Chris Principe’s defamation case against Tim Tayshun continues, with the latest seeing a motion for entry rejected and filed answer to Principe’s complaint.

Less than twenty-four hours after the deadline to respond had passed, Chris Principe’s attorney filed for an entry of default with the Court Clerk.

The deadline to respond, as cited in Principe’s motion, was August 2nd. The motion for an entry of default was filed on August 3rd, the same day Tayshun filed a response to the complaint.

On August 4th the Court Clerk rejected Principe’s motion because ‘
the name of the person served does not exactly match the person named in complaint
‘.

Principe was given the option of refiling but evidently chose not to.

Waiting less than 24 hours to file a motion for entry of default reveals that Principe might not intend the case to go to trial.

Typically (as witnessed in the many MLM related lawsuits I’ve covered over the years), a plaintiff will wait at least a month before filing for an entry of default.

The courts are pretty lenient with response deadlines, although longer delays typically require an explanation (and even then if the defendant has shown a good faith effort to respond judge’s are again pretty lenient).

In any event with an answer now filed Principe now finds his lawsuit progressing towards trial.

Tayshun’s response to Principe’s lawsuit is a mixture of admitting facts in Principe’s lawsuit, citing a lack of knowledge to respond to a number of allegations and denying the remainder.

Tayshun explicitly denies ‘
OneCoin is a cryptocurrency or competitor to BitCoin
‘ and raises fourteen affirmative defenses:

truth

protected speech

good motive-fair comment

privilege

public figure

lack of malice

substantial truth

lack of damage caused by defendant

failure to mitigate damgaes

unclean hands

justification and

punitive damages unsupported

Chris Principe meanwhile continues to kick self-goals against his professional reputation.

As per OneCoin promotional material, Principe is set to share the stage with convicted felon Tom McMurrain and other OneCoin investors later this month:

In his
complaint against Tayshun
, Principe claimed he’d never received compensation from OneCoin LTD or Ruja Ignatova. Whether Principe receives compensation from any of OneCoin’s numerous shell companies is unclear.

I imagine however it’s only a matter of time before discovery reveals how Principe is being paid to appear at OneCoin events.

And how Principe intends to argue professional reputation defamation in court when he’s running around the world promoting a
Ponzi scheme
 will certainly be interesting, but I digress.

On August 7th Judge Staton set a Scheduling Conference for September 29th. A Joint Report must be filed between 14 and 21 days prior to that date and will likely be our next update on the case.

Update 14th October 2017 – 
In various orders made on October 10th, the following dates have been set:

Final Pretrial Conference – 5th October, 2018

Jury Trial – 30th October, 2018

Mediation Panel to take place no later than 7th August, 2018

OneCoin affiliate recruitment has collapsed, meaning it’s unlikely the Ponzi scheme will be around in a year.

This casts serious doubt on whether Principe will be able to see the case go to trial (no point losing in court when you can quietly settle and pretend it never happened).

Update 12th April 2018 – 
As per a March 30th agreement, a
settlement between Chris Principe and Tim Curry
has been reached.

🤖 Quick Answer

What was the outcome of Chris Principe's motion for entry of default against Tim Tayshun?
The Court Clerk rejected Principe's motion for entry of default on August 4th due to a technical discrepancy: the name of the person served did not exactly match the person named in the complaint. Principe was given the option to refile the motion but did not proceed with this action.

Why was Principe's motion rejected by the Court?
The motion was rejected because of a name discrepancy between the served party and the defendant listed in the original complaint. This procedural requirement necessitated precise matching of legal identities for the default entry to proceed formally.

When was the motion for entry of default filed relative to the response deadline?
The motion for entry of default was filed on August 3rd, less than twenty-four hours after the August 2nd deadline for responding to the complaint had passed. However

🔗 Related Articles

- To promote DagCoin, Igor Alberts slams Ponzi he earned millions in
- DagCoin’s Success Factory USA prelaunch details leaked
- Steinkellers delay Italian OneCoin criminal proceedings
- New fake Ruja Ignatova video targets Chinese speakers
- OmegaPro’s 2021 Fintech awards bought at a Bollywood show?