VoyForums
[ 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: Straub put in limited evidence to prove that he had the right to bring the lawsuit in the names of corporate entities. He had to do this to establish himself as an agent of the corporation. The judge did not find he proved ownership nor did the court opine that he thought Straub proved ownership. The language is pretty clear. All the Court said was IF the evidence Straub put forth in the TRO IS TRUE there is a likelihood at trial Straub could prove ownership. But he would have to withstand his history of creating FALSE DOCUMENTS and a pattern of fraud. There was none testimony in the TRO because ownership was not at issue. Straub's attempt to have the court declare him the owner was denied. Removal of Robin, denied. Harm by Robin proved? NOPE. Denied. All court said is because Straub may be able to prove ownership at trial, denying him access to books might cause harm the court issued limited relief.


Author:
No name
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 12:16:15 10/24/24 Thu
Author Host/IP: NoHost/104.193.135.216
In reply to: 's message, "Actual Text From Judge’s Decision" on 15:15:38 10/23/24 Wed


[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
Subject Author Date
The limited relief Straub got was basically a continuance of the interim order which the court acknowledged showed Robin's compliance. Robin asked for the monitor and the Court noting that the costs are going to be borne by the Plaintiff's left that choice up to Glenn if he thinks it is necessary given that the interim order basically continues. So making the Monitor an option benefits Robin not Glenn. The only part of the TRO Straub was granted was his request for access to the books and even that is limited if you read the basis for that access. I will leave it to you sleuths to figure out how the court narrowed the access. Straub was not declared the owern, was not able to have the court declare the Robin is harming the org, did not get Robin removed and can take advantage of what Robin wanted, the monitor, if he wishes. But you go ahead and keep drinking the kool ade. It is just starting to get fun. (NT)No name
(NoHost/104.193.135.216)
12:21:50 10/24/24 Thu


Login ] Create Account Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
* Message subject (required):

* Name (Registered users only):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:

Choose Message Icon: [ View Emoticons ]

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.