One of the criticisms that is often made when people publish information about disputes, litigation, or controversial events is that they fail to give others an opportunity to tell their side of the story.
I agree with that criticism.
For that reason, before publishing additional materials on this website, I made a deliberate effort to contact individuals whose names, experiences, communications, or actions appear within the chronology of events documented here.
Some of those individuals were former coworkers.
Some were former friends.
Some were people who contacted me first.
Some were people who worked directly alongside me for years.
Others were individuals whose names appeared in court records, communications, or other materials that became part of the timeline.
In each case, I attempted to provide a fair opportunity for comment.
Not an ultimatum.
Not a threat.
Not a demand.
Simply an opportunity.
The outreach messages that follow were sent before publication and, where appropriate, invited recipients to:
• Correct factual inaccuracies
• Clarify prior statements
• Provide additional context
• Explain events from their perspective
• Confirm or dispute information previously provided
• Or simply decline to comment
In other words, the same opportunity I would hope someone would extend to me if our positions were reversed.
If I received a message from a former colleague asking about events that involved both of us, my instinct would be simple:
I would answer.
Even if the answer was uncomfortable.
Even if the answer disagreed with them.
Even if the answer was simply, "I don't remember," or "I don't wish to discuss that."
That is what I would do.
Others may reasonably make different choices.
And that brings me to what I believe is one of the more interesting aspects of this process.
Many of the people contacted through these outreach efforts previously had positive relationships with me.
Some worked directly for me.
Some were promoted by me.
Some contacted me repeatedly after the events described on this website.
Some voluntarily provided information, opinions, screenshots, observations, or context.
Yet in many cases, communication later ceased entirely.
Why?
I do not know.
And I will not pretend to know.
There are many possible explanations.
People move on.
People do not want to become involved.
People do not wish to revisit difficult events.
People are understandably concerned about employment, relationships, reputations, legal issues, or personal consequences.
Those are all legitimate possibilities.
At the same time, I would be less than honest if I did not acknowledge that I find some of the silence notable.
That is my opinion.
Not a fact.
An opinion.
Particularly where individuals once communicated openly, repeatedly, and voluntarily.
The question naturally arises:
Why stop?
Was it a personal decision?
Was it professional caution?
Was it advice from someone else?
Was it concern about becoming involved?
I do not know.
Perhaps some of those questions will eventually be answered.
Perhaps they will not.
There is another reason I am preserving these outreach efforts.
Over the course of these events, more than one individual has informed me that they were instructed, advised, encouraged, or otherwise directed not to communicate with me.
I am not identifying those individuals here.
Nor am I attempting to characterize the motivations behind those instructions.
I am simply stating that such reports were made to me.
Because of that, I cannot always determine whether a person's silence reflects their own independent decision, professional caution, legal advice, concern about employment, or something else entirely.
That uncertainty is one of the reasons this page exists.
There is also a more personal reason why these outreach efforts matter to me.
Throughout my life and career, I have generally believed that people should speak for themselves whenever possible.
Not because it is always easy.
Not because it is always comfortable.
But because truth is usually best understood when people are allowed to explain their own experiences in their own words.
I recognize that life is rarely that simple.
People have jobs.
People have families.
People have professional obligations.
People have loyalties, friendships, and competing interests.
And sometimes people find themselves in situations where speaking openly may feel uncomfortable, inconvenient, or even risky.
I understand that.
In fact, one of the recurring themes throughout the events documented on this website is that many individuals may have found themselves in difficult positions, forced to balance personal beliefs, professional responsibilities, and relationships that were important to them.
That is not a criticism.
It is simply a reality of how organizations and human relationships often work.
For that reason, I have tried to approach these outreach efforts with empathy rather than judgment.
I recognize that some recipients may choose not to respond.
Others may feel unable to respond.
Others may prefer not to revisit events that occurred years ago.
I respect all of those decisions.
At the same time, I believe that people deserve the opportunity to make those decisions for themselves.
That is why I have made these efforts.
Not because I expect everyone to agree with me.
Not because I expect everyone to support me.
But because I believe that every person whose name appears in these events should have the opportunity to speak in their own voice if they choose.
Whether they exercise that opportunity is entirely up to them.
My responsibility is simply to make sure the opportunity exists.
There is another reason why some of these outreach efforts are particularly important to me.
At the center of many of the events documented on this website is an accusation that I strongly dispute: that I am racist.
It is also important to note something that makes these outreach efforts particularly meaningful to me.
The accusation that I am racist did not emerge from a long history of similar complaints.
It did not arise from a pattern of people making that claim about me throughout my career.
To the contrary, after decades of working with people from many different backgrounds, the only person I am aware of who has directly made that accusation against me is Mamee Groves.
