What did the Lawsuit 4 have to gain?

Triathlon Forum
1

One of the troubling questions that the election lawsuit has brought up is what did the 4 complaintants have to gain. One of the 4, Jack Weiss, won his election so although he probably figures he’ll win again he still runs the risk of a backlash vote if his suit is seen as being politically motivated. The other 3, Buxton, Duke, & Vigorito, despite getting the new election they sued for, didn’t even care enough about their “win” to bother collecting their 30 signatures and throwing their hats back in the ring. So they sued for a new election that together with the suit and election will wind up costing the members of USAT an estimated $200,000 to $300,000 and none of them benefits by the new election. So what was their real motivation?
Did they sue for election reform? The election process is essentially unchanged from the last 10 years and some of these people have been elected several times previously under the process they’re suing against and it was never an issue when they were in power to change it. In fact, non other than Steve Locke himself was defending the process as recently as October of 2003.
“Given our history and all these factors a majority of the Board believed the probability of abuse is extremely low, adopted the methodology for 2003 as covered by the Rules of Engagement and, will seek to adopt secure on-line voting for next year which will address your concerns.” (www.pem-usa.com/USAT/nevin-email.html)

So, do they have a motive they won’t admit to!!!

Let’s ask the hard question. Why would you risk tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees on contesting an election you have no intention of re-entering???

It has been my contention from day one that this lawsuit had one single purpose and that was to hijack the 2003 elections so that Steve Locke and his cronies could be returned to power.
Another troubling point is who’s paying all the legal fees for the lawsuit 4. Much has been made about the 200K to 300K you, me and every other USAT member will ultimately be forced to pay to defend this red herring lawsuit. So who’s paying the freight for the complaintants who don’t even care enough to recontest the election they fought so hard to get by way of a hand picked USOC panel? As the truth has unfolded YOU are! Or at least that’s the plan of the lawsuit 4 and their kingpin Locke. It’s very simple, get me back in power and I’ll see to it that USAT gets the privledge of paying for both the suit against the legally sitting board of directors, and the defense of that suit. Just what will this ultimately cost me and you, just how many annual licenses and one day fees does that add up to?

Now it’s real easy for me to make these allegations as words are cheap, and it would be real easy to dismiss my words as politically motivated since I am backing candidates running directly against the Locke/Weiss machine, so instead of believing me I ask you instead to believe the words of the lawsuit 4 and their group of conspirators themselves. If you download the document Here:
( www.pem-usa.com/USAT/email-thread.pdf )
you will find a document sent to the USOC Blue Ribbon Panel with a string of emails between the conspirators that essentially lays out the plan for Steve Locke to return to power and for all USAT members to pay for the privledge. Very strange that the panel ignored this conspiracy and went a step further in their decision by not just ordering new elections, but opening it up to anyone that wanted to throw their hat in the ring.

JJ Waguespack

2

Let’s ask the hard question. Why would you risk tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees on contesting an election you have no intention of re-entering???

Why do you think the ACLU files all the lawsuits that it does? What does it get out of it, with all the expenses those lawsuits entail? Is it possible that they do it because the outcome is a “good thing”?

(I don’t have a dog in this fight)

3

Actually, if I was in a position to either 1) re-run in the 2003 election, and only be on the board for less than 1 1/2 years, or to run in the 2004 election in a few months and be elected to a 2-year term, I’d hold off for the full length.

4

I know very little about the lawsuit so I cannot comment upon the merits of it. My wife and I are both primarily litigation attorneys so I can comment about litigation generally. My cynical statement about litigation generally is that if it were not for jerks and fools, we would all have to be transactional attorneys, a horrible fate for a litigator.

More seriously, litigation sometimes resolves important disputes, either between private parties or regarding issues of great importance to society. A society cannot function without a good system to resolve disputes, and ours sometimes does this. But, a lot of lawsuits are filed that might have some technical merit, but the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s attorney believe that the case is worth much more than it actually is. It is really easy to end up in this position when the plaintiff and its counsel talk or dream about their best case result instead of being realistic about what the suit can achieve. As a result, the party that ends up with the most from more than half of the lawsuits that I deal with is the law firm defending the case. This is great for us, as we are usually that law firm. But, it is a real shame that more suits cannot be resolved earlier in the process.

