Holding: Dierich’s activities fall short of what they should have been and the Court has found that some of those activities breached his fiduciary duty to RMMC. Indeed, in the many ways, the facts are so egregious that ever recurring questions are -- can’t something be done about this? Isn’t there some remedy for what he did? How can it be right for him to "get a pass?" But the law requires more than bad acts. It insists that those bad acts be the cause of concrete damage to the plaintiff. And, in this case, the proof is just not there on this critical point, except to the extent Dierich was paid during 2009 by RMMC while at the same time acting in his own interests. For these reasons, judgment will be given to the Defendants on all claims other than for salary disgorgement during 2009.