"Gross Untimeliness"

The recent Johnny Chisholm filings have stirred the District Court in Pensacola into sudden activity. This is actually the first of three Chisholm court updates to report on today, all having to do with Orders issued in the past couple days by the magistrate in the Bardfield and DeForest cases. Look for the other two updates later today, which I'll post as my free time permits...

First off, there was another Chisholm motion filed on the 22nd (it wasn't docketed right away, which is why I did not see it when I wrote my earlier post), this one an Opposition to the summary judgment motion in the Bardfield case, worded very similarly to the one he filed in the DeForest Case:



And late Wednesday, the magistrate responded to both of these filings:



So, to recap: Chisholm has to now file motions seeking leave to file his Oppositions. Reason being, as I noted earlier in the last post, Chisholm's extreme lateness in filing these papers, or as the Court put it, "...his gross untimeliness."

Chisholm has until March 31 to file these permission-seeking motions, and if he either fails to do so and/or fails to conjure up therein a sufficiently good excuse why his new Oppositions were 150 days late (both were due on October 23, 2009), the court won't even look at them.

I should add too, the Court is being very generous to Johnny Chisholm here, on account of him being a "pro se" litigant. Had an attorney tried to file something 150 days late in Federal Court, there would have been no second chances to explain, as we're seeing here.

Addendum 4/2/10: Chisholm filed this "Leave to File" motion on time late Wednesday (the day it was due) in the DeForest case; there does not seem to be any corresponding filing in the Bardfield case, however:


So, his excuse as to why he was 150 days late in filing his recent Opposition boils down to he could not find a lawyer in the Pensacola area this entire time willing to work for free (or, at least on a no retainer basis).

Since the subject of legal fees and retainers was brought up, I went back and checked to see if there had been any new development in the lawsuit for unpaid legal bills brought against Johnny Chisholm by Liberis & Associates, his former law firm referred to in this filing that left Chisholm "without counsel of record since December 19, 2009, when this court granted his attorney's motion to withdraw." (The date is incorrect; Fehr's withdrawal motions in both cases were approved July 17, 2009). And there was...about a month ago a final judgment was entered, and the dollar amount was mentioned in the online docket records: $24,705.78.


So, this was apparently Chisholm's unpaid legal bill (plus court costs?) as of July 17 of last year. Thus I guess it should come as no great shock to anyone that he's unable to find a lawyer willing to work for him on a no retainer basis.

Addendum 4/3/10: The corresponding "Leave to File" motion in the Bardfield case was filed, with the same basic "no money, no lawyer" excuse. Looks like it got stamped "received" on March 31st, but not "filed" until April 2nd because it had the wrong case number on it:



Addendum 4/14/10: DeForest filed a Response to Chisholm's Leave To File Motion today, it's 9 pages long and can be found here.

One interesting part that caught my eye:

"...Defendant has taken advantage of the leniency this Court provides to pro se litigants to the prejudice of Plaintiff. Meanwhile, it is obvious from Chisholm’s recent motions that he had an undisclosed attorney prepare his motions, while Chisholm signed the motions. Such “ghost writing” is looked at unfavorably by the courts. See Somerset Pharm. Inc. v. Kimball, 168 F.R.D. 69 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (explaining that “the practice of filing pro se pleading which are actually prepared by a legal advocate does taint the legal process and creates disparity between the parties”)."

In fact, Chisholm actually hinted in his motion above that he indeed had such a "ghost writing" attorney, helping him out on a "piecemeal basis":

"Defendant expects to be able to obtain some assistance with this case on a piecemeal basis, even if he cannot retain counsel to appear as his attorney, and expects, therefore, to be able to mount a defense."

Addendum 4/17/10: And here's Bardfield and Carver's Response, filed yesterday.