­

The $1,190,809 judgment against Russ Whitney as analyzed by John T. Reed 3 Bob ended up off the road to the right as you look south on Route 50. Whitney said he "jerked the vehicle to the left" after the impact. How does impact with the truck and its windshield in the roadway, followed by a jerking of the vehicle to the left, deposit Bob in the bushes to the right? In fact, the police photos and diagram seem to indicate that Whitney jerked the wheel to the left to return it to the roadway after having driven off the shoulder onto the grass. Why did Whitney preserve the "white fur?" If there had been fur on my car after I hit a deer, I would have brushed it off to the ground. Why would anyone preserve fur? Why did Whitney return to the scene before dawn? He was going to drive by there later that day commuting to work. Why didn"t he just look out for the "animal" he hit then? What' up with the listening to the news and preventing the police from tracing the call? Why would someone who hit an animal or got hit by kids need to listen to the news? Why wouldn"t he just say, "This is Russ Whitney," when he called police? I do not find his version credible. All these actions like preserving "fur," returning to the scene, listening to the local news, not reporting the incident promptly, sound like the behavior of a hit-and-run perpetrator, not a guy who sincerely thinks he hit an animal or was hit by kids throwing things. Nor, apparently did the police, district attorney, or civil jury believe him. It may be that the grand jury did not believe him either, but that they felt there was a reasonable doubt, the standard for criminal conviction. Based on the public record, it sounds to me like he knew what he hit and fled the scene to avoid getting

into trouble for it. It sounds like he decided that his possibly escaping responsibility by fleeing and not reporting it was more important than the possibility that prompt medical attention might save Deering' life or lessen the severity of his injuries. Intertwined with real estate All of this is intertwined with Whitney' real estate investing and writings about his real estate investing career. The contrast between what he said in the litigation and what he was saying publicly about his investing career is stark. Books vs. deposition In "83 and "84, Whitney produced at least two books and audio cassette sets. In 1981, he gave his deposition in the civil case. They do not jibe. In Overcoming the Hurdles and Pitfalls of Real Estate Investing, published by Mark Haroldsen' National Institute for Financial Planning, Whitney says, "I have just recently had my 27th birthday [11/18/82]. In the last four and a half years, I have purchased 4 million dollars worth of income producing property." In Overcoming the Hurdles and Pitfalls of Locating, Financing, and Analyzing of Real Estate, he says, "Today, at age 28 [11/18/83], Russ has accumulated millions of dollars worth of income producing properties and owns a Real Estate Management and Development Company"¦" On page 123 of Building Wealth, he says he operated under the name R & I Contracting Co. to get the bank to lend him $15,000 on a $3,000 to $4,000 improvement"”his first such deal. On page 151 of that book, he says R & I Enterprises was the company name his wife and he ""¦used when we first began investing in real estate." [1977] So why was he saying the following at his 6/8/81 deposition in Bob' civil suit? Q: What is your occupation now? A: I have a real estate license, real estate sales agent. Q: Are you doing business under an assumed name presently? A: No. Q: Do you have any other occupation other than that? A: Salesman. At the time of the incident I was employed as an Area Coordinator for the Confederation of Organized Purchasers. Q: Back in November of 1980 did you have any other jobs that you were involved in? A: No, that was my full-time occupation. Whitney' response to this article Around July of 2003, Whitney posted a statement about the hit-and-run episode on the Internet. It accuses me of multiple "falsehoods." First off, if there is any inaccurate information in the above story, Whitney is partly responsible. Before I published it, I sent it to him through his lawyers and asked him to tell me if it had any errors or omissions or if he wanted to make any statement about it. He refused to respond. I surmise he thought no one would read it or so few would read it that he could stonewall me. Now, he has apparently concluded that enough people are reading it and being unfavorably impressed by it so he is belatedly doing exactly what he refused to do before I published it. Present tense His first alleged "falsehood" is that I wrote the part about the hit-and-run and Whitney' subsequent behavior until he was giving statements to the police in the present tense. Whitney says I did that to make it seem more recent. Actually, that never occurred to me and now that he has suggested it, I doubt it would work especially given that I stated all the pertinent dates and Whitney' age at the time in crystal clear terms. I was reading a book about writing at the time and that book talked about using the present tense. If you watch the History Channel, you will notice that historians often speak of events far more in the past than Whitney' 1980 accident in the present tense as in, "Custer unwisely divides his force just before the battle." History professors often do the same. High beams The second alleged "falsehood" in my article is that Whitney did not turn on his high beams even though it was 2:15 AM and he said there were no cars on the road. Whitney says he does not