Create a New Forum Admin Login Member Login Contribute to Voyager Search VoyForums Help Desk VoyForums Exchange VoyForums Directory/Categories VoyForums Homepage VoyForums News FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

Subject: Dear Ryan Author: No name [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 13:53:57 10/23/24 Wed Author Host/IP: mobile-166-198-198-100.mycingular.net/166.198.198.100 Please do not say that Robin won the temporary injunction. That is categorically false. You are deliberately misleading the state EDs with that comment. While the judge didn’t go all the way in declaring that Robin be removed immediately, he did everything else. To downplay the results of the legal trial that is only happening because Robin partnered with Glenn is absurd. The pageant community has been following this with great interest. The judge absolutely stated he believes Glenn to be the rightful owner of Miss America. She will have to continue with the lawsuit to try and remain in control, but this judge has basically said she will lose that case. It’s in black and white for the whole world to read. The judge said that Glenn has the appropriate ownership documents, that Robin didn’t cover any debts herself, and that she didn’t sign her name as the owner on the agreement she signed with MAO to purchase it. She doesn’t have one bit of evidence in her favor for actual ownership. I personally think it’s time for Glenn’s team to start taking over the reins. Sure Robin can stay in place too however she wants until the final lawsuit in a year or so, but its time for Glenn’s group to start communicating with the EDs and to start getting to know them and how the pageant operates. The judges decision was very clear about the future of Miss America. Glenn is in charge. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date The court order also quotes some of the testimony provided, including that Robin has testified she has used some of the scholarship monies to pay her attorneys to defend this case. (NT) We need an accounting of the scholarship funds. (NoHost/165.225.62.172) 14:01:33 10/23/24 Wed Op here. I’m all for being fair in this situation. This detail actually doesn’t hold any weight against Robin. The Scholarship Fund is not for profit. All non profits are able to use money to pay salaries, pay administrative costs, and legal fees that come about. Whatever is left over is what goes to your mission (ie Scholarships). The MAF ran things the same way. A lot of their money also went to salaries and legal costs. (NT) -- No name, 14:19:56 10/23/24 Wed (mobile-166-198-198-100.mycingular.net/166.198.198.100) Whoever keeps replying to comments justifying the scholarship funds being used to pay lawyer fees please stop. Obviously it’s about the principle of the situation as we know there are women out there who haven’t been paid scholarships they have won. No matter if it’s “legal” for Robin to do this or not it’s still very greedy and tacky of her to use those funds because she doesn’t have the money for this case. That money is for young women who earn it through competing. Nothing you say will justify those funds being used to do anything other than pay scholarships. (NT) -- No name, 15:59:45 10/23/24 Wed (NoHost/172.56.65.35) It is also the young women that raised the money Robin is spending. Her sponsorships are BS. just more requirements for girls to purchase things she gets a kick back on (NT) -- No name, 18:04:41 10/23/24 Wed (69-9-235-254-dynamic.midco.net/69.9.235.254) I am not the one replying to scholarship comments but having read this I am replying now. Under the prior MAO, each contestant signed a contract whereby they acknowledge that any scholarships that were announced do not have to be paid if MAO did not have the money. AFter checking with a state director this is TRUE and the director also told me that MAF also signed that document. So any contestant who competed under those rules and won funds under the prior MAO has no claim to scholarships earned that way from Robin nor from the prior MAO. MAF cannot force Robin to pay them anything. If you competed under Robin and proved eligibility for a schlarship they have been paid. Sorry naysayers but those are the confirmed facts. as yes, a corporation can use funds raised for legal expenses. Funds don't become scholarship funds until they are declared to be as such and segregated. (NT) -- No name, 12:37:40 10/24/24 Thu (NoHost/103.108.229.76) I've looked at the scholarship contracts with Emma's and Grace's classes and neither of those are signed by an MAF representative. Shantel signed them as CEO of the Miss America Org during Emma and Grace's years. So, I don't understand why the women don't have the ability to claim scholarships that were promised to them by Shantel because the whomever bought the IP bought MAO's debts along with the IP. Not that they have paid those debts, except of course to Shantel! Additionally, Shantel started the 501c3 that is now being used as Robin's scholarship fund, so wouldn't that scholarship fund be responsible for