­

Emails sent to John T. Reed by Robert Yates and Reed' answers 2 EXHIBIT A From: Robert Yates  Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 09:07:03 -0400 To: <www.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" <www.johntreed.com> Organization: John T. Reed Publishing Reply-To: <www.johntreed.com> Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 11:38:34 -0700 To: Robert Yates 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 Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 15:39:15 -0400 To: <www.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" <www.johntreed.com> Organization: John T. Reed Publishing Reply-To: <www.johntreed.com> Date: Wed, 05 May 2004 17:55:42 -0700 To: Robert Yates  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  Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 07:24:38 -0400 To: <www.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" <www.johntreed.com> Organization: John T. Reed Publishing Reply-To: <www.johntreed.com> Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 10:07:16 -0700 To: Robert Yates  Subject: Re: Book Interview No. EXHIBIT G From: Robert Yates  Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 13:58:06 -0400 To: <www.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" <www.johntreed.com> Organization: John T. Reed Publishing Reply-To: <www.johntreed.com> Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 16:42:26 -0700 To: Robert Yates  Subject: Re: Book Interview I would like to see a copy of that contract. EXHIBIT I From: "John T. Reed" <www.johntreed.com> Organization: John T. Reed Publishing Reply-To: <www.johntreed.com> Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 16:43:24 -0700 To: Robert Yates  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 Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 21:01:23 -0400 To: <www.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" <www.johntreed.com> Organization: John T. Reed Publishing Reply-To: <www.johntreed.com> Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 20:12:10 -0700 To: Robert Yates  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 Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 21:12:50 -0400 To: <www.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 EXHIBIT M From: Robert Yates Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 09:55:53 -0400 To: <www.johntreed.com> Subject: Re: Book Interview Thank you for your input and support. I agree. Scott is a real bulldog, isn't he. Treats and intimidation are part of the culture. 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. 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) I am still researching some options and will, hopefully, soon have access to Westlaw. Rob EXHIBIT N From: "John T. Reed" <www.johntreed.com> Organization: John T. Reed Publishing Reply-To: <www.johntreed.com> Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 15:37:07 -0700 To: Robert Yates Subject: Re: Book Interview Malicious is the wrong word. The phrase “actual malice” is a term of art. It does not mean malicious. It means that you cannot print something you know is false or with reckless disregard as to whether it is false. You seem to take the position that you have a moral, if not a legal, obligation to remain silent if you promised to do so. I agree up to a point. But we all have moral obligations to our society as well. See my Web page on why I created and maintain my guru rating page. It contains statements like Abe Lincoln's phrase about “sinning by silence when we should protest.” If the purpose and effect of your silence is to enable Whitney to continue to cheat people, then your silence is immoral. The items on the two sides of the scales of justidce would be Whitney's right to keep on doing what he's doing without any light being shown on it versus the public's right to not be cheated. I doubt that very many judges or moral arbiters would find that scale tilts toward the Whitney side. This issue has been in the courts and news in recent years because corporations keep settling cases out of court and requiring the victims to sign confidentialiy agreements. It has been pointed out that such agreements should be against public policy because they have the effect of letting the misbehavior continue longer than it would if such confidentiality agreements were illegal. Essentially, the plaiantiffs who are signing such agreements in return for some money are selling out the health and safety their fellow citizens for 40 pieces of silver. If you were subpoenaed, I doubt any judge would let you reamin silent because of an unenforceable agreement that arguably violates public policy. John T. Reed EXHIBIT O X-Apparently-To: www.johntreed.com via 66.218.93.123; Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:48:01 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [65.54.171.55] Return-Path:  Received: from 65.54.171.55 (EHLO hotmail.com) (65.54.171.55) by mta2-vm2.