Monday January 21st, 2008
-----------------------------

Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan 20,
2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul Truong's
complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:-

"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 URL for the full statement is at

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...uaawks2008.htm

which extracts from Alekhine's Parrot, which also contains her earlier
statement on the same topic

http://www.chessville.com/Editorials...rrot/Index.htm

She very clearly states, quoting Paul Truong:

"Do I know who did it? Absolutely no. Did I have anything to do with it?
Absolutely no."

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

----

Phil Innes

for Chessville.

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:

Monday January 21st, 2008
-----------------------------

Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan 20,
2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul Truong's
complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:-

"We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
information they have about us relating to this case.

This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:

Monday January 21st, 2008
-----------------------------

Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan 20,
2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul Truong's
complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:-

"We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
information they have about us relating to this case.

This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.

Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to his
question; that the questions were answered, and that all information about
the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.

For the record, I have offered USCF the opportunity to respond equally to
Susan Polgar. In addition, I have provided a generous deadline to make any
simple and official comment themselves, as well as inquiring if they will
accord with Susan Polgar's offer to take the lid off all matters heretofore
held secret.

I obviously cannot take issue with Mike Murray if he states that questions
actually put to Polgar and Truong were not answered - since I do not know if
that is true. That, indeed, was my reason to ask USCF if Susan Polgar's
first statement was true.

Now... from the second statement, there seems to be a contest to what is
true or not, and the gauntlet still lies on USCF's mat to pick up or not -
which is in effect to make statements about what has happened, or to open up
so that members themselves can make their own assessment.

Phil Innes

On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:03:22 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:


"We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
information they have about us relating to this case.

This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.

Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to his
question; that the questions were answered, and that all information about
the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.

I based my statement on posts on the USCF forum by Goichberg and
Bauer, but didn't *quote* anyone. IMO, a good synopsis of the issue
was presented in Steve Owen's blog at

http://chessusa.blogspot.com/2008/01...quest-for.html

where he states:

quote

The crux of the matter, as Bauer stated in his USCF Forums post, is
that the USCF attorneys asked Truong to:

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.

unquote

Mike Murray wrote:
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 10:03:22 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:


"We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
information they have about us relating to this case.

This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.

Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to his
question; that the questions were answered, and that all information about
the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.

I based my statement on posts on the USCF forum by Goichberg and
Bauer, but didn't *quote* anyone. IMO, a good synopsis of the issue
was presented in Steve Owen's blog at

http://chessusa.blogspot.com/2008/01...quest-for.html

where he states:

quote

The crux of the matter, as Bauer stated in his USCF Forums post, is
that the USCF attorneys asked Truong to:

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.

unquote

On reflection, an excellent approach to /transparency/ would be for all
opposing lawyers to drop their motions for dismissal and let Mr. Sloan's
lawsuit proceed to discovery. Then we will learn much more. Is Ms.
Polgar willing to request that her lawyers drop the motions for
dismissal? Let us give her until Friday to indicate her reply.

This might end up very expensive for the defense, but /transparency/ and
truth would be served.
--

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

"Chess One" wrote in message
. ..

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:

Monday January 21st, 2008
-----------------------------

Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan 20,
2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul
Truong's
complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:-

"We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
information they have about us relating to this case.

This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.

Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to
his question; that the questions were answered, and that all information
about the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.

For the record, I have offered USCF the opportunity to respond equally to
Susan Polgar. In addition, I have provided a generous deadline to make any
simple and official comment themselves, as well as inquiring if they will
accord with Susan Polgar's offer to take the lid off all matters
heretofore held secret.

I obviously cannot take issue with Mike Murray if he states that questions
actually put to Polgar and Truong were not answered - since I do not know
if that is true. That, indeed, was my reason to ask USCF if Susan Polgar's
first statement was true.

Now... from the second statement, there seems to be a contest to what is
true or not, and the gauntlet still lies on USCF's mat to pick up or not -
which is in effect to make statements about what has happened, or to open
up so that members themselves can make their own assessment.

Phil Innes

ROTFLMAO!! Your friend Susan is beyond help as are you. It has been
clearly stated by Randy Bauer and Bill G that the attorneys for the USCF
asked Truong for a statement by HIM, directly to the attorneys, denying or
admitting the Sloan allegations. Simple request. Normal request by ones
counsel in litigation. But, a request Truong can't bring HIMSELF to comply
with. Guilty people do have problems with such requests.

Truong was asked by counsel to facilitate the gathering of evidence from his
IPs for use in defending against the Sloan litigation. So Susan responds by
saying sure, but not until the Sloan litigation is over.

Bull**** will only carry a person so far once the legal action commences.
Truong has reached the end of the line.

ChaChing........GUILTY

On Jan 21, 10:03 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message

...



