Gilchrist cries "Uncle" in Minuteman Case
by James Lacy
Political Law 4-24-2007 9:49 am
Plaintiff Jim Gilchrist has cried "Uncle" and dismissed his own case in Orange County Superior Court in which he attempted to gain back control of the Minuteman Project, Inc.
The Court was scheduled to hear arguments tomorrow (4/25) on whether or not Minuteman should go into receivership pending a trial on who the members of the Board actually are. (Background: the lawsuit was brought by Gilchrist on 2/22/07 against my clients, Deborah Peterson, Barbara Coe, and Marvin Stewart, who state they are the majority of the Board of Directors. Gilchrist claims to be the "sole director.") In the short time since filing the case, Gilchrist and his lawyers lost three applications for Ex Parte Orders, lost a request for a Writ of Possession of the property of the organization, lost most of his request for a preliminary injunction, and were headed to defeat on the issue of receivership set for this Wednesday. His only victory was a tangential interim "preliminary injunction" pending trial restricting Defendants from spending $4,000 of Minuteman funds in their possession and using stationary for fundraising under Jim Gilchrist's name pending trial.
In excercising his right to dismiss his own case, Gilchrist's intent is to avoid the hearing on Wednesday where the Court was very likely to support Defendants' position that Minuteman should go into receivership pending trial, consistent with Defendants' claims of financial mismanagement and waste of nonprofit assets by Gilchrist and the other plaintiffs. Gilchrist can dismiss his own case unilaterally because he is the Plaintiff. But in doing so, he is also giving up all his claims, not only including alleged defamations by Defendants, but also his "preliminary injunction." In short, Gilchrist gets absolutely nothing out of two months of court litigation -- except presumably a massive legal bill for no results!
Gilchrist issued a press release about the dismissal that is highly misleading because it states Gilchrist's lawsuit and the "preliminary injunction" he achieved "created an important victory" for the movement. The truth is a "preliminary injunction" is an interim equitable remedy that only exists pending trial. It "dies" when the case is dismissed. Only a permanent injunction survives final resolution of a case, and the court did not grant a permanent injunction. Thus, Gilchrist's lawsuit accomplished nothing, except waste of assets of a nonprofit organization on needless litigation. What Gilchrist should have done was honestly tried to settle his differences with Coe, Peterson, and Stewart before he went to court. His legal strategy after he went to court was atrocious, and exposed him unnecessarily to Court-ordered management of the organization he founded.
The best thing everyone in this case can do now is try to settle their differences out of court and avoid further waste of assets that should be going to activities to protect our borders.
JAMES LACY IS LEAD ATTORNEY FOR THE MINUTEMAN PROJECT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AND WRITES ON POLITICAL LAW FOR
FLASHREPORT
