Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old July 14th 08, 09:57 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default Alexander Gets It Wrong AGAIN and AGAIN

From chessdiscussion today:
by gregory_alexander on Mon Jul 14, 2008 8:19 pm
I am not going to belabor the last few posts, but just like watching a
bad kitchen knife commercial, 'Not only will you receive this, but you
will get this nifty little knive in the back too!' I will move on to
something even worse.

Instead of instructing Hal to stop snooping, etc, we will find out that
Bill Hall and Goichberg were working to try to appoint:
- Hal Bogner, who forwarded and used our information,
- Brian Lafferty, whose sanctions were removed by Bill Hall, and the guy
who made constant legal threats,
- and David Quinn, the source of the leak..

.... to a new watch-dog committee to oversee the FOC and moderators in an
oversight role!
-------------------------------------------------

Gregory is either confused of or being disingenuous. The "watch-dog
committee" he refers to was not a watchdog committee at all. Bill Hall
was attempting to set up a committee to work on system proposal to make
the moderation process fair to all concerned. There was never any
discussion involving me that related to possible service by me on any
committee that would oversee the FOC.

As Gregory no doubt knows (if he doesn't he should talk to his boss Mr.
Truong), when one whose legal rights are threatened advised the source
of the threat that such a threat may result in legal action to protect
those rights or that illegal action by an organization may result in
legal or administrative action, those are far different from the school
yard type of threats most people are familiar with. Stating that ones
rights as an individual or a member of an organization are being
violated and may result in legal action is a warning that is fully
appropriate.
  #2   Report Post  
Old July 15th 08, 12:01 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Alexander Gets It Wrong AGAIN and AGAIN

What is especially interesting is to look at what Gregory Alexander
complains was leaked.

Here are the relevant direct quotes from what Gregory complains about:

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB...=1299&start=40

"Mr. Winchester,

"You removed (or caused the removal of) a number of posts on the Joe
Lux's June Statement thread which were political in nature, were made
by candidates and about candidates, and which were neither potential
libels nor personal attacks.

"I'll point out that your FOC vice-chair is probably not in agreement
with you on that point, judging from the length and frequency of his
posts of quotes of past posts.

"I appreciate that various of you on the FOC and of the (now too-
long-)anonymous moderators are volunteering in the interest of the
rest of us who are members. I am not questioning Mr. Smythe (who has
graciously responded to questions I raised in another thread this
morning), nor Ms. Wright, nor Dr. Vibbert. I have questioned Mr. Blair
for different reasons, but I particularly question you, sir."

Hal Bogner is pointing out that Terry Winchester removed a campaign
statement by Joe Lux from the USCF Issues Forum during the election
campaign period.

Terry Winchester was a terrible moderator, almost as bad or possible
even worse than Gregory Alexander. (It is to be recalled that Terry
Winchester resigned as moderator three times and each time took back
his resignation shortly thereafter, saying that it had not been
affected.)

What Gregory Alexander is complaining about here is that Hal Bogner
revealed that Terry Winchester was the moderator who did this. Every
regular on the forum could see that Joe Lux's statement had been
removed by a moderator. We just did not know which one did it.

Then, Gregory Alexander protests the fact that Bill Goichberg and Bill
Hall agreed with Bogner's complaint. Gregory Alexander complains that
Goichberg and Hall should have "backed up" the moderators and allowed
them to delete the campaign statements of any candidate for election
that they opposed.

Gregory Alexander then complains that Brian Lafferty threatened to sue
over this.

However, I did not do that. I never threatened to sue Gregory
Alexander over this.

Instead, I actually sued Gregory Alexander over this.

And I am so glad I did. The case is now pending in federal court.

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old July 15th 08, 12:12 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default Alexander Gets It Wrong AGAIN and AGAIN

Here34 is Gregory Alexander's latest attempt to prove himself correct.
However,, as you will see, it backfires completely. From chessdiscussion:
--------------------------------------------
by gregory_alexander on Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:13 pm
After all of the FOC, and all of the moderators ask for David Quinn to
be removed, on May 10th, 2007, Bill Hall responds.

