.........but do not address any of the charges made against Truong in the
Mottershead Report.



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

NY Times and Lawsuits
Discuss issues that directly relate to the USCF or FIDE. Posts need to be
relevant and stay on topic. Please be respectful to everyone...

Forum rules
Post a reply

6 posts . Page 1 of 1
NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:49 pm

The USCF will make a statement shortly about this matter. Once this
statement is made, I can go a little further to explain what happened. Until
then, all I can say is the facts will come out in court and I am eager to
present my information.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar



NY Times and Lawsuits
by bioniclime on Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:46 pm

Susan (or others),

Do you know when and how this statement will be released? On the USCF
Forums, website, press release?

Thank you...
bioniclime



NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:16 pm

This was an email by board member Randy Bauer, former Budget Director for
the State of Iowa, to the NY Times Journalist:

Dylan,

You may recall that we spoke by phone at least once earlier this year
regarding the USCF election and executive board. You may know that I was one
of the four candidates elected and am also named as one of the defendents in
Sam Sloan's lawsuit.

I'd like to call your attention to at least two important factual errors and
add a couple of other comments.

The article writes that "Since Mr. Mottershead published his report, the
chess federation's executive board, including Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar,
have met several times to discuss what to do." That is not correct. There
have been NO meetings of the Executive Board since the report was published.
While there have been email discussions among Board members, they have been
sporadic and in many instances have not involved the entire Board.

The article also leads with the claim that "Susan Polgar and Paul Truong . .
.. posted thousands of remarks . . . " yet there is no suggestion in
Mottershead's report that Susan was responsible for the postings. Allowing
this claim to stand without mention of that fact is unfair to Susan and
demonstrates a lack of balance not usually found in a New York Times
article.

I'm also surprised that you would accept at face value Sam Sloan's claim
that "If I ever want to apply for a job, nobody's going to hire me because
there are thousands of obscene messages supposedly from me on the Internet."
As I'm sure you know (or should have known) Sam Sloan was a very
controversial member of the Executive Board who was soundly defeated for
re-election - coming in 10th of 11 candidates. Much of the controversy
arises from content on Sam Sloan's website, which is surely as obscene (I
would argue more so) than any of the posts by "the fake Sam Sloan." Should
you doubt this, I would suggest you follow the links below to Sam Sloan's
website (and these are just a representative sample of the tasteless, vulgar
and obscene crap you will find there):

(Deleted as it is inappropriate to younger readers)

Finally, Sam Sloan's long standing claim to have won a case in front of the
U.S. Supreme Court is, as typical with Sam, more hat than cattle. In fact,
as has been detailed many times in discussions on the chess newsgroups,
Sloan's "victory" was on a technicality that had little bearing on the end
result - Sam lost his license to sell securities. As noted in the opinion,
"During this series of suspensions respondent Sloan ...filed a petition in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit challenging the
orders on a variety of grounds. On October 15, 1975, the court dismissed as
frivolous all respondent's claims, except his allegation that the "tacking"
of 10-day summary suspension orders for an indefinite period was an abuse of
the agency's authority and a deprivation of due process." Justice Rehnquist
on SEC v Sloan.

Quite frankly, I would have expected a bit more balance and background.
Sloan is a "serial suer" which you can also detail on his website. As far as
I can tell, Sloan has lost in nearly every instance. Again, this history
would paint a more balanced picture of the viability of the lawsuit.

I would, of course, be happy to discuss any of these issues with you. Feel
free to write or call me.

Randy Bauer
USCF Executive Board
Susan Polgar



NY Times and Lawsuits
by Tennessee Vols on Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:40 pm

I'm a little confused Chairman Susan Polgar with your statement (?) above;
when it turned from your voice into the voice of Randy Bauer (USCF Executive
Board). The tone of the statement does not reflect your standard rule within
your blogs to use personal feelings one way or the other with Sam Sloan. If
it was a statement from Randy Bauer, it would help to clarify; because it
starts out with Dylan (and not sure if the poster before you is or is not
Dylan) and it ends with the name of Randy Bauer.

