| |
Main
Date: 03 Jan 2009 11:51:35
From: samsloan
Subject: 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/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?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
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Jan 2009 08:36:35
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Candidate Brian Lafferty wants to involve the USCF in another
|
Path: g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!proxad.net!
feeder1-2.proxad.net!news.mixmin.net!reece.net.au!not-for-mail
From: amicus curiae <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Candidate Brian Lafferty wants to involve the USCF in
another
Date: 8 Jan 2009 15:51:16 -0000
Organization: [email protected]
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <[email protected] >
References:
<08d0ef5b-33fb-479d-9653-5c318bb67f09@j39g2000yqn.googlegroups.com >
<[email protected] >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 01ba22ccb67a79b841276309123c180a
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 15:51:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-No-Archive: yes
Mail-To-News-Contact: [email protected] (English Only Please)
On Jan 7, 11:16 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 7, 8:24 pm, billbrock <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jan 7, 4:31 pm, billbrock <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jan 3, 1:51 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > > 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 thecase to be completely dropped,
> > > > you should ask Bill Brock to drop his part of it.
> >
> > > [snip]
> >
> > > > Sam Sloan
> >
> > > One should not start what one cannot finish.
> >
> > Speaking of which...I am not a lawyer, but I would think that Judge
> > Chin would have already ruled in favor of pro se plaintiff if he were
> > so inclined.
> >
> > "ORDER: On September 9, 2008, defendant William Brock's counsel
> > notified the Court that defendant intended to make a motion for
> > sanctions against pro se plaintiff. On September 17, 2008, the Court
> > ordered the sanctions motion to be filed by October 3, 2008 and
> > opposition by October 24, 2008. Plaintiff has failed to oppose
> > defendant's motion. In the interest of justice, plaintiff may have
> > until December 29, 2008 to file and serve his opposition. Defendant
> > shall reply by January 9, 2009. ( Replies due by 1/9/2009. Responses
> > due by 12/29/2008) (Signed by Judge Denny Chin on 12/11/08) (js)
> > (Entered: 12/11/2008)"
> >
> > In a similar vein, the next time you speak with an investigator from
> > the NY Dept. of State, you really shouldn't be telling him that it's
> > OK for a convicted felon to be a notary because it's tied up with a
> > case covered in the Times. Not on point.
>
> Bill Brock has repeatedly been calling into the New York State
> Department of State making complaints against me and my wife. He has
> also been keeping the federal case before Judge Denny Chin by making
> motions on that case.
>
> So, people who want me to drop my case had better start asking Bill
> Brock to drop his cases.
>
> Sam Sloan
No one is going to drop any case against you, Scammy. Even in the
near-
impossibility that Brock should fade in the ending, there is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae
In 2006, when you contrived to get on the EB, all rules changed. No
more
are you merely an object of fun. You are going to be taught a lesson
and
it is going to hurt you plenty. You have no idea how many of us are
very
determined and united upon this. You have escaped justice too long.
Judgement Day cometh.
Think Amherst is the only sheriff's department interested? Has anyone
in
rgcp heard that the Australian attorneys acting for
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Fritzl
are also monitoring this place? Fritzl is reportedly unhappy if his
name
has been "traduced" (?) by mentioning it in a juxtaposition. "Damn,"
he
said, "At least I waited till they were 18 before having sex with
them."
|
| |
Date: 05 Jan 2009 06:35:35
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Candidate Brian Lafferty wants to involve the USCF in another
|
On Jan 5, 12:20=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> [quote=3D"BrianLafferty"][quote=3D"samsloan"]However, today he stated ove=
r
> 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.
>
> [color=3D#4000BF]This is not true. =A0I 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. =A0I told you that if you did
> not drop the suit, I would suggest to the board that they keep you off
> the ballot. =A0Then, 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.
> [/color]
>
> 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.
>
> [color=3D#4000BF]Incorrect. =A0That is not my position. =A0I would hope t=
hat
> you drop your legal action against the USCF and run for the board, as
> you wish to. =A0If 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 [/color][/quote]
>
> 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"
|
| |
Date: 04 Jan 2009 22:20:20
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Candidate Brian Lafferty wants to involve the USCF in another
|
[quote="BrianLafferty"][quote="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.
[color=#4000BF]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.
[/color]
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.
[color=#4000BF]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 [/color][/quote]
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
|
| |
Date: 04 Jan 2009 05:53:05
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Candidate Brian Lafferty wants to involve the USCF in another
|
On Jan 3, 4:02=A0pm, [email protected] 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=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> 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. =A0I'm going to urge the EB=
to keep you off the ballot until you drop the USCF as a defendant. This wi=
ll 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/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=3D18813.=
..
>
> > 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.
|
| |
Date: 03 Jan 2009 15:48:26
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Candidate Brian Lafferty wants to involve the USCF in another
|
On Jan 3, 4:59=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > 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. =A0I have also not asked the USCF to get
> involved in another law suit. =A0I've suggested that they not let you on
> the ballot until you discontinue your action against the USCF in NY. =A0I=
f
> they do that, you, Sam Sloan, would have to sue the USCF in Illinois
> asking a judge to put you back on the ballot. =A0The 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
|
| |
Date: 03 Jan 2009 14:02:19
From:
Subject: Re: Candidate Brian Lafferty wants to involve the USCF in another
|
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=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> 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. =A0I'm going to urge the EB t=
o 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/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=3D18813..=
.
>
> 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
|
| |
Date: 03 Jan 2009 21:59:49
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Candidate Brian Lafferty wants to involve the USCF in another
|
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/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?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
|
|
