Dear Elizabeth Shaughnessy,

The old CalChess bylaws state,

Section 4: Voting Members. Any member in good standing, 14 years or
older, may vote in CalChess elections.

Yet this year, in your effort to be reelected, you acted
to prevent hundreds of voting members from being able to vote.

The opening page of your www.CalChess.org website states
as follows:

Save The Date!

CalChess Labor Day Tournament
Official State Championship
September 4-6, 2004
click here for a flyer!


CalChess Annual Meeting

The ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF CALCHESS will be held at 2:30 PM on
Monday, September 6 in the Oregon Conference Room at the GOLDEN
GATEWAY HOLIDAY INN HOTEL at Van Ness and Pine in San Francisco.
CalChess members present at that meeting will vote to elect seven new
members to the CalChess board. The deadline for receiving names of
candidates for the vacant positions on the board is FRIDAY SEPTEMBER
3, 2004. To vote or to run for the board you must be a member of
CalChess on or before Saturday September 4, 2004 and you must reside
in Northern California (the USCF designated zip codes).

Please click here for balloting information, eligibility guidelines
and a meeting agenda.

"To vote or to run for the board you must be a member of
CalChess on or before Saturday September 4, 2004 and you must reside
in Northern California (the USCF designated zip codes)."

To vote you must reside in USCF designated zip codes?
Whom did you cut out of the organization by this change?

Didn't the bylaws say any member over 14 could vote? You
changed the rules.

Former CalChess President Tom Dorsch told you that you
were wrong. Tom wrote, "I can at least clarify the facts as they
existed when I was on the Board. The ZIP codes are irrelevant. They
change all the time and have never been determinative. The division
agreed upon between the two federations when California was split was
that Northern California got everything above Bakersfield in the east
and above San Luis Obispo on the coast. The ZIP codes were merely a
convenient shorthand to delineate clearinghouse boundaries, but actual
geographic location was dispositive of residence.
Because it is also north of Bakersfield, Ridgecrest has always been
considered part of Northern California."

By law, your actions effectively end the old CalChess
association.

By cleaving off 300 zip codes in the central part of the
state, you have divided what was whole. You don’t get to tell us to
just go away. This association was a partnership of the whole. We
own a part of the remains.

By preventing "Any member in good standing" from voting
and limited voting to selected members, there can be no doubt that you
have ripped the association asunder and the sole responsibility
belongs to you.

As a twice elected Treasurer of the old CalChess, I was
amazed that you, as CalChess President, would prevent me from running
for reelection and more importantly, denying me the right to vote in a
CalChess election. Your Mickey Mouse tactic of personally disallowing
my candidacy multiple times then saying you would allow me to be on
the ballot with less than 48 hours before the election is too
transparent for words. I am not even allowed to vote under the rules
posted on the first page of the website. You sought to eliminate your
opponents by fiat and destroyed the whole organization in the process.


Can you explain how your membership list only showed 63
voting family memberships on 7/31, yet we signed up 95 voting family
memberships at the CalChess Scholastics alone? Did those new family
memberships expire between March and now? No, you mislabeled them as
scholastic members.

Can the parents of scholastic members vote? The answer is
no.

Can the parents of family memberships vote? You bet.

Could this have something to do with nearly 50 of those
family memberships belonging to families of your arch-rival Alan
Kirshner? The opposition families couldn't vote and you may win
whatever this election is but the old CalChess is over.

OK, we are separate. You will be contacted next week
relating to the dissolution.

But there is another issue here.

You claim the nearly $26,000 that I hold is your asset.
It is not. It simply resided in a CalChess account for a time. It
came from the children and it will remain with the children. The only
reason for this accumulation of cash is that you didn’t deliver on
your promises to the children. I have no claim on the money, but I
will protect it from your profligate spending until a proper
determination can be made of how best to return it.

In 2003, every one of the hundreds of children who joined
CalChess was cheated and it has happened again in 2004. You know
exactly what I am talking about. The children were promised six
issues of CalChess Journal as part of their membership dues. I know.
I was the front man in collecting all those dues for CalChess and feel
a personal responsibility for seeing that money is not misspent. It
will not be. You and your clique will not profit from your failing to
deliver on your promises.

