Update: Pinchas vs. Jordan, Ammons, Lovett - NAD Law Center, Deaf Lawyer Brick

From: DeafSportLawsuit - 15 Dec 2002

THE NAD LAW CENTER , DEAF LAWYER KELBY BRICK
AND DEAFSPORTLAWSUIT

Below are the contents of my just-released letter to the top NAD officials. This letter is about the questionable roles of Mr. Kelby Brick, a deaf private lawyer for defendants Jerald Jordan, Donalda Ammons and John Lovett and recently re-hired NAD employee, and the NAD Law Center, in the still pending lawsuit case.

For your information, the NAD is an acronym for the National Association of the Deaf in the USA. This widely-revered organization was established in 1880. The NAD is a private, non-profit and deaf civil rights agency.
The NAD is headquartered at the Halex House building premises in Silver Spring, Maryland, USA, and its Home Office is headed by a very able deaf female administrator, Miss Nancy Bloch.

Please note the facts that until recently the CISS Secretariat, in violation of its CISS Constitution rules 10.2.7 and 10.2.7.11, had its Home Office at the upper floor of the same Halex House building before it moved to a new and current location in Frederick, Maryland. The recent move by the CISS Secretariat to Frederick is still new CISS Constitution rule violations!

Sportingly Yours,

Rafael Pinkhasov Pinchas

www.deafsportlawsuit.com
***********************************
To: The Top NAD Officials: December 15, 2002

Mr. Kent Kennedy, President
Miss Marylin Smith Vice President
Mr. Dan Brubaker, Secretary
Mr. Tom Dillon, Treasurer
Miss Yvonne Dunkle, Board Member, Region I
Mr. Charlie Reisinger, Board Member, Region I
Miss Claudia Bergquist, Board Member, Region II
Mr. Jack Cooper, Board Member, Region II
Mr. Andy Lange, Board Member, Region III
Mr. Ernest Northup, Board Member, Region III
Mr. Leon Curtis, Board Member, Region IV
Miss Norma Lee Chrismon, Board Member, Region IV
Miss Nancy Bloch, Executive Director
Miss Anita Farb, Associate Executive Director
Miss Nancy Bloom Rarus, Associate Executive Director

Re: The NAD Law Center, Deaf Lawyer Kelby Brick and DeafSportLawsuit

Dear Colleagues,

I am addressing this letter to each of you for the two reasons: 1) I perceive each of you as an advocate for equal and just rights for any deaf individual, and 2) I received information that Mr. Kelby Brick was recently hired ( and re-hired ) to the NAD staff as its Associate Executive Director in charge of Law and Advocacy.

For me, a former NAD worker and member, Mr. Brick's employ at your professionally-administered and efficiently-run NAD organization is an enlighteningly positive news and very welcome development.

Since September, 2001, I am by coincidence having the privilege and opportunity in dealing first hand and in an adversarial capacity with Mr. Brick. With my usual candor, I shall inform you that Mr. Brick has earned my admiration and esteem as an articulate gentleman. I would also like you to know that Mr. Brick's presence at Halex House and his legal expertise will be an asset to the NAD itself!

However, because of my still pending lawsuit case against the three deaf defendants - Jerald Jordan, Donalda Ammons and John Lovett, ethically speaking, I have deep reservations about Mr. Brick's current dual status as a NAD staffer and private attorney for these three deaf defendants.

As you may know, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore, Maryland, is the venue of the continuing legal battle involving the four deaf persons, whose case's outcome may influence the present and future direction, administration and management of the CISS in particular and deaf international sports movement in general.

I unhesitatingly acknowledge the fact that in the past some of you may have received my website materials via the e-mail system. This has been done for a sole reason: to open "your eyes" by enabling you, the recognized advocates for the deaf rights, to learn and judge - independently and voluntarily - as to what kind of work these three defendants performed and are still performing on behalf of the CISS.

I am also aware that some of you are friends and associates with the lawsuit participants, including Mr. Brick ( I know, for example, that one of the defendants was a prominent building occupant at the upper floor of Halex House until recently ). Therefore, for many of you this lawsuit case exposure is an emotionally painful, scary and very mixed experience!

I have also been receiving information that many people, including the Halex House building office occupants and Gallaudet University "intelligentsia", are prejudicely and biasedly siding with the defendants in this nasty lawsuit case!

