Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

Main

Date: 04 Jan 2009 18:50:44
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

None of these that were active were disclosed in Truong's bankruptcy
filing in 2007.

Florida Profit Corporation
PALM COAST MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.
Filing Information
Document Number P98000049010
FEI Number NONE
Date Filed 05/29/1998
State FL
Status INACTIVE
Last Event ADMIN DISSOLUTION FOR ANNUAL REPORT
Event Date Filed 09/24/1999
Event Effective Date NONE
Principal Address
25 CARLSON LANE
PALM COAST FL 32137
Mailing Address
25 CARLSON LANE
PALM COAST FL 32137
Registered Agent Name & Address
TRUONG, HOAINHAN M
25 CARLSON LANE
PALM COAST FL 32137
Officer/Director Detail
Name & Address
NONE
Annual Reports
No Annual Reports Filed
Document Images
05/29/1998 -- Domestic Profit

Florida Profit Corporation
POLGAR CHESS, INC.
Filing Information
Document Number P02000036631
FEI Number 412037019
Date Filed 04/03/2002
State FL
Status ACTIVE
Principal Address
103-10 QUEENS BLVD
1C
FOREST HILLS NY 11375
Changed 04/12/2004
Mailing Address
6923 INDIANA AVE.
#154
LUBBOCK TX 79413
Changed 05/12/2008
Registered Agent Name & Address
TRUONG, HOAINHAN M
25 CARLSON LANE
PALM COAST FL 32137 US
Name Changed: 05/19/2003
Address Changed: 04/12/2004
Officer/Director Detail
Name & Address
Title D
POLGAR, SUSAN
6923 INDIANA AVE. #154
LUBBOCK TX 79413
Title CFO
TRUONG, HOAINHAN M
25 CARLSON LANE
PALM COAST FL 32137
Annual Reports
Report Year Filed Date
2006 03/20/2006
2007 01/29/2007
2008 05/12/2008

Florida Profit Corporation
INTERNATIONAL CHESS MARKETING, INC.
Filing Information
Document Number P02000058435
FEI Number 820566608
Date Filed 05/24/2002
State FL
Status ACTIVE
Principal Address
107-23 71ST RD., STE. #137
FOREST HILLS NY 11375
Mailing Address
6923 INDIANA AVENUE
SUITE #154
LUBBOCK TX 79413
Changed 05/12/2008
Registered Agent Name & Address
TRUOUG, MICHEL
25 CARLSON LANE
PALM COAST FL 32137 US
Name Changed: 05/12/2008
Address Changed: 05/12/2008
Officer/Director Detail
Name & Address
Title D
POLGAR, ZSUZSANNA
6923 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE #154
LUBBOCK TX 79413
Title CEO
TRUONG, HOAINHAN M
25 CARLSON LANE
PALM COAST FL 32169
Annual Reports
Report Year Filed Date
2006 03/20/2006
2007 01/29/2007
2008 05/12/2008

Florida Profit Corporation
POLGAR CHESS, INC.
Filing Information
Document Number P02000036631
FEI Number 412037019
Date Filed 04/03/2002
State FL
Status ACTIVE
Principal Address
103-10 QUEENS BLVD
1C
FOREST HILLS NY 11375
Changed 04/12/2004
Mailing Address
6923 INDIANA AVE.
#154
LUBBOCK TX 79413
Changed 05/12/2008
Registered Agent Name & Address
TRUONG, HOAINHAN M
25 CARLSON LANE
PALM COAST FL 32137 US
Name Changed: 05/19/2003
Address Changed: 04/12/2004
Officer/Director Detail
Name & Address
Title D
POLGAR, SUSAN
6923 INDIANA AVE. #154
LUBBOCK TX 79413
Title CFO
TRUONG, HOAINHAN M
25 CARLSON LANE
PALM COAST FL 32137
Annual Reports
Report Year Filed Date
2006 03/20/2006
2007 01/29/2007
2008 05/12/2008

Florida Profit Corporation
INTERSTATE CHESS MARKETING, INC.
Filing Information
Document Number P02000058431
FEI Number 820566609
Date Filed 05/24/2002
State FL
Status ACTIVE
Principal Address
25 CARLSON LANE
PALM COAST FL 32137
Changed 03/20/2006
Mailing Address
6923 INDIANA AVE
#154
LUBBOCK TX 79413
Changed 05/12/2008
Registered Agent Name & Address
TRUONG, MICHEL
25 CARLSON LANE
PALM COAST FL 32137 US
Name Changed: 05/12/2008
Address Changed: 05/12/2008
Officer/Director Detail
Name & Address
Title D
POLGAR, ZSUZSANNA
6923 INDIANA AVE #154
LUBBOCK TX 79413
Title CEO
TRUONG, HOAINHAN M
25 CARLSON LANES
PALM COAST FL 32137
Annual Reports
Report Year Filed Date
2006 03/20/2006
2007 01/29/2007
2008 05/12/2008

Date: 04 Jan 2009 13:14:26
From:
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

On Jan 4, 12:50=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> None of these that were active were disclosed in Truong's bankruptcy
> filing in 2007.
>
> Florida Profit Corporation =A0 =A0 =A0
> PALM COAST MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.
> Filing Information
> Document Number =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 P98000049010
> FEI Number =A0 =A0 =A0NONE
> Date Filed =A0 =A0 =A005/29/1998
> State =A0 FL
> Status =A0INACTIVE
> Last Event =A0 =A0 =A0ADMIN DISSOLUTION FOR ANNUAL REPORT
> Event Date Filed =A0 =A0 =A0 =A009/24/1999
> Event Effective Date =A0 =A0NONE
> Principal Address
> 25 CARLSON LANE
> PALM COAST FL 32137
> Mailing Address
> 25 CARLSON LANE
> PALM COAST FL 32137
> Registered Agent Name & Address
> TRUONG, HOAINHAN M
> 25 CARLSON LANE
> PALM COAST FL 32137
> Officer/Director Detail
> Name & Address
> NONE
> Annual Reports
> No Annual Reports Filed
> Document Images
> 05/29/1998 -- Domestic Profit =A0
>
> Florida Profit Corporation =A0 =A0 =A0
> POLGAR CHESS, INC.
> Filing Information
> Document Number =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 P02000036631
> FEI Number =A0 =A0 =A0412037019
> Date Filed =A0 =A0 =A004/03/2002
> State =A0 FL
> Status =A0ACTIVE
> Principal Address
> 103-10 QUEENS BLVD
> 1C
> FOREST HILLS NY 11375
> Changed 04/12/2004
> Mailing Address
> 6923 INDIANA AVE.
> #154
> LUBBOCK TX 79413
> Changed 05/12/2008
> Registered Agent Name & Address
> TRUONG, HOAINHAN M
> 25 CARLSON LANE
> PALM COAST FL 32137 US
> Name Changed: 05/19/2003
> Address Changed: 04/12/2004
> Officer/Director Detail
> Name & Address
> Title D
> POLGAR, SUSAN
> 6923 INDIANA AVE. #154
> LUBBOCK TX 79413
> Title CFO
> TRUONG, HOAINHAN M
> 25 CARLSON LANE
> PALM COAST FL 32137
> Annual Reports
> Report Year =A0 =A0 Filed Date
> 2006 =A0 =A003/20/2006
> 2007 =A0 =A001/29/2007
> 2008 =A0 =A005/12/2008
>
> Florida Profit Corporation =A0 =A0 =A0
> INTERNATIONAL CHESS MARKETING, INC.
> Filing Information
> Document Number =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 P02000058435
> FEI Number =A0 =A0 =A0820566608
> Date Filed =A0 =A0 =A005/24/2002
> State =A0 FL
> Status =A0ACTIVE
> Principal Address
> 107-23 71ST RD., STE. #137
> FOREST HILLS NY 11375
> Mailing Address
> 6923 INDIANA AVENUE
> SUITE #154
> LUBBOCK TX 79413
> Changed 05/12/2008
> Registered Agent Name & Address
> TRUOUG, MICHEL
> 25 CARLSON LANE
> PALM COAST FL 32137 US
> Name Changed: 05/12/2008
> Address Changed: 05/12/2008
> Officer/Director Detail
> Name & Address
> Title D
> POLGAR, ZSUZSANNA
> 6923 INDIANA AVENUE, SUITE #154
> LUBBOCK TX 79413
> Title CEO
> TRUONG, HOAINHAN M
> 25 CARLSON LANE
> PALM COAST FL 32169
> Annual Reports
> Report Year =A0 =A0 Filed Date
> 2006 =A0 =A003/20/2006
> 2007 =A0 =A001/29/2007
> 2008 =A0 =A005/12/2008
>
> Florida Profit Corporation =A0 =A0 =A0
> POLGAR CHESS, INC.
> Filing Information
> Document Number =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 P02000036631
> FEI Number =A0 =A0 =A0412037019
> Date Filed =A0 =A0 =A004/03/2002
> State =A0 FL
> Status =A0ACTIVE
> Principal Address
> 103-10 QUEENS BLVD
> 1C
> FOREST HILLS NY 11375
> Changed 04/12/2004
> Mailing Address
> 6923 INDIANA AVE.
> #154
> LUBBOCK TX 79413
> Changed 05/12/2008
> Registered Agent Name & Address
> TRUONG, HOAINHAN M
> 25 CARLSON LANE
> PALM COAST FL 32137 US
> Name Changed: 05/19/2003
> Address Changed: 04/12/2004
> Officer/Director Detail
> Name & Address
> Title D
> POLGAR, SUSAN
> 6923 INDIANA AVE. #154
> LUBBOCK TX 79413
> Title CFO
> TRUONG, HOAINHAN M
> 25 CARLSON LANE
> PALM COAST FL 32137
> Annual Reports
> Report Year =A0 =A0 Filed Date
> 2006 =A0 =A003/20/2006
> 2007 =A0 =A001/29/2007
> 2008 =A0 =A005/12/2008
>
> Florida Profit Corporation =A0 =A0 =A0
> INTERSTATE CHESS MARKETING, INC.
> Filing Information
> Document Number =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 P02000058431
> FEI Number =A0 =A0 =A0820566609
> Date Filed =A0 =A0 =A005/24/2002
> State =A0 FL
> Status =A0ACTIVE
> Principal Address
> 25 CARLSON LANE
> PALM COAST FL 32137
> Changed 03/20/2006
> Mailing Address
> 6923 INDIANA AVE
> #154
> LUBBOCK TX 79413
> Changed 05/12/2008
> Registered Agent Name & Address
> TRUONG, MICHEL
> 25 CARLSON LANE
> PALM COAST FL 32137 US
> Name Changed: 05/12/2008
> Address Changed: 05/12/2008
> Officer/Director Detail
> Name & Address
> Title D
> POLGAR, ZSUZSANNA
> 6923 INDIANA AVE #154
> LUBBOCK TX 79413
> Title CEO
> TRUONG, HOAINHAN M
> 25 CARLSON LANES
> PALM COAST FL 32137
> Annual Reports
> Report Year =A0 =A0 Filed Date
> 2006 =A0 =A003/20/2006
> 2007 =A0 =A001/29/2007
> 2008 =A0 =A005/12/2008

Dear Judge Lafferty,

The Federation requests that you be more accurate in your attacks.
This corproation does not exist, it has been dissolved. However, you
are still the winner of a free meal in the coming future in St Kitts
and Nevis. I think that you double
a company, so 2 is closer than 4.

You are the winner!

Sincerely,

Marcus Roberts
Ambassador of St Kitts and Nevis

Florida Profit Corporation
PALM COAST MANAGEMENT AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC.
Filing Information
Document Number P98000049010
FEI Number NONE
Date Filed 05/29/1998
State FL
Status INACTIVE
Last Event ADMIN DISSOLUTION FOR ANNUAL REPORT
Event Date Filed 09/24/1999
Event Effective Date NONE
Principal Address
25 CARLSON LANE
PALM COAST FL 32137
Mailing Address
25 CARLSON LANE
PALM COAST FL 32137
Registered Agent Name & Address
TRUONG, HOAINHAN M
25 CARLSON LANE
PALM COAST FL 32137
Officer/Director Detail
Name & Address
NONE
Annual Reports
No Annual Reports Filed
Document Images
05/29/1998 -- Domestic Profit

Date: 04 Jan 2009 11:54:34
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:50:44 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>None of these that were active were disclosed in Truong's bankruptcy
>filing in 2007.

Have the dogs of war sniffed out a few more buried bones?

What happens when one neglects to mention assets in a bankruptcy case
anyway

Date: 06 Jan 2009 07:25:17
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

On Jan 4, 6:37=A0pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Jan 4, 2:54 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:50:44 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> None of these that were active were disclosed in Truong's bankruptcy
> >>> filing in 2007.
> >> Have the dogs of war sniffed out a few more buried bones?
>
> >> What happens when one neglects to mention assets in a bankruptcy case
> >> anyway
>
> > P Innes, do you have an answer?
>
> Best that he not answer yet. =A0We're still digging. =A0Like Con Ed says,
> "Dig we must."

Any additional results in digging?

Date: 05 Jan 2009 20:10:31
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

On Jan 4, 8:15=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

> The one thing our Phil is good at is packing the maximum number of
> lies and false imputations into a single paragraph.
>
> Let's deconstruct the above paragraph, because it's a good example of
> Phil's modus operandi.
>
> (1) Phil falsely imputes that those who believe Truong and Polgar
> should be accountable for their claims and behavior must therefore
> favor the EB candidacy of Sam Sloan.
>
> (2) Phil's little parenthetical "bankrupts [no felony]" falsely
> implies that people are criticizing Truong for declaring bankruptcy,
> rather than for presenting himself as a business whiz during his EB
> campaign, while hiding his financial failures evidenced by TWICE
> declaring bankruptcy in a relatively time-frame.
>
> (3) Phil's little "[no felony]" also ignores the claims of several
> posters that the last bankruptcy itself might not have been
> straightforward and ethical. =A0Several posters have claimed the
> bankruptcy court is now investigating such complications as (1) hidden
> assets, (2) hidden employment contract, (3) undeclared income.
>
> Putting the question another way, what's worse: =A0a custodial
> interference felony for which time has been served OR ongoing and
> undeclared unethical financial behavior? =A0
>
> (4) And it's ironic that Phil should prattle sanctimoniously about
> "those who celebrate their interest publicly in under-age sex" while
> defending =A0one who, according to much evidence presented to multiple
> courts of law, posted thousands of filthy and obscene comments in a
> forum to which any child interested in reading about chess might
> frequent.
>
> Such is his standard, or lack of same.

One small nitpick: MM used the singular form
of "standard" in connection with the great Dr.
IMnes; it is well-known that at no time in history
has the good doctor ever failed to maintain
*multiple* standards-- to suit his fickle whims,
and the equally fickle whims of his puppet-
masters.

Far from /lacking/ standards, the trouble seems
to be that the 2450 nearly-an-IM has too darned
many of them.

-- help bot

Date: 05 Jan 2009 14:22:43
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

On Jan 5, 3:01 am, [email protected] wrote:

> That is the choice most people have actually
> made about these law suits - to let a court
> sort them out, rather than agitators from their
> soap-boxes close by the lynching tree.
>
> Phil Innes

Phil,

alternative:

electric chair or EB chair

is FALSE.

Regards,

Wlod

Date: 05 Jan 2009 11:52:47
From:
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

On Jan 5, 11:14=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 03:01:25 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >> Putting the question another way, what's worse: =A0a custodial
> >> interference felony for which time has been served OR ongoing and
> >> undeclared unethical financial behavior? =A0
> >'Worse', asks Murray, leaving out the Sloan web-site content, as if
> >that's nothing to him.
>
> The web-site content? =A0I dealt with Phil's hypocrisy on that one a few
> sentences down.

'Dealt with it'?

What does that mean? Typically Murray asks something, then 'deals'
with it [and elsewhere].

But what did he have to say? I am quite prepared to be a hypocrite,
but can't understand what principle it is I am being duplicitous about
- standards, was it.

