Embezzlement?!

By Gretchen Garrity

A lawsuit filed last September by former library board attorney Harry Styron was referenced at the Feb. 25, 2025 Christian County Library Board of Trustees meeting.

It was voted to table the preceding agenda item pertaining to removing the library district as a plaintiff from the lawsuit. This passed without any conflict. It was the next agenda item, “Fees from John Spurlock in Defense of the Lawsuit from Janis Hagen” that caused a stir. The exchange begins at around the 1:18:50 minute mark:

Remember, the issue that precipitated the Sept. 23, 2024 lawsuit was the vote of officer elections that happened at the Aug. 27, 2024 library meeting. In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs (!) are claiming a violation of the Sunshine Law, as well as a violation of the the library board’s own bylaws. Background HERE.

The lawsuit Mr. Styron filed, naming both the library district and Janis Hagen as plaintiffs against the majority board members who voted to remove Allyson Tuckness as president, was authorized without board deliberation or vote. However, only one board member is named as a plaintiff—Janis Hagen, and she indicated that her lawsuit is a “personal issue” between herself and the defendants that “has nothing to do with the library.” 

 

From: Styron and Shilling

 

 EMBEZZLEMENT ACCUSATIONS

Hagen also claims the lawsuit has nothing to do with the use of library funds “and [it] would be considered embezzlement and breaking the law” to pay the board members' legal fees incurred by the lawsuit.

Hagen tries to make the argument that the defendants are being sued as individuals and not as board members. Trustee Brazeale (an attorney) countered that the three board members were sued in their capacity as board members and not as individuals.

It appears that Hagen (and perhaps Interim Director Dana Roberts who chimes in) have been coached to suggest the possible embezzlement charges. They most likely would not have come up with this type of argument on their own. Would it be too far fetched to think that another lawsuit is being planned?

This type of potential lawfare dovetails with the public doxxing that is going on against the three board members. Interesting. File lawsuits that have shock value in the public's view to drive a narrative. These things are done to defame and ruin reputations and are easily recognized as a widely used tactic of the Left.

In the video of the meeting, you can see that Hagen claims she never spoke individually about the lawsuit to attorney Styron until he had left his position as board attorney (Nov. 21, 2024). She stated, “I individually talked to Harry after he had resigned as the representative for the library.” If not individually, did she speak together with Mr. Styron and trustee Allyson Tuckness in August/September and agree to be the plaintiff in the lawsuit?

It seems strange that she did not individually consult with Attorney Styron from late August to late November when Mr. Styron ceased to work for the library district. If that is the case, how did the lawsuit come about on Sept. 23, 2024 with Hagen as a plaintiff if she was not consulting with him during that time? It doesn’t make sense.

But maybe the only sense that needs to be made is the public ruination of the three defendants’ reputations via lawsuits and doxxing.