DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Simply TKD (Taekwondo)
HTML https://simplytkd.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Taekwondo in General
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3--------------------------------------------------
Herb Perez Lawsuit Against USAT & Kim Sol
DIR By: Ladytkd
Date: May 26, 2014, 11:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For those who don't know, last fall, after the Governance Task
Force report became public, Herb Perez sued the USAT, Kim Sol
and Jane and John does 1-25. How many of you who know Herb
personally have heard him remark, as he did to me way too many
times to count, that he likes to sue people even if he didn't
have a strong case so that they have to come to California to
defend themselves and hire an attorney and cost them money. He
said it to me, even to his attorney who agreed with me that Herb
had said it to him! Well IMHO California law caught up with Herb
when he wasn't looking.
From Wikipedia - only because they have the easiest definition
for the layperson to understand:
[quote]"A strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP)
is a lawsuit that is intended to censor, intimidate, and silence
critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until
they abandon their criticism or opposition.[1]
The typical SLAPP plaintiff does not normally expect to win the
lawsuit. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant
succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple
exhaustion and abandons the criticism. A SLAPP may also
intimidate others from participating in the debate. A SLAPP is
often preceded by a legal threat. The difficulty is that
plaintiffs do not present themselves to the Court admitting that
their intent is to censor, intimidate or silence their critics.
Hence, the difficulty in drafting SLAPP legislation, and in
applying it, is to craft an approach which affords an early
termination to invalid abusive suits, without denying a
legitimate day in court to valid good faith claims."
Seems that USAT filed an anti-Slapp answer and won.
[quote]"The tentative ruling on the special motion to strike is
adopted. The Court finds Defendant has established the action
arises from an act in furtherance of free speech or petition
rights within the meaning of CCP §425.16(e)(2). The Court
further finds that Plaintiffhas failed to meet his burden to
show a probability of success on the merits of his claim.
Specifically, Plaintiff has failed to establish, through
admissible evidence, that Defendant published the allegedly
defamatory statement and that the publication was made with the
requisite malice."
Best thing about anti-Slapp rulings? Seems if you lose one, you
have to pay the defendant's attorney's fees. I have heard USAT
is asking about $54,000 in attorney's fees (the insurance
company). I am sure the judge will reduce that amount, but even
cutting it in half is a large amount of money. In that Mr. Sol
learned that his homeowner's insurance covers defamation claims,
he wasn't out money either. From what I can see, Mr. Perez is
the only one having to pay here.
Karma is a witch. Mr. Perez's attorney contacted me with the
option of giving a statement against Mr. Sol (after the ruling
by the judge part of which is posted above, more to come). I was
given three days to make this statement, which they wrote for
me, or they would be adding me to the lawsuit. I refused to sign
the statement which frankly would have been perjury. With an
anti-Slapp ruling already against Mr. Perez in this case, it
seemed a safe bet. Apparently, Mr. Perez decided recently to
dismiss the case against Mr. Sol with prejudice, which means Mr.
Perez cannot file it again. Perhaps he realized that he could
end up owing more than one set of attorney's fees.
The really stupid thing here is that report was not about Mr.
Perez. The posting of it was to show governance alternatives.
The report is so long that maybe a handful of people read it or
wanted to read it because the majority just didn't care.
We all also owe Mr. Sol a debt of gratitude, as he got the
report placed into evidence in the case. Because it is a public
record, I am told that Mr. Perez can't file any more suits on
anything that is in that report.
It is IMHO a shame that Mr. Sol and the USAT had to deal with
this matter. Getting attorney's fees doesn't return the time and
energy that went into defending against the "strategic lawsuit
against public participation (SLAPP) " in the first place. It
would seem to me that Mr. Perez has finally met Karma face to
face.
I will be posting some of the documents in this matter later
this week. When you read them, you will see this was a lot of
time and a lot of effort for what?
Edit Delete Hide
Quote Reply
avatar
Panther
Interact
Posts: 941 184.6.117.142
#1 [url]
May 13 14 8:53 AM
Re: Herb Perez Lawsuit Against USAT & Kim Sol
Funny!!! Lots of Karma waiting to be paid...HP is not the only
one with a Karma debt...what goes around comes around...
Guess somebody got slapped!
Edit Delete Hide
Quote Reply
avatar
Ladytkd
Interact
Posts: 2,821 184.191.61.107
#2 [url]
May 13 14 9:10 AM
Re: Herb Perez Lawsuit Against USAT & Kim Sol
Seems the whole case is a public record -
HTML http://openaccess1.sanmateocourt.org/openaccess/CIVIL/civildetails.asp?courtcode=A&casenumber=524434&casetype=CIV&dsn=&movetodate=&startdate=&sort=&start=50
Edit Delete Hide
Quote Reply
avatar
Bagehot
Interact
Posts: 786 71.32.55.87
#3 [url]
May 13 14 4:30 PM
Re: Herb Perez Lawsuit Against USAT & Kim Sol
That "Complaint" is pretty entertaining.
"Plaintiff Herbert Perez was a 1992 gold medalist in taekwondo
during its appearance as a demonstration sport at the Summer
Games held in Barcelona, Spain." Under oath, that reads
considerably differently, more carefully, than some statements
made "not under oath."
Then, it gets interesting. "Mr. Perez" of course was a
contractor with and for the USAT. The USAT in turn had a
financial and political relationship with WTF.
He states in his Complaint: "In 2005, Mr. Perez was selected by
the World Taekwondo Federation as the USA Representative in the
sport."
But wait, the USAT Code of Ethics in place at that time:
"USAT defines a conflict of interest as any personal or
financial relationship that could influence or be perceived to
influence your objectivity when representing or conducting
business for, or on behalf of USAT.
"For example if (1) personal or financial interests exist with
any person or concern with whom USAT has a business or other
relationship and (2) the other relationship or interest could
influence or be perceived to influence the objectivity of your
decisions, you must:
a. Disclose the interest to the Chair of the Board, who shall
refer the matter to the Ethics
Committee for further consideration; and
b. Excuse yourself from any formal or informal discussions
related to the relationship
between USAT and the person or concern; and
c. Abstain from voting and from seeking to influence the vote on
any matter related to the person or concern."
--- Bagehot
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1