Preview
FILED
DALLAS COUNTY
1/10/2020 11:55 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
Veronica Vaughn
CAUSE NO. DC-18-15576
THOMAS T. HEADEN III INTHE DISTRICT
Plaintiff, COURT
V.
ABUNDANT LIFE THERAPEUTIC
SERVICES TEXAS, LLC; ABUNDANT
LIFE THERAPEUTIC SERVICES LLC; ,
SS OF MA, LLC; BLACKWISE, LLC;
NOVIS LOGICA LLC; EVOLVE
OUTREACH TEXAS, LLC; PRESIDUM mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
68TH JUDICIAL
PRIME, LLC; LEGAL EQUALIZER, LLC; DISTICT
LEGAL EQUALIZER, INC; MBYE NJIE;
JASON RYAN FORD; JON NATHANIEL
FORD; MELVIN ANDERSON; LANCE
TAYLOR; and GEOFFREY BERG.
Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY,
TEXAS
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY TO JON FORD’S TCPA ANTI-
SLAPP MOTION TO DISMISS
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Comes Now Plaintiff, Thomas T.
Headen III, and files this Response t0 Jon Ford and Novis Logica’s Texas Citizen’s
Participation Act Motion t0 Dismiss and in support hereof respectfully submits the following:
Introduction
1. Headen worked as a consultant (Via his husband/Wife partnership (Headen
Consulting) and as an employee in his individual capacity for Abundant Life Therapeutic
Services Texas, LLC, a mental health agency Within the timefiame of April 2017 t0 February
2018. During this time, Headen was made aware 0f various legal Violations 0f the ALTST’S
management and other Abundant Life Defendants. As required by Texas Health and Safety
Plaintiff Headen’s Response forJon Ford TCPA MTD Page 1
Code §161.132 Headen reported these legal Violations t0 ALTST’S management, and t0 the
Office 0f Civil Rights fiom September 2017 through February 2018. Thereafter the Defendants
acted concertedly to retaliate and injure Headen in a number 0f ways.
2. After Headen made reports of their legal Violations, the Abundant Life
Defendants sued Headen with two fiivolous lawsuits, 0n March 13, 2018 and 0n April 3, 2018.
The Abundant Life Defendants claimed the basis for their claims against Headen was Headen’s
status as a co-conspirator With Jon Ford. Abundant Life Defendants sued Jon for embezzlement,
self-dealing, fiaud, and breach of fiduciary duty, amongst other things. The Abundant Life
Defendants claimed that Jon transferred more than $50,000 t0 companies he owned without
authorization, and they claimed that Jon represented that Headen helped him With these activities
as Jon’s legal advisor and accomplice. Jon settled With the Abundant Life Defendants in the
Harris County matter, but the Abundant Life Defendants nonsuited claims against Headen
Without being able t0 prove even one element 0f one claim.
3. Headen now sues Jon for the RICO Violations that led to Headen’s injuries.
4. Jon Ford asserts that Headen’s RICO claim is barred by the TCPA because the
suit is based 0n related t0 0r in response t0 Jon’s first amendment rights 0f association t0
promote a common interest of Abundant Life Texas. In reality, Jon was sued by “the
association” 0f Abundant Life Texas for not promoting the association’s common interest
through his actions 0f embezzlement and self—dealing; these actions are the heart 0f Headen’s
RICO claim against Jon.
5. Not only is Jon not able to meet his burden of demonstrating that Headen is suing
him based on his right 0f association, Headen’s claims against Jon have merit and can be
demonstrated by prima facie proof, and n0 defense t0 his actions have been offered.
Plaintiff Headen’s Response forJon Ford TCPA MTD Page 2
Argument and Authorities
Amended Texas Citizens’ Participation Act
1. The TCPA amendments narrow the application 0f the TCPA in certain respects, make
changes in response t0 courts’ interpretation 0f the TCPA’S language, and also change
some procedural aspects 0f the statute. For example, The amended TCPA changed the
definition 0f “exercise 0f the right 0f association” t0 require the common interest t0 relate
t0 “a governmental proceeding 0r a matter 0f public concern. The TCPA states in
relevant parts:
a. Sec. 27.001. DEFINITIONS. "Exercise of the right of association" means t0 join
together to collectively express, promote, pursue, 0r defend common interests
relating t0 a governmental proceeding 0r a matter 0f public concern. (7) "Matter
of public concern" means a statement 0r activity regarding: (A) a public official,
public figure, 0r other person Who has drawn substantial public attention due t0
the person's official acts, fame, notoriety, or celebrity;(B) a matter of political,
social, 0r other interest to the community; or (C) a subject of concern to the
public.
