From chessdiscussion. From the syntax, it appears to have been
authored by Truong. Susie's English language skills aren't this polished.

by SusanPolgar on Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:07 am

dietchess wrote:
I am no fan of Mr. Lafferty. But as he clearly identified himself I
don't see why it matters what handle he used. I have to admit as well
that the ensuing responses mainly dealt with heaping insult on BL while
completely ignoring the contents of his posts. While it is more
entertaining to throw darts at BL the more important question is why we
have two differing accounts from Mr. Bauer and GM Polgar. Mr. Bauer was
heavily supported by GM Polgar during the election campaign and I have
no reason to disbelieve him based on the impression I got from his
comments to various topics on the USCF forum. That said, I am having a
hard time accepting that GM Polgar would intentionally make misleading
statements. I am still hoping that both can somehow be right.

That said, I have to ask the question that even if no further
documentation was asked for by the USCF attorney why GM Polgar/FM Truong
would not provide this evidence at this point. I doubt that evidence
proofing innocence in the FSS mess would be less convincing even if
submitted a couple of months late. The issue really is not the lawsuit
but the ability of the board to work together. GM Polgar's harsh public
comments over the EB board in general make it questionable how effective
the board can be in the next years to come (FM Truong has virtually
disappeared except for one post that I remember).

One thing that bothers me is the fact that GM Polgar prefers to
make statements here rather than on the USCF web site. I totally
understand why she would not want to engage in discussions/exchanges
there. But statements would be very welcome. In all fairness, EB members
Hough and Berry are completely non-existent on the USCF forum. I
actually thought it was EB member Hough's job as the Secretary to
communicate with the members but I am obviously mistaken. Kudo's to Mr.
Bauer and Mr. Goichberg for being willing to inform the members and
engage in discussion despite the sometimes scathing criticism this draws.

Dietmar
------------------------------------------------------------------



Mr. Bauer believes in his lawyer. I believe in the facts. I also believe
in a fair process. I stand by my statements and I intend to pursue this
matter. As I stated before, this matter will not end once the Sloan
lawsuit is dismissed or concluded. The board majority will have a lot of
answering to do to the USCF members. I am not going to play their games.
Their actions and political games caused the federation to be in this
horrible position.

Here is the summary of what I stated:

- We asked the board not to include Bill Goichberg in the sub-committee
at the last board meeting in Crossville. Things would have gone a lot
smoother and faster if Bill was 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 privileged 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 affected
many USCF members. The board ignored our request and went ahead to form
a committee of five members (including Bill Goichberg) AFTER we left the
last board meeting in Crossville. We still ask Bill Goichberg to step
down from the sub-committee.

- For the best interest of the USCF due to the serious legal situation,
we recently asked Randy Bauer to step down from the sub-committee due to
his clearly documented mistake with the NY Times which caused severe
problems for multiple parties, including the USCF. Randy agreed to step
down then changed his mind after the board majority convinced him to
stay on.

- We requested the same access to the USCF database as the contractors
so that our own experts can examine the validity of the data as well as
matching IPs of suspicious posters. Our repeated request was ignored.
What are they hiding?

- We pointed out a handful of suspicious handles and postings directly
related to this case to the attorney and other board members. We asked
them to investigate. This request, and others, have also been ignored or
denied. Are they afraid that it will point to one of their political
buddies?

- There should also be an investigation regarding how non-board members
can obtain confidential board information to spread out false rumors for
various purposes. If the board majority gives us consent, we can prove
the source of the leaks. Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not leak out
confidential info as far as I know.

- We asked the board to authorize ALL (not some or what they want to
pick and choose) correspondence in the confidential BINFO from August
2007 to 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. This will clearly show the misconduct
of the some members of the board majority as well as pertinent
information relating to this investigation. The board majority clearly
wants to hide the facts from the USCF members.

- We asked the board to 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 be 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.

- We asked the board to investigate the leaks of confidential board
information to Jerry Hanken who used my confidential evidence and info
to negotiate with Sam Sloan while the lawsuits against multiple parties
are ongoing. Did the board majority authorize this? Did the board
majority authorize this? Did the board majority seek permission from the
USCF attorney prior to this negotiation? If so, did he authorize this?
Will the board majority publicly admit or deny that this negotiation
took place? Obviously someone from the board majority leaked
confidential information to Sam Sloan (directly or indirectly) because
he is using some of this confidential information (which only board
members and the USCF attorney would know) in his response to the motion
to dismiss. The board refused to investigate their own wrong doing.

- Who authorized the board majority and their attorney to investigate
completely false charges against my husband and me which relate to my
divorce / custody case? It has absolutely nothing to do with this
investigation. I find their conducts appalling. How did this even come
up for discussion? This is my personal business and it has nothing to do
with the USCF. Is this what board members are elected to do? Did the
board majority use USCF money for this? Will the board majority publicly
admit or deny that they tried to involve my personal situation into
their political game?

- I have reasons to believe that the board majority also tried to
interfere with my legal case. We fully cooperated with the attorneys
assigned by the insurance company and there was no problem. I strongly
believe that board majority authorize a discussion / conversation with
the insurance company to purposely try to persuade the insurance company
to drop the coverage for Paul and me. Is this legal or ethical?
Obviously, it did not work in spit of their wish. If it is not true,
will the board majority publicly deny this? So far, they refused to deny it.
-----------------------------------------------------

As of the evidence, after I faxed it to the USCF attorney, I received an
email confirmation immediately that it was received. I was under the
impression that it was enough as it is quite conclusive to show serious
flaws with the conclusion of the Mottershead report. The board majority
said more than a month later that it was not enough. However, they also
clearly asked me to ONLY communicate through their attorney but their
attorney never once asked for additional proof.

