Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 21st 07, 01:33 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 383
Default What The USCF Censors Object To

Note that a good number of the posts in question have to do with Meeting
Ling, Inc. Mark my words, Meeting Link is going to come back to bite some
very important USCF managers and Board members (present and former) in their
asses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No Response From Bill Hall--Re Moderator Q
Sent at: Tue Nov 20, 2007 7:14 pm
From: lblair
To: Brian Lafferty

Brian Lafferty wrote:Wed Nov 14, 2007 4:28 am
#78630

Please consider this an appeal. The sanction is inappropriate for the
reasons that there was no notice given that I was even "charged" with an
offense, I was given no opportunity to be heard, and I was not even told the
specifics of the alleged violation. I just suddenly found myself in the
Moderator's Q.
Current Forum rules do not require notification of a charge before a person
is placed in the moderation queue. Your opportunity to be heard comes when
you make an appeal.

The Executive Director has described this as a time of "transition" for
"forum governance procedures", and, consequently, the FOC does not know if
it currently has the authority to enforce a decision with regard to your
appeal. However, we can provide you with some "specifics". The moderators
believed your placement in the queue to be the appropriate result of a
string of violations over many weeks. Below, we have provided some examples
of posts that they considered in the days just before their decision. We
hope this enables you to better understand the moderator action. If you have
more to write on the matter, we are willing to read it and express an
opinion, but we can not, at this time, guarantee that any action will result
from that opinion.

Sincerely,

FOC
Brian Lafferty wrote:Brian Lafferty
Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:35 pm
#75955

kbachler wrote:
Brian Lafferty wrote:
kbachler wrote:
Brian Lafferty wrote:Not only is Hal's statement not defamatory,
it isn't anywhere near arguably so. His statement contains factually true
statements and opinions about public figures. John, you need to either go to
law school and pass a bar exam or stop playing lawyer to the cheap seats.


I hadn't realized that the report of the independent investigator
was back and had established certain accusations as facts. Apparently I
missed that. Or, is this just another instance of your problem with
premature litigation?


The only thing you missed is the common meaning of the words in Hal's
post.


Your comment reminds me of a president who tried to explain the word
"is." But I'm less concerned about Hal's comment than about your
characterization of facts.


And your comment makes me contemplate the brain power of Neanderthals and
why that lineage didn't make it to our century.

"Not talkin, just walkin. I'll burn that bridge before you can
cross."--Bob Dylan, Modern Times
moderator wrote:I'll call this "off-topic".


Brian Lafferty wrote:Brian Lafferty
Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:33 am
#76496

You really can't make this stuff up; or can you? From Susan Polgar's blog:

I have cancelled my trip for the upcoming USCF EB meeting in Crossville,
Tennessee due to a serious security breach. I have asked the USCF to rectify
the problems several times but my repeated requests were ignored. I will be
joining the meeting via phone conference.
Posted by Picasa

Labels: Crossville, EB meeting, Tennesee

posted by SusanPolgar at 10/29/2007 05:56:00 PM
5 Comments:

Anonymous said...

Typical uscf. They'll only respond to what's convenient for them. Your
security should be a top priority.
Monday, October 29, 2007 6:13:00 PM
Anonymous said...

What's Goichberg doing? Leaks and more leaks? When will it stop? Someone
should subpoena his computer to see if he's leaking the stuff.
Monday, October 29, 2007 6:32:00 PM
Phil said...

I am curious as to what sort of security breach could render such a
meeting unsafe.

As Susan regularly takes part in events that are published well in
advance, including lectures and simuls, which involve close contact with the
public, what extra risk could there be in attending a board meeting?
Monday, October 29, 2007 8:38:00 PM
Kerry Liles said...

What is the point of posting this snippet of information? All it does is
generate a zillion obvious questions that are unlikely to be answered.
Susan, with all due respect I think you should refrain from posting such
obvious inflammatory posts unless you are willing to post additional details
or answer the inevitable questions, such as:

1. what was the nature of the security breach?

2. was it (as implied) something to do with specific threats against you
or your family?

3. what was the USCF official response (if any)

4. how was the security breach discovered?
Monday, October 29, 2007 10:25:00 PM
SusanPolgar said...

