The Horner/MSA $50,000 Challenge

Jim Molberg · From: Auckland New Zealand

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.

[This message was edited by Jim Molberg on 20 November 2004 at 04:51 AM.]

Jim Peters · From: St. Louis, Missouri, USA, R.I.P.

Mr.Molberg, I have received info from you and Maurice. This issue is not as black and white as you would want it. The reason that people can incorporate is to take financial and legal responsibility away from their personal resources. The new company is not the old company, regardless of what happened,and as such owes no one anything. What happened was a long time ago, why not just let it go? I mean you no disrespect, nor anyone else on this forum, and think the "Horner challenge" is ridiculous any way you "cut"it. Peace, JP

Eric West · From: Portland, Oregon, USA, R.I.P.

There's no financial or legal responsibilty?

Kind of like being "born again".

That clears it right up.

So Everything's OK then...

EJL

Ivan Posa · From: Hamilton, New Zealand

Jim's 3 detailed posts in the Feedback and Testing Topic make interesting reading. I see no reason this subject should go away and be swept under the carpet.

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

Fred Shannon · From: Rocking "S" Ranch, Comancheria, Texas, R.I.P.

"In Texas I think you refer to that as 'What's good for the goose is good for the gander'."

No Molberg, In Texas we say you keep messing with a bull long enough and you'll find his horns.

I'm certainly appreciative of your offer to furnish me a website, but I can probably afford to buy one as well as you. Don't know that for certain, but I'll "wager" you that.

Nuff said. Again this ain't gonna' go anywhere but to the hard feelings bin. Keep it up. BTW who cleaned up Auckland, the Aussies?

fred

------------------
The spirit be with you!
If it aint got a steel, it aint real

Jim Peters · From: St. Louis, Missouri, USA, R.I.P.

Eric, my last band was incorporated, the only one in St. Louis. The reason was so if the band(company) failed, creditors, enemies, clients, the state couldn't go after my house. Or if a speaker fell on someones head, that person, couldn't sue me or anyone in the band, only the band itself. If the band folded, none of the expenses could be recovered from us persons, only the corporation. I'm not talkin bout moral responsibility, but who here can judge another? Especially from so long ago. I can't.None of the old bands expenses carry into my new band. It's just common business 101.JP

[This message was edited by Jim Peters on 20 November 2004 at 03:35 AM.]

Rick Garrett · From: Tyler, Texas

Edited because momma always said if you can't say something nice......

Rick

[This message was edited by Rick Garrett on 20 November 2004 at 06:53 AM.]

Clyde Lane · From: Glasgow, Kentucky, USA

I will wager that this thread gets a padlock before long.

Clyde

Rick Garrett · From: Tyler, Texas

I would too. Now thats a fairly good bet.

Rick

Eric West · From: Portland, Oregon, USA, R.I.P.

JP.

You caught me being facetious.

I know. I just got done with an interesting "focus group" inre to such things. I'd feel stupid going on an on about how much business law I'm familiar with. I don't want to come across as being a simpleton either...

There are many things that laws, LLC charters, and other corporate protections and lawyers don't protect you from.

They can't make people like you.

One of the advantages the poster has over the onlookers is that he can't be sued by people that don't like what he says, living in New Zealand.

That's worth noting for those having comments.

I don't think any of us wants "The Horn".

Ask Seymour. Or Mr Bradshaw.

:0

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 20 November 2004 at 09:28 AM.]

Dave Horner · From: Heath, Texas, USA

Jim,

MSA Pedal Steel Guitars LLC that was formed in 2002 ("MSA")has and had no obligation for any matters related to the "old MSA" that discontinued business sometime in the early 1980s.

Nonetheless, because the MSA principals wanted to, they developed the RESOLUTION Process, a process by which any depositor of the "old MSA" who had not received a steel guitar in exchange as a result of the demise of the "old MSA" could, during the specified period, provide some evidence that he or she had been a depositor and register in the Process.

Quite a few people registered in the Process and continued in it to completion. Two who registered did not continue to completion having been disqualified by their own actions(one of those was a bit of a different situation but for this purpose that person is considered as a registrant). One of those persons later received an offer from MSA and so noted it on this Forum. Those two cases were discussed publicly on this Forum.

MSA made arrangements with those who completed the Process to completion. Those arrangements were agreed to by the individual participants and the individuals received monetary compensation, or guitar discounts to be used at a time of their choosing. The participants were not restricted by MSA from discussing such arrangements after the conclusion of the Process. They were also not required to discuss it.

You continue to tell people that only three were compensated. That is simply not true.

However, if you wish to attempt to prove it's true, then accept the offer. You know as well as I do that you will never accept that offer.

You continue to pound the table because you have no facts to back up your contention that only three were compensated. But you won't accept.

A good portion of your life's work seems to be a quest to make up stories and obsess about letters and events you say were written or occurring 20 some years ago. I can respond only regarding the company which was formed 20 years or so after you say those things took place.

And that response to you remains the same.

The offer of mediation still stands. However, you and I both know that you won't accept.

Your may rant and rave and call names and kick and scream and point fingers and make up stories and salivate and generally disintegrate. But you won't accept.

Dave

Dave Horner · From: Heath, Texas, USA

Jim Peters,

My response was, of course, to Jim Molberg and not to you.

Dave

Jim Cohen · From: Philadelphia, PA

This asinine attempt to keep digging up dirt is disgusting. Get a life, Molberg.

Paul King · From: Gainesville, Texas, USA

While I posted a lengthy posting concerning this subject, I have no proof of what the new MSA has compensated depositors. I do know I was disqualified from the process but later I did receive an email from Kyle Bennett making me an offer. I thought that did show some character from the company to make me an offer after they had disqualified me from the process. I feel the offer was in line with the same offer the depositors were offered, three times the purchase of a new guitar. While I would rather had been compensated with the cash I did accept the offer Kyle Bennett made to me. I will say even though I have never played one of the MSA guitars of today nor have I heard one in person, I do believe they look great. They are pricy to say the least. I guess time will tell how well the new MSA guitars will do in the market for steel guitars today.

Eric West · From: Portland, Oregon, USA, R.I.P.

Time will tell.

EJL

[This message was edited by Eric West on 20 November 2004 at 10:27 AM.]

Craig A Davidson · From: Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin USA

Being an innocent bystander I would like to know why we have to keep dragging this thing thru the mud? When other businesses go bad people don't keep picking at them. JimMolberg I don't know what your hard on is for MSA but if you don't like them move on. If you have a beef take it up with Reece and/or a lawyer. While I'm on it the guy that didn't get his Emmons: Get a lawyer and go to court if you have proof. You already have have 12 pages of postings on the topic. What are we waiting for? Until we use up all of bOb's webb space and nothing still happens? I am not against helping someone but they must also help themselves.

Edited for spelling

[This message was edited by Craig A Davidson on 20 November 2004 at 10:47 AM.]

Ken Lang · From: Simi Valley, Ca

I'd have to agree with Craig. We are tired of the drivel and the whine. Take the problems to a lawyer and resolve it there. Stop cluttering up the Forum with unresolved issues and name calling. Take it offline and fix it there.

Roger Shackelton · From: MINNESOTA (deceased)

The people who keep responding to this topic are just keeping it alive. Silence is a better way to end it.

Roger

b0b · From: Cloverdale, CA, USA

I have a better way to end it.

Forum Index > Steel Players		Next oldest topic :: Next newest topic