Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 07, 03:11 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Damage Control

Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bauer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theodulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnibb
In the simplest
terms, what is the reason Sam is suing the USCF? Is he saying that
there was some sort of conspiracy against him by the USCF organization
or what. What could the USCF possibly be liable for?
Well, he is at least asking for the court to order a new election on
the theory that the election was tainted by a candidate's unlawful
acts. I suppose this would count as "equitable relief".
Usually for these lawsuits to prevail, the organization, not
individual candidates, would have to be shown to have engaged in acts
that unfairly impacted the election. If courts were going to start
refereeing whether candidates' acts had unfairly tainted the
election... well, we would probably never have another election at any
level that didn't end up in court.
There were a number of things the organization did as opposed to
actions by mere candidates which are grounds for this suit, such as:

1. Filling up Chess Life Magazine with pictures of Polgar, free ads
for Polgar, articles about Polgar and so on when she had done little
or nothing deserving any publicity, to such an extent that it was
called "Polgar Life Magazine".

2. Letting Polgar and Truong run for the board without being required
to pay the $250 filing fees.

3. Suspending Sam Sloan three times from posting to the USCF Forum for
one week each while allowing his election opponents to attack him on
the forum, plus deleting or pulling numerous posts by Sam Sloan from
the USCF Forums.

4. Directing Dan Lucas not to publish the name of Sam Sloan in Chess
Life magazine, thereby causing Sloan's name to be deleted from
articles written by Hanken, Benko and possibly Evans.

These are just a few of the grounds, although the 2463 false Internet
postings by "The Fake Sam Sloan" are grounds enough.

Sam Sloan

  #2   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 07, 03:52 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2006
Posts: 319
Default Damage Control

Perhaps your campaign would have been successful had you not
advertised your past sexual encounters with minors, and had you not
done so as part of your Board "service."

http://direkickfeud.blogspot.com/200...in-praxis.html

I have still not been served.

  #3   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 07, 04:45 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2004
Posts: 834
Default Damage Control




samsloan wrote:

There were a number of things the organization did as opposed to
actions by mere candidates which are grounds for this suit, such as:


3. Suspending Sam Sloan three times from posting to the USCF Forum for
one week each while allowing his election opponents to attack him on
the forum, plus deleting or pulling numerous posts by Sam Sloan from
the USCF Forums.


I don't read the USCF Forums, but your behavior here (spamming
rec.games.chess.computer with political posts that belong in
rec.games.chess.politics, refusing to engage in any sort of
dialog concerning your posting behavior) would get you banned
from any forum or newsgroup that has a moderator. I can only
assume that you behave the same way elsewhere and thus that
banning you was entirely appropriate.



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

  #4   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 07, 04:54 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,053
Default Information For Mr. Brock

On Oct 22, 9:52 am, wrote:
Perhaps your campaign would have been successful had you not
advertised your past sexual encounters with minors, and had you not
done so as part of your Board "service."

http://direkickfeud.blogspot.com/200...in-praxis.html



U. S. Chess Federation
www.uschess.org P. O. Box 3967
Crossville, TN 38557-3967
931.787.1234
Fax 931.787.1200

To file a formal ethics complaint, you should send it by regular mail
to USCF office in Crossville, TN. Mark the envelope to the attention
of Judy Misner, who is the Committee's liaison in the office. All
complaints and responses should be either typed or a computer word
processor used. Please include your $25.00 good faith deposit.

There are a number of things you should keep in mind when making a
complaint. First, the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee is
governed by two documents: the Code of Ethics and the Executive Board
Standards of Conduct. A copy of the Code of Ethics may be found on the
USCF web site, at this URL: http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/section_215.php
.. A copy of the Executive Board Standards of Conduct may be found at
this URL:http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/section_132.php . In your
complaint, you should make specific reference to the section(s) of
these documents, which apply, to the violation you claim.

Once the complaint is received in the USCF office, the following
procedure takes place. First, a copy of the complaint will be sent to
every member of the Ethics Committee and we will examine it to
determine if it falls within our jurisdiction. If we vote that it does
not, you will be notified and that will be the end of the matter. If
we vote that it does, the complaint will then be sent to the
defendant(s) with a request for a formal response by a given deadline.
When that response is received, it will be sent to you and you will
have the opportunity to make a rebuttal. Finally, your rebuttal will
be sent to the defendant(s) who will get the last word. When all four
of these documents (complaint, response, rebuttal, and final
statement) have been received at the USCF office, a packet will be
made up and sent to every member of the Committee, to you and to the
defendant(s). The Committee will then consider the evidence and take
a vote. If the Committee finds that a violation has occurred, we can
recommend sanctions to the Executive Board, including a reprimand, a
censure, or even suspension or revocation of USCF membership. Please
note however, that when the defendant is a member of the Executive
Board, we can recommend only reprimand or censure; if we wish to
suggest more serious sanctions, these must be referred to the USCF
Delegates for action.

