| |
Main
Date: 10 Jul 2008 17:54:14
From: samsloan
Subject: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
[quote="Brian Mottershead"]I wouldn't even be so sure that in a forum
that holds itself out as a venue for dues-paying members to comment on
the governance of *their* organization, that censorship of legitimate
views by moderators appointed by the "staff" and the "management" is
necessarily as legal as you suppose. It might not be a matter of
First Amendment rights, but there are other rights besides those
deriving from the Bill of Rights.
Brian Mottershead [/quote]
This is of course the issue here. The USCF Issues Forum has been set
up to allow the members of this organization to discuss its
governance. Yet, the management has imposed extremely biased
moderators who strictly limit what the members are allowed to say. If
the members were allowed to say what they really think, then the tone
of this entire discussion would be completely different.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 18 Jul 2008 14:28:23
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
On Jul 18, 4:16=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Rob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:df7f75d5-1ae0-4cba-a99d-8447a7c14d1b@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 18, 7:09 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 18, 7:58 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 17, 4:57 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 17, 5:45 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 17, 2:59 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 17, 3:40 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Still unanswered is what Brian Lafferty knew of the vacated
> > > > > > > charge when he
> > > > > > > published the charge itself. Did he know the court 'vacated i=
t'
> > > > > > > at that
> > > > > > > time? Simple question - asked 10 times.
>
> > > > > > Here is a simple question for you.
>
> > > > > > Do you have any evidence that the charges of child abuse agains=
t
> > > > > > Miss
> > > > > > Polgar and her "paramour Paul" were ever vacated?
>
> > > > > > From her own comments, it seems that the Texas authorities are
> > > > > > still
> > > > > > investigating those charges.
>
> > > > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > > > Of what importance is any of this to chess?
> > > > If the USCF Scholastic Chess Liaison is charged with child abuse, t=
hat
> > > > certainly is of importance to chess.
>
> > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > Mr. Sloan,
> > > That is an odd position for you to take, isn't it? Since it was my
> > > questioning of your proclivities on your website that caused me to be
> > > removed from posting on your newsgroup.
> > Rob was suspended from posting to my private email group because he
> > refused to identify himself. My group has a rule that anonymous or
> > fake-name posters are not allowed.
>
> LOL.. not hardly.
>
> > The suspension turned into a ban after Rob joined several times under
> > more fake names.
>
> > Rob ("The Robber") is strongly suspected of flooding my group with
> > unwanted videos.
>
> I suspect you did it.
>
> > Nobody has ever been banned from my group for criticizing me. For
> > example, Phil Innes, Paul Truong, Susan Polgar, Steve of Tennessee and
> > several others who do nothing but attack me are still all members of
> > my group and have never been banned or suspended, nor have any of
> > their postings ever been removed or "moderated".
>
> It is sad to forget things when you get old.
>
> > The only person who has ever been banned from my group is Rob ("The
> > Robber") Mitchell and there is absolutely no chance that this ban will
> > ever be lifted.
>
> Who cares? Not I! only two maybe three people have posted on your
> group in the last six months.. and that include you.
>
> And Sam Sloan quoted the direct words of Ed Trice, quoted them them over =
and
> over, which are often contestible, or mostly so. Sam Sloan does not even
> deign to notice words from a draught document, unsigned, and within a
> confidentiality agreement, which is not any agreement at all. It is enoug=
h
> to him to speculate on such things, as is his wont.
>
> Sam Sloan does not care much for his sources, though will repeat them as =
a
> laugh-erty might.
>
> Its all scandal to the Sloan and his cohorts, and if any reader thinks th=
ere
> is more here than that, they do not understand the power of accusations i=
n
> our society, nor what sorts of people are content with them alone. That i=
s
> the level of contestant to truth.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's easy to throw out an unsubstianted accusation and then demand
proof that it didn't happen. Because if it didn't happen how could
there be proof. It would be like saying" Sloan, there are reports that
you beat your wife. Can you provide us proof that you have stopped
beating your wife?"
|
| |
Date: 18 Jul 2008 13:56:47
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
On Jul 18, 7:09=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 18, 7:58 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 17, 4:57 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 17, 5:45 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 17, 2:59 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 17, 3:40 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Still unanswered is what Brian Lafferty knew of the vacated cha=
rge when he
> > > > > > published the charge itself. Did he know the court 'vacated it'=
at that
> > > > > > time? Simple question - asked 10 times.
>
> > > > > Here is a simple question for you.
>
> > > > > Do you have any evidence that the charges of child abuse against =
Miss
> > > > > Polgar and her "paramour Paul" were ever vacated?
>
> > > > > From her own comments, it seems that the Texas authorities are st=
ill
> > > > > investigating those charges.
>
> > > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > > Of what importance is any of this to chess?
> > > If the USCF Scholastic Chess Liaison is charged with child abuse, tha=
t
> > > certainly is of importance to chess.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > Mr. Sloan,
> > That is an odd position for you to take, isn't it? Since it was my
> > questioning of your proclivities on your website that caused me to be
> > removed from posting on your newsgroup.
> Rob was suspended from posting to my private email group because he
> refused to identify himself. My group has a rule that anonymous or
> fake-name posters are not allowed.
LOL.. not hardly.
> The suspension turned into a ban after Rob joined several times under
> more fake names.
>
> Rob ("The Robber") is strongly suspected of flooding my group with
> unwanted videos.
I suspect you did it.
> Nobody has ever been banned from my group for criticizing me. For
> example, Phil Innes, Paul Truong, Susan Polgar, Steve of Tennessee and
> several others who do nothing but attack me are still all members of
> my group and have never been banned or suspended, nor have any of
> their postings ever been removed or "moderated".
It is sad to forget things when you get old.
> The only person who has ever been banned from my group is Rob ("The
> Robber") Mitchell and there is absolutely no chance that this ban will
> ever be lifted.
Who cares? Not I! only two maybe three people have posted on your
group in the last six months.. and that include you.
> Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jul 2008 17:16:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
"Rob" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:df7f75d5-1ae0-4cba-a99d-8447a7c14d1b@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 18, 7:09 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 18, 7:58 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 17, 4:57 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 17, 5:45 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 17, 2:59 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 17, 3:40 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Still unanswered is what Brian Lafferty knew of the vacated
> > > > > > charge when he
> > > > > > published the charge itself. Did he know the court 'vacated it'
> > > > > > at that
> > > > > > time? Simple question - asked 10 times.
>
> > > > > Here is a simple question for you.
>
> > > > > Do you have any evidence that the charges of child abuse against
> > > > > Miss
> > > > > Polgar and her "paramour Paul" were ever vacated?
>
> > > > > From her own comments, it seems that the Texas authorities are
> > > > > still
> > > > > investigating those charges.
>
> > > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > > Of what importance is any of this to chess?
> > > If the USCF Scholastic Chess Liaison is charged with child abuse, that
> > > certainly is of importance to chess.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > Mr. Sloan,
> > That is an odd position for you to take, isn't it? Since it was my
> > questioning of your proclivities on your website that caused me to be
> > removed from posting on your newsgroup.
> Rob was suspended from posting to my private email group because he
> refused to identify himself. My group has a rule that anonymous or
> fake-name posters are not allowed.
LOL.. not hardly.
> The suspension turned into a ban after Rob joined several times under
> more fake names.
>
> Rob ("The Robber") is strongly suspected of flooding my group with
> unwanted videos.
I suspect you did it.
> Nobody has ever been banned from my group for criticizing me. For
> example, Phil Innes, Paul Truong, Susan Polgar, Steve of Tennessee and
> several others who do nothing but attack me are still all members of
> my group and have never been banned or suspended, nor have any of
> their postings ever been removed or "moderated".
It is sad to forget things when you get old.
> The only person who has ever been banned from my group is Rob ("The
> Robber") Mitchell and there is absolutely no chance that this ban will
> ever be lifted.
Who cares? Not I! only two maybe three people have posted on your
group in the last six months.. and that include you.
And Sam Sloan quoted the direct words of Ed Trice, quoted them them over and
over, which are often contestible, or mostly so. Sam Sloan does not even
deign to notice words from a draught document, unsigned, and within a
confidentiality agreement, which is not any agreement at all. It is enough
to him to speculate on such things, as is his wont.
Sam Sloan does not care much for his sources, though will repeat them as a
laugh-erty might.
Its all scandal to the Sloan and his cohorts, and if any reader thinks there
is more here than that, they do not understand the power of accusations in
our society, nor what sorts of people are content with them alone. That is
the level of contestant to truth.
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| |
Date: 18 Jul 2008 05:09:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
On Jul 18, 7:58 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 17, 4:57 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 17, 5:45 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 17, 2:59 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 17, 3:40 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Still unanswered is what Brian Lafferty knew of the vacated charge when he
> > > > > published the charge itself. Did he know the court 'vacated it' at that
> > > > > time? Simple question - asked 10 times.
>
> > > > Here is a simple question for you.
>
> > > > Do you have any evidence that the charges of child abuse against Miss
> > > > Polgar and her "paramour Paul" were ever vacated?
>
> > > > From her own comments, it seems that the Texas authorities are still
> > > > investigating those charges.
>
> > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > Of what importance is any of this to chess?
> > If the USCF Scholastic Chess Liaison is charged with child abuse, that
> > certainly is of importance to chess.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Mr. Sloan,
> That is an odd position for you to take, isn't it? Since it was my
> questioning of your proclivities on your website that caused me to be
> removed from posting on your newsgroup.
Rob was suspended from posting to my private email group because he
refused to identify himself. My group has a rule that anonymous or
fake-name posters are not allowed.
The suspension turned into a ban after Rob joined several times under
more fake names.
Rob ("The Robber") is strongly suspected of flooding my group with
unwanted videos.
Nobody has ever been banned from my group for criticizing me. For
example, Phil Innes, Paul Truong, Susan Polgar, Steve of Tennessee and
several others who do nothing but attack me are still all members of
my group and have never been banned or suspended, nor have any of
their postings ever been removed or "moderated".
The only person who has ever been banned from my group is Rob ("The
Robber") Mitchell and there is absolutely no chance that this ban will
ever be lifted.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 18 Jul 2008 14:27:51
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:0eee1516-4858-484a-bdc3-434542c0525f@s21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 18, 7:58 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 4:57 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Jul 17, 5:45 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Jul 17, 2:59 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Jul 17, 3:40 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > Still unanswered is what Brian Lafferty knew of the vacated
>> > > > > charge when he
>> > > > > published the charge itself. Did he know the court 'vacated it'
>> > > > > at that
>> > > > > time? Simple question - asked 10 times.
>>
>> > > > Here is a simple question for you.
>>
>> > > > Do you have any evidence that the charges of child abuse against
>> > > > Miss
>> > > > Polgar and her "paramour Paul" were ever vacated?
>>
>> > > > From her own comments, it seems that the Texas authorities are
>> > > > still
>> > > > investigating those charges.
>>
>> > > > Sam Sloan
>>
>> > > Of what importance is any of this to chess?
>> > If the USCF Scholastic Chess Liaison is charged with child abuse, that
>> > certainly is of importance to chess.
>>
>> > Sam Sloan
>>
>> Mr. Sloan,
>> That is an odd position for you to take, isn't it? Since it was my
>> questioning of your proclivities on your website that caused me to be
>> removed from posting on your newsgroup.
>
> Rob was suspended from posting to my private email group because he
> refused to identify himself.
I know that to be a lie.
> My group has a rule that anonymous or
> fake-name posters are not allowed.
>
> The suspension turned into a ban after Rob joined several times under
> more fake names.
>
> Rob ("The Robber") is strongly suspected of flooding my group with
> unwanted videos.
