| |
Main
Date: 30 Jun 2008 16:20:23
From: samsloan
Subject: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
Wayne Praeder has just posted on his website information about his
ethics complaint against Paul Truong regarding the Fake Sam Sloan
Postings.
http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/case.htm
It appears that in January 2008, Praeder filed a complaint against
Truong regarding the so-called "Fake Sam Sloan" postings in which
Truong over a two year period impersonated numerous other chess
personalities, including me.
Since then, six months have passed and nothing at all has happened to
the ethics complaint. The committee has not even decided whether to
accept or decline the case.
It is to be recalled that on September 20, 2007 when Brian Mottershead
informed Bill Goichberg of his findings, Goichberg told Mottershead to
keep quiet about it except to refer it to the Ethics Committee.
We can see what would have happened had Mottershead done that.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2008 21:38:25
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
On Jul 12, 8:16=C2=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> > On Jul 11, 1:19=C2=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> > > Rob wrote:
> > > > On Jul 1, 6:55=EF=BF=BDpm, "[email protected]"
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 1, 1:52=EF=BF=BDpm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 1, 1:24=EF=BF=BDpm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 1, 2:15 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > This lack of action is truly disgraceful; it is hard to ima=
gine how it
> > > > > > > > could happen. Sam, has anything happened recently in the co=
urt case? I
> > > > > > > > am only interested in the case against Truong, and any deve=
lopments on
> > > > > > > > that front.
>
> > > > > > > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > > > > > No. There is still no decision. Motions to dismiss were marke=
d
> > > > > > > submitted on February 15, 2008. Nothing has happened since.
>
> > > > > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > > > > No action was taken against Sloan for his actions either. Why d=
idn't
> > > > > > they
>
> > > > > Wayne Praeder's complaint to the ethics committee was completely
> > > > > ignored for months. Are you saying that some complaint to the eth=
ics
> > > > > committee about Sloan was scuttled without investigation?
>
> > > > > Restricting ourselves only to the FSS issue, Sloan has done nothi=
ng
> > > > > wrong. Even if you believe that he is mistaken, there are no
> > > > > accusations of Sloan's wrongdoing in this matter.
>
> > > > > Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Jerry,
> > > > Yes. There was an ethics investigation that failed to sanction Sloa=
n.
> > > > The thinking was that even though he clearly violated the law, curr=
ent
> > > > bylaws didn't give specefic power to remove him from office without
> > > > inviting another wave of frivilous lawsuits which would have to be
> > > > defended against and which would most likely be lost by the USCF
> > > > because os a lack of restrictions under their bylaws.
>
> > > Incorrect. Sloan was reprimanded by the Ethics Committee, and Sloan's
> > > appeal to the Delegates was voted down. From the minutes of the 2007
> > > Annual Meeting:
>
> > > "The Delegates had been given a very extensive document that included
> > > all of the pertinent correspondence re: Sam Sloan's Ethics Committee
> > > decision appeal. Thanks to Hal Terrie, Pat Knight, and everyone else
> > > who helped compile and distribute the material.
>
> > > "Hal Terrie addressed the group regarding Sam Sloan's appeal and
> > > thanked Jim Gray. Sam Sloan presented his appeal. Jerry Hanken, Woody
> > > Harris, James Mennella, Sam Sloan, Hal Terrie, and Herbert Rodney
> > > Vaughn were among those that participated in the discussion.
>
> > > "Woody Harris then moved to uphold the action of the Ethics Committee=
.
> > > DM07-33 =E2=80=93 NDM07-48 (Harris) =E2=80=93 Move to uphold the acti=
on of the Ethics
> > > Committee re: the Sam Sloan appeal. PASSED."
>
> > > Sloan was also censured by the EB twice. Neither the EB nor the Ethic=
s
> > > Committee has the power to remove an elected Board member. I suppose
> > > they could have recommended a recall election, but since this would
> > > have cost several thousand dollars and shortened Sloan's term by
> > > perhaps four months, it would have been a very dubious idea.- Hide qu=
oted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Bylaws do not permit a recall if they have less than 12 months on
> > their term.
>
> Again incorrect. VI(11)(B) says:
>
> "A recall may not be initiated on a Board Member during the last four
> months of that member=E2=80=99s term of office."