Where all is but dream, reasoning and arguments are of no use, truth and
knowledge nothing.
John Locke (1632-1704)

Tennessee Vols



NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:58 pm

Sorry, I clarified it. It is a letter from Mr. Bauer to Mr. McClain of the
NY Times.
Susan Polgar

A GOOD CHESS MAXIM

Attack is the best defense!


B. Lafferty wrote:
........but do not address any of the charges made against Truong in the
Mottershead Report.



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

NY Times and Lawsuits
Discuss issues that directly relate to the USCF or FIDE. Posts need to be
relevant and stay on topic. Please be respectful to everyone...

Forum rules
Post a reply

6 posts . Page 1 of 1
NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:49 pm

The USCF will make a statement shortly about this matter. Once this
statement is made, I can go a little further to explain what happened. Until
then, all I can say is the facts will come out in court and I am eager to
present my information.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar



NY Times and Lawsuits
by bioniclime on Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:46 pm

Susan (or others),

Do you know when and how this statement will be released? On the USCF
Forums, website, press release?

Thank you...
bioniclime



NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:16 pm

This was an email by board member Randy Bauer, former Budget Director for
the State of Iowa, to the NY Times Journalist:

Dylan,

You may recall that we spoke by phone at least once earlier this year
regarding the USCF election and executive board. You may know that I was one
of the four candidates elected and am also named as one of the defendents in
Sam Sloan's lawsuit.

I'd like to call your attention to at least two important factual errors and
add a couple of other comments.

The article writes that "Since Mr. Mottershead published his report, the
chess federation's executive board, including Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar,
have met several times to discuss what to do." That is not correct. There
have been NO meetings of the Executive Board since the report was published.
While there have been email discussions among Board members, they have been
sporadic and in many instances have not involved the entire Board.

The article also leads with the claim that "Susan Polgar and Paul Truong . .
. posted thousands of remarks . . . " yet there is no suggestion in
Mottershead's report that Susan was responsible for the postings. Allowing
this claim to stand without mention of that fact is unfair to Susan and
demonstrates a lack of balance not usually found in a New York Times
article.

I'm also surprised that you would accept at face value Sam Sloan's claim
that "If I ever want to apply for a job, nobody's going to hire me because
there are thousands of obscene messages supposedly from me on the Internet."
As I'm sure you know (or should have known) Sam Sloan was a very
controversial member of the Executive Board who was soundly defeated for
re-election - coming in 10th of 11 candidates. Much of the controversy
arises from content on Sam Sloan's website, which is surely as obscene (I
would argue more so) than any of the posts by "the fake Sam Sloan." Should
you doubt this, I would suggest you follow the links below to Sam Sloan's
website (and these are just a representative sample of the tasteless, vulgar
and obscene crap you will find there):

(Deleted as it is inappropriate to younger readers)

Finally, Sam Sloan's long standing claim to have won a case in front of the
U.S. Supreme Court is, as typical with Sam, more hat than cattle. In fact,
as has been detailed many times in discussions on the chess newsgroups,
Sloan's "victory" was on a technicality that had little bearing on the end
result - Sam lost his license to sell securities. As noted in the opinion,
"During this series of suspensions respondent Sloan ...filed a petition in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit challenging the
orders on a variety of grounds. On October 15, 1975, the court dismissed as
frivolous all respondent's claims, except his allegation that the "tacking"
of 10-day summary suspension orders for an indefinite period was an abuse of
the agency's authority and a deprivation of due process." Justice Rehnquist
on SEC v Sloan.

Quite frankly, I would have expected a bit more balance and background.
Sloan is a "serial suer" which you can also detail on his website. As far as
I can tell, Sloan has lost in nearly every instance. Again, this history
would paint a more balanced picture of the viability of the lawsuit.

I would, of course, be happy to discuss any of these issues with you. Feel
free to write or call me.

Randy Bauer
USCF Executive Board
Susan Polgar



NY Times and Lawsuits
by Tennessee Vols on Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:40 pm

I'm a little confused Chairman Susan Polgar with your statement (?) above;
when it turned from your voice into the voice of Randy Bauer (USCF Executive
Board). The tone of the statement does not reflect your standard rule within
your blogs to use personal feelings one way or the other with Sam Sloan. If
it was a statement from Randy Bauer, it would help to clarify; because it
starts out with Dylan (and not sure if the poster before you is or is not
Dylan) and it ends with the name of Randy Bauer.

