Polgar and Truong are claiming the right to be paid these large
amounts of money on the basis of verbal agreements with Frank Niro
while Niro was Executive Director.

However, oral contracts are not valid with corporations unless they
are confirmed in writing.

I will give one example from the stock market, since I worked in the
stock market for years.

All stock market contracts are initially oral. A customer calls his
broker and tells him to by 100 shares of XYZ stock. The broker tells
his order clerk. The order clerk in the old days would call down the
order to the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. The floor broker
receives the order and walks out to the ring where he buys the stock
from the specialist. He then walks back and has his order clerk call
up to the office to report the transaction which is then reported to
the customer.

All of these contracts are oral. However, within three days under New
York Stock Exchange rules, this transaction must be confirmed in
writing. The brokers must send written confirmation to each other and
the buying broker must send written confirmation to his customer.

If after three days there is no written confirmation and no protest,
then the transaction is deemed not to have occurred.

On or about the first of August 2003, Frank Niro left the USCF offices
in New Windsor New York supposedly to go to Los Angeles to attend the
USCF delegates meeting. He never made it to Los Angeles. He
disappeared. Nobody knows where he was except that Polgar and Truong
state that he was in a hospital in Connecticut.

It was only after Frank Niro disappeared that Polgar and Truong
started demanding payment of these huge amounts of money that they
claim that Frank Niro had agreed to pay them. However, they have
produced no written evidence that Niro had ever agreed to pay these
huge amounts.

One of the issues was INVOICE # 102003 in which Polgar and Truong
wrote "$15,974.57 Please make check payable to Polgar Chess, Inc.
Thank you!"

In December, 2003, Bill Goichberg, as Executive Director, settled this
demand for payment by paying $13,358.36.

It is this payment of $13,358.36 that Beatriz Marinello and I are
questioning. We have never stated that we believe that this amount was
paid twice. Rather we are stating that this amount was not owed and
should not have been paid at all.

In the box of stuff Bill was looking through in Los Angeles on
February 5, 2007, Bill had evidence in the form of invoices and memos
supporting other payments to Polgar, but nothing supporting this
payment.

For example, there were several payments for three boxes of books
totaling 72 books for "Queen of the Kings Game" at $24.95 per book.
This explains several payments of that amount. What is shocking about
this is that Frank Niro was paying Polgar the full retail price of the
book, meaning that the USCF made no profit from selling the book and
to the contrary had to pay shipping and handling and staff and
warehouse expenses for each book sold.

Regarding the $13,358.36, Bill Goichberg at one point blamed this
payment on a low level clerk in the USCF Office, Linda Somebody. He
still has not explained his payment of this amount. It is clear from
the debates on rec.games.chess.politics at that time which you can
search and find, that neither the President, the VP of Finance or the
Chairman of the Finance Committee were agreeing to pay this amount.
Indeed, we all assumed that this amount had never been paid until
recently when I discovered this payment on the CD Bill Hall sent us.

No written evidence has ever been produced that Polgar and Truong were
owed this amount by the USCF. Interestingly, any evidence that this
amount was owed would have been on the laptop computer in Frank Niro's
former office in the USCF. However, Polgar and Truong removed that
laptop computer from the USCF office on or about August 20, 2003.
Thus, by taking that computer, they were taking the only evidence, if
it existed, that they were legitimately owed this $13,358.36.

Therefore, I do not regard this matter in any way closed. I still
await evidence that they were entitled to be paid this amount and that
Bill Goichberg was justified in paying them this amount, especially
since the President, the VP of Finance and the Chairman of the Finance
Committee had all objected to paying this amount and Bill Goichberg
had gone over their heads and kept secret until recently the fact that
he had paid this amount.

Sam Sloan

I posted the above on uschess.org/forums

It only lasted a few seconds before it was deleted by the moderator.

I guess they never heard of Freedom of Speech.

Sam Sloan

On 17 Feb, 09:05, "samsloan" wrote:
I posted the above on uschess.org/forums

It only lasted a few seconds before it was deleted by the moderator.

I guess they never heard of Freedom of Speech.

Sam Sloan

Could it be because they think you're a loonie? I'm just guessing. I
actually enjoy your diatribes but I can understand why people think
you're a kinky weirdo.

"samsloan" wrote
I posted the above on uschess.org/forums

It only lasted a few seconds before it was deleted by the moderator.

