|
Main
Date: 20 Aug 2006 16:44:16
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
At 06:31 AM 8/20/2006 EDT, [email protected] wrote: > I believe that Bill Hall will be speaking to our attorney on Monday >regarding what actions USCF can now take. > > Bill Goichberg Dear Bill Goichberg, When Bill Hall speaks to your attorney, please be sure to have him tell him that on July 28, 2006 Paul Truong posted the following under the Subject Header: Issue: The USCF forums are out of control ChessPromotion PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:24 pm "I will add something else. I was the captain and manager of the 2004 US Women's Olympiad team and the training squad. One of the members was WGM Goletiani. "Sloan knows here. He offered to help her when she just arrived to America with only a suitcase. I think he helped her get a Green Card. "But one day when we were at the Kasparov vs. Machine event (a few years later), she was hiding behind me when she saw Sloan. She said I hope he does not see me and made a big face. "I do not know what took place or what he said to her but she was very uncomfortable seeing him. She reacted the same way as Susan Polgar. They were both polite to him in public but they were both very uncomfortable having him near them. So I had to come to them and said OK ladies, we have to go. "These are the cases where nothing happened (Thank God!). But things did happen with other cases and Sloan was bragging about it to everyone. He even had the pictures of all the girls on his website. That's sick!" The picture that Paul Truong now demands that I remove from my website proves that the above statement by him is false, because the picture was taken at the exact time and place where Truong above claims that both Rusudan Goletiani and Susan Polgar were avoiding me and hiding from me. From the picture, it is obvious that neither Goletiani, nor her sister, whose home I had visited in the Republic of Georgia, nor Susan were in any way avoiding me or hiding from me. Indeed they had asked me to pose with them for this picture, which is how this picture came to be taken. During that period of time in question, I was in regular telephone contact with Paul Truong and Susan Polgar. Paul was often calling me, asking for help in his projects, much as I imagine he is now contacting the other members of the Executive Board. Paul asked me to post the pictures in question on my website. Even had he not done so, I have the right to post the pictures anyway, as the pictures themselves proves that his libelous and slanderous claims about me are false. On a related topic, Paul Truong has manufactured and sold a chess calendar featuring a picture of Susan Polgar playing chess with Bobby Fischer. Paul even sold $5,000 worth of these calendars to the USCF under Frank Niro. Bobby Fischer never gave permission for Susan to take this picture of him playing chess with her. Everybody who knows anything about Bobby Fischer knows that he was outraged when he found out about the picture. The picture was obviously taken surreptitiously, perhaps through a keyhole in the Polgar home. Fischer broke relations with Susan and with the entire Polgar family because of this picture. Yet, Susan proudly displays this picture on her website. Now that Bill Goichberg states that he is going to spend USCF membership dues money to consult with a lawyer concerning the legally frivolous issue of the picture of me with Susan Polgar, I would like for Bill to explain why he refuses to consult with competent independent legal counsel concerning the vastly more important issue of whether we own the three acres of land and the building we built on it in Crossville. We need to know whether we own the land and the building free and clear or whether we are required to sell all or any part of it back to the City of Crossville for one dollar. I have told Bill many times that we need to consult INDEPENDENT legal counsel on this important issue and that the City Attorney for the City of Crossville clearly is not independent. The phone book is filled with lawyers in Nashville who could be consulted on this matter, but Bill has refused to do so, saying that he does not want to spend the money. Bill is willing to spend dues members money to consult with lawyers concerning a picture Paul Truong took of me with Susan Polgar, but he is not willing to spend dues members money to find out whether we own a building that we just spent $650,000 to build. Do we have title insurance on that building? I will bet that we do not. Regarding the fact that, as Bill admits, we have lost or misplaced the contracts both with AF4C to hold the US Championship and the contracts with Truong for chess lessons for the Woman's Team and for a chess column by Susan Polgar, I am confident that I have quoted correctly and accurately both what Bill Hall said in a closed session of the board to the effect that very little from the USCF offices in New Windsor ever reached Crossville, and Bill Goichberg's responses to this statement. I am deeply disappointed in Bill for stating in public the opposite of what he stated in private. Bill has done this before. Bill told me in private while driving me to the bus station in Newburgh in 2004 that Truong was demanding to be paid $50,000 (fifty thousand dollars) for chess lessons for the woman's team, yet Bill virtually demanded that I apologize to Truong for making a much weaker statement recently. Naturally, I expected that after I was elected to the board that I would be given the original documents, including the contracts Truong signed with Niro plus Paul's letters demanding $50,000 and the documents he submitted in support of his claims, so that I can determine the true state of affairs. Now, I am told that ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN LOST. Since your public statements are vastly different from what you have stated in private, I am hereby demanding that I be provided with a copy of the videotape that Myron Lieberman made of the Executive Board meeting. I am willing to pay all costs involved in making a