Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old July 4th 08, 04:32 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default When You're Losing--Blow Old Smoke

by gregory_alexander on Thu Jul 03, 2008 9:30 pm
One year prior to this investigation, another investigation was made
against Paul Truong’s family that caused enormous strains to be placed
upon the FOC and moderation committees. During that ‘investigation’
authorized by Bill Hall, David Quinn and Hal Bogner constantly revealed
our confidential discussions to his friends, such as Sam Sloan and Brian
Lafferty, and it led to Brian to legally threaten to sue various
volunteers. Many of the former FOC members were served legal papers, and
Brian Lafferty used our internal FOC conversations that were leaked to
him by David Quinn and Hal Bogner to justify them. When we asked Bill
Goichberg and Hall how to respond to the legal demands, and to ask him
who was leaking our conversations; all of our queries were completely
ignored.

After finding out that David was the source of the leak; every FOC and
moderation member repeatedly asked the two Bills to remove David Quinn
from the FOC, and Hal Bogner from his administration roles; yet Bill
Hall chose to forgive Brian Lafferty’s sanctions- David Quinn was
retained and then was appointed to the USCF ratings committee- and Hal
Bogner is still the administrator of the site. During this mess, Bill
Hall and Goichberg also recommended Brian Lafferty to serve in some type
of a moderation role. The way in which the forum volunteers were handled
caused most of us to believe that the effectiveness of the moderation
process was severely tainted, and many volunteers resigned their posts.
In both ‘investigations’, with the exception of a few, the players
remain the same; and the methods used are still causing enormous harm.

Any type of investigation that uses ‘evidence’ of what should be
confidential information to be used for political means should be
considered as drinking from a poisoned well. Unfortunately the President
and Executive Director keep on forcing the USCF to drink from it.

Regards,

Gregory
----------------------------------------------------

Defamatory communication made by a third party, Mr. Truong, to influence
a matter against me then under consideration by the FOC is not something
that can be considered confidential within the legitimate FOC
adjudication procedure in place at that time. Mr. Quinn did the correct
thing in making the victim of the defamatory communication, me, aware of
said communication.

During that period of time, several of us were deeply concerned that the
moderation/FOC process was deeply flawed from a due process standpoint.
I drafted a memo to that effect and offered to work on a committee who
purpose would be to draft procedural rules for the FOC that would insure
due process for all parties. I am still concerned about that process
and would still be willing to work on such acommittee--even with Gregory
Alexander on that committee.
  #2   Report Post  
Old July 4th 08, 05:44 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default Susie Chesspiece, the Dirty Chess Politician

Susie Chesspiece writes on chessdiscussion as set out below. Nowhere
does Susie address her husband's defamatory statements directed a me,
behind my back, nor does she address the defamations she made against a
fellow EB candidate, behind his back. Smacks of a dirty chess
politician hard at work under the rock, out of the light of day.
---------------------------------------------------------


By SusanPolgar on Fri Jul 04, 2008 3:48 pm

RoadRunner wrote:My hope is that Susan can have a solid slate to
put up at the next election and that all her candidates will win in a
landslide. That will finally provide the opportunity for fixing the
problems at the USCF. American chess really needs Susan to lead the USCF.
---------------------------------------------------

It would certainly be a big improvement. However, these same corrupt,
dirty, and destructive politicians can still cause havoc because they
still have strong influence over many of the delegates. A very large
number of delegates do not show up for the annual meeting. So basically
they can stack the deck with their friends filling the seats. This
happens every year. In one year, they spent more than ½ day arguing
about a few dollars in dues increase or decrease.

Some of the current board members went out of their ways to lie and
mislead some of the delegates recently to try to get them to sign the
recall petition. I have a copy of their emails for court. They do not
think twice about people’s reputation or livelihood. It did not pass and
they will try again in a month.

There is virtually no repercussion for their unethical action other than
having to drag the federation to court. Board members were caught
forwarding confidential and legal information and the same information
was used to attack and harm others. What was done about it? Nothing!
Absolutely nothing! They will always refuse to go after their friends
and political allies for gross misconduct and unethical behavior. Why?
Because it is them who leaked it and they would never go after themselves.

