PRG vs. JC

[Half of life is just showing up, as the saying goes. Except within the first 20 days after a complaint is served on you in Florida, however...in that situation, it makes up the other half of life as well.]

You wrote on June 27, 2009 at 10:30am: Another lawsuit was filed against Johnny Chisholm (and his OMW companies: CPCE and Reunion Events) last week, this one by the OMW lighting company, Production Resource Group, in Florida state civil court in Orange County (Orlando). Images are posted [below]:




As you may recall, the lighting company (PRG) was mentioned in Chisholm's unsuccessful emergency motion to lift the TRO during Gay Days:


...with the amount claimed owed to them being $163,543.68, according to the schedule that was filed with the motion.

If you look at the filing activity in this new lawsuit, you'll see that PRG was able to get an emergency garnishment order against Chisholm's bank accounts, on the same day the suit was filed (I haven't checked whether they are the same as the frozen accounts, but my guess is they are).

I have to say this is legally highly unusual. Pre-judgment garnishments like this (like the Preliminary Injunction in the Bardfield case) are very rare; to get them, you have to convince the judge your case is both a slam-dunk, AND there is high probability that the defendant will abscond with funds otherwise. And this state court judge in Orange County took less than a day to answer both these questions in the affirmative.

The web site for PRG is here: http://www.prg.com/

---

You wrote on July 21, 2009 at 7:22pm: A watershed event today in the Chisholm cases: PRG, the lighting company for OMW who was reportedly owed $163,543.68 from Johnny Chisholm, has WON it's state court case against Johnny Chisholm personally, and his OMW companies Chisholm Properties Circuit Events, LLC, and Reunion Events, Inc., by default.

I repeat, PRG has officially WON it's case. Johnny Chisholm had 20 days to file an answer to the summons, and apparantly...he did not. Hence, a default judgment was entered against Chisholm and the two companies at the Orange County courthouse today. See [image below]:


The case file number is 2009-CA-018933-O.

---

You wrote on August 7, 2009 at 5:08pm: Today's Chisholm court news: Orlando-based OMW lighting company PRG filed a couple Motions for Final Judgment in the state court case it won against Chisholm by default a couple weeks ago; if approved, these motions will set the damages PRG is entitled to....

---

You replied to your post on August 10, 2009 at 4:11pm: No new Federal filings today, although the PRG state court case file is officially now marked "CLOSED." The motion for final judgment was approved, so whatever PRG was asking for, it got.

---

You wrote on August 20, 2009 at 4:45pm: Well, just when you thought things couldn't get any stranger...

No activity in the Federal cases today. I was about to call it a day, when on a lark, I decided to check the now closed state court case, filed by the lighting company PRG vs. Chisholm and OMW. The case that was defaulted on, for apparantly $100K+.

Well, imagine my surprise as I saw that six days ago, motions by Chisholm and his OMW compainies to set aside the default judgments:


This is something that is legally possible to do, however, it is very difficult. Basically you have to have a really REALLY good excuse as to why you let a case slip into default in the first place.

So, I'm wondering WHO the attorney is who filed motions six days ago, on behalf of Chisholm AND his corporations, and lo and behold...


Yep, it's the formerly reluctant Chisholm attorney Bruce Fehr. The same atty who motioned to withdraw for the federal cases over a month ago, due to not being paid. And now, all of a sudden, he finds it in his heart to LEAP into action for Chisholm to reopen the closed state court case.

I don't know what to make of this, obviously...to say that defending lawsuits in this manner (ie, letting cases default, then try reopening them with a lawyer who supposedly quit earlier over being unpaid) is "strange" would be an understatement.

Well anyways, we are back up to three cases I'm tracking...stay tuned on this Facebook event page, where "the party starts here!"

---

You wrote on September 11, 2009 at 4:26pm: New activity in the closed-but-Chisholm-trying-to-reopen state court case: Chisholm files 3 Motions to Withdraw:


Unfortunately, I can't access the actual filings here, but my guess would be these are motions by attorney Fehr to withdraw from representing Chisholm, this time from the state court case.

Perhaps this is happening because a new Chisholm attorney mentioned in the last post will be taking over. Or perhaps not. We'll see...

---

You wrote on October 1, 2009 at 5:47pm: ...and in other Chisholm court related news, various sources have tracked down a judgment lien filed by PRG against Chisholm, in the state case it won by default. The actual amount of the judgment (which I was never really sure about) turns out to be $316,230.86 (and compounding, at 8% interest):

The Answer

[Every story has two sides, and thus in a contested lawsuit every Complaint by the plaintiff has an Answer to it by the defendant. Posted below is the six-page Answer filed by Johnny Chisholm in reponse to the Bardfield lawsuit.

To follow along as to what each numbered answer in the Answer refers, the Complaint can be found here.]