copy of the tape. I am confident that the tape will show that I am right and you are wrong. Regarding the move from New Windsor to Crossville, I have now confirmed from an independent source that you are correct that Jay Sabine and his team of high school students was NOT USED to move the records from New Windsor to Crossville priily because of fears that one of the high school students would be injured and would sue. So, I was wrong and you were correct about that. What I have now been informed is that, as you say, an independent moving company was in fact hired. Again, I was wrong and you are correct. This independent moving company loaded up 300 to 400 boxes of records from the Crossville Offices, put the boxes into trucks, and drove the trucks off into the distance, never to be seen again. This will be featured soon on Unsolved Mysteries. It was clear from the reks made by Bill Hall at the August 14, 2006 meeting of the Executive Board that the 300 to 400 boxes never reached the new USCF Offices in Crossville. Indeed, the new USCF offices in Crossville are less than half the size of the old offices in New Windsor, so there is simply no space for 300 to 400 storage boxes. What was in the boxes? Were they financial records or were they overprinted Chess Lifes? Are they in a storage facility somewhere or are they in a landfill? If in a landfill, where is a landfill? As Tim Redman has pointed out in another posting, my shovel and lantern are ready. Kindly recall that I ran for election and was elected on my campaign promise that I would put under a microscope and examine and publish reports on why the USCF has lost nearly two million dollars in the past seven years. I did not promise in my election campaign that I would become close bosom buddies of the other members of the board, that I would be a good team player or that I would cater to your every whim. Rather, I promised that I would expose corruption in this organization, if I could find it. That is the reason why I was elected. That is also the reason that your two housemen finished last in the election. I am doing the job that I was elected to do. Will you do yours? Sam Sloan
|
|
|
Date: 12 Oct 2007 12:38:31
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
On Sun, 20 Aug 2006 16:44:16 GMT, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote: >At 06:31 AM 8/20/2006 EDT, [email protected] wrote: > >> I believe that Bill Hall will be speaking to our attorney on Monday >>regarding what actions USCF can now take. >> >> Bill Goichberg > > >Dear Bill Goichberg, > >When Bill Hall speaks to your attorney, please be sure to have him >tell him that on July 28, 2006 Paul Truong posted the following under >the Subject Header: Issue: The USCF forums are out of control > >ChessPromotion PostPosted: Fri Jul 28, 2006 4:24 pm > > "I will add something else. I was the captain and manager of >the 2004 US Women's Olympiad team and the training squad. One of the >members was WGM Goletiani. > > "Sloan knows here. He offered to help her when she just >arrived to America with only a suitcase. I think he helped her get a >Green Card. > > "But one day when we were at the Kasparov vs. Machine event (a >few years later), she was hiding behind me when she saw Sloan. She >said I hope he does not see me and made a big face. > > "I do not know what took place or what he said to her but she >was very uncomfortable seeing him. She reacted the same way as Susan >Polgar. They were both polite to him in public but they were both very >uncomfortable having him near them. So I had to come to them and said >OK ladies, we have to go. > > "These are the cases where nothing happened (Thank God!). But >things did happen with other cases and Sloan was bragging about it to >everyone. He even had the pictures of all the girls on his website. >That's sick!" > > >The picture that Paul Truong now demands that I remove from my website >proves that the above statement by him is false, because the picture >was taken at the exact time and place where Truong above claims that >both Rusudan Goletiani and Susan Polgar were avoiding me and hiding >from me. From the picture, it is obvious that neither Goletiani, nor >her sister, whose home I had visited in the Republic of Georgia, nor >Susan were in any way avoiding me or hiding from me. Indeed they had >asked me to pose with them for this picture, which is how this picture >came to be taken. > >During that period of time in question, I was in regular telephone >contact with Paul Truong and Susan Polgar. Paul was often calling me, >asking for help in his projects, much as I imagine he is now >contacting the other members of the Executive Board. > >Paul asked me to post the pictures in question on my website. Even had >he not done so, I have the right to post the pictures anyway, as the >pictures themselves proves that his libelous and slanderous claims >about me are false. > >On a related topic, Paul Truong has manufactured and sold a chess >calendar featuring a picture of Susan Polgar playing chess with Bobby >Fischer. Paul even sold $5,000 worth of these calendars to the USCF >under Frank Niro. Bobby Fischer never gave permission for Susan to >take this picture of him playing chess with her. Everybody who knows >anything about Bobby Fischer knows that he was outraged when he found >out about the picture. The picture was obviously taken >surreptitiously, perhaps through a keyhole in the Polgar home. Fischer >broke relations with Susan and with the entire Polgar family because >of this picture. Yet, Susan proudly displays this picture on her >website. > >Now that Bill Goichberg states that he is going to spend USCF >membership dues money to consult with a lawyer concerning the legally >frivolous issue of the picture of me with Susan Polgar, I would like >for Bill to explain why he refuses to consult with competent >independent legal counsel concerning the vastly more important issue >of whether we own the three acres of land and the building we built on >it in Crossville. We need to know whether we own the land and the >building free and clear or