| |
Main
Date: 14 Jan 2009 10:35:18
From: samsloan
Subject: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
[quote="Hal Terrie"][b]Sloan:[/b]
Regardless of whether the USCF copier was used or he bought his own
copier as he has explained, the fact is that he used the USCF office
facilities, the USCF chair, the USCF table, he took time away from the
USCF staff and, since you were chairman of the USCF Ethics Committee,
you allowed him to do this and get away with it.
I know of no other instance in which the office staff got involved in
taking sides on an ethics complaint. Since you were involved in this,
it was YOUR conduct that was unethical.
*************************
[b]Now my response:[/b]
This was absolutely not an instance of the office taking sides in an
ethics complaint. Let me give some background here for those who are
not familiar with the procedures of the Ethics Committee.
When a complaint is received at the USCF office, a copy is made for
every member of the Committee and sent to them by mail, so that the
Committee can judge whether to accept jurisdiction. If memory serves,
at that time the total number of copies required was ten. In this
case, we were informed that the complaint would be very long. To save
on duplicating costs, the plaintiff asked if he could send us the ten
copies of the complaint on CDs. After much discussion, the Committee
refused this request - both because it would have been necessary to go
through the CDs in painstaking detail to confirm that they were all
identical and because we did not want to make it easy for future
plaintiffs to submit overly lengthy complaints.
So, the paper copies had to be made. They had to be made even if the
Committee ultimately rejected jurisdiction in the complaint. The USCF
table and chair (lol) and the time of the staffer, would have been
used NO MATTER WHAT. The only question was who would bear the cost of
the printing and paper for ten 400 page copies. The plaintiff solved
that problem at once by offering to use his own printer and paper. As
Committee Chair, I agreed that this was a reasonable way to proceed.
In no way did this involve the office in "taking sides" nor was it in
any way unethical. It certainly did not influence the Committee's
handling of the case in any way.
-- Hal Terrie[/quote]
I am deeply shocked that so far nobody here on this forum finds
anything wrong with allowing an outside person not even a delegate to
move into the USCF offices in Crossville Tennessee for a solid week,
so that he could make thousands of color copies and compose a 400 page
ethics complaint.
Does that mean that I will be allowed to move into the USCF Offices
and rummage around the office for a week or so and take what ever I
can find to compose an ethics complaint against Mr Terrie, Mr.
Goichberg and Mr. Vaughn?
What Mr. Vaughn did was basically copy everything I had posted to the
USCF Issues Forum over a two year period, thereby creating a 400 page
document, and then put a two page cover letter on top of it that
basically said, "Read all these documents and you will find ethical
violations by Sam Sloan". He never pointed to any specific page or to
any specific quote that he found objectionable.
But there is more, much more. The reason Vaughn did this is that he
thought that the Ethics Committee would throw me off the board,
something that we now realize it probably lacks the power to do. This
was after I was elected by the board. It was part of a concerted
effort by Mr. Goichberg and Mr. Truong, who were working together at
that time, either to stop me from taking the office to which I had
been elected or to throw me off after I had taken office.
Then, the Ethics Committee proceeded to find ethical violations that
had not even been alleged. The Ethics Committee reprimanded me for
calling Grant Perks a "criminal" on the USCF Issues Forum. I had never
made any such statement, nor had I ever been accused of making this
statement. You can go back and search the archives here and you will
never find any such statement by me.
They also allowed the complaining party to file his complaint without
paying the required $25 filing fee.
You would think that after Mr. Vaughn has submitted 400 pages of forum
postings, that they would be able to find one exact quote to buttress
their case. They found none. Instead they attempted to paraphrase what
I had written. If you are any kind of lawyer, you will know that
paraphrases are not good enough. You will have to provide exact
quotes.
More than that, Vaughn violated the time requirements set by the
Ethics Committee. He was given a certain date by which to respond. He
never responded. Nothing was heard from him. Then, Mr. Terrie started
to writing him a letter every month or so saying his response was past
due and he should respond now. What Mr. Terrie should have done is
realize that Vaughn was abandoning his ethics complaint and just
dismiss it for that reason. However, as we can see from his remarks
above, Mr. Terrie has an agenda of his own. For that reason, Mr.
Terrie kept writing to Mr. Vaughn asking him to complete his
submission, which Mr. Vaughn finally did after much goading.
Mr. Terrie then resigned from the Ethics Committee almost immediately
after making his entirely bugus and baseless findings against me, all
of which seem to be completely forgotten now.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 19 Jan 2009 04:40:07
From: Wick
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
On Jan 19, 1:55=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> [quote=3D"tanstaafl"]So in both my case against Sam Sloan and in Grant
> Perk's case, the ruling was that they were "obviously" not frivolous
> -- since we both won. :)[/quote]
>
> Not quite. You filed a 400 page complaint with 16 counts.
>
> The Ethics Committee immediately tossed out 11 of those 16 counts as
> frivolous.
>
Incorrect. The committee rejected those counts on jurisdictional
grounds, not because they were frivolous.
> Later, an additional count was thrown out as factually untrue.
>
Not untrue, but, rather, unproven.
> This left only four. So, the Ethics Committee found that your
> complaint was 75% frivolous.
>
Incorrect.
> This means that of the one thousand postings that you have pulled as
> moderator of this forum, it is likely that 750 of them should not have
> been pulled.
Non sequitur, much?
|
| |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 23:55:23
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
[quote="tanstaafl"]So in both my case against Sam Sloan and in Grant
Perk's case, the ruling was that they were "obviously" not frivolous
-- since we both won. :)[/quote]
Not quite. You filed a 400 page complaint with 16 counts.
The Ethics Committee immediately tossed out 11 of those 16 counts as
frivolous.
Later, an additional count was thrown out as factually untrue.
This left only four. So, the Ethics Committee found that your
complaint was 75% frivolous.
This means that of the one thousand postings that you have pulled as
moderator of this forum, it is likely that 750 of them should not have
been pulled.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 15:05:33
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
[quote="Hal Terrie"][quote="artichoke"][quote="Hal Terrie"]
[quote="artichoke"]
... is the ED expected to make the determination about frivolousness?[/
quote]
He is not and he shouldn't.[/quote]
But he did. The ED made a determination of non-frivolousness and this
was known to the EC.
I would say the case was tainted irredeemably at that point.[/quote]
That's nonsense. It wasn't the ED who was going to judge the case. I
view this as a minor technical error by him which did not affect in
the slightest how the Committee subsequently handled the case. And by
the way, the Committee did not know this had happened at first. It was
only when the defendant brought it to our attention that we learned of
it. So we instructed the plaintiff to pay the fee and he did. End of
story.
-- Hal Terrie [/quote]
This confirms my previous statement that it took a long time before
Grant Perks finally paid the money.
At my first meeting of the board on August 14, 2006, when I complained
to the other members of the board about the fact that Grant Perks
still had not paid the required $25 filing fee, Bill Goichberg turned
to Bill Hall and told him that he had no right to waive the fee and to
go and collect the $25.
