From chessdiscussions:

FACTS as I know them so far:

1. No contractor had the authorization to start an investigation using the
USCF confidential data. No confidential information was supposed to be used
for any other purpose except for the job the contractors were hired for the
website.
2. After an unauthorized and illegal investigation was conducted, it was
only reported to the ED and the USCF President.
3. The ED and USCF President did not notify the other 6 board members.
4. The other board members found out via leaks and postings on various
forums.
5. No confidential information was supposed to be revealed to any third
party as in any standard NDA.

Here is a part of the USCF official statement: The USCF takes seriously its
need to protect the privacy of its members and is actively investigating the
charges of violation of its privacy policies and actions of its members. The
individuals who may have violated these policies have agreed, as of today,
to suspend their duties with the USCF until these issues are resolved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point 1: was answered by Motterhead in his report as follows,
"In September 2007, while working as a web developer and system
administrator for the United States Chess Federation, a number of "Fake Sam
Sloan" posts came to my attention that were copies of posts that had been
made originally in the USCF Issues forum, but with the wording changed so as
to discredit the original poster. It was apparent that in order to copy
these posts, the "Fake Sam Sloan" had access to the USCF Issues forum, as
this is a forum restricted to USCF members and is not accessible to the
public. It seemed to me that it was highly objectionable to use the USCF
Issues forum in this manner, and that it was my duty as the Administrator of
the forums to stop or deter that type of usage if I could. At the outset, I
was aware that there had been speculation that Paul Truong was the "Fake Sam
Sloan". Though I had been outspoken in opposition to Paul Truong's candidacy
for Executive Board, I did not give this speculation any great credence at
the beginning.

I wanted to see if I could identify who the Fake Sam Sloan was, using
information in the log files and the forums database. Since the IP addresses
of Usenet posters are public information, and in the USCF web logs and
database I had information as to the IP addresses of USCF members accessing
the forums, it seemed likely that I would be able to identify the USCF
member account that was being used by the Fake Sam Sloan to mis-appropriate
USCF Issues forum posts for his posts on Usenet. If I could develop any
definitive conclusions about the identity of the Fake Sam Sloan, I planned
to bring that information to the attention of the Executive Director. It did
not take very long to establish that the Fake Sam Sloan is indeed Paul
Truong, as others have suspected. This report recaps the evidence in support
of that conclusion."



Point 2: This seems proper to me.



Point 3: This may or may not be relevant. It could be that the ED and Prez
were making further inquires.



Point 4: And?



Point 5: Criminal acts are not subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements. If
they were, every criminal would require one of his associates and employees.

Here's my take..

On Oct 9, 4:48 am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
From chessdiscussions:

FACTS as I know them so far:

....Long-winded motion to suppress...

Point 5: Criminal acts are not subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements. If
they were, every criminal would require one of his associates and employees.

....Motion denied.

wrote in message
ps.com...
Here's my take..

On Oct 9, 4:48 am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
From chessdiscussions:

FACTS as I know them so far:

...Long-winded motion to suppress...

Point 5: Criminal acts are not subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements. If
they were, every criminal would require one of his associates and
employees.

...Motion denied.

Point of law. 4th Amendment suppression of evidence only applies to
evidence illegally obtained by the government and it's agents--not private
individuals. If the evidence is relevant, it's admissible. I don't see how
you could keep such evidence out in a civil trial either. If Trolgar
thinks this can be kept out of the courts, they're living in fantasy land.

On Oct 9, 11:16 am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...

Here's my take..

On Oct 9, 4:48 am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
From chessdiscussions:

FACTS as I know them so far:

...Long-winded motion to suppress...

Point 5: Criminal acts are not subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements. If
they were, every criminal would require one of his associates and
employees.

...Motion denied.

Point of law. 4th Amendment suppression of evidence only applies to
evidence illegally obtained by the government and it's agents--not private
individuals. If the evidence is relevant, it's admissible. I don't see how
you could keep such evidence out in a civil trial either. If Trolgar
thinks this can be kept out of the courts, they're living in fantasy land.

If individauals violated the NDA agreement, they may have opened
themselves up to civil liability.

The person who said vile things posing as Mr. Lafferty acted
dishonorably; however, those who may have uncovered this imposture are
not honorable if they violated their NDA. Two wrongs don't make a
right.

This is not how a healthy nonprofit functions....

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Oct 9, 11:16 am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
wrote in message

ps.com...

Here's my take..

On Oct 9, 4:48 am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
From chessdiscussions:

FACTS as I know them so far:

...Long-winded motion to suppress...

Point 5: Criminal acts are not subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements.
If
they were, every criminal would require one of his associates and
employees.

...Motion denied.

Point of law. 4th Amendment suppression of evidence only applies to
evidence illegally obtained by the government and it's agents--not
private
individuals. If the evidence is relevant, it's admissible. I don't see
how
you could keep such evidence out in a civil trial either. If Trolgar
thinks this can be kept out of the courts, they're living in fantasy
land.

