Main
Date: 30 Dec 2008 00:58:55
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
Case file in Illinois court today. Interesting reading. Can you say
"Net Zero?"




 
Date: 30 Dec 2008 01:33:43
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
B. Lafferty wrote:
> Case file in Illinois court today. Interesting reading. Can you say
> "Net Zero?"

Court filings can be found at
http://www.kronenbergerlaw.com/case_documents.html


  
Date: 31 Dec 2008 00:54:44
From: Rev. J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
On Dec 30, 11:52=A0pm, "parrthe...@cs.com" <parrthe...@cs.com > wrote:
> =A0USCF SECRECY
>
> "The USCF is not the Pentagon." -- GM Larry Evans
. . .
> =A0 =A0 =A0 The Historian has rekindled a bit of my interest in suppurati=
ng
> USCF political scrofula -- oh, those draining lymphatic tubercular
> sores! -- and I am debating whether to make a New Year's resolution to
> begin calling old sources to report on what the louses in the current
> Board majority are really doing.
>
. . .

Dear Larry,

The US chess political scene scene still heavily reeks of malice and
corruption. I continue to watch from a distance. The pot appears to
be reaching a good boil and may soon gush over with various and sundry
tawdry revelations. Perhaps it takes detachment to see how this scene
resembles some unholy combination of frenetic Keystone cops running
every which way blowing whistles while a yowling pack of demented,
smutty clowns circles between them in kiddy-cars, honking horns and
tweaking each others red bulbous noses, and at the center a team of
brown suited hi-tech specialists are draining an old, overused septic
tank.

I believe the classic Hollywood theme of good guys in white hats and
bad guys in black hats has little application to our chess wars. One
need not be attached to any particular side to see that the USCF and
all the orbiting chess organizations have been severely damaged.

To this writer it appears likely that legal matters may be reaching a
climactic stage. In the end we may have settlements, judgments,
sentences, lost fortunes, ruined lives, destroyed organizations, and
an awful stain on the reputation of the US chess community that will
take decades to fade away.

What can be salvaged from this?

It would help if at some end point we can say that we understand what
happened. There is a story to be discovered and told. Sometime much
earlier I suggested that chess historians should be taking good notes
and preparing to do research on these matters. I hope one or more
writers are working on this.

You wrote, "The Historian has rekindled a bit of my interest in
suppurating USCF political scrofula..." I would love to see some high
quality muckraking swing into action. We need to know more.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Yours,

Rev. J.D. Walker




  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 23:52:03
From: parrthenon@cs.com
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
USCF SECRECY

"The USCF is not the Pentagon." -- GM Larry Evans

<I think certain people are being VERY careful these days > -- The
Historian.

Neil Brennen, "The Historian" as I dubbed him with a capital "T" on
the "The" recollects the good (a word he omits) old days when this
writer would offer confidential information from insider contacts.

Glad that The Historian -- of the Pennsylvania State Chess
Federation of all things -- is manfully trying to recall the recent
past.

Among the stories that GM Evans and I broke over the years was
a doozy about then FIDE President Florencio Campomanes placing the
treasury of the international chess organization in a Sheffield
building trust in HIS OWN NAME. Members of our FIDE team denied the
charge and accused me of being a liar. A few months later, the same
members publicly begged, though never demanded, that he return the
money to the FIDE treasury. Some three years later, Campomanes looted
the treasury, taking 60 percent of it as a self-declared retirement
fund for himself.

There were demands from members of the USCF Policy Board that I
reveal the source of this information rather than, of course, a demand
for Campomanes' resignation. The devil in this little affair was
Harold Winston, a former USCF president, who endeavored in open
session of the Policy Board to grill me about the source. He failed
to elicit the local weather report from me.

Another story, which was denied by Honest Randy Bauer among
others, was that the final cost of the tiny, new USCF headquarters in
Cross-to-Bear would be $650,000. As usual the politicians and some of
the malignant voices on this forum called me a liar. About 60 days
LATER, the Board itself issued a statement placing the likely price at
precisely ... $650,000. My source or sources informed me that there
was an inquisition whence came my information. Board members were
accusing one another, and there was the usual unpleasant snooping by
the politicians among staff members, thereby drawing these people into
the cesspool.

Another story, which one hopes will somehow get involved in the
deposition phase of the numerous lawsuits, was the fee being paid a
local Cross-to-Bear architect. The estimated cost of the small new
building back in those days was $250,000 to $300,000, and the
architect was to get a fee, arranged apparently by the good ol' boys
on the Policy Board and Harry Sabine, of some $60,000 from the dues of
USCF members. I was called a liar by the usual crumbs. Who on the
Board knew about this crooked fee? Were there payoffs to Board
members?

AFTER I broke this story, please note the word AFTER, the
Federation quickly announced the fee would be renegotiated. The usual
claque here were attacking this writer for dragging up dirt and the
like, and there were the customary attempts by the politicians,
supported by some of the malignant voices on this forum, to hunt down
my source rather than thank this writer for informing USCF members
about the attempt to reward a good ol' boy architect in Cross-to-
Bear.

As Phil Innes noted, from the very beginning, I called for full
disclosure of all facts re the battles involving the USCF, Paul Truong
and Susan Polgar. Several times I wrote that the chips must be left
to float to the dung-infested USCF earth and land whither they may.
One hopes that no one goes to jail or ends up being ruined
financially, but if the facts lead there, then so be it.

The Historian has rekindled a bit of my interest in suppurating
USCF political scrofula -- oh, those draining lymphatic tubercular
sores! -- and I am debating whether to make a New Year's resolution to
begin calling old sources to report on what the louses in the current
Board majority are really doing.