You wrote on June 24, 2009 at 5:36pm: And here's today's Chisholm Courthouse Roundup:

...

2) Johnny Chisholm filed his official Answer to the complaint today. It's not long, and it's important legally speaking...so, I'll copy and post the pages to the photo section, hopefully by later tonight. It's basically a paragraph by paragraph response to the Complaint (which I first posted to the photo section here). As with the Complaint, I'll add any observations to the comments below each image.

Chisholm's Summary Judgment Motion

[Another not-quite resolved issue (as of October 16, as I type this) in the Bardfield case has been Chisholm's Motion for Summary Judgment. As you can see by my Facebook postings below, despite being initially filed back on June 16, the ruling on the motion itself is still (to the best of my knowledge) officially pending. Although, it's failure to support a seperate Emergency Motion to lift the Preliminary Injunction (see the July 6 posting, below) is a pretty sure harbinger that the Motion itself is to a large extent already doomed.

All filings to date pertaining to the Summary Judgment Motion can be found here.]

Jim wrote on June 16, 2009 at 7:52pm: ...And there was a news today in the OMW case as well. The defense filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing the whole case should be thrown out by the judge, before it even goes to trial, based on the theory that the $200,000 promissory note violated the New York state usury laws.

The promissory note is probably governed by New York law (it stipulates that on the note). And New York usury laws do indeed cap interest rates on loans at 16%. The note in question here promised the plaintiff's $40,000 after OMW concluded, in addition to the principal, making for an effective interest rate of about 92.5% (I haven't actually calculated this myself, but it sounds about right).

The problem with this argument is...state usury laws typically have a lot of exceptions to them, and New York is no exception to having lots of exceptions. And a big exception, which the Summary Judgment motion neglects to mention...limited liability companies (LLCs) cannot invoke the New York usury law as a defense. See this .pdf article, page 27: http://www.real-estate-law.com/infoFrame.php?pdf=Confusury_Unraveled_25.pdf .

The judge has scheduled a hearing in chambers on this Motion for July 7, and due to the exception pointed out above, I expect it'll be rejected. The note was clearly made out to "CHISHOLM PROPERTIES CIRCUIT EVENTS, LLC." <--- (note "LLC" at end)

There was a Motion to Vacate the Preliminary Injuction filed by Chisholm as well, using the same usury argument. The judge has yet to make (or announce when he will make) a ruling on that motion, but I expect it'll be rejected as well, for the same reason as above.

---

Jim wrote on June 19, 2009 at 5:03pm: Another brief update:

Chisholm today filed "Emergency Motion for Expedited Hearing on Motion to Dissolve Preliminary Injunction and Writ of Attachment," meaning, that he wants the judge to hurry up and rule on the motion to Vacate the PI I mentioned in the last para to the post above.

Why the hurry? Well, according to today's filing, Chisholm was not able to pay all OMW expenses out of cash proceeds, and OMW creditors are coming a calling. In particular, the liability insurance company for OMW is owed $20,454.78 (a check that was sent to them alledgedly before the account freeze on June 3 was returned when they tried to cash it on the 5th), and "other bills and expenses from One Mighty Weekend remain unpaid, as well as defendants’ operating expenses."

We can also infer from this that Chisholm does not currently have $200,000 in his frozen bank accounts. If he had, money over that sum would have been unfrozen, in accordance with the PI, and payments to people like this insurance company would have been made.

Since this is an emergency motion, we may get a response from the judge on this before Monday; I'll keep an eye on things this weekend and report here if we do.

---

Jim wrote on June 21, 2009 at 9:12am: One new filing to report this morning (it actually came in very late Friday) and it's the victims' reponse to Chisholm's Emergency Motion mentioned above.

And not surprisingly, they oppose it. They cite (among other reasons) that since Chisholm cried wolf during his last direly worded motion to lift the injunction (see post #63 above, saying OMW would otherwise have to be cancelled), he's probably crying wolf on this motion too.

They also dispute some of the facts related to Chisholm's new usury claim (ie, that it was Chisholm's lawyer who drew up the note, not the plaintiffs'), and mention that Chisholm has currently and cumulatively less than $100,000 in all his frozen accounts.

BTW, as to the usury claim...it has been pointed out to me that Chisholm is claiming criminal usury, not civil usury, as a defense. And that the New York criminal usury law (unlike civil usury) can be used as a defense by an LLC. This is true...but it opens up a whole other can o' worms.

This is a very complex area of the law, so I'm not even going to try to explain it all here (and I'd probably bore 95% of you to tears if I tried) but in short, there is considerable doubt under New York law whether a criminal usury defense can be used to completely void a loan, as to both principal and interest (as Chisholm would like to see happen). As one recent case put it, "Nothing we see in the criminal usury statute...provides for voiding". http://tinyurl.com/n2hvvz

So, this usury question is actually more interesting than I first thought. I guess we'll see how it all plays out on July 7.

