Mechanics Lien Challenge

Any ideas on what your subcontractor could do with this? Here is why this general contractor is fighting so hard:

HOMEBUILDER PLEADS GUILTY TO THEFT
High-end homebuilder John C. Chrisman pled guilty to two counts of aggravated theft in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Monday morning.


The plea comes with a minimum sentence of probation and maximum of 10 years in prison, five years for each count. The other charges were underlying to the theft offense, said Assistant Prosecutor Bill Anderson.


Sentencing is scheduled for July 3.


Anderson said negotiations to reach a plea plea began early this morning. Chrisman's lawyer, Edward McTigue, could not be reached for comment.



• More Blue Ash news

Chrisman, president of Montgomery-based Chrisman Building Group, originally faced six felony charges of securing writings by deception, two counts of unauthorized use of property and one count of aggravated theft.

Prosecutors accused Chrisman, 45, of putting two families at risk of losing their homes after he signed papers stating that all the subcontractors had been paid, according to papers filed in January.

The two homes are in Blue Ash - one at 5496 Kenridge Drive belonging to Michael and Jilna Katz, and another at 5494 Kenridge belonging to John Augustin.

Prosecutors argue that the subcontractors had not been paid, which led the companies to file liens in excess of $500,000 against the Katzs' home and more than $100,000 against Augustin's home, according to court documents.

Among the evidence that prosecutors collected in the case was Huntington National Bank account records for Chrisman's home building group dating back to September of 2008, records of payouts from Katz to Chrisman and nearly 30 witnesses, who mainly include representatives from local contracting and building supply companies, according to court papers.

Chrisman, whose company has participated in local Homearama and Citirama home shows, entered a plea of not guilty to all charges in late January. He was released on his own recognizance but he was required to surrender his passport.

Now you are blathering about unethical lawyers. Who said there were NOT unethical lawyers? You keep announcing things NO ONE said nor remotely suggested was wrong, then declaring yourself superior for doing so. Crazy as the dickens. Its funny whenever you blow it out of the water with some crazy baloney, you start commiserating with the poster on how bad the legal system is, aren't lawyers awful, etc, counting on them to dismiss your misinformation because they have found an companion for their distrust of and dislike of the judicial system. How poorly done of you.
Ah, the name calling. You never learn, do you? I have no idea what "DRUCILLA" means, even. And judging from your literally dozens of "GRACELESS" postings, you clearly know my name. You've been BANNED for name calling. Yet you cannot resist. When YOU get SO emotionally caught up in this that it makes you violate the rules, I'd say you need help----aside from your glaring lack of legal ability. Its like comedy----you read something that clearly says you are completely and utterly wrong with statements such as this: If you do not stand to gain by the lien, you are not party to the cause of action and THEN you preen and laud your reading ability LMAOOOO

You haven't posted a single a thing I said that was wrong. SHE hasn't posted a single thing I said that was incorrect. You did not disagree with what I said--I've been correcting YOURS and you KNOW you are wrong, so you RESTATE IT, and pack totally irrelevant things around it as if it makes it any less incorrect and declare your superiority LMAO.

Refer to my previous posting--she is "going" to be named as a defendant. YOU said she was NOT a defendant and she was NOT NAMED AS A PARTY because she does not stand to BENEFIT. YOU said: She is not PARTY (HAS NO BENEFIT) TO THE PROCEEDINGS. AND I don't see a single thing she said that CORROBORATES what YOU said.

She IS going to be named as a party. You incorrectly stated she is not a party, then "explained" that to mean 'she has no benefit"------I posted the LEGAL DEFINITION ( not my own personal made up usage of the word) and she said the lawyer said the opposing attorney COULD sue her but YOU told her she could NOT be named as a party (which means plaintiff or defendant) which is clearly incorrect as well--_THENNNNNNNNNNNNN you applaud yourself on your outstanding performance ROFLMAO Oh gawd.
If I say something, you call it my opinion or plagiarized . If I document it with Blacks Law Dictionary, its irrelevant " GRACES legalese".You'd argue with God himself, just to declare your failure in the legal system relevant to every discussion wouldn't you?

That's scary.
And, lets just compare YOUR statements to HERS:


HERS: I have spoken to three lawyers on the phone today, all who have stated unconditionally that the general contractor's attorney can basically do whatever he wants whether it's legal or not, It seems her ATTORNEYS with whom she consulted said they CAN SUE HER. OOPSIE.

YOURS: SHE has nothing to gain and never did create a reasonable
CAUSE OF ACTION for them to sue her.
It seems her ATTORNEYS with whom she consulted said they CAN SUE HER. OOPSIE.
THEN you turn around and say her part in this suit depends on whether she has any INTEREST in the outcome...

Interest as in "Hey, I wonder who won the game last night" (interest as in curiosity) or INTEREST as in financial? You just said she HAS no benefit or interest, THEN you said HER part DEPENDS on whether she has any interest in the outcome.