If individauals violated the NDA agreement, they may have opened
themselves up to civil liability.

Perhaps. It depends on the totality of the circumstances.


The person who said vile things posing as Mr. Lafferty acted
dishonorably; however, those who may have uncovered this imposture are
not honorable if they violated their NDA. Two wrongs don't make a
right.

Two wrongs don't make a right sounds impressive when Mommy gives the lecture
to the kid. But, the law, even in an adversarial system, is more concerned
with discovering the truth of the matter than many mommies. This is why bad
boys don't like subpoenas, depositions and trials.


This is not how a healthy nonprofit functions....

If the allegations against Truong are true, let him suffer in court.

But you countenance the invasion of USCF members' privacy.

And you seek equity while posting under the title "Polgar blows."

Grow up, little man.

wrote in message
oups.com...
If the allegations against Truong are true, let him suffer in court.

I can't disagree.


But you countenance the invasion of USCF members' privacy.

Your words, not mine.


And you seek equity while posting under the title "Polgar blows."

Learn how to use your newsreader. I began this thread with the subject
line, "Polgar Blows Smoke."


Grow up, little man.

Good advice--hopefully you'll follow it, after you figure out how your
newsreader works. :-)

***original post below***

Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.gig anews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2 .gnilink.net!
gnilink.net!trndny04.POSTED!d8cce190!not-for-mail
From: "B. Lafferty"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
References: 58IOi.4942$9r2.3987@trndny04
om
Subject: Polgar Blows
Lines: 25
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
Message-ID: 7PNOi.5047$9r2.2952@trndny04
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:16:03 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.17.145.113
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: trndny04 1191946563 70.17.145.113 (Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:16:03
EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:16:03 EDT
X-Original-Bytes: 1764


wrote in message
ps.com...
Here's my take..

On Oct 9, 4:48 am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
From chessdiscussions:

FACTS as I know them so far:

...Long-winded motion to suppress...

Point 5: Criminal acts are not subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements. If
they were, every criminal would require one of his associates and
employees.

...Motion denied.

Point of law. 4th Amendment suppression of evidence only applies to
evidence illegally obtained by the government and it's agents--not
private
individuals. If the evidence is relevant, it's admissible. I don't
see how
you could keep such evidence out in a civil trial either. If
Trolgar
thinks this can be kept out of the courts, they're living in fantasy
land.

On Oct 9, 3:36 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
wrote in message

oups.com...

If the allegations against Truong are true, let him suffer in court.

I can't disagree.



But you countenance the invasion of USCF members' privacy.

Your words, not mine.



And you seek equity while posting under the title "Polgar blows."

Learn how to use your newsreader. I began this thread with the subject
line, "Polgar Blows Smoke."



Grow up, little man.

Good advice--hopefully you'll follow it, after you figure out how your
newsreader works. :-)

I believe it would be fun to see the if "the information" also might
be damning to others who bore false witness in the USCF forum by using
identities not their own. I have heard it is so. By coddling Sloan on
this witch-hunt you it may be as if you have allowed him to pass gas
in your diver's helmet.

wrote in message
oups.com...
***original post below***

Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.gig anews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller2 .gnilink.net!
gnilink.net!trndny04.POSTED!d8cce190!not-for-mail
From: "B. Lafferty"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
References: 58IOi.4942$9r2.3987@trndny04
om
Subject: Polgar Blows
Lines: 25
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
Message-ID: 7PNOi.5047$9r2.2952@trndny04
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 16:16:03 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.17.145.113
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: trndny04 1191946563 70.17.145.113 (Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:16:03
EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 12:16:03 EDT
X-Original-Bytes: 1764


wrote in message
ps.com...
Here's my take..

On Oct 9, 4:48 am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
From chessdiscussions:

FACTS as I know them so far:

...Long-winded motion to suppress...

Point 5: Criminal acts are not subject to Non-Disclosure Agreements.
If
they were, every criminal would require one of his associates and
employees.

...Motion denied.

Point of law. 4th Amendment suppression of evidence only applies to
evidence illegally obtained by the government and it's agents--not
private
individuals. If the evidence is relevant, it's admissible. I don't
see how
you could keep such evidence out in a civil trial either. If
Trolgar
thinks this can be kept out of the courts, they're living in fantasy
land.


Wrong. Like I said, learn to use your newsreader. My Outlook newsreader
carries the same subject line.

Path:
g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.d ca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns14feed!worldn et.att.net!199.45.49.37!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamk iller2.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trndny04.POSTED!d8c ce190!not-for-mail
From: "B. Lafferty"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Polgar Blows Smoke
Lines: 71
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
Message-ID: 58IOi.4942$9r2.3987@trndny04
Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:48:49 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.17.145.113
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: trndny04 1191923329 70.17.145.113 (Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:48:49 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 09 Oct 2007 05:48:49 EDT
[snip]