Some of these people cannot say two sentences without insults and
profanity. There is not an ounce of professionalism, the worst I have
experienced in chess in 35 years. It is a good old boys network and they
will hang on to the status quo and power for as long as they live. These
are the kind of people who are in charge of the USCF and this is
precisely why this federation lost money in 10 of the last 12 years and
over $100,000 this year. They cover each other for their total failure
and incompetence.

They have done almost nothing to help this federation. They could not
care less about promoting chess or the USCF. In fact, they spend USCF
members’ money frivolously like it is their own personal bank account.
If the leader says left, they all vote left. If the leader says right,
they all vote right. Once in a blue moon, one will vote differently in
some insignificant issue so they can claim that they have independent minds.

There is no “quality control” system to pinpoint the problems. They do
not want anyone to see where the problems are. The people who stand to
benefit the most are the people are their biggest supporters. There is
no open bidding system. People are awarded jobs and contracts for their
political affiliation and loyalty. The current USCF system is a failed
one and it is corrupt. It is ineffective and it has too much bureaucracy.

It would take less than 3 months to revamp the entire USCF and turn it
into a vibrant, viable, and financially sound organization to meet the
standard of the 21st century. It will never happen as long as these
people have their claws inside this federation.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
-------------------------------------------------------
  #3   Report Post  
Old July 6th 08, 03:52 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default When You're Losing--Blow Old Smoke

More old smoke from Gregory Alexander on chessdiscussion. Of course
none of this has anything to do with the FSS issue and the recall of his
boss.
--------------------------------------------------------

by gregory_alexander on Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:15 am

Terry_Vibbert wrote:No, gregory, that is no typo. That is a fact.
But I was the Moderation Committee Chair when this last level 4 sanction
was passed by the Moderation Committee. It was emailed to the ED and
c.c.'d to Mike Nolan on December 4, 2007. No action has been taken on
this sanction.

One might conclude that the Management and System Administrator
want to avoid "ticking off" a lawyer in lieu of justly applying the
sanction process. I have no evidence to the contrary.

gregory wrote:
Terry Vibbert was the former FOC Chair. Unless there was a typo
by Terry, there must have been another level 4 placed upon Brian
Lafferty that was pulled as well. The first level 3 sanction placed upon
Brian Lafferty was over-ruled in May of 2007 by Bill Hall as well.

Terry_Vibbert wrote:by Terry_Vibbert on Sun May 18, 2008
5:00 am #102237

You shouldn't feel slighted. One particular sanction, a
Level 4, has never been announced, nor enacted, nor appealed, and
continues to sit in limbo while some alleged "legal department"
evaluates it as Mike Nolan informed me the Executive Director might want
to do. It has been 5 months now...




Hi Terry,

If I recall correctly, Brian Lafferty also had at least two sanctions
overturned in May when we both served via Bill Hall during the time that
he threatened to sue us. How many sanctions of his have been overturned?

More importantly though, you may want to read
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1300#p7644. Right in front of Bill Hall and
Goichberg, Hal Bogner is informing Brian Lafferty what should be
confidential information still. You can confirm this story with Jack.

Take care Terry,

Gregory
---------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Vibbert need to get their facts in order. I have
had one sanction overturned by the FOC. It was overturned because I was
being sanctioned twice by the MOD for the same "objectionable" posts.
The MOD did not even bother to contest my appeal, presumably because
they knew they had nothing to argue. See:

"DECISION ON APPEAL #4 BY BRIAN LAFFERTY FROM THE SANCTION
(viewtopic.php?p=84020#84020) BY THE MODERATION COMMITTEE.

The Forum Oversight Committee hereby rules to grant the appeal of Brian
Lafferty on the above-referenced appeal and reverse the decision and
level 3 sanction of the Moderation Committee. The vote was 4-0.