whether we are required to sell all or any >part of it back to the City of Crossville for one dollar. I have told >Bill many times that we need to consult INDEPENDENT legal counsel on >this important issue and that the City Attorney for the City of >Crossville clearly is not independent. The phone book is filled with >lawyers in Nashville who could be consulted on this matter, but Bill >has refused to do so, saying that he does not want to spend the money. > >Bill is willing to spend dues members money to consult with lawyers >concerning a picture Paul Truong took of me with Susan Polgar, but he >is not willing to spend dues members money to find out whether we own >a building that we just spent $650,000 to build. > >Do we have title insurance on that building? I will bet that we do >not. > >Regarding the fact that, as Bill admits, we have lost or misplaced the >contracts both with AF4C to hold the US Championship and the contracts >with Truong for chess lessons for the Woman's Team and for a chess >column by Susan Polgar, I am confident that I have quoted correctly >and accurately both what Bill Hall said in a closed session of the >board to the effect that very little from the USCF offices in New >Windsor ever reached Crossville, and Bill Goichberg's responses to >this statement. I am deeply disappointed in Bill for stating in public >the opposite of what he stated in private. Bill has done this before. >Bill told me in private while driving me to the bus station in >Newburgh in 2004 that Truong was demanding to be paid $50,000 (fifty >thousand dollars) for chess lessons for the woman's team, yet Bill >virtually demanded that I apologize to Truong for making a much weaker >statement recently. Naturally, I expected that after I was elected to >the board that I would be given the original documents, including the >contracts Truong signed with Niro plus Paul's letters demanding >$50,000 and the documents he submitted in support of his claims, so >that I can determine the true state of affairs. Now, I am told that >ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN LOST. > >Since your public statements are vastly different from what you have >stated in private, I am hereby demanding that I be provided with a >copy of the videotape that Myron Lieberman made of the Executive Board >meeting. I am willing to pay all costs involved in making a copy of >the tape. I am confident that the tape will show that I am right and >you are wrong. > >Regarding the move from New Windsor to Crossville, I have now >confirmed from an independent source that you are correct that Jay >Sabine and his team of high school students was NOT USED to move the >records from New Windsor to Crossville priily because of fears that >one of the high school students would be injured and would sue. So, I >was wrong and you were correct about that. > >What I have now been informed is that, as you say, an independent >moving company was in fact hired. Again, I was wrong and you are >correct. This independent moving company loaded up 300 to 400 boxes of >records from the Crossville Offices, put the boxes into trucks, and >drove the trucks off into the distance, never to be seen again. This >will be featured soon on Unsolved Mysteries. > >It was clear from the reks made by Bill Hall at the August 14, 2006 >meeting of the Executive Board that the 300 to 400 boxes never reached >the new USCF Offices in Crossville. Indeed, the new USCF offices in >Crossville are less than half the size of the old offices in New >Windsor, so there is simply no space for 300 to 400 storage boxes. >What was in the boxes? Were they financial records or were they >overprinted Chess Lifes? Are they in a storage facility somewhere or >are they in a landfill? If in a landfill, where is a landfill? As Tim >Redman has pointed out in another posting, my shovel and lantern are >ready. > >Kindly recall that I ran for election and was elected on my campaign >promise that I would put under a microscope and examine and publish >reports on why the USCF has lost nearly two million dollars in the >past seven years. I did not promise in my election campaign that I >would become close bosom buddies of the other members of the board, >that I would be a good team player or that I would cater to your every >whim. Rather, I promised that I would expose corruption in this >organization, if I could find it. That is the reason why I was >elected. That is also the reason that your two housemen finished last >in the election. > >I am doing the job that I was elected to do. Will you do yours? > >Sam Sloan I am reviving the above thread from August 2006 to point out that none of these issues have been resolved. The USCF still has not retained legal counsel in Tennessee and has not resolved the question of whether we have clear title to the land and the building in Crossville. Also, the three pictures from the so-called Picturegate Affair are still on my website. Here are three photos: http://www.samsloan.com/polgrusa.jpg http://www.samsloan.com/polrussa.jpg http://www.samsloan.com/rusasis.jpg I have reaised these issues in my recent lawsuit hoping finally to bring them to a resolution. Sam Sloan
|
|
Date: 21 Aug 2006 12:40:26
From: LiamToo
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
Vince Hart wrote: > As a general rule, I would think that a purchaser takes property > subject to any valid liens that exist upon the property. The purchase > does not extinguish valid claims. If the USCF has clear title until > such time as the city exercises its option, I would think that the USCF > could encumber the property. On the other hand, there might be some > condition on the recorded deed that limits the USCF's right. The buy back option may not extinguish valid claims, however, any real estate property being bought should be free from any encumbrances, which is the sellers responsibily to settle first or simultaneously in escrow. And the Title Insurance Company will make sure that the property is clear from such encumbrances before issuing the insurance. The city is safe but the bank may have risks.