One thing I should add, however...even if this criminal usury defense works, it'll only effect the contract claim on the note, not the tort claims. Chisholm is trying to kill the tort claims using another legal theory known as the "economic loss rule." Which is also very complex, so I won't try to explain it...suffice to say, I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. Especially as to the fraud and RICO claims (which formed the backbone of the Preliminary Injunction). Again, we'll find out for sure on the 7th.

---

Jim wrote on June 22, 2009 at 4:54pm: We have a new Order from the judge today. It is an Amended Order actually, moving up the date of decision on Chisholm's Summary Judgment Motion a week, from July 7 to June 30. IOW, a week from tomorrow.

No order as yet on the Emergency Motion to lift the bank account freezes; I get the impression the judge just wants to deal with all this in one sitting, so he simply moved up the date on the Summary Judgment.

If the Summary Judgment motion succeeds as to all the plaintiff's causes of action, the lawsuit will be thrown out. If not, the lawsuit will go on, and the injunction freezing the bank accounts will likely stay in place.

I've been asked to provide a summary of important upcoming dates in the Chisholm cases. This would be a good time to do that, I guess:

June 30, 2009: Chisholm's Summary Judgment motion in the Bardfield case (2009 OMW Orlando) will be taken under advisement (see above);

July 6, 2009: Deadline for submitting arguments for or against Johnny Chisholm getting slapped with sanctions (probably monetary) for discovery violations (refusing to provide documents, etc) in the DeForest case (2007 OMW Paris). The judge has indicated that he has found discovery violations, and Chisholm WILL be sanctioned, unless he can convince the court via argumentation otherwise. The ruling should come down shortly after the 6th.

July 16, 2009: Johnny Chisholm must appear before the judge in Pensacola to "show cause" why he should not be held in contempt of court for willful violation of the TRO during OMW. His "...failure to appear shall result in a warrant for his arrest."

---

Jim wrote on June 23, 2009 at 5:15pm: More filings today. First, the big news...Chisholm's Emergency Motion to unfreeze his bank accounts was officially DENIED, as being "untimely and unsupported." So, that injunction will remain in place, until at least June 30, when the judge will consider the summary judgment motion mentioned above.

Also, Chisholm amended his summary judgment motion, actually backtracking a bit by admitting it was indeed his attorney who drew up the promissory note in the first place...including the proposed 40K fee. Although some minor changes suggested by the plaintiffs were later incorporated into the final version (also drawn up by Chisholm's attorney), it is pretty clear the idea for the loan Chisholm is now whining about being usurious originated with Johnny Chisholm himself. This will obviously make it more difficult for him to claim he was the innocent victim of loan sharking here.

---

Jim wrote on June 24, 2009 at 5:36pm: And here's today's Chisholm Courthouse Roundup:

1) A new Order by the judge: We are back to July 6 (from June 30) as the date to consider Chisholm's motion to get the whole suit thrown out. Reason being was Chisholm's filing of an amended motion yesterday (noted above), so as to give the plaintiffs more time to consider the changes. Chisholm's bank account and asset freeze will thus remain in place until at least July 6....

---

Jim wrote on July 2, 2009 at 3:13am: And here's Chisholm Court Roundup for today...

Like I said earlier, lots of filing activity, as the plaintiffs in the Bardfield (OMW) case filed their responses to Chisholm's summary judgment motion (ie, a motion to get the whole case thrown out, before even a trial).

The first document filed was their response to the motion to lift the injunction (ie, the bank account freeze). What was most interesting here was the fact that in support of this response, the plaintiff's deposed (ie, interviewed) Johnny Chisholm's accountant Robert Hayslette last week...no doubt in response to a subpoena.

And the accountant revealed some new things to us. It turns out there were more lies, or, as Chisholm's attorney put it, "outdated information" on that loan application than just the "no" checked on the lawsuit box (yeah I know, shocker). For one, there were more loans taken out for OMW, that were never revealed...*1.2 million* worth of promissory notes, in fact, just like the $200,000 being litigated in this case. This means, there are more potential plaintiffs out there, who too got screwed over in this mess.

And one of them is PRG, the lighting company, who I mentioned earlier was owed $163,543.68 (OK, this makes sense...I kinda thought that was a bit steep just to rent a bunch of lights and trusses for three days). So, not only dit they get screwed on the lighting contract, but they apparantly loaned Chisholm money too beforehand, and are out that too. Hence the suit in state court in Orlando.

The other interesting revelation the accountant made concerned cash handling during OMW, when the TRO was supposedly in effect. Turns out, many OMW cash handlers were NOT informed of the TRO, like they were supposed to, and some cash (at least $500) WAS misdirected...this will have certain consequences when Chisholm goes before the judge on the 16th to "show cause" why he should not be held in contempt of court.