remember whether he used his high beams. Irrelevant. I read the case file. He said it back then. He then says it would be a bad idea for him to have used his high beams because of the "strong likelihood of meeting oncoming traffic." Say what!? Does Whitney think his statement will only be read by people who have never ridden in a car a night? Enough sleep I wondered above if Whitney was getting enough sleep during the days leading up to the hit-and-run. Whitney says he was. I stated the evidence that suggested he was not. He refused to say when I sent him the pre-publication copy. Now he claims that is a "falsehood." Can"t afford to travel to my son' football games Whitney alleges that I cannot afford to travel to my son' football games. In case you"re wondering what this has to do with the hit-and-run, I don"t know. But he managed to work it into his hit-and-run statement. In 2002, my son' team played one spring game and ten regular season games. I attended all but one regular season game. I had plane tickets and hotel reservations for that one, but he broke his hand in the preceding game, and was not permitted to play in the game I skipped. It was at Cornell, which is way out in the boondocks, so I stayed home. If Russ had sent me a pre-publication copy of his statement, I could have and would have prevented him from including that "falsehood" in it. Somehow, Whitney figures that my statement above about West Point training involving small lights in darkness is another "falsehood." "The body" I used the word "body" a number of times in the above article. Whitney alleges that is another "falsehood," that I am giving the impression that the pedestrian was killed. I actually thought about that word when I wrote the article. On the one hand, the word "body" is sometimes used to mean dead body. However, my dictionary has 16 definitions and dead body is only part of one of them. in some cases where I used the word, it was the best word, like, "Although it was dark, his headlights would have illuminated Deering' lower body and silhouetted his upper body." In other cases, I decided to use the word "body" because the guy was unconscious from when he was hit until he was revived in the hospital. If I used another word, like his name, Bob Deering, one might lose sight of the fact that he was unconscious. For example, the phrase "after Whitney hit him, Deering landed 50 feet away" leaves open the possibility that Deering was at that moment capable of getting up or crawling or yelling for help. I thought that was more misleading than "body," especially when I said repeatedly throughout the article that Deering survived. In one case, I used the phrase "near lifeless body." I guess that would be more to the liking of the ultrasensitive Russ Whitney, but it would be rather awkward to use repeatedly. Call tracing I said Whitney told the police not to trace his call when he called them. He says that is "pure malicious conjecture by me." No it isn"t. I read it in the court file. Astonishment Whitney wonders how I know that the police and district attorney were astonished when the grand jury decided not to indict him. He says it is "highly unlikely" that they would remember after nearly a "quarter century." Well, I talked to the police and the victim' attorney. When I called the victim' attorney, the call started like this: Reed: "Do you remember anything about a case you tried against a guy named Russ Whitney back in the eighties?" Phil Rodriguez: "I remember everything about it." A police officer who was involved gave lectures about the case for many years, taking the parts from Whitney' pickup to the speeches. The clerks in the courthouse still remembered the trial because it lasted so long. The fact the Russ Whitney wishes and hopes that the people involved did not remember it does not mean they don"t. Out-of-court settlement amount Whitney says Rodriguez "likely said nothing to indicate the settlement amount." And that my saying Rodriguez gave me the impression that the victim got some mortgages and a nickel or dime on the dollar is another falsehood. He says the attorney obviously does not remember and did not want to take the time to look it up. Actually, unlike Whitney, I was there when the attorney discussed it with me. He said the settlement went through the victim' family, not him. He just prepared the satisfaction document. So he had no documents to look up. The rest of my statement on the matter is what Rodriguez told me. His client got a couple of mortgages Whitney had taken back and a little bit of cash. I note that there is a person other than Rodriguez who knows exactly how much Whitney paid Deering. That would be Russ Whitney himself. The actual settlement amount is conspicuously absent from his recent statement on the matter. Whitney made some other accusations of "falsehoods" in his statement. They are not worthy of response. I surmise that Mr. Whitney has abandoned his plans to go to trial on any of his lawsuits against me because whatever credibility he might have had has now been shredded by his nutty accusations that I published dozens of "falsehoods" like those described above. The more important things are what Whitney did not say in his statement about the hit-and-run. My article about it is extremely lengthy and detailed. I traveled to the scene, interviewed as many people as I could find, researched it in the court house, clerk' office, library, and police station. I even tried to get facts from Whitney himself. After all my efforts and lengthy article, this is all he can find fault with? 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
­