| |
Main
Date: 13 Jan 2009 10:24:10
From: samsloan
Subject: If the Polgar Slate wins, would they have the right to drop the
|
[quote="marknibb"][quote="samsloan"][quote="nolan"]Harry, perhaps the
lawyers and pseudo-lawyers here will correct me, but I thought the
plaintiff in a civil case always has the right to drop it.
Now, if criminal charges get filed (as far as I know none have been
yet), that's a separate matter, then its up to the prosecutors to move
to dismiss, not the USCF.
Mike Nolan [/quote]
You are mistaken. In federal court, once an answer has been filed, the
plaintiff does not have the right to drop it.
This actually came up once. In a 1995 case in San Jose Federal Court
in California, I was sued for violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act
for monopolizing the Game of Go. The judge was Ronald M. Whyte,
presiding.
This was an absurdly ridiculous claim, and I immediately filed a
counterclaim.
Nevertheless, Judge Whyte allowed them to drop their complaint against
me, after they realized what a terrible blunder they had made by suing
me.
Judge Whyte was wrong. They should not have been allowed to drop their
case against me without my permission, which I was not giving.
However, I doubt if any of the four judges hearing the current Polgar,
USCF litigation will easily agree to drop the current suits, even if
new management takes over and asks them to be dropped.
Sam Sloan [/quote]
Sam, what if (a) a new board is elected which chooses to drop the
suit, (b) it can be shown that the will of the currently elected
Board of Directors was not determined prior to the filing of the
suit, (c) the last votes taken by the previous Board of Directors was
to not seek removal. In that case, do you believe the Judge in
Illinois would not allow the suit to be dropped?
Mark Nibbelin [/quote]
The judge in Illinois can, of course, agree to grant the motion by the
new management to drop the suit.
However, this would only be done after notice and the opportunity for
a hearing. At that hearing, the USCF members, the old management and
anybody else with standing could appear and object.
The question asked was: Would the USCF (under newly elected
management, assuming that the Polgar slate wins the election) have the
right to drop the suit simply by filing a notice of dismissal without
even the need to notify the judge or request a hearing?
My answer is, no, they would not have that right. The judge would have
to decide whether to grant their request or not.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2009 04:03:01
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: If the Polgar Slate wins, would they have the right to drop the
|
This was not a joke. It was a real court case and you can look it up
on PACER.
Needless to say, I won the court case and consequently I was allowed
to continue to exercise my monopoly power over the game of go. I was
so successful that lately I have moved over to chess.
Go enthusiast Noam Elkies of Harvard University did manage to make a
rather good joke about it.
"In a related case, I hear that E.Berlekamp started a scholastic Go
program in California to complement the "chess-in-the-schools"
program, and even encouraged participation by promising to contributed
a couple hundred bucks towards the college education of any student
who successfully completes the course. This backfired when one
student with a police record became so infatuated with the game that
he stole a board and set of stones from the school to play at home.
Caught and brought to trial, he confessed, but pleaded for his
sentence to be delayed until the end of the term so he could collect
his reward.
Alas the Judge, bound by sentencing guidelines, had no choice but to
hand down a ruling ordering the thief to
"go to jail: go directly to jail; do not pass Go; do not collect
$200."
o \
<
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2009 01:54:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: If the Polgar Slate wins, would they have the right to drop the
|
On Jan 15, 12:38=A0am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 13, 6:24=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I was sued for violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act
> > for monopolizing the Game of Go.
>
> Surely you mean, "Sherman was going to sue me for violating the game
> of Monopoly"?
No. I was actually, really sued for violations of the Sherman Anti-
Trust Act for monopolizing the game of Go.
This is not a joke. This really happened.
Somebody did make a joke out of it, however.
Here is their Press Release
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_thread/threa=
d/4cce8f5140c4bb97/e69171aff8bee7a5
SAM SLOAN SUED FOR INTERNATIONAL GO MONOPOLY
Elwyn Berlekamp, Nathaniel Berkowitz and Hartland Snyder have filed
suit in federal court alleging a go monopoly by Sam Sloan. Case
No.C-95 20678 filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Jose Branch, alleges that Sloan
has violated the federal Sherman Anti-Trust Act, 15 USC 1 & 2, and the
Cartwright Act, California Business and Professions Code, Section
16720 et seq.