paying out those funds to the women, as Shantel signed the agreements and Shantel started the fund and clearly signed it over to Robin? (NT) -- No name, 13:48:02 10/27/24 Sun (pool-71-178-204-105.washdc.fios.verizon.net/71.178.204.105) let's see a pie chart of her spending. most non profits will tell you the % of each category (NT) -- No name, 10:05:49 10/24/24 Thu (69-9-235-254-dynamic.midco.net/69.9.235.254) You can feel however you want but if Glenn takes over. I know several of us long time locals are closing shop. Robin isn't perfect but he has a very sketchy past with women and I will not subject any titleholder to that. (NT) No name (mobile-166-196-082-134.mycingular.net/166.196.82.134) 14:06:15 10/23/24 Wed I'm beginning to believe that local pageants are obsolete. The same young women are competing all over their states until they find that local that gives them a crown. Often these young women have no connection to the city/area they represent and the community doesn't know who is representing them. What's the difference between the fee to enter a state pageant directly and the money spent on travel and accommodations to all of the places they compete? The last local I went to had no local sponsors, no program booklet, and no promotion of the local in the community. That was the backbone of our organization, the local support that enhanced the local competitions, which could have 15-30 contestants competing in them each year. The locals made a lot of monry to support the scholarships they offered. That's not happening now. (NT) -- No name, 16:52:44 10/23/24 Wed (syn-071-073-192-044.res.spectrum.com/71.73.192.44) That may be the case for your state. It is not the case in mine. Our local just had 30+ contestants (NT) -- No name, 18:11:23 10/23/24 Wed (mobile-166-196-082-134.mycingular.net/166.196.82.134) Your local did not just have 30 girls. Please. (NT) -- No name, 21:24:33 10/23/24 Wed (NoHost/38.172.112.247) IF your local had 30, it's because you are including the teens. How many contestants competed in Miss? (NT) -- No name, 10:27:18 10/24/24 Thu (NoHost/148.59.75.52) Or because they're giving away 5 Miss titles. (NT) -- No name, 16:46:35 10/24/24 Thu (NoHost/172.56.200.118) I agree. The last local I attended had 3 contestants, a page that you scanned in your phone served as the program book, and a 25.00 ticket price to watch 3 girls compete. The rest of the evening was nothing but kid production numbers (if I wanted to see that, I could get my own kid to put on a show in the living room.) In addition to the paltry shows, locals do not serve a purpose anymore. Every local in my state is open to at least 25 counties, even if it is "closed." Plus, contestants are released right after State, so there is no community involvement in a town they are not from anyway. (NT) -- No name, 09:53:12 10/24/24 Thu (syn-065-188-072-069.wifi.spectrum.com/65.188.72.69) Robin & Ryan are continuing their cover-up. Shame on Ryan. He claims to love this organization. The EDs MUST PUSH BACK ! An accountant is being hired by court decree to come in and look at every penny since Robin came on board. You know that is not going to go well for her. (NT) No name (pool-98-113-202-63.nycmny.fios.verizon.net/98.113.202.63) 14:50:00 10/23/24 Wed Agreed! What if he decides not to bring in a monitor? I am confused on all of this. (NT) -- No name, 15:16:55 10/23/24 Wed (NoHost/38.22.17.160) While Robin cannot be fired ultimately at the moment, I’m sure there can be restrictions placed on her and Ryan from directly speaking to the states especially in this tone. It creates further confusion and causes disruption which seems to be a violation of what the judge put in place. Anyone with legal experience that can weigh in on this? (NT) No name (NoHost/172.56.65.35) 17:54:53 10/23/24 Wed WRONG Robin DID win because Straub asked for her to be removed the whole point was he wanted her removed. You people are nuts. This will go to a jury trial and Robin will win, just my prediction as there is no way Glenn Straub survives a jury trail. (NT) No name (mail82.anonymouse.org/193.200.150.82) 18:14:26 10/23/24 Wed You clearly don't understand what you are reading (NT) -- No name, 18:49:27 10/23/24 Wed (ip68-110-80-48.ph.ph.cox.net/68.110.80.48) The only person who still think this are Robin and Ryan -- Na, 18:50:56 10/23/24 Wed (NoHost/172.56.33.227) Wow. YOu guys really read alot into the order. LOL. maybe none of you actuall run a business or none of you are lawyers or both? Glenn did not ask to be declared the owner. His suit was not for that. He sort of jumped over that horse and brought this suit in the name of the corporations who claimed to be harmed after an extensive audit found Robin to be misappropriating funds. Since the Court left Robin in charge and found no harm done by her the main basis for the lawsuit went against him. this TRO was to preserve the status quo which Robin won on and Glenn did not despite his attempts to claim that 1000s of calls proved his engagement. Straub tried to prove harm which judge said there was none. (NT) No