Instead of backing us up to the right to have our own conversations
without being monitored, and backing us up not to be legally
threatened., I have highlighted these two points in his post:

- *Bill Hall wants to establish a new watchdog commitee and have Brian
Lafferty at the helm.*
---------------------------------------------------
Completely untrue and disproved by the text of Bill Hall's email that
follows as released by Gregory Alexander.
-----------------------------------------------------

- Bill Hall suggests that we are 'over-moderating'.

At this juncture, I am avoiding putting in my own political commentary
as it is my intent to convey how USCF volunteers were treated during the
last election season.

Bill Hall wrote:To the Forum Oversite Committee:

I apologize for taking this long to report back to you regarding the
Lafferty appeal. I first want to begin by saying that I very much
appreciate
your efforts in the role that you are fulfilling for the
Federation. I know
from first hand experience that your job is a thankless and incredibly
difficult one. This is a project that is in its infancy and must
undergo an
evolutionary process. Growth is a difficult and painful process and the
forums must go through this to reach a more sophisticated and
mature place.
You are the stewards of that growth. This process will take time.
It will be
frustrating, and hopefully in the end it will be fulfilling. It is a
particularly difficult time to be attempting to bring civility to
the forum
frontier with the EB election in full swing. Having experienced two EB
elections during my tenure here, I can say that this tends to bring
out the
"best" in people. The political history of the Federation coupled
with the
growth of the forums and the election make for a very complicated
situation.
You have been and will be attacked for over-moderating, then for
under-moderating, and for any number of other perceived injuries.
You can
always tell who the pioneers a they are the ones with the arrows
sticking
out of their backs. I expect that there will be periodic swings in
the level
of moderation, as well as the level needed. And, you have to figure
it out
without much of a road map. I know that I asked a lot from you when I
invited you to be a part of this. And, I truly do appreciate what
you do.

Regarding Brian Lafferty, I have documentation that shows that his
search
did reveal the name mentioned as an alias. Whether this is erroneous
information, I cannot tell, but he did discern this through publicly
available channels. Therefore, I am concerned about that point in
deriving
the sanction. However, I feel that repetitively posting the name
does at
least approach a level of harassment. My ruling is that we
implement a two
day sanction for Mr. Lafferty for this offense. I understand that
there are
additional sanctions levied for additional offenses, so I am sure
there will
be further discussion.

*In an attempt to quell some of the discord, I have discussed with
Mr. Lafferty the creation of an advisory committee for me, in order to
produce suggestions on policies and procedures. The purpose would be to
bring these suggestions to the FOC in a (hopefully) more positive
fashion for consideration. I would like to direct Mr. Lafferty's
professional expertise and energies in a more productive direction. Will
this work? I have no idea, but I feel this is worth a try before the
situation worsens.*
-----------------------------------------------
This is precisely what I noted in the post starting this thread. The
committee was to be advisory to *Bill Hall* who would take suggestion
for moderation improvement to the FOC for consideration. At no time was
this ever considered to be an oversight committee as Mr. Alexander
disingenuously states.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the vote on David Quinn, I am saddened that the situation
arose
that made the committee feel it necessary to take such action.
However, I do
not feel that a Committee can function in a healthy fashion if such a
situation persists, and I will bring the matter before the
Executive Board.

Generally, much of the feedback that I am hearing now is that the
Committee
may be operating a bit in the range of over-moderating. I am not
making a
judgment here, as I feel many of you are probably more qualified
than I am
regarding this. However I urge the Committee to be cautious in removing
posts. There can be a very fine line at times between a politically
motivated personal attack and very personal Political questioning.
Where is
that line? I don't know that there is an answer. I just hope that
all of you
will hang in there with us as we strive to make the forums a better
place
and give the process a chance to grow and evolve.

Again, I sincerely thank each of you for all of you efforts.