I guess they never heard of Freedom of Speech.




You can not impose your "freedoms" on others. It's probably his board, so
his rules apply. If you don't like it, you have the freedom to create your
own forum.

In other words, you are free to shout all you like, but no one has to
listen, let alone believe you.



--
Paul Thomas, CPA

"Ambassador" wrote
You are a CPA, wow! I am a multmiliionare, and I think
that the emphasis of your title of CPA is to try to suggest
Sloan is off base. In this case, I support Sam Sloan!



Freedom of speech at work.




You can call him a "loonie", and he is a little crazy,
but every now and then, he hits the nail on the head.



I did not call him a loonie.




What are you going to do, CPA? Call everyone
a "loon" who exposes corruption?



Nope, just the millionaire loons.






--
"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For
those who do not, none will suffice." - Joseph Dunniger

Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia

"Ambassador" wrote
The financial statement (2006) of the USCF is a LIE.


If you say so.



You can call that loony, but I'd call that ACCURATE. The market value
of the building is not as expressed, due to deed restrictions. This
overstatment of value allows CRIMINAL FRAUD to occur. The fraud with
the building allows the USCF to cover up loses.



I'm not privy to those financials, or under what accounting method they were
prepared. It is not normal accounting policy to book up the assets to
market values, although there may be a footnote disclosing that value if
it's material and of importance to the financials and their users.

If the accounting for the building is within the accepted accounting method,
then nothing criminal or fraudulent has occured.

That you are aware of differences with the reported book value of the
building and it's actual value, you are surely among those who won't place
reliance on those financials.




--
Paul Thomas, CPA

"Ambassador" wrote
Nobody in the venture capital world would accept the USCF book
valuation of the Tennessee property.


Are they carrying it at something other than Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles allows for?




The USCF financial numbers are prepared in BAD FAITH!



Ahhhh. There is no such accounting method.




You can't take a 1 dollar gift (the land on which the USCF bulit an
offce) with these detailed deed restrcitions, and then claim a HUGE
profit on the land.



Um, yes, you can when the land is sold.

Indeed, if it were a gift, as you just said, then the basis to the company
would be the basis of the giver.



The value of the land is 1 dollar.


I seriously doubt that.




In fact, the value of the building is 1 dollar,


I seriously doubt that.





until you get a more detailed explanation of the deed restrictions,



It would seem that a deed restriction would decrease any values, but it
would not decrease any carrying cost.





Now, you attack Sloan in the name of a CPA.


I don't know a "Sloan".





If you took this book valuation that the USCF preseneted, and go
public, YOU WILL GO TO JAIL!


Obviously not if you didn't rely on the financials.




--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia

You should confine all this crazy stuff to the chess lists. It is
better if normal people do not find out about you.

On Feb 19, 4:08 am, "Paul Thomas" wrote:
"Ambassador" wrote

Nobody in the venture capital world would accept the USCF book
valuation of the Tennessee property.

Are they carrying it at something other than Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles allows for?

The USCF financial numbers are prepared in BAD FAITH!

Ahhhh. There is no such accounting method.

You can't take a 1 dollar gift (the land on which the USCF bulit an
offce) with these detailed deed restrcitions, and then claim a HUGE
profit on the land.

Um, yes, you can when the land is sold.

Indeed, if it were a gift, as you just said, then the basis to the company
would be the basis of the giver.

The value of the land is 1 dollar.

I seriously doubt that.

In fact, the value of the building is 1 dollar,

I seriously doubt that.

until you get a more detailed explanation of the deed restrictions,

It would seem that a deed restriction would decrease any values, but it
would not decrease any carrying cost.

Now, you attack Sloan in the name of a CPA.

I don't know a "Sloan".

If you took this book valuation that the USCF preseneted, and go
public, YOU WILL GO TO JAIL!

Obviously not if you didn't rely on the financials.

--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia

"samsloan" wrote in message
ups.com...
Polgar and Truong are claiming the right to be paid these large
amounts of money

A lot of fuss over a relatively *small* amount of money.

Adrian

On Feb 20, 1:28 am, "Adrian Bailey" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

ups.com...

Polgar and Truong are claiming the right to be paid these large
amounts of money

A lot of fuss over a relatively *small* amount of money.


Somebody will collect you all and put you into little padded rooms.