Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

Main

Date: 15 Feb 2009 12:43:01
From: samsloan
Subject: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

I have created a campaign flyer for my election campaign for election
to the USCF Executive Board. The flyer is two pages long, in PDF
Format. It is intended to be printed out on two sides of a single
sheet of paper.

I ask my supporters (and for that matter my opponents and anybody else
at all) to print out this flyer, read it and, if they like it,
distribute it.

The flyer is downloadable at
http://www.anusha.com/sams-flyer.pdf

Thank you in advance.

Sam Sloan

Date: 19 Feb 2009 22:00:10
From:
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

samsloan wrote:
>
>
> I would like to be able to find the exact wording of the resolution
> passed at the 2002 delegates meeting in Cherry Hill. I have searched
> but have not been able to find it. Do you have it?

I can't find a copy of the 2002 minutes, but immediately after the
meeting Bill Goichberg wrote:

"The Delegates discussed the possible sale of this building, and
authorized the Executive Board to proceed with this sale if the Board
decides this course is correct. There was also discussion of moving
USCF Headquarters to the Sid Samole World Chess Hall of Fame and
Museum in Miami; ED Niro stated that favorable terms were likely for a
move to the Miami site."

This isn't official, of course, but since no one disputed it at the
time I see no reason to dispute it now.

BTW, who was it who wrote:

"I am in favor of this move. New Windsor, New York is a terrible
location. Costs are high. Transportation is difficult. There are only
two busses per day from New York City to New Windsor and no trains. If
you want to travel to New Windsor, you had best rent a car, as it is
difficult to get there any other way.

"New Windsor was chosen because a previous Executive Director lived
near there. That was a mistake.

"At the 2002 USCF Delegate's meeting in Cherry Hill, New Jersey, Frank
Niro, USCF Executive Director, made a strong presentation as to the
reasons why a move was necessary. Frank Niro pointed out that the USCF
had lost money for six years in a row. Although these losses may have
been to some extent the result of bad management, Niro felt that these
losses were also caused by the structure of the building and the
organization of the office. Niro felt that these losses were endemic
in the way the office was set up and that the only way to make the
USCF profitable was to gut the whole thing and start over again.

"I think that Frank Niro is right. The USCF has had six Executive
Directors in the last seven years. Not all of them could have been
bad. Fundamental re-structuring is in order. I have complete
confidence in Frank Niro. I feel that he is the best man to do this
job.

"I am not expressing any opinion as to whether Palm Beach Gardens,
Florida is the best place. I agree with the idea of moving. I express
no opinion as to where."

Oh yeah, that was you, Sam.

> My question to you is: Did either the Executive Board or the Delegates
> ever pass at any time in the year 2003 a resolution authorizing the
> sale of the New Windsor building for $513,000, or any other price for
> that matter.

Why the hell should they? What were they supposed to do, introduce a
motion saying "And we still mean it"? Doofus.

>
> It just so happens that my wife is in her last semester (we hope)
> before getting her BS in Accounting at the City University of New
> York, CUNY, and one of the classes she is taking right now is Advanced
> Auditing Procedures. One of the questions in her textbook concerns
> exactly this situation. The auditors come in and, although they are
> supposed to examine the minutes of the board meetings, fail to note
> that no resolution was ever passed authorizing the sale of the
> building, which is the principle asset of the corporation. Of course,
> in just about every case in her textbook, the result of such a simple
> oversight is that everybody goes to jail.
>
> It so happens that I spoke to an Assistant Attorney General of the
> State in New York in Poughkeepsie and I spoke to Bobby Fischer's
> personal lawyer, Andy Davis, and they both agreed that the sale of the
> building was improper and possibly illegal. Simply stated, a
> delegate's resolution in August 2002 authorizing Frank Niro to sell
> the building for $600,000 did not, without more, authorize Bill
> Goichberg to sell the building for $513,000 in December 2003.

Since you almost certainly did not give them the correct information
(even if you actually spoke to them), their alleged legal opinions
(even if you're reporting them accurately) are meaningless.

> If you had followed the standard and legally required steps involved
> in selling the principle asset of a not-for-profit corporation in
> December 2003, you would not be having to answer questions about this
> in 2009, after the deal you made has obviously turned out to be a bad
> one.

He's not "having to answer questions about this" now. Now one except
you cares, and you're, well, nobody. As for why he keeps answering
you, well, some people enjoy whack-a-mole.

> Also, kindly recall that I was not the one who brought up this subject
> now. Somebody who was attacking me did, and I was obliged to respond.
>
> Sam Sloan

You means someone (might have been me, but there are others) pointed
out that you had lied, so you had to lie some more in response? Maybe
this worked when you ware eight years old. Of course, intellectually
and emotionally you still are.

Date: 19 Feb 2009 04:01:54
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

[quote="chessoffice"][quote="samsloan"]I disagree.

The motion that passed the delegates was at the 2002 US Open in Cherry
Hill. Frank Niro, who made the presentation, said that the buyer
wanted to build a shopping mall and had purchased all of the
surrounding land in New Windsor and just wanted this one remaining
piece that the New Windsor building was on.

This buyer according to Frank Niro was willing to pay $600,000 for the
building, which was far above the market price for the building.
Again, he was willing to pay an above market price because he needed
it to build his shopping mall there.

I voted for the Frank Niro proposal because Niro seemed to be a
trustworthy and honest person, and I felt based on what he said that
we could then buy another better building cheaper.

When the board that was elected in 2002 took office they found that
none of this was true. There was buyer. There was no prospective
shopping mall. Nobody was willing to pay $600,000 for the building,
except for one buyer who was interested in a lease-back deal which
would lock in the USCF into a long term lease. Thus the building was
not sold at that time.

At the 2003 Delegates meeting in Los Angeles, there was no mention of
any proposal to sell the building, because the deal passed the
previous year was dead.

Nevertheless, after Goichberg was appointed "office manager" in
November 2003, he suddenly took it upon himself to sell the building.
Without consulting the board, he sold it for $513,000 which was a
lower price to a different buyer in vastly different market
conditions. Anybody following the trends in the real estate market
knew that the market had skyrocketed between 2002 and 2003. The price
of most buildings doubled during that time. While selling the building
in 2002 for $600,000 would have been a good deal, selling the building
in late 2003 for $513,000 was an extremely bad deal.

Goichberg in selling the building in late 2003 claimed that the
delegates motion in August 2002 gave him that authority. However,
under corporate law, he needed the authority of the Executive Board,
who needed to be informed of the price, the name of the buyer and
other conditions of the sale prior to approving the sale. As before,
two board members, Don Schultz and Frank Brady, were vehemently
opposed to the sale. I do not know how the other members would have
voted had it been put up for a vote.

However, Goichberg simply did what he always does, disregarding the
opinions of others and just deciding to sell the building on his own.
Having done that, it was too late for the board do anything about it
so the board could do nothing.

