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.
"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.
claiments = plaintiffs