From chessdiscussion.com:
by PaulTruong on Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:56 pm
Dietmar,

"We only asked for access to verify the data in the beginning because
there were too many things that did not make sense. We knew for sure
that if we had access to the data, we can prove / disprove quite a few
things. Our numerous requests were turned down immediately back in
September and Mr. Goichberg was the first and loudest opponent of
releasing the data. The requests and rejections were both done in
writing. Why are they so afraid to let us see the data? What are they
hiding? I am quite knowledgeable in computer and some people want the
members to think that I made 2,500 elementary mistakes?"

The short answer, Mr. Truong, is YES. Ask any prosecutor about stupid
mistakes. :-)
__________________________________________________ ________________


"As this situation progressed, more wrong doing took place which
directly / indirectly pointed at specific individuals. The board
majority refused to investigate the leads we provided. There were more
specific leaks and misconducts. Sloan answered the motion to dismiss
with some confidential information which we provided to the board
majority and their attorney. Only the board majority and their attorney
have this confidential info. So how did Sloan get it?"

Specifics please. Tell us and don't claim it's confidential anymore as
it's now, according to you Mr. Truong, part of papers filed with the
Federal court in NY
----------------------------------------------------------

"We know that Jerry Hanken had at least 2 unauthorized negotiation
sessions with Sloan. We know the relationship between Jerry Hanken and
some members of the board majority. We know there were discussions among
members of the board majority involving Susan's children and interfering
with the insurance company, etc. We know at lot more and they know we
know it. That is why the board majority cannot publicly deny all 10
points which Susan brought up."

This is a straw man that Mr. Truong's minions raised a number of times
previously. Mr. Hanken and anyone else, is entitled to attempt to bring
the parties to a settlement solution. Indeed, last week I spoke at
length with Mr. Sloan and he agreed to propose a settlement. That
settlement was relayed to Bill Hall by another USCF member--not me.
Since I am not a party nor am I representing anyone in this action, I'll
tell you what Mr. Sloan offered, in-as-much-as the offer has not been
perused by the USCF and it is highly doubtful if the offer is still
viable. He offered to settle the action as to the USCF (not
Polgar/Truong) as follows:
1. The EB votes to remove Truong and Polgar as board members.
2. The EB calls a new election to fill the two vacancies.

That's essentially it. Mr. Sloan was not looking for any money
what-so-ever to settle as to the USCF.
----------------------------------------------------------

"Do they really think that people like Sloan and the people they leaked
the info to can keep their mouths shut? They were only too happy to brag
about it. We are not looking to destroy anyone. We are only protecting
ourselves and the USCF from further legal disaster. We just want a
simple public apology from the USCF board majority and then we all can
head back doing what we were elected to do as a team. Without this, we
have no choice but to pursue this matter all the way to completely clear
our names, especially when our lives, families, children, jobs and
safety were turn upside down. They have gone way too far and their ego
is stopping them from protecting this federation."

I see that Mr. Truong has changed the wording to "upside down." Is Mr.
Truong no longer alleging that threats were made to Polgar and her
children? If so, was Mr. Truong lying previously?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"We know that Randy Bauer and Joel Channing were not involved in this
matter. Everything else is unclear and that is why we have to pursue our
own investigation, using our own money, resources, and not USCF. Can the
board majority say the same? They even refused to release the total
amount they have spent so far on legal fees and other expenses relating
to this matter. It is at least $50K and this can go up significantly.
This is why we requested for everything to come out to end this nonsense
once in for all. This is not Goichberg vs. Truong. This is about the
future of the USCF. Unless these types of conducts by chess politicians
are stopped once in for all, the USCF will be in serious trouble. This
is why I cannot do anything to compromise it."

Oh, has Mr. Truong, at his own expense, hired a forensic expert who will
state that the Mottershead Report is flawed? I trust that Polgar/Truong
are satisfied with substitute counsel provided to them, presumably at
Chubb's expense.

I do agree that this is about the future of the USCF. This is
particularly true in relation to the conduct of Mr. Truong as the FSS
and his wife who supports him.

Best regards,
Brian Lafferty
--------------------------------------------------------------

Best regards,
PT

From chessdiscussion.com by PaulTruong on Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:56 pm

"As this situation progressed, more wrong doing took place which
directly / indirectly pointed at specific individuals. The board
majority refused to investigate the leads we provided. There were more
specific leaks and misconducts. Sloan answered the motion to dismiss
with some confidential information which we provided to the board
majority and their attorney. Only the board majority and their attorney
have this confidential info. So how did Sloan get it?"

Best regards,
PT

I am interested in learning more about this specific allegation The
fact is that I have received no information from the board,
confidential or otherwise, since I left the board in August 2007. I
have not even spoken to any member of the board or exchanged emails
with any member of the board since that time.

However, I do speak to almost everybody else in chess, as I did all
last weekend when I spent three days attending the US Amateur Team
East Chess Championship in Parsippany New Jersey.

None of the information I provided in my two affidavits to the court
was "confidential". Almost all of it was known to any regular reader
of this forum. Here are the only paragraphs from my affidavit to which
Paul Truong could possibly be referring:


35. Gregory Alexander is not "from the USCF". He is a close associate
of Polgar and Truong. He is also the webmaster of their website. The
"plane tickets" defense we already know about. It is one of the
standard defenses Truong uses. Another is the "somebody is following
me" defense. The "plane tickets" defense was used in the "Voice of
Reason" case where Mig Greengard who had previously been one of their
strongest supporters realized that his Daily Dirt website was being
bombarded with postings by all sorts of different people all saying
the same thing and all posting from the same IP address. This is one
of Paul Truong's modus operandi. Truong creates dozens of fake
personalities and posts under their names. When Mig Greengard realized
that all these different identities were the same person, Truong and
Polgar claimed that it could not have been them since they were
traveling at the time and were on an airplane in mid-flight. This is
probably the sort of "rock solid" evidence they claim to have recently
provided to the board proving that it was not them. An Internet gadfly
has posted what he calls "The List of the Blind Monkey" listing so far
41 ridiculous defenses presented by Truong allies which supposedly
prove that they could not possibly be responsible for the 2,464
postings by the Fake Sam Sloan. The "somebody is following me" defense
we know about too. It was also used by Paul Truong when in 2003 it was
proven through IP addresses that he was the same person as "Bob
Bennett".

36. In the last month or so, new fake posters have appeared. Their
postings are "remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer
software". They sometimes sign as "Sam Sloan" but usually do not give
a name at all. Top suspects are Gregory Alexander and Paul Truong but
it could be anybody. These anonymous fakes are posting every day
lately, so please take a look.

37. Another issue in this case concerns the sale of the USCF building
in New Windsor. In November, 2004, the USCF owned a fully paid for
office building in New Windsor, New York. Bill Goichberg took it upon
himself to sell it. He never consulted the board. There was no debate
nor vote on this issue. At least two board members, Frank Brady and
Don Schultz, were adamantly opposed to this sale and would have voted
against had it come up for a vote. Unfortunately, Bill Goichberg who
was Executive Director at the time, seems to treat the USCF as if he
owns it and makes decisions without consulting the delegates or the
board. The complete USCF minutes for every meeting for that period are
available online. One can check the minutes and see that nowhere in
the minutes does it show that the board ever debated, voted on and
passed a resolution to sell the building. In short, the sale of the
building was illegal, without corporate authority.

38. It is important to note that New Windsor is in Orange County which
is in the Southern District of New York. Since most of the bad acts
that are the subject of this lawsuit took place in New Windsor, this
establishes the jurisdiction and venue of this court.

39. Finally, the USCF election itself was rife with fraud. Three times
during the election campaign period I was suspended from posting for
ten days each. Goichberg and Co. appointed the most hostile moderators
they could find to moderate my postings and the postings of anybody
who supported me including as moderators Gregory Alexander, Herbert
Rodney Vaughn and Louis Blair. Not only was I suspended from posting
but anybody who supported me was suspended from posting as well.
Anybody who asked an embarrassing question of Polgar and Truong had
their postings pulled and was suspended from posting. Questions asking
Polgar and Truong whether they were married to each other or not were
not allowed. Questions were not allowed asking about the eleven
national chess championships Truong falsely claims to have won or
about the fake PhD degree Truong claimed to have had or about the
billion dollar corporations Truong claims to have rescued and saved.
More than one thousand postings were pulled by the pro-Truong and pro-
Polgar moderators. Dozens of individual USCF members were suspended
from posting. I protested vehemently at the appointments by Goichberg
of these anti-Sloan and pro-Polgarite moderators. Goichberg supported
Polgar and Truong for election until just before the ballots were
mailed out. Sometimes, Goichberg would appoint a moderator who failed
to understand that his mandate was to stop me and my supporters from
posting. Although vehemently hostile to me at the time they were
appointed, a few of the moderators suddenly saw the light and reversed
course. Examples of this are Ron Suarez and Steve Owens ("Steve of
Tennessee"). When Goichberg and Channing realized that these
moderators were not carrying out their mandate to muzzle me, they
would contact these moderators, telling them to crack down on me and
my supporters. At least two moderators resigned, protesting
interference by the board, and one of the moderators committed
suicide.