The Moderation Committee has twice (viewtopic.php?p=77872#77872 and
viewtopic.php?p=84020#84020) put Brian Lafferty in the moderation queue,
using his posts, #75955, #76496, #76724, #76733, #76899, #77343, and
#77589 as part of its reason. Since the Moderation Committee has not
approved and provided an explanation, FOC can not uphold the sanction.

THEREFORE the viewtopic.php?p=84020#84020 sanction is hereby vacated."
---------------------------------------------------------------

I did have a level three sanction ended as did all persons with such
sanctions once Mr. Hall had enough moderators to make the moderator
system functional. That occurred in the late fall of 2007. See:

"by tsawmiller on Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:11 pm #77872
Effective Monday, November 5, 2007, the following users have been placed
in the Moderation Queue, as per Mr. Hall's directive, as a result of
repeated AUG violations:

Brenan
Brian Lafferty


Note: This was rescinded on or around November 30, 2007 by the Executive
Director, due to the formation of a formal Moderators Committee."
-----------------------------------------------------------------


NOTE: Both Mr. Alexander and I are in the Moderator Q at present. I
posted a link to a court document containing the FSS obscenities.
Apparently this was too much for the sensitivities of the moderators.
Mr. Alexander can explain the underlying reasons for his sanction.

As to the Level 4 sanction that Mr. Vibbert apparently sought against me
which Mr. Alexander references, it appears that he could not muster the
votes to impose this sanction. Thus a level 4 sanction was never
imposed. If it were, I would certainly take all appropriate action to
have such a sanctioned nullified.
  #4   Report Post  
Old July 6th 08, 04:05 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default When You're Losing--Blow Old Smoke

I reposted this over on Polgar's blog under the Saturday Open Forum.
Sadly, but not unexpectedly, it was quickly pulled. Truth bites hard on
Trolgar and Alexander.

Brian Lafferty wrote:
More old smoke from Gregory Alexander on chessdiscussion. Of course
none of this has anything to do with the FSS issue and the recall of his
boss.
--------------------------------------------------------

by gregory_alexander on Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:15 am

Terry_Vibbert wrote:No, gregory, that is no typo. That is a fact.
But I was the Moderation Committee Chair when this last level 4 sanction
was passed by the Moderation Committee. It was emailed to the ED and
c.c.'d to Mike Nolan on December 4, 2007. No action has been taken on
this sanction.

One might conclude that the Management and System Administrator want
to avoid "ticking off" a lawyer in lieu of justly applying the sanction
process. I have no evidence to the contrary.

gregory wrote:
Terry Vibbert was the former FOC Chair. Unless there was a typo
by Terry, there must have been another level 4 placed upon Brian
Lafferty that was pulled as well. The first level 3 sanction placed upon
Brian Lafferty was over-ruled in May of 2007 by Bill Hall as well.

Terry_Vibbert wrote:by Terry_Vibbert on Sun May 18, 2008
5:00 am #102237

You shouldn't feel slighted. One particular sanction, a
Level 4, has never been announced, nor enacted, nor appealed, and
continues to sit in limbo while some alleged "legal department"
evaluates it as Mike Nolan informed me the Executive Director might want
to do. It has been 5 months now...




Hi Terry,

If I recall correctly, Brian Lafferty also had at least two sanctions
overturned in May when we both served via Bill Hall during the time that
he threatened to sue us. How many sanctions of his have been overturned?

More importantly though, you may want to read
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1300#p7644. Right in front of Bill Hall and
Goichberg, Hal Bogner is informing Brian Lafferty what should be
confidential information still. You can confirm this story with Jack.

Take care Terry,

Gregory
---------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Vibbert need to get their facts in order. I have
had one sanction overturned by the FOC. It was overturned because I was
being sanctioned twice by the MOD for the same "objectionable" posts.
The MOD did not even bother to contest my appeal, presumably because
they knew they had nothing to argue. See:

"DECISION ON APPEAL #4 BY BRIAN LAFFERTY FROM THE SANCTION
(viewtopic.php?p=84020#84020) BY THE MODERATION COMMITTEE.

