Real Estate Topics Forum :: View topic - John T. Reed’s answers to Whitney’s 2nd and 3rd lawsuits 1

Guest

John T. Reed’s answers to Whitney’s 2nd and 3rd lawsuits against him and countersuits against Whitney 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 03-60195-Civ-MARRA/SELTZER
Case No. 03-60597-Civ-MARRA/SELTZER

WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK, INC.,
a Florida Corporation, and RUSS WHITNEY,
an individual,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOHN T. REED, an individual,

Defendant.

DEFENDANT’S ANSWERS AND COUNTERCLAIMS
DEFAMATION PER SE CLAIM

Defendant, John T. Reed, pro se answers the defamation per se complaint (Case # 03-60597) as follows:
1. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 1 of the complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
2. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 2 of the complaint.
3. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 3 of the complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
4. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 4 of the complaint.
5. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 5 of the complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
6. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 6 of the complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
7. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 7 of the complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
8. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 8 of the complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
9. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 9 of the complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
10. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 10 of the complaint except that defendant denies that most of his products compete directly with those of plaintiffs.
11. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 11 of the complaint.
12. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 12 of the complaint.
13. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 13 of the complaint.
14. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 14 of the complaint, except admits that users of the Internet have access to defendant’s Web site.
15. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 15 of the complaint except that defendant denies that any of the statements were false.
16. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 16 of the complaint, except admits that the statements quoted were published on defendant’s Web site.
17. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 17 of the complaint.
18. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 18 of the complaint.
19. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 19 of the complaint, except admits that there are four links to pages where defendant offers products.
20. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 20 of the complaint except that defendant denies that any of the statements were unlawful or libelous.
21. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 21 of the complaint.
22. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 22 of the complaint.
23. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 23 of the complaint.
24. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 24 of the complaint.
25. Defendant repeats and realleges the answers to paragraphs 1 through 24 of the complaint as if fully set forth herein.
26. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 26 of the complaint.
27. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 27 of the complaint.
28. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 28 of the complaint.
29. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 29 of the complaint.
30. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 30 of the complaint.
31. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 31 of the complaint.
DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES WITH REGARD TO DEFAMATION PER SE CLAIM
32. The gravamen of the defamation allegations of this claim is libel of a public figure in the media on a matter of public interest.
33. Plaintiff’s complaint is barred by Florida Statute 770.01 because it failed to comply with the written notice requirements of that statute prior to filing this claim.
34. Plaintiff’s defamation per se claim is barred by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and the Constitutions of the states of California [Article 1, Section 2(a)] and Florida (Article 1, Section 4).
35. Defendant published the complained-of statement in good faith.
36. Plaintiff is a public figure, a corporation the stock of which is publicly traded nationally, and the complained-of statements are matters of public interest.
37. If there was any falsity in the complained-of statement published by the defendant, such falsity was due to an honest mistake of the facts.
38. Defendant published an immediate, full and fair retraction of the complained-of statements in the same place and type as said original statements.
39. Plaintiff has alleged no actual damages and suffered no actual damages.
40. The statements complained of in the complaint are protected fair comment and expressions of opinion.
41. The complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim against defendant upon which relief can be granted.
42. Plaintiff is libelproof.
43. California’s Anti-S.L.A.P.P. statute (CCP §425.16) applies to this complaint and plaintiff’s complaint should be struck under that statute because defendant filed a timely motion to strike the complaint under that statute, defendant’s statements pertained to a matter of public interest, and plaintiff failed to prove that it is likely to prevail in this litigation.
44. If the complained-of statement is false, it is because figures supplied by plaintiff to the Securities and Exchange Commission and published on that Commission’s www.edgar.gov Web site were inaccurate or incomplete or were rendered inaccurate or incomplete by the Commission’s error.
45. The statements complained-of in the complaint are protected fair and substantially accurate reports of official federal government documents including Securities and Exchange Commission records and the United States Code.
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM
Defendant, John T. Reed, pro se answers the tortious interference with a business relationship amended complaint (Case # 03-60195) as follows:
46. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 1 of the amended complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
47. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 2 of the amended complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
48. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 3 of the amended complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof except that defendant denies that Whitney Information Network, Inc. is a Florida corporation.
49. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 4 of the amended complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
50. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 5 of the amended complaint.
51. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 6 of the amended complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
52. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 7 of the amended complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
53. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 8 of the amended complaint except that defendant denies that most of his products compete directly with those of plaintiffs and defendant denies that commercial gain is the sole purpose of his Web site.
54. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 9 of the amended complaint.
55. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 10 of the amended complaint.
56. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 11 of the amended complaint.
57. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 12 of the amended complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
58. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 13 of the amended complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
59. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 14 of the amended complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
60. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 15 of the amended complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
61. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 16 of the amended complaint.
62. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 17 of the amended complaint.
63. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 18 of the amended complaint, except admits that the phrases in quotation marks did appear in a letter to the editor on defendant’s Web site for approximately six months prior to plaintiff’s asking that they be removed.
64. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 19 of the amended complaint.
65. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 20 of the amended complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
66. Defendant admits the allegations of paragraph 21 of the amended complaint.
67. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 22 of the amended complaint.
68. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 23 of the amended complaint.
69. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 24 of the amended complaint.
70. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 25 of the amended complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
71. Defendant repeats and realleges the answers to paragraphs 1 through 25 of the amended complaint as if fully set forth herein.
72. Defendant is without information as to the allegations of paragraph 26 of the amended complaint and therefore leaves plaintiff to its proof.
73. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 27 of the amended complaint.
74. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 28 of the amended complaint.
DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES WITH REGARD TO TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM
75. The gravamen of the defamation allegations in this claim is libel of a public figure in the media on a matter of public interest.
76. The defamation claims in the amended complaint are barred by Florida Statute 770.01 because plaintiffs failed to comply with the written notice requirements of that statute prior to filing this claim.
77. The defamation claims in the amended complaint are barred by Florida’s single-publication/single-action rule. Plaintiffs previously filed these claims as a libel and trade libel suit against defendant in the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division on June 25, 2002 (Case # 2:02-CV-288-FTM-29DNF). That court dismissed that suit on May 5, 2003.
78. Plaintiff’s defamation claims are barred by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution and the Constitutions of the states of California and Florida (Article 1, Section 4).
79. Defendant published the complained-of statements in good faith.
80. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the essential public policy considerations requiring a free flow of information to consumers.
81. The statements complained of in the amended complaint are protected fair comment and expressions of opinion.
82. The amended complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a claim against Defendant upon which relief can be granted.
83. The amended complaint fails to identify specifically all of the statements alleged to be defamatory.