The Horner/MSA $50,000 Challenge
Posted: 19 Nov 2004 8:12 pm
The Horner/MSA $50,000 Challenge
In your challenge [http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum15/HTML/007693.htm/ ], you asked me to wager $50,000 with you. I would like you to think about some of the risks involved. Those risks are relevant and you should move cautiously when considering a wager with someone who, in poker is said to have the "nuts." Like poker, betting against someone who "calls" doesn't always mean that you win the "pot". Please consider my concerns and then inform me if you think wagering is going to advance your cause.
You are advocating what is known as a legal debate. But since you feel so confident, why not just sue me? I have said, and will say in more caustic terms, far more than the two people you previously sued. And look at your record there. Those outcomes accomplished nothing but fattening the wallets of all the attorneys involved. So, let's discuss this a bit.
Your challenge is imprecise and lacks specificity. It needs considerable revision as well as the establishment of "ground rules" before even thinking of hiring a licensed arbitrator. Binding arbitration (not mediation) is what both sides would demand at the beginning. Rules for such contests/debates are always established before any such proceedings would begin. That prevents confusion and misunderstanding, as well as ambushes by one or the other party. Even games of chance have rules to play by.
You must know that in civil contests, both sides are always required to introduce all aspects of the statements that were made by the person that is said to have been offensive or outright lied. They also are asked by an arbitrator to provide a "showing of proof" that such claims were falsehoods, slanderous, libellous, etc. If they don't, you can guess the outcome. Remember that this a civil matter, not a criminal one. Neither party has the right to "remain silent." You and your opponent cannot refuse to answer any question asked by the attorneys or the arbitrator. If not answered, or answered dishonestly in the opinion of the arbitrator, it pretty well guarantees a finding for the other side. I think you found that out in your most recent lawsuit, which ended in a standoff and was settled quickly.
As in your previous legal battles, each side will want an attorney (at $200 or more per hour) to approve the ground rules, and surely spend considerable time revising them, before recommending to their clients that they enter the game. If they don't, they're crazy. For example: Simply contesting the information contained in my resume of dealings with the Anderson brothers and the old MSA firm (see Feedback and Testing posts) contains "misstatements of fact" lacks clarity. The connecting word "of" makes the other two words incompatible and conflicting in their usage. The phrase should be "misstatements as facts". This is picky, but as you know, attorneys are picky. That's why they earn so much money. No arbitrator would agree to arbitrate a dispute when the primary premise is conflicted in its own wording. In poker, that is called a "string bet" and disallowed. Additionally, if you claimed that you sent your offer of Resolution to all the old MSA depositors, but they chose not to sign the agreement, no competent arbitrator would view that as "proof" of anything. There is no way to prove that by either side, since the depositors could say they never got the Resolution agreement in the first place. And in fact, many didn't! You surely know that such an offer of proof was exactly what Maurice stated in 1999, in his notorious "15-page letter." He claimed, "they didn't reply to my offer", which was an offer to buy back the worthless stock Anderson had given those depositors as a so-called "goodwill gesture." There is no way to verify such a claim thus constituting a defence that can't be proven. And incidentally, that claim would surely prompt any arbitrator to ask a very significant question, "Why would you and the new MSA owners advertise for all those old depositors to come forth and file a claim?" The arbitrator would rightly conclude that if Maurice admitted to previously having contacted all those old depositors with an offer to buy the worthless stock, he had to have already known the depositors' identities and their addresses! The arbitrator would obviously ask "Why the Forum posting [that you did post] requesting those names and addresses?" What would you say then, when he would ask, "Why advertise for something you already had?" If he knew his poker, he'd say your initial claim of proof was nothing more than a "bluff".
Next. In your wager challenge, I find it coincidental that you are requiring that, in my case, I send money to Dallas. Isn't that what Maurice required in the late '70s and early '80s: "Send the money to me in Dallas and I'll send you a guitar"? The depositors did and he didn't. You obviously expect someone to bear the expense to go to Dallas for the proceedings? In your bet with me, if you are that confident, why not say, "Put $50,000 in an Auckland bank and I'll come there? Or, why not suggest that we each put money in a bank half the distance between us? Your conditions appear a bit lopsided at the outset.
If anyone responded to your challenge, both should compromise and meet each other half way. In Texas I think you refer to that as "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." And by the way, Auckland is more beautiful and has more interesting places to visit than your Dallas Chamber of Commerce could ever tout.
