But assuming it's officially signed off on...this is a pretty significant development in the case. For those of you who have forgotten the details of this motion (and I can't blame you if you did...it was actually filed waaay back in June of 2009) you can reacquaint yourselves with it here. As you can see, the last significant update on the whole issue I posted to Facebook back on July 6, 2009. And so, we've been patiently waiting for a decision ever since.
Now, fast forward to this past Monday, when Chisholm filed his Response (to the bond motion). In that Response he wrote:
Well, ask and ye shall receive! Yesterday the magistrate finally made her decision:
You can read the entire 15 page decision here, but in a nutshell, the usury argument was rejected because there were areas of fact-finding that needed a jury to sort out (for a summary judgment motion to succeed, there has to be no significant facts in dispute), while the "economic loss rule" argument was rejected because it was, well, just totally wrong according to the law.
This summary judgment decision is, I'd say, what Joe Biden would probably call "a big f-ing deal." This "usury" gambit was pretty much the last great hope for those in Camp Chisholm for Johnny to nullify the Bardfield loan and thus come out of the case unscathed, and now, it looks like that hope is officially going down in flames.
What happens next? Well, besides the District Court judge making the final call on these recommendations, the main outstanding issue now in both the Bardfield and DeForest cases are the various plaintiffs' default motions against Johnny Chisholm. And since we're now waiting on Chisholm to file something on that (he has until March 31), it looks like it'll be at least April before any big decision there.
Addendum 4/26/10: It's official, the district judge has approved the magistrate's recommendation; Chisholm's "usury" summary judgment motion has been DENIED:
Having trouble with the link through to the 15 page document.
ReplyDeleteSeems to be working now...let me know if you're still having issues, and I'll post a sendspace download link for it if you like.
ReplyDeleteSo, did Johnny file anything by the deadline?
ReplyDelete"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteSo, did Johnny file anything by the deadline?"
Yes, he made at least one filing late yestderday (in the DeForest case), and possibly more in the Bardfield case that have yet to go online. I plan to wait until the end of the day to see if anything new pops up there, and then put 'em all up at once....
I just posted an addendum to the "Gross Untimeliness" post below. Interestingly, it's just a DeForest filing...nothing seems to have been filed by Chisholm in the Bardfield case on March 31 at all (unless they are just slow to docket it?).
ReplyDeleteThanks Jim.
ReplyDeleteOK, the corresponding filing in the Bardfield case finally showed up...looks like it was turned in on time, but the actual filing got delayed two days because Johnny put the wrong case number on it.
ReplyDeleteHas any government agency filed criminal charges against him yet?
ReplyDeleteTo the best of my knowledge, not yet.
ReplyDeleteIf this does "go criminal" I imagine it'll be the US Attorney who'll initiate the action, as the crimes cross state lines: the victims live in New York and North Carolina, while Chisholm and most of JustCircuit are citizens of Florida.
IIRC, the Federal statute of limitations for these sorts of crimes is two years, running from the date the crime was discovered.