Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 17th 07, 11:12 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Motion: Only Members of the Executive Board are Allowed to Make Motions

It is perfectly obvious that Bill Goichberg is using Bill Hall as a
front. If he wants to make a decision or a motion that is politically
unwise or controversial, he will get Bill Hall to do it.

Examples a

1. Having Bill Hall wrote five letters to Attorney Michael Matsler
asking for advice on how to get rid of Sam Sloan. The total legal bill
the USCF paid for this was $4788.

The legal bills for Michael Matsler of the Law Firm of Rider, Weiner
and Frenkel for August 2006 was $2,790 and for September 2006 was
$1998, for a grand total of $4788. The only work they did during those
two months was respond to five letters from Bill Goichberg through
Bill Hall asking how to stop Sam Sloan from taking office on the board
or how to remove me once I got on.

2. Deciding that anybody can get into the US Championship upon payment
of $50,000. This was clearly Bill Goichberg's idea. It was never voted
on. Bill Goichberg made Bill Hall his front man to announce it.

3. The decision to appoint a bunch of anti-Sloan people to the
moderation committee, including Louis Blair. Again, Bill Goichberg
insists that this was Bill Hall's motion, although I doubt that Bill
Hall even knew who Louis Blair is.

This situation is unacceptable. The USCF President should not be
allowed to hide behind his Executive Director. It is only recently
that the Executive Director started making motions and these were all
obviously Bill Goichberg motions.

This must be stopped, accordingly:

I hereby move:

Only members of the USCF Executive Board may may motions. Non-Board-
Members, including the Executive Director, are not allowed to make
motions.

I vote Yes on this motion.

Sam Sloan

PS AOL is bouncing my mail today. If this one bounces back I will send
it again from my AOL account.

  #2   Report Post  
Old March 18th 07, 02:39 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Motion: Only Members of the Executive Board are Allowed to Make Motions

At 05:26 PM 3/17/2007 -0700, Mike Goodall wrote:

I request that the research performed by the law firm into how to remove you
from the EB be revealed. I want to know how my dues money is being spent.
It would appear to me that Mr. Goichberg should pay for this himself.

Thank you,
Mike Goodall, EB Candidate


At 08:54 PM 3/17/2007 EDT, wrote:
\
Mike, as I explained in Forums discussions some time ago, no money was
spent trying to remove Sam from the EB. At the time you may recall
that some delegates and others were threatening various actions to
prevent Sam from being seated, and some were asserting that we needed
to pay for our attorney to be present in person to reply to questions
regarding how Sam could be kept off the Board, which would have been
far more expensive than just consulting him. We were also urged to
hire a security guard for the delegates meeting, which we decided was
an unnecessary expense.

Bill Hall and I did, however, feel that when the delegates asked
questions regarding motions to avoid seating Sam or to revoke his
membership, it would be irresponsible for us to not be ready with
authoritative legal opinions, and might result in turmoil that would
make it impossible for us to get through our agenda, therefore our
inquiry to Matsler. The opinions we received were basically that
there was no way to avoid seating Sam that would not expose USCF to
serious legal risk. At Oak Brook, Bill Hall and I had a meeting with
two of the leaders of the movement to refuse to seat Sam (Paul Truong
and Dewain Barber), we explained to them what our lawyer told us, and
though it was a hard sell, I think we convinced them that there was no
point to fighting to avoid seating Sam.

This was all discussed on the Forums some time ago, and I am surprised
that you seem to have concluded that these legal fees were incurred
for the purpose of keeping Sam off the Board.

Bill Goichberg


Unfortunately, this statement by Bill Goichberg is just not true and
indeed is false and misleading. Before I got on the board I did not
realize that Bill Goichberg makes false statements all the time. Now
that I am on the board I can see the dark side of Bill Goichberg. He
frequently lies.

The falsity of Bills statement can be seen by the fact that Michael
Matsler is a highly paid litigation attorney that the USCF hires
either to bring lawsuit or to defend against lawsuits brought by
others.

If the USCF merely wanted an opinion, there are several volunteer
attorneys who are also chess players whom the USCF could have
consulted free of charge. These include Harold Winston, Harold Dondis,
Harry Sabine, Gary Sperling, Stephen Jones and many others.

The fact that Bill Goichberg did not go to any of these attorneys but
instead went to a highly paid litigator proves that Bill Goichberg was
planning on going to court either to file suit to stop me from taking
the office to which I had been elected or else to defend against the
suit that I would bring if Bill Goichberg stopped me from taking
office.

Goichberg says that Bill Hall agreed with him that an attorney should
be consulted. Bill Hall is just an employee. Bill Goichberg is the
President.

There is also the matter of the attorney's bill for August 2006 of
$2,790 and for September 2006 of $1998, for a grand total of $4788.
Bill Goichberg had no right to go out on his own and incur this kind
of legal expense without consulting the board and without a vote by
the board. There is no indication that the other board members even
knew that Bill Goichberg was doing this.

