Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 04, 02:24 AM
Parrthenon
 
Posts: n/a
Default Fearless Randy Bauer fears certified mail from Sam Sloan

If I were on the USCF Executive Board, I would also refuse a certified letter
from Sam Sloan. Why? Because if I believed his legal suit to be of
ill-informed purpose, my job would be to make Sam's job tough as can be.

I see no reason to criticize Mr. Bauer or any other Board member, given
their own lights, for refusing certified letters from Sam.

One notices in the postings today that Sam's armpits are still the focus
of attention rather than actual NY State law.

The letter from the attorney general does not win the case for Sam; it does
not even give a vague indication of how the final judgment will go. But it can
be fairly read to support a portion of Sam's view of the case. If Grant Perks
is an honest broker, he will concede same.

So, then, the Federation's money is to stay in New York for the time
being, and the state attorney general has written a letter that no Federation
lawyer in his right mind would have enjoyed reading.

If Sam is the hopeless, armpitted character he is portrayed as being,
then what can be said about the Federation's legal team and its leadership, if
they lose this case?

I find Randy Bauer's response to Matt Nemmers' childish posting to be
nearly as puerile. We can go on and on about the armpits and the urine, but
the real reason the certified letters were rejected was obvious enough. The
Board members did not wish to be served. Right?

From Sam's point of view, he can only pray that Mr. Bauer continues to
employ toilet language and to assume the tailored role of your typical
Executive Board arrogant jokester. From Sam's point of view, the more about
his armpits and the less about NY state law, the better. He can only hope that
the Federation lawyers will point to his sartorial inelegance during the
hearing rather than argue the relevant statutes.

The odds are against Sam's suit because the judge will have a natural
reluctance to order a remedy so far-reaching as to cancel a deal that could
result in the USCF being sued; yet even here, Sam will be able to quote from
postings by Board members denying that any legal action was pending if the deal
had not gone through.

__________________________________________________ ______________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.
  #2   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 04, 02:56 AM
Ray Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default

If I were on the USCF Executive Board, I would also refuse a certified
letter
from Sam Sloan. Why? Because if I believed his legal suit to be of
ill-informed purpose, my job would be to make Sam's job tough as can be.


I don't know of any court that does not frown on people trying to avoid
service.


I see no reason to criticize Mr. Bauer or any other Board member,
given
their own lights, for refusing certified letters from Sam.


The only one I can think of is that parties are generally not supposed to
run up each other's costs. However, the courts know about this possibility
and still allow it.

Why weren't they all just served through USCF headquarters anyway?


One notices in the postings today that Sam's armpits are still the
focus
of attention rather than actual NY State law.

The letter from the attorney general does not win the case for Sam; it
does
not even give a vague indication of how the final judgment will go. But
it can
be fairly read to support a portion of Sam's view of the case. If Grant
Perks
is an honest broker, he will concede same.


Actually, the court is probably only viewing Sam's case in the "most
favorable light" standard since it's early.

The freeze on assets could be no more than a simple benefit of the doubt;
that said, it's better to have the judge rule for than against you.


So, then, the Federation's money is to stay in New York for the time
being, and the state attorney general has written a letter that no
Federation
lawyer in his right mind would have enjoyed reading.


Aren't we all on the side of truth?


If Sam is the hopeless, armpitted character he is portrayed as being,
then what can be said about the Federation's legal team and its
leadership, if
they lose this case?


I don't think a chess federation ever bragged about having a dream team of
lawyers.


I find Randy Bauer's response to Matt Nemmers' childish posting to be
nearly as puerile. We can go on and on about the armpits and the urine,
but
the real reason the certified letters were rejected was obvious enough.
The
Board members did not wish to be served. Right?


"Catch me if you can...."