> =A0As to "worse" -- evidently Phil believes ongoing
> behavior is less threatening than that for which one served his time
> many years ago.

I 'evidently believe'? More slush talk. What does that mean? Murray
supposes more on what I think than what he says himself. Perhaps it is
a debating technique where he is?

Do I think someone who fluffed the question if he thought those
responsible for setting standards for USCF's majority membership
category, which is scholastics, should himself be able to pass a high-
school back-ground check. That was my question to Sam Sloan, who
ducked the implication for members, and instead argued that the
organization could not pay for him!

An evident slippery comment - they can pay $100,000 in legal fees -
which I must suppose is his own choice of where money is best spent. I
have another opinion.

As for standards - look below. There are 2 challenges to anyone who
talks of transparency...

> >But let's not ask Mike Murray what's what,
> >let's allow the voters to assess what's what;
>
> But, Phil's evident goal in hundreds of postings on the subject has
> been to keep information *from* the voters, or to convince them to
> shut their eyes and pretend none of this has happened.
>
> >and on the same principle let's allow courts to determine law suits.
>
> No, the voters need to evaluate this information and cannot wait for
> all the court cases to unwind.
>
> I know Phil regards the use of analogy as unfair (he has trouble
> understanding them), but: =A0would Phil entrust his assets to good old
> Bernie Madoff? =A0I mean, he hasn't been convicted of anything yet.
> Better still, would Phil entrust the USCF treasury to Bernie?
>
> >It's fascinating to observe the evasion of these two basic standards -
> >that people could decide who they want on a national board, and that
> >accusation is a synonym for conviction - rather than the evident
> >McCarthyism that it is. Shall we not say that such a philosophy is
> >frequently nothing more than hysterical, and an appeal to mob justice?
>
> No, we shouldn't. =A0For one thing, McCarthy worked from fake lists
> (kinda like fake resumes, hmmm?). =A0 The Mottershead Report, the
> Kronenberger accusations and the USCF's Illinois suit all presented
> detailed evidence for the court (and others) to review.
>
> >Mike Murray here declares himself. He is willing to be judge of all
> >[as well as prosecutor too!] - but Judge Murray admits no rules of
> >evidence, nor acknowledges that the roles of prosecutor, judge and
> >jury too, are separated in our Western system.
>
> Let me help you out here, Phil. =A0You seem to have trouble with basic
> concepts.
>
> I've never advocated replacing our legal system in actions against
> Truong and Polgar. =A0As many posters other than I have pointed out,
> voters and managers have their own responsibilities for evaluating and
> acting on evidence in everyday matters. =A0

There are 2 issues here about standards:

1) that the members and delegates should know people's backgrounds,
since they are required to vote for them - this includes such things
as felony, and other prosecutions for breaking the law - and it also
includes non-lawbreaking activities, such as bankruptcy in the case of
Mr. Truong, as well as evident conflicts of interest, as with Mr.
Goichberg and the CCA in terms of tournaments.

I see no candidates adhering to these standards, although I see
candidates talking about 'transparency', a rather theoretical
transparency, it seems.

2) That USCF should have as a second standard for board members and
senior staff, normally acceptable standards of behavior in our
culture, especially since the majority of members are scholastic ones
- those standards.

Again, no candidate endorsements of that board and senior staff
standard.

Mike Murray here has no standards that he has liked enough to aver,
which is equally fair to saint and sinner alike. And which dispenses
with the awkward questions of management standards completely. Dismiss
them all!

Mike Murray and I differ on this issue.

Phil Innes

Date: 06 Jan 2009 07:58:48
From:
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 6, 12:43=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:36:30 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 5, 7:08=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:55:11 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >If the USCF had a background checking system five years ago, would
> >> >there have been more or less instances of chess coaches being
> >> >convicted of sexual predatory habits? I would say there would be less=
.
> >> What grounds to you have for saying so? =A0Are most coaches formally
> >> affiliated with the USCF? =A0I doubt it. =A0Why should =A0the USCF be
> >> legally responsible for these checks rather than the school, library,
> >> Scouts, YMCA or whatever organization provides the facilities and
> >> organization.
> >They are or have been found legally responsible for not requiring
> >background checks in the event of an offense.
>
> Exactly. =A0It seems the proximate sponsor is the one most at risk.
> Maybe one of the legal beagles that follow this forum can comment
> further.
>
> >All it would take to completely destroy the USCF is for a parent to
> >decide to sue a coach that has a USCF affiliation. That affiliation
> >could be from using the USCF rating system, encouraging USCF
> >membership or using USCF approved scholastic chess materials. The risk
> >already exists. The barn door is already open. WHy not close it before
> >there is a loss?
>
> That seems nonsense to me. =A0The USCF would be a much greater risk if a
> parent could assume from the USCF affiliation that we'd vetted the
> coach for pedophilia and we screwed up the background check.

Mike Murray leads with his opinion of what is nonsense, then asks if
anyone can inform him. But checks are carried out by independent
agencies until heavily insured conditions, but that aside...

> Do you have advice from experienced attorneys on your claim, or is
> this a figment of your (and Phil's) imagination? =A0

Atrociously dismissive of others, from his admitted ignorance of
social issues.

This is, howsomever, a different point than my own. Here we got USCF
trained coaches - and Mike Murray's question to 'legal' minds is what
liability does USCF if it ignores their character?

> Have the various national sport sponsors been put out of business by
> the various rogue coaches who have abused their charges in, e.g.,
> basketball ?

No, they institute internal standards, and those who do not meet those
standards are dismissed. I think [2007] there were 400 dismissals from
Boy Scouts of America.

Phil Innes

Date: 06 Jan 2009 04:35:26
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 6, 12:19=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Do you think we should let "Rob the Robber" in?

Samantha,
Please form a full thought when posting

Date: 06 Jan 2009 04:34:40
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 5, 11:47=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:10:17 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I think Olympic officials should be compelled to submit to any
> >of the tests the require of athletes.
>
> So your tests aren't done in the real Olympics either? =A0Shouldn't the
> international officials of this billion dollar concern be embarrassed
> that you and Phil have ferreted out such a major weakness. =A0And the
> attorneys that have failed to sue the IOC when representing a child
> athlete abused by a coach.
>
> Pardon all the sarcasm, =A0Rob, but your idea lacks foundation. =A0
>
> >The USCF should realize the risk.

Mark my words, eventually it will happen. They will gey sued. WHen the
IOC does get sued, lawsuits will begin popping up everywhere.

Date: 06 Jan 2009 06:20:34
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 04:34:40 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Mark my words, eventually it will happen. They will gey sued. When the
>IOC does get sued, lawsuits will begin popping up everywhere.

Lawsuits are already popping up everywhere.

If, as I understand your suggestion, the USCF takes responsibility for
running background checks on any member who has some contact with
children's chess, if only because the events are rated, we put
ourselves at risk of being sued for a faulty check.

Date: 06 Jan 2009 04:32:32
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 5, 11:43=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:36:30 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jan 5, 7:08=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:55:11 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >> >If the USCF had a background checking system five years ago, would
> >> >there have been more or less instances of chess coaches being
> >> >convicted of sexual predatory habits? I would say there would be less=
.
> >> What grounds to you have for saying so? =A0Are most coaches formally
> >> affiliated with the USCF? =A0I doubt it. =A0Why should =A0the USCF be
> >> legally responsible for these checks rather than the school, library,
> >> Scouts, YMCA or whatever organization provides the facilities and
> >> organization.
> >They are or have been found legally responsible for not requiring
> >background checks in the event of an offense.
>
> Exactly. =A0It seems the proximate sponsor is the one most at risk.
> Maybe one of the legal beagles that follow this forum can comment
> further.
>
> >All it would take to completely destroy the USCF is for a parent to
> >decide to sue a coach that has a USCF affiliation. That affiliation
> >could be from using the USCF rating system, encouraging USCF
> >membership or using USCF approved scholastic chess materials. The risk
> >already exists. The barn door is already open. WHy not close it before
> >there is a loss?
>
> That seems nonsense to me. =A0The USCF would be a much greater risk if a
> parent could assume from the USCF affiliation that we'd vetted the
> coach for pedophilia and we screwed up the background check.
>
> Do you have advice from experienced attorneys on your claim, or is
> this a figment of your (and Phil's) imagination? =A0
>
> Have the various national sport sponsors been put out of business by
> the various rogue coaches who have abused their charges in, e.g.,
> basketball ?

Specific examples? No.

Boy Scouts: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3D3214975n

City Sued because Mayor Abused child:
http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=3DTCE&Params=3DM1ARTM=
0012435

Little League sued because the had no program to scan for abusers:
http://www.childadvocacy.com/news/5167/

Date: 07 Jan 2009 09:35:54
From:
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 7, 11:57=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 05:00:53 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >How good of Dr. Spinrad to drop by and bid Mike Murray explain to all
> >why bible thiumping parents, as Murray has them, should not be
> >empowered ... =A0etc.
>
> At last, emerges a slogan worth of Phil Innes: =A0EMPOWER THE BIBLE
> THUMPERS. =A0
>
> Suggestion to Phil: =A0tattoo this on your biceps. =A0Well, maybe, "Ops
> qui talentum in sanctus libri" so folks will know you got culture.

This is the sort of person who defames people on usenet - the last
Murray comment he admitted was a lie. Yet he still wants to know
things - only in order to rubbish them.

We know who his idiotic colleagues are, and this exercise has ben
sufficient demonstration of whether they can even take part in a
conversation about the well-fare of children.

Elsewhere we see justification for acting with no standards at all -
actually illustrating the hot-sauce incident, by which these goons
would have had someone removed from the board - and they don't blush
when an actual court says there is nothing to answer to - after
investigating the incident.

Still, they are not content with a court settling the FSS issue, and
have already condemned... and so on.

They also hate others who uphold ordinary community standards, like
the rule of law, and ordinary decency statutes.

My reward for mentioning standards is to be rubbished by Murray as a
bible thumper, though I never made the slightest ecclesiastical
reference.

That is the mendacity of this distorting clan. Let those who like this
sort of thing support their 'efforts'.

I think the point is now well made, and by their own hands.

Phil Innes

Date: 07 Jan 2009 09:40:15
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:35:54 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

Phil said:

>> >How good of Dr. Spinrad to drop by and bid Mike Murray explain to all
>> >why bible thiumping parents, as Murray has them, should not be
>> >empowered .

then he said (!!)

>My reward for mentioning standards is to be rubbished by Murray as a
>bible thumper, though I never made the slightest ecclesiastical
>reference.

To pick a nit, I never said Phil *was* a bible-thumper, just that, by
his own words, he was concerned over their lack of empowerment.

Date: 07 Jan 2009 09:15:38
From: The Historian
Subject: P Innes, tell us your suggested "standards"

On Jan 7, 11:59=A0am, [email protected] wrote:

>... someone who raises the question of standards.....

Philsy loves to 'discuss' standards without suggesting any himself.
Perhaps he will post his suggested 'standards' here, under this new
subject line.

Date: 07 Jan 2009 09:01:32
From:
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

Date: 07 Jan 2009 09:06:26
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:01:32 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>> After whining about people inaccurately paraphrasing him, Phil
>> inaccurately paraphrases the argument many of us have been making.

>Let's put it plainer for Murray. Resenting people lying is the issue.
>Paraphrase that, and Spinrad will eat it hook line and sinker.

I think your case would have been stronger had you preceded this
sentence with "Oh Yeah?".

Date: 07 Jan 2009 08:59:52
From:
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 7, 11:44=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 04:48:55 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >and the factor he avoids is the reason for any
> >credentials at all ; to protect kids from unsuitable attention.
>
> After whining about people inaccurately paraphrasing him, Phil
> inaccurately paraphrases the argument many of us have been making.
>
> Let's state it simply and hope he finally catches it.
>
> Nobody has disputed the need to protect kids from unsuitable
> attention. =A0Our argument is that this most appropriately done locally,
> by the sponsoring group, =A0not by the national chess federation.
>
> >If I think 'rationality'? Another straw-man at the end, introducing
> >yet another term I didn't use,
>
> Phil's failure to introduce "rationality" is probably no accident.
> Heh, heh, heh.

5 more replies - all trashing someone who raises the question of
standards at USCF - by 3 writers who do not even admit the problem,
nevermind being able to bring completely ordinary standards to their
resolution.

Here Murray admits his own lie - and jovially says deliberately
misrepresenting others is funny. What it is is a determined attempt to
make sure no open standards of transparent decency are discussed in
public.

These people would rather piss and moan about the results of lack of
standard, than do anything about it themselves. They also hate it when
others express their own opinions - see Murray's attempt to not even
allow parents of chess kids their own say, since he makes them bible-
bashers.

What a trashy crew we got here.

Phil Innes

Date: 06 Jan 2009 06:15:27
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 04:32:32 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:

>> The USCF would be a much greater risk if a
>> parent could assume from the USCF affiliation that we'd vetted the
>> coach for pedophilia and we screwed up the background check.

>> Do you have advice from experienced attorneys on your claim, or is
>> this a figment of your (and Phil's) imagination? �

>> Have the various national sport sponsors been put out of business by
>> the various rogue coaches who have abused their charges in, e.g.,
>> basketball ?

>Specific examples? No.

>Boy Scouts: http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3214975n

>City Sued because Mayor Abused child:
>http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0012435

You will notice this is a Canadian case. A political entity is being
sued, not a game association. And the guy filing suit murdered his
own father.

>Little League sued because the had no program to scan for abusers:
>http://www.childadvocacy.com/news/5167/

This case is was filed in 2003. What happened to it?

Date: 05 Jan 2009 22:19:20
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

Do you think we should let "Rob the Robber" in?

Date: 05 Jan 2009 13:01:48
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:52:47 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>There are 2 issues here about standards:

>1) that the members and delegates should know people's backgrounds,
>since they are required to vote for them - this includes such things
>as felony, and other prosecutions for breaking the law - and it also
>includes non-lawbreaking activities, such as bankruptcy in the case of
>Mr. Truong, as well as evident conflicts of interest, as with Mr.
>Goichberg and the CCA in terms of tournaments.

It's good to see that Phil and I can agree on something. Evaluating a
candidate's background is a major way for a voter to predict that
candidate's behavior in office if successful.

>2) That USCF should have as a second standard for board members and
>senior staff, normally acceptable standards of behavior in our
>culture, especially since the majority of members are scholastic ones
>- those standards.

This one is a slippery slope. First, I see the USCF as primarily an
adult organization that happens to coordinate and facilitate certain
youth events. I don't see its management and directorship vetted as
though the USCF were an elementary school or a children's home. Many
parents go way too far in how they would constrain the personal lives
and activities of those to whom they entrust their kids.

I suspect if an author such as Updike ran for the board, many parents
would object on the grounds that many of his books have sexually
explicit passages.

Someone's duties involve direct contact with kids? Appropriate
background checks would be in order. Ratings director or accountant?
Doesn't make sense.

Advocating background checks for all board members and senior staff
merely because one of the functions of the organization serves youth
activities? Overkill.

Date: 05 Jan 2009 03:01:25
From:
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

On Jan 4, 8:15=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
Mike Murray 'deconstructs' his own paraphrases, based on what I said
were deliberate distortions from Kennedy and Bennan, and based on an
obvious lie from Sloan, now... we get

>
> Putting the question another way, what's worse: =A0a custodial
> interference felony for which time has been served OR ongoing and
> undeclared unethical financial behavior? =A0

'Worse', asks Murray, leaving out the Sloan web-site content, as if
that's nothing to him. But let's not ask Mike Murray what's what,
let's allow the voters to assess what's what; and on the same
principle let's allow courts to determine law suits.

It's fascinating to observe the evasion of these two basic standards -
that people could decide who they want on a national board, and that
accusation is a synonym for conviction - rather than the evident
McCarthyism that it is. Shall we not say that such a philosophy is
frequently nothing more than hysterical, and an appeal to mob justice?

