­

Russ Whitney' attempt to get an injunction against John T. Reed Copyright 2003 by John T. Reed Last update 4/4/03 Russ Whitney filed suit against me on 6/25/02 in federal court in Fort Myers, FL. That suit is still pending. Emergency motion However, on 1/29/03, Whitney' new attorneys Scott W. Rothstein and Christina M. Kitterman of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Dolin, & Pancier (Fort Lauderdale, FL) filed an "Emergency motion for preliminary injunction and incorporated memorandum of law" against me in the state circuit court in Broward County (Fort Lauderdale area), FL. I have filed a notice to remove the new suit from the state court to the federal court on the grounds that the parties live in different states and the amount in dispute exceeds $75,000. 28 USC 1332 and 1441(b) I had to file that notice in the federal court in Miami (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida) because that' the district where Whitney' attorneys filed the new state court suit. Whitney' lawyer filed a motion to remand the case to the state court.. If it stays removed, it is likely the new suit would be combined with the existing federal suit in Fort Myers. Even if it were to be remanded back to the state court, there is a chance the courts would not want the duplication of effort and one could "abstain" so that it would handled by the other in order to avoid duplication of judicial effort. Why would Whitney' new attorneys do such a thing? Moore' Federal Practice says it' for one of these reasons: "¢ faster trial "¢ to get away from acourt that has decided a preliminary issue against you "¢ to make sure the court has personal jurisdiction over the defendant "¢ to take advantage of better rules in one court to get a better esult in the other, e.g., federal discovery is generally better than state "¢ see how it goes in each court then focus on the one where it going best "¢ "to harrass the defendant""”No! Would a lawyer do that? Injunction to shut down all https://www.johntreed.com The emergency motion asks for a preliminary injunction stopping me from operating the Web site https://www.johntreed.com. The whole Web site!? Again, this is apparently a test to see how dumb I am and/or how dumb the judge is. Let' assume Whitney' claim of libel is correct for the sake of argument. It might be appropriate in that circumstance for a judge to grant such an injunction with regard to the allegedly libelous statements only. (Actually I removed the phrases Whitney said were libelous within hours of his saying that. He' only suing about the fact that they were on the Web site for a while"”three days in one case.) But there would be