>
> Nobody has ever been banned from my group for criticizing me. For
> example, Phil Innes, Paul Truong, Susan Polgar, Steve of Tennessee and
> several others who do nothing but attack me are still all members of
> my group and have never been banned or suspended,
Another lie, Steve of Tennessee was banned for questioning you about the
very same thing that Rob Mitchell did - your public posture about children
in chess in contradistinction to your personal posture as exemplified on
your website.
> nor have any of
> their postings ever been removed or "moderated".
>
> The only person who has ever been banned from my group is Rob ("The
> Robber") Mitchell and there is absolutely no chance that this ban will
> ever be lifted.
Which leaves you and Eric [aka 'several delegates'] a gay person with no
known sympathy to children, who does not even show up at delegate meetings,
and rather famous for conducting 'psychic surveys', in fact who has an
antipathy to kids, to promote your views about the wellbeing of children?
What a farce of a person you are, Mr. Sloan. I support your freedom of
speech initiatives since what you say resolutely disqualifies you from the
public trust.
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 18 Jul 2008 04:58:02
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
On Jul 17, 4:57=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 17, 5:45 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 17, 2:59 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 17, 3:40 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Still unanswered is what Brian Lafferty knew of the vacated charge =
when he
> > > > published the charge itself. Did he know the court 'vacated it' at =
that
> > > > time? Simple question - asked 10 times.
>
> > > Here is a simple question for you.
>
> > > Do you have any evidence that the charges of child abuse against Miss
> > > Polgar and her "paramour Paul" were ever vacated?
>
> > > From her own comments, it seems that the Texas authorities are still
> > > investigating those charges.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > Of what importance is any of this to chess?
> If the USCF Scholastic Chess Liaison is charged with child abuse, that
> certainly is of importance to chess.
>
> Sam Sloan
Mr. Sloan,
That is an odd position for you to take, isn't it? Since it was my
questioning of your proclivities on your website that caused me to be
removed from posting on your newsgroup.
|
| |
Date: 17 Jul 2008 14:57:44
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
On Jul 17, 5:45 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 17, 2:59 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 17, 3:40 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Still unanswered is what Brian Lafferty knew of the vacated charge when he
> > > published the charge itself. Did he know the court 'vacated it' at that
> > > time? Simple question - asked 10 times.
>
> > Here is a simple question for you.
>
> > Do you have any evidence that the charges of child abuse against Miss
> > Polgar and her "paramour Paul" were ever vacated?
>
> > From her own comments, it seems that the Texas authorities are still
> > investigating those charges.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Of what importance is any of this to chess?
If the USCF Scholastic Chess Liaison is charged with child abuse, that
certainly is of importance to chess.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 17 Jul 2008 14:45:22
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
On Jul 17, 2:59=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 17, 3:40 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Still unanswered is what Brian Lafferty knew of the vacated charge when=
he
> > published the charge itself. Did he know the court 'vacated it' at that
> > time? Simple question - asked 10 times.
>
> Here is a simple question for you.
>
> Do you have any evidence that the charges of child abuse against Miss
> Polgar and her "paramour Paul" were ever vacated?
>
> From her own comments, it seems that the Texas authorities are still
> investigating those charges.
>
> Sam Sloan
Of what importance is any of this to chess?
|
| |
Date: 17 Jul 2008 12:59:52
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
On Jul 17, 3:40 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Still unanswered is what Brian Lafferty knew of the vacated charge when he
> published the charge itself. Did he know the court 'vacated it' at that
> time? Simple question - asked 10 times.
Here is a simple question for you.
Do you have any evidence that the charges of child abuse against Miss
Polgar and her "paramour Paul" were ever vacated?
From her own comments, it seems that the Texas authorities are still
investigating those charges.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Jul 2008 08:59:49
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
[quote="sdo1"]We did endeavor to approach each matter judiciously, and
I am shocked that you, of all people, would say otherwise. You were
given wide latitude during my time on the FOC since you were a
candidate for the EB. You were the only person in the USCF to have
attempted to unethically influence my behavior on the FOC before I
took my seat, in fact, even before anyone had told me that I had been
appointed.
=========
[b]EDIT
Moderator Tsawmiller demands proof of the above missive from Sam Sloan
("[i]You were the only person in the USCF to have attempted to
unethically influence my behavior...[/i]"). The post made in fide-
chess may be found at [url]http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/fide-
chess/message/28182[/url] and the forum post where this and the reply
are duplicated is in forum post #58583.
[/b]=========[/quote]
Thank you. I much prefer for the moderators to do it this way,
pointing out an unsupported claim made by Steve Owens and asking him
to provide proof of it, rather than what the moderators usually do,
which is not allow it to appear at all.
I am quite curious and have no idea what Steve Owens means when he
writes, "You were the only person in the USCF to have attempted to
unethically influence my behavior". The record is clear on the fide-
chess group that Steve attacked me almost daily on my group starting
in 2002 up until 2007 when he was made a moderator of the USCF Issues
Forum. I have little doubt that Goichberg appointed him a moderator
based on his long record of attacking me over there. I do agree with
Steve Owens that once he became a moderator here he did not act
unfairly. It seemed that Goichberg was probably disappointed.
Goichberg felt that because Steve attacked me over there he would
delete me here. However, it did not turn out that way. Steve preferred
to respond to my postings rather than merely delete them.
Meanwhile several of my most important postings have not been allowed
to appear here, including "Failure to Disclose Expenses of Board
Members" and "BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the
Board". Also another posting in which I complained that this last
posting had been approved and then instantly had been pulled by a
moderator has not appeared.
Please note that this last posting, which merely copied without any
changes or comments a BINFO by Susan Polgar which is available to the
USCF membership, has not been allowed to appear on the USCF Issues
Forum.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Jul 2008 02:25:18
From:
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
Brian Lafferty wrote:
> Brian Lafferty wrote:
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >>
> >> Brian Lafferty wrote:
> >>> As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
> >>> corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
> >>> corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
> >>> allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage
> >>> with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such as
> >>> the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
> >>> governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
> >>> controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
> >>> organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
> >>> specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is more
> >>> subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
> >>> first week.
> >>
> >>
> >> As usual, former attorney Brian Lafferty overestimates his knowledge
> >> of the law.
> >
> > I hate to burst your bubble Mr. Hillary, but I'm an attorney in good
> > standing in the State of New York and am also admitted to practice and
> > in good standing in the SDNY. And where are you admitted to practice?
> >
> >>
> >> SDO1 wrote:
> >>
> >> "Since a matter like this concerned my actions as a member of the FOC
> >> in April/May 2007, I asked my attorney if the USCF had the right to
> >> moderate the forum as they saw fit and if the users, as members of the
> >> USCF, had rights beyond what the USCF allowed. The short answer was
> >> that the USCF owns the forum and that it may decide what is or is not
> >> "proper speech" and is within its rights to allow or not allow any
> >> post on whatever grounds it deems necessary. The entities with the
> >> authority to govern the parameters of what is or is not allowed are
> >> those who are responsible for managing the organization and those they
> >> appoint.
> >>
> >> "As I was a member of a committee that did decide the parameters of
> >> speech in this forum, and since it seemed a possibility that matters
> >> pertaining to a matter involving this question might go to court, my
> >> attorneys researched and rendered this opinion with the expectation
> >> that it would be defended in federal court.
> >>
> >> "The firm I use is Merritt, Flebotte, Wilson, Webb & Caruso, PLLC. The
> >> opinion was issued to me the first week of May, 2007.
> >>
> >> "If I may extrapolate the opinion of my attorneys to this thread,
> >> Mottershead has no ground to stand on. His argument is erroneous.
> >> There are no "free speech" rights as he wishes to bestow here."
> >
> > I would like to see the opinion letter, particularly the specific legal
> > question was posed. I doubt that this firm was addressing the issue
> > raised here by Motterhead.
>
> I have communicated with Steve, and he advises that there was no formal
> opinion; that comments were intertwined with other confidential matters.
> Thus, understandably, he does not want to release any communication
> from his attorneys. Steve also told me that the firm advised that the
> issue Mr. Hillary is so certain they rendered an opinion on, should be
> addressed by the USCF's attorney and not their firm.
>
> So Mr. Hillary, once again you're way off the mark.
Brian, did you engage in this sort of _ignoratio elenchi_ when you
were in front of a judge who could sanction you? You're the one who is
asserting the existence of some law or precedent. You've already
admitted that you can't find any statute law covering it. I gave you a
chance to cite some on-point case law. The fact that you didn't pretty
well proves that you can't. I don't have to prove a negative. You (or
your crony Brian M, who began this farrago) must prove your
affirmative claim. I'm not holding my breath.
It's become clear that you are better at boasting and innuendo than
fact and law. Perhaps that's why you stopped practicing.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jul 2008 13:30:59
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>>>>> As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
>>>>> corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
>>>>> corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
>>>>> allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage
>>>>> with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such as
>>>>> the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
>>>>> governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
>>>>> controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
>>>>> organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
>>>>> specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is more
>>>>> subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
>>>>> first week.
>>>>
>>>> As usual, former attorney Brian Lafferty overestimates his knowledge
>>>> of the law.
>>> I hate to burst your bubble Mr. Hillary, but I'm an attorney in good
>>> standing in the State of New York and am also admitted to practice and
>>> in good standing in the SDNY. And where are you admitted to practice?
>>>
>>>> SDO1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Since a matter like this concerned my actions as a member of the FOC
>>>> in April/May 2007, I asked my attorney if the USCF had the right to
>>>> moderate the forum as they saw fit and if the users, as members of the
>>>> USCF, had rights beyond what the USCF allowed. The short answer was
>>>> that the USCF owns the forum and that it may decide what is or is not
>>>> "proper speech" and is within its rights to allow or not allow any
>>>> post on whatever grounds it deems necessary. The entities with the
>>>> authority to govern the parameters of what is or is not allowed are
>>>> those who are responsible for managing the organization and those they
>>>> appoint.
>>>>
>>>> "As I was a member of a committee that did decide the parameters of
>>>> speech in this forum, and since it seemed a possibility that matters
>>>> pertaining to a matter involving this question might go to court, my
>>>> attorneys researched and rendered this opinion with the expectation
>>>> that it would be defended in federal court.
>>>>
>>>> "The firm I use is Merritt, Flebotte, Wilson, Webb & Caruso, PLLC. The
>>>> opinion was issued to me the first week of May, 2007.
>>>>
>>>> "If I may extrapolate the opinion of my attorneys to this thread,
>>>> Mottershead has no ground to stand on. His argument is erroneous.
>>>> There are no "free speech" rights as he wishes to bestow here."
>>> I would like to see the opinion letter, particularly the specific legal
>>> question was posed. I doubt that this firm was addressing the issue
>>> raised here by Motterhead.
>> I have communicated with Steve, and he advises that there was no formal
>> opinion; that comments were intertwined with other confidential matters.
>> Thus, understandably, he does not want to release any communication
>> from his attorneys. Steve also told me that the firm advised that the
>> issue Mr. Hillary is so certain they rendered an opinion on, should be
>> addressed by the USCF's attorney and not their firm.
>>
>> So Mr. Hillary, once again you're way off the mark.
>
>
>
> Brian, did you engage in this sort of _ignoratio elenchi_ when you
> were in front of a judge who could sanction you?
Stupid one, I was never sanctioned by any judge and did quite well as a
corporate litigator on Wall Street. As an administrative judge I was
never reversed by the courts.
>You're the one who is
> asserting the existence of some law or precedent. You've already
> admitted that you can't find any statute law covering it.
Stupid one, I made no such admission. Go to a library and get yourself
a hornbook on corporate law. You'll see the governance and control
issues discussed as any law student who has taken corporations can tell
you.
