A Fehr Farewell

[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...