If you decide to make a complaint, you should include with it ALL the
evidence you want considered. The Committee will not research web
sites, newsgroup postings etc. If you want such material considered,
it is up to you to print this material and send it with your
complaint. If you want other individuals to provide statements in
support of your charges, we prefer that you obtain them. However, the
Committee may agree (but is not required) to ask the USCF office to
contact them and ask for the statements.

If you have any further questions about the procedures for filing a
complaint, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Sincerely

William (Wick) Deer
Chairman of the Ethics Committee for 2007-08



  #5   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 07, 07:45 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,576
Default Information For Mr. Brock

On Oct 22, 10:54 am, Rob wrote:
On Oct 22, 9:52 am, wrote:

Perhaps your campaign would have been successful had you not
advertised your past sexual encounters with minors, and had you not
done so as part of your Board "service."


http://direkickfeud.blogspot.com/200...in-praxis.html


U. S. Chess Federationwww.uschess.org P. O. Box 3967
Crossville, TN 38557-3967
931.787.1234
Fax 931.787.1200

To file a formal ethics complaint, you should send it by regular mail
to USCF office in Crossville, TN. Mark the envelope to the attention
of Judy Misner, who is the Committee's liaison in the office. All
complaints and responses should be either typed or a computer word
processor used. Please include your $25.00 good faith deposit.

There are a number of things you should keep in mind when making a
complaint. First, the jurisdiction of the Ethics Committee is
governed by two documents: the Code of Ethics and the Executive Board
Standards of Conduct. A copy of the Code of Ethics may be found on the
USCF web site, at this URL:http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/section_215.php
. A copy of the Executive Board Standards of Conduct may be found at
this URL:http://beta.uschess.org/frontend/section_132.php. In your
complaint, you should make specific reference to the section(s) of
these documents, which apply, to the violation you claim.

Once the complaint is received in the USCF office, the following
procedure takes place. First, a copy of the complaint will be sent to
every member of the Ethics Committee and we will examine it to
determine if it falls within our jurisdiction. If we vote that it does
not, you will be notified and that will be the end of the matter. If
we vote that it does, the complaint will then be sent to the
defendant(s) with a request for a formal response by a given deadline.
When that response is received, it will be sent to you and you will
have the opportunity to make a rebuttal. Finally, your rebuttal will
be sent to the defendant(s) who will get the last word. When all four
of these documents (complaint, response, rebuttal, and final
statement) have been received at the USCF office, a packet will be
made up and sent to every member of the Committee, to you and to the
defendant(s). The Committee will then consider the evidence and take
a vote. If the Committee finds that a violation has occurred, we can
recommend sanctions to the Executive Board, including a reprimand, a
censure, or even suspension or revocation of USCF membership. Please
note however, that when the defendant is a member of the Executive
Board, we can recommend only reprimand or censure; if we wish to
suggest more serious sanctions, these must be referred to the USCF
Delegates for action.

If you decide to make a complaint, you should include with it ALL the
evidence you want considered. The Committee will not research web
sites, newsgroup postings etc. If you want such material considered,
it is up to you to print this material and send it with your
complaint. If you want other individuals to provide statements in
support of your charges, we prefer that you obtain them. However, the
Committee may agree (but is not required) to ask the USCF office to
contact them and ask for the statements.

If you have any further questions about the procedures for filing a
complaint, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

Sincerely

William (Wick) Deer
Chairman of the Ethics Committee for 2007-08


Dear Mr. Dear

I need your legal address for service of process.

I need everyone's address on your committee. You are quickly becoming
a defendant.

Marcus Roberts
plantiff



  #6   Report Post  
Old October 22nd 07, 11:47 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Damage Control

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theodulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smythe Dakota
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnibb
.... So Sam
would be suing based on the actions of the old EB .... ?
No, he would be suing based on the alleged actions of one new EB
member, both before and during his tenure on the EB.

I agree this is shaky, but it still seems possible. Lawyers please
step in, but I'm reasonably sure that an organization can, under
certain circumstances, be held liable for the actions of members of
its executive board.
I think that in general the organization has escaped these
circumstances if the activities in question are not conducted as part
of the duties of the board member, other persons in the organization
were unaware of the person's activities, and, upon learning of them,
the organization takes steps to make it clear that it does not condone
them.

The questions of "who knew what, and when, and what ought they to have
done" would of course be important, possibly even relating to earlier
affairs.

Sam, can you elaborate on why you think the USCF as an organization
bears ANY responsibility for the 2463 FSS posts, particularly
since probably at least 2000 of them were posted before the person in
question was on the EB? Can you demonstrate that other officers of
the USCF were aware of all this at the time?
You have in part answered your own questions.

Brian Mottershead posted his findings that Paul Truong was the Fake
Sam Sloan here on September 26, 2007. Bill Goichberg posted that he
had known about that finding for 6 days and wanted it referred to the
Ethics Committee.

Thus, Goichberg has known about this since September 20, 2007, which
is more than one month ago, yet he has taken no action.