The other big filing was the response to the summary judgment motion. I wont go into all the legal intracacies, but I'll simply repeat my earlier opinion: the battle over the usury question will be interesting. That could go either way, IMO, but my sense of it is the plaintiffs will prevail. I put the odds at 60-40. The tort claims, however, JC has no chance. His "economic loss rule" argument under current Florida law is a dog with fleas...99-1 odds for plaintiffs. Which means most of the counts (and the injunction) will almost certainly remain. We'll see on July 6th if I'm right.

Also attached to this response was a lengthy sworn declaration by Steven Bardfield, of which I posted page 1 of already to the photo section. It is a moving, frightening personal statement, detailing exactly how he and his friend were defrauded by JustCircuit and Johnny Chisholm. If I have time tomorrow, I'll post all 15 pages to the photo section.

---

Jim wrote on July 4, 2009 at 11:10am: On second thought, it would probably be easier for everyone if I just provided the whole document as a download, rather than further clutter up the photo section:

http://www.sendspace.com/file/p0u29y

This link should be good to download the whole Declaration for the next seven days.

BTW, I just noticed a typo above...the hearing on Chisholm's Summary Judgment motion will be on the 7th (Tuesday), not the 6th.

---

Jim wrote on July 6, 2009 at 6:27pm: Today's Chisholm court news:

Well folks, we got an unexpected early surprise today in the Bardfield/OMW Orlando case. Chisholm's motion to vacate the PI (ie, unfreeze his assets and bank accounts) was officially DENIED.

I had expected to see this ruled on, along with the whole Summary Judgment motion, tomorrow rather than today...but there you have it. The judge apparantly decided to just get this part over with, noting that 1) the PI was based on the almost certain success of the RICO claim, and 2) it's well settled law in Florada that the "economic loss rule" (ELR) defense cited by Chisholm does not apply to RICO claims. Thus, the asset freeze stays in place.

AND we can also read between the lines here that Chisholm's SJ motion tomorrow is also doomed, by the same logic. Barring a miraculous epiphany by the judge in the next 24 hours, we now know he'll uphold at least the RICO claim.

So, it's no longer a question of whether the SJ will fail tomorrow, but how badly it will fail. In preparation for tomorrow, here's a scorecard of the various legal claims to be decided on tomorrow, stacked up against the defenses Chisholm and his supporters had hoped would defeat them all:

Count 1: Action on the note ... Defense: Usury
Count 2: Fraud in the inducement ... Defense: ELR
Count 3: Conversion ... Defense: ELR
Count 4: Unjust Enrichment ... Defense: ELR
Count 5: Civil Theft ... Defense: ELR
Count 6: Breach of contract ... Usury
Count 7: Civil RICO ... Defense: ELR ... Result: LOSS for Chisholm

So, I'd say Count 7 was for all intents and purposes decided today. What remains for tomorrow is Counts 1 to 6.

Like I said above, the usury defense vs the 2 contract claims is interesting. It may be a close call, I think, turning on some unsettled points of New York law. So, there's a chance Chisholm may get Counts 1 and 6 tossed out, if his attorney argues well; we'll see. Win or lose, it'll make a great issue to appeal on, for either side.

The ELR is a much more feeble defense given the facts here, however, and as we can see it has already for all intents and purposes lost as to the RICO claim. I personally don't expect it to be much more successful against the other tort claims either (Counts 2 thru 5), but one to watch will be the "Civil Theft" charge, in that it calls for treble damages (ie, $600,000) if it is successful. That would pretty much render any win by Chisholm's usury defense as irrelevant.

Also, I should note that all the tort claims carry the possibility of punitive damages as well.

I'm not sure if we'll get the results immediately tomorrow, but if we do I'll post them here ASAP....

---

Jim wrote on July 10, 2009 at 4:13pm: Just a quick update: There have been no new filings in the Chisholm cases since last Monday. So, it looks like we will have to wait until this coming Monday at the soonest to find out officially how the big Summary Judgment hearing went.

Also a reminder about next week's significant date: July 16 (Thursday) Johnny Chisholm must appear before the judge to explain his apparant violation of the TRO during OMW, or a "warrant shalll be issued for his arrest."

DeForest vs. Chisholm

[I don't have as complete a record here of the DeForest case, for a couple of reasons: One, I began writing all this on Facebook when DeForest was already well underway; and two, the topic of the GDAD Facebook site was OMW Orlando, not OMP Paris.

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.

Let's Go Play

[An enduring mystery from the approved Preliminary Injunction was what to make of the fact that Chisholm bank accounts in the name of "Let's Go Play" were included on the list frozen by the PI. This revelation led to the discovery that Chisholm had also registed the ficticious business name "Let's Go Play" in Florida.