Various information such as flight detail, hotel and other info which only
about dozen people or so know about (including EB members). The info was
leaked by someone and it was published on the Internet. I cannot go into
what happened next for various reasons. All I can say is this is not the
first time confidential things were leaked out on purpose. I repeatedly
requested for a few minor things to be done to ensure proper security. My
repeated requests were ignored.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.ChessDiscussion.com
Monday, October 29, 2007 10:42:00 PM

What are you, a head of State? I think your ego needs pruning. If there
have been threats made, contact the police. Don't tell us about it.



"Not talkin, just walkin. I'll burn that bridge before you can
cross."--Bob Dylan, Modern Times
Brian Lafferty wrote:Brian Lafferty
Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:27 am
#76505

Two negative comments on her blog have been replaced by this one,

Anonymous said...

The USCF is going down the tube.

Who is anonymous? Please select one from below:

1. Paul Truong
2. Gregory Alexander
3. George
4. Jack Lemoine
5. Susan Polgar

"Not talkin, just walkin. I'll burn that bridge before you can
cross."--Bob Dylan, Modern Times
moderator wrote:76496 - Implying unethical conduct of Mr. Goichberg, and
personal attacks or
defamatory or disparaging comments
76505 - Personal attacks or defamatory or disparaging comments


Brian Lafferty wrote:Brian Lafferty
Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:14 am
#76724

I propose that the EB direct that all present and future contracts with
tournament hotels be fully reviewed and that all hotels be directed NOT to
make any further payments to Meeting Link, Inc. and/or its principal Kathy
Schankowitz until a full review is made. This will require;

1. Review of the contracts in the possession of the hotels; not the
contracts that the USCF might be in possession of. This is because there is
reason to believe that the hotel contracts in the possession of the USCF,
may have been altered after signing by the USCF, without the knowledge or
approval of the USCF EB management by the addition of contract addenda
providing payment of referral fees to Meeting Link, Inc.;

2. Discussion with all hotels used for USCF events to determine the
particulars of any rebates paid to Meeting Link, Inc.;

3. Determination of exactly what services, if any, Meeting Link, Inc.
provided to the USCF, and regional or state associations;

4. Determination of which EB members and executive directors, past and
present and/or acting had knowledge of (a) Meeting Link, Inc.; (b) Kathy
Schankowitz; (c) and any business or other relevant relationship between
Meeting Link, Inc. and Diane Reese.

It appears that a theft of monies due and owing to the USCF may have
occurred without the knowledge of the USCF EB. I urge the EB, at its
Crossville meeting, to take aggressive, pro-active steps to ferret out the
facts of this matter and act to protect the USCF from any further possible
criminal activity.

Last edited by Brian Lafferty on Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:36 am, edited 1 time
in total.

"Not talkin, just walkin. I'll burn that bridge before you can
cross."--Bob Dylan, Modern Times
Brian Lafferty wrote:Brian Lafferty
Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:28 am
#76729

Harry Payne wrote:Brian, I am sure you have some facts to share ,to go
along with this "It appears" That is a very serious charge and should be
followed up on.IMHO


There are more facts, but for the moment, it's best not to tip some people
off. What I posted is really what we have to do at this moment to protect
the USCF--something I know we all want to do. Of great importance is to let
any hotels with which contracts have been negotiated know immediately that
no payments to ML, Inc. should be made and to ask the hotel for a copy of
their copy of the contract.

"Not talkin, just walkin. I'll burn that bridge before you can
cross."--Bob Dylan, Modern Times
moderator wrote:Topic pulled for AUG violations:

Suggestions, without substantial proof, that a person may have committed
an unethical or criminal act.
Brian Lafferty wrote:Brian Lafferty
Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:49 am
#76733

Meeting Link, Inc. Review

Sent at: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:43 am
From: tsawmiller
To: Brian Lafferty
Topic pulled for AUG violations:

Suggestions, without substantial proof, that a person may have committed
an unethical or criminal act.

Regards,

Moderator7

Subject: Meeting Link, Inc. Review

Brian Lafferty wrote:I propose that the EB direct that all present and
future contracts with tournament hotels be fully reviewed and that all
hotels be directed NOT to make any further payments to Meeting Link, Inc.
and/or its principal Kathy Schankowitz until a full review is made. This
will require;

1. Review of the contracts in the possession of the hotels; not the
contracts that the USCF might be in possession of. This is because there is
reason to believe that the hotel contracts in the possession of the USCF,
may have been altered after signing by the USCF, without the knowledge or
approval of the USCF EB management by the addition of contract addenda
providing payment of referral fees to Meeting Link, Inc.;

2. Discussion with all hotels used for USCF events to determine the
particulars of any rebates paid to Meeting Link, Inc.;

3. Determination of exactly what services, if any, Meeting Link, Inc.
provided to the USCF, and regional or state associations;

4. Determination of which EB members and executive directors, past and
present and/or acting had knowledge of (a) Meeting Link, Inc.; (b) Kathy
Schankowitz; (c) and any business or other relevant relationship between
Meeting Link, Inc. and Diane Reese.

