Did Gary Player Turn a Blind Eye to Justice?

Did Gary Player Turn a Blind Eye to Justice?

(Please note: This  blog includes two stories--one on the Gary Player Group and the other on who originated the concept of The First Tee--that document the challenges Inbounds has encountered. Please read both of them as your feedback is appreciated.)

Gary Player, Marc Player, and the Gary Player Group (GPG) may have turned a blind eye to justice. The following summary describes how Gary Player signed prints to help raise money for charity. He then allowed his company, the Gary Player Group, managed and operated by his son Marc Player, to force the prints off Ebay, feasibly spending more in legal fees than the prints were worth. Despite several attempts to avoid legal issues, neither Gary, Marc, nor anyone within the GPG took action to amicably remedy this situation once they were made fully aware of the circumstances.

In October 1993, Gary Player individually hand-signed and gifted to my organization, Inbounds, Inc., 250 prints of his likeness. Inbounds designed and paid for these limited-edition prints which bore our trademarked slogan "Play Your Game, Live Your Life Inbounds" next to the likeness of Gary Player. Mr. Player knew that the prints were to be owned exclusively by Inbounds, Inc. and were to be sold to help raise funds to support our program that taught golf and character core values to youth.

My name is Donald L. Simons, and I am the President of Inbounds, Inc. Due to significant health challenges and efforts to get my kids through college, I brought the sale of these prints to a halt in 1995. I decided to put Inbounds’ initiatives on hold until I fully recovered and saw each of my three children graduate college. Sadly, my beloved wife passed away during this period, which took my attentions from Inbounds, Inc. as well.

In October 2007, in good faith and high spirit, I sent a letter and signed print #72 to Gary Player in recognition of his 72^nd birthday, November 1, 2007. I had retired from my primary job as a special education/physical education teacher for incarcerated, at-risk youth in 2006, and was moving forward with Inbounds' mission of character enhancement for youth & families. In the letter to Gary, I thanked him for his past support and wished him well in his upcoming feat to break Arnold Palmer’s record of the most appearances at the Masters in April 2008.

Almost immediately I was invited by Debbie Longnecker of the Gary Player Group to come to their North Palm Beach, Florida headquarters. I thought the purpose for the invitation was to discuss the prints and the possibility of the GPG purchasing a couple dozen of them. I soon realized that they wanted to find a way to get my prints off the market. When Gary Player signed the prints in 1993, the GPG did not exist. Now, evidently my prints were in competition with their brand control initiatives.

I met David Farrell, their archives specialist. He took issue with the authenticity of the prints and claimed he knew everything historical regarding Mr. Player. I explained my history and involvement with him in the late 80's through mid 90's. He continued to question the legitimacy of the prints. I then showed him the picture of Gary helping me sell the prints in July 1994. His mouth dropped and said, “I see this is both of you.” He then said he would have to ask his boss Marc Player (Gary’s son) if they had any interest in the purchase. As a good-faith gesture, I offered them at $80-$100, when they were worth a lot more. (During a November 2011 deposition of Marc Player, we found out he receives $375 for the signature alone of Gary Player.)

Upon my return home I received a letter demanding that I cease and desist the sale of the prints, stating I had no rights to them nor the sale of them. This letter contradicts Marc Player's deposition statement that no one knew about Inbounds, Inc. prior to the legal claim.
 

Later, in a legal deposition, Marc Player stated that the prints were authentic.

Inbounds, Inc. hired a company called “iSold It” to sell the prints on Ebay. The prints had certificates of authenticity and the listing noted Inbounds as the owner of the prints. In February 2009, the GPG blocked the sale of the prints that were listed on Ebay, claiming that sale of the prints was illegal and that the prints were misappropriations. They threatened legal action if all prints were not sent back to them. iSold It received a demand from Ebay to take the prints off, so complied.

Inbounds spent approximately $10,000 in legal fees trying to work things out with the GPG. We were trying to keep the case out of court. Our lawyer, Mr. Larry Jordan of the Jaffe Law Firm, made a clear case with the GPG lawyer that the prints were the intellectual property of Inbounds and were never misappropriated. We then asked the GPG to pay reasonable compensation for legal fees and to consider purchasing some of the prints to help Inbounds’ efforts. The GPG stated we would need to take them to court if we wanted compensation. Later, in a deposition, Garnette Brown of the GPG stated that they failed to investigate the authenticity of the Inbounds’ prints. “…this (dispute about the Ebay listing) would have never happened if she (the person who sent the threatening email) had known or done the research.”

Inbounds could no longer afford legal fees, so the esteemed law firm of Pepper Hamilton decided to take our case pro bono. They filed a claim in circuit court in December 2010, which was later transferred to federal court at the request of the GPG lawyers. After months of discovery and laborious investigation, Pepper Hamilton filed a claim in federal court in January 2012, citing “tortious interference and injurious falsehoods claims” by the GPG against Inbounds. Three-plus years, two law firms and seven lawyers later, roughly 24 hours prior to oral arguments set for April 19, 2012, Judge Sean F. Cox stated he would give an opinion order based solely on the submitted briefs from both plaintiff and defendant law firms.

Judge Cox ruled against Inbounds. Since Inbounds’ esteemed lawyers did not get to argue our case in person before the court and we cannot afford an appeal, we now seek the court of public opinion. The information presented in this blog is within the briefs submitted by the law firm of Pepper Hamilton.

***

Questions:

Why didn’t Gary Player step in and tell his son Marc to stop harassing Inbounds? Especially when Jim Applegate hand-delivered a letter from Inbounds, Inc. to Gary, asking him to settle the matter to avoid a legal process. The Jaffe Law Firm provided legal intellectual property documentation, which was also handed to Gary personally by Jim Applegate, and Jim discussed the issue with Gary in February, 2010. Further, in Marc Player's deposition, he acknowledged that his father did recall signing his likeness prints.

Do you think a major law firm would take a case pro bono if they didn’t have a clear-cut claim?


Why did the Gary Player Group spend so much on legal fees to prevent a charitable group from raising funds?

Why did Marc Player still insist that Inbounds had no right to sell the prints even after admitting their authenticity and ownership by Inbounds?

Once Marc Player admitted the prints were authentic, why didn't he settle out of court? Why didn't he offer the market value of the prints and buy them up himself if he was concerned about someone else selling them?

Why didn't Gary Player step up to say he'd signed the prints for charity?

Why did the judge state that Gary Player is “a famous professional golfer”? Does this show partiality?

Why did Marc Player say the GPG had never heard of Inbounds, when we have letters from them dating back to 2007? Why did the judge not address how the GPG said they never heard of Inbounds, when clearly they did?

Isn't it ironic that Gary Player supported projects like Inbounds, but his company then went after this project by demanding the prints be taken off E-bay?

What I would like to see happen:

1. A letter from the Gary Player Group that they will not interfere with the sale of the prints in the future.

2. I want Gary Player to be made fully aware of what he could have prevented, but that instead a lawsuit occurred that crushed a small, non-profit corporation.

Again, our humble thanks for your time in reviewing the contents of our story. We encourage your feedback.  Please feel free to post responses to the blog or send comments to inboundsinc.info16@gmail.com.

Read more of the court documents: Summary of arguments; Response brief in opposition; Counter-statement of disputed facts;  Court claim of Gary Player's support;  Court briefs;  Motion for summary judgment.


Click here to see a video of Inbounds, Inc.'s founders discussing a related story, how The First Tee may have based their program on Inbounds' innovative concepts.