It was about two months later that the Ethics Committee informed me
that Grant Perks had finally paid the fee.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 08:03:40
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
[quote="Grant Perks"][quote]
Procedurally, the ethics committee can also accept a complaint without
the deposit. This requires a two thirds majority.[/quote]
[quote="Hal Terrie"][color=#0000FF][b]This is not correct. There is no
such provision.[/b][/color][/quote]
Hal, I am not an attorney nor have I served on the ethics committee,
but this is the way I read what was passed by the delegates in August
2004:
[color=#800080][quote]DM04-25 - ADM- 04-19 ([b][size=150]Hal Terrie,[/
size] [/b]NH on behalf of the Ethics Committee): To make the following
changes to the USCF Code of Ethics: In paragraph 6, after "with the
USCF Ethics Committee," add the following sentences: "A good-faith
deposit of $25 must be submitted by the complainant. The deposit shall
be returned unless the Committee rules that the case is frivolous. The
Committee may determine whether to return the deposit even before it
determines jurisdictional and merit questions. [b][size=150]The
Committee may also, by a two-thirds vote, accept complaints submitted
without the $25 deposit.[/size][/b]" PASSED[/quote][/color]
Again, when I filed my complaint I called the office and offered to
pay the deposit, which I thought was due at the time. It was the ED
who stated it wasn't necessary, since the complaint was obviously not
frivolous. I didn't have my rulebook with me at the time so I trusted
the ED was making an appropriate decision.
Grant Perks [/quote]
Grant Perks keeps changing his story.
At the beginning of this thread he insisted that there was no
requirement that a filing fee of $25 be paid.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 07:30:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
Hal Terrie has responded to Grant Perks as follows:
by Hal Terrie on Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:20 am #124074
Grant Perks wrote:
artichoke wrote:
I don't think you answered: is the ED expected to make the
determination about frivolousness?
He is not and he shouldn't.
If not, perhaps an unusual determination of this sort from the
ED could remove from the EC a burden that properly belongs there, or
even "send a message" (accurate or not) to the EC as to the result
desired by the ED. At any rate I'm asking about the allowed procedure,
and the usual procedure, and not anyone's personal finances.
I believe the usual procedure is that all complaints are submitted
to the office with the deposit. The office will not cash the check but
simply hold it in the complaint file. Once the appropriate committee
has determined that the case is not frivolous, the check is returned
uncashed.
Procedurally, the ethics committee can also accept a complaint
without the deposit. This requires a two thirds majority.
This is not correct. There is no such provision.
In my case I have no idea if the committee took such a vote or was
even informed that the check was not included with the complaint. I
would imagine they were not informed.
I only mentioned that I have spent several times the deposit on
the USCF in the two years hence to show that the deposit wasn't an
issue for me.
Of course. This goes without saying and your nservice to USCF is
much appreciated. However, especially in the case of one closely
connected to the office, when it comes to ethics complaints all the
normal procedures should be followed. You should simply have sent the
complaint by mail, with a check enclosed, as everyone is supposed to
do. This would have avoided any questions of impropriety.
-- Hal Terrie
|
| |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 07:21:39
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
[quote="tanstaafl"]I TRIED to save the ethics committee time and the
USCF office their effort. I WANTED to send the complaint on a CD --
which would have had links embedded in the complaint to the material
that supported it (and that would have been a lot easier, IMO, for the
committee to review). Duplicating a CD is an easy thing, now, but the
committee declined (as was their right! -- I'm not arguing that!).
Verifying a CD is also not too hard, but I'm not sure anybody at the
office knew how to do that.
It would have made things a lot cheaper on me! I was out the expense
of a laser printer and a trip to Crossville because I wanted to spare
the USCF that expense. 10 CDs would have been cheap (and cost less
postage, too).[/quote]
I think I understand now why you needed to do the work in the USCF's
offices and not in your own office or at home:
Your "ethics complaint" consisted almost entirely of postings by me to
the Internet, including especially to the USCF Issues Forum.
However, to take a screen shot of the Internet including this page
here requires either a "PrintScreen" function or a program such as
SnagIt. Neither of these produce perfect reproductions.
Probably, inside the USCF offices there is a computer with direct feed
into the uschess.org website which enables you to copy the pages
directly from the computer where this website is actually maintained.
In short, you had direct access to the origin of all these pages.
I realized this when I was trying to copy pages from Bill Brock's
website to be submitted to the judge. I can get good copies by just
hitting "print", but they are not perfect. Also, a computer screen
will not just contain my words. It will contain the postings before
and after mine. However, if you have direct access to the USCF's
computer this problem will be solved.
Would you kindly explain if this is the reason why you had to use the
USCF's offices to assemble your ethics complaint?
You state above that you wanted to send the "links" on CD, not the
actual pages. This seems to confirm that this is the reason why you
wanted to use the USCF Office facilities.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 18 Jan 2009 06:31:09
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
[quote="Grant Perks"][quote="artichoke"]
I don't think you answered: is the ED expected to make the
determination about frivolousness?
If not, perhaps an unusual determination of this sort from the ED
could remove from the EC a burden that properly belongs there, or even
"send a message" (accurate or not) to the EC as to the result desired
by the ED. At any rate I'm asking about the allowed procedure, and
the usual procedure, and not anyone's personal finances.[/quote]
I believe the usual procedure is that all complaints are submitted to
the office with the deposit. The office will not cash the check but
simply hold it in the complaint file. Once the appropriate committee
has determined that the case is not frivolous, the check is returned
uncashed.
Procedurally, the ethics committee can also accept a complaint without
the deposit. This requires a two thirds majority. In my case I have no
idea if the committee took such a vote or was even informed that the
check was not included with the complaint. I would imagine they were
not informed.
I only mentioned that I have spent several times the deposit on the
USCF in the two years hence to show that the deposit wasn't an issue
for me. I had originally offered to pay via credit card, which I was
willing to do. I did not ask for any exception to the rules, I only
asked if I could submit my complaint via email. I was working in Miami
at the time and didn't have easy access to envelopes, stamps, or even
a post office. I believe the ED made his determination to waive the
fee since he didn't want to have to initiate a credit card refund once
the case was ruled non-frivolous.
Grant Perks [/quote]
Like Pinocchio, Grant Perks is having a problem with his nose growing
longer.
Amazing the way you keep making stuff up. There is no such procedure
as you describe, including holding the check. The check goes in the
bank. You were at different times both Executive Director and CFO. You
were Executive Director around September-October 2003 and CFO around
January-June 2005 so you should know these things. You were fired both
times.
(Grant Perks insists that he was not fired. The truth this both times
the board voted to fire him. Upon being informed that he was being
fired, Grant Perks basically said, "You can't fire me, because I
quit." That is why he claims that he was never fired. His claim that
he was hired for a period of specific duration is not true.)
(Also, the Ethics Committee was informed that the $25 had not been
paid and held up the complaint for that reason until the money had
been paid. He still does not answer the question of when he finally
paid. He keeps qualifying his answers with "I believe" and "as I
recall".)
Here is the email you sent. Why are you having so much trouble
remembering this?:
Pat Knight
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:44 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Sam Sloan Ethics Charge
Hello Pat,
Attached please find a pdf of my ethics complaint against Sam Sloan.
Bill Hall has agreed to wave the $25 filing fee. I will send a check
to the US Chess Trust.
