The TRO

[The motion for a Temporary Restraining Order was a legal battle fought out behind the scenes in the days just prior to and during Gay Days 2009. As seems to be the case with most of these Chisholm court filings, the really interesting documents tended to be in the Exhibits. In particular, note the (IMO) relatively amazing Exhibit C, in which Chisholm's attorney tells how he had just recently filed suit against Tony Hayden, in an apparent attempt to prevent him from further "publish[ing] everything about the [DeForest] suit on his website."

A complete file of all the TRO related documents, in chronological order, can be found here.

The chronology of events during these hectic days in the first week of June was as follows: The TRO was filed along with the complaint on June 1; Thanks to Tony mentioning it on Facebook, I first discovered and read it on June 2; on June 3 I began uploading most of it onto the GDAD Facebook group, and later that same day the TRO was approved, to the collective gasp of those on GDAD who were following the unfolding drama. Here was my reaction:]

You wrote on June 3, 2009 at 3:02pm: TRO issued. Wow. Given what I'm reading lately, I cannot say I'm surprised.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say this probably is why Gaylord Palms pulled the plug. They knew that they would never get the balance owed them now, what with sheriffs at their door collecting every dollar.

The Fall of the House of Chisholm....

[On June 5, Chisholm made his first response to the crisis:]

You wrote on June 5, 2009 at 9:24am: Guys, I have an update on the Chisholm lawsuit, with three new filings pulled off PACER this morning.

I'm not sure I really need to post photo copies, so I'll just you guys a summary of the action, accompanied by relevant quotes.

OK, first off Chisholm responded to the TRO through his attorney Bruce C. Fehr (yes Tony, apparently he's back) with a "MOTION TO VACATE OR DISSOLVE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND WRIT OF ATTACHMENT."

The grounds for the motion to vacate were:

1) That the victims did not put up the $200,000 surety bond by the deadline imposed in the TRO (June 4th at 12pm*); and

2) That Johnny Chisholm was not served (if he could be found), as required by the TRO.

Well, the victims then filed a response to that, yesterday as well:

"In an abundance of caution, and due to Defendants’ misrepresentations in their Motion to Vacate or Dissolve Temporary Restraining Order and Writ of Attachment, Plaintiffs, Stephen Bardfield and Charles Carver, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby summit a copy of the receipt for the $200,000 bond posted timely today at or about 10:20am into the treasury registry of this Court as ordered by this Honorable Court."

And sure enough, attached to this was a copy of the receipt for $200K "bond posted to treasury registry," dated June 4.

Anyways, this morning Camp Chisholm filed a Withdrawal of their Motion to Vacate, but reserving the right to renew the motion later on other grounds. I infer from this that service of process was finally effected as well.

If any new legal maneuvers happen today, I'll try to post them ASAP.

* Looking the filings, I get the impression Mr. Fehr mistakenly thought the deadline was on the 3rd, instead of the 4th. The 4th is accurate (see the TRO, para 1: "...no later than 12:00 p.m. (CDT) June 4, 2009."

[I then went on to explain:]

You wrote on June 5, 2009 at 9:40am: ...This was basically an unsuccessful attempt by Chisholm late yesterday to kill the TRO. He claiming that the plaintiffs missed a deadline for filing a required surety bond that the TRO required.

But in fact, they HAD filed the bond, in time. And they produced a receipt to prove it.

Based on that, Chisholm rather meekly withdrew his motion...still claiming it was late (it wasn't...I think Chisholm's lawyer is just confused).

There was a service of process issue, but since it hasn't been mentioned by either side in the responses, I am guessing a process server did indeed finally manage to locate and serve Johnny Chisholm. I guess this means he's in Orlando and not in Costa Rica (yet).

You wrote on June 5, 2009 at 9:53am: And I should probably shed some light on what this surety bond is.

A temporary restraining order is a pretty big deal, legally speaking. Basically, you are asking a judge to make an emergency ruling, with very little hard evidence in front of him, and in very little time. It has to be done this way, because after all that's what TROs are for...dealing with legal emergencies, in which time is very short.

So...in order to keep TROs from being misused, courts usually require bonds to be posted by those who seek them. In this case, the court required the plaintiffs to post a $200,000 bond. Just to show they mean business. And hypothetically, to reimburse the defendant in case the TRO was a misuse, and he suffered damages as a result.

The fact that Bardfield and Carver ponied up the $200K shows they mean business.

[And then later that afternoon, very dramatically, this:]

You wrote on June 5, 2009 at 4:21pm: Guys, bombshell news...hold onto your party hats...

A very brief description: Two new filings late today.

First filing: A "MOTION TO MODIFY WRIT OF ATTACHMENT" by Johnny Chisholm. Basically, he was asking for funds in his frozen bank accounts to be unfrozen, in order to pay unpaid expenses of "approximately $328,635.00," and since they do not believe current cash sales will cover this sum, without those other accounts unfrozen..."the events will not be able to occur."

There is a particularly huge sum owed to the lighting tech company ($163,543.68), who want their money now, and without whom, according to Chisholm, the parties will be cancelled.

Kelly Rowland is also owed $7,500, and without money now she is walking, according to this filing. According to Chisholm, this will mean the cancellation of the main event.

So, there you have it, Johhny's message to the court: Approve this motion or OMW will be cancelled.

And now, for the second filing.

The second filing is the court's answer.

And that answer is...

...drum roll...

MOTION DENIED.

OK. That being said, let me point out there are actually two possibilities here:

1) This whole motion was a bluff. That indeed, he can and will pay expenses out of cash, as they occur (or get his vendors, venues, DJs, and entertainers to forebear). OR

2) It wasn't a bluff. Meaning, well, party over folks.

I guess we'll soon find out which it is.

You wrote on June 5, 2009 at 8:06pm: I just added the Motion, and the Order denying it, to the photo section. 4 pages of motion followed by the 1 page order. So you can see the seriousness of it, as written.

Apparently, both the plaintiffs and the judge think the threat to cancel is a bluff...so they called Johnny on it. Motion denied.

Time for Johnny to show his hand. If the parties happen tomorrow...then his bluff has been successfully called. If they don't...oh well.

[And then two days later, the sun rose in the east, and it was noted that:]

You wrote on June 7, 2009 at 9:02am: Chisholm's motion was indeed a bluff, as OMP and Kelly Rowland went on as scheduled (although, as with Beach Ball Luau, photo evidence suggests there was an overabundance of elbow room on the dance floor):

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-267967

No new filings, nor do I expect any before the courts reopen on Monday.

BTW, thanks for all the emails and messages of support. I've been getting tips from knowledgeable sources as well, telling me (among other things) that certain other parties played a role in securing this fraudulent loan, and as a result may soon be added as additional defendants to this lawsuit.

No more Mr. Nice Guy, I guess you could say. :o)