Moreover, that accusation was made in open court.
Because of that, I believe it is fair to ask a simple question:
What do the people who actually worked with me think?
Not what someone heard secondhand.
Not what someone assumed.
Not what someone was told.
What do the people who worked beside me, worked for me, were promoted by me, managed alongside me, or interacted with me on a daily basis actually believe based upon their own experiences?
If there are people who genuinely believe I treated them unfairly because of their race, I want to hear that and understand why.
And if the people who know me best professionally believe something different, I believe those perspectives deserve to be heard as well.
That is one of the reasons many of these outreach efforts exist.
That accusation is serious.
It is personal.
And it is not something I take lightly.
Because of that, I have found myself asking a question that I believe is fair:
What do the people who actually worked with me think?
Not what someone heard from someone else.
Not what someone was told.
Not what someone assumed.
What do the people who worked beside me, reported to me, managed alongside me, or were promoted by me actually believe based on their own experiences?
Did they feel that I treated people fairly?
Did they feel that I created opportunities fairly?
Did they feel that race played a role in how I treated employees?
Or did they experience something different?
Those are questions that only they can answer.
And frankly, I want to know the answers.
Not because I expect everyone to agree with me.
Not because I expect everyone to defend me.
But because if someone genuinely believes that I treated them unfairly because of their race, I would want to understand why.
Conversely, if the people who worked directly with me believe that I treated employees based upon performance, effort, character, and contribution rather than race, I believe those perspectives deserve to be heard as well.
Throughout my career, I hired people from many different backgrounds.
I promoted people from many different backgrounds.
I mentored people from many different backgrounds.
My hiring and promotion history exists as an objective record and can be evaluated independently.
But statistics and records only tell part of the story.
People tell the rest.
That is one of the reasons these outreach efforts matter.
I am not simply asking people to comment on events.
In some cases, I am asking them a much more personal question:
Based on your own experiences, who do you believe I really was as a manager, leader, coworker, and human being?
The answer to that question belongs to them—not to me.
And that is precisely why I believe they should have the opportunity to answer it for themselves.
I also recognize another possibility.
If it is ultimately determined that individuals were instructed, encouraged, or pressured not to communicate regarding matters discussed on this website, some may view the resulting silence as evidence of a broader effort to protect reputations, institutions, or narratives.
Others may disagree and view such instructions as routine, prudent, or legally appropriate.
Reasonable people can reach different conclusions.
My own view is simpler.
When people with firsthand knowledge are discouraged from speaking openly, questions naturally arise.
Those questions do not automatically establish wrongdoing.
They do not automatically establish a cover-up.
But they do invite scrutiny.
Particularly where individuals who once communicated freely and voluntarily later become unwilling or unable to discuss the same events.
Why that occurs is a question that readers will have to consider for themselves.
I have my own opinions.
Others will have theirs.
My role is not to answer that question on their behalf.
My role is simply to document the facts as I understand them and allow readers to draw their own conclusions.
Many of the people contacted here are human beings first.
They are not case files.
They are not talking points.
They are not obstacles.
They are not simply representatives of a company position.
Many of them worked with me, spoke with me, trusted me, disagreed with me, succeeded with me, and in some cases reached out to me long after the events described on this website occurred.
For that reason, I believe they deserve the opportunity to speak for themselves.
Whether they choose to do so is entirely their decision.
And I will respect that decision.
At the same time, I believe it is fair to ask a question:
If someone possesses firsthand knowledge, personal experiences, or relevant information, should their voice be heard directly, or only through others?
Reasonable people may answer that question differently.
My answer is simple.
I would rather hear directly from the person themselves.
That is why these outreach efforts were made.
Not to pressure anyone.
Not to embarrass anyone.
Not to force participation.
But to create an opportunity for people to speak in their own words, if they choose.
If they respond, I will listen.
If they decline, I will respect that decision.
If they remain silent, I will respect that as well.
But the opportunity will have been provided, and the record will reflect that.
To further ensure transparency, copies or summaries of certain outreach efforts may be included on this page.
Where appropriate, responses may be published in full, summarized, or otherwise reflected in the record so that readers can evaluate them for themselves.
In situations where no response is received, I may simply note that an outreach was made and that no reply was received.
I also recognize that not every individual occupies the same position within these events.
For that reason, I reserve the right to redact names or identifying information where I believe doing so is fair, appropriate, or necessary, particularly where an individual appears to have been caught in the middle of broader circumstances rather than serving as a primary actor within them.
The purpose of this page is not to create collateral damage.
The purpose is to document the efforts made to provide an opportunity for comment and to preserve the record of those efforts.
