morgans
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: More about MSCC vs. Christine Healey

To: "Jeremy Edwards" <jeremy@jmemee.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: More about MSCC vs. Christine Healey
From: "William G. Lamb, III" <lambroving@worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:17:09 -0400
Jeremy,

Please continue to advise this 'List' of all future developments. There are
many here, who although silent, may share your concern.

>From what limited knowledge I have, it is my impression that R. Lovatt
cost the Club some penalty due to late financial filings with the appropriate
Government Agency now that the Club is incorporated. This error was the
apparent excuse for some elements within the Club to seek his removal.
It would further appear that Tim Ot and Christine Healey were 'tarred with
the same brush', having been incumbent for so long. There were rumours
of financial irregularities which now seem to have been proven to have
been groundless from these legal proceedings, but doubtless have hurt
the feelings of many who were well-served by all of the above, not to
mention the feelings of the accused.

My own dealings with Ot and Healey were entirely satisfactory. The
personal attention, warmth and concern exhibited by both went far beyond
anything I might reasonably have expected. If all the litigation has indeed
ended in this matter, then the truth should out. So... please continue to
provide updates as information becomes available.

(It has even been suggested to me privately that MMC was none too
pleased with the MSCC for the harsh treatment Christine received as a
reward for her slavish devotion for many years, and has since been more
than a little cool in support of recent Club activities.)

It is interesting that Mr. M. Brown has voiced similar concerns. There
must be many more who are 'electronically challenged' and therefore
invisible.

Regards,

Willie

William G. Lamb, III
NAS 4.0 Litre Plus 8 (R-11953)
MSCC #9096

At 11:30 PM 8/30/99 +0100, Jeremy Edwards wrote:
>toad <toad@storm.ca> writes
>>May I respectfully ask why this unpleasantness to both parties is being
>>openly aired?
>
>Firstly, I must apologise to all those who have no interest here and for
>whom I am taking up unnecessary bandwidth.
>




<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>