A Serious Legal Issue Facing the USCF Forums

Everybody who has been following the USCF forums at
http://www.uschess.org/forums will have notice a serious problem.

Recently, at the insistence of Joel Channing, the USCF purchased
"Internet insurance" for $15,000. The purpose of this insurance was
supposed to be to protect the USCF in case somebody sued over something
posted to the forums.

Instead, however, what has happened is massive deletions of postings
and retention of other postings which are favorable or unfavorable to
certain candidates for election.

In addition, candidates and board members have been suspended from
posting for making statements contrary to the majority views of members
of the board.

In other words, dissent is being quashed.

In particular, any posting expressing negative views about Susan
Polgar or Joel Channing has been deleted.

Any posting in favor of Sam Sloan or Joe Lux, who are also candidates
for election, is subject to deletion.

In addition, last week board members Sam Sloan and Beatriz Marinello
were suspended from posting supposedly for revealing confidential
information about the USCF. Yet, those who made the suspension have
refused to state what confidential information was revealed, and in
fact there was none.

Here is the announcement of four complete threads that were deleted
yesterday:

"Four threads have been removed from the public areas of the forum for
review by the Executive Board for possible sanctions against one or
more of the posts in those threads (possibly by multiple posters).

"Those threads a

""******** 84 ********

"Joe Lux on the US Championship
"Vision Statements
"Goichberg's List
"The Case against Susan Polgar

"******* 84 *******

"It is possible other threads may be pulled for review as well."

I believe that the USCF could be headed for a lawsuit over this, and I
doubt that the Internet insurance will cover this. Deleting postings by
political opponents purely for political reasons is clearly actionable,
especially when an election in a 501(c)(4) corporation is involved..

I urge the powers that be, especially Mr. Goichberg and Mr. Channing,
to stop this right now.

Sam Sloan

Ambassador wrote:
Sam

The USCF has had the idea of froming this secret, closed, posting group
on their website ever since I was a delegate, in 1991. You are seeing
the realization in a SNOB DREAM. You can't sue them over posting and
win. You need to maintain your attack on their weak areas, MONEY.

What you can do is make another one of these people on the Executive
Committee quit.

Find more dirt, scream about money, but I suggest that playing their
own game (suing them) is just exactly what they want.

You are unlikely to be relected. Use your office to get even later.
Your time is running out.

Marcus Roberts


Shut the **** up. Either help me out with money or shut the **** up. My
college professor warned me about weirdos like you.

Sam Sloan

MORE SINNED AGAINST THAN SINNING

I would argue that by any algorithm of abuse,
Sam has been far more abused than abusing.

In the past at rgcp, the typical scenario has
been dozens of postings filled with feral language
attributing crimes to Sam (his jail sentence was for
"kidnapping" his daughter in an affair of the heart
that would not even have been in the courts a couple
of generations back) and after constant abuse
directed at him Sam occasionally loses his temper,
though not often.

Indeed, I am constantly amazed at Sam's
self-restraint, given the provocations.

Nor am I a reflexive supporter of Sam's. Just
yesterday, I wrote a long piece that evidently heaped
scorn on the preposterous hooha over Joel Channing and
Beatriz Marinello's calf.

(I propose that future Board meetings be held
with glass meeting tables. Fewer stones may then get
thrown and transparency will be absolute.)

As for Mike Nolan being "shaped," I judge him to
be a shameless toady to whatever group happens to hold
the reins of USCF authority at a given moment. Such
was his practice as a parliamentarian; such appears to
be his practice if reports are accurate at Nolanland,
the USCF hippodrome of "ideas."



samsloan wrote:
A Serious Legal Issue Facing the USCF Forums

Everybody who has been following the USCF forums at
http://www.uschess.org/forums will have notice a serious problem.

Recently, at the insistence of Joel Channing, the USCF purchased
"Internet insurance" for $15,000. The purpose of this insurance was
supposed to be to protect the USCF in case somebody sued over something
posted to the forums.

Instead, however, what has happened is massive deletions of postings
and retention of other postings which are favorable or unfavorable to
certain candidates for election.

In addition, candidates and board members have been suspended from
posting for making statements contrary to the majority views of members
of the board.

In other words, dissent is being quashed.

In particular, any posting expressing negative views about Susan
Polgar or Joel Channing has been deleted.

Any posting in favor of Sam Sloan or Joe Lux, who are also candidates
for election, is subject to deletion.

In addition, last week board members Sam Sloan and Beatriz Marinello
were suspended from posting supposedly for revealing confidential
information about the USCF. Yet, those who made the suspension have
refused to state what confidential information was revealed, and in
fact there was none.