Where all is but dream, reasoning and arguments are of no use, truth and
knowledge nothing.
John Locke (1632-1704)

Tennessee Vols



NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:58 pm

Sorry, I clarified it. It is a letter from Mr. Bauer to Mr. McClain of the
NY Times.
Susan Polgar

On Oct 8, 4:07 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
........but do not address any of the charges made against Truong in the
Mottershead Report.

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

NY Times and Lawsuits
Discuss issues that directly relate to the USCF or FIDE. Posts need to be
relevant and stay on topic. Please be respectful to everyone...

Forum rules
Post a reply

6 posts . Page 1 of 1
NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:49 pm

The USCF will make a statement shortly about this matter. Once this
statement is made, I can go a little further to explain what happened. Until
then, all I can say is the facts will come out in court and I am eager to
present my information.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar

NY Times and Lawsuits
by bioniclime on Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:46 pm

Susan (or others),

Do you know when and how this statement will be released? On the USCF
Forums, website, press release?

Thank you...
bioniclime

NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:16 pm

This was an email by board member Randy Bauer, former Budget Director for
the State of Iowa, to the NY Times Journalist:

Dylan,

You may recall that we spoke by phone at least once earlier this year
regarding the USCF election and executive board. You may know that I was one
of the four candidates elected and am also named as one of the defendents in
Sam Sloan's lawsuit.

I'd like to call your attention to at least two important factual errors and
add a couple of other comments.

The article writes that "Since Mr. Mottershead published his report, the
chess federation's executive board, including Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar,
have met several times to discuss what to do." That is not correct. There
have been NO meetings of the Executive Board since the report was published.
While there have been email discussions among Board members, they have been
sporadic and in many instances have not involved the entire Board.

The article also leads with the claim that "Susan Polgar and Paul Truong . .
. posted thousands of remarks . . . " yet there is no suggestion in
Mottershead's report that Susan was responsible for the postings. Allowing
this claim to stand without mention of that fact is unfair to Susan and
demonstrates a lack of balance not usually found in a New York Times
article.

I'm also surprised that you would accept at face value Sam Sloan's claim
that "If I ever want to apply for a job, nobody's going to hire me because
there are thousands of obscene messages supposedly from me on the Internet."
As I'm sure you know (or should have known) Sam Sloan was a very
controversial member of the Executive Board who was soundly defeated for
re-election - coming in 10th of 11 candidates. Much of the controversy
arises from content on Sam Sloan's website, which is surely as obscene (I
would argue more so) than any of the posts by "the fake Sam Sloan." Should
you doubt this, I would suggest you follow the links below to Sam Sloan's
website (and these are just a representative sample of the tasteless, vulgar
and obscene crap you will find there):

(Deleted as it is inappropriate to younger readers)

Finally, Sam Sloan's long standing claim to have won a case in front of the
U.S. Supreme Court is, as typical with Sam, more hat than cattle. In fact,
as has been detailed many times in discussions on the chess newsgroups,
Sloan's "victory" was on a technicality that had little bearing on the end
result - Sam lost his license to sell securities. As noted in the opinion,
"During this series of suspensions respondent Sloan ...filed a petition in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit challenging the
orders on a variety of grounds. On October 15, 1975, the court dismissed as
frivolous all respondent's claims, except his allegation that the "tacking"
of 10-day summary suspension orders for an indefinite period was an abuse of
the agency's authority and a deprivation of due process." Justice Rehnquist
on SEC v Sloan.

Quite frankly, I would have expected a bit more balance and background.
Sloan is a "serial suer" which you can also detail on his website. As far as
I can tell, Sloan has lost in nearly every instance. Again, this history
would paint a more balanced picture of the viability of the lawsuit.

I would, of course, be happy to discuss any of these issues with you. Feel
free to write or call me.

Randy Bauer
USCF Executive Board
Susan Polgar

NY Times and Lawsuits
by Tennessee Vols on Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:40 pm

I'm a little confused Chairman Susan Polgar with your statement (?) above;
when it turned from your voice into the voice of Randy Bauer (USCF Executive
Board). The tone of the statement does not reflect your standard rule within
your blogs to use personal feelings one way or the other with Sam Sloan. If
it was a statement from Randy Bauer, it would help to clarify; because it
starts out with Dylan (and not sure if the poster before you is or is not
Dylan) and it ends with the name of Randy Bauer.