>I gave you a
> chance to cite some on-point case law. The fact that you didn't pretty
> well proves that you can't.
I gave you an opportunity to have me give you an opinion letter with
statutory and case law citations, for which you were given my hourly
rate and retainer requirement.
>I don't have to prove a negative. You (or
> your crony Brian M, who began this farrago) must prove your
> affirmative claim. I'm not holding my breath.
You made a statement as to the law. It's up to you to provide proof for
what you claim. You have been wrong on the law many, many times in the
past. What jurisdiction are you admitted to practice in?
>
> It's become clear that you are better at boasting and innuendo than
> fact and law. Perhaps that's why you stopped practicing.
Put up the retainer. $7,500.00 will get me started. PM me on the USCF
forums if you're interested.
|
| | | |
Date: 14 Jul 2008 19:50:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:nyIek.199$6O4.176@trnddc06...
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>>> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>>>>>> As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
>>>>>> corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
>>>>>> corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
>>>>>> allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair
>>>>>> advantage
>>>>>> with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such
>>>>>> as
>>>>>> the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
>>>>>> governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
>>>>>> controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
>>>>>> organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
>>>>>> specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is
>>>>>> more
>>>>>> subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
>>>>>> first week.
>>>>>
>>>>> As usual, former attorney Brian Lafferty overestimates his knowledge
>>>>> of the law.
>>>> I hate to burst your bubble Mr. Hillary, but I'm an attorney in good
>>>> standing in the State of New York and am also admitted to practice and
>>>> in good standing in the SDNY. And where are you admitted to practice?
>>>>
>>>>> SDO1 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Since a matter like this concerned my actions as a member of the FOC
>>>>> in April/May 2007, I asked my attorney if the USCF had the right to
>>>>> moderate the forum as they saw fit and if the users, as members of the
>>>>> USCF, had rights beyond what the USCF allowed. The short answer was
>>>>> that the USCF owns the forum and that it may decide what is or is not
>>>>> "proper speech" and is within its rights to allow or not allow any
>>>>> post on whatever grounds it deems necessary. The entities with the
>>>>> authority to govern the parameters of what is or is not allowed are
>>>>> those who are responsible for managing the organization and those they
>>>>> appoint.
>>>>>
>>>>> "As I was a member of a committee that did decide the parameters of
>>>>> speech in this forum, and since it seemed a possibility that matters
>>>>> pertaining to a matter involving this question might go to court, my
>>>>> attorneys researched and rendered this opinion with the expectation
>>>>> that it would be defended in federal court.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The firm I use is Merritt, Flebotte, Wilson, Webb & Caruso, PLLC. The
>>>>> opinion was issued to me the first week of May, 2007.
>>>>>
>>>>> "If I may extrapolate the opinion of my attorneys to this thread,
>>>>> Mottershead has no ground to stand on. His argument is erroneous.
>>>>> There are no "free speech" rights as he wishes to bestow here."
>>>> I would like to see the opinion letter, particularly the specific legal
>>>> question was posed. I doubt that this firm was addressing the issue
>>>> raised here by Motterhead.
>>> I have communicated with Steve, and he advises that there was no formal
>>> opinion; that comments were intertwined with other confidential matters.
>>> Thus, understandably, he does not want to release any communication
>>> from his attorneys. Steve also told me that the firm advised that the
>>> issue Mr. Hillary is so certain they rendered an opinion on, should be
>>> addressed by the USCF's attorney and not their firm.
>>>
>>> So Mr. Hillary, once again you're way off the mark.
>>
>>
>>
>> Brian, did you engage in this sort of _ignoratio elenchi_ when you
>> were in front of a judge who could sanction you?
>
> Stupid one,
Which is not hate speech, says Our Brian. And its not /exactly/, is it? Its
more the hatred of [other's] speech.
But listen to the braggart! This is the guy who couldn't answer my question
about what he knew and when, and he threw the same stuff at me = prove it,
he said. But that is why I am asking you, I said.
What Brian Laffety's role in these affairs is, and the extent of his
engagement with any party is unknown! Prove it! He will say. Well, as for
wanting to be clear in public - prove it! Lafferty. This is not a court, and
no paralegal rules apply, and you ain't in charge of the rules.
People ask you questions and you lead your comments by calling them names.
Prove you want a dialog, and are not a 'judge' ;)
Phil Innes
> I was never sanctioned by any judge and did quite well as a corporate
> litigator on Wall Street. As an administrative judge I was never reversed
> by the courts.
>
>
>>You're the one who is
>> asserting the existence of some law or precedent. You've already
>> admitted that you can't find any statute law covering it.
>
> Stupid one, I made no such admission. Go to a library and get yourself a
> hornbook on corporate law. You'll see the governance and control issues
> discussed as any law student who has taken corporations can tell you.
>
>
>>I gave you a
>> chance to cite some on-point case law. The fact that you didn't pretty
>> well proves that you can't.
>
> I gave you an opportunity to have me give you an opinion letter with
> statutory and case law citations, for which you were given my hourly rate
> and retainer requirement.
>
>>I don't have to prove a negative. You (or
>> your crony Brian M, who began this farrago) must prove your
>> affirmative claim. I'm not holding my breath.
>
> You made a statement as to the law. It's up to you to provide proof for
> what you claim. You have been wrong on the law many, many times in the
> past. What jurisdiction are you admitted to practice in?
>>
>> It's become clear that you are better at boasting and innuendo than
>> fact and law. Perhaps that's why you stopped practicing.
>
> Put up the retainer. $7,500.00 will get me started. PM me on the USCF
> forums if you're interested.
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Jul 2008 00:03:56
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:nyIek.199$6O4.176@trnddc06...
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>>>> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>>>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>>>>>>> As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
>>>>>>> corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
>>>>>>> corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
>>>>>>> allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair
>>>>>>> advantage
>>>>>>> with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
>>>>>>> governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
>>>>>>> controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
>>>>>>> organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
>>>>>>> specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is
>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>> subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
>>>>>>> first week.
>>>>>> As usual, former attorney Brian Lafferty overestimates his knowledge
>>>>>> of the law.
>>>>> I hate to burst your bubble Mr. Hillary, but I'm an attorney in good
>>>>> standing in the State of New York and am also admitted to practice and
>>>>> in good standing in the SDNY. And where are you admitted to practice?
>>>>>
>>>>>> SDO1 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Since a matter like this concerned my actions as a member of the FOC
>>>>>> in April/May 2007, I asked my attorney if the USCF had the right to
>>>>>> moderate the forum as they saw fit and if the users, as members of the
>>>>>> USCF, had rights beyond what the USCF allowed. The short answer was
>>>>>> that the USCF owns the forum and that it may decide what is or is not
>>>>>> "proper speech" and is within its rights to allow or not allow any
>>>>>> post on whatever grounds it deems necessary. The entities with the
>>>>>> authority to govern the parameters of what is or is not allowed are
>>>>>> those who are responsible for managing the organization and those they
>>>>>> appoint.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "As I was a member of a committee that did decide the parameters of
>>>>>> speech in this forum, and since it seemed a possibility that matters
>>>>>> pertaining to a matter involving this question might go to court, my
>>>>>> attorneys researched and rendered this opinion with the expectation
>>>>>> that it would be defended in federal court.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The firm I use is Merritt, Flebotte, Wilson, Webb & Caruso, PLLC. The
>>>>>> opinion was issued to me the first week of May, 2007.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If I may extrapolate the opinion of my attorneys to this thread,
>>>>>> Mottershead has no ground to stand on. His argument is erroneous.
>>>>>> There are no "free speech" rights as he wishes to bestow here."
>>>>> I would like to see the opinion letter, particularly the specific legal
>>>>> question was posed. I doubt that this firm was addressing the issue
>>>>> raised here by Motterhead.
>>>> I have communicated with Steve, and he advises that there was no formal
>>>> opinion; that comments were intertwined with other confidential matters.
>>>> Thus, understandably, he does not want to release any communication
>>>> from his attorneys. Steve also told me that the firm advised that the
>>>> issue Mr. Hillary is so certain they rendered an opinion on, should be
>>>> addressed by the USCF's attorney and not their firm.
>>>>
>>>> So Mr. Hillary, once again you're way off the mark.
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian, did you engage in this sort of _ignoratio elenchi_ when you
>>> were in front of a judge who could sanction you?
>> Stupid one,
>
> Which is not hate speech, says Our Brian. And its not /exactly/, is it? Its
> more the hatred of [other's] speech.
It's not hate speech withing the commonly accepted meaning of the term
in Western society. If you used your definitions of words, Phil, we'd
be reduced to incoherent babel such as you speak.
>
> But listen to the braggart! This is the guy who couldn't answer my question
> about what he knew and when, and he threw the same stuff at me = prove it,
> he said. But that is why I am asking you, I said.
>
> What Brian Laffety's role in these affairs is, and the extent of his
> engagement with any party is unknown! Prove it! He will say. Well, as for
> wanting to be clear in public - prove it! Lafferty. This is not a court, and
> no paralegal rules apply, and you ain't in charge of the rules.
What are "paralegal rules," Phil. See what I mean by babel?
>
> People ask you questions and you lead your comments by calling them names.
>
> Prove you want a dialog, and are not a 'judge' ;)
I have nothing to prove, Phil. I have dialog with people every day, here
and in other places. Regrettably, discussion is something you are
rarely capable of.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>> I was never sanctioned by any judge and did quite well as a corporate
>> litigator on Wall Street. As an administrative judge I was never reversed
>> by the courts.
>>
>>
>>> You're the one who is
>>> asserting the existence of some law or precedent. You've already
>>> admitted that you can't find any statute law covering it.
>> Stupid one, I made no such admission. Go to a library and get yourself a
>> hornbook on corporate law. You'll see the governance and control issues
>> discussed as any law student who has taken corporations can tell you.
>>
>>
>>> I gave you a
>>> chance to cite some on-point case law. The fact that you didn't pretty
>>> well proves that you can't.
>> I gave you an opportunity to have me give you an opinion letter with
>> statutory and case law citations, for which you were given my hourly rate
>> and retainer requirement.
>>
>>> I don't have to prove a negative. You (or
>>> your crony Brian M, who began this farrago) must prove your
>>> affirmative claim. I'm not holding my breath.
>> You made a statement as to the law. It's up to you to provide proof for
>> what you claim. You have been wrong on the law many, many times in the
>> past. What jurisdiction are you admitted to practice in?
>>> It's become clear that you are better at boasting and innuendo than
>>> fact and law. Perhaps that's why you stopped practicing.
>> Put up the retainer. $7,500.00 will get me started. PM me on the USCF
>> forums if you're interested.
>
>
|
| | | | | |
Date: 15 Jul 2008 19:29:49
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:MPRek.243$gH4.77@trnddc05...
>> Which is not hate speech, says Our Brian. And its not /exactly/, is it?
>> Its more the hatred of [other's] speech.
>
> It's not hate speech withing the commonly accepted meaning of the term in
> Western society. If you used your definitions of words, Phil, we'd be
> reduced to incoherent babel such as you speak.
Hate speech according to Brian does not mean referring to the person with
which he corresponds with suggestive negative and demeaning
characterisations of them, as is his own /observed/ practice. One wonders
what hate-speech actually is thereby, according to Judge Lafferty?
As usual, Judge Lafferty seeks to reduce the level of others to incoherence,
yet, his own representation of his own activities is no model! See how he
side-steps what he knew about the hot-sauce accusations, and only by
pressure of these messages eventually admitted the charges were 'vacated'.
Pfft! I have established here this is his level of honesty - and at some
expense of time to do so.
Judge Laffery is very coy about himself, and says nothing so direct to
direct questions about his own engagement with these affairs when asked.
