Free Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

1 James M. McGee, Esq. 2 Attorney at Law State Bar No. 011931 3 P.O. Box 460 Cottonwood, Arizona 86326 4 Telephone: 928.639.4747 FAX: 928.639.2190 5 6 Attorney for Defendants Home Mortgage, Inc., Carl Brown, Molly Brown 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Plaintiffs' Counsel's approach to this case is again getting OLDER. The vs. HOME MORTGAGE, INC., an Arizona corporation conducting business in Arizona; CARL BROWN; MOLLY BROWN; GREG BROWN; JANE DOE BROWN; DOES 1-10; XYZ CORPORATIONS; BLACK PARTNERSHIPS; DEFENDANTS. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA CATHLEEN CHANNEL; THERESA WHARRY; STACIE HANSON; MONIQUE NICHOLS; PLAINTIFFS, NO.: CV2003-0100 PHX ROS RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER; RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

21 Plaintiff's Counsel continues to recite the "facts and procedural history" in every 22 23 20, 2007, THIS COURT HAD ALREADY RULED THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR 24 25 SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. #103) WAS DENIED. This Court also ruled "there is a pleading he files, twisting the facts to suit his needs at the time of the filing. On June

26 genuine issue of material fact as to where Carl Brown was the alter ego of HMI." If 27 that is the only thing that Plaintiffs' Counsel can stress to obviate Defendants' 28 responses to other pleadings, then he is grasping at straws at this late hour, AGAIN. Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA Document 166 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 1 of 6

1

According to Plaintiffs' Attorney's own statement in his filing of August 7, 2007,

2 "the Court subsequently ruled the Arizona Wage Payment Act (the very basis for 3 Plaintiffs' lawsuit at the outset, and in the first place) does not allow for 4 shareholder/officer liability." (Page 2, lines 19-20). If that is the case, WHY ARE WE 5 6 7 8 9 according to the Plaintiffs. Molly S. Brown, was an officer of HMI, ergo, no liability, according to the Plaintiffs. SO, WHY ARE WE HERE? The commingling/siphoning issue has been addressed "ad nauseam" by HERE? Carl I. Brown was admittedly a majority shareholder of HMI, ergo, no liability,

10 Plaintiffs, "to a disgusting or ridiculous degree", See, Websters II, 1988. The issue of 11 12 13 14 OPEN ANOTHER ACCOUNT SOLELY FOR THAT PURPOSE? Most normal people receiving $700,000.00 into the personal bank accounts of the individual Defendants has been addressed. The money was used to pay corporate debts of HMI. WHY

15 would just pay the bills and get on with it. 16 Plaintiffs' Counsel's recitation of Carl Brown's testimony at his deposition is a

17 matter of fact. The Court can draw its own conclusions. Other new allegations have 18 19 WHAT IS A "HEDGE FUND"? 20 21 WHAT IS SIPHONING? Can Mr. Shields point to ONE instance where monies surfaced at the last minute:

22 from HMI were transferred to Carl Brown or Molly Brown, personally, from HMI to their 23 own benefit? 24 25 26 why? 27 Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA Document 166 2 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 2 of 6 DID HMI WRITE A CHECK TO EITHER CARL BROWN OR MOLLY BROWN during the period in question for income, or otherwise? If so, when, where, how and

1

CARL BROWN NEVER REFUSED TO HONOR HIS COMMITMENT TO CONTINUE

2 HIS DEPOSITION. MR. SHIELDS JUST RAN OUT OF TIME, AND SO THE COURT 3 RULED. AND, MR. SHIELDS' BEHAVIOR AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE MEDIATION 4 HEARING IN FLAGSTAFF WAS VERBALLY AND PHYSICALLY ABUSIVE, AND 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 bank accounts everywhere, all God's children have bank accounts, is also LIEUTENANT COLONEL, HAD TO USHER CLIENTS, CORPORATE COUNSEL AND MY PARALEGAL, MY WIFE, OUT OF THE COURTROOM TO GET AWAY FROM HIM. UBS has nothing to do with this litigation. Because Plaintiffs never complied with Arizona's Wage Payment Act is the problem of Counsel for Plaintiffs, not the Defendants Plaintiffs' dissertations regarding bank accounts here, bank accounts there, THREATENING TO THE POINT WHERE UNDERSIGNED, A RETIRED MARINE

15 misdirection and false. WHO CARES WHERE MONEY IS TRANSFERRED, OR NOT? 16 IT'S A MATTER OF PERSONAL FAMILY BUSINESS. THE DEBTS OF THE