Little did I realize at that time that it would matter so
little to you and you would give so little effort to keeping
CalChess's word to those children. You went to Bali twice, you went
to Spain, you took care of the Berkeley Chess School, you took time to
travel all over the country running for USCF Executive Board, but you
didn’t make the magazines happen, did you?

I offered to write the magazines myself so that our word
would be kept. I tried to get you to rehire Frisco Del Rosario, who
had done a great job, but you stayed with the unproductive but
politically supportive Eric Hicks. But more importantly, what did YOU
do? Sadly, the answer was nothing. No burning the midnight oil to
keep your word to the kids.

Can you explain why you registered CalChess.org in your
personal name and not that of CalChess itself? Why is the
organization ownership listed as "Elizabeth Shaughnessy".

http://www.networksolutions.com/en_U...uestid=1295528

If something happens to you, by law who owns the website?
Who would inherit? CalChess would not have inherited would they?

Is it your claim that the children's money is your asset
in the same sense that the registered names CalChess, CalChess
Scholastics, Norcal, and Norcal Scholastics are ALL registered in your
personal name and not that of CalChess? Why are they registered in
your name?

During the next months, a committee of parents from all
over the traditional northern California (not just those of us who
were cold bloodedly excommunicated from CalChess) will be formed to
determine the best method of distributing the $26,000 back to the
kids, but you will not be a part of it. You see, you may have turned
your back on us and broken the organization, but we have no intention
of turning our backs on the kids who trusted us with their money and
whom you failed.

I checked with the Kern County District Attorney's office
to verify that this is a proper course of action. It is. And it is
likely that an initial distribution of these funds will occur at the
2005 CalChess Scholastics on April 15-17 in Oakland.

The old CalChess is no more.

Richard Peterson

A strange but mildly interesting claim by Roichard Peterson.

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:00:28 GMT, Richard Peterson wrote:


Can you explain why you registered CalChess.org in your
personal name and not that of CalChess itself? Why is the
organization ownership listed as "Elizabeth Shaughnessy".

http://www.networksolutions.com/en_U...uestid=1295528

If something happens to you, by law who owns the website?
Who would inherit? CalChess would not have inherited would they?

Is it your claim that the children's money is your asset
in the same sense that the registered names CalChess, CalChess
Scholastics, Norcal, and Norcal Scholastics are ALL registered in your
personal name and not that of CalChess? Why are they registered in
your name?

The statement by Richard Peterson is incorrect. Only the first is
registered under the name of Elizabeth Shaughnessy.

CalChessScholastics.org and NorCalScholastics.org is registered under

Registrant Name:Alan Kirshner
Registrant Organization:Success Chess School
Registrant Street1:66 Indian Hill Place
Registrant City:Fremont
Registrant State/Province:CA

CalChess.org is registered under

Registrant Name:Elizabeth Shaughnessy
Registrant Organization:Elizabeth Shaughnessy
Registrant Street1:12215 Walnut Street
Registrant City:Berkeley
Registrant State/Province:CA
Registrant Postal Code:94709
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.5108430150
Registrant

Norcal.org is registered under

Registrant:
Northern California District Church of the Nazarene. (24576797O)
1866 Clayton Road, Suite 200
Concord, CA 94520
US

To verify this, go to
http://www.networksolutions.com/en_US/whois/

Sam Sloan

On Mon, 06 Sep 2004 19:00:28 GMT, Richard Peterson wrote:


OK, we are separate. You will be contacted next week
relating to the dissolution.

But there is another issue here.

You claim the nearly $26,000 that I hold is your asset.
It is not. It simply resided in a CalChess account for a time. It
came from the children and it will remain with the children. The only
reason for this accumulation of cash is that you didn't deliver on
your promises to the children. I have no claim on the money, but I
will protect it from your profligate spending until a proper
determination can be made of how best to return it.

