Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 3rd 09, 07:51 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Candidate Brian Lafferty wants to involve the USCF in another lawsuit

Brian Lafferty has declared himself to be a candidate for election to
the USCF Executive Board. Candidate Brian Lafferty no longer practices
law but he once worked as a parking tickets judge in New York City. In
the last year, I have heard Mr. Lafferty express a lot of off-the-wall
legal opinions, but I have politely not noted it.

However, today he stated on RGCP that he will ask the USCF to become
involved in litigation to keep me off the ballot, so I feel that
members of this forum should know about this.

Lafftery is apparently not satisfied that the USCF is already involved
in seven lawsuits. He wants to make it eight and he says that he will
make this part of his campaign platform.

Lafferty writes:

You haven't a legal clue on this one Sam. I'm going to urge the EB to keep you off the ballot until you drop the USCF as a defendant. This will be a major campaign issue if they don't throw you off the ballot.


Brian Lafferty


Dear Mr. Lafferty,

I have tried to be very polite to you since you claim to be a lawyer
but I cannot allow this ridiculous statement that you are making to
pass.

There is no such rule that states that someone who is suing a
corporation cannot be elected to the board of the corporation. Indeed,
the opposite is the case. The result of these suits is that the
plaintiff usually winds up on the board.

Secondly, I lack the power to drop the suit. The suit was dismissed
months ago. It is still alive however since Bill Brock keeps filing
motions in the case. If you want the case to be completely dropped,
you should ask Bill Brock to drop his part of it.

Thirdly, even if I had the power to do so and even if I made a request
to drop the USCF from the defendants, that request could not be
granted by the courts without permission by all of the opposing
parties. All of the defendants would have to agree to drop the USCF
from the case. I am surprised that you do not seem to know this.
Needless to say, not all of them would agree.

The same point applies to the Polgar vs. USCF suit. She keeps saying
that she will drop the USCF alone from the suit if the USCF will pay
her one dollar plus apologize and admit wrong doing. Even assuming
that the USCF were to agree to these conditions, there would have to
be notice and the opportunity for a hearing before the court to give
the other 14 parties a chance to object. You can be sure that some of
them would object and almost without doubt the motion would not be
granted.

I guess that you do not know as much about law as you think you know.
I have a lot of knowledge and experience in this field because I was
for many years the principal of a registered securities firm and these
sort of cases often arose with respect to securities I was trading. As
you know, I have argued securities law before the United States
Supreme Court and won. SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 436 US 103 (1978). The
legal brief I wrote is available in bookstores. ISBN 0923891226 I also
wrote a book about corporate derivative suits, which this is, entitled
"How to Take Over a Publicly Held Corporation". ISBN 1-881373-01-0

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...ean=1881373010

I recommend that you go down to your local Barnes and Noble Bookstore,
buy and read a copy of my book and study it carefully, before you try
to commit the USCF to another expensive and ultimately unsuccessful
lawsuit.

Just because you once worked as a Parking Violations Bureau
administrative law judge does not make you qualified in this rarefied
corporate atmosphere.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old January 3rd 09, 09:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default Candidate Brian Lafferty wants to involve the USCF in anotherlawsuit

samsloan wrote:
Brian Lafferty has declared himself to be a candidate for election to
the USCF Executive Board. Candidate Brian Lafferty no longer practices
law but he once worked as a parking tickets judge in New York City. In
the last year, I have heard Mr. Lafferty express a lot of off-the-wall
legal opinions, but I have politely not noted it.


I never heard cases for the PVB. I have also not asked the USCF to get
involved in another law suit. I've suggested that they not let you on
the ballot until you discontinue your action against the USCF in NY. If
they do that, you, Sam Sloan, would have to sue the USCF in Illinois
asking a judge to put you back on the ballot. The choice to sue the
USCF for a second time would be yours, and yours alone.

If you keep your suit alive while you're a candidate for the EB, you've
only managed to bring yourself down to Polgar's level.


However, today he stated on RGCP that he will ask the USCF to become
involved in litigation to keep me off the ballot, so I feel that
members of this forum should know about this.


Wrong. See above.

Lafftery is apparently not satisfied that the USCF is already involved
in seven lawsuits. He wants to make it eight and he says that he will
make this part of his campaign platform.

Wrong again. See above.

Lafferty writes:

You haven't a legal clue on this one Sam. I'm going to urge the EB to keep you off the ballot until you drop the USCF as a defendant. This will be a major campaign issue if they don't throw you off the ballot.


