On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 14:26:15 -0700 (PDT), Rob
wrote:

I tried to clear it up for you. YOU and others are conducting a trial
right now in public. Understand now?

Rob, this is nonsense. *An investigation is not a trial. *A bunch of
people trying to acquire and evaluate evidence is not a trial. *A
newsgroup discussion is not a trial. *FWIW, pay less attention to
Innes -- he's extremely imprecise in his use of language.

Hi Mike,
Lafferty said"what Troung has done". Lafferty and others have assigned
themselves judge and jury. And you are right that a newsgroup is not a
trial. Yet we have all this talk of evidence and a crime. Not only
that we have discussions of punishment. Sounds a lot like a trial to
me. :-) If people want to banter about innane things, thats fine. But
to convict someone in the court of public opinion and the penaly being
the loss of his reputation, is wrong. It's been sent to court. Thats
where the validity of the argument should remain.

Not so. It's perfectly fair to debate the truth of issues which will
only be resolved *legally* in court.

First, legal guilt or innocence doesn't resolve truth. For example,
certain evidence may be legally inadmissible (failure to follow all
the ticky marks in obtaining a search warrant, failure to observe
Miranda rights, evidence obtained under duress), and statutes of
limitations may preclude conviction even in the face of conclusive
evidence, etc., etc.

Second, business and electoral decisions often can't wait for several
years while a case winds through all possible appeals.

Discussion of these issues is the right thing to do, and rgc* is a
good place (but not the only place) to do it. There's a recall
going on and FSS implications will play a big part in it. Elections
may be held and members need to decide on candidates' fitness for
office. The USCF may conduct business with entities controlled by the
accused. The accused may be involved in hiring and firing decisions.

Voting members will make their own decisions regarding the FSS, and
will do this independently of any judge and jury. This IS the court
of public opinion, as you call it, and it's fitting, proper, and fair.

The idea that we should wait until some pro se libel suits fully
resolve before we discuss the issue of the FSS (while the person under
the spotlight holds office and helps set direction for the USCF) is
ludicrous.

IMO, those most vociferously demanding discussion cease while we wait
for the judge are deliberately engaging in a delaying tactic.