I have attempted to post the following on the USCF Issues Forum in
response to a post by Marknibb
------------------------------------------------------------

Lafferty wrote:
What the USCF needs, IMO, is to completely restructure itself along the
lines of some of the best run non-profit corporations. There are models
that could be used to do this as well as non-profit organizations and
foundations that will help with this process. Failing that, the USCF
may find itself in a court ordered restructuring plan or dissolution by
either a bankruptcy court or court order resulting from action by the
Illinois Attorney General. It's time to wake up and smell the
coffee.[/quote]

Marknibb wrote
Brian, you may have well come across the topic that can unite the USCF's
many factions. Where does the money go??
My question is why does it cost so much for so little? I'm actually
only a member only so I can donate my time to promoting chess. I think
that costs too much.[/quote]

Lafferty replied
Mark, I know that in the past you have presented yourself as neutral and
unbiased on a number of issues from Truong's problems to scholastic
chess. It is only possible to unite factions within the USCF if all of
us are open, transparent, above board and without hidden agendas.

In that regard, I have a question for you about a communication you
apparently made to Bill Brock on Saturday, August 5, 2006 in which you
apparently wrote to Mr. Brock stating,

"I spoke with Garrett Scott the other day and learned a lot about USCF
politics. I think he came to the conclusion years ago that they were so
messed up that the organization may be hopeless. I hate to put words in
his mouth, but that's what I took away from talking to him. He and I
talked about driving up to the open on Monday to see people, meet
people, talk with people, maybe attend the USCF Chess in Education
seminar. Not so sure we will attempt that but I'll be talking to him
tomorrow. He did say as far as he is concerned the USCF is probably
about a ready to fall apart and that someone with some money could
probably separate scholastics from USCF. I guess we will see what
happens. [b]I personally would like to see the Polgar Foundation
become the US Scholastic Chess organization. I will probably
mention that to her if I see her. I'm not opposed to Sevan's group,
although I'm not sure if he could deliver what he has promised and I'm
not sure he has the name recognition to make an effective break.”

So my question to you Mark is, are you really interested in making
scholastic chess work within the framework of the USCF, or do you seek
to take scholastics out of USCF control along with others of whom I will
have more to say and documentation to reveal in the near future?

On Mar 8, 7:10 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
I have attempted to post the following on the USCF Issues Forum in
response to a post by Marknibb
------------------------------------------------------------

Lafferty wrote:

What the USCF needs, IMO, is to completely restructure itself along the
lines of some of the best run non-profit corporations. There are models
that could be used to do this as well as non-profit organizations and
foundations that will help with this process. Failing that, the USCF
may find itself in a court ordered restructuring plan or dissolution by
either a bankruptcy court or court order resulting from action by the
Illinois Attorney General. It's time to wake up and smell the
coffee.[/quote]

Marknibb wrote
Brian, you may have well come across the topic that can unite the USCF's
many factions. Where does the money go??
My question is why does it cost so much for so little? I'm actually
only a member only so I can donate my time to promoting chess. I think
that costs too much.[/quote]

Lafferty replied
Mark, I know that in the past you have presented yourself as neutral and
unbiased on a number of issues from Truong's problems to scholastic
chess. It is only possible to unite factions within the USCF if all of
us are open, transparent, above board and without hidden agendas.

In that regard, I have a question for you about a communication you
apparently made to Bill Brock on Saturday, August 5, 2006 in which you
apparently wrote to Mr. Brock stating,

"I spoke with Garrett Scott the other day and learned a lot about USCF
politics. I think he came to the conclusion years ago that they were so
messed up that the organization may be hopeless. I hate to put words in
his mouth, but that's what I took away from talking to him. He and I
talked about driving up to the open on Monday to see people, meet
people, talk with people, maybe attend the USCF Chess in Education
seminar. Not so sure we will attempt that but I'll be talking to him
tomorrow. He did say as far as he is concerned the USCF is probably
about a ready to fall apart and that someone with some money could
probably separate scholastics from USCF. I guess we will see what
happens. [b]I personally would like to see the Polgar Foundation
become the US Scholastic Chess organization. I will probably
mention that to her if I see her. I'm not opposed to Sevan's group,
although I'm not sure if he could deliver what he has promised and I'm
not sure he has the name recognition to make an effective break."

So my question to you Mark is, are you really interested in making
scholastic chess work within the framework of the USCF, or do you seek
to take scholastics out of USCF control along with others of whom I will
have more to say and documentation to reveal in the near future?

Everyone knows that without the cash cow of scholastics, the USCF
folds.

