On Mar 27, 5:05 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Rob wrote:
On Mar 27, 1:57 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:08:39 -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.

Absent any evidence from Truong to in any manner contradict the
Motterhead Report as substantiated by two independent experts, one of
whose expertise was acknowledged by Ms. Polgar on chessdiscussion, I
have concluded that Mr. Truong is the FSS. I'm far from the only person
who has reached that conclusion.

If Mr. Truong had any supportive evidence, he could have ended this mess
in the USCF back in September. Whether it occurs in Federal court or a
state court, there will come a time when Mr. Truong will be placed under
oath and asked all the difficult questions he has dodged until now. If
Mr. Sloan's action survives in any form, I suspect there will be cross
claims against Mr. Truong which will make for a very interesting
discovery process.

Then compare the IP address from Sloan.