IM this article to a friend!

May 18, 2004

Is Gallaudet University a Party to the Lawsuit?

From: Deafsportlawsuit - May 18, 2004



Washington, D.C., USA, May 17, 2004 - Here are highlights of today's Superior Court matter titled Felix Shlimovich, plaintiff, against Vyacheslav ( "Slava" ) Klimov and Donalda Ammons, defendants:

*Plaintiff Shlimovich and defendant Klimov showed up at the Court, while the other defendant Ammons did not.

*Kelby Brick, deputy director of the NAD Home Office appeared at the Court as an attorney for defendant Ammons. However, Shlimovich objected to Brick's appearance as an attorney for Ammons because he as an attorney had no official status with the Court, that is, Brick failed to file the Court-required Notice of Appearance as an Attorney on behalf of Ammons in advance of today's scheduled trial.

*A large number of witnesses were in attendance at the Court.

* A mediation session to settle out-of-the-court matter between Shlimovich and Klimov was held in the presence of a Russian Sign Language interprteter. Since defendant Klimov, among the other things, provided inconsistent statements about the alleged loss/theft of the videotape - the main issue of the Statement of Claim - both opposing parties failed to agree to settle.

*Because of Ammons's non-appearance at the Court, Brick's timely failure to file his Notice of Appearance as an Attorney and non-showing up of certain vital witnesses on the plaintiff' side, the Magistrate Judge Ronald Goodbread granted Shlimovich's Motion to postpone the trial to a new date of August 23, 2004.

* The Court has also issued separate subpoenas to appear as witnesses at the next trial date of August 23, 2004 for the three persons: Jerald Jordan, Ammons' accomplice and CISS advisor-anarchist, Nikolay Klimov, father of defendant Slava Klimov and President of Russian Deaflympic Committee and Jakov Frenkel, brother-in-law of Slava Klimov and Vice President of the Russian Deaflympic Committee.

Following the end of the Court session, plaintiff Shlimovich made the following statement:

"I am very frustrated with defendants' continued irresponsible behavior, evasiveness and non-cooperation, especially with Ammons. Without Court's advance consent and my prior knowledge, Ammons by herself decided not to attend today's trial. According to the court-produced papers dated May 3, 2004, she, instead, flew to Switzerland for the CISS Executive Committee meeting and GAISF Congress. Furthermore, on May 3, she by utilizing the official stationery of Gallaudet University informed the Court that she and Slava Klimov would not be able to attend the trial on May 17. Strangely, Slava still showed up at the Court today.

I am also very puzzled that Ammons sent to the Court that May 3, 2004 letter by using the letterhead of GALLAUDET UNIVERSITY.

Is Gallaudet University a party to this lawsuit?

Who gave Ammons the ethic and professional right to use the name of Gallaudet University stationery since I named both Klimov and Ammons ( not Gallaudet University ) as defendants in my Statement of Claim?

Confusingly, on that same May 3,2004 letter Ammons placed her signature by representing herself as "a 2nd Plaintiff." Who gave her the right to call herself as a plaintiff?

I have in good faith tried to settle with Klimov but our settlement talks broke off primarily because he ( Klimov ) made a number of conflicting statements related to the mysterious disappearance of my property - the videotape of the 37th CISS Congress and 2001 Deaflympic Summer Games.

I am also uncertain whether it is appropriate for a NAD ( National Associattion of the Deaf in the USA ) employee like Brick to get involved in this Court action as an attorney for defendant Ammons and advocate for defendant Klimov since the NAD, including its much-publicized Law Center, is viewed as a civil rights organization that defends the just and equal rights of EVERY deaf citizen. This ongoing judicial matter, as you now see, purely involves deaf plaintiff and deaf defendants, therefore, is Brick as the NAD employee supposed to be impartial and neutral in this all deaf-only-litigants' court case, is not he?

Because of the above-named reasons I am very disappointed that no trial took place at the Court premises today."