Home | Bio | Contact |

Threats To Free Speech - Digger's Realm Under Attack By Gilchrist Supporters

Bookmark and Share

Jim Gilchrist
If you thought the shutting down of free speech in this country was over, well you'd be mistaken. I have received repeated threats from a certain assumed supporter of James "Jim" Gilchrist to attempt to shut down Digger's Realm because 2 years ago I criticized Gilchrist's decision to support Mike Huckabee in the last presidential election and for his defamation lawsuits he had filed against other patriots fighting against illegal immigration.

Before I get into the details though. Let me brief you on a little book that was written in the past, which I believe is relevant to this current threat against me (not the first believe me) - and to you as well as you will later see.

1984 George Orwell
In the book 1984 the main character was named Winston. Winston's job was to go in daily working for the government to "rewrite history". The government, referred to as Big Brother in the book, would send him news reports about their actions in the past that they wanted "changed" to show them in a glowing aura and looking out for the interests of their citizens. They would have Winston strike the things they wanted out or reword them in every news source in the country. They would also destroy all previous written copies of said story so that only their opinion of history remained and the truth or opinion of others had been destroyed.

That leads me to the current attacks on myself and Digger's Realm.

Since 2005 I have followed the Minuteman Project. (Yes, I have been around that long covering illegal immigration.) From its inception, with 240 volunteers headed to the Arizona border, I thought the Minutemen were a good idea. I never actually became a member of the Minutemen, though I knew people who did join the organization and donate their time and money. I praised Jim Gilchrist and Chris Simcox for their actions at organizing patriots to patrol the borders of our country.

Then in 2005 Jim Gilchrist decided to run for congress in California. I supported him doing a number of positive stories on his campaign and covering the results of the campaign wherein he received 25.1% of the vote. In essence I had no reasons to concern myself with Gilchrist on immigration because he had stayed true to his statements with his actions. He fully opposed illegal immigration and I had no reasons to doubt him otherwise.

In 2006 I reported on Gilchrist being attacked on stage while speaking at Columbia University. As late as 2007 I was reporting on Gilchrist being involved in rallies. There is an archive of my articles on Jim Gilchrist that go back 5 years.

The problem was that later many were saying that Gilchrist really had nothing to do with organizing any of the rallies and that later he was showing up and claiming credit for all the work, time and money people had spent on setting up the rallies. Over the next year I received repeated emails on Gilchrist's observed "odd behavior".

I refused to get involved in taking sides as the Minutemen splintered into opposing sides and as lawsuits were threatened alleging embezzled funds and over who owned the Minuteman name. That all changed though when actual lawsuits were filed and I could see some serious anger flowing. This was not simply about who owned the movement it was, in my opinion, a vicious attack to destroy people financially and character-wise.

I posted on it in April 2008 when it finally came to the point where I found it all quite childish. Gilchrist was not only filing defamation lawsuits against grassroots people organizing rallies against illegal immigration, he was making statements that people he didn't agree with were "racist losers" on camera at the border. Yes, I reported that he called people "racist losers" because he did and you can watch it on the video below.

After watching this asinine reaction by Gilchrist I posted my entry on him filing defamation lawsuits against patriots under the title "Jim Gilchrist Further Defames Self". I reported on what had been happening in the movement and that Gilchrist was being accused of allegedly embezzling funds. All of this was true at the time and is a matter of accurate history regarding the story.

In response, Jim Gilchrist posted a comment to the article days later. In his comment he called my reporting "nonsensical tirades" and referred to patriots who had called him out on his lawsuits and other actions as "internet groupies". He then lumped me in with those he opposed calling us "witch hunters, racists, law breakers".

Dear Diggers Realm,

Hanging the innocent is not the pathway to truth or justice. Your nonsensical tirades attempting to convince a naive audience of a couple dozen internet groupies that the world is flat and that square pegs fit into round holes compromises your credibility and integrity.

We are nation of laws and those laws apply universally not only to illegal aliens but also to U.S. citizens who violate those laws.

The Minuteman Project will not associate with witch hunters, racists, law breakers, or those who make an earnest market in hanging the innocent. The support of Diggers Realm is neither needed nor wanted.

The Minuteman Project will continue bringing national awareness to the illegal alien invasion of the United States with or without the sinister interference of those who spend all of their time attempting to disrupt the minuteman movement. How does the deliberate and ignorant braodcasting of lies and propaganda about minutemen and women move the illegal immigration forward in a respectable manner?
Hint: It doesn't.

Jim Gilchrist, Founder and President, the Minuteman Project

Of course I replied to his attacks on my charater with another article days later reporting on his direct comments to me and giving my opinion.

"I have now firmly come to the conclusion that Jim Gilchrist is a self serving lout who could care less about this country or the enforcement movement and is only in it for himself," I stated. Opinion on a public figure and their words and actions.

That is the last I had written on Mr Gilchrist - in April 2008.

Fast forward 2 years later to the past week. I received a notice from someone, who must be a fan of Jim Gilchrist as he doesn't claim to actually represent him, that according to a court order I must remove comments posted to those entries of press releases from individuals who opposed him at the time. Now this was back in 2008 that these comments were made, and they were not made by me, they were posted in my comments section. At the time the case over the Minuteman Project had not been settled. So the comments posted were accurate at the time regarding the ongoing court case from the viewpoint of those who posted the comments.