Best,
Grant
|
| |
Date: 17 Jan 2009 01:30:32
From:
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
samsloan wrote:
> [quote="Hal Terrie"][quote="samsloan"]I just now came back from the
> United States Courthouse where I filed my latest motion in the Truong
> case. My motion was 135 pages long, including exhibits. The way I did
> this is I sent my 135 page document through the Internet to Kinko
> Copies at kinkos.com I paid for five copies it with my credit card. I
> paid $58 on line. One hour later I picked up my copies from Kinko's,
> took them to the US Courthouse and filed them. That left me with three
> extra copies to serve on my opponents.
>
> Why could not Mr. Vaughn have done that? Why did he have to tie up the
> office staff for two days supposedly "to protect" me?
>
> [color=#0000FF][b]I have explained this twice already. The office had
> to confirm that all the copies were the same before they were mailed
> out. If Vaughn had been allowed just to deliver ten boxes of 400 pages
> each to the office, someone would have had to go through them all page
> by page to make sure they were identical.[/b][/color]
>
> By the way, did you actually read his 400 page ethics complaint?
>
> [color=#0000FF][b]Yes.[/b][/color]
>
> If you did read it, how long did it take you?
>
> [color=#0000FF][b]A long time.[/b][/color]
>
> If you did not even read it, then why did you allow him to file it?
> Do you still have it, or did you throw it out?
>
> [color=#0000FF][b]I still have it. In fact, I still have all the case
> documents from my entire eleven years on the Committee.
>
> -- Hal Terrie[/b][/color]
>
> Sam Sloan[/quote][/quote]
>
> If you had done that, and simply gone through all the boxes and seen
> that they were identical, you would not be facing the charge that I
> have been making ever since, which is that you actually used two days
> of USCF staff time and resources to help Mr. Vaughn assemble his
> ethics complaint against me.
>
> Would you have been willing to have so much staff time devoted to
> assembling a complaint against USCF President Bill Goichberg, or is
> it only when someone wants to make a complaint against an outside
> disapproved minority board member that you are willing to assign an
> office staff member to pitch in for two days and help with the filing
> of an ethics complaint?
>
> When I filed my 135 page motion today in federal court, why did not
> the clerk of the court insist on going through all the copies to make
> sure that the copies I was serving on my opponents, including the
> USCF, were not identical with the one I was filing in court?
>
> Sam Sloan
Probably because if you engaged in such conduct, the judge could throw
you in jail. Sadly, the USCF does not have that option when dealing
with nutters like you. Else we would long since have been freed from
your repulsive presence.
|
| |
Date: 16 Jan 2009 22:32:11
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
[quote="Hal Terrie"][quote="samsloan"]I just now came back from the
United States Courthouse where I filed my latest motion in the Truong
case. My motion was 135 pages long, including exhibits. The way I did
this is I sent my 135 page document through the Internet to Kinko
Copies at kinkos.com I paid for five copies it with my credit card. I
paid $58 on line. One hour later I picked up my copies from Kinko's,
took them to the US Courthouse and filed them. That left me with three
extra copies to serve on my opponents.
Why could not Mr. Vaughn have done that? Why did he have to tie up the
office staff for two days supposedly "to protect" me?
[color=#0000FF][b]I have explained this twice already. The office had
to confirm that all the copies were the same before they were mailed
out. If Vaughn had been allowed just to deliver ten boxes of 400 pages
each to the office, someone would have had to go through them all page
by page to make sure they were identical.[/b][/color]
By the way, did you actually read his 400 page ethics complaint?
[color=#0000FF][b]Yes.[/b][/color]
If you did read it, how long did it take you?
[color=#0000FF][b]A long time.[/b][/color]
If you did not even read it, then why did you allow him to file it?
Do you still have it, or did you throw it out?
[color=#0000FF][b]I still have it. In fact, I still have all the case
documents from my entire eleven years on the Committee.
-- Hal Terrie[/b][/color]
Sam Sloan[/quote][/quote]
If you had done that, and simply gone through all the boxes and seen
that they were identical, you would not be facing the charge that I
have been making ever since, which is that you actually used two days
of USCF staff time and resources to help Mr. Vaughn assemble his
ethics complaint against me.
Would you have been willing to have so much staff time devoted to
assembling a complaint against USCF President Bill Goichberg, or is
it only when someone wants to make a complaint against an outside
disapproved minority board member that you are willing to assign an
office staff member to pitch in for two days and help with the filing
of an ethics complaint?
When I filed my 135 page motion today in federal court, why did not
the clerk of the court insist on going through all the copies to make
sure that the copies I was serving on my opponents, including the
USCF, were not identical with the one I was filing in court?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 16 Jan 2009 17:18:53
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
WHO BUYS THIS LINE?
<So the copies were made at the office, with a USCF
staffer observing. It was for YOUR protection. > -- Hal Terrie
The notion that the office did anything to protect Sam is hard to
swallow.
samsloan wrote:
> Hal Terrie wrote:
>
> "by Hal Terrie on Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:16 pm
> If I may return to the main topic, I note that on rgcp Sam is
> persisting in his claims that there was something wrong in allowing
> Rodney Vaughn to copy his ethics complaint in the USCF office.
> Specifically, he writes:
>
> "Also, allowing Herbert Rodney Vaughn to
> actually enter the USCF office and tie up the office staff for two
> days photocopying his preposterous 400 page "Ethics Complaint" in
> color raises an ethical issue with Bill Hall and Hal Terrie."
>
> Let me explain this as simply as I can, Sam. Once it was established
> that Vaughn would make the copies (to save printing costs for USCF),
> the copies HAD to be made at the USCF office. The Committee could not
> allow Vaughn (or any plaintiff) to make copies at home, unsupervised,
> because then there would be no assurance that the copies were all
> identical. We had to be sure that all the members of the Committee
> (and the potential defendant, that's you) would receive the same thing
> in the mail. So the copies were made at the office, with a USCF
> staffer observing. It was for YOUR protection.
>
> As is usual for him, Sam has been posting about this on at least three
> different sites (here, rgcp and his FIDE Chess discussion group). I
> have only been responding here because, well, who but Sam has the time
> to post in so many places?
>
> -- Hal Terrie
> If I may return to the main topic, I note that on rgcp Sam is
> persisting in his claims that there was something wrong in allowing
> Rodney Vaughn to copy his ethics complaint in the USCF office.
> Specifically, he writes:
>
> "Also, allowing Herbert Rodney Vaughn to
> actually enter the USCF office and tie up the office staff for two
> days photocopying his preposterous 400 page "Ethics Complaint" in
> color raises an ethical issue with Bill Hall and Hal Terrie."
>
> Let me explain this as simply as I can, Sam. Once it was established
> that Vaughn would make the copies (to save printing costs for USCF),
> the copies HAD to be made at the USCF office. The Committee could not
> allow Vaughn (or any plaintiff) to make copies at home, unsupervised,
> because then there would be no assurance that the copies were all
> identical. We had to be sure that all the members of the Committee
> (and the potential defendant, that's you) would receive the same thing
> in the mail. So the copies were made at the office, with a USCF
> staffer observing. It was for YOUR protection.
>
> As is usual for him, Sam has been posting about this on at least three
> different sites (here, rgcp and his FIDE Chess discussion group). I
> have only been responding here because, well, who but Sam has the time
> to post in so many places?