As you may recall, Let's Go Play was the hastily formed company that stepped up to the plate in May of 2009, and organized a very successful Gay Days Friday party at Disney's Typhoon Lagoon...a party that Johnny Chisholm could never publically be a part of, having been banished from Disney venues due to his unpaid debt of nearly a half-million dollars to Disney Resort Destinations. As Tony Hayden put it on the headline of The Circuit Dog back in June: "What Was Johnny Up To?"]

Jim wrote on June 12, 2009 at 5:45pm: ...BTW, the complete list of his various now-frozen corporations...well, how shall I put this...there is a VERY interesting revelation in this list...take a look-see, look-seers:

"...All Merchant Accounts for any and all of the following:
Johnny Chisholm, Chisholm Properties Circuit Events, LLC, One
Mighty Weekend Memorial Day Pensacola, Johnny Chisholm
Global Events, LLC, Reunion Events, Inc., Chisholm
Properties of Pensacola, LLC, Emerald City of Pensacola,
Inc., One Mighty Weekend, Beach Ball, Let’s Go Play,
200 E. Garden Street, LLC, Louisiana Interests, Inc.,
800 Bourbon Street, LLC, Oz Bar, Chisholm Properties
of Baton Rouge, LLC, and any other merchant accounts
related to the defendants herein,..."

NOW. OK folks, take a look and scan that list of Chisholm entities subject to the freeze VERY carefully.

Do any of the above names strike you guys as...interesting? :o)

---

Jim wrote on June 15, 2009 at 12:25pm: There have been some questions as the the apparant connection between the Friday night "Let's Go Play" party at Typhoon Lagoon, and Johnny Chisholm. The organizers spoke with Tony Hayden at The Circuit Dog, and denied any such connection, despite their name appearing in the lawsuit as a frozen bank account controlled by Johnny Chisholm.

I've dug up some additional info Lets Go Play, which I'll present in chronological order; based on that, people can form their own theories as to what is going on here:

April 22, 2009: The domain "http://www.letsgoplay2009.com/" is registered with GoDaddy.com. The registrant is 'Domains by Proxy,' an anonymous registration service which guards the privacy of the real website owner against all but a police warrant or a subpoena.


May 6, 2009: "East Gate Events, LLC" is registered with the Florida Department of State - Division of Corporations (FDS-DOC).


The registered agent is listed as Michael Christ, and the address looks to be a business related mail drop in Wilton Manors, FL (mostly realtors, actually; enter the address into Google, and you'll see what I mean).

May 7, 2009: East Gate Events, LLC registers the fictitious business name "Let's Go Play!" with the FDS-DOC. Place of business is listed as Broward County, and Michael Christ is the signator.


May 10, 2009: The www.letsgoplay2009.com website is discovered, and Rob Morrison (our beloved admin) here posts the news accordingly.

May 11, 2009: OK, here's where things get interesting...Johnny Chisholm registers the ficticious name "Let's Go Play!" (100% same exact name, including the exclamation point) with the FDS-DOC. Except the place of business is listed as "MULTIPLE." Meaning, it can be used in all Florida counties (including Orlando).


May 12, 2009: "Let's Go Play" issues a press release, which Rob posts to the 'Typhoon' thread listed above. It announces tickets will go on sale on the 13th.

May 13, 2009: Rob posts this new information to the 'Typhoon' thread:

"This was posted on justcircuit.com - I thought it was interesting:

JustCircuit on Tuesday spoke with Michael Christ, promoter for “Let’s Go Play 2009” who assured us he was a not partner with any other organization during the weekend. It was revealed today that GayDayS.com is indeed partnered with the event and that 10% of proceeds will now go to benefit Hope & Health, a local HIV/AIDS charity. Christ revealed that the event had Disney’s support and that Disney was responsible for the “Let’s Go Play 2009” website design. Tickets are now on sale."

---

So anyways guys, there you have it. The only thing I would add to this is, we know that sometime after the 11th, Johnny Chisholm used his new statewide "Let's Go Play!" ficticious business name to open up bank AND credit card accounts in that very same name...accounts that are now frozen in accordance with the Preliminary Injuction that was entered against him last Friday.

"...Failure to Appear Shall Result in a Warrant for His Arrest"

[One interesting (and continuing) side-drama that emerged from the Preliminary Injunction hearing was a show cause Order entered by the judge against Johnny Chisholm, threatening him with arrest if he did not attend a July 16 contempt hearing for alledged violations of the TRO during OMW. These two Facebook entries pretty much tell the story of where we are with that:]

You wrote on June 10, 2009 at 2:17pm: Just when you thought the legal dimensions of OMW could not get any more remarkable! The two-page order is now posted in the photo section; here is the text version [replaced by actual copy] of the just entered Order to Show Cause on Johnny Chisholm:


So there you have it. Ignore everything I said about "show cause" two posts up. Instead substitute it with this:

1) Johnny Chisholm has to show up before the judge in person, on July 16, 2009, in Pensacola, to explain what appears to be a willful violation of the judge's TRO, and

2) If he fails to appear, it "shall result in a warrant for his arrest."