Sec. 27.002.PURPOSE. The purpose 0f this chapter is t0 encourage and safeguard
the constitutional rights 0f persons t0 petition, speak fieely, associate fieely, and
otherwise participate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law and,
at the same time, protect the rights of a person t0 file meritorious lawsuits for
demonstrable injury.
Plaintiff Headen’s Response for Jon Ford TCPA MTD Page 3
c. Sec. 27.009(2)(b). DAMAGES AND COSTS. If the court finds that a motion to
dismiss filed under this chapter is fiivolous 0r solely intended t0 delay, the court
may award court costs and reasonable attorney's fees t0 the responding party.
RICO Racketeering
2. RICO makes it unlawful “for any person employed by 0r associated with any
enterprise engaged in, 0r the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to
conduct 0r participate, directly 0r indirectly, in the conduct 0f such enterprise’s affairs through a
pattern 0f racketeering activity[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(0). 18 U.S.C. § 1962 provides that the
following practices are prohibited activities: (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has
received any income derived, directly or indirectly, fiom a pattern of racketeering activity or
through collection 0f an unlawful debt in Which such person has participated as a principal
Within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code [18 USCS § 2], to use 01' invest,
directly 0r indirectly, any part 0f such income, 0r the proceeds 0f such income, in acquisition of
any interest in, or the establishment 0r operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, 0r the
activities 0f Which affect, interstate 0r foreign commerce. (c) It shall be unlawfill for any person
employed by 0r associated With any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of Which affect,
interstate 01" foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of
such enterprise's affairs through a pattern 0f racketeering activity.
3. Reduced to their simplest terms, the essential elements of a RICO claim are: (1) a
person Who engages in (2) a pattern 0f racketeering activity (3) connected t0 the acquisition,
establishment, conduct, 0r control 0f an enterprise.” Orthoflex, Inc. v. ThermoTek, Ina, 2012
WL 2864510. The § 1964(0) inquiry involves three steps. First, to establish that a defendant
committed "racketeering activity," as defined in § 1961 (1) and required by § 1962(0), a plaintiff
Plaintiff Headen’s Response for Jon Ford TCPA MTD Page 4
must show indictable acts (i.e., "predicate" acts). Second, § 1962(c) 2 5 requires that a defendant
must be a "person employed by or associated with an[ ] enterprise" and that the defendant must
have "conduct[ed] or participat[ed], directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's
affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity." Third, under § 1964(c), a complaining civil
party must be a "person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of § 1962."
4. To state a claim for mail or wire fraud to support a RICO violation under § 1341
or § 1343, a plaintiff must establish three elements; ‘(1) a scheme or artifice to defraud or to
obtain money or property by means of false pretenses, representations, or promises; (2) a use of
the interstate mails or wires for the purpose of executing the scheme; and (3) a specific intent to
defraud either by [d]evising, participating in, or abetting the scheme.’” Vanderbilt Mortg. & Fin.,
Inc. v. Flores, 746 F.Supp.2d 819, 841 (S.D. Tex. 2010) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v.
Byd:Sign, Inc., 2007 WL 275476, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2007)).
Jon’s RICO Violations
5. Jon’s RICO violations were based on self-dealing, embezzlement, and illegal
referral schemes he implemented using shell companies, and his representation that Headen
conspired with him in his activities in order to undermine Abundant Life Texas. This is spelled
out by Abundant Life Texas’ attorney Geoffrey Berg in a letter written by his firm on January
23, 2018, which states in part:
You have agreed to reimburse some of the payments you caused to be made to your own
entites but have not done so. Your actions not only violate the Company Agreement,
constitute theft, breach of fiduciary duty, and are each acts of self-dealing and may
endanger the company’s ability to continue to do business with Medicaid, Abundant
Life Texas’ primary source of revenue.
You have acted alone and without authority on behalf of Abundant Life Texas…to write
checks to a company called Asssitance and Mentorship to Purpose Project – a company
with which you are closely associated if not its owner – totaling at least $42,500. None
of the payments to AMPP were approved by a majority of the Managers of Abundant
Life Texas, though the Company Agreement requires that they be.
Plaintiff Headen’s Response for Jon Ford TCPA MTD Page 5
You are director … of AMPP… As you are aware, some of the monies paid to AMPP
were subsequently transferred, apparently also at your direction, to Blackshar
Elementary and Blackshar Elementary refers students to Abundant Life Texas for
treatment…. The payments made to AMPP then to Blackshear Elementary, all at your
direction, may be construed as kickbacks… in violation of the AKS.
On November 14, 2017, without approval or disclosure to Mr. Ford or anyone else, you
caused Abundant Life Texas to pay at least $10,000 to an entity called Foundational
Aptitude Company Training LLC (“FACT”)…. You did everything you could to
conceal these payments. We now know why: You are the Managing Member and sole
owner of FACT.”
The checks to FACT themselves condtain additional false statements. The memo lines
on those checks say that the payments were for “Contract I Services” and “Contract II
Training”… in fact, and you have acknowledged, Abundant Life Texas had no contract
with FACT in November 2017.
If you are represented by counsel you should forward this to him or her immediately.
6. On February 9, 2018 Jon explained to Headen that ALTST profited from a
referral generation scheme implemented. Jon set up shell organizations, transferred money to
these companies, and used that money to buy gifts for local Houston organizations in exchange
for student referrals, a violation of Texas Medical Laws. Jon also set up shell organizations to
provide “training services” to ALTST and transferred money to said organizations but never
provided the services.
7. Abundant Life Defendants’ lawsuits in the Harris County Matter as well as
Jason’s statements in an August 3, 2019 call indicate that Jon represented that Headen was his
legal advisor and co-conspirator, and as a result Jason and Abundant Life Texas sued Headen.
The petitions in the Harris County Matter, and Jason himself, stated that Jon represented that
Headen was his legal advisor and accomplice.
8. Jon has admitted, however, in his Responses to Headen’s Requests for Admission
that he never thought Headen was his legal advisor or attorney and that Headen told him to
cooperate and to not be adverse to the members and managers of ALTST. Jon admits that
despite Headen’s advice to be cooperative he was, instead hostile and adverse. Jon also admitted
Plaintiff Headen’s Response for Jon Ford TCPA MTD Page 6
that he did not ever correct the notion held by Jason and Abundant Life Texas that he and
Headen were co-conspirators.
9. Abundant Life Texas and Jason Ford sue Jon for these actions because he was not
abiding by the association’s rules, therefore he was n0 longer availing himself of the right of
association and the right 0f association cannot protect him. Jon’s illegal actions against the
association are the basis of Headen’s RICO claims, not Jon’s right t0 association.
Promissory Estoppel
10. "When a promisor induces substantial action 0r forbearance by another,
promissory estoppel prevents any denial of that promise if injustice can be avoided only by
enforcement." Jody James Farms, JV V. Altman Group, Inc., 547 SW 3d 624 - Tex: Supreme
Court 2018. Promissory estoppel is an available cause of action to a promisee Who relied t0 his
detriment on an otherwise unenforceable promise. See Frost, 110 S.W.3d at 44; Bechtel Corp. V.
CITGO Products Pipeline Co., 271 S.W.3d 898, 926 (TeX.App. — Austin 2008, n0 pet).
Generally, promissory estoppel is a Viable alternative t0 breach 0f contract. Trevino & Assocs.
Mech., L.P. V. Frost Nat'l Bank, 400 S.W.3d 139, 146 (TexApp. — Dallas 2013, n0 pet); Allied
Vista, Inc. V. Holt, 987 S.W.2d 138, 141 (TexApp. — Houston [14th Dist] 1999, pet. denied).
11. Headen is pleading Promissory Estoppel as an alternative t0 Breach 0f Contract,
in the event that this claim is dismissed. But as 0f now this claim has not been adjudicated, and
the contract has not been determined t0 be valid or invalid, therefore it cannot be determined
whether or not promissory estoppel as a cause of action is not applicable.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff Headen’s Response for Jon Ford TCPA MTD Page 7
12. Abundant Life Texas’ attorneys have stated 0n the record on more than one
occasion that the representations they made about Jon Ford in Harris County were true; Jon
represented t0 them that Headen was his accomplice in his schemes.
WHEREFORE Headen respectfully prays that this court DENY Jon Ford and Novis
Logicas’ TCPA Motion to Dismiss. The order is attached.
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS T HEADEN III, IN PRO SE.
By: /s/ Thomas T Headen III
Thomas T Headen III
Pro Se
533 Salisbury Drive
Grand Prairie, TX 75052
Phone: 214.207.2914
Email: thomas@headenconsulting.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Ihereby certify that pursuant to Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a true
and correct copy of this document was served on all pro se parties and counsel of record Via
electronic service on January 10, 2020.
/s/ Thomas T Headen III
Thomas T Headen III, Pro Se
Plaintiff Headen's Response forJon Ford TCPA MTD Page 8
Preview
FILED DALLAS COUNTY 1/10/2020 11:55 PM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK Veronica Vaughn CAUSE NO. DC-18-15576 THOMAS T. HEADEN III INTHE DISTRICT Plaintiff, COURT V. ABUNDANT LIFE THERAPEUTIC SERVICES TEXAS, LLC; ABUNDANT LIFE THERAPEUTIC SERVICES LLC; , SS OF MA, LLC; BLACKWISE, LLC; NOVIS LOGICA LLC; EVOLVE OUTREACH TEXAS, LLC; PRESIDUM mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 68TH JUDICIAL PRIME, LLC; LEGAL EQUALIZER, LLC; DISTICT LEGAL EQUALIZER, INC; MBYE NJIE; JASON RYAN FORD; JON NATHANIEL FORD; MELVIN ANDERSON; LANCE TAYLOR; and GEOFFREY BERG. Defendants. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LIMITED DISCOVERY TO JON FORD’S TCPA ANTI- SLAPP MOTION TO DISMISS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Comes Now Plaintiff, Thomas T. Headen III, and files this Response t0 Jon Ford and Novis Logica’s Texas Citizen’s Participation Act Motion t0 Dismiss and in support hereof respectfully submits the following: Introduction 1. Headen worked as a consultant (Via his husband/Wife partnership (Headen Consulting) and as an employee in his individual capacity for Abundant Life Therapeutic Services Texas, LLC, a mental health agency Within the timefiame of April 2017 t0 February 2018. During this time, Headen was made aware 0f various legal Violations 0f the ALTST’S management and other Abundant Life Defendants. As required by Texas Health and Safety Plaintiff Headen’s Response forJon Ford TCPA MTD Page 1 Code §161.132 Headen reported these legal Violations t0 ALTST’S management, and t0 the Office 0f Civil Rights fiom September 2017 through February 2018. Thereafter the Defendants acted concertedly to retaliate and injure Headen in a number 0f ways. 2. After Headen made reports of their legal Violations, the Abundant Life Defendants sued Headen with two fiivolous lawsuits, 0n March 13, 2018 and 0n April 3, 2018. The Abundant Life Defendants claimed the basis for their claims against Headen was Headen’s status as a co-conspirator With Jon Ford. Abundant Life Defendants sued Jon for embezzlement, self-dealing, fiaud, and breach of fiduciary duty, amongst other things. The Abundant Life Defendants claimed that Jon transferred more than $50,000 t0 companies he owned without authorization, and they claimed that Jon represented that Headen helped him With these activities as Jon’s legal advisor and accomplice. Jon settled With the Abundant Life Defendants in the Harris County matter, but the Abundant Life Defendants nonsuited claims against Headen Without being able t0 prove even one element 0f one claim. 3. Headen now sues Jon for the RICO Violations that led to Headen’s injuries. 4. Jon Ford asserts that Headen’s RICO claim is barred by the TCPA because the suit is based 0n related t0 0r in response t0 Jon’s first amendment rights 0f association t0 promote a common interest of Abundant Life Texas. In reality, Jon was sued by “the association” 0f Abundant Life Texas for not promoting the association’s common interest through his actions 0f embezzlement and self—dealing; these actions are the heart 0f Headen’s RICO claim against Jon. 5. Not only is Jon not able to meet his burden of demonstrating that Headen is suing him based on his right 0f association, Headen’s claims against Jon have merit and can be demonstrated by prima facie proof, and n0 defense t0 his actions have been offered. Plaintiff Headen’s Response forJon Ford TCPA MTD Page 2 Argument and Authorities Amended Texas Citizens’ Participation Act 1. The TCPA amendments narrow the application 0f the TCPA in certain respects, make changes in response t0 courts’ interpretation 0f the TCPA’S language, and also change some procedural aspects 0f the statute. For example, The amended TCPA changed the definition 0f “exercise 0f the right 0f association” t0 require the common interest t0 relate t0 “a governmental proceeding 0r a matter 0f public concern. The TCPA states in relevant parts: a. Sec. 27.001. DEFINITIONS. "Exercise of the right of association" means t0 join together to collectively express, promote, pursue, 0r defend common interests relating t0 a governmental proceeding 0r a matter 0f public concern. (7) "Matter of public concern" means a statement 0r activity regarding: (A) a public official, public figure, 0r other person Who has drawn substantial public attention due t0 the person's official acts, fame, notoriety, or celebrity;(B) a matter of political, social, 0r other interest to the community; or (C) a subject of concern to the public. Sec. 27.002.PURPOSE. The purpose 0f this chapter is t0 encourage and safeguard the constitutional rights 0f persons t0 petition, speak fieely, associate fieely, and otherwise participate in government to the maximum extent permitted by law and, at the same time, protect the rights of a person t0 file meritorious lawsuits for demonstrable injury. Plaintiff Headen’s Response for Jon Ford TCPA MTD Page 3 c. Sec. 27.009(2)(b). DAMAGES AND COSTS. If the court finds that a motion to dismiss filed under this chapter is fiivolous 0r solely intended t0 delay, the court may award court costs and reasonable attorney's fees t0 the responding party. RICO Racketeering 2. RICO makes it unlawful “for any person employed by 0r associated with any enterprise engaged in, 0r the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct 0r participate, directly 0r indirectly, in the conduct 0f such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern 0f racketeering activity[.]” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(0). 18 U.S.C. § 1962 provides that the following practices are prohibited activities: (a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, fiom a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection 0f an unlawful debt in Which such person has participated as a principal Within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code [18 USCS § 2], to use 01' invest, directly 0r indirectly, any part 0f such income, 0r the proceeds 0f such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment 0r operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, 0r the activities 0f Which affect, interstate 0r foreign commerce. (c) It shall be unlawfill for any person employed by 0r associated With any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of Which affect, interstate 01" foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern 0f racketeering activity. 3. Reduced to their simplest terms, the essential elements of a RICO claim are: (1) a person Who engages in (2) a pattern 0f racketeering activity (3) connected t0 the acquisition, establishment, conduct, 0r control 0f an enterprise.” Orthoflex, Inc. v. ThermoTek, Ina, 2012 WL 2864510. The § 1964(0) inquiry involves three steps. First, to establish that a defendant committed "racketeering activity," as defined in § 1961 (1) and required by § 1962(0), a plaintiff Plaintiff Headen’s Response for Jon Ford TCPA MTD Page 4 must show indictable acts (i.e., "predicate" acts). Second, § 1962(c) 2 5 requires that a defendant must be a "person employed by or associated with an[ ] enterprise" and that the defendant must have "conduct[ed] or participat[ed], directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity." Third, under § 1964(c), a complaining civil party must be a "person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of § 1962." 4. To state a claim for mail or wire fraud to support a RICO violation under § 1341 or § 1343, a plaintiff must establish three elements; ‘(1) a scheme or artifice to defraud or to obtain money or property by means of false pretenses, representations, or promises; (2) a use of the interstate mails or wires for the purpose of executing the scheme; and (3) a specific intent to defraud either by [d]evising, participating in, or abetting the scheme.’” Vanderbilt Mortg. & Fin., Inc. v. Flores, 746 F.Supp.2d 819, 841 (S.D. Tex. 2010) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Byd:Sign, Inc., 2007 WL 275476, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2007)). Jon’s RICO Violations 5. Jon’s RICO violations were based on self-dealing, embezzlement, and illegal referral schemes he implemented using shell companies, and his representation that Headen conspired with him in his activities in order to undermine Abundant Life Texas. This is spelled out by Abundant Life Texas’ attorney Geoffrey Berg in a letter written by his firm on January 23, 2018, which states in part: You have agreed to reimburse some of the payments you caused to be made to your own entites but have not done so. Your actions not only violate the Company Agreement, constitute theft, breach of fiduciary duty, and are each acts of self-dealing and may endanger the company’s ability to continue to do business with Medicaid, Abundant Life Texas’ primary source of revenue. You have acted alone and without authority on behalf of Abundant Life Texas…to write checks to a company called Asssitance and Mentorship to Purpose Project – a company with which you are closely associated if not its owner – totaling at least $42,500. None of the payments to AMPP were approved by a majority of the Managers of Abundant Life Texas, though the Company Agreement requires that they be. Plaintiff Headen’s Response for Jon Ford TCPA MTD Page 5 You are director … of AMPP… As you are aware, some of the monies paid to AMPP were subsequently transferred, apparently also at your direction, to Blackshar Elementary and Blackshar Elementary refers students to Abundant Life Texas for treatment…. The payments made to AMPP then to Blackshear Elementary, all at your direction, may be construed as kickbacks… in violation of the AKS. On November 14, 2017, without approval or disclosure to Mr. Ford or anyone else, you caused Abundant Life Texas to pay at least $10,000 to an entity called Foundational Aptitude Company Training LLC (“FACT”)…. You did everything you could to conceal these payments. We now know why: You are the Managing Member and sole owner of FACT.” The checks to FACT themselves condtain additional false statements. The memo lines on those checks say that the payments were for “Contract I Services” and “Contract II Training”… in fact, and you have acknowledged, Abundant Life Texas had no contract with FACT in November 2017. If you are represented by counsel you should forward this to him or her immediately. 6. On February 9, 2018 Jon explained to Headen that ALTST profited from a referral generation scheme implemented. Jon set up shell organizations, transferred money to these companies, and used that money to buy gifts for local Houston organizations in exchange for student referrals, a violation of Texas Medical Laws. Jon also set up shell organizations to provide “training services” to ALTST and transferred money to said organizations but never provided the services. 7. Abundant Life Defendants’ lawsuits in the Harris County Matter as well as Jason’s statements in an August 3, 2019 call indicate that Jon represented that Headen was his legal advisor and co-conspirator, and as a result Jason and Abundant Life Texas sued Headen. The petitions in the Harris County Matter, and Jason himself, stated that Jon represented that Headen was his legal advisor and accomplice. 8. Jon has admitted, however, in his Responses to Headen’s Requests for Admission that he never thought Headen was his legal advisor or attorney and that Headen told him to cooperate and to not be adverse to the members and managers of ALTST. Jon admits that despite Headen’s advice to be cooperative he was, instead hostile and adverse. Jon also admitted Plaintiff Headen’s Response for Jon Ford TCPA MTD Page 6 that he did not ever correct the notion held by Jason and Abundant Life Texas that he and Headen were co-conspirators. 9. Abundant Life Texas and Jason Ford sue Jon for these actions because he was not abiding by the association’s rules, therefore he was n0 longer availing himself of the right of association and the right 0f association cannot protect him. Jon’s illegal actions against the association are the basis of Headen’s RICO claims, not Jon’s right t0 association. Promissory Estoppel 10. "When a promisor induces substantial action 0r forbearance by another, promissory estoppel prevents any denial of that promise if injustice can be avoided only by enforcement." Jody James Farms, JV V. Altman Group, Inc., 547 SW 3d 624 - Tex: Supreme Court 2018. Promissory estoppel is an available cause of action to a promisee Who relied t0 his detriment on an otherwise unenforceable promise. See Frost, 110 S.W.3d at 44; Bechtel Corp. V. CITGO Products Pipeline Co., 271 S.W.3d 898, 926 (TeX.App. — Austin 2008, n0 pet). Generally, promissory estoppel is a Viable alternative t0 breach 0f contract. Trevino & Assocs. Mech., L.P. V. Frost Nat'l Bank, 400 S.W.3d 139, 146 (TexApp. — Dallas 2013, n0 pet); Allied Vista, Inc. V. Holt, 987 S.W.2d 138, 141 (TexApp. — Houston [14th Dist] 1999, pet. denied). 11. Headen is pleading Promissory Estoppel as an alternative t0 Breach 0f Contract, in the event that this claim is dismissed. But as 0f now this claim has not been adjudicated, and the contract has not been determined t0 be valid or invalid, therefore it cannot be determined whether or not promissory estoppel as a cause of action is not applicable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff Headen’s Response for Jon Ford TCPA MTD Page 7 12. Abundant Life Texas’ attorneys have stated 0n the record on more than one occasion that the representations they made about Jon Ford in Harris County were true; Jon represented t0 them that Headen was his accomplice in his schemes. WHEREFORE Headen respectfully prays that this court DENY Jon Ford and Novis Logicas’ TCPA Motion to Dismiss. The order is attached. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS T HEADEN III, IN PRO SE. By: /s/ Thomas T Headen III Thomas T Headen III Pro Se 533 Salisbury Drive Grand Prairie, TX 75052 Phone: 214.207.2914 Email: thomas@headenconsulting.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Ihereby certify that pursuant to Rules 21 and 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, a true and correct copy of this document was served on all pro se parties and counsel of record Via electronic service on January 10, 2020. /s/ Thomas T Headen III Thomas T Headen III, Pro Se Plaintiff Headen's Response forJon Ford TCPA MTD Page 8