Sam Sloan might consider launching a suit to force the
Federation Board majority to reveal its financial manipulation of
remaining USCF funds. The USCF currently has a lawyer in
Kronenberger, an all-devouring legal maw, who eats living children raw
and without ketchup for breakfast every morning, and he would prove a
worthy adversary for Sam. At first blush, we are matching the hare
and the turtle, but I also remember who eventually won that race.

Yours, Larry Parr






The Historian wrote:
> On Dec 29, 9:18?pm, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 29, 8:39?pm, "B. Lafferty" <m...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > ?From the USCF Issues Forum by Brian Mottershead:
> >
> > > The USCF filed a lawsuit today against Polgar and Truong in Illinois
> > > state court, seeking findings from the court that they have engaged in
> > > dishonest and fraudulent conduct. The lawsuit also seeks court orders
> > > removing the two of them from the USCF Executive Board and prohibiting
> > > them from running for re-election.
> >
> > > A copy of the complaint is available on my website under the URL:http://mottershead.info/Complaint_USCF_... Truong.pdf
> >
> > > The lawsuit recapitulates much of the evidence against Truong that was
> > > presented at the Delegates' meeting but includes considerable new
> > > evidence, including evidence tying 30 of the Fake Sam Sloan posts to a
> > > Netzero account that was used by Truong and paid for with Polgar's
> > > credit card. This is over and above the evidence cited in the
> > > Mottershead report. The complaint also recaps the allegations against
> > > Polgar in the San Francisco lawsuit, where Polgar and Gregory Alexander
> > > were identified as two of the parties responsible for breaking into
> > > Randy Hough's email account and converting (i.e. stealing) confidential
> > > emails.
> >
> > ? Gee-- it sure has gotten quiet around here ever
> > since the good Dr. IMnes and his buddy Mr.
> > Mitchell, stopped screaming "foul play!" on this
> > matter. ? ?I still recall pointing out to them how
> > the SP Web site itself displayed ample evidence
> > of shameless dishonesty, but it seemed then
> > that Dr. IMnes admired this aspect, apparently
> > finding that it suited him to a Tee.
>
> I think certain people are being VERY careful these days.


  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 16:20:37
From:
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
On Dec 30, 6:48=A0pm, johnny_t <nobod...@home.com > wrote:
> You made a moral posit.
>
> "You may not act on legal matters without legal determination"
>
> I disagreed with that posit.

You are one to take the law into your own hands?

I mean, what can any disagreement mean than that?

> =A0And stated that the exact opposite is
> often true, unless you are a government.

The frequency of what you say is often true is enough reason for you
to do so?

> =A0That is the norm. =A0And the
> whole government thing is a relatively new and rare construct.

How interesting your opinions are about the whole government thing.

> You then claimed that it was only YOUR point of view.
>
> I said, who cares?

That's true.

> You claimed I am no longer on topic, and not worth listening to.

Your words, not mine.

> I now claim as apparently many have before me. =A0You are simply a loon.
> And it is my mistake to confuse your literacy for sanity.

Stay with the mob, brother. Its warmer there, and given your opinions
on government, the law, and how you decide things, methinks it is the
place for your stage of development.

> However, I may still be forced to continue to publicly disagree with
> your lunacy, even though I may no longer to try and convince you of it.

Do you mean to say you are trying to conduct a conversation, since I
never got that impression. I thought you were a crude propagandist,
impatient of the opinions of other people, and merely exercising the
extent of your own wit.

> =A0 Others may become confused that you are speaking the truth, and in th=
e
> absence of dissent, take that as confirmation.

More extensive abstractions about my views - which you apparently wish
to confront. That is your bag, not mine, I just said what they were,
in reaction to someone earlier to day who lied about them.

If you don't like my views I guess you can go pound sand. But this is
not a conversation. I merely say that you have nothing to say, other
than not agreeing about law suits being decided in a court room,
social views being decided by all the evidence being available to
people so they can make up their own/ minds.

Thank you, though for acknowledging neither of these, plus your own
volunteered opinions about government being 'a relatively new and rare
construct'.

But you are safe here. Others will not remark on your rather unusual
demonstration of expressions, and since you have nothing to say you
are able to express cogently in 4 tries, then neither have I more.

Phil Innes


  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 14:02:34
From:
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
On Dec 30, 3:21=A0pm, johnny_t <nobod...@home.com > wrote:
> OK, I think I got it.
>
> Buried inside all of your logic, and what looks like a pleading to
> others, is in fact, solely what *you* will do.
>
> What *you* will do, is what until the courts act. =A0And what you have
> repeatedly stated in my replies to you, that is all you have writ.
>
> Got it.

Got what?

For 3 posts now you have been abstracted. Get that?

Seems to me you want to contest something or other, but lack the skill
to say what that is.

> Who cares?
>
> I mean seriously, why would anyone care, why *you* are not acting. =A0As
> you have said it is a personal choice. =A0Are you looking for acceptance?

No topic yet. But then again, no topic in 3 previous posts either.

> =A0 For you certainly looking for disagreement. =A0Are you looking for
> permission? =A0Because you certainly don't need any. =A0If you are lookin=
g
> to explain, you are so obtuse as to make that impossible, and it is only
> in massive cross examination, we find that there is indeed no real
> explanation, but a statement of non-action.
>
> Who cares?
>
> I got it, but I don't care what you don't do and why. =A0 Certainly your
> reasons have been shown to be specious over and over. =A0But at the end o=
f
> the day, you can, simple, as you say, it is your choice, to do what you d=
o.
>
> Good day!

