THE USTA COMPLAINT

Draft Analysis of the TAUT Mandate (Under development)

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVED ORGANIZATIONAL MANAGEMENT AND MEMBER RELATIONS

Generic Suggested Format for Complaints Concerning USTA Business Conduct

PDF Form

COMPLAINT DENIED USING PROFORMA LEGAL MANEUVERS WHILE IGNORING THE HUMAN ISSUES

36 U.S.C 2205 Is proven to be a hollow, unenforceable law designed to provide some ceremonial recognition to patriotic organizations without having any value to the American People.

The USOC has proven it has absolutely no authority over the USTA or any NGB who has a larger budget to fight a Complaint than the USOC has to prosecute a Complaint.

The USOC chose to simply accept the USTA;s brief and reissue it with minor changes.

HOWEVER IT WAS ONLY A PYRRHIC VICTORY: Here is why, by winning, the USTA also confirms that its position as a NGB is only a ceremonial position having no real authority. I will lay out this argument over the next day or so. In short, the USTA has absolutely no enforceable authority to set the rules of tennis beyond a ceremonial status.

Anyone can defy the USTA with impunity because Title 36, as proven by this decision, is clearly an unenforceable “law”. There more than 20 million tennis players in the U.S. (about 96.5% of all tennis players are not members of the USTA) over which the USTA has absolutely no authority. I will discuss the theory of authority later and show that the USTA has essentially no authority, beyond a ceremonial role, over the rules of tennis.

Any group is free to form a tennis league, organization or tournament as it pleases and the USTA can do absolutely nothing about it, further demonstrating that the USTA's status as NGB of tennis is only ceremonial.

SECOND, the authority of the USOC to prosecute a Section 10 Complaint is equivalent to the total sum of money allocated in its budget for Section 10 Complaints. If that sum is less than that of the USTA budget available to defeat a Section 10 Complaint, then the USTA or any NGB wins by budget default. In short, if you do not have a charge number, you can’t do any work on the Complaint.

Clearly the USOC saw this and was directed to close out the Complaint quickly. This could only be done by taking Howard’s brief and issuing it with minor changes. This is clearly what was done, in my opinion.

Petition to the Senate to Eliminate the position of National Governing Body from PL 105-225

Cover Letter CEO USOC

Cover Letter General Council USOC

Proof of Delivery of Notice of Complaint to the USTA

USOC Hearing Panel Appointed
Page 1
Page 2

The USTA Response is a Window into the USTA Grievance Process: Why the USTA Response is the best witness against the USTA proving, in a manner that no number of affidavits could prove, that the USTA has no use for anyone else's opinion

USOC Notification of the USTA that a Section 10 Complaint has been filed

Taekwondo Complaint Resolution

Surprise Entrant into the Fray

Commentary on Mr. Jacobs Entry

My Letter to Mr Howard Jacobs, Esq.

Sample of emails to the USTA Executives

ARGUMENTS AND RESPONSES  

USTA Response

 

My Rebuttal of the USTA Motion for Dismissal "in the alternative"

PDF Files

Combined Rebuttal File

Cover Letter

 
   
Oral Arguments April 11, 12:00 CST Via Teleconferencing before the Hearing Panel  
   
ENCLOSURE A: The Complaint  
 

Title Page

Preface

Background

Issues

 

 

ENCLOSURE B: What is Quickstart/ TAUT?

ENCLOSURE C: Ten and Under Mandate Analyzed

The Neuroscience in Brief

A Minimal Analysis of QS Transition Times

A Simple Test of the Quickstart Hypothesis

ITF Quickstart Transition Chart Analysis

ENCLOSURE D: ITF Rules of Tennis 2012 (RoT 2012) Appendix VI)

ENCLOSURE E: Public Law 105-225 SUBCHAPTER II NATIONAL GOVERNING BODIES

 

USOC Complaint Package

Little Mo Memo

Leadership Today

Confused