Main
Date: 20 Jan 2008 03:37:34
From: samsloan
Subject: Goichberg responds to Gregory's question
[quote="chessoffice"][quote="gregory"]Hi Randy,

What exactly was asked of Paul? I am not asking you to share
confidential email, but just highlight what was asked, and provided so
we can deal with facts.[/quote]

What was asked, as previously stated, was:

"Specifically, the USCF asked Paul Truong to provide, by December 7,
2007, the following:

1. Formally admit or deny, in writing, whether he was involved in
the "Fake Sam Sloan" postings, or had knowledge of who made such
postings;
2. Provide the IP address of all his home and work Internet
connections since 2005, or provide consent for the Board to obtain and
cooperate in the Board obtaining, such IP addresses from ISPs and
other entities;
3. Provide all information that would support his argument that he
was not located at his computer(s) at the time of alleged Fake Sam
Sloan postings, to include information relating to his travel.
To date, the USCF has not received a formal response to items 1
and 2 and incomplete information relating to item 3."

The response we received to #1 was: Susan said that Paul had already
written, two months before, that he was not involved in these
postings. This appears true, but is not the formal denial requested
of Paul.

The response we received to #2 was: Susan said that we would receive
an answer after the Sloan lawsuit was resolved. This was quite
unhelpful, especially as one of the reasons we needed a response was
to help us defend the Sloan lawsuit.

Bill Goichberg[/quote]




 
Date: 21 Jan 2008 12:56:47
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Goichberg responds to Gregory's question
On Jan 20, 7:15 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > [quote="chessoffice"][quote="gregory"]Hi Randy,
>
> > What exactly was asked of Paul? I am not asking you to share
> > confidential email, but just highlight what was asked, and provided so
> > we can deal with facts.[/quote]
>
> > What was asked, as previously stated, was:
>
> > "Specifically, the USCF asked Paul Truong to provide, by December 7,
> > 2007, the following:
>
> > 1. Formally admit or deny, in writing, whether he was involved in
> > the "Fake Sam Sloan" postings, or had knowledge of who made such
> > postings;
> > 2. Provide the IP address of all his home and work Internet
> > connections since 2005, or provide consent for the Board to obtain and
> > cooperate in the Board obtaining, such IP addresses from ISPs and
> > other entities;
> > 3. Provide all information that would support his argument that he
> > was not located at his computer(s) at the time of alleged Fake Sam
> > Sloan postings, to include information relating to his travel.
> > To date, the USCF has not received a formal response to items 1
> > and 2 and incomplete information relating to item 3."
>
> > The response we received to #1 was: Susan said that Paul had already
> > written, two months before, that he was not involved in these
> > postings. This appears true, but is not the formal denial requested
> > of Paul.
>
> > The response we received to #2 was: Susan said that we would receive
> > an answer after the Sloan lawsuit was resolved. This was quite
> > unhelpful, especially as one of the reasons we needed a response was
> > to help us defend the Sloan lawsuit.
>
> > Bill Goichberg[/quote]
>
> Interesting. Since December 7th there must have been quite an exchange
> of antagonistic correspondence. I am very interested in knowing more as
> a concerned member of the US chess community.
>
> It would help to know how these questions were posed. Was this done
> formally in typical legal fashion, perhaps by notarized letter, or was
> it a casual thing by email.

In other words, was it caught in Truong's spam filter? Since the First
Couple of Chess seems to blame everyone else for their problems,
perhaps the 'Microsoft defense' is going to be played.

Also, who did the asking, was it the
> lawyers of the legal defense team, a board resolution of some sort, or a
> request by an individual board member.

It appears it was the lawyers for the defense.

And finally, was Mr. Truong
> given enough time to properly comply with the requests?

How long does it take an innocent man to swear, or affirm, a notorized
statement? As for IP addresses, that's simply a matter of giving
permission for the lawyers to ask for it.

> Recently partisans have raised tails and generated a great stink about
> "transparency." Is this a smokescreen?

Of course.

Transparency, like liberty, and
> truth are wonderful beacons as abstract virtues, but saying the word
> does not make it so. In America we are quite familiar with politicians
> "wrapping themselves in the flag" to further their political aims.
> --
>
> Cordially,
> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.



 
Date: 20 Jan 2008 04:15:41
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Goichberg responds to Gregory's question
samsloan wrote:
> [quote="chessoffice"][quote="gregory"]Hi Randy,
>
> What exactly was asked of Paul? I am not asking you to share
> confidential email, but just highlight what was asked, and provided so
> we can deal with facts.[/quote]
>
> What was asked, as previously stated, was:
>
> "Specifically, the USCF asked Paul Truong to provide, by December 7,
> 2007, the following:
>
> 1. Formally admit or deny, in writing, whether he was involved in
> the "Fake Sam Sloan" postings, or had knowledge of who made such
> postings;
> 2. Provide the IP address of all his home and work Internet
> connections since 2005, or provide consent for the Board to obtain and
> cooperate in the Board obtaining, such IP addresses from ISPs and
> other entities;
> 3. Provide all information that would support his argument that he
> was not located at his computer(s) at the time of alleged Fake Sam
> Sloan postings, to include information relating to his travel.
> To date, the USCF has not received a formal response to items 1
> and 2 and incomplete information relating to item 3."
>
> The response we received to #1 was: Susan said that Paul had already
> written, two months before, that he was not involved in these
> postings. This appears true, but is not the formal denial requested
> of Paul.
>
> The response we received to #2 was: Susan said that we would receive
> an answer after the Sloan lawsuit was resolved. This was quite
> unhelpful, especially as one of the reasons we needed a response was
> to help us defend the Sloan lawsuit.
>
> Bill Goichberg[/quote]

Interesting. Since December 7th there must have been quite an exchange
of antagonistic correspondence. I am very interested in knowing more as
a concerned member of the US chess community.

It would help to know how these questions were posed. Was this done
formally in typical legal fashion, perhaps by notarized letter, or was
it a casual thing by email. Also, who did the asking, was it the
lawyers of the legal defense team, a board resolution of some sort, or a
request by an individual board member. And finally, was Mr. Truong
given enough time to properly comply with the requests?

Recently partisans have raised tails and generated a great stink about
"transparency." Is this a smokescreen? Transparency, like liberty, and
truth are wonderful beacons as abstract virtues, but saying the word
does not make it so. In America we are quite familiar with politicians
"wrapping themselves in the flag" to further their political aims.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


  
Date: 20 Jan 2008 08:48:14
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Goichberg responds to Gregory's question
On Sun, 20 Jan 2008 04:15:41 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
<[email protected] > wrote:

>And finally, was Mr. Truong
>given enough time to properly comply with the requests?

Communicating *intent* to comply (or a counter-offer) should require
substantially less time.

>Recently partisans have raised tails and generated a great stink about
>"transparency." Is this a smokescreen?

Reading between the lines, I get the feeling that the proffered
"transparency" may be merely the threat to release a bunch of e-mails
and other private communication, some of which might prove
embarrassing to third parties as well as the principals. I find
nothing indicating this transparency includes compliance with the
USCF's specific demands, such as PT's cooperation in obtaining ISP
records. I hope this is a misunderstanding on my part.