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: 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 Author: No name [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] Date Posted: 17:37:27 10/24/24 Thu Author Host/IP: unn-149-88-22-139.datapacket.com/149.88.22.139 In reply to: 's message, "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???" on 16:22:53 10/24/24 Thu [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date 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 (mobile-166-198-198-100.mycingular.net/166.198.198.100) 18:26:13 10/24/24 Thu 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)