| |
Main
Date: 18 Dec 2008 11:41:05
From: samsloan
Subject: Bogner's Banned Posting
|
by hmb on Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:39 pm #120543
[I originally made this post on Tuesday, 12/16, on this topic, but a
moderator mistakenly removed it. Having not heard back again after
several rounds of correspondence, I am reposting it. And I thank Jack
LeMoine for his private followups to what I wrote, too. There are
things that need to be spoken, and heard, so members are informed and
able to evaluate the current situation.]
Jack - The United States of America is essentially a country of laws.
Based on what you have written here, I cannot see how you can say that
USCF "attacked" or "shut down" the chessdiscussion.com web site. And
your implication that the site is to be moved offshore suggests that
there is a desire to move beyond the reach of US law.
The lawsuit in San Francisco clearly spells out what Sue Polgar and
Gregory Alexander are accused of doing, in terms of actions, effects,
and law. It's all happening in front of one or more judges - and the
judges of the Northern District of California have a lot of experience
with technical cases, and are not reputed to tolerate a lot of
shenanigans. I would hardly expect that any use of data gathered by
subpoena would be made other than to seek to enforce lawful behavior,
and to seek redress for harmful and unlawful behavior.
You seem to subscribe to Ms. Polgar's widespread conspiracy theory.
What I see is a series of actions - starting with the exposure of Ms.
Polgar's husband and fellow USCF EB member, Paul Truong, as the person
behind the massive body of anonymous and pseudonymous internet posts
that were so ugly and harmful to so many - that shock the conscious of
legal and internet specialists, as well as an increasing number of
people here in our USCF community.
I'm glad that Ron Suarez has already addressed the false and
misleading statements you made about past incidents involving Mr.
Alexander. One of the saddest things in this entire series of
revelations about Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong is that a formerly
independent chess volunteer for some reason got so involved with them
as to join them in what USCF's lawyers have shown to be breaking laws.
If you read the affidavits filed last Friday in Lubbock, you will see
that there are two more people with business relationships with Ms.
Polgar and Mr. Truong who I can assure you based on my own personal
knowledge have now crossed the line and made false statements under
oath before a judge. I urge you and other well-meaning folks to take
care that you not also cross such lines. Mr. Alexander and Ms. Polgar
may face time in prison for what is alleged in the San Francisco
lawsuit, and Mr. Truong may face time in prison for his clearly
fraudulent bankruptcy filing in New York.
I - and others here who were similarly outspoken in regards to past
behaviors and ongoing questions pertaining to Ms. Polgar and Mr.
Truong - have been sued for as-yet-unspecified reasons. Soon, the
entirety of USCF's membership may well be hearing the call to action
to bear the costs which she is imposing on USCF and such members as
myself who put ourselves on the line to both serve and speak up.
My own conscience was shocked back when Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong and
Mr. Niro dealt US Women's Champion Anna Hahn out of her place on the
2004 Women's Olympiad Team. Since then, the number of things that can
now be seen in a new light has steadily increased.
Jack, I suggest that you take a deep breath, let go of your
misconceptions, and take a fresh look at the evidence of reality all
around you. You're a good man, just as so many members of the chess
community who volunteer and who love chess are good people. At one
time or another, every single one of us has probably been "had". In
this case, it's happened to quite a few of us. Some have already
realized it and moved beyond it; others are doing so now. In due
course, almost everyone shall. Pray join us, Jack.
---
For the benefit of readers here, I provide the initial reason given by
the moderator, and comment briefly:
in error, a moderator wrote:Your statement:
Mr. Truong may face time in prison for his clearly fraudulent
bankruptcy filing in New York.
(emphasis added)
seems to be a violation of
Do not post suggestions, without specifically identified
substantial proof, that a person may have committed an unethical or
criminal act.
and has been pulled.
The moderator's error consists of failing to take note of the
substantial proof that has been made available here and elsewhere, and
which has been repeatedly cited here, too.
Hal Bogner
[email protected]
Please note: Although I am a partner in Chess Magnet School and
perform consulting for USCF and others, nothing I post here represents
the opinions of my clients or partners unless stated otherwise.
hmb
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Half Moon Bay, California
USCFId: 10062225
|
|
| |
Date: 19 Dec 2008 05:51:30
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Bogner's Banned Posting
|
On Dec 19, 1:55=A0am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> BANKRUPTCY LOOMING?
>
> If Jack Le Moine is correct that the USCF is launching a series of
> SLAPP suits, then the proper and probable response will be
> countersuits when the Federation inevitably starts barging around like
> a bull in a rare chess set shop.