>
> -- Hal Terrie"
>
> My Response:
>
> I just now came back from the United States Courthouse where I filed
> my latest motion in the Truong case. My motion was 135 pages long,
> including exhibits. The way I did this is I sent my 135 page document
> through the Internet to Kinko Copies at kinkos.com I paid for five
> copies it with my credit card. I paid $58 on line. One hour later I
> picked up my copies from Kinko's, took them to the US Courthouse and
> filed them. That left me with three extra copies to serve on my
> opponents.
>
> Why could not Mr. Vaughn have done that? Why did he have to tie up the
> office staff for two days supposedly "to protect" me?
>
> By the way, did you actually read his 400 page ethics complaint? If
> you did read it, how long did it take you? If you did not even read
> it, then why did you allow him to file it? Do you still have it, or
> did you throw it out?
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 16 Jan 2009 16:26:45
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
Hal Terrie wrote:
"by Hal Terrie on Fri Jan 16, 2009 4:16 pm
If I may return to the main topic, I note that on rgcp Sam is
persisting in his claims that there was something wrong in allowing
Rodney Vaughn to copy his ethics complaint in the USCF office.
Specifically, he writes:
"Also, allowing Herbert Rodney Vaughn to
actually enter the USCF office and tie up the office staff for two
days photocopying his preposterous 400 page "Ethics Complaint" in
color raises an ethical issue with Bill Hall and Hal Terrie."
Let me explain this as simply as I can, Sam. Once it was established
that Vaughn would make the copies (to save printing costs for USCF),
the copies HAD to be made at the USCF office. The Committee could not
allow Vaughn (or any plaintiff) to make copies at home, unsupervised,
because then there would be no assurance that the copies were all
identical. We had to be sure that all the members of the Committee
(and the potential defendant, that's you) would receive the same thing
in the mail. So the copies were made at the office, with a USCF
staffer observing. It was for YOUR protection.
As is usual for him, Sam has been posting about this on at least three
different sites (here, rgcp and his FIDE Chess discussion group). I
have only been responding here because, well, who but Sam has the time
to post in so many places?
-- Hal Terrie
If I may return to the main topic, I note that on rgcp Sam is
persisting in his claims that there was something wrong in allowing
Rodney Vaughn to copy his ethics complaint in the USCF office.
Specifically, he writes:
"Also, allowing Herbert Rodney Vaughn to
actually enter the USCF office and tie up the office staff for two
days photocopying his preposterous 400 page "Ethics Complaint" in
color raises an ethical issue with Bill Hall and Hal Terrie."
Let me explain this as simply as I can, Sam. Once it was established
that Vaughn would make the copies (to save printing costs for USCF),
the copies HAD to be made at the USCF office. The Committee could not
allow Vaughn (or any plaintiff) to make copies at home, unsupervised,
because then there would be no assurance that the copies were all
identical. We had to be sure that all the members of the Committee
(and the potential defendant, that's you) would receive the same thing
in the mail. So the copies were made at the office, with a USCF
staffer observing. It was for YOUR protection.
As is usual for him, Sam has been posting about this on at least three
different sites (here, rgcp and his FIDE Chess discussion group). I
have only been responding here because, well, who but Sam has the time
to post in so many places?
-- Hal Terrie"
My Response:
I just now came back from the United States Courthouse where I filed
my latest motion in the Truong case. My motion was 135 pages long,
including exhibits. The way I did this is I sent my 135 page document
through the Internet to Kinko Copies at kinkos.com I paid for five
copies it with my credit card. I paid $58 on line. One hour later I
picked up my copies from Kinko's, took them to the US Courthouse and
filed them. That left me with three extra copies to serve on my
opponents.
Why could not Mr. Vaughn have done that? Why did he have to tie up the
office staff for two days supposedly "to protect" me?
By the way, did you actually read his 400 page ethics complaint? If
you did read it, how long did it take you? If you did not even read
it, then why did you allow him to file it? Do you still have it, or
did you throw it out?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 16 Jan 2009 03:37:16
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
On Jan 16, 5:26=A0am, Grant Perks <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 15, 10:12=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The original email sent by Grant Perks to file what he says was not
> > his ethics complaint was posted on Google at the time. Here it is:
>
> > Pat Knight
> > From: [email protected]
> > Sent: =A0 Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:44 AM
> > To: =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> > Cc: =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> > Subject: Sam Sloan Ethics Charge
> > Hello Pat,
>
> > Attached please find a pdf of my ethics complaint against Sam Sloan.
> > Bill Hall has agreed to wave the $25 filing fee. I will send a check
> > to the US Chess Trust.
>
> > Best,
> > Grant
>
> > As everyone knows, Google modifies the email addresses to prevent
> > spammers.
>
> > Now, Mr. Perks seems to be saying that he cannot remember writing
> > this.
>
> > He is playing games with words. Everybody can see that the above email
> > proves that the statements made by Grant Perks earlier today were
> > false.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Sam,
>
> I am not playing games with words. The full email address does show in
> the copy you sent via email earlier in the day. That email address is
> not and has never been my email address. Again, I don't see anything
> inconsistent with what I wrote that the email contradicts.
You most certainly did. Here is a direct quote from what you wrote:
by Grant Perks on Thu Jan 15, 2009 6:43 am #123785
"Sam,
"Here are the facts, which I am sure you will continue to state
inaccurately.
"I didn't file a complaint with the Ethics Committee, my complaint was
filed directly with the USCF. It was the USCF's determination to turn
my complaint into an ethics issue.
"As far as I am aware, there is no $25 fee for filing an ethics
complaint. Apparently the confusion comes from the $25 fee for filing
an appeal of a TD ruling in a USCF rated event and an old version of
the procedures for filing an ethics complaint. Under the procedures
for appeals, they can be handled by the Ethics Committee if the USCF
office determines that this is the appropriate committee for such
complaints. The requirement for a $25 deposit for complaints filed
directly with the Ethics Committee was apparently changed when the
current edition of the rulebook was issued.
"When I filed my complaint I offered to pay the fee but was informed
that the deposit wasn't required. Since you were on the board at the
time, and wouldn't shut up about the fee, I was asked to submit a
check in that amount. Which I did.
"Sam, can you ever make a post that isn't full of half-truths and or
total distortions of the truth?
"Grant Perks"
You are playing games with words and the above statement that you
wrote was not true. You wrote, " It was the USCF's determination to
turn my complaint into an ethics issue." However, it can be plainly
seen that the email above that you sent to the USCF Office called it
an "ethics complaint".
Secondly, the procedure is that one does not file directly with the
Ethics Committee. One files it with the office who in turn forwards it
to the committee. So when you state above."I didn't file a complaint
with the Ethics Committee" you are playing games with words, because
you sent it to the office with the intent that it would be forwarded
to the Ethics Committee.
Next, you state that there is no $25 filing fee. Yet, Hal Terrie and
Bill Goichberg have both confirmed that there was a $25 filing fee.
The above letter confirms that there was a $25 fee and you knew that
there was a fee You email above states, "Bill Hall has agreed to wave
the $25 filing fee."
This shows that both Bill Hall and you knew that there was a $25 fee.