> (4) And it's ironic that Phil should prattle sanctimoniously about
> "those who celebrate their interest publicly in under-age sex" while
> defending =A0one who, according to much evidence presented to multiple
> courts of law, posted thousands of filthy and obscene comments in a
> forum to which any child interested in reading about chess might
> frequent.

Mike Murray here declares himself. He is willing to be judge of all
[as well as prosecutor too!] - but Judge Murray admits no rules of
evidence, nor acknowledges that the roles of prosecutor, judge and
jury too, are separated in our Western system.

> Such is his standard, or lack of same.

Such indeed is my standard. Murray actually argues against the basic
standards of human society - to accuse he says above, and to accuse
much, is enough for him.

That is why standards are important in society - they are at least an
inhibition to mob justice, and the 'patriotic enthusiasm' of such as a
McCarthy.

Edward R. Murrow brought down McCarthy by pointing out his hectoring
and bullying approach and his court-like invigilations were actually
hysterical - and that is /not/ the basis of United States law, nor is
it respected in our society.

In the end it was discovered that there were not 100 commies in
government. There weren't any, no matter how much testimony was
presented, and how often and to how many.

That is the choice most people have actually made about these law
suits - to let a court sort them out, rather than agitators from their
soap-boxes close by the lynching tree.

Phil Innes

Date: 05 Jan 2009 18:36:30
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 5, 7:08=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:55:11 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >If the USCF had a background checking system five years ago, would
> >there have been more or less instances of chess coaches being
> >convicted of sexual predatory habits? I would say there would be less.
>
> What grounds to you have for saying so? =A0Are most coaches formally
> affiliated with the USCF? =A0I doubt it. =A0Why should =A0the USCF be
> legally responsible for these checks rather than the school, library,
> Scouts, YMCA or whatever organization provides the facilities and
> organization.

They are or have been found legally responsible for not requiring
background checks in the event of an offense.

All it would take to completely destroy the USCF is for a parent to
decide to sue a coach that has a USCF affiliation. That affiliation
could be from using the USCF rating system, encouraging USCF
membership or using USCF approved scholastic chess materials. The risk
already exists. The barn door is already open. WHy not close it before
there is a loss?

> I think this whole obsession on Phil's part has ulterior motives
> unconnected with the safety of children.
>
> >Is the safety of one child worth the expense? I think it would.
>
> Making background check so ubiquitous risk making them perfunctory,
> and could actually decrease the safety of the kids.

Date: 07 Jan 2009 07:23:34
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

Date: 13 Jan 2009 10:41:57
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 13, 9:23=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On 13 Jan 2009 06:24:58 -0000, Anonymous via Panta Rhei
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I doubt Mr. Murray
> >Why do you doubt? What function do either of you perform in this news
> >group? Ad hominem aside?
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
> >The original sender is unknown. =A0Any address shown in the From header
> >is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
> >than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visitwww.panta-rhei.eu.org
> >for abuse and hashcash info.
>
> Let me understand. =A0You PAID to post this?

Presumably they will be less willing to turn over records.

Date: 13 Jan 2009 06:24:58
From: Anonymous via Panta Rhei
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> I doubt Mr. Murray

Why do you doubt? What function do either of you perform in this news
group? Ad hominem aside?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.eu.org
for abuse and hashcash info.

Date: 13 Jan 2009 06:23:10
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On 13 Jan 2009 06:24:58 -0000, Anonymous via Panta Rhei
<[email protected] > wrote:

>The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I doubt Mr. Murray

>Why do you doubt? What function do either of you perform in this news
>group? Ad hominem aside?
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
>The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
>is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
>than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.eu.org
>for abuse and hashcash info.

Let me understand. You PAID to post this?

Date: 07 Jan 2009 05:00:53
From:
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 7, 12:31=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> This shows how frustrating it is to argue with Phil Innes. How in the
> world did we get into a situation where Mike Murray would have to
> defend himself as to whether he knows or cares about child abuse?
>
> It is because instead of calmly addressing an issue, Phil unleashes a
> stream of nutty accusations, and if you do not repeatedly point out
> how each one is wrong, he will take it as given that you admit his
> crazy charges are true, and attack further on them.

Two paragraphs and no topic yet from Jerry Spinrad. He hasn't actually
noticed that he is arguing with Murray's straw man arguments, since
Murray does not quote me, nor makes any fair paraphrase. Murray argues
some people who he terms bible-thumpers should be disenfranchised
since he, Murray plus Mencken, know better than the parents.

The topic was to do with if delegates and parents should know the
character of the people elected, and the people in charge of their
kids wealthfare in chess.

Perhaps Jerry Spinrad will get around to the point, instead of simply
ducking the questions of standards?

> Sometimes the rest
> of us have to come in and remind the person currently dealing with
> Phil that the rest of the world realizes Phil's attacks are nonsense.
> Mike, don't worry, you are winning the argument on all scorecards. I
> will go back to watching, and trying to figure out whether Phil is
> stupid, dishonest, crazy, or some combination. He even brought out his
> ridiculous attack regarding Neil and Old English again in this thread.

In a fit of haughty dismissal Spinrad becomes as inflated as the
Murray who knows better than parents - Spinrad goes another notch or
two and speaks for 'the rest of the world'.

But I note - no contributions from Spinrad yet on the question of
decency and standards.

> I understand that in a certain form of high school debate, the game
> has become to talk as quickly as possible, leveling as many ridiculous
> charges as you can (the opposing position will cause the extinction of
> man ...) and if all of them are not refuted in the time allowed you
> "win" the debate because it was never refuted that the position led to
> extinction of man, even though by normal judging standards you seem
> idiotic. I think that is exactly Phil's technique, and he manages to
> win by his own scoring method even though to other people he seems to
> be embarrassing himself with over-the-top arguments.

At least I can't win an argument with Murray, since I am not arguing
with him - he is arguing with himself. He invents straw men to argue
with - but he cannot tolerate that I merely state my opinion.

Neither I argue with Spinrad yet - even if I wanted to, since there is
nothing in his hissy fit which I want to address - which is, readers
will remember a question of standards and decency - and how those
things might be 'transparent'.

> Phil likes to talk of McCarthyism; it strikes me there is more than a
> bit of McCarthyism in the notion that if you do not support a
> frivolous requirement like background checks for EB members/loyalty
> oaths then you must be soft on child abuse/communism.

I suppose that is a comment on the need not to have standards - they
are 'frivolous' at board level says Spinrad. Sadly, he doesn't say
more than that and therefore we only receive his opinion and cannot
engage it in what he calls 'an argument' but which elsewhere in the
world is called a conversation.

> Have fun with him, Mike.

And that's all he wrote - the subject of public indecency and lack of
standards is a fun one.

How good of Dr. Spinrad to drop by and bid Mike Murray explain to all
why bible thiumping parents, as Murray has them, should not be
empowered ... etc.

Phil Innes

> Jerry Spinrad
>
> On Jan 6, 5:49=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:10:57 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> > >If Mike Murray had had the slightest contact with his own local youth
> > >issues [ever in his life holding a responsible position in this
> > >respect, he would not need ask to be informed of such things,
>
> > He does. =A0He was vetted locally. =A0There was no need for USCF ethica=
l
> > credentialing or investigation by the national chess organization.
> > Local groups are quite capable and do just fine. =A0The power and money
> > grab on the part of whatever organization Phil envisions is
> > unjustified.
>
> > >nor
> > >write so abstractly as to negate those who do have such contacts -
> > >including his fatuous commentary that parents who are concerned over
> > >their kids are some bible belt types, whatever that means to him.
>
> > I said, "Bible thumpers" =A0-- they don't all =A0live in the bible belt=
.
> > Read some Mencken, Phil, then come back and discuss things with the
> > adults.
>
> > Phil should talk to some school librarians if he thinks rationality
> > typifies all parents' =A0concerns over what their kids should be expose=
d
> > to.

Date: 07 Jan 2009 08:57:31
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 05:00:53 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>How good of Dr. Spinrad to drop by and bid Mike Murray explain to all
>why bible thiumping parents, as Murray has them, should not be
>empowered ... etc.

At last, emerges a slogan worth of Phil Innes: EMPOWER THE BIBLE
THUMPERS.

Suggestion to Phil: tattoo this on your biceps. Well, maybe, "Ops
qui talentum in sanctus libri" so folks will know you got culture.

Date: 07 Jan 2009 04:48:55
From:
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 6, 6:49=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:10:57 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >If Mike Murray had had the slightest contact with his own local youth
> >issues [ever in his life holding a responsible position in this
> >respect, he would not need ask to be informed of such things,
>
> He does. =A0He was vetted locally.

My question to Mike Murray is how come he asks me what the process is,
and where it is deployed. But it seems he already knows.

> =A0There was no need for USCF ethical
> credentialing or investigation by the national chess organization.

?? In what instance ?? What is Mike Murray's topic?

> Local groups are quite capable and do just fine. =A0The power and money
> grab on the part of whatever organization Phil envisions is
> unjustified.

?? Mike Murray speculates on the motives of others, and a 'power and
money' grab. These are things he has introduced here but without any
basis whatever - and the factor he avoids is the reason for any
credentials at all ; to protect kids from unsuitable attention.

Instead he has begun as usual to speculate without the slightest
evidence on those who raise the issue of any standards. Its as though
he uses usenet to put own other opinions, or diminish or tarnish them
- from his parano imagination.

> >nor
> >write so abstractly as to negate those who do have such contacts -
> >including his fatuous commentary that parents who are concerned over
> >their kids are some bible belt types, whatever that means to him.
>
> I said, "Bible thumpers" =A0-- they don't all =A0live in the bible belt.
> Read some Mencken, Phil, then come back and discuss things with the
> adults.

Here Mike Murray insists that these bible thumper parents are not
worth a candle. Instead he [and Mencken] should decide things.

That's not exactly democratic, but then again, nor is the current
system any more representative.

> Phil should talk to some school librarians if he thinks rationality
> typifies all parents' =A0concerns over what their kids should be exposed
> to.

If I think 'rationality'? Another straw-man at the end, introducing
yet another term I didn't use, and a reason for not allowing parents
of kids reasonable knowledge to other adults who would have to do with
their kids.

Phil Innes

Date: 07 Jan 2009 08:44:46
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 04:48:55 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>and the factor he avoids is the reason for any
>credentials at all ; to protect kids from unsuitable attention.

After whining about people inaccurately paraphrasing him, Phil
inaccurately paraphrases the argument many of us have been making.

Let's state it simply and hope he finally catches it.

Nobody has disputed the need to protect kids from unsuitable
attention. Our argument is that this most appropriately done locally,
by the sponsoring group, not by the national chess federation.

>If I think 'rationality'? Another straw-man at the end, introducing
>yet another term I didn't use,

Phil's failure to introduce "rationality" is probably no accident.
Heh, heh, heh.

Date: 06 Jan 2009 21:31:24
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

This shows how frustrating it is to argue with Phil Innes. How in the
world did we get into a situation where Mike Murray would have to
defend himself as to whether he knows or cares about child abuse?

It is because instead of calmly addressing an issue, Phil unleashes a
stream of nutty accusations, and if you do not repeatedly point out
how each one is wrong, he will take it as given that you admit his
crazy charges are true, and attack further on them. Sometimes the rest
of us have to come in and remind the person currently dealing with
Phil that the rest of the world realizes Phil's attacks are nonsense.
Mike, don't worry, you are winning the argument on all scorecards. I
will go back to watching, and trying to figure out whether Phil is
stupid, dishonest, crazy, or some combination. He even brought out his
ridiculous attack regarding Neil and Old English again in this thread.

I understand that in a certain form of high school debate, the game
has become to talk as quickly as possible, leveling as many ridiculous
charges as you can (the opposing position will cause the extinction of
man ...) and if all of them are not refuted in the time allowed you
"win" the debate because it was never refuted that the position led to
extinction of man, even though by normal judging standards you seem
idiotic. I think that is exactly Phil's technique, and he manages to
win by his own scoring method even though to other people he seems to
be embarrassing himself with over-the-top arguments.

Phil likes to talk of McCarthyism; it strikes me there is more than a
bit of McCarthyism in the notion that if you do not support a
frivolous requirement like background checks for EB members/loyalty
oaths then you must be soft on child abuse/communism.

Have fun with him, Mike.

Jerry Spinrad

On Jan 6, 5:49=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:10:57 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >If Mike Murray had had the slightest contact with his own local youth
> >issues [ever in his life holding a responsible position in this
> >respect, he would not need ask to be informed of such things,
>
> He does. =A0He was vetted locally. =A0There was no need for USCF ethical
> credentialing or investigation by the national chess organization.
> Local groups are quite capable and do just fine. =A0The power and money
> grab on the part of whatever organization Phil envisions is
> unjustified.
>
> >nor
> >write so abstractly as to negate those who do have such contacts -
> >including his fatuous commentary that parents who are concerned over
> >their kids are some bible belt types, whatever that means to him.
>
> I said, "Bible thumpers" =A0-- they don't all =A0live in the bible belt.
> Read some Mencken, Phil, then come back and discuss things with the
> adults.
>
> Phil should talk to some school librarians if he thinks rationality
> typifies all parents' =A0concerns over what their kids should be exposed
> to.

Date: 07 Jan 2009 08:38:34
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 21:31:24 -0800 (PST),
"[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>I understand that in a certain form of high school debate, the game
>has become to talk as quickly as possible, leveling as many ridiculous
>charges as you can (the opposing position will cause the extinction of
>man ...) and if all of them are not refuted in the time allowed you
>"win" the debate because it was never refuted that the position led to
>extinction of man, even though by normal judging standards you seem
>idiotic. I think that is exactly Phil's technique, and he manages to
>win by his own scoring method even though to other people he seems to
>be embarrassing himself with over-the-top arguments.

There is something of the cornered schoolboy in the way Phil flings
out stream-of-consciousness diversions.

>Phil likes to talk of McCarthyism; it strikes me there is more than a
>bit of McCarthyism in the notion that if you do not support a
>frivolous requirement like background checks for EB members/loyalty
>oaths then you must be soft on child abuse/communism.

I've also noticed that.

>Have fun with him, Mike.

People have asked me why I waste my time "arguing with that idiot",
and I lack a ready answer to that question.

Maybe it's the same urge that makes one occasionally try out some
gambits on the "D" players, or offer them huge time odds.

Date: 05 Jan 2009 21:43:11
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 18:36:30 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:

>On Jan 5, 7:08�pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:55:11 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
>> wrote:

>> >If the USCF had a background checking system five years ago, would
>> >there have been more or less instances of chess coaches being
>> >convicted of sexual predatory habits? I would say there would be less.

>> What grounds to you have for saying so? �Are most coaches formally
>> affiliated with the USCF? �I doubt it. �Why should �the USCF be
>> legally responsible for these checks rather than the school, library,
>> Scouts, YMCA or whatever organization provides the facilities and
>> organization.

>They are or have been found legally responsible for not requiring
>background checks in the event of an offense.

Exactly. It seems the proximate sponsor is the one most at risk.
Maybe one of the legal beagles that follow this forum can comment
further.

>All it would take to completely destroy the USCF is for a parent to
>decide to sue a coach that has a USCF affiliation. That affiliation
>could be from using the USCF rating system, encouraging USCF
>membership or using USCF approved scholastic chess materials. The risk
>already exists. The barn door is already open. WHy not close it before
>there is a loss?

That seems nonsense to me. The USCF would be a much greater risk if a
parent could assume from the USCF affiliation that we'd vetted the
coach for pedophilia and we screwed up the background check.

Do you have advice from experienced attorneys on your claim, or is
this a figment of your (and Phil's) imagination?

Have the various national sport sponsors been put out of business by
the various rogue coaches who have abused their charges in, e.g.,
basketball ?

Date: 05 Jan 2009 08:14:16
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 03:01:25 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>> Putting the question another way, what's worse: �a custodial
>> interference felony for which time has been served OR ongoing and
>> undeclared unethical financial behavior? �

>'Worse', asks Murray, leaving out the Sloan web-site content, as if
>that's nothing to him.