Regards,


Bill Hall
  #4   Report Post  
Old July 15th 08, 12:21 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default Gregory Alexander's Important Factually Incorrect Note

From chessdiscussion by Mr. Alexander:

Important note: Regarding having Lafferty in an oversite role, Bill Hall
was not making a off-hand suggestion. Without us knowing it at the time,
plans were in an advanced stage to have Lafferty serve on a new committee.
---------------------------------------------------------

This is absolutely false. As discussed previously, there was no
oversight role considered for this committee whatsoever. I had one,
repeat, ONE, telephone conversation with Bill Hall in which I agreed to
consider serving on a committee as described in Bill Hall's email posted
earlier on this thread. After that one conversation, I heard nothing
more whatsoever from Bill Hall regarding the formation of such a committee.

Mr. Alexander is being completely disingenuous regarding the matters
raised by him on chessdiscussion. What he is doing, with the tacit
approval of Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar, is despicable. It is no more
than an attempt to decoy delegates from the issues surrounding the
Truong recall motion that will be considered by the delegates in Dallas
next month.
  #5   Report Post  
Old July 15th 08, 12:54 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,710
Default Alexander Gets It Wrong AGAIN and AGAIN

and the subject matter of the contention was? laugh i see it is no longer
necessary to mention it at all in Sloan-World. you would think this was just
pure political in-fighting, no? Phil Innes

"samsloan" wrote in message
...
What is especially interesting is to look at what Gregory Alexander
complains was leaked.

Here are the relevant direct quotes from what Gregory complains about:

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB...=1299&start=40

"Mr. Winchester,

"You removed (or caused the removal of) a number of posts on the Joe
Lux's June Statement thread which were political in nature, were made
by candidates and about candidates, and which were neither potential
libels nor personal attacks.

"I'll point out that your FOC vice-chair is probably not in agreement
with you on that point, judging from the length and frequency of his
posts of quotes of past posts.

"I appreciate that various of you on the FOC and of the (now too-
long-)anonymous moderators are volunteering in the interest of the
rest of us who are members. I am not questioning Mr. Smythe (who has
graciously responded to questions I raised in another thread this
morning), nor Ms. Wright, nor Dr. Vibbert. I have questioned Mr. Blair
for different reasons, but I particularly question you, sir."

Hal Bogner is pointing out that Terry Winchester removed a campaign
statement by Joe Lux from the USCF Issues Forum during the election
campaign period.

Terry Winchester was a terrible moderator, almost as bad or possible
even worse than Gregory Alexander. (It is to be recalled that Terry
Winchester resigned as moderator three times and each time took back
his resignation shortly thereafter, saying that it had not been
affected.)

What Gregory Alexander is complaining about here is that Hal Bogner
revealed that Terry Winchester was the moderator who did this. Every
regular on the forum could see that Joe Lux's statement had been
removed by a moderator. We just did not know which one did it.

Then, Gregory Alexander protests the fact that Bill Goichberg and Bill
Hall agreed with Bogner's complaint. Gregory Alexander complains that
Goichberg and Hall should have "backed up" the moderators and allowed
them to delete the campaign statements of any candidate for election
that they opposed.

Gregory Alexander then complains that Brian Lafferty threatened to sue
over this.

However, I did not do that. I never threatened to sue Gregory
Alexander over this.

Instead, I actually sued Gregory Alexander over this.

And I am so glad I did. The case is now pending in federal court.

Sam Sloan





  #6   Report Post  
Old July 15th 08, 07:32 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 70
Default Gregory Alexander's Important Factually Incorrect Note

On Jul 14, 4:21*pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
*From chessdiscussion by Mr. Alexander:

Important note: Regarding having Lafferty in an oversite role, Bill Hall
was not making a off-hand suggestion. Without us knowing it at the time,
plans were in an advanced stage to have Lafferty serve on a new committee..
---------------------------------------------------------

This is absolutely false. *As discussed previously, there was no
oversight role considered for this committee whatsoever. *I had one,
repeat, ONE, telephone conversation with Bill Hall in which I agreed to
consider serving on a committee as described in Bill Hall's email posted
earlier on this thread. *After that one conversation, I heard nothing
more whatsoever from Bill Hall regarding the formation of such a committee.

