This is another case of Sam Sloan being the underdog challenging the
corrupt USCF. I hope that Sam triumphs over evil.

"Ivan" wrote in message
om...
This is another case of Sam Sloan being the underdog challenging the
corrupt USCF. I hope that Sam triumphs over evil.

As in stupidity over evil ?

"Ivan" wrote in message
om...

This is another case of Sam Sloan being the underdog challenging the
corrupt USCF. I hope that Sam triumphs over evil.

Sorry Charlie, Sam's record is less than stellar.

"StanB" wrote in message ...
"Ivan" wrote in message
om...

This is another case of Sam Sloan being the underdog challenging the
corrupt USCF. I hope that Sam triumphs over evil.

Sorry Charlie, Sam's record is less than stellar.

Below is an article refrencing John Jay Hooker, and friend and
political advisor to Jack and Bobby Kennedy. John Jay has a habit of
filing lawsuits over petty issues. Tennessee judges tend to frown upon
that.

FROM THE NASHVILLE TENNESSEAN;

""Hooker was occupied with the practical. He became, maybe, the first
American citizen ever barred from the courts.

Hooker has run for most everything, and a lot of people run from him
these days. He can be wearing and worrisome all of the time and right
some of the time. He lives and dies by the lawsuit. You are no one in
Tennessee politics if you haven't been sued by Hooker.

There's not a judge in town who doesn't pray secretly that the luck of
the draw not put Hooker in their courtroom.

Hooker has an annoying habit of reading the words of constitutions and
asking judges to enforce what the words say on their face. Tennessee's
constitution, for example, prohibits candidates from plying voters
with meat and drink. Hooker's somewhat utopian goal is to separate
politicians from their money and make everyone campaign on an equal
footing without the help of $30 million worth of spin.

Last week, a Nashville judge, a decent man but one who is fed up,
barred Hooker from filing more lawsuits unless he gets permission from
a special officer of the court. That, of course, gives Hooker fodder
for more lawsuits.

There's some legal precedent: At one time, you had to get the king's
permission to sue him or his lords. That was a factor in the tussle of
1776, and it hasn't been an issue here since.

Until Hooker.

The constitution writers of that time envisioned two sorts of houses.
They went to great lengths to keep the government out of our house;
that's what's behind the words about search warrants and due process
and freedom of religion plus the right of privacy the Supreme Court is
enforcing.

At the same time, they went to greater lengths to let everyone in the
government's house: free speech, free press, assembly, petitions for
redress, elections themselves. And open courts for worry warts to sue
the king, permission be damned.

Dr. Frist's prescription isn't going anywhere; in 30 years, or maybe
30 weeks, the subject will be viewed as an aberration of the moment,
like the miscegenation laws of 30 years past.

Hooker's plight is more problematic. You might call it a foot in the
door.

Larry Daughtrey is a Tennessean columnist. Send e-mail to
""