40. At a hearing, I will demonstrate and prove that Bill Goichberg and
Joel Channing knew all along that Paul Truong was the "Fake Sam
Sloan". They took no steps to stop him from doing this because it
served their purposes to have someone impersonating me. Because of
these and numerous other irregularities, I will be asking this court
to declare the election null and void and to schedule a new election.
I will also request that this court enjoin Polgar, Truong, Goichberg
and Channing from running for office again or from ever holding office
in the United States Chess Federation again, due to their numerous bad
acts committed by these four defendants.

41. I am attaching as exhibits the three forensic reports that prove
that Paul Truong did it. These are The Mottershead Report, the Jones
Report and the Ulevitch Report. These reports are supported by more
than one thousand pages of data that are available online.

42. In addition, I am attaching two orders of protection of the Queens
Family Court prohibiting Susan Polgar and Paul Truong from abusing
their children (by forcing them to play chess) plus several newspaper
articles about this case. These have been three articles in the print
edition of the New York Times about this case, plus seven additional
articles in the online version of the New York Times, plus articles in
the Boston Globe for December 24, 2007, the New York Post, the Lubbock
Texas Avalanche Journal, the Daily Toreador campus newspaper of Texas
Tech University, plus articles in "The Independent" newspaper in
England. There are at least twenty online blogs and websites devoted
to this case and there have been at least one thousand Internet
postings about this case. (If this court or any of the attorneys have
received any "nutty" or "screwball" letters about this case, I hope
that the court recognizes that I have nothing to do with them. There
are some seriously disturbed people out there who also happen to play
chess.)

43. Also, be prepared to hear the "I am a victim" defense. If you look
at Susan Polgar's blogs and websites you would believe that there is
this massive conspiracy against her involving now the majority of the
Executive Board of the United States Chess Federation (who finally
stripped her of her fake titles on Saturday, February 2, 2008 (two
days ago)). She has recently accused the USCF Executive Majority of
"threatening" her children. According to her, the USCF Board now joins
a vast conspiracy. Co-conspirators include the World Chess Federation
("FIDE"), newspaper reporters in the New York Times and other
publications, the Hungarian Chess Federation and others. This probably
explains why Polgar and Truong switched attorneys two weeks ago. She
has been playing the "Everybody is Against me Because I am a Poor
Jewish Girl" role for the past 25 years. If you look at her
performance on the BBC Broadcast "My Brilliant Brain - Make Me a
Genius", now available on YouTube, you would never imagine that she
never went to school and never learned the basic skills of reading,
writing and arithmetic. Her two children complain that she cannot help
with them with their homework in the second grade because she never
learned that stuff. The only thing she can do is play chess (very
well). She communicates with the outside world by emails and Internet
postings that are undoubtedly written by Paul Truong and others, that
she will no doubt disavow when the time comes. She already claims that
she did not write her book "Queen of the King's Game" which attacks
numerous of her past sponsors and benefactors.

WHEREFORE, the motions to dismiss this case must be denied.



_____________________
Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453

917-507-7226
1-347-869-2465



If the "confidential information" to which Mr. Truong is referring is
the "somebody is following me" defense or the "I was on an airplane
and therefore it could not have been me" defense, I know about these
defenses because Truong and Polgar have used them before. The
"somebody is following me" defense was used in the Bob Bennett case
when It was proven that "Bob Bennett" always posted from the same
computer as Paul Truong, even as Truong traveled from Rego Park Queens
to the US Open in Los Angeles.

"I was on an airplane and therefore it could not have been me" defense
was used by Truong and Polgar in the "Voice of Reason" case where Mig
Greengard concluded that the numerous posts by "Voice of Reason" to
the Daily Dirt website were all by Truong.

