I see on page 7 of the delegates call in the box at the bottom the
largest item is "Removal of Director Issues". This was where around
the first of August 2006 after I had been elected but before I took
office Bill Goichberg wrote letters to the Law Firm of Ridger, Weinger
and Frankel asking how the results membership election could be
invalidated so as to prevent me from taking office or to remove me
from office. The law firm wrote back stating that basically there was
no easy way to do that. The legal bill for this item was $2789.55 plus
the related issue of the so-called Picturegate Affair, also raised by
Goichberg, and the bill for that was $1997.50. Both of these items
have been discussed at length by this group and I feel that Goichberg
should reimburse the USCF for the $4782.05 for these two items
combined because he exceeded his authority as president by contacting
an attorney on these matters without approval of the board of which I
was or was soon to become a member.

Other than that, I do not see anything that could arise out of a
letter by Truong threatening to sue over a legal contract. I note that
Truong often claims to have a legal contract for this or that and
threatens to sue. This seems to be his style. None of his threatened
suits yet have had any legal merit. Nevertheless, the USCF has caved
in and acceded to his demands at great cost to the USCF and its
members. This makes me especially interested to learn whether Truong
has threatened yet another suit and what the USCF has given him as a
result.

Sam Sloan

How many times are you going to repeat this, Sam? It was debunked long
ago. The "removal" issue was legal advice on what to do if the
Delegates refused to certify your election, a distinct possibility at
the time. Unfortunately, the answer was that they really couldn't, and
we were stuck with you for a year. The "picture" affair was entirely
your fault. After Polgar expressed her contemptuous loathing for you,
you posted a picture on your web site of her speaking to you. (In
civilized communities, people often speak politely to those they
despise. It keeps the body count down.) She asked you to remove it.
You refused. The EB properly sought legal advice as to whether any
liability on your part would bleed over to the USCF, since you were
currently disgracing the Board with your presence. They really ought
to have sent you a bill for both charges, but of course you are
judgment-proof.
_________________
John Hillery

On Jul 21, 5:08 pm, samsloan wrote:
How many times are you going to repeat this, Sam? It was debunked long
ago. The "removal" issue was legal advice on what to do if the
Delegates refused to certify your election, a distinct possibility at
the time. Unfortunately, the answer was that they really couldn't, and
we were stuck with you for a year. The "picture" affair was entirely
your fault. After Polgar expressed her contemptuous loathing for you,
you posted a picture on your web site of her speaking to you. (In
civilized communities, people often speak politely to those they
despise. It keeps the body count down.) She asked you to remove it.
You refused. The EB properly sought legal advice as to whether any
liability on your part would bleed over to the USCF, since you were
currently disgracing the Board with your presence. They really ought
to have sent you a bill for both charges, but of course you are
judgment-proof.
_________________
John Hillery

Are you prepared to prove this? Or, when the IRS audits you, can you
prove this?

Marcus Roberts

Susan Polgar did more than just speak politely to me. She actively
sought me out and asked for me to pose with her for these pictures. We
were close friends at the time and were speaking to each other on the
phone frequently.

Incidentally, my wife, Kayo, and my daughter, Sandra, were with me
when the pictures were taken and my wife said that she had no
objection to me posing for a picture with Susan Polgar.

The pictures only became an issue three years later after I won the
election and Grant Perks, who had lost, pointed out the pictures on my
website and made an issue over it. This quickly escalated and became
known as the "Picturegate Affair".

Again, Bill Goichberg acted completely improperly by writing letters
to an attorney asking to take action regarding the Picturegate Affair,
when this had nothing to do with the USCF at all but was a private,
personal matter.

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" Again, Bill Goichberg acted completely improperly by writing
letters
to an attorney asking to take action regarding the Picturegate Affair,
when this had nothing to do with the USCF at all but was a private, personal
matter.


Bill Skumberg must be friends with the law firm. Maybe they gave him some
kickbacks, or they did some free work for him in exchange for billing it to
the USCF. For them to charge nearly $5,000 for writing an opinion letter
which took maybe an hour or two of legal research is pretty outrageous. How
much work did it take that law firm to figure out that they had no legal
right to order you to remove a photo of yourself with someone else that was
on your private website?? The USCF is getting robbed by everyone, not
surprising.