You should also be aware that going before an arbitrator will require the presentation of whatever evidence you have that you believe refutes the many claims I make. You will not be permitted to ambush your opponent with defenses that were not revealed at the outset. That requirement is called "fair play", a concept and expectation that you surely support. A showing of proof prevents an ambush, which arbitrators view as underhanded and devious behavior.
For example, simply saying that all but the three depositors who received some compensation were disqualified because they spoke about their loss to someone else, would not be a credible defence. Why? First, you would have to prove that discussing their loss privately (not publicly) constituted a violation of the "Resolution" agreement you required all those deemed "qualified" to sign. You might want to re-read the "take-it-or-leave-it" agreement you prepared and had to be signed by the depositors. Fortunately, most of those depositors made copies of their stock certificates before sending in the originals. Many say they never got a reply when they contacted you. Additionally, claiming that "all the old depositors failed to provide copies of the stock certificates they were given, would be a ridiculous expectation. Why? Because the Comstock Corporation later asked for the return of those certificates for re-issuing. Once they did, the corporation never returned the
"re-issued" certificates to the depositors! I happen to have the corporation's documents that were filed with the State of Nevada. Those documents reveal that ploy. Hey, I could provide many other examples of erroneous defenses, but I think by now you have the idea.
As an assist while you consider these realities, I will "expose my cards". I will begin sharing with you, and any other interested person, all the documents that I have accumulated over the past 20 years that I received from the depositors and others. As Maurice surely explained to you, the depositors began losing their money in 1979, while MSA still kept building guitars and accepting more deposits from new customers for 3 more years. This occurred even after Maurice moved his production facility to another location in Dallas. Many of those new customers actually got their guitars, while other depositors were targeted as those who wouldn’t. One other person (Paul King who posted on the Forum), even provided Maurice with his guitar on consignment. That was when MSA separated from Micro Inc. At the new location, Paul picked up a new guitar he had ordered. All that is covered elsewhere (Feedback & Testing thread).
The documentation will include many personal letters written to those depositors by Maurice and his brother Jerry. Maurice acknowledges in those letters that the depositors' money would not be forthcoming. I will publish ALL of those documents on a web site I'm creating. I noticed that a Forum member recommended it. I saw no protest from you, so it must be an idea you embrace. Those documents will reveal all the evidence that I have that supports every statement I claim to be fact. Maybe you have some secrets in this matter, but I don't. I would expect that if I accept your challenge, you would be as forthright as I will to be by "exposing my hand" too. To assist, I will include a file on my web site for you. And oh yes, any of your supporters will be offered a file on it too (Fred, save your money for that web site you so eagerly want to obtain. I'll make it a freebie for you, as well as to Hatcher). I'll even expand it to include anyone who might want to get on board ("playing over").
Candor is what any licensed, professional arbitrator would expect from all parties in every dispute. If they are not candid, the outcome is quite predictable. There will surely be minor (and perhaps even a few major) errors on both sides of the presentation of the evidence. In the final analysis however, arbitrators render decisions based on "the preponderance of evidence". Actually, the side that presents the most logical and believable arguments usually holds the "winning hand". It is similar to court trials; sometimes the guilty are acquitted and sometimes the innocent are convicted. Justice isn't always just. Thus, I am giving you the opportunity to refute the specific statements I have made that you allege to be
misstatements. Many Forum members have seen this material already. As you say in Texas, "The horse is already out of the barn." Oops. I'm mixing metaphors. It should be, "I turned up my whole cards."
My records indicate that I sent you one of the documents. There are actually three documents. On my web site, the documents there will look more like a "book". The initial three are currently posted on the Forum's "Feedback and Testing" topic listed under "Other Topics". They are listed as Parts 1, 2 and 3, and should be read in that order. If those posts are ever deleted because of legal threats to b0b from your attorney, I am quite willing to send you hard-copy duplicates.
One of your Dallas' brethren recently offered a prophetic observation about these recurring MSA topics on the Forum. He said, "The Anderson topics will be a yearly event until the complete story is known by his claque of fawning sycophants." He's correct. So, while you're waiting you might want to consider your bet and read the material that will soon. So, rally your shills and have them defend you here. They always show up. You didn't post a deadline (60 days as I recall for your disingenuous "Resolution offer"). That being the case, it looks like it is an open-ended offer. I'll exercise my "option" and wait until the web site is complete before "calling your bet."
Jim Molberg
P.S.: Please proceed to the "Feedback And Testing" topic thread and read those posts in their sequence of Part 1, then Part 2, ending with Part 3.