>
> =A0 If Bill Goichberg's plan amounts to bankrupting the Federation (by
> going online with Chess Life, for starters) and then taking it over at
> fire sale prices (changing the name from USCF to USCCF),these lawsuits
> will be settled fairly quickly. Once Goich, possibly Randy Hough and
> Big G's other friends have privatized the Federation. =A0There's a fair
> chance that Bill would appoint Hough as the new executive director.
>
> For the record, I deny completely, totally, comprehensively and
> unremittingly that Goich. has offered me a position as his spiritual
> adviser. =A0Goich would make a splendid convert to Catholicism, but he
> has not sought out yours truly for catechism instruction. =A0Has he
> sought out others? =A0I know not.
>
> =A0Yours, Larry Parr
>
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Dec 18, 2:41?pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Quoting a posting to the USCF Forum:
> > > by hmb on Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:39 pm #120543
> > (Snip)
> > > If you read the affidavits filed last Friday in Lubbock, you will see
> > > that there are two more people with business relationships with Ms.
> > > Polgar and Mr. Truong who I can assure you based on my own personal
> > > knowledge have now crossed the line and made false statements under
> > > oath before a judge.
>
> > Hmm, two people with business relationships with Trolgar. Anyone care
> > to campel who it might be?
There were three affidavits. They were by:
Fred Gruenberg
Dave DeLeon, a 772 rated scholastic chess organizer
J. W. Marnell, a "Technology Administrator" for Wayland Baptist
University in Lubbock Texas, rated 832
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 22:55:00
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bogner's Banned Posting
|
BANKRUPTCY LOOMING?
If Jack Le Moine is correct that the USCF is launching a series of
SLAPP suits, then the proper and probable response will be
countersuits when the Federation inevitably starts barging around like
a bull in a rare chess set shop.
If Bill Goichberg's plan amounts to bankrupting the Federation (by
going online with Chess Life, for starters) and then taking it over at
fire sale prices (changing the name from USCF to USCCF),these lawsuits
will be settled fairly quickly. Once Goich, possibly Randy Hough and
Big G's other friends have privatized the Federation. There's a fair
chance that Bill would appoint Hough as the new executive director.
For the record, I deny completely, totally, comprehensively and
unremittingly that Goich. has offered me a position as his spiritual
adviser. Goich would make a splendid convert to Catholicism, but he
has not sought out yours truly for catechism instruction. Has he
sought out others? I know not.
Yours, Larry Parr
The Historian wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2:41?pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> Quoting a posting to the USCF Forum:
> > by hmb on Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:39 pm #120543
> (Snip)
> > If you read the affidavits filed last Friday in Lubbock, you will see
> > that there are two more people with business relationships with Ms.
> > Polgar and Mr. Truong who I can assure you based on my own personal
> > knowledge have now crossed the line and made false statements under
> > oath before a judge.
>
> Hmm, two people with business relationships with Trolgar. Anyone care
> to campel who it might be?
|
| | |
Date: 19 Dec 2008 07:39:52
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Bogner's Banned Posting
|
On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:55:00 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
>BANKRUPTCY LOOMING?
>If Jack Le Moine is correct that the USCF is launching a series of
>SLAPP suits,
I think Jack is wildly off-base on this one.
It *is* interesting to note that SLAPP suits are usually filed for
defamation or interference with contracts, not such offenses as
breaking and entering. Hmmmm.
|
| | | |
Date: 19 Dec 2008 16:24:51
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Bogner's Banned Posting
|
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 22:55:00 -0800 (PST), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> BANKRUPTCY LOOMING?
>
>> If Jack Le Moine is correct that the USCF is launching a series of
>> SLAPP suits,
>
> I think Jack is wildly off-base on this one.
>
> It *is* interesting to note that SLAPP suits are usually filed for
> defamation or interference with contracts, not such offenses as
> breaking and entering. Hmmmm.
The idea that the USCF was, is or is going to be filing SLAP suits is
nothing more than Trolgar propaganda. The San Francisco litigation is
warranted by specific criminal misdeeds as alleged against Polgar and
Alexander.
The question I have is, what happens to Gregory if Trolgar and family
decide to split for Hungary to avoid prosecution, should it come to
that. I guess that would really make Gregory the bag man--holding it of
course.
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 20:53:13
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Bogner's Banned Posting
|
On Dec 18, 2:41=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
Quoting a posting to the USCF Forum:
> by hmb on Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:39 pm #120543
(Snip)
> If you read the affidavits filed last Friday in Lubbock, you will see
> that there are two more people with business relationships with Ms.
> Polgar and Mr. Truong who I can assure you based on my own personal
> knowledge have now crossed the line and made false statements under
> oath before a judge.
