This issue has now become insignificant since this meeting is already underway.
I suggest focusing on the main topic of this thread - why we believe you should be removed from office. Since I was not the first originator of this Motion, I will give the authors the opportunity to speak first. If they miss anything important, I will clarify my position.
So you want that upside down rook to be a queen despite the rules. If you want to overturn the results of an election, you need to at least be competent enough to read and follow the rules. You are asking me to waive the rules. I decline to do that.Originally Posted by Victor Itkin
http://www.chesscanada.info/forum/sh...7294#post37294
Hm-m... Sounds familiar. ;-)Originally Posted by Justice Gans
"12 I am persuaded that the plan to “uncover” Bimman’s intentions, or to put it otherwise, to entrap him, was conceived by Itkine and/or Neiman."
"Bimman was forced out of his position by the actions of the Investor Group, spearheaded by Itkine [...] To adopt the word used by Itkine [...] I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that Bimman was “stripped” of his office."
"[55] The matter did not end with the Itkine email. Unbeknownst to Bimman, the Investor Group wrote a letter, and transmitted documents allegedly in support thereof, to the Major Fraud Unit of the York Regional Police. [...] The letter concluded with what turned out to be an ill-conceived request for the laying of criminal charges against Bimman and BRESI.
[56] Nothing came out of this reportage: the Police directed the combatants to sort out their issues civilly, if not with civility. I note that the defendants did not bathe themselves in any form of glory when this event was mined by counsel for the plaintiffs in his cross-examination of the individual defendants."
"[58] Furthermore, the explanations of the origin of this police complaint offered up by Neiman and Itkine were so far-fetched and self-serving as to colour much of the rest of their evidence. Their evidence on this point left me guessing as to what was fact and what was fiction in their testimony. These two gentlemen, as intelligent and well-schooled in business as each is, would have been better off acknowledging their mistake in undertaking and reporting unproven allegations of fraud and embezzlement and moving on with the true essence of their case."
[222]I have not lost sight of the fact that Bimman was forced out of the management group as a result of exaggerated, if not unfounded, allegations of impropriety bordering on embezzlement. I have concluded that while Bimman’s resignation was perhaps ill-advised, the defendants, with Itkine at the helm, made his life positively miserable during this period of time. He had no alternative but to resign, if only to secure his entitlement to a healthy portion of the DMF, a negotiation which never took place, notwithstanding earlier promises from Itkine to the contrary.
Page: 61 denunciation, deterrence and retribution, once the damages for conduct in dismissal were awarded.123
[228]In my view, and not to repeat unduly what has been set out in great detail in the facts portion of this judgment, I find that the activities of Itkine and Neiman amounted to a “marked departure from ordinary standards of decent behavior.” Among other things, the conduct which forms the subject of the award of punitive damages is the following: (1) surreptitiously using the Lambert contract to pillory Bimman; (2) furthering their agenda to rid CEL of Bimman, to the point that they (unsuccessfully) attempted to engage the good offices of the local constabulary to do their bidding; and (3) in the constant harangue that filled the minutes of the shareholders meetings.I would submit that you are picking up where you left off in that action in your dealings and attempted smears against me.Originally Posted by Justice Gans
The punitive damages were reversed on appeal though only because the opposing counsel applied for them late in the trial.
Like Judge Gans suggested, I suggest that you move on with the true essence of your case.
Last edited by Vladimir Drkulec; 04-11-2021 at 07:38 PM.
Lets have an overview of recent events.
Drkulec has called for a special meeting in February for a vote on the FIDE Representative. His fellow members of the Executive have stated opinions that this was not the proper procedure to determine the FIDE representative position. Drkulec has used the similar argumentation we are using to call our special meeting to remove the president. It is a basic democratic right and privilege of the VM to call for a Special Meeting, if this call is supported by members carrying not less than 5% of the voting rights. Has Drkulec submitted any paper work (like I did) to make the meeting happen? https://www.chesscanada.info/forum/s...6013#post36013
"By my reckoning that is three people that have requested a vote in this forum. I also request a meeting. This is well beyond the 5% threshold to call a special meeting. I hereby declare that we shall have a special meeting Sunday February 21, 2021 through Thursday February 25, 2021. There will also be a regular quarterly meeting on April 11 through April 18, 2021. " So simple.