The Forum Oversight Committee hereby rules to grant the appeal of Brian
Lafferty on the above-referenced appeal and reverse the decision and
level 3 sanction of the Moderation Committee. The vote was 4-0.

The Moderation Committee has twice (viewtopic.php?p=77872#77872 and
viewtopic.php?p=84020#84020) put Brian Lafferty in the moderation queue,
using his posts, #75955, #76496, #76724, #76733, #76899, #77343, and
#77589 as part of its reason. Since the Moderation Committee has not
approved and provided an explanation, FOC can not uphold the sanction.

THEREFORE the viewtopic.php?p=84020#84020 sanction is hereby vacated."
---------------------------------------------------------------

I did have a level three sanction ended as did all persons with such
sanctions once Mr. Hall had enough moderators to make the moderator
system functional. That occurred in the late fall of 2007. See:

"by tsawmiller on Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:11 pm #77872
Effective Monday, November 5, 2007, the following users have been placed
in the Moderation Queue, as per Mr. Hall's directive, as a result of
repeated AUG violations:

Brenan
Brian Lafferty


Note: This was rescinded on or around November 30, 2007 by the Executive
Director, due to the formation of a formal Moderators Committee."
-----------------------------------------------------------------


NOTE: Both Mr. Alexander and I are in the Moderator Q at present. I
posted a link to a court document containing the FSS obscenities.
Apparently this was too much for the sensitivities of the moderators.
Mr. Alexander can explain the underlying reasons for his sanction.

As to the Level 4 sanction that Mr. Vibbert apparently sought against me
which Mr. Alexander references, it appears that he could not muster the
votes to impose this sanction. Thus a level 4 sanction was never
imposed. If it were, I would certainly take all appropriate action to
have such a sanctioned nullified.

  #5   Report Post  
Old July 6th 08, 06:30 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2008
Posts: 1
Default When You're Losing--Blow Old Smoke

On Jul 6, 9:52*am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
More old smoke from Gregory Alexander on chessdiscussion. *Of course
none of this has anything to do with the FSS issue and the recall of his
boss.
--------------------------------------------------------

by gregory_alexander on Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:15 am

* * *Terry_Vibbert wrote:No, gregory, that is no typo. That is a fact.
But I was the Moderation Committee Chair when this last level 4 sanction
was passed by the Moderation Committee. It was emailed to the ED and
c.c.'d to Mike Nolan on December 4, 2007. No action has been taken on
this sanction.

* * *One might conclude that the Management and System Administrator
want to avoid "ticking off" a lawyer in lieu of justly applying the
sanction process. I have no evidence to the contrary.

* * * * *gregory wrote:
* * * * *Terry Vibbert was the former FOC Chair. Unless there was a typo
by Terry, there must have been another level 4 placed upon Brian
Lafferty that was pulled as well. The first level 3 sanction placed upon
Brian Lafferty was over-ruled in May of 2007 by Bill Hall as well.

* * * * * * *Terry_Vibbert wrote:by Terry_Vibbert on Sun May 18, 2008
5:00 am #102237

* * * * * * *You shouldn't feel slighted. One particular sanction, a
Level 4, has never been announced, nor enacted, nor appealed, and
continues to sit in limbo while some alleged "legal department"
evaluates it as Mike Nolan informed me the Executive Director might want
to do. It has been 5 months now...

Hi Terry,

If I recall correctly, Brian Lafferty also had at least two sanctions
overturned in May when we both served via Bill Hall during the time that
he threatened to sue us. How many sanctions of his have been overturned?

More importantly though, you may want to read
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1300#p7644. Right in front of Bill Hall and
Goichberg, Hal Bogner is informing Brian Lafferty what should be
confidential information still. You can confirm this story with Jack.

Take care Terry,

Gregory
---------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Vibbert need to get their facts in order. *I have
had one sanction overturned by the FOC. *It was overturned because I was
being sanctioned twice by the MOD for the same "objectionable" posts.
The MOD did not even bother to contest my appeal, presumably because
they knew they had nothing to argue. See:

"DECISION ON APPEAL #4 BY BRIAN LAFFERTY FROM THE SANCTION
(viewtopic.php?p=84020#84020) BY THE MODERATION COMMITTEE.