From Sam's point of view, he can only pray that Mr. Bauer continues to
employ toilet language and to assume the tailored role of your typical
Executive Board arrogant jokester. From Sam's point of view, the more
about
his armpits and the less about NY state law, the better. He can only hope
that
the Federation lawyers will point to his sartorial inelegance during the
hearing rather than argue the relevant statutes.

The odds are against Sam's suit


A "sartorially inelegant" suit?


because the judge will have a natural
reluctance to order a remedy so far-reaching as to cancel a deal that
could
result in the USCF being sued; yet even here, Sam will be able to quote
from
postings by Board members denying that any legal action was pending if the
deal
had not gone through.


__________________________________________________ ______________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not
be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical
Commission.


Don't you mean "not be able to play chess FOR FIDE?"



  #3   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 04, 03:01 AM
Randy Bauer
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Parrthenon" wrote in message
...
If I were on the USCF Executive Board, I would also refuse a certified
letter
from Sam Sloan. Why? Because if I believed his legal suit to be of
ill-informed purpose, my job would be to make Sam's job tough as can be.

I see no reason to criticize Mr. Bauer or any other Board member,
given
their own lights, for refusing certified letters from Sam.

One notices in the postings today that Sam's armpits are still the
focus
of attention rather than actual NY State law.


(snip)

I find Randy Bauer's response to Matt Nemmers' childish posting to be
nearly as puerile. We can go on and on about the armpits and the urine,
but
the real reason the certified letters were rejected was obvious enough.
The
Board members did not wish to be served. Right?


I find Larry Parr's response to my response to Matt Nemmers to be typically
evasive. I asked a simple question about how Parr balanced his support for
Beatriz with Sloan's claims that she is engaging in embezzelement. No
armpit remark from me and no substantive peep from Parr, the defender of
truth.

Randy Bauer


  #4   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 04, 03:44 AM
RMille9601
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I know nothing about the New York law but it would seem it might apply to
non-profits going out of business not out of state.

Russell Miller, Chelan WA
  #5   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 04, 04:08 AM
StanB
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"RMille9601" wrote in message
...

I know nothing about the New York law but it would seem it might apply to
non-profits going out of business not out of state.


When a nonprofit goes out of business and disposes of its assets it must be
to another nonprofit or to the state. It can decide to give them to any
individual which, by extension, would include any business owned by
individuals such as shareholders, proprietors and so on. That is the purpose
of that statute, to insure that no one profits from a nonprofit. Anyway,
since it was organized in Illinois it may not even apply.









  #6   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 04, 04:09 AM
StanB
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Correction...NOT


"StanB" wrote in message
...

"RMille9601" wrote in message
...

I know nothing about the New York law but it would seem it might apply to
non-profits going out of business not out of state.


When a nonprofit goes out of business and disposes of its assets it must
be to another nonprofit or to the state. It can NOT decide to give them to
any individual which, by extension, would include any business owned by
individuals such as shareholders, proprietors and so on. That is the
purpose of that statute, to insure that no one profits from a nonprofit.
Anyway, since it was organized in Illinois it may not even apply.



  #7   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 04, 05:13 AM
Parrthenon
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"I asked a simple question about how Parr balanced his support for Beatriz with
Sloan's claims that she is engaging in embezzelement. No armpit remark from me
and no substantive peep from Parr, the defender of truth." --Randy Bauer

When Randy Bauer has a point, he has a point. And oh, how trite of me.

Okay, then, I have no problem at all balancing my overall support of the
Marinello-Hanke team with Sam's embezzlement charge. No problem, not in the
least, not the wee tiniest bit.

That's because I don't believe for a second that Beatriz is a would-be
embezzler. The claim is, in my view, false and should not have been made.

Having said the above, I think the money should be transferred only with the
consent of the entire LMA Committee. There should be full safeguards, no matter
who is president.

I didn't think I was dodging Mr. Bauer's question because I had earlier
written, more than once, that I did not buy the wild stuff about Beatriz being
out to feather her nest at the Federation's expense.