>
> All this stuff is readily available on line, even if you're not a USCF
> member. You really ought to look it up before making public
> statements. I know, Sloan doesn't, but we're supposed to be better
> than that.
hey,
just going on what was relayed to me from executive officers. Dont
feel the need to look it up.
|
| |
Date: 12 Jul 2008 18:16:33
From:
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
Rob wrote:
> On Jul 11, 1:19=C2=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> > Rob wrote:
> > > On Jul 1, 6:55=EF=BF=BDpm, "[email protected]"
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 1, 1:52=EF=BF=BDpm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Jul 1, 1:24=EF=BF=BDpm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On Jul 1, 2:15 pm, "[email protected]"
> >
> > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > This lack of action is truly disgraceful; it is hard to imagi=
ne how it
> > > > > > > could happen. Sam, has anything happened recently in the cour=
t case? I
> > > > > > > am only interested in the case against Truong, and any develo=
pments on
> > > > > > > that front.
> >
> > > > > > > Jerry Spinrad
> >
> > > > > > No. There is still no decision. Motions to dismiss were marked
> > > > > > submitted on February 15, 2008. Nothing has happened since.
> >
> > > > > > Sam Sloan
> >
> > > > > No action was taken against Sloan for his actions either. Why did=
n't
> > > > > they
> >
> > > > Wayne Praeder's complaint to the ethics committee was completely
> > > > ignored for months. Are you saying that some complaint to the ethic=
s
> > > > committee about Sloan was scuttled without investigation?
> >
> > > > Restricting ourselves only to the FSS issue, Sloan has done nothing
> > > > wrong. Even if you believe that he is mistaken, there are no
> > > > accusations of Sloan's wrongdoing in this matter.
> >
> > > > Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > > Jerry,
> > > Yes. There was an ethics investigation that failed to sanction Sloan.
> > > The thinking was that even though he clearly violated the law, curren=
t
> > > bylaws didn't give specefic power to remove him from office without
> > > inviting another wave of frivilous lawsuits which would have to be
> > > defended against and which would most likely be lost by the USCF
> > > because os a lack of restrictions under their bylaws.
> >
> > Incorrect. Sloan was reprimanded by the Ethics Committee, and Sloan's
> > appeal to the Delegates was voted down. From the minutes of the 2007
> > Annual Meeting:
> >
> > "The Delegates had been given a very extensive document that included
> > all of the pertinent correspondence re: Sam Sloan's Ethics Committee
> > decision appeal. Thanks to Hal Terrie, Pat Knight, and everyone else
> > who helped compile and distribute the material.
> >
> > "Hal Terrie addressed the group regarding Sam Sloan's appeal and
> > thanked Jim Gray. Sam Sloan presented his appeal. Jerry Hanken, Woody
> > Harris, James Mennella, Sam Sloan, Hal Terrie, and Herbert Rodney
> > Vaughn were among those that participated in the discussion.
> >
> > "Woody Harris then moved to uphold the action of the Ethics Committee.
> > DM07-33 =E2=80=93 NDM07-48 (Harris) =E2=80=93 Move to uphold the action=
of the Ethics
> > Committee re: the Sam Sloan appeal. PASSED."
> >
> > Sloan was also censured by the EB twice. Neither the EB nor the Ethics
> > Committee has the power to remove an elected Board member. I suppose
> > they could have recommended a recall election, but since this would
> > have cost several thousand dollars and shortened Sloan's term by
> > perhaps four months, it would have been a very dubious idea.- Hide quot=
ed text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Bylaws do not permit a recall if they have less than 12 months on
> their term.
Again incorrect. VI(11)(B) says:
"A recall may not be initiated on a Board Member during the last four
months of that member=E2=80=99s term of office."
All this stuff is readily available on line, even if you're not a USCF
member. You really ought to look it up before making public
statements. I know, Sloan doesn't, but we're supposed to be better
than that.
|
| |
Date: 11 Jul 2008 08:23:06
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
On Jul 11, 1:19=C2=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> Rob wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 6:55=EF=BF=BDpm, "[email protected]"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Jul 1, 1:52=EF=BF=BDpm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 1, 1:24=EF=BF=BDpm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 1, 2:15 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > This lack of action is truly disgraceful; it is hard to imagine=
how it
> > > > > > could happen. Sam, has anything happened recently in the court =
case? I
> > > > > > am only interested in the case against Truong, and any developm=
ents on
> > > > > > that front.
>
> > > > > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > > > No. There is still no decision. Motions to dismiss were marked
> > > > > submitted on February 15, 2008. Nothing has happened since.
>
> > > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > > No action was taken against Sloan for his actions either. Why didn'=
t
> > > > they
>
> > > Wayne Praeder's complaint to the ethics committee was completely
> > > ignored for months. Are you saying that some complaint to the ethics
> > > committee about Sloan was scuttled without investigation?
