| |
Main
Date: 22 Oct 2007 07:11:13
From: samsloan
Subject: Damage Control
|
[quote="Randy Bauer"][quote="Theodulf"][quote="mnibb"]In the simplest
terms, what is the reason Sam is suing the USCF? Is he saying that
there was some sort of conspiracy against him by the USCF organization
or what. What could the USCF possibly be liable for?[/quote]
Well, he is at least asking for the court to order a new election on
the theory that the election was tainted by a candidate's unlawful
acts. I suppose this would count as "equitable relief".[/quote]
Usually for these lawsuits to prevail, the organization, not
individual candidates, would have to be shown to have engaged in acts
that unfairly impacted the election. If courts were going to start
refereeing whether candidates' acts had unfairly tainted the
election... well, we would probably never have another election at any
level that didn't end up in court.[/quote]
There were a number of things the organization did as opposed to
actions by mere candidates which are grounds for this suit, such as:
1. Filling up Chess Life Magazine with pictures of Polgar, free ads
for Polgar, articles about Polgar and so on when she had done little
or nothing deserving any publicity, to such an extent that it was
called "Polgar Life Magazine".
2. Letting Polgar and Truong run for the board without being required
to pay the $250 filing fees.
3. Suspending Sam Sloan three times from posting to the USCF Forum for
one week each while allowing his election opponents to attack him on
the forum, plus deleting or pulling numerous posts by Sam Sloan from
the USCF Forums.
4. Directing Dan Lucas not to publish the name of Sam Sloan in Chess
Life magazine, thereby causing Sloan's name to be deleted from
articles written by Hanken, Benko and possibly Evans.
These are just a few of the grounds, although the 2463 false Internet
postings by "The Fake Sam Sloan" are grounds enough.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 20:38:57
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Damage Control
|
[quote="Theodulf"][quote="Smythe Dakota"][quote="mnibb"] .... So Sam
would be suing based on the actions of the old EB .... ?[/quote]
No, he would be suing based on the alleged actions of one new EB
member, both before and during his tenure on the EB.
I agree this is shaky, but it still seems possible. Lawyers please
step in, but I'm reasonably sure that an organization can, under
certain circumstances, be held liable for the actions of members of
its executive board.[/quote]
I think that in general the organization has escaped these
circumstances if the activities in question are not conducted as part
of the duties of the board member, other persons in the organization
were unaware of the person's activities, and, upon learning of them,
the organization takes steps to make it clear that it does not condone
them.
The questions of "who knew what, and when, and what ought they to have
done" would of course be important, possibly even relating to earlier
affairs.
Sam, can you elaborate on why you think the USCF as an organization
bears [i]ANY[/i] responsibility for the 2463 FSS posts, particularly
since probably at least 2000 of them were posted before the person in
question was on the EB? Can you demonstrate that other officers of
the USCF were aware of all this at the time?[/quote]
You have in part answered your own questions.
Brian Mottershead posted his findings that Paul Truong was the Fake
Sam Sloan here on September 26, 2007. Bill Goichberg posted that he
had known about that finding for 6 days and wanted it referred to the
Ethics Committee.
Thus, Goichberg has known about this since September 20, 2007, which
is more than one month ago, yet he has taken no action.
More than that, the actual postings have been deleted from the USCF
Forum so nobody can read them. Thus, not only is the evidence not
being acted upon, but it is being covered up.
Goichberg then said that he wanted a complete report on it.
Mottershead took about a week and produced the report. Still no
action.
Goichberg then announced that Mottershead had voluntarily agreed to
suspend his work as Administrator of the website. Mottershead
protested stating that he has agreed to no such thing. Goichberg then
asked that the announcement be withdrawn. (Here I mistakenly stated
that the board had agreed to this. However, it now appears that so far
there are only two votes to modify the original announcement.)
After Mottershead produced his report proving conclusively that Paul
Truong is the guilty party, Goichberg said that he wanted a second
opinion. He wanted somebody else hired to produce a report.
That was several weeks ago. Still the person has not been hired.
Finally, the first board member to actually condemn the obscene
postings by the "Fake Sam Sloan" who was pretending to be a member or
former member of the USCF Executive Board was Randy Bauer. Joel
Channing had previously stated that he was "amused" by the postings by
the Fake Sam Sloan.
Actually, my posting to the BINFOS on July 30, 2006 (more than one
year ago) produced conclusive evidence that Paul Truong was the Fake
Sam Sloan. I demanded an investigation. This was ignored.
I believe that Joel Channing has known all along that Paul Truong was
the Fake Sam Sloan. Channing has been in close contact with Truong
from the beginning.
I believe that Goichberg too realized long ago that Truong was the
Fake Sam Sloan. This is why Goichberg is still trying to cover up his
own complicity in this.
Does that answer your questions?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 15:47:21
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Damage Control
|
[quote="Theodulf"][quote="Smythe Dakota"][quote="mnibb"] .... So Sam
would be suing based on the actions of the old EB .... ?[/quote]
No, he would be suing based on the alleged actions of one new EB
member, both before and during his tenure on the EB.
