| |
Main
MESSAGE FROM FORMER USCF PREZ TIM REDMAN
Hello Larry,
I have brought forward a modest suggestion whereby the Federation
could
gain revenue at the next Delegates' Meeting in Indianapolis while
providing Delegates with a real service.
We should set up two sound proof booths at the back of the Delegates'
meeting room with glass windows and sound from the proceedings being
brought into the booths over a loudspeaker.
The booths would be bid out competitively and leased to two law
firms.
One booth would be labeled plaintiffs, the other defendants.
In that manner, we could all sue each other without the inconvenience
of leaving the meeting, so there would be no risk of losing quorum.
Further, delegates could multitask and follow the proceedings while
consulting with their attorneys, and they would still be able to vote
by displaying their credentials.
In addition to the lease revenue, the Federation would claim 15% of
all
fees billed in lawsuits arising from this arrangement. Further, there
would be servers on call and fifteen-minute breaks in the morning and
afternoon to allow people to be served.
With a morning, afternoon, and the following morning available,
countersuits could be filed on the spot.
I would myself derive no financial advantage from this set up; I only
offer it to provide convenience to the Delegates and potential
revenue
to the Federation.
Cordially,
Tim Redman
Parr wrote:
Gentlemen,
I am surprised to learn that there are six lawsuits. My
impression had been that the number is eight. Perhaps Sam could
compile a short list so that the spectators in the peanut gallery can
keep tabs.
Sam: whom do you see as the next to be sued? Who will do the
suing? Is there still room for further legal entanglements for the
USCF and all of those involved in the organization? What, in short,
are the odds that the number of lawsuits will grow?
I notice that Tim Redman is on this mailing list. Tim: surely
you could sue the USCF or invite the Federation to sue you?
There are also several employees and hangers-on. They must have
enough dirt to launch a suit against someone suing the Federation or
against the Federation itself. Perhaps Randy Hough can sue Florencio
Campomanes for the latter having Hough do his laundry during a visit
to
New Windsor. No, wait. That's not right. Who gave Hough the
unlawful, humiliating order to clean Campo's cravats? Could it have
been Gerry Dullea? There you have it: Hough v USCF and Dullea.
I have been trying to talk Don Schultz and Larry Evans into
relaunchng their legal actions as a kind of anniversary celebration
of
lawsuits in chess. Neither Schultz nor Evans has expressed any deep
interest in pursuing years of intense legal wrangling and sleepless
nights, but one tries to sell them on the romance of the adventure.
Is
it not better to go down, guns a-blazing, like Custer at Little Big
Horn than to subside peacefully into old age? Both men can take out
mortgages on their properties to pay for the lawyers, who always need
or want money. I think that the Evans and Schultz are missing a real
opportunity.
2009 approaches like a squawking baby. What does it promise our
happy litigants? Will 2010 and 2011 also dawn with numerous lawsuits
still in court? Will heroism continue to trump fatigue? One dreams of
the battles still going on well into 2012 and 2013.
The key thought for all our litigants and upcoming litigants on
all sides is that, in the words of General Patton, you are only
beaten
when you admit you're beaten. If you worry about paying the lawyers
--
but why worry? -- then think creatively. One hundred U.S. dollars,
even in their depreciated condition, can still buy a lot of legal
time
among oxcart chasers in Zimbabwe. Hire a lawyer in Harare to sue the
Federation in an international action. Or use said lawyer to litigate
Stateside in our Internet age. Outsourcing is economically and morall
defensible. Try it.
Yours, Larry Parr
|
|
| |
LOSE-WIN
Dear Tim Redman,
I support your proposal .
The 15 percent rake-off could save the Federation. You need to get
some heavy hitters into the action. Joel Channing is the obvious
nominee. If he could sign on at one of the booths and then spend
liberally in bringing legal actions against every human being in chess
he must despise, loathe and hate, he could make up the Federation
shortfall all by himself.
We would all like to see a Channing v Bauer suit. The latter would
mortgage his home to pay the bills with the Federation raking 15
percent off the top or is it the bottom? Can you rake off the bottom?
I know you skim surfaces and tops, but how does one get the stuff from
the bottom?
Does one lead people up or down the garden path? Can one do both?