Mr. Alexander is being completely disingenuous regarding the matters
raised by him on chessdiscussion. *What he is doing, with the tacit
approval of Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar, is despicable. *It is no more
than an attempt to decoy delegates from the issues surrounding the
Truong recall motion that will be considered by the delegates in Dallas
next month.


[quote="gregory_alexander"]I see that I am being attacked again with
lies on the RGCP again by Sloan and Brian Lafferty. Such is life when
one exposes things. I am getting very tired of dealing with these
types of tactics. Too tired... I feel like I am fighting against a
political attack machine.

In full attack mode, Brian wrote today on RGCP that he only talked to
Bill Hall once about serving in this committee, yet, in an USCF
forums post last year, he stated that he had 'several' discussions
with Bill Hall regarding serving this committee. Before he edits it,
look at http://main.uschess.org/forums/posti...te&f=5&p=50592
in the 'it is well past time for ethical transparency'.

I will quote this, and other related public USCF posts that relate to
this matter here. Look for the red font color if you want to skip the
rest of the post:

[quote="Brian Lafferty"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinak
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregory
Privacy: it
is interesting to note how some are arguing that we are prone to
absolute secrecy in the FOC. If a fellow member writes to the FOC, and
states 'please remove the post for x', that PM should be kept private
amongst ourselves. As a USCF member, you should be able to expect that
your own views will not be aired like dirty laundry, nor will they be
shared with a select group of members that strongly oppose you.[/
quote]
I would strongly disagree. When someone makes a complaint, they should
expect that the poster will be provided with the complaint so that he
can answer the charges. It seems to me very wrong when someone can in
essence be tried and convicted without even knowing with what he is
charged. Letting someone make charges while hiding under a veil of
secrecy is what this forum was designed to avoid when USCF IDs became
required. If you want that privacy, then you should just post
anonymously on all of the other groups/forums that are out there.[/
quote]

I agree and have had several conversations with Bill
Hall about setting up fair procedural rules to support this
.
Bill Hall also asked that I work with several others, including but
not limited to, Hal, Will and David. I would be happy to have the
Chair of the FOC or his appointee join in that endeavor.

All that anyone is asking is to be treated fairly. There are a
variety of procedural systems and variants that can be set up. Brian
M. mentioned one that he used in running a web site discussion board.
I think he could be very helpful is working to structure a new or
improved system here. Our Ethics Board also has procedures that can
be looked at.

I stand ready to work for such a system.
http://main.uschess.org/forums/posti...te&f=5&p=50564
  #7   Report Post  
Old July 15th 08, 08:36 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 70
Default Gregory Alexander's Important Factually Incorrect Note

On Jul 14, 11:32*pm, Gregory wrote:
On Jul 14, 4:21*pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:





*From chessdiscussion by Mr. Alexander:


Important note: Regarding having Lafferty in an oversite role, Bill Hall
was not making a off-hand suggestion. Without us knowing it at the time,
plans were in an advanced stage to have Lafferty serve on a new committee.
---------------------------------------------------------


This is absolutely false. *As discussed previously, there was no
oversight role considered for this committee whatsoever. *I had one,
repeat, ONE, telephone conversation with Bill Hall in which I agreed to
consider serving on a committee as described in Bill Hall's email posted
earlier on this thread. *After that one conversation, I heard nothing
more whatsoever from Bill Hall regarding the formation of such a committee.


Mr. Alexander is being completely disingenuous regarding the matters
raised by him on chessdiscussion. *What he is doing, with the tacit
approval of Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar, is despicable. *It is no more
than an attempt to decoy delegates from the issues surrounding the
Truong recall motion that will be considered by the delegates in Dallas
next month.


