Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 27th 10, 08:06 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 Questions about the sale of the New Windsor building

In August, 2002 in Cherry Hill NJ, the USCF delegate's held their
annual meeting and voted to sell the New Windsor building. I was
there and the motion just barely passed after several counts of hands.
The delegates there voted to sell the building for $600,000 to a
particular buyer who was in contact with Frank Niro.

However, it turned out that there was no such buyer and therefore the
building was not sold at that time.

What happened instead was that in November 2004, two years and four
months later, Bill Goichberg, who was then Acting USCF Executive
Director, sold the building to a different buyer for a much lower
price, $513,000, even though the real estate market had had a
tremendous upsurge in the two years since the delegate's vote.

I filed a lawsuit to stop the sale of the building. My lawsuit failed
because several of the defendants were in Spain for the 2004 World
Chess Olympiad that had just concluded and therefore they could not be
served.

It may well be that the board had informally told Goichberg to sell
the building. However, the fact is that the minutes of the meetings of
the Executive Board in 2004 contain no mention or any debate,
discussion or vote on the sale of the building. Goichberg has admitted
this in a recent posting. There was also no corporate resolution
authorizing for the sale of the building. In addition, legal counsel
was not retained and the USCF was not represented by counsel at the
time of closing of the sale or at any time thereafter.

It was the obligation of Bill Goichberg as "Acting Executive Director"
to make sure that all the Is were dotted and the Ts crossed before
making the biggest transaction in the history of the USCF.

Goichberg did not do his job. Two of the board members were strongly
opposed to the sale, Don Schultz and Frank Brady. Thus, the vote, had
it been taken, could have gone either way. Instead, Bill Goichberg,
taking the easy way, sold the building without a vote by the board and
without the required corporate resolution in place.

In fact, I cannot even find the text of the 2002 delegate's motion to
sell the building, nor can I find the minutes of the 2002 delegate's
meeting. I am not sure that these documents exist.

The issue right now is that the USCF Forum members are not being
allowed to discuss these issues. The moderators have imposed sanctions
on all discussions of these issues. The moderators are allowing John
Hillery to say over and over again dozens of times that my lawsuit was
frivolous, but they are not allowing me to say what my lawsuit was all
about.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old February 27th 10, 09:39 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 Questions about the sale of the New Windsor building

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 1:47 PM, wrote:
I am not aware of anyone active in USCF politics, other than Sam, who believes that the building was sold without Executive Board approval.

Bill Goichberg


The question is not whether anybody involved in USCF Politics agrees
with me.

The question is whether any licensed practitioner of law with a
background in real estate law agrees with you. I have discussed this
issue with a number of attorneys and all agree with me that the
delegate's vote in August 2002 to sell the building for $600,000 did
not authorize you to sell the building for $513,000 in November 2004.

They all agree with me that there had to be a current vote by the
board and a properly prepared written corporate resolution to sell the
building. Verbal statements when it comes to real estate transactions
are barred by Statute of Frauds. Everything must be in writing. That
is Hornbook Law.

If you would admit that you mistake, it could be forgiven as everybody
makes mistakes. It is your continued insistence that everything that
you have ever done was right and nothing was wrong that causes a
serious problem.

When I worked for a law firm specializing in real estate law for
several years in the late 1990's, one of the lawyers in the firm was
an Orange County Lawyer named Jonathan Swift. He did real estate
closings every day, between 5 to 10 every week. He would have been the
ideal man for this job and he would have made sure that you did things
in a legal way. Instead, you decided to save money by not hiring a
lawyer and so you did it yourself.

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old February 28th 10, 03:12 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 Questions about the sale of the New Windsor building

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Mottershead
There was nothing about that resolution
that "locked in" the new board, Sam. The new board could have
reversed it with no problem at all, assuming there was a majority to
vote for reversing it.

Moreover, now you are retreating even further from your "rogue ED"
claim. You aren't even arguing that the EB vote in July 2005 was
invalid; only that it was a lame duck EB. Lame duck it might have
been, but Executive Board it nevertheless was, and that vote was a
valid EB vote, never reversed by the new EB, and ratified later by the
Delegates. So where does that leave your argument that Goichberg
had no authority to sell the building?

As for the "three members" point, that is just sour grapes, the usual
comment of someone who loses a vote: if the board were truly
representative, my side would have won. But the USCF is a completely
typical corporation in being governed by a small board most of the
time, and a sufficient majority of a small board is even smaller.
Indeed, it is rather unusal that the USCF is governed by a board of
150 people for about three days of the year. Either way, when the
membership is 80,000 the majority of a 150 person board is about the
same percentage of the total membership as the majority of a 7 person
board. 0% in both cases. This is why elections are important: we need
to make sure that the 0% of the membership governing the organization
is the right 0%. Because they won't be representative of the
membership just by virtue of being numerous.