As with the rest of this website, my objective is transparency, context, and accuracy—not punishment.
The purpose of this page is not to criticize anyone for remaining silent.
People are entitled to make their own decisions.
Nor is this page intended to pressure anyone into speaking.
Quite the opposite.
The purpose of this page is transparency.
If someone was offered an opportunity to respond, I want the record to reflect that opportunity.
If someone chose to respond, their response will be reflected here where appropriate.
If someone declined to respond, that fact may be noted as well.
And if no response was received, that too may become part of the record.
Readers can draw whatever conclusions they believe are appropriate.
My goal is not to speak for others.
My goal is to ensure that they were given the opportunity to speak for themselves.
— Jason Voit
White Flag Warrior
The preceding discussion explains why these outreach efforts were made.
The section below documents those efforts.
Where appropriate, copies of communications, requests for comment, responses, screenshots, and related materials are included so that readers can evaluate them for themselves.
Some recipients responded.
Some declined.
Some requested no further contact.
Others never replied at all.
The inclusion of an outreach effort should not be interpreted as evidence that a recipient engaged in wrongdoing. To the contrary, many individuals contacted here may have been witnesses, participants, bystanders, former colleagues, former friends, or people who simply possessed information relevant to understanding the broader timeline.
There is one additional observation I believe is worth making.
If someone contacted me and informed me that they intended to publicly discuss events in which I was involved, publish documents relating to those events, identify me by name, and provide me an opportunity to explain my role, correct inaccuracies, add context, or simply tell my side of the story, my instinct would be to respond.
That does not mean everyone should make the same choice.
People have their own reasons for remaining silent.
Some may wish to avoid controversy.
Some may wish to move on with their lives.
Some may feel they have nothing meaningful to add.
Others may have personal, professional, legal, or employment-related considerations that influence their decision.
All of those possibilities are real.
At the same time, I believe a reasonable question exists:
When serious allegations are being discussed, when names are appearing in a public timeline, and when an opportunity to speak is offered, why do some people choose not to respond?
I do not claim to know the answer.
In many cases, I cannot know the answer.
Some people may simply wish to move on.
Others may have been advised not to participate.
Others may fear becoming involved in something they would rather leave behind.
Still others may have reasons known only to themselves.
I recognize all of those possibilities.
What I can do is document the outreach, preserve the record, and allow readers to consider that question for themselves.
In certain circumstances, names or identifying details may be redacted where I believe doing so is fair and appropriate, particularly where an individual appears to have been caught in the middle of broader circumstances rather than serving as a primary actor within them.
My objective is not to create collateral damage.
My objective is transparency.
If an individual was offered an opportunity to comment before publication, I want the record to reflect that opportunity.
If they responded, their response may be included.
If they declined, that fact may be noted.
If no response was received, that too may become part of the record.
Readers can then review the communications and draw their own conclusions regarding what weight, if any, should be given to them.
The communications below are part of that record.
Wed, Apr 8, 10:53 PM
to Stephen Camp
Stephen,
I hope you are well.
I am writing to provide notice of actions I am taking in connection with the matters previously raised involving Invited.
As you are aware, I made multiple good-faith attempts over an extended period to engage in a direct and constructive discussion with Invited, including requests for a structured conversation with counsel present. Those efforts were either declined, delayed, or went without meaningful follow-up.
At all times, my objective has been consistent—to have a conversation in which I could present the information and documentation in my possession and attempt to resolve these issues directly. That opportunity was not afforded, despite repeated efforts on my part.
Following communications I received from outside counsel representing Invited in August 2024, I made the decision to voluntarily withdraw from arbitration. You are already in possession of those communications, including the correspondence dated August 15, August 26, and August 27, 2024.
Those communications were a significant factor in my decision to withdraw. As reflected in those exchanges, I was seeking a direct and controlled discussion to resolve these matters, while the responses I received introduced an adversarial posture at a very early stage—before an arbitrator had even been selected.
In particular, I note that:
Additionally, I was informed through counsel that dismissal and arbitration were expected to proceed on a defined timeline, despite my continued efforts to facilitate a direct discussion.
It is also my understanding that the attorney involved in those communications was no longer associated with the matter shortly thereafter. Regardless, the impact of those communications materially changed the trajectory of what could have otherwise remained a private resolution process.
Separately, based on my review of the record and related materials, I have concerns that certain actions taken in connection with these matters may have placed individuals—both within and outside the organization—in positions of potential legal exposure. This is one of the reasons I am proceeding with formal referrals to the appropriate authorities for independent review.
In the absence of any meaningful engagement following that point, I have continued to organize and review the substantial volume of documentation, communications, and records related to these events.
