SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION
                                 (Rule 14a-101)

                     INFORMATION REQUIRED IN PROXY STATEMENT
                            SCHEDULE 14A INFORMATION

           Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities
                      Exchange Act of 1934 (Amendment No. )

Filed by the Registrant [  ]

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant [X]

Check the appropriate box:

[  ]  Preliminary Proxy Statement   [_]  Confidential, for Use of the Commission
                                         Only (as permitted by Rule 14A-6(e)(2))
[  ]  Definitive Proxy Statement

[X]  Definitive Additional Materials

[ ]  Soliciting Material Under Rule 14a-12

                         JORDAN AMERICAN HOLDINGS, INC.
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                (Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

                               WALLACE NEAL JORDAN
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if Other Than the Registrant)


Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

   [X]  No fee required.

   [_] Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(4) and 0-11.


         (1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

          ----------------------------------------------------------------------

         (2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:

          ----------------------------------------------------------------------

        (3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed
        pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the
        filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):

         -----------------------------------------------------------------------

         (4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:

         -----------------------------------------------------------------------

         (5) Total fee paid:

          ----------------------------------------------------------------------






                                                               October  25, 2001


         Re: Jordan American Holdings, Inc. ("Jordan American" or the "Company")

Dear Shareholder:

         As you know, I am the principal shareholder of Jordan American, and
have been waging a proxy contest with incumbent management for control of the
Company. As you also know by now, the Annual Meeting of Shareholders that was to
have been held on October 4th was canceled after a flurry of last minute legal
motions by incumbent management.

         I have made several motions, in both the District Court below and in
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, to require that the votes which were
received as of October 4th be recognized. Attached is a copy of an affidavit I
filed in this regard with the Sixth Circuit and with the Court below. I urge you
to read it. If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at (978)
887-0265.

         I assure you that the voice of the shareholders eventually will be
heard!

         I will keep you advised of developments.

         I have filed proxy solicitation materials, including a definitive proxy
statement (the "Proxy Statement"), with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Commission") with respect to the annual meeting of Shareholders of Jordan
American that was to be held on October 4, 2001. A copy of the Proxy Statement
was mailed to all shareholders who owned Common Stock on August 6, 2001, the
record date for that meeting. In addition, a copy of the Proxy Statement is
available, and may be obtained free of charge from my attorneys, by sending a
written request to Kent, Beatty & Gordon, LLP, 425 Park Avenue, New York, New
York, 10022-3598, attention: Harry C. Beatty, Esq. The Proxy Statement and any
other relevant documents also is available free of charge at the Commission's
web site at www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml.


 YOU SHOULD READ THE PROXY STATEMENT BECAUSE IT CONTAINS IMPORTANT INFORMATION.


                                 Faithfully yours,

                                 /s/  W. Neal Jordan
                                 -------------------
                                      W. Neal Jordan



                                    Exhibit A
                                    Affidavit

                                   No. 01-6214

                         UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                              FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

W. NEAL JORDAN and GREGORY JORDAN,            )
                                              )
         Plaintiffs-Appellees,                )
                                              )
                                              )
                  v                           )
                                              )
JORDAN AMERICAN HOLDINGS, INC.,               )
CHARLES R. CLARK, individually and as Trustee,)
and A.J. ELKO,                                )
                                              )
         Defendants-Appellants.               )

                   AFFIDAVIT OF W. NEAL JORDAN IN SUPPORT OF
              MOTION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO STAY PENDING APPEAL

STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS     )
COUNTY OF ESSEX            )        ss:

         W. Neal Jordan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:





     1. I  respectfully  submit this  affidavit in support of the  Memorandum in
Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay Pending Appeal,  dated October 4, 2001.
I am the owner of the largest block of common stock,  par value $0.001  ("Common
Stock"), of Petitioner, Jordan American Holdings, Inc. (the "Company").