[quote="gregory_alexander"]I see that I am being attacked again with
lies on the RGCP again by Sloan and Brian Lafferty. Such is life when
one exposes things. I am getting very tired of dealing with these
types of tactics. Too tired... I feel like I am fighting against a
political attack machine.

In full attack mode, Brian wrote today on RGCP that he only talked to
Bill Hall once about serving in this committee, *yet, in an USCF
forums post last year, he stated *that he had 'several' discussions
with Bill Hall regarding serving this committee. Before he edits it,
look athttp://main.uschess.org/forums/posting.php?mode=quote&f=5&p=50592
in the 'it is well past time for ethical transparency'.

I will quote this, and other related public USCF posts that relate to
this matter here. Look for the red font color if you want to skip the
rest of the post:

[quote="Brian Lafferty"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinak
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregory
Privacy: it
is interesting to note how some are arguing that we are prone to
absolute secrecy in the FOC. If a fellow member writes to the FOC, and
states 'please remove the post for x', that PM should be kept private
amongst ourselves. As a USCF member, you should be able to expect that
your own views will not be aired like dirty laundry, nor will they be
shared with a select group of members that strongly oppose you.[/
quote]
I would strongly disagree. When someone makes a complaint, they should
expect that the poster will be provided with the complaint so that he
can answer the charges. It seems to me very wrong when someone can in
essence be tried and convicted without even knowing with what he is
charged. Letting someone make charges while hiding under a veil of
secrecy is what this forum was designed to avoid when USCF IDs became
required. If you want that privacy, then you should just post
anonymously on all of the other groups/forums that are out there.[/
quote]

I agree and have had several conversations with Bill
Hall about setting up fair procedural rules to support this
.
Bill Hall also asked that I work with several others, including but
not limited to, Hal, Will and David. *I would be happy to have the
Chair of the FOC or his appointee join in that endeavor.

All that anyone is asking is to be treated fairly. *There are a
variety of procedural systems and variants that can be set up. *Brian
M. mentioned one that he used in running a web site discussion board.
I think he could be very helpful is working to structure a new or
improved system here. * Our Ethics Board also has procedures that can
be looked at.

I stand ready to work for such a system.

http://main.uschess.org/forums/posti...te&f=5&p=50564
- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Correction. Brians post a year ago is at
http://main.uschess.org/forums/posti...te&f=5&p=50592

  #8   Report Post  
Old July 15th 08, 11:40 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default Gregory Alexander's Important Factually Incorrect Note

Gregory wrote:
On Jul 14, 4:21 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
From chessdiscussion by Mr. Alexander:

Important note: Regarding having Lafferty in an oversite role, Bill Hall
was not making a off-hand suggestion. Without us knowing it at the time,
plans were in an advanced stage to have Lafferty serve on a new committee.
---------------------------------------------------------

This is absolutely false. As discussed previously, there was no
oversight role considered for this committee whatsoever. I had one,
repeat, ONE, telephone conversation with Bill Hall in which I agreed to
consider serving on a committee as described in Bill Hall's email posted
earlier on this thread. After that one conversation, I heard nothing
more whatsoever from Bill Hall regarding the formation of such a committee.

Mr. Alexander is being completely disingenuous regarding the matters
raised by him on chessdiscussion. What he is doing, with the tacit
approval of Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar, is despicable. It is no more
than an attempt to decoy delegates from the issues surrounding the
Truong recall motion that will be considered by the delegates in Dallas
next month.


[quote="gregory_alexander"]I see that I am being attacked again with
lies on the RGCP again by Sloan and Brian Lafferty. Such is life when
one exposes things. I am getting very tired of dealing with these
types of tactics. Too tired... I feel like I am fighting against a
political attack machine.

In full attack mode, Brian wrote today on RGCP that he only talked to
Bill Hall once about serving in this committee, yet, in an USCF
forums post last year, he stated that he had 'several' discussions
with Bill Hall regarding serving this committee. Before he edits it,
look at http://main.uschess.org/forums/posti...te&f=5&p=50592
in the 'it is well past time for ethical transparency'.