This also proves that your statement above, "I offered to pay the fee
but was informed that the deposit wasn't required" is not correct.
Unless of course you are denying that you wrote the above email. Is
there a Fake Grant Perks?
But there is more. Look at the date of the email. The results of the
election were announced on July 21, 2006. (By the way this
announcement no longer seems to exist of the USCF website.) So, it is
clear from the date of your letter above that you were contesting the
results of the election in which I defeated you for election. In
addition, there were several dozen postings by you to the USCF Issues
Forum suggesting ways that I could be stopped from taking office. One
of your suggestions was that the delegates abolish the Executive Board
entirely. Thus, you were willing to destroy the organization just to
overturn the results of the election that you lost.
There are serious issues with the conduct of Bill Hall and Hal Terrie
in this matter. Giving you a $25 break to encourage you to file an
ethics complaint certainly brings into question the impartiality of
Bill Hall in this matter. Also, allowing Herbert Rodney Vaughn to
actually enter the USCF office and tie up the office staff for two
days photocopying his preposterous 400 page "Ethics Complaint" in
color raises an ethical issue with Bill Hall and Hal Terrie. (By the
way, the reason that it was "in color" is that a screenshot of any
Internet website contains colors. Even though Vaughn was just
complaining about my words, he insisted on preserving the background
colors of my postings.)
Suppose that you wanted to file a case in court, so you called the
courthouse and, because you knew that the judge disliked the man you
were planning to sue, you asked to be allowed to go into the judges
chambers, use his photocopy machine to copy your complaint, have the
judge's law secretary count the pages to make sure they were collated
and assembled correctly and of course you would not want to have to
pay the $25 filing fee either, do you think that this would be allowed
and proper?
Al Lawrence was Executive Director for eight years. He was at the
center of many controversies. However, I will bet that he never took
sides on any issue the way that Bill Hall did in facilitating the
filing of ethics complaints against me, a board member, by you and by
Herbert Rodney Vaughn.
But that is not all. This debate about the $25 did not end. Even after
you were told to pay the money, you still refused to pay. Finally,
months later, you were notified that if you did not pay the $25, your
complaint would be dismissed. I am told that you did eventually pay
the $25 but not until some time around the end of 2006.
So, why don't you tell us the answer? Did you ever pay the $25? If so,
exactly when and how did you pay it. (I ask "how" because you were
also working for the USCF, so you might have paid it as an "offset" to
something else.)
Will you kindly answer those two questions? I would actually like to
see a canceled check proving that you paid, in view of the passage of
months during which you refused to pay.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 16 Jan 2009 02:26:16
From: Grant Perks
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
On Jan 15, 10:12=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> The original email sent by Grant Perks to file what he says was not
> his ethics complaint was posted on Google at the time. Here it is:
>
> Pat Knight
> From: [email protected]
> Sent: =A0 Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:44 AM
> To: =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> Cc: =A0 =A0 [email protected]
> Subject: Sam Sloan Ethics Charge
> Hello Pat,
>
> Attached please find a pdf of my ethics complaint against Sam Sloan.
> Bill Hall has agreed to wave the $25 filing fee. I will send a check
> to the US Chess Trust.
>
> Best,
> Grant
>
> As everyone knows, Google modifies the email addresses to prevent
> spammers.
>
> Now, Mr. Perks seems to be saying that he cannot remember writing
> this.
>
> He is playing games with words. Everybody can see that the above email
> proves that the statements made by Grant Perks earlier today were
> false.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam,
I am not playing games with words. The full email address does show in
the copy you sent via email earlier in the day. That email address is
not and has never been my email address. Again, I don't see anything
inconsistent with what I wrote that the email contradicts.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Jan 2009 14:55:41
From: Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
Grant Perks wrote:
> On Jan 15, 10:12 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > As everyone knows, Google modifies the email addresses to prevent
> > spammers.
> I am not playing games with words. The full email address does show in
> the copy you sent via email earlier in the day. That email address is
> not and has never been my email address.
Grant
The emails that the Sloan circulated, and which were forwarded to us, did
not have any Google filtering. They showed an AOL email address for you
with the user as gperks and not gperks2. It was gperks(at)aol(dot)com.
We have always used gperks2(at)aol(dot)com for you.
The simplest explanation is that the Sloan "guessed" (wrongly, as usual)
and misremembered what your email address was, manually changed it in what
he emailed, and now is being less than truthful. Is this correct? Have you
ever used the address gperks(at)aol(dot)com, which I can see does work?
We experienced long ago that arguing with the Sloan is like wrestling with
a pig. No matter how easily and convinvingly you win, you get dirty. The
pig only gets happy.
Telephone our buddy M.Marcus. He has the way to deal with the Sloan, if he
is rightly motivated. Since he is an Ambassador possessing full diplomatic
immunities, he can do what we cannot. Right?
Sincerely
( )
We're hard at work preparing a letter to the Illinois state bar, supporting
one Paddy O'Brien, debunking the Sloan's impending disciplinary and ethical
complaint against that fine attorney.
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2009 19:12:22
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
The original email sent by Grant Perks to file what he says was not
his ethics complaint was posted on Google at the time. Here it is:
Pat Knight
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:44 AM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Sam Sloan Ethics Charge
Hello Pat,
Attached please find a pdf of my ethics complaint against Sam Sloan.
Bill Hall has agreed to wave the $25 filing fee. I will send a check
to the US Chess Trust.
Best,
Grant
As everyone knows, Google modifies the email addresses to prevent
spammers.
Now, Mr. Perks seems to be saying that he cannot remember writing
this.
He is playing games with words. Everybody can see that the above email
proves that the statements made by Grant Perks earlier today were
false.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2009 18:18:43
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
[quote="tsawmiller"]The AUG does not mention ad hominem attacks, but
it does disallow "personal attacks".
Some posts of Sam Sloan were criticized here, and the ethics committee
decisions are well known, and therefore substantiated. So forgive me
if I fail to see what you are talking about.[/quote]
I fail to understand what you, Tim Sawmiller, are talking about.
The decisions of the Ethics Committee have never been posted. Nobody
has seen them. I do not have them either, although they may be buried
in the papers around my house somewhere.
I have already stated that they are unspeakably absurd and ridiculous
and will be ridiculed by everybody if they are ever posted.
By the way, I tried to appeal. Since I sent my notice of appeal by
email to the USCF Office but they said that emails are not acceptable.
They said I had to send it on paper. So, I sent it on paper but then
they said that it was too late.
By the way, the original ethics complaint was sent by email, so why
cannot I send my notice of appeal by email?
The above poster correctly notes that any situation where a moderator
reads all the postings and then decides which are acceptable and which
are not amounts to censorship. You may not think of yourself as a
censor, but that is what you are and everybody else recognizes it.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2009 15:09:32
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
[quote="Hal Terrie"][quote="jwiewel"]The current rulebook (from 2003)
has rule 21L covering appeals to the USCF of TD rulings. In 21L1 it
states "A good faith deposit of $25 must be included in the appeal.
The deposit will be returned unless the ruling authority finds the
appeal to be groundless and that the deposit is to be forfeited."