Readers will make up their own minds to his candidness.
>> But listen to the braggart! This is the guy who couldn't answer my
>> question about what he knew and when, and he threw the same stuff at me =
>> prove it, he said. But that is why I am asking you, I said.
>>
>> What Brian Laffety's role in these affairs is, and the extent of his
>> engagement with any party is unknown! Prove it! He will say. Well, as for
>> wanting to be clear in public - prove it! Lafferty. This is not a court,
>> and no paralegal rules apply, and you ain't in charge of the rules.
>
> What are "paralegal rules," Phil. See what I mean by babel?
Brian Lafferty asks why he should shadow as a 'judge' in the legal system,
while admitting that all was political?!
Is he actually ever giving objective legal council? Or is he acting with
others to sort-of do so? To sort of prance in public about his legal acumen,
while being an active party to the issue under investigation which he says
is all politics - not legalities?
Paralegal in the literary sense, of semi-legal advisory is a bit weak from
the Judge, but what is to be expected from him?
>> People ask you questions and you lead your comments by calling them
>> names.
>>
>> Prove you want a dialog, and are not a 'judge' ;)
>
> I have nothing to prove, Phil.
Brian states he needs not prove he wants any dicussion... he presumably
allows my comments to stand while saying that nothing is proved my my
pointing out his behavior?
ROFL
> I have dialog with people every day, here and in other places.
> Regrettably, discussion is something you are rarely capable of.
Too much projection! Has not Brian Lafferty been banned in every moderated
newsgroup he has entertained with his opinons? But here he says he
entertains dialogs with such as the slut Sloan, and less than he!
What a piece of unconscionable work is this!
Phil Innes
>> Phil Innes
>>
>>> I was never sanctioned by any judge and did quite well as a corporate
>>> litigator on Wall Street. As an administrative judge I was never
>>> reversed by the courts.
>>>
>>>
>>>> You're the one who is
>>>> asserting the existence of some law or precedent. You've already
>>>> admitted that you can't find any statute law covering it.
>>> Stupid one, I made no such admission. Go to a library and get yourself
>>> a hornbook on corporate law. You'll see the governance and control
>>> issues discussed as any law student who has taken corporations can tell
>>> you.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I gave you a
>>>> chance to cite some on-point case law. The fact that you didn't pretty
>>>> well proves that you can't.
>>> I gave you an opportunity to have me give you an opinion letter with
>>> statutory and case law citations, for which you were given my hourly
>>> rate and retainer requirement.
>>>
>>>> I don't have to prove a negative. You (or
>>>> your crony Brian M, who began this farrago) must prove your
>>>> affirmative claim. I'm not holding my breath.
>>> You made a statement as to the law. It's up to you to provide proof for
>>> what you claim. You have been wrong on the law many, many times in the
>>> past. What jurisdiction are you admitted to practice in?
>>>> It's become clear that you are better at boasting and innuendo than
>>>> fact and law. Perhaps that's why you stopped practicing.
>>> Put up the retainer. $7,500.00 will get me started. PM me on the USCF
>>> forums if you're interested.
>>
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 15 Jul 2008 18:02:13
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:29:49 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>
>"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:MPRek.243$gH4.77@trnddc05...
>>> Which is not hate speech, says Our Brian. And its not /exactly/, is it?
>>> Its more the hatred of [other's] speech.
>> It's not hate speech withing the commonly accepted meaning of the term in
>> Western society. If you used your definitions of words, Phil, we'd be
>> reduced to incoherent babel such as you speak.
>Hate speech according to Brian does not mean referring to the person with
>which he corresponds with suggestive negative and demeaning
>characterisations of them, as is his own /observed/ practice. One wonders
>what hate-speech actually is thereby, according to Judge Lafferty?
Probably, something like this:
"Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well
as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.
It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on
Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society." (Wikipedia)
So, demeaning PT for his Vietnamese origins or The Historian for being
overweight would be hate speech as conventionally defined.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Jul 2008 14:38:48
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:29:49 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:MPRek.243$gH4.77@trnddc05...
>
>>>> Which is not hate speech, says Our Brian. And its not /exactly/, is it?
>>>> Its more the hatred of [other's] speech.
>
>>> It's not hate speech withing the commonly accepted meaning of the term
>>> in
>>> Western society. If you used your definitions of words, Phil, we'd be
>>> reduced to incoherent babel such as you speak.
>
>>Hate speech according to Brian does not mean referring to the person with
>>which he corresponds with suggestive negative and demeaning
>>characterisations of them, as is his own /observed/ practice. One wonders
>>what hate-speech actually is thereby, according to Judge Lafferty?
>
> Probably, something like this:
>
> "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
> incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
> people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
> religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
> ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
> appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
> and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well
> as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.
> It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on
> Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society." (Wikipedia)
Well, thank you for the illustration of what it is.
> So, demeaning PT for his Vietnamese origins or The Historian for being
> overweight would be hate speech as conventionally defined.
No it would not, and who has actually done that except for Sam Sloan?
Whereas demeaning PT for his successes in Vietnamese chess would be hateful.
Demeaning Brennen for his elective-size would be to only note what he
himself declares his excuse for his own hate-speech , if one didn't mention
that he would not be fat at all if he didn't spend so much time at the
keyboard rubbishing others - a condition which literally reduces the quality
and extent of his life.
Things are a bit more complex than your simple proposition, Mr. Murray. And
there are few innocent posters here who would agree at all.
But I note you write in response to my mention of Brian Lafferty's
psotings - and I think readers will decide for themselves if his responses
are according to the Wiki definition.
You will note that Brian Lafferty chose not to answer what he knew, when he
knew it, not what relations personal or professional he had with the
accuser, while still promoting the charge about people's children.
I merely asked him if he knew the charge was officially vacated by a court
when he made his offerings here. I have not understood him to make direct
response to this, and surely, not all questions can be answered yes or no,
but this one can.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 18 Jul 2008 18:50:00
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Mike Murray" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:29:49 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:MPRek.243$gH4.77@trnddc05...
>>>>> Which is not hate speech, says Our Brian. And its not /exactly/, is it?
>>>>> Its more the hatred of [other's] speech.
>>>> It's not hate speech withing the commonly accepted meaning of the term
>>>> in
>>>> Western society. If you used your definitions of words, Phil, we'd be
>>>> reduced to incoherent babel such as you speak.
>>> Hate speech according to Brian does not mean referring to the person with
>>> which he corresponds with suggestive negative and demeaning
>>> characterisations of them, as is his own /observed/ practice. One wonders
>>> what hate-speech actually is thereby, according to Judge Lafferty?
>> Probably, something like this:
>>
>> "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
>> incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
>> people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
>> religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
>> ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
>> appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
>> and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well
>> as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.
>> It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on
>> Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society." (Wikipedia)
>
> Well, thank you for the illustration of what it is.
>
>> So, demeaning PT for his Vietnamese origins or The Historian for being
>> overweight would be hate speech as conventionally defined.
>
> No it would not, and who has actually done that except for Sam Sloan?
> Whereas demeaning PT for his successes in Vietnamese chess would be hateful.
>
> Demeaning Brennen for his elective-size would be to only note what he
> himself declares his excuse for his own hate-speech , if one didn't mention
> that he would not be fat at all if he didn't spend so much time at the
> keyboard rubbishing others - a condition which literally reduces the quality
> and extent of his life.
>
> Things are a bit more complex than your simple proposition, Mr. Murray. And
> there are few innocent posters here who would agree at all.
>
> But I note you write in response to my mention of Brian Lafferty's
> psotings - and I think readers will decide for themselves if his responses
> are according to the Wiki definition.
>
> You will note that Brian Lafferty chose not to answer what he knew, when he
> knew it, not what relations personal or professional he had with the
> accuser, while still promoting the charge about people's children.
>
> I merely asked him if he knew the charge was officially vacated by a court
> when he made his offerings here. I have not understood him to make direct
> response to this, and surely, not all questions can be answered yes or no,
> but this one can.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
Yada, yada, yada, Phil.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Jul 2008 19:41:30
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:29:49 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:MPRek.243$gH4.77@trnddc05...
>
>>>> Which is not hate speech, says Our Brian. And its not /exactly/, is it?
>>>> Its more the hatred of [other's] speech.
>
>>> It's not hate speech withing the commonly accepted meaning of the term in
>>> Western society. If you used your definitions of words, Phil, we'd be
>>> reduced to incoherent babel such as you speak.
>
>> Hate speech according to Brian does not mean referring to the person with
>> which he corresponds with suggestive negative and demeaning
>> characterisations of them, as is his own /observed/ practice. One wonders
>> what hate-speech actually is thereby, according to Judge Lafferty?
>
> Probably, something like this:
>
> "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
> incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
> people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
> religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
> ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
> appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
> and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well
> as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.
> It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on
> Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society." (Wikipedia)
>
> So, demeaning PT for his Vietnamese origins or The Historian for being
> overweight would be hate speech as conventionally defined.
I thought that hate speech was the dominant form of discourse for rgcp;
regardless of which side of what issue one is on... Tis a shame.
Dare to be different! Say something nice about your adversary...
--
"Do that which is right..."
Rev. J.D. Walker
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 16 Jul 2008 10:05:19
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:41:30 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>> "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
>> incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
>> people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
>> religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
>> ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
>> appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
>> and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well
>> as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.
>> It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on
>> Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society." (Wikipedia)
>> So, demeaning PT for his Vietnamese origins or The Historian for being
>> overweight would be hate speech as conventionally defined.
>I thought that hate speech was the dominant form of discourse for rgcp;
Actually, it *would* be possible to use my post as a checklist to
ensure one has covered all the bases when addressing an opponent.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Jul 2008 00:30:13
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:MPRek.243$gH4.77@trnddc05...
>
>>> Which is not hate speech, says Our Brian. And its not /exactly/, is it?
>>> Its more the hatred of [other's] speech.
>> It's not hate speech withing the commonly accepted meaning of the term in
>> Western society. If you used your definitions of words, Phil, we'd be
>> reduced to incoherent babel such as you speak.
>
> Hate speech according to Brian does not mean referring to the person with
> which he corresponds with suggestive negative and demeaning
> characterisations of them, as is his own /observed/ practice. One wonders
> what hate-speech actually is thereby, according to Judge Lafferty?
>
> As usual, Judge Lafferty seeks to reduce the level of others to incoherence,
> yet, his own representation of his own activities is no model! See how he
> side-steps what he knew about the hot-sauce accusations, and only by
> pressure of these messages eventually admitted the charges were 'vacated'.
>
> Pfft! I have established here this is his level of honesty - and at some
> expense of time to do so.
>
> Judge Laffery is very coy about himself, and says nothing so direct to
> direct questions about his own engagement with these affairs when asked.
>
> Readers will make up their own minds to his candidness.
>
>>> But listen to the braggart! This is the guy who couldn't answer my
>>> question about what he knew and when, and he threw the same stuff at me =
>>> prove it, he said. But that is why I am asking you, I said.
>>>
>>> What Brian Laffety's role in these affairs is, and the extent of his
>>> engagement with any party is unknown! Prove it! He will say. Well, as for
>>> wanting to be clear in public - prove it! Lafferty. This is not a court,
>>> and no paralegal rules apply, and you ain't in charge of the rules.
>> What are "paralegal rules," Phil. See what I mean by babel?
>
> Brian Lafferty asks why he should shadow as a 'judge' in the legal system,
> while admitting that all was political?!
>
> Is he actually ever giving objective legal council? Or is he acting with
> others to sort-of do so? To sort of prance in public about his legal acumen,
> while being an active party to the issue under investigation which he says
> is all politics - not legalities?
