"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:nFMpj.2339$eD3.1953@trndny05...
Chess One wrote:
An extract from a letter just published in the editorial column,
Alekhine's Parrot, at www.chessville.com or
http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm

reads;-

---

You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more than
four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of
USCF money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr.
Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong
conclusion.

Ms. Polgar is either ignorantly incorrect or posturing for the acolytes.
There is sufficient evidence against he co-dependent true love Paulie in
the form of the Motterhead Report, Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.

Apparently, the evidence sent to Kronenberger Trolgar was less than
persuasive.

Mr Laugherty - since I note your contributions have been discouraged at
every forum you have attempted, for lack of bottom, for respect of the views
of others, and your presumed familiarity with issues which seem no more than
your own opinion, why you should continue to remonstrate your message
without facts, as we know them, is your own business.

You do not contend with any facts presented here - you suggest how we all
should understand them as 'acolytes'. You entirely duck the implications
that Mr. Krnoenbeger is seemingly answered, as if you yourself were counsel,
and if you were, should you not criticise Kronenberger?

Of course, it is you habit to negate such questions to your own orientation
to these affairs, as if, we the chess public should consider your attiudes
actually of some consequence to these affairs. When actual counsel does not
adopt your schema, you are all ahoo, no?

The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for
more than 4 months.

Really?! Who are Trolgar's experts who have been denied access to
Paulie's computer and ISP logs.

You do not contest the fact, thereby? And business is of Laugherty to ask
what expertise may be consulted? Is the Prosecutor Laugherty intent on
proscribing who the Defence may consult? What is his point, actually?

The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF
contractors and members of the board majority.

Suzie, to be terrific, you must be specific. Details please.

She may not respond, since USCF board majority have decried it is all
secrect. Do you not understand the legal postion Lugherty? Or do you not
chose to challenge the basis of the USCF's board's position, by addressing
them - rather than someone who would open up the whole shebang?

If you can't answer this question, then serious questions about your own
quest are implicated! And let us not hear your attitudes, let us hear if you
did anything about them.


The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential
information as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between
Jerry Hanken and Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the
middle of a lawsuit.

Oh Suzie, this has already been discussed and debunked over at the USCF
Issues Forum you claim to never read.

You are not writing to any Suzie, Laugherty, you are writing to me. And the
USCF issues forum is not one that 'Suzie' writes in, and if it is 'debunked'
according to you without any defence, what sort of hack lawyer are you to
make such public pronouncements?

Phil Innes


Susan Polgar

Now Phil........perhaps you could ask her a few questions based on the
above so that we may all laugh at her feeble attempts at evasive answers.
Thanks in advance for the anticipated humor.