Sam Sloan[/quote]

The claim that I sold the building against the wishes of the board is
utterly absurd, even nuttier than "Virtually all USCF financial
records have been destroyed."

When I began as Office Manager in November 2003, I was informed by
President Beatriz Marinello that the board wanted the building listed
for sale. The delegates had voted to authorize its sale, and had
approved a planning budget for a move to Crossville.

Several days later, before I took any action to accomplish this, the
office received a return call from a realtor who had been contacted
previously, probably by Grant Perks, regarding the sale of the
building.

We then listed the building for sale and various potential buyers
appeared during the coming months, as Beatriz was aware. Eventually
we received a serious offer, and Beatriz after consulting board
members said the price was acceptable. Several weeks of negotiation
followed, involving mainly our rights to use the lower level as office
and storage space after we vacated the upstairs if we were not ready
to move to our new location. We also obtained some quotes on costs
for renovation of the downstairs to make it partly suitable for office
space.

We had a choice, we could save some money by having office and storage
downstairs, or we could use less space and have storage only there, in
which case we would need to rent more space in the building next door
at greater expense. Beatriz and the board were involved every step of
the way and made all the decisions, including one to pay more rent
next door so the employees would have better working conditions.

After the board accepted the final agreement with the buyer, there was
another delay of several months for legal papers to be prepared, title
search, etc. At the annual meetings in August, the delegates were
told that the sale was expected to go through soon, and no board
member expressed surprise or opposition. Had the ED taken it upon
himself to sell the building on his own against the wishes of the
board, in addition to him no doubt being fired as a result, and
perhaps sued, we would have heard board members saying "We're not
selling, we haven't signed the papers yet and can still avoid the
sale." Of course, no board members said anything like that, because
the board had been trying to sell the building for almost a year.

The idea that any ED could, or would, sell USCF's headquarters
building against the wishes of the board is simply ludicrous. There
are too many things involved in selling a building, the process is
slow, potential buyers show up during business hours, the employees
notice what is happening, the final buyer calls and appears many
times, a lot of paperwork is needed, and it's not possible that the
Executive Director could carry out the sale without the board finding
out in plenty of time to block it and hire a new ED. And why would
anyone want to?

The claim that "it was too late for the board to do anything about"
the building sale is insane, as is the suggestion that I would have
any motive for acting in such an insubordinate and illegal way. It's
hard to believe that anyone, even Sam, could seriously believe such a
thing.

Bill Goichberg[/quote]

Dear Bill,

Thank you for your lengthy response to my posting.

I note that you make no comment on my first four paragraphs above,
which I take to mean that you agree with my characterization of how
the delegates came to pass the resolution in August 2002 authorizing
the sale of the building, and the immediate aftermath.

Here I would like to point out a gap in the bylaws. Although the by-
laws require that tapes or transcripts be made of board meetings, they
do not require that tapes or transcripts be made of delegate's
meetings. I would like very much to have a tape or a transcript of
what Frank Niro actually said to convince the delegates to go along
with his resolution. I remember that the vote was close and it just
barely passed. I voted in favor of Frank Niro's motion because I was,
at the time, very much enamored with Frank Niro. I thought that he was
the greatest thing since sliced bread.

I perhaps should have added that part of Frank Niro's motion was that
the World Chess Hall of Fame was going to give the USCF a place to
stay in Miami, so we would have a home after we sold the building in
New Windsor. That turned out to be completely untrue, too. The deal
being offered by the World Chess Hall of Fame when studied turned out
to be completely unacceptable to the USCF.

I would like to be able to find the exact wording of the resolution
passed at the 2002 delegates meeting in Cherry Hill. I have searched
but have not been able to find it. Do you have it?

My question to you is: Did either the Executive Board or the Delegates
ever pass at any time in the year 2003 a resolution authorizing the
sale of the New Windsor building for $513,000, or any other price for
that matter. In your posting above, you often state "The board wanted
this", "the board wanted that" and the like. If the board wanted these
things, why did you not take the simple step of making a motion and
getting the board to pass it? We know the reason you did not do this.
It was because at least two members of the board were vehemently
opposed to the sale and might have been able to get two other members
of the board to block the sale, especially in view of the
unconscionably low price of only $513,000 we were getting for the
building. In December 2003, you could not even have bought a simple
house for $513,000, much less an office building like the one we had
in New Windsor.

It just so happens that my wife is in her last semester (we hope)
before getting her BS in Accounting at the City University of New
York, CUNY, and one of the classes she is taking right now is Advanced
Auditing Procedures. One of the questions in her textbook concerns
exactly this situation. The auditors come in and, although they are
supposed to examine the minutes of the board meetings, fail to note
that no resolution was ever passed authorizing the sale of the
building, which is the principle asset of the corporation. Of course,
in just about every case in her textbook, the result of such a simple
oversight is that everybody goes to jail.

It so happens that I spoke to an Assistant Attorney General of the
State in New York in Poughkeepsie and I spoke to Bobby Fischer's
personal lawyer, Andy Davis, and they both agreed that the sale of the
building was improper and possibly illegal. Simply stated, a
delegate's resolution in August 2002 authorizing Frank Niro to sell
the building for $600,000 did not, without more, authorize Bill
Goichberg to sell the building for $513,000 in December 2003.

If you had followed the standard and legally required steps involved
in selling the principle asset of a not-for-profit corporation in
December 2003, you would not be having to answer questions about this
in 2009, after the deal you made has obviously turned out to be a bad
one.

Also, kindly recall that I was not the one who brought up this subject
now. Somebody who was attacking me did, and I was obliged to respond.

Sam Sloan

Date: 19 Feb 2009 02:22:55
From:
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

samsloan wrote:
> I disagree.
>
> The motion that passed the delegates was at the 2002 US Open in Cherry
> Hill. Frank Niro, who made the presentation, said that the buyer
> wanted to build a shopping mall and had purchased all of the
> surrounding land in New Windsor and just wanted this one remaining
> piece that the New Windsor building was on.
>
> This buyer according to Frank Niro was willing to pay $600,000 for the
> building, which was far above the market price for the building.
> Again, he was willing to pay an above market price because he needed
> it to build his shopping mall there.
>
> I voted for the Frank Niro proposal because Niro seemed to be a
> trustworthy and honest person, and I felt based on what he said that
> we could then buy another better building cheaper.
>
> When the board that was elected in 2002 took office they found that
> none of this was true. There was buyer. There was no prospective
> shopping mall. Nobody was willing to pay $600,000 for the building,
> except for one buyer who was interested in a lease-back deal which
> would lock in the USCF into a long term lease. Thus the building was
> not sold at that time.
>
> At the 2003 Delegates meeting in Los Angeles, there was no mention of
> any proposal to sell the building, because the deal passed the
> previous year was dead.
>
> Nevertheless, after Goichberg was appointed "office manager" in
> November 2003, he suddenly took it upon himself to sell the building.
> Without consulting the board, he sold it for $513,000 which was a
> lower price to a different buyer in vastly different market
> conditions. Anybody following the trends in the real estate market
> knew that the market had skyrocketed between 2002 and 2003. The price
> of most buildings doubled during that time. While selling the building
> in 2002 for $600,000 would have been a good deal, selling the building
> in late 2003 for $513,000 was an extremely bad deal.
>
> Goichberg in selling the building in late 2003 claimed that the
> delegates motion in August 2002 gave him that authority. However,
> under corporate law, he needed the authority of the Executive Board,
> who needed to be informed of the price, the name of the buyer and
> other conditions of the sale prior to approving the sale. As before,
> two board members, Don Schultz and Frank Brady, were vehemently
> opposed to the sale. I do not know how the other members would have
> voted had it been put up for a vote.
>
> However, Goichberg simply did what he always does, disregarding the
> opinions of others and just deciding to sell the building on his own.
> Having done that, it was too late for the board do anything about it
> so the board could do nothing.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Tim Redman wrote:
> > First, only the Board of Delegates can authorize the sale of the building.
> > Second, they did.
> >
> > The only question was which of three promising options to choose.
> >
> > Cordially,
> >
> > Tim Redman