The First Amended complaint filed by Berlekamp, Berkowitz and Snyder
alleges in paragraphs 44-50 and in paragraphs 70-74 that Sloan
maintains monopoly power over the go-related market in the United
States and that the acts of Sloan have been performed "in furtherance
of a combination or conspiracy to restrain the trade of" Berlekamp,
Berkowitz and Snyder and "to eliminate the competition in the
publication, marketing, distribution and sale of Go-related products"
and that these acts by Sloan have "constituted an unlawful trust and a
conspiracy against trade."
Furthermore, the first amended complaint, paragraphs 81-87, alleges
that Sloan has intentionally disparaged Berlekamp, Berkowitz and
Hartland Snyder's "professional integrity, honesty,
dedication,reputation, diligence, competence and good will" and that
Sloan published these representations without justification or
privilege and with reckless disregard for whether they were true and
that they expose Berlekamp, Berkowitz and Hartland Snyder to "hatred,
contempt, ridicule, and obloquy in the Go-related and puzzle industry"
and
further that Berlekamp, Berkowitz and Hartland Snyder "have suffered
injury to their reputation, shame, mortification, and hurt feelings"
because of Sloan's publications.
Plaintiffs Berlekamp, Berkowitz and Hartland Snyder demand treble
damages from the profits wrongfully taken by Sloan by these acts and
damages according to proof.
The complaint was filed on November 1, 1996 by Steven S. Miyake,
Esq.of the Law Firm of Howard D. Neal, 6200 Antioch Street, Suite 202,
Oakland, California 94611, tel. (510) 339-0233.
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2009 21:38:50
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: If the Polgar Slate wins, would they have the right to drop the
|
On Jan 13, 6:24=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> I was sued for violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act
> for monopolizing the Game of Go.
Surely you mean, "Sherman was going to sue me for violating the game
of Monopoly"?
|
| |
Date: 13 Jan 2009 10:40:05
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: If the Polgar Slate wins, would they have the right to drop the
|
On Jan 13, 1:24=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> [quote=3D"marknibb"][quote=3D"samsloan"][quote=3D"nolan"]Harry, perhaps t=
he
> lawyers and pseudo-lawyers here will correct me, but I thought the
> plaintiff in a civil case always has the right to drop it.
>
> Now, if criminal charges get filed (as far as I know none have been
> yet), that's a separate matter, then its up to the prosecutors to move
> to dismiss, not the USCF.
>
> Mike Nolan [/quote]
>
> You are mistaken. In federal court, once an answer has been filed, the
> plaintiff does not have the right to drop it.
>
> This actually came up once. In a 1995 case in San Jose Federal Court
> in California, I was sued for violations of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act
> for monopolizing the Game of Go. The judge was Ronald M. Whyte,
> presiding.
>
> This was an absurdly ridiculous claim, and I immediately filed a
> counterclaim.
>
> Nevertheless, Judge Whyte allowed them to drop their complaint against
> me, after they realized what a terrible blunder they had made by suing
> me.
>
> Judge Whyte was wrong. They should not have been allowed to drop their
> case against me without my permission, which I was not giving.
>
> However, I doubt if any of the four judges hearing the current Polgar,
> USCF litigation will easily agree to drop the current suits, even if
> new management takes over and asks them to be dropped.
>
> Sam Sloan [/quote]
>
> Sam, =A0what if (a) a new board is elected which chooses to drop the
> suit, =A0(b) it can be shown that the will of the currently elected
> Board of Directors was not determined prior to the filing of the
> suit, =A0(c) the last votes taken by the previous Board of Directors was
> to not seek removal. =A0 In that case, do you believe the Judge in
> Illinois would not allow the suit to be dropped?
>
> Mark Nibbelin [/quote]
>
> The judge in Illinois can, of course, agree to grant the motion by the
> new management to drop the suit.
>
> However, this would only be done after notice and the opportunity for
> a hearing. At that hearing, the USCF members, the old management and
> anybody else with standing could appear and object.
>
> The question asked was: Would the USCF (under newly elected
> management, assuming that the Polgar slate wins the election) have the
> right to drop the suit simply by filing a notice of dismissal without
> even the need to notify the judge or request a hearing?
>
> My answer is, no, they would not have that right. The judge would have
> to decide whether to grant their request or not.
>
> Sam Sloan
Also, isn't there the matter of Kronenberger? I recall they are suing
and being sued.
|
|