I know of no member of the board who has stated that Bill Goichberg
acted properly in writing five letters to attorney Michael Matsler
asking how to get rid of me either by stopping me from taking office
or throwing me out after I got on or for writing letters to the same
attorney about the "Picturegate Affair". The board member most likely
to express that view would be Randy Hough and that is why he has
become known as "Goichberg's lapdog". In any case, he was not yet on
the board.

The pictures are still on my website. They have never been taken down.
Just go to Google Images at http://images.google.com/ and search for
"Sam Sloan Susan Polgar". The pictures will pop right up. Truong and
Polgar have not sued.

The main point is that Bill Goichberg wrote those five letters to
Michael Matsler thereby incurring costs to the USCF of $4787.05
without board approval or even any discussion by or notice to the
board.

Sam Sloan

She agreed to **** me for her Green Card. She also has to work to
support me for 10 years. I urge everyone to follow my example.
There're a lot of bitches out there willing to blow you daily for a
Green Card.

Here is the first of five letters Attorney Michael Matsler wrote in
reply to five letters from Bill Goichberg asking how to remove me from
the board. Note that date, August 2, 2006, a few days after I was
declared the winner of the election, but 12 days before I actually
took office.

I think that every reasonable person will agree that the letter is
clearly in response to an effort by Bill Goichberg to remove me from
the board, not because Bill feared that some other person or group
would try to have me removed:

From: Michael Matsler [mailto:mmatsler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 9:36 AM
Subject: Removal of directors

Bill:

As you requested, we have looked further into the issue regarding
removal of directors. As an Illinois not for profit corporation, USCF
is subject to that state's statutes and decisional law. Under
Illinois law the by-laws of the corporation are viewed as the
equivalent of a contract between its members and those chosen to
manage the affairs of the entity, referred to as directors. The USCF
by-laws as currently written do not provide directly for the expulsion
or removal of a director or prospective director; the executive board
may revoke membership after a hearing for cause upon thirty days'
notice, or the ethics committee may expel a member. Illinois law
further provides, however, that a director can be removed with or
without cause, as follows:

"In the case of a corporation with members entitled to vote for
directors, no director may be removed, except as follows:

(1) A director may be removed by the affirmative vote of two-
thirds of the votes present and voted, either in person or by
proxy.

(2) No director shall be removed at a meeting of members entitled
to vote unless the written notice of such meeting is delivered to all
members entitled to vote on removal of directors. Such notice shall
state that a purpose of the meeting is to vote upon the removal of one
or more directors named in the notice. Only the named director or
directors may be removed at such meeting."

Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance. Note that
in my absence due to vacation from 8/9 to 8/22 you can contact Maureen
Crush or Shay Humphrey in our office.

Michael Matsler

She agreed to **** me for her Green Card. She also has to work to
support me for 10 years. I urge everyone to follow my example.
There're a lot of bitches out there willing to blow you daily for a
Green Card.

On Jul 21, 4:57 pm, samsloan wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rfeditor You can't have it both ways, Sam. If Polgar and Truong are really the litigious maniacs you claim, then how can you argue that they would not sue the USCF, as well as you, for your refusal to remove the photos? As was pointed out at the time, as long as you are a Board member, your actions bring discredit to the USCF. (I suppose they could bring credit as well, but I can't recall that ever happening.) You created the problem. You could have simply removed the photos when you were asked. Obviously you are not concerned with liability (being indigent), but the EB has fiduciary responsibilities. You do know what those are, don't you? Can you find any other Board member who agrees that "Bill Goichberg acted completely improperly"? If not, why should anyone care about your (self-serving) opinion?

I know of no member of the board who has stated that Bill Goichberg
acted properly in writing five letters to attorney Michael Matsler
asking how to get rid of me either by stopping me from taking office
or throwing me out after I got on or for writing letters to the same
attorney about the "Picturegate Affair". The board member most likely
to express that view would be Randy Hough and that is why he has
become known as "Goichberg's lapdog". In any case, he was not yet on
the board.

The pictures are still on my website. They have never been taken down.
Just go to Google Images athttp://images.google.com/and search for
"Sam Sloan Susan Polgar". The pictures will pop right up. Truong and
Polgar have not sued.

The main point is that Bill Goichberg wrote those five letters to
Michael Matsler thereby incurring costs to the USCF of $4787.05
without board approval or even any discussion by or notice to the
board.

Sam Sloan

Sam,
When will you remove the other vile pictures from your website that
you iuse to entice children into lewd acts?