Based on that work, I will be proceeding with the following:
I also believe it is important to note that during court proceedings, statements were made on the record that raise serious questions for me. Specifically, certain information was referenced that appeared to originate from communications I understood to be confidential, while it was also stated that there had been no contact with Invited. I am continuing to review and organize those materials in context.
Additionally, while proceedings were initiated against me, those matters were ultimately resolved in my favor. I reference this only to underscore that my position has remained consistent throughout, and that my efforts have been focused on addressing these issues directly rather than escalating them.
This is not intended to be adversarial for its own sake. To the contrary, this outcome follows repeated good-faith efforts to resolve these matters directly, which were not accepted.
From my perspective, what occurred has had a significant and lasting impact on my life, my career, and my reputation. I remain disappointed in how these matters were handled and in the position it placed not only me, but others—both within and outside the organization.
My objective has been consistent from the beginning: to have these issues acknowledged and addressed in a meaningful way. I am proceeding as outlined above because prior opportunities to resolve this privately were declined.
For clarity, nothing in this communication is intended as a threat or demand. It is simply a professional courtesy to inform you of my next steps.
If Invited would like to engage in a good-faith discussion at any point, I remain open to that conversation.
You may contact me directly at:
Email: jasonvoitlegal@gmail.com
Phone: 610-938-4595
Website: whiteflagwarrior.com
Regards,
Jason Voit
Fri, Apr 10, 2:57 PM
to Stephen Camp
I am writing to provide Invited with an opportunity to comment prior to publication.
As noted in my prior correspondence, I intend to publish a website presenting my experiences along with supporting documentation and materials related to the matters previously raised. I also intend to submit materials to appropriate authorities for independent review.
Before doing so, I am offering Invited the opportunity to provide any statement, clarification, or position it wishes to have considered in connection with that publication.
If Invited would like to respond, please provide any such comment in writing no later than April 13, 2026 at 5:00 PM.
Absent a response by that time, I will proceed with publication.
This outreach is provided as a professional courtesy and is not intended to reopen prior discussions or negotiations.
All prior communications and materials referenced remain in your possession.
You may contact me directly at:
Email: jasonvoitlegal@gmail.com
Phone: 610-938-4595
Regards,
Jason Voit
Tue, Jun 9, 8:59 PM
to Stephen Camp
cc Theresa Addington
Mr. Camp,
I am supplementing my prior correspondence regarding the Suffolk County CAD / incident record relating to Hamlet Golf & Country Club in July 2023.
I have copied Ms. Addington on this supplemental notice because the CAD identifies her personally as the complainant. I understand that Ms. Addington previously instructed me to direct Invited-related communications through you after I raised potential legal claims against Invited. I am respecting that instruction by directing this correspondence to you, but I am copying her because the CAD identifies her personally, and the issues addressed below relate directly to her listed role in the law-enforcement record.
As stated in my prior correspondence, I obtained this information today, June 9, 2026. Until today, I was not aware that Ms. Addington was identified as the complainant.
I am formally placing Invited and Ms. Addington on notice that I intend to pursue all appropriate legal remedies based upon this newly discovered information and any additional information obtained through the Freedom of Information Law process or other lawful means.
I also want to specifically note two issues reflected in the CAD that are materially relevant:
First, the CAD states that the company was concerned because of an alleged “change in behavior.” Because Ms. Addington was not located at Hamlet and, to my knowledge, was not personally observing my conduct at the property, this raises a material question as to who provided that characterization to her, when it was provided, what specific behavior was described, and whether that information was based on first-hand observation or relayed through others.
Second, the CAD appears to reference my termination or anticipated termination on or about July 1, 2023, although I was not formally terminated until July 3, 2023. This raises a material question regarding who knew, as of July 1, that termination was planned or effectively decided, who communicated that information to law enforcement, and whether the law-enforcement report was connected to internal employment actions or decisions that had not yet been communicated to me.
Please ensure that all records identified in my prior preservation request are preserved, including but not limited to documents, communications, notes, emails, text messages, Teams messages, internal HR notes, legal department communications, investigative notes, witness communications, phone records, calendar entries, and communications with law enforcement relating to the CAD, the police report, the alleged “change in behavior,” my anticipated or actual termination, and the events of June and July 2023.
Nothing in this correspondence should be interpreted as harassment, intimidation, or an attempt to create improper contact with Ms. Addington. This is a formal pro se notice based on a law-enforcement record that identifies her as the complainant.
Please confirm receipt.
Respectfully,
Jason Voit
Wed, Jun 10, 11:49 AM
to Emily Decker, Stephen Camp
Ms. Decker and Mr. Camp:
I am writing to advise you that substantial additional evidence has come to light since 2023, and particularly throughout 2025 and 2026, concerning the circumstances surrounding my termination, the allegations made against me, the involvement of company personnel, and the legal proceedings that followed.
