|
 |
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
|