The web-site content? I dealt with Phil's hypocrisy on that one a few
sentences down. As to "worse" -- evidently Phil believes ongoing
behavior is less threatening than that for which one served his time
many years ago.

>But let's not ask Mike Murray what's what,
>let's allow the voters to assess what's what;

But, Phil's evident goal in hundreds of postings on the subject has
been to keep information *from* the voters, or to convince them to
shut their eyes and pretend none of this has happened.

>and on the same principle let's allow courts to determine law suits.

No, the voters need to evaluate this information and cannot wait for
all the court cases to unwind.

I know Phil regards the use of analogy as unfair (he has trouble
understanding them), but: would Phil entrust his assets to good old
Bernie Madoff? I mean, he hasn't been convicted of anything yet.
Better still, would Phil entrust the USCF treasury to Bernie?

>It's fascinating to observe the evasion of these two basic standards -
>that people could decide who they want on a national board, and that
>accusation is a synonym for conviction - rather than the evident
>McCarthyism that it is. Shall we not say that such a philosophy is
>frequently nothing more than hysterical, and an appeal to mob justice?

No, we shouldn't. For one thing, McCarthy worked from fake lists
(kinda like fake resumes, hmmm?). The Mottershead Report, the
Kronenberger accusations and the USCF's Illinois suit all presented
detailed evidence for the court (and others) to review.

>Mike Murray here declares himself. He is willing to be judge of all
>[as well as prosecutor too!] - but Judge Murray admits no rules of
>evidence, nor acknowledges that the roles of prosecutor, judge and
>jury too, are separated in our Western system.

Let me help you out here, Phil. You seem to have trouble with basic
concepts.

I've never advocated replacing our legal system in actions against
Truong and Polgar. As many posters other than I have pointed out,
voters and managers have their own responsibilities for evaluating and
acting on evidence in everyday matters.

Date: 04 Jan 2009 18:04:12
From: Wick
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

On Jan 4, 7:15=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:

> (1) Phil falsely imputes that those who believe Truong and Polgar
> should be accountable for their claims and behavior must therefore
> favor the EB candidacy of Sam Sloan.
>

Particularly ironic, since both Sloan and Polgar have dragged the USCF
into lawsuits that should never have been filed against it.

Wick

Date: 04 Jan 2009 15:55:28
From:
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

On Jan 4, 5:37=A0pm, help bot <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 4, 5:19=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > >None of these that were active were disclosed in Truong's bankruptcy
> > > >filing in 2007.
>
> > > Have the dogs of war sniffed out a few more buried bones?
>
> > > What happens when one neglects to mention assets in a bankruptcy case
> > > anyway
>
> > P Innes, do you have an answer?
>
> =A0 Dr. IMnes now seems to favor silence, and what
> he calls "the rule of law". =A0 =A0 It seems like only
> moments ago that the good doctor took a very
> different stance-- that of attacking the accusers,
> ad hominem style, and jabbering incessantly.
>
> =A0 Even his old pal, Mr. Parr, has done a 180 here,
> for the last time around his spiel was a near-
> perfect match to the position favored by Mr.
> Murray, but now LP is preaching "the rule of law"
> thing.

2 posters admit their indifference to the rule of law, which they put
into inverted commas, as if it were not actually the means by which
society governs itself. Then they demand 'questions' and 'commentary'
about it.

Why not put on the armbands and come out?

Let's have justice in the street, 1930's style.

> =A0 Apparently, these ratpackers are very fickle
> creatures, who flip-flop about, much like fish out
> of water.

Greg Kennedy who does not have the balls to write his own name,
consorts with Brennen, a person of no known use nor quality, except a
s ballast possibly, to pretend-ask questions.

To answer them means to submit to their abuse - and to ask they way
they do means to in advance admit their condition - yet are they
themselves decent, even in the manner they raise the issue? So-called
laws!

They themselves are quite acclimated to this culture - which means, to
each other's vile appreciation of things.

USCF as I am to understand these clowns prefers felons, and those who
celebrate their interest publicly in under-age sex, than to bankrupts
[no felony]. Sign of the times! One should be declared, they say, and
the other should not.

That is their standard.

USCF have majority scholastic members, BTW, and any standards
regarding supervision of children, including setting those standards
at board level are strictly taboo topics here among a cast of half
dozen or 10 people who are denied possibility to write elsewhere -
since their opinions are refused by civilized people in moderated
forums.

They have truly hoisted their standard. But as to the Sloan, I have
not yet dealt with his duplicity this week, but I will. I will ask him
and chess players direct. If he refuses an interview as he did before,
I will publicize what he refuses to answer.

I merely note in passing that the Sloan lied twice this week and that
such people as Kingston, Brennan and Kennedy took up his plain-0face
lie. I rather thought his main card against the FSS is that someone
chancing in here would read that. Meanwhile the Sloan libels me and
Rob Mitchell in a week.

It rather depends on whom one lies about methinks. And that is the
size of USCF politics as we read here.

Phil Innes

> =A0 -- help bot

Date: 04 Jan 2009 17:15:28
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

On Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:55:28 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>USCF as I am to understand these clowns prefers felons, and those who
>celebrate their interest publicly in under-age sex, than to bankrupts
>[no felony]. Sign of the times! One should be declared, they say, and
>the other should not.

The one thing our Phil is good at is packing the maximum number of
lies and false imputations into a single paragraph.

Let's deconstruct the above paragraph, because it's a good example of
Phil's modus operandi.

(1) Phil falsely imputes that those who believe Truong and Polgar
should be accountable for their claims and behavior must therefore
favor the EB candidacy of Sam Sloan.

(2) Phil's little parenthetical "bankrupts [no felony]" falsely
implies that people are criticizing Truong for declaring bankruptcy,
rather than for presenting himself as a business whiz during his EB
campaign, while hiding his financial failures evidenced by TWICE
declaring bankruptcy in a relatively time-frame.

(3) Phil's little "[no felony]" also ignores the claims of several
posters that the last bankruptcy itself might not have been
straightforward and ethical. Several posters have claimed the
bankruptcy court is now investigating such complications as (1) hidden
assets, (2) hidden employment contract, (3) undeclared income.

Putting the question another way, what's worse: a custodial
interference felony for which time has been served OR ongoing and
undeclared unethical financial behavior?

(4) And it's ironic that Phil should prattle sanctimoniously about
"those who celebrate their interest publicly in under-age sex" while
defending one who, according to much evidence presented to multiple
courts of law, posted thousands of filthy and obscene comments in a
forum to which any child interested in reading about chess might
frequent.

Such is his standard, or lack of same.

Date: 04 Jan 2009 14:37:29
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

On Jan 4, 5:19=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:

> > >None of these that were active were disclosed in Truong's bankruptcy
> > >filing in 2007.
>
> > Have the dogs of war sniffed out a few more buried bones?
>
> > What happens when one neglects to mention assets in a bankruptcy case
> > anyway
>
> P Innes, do you have an answer?

Dr. IMnes now seems to favor silence, and what
he calls "the rule of law". It seems like only
moments ago that the good doctor took a very
different stance-- that of attacking the accusers,
ad hominem style, and jabbering incessantly.

Even his old pal, Mr. Parr, has done a 180 here,
for the last time around his spiel was a near-
perfect match to the position favored by Mr.
Murray, but now LP is preaching "the rule of law"
thing.

Apparently, these ratpackers are very fickle
creatures, who flip-flop about, much like fish out
of water.

-- help bot

Date: 06 Jan 2009 06:53:32
From:
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 5, 7:42=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 5:11=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:

> > The real risk for kids is not primarily at the EB level, but at the
> > level of scholastic coach or advisor.
>
> I agree.

I wonder. IF the EB set the policy or tone for the environment in
which young players exist, then should they not have a sympathetic
understanding of what that is?

I remember the strongest argument Jen Shahade used in her book Chess
Bitch for separate female events and titles, was that women [including
young women] did not the enjoy the current atmosphere of joint-
events.

As for scholastic players proper, they are the majority 'members' of
USCF, have no vote of their own, and also the fastest turn-over group.
Some of that may be result of new interests - but whatever it is,
their is not enough in chess to contain more than a few percent of
those who joined up 2 years ago.

During the 'Just Say No' years of drug discouragement, I served on a
long-term planning board for the county's youth with chief of police,
a justice, child and family advocates, other clinical folk - and as
well as court and prison diversionary possibilities the question arose
of what to say 'Yes' to. There wasn't much in our town for 13-18 year
olds that 'diverted' anything much, and the few things that existed
were run by 20-somethings, who seemed to turn-over their positions
every 6 months.

Most diversion stuff was for kids who had already got into trouble,
and these were run by audited staff, perforce! since they all took
State money, and this is a requirement that both front-line staff and
executive staff should pass through at least modest hoops of scrutiny.

I am not proposing such a thing for chess, except as remedy to two
problems I perceive - the first is the high turn-over rate and lack
of proper chess courses, mentoring, and suitable tournaments as
administered by USCF. The second is the need to direct these programs
by people with sufficient wherewithal to do so. That is to say, a
rather superior intelligence to group youth activity than is typical
or average.

I would even say that the lack of such erudition and quality control
of board members passively accepts the high turn-over, and actively
spends money on law-suits not as a preference, but as a result of such
paucity of standard by board members themselves.

This is obviously the State of the Game, USA.

If individuals feel that their personal freedom is being infringed by
allowing others to merely look at their behavior, and this is some
'slippery slope', then why should such people gain any conditions over
others?

As we see, there is token resentment of indecent conditions being
placed on chess players by resisting drug-testing in the USA. But not
the testing of American players abroad. WE agree, no? That that is an
indecent infringement of players' rights?

For USCF's main constituency, youth chess in all its forms, what we
got here is a resistance by those who do and who would set their
standards, by people who declare no standards about themselves.

Below you see what this is not about - not all parents are peasant
bible thumpers. The issue is not about sexual explicit materials.

Just like the issue of 'transparency' which is merely an /idea/ unless
it is illustrated by what is to be transparent, and the process, or
how it is to become transparent, then the same, unfortunately exists
for the /idea/ of child abusers not being around children. Where is
any process to avert that taking place.

Child abuse from non-parental sources is not at new nor historical
levels, and indeed there seems to be more reporting of it than there
ever was, but that may be simply the result of not keeping quiet about
the issue.

It is on the increase however, and major agencies and institutions
with children as their main care, or clients, do report an increase in
those who would get after kids - they have instituted certain
standards to screen out the most obviously offensive people and
practices.

USCF seem rather insular as an institution in this respect - and the
formal lack of adoption of indicated standards, in this issue, and in
others, seems to have led it down a path towards the lawyer's door - a
situation Larry Parr reported as the likely modus operandum some 2
years ago.

To have rejected standards is a conscious activity, preferring
passivity - so that it can't be blamed - as if to think that denying
responsibility will avert recrimination. As a policy we now see that
it has signally failed - and rather more money gets spent as a result
of the lack of standards than if some just normal community, business
or institutional measures had ben deployed.

Phil Innes
Vermont

.

> > I worry about the slippery slope -- primarily ignorant Bible thumpers
> > imposing their values on the rest of us while reciting their mantra,
> > "but it's for the children", bellowing indignantly about authors who
> > have written books with sexually explicit passages. =A0They've even
> > whined about the Diary of Anne Frank, fer christ's sake.
>
> I wouldn't know about this. I will agree there are ignorant and narrow
> minded people everywhere.
>
> > Child abusers shouldn't be around children. Period.
>
> I agree 100%!
>
> > =A0But what the
> > moralists end up going after is people who have said or written things
> > inappropriate for children. =A0Phil prattles a lot about waiting for
> > "convictions" especially when it involves people he (and you,
> > evidently) support. =A0But Sloan has never been convicted or even
> > *charged* with these things -- you guys are hammering on what he's
> > *written*. =A0
>
> So far as we know. If you conduct no checks you have no way of knowing
> unless they openly admit to it. That is something they are not likely
> to do if they know that no person is going to check.
>
> > None of this implies I support Sam for EB -- to the contrary. =A0I thin=
k
> > his web site often reflects poor judgment. =A0
>
> Then you should have no problem with background checks for folks that
> may come in contact with children, right?
>
> Rob "The Mitch"
>
> > >Rob
>
> > >> Advocating background checks for all board members and senior staff
> > >> merely because one of the functions of the organization serves youth
> > >> activities? =A0Overkill.

Date: 05 Jan 2009 16:42:30
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 5, 5:11=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:31:12 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> I suspect if an author such as Updike ran for the board, many parents
> >> would object on the grounds that many of his books have sexually
> >> explicit passages.
> >> Someone's duties involve direct contact with kids? =A0Appropriate
> >> background checks would be in order. =A0Ratings director or accountant=
?
> >> Doesn't make sense.
> >Mike,
> >in many States it is illegal for anyone having a sexual conviction
> >dealing with kids to be involved in any activity that brings them into
> >direct or indirect contact with any kids at all. I won't bother
> >listing possible examples as I am sure you and others reading this can
> >provide many more instances that would come under this domain than I
> >could.
> >As a parent, I would not allow my children to belong to any
> >organization that had someone in a leadership position that was a
> >child predator involved in it... period.
> >If remove of my child from the organization was not an option then I
> >would seek removal and barring of those convicted of crimes against
> >children from being involved in the organization.
>
> So, what's your point? =A0
>
> Are convicted pedophiles running for the board? =A0So, far Phil's
> fulminations have referenced either Sloan's decades old felony
> conviction for custodial interference (not a sex crime), or the
> contents of his web site. =A0There have been chess coaches and chess
> personalities accused of pedophilia and some of them convicted, but
> AFAIK, none of them are running for office or serving as USCF staff
> members.

> The real risk for kids is not primarily at the EB level, but at the
> level of scholastic coach or advisor.

I agree.

> I worry about the slippery slope -- primarily ignorant Bible thumpers
> imposing their values on the rest of us while reciting their mantra,
> "but it's for the children", bellowing indignantly about authors who
> have written books with sexually explicit passages. =A0They've even
> whined about the Diary of Anne Frank, fer christ's sake.

I wouldn't know about this. I will agree there are ignorant and narrow
minded people everywhere.

> Child abusers shouldn't be around children. Period.
I agree 100%!

> =A0But what the
> moralists end up going after is people who have said or written things
> inappropriate for children. =A0Phil prattles a lot about waiting for
> "convictions" especially when it involves people he (and you,
> evidently) support. =A0But Sloan has never been convicted or even
> *charged* with these things -- you guys are hammering on what he's
> *written*. =A0

So far as we know. If you conduct no checks you have no way of knowing
unless they openly admit to it. That is something they are not likely
to do if they know that no person is going to check.

> None of this implies I support Sam for EB -- to the contrary. =A0I think
> his web site often reflects poor judgment. =A0

Then you should have no problem with background checks for folks that
may come in contact with children, right?

Rob "The Mitch"
> >Rob
>
> >> Advocating background checks for all board members and senior staff
> >> merely because one of the functions of the organization serves youth
> >> activities? =A0Overkill.

Date: 05 Jan 2009 16:53:13
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:42:30 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Then you should have no problem with background checks for folks that
>may come in contact with children, right?

Not necessarily.

You need to rigorously define "come in contact with" and convince me
it's appropriate before I'd support that.

Date: 04 Jan 2009 14:19:50
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

On Jan 4, 2:54=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:50:44 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >None of these that were active were disclosed in Truong's bankruptcy
> >filing in 2007.
>
> Have the dogs of war sniffed out a few more buried bones?
>
> What happens when one neglects to mention assets in a bankruptcy case
> anyway

P Innes, do you have an answer?