>
> Paralegal in the literary sense, of semi-legal advisory is a bit weak from
> the Judge, but what is to be expected from him?
>
>>> People ask you questions and you lead your comments by calling them
>>> names.
>>>
>>> Prove you want a dialog, and are not a 'judge' ;)
>> I have nothing to prove, Phil.
>
> Brian states he needs not prove he wants any dicussion... he presumably
> allows my comments to stand while saying that nothing is proved my my
> pointing out his behavior?
>
> ROFL
>
>> I have dialog with people every day, here and in other places.
>> Regrettably, discussion is something you are rarely capable of.
>
> Too much projection! Has not Brian Lafferty been banned in every moderated
> newsgroup he has entertained with his opinons? But here he says he
> entertains dialogs with such as the slut Sloan, and less than he!
>
> What a piece of unconscionable work is this!
>
> Phil Innes
>
>>> Phil Innes
>>>
>>>> I was never sanctioned by any judge and did quite well as a corporate
>>>> litigator on Wall Street. As an administrative judge I was never
>>>> reversed by the courts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> You're the one who is
>>>>> asserting the existence of some law or precedent. You've already
>>>>> admitted that you can't find any statute law covering it.
>>>> Stupid one, I made no such admission. Go to a library and get yourself
>>>> a hornbook on corporate law. You'll see the governance and control
>>>> issues discussed as any law student who has taken corporations can tell
>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I gave you a
>>>>> chance to cite some on-point case law. The fact that you didn't pretty
>>>>> well proves that you can't.
>>>> I gave you an opportunity to have me give you an opinion letter with
>>>> statutory and case law citations, for which you were given my hourly
>>>> rate and retainer requirement.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't have to prove a negative. You (or
>>>>> your crony Brian M, who began this farrago) must prove your
>>>>> affirmative claim. I'm not holding my breath.
>>>> You made a statement as to the law. It's up to you to provide proof for
>>>> what you claim. You have been wrong on the law many, many times in the
>>>> past. What jurisdiction are you admitted to practice in?
>>>>> It's become clear that you are better at boasting and innuendo than
>>>>> fact and law. Perhaps that's why you stopped practicing.
>>>> Put up the retainer. $7,500.00 will get me started. PM me on the USCF
>>>> forums if you're interested.
>
Phil, yours is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing. Which is to say, yada, yada, yada.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Jul 2008 15:40:43
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:pibfk.381$jS4.274@trnddc07...
> Chess One wrote:
>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:MPRek.243$gH4.77@trnddc05...
>>
>>>> Which is not hate speech, says Our Brian. And its not /exactly/, is it?
>>>> Its more the hatred of [other's] speech.
>>> It's not hate speech withing the commonly accepted meaning of the term
>>> in Western society. If you used your definitions of words, Phil, we'd
>>> be reduced to incoherent babel such as you speak.
>>
>> Hate speech according to Brian does not mean referring to the person with
>> which he corresponds with suggestive negative and demeaning
>> characterisations of them, as is his own /observed/ practice. One wonders
>> what hate-speech actually is thereby, according to Judge Lafferty?
>>
>> As usual, Judge Lafferty seeks to reduce the level of others to
>> incoherence, yet, his own representation of his own activities is no
>> model! See how he side-steps what he knew about the hot-sauce
>> accusations, and only by pressure of these messages eventually admitted
>> the charges were 'vacated'.
>>
>> Pfft! I have established here this is his level of honesty - and at some
>> expense of time to do so.
>>
>> Judge Laffery is very coy about himself, and says nothing so direct to
>> direct questions about his own engagement with these affairs when asked.
>>
>> Readers will make up their own minds to his candidness.
>>
>>>> But listen to the braggart! This is the guy who couldn't answer my
>>>> question about what he knew and when, and he threw the same stuff at me
>>>> = prove it, he said. But that is why I am asking you, I said.
>>>>
>>>> What Brian Laffety's role in these affairs is, and the extent of his
>>>> engagement with any party is unknown! Prove it! He will say. Well, as
>>>> for wanting to be clear in public - prove it! Lafferty. This is not a
>>>> court, and no paralegal rules apply, and you ain't in charge of the
>>>> rules.
>>> What are "paralegal rules," Phil. See what I mean by babel?
>>
>> Brian Lafferty asks why he should shadow as a 'judge' in the legal
>> system, while admitting that all was political?!
>>
>> Is he actually ever giving objective legal council? Or is he acting with
>> others to sort-of do so? To sort of prance in public about his legal
>> acumen, while being an active party to the issue under investigation
>> which he says is all politics - not legalities?
>>
>> Paralegal in the literary sense, of semi-legal advisory is a bit weak
>> from the Judge, but what is to be expected from him?
>>
>>>> People ask you questions and you lead your comments by calling them
>>>> names.
>>>>
>>>> Prove you want a dialog, and are not a 'judge' ;)
>>> I have nothing to prove, Phil.
>>
>> Brian states he needs not prove he wants any dicussion... he presumably
>> allows my comments to stand while saying that nothing is proved my my
>> pointing out his behavior?
>>
>> ROFL
>>
>>> I have dialog with people every day, here and in other places.
>>> Regrettably, discussion is something you are rarely capable of.
>>
>> Too much projection! Has not Brian Lafferty been banned in every
>> moderated newsgroup he has entertained with his opinons? But here he says
>> he entertains dialogs with such as the slut Sloan, and less than he!
>>
>> What a piece of unconscionable work is this!
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>>>> Phil Innes
>>>>
>>>>> I was never sanctioned by any judge and did quite well as a corporate
>>>>> litigator on Wall Street. As an administrative judge I was never
>>>>> reversed by the courts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> You're the one who is
>>>>>> asserting the existence of some law or precedent. You've already
>>>>>> admitted that you can't find any statute law covering it.
>>>>> Stupid one, I made no such admission. Go to a library and get
>>>>> yourself a hornbook on corporate law. You'll see the governance and
>>>>> control issues discussed as any law student who has taken corporations
>>>>> can tell you.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I gave you a
>>>>>> chance to cite some on-point case law. The fact that you didn't
>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>> well proves that you can't.
>>>>> I gave you an opportunity to have me give you an opinion letter with
>>>>> statutory and case law citations, for which you were given my hourly
>>>>> rate and retainer requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have to prove a negative. You (or
>>>>>> your crony Brian M, who began this farrago) must prove your
>>>>>> affirmative claim. I'm not holding my breath.
>>>>> You made a statement as to the law. It's up to you to provide proof
>>>>> for what you claim. You have been wrong on the law many, many times
>>>>> in the past. What jurisdiction are you admitted to practice in?
>>>>>> It's become clear that you are better at boasting and innuendo than
>>>>>> fact and law. Perhaps that's why you stopped practicing.
>>>>> Put up the retainer. $7,500.00 will get me started. PM me on the
>>>>> USCF forums if you're interested.
>>
> Phil, yours is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying
> nothing. Which is to say, yada, yada, yada.
Thank you, Brian - I note your own original contribution to the 'debate' are
the words "yada, yada, yada". That no doubt impresses your intellectual
colleagues, but then again, you are a New York lawyer - which as Jerry might
say is "probably" the least respected group of people in US History.
Yet you 'deal with' any investigation at all [that you do not like] with
that level of commentary. I refer you to your own words of what Shaakespeare
thought signifies an idiot.
When asked direct questions about his own involvement in these affairs,
Brian become a 'yada, yada, yada,' sort of bloke.
Even Jerry Spinrad [!] who doesn't even need to see "secret evidence" to
exculpate Bill Goichberg, cautions Brian for seeming to 'jump on' all things
Polgar, lest, "presumably", Brian embarrasses even his own cohorts - never
mind influences others by the wit of his response!
Still unanswered is what Brian Lafferty knew of the vacated charge when he
published the charge itself. Did he know the court 'vacated it' at that
time? Simple question - asked 10 times.
I cannot really credit Jerry Spinrad for suggesting that Brian avoid a level
of unequalled vacuity and vague negative aspersion, since I have mentioned
same this past few months. The only thing missing is for Neil Brennan to
comment on the 'irony' of it all - which he don't - since if even Jerry
Spinrad is embarrassed by Brian's jumping, then we got an irony-clad
accusation.
ROFL
The Freedom of speech in the constitution was the freedom to freely speak
one's conscience - not to mouth-off about every trivial paranoid thought
which entered your brain and exited unaudited.
Phil Innes
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 17 Jul 2008 21:37:42
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:pibfk.381$jS4.274@trnddc07...
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:MPRek.243$gH4.77@trnddc05...
>>>
>>>>> Which is not hate speech, says Our Brian. And its not /exactly/, is it?
>>>>> Its more the hatred of [other's] speech.
>>>> It's not hate speech withing the commonly accepted meaning of the term
>>>> in Western society. If you used your definitions of words, Phil, we'd
>>>> be reduced to incoherent babel such as you speak.
>>> Hate speech according to Brian does not mean referring to the person with
>>> which he corresponds with suggestive negative and demeaning
>>> characterisations of them, as is his own /observed/ practice. One wonders
>>> what hate-speech actually is thereby, according to Judge Lafferty?
>>>
>>> As usual, Judge Lafferty seeks to reduce the level of others to
>>> incoherence, yet, his own representation of his own activities is no
>>> model! See how he side-steps what he knew about the hot-sauce
>>> accusations, and only by pressure of these messages eventually admitted
>>> the charges were 'vacated'.
>>>
>>> Pfft! I have established here this is his level of honesty - and at some
>>> expense of time to do so.
>>>
>>> Judge Laffery is very coy about himself, and says nothing so direct to
>>> direct questions about his own engagement with these affairs when asked.
>>>
>>> Readers will make up their own minds to his candidness.
>>>
>>>>> But listen to the braggart! This is the guy who couldn't answer my
>>>>> question about what he knew and when, and he threw the same stuff at me
>>>>> = prove it, he said. But that is why I am asking you, I said.
>>>>>
>>>>> What Brian Laffety's role in these affairs is, and the extent of his
>>>>> engagement with any party is unknown! Prove it! He will say. Well, as
>>>>> for wanting to be clear in public - prove it! Lafferty. This is not a
>>>>> court, and no paralegal rules apply, and you ain't in charge of the
>>>>> rules.
>>>> What are "paralegal rules," Phil. See what I mean by babel?
>>> Brian Lafferty asks why he should shadow as a 'judge' in the legal
>>> system, while admitting that all was political?!
>>>
>>> Is he actually ever giving objective legal council? Or is he acting with
>>> others to sort-of do so? To sort of prance in public about his legal
>>> acumen, while being an active party to the issue under investigation
>>> which he says is all politics - not legalities?
>>>
>>> Paralegal in the literary sense, of semi-legal advisory is a bit weak
>>> from the Judge, but what is to be expected from him?
>>>
>>>>> People ask you questions and you lead your comments by calling them
>>>>> names.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove you want a dialog, and are not a 'judge' ;)
>>>> I have nothing to prove, Phil.
>>> Brian states he needs not prove he wants any dicussion... he presumably
>>> allows my comments to stand while saying that nothing is proved my my
>>> pointing out his behavior?
>>>
>>> ROFL
>>>
>>>> I have dialog with people every day, here and in other places.
>>>> Regrettably, discussion is something you are rarely capable of.
>>> Too much projection! Has not Brian Lafferty been banned in every
>>> moderated newsgroup he has entertained with his opinons? But here he says
>>> he entertains dialogs with such as the slut Sloan, and less than he!
>>>
>>> What a piece of unconscionable work is this!
>>>
>>> Phil Innes
>>>
>>>>> Phil Innes
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was never sanctioned by any judge and did quite well as a corporate
>>>>>> litigator on Wall Street. As an administrative judge I was never
>>>>>> reversed by the courts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're the one who is
>>>>>>> asserting the existence of some law or precedent. You've already
>>>>>>> admitted that you can't find any statute law covering it.