How many lies to the line? 1) There was no "board that was elected in
2002," as there was no election in 2002. 2) You seem to forget that
you were not present at Los Angeles 2003, and have no direct knowledge
of what went on. At the start of the meeting, it was generally
understood that the Crossville move was on, and that naturally the New
Windsor building would be sold. By the end of the two weeks, this went
on hold as a result of the financial disaster, but, as Tim Redman
pointed out, the authority previously given to sell the building
remained in effect. 3) As has already been explained to you, Goichberg
consulted Marinello (the President), Marinello consulted the Board,
and the Board told him to go ahead and sell. I don't know whether
Schultz and Brady were actually opposed (not _everything_ you say is a
lie, but that's the way to bet) but so what? That's only two votes.

Do you really expect this paranoid drivel to convince anybody? Or are
you just playing to your base? I don't think the clinically insane
vote will be enough to elect you this time.

Date: 18 Feb 2009 17:43:35
From: None
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

On Feb 18, 7:37=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> I disagree.
>
> The motion that passed the delegates was at the 2002 US Open in Cherry
> Hill. Frank Niro, who made the presentation, said that the buyer
> wanted to build a shopping mall and had purchased all of the
> surrounding land in New Windsor and just wanted this one remaining
> piece that the New Windsor building was on.
>
> This buyer according to Frank Niro was willing to pay $600,000 for the
> building, which was far above the market price for the building.
> Again, he was willing to pay an above market price because he needed
> it to build his shopping mall there.
>
> I voted for the Frank Niro proposal because Niro seemed to be a
> trustworthy and honest person, and I felt based on what he said that
> we could then buy another better building cheaper.
>
> When the board that was elected in 2002 took office they found that
> none of this was true. There was buyer. There was no prospective
> shopping mall. Nobody was willing to pay $600,000 for the building,
> except for one buyer who was interested in a lease-back deal which
> would lock in the USCF into a long term lease. Thus the building was
> not sold at that time.
>
> At the 2003 Delegates meeting in Los Angeles, there was no mention of
> any proposal to sell the building, because the deal passed the
> previous year was dead.
>
> Nevertheless, after Goichberg was appointed "office manager" in
> November 2003, he suddenly took it upon himself to sell the building.
> Without consulting the board, he sold it for $513,000 which was a
> lower price to a different buyer in vastly different market
> conditions. Anybody following the trends in the real estate market
> knew that the market had skyrocketed between 2002 and 2003. The price
> of most buildings doubled during that time. While selling the building
> in 2002 for $600,000 would have been a good deal, selling the building
> in late 2003 for $513,000 was an extremely bad deal.
>
> Goichberg in selling the building in late 2003 claimed that the
> delegates motion in August 2002 gave him that authority. However,
> under corporate law, he needed the authority of the Executive Board,
> who needed to be informed of the price, the name of the buyer and
> other conditions of the sale prior to approving the sale. As before,
> two board members, Don Schultz and Frank Brady, were vehemently
> opposed to the sale. I do not know how the other members would have
> voted had it been put up for a vote.
>
> However, Goichberg simply did what he always does, disregarding the
> opinions of others and just deciding to sell the building on his own.
> Having done that, it was too late for the board do anything about it
> so the board could do nothing.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Tim Redman wrote:
> > First, only the Board of Delegates can authorize the sale of the buildi=
ng.
> > Second, they did.
>
> > The only question was which of three promising options to choose.
>
> > Cordially,
>
> > Tim Redman- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The price of buildings doubled in that time? Bullshit. That building
was a firetrap and Bill got a great price for it.

Don and Frank didn't want it sold? Bullshit. Brady never did anything
that Don didn't tell him to and Don usually does whatever Bill wants.
But Bill didn't want Don to "out" Beatrice to you. The weasel did it
anyhow.

Date: 18 Feb 2009 16:37:48
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

I disagree.

The motion that passed the delegates was at the 2002 US Open in Cherry
Hill. Frank Niro, who made the presentation, said that the buyer
wanted to build a shopping mall and had purchased all of the
surrounding land in New Windsor and just wanted this one remaining
piece that the New Windsor building was on.

This buyer according to Frank Niro was willing to pay $600,000 for the
building, which was far above the market price for the building.
Again, he was willing to pay an above market price because he needed
it to build his shopping mall there.

I voted for the Frank Niro proposal because Niro seemed to be a
trustworthy and honest person, and I felt based on what he said that
we could then buy another better building cheaper.

When the board that was elected in 2002 took office they found that
none of this was true. There was buyer. There was no prospective
shopping mall. Nobody was willing to pay $600,000 for the building,
except for one buyer who was interested in a lease-back deal which
would lock in the USCF into a long term lease. Thus the building was
not sold at that time.

At the 2003 Delegates meeting in Los Angeles, there was no mention of
any proposal to sell the building, because the deal passed the
previous year was dead.

Nevertheless, after Goichberg was appointed "office manager" in
November 2003, he suddenly took it upon himself to sell the building.
Without consulting the board, he sold it for $513,000 which was a
lower price to a different buyer in vastly different market
conditions. Anybody following the trends in the real estate market
knew that the market had skyrocketed between 2002 and 2003. The price
of most buildings doubled during that time. While selling the building
in 2002 for $600,000 would have been a good deal, selling the building
in late 2003 for $513,000 was an extremely bad deal.

Goichberg in selling the building in late 2003 claimed that the
delegates motion in August 2002 gave him that authority. However,
under corporate law, he needed the authority of the Executive Board,
who needed to be informed of the price, the name of the buyer and
other conditions of the sale prior to approving the sale. As before,
two board members, Don Schultz and Frank Brady, were vehemently
opposed to the sale. I do not know how the other members would have
voted had it been put up for a vote.

However, Goichberg simply did what he always does, disregarding the
opinions of others and just deciding to sell the building on his own.
Having done that, it was too late for the board do anything about it
so the board could do nothing.

