The CISS/Deaflympics Is Not A Lawsuit Party - Press Release

From: DeafSportLawsuit - Oct 11, 2004

October 11, 2004

PRESS RELEASE

THE CISS/DEAFLYMPICS IS NOT A LAWSUIT PARTY

Yesterday, October 10, 2004, the Ammons-controlled www.deaflympics.com issued its Press Release titled DISMISSAL of PINCHAS' LAWSUIT ( note: DEAF TODAY published this Release in its October 8, 2004 edition ).

Once again, Rafael Pinkhasov Pinchas' lawsuit adversaries – Jerald Jordan and Donalda Ammons as reputed deaf anarchists are utilizing their yesterday's Press Release as a misleading propaganda ploy among all the CISS Nation-Members and media.

Among the other things, Jordan and Ammons continue to implicate the fact that the CISS as an organization is a party to my defamation lawsuit matter and that Pinchas filed "a frivolous suit."

The truth and reality, however, are these Pinchas never named the CISS as a lawsuit party and that Pinchas is now rationally, mightily, vehemently and vigorously challenging Judge Nickerson's ruling, including Judge's conclusion that the 'suit is a frivolous one," by filing his ten-paged,four-exhibit-attached appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth District in Richmond, Virginia, USA.

Moreover, yesterday's October 10, 2004 Press Release by Ammons is "an old news," because Judge Nickerson made a decision to dismiss the claim on August 2, 2004 and that Pinchas filed his Appeal to the Richmond, Virginia-based Court on August 30,2003 and that by September 13, 2004, Ammons and Jordan failed to file their Reply before the Court ( Ammons, however, did not report the September 13, 2004 fact in her yesterday's Press Release ).

Below, please read the position statement by Pinchas before the USA Court of Appeals regarding the role of the organization of the CISS in the still-ongoing lawsuit matter, including Pinchas' strongly-worded rebuttal to Judge Nickerson's unjustified and groundless conclusion that "Plaintiff ( Pinchas ) provides no basis for invoking this Court's jurisdiction to pressure Defendants ( Jordan and Ammons ) into submitting to an international arbitral body ( the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne, Switzerland ) to resolve the ongoing disputes between Plaintiff and CISS."

 

                                                ( excerpted version )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 

                                                        Number 04-1993

                                   

                                                     ***************

 

RAFAEL I.PINKHASOV PINCHAS             Plaintiff-Appellant

 

 

                                                  Versus

 

JERALD M. JORDAN,                                               Defendants-Appellees

DONALDA  K. AMMONS,

JOHN M. LOVETT

                                                ***************

                                               

                                    Appealed from the U.S. District Court  

                                          for the District of Maryland

                                                CA-03-2690-WMN

 

            Plaintiff, Rafael I. Pinkhasov Pinchas ( "plaintiff" ) appeals from an Order  made by a Judge William M.Nickerson ( "Judge" ) on August 2, 2004, in which Plaintiff's Complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

 

 Note:

1)      there were 4 different issues raised on this appeal;

2)      of interest to the CISS-Nation Members below is one issue related to Pinkhasov Pinchas' position before the Court, that is, the CISS is not a party to the lawsuit at all as Jordan, Ammons and their attorney  themselves stubbornly claim ( i.e., Jordan and Ammons are shrewdly and intentionally trying to do so  in order to force the CISS Treasury to pay  the exorbitant legal expenses  for Jordan and Ammons, so they both can get "a free ride," by not paying a dollar from their own pockets for their these legal expenses );

3)      Pinkhasov Pinchas never named the CISS as a defendant in any of his lawsuit actions;

4)      instead, Pinkhasov Pinchas has personally and specifically sued Jordan and Ammons ( not the CISS ) because  Jordan and  Ammons ( not the CISS ) defamed Pinkhasov Pinchas.

 

Here are excepts of Pinkhasov Pinchas' appeal statement on Issue Number Four -

Issue Number Four: Judge's conclusion that "Plaintiff provides no basis for invoking this Court's jurisdiction to pressure Defendants into submitting to an international arbitral body to resolve the ongoing disputes between Plaintiff and CISS."

