WhiteHead V Echo 35 Million Dollar Counter Claim

Gunsmoke2 - GS2 · #1 03-07-2010, 02:57 PM

http://www.newcardnews.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7025

I originally posted about this case with the above link. I decided to look for any update to report about and came accross a counter claim complaint. While I do not believe Whitehead will be successful in the end I do find it interesting and give him credit for defending himself in this counter claim motion. I do not think the Judge will dismiss the counter claim as per Echo's motion to dismiss. I think he will let be heard.

Attached is the counter claim complaint along with the exhibits entered.

GS2

Gunsmoke2 - GS2 · #2 03-07-2010, 02:59 PM

Here I have attached the motion filed by plaintifs to dismiss counter claim and the response to it filled by Whitehead.

GS2

Gunsmoke2 - GS2 · #3 06-13-2010, 12:17 AM

Just a follow up on this. Judge issued an order to Whitehead and he responded. I have attached both docs.

Whitehead says the plaintifs told him if he would agree to drop the counterclaim and agree to stop his participation in FTA they would not pursue costs against him. However Whitehead says hes not guilty and wants to go to trial.

If Whitehead has been offered that with no financial judgment just agree to stop doing FTA business meaning agreeing to an injunction then in my opinion he should take it. That in itself would be a victory for him compared to other defendent's results. If he continues he would probably lose and get a financial award against himself that then the plaintifs could give him a hard time.

The doc that says response to the order contains various statements from Whitehead where he says hes not guilty and that the plaintifs are coming to court with dirty hands.

GS2

Gunsmoke2 - GS2 · #4 07-13-2010, 12:27 AM

The plaintifs put a motion to strike some of the comments that Whitehead made in the post above with the file Whitehead V Echo Response To Order.

GS2

Gunsmoke2 - GS2 · #5 07-13-2010, 12:40 AM

Whitehead ask the court to appoint a lawyer for him. That motion was denied based mostly because the defendant has shown an ability to understand and answer in the case himself.

File attached.

GS2