Most recently, on June 9, 2026, I obtained a Suffolk County CAD record that identifies Theresa Addington of Corporate Human Resources as a complainant regarding allegations made against me. To my knowledge, Ms. Addington was not present at Hamlet Golf & Country Club, had no firsthand knowledge of the events in question, and therefore could only have been acting upon information provided by others.
That record raises significant questions regarding the source, reliability, and verification of the information relied upon by both the company and law enforcement. Based upon the evidence presently available, it appears that decisions with life-altering consequences may have been made based largely upon information supplied by individuals who were adverse to me, including individuals whose motives, credibility, and involvement have since been called into question by sworn testimony, documentary evidence, recordings, and subsequent events.
It also raises the question of why no meaningful effort was made to understand information that I was attempting to bring forward regarding matters involving Joseph Vivona, or to consider my longstanding and well-documented history of conflict with Mamee Groves—a history that predated the allegations against me by years and was known to numerous witnesses—before allegations against me were accepted and acted upon.
To date, I am unaware of any meaningful effort to obtain information from individuals whose accounts may have contradicted or undermined the narrative being presented.
The CAD record is only one of many pieces of evidence obtained since 2023. The evidence presently in my possession also includes sworn testimony, court transcripts, recordings, public records, and other documentary evidence that were not previously available to me and which materially alter my understanding of the events in question and the individuals involved.
Among the issues that remain unresolved are:
• The existence and use of photographs that I contend were misrepresented, including photographs whose metadata raises serious questions regarding the timeline that was presented.
• Recorded communications involving Maurice Darbyshire, including statements that can be independently evaluated and which raise significant questions concerning the company's actions, motivations, and involvement in matters occurring after my employment ended.
• Threats and legal tactics employed by attorneys acting on behalf of company interests while the company simultaneously declined to address the underlying facts and evidence being presented.
• The role of corporate personnel who were not present firsthand yet became involved in reporting, decision-making, and communications concerning allegations made against me.
• Information concerning the origin and dissemination of allegations that were communicated to third parties but never presented to me for response, investigation, or verification.
• Evidence suggesting that company personnel may have continued to influence events and legal actions after my employment ended, including matters involving former employees and third parties.
• Court records, testimony, and procedural irregularities arising from the Virginia protective order proceedings, including issues relating to service, detention, representations made to the court, and the subsequent disposition of those proceedings.
• Communications involving individuals whose connection to the underlying events remains unclear, including communications that surfaced during litigation and which raise additional questions regarding coordination, knowledge, and involvement by persons both inside and outside the company.
• Statements, allegations, and characterizations advanced during legal proceedings that I contend were unsupported, misleading, inconsistent with the evidence, or contradicted by subsequent testimony and findings.
• The company's decision to support, fund, or otherwise facilitate legal actions pursued after the end of my employment, including proceedings in which serious allegations were advanced against me despite the existence of evidence and witnesses that called portions of those allegations into question.
For years I have repeatedly raised concerns regarding these issues and requested answers. Instead, I was met largely with silence while significant personal, professional, financial, and legal consequences continued to unfold.
Over the last three years, I have repeatedly attempted to bring these matters to the attention of the company, its leadership, its attorneys, and its owners. Those efforts have been met not with answers, but with silence, threats, and continued reliance upon narratives that the evidence now calls into question.
As you likely recall, my efforts were not limited to local management. I repeatedly attempted to bring my concerns to senior leadership, including the Chief Executive Officer and others within the organization. Those efforts produced little more than silence at the time. Yet communications that were treated as irrelevant then later surfaced in court proceedings and were referenced by Maurice Darbyshire in recorded conversations, creating a permanent record of both the warnings I attempted to provide and the company's knowledge of them.
My review is not limited to the events immediately surrounding my termination. As additional information has come to light, I have also begun reexamining the circumstances surrounding subsequent civil and criminal proceedings involving third parties and the extent, if any, to which company personnel may have influenced, encouraged, facilitated, or participated in those matters after my employment ended.
I believe the evidence now available supports substantial civil claims and may warrant criminal referrals concerning the conduct of certain individuals. I further believe that information material to these matters was withheld from me and has only recently come to light through court proceedings, public records requests, witness testimony, recordings, and independent investigation.
Accordingly, before proceeding further, I am providing Invited one final opportunity to discuss these matters and determine whether a resolution is possible.
To be clear, my objective is not and has never been to prolong this matter unnecessarily. My primary interest has always been understanding what occurred, ensuring that the relevant facts are known, and putting these events behind me. While any meaningful resolution would necessarily address the damages and consequences that have resulted from these events, my goal has never been to pursue litigation for its own sake.