|
|
Date: 21 Aug 2006 11:02:19
From: Vince Hart
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
LiamToo wrote: > Vince Hart wrote: > > Yes. It depends on the conditions on the deed. > > When the city actually opted to buy back the land, the deed is theirs. > The bank is at risk at this time unless the city authorizes the lien. As a general rule, I would think that a purchaser takes property subject to any valid liens that exist upon the property. The purchase does not extinguish valid claims. If the USCF has clear title until such time as the city exercises its option, I would think that the USCF could encumber the property. On the other hand, there might be some condition on the recorded deed that limits the USCF's right.
|
|
Date: 21 Aug 2006 10:10:33
From: LiamToo
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
Vince Hart wrote: > Yes. It depends on the conditions on the deed. When the city actually opted to buy back the land, the deed is theirs. The bank is at risk at this time unless the city authorizes the lien.
|
|
Date: 21 Aug 2006 09:45:54
From: Vince Hart
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
Jonathan Kamens wrote: > "Vince Hart" <[email protected]> writes: > >> In short, the bank wouldn't have issued the mortgage if they thought > >> that the city could buy back the land for $1 as Sam claims. > > > >I am not sure on this. The USCF might have good title even if the city > >had an option to buy back the land in which case the bank's lien would. > > The bank would not care about the repurchase since its lien would > >still be good. > > In that situation, the lien would be good, but the bank would > still be at risk, and I doubt the bank would enter into such > an arrangement. > > If for whatever reason the USCF can't pay its mortgage, the > bank can't foreclose and sell the property to recoup its > investment if there is a condition on the deed requiring the > USCF to give the land back to city. The lien therefore would > not protect the bank against the possible financial insolvency > of the USCF, a real concern if indeed the organization has > lost millions of dollars in seven years as Sam Sloan claims. > Yes. It depends on the conditions on the deed.
|
|
Date: 21 Aug 2006 08:25:16
From: Vince Hart
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
Jonathan Kamens wrote: > I must say that although I know next to nothing about this whole > brouhaha, I'm finding the back-and-forth between Sloane et al and the > rest of the Board to be quite fascinating. > > Even someone as unfamiliar as I with the situation being debated knows > enough to point out a couple of obvious whoppers. Whether these were > intentional or not, I know know. Here's a pair, one from each side. > > Joal Channing claimed: > > >He further > >affirmatively states that we do not have title insurance - probably a > >fabrication because I doubt if he did any research. Nevertheless, I > >would say that we probably do have title insurance, if for no other > >reason than a mortgage lender would probably demand it. > > The mortgage lender only requires title insurance up to the amount of > the mortgage. They don't care whether the owner of the land chooses to > puchase additional title insurance to cover its own investment in the > property. Unless the owner of the land paid for extra insurance, the > title insurance policy required by the mortgage lender won't do the > owner a bit of good if it turns out later that the mortgage wasn't > free and clear. > > Sam Sloan claimed: > > >You write that we must have title insurance because otherwise the bank > >would not have lent us the money. I now wonder if you are really as > >st as you claim to be. The loan by the bank gives it a lien on the > >land and the building on it, regardless of who owns the land. The bank > >is protected even if we do not really own the land. > > I'm pretty sure that's not true. It is not true. If the USCF does not own the land, it cannot grant the bank a lien on the land. > > A lien on a property agreed to by someone who is not the rightful owner > cannot be enforced later on the rightful owner. If it turns out that > the title wasn't clear when the bank put the lien on the property, the > lien is invalid. > > It's a pretty good bet that if there's a mortgage on the land, the bank > bought a title insurance policy, and it seems unlikely that they would > have been able to get a title insurance policy without researching and > clearing the title. Actually, the bank probably made the borrower buy the policy and the insurer did the research, but the gist is correct. > > In short, the bank wouldn't have issued the mortgage if they thought > that the city could buy back the land for $1 as Sam claims. I am not sure on this. The USCF might have good title even if the city had an option to buy back the land in which case the bank's lien would. The bank would not care about the repurchase since its lien would still be good. > > -- > Help stop the genocide in Darfur! > http://www.genocideintervention.net/
