­

John T. Reed' motion to increase the time he has to answer Whitney' fourth lawsuit against him IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 04-CA-003045 Judge William C. McIver WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK, INC. A Colorado Corporation, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT E. YATES, an individual, and JOHN T. REED, an individual, Defendants. DEFENDANT REED'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO MOVE OR ANSWER WITH REGARD TO THE COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT REED'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ATTEND MOTION HEARING BY TELEPHONE 1. Defendant JOHN T. REED ("REED"), pro se files this motion for enlargement of time Until November 29, 2004 to move or answer with regard to the complaint and for leave to attend any hearing related to this motion by telephone. INTRODUCTION 2. This action is the fourth lawsuit filed against REED by WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK, Inc. ("WIN") in the last two years. REED is a home-office-based, one-man shop self-publisher and an investigative journalist. REED publishes books on real estate investment, football and baseball coaching, and succeeding and a newsletter-Real Estate Investor's Monthly. Reed's publications and Web site contain, among other things, criticism and reviews of seminars and other publications in the fields about which REED writes. 3. RUSS WHITNEY ("WHITNEY") sells get-rich-quick seminars and "mentoring" services via TV infomercials and telephone "boiler room" sales and is the majority owner and chief executive officer of WIN. WIN is a publicly-traded corporation with sales of approximately $100 million in 2003 according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. OTHER WHITNEY LITIGATION AGAINST REED 4. In 2001, REED's Web site included a couple of mild criticisms by REED of WHITNEY's advice on real estate investment and a handful of emails from unhappy customers of WHITNEY. In January of 2002, WIN and WHITNEY, through their counsel, threatened to sue REED if he did not remove several phrases contained in one WHITNEY customer email. REED removed those phrases that same day and immediately so informed WIN. 5. Nevertheless, WIN sued REED in U.S. District Court in Fort Myers on June 25, 2002 (Case # 2:02-CV-288-FTM-29DNF) for trademark infringement and libel. After a court order to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for lack of prosecution and a motion by REED to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution, WIN and WHITNEY voluntarily withdrew the case in May of 2002 and it was dismissed without prejudice. 6. In the interim, on January 29, 2003, WIN and WHITNEY filed another suit against REED in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in Broward County Florida (Case # CACE 21 0301788) for tortious interference with a business relationship, i.e., publishing statements that caused various persons to be less inclined to do business with WIN and WHITNEY. REED removed that case

 to U.S. District Court in Fort Lauderdale (Case # 03-60195 CIV-MARRA/SELTZER). WIN and WHITNEY moved for remand, but abandoned that motion many months later without explanation. 7. While the above two cases were pending, WIN told REED they would sue him if he did not stop saying that WIN was ""¦insolvent. That is, their liabilities ($27,299,907) exceed their assets ($24,315,757) as of the last reported date: 9/30/02." REED retracted that the day WIN requested him to and replaced the word "insolvent" with the phrase "negative net worth." Nevertheless, WIN immediately filed a third case against REED in U.S. District Court in Miami (Case # 03-60597 CIV-SEITZ/BANDSTRA) alleging defamation per se for the use of the word "insolvent." 8. REED has answered both complaints and counterclaimed for abuse of process among other things. He must soon answer a second amended complaint that restores the trademark and false-designation-of-origin claims that were in the original and later withdrawn Fort Myers complaint. 9. When Miami federal Judge SEITZ issued an order to show cause why the case should not be transferred to the Northern District of California (where REED lives and works) for lack of personal jurisdiction, WIN immediately and successfully moved for consolidation with the lower-numbered Fort Lauderdale federal case. REED filed motions to consolidate the Fort Lauderdale and Miami cases with the earlier Fort Myers case. WIN and WHITNEY opposed that consolidation. After the Fort Myers case was withdrawn, REED moved for change of venue of the Fort Lauderdale and Miami cases to Fort Myers on the grounds that no party had any presence in the Fort Lauderdale area, but WIN and WHITNEY were in Cape Coral. After opposing such motions for more than a year, WIN and WHITNEY suddenly withdrew their opposition without explanation and the cases were moved to Fort Myers [Case # 2:04-CV-395-FTM-33DNF (LAG)]. 11. WIN is currently trying to force REED to give a deposition in WIN v. Glenn Purdy (Case # 03-60693-CIV-MARRA-SELTZER), a Fort Lauderdale federal case apparently involving breach of contract and violation of the Florida Trade Secrets Act. Purdy is, upon information and belief, a former associate of WHITNEY. REED is not a party to that suit. REED successfully moved to quash that subpoena in September, 2004 in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, but WIN has served an identical subpoena on REED again in that case and REED has filed another motion to quash. 12. During an approximately one-week period in the beginning of October, 2004, REED was served: o a non-party deposition subpoena in the Purdy case o a second amended complaint in the Fort Myers federal case o a case management report in that case o the summons in this case Each has a short deadline for response. DEFENDANT REED BACKGROUND 13. REED, who is representing himself pro se, has never attended a law school and is not a lawyer. REED is a West Point graduate and a Harvard M.B.A. and did take courses in constitutional and military law at West Point and a course in federal tax law at Harvard. 