For the recordZZZZZJJJJJJ

For those who have been following the conn case. Here's the latest from the
court concerning the case. It says what I've been saying all along that I was
not responsible personally for conns deposit to the old company. Just more
"proof positive" that zoom and jaun are not credible sources of info. conn has
14 days to respond so I'm just gonna cool my heels and eat turkey and drink a
little ML. I'll post any new news.

Still putting my ducks in a row.

See ya

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

"credibility it was always about credibility" chuck s

__________________________________________________ _____________________________

IN THE GARFIELD HEIGHTS MUNICIPAL COURT
CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

GEORGE R. CONN, JR. Case No.: CVH0300308

Plaintiff,



CGS AVIATION, INC., MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
WITH FINDINGS OF FACT
Defendant. AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

This matter came before the Court when Plaintiff filed an Aid in
Execution as well as a Motion to Enforce a Florida judgment against Charles
Slusarczyk. Defendant filed a motion in response to quash the debtor's
exam. Both Plaintiff and Defendant were asked by Magistrate Richard A. Kray
to brief the issue of whether or not Charles Slusarczyk should be held
personally responsible for a judgment rendered in 1984 against CGS
Aviation, Inc.

FINDINGS OF FACT
On December 12,1984 a default judgment in the amount of $2,980.05
was granted in favor of Plaintiff George Conn against Defendant CGS
Aviation, Inc. in Lake County. Florida. On February 3,2003, Plaintiff
transferred this judgment to the Garfield Heights Municipal Court and
proceeded to file an Aid in Execution and Motion to Enforce Judgment
against an officer of CGS Aviation, Inc., Charles Slusarczyk. Plaintiff, in
his brief, indicated Mr. Slusarczyk should be held personally liable
because he was a principle of the corporation and he continued, after the
cancellation of the Articles of Incorporation, to do business as CGS
Aviation. As justification for holding Mr. Slusarczyk personally liable for
this corporate debt. Plaintiff cited two cases which interpret R.C. 1701.88
of the General Corporate Act. Both cases held that when articles of a
corporation are cancelled, the authority of the corporation to do business
ceases and after such termination, officers who carry on new business do so
as individuals and lose the protection of the corporate shield, making them
personally liable for such obligations as they occur.
Defendant, in his response brief, interpreted the cases cited by
Plaintiff to mean that an officer, once the articles of incorporation are
cancelled, loses the protection of the corporate shield if this officer
continues to do business in the corporate name and is personally
responsible for any new debt incurred. Applying this reasoning to the
instant case. Defendant took the position that since the judgment
originally entered in 1984 was against (lie Defendant's Corporation while
it was still in existence and not Mr. Slusarczyk personally, Mr. Slusarczyk
cannot be held responsible for this debt. Mr. Slusarczyk could only be held
responsible for debts incurred under the corporate name after the Articles
of Incorporation were cancelled or if Mr. Slusarczyk personally guaranteed
payment on the original debt and judgment at that time was rendered against
him in the original Complaint. Therefore, any Aid in Execution and Motion
to Enforce Judgment against Mr. Slusarczyk must fail.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
CGS Aviation, Inc. was a corporation formed in Michigan in 1979. A
judgment was obtained only against CGS Aviation, Inc. on December 12,1984.
At the time this judgment was obtained, CGS Aviation, Inc. was a valid
corporation in good standing in both Michigan and Ohio. Evidence presented
by the Defendant showed the Corporation dissolved in Michigan on May 15,
1989. The issue before the Court is whether or not, based on Ohio law, a
judgment rendered against a corporate entity can be enforced against an
officer of the now defunct corporation because of Mr. Slusarczyk's active
role in operating CGS Aviation after the cancellation of the Articles of
Incorporation of CGS Aviation, Inc.
The case law which was presented in Plaintiffs brief and which
interprets R.C. Section 1701.88 is clear that officers of a dissolved
corporation can only be liable for debt incurred in the corporate name
after the date of dissolution. Chatman v. Day (Ohio App.2d 1982), 7 Ohio
App.3d 281. Additional cases cited by Plaintiff interpret R.C. Section
1701.88 in the same way and make a determination that if an officer of a
dissolved corporation continues to transact business in the corporate name,
that officer loses the protection afforded by the corporation and must be
held liable for any debt arising out of that transaction. Nabakowski v.
5400 Corp., (Ohio App. 8 Dist. 1986), Allied Pipe Products. Inc. v. Petina,
1988 WL 3741 (Ohio App. 8 Dist. Jan. 14, 1988), Unreported. These three
cases, cited by Plaintiff, held that personal liability does attach, once
the corporation was dissolved, to debts incurred by officers continuing to
use the corporate name.
In the present case, a judgment was taken against CGS Aviation,
Inc. A review of the Plaintiffs initial Complaint shows that the corporate
entity was the only Defendant listed. At no time was there any attempt to
include Mr. Slusarczyk as a party defendant. Whether or not Mr. Slusarczyk
continued doing business as CGS Aviation, Inc. or CGS Aviation after the
cancellation of the Articles of Incorporation is irrelevant. The judgment,
which is the subject of tills case, was obtained before the Articles of
Incorporation were cancelled. Therefore, in keeping with Ohio law, as cited
above, an individual cannot be held liable for this corporate debt. Mr.
Slusarczyk can only be held liable for debts as they occur, after the
cancellation of the corporation. Whether the Defendant agreed, at a later
point in time, to work out a payment on behalf of this corporation on this
debt, does not validate the debt to be assigned to him personally. If
Plaintiff thought Mr. Slusarczyk responsible for this debt, he should have
included this individual in his original complaint against CGS Aviation,
Inc.