no basis for a judge granting an injunction, say, to remove mention of the fact that Whitney is a convicted felon. He is. That' not libel. It' true. It gets worse. They not only want the judge to grant an injunction preventing people from reading about Whitney' robbery conviction, they also want an injunction shutting down the pages that advertise my books on management, income taxes, fixers, and so forth. Why? Neither those Web pages nor those books say a word about Whitney. None of my books says anything about Whitney. Their injunction would even force me to remove my Web pages that talk about football and baseball coaching. There is no legal basis for such a sweeping injunction. Rothstein and Kitterman apparently are just trying to jerk me around as much as possible and threaten my income as much as possible. Are they allowed to ask for such overbroad injunction? I don"t think so. In federal court, such a request is a violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. One would think the Florida courts would have a similar rule. If the case stays in the state court, I"ll check on that. Power of the press? According to the emergency motion, there is big trouble in Whitney Land as a result of my Web site criticism of him. I have been denouncing Nothing Down author Robert Allen since the mid 1980'. Last week, he had full-page ads in my local paper every day. Do you know what those suckers cost? About $35,000 to $40,000 per day. So much for my power to hurt someone' sales. Same is true of Carleton Sheets and Robert Kiyosaki of Rich Dad Poor Dad fame. I have denouced them both for years, and they seem to be making more money than ever. Granted, Whitney may be a special case. I doubt I would find that Allen or Sheets or Kiyosaki ever committed robbery or lost a hit-and-run lawsuit or a paternity suit. If my Web site has any effect on Whitney' sales it is only by shining a light on Whitney' own behavior. How much power could I have? I am a one-man, home-office-based "company." Whitney has hundreds of employees in four countries. If Whitney' critics have any power, they got it handed to them entirely by Mr. Whitney himself. You don"t need to be a great writer. If I just reprinted public documents about Whitney verbatim"”with not a single word of analysis by me"”the effect would be about the same. I didn"t make him commit second-degree robbery. I didn"t force him to get an employee pregnant. I didn"t make him leave the scene of his truck accident. He did all that to himself. I just make it a little easier to find, read and understand the pertinent facts. Trouble in Whitney Land Listen to the wailing in the emergency request for an injunction against my Web site. "[Reed' behavior]"¦resulted in, and continues to result in, substantial harm to Plaintiffs in Broward County." Broward County? How did we get to Broward County? Broward County is on the Atlantic Ocean just north of Miami. Whitney lives in Cape Coral in Lee County on the opposite side of Florida on the Gulf of Mexico. His office and company are there as well. Is Whitney suffering substanial harm in Broward County, or do his attorneys insist that all their cases be held within walking distance of their office? You would think that even Russ Whitney would be a bit annoyed at having to go all the way across the state"”120 miles"”for the convenience of his attorneys. "[Whitney] has lost, and continues to lose, substantial profits." What profits would those be? His Whitney Information Network, Inc. which is one of the two plaintiffs suing me, had to restate its profit-and-loss statement to show a ten-million-dollar loss for the recent period. That loss far exceeds all the profits they previously claimed. This reminds me of the guy who asks his doctor if he"ll be able to play the piano after he heals. "Of course," says the doc. "Gee, that' funny. I never could play it before I got hurt." Whitney seems to be saying he will make more profits as soon as I am shut down, even though he seems not to have made a profit before. ""¦many of [Whitney'] prospective students who access [Reed'] web site and view this scandalous information, refrain from purchasing [Whitney'] services, notwithstanding a clear intent to do so prior to accessing the web site." That' an interesting statement. First, consider the word "scandalous." Is it against the law to publish scandalous material? No. The tabloids in the grocery stores are called "scandal sheets." Rothstein and Kitterman each spent three years in law school and they still don"t know the difference between libel and stuff that' embarrassing but true. Is Whitney' paternity suit scandalous? One would think. Is it illegal for me to tell people about it? No way. Public record. I think it would have been prudent of Whitney to have refrained from forcing the woman to sue him over it. That would have kept it out of the public court records and probably out of my Web site. But Whitney likes litigation. If you can"t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen. Look also at the phrase "refrain from purchasing"¦notwithstanding a clear intent to do so prior to accessing the web site." How do we know this? Conspicuous by their absence are the affidavits of such persons. Normally, when an attorney makes a statement like that, he attaches affidavits from persons who had exactly that reaction. I suspect that Rothstein and Kitterman want such things to have happened, but have no real proof or they would have offered it. To prove such a statement, you would really have to have some sort of one-way-mirror room were consumers were invited in like lab rats and observed while they surf the Web. Whitney' old and new attorneys keep saying or implying no one has ever typed Russ Whitney' name into Google except to go to his site and buy his stuff. In fact, a great many people type his name into Google and other search engines because they want to find some independent analysis of Whitney. It is wrong to tell Web surfers that you are Russ Whitney when you are not, but there is nothing wrong with telling Web surfers that you have information about Russ Whitney when you do. "Further, as a result of [Reed'] actions, certain of [Whitney'] existing customers and students have ceased to continue utilizing [Whitney'] products and services." Really? Again, supporting affidavits are conspicuous by their absence. But also, you mean to tell me that Whitney, who has his customers captive for days at a time at all-day seminars and boot camps over a period of years cannot retain their loyalty after they spend a few minutes reading some articles on a Web site written by a guy they never met? Doesn"t sound like they were very convinced of the value of Whitney' services to begin with if they drop him that easily. ""¦harmed [Whitney'] reputation, severely damaged [Whitney'] goodwill, and have diverted an undeterminable amount of sales from [Whitney]." I love the words lawyers use. "Undeterminable" "immeasurable." Undeterminable is not in Webster' Universal Unabridged Dictionary. But we know what they mean. Immeasurable is in the dictionary, but it means immense, boundless, vast"”like Carl Sagan' "billions and billions of stars." Also, if they win the lawsuit, don"t they then have to show the court what the damages are? After all this talk of undeterminable and immeasurable, how are they going to shift gears and convince the court it was $71,594 or whatever all along? I am not sure what they think they are doing to me, but this kind of talk flushes their own credibility down the toilet. Russ Whitney is a big boy Poor Russ. When you do a Google search for his name, you get 30,000 hits"”over 2,500 of which are his own Web site. Me. I only produce about 9,000 or so. My Web site is a mere 400 or so pages. And only about a dozen of them mention Russ Whitney. How could little old me even be a blip on big shot CEO TV celebrity Russ Whitney' radar screen? Why can"t he just tell people on his Web site not to believe my "lies?" For example, he claimed he owned "well over a million dollars worth of real estate when he turned 25." I checked. It was $98,000 and most of those were land contract purchases where the documents said he was a tenant, not an owner. See my Web article about his "first fortune." It gives the addresses of all his properties at the time. There is similar information at my Whitney claims Web page. If that' a lie, why doesn"t he just print the actual, longer list of the properies he owned on his 25th birthday? Same goes for his robbery conviction, hit and run, self-made millionaire status, etc. Show us the money"”or the property addresses or whatever makes his claims true, not false as my Web site says. Here is a pertinent quote from one of the great U.S. Supreme Court justices speaking in an ironically named case: "If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." Justice Brandeis writing in Whitney v. California, 274 US 357 (1927) John T. Reed, a.k.a. John Reed, Jack Reed, 342 Bryan Drive, Alamo, CA 94507, Voice: 925-820-7262, Fax: 925-820-1259, www.johntreed.com

Log in to comment
­