Here is the announcement of four complete threads that were deleted
yesterday:

"Four threads have been removed from the public areas of the forum for
review by the Executive Board for possible sanctions against one or
more of the posts in those threads (possibly by multiple posters).

"Those threads a

""******** 84 ********

"Joe Lux on the US Championship
"Vision Statements
"Goichberg's List
"The Case against Susan Polgar

"******* 84 *******

"It is possible other threads may be pulled for review as well."

I believe that the USCF could be headed for a lawsuit over this, and I
doubt that the Internet insurance will cover this. Deleting postings by
political opponents purely for political reasons is clearly actionable,
especially when an election in a 501(c)(4) corporation is involved..

I urge the powers that be, especially Mr. Goichberg and Mr. Channing,
to stop this right now.

Sam Sloan

wrote:
MORE SINNED AGAINST THAN SINNING

I would argue that by any algorithm of abuse,
Sam has been far more abused than abusing.

wrote:
MORE SINNED AGAINST THAN SINNING

I would argue that by any algorithm of abuse,
Sam has been far more abused than abusing.

Sloan has written, "The fact is that my relationship with Zsuzsa Polgar
(who now calls herself Susan) was not entirely Platonic. I have been
discrete and have not revealed to anyone other than a few close
friends the true nature of our prior relationship, until now." Sloan
has further characterized the details of the Polgar relationship as
"seamy."

In contrast, Susan Polgar has written, "[D]uring his stay [with the
Polgar family, Sloan] made a number of completely inappropriate
solicitation[s] to me, a minor at that time, and he was promptly and
firmly told no. To his credit, he did not try it again. But he tried
with others. Since that time, I [have] tried to be polite to Mr.
Sloan in public but I tried to avoid him as much as I could. I am not
surprised about the inappropriate sexual conduc[t] that he claimed in
the past. He believes that it is OK."

One tends to believe the child abuser is not the abused. But we
already know that Larry Parr favors the rights of Thai soldiers on
leave, and other adults, to exploit children as sexual chattel.


****************
****************
****************
****************

In "Response to Ethics Complaint by Herbert Rodney Vaughn," Sam Sloan
wrote:

I then accompanied Susan [Polgar] and her family over the next
several months to chess tournaments in Copenhagen, Denmark, San Juan,
Puerto Rico and Rio Gallegos, Argentina. I personally arranged the
tickets for the five of them and me to fly to Argentina.

I will leave out the details, some of which are seamy, except that I
will say that my remark about which Herbert Rodney Vaughn now files his
ethics complaint is entirely accurate.

I must add, however, that my remark was in response to a motion to
censure me made by Bill Goichberg. That motion by Goichberg consisted
of five parts, all of which had to do with my relationship with Susan
Polgar. Bill probably did not even know that I had ever had a
relationship with Susan Polgar. That is why I said that, in making his
motion, Bill was acting like a bull in a China Shop. All these past
twenty-one years, I have avoided publicly revealing the facts that I
have just set forth above.

****************
****************
****************
****************

BINFO 200603590
Date 2006-09-25

From samsloan

Status Standard Release
Release Date 2006-10-03
Subject Resolution of the Executive Board

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: Chessoffice@xxxxxxx
Subject: Resolution of the Executive Board
From: Sam Sloan samsloan@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:47:41 -0400
Cc: Joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Beatchess@xxxxxxx, Rtannerae@xxxxxxx,
randallhough@xxxxxxxxx, samsloan@xxxxxxxxxxxx, CHESSJOEL@xxxxxxx,
bhall@xxxxxxxxxxx, Chessdon@xxxxxxx, pknight@xxxxxxxxxxx,
queencapa@xxxxxxx , USCF BINFO System, Chessoffice@xxxxxxx
Delivered-to: USCF BINFO Systemxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: USCF BINFO System
In-reply-to: 3.0.6.32.20060925110012.01f13280@xxxxxxxxxxxx

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At 11:00 AM 9/25/2006 -0400, Chessoffice@xxxxxxx wrote:I move in open
session that the Board approve the following resolutionwritten by our
attorney, Mike Matsler. I vote yes.

Bill GoichbergI am deeply discouraged and disappointed that Bill, acting like a bull in a china shop, has brought this into the public forum by making a public motion and posting it to USCF BINFO System, as a result of which this

matter will disseminated and the entire world will know about it in due
course.The fact is that my relationship with Zsuzsa Polgar (who now
calls herself Susan) was not entirely Platonic. I have been discrete
and have not revealed to anyone other than a few close friends the true
nature of
our prior relationship, until now. Now, Bill's public motion
effectively forces me to reveal what really happened those many years
ago. This will do no good either to me, Zsuzsa,
Bill or the USCF, but it appears that now I will have no real choice
but to tell the whole story. Sam Sloan

****************
****************
****************
****************

P.S. Chessdon (the moral compass of USCF--'splains a lot) is still
weighing the evidence.

wrote:
MORE SINNED AGAINST THAN SINNING

I would argue that by any algorithm of abuse,
Sam has been far more abused than abusing.