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2006 15:46:35
From: Jonathan Kamens
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
"Vince Hart" <[email protected] > writes: >> In short, the bank wouldn't have issued the mortgage if they thought >> that the city could buy back the land for $1 as Sam claims. > >I am not sure on this. The USCF might have good title even if the city >had an option to buy back the land in which case the bank's lien would. > The bank would not care about the repurchase since its lien would >still be good. In that situation, the lien would be good, but the bank would still be at risk, and I doubt the bank would enter into such an arrangement. If for whatever reason the USCF can't pay its mortgage, the bank can't foreclose and sell the property to recoup its investment if there is a condition on the deed requiring the USCF to give the land back to city. The lien therefore would not protect the bank against the possible financial insolvency of the USCF, a real concern if indeed the organization has lost millions of dollars in seven years as Sam Sloan claims. -- Help stop the genocide in Darfur! http://www.genocideintervention.net/
|
|
Date: 21 Aug 2006 10:53:24
From: PocoBueno
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
so fuckin what u cuntz think the rest of the world gives 2 fucks?
|
|
Date: 20 Aug 2006 22:43:42
From: Vince Hart
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
samsloan wrote: > > The principle you cite may be true in the general case but it does not > apply to this case. > > In this case, the three acres of land and the building on it belong > either to the USCF or to the City of Crossville that "gifted" the land > to us provided that we "use" the land. > > The City of Crossville obviously had free and clear title to the land > prior to "gifting" the land to the USCF. > > The bank that gave the mortgage is located in Crossville and does > business with the City of Crossville all day long. Thus, the bank knows > exactly their position and is completely protected. > > > Sam Sloan The only thing obvious is that Sam is a moron when it comes to questions of real estate. Does Sam really think that a bank keeps track of every property that a city owns just because it regularly does business with the city? Does Sam really think that a bank keeps track of every lien or claim on every property a city owns?
|
|
Date: 20 Aug 2006 21:54:56
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
Mulfish wrote: seki wrote: I didn't vote for Sam and I would take down the pictures on my website if requested. But I don't understand why the USCF is paying for an attorney in a dispute between two third parties about copyright on pictures on a non-USCF website. I don't see where USCF has any organizational interests in this dispute. USCF EB members as individuals can try to talk some sense into Sam but as USCF EB members they have no dog in this fight that I can see. I can't see the courts getting too worked up about pictures that include Sam on Sam's website. Seki, you aren't paying attention closely enough. Goichberg's statement about talking to lawyers was in response to my post about what action they were going to take about Sloan's post kicking off the thread about Sloan's allegation that most of the USCF financial records were destroyed. My question, and therefore Goichberg's response, had nothing, repeat nothing, to do with the picture issue. The USCF certainly does have an interest in one EB member making libelous allegations about a number of people in the context of USCF matters. Sorry, but you are mistaken. Bill's statement had nothing to do with your letter or with the issue of the financial records or the missing 300 to 400 boxes. Rather, it had to do with the "Picturegate Affair" as you call it. Bill's statement was in response to Susan's letter. If you do not know her history, perhaps you should know that Susan spent 15 years fighting tremendous battles with the Hungarian Chess Federation and especially with her female rivals Zsuzsa Veroci and Zsuzsa Makai and with grandmasters Portisch and Andorjan. Finally, she left her country and came here. It did not take long before she started fighting with her female rivals in this country, especially Anjelina Belakovskaia, Elena Donaldson and Beatriz inello. Susan sued FIDE and now she is threatening to sue the USCF too, which is why Bill Goichberg is concerned. Here is her letter and Bill's reply: Sam, I'm done with this issue. I'm now very angry about this mess. I'm tired of your lies, deceipt and total disrespect for the rights of USCF members as well as the law. You simply care more about your twisted ego than the welfare of this entire federation. Either the USCF will do something about this or I will when I come back from my Chess Moves cruise. I simply can't continue wasting my time. I want my pictures off your website immediately. You don't have my permission to use my pictures to promote your website which is a commercial website. If this board supports your position then I will resign my membership from the USCF permanently. The Board does not support Sam's position. I believe that Bill Hall will be speaking to our attorney on Monday regarding what actions USCF can now take. Bill Goichberg