The case finally resolved and in the judges order he stated the following - which I believe shows an absolute ignorance to how the Internet works and really does come right out of 1984. Here is the ruling from the judge.

A permanent injunction shall issue, ordering defendants Courtney, Stewart and Sielski to refrain from holding themselves out to anyone as members of Minute Man Project Inc., or members of its board of directors. This injunction requires the taking down of any web site, including but not limited to www.minutemanprojectinc.com. wherein defendants hold themselves out to be members, managers or spokespersons of Minute Man Project Inc., or members of the board of directors of Minute Man Project Inc.

Yes, this is what I received the other day. The judge ordered that any website in the world is required to be taken down - even third party websites apparently - where any form of their press release or claim on their being board of directors was posted.

In essence this allows for the court to order the taking down of Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox and even whitehouse.gov should it be discovered that somewhere, someone posted a comment on those websites claiming that they were board members of the Minuteman Project - even if those posts were made years ago when the case had not even been resolved.

This is Big Brother in action. It is the rewriting of history by those who do not agree with postings on websites in the comments section and those who can fool a judge into ordering such a broad mandate. I received a notice from my hosting company that according to the court order I must comply or they could be forced to shut Digger's Realm down.

I personally have no dog in this fight. I could care less who owns the Minuteman name or company. I could care less about these ego-maniacs who think they are "holier than thou". I could care less about the opportunist Jim Gilchrist, I have had my say. This is all about control, power and jackbooted thuggery by those who do not agree with someone's opinion.

I am now being threatened that accurate reporting in the past of facts - and opinion on a public figure (of one James Gilchrist), a primary right as a citizen of the United States of America - needs to be removed or rewritten or I can potentially face some veiled threats of legal retribution in some way.

These threats are coming from the same person who made the first threat of potential legal action by using the court order. I think he has some sort of high and mighty opinion of himself because I removed the comments - which I could care less about - and he now thinks he can also scare me or bully me into changing past opinion commentary on Gilchrist. What that action is to entail is not stated, however I am not scared. I was actually disgusted that this man, who claims to be a Christian, would make such a threat against the First Amendment right's of others. Funny, I have not been threatened over positive opinion commentary on Gilchrist that I have left remaining as historical in my archives though I vehemently disagree with Gilchrist now.

I have been threatened that if I do not go back and rewrite articles on ongoing cases at the time - in essence rewriting history - that I will somehow face the wrath of some sort of legal maneuvering to force me to do so.

Let me ask you a simple question. Do lawyers - or others who are non-lawyers - often go to news sources and demand that they rewrite all of their past articles after a case has been settled? In other words in the OJ Simpson case did every news source have to go back and rewrite all of their articles, destroying any print media they may find, that referred to OJ Simpson as allegedly having killed his wife?

Gilchrist and his supporters have a proven track record of threatening legally those who may not agree with him/them or with the decisions that he has made or the statements made by him wherein he bashes other patriots. It also begs the question if this is even about Gilchrist at all, or whether it is an attempt to end my coverage of illegal immigration because Gilchrist has recently been seen hobnobbing with pro-illegal alien supporters?

So with all of this being said, I may need your help in the future. If you believe in the right to free speech; the right to criticize a public figure - or actions they may have taken; the accurate reporting of statements made on camera by others; the right to an unmodified historical record of events as they occurred at the time; then I may need your support in fighting against the tyrannical actions at work by those who do not agree with such opinions, facts, history or the First Amendment.

I will keep you up to date on any actions taken against me or by me.

Thanks for your support.

This entry is in the following archive(s):

Next and Previous Entries:

Posted by Digger on May 5, 2010 03:20 PM (Permalink)

The Realm Daily Digest
Have Diggers Realm articles emailed to you daily!

Powered by FeedBlitz
See a sample of what a daily email looks like!


I cannot even believe what is happening in this country.when people cannot report the truth in news nowadays.I stand behind you.we need more young people standing up for our rights.

Posted by: Brandie Harden on May 5, 2010 06:06 PM

This is insane! Not being able to report 'the truth?' I can't see how they could get away with this. Please talk to an attorney to get his/her say on this. We have your back Digger. You know where we are...

Posted by: JoAnn on May 5, 2010 07:38 PM

A hoax from a pro-illegal gang maybe?
What can we do to help?

Posted by: robin on May 5, 2010 07:46 PM

Jim Gilchrist is BIG JOKE!

See Jim Gilchrist Launches "Operation Bulls**t"



Posted by: BORDER INVA$ION USA on May 5, 2010 08:07 PM

We all know why Gilly The Clown attacks patriots and wants the borders open. His feed trough would dry up otherwise. I stand behind you Dan.

Posted by: Bonfire on May 6, 2010 12:33 AM

I agree with you 100% and will stand with you in the fight to protect your Constitutional rights. Also I do believe that this is an attempt to discredit you and your accomplishments against illegal immigration. I would go so far as to say that this administration has internet "snoops" who track down the people in the forefront of this war and will do anything to dismantle their force. Seems that Obama, Hillary and others can outright lie about anything and not even be called on it but when a patriot presents the truth and their opinion they are labeled and ridiculed or worse. This is an out and out attack on freedom of speech and entirely unconstitutional. They don't have a legal leg to stand on.

Posted by: beverly sydlosky` on May 6, 2010 02:12 AM

Thank you all for your support.

