samsloan
2012-04-05 01:20:00 UTC
Report on Telephone Conference Call with Judge Schmidt
I had a telephone conference call with Judge John Schmidt of the
Sangamon County Circuit Court in Springfield Illinois at 2:30 PM
Central Standard Time today, April 4, 2012. This telephone conference
call had been arranged by David Herman, Counsel for the USCF, who said
that he represented of all the defendants except for Allen Priest and
who had filed a motion to dismiss.
I am surprised that this motion to dismiss was allowed because Mr.
Herman had just filed a notice of motion, three pages long. He had not
filed the usual affidavit or memorandum of law law that usually
accompanies such motions, nor did he state the grounds for his motion.
In New York or any other state that I know of, such a motion would not
be allowed to be filed.
Mr. Herman had stated to me on the telephone earlier today that he had
filed grounds for his motion in a memorandum dated May 11, 2011. This
was nearly one year ago and I do not recall what his memorandum said.
At least, this time Judge Schmidt allowed me to speak in response to
the statements by Mr. Herman. In the previous telephone conference on
August 22, 2011, Judge Schmidt had not allowed me to speak in response
to Mr. Herman and had simply said “This Case is Over” and hung up the
telephone after Mr. Herman had finished speaking.
Mr. Herman said today that my complaint was confusing and he cannot
understand what I was suing over. This is shocking, as several others
including several attorneys have read my complaint filed back in
April, 2011 and none of them have expressed any difficulty in
understanding what this case is all about.
What my complaint is about is that Executive director Bill Hall kicked
me off the ballot for the 2011 USCF Election and he had no right to do
that as I had enough delegate signatures. Moreover, they had changed
the bylaws making them effective retroactively. Under the bylaws in
place when the petitioning period started, I was required to get only
30 signatures from voting members. As I got more than one hundred
signatures, I had clearly met this requirement.
However, under new bylaws not yet formulated or posted by that time,
only “delegates” could sign and Bill Hall had given himself the power
to decide who the delegates were. Bill Hall had ruled most of the New
Jersey delegation not to be proper delegates and thus had kicked me
off the ballot, as several of my signatures were from New Jersey, just
about the only state delegation not controlled by Bill Goichberg. I
contend that only the New Jersey State Chess Association has the power
to decide who the New Jersey delegates are and thus the action by Bill
Hall was illegal.
At the telephone hearing, Mr. Herman contended that my pleadings were
defective in that I had not included a copy of the bylaws as an
attachment. However, I responded that as Mr. Herman himself had
written the bylaws, being the USCF Corporate Counsel, he should have
no difficulty obtaining a copy of the bylaws. Moreover, the newly
revised bylaws requiring the signatures of 15 delegates had not been
posted anywhere at the time I filed my complaint and thus could not be
included.
Mr. Herman cited several court decisions including one decision of the
US Supreme Court which, he said, decided that the courts should not
interfere with corporate board's interpretation of their own bylaws. I
seriously doubt that any decision of the US Supreme Court said that
because, if they said that, then insurgent groups could never take
over the board of any corporation, as the existing board would always
rule them out of order. I have written a published and well regarded
book on this very subject and if a decision by the US Supreme Court
had said any such thing I would certainly know about it.
I pointed out that my suit, Sam Sloan vs. William Goichberg, contained
many allegations identical to Mr. Herman's suit, USCF vs. Susan Polgar
and Paul Truong. Since both the federal and state courts had ruled
that the courts had jurisdiction to entertain his suit against two
sitting board members, I had the right to bring a similar suit too.
Mr. Herman replied that there is a difference. In Mr. Herman's suit,
he was suing on behalf of the Corporation, the USCF. In other words,
since there were six sitting board members at that time, the majority
four board members, including Goichberg and Bauer, had authorized this
suit against the minority two board members, Polgar and Truong. In
other words, the board can sue itself, but an aggrieved outsider
cannot sue the board, according to Mr. Herman.
Since I am a former board member who was thrown off the board by the
actions of the defendants as alleged in the complaint, this means,
according to the logic provided by Mr. Herman, that Polgar and Truong,
now that they have been thrown off the board, cannot bring a suit to
get back on the board.
The end result was that Judge Schmidt dismissed my complaint but gave
me the standard 21 days to re-plead my complaint. This places me in a
difficult decision because as Mr. Herman's motions were made entirely
orally with nothing in writing and the judge's decision was also
entirely verbal. I really do not know the exact grounds for his
decision. Thus, I have difficulty re-pleading the complaint to satisfy
the court's requirements. In all other cases with which I am familiar,
a decision made from the bench is reduced to writing. It appears that
Judge John Schmidt does not intend to issue a written decision or
order in this case.
