FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE

On Jan 15, 2015, Mohammed A. Hegazi wrote:

​ Dear Gwen,

I am preparing for an appeal against the payment of $3,086.83 in legal fees to the Association’s barrister. I am of the opinion that [ deleted for legal reasons ].

Appeals have to be made within 21* days from the magistrate’s decision. I need to know if the Committee are agreeable to this action. Had it been an action against Johnsen or Miller, I would not have hesitated. Unluckily, the action would be against the Association, and is sure to stir another round of media negative publicity, regardless of the outcome.

I am only clearing my conscience before lodging the appeal. I would not lodge the appeal if the Association explicitly agrees to pay the barrister the sum of $3,086.83 on my behalf.

Please note that I have already exerted much effort to prevent the escalation of this dispute. In the process, I have made enough financial sacrifices.

I expect your email reply soon, due to time constraints.

Kind regards,

Mohammed Hegazi

*I was wrong there, this should be 28 days

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jan 20, 2015, Mohammed A. Hegazi wrote:

 Dear Secretary and committee members,

 I refer to my email of Thursday 15/01/2015 in relation to my intention to appeal [ deleted for legal reasons ].

 I have stressed the element of time. An appeal must be filed within 21* days from the magistrates’ court decision of 05/01/2014.

 It is not up to me to advise you as to how you would come to a quick decision via deliberation by email, followed by a communication to me by the Secretary, not the President. The President in this context is only one vote out of nine, with no chance of a casting vote.

 I am seeing my solicitor on the morning of Thursday 22/01/2014, with the intention to carry out one of the following two alternatives:

 a. In the case of the committee agreeing to pay the cost ordered against me, I would pay my solicitor his fees and close this shameful case for good. I would also give my word to continue to ward off any media attempts to revive the story.

 b. In the absence of the civility of a reply from the Secretary by 9 am of 22/01/2011, I would issue my instructions to my solicitor to file the appeal and to brief a barrister.

 Please note that this email should not be misconstrued as being a threat from me, by way of obfuscation by one or more members of the committee. It is only a question of time limitation and the need to turn the page by putting this matter behind us. It has already caused enough damage to the Association and myself.

 Six years have elapsed with CJ and MM insisting that they were right, only to admit that they were wrong after those six years.

 Regards to all,

 Mohammed

 * 21 should be 28

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 20 January , carol johnsen wrote:

 Dear Mohammed,

 In reply to your demand for payment of costs awarded against you, the Committee has decided that it will not pay them.

 Yours faithfully,

 CAROL  JOHNSEN

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 On Jan 20, 2015, Mohammed A. Hegazi wrote:

to Gwen, Barry, mal, Marj, Natasha, Norma, Rob, Trevor, carol

 Dear Secretary,

 Please confirm that the committee has delegated the authority to the President to deal with this matter.

 Thank you,

Mohammed Hegazi

Member of ASPA(Vic)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 In the absence of a reply from the Secretary, I assumed that the Committee has decided by way of vote to give the President a free hand to handle this matter. My solicitor received my instructions accordingly.

I will report back to you with the date and location of the appeal hearing. With my limited legal  knowledge, it could be the County Court. Media attention might surpass that at the magistrates’ court. Hopefully, the information passed on to the public might be less sensational and more factual.

From the above correspondence, You can see that such expensive exposure was not my choice. In the case of me winning the appeal, which is the more likely outcome, the cost to ASPA members would be hefty. In the case of me losing the appeal, due to unforeseen legal technicalities, I would still be satisfied by exposing the incompetents. The price would be worth it.

Hopefully, by the end of this needless litigation, or maybe before then, our Association would be blessed by wiser management that does not indulge in conduct unbecoming a committee, in order to achieve narrow vindictive personal whims. In civilised societies, the end never justifies the means.

BALANCED COVERAGE BY A. THOMPSON

Scrabble rouser in court victory as ban ruling overturned

• by: Angus Thompson
• From: Herald Sun
• January 05, 2015

Mohammed A. Hegazi at Ringwood Magistrates court. Picture: Stuart Milligan Source: News Corp Australia

A SCRABBLE player has spelled victory in a court battle to clear his name over findings of misconduct.

Mohammed A. Hegazi served a one-year ban from competitions amid claims of unbecoming conduct by the Australian Scrabble Players Association in 2008.

But Ringwood Magistrates’ Court today revoked the resolution following a long running feud in which Mr Hegazi has fought “tooth and nail” against the decision.

Lawyer Adam Baker, acting for the association, said Mr Hegazi, a former schoolteacher, had complained about the way opponents handled tiles and accused other players of cheating without any basis.