There are people on your mailing list with money, and any decent USCF
executive director ought to be able to devise ways to ruin them for
the Federation's benefit. LOSE-WIN is the new managerial mantra both
for the Federation and the country as a whole.
Yours, Larry Parr
B. Lafferty wrote:
> What if some of the board members find themselves engaged elsewhere.
> How would they be served with process?
>
> [email protected] wrote:
> > MESSAGE FROM FORMER USCF PREZ TIM REDMAN
> >
> > Hello Larry,
> >
> > I have brought forward a modest suggestion whereby the Federation
> > could
> > gain revenue at the next Delegates' Meeting in Indianapolis while
> > providing Delegates with a real service.
> >
> > We should set up two sound proof booths at the back of the Delegates'
> > meeting room with glass windows and sound from the proceedings being
> > brought into the booths over a loudspeaker.
> >
> > The booths would be bid out competitively and leased to two law
> > firms.
> > One booth would be labeled plaintiffs, the other defendants.
> >
> > In that manner, we could all sue each other without the inconvenience
> > of leaving the meeting, so there would be no risk of losing quorum.
> > Further, delegates could multitask and follow the proceedings while
> > consulting with their attorneys, and they would still be able to vote
> > by displaying their credentials.
> >
> > In addition to the lease revenue, the Federation would claim 15% of
> > all
> > fees billed in lawsuits arising from this arrangement. Further, there
> > would be servers on call and fifteen-minute breaks in the morning and
> > afternoon to allow people to be served.
> >
> > With a morning, afternoon, and the following morning available,
> > countersuits could be filed on the spot.
> >
> > I would myself derive no financial advantage from this set up; I only
> > offer it to provide convenience to the Delegates and potential
> > revenue
> > to the Federation.
> >
> > Cordially,
> >
> > Tim Redman
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Parr wrote:
> >
> >
> > Gentlemen,
> >
> > I am surprised to learn that there are six lawsuits. My
> > impression had been that the number is eight. Perhaps Sam could
> > compile a short list so that the spectators in the peanut gallery can
> > keep tabs.
> >
> > Sam: whom do you see as the next to be sued? Who will do the
> > suing? Is there still room for further legal entanglements for the
> > USCF and all of those involved in the organization? What, in short,
> > are the odds that the number of lawsuits will grow?
> >
> > I notice that Tim Redman is on this mailing list. Tim: surely
> > you could sue the USCF or invite the Federation to sue you?
> >
> > There are also several employees and hangers-on. They must have
> > enough dirt to launch a suit against someone suing the Federation or
> > against the Federation itself. Perhaps Randy Hough can sue Florencio
> > Campomanes for the latter having Hough do his laundry during a visit
> > to
> > New Windsor. No, wait. That's not right. Who gave Hough the
> > unlawful, humiliating order to clean Campo's cravats? Could it have
> > been Gerry Dullea? There you have it: Hough v USCF and Dullea.
> >
> > I have been trying to talk Don Schultz and Larry Evans into
> > relaunchng their legal actions as a kind of anniversary celebration
> > of
> > lawsuits in chess. Neither Schultz nor Evans has expressed any deep
> > interest in pursuing years of intense legal wrangling and sleepless
> > nights, but one tries to sell them on the romance of the adventure.
> > Is
> > it not better to go down, guns a-blazing, like Custer at Little Big
> > Horn than to subside peacefully into old age? Both men can take out
> > mortgages on their properties to pay for the lawyers, who always need
> > or want money. I think that the Evans and Schultz are missing a real
> > opportunity.
> >
> > 2009 approaches like a squawking baby. What does it promise our
> > happy litigants? Will 2010 and 2011 also dawn with numerous lawsuits
> > still in court? Will heroism continue to trump fatigue? One dreams of
> > the battles still going on well into 2012 and 2013.
> >
> > The key thought for all our litigants and upcoming litigants on
> > all sides is that, in the words of General Patton, you are only
> > beaten
> > when you admit you're beaten. If you worry about paying the lawyers
> > --
> > but why worry? -- then think creatively. One hundred U.S. dollars,
> > even in their depreciated condition, can still buy a lot of legal
> > time
> > among oxcart chasers in Zimbabwe. Hire a lawyer in Harare to sue the
> > Federation in an international action. Or use said lawyer to litigate
> > Stateside in our Internet age. Outsourcing is economically and morall
> > defensible. Try it.
