I am doing Foster vs Gildred Blaine K. Bowman SDSC Law Michael Tango v Tom Gildred Carolina Gildred

Описание: Foster vs Gildred
Live Michael Foster
Lawsuit Michael Tango v Tom Gildred Carolina Gildred
Bowman k Blaine
San Diego Superior Court
Now
Highlights with Delmore Greene LLP on sanctions for frivolous filings and other disciplinary matters: the legally toothless Terence Leo Greene or the Doctored fish & bear symptoms of one case vs one client worth the value of either career.
The lawsuit "Foster vs Gildred" is currently ongoing in the San Diego Superior Court, presided over by Judge Bowman K. Blaine. Here's what we know about the case
*Case Background*: The lawsuit stems from a business deal between Michael Foster and Tom Gildred, a San Diego businessman and CPA, that went sour due to allegations of infidelity between Foster and Gildred's spouse, Carolina. The deal involved a cash deposit and business agreement, but it fell apart, leading to a settlement agreement in 2020.
*Allegations*: Foster alleges fraud, abuse of power, and unethical conduct by Tom Gildred. Specifically, Foster claims Gildred fraudulently induced him into signing a settlement agreement, which included transferring ownership of several business URLs, including Foster's trademark MCSI Security.
*Current Status*: The case is ongoing, with a case management conference and judgement to include Tom Gildred the Gildred family of San Diego and Philip T Gildred professional businesses https://tomgildred.info scheduled for October 31, 2025. Judge Bowman K. Blaine has allowed Gildred to amend his cross-complaint, despite Foster's objections.
*Public Opinions*: There are concerns about Judge Blaine's handling of the case, with some questioning his impartiality and accusing him of acquiescence to corruption.
*Related Cases*: There's also a mention of a previous case, "Gildred vs Foster," which was settled in 2020. However, Foster is now seeking to reverse an addendum to that agreement, which listed up to 32 business URLs owned by Michael Foster to be deleted.

It's worth noting that the case has raised questions about judicial corruption and the integrity of the court system in San Diego.