Sam Sloan

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Tim Redman wrote:
> First, only the Board of Delegates can authorize the sale of the building.
> Second, they did.
>
> The only question was which of three promising options to choose.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Tim Redman

Date: 18 Feb 2009 16:23:44
From: None
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

On Feb 18, 6:49=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > [quote=3D"hmb"]And would Sam Sloan have ever been elected to the EB in
> > 2006 - or sued USCF in October of 2007 - =A0if USCF had acted more
> > strongly in response to his earlier lawsuit over the move to
> > Crossville in 2005? =A0Perhaps.[/quote]
>
> > Now on this point since you bring it up, my earlier lawsuit filed in
> > 2004, not 2005 (an easy point to remember because at the time I filed
> > my lawsuit several members of the board were in Calvia Spain for the
> > 2004 World Chess Olympiad), my contention was, and I still contend,
> > that the sale of the building and the move to Crossville was illegal.
> > The sale of the building was illegal because the board never voted on
> > and approved the sale. (Check the minutes and you will find that the
> > board never discussed, much less approved, the sale of the building in
> > New Windsor.) Also, there were several USCF by-law provisions
> > prohibiting the encumbrance or sale of the building.
>
> > The fact is that Bill Goichberg, who was executive director at that
> > time, sold the building on his own without consulting the board. At
> > least two board members, Frank Brady and Don Schultz, would have voted
> > against the sale of the building had it been submitted to the board
> > for a vote.
>
> > Now, instead of coming to court and explaining why they felt that the
> > sale of the building was legal, the members of the board including
> > Randy Bauer hid out and made it impossible to serve them. Then, they
> > claimed that I had failed to effect service of process and defeated my
> > case in that way.
>
> > Had they come to court and proven that they had the right to sell the
> > building and move to Crossville, then my position would have been much
> > weaker and theirs stronger. On the other hand, had they accepted
> > service of process and had I won the case, they would not have moved
> > to Crossville and the USCF would have been far better off than it is
> > now. So, by "winning the case" by evading service of process, they
> > really accomplished nothing in the long run but just made matters
> > worse for themselves and for the USCF.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Sam, you've gone completely around the bend. Bill Goichberg _opposed_
> moving to Crossville. Marinello was President at the time, and if
> Goichberg =A0had "sold the building without permission of the Board"
> he'd be in jail now. I think your lawsuit was meritless (it was based
> on an out-of-context misreading of case law), but we'll never know
> since you failed to make proper service as required by law. When you
> whined to the judge about it, he reamed you out, telling you that if
> you couldn't serve the defendants you should have come back to the
> court before the deadline and asked for an extension. (You posted the
> transcript of the hearing yourself, Sam. And the cost of the
> transcript was probably about the same as it would have cost you to
> hire a process serve and do it right. Cretin.)
>
> I'm not sure whether you really believe this nonsensical drivel, or if
> your just a lying piece of trash. For the moment I'm inclined to give
> you the benefit of the doubt, and conclude that you're just insane.- Hide=
quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"I'm not sure whether you really believe this nonsensical drivel, or
if
your just a lying piece of trash. For the moment I'm inclined to give
you the benefit of the doubt, and conclude that you're just insane."

You're right on all three counts.

Date: 18 Feb 2009 15:49:20
From:
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

samsloan wrote:
> [quote="hmb"]And would Sam Sloan have ever been elected to the EB in
> 2006 - or sued USCF in October of 2007 - if USCF had acted more
> strongly in response to his earlier lawsuit over the move to
> Crossville in 2005? Perhaps.[/quote]
>
> Now on this point since you bring it up, my earlier lawsuit filed in
> 2004, not 2005 (an easy point to remember because at the time I filed
> my lawsuit several members of the board were in Calvia Spain for the
> 2004 World Chess Olympiad), my contention was, and I still contend,
> that the sale of the building and the move to Crossville was illegal.
> The sale of the building was illegal because the board never voted on
> and approved the sale. (Check the minutes and you will find that the
> board never discussed, much less approved, the sale of the building in
> New Windsor.) Also, there were several USCF by-law provisions
> prohibiting the encumbrance or sale of the building.
>
> The fact is that Bill Goichberg, who was executive director at that
> time, sold the building on his own without consulting the board. At
> least two board members, Frank Brady and Don Schultz, would have voted
> against the sale of the building had it been submitted to the board
> for a vote.
>
> Now, instead of coming to court and explaining why they felt that the
> sale of the building was legal, the members of the board including
> Randy Bauer hid out and made it impossible to serve them. Then, they
> claimed that I had failed to effect service of process and defeated my
> case in that way.
>
> Had they come to court and proven that they had the right to sell the
> building and move to Crossville, then my position would have been much
> weaker and theirs stronger. On the other hand, had they accepted
> service of process and had I won the case, they would not have moved
> to Crossville and the USCF would have been far better off than it is
> now. So, by "winning the case" by evading service of process, they
> really accomplished nothing in the long run but just made matters
> worse for themselves and for the USCF.
>
> Sam Sloan

Sam, you've gone completely around the bend. Bill Goichberg _opposed_
moving to Crossville. Marinello was President at the time, and if
Goichberg had "sold the building without permission of the Board"
he'd be in jail now. I think your lawsuit was meritless (it was based
on an out-of-context misreading of case law), but we'll never know
since you failed to make proper service as required by law. When you
whined to the judge about it, he reamed you out, telling you that if
you couldn't serve the defendants you should have come back to the
court before the deadline and asked for an extension. (You posted the
transcript of the hearing yourself, Sam. And the cost of the
transcript was probably about the same as it would have cost you to
hire a process serve and do it right. Cretin.)

I'm not sure whether you really believe this nonsensical drivel, or if
your just a lying piece of trash. For the moment I'm inclined to give
you the benefit of the doubt, and conclude that you're just insane.

Date: 18 Feb 2009 15:26:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

[quote="hmb"]And would Sam Sloan have ever been elected to the EB in
2006 - or sued USCF in October of 2007 - if USCF had acted more
strongly in response to his earlier lawsuit over the move to
Crossville in 2005? Perhaps.[/quote]

Now on this point since you bring it up, my earlier lawsuit filed in
2004, not 2005 (an easy point to remember because at the time I filed
my lawsuit several members of the board were in Calvia Spain for the
2004 World Chess Olympiad), my contention was, and I still contend,
that the sale of the building and the move to Crossville was illegal.
The sale of the building was illegal because the board never voted on
and approved the sale. (Check the minutes and you will find that the
board never discussed, much less approved, the sale of the building in
New Windsor.) Also, there were several USCF by-law provisions
prohibiting the encumbrance or sale of the building.

The fact is that Bill Goichberg, who was executive director at that
time, sold the building on his own without consulting the board. At
least two board members, Frank Brady and Don Schultz, would have voted
against the sale of the building had it been submitted to the board
for a vote.