> >
> > Yours, Larry Parr
|
| |
Date: 24 Nov 2008 18:32:49
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Revenue Enhancement
|
What if some of the board members find themselves engaged elsewhere.
How would they be served with process?
[email protected] wrote:
> MESSAGE FROM FORMER USCF PREZ TIM REDMAN
>
> Hello Larry,
>
> I have brought forward a modest suggestion whereby the Federation
> could
> gain revenue at the next Delegates' Meeting in Indianapolis while
> providing Delegates with a real service.
>
> We should set up two sound proof booths at the back of the Delegates'
> meeting room with glass windows and sound from the proceedings being
> brought into the booths over a loudspeaker.
>
> The booths would be bid out competitively and leased to two law
> firms.
> One booth would be labeled plaintiffs, the other defendants.
>
> In that manner, we could all sue each other without the inconvenience
> of leaving the meeting, so there would be no risk of losing quorum.
> Further, delegates could multitask and follow the proceedings while
> consulting with their attorneys, and they would still be able to vote
> by displaying their credentials.
>
> In addition to the lease revenue, the Federation would claim 15% of
> all
> fees billed in lawsuits arising from this arrangement. Further, there
> would be servers on call and fifteen-minute breaks in the morning and
> afternoon to allow people to be served.
>
> With a morning, afternoon, and the following morning available,
> countersuits could be filed on the spot.
>
> I would myself derive no financial advantage from this set up; I only
> offer it to provide convenience to the Delegates and potential
> revenue
> to the Federation.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Tim Redman
>
>
>
>
> Parr wrote:
>
>
> Gentlemen,
>
> I am surprised to learn that there are six lawsuits. My
> impression had been that the number is eight. Perhaps Sam could
> compile a short list so that the spectators in the peanut gallery can
> keep tabs.
>
> Sam: whom do you see as the next to be sued? Who will do the
> suing? Is there still room for further legal entanglements for the
> USCF and all of those involved in the organization? What, in short,
> are the odds that the number of lawsuits will grow?
>
> I notice that Tim Redman is on this mailing list. Tim: surely
> you could sue the USCF or invite the Federation to sue you?
>
> There are also several employees and hangers-on. They must have
> enough dirt to launch a suit against someone suing the Federation or
> against the Federation itself. Perhaps Randy Hough can sue Florencio
> Campomanes for the latter having Hough do his laundry during a visit
> to
> New Windsor. No, wait. That's not right. Who gave Hough the
> unlawful, humiliating order to clean Campo's cravats? Could it have
> been Gerry Dullea? There you have it: Hough v USCF and Dullea.
>
> I have been trying to talk Don Schultz and Larry Evans into
> relaunchng their legal actions as a kind of anniversary celebration
> of
> lawsuits in chess. Neither Schultz nor Evans has expressed any deep
> interest in pursuing years of intense legal wrangling and sleepless
> nights, but one tries to sell them on the romance of the adventure.
> Is
> it not better to go down, guns a-blazing, like Custer at Little Big
> Horn than to subside peacefully into old age? Both men can take out
> mortgages on their properties to pay for the lawyers, who always need
> or want money. I think that the Evans and Schultz are missing a real
> opportunity.
>
> 2009 approaches like a squawking baby. What does it promise our
> happy litigants? Will 2010 and 2011 also dawn with numerous lawsuits
> still in court? Will heroism continue to trump fatigue? One dreams of
> the battles still going on well into 2012 and 2013.
>
> The key thought for all our litigants and upcoming litigants on
> all sides is that, in the words of General Patton, you are only
> beaten
> when you admit you're beaten. If you worry about paying the lawyers
> --
> but why worry? -- then think creatively. One hundred U.S. dollars,
> even in their depreciated condition, can still buy a lot of legal
> time
> among oxcart chasers in Zimbabwe. Hire a lawyer in Harare to sue the
> Federation in an international action. Or use said lawyer to litigate
> Stateside in our Internet age. Outsourcing is economically and morall
> defensible. Try it.
>
> Yours, Larry Parr
|
|