On Mar 8, 8:10 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
I have attempted to post the following on the USCF Issues Forum in
response to a post by Marknibb
------------------------------------------------------------

Lafferty wrote:

What the USCF needs, IMO, is to completely restructure itself along the
lines of some of the best run non-profit corporations. There are models
that could be used to do this as well as non-profit organizations and
foundations that will help with this process. Failing that, the USCF
may find itself in a court ordered restructuring plan or dissolution by
either a bankruptcy court or court order resulting from action by the
Illinois Attorney General. It's time to wake up and smell the
coffee.[/quote]

Marknibb wrote
Brian, you may have well come across the topic that can unite the USCF's
many factions. Where does the money go??
My question is why does it cost so much for so little? I'm actually
only a member only so I can donate my time to promoting chess. I think
that costs too much.[/quote]

Lafferty replied
Mark, I know that in the past you have presented yourself as neutral and
unbiased on a number of issues from Truong's problems to scholastic
chess. It is only possible to unite factions within the USCF if all of
us are open, transparent, above board and without hidden agendas.

In that regard, I have a question for you about a communication you
apparently made to BillBrockon Saturday, August 5, 2006 in which you
apparently wrote to Mr.Brockstating,

"I spoke with Garrett Scott the other day and learned a lot about USCF
politics. I think he came to the conclusion years ago that they were so
messed up that the organization may be hopeless. I hate to put words in
his mouth, but that's what I took away from talking to him. He and I
talked about driving up to the open on Monday to see people, meet
people, talk with people, maybe attend the USCF Chess in Education
seminar. Not so sure we will attempt that but I'll be talking to him
tomorrow. He did say as far as he is concerned the USCF is probably
about a ready to fall apart and that someone with some money could
probably separate scholastics from USCF. I guess we will see what
happens. [b]I personally would like to see the Polgar Foundation
become the US Scholastic Chess organization. I will probably
mention that to her if I see her. I'm not opposed to Sevan's group,
although I'm not sure if he could deliver what he has promised and I'm
not sure he has the name recognition to make an effective break."

So my question to you Mark is, are you really interested in making
scholastic chess work within the framework of the USCF, or do you seek
to take scholastics out of USCF control along with others of whom I will
have more to say and documentation to reveal in the near future?


I don't agree with my friend Mark Nibbelin on every issue, and he and
I may not have formed the same opinion of the chararcter of third
parties.

But Mark is a person of great integrity who is committed to improving
scholastic chess in the US. Corny as it may sound, he cares about
bringing this great game to more children. One can verify his by
visiting ilchess.org (check out both the current forum and the old,
archived forum).

While making a buck in an honorable profession is a good thing, I am
painfully aware that many scholastic organizers have wished to cut
USCF and state organizations out of the picture to grab a greater
share of an admittedly lucrative market. Mark is emphatically not in
it for the money: he's always looked for ways to keep costs reasonable
to the children and to deliver value to them.

Many other scholastic organizers see USCF as worse than useless. This
is not a new problem: after the Fischer boom/bust, market forces made
CCA the only game in town, and gave USCF an adult chess focus. (In
the Hochberg years, Chess LIfe had better articles for beginners as
well.) Goichberg the businessman deserves credit for being a survivor
through so many down cycles. But USCF's mission is not simply to
publish a promotional mailing for CCA's benefit.

To turn any part of USCF's business over to an anti-Goichberg camp
would be to repeat the same mistake. Over the years, we've had more
than a few board members who have "difficulty" "avoiding" self-
inurement in fact or in appearance. (I have tickets to prove that I
was on a commercial flight when I wrote the last sentence.)

But I can't blame honest, committed volunteers like Mark for searching
for an alternative to USCF. He questions whether USCF (or ICA, for
that matter) deliver value to him as a volunteer, when his USGA
membership only costs $15. https://members.usga.org/enrollment/join.asp

We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is.

Now that your here, Bill, tell us about those payments to Sevan M. from
ICA that were given in a manner that the IRS will be interested in. As
a CPA and president od ICA at the time, what was going on? I believe
there were ICA members who questioned the payments at the time and who
have been harassed for wanting the payments recorded and made in the
correct manner. If you need a refresher on that issue, I can help with
documentation. We'll leave the Caveman for later.

wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:10 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
I have attempted to post the following on the USCF Issues Forum in
response to a post by Marknibb
------------------------------------------------------------

Lafferty wrote:

What the USCF needs, IMO, is to completely restructure itself along the
lines of some of the best run non-profit corporations. There are models
that could be used to do this as well as non-profit organizations and
foundations that will help with this process. Failing that, the USCF
may find itself in a court ordered restructuring plan or dissolution by
either a bankruptcy court or court order resulting from action by the
Illinois Attorney General. It's time to wake up and smell the
coffee.[/quote]

Marknibb wrote
Brian, you may have well come across the topic that can unite the USCF's
many factions. Where does the money go??
My question is why does it cost so much for so little? I'm actually
only a member only so I can donate my time to promoting chess. I think
that costs too much.[/quote]

Lafferty replied
Mark, I know that in the past you have presented yourself as neutral and
unbiased on a number of issues from Truong's problems to scholastic
chess. It is only possible to unite factions within the USCF if all of
us are open, transparent, above board and without hidden agendas.