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Jim Molberg on 20 November 2004 at 04:51 AM.]</p></FONT>
In your challenge [http://steelguitarforum.com/Forum15/HTML/007693.htm/ ], you asked me to wager $50,000 with you. I would like you to think about some of the risks involved. Those risks are relevant and you should move cautiously when considering a wager with someone who, in poker is said to have the "nuts." Like poker, betting against someone who "calls" doesn't always mean that you win the "pot". Please consider my concerns and then inform me if you think wagering is going to advance your cause.
You are advocating what is known as a legal debate. But since you feel so confident, why not just sue me? I have said, and will say in more caustic terms, far more than the two people you previously sued. And look at your record there. Those outcomes accomplished nothing but fattening the wallets of all the attorneys involved. So, let's discuss this a bit.
Your challenge is imprecise and lacks specificity. It needs considerable revision as well as the establishment of "ground rules" before even thinking of hiring a licensed arbitrator. Binding arbitration (not mediation) is what both sides would demand at the beginning. Rules for such contests/debates are always established before any such proceedings would begin. That prevents confusion and misunderstanding, as well as ambushes by one or the other party. Even games of chance have rules to play by.
You must know that in civil contests, both sides are always required to introduce all aspects of the statements that were made by the person that is said to have been offensive or outright lied. They also are asked by an arbitrator to provide a "showing of proof" that such claims were falsehoods, slanderous, libellous, etc. If they don't, you can guess the outcome. Remember that this a civil matter, not a criminal one. Neither party has the right to "remain silent." You and your opponent cannot refuse to answer any question asked by the attorneys or the arbitrator. If not answered, or answered dishonestly in the opinion of the arbitrator, it pretty well guarantees a finding for the other side. I think you found that out in your most recent lawsuit, which ended in a standoff and was settled quickly.
As in your previous legal battles, each side will want an attorney (at $200 or more per hour) to approve the ground rules, and surely spend considerable time revising them, before recommending to their clients that they enter the game. If they don't, they're crazy. For example: Simply contesting the information contained in my resume of dealings with the Anderson brothers and the old MSA firm (see Feedback and Testing posts) contains "misstatements of fact" lacks clarity. The connecting word "of" makes the other two words incompatible and conflicting in their usage. The phrase should be "misstatements as facts". This is picky, but as you know, attorneys are picky. That's why they earn so much money. No arbitrator would agree to arbitrate a dispute when the primary premise is conflicted in its own wording. In poker, that is called a "string bet" and disallowed. Additionally, if you claimed that you sent your offer of Resolution to all the old MSA depositors, but they chose not to sign the agreement, no competent arbitrator would view that as "proof" of anything. There is no way to prove that by either side, since the depositors could say they never got the Resolution agreement in the first place. And in fact, many didn't! You surely know that such an offer of proof was exactly what Maurice stated in 1999, in his notorious "15-page letter." He claimed, "they didn't reply to my offer", which was an offer to buy back the worthless stock Anderson had given those depositors as a so-called "goodwill gesture." There is no way to verify such a claim thus constituting a defence that can't be proven. And incidentally, that claim would surely prompt any arbitrator to ask a very significant question, "Why would you and the new MSA owners advertise for all those old depositors to come forth and file a claim?" The arbitrator would rightly conclude that if Maurice admitted to previously having contacted all those old depositors with an offer to buy the worthless stock, he had to have already known the depositors' identities and their addresses! The arbitrator would obviously ask "Why the Forum posting [that you did post] requesting those names and addresses?" What would you say then, when he would ask, "Why advertise for something you already had?" If he knew his poker, he'd say your initial claim of proof was nothing more than a "bluff".
Next. In your wager challenge, I find it coincidental that you are requiring that, in my case, I send money to Dallas. Isn't that what Maurice required in the late '70s and early '80s: "Send the money to me in Dallas and I'll send you a guitar"? The depositors did and he didn't. You obviously expect someone to bear the expense to go to Dallas for the proceedings? In your bet with me, if you are that confident, why not say, "Put $50,000 in an Auckland bank and I'll come there? Or, why not suggest that we each put money in a bank half the distance between us? Your conditions appear a bit lopsided at the outset.
If anyone responded to your challenge, both should compromise and meet each other half way. In Texas I think you refer to that as "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." And by the way, Auckland is more beautiful and has more interesting places to visit than your Dallas Chamber of Commerce could ever tout.
You should also be aware that going before an arbitrator will require the presentation of whatever evidence you have that you believe refutes the many claims I make. You will not be permitted to ambush your opponent with defenses that were not revealed at the outset. That requirement is called "fair play", a concept and expectation that you surely support. A showing of proof prevents an ambush, which arbitrators view as underhanded and devious behavior.
