Tweet
You're welcome Jack. As a recovering (well, sort of) lawyer, I frequently reflect upon the fact that the happiest days of my life included that period of time when I worked at Gary's Chevron for $1.50 per hour doing tuneups, lubes and brakes, etc.
The "if he were a member" quote from page 5 of the trial court's order is part of that court's summation of the Registry's argument, which argument was rejected. Here's the link for those who missed it: http://tinyurl.com/mlb36qj
In my opinion the statute in dispute gives members the right to examine the records for a reasonable and proper purpose (I am paraphrasing section 1702.15 of Ohio Revised Statutes). Although the court did not decide except by implication (and had no need to directly decide) the question of whether members have the right to copy records, I have no idea how anyone could conduct a meaningful examination without having time to review copies and I can conceive of no cogent argument for why copying is not a reasonable and proper purpose. My own effort more than 3 years ago to review records met with the same specious argument from the trustees. I was to have a seance with the treasurer in the presence of the books as opposed to copying them and actually having an opportunity to review them. To paraphrase CJ Murray "rumor has it that eleven judges have now laughed at that argument." Finding out what our "leaders" are doing is a fundamental cornerstone of America isn't it?
Anyway, once litigation has started with its included right to discovery, the issue of the books is wide open, particularly since the trustees chose to sue Mr. Heinrichs personally for the Registry's purported loss of business, members, income, etc. So, that suit "opened the door" to an examination of the books. Mr. Heinrichs has the right to review books and records for evidence as to the truth or falsity of the claims against him. Again, a fundamental cornerstone of America - the right to examine the case against oneself and to cross-examine witnesses.
I've tried to include some of the nuances without completely muddying the picture. Even simple cases sometimes involve difficult principles. And, to the persons involved, there is no such thing as an insignificant case although in this instance an appeal to a state supreme court is indicative of someone losing perspective.
The "if he were a member" quote from page 5 of the trial court's order is part of that court's summation of the Registry's argument, which argument was rejected. Here's the link for those who missed it: http://tinyurl.com/mlb36qj
In my opinion the statute in dispute gives members the right to examine the records for a reasonable and proper purpose (I am paraphrasing section 1702.15 of Ohio Revised Statutes). Although the court did not decide except by implication (and had no need to directly decide) the question of whether members have the right to copy records, I have no idea how anyone could conduct a meaningful examination without having time to review copies and I can conceive of no cogent argument for why copying is not a reasonable and proper purpose. My own effort more than 3 years ago to review records met with the same specious argument from the trustees. I was to have a seance with the treasurer in the presence of the books as opposed to copying them and actually having an opportunity to review them. To paraphrase CJ Murray "rumor has it that eleven judges have now laughed at that argument." Finding out what our "leaders" are doing is a fundamental cornerstone of America isn't it?
Anyway, once litigation has started with its included right to discovery, the issue of the books is wide open, particularly since the trustees chose to sue Mr. Heinrichs personally for the Registry's purported loss of business, members, income, etc. So, that suit "opened the door" to an examination of the books. Mr. Heinrichs has the right to review books and records for evidence as to the truth or falsity of the claims against him. Again, a fundamental cornerstone of America - the right to examine the case against oneself and to cross-examine witnesses.
I've tried to include some of the nuances without completely muddying the picture. Even simple cases sometimes involve difficult principles. And, to the persons involved, there is no such thing as an insignificant case although in this instance an appeal to a state supreme court is indicative of someone losing perspective.
Comment