A SECOND LOOK!!!!!!!

I had sort of taken a respite from this and the other day as I was going to work I looked over at one of my living room chairs and there was a stack of papers dedicated to my story on Finley's that has laid right there for months now. It is time to pick it up and move on. I took care of my obligations to my clients and then in the free time I had for 3+ hours I went someplace shady, outdoors, and with a breeze on me for comfort, not to mention the singing of birds all around, the smell of fresh cut grass near in the neighborhood. Yes God is good to allow us such important and free enjoyments. A bird's song is medicine to my soul. My stack of papers were probably 6-8 inches thick stacked. I had made a lot of extra copies and now with the internet, I culled out and got rid of the extra copies, which reduced the papers left, still a sizeable amount of documents. On another day I focused on the TWO "ORDERS OF PROTECTION" that had been filed against me at NO COST to the two individuals that filed them. They were RANDALL KIM LITTLE & LONNIE JOE McFADDEN. It had to have been embarrassing for both of them to do this. I really took time this time and studied the "ORDERS OF PROTECTION". As I read the orders I see that these types of filings are usually abuse cases that women file against husbands or boyfriends.

Mr. RANDALL KIM LITTLE is a man of 53 years of age as I write. LONNIE JOE McFADDEN is a man of 54 years. Both are in reasonably good health. Mr. Little is the Engineering manager of the Independent Telephone Department at Finley Engineering Co., Inc. in Lamar, Mo. Lonnie Joe McFadden is the present office manager. Both seem to be in a tight hug around each other in this thing they have brought about.

I notice in the form they had to fill out that some of the questions reflect what the intent of the orders are; I am the Respondent and they are the Petitioners.

Petitioners relationship to Respondent?

Spouse------Unmarried with child(ren) in common----------Ex-spouse---------Unmarried, Intimate Residing/Resided together-----------Related by blood/Marriage--------------Other=

Well I think this definitely fell under other and even that is odd.

Item #4. Respondent and I--------Then Mr. Little finishes with one of the options which reads (have no relationship other than Respondent has "stalked"me.

Under the definition of stalking I think I can safely say that I DID NOT stalk anyone, nor would I want to waste the time to do such foolishness.

Item #8. Respondent has knowingly and intentionally: and then Mr. Little finishes with the choices of -------"stalked me and harrassed me".

Item # 8. This reads: Respondent has knowingly and intentionally: Stalked me and harrassed me by the following acts.

In his own typing Intimidating phone message on home answering machine after driving past residence on February 28th, 2006. Well it's true that I did leave a message, and in this case I shouldn't have as I am not an employee of Finley's anymore (thanks to Mr. Little). If he abuses the company by being home, when the people at the office only know that he checked out to the field for the afternoon, it really isn't any of my business anymore but I just hate to think no one realizes this. If he wasn't home then why does he state I drove by his house. If he wasn't home he couldn't have known. If he was home why didn't he answer the phone? Didn't want to be found is my guess.

Item #9. I am afraid of Respondent, (THAT HAD TO BE DIFFICULT AND EMBARRASSING TO SIGN YOUR NAME TO) and there is an immediate and present danger of abuse or stalking of me because: in his own typing----of numerous email messages, letters, and attempted phone contact at work and/or home.

LONNIE JOE McFADDEN'S orders of protection read pretty much the same until you get to Item # 9. I am afraid of Respondent, (HAD TO BE DIFFICULT AND EMBARRASSING TO SIGN YOUR NAME TO) and there is an immediate and present danger of abuse or stalking of me because: in his own typing-------Mr. Vincent has continued to make unsolicited and unwanted contact with me since his termination from Finley on 10/31/2002. The tone of his letters has become more aggressive as he recently indicated he intended to create an event that would bring notariety to his termination.

He also added an Exhibit page which reads:



1/15/2003 Mr. Vincent, by his own admission, had a third party call me under the pretense of hiring Mr. Vincent for a telcom company. The conversation was recorded without my knowledge and submitted to me at a later date. My response to this is that I wondered what was being said by Finley's if a prospective employer did call them concerning me. It was reasonable to make an action to find out and with the help of a very dear friend that is exactly what happened. At some point I hope to provide an audio of that interview as well as the same person interviewing Charles Orrell. In the end I was pleased with the outcome as Mr. McFadden was actually beneficial to me with his responses and Mr. Orrell as well. It was not Mr. McFaddens intention to be helpful, but that is how it came out anyway. Basically what you hear in the interview is that it seems the reason mostly that I was forced out of my job was that "I didn't fit quite as well in that other department". No consulting with me or sitting down to a discussion, or anything------just hit the road Jack, and don't ya come back no more, no more. Hit the road Jack and don't ya come back no more-----after nearly 24 yrs. of employment. Like Russell Johnston said , "It is a shame they let you go for no more reason than, YOU DIDN'T FIT IN THEIR CLIQUE." You can listen to Mr. McFadden in all his stammering around and nervousness which is there from beginning to end. Stumbling around though has always been, I mean't stammering around has always been something Lonnie does. He isn't exactly a stranger too me. He should have gotten an "A" for stammering.

2/17/2003 Vincent came to my office to complain about termination, four months after the fact. I came to the office to find out exactly why, and without question, why I was forced out of my job. I never really got an answer but he mentions a tape I made in Tennessee and a letter I sent to Mark Ogle, and that I couldn't have been places reflected on my logs. I would challenge him on any of those things. I did make a tape in Tennessee and I offer no apologies for it. I did send a letter to Mark Ogle and i DEFINITELY do not apologize for that. I did not lie on my logs and challenge anyone at Finley's to attempt to prove that I did.



2/28/2003 Sent a letter to my office in Lamar complaining about the way he had been terminated ending the letter with this statement, "you have made a very grave and unforgiveable error." Yes I did send a letter and it was packed with a challenge for them to prove any accusations they might have against me and yes, after nearly 24 yrs. of my life at Finley's, in my opinion the people responsible for forcing me out of my job without just cause, or any reasonable cause," did make a very grave and unforgiveable error. "



Fall 2005 Mr. Vincent placed a package on the door of my business in nevada and then came back during business hours to discuss with my assistant, his termination. She became upset and asked him to leave and then called me. I filed a complaint with the Nevada Police and they took a statement from her advising her to call if he came back. I did place a package at the door of Mr. McFadden's business and it was my intent to make people aware of what had taken place and to protest it. I left it during hours that the business was closed and so no one was there. I came back after they opened to make sure someone got the package and that a stranger had not come by and walked off with it as it was outside.
I did not discuss, or attempt to discuss anything with the lady that was inside. She was inspecting the package at the time of my arrival. She did seem somewhat shocked and beside herself at my presence but she never asked me to leave at all. I told her I simply wanted to insure that they received it. At that point I left. Mr. McFadden's account is incorrect and I have just given the facts as they really were.



12/22/2005 A package was mailed to my home at 111 NW 10th Road, Lamar, Mo. addressed to my wife, Cindy, from Mr. Vincent. He advised her he intended to make his termination a matter of public knowledge and wanted to give her a warning in advance of his impending actions.
Many times women care more than men about what's right and what's not. I had hoped by sending the information I did to Lonnies wife that she might take an interest in the wrongness of it, or at least question the brutality of it. I let her know that I felt this event which was so unfairly put upon me deserved to made public for people to have the chance to know of it. Well this post is another peice of the pie.