Brian Lafferty


Dear Mr. Lafferty,

I have tried to be very polite to you since you claim to be a lawyer
but I cannot allow this ridiculous statement that you are making to
pass.

There is no such rule that states that someone who is suing a
corporation cannot be elected to the board of the corporation. Indeed,
the opposite is the case. The result of these suits is that the
plaintiff usually winds up on the board.

Secondly, I lack the power to drop the suit. The suit was dismissed
months ago. It is still alive however since Bill Brock keeps filing
motions in the case. If you want the case to be completely dropped,
you should ask Bill Brock to drop his part of it.

Thirdly, even if I had the power to do so and even if I made a request
to drop the USCF from the defendants, that request could not be
granted by the courts without permission by all of the opposing
parties. All of the defendants would have to agree to drop the USCF
from the case. I am surprised that you do not seem to know this.
Needless to say, not all of them would agree.

The same point applies to the Polgar vs. USCF suit. She keeps saying
that she will drop the USCF alone from the suit if the USCF will pay
her one dollar plus apologize and admit wrong doing. Even assuming
that the USCF were to agree to these conditions, there would have to
be notice and the opportunity for a hearing before the court to give
the other 14 parties a chance to object. You can be sure that some of
them would object and almost without doubt the motion would not be
granted.

I guess that you do not know as much about law as you think you know.
I have a lot of knowledge and experience in this field because I was
for many years the principal of a registered securities firm and these
sort of cases often arose with respect to securities I was trading. As
you know, I have argued securities law before the United States
Supreme Court and won. SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 436 US 103 (1978). The
legal brief I wrote is available in bookstores. ISBN 0923891226 I also
wrote a book about corporate derivative suits, which this is, entitled
"How to Take Over a Publicly Held Corporation". ISBN 1-881373-01-0

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...ean=1881373010

I recommend that you go down to your local Barnes and Noble Bookstore,
buy and read a copy of my book and study it carefully, before you try
to commit the USCF to another expensive and ultimately unsuccessful
lawsuit.

Just because you once worked as a Parking Violations Bureau
administrative law judge does not make you qualified in this rarefied
corporate atmosphere.

Sam Sloan

  #3   Report Post  
Old January 3rd 09, 10:02 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2008
Posts: 879
Default Candidate Brian Lafferty wants to involve the USCF in anotherlawsuit

Despite any personal feeling about Brtian Lafferty with whom I am not
in mutual sympathy, here the Sloan, who absolutely cannot share
anything whatever, shows his yellow teeth and willingness to bite with
them.

It is perhaps shadefruede on my part, yet it is grimly amusing that
our Brian must be mighty puzzled by the Sloan's reaction, [no unusual
state of feeling] and for the second time this week I have some
sympathy with Brian lafferty - the first instance was on his not being
a chess insider, thereby neglible [as if insiders had delivered us to
some state of grace instead of moving us to a precipice - a factor I
thought not prospective. But here he must certainly be stunned, faced
by the real meglomaniac expresssion of the Sloan, who has successfully
emulated a Vampiric relationship with all and every chess contact.

I do not exhault over this division in antagonists. It is all too
common for USCF 'folk' to behave such. I am a very seasoned observer
of such stuff.

In some other thread may we not anticipate what standards should be
applicable to all candidates? And by such means, proceed to some
advantage of chess playing USA?

Phil Innes
Vermont



On Jan 3, 2:51*pm, samsloan wrote:
Brian Lafferty has declared himself to be a candidate for election to
the USCF Executive Board. Candidate Brian Lafferty no longer practices
law but he once worked as a parking tickets judge in New York City. In
the last year, I have heard Mr. Lafferty express a lot of off-the-wall
legal opinions, but I have politely not noted it.

However, today he stated on RGCP that he will ask the USCF to become
involved in litigation to keep me off the ballot, so I feel that
members of this forum should know about this.

Lafftery is apparently not satisfied that the USCF is already involved
in seven lawsuits. He wants to make it eight and he says that he will
make this part of his campaign platform.

Lafferty writes:
You haven't a legal clue on this one Sam. *I'm going to urge the EB to keep you off the ballot until you drop the USCF as a defendant. This will be a major campaign issue if they don't throw you off the ballot.
Brian Lafferty


Dear Mr. Lafferty,

I have tried to be very polite to you since you claim to be a lawyer
but I cannot allow this ridiculous statement that you are making to
pass.

There is no such rule that states that someone who is suing a
corporation cannot be elected to the board of the corporation. Indeed,
the opposite is the case. The result of these suits is that the
plaintiff usually winds up on the board.

