Real Estate Topics Forum :: View topic - Russ Whitney’s efforts to get John Reed to give deposition

Guest

Russ Whitney’s efforts to get John T. Reed to give a deposition in the separate case of Whitney Information Network, Inc. v. Glenn Purdy
Glenn Purdy
Glenn Purdy is reportedly a former Whitney instructor who fell out with him. Purdy was listed and pictured as one of Whitney’s “Team” members in Whitney’s latest book Millionaire Mentor. Purdy is not the only “team member” Whitney has been in litigation with. What a team!
Whitney Information Network, Inc. apparently sued Glenn Purdy in federal court in Fort Lauderdale for breach of contract in June of 2003. (#03-60693-CIV-MARRA/SELTZER)
Why federal court in Fort Lauderdale?
This case is in front of the same judge as Whitney’s case against me. Could someone explain to me how a Cape Coral, FL company suing a Fort Myers, FL former employee for breach of contract is in federal court. If it involves two parties who live a few miles away from each other, what’s federal about it? The fact that Whitney Information Network, Inc. is incorporated in Colorado?
Normally, you can only get a suit into federal court if the parties are in different states and the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000 or if the case involves federal law like copyright.
And why Fort Lauderdale? Fort Lauderdale is on the Atlantic Coast of Florida—100 miles from Fort Myers. Cape Coral and Fort Myers are adjacent communities on the west coast of Florida on the Gulf of Mexico. Fort Myers has its own federal court which is where Whitney originally sued me.
You’re not supposed to be allowed to sue anywhere you want. You generally have to sue either in the court where the plaintiff is or where the defendant is. Going to a third location would only make sense in special cases where the action took place there or most of the witnesses are there.
I do not understand why either Purdy or I are being sued in Fort Lauderdale instead of Fort Myers.
Deposition of John T. Reed in San Francisco
In early May, 2004, Whitney’s attorney Scott Rothstein ordered me to go to San Francisco to give a deposition in the Purdy case.
I declined.
Rothstein said I could not decline because he was subpoenaing me.
I told him I have not received a subpoena. I guess he thought I did not know a subpoena is a document that has to be served on me. Or maybe he did not know it. I sometimes wonder if he got his law degree from a late-night TV commercial.
Then, on two occasions when I was not home, a process server came to the door of my house to serve me. On both occasions, my wife or son told him, “He’s not here.” The guy went away with the subpoena—which strikes me as odd.
Rothstein then sent me a ranting-and-raving email that my wife had repeatedly lied to the process server saying I was “working late” and we all know that can’t be because I have a home office. Actually, my wife only talked to a process server once when I was not home. All she said was, “He’s not here.” Either the process server or Rothstein made up the part about “working late.” I do not remember where I was—probably at the law library researching a response to Whitney’s emergency motion to shut down my Web site.
When my son said, “He’s not here,” I was having supper at a Chinese restaurant with one of my other sons.
Weeks went by. I figured the Purdy suit had been settled.
Then on Sunday at 9 AM, a process server again is at the door asking for me. I was asleep. My wife says, “He’s here,” but you can’t see him. She refuses to open the door and tells him to leave his paper on the step, which he does. The subpoena “commands” me to appear in San Francisco at 10 AM on Friday June 18, 2004 to give a deposition in the Purdy case.
The following day, I file an emergency motion to quash the subpoena with the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, the location of the deposition. As required, I serve copies of my motion on Rothstein and Purdy’s attorney by Fedex.
On Tuesday, June 15, 2004, I got yet another a ranting-and-raving email from Rothstein.
Dear Mr. Reed,
I am in receipt of your emergency motion to quash subpoena in the purdy case. It is my understanding that you have not yet been served. If you have not yet been served, your motion is without merit and you must immediately withdraw it or I will move for sanctions. If you have been served, please advise and I will respond to your emergency motion. Also, please note that the heading on your pleading is incorrect. According to your pleading you filed it in the northern district of california. California has no jurisdiction over this matter.
It is my understanding from our process server that your wife has been answering your door and advising that you are not home but at work. This would be a direct lie as you have repeatedly advised the court that your business is home based. In fact, the motion you filed to quash the subpoena represents that your business is home based and thus contradicts that which your wife has been advising our process server. I hereby request immediate clarification as to where you have been working that would allow your wife to represent to a lawful process server that you are not at home but at work. If I do not receive immediate clarification, I will take all steps necessary to have the court address what appears to be your intentional evasion of service of a lawful subpoena.
Please govern yourself accordingly. I look forward to your immediate and complete response.
Let’s take it rant by rave.
Rothstein statement
Reed comment
It is my understanding that you have not been served.
Rothstein hired the process server. Shouldn’t he have just called the process server and asked if he had served me?
Also, as required by law, I attached a copy of the subpoena that had been served upon me to the motion to quash it. Also as required by law, I sent Rothstein and Purdy’s lawyer the same papers I filed with the court. In other words, Rothstein is foaming at the mouth about my falsely claiming to have been served while holding in his hand a copy of the subpoena that was signed by his associate Christina Kitterman and served upon me by his process server.
If you have been served, please advise…
Ditto
Since when is the servee responsible for telling the server’s employer what the server did?
California has no jurisdiction over this matter.
Well, then Rothstein might want to write his Congressman and get them to clear up that typo in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [Rule 45(a)(2) and (c)(3)(A)] that says the opposite—not to mention get a refund of all that law school tuition he wasted.
It is my understanding from our process server that your wife has been answering your door and advising that you are not home but at work. This would be a direct lie as you have repeatedly advised the court that your business is home based. In fact, the motion you filed to quash the subpoena represents that your business is home based and thus contradicts that which your wife has been advising our process server.
My wife answered the door twice. Once she said, “He’s not here,” and nothing else. The other time she said, “He’s here,” and told him to leave the papers.
I hereby request immediate clarification as to where you have been working that would allow your wife to represent to a lawful process server that you are not at home but at work. If I do not receive immediate clarification, I will take all steps necessary to have the court address what appears to be your intentional evasion of service of a lawful subpoena.
Address this, jerk.
They changed the date without telling me
When the day of the deposition arrived, I had heard nothing from the San Francisco federal court, so I called Christina Kitterman at Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Dolin, and Pancier to ask what was going on. She said they had re-noticed the deposition for the following Thursday, June 24, 2004.
How was I supposed to know that if I had not called? She said they faxed and mailed the re-notice to me along with their opposition to my motion on Wednesday. Actually, no they didn’t.
I got a mailed copy of the renotice on Friday, June 18th. I never got a fax. And as of June 18, 2004, I never got a copy of the opposition. I was looking for a fax from the court. No fax was sent. Rothstein is required to serve me with any papers he serves to the court and to do so simultaneously by the same shipment method so they arrive at my house at the same time they arrive at the court.
Anyone know which court?
I do not even know which court he sent his opposition to—Fort Lauderdale or San Francisco.
As of June 18, 2004, the court had not taken any action that I am aware of on my motion to quash the deposition.
John T. Reed
John T. Reed on real-estate-investment information | Real estate investment page | Order form | Real estate investment books
Copyright 2004 by John T. Reed, a.k.a. John Reed, Jack Reed, 342 Bryan Drive, Alamo, CA 94507, Voice: 925-820-7262, Fax: 925-820-1259, Email: johnreed@johntreed.com

CONSUMER WARNING NOTICE: I recently saw Russ Whitney on a late night TV infomercial and then attended one of his "free" seminars. Unfortunately I believed all of their LIES and FRAUDULENT CLAIMS and I paid thousands of dollars to go to his "training camps". Needless to say I was clearly ripped off, cheated and lied to by Russ Whitney and his employees (band of thieves). My mistake was not searching the Internet to find out more about Russ Whitney and his company's HORRIBLE reputation for fraud, deception and illegal activities. Had I searched online I would have found out about THOUSANDS of customers being cheated, HUNDREDS of investigations by the Attorney General into the fraud of Russ Whitney and his company's, and that Russ Whitney himself is a CONVICTED VIOLENT FELON and spent years in PRISON. I saved the cached pages from the major search engines of the John Reed lawsuit with Russell Whitney and the TRUTH and FACTS that Reed discovered during his investigation of Whitney. I am posting this information on real estate discussion boards so other people do NOT get cheated and ripped off like I did.