More than that, the actual postings have been deleted from this forum
so nobody can read them. Thus, not only is the evidence not being
acted upon, but it is being covered up.

Goichberg then said that he wanted a complete report on it.
Mottershead took about a week and produced the report. Still no
action.

Goichberg then announced that Mottershead had voluntarily agreed to
suspend his work as Administrator of the website. Mottershead
protested stating that he has agreed to no such thing. Goichberg then
asked that the announcement be withdrawn. (Here I mistakenly stated
that the board had agreed to this. However, it now appears that so far
there are only two votes to modify the original announcement.)

After Mottershead produced his report proving conclusively that Paul
Truong is the guilty party, Goichberg said that he wanted a second
opinion. He wanted somebody else hired to produce a report.

That was several weeks ago. Still the person has not been hired.

Finally, the first board member to actually condemn the obscene
postings by the "Fake Sam Sloan" who was pretending to be a member or
former member of the USCF Executive Board was Randy Bauer. Joel
Channing had previously stated that he was "amused" by the postings by
the Fake Sam Sloan.

Actually, my posting to the BINFOS on July 30, 2006 (more than one
year ago) produced conclusive evidence that Paul Truong was the Fake
Sam Sloan. I demanded an investigation. This was ignored.

I believe that Joel Channing has known all along that Paul Truong was
the Fake Sam Sloan. Channing has been in close contact with Truong
from the beginning.

I believe that Goichberg too realized long ago that Truong was the
Fake Sam Sloan. This is why Goichberg is still trying to cover up his
own complicity in this.

Does that answer your questions?

Sam Sloan

  #7   Report Post  
Old October 23rd 07, 04:38 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Damage Control

Quote:
Originally Posted by Theodulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smythe Dakota
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnibb
.... So Sam
would be suing based on the actions of the old EB .... ?
No, he would be suing based on the alleged actions of one new EB
member, both before and during his tenure on the EB.

I agree this is shaky, but it still seems possible. Lawyers please
step in, but I'm reasonably sure that an organization can, under
certain circumstances, be held liable for the actions of members of
its executive board.
I think that in general the organization has escaped these
circumstances if the activities in question are not conducted as part
of the duties of the board member, other persons in the organization
were unaware of the person's activities, and, upon learning of them,
the organization takes steps to make it clear that it does not condone
them.

The questions of "who knew what, and when, and what ought they to have
done" would of course be important, possibly even relating to earlier
affairs.

Sam, can you elaborate on why you think the USCF as an organization
bears ANY responsibility for the 2463 FSS posts, particularly
since probably at least 2000 of them were posted before the person in
question was on the EB? Can you demonstrate that other officers of
the USCF were aware of all this at the time?
You have in part answered your own questions.

Brian Mottershead posted his findings that Paul Truong was the Fake
Sam Sloan here on September 26, 2007. Bill Goichberg posted that he
had known about that finding for 6 days and wanted it referred to the
Ethics Committee.

Thus, Goichberg has known about this since September 20, 2007, which
is more than one month ago, yet he has taken no action.

More than that, the actual postings have been deleted from the USCF
Forum so nobody can read them. Thus, not only is the evidence not
being acted upon, but it is being covered up.

Goichberg then said that he wanted a complete report on it.
Mottershead took about a week and produced the report. Still no
action.

Goichberg then announced that Mottershead had voluntarily agreed to
suspend his work as Administrator of the website. Mottershead
protested stating that he has agreed to no such thing. Goichberg then
asked that the announcement be withdrawn. (Here I mistakenly stated
that the board had agreed to this. However, it now appears that so far
there are only two votes to modify the original announcement.)

After Mottershead produced his report proving conclusively that Paul
Truong is the guilty party, Goichberg said that he wanted a second
opinion. He wanted somebody else hired to produce a report.

That was several weeks ago. Still the person has not been hired.

Finally, the first board member to actually condemn the obscene
postings by the "Fake Sam Sloan" who was pretending to be a member or
former member of the USCF Executive Board was Randy Bauer. Joel
Channing had previously stated that he was "amused" by the postings by
the Fake Sam Sloan.

Actually, my posting to the BINFOS on July 30, 2006 (more than one
year ago) produced conclusive evidence that Paul Truong was the Fake
Sam Sloan. I demanded an investigation. This was ignored.

I believe that Joel Channing has known all along that Paul Truong was
the Fake Sam Sloan. Channing has been in close contact with Truong
from the beginning.

I believe that Goichberg too realized long ago that Truong was the
Fake Sam Sloan. This is why Goichberg is still trying to cover up his
own complicity in this.

Does that answer your questions?

Sam Sloan

Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Damage Control samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 3 October 23rd 07 04:38 AM
VIsualize Square Control Lloyd Uhler rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 0 December 22nd 05 04:25 PM
Visualize Square Control Lloyd Uhler rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 December 22nd 05 04:24 PM
Chees MOver with Aux. Square Control Board Lloyd Uhler rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 October 24th 05 03:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:25 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