|
 |
TO ALL NATIONAL SPORTS ASSOCIATIONS AND CONCERNED PERSONS
Below are plaintiff Pinkhasov Pinchas' Motion in Opposition to defendants Jordan, Ammons and Lovett's Motion to Strike and Dismiss and Pinkhasov Pinchas' Memorandum of Law, which were filed with the USA District Court for District of Maryland in Baltimore, Maryland, USA, the week of April 1, 2002.
Please be advised that last month defendants have again filed their Motion to Strike and Dismiss the lawsuit, which is a clear indication that defendants are repeatedly attempting to evade in litigating plantiff's meritous Complaint in the Court.
Now, the lawsuit matter is in the Judge's hands to decide whether the parties will go to trial or the case will be dismissed.
In the meantime, we would like to express our thanks to many organizations and individuals for their recent Good Easter wish messages.
www.deafsportlawsuit.com
*************************************************************
In the United States District Court for the District of Maryland
Rafael I. Pinkhasov Pinchas, plaintiff vs. Jerald M. Jordan, Donalda K. Ammons ,
John M. Lovett, defendants
Civil Action Number WMN 01 CV 2758
Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike and Dismiss
1. I am plaintiff and pro se in the above-captioned action.
2. The basic requirements of Rules 8 (a) and (e), 12 (b) and (f), and 41 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Practice are met by plaintiff, therefore, defendants' Motion to Strike and Dismiss should be denied.
3. Plaintiff respectfully refers this Honorable Court to the attached Memorandum of Law in support of this Motion in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike and Dismiss.
Respectfully Submitted,
Rafael I. Pinkhasov Pinchas
Plaintiff and Pro Se
To: Kelby N. Brick
Attorney for Defendants
*************************************************************
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
****************************************
Rafael I. PINKHASOV PINCHAS,
Plaintiff,
vs. Civil Case Number:
WMN 01 CV 2758
Jerald M. JORDAN,
Donalda K. AMMONS,
John M. LOVETT,
Defendants.
****************************************
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE AND DISMISS
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff submits this Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Strike and Dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Verified Complaint.
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of the following counts: discrimination, rules violations, breach of contract, breach of agreement, defamation of character, conspiracy and signature forgery.
On July 21, 2001, plaintiff was denied by defendants the opportunity to take part in an election contest for the International Committee of Sports for the Deaf ( "CISS") Executive Committee position. By knowingly and willfully ignoring plaintiff's unmatched and comprehensive background in the areas of sports administration and leadership, sports journalism, multilingualism, CISS and Deaflympic Games history, defendants committed the acts of discrimination and the CISS Constitution Rule violations.
Other acts of discrimination in 2001 by defendants against plaintiff were these: defendants removed plaintiff from the position of the Chairman of the CISS Awards Commission and defendants denied plaintiff the opportunity to be considered for the vacant and appointed Executive Committee position of the CISS Sports Director.
Twice, in 1981 and 2001, defendants committed contract breaches by refusing to cover plaintiff's expenses as a member of the CISS World Records Commission in Athletics, Swimming and Shooting at the XIVth Deaflympic Summer Games in Cologne, Germany ( mail postage and accomodation ), and Chairman of the CISS Awards Commission at the XIXth Deaflympic Summer Games in Rome, Italy ( accomodation ).
Between 1995 and 2001, defendants committed a series of agreement breaches with plaintiff as a writer for the CISS Bulletin publication and CISS 2001 Review Book and CISS Awards Commission Chairman.
Between 1981 and 2001, defendants were engaged in the acts of defamation of character and conspiracy against plaintiff.
One defendant - Donalda K. Ammons - was twice engaged in the acts of signature forgery against plaintiff.
To date, defendants, through their attorney, have not yet provided their Verified Answer.Instead, defendants have repeatedly chosen to utilize Rules 8 (a) and (e), Rules 12 (b) and (f), and Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in order to strike and dismiss this Complaint in its entirety.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
Defendants have been making every possible effort in running away from justice, that is, defendants' coveted aim in this action is not to go to trial.
