"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Feb 2008 10:50:02 -0800, "J.D. Walker"
wrote:


How about, "The USCF has no reason to hide material that would exonerate
Truong..." P Innes might be able to handle that.


Kinda cuts the Gordian Knot, don't it?

But its just another speculation in the face of the facts - USCF /are/
deciding to hide material. Given that the fact of hiding /is/ present, the
comment that they have no reason to exonerate... is opinion - right? USCF
never said so. Maybe its good opinion, but I finish this note with another.

One implication of Mike Murray's sentence, though phrased without the
negatives, is to ask why they /are/ hiding material - right?

Alternatively; that USCF hides material to implicate rather than exonerate
Truong - right? USCF board have actually acted on this hidden material by
stripping Truong of his marketing title on the board - though no-one is
allowed to know the information that the board acted upon - which is not
tested before any court, nor before the membership.

Whatever the reason is, cannot be disclosed, according to legal counsel,
because of the Sloan suit - that is the official reason as reported to
Chessville by board president Goichberg.

Of course - this is only what USCF has itself declared. There is one other
possibility, and that is that USCF may have some culpability in the affair.

That is a comment completely independent of the fact of the Sloan suit.

Phil Innes