Still, the DeForest case was and is quite important, if for no other reason than it was so similar to the malfeasance in the Bardfield case that allowed the civil RICO charge to be made in the latter case, and the RICO charge was the backbone of the TRO/Preliminary Injunction.
The DeForest court filings referenced in the comments below can be viewed here.]
You wrote on June 16, 2009 at 7:52pm: Some quick updates on the Chisholm cases, for those of you following them.---
Yesterday there was some movement in the DeForest case. This was the earlier lawsuit against Johnny Chisholm filed by Ray DeForest. Tony Hayden over at The Circuit Dog has been covering this case for months, and was the victim of a harassment lawsuit trying to silence him from doing so (see here). For those of you not familiar with it, it is very similar to the Bardfield/Carver OMW case I've been posting on. The facts in a nutshell, according to the judge in the recently granted PI motion:
"Chisholm contacted DeForest in January, 2007 for a $150,000 investment in the 5 Paris party. Through a variety of phone calls and electronic mailings, Chisholm submitted documents and made oral assurances the Paris party would take in $2 million and that Chisholm could obtain popular entertainers at a low cost through his special relationship with the Elton John AIDS Foundation. In fact, Chisholm spent $1.5 million to rent Disney’s Paris site, paid $2 million to hire singer Mariah Carey, and was warned by Disney to expect no more than 300 people instead of the projected 12,000 to 15,000. The Paris event resulted in a loss of $3 million."
Thus the DeForest case. You can see the obvious similarities between the cases; in fact, not only are the facts similar but the courthouse (U.S. District Court in Pensacola), the judge (M. Casey Rodgers), the plaintiffs' lawyers (Arianne B. Suarez and Scott D. Lieberman of Lieberman, Danz & Kronengold) and the defense lawyer (Bruce C. Fehr of Liberis & Associates) are all the same as well, in both cases.
Anyways, the DeForest case has been dragging on for months now, and appears to have devolved into a series of battles over discovery issues (including the humorous "paperless work enviroment" excuse by Chisholm, chronicled by Tony on his site). These issues came to a head yesterday, when several motions by DeForest to compel discovery were about 90% GRANTED. In addition, Chisholm now faces monetary sanctions for withholding the documents; a ruling on that will be made sometime after July 6.
You wrote on June 25, 2009 at 6:29pm: Today's Chisholm Courthouse Roundup:---
No new activity in the Bardfield case. In the DeForest case, however, two new defendants were officially added: Bobby L. Warner, and Chisholm Properties Circuit Events, LLC (CPCE).
CPCE (not to be confused with the already-being-sued Johnny Chisholm Global Events, LLC (JCGE), which ran the hugely unsuccessful OMW Paris) is the Johnny Chisholm company that runs OMW Orlando, and is the company being sued in the Bardfield case. So now, CPCE is being sued in both cases.
Ms. Warner is described as "Manager of Defendant Johnny Chisholm Global Events, LLC and Managing Member for Defendant Chisholm Properties Circuit Events, LLC...Warner is also co-owner with Johnny Chisholm of other related entities."
The reason DeForest is now suing these two new defendants is because it has apparantly come to light that funds were illicitly siphoned off from JCGE to CPCE (and to "other related entities of friends of Defendants" as well), both before and after the party in Paris flopped; and Ms. Warner, being a co-owner with Johnny Chisholm in both companies, was complicit with Mr. Chisholm in this "Ponzi-like scheme."
No word yet on whether any additional entities of Chisholm, or these "friends" of his will be added as additional defendants, in either case; but given the quoted language above, it does seem like that is a possibility they are actively considering.
You wrote on July 6, 2009 at 6:27pm: Today's Chisholm court news: ...
...And there has been some activity in the DeForest/OMW Paris case today too. Chisholm's attorney filed arguments against discovery sanctions (today was the deadline for that), but instead of even trying to argue against being sanctioned, he opted merely to quibble over the plaintiff attornies' hours and hourly rates upon which the sanctions were to be based. So, it's clear Chisholm is going to be slapped with some kind of sanctions over his refusal to hand over documents to DeForest; it only remains to be seen how bad the sanctions will be.
No comments:
Post a Comment