Secondly, I lack the power to drop the suit. The suit was dismissed
months ago. It is still alive however since Bill Brock keeps filing
motions in the case. If you want the case to be completely dropped,
you should ask Bill Brock to drop his part of it.

Thirdly, even if I had the power to do so and even if I made a request
to drop the USCF from the defendants, that request could not be
granted by the courts without permission by all of the opposing
parties. All of the defendants would have to agree to drop the USCF
from the case. I am surprised that you do not seem to know this.
Needless to say, not all of them would agree.

The same point applies to the Polgar vs. USCF suit. She keeps saying
that she will drop the USCF alone from the suit if the USCF will pay
her one dollar plus apologize and admit wrong doing. Even assuming
that the USCF were to agree to these conditions, there would have to
be notice and the opportunity for a hearing before the court to give
the other 14 parties a chance to object. You can be sure that some of
them would object and almost without doubt the motion would not be
granted.

I guess that you do not know as much about law as you think you know.
I have a lot of knowledge and experience in this field because I was
for many years the principal of a registered securities firm and these
sort of cases often arose with respect to securities I was trading. As
you know, I have argued securities law before the United States
Supreme Court and won. SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 436 US 103 (1978). The
legal brief I wrote is available in bookstores. ISBN 0923891226 I also
wrote a book about corporate derivative suits, which this is, entitled
"How to Take Over a Publicly Held Corporation". ISBN 1-881373-01-0

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo....asp?ean=18813....

I recommend that you go down to your local Barnes and Noble Bookstore,
buy and read a copy of my book and study it carefully, before you try
to commit the USCF to another expensive and ultimately unsuccessful
lawsuit.

Just because you once worked as a Parking Violations Bureau
administrative law judge does not make you qualified in this rarefied
corporate atmosphere.

Sam Sloan


  #4   Report Post  
Old January 3rd 09, 11:48 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Candidate Brian Lafferty wants to involve the USCF in anotherlawsuit

On Jan 3, 4:59*pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
samsloan wrote:
Brian Lafferty has declared himself to be a candidate for election to
the USCF Executive Board. Candidate Brian Lafferty no longer practices
law but he once worked as a parking tickets judge in New York City. In
the last year, I have heard Mr. Lafferty express a lot of off-the-wall
legal opinions, but I have politely not noted it.


I never heard cases for the PVB. *I have also not asked the USCF to get
involved in another law suit. *I've suggested that they not let you on
the ballot until you discontinue your action against the USCF in NY. *If
they do that, you, Sam Sloan, would have to sue the USCF in Illinois
asking a judge to put you back on the ballot. *The choice to sue the
USCF for a second time would be yours, and yours alone.

If you keep your suit alive while you're a candidate for the EB, you've
only managed to bring yourself down to Polgar's level.


However, today he stated on RGCP that he will ask the USCF to become
involved in litigation to keep me off the ballot, so I feel that
members of this forum should know about this.


Wrong. See above.

Lafftery is apparently not satisfied that the USCF is already involved
in seven lawsuits. He wants to make it eight and he says that he will
make this part of his campaign platform.


Wrong again. See above.



Sam Sloan getting the facts wrong? Well, I
suppose there's a first time for everything.


-- help bot

  #5   Report Post  
Old January 4th 09, 01:53 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,053
Default Candidate Brian Lafferty wants to involve the USCF in anotherlawsuit

On Jan 3, 4:02*pm, wrote:
Despite any personal feeling about Brtian Lafferty with whom I am not
in mutual sympathy, here the Sloan, who absolutely cannot share
anything whatever, shows his yellow teeth and willingness to bite with
them.

It is perhaps shadefruede on my part, yet it is grimly amusing that
our Brian must be mighty puzzled by the Sloan's reaction, [no unusual
state of feeling] and for the second time this week I have some
sympathy with Brian lafferty - the first instance was on his not being
a chess insider, thereby neglible [as if insiders had delivered us to
some state of grace instead of moving us to a precipice - a factor I
thought not prospective. But here he must certainly be stunned, faced
by the real meglomaniac expresssion of the Sloan, who has successfully
emulated a Vampiric relationship with all and every chess contact.

I do not exhault over this division in antagonists. It is all too
common for USCF 'folk' to behave such. I am a very seasoned observer
of such stuff.

In some other thread may we not anticipate what standards should be
applicable to all candidates? And by such means, proceed to some
advantage of chess playing USA?

