(Sam Sloan) wrote in message ...

(snip)
1. Peterson lists several defendants as residing in California and
doing business in California. This is false. Only one of them resides
in California. That is Joe Wagner. None of the others do business in
California. Most are from the East Coast.
(snip)

______________________________________

One minor correction. Diane Reese resides in California as well. The
others may (or may not) have grounds to move to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

KidDon

The question he seems to raise has to do with rating games between USCF
members
in non-USCF events, and I see no reason why he can't do that, if USCF rates
other games in non-tournament settings, which I believe they do.

Again, you are wrong. The USCF only rates tournaments and matches. The
rules with respect to matches are strict because matches have often
been abused for rating purposes in the past. A one-game match cannot
be rated. Tournaments can only be rated if recognized pairing rules
are followed. An assortment of random games cannot be collected
together and sent in as a tournament.

These rules have been well established for a long time. Again, you
should not make remarks until you have read up on the rules.

I said I wasn't current on the rules, but I recall that there was something
about rating individual matches between two players.

Do you have a citation on the bylaws that supports your claim? I'm just
curious and couldn't care less about any of the parties in this case.

USCF politics always seems to me like one
giant game of Diplomacy. I actually think that
on the average, people on the newsgroup are
much more sincere than the people who have
been running things. Its a wonder its lasted
this long.

And much as I hate to
talk about someone who might not be here to
respond. I think Eric Johnson was very nit-picky
and turned people off. Not only did he spent
hours arguing with me about some pennies which
had been promised to me (advertising revenue for
the 1998 US Junior Website) but he used uscf
funds to set up a second website for the event
in hopes of reducing my non-existant advertising
revenue. I'm sure you can see how
this way of doing business really offends people.

Though I don't know anything about Mr. Peterson's
case, I am really very sympathetic with him. The
uscf has definitely been dominated by underhanded
politicians, and for a long time, at least, the uscf
office was not friendly to organizers. Firing an employee
who the organizers were happy with was also a big
mistake.

Jerry





John Fernandez wrote:

The whole "residing in and doing business in California" seems wrong for about
all of them, yes.

Frank Niro's missing even though he is named in the suit. Huh?

What evidence does Peterson provide showing his CC WAS valid? It's very
possible that the card was declined. (After all, didn't he recently file for
bankruptcy?)

Also, kudos for the Sam Sloan potshot.

The lawsuit seems dicey, at best. I think it might have had a chance if
Peterson stuck just to the event. However, claiming broad conspiracies hurts
him greatly here, I think.

John Fernandez

We're reverting to caveman times when supposedly
adult people go around calling eachother names and
beating eachother up. What's the point? If you want
to stop a lawsuit calling people names isn't going to help.
What might help is offering to sit down and discuss the
matter in a friendly manner.

Duncan Oxley wrote:

"ASCACHESS" wrote in message
...
I think John Fernandez summed it
best: Scumbag

Aviv

You are a brave man... at a very great distance.
Any time you would care to take it up with me in person, go for it.

Richard Peterson

Careful what you wish for Richard.

Aviv is a globetrotter, travels the world.

And he's quite a bit bigger than you.

Duncan

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

2. Peterson at great length lists the allegedly wrongful acts of Frank
Niro. However Niro is not named a a defendant.

Did you skip the course on agency law?

StanB

Jerry,

A time comes when one realizes some things about another person. In the
small chess community, especially on RGCP it is easy to come across to
newbies and people who don't keep up as 'angelic' - almost a
professional victim of the establishment as RP is trying to portray
himself. I have heard and seen and read enough to conclude otherwise and
sometimes the best way to express it is with little or no diplomacy but
rather bluntly.
I find the timing of his suit sneaky and selfish, I hope and wish is it
as frivolous as I and others see it to be, and his challenging me to a
duel, wild west style shows that the Arizona/California heat got to him.
Or maybe he has always been a thug?

I stand by all I have said, if others choose to like him and sympathize
with him that is their choice. I don't find him reasonable but rather
combative and unpleasantly controversial.

Aviv

Jerry wrote:

What's the point of calling someone a filthy name
in a public forum? If he has sufficient belief in his
position to spend the money on a lawsuit let him
go ahead and let the court decide. As for the uscf,
its acted in an offensive manner for years and I don't
expect it to settle things in a friendly manner now.

Aviv Friedman wrote:



Who wants to have anything to do with a lowelife like you? Chances are
that the moment I will look funny at you I would be served with
papers...

I think the years of reading posts about you and talking to reputable
people to learn who you are speak for themselves as this 'invitation
to a dual'. You are a hopeless idiot, who needs to marry less wives
and make less children and learn to take responsibility, to think you
sometimes work with teaching children simply makes me sigh. It is
about time someone tell you flat out on this forum that you're not
fooling anyone.

