Posts Tagged ‘Joe Francis’

JOE FRANCIS FACING NEW CRIMINAL CONTEMPT CHARGES

Friday, June 11th, 2010

In my action against Joe Francis for Jayde Nicole he just recently retained new counsel after his prior counsel withdrew. I have a bunch of psychotic emails from him during his short lived in pro per status. However, just when Joe Francis thought his criminal problems were a thing of the past, he ended up apparently violating the protective order from his criminal case. In addition, his former defense team from Munger, Tolles & Olson has just withdrawn. This one slip up can cost a cash strapped Joe Francis a bundle to defend and Judge Otero can easily give him custody time.

A copy of the motion for criminal contempt can be viewed here: Francis Contempt Motion

In a criminal case, sometimes discovery obtained by the government which exposes witnesses cannot be used or disseminated in other cases or by the defendant. This is what was in place against the Girls Gone Wild CEO. After the trial was over, Joe, holding true to his reckless ways, used some interviews as leverage in attempting to negotiate a debt with his creditors.

This attempt has backfired and now once again, on June 21, 2010, Joe Francis is looking at custody time.

JOE FRANCIS-ONCE SURROUNDED BY ATTORNEYS NOW CAN’T KEEP THEM

Thursday, April 15th, 2010

It was not long ago that the Girls Gone Wild king was a feeding frenzy for attorneys.  Especially, the large law firms.  Now, in his two open civil cases in Los Angeles, they withdrew living him in pro per.  Steve Wynn is pursuing him with a vengeance.  Attached is a minute order showing how bad it is.   He showed up at a debtor’s exam initiated by Mr. Wynn and they confiscated $1,900.00 in cash from him.  See order here:Francis Debtor Exam Doc 

On his federal tax case, he didn’t appeal the District Court’s denial of his motion for reconsideration.  See prior post here:  http://ronaldrichards.com/index.php/2010/blog/district-court-denies-joe-franciss-motion-for-reconsideration

Recently, he didn’t show up for a hearing in federal court.    His former attorney in Northern Florida sued him for fees. His attorney representing him withdrew and now she is seeking a default judgment against him.  See the story herehttp://www.newsherald.com/news/judge-82974-attorney-panama.html

These are the final signs of someone’s financial end.  I mean really, would you actually pay $10.00 to see video or DVD of college girls showing their breasts?  This  market is getting harder for him to find as well.  He recent tour, was in the famous town of Greencastle.  Do any of you know where that is?  Here is the story on how hard local officials are making it for him to exploit young drunk woman.  http://www.bannergraphic.com/story/1623651.html

All in all, it doesn’t look too pretty.  I will give you more next week.

DISTRICT COURT DENIES JOE FRANCIS’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

This is finally it.  Joe Francis has run out of gas.  The Court, after deliberating for ten days, DENIED the Girls Gone Wild founder’s final legal hooray.  The minute order reads like this:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. CV 09-09449 RGK (FFMx) Date March 8, 2010

Title JOSEPH R. FRANCIS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Sharon L. Williams Not Reported N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Re Motion for Reconsideration (DE 46)

On January 13, 2010, the Court issued an Order Re Complaint (“Order”). In the Order, he Courtfound that (1) Defendant’s jeopardy assessment and levy of accounts was reasonable under the circumstances, and (2) the amount of the assessment was appropriate under the circumstances. Therefore, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Complaint for Abatement of Jeopardy Assessments, Release of Levy on Rothwell Limited Account, or Alternatively, Reduction and Return of Excessive Amounts Levied.

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. Plaintiff’s motion is based on the following grounds: (1) the Court has failed to consider material facts and law, based on a misunderstanding of the Plea Agreement and settled tax law; (2) Defendant misrepresented the evidence regarding the Rothwell account to the Court; and (3) Plaintiff has discovered materially different facts he could not have earlier presented to the Court that demonstrate Defendant’s misrepresentation.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) a party may bring a motion for relief from a judgment due to mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Absent unusual circumstances, reconsideration is only appropriate where the court is presented with newly discovered evidence, the court committed clear error or the decision was manifestly unjust, or there has been an intervening change in controlling law. Beentjes v. Placer County Air Pollution Control Dist., 254 F. Supp. 2d 1159, 1161 (E.D. Cal. 2003) (citing School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. AC&S,Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)). A motion for reconsideration should not be used to reargue the motion or present evidence which should have been presented previously. Beentjes, 254 F. Supp. 2d at 1161.

Additionally, Local Rule 7-18 states that a motion for reconsideration may only be made on the ground of :

(a) a material difference in fact or law from that presented to the Court before such decision that in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been known to

the party moving for reconsideration at the time of such decision, or (b) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such

decision, or (c) a manifest showing of a failure to consider material facts presented to the Court before such decision. No motion for reconsideration shall in any

manner repeat any oral or written argument made in support of or in opposition to the original motion.

C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-18.

Regarding the first ground for reconsideration, the Court finds Plaintiff’s argument unavailing. First, the underlying argument set forth by Plaintiff is not new. It was clear from Plaintiff’s original briefing, as it is in the his current briefing, that based on the form of the organizational structure, Plaintiff is not the direct, legal owner of Rothwell. However, this fact was already considered by the Court when it found that the assessment was reasonable and the amount assessed appropriate.  As to the new facts and arguments related to the Rothwell account, the Court has considered such evidence and finds them unconvincing for purposes of changing the Court’s original ruling. Even if there was no attempt to liquidate the Rothwell account for purposes of moving the funds out of the

United States, all the other evidence, in the aggregate, still warrant the same finding.

In light of the foregoing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 This means that unless Joe has another $22M in cash lying around, it will take a long time under the government microscope for him to ever recover.  You will not see coverage about this anywhere but here because the average celebrity media does not have acces to the Court records like I do.   Joe is finally out of legal options.  Sure, he can appeal, but by the time the appeal happens, the IRS will have finished dissecting his assets and it will be almost imposible for him to recover.  Let’s face it, people are buying less not more Girls Gone Wild DVD’s.  In addition, the technical aspects of this case create a high barrier to assign a reporter to cover these type of actions. 

A paper copy of the minute order is here if you want a wall decoration, CLICK HERE:  FRANCIS DENIAL ORDER