Phil Innes
Vermont

On Jan 3, 2:51*pm, samsloan wrote:
Brian Lafferty has declared himself to be a candidate for election to
the USCF Executive Board. Candidate Brian Lafferty no longer practices
law but he once worked as a parking tickets judge in New York City. In
the last year, I have heard Mr. Lafferty express a lot of off-the-wall
legal opinions, but I have politely not noted it.


However, today he stated on RGCP that he will ask the USCF to become
involved in litigation to keep me off the ballot, so I feel that
members of this forum should know about this.


Lafftery is apparently not satisfied that the USCF is already involved
in seven lawsuits. He wants to make it eight and he says that he will
make this part of his campaign platform.


Lafferty writes:
You haven't a legal clue on this one Sam. *I'm going to urge the EB to keep you off the ballot until you drop the USCF as a defendant. This will be a major campaign issue if they don't throw you off the ballot.
Brian Lafferty


Dear Mr. Lafferty,


I have tried to be very polite to you since you claim to be a lawyer
but I cannot allow this ridiculous statement that you are making to
pass.


There is no such rule that states that someone who is suing a
corporation cannot be elected to the board of the corporation. Indeed,
the opposite is the case. The result of these suits is that the
plaintiff usually winds up on the board.


Secondly, I lack the power to drop the suit. The suit was dismissed
months ago. It is still alive however since Bill Brock keeps filing
motions in the case. If you want the case to be completely dropped,
you should ask Bill Brock to drop his part of it.


Thirdly, even if I had the power to do so and even if I made a request
to drop the USCF from the defendants, that request could not be
granted by the courts without permission by all of the opposing
parties. All of the defendants would have to agree to drop the USCF
from the case. I am surprised that you do not seem to know this.
Needless to say, not all of them would agree.


The same point applies to the Polgar vs. USCF suit. She keeps saying
that she will drop the USCF alone from the suit if the USCF will pay
her one dollar plus apologize and admit wrong doing. Even assuming
that the USCF were to agree to these conditions, there would have to
be notice and the opportunity for a hearing before the court to give
the other 14 parties a chance to object. You can be sure that some of
them would object and almost without doubt the motion would not be
granted.


I guess that you do not know as much about law as you think you know.
I have a lot of knowledge and experience in this field because I was
for many years the principal of a registered securities firm and these
sort of cases often arose with respect to securities I was trading. As
you know, I have argued securities law before the United States
Supreme Court and won. SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 436 US 103 (1978). The
legal brief I wrote is available in bookstores. ISBN 0923891226 I also
wrote a book about corporate derivative suits, which this is, entitled
"How to Take Over a Publicly Held Corporation". ISBN 1-881373-01-0


http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo....asp?ean=18813....


I recommend that you go down to your local Barnes and Noble Bookstore,
buy and read a copy of my book and study it carefully, before you try
to commit the USCF to another expensive and ultimately unsuccessful
lawsuit.


Just because you once worked as a Parking Violations Bureau
administrative law judge does not make you qualified in this rarefied
corporate atmosphere.


Sam Sloan


There are a few points going for Brian,IMO:

1. He is an "outsider ( That is a two edged blade)
2.He wants reform.( as does every candidate, at least on the record)

I wish him well but my prediction is that he will fair less well than
Mikhail Korenman.

Here is why:

1. He is new to "chess"(meaning the USCF and chess politics)
2. He is known almost no where other than rgcp, and there only
slightly
3.He has enemies on both political side now( and no natural allies)
4. He is unprepared to spend the money necessary to "buy" a seat on
the board.

Brian is like a third party candidate running for political office. It
isn't likely he will find himself a home politically without joining
one of the major parties.


  #6   Report Post  
Old January 5th 09, 06:20 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Candidate Brian Lafferty wants to involve the USCF in anotherlawsuit

[quote="BrianLafferty"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsloan
However, today he stated over
on RGCP that he will ask the USCF to become involved in litigation to
keep me off the ballot, so I feel that members of this forum should
know about this.

This is not true. I stated that in my opinion it was a
breach of your fiduciary duty to the USCF to run for the Executive
Board while suing the USCF in court in NY. I told you that if you did
not drop the suit, I would suggest to the board that they keep you off
the ballot. Then, if you still wanted to be on the ballot, you, Sam
Sloan, could go to court in Illinois and try to get a judge to order
you back on the ballot.


Lafftery is apparently not satisfied that the USCF is already involved
in seven lawsuits. He wants to make it eight and he says that he will
make this part of his campaign platform.