Drop the lawsuit freak,
Aviv

ASCACHESS wrote:



I think John Fernandez summed it
best: Scumbag

Aviv



You are a brave man... at a very great distance.
Any time you would care to take it up with me in person, go for it.

Richard Peterson

Jerry wrote:

Can't you disagree with his without cursing or threatening him?
I think it was John who called him a scumbag and not you. But
it seems wrong.

Actually I agreed with John and Richard is the one who 'threatened' me
(sounded like he challenged me to a duel)I am still amused by it. I
must have touched a nerve.

I wouldn't call my worst enemy in the chess
community a scumbag in a public forum. Its undignified. I would
just take my best shot at proving him wrong, and leave it at that.
Of course I understand that other people have other ways of
doing things than how I would.


This is just it. He is a spin doctor and weaves well. It isn't like he
can be reasoned with or admit when he is wrong. He will semi eloquently
change the topic or use semantics to play a word game to avoid defeat.
Such wormish behavior is quite low in my book and cannot go unmentioned.
I have only seen him once in my life and have had literally zero
interaction with him nor do I feel influenced personally by his
behavior. Still, enough is enough. If it acts like an ass, replies like
an ass, he gets labeled an ass.
I suppose sometimes we can't just all get along.

My past experience with the uscf is that it was run by two factions.
And if you step on anyone's toes on purpose or by accident, you
might as well forget about getting anything done. The uscf has survived

because it has many sincere supporters, but in the past it has always
been dominated by dubious politics and incompetent management.


I myself have been quite frustrated at times by the USCF in the past. I
have mentioned it on RGCP. It was doubly annoying at times, to NOT be
able to speak with someone like say Niro but then see a thread on the
newsgroup where someone promises to ask him about some TRIVIAL ISSUE and
return the next day with an answer... Such is life.

Let me give you an example. There is one player who had a disagreement
with one NJ chess politician when he was still a child. You may know
who
I am talking about. And when he won the National High School
Championship there was a huge article in Chess Life about the
tournament, which barely mentioned him and had photos, but not of him.
Its this kind of persistant pettiness that makes people really hate the
uscf.


I can assume and guess to whom you are referring here. I would be very
surprised to learn that an incident with a kid led someone to order the
editor of CL to be intentionally biased towards that player. Pretty sad
if true, but IMHO when we are talking about RP my money would always be
against him, unless proven otherwise. His problems with the USCF are
spread over years, with different people at the helm. Somehow I suspect
it is 'him'...

Aviv


Aviv Friedman wrote:



Jerry,

A time comes when one realizes some things about another person. In
the small chess community, especially on RGCP it is easy to come
across to newbies and people who don't keep up as 'angelic' - almost a
professional victim of the establishment as RP is trying to portray
himself. I have heard and seen and read enough to conclude otherwise
and sometimes the best way to express it is with little or no
diplomacy but rather bluntly.
I find the timing of his suit sneaky and selfish, I hope and wish is
it as frivolous as I and others see it to be, and his challenging me
to a duel, wild west style shows that the Arizona/California heat got
to him. Or maybe he has always been a thug?

I stand by all I have said, if others choose to like him and
sympathize with him that is their choice. I don't find him reasonable
but rather combative and unpleasantly controversial.

Aviv

Jerry wrote:



What's the point of calling someone a filthy name
in a public forum? If he has sufficient belief in his
position to spend the money on a lawsuit let him
go ahead and let the court decide. As for the uscf,
its acted in an offensive manner for years and I don't
expect it to settle things in a friendly manner now.

Aviv Friedman wrote:




Who wants to have anything to do with a lowelife like you? Chances
are
that the moment I will look funny at you I would be served with
papers...

I think the years of reading posts about you and talking to
reputable
people to learn who you are speak for themselves as this
'invitation
to a dual'. You are a hopeless idiot, who needs to marry less wives
and make less children and learn to take responsibility, to think
you
sometimes work with teaching children simply makes me sigh. It is
about time someone tell you flat out on this forum that you're not
fooling anyone.

Drop the lawsuit freak,
Aviv

ASCACHESS wrote:




I think John Fernandez summed it
best: Scumbag

Aviv




You are a brave man... at a very great distance.
Any time you would care to take it up with me in person, go for
it.

Richard Peterson

I think it was John who called him a scumbag and not you.

Roger that. I stand by it of course.

"StanB" wrote in message ...
"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

2. Peterson at great length lists the allegedly wrongful acts of Frank
Niro. However Niro is not named a a defendant.

Did you skip the course on agency law?

StanB
_______________________
It is a more complex issue than agency law. There is always
litigation strategy and other issues involved.

KidDon

"Don Mihokovich" wrote in message
om...

2. Peterson at great length lists the allegedly wrongful acts of Frank
Niro. However Niro is not named a a defendant.

Did you skip the course on agency law?
_______________________
It is a more complex issue than agency law. There is always
litigation strategy and other issues involved.

Thank goodness for D & O insurance.

StanB