If the board majority strongly believes in their case, let them pursue
it. If they have nothing then apologize and move on. But they are doing
neither while the federation continues to suffer.

I will not come back to the USCF forum until it can be run properly.
Paul and I were two of the most frequent posters there until it became a
nasty and vicious political forum. I also cannot approve spending over
$50K for various expenses relating to the USCF forum while the USCF
finances are in horrendous shape.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
http://www.SusanPolgar.com

On Feb 20, 5:04*am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
*From chessdiscussion. *From the syntax, it appears to have been
authored by Truong. *Susie's English language skills aren't this polished.

by SusanPolgar on Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:07 am

* * *dietchess wrote:
* * *I am no fan of Mr. Lafferty. But as he clearly identified himself I
don't see why it matters what handle he used. I have to admit as well
that the ensuing responses mainly dealt with heaping insult on BL while
completely ignoring the contents of his posts. While it is more
entertaining to throw darts at BL the more important question is why we
have two differing accounts from Mr. Bauer and GM Polgar. Mr. Bauer was
heavily supported by GM Polgar during the election campaign and I have
no reason to disbelieve him based on the impression I got from his
comments to various topics on the USCF forum. That said, I am having a
hard time accepting that GM Polgar would intentionally make misleading
statements. I am still hoping that both can somehow be right.

* * *That said, I have to ask the question that even if no further
documentation was asked for by the USCF attorney why GM Polgar/FM Truong
would not provide this evidence at this point. I doubt that evidence
proofing innocence in the FSS mess would be less convincing even if
submitted a couple of months late. The issue really is not the lawsuit
but the ability of the board to work together. GM Polgar's harsh public
comments over the EB board in general make it questionable how effective
the board can be in the next years to come (FM Truong has virtually
disappeared except for one post that I remember).

* * *One thing that bothers me is the fact that GM Polgar prefers to
make statements here rather than on the USCF web site. I totally
understand why she would not want to engage in discussions/exchanges
there. But statements would be very welcome. In all fairness, EB members
Hough and Berry are completely non-existent on the USCF forum. I
actually thought it was EB member Hough's job as the Secretary to
communicate with the members but I am obviously mistaken. Kudo's to Mr.
Bauer and Mr. Goichberg for being willing to inform the members and
engage in discussion despite the sometimes scathing criticism this draws.

* * *Dietmar
------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Bauer believes in his lawyer. I believe in the facts. I also believe
in a fair process. I stand by my statements and I intend to pursue this
matter. As I stated before, this matter will not end once the Sloan
lawsuit is dismissed or concluded. The board majority will have a lot of
answering to do to the USCF members. I am not going to play their games.
Their actions and political games caused the federation to be in this
horrible position.

Here is the summary of what I stated:

- We asked the board not to include Bill Goichberg in the sub-committee
at the last board meeting in Crossville. Things would have gone a lot
smoother and faster if Bill was 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 privileged 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 affected
many USCF members. The board ignored our request and went ahead to form
a committee of five members (including Bill Goichberg) AFTER we left the
last board meeting in Crossville. We still ask Bill Goichberg to step
down from the sub-committee.

- For the best interest of the USCF due to the serious legal situation,
we recently asked Randy Bauer to step down from the sub-committee due to
his clearly documented mistake with the NY Times which caused severe
problems for multiple parties, including the USCF. Randy agreed to step
down then changed his mind after the board majority convinced him to
stay on.

- We requested the same access to the USCF database as the contractors
so that our own experts can examine the validity of the data as well as
matching IPs of suspicious posters. Our repeated request was ignored.
What are they hiding?

- We pointed out a handful of suspicious handles and postings directly
related to this case to the attorney and other board members. We asked
them to investigate. This request, and others, have also been ignored or
denied. Are they afraid that it will point to one of their political
buddies?

- There should also be an investigation regarding how non-board members
can obtain confidential board information to spread out false rumors for
various purposes. If the board majority gives us consent, we can prove
the source of the leaks. Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not leak out
confidential info as far as I know.

- We asked the board to authorize ALL (not some or what they want to
pick and choose) correspondence in the confidential BINFO from August
2007 to 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. This will clearly show the misconduct
of the some members of the board majority as well as pertinent
information relating to this investigation. The board majority clearly
wants to hide the facts from the USCF members.

- We asked the board to 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 be 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.

- We asked the board to investigate the leaks of confidential board
information to Jerry Hanken who used my confidential evidence and info
to negotiate with Sam Sloan while the lawsuits against multiple parties
are ongoing. Did the board majority authorize this? Did the board
majority authorize this? Did the board majority seek permission from the
USCF attorney prior to this negotiation? If so, did he authorize this?
Will the board majority publicly admit or deny that this negotiation
took place? Obviously someone from the board majority leaked
confidential information to Sam Sloan (directly or indirectly) because
he is using some of this confidential information (which only board
members and the USCF attorney would know) in his response to the motion
to dismiss. The board refused to investigate their own wrong doing.

- Who authorized the board majority and their attorney to investigate
completely false charges against my husband and me which relate to my
divorce / custody case? It has absolutely nothing to do with this
investigation. I find their conducts appalling. How did this even come
up for discussion? This is my personal business and it has nothing to do
with the USCF. Is this what board members are elected to do? Did the
board majority use USCF money for this? Will the board majority publicly
admit or deny that they tried to involve my personal situation into
their political game?

- I have reasons to believe that the board majority also tried to
interfere with my legal case. We fully cooperated with the attorneys
assigned by the insurance company and there was no problem. I strongly
believe that board majority authorize a discussion / conversation with
the insurance company to purposely try to persuade the insurance company
to drop the coverage for Paul and me. Is this legal or ethical?
Obviously, it did not work in spit of their wish. If it is not true,
will the board majority publicly deny this? So far, they refused to deny it.

wrote:
On Feb 20, 5:04 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
From chessdiscussion. From the syntax, it appears to have been
authored by Truong. Susie's English language skills aren't this polished.

by SusanPolgar on Wed Feb 20, 2008 6:07 am

dietchess wrote:
I am no fan of Mr. Lafferty. But as he clearly identified himself I
don't see why it matters what handle he used. I have to admit as well
that the ensuing responses mainly dealt with heaping insult on BL while
completely ignoring the contents of his posts. While it is more
entertaining to throw darts at BL the more important question is why we
have two differing accounts from Mr. Bauer and GM Polgar. Mr. Bauer was
heavily supported by GM Polgar during the election campaign and I have
no reason to disbelieve him based on the impression I got from his
comments to various topics on the USCF forum. That said, I am having a
hard time accepting that GM Polgar would intentionally make misleading
statements. I am still hoping that both can somehow be right.

That said, I have to ask the question that even if no further
documentation was asked for by the USCF attorney why GM Polgar/FM Truong
would not provide this evidence at this point. I doubt that evidence
proofing innocence in the FSS mess would be less convincing even if
submitted a couple of months late. The issue really is not the lawsuit
but the ability of the board to work together. GM Polgar's harsh public
comments over the EB board in general make it questionable how effective
the board can be in the next years to come (FM Truong has virtually
disappeared except for one post that I remember).

One thing that bothers me is the fact that GM Polgar prefers to
make statements here rather than on the USCF web site. I totally
understand why she would not want to engage in discussions/exchanges
there. But statements would be very welcome. In all fairness, EB members
Hough and Berry are completely non-existent on the USCF forum. I
actually thought it was EB member Hough's job as the Secretary to
communicate with the members but I am obviously mistaken. Kudo's to Mr.
Bauer and Mr. Goichberg for being willing to inform the members and
engage in discussion despite the sometimes scathing criticism this draws.

Dietmar
------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Bauer believes in his lawyer. I believe in the facts. I also believe
in a fair process. I stand by my statements and I intend to pursue this
matter. As I stated before, this matter will not end once the Sloan
lawsuit is dismissed or concluded. The board majority will have a lot of
answering to do to the USCF members. I am not going to play their games.
Their actions and political games caused the federation to be in this
horrible position.

Here is the summary of what I stated:

- We asked the board not to include Bill Goichberg in the sub-committee
at the last board meeting in Crossville. Things would have gone a lot
smoother and faster if Bill was 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 privileged 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 affected
many USCF members. The board ignored our request and went ahead to form
a committee of five members (including Bill Goichberg) AFTER we left the
last board meeting in Crossville. We still ask Bill Goichberg to step
down from the sub-committee.

- For the best interest of the USCF due to the serious legal situation,
we recently asked Randy Bauer to step down from the sub-committee due to
his clearly documented mistake with the NY Times which caused severe
problems for multiple parties, including the USCF. Randy agreed to step
down then changed his mind after the board majority convinced him to
stay on.

- We requested the same access to the USCF database as the contractors
so that our own experts can examine the validity of the data as well as
matching IPs of suspicious posters. Our repeated request was ignored.
What are they hiding?

- We pointed out a handful of suspicious handles and postings directly
related to this case to the attorney and other board members. We asked
them to investigate. This request, and others, have also been ignored or
denied. Are they afraid that it will point to one of their political
buddies?

- There should also be an investigation regarding how non-board members
can obtain confidential board information to spread out false rumors for
various purposes. If the board majority gives us consent, we can prove
the source of the leaks. Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not leak out
confidential info as far as I know.

- We asked the board to authorize ALL (not some or what they want to
pick and choose) correspondence in the confidential BINFO from August
2007 to 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. This will clearly show the misconduct
of the some members of the board majority as well as pertinent
information relating to this investigation. The board majority clearly
wants to hide the facts from the USCF members.

- We asked the board to 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 be 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.

- We asked the board to investigate the leaks of confidential board
information to Jerry Hanken who used my confidential evidence and info
to negotiate with Sam Sloan while the lawsuits against multiple parties
are ongoing. Did the board majority authorize this? Did the board
majority authorize this? Did the board majority seek permission from the
USCF attorney prior to this negotiation? If so, did he authorize this?
Will the board majority publicly admit or deny that this negotiation
took place? Obviously someone from the board majority leaked
confidential information to Sam Sloan (directly or indirectly) because
he is using some of this confidential information (which only board
members and the USCF attorney would know) in his response to the motion
to dismiss. The board refused to investigate their own wrong doing.