In that regard, I have a question for you about a communication you
apparently made to BillBrockon Saturday, August 5, 2006 in which you
apparently wrote to Mr.Brockstating,

"I spoke with Garrett Scott the other day and learned a lot about USCF
politics. I think he came to the conclusion years ago that they were so
messed up that the organization may be hopeless. I hate to put words in
his mouth, but that's what I took away from talking to him. He and I
talked about driving up to the open on Monday to see people, meet
people, talk with people, maybe attend the USCF Chess in Education
seminar. Not so sure we will attempt that but I'll be talking to him
tomorrow. He did say as far as he is concerned the USCF is probably
about a ready to fall apart and that someone with some money could
probably separate scholastics from USCF. I guess we will see what
happens. [b]I personally would like to see the Polgar Foundation
become the US Scholastic Chess organization. I will probably
mention that to her if I see her. I'm not opposed to Sevan's group,
although I'm not sure if he could deliver what he has promised and I'm
not sure he has the name recognition to make an effective break."

So my question to you Mark is, are you really interested in making
scholastic chess work within the framework of the USCF, or do you seek
to take scholastics out of USCF control along with others of whom I will
have more to say and documentation to reveal in the near future?


I don't agree with my friend Mark Nibbelin on every issue, and he and
I may not have formed the same opinion of the chararcter of third
parties.

But Mark is a person of great integrity who is committed to improving
scholastic chess in the US. Corny as it may sound, he cares about
bringing this great game to more children. One can verify his by
visiting ilchess.org (check out both the current forum and the old,
archived forum).

While making a buck in an honorable profession is a good thing, I am
painfully aware that many scholastic organizers have wished to cut
USCF and state organizations out of the picture to grab a greater
share of an admittedly lucrative market. Mark is emphatically not in
it for the money: he's always looked for ways to keep costs reasonable
to the children and to deliver value to them.

Many other scholastic organizers see USCF as worse than useless. This
is not a new problem: after the Fischer boom/bust, market forces made
CCA the only game in town, and gave USCF an adult chess focus. (In
the Hochberg years, Chess LIfe had better articles for beginners as
well.) Goichberg the businessman deserves credit for being a survivor
through so many down cycles. But USCF's mission is not simply to
publish a promotional mailing for CCA's benefit.

To turn any part of USCF's business over to an anti-Goichberg camp
would be to repeat the same mistake. Over the years, we've had more
than a few board members who have "difficulty" "avoiding" self-
inurement in fact or in appearance. (I have tickets to prove that I
was on a commercial flight when I wrote the last sentence.)

But I can't blame honest, committed volunteers like Mark for searching
for an alternative to USCF. He questions whether USCF (or ICA, for
that matter) deliver value to him as a volunteer, when his USGA
membership only costs $15. https://members.usga.org/enrollment/join.asp

On Mar 9, 2:17 am, wrote:

But USCF's mission is not simply to
publish a promotional mailing for CCA's benefit.

To turn any part of USCF's business over to an anti-Goichberg camp
would be to repeat the same mistake. Over the years, we've had more
than a few board members who have "difficulty" "avoiding" self-
inurement in fact or in appearance. (I have tickets to prove that I
was on a commercial flight when I wrote the last sentence.)

Wonderful. This proves that Truong's defense of "I was on an airplane"
and therefore could not have posted as the Fake Sam Sloan or as the
"Voice of Reason" is invalid.

Was that what you had in mind when writing this?

I agree with your other points.

Goichberg is now pushing his idea of a "College Chess Tournament of
Champions". His idea is that since there are 42,000 USCF members aged
16 and under but only 200 USCF members aged 23, this tournament will
keep scholastic players in the USCF into adulthood so that they will
play in Goichberg adult tournaments.

Meanwhile, my plans to bring in one million scholastic members by year
2009 have been completely dropped since I lost the election. There has
been no discussion, none whatever, about doing things to promote
scholastic chess ever since I lost the election. All of my plans and
ideas (which Goichberg claimed were stolen from others, whereas I
freely admit that I did not originate any of my ideas) have been
dropped.

Sam Sloan

On Mar 9, 4:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is.

