Petition for Rehearing of Decision on Ethics Complaint by Grant Perks
against Sam Sloan

To the Ethics Committee:

On August 2, 2006, immediately after the completion of the vote count
in which Sam Sloan had defeated Grant Perks for election to the USCF
Executive Board, Grant Perks filed an ethics complaint against Sam
Sloan. The obvious purpose of this ethics complaint was to get the
Ethics Committee to overturn the election results and to stop Sam Sloan
from taking the office on August 13 to which he had been elected.

In a decision dated January 10, 2007, the Ethics Committee dismissed
two of the charges filed by Grant Perks but sustained the third charge.

While I appreciate the fact that two of the three charges were
dismissed, I believe that the third charge must be dismissed as well
because the finding by the Ethics Committee is fatally flawed. In the
alternative, I feel the Ethics Committee should re-write its decision.
Accordingly, I am filing this petition for a rehearing.

What the committee did was to paraphrase the charges made by Grant
Perks, who in turn had paraphrased what I had actually written.
Paraphrases are not acceptable. You can look it up in the law books,
that any allegation of libel or slander must allege the EXACT WORDS
written or spoken.

The Ethics Committee found that I had made "accusations of criminal
activity". However, I never used the words "criminal activity" in any
forum or Internet posting.

I also never used the word "criminal" in any forum or Internet posting.

The decision of the Ethics Committee implies that in effect I stated
"Grant Perks is a criminal".

However, I never said or wrote that.

Merely stating that something was illegal is different from stating
that it was a "criminal activity" or part of a criminal conspiracy or
anything like that.

In addition, the Ethics Complaint by Grant Perks did not allege that I
had called Grant Perks a criminal.

Grant Perks, in his ethics complaint dated August 2, 2006, wrote, in
pertinent part, "He alleges that [XXXX] as President of the USCF has
committed criminal acts".

However, nowhere does Grant Perks state that I alleged that he, Grant
Perks, had committed criminal acts.

This other person, whom I label XXXX, has not filed an ethics
complaint. Grant Perks lacks standing to complain that I wrote anything
about that other person.

In addition, I never wrote that this other person had committed
"criminal acts" either.

I have omitted the name of that other person, instead referring to this
other person as XXXX, because I am certain that this other person wants
nothing to do with the Ethics Complaint of Grant Perks and will be
extremely upset to learn that Grant Perks has made this allegation.

This other person does not want to have the persons name dragged in the
mud by being associated with the Grant Perks Ethics Complaint,
preferring to have the matter forgotten entirely.

Attached to his one page complaint, Grant Perks included five pages of
quotes by me, involving a total of 15 postings by me to the USCF
Forums. The first posting by me was dated June 20, 2006 and the last
posting was dated July 12, 2006. These five pages of postings, without
specifying what was wrong or objectionable about these postings, was
similar to the more extreme case of Mr. Herbert Rodney Vaughn who filed
an ethics complaint consisting of 400 pages of postings by me. Mr.
Vaughn essentially told the Ethics Committee to go through these 400
pages and find that some of them were unethical.

This is the equivalent of throwing a bucket of paint against a wall and
hoping that some of it sticks.

I have the right to appeal from the ethics decision. However, as it
stands, I cannot file a meaningful appeal because the decision of the
ethics committee does not specifically quote anything that I actually
wrote. I never used the word "Criminal". I feel that if the
delegates to whom I have a right to appeal find out what it was that I
actually wrote that the Ethics Committee found to be unethical, they
will agree that what I actually wrote was correct and proper.
Therefore, I am insisting that my exact words be quoted.

I am not even going to reach the fact that I did apologize to Grant
Perks for one of the statements that I made. Since the Ethics Committee
did not specify what statement I made that was unethical, I cannot
determine if that was the statement for which I apologized.

By way of precedent, in 1999, the Ethics Committee decided that Tom
Dorsch had committed an ethical violation by writing that Bill
Goichberg was a "white collar criminal". The exact words used by Tom
Dorsch were "white collar criminal". In addition, what Goichberg had
done to be called this was raise the entry fees and the prizes for the
US Open, with the permission of the Executive Director. That certainly
was not a criminal act. In addition, Dorsch has signed this letter
making this accusation of "white collar criminal" as "Tom Dorsch,
USCF Treasurer".