>
> > > Restricting ourselves only to the FSS issue, Sloan has done nothing
> > > wrong. Even if you believe that he is mistaken, there are no
> > > accusations of Sloan's wrongdoing in this matter.
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Jerry,
> > Yes. There was an ethics investigation that failed to sanction Sloan.
> > The thinking was that even though he clearly violated the law, current
> > bylaws didn't give specefic power to remove him from office without
> > inviting another wave of frivilous lawsuits which would have to be
> > defended against and which would most likely be lost by the USCF
> > because os a lack of restrictions under their bylaws.
>
> Incorrect. Sloan was reprimanded by the Ethics Committee, and Sloan's
> appeal to the Delegates was voted down. From the minutes of the 2007
> Annual Meeting:
>
> "The Delegates had been given a very extensive document that included
> all of the pertinent correspondence re: Sam Sloan's Ethics Committee
> decision appeal. Thanks to Hal Terrie, Pat Knight, and everyone else
> who helped compile and distribute the material.
>
> "Hal Terrie addressed the group regarding Sam Sloan's appeal and
> thanked Jim Gray. Sam Sloan presented his appeal. Jerry Hanken, Woody
> Harris, James Mennella, Sam Sloan, Hal Terrie, and Herbert Rodney
> Vaughn were among those that participated in the discussion.
>
> "Woody Harris then moved to uphold the action of the Ethics Committee.
> DM07-33 =E2=80=93 NDM07-48 (Harris) =E2=80=93 Move to uphold the action o=
f the Ethics
> Committee re: the Sam Sloan appeal. PASSED."
>
> Sloan was also censured by the EB twice. Neither the EB nor the Ethics
> Committee has the power to remove an elected Board member. I suppose
> they could have recommended a recall election, but since this would
> have cost several thousand dollars and shortened Sloan's term by
> perhaps four months, it would have been a very dubious idea.- Hide quoted=
text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Bylaws do not permit a recall if they have less than 12 months on
their term
|
| |
Date: 10 Jul 2008 23:19:18
From:
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
Rob wrote:
> On Jul 1, 6:55=EF=BF=BDpm, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 1:52=EF=BF=BDpm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Jul 1, 1:24=EF=BF=BDpm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > On Jul 1, 2:15 pm, "[email protected]"
> >
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > This lack of action is truly disgraceful; it is hard to imagine h=
ow it
> > > > > could happen. Sam, has anything happened recently in the court ca=
se? I
> > > > > am only interested in the case against Truong, and any developmen=
ts on
> > > > > that front.
> >
> > > > > Jerry Spinrad
> >
> > > > No. There is still no decision. Motions to dismiss were marked
> > > > submitted on February 15, 2008. Nothing has happened since.
> >
> > > > Sam Sloan
> >
> > > No action was taken against Sloan for his actions either. Why didn't
> > > they
> >
> > Wayne Praeder's complaint to the ethics committee was completely
> > ignored for months. Are you saying that some complaint to the ethics
> > committee about Sloan was scuttled without investigation?
> >
> > Restricting ourselves only to the FSS issue, Sloan has done nothing
> > wrong. Even if you believe that he is mistaken, there are no
> > accusations of Sloan's wrongdoing in this matter.
> >
> > Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
> >
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Jerry,
> Yes. There was an ethics investigation that failed to sanction Sloan.
> The thinking was that even though he clearly violated the law, current
> bylaws didn't give specefic power to remove him from office without
> inviting another wave of frivilous lawsuits which would have to be
> defended against and which would most likely be lost by the USCF
> because os a lack of restrictions under their bylaws.
Incorrect. Sloan was reprimanded by the Ethics Committee, and Sloan's
appeal to the Delegates was voted down. From the minutes of the 2007
Annual Meeting:
"The Delegates had been given a very extensive document that included
all of the pertinent correspondence re: Sam Sloan's Ethics Committee
decision appeal. Thanks to Hal Terrie, Pat Knight, and everyone else
who helped compile and distribute the material.
"Hal Terrie addressed the group regarding Sam Sloan's appeal and
thanked Jim Gray. Sam Sloan presented his appeal. Jerry Hanken, Woody
Harris, James Mennella, Sam Sloan, Hal Terrie, and Herbert Rodney
Vaughn were among those that participated in the discussion.
"Woody Harris then moved to uphold the action of the Ethics Committee.
DM07-33 =E2=80=93 NDM07-48 (Harris) =E2=80=93 Move to uphold the action of =
the Ethics
Committee re: the Sam Sloan appeal. PASSED."
