| Author | Message | ||
     True_indian Comedian Username: True_indian Post Number: 1279 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 75.181.71.216 Rating: N/A |
last time cheppite, kondaru class peekaru babu malli emaina ante hatred antaru | ||
| Funny Junior Artist Username: Funny Post Number: 101 Registered: 08-2008 Posted From: 75.149.132.249 Rating: N/A |
ee nakodukullo okkadaina state ki vupayoga paddada?? evadini chusina CBN sanka naakadamo, leda YSR sanka nakadamo. Prathi vodu MLA gaano, MP gaano poti seddamu anukovatame. | ||
| Stud Junior Artist Username: Stud Post Number: 221 Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 75.73.148.101 Rating: N/A |
dabbu vichala vidiga vachi paduthunte emi cheyyalo ardham kaka ilanti vanni....mana desaniki edhayyina cheddamani ledhu kani vellalo veellaki thokaklo politics.. Quantum Kurrod:"Annaya dance ki nenu choreography cheyyaledhu....kalam" | ||
| Onlytruth Hero Username: Onlytruth Post Number: 19800 Registered: 01-2007 Posted From: 76.15.117.186 Rating: N/A |
saava dobbutunnaaru picchi Lk lu jeri top leadership lo | ||
| Bazooka Side Hero Username: Bazooka Post Number: 4707 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 24.74.126.133 Rating: N/A |
Telugodu vaste malli side business edathadu ani TANA lo KANA members bhyam emo Jai Chiranjeeva | ||
| True_indian Comedian Username: True_indian Post Number: 1274 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 75.181.71.216 Rating: N/A |
emundi bro, oka vargam gelichindi with inappropriate measure ani inko oka party case ettindi kamedy of lawsuit enti ante, either sides attorneys are tellolu oka telugodu leda vomerica represnet cheyadaniki | ||
| Simhapuri_kurrodu Junior Artist Username: Simhapuri_kurrodu Post Number: 81 Registered: 07-2008 Posted From: 76.109.147.47 Rating: N/A |
TANA membership drive appudu matram siraku dobbinchaaru, money ichina vaddu ra ante member ni chesaaru  | ||
| Sagar Side Hero Username: Sagar Post Number: 4635 Registered: 09-2007 Posted From: 68.98.143.108 Rating: N/A |
naaku mail vacchindi.... chadavaledu... edo sollu anni..motham matter shot ga cheppandi  | ||
| Cylonesubbarao Side Hero Username: Cylonesubbarao Post Number: 8762 Registered: 02-2008 Posted From: 72.90.231.247 Rating: N/A |
Intha matter sadavadam kastam... matter rendu mukkallo... naa lanti nishaani vaallaki artham ayyela seppu brother please. You must be the change you wish to see in the world  | ||
| True_indian Comedian Username: True_indian Post Number: 1272 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 75.181.71.216 Rating: N/A |
sollu gallu, happy ga meetings petukokunda, okadu gelichadu ani inka okadu lawsuit, pichi pune gallu | ||
| True_indian Comedian Username: True_indian Post Number: 1271 Registered: 01-2008 Posted From: 75.181.71.216 Rating: N/A |
Dear TANA Members, The following summary is provided by Attorney, Martin H Green, lead counsel for TANA in defense of the lawsuit against TANA. My name is Martin H. Green; I am lead counsel in defending the lawsuit which has been brought against TANA in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Maryland. At the request of Dr. V. Chowdary Jampala, the TANA Board of Trustee's liaison, I am providing a status report to the members of TANA regarding the litigation. In December, 2007, Mr. Ravi Gandhy, of Florida, applied for life membership in TANA. Less than six weeks later, on February 15, 2008, Mr. Gandhy, joined by Mr. Sridhar Vasireddy (who became a life member only in 2006) filed a lawsuit against TANA in which they challenged the validity of amendments to TANA's bylaws made in 2001, 2003 and 2005 (before either of them were members of TANA). They asked the court to declare the 2001, 2003 and 2005 by-laws invalid and to further declare that the thirteen year old 1995 bylaws are the only valid bylaws of TANA. Under Maryland law, TANA had until May 2, 2008 to file a response to this complaint. Along with their suit papers, Mr. Gandhy and Mr. Vasireddy also served upon TANA 27 interrogatories (written questions demanding sworn answers) and 46 separate requests for TANA to produce documents and things. To fully appreciate the nature of these requests and the burden that they posed to TANA, just a few examples should suffice. One request stated: "Describe the process by which Bylaws of TANA were amended at any time since 2000, including 2001 and 2005. State the name and address of all persons with personal knowledge of the process by which the Bylaws were amended." A careful reading of this request makes clear that TANA would have to investigate and determine who, amongst an organization of thousands of members, had personal knowledge of each and every amendment during the last seven years. Another request was for TANA to produce "All ballots submitted for the election of any TANA officers, directors, or trustees from 2001 and forward." Another request was for TANA to produce "all minutes, correspondence, email and notes concerning communications with and between TANA officers, directors and officers related to (i) membership, (ii) elections, or (iii) governing documents of TANA from 2001 and forward." On April 25, 2008, before TANA was required to file any papers in court, I wrote to Thomas J. Schetelich, the lawyer for Mr. Gandhy and Mr. Vasireddy, and suggested that we put the litigation on hold for a short period of time in order to give us time to meet and discuss the issues raised by the lawsuit and to see whether an amicable resolution could be worked out without the expense of further litigation. Mr. Schetelich never responded to this overture. With the deadline approaching and with no response from the plaintiffs' counsel to my suggestion that we explore a settlement outside of court, on May 2, 2008, I filed two motions with the court. A "motion" is a formal written request to the court to take some action. The motions I filed were a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint and a motion for a protective order to protect TANA from having to incur the burden and expense of responding to the 27 interrogatories and 46 requests for the production of documents and things