- Who authorized the board majority and their attorney to investigate
completely false charges against my husband and me which relate to my
divorce / custody case? It has absolutely nothing to do with this
investigation. I find their conducts appalling. How did this even come
up for discussion? This is my personal business and it has nothing to do
with the USCF. Is this what board members are elected to do? Did the
board majority use USCF money for this? Will the board majority publicly
admit or deny that they tried to involve my personal situation into
their political game?

- I have reasons to believe that the board majority also tried to
interfere with my legal case. We fully cooperated with the attorneys
assigned by the insurance company and there was no problem. I strongly
believe that board majority authorize a discussion / conversation with
the insurance company to purposely try to persuade the insurance company
to drop the coverage for Paul and me. Is this legal or ethical?
Obviously, it did not work in spit of their wish. If it is not true,
will the board majority publicly deny this? So far, they refused to deny it.
-----------------------------------------------------

As of the evidence, after I faxed it to the USCF attorney, I received an
email confirmation immediately that it was received. I was under the
impression that it was enough as it is quite conclusive to show serious
flaws with the conclusion of the Mottershead report. The board majority
said more than a month later that it was not enough. However, they also
clearly asked me to ONLY communicate through their attorney but their
attorney never once asked for additional proof.

If the board majority strongly believes in their case, let them pursue
it. If they have nothing then apologize and move on. But they are doing
neither while the federation continues to suffer.

I will not come back to the USCF forum until it can be run properly.
Paul and I were two of the most frequent posters there until it became a
nasty and vicious political forum. I also cannot approve spending over
$50K for various expenses relating to the USCF forum while the USCF
finances are in horrendous shape.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgarhttp://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.comhttp://www.SusanPolgar.com

Up early Brian, I just woke up. My hot tub is getting ready. Give this
chess stuff a break.
Smoke a joint, get high, but remember, it is just a game!

HaHaHa!

Marcus Roberts

Ah yes. A joint in the hot tub. Now that does bring back some very
pleasant memories, Marcus. :-)

THINGS TO COME?

Susan Polgar's call for full transparency is more
than an exercise in good USCF citizenship. It is also
an unmistakable threat to the Board majority. And
almost certainly a substantive threat.

Namely: a bunch of podunk chess politicians, who
were feeling their power-oats, committed countless
arrogant acts that make no legal sense whatsoever and
have likely empowered Truong-Polgar in this legal case.

If one understands the true nature and, more
importantly, the manifestations of the political beast
that is a USCF politician, one understands that
irresponsible, self-defeating arrogance has been and
continues to be the modus operandi.

The self-confident and very detailed demands by
Susan Polgar for full disclosure leads me to alter an
earlier conclusion. I wrote that were Sam's legal
action dismissed tomorrow, GM Polgar would still rue
the day she ever became involved in USCF politics.

The glimmer of a different outcome peaks through
the curtain of events yet to come. Sam's legal action,
whatever its objective merits, will likely fail because
because the legal talent arrayed against our caped
crusader will outmatch his legal savvy and resources.
But there is another legal action that suggests itself:
Polgar-Truong v USCF. And that could turn out to be
the final chapter for the USCF as we know it.

What would better serve chess promotion in the
United States? The semi-public USCF that we have now
or a privately held USCF, owned and run by
Polgar-Truong?

But none of the above answers the question that
stays with me: why did Susan and Paul court Nemesis
in the form of Sam Sloan? Whether he is in the right
or the wrong, Sam's essential characteristic is constant:
he is a slavering-at-the-chops bulldog. He gets a grip on a
person's ankle -- before, perhaps, moving upwards into more
vulnerable bodily and legal areas -- and hangs on forever.
Or, at least, the number of years is large enough to make it
seem like forever.

Then there is Frank Niro. He had serious health
problems, and now this fated human moth is heading
south into the U.S. Open flame. The man must have
been driven mad by illness and his stint as USCF
executive director. Or, in a fit of penitential
maundering, he has settled upon painful,
chest-pounding self-destruction as a penance. There
are simply no other explanations for his wishing to
attend the U.S. Open -- of all possible chess tournaments.

So, then, Mr. Niro will launch his own Charge of
the Light Chess Brigade. "C'est magnifique, mais ce
n'est pas la guerre," said the French military
observer Bosquet while viewing the attack. We imagine
Mr. Niro, like Chesterton's Napoleon of Notting Hill
in the eponymous novel, carrying a pennant -- perhaps
of Oregon City, Oregon -- and expiring even as he
drives its pointed shaft into the left foot of Randy Bauer.

Mr. Bauer will then be hopping about on his
right hoof, holding his left in total agony, screaming
for a doctor. Mr. Niro's inert form will be lying
face down on the hotel carpet at the Delegates
Meeting. A curious bystander will prod at the corpse
with a foot and eventually turn it over. His eyelids
unclosed, Mr. Niro will be staring upwards, a subtle
smile on his lips that will eventually, in rigor
mortis, harden into a very wicked grin.

Unnoticed by others, Paul Truong will saunter
past the hopping Mr. Bauer and bring down with
crushing force the elevated heel of his right shoe
onto the toes of Mr. Bauer's uninjured foot. The
latter will then fly through the air onto the floor,
his corpus jerking like a speared fish, with redoubled
cries of agony beyond bearing.

Nearby, Sam Sloan quietly draws a line through
Frank Niro's name as among the defendants of his lawsuit.

Yours, Larry Parr

On Feb 21, 1:15*am, " wrote:
THINGS TO COME?

