Chronicle Coverage Now Evidence in Civil Suit
Four-Count Civil Suit Against 1982 and Mersh Includes Defamation
Note: This is a copyrighted piece. No reprints, quotes, partial or pieced information from this article can be republished without direct and explicit permission from the author. A previous post related to the Mechanic’s Lien in this case was reprinted as a “letter to the editor” in The Calhoun Chronicle without request, permission, or credit due. This is known as “intellectual theft” and plagiarism. This article is a part of ongoing independent coverage of The 1982 Foundation and Crystal Laughlin Mersh. Reprint permissions from this series will be evaluated and priced on an individual basis.
On May 6, 2025, the Calhoun County Circuit Clerk received a four-count civil suit filed by The Viking Group Inc. against The 1982 Foundation, Calhoun Community Center Landlord, LLC, and Crystal Mersh. Count Four of the claim presents several statements claiming defamation by Crystal Mersh. “Mersh, both personally and on behalf of 1982 and CCCL, made both oral and written defamatory statements regarding Viking.”
The complaint presents that statements were made to multiple individuals, businesses, organizations, and interested parties in the project, and specifically notes statements made “to the general public via Facebook and ‘The Calhoun Chronicle and The Grantsville News,’ a local newspaper in Calhoun County.”
The complaint goes on to note, “These claims were false… At the time of making these statements, and others, Mersh either knew or should have known that the statements were false… On information and belief, Mersh made these false statements deliberately with intent to harm Viking.”
On April 24, 2025, The Calhoun Chronicle presented a brief overview of the Mechanic’s Lien filed and then presented six paragraphs of comment “posted” by Crystal Laughlin Mersh, “speaking on behalf of the 1982 Foundation.” That article is now evidence in the civil suit.
The civil suit directly mentions “statements provided to local news outlets” in their complaint, specifically noting that Mersh falsely and publicly claimed “that Owner terminated Viking from the Project even though Viking terminated the Contract for cause due to Owner’s refusal to pay amounts due…”
In direct contradiction to Mersh’s printed statement, the civil complaint notes that On February 26, 2025, “Viking gave the Owner notice that the contract would be terminated for cause as of March 5, 2025,” but also states, “Owner’s response was to send a letter to Viking on February 28, 2025 purporting to terminate the contract as of March 7, 2025.”
The Chronicle article also stated, “The 1982 Foundation notified The Viking Group on April 18 of sixteen categories of contract breach with numerous individual violations within each category. The 1982 Foundation concluded that communication with a demand for payment of $1,846,566.53.”
However, Viking’s documentation states, “Each alleged ‘breach’ identified by Owner was not only unfounded, but many of the ‘breaches’ were based on actions Owner requested from Viking on the project.” The document then lists several examples, including “owner alleged that Viking did not report budget variances… even though Viking in fact provided these reports… in weekly meetings with Owner’s Finance Director.”
Viking further asserts, “Owner complained that Viking did not have constant on-site supervision present, even though Owner directed Viking to remove the site superintendent services from its budget because Owner believed it could provide site supervision for less.”
In addition, “Owner complained that Viking did not provide daily reports during its time on the Project, even though Owner specifically took responsibility for daily reports via its ‘Superintendent’.”
Also, “Owner complained that Viking did not hold regular project meetings, even though Viking held weekly and monthly meetings and distributed minutes from those meetings, and Owner’s representative (Mersh) simply failed to attend most of those meetings.”
The civil suit documents present a summary of the project, the progress, the relationship with Mersh, 1982, and CCCL, and present four counts for ruling from the courts.
Count One of the Civil Action calls for enforcement of Viking’s Mechanic’s Lien “through a sale of the subject real property to satisfy the debt owed to Viking.” Count Two relates to breach of contract. “As a direct and proximate result of Owner’s breach of the Contract, Viking has been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, not less than $858,591.44” plus accruing interest. Count Three relates to unjust enrichment. “As a result of their failure to compensate Viking for its labor, equipment, and materials, 1982 and CCCL have been unjustly enriched at Viking’s expense.” Count Four relates to defamation.
Having presented its complaints and claims against the defendants listed, Viking has asked the court to enforce, via trial by jury, “Viking’s mechanic’s lien through sale of the real property on which the Project is located;” for money judgment against 1982 and CCCL “in an amount no less than $858,591.44” plus interest; for money judgment against 1982, CCCL and Mersh “for damages as determined by the jury as a result of 1982, CCCL and Mersh’s defamation of Viking;” punitive damages against all three “as a result of their intentional actions in defaming Viking;” a reward to Viking covering costs of the action and attorney’s fees.
Related Articles:
1982 Documents Raise Questions
Private Nonprofit or Public Charity?
Rare Old Bird Still Has Questions
Thanks so much for keeping on top of this and reporting for the rest of us. If you don't get the Calhoun Chronicle (and who would after you were thrown out as editor thanks to 1982 and Mersh?), you would have no idea this was happening. Mersh's constant lies are finally going to be tested in court and she will be shown to be the fraud she has always been. The lawyers are going to have a hard time getting an unbiased jury in Calhoun County!