I am as certain -- for a constant refrain -- that Beatriz Marinello is not an
embezzler or a would be embezzler as I am that the proposed move to Crossville
is a disaster in the making for chess in America.

Can I be any more clear?

-- Larry Parr

__________________________________________________ ______________
"FIDE has made its decision. Players who refuse to be drug tested will not be
able to play chess." -- Dr. Press, co-founder of the FIDE Medical Commission.
  #8   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 04, 12:44 PM
Sam Sloan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On 02 Dec 2004 05:13:28 GMT, (Parrthenon) wrote:

"I asked a simple question about how Parr balanced his support for Beatriz with
Sloan's claims that she is engaging in embezzelement. No armpit remark from me
and no substantive peep from Parr, the defender of truth." --Randy Bauer

When Randy Bauer has a point, he has a point. And oh, how trite of me.

Okay, then, I have no problem at all balancing my overall support of the
Marinello-Hanke team with Sam's embezzlement charge. No problem, not in the
least, not the wee tiniest bit.

That's because I don't believe for a second that Beatriz is a would-be
embezzler. The claim is, in my view, false and should not have been made.

Having said the above, I think the money should be transferred only with the
consent of the entire LMA Committee. There should be full safeguards, no matter
who is president.

I didn't think I was dodging Mr. Bauer's question because I had earlier
written, more than once, that I did not buy the wild stuff about Beatriz being
out to feather her nest at the Federation's expense.

I am as certain -- for a constant refrain -- that Beatriz Marinello is not an
embezzler or a would be embezzler as I am that the proposed move to Crossville
is a disaster in the making for chess in America.

Can I be any more clear?

-- Larry Parr


I disagree. It is well known that Beatriz Marinello plans to fire Bill
Goichberg who is working for free and replace him with herself at a
salary of $80,000 per year. That constitutes embezzlement.

The only reason she has not done so already is that she has not got
Randy Bauer completely on board. Beatriz wants four votes other than
her own and Randy has not supplied the fourth vote that she needs.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Shaughnessy now says that she will be forced to
resign if Randy Bauer does not change his vote and vote with her, so
soon Beatriz may not even have three votes..

Sam Sloan
  #9   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 04, 01:23 PM
StanB
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Parrthenon" wrote in message
...

Having said the above, I think the money should be transferred only with
the
consent of the entire LMA Committee. There should be full safeguards, no
matter
who is president.


And such was authorized by the committee.


  #10   Report Post  
Old December 2nd 04, 01:34 PM
StanB
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

I disagree. It is well known that Beatriz Marinello plans to fire Bill
Goichberg who is working for free and replace him with herself at a
salary of $80,000 per year. That constitutes embezzlement.


I know for a fact Bill sent in a resignation a while back to be effective
12/31. I also know that Beatriz has no intention of taking the ED job. But
I'm not so sure about that $80,000 number. Where did you pull that from?

The only reason she has not done so already is that she has not got
Randy Bauer completely on board. Beatriz wants four votes other than
her own and Randy has not supplied the fourth vote that she needs.

Meanwhile, Elizabeth Shaughnessy now says that she will be forced to
resign if Randy Bauer does not change his vote and vote with her, so
soon Beatriz may not even have three votes..


Sam, is there no lie you won't tell to draw attention to yourself?


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fearless Randy Bauer fears certified mail from Sam Sloan Randy Bauer rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 5 December 2nd 04 06:27 AM
Fearless Randy Bauer fears certified mail from Sam Sloan Randy Bauer rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 5 December 2nd 04 06:27 AM
Fearless Randy Bauer fears certified mail from Sam Sloan Parrthenon rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 December 2nd 04 02:23 AM
Eade's Libel Charge vs. Sloan Parrthenon rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 2 October 14th 03 02:46 AM
Eade's Libel Charge vs. Sloan Parrthenon rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 October 13th 03 03:55 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:28 PM.

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