17 CORPORATION WERE PAID, SATISFIED, AND MORE. To put it on a more simplified 18 19 personal account; either me or my wife have our own Money Market/IRA accounts, 20 21 she has her own personal account; and we have a joint account. We transfer money level: I have my Trust Account; I have my Operating Account; I have my own

22 back and forth all the time, from one account to another, for differing reasons, 23 financial or otherwise. Because the Browns have a much larger scale of operation, 24 such transactions, if true and alleged, should not be held against them. If so, SO 25 26 any claims for outstanding compensation, IF ANY, and are not entitled to ANYTHING. 27 Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA Document 166 3 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 3 of 6 WHAT? The Plaintiffs abandoned ship before HMI ceased operations, never made

1

"Likely" that "Defendants' blatantly misinformed the Court regarding the

2 $100,000 payment they made to Bank of America, [and] the checks they wrote to 3 Paine Webber", is complete and utter speculation. "Likeliness" is not going to

4 sustain a burden of proof. And, who misinformed the Court of anything, and if so, 5 6 7 8 The Plaintiffs' Request For Expedited Briefing Schedule and Ruling RE Request for Reconsideration, is also problematic and ridiculous. NOTHING HAS CHANGED where, when and why?

9 SINCE THIS COURT'S FIRST RULING EXCEPT FOR THE MINDSET OF PLAINTIFFS' 10 COUNSEL. He must be watching that Watergate film too much (Robert Redford, 11 12 13 14 the assets to the highest bidder (McAfee), took the money ($700,000) and paid the Dustin Hoffman, Hal Holbrook); "follow the money." In this case, there is no money to follow. HMI, L. Gregory Brown in particular, closed its Las Vegas as unprofitable, sold

15 corporate debts. Carl I. Brown even contributed more of his own money to do so. 16 This is plain and simple. Because Plaintiffs never complied with Arizona's Wage 17 Payment Act to let HMI or the Browns' know they had a claim at the time, is the 18 19 agents were paid in the normal course of business. These Plaintiffs in this case failed 20 21 22 to pursue any valid claims in this case. HYPERBOLE (n. an overshooting; an excess, extravagant exaggeration of problem of Counsel for Plaintiffs, not the Defendants. Other brokers, lenders, and

23 statement, a statement exaggerated fancifully, as for effect, extravagant exaggeration 24 used as a figure of speech). Some of the latest words or phrases used by Mr. Shields 25 26 during the discovery phase of this matter, learned there was significant evidence 27 Defendants Carl Brown and Molly Brown commingled corporate and personal funds"; Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA Document 166 4 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 4 of 6 in his latest pleadings are probably more theatric, than legal argument, i.e., "plaintiffs,

1

engaged in other acts; Carl Brown inappropriately commingled/siphon off corporate

2 funds; vast majority of this total; hedge fund; Carl Brown refused to honor his 3 commitment to continue his deposition; complete falsity; hedge fund, again; hedge 4 fund, again; altogether false; conclusively shows; completely false; hedge fund, 5 6 7 8 damages their already incredibly damaged credibility; overwhelming and clear cut evidence; completely invalidated; save the Plaintiffs thousands of dollars in attorneys' again; blatantly misinformed the Court; Defendants dishonestly alleged; further

9 fees; acutely aware of the Court's tremendously busy schedule; unquestionably 10 warranted; free up the Court's Schedule considerably, etc. 11 12 13 14 issue. Why Counsel for Plaintiffs continues to wallpaper this case with nonsensical It is Defendants' position that an expedited briefing schedule (for what?) is unwarranted. This at all appearances seems to be just a Motion, not an appellate

15 arguments is beyond belief. 16 Plaintiffs brought this case in the first place. If the Plaintiffs want to proceed

17 with this case hyperbolic, without facts or witnesses, that's fine. Defendants suggest 18 19 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 13th day of August, 2007. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Roslyn O. Silver, U.S. District Judge 27 James Burr Shields Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA Document 166 5 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 5 of 6 Original e-filed, e-mailed and mailed, This 13th day of August, 2007 to: Clerk-U.S. District Court /s/ James M. McGee JAMES MATHEW MCGEE Attorney for Defendants that they put on their case, if they have one, common sense overall, prevailing.

Law Office of James Burr Shields 382 East Palm Lane 2 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-1531 1 3 Clients 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Case 2:03-cv-00100-ROS-MEA Document 166 6 Filed 08/13/2007 Page 6 of 6