Posted on 03/22/2007 10:26:04 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
SANTA ANA - A Superior Court judge on Thursday rejected Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist's request to be immediately returned sole control of the anti-illegal immigration group – a ruling that leaves the organization immobilized.
Judge Randell Wilkinson also placed restrictions on the three directors tussling with Gilchrist, noting in his order that there were "serious issues concerning the credibility of the claims of both Jim Gilchrist and the defendants…"
Gilchrist was ousted from the group in January by the vote of the three directors, who said they were concerned with sloppy accounting and possible fundraising improprieties. The three then took control of the organization's primary bank account and, at least temporarily, the group's main Web site.
Gilchrist, an Aliso Viejo resident, has insisted that the others were only advisory board members and had no authority to remove him. He sought to have the court rescind all authority being claimed by the three directors until a full trial could be held.[snip].....[snip]
Wilkinson did grant two Gilchrist requests: The mutinying directors – Barbara Coe, Melvin Stewart and Deborah Ann Courtney – cannot spend donations to the group and they cannot use stationery with Gilchrist's printed signature.
But the lawyer for the defendants said he was pleased with the ruling.
"It's 85 percent of what we wanted," attorney Jim Lacy said. "The best interim remedy, if my clients aren't going to have total control, is that the organization will remain neutral."........"
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
In the mean time the MMP Organization will spin its wheels while Congress does what it wants.
Ping.
Should be easy enough to tell from the corporate documents how control was set up. It appears from the California database that MINUTEMAN PROJECT, INC. is a Delaware Corporation. Delaware online records are down for the night.
Thanks for the Ping, Anti-Bubba182. Gilchrist keeps having bad days in court one right after another. I wonder how much longer he will be able to pay his attorneys.
I remember something about Allen Keys trying to turn this action by Americans into an 'activists' organization rather than a "free and rightful defense of American borders".....someone help me here - is that what went wrong? Keys is a "Constitutionalist" but the man knows how and does raise money.....for himself.
The Minute Men are an integral and necessary part of our country; they have done a magnificent job thus far – stop this and focus on our magnificent volunteers – we’re Americans first – political Americans last!
***TEXT OF RULING***
The court, finding serious issues concerning the credibility of the claims of both Jim Gilchrist and the defendants to control the affairs of The Minuteman Project, grants the preliminary only in part. The defendants, their agents, servants, employees, representatives and all persons acting in concert or participating with them are enjoined and restrained during the penedency of this action from engaging in, committing, or performing, directly or indirectly, any of the following acts:
1) Using Minuteman project Inc letterhead and/or envelopes containing the printed signature of Jim Gilchrist, 2) diverting, dissipating, spending or otherwise using donations made to Minuteman project, Inc. The application for preliminary injunction is denied in all other respects. While the court makes the necessary findings of an inadequate legal remedy, irreparable harm, and probability of success, further relief is deemed inappropriate so as t maintain the status quo between the parties pending final adjudication of the merits of the case.
Plaintiffs are ordered to post an undertaking of $15,000 for the preliminary injunction.
The application for the writ of possession is denied.
The court sets an order to show cause hearing for April 25, 2007 at 1:30 pm as to why the courts should not appoint a receiver to control the affairs of The Minuteman Project Inc, during the pendency of this litigation. Counsel for the parties, or if unrepresented, the parties are to personally meet no later than April 10, 2007 to try and stipulate , as to whether a receiver should be appointed, what powers the receiver should be given, who should be appointed the receiver, and what compensation should be paid to the receiver for his or her services.
Plaintiffs are to personally file their response to OCS by April 16, and defendants will file their response by April 19, 2007
Desolove it now and reduce the leagaleese to laymans terms.
According to Gilchrist, he appointed the (3) claiments to an advisory position, only. Those positions hold no corporate authority. He is either lying or the claiments are using some obscure law regarding their advisory position.
As for them using MMP funds, unless Gilchrist gave one or more signatory authority to sign checks, they have no case.
Did Barbara Coe resign from the MM around March 8?
Any lawyers involved in the litigation, or are the parties representing themselves?
Oops. I see that the defendants have a lawyer.
"Gilchrist claims to be the only Board member of MMP which is incorporated in Delaware. IIRC, that is permissable according to Delaware corporate law, as it is in California. If so, why would a trial be even considered by a judge?
According to Gilchrist, he appointed the (3) claiments to an advisory position, only. Those positions hold no corporate authority. He is either lying or the claiments are using some obscure law regarding their advisory position."
It will take a simple review of the Articles of Incorporation, and Board of Directors meeting minutes to settle this.
Gilchrist is a CPA, so he should fully understand this stuff. Even if he is the sole board member, there are minutes, prepared by the corporate Secretary. Right, responsibilities of these parties would be found in written documents.
The judge could have quickly reviewed these. If Gilchrist is worth his salt as a manager, he would have marched into court and handed these documents up to the Clerk.
Similarly, these three claimants should have copies of the same documents. In any event, the Minutemen should get better management to be taken seriously, or to expect decent funding.
That should be clear one way or the other from the Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and corporate minutes. It shouldn't even get into a he said/she said.
"...He further stated that two DVD’s were submitted to the court, but he was unsure if the Judge had time to watch them, but that on national TV, on the Neil Cavuto Show, in front of 20 million viewers, Jim Gilchrist wrapped his arm around Marvin Stewart, and stated, “Here is Marvin Stewart, an African American, and esteemed member of my Board of Directors, and he will be taking the lead against Columbia University whose students disrupted our speech on October 4”. Judge Wilkinson replied that Mr. Lacy himself better watch the videos, because it was on Martha Macallum’s Show that Gilchrist stated this in front of 20 million viewers, and everyone laughed, but everyone understood the Judge had indeed viewed and reviewed the videos, and that Gilchrist did indeed say what was quoted...."
There had to be some reason for the Judge to NOT turn it all back to Gilchrist. If the above is on video Gilchrist can't deny it.
In a commonsense non-litigious society you would think so. Send a copy of the Incorporation and By-law documents to the court clerk, and all should be resolved. However, our system has gotten so convoluted and the system is so complicated and slow.
Think how long it's taken for simple DNA tests to be ordered for Nicole-Smith matter. First it was the US courts dragging their feet, and then it took awile for the Bahama judge to order such. That was days ago - it only takes hours to make a determination. Western legal systems are drowning from all the dead weight of countless lawyers.
That said, Gilchrist could be full of caca.
claiments = plaintiffs
Yes, she did resign from MMP. Not sure of the date.
Above is a link to a video with Stewart and Gilchrist on Neil Cavuto. Cavuto introduces Stewart as a Member of the Board and the lettering under the video also said board member.
This is a different video than the one described as being presented to the court in the list email, but it lends credence to the story.
"Even if he is the sole board member, there are minutes, prepared by the corporate Secretary. Right, responsibilities of these parties would be found in written documents."
CPA notwithstanding, your second paragraph brings up the matter if corporate meetings were actually held (which often doesn't happen with 1 or 2 or 3 directors), AND were the minutes actually transcribed into the corporate book if said meetings occured, even if by casual discussion in a small group.
"The judge could have quickly reviewed these. If Gilchrist is worth his salt as a manager, he would have marched into court and handed these documents up to the Clerk."
That's what I would have had my attorney do, immediately. I've been the chair of [3] corporations - I know how it works. That's why I am questioning Gilchrist. Like I said above, unless Delaware has some obscure law regarding "advisory commitees", this should be a slam dunk. I'm starting to wonder...and that's a shame since I supported his original MM efforts. I've since pulled back because of all the in-fighting amongst all the illegal-activist groups.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.