Posted by: Digger on May 6, 2010 02:27 AM

Truth will always triumph and anyone standing in its way is a fool, because the reprecussions for doing so increase exponentially over time.

WIth that out of the way, Gilchrist is not the only phony in anti-illegal immigration game. I say game because thats the way it is treated by some.

Some of the biggest movers and shakers (especially the one that claims to be the biggest) do exactly the same thing. They jump onto the momentum of a cause and claim it as their own. THere are a few little guys that do the same thing.

I point to the "Tea Party for Amenesty" incident as evidence as and several claims of responsibility for the defeat of legislation.

Posted by: frank on May 6, 2010 08:15 AM

Not only are our Federal branches of government FAILING the people of this nation; the very same folks who PUT THEM in office; but now we have these insane Judges who feel themselves ABOVE our US Constitution assuming they can do whatever pleases them!!
Wide Open borders; Drug Cartels killing American citizens; kidnapping American citizens; the President sitting back and doing nothing to protect the people of America; and now Judges who, again, feel they can take away the rights of American citizens.
What is going on in this country?!!
Seriously, I'm surprised that we havent' broken out in Civil War yet. It amazes me how Americans are still not reacting in the way they SHOULD be reacting. You have to wonder, "how much will we take?"
All I can say is, IF they do shut you down, SUE SUE SUE until that Judge gets the message!
He cannot take away our rights!

Posted by: diane reaves on May 6, 2010 09:04 AM


DIGGER- I agree with you. I am a member of Calif. Coalition for Immigration Reform since 1994 when I flew to their CALIF. PROP.187 PLANNING MEETING in Los Angeles. It appears that Gilchrist sold us out

Gilchrist sued the CALIF. COALITION for IMMIGRATION REFORM when they demanded to account for the Minuteman funds and got ambiguous answers. He sued the CCIR and thet counter-sued.

I have tried several times asking you to contact me at ESCHERA@comcast.net so I couod discuss these issues but never heasr from you.

The first time I heard of GILCHRIST was in the CCIR NEWSLETTER I receive.

Gilchrist began 2003 and was announced in the CCIR Newsletter I received asking for communications help which I provided him with when Gilchrist first went to the Ariz. border and put him in contact with 2 friends there who are on my Email list.

But when he filed suit against CALIFORNIA COALITION for IMMIGRATION REFORM, I broke off relations with GILCHRIST as one of his Press Agents.

GILCHRIST's name and Minuteman name links appear on my website and was going to ask you to remove them,
but I do not know how to remove data from my website and that is the reason I sent you several messages to please contact me to remove GILCHRIST data on my site, but never hear from you.

In my messages I asked you to contact me because I had URGENT ISSUES to discuss with you.

So, maybe now you understand why I said it was URGENT that you contact me.


But to keep out impostors who might infiltrate my
operations, choose and 5 digit number and put that 5 digit number in the SUBJECT LINE in the Email you send me. WheNn I receive your Email, to be sure it is you, I will copy the 5 digit numbers and the next time I see you here on this message board, I will get you to confirm the person is really DIGGER or some imposter trying to infiltrate my operations.


Posted by: ESCHERA,V.P.-CITIZENS OF DADE UNITED on May 6, 2010 01:24 PM

CORRECTION: Choose any 5 digit number and insert it in the SUBJECT LINE of your Email.

Posted by: ESCHERA,V.P.-CITIZENS OF DADE UNITED on May 6, 2010 01:43 PM

I was one of the ones that went to the border with Gilchrist and Simcox in 05, along with 890 others. I spent time with Gilchrist in the field, and in the HQ. I also lived in So Cal, so I went to protests and rallies with him. Everything that has been presented here in this Diggers Real article is correct. Gilchrist has lost it... drunk with the money that came in from all the national attention that WE ALL made happen back then. His book is a joke also. It is SO sickening how he claims credit for protests and things that he had NOTHING to do with orging. He also claims to be doing things on the border when in fact he does NOTHING. He keeps this facade up just to rip people off via their donations.

DISGUSTING. And, he just gets worse and worse.

Posted by: Don on May 6, 2010 09:07 PM

Hi Don
May 7, 2010

I agree, the article Dugger wrote here sounds true.
It is nice meeting you here. Do you have a safe Alternate Email address to contact you?

I certainly would like to hear from DUGGER as I have a lot of hot issues to discuss with him in private.
You say you live in Calif.?

Posted by: ESCHERA,V.P.-CITIZENS OF DADE UNITED on May 7, 2010 12:34 AM

The anti-immigrant movement is a movement based on hating people. Is it any wonder why there is so much infighting?

Posted by: Ralph on May 8, 2010 05:17 PM

Ralph, you're clueless. You spout off the same tired old BS, haters, racist, etc. You're not intelligent enough to make an argument for your case.
We love our country and will not allow what is happening to go on. If you had any appreciation and respect for this country you'd feel the same as we do.

Posted by: Paul E. on May 8, 2010 07:45 PM

There it is. The racist whine. I didn't even mention racism, and this guy whines about racist BS.

The fact is that the anti-immigration movement is based on hating immigrants. People that hate other people populate this movement.

And immigrants are not the only target of their hate. The debate forums and message boards at some of these websites are filled with hateful comments directed at Hispanics. This hate towards Hispanics is tolerated by almost everyone in the movement.

The infighting among the movement is not surprising to onlookers.