Now, instead of coming to court and explaining why they felt that the
sale of the building was legal, the members of the board including
Randy Bauer hid out and made it impossible to serve them. Then, they
claimed that I had failed to effect service of process and defeated my
case in that way.

Had they come to court and proven that they had the right to sell the
building and move to Crossville, then my position would have been much
weaker and theirs stronger. On the other hand, had they accepted
service of process and had I won the case, they would not have moved
to Crossville and the USCF would have been far better off than it is
now. So, by "winning the case" by evading service of process, they
really accomplished nothing in the long run but just made matters
worse for themselves and for the USCF.

Sam Sloan

Date: 18 Feb 2009 11:09:53
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

There is no problem getting the Polgar - Truong Invoice. No sooner
said than done. It was posted by Bill Brock on December 9, 2003 under
the subject header, "Polgar's Breakout".

Here it is:

**********************************

Polgar Chess Center

[contact info redacted]

Grandmaster Susan Polgar
4-time Women's World Chess Champion & 3-time Olympic Champion

INVOICE # 102003

KISSIMMEE 2003 (3 days of activities)

Expenses for Susan Polgar, Tom & Leeam Shutzman Polgar and Paul Truong
a) Flight (4 tickets) = $820.00
b) Rental car = $449.86
Total
Expenses:
$1,269.86

Fee for simul, lectures, book signings, etc.
$2 / participant x 1168 participants =
$2,336.00

NATIONAL ELEMENTARY - NASHVILLE 2003 (3 days of activities)

Expenses are already reimbursed.

Fee for simul, lectures, book signings, etc.
$2 / participants x 2396 participants =
$4,792.00

US OPEN 2003 (14 days of activities)

Expenses for Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
a) Flight (2 tickets) $494.00
b) Daily allowance for food $50x2x14days = $1400.00
Total
Expenses:
$1,494.00
Fee (Simul/Lecture/Book Signings etc.) $1,500.00

ROSEMONT K-12 DEC. 2003 (2-3 days of activities)

Susan's ticket only as agreed
$246.50
Fee (Simul/Lecture/Book Signings etc. to be paid later) ($1,500.00)
Chess Life Opening Column - June 03
$500.00
Chess Life Opening Column - July 03
$500.00
Chess Life Opening Column - August 03
$500.00
Chess Life Opening Column - September 03
$500.00
Chess Life Opening Column - October 03
$500.00
_________
$15,638.36

Book & Equipment Balance:
$1,836.21
_________
$17,474.57
To be paid later
($1,500.00)
_________
$15,974.57

Please make check payable to Polgar Chess, Inc. Thank you!

Additional:

TLA amount: ? To be deducted or billed by the USCF

1,300 Women's Olympiad Calendars @ $6 each (payable to the Susan
Polgar Foundation) Only calendars that are sold are to be paid.
Unsold calendars can be returned by March 31, 2004 at no charge.

****
END STATEMENT
****

Date: 18 Feb 2009 02:37:14
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

[quote="chessoffice"][quote="rfeditor"][quote="samsloan"]
[quote="rfeditor"]How many times does Sam get to repeat this stuff? #3
is clearly false. It was long ago established that the payment to
Polgar was a perfectly legitimate payments for services rendered, and
that all candidates paid their filing fees. As for #4, Tim Tobiason
did the scanning. Sloan said it was a good idea, but I don't think
anyone felt otherwise. #5 and #6 had absolutely nothing to do with
Sloan. "Neither Hough nor Channing EVER voted against Goichberg" is
simply false (all those motions and votes are listed in
200-07_EB_Motions_Final.pdf). Oh, and Channing resigned because he
didn't like the lawsuit situation. To claim he "resigned in disgrace"
is probably libelous.

An ordinary poster who made this many, ah, [i]statements which fail to
accord with consensus reality[/i] would get slammed by the moderators.
How long is Sloan going to be a protected species?[/quote]

Not true. At the time I discovered this payment of $13,358.36 nobody
on the board, either one the board at the time that this payment was
many or on the board at the time I discovered this payment knew about.
Beatriz Marinello who had been USCF President in November 2003 at the
time that this payment was made stated at the November 2006 meeting
that she never knew about this payment until I brought it up. This was
gthe biggest single check of any kind that Bill Goichberg wrote whle
he was USCF Executive Director so he could not have overlooked it. It
also came just after the USCF had fired 17 people because otherwise
the USCF could not have made payroll. No documentation has ever been
provided about this payment. If any such document existed, it probably
have been on the laptop that went missing on August 20, 2003.[/quote]

When people do work, they get paid for it. Is this really such a hard
concept for you, Sam? The USCF owed Polgar the money. They paid what
they owed. End of story. Until you started making reckless
accusations, of course. It's tempting to let you have it with both
barrels yet again, but why bother? There can't be too many people
still in the dark about you. Anyone who still requires convincing is
probably beyond hope.[/quote]

Well said. In addition, there are a few other problems with:

"This was the biggest single check of any kind that Bill Goichberg
wrote while he was USCF Executive Director so he could not have
overlooked it. It also came just after the USCF had fired 17 people
because otherwise the USCF could not have made payroll. No
documentation has ever been provided about this payment. If any such
document existed, it probably have been on the laptop that went
missing on August 20, 2003."

1) I was Office Manager when the check was written, not Executive
Director.

2) I didn't write the check.

3) I didn't have checkwriting authority when I was Office Manager.

4) The check was added to the USCF schedule of accounts payable by the
CFO before I became Office Manager. It was not paid at that time only
because USCF didn't have the money.

5) The check was written about four months after the 17 employees were
laid off, not "just after" they were laid off.

6) Regarding the alleged lack of documentation, when Sam first brought
this matter up several years ago, I checked the documentation in the
office and responded with an email detailing the reasons for the
payment, which were Polgar's fees and expenses for appearances at
several National Scholastics and the U.S. Open.

Bill Goichberg[/quote]

Thank you for responding.

Are you saying that there was documentation or that there was no
documentation?

If there was documentation, I call upon you to produce it now. Let's
see it.

If there was no documentation, why did you pay it?

I was on the board at the time and I demanded to see the
documentation. None was ever produced.

However, on February 3, 2007 after the conclusion of the USCF
Executive Board meeting in Monrovia, California, you allowed me to go
through a box of documents that Bill Hall had brought to the meeting.
I could never understand why you did not let the other board members
see these documents.

I remember one specific item where Polgar was billing the USCF for
airline tickets for her two children plus her housemaid, which meant
that the USCF was paying to fly the maid around. Do you remember that
item?

How do we know that Niro made such a deal? There was no documentation,
or none that has ever been found. Niro disappeared on or about August
7, 2003. His laptop disappeared on August 20, 2003. (Polgar and Truong
subsequently admitted to having taken it.)

If Niro intended to make such a deal, why did not he pay Polgar when
he was in office? Why did not Mike Nolan or Grant Perks, who succeeded
Niro, make the payment? Why did Goichberg make the payment, when Niro,
Nolan and Perks had failed to do so?