     2.  There  has been no  shareholders  meeting  of the  Company,  a  Florida
corporation, since May 2000


     3. I am advised by counsel  that Florida law  provides  that a  corporation
shall hold a meeting of shareholders  annually for the election of directors.  I
am also  advised by counsel  that Section  607.0703(a)  of the Florida  Business
Corporation  Act  provides  that  a  meeting  may  be  ordered  to be  held  "on
application of any shareholder of the corporation  entitled to vote in an annual
meeting if an annual meeting has not been held within any 13-month period." 1

     4. The 2001 Annual  Meeting of  Shareholders  of the Company  (the  "Annual
Meeting")  originally  was scheduled for May 22, 2001,  and timely  commenced on
that date,  but was  adjourned  for lack of a quorum when  incumbent  management
declined to appear at the meeting to vote the shares they were entitled to vote,
including  550,600  shares of Common Stock owned by Trusts for the benefit of my
children,  of which Trusts  Charles R. Clark2 was  Trustee,  and  solicited  the
revocations of proxies voted by other shareholders. Mr. Clark has since resigned
as Trustee, and I have appointed a new Trustee for the Trusts for the benefit of
my children.

     5. The  Defendants  below  thereafter  rescheduled  the Annual  Meeting for
September  25,  2001,  and set a new record date of August 6, 2001 (the  "Record
Date").

     6. On the Record Date,  despite express  admonitions  from the Court below,
Defendants  issued  the  3,100,000  shares of voting  Common  Stock that are the
subject of the  preliminary  injunction  at issue to the Kirkland S. and Rena B.
Lamb Foundation  (the "Lamb  Foundation"),  in exchange for 1,500,000  shares of
non-voting  preferred stock,  notwithstanding that by the terms of the preferred
stock  established  in the Company's  Certificate  of  Incorporation,  1,500,000
shares of  preferred  stock  should  have been  convertible  into only less than
430,000 shares of Common Stock.

     7. In  mid-September,  the date for the Annual Meeting was postponed by the
Company until October 4, 2001.


---------------
1 Section 703(a) confers this power on the Florida Circuit Courts. However,
given the extensive familiarity of the Court below with this case, and given
that the Company's principal place of business is in Kentucky, and that the
Annual Meeting is and was to take place in Lexington, Kentucky, Appellees
respectfully submit that it is appropriate for this Court or the Court below to
order the holding of the Annual Meeting.

2 Mr. Clark is an incumbent director of the Company and a Defendant,  along with
the Company and Mr. A.J.  Elko,  also an incumbent  director,  in the case below
from which this Appeal arises,  Jordan v. Jordan  American  Holdings,  Inc., No.
01-264 (E.D. Ky.).



     8. As of the Record Date, I owned 4,350,000  shares of Common Stock. I have
been  granted a proxy for 550,600  shares of Common  Stock by the Trustee of the
Trusts established for my children, a copy of which is annexed as Exhibit A. All
these 4,900,600 shares will be and would have been voted against the proposal to
remove me as a  director,  in favor of the  proposal  to remove  A.J.  Elko as a
director, and in favor of the slate of nominees for director proposed by me.

     9. I have been granted proxies by other  shareholders  pursuant to my proxy
solicitation  which will be and would  have been  voted at the 2:00 p.m.  Annual
meeting as follows:

         To remove your affiant, W. Neal Jordan, as a director:
                  For:              2,000
                  Against:          166,944
                  Abstain:          0

         To remove A.J. Elko as a director:

                  For:              162,928
                  Against:          6,016
                  Abstain:          0

         To elect the nominees of your affiant, W. Neal Jordan, as directors:

                  For:              162,928
                  Against:          6,016
                  Abstain:          0

     10. In addition,  according to reports  received  prior to 2:00 p.m. EDT on
October 4, 2001 from ADP Investor's Services,  Inc., copies of which are annexed
as Exhibit B, proxies for shares held in street name had been voted for the 2:00
p.m. Annual Meeting as follows1 In addition,  according to reports received from
ADP subsequent to the 2:00 p.m.  scheduled time of the Annual  Meeting,  proxies
were untimely  received,  and therefore would not have been voted at the meeting
if held as scheduled,  that  insignificantly vary (in some cases increasing) the
margin of my overwhelming  victory, but not to an extent that would have changed
the result or the conclusions set forth herein. :

         To remove your affiant, W. Neal Jordan, as a director:

                  For:              402,105
                  Against:          2,570,844
                  Abstain:          5,000

         To remove A.J. Elko as a director:

                  For:              2,540,288
                  Against:          900
                  Abstain:          5,000

         To elect the nominees of your affiant, W. Neal Jordan, as directors:

                  For:              2,428,788
                  Against:          0
                  Abstain:          117,400

     11.  Accordingly,  had the Annual  Meeting been held on October 4, 2001, as
scheduled,  7,638,388  shares of Common Stock would have been voted  against the
proposal to remove me as a director, 7,603,816 would have been voted in favor of
the proposal to remove A.J. Elko as a director,  and 7,492,316 shares would have
been voted to elect my nominees as directors.