Brian Mottershead
No. I am not retreating. My point is different. My point in that while
the board did vote to move to Crossville, even though it was a 3-1
vote by a lame duck board that had just been voted out of office, that
was eight months after the building was sold. The board DID NOT vote
to sell the building. Goichberg sold the building without a vote by
the board and without a corporate resolution of the type posted by
Brian Lafferty having been prepared.

My Orange County Real Estate Lawyer Friend that I spoke to last night
said that when Not-for-Profits sell their only building, they usually
do it only after obtaining a court order. Again, he was expressing no
opinion on this particular case, as he has not seen the documents. His
law office is near the courthouse, but I doubt he will look them up
free of charge.

Also, it was not the vote by the lame duck board on July 20, 2005 that
locked in the move to Crossville. It was the subsequent action by Bill
Hall in obtaining a mortgage, borrowing money and having a bulldozer
brought in to scrape a few inches of dirt from the Crossville land,
thereby starting construction less than a week before the new board
took office on the pretext of an "emergency", that locked the board
into the Crossville move.

Sam Sloan
  #4   Report Post  
Old February 28th 10, 04:19 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: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Questions about the sale of the New Windsor building

On Feb 28, 10:12*am, samsloan wrote:

....,
Also, it was not the vote by the lame duck board on July 20, 2005
that
locked in the move to Crossville. It was the subsequent action by
Bill
Hall in obtaining a mortgage, borrowing money and having a bulldozer
brought in to scrape a few inches of dirt from the Crossville land,
thereby starting construction less than a week before the new board
took office on the pretext of an "emergency", that locked the board
into the Crossville move. --Sam Sloan

Sam you just can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Give it a
rest.




  #5   Report Post  
Old February 28th 10, 10:16 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: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,170
Default Questions about the sale of the New Windsor building

Vote for SANITY!


  #6   Report Post  
Old March 1st 10, 10:03 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 Questions about the sale of the New Windsor building

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hal Terrie
Don, the Liberty vs. Crossville controversy is OFF
TOPIC for this thread. I specifically asked that it not be discussed
here. The purpose of this thread was only to document the actual
motions authorizing the Crossville move. If you or anyone else wants
to rehash the Liberty, NY bid, please move the discussion to a new
thread!

-- Hal Terrie
The Liberty vs. Crossville question is very much on topic for this
thread. You also forgot to mention a key point, which is that the USCF
Executive Board received a letter from the Law Firm of Looney and
Looney (yes, that really is the name of the law firm) representing the
City of Crossville and threatening to sue the USCF Executive Board if
we do not move to Crossville.

Up to that point the board had rejected the Crossville move. I
personally attended the May 2004 board meeting that Bill Goichberg
mentioned in a previous posting here. Several representatives from the
City of Crossville drove up from Crossville to New Windsor to make a
presentation. (They did not like airplanes.) They were not allowed to
make their presentation and were told that the board was not
interested in their proposal. It was after that that they started
threatening to sue the USCF if we did not move to Crossville.

Sam Sloan
  #7   Report Post  
Old March 1st 10, 04:41 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 Questions about the sale of the New Windsor building

Quote:
Originally Posted by CHESSDON
Dear Hal;

I respectfully disagree with you as to the relevance of my entry and
will explain. However, other than my disagreement regarding relevance
- my points have been made and this will be my last entry here on that
subject.

It was relevant because you quoted EB 05-15 regarding the USCF move to
Crossville. It showed me as abstaining. You never mentioned EB 05-14
which was the Liberty motion I quoted which not only made it clear why
I subsequently would abstain on EB 05-14.

Don Schultz
Hal Terrie has indeed left out a great deal in his supposed timeline
leading up to the move to Crossville.

From what Hal wrote one would think that the USCF decided to move to
Crossville some time in 2002-2004 and was on a straight line to that
goal.

In reality, there were many deviations and fluctuations along the way.
For example, the Brady motion to set up a committee to solicit bids
and evaluate bids and make recommendations to the board never was
implemented. Although the Brady motion passed, no such committee was
ever formed, no evaluation and recommendation was ever made.

Bids came in scatter-shot. There were bids from Louisville, Kansas,
Palm Beach Gardens, Miami and one in the works from Liberty NY.

The board accepted the bid and approved the move to Palm Beach Gardens
and then a few weeks later also approved the move to Crossville,
without ever revoking the resolution to move to Palm Beach Gardens.

A delegation from Crossville drive up to New Windsor by car to make a
presentation to a board meeting and was told in no uncertain terms
that the board was not interested in their proposal and did not have
time to hear it.

In the 2004 election, the candidates who campaigned against the move
to Crossville were elected. The candidates if favor of the move to
Crossville were defeated.

In the 2005 election again the candidates who campaigned against the
move to Crossville were elected. The candidates if favor of the move
to Crossville were defeated. One of those defeated was Steve Shutt,
the board member who had pushed the hardest for the move to
Crossville.