I have no idea if this is what happened in this lawsuit and I am not commenting on it. But, I would not be surprised if that is what happened because I see it happening a great deal.

5

… My cynical statement about litigation generally is that if it were not for jerks and fools…
More seriously, litigation sometimes resolves important disputes, either between private parties or regarding issues of great importance to society. A society cannot function without a good system to resolve disputes, …the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s attorney believe that the case is worth much more than it actually is. It is really easy to end up in this position when the plaintiff and its counsel talk or dream about their best case result instead of being realistic about what the suit can achieve. As a result, the party that ends up with the most from more than half of the lawsuits that I deal with is the law firm defending the case…

6

CTL,

I’m not sure why the brilliant reply I typed didn’t appear under the quote…maybe it is a sign :-). But, I really hope I didn’t take the above quotes out of context…that certainly is not my intention. I do mainly plaintiffs work and, although I certainly see extremes going both ways, my view of the system is much different than yours.

First, I have been doing this quite a long time now and believe that I am probably getting less cynical about the system. Although I do see some “jerks and fools” that certainly isn’t the majority and I’d say it is the exception. Most folks I deal with on both sides are honest harding working attorneys doing their best to honestly advocate their clients’ causes - of course someone is going to lose.

Next, you are certainly correct that a society cannot function without a means to settle their disputes, and with all the flaws our system has it is still the best that has ever been invented. The reality of litigation is that someone is wrong 50% of the time. That does have a price to it, but once you close off the system or limit it in some way you then start having a very “closed” society. For most of history of mankind (womankind too), and much of the world still today, rights and decisions were/are made by the rich and/or powerful. Only through a system like ours is there a level playing field for all to have access to some sort of justice. Isn’t this really what the USAT issue was all about, and as someone above stated maybe “it is just the right thing to do.”

Lastly, do you think that possibly your comments about plaintiffs and their counsel perhaps might apply equally to defendants and their counsel? The question I like to ask is why would someone working on a contingency fee “dream” about results when they only get paid if they actually get it? Now, I know what is coming - how about folks taking high risk/high return cases like the tobacco cases. You and I both know that doesn’t add up to .0001% of what really goes on. We only read about the glamor cases, but the vast majority of what goes on is not glamor - it’s just ordinary stuff that’s not newsworthy. This ordinary stuff that noone reads about is what shapes the rights and rules in a society.

OK, let the attacks begin…I should probably stay out of the legal (and religious) threads.

7

I probably don’t disagree with you on most general principles. The Anglo-American legal system is a wonderful institution, with a 800 history of usually moving toward a fairer administration of justice. A few thoughts in response:

I would certainly agree that many defendants will drive up costs in the belief that this will get a better settlement or improve their position somehow even when that is not warranted. The same is true of defense counsel. They fit into my “jerks and fools” category. This is sometimes the case for both litigants, which is great for an attorney working on an hourly fee, but probably not in the economic interests of anyone else.

I don’t think that 50% of litigants are wrong because there can be different perceptions of a situation. Nonetheless, 50% of litigants will lose unless the case is settled. What I think is wrong with the system is that more than 25% of my cases go something like this: (1) we propose a reasonable settlement offer, (2) I am told to do something unnatural and likely impossible, (3) trial court grants my dispositive motion and (4) court of appeals affirms this decision. Great for our law firm; worse for everyone else than not accepting the settlement offer in the first place.

I agree that plaintiffs’ counsel should get paid more, perhaps substantially more, than defense counsel in a good case because they have plenty of cases where they don’t get paid. I think, however, that **some **plaintiffs’ counsel would rather have nine cases dismissed and get a really big hit on the tenth instead of settling all ten for a smaller total amount, but a larger amount for nine of their ten clients.

I do not think that the contingent fees earned by some of the private attorney general that jumped into the tobacco settlement negotiations late are reasonable when you consider the factors in Model Rule 1.5 because there was very little risk of non-payment. This was a far different situation than a plaintiff’s counsel taking a case 20 years ago for a single plaintiff where there was a very high risk of non-recovery. Don’t get me started about asbestos litigation in magic counties.

Finally, if you are a competent plaintiffs’ attorney, you are probably getting better plaintiffs’ cases the longer you practice as your reputation spreads and the better cases come in. This means that your perceptions are not based upon statistically significant observations. I would agree that my perceptions are not either.