Bill Goichberg also states that he met with Paul Truong and Dewain
Barber concerning this. Paul Truong and Dewain Barber have no power or
authority. Paul Truong was campaigning hard to stop me from taking
office. It is obvious that if Bill Goichberg met with them it was to
plan a way to stop me from taking office, not to head off attempts by
others to stop me from taking the office to which I had been elected.

Accordingly, I think that Mike Goodall is right. The USCF should not
be required to pay this legal bill of $4788. Bill Goichberg should be
made to pay that bill.

Sam Sloan

  #3   Report Post  
Old March 18th 07, 11:39 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Motion: Only Members of the Executive Board are Allowed to Make Motions

At 11:39 PM 3/17/2007 EDT, wrote:

In a message dated 3/17/2007 11:27:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
writes:
Dear Bill,


Do you consider the ~$4,000 money well spent? Do you consider it an appropriate use of my dues money? (Actually my Life Membership dues money was spent entirely on Fischer).


Thank you,
Mike Goodall



How do you know that $4000 was spent on this issue? I don't accept that as a fact just because Sam says so, there may have been other things we were consulting Matsler about. If that was the cost then I would say it was expensive advice and we should have used a different attorney.


Bill Goichberg



Notice the vague wording of Bill Goichbergs response to Mike Goodall.
He writes: "there may have been other things we were consulting
Matsler about".

Bill is the President. If the USCF was consulting with highly paid
legal counsel about any issue, he was supposed to know about it. After
I took office on August 13, 2006, during my first few weeks on the
board I often did not receive board emails. The excuse given for this
was that by mistake somebody has incorrectly typed my email address
and everybody else had just copied this mistake over and over again.

Anyway, I have gone back through all the board emails going back to
the date of July 27, 2006 where it was declared that I had been
elected and these board emails show that from the day that I was
elected Bill Goichberg was trying to find ways to stop me from taking
office on the board. In the course of the following weeks, Bill
Goichberg wrote five letters to attorney Michael Matsler specifically
asking how to stop Sam Sloan from taking office or how to remove Sam
Sloan from the board once he had been seated.

Each of those five letters received a lengthy and detailed response
from attorney Michael Matsler. The sum and substance to these replies
was that there is no legal way to do it.

Other than those five letters, and even to the present day, there is
no indication in the records or in the BINFOS that Michael Matsler did
any other legal work for the USCF during that time period. Thus, it is
apparent that the attorney's bill for August 2006 of $2,790 and for
September 2006 of $1998, for a grand total of $4788 was for responding
to these repeated inquiries by Bill Goichberg asking how to get rid of
Sam Sloan .

Now, Bill Goichberg makes the vague statement that "there may have
been other things we were consulting Matsler about". What were those
other things? Not only would I like to know, but I am certain that the
entire board would like to know. If we receive a large legal bill in
the total amount of $4788, that bill should be accompanied by a time
sheet showing the exact hours and minutes down to the nearest ten
minutes that Michael Matsler did legal work for the USCF. As were are
a 501c4 Not-for-Profit Corporation, we have a legal obligation to
report to our members and to the IRS if requested how we spend our
money.

Similarly, with regard to the question of Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
taking the USCFs laptop computer on August 20, 2003, we have the
statement by Mike Nolan that as he was leaving the USCFs offices to go
back to Nebraska, he observed that the laptop computer was still
sitting on the desk of the missing Executive Director Frank Niro and
that just as he was leaving the office Paul Truong and Susan Polgar
were arriving. We also have the statement that when Beatriz Marinello
and Tim Hanke arrived in the office a few minutes later, the first
thing they did was go to Frank Niro's desk to look at the laptop
computer and see what was in it, only to discover that the laptop was
missing and that Paul Truong and Susan Polgar had just left the
office.

We also have the statement by Susan Polgar admitting that she took the
laptop computer, but claiming that the board had authorized her to
take it. She has failed to identify which board, which board member or
which office employee authorized her to purloin the computer. What we
do know is that to this day the computer has never been returned.

The missing laptop computer obviously would have contained the
contracts with Polgar, a record of the emails exchanged with Polgar
and the financial information concerning the large amounts of money
that had been paid to Polgar while Niro was Executive Director. This
clearly provides the motivation as to why Polgar would want to take
that laptop computer.

Bill's letter to Mike Goodall states: "Sam posted without evidence
that they stole a computer, and this outrageous charge that should
have been removed was not, and remained for months (probably still
there in the archives)." However, the evidence is clear that Susan
took the computer, since she admits to having taken it, and so far no
evidence has been produced that she had the right, the authority or
the permission to take it.

The USCF membership has the right to know that Susan took the
computer. It is obvious that Bill Goichberg wants to ban me from the
USCF Forums so as to prevent the general membership from learning
about this.

Sam Sloan

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Motion: Only Members of the Executive Board are Allowed to Make Motions samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 March 18th 07 11:39 AM
Sam Sloan for USCF Executive Board samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 March 1st 07 07:13 PM
USCF Issues Forum: "February Board Meeting" [email protected] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 February 10th 07 06:55 PM
The 4 Polgar Proposals: To which did the Executive Board agree? Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 1 February 27th 06 12:41 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017