Real Estate Topics Forum :: View topic - San Francisco federal court AGAIN stops Russ Whitney

Guest

San Francisco federal court AGAIN stops Russ Whitney from taking John T. Reed’s deposition in Whitney suit against his former associate Glenn Purdy

This is a continuation of the story explained at www.johntreed.com/Whitneydepo.html.
Amazingly to me, after Whitney got shot down by the San Francisco federal court for trying to take my deposition in the Purdy case, they served another identical deposition subpoena on me, for October 25, 2004.
I promptly filed another motion to quash and it was promptly granted on October 21, 2004.
I reminded the court of their earlier order to quash and said I knew of no new facts that would warrant reopening the matter. Whitney apparently then sent the court an affidavit from Purdy saying I was indeed the “John Reed” they had identified in their initial disclosures as a potential fact witness.
However, the court pointed out that it also asked in its order quashing the original subpoena for Whitney to obtain further information from Purdy about the, “subject matter of discoverable information that John Reed likely has.” All Purdy’s affidavit apparently says is that he looked at my Web site and that I called him asking why I was being subpoenaed.
In a somewhat testy order, the court rejected this flimsy basis for “commanding” me to give a deposition and issued a second order quashing the second deposition subpoena.
The last sentence of the court’s order says, “The Court notes that Whitney's showing borders on violation of Rule 11(b) but the Court will not issue sanctions at this time.”
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure11(b) & (c) say,
“(b) Representations to Court. By presenting to the court (whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating) a pleading, written motion, or other paper, an attorney or unrepresented party is certifying that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, --

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;

(3) the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and

(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief.

(c) Sanctions. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that subdivision (b) has been violated, the court may, subject to the conditions stated below, impose an appropriate sanction upon the attorneys, law firms, or parties that have violated subdivision (b) or are responsible for the violation.”
In other words, the San Francisco federal court thinks Whitney’s second motion to quash came real close to abuse of process and the hint seems to be that one more such stunt and Whitney is going to have to pay a fine.
When the Miami federal court issued a show-cause order asking Whitney why the case against me should not be transferred to the San Francisco federal court (for lack of personal jurisdiction), they instantly pointed out that the case should be consolidated with an earlier case in Fort Lauderdale—something that I had been arguing. Their motion transferred it from the Miami court where they had filed it to the Fort Lauderdale federal court. Now we can see why.
Rothstein wants a copy
After I posted this article Whitney’s attorney left a message on my answering machine.
He said he had not seen the court’s second order quashing his subpoena and told me to send him a copy of it.
What am I? Some sort of free document retrieval service?
This would be the same Rothstein who filed an opposition to my motion to quash without serving a copy on me. I think you’re always required to serve copies on the other guy.
Copyright 2004 by John T. Reed
Guru ratings | Real estate investment page | Order form | Real estate investment books | Main Reed on Whitney page | Whitney claims vs. Reed research | Status of Whitney vs. Reed lawsuit | Whitney hit and run | Whitney assets | Have information on Whitney? | Review of Building Wealth | Whitney affiliations | Whitney publications | Unauthorized biography of Whitney | Suing Whitney | Whitney and income taxes
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.