samsloan wrote:
In a message dated 4/9/2008 9:52:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
JerryHanken writes:

Dear Susan, I note that you have written a "confidential" email
repeating the same old mistatements about me to 29 people but, of
course, not to me. Golly, someone (or more) of those must have
"leaked" it to me. It's a new scandal!!

I don't want to waste my time refuting your nonsense in detail,
but Jim Berry remembers our Oak Brook encounter quite differently than
you describe, your description of our conversation in Las Vegas is
pure fiction, and I never asked you or Paul for a job.

You demand that I be fired as a writer for Chess Life. If your tales
about me are correct, even though I have written for 16 Chess Life
editors, perhaps I should not get future assignments. Of course, what
you say about me is not true at all, so shouldn't you resign from the
EB, along with Paul who should have quit long ago for refusing to
cooperate with the fake Sloan investigation?

I am copying the same 29 people you wrote to, and DARE you to put this
on your website which is filled with phony "anonymous posts" blasting
your critics and where those who disagree that you are the greatest
thing ever to happen to American chess are quickly silenced.

Of course, I am NOT marking this reply as confidential so it may
appear in lots of places. "Murder, though it hath no tongue, will
speak with most miraculous organ." You are a wonderful player, but
many people are becoming aware that you and Paul have little interest
in the USCF, except for what you can get from it. The truth will
prevail. Regards, Jerry Hanken

Jerry makes good points about the Trolgar state media led by its chief
censor, Commissar Gregory le Petit.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them, and
felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
still practiced in this country.

Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.

I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to Brian
Lafferty.

If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
candid representations of any truth.

If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
gentlemen.

Phil Innes

On Apr 11, 9:28*am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message

...





On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them, and
felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
still practiced in this country.

Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.

I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to Brian
Lafferty.

If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
candid representations of any truth.

If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
gentlemen.

Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If Mr. Lafferty had conversations about and to a judge,court reporter
or anyone having to do with a confidential case involving minors; I
believe he may have committed an actionable event. Does anyone know?
Rob

Chess One wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them, and
felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
still practiced in this country.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.

I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to Brian
Lafferty.

If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
candid representations of any truth.

You really are clueless as to how the courts work.
As I stated before;
1. The children's father revealed to me and others that the guardian ad
litem assigned in his custody case to look after his children's
interests in the proceeding, was told in private by the children that
they had been hot sauced and corporally punished by Mr. Truong.

2. The court was advised of this and entered an order barring hot
saucing and corporeal punishment on the children.

3. The father of the children produced a copy of that order and gave it
to a number of people.

4. A judge throwing out the charge is really not applicable to this type
of proceeding which is civil, BB, not criminal. Courts will often deal
with such situations by issuing what amounts to a protective order if
the judge feels there is a reasonable basis for doing so.

If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
gentlemen..

The above are facts that I have been given, including a copy of the
court order. As I suggested, the next time you do an "interview" with
Mr. Truong, I hope you will ask him if the facts are correct and true.
If he denies hot saucing and corporeal punishment, please ask him to
sign a sworn affidavit to that effect.


Phil Innes

Rob wrote:
On Apr 11, 9:28 am, "Chess One" wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message

...





On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:
I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them, and
felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
still practiced in this country.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.
I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to Brian
Lafferty.

If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
candid representations of any truth.

If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
gentlemen.

Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If Mr. Lafferty had conversations about and to a judge,court reporter
or anyone having to do with a confidential case involving minors; I
believe he may have committed an actionable event. Does anyone know?
Rob

Rob darling, see my response to Bowel Boy. FWI, I haven't spoken with
any Queens County judges, reporters or other court personnel for many
years. Even when I practiced law in Manhattan, I rarely crossed the
border into Queensland.

"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:99LLj.3$eg2.0@trndny06...
Chess One wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them, and
felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
still practiced in this country.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.

I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
know the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said
to Brian Lafferty.

If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
candid representations of any truth.

You really are clueless as to how the courts work.

The question is how you work, Mr. Lafferty.

As I stated before;

Those are not answers to my questions [which are not even repeated here -
they have become snippage] of what you understood when /you/ wrote /your/
statements. They are accusations, investigated and not unproven, but
dismissed! If you will not answer the questions I put to you, that itself is
an answer

As it stands you dare not even repeat the questions.

Heuch!

Phil Innes

1. The children's father revealed to me and others that the guardian ad
litem assigned in his custody case to look after his children's interests
in the proceeding, was told in private by the children that they had been
hot sauced and corporally punished by Mr. Truong.

2. The court was advised of this and entered an order barring hot saucing
and corporeal punishment on the children.

3. The father of the children produced a copy of that order and gave it
to a number of people.

4. A judge throwing out the charge is really not applicable to this type
of proceeding which is civil, BB, not criminal. Courts will often deal
with such situations by issuing what amounts to a protective order if the
judge feels there is a reasonable basis for doing so.

If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
gentlemen..

The above are facts that I have been given, including a copy of the court
order. As I suggested, the next time you do an "interview" with Mr.
Truong, I hope you will ask him if the facts are correct and true. If he
denies hot saucing and corporeal punishment, please ask him to sign a
sworn affidavit to that effect.


Phil Innes

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.

I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to Brian
Lafferty.

"Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
*evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
report -- this is "actionable" ?

Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.

You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
children with blocks.

From: Jessica Lauser
To:
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:53:29 -0700
Subject: A perfectly sound 'exchange'
Dear Fred,

I've recently heard an interesting version of a verbal exchange
between Jerry and Susan Polgar, at last year's National Open, going
around. As a rule, I generally stay out of chess politics because my
own life is interesting enough without the added drama. In this case,
however, I felt it best to set the record straight since I personally
witnessed, first-hand, the conversation in question, and my
experience, in no way, matches what is apparently being touted as
fact.

The 'incident' itself, lasted all of a couple minutes, and took place
the night Jerry got into the Riviera, after I had gone with a member
of the staff, if you recall, to pick him up at the airport. We had
arrived a few minutes earlier, had gotten checked in, and were waiting
at the bell desk for assistance with Jerry's luggage, when he noticed
Susan Polgar waiting at the front desk, nearby.

When he recognized her standing there, he said to me, in a pleasant
tone, "Oh, there's Susan Polgar, I think I'll go and say hello." He
then nudged his cart the 5 or 6 feet over to her, and I listened to
them talk quietly, the entire time.

Upon exchanging hellos, Jerry told Susan not to worry - that he wasn't
going to get into any political debates with her during this trip, but
that he hoped things could be civil between them. Susan seemed a
little hesitant, responding without saying much. Pretty soon, they
ended on reasonable terms after Jerry said, again pleasantly, "Oh, and
congratulations on your marriage." to which Susan replied with a
simple, albeit flat, "Thank you." before Jerry rode away. From what I
could tell, there was no unpleasantness, nor any indication that Jerry
could have offended Susan, so it's rather confusing to hear of another
rendition of what happened, especially one so fundamentally different.

Simply put, there was no shouting, raised voices, or any "abuse"
whatsoever. In fact, I may be visually impaired, but my limitation in
this way, has left me with excellent hearing. I sometimes regret this
ability when I encounter certain kinds of metal detectors, as I can
hear the high-pitched tones they emit, to which fully-sighted folks
seem luckily oblivious.

At any rate, the atmosphere of the exchange was very calm, and quiet,
and, besides myself, there were even 2-3 people in line, behind Susan,
who were standing there, yawning tiredly, likely after a long trip. I
highly doubt their quiet reverie would have been possible in the face
of a horrendous shouting- or cursing-match. In addition to the other
guests, there were also a number of hotel employees present, from the
receptionists behind the desk, to those running the snack kiosk
opposite where Jerry and I were standing.

All in all, the reports of what took place are blatantly false. I'm
sure that had there been the kind of exchange that is being cited as
fact by the proponents of the Polgar camp, it would have been the talk
of the tournament, immediately, before the first round had even begun,
long before now, rather than merely 'surfacing' nearly a year after
the conversation in question initially took place.

I hope this helps clear up any further confusion about this particular
incident. As a chessplayer, I can honestly say, that the 'exchange'
here was 'perfectly sound'.

Best regards,


-Jessica Lauser

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:


Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.

I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to
Brian
Lafferty.

"Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
*evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
report -- this is "actionable" ?

If the publisher of such information does not distinguish the accusation
from what they know is the result of it, I think so!

Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.

Murray, you cannot own any responsibility for your own actions, and I tell
you, this ain't over till its over! And you better look to yourself!

You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of
children with blocks.

'Terminology' is it? I am asking you a DIRECT question. Do you yet
acknowledge that a court threw out this charge as baseless? If you do not
wish to answer, or wish to prevaricate as you do here, that itself is an
answer.

I don't care if you 'wish' to understand this issue. I do care to point it
out in public, so people can assess for themselves who the people are who
are accusing others, and their standards, if any.

Phil Innes

Chess One wrote:
"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:99LLj.3$eg2.0@trndny06...
Chess One wrote:
"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them, and
felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
still practiced in this country.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.
I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not
know the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said
to Brian Lafferty.

If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
candid representations of any truth.
You really are clueless as to how the courts work.

The question is how you work, Mr. Lafferty.

As I stated before;

Those are not answers to my questions [which are not even repeated here -
they have become snippage] of what you understood when /you/ wrote /your/
statements. They are accusations, investigated and not unproven, but
dismissed! If you will not answer the questions I put to you, that itself is
an answer

As it stands you dare not even repeat the questions.

Heuch!

Phil Innes

1. The children's father revealed to me and others that the guardian ad
litem assigned in his custody case to look after his children's interests
in the proceeding, was told in private by the children that they had been
hot sauced and corporally punished by Mr. Truong.

2. The court was advised of this and entered an order barring hot saucing
and corporeal punishment on the children.

3. The father of the children produced a copy of that order and gave it
to a number of people.

4. A judge throwing out the charge is really not applicable to this type
of proceeding which is civil, BB, not criminal. Courts will often deal
with such situations by issuing what amounts to a protective order if the
judge feels there is a reasonable basis for doing so.
If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
gentlemen..
The above are facts that I have been given, including a copy of the court
order. As I suggested, the next time you do an "interview" with Mr.
Truong, I hope you will ask him if the facts are correct and true. If he
denies hot saucing and corporeal punishment, please ask him to sign a
sworn affidavit to that effect.

Phil Innes



Do you actually read what you type before clicking send?