name (unn-185-24-11-152.datapacket.com/185.24.11.152) 11:59:41 10/24/24 Thu Okay, sorry, but this poster has no idea what they are talking about. Sorry, but this is about as delusional of a comment as there is. Totally inaccurate and misinformation. (NT) -- No name, 14:14:22 10/24/24 Thu (mobile-166-198-198-100.mycingular.net/166.198.198.100) So if Robin is such a “winner” then why is Glenn allowed to be involved and why is there a moderator needed. If Robin won then Glenn would be out and he’s not. Stop being delusional (NT) -- No name, 14:39:43 10/24/24 Thu (c-98-62-246-186.hsd1.ga.comcast.net/98.62.246.186) Hmm. Interesting question but only if you have no idea how any of this works. The underlying lawsuit brought by the corporate entities is based on a claim that an extensive audit was conducted that revealed Robin stole or misappropriated money belonging to the corps and she did irreperable harm and must immediately be removed. Simply to show that he could bring the lawsuit he showed minimal evidence to suggest he as an individual can bring the action. That question ie whether Straub owns anything is not at issue in the case he brought and NOT decided by the TRO. What you should be focusing on to learn who the Court thinks will win the underlying suit is the fact that the court found no harm by Robin and she was not removed. Court does not believe the so called audit nor the alleged theft or she would be gone stat. Get it now??? (NT) -- No name, 16:22:53 10/24/24 Thu (NoHost/185.195.232.168) It is called status quo. He is the banker and as such should be entitled to documents and information that protects his line of credit which Robin has almost paid off. The event itself is the source of the revenue Robin needed to put on the show. She testified to that if I recall. So that is why Straub got limited relief (NT) -- No name, 17:37:27 10/24/24 Thu (unn-149-88-22-139.datapacket.com/149.88.22.139) You do realize that the judge had to make a determination of ownership and stated that Glenn is the likely owner and will likely prevail in court when that trial happens next. Did you miss that little part? (NT) -- No name, 18:26:13 10/24/24 Thu (mobile-166-198-198-100.mycingular.net/166.198.198.100) He actually did not determine ownership. Said only that if the facts presented by Straub are true then when the underlying case is tried to a jury a jury may believe his evidence and find that he owns the pageant. That's it. standard boilerplate language in any tro.. And if leaned into that ownership info to find that Straub had standing to bring a suit in the name of the corporations. All he needed was to state a likelihood if true. Same language used in every tro case. (NT) -- No name, 18:34:41 10/24/24 Thu (unn-149-88-22-139.datapacket.com/149.88.22.139) Dude, this is not a TRO. This is a Temporary Injunction. In order to grant a Temporary Injuncrion, the judge has to establish a likelihood of prevailing in the actual ownership case. Judge did that and thinks Glenn will win. This is not a jury case. Therefore a judge will decide who the owner is. The jury trial is a whole other case that Robin filed. That is NOT this case. (NT) -- No name, 18:54:44 10/24/24 Thu (mobile-166-198-198-100.mycingular.net/166.198.198.100) LOLOLOL. I TRO stands for temporary restraining order, commonly referred to as an injunction. Same thing moron. The underlying lawsuit will be tried in front of a jury. This is a motion that is argued to the Judge. There is no actual ownership case before this judge since Straub did not ask to be declared the owner in his pleading. REferences to his alleged ownership were necessary to establish the ability to act on behalf of the corporations. It is call standing. establish yourself as able to sue in the name of the corporations. The classic language is "Likelihood of sucess" in order for the court to enter any type of relief. So to keep the status quo and avoid more Zoom fiascoes by Straub and his little band of Petco execs, the judge used that classic language. If the allegations Straub presented ARE TRU there is alikelihood a jury would believe them when the underlying lawsuit is tried to a jury. That is it. Court did not declare Straub is the owner. (NT) -- No name, 09:53:01 10/25/24 Fri (unn-149-22-81-204.datapacket.com/149.22.81.204) Is anyone going to admit the reality here? A person took it over MAO and obtained money for a “for woman organization “ provided by her chauvinistic millionaire boyfriend with publicly documented shady past with women and out our training Miss America up in his condo! With way we are being run by underhanded unethical and emotionally damaged people! My God! (NT) No name (NoHost/108.145.161.60) 11:24:30 10/25/24 Fri No, because Robin loves to come on these boards and pretend to be other people defending herself. (NT) -- No name, 19:19:46 10/26/24 Sat (syn-024-163-059-002.res.spectrum.com/24.163.59.2) She spends more time doing that than providing information to the young women competing. (NT) -- No name, 19:14:45 11/01/24 Fri (c-73-14-141-197.hsd1.co.comcast.net/73.14.141.197)