Date: 05 Jan 2009 21:46:53
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 5, 9:10=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 8:59=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 6:55=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 5, 5:20=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 5, 4:31=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 5, 3:01=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > > > > On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:52:47 -0800 (PST), [email protected] w=
rote:
> > > > > > >There are 2 issues here about standards:
> > > > > > >1) that the members and delegates should know people's backgro=
unds,
> > > > > > >since they are required to vote for them - this includes such =
things
> > > > > > >as felony, and other prosecutions for breaking the law - and i=
t also
> > > > > > >includes non-lawbreaking activities, such as bankruptcy in the=
case of
> > > > > > >Mr. Truong, as well as evident conflicts of interest, as with =
Mr.
> > > > > > >Goichberg and the CCA in terms of tournaments.
>
> > > > > > It's good to see that Phil and I can agree on something. =A0Eva=
luating a
> > > > > > candidate's background is a major way for a voter to predict th=
at
> > > > > > candidate's behavior in office if successful.
>
> > > > > > >2) That USCF should have as a second standard for board member=
s and
> > > > > > >senior staff, normally acceptable standards of behavior in our
> > > > > > >culture, especially since the majority of members are scholast=
ic ones
> > > > > > >- those standards.
>
> > > > > > This one is a slippery slope. =A0First, I see the USCF as prima=
rily an
> > > > > > adult organization that happens to coordinate and facilitate ce=
rtain
> > > > > > youth events. =A0I don't see its management and directorship ve=
tted as
> > > > > > though the USCF were an elementary school or a children's home.=
=A0Many
> > > > > > parents go way too far in how they would constrain the personal=
lives
> > > > > > and activities of those to whom they entrust their kids. =A0
> > > > > > I suspect if an author such as Updike ran for the board, many p=
arents
> > > > > > would object on the grounds that many of his books have sexuall=
y
> > > > > > explicit passages.
> > > > > > Someone's duties involve direct contact with kids? =A0Appropria=
te
> > > > > > background checks would be in order. =A0Ratings director or acc=
ountant?
> > > > > > Doesn't make sense.
>
> > > > > Mike,
> > > > > in many States it is illegal for anyone having a sexual convictio=
n
> > > > > dealing with kids to be involved in any activity that brings them=
into
> > > > > direct or indirect contact with any kids at all. I won't bother
> > > > > listing possible examples as I am sure you and others reading thi=
s can
> > > > > provide many more instances that would come under this domain tha=
n I
> > > > > could.
>
> > > > > As a parent, I would not allow my children to belong to any
> > > > > organization that had someone in a leadership position that was a
> > > > > child predator involved in it... period.
> > > > > If remove of my child from the organization was not an option the=
n I
> > > > > would seek removal and barring of those convicted of crimes again=
st
> > > > > children from being involved in the organization.
>
> > > > > Rob
> > > > Have you checked requirements for schol boards? I believe there is =
no
> > > > such requirement for running for school board in Nashville. Would y=
ou
> > > > agree that it would be a larger issue for school boards than chess
> > > > executive boards?
>
> > > No. I have not. I would advocate them being subjected to the
> > > background check though.
>
> > > > Normally, tests are required only when there is a clear problem. Th=
us,
> > > > airline pilots are tested for drugs but not for sexual convictions,
> > > > while teachers are screened for sexual convictions but not tested f=
or
> > > > drugs. This does not imply any approval of drugs for teachers or se=
x
> > > > offences for pilots.
>
> > > I believe that teachers should be drug tested as well as background
> > > checked for sexual offenses.
>
> > > > Incidentally, the same thing applies with testing Olympic athletes =
vs
> > > > chess players for drugs; you test the Olympians because it is a
> > > > problem, but it is wasteful and intrusive to test chess players.
>
> > > It is wasteful and intrusive only because their is nothing that is
> > > being tested for that enhances mental performance.
>
> > > > I do not see how having a sexual conviction has any bearing on bein=
g a
> > > > board member. It is not a big issue to me if such a test is added, =
but
> > > > trying to make it out as an important step is silly. I see no
> > > > conceivable effect on any actions, and I oppose it mildly on the
> > > > general principle of unwarranted intrusion and cost
>
> > > How can someone who may or may not be a sexual predator be in charge
> > > of someone who isn't? We would not know without checking, would we?
>
> > > > Our former congressman, Bob Clement, made a big issue of "drug-free
> > > > truck stops", which he touted as a measure he sponsored in campaign
> > > > literature but never passed. It was a silly idea; not that one
> > > > endorses drugs for truck drivers, but that the notion that one shou=
ld
> > > > be punished more for selling drugs there than elsewhere didn't seem
> > > > logical to most other people or congressmen. To me, this is another
> > > > silly proposal. I have no problems with someone proposing it, but t=
he
> > > > vehemence of Phil's advocacy is hard to understand. To say that tho=
se
> > > > who oppose it do not care about sex offences and decency is ridicul=
ous
> > > > - if you propose something that would actually cut down on sex
> > > > offences rather than some weirdly symbolic measure, I am sure it wo=
uld
> > > > be received more positively.
>
> > If the USCF had a background checking system five years ago, would
> > there have been more or less instances of chess coaches being
> > =A0convicted of sexual predatory habits? I would say there would be
> > less.
>
> > The current topic of discussion =A0is background checking for executive
> > board candidates. I feel sure that if there background checking for EB
> > members, there would be absolutely no change in sexual predatory
> > habits.
>
> > As for any other set of people to check, we do not have a proposal.
> > The USCF does not have, as far as I know, any accreditation of any
> > group of chess coaches, and I haven't heard anybody proposing one. So
> > who are we proposing to test?
>
> > Is the safety of one child worth the expense? I think it would.
>
> > Again, who are you proposing the USCF tests? If you have a proposal
> > that is really likely to save children from harm, by all means let us
> > hear it!
>
> > > Rob
>
> > > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > > > > Advocating background checks for all board members and senior s=
taff
> > > > > > merely because one of the functions of the organization serves =
youth
> > > > > > activities? =A0Overkill.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> I have always suggested accreditation of USCF coaches and appropriate
> background checks.

Just to make this clear - since there is not now a notion of a USCF
coach, you are proposing a new program rather than a change of an
existing program, correct?

If you make a full proposal of what this would mean, we could consider
it; I would be happy to argue about where it would and would not be
used. Remember that there are more programs to coach than there are
coaches, so you do not want to make it a hassle to get, so that (for
example) the parent who is perfectly able to coach a child's
elementary school team would decide not to do so because s/he would
have to become certified. In general, I find that certification
programs in most areas do more harm than good, but that need not be
the case if you are very careful not to throw in a bunch of
requirements just because someone feels it would be a good idea for
certified coaches to have some particular skill.

My personal bias is that a school chess program is no different from a
school program in any other activity, and that it makes much more
sense to have a policy for school programs than for chess programs. If
there is a notion of USCF approved chess coaches, I think it should be
limited to coaches outside of the school system. I don't know how many
coaches we are talking about, but I can understand that these coaches
who might develop intense relationships with individual students might
need to be screened to weed out any potential sexual predators.

Jerry Spinrad

I would also submit that leadership be "willing"
> even if not compelled to submit to the testing they require of anyone
> else. I think Olympic officials should be compelled to submit to any
> of the tests the require of athletes.
>
> The USCF should realize the risk.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 05 Jan 2009 19:10:17
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 5, 8:59=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 6:55=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 5, 5:20=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Jan 5, 4:31=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 5, 3:01=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:52:47 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wro=
te:
> > > > > >There are 2 issues here about standards:
> > > > > >1) that the members and delegates should know people's backgroun=
ds,
> > > > > >since they are required to vote for them - this includes such th=
ings
> > > > > >as felony, and other prosecutions for breaking the law - and it =
also
> > > > > >includes non-lawbreaking activities, such as bankruptcy in the c=
ase of
> > > > > >Mr. Truong, as well as evident conflicts of interest, as with Mr=
.
> > > > > >Goichberg and the CCA in terms of tournaments.
>
> > > > > It's good to see that Phil and I can agree on something. =A0Evalu=
ating a
> > > > > candidate's background is a major way for a voter to predict that
> > > > > candidate's behavior in office if successful.
>
> > > > > >2) That USCF should have as a second standard for board members =
and
> > > > > >senior staff, normally acceptable standards of behavior in our
> > > > > >culture, especially since the majority of members are scholastic=
ones
> > > > > >- those standards.
>
> > > > > This one is a slippery slope. =A0First, I see the USCF as primari=
ly an
> > > > > adult organization that happens to coordinate and facilitate cert=
ain
> > > > > youth events. =A0I don't see its management and directorship vett=
ed as
> > > > > though the USCF were an elementary school or a children's home. =
=A0Many
> > > > > parents go way too far in how they would constrain the personal l=
ives
> > > > > and activities of those to whom they entrust their kids. =A0
> > > > > I suspect if an author such as Updike ran for the board, many par=
ents
> > > > > would object on the grounds that many of his books have sexually
> > > > > explicit passages.
> > > > > Someone's duties involve direct contact with kids? =A0Appropriate
> > > > > background checks would be in order. =A0Ratings director or accou=
ntant?
> > > > > Doesn't make sense.
>
> > > > Mike,
> > > > in many States it is illegal for anyone having a sexual conviction
> > > > dealing with kids to be involved in any activity that brings them i=
nto
> > > > direct or indirect contact with any kids at all. I won't bother
> > > > listing possible examples as I am sure you and others reading this =
can
> > > > provide many more instances that would come under this domain than =
I
> > > > could.
>
> > > > As a parent, I would not allow my children to belong to any
> > > > organization that had someone in a leadership position that was a
> > > > child predator involved in it... period.
> > > > If remove of my child from the organization was not an option then =
I
> > > > would seek removal and barring of those convicted of crimes against
> > > > children from being involved in the organization.
>
> > > > Rob
> > > Have you checked requirements for schol boards? I believe there is no
> > > such requirement for running for school board in Nashville. Would you
> > > agree that it would be a larger issue for school boards than chess
> > > executive boards?
>
> > No. I have not. I would advocate them being subjected to the
> > background check though.
>
> > > Normally, tests are required only when there is a clear problem. Thus=
,
> > > airline pilots are tested for drugs but not for sexual convictions,
> > > while teachers are screened for sexual convictions but not tested for
> > > drugs. This does not imply any approval of drugs for teachers or sex
> > > offences for pilots.
>
> > I believe that teachers should be drug tested as well as background
> > checked for sexual offenses.
>
> > > Incidentally, the same thing applies with testing Olympic athletes vs
> > > chess players for drugs; you test the Olympians because it is a
> > > problem, but it is wasteful and intrusive to test chess players.
>
> > It is wasteful and intrusive only because their is nothing that is
> > being tested for that enhances mental performance.
>
> > > I do not see how having a sexual conviction has any bearing on being =
a
> > > board member. It is not a big issue to me if such a test is added, bu=
t
> > > trying to make it out as an important step is silly. I see no
> > > conceivable effect on any actions, and I oppose it mildly on the
> > > general principle of unwarranted intrusion and cost
>
> > How can someone who may or may not be a sexual predator be in charge
> > of someone who isn't? We would not know without checking, would we?
>
> > > Our former congressman, Bob Clement, made a big issue of "drug-free
> > > truck stops", which he touted as a measure he sponsored in campaign
> > > literature but never passed. It was a silly idea; not that one
> > > endorses drugs for truck drivers, but that the notion that one should
> > > be punished more for selling drugs there than elsewhere didn't seem
> > > logical to most other people or congressmen. To me, this is another
> > > silly proposal. I have no problems with someone proposing it, but the
> > > vehemence of Phil's advocacy is hard to understand. To say that those
> > > who oppose it do not care about sex offences and decency is ridiculou=
s
> > > - if you propose something that would actually cut down on sex
> > > offences rather than some weirdly symbolic measure, I am sure it woul=
d
> > > be received more positively.
>
> If the USCF had a background checking system five years ago, would
> there have been more or less instances of chess coaches being
> =A0convicted of sexual predatory habits? I would say there would be
> less.
>
> The current topic of discussion =A0is background checking for executive
> board candidates. I feel sure that if there background checking for EB
> members, there would be absolutely no change in sexual predatory
> habits.
>
> As for any other set of people to check, we do not have a proposal.
> The USCF does not have, as far as I know, any accreditation of any
> group of chess coaches, and I haven't heard anybody proposing one. So
> who are we proposing to test?
>
> Is the safety of one child worth the expense? I think it would.
>
> Again, who are you proposing the USCF tests? If you have a proposal
> that is really likely to save children from harm, by all means let us
> hear it!
>
>
>
> > Rob
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > > > Advocating background checks for all board members and senior sta=
ff
> > > > > merely because one of the functions of the organization serves yo=
uth
> > > > > activities? =A0Overkill.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

I have always suggested accreditation of USCF coaches and appropriate
background checks. I would also submit that leadership be "willing"
even if not compelled to submit to the testing they require of anyone
else. I think Olympic officials should be compelled to submit to any
of the tests the require of athletes.

The USCF should realize the risk.

Date: 05 Jan 2009 21:47:03
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:10:17 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:

>I think Olympic officials should be compelled to submit to any
>of the tests the require of athletes.

So your tests aren't done in the real Olympics either? Shouldn't the
international officials of this billion dollar concern be embarrassed
that you and Phil have ferreted out such a major weakness. And the
attorneys that have failed to sue the IOC when representing a child
athlete abused by a coach.

Pardon all the sarcasm, Rob, but your idea lacks foundation.

>The USCF should realize the risk.

Date: 05 Jan 2009 18:59:20
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 5, 6:55=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 5:20=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 4:31=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 5, 3:01=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:52:47 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote=
:
> > > > >There are 2 issues here about standards:
> > > > >1) that the members and delegates should know people's backgrounds=
,
> > > > >since they are required to vote for them - this includes such thin=
gs
> > > > >as felony, and other prosecutions for breaking the law - and it al=
so
> > > > >includes non-lawbreaking activities, such as bankruptcy in the cas=
e of
> > > > >Mr. Truong, as well as evident conflicts of interest, as with Mr.
> > > > >Goichberg and the CCA in terms of tournaments.
>
> > > > It's good to see that Phil and I can agree on something. =A0Evaluat=
ing a
> > > > candidate's background is a major way for a voter to predict that
> > > > candidate's behavior in office if successful.
>
> > > > >2) That USCF should have as a second standard for board members an=
d
> > > > >senior staff, normally acceptable standards of behavior in our
> > > > >culture, especially since the majority of members are scholastic o=
nes
> > > > >- those standards.
>
> > > > This one is a slippery slope. =A0First, I see the USCF as primarily=
an
> > > > adult organization that happens to coordinate and facilitate certai=
n
> > > > youth events. =A0I don't see its management and directorship vetted=
as
> > > > though the USCF were an elementary school or a children's home. =A0=
Many
> > > > parents go way too far in how they would constrain the personal liv=
es
> > > > and activities of those to whom they entrust their kids. =A0
> > > > I suspect if an author such as Updike ran for the board, many paren=
ts
> > > > would object on the grounds that many of his books have sexually
> > > > explicit passages.
> > > > Someone's duties involve direct contact with kids? =A0Appropriate
> > > > background checks would be in order. =A0Ratings director or account=
ant?
> > > > Doesn't make sense.
>
> > > Mike,
> > > in many States it is illegal for anyone having a sexual conviction
> > > dealing with kids to be involved in any activity that brings them int=
o
> > > direct or indirect contact with any kids at all. I won't bother
> > > listing possible examples as I am sure you and others reading this ca=
n
> > > provide many more instances that would come under this domain than I
> > > could.
>
> > > As a parent, I would not allow my children to belong to any
> > > organization that had someone in a leadership position that was a
> > > child predator involved in it... period.
> > > If remove of my child from the organization was not an option then I
> > > would seek removal and barring of those convicted of crimes against
> > > children from being involved in the organization.
>
> > > Rob
> > Have you checked requirements for schol boards? I believe there is no
> > such requirement for running for school board in Nashville. Would you
> > agree that it would be a larger issue for school boards than chess
> > executive boards?
>
> No. I have not. I would advocate them being subjected to the
> background check though.
>
> > Normally, tests are required only when there is a clear problem. Thus,
> > airline pilots are tested for drugs but not for sexual convictions,
> > while teachers are screened for sexual convictions but not tested for
> > drugs. This does not imply any approval of drugs for teachers or sex
> > offences for pilots.
>
> I believe that teachers should be drug tested as well as background
> checked for sexual offenses.
>
> > Incidentally, the same thing applies with testing Olympic athletes vs
> > chess players for drugs; you test the Olympians because it is a
> > problem, but it is wasteful and intrusive to test chess players.
>
> It is wasteful and intrusive only because their is nothing that is
> being tested for that enhances mental performance.
>
> > I do not see how having a sexual conviction has any bearing on being a
> > board member. It is not a big issue to me if such a test is added, but
> > trying to make it out as an important step is silly. I see no
> > conceivable effect on any actions, and I oppose it mildly on the
> > general principle of unwarranted intrusion and cost
>
> How can someone who may or may not be a sexual predator be in charge
> of someone who isn't? We would not know without checking, would we?
>
>
>
> > Our former congressman, Bob Clement, made a big issue of "drug-free
> > truck stops", which he touted as a measure he sponsored in campaign
> > literature but never passed. It was a silly idea; not that one
> > endorses drugs for truck drivers, but that the notion that one should
> > be punished more for selling drugs there than elsewhere didn't seem
> > logical to most other people or congressmen. To me, this is another
> > silly proposal. I have no problems with someone proposing it, but the
> > vehemence of Phil's advocacy is hard to understand. To say that those
> > who oppose it do not care about sex offences and decency is ridiculous
> > - if you propose something that would actually cut down on sex
> > offences rather than some weirdly symbolic measure, I am sure it would
> > be received more positively.
>
If the USCF had a background checking system five years ago, would
there have been more or less instances of chess coaches being
convicted of sexual predatory habits? I would say there would be
less.