Most likely because Truong threatened to sue Goichberg if he did not
pay the money. We know that Truong often did that, so that seems to be
the most likely reason. But if that is the reason, why did not
Goichberg disclose that to the board at the time? Why did this secret
wait three years until it was discovered by me in 2006?

Corporations are supposed to keep their records for six years. This
happened less than six years ago. Why cannot the records of this
transaction be produced? Do not forget that you have been denying the
truth of my statement that all of the records of this period have been
lost or destroyed?

The fact that Goichberg made a large payment like this one,
$13,358.36, without any documentation or proof of any kind that the
money was owed shows his lack of qualifications to be either executive
director or USCF President.

Kindly go back and search the archives of the USCF Issues Forum. You
will find that when this issue was first debated in or about November
2006, I accused Grant Perks of making the payment to Polgar of
$13,358.36. Then, Grant Perks tersely stated, "I did not make the
payment" or words to that effect. I was then shocked to realize that
the payment was made after Perks had left office and when Goichberg
was in charge.

I accept the fact that you did not yet have check writing authority,
but you were still the boss. Why did you pay such a large amount of
money without board approval and without even telling the board about
it?

Now that you are running for office, why cannot you be more forthright
with the membership about this item?

Sam Sloan

Date: 18 Feb 2009 22:40:09
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> allowed me to go through a box of documents

Bill's error. Who knows what you removed from the box, and
what forgeries you substituted? The presence or absence of
anything in, or that should have been in, that box is now
of no significance. Legally contaminated and suspect.
Same way that Mottershead's data are of no value. No read-
only copy of the data was sealed. Legally contaminated and
suspect.

> two children

Sorry Sam, you don't get to meet them, ever.
Did you get to help Mrs Cynthia Beloff's daughter with her
infantile (=openings=) as yet? http://tinyurl.com/8g3kwy

> plus her housemaid

Now we understand Sam's concerns. Sam wanted to see since
some money was paid by the USCF to cover expenses, if he
gets to fuck some young beautiful Filipina housemaid.
Sorry, Sam, the assistant (not a housemaid) was not any
young beautiful naive Filipina. Also, as health-aware as
she may be, she would not touch you with even her shoe.

> fly the maid around

Sorry, Sam, your sexual imagination is too perverted.

> Kindly go back and search the archives of the USCF

Kindly go back and fuck off, or better put a small caliber
weapon into your mouth and have a spasm.

> check writing authority

What Sam dreams about getting one day.. Sorry, Sam, you
will never get this authority.

> a large amount of money

What Sam dreams about getting one day.. Sorry, Sam, you
will never get this money.

> why cannot you be more forthright

Why cannot you die, and save the time of so many people?
Your usefulness is now at an end. Save Ms KKS the trouble
of aborting another of your fetuses.

Date: 18 Feb 2009 01:56:27
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Honking of the wild Sloon

On Feb 18, 12:28=A0am, [email protected] wrote:

> I'm not sure what to make of this farrago. =A0I suspect what you
> intended to say (in your usual bumbling manner) was that Niro made
> some bad deals with Polgar. So what? That's ancient history. No one
> cares except you. If you really think you're entitled to demand
> "documentation" for a bill paid by the USCF five years ago, you're
> even stupider than I thought.
>
> One lie down, many to go.
>
> John Hillery

I did not intend to say that. How do we know that Niro made such a
deal? There was no documentation, or none that has ever been found.
Niro disappeared on or about August 7, 2003. His laptop disappeared on
August 20, 2003. (Polgar and Truong subsequently admitted to having
taken it.)

If Niro intended to make such a deal, why did not he pay Polgar when
he was in office? Why did not Mike Nolan or Grant Perks, who succeeded
Niro, make the payment? Why did Goichberg make the payment, when Niro,
Nolan and Perks had failed to do so?

Most likely because Truong threatened to sue Goichberg if he did not
pay the money. We know that Truong often did that, so that seems to be
the most likely reason. But if that is the reason, why did not
Goichberg disclose that to the board at the time. Why did this secret
wait three years until it was discovered by me in 2006.

Corporations are supposed to keep their records for six years. This
happened less than six years ago. Why cannot the records of this
transaction be produced? Do not forget that you have been denying the
truth of my statement that all of the records of this period have been
lost or destroyed?

The fact that Goichberg made a large payment like this one,
$13,358.36, without any documentation or proof of any kind that the
money was owed shows his lack of qualifications to be either executive
director or USCF President.

Sam Sloan

Date: 17 Feb 2009 21:11:50
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

[quote="rfeditor"]When people do work, they get paid for it. Is this
really such a hard concept for you, Sam? The USCF owed Polgar the
money. They paid what they owed. End of story. Until you started
making reckless accusations, of course. It's tempting to let you have
it with both barrels yet again, but why bother? There can't be too
many people still in the dark about you. Anyone who still requires
convincing is probably beyond hope.[/quote]

The invoice which was posted by Bill Brock who was, I believe, at that
time chairman of the finance committee, made ridiculous demands for
payments for things that nobody at the USCF could ever have agreed to,
such as a demand for Polgar to be paid $4,000 for a one-day celebrity
appearance in Nashville. There is no documentation to support any of
her demands. If there is any, I call upon you or the board to produce
it.

Tim Hanke, who was VP of Finance at that time, said "Don't pay them a
penny" when he saw the invoice. That is why it is significant that
Goichberg made this payment of $13,358.36 without telling the board
about it.

However, Beatriz Marinello has just pointed out that the rule that the
Executive Director cannot commit to a contract for more than $10,000
without board approval was not passed until May 2005, so I was not
correct in stating that Goichberg "may have violated the spirit of the
rule".

Goichberg showed me an invoice in Los Angeles where Polgar had
demanded reimbursement for airline tickets not only for her two
children but also for a domestic servant who was traveling with them,
so we USCF members had to pay for flying around the kids and the maid.

Sam Sloan

Date: 17 Feb 2009 20:34:45
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

[quote="tanstaafl"]This is revisionist history. Yes, Sam Sloan
"championed" this cause, but there's no evidence that Bobby WANTED a
membership (and every indication that he DIDN'T want to be a member).
We couldn't FORCE him to be a member against his will. This whole
issue was just a game for political points.

Tanstaafl [/quote]

As I reported to the board, both Grandmaster Benko and Grandmaster
Lombardy told Bobby Fischer about the action I had taken to get his
expulsion reversed and he expressed appreciation and gratitude for
what I had done.

Also, I had known Bobby Fischer since 1956 and had been a personal
friend of his since 1964.

Nevertheless, his membership was never fully reinstated. Goichberg and
Channing voted against reinstating Fischer as a USCF Member every time
I made the motion. The first motion I made regarding this was at the
August 14, 2006 meeting. Tanner was one of the votes in favor.
However, after Tanner left the board, all my subsequent motions failed
because Goichberg, Channing and Hough voted against them. This was one
of those 3-3 tie situations where if Goichberg was opposed it was
impossible to get anything passed.