DECISION
Based on oral arguments and case law provided to the Court,
Defendant, Charles Slusarczyk's Motion to Quash the Aid in Execution is
granted and Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce Judgment against Charles
Slusarczyk personally is denied.
All objections to the Magistrate's Decision must be filed with the
Clerk of Courts within fourteen (14) days of the filling of this Decision.
If any party timely files objections, any other party may also file
objections not later than ten (10) days after the first objections are
filed. The filing of timely objections shall operate as an automatic stay
of execution of the judgment. A party shall not assign as error on appeal,
the Court's adoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of law unless the
party timely and specifically objects to that finding or conclusion as
required by Civ. R. 53(E)3.


(Signed) Richard A. Kray
Magistrate

11/18/03

On 26 Nov 2003 04:36:07 -0800, ChuckSlusarczyk
wrote:

DECISION
Based on oral arguments and case law provided to the Court,
Defendant, Charles Slusarczyk's Motion to Quash the Aid in Execution is
granted and Plaintiffs Motion to Enforce Judgment against Charles
Slusarczyk personally is denied.
All objections to the Magistrate's Decision must be filed with the
Clerk of Courts within fourteen (14) days of the filling of this Decision.
If any party timely files objections, any other party may also file
objections not later than ten (10) days after the first objections are
filed. The filing of timely objections shall operate as an automatic stay
of execution of the judgment. A party shall not assign as error on appeal,
the Court's adoption of any finding of fact or conclusion of law unless the
party timely and specifically objects to that finding or conclusion as
required by Civ. R. 53(E)3.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Say, Chuck...

Did you not offer Conn a settlement years ago,
although none was owed by you then... as now?

Did Zoom get in the middle of that...
and eventually queer that undeserved deal for Conn?


Unka' BOb - lover of dogs, underdogs and justice

In article , - Barnyard BOb -
writes:


Say, Chuck...

Did you not offer Conn a settlement years ago,
although none was owed by you then... as now?

Did Zoom get in the middle of that...
and eventually queer that undeserved deal for Conn?


Unka' BOb - lover of dogs, underdogs and justice



Maybe Conn should sue ZOOM for interference and queering the deal.

Now that would be justice.


