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."]:
[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):
[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.
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.
[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.
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."
[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.
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.
"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:
