[As of today (October 20, 2009), there has been no word on whether Chisholm has or will secure a new attorney (unless the Suggestion of Bankruptcy filing counts as a new appearance?) and no decision as yet regarding the default of the Chisholm LLCs.]
You wrote on August 7, 2009 at 5:08pm: Today's Chisholm court news: ... And I should mention too, we are coming down to the wire for the deadline for Johnny Chisholm to find a new lawyer. The judge gave him 30 days from July 17, which is August 16; however, I notice that is a Sunday. Meaning for practical purposes the last day for a new attorney to make an appearance on his behalf would be Friday August 14...one week from today.
A corporation, however, being that it is a legal entitiy and not a real person, by definition cannot represent itself pro se. Thus if no new attorney shows up by next Friday, come the following Monday August 17 the plaintiffs will be able to Motion for Default against Johnny's OMW corporations...and will automatically win vs. them, just as PRG recently did in it's state court action.
Stay tuned...
---
You wrote on August 17, 2009 at 5:18pm: Well, no new filings by the defense last week, and thru today...meaning unless I missed something (which is possible), as of this moment Johnny Chisholm is officially acting pro se in these lawsuits (ie, as his own attorney).
The plaintiff's filed their monthly attorney time records with the court today (28.4 hrs on the Bardfield case, 12 in the DeForest case), with copies being sent this month not to former Chisholm attorney Bruce Fehr, but to Johnny Chisholm and Bobby Warner, "pro se."
It appears to me that the defense has simply given up. At this point, the LLC's holding the rights to OMW are now vulnerable to default judgments...which will, for all intents and purposes, destroy those entities. We'll just have to wait and see what happens next...
---
You wrote on August 18, 2009 at 5:42pm:
***BREAKING NEWS***
The plaintiffs' in the Bardfield and Deforest filed Motions for Default against Chisholm's OMW companies. Reason being, as I noted over a week ago, the lack of legal representation for his corporate defendants by the 30 day deadline imposed by the judge for him to procure.
I've posted screen shots of the Motion for Default in the Bardfield case below. As you can see, if approved Chisholm's OMW holding company will be hit with a total of $692,640 in damages. That's $600,000 in actual damages (the $200,000 "loan" amount, tripled by statute due to the Civil Theft charge in the lawsuit), plus $92,640 in attorney fees.
The Motion for Default filed in the DeForest case (not posted) is similar, except the damages there add up to $612,165.
692,640 + 612,165 = $1,304,795.00
Add to this the 100 grand or so PRG reportedly got in it's state court default judgment, means that One Mighty Weekend will soon be saddled with over 1.4 million dollars in lawsuit debt. That's one mighty debt.
Even taking into account the money collected in the frozen accounts (just under $100K, IIRC), that still leaves what was once arguably the finest circuit party in the world hopelessly* in debt.
This all assumes of course, that the judge will grant these default motions...however, I see no reason why he wouldn't. Chisholm had 30 days to find a new lawyer, and he no doubt intentionally and knowingly just let this happen.
As soon as these motions (and others) are ruled on, I'll let you all know.
*Barring a bankruptcy filing. I'll say more about this possibility if and when it happens. And yes, I have been monitoring the US Bankruptcy Court filings for the name "Chisholm" on a daily basis, so if and when this happens, you'll know about it here as well.
---
You wrote on September 10, 2009 at 7:09pm: After a lull of a few weeks, we finally have some new visible activity in the Bardfield case. The new filings are a bit confusing (in part because one of the parties doing the filing seems a bit confused), but I'll try to explain what happened today as clearly and succinctly as I can.
It turns out today (9/10/09) is deadline in the case for the filing of a Joint Scheduling Report. Both parties are supposed to confer, try to agree on when to set key deadlines in the case, and whether they agree or disagree, send their recommendations into the judge.
Well, as we all know, Johnny Chisholm is currently representing himself pro se (ie, w/o a lawyer). So, on 9/3 the plaintiffs' lawyers Fed-Ex'ed directly Chisholm their own proposed pre-trial schedule, asking him to "comment" on it, so as to perhaps come to agreement and make it a "joint" report.
Nothing happens for 6 days. Then yesterday afternoon (9/9) Chisholm sent this email to the plantiffs' lawyers:
As you can see, it refers to a "meeting" tomorrow (Friday). And that he is in the process of hiring a new lawyer (within the week), and requests the "meeting" postponed for two weeks so he can confer with his supposed new lawyer. Nothing about the request for input on the joint report.
Now, there was no "meeting" with Chisholm scheduled for Friday. There was, however, two subpoenas for documents due tomorrow, served not on Chisholm but on two non-parties...the OMW venues Arabian Nights and Buena Vista Hotel. NOT Chisholm personally.
Well, apparantly this morning, the plaintiffs' lawyers emailed back, trying to explain to Chisholm that he's got it all wrong. That there is no meeting or deposition or subpoena for "him" tomorrow, but rather, they would like his input on the proposed trial scheduling. And they need it today.
And Chisholm's response? He filed a pro se motion this afternoon, seeking a "Protective Order" against the "deposition" of him scheduled for tomorrow, citing that it was too far away for him to attend (Fort Lauderdale), he had no time to prepare, he was in the process of hiring a new attorney any day now, and that he had unsuccessfully tried to work it out with the plaintiffs out of court.
The plaintiffs filed a Notice in reponse this afternoon, noting that Chisholm's Motion for Protective Order is basically kind of silly...the plaintiff's want documents from Arabian Nights and Buena Vista tomorrow...NOT Johnny Chisholm. He can stay in Pensacola tomorrow for all they care. They go on to speculate as to two possible motives for Chisholm's nonsensical Motion today:
1) Chisholm is genuinely confused, and mistakenly thinks he is supposed to be in Fort Lauderdale tomorrow, rather than representatives from Arabian Nights and Buena Vista; or
2) This whole thing is an intentional delaying tactic, similar to the discovery shenanigans Chisholm has been pulling in the DeForest case for over a year.
Lastly, because today was indeed the deadline for the Joint Scheduling report, the plaintiffs went ahead and filed a "Unilateral Scheduling Report" since they, despite their best efforts, could not create and file a "joint" one. Here's the schedule they propose:
Oct 7, 2009: Deadline to amend pleading or join other parties (ie, Just Circuit) Nov 12, 2009: Deadline to file dispositive motions Nov 23, 2009: Deadline for discovery to be completed
PROPOSED TRIAL DATE: On or about January, 2010
So, if this unilateral schedule gets approved, that's the schedule we will have.
And through all the confusion, we do learn some interesting new facts about this case:
1) Chisholm is on the verge of hiring a new lawyer (or so he claims); 2) Apparantly, some sort of settlement desires have been made known (see reference in the email linked above)? In the plaintiffs' Unilateral Scheduling Order, they mention settlement talks as well, noting that they have been "unsuccessful." And 3) The plaintiffs have been busily trying depose various Chisholm venues (ie, Arabian Nights and Buena Vista set for tomorrow). They key venue to ask questions of, of course, will be Disney. This whole case, IMO, will turn on what Disney says in those depositions.
If it turns out Disney never told him the Disney venues were "worked out" BEFORE he got the $200,000 loan...then Chisholm is doomed.
---
You wrote on September 15, 2009 at 5:43pm: The magistrate judge in the Bardfield case responded to Chisholm's Motion for Protective Order today (see post 102 above). Chisholm has to now "Show Cause" within 7 days as to why his motion is not untimely and/or moot.
In addition, the magistrate is very curious as to this new attorney for Chisholm that has been bandied about, and wants info on the status of his/her hiring made to the court within 7 days as well.
Here's the full text of the magistrate's reply:
---
You wrote on September 22, 2009 at 5:38pm: A couple of new orders today in both of the now slowly moving Federal cases. The magistrate judge (who recently took over reviewing pre-trial motions in these cases) decided to delay a decision on the motions for default vs the Chisholm corporations, on some very arcane, technical grounds: Even though Chisholm failed to get a new lawyer for the LLCs within the 30 day deadline, she wants arguments on whether the complaint was "well-pleaded" before she'll sign off on a default. She also wants affidavits in support of the damages they are asking for. They have until Oct 5 to do so, or she'll recommend that the defaults not be granted (the final decision is still in the hands of the district judge).
So now, the plaintiffs have to scramble and file this new info the magistrate wants. So, this is basically amounts to a delay (and extra work for the plaintiffs' attornies).
This was also the deadline for Chisholm to show cause on the Motion for Protective Order he made last week (see post #102 above), as well as inform the court on his efforts to find a new attorney...which he appears to have missed, since there seems to be no filing from him today.
---
You wrote on October 1, 2009 at 4:47pm: A new Order was issued by the magistrate in the Bardfield case today, doing two things: 1) rejecting Chisholm's earlier pro se motion for a protective order, and 2) asking Johnny Chisholm, once again, to advise the court on his progress in supposedly hiring a new attorney. Since Chisholm failed to respond to the court last time to this question, the magistrate appears to be a little p/o'ed at him, this time threatening him with sanctions if he blows this demand off.
As you all may recall, other possible court sanctions are still pending against Chisholm for a variety of reasons in both Federal cases, ranging from discovery violations in the DeForest case, to money-laundering violations of the TRO in the Bardfield case.
There were two new Motions for Default on the corporations, in both cases...to meet the demand of the new magistrate judge that the Motions be "well-pled." And well pled they were, as you can see by the [link] above.
But perhaps more importantly, each case also added brand new Motions for Default, against Chisholm personally. Ie, not merely the LLCs. The grounds being, Chisholm's failing to meet deadlines and his ignoring of the judges request indicates that he is, in effect, giving up. Hence, a default judgment Chisholm is appropriate.
If these defaults go through (as they likely will, *if* he fails to respond) then he will be personally on the hook for the combined 1.3 million dollars in judgments in both lawsuits.
All four of these Motions are backed up by numerous Exhibits, which as some of you may realize by now, tend to contain the most interesting stuff to read! Emails, financial statement, depostion transcripts, etc.. And I can tell you folks, there are some very interesting revelations here...
It'll take me a awhile to sort thru it all, but to just give you a sampler of the quality of the info contained within, here is an excerpt (from an attached declaration by Ray DeForest):
"...In phone calls Defendant Chisholm constantly advised me of his status and experience with such events. Whenever I raised an issue of concern during my decision making process, he would dismiss such issues by touting his successes with the Orlando parties and bar ownerships. He constantly told me he had never lost money on any investments and boasted of his financial wealth as well as the wealth of his entities.
During his solicitation, Chisholm asked me to come meet him in Florida and stay at his very lavish condominium on the beach. During my visit, he repeatedly boasted of his wealth and the expense of the condominium. He told me that his condominium was used just for investors in his other entities as well as their friends and clients. I would later learn that Chisholm did not in fact own the condominium or his home and and this charade was part of the scheme..."
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.
"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:
