On Mon, 02 May 2005 14:42:54 GMT, "John J."
wrote:

Sam,

You would have done better if you cut the length of your response in half.
As written, it's a long and rambling document which utterly fails to make
any concrete point.

The court doesn't really care that you were standing next to Fischer when he
won the World championship. As a matter of fact, I think most people don't
care.

John

I happen to agree with you. I think I did not do a good job with this
reply affidavit. It was long and rambling and dealt with some issues
not really germain to the issues immediately before the court while
neglecting other issues which are of immediate interest to the court.

I could have and should have done a much better job. My excuse is that
I was under a deadline. This reply affidavit had to be filed by 9:30
AM this morning and I filed it exactly on that minute. I read it on my
way back home from the courthouse this morning and realized that there
were many ways I could have made it better.

I took a gratuitous and unnecessary swipe at Leroy Dubeck, especially
in that Dubeck actually was in Reykjavik for the 1972 Fischer Spassky
match. However, what I wrote was correct in that Dubeck was not there
when Spassky resigned the last game and I was there. I put that
background in the affidavit because the court might find it
interesting at some point down the road but not now. This was the
wrong time to bring up these historical issues.

On the positive side, I think it is important that I pointed out that
the USCF is insolvent and should not be squandering its limited cash
reserves building a new headquarters building. Also, it is clearly
illegal that Hanke and Marinello have check signing authority over the
employee pension plan.

Sam Sloan