It appears that a theft of monies due and owing to the USCF may have
occurred without the knowledge of the USCF EB. I urge the EB, at its
Crossville meeting, to take aggressive, pro-active steps to ferret out the
facts of this matter and act to protect the USCF from any further possible
criminal activity.

"Not talkin, just walkin. I'll burn that bridge before you can
cross."--Bob Dylan, Modern Times
moderator wrote:Topic pulled for AUG violations:

Suggestions, without substantial proof, that a person may have committed
an unethical or criminal act.

Plus, this is a reposting of material that was pulled and that Mr.
Lafferty was warned about.


Brian Lafferty wrote:Brian Lafferty
Thu Nov 01, 2007 3:31 am
#76899

sloan wrote:
Brian Mottershead wrote:

It is not correct to refer to them to as allegations. There isn't
enough information to make allegations. I think it is more accurate to
characterize the situation as "questions being raised".


Baloney. The original post stated flatly that theft had occurred.


Not correct. I wrote in that post that it appeared that a larceny had been
committed. Regarding a payment by the hotel to an entity that did not work
to earn a fee and which nobody organizing the event had heard of (except
perhaps the ED), that presents the appearance of wrongdoing. The unexplained
payment under these circumstances constitutes substantial proof of
wrongdoing sufficient to raise the issue here for discussion, IMO.

"Not talkin, just walkin. I'll burn that bridge before you can
cross."--Bob Dylan, Modern TimesBrian Lafferty
moderator wrote:Pulled for AUG violation:

Suggestions, without substantial proof, that a person may have committed
an unethical or criminal act.


Brian Lafferty wrote:Brian
Lafferty on Sun Nov 04, 2007 2:10 pm
#77343

Brennan wrote:
Why shouldn't there be? IF -- if -- Mr. Truong misbehaved, the
repercussions for US chess are enormous. Mr. Truong already seems to be
worthy of a SPORTS ILLUSTRATED or ATLANTIC-type of profile as it is; and if
things hit the fan one can be sure that this is one negative outcome.

Or the New Yorker. I had a very lengthy discussion with one of their
writers who is interested in doing a story, perhaps focusing on La Princessa
and her Svengali--or in chessic terms, The Queen and her dark squared
Bishop.

"Not talkin, just walkin. I'll burn that bridge before you can
cross."--Bob Dylan, Modern TimesBrian Lafferty
moderator wrote:Posts pulled for AUG violation:

If you refer to someone by name, use their actual name, not a made up or
sarcastic name.


Brian Lafferty wrote:Brian Lafferty
Mon Nov 05, 2007 4:23 am
#77589

Mr. Jones posted this on rgcp and it makes sense as a possible reason for
him to not enter California.

Just a SWAG. I doubt if it is a criminal matter. Rather, under civil
law the state courts do not have jurisdiction over an individual
unless (a) the individual has sufficient "contacts" with the state or
(b) the individual is actually served with the legal papers while in
the state. My SWAG is that Truong is concerned because he believes
someone in California may want to sue him in California. He does not
have sufficient "contacts" with California for the courts to have
jurisdiction over him, so he only needs to avoid being served in
California. And the best way to do that is never to be in California.

What? Has Truong slandered someone who lives in California? Hmmmm.

And if not Truong as Truong, perhaps as the Fake Sam Sloan.

Lets start a pool. How long before this post gets pulled?

"Not talkin, just walkin. I'll burn that bridge before you can
cross."--Bob Dylan, Modern TimesBrian Lafferty
moderator wrote:Absolutely no evidence has been offered to justify this
slanderous speculation.






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
"half-truths, unsupported rumors and paranoid fantasies" samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 9 June 23rd 07 02:06 AM
"half-truths, unsupported rumors and paranoid fantasies" samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 9 June 23rd 07 02:06 AM
Answer by Sam Sloan to Ethics Complaint by Grant Perks samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 1 January 27th 07 03:21 PM
Answer by Sam Sloan to Ethics Complaint by Grant Perks samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 January 27th 07 02:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:06 PM.

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