until the court had an opportunity to rule on the motion to dismiss. The primary basis for the motion to dismiss was that neither Mr. Gandhy nor Mr. Vasireddy had any standing to challenge amendments to bylaws carried out years before either of them was a member. Mr. Schetelich responded to our motion for a protective order by filing an opposition to TANA's motion and by filing a motion to compel TANA to respond despite the fact that our motion for a protective order was still pending before the court. Mr. Schetelich then filed an opposition to TANA's motion to dismiss. A case management conference was held by the court on June 16, 2008. At that time, apparently concerned about the strength of TANA's argument on the motion to dismiss, Attorney Schetelich filed an amended complaint which added seven additional plaintiffs (some of whom were members of TANA at the time of the challenged amendments to the bylaws were adopted). He also substantially rewrote and expanded his complaint in an effort to repair many of the defects which TANA's motion to dismiss had pointed out in his original complaint. Under Maryland law, TANA had only 15 days to challenge the amended complaint or it would automatically be accepted by the court. I filed a motion to strike Mr. Schetelich's amended complaint. Mr. Schetelich has since filed a reply to TANA's motion to strike his amended complaint. At the June 16, 2008 hearing, a preliminary trial date was set for early 2009 and the court transferred this case to a new judge who has yet to take any action on the various motions. That is where the matter currently stands. The simple fact is that the plaintiffs' attorneys have ignored repeated overtures to work toward a mutually agreeable resolution outside of court. They have not demonstrated the slightest interest in resolving this case amicably. Nevertheless, despite the apparent futility of such action, I have remained steadfast in my offer of negotiation to the plaintiffs, with the hope that the plaintiffs will one day soon turn away from their current course, and instead work with TANA to chart a course that is best for all involved. In the meanwhile, we are currently waiting for the court to set a hearing date for the pending motions. Daniki Reply am legal counsel to the TANA Members who are maintaining litigation in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland regarding inappropriate election procedures, violation of the corporate documents, and financial improprieties within TANA. I have reviewed the report of Martin Green, which purports to be a current summary of the litigation for publication in TANA's magazine. That report is very incomplete, and gives the TANA membership an entirely wrong impression of this matter. I am writing to give a more complete and current status both of the status of the litigation, and of the possibility of negotiated settlement. As a first matter, I noted that Mr. Green's report discussed several motions that TANA had filed and that the Member Plaintiffs had filed, on the pending procedural and substantive matters. The Court has ruled on those motions, and that every motion filed by Mr. Green has been denied by this Court, and that every motion filed by the Member Plaintiffs has been granted. The arguments that Mr. Green makes in his report regarding standing and discovery were judged by the Court to be wrong. This litigation arose from concerns by TANA members over the disregard of the Executive Committee for the corporate procedures, and possible financial improprieties. On December 4, 2007, these members made request through the internal grievance procedures of TANA to have their concerns addressed internally. On December 12, 2007, the aggrieved members sent a second letter, again detailing their concerns and asking that the Executive Committee respond. These letters were ignored. Therefore, in January 2008 our firm asked TANA to produce the records necessary for a review and negotiation. This formal request was made through the statutory formula established under Maryland law that non-profit organizations must abide by. Once again, TANA simply ignored this legal request. Faced with a complete stonewall by the Executive Committee, the Plaintiff Members initiated this legal action. The lawsuit sought no monetary damages from TANA, but rather asked for the Court to review the financial and election improprieties within TANA. With the lawsuit, the aggrieved members again requested documents and information through formal court channels. The TANA Executive Committee again refused to produce anything. It filed motions with the Court arguing that it was exempt from the statutory obligation to produce records to members, and that the requests made by the Plaintiff Members were too burdensome. The Court rejected all those arguments, and has ordered that the TANA make disclosure "forthwith." Mr. Green's report states the Plaintiff Members, and my office as legal counsel, "have ignored repeated overtures" to resolve this matter. This is simply not true. On April 15, 2008, I wrote to Mr. Green, with a detailed proposal to TANA that would move the matter toward resolution. The letter also stated that "given the level of secrecy and TANA's refusal to comply with previous information requests, it is difficult to give a comprehensive answer." There was a hearing in court on June 16, 2008. Mr. Green did not attend, and so I spoke with the other counsel for TANA. I made it clear that we are ready to proceed with negotiation or mediation at the first possible time, but required only that TANA make documents available for inspection that it is continuing to keep secret. Mr. Green responded with a letter of July 18, 2008 saying that documents would only be released if the lawsuit was dismissed, and entirely new lawsuit filed. We see no advantage in this very complicated procedure that would only prolong litigation and delay resolution. Finally, under Court Order, TANA agreed to provide the information that we have sought for almost one year. We are hopeful that TANA will fully comply with its Court ordered obligations, so that this matter can advance towards resolution. |