Reading the tea leaves here, folks: This is one pissed off Federal judge.

---

---

You wrote on July 16, 2009 at 4:57pm: Johnny Chisholm's "show cause" hearing occured today on schedule at 1pm at the Federal courthouse in Pensacola. Mr. Chisholm was present. Filed today were the minutes of that hearing:

There was no decision made at the hearing, apparantly...just defense argument and testimony by Johnny Chisholm. The plaintiffs seem to have been there merely as observers, because they didn't make the motion for contempt...the judge did that on his own...so, they weren't able to ask questions.

I'll check back tomorrow, of course, to see what kind of decision emerges from this. But that's all the filings for today.

[It is now October 11, 2009 as I type this, and to the best of my knowledge no decision has yet emerged. This contempt of court issue has been hanging like a Sword of Damocles over Johnny Chisholm's head since July 16; possible outcomes run from nothing happening, to jail time being meted out. Although truth be told, jail sentences for contempt of court in civil cases are exceedingly rare, with sanctions and fines being the norm in cases like this.]

The Preliminary Injunction

[The next chapter in the Bardfield case was the decision by the court to convert the Temporary Restraining Order into a permanent Preliminary Injunction (PI). The process began with a hearing on June 9, 2009 and ended with an Order granting the PI on June 12, 2009.

My Facebook commentary druing this period is posted below; all legal documents pertaining to the granting of the PI can be found here.]

You wrote on June 8, 2009 at 7:38pm: Just a quick update on the legal aspects of OMW 2009, for those of you who are interested...

There were no new court filings today, apparantly. However, as you can see in para 2 above, there will be a hearing tomorrow at 10am in Pensacola, to determine whether a "Preliminary Injunction" will be imposed on Johnny Chisholm and Chisholm Properties Circuit Events, LLC.

In a nutshell, this hearing will determine whether the Temporary Restraining Order becomes not-so-temporary.

Naturally, the outcome of this hearing will be of keen interest to any DJs, entertainers, vendors, lessors, and/or advertising sponsors who have yet to be paid in full by Johnny Chisholm for this year's OMW. As soon as I find out what the decision is, I'll post it here ASAP, along with any additional filings of general interest that may be made.

---

You wrote on June 10, 2009 at 1:32pm: OK, we have a minute-by-minute rundown of yesterday's hearing for a Preliminary Injunction against Johnny Chisholm, in the lawsuit against him for essentially funding OMW with $200,000 of stolen money.

Aaaaand here's it is :

---

"PROCEEDINGS:

10:18am Court in session - introduction of counsel

10:20 Plaintiffs (Lieberman) review case and argue motion for preliminary injunction [#2]; Court inquiry; Pltfs (Lieberman) respond

10:52 Defendants (Fehr) address the Court; Court inquiry; Defts (Fehr) respond

10:55 Court will enter a show cause order for Mr. Chisholm; Pltfs (Lieberman) respond

11:02 Plaintiff CHARLES CARVER sworn - Direct (Lieberman); 11:46 Cross (Fehr); 11:48 Redirect; 11:49 Court inquiry; no follow up. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit C, E, H, I & J admitted

11:51 Pltfs witness RAY DEFOREST sworn - Direct (Lieberman); 12:15 Cross;12:17 Redirect

12:18 Pltfs (Lieberman) closing argument

12:28 Court will amend/modify order re: temporary injunction.

12:29 Pltfs (Lieberman) address RICO statutes/standards; Court inquiry; Pltfs (Lieberman) respond. Plaintiffs’ Exhibits K & L admitted

12:59 Court in recess

1:08 Court in session

1:09 Defts (Fehr) closing argument

1:13 Pltfs (Lieberman) reply

1:17 Court admits Plaintiffs’ Exhibits A-L admitted (transcript “L” to be submitted to the court today). Court instructs Pltfs to submit proposed language re: modification of the TRO. Court will enter a show cause order as to Mr. Chisholm w/hearing date for him to appear

1:19 Pltfs (Lieberman) inquiry; Court responds re: issuing subpoenas; counsel respond

1:23 Order will enter an order re: motion for preliminary injunction prior to June 13, 2009

Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Admitted:
A-H (attached to Complaint - doc. #1)
I & J - receipts
K - Chisholm General Ledger 12/31/07
L - Deposition Transcript of Johnny Chisholm"

---

OK, and now I'll try to explain what this all means.

Basically, what's at stake here is a motion for a Preliminary Injunction against Johnny Chisholm personally, and his OMW corporation ("Chisholm Properties Circuit Events, LLC"). The PI will likely be very similar to the TRO, but without the "Temporary." It'll probably remain in place for the duration of this lawsuit.