14. REED lives and works in his home in Alamo, California. He has not been to Florida since taking his children to DisneyWorld and Cape Canaveral in the mid 1990's and does not anticipate having any occasion to visit Florida, other than litigation with WHITNEY and WIN. Travel from California to Florida is expensive, time consuming, and would be disruptive of REED's publishing business, especially on short notice. 15. REED was served the summons in this action on October 7, 2004. 16. At this time, REED expects to move under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.140 (b) and (e) and 1.150 to dismiss the case. Because he is located in California, REED does not have the access to Florida law libraries that parties in Florida litigation normally have. Accordingly, REED must identify and purchase pertinent Florida law books and locate and learn to use an online legal research service like Westlaw to research relevant case law. 17. Because the Plaintiff has filed numerous other legal papers on REED at the same time, REED has an unusual burden of researching and responding to an extraordinary number of filings at once. 18. REED sent Plaintiff's counsel Christina Kitterman an email requesting that she stipulate to giving REED until November 29, 2004 to move or answer with regard to the complaint. REED received no response to that request. PERTINENT LAW 19. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(b) says, When an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time"¦by these rules"¦for cause shown the court at any time in its discretion (1)"¦may order the period enlarged if request therefor is made before the expiration of the period originally prescribed"¦ 20. In this case, the expiration of the period originally prescribed is October 27, 2004. [Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090 (a)] 21. Reed was unable to find any official guidance regarding attending at hearings by telephone in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. However, he is aware that telephonic attendance is permitted and/or encouraged in other state and federal courts and trusts that the Lee County Court has a similar policy. 22. WIN and WHITNEY's true purpose is filing all of the above-described litigation is to harass and intimidate REED and to force Reed to incur unnecessary litigation expenses. WIN and WHITNEY's true goal, which they have repeated to REED in various documents since 2000, is removal of all mention of WIN and WHITNEY from REED's Web site. Since WIN and WHITNEY are public figures, no U.S. court can grant this wish. [New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 1 Media Law Reporter 1527 (1964) and related ensuing decisions] WIN and WHITNNEY are trying to achieve by abuse of process what they cannot possibly win at trial. CONCLUSION 23. Because of his distance from Florida law libraries, lack of legal training, and the simultaneous serving of multiple legal actions against Defendant REED, there is good cause to grant this motion for enlargement of time to November 29, 2004 to move or answer with regard to the complaint. To the extent that REED can use the additional time requested to create a successful motion to dismiss, the interests of judicial economy will also be served. 24. 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. 25. Wherefore, Defendant REED respectfully requests that this Court grant his order enlarging the time to move or answer with regard to the complaint to November 29, 2004 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 www.johntreed.com IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 04-CA-003045 Judge William C. McIver WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK, INC. A Colorado Corporation, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT E. YATES, an individual, and JOHN T. REED, an individual, Defendants. ORDER On motion of John T. Reed, pro se for an order pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090 (a) and (b) to enlarge the time to move or answer with regard to the complaint, and to attend any hearing related to this motion by telephone, good cause having been shown, therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the motion be granted and that Defendant John T. Reed not be required to move or answer the complaint until November 29, 2004 and that he be permitted to attend any hearing related to this motion by telephone. _______________ ______________________________________ Date IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 04-CA-003045 Judge William C. McIver WHITNEY INFORMATION NETWORK, INC. A Colorado Corporation, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT E. YATES, an individual, and JOHN T. REED, an individual, Defendants. DECLARATION OF SERVICE JOHN T. REED, under penalty of perjury hereby declares: On October 21, 2004, I served DEFENDANT REED'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO MOVE OR ANSWER WITH REGARD TO THE COMPLAINT AND DEFENDANT REED'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO ATTEND MOTION HEARING BY TELEPHONE by Federal Express on Scott Rothstein, 300 Las Olas Place, Suite 860, 300 S.E. Second Street, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 and Robert Yates, 2200 Sunrise Boulevard, Fort Myers, FL 33907. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 20, 2004. John T. Reed, pro se 342 Bryan Drive Alamo, CA 94507 925-820-6292, fax 925-820-1259 www.johntreed.com Copyright 2004 by John T. Reed 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
­