Bob Reed
www.kisbuild.r-a-reed-assoc.com (KIS Builders Site)
KIS Cruiser in progress...Slow but steady progress....

"Ladies and Gentlemen, take my advice,
pull down your pants and Slide on the Ice!"
(M.A.S.H. Sidney Freedman)

In article , - Barnyard BOb -
says...

Say, Chuck...

Did you not offer Conn a settlement years ago,
although none was owed by you then... as now?

Did Zoom get in the middle of that...
and eventually queer that undeserved deal for Conn?


Unka' BOb - lover of dogs, underdogs and justice

Yeah after about 10 or 11 years since I had any contact with conn he surfaced
and started making demands and threats. He said he would "expose" me to the
aviation press if I didn't pay up. To make a long story short I didn't want to
give zoom any ammo and I thought it would be a good public relations act if I
worked some kind of refund for him .I didn't legally have to do it and told both
conn and zoom that. I was being blackmailed but I tried to turn a lemon into
lemonade.

My offer was to refund the original deposit or put the original deposit plus
interest toward a new kit. Conn would have had to ante up about $4000
difference. conn then said I should give him a kit at my cost and that he
shouldn't have to pay anything. That's when Tony got involved ,then zoom got
involved and the big zoom expose on me was published.

After my name was smeared in zooms magazine and his web site I felt that doing
anything for conn was pointless.I basically felt I was being blackmailed and
when zooms article was published both in his magazine and on his web site I said
what can I gain at this point by trying to help conn out. They took their shot
and conn still wanted a plane as well.

I had no legal obligation towards conn and since he and zoom blew the deal I
wasn't going to give conn a nickle. zoom queered the deal for conn and now conn
is out and has zoom to thank for it. Soon I'll be taking steps to seek relief
from zoom ,conn and jaun for actions over the years trying to hurt me
financially and personally but thats in the future. I got a few more ducks to
get in a row before I make that move. I don't like to make threats but they'll
know it when it happens.

See ya Unka Bob

neefoo Chuck RAH-15/1 ret

"vengence is mine sayeth the Lord, but I don't want vengence ,I want Justice.."

Find it interesting that Juan has gone missing from here for weeks now....
Thought maybe my "Journalists' Credo" message had something to do with it,
but probably its' your ducks....


"ChuckSlusarczyk" wrote in message
...
In article , - Barnyard BOb -
says...

Say, Chuck...

Did you not offer Conn a settlement years ago,
although none was owed by you then... as now?

Did Zoom get in the middle of that...
and eventually queer that undeserved deal for Conn?


Unka' BOb - lover of dogs, underdogs and justice

Yeah after about 10 or 11 years since I had any contact with conn he
surfaced
and started making demands and threats. He said he would "expose" me to
the
aviation press if I didn't pay up. To make a long story short I didn't
want to
give zoom any ammo and I thought it would be a good public relations act
if I
worked some kind of refund for him .I didn't legally have to do it and
told both
conn and zoom that. I was being blackmailed but I tried to turn a lemon
into
lemonade.

My offer was to refund the original deposit or put the original deposit
plus
interest toward a new kit. Conn would have had to ante up about $4000
difference. conn then said I should give him a kit at my cost and that he
shouldn't have to pay anything. That's when Tony got involved ,then zoom
got
involved and the big zoom expose on me was published.

After my name was smeared in zooms magazine and his web site I felt that
doing
anything for conn was pointless.I basically felt I was being blackmailed
and
when zooms article was published both in his magazine and on his web site
I said
what can I gain at this point by trying to help conn out. They took their
shot
and conn still wanted a plane as well.

I had no legal obligation towards conn and since he and zoom blew the deal
I
wasn't going to give conn a nickle. zoom queered the deal for conn and now
conn
is out and has zoom to thank for it. Soon I'll be taking steps to seek
relief
from zoom ,conn and jaun for actions over the years trying to hurt me
financially and personally but thats in the future. I got a few more ducks
to
get in a row before I make that move. I don't like to make threats but
they'll
know it when it happens.