If it is the "Everybody is against me because I am Jewish" defense,
Polgar has been using that defense for the past 25 years, so it will
not be a surprise that she had trotted out that one again.

What other "confidential information" could possibly have been leaked
from the board to me?

Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:

(If this court or any of the attorneys have received any
"nutty" or "screwball" letters about this case, I hope
that the court recognizes that I have nothing to do with
them. There are some seriously disturbed people out there
who also happen to play chess.)

From the above, it seems that you appear to wish to be seen
as being a reasonable person rather than a kook. Prove It.
Stop doing what everybody agrees is unreasonable and screwball.
Stop posting articles that have nothing to do with computer
chess to rec.games.chess.computer. Or at least do what any
reasonable person would do; engage in a disciussion about why
you refuse to stop, even when doing so cost you votes in the
election that you lost.


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

On Feb 24, 11:03 am, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Stop doing what everybody agrees is unreasonable and screwball.

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

Who is this "everybody"?

I do not see anybody else but you complaining.

Sam Sloan

On Feb 24, 10:18 am, samsloan wrote:
On Feb 24, 11:03 am, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Stop doing what everybody agrees is unreasonable and screwball.
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Who is this "everybody"?

I do not see anybody else but you complaining.

Sam Sloan

Lex which- Mitch Agrees with Guy on this one , you serial cross
poster

On Feb 24, 11:29 am, Rob wrote:
On Feb 24, 10:18 am, samsloan wrote:

On Feb 24, 11:03 am, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Stop doing what everybody agrees is unreasonable and screwball.
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Who is this "everybody"?

I do not see anybody else but you complaining.

Sam Sloan

Lex which- Mitch Agrees with Guy on this one , you serial cross
poster

I am sure that Guy Macon does not agree with Rob "The Robber" which
Mitch who changes the titles of threads so that nobody else can find
them.

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 11:03 am, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Stop doing what everybody agrees is unreasonable and screwball.

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

Who is this "everybody"?

I do not see anybody else but you complaining.

People don't complain about your posting habits, since you hardly seem able
to conduct public conversations or respect the opinions of other people.
Look at what you cut!

Or at least do what any
reasonable person would do; engage in a disciussion about why
you refuse to stop, even when doing so cost you votes in the
election that you lost.


Shall we make this a vote?
I say consistently crossposting off-topical material is offensive

that's 2:0 to stop.

Phil Innes

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" wrote in message
...
On Feb 24, 11:29 am, Rob wrote:
On Feb 24, 10:18 am, samsloan wrote:

On Feb 24, 11:03 am, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Stop doing what everybody agrees is unreasonable and screwball.
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Who is this "everybody"?

I do not see anybody else but you complaining.

Sam Sloan

Lex which- Mitch Agrees with Guy on this one , you serial cross
poster

I am sure that Guy Macon does not agree with Rob "The Robber" which
Mitch who changes the titles of threads so that nobody else can find
them.

Really? you just wrote Who is this "everybody"?
Presumable the same as 'nobody'

Score is 3 - zip

pi
Sam Sloan

samsloan wrote:

Guy Macon wrote:

Stop doing what everybody agrees is unreasonable and screwball.

Who is this "everybody"?

I do not see anybody else but you complaining.

Sam Sloan

Let's take a survey, shall we?

Does *anyone* here think that it is OK for Sam Sloan to
post things that have nothing to do with computer chess
to the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup?

On Feb 24, 10:29 am, Rob wrote:
On Feb 24, 10:18 am, samsloan wrote:

On Feb 24, 11:03 am, Guy Macon http://www.guymacon.com/ wrote:

Stop doing what everybody agrees is unreasonable and screwball.
Guy Macon
http://www.guymacon.com/

Who is this "everybody"?

I do not see anybody else but you complaining.

Sam Sloan

Lex which- Mitch Agrees with Guy on this one , you serial cross

Guy Macon wrote:

Stop doing what everybody agrees is unreasonable and screwball.

Who is this "everybody"?

I do not see anybody else but you complaining.

Sam Sloan

Let's take a survey, shall we?

Does *anyone* here think that it is OK for Sam Sloan to
post things that have nothing to do with computer chess
to the rec.games.chess.computer newsgroup?
poster