You decide if she's making any sense. Why is it that Truong can't bring
himself to sign a written statement deniing that he is the FSS? Oh, never
mind.

ChaChing--Guilty

________________________________________________-

This is a response from Bill Goichberg to a USCF member:

"Specifically, the USCF asked Paul Truong to provide, by December 7, 2007,
the following:

1. Formally admit or deny, in writing, whether he was involved in the "Fake
Sam Sloan" postings, or had knowledge of who made such postings;
2. Provide the IP address of all his home and work Internet connections
since 2005, or provide consent for the Board to obtain and cooperate in the
Board obtaining, such IP addresses from ISPs and other entities;
3. Provide all information that would support his argument that he was not
located at his computer(s) at the time of alleged Fake Sam Sloan postings,
to include information relating to his travel.
To date, the USCF has not received a formal response to items 1 and 2 and
incomplete information relating to item 3."

The response we received to #1 was: Susan said that Paul had already
written, two months before, that he was not involved in these postings. This
appears true, but is not the formal denial requested of Paul.

The response we received to #2 was: Susan said that we would receive an
answer after the Sloan lawsuit was resolved. This was quite unhelpful,
especially as one of the reasons we needed a response was to help us defend
the Sloan lawsuit.

Bill Goichberg


This is my response:

This is another blatant misrepresentation of the facts. This was Paul's
exact quote, the same which was sent to the board and lawyer: "Do I know who
did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it? Absolutely no."

Can this be any clearer? If they wanted it in a different format, they
should have officially informed or explained it to us.

As for #2, both Paul and I asked the board not to include Bill Goichberg in
the sub-committee at the last board meeting in Crossville. I am sure that it
is on the tape in one of the sessions.

Things would have gone a lot smoother and faster if Bill is not in the
sub-committee. The reason is clear. Since there are a lot of potential legal
issues involved in a number of possible cases, we consider it a direct
conflict of interest for Bill to have privilege information. He should not
be privy to them. We told this to the entire board. In fact, we feel that a
full investigation should have been made about this matter which effected
many USCF members.

After the board ignored our request and went ahead to form a committee of
five members AFTER we left the last board meeting in Crossville (we only
knew about it after we were back in Texas), we once again asked Bill to step
down from the sub-committee to expedite all matters. A sub-committee of the
other 3-4 board members would have been fine. Bill and the other board
members refused.

A lengthy response to #2 was given to the board and lawyer. Unfortunately,
there has been much misinformation and many false rumors circulated. This is
why I asked the board and their attorney(s) to consent to and authorize all
correspondence in the confidential BINFO from August 2007 be released to the
public. This should include the correspondence of all seven board members,
the ED, the attorneys, and all parties relating to this case.

In addition, please grant us consent and immunity to release all information
and board member correspondence and NDAs related to this case. We recommend
that all confidentiality clauses are waived in order to make the case clear
and in order to expedite its conclusion. We propose to show all USCF members
any evidence we have of who leaked what to whom, who made what deals under
the table and for what reasons, etc. We give consent to the board and their
attorneys to publish all information they have about us relating to this
case.

Everyone can then decide who is clean and who is not. Why not let the USCF
members decide what the facts are? The offer still stands. Now the problems
are further compounded for the USCF due to the latest fiasco last Monday.

Susan Polgar

And the response from ill G.:

The attorney asked in writing that Paul formally deny or admit the charges.
Paul did not respond and instead Susan replied saying that Paul had already
denied them. It's hard to believe that Paul thought that he made the "formal
response" to the attorney that was requested, when he actually did not reply
to the attorney at all. I think #2, cooperation with learning IP addresses,
is a far more important point, though.


On #2, if Susan and Paul did ask for Bill Goichberg to not be on the
subcommittee due to possible conflict of interest, I see nothing wrong with
that request. I also see no reason why Bill Goichberg's absence on the
committee would lessen the quality of the proceedings.


Paul was asked to cooperate with USCF learning his IP addresses. The
response (from Susan) was that we would get a reply after the Sloan lawsuit
was resolved. Are they now saying they declined to reply because they wanted
to determine who was on the EB subcommittee!?


Finally, Susan is asking for complete disclosure of all the facts. Wow,
that is great. I do believe that all facts do need to be made public as
Susan requested.


I would like to see all exchanges between Paul/Susan and the EB subcommittee
made public, however USCF is involved in a lawsuit, and we have asked our
attorney about the advisability of this and have not yet received a
response.

Susan says, "A lengthy response to #2 was given to the board and lawyer."
Perhaps an email failed to reach me, but I have checked all my emails and
see no response at all from Paul to #2, only a reply from Susan saying that
a response would be provided after the Sloan lawsuit was resolved. I also am
unaware of any response from Paul by postal mail.

Bill Goichberg

B. Lafferty wrote:
And the response from ill G.:

The attorney asked in writing that Paul formally deny or admit the charges.
Paul did not respond and instead Susan replied saying that Paul had already
denied them. It's hard to believe that Paul thought that he made the "formal
response" to the attorney that was requested, when he actually did not reply
to the attorney at all. I think #2, cooperation with learning IP addresses,
is a far more important point, though.


On #2, if Susan and Paul did ask for Bill Goichberg to not be on the
subcommittee due to possible conflict of interest, I see nothing wrong with
that request. I also see no reason why Bill Goichberg's absence on the
committee would lessen the quality of the proceedings.


Paul was asked to cooperate with USCF learning his IP addresses. The
response (from Susan) was that we would get a reply after the Sloan lawsuit
was resolved. Are they now saying they declined to reply because they wanted
to determine who was on the EB subcommittee!?


Finally, Susan is asking for complete disclosure of all the facts. Wow,
that is great. I do believe that all facts do need to be made public as
Susan requested.


I would like to see all exchanges between Paul/Susan and the EB subcommittee
made public, however USCF is involved in a lawsuit, and we have asked our
attorney about the advisability of this and have not yet received a
response.

Susan says, "A lengthy response to #2 was given to the board and lawyer."
Perhaps an email failed to reach me, but I have checked all my emails and
see no response at all from Paul to #2, only a reply from Susan saying that
a response would be provided after the Sloan lawsuit was resolved. I also am
unaware of any response from Paul by postal mail.

Bill Goichberg


So both sides are claiming that the other side is lying? "He said, she
said.." I doubt that transparency is going to help much with that
problem. It may open up a bunch of fresh wounds.

If not Sloan's case, then one of the follow up lawsuits may force
discovery, and the witness stand. Testimony under oath, strong cross
examination, and the threat of perjury charges have a wonderful curative
effect on the deceitful mind. Will we end up with this kind of
"transparency?"
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.