Another guy can't say anything, not a single thing at all, and instead
writes 3 posts like this which might as well be commentaries on the
weather, for all we know.

Phil Innes



   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 15:48:46
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
You made a moral posit.


"You may not act on legal matters without legal determination"

I disagreed with that posit. And stated that the exact opposite is
often true, unless you are a government. That is the norm. And the
whole government thing is a relatively new and rare construct.


You then claimed that it was only YOUR point of view.

I said, who cares?

You claimed I am no longer on topic, and not worth listening to.

I now claim as apparently many have before me. You are simply a loon.
And it is my mistake to confuse your literacy for sanity.

However, I may still be forced to continue to publicly disagree with
your lunacy, even though I may no longer to try and convince you of it.
Others may become confused that you are speaking the truth, and in the
absence of dissent, take that as confirmation.



  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 13:58:54
From:
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
On Dec 30, 2:29=A0pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:30:23 -0800 (PST), onech...@comcast.net wrote:
> Phil wrote:
> >> >I should like to take formal note and offense at this and other
> >> >messages of the same type, and those who write them.
> >> >I have written from the start that law-suits should be resolved in a
> >> >court, evidence should be properly presented and accepted, and that I
> >> >support the rule of law and the proper determination of the justice
> >> >system to process that rule.
> >> >In matters of public determinations such as this forum, partial
> >> >testimony presented by those actually enjoined in the suit[s], plus a
> >> >coterie of commentators and speculators of all types, seems less
> >> >fruitful to pursue, since any and all commentary contrary to their
> >> >opinion is objected to and variously diminished to the extent that
> >> >that behavior comprises an inhibition to continue it here.
> >> >That, I remind all readers, can be determined by a court to constitut=
e
> >> >suppression of and tampering with evidence - and those who have done
> >> >are well noted here.
>
> and I replied:
>
> >> This last paragraph seems like sheer fantasy. =A0"can be determined by=
a
> >> court" -- can you cite any case where a court has so determined? =A0
>
> then Phil lamely retorted:
>
> >Any instance where a court has decided on the evidence, and so
> >determined the result?
> >ROFL. Is that your question?
>
> I think Phil knows very well what my question was.
>
> >> Can you cite *any* authoritative opinions to support your contention
> >> that discussion and argument in a newsgroup equates to evidence
> >> suppression and tampering?
> >You do not cite me, since I did not write as you now paraphrase me as
> >doing. I said that a court /may/ consider the actions of people named
> >in a law suit as constituting a significant factor in a case.
>
> Paraphrase? =A0 You said

Yes Murray, you do not quote me, and extend what I said so that you
can criticize it. I point this out and you have nothing to say,
anymore than of the 47 examples where people objected to your wit.

Yet you continue as if the thing you made up was something I said -
while not exactly understanding that I just caught you cheating!

That is your measure, Murray.

Is there something you fail to understand, or which you disagree
with?

Since you have to cheat in your messaging, and then insist that others
are lame, and so on - you openly cheat here in a public forum.

That is your consistent measure, Murray.

Phil Innes

> " In matters of public determinations such as this forum, partial
> testimony presented by those actually enjoined in the suit[s], plus a
> coterie of commentators and speculators of all types, seems less
> fruitful to pursue, since any and all commentary contrary to their
> opinion is objected to and variously diminished to the extent that
> that behavior comprises an inhibition to continue it here.
> That, I remind all readers, can be determined by a court to constitute
> suppression of and tampering with evidence."
>
> You last sentence was, "That...can be determined by a court to
> constitute suppression of and tampering with evidence". =A0To what did
> the word "that" refer, if my "paraphrase" was inaccurate or unfair?
> Seems it was intended to include not only the principals but the
> "coterie of commentators and speculators" as you call us. =A0
>
> But even if it was intended to include only the principals, I ask you,
> cite a case where this has been "determined by a court to constitute
> suppression of and tampering with evidence".



   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 14:28:54
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:58:54 -0800 (PST), onechess@comcast.net wrote:


>> Paraphrase?   You said

>Yes Murray, you do not quote me, and extend what I said so that you
>can criticize it. I point this out and you have nothing to say,
>anymore than of the 47 examples where people objected to your wit.

>Yet you continue as if the thing you made up was something I said -
>while not exactly understanding that I just caught you cheating!

>That is your measure, Murray.

So, in other words, you bluffed again.

You were called.

You pretended you said something else.

You were called on it again.

You resorted to insult.

This was expected.



  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 11:13:47
From:
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
On Dec 30, 1:38=A0pm, johnny_t <nobod...@home.com > wrote:
> onech...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > You may not act on legal matters without legal determination - what
> > you do without all information is a subject to do with your own
> > measure and wit.
>
> Just because a matter is pending at a legal level does not preclude you
> from acting on it.

Except that that is a level of choice. Your choice in fact.

> Just because you have been not found legally guilty, does not mean that
> you have not done the act, or that someone may act on the guilt.

You seem to want to begger the issue, whereas I already stated mine -
about guilt or innocence being determined by a court in legal cases,
and in public issue I said I should like to hear all of it.

> Just because you have not been found legally guilty, does not reflect on
> the veracity of the evidence.
>
> Depending on the type of issue and its effects, you would be negligent
> NOT to act.

And so let those act who feel motivated to do so.

What I wrote, and which you avoid mentioning is /my/ orientation.
Significantly you do not address nor respect that - so let us say that
you yourself act from your orientation alone, which is necessarily a
partisan one, no?

You act without regard to other opinion on the issue, avoiding the
facts that no one is yet found guilty by a court, and here in public
you do not care to acknowledge that /all/ the information might be
pertinent.