The section covering Ethics commitee appeals procedures starts on page
235 and has no mention of any deposit at all.[/quote]
The requirement for a $25 deposit with ethics complaints was enacted
after the publication of the current edition of the rulebook.
-- Hal Terrie[/quote]
The current edition of the Rule Book was published in 2003, six years
ago.
I am quite certain that when Grant Perks submitted what purported to
be an "Ethics Complaint", the requirement for payment of a $25 fee was
in place.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2009 07:43:26
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Randy Bauer
<[email protected] > wrote:
> Sam Sloan's claim that everybody is attacking him is moronic: the "attacks"
> are largely people defending themselves from Sam's claims that they were
> involved in some form of 'bad acts' (such as Hal Terrie, Grant Perks,
> etc.). As I commented elsewhere, suggesting these are "attacks" on Sloan is
> kind of like saying that Afghanistan attacked the Soviet Union.
>
> Randy Bauer
>
> Please note that I removed staff from this response: some of us "get it"
> when others make good points.
I believe in Freedom of Speech. If people want to attack me, that is
their right.
What I object to is when people attack me and I am not allowed to
respond.
In particular, I object to having Herbert Rodney Vaughn a/k/a
tanstaafl as the moderator for another election cycle when he is
obviously biased. It was his support for Polgar and Truong in the last
election cycle who helped them get elected by removing from the forums
almost every negative posting about them and almost every embarrassing
question such as whether they were married to each other or not.
It is truly outrageous and tells us a lot about our board and about
Mr. Goichberg and Mr. Hall that such an obviously biased person as Mr.
Vaughn is still a moderator.
Regarding Mr. Terrie, he has attacked me many many times over the last
few weeks. Just go back and do a search for all the postings by Mr.
Terrie and see what percentage of the time that those postings were
for the purpose of attacking me.
On the other hand, I never attacked him. I never responded or even
mentioned his name. I remained silent.
Similarly with Mr. Goichberg. There has been many times when Mr.
Goichberg attacked me on the forums and I did not respond, a fact that
Mr. Terrie notes.
It was only when yesterday Mr. Terrie started an entire new thread on
the USCF Issues Forum with my name on it that I felt constrained to
respond to his attacks.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2009 04:40:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
[quote="Grant Perks"][quote="samsloan"]
The $25 fee was the fee that Grant Perks failed to pay.
Mr. Vaughn did pay his $25, especially after I complained that Grant
Perks had been allowed to file an ethics complaint without paying the
required filing fee.
Grant Perks also did eventually pay the $25 too, or so I am told, but
only months later, after this issue about the $25 had been hotly
debated on the Internet over a matter of months.
I think Mr. Perks was claiming some kind of special exemption and that
he did not have to pay the $25.
Sam Sloan[/quote]
Sam,
Here are the facts, which I am sure you will continue to distort.
I didn't file a complaint with the Ethics Committee, my complaint was
filed directly with the USCF. It was the USCF's determination to turn
my complaint into an ethics issue.
As far as I am aware, there is no $25 fee for filing an ethics
complaint. Apparently the confusion comes from the $25 fee for filing
an appeal of a TD ruling in a USCF rated event and an old version of
the procedures for filing an ethics complaint. Under the procedures
for appeals, they can be handled by the Ethics Committee if the USCF
office determines that this is the appropriate committee for such
complaints. The requirement for a $25 deposit for complaints filed
directly with the Ethics Committee was apparently changed when the
current edition of the rulebook was issued.
When I filed my complaint I offered to pay the fee but was informed
that the deposit wasn't required. Since you were on the board at the
time, and wouldn't shut up about the fee, I was asked to submit a
check in that amount. Which I did.
Sam, can you ever make a post that isn't full of half-truths and or
total distortions of the truth?
Grant Perks [/quote]
Now, perhaps I should file an "Ethics Complaint" against Grant Perks
for making the above false statements.
The "Ethics Complaint" that Grant Parks says that he did not file
clearly states, "The Executive Director has agreed to waive the fee".
That is how I found out that Perks had not paid it. This means that
Grant Perks knew that there was a fee, and that he asked Bill Hall to
waive it and that Bill Hall had agreed.
Grant Perks went on to say that rather than pay the $25 to the USCF,
he was donating the $25 to the US Chess Trust (thereby giving himself
a tax write-off).
I later called the Director of the US Chess Trust who informed me that
Grant Perks had never paid $25 or any other amount to the US Chess
Trust.
The rulebook clearly states that the filing of an "Ethics Complaint"
requires the payment of a $25 fee. Everybody can look it up and read
it. Also, this is not a new rule. It has been in the books for a long
time. As both former CFO and Former Executive Director, Grant Perks is
supposed to know the rules.
The reason that Grant Parks finally paid the $25 fee months later was
not because I "wouldn't shut up about the fee". Rather, it was because
USCF President Bill Goichberg reprimanded Bill Hall for allowing Grant
Perks to file the ethics complaint without paying the required fee.
This reprimand took place at my first meeting of the board on August
14, 2006.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 15 Jan 2009 03:27:02
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
[quote="tanstaafl"]The more significant issue (than any of the above)
is that a USCF EB member was convicted of MULTIPLE ethics violations
from two separate complaints that resulted in multiple censures and
reprimands and that these ethics violations included his conduct [b]
while running for office[/b]. I think there's a clear motive for that
person to try to hide or obfuscate the facts now that he's running
again. WHY wasn't Sam Sloan included in the recent Illinios lawsuit?
tanstaafl [/quote]
Here is where I believe that an outside observer should be able to see
the problem.
After I won election to the USCF Executive Board in 2006, two "Ethics
Complaints" were filed against me by those disappointed with the
results of the election. One was filed by Grant Perks whom I had
defeated in the election and the other was filed by Herbert Rodney
Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl, the author of the above, which consisted of
400 pages of postings by me to the USCF Issues Forum.
Both of these "Ethics Complaints" were filed for the purpose of
overturning the results of the election. They were not successful.
Both resulted in a repremand. This is why Mr. Perks and Mr. Vaughn
have not been talking about them.
Both of these two "Ethics Complaints" sought to use the Ethics
Committee as a censorship board, claiming that I had violated ethical
rules by making perfectly true statements about my election opponents,
such as my statement that Grant Perks was employed as a contractor by
the USCF and therefore ineligible to run for the board. (At the
subsequent USCF Delegate's Meeting in Chicago, a rule was passed
prohibiting contractors such as Grant Perks from running for the board
again.)
The reason that Mr. Perks, Mr. Vaughn and Mr. Terrie are not telling
you what the exact allegations against me were is that the allegations
were so laughably absurd and ridiculous that the real ethical issue is
that they consumed so much staff and volunteer time to try to impose
censorship and to reverse the results of the election.
Now, you will see above that Mr. Vaughn attacks the FOC or "Forum
Oversight Committee". Vaughn writes:
"IMHO, from working within the system, the reason that things work as
badly here as they do (and I don't think they work all that badly) is
a couple of the people that have found positions within the FOC and
that are using their position in such a way that the moderators are
unable to effectively act against the people that repeatedly violate
the rules. Again, Mr. Sloan has violated the rules HUNDREDS of times
and in spite of receiving a 1 year ban from the forums (MONTHS ago)
he's still posting. That's many, many times that some moderator has
had to take on extra work".
What Mr. Vaughn fails to mention is that he, Mr. Vaughn, is the
moderator who has done all this "extra work" by deleting the majority
of my postings and constantly, repeatedly demanding that I be banned
from posting. So, those "Hundreds" of violations were those found by
Mr. Vaughn himself as moderator.
What has happened here is that Bill Goichberg and Bill Hall decided to
reward Mr. Vaughn for making his entirely frivolous 400-page ethics
complaint by making Mr. Vaughn a moderator to the forums during the
2007 election campaign. This is like leaving the fox to guard the
henhouse. It was Mr. Vaughn who pulled about one thousand postings
from the forums because they were postings in favor of candidates that
Mr. Vaughn opposed or were opposed to candidates that Mr. Vaughn
favored. It was in part because of Mr. Vaughn's acts as moderator that
two candidates that Mr. Vaughn supported got elected.
Now, regarding those FOC members who are the "couple of the people
[who] have found positions within the FOC" which enables them to
overturn sanctions and bans that Mr. Vaughn seeks to impose on many
posters, not just on me, Mr. Goichberg has a hand in this too. I
understand that a large number of suspensions, not just of me and Mr.
Lafferty but of many other posters, have been overturned by the FOC
which only has that power, but when one member of the FOC indicated
that he wanted to run for election, Goichberg said that in that case
he should resign from the FOC. I understand that the FOC member in
question was one who has consistently voted to overturn the sanctions
that Mr. Vaughn has sought to impose.
As a result, that particular FOC member decided not to run for the
board because he felt that if he was required to resign from the FOC,
then Mr. Vaughn would have a free hand to suspend from the forums
almost anybody he wanted to suspend.
I also want to mention that Mr. Vaughn used improper means to get
himself certified as a delegate by Mr. Grant Perks to the meeting in
Chicago. Mr. Vaughn was not an elected delegate and did not live in
Ohio. Mr. Perks had no right under the by-laws to name Mr. Vaughn as a
delegate from Ohio because Mr. Perks was not present at the meeting.
It is because of the improper seating of Mr. Vaughn as a delegate that
several by-law changes moved by Mr. Vaughn got into the by-laws, which
continue to cause problems today.
The question I have now is: Why does Mr. Bill Goichberg and Mr. Bill
Hall continue to allow Mr. Vaughn to act as moderator to the USCF
Issues Forum, when Mr. Vaughn is so obviously biased and so actively
opposed to certain candidates for election, including me?
Accordingly, I am demanding the following:
1. That Herbert Rodney Vaughn be removed as Moderator of the USCF
Issues Forum and
2. That all of the one thousand or so postings that were "pulled" by
Mr. Vaughn over the past two years be reinstated, so that the forum
members can read them and preferably that they marked in such a way
that the membership can see that these postings were pulled by Mr.
Vaughn and subsequently reinstated.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2009 20:48:01
From:
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Jan 14, 8:16=EF=BF=BDpm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Strangely, Hal Terrie has it backwards.
> >
> > When the Ethics Committee finds someone guilty they are supposed to
> > post their findings.
> >
> > When the Ethics Committee finds somebody not guilty is when the report
> > remains confidential.
> >
> > So, there is nothing to stop Mr. Terrie from releasing his report,
> > except for the fact that his findings are absurd, ridiculous, easily
> > provable to be false and simply demonstrate the type of Kangaroo Court
> > that Mr. Terrie was operating with his un-"Ethics Committee".
> >
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Here is a new example.
>
> I was not allowed to post the above on the USCF Issues forum because
> of "Name Calling" in that I called it the "un-Ethics Committee".
>
> You should see all the names they have called me in the last two days.
>
> Sam Sloan
"Liar" and "lunatic" both seem plausible. After all, there's
"substantial proof."
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2009 20:17:52
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
On Jan 14, 3:59=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> [quote=3D"Hal Terrie"]First of all, I will not discuss further the
> subject of the accuracy of the many claims Sam Sloan routinely makes
> in his posts, nor will I spend the time to find examples. I think
> there are still some cases on the Forum of Sloan posts followed by
> Goichberg responses; =A0those interested can look for them and draw
> their own conclusions. [/quote]
>
> Right. And the correct conclusion to draw when you see that is either:
>
> 1. Since Bill Goichberg never admits to having made a mistake I see no
> point to continuing the debate, or
>
> 2. I tried to post a response but was not allowed to do so because of
> the AUG which states that one is not allowed to contradict out
> president or
>
> 3. I knew that it would be impossible to respond effectively without
> violating one of the Goichberg Rules.
>
> I can tell you that Goichberg responses are never correct. He always
> shades the truth in one way or another. That is why the USCF is in
> such terrible difficulties now, with huge financial losses and seven
> major lawsuits going, all seven of which can be traced back to
> misstatements or misconduct or falsifications by Mr. Goichberg.
>
> Sam Sloan
Another example. The above was not allowed to be posted because I
accused the USCF President who is also a rival candidate of
"falsifications".
Yet, that was in response to what he has accused me of.
Here is the posting informing me that I am not allowed to say these
things about our president.
Imagine what kind of country we would be in if we were not allowed to
criticize George W. Bush?
Re: From:Response to Sam Sloan from Haring Thread
Sent at: Wed Jan 14, 2009 10:07 pm
From: tsawmiller
To: samsloan
Pulled for AUG violation:
Phrases like "falsifications by so-and-so" and "so-and-so=92s
falsifications" expressly declare an intent to lie, which is
specifically prohibited by the AUG.
It's one thing to declare that a statement is false. Declaring that
someone has made false statements is pushing it. Referencing
"falsifications" by someone is clearly declaring that the false
statements are intentional, which is tantamount calling the person a
liar.
Do not accuse anyone of lying, telling a lie, or being a liar. This is
considered a personal attack, even if true. Do not speculate regarding
the motives of others. You can get the point across just as well by
saying the person you think is lying is wrong, mistaken, incorrect,
careless with facts, etc.
Subject: From:Response to Sam Sloan from Haring Thread
samsloan wrote:
Hal Terrie wrote:First of all, I will not discuss further the
subject of the accuracy of the many claims Sam Sloan routinely makes
in his posts, nor will I spend the time to find examples. I think
there are still some cases on the Forum of Sloan posts followed by
Goichberg responses; those interested can look for them and draw their
own conclusions.
Right. And the correct conclusion to draw when you see that is
either:
1. Since Bill Goichberg never admits to having made a mistake I
see no point to continuing the debate, or
2. I tried to post a response but was not allowed to do so because
of the AUG which states that one is not allowed to contradict out
president or
3. I knew that it would be impossible to respond effectively
without violating one of the Goichberg Rules.
I can tell you that Goichberg responses are never correct. He
always shades the truth in one way or another. That is why the USCF is
in such terrible difficulties now, with huge financial losses and
seven major lawsuits going, all seven of which can be traced back to
misstatements or misconduct or falsifications by Mr. Goichberg.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2009 20:11:27
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
On Jan 14, 8:16=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Strangely, Hal Terrie has it backwards.
>
> When the Ethics Committee finds someone guilty they are supposed to
> post their findings.
>
> When the Ethics Committee finds somebody not guilty is when the report
> remains confidential.