Unhappy that plaintiff filed his new Amended Verified Complaint, defendants are again applying to this Court for relief by re-submitting their Motion to Strike and Dismiss and Memorandum of Points and Authorities, whose contents are the very identical ones initially provided by defendants to this Court on October 15, 2001.
In spite of the above, defendants are still praying that this Court will grant their wish: to dismiss plaintiff's Complaint in its entirety for good.
A review of defendants' Motion and Memorandum lists five rules of the Federal
Rules of Civil Practice as grounds for dismissal of this action.
First, regarding Rule 8 (a) , defendants wrote the following sentence,
"Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures requires that a pleading set forth a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. Fed. R. Civ.
Proc. 8 (a)."
While reviewing the authenticity and accuracy of the Rule 8 (a) in the book, plaintiff discovered that there are no such words like "require" or "requires" elsewhere with the Rule. Instead, this Rule in the book clearly states the following,
"A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief, whether an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which the court's jurisdiction depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to support it, (2) a short
and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader entitled to relief, and (3) a
demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. Relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded."
Second, regarding Rule 8 (e), defendants wrote the following sentence,
"Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires each averment of a pleading should be simple, concise, and direct. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 8 (e)."
Again, while reviewing the authenticity and accuracy of the Rule 8 (e) in the book, plaintiff discovered that there are no such words as "require" or "requires" elsewhere
with the Rule. Instead, this Rule, for exampe, has the following sentence,
"Each averment of a pleading shall be simple, concise, and direct. No technical forms of pleadings or motions are required."
Although this Court granted plaintiff the opportunity to submit his new Amended Verified Complaint, plaintiff did so by submitting it in a shortened version ( total 6 pages )
compared to the previous Verified Complaint, which had a total of 39 pages.
Since plaintiff in this action is also a pro se, plaintiff's Complaint is allowed to be
construed liberally and in plaintiff's favor ( see Stone vs. Warfield, 184 F.R.D. 553, 555,
D. Md. 1999 ), plaintiff therefore adhered to the rudimentary dictates of civil procedure ( see Holsey vs. Collins, 90 F.R.D. 122, 125, D. Md. 1981 ).
In the sum, by submitting a new, 6-page Amended Verified Complaint, plaintiff met the so-called "short", "plain", "simple", "concise", and "direct" statement adherence of Rules 8 (a) and (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Practice.
Third, regarding Rules 12 (b) and (f) and 41, by basically adhering to the contents of Rules 8 (a) and (e), as described above, it is therefore unneccesary to present arguments related to these rules since the Amended Verified Complaint clearly and in good faith describes the specific details, including the jurisdiction venue and relief sought.
Furthermore, defendants, in order to garner support, pity and sympathy from all CISS Member Nations, have repeatedly chosen to confuse the world by issuing the misleading publicity on the worldwide website system that the CISS is "also a party to this lawsuit litigation". The eloquent fact was and is that the organization of the CISS was
never and is not a defendant in this action.
Defendants provided to this Court the inaccurate information that the CISS is "managed by an executive committee of eight persons, all of whom are Deaf".
In order to belittle and undermine plaintiff's pro se status position in this action, defendants, through their recent Press Release under the eye-catching COURT THROWS OUT CASE AGAINST CISS headline ( see Amended Verified Complaint, Exhibit A ), used , among the other things, such statements that "plaintiff's lawsuit was baseless and completely unsupported by facts", and that "the law and the court are on our (defendants') side".
The above tactics by defendants are their clear attempts to intimidate and harass plaintiff.
Defendants' above-described actions should not be condoned by this Court and therefore their Motion to Strike and Dismiss should be denied.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated in this Memorandum, plaintiff respectfully requests the following relief:
a) that this Court deny defendants' Motion to Strike and Dismiss,
b) for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: April 1, 2002
Queens, New York
Respectfully Submitted,
_____________________________
Rafael I. Pinkhasov Pinchas
Plaintiff and Pro Se
To: Kelby N. Brick
Attorney for Defendants
Jerald M. Jordan
Donalda K. Ammons
John M. Lovett
|