Justice, or say bend conformity to the truth for the Hamilton County Convention Center’s owner, was maintained by an appeals panel, which was later divided and split as regards a former employee’s defamation suit. It was the last part—unseen final page in a long-running lawsuit historical account of events that involve controversial claims and assertion on employee theft and unpaid wages.

A female employee, Lee Johnson, who had worked for Hassan Shanehsaz in the convention center, got an unpaid wages lawyer when she laid claims that Hassan Shanehsaz owed her over $10,000 which piled up as unpaid wages, while she, Lee Johnson worked for Shanehsaz at the convention center between the year 2010 to 2011.

The charges Lee Johnson pressed on Hassan Shanehsaz, the respective company and other related parties were that they refused to pay her that certain amount due to the heap in abundance of wages, while she served the company for over a year without being paid.

She sued Shanehaz, the convention center, alongside its related partied to the court of law, and she was awarded over $46,000 in actual and liquidated damages. A California unpaid wages attorney noted that attorney fees can make up the majority of the settlement which occurred in this case. Lee Johnson was given $25,000 in attorney fees, for a ruling which was confirmed in an appeal, later in the year 2016.

Few months after the legal process and court proceedings, Ali, Hassan Shanehsaz’s brother, resiliently filed another lawsuit against Lee Johnson for employee theft. Ali claimed that Lee Johnson had stolen an enormous number of Iranian funds, which he had entrusted and assigned to his brother. After several drag and forth, judicial proceedings, both parties later reached a settlement-to-bargain agreement, leading to a general release from all manner of actions, debts, suits, causes of actions, contracts, debts, demands, or any other etiquettes whatsoever which might surface from the lawsuit that were charged by either of the parties. However, the general release will not hold based upon the lawsuit, currently pending in the U.S. district court for the Southern District of Indiana, known as Shanehsaz versus Johnson.

Hassan Shanehsaz however, went on to pay Lee Johnson $50,000 which included the balance on a promissory note, and the attorney fees and costs, which cover all the whole settlement.

Howbeit, the case surfaced again in 2017, after Hassan Shanehsaz, discussed with Jacquie Bols, who is a prospective restaurateur—a successive owner or manager of the restaurant who had sponsored functions at venues he owned, through the Jacquie’s Cafe & Gourmet Catering in Carmel.

Lee Johnson expressed formally in a speech that Hassan Shanehsaz’s communication to Ali and statements made to law enforcement officials, in the month of April, back in the year 2015. This statement accused her of theft and unlawful possession of another person’s property, as written by the judge Robert Altice. The potentially entangled litigation through the judicial process troubled Jacquie Bols intensely, which led to termination and the abrupt end of all the whole restaurant plans with Hassan Shanehsaz.

He painstakingly claimed that Lee Johnson’s lawsuit was nullified by the agreement in the year 2016, and he made further claims that he was entitled to damages for all lost profits and lucre which arose from the failed restaurant venture. Hassan Shanehsaz was given a formal authoritative opinion by the Hamilton Superior Court, on Johnson’s claims, refused to accept his cross-claims, and awarded with him an attorney fee of $27,981.

The court judges; Robert Altice and Mark Bailey duly confirmed the trial court known as, Lee Johnson versus Hass Shanehsaz, 19A-PL-2866. And the last straw that broke  the camel’s back was because another Judge, Terry, was totally against the confirmation of the trial which led to an unavoidable division in the panel, of which the contents of the terms nullified Lee Johnson’s claims and assertions.

Also, It was wholly stated in a footnote, by the majority, that even though the dissent maintains that the alleged defamatory statements or assertion without further arguments, conduct in connection with the federal lawsuit, it must be concluded that the federal lawsuit language, with which the agreement was written, cannot be read to cover acts or omissions, which are prior to the start of the federal litigation.

The reading of the agreement is that the language it contains aims to make a final choice or judgment that the existence of the referenced federal lawsuit or proceedings. In other words, to reiterate, reading those phrases individually, including the alleged year 2015 defamation would not give the words in the agreement their plain and ordinary meanings in their connection to the federal litigation.

Considering the cycles long-running lawsuit historical account of events, Crone saw things differently. He said it couldn’t be disputed or entirely be thrown in the bin box that Hassan Shanehsaz’s statements to Ali, as regards the case of Lee Johnson’s theft of the funds, constitute the federal lawsuit.