Finally, I again reiterate that I do not know enough to judge the merits of the USAT situation other than to suspect that it will end up costing everyone, except some of the attorneys, a lot of money.

8

JJ,

There you go trying to fool everyone by beating a deadhorse under a different topic title. It’s the same thing. I am running again because I did win and I really don’t expect backlash. I am the honest broker here and my record speaks for itself. Sometimes, at least in my mind you do certain things even if they don’t personally benefit you because it’s the RIGHT thing to do! Why is Bill running, afterall he was part of the problem although no one goes after losers. Lew Kidder admitted as much on this forum several weeks ago that he did in fact do some of the things the Panel had problems with.

As for the election, you’re dead wrong on all counts. First this election is NOT being run like those of the past 10 years. Unlike past elections, only original ballots will be accepted, no faxes, no e-mails, no duplicates. Also each USAT member will get only one ballot, number coded and sent directly to the USAT address he/she has listed. Ballots must be filled out and returned by the member directly to USAT, no one can collect them or duplicate them. The election is 2 weeks long, June 14-28. I’d say as usual you’re blowing smoke.

Secondly, we’re paying our own legal fees and unless you have changed careers, I don’t believe how we privately pay our bills as you are not the IRS. You need to move on and try something new because this is NOT working for you. I can tell you the USAT is paying fees for the “evil 3” buddies of yours and Bill. It’s my understanding that Bill is only running to take votes from me for his other friends. Good plan. I want to know how you keep getting world & national championships when every other word I hear, is how you guys botched something in the race? Please give me some answers. I think the conflict of interest displayed by you and Bill is pretty appalling. Tell me is that why you want Girand and Gattis back, so that along with Becker they can help pad your bank account?? Time for you to fess up. You don’t like Steve because he tried to fairly distribute the championships and that would cut into your profits.

Jack Weiss

9

For all of the talking you both do about “doing the right thing”, you both spending an awful lot of time bitching about the “other side”. Is this what you mean by “doing the right thing”? Rather than trying to rip each other a new one, how about focusing on leading USAT into a new era based on ethics, openness, and doing what’s best for the whole of the membership? Or is that too boring?

OK, now let’s get back to it… Who’s going to be the first to say “He started it”???

10

Pooks,

I am. i am running and I have a track record. If you haven’t noticed, I am not here defending myself but someone else and mine is a response. How about you look at the argument and not the players.

jack

11

“There you go trying to fool everyone by beating a deadhorse under a different topic title. It’s the same thing. I am running again because I did win and I really don’t expect backlash. I am the honest broker here and my record speaks for itself. Sometimes, at least in my mind you do certain things even if they don’t personally benefit you because it’s the RIGHT thing to do! Why is Bill running, afterall he was part of the problem although no one goes after losers. Lew Kidder admitted as much on this forum several weeks ago that he did in fact do some of the things the Panel had problems with.”

Wrong as usual Jack, the conspiracy horse is very much alive and the money angle is a brand spanking new topic. But your continueous self proclamation of being the “honest broker here” is starting to sound like a man with a guilty conscience. Me thinks thou doth protesteth too much.

“As for the election, you’re dead wrong on all counts. First this election is NOT being run like those of the past 10 years. Unlike past elections, only original ballots will be accepted, no faxes, no e-mails, no duplicates. Also each USAT member will get only one ballot, number coded and sent directly to the USAT address he/she has listed. Ballots must be filled out and returned by the member directly to USAT, no one can collect them or duplicate them. The election is 2 weeks long, June 14-28. I’d say as usual you’re blowing smoke.”

As usual you have a hard time figuring out the point of my post so let me explain it to you. Before the evil ones came to power, when Locke/Weiss/Plotecia & co held golden rule over the land of USAT, no one gave a shit about election proceedures when ya’ll were in power to fix it. Anyone who cared enough to download the email exchange at www.pem-usa.com/USAT/nevin-email.html will discover that Locke himself was defending it as recently as last October.
I have no problem with the new election proceedures and have always thought it should be a secret ballot. But the side of this equation blowing smoke is the side pretending the lawsuit was all about election proceedure, and that would be yours. You could have sued just for new election proceedures and I would have backed “your side”.

“Secondly, we’re paying our own legal fees and unless you have changed careers, I don’t believe how we privately pay our bills as you are not the IRS.”