Should Invited wish to engage, I am willing to participate in good-faith and confidential discussions, including mediation or another mutually agreeable process designed to explore resolution before additional filings, referrals, expense, and disruption become necessary. In my view, such discussions would be in the interests of all parties and would provide an opportunity to address matters that have remained unresolved for years.
Although I am presently proceeding pro se, I am prepared to retain counsel, as I have in the past, should Invited wish to engage in meaningful discussions regarding these matters. The company is well aware that I have been represented by experienced counsel throughout the various proceedings arising from these events and is equally aware of the ultimate outcomes of those proceedings.
Given your respective positions, I assume that both of you have access to information unavailable to me and are capable of independently evaluating the significance of the issues raised herein. I further assume that Invited possesses documents, communications, investigative materials, internal discussions, and other records that have not been disclosed to me and which may be highly relevant to the matters discussed in this correspondence.
If Invited wishes to have that discussion, please contact me within ten (10) business days of receipt of this correspondence.
If I do not receive a response within that timeframe, I will conclude that Invited has declined the opportunity and will proceed with all remedies, referrals, and actions I deem appropriate.
Nothing contained herein should be construed as a complete statement of facts, claims, evidence, damages, or legal theories, all of which are expressly reserved.
Sincerely,
Jason Voit
Tue, Jun 9, 8:50 PM
to Stephen Camp
Mr. Camp,
I am writing pro se regarding information I obtained today, June 9, 2026, from the Suffolk County CAD / incident record relating to Hamlet Golf & Country Club in July 2023.
The CAD identifies Theresa Addington as the complainant.
Until today, I was not aware that Ms. Addington was identified in that capacity. That fact is significant because I communicated with Ms. Addington and others at Invited many times after my termination in an effort to understand what had occurred, and at no point during those communications did I know that she was listed as the complainant in the underlying law-enforcement record.
I am not writing to accuse Ms. Addington or Invited of anything in this correspondence. I am writing to formally document that I have only now learned this information and to request preservation of records relating to the origin of the report, the information provided to law enforcement, and the internal communications that preceded or followed the report.
I also note a material timeline issue reflected in the CAD. The CAD appears to reference my termination or anticipated termination on or about July 1, 2023, even though I was not formally terminated until July 3, 2023. That discrepancy is significant because it raises questions regarding who knew, as of July 1, that termination was planned or effectively decided, who communicated that information to law enforcement, and whether the law-enforcement report was connected to internal employment actions or decisions that had not yet been communicated to me.
I am separately requesting, through the appropriate Freedom of Information Law process, records from Suffolk County relating to the CAD, including any available call recordings, call notes, dispatch records, and related communications.
Please forward this correspondence to Ms. Addington and/or any person at Invited responsible for preserving records relating to this matter.
To the extent Invited or Ms. Addington is willing to clarify the matter, I am seeking to understand:
Please preserve all documents, communications, notes, emails, text messages, electronically stored information, and any other records relating to this matter, including communications involving Invited, Hamlet Golf & Country Club, Theresa Addington, Joseph Vivona, Fadi Yako, Maurice Darbyshire, Mamee Groves, Stephen Camp, or any other person who discussed me, my termination, the CAD record, the police report, or the events of June and July 2023.
This preservation request includes, but is not limited to, emails, text messages, Teams messages, internal HR notes, legal department communications, investigative notes, witness communications, phone records, calendar entries, and any communications with law enforcement.
I am not asking Invited to accept my conclusions. I am documenting that the CAD identifies Ms. Addington as the complainant, that I only learned that fact today, and that the source of the information provided to law enforcement is now materially relevant.
Please confirm receipt and advise whether future correspondence regarding this issue should be directed to a specific attorney, representative, or custodian of records.
Respectfully,
Jason Voit
Sat, May 30, 3:02 PM
to Patrick Ellis
Patrick,
I hope you are well.
I am writing to you as a professional courtesy before publishing additional materials relating to events that I have been documenting over the last several years.
This is not a demand, accusation, threat, or request for legal action. Rather, it is an opportunity for you to provide context, clarification, or comment regarding information that I intend to publish and that, in my view, raises questions that I have been unable to answer despite attempting to do so directly.
As you know, during the February 6, 2025 protective order hearing involving Mamee Groves, evidence was displayed in open court from Ms. Groves' cellular phone.
While that evidence was being displayed, incoming text notifications appeared on the screen from "Heather Karaszkiewicz Ellis."