Posted by: Ralph on May 9, 2010 06:46 AM

Give me a break Ralph. You've been spouting this troll crap for years now. Who is paying your salary to sit here and call others racists?

The race card doesn't work anymore. There are too many people in this movement from differing ethnic backgrounds, married to people of differing ethnic backgrounds, have family members of differing ethnic backgrounds and in general hate no one except the people who are exploiting them.

Wanna see a racist or someone filled with hate? Try looking in the mirror some time.

Posted by: Digger on May 10, 2010 12:41 AM

This is funny. I have been accused of calling others racist. I have never called someone a racist.

Then I am called a racist.

The ignorance of anti-immigrant fanatics is just so funny. I'm going to bookmark this page.

Posted by: Ralph on May 10, 2010 05:02 PM

Back in 2005 when I staged the Fallbrook Matricula consular Card Rally in Fallbrook California I invited Gilchrist to attend with his supporters. He showed, along with Jim Chase, the former leader of the San Diego Minutemen and 165 people who oppose illegal immigration. Gilchrist seemed to be a nice guy and he didn't really hog all the press we got. He even got a $5000 donation from someone walking by who believed in what we were doing, although I never saw a dine for my efforts and expenses to stage the rally. Over the years following that rally, Gilchrist started to change, he started to become a loon and many broke off and started their own independent chapters. Recently, gilchrist has been on both sides of the issue, to play it safe and has been in constant squabbles with other Minutemen groups threatening legal action and other bogus allegations. This man had an idea, than it took off and when people started to question bad decisions, they were revoked from the Minutemen organization, most just left and got stronger, example Jeff Schwilk and the San Diego Minutemen who's successes far reach what Gilchrist could ever have done. I think I know his problem, he wants to eliminate the "Gil" from his name and become just "Christ". gilchrist has become a non-issue and that really bother him a man who lives for the limelight.

Posted by: Ray Carney on May 11, 2010 12:01 PM


Then I am called a racist.

How does it feel? I have been called a racist for nearly 8 years for simply wanting the laws enforced

The fact is that the anti-immigration movement is based on hating immigrants.

Never called anyone a racist eh? Stating that someone is anti-immigrant is just as bad. You are saying that those who want laws enforced "hate people". What is the difference?

Your argument is crap. You name-calling is crap because you have no argument.

You are the same sort of people who called Lou Dobbs an "immigrant hater" for years, though he is married to a woman of Mexican descent.

Funny how many of the leaders in the enforcement community are either immigrants, children of immigrants or married to immigrants or have immigrants in their family. You people are disgraceful liars who rely on smearing others to get your way. The only hate is coming from you and your ilk.

Posted by: Digger on May 11, 2010 08:27 PM

So I see you've backed off your accusation that I've called others racists. That was an extremely pathetic accusation. I'm surprised you've backed down from that so quickly. Most people are more stubborn than that and refuse to back down from an accusation they have absolutely no evidence to support. And it's an accusation that is all too often made. It's more of a whine really. Sometimes it seems that anti-immigrant fanatics are always whining about being called racists, even, as in this case, it never happened.

You've got Islamic terrorists out there and white supremacy, but it is claimed that the "only" hate is coming from me and my ilk. That's another outrageous accusation.

I have also been falsely accused of saying that those who want laws enforced "hate people". I've never said that nor have I suggested or implied that. A lot of people in the anti-immigration movement like to pretend that all of them only wish laws to be enforced. If only that were true.

The people that hate are those who wish destruction on Mexico. The people that hate are those who rejoice upon hearing that a Hispanic man was killed in a traffic accident. The people that hate are those that assume that someone is a law-breaker based on appearance and complain to the person's boss or even call the authorities. These are the people that hate, and anti-immigration groups include these people and tolerate their hate.

Posted by: Ralph on May 12, 2010 06:18 AM


WHy do either of you care about being called a racist?

The term was specifically created and used by Leon Davidovich Bronstein (TROTSKY) to create a social divide.

The issues are never discussed or dealt with. You argue around and around to avoid the stigma associated with this word.

THat is why the left love to throw the first punched weighted with the racism charge. The target goes into Pavlov-ian response mode by panicking and then they get steam rolled.

Get over it, guys. The sooner everyone does, the sooner we can get back to fighting tooth and nail for our survival.

That's what it's about....survival. People like Dan and other want to preserve what we have against the invading horde and people like Ralph want the invading horde to destroy us.

Simple. Drop the Trotskite labels....

Posted by: carltonian on May 17, 2010 09:18 AM


Date: 12/18/2009
Time: 04:18:00 PM
Dept: C25
Judicial Officer Presiding: Randell L. Wilkinson
Clerk: Katherine Palacios Reporter/ERM:
Bailiff/Court Attendant: Stacey Ocera

Case No: 30-2008-00106582-CU-FR-CJC
Case Init. Date: 05/12/2008
Case Title: Minuteman Project Inc vs. Gilchrist
Case Category: Civil -Unlimited Case Type: Fraud


There are no appearances by any party.

