"Chisholm Admits That He is Liable and Consents to Judgment Against Him"

It's over. Johnny Chisholm is now the first circuit promoter in history to have been successfully sued for fraud.

Yes, the long awaited settlements in the two civil cases we've been following have finally been filed. Although looking at the terms, it appears more a capitulation than a settlement.

First, here's how the DeForest case wraps up:

Keep in mind DeForest's initial investment, the amount in dispute, was $150,000. So, this consent judgment for $175,000 gives Ray DeForest what he lost, plus $25,000 for his time and trouble (although realistically, I suspect much of that has already been spent in attorney fees and court costs).

Other key terms: Chisholm gives up any right to appeal, and the right to discharge the judgment in bankruptcy. The judgment also accrues interest at 7% per annum as long as it goes unpaid.

And very prominently, first clause at the top: "Chisholm admits that he is liable and consents to judgment against him in this matter." He also admits for the record that DeForest did indeed successfully extricate himself from the disaster that was OMP Paris on May 24, 2007, well before the event flopped.

As far as Chisholm's co-defendant Bobby Warner goes, she's simply been let go from the lawsuit ("Dismissal with Prejudice"):

And here's how the Bardfield case wraps up:

The consent judgment here is for $300,000, $100,000 more than the $200,000 Bardfield and Carver were fraudulently induced to part with. Other terms are similar (7% per annum, no appeal or bankruptcy, full Chisholm admission of liability).

Plus there's an injunction forcing Chisholm to forfeit all money held in those frozen bank accounts "in connection with his unlawful enterprise," i.e., One Mighty Weekend 2009.

So, the total amount Johnny Chisholm admitted liability and consented to judgment for was $475,000.

All that remains, I think, is for the judge to sign off on those consent judgments, and for both cases to be formally closed. Once that occurs I'll let you all know. Shouldn't be long ...

Addendum 4/2/2011: The judge signs off on the consent judgment in the DeForest case:

Addendum 4/3/2011: And here's the order for the Bardfield case:

And with that, I'd say this blog is now at an end. In other words, barring very unusual circumstances, I don't anticipate any new posts, although the blog will still be open for comments.

I hope you all found it as interesting and informative to read as I found it enjoyable to research and write.

And let me just end here, on one final nostalgic note:

"Johnny Chisholm proves once again what many have already determined...he IS the King of Circuit and a student of the "philosophical school of Circuit reinvention." He has the dreams and ability to bring back the parties we nearly lost only a few short years ago due to greed, mismanagement, and pessimism. The quiet, polite and honorable Johnny Chisholm has once again taken the Circuit, and those of us who follow the Circuit, to a whole new level. And the world is Johnny Chisholm's oyster! ...

... Johnny Chisholm was JustCircuit's very first inductee into the Circuit Hall of Fame(tm), and for very good reason. The Circuit is still alive, changing, and growing in part because of the innovation, optimism and hard work by Chisholm and his entire team. The bar has certainly been set high for others who desire to create a successful Circuit party. The Circuit anxiously awaits Johnny Chisholm's next dream."

-- Shane Alan Rogers, January 25, 2007

Local Tourism Council Rejects Johnny Chisholm's Request for $150,000

Johnny Chisholm has been in the news recently. It seems the Escambia County Tourist Development Council recently rejected an allocation request of his for $150,000, to cover the costs of bringing Kathy Griffin to Pensacola for Memorial Day Weekend:

Tourist council rejects comic Griffin for Memorial Day Weekend
Comments about Kathy Griffin rile gay-event promoter

Local promoter Johnny Chisholm has asked the head of the county's Tourist Development Council to step down for refusing to allocate funds to bring comedian Kathy Griffin to Pensacola's Memorial Day Weekend celebration....(more)

The rejection occurred at a meeting on March 22, just one day after the latest settlement impasse was revealed.

Allegedly, the reason Chisholm's request for a share of this tourism development money was denied was because TDC Chairman Denis McKinnon was not a Kathy Griffin fan.

However, it's hard not to imagine that he and the other 7 members who voted against the grant also felt that $150,000 on a single entertainer, regardless of who he or she was, was too much of a dubious risk to take. Indeed, as those of here who read through Timeline 1 dealing with the DeForest case will recall, Chisholm's track record in bringing in top dollar entertainers to headline events has not exactly been a stellar one.

Here once again is the Federal judge in the Bardfield and DeForest cases, summing up the fiasco that ensued when Chisholm used other people's money to bring in Mariah Carey as a "huge draw" to "jump-start" his floundering One Mighty Party Paris event back in 2007:


To quote Yogi Berra: "It's like deja vu all over again."

About Face

Well, today was another deadline day ... and yet again, no settlement. Indeed, it looks like a deal may be getting a bit iffy at this point.

Two motions for more time were filed today in the Bardfield case, one by Chisholm:

And a very interesting one by the plaintiffs:

So, to recap: Chisholm refuses to sign the settlement because he claims the papers currently in front of him are not what he agreed to in mediation.

Plaintiffs, on the other hand, say they are the same, and that Chisholm's last minute raising of "disingenuous issues" make it "unclear whether the Parties will be able to ultimately resolve Chisholm’s “about-face” regarding certain material terms of the already agreed-upon settlement".