The appearance of those notifications immediately caught my attention because, to my knowledge, Heather was never employed by Invited Clubs and had no known professional relationship with Ms. Groves. At the time, Ms. Groves was adverse to me in ongoing legal proceedings and, according to her testimony, had resigned from Invited approximately nine months earlier.
As a result, I found the communication unusual and sought clarification.
Attached are screenshots reflecting the incoming text notifications from Heather Karaszkiewicz Ellis that appeared on Ms. Groves' phone while that phone was being displayed in open court on February 6, 2025.
These screenshots include the visible date and timestamp and form the basis of the questions outlined below.
Following the hearing, I attempted to obtain clarification directly regarding the nature of the communications. I was unable to obtain an explanation, which is one of the reasons I am reaching out to you now.
To be clear, I am not asserting that you, Heather, or anyone else engaged in wrongdoing.
I am not claiming that communication between Heather and Ms. Groves proves anything.
Nor do I presume to know the content of those communications.
I also want to make something else very clear.
Neither you nor Heather are the focus of what I am documenting.
The primary purpose of WhiteFlagWarrior.com is to document and examine what I believe occurred during and after my employment with Invited Clubs, including what I contend were actions that caused substantial personal, professional, financial, and psychological harm.
My objective is to hold Invited Clubs accountable for what I believe were serious misdeeds directed toward me and to provide a factual record of the events that led me to that conclusion.
The purpose of this outreach is not to accuse either of you of wrongdoing, nor is it my objective to create unnecessary issues for you or your family.
Rather, your names became relevant because Heather's communications with Ms. Groves appeared in open court and therefore became part of a factual timeline that I am attempting to understand and document accurately.
Had those communications never appeared on the screen in court, I likely would have had no reason to ask these questions at all.
Because they did appear, and because my subsequent efforts to obtain clarification were unsuccessful, I am left with questions that I believe are reasonable to ask before publication.
If there is a simple explanation, I am more than willing to hear it and include that context in any materials that reference these events.
My goal is not to create a story involving you. My goal is to understand whether there is one.
Part of the reason these communications stood out to me is that, during my employment with Invited, I was aware of what appeared to be a strained and, at times, adversarial relationship between you and Ms. Groves.
In addition, I possess prior communications between you and me in which Ms. Groves was discussed in terms that did not suggest a particularly close relationship.
For that reason, seeing Heather's name appear on Ms. Groves' phone during active litigation involving me raised additional questions in my mind that I have never been able to satisfactorily answer.
That does not mean there is anything improper about the communication.
It simply means that, given the surrounding circumstances and my prior understanding of the relationships involved, I found it unusual enough to seek clarification.
Accordingly, before publication, I would like to offer you the opportunity to provide any explanation, context, or clarification that you believe would be helpful.
Among the questions that naturally arise are:
• What was the nature of Heather's relationship, if any, with Ms. Groves?
• Why was Heather communicating with Ms. Groves during this period?
• Were you aware of those communications?
• Did those communications have anything whatsoever to do with me, the litigation, Invited Clubs, or matters related to my termination?
• Is there an innocent explanation for these communications that I may not be aware of?
I am genuinely open to hearing whatever explanation you believe is appropriate.
As you may know, I am in the process of expanding WhiteFlagWarrior.com, which documents my experiences, opinions, supporting materials, court records, and chronology relating primarily to Invited Clubs and related events.
Because these screenshots are now part of that chronology, I believe fairness requires that you be given an opportunity to comment before publication.
For additional context, I have previously provided notice to Invited Clubs and its counsel regarding many of the matters that form the basis of WhiteFlagWarrior.com.
Those parties are aware that I have been documenting these events, preserving records, and preparing additional materials for publication. I have also provided opportunities for discussion, clarification, and response regarding numerous aspects of the underlying timeline.
To date, I have not received any substantive response addressing many of the issues I have raised.
Because Invited and its representatives have already been afforded that opportunity, I believe it is only fair to extend the same courtesy to individuals whose names or circumstances arise independently from the underlying record.
That is the purpose of this outreach.
I would much rather include an explanation than simply note that a question was asked and no answer was provided.
If you would like to provide a statement, explanation, correction, clarification, or simply indicate that you decline to comment, I will consider that response before publication.
I intend to allow five (5) business days from receipt of this email for any response.
If I do not hear from you, I will simply note that I provided an opportunity for comment and received no response.
Any communication provided in good faith will be treated confidentially to the fullest extent reasonably possible. My objective is to understand the facts and ensure that people have an opportunity to tell their side of the story before materials become public.
I appreciate your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Jason Voit
610-938-4595
WhiteFlagWarrior.com
May 30, 2026, 5:45 PM
to Melvin Romero
Melvin,
I hope you are doing well.