Jack you have every right in the world to spend your money any way you want. But please download a copy of YOUR OWN EMAILS with Steve Locke, ( www.pem-usa.com/USAT/email-thread.pdf ) your plan is for ME and THE REST OF USAT MEMBERS to pay for your legal fees and I damn well object to that.

“You need to move on and try something new because this is NOT working for you. I can tell you the USAT is paying fees for the “evil 3” buddies of yours and Bill.”

USAT is legally bound to defend it’s legally sitting board of directors but you constantly keep throwing in Bill’s name from somewhere way out in left field. He is not a party to any suit on either side. Unlike you, he has never sat on the national BOD and has never had the opportunity to vote on any of these issues that you and your group could have fixed long ago.

“It’s my understanding that Bill is only running to take votes from me for his other friends. Good plan. I want to know how you keep getting world & national championships when every other word I hear, is how you guys botched something in the race? Please give me some answers.”

Answers to what?? You heard this, you heard that. As usual you throw out baseless accusations in the hope someone will buy them as truth. I hear many rumors about you Jack but I only post my accusations when I have direct evidence to back them up.

“I think the conflict of interest displayed by you and Bill is pretty appalling. Tell me is that why you want Girand and Gattis back, so that along with Becker they can help pad your bank account?? Time for you to fess up. You don’t like Steve because he tried to fairly distribute the championships and that would cut into your profits.”

Get a clue Jack, of the World Championships we’ve produced we bid directly to ITU and USAT didn’t have the power to award those. Most of the USAT Nationals weve produced were awarded under Locke. About the only high profile races that have been awarded to us under the evil 3 were the Olympic Trials and as you well know our bid was light years ahead of anyone elses. So one again you throw out baseless charges with no truth to back it up.

I at least have actual evidence of mine.

JJ

12

The ACLU? That’s a pretty silly example to make some sort of point with this thread.

The ACLU and its lawsuits have nothing to do with " a good thing" --at least not in America.

Have a point to make?

Try another example Ken.

You have a dog now.

13

The ACLU? That’s a pretty silly example to make some sort of point with this thread.

The ACLU and its lawsuits have nothing to do with " a good thing" --at least not in America.

Have a point to make?

Try another example Ken.

You have a dog now.

After that content-free reply? No, I don’t.

14

For all of the talking you both do about “doing the right thing”, you both spending an awful lot of time bitching about the “other side”. Is this what you mean by “doing the right thing”? Rather than trying to rip each other a new one, how about focusing on leading USAT into a new era based on ethics, openness, and doing what’s best for the whole of the membership? Or is that too boring?

The right thing would have been to go the Dan Empfield route and if the board refused to fix the election process then involk the bylaws and force the issue by petition to be placed on the next ballot. That would have proved where everybody’s motivations were. No one could have opposed a stand alone proposal to fix the election process on an ethical basis.

“OK, now let’s get back to it… Who’s going to be the first to say “He started it”???”

Jack’s right about one thing, (even a blind squirel finds a nut every now and then) There are actual issues here and you, and every other USAT member need to dig through our rhetoric to figure out where the truth lies in those issues. At the very least you should follow the second link I provided in my original post, read that document, and you can at least make a judgement if there’s any basis to my accusations.

JJ

15

I did follow the link and I honestly found it to be very interesting and enlightening reading.

As for the actual issues here, all I’m seeing thrown around are accusations about personal motivations and bickering about personal agendas. While it’s true that a person’s motivations for running are relevent, I’m much more concerned with their plans for improving and running the organization. Those issues aren’t being discussed. You’re simply baiting Jack, and he’s going for it.

You’re clearly a woman scorned. You’re pissed about the manner in which the election was challenged. That’s understandable. But what’s done is done. You can either take the high road and accept the decision and move on, or you can continue to attack those who’ve pissed you off. Maybe the approach you’re taking is the right one and endless bickering, mudslinging, and infighting are the way to build consensus and make change for the better.

16

“I did follow the link and I honestly found it to be very interesting and enlightening reading.
As for the actual issues here, all I’m seeing thrown around are accusations about personal motivations and bickering about personal agendas. While it’s true that a person’s motivations for running are relevent, I’m much more concerned with their plans for improving and running the organization. Those issues aren’t being discussed. You’re simply baiting Jack, and he’s going for it.
You’re clearly a woman scorned. You’re pissed about the manner in which the election was challenged. That’s understandable. But what’s done is done. You can either take the high road and accept the decision and move on, or you can continue to attack those who’ve pissed you off. Maybe the approach you’re taking is the right one and endless bickering, mudslinging, and infighting are the way to build consensus and make change for the better.”

