Candidate Brian Lafferty wants to involve the USCF in anot..

Brian Lafferty has declared himself to be a candidate for election to
the USCF Executive Board. Candidate Brian Lafferty no longer practices
law but he once worked as a parking tickets judge in New York City. In
the last year, I have heard Mr. Lafferty express a lot of off-the-wall
legal opinions, but I have politely not noted it.

However, today he stated on RGCP that he will ask the USCF to become
involved in litigation to keep me off the ballot, so I feel that
members of this forum should know about this.

Lafftery is apparently not satisfied that the USCF is already involved
in seven lawsuits. He wants to make it eight and he says that he will
make this part of his campaign platform.

Lafferty writes:

> You haven't a legal clue on this one Sam. I'm going to urge the EB to keep you off the ballot until you drop the USCF as a defendant. This will be a major campaign issue if they don't throw you off the ballot.

> Brian Lafferty

Dear Mr. Lafferty,

I have tried to be very polite to you since you claim to be a lawyer
but I cannot allow this ridiculous statement that you are making to
pass.

There is no such rule that states that someone who is suing a
corporation cannot be elected to the board of the corporation. Indeed,
the opposite is the case. The result of these suits is that the
plaintiff usually winds up on the board.

Secondly, I lack the power to drop the suit. The suit was dismissed
months ago. It is still alive however since Bill Brock keeps filing
motions in the case. If you want the case to be completely dropped,
you should ask Bill Brock to drop his part of it.

Thirdly, even if I had the power to do so and even if I made a request
to drop the USCF from the defendants, that request could not be
granted by the courts without permission by all of the opposing
parties. All of the defendants would have to agree to drop the USCF
from the case. I am surprised that you do not seem to know this.
Needless to say, not all of them would agree.

The same point applies to the Polgar vs. USCF suit. She keeps saying
that she will drop the USCF alone from the suit if the USCF will pay
her one dollar plus apologize and admit wrong doing. Even assuming
that the USCF were to agree to these conditions, there would have to
be notice and the opportunity for a hearing before the court to give
the other 14 parties a chance to object. You can be sure that some of
them would object and almost without doubt the motion would not be
granted.

I guess that you do not know as much about law as you think you know.
I have a lot of knowledge and experience in this field because I was
for many years the principal of a registered securities firm and these
sort of cases often arose with respect to securities I was trading. As
you know, I have argued securities law before the United States
Supreme Court and won. SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 436 US 103 (1978). The
legal brief I wrote is available in bookstores. ISBN 0923891226 I also
wrote a book about corporate derivative suits, which this is, entitled
"How to Take Over a Publicly Held Corporation". ISBN 1-881373-01-0

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=1881373010

I recommend that you go down to your local Barnes and Noble Bookstore,
buy and read a copy of my book and study it carefully, before you try
to commit the USCF to another expensive and ultimately unsuccessful
lawsuit.

Just because you once worked as a Parking Violations Bureau
administrative law judge does not make you qualified in this rarefied
corporate atmosphere.

Sam Sloan

Despite any personal feeling about Brtian Lafferty with whom I am not
in mutual sympathy, here the Sloan, who absolutely cannot share
anything whatever, shows his yellow teeth and willingness to bite with
them.

It is perhaps shadefruede on my part, yet it is grimly amusing that
our Brian must be mighty puzzled by the Sloan's reaction, [no unusual
state of feeling] and for the second time this week I have some
sympathy with Brian lafferty - the first instance was on his not being
a chess insider, thereby neglible [as if insiders had delivered us to
some state of grace instead of moving us to a precipice - a factor I
thought not prospective. But here he must certainly be stunned, faced
by the real meglomaniac expresssion of the Sloan, who has successfully
emulated a Vampiric relationship with all and every chess contact.

I do not exhault over this division in antagonists. It is all too
common for USCF 'folk' to behave such. I am a very seasoned observer
of such stuff.

In some other thread may we not anticipate what standards should be
applicable to all candidates? And by such means, proceed to some
advantage of chess playing USA?

Phil Innes
Vermont



> On Jan 3, 2:51 pm, samsloan <samhsl....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brian Lafferty has declared himself to be a candidate for election to
> the USCF Executive Board. Candidate Brian Lafferty no longer practices
> law but he once worked as a parking tickets judge in New York City. In
> the last year, I have heard Mr. Lafferty express a lot of off-the-wall
> legal opinions, but I have politely not noted it.
>
> However, today he stated on RGCP that he will ask the USCF to become
> involved in litigation to keep me off the ballot, so I feel that
> members of this forum should know about this.
>
> Lafftery is apparently not satisfied that the USCF is already involved
> in seven lawsuits. He wants to make it eight and he says that he will
> make this part of his campaign platform.
>
> Lafferty writes:
> > You haven't a legal clue on this one Sam.  I'm going to urge the EB to keep you off the ballot until you drop the USCF as a defendant. This will be a major campaign issue if they don't throw you off the ballot.
> > Brian Lafferty
>
> Dear Mr. Lafferty,
>
> I have tried to be very polite to you since you claim to be a lawyer
> but I cannot allow this ridiculous statement that you are making to
> pass.
>
> There is no such rule that states that someone who is suing a
> corporation cannot be elected to the board of the corporation. Indeed,
> the opposite is the case. The result of these suits is that the
> plaintiff usually winds up on the board.
>
> Secondly, I lack the power to drop the suit. The suit was dismissed
> months ago. It is still alive however since Bill Brock keeps filing
> motions in the case. If you want the case to be completely dropped,
> you should ask Bill Brock to drop his part of it.
>
> Thirdly, even if I had the power to do so and even if I made a request
> to drop the USCF from the defendants, that request could not be
> granted by the courts without permission by all of the opposing
> parties. All of the defendants would have to agree to drop the USCF
> from the case. I am surprised that you do not seem to know this.
> Needless to say, not all of them would agree.
>
> The same point applies to the Polgar vs. USCF suit. She keeps saying
> that she will drop the USCF alone from the suit if the USCF will pay
> her one dollar plus apologize and admit wrong doing. Even assuming
> that the USCF were to agree to these conditions, there would have to
> be notice and the opportunity for a hearing before the court to give
> the other 14 parties a chance to object. You can be sure that some of
> them would object and almost without doubt the motion would not be
> granted.
>
> I guess that you do not know as much about law as you think you know.
> I have a lot of knowledge and experience in this field because I was
> for many years the principal of a registered securities firm and these
> sort of cases often arose with respect to securities I was trading. As
> you know, I have argued securities law before the United States
> Supreme Court and won. SEC vs. Samuel H. Sloan, 436 US 103 (1978). The
> legal brief I wrote is available in bookstores. ISBN 0923891226 I also
> wrote a book about corporate derivative suits, which this is, entitled
> "How to Take Over a Publicly Held Corporation". ISBN 1-881373-01-0
>
> http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=18813....
>
> I recommend that you go down to your local Barnes and Noble Bookstore,
> buy and read a copy of my book and study it carefully, before you try
> to commit the USCF to another expensive and ultimately unsuccessful
> lawsuit.
>
> Just because you once worked as a Parking Violations Bureau
> administrative law judge does not make you qualified in this rarefied
> corporate atmosphere.
>
> Sam Sloan