> That is WHY there are penalties to things like Defamation, Libel and
> Slander. =A0 Because, people should act. =A0And if you have created a
> situation that forces people to act, and it is with malice a foresight,
> =A0 then you owe the one maliced.
>
> Governments cannot act, but people can, and certainly should.

How abstracted!

Phil Innes


   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 12:21:32
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
OK, I think I got it.

Buried inside all of your logic, and what looks like a pleading to
others, is in fact, solely what *you* will do.

What *you* will do, is what until the courts act. And what you have
repeatedly stated in my replies to you, that is all you have writ.


Got it.

Who cares?

I mean seriously, why would anyone care, why *you* are not acting. As
you have said it is a personal choice. Are you looking for acceptance?
For you certainly looking for disagreement. Are you looking for
permission? Because you certainly don't need any. If you are looking
to explain, you are so obtuse as to make that impossible, and it is only
in massive cross examination, we find that there is indeed no real
explanation, but a statement of non-action.

Who cares?

I got it, but I don't care what you don't do and why. Certainly your
reasons have been shown to be specious over and over. But at the end of
the day, you can, simple, as you say, it is your choice, to do what you do.

Good day!


   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 12:15:41
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
onechess@comcast.net wrote:
> On Dec 30, 1:38 pm, johnny_t <nobod...@home.com> wrote:
>> onech...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>> You may not act on legal matters without legal determination - what
>>> you do without all information is a subject to do with your own
>>> measure and wit.
>> Just because a matter is pending at a legal level does not preclude you
>> from acting on it.
>
> Except that that is a level of choice. Your choice in fact.
>
>> Just because you have been not found legally guilty, does not mean that
>> you have not done the act, or that someone may act on the guilt.
>
> You seem to want to begger the issue, whereas I already stated mine -
> about guilt or innocence being determined by a court in legal cases,
> and in public issue I said I should like to hear all of it.
>
>> Just because you have not been found legally guilty, does not reflect on
>> the veracity of the evidence.
>>
>> Depending on the type of issue and its effects, you would be negligent
>> NOT to act.
>
> And so let those act who feel motivated to do so.
>
> What I wrote, and which you avoid mentioning is /my/ orientation.
> Significantly you do not address nor respect that - so let us say that
> you yourself act from your orientation alone, which is necessarily a
> partisan one, no?
>
> You act without regard to other opinion on the issue, avoiding the
> facts that no one is yet found guilty by a court, and here in public
> you do not care to acknowledge that /all/ the information might be
> pertinent.
>
>
>> That is WHY there are penalties to things like Defamation, Libel and
>> Slander. Because, people should act. And if you have created a
>> situation that forces people to act, and it is with malice a foresight,
>> then you owe the one maliced.
>>
>> Governments cannot act, but people can, and certainly should.
>
> How abstracted!
>
> Phil Innes


  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 10:30:23
From:
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
On Dec 30, 11:40=A0am, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 06:33:20 -0800 (PST), onech...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> =A0 Gee-- it sure has gotten quiet around here ever
> >> since the good Dr. IMnes and his buddy Mr.
> >> Mitchell, stopped screaming "foul play!" on this
> >> matter. =A0 =A0I still recall pointing out to them how
> >> the SP Web site itself displayed ample evidence
> >> of shameless dishonesty, but it seemed then
> >> that Dr. IMnes admired this aspect, apparently
> >> finding that it suited him to a Tee.
> >I should like to take formal note and offense at this and other
> >messages of the same type, and those who write them.
> >I have written from the start that law-suits should be resolved in a
> >court, evidence should be properly presented and accepted, and that I
> >support the rule of law and the proper determination of the justice
> >system to process that rule.
> >In matters of public determinations such as this forum, partial
> >testimony presented by those actually enjoined in the suit[s], plus a
> >coterie of commentators and speculators of all types, seems less
> >fruitful to pursue, since any and all commentary contrary to their
> >opinion is objected to and variously diminished to the extent that
> >that behavior comprises an inhibition to continue it here.
> >That, I remind all readers, can be determined by a court to constitute
> >suppression of and tampering with evidence - and those who have done
> >are well noted here.
>
> This last paragraph seems like sheer fantasy. =A0"can be determined by a
> court" -- can you cite any case where a court has so determined? =A0

Any instance where a court has decided on the evidence, and so
determined the result?

ROFL. Is that your question?

> Can you cite *any* authoritative opinions to support your contention
> that discussion and argument in a newsgroup equates to evidence
> suppression and tampering?

You do not cite me, since I did not write as you now paraphrase me as
doing. I said that a court /may/ consider the actions of people named
in a law suit as constituting a significant factor in a case.

> You should know by now that attempts to bluff don't work very well
> here, Phil. =A0Why try?

To bluff about what? As usual Murray conflates one thing with another,
and falsely paraphrases what I say in order to criticize it.

That's no bluff Murray - you demonstrate what you do all by your self.

Phil Innes



   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 11:29:20
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 10:30:23 -0800 (PST), onechess@comcast.net wrote:

Phil wrote:

>> >I should like to take formal note and offense at this and other
>> >messages of the same type, and those who write them.
>> >I have written from the start that law-suits should be resolved in a
>> >court, evidence should be properly presented and accepted, and that I
>> >support the rule of law and the proper determination of the justice
>> >system to process that rule.
>> >In matters of public determinations such as this forum, partial
>> >testimony presented by those actually enjoined in the suit[s], plus a
>> >coterie of commentators and speculators of all types, seems less
>> >fruitful to pursue, since any and all commentary contrary to their
>> >opinion is objected to and variously diminished to the extent that
>> >that behavior comprises an inhibition to continue it here.
>> >That, I remind all readers, can be determined by a court to constitute
>> >suppression of and tampering with evidence - and those who have done
>> >are well noted here.

and I replied:

>> This last paragraph seems like sheer fantasy.  "can be determined by a
>> court" -- can you cite any case where a court has so determined?  

then Phil lamely retorted:

>Any instance where a court has decided on the evidence, and so
>determined the result?