Sloan was also censured by the EB twice. Neither the EB nor the Ethics
Committee has the power to remove an elected Board member. I suppose
they could have recommended a recall election, but since this would
have cost several thousand dollars and shortened Sloan's term by
perhaps four months, it would have been a very dubious idea.
|
| |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 05:06:46
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
On Jul 3, 7:51 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> I imagine that Mr. Praeder did not submit the fee for filing his
> complaint. If you do not pay the fee it is unlikely they will hear it.
Not true. In fact, he did pay the filing fee. If you read his web site
you will see that now that the Ethics Committee has taken no action on
it after six months, he wants his fee refunded and Bill Hall has
agreed to refund his fee.
What is obviously really going on is that the Chairman of the Ethics
Committee, William Deer, known here as Wickdeer, is a long time
frequent attacker of Sam Sloan. Wickdeer has not posted here in
several years but when he did post almost all of his postings were
attacks on Sam Sloan.
He probably does not want to take any action on Wayne Praeder's Ethics
Complaint against Paul Truong because he feels that this would be
helpful to me.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 09:42:50
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:e635e96f-41d1-4508-b726-3382e9b9d411@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 3, 7:51 am, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I imagine that Mr. Praeder did not submit the fee for filing his
>> complaint. If you do not pay the fee it is unlikely they will hear it.
>
> Not true. In fact, he did pay the filing fee. If you read his web site
> you will see that now that the Ethics Committee has taken no action on
> it after six months, he wants his fee refunded and Bill Hall has
> agreed to refund his fee.
>
> What is obviously really going on is that the Chairman of the Ethics
> Committee, William Deer, known here as Wickdeer, is a long time
> frequent attacker of Sam Sloan. Wickdeer has not posted here in
> several years but when he did post almost all of his postings were
> attacks on Sam Sloan.
Wrong. I played him 2 games of corres chess - he is I think uscf 2150 rated,
and managed to win both. Perhaps because of that or other commentary about
USCF, he showed up with a terse comment or two of his own late last year
[was it?] I think he may have also dropped a comment into the NY Times
blog - but I am uncertain of dates and issues
That posting was not contra-Sloan. It was contra-Innes. It was of course to
deny that nothing was wrong, thereby nothing needed to be investigated - I
am not sure what the volunteered comment Wick made to my comment, though its
likely on the Tanner ratings scandal - at the time I had asked:
How did it come about without anyone noticing?
To what extent is this common at USCF?
What has been done to fix the problem?
and also
How come USCF still receives material from Mr. Tanner when he is acting as a
TD?
These questions, naturally are all now 'responded to', rather than being
answered!
> He probably does not want to take any action on Wayne Praeder's Ethics
> Complaint against Paul Truong because he feels that this would be
> helpful to me.
The USCF Ethics committee has long been a joke, and Sam Sloan might find it
incredible that it is not all about him, but some of their jokey behavior
long precedes himself.
In fact their resolutions, operations, transparency [lead-lined], rules of
procedure, timeliness [on the geological scale], are legendarily vague. They
do not actively investigate anything, no matter how egregious - an issue
must be brought to them along with a check.
I suppose if the ethics committee themselves feel no ethical responsibility
to act ethically on receipt of a paid-for complaint, then that itself is a
sort of answer and illustration to their obscurantism.
When I myself asked the board directly about Mr. Truong - and received a
reply - it was to the effect that it was secret, and that that was the
advice of their lawyers. Mr. Truong himself has said, as has his wife, GM
Polgar, that he did not wish there to be any official secrets.
This rather removes Mr. Truong from any conspiracy with the Ethics board to
suppress Wayne Paeder's case - and instead I suspect that the complaint was
not dealt with for similar reasons as the board's reply to myself.
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 04:51:58
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
On Jul 2, 4:55 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 2, 12:45 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 6:55 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Jul 1, 1:52 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 1, 1:24 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 1, 2:15 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > This lack of action is truly disgraceful; it is hard to imagine how it
> > > > > > could happen. Sam, has anything happened recently in the court case? I
> > > > > > am only interested in the case against Truong, and any developments on
> > > > > > that front.
>
> > > > > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > > > No. There is still no decision. Motions to dismiss were marked
> > > > > submitted on February 15, 2008. Nothing has happened since.
>
> > > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > > No action was taken against Sloan for his actions either. Why didn't
> > > > they
>
> > > Wayne Praeder's complaint to the ethics committee was completely
> > > ignored for months. Are you saying that some complaint to the ethics
> > > committee about Sloan was scuttled without investigation?