Somehow, the special meeting in February grew from one issue (FIDE Representative vote) to also include another, a vote on enlarging the Executive by appointing Patricia Gamliel. Possibly, Drkulec submitted a carefully worded new motion for the special meeting, to include this new motion, with support of at least 5% of the voting members (we just don't know about it). Or perhaps - double standards.
Regarding this new motion on enlarging the executive, there was a point of order made by Egis Zeromskis, which was for many days ignored by the President. When it was finally put to a vote, the vote was open already after the 'motion to enlarge the executive' was opened, and it ran concurrently - which is another gross violation of the law, as was pointed out by Christopher Mallon, Egis Zeromskis and other voting members.
Drkulec quietly ignored a request to post the current Canadian Chess Champion Evgeny Bareev's thoughts and endorsement of Victor Plotkin, a candidate that Drkulec did not support to win.
I submitted my motion to call on a special meeting to remove the president over a month ago. https://www.chesscanada.info/forum/s...-CFC-President I have been ignored ("I would have thought that you would have received the email by now but it should be in the pipeline."), I have submitted the motion and then corrected it a few times to satisfy the requirements of the CFC By-laws and NFP Act. I have been belittled and called an adolescent https://www.chesscanada.info/forum/s...7381#post37381 (though I'd argue others had worse descriptions). What is a very simple matter, a basic democratic right of the voting members to call a special meeting, is being denied and ignored.
To summarize - the President has a habit to not follow the law when it suits him, of which he likes to accuse others. In my opinion, this is more than enough ground to remove the President, without even mentioning other recent events involving FIDE, Hal Bond, etc.
Victor Itkin above: "Therefore, in chess language, we will give you a head start: in order to stay in your CFC position, it will be sufficient for you to win the vote once – at this meeting, and in order to remove you from office we will have to win the vote twice in a row – first at this meeting, and then at a Special one. Since you refused to play on an equal footing, let it be so. We accept your challenge to play by unequal rules."
The vote on whether or not to convene a Special Meeting is not legal. However, I agree with Victor. Lets see what the voting members think and have to say.
From the opening comments of chair thread -
"Perhaps over the course of this meeting they will be able to articulate their reasons but I am not overly confident of this given their recent track record. Four of the five people who are listed as possible sponsors of this meeting have issues with defamatory posts which may or may not come to haunt them in the near future but we should probably not jump too far ahead of the issue at hand."
I am sincerely curious about the "recent track record" and "defamatory posts". It may or may not come to haunt me and the others, but I would at least like to see a quote or two.
Also - Drkulec's posts about Victor Itkin's past law cases are some kind of personal attack I fail to understand the depth of (which is okay), but are also completely irrelevant and offtopic here (which is probably not okay and should be removed).
While they can they are not required. Especially the each and every one as you write.
For the proposal to get on the notice:
"(a) state the nature of that business in sufficient detail to permit a member to form a reasoned judgment on the business;"
The persons submitting the motion could discuss during the meeting but that would be far from statements.
Only the director who is under the question of removal may submit the statement opposing the removal.
Statement of director
131 (1) Subject to the by-laws, a director is entitled to submit to the corporation a written statement giving reasons for resigning or for opposing the removal or replacement of the director if a meeting is called for that purpose.
Circulating statement
(2) A corporation shall immediately give notice to the members of the statement in the manner referred to in section 162.
Statement to Director
(3) A corporation shall immediately send a copy of the statement to the Director.
(FYI: Director here is a special Government one.)
.*-1
A difference of opinion is not grounds for removal.