>ROFL. Is that your question?

I think Phil knows very well what my question was.

>> Can you cite *any* authoritative opinions to support your contention
>> that discussion and argument in a newsgroup equates to evidence
>> suppression and tampering?

>You do not cite me, since I did not write as you now paraphrase me as
>doing. I said that a court /may/ consider the actions of people named
>in a law suit as constituting a significant factor in a case.

Paraphrase? You said

" In matters of public determinations such as this forum, partial
testimony presented by those actually enjoined in the suit[s], plus a
coterie of commentators and speculators of all types, seems less
fruitful to pursue, since any and all commentary contrary to their
opinion is objected to and variously diminished to the extent that
that behavior comprises an inhibition to continue it here.
That, I remind all readers, can be determined by a court to constitute
suppression of and tampering with evidence."

You last sentence was, "That...can be determined by a court to
constitute suppression of and tampering with evidence". To what did
the word "that" refer, if my "paraphrase" was inaccurate or unfair?
Seems it was intended to include not only the principals but the
"coterie of commentators and speculators" as you call us.

But even if it was intended to include only the principals, I ask you,
cite a case where this has been "determined by a court to constitute
suppression of and tampering with evidence".



  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 10:25:48
From:
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
On Dec 30, 11:08=A0am, johnny_t <nobod...@home.com > wrote:
> onech...@comcast.net wrote:
> > This is no partisan stance! Far from it - it is simply a decent action
> > to members so they can determine things for themselves - and in terms
> > of legal determinations, a necessity, no?
>
> No, you keep prancing this out. =A0No, we as people do not. =A0We as
> thinkers do not. =A0Really, truly, we do not.
>
> Historically, we have never. =A0Right now we do not. =A0Not morally, lega=
lly
> or ethically.
>
> The Legal determination, is a very narrow and unusual set of constraints
> on government. =A0Not the people. =A0The US criminal model is not the nor=
m.
>
> There is a reason that Civil and Criminal issues have such different
> levels of proof.
>
> But most importantly, findings of "wrong doing" do not every have to be
> found in court for reasonable men to agree and act.
>
> There is no need for a court for action. As members of the organization,
> at least those of us that are, we are responsible to use whatever
> information that we are presented with to do the best that we can. =A0We
> are not constrained by "legal determination".

I wonder if the present write is responding to anything I have written
here - that was for legal matters, that a court should decide it. For
social matters regarding chess and USCF, that all material be
disclosed and THEN let the chips lie where they may.

That's it!

Hardly partisan, is it?

> Is it a "necessity?". =A0Simply in your words. NO.
>
> Not only is it not a necessity, it is often a requirement to act in the
> absence of "legal determination." =A0Fiduciary responsibility does not
> constrain ones action, it is a call to action.

You may not act on legal matters without legal determination - what
you do without all information is a subject to do with your own
measure and wit.

What I wrote earlier today is that is ain't mine - neither have I
changed this stance from the start.

Phil Innes


   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 10:38:59
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
onechess@comcast.net wrote:

>
> You may not act on legal matters without legal determination - what
> you do without all information is a subject to do with your own
> measure and wit.

Just because a matter is pending at a legal level does not preclude you
from acting on it.

Just because you have been not found legally guilty, does not mean that
you have not done the act, or that someone may act on the guilt.

Just because you have not been found legally guilty, does not reflect on
the veracity of the evidence.

Depending on the type of issue and its effects, you would be negligent
NOT to act.

That is WHY there are penalties to things like Defamation, Libel and
Slander. Because, people should act. And if you have created a
situation that forces people to act, and it is with malice a foresight,
then you owe the one maliced.

Governments cannot act, but people can, and certainly should.


  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:03:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
[quote="marknibb"]I suggest you make a delegates motion to change the
By-Laws and include court action as a means to remove an elected EB
member if you wish the USCF to have that as an option.

Mark Nibbelin [/quote]

Mark Nibblin is the last and the most fanatical of the Polgaristas who
are USCF members.

Note that Rob "The Robber" Mitchell and Phil Innes are not USCF
members, so they do not count.

The above posting has to set some sort of record for silly and absurd
postings by Mark Nibbelin.

Corporations are artificial persons created by the state.

It is ultimately up to the state to decide whether the corporation
exists or not and who sits on its board.

