I suppose I should follow a trustee's advice with regard to these constant personal attacks on me but I am simply sick of them and am publicly asking the trustees to halt them.C J Murray wrote:I do not think that personal attacks should be allowed . . . . . . . . .
Given the proximity of the trial and the relative lack of importance of the rulings issued February 17, 2015 both of us had decided not to post anything anywhere, particularly since, as the court observed in one of its rulings, such rulings on motions in limine are interlocutory (not conclusive) only. The rulings are relatively unimportant because as reported previously the bulk of the issues that are important to us in the lawsuit have already been conclusively resolved in favor of Heinrichs and against the ill-considered positions of past Registry boards.Jim Liberty wrote:IGNORE, is the key word. .............. Jim
Bill posted on abcgt at the specific request of a 356 organization leader who, to avoid the sorts of scurrilous remarks I endure, will not be identified further. For anyone interested, here is the entire quote minus "signatures" from the abcgt forum. We do recommend that forum - Justin Rio has done a great job for us 356 lovers.
Bill Sampson wrote: The Ohio state court made several rulings on February 17, 2015. I'll give a brief outline. I may not have time for much or any expansion on these topics. All will affect the trial somewhat but none will determine the outcome. The outcome has already been determined to a large extent in favor of plaintiff Steve Heinrichs as discussed here previously at considerable length.
Rulings follow with brief discussion if merited (my opinion of course)
1. The Registry filed a motion on 10/15/2014 to hold Heinrichs in contempt since he did not appear for one court hearing when George Dunn did and since he purportedly did not make discovery. The court granted the motion compelling discovery and payment of $1000 in sanctions.
2. The court denied plaintiff's motion filed 11/25/2014 for re-consideration of the court's prior ruling to exclude the testimony of plaintiff's expert witness Nesser. Mr. Nesser will be prevented from testifying.
3. Previously (11/19/2014) the court had granted two of the Registry's motions in limine. Plaintiff Heinrichs asked for re-consideration. The motion to re-consider was denied thus leaving the earlier rulings in force. Part of this ruling prevents Nesser's testimony and part prevents plaintiff from inquiring of the Registry why he has not been reinstated. You may recall that the court has previously ruled, which ruling stands, that Heinrichs was wrongfully expelled from membership in the Registry. It appears he is entitled to claim damages for that wrongful expulsion.
4. The next two rulings pertain to motions also filed by plaintiff and the rulings deny use of Nesser's testimony and of questions regarding plaintiff's rights to reinstatement
5. The court denied plaintiff's request for sanctions for the Registry's frivolous appeals from the orders compelling the Registry to make discovery. There was considerable discussion of those appeals earlier. Although the Registry wrongfully failed to make discovery the trial court did not impose sanctions.
6. The court ruled that neither the undersigned nor Dominic Chieffo may be called as witnesses. Both of us had been listed tentatively as witnesses the plaintiff might call at trial.
7. Finally the court denied the plaintiff's supplemental motion for a finding of contempt regarding the Registry's failure to make discovery.
The rulings are unlikely to be outcome determinative although some evidence that one or the other party might desire to bolster his or its case [will be excluded].
Trial remains set for April 6, 2015 as to any remaining issues. Stay tuned.