The current topic of discussion is background checking for executive
board candidates. I feel sure that if there background checking for EB
members, there would be absolutely no change in sexual predatory
habits.

As for any other set of people to check, we do not have a proposal.
The USCF does not have, as far as I know, any accreditation of any
group of chess coaches, and I haven't heard anybody proposing one. So
who are we proposing to test?

Is the safety of one child worth the expense? I think it would.

Again, who are you proposing the USCF tests? If you have a proposal
that is really likely to save children from harm, by all means let us
hear it!
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > > > Advocating background checks for all board members and senior staff
> > > > merely because one of the functions of the organization serves yout=
h
> > > > activities? =A0Overkill.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 05 Jan 2009 16:55:11
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 5, 5:20=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 4:31=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 5, 3:01=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:52:47 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> > > >There are 2 issues here about standards:
> > > >1) that the members and delegates should know people's backgrounds,
> > > >since they are required to vote for them - this includes such things
> > > >as felony, and other prosecutions for breaking the law - and it also
> > > >includes non-lawbreaking activities, such as bankruptcy in the case =
of
> > > >Mr. Truong, as well as evident conflicts of interest, as with Mr.
> > > >Goichberg and the CCA in terms of tournaments.
>
> > > It's good to see that Phil and I can agree on something. =A0Evaluatin=
g a
> > > candidate's background is a major way for a voter to predict that
> > > candidate's behavior in office if successful.
>
> > > >2) That USCF should have as a second standard for board members and
> > > >senior staff, normally acceptable standards of behavior in our
> > > >culture, especially since the majority of members are scholastic one=
s
> > > >- those standards.
>
> > > This one is a slippery slope. =A0First, I see the USCF as primarily a=
n
> > > adult organization that happens to coordinate and facilitate certain
> > > youth events. =A0I don't see its management and directorship vetted a=
s
> > > though the USCF were an elementary school or a children's home. =A0Ma=
ny
> > > parents go way too far in how they would constrain the personal lives
> > > and activities of those to whom they entrust their kids. =A0
> > > I suspect if an author such as Updike ran for the board, many parents
> > > would object on the grounds that many of his books have sexually
> > > explicit passages.
> > > Someone's duties involve direct contact with kids? =A0Appropriate
> > > background checks would be in order. =A0Ratings director or accountan=
t?
> > > Doesn't make sense.
>
> > Mike,
> > in many States it is illegal for anyone having a sexual conviction
> > dealing with kids to be involved in any activity that brings them into
> > direct or indirect contact with any kids at all. I won't bother
> > listing possible examples as I am sure you and others reading this can
> > provide many more instances that would come under this domain than I
> > could.
>
> > As a parent, I would not allow my children to belong to any
> > organization that had someone in a leadership position that was a
> > child predator involved in it... period.
> > If remove of my child from the organization was not an option then I
> > would seek removal and barring of those convicted of crimes against
> > children from being involved in the organization.
>
> > Rob

> Have you checked requirements for schol boards? I believe there is no
> such requirement for running for school board in Nashville. Would you
> agree that it would be a larger issue for school boards than chess
> executive boards?

No. I have not. I would advocate them being subjected to the
background check though.

> Normally, tests are required only when there is a clear problem. Thus,
> airline pilots are tested for drugs but not for sexual convictions,
> while teachers are screened for sexual convictions but not tested for
> drugs. This does not imply any approval of drugs for teachers or sex
> offences for pilots.

I believe that teachers should be drug tested as well as background
checked for sexual offenses.

> Incidentally, the same thing applies with testing Olympic athletes vs
> chess players for drugs; you test the Olympians because it is a
> problem, but it is wasteful and intrusive to test chess players.

It is wasteful and intrusive only because their is nothing that is
being tested for that enhances mental performance.

> I do not see how having a sexual conviction has any bearing on being a
> board member. It is not a big issue to me if such a test is added, but
> trying to make it out as an important step is silly. I see no
> conceivable effect on any actions, and I oppose it mildly on the
> general principle of unwarranted intrusion and cost

How can someone who may or may not be a sexual predator be in charge
of someone who isn't? We would not know without checking, would we?
>
> Our former congressman, Bob Clement, made a big issue of "drug-free
> truck stops", which he touted as a measure he sponsored in campaign
> literature but never passed. It was a silly idea; not that one
> endorses drugs for truck drivers, but that the notion that one should
> be punished more for selling drugs there than elsewhere didn't seem
> logical to most other people or congressmen. To me, this is another
> silly proposal. I have no problems with someone proposing it, but the
> vehemence of Phil's advocacy is hard to understand. To say that those
> who oppose it do not care about sex offences and decency is ridiculous
> - if you propose something that would actually cut down on sex
> offences rather than some weirdly symbolic measure, I am sure it would
> be received more positively.

If the USCF had a background checking system five years ago, would
there have been more or less instances of chess coaches being
convicted of sexual predatory habits? I would say there would be less.
Is the safety of one child worth the expense? I think it would.

Rob
> Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
> > > Advocating background checks for all board members and senior staff
> > > merely because one of the functions of the organization serves youth
> > > activities? =A0Overkill.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -

Date: 05 Jan 2009 17:08:44
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:55:11 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:

>If the USCF had a background checking system five years ago, would
>there have been more or less instances of chess coaches being
>convicted of sexual predatory habits? I would say there would be less.

What grounds to you have for saying so? Are most coaches formally
affiliated with the USCF? I doubt it. Why should the USCF be
legally responsible for these checks rather than the school, library,
Scouts, YMCA or whatever organization provides the facilities and
organization.

I think this whole obsession on Phil's part has ulterior motives
unconnected with the safety of children.

>Is the safety of one child worth the expense? I think it would.

Making background check so ubiquitous risk making them perfunctory,
and could actually decrease the safety of the kids.

Date: 05 Jan 2009 15:48:24
From:
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

On Jan 5, 4:01=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:52:47 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >There are 2 issues here about standards:
> >1) that the members and delegates should know people's backgrounds,
> >since they are required to vote for them - this includes such things
> >as felony, and other prosecutions for breaking the law - and it also
> >includes non-lawbreaking activities, such as bankruptcy in the case of
> >Mr. Truong, as well as evident conflicts of interest, as with Mr.
> >Goichberg and the CCA in terms of tournaments.
>
> It's good to see that Phil and I can agree on something. =A0Evaluating a
> candidate's background is a major way for a voter to predict that
> candidate's behavior in office if successful.

OK - this is in the spirit of letting the voters know who's who and
what's what.

> >2) That USCF should have as a second standard for board members and
> >senior staff, normally acceptable standards of behavior in our
> >culture, especially since the majority of members are scholastic ones
> >- those standards.
>
> This one is a slippery slope. =A0First, I see the USCF as primarily an
> adult organization that happens to coordinate and facilitate certain
> youth events. =A0I don't see its management and directorship vetted as
> though the USCF were an elementary school or a children's home.

You don't see it cause it doesn't exist. But un-vetted people don't
get to make policy either, even though they are hands-off, so to
speak.

> =A0Many
> parents go way too far in how they would constrain the personal lives
> and activities of those to whom they entrust their kids. =A0

You take that up with parents. I don't happen to agree with you, or in
fact know of any unconcerned parent these days.

> I suspect if an author such as Updike ran for the board, many parents
> would object on the grounds that many of his books have sexually
> explicit passages.

That /is/ the choice of the voter. The idea here is to make it an
informed choice. Besides, I am not talking about
'sexually explicit' material, as if it will shock anyone at all, I am
talking paedophilia.

> Someone's duties involve direct contact with kids? =A0Appropriate
> background checks would be in order. =A0Ratings director or accountant?
> Doesn't make sense.

Board members set policy - and should have the necessary where withal
to do so, because

> Advocating background checks for all board members and senior staff
> merely because one of the functions of the organization serves youth
> activities? =A0Overkill.

Youth activities comprise the majority business of USCF, both in
numbers of chess youth and also in numbers of dollars. It is not a
side issue - it is as central a factor as could be.

Pretense that this is not so, or that parents should not... is neither
an informed opinion nor actually respectful of parents.

Date: 05 Jan 2009 17:28:44
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:48:24 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>> This one is a slippery slope. �First, I see the USCF as primarily an
>> adult organization that happens to coordinate and facilitate certain
>> youth events. �I don't see its management and directorship vetted as
>> though the USCF were an elementary school or a children's home.

>You don't see it cause it doesn't exist. But un-vetted people don't
>get to make policy either, even though they are hands-off, so to
>speak.

Phil seems to be concerned that someone who hasn't undergone a
background check might work on the rating system or negotiate office
supplies. Ridiculous.

>> �Many
>> parents go way too far in how they would constrain the personal lives
>> and activities of those to whom they entrust their kids. �

>You take that up with parents. I don't happen to agree with you, or in
>fact know of any unconcerned parent these days.

You've got the tail wagging the dog. Since I'm the USCF member, it's
up to the parents to take it up with me (and other members).

>Youth activities comprise the majority business of USCF, both in
>numbers of chess youth and also in numbers of dollars. It is not a
>side issue - it is as central a factor as could be.

>Pretense that this is not so, or that parents should not... is neither
>an informed opinion nor actually respectful of parents.

Informed opinion. Only the latter word of that catch phrase applies
to Phil.

Pretence that the USCF doesn't already have a mission statement,
pretence that the USCF is primarily a child-service organization is
just that: pretence. If you want to change the organization's
mission statement, you're free to join up and work to do so.

Date: 05 Jan 2009 15:20:55
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 5, 4:31=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 5, 3:01=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:52:47 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> > >There are 2 issues here about standards:
> > >1) that the members and delegates should know people's backgrounds,
> > >since they are required to vote for them - this includes such things
> > >as felony, and other prosecutions for breaking the law - and it also
> > >includes non-lawbreaking activities, such as bankruptcy in the case of
> > >Mr. Truong, as well as evident conflicts of interest, as with Mr.
> > >Goichberg and the CCA in terms of tournaments.
>
> > It's good to see that Phil and I can agree on something. =A0Evaluating =
a
> > candidate's background is a major way for a voter to predict that
> > candidate's behavior in office if successful.
>
> > >2) That USCF should have as a second standard for board members and
> > >senior staff, normally acceptable standards of behavior in our
> > >culture, especially since the majority of members are scholastic ones
> > >- those standards.
>
> > This one is a slippery slope. =A0First, I see the USCF as primarily an
> > adult organization that happens to coordinate and facilitate certain
> > youth events. =A0I don't see its management and directorship vetted as
> > though the USCF were an elementary school or a children's home. =A0Many
> > parents go way too far in how they would constrain the personal lives
> > and activities of those to whom they entrust their kids. =A0
> > I suspect if an author such as Updike ran for the board, many parents
> > would object on the grounds that many of his books have sexually
> > explicit passages.
> > Someone's duties involve direct contact with kids? =A0Appropriate
> > background checks would be in order. =A0Ratings director or accountant?
> > Doesn't make sense.
>
> Mike,
> in many States it is illegal for anyone having a sexual conviction
> dealing with kids to be involved in any activity that brings them into
> direct or indirect contact with any kids at all. I won't bother
> listing possible examples as I am sure you and others reading this can
> provide many more instances that would come under this domain than I
> could.
>
> As a parent, I would not allow my children to belong to any
> organization that had someone in a leadership position that was a
> child predator involved in it... period.
> If remove of my child from the organization was not an option then I
> would seek removal and barring of those convicted of crimes against
> children from being involved in the organization.
>
> Rob

Have you checked requirements for schol boards? I believe there is no
such requirement for running for school board in Nashville. Would you
agree that it would be a larger issue for school boards than chess
executive boards?

Normally, tests are required only when there is a clear problem. Thus,
airline pilots are tested for drugs but not for sexual convictions,
while teachers are screened for sexual convictions but not tested for
drugs. This does not imply any approval of drugs for teachers or sex
offences for pilots.

Incidentally, the same thing applies with testing Olympic athletes vs
chess players for drugs; you test the Olympians because it is a
problem, but it is wasteful and intrusive to test chess players.

I do not see how having a sexual conviction has any bearing on being a
board member. It is not a big issue to me if such a test is added, but
trying to make it out as an important step is silly. I see no
conceivable effect on any actions, and I oppose it mildly on the
general principle of unwarranted intrusion and cost

Our former congressman, Bob Clement, made a big issue of "drug-free
truck stops", which he touted as a measure he sponsored in campaign
literature but never passed. It was a silly idea; not that one
endorses drugs for truck drivers, but that the notion that one should
be punished more for selling drugs there than elsewhere didn't seem
logical to most other people or congressmen. To me, this is another
silly proposal. I have no problems with someone proposing it, but the
vehemence of Phil's advocacy is hard to understand. To say that those
who oppose it do not care about sex offences and decency is ridiculous
- if you propose something that would actually cut down on sex
offences rather than some weirdly symbolic measure, I am sure it would
be received more positively.

Jerry Spinrad
>
>
>
> > Advocating background checks for all board members and senior staff
> > merely because one of the functions of the organization serves youth
> > activities? =A0Overkill.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Date: 06 Jan 2009 14:40:15
From:
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 6, 11:48=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 6, 11:27=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:23:06 -0800 (PST), The Historian
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >For further discussion:
> > >http://www.littleleague.org/Learn_More/programs/childprotection.htm
> > >The policies apply to all personnel. And under the guidelines as
> > >stated, Sam Sloan, Susan Polgar, and Paul Truong could not work with
> > >Little League.
>
> > Yes, I have the feeling that Innes and Mitchell might not have thought
> > through all the implications of what they've been advocating.
>
> A strong contender for Best Understatement of 2009.
>
> > I think character checks and precautions are most appropriately
> > implemented locally. =A0After all, the USCF is not like an archdiocese,
> > dispatching coaches to local "parishes" from a central =A0location. =A0
>
> One additional point, and this one crushes Innes' rants about "rule of
> law."

Neil Brennan does not admit to legal matters being resolved by legal
means, and comes out with a straightforward statemenbt to that effect,
for once. Such things to him are 'rants'.

> If he's advocating

We needn't detain ourselves with the already disqualifying
speculations of what people who say "if" mean - since we have seem the
same for 8 years from him.

> background checks and enforcement of child
> protection policies, he should keep in mind that proactive
> organizations don't wait until a conviction to remove someone.

Don't they? But why does Neil Brennan argue against initial screening
designed to avert the occasion to remove anyone? He will not say,
since he neither knows nor cares. What he does care about is his own
abusive rights to assert whatever he wants without consequence.