See ya Unka Bob

neefoo Chuck RAH-15/1 ret

"vengence is mine sayeth the Lord, but I don't want vengence ,I want
Justice.."








---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003

In article , red12049 says...

Find it interesting that Juan has gone missing from here for weeks now....
Thought maybe my "Journalists' Credo" message had something to do with it,
but probably its' your ducks....

I don't know if it was the Ducks or not but your "Journalists Credo" should be
must reading not only for zoom and jaun but for the entire media in general.
zoom probably told jaun to back off and like the faithful sock puppet he is ,he
did. Frankly I'm enjoying the peace and quiet :-)

See ya
Happy Thanksgiving

Chuck S RAH-15/1 ret

Wishful thinking.

Still waiting for the Chukster to show proof to go along with his big mouth.
Until then there's very little of interest in the newsgroup.

Oh, and the BBQ is ready for the ducks. But since we know that the Chukster
is about nothing but hot air...

"red12049" wrote in message
...
Find it interesting that Juan has gone missing from here for weeks now....
Thought maybe my "Journalists' Credo" message had something to do with it,
but probably its' your ducks....

Juan,

I give up..... You ask for "proof" for some inconsequential matter.... and
that proof, or lack of response to the request, is to you the full measure
of the man. And you Juan? What is your measure? Would you prefer to be
measured as a person, who, at least on the internet (including ANN), called
himself a journalist, but failed to adhere to the ethics we expect from a
journalist? Is your persona here your full measure? Your military service?
And what of your occasional employer, Mr. Campbell? What are his verifiable
bona fides? What is his measure? I suspect that the answer to the question
about yourself would be much different than what you seem to expect from
Chuck and all those who detest Mr. Campbell. You decide what you wish to be
remembered for.

Red

"Juan..E..Jimenez" b*d&5^@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m wrote in message
news:kXuyb.374171$Fm2.375513@attbi_s04...
Wishful thinking.

Still waiting for the Chukster to show proof to go along with his big
mouth.
Until then there's very little of interest in the newsgroup.

Oh, and the BBQ is ready for the ducks. But since we know that the
Chukster
is about nothing but hot air...

"red12049" wrote in message
...
Find it interesting that Juan has gone missing from here for weeks
now....
Thought maybe my "Journalists' Credo" message had something to do with
it,
but probably its' your ducks....




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.545 / Virus Database: 339 - Release Date: 11/27/2003

"Juan..E..Jimenez" b*d&5^@-*b(d)5+.!c#o$m wrote in message
news:kXuyb.374171$Fm2.375513@attbi_s04...
Wishful thinking.

Still waiting for the Chukster to show proof to go along with his big
mouth.
Until then there's very little of interest in the newsgroup.

Oh, and the BBQ is ready for the ducks. But since we know that the
Chukster
is about nothing but hot air...

"red12049" wrote in message
...
Find it interesting that Juan has gone missing from here for weeks
now....
Thought maybe my "Journalists' Credo" message had something to do with
it,
but probably its' your ducks....

Delayed reaction much, Juan?

I mean I can understand biding your time to come up with something really
juicy, but this is all you came up with?

I'd suggest going away until you came back with something better if I
thought it'd do any good. Instead, I'll just say... better luck next time!

Eric

- Barnyard BOb - wrote:

Say, Chuck...

Did you not offer Conn a settlement years ago,
although none was owed by you then... as now?

Did Zoom get in the middle of that...
and eventually queer that undeserved deal for Conn?


Lets not forget that Zoom had been claiming for years that he
has a extensive secret list of unsatified CGS customers. That
was supposedly why he gave CGS a bad rating (not because
Chuck cancelled his ads in the magazine).

The list was secret because the complainers didn't want to
be identified? Chuck kept asking, but no response. Conn was
godsend for Zoom when he surfaced. It gave his story and
extended life.

--Dan Grunloh, RAH-15 (threatened, named, but never served)