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:48:01 -0700 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 11:48:01 -0700 Received: from 69.139.38.151 by bay4-dav25.bay4.hotmail.com with DAV; Thu, 08 Jul 2004 18:48:01 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [69.139.38.151] X-Originating-Email: X-Sender: From: "Robert Yates"  To: "John Reed" <www.johntreed.com> Subject: Whitney Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 14:52:04 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_007A_01C464FB.2302EE20" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.00.0013.2101 Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 14:52:05 -0400 Message-ID:  X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jul 2004 18:48:01.0526 (UTC) FILETIME=[185A0960:01C4651C] Hi John. I hope you and your family had a nice 4th of July holiday weekend. 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. 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. 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. I just felt like venting. Thanks. Best wishes. Rob P.S. 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? Robert Yates Yates Associates 2200 Sunrise Blvd Fort Myers, Florida 33907 YatesAssociates.Net EXHIBIT P User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.0.0.040405 Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 15:27:22 -0800 Subject: Re: Whitney From: John T Reed <www.johntreed.com> To: Robert Yates  Message-ID: <BD13185A.3D3D%www.johntreed.com> In-Reply-To: Mime-version: 1.0 Thanks, I knew about Whitney's minor troubles with the law but decided they were not important enough to worry about. John T. Reed EXHIBIT Q X-Apparently-To: www.johntreed.com via 66.218.93.121; Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:58:13 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [65.54.170.111] Return-Path: Received: from 65.54.170.111 (EHLO hotmail.com) (65.54.170.111) by mtavm101.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; Thu, 08 Jul 2004 11:58:13 -0700 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 8 Jul 2004 11:58:13 -0700 Received: from 69.139.38.151 by bay4-dav7.bay4.hotmail.com with DAV; Thu, 08 Jul 2004 18:58:12 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [69.139.38.151] X-Originating-Email:  X-Sender: From: "Robert Yates"  To: "John Reed" <www.johntreed.com> Subject: Fw: Whitney Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:02:18 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0086_01C464FC.90512630" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.00.0013.2101 Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 8 Jul 2004 15:02:18 -0400 Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Jul 2004 18:58:13.0207 (UTC) FILETIME=[84F12670:01C4651D] 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. EXHIBIT R X-Apparently-To: www.johntreed.com via 66.218.93.119; Thu, 05 Aug 2004 08:09:32 -0700 X-Originating-IP: [65.54.171.52] Return-Path: Received: from 65.54.171.52 (EHLO hotmail.com) (65.54.171.52) by mtavm100.mail.yahoo.com with SMTP; Thu, 05 Aug 2004 08:09:32 -0700 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 5 Aug 2004 08:09:32 -0700 Received: from 69.139.38.151 by bay4-dav22.bay4.hotmail.com with DAV; Thu, 05 Aug 2004 15:09:31 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [69.139.38.151] X-Originating-Email:  X-Sender: From: "Robert Yates"  To: "John Reed" <www.johntreed.com> Subject: Whitney v. Yates and Reed Date: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:13:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_004F_01C47ADD.47C7BD10" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: MSN 9 X-MimeOLE: Produced By MSN MimeOLE V9.10.0006.2205 Seal-Send-Time: Thu, 5 Aug 2004 11:13:48 -0400 Message-ID: > X-OriginalArrivalTime: 05 Aug 2004 15:09:32.0051 (UTC) FILETIME=[360FE630:01C47AFE]Dear John, I suppose by now you have been served with Whitney's complaint against us, more so me. I have hesitated to communicate with you due to the complaint but feel it is important to both our defenses that we do. Though I have no doubt that Whitney would attempt to manipulate and trick you, and me, I can only repeat, once again, that I am not a Whitney spy. With that said, I feel that we can and should communicate in some manner so that we can prepare the best defense possible. I cannot afford the costs of an attorney right now and must present my case, pro se. I also have a EEOC charge filed against Whitney Education Group and a civil complaint against Whitney Education Group, Russ Whitney, Marie Code, and Michael McKenna, which I have filed, but not yet served. I quickly put it together just in time to beat a hefty court filing fee increase, but it still needs serious research and amending before it is served on the Whitney folks. Would you please tell me if you have a retained an attorney to whom I should direct my inquires or discussion? Have you disclosed any of our email communications to anyone that might have forwarded the contents to Whitney? 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. But in the final analysis, I truly don't believe you or I have crossed the line. Please tell me what you think. I will begin researching this as soon as I can and share such information with you when I can make some sense of it. I really am sorry that I have drug you in to another Whitney complaint. Rob Yates 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
­