>
> > > Restricting ourselves only to the FSS issue, Sloan has done nothing
> > > wrong. Even if you believe that he is mistaken, there are no
> > > accusations of Sloan's wrongdoing in this matter.
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Jerry,
> > Yes. There was an ethics investigation that failed to sanction Sloan.
> > The thinking was that even though he clearly violated the law, current
> > bylaws didn't give specefic power to remove him from office without
> > inviting another wave of frivilous lawsuits which would have to be
> > defended against and which would most likely be lost by the USCF
> > because os a lack of restrictions under their bylaws.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> It sounds like the ethics committee did not ignore this case; it
> discussed it, and decided against it. Since I do not know the nature
> of the complaint, I cannot comment on its justice; at least, the
> committee looked at it and acted. Until I hear more evidence, I have
> no reason to believe that the committee was wrong in their decision.
>
> Violating the law, of course, is not in itself a reason for a USCF
> ethics complaint. Just as an example, if Sam had been arrested in an
> anti-war protest, it would not be appropriate for the USCF to sanction
> him in any way. If you want to contend that the ethics committee was
> grossly negligent in the case, you will have to describe the complaint
> in more detail. I do not recall this being a cause celebre, despite
> being a regular reader of this newsgroup. My vague recollection was
> that there was an issue of whether a Sloan accusation was uncivil, but
> I am not sure that this is the case you are referring to.
>
> On the other hand, completely ignoring the case, as seems to have
> happened in the Praeder complaint, seems hard to justify.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
I imagine that Mr. Praeder did not submit the fee for filing his
complaint. If you do not pay the fee it is unlikely they will hear it.
|
| |
Date: 03 Jul 2008 08:39:22
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
SBD wrote:
.
> It's pretty clear why he attacks Sloan as a puppet'\windmill tilter
> for Trollgrinnes.
As a puppet/toady perhaps. As a windmill-tilter? Sancho(Rob) never does
do this. Tilting @ windmills is the Don's exclusive domain. So sorry -
not clear at all..
|
| |
Date: 02 Jul 2008 14:55:50
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
On Jul 2, 12:45=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 6:55=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jul 1, 1:52=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 1, 1:24=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 1, 2:15 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > This lack of action is truly disgraceful; it is hard to imagine h=
ow it
> > > > > could happen. Sam, has anything happened recently in the court ca=
se? I
> > > > > am only interested in the case against Truong, and any developmen=
ts on
> > > > > that front.
>
> > > > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > > No. There is still no decision. Motions to dismiss were marked
> > > > submitted on February 15, 2008. Nothing has happened since.
>
> > > > Sam Sloan
>
> > > No action was taken against Sloan for his actions either. Why didn't
> > > they
>
> > Wayne Praeder's complaint to the ethics committee was completely
> > ignored for months. Are you saying that some complaint to the ethics
> > committee about Sloan was scuttled without investigation?
>
> > Restricting ourselves only to the FSS issue, Sloan has done nothing
> > wrong. Even if you believe that he is mistaken, there are no
> > accusations of Sloan's wrongdoing in this matter.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Jerry,
> Yes. There was an ethics investigation that failed to sanction Sloan.
> The thinking was that even though he clearly violated the law, current
> bylaws didn't give specefic power to remove him from office without
> inviting another wave of frivilous lawsuits which would have to be
> defended against and which would most likely be lost by the USCF
> because os a lack of restrictions under their bylaws.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It sounds like the ethics committee did not ignore this case; it
discussed it, and decided against it. Since I do not know the nature
of the complaint, I cannot comment on its justice; at least, the
committee looked at it and acted. Until I hear more evidence, I have
no reason to believe that the committee was wrong in their decision.
Violating the law, of course, is not in itself a reason for a USCF
ethics complaint. Just as an example, if Sam had been arrested in an
anti-war protest, it would not be appropriate for the USCF to sanction
him in any way. If you want to contend that the ethics committee was
grossly negligent in the case, you will have to describe the complaint
in more detail. I do not recall this being a cause celebre, despite
being a regular reader of this newsgroup. My vague recollection was
that there was an issue of whether a Sloan accusation was uncivil, but
I am not sure that this is the case you are referring to.
On the other hand, completely ignoring the case, as seems to have
happened in the Praeder complaint, seems hard to justify.
Jerry Spinrad
|
| |
Date: 02 Jul 2008 11:26:34
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
On Jul 2, 1:45 pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> Jerry,
> Yes. There was an ethics investigation that failed to sanction Sloan.
> The thinking was that even though he clearly violated the law, current
> bylaws didn't give specefic power to remove him from office without
> inviting another wave of frivilous lawsuits which would have to be
> defended against and which would most likely be lost by the USCF
> because os a lack of restrictions under their bylaws.