“He was accused of creating an environment where it was unpleasant to play in,” Mr Baker told Ringwood Magistrates’ Court.

The parties agreed during a pre-hearing conference in September 2014 to overturn the 2008 resolution that saw Mr Hegazi slapped with the 12-month suspension.

But his lawyer, Robert Frajsman, asked the court to insert a clause in the terms of settlement revoking claims of cheating levelled against Mr Hegazi in 2008.

Triple word score. Mohammed A. Hegazi has won in court in a battle over Scrabble. Source: News Limited

The court heard that Mr Hegazi had been accused by an onlooker of hiding a tile under his leg during a tournament.

“My client is seeking an express reference to cheating,” Mr Frajsman said.

But magistrate Phillip Ginnane said it was not within his power to revoke that accusation because it had not been subject to the pleadings by the parties.

“There might be a nine-letter word for fail called ‘dismissed’ that may come along,” Mr Ginnane said.

After consulting with Mr Hegazi, Mr Frajsman said his client wished to withdraw the proceeding and accept the settlement put to him by ASPA in September.

Mr Ginnane dismissed the proceeding and ordered ASPA’s 2008 resolution be repealed and that the association announce the court’s decision in its quarterly publication, Across the Board.

But while Mr Hegazi has had the last word, he was ordered to pay ASPA’s costs of $3096.83.

Mr Hegazi said outside court: “it’s a moral win but a financial loss.”

He also reiterated that he was not a cheat.

“There is a group of people who are trying for whatever reason to make that claim stick,” he said.

Asked if he would continue playing Scrabble, he responded: “Yes, I don’t see why not.”

angus.thompson@news.com.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Comment:
Aussie justice is the best you can buy.
Mohammed Hegazi

AMAZING MEDIA ATTENTION

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNacbXS1Upk



It never occurred to me that taking a couple of rascals to court, over a simple matter, would cause such carefully orchestrated media attention.

In the video clip above, the clever reporter of channel 9 did her best to cover the matter in a manner that would be, not only sensational enough to please her bosses, but also balanced enough to allow the viewers to make their own conclusions.

If you are a professional scrabble player you would easily see the absurdity of the claims put forward, to the media, by the two obfuscating representatives of the coven of "?itches". The two incompetents are permanent members on the committee of ASPA(Vic). A glaring example of their incompetence is their desperate endeavour to maintain the bad joke of hiding a tile, which was the brainchild of a sick person, encouraged by another sickening person(s?) on the committee of this miserable association. The rules of the game are explicit. You have to report such contrived incident contemporaneously to the TD. The TD himself (Geoff Wright) said he was watching this particular game together with the half-wit who invented the story. The details are explained clearly in a separate post, but the incompetent culprits would still obfuscate. Read the post of 2012 under the heading The Scrabble Hermit opens up.

Now that I have vented my six-year-old anger, I can only reiterate what scrabble players often say after a narrow win: “A win is a win”.
_____
Quiz:
(1) Who is the "half-wit" to whom reference is made in the above clip? (Clue: Not a member on the present committee).
(2) Who exploited the "half-wit"? (Clue: Two (3 ?) members on the present committee).

HAEMATOMA AND SCRABBLE

This post has been removed upon request from HM. Personally, I don't believe that the two culprits deserve the benefit of the doubt. Both have never displayed such refinement.

Please note that this blog is moderated. I will allow anyone to spout any garbage, if they write under their real name. Also, I would allow and respond to any sensible objective anonymous comments.

MORE EMAILS

From: john safran john@johnsafran.com  07/01/2015

Dear Mr. Hegazi,

I write for Good Weekend, a magazine supplement to The Age and Sydney Morning Herald. I am also a keen Scrabble player. Would I be able to interview you about your Scrabble court battle, and your life more generally, while we play a game of Scrabble? I look forward to hearing back from you.

All the best,

John Safran

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Mohammed A. Hegazi mohammedhegazi@gmail.com 07/01/2015

Dear John,

Thank you for your kind offer of an interview. To be perfectly frank, the entire episode has already suffered enough distortion by the media to the extent that I have decided to put the whole affair behind me. Therefore, I am going to respectfully decline your offer.

All the best,

Mohammed

HELLO HARRY

In reply to your email, there are different ways of looking at the matter. For me it was a lack of faith in the legal system. Yes, we could have started from scratch and employed a barrister with two possible outcomes​:

 

(a) Most likely we win and the Association be bankrupt. That was not exactly a desirable outcome.

 

(b) By a quirk of bad luck and some legal technicality we win but lose much more money, which was not a desirable outcome either.

