|
Press Release - October 21, 2005
Note: to translate this material in your native language,
visit
USA COURT FOR DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MAKES DECISIONS:
1) COURT IS NOT PROPER FORUM TO RESOLVE DISPUTES BETWEEN DEAF PLAINTIFF AND DEAF DEFENDANTS 2) COURT REJECTS $1 MILLION CLAIM BY DEAF ANARCHISTS AMMONS AND JORDAN VS. DEAF OMBUDSMAN PINCHAS 3) CISS/DEAFLYMPICS WAS NOT A PARTY TO LAWSUIT
Yesterday, on October 20, 2005, the Press Office of the
CISS/Deaflympics has issued to the world its brief and
vaguely-worded Press Release with its propaganda-themed
U.S. District Court of Maryland Rejected Pinchas' 4th
Civil Action Suit headline ( see Press Release below )
Once again, defendants Donalda Ammons ( herein, "Ammons" )
and Jerald Jordan ( "Jordan" ) - individually or jointly
or through their attorney from the National Association of
the Deaf ( NAD ) Kelby N. Brick or the Press Office of the
CISS/Deaflympics - have failed to clearly and truthfully
explain as to what actually happened with the lawsuit
case, including what was decided by the Court and why the
Court dismissed the case, etcetra.
Ammons and Jordan or their attorney Kelby N.Brick have
also continued to irresponsibly, intentionally and
misleadingly imply that the organization of the CISS/Deaflympics
was involved as a lawsuit party.
By utilizing the above-mentioned questionable propaganda
tactics, especially among the 94-nation-members CISS/Deaflympics
organization and its leaders, Ammons and Jordan have again
"painted" themselves as the "true lawsuit battle winners,"
while Pinchas is "a loser!"
However, the facts and reality were and are quite
different ones.
For the purposes of clarification, rebuttal, accurate and
fair reporting, here are the following facts.
On March 2, 2005, plaintiff Rafael Pinkhasov Pinchas ( "Pinchas"
), appearing as a pro se, submitted his defamation of
character lawsuit action against four ( 4 ) different
defendants - Ammons, Jordan, Bobbie Beth Scoggins (
"Scoggins") and the United States Deaf Sports Federation (
"USADSF" ).
The organization of the CISS/Deaflympics, like in the
previous lawsuits, was not specifically named by Pinchas
as a party to this lawsuit action.
Like in the three previous lawsuit actions filed in 2001
and 2003 ( twice ) by Pinchas against Ammons and Jordan on
an individual basis, the Court in Maryland again dismissed
Pinchas' claim this time. Such a dismissal was principally
based on the fact that "this Court is not a proper place
or it has no jurisdction over disputes related to the
internal rules" of deaf organizations such as the
CISS/Deaflympics.
Additionally, here are the main points outlined in Senior
Judge William M.Nickerson's 11-paged Civil Action Number
WMN-05-629 Memorandum Decision recently:
- "While the Court can understand Pinchas' frustration at
being precluded from serving a very worthy cause about
which he is obviously passionate, this Court has
repeatedly indicated to Pinchas that the federal courts
are not proper forum to resolve his disputes with Ammons,
Jordan, Scoggins and USADSF;"
- "As for the requirement of joinder of CISS/Deaflympics,
Ammons and Jordan have proffered nothing to establish that
CISS/Deaflympics is a necessary party in this action.
While the Complaint repeatedly mentions the USADSF and it
might be inferred that the Individual Defendants ( that
is, Ammons, Jordan and Scoggins ) were acting on behalf on
that organization, the Complaint does not, as Ammons and
Jordan claim, "refer to action taken by CISS/Deaflympics,"
That Ammons' and Jordan's actions may have taken place at
CISS/Deaflympics events is not a basis, without more, of
imputing liability to CISS/Deaflympics;"
- "Turning to the counterclaims and motion for sanctions
filed by defendants Ammons and Jordan, the Court notes
that there is a certain insubstantial element to them as
well. To support their "Malicious Prosecution" claim,
Ammons and Jordan reference the four previous suits that
Pinchas has filed against them and then assert that they
have "incurred attorney fees" and "suffered extreme mental
and emotional anquish as a result of Pinchas' "deliberate
and malicious actions." Ammons and Jordan ask for
$1,000,000.00 in damages. Ammons and Jordan have clearly
failed, however, to state a claim for malicious
prosecution...Here, Ammons and Jordan have not pled the
requisite special damages to support a malicious
prosecution claim;"
- "While Ammons and Jordan did file a motion for
sanctions, Paper Number 11, they did not do so under the
procedures prescribed in Rule 11. Rule 11 states that a
motion for sanctions shall first be served on the opposing
party and "shall not be filed with or presented to the
court unless, within 21 days after service of the
motion...the challenged paper, claim, or defense,
contention, allegation, or denial is not withdrawn or
appropriately corrected." Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 11 ( c) 1 ) ( A ). Ammons and Jordan
indicate in their certificate of service that they served
the motion to Pinchas at the same time as they filed their
motion with the Court and thus, were not in compliance
with Rule 11. The motion for sanctions will be denied."
The Memorandum Decision, among the other things, also
stated that "this suit arises out of a highly contentious
and long standing dispute amongst the parties" and that
"Defendants ( Ammons, Jordan and Scoggins ) "have
conspired to prevent him ( Pinchas ) from having any
active role in the international deaf sports community."
In the meantime, a legal battle between the CISS/Deaflympics
Ombudsman ( Pinchas ) against two deaf sports anarchists (
Ammons and Jordan ), Scoggins and USADSF continues.
Another and separate discrimination lawsuit involving
Pinchas as a plaintiff vs. the same four defendants is
still pending before the USA District Court for the
District of South Dakota in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
|
|||||||||||