IOW, if the PI is approved, it means a long term asset freeze on Mr. Chisholm's bank accounts...needless to say, a very very bad thing for Mr. Chisholm.

So, those are the stakes. And as you can see from the proceedings above, not only did the plaintiff's being numerous exhibits to the hearing, bit they brought along two witnesses (plaintiff Charles Carver, and Ray DeForest, a plaintiff in another similar suit against Chisholm). By contrast, Chisholm's lawyer seems to have brought only himself to this hearing.

Anyways, as you can see, testimony was taken, exhibits entered, and arguments by both sides were made. And based on that, the judge decided to do two things:

1) Instructed the plaintiffs to submit a proposed draft for the Preminary Injunction; and
2) Entered a "show cause order as to Mr. Chisholm w/hearing date for him to appear."

OK, what this "show cause order" is, it's basically the judge wanting to ask Johnny Chisholm a few questions before he makes his ruling. I.e., the judge is asking Mr. Chisholm to come in, sit down, and to "show cause" why he should not place a freeze on all his assets.

And if Mr. Chisholm decides not to show up to show his cause...then the PI will be automatically granted. Probably using the same language drafted by the plaintiff's in their proposed order, which you can well imagine will be draconian indeed.

Thus it will be probably in Chisholm's best interests to show up for this; the date has not been set yet, but as you can see from the above, will be sometime before the 13th.

The final decision on the PI will be made on or before the 13th as well (which BTW is the date the TRO is due to expire).

I'll post more info as it becomes available. And once again, thanks for all the emails and messages of support.

---

You wrote on June 10, 2009 at 1:55pm: Ooops, hold on folks, it looks like I made a slight error in the post above...

I just got a copy of the "show cause" order on Johnny Chisholm, and it turns out that I made a mistaken assumption as to what it pertained. I had assumed it pertained to the Motion for a PI, but I was wrong...it pertains to a new and totally different issue.

And what is that issue, you ask? Well...this is I'd say another of those "screen capture" moments I'd say, so give me a few minutes as I make the copies and post them to the photo section...this is something you guys literally have to see to believe... :o)

---

You wrote on June 10, 2009 at 2:17pm: Just when you thought the legal dimensions of OMW could not get any more remarkable! The two-page order is now posted in the photo section; here is the text version of the just entered Order to Show Cause on Johnny Chisholm:

"ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOTICE OF HEARING

This matter was brought before the court on Tuesday, June 9, 2009, for hearing on Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiff Charles Carver was present with counsel, as was counsel for defendants; however, defendant Johnny Chisholm did not attend the hearing nor did any representative of Chisholm Properties Circuit Events, LLC.

At the hearing, plaintiffs presented evidence suggesting to the court that defendants have violated the Amended Temporary Restraining Order entered June 3, 2009. Such violations include, but may not be limited to, diverting cash and credit card ticket sales from the accounts and depositories frozen by the temporary restraining order to alternate bank accounts and failing to properly register and document receipts of income derived through ticket sales for the One Mighty Weekend event in Orlando, Florida, the weekend of June 4, 2009. Accordingly, the court will require defendant Johnny Chisholm to appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of the court’s order of temporary Case 3:09-cv-00232-MCR-MD Document 21 Filed 06/10/2009 injunction dated June 3, 2009. Defendant Chisholm should also be prepared to show his compliance with the affirmative obligations of the order. It is therefore ORDERED:

1. The court will conduct a show cause hearing on Wednesday, July 16, 2009, at 1:00 PM at which time defendant Johnny Chisholm shall appear and show cause why he should not be held in contempt of the court’s order of temporary injunction dated June 3, 2009. Defendant is advised that failure to appear shall result in a warrant for his arrest.

2. The clerk shall forward a copy of this order to the United States Marshal
Service for prompt service upon defendant Johnny Chisholm, at 210 East Garden Street, Pensacola, Florida 32502.

DONE AND ORDERED this 10th day of June, 2009.
s/ M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE"

So there you have it. Ignore everything I said about "show cause" two posts up. Instead substitute it with this:

1) Johnny Chisholm has to show up before the judge in person, on July 16, 2009, in Pensacola, to explain what appears to be a willful violation of the judge's TRO, and

2) If he fails to appear, it "shall result in a warrant for his arrest."

Reading the tea leaves here, folks: This is one pissed off Federal judge.

---

You wrote on June 12, 2009 at 5:45pm: A big update today on the Chisholm lawsuit some of you here are following. And that is, the judge decided to grant that Motion for a Preliminary Injunction I mentioned earlier, essentially freezing all his known assets and bank accounts. It is almost the same in wording as the Temporary Restraining Order that he got hit with last week, except the PI is NOT temporary. The TRO was due to expire tomorrow. This new PI, OTOH, is permanent, until the judge decides to stop it, which will probably not be until this case is dismissed.

