ChessBanter - View Single Post

**Brian Lafferty**

Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:99LLj.3$eg2.0@trndny06...
Chess One wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them, and
felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
still practiced in this country.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.
I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
know the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said
to Brian Lafferty.

If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
candid representations of any truth.
You really are clueless as to how the courts work.

The question is how you work, Mr. Lafferty.

As I stated before;

Those are not answers to my questions [which are not even repeated here -
they have become snippage] of what you understood when /you/ wrote /your/
statements. They are accusations, investigated and not unproven, but
dismissed! If you will not answer the questions I put to you, that itself is
an answer

As it stands you dare not even repeat the questions.

Heuch!

Phil Innes

1. The children's father revealed to me and others that the guardian ad
litem assigned in his custody case to look after his children's interests
in the proceeding, was told in private by the children that they had been
hot sauced and corporally punished by Mr. Truong.

2. The court was advised of this and entered an order barring hot saucing
and corporeal punishment on the children.

3. The father of the children produced a copy of that order and gave it
to a number of people.

4. A judge throwing out the charge is really not applicable to this type
of proceeding which is civil, BB, not criminal. Courts will often deal
with such situations by issuing what amounts to a protective order if the
judge feels there is a reasonable basis for doing so.
If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
gentlemen..
The above are facts that I have been given, including a copy of the court
order. As I suggested, the next time you do an "interview" with Mr.
Truong, I hope you will ask him if the facts are correct and true. If he
denies hot saucing and corporeal punishment, please ask him to sign a
sworn affidavit to that effect.

Phil Innes

Do you actually read what you type before clicking send?