Nothing that the delegates can do can decide what the State of
Illinois can or will do about this situation.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 07:57:44
From: Rob
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
On Dec 30, 8:33=A0am, onech...@comcast.net wrote:
> On Dec 29, 9:18=A0pm, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 29, 8:39=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <m...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > > =A0From the USCF Issues Forum by Brian Mottershead:
>
> > > The USCF filed a lawsuit today against Polgar and Truong in Illinois
> > > state court, seeking findings from the court that they have engaged i=
n
> > > dishonest and fraudulent conduct. The lawsuit also seeks court orders
> > > removing the two of them from the USCF Executive Board and prohibitin=
g
> > > them from running for re-election.
>
> > > A copy of the complaint is available on my website under the URL:http=
://mottershead.info/Complaint_USCF_... Truong.pdf
>
> > > The lawsuit recapitulates much of the evidence against Truong that wa=
s
> > > presented at the Delegates' meeting but includes considerable new
> > > evidence, including evidence tying 30 of the Fake Sam Sloan posts to =
a
> > > Netzero account that was used by Truong and paid for with Polgar's
> > > credit card. This is over and above the evidence cited in the
> > > Mottershead report. The complaint also recaps the allegations against
> > > Polgar in the San Francisco lawsuit, where Polgar and Gregory Alexand=
er
> > > were identified as two of the parties responsible for breaking into
> > > Randy Hough's email account and converting (i.e. stealing) confidenti=
al
> > > emails.
>
> > =A0 Gee-- it sure has gotten quiet around here ever
> > since the good Dr. IMnes and his buddy Mr.
> > Mitchell, stopped screaming "foul play!" on this
> > matter. =A0 =A0I still recall pointing out to them how
> > the SP Web site itself displayed ample evidence
> > of shameless dishonesty, but it seemed then
> > that Dr. IMnes admired this aspect, apparently
> > finding that it suited him to a Tee.
>
> I should like to take formal note and offense at this and other
> messages of the same type, and those who write them.
>
> I have written from the start that law-suits should be resolved in a
> court, evidence should be properly presented and accepted, and that I
> support the rule of law and the proper determination of the justice
> system to process that rule.
>
> In matters of public determinations such as this forum, partial
> testimony presented by those actually enjoined in the suit[s], plus a
> coterie of commentators and speculators of all types, seems less
> fruitful to pursue, since any and all commentary contrary to their
> opinion is objected to and variously diminished to the extent that
> that behavior comprises an inhibition to continue it here.
>
> That, I remind all readers, can be determined by a court to constitute
> suppression of and tampering with evidence - and those who have done
> are well noted here.
>
> > =A0 I can also recall the old days, back when Mr.
> > Parr was frequenting reporting on "confidential"
> > matters he had learned about through his, um,
> > insider contacts. =A0 =A0It almost seems as though
> > the business of being a board member is not
> > about running the USCF at all, but rather it is
> > about infighting and sneaky, treacherous back-
> > stabbings of other board members who are not
> > a part of your own clique. =A0 I wonder if this sort
> > of thing goes on with the other boardgame
> > federations?
>
> The trouble is the inverted commas around the world confidential. What
> is actually and formally confidential in a NFP? Financial matters?
> Business arrangements and basis of awarding contracts? Not usually so.
> Even minority opinion at board level at USCF seems suppressed.
>
> Let the reader understand that situation.
>
> Once again, we must look to established standards of corporate
> behavior - what is that? If there are no standards then 'leaking'
> material seems like an offense to some party's liking, rather than an
> indecent method of behavior.
>
> And the same, in my /personal/ opinion, obtains to these law-suits. I
> notice to his credit that Larry Parr called for disclosure of all the
> information at USCF, indeed, as did Susan Polgar.
>
> This is no partisan stance! Far from it - it is simply a decent action
> to members so they can determine things for themselves - and in terms
> of legal determinations, a necessity, no?
>
> How should we legally or even socially decide issues when only one
> party has presented testimony, albeit unexamined testimony by truly
> competent and disinterested parties authorized to do so?
>
> Those are my unchanged opinions since the beginning of these affairs.
> Let those who would represent my views as otherwise know that such
> calumny is noticed here in the social sphere of chess chat, and may be
> noticed by others in more formal investigations.
>
> Phil Innes
> Vermont
>
>
>
> > =A0 -- help bot- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

AMEN!

Rob "The Mitch"


  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 06:33:20
From:
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
On Dec 29, 9:18=A0pm, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 29, 8:39=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <m...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > =A0From the USCF Issues Forum by Brian Mottershead:
>
> > The USCF filed a lawsuit today against Polgar and Truong in Illinois
> > state court, seeking findings from the court that they have engaged in
> > dishonest and fraudulent conduct. The lawsuit also seeks court orders
> > removing the two of them from the USCF Executive Board and prohibiting
> > them from running for re-election.
>
> > A copy of the complaint is available on my website under the URL:http:/=
/mottershead.info/Complaint_USCF_... Truong.pdf
>
> > The lawsuit recapitulates much of the evidence against Truong that was
> > presented at the Delegates' meeting but includes considerable new
> > evidence, including evidence tying 30 of the Fake Sam Sloan posts to a
> > Netzero account that was used by Truong and paid for with Polgar's
> > credit card. This is over and above the evidence cited in the
> > Mottershead report. The complaint also recaps the allegations against
> > Polgar in the San Francisco lawsuit, where Polgar and Gregory Alexander
> > were identified as two of the parties responsible for breaking into
> > Randy Hough's email account and converting (i.e. stealing) confidential
> > emails.
>
> =A0 Gee-- it sure has gotten quiet around here ever
> since the good Dr. IMnes and his buddy Mr.
> Mitchell, stopped screaming "foul play!" on this
> matter. =A0 =A0I still recall pointing out to them how
> the SP Web site itself displayed ample evidence
> of shameless dishonesty, but it seemed then
> that Dr. IMnes admired this aspect, apparently
> finding that it suited him to a Tee.


I should like to take formal note and offense at this and other
messages of the same type, and those who write them.

I have written from the start that law-suits should be resolved in a
court, evidence should be properly presented and accepted, and that I
support the rule of law and the proper determination of the justice
system to process that rule.

In matters of public determinations such as this forum, partial
testimony presented by those actually enjoined in the suit[s], plus a
coterie of commentators and speculators of all types, seems less
fruitful to pursue, since any and all commentary contrary to their
opinion is objected to and variously diminished to the extent that
that behavior comprises an inhibition to continue it here.