There are additional requirements for removal of a director. Calling a meeting with the support of a director is different than calling a meeting with no director support. I was only one vote on the executive in the case of your proposal but you got zero votes beyond two abstentions.Drkulec has used the similar argumentation we are using to call our special meeting to remove the president.
Why do you suppose that no one on the executive supported your motion at either the first or the second meeting when it was put to the executive?It is a basic democratic right and privilege of the VM to call for a Special Meeting, if this call is supported by members carrying not less than 5% of the voting rights. Has Drkulec submitted any paper work (like I did) to make the meeting happen? https://www.chesscanada.info/forum/s...6013#post36013
"By my reckoning that is three people that have requested a vote in this forum. I also request a meeting. This is well beyond the 5% threshold to call a special meeting. I hereby declare that we shall have a special meeting Sunday February 21, 2021 through Thursday February 25, 2021. There will also be a regular quarterly meeting on April 11 through April 18, 2021. " So simple.
Somehow, the special meeting in February grew from one issue (FIDE Representative vote) to also include another, a vote on enlarging the Executive by appointing Patricia Gamliel. Possibly, Drkulec submitted a carefully worded new motion for the special meeting, to include this new motion, with support of at least 5% of the voting members (we just don't know about it). Or perhaps - double standards.
Which law was violated? Statute?
Regarding this new motion on enlarging the executive, there was a point of order made by Egis Zeromskis, which was for many days ignored by the President. When it was finally put to a vote, the vote was open already after the 'motion to enlarge the executive' was opened, and it ran concurrently - which is another gross violation of the law,
I am not required to repost defamatory material about the FIDE president. I reposted every other post supporting Victor Plotkin that did not contain defamatory material. Perhaps my fiduciary duty to the CFC requires that I decline to insult the FIDE president when I think he is doing a good job. Someone else posted the post complete with defamatory material. If I post the defamatory material and Mr. Dvorkovich decides to sue me and the CFC I will have no defense and neither will the CFC.as was pointed out by Christopher Mallon, Egis Zeromskis and other voting members.
Drkulec quietly ignored a request to post the current Canadian Chess Champion Evgeny Bareev's thoughts and endorsement of Victor Plotkin, a candidate that Drkulec did not support to win.
You have corrected it a few times but it is not yet correct according to the CFC board of directors and the NFP Act and the CFC bylaws.
I submitted my motion to call on a special meeting to remove the president over a month ago. https://www.chesscanada.info/forum/s...-CFC-President I have been ignored ("I would have thought that you would have received the email by now but it should be in the pipeline."), I have submitted the motion and then corrected it a few times to satisfy the requirements of the CFC By-laws and NFP Act.
If that is the case, why are you not impeaching the whole board? With respect to the insults I think they are much restrained compared to the ones that you and your group have directed at me on the CFC forum, Chesstalk and previously Chess.com come to think of it. You are demanding that I play nice while you never do.
I have been belittled and called an adolescent https://www.chesscanada.info/forum/s...7381#post37381 (though I'd argue others had worse descriptions). What is a very simple matter, a basic democratic right of the voting members to call a special meeting, is being denied and ignored.
I disagree with your characterization of my actions. And what other recent events involving FIDE, Hal Bond, etc. are you referring to? Specifics please.To summarize - the President has a habit to not follow the law when it suits him, of which he likes to accuse others. In my opinion, this is more than enough ground to remove the President, without even mentioning other recent events involving FIDE, Hal Bond, etc.
There are not unequal rules, there are just laws. You have not met any reasonable burden of proof.Victor Itkin above: "Therefore, in chess language, we will give you a head start: in order to stay in your CFC position, it will be sufficient for you to win the vote once – at this meeting, and in order to remove you from office we will have to win the vote twice in a row – first at this meeting, and then at a Special one. Since you refused to play on an equal footing, let it be so. We accept your challenge to play by unequal rules."
That word does not mean what you seem to think it means.The vote on whether or not to convene a Special Meeting is not legal.
However, I agree with Victor. Lets see what the voting members think and have to say.