To briefly describe the situation in non-legal parlance: Chisholm is fucked.

According to the terms of the PI, he can only pay expenses for vendors related to OMW 2009 out of his frozen accounts. He CANNOT pay himself OR his employees any salaries.

The PI also applies to all his corporation accounts in the frozen banks, not just the one being sued in this case (Chisholm Properties Circuit Events, LLC). This is a new addition by the PI, to the terms of the TRO. The judge noticed a bad habit of Chisholm to transfer funds and assets between his various corporations rather promiscuously (including those in bankruptcy), and by extending the freeze to all his corporations effectively puts a stop to that.

BTW, the complete list of his various now-frozen corporations...well, how shall I put this...there is a VERY interesting revelation in this list...take a look-see, look-seers:

"...All Merchant Accounts for any and all of the following:
Johnny Chisholm, Chisholm Properties Circuit Events, LLC, One
Mighty Weekend Memorial Day Pensacola, Johnny Chisholm
Global Events, LLC, Reunion Events, Inc., Chisholm
Properties of Pensacola, LLC, Emerald City of Pensacola,
Inc., One Mighty Weekend, Beach Ball, Let’s Go Play,
200 E. Garden Street, LLC, Louisiana Interests, Inc.,
800 Bourbon Street, LLC, Oz Bar, Chisholm Properties
of Baton Rouge, LLC, and any other merchant accounts
related to the defendants herein,..."

NOW. OK folks, take a look and scan that list of Chisholm entities subject to the freeze VERY carefully.

Do any of the above names strike you guys as...interesting? :o)

I'm adding a screen cap of that list to the photo section now...

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)

The Post That Started It All

[For continuity's sake, I'm going to begin reposting my original Facebook OMW postings here, in chronological order. This was my first post. I recall I wrote it within minutes of reading the initial Bardfield filings, when I was still in a state of absolute shock after learning Mr. Bardfield and Mr. Carver's incredibly sad tale]:

You wrote on June 2, 2009 at 11:21pm: I'm looking at the TRO now (I just downloaded it off PACER) and I have to agree with Tony, this is VERY serious.

There are a lot of revelations contained in this TRO, probably the most interesting to the readers of this forum is the real reason for the banishment from Disney: Chisholm told the plaintiffs in this TRO, "...this was the first year Disney required full payment before the event and that historically they allowed the last deposit to be paid immediately after the event."

Unfortunately, the TRO does not specify Disney wanted all money up front this year, but given his past history of bounced checks and late payments to Disney (and others)...I'm sure it is not difficult for us to infer why.

I must say, this new lawsuit is quite illuminating...the plaitiffs' got hit up for a $200,000 loan to pay the full up front Disney was supposedly demanding...they made the loan, specifying it would be paid only to Disney...then Chisholm screwed them by not paying Disney. Extraordinary.

There looks like a lot more here too...including some fascinating Exhibits... I take it you've read Exhibit C, Tony? :o) Anyways, as soon as I'm done absorbing all this, I'll post some screencaps of the more interesting parts to the photo section here. I must say, pretty amazing stuff.

BTW, if this TRO is granted, what will probably happen is that law enforcement will be stationed at the door to all the parties, collecting and sequestering all funds as they come in. For DJs who have not been paid in full yet, needless to say this will be very distressing for them.

And in case anyone here is wondering...yes, I'm an attorney.

[The Bardfield complaint (with Exhibits) can be viewed in it's entirety here.]

An Introduction

Welcome to The Forest Moon of Endor, a blog devoted to covering to what is easily the most historically significant circuit-related news story of the past decade: The extraordinary 2009 collapse, via lawsuits and bankruptcy, of what was once (arguably) the premier circuit weekend in the world: One Mighty Weekend (OMW) in Orlando, Florida. It's my hope that people interested in this topic, be it for journalistic reasons or just plain curiousity, will find this blog a handy go-to resource for all the relevant legal documents associated with this monumental event.

As some of you may know, I've been chronicalling the legal downfall of OMW over on GayDays at Disney (GDAD), an excellent Facebook group devoted to covering the Gay Days Orlando parties, featuring "unfiltered discussion" and "no ties to any of the promoters." I'll continue to post there, but as Facebook is a bit cumbersome when it comes to uploading and featuring images, and I want people to see more of the actual legal documents, I thought it might be a good idea to run a roughly parallel blog here. Blogger is much more user friendly and asthetically pleasing for this sort of thing, IMO.

While I'll post (and comment on) new legal filings here as the occur, I'll also be posting my old Facebook posts here from time to time as well, backdating them (this "Introduction" was actually written on October 7, 2009, for example; I backdated it to June 1 so as to make it the first post) and probably adding images of the legal documents not seen before on the GDAD group.

The preliminaries out of the way...lets begin!