God, is it like this inside your head all the time??
I don't see where the lawyers she spoke to verified a SINGLE thing you said as being accurate. AND I don't see where they LABEL anything pertaining to her, if she is named as a party, as being TO HER BENEFIT in order for her to be sued. According to HER, THEY told her THEY can do as they want in suing HER--which, GUESS WHAT? Makes HER A PARTY (even without her standing to "BENEFIT from") the lawsuit.

YOU NEVER ANSWERED THESE QUESTIONS and they are POSTED along with that whole "FRANCE is a democracy" question on MY site. ROFLMAO
YOU (erroneously) say "She is not PARTY (HAS NO BENEFIT) TO THE PROCEEDINGS. "


I ASKED: SHOW ME THE DEFINITION OF PARTY THAT YOU ARE USING THAT USES THE TERM PARTY TO MEAN THE SAME THING AS 'THEY BENEFIT'.

NO answer.

YOU SAID:

If you do not stand to gain by the lien, you are not party to the cause of action. This is just a phrase Grace learned but didn't tell you how it applies or if it does apply.


I asked: GAINING something by the lien is what makes you a party?

NO answer.

YOU said: The only ethical way for a lawyer to threaten to take you to court in a situation where it is clearly a frivolous lawsuit if it is against YOU, (did we need to add "if it is against you" since five words earlier you said "take YOU to court"??) is to bring the lawsuit..

I asked, THE ONLY ETHICAL WAY FOR A LAWYER TO THREATEN TO TAKE YOU TO COURT IS TO BRING THE LAWSUIT?


NO ANSWER.


I know you are absolutely bereft of ANY ability to focus on the myriads of errors I have again brought to your attention, so while you are sitting there aplauding your performance ( lmao ) here is your parting thought, your own VERY special words that are, by the way, living in infamy on MY domain (right beside that whole FRANCE is a democracy thing):

If you do not stand to gain by the lien, you are not party to the cause of action. This is just a phrase Grace learned but didn't tell you how it applies or if it does apply.

BLACKS LAW DICTIONARY: For the party filing the lawsuit, known as the plaintiff.....

The party that is being sued, the defendant, sets forth its response to the complaint in the answer................


At LEAST you have had the opportunity to know what it means to be named as a PARTY in a cause of action. LOVE those teachable moments.

OOOOOUUHHHH!

Watch out, everyone!

Grace is FULLY colored in her language... You know, it surprises me that she calls me Peanut and JellyBean, but when I reply to drucilla, she gets all huffy. Seems the same rules she applies to ME don't apply to HER. And shame on me for calling her names. So who IS drucilla that she should care anyway? Last I heard, it was a doctor on All MY CHILDREN!

But then, who is Peanut and JellyBean?

Actually, I've been ignoring her, hoping she would just recognize that she has again missed the point of everyone's posting while she attempts to take over poster's thread with BLATHER about how she is so superior... (GRIN).

I guess we wouldn't really want to be there.

That was the MOST BI POLAR posting you have ever written. (almost). Scary actually. And, what in the WORLD does it mean when you say something is "FULLY COLORED in their language"?? What color is it? I do believe the adjective "colorful" language was what you were looking for? How strange.
Now......... how in the world would I know who DRUCILLA IS? SOAPS aren't my usual fare. It is readily apparent they are for you. Wow. I never would have imagined that. *shudder* Wait....SUB PAR acting? I can see why it appeals to you.

THE MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION I GOOGLED after looking up your DRUCILLA: WHY would you, in one breath decry my being superior (an assertion only YOU have ever raised) then the next minute compare me to a DOCTOR on one of the longest running daytime dramas in history? (Puzzled look) AND a black woman, at that? You've seen my photo and commented on the color of my skin and hair repeatedly. You know I am white and blonde haired. Alllllllllllllllllrighty then. Wait--I do believe your exact quote was "a hot blond" (sic). LMAOO

And, I hate to tell you this, but if you GOOGLE "drucilla" the ONLY one I can find mentioned on the soaps is/was on a different soap and apparently SHE wasn't a doctor--her on -screen-sister was. Apparently you are wrong even then, but I WILL admit I know NOTHING about soap operas---and I categorically DEFER to YOUR SUPERIOR knowledge of said topic. Finally something you actually DO know more about than me! ROFL Although according to GOOGLE you even got THAT wrong so, dunno.

I had such HIGH hopes for ya there for a fleeting second.

Find a single posting where a CALLED YOU a jelly bean and peanut. Nuttier than a squirrel, sure ( nuttier is an adjective that in this instance was used to describe a train of thought). I also said someone would have to have the IQ of a JELLY BEAN to misunderstand. I have NEVER called you a jelly bean OR peanut.

DIRECT QUOTE: I don't know how to say this nicely, but only someone with the IQ of a jelly bean would NOT know that the LINKS in, before and AFTER the information is from whence the information came.

You can read it for yourself even. FIND in there where I CALLED you either one of those things. I most certianly did not. I need legal advice
There is a HUGE syntactial difference, but of course, someone who steeps their brain in soaps every day cannot be expected to know that. BUT (rofl!) IT DOES explain, in part, where your LEGAL advice comes from! The SOAPS are FICTION. NOT truthful. Hence, the caliber of your 'advice'.

