Dear Mr. Katz:
It has been some time since our last communication on the above-referenced matter, however, HIC is not satisfied with ONE’s withdrawal of their claim of ownership of HIC’s materials as stated in your letter of August 12, 2002.
In said letter you support ONE’s position to said materials by referring to typewritten minutes of the March 5, 1997 ONE Board Meeting where John O’Brien reported that the HIC Board has decided to merge its collection with ONE. You go on to cite a hand-written note from the same meeting which states: “Executive Director Report: John O’Brien Homosexual Information Center - will become a special collection of ONE Inst. For files, while their books and periodicals will be integrated into main ONE Library...” As you are aware, Mr. O’Brien is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of the Board of Directors of HIC. Therefore, he had no authority to make such a representation to ONE’s Board. In fact, HIC never agreed to merge its collection with ONE’s Library, and any such representations made to ONE’s Board by Mr. O’Brien were untrue and fraudulent. Based upon your argument Mr. O’Brien could have reported anything to ONE’s Board and just because the Board voted on the matter, any individual or corporation would be bound by ONE’s vote and be compelled and subsumed at ONE Inst.’s discretion. Had ONE’s Board performed even the simplest due diligence by contacting the Chairman of HIC’s Board they would have been informed of the falsity of Mr. O’Brien’s representations.
In your August 12, 2002 letter you go on to state that an effort to integrate HIC’s books and periodicals in the main ONE library was made with Jim Schneider’s knowledge. This is simply false. Jim Schneider never agreed to such an integration and if in fact an integration took place it was without Mr. Schneider’s, or any other representative of HIC’s, knowledge or consent, and therefore tantamount to an illegal taking. Mr. Schneider is a respected and established member of his community and has informed me of his willingness to testify as to this fact.
In addition, in your letter you misstate my telephonic representations to you when you state that it is “[my] client’s position...that John O’Brien’s report to ONE Institute Board was a total fabrication and that HIC’s position is that is simply decided in 1997 to store its files at ONE’s facility.” HIC acknowledges that there was an agreement to allow them to store their materials at ONE’s facility. However, the mere fact that HIC agreed to house their materials at ONE’s main library is not the same as agreeing to integrate their collection into ONE’s. In retrospect it seems clear that ONE, or certain individuals involved with ONE, promised HIC autonomy with their collection without any intention of keeping their promise and for the sole purpose of persuading HIC to store their materials in their library so that once HIC’s materials were accessible to ONE they could begin to pilfer HIC’s collection.
In addition, your suggestion that it is not credible that ONE would have provided free storage of HIC’s files is without merit. The facility at 909 West Adams was provided to ONE Inst. By USC at no cost to them and therefore they incurred no expenses by allowing HIC to store their property their. More importantly, there was significant value to ONE in having such a large collection being stored at their location. The two collections being stored together created the largest archive of its kind in the country, which was of great value to ONE. This is the reason why ONE is making its false claims of ownership in the first place. If the materials are not of value to ONE, why does it make a claim to them now?
In your letter you further express your confusion by stating that “If there was not agreement along the lines reported by John O’Brien to the ONE Board, then why did Mr. Schneider go along with the integration of HIC’s books and periodicals into ONE’s library? And, if all of the files were clearly understood as belonging to HIC, then why did Mr. Schneider and Mr. White sneak in on Christmas Eve to remove the documents, rather than have HIC simply request their return? We also find it puzzling that your clients have no relevant documents whatsoever. If HIC is an entity in good standing, it must have board meetings and minutes which would at least make some mention of this matter.” I will address your concerns in turn.
To begin with, as I stated above, Mr. Schneider did not go along with the integration of HIC’s books and periodicals into ONE’s library. HIC was promised their own separate space and that it would be adequately secured. Despite their repeated complaints, the door to their storage area was never equipped with a working lock and materials began to mysteriously disappear. What ONE refers to as integration is simply and illegal taking of HIC’s materials. HIC never agreed to, nor intended for their collection to be integrated with ONE’s. Mr. Schneider and Mr. White were forced to remove their items that Sunday in order to protect the assets of the organization and prevent any further stealing of their materials. Due to the fact that their items were vanishing on a regular basis, they feared that if they informed ONE of their intent to remove the materials, ONE Inst.’s librarians would attempt to steal as much of it as possible before they could get it out.
As to your questions about HIC’s lack of documentation surrounding the agreement to integrate their collection into ONE’s, we cannot provide you something that does not exist. It is ONE that is making the claim that such an agreement exists. The reason why HIC has no minutes or records which support Mr. O’Brien’s claims is due to the fact that HIC never made any representation to Mr. O’Brien which support his claims. The fact that HIC has no such documents simply supports their contention that no agreement to integrate the collections was ever entered into. In fact, HIC’s minutes do show that as long ago as 1995, the directors of HIC had requested a written proposal from ONE detailing that HIC’s materials were only to be stored at ONE’s facility and not to be given to or combined with ONE’s collection. Such an agreement was never provided by ONE, leading to further doubts about ONE Inst.’s original intentions in this matter. A further note of concern is that ONE has failed to produce an agreement or proposal supporting their claim of ownership in this matter. The only documents ONE has produced which make any reference to this matter are the unilaterally bias minutes of their own Board meetings.
While your letter withdraws ONE Inst.’s claim of ownership of the disputed materials, it does so subject to ONE Inst.’s right to seek enforcement of the 1967 settlement agreement. This is clearly a contradiction in terms and makes your waiver meaningless. The materials that were the subject of the 1967 agreement were properly distributed in 1967. It is a show of bad faith that ONE has not make any claim or dispute as to that distribution in over 30 years, but now uses it as a basis for its claim. Furthermore, it has come to the attention of HIC and this office that ONE Institute is not a party to the 1967 settlement agreement. The true organization which was party to that agreement was ONE, Inc., which has been acquired, and is now solely owned by the organization ISHR. ISHR has agreed to confirm this fact. As such, your client, ONE Inst., has absolutely no right to enforce the 1967 agreement and subsequently no claim to HIC’s materials.
Every day that HIC is unable to archive their collection within the archival facilities at California State University at Northridge due to your client’s unwarranted claims, HIC incurs damages in the form of storage fees, administrative costs, and loss of revenue. HIC has recently received substantial funding and community interest and is prepared to litigate this matter to its resolution. In the event litigation is necessary HIC would proceed with claims for intentional interference with business relations, fraud, defamation. In addition, it is possible that ISHR may join for ONE Inst.’s continued fraudulent use and impersonation of their organization. The complaint will include requests for legal fees and costs as well as punitive damages for the clearly intentional actions conducted by ONE Inst. In an effort to avoid that end, HIC is requesting ONE Inst.’s full and complete withdrawal and release of its claim of ownership to any and all of HIC’s documents and/or other materials, without condition. Copies of said release should be forwarded to this office, the Director’s of HIC and to the attorneys at California State University at Northridge. We look forward to receiving said release within the next 20 days.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter or our representation of our client in general, please do not hesitate to contact me by telephone at the number indicated herein or by e-mail.
Sincerely,
Spencer B. Lugash
Attorney at Law
cc: Kevin Jeter, Cal State Northridge
Todd White, HIC
Jim Schneider, HIC
Michael Flattery, Esq., attorney for HIC
