­

Is this affidavit by Russ Whitney truthful? On May 1, 2004, Whitney filed a motion with the Fort Lauderdale federal court to get an injunction to shut down my entire Web site. Attached to the motion was an affidavit (sworn statement) by Russ Whitney. Here it is. If you know that any part of it does not tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, please let me know. AFFIDAVIT OF RUSS WHITNEY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS" MOTION FOR EMERGENCY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 1. I, Russ Whitney, am over the age of eighteen and I am sui juris [not under an appointed guardian]. Reed' comments 2. I have personal knowledge of the following facts as the CEO of Whitney information Network, Inc. 3. I have been involved in real estate investing for more than 26 years. 4. I formed Whitney Information Network, Inc., to provide education and training services in the area of real estate investment, business development, asset protection, finance, mortgaging, investing and mentoring. That' one way to put it. 5. Whitney Information Network, Inc., is a solvent and viable, publicly-traded corporation, contrary to assertions made on Defendant' website. See my Reedon WINinc.html article regarding the word "solvent." I have never used the word "viable" or "unviable" regarding WIN. According to their own S.E.C. filings, their liabilities exceed their assets and their expenses exceed their income. Refusing to go along with Whitney' obfuscating, semantic spin doctoring is not libel. 6. I have never been convicted of a hit and run. I never said he was. I said the police charged him with leaving the scene of a personal injury accident, that the grand jury did not indict him and that he lost a $1.2 million judgment in a civil suit to the pedestrian he hit and injured. Read all about it at Whitneyjudgment.html. 7. The home improvement loan techniques I have taught are not illegal, immoral, or unethical. Note the use of the word "taught." He seems to be denying my article Whitneyoverfinance.html, but that article does not use the word "taught" or "teach" regarding Whitney. By using that word, Whitney appears to be doing what was called a "nondenial denial" during the Watergate investigations. By saying "I have taught" he leaves out stuff his associates have taught or what he wrote in his books, which was what I was criticizing. 8. I have not broken the law in the filing of any loan application or in any representation to loan officers. This would appear to be refuted by the evidence in my article Whitneyoverfinance.html. The best evidence would be the actual loan applications and

interviews with the loan officers in question. I tried to get both in Schenectady. The people in the banks where Whitney got his loans all said no one from that period was still around. I may yet find evidence regarding those loan applications. Maybe Russ still has them and will provide them during discovery. 9. I have never been prosecuted for any activity regarding property financing. I never said he was. Lots of people have never been prosecuted for lots of things. Doesn"t prove they"re innocent. 10. I was arrested for robbery 30 years ago at approximately the age of 17, however I was not convicted as a violent felon and I have always been candid about my conviction. How about that word "approximately." Interesting. He says he was arrested 30 years ago. He said that on 5/13/04. 30 years before 5/13/04 was 5/13/74. Russ Whitney was born on 11/18/55. That means he was 18 on 5/13/04, not 17. But then he didn"t say he was 17. He said he was "approximately 17." His lawyer says he was 17 in the motion. His lawyers also say he was a "minor" when he was arrested. I doubt it. I have not yet gotten the police paperwork or the charges and plea bargain. But Whitney' prison record is at the New York State Department of Corrections Web site. It is my understanding that they do not make public the prison records of minors. Whitney also says in the affidavit, "I was not convicted as a violent felon"¦" [Emphasis added]. Well, he was convicted OF a Class C violent felony according to New York state law and a New York lawyer' Web page. Again, Whitney is denying something I did not say and using phraseology so vague we cannot tell exactly what he is denying. His statement that he has always been candid about his conviction is a barefaced lie. His own attorney did not even know about it. He kept telling me, "Russ has never been convicted of a crime." His own stepmother did not know about it until I told her 29 years later"”even though she lives on the same street where he grew up and he still visits close relatives of the stepmother there. On page 23 of his book Building Wealth, he says, "I lived this way, going from job to job, until I got the job in the slaughterhouse." Actually, he went from job to prison to parole at the Tobin Packing Company (the "slaughterhouse"). You can read what I know about Whitney' robbery conviction at Whitneyrobbery.html. There is a review of his book Building Wealth at BuildingWealthreview.html. 11. I have never authorized John T. Reed to use my name, social security number or any other personal information. I do not need his authorization to mention his name when I comment about him. The only thing I have used his social security number for is to help government employees find public government records regarding Whitney. I don"t need his authorization for that either. When he explains what he is referring to regarding other personal information, I"ll respond. He is a public figure (e.g., CEO of public company, TW infomercials, books in book stores). You are generally allowed to write about public figures. 