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 4

CONCLUSION
75. This motion for an emergency preliminary injunction should be denied because Plaintiff has demonstrated no harm whatsoever, let alone irreparable harm.
76. This motion for an emergency preliminary injunction should be denied because Plaintiff has demonstrated no likelihood of success stemming from demonstrably clear legal right. There has been no tortious interference by REED as explained at length above. Nor has Plaintiff shown that it has any trade secrets at all, let alone trade secrets that YATES disclosed to REED in the emails shown in Exhibits A through R.
77. This motion for an emergency preliminary injunction should be denied because Plaintiff has not shown that it has no adequate remedy at law. If and when a cause of action truly arises from the emails YATES sent to REED, Plaintiff can sue and thereby be made whole. Plaintiff's claims that it is suffering damages that are large and incalculable are conclusory and not credible.
78. This motion for an emergency preliminary injunction should be denied because Plaintiff has not shown that the harm done to Plaintiff by the alleged wrongdoing outweighs the harm that would be done to the public by prior restraint of truthful information and opinion about Plaintiff WIN. Upon information and belief, the vast majority of Plaintiff's activities are illegal. If true, consumers are being ripped off to the tune of over $100 million per year. In 2003, WIN tried to sell one million shares of stock at a price of six dollars a share. According to WIN itself, REED's Website saved prospective investors from an unwise investment. The stock price dropped over 50% and trading volume slowed to a trickle.
79. The rationale for special treatment of public-figure-media libel cases applies. WIN is a large, powerful company. It is quite capable of telling its story to prospective customers and investors through the “giant megaphone” of its multi-million dollar advertising and public relations budgets. In contrast, small, honest critics like REED need the protection of the courts to prevent corporations like WIN from running roughshod over the public interest.
80. Because of his distance from Florida, the cost in time and money of traveling to Florida, and the disruption to REED's business that such travel would involve, there is good cause to grant Defendant REED's motion to attend any hearing related to this motion by telephone.
81. Wherefore, Defendant REED respectfully requests that this Court deny Plaintiff's motion for an emergency preliminary injunction against REED and for purging his files of the emails received from YATES and to grant Defendant REED leave to attend any hearing necessitated by this motion by telephone.

_____________ ______________________________
Date John T. Reed, pro se
342 Bryan Drive
Alamo, CA 94507
925-820-6292
fax 925-820-1259
johnreed@johntreed.com

EXHIBIT A

From: Robert Yates <reyates@msn.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:07:03 -0400
To: <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Subject: Book Interview

Dear Mr. Reed:

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.

I am writing a manuscript that I hope to someday publish in regards to the Whitney v. Reed litigation, something like a David and Goliath type Internet story. It will also be a social and political commentary on American culture and its obsession with wealth, power, and celebrities, and, in particular, the marketing and spin they use to control events and spread disinformation.

As I will also ask of Russ, I would appreciate having an interview with you at some point to include in the book and would like to ask for your consent.

Please email me back. 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.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best of luck to you.

Rob Yates

EXHIBIT B
From: "John T. Reed" <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Organization: John T. Reed Publishing
Reply-To: <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 11:38:34 -0700
To: Robert Yates <reyates@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Book Interview

I believe you are covered by attorney-client privilege and I would not be interested in being a part of your violating that privilege.
I also suspect that your email is a Whitney trick. It would take a lot of convincing to persuade me otherwise.
It seems to me that my Web site articles about the Whitney case are pretty extensive and leave few questions unanswered. If you have a question, email it and I will consider answering it.
Even if I believed you were sincere, your prior journalistic efforts appear to be zero. A Whitney insider might have an interesting story to tell, but because of attorney-client privilege, I suspect your inside information is unusable. People give interviews to journalists in order to reach their audience. You do not appear to have any audience. Whitney refused to talk to the Fort Myers News-Press so I doubt he would talk to you unless he thought you were his ally.
As your attorney can explain to you, there are certain circumstances where attorney-client privilege is voided. In that case, I would be interested in hearing what you have to say.
John T. Reed

EXHIBIT C
From: Robert Yates <reyates@msn.com>
Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 15:39:15 -0400
To: <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Subject: Re: Book Interview

John, thank you for writing back.

