Sorry, I didn t realize til just now this was an old topic from April...so why is it being brought back up now??? ...Message 1 of 36 , Aug 26, 2008View SourceSorry, I didn't realize til just now this was an old topic from
April...so why is it being brought back up now???
--- In DragonCon@yahoogroups.com, "dmooney870" <dmooney870@...> wrote:
> The problem is DragonCon must not be aware that the judge in the case
> let him go if he stayed away from witnesses and kids under 16 years of
> age. If he is at Dragon we all know he is going to be in contempt of
> the court by the mere fact he will be around under aged youth at some
> point of the event. I can't see why Dragon would put itself in this
> mess. The Kramer issue has put a stain over the con with most
> everybody I've talked with. The con would be wise to distance
> themselves completely until this is legally resolved. I'm not saying
> he is guilty but I am saying he could be thrown in jail if he is found
> within so many feet of one of the con goers who is under 16. I'm also
> saying it doesn't make the Con look good...it comes off as if the
> event and its goers are supporting Kramer.
> --- In DragonCon@yahoogroups.com, "PilotChase" <datanully@> wrote:
> > I feel a little awkward bringing this up but I am... I think confused
> > is the right word.
> > I noticed Ed Kramer was added to the guest list over the weekend.
> > http://dragoncon.org/dc_guests_list.php?v_order=bydate
> > I really don't know much about his case although I did some reading
> > over the weekend and found an AJC article from June about his house
> > arrest being lifted:
> > I have no opinion about this as I don't know enough about it and this
> > is not the appropriate forum for discussing that. I'm just a bit
> > confused as why he is a guest. It seems like a bad idea image wise
> > and I am surprised his lawyer would go for it. (I don't know the man
> > and am not passing judgment either way, I am just thinking how this
> > appears to an outsider.) There were some posts her about DC being
> > more conservative in recent years in part because of Ed's troubles.
> > I am glad to hear Mr. Kramer can now get proper medical treatment more
> > easily and his case is finally going to come to trial.
The understanding via the grapevine is the following: Kramer owns about a third of the stock. The Henrys (Pat and Sherri) own about a third. The rest is heldMessage 36 of 36 , Jan 29View SourceThe understanding via the grapevine is the following:
Kramer owns about a third of the stock.
The Henrys (Pat and Sherri) own about a third.
The rest is held supposedly by members of the Board of Directors and
maybe some other people not on the board.
D*C is a private company, and its shares are not publicly
traded--they are not sold or traded on any stock exchange. However,
the shares do pay dividends.
D*C is not a non-profit organization. At some point, someone found
the business license and published a copy of it to show that D*C was
not a non-profit. The State of Georgia is rather strict about non-pofits.