As a Soviet-born lifelong internationalist and deaf person with open-minded universal outlook, I must plainly, bluntly and straightforwardly state that through their twenty ( 20 ) "Cs":

character defamation,
civil discrimination,
constitution rule violations,
concoction,
clique,
clandestineness,
cheating,
chicanery,
coaxing,
calamity,
contract breach,
confusion,
contradicting information,
concealment of facts,
censorship
cover up,
chutzpah,
contumacy,
collaboration, and
conspiracy

these three defendants have defiantly and irresponsibly been continuing to masquerade themselves in front of the world, including the NAD officials and members, as the "successful and competent deaf international sports leaders, administrators, supervisors and CISS constitution/regulations lawmakers!"

The reality, truth and facts, however, to my much regret, are these: the three persons, among the other things, are the fundamentally inept international sports management executives, reputed abusers of the CISS legal system and CISS anarchists!

In addition, because Jordan, Ammons and Lovett are the ones in the CISS hierarchy who know English, which is the only official language of the CISS, they think that they "single-handedly" or "jointly" "own" the CISS!

Or, they treat the organization of the CISS as their "own personal property!"

To better understand my various allegations against the three CISS anarchists, please visit

www.deafsportlawsuit.com/update11.html
www.deafsportlawsuit.com/update12.html
www.deafsportlawsuit.com/update22.html
www.deafsportlawsuit.com/update23.html
www.deafsportlawsuit.com/update25.html

Because my lawsuit case is venued in the state of Maryland, in which the NAD Home Office as well as its Law Center are domiciled, I must advise each of you that in 2001 and this year I did attempt to enlist the assistance of your Law Center staff attorneys, Mr. Mark Charmatz and Miss Sarah Geer. But the NAD Law Center's position has been like this: it can not and will not help me in any way in my deaf plaintiff vs. deaf defendants lawsuit matter at all!

As a result, I have since September, 2001 been acting as "a pro se attorney" in my legal case against the three defendants.

In light of the above and because Mr. Brick currently maintains his dual position as a salaried NAD functionary as well as private attorney for these three defendants, I am posing the two cardinal questions to each of you:

Is not it a conflict of interest?
Are the NAD and its Law Center's "think tank team" taking the double standard and biased approach regarding this so-called DeafSportLawsuit case by allowing its recently-hired or re-hired staff employee, Mr. Brick, to privately represent the three deaf defendants, on the one side, while denying its Law Center's assistance to this deaf plaintiff, on the other side?

Furthermore, will you please clarify the other six following questions:

1. Whom is the NAD Law Center supposed to help and in what manner?

2. Are the NAD and its Law Center supposed to act as advocates for equal and just rights for any deaf citizen? If so, then is it proper for a NAD staffer like Mr. Brick, let me repeat, to act as an attorney for the three deaf defendants, on the one side, while the NAD Law Center is rejecting its help to a deaf plaintiff, on the one side?

3. Is the NAD or its Law Center supposed to play a neutral role in an all-deaf-only judicial case dispute?

4. Is it an ethically fair position for the NAD, which, as I eloquently understand, primarily espouses its basic fight for equal and just rights for any deaf citizen any place any time, to take a side - direct or indirect - in this ongoing deaf planitiff vs. deaf defendants lawsuit case in Baltimore?

5. Is the NAD or its employee obligated by law to help the three deaf defendants who are the CISS officers? Bear in mind, the CISS is not a NAD affiliate member!

6. Shall the non-sports and non-international organization like the NAD or its employee be implicated - overtly or covertly - in the so-called DeafSportLawsuit case?

I hope the NAD, a well-respected deaf civil rights organization, will respond to this important letter of mine in a timely and appropriate manner.

In case I do not receive your organization's satisfactory reply in due time, then I may be compelled to address the two highly-questionable issues:

1. the dual status of Mr. Brick as a private attorney and NAD staffer, and
2. the double standard stance the NAD and its Law Center are taking in my lawsuit case

before the Supreme Court's Departmental Disciplinary Committee. This judicial Commitee, as you may know, handles the complaints by an aggrieved party against any attorney, who commits his/her alleged act of misconduct or shenanigans.

Lastly, please be advised that I am e-mailing this letter directly to Mr. Brick, Mr. Charmatz and Miss Geer.

In the meantime, I wish each of you a very pleasant holiday season.

Sincerely Yours,

Rafael Pinkhasov Pinchas