While I’d much prefer to simply argue the issues, the plain truth is that nobody pays attention other than a couple dozen insiders like myself. I cross posted this to RST and have yet to see a single response, good, bad, or indifferent. Do you suppose not a single card carrying USAT member has yet to chance across that post? I’m begining to believe the only way get members to pay attention to the issues is to mix them in with a cat fight. We’re 15 posts into my original thread and no one other than Jack has disagreed, or agreed with my charges. But if you wade through my bickering and accusations, I at least try to give evidence to back them up.

JJ

17

JJ is presenting a side of the topic that no one else has the guts to voice or the inclination to consider. The popular opinion in this forum seems to be that the great wrong was in the election practices. It’s a minor side issue that was given steroids. The lawsuit is a tactical maneuver that has more to do with personal conflicts than with any “higher principles”. That’s not to say that the Director’s are without principles but at this point they’re split into hostile factions and focused on survival. The issue of election practices seems resolved but how that will affect the outcome the special election is questionable. I believe the same people would have won the first time regardless of what procedures were followed. It’s possible that the same people will win again. If that happens, what kind of direction will USAT have? Will it even be possible for them to be in the same room together?

It ain’t over 'til it’s over. And this is a long way from over.

Larry

18

"JJ is presenting a side of the topic that no one else has the guts to voice or the inclination to consider. The popular opinion in this forum seems to be that the great wrong was in the election practices. It’s a minor side issue that was given steroids. The lawsuit is a tactical maneuver that has more to do with personal conflicts than with any “higher principles”. That’s not to say that the Director’s are without principles but at this point they’re split into hostile factions and focused on survival. The issue of election practices seems resolved but how that will affect the outcome the special election is questionable. I believe the same people would have won the first time regardless of what procedures were followed. It’s possible that the same people will win again. If that happens, what kind of direction will USAT have? Will it even be possible for them to be in the same room together?
It ain’t over 'til it’s over. And this is a long way from over. "

Larry brings up a good point that Dan also alluded to in a conversation I had with him the other day. No matter what the outcome of the elections and who ultimately succeeds in getting on the board, we will be stuck with a divided and highly polarized board that view every issue as us against them. I would like nothing more than to have 11 independant individuals running USAT but in view of the polarizing events of the last six months each voter must pick a side instead of a candidate. Until the focal point of this division is permanantly gone I don’t see USAT being able to operate as effectively as it should. I don’t think the best interests of USAT will be served for quite some time yet.

JJ

19

]

Sorry - I’m not going into the booth and putting a single check in the box that says ‘I vote for all of the Democrats’ or ‘I vote for all of the Republicans’. I don’t care whether they’re associated with the Lawsuit 4 or the evil 3, the Dave Clark 5, the Chicago 7, or the Holy Trinity. I’ll vote for the candidates that I feel will contribute the most as individuals.

I’ve had enough of ‘he said, she said’. It’s been adjudicated on - whether I agree or disagree with some or all of the decision, I’m ready to move on. I expect that each newly elected board member will bring forth his or her best ideas, and be open to consider the ideas of both the other newly-electeds, as well as the standing members. Do I expect that there will be a unanimous vote on every item? Not by any means. But I do expect that each one will wipe the slate clean, put all the past months behind them, and work together as a team toward a better USAT.

20

So maybe, in the long run, this could be a good thing. Some times it takes a major conflageration to move things off top dead center. Having watched this thing unfold over the past couple of months, I know that I will be more active/informed. Sure, being a member of USAT makes for a cheaper race season (if I do enough), but as I spend more time listening and understanding some of the issues I’ll see what I can find out about the people running. Like any other despute, there are two sides (maybe more) and none of them are perfect. The election, as previously mentioned, could have had the same results if there had been a true secret ballot. One thing for certain, there won’t be any question (at least for most) that there was no hanky panky in this election. Some things are worth a fight (verbally speaking) for some people and those need to stand by whatever principles they have. They may not be perfect, but I sure like the sounds of what Dan E put together in his package. (I’m in the Mid East region so I can’t vote for him.) Maybe now more people will get involved.

Larry