>>>>>> Stupid one, I made no such admission. Go to a library and get
>>>>>> yourself a hornbook on corporate law. You'll see the governance and
>>>>>> control issues discussed as any law student who has taken corporations
>>>>>> can tell you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I gave you a
>>>>>>> chance to cite some on-point case law. The fact that you didn't
>>>>>>> pretty
>>>>>>> well proves that you can't.
>>>>>> I gave you an opportunity to have me give you an opinion letter with
>>>>>> statutory and case law citations, for which you were given my hourly
>>>>>> rate and retainer requirement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have to prove a negative. You (or
>>>>>>> your crony Brian M, who began this farrago) must prove your
>>>>>>> affirmative claim. I'm not holding my breath.
>>>>>> You made a statement as to the law. It's up to you to provide proof
>>>>>> for what you claim. You have been wrong on the law many, many times
>>>>>> in the past. What jurisdiction are you admitted to practice in?
>>>>>>> It's become clear that you are better at boasting and innuendo than
>>>>>>> fact and law. Perhaps that's why you stopped practicing.
>>>>>> Put up the retainer. $7,500.00 will get me started. PM me on the
>>>>>> USCF forums if you're interested.
>> Phil, yours is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying
>> nothing. Which is to say, yada, yada, yada.
>
> Thank you, Brian - I note your own original contribution to the 'debate' are
> the words "yada, yada, yada". That no doubt impresses your intellectual
> colleagues, but then again, you are a New York lawyer - which as Jerry might
> say is "probably" the least respected group of people in US History.
>
> Yet you 'deal with' any investigation at all [that you do not like] with
> that level of commentary. I refer you to your own words of what Shaakespeare
> thought signifies an idiot.
>
> When asked direct questions about his own involvement in these affairs,
> Brian become a 'yada, yada, yada,' sort of bloke.
>
> Even Jerry Spinrad [!] who doesn't even need to see "secret evidence" to
> exculpate Bill Goichberg, cautions Brian for seeming to 'jump on' all things
> Polgar, lest, "presumably", Brian embarrasses even his own cohorts - never
> mind influences others by the wit of his response!
>
> Still unanswered is what Brian Lafferty knew of the vacated charge when he
> published the charge itself. Did he know the court 'vacated it' at that
> time? Simple question - asked 10 times.
>
> I cannot really credit Jerry Spinrad for suggesting that Brian avoid a level
> of unequalled vacuity and vague negative aspersion, since I have mentioned
> same this past few months. The only thing missing is for Neil Brennan to
> comment on the 'irony' of it all - which he don't - since if even Jerry
> Spinrad is embarrassed by Brian's jumping, then we got an irony-clad
> accusation.
>
> ROFL
>
> The Freedom of speech in the constitution was the freedom to freely speak
> one's conscience - not to mouth-off about every trivial paranoid thought
> which entered your brain and exited unaudited.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
Yada, Yada, Yada, Phil.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 21:02:49
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
[quote="sdo1"]The short answer was that the USCF owns the forum and
that it may decide what is or is not "proper speech" and is within its
rights to allow or not allow any post on whatever grounds it deems
necessary. The entities with the authority to govern the parameters
of what is or is not allowed are those who are responsible for
managing the organization and those they appoint.
Steve Owens [/quote]
However, that is not the issue. What was going on during the election
campaign, and as far as I know you were not guilty of this but other
moderators were guilty of this, is that forum participants were not
allowed to post anything negative about certain candidates or anything
positive about certain other candidates. Certain moderators were
notoriously known to favor certain candidates. Certain questions could
not be asked of certain candidates, such as whether they were married
to each other or not. If there had been rules that were uniformly
applied to all posters, nobody would have complained. However, the
moderators appointed by management used their powers to favor certain
candidates for election.
Did the attorneys you consulted tell you that it was OK for management
to do that?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 15:21:10
From:
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
Brian Lafferty wrote:
> As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
> corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
> corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
> allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage
> with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such as
> the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
> governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
> controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
> organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
> specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is more
> subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
> first week.
As usual, former attorney Brian Lafferty overestimates his knowledge
of the law.
SDO1 wrote:
"Since a matter like this concerned my actions as a member of the FOC
in April/May 2007, I asked my attorney if the USCF had the right to
moderate the forum as they saw fit and if the users, as members of the
USCF, had rights beyond what the USCF allowed. The short answer was
that the USCF owns the forum and that it may decide what is or is not
"proper speech" and is within its rights to allow or not allow any
post on whatever grounds it deems necessary. The entities with the
authority to govern the parameters of what is or is not allowed are
those who are responsible for managing the organization and those they
appoint.
"As I was a member of a committee that did decide the parameters of
speech in this forum, and since it seemed a possibility that matters
pertaining to a matter involving this question might go to court, my
attorneys researched and rendered this opinion with the expectation
that it would be defended in federal court.
"The firm I use is Merritt, Flebotte, Wilson, Webb & Caruso, PLLC. The
opinion was issued to me the first week of May, 2007.
"If I may extrapolate the opinion of my attorneys to this thread,
Mottershead has no ground to stand on. His argument is erroneous.
There are no "free speech" rights as he wishes to bestow here."
|
| | |
Date: 16 Jul 2008 21:48:09
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
On Jul 16, 11:05=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Jul 16, 5:22 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > > samsloan wrote:
> > > > On Jul 16, 2:04 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > I wonder how one would rule if someone called another person a na=
me
> > > > > and the wounded party said the same? Are both equally guilty or o=
nly
> > > > > the first?
>
> > > > The problem is that terms that we use here are banned over there.
>
> > > > For example, you are not allowed to post:
>
> > > > "Fake Sam Sloan"
> > > > Trollgar
> > > > Polgarista
> > > > Polgarite
>
> > > > A few border line cases that hsve been allowed are:
>
> > > > "Chairman Susan"
> > > > "The one whose name cannot be mentioned"
>
> > > > These terms have come into use because the name Polgar cannot be us=
ed
> > > > except in a highly flattering and positive terms.
>
> > > > What makes this especially unfair is that she constantly attacks
> > > > people on her Blog and discussion group. For example she writes fro=
m
> > > > Rome, Italy, "I am not going to play their destructive and dirty
> > > > political games."
>
> > > >http://uschess.blogspot.com/2008/07/more-q-about-state-of-uscf.html
>
> > > > In the USCF Issues Forum, no response it allowed to these charges. =
One
> > > > must go to her group to respond, but she does not allow responses
> > > > there either.
>
> > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > Nonsense. Hal Bogner recently created a thread calling for Polgar's
> > > resignation. I didn't agree with him, and I suspect few others did,
> > > but he was able to make his point without using any silly names.
>
> > > If you don't like Polgar attacking you on her blog, set up your own
> > > and reply. Try not to do something idiotic enough to get you shut dow=
n
> > > by a court order this time. If people don't want to read it -- well,
> > > that's tough. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee an audience.
>
> > This does not explain what really happened.
>
> > Bogner Tried without success several times using different wordings to
> > call for Polgar's resignation. None were allowed to be posted.
>
> > Finally, Bogner came up with the following wording, "How to call for
> > Susan Polgar to resign, under the AUG?"
>
> > Note that this was a question, not a statement, and it does NOT call
> > for Polgar's resignation. It merely asks the question, hypothetically,
> > that if one wanted to call for Polgar's resignation, how would one do
> > it.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Again, nonsense. (A word that seems to come up quite often where you
> are concerned.) If you bother to read the thread, it's clear that he
> was calling for Polgar's resignation. What he wasn't allowed to do was
> post "... suggestions, without specifically identified substantial
> proof, that a person may have committed an unethical or criminal act."
> Considering how you whined about being called a liar, felon and
> kidnapper, you're in a poor position to raise that issue now. Free
> speech for thee but not for me?- Hide quoted text -
Actually, Sam likes nothing better than discussiong these issues about
himself. He will bitterly disagree, but I don't think you can call Sam
a hypocrite for wanting open discussion.
By the way, even if you for some reason disagree with the conclusions,
it is hard to deny that the Motterhead report is a very good example
of trying to back up charges that Paul Truong has committed an
unethical act with substantial evidence; it seems hard to dismiss
posts on that basis.
Jerry Spinrad
|
| | |
Date: 16 Jul 2008 21:05:36
From:
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Jul 16, 5:22 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > On Jul 16, 2:04 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > I wonder how one would rule if someone called another person a name
> > > > and the wounded party said the same? Are both equally guilty or only
> > > > the first?
> >
> > > The problem is that terms that we use here are banned over there.
> >
> > > For example, you are not allowed to post:
> >
> > > "Fake Sam Sloan"
> > > Trollgar
> > > Polgarista
> > > Polgarite
> >
> > > A few border line cases that hsve been allowed are:
> >
> > > "Chairman Susan"
> > > "The one whose name cannot be mentioned"
> >
> > > These terms have come into use because the name Polgar cannot be used
> > > except in a highly flattering and positive terms.
> >
> > > What makes this especially unfair is that she constantly attacks
> > > people on her Blog and discussion group. For example she writes from
> > > Rome, Italy, "I am not going to play their destructive and dirty
> > > political games."
> >
> > >http://uschess.blogspot.com/2008/07/more-q-about-state-of-uscf.html
> >
> > > In the USCF Issues Forum, no response it allowed to these charges. One
> > > must go to her group to respond, but she does not allow responses
> > > there either.
> >
> > > Sam Sloan
> >
> > Nonsense. Hal Bogner recently created a thread calling for Polgar's
> > resignation. I didn't agree with him, and I suspect few others did,
> > but he was able to make his point without using any silly names.
> >
> > If you don't like Polgar attacking you on her blog, set up your own
> > and reply. Try not to do something idiotic enough to get you shut down
> > by a court order this time. If people don't want to read it -- well,
> > that's tough. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee an audience.
>
> This does not explain what really happened.
>
> Bogner Tried without success several times using different wordings to
> call for Polgar's resignation. None were allowed to be posted.
>
> Finally, Bogner came up with the following wording, "How to call for
> Susan Polgar to resign, under the AUG?"
>
> Note that this was a question, not a statement, and it does NOT call
> for Polgar's resignation. It merely asks the question, hypothetically,
> that if one wanted to call for Polgar's resignation, how would one do
> it.
>
> Sam Sloan
Again, nonsense. (A word that seems to come up quite often where you
are concerned.) If you bother to read the thread, it's clear that he
was calling for Polgar's resignation. What he wasn't allowed to do was
post "... suggestions, without specifically identified substantial
proof, that a person may have committed an unethical or criminal act."
Considering how you whined about being called a liar, felon and
kidnapper, you're in a poor position to raise that issue now. Free
speech for thee but not for me?
|
| | |
Date: 16 Jul 2008 19:04:06
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
On Jul 16, 5:22 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Jul 16, 2:04 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I wonder how one would rule if someone called another person a name
> > > and the wounded party said the same? Are both equally guilty or only
> > > the first?
>
> > The problem is that terms that we use here are banned over there.
>
> > For example, you are not allowed to post:
>
> > "Fake Sam Sloan"
> > Trollgar
> > Polgarista
> > Polgarite
>
> > A few border line cases that hsve been allowed are:
>
> > "Chairman Susan"
> > "The one whose name cannot be mentioned"
>
> > These terms have come into use because the name Polgar cannot be used
> > except in a highly flattering and positive terms.
>
> > What makes this especially unfair is that she constantly attacks
> > people on her Blog and discussion group. For example she writes from
> > Rome, Italy, "I am not going to play their destructive and dirty
> > political games."