It looks like the major sticking point is over whether Chisholm agreed to "admit liability" during their mediation session. Plaintiffs seem pretty confident that he did, as evidenced by the fact that they're giving the judge the option to simply enforce the terms of the already signed mediation agreement (which plaintiffs say does have Chisholm admitting liability), in lieu of granting more time.

Assuming the judge does not seize this option, the additional time being asked for is two weeks (in Chisholm's motion) or until March 29, 2011 (in the plaintiffs' motion).

And there was finally some activity in the DeForest case - another joint request for more time, this one good until March 31, 2011:

Addendum 3/23/11: If you've been following these cases, and been frustrated at all these delays and time extensions, well you're not alone. It looks like the magistrate judge is finally fed up with it too:

She's approved a time extension to file settlement papers until April 1, 2011. However, she's made it absolutely clear "[a]bsent a showing of extraordinary cause, no requests for any further enlargements of time shall be entertained."

Additionally, she's appended an interesting footnote to her Order, musing on the fact that one reason for the delay was Chisholm's consultation with his attorney. She wonders if Chisholm indeed has an attorney at his disposal, why he has not made an official appearance in the case:

"1 The court notes Plaintiffs’ statement in their motion that Defendant reports having consulted an attorney to review the parties’ settlement agreement (see Doc. 113 at 2). If Defendant in fact has hired an attorney for that purpose, to date the court is unaware that such counsel has represented Defendant in any other capacity. As the court has previously observed in this case (see Doc. 86 at 6, n.4), if Defendant submits pleadings that are represented as being pro se in nature but in actuality have been drafted by an attorney, Defendant could receive an unfair advantage in that his pleadings would be construed liberally while those filed by Plaintiffs would be held to a higher level of scrutiny; this advantage could affect other aspects of the litigation as well. Moreover, the submission of “ghost-written” pleadings has been deemed a deliberate evasion of the responsibilities imposed on counsel by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and, as such, has been widely condemned as unethical. See, e.g., Duran v. Carris, 238 F.3d 1268, 1273 (10th Cir. 2001); Ellis v. Maine, 448 F.2d 1325, 1328 (1st Cir. 1971); Bush v. Adams, 2010 WL 1253990 (E.D. Va. 2010); Wesley v. Don Stein Buick, Inc., 987 F. Supp. 884, 886 (D. Kan 1997). Accordingly, should Defendant hire counsel to represent him by preparing pleadings or other papers for submission to the court in this case, counsel must conduct him or herself appropriately, i.e., enter an appearance. Additionally, if Defendant is indeed consulting with counsel in any capacity regarding this case (or any other case pending in this district), Defendant shall, upon receipt of this order, provide a copy this order to counsel."

Final Settlement Documents ... and Judgment

It looks like the mediation conference yesterday in the Bardfield case managed to mediate away any remaining obstacles to a settlement; at least that's according to the mediator's report:

As a result, the parties are now jointly making an emergency motion for two more weeks time, in order to file "all final settlement documents and judgment" with the court:

Thus, the new new new new anticipated settlement date of the Bardfield case is now March 11, 2011.

No new filings in the DeForest case as yet. As I mentioned previously, the deadline for a mediation report in that case is March 4, 2011.

Addendum 3/11/11: This is beginning to feel a bit like Lucy and Charlie Brown with the football. We have here another extension motion in the Bardfield case, this one for 10 days (until March 21, 2011):

What's interesting, I think, is the fact that this one is not a joint motion:

Hmmmm.

And there's been nothing new filed in the DeForest case to date. So, back to waiting we go ...

Mediation

It appears the anticipated settlement of the Bardfield case did not quite pan out. Both parties are now moving ahead with the next step of the litigation, the oft-postponed mandatory mediation conference. This is scheduled for tomorrow:

No new filing in the DeForest case (yet). However, the court has set a March 4 deadline for a mediation report to be filed there.

Framework for an Agreement Has Been Reached

The aforementioned substantive settlement discussions appear to be bearing fruit. Although it seems a bit more time is needed to work out the details, in a filing yesterday the plaintiff's in the Bardfield case are now saying that "framework for an agreement has been reached:"

It looks like they are now hopeful for a final settlement within 30 days.

Addendum 12/4/10: As I suspected, there are "substantive settlement discussions" occuring right now in the DeForest case as well. This similar motion to keep the court-appointed mediator at bay a bit longer was filed last week:

Again, this is a 30 day time extension. So, if these discussions work out, we should hear of a settlement agreement around about Christmas or New Years, I guess.

Addendum 12/23/10: Another 30 day extension in the Bardfield case, to January 21, 2011. A settlement is taking a bit longer than expected to hash out, it seems, due to "bankruptcy and corporate issues":

Addendum 1/15/11: Another agreed motion for more time, this one in the DeForest case.

Interestingly, this one actually spells out a date that they think the settlement documents will be filed with the court: January 21, 2011. And "concurrent with the related case" which refers to the Bardfield case; so it looks like this whole saga could be all wrapped up next Friday:

Addendum 1/21/11: Nope, not over yet, folks!

Instead of settlements, today we see yet another joint request for more time, this one in the Bardfield case. They're seeking a new deadline of February 21, 2011, which has the same end date as an extension (not shown, but recently approved) in the DeForest case: