Real Estate Topics Forum :: View topic - John T. Reed’s opposition to Russ Whitney’s Spring 2004

Guest

John T. Reed’s opposition to Russ Whitney’s Spring 2004 injunction motion 2

INFORMATION GIVEN BY YATES TO REED WAS ALL PUBLIC, NOT CONFIDENTIAL OR TRADE SECRETS
39. In spite of now having seen all of the pre-litigation correspondence between Defendants (in REED's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction), Plaintiff persists is alleging falsely that the correspondence contained confidential information and trade secrets. Accordingly, Defendant REED will now go through the facts contained in YATES' emails to REED and show how each is public information, not confidential or a trade secret.

COLUMN HEADINGS: EMAIL FACT REED COMMENT
Email
Fact
REED comment
5/4/04 Exhibit A
I recently left employment with Whitney Education Group, Inc., where I worked in the law department and was responsible for the formation and maintenance of Russ Whitney's business entities. I was also the company's sole paralegal and worked extensively for Russ in regards to you.
This is information that persons routinely list in their resume or professional biography.

I am writing a manuscript that I hope to someday publish in regards to the Whitney v. Reed litigation
Yates' writing plans are neither confidential WIN proprietary secrets nor are they Whitney trade secrets.

I am still unclear as to my obligations under the attorney client privilege and confidentiality I might owe to Russ and the company, and I do not want Russ to sue me for something I may or may not have said. I have retained an attorney to advise me as to what I may say or write and hope to be more clear on this matter in the near future.
Yates' plans to research his legal obligations further and his aversion to being sued are neither confidential WIN proprietary secrets nor are they Whitney trade secrets.
5/5/04 Exhibit C
I am a passionate writer at heart, with a masters in applied communication from the University of Denver with an emphasis on writing. You can read one of my articles on my web site at execsites.com.
This is information that persons routinely list in their resume or professional biography.

my wife and I spoke about my email to you. She said you would be suspicious
Private statements by Yates' wife to him are neither confidential WIN proprietary secrets nor are they Whitney trade secrets.

I believe there is a way around much of the attorney client privilege barrier, which I am exploring as time allows. I think I would have a much better chance of circumventing privilege and confidentiality concerns once the lawsuits are concluded, and of getting you and Russ to open up to a possible interview.
Mr. Yates' opinions about the law of attorney-client privilege and his chances of obtaining interviews with Reed and Whitney are neither confidential WIN proprietary secrets nor are they Whitney trade secrets.
5/6/04 Exhibit E
At my request, Russ removed me from working on your case several months ago
It is normal for employees to request changes in their duties. Yates gives no reason here for his request. Furthermore, this fact and the reasons for the request subsequently became public information when Yates included them in his papers filed in his lawsuit against Whitney in this Court (Case # 04-CA-002668) and in his motions in this case.

I have read ALL your real estate books
Mr. Yates' reading history is neither a confidential WIN proprietary secret nor is it a Whitney trade secret.
5/6/04 Exhibit G
I turned down the company's significant (at least to me) severance offer because I could not sign the non-disparagement and confidentiality clauses and still write my story.
Offering severance to departed employees is standard industry practice that could reasonably be inferred from Yates having left the company. The fact that Whitney tries to get employees and associates to sign Draconian contracts is widely known and was previously reported at REED's Web site. The fact that such contracts might interfere with writing a book can reasonably be inferred. Furthermore, this fact subsequently became public information when Yates included it in his papers filed in his lawsuit against Whitney in this Court (Case # 04-CA-002668) and in his motions in this case.

One of the clauses prohibits any contact with you, which I had earlier agreed not to do. Obviously, I won't be able to make that representation at this point.
As a result of numerous suits by Whitney against various former associates, the contents of Whitney's employment contracts were filed in various courts by Whitney and have long been public information. Such a contract provision is overbroad and unenforceable in that it violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” Furthermore, this clause subsequently became public information when WIN included it in its papers filed in this case.
5/6/04 Exhibit J
Much of the agreement may be unenforceable due to it being overly broad. It's unclear as to where first amendment rights begin and end in my case and whether I can contractually sign them away.
Mr. Yates' musings about what the law might require are neither confidential WIN proprietary secret nor Whitney trade secrets.

It was suggested that I could go ahead and sign it and take my chances in court if Russ sued me
This is apparently a statement made by unknown parties other than Whitney to Yates.

My writing intentions were not to be malicious, but Rothstein promised "swift and severe" punishment if I write "anything" about Russ or the company.
Yates' intentions are not WIN confidential proprietary secrets or trade secrets. The propensity of WIN, Whitney, and their attorney Rothstein to threaten large numbers of people have long been reported at REED's and other Web sites and in papers that REED has filed in the various litigations WIN and Whitney have filed against Reed.

much of the [proposed book about Whitney and Reed by Yates] book is on your web site or in places of public domain
Obvious public information
5/6/04 Exhibit L
I would prefer not to share documents of any type at this time. While I don't mind saying that I have been in contact with you about my manuscript, I do not want to give the appearance of anything more at this time.
Mr. Yates decision not to send REED any documents and his reasons are not WIN confidential proprietary secrets or trade secrets. His statement that he does not mind revealing contact with REED repeats information in a previous email.

The agreement also said I could not mention it's content or the fact of its existence to anyone, so I'm already beyond Whitney's demands.
As a result of numerous suits by Whitney against various former associates, the contents of Whitney's employment contracts were filed in various courts by Whitney and have long been public information.

I will have a better idea next week after speaking further with my attorney about some of these issues. If I feel there is no hope to bring life back to the negotiating table, I will disclose the agreement to you, and if my attorney has no objections.
Mr. Yates's plans to research pertinent law and to show REED a copy of his employment contract if permitted by law are not WIN confidential proprietary secrets or trade secrets.
5/7/04 Exhibit M
Scott is a real bulldog, isn't he. Treats [sic] and intimidation are part of the culture.
The propensity of WIN, WHITNEY, and Rothstein to make threats and try to intimidate people have long been widely known and documented at REED's and other Web sites and in various papers filed in court by both sides in the Reed-Whitney litigation.

I can write all I want about Russ, especially since he is a public figure, as long as it is not malicious. But it is my insider's view about which I must be allowed to write to make it of any value. Unfortunately, much of that is bound by attorney client privilege or work product and an earlier confidentiality agreement I executed months after I began employment. By signing the proposed agreement, I could not even make any disparaging statements about Russ or the company, which provision I would comply with if I promised not to do so in the agreement, regardless of whether the agreement is legally enforceable or not.
Mr. Yates' musings about what the law might require and his plans regarding writing are neither confidential WIN proprietary secret nor Whitney trade secrets.

There is much I can say good about the company and, maybe, even Russ. Real estate investing does have the potential to change people's lives for the better. I have read many grateful letters from students, as well as those who felt they were cheated. (See the problem - I would not even be able to make that statement if I would have signed the agreement)
Compliments about WIN or WHITNEY are touted by them whenever possible and as such are public information. Yates' statements about real estate are WIN/WHITNEY party line and as such are aggressively spread by the company to the public. The fact that WIN receives grateful letters is well publicized by the company in its advertisements, seminars, and publications and at its Web site. The fact that WIN receives communications from people who feel they have been cheated has been widely publicized at Reed's and various other Web sites including the Better Business Bureau which WIN is also suing.

I am still researching some options and will, hopefully, soon have access to Westlaw.
Mr. YATES' legal research plans are neither confidential Whitney Information Network, Inc. proprietary secret nor Whitney trade secrets.
7/8/04 Exhibit O
I just wanted to share with you a couple of news items I recently read. I read about a month that Whitney Information Network has promoted Nick Maturo to President in place of Russ and promoted Charles (Ched) Miller to Chief Financial Officer in place of Ron Simon. I think that is part of their strategy to further disassociate the name of Whitney from their operations. I also read that a private company of Russ' named RAW, Inc. purchased a 25 acre multifamily parcel in Cape Coral for $3.7 million.
Relates items YATES read about in the newspaper. As such, they are not confidential WIN proprietary secret nor Whitney trade secrets. YATES' opinion on strategy seems to be post-employment speculation based on news stories as evidenced by the fact that it appears to be quite incorrect. REED has seen no evidence whatsoever of any disassociating of WIN from WHITNEY. Russ Whitney's Donald Trump-like use of his own name appears unabated. Furthermore, any strategy of WIN to disassociate itself from the WHITNEY name would, by definition, be quite public and therefore not pertinent to either confidentiality agreements or trade secret statutes.

I also noticed several more complaints against Russ in Lee County Circuit Court that you might not be aware of. In February of 2001, Russ violated the water ban. In March of 2002, Russ violated a regulatory Manatee protection zone. In September, 2003, Russ was charged with violating navigational rules. In November of 2003, Russ failed to obey a traffic control device.
This is public information available at the Lee County, Florida Court Clerk's Web site.

I hope someone gets this guy off the road and waters before he kills someone. He thinks he's god! But he cares for no one but himself.
The fact that Whitney almost killed a man in a hit-and-run incident in New York is well documented at REED's Web site and in the public records in Schenectady County, NY. Upon information and belief, WHITNEY has been drunk in public on many occasions. Whitney's high opinion of himself has been commented upon by persons who knew Whitney in childhood, by his boss in the hit-and-run court papers, and by many former associates of WHITEY. Mr. WHITNEY's disregard for his fellow humans is widely known from his felony robbery conviction and prison time, hit-and-run, paternity-and-child support suit, Better Business Bureau unsatisfactory rating, bad reputation at Internet news groups, and actions against him by several state attorneys general and the Florida Banking Department.

I had a strange visit at the courthouse with someone named Nick Oliver who wanted me to do some research in regards to real estate securities violations and fraudulent transfers. He declined my services, but it was a very bizarre meeting and I suspected Russ might have put him up to it. Do you have any info on a Nick Oliver?
This does not relate to WIN or WHITNEY except for YATES' speculation about who put Oliver up to the request. Neither the speculation nor Oliver's behavior are confidential WIN proprietary secret nor Whitney trade secrets.
7/8/04 Exhibit Q
I forgot to mention that Russ' defense attorney was listed as Marie Gonzalez, who is actually Marie Code. I was wondering if the general counsel of a publicly held company can do private work for the CEO on company time.
WHITNEY's attorneys are a matter of public record in court appearances and in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Ms. Code's maiden name is also a matter of public record one presumes. Mr. YATES' “wondering” is not a statement of fact per se.
8/5/04 Exhibit R
Various comments about the WIN v. Yates and Reed suit being filed
Obvious public information

I must admit that Whitney's complaint has me a bit on edge after reading the confidentiality agreement that I executed, especially the attorneys' fees, which Rothstein is good at racking us [sic].
Mr. YATES's feelings about being sued are neither a confidential WIN proprietary secret nor a Whitney trade secret. Mr. Rothstein's fees are advertised to the public and no doubt the subject of a number of court filings seeking attorney fees.
40. Not only were the statements in YATES' emails to REED neither confidential WIN proprietary secrets nor Whitney trade secrets, they have now been disclosed publicly in the litigation between WIN and YATES and REED. REED also posted his motion for dismissal at his Web site. That motion includes all of the emails that YATES and REED exchanged. WEB sites are routinely archived by third parties outside of the control of any of the parties to this lawsuit. Consequently, the “horse is out of the barn” and the present motion for a preliminary injunction and for prevention of dissemination of the YATES/REED emails is too late and therefore moot. “…rights already lost and wrongs already perpetrated cannot be corrected by injunction.” 42 Am Jur 2d §2
ALL DISCUSSION BETWEEN YATES AND REED PERTAINS TO HOW TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW
41. The email exchanges BETWEEN YATES AND REED that plaintiff alleges were illegal were all discussions about how YATES could accomplish his writing goals within the law. There was no discussion of breaking law.