Hmm, two people with business relationships with Trolgar. Anyone care
to campel who it might be?
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 15:22:35
From:
Subject: Re: Bogner's Banned Posting
|
B. Lafferty wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > samsloan wrote:
> >> On Dec 18, 3:45=EF=BF=BDpm, [email protected] wrote:
> >>> As such there seems no room within that mission for:
> >>>
> >>> Backroom Deals
> >>> Secret Contracts
> >>> Political Vendetas
> >>> Non-Disclosure Agreements
> >>> Questionable Payments
> >>> Closed Door meetings
> >>> Etc......
> >> Good. I agree.
> >>
> >> Not why do not people start asking about Goichberg''s secret payment
> >> to Polgar of $13,358.36 in November 2003 which was totally unknown
> >> until I discovered it in the books when I was on the board in
> >> November, 2006, three years later.
> >
> >> The Real Sam Sloan
> >
> > Hasn't that horse gone to the glue factory by now? It wasn't a secret.
> > She did work and was paid for it. Why is this a hard concept for you?
>
> How are things over at the glue factory, John?
Brian, don't you think you ought to keep your mouth shut about matters
of which you are totally ignorant? It might make you look less like a
(pardon the expression) jackass.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 23:39:36
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Bogner's Banned Posting
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> samsloan wrote:
>>>> On Dec 18, 3:45�pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> As such there seems no room within that mission for:
>>>>>
>>>>> Backroom Deals
>>>>> Secret Contracts
>>>>> Political Vendetas
>>>>> Non-Disclosure Agreements
>>>>> Questionable Payments
>>>>> Closed Door meetings
>>>>> Etc......
>>>> Good. I agree.
>>>>
>>>> Not why do not people start asking about Goichberg''s secret payment
>>>> to Polgar of $13,358.36 in November 2003 which was totally unknown
>>>> until I discovered it in the books when I was on the board in
>>>> November, 2006, three years later.
>>>> The Real Sam Sloan
>>> Hasn't that horse gone to the glue factory by now? It wasn't a secret.
>>> She did work and was paid for it. Why is this a hard concept for you?
>> How are things over at the glue factory, John?
>
>
> Brian, don't you think you ought to keep your mouth shut about matters
> of which you are totally ignorant? It might make you look less like a
> (pardon the expression) jackass.
But, you didn't answer my question, John.
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 15:20:20
From: billbrock
Subject: Re: Bogner's Banned Posting
|
On Dec 18, 1:41=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> by hmb on Thu Dec 18, 2008 12:39 pm #120543
> [I originally made this post on Tuesday, 12/16, on this topic, but a
> moderator mistakenly removed it. Having not heard back again after
> several rounds of correspondence, I am reposting it. And I thank Jack
> LeMoine for his private followups to what I wrote, too. There are
> things that need to be spoken, and heard, so members are informed and
> able to evaluate the current situation.]
>
> Jack - The United States of America is essentially a country of laws.
> Based on what you have written here, I cannot see how you can say that
> USCF "attacked" or "shut down" the chessdiscussion.com web site. And
> your implication that the site is to be moved offshore suggests that
> there is a desire to move beyond the reach of US law.
>
> The lawsuit in San Francisco clearly spells out what Sue Polgar and
> Gregory Alexander are accused of doing, in terms of actions, effects,
> and law. It's all happening in front of one or more judges - and the
> judges of the Northern District of California have a lot of experience
> with technical cases, and are not reputed to tolerate a lot of
> shenanigans. I would hardly expect that any use of data gathered by
> subpoena would be made other than to seek to enforce lawful behavior,
> and to seek redress for harmful and unlawful behavior.
>
> You seem to subscribe to Ms. Polgar's widespread conspiracy theory.
> What I see is a series of actions - starting with the exposure of Ms.
> Polgar's husband and fellow USCF EB member, Paul Truong, as the person
> behind the massive body of anonymous and pseudonymous internet posts
> that were so ugly and harmful to so many - that shock the conscious of
> legal and internet specialists, as well as an increasing number of
> people here in our USCF community.
>
> I'm glad that Ron Suarez has already addressed the false and
> misleading statements you made about past incidents involving Mr.
> Alexander. One of the saddest things in this entire series of
> revelations about Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong is that a formerly
> independent chess volunteer for some reason got so involved with them
> as to join them in what USCF's lawyers have shown to be breaking laws.
> If you read the affidavits filed last Friday in Lubbock, you will see
> that there are two more people with business relationships with Ms.