-------------------
1 The totals in the  tabulation  above vary  because the  Management  Proxy card
solicited  votes  only  on  the  proposal  to  remove  me as a  director  (which
management  proxy  votes on this  proposal,  as reported  by ADP,  are  included
above), and not on the proposals to remove Elko or elect my nominees.




     12.  If  the  preliminary   injunction  against  the  voting  of  the  Lamb
Foundation's  3,100,000  shares is  honored,  and if it had been  honored at the
Annual  Meeting  scheduled to be held on October  4th,  there are and would have
been  11,117,266  shares of Common  Stock  entitled  to vote.  A quorum,  and an
absolute majority sufficient to prevail on all proposals that were noticed to be
acted upon at the Annual Meeting, is and would have been 5,558,634. Accordingly,
all my  recommendations  on the core  proposals of removing me or A.J. Elko as a
director  and on the  election  of new  directors  would have been  adopted by a
significant super-majority.

     13.  But  even  if the  preliminary  injunction  against  voting  the  Lamb
Foundation's  3,100,000  shares is not upheld,  and if it had not been upheld at
the Annual  Meeting  scheduled to be held on October 4th (meaning  that the Lamb
Foundation  had  been  permitted  to vote  all  those  shares  in  favor  of the
recommendations  of management  of the  Company),  there are and would have been
14,217,266  shares  entitled  to  vote.  A  quorum,  and  an  absolute  majority
sufficient to prevail on all proposals that were noticed to be acted upon at the
Annual Meeting, is and would have been 7,108,633.  Accordingly, the shares owned
by me and the Trust for the benefit of my children,  when totaled  together with
the shares held in street name that were voted,  would have been  sufficient  to
constitute a quorum and I would have won, and the Defendants,  who were privy to
this information, were aware of this fact.

     14. Thus,  Defendants  knew that they could not abort the Annual Meeting on
October 4th, as they had on the originally  scheduled May 22nd date, by refusing
to attend and by soliciting  revocations  of any proxies they may have obtained.
And had the meeting gone forward,  all my  recommendations on the core proposals
would have been adopted,  as set forth above,  even if the Lamb  Foundation  had
voted all its shares,  and even if I had not received  directly any proxies from
other shareholders.

     15.  Therefore,  Defendants  knew  that  the  issue  of  whether  the  Lamb
Foundation's  disputed 3,100,000 shares were to be voted was moot and absolutely
irrelevant.  They had lost. They could not avoid the  inevitable,  unless a stay
prohibiting  the meeting from going forward were  granted.  Even then they could
prevail only if they were allowed a "do over",  or the  opportunity to throw out
all votes and try again.

     16 Defendants have sought to give  themselves just this relief.  In a press
release dated  October 5, 2001,  the Company  announced  that as a result of the
stay  ordered  by  this  Court,  "When  the  Company  is  permitted  to  call  a
shareholders'  meeting,  it will do so and will set a new  record  date for that
meeting."(emphasis added)

     17. I believe it is important  for this Court,  in  considering  the issues
raised by the Company on Appeal, to understand that the Defendants have been and
continue to waste the assets of the Company in seeking to delay the inevitable -
i.e.,  the ouster of Clark and Elko,  who together own less than 1% of the stock
of the  Company,  and whose  proposals  for the future of the Company  have been
resoundingly  rejected by the  Company's  owners - it's  shareholders.  In their
pleadings  below,  they have insisted that their actions have been  justified to
permit the voice of the  shareholders  to be heard.  Yet they  continually  have
sought to silence that voice,  and have wasted corporate assets solely for their
own benefit, in order to preserve and entrench their control of the Company.

     18. I respectfully  request that this Court rule on the issues before it so
that the Annual Meeting is held as soon as possible,  and that the votes cast by
the shareholders on the Record Date are honored.



                                      /s/   W. Neal Jordan
                                      --------------------
                                            W. Neal Jordan


Sworn to before me on this
10th  day of October, 2001
/s/Pamela A. Pescatore
-------------------------
            Notary Public

Pamela A. Pescatore, Notary Public
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
My Commission Expires 4/30/2004