Polgar & Bauer Attack Sloan's Character..........,
A GOOD CHESS MAXIM
Attack is the best defense!
B. Lafferty wrote:
........but do not address any of the charges made against Truong in the
Mottershead Report.
--------------------------------------------------
NY Times and Lawsuits
Discuss issues that directly relate to the USCF or FIDE. Posts need to be
relevant and stay on topic. Please be respectful to everyone...
Forum rules
Post a reply
6 posts . Page 1 of 1
NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:49 pm
The USCF will make a statement shortly about this matter. Once this
statement is made, I can go a little further to explain what happened. Until
then, all I can say is the facts will come out in court and I am eager to
present my information.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
NY Times and Lawsuits
by bioniclime on Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:46 pm
Susan (or others),
Do you know when and how this statement will be released? On the USCF
Forums, website, press release?
Thank you...
bioniclime
NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:16 pm
This was an email by board member Randy Bauer, former Budget Director for
the State of Iowa, to the NY Times Journalist:
Dylan,
You may recall that we spoke by phone at least once earlier this year
regarding the USCF election and executive board. You may know that I was one
of the four candidates elected and am also named as one of the defendents in
Sam Sloan's lawsuit.
I'd like to call your attention to at least two important factual errors and
add a couple of other comments.
The article writes that "Since Mr. Mottershead published his report, the
chess federation's executive board, including Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar,
have met several times to discuss what to do." That is not correct. There
have been NO meetings of the Executive Board since the report was published.
While there have been email discussions among Board members, they have been
sporadic and in many instances have not involved the entire Board.
The article also leads with the claim that "Susan Polgar and Paul Truong . .
. posted thousands of remarks . . . " yet there is no suggestion in
Mottershead's report that Susan was responsible for the postings. Allowing
this claim to stand without mention of that fact is unfair to Susan and
demonstrates a lack of balance not usually found in a New York Times
article.
I'm also surprised that you would accept at face value Sam Sloan's claim
that "If I ever want to apply for a job, nobody's going to hire me because
there are thousands of obscene messages supposedly from me on the Internet."
As I'm sure you know (or should have known) Sam Sloan was a very
controversial member of the Executive Board who was soundly defeated for
re-election - coming in 10th of 11 candidates. Much of the controversy
arises from content on Sam Sloan's website, which is surely as obscene (I
would argue more so) than any of the posts by "the fake Sam Sloan." Should
you doubt this, I would suggest you follow the links below to Sam Sloan's
website (and these are just a representative sample of the tasteless, vulgar
and obscene crap you will find there):
(Deleted as it is inappropriate to younger readers)
Finally, Sam Sloan's long standing claim to have won a case in front of the
U.S. Supreme Court is, as typical with Sam, more hat than cattle. In fact,
as has been detailed many times in discussions on the chess newsgroups,
Sloan's "victory" was on a technicality that had little bearing on the end
result - Sam lost his license to sell securities. As noted in the opinion,
"During this series of suspensions respondent Sloan ...filed a petition in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit challenging the
orders on a variety of grounds. On October 15, 1975, the court dismissed as
frivolous all respondent's claims, except his allegation that the "tacking"
of 10-day summary suspension orders for an indefinite period was an abuse of
the agency's authority and a deprivation of due process." Justice Rehnquist
on SEC v Sloan.
Quite frankly, I would have expected a bit more balance and background.
Sloan is a "serial suer" which you can also detail on his website. As far as
I can tell, Sloan has lost in nearly every instance. Again, this history
would paint a more balanced picture of the viability of the lawsuit.
I would, of course, be happy to discuss any of these issues with you. Feel
free to write or call me.
Randy Bauer
USCF Executive Board
Susan Polgar
NY Times and Lawsuits
by Tennessee Vols on Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:40 pm
I'm a little confused Chairman Susan Polgar with your statement (?) above;
when it turned from your voice into the voice of Randy Bauer (USCF Executive
Board). The tone of the statement does not reflect your standard rule within
your blogs to use personal feelings one way or the other with Sam Sloan. If
it was a statement from Randy Bauer, it would help to clarify; because it
starts out with Dylan (and not sure if the poster before you is or is not
Dylan) and it ends with the name of Randy Bauer.
Where all is but dream, reasoning and arguments are of no use, truth and
knowledge nothing.
John Locke (1632-1704)
Tennessee Vols
NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:58 pm
Sorry, I clarified it. It is a letter from Mr. Bauer to Mr. McClain of the
NY Times.
Susan Polgar
|