Where all is but dream, reasoning and arguments are of no use, truth and
knowledge nothing.
John Locke (1632-1704)

Tennessee Vols

NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:58 pm

Sorry, I clarified it. It is a letter from Mr. Bauer to Mr. McClain of the
NY Times.
Susan Polgar

The New York Times is imbalanced. I smell FEAR and the STINKING ****
OF A LIAR. Susan Polgar has EVERY RIGHT TO BE IMPLICATED. How could
she not know that Paul Troung is a PERVERT and a LIAR, who has struck
before!

**** STINKS! PPPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEUUUUUUUUUUU. This **** STINKS!

Marcus Roberts

On Oct 8, 5:22 pm, " wrote:
A GOOD CHESS MAXIM

Attack is the best defense!



B. Lafferty wrote:
........but do not address any of the charges made against Truong in the
Mottershead Report.

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

NY Times and Lawsuits
Discuss issues that directly relate to the USCF or FIDE. Posts need to be
relevant and stay on topic. Please be respectful to everyone...

Forum rules
Post a reply

6 posts . Page 1 of 1
NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:49 pm

The USCF will make a statement shortly about this matter. Once this
statement is made, I can go a little further to explain what happened. Until
then, all I can say is the facts will come out in court and I am eager to
present my information.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar

NY Times and Lawsuits
by bioniclime on Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:46 pm

Susan (or others),

Do you know when and how this statement will be released? On the USCF
Forums, website, press release?

Thank you...
bioniclime

NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:16 pm

This was an email by board member Randy Bauer, former Budget Director for
the State of Iowa, to the NY Times Journalist:

Dylan,

You may recall that we spoke by phone at least once earlier this year
regarding the USCF election and executive board. You may know that I was one
of the four candidates elected and am also named as one of the defendents in
Sam Sloan's lawsuit.

I'd like to call your attention to at least two important factual errors and
add a couple of other comments.

The article writes that "Since Mr. Mottershead published his report, the
chess federation's executive board, including Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar,
have met several times to discuss what to do." That is not correct. There
have been NO meetings of the Executive Board since the report was published.
While there have been email discussions among Board members, they have been
sporadic and in many instances have not involved the entire Board.

The article also leads with the claim that "Susan Polgar and Paul Truong . .
. posted thousands of remarks . . . " yet there is no suggestion in
Mottershead's report that Susan was responsible for the postings. Allowing
this claim to stand without mention of that fact is unfair to Susan and
demonstrates a lack of balance not usually found in a New York Times
article.

I'm also surprised that you would accept at face value Sam Sloan's claim
that "If I ever want to apply for a job, nobody's going to hire me because
there are thousands of obscene messages supposedly from me on the Internet."
As I'm sure you know (or should have known) Sam Sloan was a very
controversial member of the Executive Board who was soundly defeated for
re-election - coming in 10th of 11 candidates. Much of the controversy
arises from content on Sam Sloan's website, which is surely as obscene (I
would argue more so) than any of the posts by "the fake Sam Sloan." Should
you doubt this, I would suggest you follow the links below to Sam Sloan's
website (and these are just a representative sample of the tasteless, vulgar
and obscene crap you will find there):

(Deleted as it is inappropriate to younger readers)

Finally, Sam Sloan's long standing claim to have won a case in front of the
U.S. Supreme Court is, as typical with Sam, more hat than cattle. In fact,
as has been detailed many times in discussions on the chess newsgroups,
Sloan's "victory" was on a technicality that had little bearing on the end
result - Sam lost his license to sell securities. As noted in the opinion,
"During this series of suspensions respondent Sloan ...filed a petition in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit challenging the
orders on a variety of grounds. On October 15, 1975, the court dismissed as
frivolous all respondent's claims, except his allegation that the "tacking"
of 10-day summary suspension orders for an indefinite period was an abuse of
the agency's authority and a deprivation of due process." Justice Rehnquist
on SEC v Sloan.

