USCF NOT CULPABLE FOR TRUONG?

Even if it is true that Paul Truong forged posts
(and I am NOT asserting that he did), where is the
evidence that this involved THE ORGANIZATION
(i.e., the USCF)? -- Randy Bauer

In the world of censor Randy Bauer, those who
would expose a Federation politician successfully can
be punished; and those politicians, if acting in a
private capacity, though in a very public way while
serving in high office, may go scotfree.

Righto. That's the government spin -- in this
case transferred to the semi-public sector of a
non-profit organization.

None of the above is meant to reflect one way or
the other about my view concerning Paul Truong's guilt
or innocence of the charges against him.




Randy Bauer wrote:
On Oct 13, 12:44 am, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 22:34:27 -0700, Randy Bauer

wrote:
Even if it is true that Paul Truong forged posts (and I am NOT
asserting that he did), where is the evidence that this involved THE
ORGANIZATION (i.e., the USCF)? If this was a private act, your
whistleblower claim is nothing more than hooey.

A forged message by a member of the board of directors slandering a
company doing business with the organization does not involve the
organization? I suppose you could argue that, but....

Yes, I could, and I would. This would not be a corporate act. A
member of the Board would be acting outside their duties to the
corporation. Also, remember, nobody encountering the slander would
tie it to the corporation - they would view it as coming from another
source (in this case, the fake Sam Sloan or others). The only action
is a private action.