Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old June 18th 13, 03:34 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,alt.chess,alt.lawyers
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default USCF Board Continues to Misinform the Members about the Proceedingsin the Swiss Court

The delegates were NOT informed of what this was all about. They were
only told that the arbitration proceeding was started to insure that
FIDE followed its own rules. I was at the meeting in Irvine where this
occurred, so I know what the lawyer said. The delegates were not told
that the purpose was to kick Kirsan off the ballot as a candidate for
FIDE President and to kick Beatriz off the ballot as a candidate for
FIDE Vice-President.

The names of Kirsan and Beatriz were never even mentioned at the
presentation that was made to the delegates in Irvine.

Had the delegates known what the real purpose was of the arbitration
proceeding there can be little doubt that the delegates would have
rejected it.

More than that, to this day the delegates and the membership have not
been informed of the true nature of the proceeding in court in
Switzerland. There were witnesses called and testimony taken in the
Swiss court. It was a lengthy and protracted proceeding. This is the
reason the FIDE Treasurer Nigel Freeman says that FIDE incurred a
million dollars in legal fees to defend this case.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old June 18th 13, 04:19 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,alt.chess,alt.lawyers
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default USCF Board Continues to Misinform the Members about theProceedings in the Swiss Court

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bauer
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsloan
The delegates were NOT informed
of what this was all about. They were only told that the arbitration
proceeding was started to insure that FIDE followed its own rules. I
was at the meeting in Irvine where this occurred, so I know what the
lawyer said. The delegates were not told that the purpose was to kick
Kirsan off the ballot as a candidate for FIDE President and to kick
Beatriz off the ballot as a candidate for FIDE Vice-President.

The names of Kirsan and Beatriz were never even mentioned at the
presentation that was made to the delegates in Irvine.

Had the delegates known what the real purpose was of the arbitration
proceeding there can be little doubt that the delegates would have
rejected it.

More than that, to this day the delegates and the membership have not
been informed of the true nature of the proceeding in court in
Switzerland. There were witnesses called and testimony taken in the
Swiss court. It was a lengthy and protracted proceeding. This is the
reason the FIDE Treasurer Nigel Freeman says that FIDE incurred a
million dollars in legal fees to defend this case.
The purpose was as expressed in the arbitration - to make FIDE abide
by its own rules. As for FIDE, it chose to spend much of its lawyer
fees on appealing the CAS award - and LOST. As usual, Sam gets basic
facts wrong - for example, the FIDE legal fees incurred were expressed
in Euros, not dollars. Facts are not Sam's strong suit, regardless of
how he wishes to spin them.
The USCF Delegates in Irvine California were told this and only this,
that the purpose of the arbitration was to make FIDE abide by its own
rules. The lawyer from White and Case did NOT tell us which rule he
wanted enforced. Only months later did we learn that the rule in
question was that the candidate for FIDE must be nominated by his own
country. The USCF argued in the Swiss Court that since Beatriz
Marinello had not been nominated by the USA she was not eligible to
run, even though she had been nominated by her native country, Chile.

Had we known that this was the point being argued, we would have told
the White and Case lawyer that he was wasting his and our time and
money. There have been many, many cases where FIDE ignored rules like
that. For example, under FIDE rules a candidate for the Grandmaster
title must be nominated by his own country. However, when Edmar Mednis
was campaigning to be awarded the grandmaster title, the USCF refused
to nominate him because he had not made the required norms. So,
finally, Mednis got another FIDE member to nominate him and he was
awarded the title.

There are even more cases like this, including cases where Soviet
players were defecting in droves and the Soviet Union tried to stop
them from playing without success.

So, if we had known what the point was that White and Case was trying
to make, we would have known that it would be unsuccessful.

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old June 18th 13, 11:29 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,misc.legal,alt.chess,alt.lawyers
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2013
Posts: 1
Default USCF Board Continues to Misinform the Members about the Proceedings in the Swiss Court

So, in other words, the delegates were NOT informed of what this was all about?

"samsloan" wrote in message ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bauer
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsloan
The delegates were NOT informed of what this was all about. They
were only told that the arbitration proceeding was started to insure
that FIDE followed its own rules. I was at the meeting in
Irvine where this occurred, so I know what the lawyer said.
The delegates were not told that the purpose was to kick
Kirsan off the ballot as a candidate for FIDE President and to kick
Beatriz off the ballot as a candidate for FIDE Vice-President.

The names of Kirsan and Beatriz were never even mentioned at the
presentation that was made to the delegates in Irvine.

Had the delegates known what the real purpose was of the arbitration
proceeding there can be little doubt that the delegates would have
rejected it.

More than that, to this day the delegates and the membership have not
been informed of the true nature of the proceeding in court in
Switzerland. There were witnesses called and testimony taken in the
Swiss court. It was a lengthy and protracted proceeding. This is the
reason the FIDE Treasurer Nigel Freeman says that FIDE incurred a
million dollars in legal fees to defend this case.

The purpose was as expressed in the arbitration - to make FIDE abide
by its own rules. As for FIDE, it chose to spend much of its lawyer
fees on appealing the CAS award - and LOST. As usual, Sam gets basic
facts wrong - for example, the FIDE legal fees incurred were expressed
in Euros, not dollars. Facts are not Sam's strong suit, regardless of
how he wishes to spin them.

The USCF Delegates in Irvine California were told this and only this,
that the purpose of the arbitration was to make FIDE abide by its own
rules. The lawyer from White and Case did NOT tell us which rule he
wanted enforced. Only months later did we learn that the rule in
question was that the candidate for FIDE must be nominated by his own
country. The USCF argued in the Swiss Court that since Beatriz
Marinello had not been nominated by the USA she was not eligible to
run, even though she had been nominated by her native country, Chile.

Had we known that this was the point being argued, we would have told
the White and Case lawyer that he was wasting his and our time and
money. There have been many, many cases where FIDE ignored rules like
that. For example, under FIDE rules a candidate for the Grandmaster
title must be nominated by his own country. However, when Edmar Mednis
was campaigning to be awarded the grandmaster title, the USCF refused
to nominate him because he had not made the required norms. So,
finally, Mednis got another FIDE member to nominate him and he was
awarded the title.

There are even more cases like this, including cases where Soviet
players were defecting in droves and the Soviet Union tried to stop
them from playing without success.

So, if we had known what the point was that White and Case was trying
to make, we would have known that it would be unsuccessful.

Sam Sloan

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USCF Makes Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss In CA MrVidmar rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 August 25th 09 03:08 AM
Motion for Summary Judgment in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 October 5th 08 09:15 PM
USCF Pension and Finance Problems and Slow Response From Board OdessaChess[_2_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 9 September 24th 07 11:59 PM
$am $loan for USCF Executive Board Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 10 May 2nd 06 02:18 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:46 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017