This Response was filed in the Bardfield case, in response to the recent motion to lift or reduce the $200,000 bond amount:
And this Opposition was to the pending default motion in the DeForest case:
The first response is timely (a new bond motion was just filed, and Chisholm had until March 22 to reply...he waited until the last day, but he got it in there), while the second one would have to be considered extremely untimely (the DeForest default motion was filed back in October, just before OMW filed for bankruptcy). Hence it's questionable if the court will even consider the second filing.
Nevertheless, there was one assertion in the DeForest Opposition that caught my eye, and is worth commenting on, I think:
"Plaintiffs' motion seeks, essentially, to punish this defendant because he has been unable to retain counsel. As this Court knows, defendant's counsel has withdrawn because he had not been paid. Defendant is no more able now to pay a new attorney than he was able to pay his old attorney. Ironically, it is this Court's freezing of tens of thousands of dollars of defendant's funds in the Bardfield and Carver case, at the request of the same attorneys as those representing plaintiffs here, that has been at the heart of defendant's financial problems. It is abundantly clear that plaintiff's efforts in this action are well funded and his skilled and aggressive attorneys can propound discovery to defendant at will, knowing he cannot respond, and can file numerous motions seeking relief from this Court, knowing that only his voice can be heard. Defendant, standing alone against plaintiff's hired guns, does not have the luxury of being a proactive litigant."A couple of points: One, Chisholm hasn't entirely been without lawyers at his disposal during this time. He is currently employing a bankruptcy attorney (who has been very active as of late), and there was at least one recent instance when his old lawyer made an appearance on his behalf after he was allowed to withdraw from the Federal civil cases (an aborted attempt to get the default judgment in the PRG case rolled back).
And two, I'd say the use of the word "ironically" here is misplaced, in that the asset freeze was approved largely due to Chisholm's threat back in May of 2009 that he would resort to "burning up even more money" through drawn out litigation if he were ever sued:
The definition of "irony" is "the quality or state of an event being both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or poignant and extremely improbable way." And in this case, there is nothing really coincidental or contradictory about this situation. The asset freeze was put in place to prevent the threatened dissipation of contested assets, and it's operating exactly as expected and advertised. Although by no means adequately, as the Bardfield plaintiff's noted in their recent bond motion:
"...the injunction only netted nominal amounts against him personally...Chisholm is not depositing monies in any enjoined accounts and has not done so since the temporary injunction was granted. Any initial money enjoined from the corporate Defendant has dwindled due to refunds and is far less than the bond amount."Given that the bond amount was $200,000, it's probably safe to infer that this "nominal" "far less" amount would have been eaten up in litigation in only a few short months. So, the blame Chisholm assigns on the OMW asset freeze for all his current woes is not only misplaced (since he brought it upon himself) but overstated as well.
But I will say this, the overall point he's making as to his current financial state is probably accurate. Given recent problems in his other bankruptcy cases (two additional unpaid creditors filed relief-from-stay motions last week), as well as his continued reliance on the free services offered by a marketing partner of questionable value and reputation, I would say right now Chisholm in no more condition to carry on protracted litigation as he is to produce quality circuit parties.
No comments:
Post a Comment