| |
Main
Date: 10 Oct 2007 15:45:59
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: USCF Exposed to Whistleblower Lawsuit
|
USCF Exposed to Whistleblower lawsuit
If the USCF and its board were not in enough trouble already, it is
now subject to prosecution of a whistleblower lawsuit, because two
USCF website administrators have been dismissed yesterday in direct
retaliation for revealing that two board members have engaged in
impersonation of a former USCF board member.
Here is the official statement of the USCF Board, as reported on Susan
Polgars Blogspot at
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/10/frivolous-lawsuit-and-other-items.html
"Official statement by the USCF EB
"This is an official statement by the USCF (5-0 vote with Paul and I
abstaining)
"Recent events have led to charges and counter-charges about false
postings on chess websites that may involve USCF members and improper
activity by independent contractors working for the USCF. At this
time, it must be stressed that none of these claims can be
independently substantiated, and the USCF does not support them. The
USCF apologizes for any unintended resulting actions.
"The USCF takes seriously its need to protect the privacy of its
members and is actively investigating the charges of violation of its
privacy policies and actions of its members. The individuals who may
have violated these policies have agreed, as of today, to suspend
their duties with the USCF until these issues are resolved."
From the above quote, it is apparent that two USCF employees have been
dismissed in retaliation for revealing that two board members have
been engaging in criminal activity. Thus, the employees can
successfully bring a Whistleblower lawsuit.
"Whistleblowing is disclosing information that an employee, former
employee or a member of an organization that he or she reasonably
believes is evidence of misconduct or illegal activity. Whistleblowers
are most often employees of businesses, but are also commonly
employees of government agencies.
"The information of misconduct can include violations of law, rules,
regulations and/or direct threats to public interest such as fraud,
health, safety violations, abuse of power and corruption.
"When a whistleblower files a discrimination or retaliation claim,
they are required to show that they engaged in protected activity,
that the employer knew about the activity, subjected him or her to an
adverse employment action, and the protected activity contributed to
the adverse action.
"Adverse employment action is a material change in the terms or
conditions of employment. Depending upon the circumstances of the
case, discrimination can include intimidation of an employee,
reduction in pay or hours, disciplinary action, a demotion, denial of
overtime, a re-assignment that would impact a future promotion, a
denial of a promotion, firing or laying off the employee or the
blacklisting of an employee."
http://www.weitzlux.com/whistleblowerattorney_339408.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
http://jobsearchtech.about.com/cs/labor_laws/a/whistle_blower.htm
Now that the board has exposed the USCF to yet another lawsuit, I
think it is time for the board to consider resigning.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 17:31:00
From:
Subject: Re: USCF Exposed to Whistleblower Lawsuit
|
This has nothing to do with computer chess. Please do not crosspost
your replies to rec.games.chess.computer. As for crossposting to
alt.politics.bush, Sam Sloan should be hung by his heels and fed
a powerful laxative. With his head in a bucket.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 17:14:44
From: Rob
Subject: Re: USCF Exposed to Whistleblower Lawsuit
|
On Oct 10, 10:45 am, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
> USCF Exposed to Whistleblower lawsuit
>
> If the USCF and its board were not in enough trouble already, it is
> now subject to prosecution of a whistleblower lawsuit, because two
> USCF website administrators have been dismissed yesterday in direct
> retaliation for revealing that two board members have engaged in
> impersonation of a former USCF board member.
>
> Here is the official statement of the USCF Board, as reported on Susan
> Polgars Blogspot athttp://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/10/frivolous-lawsuit-and-other-i...
>
> "Official statement by the USCF EB
>
> "This is an official statement by the USCF (5-0 vote with Paul and I
> abstaining)
>
> "Recent events have led to charges and counter-charges about false
> postings on chess websites that may involve USCF members and improper
> activity by independent contractors working for the USCF. At this
> time, it must be stressed that none of these claims can be
> independently substantiated, and the USCF does not support them. The
> USCF apologizes for any unintended resulting actions.
> "The USCF takes seriously its need to protect the privacy of its
> members and is actively investigating the charges of violation of its
> privacy policies and actions of its members. The individuals who may
> have violated these policies have agreed, as of today, to suspend
> their duties with the USCF until these issues are resolved."
Sloan, does it say "employee"? Does it say "dismissed"? Improper and
lacks usage of the language can lead to unintended leaps in logic.
> From the above quote, it is apparent that two USCF employees have been
> dismissed in retaliation for revealing that two board members have
> been engaging in criminal activity. Thus, the employees can
> successfully bring a Whistleblower lawsuit.
Wrong! LOL
> "Whistleblowing is disclosing information that an employee, former
> employee or a member of an organization that he or she reasonably
> believes is evidence of misconduct or illegal activity. Whistleblowers
> are most often employees of businesses, but are also commonly
> employees of government agencies.
Remember that.
> "The information of misconduct can include violations of law, rules,
> regulations and/or direct threats to public interest such as fraud,
> health, safety violations, abuse of power and corruption.
>
> "When a whistleblower files a discrimination or retaliation claim,
> they are required to show that they engaged in protected activity,
> that the employer knew about the activity, subjected him or her to an
> adverse employment action, and the protected activity contributed to
> the adverse action.
They are required to show they didn't break the law.. If you learned
to read instead of rushing out to cut and paste snippets you would
appear less ignorant.
> "Adverse employment action is a material change in the terms or
> conditions of employment. Depending upon the circumstances of the
> case, discrimination can include intimidation of an employee,
> reduction in pay or hours, disciplinary action, a demotion, denial of
> overtime, a re-assignment that would impact a future promotion, a
> denial of a promotion, firing or laying off the employee or the
> blacklisting of an employee."
>
> http://www.weitzlux.com/whistleblowerattorney_339408.html
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower
>
> http://jobsearchtech.about.com/cs/labor_laws/a/whistle_blower.htm
> Now that the board has exposed the USCF to yet another lawsuit, I
> think it is time for the board to consider resigning.
>
> Sam Sloan
I think we are all resigned to the fact that you believe the world
revolves around you. We are also resigned to the fact that until you
are cold and stiff we won't be free from your incessant indolence.
|
| |
Date: 10 Oct 2007 09:20:30
From: help bot
Subject: Re: USCF Exposed to Whistleblower Lawsuit
|
Sam Sloan wrote:
> USCF Exposed to Whistleblower lawsuit
>
> If the USCF and its board were not in enough trouble already, it is
> now subject to prosecution of a whistleblower lawsuit, because two
> USCF website administrators have been dismissed yesterday in direct
> retaliation for revealing that two board members have engaged in
> impersonation of a former USCF board member.
This is inconsistent with prior accusations made in
other threads; in one post, Paul Truong was fingered
as the Fake Sloan(s), but above it says that *two*
board members were implicated. I noticed this
discrepancy before, and asked "why the sudden
change?", but there was no answer. Now here it is
again. It seems impossible for all the fake Sloans
and other fakes to have been PT, and yet for two (or
more) persons to have "engaged in impersonation"
as stated above. So, was the earlier accusation
mistaken? Was PT falsely handed all the blame,
when he was but one of two (or more) impostors?
-- help bot
|
|