In the past at rgcp, the typical scenario has
been dozens of postings filled with feral language
attributing crimes to Sam (his jail sentence was for
"kidnapping" his daughter in an affair of the heart
that would not even have been in the courts a couple
of generations back) and after constant abuse
directed at him Sam occasionally loses his temper,
though not often.

Indeed, I am constantly amazed at Sam's
self-restraint, given the provocations.


Let's keep the complete story in mind when we consider Parr's
characterization of Sam's felony conviction as "an affair of the
heart":

Sam abandoned the girl for two and one half of her first five years
with no contact and no support.


Sam violated multiple (i.e., three) court orders by "taking the child
out of the juridisdiction of the appropriate court and away from the
custodial parties."


His last attempt was thwarted when the child had the good sense to run
from Sam and lock herself in the car of the social worker who was
monitoring the visit between Sam and his daughter.


Sam "testified that he was still married to at least two wives and that
at least two of them and their children resided in the same house."


The court found that "Mr. Sloan's unfitness [as a parent] was exhibited
in his lifestyle, attitude, behavior, instability, living
circumstances, personal habits and emotional status."


The court noted that "[h]is credibility as a witness was very poor."

The court decided that contact with Sam was "not in the child's best
interest because of the unusual circumstances in that Mr. Sloan
continually takes the child to foreign countries or other jurisdictions
when court ordered not to do so."


Let us also keep in mind that Parr knows no more about family law than
he knows about the laws of evidence, copyright, or sexual abuse. Parr
likes to assert as fact whatever pops into his head.

BROCK'S MAGNIFICENT OBSESSIVENESS

Someone advised me not to feed the trolls
like Bill Brock (Politikalhack) who keeps changing
headers to suit his weird agenda, but I'll try again.

The great thing about the Rock Hudson - Jane
Wyman version of Lloyd C. Douglas' Magnificent
Obsession was that the magnificence of the
cinematography and Technicolor served the cause of
decent American soap opera rather than any obsession.

One might wish for soap opera where Bill Brock is
concerned. Instead we have to title his rgcp writing,
Magnificent Obsessiveness, in the sense that he
magnifies his obsessions.

Bill wants everyone to believe that Sam Sloan is
a child molester and that this writer is Sam's
apologist. The problem is that he never presents
proof that Sam molested any child, and he adduces no
apologias re Sam as a child molester from this writer.

Needless to say, when writing, "I would argue
that by any algor ithm of abuse, Sam has been far more
abused than abusing," I was responding to Joel
Channing's discussion of civil and uncivil speech
rather than addressing the Polgar and Sloan versions
of their relationship about which I know nothing.

We have heard no one accuse Mr. Sloan of
child molestation in the Polgar affair, which
is the topic under discussion. We await proof
from Bill B. that Sam has ever molested a child.

Beware the man who endlessly explores in public
the pubic lives of others. We continue to believe
that Brock's evident electronic twitchings derive from
an agitated ego rather than an afflicted sexual
libido. We continue to regard his postings as nobly
intended, though imbecilically framed and
rebarbatively composed.

Alas, we no longer continue to hope for anything
better from the man.

P.S. Here is an excerpt from a thread called BROCK'S TRUE
CONFESSIONS which I wrote on May 15, 2006:

Readers of this forum are aware that Bill Brock
accuses Sam Sloan daily of being a child molester,
though never offering any proof. None. If he had
anything solid, he would go to the authorities instead
of smearing Sam so relentlessly.

And, yes, Mr. Brock still presents no proof that
Sam is a child molester, though he repeats the charge
ad nauseum like a liturgical chant of faith.

MR. BROCK'S "SKELETONS"

We have noted that Internet self-revelatory effusions
ought to be taken with a grain of salt without proof
that the claims are true. That is because many people
typically write quickly on the Internet and don't express
accurately. They frequently write things they do not mean
to assert.

So, too, Bill Brock has written a claim about
himself that we do NOT regard as probative unless
proof is forthcoming that what he has said about
himself happens to be true.

Once again, in a response to Phil Innes of March
4, 2006, Mr. Brock wrote about having "skeletons"
(note the plural) in his closet directly after referencing a
case in which a Missouri chess official showed sexual
material to a young boy, presumably of a homosexual
nature. If Mr. Brock is writing truthfully about himself -- if
he actually meant what he wrote -- then we must conclude
he has committed some very, very ugly acts indeed.

The good news is that given Mr. Brock's
emotional condition and limited capacity for
expression, we assume that the man was bloviating
fecklessly at the keyboard.