Quite frankly, I would have expected a bit more balance and background.
Sloan is a "serial suer" which you can also detail on his website. As far as
I can tell, Sloan has lost in nearly every instance. Again, this history
would paint a more balanced picture of the viability of the lawsuit.

I would, of course, be happy to discuss any of these issues with you. Feel
free to write or call me.

Randy Bauer
USCF Executive Board
Susan Polgar

NY Times and Lawsuits
by Tennessee Vols on Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:40 pm

I'm a little confused Chairman Susan Polgar with your statement (?) above;
when it turned from your voice into the voice of Randy Bauer (USCF Executive
Board). The tone of the statement does not reflect your standard rule within
your blogs to use personal feelings one way or the other with Sam Sloan. If
it was a statement from Randy Bauer, it would help to clarify; because it
starts out with Dylan (and not sure if the poster before you is or is not
Dylan) and it ends with the name of Randy Bauer.

Where all is but dream, reasoning and arguments are of no use, truth and
knowledge nothing.
John Locke (1632-1704)

Tennessee Vols

NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:58 pm

Sorry, I clarified it. It is a letter from Mr. Bauer to Mr. McClain of the
NY Times.
Susan Polgar- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Larry, this is news of the "Dog Bites Man" variety. Now, if someone
_other_ than you were to *_defend_* Sloan's character, that might be
considered news.

Perhaps they are prudently waiting for an outside opinion re the IP
addresses. I don't always agree with Messrs. Bauer and Channing, but
they are both honorable people.

Does Mr. Lafferty (who is himself no slouch at ducking uncomfortable
questions) need to obtain a disinterested party's opinion of Mr.
Sloan's character?

wrote in message
oups.com...
Perhaps they are prudently waiting for an outside opinion re the IP
addresses. I don't always agree with Messrs. Bauer and Channing, but
they are both honorable people.

Does Mr. Lafferty (who is himself no slouch at ducking uncomfortable
questions) need to obtain a disinterested party's opinion of Mr.
Sloan's character?


This issue here has nothing to do with Sloan's character. Set aside Sloan's
legal action, which is independent of Mottershead's fact digging, and you
have only one issue--has Brian Mottershead connected all the dots to Truong?
On the face of it, it looks like he has. If he hasn't, let Polgar and
Truong have their expert analyze the Mottershead data (more than 1000 pages
of log and IP data) and pick it apart factually and with cogent analysis.
Posting smear letters like Bauer's fits the methodology of the first couple
with their behind the back attempted smears of Joe Lux and me during the
election campaign.

"Just the facts, Ma'am." --Sgt. Joe Friday

On Oct 8, 6:03 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

Perhaps they are prudently waiting for an outside opinion re the IP
addresses. I don't always agree with Messrs. Bauer and Channing, but
they are both honorable people.

Does Mr. Lafferty (who is himself no slouch at ducking uncomfortable
questions) need to obtain a disinterested party's opinion of Mr.
Sloan's character?

This issue here has nothing to do with Sloan's character. Set aside Sloan's
legal action, which is independent of Mottershead's fact digging, and you
have only one issue--has Brian Mottershead connected all the dots to Truong?
On the face of it, it looks like he has. If he hasn't, let Polgar and
Truong have their expert analyze the Mottershead data (more than 1000 pages
of log and IP data) and pick it apart factually and with cogent analysis.
Posting smear letters like Bauer's fits the methodology of the first couple
with their behind the back attempted smears of Joe Lux and me during the
election campaign.

"Just the facts, Ma'am." --Sgt. Joe Friday


Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities, Brian - but when somebody
names me in a lawsuit, and makes claims about me without supplying
necessary foundation, I think I have the right to raise issues of the
attacker's character, and, as a result, credibility.

Randy Bauer

"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Oct 8, 6:03 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

Perhaps they are prudently waiting for an outside opinion re the IP
addresses. I don't always agree with Messrs. Bauer and Channing, but
they are both honorable people.

Does Mr. Lafferty (who is himself no slouch at ducking uncomfortable
questions) need to obtain a disinterested party's opinion of Mr.
Sloan's character?