Such as he have no part in deciding what is best for others. To treat
such a matter and joke about' philsy' would (a) identify such a poster
as insincere, and (b) a usual net coward who jokes upon people's
names, which I assume by this writing is homosexual, and which is
despicable in this context, since homosexual incursions into the lives
of children, Brennan, is as certain as heterosexual.

Phil Innes

> For
> instance, a child protection order against, say, a stepfather who uses
> hot sauce to discipline children is enough to have that stepfather
> removed from his position, if only on a temporary basis.
>
> > I've been pondering what might be a hidden agenda behind people like
> > Phil Innes' interest in centralized certification and control of youth
> > and scholastic coaching. =A0This was a also big deal with Korneman, one
> > of the infamous Polgar slate in the last election. =A0And,of course,
> > Polgar and Truong seem to have a lot of irons in the scholastic fire.
>
> > First, I thought it was a One-Of-A-Kind regulation to keep Sam Sloan
> > off the board. =A0
>
> > But, the bigger issue may be money. =A0
>
> It's always money with Philsy.
>
> It's hard to cover the overhead
>
> > of chess administration by the players' dues and entry fees. =A0 So
> > where can money come from? =A0How does a chess administrator get a
> > comfortable income? =A0Commercial sponsors, patrons, =A0or government s=
eem
> > the only alternatives. =A0
>
> > So far, commercial sponsorship for chess in general seems pretty much
> > a dud, although occasionally an *individual* player may benefit from
> > an endorsing something.
>
> > Patrons usually want control and they have a way of disappearing if
> > they're offended or lose interest.
>
> > The most dependable financial pipeline is government, either directly
> > or through educational institutions. =A0Unfortunately, government is
> > less likely to support adult chess. =A0Youth and scholastic chess is
> > more likely to be funded.
>
> > An organization that controls coaching certification can find all
> > kinds of ways to tap that money pipeline, either directly or by
> > siphoning off coaches' incomes. =A0
>
> > The obvious control is in certifying the technical competence of those
> > who would coach, advise or teach chess. =A0But centrally vetting the
> > personal character of these folks is another way of controlling
> > things, and getting funding to administer this control. =A0The big
> > stick: =A0"Hey, you don't want kids getting abused do you?"

Date: 06 Jan 2009 14:10:57
From:
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 6, 11:27=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:23:06 -0800 (PST), The Historian
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >For further discussion:
> >http://www.littleleague.org/Learn_More/programs/childprotection.htm
> >The policies apply to all personnel. And under the guidelines as
> >stated, Sam Sloan, Susan Polgar, and Paul Truong could not work with
> >Little League.
>
> Yes, I have the feeling that Innes and Mitchell might not have thought
> through all the implications of what they've been advocating.

Pray tell then, what such couple have not been perfect at, bearing in
mind no standards whatever are currently in play.

> I think character checks and precautions are most appropriately
> implemented locally. =A0After all, the USCF is not like an archdiocese,
> dispatching coaches to local "parishes" from a central =A0location. =A0
>
> I've been pondering what might be a hidden agenda behind people like
> Phil Innes' interest in centralized certification and control of youth

A reaonable question, or another paranoid? But what is it, following
the original statement Mike Murray would add to what Innes & Mitchell
have been advocating?

> and scholastic coaching. =A0This was a also big deal with Korneman, one
> of the infamous Polgar slate in the last election. =A0And,of course,
> Polgar and Truong seem to have a lot of irons in the scholastic fire.

Nothing there

> First, I thought it was a One-Of-A-Kind regulation to keep Sam Sloan
> off the board. =A0

Nor there.

> But, the bigger issue may be money. =A0It's hard to cover the overhead
> of chess administration by the players' dues and entry fees. =A0 So
> where can money come from? =A0How does a chess administrator get a
> comfortable income? =A0Commercial sponsors, patrons, =A0or government see=
m
> the only alternatives. =A0

Mike Murray seems to have drifted from his initial critical thought
upon the issues Innes & Mitchell have ben advocating- and all 'their
implications'.

Since he can't name his nouns he is (a) over 60 and (b) waffling?

> So far, commercial sponsorship for chess in general seems pretty much
> a dud, although occasionally an *individual* player may benefit from
> an endorsing something.
>
> Patrons usually want control and they have a way of disappearing if
> they're offended or lose interest.
>
> The most dependable financial pipeline is government, either directly
> or through educational institutions. =A0Unfortunately, government is
> less likely to support adult chess. =A0Youth and scholastic chess is
> more likely to be funded.
>
> An organization that controls coaching certification can find all
> kinds of ways to tap that money pipeline, either directly or by
> siphoning off coaches' incomes. =A0
>
> The obvious control is in certifying the technical competence of those
> who would coach, advise or teach chess. =A0But centrally vetting the
> personal character of these folks is another way of controlling
> things, and getting funding to administer this control. =A0The big
> stick: =A0"Hey, you don't want kids getting abused do you?"

Mike Murray abandons his own beginning, and ends with a paraphrase he
would posit on Innes & Mitchell:

"Hey, you don't want kids getting abused do you?"

Mike Murray already dismissed the views of parents to this question as
bible-belt types.

Here you have the errant wit of Mike Murray, who cannot be said to own
any corner of the debate - pro USCF, pro chess youth. All we known is
that he is against something, especially whatever Innes & Mitchell
propose, and this sort of public pronouncement satisfiies his self-
admitted uninformned and tiny mind on the question of youth abuse.

If Mike Murray had had the slightest contact with his own local youth
issues [ever in his life holding a responsible position in this
respect, he would not need ask to be informed of such things, nor
write so abstractly as to negate those who do have such contacts -
including his fatuous commentary that parents who are concerned over
their kids are some bible belt types, whatever that means to him.

If he wants to talk seriously about standards, he will admit his own,
and allow others to admit theirs - he will not trash people who admit
both cultural and legal standards, such as Innes & Mitchell, not even
47 times.

Mike Murray wants to shove his opinion in here, but Mike Murray is a
bit late to the party to talk of standards for all - in fact, he can't
even admit to the rule of law, and is an everyone knows sort of lynch
em quick guy, as demonstrated ever other post he makes.

Phil Innes

Date: 06 Jan 2009 15:49:19
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:10:57 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:

>If Mike Murray had had the slightest contact with his own local youth
>issues [ever in his life holding a responsible position in this
>respect, he would not need ask to be informed of such things,

He does. He was vetted locally. There was no need for USCF ethical
credentialing or investigation by the national chess organization.
Local groups are quite capable and do just fine. The power and money
grab on the part of whatever organization Phil envisions is
unjustified.

>nor
>write so abstractly as to negate those who do have such contacts -
>including his fatuous commentary that parents who are concerned over
>their kids are some bible belt types, whatever that means to him.

I said, "Bible thumpers" -- they don't all live in the bible belt.
Read some Mencken, Phil, then come back and discuss things with the
adults.

Phil should talk to some school librarians if he thinks rationality
typifies all parents' concerns over what their kids should be exposed
to.

Date: 06 Jan 2009 08:48:50
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

Date: 05 Jan 2009 14:31:12
From: Rob
Subject: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 5, 3:01=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 11:52:47 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
> >There are 2 issues here about standards:
> >1) that the members and delegates should know people's backgrounds,
> >since they are required to vote for them - this includes such things
> >as felony, and other prosecutions for breaking the law - and it also
> >includes non-lawbreaking activities, such as bankruptcy in the case of
> >Mr. Truong, as well as evident conflicts of interest, as with Mr.
> >Goichberg and the CCA in terms of tournaments.
>
> It's good to see that Phil and I can agree on something. =A0Evaluating a
> candidate's background is a major way for a voter to predict that
> candidate's behavior in office if successful.
>
> >2) That USCF should have as a second standard for board members and
> >senior staff, normally acceptable standards of behavior in our
> >culture, especially since the majority of members are scholastic ones
> >- those standards.
>
> This one is a slippery slope. =A0First, I see the USCF as primarily an
> adult organization that happens to coordinate and facilitate certain
> youth events. =A0I don't see its management and directorship vetted as
> though the USCF were an elementary school or a children's home. =A0Many
> parents go way too far in how they would constrain the personal lives
> and activities of those to whom they entrust their kids. =A0

> I suspect if an author such as Updike ran for the board, many parents
> would object on the grounds that many of his books have sexually
> explicit passages.

> Someone's duties involve direct contact with kids? =A0Appropriate
> background checks would be in order. =A0Ratings director or accountant?
> Doesn't make sense.

Mike,
in many States it is illegal for anyone having a sexual conviction
dealing with kids to be involved in any activity that brings them into
direct or indirect contact with any kids at all. I won't bother
listing possible examples as I am sure you and others reading this can
provide many more instances that would come under this domain than I
could.

As a parent, I would not allow my children to belong to any
organization that had someone in a leadership position that was a
child predator involved in it... period.
If remove of my child from the organization was not an option then I
would seek removal and barring of those convicted of crimes against
children from being involved in the organization.

Rob

> Advocating background checks for all board members and senior staff
> merely because one of the functions of the organization serves youth
> activities? =A0Overkill.

Date: 07 Jan 2009 08:54:54
From:
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

> > > Paul Truong and Susan Polgar have been accused of "hot saucing."
>
> > Accused of
>
> > Accused and dismissed of..
>
> Mr. Innes, of course, left out the matter of those obscene postings
> under fake names traced to Truong's IP addresses. And various other
> matters before the courts.....

Neil Brennan, the lack-a-wit of all times, sees the hot-saucing
incident - sees the accusation, then sees the dismissal - even though
the 'whole world' according to Spinrad, including Spinrad himself,
seemed rather full of accusation.

>As I've pointed out, Little League, and
> indeed many other groups, will ask you to leave even if you haven't
> yet been convicted of a major crime.

They might, they might not. Rather depends on what they think of any
individual case.

So what Brennan does is continue his insistence that accusation alone
is enough to condemn anyone - but when a properly constituted
authority, such as in the hot-saucing' episode takes a look, the
accusations are thrown out.

> I find P Innes' position on child protection a little odd, since he
> resides in perhaps the most pedophile-friendly state in the US.

What Neil Brennan finds odd are any standards at all. Here he can't
think of any more than Jerry Spinrad could on the actual protection of
kids in chess.

So much for their ideas of standards. ie, no idea.

Phil Innes

Date: 07 Jan 2009 08:32:58
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 7, 11:12=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 6, 10:23=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 9:15=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 04:32:32 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >> The USCF would be a much greater risk if a
> > > >> parent could assume from the USCF affiliation that we'd vetted the
> > > >> coach for pedophilia and we screwed up the background check.
> > > >> Do you have advice from experienced attorneys on your claim, or is
> > > >> this a figment of your (and Phil's) imagination? =A0
> > > >> Have the various national sport sponsors been put out of business =
by
> > > >> the various rogue coaches who have abused their charges in, e.g.,
> > > >> basketball ?
> > > >Specific examples? No.
> > > >Boy Scouts: =A0http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3D3214975n
> > > >City Sued because Mayor Abused child:
> > > >http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=3DTCE&Params=
=3DM1AR...
>
> > > You will notice this is a Canadian case. =A0A political entity is bei=
ng
> > > sued, not a game association. =A0And the guy filing suit murdered his
> > > own father.
>
> > > >Little League sued because the had no program to scan for abusers:
> > > >http://www.childadvocacy.com/news/5167/
>
> > > This case is was filed in 2003. =A0What happened to it?
>
> > For further discussion:
>
> >http://www.littleleague.org/Learn_More/programs/childprotection.htm
>
> > The policies apply to all personnel. And under the guidelines as
> > stated, Sam Sloan, Susan Polgar, and Paul Truong could not work with
> > Little League.
>
> P Innes might want to ponder this 'close to home' matter:
>
> http://www.reformer.com/latestnews/ci_11385094
>
> Should the Burlington Diocese allow the accused priest to serve? After
> all, they are appealing the verdict. According to your 'logic', the
> diocese only needs to remove the priest if there's been a conviction.
> Does that apply to criminal and civil cases, or just criminal?
> According to this website, the priest was never charged with a
> criminal offense:http://www.bishopaccountability.org/assign/Paquette_Edwa=
rd_O.htm

Another model for P Innes from his home state:

http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news3/2002_11_03_BurlingtonFreePress_R=
eturnOf_John_Milanese_2.htm

P Innes might draw comparisons between the priest, who stepped aside
from his church during the investigation (which never reached court),
and the Trolgars, who cling to their EB positions despite court cases,
criminal investigations, civil suits.....

Date: 07 Jan 2009 08:12:04
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

Date: 07 Jan 2009 08:59:51
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 08:12:04 -0800 (PST), The Historian
<[email protected] > wrote:

>P Innes might want to ponder this 'close to home' matter:
>
>http://www.reformer.com/latestnews/ci_11385094
>
>Should the Burlington Diocese allow the accused priest to serve? After
>all, they are appealing the verdict. According to your 'logic', the
>diocese only needs to remove the priest if there's been a conviction.
>Does that apply to criminal and civil cases, or just criminal?
>According to this website, the priest was never charged with a
>criminal offense:
>http://www.bishopaccountability.org/assign/Paquette_Edward_O.htm

Unfair. Unfair. We all know Phil has difficulty with the use of
analogy.

Date: 07 Jan 2009 07:50:52
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 6, 5:27=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 6, 11:41=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 11:13=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 6, 10:23=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wro=
te:
>
> > > > On Jan 6, 9:15=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 04:32:32 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >> The USCF would be a much greater risk if a
> > > > > >> parent could assume from the USCF affiliation that we'd vetted=
the
> > > > > >> coach for pedophilia and we screwed up the background check.
> > > > > >> Do you have advice from experienced attorneys on your claim, o=
r is
> > > > > >> this a figment of your (and Phil's) imagination? =A0
> > > > > >> Have the various national sport sponsors been put out of busin=
ess by
> > > > > >> the various rogue coaches who have abused their charges in, e.=
g.,
> > > > > >> basketball ?
> > > > > >Specific examples? No.
> > > > > >Boy Scouts: =A0http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3D3214975n
> > > > > >City Sued because Mayor Abused child:
> > > > > >http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=3DTCE&Para=
ms=3DM1AR...
>
> > > > > You will notice this is a Canadian case. =A0A political entity is=
being
> > > > > sued, not a game association. =A0And the guy filing suit murdered=
his
> > > > > own father.
>
> > > > > >Little League sued because the had no program to scan for abuser=
s:
> > > > > >http://www.childadvocacy.com/news/5167/
>
> > > > > This case is was filed in 2003. =A0What happened to it?
>
> > > > For further discussion:
>
> > > >http://www.littleleague.org/Learn_More/programs/childprotection.htm
>
> > > > The policies apply to all personnel. And under the guidelines as
> > > > stated, Sam Sloan, Susan Polgar, and Paul Truong could not work wit=
h
> > > > Little League.
>
> > > Whether that is indeed true for these named individuals,
>
> > Sam Sloan was convicted of kidnapping.
>
> Convicted of
>
> > Paul Truong and Susan Polgar have been accused of "hot saucing."
>
> Accused of
>
> Accused and dismissed of..

Mr. Innes, of course, left out the matter of those obscene postings
under fake names traced to Truong's IP addresses. And various other
matters before the courts..... As I've pointed out, Little League, and
indeed many other groups, will ask you to leave even if you haven't
yet been convicted of a major crime.

I find P Innes' position on child protection a little odd, since he
resides in perhaps the most pedophile-friendly state in the US.