The Forum Oversight Committee hereby rules to grant the appeal of Brian
Lafferty on the above-referenced appeal and reverse the decision and
level 3 sanction of the Moderation Committee. The vote was 4-0.

The Moderation Committee has twice (viewtopic.php?p=77872#77872 and
viewtopic.php?p=84020#84020) put Brian Lafferty in the moderation queue,
using his posts, #75955, #76496, #76724, #76733, #76899, #77343, and
#77589 as part of its reason. Since the Moderation Committee has not
approved and provided an explanation, FOC can not uphold the sanction.

THEREFORE the viewtopic.php?p=84020#84020 sanction is hereby vacated."
---------------------------------------------------------------

I did have a level three sanction ended as did all persons with such
sanctions once Mr. Hall had enough moderators to make the moderator
system functional. *That occurred in the late fall of 2007. See:

"by tsawmiller on Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:11 pm #77872
Effective Monday, November 5, 2007, the following users have been placed
in the Moderation Queue, as per Mr. Hall's directive, as a result of
repeated AUG violations:

Brenan
Brian Lafferty

Note: This was rescinded on or around November 30, 2007 by the Executive
Director, due to the formation of a formal Moderators Committee."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: *Both Mr. Alexander and I are in the Moderator Q at present. *I
posted a link to a court document containing the FSS obscenities.
Apparently this was too much for the sensitivities of the moderators.
Mr. Alexander can explain the underlying reasons for his sanction.

As to the Level 4 sanction that Mr. Vibbert apparently sought against me
which Mr. Alexander references, it appears that he could not muster the
votes to impose this sanction. Thus a level 4 sanction was never
imposed. *If it were, I would certainly take all appropriate action to
have such a sanctioned nullified.


Mr. Lafferty, I have my facts in order. And surely you know the FOC
won't overturn any sanction that hasn't been enacted. On December 4,
2007 the Moderation Committee unanimously voted 3-0 to sanction you
for 1 year (level 4.) The system administrator refused to impose the
sanction until every t was crossed and every i dotted. He wanted the
Executive Director to have "legal" review the sanction before it was
imposed. Because of this stipulation, the sanction announcement was
not put in the sanctions announcement area because it had not been
enacted. An email of the sanction language was sent to the ED (I
doubted that the ED used PMs) and sysadmin on Dec. 4, 2007. The email
stated in part. "Mike Nolan told me in a PM that you might want to
read this sanction notice and maybe run it by legal before we issue it
to Brian Lafferty. Whatever the case we are ready for you to send it
on to Mike Nolan for implementation as soon as you are satisfied."

This vote for sanction was because of your post on November 29th,
which, FYI, was not instigated by me, as Chair I didn't initiate calls
for sanction:
______________________________________________
Brian Lafferty wrote:
The expert's written report will confirm the Mottershead Report's
methodology and findings linking Paul Truong to the FSS. This expert
is
also willing to be video deposed, if necessary, under oath. The
written report will be done by December 10, 2007

Now EB, what ya gonna do?

And your ED doesn't want the membership to read about it here. The
following email was received from "The Management."

Hello Brian Lafferty,

You are receiving this notification because your topic "Expert's
Written
Report Due December 10, 2007" at "uschess.org" was disapproved by a
moderator or administrator.
The following reason was given for the disapproval:
Violates Mr. Hall's directive.

-- Thanks, The Management

You can read all about it from now on over at rgcp. F**K YOU
management. The real war has only just now begun.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________

You don't honestly think that you are going to make a post in the All
Things Chess Forum like that and not be sanctioned do you?

But then again, I suppose a sanction is useless if you can influence
those who carry out the penalty. (Not that I care what you think, but
you shouldn't group me in with those who are considered "losing" and
need to blow smoke.)