This issue here has nothing to do with Sloan's character. Set aside
Sloan's
legal action, which is independent of Mottershead's fact digging, and you
have only one issue--has Brian Mottershead connected all the dots to
Truong?
On the face of it, it looks like he has. If he hasn't, let Polgar and
Truong have their expert analyze the Mottershead data (more than 1000
pages
of log and IP data) and pick it apart factually and with cogent analysis.
Posting smear letters like Bauer's fits the methodology of the first
couple
with their behind the back attempted smears of Joe Lux and me during the
election campaign.

"Just the facts, Ma'am." --Sgt. Joe Friday


Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities, Brian - but when somebody
names me in a lawsuit, and makes claims about me without supplying
necessary foundation, I think I have the right to raise issues of the
attacker's character, and, as a result, credibility.

Randy Bauer

The following was submitted by me to chessdiscussion.com. It has not, thus
far, been approved and posted by Mr. Alexander.

NYCChessmon wrote:



"As disturbing is McClain's wholesale reliance on Brian Lafferty as a source
both in the Times article as well as in McClain's chess blog without doing
the basic research that would have identified Lafferty as an outspoken and
overwhelmingly hostile critic of Polgar and Truong almost from the moment
that he joined the USCF less than a year ago. McClain is a USCF member. He
could have and should have gone to the archives of the USCF issues forum
where he could have seen ample evidence of Lafferty's overt hostility
(though if I recall, some of his more offensive postings like "Susan Polgar
should shut her pie hole" were removed). I'm shocked that McClain wrote that
Lafferty "believed Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar were responsible for the false
posts" when, as Randy Bauer pointed out, there is no allegation from
Mottershead that Polgar was involved. Maybe someone should bring this to the
attention of McClain's editor or The Public Editor at the Times."



For the record, I made it very clear to Mr. McCain that I have been a vocal
questioner and critic of Ms. Polgar and particularly, Mr. Truong's
representations as to background, employment history, foundation accounting
and form 990 reporting. I have dug for the facts, period. I have never been
satisfied with the answers and representatons made by both parties.



That said, I suggest to you that the ONLY issue here is whether or not Mr.
Mottershead has put the dots together leading to Mr. Truong as the Fake Sam
Sloan. I have seen a copy of the Mottershead Report submitted to the
Executive Board. In my opinion, a prima facae case has been made that Mr.
Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan. The Report also contains the complete text of
all the FSS Usenet messages---more than 900 pages of them. Review of those
posting as addressed to me make it clear to me that I have been victimized
by the FSS in violation of Federal criminal law. I will be taking the
Mottershead Report and other relevant documentation to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation tomorrow with the request that the Department of Justice fully
investigate this matter.



With all due respect to ueschessmon/nycchessmon, this is not about Mr.
Sloan's character, Mr. Brock's character or Ms. Polgar's orifice that I on
one occasion regrettably referred to as a pie hole. This is about the
criminal use of the internet to harass targeted victims for political and
perhaps other purposes.



Brian Lafferty

On Oct 8, 7:21 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
"Randy Bauer" wrote in message

ps.com...

On Oct 8, 6:03 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
wrote in message

groups.com...

Perhaps they are prudently waiting for an outside opinion re the IP
addresses. I don't always agree with Messrs. Bauer and Channing, but
they are both honorable people.

Does Mr. Lafferty (who is himself no slouch at ducking uncomfortable
questions) need to obtain a disinterested party's opinion of Mr.
Sloan's character?

This issue here has nothing to do with Sloan's character. Set aside
Sloan's
legal action, which is independent of Mottershead's fact digging, and you
have only one issue--has Brian Mottershead connected all the dots to
Truong?
On the face of it, it looks like he has. If he hasn't, let Polgar and
Truong have their expert analyze the Mottershead data (more than 1000
pages
of log and IP data) and pick it apart factually and with cogent analysis.
Posting smear letters like Bauer's fits the methodology of the first
couple
with their behind the back attempted smears of Joe Lux and me during the
election campaign.

"Just the facts, Ma'am." --Sgt. Joe Friday

Sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities, Brian - but when somebody
names me in a lawsuit, and makes claims about me without supplying
necessary foundation, I think I have the right to raise issues of the
attacker's character, and, as a result, credibility.

Randy Bauer

The following was submitted by me to chessdiscussion.com. It has not, thus
far, been approved and posted by Mr. Alexander.