>
> So, there is nothing to stop Mr. Terrie from releasing his report,
> except for the fact that his findings are absurd, ridiculous, easily
> provable to be false and simply demonstrate the type of Kangaroo Court
> that Mr. Terrie was operating with his un-"Ethics Committee".
>
> Sam Sloan
Here is a new example.
I was not allowed to post the above on the USCF Issues forum because
of "Name Calling" in that I called it the "un-Ethics Committee".
You should see all the names they have called me in the last two days.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2009 19:58:34
From:
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
samsloan wrote:
> Strangely, Hal Terrie has it backwards.
>
> When the Ethics Committee finds someone guilty they are supposed to
> post their findings.
>
> When the Ethics Committee finds somebody not guilty is when the report
> remains confidential.
>
>
> Sam Sloan
Where did you dream that one up, Sam? Perhaps you should try _reading_
the Code of Ethics, rather than spend you time thinking up ways to
flout it. The only thing remotely relevant is "10. The USCF Business
Office shall be informed in writing of all official recommendations by
the Ethics Committee, and shall record any recommendations. The USCF
Business Office shall inform the Executive Board of any sanctions
recommended."
(Some people are actually going to _vote_ for this buffoon?)
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2009 18:11:17
From: Wick
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
On Jan 14, 7:16=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Strangely, Hal Terrie has it backwards.
>
> When the Ethics Committee finds someone guilty they are supposed to
> post their findings.
>
> When the Ethics Committee finds somebody not guilty is when the report
> remains confidential.
>
> So, there is nothing to stop Mr. Terrie from releasing his report,
> except for the fact that his findings are absurd, ridiculous, easily
> provable to be false and simply demonstrate the type of Kangaroo Court
> that Mr. Terrie was operating with his un-"Ethics Committee".
>
> Sam Sloan
Shockingly, Sam has it wrong.
I am not on the committee any more. However, I was on the committee
during the cases Sam is discussing. The ethics committee communicates
its finding to the office. The office notifies the person filing the
complaint and the defendant. What the parties to the case do then is
up to them. The ethics committee takes no action to publish its
finding, no matter what the result of the case.
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2009 17:16:48
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
Strangely, Hal Terrie has it backwards.
When the Ethics Committee finds someone guilty they are supposed to
post their findings.
When the Ethics Committee finds somebody not guilty is when the report
remains confidential.
So, there is nothing to stop Mr. Terrie from releasing his report,
except for the fact that his findings are absurd, ridiculous, easily
provable to be false and simply demonstrate the type of Kangaroo Court
that Mr. Terrie was operating with his un-"Ethics Committee".
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2009 16:57:30
From: Randy Bauer
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
On Jan 14, 2:58=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2:52=A0pm, None <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 2:49=A0pm, "foad" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > There may be other errors of fact in Sam's post.
>
> > > In related news, the sun may rise tomorrow, possibly in the morning.
>
> > Sam should not be so hard on Grant Perks. After all, he was the one
> > that discovered that Kevin Bachler obtained his Life Master
> > credentials through fraudulent means.
>
> Please note that I did not bring Grant Perks into the discussion. They
> did, with this entire attack thread started by Hal Terrie.
>
> Sam Sloan
Only Sam Sloan could label a defense of a person's actions in light of
his wild claims of wrongdoing as an attack thread. It's kind of like
suggesting that Afghanistan attacked the Soviet Union.
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2009 16:22:14
From:
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
On Jan 14, 2:49=A0pm, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > There may be other errors of fact in Sam's post.
>
> In related news, the sun may rise tomorrow, possibly in the morning.
Breaking news: The world will not come to an end today. It is already
tomorrow in Japan.
David Ames
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2009 12:59:14
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
[quote="Hal Terrie"]First of all, I will not discuss further the
subject of the accuracy of the many claims Sam Sloan routinely makes
in his posts, nor will I spend the time to find examples. I think
there are still some cases on the Forum of Sloan posts followed by
Goichberg responses; those interested can look for them and draw
their own conclusions. [/quote]
Right. And the correct conclusion to draw when you see that is either:
1. Since Bill Goichberg never admits to having made a mistake I see no
point to continuing the debate, or
2. I tried to post a response but was not allowed to do so because of
the AUG which states that one is not allowed to contradict out
president or
3. I knew that it would be impossible to respond effectively without
violating one of the Goichberg Rules.
I can tell you that Goichberg responses are never correct. He always
shades the truth in one way or another. That is why the USCF is in
such terrible difficulties now, with huge financial losses and seven
major lawsuits going, all seven of which can be traced back to
misstatements or misconduct or falsifications by Mr. Goichberg.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2009 12:58:21
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
On Jan 14, 2:52=A0pm, None <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2:49=A0pm, "foad" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > There may be other errors of fact in Sam's post.
>
> > In related news, the sun may rise tomorrow, possibly in the morning.
>
> Sam should not be so hard on Grant Perks. After all, he was the one
> that discovered that Kevin Bachler obtained his Life Master
> credentials through fraudulent means.
Please note that I did not bring Grant Perks into the discussion. They
did, with this entire attack thread started by Hal Terrie.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2009 11:52:21
From: None
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
On Jan 14, 2:49=A0pm, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > There may be other errors of fact in Sam's post.
>
> In related news, the sun may rise tomorrow, possibly in the morning.
Sam should not be so hard on Grant Perks. After all, he was the one
that discovered that Kevin Bachler obtained his Life Master
credentials through fraudulent means.
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jan 2009 19:58:09
From: foad
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
"None" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:6921eca3-d5e7-4064-a19f-1aa4318d4466@j38g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 14, 2:49 pm, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > There may be other errors of fact in Sam's post.
>
> In related news, the sun may rise tomorrow, possibly in the morning.
Sam should not be so hard on Grant Perks. After all, he was the one
that discovered that Kevin Bachler obtained his Life Master
credentials through fraudulent means.
==========
It's a shame I didn't know that chess was so full of thrills and intrigue
when I was a younger man. It's kind of like James Bond, but without the
pussy.
|
| |
Date: 14 Jan 2009 11:47:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
[quote="nolan"]No, it wasn't a full week.
As I recall (and I was in Crossville that week), he brought TWO
Lexmark color laser printers with him and was in the office for one
day, donating one of the printers to the USCF when he left, along with
a check for $25 to pay the filing fee.
There may be other errors of fact in Sam's post.[/quote]
According to Mr. Vaughn's own statement, he was there for a week.
Of course, I was not there, do I do not know if he was there for a
week or not.
The $25 fee was the fee that Grant Perks failed to pay.
Mr. Vaughn did pay his $25, especially after I complained that Grant
Perks had been allowed to file an ethics complaint without paying the
required filing fee.
Grant Perks also did eventually pay the $25 too, or so I am told, but
only months later, after this issue about the $25 had been hotly
debated on the Internet over a matter of months.
I think Mr. Perks was claiming some kind of special exemption and that
he did not have to pay the $25.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 14 Jan 2009 19:49:19
From: foad
Subject: Re: Vaughn, Terrie, Goichberg and Their ethics Complaint
|
> There may be other errors of fact in Sam's post.
In related news, the sun may rise tomorrow, possibly in the morning.
|
|
