You wrote on July 22, 2009 at 5:06pm: Today's Chisholm update: Today was supposedly the deadline for Bobby Warner, Johnny Chisholm's business partner who Ray DeForest added as a defendant in his lawsuit (see post #73 above) to file an answer in the DeForest case. However, instead she filed a "Motion to Quash," arguing defective service of process.
I'll have to read the process server's side of this story to be sure, but it looks to me that she may be right. Long story short, the process server tried to leave the papers for her with a friend and co-worker, at an Alabama coffee shop owned by her daughter. And a mere friend/co-worker is not legally empowered to accept service of process on her behalf at a place of business
We can infer from this Mrs. Warner is actively dodging the plaintiff's process server. Otherwise, they would have easily served her personally by now, rather than the alledgedly defective substituted service attempt described above.
Anyways, if Mrs. Warner's motion is successful, DeForest's process server will simply have to redouble his or her efforts, striving to get it done right next time. And from that point, she'll have 20 days to file an answer.
---
You wrote on August 4, 2009 at 5:31pm: A small yet mildly amusing update today: Ray DeForest filed a response to Bobby Warner's Motion to Quash today (see post #85, above). And I was right: Johnny Chisholm's business partner, Bobby Warner, has been actively dodging the process servers in this case.
Attached to the motion in opposition was a statement by the process server, who detailed his prior unsuccessful attempts to locate her in person: The address in Pensacola which she listed in her Motion to Quash is, in fact, an abandoned building with a real estate lockbox on the doorknob. Calls to her known phone numbers go unreturned. When asked where she could be found, Johnny Chisholm told the process server she was living in Lillian, Alabama, where she owned a cafe with her daughter.
The ownership of this cafe is where the facts begin to come into dispute. Based on Chisholm's representation that she was an owner, the process server left the documents with an employee there (Bert Adams), who accepted service on her behalf.
But then, as we know, on the last day to file her Answer she filed a Motion to Quash instead, denying any ownership in the cafe. And that fact becomes important: The service on an employee of a business is probably good against an owner, but probably bad against a non-owner.
And the website for the "Lillian's Cafe & Coffee House" seems to back this non-ownership claim up. According to this site, Bobby Warner's sole duties at the cafe seem to consist of "bartending and cooking" for her daughter and son-in-law.
So, due to the deceptive statement by Chisholm as to her ownership of the cafe, DeForest may be temporarily out of luck on this whole service of process question. If the Motion to Quash is granted, she'll have to be re-served.
In fact...if anyone here has any knowledge as to the current whereabouts of Bobby Warner (probably somewhere around either Pensacola, FL and/or Lillian, AL, I would guess), and you wanted to further the cause of justice...you could email those tips into DeForest's attorneys' office, where I imagine they would be MUCH appreciated. Their email addys are:
Arianne B. Suarez: asuarez@ldklaw.com Scott D. Lieberman: slieberman@ldklaw.com
---
You wrote on September 24, 2009 at 4:53pm: A new filing by the plaintiff's today in the DeForest case: A Motion to Extend Time For Service of Process on Defendant Warner.
In a nutshell, Bobby Warner (Johnny Chisholm's business partner) has managed to successfully play the dodge-the-process-server game for several months now. A substituted service was attempted earlier on a co-worker, but as you all may recall, that was the subject of a "Motion to Quash" a few weeks back (see posts #82 and #86 above), and thus the service's validity is in question.
So today, "in an abundance of caution" Ray DeForest filed today for a 120 day extension to serve the papers personally upon Bobby Warner...just in case her Motion to Quash is granted. For those interested in the nitty gritty, a full text of the motion is [included in the documents link here].
[Was this all merely a delaying tactic? You decide...]:
You wrote on July 15, 2009 at 6:45pm: We have two nearly identical filings today by Johnny Chisholm's attorney, in both the DeForest and Bardfield cases. They are almost cookie-cutter exact in wording. They are both Motions for Leave to Withdraw as Attorney of Record.
In both of these Motions, Chisholm attorney Bruce Fehr cites the fact that he has been unpaid for some time, in addition to alledging Chisholm's has failed to communicate and cooperate with him in his defense. As such, Fehr is asking the judge to let him go, and to extend all case deadlines 60 days in order to allow Johnny Chisholm to seek new council.
OK, a couple of points. One, Bruce Fehr tried to withdraw from the DeForest case back in late May as well (ie, before the Barfield case was even initially filed on June 1). The judge rejected that motion. He didn't say why, but reading between the lines, it's pretty clear the judge must have felt that May withdrawal motion was just a ploy to get out from under a series of deadlines to produce documents demanded by DeForest.