|
|
Date: 20 Aug 2006 20:07:15
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
[quote="joelchanning"][quote]You write that we must have title insurance because otherwise the bank would not have lent us the money. I now wonder if you are really as st as you claim to be. The loan by the bank gives it a lien on the land and the building on it, regardless of who owns the land. The bank is protected even if we do not really own the land. Sam Sloan[/quote] [color=darkred][b]Here's a short lesson in real estate for you Sam. Title insurance protects you against prior claims to title. The bank might think it was protected by its first lien until a [i]superior[/i] claim from a [i]prior[/i] owner cropped up, thereby relegating the bank's lien to second place. Joel Channing[/b][/color][/quote] The principle you cite may be true in the general case but it does not apply to this case. In this case, the three acres of land and the building on it belong either to the USCF or to the City of Crossville that "gifted" the land to us provided that we "use" the land. The City of Crossville obviously had free and clear title to the land prior to "gifting" the land to the USCF. The bank that gave the mortgage is located in Crossville and does business with the City of Crossville all day long. Thus, the bank knows exactly their position and is completely protected. The USCF, however, is not protected. We do not really know what our rights are with respect to the land. We have a letter from Harry Sabine stating that we cannot sell part of the land unless we first offer to give it back to the City of Crossville for free. This means that we do not really have clear title to the land. I do not believe the statement by Grant Perks that we have title insurance to the land. How much did we pay for that title insurance? Where is the invoice? Who would give us title insurance in the face of Harry Sabine's letter stating that we do not really own the land. Kindly recall that Grant Perks made a bunch of sweeping assertions yesterday, only to delete them a few hours later. Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2006 20:50:36
From: Chess Freak
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
I enjoy watching Sam destroy himself: Sam, I'm done with this issue. I'm now very angry about this mess. I'm tired of your lies, deceipt and total disrespect for the rights of USCF members as well as the law. You simply care more about your twisted ego than the welfare of this entire federation. Either the USCF will do something about this or I will when I come back from my Chess Moves cruise. I simply can't continue wasting my time. I want my pictures off your website immediately. You don't have my permission to use my pictures to promote your website which is a commercial website. If this board supports your position then I will resign my membership from the USCF permanently. The Board does not support Sam's position. I believe that Bill Hall will be speaking to our attorney on Monday regarding what actions USCF can now take. Bill Goichberg
|
|
Date: 20 Aug 2006 19:17:32
From: help bot
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
Chess Freak wrote: > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message > Here are three photos: > > > > http://www.samsloan.com/polgrusa.jpg > > http://www.samsloan.com/polrussa.jpg > > http://www.samsloan.com/rusasis.jpg > > > > There is nothing wrong with these pictures and no reason why I should > > take them down. > > > > Sam Sloan If I were Mr. Sloan, I believe I would advise the cameraman to stand *behind* me, and set the focus on the girls. Shot number three is okay, but in the other two Mr. Sloan looks downright ugly in profile. Oh, and stop wearing light-colored vests: they make you look fat, especially when you slouch and push your stomach out. Dark colors are best for photos. And what is that mischievious look I see in your eyes? Wipe that smirk off your face, mister. And stand up straight. Shoulders back. Chest out. No, not your shoulders, your chest. Stop slouching! Do I have to get Seirawan to show you how it's done? No, you can't borrow one of his Gucci suits. -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 23 Aug 2006 21:31:02
From: Chess Freak
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
http://www.samsloan.com/polrussa.jpg ... it looks like Sloan is ready to give birth!! Nice body language on the ladies: "Why won't he leave us alone???"...