> Polgar and Mr. Truong who I can assure you based on my own personal
> knowledge have now crossed the line and made false statements under
> oath before a judge. I urge you and other well-meaning folks to take
> care that you not also cross such lines. Mr. Alexander and Ms. Polgar
> may face time in prison for what is alleged in the San Francisco
> lawsuit, and Mr. Truong may face time in prison for his clearly
> fraudulent bankruptcy filing in New York.
>
> I - and others here who were similarly outspoken in regards to past
> behaviors and ongoing questions pertaining to Ms. Polgar and Mr.
> Truong - have been sued for as-yet-unspecified reasons. Soon, the
> entirety of USCF's membership may well be hearing the call to action
> to bear the costs which she is imposing on USCF and such members as
> myself who put ourselves on the line to both serve and speak up.
>
> My own conscience was shocked back when Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong and
> Mr. Niro dealt US Women's Champion Anna Hahn out of her place on the
> 2004 Women's Olympiad Team. Since then, the number of things that can
> now be seen in a new light has steadily increased.
>
> Jack, I suggest that you take a deep breath, let go of your
> misconceptions, and take a fresh look at the evidence of reality all
> around you. You're a good man, just as so many members of the chess
> community who volunteer and who love chess are good people. At one
> time or another, every single one of us has probably been "had". In
> this case, it's happened to quite a few of us. Some have already
> realized it and moved beyond it; others are doing so now. In due
> course, almost everyone shall. Pray join us, Jack.
>
> ---
>
> For the benefit of readers here, I provide the initial reason given by
> the moderator, and comment briefly:
>
> =A0 =A0 in error, a moderator wrote:Your statement:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Mr. Truong may face time in prison for his clearly fraudu=
lent
> bankruptcy filing in New York.
>
> =A0 =A0 (emphasis added)
> =A0 =A0 seems to be a violation of
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Do not post suggestions, without specifically identified
> substantial proof, that a person may have committed an unethical or
> criminal act.
>
> =A0 =A0 and has been pulled.
>
> The moderator's error consists of failing to take note of the
> substantial proof that has been made available here and elsewhere, and
> which has been repeatedly cited here, too.
> Hal Bogner
> [email protected]
>
> Please note: Although I am a partner in Chess Magnet School and
> perform consulting for USCF and others, nothing I post here represents
> the opinions of my clients or partners unless stated otherwise.
>
> hmb
>
> =A0 =A0 Posts: 973
> =A0 =A0 Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:22 pm
> =A0 =A0 Location: Half Moon Bay, California
> =A0 =A0 USCFId: 10062225
Substantial evidence is not substantial proof.
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 14:27:10
From:
Subject: Re: Bogner's Banned Posting
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Dec 18, 3:45=EF=BF=BDpm, [email protected] wrote:
> >As such there seems no room within that mission for:
> >
> > Backroom Deals
> > Secret Contracts
> > Political Vendetas
> > Non-Disclosure Agreements
> > Questionable Payments
> > Closed Door meetings
> > Etc......
>
> Good. I agree.
>
> Not why do not people start asking about Goichberg''s secret payment
> to Polgar of $13,358.36 in November 2003 which was totally unknown
> until I discovered it in the books when I was on the board in
> November, 2006, three years later.
> The Real Sam Sloan
Hasn't that horse gone to the glue factory by now? It wasn't a secret.
She did work and was paid for it. Why is this a hard concept for you?
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 22:37:34
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Bogner's Banned Posting
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> samsloan wrote:
>> On Dec 18, 3:45�pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>> As such there seems no room within that mission for:
>>>
>>> Backroom Deals
>>> Secret Contracts
>>> Political Vendetas
>>> Non-Disclosure Agreements
>>> Questionable Payments
>>> Closed Door meetings
>>> Etc......
>> Good. I agree.
>>
>> Not why do not people start asking about Goichberg''s secret payment
>> to Polgar of $13,358.36 in November 2003 which was totally unknown
>> until I discovered it in the books when I was on the board in
>> November, 2006, three years later.
>
>> The Real Sam Sloan
>
> Hasn't that horse gone to the glue factory by now? It wasn't a secret.
> She did work and was paid for it. Why is this a hard concept for you?
How are things over at the glue factory, John?
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 13:14:20
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Bogner's Banned Posting
|
On Dec 18, 3:45=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
>As such there seems no room within that mission for:
>
> Backroom Deals
> Secret Contracts
> Political Vendetas
> Non-Disclosure Agreements
> Questionable Payments
> Closed Door meetings
> Etc......
Good. I agree.
Not why do not people start asking about Goichberg''s secret payment
to Polgar of $13,358.36 in November 2003 which was totally unknown
until I discovered it in the books when I was on the board in
November, 2006, three years later.
