Ongoing Developments - June 2026

---

One question I am frequently asked is simple:

"If you have been working on this for years, why is the website still changing?"

The answer is equally simple:

Because I am still discovering new information.

Many of the events documented throughout this website occurred years ago.

Yet new facts continue to emerge.

New witnesses continue to come forward.

New documents continue to be located.

New records continue to be obtained.

And in some instances, information that I did not know existed has fundamentally changed my understanding of events that I believed I already understood.

A recent example occurred on June 9, 2026, when I learned information that I consider highly significant and that caused me to revisit portions of this story once again.

Additional discoveries have followed.

More may still come.

For that reason, this website should not be viewed as a finished product.

It is a living record.

As additional information becomes available, it will be evaluated, documented where appropriate, and incorporated into the timeline.

Some discoveries may reinforce conclusions I have already reached.

Others may challenge them.

I am prepared for both possibilities.

That is the nature of following facts wherever they lead.

It is also important to understand what these ongoing discoveries do—and do not—mean.

The emergence of new information does not automatically invalidate earlier information.

Nor does it mean that previously documented events are somehow less important.

To the contrary, most of the new information I continue to discover tends to add context rather than replace it.

It fills gaps.

It explains timing.

It identifies relationships that were previously unknown.

It provides additional perspective regarding decisions, actions, and events that had already been documented.

In many instances, the underlying facts remain exactly the same.

What changes is the ability to understand those facts within a larger context.

A witness statement may explain a decision that previously made little sense.

A newly obtained document may identify a source that was previously unknown.

A communication may reveal a connection that was hidden from view at the time.

The event itself has not changed.

The understanding of the event has evolved.

That is the difference.

For that reason, readers should not view ongoing updates as corrections to a changing story.

Rather, they should be viewed as additions to an expanding factual record.

If anything, many of the discoveries made after the fact have caused me to revisit earlier events and recognize connections that I did not appreciate when I first encountered them.

New information opens new avenues of inquiry.

It raises new questions.

It occasionally provides new answers.

And sometimes it shines additional light on events that were already known but not yet fully understood.

That is why the website continues to evolve.

Not because the story keeps changing.

But because the picture keeps becoming clearer.

Many people have asked why I do not simply resolve these matters through civil litigation.

The reality is more complicated than that.

Civil litigation requires resources, attorneys, and circumstances that are often difficult to obtain, particularly when the allegations involve large organizations, multiple jurisdictions, numerous witnesses, and events spanning several years.

That does not mean those options have not been pursued.

They have.

Nor does it mean those options are foreclosed.

They are not.

But while those efforts continue, I have chosen to document the facts as I understand them and continue examining information as it becomes available.

I also want readers to understand something important.

This website is not being updated because I enjoy conflict.

Quite the opposite.

If concerns had been addressed honestly years ago, much of what appears here likely would not exist.

If questions had been answered, if complaints had been investigated in good faith, if mistakes had been acknowledged, or if accountability had been taken where appropriate, there would be far less left to discuss.

Instead, many questions remained unanswered.

And new information continues to emerge.

At the time of this writing, I am still gathering information.

I am still reviewing documents.

I am still receiving communications.

I am still pursuing records requests.

I am still evaluating witness accounts.

And I am still attempting to determine what actually occurred.

That process will continue until one of several things happens:

The facts are exhausted.

The issues are resolved.

Formal legal proceedings require a different course of action.

A settlement or other resolution is reached.

Or circumstances otherwise make further public discussion inappropriate.

Until then, updates may continue to appear here.

Not because the story keeps changing.

But because the factual record continues to grow.

The video below reflects my current thoughts regarding one such development and explains why certain recent discoveries may prove significant to understanding the larger story.

One of the recurring themes throughout this website is that many of the most significant discoveries were not made in 2023.

They were made years later.

This update concerns one of those discoveries.

On June 9, 2026, I received records that contained information I had never previously seen.

Among those records was information that caused me to revisit the events surrounding my termination, the involvement of certain individuals, and the narrative that was ultimately presented to law enforcement and others.

The discovery did not change the underlying timeline.

It did not erase prior facts.

It did not invalidate earlier conclusions.

What it did do was provide additional context and raise new questions regarding motive, source information, timing, and the roles played by individuals who were involved in the events of June and July 2023.

