

Mr. Vivona appears at a critical intersection of the timeline: the internal events at Hamlet, the alleged meeting or communication involving Ms. Groves, the July 1, 2023 CAD record, the police response, and the later witness statements.

Based on the information currently available to me, Mr. Vivona allegedly met with or communicated with Ms. Groves despite Ms. Groves not knowing him, and despite Mr. Vivona not knowing the full background between Ms. Groves and me. That matters because any information exchanged in that setting could have shaped the narrative about me without proper context, verification, or understanding of the history that preceded it.

The CAD later directed responding officers to Mr. Vivona on scene. Written communications from Fadi Yako further indicate that Mr. Yako was not the first person involved in the police-report process and that “Joe did.” Mr. Yako also indicated that he did not want to participate, was brought in later, and was convinced by others to file or participate in the report.

I also had been warned by others before my termination that Mr. Vivona was seeking my position. I understand that he applied for my position and did not receive it, but was later promoted to another club on Long Island. Those facts do not prove misconduct by themselves, but they make his role, motive, communications, and involvement materially relevant.

To me, these are not separate stories. They are connected parts of the same larger timeline.

The question is no longer simply what was said about me. The question is who created the narrative, who repeated it, who benefited from it, who funded or supported it, and how that narrative moved from internal company conflict to law enforcement, witness statements, protective-order litigation, outside counsel, and later-discovered testimony.

One of the most significant aspects of this story is that much of what I now understand was revealed through the very process that was used to portray me as the problem.

Ms. Groves’ allegations against me, the protective-order proceedings that followed, Invited’s apparent support or funding of that litigation, mistakes made by outside counsel, inconsistencies in the company’s internal investigation, and the documents and testimony that followed have all helped reveal information that I did not have in 2023.

What began as a company narrative about my alleged conduct has now raised a different set of questions: who created that narrative, who repeated it, who benefited from it, and how far it traveled?

I am not asking anyone to accept my conclusions based on one document or one statement. I am saying that the record, when reviewed as a whole, now raises material questions about whether incomplete, inaccurate, or second-hand information was used to shape the company’s response, the law-enforcement response, and later litigation.

The irony is that the effort to suppress, discredit, or control the narrative may have created the very record that now exposes it.

I believe I am getting closer to the full truth. Much of what is now being pieced together was revealed not all at once, but through separate sources over time: Ms. Groves’ own sworn testimony during the protective-order proceedings, Maurice Darbyshire’s recorded phone call, written communications from individuals such as Jimmy and Fadi regarding pressure or coercion, the Suffolk County CAD record, and the broader history of what I contend was years of targeting by Ms. Groves.

Some of this information was not available to me in 2023. Other pieces became known only later, including information revealed through Ms. Groves’ testimony during protective-order proceedings in 2025. When reviewed together, the CAD, Ms. Addington’s listed role as complainant, the alleged “change in behavior” language, the July 1 termination reference, Mr. Vivona’s on-scene role, Ms. Groves’ testimony, Maurice Darbyshire’s call, and the written communications from Fadi and others materially affect my understanding of the origin and sequence of the July 1, 2023 report.

To me, this is no longer just about one police response, one termination, or one protective-order proceeding. It is about whether a false or incomplete internal narrative was allowed to move through corporate leadership, human resources, law enforcement, witnesses, and later litigation without anyone stopping to examine the source.

I am documenting that the information has been revealed in pieces over time and that the newly reviewed CAD record raises material questions about the origin of the report, the source of the information provided to law enforcement, and the sequence of witness participation.

I have requested that relevant records be preserved and am pursuing appropriate public-records requests for the underlying CAD-related materials, including any available call recordings, call notes, dispatch records, and related communications.

This update will be revised or supplemented as additional records are received.