The Court, having taken the above-entitled matter under submission on 12/17/09, now makes the following ruling:

The motion for summary judgment by Jim Gilchrist as to Marvin Stewart is granted. The court sustains Gilchrist's objection to Stewart's Supplemental Separate Statement on the grounds it does not comply with CRC 3.1350(c). The court further notes that the opposition was filed and served 13 days prior to the date of the hearing while CCP section 437c requires that any opposition must be filed at least 14 days prior to the date of the hearing. The court, however, in its discretion, considered the opposition except for the Supplemental Separate Statement which did hot conform to CRC 3.1350. Gilchrist's objections to Marvin Stewart's declaration, except for objection 4, are sustained based on the stated objections. Gilchrist's objections to Stewart's memorandum of points and authorities are overruled. In sum the court finds that Stewart has failed to raise a triable issue of material fact as to the fraud cause of action, which is the only cause of action to which Stewart is a party.

Gilchrist has met his burden of showing that he made no representations to Stewart with an intention to defraud Stewart. Stewart's only evidence in this regard was to claim that Steven Eichler, as an agent of Gilchrist, made a false representation. The court has appropriately sustained an objection to this evidence, leaving Stewart's case without a basis to proceed. Stewart's reliance on an unproven estoppel theory based on Corporations Code 5227, which he continually misreferenced as B&P Code 5527, which deals with injunctions against architects, is rejected.

Gilchrist's motion for summary judgment as to Deborah Courtney is also granted. As with the motion pertaining to Mr. Stewart, the only viable cause of action relating to Courtney is the fraud cause of action. All other actual causes of action pertained to plaintiff Minute Man Project Inc., which was long ago dismissed as a plaintiff for lack of representation by counsel. As with Stewart, Gilchrist has carried his burden to establish that he made no representations to Courtney with intent to defraud. Courtney's evidence to dispute Gilchrist's case is largely inadmissible. The court sustains Gilchrist's declarations as to nos. 1,2,5,6,7,9-16,18-36. The remainder are overruled. As to Courtney's exhibits the court sustains objections to items 37-43. In sum, Courtney claims that she was induced to join Minute Man and suffered monetary damages based on false representations relating to consulting fees she was never

Case Title: Minuteman Project Inc vs. Gilchrist Case No: 30-2008-00106582-CU-FR-CJC

paid and expenses for which she was never reimbursed. The admissible evidence shows, however, that she couldn't remember what statements caused her to join Minute Man. Further, the admissible evidence shows that Gilchrist never authorized anyone to offer Ms. Courtney money for consulting. Courtney attempts to implicate Gilchrist by submitting inadmissible evidence that Steven Eichler had authority to made "decisions." As for reimbursement, the admissible evidence shows that Courtney was reimbursed for over $55,000 of expenses.

Courtney's own deposition testimony indicates it was the board of directors that gave her the understanding she would be reimbursed for expenses. Accordingly, the court finds no individual liability as to Mr. Gilchrist for fraud.

Moving party is to prepare an order granting the motions for summary judgment, citing facts from the separate statements consistent with the above rulings and file and serve same by December 30, 2009.
Court orders clerk to give notice.

Date: 12/18/2009

Posted by: True North on May 29, 2010 12:42 AM

Date: 02/05/2010 Time: 08:21:00 AM Dept: C25

Judicial Officer Presiding: Randell L. Wilkinson
Clerk: Katherine Palacios Reporter/ERM:
BailifflCourt Attendant: Stacey Ocera

Case No: 30-2008-00102064-CU-FR-CJC Case Init. Date: 01/31/2008 Case

Title: Jim Gilchrist's Minuteman Project, Inc. vs. Stewart

Case Category: Civil -Unlimited Case Type: Fraud


There are no appearances by any party.

The Court having taken the court trial under submission 1/25/10 now issues its statement of decision:


Jim Gilchrist's Minuteman Project, Inc. v. Marvin L. Stewart and Deborah Ann Courtney

Case No: 30-2008-00102064

This matter involves several claims by Jim Gilchrist's Minuteman Project, Inc. (Plaintiff, and hereafter also referred to as JGMPI) against defendants Marvin L. Stewart, Deborah Courtney and Paul Sielski. Before the taking of evidence the court ruled on dozens of motions in limine filed by the parties. Among the motions was one filed by the plaintiff requesting terminating sanctions against Paul Sielski for discovery abuse. No opposition to the motion was filed, the motion was granted, and Mr. Sielski's default was entered. Defendants Stewart and Courtney filed motions in limine requesting the court to find that James Gilchrist was terminated as a member of the board of directors of Minuteman Project Inc., the corporation purchased by the plaintiff herein, and that Stewart and Courtney were both members of the board of directors of Minuteman Project Inc. (hereinafter referred to as MMPI) Because part of the plaintiff's complaint requested injunctive as well as declaratory relief, which was closely related to the defendants' motions in limine, the court tried the equitable issues and the motions in limine first, without a jury.