Please specify: What law did I violate and what did I do, according to
you, to violate said law?
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 02 Jul 2008 17:34:58
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
The Sloan asks as if he hadn't already been told a dozen times. He has even
publicly responded to previous accusations about his behavior. So... another
empty question? For example, what would he do if he knew his offence, argue
the law wasn't cool to such as himself?
Phil Innes
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Jul 2, 1:45 pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Jerry,
>> Yes. There was an ethics investigation that failed to sanction Sloan.
>> The thinking was that even though he clearly violated the law, current
>> bylaws didn't give specefic power to remove him from office without
>> inviting another wave of frivilous lawsuits which would have to be
>> defended against and which would most likely be lost by the USCF
>> because os a lack of restrictions under their bylaws.
>
> Please specify: What law did I violate and what did I do, according to
> you, to violate said law?
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Jul 2008 15:39:42
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
Chess One wrote:
>
> The Sloan asks as if he hadn't already been told a dozen times. He has even
> publicly responded to previous accusations about his behavior. So... another
> empty question? For example, what would he do if he knew his offence, argue
> the law wasn't cool to such as himself?
Ach! the list is endless where the law 'is' patently @ fault - dodgy
speed-cameras, pre-war nazi Germany & exhortations to mindless, busybody
& do-gooding fuckwits to 'dob in a citizen' are just a few examples..
But, to cut to the chase - Sloan has had so many accusations levelled
against him that the poor sod is simply requesting Sancho-Rob to specify
which so called 'offense' is being referred to. Is that such a big
ask?..
nobody.
> >> Jerry,
> >> Yes. There was an ethics investigation that failed to sanction Sloan.
> >> The thinking was that even though he clearly violated the law, current
> >> bylaws didn't give specefic power to remove him from office without
> >> inviting another wave of frivilous lawsuits which would have to be
> >> defended against and which would most likely be lost by the USCF
> >> because os a lack of restrictions under their bylaws.
> >
> > Please specify: What law did I violate and what did I do, according to
> > you, to violate said law?
> >
> > Sam Sloan
|
| | | | |
Date: 04 Jul 2008 11:28:53
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
"nobody" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> The Sloan asks as if he hadn't already been told a dozen times. He has
>> even
>> publicly responded to previous accusations about his behavior. So...
>> another
>> empty question? For example, what would he do if he knew his offence,
>> argue
>> the law wasn't cool to such as himself?
>
> Ach! the list is endless where the law 'is' patently @ fault - dodgy
> speed-cameras, pre-war nazi Germany & exhortations to mindless, busybody
> & do-gooding fuckwits to 'dob in a citizen' are just a few examples..
>
> But, to cut to the chase - Sloan has had so many accusations levelled
> against him that the poor sod is simply requesting Sancho-Rob to specify
> which so called 'offense' is being referred to. Is that such a big
> ask?..
It is when you already asked 3 times, were told 3 times, public and private,
and still pretend that you dunno what the question is.
Talked Anton last week, also Grimes! Arthur's dead. Digby still kicking.
PI
> nobody.
>
>
>
>
>> >> Jerry,
>> >> Yes. There was an ethics investigation that failed to sanction Sloan.
>> >> The thinking was that even though he clearly violated the law, current
>> >> bylaws didn't give specefic power to remove him from office without
>> >> inviting another wave of frivilous lawsuits which would have to be
>> >> defended against and which would most likely be lost by the USCF
>> >> because os a lack of restrictions under their bylaws.
>> >
>> > Please specify: What law did I violate and what did I do, according to
>> > you, to violate said law?
>> >
>> > Sam Sloan
|
| | | | | |
Date: 05 Jul 2008 02:58:13
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
Chess One wrote:
.
> Talked Anton last week, also Grimes! Arthur's dead. Digby still kicking.
Oh - well that's interesting. Can't say I know of the other three, but I
do know the Grimes. Which _Grimes_ are we talking here - Phil?..
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 07 Jul 2008 11:36:21
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee [ot]..
|
nobody wrote:
>
> Chess One wrote:
> .
> > Talked Anton last week, also Grimes! Arthur's dead. Digby still kicking.
What about the McCabes - they were St Ives folk, Rob in particular? He's
about the same age & used to hang with the lifeboat-men. Any
recollection?..
n.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Jul 2008 06:50:59
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee [ot]..
|
"nobody" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> nobody wrote:
>>
>> Chess One wrote:
>> .
