While Kay Frank is away, tending to the burial arrangements of her recently passed, 92-year-old, WWII Veteran (B-17 crew member) father, the “little guy” exploits this time of Kay’s intense emotional stress to take yet another cheap shot.   He wrote:

“Nevada Revised Statute 116, which includes reference to removal-election petitions and removal elections, contains no limitations on the methods that may be employed to collect petition signatures, so it would appear that the signature gatherers are operating within their rights, assuming they are residents, in using the online address book for this purpose.

It is definitely not analogous to the situation of a couple of years ago when resident Kay Frank improperly advised a Board candidate on how his non-resident consultant could gain access to the website by pretending to be the candidate’s wife.“

That has always been a willfully false/distorted claim of concern to no one but the little guy.  Kay Frank was never accused by the board of any violations, or subjected to a kangaroo court.  History proves that if the board could have charged her with some violations, they would have.  “Innocent until proven guilty” means nothing to the disgraced, former attorney.

So, why does the little guy continue to repeat such evil claims–particularly during a period of great emotional stress?  Is  knowingly repeating a clearly false claim for the purpose of damaging a person’s ethical reputation a classic case of defamation–or just another cheap shot?