As allowed in the documentation provided, email of appeal is being made herewith. There
is an assumption that a copy of the decision was sent to the OSA.
The rationale of appeal is made under sections b), c) and d).
Under the assumption that a copy of the decision was sent to the OSA it is very plain to
the appellant that this is the basic reason why no taping of the hearing was allowed. A
tape of the decision about taping, taken by the hearing Chair, Stephen Troy, was made and
One member of the EODSA, whilst present, is not mentioned in the hearing minutes. This
is a person who incorrectly stated, by shaking her head at several points in the hearing,
that I had never sent in incident or other pertinent reports.
The minutes of the hearing are inaccurate, and not merely because they were not spell
proofed. On page two of the minutes, under Hearing: first paragraph, last sentence:
"Mr. Dickins stated that it was a starter pistol". Incorrect, it was an Ottawa
Internationals player who said that, as he laughed about it. That was what I told the
hearing. This is actually stated correctly in the second paragraph.
In the hearing part of the meeting at Metcalfe Street, I clearly told those present
other pertinent facts about the cause of my creating this situation. These facts are
omitted from the minutes. Firstly, I said that I had sent in several incident reports and
that one in particular regarding an assault had, to my knowledge, never been dealt with.
This concerned a youth side and its supporters, Salvadoreans. Secondly, I was told that I
had never sent in reports about another matter concerning an errant report made by another
referee. Mr. Danny Trickovic stated to the hearing that I had indeed done so. This is not
mentioned. I also quite clearly told the hearing that I had evidence of corruption
regarding examination of people undertaking a Class III clinic. I know that those present
were told that no matter their score, they would pass. I have a witness. Yet again this is
missing from the minutes. It is clear that had I taped the minutes I could verify my
statements respecting these omissions and inaccuracies.
The email and response included below is a result of one or more persons in the EODSA
making prior judgements about my behaviour prior to my appearance at the hearing. This is
in itself a reason for dismissal of their decision. I, or anyone else, have a right for
presumption of innocence prior to trial or hearing or at any other place of judgement.
This fact was not given to me at the hearing. The police, in any event, approved of my
intent and wished me well in my travails.
I was told quite plainly by Mr. Stephen Troy that there was a maximum fine of $50 and
that I could be suspended for one year. Why then was I suspended for eighteen months?
At several times in my experiences as a referee in Ottawa I have had cause to report
incidents. Two at least of the members of the hearing disagreed. That they would do so
without proof is again symptomatic of prior judgement.
The whole point of the exercise was to prove that there is at the worst incompetence,
and probably more likely, rampant corruption in the EODSA and the OCSL. I have pointed out
the referee clinic. I have implied that I was called a liar by Mr. Trickovic regarding
another referee's report when my, and other people's, sworn statement(s), were rejected
even though I was told that the errant referee was deemed to be incompetent. I am a Class
I referee, an Assessor, and someone very clearly who has a reputation to defend. The
actions of various members of the OCSL and the EODSA have clearly been defamatory.
I will be contacting the OSA about the requirement to provide an appeal fee. Firstly, I
am unemployed and believe that to deny my appeal because of lack of funds is inequitable.
Secondly, I believe my appeal is not frivolous and covers matters that were wilfully
hidden from reports made to the OSA. That in itself is proper grounds for an appeal, and,
as a corollary, I do not at any point relinquish my right to approach a solicitor to
obtain damages from the EODSA and its members, as shown in the Addendum below.
- Subject: Appeal: EODSA Case #99-67
- Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999 16:26:23 -0400
- From: Paul Dickins <email@example.com>
- Organization: mattoid, INK
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org,
Addendum for OSA
a) To EODSA,
Not having received any response in the time delineated, this matter will now be taken
to a lawyer. Be prepared for a claim for punitive damages; for a claim for game fees lost;
for costs to be apportioned to you in sum total; for a requirement to have whomsoever
contacted the police to be summarily dismissed for cause; for an absolute apology for
defamation caused by actions committed by or on behalf of the EODSA, not excluding any
other matters and other parties involved in this event.
Furthermore, be advised an appeal for cause against the discipline hearing will be
forwarded by email (and by letter to the EODSA) to the relevant parties.
b) To Ms Keith, EODSA:
It is plain that because the EODSA had called in the Police prior to the hearing there
is a clear case that the EODSA preempted their judgement. In other words, the hearing was
a farce. As I pointed out in my previous email, there were inaccuracies in the letter from
Wittenberg, Manager of the Ottawa Internationals SRII team, to the supposed authorities,
the OCSL. These statements were not clarified or amended prior to the EODSA contacting, in
the end fruitlessly, the Ottawa-Carleton Police.
As I have previously mentioned, the Police will not pursue the matter any further.
(They, again, offered to help me in my crusade). However, it is not pleasant to have a
visit from anyone whilst dressed in one's nightshirt.
Unless I receive an adequate response within five working days I will seek legal
advisement concerning the above delineated action taken by the EODSA.
This action clearly included an outside party and that will quite likely allow me to