12. Whitney Information Network, Inc./Whitney Education Group, Inc. has lost potential customers as a direct result of John T. Reed' website, which contains false information about myself and the Whitney companies. Coke has lost customers because of what Pepsi says about them. It' not illegal. It' called competition. Note the way this statement is worded. He does not say that he lost customers because of false information. Rather he lost customers because of my Web site, which, by the way, also contains false information. In other words, he lost the customers because of the truthful information on a Web site that also contains false information. There is plenty of indisputably factual information at my Web site that would cause normal people to think twice about doing business with Whitney"”like his robbery conviction, attorney general problems, hit and run, and so forth. Am I nit picking? Yes. But remember, we are dealing here with a statement drawn up by a lawyer. Little tricks like seeming to say one thing when they are really saying another are what they do for a living. Actually, as far as I know, there is no false information at all on my Web site. If I knew of any such thing, I would immediately remove it. Whitney is entitled to that and I do not want to damage my reputation by publishing inaccurate information. 13. Whitney Information Network, Inc./Whitney Education Group, Inc. has lost current customers and provided refunds as a direct result of John T. Reed' website, which contains false information about myself and the Whitney companies. Same comment as statement #12. 14. Whitney Information Network, Inc./Whitney Education Group, Inc. has lost potential investors as a direct result of John T. Reed' website, which contains false information about myself and the Whitney companies. Same comment as statement #12. 15. Whitney Information Network, Inc./Whitney Education Group, Inc. has lost employees and potential employees as a direct result of John T. Reed' website, which contains false information about myself and the Whitney companies. Same comment as statement #12. 16. I cannot ascertain the exact amount of customers or investors that have been lost as a direct result of John T. Reed' website as his website has been published and disseminated to an undeterminable amount of Internet users. A. If he cannot ascertain it, then why mention it? Maybe it' zero or insignificant. B. This statement does not allege any wrongdoing by me. It is possible and likely that the indisputably truthful information from public records about Whitney at my Web site would cause him to lose customers or investors. In other words, he is losing customers and investors because of the way he has lived his life, not because of anything false I said about him. 17. I cannot ascertain the specific amount of goodwill and business reputation that the Whitney companies have lost as a result of Defendant' website. Same comment as item #16. 18. I cannot ascertain the specific amount of goodwill and business reputation that I have lost as a result of Defendant' website. Same comment as item #16. 19. Consumers have gone to my seminars and passed out false information contained on Defendant' website causing Whitney' customers and/or potential customers to cease doing business with any of the Whitney companies. So sue them. Although as I said, there is no false information at my Web site. I have not authorized anyone to copy my articles on Whitney. If anyone did, they broke the law regarding my copyright. But Whitney provides no names, dates, places, or copies of the material that was supposedly handed out. It may be that such persons only handed out public information portions of my Web site discussion of Whitney. I do not own any copyright on, say, the Florida Department of Banking action against Whitney. And that indisputably true action by that Department would likely convince customers to find another source of real estate investment information. 20. Other Websites are re-publishing the false and defamatory information available on Defendant' website causing more consumers, potential customers, shareholders, and investors to be diverted from Whitney' websites causing irreparable harm to myself and the Whitney companies. So sue them. Same thing applies as to the above statement #19. 21. Whitney Information Network, Inc. was forced to postpone its second stock offering as a result of Defendant John T. Reed' website, which cost the Whitney companies a minimum of $500,000 in hard costs set forth in the offering and untold millions in stock value, as well as interfered with public markets and investors, sophisticated and unsophisticated. This statement does not allege any wrongdoing by me. It is possible that the indisputably truthful information from public records about Whitney at my Web site would cause his stock offering to fail. However, I doubt Wall Street' motives are so easily understood. On any given day, you can hear financial pundits on TV giving different explanations as to why the Dow Jones went up or down that day"”profit taking, responding to the Federal Reserve Chairman' latest statements, etc. I doubt Whitney can really prove that his stock offering failed solely because of me. His corporation reporting more liabilities than assets and an operating loss probably had more to do with it. 22. As recently as last week, an investor group refused to do business with us based upon the information contained on Reed' website. No name or affidavit from them. I would like to hear who they are and what they have to say about it. Why couldn"t Whitney convince them my Web site was false if it is as Whitney alleges? Apparently he and all his horses and all his men were there face-to face with every opportunity and enormous resources to convince them. And instead they believed some guy in California whom they had never met? How is he going to convince a jury if he cannot even convince people who were initially biased in his favor to the point that they were about to invest a large sum of money with him? 23. While the Whitney companies do conduct seminars in Costa Rica, the seminars are not illegal, nor do they teach illegal concepts to their students to avoid United States laws. Signature of Russ Whitney 5/13/04 I did not allege his seminars were illegal. I am not sure what an illegal seminar would be. We have freedom of speech. I assume Costa Rica does, too. About the only way I know of that a seminar could be illegal would be if it were not registered with the state in jurisdictions that require that. I am aware of no such requirement in Costa Rica and would be surprised if they had one. "Illegal concepts" is another thing I did not say. And again, I am not sure there is such a thing as an illegal concept. What I did say is at WhitneyCostaRica.html. John T. Reed John T. Reed on real-estate-investment information 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
­