* * *Susan Polgar's call for full transparency is more
than an exercise in good USCF citizenship. *It is also
an unmistakable threat to the Board majority. And
almost certainly a substantive threat.

* * Namely: a bunch of podunk chess politicians, who
were feeling their power-oats, committed countless
arrogant acts that make no legal sense whatsoever and
have likely empowered Truong-Polgar in this legal case.

* * *If one understands the true nature and, more
importantly, the manifestations of the political beast
that is a USCF politician, one understands that
irresponsible, self-defeating arrogance has been and
continues to be the modus operandi.

* * *The self-confident and very detailed demands by
Susan Polgar for full disclosure leads me to alter an
earlier conclusion. *I wrote that were Sam's legal
action dismissed tomorrow, GM Polgar would still rue
the day she ever became involved in USCF politics.

* * *The glimmer of a different outcome peaks through
the curtain of events yet to come. *Sam's legal action,
whatever its objective merits, will likely fail because
because the legal talent arrayed against our caped
crusader will outmatch his legal savvy and resources.
But there is another legal action that suggests itself:
Polgar-Truong v USCF. *And that could turn out to be
*the final chapter for the USCF as we know it.

* * *What would better serve chess promotion in the
United States? *The semi-public USCF that we have now
or a privately held USCF, owned and run by
Polgar-Truong?

* * * * But none of the above answers the question that
stays with me: *why did Susan and Paul court Nemesis
in the form of Sam Sloan? *Whether he is in the right
or the wrong, Sam's essential characteristic is constant:
he is a slavering-at-the-chops bulldog. *He gets a grip on a
person's ankle -- before, perhaps, moving upwards into more
vulnerable bodily and legal areas -- and hangs on forever.
Or, at least, the number of years is large enough to make it
seem like forever.

* * *Then there is Frank Niro. *He had serious health
problems, and now this fated human moth is heading
south into the U.S. Open flame. *The man must have
been driven mad by illness and his stint as USCF
executive director. *Or, in a fit of penitential
maundering, he has settled upon painful,
chest-pounding self-destruction as a penance. *There
are simply no other explanations for his wishing to
attend the U.S. Open -- of all possible chess tournaments.

* * * So, then, Mr. Niro will launch his own Charge of
the Light Chess Brigade. *"C'est magnifique, mais ce
n'est pas la guerre," said the French military
observer Bosquet while viewing the attack. *We imagine
Mr. Niro, like Chesterton's Napoleon of Notting Hill
in the eponymous novel, carrying a pennant -- perhaps
of Oregon City, Oregon -- and expiring even as he
drives its pointed shaft into the left foot of Randy Bauer.

* * * Mr. Bauer will then be hopping about on his
right hoof, holding his left in total agony, screaming
for a doctor. *Mr. Niro's inert form will be lying
face down on the hotel carpet at the Delegates
Meeting. *A curious bystander will prod at the corpse
with a foot and eventually turn it over. *His eyelids
unclosed, Mr. Niro will be staring upwards, a subtle
smile on his lips that will eventually, in rigor
mortis, harden into a very wicked grin.

* * * Unnoticed by others, Paul Truong will saunter
past the hopping Mr. Bauer and bring down with
crushing force the elevated heel of his right shoe
onto the toes of Mr. Bauer's uninjured foot. *The
latter will then fly through the air onto the floor,
his corpus jerking like a speared fish, with redoubled
cries of agony beyond bearing.

* * * Nearby, Sam Sloan quietly draws a line through
Frank Niro's name as among the defendants of his lawsuit.

Yours, Larry Parr

Don't drink and drive.

Randy Bauer

Randy Bauer wrote:
On Feb 21, 1:15 am, " wrote:
THINGS TO COME?

Susan Polgar's call for full transparency is more
than an exercise in good USCF citizenship. It is also
an unmistakable threat to the Board majority. And
almost certainly a substantive threat.

Namely: a bunch of podunk chess politicians, who
were feeling their power-oats, committed countless
arrogant acts that make no legal sense whatsoever and
have likely empowered Truong-Polgar in this legal case.

If one understands the true nature and, more
importantly, the manifestations of the political beast
that is a USCF politician, one understands that
irresponsible, self-defeating arrogance has been and
continues to be the modus operandi.

The self-confident and very detailed demands by
Susan Polgar for full disclosure leads me to alter an
earlier conclusion. I wrote that were Sam's legal
action dismissed tomorrow, GM Polgar would still rue
the day she ever became involved in USCF politics.

The glimmer of a different outcome peaks through
the curtain of events yet to come. Sam's legal action,
whatever its objective merits, will likely fail because
because the legal talent arrayed against our caped
crusader will outmatch his legal savvy and resources.
But there is another legal action that suggests itself:
Polgar-Truong v USCF. And that could turn out to be
the final chapter for the USCF as we know it.

What would better serve chess promotion in the
United States? The semi-public USCF that we have now
or a privately held USCF, owned and run by
Polgar-Truong?

But none of the above answers the question that
stays with me: why did Susan and Paul court Nemesis
in the form of Sam Sloan? Whether he is in the right
or the wrong, Sam's essential characteristic is constant:
he is a slavering-at-the-chops bulldog. He gets a grip on a
person's ankle -- before, perhaps, moving upwards into more
vulnerable bodily and legal areas -- and hangs on forever.
Or, at least, the number of years is large enough to make it
seem like forever.

Then there is Frank Niro. He had serious health
problems, and now this fated human moth is heading
south into the U.S. Open flame. The man must have
been driven mad by illness and his stint as USCF
executive director. Or, in a fit of penitential
maundering, he has settled upon painful,
chest-pounding self-destruction as a penance. There
are simply no other explanations for his wishing to
attend the U.S. Open -- of all possible chess tournaments.

So, then, Mr. Niro will launch his own Charge of
the Light Chess Brigade. "C'est magnifique, mais ce
n'est pas la guerre," said the French military
observer Bosquet while viewing the attack. We imagine
Mr. Niro, like Chesterton's Napoleon of Notting Hill
in the eponymous novel, carrying a pennant -- perhaps
of Oregon City, Oregon -- and expiring even as he
drives its pointed shaft into the left foot of Randy Bauer.

Mr. Bauer will then be hopping about on his
right hoof, holding his left in total agony, screaming
for a doctor. Mr. Niro's inert form will be lying
face down on the hotel carpet at the Delegates
Meeting. A curious bystander will prod at the corpse
with a foot and eventually turn it over. His eyelids
unclosed, Mr. Niro will be staring upwards, a subtle
smile on his lips that will eventually, in rigor
mortis, harden into a very wicked grin.

Unnoticed by others, Paul Truong will saunter
past the hopping Mr. Bauer and bring down with
crushing force the elevated heel of his right shoe
onto the toes of Mr. Bauer's uninjured foot. The
latter will then fly through the air onto the floor,
his corpus jerking like a speared fish, with redoubled
cries of agony beyond bearing.

Nearby, Sam Sloan quietly draws a line through
Frank Niro's name as among the defendants of his lawsuit.

Yours, Larry Parr

Don't drink and drive.

Randy Bauer
I wonder if Larry wrote this while soaking in a hot tub.

On Feb 20, 11:15*pm, " wrote:
THINGS TO COME?

* * *Susan Polgar's call for full transparency is more
than an exercise in good USCF citizenship. *It is also
an unmistakable threat to the Board majority. And
almost certainly a substantive threat.

* * Namely: a bunch of podunk chess politicians, who
were feeling their power-oats, committed countless
arrogant acts that make no legal sense whatsoever and
have likely empowered Truong-Polgar in this legal case.

* * *If one understands the true nature and, more
importantly, the manifestations of the political beast
that is a USCF politician, one understands that
irresponsible, self-defeating arrogance has been and
continues to be the modus operandi.

* * *The self-confident and very detailed demands by
Susan Polgar for full disclosure leads me to alter an
earlier conclusion. *I wrote that were Sam's legal
action dismissed tomorrow, GM Polgar would still rue
the day she ever became involved in USCF politics.

* * *The glimmer of a different outcome peaks through
the curtain of events yet to come. *Sam's legal action,
whatever its objective merits, will likely fail because
because the legal talent arrayed against our caped
crusader will outmatch his legal savvy and resources.
But there is another legal action that suggests itself:
Polgar-Truong v USCF. *And that could turn out to be
*the final chapter for the USCF as we know it.

* * *What would better serve chess promotion in the
United States? *The semi-public USCF that we have now
or a privately held USCF, owned and run by
Polgar-Truong?

* * * * But none of the above answers the question that
stays with me: *why did Susan and Paul court Nemesis
in the form of Sam Sloan? *Whether he is in the right
or the wrong, Sam's essential characteristic is constant:
he is a slavering-at-the-chops bulldog. *He gets a grip on a
person's ankle -- before, perhaps, moving upwards into more
vulnerable bodily and legal areas -- and hangs on forever.
Or, at least, the number of years is large enough to make it
seem like forever.

* * *Then there isFrankNiro. *He had serious health
problems, and now this fated human moth is heading
south into the U.S. Open flame. *The man must have
been driven mad by illness and his stint as USCF
executive director. *Or, in a fit of penitential
maundering, he has settled upon painful,
chest-pounding self-destruction as a penance. *There
are simply no other explanations for his wishing to
attend the U.S. Open -- of all possible chess tournaments.

* * * So, then, Mr.Nirowill launch his own Charge of
the Light Chess Brigade. *"C'est magnifique, mais ce
n'est pas la guerre," said the French military
observer Bosquet while viewing the attack. *We imagine
Mr.Niro, like Chesterton's Napoleon of Notting Hill
in the eponymous novel, carrying a pennant -- perhaps
of Oregon City, Oregon -- and expiring even as he
drives its pointed shaft into the left foot of Randy Bauer.

* * * Mr. Bauer will then be hopping about on his
right hoof, holding his left in total agony, screaming
for a doctor. *Mr.Niro'sinert form will be lying
face down on the hotel carpet at the Delegates
Meeting. *A curious bystander will prod at the corpse
with a foot and eventually turn it over. *His eyelids
unclosed, Mr.Nirowill be staring upwards, a subtle
smile on his lips that will eventually, in rigor
mortis, harden into a very wicked grin.

* * * Unnoticed by others, Paul Truong will saunter
past the hopping Mr. Bauer and bring down with
crushing force the elevated heel of his right shoe
onto the toes of Mr. Bauer's uninjured foot. *The
latter will then fly through the air onto the floor,
his corpus jerking like a speared fish, with redoubled
cries of agony beyond bearing.