Date: 06 Jan 2009 14:27:52
From:
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 6, 11:41=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 6, 11:13=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 10:23=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > On Jan 6, 9:15=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 04:32:32 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >> The USCF would be a much greater risk if a
> > > > >> parent could assume from the USCF affiliation that we'd vetted t=
he
> > > > >> coach for pedophilia and we screwed up the background check.
> > > > >> Do you have advice from experienced attorneys on your claim, or =
is
> > > > >> this a figment of your (and Phil's) imagination? =A0
> > > > >> Have the various national sport sponsors been put out of busines=
s by
> > > > >> the various rogue coaches who have abused their charges in, e.g.=
,
> > > > >> basketball ?
> > > > >Specific examples? No.
> > > > >Boy Scouts: =A0http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3D3214975n
> > > > >City Sued because Mayor Abused child:
> > > > >http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=3DTCE&Params=
=3DM1AR...
>
> > > > You will notice this is a Canadian case. =A0A political entity is b=
eing
> > > > sued, not a game association. =A0And the guy filing suit murdered h=
is
> > > > own father.
>
> > > > >Little League sued because the had no program to scan for abusers:
> > > > >http://www.childadvocacy.com/news/5167/
>
> > > > This case is was filed in 2003. =A0What happened to it?
>
> > > For further discussion:
>
> > >http://www.littleleague.org/Learn_More/programs/childprotection.htm
>
> > > The policies apply to all personnel. And under the guidelines as
> > > stated, Sam Sloan, Susan Polgar, and Paul Truong could not work with
> > > Little League.
>
> > Whether that is indeed true for these named individuals,
>
> Sam Sloan was convicted of kidnapping.

Convicted of

> Paul Truong and Susan Polgar have been accused of "hot saucing."

Accused of

Accused and dismissed of..

This is the intellectual honesty of our poster, Neil Brennan - he
equates these the same. What a massive idiot to write this in public!
Notodndly are these threads now heavily monitored by legal begals, but
Brennan's association equates Sloan's conviction by a court with the
dismissal by a court of the Polgar issue.

But to read Brennan, these are equivalent.

Is Brennan stupid - this stupid? HGe once opined that "Old English is
Dead" which required only 4 words of old english to say so. That is,
you might think, 100% stupid. You may have a doubt - you may grant him
the benefit of talking wildly to impress others, from some false
premise obtained by them.

But the above equivalence of actual imprisonment of the Sloan,
compared with the dismissal of Susan Polgar, is beyond the wit of
Brennan to differentiate.

Do I need to press this point?: apparently I do, since people quote
Brennan as if quoting truth. Those people are indifferent to
discrimination to what is true - they are all believers, and not
unlike true religious fanatics of the Church of Nihilism.

> There's also the little matter of all those obscene messages linked to

I say that a similar to FSS type showed up much earlier than the FSS -
in fact it made similar gross and sexual commentary about my family -
it followed only one poster, and my contradiction of that poster's
decieit and lies, and that poster was Neil Brennan - a known stalker
and abuser of other people and who likes to be a little inventive on
other's names, often using them to 'satyric' effect.

Here he volunteers more of his spite, since most obsessions are
unconscious, and he cannot not do it! He even dares comment on the
conduct of other people, and what standards they should hold.

Let *The Watchers* note this also.

Phil Innes

> their IP addresses. And the ongoing investigation of Truong's
> bankruptcy. And the... well, read the USCF's complaint to remove them
> from the EB.
>
> I think that's enough to cause Little League to say NO THANKS.
>
> (Snip remaining Innes-crement.)

Date: 06 Jan 2009 10:01:42
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 6, 12:36=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 6, 12:06=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 11:41=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote=
:
>
> > > Sam Sloan was convicted of kidnapping.
> > > Paul Truong and Susan Polgar have been accused of "hot saucing."
> > > There's also the little matter of all those obscene messages linked t=
o
> > > their IP addresses. And the ongoing investigation of Truong's
> > > bankruptcy. And the... well, read the USCF's complaint to remove them
> > > from the EB.
>
> > > I think that's enough to cause Little League to say NO THANKS.
>
> > Not true.
>
> > I was not convicted of kidnapping.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> My apologies. What felony were you convicted of? Oh, I see, it was
> "attempted abduction."

Lynchburg Circuit Court case number CR91003195-00

Date: 06 Jan 2009 09:36:44
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 6, 12:06=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 6, 11:41=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Sam Sloan was convicted of kidnapping.
> > Paul Truong and Susan Polgar have been accused of "hot saucing."
> > There's also the little matter of all those obscene messages linked to
> > their IP addresses. And the ongoing investigation of Truong's
> > bankruptcy. And the... well, read the USCF's complaint to remove them
> > from the EB.
>
> > I think that's enough to cause Little League to say NO THANKS.
>
> Not true.
>
> I was not convicted of kidnapping.
>
> Sam Sloan

My apologies. What felony were you convicted of? Oh, I see, it was
"attempted abduction."

Date: 06 Jan 2009 09:06:09
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 6, 11:41=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:

> Sam Sloan was convicted of kidnapping.
> Paul Truong and Susan Polgar have been accused of "hot saucing."
> There's also the little matter of all those obscene messages linked to
> their IP addresses. And the ongoing investigation of Truong's
> bankruptcy. And the... well, read the USCF's complaint to remove them
> from the EB.
>
> I think that's enough to cause Little League to say NO THANKS.

Not true.

I was not convicted of kidnapping.

Sam Sloan

Date: 06 Jan 2009 08:41:31
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 6, 11:13=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Jan 6, 10:23=A0am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 9:15=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 04:32:32 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >> The USCF would be a much greater risk if a
> > > >> parent could assume from the USCF affiliation that we'd vetted the
> > > >> coach for pedophilia and we screwed up the background check.
> > > >> Do you have advice from experienced attorneys on your claim, or is
> > > >> this a figment of your (and Phil's) imagination? =A0
> > > >> Have the various national sport sponsors been put out of business =
by
> > > >> the various rogue coaches who have abused their charges in, e.g.,
> > > >> basketball ?
> > > >Specific examples? No.
> > > >Boy Scouts: =A0http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3D3214975n
> > > >City Sued because Mayor Abused child:
> > > >http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=3DTCE&Params=
=3DM1AR...
>
> > > You will notice this is a Canadian case. =A0A political entity is bei=
ng
> > > sued, not a game association. =A0And the guy filing suit murdered his
> > > own father.
>
> > > >Little League sued because the had no program to scan for abusers:
> > > >http://www.childadvocacy.com/news/5167/
>
> > > This case is was filed in 2003. =A0What happened to it?
>
> > For further discussion:
>
> >http://www.littleleague.org/Learn_More/programs/childprotection.htm
>
> > The policies apply to all personnel. And under the guidelines as
> > stated, Sam Sloan, Susan Polgar, and Paul Truong could not work with
> > Little League.
>
> Whether that is indeed true for these named individuals,

Sam Sloan was convicted of kidnapping.
Paul Truong and Susan Polgar have been accused of "hot saucing."
There's also the little matter of all those obscene messages linked to
their IP addresses. And the ongoing investigation of Truong's
bankruptcy. And the... well, read the USCF's complaint to remove them
from the EB.

I think that's enough to cause Little League to say NO THANKS.

(Snip remaining Innes-crement.)

Date: 06 Jan 2009 08:13:36
From:
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 6, 10:23=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 6, 9:15=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 04:32:32 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >> The USCF would be a much greater risk if a
> > >> parent could assume from the USCF affiliation that we'd vetted the
> > >> coach for pedophilia and we screwed up the background check.
> > >> Do you have advice from experienced attorneys on your claim, or is
> > >> this a figment of your (and Phil's) imagination? =A0
> > >> Have the various national sport sponsors been put out of business by
> > >> the various rogue coaches who have abused their charges in, e.g.,
> > >> basketball ?
> > >Specific examples? No.
> > >Boy Scouts: =A0http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3D3214975n
> > >City Sued because Mayor Abused child:
> > >http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=3DTCE&Params=3DM=
1AR...
>
> > You will notice this is a Canadian case. =A0A political entity is being
> > sued, not a game association. =A0And the guy filing suit murdered his
> > own father.
>
> > >Little League sued because the had no program to scan for abusers:
> > >http://www.childadvocacy.com/news/5167/
>
> > This case is was filed in 2003. =A0What happened to it?
>
> For further discussion:
>
> http://www.littleleague.org/Learn_More/programs/childprotection.htm
>
> The policies apply to all personnel. And under the guidelines as
> stated, Sam Sloan, Susan Polgar, and Paul Truong could not work with
> Little League.

Whether that is indeed true for these named individuals, at least the
principle is good - standards are impersonal measures.

As it stands to date - there are suggested standards in these threads
for rIght care of children by teachers & trainers; for fiduciary
history; for those who set standards! I added another earlier; of
conflict of interest. One might continue to add them; including
significant relationships with other board or staff members.

Then again, we have discussed 2 possible applications of these
standards:

The first is simply to disclose them to voters if it is an elected
position [and to the board if its a senior management position].

The second is to preclude individuals from some roles at USCF because
the role requires higher standard than they attained OR exclude those
individuals from membership.

(merely a note to the above is the objection, as in the case of Brian
Lafferty, that he was not a sufficient insider, or had not been a
member for 2 years etc). This seems rather arbitrary, since being an
insider could be considered to be a net-negative - and besides, this
is the voting members decision of who they would admit to the board)

So together here, from very different perspectives, we collude in
noticing what could be, and what is not in place [ie, none of the
above]. The only thing this conversation lacks is attention by those
who actually decide if and what standards there are.

Phil Innes
Vermont

Date: 06 Jan 2009 07:23:06
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 6, 9:15=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 04:32:32 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> The USCF would be a much greater risk if a
> >> parent could assume from the USCF affiliation that we'd vetted the
> >> coach for pedophilia and we screwed up the background check.
> >> Do you have advice from experienced attorneys on your claim, or is
> >> this a figment of your (and Phil's) imagination? =A0
> >> Have the various national sport sponsors been put out of business by
> >> the various rogue coaches who have abused their charges in, e.g.,
> >> basketball ?
> >Specific examples? No.
> >Boy Scouts: =A0http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=3D3214975n
> >City Sued because Mayor Abused child:
> >http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=3DTCE&Params=3DM1A=
R...
>
> You will notice this is a Canadian case. =A0A political entity is being
> sued, not a game association. =A0And the guy filing suit murdered his
> own father.
>
> >Little League sued because the had no program to scan for abusers:
> >http://www.childadvocacy.com/news/5167/
>
> This case is was filed in 2003. =A0What happened to it?

For further discussion:

http://www.littleleague.org/Learn_More/programs/childprotection.htm

The policies apply to all personnel. And under the guidelines as
stated, Sam Sloan, Susan Polgar, and Paul Truong could not work with
Little League.

Date: 07 Jan 2009 10:00:35
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Jan 7, 12:40=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 09:35:54 -0800 (PST), [email protected] wrote:
>
> Phil said:
>
> >> >How good of Dr. Spinrad to drop by and bid Mike Murray explain to all
> >> >why bible thiumping parents, as Murray has them, should not be
> >> >empowered .
>
> then he said (!!)
>
> >My reward for mentioning standards is to be rubbished by Murray as a
> >bible thumper, though I never made the slightest ecclesiastical
> >reference.
>
> To pick a nit, I never said Phil *was* a bible-thumper, just that, by
> his own words, he was concerned over their lack of empowerment.

How long until P Innes starts arguing with himself? Cue the "I'm not
your boy" post.

Date: 06 Jan 2009 08:27:04
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:23:06 -0800 (PST), The Historian
<[email protected] > wrote:

>For further discussion:

>http://www.littleleague.org/Learn_More/programs/childprotection.htm

>The policies apply to all personnel. And under the guidelines as
>stated, Sam Sloan, Susan Polgar, and Paul Truong could not work with
>Little League.

Yes, I have the feeling that Innes and Mitchell might not have thought
through all the implications of what they've been advocating.

I think character checks and precautions are most appropriately
implemented locally. After all, the USCF is not like an archdiocese,
dispatching coaches to local "parishes" from a central location.

I've been pondering what might be a hidden agenda behind people like
Phil Innes' interest in centralized certification and control of youth
and scholastic coaching. This was a also big deal with Korneman, one
of the infamous Polgar slate in the last election. And,of course,
Polgar and Truong seem to have a lot of irons in the scholastic fire.

First, I thought it was a One-Of-A-Kind regulation to keep Sam Sloan
off the board.

But, the bigger issue may be money. It's hard to cover the overhead
of chess administration by the players' dues and entry fees. So
where can money come from? How does a chess administrator get a
comfortable income? Commercial sponsors, patrons, or government seem
the only alternatives.

So far, commercial sponsorship for chess in general seems pretty much
a dud, although occasionally an *individual* player may benefit from
an endorsing something.

Patrons usually want control and they have a way of disappearing if
they're offended or lose interest.

The most dependable financial pipeline is government, either directly
or through educational institutions. Unfortunately, government is
less likely to support adult chess. Youth and scholastic chess is
more likely to be funded.

An organization that controls coaching certification can find all
kinds of ways to tap that money pipeline, either directly or by
siphoning off coaches' incomes.

The obvious control is in certifying the technical competence of those
who would coach, advise or teach chess. But centrally vetting the
personal character of these folks is another way of controlling
things, and getting funding to administer this control. The big
stick: "Hey, you don't want kids getting abused do you?"

Date: 05 Jan 2009 15:11:06
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Personal Standards for Service to Elected USCF Positions

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:31:12 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:

>> I suspect if an author such as Updike ran for the board, many parents
>> would object on the grounds that many of his books have sexually
>> explicit passages.

>> Someone's duties involve direct contact with kids? �Appropriate
>> background checks would be in order. �Ratings director or accountant?
>> Doesn't make sense.

>Mike,
>in many States it is illegal for anyone having a sexual conviction
>dealing with kids to be involved in any activity that brings them into
>direct or indirect contact with any kids at all. I won't bother
>listing possible examples as I am sure you and others reading this can
>provide many more instances that would come under this domain than I
>could.

>As a parent, I would not allow my children to belong to any
>organization that had someone in a leadership position that was a
>child predator involved in it... period.

>If remove of my child from the organization was not an option then I
>would seek removal and barring of those convicted of crimes against
>children from being involved in the organization.

So, what's your point?

Are convicted pedophiles running for the board? So, far Phil's
fulminations have referenced either Sloan's decades old felony
conviction for custodial interference (not a sex crime), or the
contents of his web site. There have been chess coaches and chess
personalities accused of pedophilia and some of them convicted, but
AFAIK, none of them are running for office or serving as USCF staff
members.

The real risk for kids is not primarily at the EB level, but at the
level of scholastic coach or advisor.

I worry about the slippery slope -- primarily ignorant Bible thumpers
imposing their values on the rest of us while reciting their mantra,
"but it's for the children", bellowing indignantly about authors who
have written books with sexually explicit passages. They've even
whined about the Diary of Anne Frank, fer christ's sake.

Child abusers shouldn't be around children. Period. But what the
moralists end up going after is people who have said or written things
inappropriate for children. Phil prattles a lot about waiting for
"convictions" especially when it involves people he (and you,
evidently) support. But Sloan has never been convicted or even
*charged* with these things -- you guys are hammering on what he's
*written*.

None of this implies I support Sam for EB -- to the contrary. I think
his web site often reflects poor judgment.

>Rob
>
>
>> Advocating background checks for all board members and senior staff
>> merely because one of the functions of the organization serves youth
>> activities? �Overkill.

Date: 04 Jan 2009 23:37:36
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

The Historian wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2:54 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:50:44 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> None of these that were active were disclosed in Truong's bankruptcy
>>> filing in 2007.
>> Have the dogs of war sniffed out a few more buried bones?
>>
>> What happens when one neglects to mention assets in a bankruptcy case
>> anyway
>
> P Innes, do you have an answer?

Best that he not answer yet. We're still digging. Like Con Ed says,
"Dig we must."

Date: 04 Jan 2009 20:55:30
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Four More Trolgar Florida Corporations

Mike Murray wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 18:50:44 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> None of these that were active were disclosed in Truong's bankruptcy
>> filing in 2007.
>
> Have the dogs of war sniffed out a few more buried bones?
>
> What happens when one neglects to mention assets in a bankruptcy case
> anyway

Stay tuned. We'll see what happens.