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.

I understand your concern about being a Whitney trick. I was just married this weekend and my wife and I spoke about my email to you. She said you would be suspicious, and you should. I'm sure I can establish myself and my credentials to your satisfaction when necessary.

I believe there is a way around much of the attorney client privilege barrier, which I am exploring as time allows.
And I think you know I have an audience. It is one of the most interesting Internet stories I've witnessed or been so intimately involved in. Have you ever read the Cluetrain Manifesto?

My only question to you at this time is when do realistically expect the present litigation to end. 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.

Sincerely,

Rob

EXHIBIT D
From: "John T. Reed" <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Organization: John T. Reed Publishing
Reply-To: <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 17:55:42 -0700
To: Robert Yates <reyates@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Book Interview

I do not expect the litigation to ever end. Whitney is stubborn and he seems to want what no court can give him: removal of all mention of him from my Web site. I expect him sue me again and again forever unless the court tells him to knock it off.

EXHIBIT E
From: Robert Yates <reyates@msn.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 07:24:38 -0400
To: <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Subject: Re: Book Interview

I agree with you 100%. At my request, Russ removed me from working on your case several months ago, so I am not up to date on the litigation. Have you deposed anyone as of yet?

P.S. I have read ALL your real estate books and wish to thank you for all the real real estate knowledge you have shared.

EXHIBIT F
From: "John T. Reed" <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Organization: John T. Reed Publishing
Reply-To: <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 10:07:16 -0700
To: Robert Yates <reyates@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Book Interview

No.

EXHIBIT G
From: Robert Yates <reyates@msn.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 13:58:06 -0400
To: <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Subject: Re: Book Interview

Let's stay in touch. I'd greatly appreciate you not posting anything to your site about our contact at this time. 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.

There still may be some discussion and negotiations left in regards to the agreement. 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. Still, I would prefer not to disclose our contact to Whitney at this time unless absolutely necessary.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Best wishes,

Rob

EXHIBIT H
From: "John T. Reed" <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Organization: John T. Reed Publishing
Reply-To: <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 16:42:26 -0700
To: Robert Yates <reyates@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Book Interview

I would like to see a copy of that contract.

EXHIBIT I
From: "John T. Reed" <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Organization: John T. Reed Publishing
Reply-To: <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 16:43:24 -0700
To: Robert Yates <reyates@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Book Interview

This does not sound like an enforceable contract. This is America. We have freedom of association and speech. You cannot waive your First Amendment rights.

EXHIBIT J
From: Robert Yates <reyates@msn.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 21:01:23 -0400
To: <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Subject: Re: Book Interview

Yes, you may be right. 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. It was suggested that I could go ahead and sign it and take my chances in court if Russ sued me. But if I were to sign an agreement for money, I'd abide by it. As I believe you to be, I try to be a man of my word. My writing intentions were not to be malicious, but Rothstein promised "swift and severe" punishment if I write "anything" about Russ or the company. Russ keeps life interesting.

I hope I can contact you when I might need information for my manuscript, and you can decide at that time whether to be responsive or not. As you already expressed, much of the book is on your web site or in places of public domain.

Thanks, again.

Best Wishes,

Rob

EXHIBIT K
From: "John T. Reed" <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Organization: John T. Reed Publishing
Reply-To: <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 20:12:10 -0700
To: Robert Yates <reyates@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Book Interview

It is illegal for anyone to punish you for writing anything about Russ Whitney. There is no law that prohibits writing anything&Mac247;only laws that prohibit libel.
I was not suggesting that you sign an agreement then violate it. Rather, you should decline to sign on the grounds that it would not be a legal agreement if it has you waiving first amendment rights.

EXHIBIT L
From: Robert Yates <reyates@msn.com>
Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 21:12:50 -0400
To: <johnreed@johntreed.com>
Subject: Re: Book Interview

Only because I might be able to still save the agreement in some respect, 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. Any collaboration on my separation agreement might be viewed as more than a writing relationship. 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.

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.

Rob