In 2003, every one of the hundreds of children who joined
CalChess was cheated and it has happened again in 2004. You know
exactly what I am talking about. The children were promised six
issues of CalChess Journal as part of their membership dues. I know.
I was the front man in collecting all those dues for CalChess and feel
a personal responsibility for seeing that money is not misspent. It
will not be. You and your clique will not profit from your failing to
deliver on your promises.

I am curious about this claim. I am trying to figure out what it is.

Take a look at
http://www.calchess.org/calchessjournal.html#2004

It appears that the California Chess Journal is supposed to be
published six times a year but it was only published five times in
2003 and only once so far in 2004.

Therefore, Richard Peterson has taken $26,000 out of the CalChess Bank
Account and says that he plans to return it to the parents or the
children who joined but not to the adult members.

How many times has the USCF published Chess Life only 11 times per
year but the members could not demand their money back?

Sam Sloan

Is it your claim that the children's money is your asset
in the same sense that the registered names CalChess, CalChess
Scholastics, Norcal, and Norcal Scholastics are ALL registered in your
personal name and not that of CalChess? Why are they registered in
your name?

The statement by Richard Peterson is incorrect. Only the first is
registered under the name of Elizabeth Shaughnessy.

Sam,
You misunderstood what I wrote.
All are registered under Elizabeth's name.

Your error is in assuming the other name registrations beyond www.calchess.org
were web addresses.
They were not.

Richard Peterson

In article , wrote:

It appears that the California Chess Journal is supposed to be
published six times a year but it was only published five times in
2003 and only once so far in 2004.

17 times from 2001-2003. Shoot me.

It appears that the California Chess Journal is supposed to be
published six times a year but it was only published five times in
2003 and only once so far in 2004.

17 times from 2001-2003. Shoot me.


Frisco is by far the most talented chess writer/editor I have ever known and
his instructional pieces are classic.

Rp

(Sam Sloan) writes:

How many times has the USCF published Chess Life only 11 times per
year but the members could not demand their money back?

I've been a USCF member since 1967 and a life member since 1982, and I
don't recall this having happened during those years.

The USCF has changed the publication cover date several times. When the
cover date was advanced (so that the issue members received in January
had a February cover date) this resulted in skipping a cover date month but
did not mean that the USCF skipped publishing the magazine for a month
or that members lost an issue.

When the cover date was moved backwards, as occurred earlier this year,
there was an 'extra' issue as far as the cover date was concerned but not
an extra issue as far as members were concerned. The issue members
received a few days ago bore a September cover date issue.
--
Mike Nolan

It appears that the California Chess Journal is supposed to be
published six times a year but it was only published five times in
2003 and only once so far in 2004.

CCJ has been published twice this year. The only editor who has ever gotten
the CCJ out 6 times a year was the exceptionally dedicated Frisco Del Rosario.
Most other editors either did it quarterly or had special catch-up double
issues to maybe get five issues out.
I did it as a quarterly.

To complete a CCJ from very start to very finish is about a two month cycle (I
know; I did it for three years). If you do a quarterly you get a month off; If
you try to 6 issues of CCJ you are doing it all the time.

I don't think that the publciation of a State Chess Mag is on an irregular
schedule should be too shocking to most folks.

To complete a CCJ from very start to very finish is about a two month cycle
(I
know; I did it for three years). If you do a quarterly you get a month off;
If
you try to 6 issues of CCJ you are doing it all the time.

I don't think that the publciation of a State Chess Mag is on an irregular
schedule should be too shocking to most folks.



Maybe when you have not taken children's money for those magazines, but when
you have it is a different story. That the grownups didn't understand this is
tragic.

Not one of the kids who became members since the 2003 CalChess Scholastics has
gotten more than 3 of their six.

Think about it.
Cheating the kids is OK, but returning their money is not?

Rp

OTHERE (Fifiela) writes:
To complete a CCJ from very start to very finish is about a two
month cycle (I know; I did it for three years). If you do a
quarterly you get a month off; If you try to 6 issues of CCJ you are
doing it all the time.

Back when I was involved, we did it a lot faster, but it was a less
ambitious mag in those days.