  #6   Report Post  
Old July 6th 08, 10:40 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default When You're Losing--Blow Old Smoke

wrote:
On Jul 6, 9:52 am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
More old smoke from Gregory Alexander on chessdiscussion. Of course
none of this has anything to do with the FSS issue and the recall of his
boss.
--------------------------------------------------------

by gregory_alexander on Sun Jul 06, 2008 1:15 am

Terry_Vibbert wrote:No, gregory, that is no typo. That is a fact.
But I was the Moderation Committee Chair when this last level 4 sanction
was passed by the Moderation Committee. It was emailed to the ED and
c.c.'d to Mike Nolan on December 4, 2007. No action has been taken on
this sanction.

One might conclude that the Management and System Administrator
want to avoid "ticking off" a lawyer in lieu of justly applying the
sanction process. I have no evidence to the contrary.

gregory wrote:
Terry Vibbert was the former FOC Chair. Unless there was a typo
by Terry, there must have been another level 4 placed upon Brian
Lafferty that was pulled as well. The first level 3 sanction placed upon
Brian Lafferty was over-ruled in May of 2007 by Bill Hall as well.

Terry_Vibbert wrote:by Terry_Vibbert on Sun May 18, 2008
5:00 am #102237

You shouldn't feel slighted. One particular sanction, a
Level 4, has never been announced, nor enacted, nor appealed, and
continues to sit in limbo while some alleged "legal department"
evaluates it as Mike Nolan informed me the Executive Director might want
to do. It has been 5 months now...

Hi Terry,

If I recall correctly, Brian Lafferty also had at least two sanctions
overturned in May when we both served via Bill Hall during the time that
he threatened to sue us. How many sanctions of his have been overturned?

More importantly though, you may want to read
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1300#p7644. Right in front of Bill Hall and
Goichberg, Hal Bogner is informing Brian Lafferty what should be
confidential information still. You can confirm this story with Jack.

Take care Terry,

Gregory
---------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Alexander and Mr. Vibbert need to get their facts in order. I have
had one sanction overturned by the FOC. It was overturned because I was
being sanctioned twice by the MOD for the same "objectionable" posts.
The MOD did not even bother to contest my appeal, presumably because
they knew they had nothing to argue. See:

"DECISION ON APPEAL #4 BY BRIAN LAFFERTY FROM THE SANCTION
(viewtopic.php?p=84020#84020) BY THE MODERATION COMMITTEE.

The Forum Oversight Committee hereby rules to grant the appeal of Brian
Lafferty on the above-referenced appeal and reverse the decision and
level 3 sanction of the Moderation Committee. The vote was 4-0.

The Moderation Committee has twice (viewtopic.php?p=77872#77872 and
viewtopic.php?p=84020#84020) put Brian Lafferty in the moderation queue,
using his posts, #75955, #76496, #76724, #76733, #76899, #77343, and
#77589 as part of its reason. Since the Moderation Committee has not
approved and provided an explanation, FOC can not uphold the sanction.

THEREFORE the viewtopic.php?p=84020#84020 sanction is hereby vacated."
---------------------------------------------------------------

I did have a level three sanction ended as did all persons with such
sanctions once Mr. Hall had enough moderators to make the moderator
system functional. That occurred in the late fall of 2007. See:

"by tsawmiller on Tue Nov 06, 2007 9:11 pm #77872
Effective Monday, November 5, 2007, the following users have been placed
in the Moderation Queue, as per Mr. Hall's directive, as a result of
repeated AUG violations:

Brenan
Brian Lafferty

Note: This was rescinded on or around November 30, 2007 by the Executive
Director, due to the formation of a formal Moderators Committee."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: Both Mr. Alexander and I are in the Moderator Q at present. I
posted a link to a court document containing the FSS obscenities.
Apparently this was too much for the sensitivities of the moderators.
Mr. Alexander can explain the underlying reasons for his sanction.

As to the Level 4 sanction that Mr. Vibbert apparently sought against me
which Mr. Alexander references, it appears that he could not muster the
votes to impose this sanction. Thus a level 4 sanction was never
imposed. If it were, I would certainly take all appropriate action to
have such a sanctioned nullified.