Incorrect. That is not my position. I would hope that
you drop your legal action against the USCF and run for the board, as
you wish to. If you do not drop your action against the USCF in NY, I
will make an issue of your failure to honor your obligations toward
the USCF as a board candidate, to wit, not to run while suing the
organization to which you seek an Executive Board Seat.

I trust this makes matters factually clear.

Brian Lafferty
My statements above are accurate and Mr. Lafferty's statements are
false.

The title header to this posting thread is "Lafferty wants to involve
the USCF in another lawsuit". This is exactly what Mr. Lafferty is
trying to do.

Mr. Lafferty proposes that I be kicked off the ballot and not allowed
to run for election, even though I am fully qualified to be a
candidate.

If the USCF adopts his proposal, it will obviously lead to litigation.

If Mr. Lafferty wants to stop me from being elected, his recourse is
to contact the votes and convince them not to vote for me. Involving
the USCF in another lawsuit is a monumentally bad idea and would be
ruinous to the federation.

Earlier today, Mr. Lafferty contacted the moderators and asked that my
posting be blocked and me be banned. They turned him down and this led
to his posting above.

Mr. Lafferty is also a candidate for election and is running for the
same seat that I am running for. It is obvious that Mr. Lafferty is
trying to get me kicked off the ballot so as to make it easier for him
to be elected.

Sam Sloan
  #7   Report Post  
Old January 5th 09, 02:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,053
Default Candidate Brian Lafferty wants to involve the USCF in anotherlawsuit

On Jan 5, 12:20*am, samsloan wrote:
[quote="BrianLafferty"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsloan
However, today he stated over
on RGCP that he will ask the USCF to become involved in litigation to
keep me off the ballot, so I feel that members of this forum should
know about this.

This is not true. *I stated that in my opinion it was a
breach of your fiduciary duty to the USCF to run for the Executive
Board while suing the USCF in court in NY. *I told you that if you did
not drop the suit, I would suggest to the board that they keep you off
the ballot. *Then, if you still wanted to be on the ballot, you, Sam
Sloan, could go to court in Illinois and try to get a judge to order
you back on the ballot.


Lafftery is apparently not satisfied that the USCF is already involved
in seven lawsuits. He wants to make it eight and he says that he will
make this part of his campaign platform.

Incorrect. *That is not my position. *I would hope that
you drop your legal action against the USCF and run for the board, as
you wish to. *If you do not drop your action against the USCF in NY, I
will make an issue of your failure to honor your obligations toward
the USCF as a board candidate, to wit, not to run while suing the
organization to which you seek an Executive Board Seat.

I trust this makes matters factually clear.

Brian Lafferty

My statements above are accurate and Mr. Lafferty's statements are
false.

The title header to this posting thread is "Lafferty wants to involve
the USCF in another lawsuit". This is exactly what Mr. Lafferty is
trying to do.

Mr. Lafferty proposes that I be kicked off the ballot and not allowed
to run for election, even though I am fully qualified to be a
candidate.

If the USCF adopts his proposal, it will obviously lead to litigation.

If Mr. Lafferty wants to stop me from being elected, his recourse is
to contact the votes and convince them not to vote for me. Involving
the USCF in another lawsuit is a monumentally bad idea and would be
ruinous to the federation.

Earlier today, Mr. Lafferty contacted the moderators and asked that my
posting be blocked and me be banned. They turned him down and this led
to his posting above.

Mr. Lafferty is also a candidate for election and is running for the
same seat that I am running for. It is obvious that Mr. Lafferty is
trying to get me kicked off the ballot so as to make it easier for him
to be elected.

Sam Sloan


Are you running again, Sam? Maybe someone will sue to keep you off the
ballot?
The only consistent thing I have seen over the last 5 years of
watching the USCF is that you always take a combative,litigous
position on everything. Your Zodiac sign should be a gadfly. Why don't
you try to work with the system ? You will never be in a position of
any power or respect because of the way you conduct yourself. You best
hope to have any say at all is that of a quiet behind the scenes
powerbroker.

Constantly involving the USCF in lawsuits has been a prime reason for
it's financial troubles.

Rob "The Mitch"
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
Motion for Summary Judgment in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 October 5th 08 09:15 PM
Motion for Summary Judgment in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 October 5th 08 09:15 PM
Scholastics Inside or Outside the USCF Brian Lafferty rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 31 March 11th 08 05:03 PM
First Draft: Blue Book Encyclopedia of Chess samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 4 February 16th 08 03:46 PM
"half-truths, unsupported rumors and paranoid fantasies" samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 9 June 23rd 07 02:06 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017