|If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.|
||Thread Tools||Display Modes|
Board's Abuse Of Power
On Sunday, April 26, 1998 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Larry Parr wrote:
The following mailing was made to all USCF voters by Nigel Eddis, treasurer of
Friends of the USCF, on April 22, 1993:
CAMARATTA REPORT ALTERED
(Key Paragraph is Deleteted After Report was Signed and Released)
What Hanken, Hough and Sperling Did Not Want
You to Read in the Policy Board Newsletter
Attached is a signed, dated and publicly released copy of USCF Vice President
Frank Camaratta's "Executive Summary" of his lengthy report concerning the
letter signed by the mythical 'Fred Prentice' and mailed from San Luis Obispo
during the campaign of 1992 between Donald Schultz and Nigel Eddis.
This "Executive Summary" was to have been included in the Policy Board
Newsletter (PBN. Instead, an altered version has appeared in which virtually
the entire fourth paragraph, which outlines Grandmaster Larry Evans' views
concerning the roles of Jerry Hanken, Randy Hough and William Goichberg, has
What PB members Hanken, Hough and Gary Sperling wanted to suppress from the
already highly politicized minutes is on the enclosed page. VP Camaratta
agreed to delete the paragraph after pressure from these 3 politicians.
In the altered "Executive Summary," Camaratta still clears GM Evans. He
writes that the "hypothesis attempting to link GM Larry Evans with the
fraudulent mailings has been DISPROVED. This "hypothesis" was actually the
invention of Mr. Goichberg. What is wrong with the altered version is not what
it contains, but what has been deleted.
The Policy Board politicians do not want you to know that Secretary Hough was
WHERE the letters were mailed (in terms of postmark area) WHEN they were
mailed. (According to a US Post Office official, letters mailed along the I-5
route in California travelled by Mr. Hough would have had the same postmarks
as the 'Prentice' letter.)
This coincidence does not, of course, prove anything. The circumstantial
evidence against Mr. Hanken and Mr. Hough might not stand up in court. And I
completely oppose wasting our money investigating these two men, just as I
opposed setting Pinkerton detectives on the trail of GM Larry Evans.
Allow me however to point out that the Policy Board voted to hire private
investigators to hound GM Evans, against whom there was no evidence of any
kind -- circumstantial or otherwise. -- Nigel Eddis
THE PRENTICE AFFAIR
By Frank Camaratta, March 12, 1993
In response to election fraud charges surrounding the 1992 campaign for USCF
Member-at-Large, the USCF Policy Board authorized (PB93-27) the expenditure
of $1000 to have certain physical evidence examined by the Pinkerton
Investigative Services. The request for members to submit related physical
evidence was answered by six parties: GM Larry Evans, Mr. William Goichberg,
Mr. Jerome Hanken, Mr. Ralph Whitford, Mr. Donald Schultz and the USCF
The office provided examples of mailing labels printed on its two printers,
as well as a list of members who had ordered voting member mailing labels and
disks. The period covered was from March to June, 1992.
Messrs. Goichberg, Hanken and Whitford submitted physical evidence in the
form of original mailing envelopes containing campaign literature from GM
Larry Evans and original mailing envelopes containing the apparently
fraudulent Fred Prentice letter. The thrust of the hypothesis was that, if
the mailing labels on the Prentice envelopes were copies of those on the
Evans envelopes, then GM Larry Evans would be implicated.
THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH WAS DELETED
GM Larry Evans submitted circumstantial evidence and conjecture which, he
contended, could implicate Messrs. Hanken, Hough and Goichberg. The essence
of that evidence was: the alleged presence of Mr. Randall Hough in the San
Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara areas on the day the Prentice letters were
postmarked (Hough and a witness state that they were travelling that day on
I-5 between LA and the San Francisco Bay Area -- over 100 miles from San Luis
Obispo and Santa Barbara); striking similarities between specific phrases
found in the Prentice letter and language allegedly used by Mr. Hanken during
certain conversations (which Mr. Hanken denies); and the contention that Mr.
Goichberg had "free reign" in the New Windsor offices of the USCF after hours
and on weekends, during which time, it is alleged, he could have made
unauthorized mailing labels.
CAMARATTA'S OFFICIAL REPORT CONTINUES
No examples of the Mounier envelopes were submitted. The Pinkerton
investigation concluded that the labels from the Evans campaign letters and
the labels from the Prentice mailing were ORIGINALS AND THAT NEITHER THE
LABELS NOR THE POST MARKS SHOWED ANY SIGNS OF TAMPERING. HENCE, THE MAILING
LABELS WERE NOT COPIES AND THIS HYPOTHESIS ATTEMPTING TO LINK GM LARRY EVANS
WITH THE FRAUDULENT MAILINGS HAS BEEN DISPROVED [italics ours]. No attempt
was made to pursue the circumstantial evidence and conjecture submitted by
Mr. Evans because of the difficulty in proving the allegations, the cost
involved and because it was beyond the narrow charge of the subcommittee.
There can be no conclusions drawn from the results of this investigation
other than the fact that the Evans and Prentice mailing labels were
originals. The total cost of the investigation was $670.
Frank A. Camaratta, jr. U.S.C.F. Vice President -- March 12, 1993
I am glad to see Larry Parr back in action.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|USCF Makes Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss In CA||MrVidmar||rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics)||0||August 25th 09 03:08 AM|
|USCF Makes Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss In CA||MrVidmar||rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)||0||August 25th 09 03:08 AM|
|USCF Makes Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss In CA||MrVidmar||alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group)||0||August 25th 09 03:08 AM|
|Reply to Polgar's Latest Screed to Judge Patel||B. Lafferty[_6_]||rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics)||0||February 3rd 09 11:43 AM|
|Reply to Polgar's Latest Screed to Judge Patel||B. Lafferty[_6_]||rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General)||0||February 3rd 09 11:43 AM|