By contrast, I was not a USCF official. I was merely a candidate for
election. Candidates often accuse their opponents of misconduct. It is
part of the political campaign process. The opponent has every
opportunity to refute the accusations. Finding that I committed an
ethics violation during an election campaign interferes with the right
of the voters to hear and become informed of the election issues.

By voting for me and against Grant Perks, the voters ruled in my favor
on these matters.

In summary, the decision of the Ethics Committee must either be
reversed or it must be restated to specify what exactly it was that I
wrote and posted to the Internet that was unethical.

Dated: January 19, 2007

Respectfully submitted,


Sam Sloan

Grant Perks is a big fat slop. He thinks he can bully me out of the
USCF. He's wrong. I'll be re-elected again. Everyone knows that Grant
Perks committed illegal activities. He wants to hide his crime.

Sam Sloan

On 26 Jan, 08:26, "samsloan" wrote:
Petition for Rehearing of Decision on Ethics Complaint by Grant Perks
against Sam Sloan

To the Ethics Committee:

On August 2, 2006, immediately after the completion of the vote count
in which Sam Sloan had defeated Grant Perks for election to the USCF
Executive Board, Grant Perks filed an ethics complaint against Sam
Sloan. The obvious purpose of this ethics complaint was to get the
Ethics Committee to overturn the election results and to stop Sam Sloan
from taking the office on August 13 to which he had been elected.

In a decision dated January 10, 2007, the Ethics Committee dismissed
two of the charges filed by Grant Perks but sustained the third charge.

While I appreciate the fact that two of the three charges were
dismissed, I believe that the third charge must be dismissed as well
because the finding by the Ethics Committee is fatally flawed. In the
alternative, I feel the Ethics Committee should re-write its decision.
Accordingly, I am filing this petition for a rehearing.

What the committee did was to paraphrase the charges made by Grant
Perks, who in turn had paraphrased what I had actually written.
Paraphrases are not acceptable. You can look it up in the law books,
that any allegation of libel or slander must allege the EXACT WORDS
written or spoken.

The Ethics Committee found that I had made "accusations of criminal
activity". However, I never used the words "criminal activity" in any
forum *or Internet posting.

I also never used the word "criminal" in any forum or Internet posting.

The decision of the Ethics Committee implies that in effect I stated
"Grant Perks is a criminal".

However, I never said or wrote that.

Merely stating that something was illegal is different from stating
that it was a "criminal activity" or part of a criminal conspiracy or
anything like that.

In addition, the Ethics Complaint by Grant Perks did not allege that I
had called Grant Perks a criminal.

Grant Perks, in his ethics complaint dated August 2, 2006, wrote, in
pertinent part, "He alleges that [XXXX] as President of the USCF has
committed criminal acts".

However, nowhere does Grant Perks state that I alleged that he, Grant
Perks, had committed criminal acts.

This other person, whom I label XXXX, has not filed an ethics
complaint. Grant Perks lacks standing to complain that I wrote anything
about that other person.

In addition, I never wrote that this other person had committed
"criminal acts" either.

I have omitted the name of that other person, instead referring to this
other person as XXXX, because I am certain that this other person wants
nothing to do with the Ethics Complaint of Grant Perks and will be
extremely upset to learn that Grant Perks has made this allegation.

This other person does not want to have the persons name dragged in the
mud by being associated with the Grant Perks Ethics Complaint,
preferring to have the matter forgotten entirely.

Attached to his one page complaint, Grant Perks included five pages of
quotes by me, involving a total of 15 postings by me to the USCF
Forums. The first posting by me was dated June 20, 2006 and the last
posting was dated July 12, 2006. These five pages of postings, without
specifying what was wrong or objectionable about these postings, was
similar to the more extreme case of Mr. Herbert Rodney Vaughn who filed
an ethics complaint consisting of 400 pages of postings by me. Mr.
Vaughn essentially told the Ethics Committee to go through these 400
pages and find that some of them were unethical.