Why do people keep complaining that Brian Mottershead had violated a
"Non Disclosure Agreement" when he revealed that Paul Truong was The
Fake Sam Sloan.
The Real Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 12:45:33
From:
Subject: Re: Bogner's Banned Posting
|
I lurk here ocassionally and post rarely but this brings back bad
memorieis
"My own conscience was shocked back when Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong
and
Mr. Niro dealt US Women's Champion Anna Hahn out of her place on the
2004 Women's Olympiad Team. Since then, the number of things that can
now be seen in a new light has steadily increased."
I am sad to be reminded that I ceased to renew my USCF Membership
following
that event and hoped ever since that a new administration with even a
modicum
of ethical standards would be elected to serve so that I could, in
good conscience,
rejoin the orgization. Unfortunately, at least from the evidence I
have seen, those
standards have instead declined.
To me it seems quite simple, the USCF is a NFP Member Organization
whose
mission is to serve it's members as well as promoting the game to the
country as
a whole. As such there seems no room within that mission for:
Backroom Deals
Secret Contracts
Political Vendetas
Non-Disclosure Agreements
Questionable Payments
Closed Door meetings
Etc......
In other words this is not, or at least should not be, the chess
equivalent of a corrupt third word nation's government.
There is simply no excuse for all of the organizations business
to be conducted in a manner that is not only free from wrong doing
and corruption but indeed from from even the appearance of it.
Any and all decisions that affect the operation and health of the
organization should be open to scrutiny by the entire membership
with the board and officers being prepared to justify the actions thet
take on the member's behalf and being held accountable for those
actions.
|
| |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 12:33:16
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Bogner's Banned Posting
|
by jacklemoine on Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:29 am #120225
Another point. I plan on posting it on the public blogs but I want to
get this right. This USCF's legal attack on the outside forum has the
largest implications for the chess community. The USCF lawsuit names
Gregory, Susan and a WHOLE LOT of others - UNNAMED OTHERS - as
defendants. That the USCF will use this lawsuit to gain access to
private accounts of other chess sites on the web - what safeguards
does the chess world have for the use that the USCF will put?
And who will the USCF target? Gregory is adament that the whole thing
is frivilous. He didn't do it. Is the USCF using the lawsuit to embark
on a campaign of destruction of internet chess sites the leaders don't
like?
I really have no inside knowledge of this. And just for the record,
the first I heard of anything about Randy Hough's e-mail account being
hacked was when news of the lawsuit hit.
So, from an outsider's point of view, I concede that two individuals
hatching a conspiracy to hack someone's e-mail does seem plausible,
especially when one of the two individuals is a computer professional.
But a conspiracy of TEN or more individuals? Why so many? This just
does not make sense. Unless, the USCF wants to start intimidating and
attacking people.
I don't know if anything about this is true or not. And I suppose in
this litigeous and political poisonous environment it is dangerous to
put these thoughts in writing. But people out there are wondering.
Heck, they can't help it.
I think that the best thing for the USCF's leaders to do right now is
instead of launching yet more lawsuits and/or launching more internet
attacks against me or others (I've already been slimed with "racism"
here), the USCF would do far more good for both the organization and
for chess in general to give some assurance as to whose sites will be
hit with these kind of legal demands, what information the USCF will
mine from their databases, and what limits the USCF will place on the
use of individual information in those databases. What safeguards has
the USCF put in place to ensure that the data it supoenas will not be
misused - especially given the history of misuse of personal data in
its own website database?
Moderators here can play their games; you creatures inhabiting this
forum can play yours; the leaders can play theirs' but the chess world
is owed some kind of assurance and/or explanation.
P.S. Lawsuits cost money. Yes, you can prevail just by relying on the
fact that people can't afford to defend themselves. Gregory tells me
that the going rate for a lawyer to take a case is now around $25,000
retainer. A trial costs around $50,000. Is this justice?
Do the right thing. Explain to the chess world where you're going with
these legal attacks on chess web sites and what safeguards you have in
place.
And I do not mean snide answers about my "spellchecking the
complaint", either. The lawyer's carelessness with the facts can't
help but raise red flags. The attitude excusing the carelessness,
given the context of this attack upon ChessDiscussion and given all
those John Does can't help but raise the highest concerns. You people
really need to stop playing games with this and begin to get serious -
especially you people with leadership responsibilities.
Calling people "racists" may just be another day of fun and games to
you people. But going around the net shutting down chess websites -
this is a big deal.
Jack Le Moine
http://www.jacklemoine.com
|
|