>
> >http://uschess.blogspot.com/2008/07/more-q-about-state-of-uscf.html
>
> > In the USCF Issues Forum, no response it allowed to these charges. One
> > must go to her group to respond, but she does not allow responses
> > there either.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Nonsense. Hal Bogner recently created a thread calling for Polgar's
> resignation. I didn't agree with him, and I suspect few others did,
> but he was able to make his point without using any silly names.
>
> If you don't like Polgar attacking you on her blog, set up your own
> and reply. Try not to do something idiotic enough to get you shut down
> by a court order this time. If people don't want to read it -- well,
> that's tough. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee an audience.
This does not explain what really happened.
Bogner Tried without success several times using different wordings to
call for Polgar's resignation. None were allowed to be posted.
Finally, Bogner came up with the following wording, "How to call for
Susan Polgar to resign, under the AUG?"
Note that this was a question, not a statement, and it does NOT call
for Polgar's resignation. It merely asks the question, hypothetically,
that if one wanted to call for Polgar's resignation, how would one do
it.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 16 Jul 2008 18:06:40
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
On Jul 16, 5:22=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Jul 16, 2:04 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I wonder how one would rule if someone called another person a name
> > > and the wounded party said the same? Are both equally guilty or only
> > > the first?
>
> > The problem is that terms that we use here are banned over there.
>
> > For example, you are not allowed to post:
>
> > "Fake Sam Sloan"
> > Trollgar
> > Polgarista
> > Polgarite
>
> > A few border line cases that hsve been allowed are:
>
> > "Chairman Susan"
> > "The one whose name cannot be mentioned"
>
> > These terms have come into use because the name Polgar cannot be used
> > except in a highly flattering and positive terms.
>
> > What makes this especially unfair is that she constantly attacks
> > people on her Blog and discussion group. For example she writes from
> > Rome, Italy, "I am not going to play their destructive and dirty
> > political games."
>
> >http://uschess.blogspot.com/2008/07/more-q-about-state-of-uscf.html
>
> > In the USCF Issues Forum, no response it allowed to these charges. One
> > must go to her group to respond, but she does not allow responses
> > there either.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Nonsense. Hal Bogner recently created a thread calling for Polgar's
> resignation. I didn't agree with him, and I suspect few others did,
> but he was able to make his point without using any silly names.
I am curious (genuinely!) about your suspecting that few people agreed
with this call for Polgar's resignation. I am guessing that you are
objectively probably right, because Polgar's blog is not seen by
critics as a place where their arguments can be considered fairly, and
they stop going there.
As a critic (but one I view as possible of conversing rationally with)
of calls for Truong's resignation, how do you think opinion stands in
other forums? Specifically, would you say that few people reading
r.g.c.p. would back a call for Truong's resignation? Do you think that
few people on the USCF forum would back a call for Truong's
resignation?
It is a bit interesting as a sociological question. I think there is a
tendency to view many of those on the opposite side of one's argument
as loons, not reflecting public opinion, and in general seems quite
possible that people on both sides of the issue might believe that
their view is endorsed by the vast majority.
Just as an example, in this forum, there are many posts by Phil Innes
or anonymous posters such as Nomen Nescio (I am not saying these are
lumped together in my mind as the same form of behavior, they are just
frequent posters who I do not include in my count since I feel they
are not taken seriously by the majority of readers) which I would
completely ignore, and would say that the majority here would would
support calls for Truong's resignation. I could see the possibility
that someone on the other side could count these, and ignore posts by
for example Brian Lafferty, Gordon Parker, and Sam Sloan (again,
different types of posters from the same side of this issue), and
conclude that the true majority here would oppose calls for Truong's
resignation.
Jerry Spinrad
>
> If you don't like Polgar attacking you on her blog, set up your own
> and reply. Try not to do something idiotic enough to get you shut down
> by a court order this time. If people don't want to read it -- well,
> that's tough. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee an audience.- Hide quot=
ed text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
|
| | |
Date: 16 Jul 2008 15:22:53
From:
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2:04 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I wonder how one would rule if someone called another person a name
> > and the wounded party said the same? Are both equally guilty or only
> > the first?
>
> The problem is that terms that we use here are banned over there.
>
> For example, you are not allowed to post:
>
> "Fake Sam Sloan"
> Trollgar
> Polgarista
> Polgarite
>
> A few border line cases that hsve been allowed are:
>
> "Chairman Susan"
> "The one whose name cannot be mentioned"
>
> These terms have come into use because the name Polgar cannot be used
> except in a highly flattering and positive terms.
>
> What makes this especially unfair is that she constantly attacks
> people on her Blog and discussion group. For example she writes from
> Rome, Italy, "I am not going to play their destructive and dirty
> political games."
>
> http://uschess.blogspot.com/2008/07/more-q-about-state-of-uscf.html
>
> In the USCF Issues Forum, no response it allowed to these charges. One
> must go to her group to respond, but she does not allow responses
> there either.
>
> Sam Sloan
Nonsense. Hal Bogner recently created a thread calling for Polgar's
resignation. I didn't agree with him, and I suspect few others did,
but he was able to make his point without using any silly names.
If you don't like Polgar attacking you on her blog, set up your own
and reply. Try not to do something idiotic enough to get you shut down
by a court order this time. If people don't want to read it -- well,
that's tough. Freedom of speech doesn't guarantee an audience.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Jul 2008 13:18:41
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
On Jul 16, 2:04 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> I wonder how one would rule if someone called another person a name
> and the wounded party said the same? Are both equally guilty or only
> the first?
The problem is that terms that we use here are banned over there.
For example, you are not allowed to post:
"Fake Sam Sloan"
Trollgar
Polgarista
Polgarite
A few border line cases that hsve been allowed are:
"Chairman Susan"
"The one whose name cannot be mentioned"
These terms have come into use because the name Polgar cannot be used
except in a highly flattering and positive terms.
What makes this especially unfair is that she constantly attacks
people on her Blog and discussion group. For example she writes from
Rome, Italy, "I am not going to play their destructive and dirty
political games."
http://uschess.blogspot.com/2008/07/more-q-about-state-of-uscf.html
In the USCF Issues Forum, no response it allowed to these charges. One
must go to her group to respond, but she does not allow responses
there either.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 16 Jul 2008 11:04:14
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
On Jul 16, 12:05=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:41:30 -0700, "J.D. Walker"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
> >> incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
> >> people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
> >> religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
> >> ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
> >> appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
> >> and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well
> >> as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.
> >> It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on
> >> Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society." (Wikipedia)
> >> So, demeaning PT for his Vietnamese origins or The Historian for being
> >> overweight would be hate speech as conventionally defined.
> >I thought that hate speech was the dominant form of discourse for rgcp;
>
> Actually, it *would* be possible to use my post as a checklist to
> ensure one has covered all the bases when addressing an opponent.
I wonder how one would rule if someone called another person a name
and the wounded party said the same? Are both equally guilty or only
the first?
|
| | | |
Date: 16 Jul 2008 12:25:44
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
On Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:04:14 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
>I wonder how one would rule if someone called another person a name
>and the wounded party said the same? Are both equally guilty or only
>the first?
Well, from my schoolyard days, I'd say both might get a whuppin'. I
mean, returning an epithet is not quite the same as blocking a punch,
the analog to which might be PeeWee's "I'm not but what are you?".
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 23:55:43
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>> As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
>> corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
>> corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
>> allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage
>> with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such as
>> the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
>> governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
>> controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
>> organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
>> specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is more
>> subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
>> first week.
>
>
> As usual, former attorney Brian Lafferty overestimates his knowledge
> of the law.
I hate to burst your bubble Mr. Hillary, but I'm an attorney in good
standing in the State of New York and am also admitted to practice and
in good standing in the SDNY. And where are you admitted to practice?
>
> SDO1 wrote:
>
> "Since a matter like this concerned my actions as a member of the FOC
> in April/May 2007, I asked my attorney if the USCF had the right to
> moderate the forum as they saw fit and if the users, as members of the
> USCF, had rights beyond what the USCF allowed. The short answer was
> that the USCF owns the forum and that it may decide what is or is not
> "proper speech" and is within its rights to allow or not allow any
> post on whatever grounds it deems necessary. The entities with the
> authority to govern the parameters of what is or is not allowed are
> those who are responsible for managing the organization and those they
> appoint.
>
> "As I was a member of a committee that did decide the parameters of
> speech in this forum, and since it seemed a possibility that matters
> pertaining to a matter involving this question might go to court, my
> attorneys researched and rendered this opinion with the expectation
> that it would be defended in federal court.
>
> "The firm I use is Merritt, Flebotte, Wilson, Webb & Caruso, PLLC. The
> opinion was issued to me the first week of May, 2007.
>
> "If I may extrapolate the opinion of my attorneys to this thread,
> Mottershead has no ground to stand on. His argument is erroneous.
> There are no "free speech" rights as he wishes to bestow here."
I would like to see the opinion letter, particularly the specific legal
question was posed. I doubt that this firm was addressing the issue
raised here by Motterhead.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Jul 2008 15:02:29
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
Brian Lafferty wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>>> As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
>>> corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
>>> corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
>>> allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage
>>> with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such as
>>> the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
>>> governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
>>> controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
>>> organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
>>> specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is more
>>> subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
>>> first week.
>>
>>
>> As usual, former attorney Brian Lafferty overestimates his knowledge
>> of the law.
>
> I hate to burst your bubble Mr. Hillary, but I'm an attorney in good
> standing in the State of New York and am also admitted to practice and
> in good standing in the SDNY. And where are you admitted to practice?
>
>>
>> SDO1 wrote:
>>
>> "Since a matter like this concerned my actions as a member of the FOC
>> in April/May 2007, I asked my attorney if the USCF had the right to
>> moderate the forum as they saw fit and if the users, as members of the
>> USCF, had rights beyond what the USCF allowed. The short answer was
>> that the USCF owns the forum and that it may decide what is or is not
>> "proper speech" and is within its rights to allow or not allow any
>> post on whatever grounds it deems necessary. The entities with the
>> authority to govern the parameters of what is or is not allowed are
>> those who are responsible for managing the organization and those they
>> appoint.
>>
>> "As I was a member of a committee that did decide the parameters of
>> speech in this forum, and since it seemed a possibility that matters
>> pertaining to a matter involving this question might go to court, my
>> attorneys researched and rendered this opinion with the expectation
>> that it would be defended in federal court.
>>
>> "The firm I use is Merritt, Flebotte, Wilson, Webb & Caruso, PLLC. The
>> opinion was issued to me the first week of May, 2007.
>>
>> "If I may extrapolate the opinion of my attorneys to this thread,
>> Mottershead has no ground to stand on. His argument is erroneous.
>> There are no "free speech" rights as he wishes to bestow here."
>
> I would like to see the opinion letter, particularly the specific legal
> question was posed. I doubt that this firm was addressing the issue
> raised here by Motterhead.
I have communicated with Steve, and he advises that there was no formal
opinion; that comments were intertwined with other confidential matters.
Thus, understandably, he does not want to release any communication
from his attorneys. Steve also told me that the firm advised that the
issue Mr. Hillary is so certain they rendered an opinion on, should be
addressed by the USCF's attorney and not their firm.
So Mr. Hillary, once again you're way off the mark.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 15:16:32
From:
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
Brian Lafferty wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > [quote="rfeditor"][quote="Brian Mottershead"][quote="rfeditor"]I think
> > that's utter nonsense, but if you can supply some statute or case law
> > supporting your claim, go ahead. Note that I am disputing the first
> > sentence, not the second. Certainly Congress or the states [i]could[/
> > i] pass such laws, but, to the best of my knowledge, they haven't. Can
> > you offer any evidence to the contrary?