What follows are two complete paragraphs and a
portion of a third from Mr. Brock's message to Mr.
Innes. In the first paragraph, Mr. Brock goes on
about his sympathy for Humbert Humberts, ending the
paragraph by referencing the aforementioned Missouri
chess official.

The second paragraph is two short declarative sentences --
"Jeepers, I have skeletons in my own closet. However, I don't
advertise my skeletons as trophies." -- in which Mr. Brock sums up
his own history, clearly referencing the preceding paragraph.
Comments in brackets are by me.

"The boundary between childhood and adulthood is
to some extent a social construct [a banal truism],
and the barrage of phone calls for my son tells me
something about the instinctual drives of 13-year-old
girls [if Sam Sloan had written thus, Mr. Brock would
be calling him a nosey Parker voyeur]. So I have a
bit of sympathy for the fallen Humbert Humberts of the
world [if Mr. Sloan had written thus, Mr. Brock would
accuse him of being soft on paedophilia]. Some of you
may remember the affair that caused a certain
controversy within the Missouri Chess Association
involving a 'consenting' minor [a chess official was
convicted of this-or-that after showing porn pictures
to a young boy]. In that case, the adult involved in
the act never presented his action as a mitzvah [if
Mr. Sloan had written thus, Mr. Brock would accuse him
of mitigating the conduct of a paedophile].

"Jeepers, I have skeletons in my own closet.
However, I don't advertise my skeletons as trophies."



















Vince Hart wrote:
wrote:
MORE SINNED AGAINST THAN SINNING

I would argue that by any algorithm of abuse,
Sam has been far more abused than abusing.

In the past at rgcp, the typical scenario has
been dozens of postings filled with feral language
attributing crimes to Sam (his jail sentence was for
"kidnapping" his daughter in an affair of the heart
that would not even have been in the courts a couple
of generations back) and after constant abuse
directed at him Sam occasionally loses his temper,
though not often.

Indeed, I am constantly amazed at Sam's
self-restraint, given the provocations.


Let's keep the complete story in mind when we consider Parr's
characterization of Sam's felony conviction as "an affair of the
heart":

Sam abandoned the girl for two and one half of her first five years
with no contact and no support.


Sam violated multiple (i.e., three) court orders by "taking the child
out of the juridisdiction of the appropriate court and away from the
custodial parties."


His last attempt was thwarted when the child had the good sense to run
from Sam and lock herself in the car of the social worker who was
monitoring the visit between Sam and his daughter.


Sam "testified that he was still married to at least two wives and that
at least two of them and their children resided in the same house."


The court found that "Mr. Sloan's unfitness [as a parent] was exhibited
in his lifestyle, attitude, behavior, instability, living
circumstances, personal habits and emotional status."


The court noted that "[h]is credibility as a witness was very poor."

The court decided that contact with Sam was "not in the child's best
interest because of the unusual circumstances in that Mr. Sloan
continually takes the child to foreign countries or other jurisdictions
when court ordered not to do so."


Let us also keep in mind that Parr knows no more about family law than
he knows about the laws of evidence, copyright, or sexual abuse. Parr
likes to assert as fact whatever pops into his head.

If you can find links to my own sexual exploits on the Web, please post
them here, yutz. I would enjoy reading them.

When I am on the board of a national nonprofit organization, please
feel free to forward said links to my fellow Board members, so that
they may exercise their responsibilities as fiduciaries.

;-)



wrote:

Needless to say, when writing, "I would argue that by any algorithm
of abuse, Sam has been far more
abused than abusing," I was responding to Joel Channing's discussion of
civil and uncivil speech
rather than addressing the Polgar and Sloan versions of their
relationship about which I know nothing.


Parr, I have provided you with Sloan's own words re the teenaged
Polgar. Of course, neither you nor I have personal knowledge, but we
do have abundant testimony from Sloan himself. One can make judgments
about his character from the public record he has created. (If you
wish, you may hypothesize a hand being placed on a leg under a table if
it will help you overcome your reticence to respond....)

Recall that Polgar has given an account at variance with Sloan's.
However, both parties seem to agree that a forty-something houseguest
propositioned the 16-year-old daughter of his hosts.

Do you find Sloan's account of his "seamy," "more than Platonic"
relationship with Polgar completely unreliable? That would speak to
the character of both Sloan and Polgar....

Or do you find Sloan's account of his "seamy," "more than Platonic"
relationship with Polgar plausible and quite possibly reliable? That
too would speak to the character of both Sloan and (to a lesser
extent--minors make mistakes) Polgar....

possible double post...

"more than Platonic" s/h/b "not entirely Platonic" -- my apologies

We may not know what happened 20+ years ago, but we do know what Sloan
has written, and written very recently.