This is the equivalent of throwing a bucket of paint against a wall and
hoping that some of it sticks.

I have the right to appeal from the ethics decision. However, as it
stands, I cannot file a meaningful appeal because the decision of the
ethics committee does not specifically quote anything that I actually
wrote. I never used the word "Criminal". I feel that if the
delegates to whom I have a right to appeal find out what it was that I
actually wrote that the Ethics Committee found to be unethical, they
will agree that what I actually wrote was correct and proper.
Therefore, I am insisting that my exact words be quoted.

I am not even going to reach the fact that I did apologize to Grant
Perks for one of the statements that I made. Since the Ethics Committee
did not specify what *statement I made that was unethical, I cannot
determine if that was the statement for which I apologized.

By way of precedent, in 1999, the Ethics Committee decided that Tom
Dorsch had committed an ethical violation by writing that Bill
Goichberg was a "white collar criminal". The exact words used by Tom
Dorsch were "white collar criminal". In addition, what Goichberg had
done to be called this was raise the entry fees and the prizes for the
US Open, with the permission of the Executive Director. That certainly
was not a criminal act. In addition, Dorsch has signed this letter
making this accusation of "white collar criminal" as "Tom Dorsch,
USCF Treasurer".

By contrast, I was not a USCF official. I was merely a candidate for
election. Candidates often accuse their opponents of misconduct. It is
part of the political campaign process. The opponent has every
opportunity to refute the accusations. Finding that I committed an
ethics violation during an election campaign interferes with the right
of the voters to hear and become informed of the election issues.

By voting for me and against Grant Perks, the voters ruled in my favor
on these matters.

In summary, the decision of the Ethics Committee must either be
reversed or it must be restated to specify what exactly it was that I
wrote and posted to the Internet that was unethical.

Dated: January 19, 2007

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Respectfully submitted,

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Sam Sloan

Please Note: I have been informed by Pat Knight that on January 24,
2007 the Ethics Committee rejected my petition for rehearing on the
ground that there is no procedure in the rules for filing a petition
for rehearing and therefore the Ethics Committee cannot consider it.

Frankly, I had hoped that the Ethics Committee would take this
opportunity to correct this error in which they found that I had
committed an ethical violation for writing something that in fact I had
never written. At the very minimum, they should have modified their
decision by citing something that I actually did write, as opposed to
something that I never wrote.

In any event, I am hereby appealing to the delegates to reverse the
obviously wrong decision by the Ethics Committee.

Sam Sloan

The ethics committee has no balls. They caved in to Grant Perks.
Everyone knows that I'm not guilty. Everyone knows that I've never been
convicted of any crime.

Sam Sloan

On 26 Jan, 09:06, "samsloan" wrote:
Please Note: I have been informed by Pat Knight that on January 24,
2007 the Ethics Committee rejected my petition for rehearing on the
ground that there is no procedure in the rules for filing a petition
for rehearing and therefore the Ethics Committee cannot consider it.

Frankly, I had hoped that the Ethics Committee would take this
opportunity to correct this error in which they found that I had
committed an ethical violation for writing something that in fact I had
never written. At the very minimum, they should have modified their
decision by citing something that I actually did write, as opposed to
something that I never wrote.

In any event, I am hereby appealing to the delegates to reverse the
obviously wrong decision by the Ethics Committee.

Sam Sloan

Sam,

A disinterested question about one of the points you make in your
petition:

...This other person, whom I label XXXX, has not filed an ethics
complaint. Grant Perks lacks standing to complain that I wrote anything
about that other person.


I wonder whether this is true according to the USCF bylaws. It seems to
me that an ethics complaint might possibly differ from a libel suit in
that any tattle-tale with the facts at hand might have standing to
lodge the complaint, whether the complainer is actually a victim of the
alleged unethical behavior or not.

This really is a disinterested question because I know nothing about
the substance or truth of Grant Perks' allegations.

Larry T.