Memphis Invest Court Case Update – Misleading or an attempt to cover up fraud


Interesting updates from the court house.

The day before the Clothiers of Memphis Invest (MI) were to be deposed, they filed for a voluntary dismissal to keep from handing over information.  Memphis Invest then  mislead and tried to whitewash their voluntary dismissal as a victory rather what this filing was for.

Find the attached documents:

Memphis Invest Voluntary dismissal and  Personal Investor Magazine recent filings

Personal Investors then refiled a motion to strike language and their lawyers declaration showing ; a capitulation in an attempt to cover up the truth.

Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice[2]

MI v Waite Motion to Strike

MI v Waite – Strike – Memphis Exhibits A-G

 

From email sent by Andrew Waite – Personal Investor Magazine

 

 

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Memphis Invest Court Case Update – Misleading or an attempt to cover up fraud

  1. Bill W.

    Mr. Andrew Waite needs to focus on the sexual harassment charges being filed against him! Ouch!

    “…be sure your sin will find you out!” Numbers 32:23

    Reply
  2. Chris Clothier

    Duncan –

    Thanks for letting us respond. First, we were concerned whether the original post was truly authored by Andrew Waite, posting under a pseudonym or asking you to post for him in order to protect himself from additional defamation claims. I see you identified the post as coming from him so that people know who really made these statements – including the new accusation of fraud, which is defamatory in, and of itself.

    In his response to our voluntary dismissal, Waite again makes a very serious, false and defamatory claim against my father and has now published that claim to the world. Please remove it immediately so that we can avoid further legal action.

    As for the substance, let me explain a couple of things:

    1. Notably missing from the attached files from Andrew Waite is the fact that Waite’s motion was denied by the court on its own – before Memphis Invest even had to file an opposition! Waite’s motion to strike was nothing more than an attempt to argue his case (with blatant misrepresentations) and further slander the Clothiers and Memphis Invest in the court record. Again, the motion was DENIED (I copied the motion at the bottom).

    2. We are not a bunch of Tennessee dummies. We have had a plan from the beginning and every step of the way have been well in front of Andrew Waite.

    Andrew Waite has claimed for several years to be an attorney and uses that claim as a credibility and trust builder. So you would think he would have a better grasp of the way the court system works, but since he is not a lawyer and has never practiced law, he shows his ignorance.

    In Nevada, you cannot amend defamation charges (add additional claims) to an existing suit without reopening the opportunity for the defendant to file a special motion to dismiss, as if it were the first day of the case. The problem is that this special motion would have given Waite an immediate right to appeal when the court ruled against him. The case could have been delayed for as much as 1 ½ years. Through discovery and his video taped deposition, we were able to uncover additional defamatory statements Waite made against both Memphis Invest and different members of the Clothier family personally.

    So, if we are going to consider adding new defamation claims to our case and basically going back to day one (potentially in another jurisdiction), it made much more sense for us to voluntarily drop our initial case and prepare a new one. We have a wonderful video deposition of Andrew Waite that everyone in the real estate industry – including you Duncan – are going to find very interesting. After that deposition, we were clear that the evidence in support of our case was overwhelming. We also knew two important things.

    1. He is not a serious publisher and while he claims to be, his magazine follows no recognized journalistic standards or accepted business practices and, as it appears to be run out of his house and has an expired business filing, we don’t think it can be taken seriously.

    2. In light of the fact that he has been sued multiple times by vendors and writers and was in the middle of a lawsuit at the time of our initial filing, we were concerned that he would not have the financial means to pay an award in the case.

    Apparently, Waite tendered this defamation claim to his homeowners insurance to cover his legal expense and they sued him in Arizona courts to deny his claim! This guy is an absolute flake.

    There is no indication that he has anything of value for us and, as we have learned over the past 9 months, he has ZERO pull in this industry. So for now, as we contemplate additional defamation filings against him and make legal decisions that are absolutely in our best interest (including not sitting for a deposition just to allow him to depose us again if we refile), we are preparing to release his full deposition video so the whole real estate world can see the true story of who this guy is.

    It is unbelievable what this video testimony shows. He denies making any of the statements about Memphis Invest including some of the new claims we would bring. In fact, multiple times he said he could not make the statements because he had no knowledge. When confronted with evidence, he tries to change the subject and insert a negative statement about our company at every step of the way.

    Again, Duncan, thanks for letting us make a quick reply. All the best to you.

    Chris

    Copied – Motion to Deny from Nevada Federal Court:

    United States District Court

    District of Nevada

    Notice of Electronic Filing

    The following transaction was entered on 4/8/2014 at 3:29 PM PDT and filed on 4/8/2014
    Case Name:
    Memphis Invest, GP v. Waite et al
    Case Number:
    2:13-cv-01282-JAD-NJK
    Filer:
    WARNING: CASE CLOSED on 03/18/2014
    Document Number:
    43(No document attached)
    Docket Text:
    MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Jennifer A. Dorsey on 4/8/2014. Defendants’ Motion to Strike [42] is DENIED. The language defendants seek to strike has no legal effect. Moreover, Defendants offer no valid legal basis for this relief as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) (which they cite as the legal grounds for this request) pertains only to pleadings, which this notice of voluntary dismissal is not. (No image attached.) (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF.) (RCC)

    Reply
  3. andrewwaite2013

    All: Great comments from Chris.

    They are trying to spin their voluntary dismissal two days before our deposing them as a victory. If you notice the denial of the motion to strike the Clothiers “victory language” it says that our motion has no legal effect but the court did admit this into the public record.

    The truth is your defamation claim was 180 degrees from the facts. The attorneys for Guild Mortgage not only confirmed there were buy back inquiry letters from Fannie Mae over properties you had sold to investor borrowers but Randy Locke branch manager thought they were odd coming from the Mortgage Fraud unit, not just internal file audit. There were 44 letters, which resulted in 15 buy backs and even a foreclosure Guild had to make good upon. This is in the Federal Court record.

    I wish the Clothiers the best in their efforts to sell and manage properties to an investors benefit.

    Andrew Waite

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s