|
|
Date: 20 Aug 2006 18:45:16
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
SAM IS RIGHT AGAIN >Harry Sabine is not "our" attorney. Mr. Sabine is the attorney for the City of Crossville that gave us the "free" land. We need to be represented by our own attorney, not by their attorney. > -- Sam Sloan Concerning Sam's point that the USCF has allowed itself to be represented by the lawyer from THE OTHER SIDE, we note that Harry Sabine reviewed the architect's contracts for the small, expensive new structure in Crossville. We note that the initial contract called for giving famished architect Phil Elmore, one of the good old boys in that small town, $60,000 for designing a building projected to cost between $300,000 and $350,000. Later, the costs for the building mushroomed. I first reported (about two months before the board made the SAME figure public) that the estimated price of the new building (about 40 percent smaller than the structure in New Windsor) would be $650,000. If Sam Sloan is to be criticized for anything in his writing about the move to Cross-to-Bear, it is that his estimated cost of $750,000 for the move was too ... low. If one figures in recent revelations about difficulties in ever selling the land and the cost of adding 5,000 or more square feet to the small structure (in the event that the Federation ever again begins to expand) then Sam's number was actually generous to the people who planned this crazed move away from the center of chess in New York. samsloan wrote: > [quote="joelchanning"][quote="samsloan"] > I am deeply shocked that any experienced real estate developer such as > you are would write that it is proper for a not-for-profit corporation > to use membership dues money to accept a gift of "free" land and then > spend $650,000 to build a building on that free land without consulting > independent legal counsel. > > You still have not answered the question of whether the USCF has title > insurance on the property. Obviously, it does not. > Sam Sloan[/quote] > > [color=darkred][b]Dear USCF members, > > Please observe what is happening here. As soon I correct one of Sam's > distortions, he scurries in other directions. > > One issue concerned Sam's allegation that we need independent counsel > now - after the land was purchased and the building was built - to > which I replied that I believe we do not. He ignores my direct answer > as if I weren't being responsive and switches subjects to allege that I > didn't advocate independent counsel when the building was built. I had > no input in those decisions because I wasn't on the Board then. > > Then he posits that I failed to answer a question about title insurance > when, in fact, he had raised no such question. He further > affirmatively states that we do not have title insurance - probably a > fabrication because I doubt if he did any research. Nevertheless, I > would say that we probably do have title insurance, if for no other > reason than a mortgage lender would probably demand it. > > Between this nonsense and the Susan Polgar photo insult and my > apparently wasted effort to get him to clean up his web site I have > probably wasted twenty hours in the last two weeks that could have been > spent on positive work for the Federation. > > What a year this is shaping up to be! > > Joel Channing[/b][/color][/quote] > > You could have saved that twenty hours had you realized immediately the > obvious fact that the complaint by Paul Truong that I should be > required to remove from my website the pictures he sent me for posting > there is a frivolous, ridiculous complaint. > > By the way, here are the pictures again: > > Here are three photos: > > http://www.samsloan.com/polgrusa.jpg > http://www.samsloan.com/polrussa.jpg > http://www.samsloan.com/rusasis.jpg > > There is nothing wrong with these pictures and no reason why I should > take them down. > > Regarding the legality of the Crossvile deal, I have stated from the > beginning that nothing about that deal was done legally or properly. As > I have pointed out, I worked for three years for a New York Real Estate > law firm, so I know something about this subject. While the deal was > originally made before you joined the board, all of the actual > construction work took place after you joined the board. > > You write that we must have title insurance because otherwise the bank > would not have lent us the money. I now wonder if you are really as > st as you claim to be. The loan by the bank gives it a lien on the > land and the building on it, regardless of who owns the land. The bank > is protected even if we do not really own the land. They are protected > but we are not. If we do not really own the land, then we are just so > out of luck, and our membership dues money is down the drain. > > Sam Sloan
|
|
Date: 20 Aug 2006 13:50:17
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
[quote="joelchanning"][quote="samsloan"] I am deeply shocked that any experienced real estate developer such as you are would write that it is proper for a not-for-profit corporation to use membership dues money to accept a gift of "free" land and then spend $650,000 to build a building on that free land without consulting independent legal counsel. You still have not answered the question of whether the USCF has title insurance on the property. Obviously, it does not. Sam Sloan[/quote] [color=darkred][b]Dear USCF members, Please observe what is happening here. As soon I correct one of Sam's distortions, he scurries in other directions. One issue concerned Sam's allegation that we need independent counsel now - after the land was purchased and the building was built - to which I replied that I believe we do not. He ignores my direct answer as if I weren't being responsive and switches subjects to allege that I didn't advocate independent counsel when the building was built. I had no input in those decisions because I wasn't on the Board then. Then he posits that I failed to answer a question about title insurance when, in fact, he had raised no such question. He further affirmatively states that we do not have title insurance - probably a fabrication because I doubt if he did any research. Nevertheless, I would say that we probably do have title insurance, if for no other reason than a mortgage lender would probably demand it. Between this nonsense and the Susan Polgar photo