And what in the Sam Hill does "I guess we wouldn't really want to be there" mean? You lost me again. We are going somewhere?

Only in your mind. (scaryyyyyyy)

And, I don't care what you call me in the least. Where did I tell you to stop? I did not.

You've been banned so many times on multiple names, I cannot begin to count. I figured you might want to stick around longer than a month this time.

Call me anything you wish. It matters not.

I would, however, suggest you stop before you are banned again.
I DO SO enjoy your company .
IGNORE ME? Shall I copy and paste where YOU said you "would have been gone long ago" if not FOR ME?

roflmao

YOU WROTE A WHOLE POSTING that said not one word about the issue of this thread ----every word belongs to ME. ( I have enough adoring words of admiration--whatever shall I do with more?? Sigh.)

IGNORING ME? roflmao
(cheeky grin)

Your entire posting making fun of the COLOR in mine----are you that easily distracted?

YOUR only response to misstatement after blatant misstatement is to explain WHY you again violated the terms of service of this site, and called me a name and make fun of the COLOR of my posting?
MY ENTIRE POSTING addressed MISINFORMATION in yours.

YOUR entire posting mocked the COLOR of mine, explained the cast of a sub par soap opera ONLY to PROVE YOUR POINT: YOU are IGNORING me.

LMAO YOU could not ignore me if you TRIED.

I have told you instead of getting BANNED repeatedly for your inability to control yourself, simply CLICK ignore. AND YOU repeatedly said you "REFUSE" to.

Now you are??

GOOD. I shall look forward to that in all earnestness. roflmao


BUT since I know you aren't REALLY ignoring me and since YOU have stated you "would have been gone long ago" if NOT FOR ME, why don't ya turn OFF the soaps and scroll and actually ADDRESS some of the obvious ERRORS of yours I raised in my last posting? Wow....wouldn't that be nice---AND I didn't EVEN ASK what "I suspect you have not bothered to think about where our court system came from... and, therefore, what principles made it what it should have been but is not." really means. lmaooo

This is ripe for your postings to be stopped by admin. You have nothing to say to poster and nothing but garbage to say to the rest of us.

CLOSE THIS POSTING. SHE IS OUT OF HAND AGAIN.

Here's an update: the bad attorney in question came back at me in an email demanding I withdraw my involvement with the sub, the sub called his attorney, his attorney saw the email and hit the ceiling and pretty much decided to push forward with foreclosing on the lien and told me not to worry about being noticed as a defendant along with the sub. It appears that for me to "be a party to" would involve serious evidence of my alleged fraud, and the gc attorney has done everything he could to intimidate me into not supporting my sub. The sub's attorney has vindicated my presence, the foreclosure moves forward, I get to testify as a witness as planned, and everyone is at peace (except you two). Let me know if you want more fuel for the fire.

Do you REALLY want to call th ADMINS attention to a thread where YOU engaged in name calling for the millionth time? Are you TRYING to get banned?? last time you did that, YOU got axed.
I have nothing to say to the poster??? Review your ENTIRE last posting--NOTHING about the thread OR the poster---just ME and name calling.

Stop whining.

HERE are the questions I have asked REPEATEDLY and you have not responded.

* QUOTE*
YOU (erroneously) say "She is not PARTY (HAS NO BENEFIT) TO THE PROCEEDINGS. "


I ASKED: SHOW ME THE DEFINITION OF PARTY THAT YOU ARE USING THAT USES THE TERM PARTY TO MEAN THE SAME THING AS 'THEY BENEFIT'.

NO answer.

YOU SAID:

If you do not stand to gain by the lien, you are not party to the cause of action. This is just a phrase Grace learned but didn't tell you how it applies or if it does apply.


I asked: GAINING something by the lien is what makes you a party?

NO answer.

YOU said: The only ethical way for a lawyer to threaten to take you to court in a situation where it is clearly a frivolous lawsuit if it is against YOU, (did we need to add "if it is against you" since five words earlier you said "take YOU to court"??) is to bring the lawsuit..

I asked, THE ONLY ETHICAL WAY FOR A LAWYER TO THREATEN TO TAKE YOU TO COURT IS TO BRING THE LAWSUIT?


NO ANSWER.
No wonder you want the thread closed. How silly you look.

You are NOT a party in a lawsuit unless you are NAMED as defendant OR plaintiff. You cannot be "noticed' as a defendant. If you are NAMED as a defendant, you are a defendant. You aren't clear from what you said, but if you are a defendant you will give testimony but specifically you are named as a defendant (a party) or you are merely on the witness list.

As a witness you are not a party, you are just that, a witness.

Glad you seem to have, at least, in part resolved the issue.

I respond to misinformation regardless of from whence it comes. AND I respond to comments about me personally when they appear, I am entitled to respond and I will continue to do so.

If you want to call that "fuel for the fire", wait till you get into a court room.

Thank you Grace for sharing your closing comments. By "fuel for the fire" I meant I will be adding some new posts for different business situations I or my clients are exposed to. I am grateful to both of you for your comments.