A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sam Scores Glorious Victory



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 1st 04, 03:48 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess,alt.chess
Sam Sloan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,558
Default Sam Scores Glorious Victory

Sam Scores Glorious Victory

A hearing was held today in Orange County Supreme Court in Goshen New
York in Sloan vs. Marinello, 2004-7739. The USCF represented by
attorney Michael J. Matsler of Rider, Weiner & Frankel filed a
cross-motion to dismiss.

The case was argued before Judge Lawrence I.. Horowitz. At the
conclusion, the judge ordered the case adjourned for ten days until
December 10, and ordered the bank account at Key Bank in Newburgh
which contains the $513,000 representing the proceeds of the sale of
the building frozen until further order of the court.

Judge Horowitz said that he wanted counsel for the USCF to stipulate
that the money would not be moved out of the Key Bank in Newburgh.

The attorney for the USCF replied that he would agree to stipulate
that the money would be held in an FDIC Insured Bank.

The judge said that no, he was ordering that the money stay in the
bank in Newburgh. He was not agreeing to allow the money to be moved
to a bank in another state absent an order of this court.

Since this is what I was asking the judge to do, I consider this to be
a complete victory.

It seems clear that the judge will not allow the money to be moved
until there is a showing that it will be used for a proper purpose.
Since the defendants have thus far refused to state what the purpose
of the move of the money is, much less whether the purpose is proper
or not, I think that it is likely that it will be a long time before
the money is moved at all.

Sam Sloan

  #2  
Old December 1st 04, 04:12 AM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess,alt.chess
Chess One
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,003
Default Sam Scores Glorious Victory

I thought that an independent person would also have 'questions' Sam.

I see that all those who thought you had no objective reason for your action
must now reconsider, since an impartial consideration by a justice has
concurred to freeze half a million dollars pending further developments.

I had personally only been asking for an open newsnet discussion. Meanwhile
no doubt we will continue to hear about your armpits and people's
understanding of George bloody Orwell

Phil Innes

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
Sam Scores Glorious Victory

A hearing was held today in Orange County Supreme Court in Goshen New
York in Sloan vs. Marinello, 2004-7739. The USCF represented by
attorney Michael J. Matsler of Rider, Weiner & Frankel filed a
cross-motion to dismiss.

The case was argued before Judge Lawrence I.. Horowitz. At the
conclusion, the judge ordered the case adjourned for ten days until
December 10, and ordered the bank account at Key Bank in Newburgh
which contains the $513,000 representing the proceeds of the sale of
the building frozen until further order of the court.

Judge Horowitz said that he wanted counsel for the USCF to stipulate
that the money would not be moved out of the Key Bank in Newburgh.

The attorney for the USCF replied that he would agree to stipulate
that the money would be held in an FDIC Insured Bank.

The judge said that no, he was ordering that the money stay in the
bank in Newburgh. He was not agreeing to allow the money to be moved
to a bank in another state absent an order of this court.

Since this is what I was asking the judge to do, I consider this to be
a complete victory.

It seems clear that the judge will not allow the money to be moved
until there is a showing that it will be used for a proper purpose.
Since the defendants have thus far refused to state what the purpose
of the move of the money is, much less whether the purpose is proper
or not, I think that it is likely that it will be a long time before
the money is moved at all.

Sam Sloan



  #3  
Old December 1st 04, 01:08 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess,alt.chess
Rob Mitchell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 30
Default Sam Scores Glorious Victory

WOW!
(Sam Sloan) wrote in message ...
Sam Scores Glorious Victory

A hearing was held today in Orange County Supreme Court in Goshen New
York in Sloan vs. Marinello, 2004-7739. The USCF represented by
attorney Michael J. Matsler of Rider, Weiner & Frankel filed a
cross-motion to dismiss.

The case was argued before Judge Lawrence I.. Horowitz. At the
conclusion, the judge ordered the case adjourned for ten days until
December 10, and ordered the bank account at Key Bank in Newburgh
which contains the $513,000 representing the proceeds of the sale of
the building frozen until further order of the court.

Judge Horowitz said that he wanted counsel for the USCF to stipulate
that the money would not be moved out of the Key Bank in Newburgh.

The attorney for the USCF replied that he would agree to stipulate
that the money would be held in an FDIC Insured Bank.

The judge said that no, he was ordering that the money stay in the
bank in Newburgh. He was not agreeing to allow the money to be moved
to a bank in another state absent an order of this court.

Since this is what I was asking the judge to do, I consider this to be
a complete victory.




It seems clear that the judge will not allow the money to be moved
until there is a showing that it will be used for a proper purpose.

What would be considered a "proper ourpose" by the judge?

Since the defendants have thus far refused to state what the purpose
of the move of the money is, much less whether the purpose is proper
or not, I think that it is likely that it will be a long time before
the money is moved at all.


What if the move was to secure a better interest rate? Would not being
a good money steward dictate that one shoud get the best possible
return on investment?

Rob Mitchell
Sam Sloan

  #4  
Old December 1st 04, 01:50 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess,alt.chess
Harold Buck
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default Sam Scores Glorious Victory

In article ,
(Rob Mitchell) wrote:

Sloan vs. Marinello, 2004-7739



If this Marinello guy is rated 7739, why isn't he world champion?

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson
  #5  
Old December 1st 04, 02:07 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess,alt.chess
David Ames
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default Sam Scores Glorious Victory

"Chess One" wrote in message news:[email protected]
I thought that an independent person would also have 'questions' Sam.

And quite possibly such questions will arise in ten days' time while
the case is adjourned.

I see that all those who thought you had no objective reason for your action
must now reconsider, since an impartial consideration by a justice has
concurred to freeze half a million dollars pending further developments.

Or, pending adjudication of prior actions, such as the alleged evasion
of New York State Not-for-Profit law.

I had personally only been asking for an open newsnet discussion. Meanwhile
no doubt we will continue to hear about your armpits and people's
understanding of George bloody Orwell

Phil Innes

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
Sam Scores Glorious Victory

A hearing was held today in Orange County Supreme Court in Goshen New
York in Sloan vs. Marinello, 2004-7739. The USCF represented by
attorney Michael J. Matsler of Rider, Weiner & Frankel filed a
cross-motion to dismiss.

The case was argued before Judge Lawrence I.. Horowitz. At the
conclusion, the judge ordered the case adjourned for ten days until
December 10, and ordered the bank account at Key Bank in Newburgh
which contains the $513,000 representing the proceeds of the sale of
the building frozen until further order of the court.

Judge Horowitz said that he wanted counsel for the USCF to stipulate
that the money would not be moved out of the Key Bank in Newburgh.

The attorney for the USCF replied that he would agree to stipulate
that the money would be held in an FDIC Insured Bank.

The judge said that no, he was ordering that the money stay in the
bank in Newburgh. He was not agreeing to allow the money to be moved
to a bank in another state absent an order of this court.

Since this is what I was asking the judge to do, I consider this to be
a complete victory.

It seems clear that the judge will not allow the money to be moved
until there is a showing that it will be used for a proper purpose.
Since the defendants have thus far refused to state what the purpose
of the move of the money is, much less whether the purpose is proper
or not, I think that it is likely that it will be a long time before
the money is moved at all.

Sam Sloan

  #6  
Old December 1st 04, 03:08 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess,alt.chess
Chess One
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,003
Default Sam Scores Glorious Victory


"David Ames" wrote in message

I see that all those who thought you had no objective reason for your
action
must now reconsider, since an impartial consideration by a justice has
concurred to freeze half a million dollars pending further developments.

Or, pending adjudication of prior actions, such as the alleged evasion
of New York State Not-for-Profit law.


Dear David Ames,

For me, Larry Parr has already made the substantive point: that this
injunction is no goal in itself, merely the legal means and opportunity to
advance a real dialog about USCF's future.

Phil Innes


  #7  
Old December 1st 04, 08:49 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess,alt.chess
Wlodzimierz Holsztynski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Sam Scores Glorious Victory

Harold Buck wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Rob Mitchell) wrote:

Sloan vs. Marinello, 2004-7739



If this Marinello guy is rated 7739, why isn't he world champion?

--Harold Buck


Sex discrimination.

-- Wlod
  #8  
Old December 1st 04, 09:28 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess,alt.chess
Larry Tapper
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 385
Default Sam Scores Glorious Victory

"Chess One" wrote in message news:[email protected]
"David Ames" wrote in message

I see that all those who thought you had no objective reason for your
action
must now reconsider, since an impartial consideration by a justice has
concurred to freeze half a million dollars pending further developments.

Or, pending adjudication of prior actions, such as the alleged evasion
of New York State Not-for-Profit law.


Dear David Ames,

For me, Larry Parr has already made the substantive point: that this
injunction is no goal in itself, merely the legal means and opportunity to
advance a real dialog about USCF's future.

Phil Innes


Hmm, to this political outsider, it looks more like the plot of the
Scorsese/DeNiro film King of Comedy. Rupert Pupkin is an aspiring
standup comedian who lives with his mother and is repeatedly snubbed
by potential employers. So he kidnaps a famous late-night talk show
host to secure a spot on the show. I suppose you could call this
"advancing a real dialog", if you like.

LT
  #9  
Old December 1st 04, 09:42 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess,alt.chess
Chess One
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,003
Default Sam Scores Glorious Victory


"Larry Tapper" wrote in message

Hmm, to this political outsider, it looks more like the plot of the
Scorsese/DeNiro film King of Comedy. Rupert Pupkin is an aspiring
standup comedian who lives with his mother and is repeatedly snubbed
by potential employers. So he kidnaps a famous late-night talk show
host to secure a spot on the show. I suppose you could call this
"advancing a real dialog", if you like.


Dear Larry Tapper,

All the talk is here is currently about what USCF can or cannot currently
get away with under the law - and laws represent minimum standards of
behavior acceptable in any society. At the moment they do not appear to have
been met, hence the funds 'freeze'.

What Larry Parr has suggested is that we attempt something beyond the lowest
common denominator, the law, and the legal freeze affords us time and
opportunity to attempt a 'highest common factor', which is culture.

I agree with him that the issue is sufficently important to merit such a
debate.

Cordially, Phil Innes

LT



  #10  
Old December 1st 04, 10:27 PM posted to rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess,alt.chess
David Ames
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default Sam Scores Glorious Victory

(Rob Mitchell) wrote in message om...
WOW!
(Sam Sloan) wrote in message ...
Sam Scores Glorious Victory

A hearing was held today in Orange County Supreme Court in Goshen New
York in Sloan vs. Marinello, 2004-7739. The USCF represented by
attorney Michael J. Matsler of Rider, Weiner & Frankel filed a
cross-motion to dismiss.

The case was argued before Judge Lawrence I.. Horowitz. At the
conclusion, the judge ordered the case adjourned for ten days until
December 10, and ordered the bank account at Key Bank in Newburgh
which contains the $513,000 representing the proceeds of the sale of
the building frozen until further order of the court.

Judge Horowitz said that he wanted counsel for the USCF to stipulate
that the money would not be moved out of the Key Bank in Newburgh.

The attorney for the USCF replied that he would agree to stipulate
that the money would be held in an FDIC Insured Bank.

The judge said that no, he was ordering that the money stay in the
bank in Newburgh. He was not agreeing to allow the money to be moved
to a bank in another state absent an order of this court.

Since this is what I was asking the judge to do, I consider this to be
a complete victory.




It seems clear that the judge will not allow the money to be moved
until there is a showing that it will be used for a proper purpose.

What would be considered a "proper ourpose" by the judge?


Judges don't generally answer hypothetical questions. It's up to the
organization to state and justify their purpose.


Since the defendants have thus far refused to state what the purpose
of the move of the money is, much less whether the purpose is proper
or not, I think that it is likely that it will be a long time before
the money is moved at all.


What if the move was to secure a better interest rate? Would not being
a good money steward dictate that one shoud get the best possible
return on investment?


Yes. Just petition the Court to such effect. However, there is some
likelihood that the New York AG's office will assert control of the
funds.

Rob Mitchell
Sam Sloan

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
VICTORY [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 May 8th 06 03:05 AM
Kryukov's amazing victory - 6 man EGTB sharing Vincent Diepeveen rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 December 21st 05 02:38 AM
Portuguese Opening scores 60% for White Lloyd Uhler rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 0 November 20th 05 04:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.