In essence, the plaintiffs claim has been that James Gilchrist was the sole director of MMPI and that the defendants Stewart and Courtney were mere advisory board members without any real authority to control or govern MMPI. In the alternative, plaintiff has claimed that if the court were to find that James Gilchrist were not the sole director of MMPI, then the defendants failed in their attempt to lawfully terminate him as a director and that the MMPI board of directors lawfully terminated them as directors. After taking considerable evidence from the parties on these contentions the court determined to have the parties focus their attention on the 2nd of the plaintiffs claims (ie whether defendants legally terminated James Gilchrist as a member of the board of directors of MMPI, and whether he legally terminated them) The court made clear to the parties that it would return to taking evidence on the plaintiff's "sole director" argument, if it became necessary to do so, after resolving plaintiff's second

Date: 02/05/2010 MINUTE ORDER Page: 1 Dept: C25 Calendar No.:

argument. The parties all stipulated that good cause was not required to terminate a board member and, accordingly, a great deal of testimony regarding alleged bad acts of the parties was excluded from this portion of the trial.
The parties presented evidence indicating that following James Gilchrist's failed run for Congress in 2005, MMPI took on a number of volunteers who devoted considerable efforts to spread MMPI's message regarding illegal immigration. Among these volunteers were the defendants Courtney and Stewart along with former defendant Barbara Coe. James Gilchrist often referred to Courtney and Stewart as members of the board of MMPI but the Certificate of Incorporation for MMPI, filed in Delaware, indicated that there was only one director on the board. James Gilchrist. Nevertheless, Gilchrist appeared to have treated Stewart, Courtney and Coe as though they were regular members of the board of directors. They voted at board meetings, just like Gilchrist and others. Although no bylaws existed for MMPI during the relevant times in this lawsuit, it appears that the members of the board conducted MIVIPl's business on a majority vote basis, with 4 members required to constitute a quorum. The 7 members of the board, according to defendants, were James Gilchrist, Sandy Gilchrist, Tim Bueler, Steven Eichler, Barbara Coe, Deborah Courtney and Marvin Stewart.

By December 2006, considerable suspicion existed on the part of Coe, Courtney and Stewart regarding the way Eichler and James Gilchrist were conducting the business of MMPI. Financial issues were of primary concern. On January 19th, 2007, a board meeting was held with all 7 members of the board present. (For purposes of resolving the issues herein, the court refers to the 7 members of the board without making a finding that they were all members of the board) At the meeting a large number of topics was discussed. Late in the meeting Mr. Gilchrist called for a vote to the effect that he would be the sole director. A second was received and the motion carried, with the proviso that the action would be deferred for two weeks so that an investigation could be continued. The minutes of the board meeting (exhibit 76) also reflect that a vote was taken at 12:15am "to give Jim Back ready everything, to make him sole director, holds all four offices." Thereafter, Steven Eichler resigned as treasurer, but not as a board member. A vote was then taken to adjourn the meeting to January 26th , which carried.

Deborah Courtney apparently prepared all of the minutes for the January 19t11 meeting of the board of directors. At trial a second set of minutes was produced (exhibit 77) which deleted any reference to any of the votes taken to give Jim Gilchrist the sole directorship of MMPI. This second set of minutes was prepared by Courtney when the defendants later decided that the vote to give Mr. Gilchrist the sole directorship was illegal. According to Stewart's testimony, the vote was illegal because Gilchrist couldn't legally vote because his vote involved self dealing. In all other respects the minutes appear to be identical.
Following the January 19th meeting, James Gilchrist sent an e-mail to the other board members requesting that the next board meetinQ be changed to January 29th because he and Sandy Gilchrist needed to be at a seminar on the 26ttr, Marvin Stewart replied that he had no intention to move the meeting and that it would go forth. (exhibit 52) Nothing in the minutes of the January 19th meeting or the e-mails indicate that a vote would be taken at the January 26th meeting to terminate several members of the board, including James Gilchrist, Tim Bueler and Steven Eichler. No credible evidence exists to indicate that any verbal notice was given to Gilchrist, Bueler and Eichler that a vote would be taken to terminate them on the 26th .

On January 26th , defendants Courtney, Stewart, Sielski and Coe went to MMPI headquarters for the board meeting. They found the doors to be locked and they couldn't get in. The other four members of the seven person board were not present. The three members of the board and Sielski then drove to a restaurant where they held their board meeting. At the meeting the three board members voted to terminate Tim Bueler and Steven Eichler from the board. They also voted to terminate James Gilchrist as President of MMPI. No vote was taken to terminate him from the board of directors, however. A vote was eventually taken to adjourn the meeting to January 27th at the home of Deborah Courtney.(exhibit 31) No credible evidence was presented to indicate notice was given to James or Sandy Gilchrist of the January 27th meeting, much less to Bueler and Eichler.

On January 27th the defendants and Barbara Coe met as a board. At the meeting Coe moved that James Gilchrist be given an option to resign to avoid being terminated as a member of the board. The three members of the board voted to support the motion. A letter and memo of understanding was also

Date: 02/05/2010 MINUTE ORDER Page: 2 Dept: C25 Calendar No.:

discussed that would be presented to Gilchrist at the next meeting. The meeting was then adjourned to January 29th. (exhibit 654) There is no credible evidence that James Gilchrist was notified that a motion to vote to terminate him from the board would be made on the 29th.
On January 29th the board of directors met again with Coe, Courtney, Stewart, and James and Sandy Gilchrist present. Marvin Stewart asked James Gilchrist to sign the termination papers of Eichler and Bueler. Gilchrist replies that he would not until he had sought the advice of counsel. Stewart then announced to James Gilchrist that the board had voted to terminate him as President of the Corporation. Gilchrist replied that he and the other defendants were fired. Stewart replied that Gilchrist was fired. According to the minutes of the 29th meeting (exhibit 655) Stewart explained that it was in Gilchrist's interest to step down. Subsequently Barbara Coe gave Gilchrist a memo of understanding to sign as well as a letter indicating the position of the 3 defendant board members. (exhibit 615) The MOU given to Gilchrist did not call for his resignation. The letter given to him by Coe only called on him to resign as president of MMPI, not as a board member. It further indicated it was the intent of the defendants and Coe that Gilchrist be the sole representative and spokesperson for MMPI. SUbsequently the meeting was adjourned to February 2,2007.
After the January 29th meeting James Gilchrist spoke to MMPI's corporate counsel, Jack Robbins. Thereafter he had Robbins send out a notice to the 7 members of the board that a special meeting would be held on Februarv 2nd as a result of illegal proceedings that the defendants took in their meetings on January 26ttf and 27th. (Exhibit 54) Attached was a notice that a vote would be taken at the meeting to terminate both Stewart and Courtney from the board of directors. (exhibit 81) Stewart replied to the e-mail that the votes at the meetings were legal.

On February 2nd the 7 members of the board were present at MMPI headquarters except for Barbara Coe, who apparently came late to the meeting. The meeting was contentious because Stewart and Courtney didn't recognize the authority of James Gilchrist, Steven Eichler and Tim Bueler. At some point Coe entered the meeting and presented her resignation from the board to James Gilchrist, apparently recognizing his authority to accept it. A motion was made to terminate Courtney and Stewart from the board of directors which carried 4-2, with 2 board members abstaining. The Sheriffs Department was called because there was a dispute over who had control of the building. Courtney and Stewart indicated to all that they were willing to leave but were allowed to conduct their business, which included their passing resolutions to make Stewart President of MMPI and Courtney Treasurer. They also passed resolutions to make themselves signers on all bank accounts and financial instruments. These motions passed on a 2-0 vote.

Based on the evidence presented at trial the court finds that James Gilchrist has never been legally terminated as a board member of MMPI and that defendants Courtney and Stewart were lawfully terminated as board members from MMPI on February 2,2007. The court's analysis follows:

Defendants claim that they gave notice to the other board members that a vote to terminate would take place at the meeting of January 26th, however, the evidence contradicts the claim. Neither the minutes of the meeting nor the e-mails leading up to the meeting support the defendants contention. It defies logic that a vote so important as the termination of 3 members of a 7 member board would not merit mention in the minutes of the meeting prepared by defendant Courtneyl..Thus, when all 3 of the allegedly terminated members of the board failed to show up for the January 26111 board meeting, they had not been given even minimally fair notice of the vote that was to be taken in their absence and the terminations voted upon were invalid as a consequence.

More fundamental to the court's finding that the termination resolutions on January 26th were invalid is the fact that the defendant's lacked a quorum to conduct any business. Defendants claim that 8 Del. Code section 141m and 215 (a) allow for less than 1/3 of the members of the governing body to constitute a quorum. These sections clearly do not apply, however. 141m only allows for such a quorum where the bylaws of the corporation allow for such a minority quorum and here there are no such bylaws here. Section 215(a) doesn't apply because, contrary to the requirements of that section, MMPI has neither stockholders nor members. The court finds that section 141 (b), which requires that a majority of the board members must be present to constitute a quorum, applies. Thus, because there was no quorum to vote on the terminations at the January 26 meeting, and because inadequate notice was given of the intent to vote on the termination of the board members, the court finds that the terminations

Date: 02/05/2010 Page: 3 MINUTE ORDER Dept: C25 Calendar No.:

of January 26 were void. Similarly all actions taken at the January 27 meeting were void for lacking notice and a quorum. Defendants also argue that James Gilchrist was terminated at the January 29th meeting. Because he was present, they argue, notice of termination was waived. This argument is flawed for several reasons. First, it appears that no vote to terminate Mr. Gilchrist from the board was ever taken on the 29tli. As already indicated above, the actions of the defendants at the 26th and 27th meetings were void, so the resolutions to terminate at those meetings didn't carry over to the 29th. Further, it is not at all clear that Mr. Gilchrist was ever terminated by the defendants at the extra-legal meeting of the 27th. While he had been allegedly terminated as President of MMPI, it appears from the MOU and letter that were presented to Gilchrist on the 29th that there was no intention that he be terminated as a director of MMPI, calling into serious question the minutes prepared by Courtney that might suggest the contrary. Finally, the alleged termination of January 29 does not hold up because there is no credible evidence that notice of an intent to terminate Gilchrist was ever given to board members Eichler and Bueler. Thus, for a variety of reasons, any claimed termination on the 29th was invalid.
As to the February 2nd meeting the court finds that all 7 members of the board were given notice of the special purpose of the meeting. Courtney and Stewart were on notice that a vote would be taken to terminate them. With a quorum present a resolution was passed 4-0, with 2 abstentions, that Stewart and Courtney be terminated.

Insofar as the plaintiff has defeated the defendants' claim that they lawfully terminated James Gilchrist and others from the board of directors of MMPI, and has prevailed on its claim that the defendants were lawfully terminated as directors of MMPI at the February 2, 2007 board meeting, the court finds that it is unnecessary to determine whether James Gilchrist was always the sole director of MMPI, as he also claims. Whether he was always the sole director, or whether he and others lawfully terminated the defendants as directors, the result is the same. Under no circumstances have the defendants been directors of MMPI since February 2,2007.

In making the above findings the court has considered the various legal and factual arguments advanced by the defendants and finds that with the possible exception of their claim that plaintiff is estopped from claiming he was the sole director of MMPI, which claim was not fully litigated, the arguments lack merit. For example, there is no legal or factual support for the defendants' claim of laches as it applies to plaintiff's claim that he was the sole director of MMPI or that he and others lawfully terminated the defendants. Likewise there is no legal or factual basis for determining that Gilchrist and other members of the board were prevented from voting on their removal because it would have involved their self dealing as interested directors. Finally, the court finds that there is no legal or factual basis for defendants' claim that James Gilchrist waived his right to notice of his termination by appearing at the January 29th board meeting. Of course Bueler and Eichler did not appear for that meeting, so the argument of waiver would not have applied to them in any event.

A permanent injunction shall issue, ordering defendants Courtney, Stewart and Sielski to refrain from holding themselves out to anyone as members of Minute Man Project Inc., or members of its board of directors. This injunction requires the taking down of any web site, including but not limited to www.minutemanprojectinc.com. wherein defendants hold themselves out to be members, managers or spokespersons of Minute Man Project Inc., or members of the board of directors of Minute Man Project Inc.

Said defendants are further ordered to turn over all property belonging to Minute Man Project Inc. to plaintiff. The court further finds, with regard to the defendants' motions in limine and the plaintiff's request for declaratory relief, that defendants Courtney, Stewart and Sielski are not members of Minute Man Project Inc., and have not been members of the board of directors of Minute Man Project Inc., since February 2, 2007.

Date: 02/05/2010 MINUTE ORDER Page: 4 Dept: C25 Calendar No.:

The clerk shall give notice to the parties of the above ruling and schedule for further proceedings.

2010, at 10:00 am. 8,this matter are scheduled for February ofFurther proceedings relating to the trial See Permanent injunction shall issue, ordering defendants . . .

The Jury Trial is scheduled for 02/08/2010 at 10:00 AM in Department C25. Court orders clerk to give notice.

Date: 02/05/2010 Page: 5 MINUTE ORDER Dept: C25 Calendar No.:

Posted by: True North on May 29, 2010 12:44 AM

Enforce the law!!!!!!! If I am racist for wanting that then so be it. This is not complicated. Why give special treatment? Why should we care what ILLEGALS think? Explain this to me without calling me a racist. Explain where the brown berets and mecha get off on demanding anything? Whats wrong with waiting in line? If I moved to Europe or Asia, do you think they would make me be legally there? I would say yes.

Posted by: Deathstalker on June 28, 2010 07:07 PM

Follow up:

June 4, 2010 decision

Superior Court of California, Court of Orange County, Central Judicial District

Honorable Randell L. Wilkinson, Dept C-25

Case No: 30-2008-00102064

Jim Gilchrist's Minuteman Project, Inc., a Delaware non-profit corporation; Plaintiff


Marvin L. Stewart, an individual;
Deborah Ann Peterson, a.k.a.
Deborah Ann Courtney, an individual;
Barbara Coe, an individual;
Paul Sielski, an individual;
and DOES 1 - 1000, inclusive, Defendants.

Jugment as follows:

This matter having come before the court for trial on january 4, 2010, and the parties having presented all of their evidence and argument to the jury and the Court, and Court having considered the equitable issues and having entered a statement of decision on February 5, 2010, and the jury having reached a verdict on each of the causes of action,

IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED, ORDERED, AND DECREED that judgment is entered in favor of Plaintiff, Jim Gilchrist's Minuteman Project, Inc. and against Defendants Deborah Courtney and Marvin Stewart in the sum of $ 4,000, plu costs in the amount allowed by law.

It is FURTHER ADJUDGED, ORDERED AND DECREED that defendants Courtney, Stewart and Sielski are permanently enjoined from holding themselves out to anyone as members of Minute Man Project Inc., or members of its board of directors. This injunction requires the taking down of any web site, including but not limited to www.minutemanprojectinc.com wherein defendants hold themselves out to be members, managers or spokespersons of Minuteman Project Inc., or members of the board of directors of Minuteman Project, Inc. Said defendants are further ordered to turn over all property belonging to Minuteman Project Inc. to plaintiff. Pursuant to the plaintiff's request for declaratory relief, the Court finds that defendants Courtney, Stewart and Sielski are not members of Minuteman Project Inc., and have not been members of the board of directors of Minuteman Project Inc., since February 2, 2007.

Dated: June 4, 2010

Stamped: Randell L. Wilsonson
Honorable Randell L. Wilkinson
Judge of the Superior Court

Posted by: brad mailly on November 24, 2010 04:20 PM

Also see these other great immigration resources

The Dark Side Of Illegal Immigration
The Dark Side Of Illegal Immigration

A 28 part detailed report on the negative impacts of illegal immigration.
Immigration Stance
Immigration Stance

Find out how your members of Congress voted on immigration issues.

The Dark Side Of Illegal Immigration
Read the free 28 part report The Dark Side of
Illegal Immigration

Includes facts, figures
and statistics.

  ... More Categories

Site Meter

Search Diggers Realm
Web Diggers Realm

The Realm Daily Digest
Have Diggers Realm articles emailed to you daily!

Powered by FeedBlitz
See a sample of the email!

ICE Tip Line

Capitol Switchboard

Your Representatives
On Immigration
Find out how your members of Congress voted on immigration issues at Immigration Stance.

Get The Latest Immigration News
Illegal Immigration News
The latest all in one place! Bookmark it today!

Knights Of The Realm

Home | Bio | Contact | Sitemap

Copyright © Dan Amato - 1996-Present