"You Can Run, But You Can't Hide!" [Duane "Dog" Chapman]
by Captain Chuck Foster on 07/22/13
Posting for Friday, July 19, 20
Defendants Theresa Keeping/Dale Merkel Lawsuit Ducking Ends With Surprise Courthouse Process Service
When asked about “evasive” boxing opponent, Billy Cook, heavyweight champion boxer, Joe Louis, said: “He can run, but he can’t hide.” The title of the famous real life and TV bounty hunter, Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman’s book was: “You can run but you can’t hide.” It was also a song by the same title co-written by Tommy Keen and “Razz.”
Since April 8, 2013, Theresa Keeping and Dale Merkel appeared to have been doing whatever they could to avoid having to explain and be held accountable for the childrens ‘wish’ charity funds they unlawfully took from the Royal Bank of Canada, and then used this designated trust fund money to buy stock and Vice-President executive positions in Vinking Marine Enterprises/Port Harmon Authority.
Service of process attempts in Alberta and Newfoundland were unsuccessful as the people who knew Keeping and Merkel in Alberta claimed they were in Newfoundland; while sources close to Keeping and Merkel in Newfoundland claimed they were in Alberta.
Were they “running and hiding?” I know they were avoiding and refusing any communication with me or Dan Howard.
What I can say with absolute certainty, however, is that on July 18, 2013, at approximately 10:30 AM in the Trial Division of the Supreme Court in St. Johns, Newfoundland, Keeping and Merkel’s running and hiding, albeit actual or believed, came to an ironic, fitting, and abrupt end!
Two things were necessary for this to happen:
First, I received “tips” which came from “The Court of Public Opinion” section in the www.theresakeepinglawsuit.com website.
From these tips I learned that Keeping, Merkel, their attorney, and the attorney for Vinking Marine/Port Harmon Authority would be appearing in Court to pursue a Vinking/Port Harmon proxy-fight motion filed on Keeping/Merkel’s behalf.
A phone call to the St. John’s Courthouse confirmed the tips were valid.
Second, I was unable to timely maneuver the paperwork through Newfoundland government channels, but had been given the name of William “Billy” Earle, a St. Johns based process server with a “bull dog” reputation for finding and affecting service of whatever legal documents he was tasked to deliver.
My challenge, however, was time. It was already 9:00 pm in Newfoundland and the Court hearing was at 10:00 AM the following morning.
What were the odds that Mr. Earle would answer his cell phone, be available, and agree to serve the Summons and Complaint documents? It doesn't matter what the odds were, because Mr. Earle answered his phone; was available, and he enthusiastically agreed to serve the lawsuit documents!
As requested, the documents were immediately faxed to Mr. Earle and, by email, I provided color photos and other related details about Keeping and Merkel.
When Mr. Earle called me on Friday morning, here’s a summary of what he shared:
"I got to the Courthouse about 9:00 AM so I was able to watch the attorney's in the Vinking and Port Harmon case enter the Courtroom. Keeping and Merkel didn't appear, but as the hearing began, I saw and heard them tell the Judge who they were and who they represented.
I waited until the first break, and when the attorney's walked outside the courtroom, I walked between them and spoke first to Greg Moores, the attorney who identified himself in Court as representing Keeping and Merkel, and asked if he was the attorney for Theresa Keeping and Dale Merkel? He said 'yes' and I handed him the Summons and Complaint. Moores took the document, looked at what I handed him, and he said, "I can't accept these!" I told him, 'you already did, so tell your clients that they've been served.'
I then served a copy of the documents upon Greg Smith, the attorney for Vinking and Port Harmon.*
And so the Judge in the Vinking and Port Harmon case would also know what was going on, I served a copy of the documents on the Court Clerk."
So what happens now?
The California Superior Court’s “30 days to respond from the date of service” calendar clock has started ticking, and what typically follows next is an Answer to the Complaint, followed by “discovery,” e.g., interrogatories, request for admissions, video depositions, and I suppose a number of insegrevious motions or maneuvers to stop or delay the proceedings … or … Keeping/Merkel can elect to do nothing, opting instead for me to obtain a “default judgment” and see what success I have getting the judgment enforced in Canada.
The other, and preferred, option is to do what I’ve been requesting all along: “Let’s talk in good faith about how to resolve this in a fair, just, timely and mutually beneficial way.”
Tic-toc …tic-toc … tic-toc ...
-- RCF
P.S. -- The next Captain's blog will present irrefutable physical evidence, including bank and email documents confirming lawsuit allegations, and dispelling the false/misleading representations recently made by Theresa Keeping and the recently "resigned" politician/lawyer/ and now Keeping/Merkel "consultant," Victor Toews.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Footnote: (*) Vinking Enterprises/Port Harmon are not named parties to this lawsuit! So why was the attorney for Vinking/Port Harmon served with a Summons and Complaint for Keeping and Merkel?
I'm admittedly of the current opinion the Vinking Marine/Port Harmon, including Vinking's CEO/ President, Dan Villeneuve, Development Director, Colleen Oliver, and many of Vinking's shareholders may, like me, WishCruise Navy and WishCruise Pirate Adventures, Ltd, also be Keeping/Merkel victims, not accomplices.
This duplication of process service was a back-up, call it additional insurance, should Keeping/Merkel attempt to deny or contest the service upon their attorney, Mr. Moores. It was also appropriate to serve Vinking because Keeping and Merkel were, and/or may still legally be, Vinking/Port Harmon company officers, directors or shareholders, and the law permits service of process upon a "person in charge" (manager or executive officer) of the company where the served party is employed.
Additionally, the law is clear about not requiring "... any particular means of service of process, only that the method selected be reasonably calculated to provide notice and the opportunity to respond." Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co [U.S. Supreme Court, 339 U.S.at 314; also U.S. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(f)]
- EPILOGUE -
In my previous "Baffle With Bullshit!" Captain's Blog posting, I said Keeping/Merkel's recently retired politician/attorney, Victor Toews,' boasted at the Day's Inn Hotel meeting, how the Court had made a favorable ruling regarding Theresa and Dale's recently filed proxy-fight motion and "... gave Theresa and Dale everything they asked for."
For the average person, this seem reasonable to believe that the referenced Court victory was the end of the matter ... a done deal ... finished ... and that Keeping and Merkel were now in charge of running Vinking Marine and Port Harmon Authority!?
Whether or not Mr. Toews actually believed this, or whether he wanted other's to believe that Keeping's preliminary Court decision was final -- he'd be wrong!
I know this to be true, and he proof is what happened at the conclusion of the Court hearing mentioned above, i.e., the judge put everything on hold, and continued the matter to a date that would give Vinking/Port Harmon time to properly prepare their defense against Keeping/Merkel's charges; and if appropriate, to bring charges of their own against Keeping and Merkel.
To this degree, one could make a good argument that this was a "victory," albeit "temporary" in its proper context, for Vinking/Port Harmon.
Comments (0)