Sam Sloan
I had a telephone conference call with Judge John Schmidt of the
Sangamon County Circuit Court in Springfield Illinois at 2:30 PM
Central Standard Time today, April 4, 2012. This telephone conference
call had been arranged by David Herman, Counsel for the USCF, who said
that he represented of all the defendants except for Allen Priest and
who had filed a motion to dismiss.
I am surprised that this motion to dismiss was allowed because Mr.
Herman had just filed a notice of motion, three pages long. He had not
filed the usual affidavit or memorandum of law law that usually
accompanies such motions, nor did he state the grounds for his motion.
In New York or any other state that I know of, such a motion would not
be allowed to be filed.
Mr. Herman had stated to me on the telephone earlier today that he had
filed grounds for his motion in a memorandum dated May 11, 2011. This
was nearly one year ago and I do not recall what his memorandum said.
At least, this time Judge Schmidt allowed me to speak in response to
the statements by Mr. Herman. In the previous telephone conference on
August 22, 2011, Judge Schmidt had not allowed me to speak in response
to Mr. Herman and had simply said “This Case is Over” and hung up the
telephone after Mr. Herman had finished speaking.
Mr. Herman said today that my complaint was confusing and he cannot
understand what I was suing over. This is shocking, as several others
including several attorneys have read my complaint filed back in
April, 2011 and none of them have expressed any difficulty in
understanding what this case is all about.
What my complaint is about is that Executive director Bill Hall kicked
me off the ballot for the 2011 USCF Election and he had no right to do
that as I had enough delegate signatures. Moreover, they had changed
the bylaws making them effective retroactively. Under the bylaws in
place when the petitioning period started, I was required to get only
30 signatures from voting members. As I got more than one hundred
signatures, I had clearly met this requirement.
However, under new bylaws not yet formulated or posted by that time,
only “delegates” could sign and Bill Hall had given himself the power
to decide who the delegates were. Bill Hall had ruled most of the New
Jersey delegation not to be proper delegates and thus had kicked me
off the ballot, as several of my signatures were from New Jersey, just
about the only state delegation not controlled by Bill Goichberg. I
contend that only the New Jersey State Chess Association has the power
to decide who the New Jersey delegates are and thus the action by Bill
Hall was illegal.
At the telephone hearing, Mr. Herman contended that my pleadings were
defective in that I had not included a copy of the bylaws as an
attachment. However, I responded that as Mr. Herman himself had
written the bylaws, being the USCF Corporate Counsel, he should have
no difficulty obtaining a copy of the bylaws. Moreover, the newly
revised bylaws requiring the signatures of 15 delegates had not been
posted anywhere at the time I filed my complaint and thus could not be
included.
Mr. Herman cited several court decisions including one decision of the
US Supreme Court which, he said, decided that the courts should not
interfere with corporate board's interpretation of their own bylaws. I
seriously doubt that any decision of the US Supreme Court said that
because, if they said that, then insurgent groups could never take
over the board of any corporation, as the existing board would always
rule them out of order. I have written a published and well regarded
book on this very subject and if a decision by the US Supreme Court
had said any such thing I would certainly know about it.
I pointed out that my suit, Sam Sloan vs. William Goichberg, contained
many allegations identical to Mr. Herman's suit, USCF vs. Susan Polgar
and Paul Truong. Since both the federal and state courts had ruled
that the courts had jurisdiction to entertain his suit against two
sitting board members, I had the right to bring a similar suit too.
Mr. Herman replied that there is a difference. In Mr. Herman's suit,
he was suing on behalf of the Corporation, the USCF. In other words,
since there were six sitting board members at that time, the majority
four board members, including Goichberg and Bauer, had authorized this
suit against the minority two board members, Polgar and Truong. In
other words, the board can sue itself, but an aggrieved outsider
cannot sue the board, according to Mr. Herman.
Since I am a former board member who was thrown off the board by the
actions of the defendants as alleged in the complaint, this means,
according to the logic provided by Mr. Herman, that Polgar and Truong,
now that they have been thrown off the board, cannot bring a suit to
get back on the board.
The end result was that Judge Schmidt dismissed my complaint but gave
me the standard 21 days to re-plead my complaint. This places me in a
difficult decision because as Mr. Herman's motions were made entirely
orally with nothing in writing and the judge's decision was also
entirely verbal. I really do not know the exact grounds for his
decision. Thus, I have difficulty re-pleading the complaint to satisfy
the court's requirements. In all other cases with which I am familiar,
a decision made from the bench is reduced to writing. It appears that
Judge John Schmidt does not intend to issue a written decision or
order in this case.
Sam Sloan