And point two...you have to ask yourself: if Fehr was so unhappy working for Chisholm in May, why did he voluntarily take up the Bardfield case for him when it was filed on June 1? As far as I can tell, he was under no obligation to do so.
So yeah, take those points into consideration, fast forward to today...coincidentally 24 hours from the 1pm hearing scheduled for tomorrow, in which Johnny Chisholm must "show cause" why he should not be found in contempt for violating the TRO during OMW, else his "...failure to appear shall result in a warrant for his arrest"...and you begin to see the real purpose behind these 11th hour withdrawal motions.
And that being the case, it's pretty obvious the judge will see right through this as well, shooting both these motions down in flames as he did with the May motion. Which is funny because, I'll bet much of what Fehr says in his motions are true (ie, he probably hasn't been paid for a while). But oh well...the 13th Amendment notwithstanding, I think he's going to be bound in indentured servitude to Johnny Chisholm for a bit longer.
So, my guess is we are still on for tomorrow, show (cause) time 1pm CDT, in Pensacola. Should be interesting!
BTW, still no Orders issued by the judge re: the Summary Judgment motion in the Bardfield case, and the discovery sanctions to be levied on Chisholm in the DeForest case. The judge is obviously taking his time on both issues, which is probably a good thing (there are indeed some very intricate legal questions in play in regards the usury question in the Bardfield case).
---
You wrote on July 17, 2009 at 4:41pm: Well, an interesting development today in the Chisholm cases: Chisholm attorney Bruce Fehr's two withdrawal motions were both partially approved.
The judge allowed Fehr to resign as Chisholm's attorney in both the Bardfield and DeForest cases, effective immediately. However, Chisholm was given only 30 days to find new counsel, not the 60 that was requested.
Deadlines in the Bardfield case were pushed back 30 days as a result. However, the judge noted Chisholm had missed deadline after deadline in the DeForest case already, so there would be NO further extensions in that case.
The judge also rejected requests by Fehr to have attorney liens placed on Chisholm.
So, attorney Bruce Fehr is out. Mildly surprising, as I had predicted the motions would be totally rejected. But I guess once yesterday's Show Cause hearing got out of the way, there were no major deadlines within 30 days that would have been impacted. So, the judge set Fehr free.
---
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...
[Another eyebrow-raising incident in the Bardfield case is the documented involvement of a small south Florida print and web magazine in recruiting the fraud victims for Johnny Chisholm. As you can see by the court excerpts below, the controlling owner of this magazine acted simultaneouly as a "representative" of Chisholm's OMW company, "approached the victims regarding obtaining some funds for the production" of OMW, and "portrayed Johnny Chisholm...as...a renowned expert in the party-promoting business.".
What he didn't tell them, obviously, was that he and his fellow magazine owners were part of a big happy group of "FRIENDS in dispute with FRIENDS" and that one of these friends, Ray DeForest, was suing Johnny Chisholm for fraud.
Ah, with friends like these....]
You wrote on July 1, 2009 at 4:53pm: ...I will leave you all with what be today's most interesting new revelation in the matter...and that being, JustCircuit's newly revealed role in bringing about the current scandal.
And Mr. Thomas Sicker's facebook profile can be found here.
I'll have more to say, and more court case news to report, when I return. In the meantime, I'm sure this will tide you all over until then...
---
You wrote on July 2, 2009 at 3:50am: Thanks to some anonymous tips, I have some more information on this mysterious Thomas Anthony Sickler, and his equally mysterious portfolio of "Corporate Development" for JustCircuit.mag.
It seems that "corporate development" in JustCircuitSpeak translates to "owner." According to Florida LLC records:
...Thomas A. Sickler is listed as the "MGRM" (Managing Member) of Just Circuit Magazine, with Shane and Victor being listed in a subordinate position as mere "MGRs" (Managers).
To understand the difference in Florida LLC law between MGRMs and MGRs, see this link here.
As you can see, the "Managing Member" is an owner and controller. "Managers" are defined as being non-owner employees.
---
[Addendum: FWIW, JustCircuit Magazine modified their credits page since that July 1 posting; their latest issue now dubs Shane Rogers, Victor Mauro and Thomas Sickler each as "Owner."]:
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
-- Edmund Burke
Welcome to The Forest Moon of Endor, a blog devoted to covering the extraordinary 2009 collapse, via lawsuits and bankruptcy, of what was once (arguably) the premier circuit weekend in the world: One Mighty Weekend in Orlando, Florida.
New to this whole story? Read the "How We Got Here" timelime posts, and get caught up:
