SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF ORANGE
______________________________________________x

SAM SLOAN,

Petitioner,
Index
No. 2004-7739

DECISION & ORDER
-against-


BEATRIZ MARINELLO, TIM HANKE, STEPHEN
SHUTT, ELIZABETH SHAUGHNESSY, RANDY BAUER,
BILL GOICHBERG, KENNETH M. CHADWELL, AND
UNITED STATES CHESS FEDERATION,

Respondents.
______________________________________________x

HOROWITZ, JSC,

Petitioner Sam Sloan moved, by Order to Show Cause, for an
order:

(1) freezing the United States Chess Federation (USCF)'s bank
account, which contained $513,000, realized as proceeds of the sale of
the USCF's headquarters building in New Windsor, Orange County, during
September 2004;

(2) granting a temporary restraining order, and permanent
injunction, enjoining Respondents Marinello, Hanke, Shutt, and
Shuaghnessy, from taking any actions, including hiring, or firing,
employees, entering into contracts, or otherwise using any USCF's
funds;

(3) granting a temporary restraining order, a preliminary
injunction, and a permanent injunction. restraining USCF, and its
agents, from effectuating its move to Crossville, Tennessee, or
anywhere else, without leave of this Court;

(4) enjoining Respondents Marinello and Hanke from signing any
checks or transferring USCF funds;

(5) enjoining Respondent Chadwell (corporation counsel for
Crossville, Tennessee) from "harassing" the USCF Board, by filing, or
threatening to file, any litigation to compel USCF to move to
Crossville, Tennessee.

(6) removing Respondents Marinello, Hanke, Shutt, and
Shaugnessy, from the USCF Executive Board, and barring them from
election to the USCF Executive Board, in the future, and

(7) such other relief as the Court may find just and proper.

Opposing the requested relief, the Respondents cross moved.
for an order dismissing the petition, and denying the Petitioner's
motion for preliminary injunction and order of attachment, pursuant to
CPLR ?˜404(a) and Rule 3211, on the grounds that

(1 ) this Court lacks personal jurisdiction, over the
Respondents, by reason of the Petitioner's failure to effectuate
lawful service of process;

(2) this Court lacks personal jurisdiction, pursuant to CPLR
?˜302, over the Respondents (other than Goichberg), as
non-domiciliaries (see, International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 US
310 [1945]);

(3) Petitioner failed to state a cause of action, for which
this Court can grant relief.

The Respondents also seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs,
pursuant to Part 137 of the Rule of the Chief Administrator of the
Courts.

The following papers, numbered 1 to 6, were read on this
motion and cross motion:

Order to Show Cause, Petition, Memorandum of Law 1
Affidavit of Sam Sloan with attachment 2
Notice of Cross Motion and Affirmation in Opposition 3
Respondent's memorandum of law 4
Reply Affidavits (2; 5
Correspondence from the Attorney General 6

Based on the above papers, the various branches of the
Petitioner's motion are DENIED; and the Respondents' Cross Motion is
GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

Background

The instant action involves an internal dispute between the
USCF and certain members, concerning the USCF's Executive Board's
decisions to sell certain real property located in Orange County and
move the organization's headquarters outside of New York State. The
dispute involves certain business decisions that the Executive Board
made concerning the location of the corporate headquarters and the
sale of certain corporate assets.

Respondent USCF is an Illinois corporation, doing business in
New York State. It is a foreign Not-for-Profit Corporation,
functioning within this state. The corporation lists no Registered
Agent, with the Secretary of State, and maintains its managing office
in Orange County.

As the immediate cause of this action, the Petitioner objects
to the fact that the corporate Respondent sold its Orange County real
estate, without the approval of the New York State Attorney General.
Further. the Petitioner maintains that the Respondents have set out on
a series of willful unauthorized activities, that will result in
moving the corporate headquarters out-of-state.

The Respondents maintain, that as a foreign corporation, USCF
is not required to obtain the permission of the New York State
Attorney General to sell its real property in New York State. While
not a party, the Attorney General, by November 29, 2004, letter,
advised that no notice was given to the Attorney General, prior to the
sale of this real property (see, Not for Profit Corporation Law
?˜?˜510 and 511). The Attorney General also pointed out that the
Petitioner raised a number of procedural and substantive question
regarding membership and board approval, as well as placement of the
proceeds in an escrow account.

