samsloan wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harry Payne Sam, Being very serious for a minute. I am sure you realize that the USCF is 86,000(roughly) members, it is not an office in Tenn. nor is it the EB volunteers. I am hoping you will see the need to drop the USCF from your lawsuit. If Brian M's facts are correct, you have a good suit there, collect what you can fom those that caused you the biggest problem. It was not me, nor was it the majority of the other 85,999(roughly) members but it will hurt those members the most. As a member I thank you.

There is about zero chance that will happen. I am trying to save the
USCF, not destroy it. I have received a tremendous outpouring of
support. I have received letters and telephone calls from all over the
country supporting me. Not one letter or phone call has arrived
disagreeing with what I have come.

The members are fed up. This has been going on for years. The USCF
just keeps sinking lower and lower, getting worse and worse and it is
time somebody tried to do something about it.

You are a new member of the USCF and do not know this history.

Sam Sloan

Sam, the members resoundingly rejected you in the last election. You
received about half as many votes as in the previous election, despite
a larger turnout. Are you really arguing with a straight face that
some scurrilous postings on rgcp -- read by a mere handful, many of
them not USCF members -- accounted for the difference? If anything,
those posts got you a few sympathy votes. You were rejected by the
voters because of your disastrous performance on the Board.

"Not one letter or phone call has arrived disagreeing with what I have
come (sic)." Why would the vast majority, who long ago gave up on you
as a litigious loon, bother calling you? You're obviously a lost
cause. Only your tens of followers would waste time speaking to you.

Settlement negotiations are off for the time being, as real attorneys
have just appeared in the case.

Sam Sloan

On Oct 30, 6:06 pm, wrote:

Sam, the members resoundingly rejected you in the last election. You
received about half as many votes as in the previous election, despite
a larger turnout. Are you really arguing with a straight face that
some scurrilous postings on rgcp -- read by a mere handful, many of
them not USCF members -- accounted for the difference? If anything,
those posts got you a few sympathy votes. You were rejected by the
voters because of your disastrous performance on the Board.


That argument makes no sense; why is SS being singled
out for "disastrous performance"? Have not most members
had the same kind of performance? All Mr. Sloan did was
annoy and irritate the entrenched board members; is that
a crime? With but one vote, you can't expect miracles, you
know. I say we put him back in, and this time give SS ten
votes -- then you can judge the results. ;D


-- help bot

Question: in the Sam Sloan fantasy wherein Paul Truong
is sent to prison, what exactly is the charge which would
warrant a prison sentence (i.e. attempted murder of MR)?

Repeat threats to kill are a federal crime. However, this is the
internet, and given the
Crazy nature of all chess players, probation seems to be a more
appropriate punishment.
If Paul were banned from the internet, as a condition of his
probation, that would
Do more good than sending him to jail. In context, Paul crossed the
line
With the death threats, but I think that if he cooperates with
prosecutors,
If he is a first time offender, prison is unlikely.

Now, if he rejects a plea, and is found guilty after an expensive
trial that wastes
Everyone's time, a little bit of time in the pokey is possible,
indeed.

Remember, Sam Sloan went to prison for running to Guam and thumbing
His nose at the prosecutors. Had Sloan said he was SORRY, instead of
running
Away acting like a jackass, jail might have been off the table. My
sense is that
Paul won't run away like Sam, but might make the government spend more
time
Than it needs to.

Threats to kill are the serious crime. Harassment can be charged as a
felony (I think), but my guess is that it is so
Commonplace, it is less likely to be pressed as a federal crime. But,
you never know, all crime
Is pretty hard to predict who gets charged and who gets away.

The real problem is that Paul has no remorse for his crime. He does
not care
who he hurts, or injures. In Paul's mind, this is normal, and
everything is going
to be ok if people would just leave him alone.

The real punsihment is to ban him from the internet. If he were forced
to post in his real name, no crime would have taken place. He has
abused
the web, and everyone, for his on insanse reasons, as he reads this
now, he
is thinking about what he is going to say to the police.




Marcus Roberts