 

I opted for the cheaper solution, even though many ASPA(Vic) members would be too thick to understand.

In hindsight, The choice to quit on the day was relatively a better choice, since we achieved the moral objective. Besides, natural attrition would take care of the main problem. We could then have two extra memorial tournaments and muse about how good the deceased were.

Reuters Report

Australian Scrabble squabble: ruling body forced to eat its words

By Reuters

Published: 17:51 AEST, 6 January 2015 | Updated: 17:51 AEST, 6 January 2015

      By Byron Kaye
SYDNEY, Jan 6 (Reuters) - A long-running war of words between an Australian and the official Scrabble body has finally been declared a draw by a state court.
The Victoria state magistrates' court ruled that the local chapter of the Australian Scrabble Players' Association must overturn a years-old ruling that retired teacher Mohammed A Hegazi had behaved in a manner "unbecoming" to the popular board game.
But Hegazi failed to persuade the court to declare he had never cheated while playing the 77-year-old game that's played in 121 countries in 29 languages, Hegazi's lawyer Robert Frajsman said told Reuters. Hegazi was also ordered to pay costs of A$3,000 ($2,440).
"Who would have thought that Scrabble would be a blood sport?" Frajsman told Reuters by telephone.
Hegazi had agreed in 2008 to a 12-month suspension from the association after it found him guilty of bullying competitors, cheating and unprofessional conduct. Details of the cheating accusation wre not immediately available.
But despite returning to competition once the ban was up, Hegazi maintained he never cheated and asked the association to overturn its finding.
In mediation late last year, the association agreed to revoke its finding, but Hegazi took the matter to the state court, asking for the body to be ordered to say he never cheated.
Despite failing to have the cheating clause added to the court order, Hegazi feels "justified that he didn't lie down and cop it (and) stood up for what he firmly believed in", Frajsman added.
The secretary of the association's Victorian branch at the time when Hegazi was banned, Marjorie Miller, declined comment. ($1 = A$1.223) (Editing by Nick Macfie)

THE GOOD NEWS I PROMISED

Scrabble squabble over cheating, playing ban settled in Melbourne court

By James Fettes

5 Jan 2015

A Scrabble player has had a one-year ban overturned but lost his battle to have his name cleared of cheating in a Melbourne court.

Mohammed A Hegazi was issued a one-year suspension by the Australian Scrabble Players Association (ASPA) in 2008 over allegations he created an unpleasant environment for players.

The association claimed Mr Hegazi bullied and intimidated opponents, regularly accused them of cheating and, in one case, allegedly cheated himself.

Mr Hegazi served the ban and returned to play years later, but continued to dispute the suspension.

Ringwood Magistrates Court today overturned the ban and ordered the ASPA print a statement saying the suspension had been revoked in their quarterly magazine, Across The Board.

However, Magistrate Phillip Ginnane said it was not within his power to order the ASPA to make a declaration he had not cheated.

The magistrate also ordered Mr Hegazi pay the ASPA's costs of $3,096.83.

The lawyer representing Mr Hegazi, Robert Frajsman, said the matter was fraught with emotion.

"We are dealing with passionate members of this vocal community," Mr Frajsman said.

Mr Hegazi runs a "Scrabble detective" blog, about Australian Scrabble rules and governance.

Parties previously reached agreement

The court heard the parties had reached an in-principle agreement at a pre-hearing conference in September 2014, but after the agreement was made Mr Hegazi requested the ASPA explicitly state he did not cheat.

"That's why we're here, because we haven't been able to finalise the wording of the agreement," Mr Frajsman said.

But the lawyer representing the ASPA, Adam Baker, said Mr Hegazi had agreed to the settlement without that clause.

"There was no discussion of any word to do with cheating [at the pre-hearing conference]," Mr Baker said.

"We shouldn't be here, and yet we are."

Two hours into the hearing, Mr Frajsman told the court his client would, in fact, agree to the original settlement terms.

Magistrate Phillip Ginnane then made orders to officially revoke the ban.

Outside court, Mr Hegazi said that despite the settlement, the exclusion of the so-called cheating clause was disappointing.

"I'm a bit disappointed because the definition {of conduct unbecoming} is not legally clear," Mr Hegazi said.

"The accusations (of cheating) still stick because they have not been specified."

But asked if he would continue to play Scrabble, Mr Hegazi did not hesitate.

"Yes, there's no reason why not," he said.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The final words on this matter: People with dignity do their hardest to preserve their dignity. People with no dignity cannot lose it, they continue in their positions of presumed power.

M A Hegazi