Now that your here, Bill, tell us about those payments to Sevan M. from
ICA that were given in a manner that the IRS will be interested in. As
a CPA and president od ICA at the time, what was going on?

Dangling participle.

I believe
there were ICA members who questioned the payments at the time and who
have been harassed for wanting the payments recorded and made in the
correct manner. If you need a refresher on that issue, I can help with
documentation. We'll leave the Caveman for later.

There was the famous "puzzled" thread. I have no idea whether
"puzzled" was an ICA member.

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...=000040#000003

I did not, and would not, countenance a structure that would result in
personal inurement to the organizer.

Please help with documentation: it's tax season. :-)

snipped
Meanwhile, my plans to bring in one million scholastic members by year
2009 have been completely dropped since I lost the election. There has
been no discussion, none whatever, about doing things to promote
scholastic chess ever since I lost the election. All of my plans and
ideas (which Goichberg claimed were stolen from others, whereas I
freely admit that I did not originate any of my ideas) have been
dropped.

Thats because they have been bogged down with another on of your
annual lawsuits. I believe the USCF could solve it's financial
problems by creating a pool and wagering on what the next Sloan
lawsuit will be.
Sam Sloan

wrote:
On Mar 9, 4:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is.

Now that your here, Bill, tell us about those payments to Sevan M. from
ICA that were given in a manner that the IRS will be interested in. As
a CPA and president od ICA at the time, what was going on?

Dangling participle.

I believe
there were ICA members who questioned the payments at the time and who
have been harassed for wanting the payments recorded and made in the
correct manner. If you need a refresher on that issue, I can help with
documentation. We'll leave the Caveman for later.

There was the famous "puzzled" thread. I have no idea whether
"puzzled" was an ICA member.

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...=000040#000003

I did not, and would not, countenance a structure that would result in
personal inurement to the organizer.

Please help with documentation: it's tax season. :-)

There's no hurry. It's always audit season for the IRS.

On Mar 9, 4:00 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
wrote:
On Mar 9, 4:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is.

Now that your here, Bill, tell us about those payments to Sevan M. from
ICA that were given in a manner that the IRS will be interested in. As
a CPA and president od ICA at the time, what was going on?

Dangling participle.

I believe
there were ICA members who questioned the payments at the time and who
have been harassed for wanting the payments recorded and made in the
correct manner. If you need a refresher on that issue, I can help with
documentation. We'll leave the Caveman for later.

There was the famous "puzzled" thread. I have no idea whether
"puzzled" was an ICA member.

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000040#...

I did not, and would not, countenance a structure that would result in
personal inurement to the organizer.

Please help with documentation: it's tax season. :-)

There's no hurry. It's always audit season for the IRS.

One should be careful with one's statements when the reputation of
others are at stake. As I have done before, I invite you to provide
evidence for your remarks above, or to withdraw them. I have nothing
to hide with respect to the matter referenced above, and really don't
take kindly to having the character of my friends smeared baselessly.

No need to appease me, however: let the truth guide your response.

More reading for you:

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...=000088#000002

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...=000503#000008

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...1;t=000486;p=1

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...=000263#000005

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...=000438#000007

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...=000520#000004

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...1;t=000552;p=1

On Mar 9, 5:37 pm, wrote:
On Mar 9, 4:00 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:



wrote:
On Mar 9, 4:39 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
We can all honestly debate scholastics and the direction scholastics
should take. That is not the issue here. The issue is that what Mr. N.
presents himself as, is apparently not what he is.

Now that your here, Bill, tell us about those payments to Sevan M. from
ICA that were given in a manner that the IRS will be interested in. As
a CPA and president od ICA at the time, what was going on?

Dangling participle.

I believe
there were ICA members who questioned the payments at the time and who
have been harassed for wanting the payments recorded and made in the
correct manner. If you need a refresher on that issue, I can help with
documentation. We'll leave the Caveman for later.

There was the famous "puzzled" thread. I have no idea whether
"puzzled" was an ICA member.

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000040#...

I did not, and would not, countenance a structure that would result in
personal inurement to the organizer.

Please help with documentation: it's tax season. :-)

There's no hurry. It's always audit season for the IRS.

One should be careful with one's statements when the reputation of
others are at stake. As I have done before, I invite you to provide
evidence for your remarks above, or to withdraw them. I have nothing
to hide with respect to the matter referenced above, and really don't
take kindly to having the character of my friends smeared baselessly.

No need to appease me, however: let the truth guide your response.

More reading for you:

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000088#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000503#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...1;t=000486;p=1

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000263#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000438#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...;f=1;t=000520#...

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...1;t=000552;p=1

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...=000347#000000

http://www.ilchess.org/cgi/ultimateb...=000645#000000