Mike Murray wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:03:22 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:


"We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
information they have about us relating to this case.

This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.

Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to his
question; that the questions were answered, and that all information about
the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.

I based my statement on posts on the USCF forum by Goichberg and
Bauer, but didn't *quote* anyone. IMO, a good synopsis of the issue
was presented in Steve Owen's blog at

http://chessusa.blogspot.com/2008/01...quest-for.html

where he states:

quote

The crux of the matter, as Bauer stated in his USCF Forums post, is
that the USCF attorneys asked Truong to:

1. Formally admit or deny, in writing, whether he was involved in
the “Fake Sam Sloan” postings, or had knowledge of who made such
postings;
2. Provide the IP address of all his home and work Internet
connections since 2005, or provide consent for the Board to obtain and
cooperate in the Board obtaining, such IP addresses from ISPs and
other entities;
3. Provide all information that would support his argument that he
was not located at his computer(s) at the time of alleged Fake Sam
Sloan postings, to include information relating to his travel.

To date, the USCF has not received a formal response to items 1
and 2 and incomplete information relating to item 3.

unquote

On reflection, an excellent approach to /transparency/ would be for all
opposing lawyers to drop their motions for dismissal and let Mr. Sloan's
lawsuit proceed to discovery. Then we will learn much more. Is Ms.
Polgar willing to request that her lawyers drop the motions for
dismissal? Let us give her until Friday to indicate her reply.

This might end up very expensive for the defense, but /transparency/ and
truth would be served.
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.