I agree this is shaky, but it still seems possible. Lawyers please
step in, but I'm reasonably sure that an organization can, under
certain circumstances, be held liable for the actions of members of
its executive board.[/quote]
I think that in general the organization has escaped these
circumstances if the activities in question are not conducted as part
of the duties of the board member, other persons in the organization
were unaware of the person's activities, and, upon learning of them,
the organization takes steps to make it clear that it does not condone
them.
The questions of "who knew what, and when, and what ought they to have
done" would of course be important, possibly even relating to earlier
affairs.
Sam, can you elaborate on why you think the USCF as an organization
bears [i]ANY[/i] responsibility for the 2463 FSS posts, particularly
since probably at least 2000 of them were posted before the person in
question was on the EB? Can you demonstrate that other officers of
the USCF were aware of all this at the time?[/quote]
You have in part answered your own questions.
Brian Mottershead posted his findings that Paul Truong was the Fake
Sam Sloan here on September 26, 2007. Bill Goichberg posted that he
had known about that finding for 6 days and wanted it referred to the
Ethics Committee.
Thus, Goichberg has known about this since September 20, 2007, which
is more than one month ago, yet he has taken no action.
More than that, the actual postings have been deleted from this forum
so nobody can read them. Thus, not only is the evidence not being
acted upon, but it is being covered up.
Goichberg then said that he wanted a complete report on it.
Mottershead took about a week and produced the report. Still no
action.
Goichberg then announced that Mottershead had voluntarily agreed to
suspend his work as Administrator of the website. Mottershead
protested stating that he has agreed to no such thing. Goichberg then
asked that the announcement be withdrawn. (Here I mistakenly stated
that the board had agreed to this. However, it now appears that so far
there are only two votes to modify the original announcement.)
After Mottershead produced his report proving conclusively that Paul
Truong is the guilty party, Goichberg said that he wanted a second
opinion. He wanted somebody else hired to produce a report.
That was several weeks ago. Still the person has not been hired.
Finally, the first board member to actually condemn the obscene
postings by the "Fake Sam Sloan" who was pretending to be a member or
former member of the USCF Executive Board was Randy Bauer. Joel
Channing had previously stated that he was "amused" by the postings by
the Fake Sam Sloan.
Actually, my posting to the BINFOS on July 30, 2006 (more than one
year ago) produced conclusive evidence that Paul Truong was the Fake
Sam Sloan. I demanded an investigation. This was ignored.
I believe that Joel Channing has known all along that Paul Truong was
the Fake Sam Sloan. Channing has been in close contact with Truong
from the beginning.
I believe that Goichberg too realized long ago that Truong was the
Fake Sam Sloan. This is why Goichberg is still trying to cover up his
own complicity in this.
Does that answer your questions?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 12:40:27
From: GeekBoy
Subject: Re: Damage Control
|
No wonder they kick your ass out.
Gte a life, bitch.
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [quote="Randy Bauer"][quote="Theodulf"][quote="mnibb"]In the simplest
> terms, what is the reason Sam is suing the USCF? Is he saying that
> there was some sort of conspiracy against him by the USCF organization
> or what. What could the USCF possibly be liable for?[/quote]
>
> Well, he is at least asking for the court to order a new election on
> the theory that the election was tainted by a candidate's unlawful
> acts. I suppose this would count as "equitable relief".[/quote]
>
> Usually for these lawsuits to prevail, the organization, not
> individual candidates, would have to be shown to have engaged in acts
> that unfairly impacted the election. If courts were going to start
> refereeing whether candidates' acts had unfairly tainted the
> election... well, we would probably never have another election at any
> level that didn't end up in court.[/quote]
>
> There were a number of things the organization did as opposed to
> actions by mere candidates which are grounds for this suit, such as:
>
> 1. Filling up Chess Life Magazine with pictures of Polgar, free ads
> for Polgar, articles about Polgar and so on when she had done little
> or nothing deserving any publicity, to such an extent that it was
> called "Polgar Life Magazine".
>
> 2. Letting Polgar and Truong run for the board without being required
> to pay the $250 filing fees.
>
> 3. Suspending Sam Sloan three times from posting to the USCF Forum for
> one week each while allowing his election opponents to attack him on
> the forum, plus deleting or pulling numerous posts by Sam Sloan from
> the USCF Forums.
>
> 4. Directing Dan Lucas not to publish the name of Sam Sloan in Chess
> Life magazine, thereby causing Sloan's name to be deleted from
> articles written by Hanken, Benko and possibly Evans.
>
> These are just a few of the grounds, although the 2463 false Internet
> postings by "The Fake Sam Sloan" are grounds enough.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
|
| |
Date: 22 Oct 2007 15:45:11
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Damage Control
|
samsloan wrote:
>There were a number of things the organization did as opposed to
>actions by mere candidates which are grounds for this suit, such as:
>3. Suspending Sam Sloan three times from posting to the USCF Forum for
>one week each while allowing his election opponents to attack him on
>the forum, plus deleting or pulling numerous posts by Sam Sloan from
>the USCF Forums.
I don't read the USCF Forums, but your behavior here (spamming
rec.games.chess.computer with political posts that belong in
rec.games.chess.politics, refusing to engage in any sort of
dialog concerning your posting behavior) would get you banned
from any forum or newsgroup that has a moderator. I can only
assume that you behave the same way elsewhere and thus that
banning you was entirely appropriate.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
|
