Tweet
Original posting withdrawn for more research
OK. I had it mostly right as Joel suggests. The original posting is in red. Some new thoughts are in blue
Bruce my friend. I must respectfully disagree that the problem is communication. The present board and its hireling/officer have communicated only too well that "their" business is NOT the members' business and that what the board and its hireling want is of no concern to you or the other plebeians/unwashed/members.
As to a litigation update the appellate court has ruled that no stay of discovery will be granted. The frivolous defense mounted by the Registry has served only to generate needless expense and to obstruct and delay the orderly administration of justice. Steve H should also now be able to obtain the necessary proof to put to rest the frivolous countersuit filed by the trustees. Do not forget that. They have filed a frivolous countesuit against Steve. Frivolous unless, as Steve must, you must pay for it with your own money with the Registry being funded by an insurance company or by insurance companies as seems likely. If not funded by insurance, then the Registry's spurious claims are being funded by members' money.
My bias is evident and admitted. However, four non-biased judges have now indicated their considered disagreement with the trustees' position. Although some of the board obviously seldom if ever permits facts to interfere with opinion, perhaps the more thoughtful (if there are any) board members would listen to a respected member who would have the good sense to tell them that they might lose. I'm sure their lawyers have told them they might lose - that's the lawyers' job. Sometimes parties to litigation figure out, without the matter going to judgment, that their position is not sustainable and relent. For the sake of all I hope that happens.
http://fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/CaseInformationOnline/caseSearch?pt0UrCKFwtQRaQQJoAzg is a link to the appeals court information page - I HOPE it works
There was opposition (and a reply) to a motion for stay in the trial court but in my third review today I could not find the motion itself. I have not seen a ruling on that and now assume that there is no ruling in the trial court because there was no motion in the trial court.
So, it looks like, at the moment anyway, Steve is entitled to the discovery he requested half a year ago. I expect the trustees to hold their breath and stamp their feet some more.
OK. I had it mostly right as Joel suggests. The original posting is in red. Some new thoughts are in blue
Bruce my friend. I must respectfully disagree that the problem is communication. The present board and its hireling/officer have communicated only too well that "their" business is NOT the members' business and that what the board and its hireling want is of no concern to you or the other plebeians/unwashed/members.
As to a litigation update the appellate court has ruled that no stay of discovery will be granted. The frivolous defense mounted by the Registry has served only to generate needless expense and to obstruct and delay the orderly administration of justice. Steve H should also now be able to obtain the necessary proof to put to rest the frivolous countersuit filed by the trustees. Do not forget that. They have filed a frivolous countesuit against Steve. Frivolous unless, as Steve must, you must pay for it with your own money with the Registry being funded by an insurance company or by insurance companies as seems likely. If not funded by insurance, then the Registry's spurious claims are being funded by members' money.
My bias is evident and admitted. However, four non-biased judges have now indicated their considered disagreement with the trustees' position. Although some of the board obviously seldom if ever permits facts to interfere with opinion, perhaps the more thoughtful (if there are any) board members would listen to a respected member who would have the good sense to tell them that they might lose. I'm sure their lawyers have told them they might lose - that's the lawyers' job. Sometimes parties to litigation figure out, without the matter going to judgment, that their position is not sustainable and relent. For the sake of all I hope that happens.
http://fcdcfcjs.co.franklin.oh.us/CaseInformationOnline/caseSearch?pt0UrCKFwtQRaQQJoAzg is a link to the appeals court information page - I HOPE it works
There was opposition (and a reply) to a motion for stay in the trial court but in my third review today I could not find the motion itself. I have not seen a ruling on that and now assume that there is no ruling in the trial court because there was no motion in the trial court.
So, it looks like, at the moment anyway, Steve is entitled to the discovery he requested half a year ago. I expect the trustees to hold their breath and stamp their feet some more.
Comment