It has been some time since we worked together at The Hamlet, but I wanted to reach out to you before publishing additional materials relating to events involving Invited Clubs and my experiences following my termination.
This is not an accusation, demand, threat, or request for legal action. Rather, it is an opportunity for you to provide any perspective, clarification, or comment you may wish to share regarding matters in which your name or experiences may be referenced within a broader chronology I am documenting.
To be clear, you are not the focus of what I am publishing.
The focus remains Invited Clubs and what I contend occurred during and after my employment there.
However, because we worked together closely, because I promoted you into a leadership position during my tenure at Hamlet, and because you were present during periods that are relevant to the chronology I am documenting, I believe fairness requires that I provide you an opportunity to comment before publication.
One subject I would appreciate your perspective on relates to accusations that were later made against me, including being labeled racist.
Because you worked directly with me, because I promoted you into a leadership role, and because you had firsthand experience with my management style and decision-making, I would welcome your honest assessment.
Specifically:
• Did you ever observe me treat you differently because of your race or ethnicity?
• Did you ever hear me make racist remarks?
• Did you ever believe I was racist?
• Did you ever feel that I treated you unfairly because you are Hispanic?
• Did you ever believe that race or ethnicity played any role in my decisions regarding your employment, promotion, opportunities, or responsibilities?
If your answer to any of those questions is yes, I would genuinely like to understand why.
If your answer is no, that perspective is important as well.
I am not asking you to take sides.
I am simply interested in hearing the honest perspective of someone who worked directly with me.
There is another subject on which I would welcome any comments you may wish to provide.
As I understand it, you were present at Hamlet during periods in 2022 when Mamee Groves was involved with club operations and employee interactions.
If you have any recollections regarding Ms. Groves' interactions with employees, treatment of staff, comments she made, workplace conduct, or other events that you believe are relevant, you are welcome to share them.
Likewise, if you do not wish to comment on those matters, I completely understand.
I am not attempting to gather evidence or persuade you to adopt any particular position.
Rather, because your experiences are your own, I believe you should have the opportunity to share them if you choose to do so.
There is one additional subject on which I would welcome any comments you may wish to provide.
As you know, Joseph Vivona was also present at Hamlet during portions of my tenure there and has become part of the broader chronology I am documenting.
Without asking you to draw conclusions, speculate, or take a position regarding any disputes, I would welcome any recollections you may have regarding interactions, events, conversations, workplace dynamics, or observations involving Mr. Vivona that you believe are relevant.
In particular, if there are circumstances involving me, Mr. Vivona, management decisions, workplace conduct, or events occurring during my tenure that stand out in your memory, you are welcome to share them.
Likewise, if you have no comments regarding Mr. Vivona or do not wish to discuss those matters, I completely understand.
As with the other questions in this letter, I am interested only in your own experiences, observations, and recollections.
As you may know, I am in the process of expanding WhiteFlagWarrior.com, which documents my experiences, opinions, supporting materials, court records, and chronology relating primarily to Invited Clubs and related events.
For additional context, Invited Clubs and its counsel have already been provided notice regarding many of the matters that form the basis of the website and have been afforded opportunities to respond.
Because your name and experiences may be referenced within the broader chronology, I believe it is only fair to extend the same opportunity to you.
If you would like to provide any comments, clarification, corrections, or simply indicate that you do not wish to participate, I will respect that decision.
One final point.
If, at any time, you were instructed, encouraged, suggested, or requested not to communicate with me, I would be interested in understanding that as well, including who made such a request and under what circumstances.
Likewise, if you have never received any such instruction, that information would be helpful too.
Given that these questions relate to your own experiences and observations, I would appreciate it if you would take a few moments to consider them personally before discussing them with anyone else.
I am not asking you to withhold this communication from anyone, nor am I asking you to disregard any obligations you may have to your employer or anyone else.
Rather, I am simply interested in your own recollection, perspective, and experiences.
Of course, if you believe you should not communicate with me, or have been instructed not to do so, I understand and will respect that decision.
I intend to allow five (5) business days for any response.
If I do not hear from you, I will simply note that I provided an opportunity for comment and received no response.
Any response provided in good faith will be treated confidentially to the fullest extent reasonably possible.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Jason Voit
610-938-4595
WhiteFlagWarrior.com
By selecting “Accept & Continue,” or by continuing to use this website, you acknowledge that you have read, understand, and agree to the Legal Notice, Disclaimer, and Terms of Use governing this website. You understand that the content presented includes opinion, interpretation, and documented material, and you assume full responsibility for your use of this site and any conclusions drawn from its contents.
This site also uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience and to record site interactions. By continuing, you consent to the use of such technologies in accordance with this notice.