>> > Talked Anton last week, also Grimes! Arthur's dead. Digby still
>> > kicking.
>
> What about the McCabes - they were St Ives folk, Rob in particular? He's
> about the same age & used to hang with the lifeboat-men. Any
> recollection?..
No - don't remember them at all! Maybe a picture would do it rather than the
name. The only memory about S'nives I have is a winter game, pouring rain,
and we were on 1 & 2, and our non-playing super-hero walked by and asked
what Innes was doing on board 1 against the cornish champion, and you said,
'beating him'.
I suppose memory is a bit selective like that.
I remember playing in Penzance, and it was always raining there too, but at
least you could get a pint - or, at least you did!
Do you remember the bloke at C-R always had a copy of My System under his
arm? I've forgotten his name, anyway I suspect they buried him with it
exactly like that. I mostly remember Viv Williams and his dogs - and Anton
showing up and complaining he had worked all day and no wonder we were
wunder-kind, since we hadn't!
The other Phil is now head of country chess assoc, prob still playing the
Pirc. Things gone down hill quite a bit, Anton wrote, only about half the
teams there used to be - top boards in the country seem to be about 175.
> n.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 04 Jul 2008 17:39:41
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
"nobody" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Chess One wrote:
> .
>> Talked Anton last week, also Grimes! Arthur's dead. Digby still kicking.
>
> Oh - well that's interesting. Can't say I know of the other three, but I
> do know the Grimes. Which _Grimes_ are we talking here - Phil?..
Roger. ex-helston, C/R, Falmouth
pi
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 06 Jul 2008 12:50:46
From: nobody
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
Chess One wrote:
>
> "nobody" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Chess One wrote:
> > .
> >> Talked Anton last week, also Grimes! Arthur's dead. Digby still kicking.
> >
> > Oh - well that's interesting. Can't say I know of the other three, but I
> > do know the Grimes. Which _Grimes_ are we talking here - Phil?..
>
> Roger. ex-helston, C/R, Falmouth
>
> pi
Mines, Tim-Simon-Oona etc. (Nottinghill Gate) probably related..
n.
|
| |
Date: 02 Jul 2008 10:45:58
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
On Jul 1, 6:55=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 1:52=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 1, 1:24=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 1, 2:15 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > This lack of action is truly disgraceful; it is hard to imagine how =
it
> > > > could happen. Sam, has anything happened recently in the court case?=
I
> > > > am only interested in the case against Truong, and any developments =
on
> > > > that front.
>
> > > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > No. There is still no decision. Motions to dismiss were marked
> > > submitted on February 15, 2008. Nothing has happened since.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > No action was taken against Sloan for his actions either. Why didn't
> > they
>
> Wayne Praeder's complaint to the ethics committee was completely
> ignored for months. Are you saying that some complaint to the ethics
> committee about Sloan was scuttled without investigation?
>
> Restricting ourselves only to the FSS issue, Sloan has done nothing
> wrong. Even if you believe that he is mistaken, there are no
> accusations of Sloan's wrongdoing in this matter.
>
> Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jerry,
Yes. There was an ethics investigation that failed to sanction Sloan.
The thinking was that even though he clearly violated the law, current
bylaws didn't give specefic power to remove him from office without
inviting another wave of frivilous lawsuits which would have to be
defended against and which would most likely be lost by the USCF
because os a lack of restrictions under their bylaws.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 19:53:02
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
On Jul 1, 4:33 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:db45dfc5-97a2-44f4-bb0e-e5372879b6d7@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> This lack of action is truly disgraceful; it is hard to imagine how it
> could happen. Sam, has anything happened recently in the court case? I
> am only interested in the case against Truong, and any developments on
> that front.
>
> **There are a few things the PhD journalist might consider - the first is to
> write sentences. Example, "This lack of action is truly disgraceful" but
> action by whom?
>
> **The second is the same; "it is hard to imagine how it could happen".
> Without ace historical writer even mentioning what "it" is.
Confirmation that P Innes isn't even bright enough to puzzle out a
complex sentence. Who would have thunk it?
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 17:27:01
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
On Jul 1, 6:55 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Restricting ourselves only to the FSS issue, Sloan has done nothing
> wrong. Even if you believe that he is mistaken, there are no
> accusations of Sloan's wrongdoing in this matter.
It's pretty clear why he attacks Sloan as a puppet'\windmill tilter
for Trollgrinnes.
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 16:55:31
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
On Jul 1, 1:52=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 1:24=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 1, 2:15 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > This lack of action is truly disgraceful; it is hard to imagine how it=
> > > could happen. Sam, has anything happened recently in the court case? I=
> > > am only interested in the case against Truong, and any developments on=
> > > that front.