Plaintiff Pinkhasov Pinchas' Rebuttal, Supporting Facts and Arguments:

Under unilateral influence of statements made by Defendants ( Jordan and Ammons ) and without considering, checking up and verifying the relevant facts, Judge chose to implicate the name of the organization of the CISS in this matter.

The organization of CISS is not a party to this instant lawsuit case. The CISS was never named as a defendant in any previous lawsuit action initiated by Plaintiff.

There was no dispute between Plaintiff and the organization of the CISS.

But there were ( and still are ) disputes between Plaintiff and Defendants.

The two Defendants - Ammons and Lovett – 1) in their desperate attempt to continue to retain their power and influence in the CISS; 2 ) in their self-interest and 3) to the detriment of the sports movement among the deaf people in the U.S. and world, had used their tactics of chicanery, dishonesty, anarchism, cover up, autocracy, suppression and manipulation in order to get re-elected to top positions in the CISS in an unlawful manner. The two did so in violation of various CISS Constitution rules. Defendants accomplished this "feat" – i.e., getting re-elected unconstitutionally - at the quadrennial 37th CISS Congress election session held in Rome, Italy, in 2001. Their such an irresponsible behavior in the CISS is a complete contradiction of the ideals, aims and spirit of fair play,

rules observance and implementation, equality, international camaraderie and trust among the peoples who can not hear and/or speak.

This fact - Defendants' illegitimate status in the CISS, including their dubious roles as the international sports anarchists - is known to the CISS-affiliated national organizations ( currently there are 83 countries as the official members of the CISS ). To this minute, this fact has not been disputed or challenged by Defendants themselves.

Another Defendant – Jordan – is the ex-officer of the CISS.

Therefore, the organization of the CISS should not and could not be culpable or liable for any improper act Defendants personally committed against Plaintiff, including the many defamatory statements Defendants had willfully, knowingly and without advance knowledge, permission and consent of the organization of the CISS made against Plaintiff.

Unlike in the previous lawsuit matter involving both Plaintiff and Defendants - CA-01-2758-WMN, Defendants did not submit to this instant lawsuit action their Motion to Intervene the organization of the CISS as a Fourth Defendant pursuant to Rule 19 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thus, the organization of the CISS should not and could not be a party to this lawsuit matter because Plaintiff specifically named Jordan, Ammons and Lovett as Defendants ( not the CISS ) in this ongoing lawsuit matter as well as Defendants never submitted their Motion to Intervene the CISS as a Fourth Defendant for this instant lawsuit action.

Another very troublesome conclusion Judge made was that Judge used the sentence such as "for invoking this Court's jurisdiction to pressure Defendants into submitting to an international arbitral body".

The use and interpretation of this sentence by Judge was exaggerated, mischaracterized and unjustified ones.

A careful and thorough review of the contents of Plaintiff's Complaint showed that Plaintiff merely, simply and plainly wanted to inform the Court

a) the reason why Plaintiff was compelled to file his Complaint against Defendants before the Maryland-based District Court anew, and

b) that Plaintiff made his "unsuccessful attempts to have Jordan, Ammons and Lovett to voluntarily agree to submit to the full jurisdiction of the specialized international sports law dispute court called Tribunal Arbitral du Sport (in French ) or Court of Arbitration for Sport ( in English ), which is based in Lausanne, Switzerland".

Plaintiff, therefore, did not seek Court's help or solicitation, i.e. "for invoking this Court's jurisdiction to pressure Defendants into submitting to an international arbitral body."

Thus, like in his many Memorandum conclusions, Judge produced no proof to substantiate his highly-questionable and groundless statement such as the above.

Overall, Judge's many foregoing conclusion quotes taken out from his three-page Memorandum are devoid of facts which would have entitled Judge, on behalf of the Court, to establish valid and justified grounds for his dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint as well as his vacatur of Order of Default against Defendants.

( Note: again, this appeal was sent to the Court on August 30, 2004; as of today, October 11, 2004, defendants Jordan and Ammons have failed to provide their reply or rebuttal on these appeal statements presented by plaintiff to the Court ).

Thus, an appeal is still pending before the USA Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, USA.

Meanwhile, a very major announcement related to the still-ongoing DeafSportLawsuit

will be made any time soon.

Stay tuned!

Sincerely Yours,

Rafael Pinkhasov Pinchas

www.deafsportlawsuit.com