For example, simply saying that all but the three depositors who received some compensation were disqualified because they spoke about their loss to someone else, would not be a credible defence. Why? First, you would have to prove that discussing their loss privately (not publicly) constituted a violation of the "Resolution" agreement you required all those deemed "qualified" to sign. You might want to re-read the "take-it-or-leave-it" agreement you prepared and had to be signed by the depositors. Fortunately, most of those depositors made copies of their stock certificates before sending in the originals. Many say they never got a reply when they contacted you. Additionally, claiming that "all the old depositors failed to provide copies of the stock certificates they were given, would be a ridiculous expectation. Why? Because the Comstock Corporation later asked for the return of those certificates for re-issuing. Once they did, the corporation never returned the
"re-issued" certificates to the depositors! I happen to have the corporation's documents that were filed with the State of Nevada. Those documents reveal that ploy. Hey, I could provide many other examples of erroneous defenses, but I think by now you have the idea.
As an assist while you consider these realities, I will "expose my cards". I will begin sharing with you, and any other interested person, all the documents that I have accumulated over the past 20 years that I received from the depositors and others. As Maurice surely explained to you, the depositors began losing their money in 1979, while MSA still kept building guitars and accepting more deposits from new customers for 3 more years. This occurred even after Maurice moved his production facility to another location in Dallas. Many of those new customers actually got their guitars, while other depositors were targeted as those who wouldn’t. One other person (Paul King who posted on the Forum), even provided Maurice with his guitar on consignment. That was when MSA separated from Micro Inc. At the new location, Paul picked up a new guitar he had ordered. All that is covered elsewhere (Feedback & Testing thread).
The documentation will include many personal letters written to those depositors by Maurice and his brother Jerry. Maurice acknowledges in those letters that the depositors' money would not be forthcoming. I will publish ALL of those documents on a web site I'm creating. I noticed that a Forum member recommended it. I saw no protest from you, so it must be an idea you embrace. Those documents will reveal all the evidence that I have that supports every statement I claim to be fact. Maybe you have some secrets in this matter, but I don't. I would expect that if I accept your challenge, you would be as forthright as I will to be by "exposing my hand" too. To assist, I will include a file on my web site for you. And oh yes, any of your supporters will be offered a file on it too (Fred, save your money for that web site you so eagerly want to obtain. I'll make it a freebie for you, as well as to Hatcher). I'll even expand it to include anyone who might want to get on board ("playing over").
Candor is what any licensed, professional arbitrator would expect from all parties in every dispute. If they are not candid, the outcome is quite predictable. There will surely be minor (and perhaps even a few major) errors on both sides of the presentation of the evidence. In the final analysis however, arbitrators render decisions based on "the preponderance of evidence". Actually, the side that presents the most logical and believable arguments usually holds the "winning hand". It is similar to court trials; sometimes the guilty are acquitted and sometimes the innocent are convicted. Justice isn't always just. Thus, I am giving you the opportunity to refute the specific statements I have made that you allege to be
misstatements. Many Forum members have seen this material already. As you say in Texas, "The horse is already out of the barn." Oops. I'm mixing metaphors. It should be, "I turned up my whole cards."
My records indicate that I sent you one of the documents. There are actually three documents. On my web site, the documents there will look more like a "book". The initial three are currently posted on the Forum's "Feedback and Testing" topic listed under "Other Topics". They are listed as Parts 1, 2 and 3, and should be read in that order. If those posts are ever deleted because of legal threats to b0b from your attorney, I am quite willing to send you hard-copy duplicates.
One of your Dallas' brethren recently offered a prophetic observation about these recurring MSA topics on the Forum. He said, "The Anderson topics will be a yearly event until the complete story is known by his claque of fawning sycophants." He's correct. So, while you're waiting you might want to consider your bet and read the material that will soon. So, rally your shills and have them defend you here. They always show up. You didn't post a deadline (60 days as I recall for your disingenuous "Resolution offer"). That being the case, it looks like it is an open-ended offer. I'll exercise my "option" and wait until the web site is complete before "calling your bet."
Jim Molberg
P.S.: Please proceed to the "Feedback And Testing" topic thread and read those posts in their sequence of Part 1, then Part 2, ending with Part 3.
<FONT SIZE=1 COLOR="#8e236b"><p align=CENTER>[This message was edited by Jim Molberg on 20 November 2004 at 04:51 AM.]</p></FONT>