On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:

Monday January 21st, 2008
-----------------------------

Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan 20,
2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul Truong's
complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:-

"We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
information they have about us relating to this case.

This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.

Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to his
question; that the questions were answered, and that all information about
the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.

For the record, I have offered USCF the opportunity to respond equally to
Susan Polgar.

Why? She hasn't responded to the USCF. She's just had her lickspittle
throw her mud for her.

In addition, I have provided a generous deadline to make any
simple and official comment themselves, as well as inquiring if they will
accord with Susan Polgar's offer to take the lid off all matters heretofore
held secret.

I obviously cannot take issue with Mike Murray if he states that questions
actually put to Polgar and Truong were not answered - since I do not know if
that is true. That, indeed, was my reason to ask USCF if Susan Polgar's
first statement was true.

Now... from the second statement, there seems to be a contest to what is
true or not, and the gauntlet still lies on USCF's mat to pick up or not -

Actually, the gauntlet is lying on the "Welcome" mat on the Trolgar's
doorstep. They keep ignoring it, probably hoping it will go away.

which is in effect to make statements about what has happened, or to open up
so that members themselves can make their own assessment.

Phil Innes

On Jan 21, 2:46*pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
"Chess One" wrote in message

. ..







"Mike Murray" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:

Monday January 21st, 2008
-----------------------------

Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan 20,
2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul
Truong's
complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:-

* *"We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
information they have about us relating to this case.

This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. *They
also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.

Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to
his question; that the questions were answered, and that all information
about the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.

For the record, I have offered USCF the opportunity to respond equally to
Susan Polgar. In addition, I have provided a generous deadline to make any
simple and official comment themselves, as well as inquiring if they will
accord with Susan Polgar's offer to take the lid off all matters
heretofore held secret.

I obviously cannot take issue with Mike Murray if he states that questions
actually put to Polgar and Truong were not answered - since I do not know
if that is true. That, indeed, was my reason to ask USCF if Susan Polgar's
first statement was true.

Now... from the second statement, there seems to be a contest to what is
true or not, and the gauntlet still lies on USCF's mat to pick up or not -
which is in effect to make statements about what has happened, or to open
up so that members themselves can make their own assessment.

Phil Innes

ROTFLMAO!! *Your friend Susan is beyond help as are you. *It has been
clearly stated by Randy Bauer and Bill G that the attorneys for the USCF
asked Truong for a statement by HIM, directly to the attorneys, denying or
admitting the Sloan allegations. *Simple request. *Normal request by ones
counsel in litigation. But, a request Truong can't bring HIMSELF to comply
with. *Guilty people do have problems with such requests.

Truong was asked by counsel to facilitate the gathering of evidence from his
IPs for use in defending against the Sloan litigation. *So Susan responds by
saying sure, but not until the Sloan litigation is over.

Bull**** will only carry a person so far once the legal action commences.
Truong has reached the end of the line.

ChaChing........GUILTY



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am much distrubed by the USCF's inclination to "eat it's young".
There has been a tolerance of miscreants in this organization for
decades. Susan Polgar and Paul Truong are ,IMO, being attacked simply
because they are thoughtful agents of change. There is no personal
information that is safe once in the hands of the USCF.

Confidential information of members is shared or left open to
exploitation. Employment applications and resume's of applicants are
faxed and distributed "willy-nilly" with no fore-thought to
confidentiality.

Currently, it appears to me the quickest way to destroy the future of
the game of chess in America is to associate it with the USCF.

"B. Lafferty" wrote in message
news:Sw7lj.4687$YH6.842@trndny03...

"Chess One" wrote in message
. ..

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:

Monday January 21st, 2008
-----------------------------

Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan
20,
2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul
Truong's
complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the offer:-

"We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
information they have about us relating to this case.

This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.

Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to
his question; that the questions were answered, and that all information
about the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.

For the record, I have offered USCF the opportunity to respond equally to
Susan Polgar. In addition, I have provided a generous deadline to make
any simple and official comment themselves, as well as inquiring if they
will accord with Susan Polgar's offer to take the lid off all matters
heretofore held secret.

I obviously cannot take issue with Mike Murray if he states that
questions actually put to Polgar and Truong were not answered - since I
do not know if that is true. That, indeed, was my reason to ask USCF if
Susan Polgar's first statement was true.

Now... from the second statement, there seems to be a contest to what is
true or not, and the gauntlet still lies on USCF's mat to pick up or
not - which is in effect to make statements about what has happened, or
to open up so that members themselves can make their own assessment.

Phil Innes

ROTFLMAO!! Your friend Susan is beyond help as are you. It has been
clearly stated by Randy Bauer and Bill G that the attorneys for the USCF
asked Truong for a statement by HIM, directly to the attorneys, denying or
admitting the Sloan allegations.

And by opening up such correspondance it can be clearly known if this is a
true statement, no? Have you noticed that it is a contested statement?

