I had to file a Notice of Fraud on the Court after Fisher Phillips submitted their Motion to Dismiss in the federal case. Here is what is happening. Fisher Phillips Files Motion to Dismiss Fisher Phillips — representing AMJ Services LLC and Steven S. Dickert (Trustee of Basil Management Trust) — has
Before the preliminary conference was held, the parties participated in JAMS’ standard rank-and-strike process for arbitrator selection. Each side was provided with a list of proposed neutrals and given the opportunity to rank preferences and strike candidates pursuant to JAMS procedure. Following that process, the matter was assigned
For over a year, I’ve been fighting a legal war alone. It started with a simple question: “Who actually employs me?” That question led me down a rabbit hole of dissolved Nevada LLCs, a shared address at a Las Vegas law firm, and a network of trusts and shell
In the federal fraud case, Fisher Phillips has now formally appeared for AMJ Services LLC and Steven S. Dickert, trustee of the Basil Management Trust—the same trust that controls DRVM LLC, the shell named on my paystubs. They already represent DRVM in arbitration and DOL proceedings. Now they represent
All named defendants in this federal lawsuit have now been formally served with process. With service complete, the case has entered its adversarial phase, and each defendant is now on their own response clock under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This matters because deadlines are not collective. They are
Filed December 11, 2025 — U.S. District Court, District of Oregon Case No. 3:25-cv-2308-SB On December 11, 2025, I filed a new federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon against Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Chattem Inc., Quten Research Institute
The Department of Labor Taxpayer First Act case Hollingsworth v. DRVM LLC et al, continues to develop in unusual ways, as Respondent DRVM LLC—represented by Fisher Phillips LLP, one of the largest employment-defense firms in the United States—has now filed its Initial Disclosures. What stands out is
For months, this case has been unfolding across multiple forums. Arbitration. Federal court. Agency filings. Whistleblower submissions. Every step has revealed one thing: the deeper the structure goes, the harder the fight becomes, and the more intentional the obstruction appears. Today, the judge issued her ruling. And while some people
November 20th, 2025, I served my Initial Disclosures in the Department of Labor retaliation case. On paper it looks like a simple filing. In reality, it is one of the most important moves in the entire 15 billion dollar story. Jorden’s Initial Disclosures Filed November 20th, 2025Jorden’s Initial
On November 14, 2025, the United States Department of Labor officially opened my Taxpayer First Act whistleblower retaliation case. This is no longer an OSHA review or a misunderstanding. This is a federal judge inside the Office of Administrative Law Judges taking jurisdiction over a case that involves IRS filings,
On October 27, 2025, Sanofi-Aventis S.A. submitted its official Form 6-K to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, a 58-page half-year report legally required to list every major event that could affect the company’s financial condition. It was supposed to be transparent. Instead,
Filing a Sur-Reply is rare. Normally, a motion, an opposition, and a reply complete the discussion. Courts only allow a Sur-Reply when the opposing side raises new arguments or introduces new evidence that could mislead the record if left unaddressed. That’s exactly what happened here, and that’