At the first meeting of the newly elected board in Phoenix Arizona in
August 2005, an attorney from the City of Crossville told the board
that if they did not go ahead with the move to Crossville they would
be sued. I was there at the meeting and I asked the question and got
that answer.

It was because of these threats to sue that the board finally buckled
under and moved to Crossville.

Sam Sloan
  #8   Report Post  
Old March 1st 10, 06:43 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: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Questions about the sale of the New Windsor building

On Mar 1, 11:41*am, samsloan wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by CHESSDON
Dear Hal;

I respectfully disagree with you as to the relevance of my entry and
will explain. However, other than my disagreement regarding relevance
- my points have been made and this will be my last entry here on that
subject.

It was relevant because you quoted EB 05-15 regarding the USCF move to
Crossville. It showed me as abstaining. You never mentioned EB 05-14
which was the Liberty motion I quoted which not only made it clear why
I subsequently would abstain on EB 05-14.

Don Schultz *

Hal Terrie has indeed left out a great deal in his supposed timeline
leading up to the move to Crossville.

From what Hal wrote one would think that the USCF decided to move to
Crossville some time in 2002-2004 and was on a straight line to that
goal.

In reality, there were many deviations and fluctuations along the way.
For example, the Brady motion to set up a committee to solicit bids
and evaluate bids and make recommendations to the board never was
implemented. Although the Brady motion passed, no such committee was
ever formed, no evaluation and recommendation was ever made.

Bids came in scatter-shot. There were bids from Louisville, Kansas,
Palm Beach Gardens, Miami and one in the works from Liberty NY.

The board accepted the bid and approved the move to Palm Beach Gardens
and then a few weeks later also approved the move to Crossville,
without ever revoking the resolution to move to Palm Beach Gardens.

A delegation from Crossville drive up to New Windsor by car to make a
presentation to a board meeting and was told in no uncertain terms
that the board was not interested in their proposal and did not have
time to hear it.

In the 2004 election, the candidates who campaigned against the move
to Crossville were elected. The candidates if favor of the move to
Crossville were defeated.

In *the 2005 election again the candidates who campaigned against the
move to Crossville were elected. The candidates if favor of the move
to Crossville were defeated. One of those defeated was Steve Shutt,
the board member who had pushed the hardest for the move to
Crossville.

At the first meeting of the newly elected board in Phoenix Arizona in
August 2005, an attorney from the City of Crossville told the board
that if they did not go ahead with the move to Crossville they would
be sued. I was there at the meeting and I asked the question and got
that answer.

It was because of these threats to sue that the board finally buckled
under and moved to Crossville.

Sam Sloan


Who cares? it is a done deal. The statutes ahve run and all the "sky
is falling down" predictions by Goich and the Weasel turned out to be
just so much balderdash.
  #9   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 10, 11:04 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 Questions about the sale of the New Windsor building

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Ames
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsloan
The fact that members of the board found out that the building had
been sold after Bill had sold it and there was nothing that could be
done about it does not mean that the building was sold in a legal way
or that all the legal requirements were met.

Sam Sloan
Sam, seeking the Libertarian nomination for Governor of New York,
argues from a position of principle. I would guess that is the
Libertarian way. As I recall my United States history, Thomas
Jefferson's principles were that we should not purchase Louisiana in
1803. But it was done anyway.

David Ames
Wait several seconds. Since I wrote a book about this (I am not
allowed to tell you the name of the book) I know something about this.
Congress opposed the Louisiana Purchase and never approved it. Thomas
Jefferson bought it anyway and paid Napoleon for it. So, it was a done
deal without authorization, which of course is why you mentioned it.

A faction of the Libertarian Party is drafting me to run for governor.
My main rival is a convicted prostitute. Whom do you think will win?

I am raising the issue of Bill Goichberg selling the New Windsor
building without the required board authorization and paperwork, not
because I am running for election as this will have no impact on the
election. Rather it is the other way around. I tried to raise this
several times in the past, but the moderators would not allowed it.
This time too I was sanctioned for raising this issue and my appeal is
pending. However, two board members said that in view of the pending
election I should be allowed to raise this issue. That is the reason
why we are finally being allowed to discuss this previously taboo
subject.

Sam Sloan
  #10   Report Post  
Old March 2nd 10, 11:39 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: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,256
Default Questions about the sale of the New Windsor building

On Mar 2, 6:04*pm, samsloan wrote:

A faction of the Libertarian Party is drafting me to run for governor.
My main rival is a convicted prostitute. Whom do you think will win?


Um, like it will matter?
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 to USDC to Stay Bankruptcy Sale of 2550 Webster samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 22 January 19th 10 10:17 AM
Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 8 February 21st 09 05:13 PM
Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 30 February 20th 09 06:00 AM
Five Questions for USCF Executive Board Candidates samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 January 1st 09 03:59 PM
re : Questions for Nudists : rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 June 28th 06 06:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 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