That, I remind all readers, can be determined by a court to constitute
suppression of and tampering with evidence - and those who have done
are well noted here.

> =A0 I can also recall the old days, back when Mr.
> Parr was frequenting reporting on "confidential"
> matters he had learned about through his, um,
> insider contacts. =A0 =A0It almost seems as though
> the business of being a board member is not
> about running the USCF at all, but rather it is
> about infighting and sneaky, treacherous back-
> stabbings of other board members who are not
> a part of your own clique. =A0 I wonder if this sort
> of thing goes on with the other boardgame
> federations?

The trouble is the inverted commas around the world confidential. What
is actually and formally confidential in a NFP? Financial matters?
Business arrangements and basis of awarding contracts? Not usually so.
Even minority opinion at board level at USCF seems suppressed.

Let the reader understand that situation.

Once again, we must look to established standards of corporate
behavior - what is that? If there are no standards then 'leaking'
material seems like an offense to some party's liking, rather than an
indecent method of behavior.

And the same, in my /personal/ opinion, obtains to these law-suits. I
notice to his credit that Larry Parr called for disclosure of all the
information at USCF, indeed, as did Susan Polgar.

This is no partisan stance! Far from it - it is simply a decent action
to members so they can determine things for themselves - and in terms
of legal determinations, a necessity, no?

How should we legally or even socially decide issues when only one
party has presented testimony, albeit unexamined testimony by truly
competent and disinterested parties authorized to do so?

Those are my unchanged opinions since the beginning of these affairs.
Let those who would represent my views as otherwise know that such
calumny is noticed here in the social sphere of chess chat, and may be
noticed by others in more formal investigations.

Phil Innes
Vermont

> =A0 -- help bot



   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:40:15
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 06:33:20 -0800 (PST), onechess@comcast.net wrote:


>>   Gee-- it sure has gotten quiet around here ever
>> since the good Dr. IMnes and his buddy Mr.
>> Mitchell, stopped screaming "foul play!" on this
>> matter.    I still recall pointing out to them how
>> the SP Web site itself displayed ample evidence
>> of shameless dishonesty, but it seemed then
>> that Dr. IMnes admired this aspect, apparently
>> finding that it suited him to a Tee.

>I should like to take formal note and offense at this and other
>messages of the same type, and those who write them.

>I have written from the start that law-suits should be resolved in a
>court, evidence should be properly presented and accepted, and that I
>support the rule of law and the proper determination of the justice
>system to process that rule.

>In matters of public determinations such as this forum, partial
>testimony presented by those actually enjoined in the suit[s], plus a
>coterie of commentators and speculators of all types, seems less
>fruitful to pursue, since any and all commentary contrary to their
>opinion is objected to and variously diminished to the extent that
>that behavior comprises an inhibition to continue it here.

>That, I remind all readers, can be determined by a court to constitute
>suppression of and tampering with evidence - and those who have done
>are well noted here.

This last paragraph seems like sheer fantasy. "can be determined by a
court" -- can you cite any case where a court has so determined?

Can you cite *any* authoritative opinions to support your contention
that discussion and argument in a newsgroup equates to evidence
suppression and tampering?

You should know by now that attempts to bluff don't work very well
here, Phil. Why try?


   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 08:08:11
From: johnny_t
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
onechess@comcast.net wrote:

> This is no partisan stance! Far from it - it is simply a decent action
> to members so they can determine things for themselves - and in terms
> of legal determinations, a necessity, no?


No, you keep prancing this out. No, we as people do not. We as
thinkers do not. Really, truly, we do not.

Historically, we have never. Right now we do not. Not morally, legally
or ethically.

The Legal determination, is a very narrow and unusual set of constraints
on government. Not the people. The US criminal model is not the norm.

There is a reason that Civil and Criminal issues have such different
levels of proof.

But most importantly, findings of "wrong doing" do not every have to be
found in court for reasonable men to agree and act.

There is no need for a court for action. As members of the organization,
at least those of us that are, we are responsible to use whatever
information that we are presented with to do the best that we can. We
are not constrained by "legal determination".

Is it a "necessity?". Simply in your words. NO.

Not only is it not a necessity, it is often a requirement to act in the
absence of "legal determination." Fiduciary responsibility does not
constrain ones action, it is a call to action.


    
Date: 30 Dec 2008 16:14:22
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
johnny_t wrote:
Fiduciary responsibility does not
> constrain ones action, it is a call to action.

Good turn of phrase!


  
Date: 29 Dec 2008 21:44:06
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
On Dec 29, 9:18=A0pm, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 29, 8:39=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <m...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > =A0From the USCF Issues Forum by Brian Mottershead:
>
> > The USCF filed a lawsuit today against Polgar and Truong in Illinois
> > state court, seeking findings from the court that they have engaged in
> > dishonest and fraudulent conduct. The lawsuit also seeks court orders
> > removing the two of them from the USCF Executive Board and prohibiting
> > them from running for re-election.
>
> > A copy of the complaint is available on my website under the URL:http:/=
/mottershead.info/Complaint_USCF_... Truong.pdf
>
> > The lawsuit recapitulates much of the evidence against Truong that was
> > presented at the Delegates' meeting but includes considerable new
> > evidence, including evidence tying 30 of the Fake Sam Sloan posts to a
> > Netzero account that was used by Truong and paid for with Polgar's
> > credit card. This is over and above the evidence cited in the
> > Mottershead report. The complaint also recaps the allegations against
> > Polgar in the San Francisco lawsuit, where Polgar and Gregory Alexander
> > were identified as two of the parties responsible for breaking into
> > Randy Hough's email account and converting (i.e. stealing) confidential
> > emails.
>
> =A0 Gee-- it sure has gotten quiet around here ever
> since the good Dr. IMnes and his buddy Mr.
> Mitchell, stopped screaming "foul play!" on this
> matter. =A0 =A0I still recall pointing out to them how
> the SP Web site itself displayed ample evidence
> of shameless dishonesty, but it seemed then
> that Dr. IMnes admired this aspect, apparently
> finding that it suited him to a Tee.

