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