A hearing was held, in this matter, on November 30, 2004. At
that time, the Respondents were temporarily enjoined from, among other
things, transferring certain funds that the USCF had received from the
sale of the Orange County real property.

Legal Discussion

Before determining the various substantive issues that the
Petitioner raised, concerning this foreign not-for-profit
corporation's actions, this Court must initially deal with a
jurisdictional issue raised in the Respondent's cross motion, i.e.,
that this Court lacks jurisdiction because the Petitioner failed to
personally serve the various Respondents.

Respondents maintain that the Pro Se Petitioner never
personally served his petition upon the various Respondents and served
the Order to Show Cause delinquently without supporting papers.

On review of this record, the Court agrees with the
Respondents that personal jurisdiction has not been obtained over
either the corporation or the individual Respondents.

Concerning personal service, the Petitioner admitted, in his
"Reply to the Affidavit of Bill Goichberg," that the Petitioner
maintains that it was impossible to personally serve the Respondents,
since at least two of them were in Spain at the time service was
required. The Plaintiff felt that serving the Respondents, at the
USCF's headquarters, was sufficient to obtain jurisdiction, because
the Respondents failed to list other addresses in the various
corporate web sites and other publications. Further, the Petitioner
felt mailing a copy of the papers to 27 individuals was adequate
notice, together with e-mail, because all twenty seven individuals
would have known about this litigation (Sloan's Goichberg Affidavit TT
5 to 12).

The Court reviewed the various Affidavits of Service, and
related papers. and concludes that those affidavits involve service of
the Order to Show Cause only, not service of the notice of petition or
the petition. Further, Respondent Goichberg's affidavit denies that
Goichberg receiving timely personal service of either the Petition, or
the Order to Show Cause.

In the Order to Show Cause, this Court required that the Order
to Show Cause be served by personal service, on or before November 22,
2004. The Petitioner made no attempt at personal service until
November 23, 2004, and only the order itself appears to have been
attempted to be served.

Because of this Court's determination concerning personal
jurisdiction, there is no purpose in examining the Petitioner's
various issues, or the Attorney General's correspondence, concerning
the failure to request his office's approval of the sale. Likewise,
the Court will express no opinion concerning the Respondents' other
arguments, involving the Respondents' status as non-domiciliaries,
under CPLR ?˜302.
Relying on the foregoing, any preliminary relief, awarded to the
Petitioner, is revoked and cancelled.

Nevertheless, this Court's decision here must not be viewed as
approval, of the sale of the USCF's real property, or as sanctioning
that organization's move out of New York State.

Part 137 Attorneys Fees and Costs

Finally, the Respondents, under Part 137 of the Rules of the Chief
Administrator of the Courts, request attorney fees and costs in this
matter. This relief is not appropriate here (see generally Rules of
the Chief Administrator of the Courts ?˜137.1)

WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED that all branches of the Petitioner motion, in this matter,
are DENIED, and it is

ORDERED that any preliminary relief, awarded to the Petitioner, is
CANCELED and REVOKED, and it is

ORDERED that the branch of the Respondents' cross-motion, seeking
dismissal of this action, for failure to obtain personal jurisdiction
over the Responsents, is GRANTED, and it is

ORDERED that the branch of the Respondent's cross motion seeking
attorney fees and costs, pursuant to Part 137 of the Rules of the
Chief Administrator of the Courts, is DENIED, and it is

ORDERED that the remaining branches of the Respondents' cross motion
are DENIED, as moot.

The foregoing constitutes the decision of this Court.

Dated: Goshen, New York
January 10, 2005

______________________
HON. LAWRENCE IVAN HOROWITZ
SUPREME COURT JUSTICE


Sam Sloan
Petitioner Pro Se
331 Beach 32nd Street, Apt. MK
Far Rockaway, New York 11691

Michael J. Matsler, Esq.
Counsel for Respondents
650 Little Britain Road
New Windsor NY 12550

On 16 Apr 2005 19:05:43 -0700, "Spam Scone"
wrote:


Sam Sloan wrote:

In the Order to Show Cause, this Court required that the Order
to Show Cause be served by personal service, on or before November
22,
2004. The Petitioner made no attempt at personal service until
November 23, 2004...