I think certain people are being VERY careful these days.


  
Date: 29 Dec 2008 18:18:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
On Dec 29, 8:39=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <m...@nowhere.com > wrote:

> =A0From the USCF Issues Forum by Brian Mottershead:
>
> The USCF filed a lawsuit today against Polgar and Truong in Illinois
> state court, seeking findings from the court that they have engaged in
> dishonest and fraudulent conduct. The lawsuit also seeks court orders
> removing the two of them from the USCF Executive Board and prohibiting
> them from running for re-election.
>
> A copy of the complaint is available on my website under the URL:http://m=
ottershead.info/Complaint_USCF_... Truong.pdf
>
> The lawsuit recapitulates much of the evidence against Truong that was
> presented at the Delegates' meeting but includes considerable new
> evidence, including evidence tying 30 of the Fake Sam Sloan posts to a
> Netzero account that was used by Truong and paid for with Polgar's
> credit card. This is over and above the evidence cited in the
> Mottershead report. The complaint also recaps the allegations against
> Polgar in the San Francisco lawsuit, where Polgar and Gregory Alexander
> were identified as two of the parties responsible for breaking into
> Randy Hough's email account and converting (i.e. stealing) confidential
> emails.


Gee-- it sure has gotten quiet around here ever
since the good Dr. IMnes and his buddy Mr.
Mitchell, stopped screaming "foul play!" on this
matter. I still recall pointing out to them how
the SP Web site itself displayed ample evidence
of shameless dishonesty, but it seemed then
that Dr. IMnes admired this aspect, apparently
finding that it suited him to a Tee.

I can also recall the old days, back when Mr.
Parr was frequenting reporting on "confidential"
matters he had learned about through his, um,
insider contacts. It almost seems as though
the business of being a board member is not
about running the USCF at all, but rather it is
about infighting and sneaky, treacherous back-
stabbings of other board members who are not
a part of your own clique. I wonder if this sort
of thing goes on with the other boardgame
federations?


-- help bot









  
Date: 30 Dec 2008 01:39:13
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
From the USCF Issues Forum by Brian Mottershead:

The USCF filed a lawsuit today against Polgar and Truong in Illinois
state court, seeking findings from the court that they have engaged in
dishonest and fraudulent conduct. The lawsuit also seeks court orders
removing the two of them from the USCF Executive Board and prohibiting
them from running for re-election.

A copy of the complaint is available on my website under the URL:
http://mottershead.info/Complaint_USCF_ ... Truong.pdf

The lawsuit recapitulates much of the evidence against Truong that was
presented at the Delegates' meeting but includes considerable new
evidence, including evidence tying 30 of the Fake Sam Sloan posts to a
Netzero account that was used by Truong and paid for with Polgar's
credit card. This is over and above the evidence cited in the
Mottershead report. The complaint also recaps the allegations against
Polgar in the San Francisco lawsuit, where Polgar and Gregory Alexander
were identified as two of the parties responsible for breaking into
Randy Hough's email account and converting (i.e. stealing) confidential
emails.


   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 16:10:14
From:
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
On Dec 30, 5:28=A0pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:58:54 -0800 (PST), onech...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> Paraphrase? =A0 You said
> >Yes Murray, you do not quote me, and extend what I said so that you
> >can criticize it. I point this out and you have nothing to say,
> >anymore than of the 47 examples where people objected to your wit.
> >Yet you continue as if the thing you made up was something I said -
> >while not exactly understanding that I just caught you cheating!
> >That is your measure, Murray.
>
> So, in other words, you bluffed again.

Ha! In your words I bluffed again, since you do not have the decency
to abide by what others actually say in their own words.

> You were called.
>
> You pretended you said something else.

I say you lie Murray. You omit the specific mention earlier today, and
don't repeat what I did say.

> You were called on it again.
>
> You resorted to insult.
>
> This was expected.

What I wrote before is directly illustrated here by Mike Murray, who
not only indecently paraphrased what I wrote about courts deciding
legal cases, but illustrates the other aspect of social commentary
here - by openly lying about what I wrote.

"In other words" says Murray, who doesn't like other people to have
other words than his own. Murray considers pointing out his open
dishonesty to be 'resorting to insult'.

Q. E. D.

Phil Innes






   
Date: 30 Dec 2008 15:03:30
From:
Subject: Re: USCF Seeks Court Removal of Polgar and Truong
On Dec 30, 5:28=A0pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com > wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 13:58:54 -0800 (PST), onech...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> Paraphrase? =A0 You said
> >Yes Murray, you do not quote me, and extend what I said so that you
> >can criticize it. I point this out and you have nothing to say,
> >anymore than of the 47 examples where people objected to your wit.
> >Yet you continue as if the thing you made up was something I said -
> >while not exactly understanding that I just caught you cheating!
> >That is your measure, Murray.
>
> So, in other words, you bluffed again.
>
> You were called.
>
> You pretended you said something else.
>
> You were called on it again.
>
> You resorted to insult.
>
> This was expected.

This is one of Phil's typical patterns.