Sam Sloan

Date: 17 Feb 2009 20:14:36
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

[quote="rfeditor"]How many times does Sam get to repeat this stuff? #3
is clearly false. It was long ago established that the payment to
Polgar was a perfectly legitimate payments for services rendered, and
that all candidates paid their filing fees. As for #4, Tim Tobiason
did the scanning. Sloan said it was a good idea, but I don't think
anyone felt otherwise. #5 and #6 had absolutely nothing to do with
Sloan. "Neither Hough nor Channing EVER voted against Goichberg" is
simply false (all those motions and votes are listed in
200-07_EB_Motions_Final.pdf). Oh, and Channing resigned because he
didn't like the lawsuit situation. To claim he "resigned in disgrace"
is probably libelous.

An ordinary poster who made this many, ah, [i]statements which fail to
accord with consensus reality[/i] would get slammed by the moderators.
How long is Sloan going to be a protected species?[/quote]

Not true. At the time I discovered this payment of $13,358.36 nobody
on the board, either on the board at the time that this payment was
made or on the board at the time I discovered this payment knew about
it. Beatriz Marinello who had been USCF President in November 2003 at
the time that this payment was made stated at the November 2006
meeting that she never knew about this payment until I brought it up.
This was the biggest single check of any kind that Bill Goichberg
wrote while he was USCF Executive Director, so he could not have
overlooked it. It also came just after the USCF had fired 17 people
because otherwise the USCF could not have made payroll. No
documentation has ever been provided about this payment. If any such
documentation existed, it probably have been on the laptop that went
missing on August 20, 2003.

This payment may have violated at least the spirit if the rule that no
Executive Director may commit to a payment of more than $10,000
without approval of the board.

The decision to allow Tim Tobiason to scan the Chess Life newspapers
was my idea and my motion. Before I got on the board, I offered to
scan the Chess Life newspapers myself. After I got on the board, I put
the item on the agenda and made the motion. I contacted Tobiason and
got him to agree to do this. It passed as I recall by a 3-1-1 vote. At
least one member of the board was strongly opposed to this idea. It
was quite clear that if I had not championed this idea it would have
never passed. In fact, I was probably the only member of the board who
even knew that there had ever been a Chess Life newspaper. I knew
because I first joined in 1956. Other board members did not join until
after about 1961 by which time the bi-weekly newspaper had been turned
into a monthly magazine.

John Hillery states above "'Neither Hough nor Channing EVER voted
against Goichberg' is simply false." OK I challenge you on this. Find
one time that Hough or Channing EVER voted opposite to Goichberg.
There were many, many times when Beatriz Marinello, Don Schultz and
myself voted opposite to Goichberg, but none that Channing or Hough
ever voted against Goichberg.

Regarding 5 and 6 it is a fact that membership increased for the first
time in a decade while I was on the board and a financial surplus was
reported for only the second time since 1995 while I was on the board.
It is true that I cannot take all the credit for this. However, more
than any other board member I was the watchdog on the money. The
office knew that they could not slip anything by me. I caught several
improper or questionable payments. This probably encouraged them to
report a financial surplus. It also proves that there is no reason
that the USCF has to lose money every year. Draconian measures such as
no longer sending Chess Life to the regular members are unnecessary
with proper management.

Sam Sloan

Date: 17 Feb 2009 12:14:22
From: None
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

On Feb 17, 2:13=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 17, 1:11=A0pm, None <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > You and IMnes may be the only two here who haven't figured out who I
> > be.
>
> Now you sound like the Rev. Dr. Calvin Abu Hindoo Qusz, Jr
>
> Is that who you be?

Tom Klem

Date: 17 Feb 2009 12:20:27
From: None
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

Date: 17 Feb 2009 12:17:55
From: None
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

Date: 17 Feb 2009 12:17:27
From: None
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

Date: 17 Feb 2009 12:17:02
From: None
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

Date: 17 Feb 2009 12:15:09
From: None
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

Date: 17 Feb 2009 12:14:40
From: None
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

Date: 17 Feb 2009 12:14:58
From: None
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

Date: 17 Feb 2009 11:23:03
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

[quote="RandyShane"][quote="samsloan"]

I know that I will be pushing for a reinstatement for Chess Life and
Chess Life for Kids for ALL members and for the USCF to start selling
life memberships again.

Sam Sloan[/quote]

Does this mean that you wish to get rid of the $29 no-paper-magazine
adult membership, and have everybody pay $42 (or some higher rate)
again?

-- Randy Shane[/quote]

I favor a $39 rate for all adult memberships sold online. By the way,
$39 has never been the official rate.

Yes, I do not support and have never supported any no magazine
memberships. All members must receive a magazine.

Sam Sloan

Date: 17 Feb 2009 11:21:14
From: None
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

Date: 17 Feb 2009 11:13:51
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

On Feb 17, 1:11=A0pm, None <[email protected] > wrote:

> You and IMnes may be the only two here who haven't figured out who I
> be.

Now you sound like the Rev. Dr. Calvin Abu Hindoo Qusz, Jr

Is that who you be?

Date: 17 Feb 2009 10:11:18
From: None
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

On Feb 17, 1:30=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 16, 10:30=A0am, None <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 3:43=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I have created a campaign flyer for my election campaign for election
> > > to the USCF Executive Board. The flyer is two pages long, in PDF
> > > Format. It is intended to be printed out on two sides of a single
> > > sheet of paper.
>
> > > I ask my supporters (and for that matter my opponents and anybody els=
e
> > > at all) to print out this flyer, read it and, if they like it,
> > > distribute it.
>
> > > The flyer is downloadable athttp://www.anusha.com/sams-flyer.pdf
>
> > > Thank you in advance.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > Please send as many flyers as you can. I can use them. I'm out of
> > toilet paper.
>
> Fine. Just give me your name, address and telephone number and I will
> send them right away.
>
> Sam Sloan- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

You and IMnes may be the only two here who haven't figured out who I
be.

Date: 17 Feb 2009 05:31:41
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

On Feb 17, 1:59=A0am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 3:43=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have created a campaign flyer for my election campaign for election
> > to the USCF Executive Board. The flyer is two pages long, in PDF
> > Format. It is intended to be printed out on two sides of a single
> > sheet of paper.
>
> > I ask my supporters (and for that matter my opponents and anybody else
> > at all) to print out this flyer, read it and, if they like it,
> > distribute it.
>
> > The flyer is downloadable athttp://www.anusha.com/sams-flyer.pdf
>
> =A0 Apart from other issues, the fact remains that we
> were told here -- by Mr. Sloan himself -- that the
> last time he was on the board, he was unable to
> get anything done (because of having only a
> single vote).
>
> =A0 Now, what is the plan this time-- make the very
> same mistake again, of getting on the board with
> just the one, powerless vote? =A0 =A0Wouldn't it be
> wiser to let someone new have a crack at this--
> someone who has not already demonstrated his
> impotence, his inability to get anything done
> while on the board? =A0 Check my math, but I
> believe that zero-for-one yields a batting average
> of roughly .000, so even Rob Mitchell stands a
> better chance of getting on base.
>
> =A0 -- help bot

At the beginning of my one year on the board, I was able to get some
things done which would not have been done otherwise. Here are some
examples:

1. I got the Expulsion of Bobby Fischer by the 2002 Board reversed.

2. I obtained copies of the 2003 Truong-Polgar-Niro Contract and the
DeFeis- Erik Anderson Contract which up until then had been "lost".