> >
> > John Hillery [/quote]
> >
> > If the organization provides a forum only to members who agree with
> > the "management", they are effectively creating classes of members and
> > granting benefits to one class of members at the expense of another.
> > Moreover they would be excluding a class of members from participation
> > in the governance and deliberative process of the organization.
> > Consider an analogy: a corporation announces a meeting at which any
> > shareholder may present his views on some matter of policy, but then
> > turns off the microphone and escorts from the hall anybody who
> > disagrees with the management position.
> >
> > Brian Mottershead [/quote]
> >
> >
> > That's a decent argument for why it's "wrong." (I don't agree with it,
> > but the argument is not absurd.) It does not, however, address my
> > point: Can you offer any statute or case law indicating that the
> > corporation is legally obliged to provide an unmoderated online forum?
> > I think there are strong arguments to the contrary, but I see no need
> > to make them until and unless you make a rebuttable case.
>
> As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
> corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
> corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
> allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage
> with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such as
> the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
> governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
> controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
> organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
> specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is more
> subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
> first week.
Then cite some case law on point. Find a case in which a court -- any
court -- ruled that moderation of an on-line forum (not mentioned in
the corporate bylaws) constituted as "(allowing) one group of
shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage with regard to
the election of directors. Don't blow smoke, cite facts and law. Or
have you forgotten how?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 23:50:51
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>> samsloan wrote:
>>> [quote="rfeditor"][quote="Brian Mottershead"][quote="rfeditor"]I think
>>> that's utter nonsense, but if you can supply some statute or case law
>>> supporting your claim, go ahead. Note that I am disputing the first
>>> sentence, not the second. Certainly Congress or the states [i]could[/
>>> i] pass such laws, but, to the best of my knowledge, they haven't. Can
>>> you offer any evidence to the contrary?
>>>
>>> John Hillery [/quote]
>>>
>>> If the organization provides a forum only to members who agree with
>>> the "management", they are effectively creating classes of members and
>>> granting benefits to one class of members at the expense of another.
>>> Moreover they would be excluding a class of members from participation
>>> in the governance and deliberative process of the organization.
>>> Consider an analogy: a corporation announces a meeting at which any
>>> shareholder may present his views on some matter of policy, but then
>>> turns off the microphone and escorts from the hall anybody who
>>> disagrees with the management position.
>>>
>>> Brian Mottershead [/quote]
>>>
>>>
>>> That's a decent argument for why it's "wrong." (I don't agree with it,
>>> but the argument is not absurd.) It does not, however, address my
>>> point: Can you offer any statute or case law indicating that the
>>> corporation is legally obliged to provide an unmoderated online forum?
>>> I think there are strong arguments to the contrary, but I see no need
>>> to make them until and unless you make a rebuttable case.
>> As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
>> corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
>> corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
>> allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage
>> with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such as
>> the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
>> governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
>> controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
>> organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
>> specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is more
>> subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
>> first week.
>
>
> Then cite some case law on point. Find a case in which a court -- any
> court -- ruled that moderation of an on-line forum (not mentioned in
> the corporate bylaws) constituted as "(allowing) one group of
> shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage with regard to
> the election of directors. Don't blow smoke, cite facts and law. Or
> have you forgotten how?
>
There is plenty of case law having to do with the integrity of corporate
processes leading to the seating of corporate directors and obtaining
corporate control. Any law student who has taken a corporations course
can attest to this.
From that, it would take a case with facts similar to the USCF's forum
situation to be presented to a court for determination. While there may
not yet be a case on all fours with the USCF situation (then again,
there might be), there are plenty of cases that involve unfair
communication practices in takeover battles and proxy battles that would
speak to what has happened to communication withing the USCF in the
context of the election last year and the present recall eforts.
If you'd like me to research the subject, I'd be happy to. My hourly
rate for such work is $450.00 per hour with a minimum retainer of
$7,500.00. If you're interested, PM me on the USCF forum.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 05:27:51
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
[quote="rfeditor"][quote="Brian Mottershead"][quote="rfeditor"]I think
that's utter nonsense, but if you can supply some statute or case law
supporting your claim, go ahead. Note that I am disputing the first
sentence, not the second. Certainly Congress or the states [i]could[/
i] pass such laws, but, to the best of my knowledge, they haven't. Can
you offer any evidence to the contrary?
John Hillery [/quote]
If the organization provides a forum only to members who agree with
the "management", they are effectively creating classes of members and
granting benefits to one class of members at the expense of another.
Moreover they would be excluding a class of members from participation
in the governance and deliberative process of the organization.
Consider an analogy: a corporation announces a meeting at which any
shareholder may present his views on some matter of policy, but then
turns off the microphone and escorts from the hall anybody who
disagrees with the management position.
Brian Mottershead [/quote]
That's a decent argument for why it's "wrong." (I don't agree with it,
but the argument is not absurd.) It does not, however, address my
point: Can you offer any statute or case law indicating that the
corporation is legally obliged to provide an unmoderated online forum?
I think there are strong arguments to the contrary, but I see no need
to make them until and unless you make a rebuttable case.
John Hillery [/quote]
Nobody is saying that the USCF Issues Forum should be completely
unmoderated. Even without a moderator on duty, any obscene word is
blocked. For example, I have not been allowed to relate the story of
the little Dutch boy who put his finger in a hole in the dyke.
However, allowing the management to appoint moderators who are known
to favor one candidate or oppose another candidate or who delete
embarrassing questions such as asking what happened to all the money
does raise legal issues. If the USCF were a publicly traded
corporation listed on the stock exchange it would be in deep trouble
for doing this in last year's election. The SEC would probably have
brought proceedings for election irregularities already. The question
is whether such rules apply to a 501(c)(4) corporation like the USCF.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 15 Jul 2008 20:37:31
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
On Jul 15, 8:02 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 19:29:49 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:MPRek.243$gH4.77@trnddc05...
> >>> Which is not hate speech, says Our Brian. And its not /exactly/, is it?
> >>> Its more the hatred of [other's] speech.
> >> It's not hate speech withing the commonly accepted meaning of the term in
> >> Western society. If you used your definitions of words, Phil, we'd be
> >> reduced to incoherent babel such as you speak.
> >Hate speech according to Brian does not mean referring to the person with
> >which he corresponds with suggestive negative and demeaning
> >characterisations of them, as is his own /observed/ practice. One wonders
> >what hate-speech actually is thereby, according to Judge Lafferty?
>
> Probably, something like this:
>
> "Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or
> incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of
> people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality,
> religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language
> ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or
> appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity
> and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well
> as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting.
> It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on
> Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society." (Wikipedia)
>
> So, demeaning PT for his Vietnamese origins or The Historian for being
> overweight would be hate speech as conventionally defined.
Remember folks, Susan Polgar works with P Innes the speaker of hate.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 13:19:18
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
samsloan wrote:
> [quote="rfeditor"][quote="Brian Mottershead"][quote="rfeditor"]I think
> that's utter nonsense, but if you can supply some statute or case law
> supporting your claim, go ahead. Note that I am disputing the first
> sentence, not the second. Certainly Congress or the states [i]could[/
> i] pass such laws, but, to the best of my knowledge, they haven't. Can
> you offer any evidence to the contrary?
>
> John Hillery [/quote]
>
> If the organization provides a forum only to members who agree with
> the "management", they are effectively creating classes of members and
> granting benefits to one class of members at the expense of another.
> Moreover they would be excluding a class of members from participation
> in the governance and deliberative process of the organization.
> Consider an analogy: a corporation announces a meeting at which any
> shareholder may present his views on some matter of policy, but then
> turns off the microphone and escorts from the hall anybody who
> disagrees with the management position.
>
> Brian Mottershead [/quote]
>
>
> That's a decent argument for why it's "wrong." (I don't agree with it,
> but the argument is not absurd.) It does not, however, address my
> point: Can you offer any statute or case law indicating that the
> corporation is legally obliged to provide an unmoderated online forum?
> I think there are strong arguments to the contrary, but I see no need
> to make them until and unless you make a rebuttable case.
As usual, Mr. Hillery misses the point. There exist in all states
corporate statutes and/or regulation regarding the conduct of the
corporation affairs. State corporate statutes and case law will not
allow one group of shareholders or members to obtain an unfair advantage
with regard to the election of directors. When an organization such as
the USCF has a member only forum for the discussion of corporate
governance issues, there are significant problems when one faction
controls that forum to it's benefit thereby affecting control of the
organization by a particular faction. Mr. Hillary will not find a
specific statute such as he alluded to above. Sometimes the law is more
subtle than than which anyone who's been to law school learns in the
first week.
>
> John Hillery [/quote]
>
> Nobody is saying that the USCF Issues Forum should be completely
> unmoderated. Even without a moderator on duty, any obscene word is
> blocked. For example, I have not been allowed to relate the story of
> the little Dutch boy who put his finger in a hole in the dyke.
> However, allowing the management to appoint moderators who are known
> to favor one candidate or oppose another candidate or who delete
> embarrassing questions such as asking what happened to all the money
> does raise legal issues. If the USCF were a publicly traded
> corporation listed on the stock exchange it would be in deep trouble
> for doing this in last year's election. The SEC would probably have
> brought proceedings for election irregularities already. The question
> is whether such rules apply to a 501(c)(4) corporation like the USCF.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 03:53:17
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
[quote="rfeditor"][quote="Brian Mottershead"]
And I wouldn't even be so sure that in a forum that holds itself out
as a venue for dues-paying members to comment on the governance of
*their* organization, that censorship of legitimate views by
moderators appointed by the "staff" and the "management" is
necessarily as legal as you suppose. It might not be a matter of
First Amendment rights, but there are other rights besides those
deriving from the Bill of Rights.
Brian Mottershead[/quote]
I think that's utter nonsense, but if you can supply some statute or
case law supporting your claim, go ahead. Note that I am disputing the
first sentence, not the second. Certainly Congress or the states
[i]could[/i] pass such laws, but, to the best of my knowledge, they
haven't. Can you offer any evidence to the contrary?
John Hillery [/quote]
The USCF is a tax-exempt public corporation which exists for the
public benefit. I think there are legal questions which arise when an
extremely partisan person like Gregory Alexander is appointed as a
moderator, who deletes unfavorable references to candidates he
supports or favorable mentions of candidates he opposes.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 07:34:43
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
> The USCF is a tax-exempt public corporation which exists for the
> public benefit. I think there are legal questions which arise when an
> extremely partisan person like Gregory Alexander is appointed as a
> moderator, who deletes unfavorable references to candidates he
> supports or favorable mentions of candidates he opposes.
>
> Sam Sloan
Wouldn't the main legal remedy be to elect a new board?
--
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 10 Jul 2008 19:49:58
From:
Subject: Re: Freedom of Speech on the USCF Issues Forum
|
samsloan wrote:
> [quote="Brian Mottershead"]I wouldn't even be so sure that in a forum
> that holds itself out as a venue for dues-paying members to comment on
> the governance of *their* organization, that censorship of legitimate
> views by moderators appointed by the "staff" and the "management" is
> necessarily as legal as you suppose. It might not be a matter of
> First Amendment rights, but there are other rights besides those
> deriving from the Bill of Rights.
>
> Brian Mottershead [/quote]
>
> This is of course the issue here. The USCF Issues Forum has been set
> up to allow the members of this organization to discuss its
> governance. Yet, the management has imposed extremely biased
> moderators who strictly limit what the members are allowed to say. If
> the members were allowed to say what they really think, then the tone
> of this entire discussion would be completely different.
>
> Sam Sloan
Yeah, there'd be calls for your lynching again. Quit while you're
ahead.
|
|