Mr. Lafferty, I have my facts in order. And surely you know the FOC
won't overturn any sanction that hasn't been enacted. On December 4,
2007 the Moderation Committee unanimously voted 3-0 to sanction you
for 1 year (level 4.) The system administrator refused to impose the
sanction until every t was crossed and every i dotted. He wanted the
Executive Director to have "legal" review the sanction before it was
imposed. Because of this stipulation, the sanction announcement was
not put in the sanctions announcement area because it had not been
enacted. An email of the sanction language was sent to the ED (I
doubted that the ED used PMs) and sysadmin on Dec. 4, 2007. The email
stated in part. "Mike Nolan told me in a PM that you might want to
read this sanction notice and maybe run it by legal before we issue it
to Brian Lafferty. Whatever the case we are ready for you to send it
on to Mike Nolan for implementation as soon as you are satisfied."

This vote for sanction was because of your post on November 29th,
which, FYI, was not instigated by me, as Chair I didn't initiate calls
for sanction:
______________________________________________
Brian Lafferty wrote:
The expert's written report will confirm the Mottershead Report's
methodology and findings linking Paul Truong to the FSS. This expert
is
also willing to be video deposed, if necessary, under oath. The
written report will be done by December 10, 2007

Now EB, what ya gonna do?

And your ED doesn't want the membership to read about it here. The
following email was received from "The Management."

Hello Brian Lafferty,

You are receiving this notification because your topic "Expert's
Written
Report Due December 10, 2007" at "uschess.org" was disapproved by a
moderator or administrator.
The following reason was given for the disapproval:
Violates Mr. Hall's directive.

-- Thanks, The Management

You can read all about it from now on over at rgcp. F**K YOU
management. The real war has only just now begun.
__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________

You don't honestly think that you are going to make a post in the All
Things Chess Forum like that and not be sanctioned do you?

But then again, I suppose a sanction is useless if you can influence
those who carry out the penalty. (Not that I care what you think, but
you shouldn't group me in with those who are considered "losing" and
need to blow smoke.)


Interesting. That isn't what I heard. Then again, there was never any
notice or opportunity to be heard regarding the imposition of any
sanction, let alone a Level 4.

That is the inherent problem with what is still effectively a Star
Chamber proceeding. I do hope you have an attorney for the USCF give
you an opinion and be certain that the USCF's attorney reads my memo of
last summer to the ED and all of the EB members regarding due process
problems in USCF moderation. Rest assured that if the USCF is stupid
enough to issue a level 4 sanction against me for referencing a Federal
Court document in Judge Chinn's court because it contains the language
ued by board member Truong as the FSS, I think you will have a rough
road to hoe when I file a complaint with the Illinois Attorney General's
Office--as a starter. It appears,prima facae, that those in certain
management level positions seek to silence a critic of certain board
members, one of whom is being recalled.

Seig Heil, Dr. Vibbert
  #8   Report Post  
Old July 7th 08, 03:37 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2008
Posts: 451
Default prima farcia

On Jul 7, 5:01*am, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Let's archive this. *And thanks for pointing out the typo. :-)


Also: "Seig Heil, Dr. Vibbert " should be "Sieg..." But dwelling on
misspellings is for eponymous losers.

In an analogous situation, I was tossed from the USCF Forum for using
the word "cunnilingus" in referencing a USCF board member's public
apologia for the molester of an eight-year-old girl. No Level 1, 2,
3, or 4 for me. While I vigorously disagreed with the decision, I
felt no need to label those who disagreed with me Nazis.

Since resigning my USCF membership, I have played 44 USCF-rated
games. During this same period, how many games have the parties in
this internecine war played, combined?
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
More Truong Smoke and Mirrors Brian Lafferty rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 4 May 12th 08 11:51 AM
Trolgar Blows Smoke Again Brian Lafferty rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 29 March 2nd 08 04:38 AM
I'm being blamed for losing $344,225 samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 February 4th 07 06:58 PM
Computers losing on time? Major Cat rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 11 December 5th 05 08:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:21 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