Well, they caught up with Chris Gardner | Page 4 | FerrariChat

Well, they caught up with Chris Gardner

Discussion in 'Vintage (thru 365 GTC4)' started by GBTR6, Mar 1, 2022.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. Ocean Joe

    Ocean Joe Formula Junior
    Rossa Subscribed

    Mar 21, 2008
    Boca Raton, Florida
    Full Name:
    Joseph Ford III
    Update. The case against Gardner was dismissed today after the death of an essential witness.

    Attached Files:

  2. AndreMatvei

    AndreMatvei Rookie

    May 8, 2017
    Full Name:
    Andre Matvei
    Please elaborate. Is it Gardner?
  3. Ocean Joe

    Ocean Joe Formula Junior
    Rossa Subscribed

    Mar 21, 2008
    Boca Raton, Florida
    Full Name:
    Joseph Ford III
    No, my 77-yr old partner Richard Mueller died, his wife will take the wheel and we will finish the race against TL90108 LLC. Gardner will be released any day now.
  4. IXLR84FUN

    IXLR84FUN Rookie

    Apr 10, 2013
    Columbus, Ohio
    Full Name:
    Daniel Waywood
    I've followed the Swatters case, this new Ocean Joe play seems a take off on swatters/Ferrari as he died midstream the litigation.


    Does the Death of Richard A. MUELLER mean he is replaced by a new ""Heiress"": Katherine Mueller?

    How does the Estate Probate manage suspicious litigation that could be libelous with a large counterclaim ?

    How does Ford proceed when the case was dismissed for 1. the fbi forensics claiming there were no forgeries 2. interpol confirmed Mueller was paid with the Heiress cashing the check and the death of Mueller?

    ( i heard there were 10 issues with case against Gardener that the DOJ found unable to overcome , thus the dismissal was much more than Fords single reason post on the death of Mueller)

    How did Mueller die?
  5. 180 Out

    180 Out Formula 3

    Jan 4, 2012
    San Leandro, CA
    Full Name:
    Bill Henley
    Congratulations to Chris Gardner on the dismissal with prejudice of the U.S. government's criminal case against him. I just now saw Ocean Joe's May 29 update relating this fact. What brought me back to this thread was that today I happened to check in on OJ's state court case, Mueller & Ford v. TL90108 LLC. There I found another pivotal update: that on June 11, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals had entered an order to affirm the ruling of the trial court to deny enforcement of a purported settlement agreement. In response, the trial court has filed an order to calendar a December 4 hearing on a Motion for Summary Judgment (without identifying the moving party), and to calendar trial for June 2, 2025.

    Given that both OJ and the defendant LLC have agreed to seal the record at both the trial court and the appellate court levels, we members of the peanut gallery have had very little factual information to go on. The Court of Appeals opinion does not add much, beyond this summary statement of facts:

    . . . [A] full-day mediation took place on October 29, 2021, with former Magistrate Judge David E. Jones. At the conclusion of the mediation, the parties signed a two-page Settlement-in-Principal Term Sheet (“SIP”), which included a “Financial Terms” section and a “Releases and Dismissal of Claims” section. In the “Releases and Dismissal of Claims” section, the SIP included the following bullet points:
    • The parties will negotiate and agree to the terms of a final settlement agreement in good faith.
    • The mediator will resolve any disputes involving the final settlement agreement.
    • The terms of the final settlement agreement will include mutual confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions.
    • The only public statements that Ford and Mueller on the one hand and TL on the other hand will make in respect to their settlement are the following: “We amicably resolved our dispute.”
    • The parties agree that this Term Sheet contains all material terms and is fully enforceable under [WIS. STAT. §] 807.05.
    Subsequently, Ford’s counsel filed a letter advising the court that the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit.​

    In its opinion the Court of Appeals did not share the contents of the "Financial Terms" section of this settlement agreement, which I expect to have been the only interesting peanut gallery fodder. All we know is that the order to affirm turned on the rule that a contract, to be enforceable, must be certain as to all its material terms; that the SIP failed adequately to define the "mutual confidentiality" and "non-disparagement" provisions; and that therefore the SIP does not constitute an enforceable settlement agreement. Pretty dry stuff.

    So now, with the federal criminal case coming to an end, and with it the on-line access to all its pleadings, and the Wisconsin state court case returning to the land of sealed filings, we can expect nothing much to report until December.
    tritone likes this.

Share This Page