3. I got the office to make a CD of all income and expenses since 2001
where I discovered a number of questionable payments such as the
$13,358.36 that Goichberg paid Polgar in USCF Funds in November 2003
and the fact that three candidates were allowed to run for election
without paying the required $250 filing fees.

4. I got all the issues of Chess Life newspaper from 1947 to 1960
scanned where they are now available on CD.

5. Membership increased while I was on the board, the first and still
only time in a decade when that has happened.

6. There was a financial surplus which I was on the board, only the
second time since 1995 that that has happened.

The reason that more dramatic changes cound not take place was after
Tanner was forced off the board, there were only six members left,
Goichberg had two votes in his hip pocket, Hough and Channing. Neither
Hough nor Channing EVER voted against Goichberg. Therefore, there were
only three votes on my side, Schultz, Marinello and myself. Since Hall
was just Goichberg's yes-man who would do whatever Goichberg told him
to do, there were never enough votes to over rule or reverse anything
that Goichberg did.

After the coming election, the situation will be different. Even
assuming that Goichberg is re-elected (which is increasingly in doubt
as he seems to have little support, in fact I know of NOBODY, nobody
at all, who still supports Goichberg) Goichberg can not be the
president so he can not give any more secret instructions to Hall
(assuming that Hall survives the election). Channing resigned in
disgrace and Hough wisely is not running again. Bauer is not known for
his loyalty and Goichberg will not be able to count on him for support
on the new board.

So the new situation will be dynamic. I know that I will be pushing
for a reinstatement for Chess Life and Chess Life for Kids for ALL
members and for the USCF to start selling life memberships again. The
USCF will have to find a new vendor for books and equipment or to
start selling books and equipment itself again. Obviously, with the
current lawsuit by Hanon Russell against the USCF he cannot continue
as the vendor of USCF Books and Equipment.

So, the situation will be fluid and very dynamic especially at the
beginning. I think that the terrible things that Goichberg has done
during his four years in power will soon be swept into the dustbin of
USCF history. His four-year presidency will be just a bad memory. The
real danger facing the USCF is what will happen if the Polgar Group
wins the election and gains power. Everybody agrees that while
Goichberg is bad, Polgar is far, far worse.

In any event, my vote will consistently be for a return to the old way
of doing things, the way things were done prior to 1996. Prior to 1996
there was an increase in membership every year and profits every year.
The USCF had built up $2 million in the bank in the LMA. So that is
the way I want for the USCF to go back to doing business and my one
vote could be critical.

Sam Sloan

Date: 19 Feb 2009 06:33:55
From:
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

On Feb 17, 7:31 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> At the beginning of my one year on the board, I was able to
> get some things done

> 5. Membership increased while I was on the board

> Chess Life for Kids

Predictably, all six claims by Sam are false. For example, if
one examines the dates, one will see that a small blip in the
membership decline is unconnected to Sam's tenure on the EB.

A feathered friend told me anyone who joined because of Sam's
"activities", was probably hoping to see child pornography in
CL. Something that it hasn't featured since Liarry ("my nose
is the same color as Liarry Evans's anus") Parrot was fired.

"Mr. Sloan said, 'For as long as I live, I will be known as a
child pornographer.'" - As reported in the online edition of
the New York Times, January 15, 2009, in the article titled
"Member of U.S. Chess Federation's Board Is Asked to Resign
in Dispute Over an Election". Cover-up by Dylan Loeb McClain.

There is one way to make one hundred and ten per cent certain
that, even with all the help gotten from the NYT's fake chess
columnist, Sam is not re-elected. The permanent solution, and
cheaper in the Bronx or DC than anywhere outside of St Kitts.
Hyperlink available on application (paypal payment accepted?)

To refute the other claims I leave to Hillery and Attorney J.
Schmo.

Date: 16 Feb 2009 22:30:23
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

On Feb 16, 10:30=A0am, None <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 15, 3:43=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I have created a campaign flyer for my election campaign for election
> > to the USCF Executive Board. The flyer is two pages long, in PDF
> > Format. It is intended to be printed out on two sides of a single
> > sheet of paper.
>
> > I ask my supporters (and for that matter my opponents and anybody else
> > at all) to print out this flyer, read it and, if they like it,
> > distribute it.
>
> > The flyer is downloadable athttp://www.anusha.com/sams-flyer.pdf
>
> > Thank you in advance.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Please send as many flyers as you can. I can use them. I'm out of
> toilet paper.

Fine. Just give me your name, address and telephone number and I will
send them right away.

Sam Sloan

Date: 16 Feb 2009 07:30:52
From: None
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

On Feb 15, 3:43=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have created a campaign flyer for my election campaign for election
> to the USCF Executive Board. The flyer is two pages long, in PDF
> Format. It is intended to be printed out on two sides of a single
> sheet of paper.
>
> I ask my supporters (and for that matter my opponents and anybody else
> at all) to print out this flyer, read it and, if they like it,
> distribute it.
>
> The flyer is downloadable athttp://www.anusha.com/sams-flyer.pdf
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Sam Sloan

Please send as many flyers as you can. I can use them. I'm out of
toilet paper.

Date: 16 Feb 2009 04:32:00
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sam Sloan for USCF Board Campaign has created a Flyer

[quote=3D"chessoffice"]And I think the delegates took care of our long
range planning with the new dues structure. This was projected to net
an extra $170,000 per year starting in 2010, and so far there is no
sign that this projection was too optimistic.

Bill Goichberg[/quote]

That was the projection by Bill Goichberg. However, Mike Nolan did
some calculations that he showed on the forum and Nolan's conclusion
was that the new dues structure, which involves not sending Chess Life
magazine to "regular" members, would result in no "savings" at all.

Goichberg again shows his tendency to make misleading statements by
saying that this was something "the delegates took care of" when it
was actually Goichberg's idea and motion which he used his powers as
President to push through the delegate's meeting in Dallas, in which
only a brief debate was allowed.

Sam Sloan

On Feb 15, 3:43=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> I have created a campaign flyer for my election campaign for election
> to the USCF Executive Board. The flyer is two pages long, in PDF
> Format. It is intended to be printed out on two sides of a single
> sheet of paper.
>
> I ask my supporters (and for that matter my opponents and anybody else
> at all) to print out this flyer, read it and, if they like it,
> distribute it.
>
> The flyer is downloadable athttp://www.anusha.com/sams-flyer.pdf
>
> Thank you in advance.
>
> Sam Sloan