In particular, it raised a question that I believe deserves an answer:

How did concerns that had apparently gone unaddressed for months suddenly become urgent at precisely the moment they did?

The video below explains why I believe that question matters and why a recently discovered record may provide an important piece of the puzzle.

As always, readers should distinguish between documented facts, testimony, records, witness statements, and my own opinions and conclusions.

The video reflects my personal interpretation of the information presently available to me.

The screenshots below are excerpts from text message conversations I received on September 27 and September 28, 2023, less than three months after the events of July 1, 2023.

These messages were sent by two of the three individuals who were involved in the firearm-related complaint that ultimately led to police involvement and my termination. Notably, none of these communications came from Joseph Vivona.

I am publishing these messages because I believe they provide important context regarding how at least some of the individuals involved viewed the events after the fact.

Readers can draw their own conclusions, but what stands out to me is that these messages do not describe someone expressing fear of me, concern over a dramatic change in behavior, or a belief that I posed a danger to others.

Instead, the messages contain repeated statements expressing reluctance to become involved, regret regarding how events unfolded, assertions that participation was encouraged or pressured by others, and statements that the individuals wished they had handled the situation differently.

One individual specifically stated that he did not want to be involved, that he felt pressured into participation, and that he remained troubled by what occurred. Another stated that he was the "third man involved," that he wanted no part of what happened, and that he was simply trying to protect himself and his family while navigating a difficult situation.

Another aspect of these communications that I believe is significant is the repeated willingness of one individual to testify under oath. In the messages below, he states more than once that if he were called to court, he would "be happy to go tell the truth" and later reiterated that he would "come and tell the truth."

Whether one agrees with his perspective or not, those statements are notable because they do not read like the words of someone attempting to distance himself from the events or hide from scrutiny. Rather, they suggest a person who believed there was a truth to be told and who, at least at that time, was willing to tell it publicly if asked.

I recognize that these are personal communications and that they reflect only the views of the individuals who sent them. They do not establish every fact, nor do they answer every question.

What they do provide is a contemporaneous glimpse into how two participants viewed the events shortly after they occurred.

For me, these communications raise several obvious questions.

If the narrative being presented in July 2023 was that there had been a serious and alarming change in my behavior, why do these messages repeatedly focus on reluctance, pressure, regret, shame, and a desire not to be involved?

Why do they describe participation as something that was encouraged by others rather than something they independently sought out?

Why does one individual specifically state that he did not want to call the police, that he was convinced not to contact me directly, and that he felt pressured into the process?

And why, only weeks after these events, were multiple participants expressing a willingness to "tell the truth" if called upon to do so?

I do not claim that these messages answer those questions.

I do believe they raise them.

Readers are encouraged to review the communications below and decide for themselves what significance, if any, they believe these statements should carry.

Throughout this website, readers will occasionally encounter references to a member named Randy Marino.

Because his name appears in several places, I believe it is important to explain why.

The events involving Mr. Marino occurred in June 2023, just weeks before my termination. Standing alone, they might appear unrelated to the broader story documented throughout this site.

I do not believe they are.

The incident forced me to make one of the most difficult leadership decisions of my career. After conducting an investigation involving multiple witnesses, reviewing available evidence, and interviewing those involved, I made the decision to permanently terminate Mr. Marino's membership at The Hamlet Golf & Country Club.

The decision was not based on a personal disagreement.

It was based on what I believed to be unacceptable conduct, including allegations of racial and anti-gay slurs directed toward members of my staff.

At the time, I was praised by company leadership for taking a firm stand. I was specifically told that I had handled the matter correctly and that my actions represented the type of leadership the company expected from its General Managers.

Yet shortly thereafter, the situation changed.

Pressure began to mount.

Questions began to arise.

Relationships shifted.

And people who had previously supported the decision appeared to view it differently.

More importantly, the fallout from the Marino incident intersects with several other events that would later become central to this story, including my deteriorating relationship with company leadership, my growing concerns regarding Joseph Vivona, and actions that occurred in the weeks immediately preceding my termination.

The video below explains the incident, why I believed the decision was necessary, and why I continue to view it as an important piece of the larger timeline.

Readers can decide for themselves whether the events that followed were merely coincidence—or whether this incident marked the beginning of a much larger chain of events.