From chessdiscussion:

by Engelbert on Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:15 pm
The people who are behind this smutty stuff are Sam Sloan and Brian
Lafferty. Lafferty tried to post this grimy rubbish in any place which
he has not been banned. This guy created similar chaos before with the
cycling people. Didn't someone say that Lafferty is a good friend of
Alarie and she asked Sloan for advice? If true then I wonder if she
repudiates both of them. :? She is way above them or at least she
should be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Englebert, lets look at the facts as I know them from court
records and conversation with Ms. Polgar's ex-husband. And please do
take notice that I was not the one who resurrected this topic here on
rgcp. But since you have clearly draggeed me into it on a discussion
forum owned and controlled by Paul Truong, I will respond here.

Mr. Truong writes on chessdiscussion:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
No word can possibly describe you. What I find even more sickening is
there are actually a few derange people who pay attention to your
garbage. There is absolutely no truth to this nonsense. During a child
custody battle, the side which was ruled against made some wild
charges hoping to have some past court decisions relating to the case
reversed. There is not even an ounce of truth to the allegations. A
family court judge made a temporary order while waiting for an
investigation to be done and the order was promptly lifted once the
facts came out

A thorough investigation was done by child protective services and
they concluded that there was absolutely no truth to the allegations.
In fact, the children clearly stated numerous times to the law
guardian and the representatives from child protective services that
they were told to say this and they would get lots of toys if they do.
They were around 6 and 7 years old at that time. Even the children’s
teacher testified in court that there was absolutely no truth to this
because the children told her what actually happened. Not a single
person corroborated with the person who made these false charges.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The person, unnamed by Mr. Truong, who made a "charge" against Mr.
Truong and Ms. Polgar was the Guardian ad Litem appointed by the court
to represent the children. Mr. Schutzman told me that the children
told the Guardian, in private, that hey had been hot sauced and
corporally disciplined by Mr. Truong to make them study chess. Mr.
Truong disputes that. We have Mr. Truong's version of subsequent
events which, given Mr. Truong's past statements and representations,
must be taken with a degree of skepticism absent real evidence. What
we do have is a copy of a court order as set out in this thread. Mr.
Schutzman advised me that the court's order was vacated on consent
under the advice of his then counsel; advice which Mr. Schutzman says
he regrets having followed.

What did the teacher say the children said happened? Under what
circumstances did that discussion take place? To what degree was it
at variance with what the children said in the privacy of the Guardian
ad Litem's presence? I should point out that it is not unusual for
children's allegations such as these to be unsupported by testimony or
physical evidence.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ALL CHARGES WERE DROPPED. In fact, the same person who made these
bogus charges agreed to drop the charges. But what do you care about
the truth, right?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a bit of hyperbole on Mr. Truong's part. Mr. Truong, did the
Guardian ad Litem withdraw his report to the court as to what the
children told her? Or, Mr. Truong, are you referring to the vacating
of the protective order on consent of the court and the children's
father?

The problem Mr. Truong, is that you have a very poor track record for
openness, transparency and accuracy of statements. This unfortunate
set of circumstances is but one example. The question scholastic
parents should simply ask themselves is, "Would I allow my child to be
alone with my Truong and if so, under what circumstances?" Answers
may vary.