NYCChessmon wrote:

"As disturbing is McClain's wholesale reliance on Brian Lafferty as a source
both in the Times article as well as in McClain's chess blog without doing
the basic research that would have identified Lafferty as an outspoken and
overwhelmingly hostile critic of Polgar and Truong almost from the moment
that he joined the USCF less than a year ago. McClain is a USCF member. He
could have and should have gone to the archives of the USCF issues forum
where he could have seen ample evidence of Lafferty's overt hostility
(though if I recall, some of his more offensive postings like "Susan Polgar
should shut her pie hole" were removed). I'm shocked that McClain wrote that
Lafferty "believed Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar were responsible for the false
posts" when, as Randy Bauer pointed out, there is no allegation from
Mottershead that Polgar was involved. Maybe someone should bring this to the
attention of McClain's editor or The Public Editor at the Times."

For the record, I made it very clear to Mr. McCain that I have been a vocal
questioner and critic of Ms. Polgar and particularly, Mr. Truong's
representations as to background, employment history, foundation accounting
and form 990 reporting. I have dug for the facts, period. I have never been
satisfied with the answers and representatons made by both parties.

That said, I suggest to you that the ONLY issue here is whether or not Mr.
Mottershead has put the dots together leading to Mr. Truong as the Fake Sam
Sloan. I have seen a copy of the Mottershead Report submitted to the
Executive Board. In my opinion, a prima facae case has been made that Mr.
Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan. The Report also contains the complete text of
all the FSS Usenet messages---more than 900 pages of them. Review of those
posting as addressed to me make it clear to me that I have been victimized
by the FSS in violation of Federal criminal law. I will be taking the
Mottershead Report and other relevant documentation to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation tomorrow with the request that the Department of Justice fully
investigate this matter.

With all due respect to ueschessmon/nycchessmon, this is not about Mr.
Sloan's character, Mr. Brock's character or Ms. Polgar's orifice that I on
one occasion regrettably referred to as a pie hole. This is about the
criminal use of the internet to harass targeted victims for political and
perhaps other purposes.

Brian Lafferty

Mr. Lafferty, my reputation has been damaged by a former Board member
of the United States Chess Federation.

You may wish that the lies of Mr. Goichberg's handyman were not at
issue, but they are.

What standing do you have to receive a copy of the (drumroll, please)
"Mottershead Report." Mr. Mottershead is reporting on yet another
board that it has not been promulgated beyond Board members.

Saints that we all are, we are each and every one of us acting in the
fiduciary interest of the nonprofit organization. Having said said,
are you otherwise, formally or informally, representing any party
other than yourself?

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB...k=t&sd=a#p2150

Mr. Mottershead wrote:

"I have since written a report, which the USCF Executive Board and
Executive Director have. This has more information than the original
post, and, of course, is a lot more specific, including all the USCF
log and database information on which the conclusions are based. This
report has not been made public."

That said, I suggest to you that the ONLY issue here is whether or not Mr.
Mottershead has put the dots together leading to Mr. Truong as the Fake Sam
Sloan. I have seen a copy of the Mottershead Report submitted to the
Executive Board. In my opinion, a prima facae case has been made that Mr.
Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan. The Report also contains the complete text of
all the FSS Usenet messages---more than 900 pages of them. Review of those
posting as addressed to me make it clear to me that I have been victimized
by the FSS in violation of Federal criminal law. I will be taking the
Mottershead Report and other relevant documentation to the Federal Bureau of
Investigation tomorrow with the request that the Department of Justice fully
investigate this matter.

With all due respect to ueschessmon/nycchessmon, this is not about Mr.
Sloan's character, Mr. Brock's character or Ms. Polgar's orifice that I on
one occasion regrettably referred to as a pie hole. This is about the
criminal use of the internet to harass targeted victims for political and
perhaps other purposes.

Brian Lafferty-

Good luck with that, Brian. I'm sure it will be really high on the
FBI's list of things to do.

Let's see, how might that list go?

1. Root out terror cells in the US that threaten to blow up planes,
buildings, etc.
2. Investigate and apprehend those charged with federal crimes
including kidnapping, murder, rape, etc.
3. Investigate those charged with fake postings on chess newsgroups

Yep, I'll bet that is the list all right.

Randy Bauer