Have you noticed that accordin to Susan Polgar the questions is already
answered?

Simple request. Normal request by ones counsel in litigation. But, a
request Truong can't bring HIMSELF to comply with. Guilty people do have
problems with such requests.

Truong was asked by counsel to facilitate the gathering of evidence from
his IPs for use in defending against the Sloan litigation. So Susan
responds by saying sure, but not until the Sloan litigation is over.

I do not understand that to be a quote of Susan Polgar.

Bull**** will only carry a person so far once the legal action commences.
Truong has reached the end of the line.

ChaChing........GUILTY

Thank you. line-judge. for your comments, and that of the noted stalker Neil
Brennan who chimed in, to similar effect.

I should not wish this post to be about either of you, since you both
pretend to have comprehension problems by your rhetorical displays in
respect of both legal issues, and those merely decent. It is merely curious
to me, that the biggest supporter of Sam Sloan in these newsgroups, Mr.
Parr, with whom I differ on the worth of Mr. Sloan to marked degree, should
also aver with, should I sufficiently understand Mr. Parr, that there should
be no more secrets here than Susan Polgar suggests.

Indeed, should Mr. Sloan himself be as good as his word about the need for
openness on these issues, he might adopt this specific instance to support
it himself.

Otherwise, as you will well understand, there are those people who, as we
say, "mouth off' about things, but when it comes right down to it, they are
not as good as their word, or their mouth, so to speak.

As to yourself, I take your lack of support for allowing the members to gain
their own opinion to indicate your orientation. Should you not quite
understand the level of insult here offered you, then you are, in my
opinion, rather less than Mr. Sloan who could still notice this issue and be
as good as his own word. Your words, sir, have no good in them whatever, and
you pronounce upon one-sided net-gossip, as if you had even one thought in
your head, rather than the emotional mendacity of a Neil Brennan.

Should you, or others who dislike anything but secrecy find these words too
'complicated' I could instead say of you that you are simple, and
additionally, you expect others to be simply stupid.

Phil Innes

"Rob" wrote in message
...
On Jan 21, 2:46 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
"Chess One" wrote in message

. ..







"Mike Murray" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:08:03 -0500, "Chess One"
wrote:

Monday January 21st, 2008
-----------------------------

Chessville received a letter from Susan Polgar on Sunday morning, Jan
20,
2008, stating the USCF's process of inquiry, of herself, and Paul
Truong's
complicity with the terms of the inquiry, and to correct a "blatant
misrepresentation" by Bill Goichberg. She ended by restating the
offer:-

"We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all
information they have about us relating to this case.

This might be interesting, but the USCF's attorneys requested
information they DON'T have, i.e., information from PT's ISP. They
also requested a formal denial, one which has more legal weight than
one reported via a third party, an interview or e-mail.

Who is Mike Murray quoting? He seems to know what USCF's attorneys have
asked, but cut the response which already states 2 things in response to
his question; that the questions were answered, and that all information
about the issue can be opened up, according to Polgar and Truong.

For the record, I have offered USCF the opportunity to respond equally
to
Susan Polgar. In addition, I have provided a generous deadline to make
any
simple and official comment themselves, as well as inquiring if they
will
accord with Susan Polgar's offer to take the lid off all matters
heretofore held secret.

I obviously cannot take issue with Mike Murray if he states that
questions
actually put to Polgar and Truong were not answered - since I do not
know
if that is true. That, indeed, was my reason to ask USCF if Susan
Polgar's
first statement was true.

Now... from the second statement, there seems to be a contest to what is
true or not, and the gauntlet still lies on USCF's mat to pick up or
not -
which is in effect to make statements about what has happened, or to
open
up so that members themselves can make their own assessment.

Phil Innes

ROTFLMAO!! Your friend Susan is beyond help as are you. It has been
clearly stated by Randy Bauer and Bill G that the attorneys for the USCF
asked Truong for a statement by HIM, directly to the attorneys, denying or
admitting the Sloan allegations. Simple request. Normal request by ones
counsel in litigation. But, a request Truong can't bring HIMSELF to comply
with. Guilty people do have problems with such requests.

Truong was asked by counsel to facilitate the gathering of evidence from
his
IPs for use in defending against the Sloan litigation. So Susan responds
by
saying sure, but not until the Sloan litigation is over.

Bull**** will only carry a person so far once the legal action commences.
Truong has reached the end of the line.

ChaChing........GUILTY



- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am much distrubed by the USCF's inclination to "eat it's young".
There has been a tolerance of miscreants in this organization for
decades. Susan Polgar and Paul Truong are ,IMO, being attacked simply
because they are thoughtful agents of change. [snip]

Thoughtful agents of change. Now that's the funniest one liner I've read in
years. Thanks for the laugh.