* * * Nearby, Sam Sloan quietly draws a line throughFrankNiro'sname as among the defendants of his lawsuit.

Yours, Larry Parr

I'm going to the U.S. Open for two reasons, and two reasons only:

1) To play the game I love: Chess;
and,
2) To show my new wife the city of Dallas, TX, where I lived from 2000
to 2002.

I'm not afraid of anyone and I have nothing to hide. If the laptop in
question was still alive, I'd bring it with me. Maybe my old back-up
cd-roms will be of interest to someone someday. But certainly not in
the way Mr. Sloan thinks.

All of the financial data for the U.S.C.F. was either on Linda
Legenos' computer, or Barbara Vandermark's computer, or my desktop
computer in the office in New Windsor. I did not remove anything from
any of the office desktop computers, and left them all behind. Not to
mention the audit workpapers that were still in the possession of the
auditors when I resigned. Even my laptop was left in the office (on
purpose), so that my successor(s) could examine the files and take
anything they needed. That's why it was two or three weeks later when
I asked for it.

Everything that was on my website (shut down at the request of my
children for privacy reasons) is in my blog archives (or soon will
be), including the exact text of what I wrote about Susan and Paul on
my web site. The only omission (same reason) are photos of my children
and grandson.

The blog is free while the website costs money. I know how to blog
(thanks to training from pokerpages.com)but I don't know how to
maintain a web site. So switching from a web site to a blog (4 of them
actually) was a simple decision. I did that on July 31, 2007. It had
nothing to do with anything related to Sam Sloan, Susan Polgar or Paul
Truong.

By the way, I hope you are well these days, Larry. Please give my
regards to Dato Tan.

Best wishes,
Frank

On Feb 28, 9:02 pm, wrote:
On Feb 20, 11:15 pm, " wrote:



THINGS TO COME?

Susan Polgar's call for full transparency is more
than an exercise in good USCF citizenship. It is also
an unmistakable threat to the Board majority. And
almost certainly a substantive threat.

Namely: a bunch of podunk chess politicians, who
were feeling their power-oats, committed countless
arrogant acts that make no legal sense whatsoever and
have likely empowered Truong-Polgar in this legal case.

If one understands the true nature and, more
importantly, the manifestations of the political beast
that is a USCF politician, one understands that
irresponsible, self-defeating arrogance has been and
continues to be the modus operandi.

The self-confident and very detailed demands by
Susan Polgar for full disclosure leads me to alter an
earlier conclusion. I wrote that were Sam's legal
action dismissed tomorrow, GM Polgar would still rue
the day she ever became involved in USCF politics.

The glimmer of a different outcome peaks through
the curtain of events yet to come. Sam's legal action,
whatever its objective merits, will likely fail because
because the legal talent arrayed against our caped
crusader will outmatch his legal savvy and resources.
But there is another legal action that suggests itself:
Polgar-Truong v USCF. And that could turn out to be
the final chapter for the USCF as we know it.

What would better serve chess promotion in the
United States? The semi-public USCF that we have now
or a privately held USCF, owned and run by
Polgar-Truong?

But none of the above answers the question that
stays with me: why did Susan and Paul court Nemesis
in the form of Sam Sloan? Whether he is in the right
or the wrong, Sam's essential characteristic is constant:
he is a slavering-at-the-chops bulldog. He gets a grip on a
person's ankle -- before, perhaps, moving upwards into more
vulnerable bodily and legal areas -- and hangs on forever.
Or, at least, the number of years is large enough to make it
seem like forever.

Then there isFrankNiro. He had serious health
problems, and now this fated human moth is heading
south into the U.S. Open flame. The man must have
been driven mad by illness and his stint as USCF
executive director. Or, in a fit of penitential
maundering, he has settled upon painful,
chest-pounding self-destruction as a penance. There
are simply no other explanations for his wishing to
attend the U.S. Open -- of all possible chess tournaments.

So, then, Mr.Nirowill launch his own Charge of
the Light Chess Brigade. "C'est magnifique, mais ce
n'est pas la guerre," said the French military
observer Bosquet while viewing the attack. We imagine
Mr.Niro, like Chesterton's Napoleon of Notting Hill
in the eponymous novel, carrying a pennant -- perhaps
of Oregon City, Oregon -- and expiring even as he
drives its pointed shaft into the left foot of Randy Bauer.

Mr. Bauer will then be hopping about on his
right hoof, holding his left in total agony, screaming
for a doctor. Mr.Niro'sinert form will be lying
face down on the hotel carpet at the Delegates
Meeting. A curious bystander will prod at the corpse
with a foot and eventually turn it over. His eyelids
unclosed, Mr.Nirowill be staring upwards, a subtle
smile on his lips that will eventually, in rigor
mortis, harden into a very wicked grin.

Unnoticed by others, Paul Truong will saunter
past the hopping Mr. Bauer and bring down with
crushing force the elevated heel of his right shoe
onto the toes of Mr. Bauer's uninjured foot. The
latter will then fly through the air onto the floor,
his corpus jerking like a speared fish, with redoubled
cries of agony beyond bearing.

Nearby, Sam Sloan quietly draws a line throughFrankNiro'sname as among the defendants of his lawsuit.

Yours, Larry Parr

I'm going to the U.S. Open for two reasons, and two reasons only:

1) To play the game I love: Chess;
and,
2) To show my new wife the city of Dallas, TX, where I lived from 2000
to 2002.