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > No. There is still no decision. Motions to dismiss were marked
> > submitted on February 15, 2008. Nothing has happened since.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> No action was taken against Sloan for his actions either. Why didn't
> they
Wayne Praeder's complaint to the ethics committee was completely
ignored for months. Are you saying that some complaint to the ethics
committee about Sloan was scuttled without investigation?
Restricting ourselves only to the FSS issue, Sloan has done nothing
wrong. Even if you believe that he is mistaken, there are no
accusations of Sloan's wrongdoing in this matter.
Jerry Spinrad
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 11:52:02
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
On Jul 1, 1:24=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jul 1, 2:15 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > This lack of action is truly disgraceful; it is hard to imagine how it
> > could happen. Sam, has anything happened recently in the court case? I
> > am only interested in the case against Truong, and any developments on
> > that front.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> No. There is still no decision. Motions to dismiss were marked
> submitted on February 15, 2008. Nothing has happened since.
>
> Sam Sloan
No action was taken against Sloan for his actions either. Why didn't
they
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 11:24:07
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
On Jul 1, 2:15 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> This lack of action is truly disgraceful; it is hard to imagine how it
> could happen. Sam, has anything happened recently in the court case? I
> am only interested in the case against Truong, and any developments on
> that front.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
No. There is still no decision. Motions to dismiss were marked
submitted on February 15, 2008. Nothing has happened since.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 11:15:14
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
This lack of action is truly disgraceful; it is hard to imagine how it
could happen. Sam, has anything happened recently in the court case? I
am only interested in the case against Truong, and any developments on
that front.
Jerry Spinrad
On Jun 30, 6:20=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Wayne Praeder has just posted on his website information about his
> ethics complaint against Paul Truong regarding the Fake Sam Sloan
> Postings.
>
> http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/case.htm
>
> It appears that in January 2008, Praeder filed a complaint against
> Truong regarding the so-called "Fake Sam Sloan" postings in which
> Truong over a two year period impersonated numerous other chess
> personalities, including me.
>
> Since then, six months have passed and nothing at all has happened to
> the ethics complaint. The committee has not even decided whether to
> accept or decline the case.
>
> It is to be recalled that on September 20, 2007 when Brian Mottershead
> informed Bill Goichberg of his findings, Goichberg told Mottershead to
> keep quiet about it except to refer it to the Ethics Committee.
>
> We can see what would have happened had Mottershead done that.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 01 Jul 2008 17:33:55
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Ethics Committee Takes No Action on Complaint Against Truong
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:db45dfc5-97a2-44f4-bb0e-e5372879b6d7@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
This lack of action is truly disgraceful; it is hard to imagine how it
could happen. Sam, has anything happened recently in the court case? I
am only interested in the case against Truong, and any developments on
that front.
**There are a few things the PhD journalist might consider - the first is to
write sentences. Example, "This lack of action is truly disgraceful" but
action by whom?
**The second is the same; "it is hard to imagine how it could happen".
Without ace historical writer even mentioning what "it" is.
** We know that Jerry Spinrad openly avows only wanting to prosecute
Truong - he wrote it directly above - if its nots Truong, he ain't
interested.
** We all know his orientation to the truth in contradistinction to
partialities - that is to say, he neglects the former. Even after being
given a massive clue by Sue Polgar herself, which checked his own action,
the very next post in public was right back on target!
**Go tigers! Though I don't think Jerry Spinrad does more than meow.
** A writer on chess history? Gordon Bennet! This guy publicly declares he
is not interested in even current affairs - declares it without irony "I am
only interested in the case against Truong".
Some history reseacher! Some man?
Phil Innes
Jerry Spinrad
On Jun 30, 6:20 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Wayne Praeder has just posted on his website information about his
> ethics complaint against Paul Truong regarding the Fake Sam Sloan
> Postings.
>
> http://members.aol.com/wpraeder/case.htm
>
> It appears that in January 2008, Praeder filed a complaint against
> Truong regarding the so-called "Fake Sam Sloan" postings in which
> Truong over a two year period impersonated numerous other chess
> personalities, including me.
>
> Since then, six months have passed and nothing at all has happened to
> the ethics complaint. The committee has not even decided whether to
> accept or decline the case.
>
> It is to be recalled that on September 20, 2007 when Brian Mottershead
> informed Bill Goichberg of his findings, Goichberg told Mottershead to
> keep quiet about it except to refer it to the Ethics Committee.
>
> We can see what would have happened had Mottershead done that.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
|