Larry, Phil, where are your posts in support of Sammy-come-lately? It
sounds like the court was unfair to Sam Sloan - after all, they
expected him to meet a deadline.

The question is whether one day lateness in serving personally an
order to show cause deprives the court of jurisdiction.

I do not believe that it does and that at most my adversary would be
entitled to more time if he requests it, which he did not.

In fact, he appeared and answered on the return date and filed
volumenous papers including four affidavits,six exhibits and an 11
page memorandum of law. His total filing was 52 pages long.

The reason he was able to file all these documents so quickly was that
previously I had served them all by mail.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:
On 16 Apr 2005 19:05:43 -0700, "Spam Scone"
wrote:


Sam Sloan wrote:

In the Order to Show Cause, this Court required that the Order
to Show Cause be served by personal service, on or before November
22,
2004. The Petitioner made no attempt at personal service until
November 23, 2004...

Larry, Phil, where are your posts in support of Sammy-come-lately?
It
sounds like the court was unfair to Sam Sloan - after all, they
expected him to meet a deadline.

The question is whether one day lateness in serving personally an
order to show cause deprives the court of jurisdiction.

And the court decided it did.

I do not believe that it does and that at most my adversary would be
entitled to more time if he requests it, which he did not.

And the court decided to enforce the deadline.

In fact, he appeared and answered on the return date and filed
volumenous papers including four affidavits,six exhibits and an 11
page memorandum of law. His total filing was 52 pages long.

So USCF met its deadline, and you didn't.

The reason he was able to file all these documents so quickly was
that
previously I had served them all by mail.

"So quickly" means, in Sloan-speak, "by the deadline". A deadline that,
once again, Mr. Sloan could not meet.

Still waiting for those Innes and Parr posts on the injustice of it
all.

"Spam Scone" wrote in message
oups.com...

Sam Sloan wrote:
On 16 Apr 2005 19:05:43 -0700, "Spam Scone"
wrote:


Sam Sloan wrote:

In the Order to Show Cause, this Court required that the Order
to Show Cause be served by personal service, on or before November
22,
2004. The Petitioner made no attempt at personal service until
November 23, 2004...

Larry, Phil, where are your posts in support of Sammy-come-lately?
It
sounds like the court was unfair to Sam Sloan - after all, they
expected him to meet a deadline.

The question is whether one day lateness in serving personally an
order to show cause deprives the court of jurisdiction.

And the court decided it did.

I do not believe that it does and that at most my adversary would be
entitled to more time if he requests it, which he did not.

And the court decided to enforce the deadline.

In fact, he appeared and answered on the return date and filed
volumenous papers including four affidavits,six exhibits and an 11
page memorandum of law. His total filing was 52 pages long.

So USCF met its deadline, and you didn't.

The reason he was able to file all these documents so quickly was
that
previously I had served them all by mail.

"So quickly" means, in Sloan-speak, "by the deadline". A deadline that,
once again, Mr. Sloan could not meet.

Still waiting for those Innes and Parr posts on the injustice of it
all.


Cut the B.S. The Court's decision was nothing about justice, it was based
upon a pro se lotigant having the balls to come to court without paying
enourmous legal fees to an attorney. You know it, I know it, we all know it.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Dane Metcalfe wrote:
At least Mr. Sloan
is trying.

'Trying' to do what? Do not be deceived that Sloan has any altruistic
purposes with regard to the USCF. He wants to get on the board to
enhance (A) his enormous ego, and (B) his miniscule bank balance.

Service by mail is not "personal service" in this context.

kiddon

Service by mail is not "personal service" in this context.

I could show you a 25-page article that debates the topic, and shows very
little argument given by the judges that actually supports this finding,
other than "that's the way it's been, and that's the way it shall be."

"Ray Gordon" other than "that's the way it's been, and that's the way it
shall be."

It is also the easy way to get rid of pro-se litigants like Sam Sloan and
anyone who cannot afford to hire Process Servers all over the USA and in
Europe (as was required in this case).

Doing things "the Old Fashioned Way" has kept lawyers rich for centuries,
and Judges always get their cut from happy lawyers (one way or another, the
lawyers support the judges)