I'm not afraid of anyone and I have nothing to hide. If the laptop in
question was still alive, I'd bring it with me. Maybe my old back-up
cd-roms will be of interest to someone someday. But certainly not in
the way Mr. Sloan thinks.

All of the financial data for the U.S.C.F. was either on Linda
Legenos' computer, or Barbara Vandermark's computer, or my desktop
computer in the office in New Windsor. I did not remove anything from
any of the office desktop computers, and left them all behind. Not to
mention the audit workpapers that were still in the possession of the
auditors when I resigned. Even my laptop was left in the office (on
purpose), so that my successor(s) could examine the files and take
anything they needed. That's why it was two or three weeks later when
I asked for it.

Everything that was on my website (shut down at the request of my
children for privacy reasons) is in my blog archives (or soon will
be), including the exact text of what I wrote about Susan and Paul on
my web site. The only omission (same reason) are photos of my children
and grandson.

The blog is free while the website costs money. I know how to blog
(thanks to training from pokerpages.com)but I don't know how to
maintain a web site. So switching from a web site to a blog (4 of them
actually) was a simple decision. I did that on July 31, 2007. It had
nothing to do with anything related to Sam Sloan, Susan Polgar or Paul
Truong.

By the way, I hope you are well these days, Larry. Please give my
regards to Dato Tan.

Best wishes,
Frank

If what you write here is true, you still have a chance to recover
your reputation, even though you are just now coming out of hiding
after five years after you disappeared in August, 2003.

Right now, your credibility is zero. Nobody who had any past dealings
with you believes anything you say any more. We have all been burned
by you.

If you want to come clean the first two things you should do is:

1. Make yourself available to your lawyer, Jeremy Brown of Proskauer
Rose and

2. Hand over that laptop to the USCF's Internet lawyer, Karl
Kronenberger

We are not interested in hearing from you that there is nothing on the
laptop. That laptop does not belong to you. It belongs to the USCF.
So, return it.

Do not give that laptop to Bill Hall. He will probably just trash it
and then blame everything on you. We know from experience that Bill
Hall lies constantly. His reputation is the same as yours, zero.

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:

Posted to:
rec.games.chess.politics,
rec.games.chess.misc,
alt.chess

Excellent! Suddenly I am motivated to pay attention to the
substance of your posts, now that you aren't harassing
the computer chess newsgroups.


On Feb 28, 9:02 pm, wrote:

I'm not afraid of anyone and I have nothing to hide. If the laptop in
question was still alive, I'd bring it with me. Maybe my old back-up
cd-roms will be of interest to someone someday. But certainly not in
the way Mr. Sloan thinks.

I see no reason not to turn it over to a USCF lawyer, broken or not.

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

On Feb 28, 10:58 pm, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:
samsloan wrote:

Posted to:
rec.games.chess.politics,
rec.games.chess.misc,
alt.chess

Excellent! Suddenly I am motivated to pay attention to the
substance of your posts, now that you aren't harassing
the computer chess newsgroups.

On Feb 28, 9:02 pm, wrote:
I'm not afraid of anyone and I have nothing to hide. If the laptop in
question was still alive, I'd bring it with me. Maybe my old back-up
cd-roms will be of interest to someone someday. But certainly not in
the way Mr. Sloan thinks.

I see no reason not to turn it over to a USCF lawyer, broken or not.

--
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Thank you. Mr. Frank Niro faces jail time for the theft of that
laptop. It will certainly be much easier for him if he simply returns
it. He can of course copy the pictures of his children off of that
laptop. He did not have to take the laptop to do that.

On the morning of August 20, 2003, Mike Nolan learned that lighting
had hit his home in Omaha, Nebraska and he had to resign his position
with the USCF and return there on an emergency basis. As he was
leaving the USCF offices in New Windsor New York, he saw Paul Truong
and Frank Niro entering the offices. He had checked to make sure that
the laptop was sitting on the Executive Director's desk just before he
left.

A few minutes later, the newly elected USCF officials, Beatriz
Marinello, the new president, and Tim Hanke, the new VP of Finance,
arrived. The first thing they did was go to look at that laptop to see
what information it contained, only to discover that the laptop was
missing. By that time, Paul Truong and Susan Polgar had left the
building.

Marinello and Hanke quickly found out that the USCF was hundreds of
thousands of dollars overdrawn at the bank and deeply in debt, whereas
Frank Niro had been telling them that the USCF was in good financial
condition and operating at a big surplus. The USCF was virtually
bankrupt. Marinello and Hanke had no choice but to fire 17 employees,
which they did that same day.

Naturally, there were many people who could have taken the missing
laptop. Certainly the 17 terminated employees were likely suspects.
Nobody really thought about the possibility that Susan Polgar and Paul
Truong might have taken it, especially since they had only been in the
office for a few minutes and only Mike Nolan had seen them there.

Four years later, in 2007, on his website at chesssafari.com, Frank
Niro "thanked" Susan Polgar and Paul Truong for bringing him the
laptop, which he needed to write his memoirs. That was the first hint
or clue that Polgar and Truong had taken the laptop.

There is absolutely no doubt, none whatever, that the laptop belongs
to the USCF and the data and information on that laptop belongs to the
USCF too. There is also the question of the missing $2 million in USCF
funds. Information at to what happened to that money should be on that
laptop. Frank Niro is facing time serious time in jail if he does not
return the laptop.

Sam Sloan