insult and my apparently wasted effort to get him to clean up his web site I have probably wasted twenty hours in the last two weeks that could have been spent on positive work for the Federation. What a year this is shaping up to be! Joel Channing[/b][/color][/quote] You could have saved that twenty hours had you realized immediately the obvious fact that the complaint by Paul Truong that I should be required to remove from my website the pictures he sent me for posting there is a frivolous, ridiculous complaint. By the way, here are the pictures again: Here are three photos: http://www.samsloan.com/polgrusa.jpg http://www.samsloan.com/polrussa.jpg http://www.samsloan.com/rusasis.jpg There is nothing wrong with these pictures and no reason why I should take them down. Regarding the legality of the Crossvile deal, I have stated from the beginning that nothing about that deal was done legally or properly. As I have pointed out, I worked for three years for a New York Real Estate law firm, so I know something about this subject. While the deal was originally made before you joined the board, all of the actual construction work took place after you joined the board. You write that we must have title insurance because otherwise the bank would not have lent us the money. I now wonder if you are really as st as you claim to be. The loan by the bank gives it a lien on the land and the building on it, regardless of who owns the land. The bank is protected even if we do not really own the land. They are protected but we are not. If we do not really own the land, then we are just so out of luck, and our membership dues money is down the drain. Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 21 Aug 2006 01:23:47
From: Jonathan Kamens
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
I must say that although I know next to nothing about this whole brouhaha, I'm finding the back-and-forth between Sloane et al and the rest of the Board to be quite fascinating. Even someone as unfamiliar as I with the situation being debated knows enough to point out a couple of obvious whoppers. Whether these were intentional or not, I know know. Here's a pair, one from each side. Joal Channing claimed: >He further >affirmatively states that we do not have title insurance - probably a >fabrication because I doubt if he did any research. Nevertheless, I >would say that we probably do have title insurance, if for no other >reason than a mortgage lender would probably demand it. The mortgage lender only requires title insurance up to the amount of the mortgage. They don't care whether the owner of the land chooses to puchase additional title insurance to cover its own investment in the property. Unless the owner of the land paid for extra insurance, the title insurance policy required by the mortgage lender won't do the owner a bit of good if it turns out later that the mortgage wasn't free and clear. Sam Sloan claimed: >You write that we must have title insurance because otherwise the bank >would not have lent us the money. I now wonder if you are really as >st as you claim to be. The loan by the bank gives it a lien on the >land and the building on it, regardless of who owns the land. The bank >is protected even if we do not really own the land. I'm pretty sure that's not true. A lien on a property agreed to by someone who is not the rightful owner cannot be enforced later on the rightful owner. If it turns out that the title wasn't clear when the bank put the lien on the property, the lien is invalid. It's a pretty good bet that if there's a mortgage on the land, the bank bought a title insurance policy, and it seems unlikely that they would have been able to get a title insurance policy without researching and clearing the title. In short, the bank wouldn't have issued the mortgage if they thought that the city could buy back the land for $1 as Sam claims. -- Help stop the genocide in Darfur! http://www.genocideintervention.net/
|
| |
Date: 20 Aug 2006 18:30:46
From: Chess Freak
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message > Here are three photos: > > http://www.samsloan.com/polgrusa.jpg > http://www.samsloan.com/polrussa.jpg > http://www.samsloan.com/rusasis.jpg > > There is nothing wrong with these pictures and no reason why I should > take them down. > > Sam Sloan > There is something very wrong with those photographs. The author requested that you remove them from your website. You need the permission of the copyright holder in order to display them. Is that not clear to you, Sam? What is WRONG with you?
|
|
Date: 20 Aug 2006 12:42:18
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: USCF to Hire Lawyer Concerning Sloan's posting of 3 Pictures by Paul Truong
|
[quote="joelchanning"]I am quite experienced in real estate and so is Harry Sabine, our local attorney and the person who put together the successful Crossville bid. I may not be entirely happy with the covenant, but I don't consider we need to spend money to have another attorney review the documents This is the second time in two weekend days that I have had to stop what I was doing to correct Sam's misrepresentations. It also demonstrates that trying to be open and helpful with him doesn't accomplish anything. You can be sure I won't go out of my way for him anymore. Joel Channing[/quote] Dear Mr. Channing, I am deeply shocked that any experienced real estate developer such as you are would write that it is proper for a not-for-profit corporation to use membership dues money to accept a gift of "free" land and then spend $650,000 to build a building on that free land without consulting independent legal counsel. Harry Sabine is not "our" attorney. Mr. Sabine is the attorney for the City of Crossville that gave us the "free" land. We need to be represented by our own attorney, not by their attorney. Incidentally, I worked for three years as a paralegal in the law firm of one of the top real estate lawyers in Orange County, by the name of Jonathan Swift. He does real estate closings every day, sometimes more than one in a day, and all of his closings come out correctly. I could have brought him in and he would have gotten the job done correctly. It is inconceivable that you still refuse to retain legal counsel. You still have not answered the question of whether the USCF has title insurance on the property. Obviously, it does not. Sam Sloan
|
|