Indeed, I have had several discussions by telephone with Bill Hall, but
only one regarding the setting up of a committee to advise Mr. Hall
about procedural issues regarding moderation. I had several discussions
with Mr. Hall regarding procedural due process problems and substantive
due process issues with the AUG. Those discussion resulted in a memo to
Mr. Hall dated May 10, 2007 which can be found at
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzewuo9u/ by scrolling down past the attorney
letters.

The post which Mr. Alexander quotes here was made to the USCF Issues
Forum on May 31, 2007. The key paragraph of that post follows:
"I agree and have had several conversations with Bill Hall about setting
up fair procedural rules to support this. Bill Hall *also* asked that I
work with several others, including but not limited to, Hal, Will and
David. I would be happy to have the Chair of the FOC or his appointee
join in that endeavor." [Emphasis added]

Mr. Alexander willfully misrepresents the clear meaning of my post, to
wit, I had several conversations with Mr. Hall regarding procedural
problems confronting the FOC. Mr. Hall also asked (in one and only one
conversation) if I would be willing to serve on a committee to advise
HIM, to which I gladly agreed.



I will quote this, and other related public USCF posts that relate to
this matter here. Look for the red font color if you want to skip the
rest of the post:

[quote="Brian Lafferty"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinak
Quote:
Originally Posted by gregory
Privacy: it
is interesting to note how some are arguing that we are prone to
absolute secrecy in the FOC. If a fellow member writes to the FOC, and
states 'please remove the post for x', that PM should be kept private
amongst ourselves. As a USCF member, you should be able to expect that
your own views will not be aired like dirty laundry, nor will they be
shared with a select group of members that strongly oppose you.[/
quote]
I would strongly disagree. When someone makes a complaint, they should
expect that the poster will be provided with the complaint so that he
can answer the charges. It seems to me very wrong when someone can in
essence be tried and convicted without even knowing with what he is
charged. Letting someone make charges while hiding under a veil of
secrecy is what this forum was designed to avoid when USCF IDs became
required. If you want that privacy, then you should just post
anonymously on all of the other groups/forums that are out there.[/
quote]

I agree and have had several conversations with Bill
Hall about setting up fair procedural rules to support this
.
Bill Hall also asked that I work with several others, including but
not limited to, Hal, Will and David. I would be happy to have the
Chair of the FOC or his appointee join in that endeavor.

All that anyone is asking is to be treated fairly. There are a
variety of procedural systems and variants that can be set up. Brian
M. mentioned one that he used in running a web site discussion board.
I think he could be very helpful is working to structure a new or
improved system here. Our Ethics Board also has procedures that can
be looked at.

I stand ready to work for such a system.

http://main.uschess.org/forums/posti...te&f=5&p=50564

  #9   Report Post  
Old July 15th 08, 11:52 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default Gregory Alexander's Important Factually Incorrect Note

Gregory wrote:


In full attack mode, Brian wrote today on RGCP that he only talked to
Bill Hall once about serving in this committee, yet, in an USCF
forums post last year, he stated that he had 'several' discussions
with Bill Hall regarding serving this committee. Before he edits it,
look athttp://main.uschess.org/forums/posting.php?mode=quote&f=5&p=50592
in the 'it is well past time for ethical transparency'.


Before I edit it??!! No, Mr. Alexander. I think you're projecting your
behavior patterns onto others.
  #10   Report Post  
Old July 15th 08, 12:46 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default Gregory Alexander's Important Factually Incorrect Note

For Mr. Alexander's benefit, the following post by me to the USCF Issues
Forum was made on 5/31/07.

by Brian Lafferty on Thu May 31, 2007 4:50 am #50526

snits wrote:Very interesting. Care to explain this Hal, Brian, and
David?



In addition to what Hal has already posted to this thread I add the
following:

1. The only copy of any "private" FOC/Moderator communication that I
received was the defamatory communication from Mr. Paul Truong to Mr.
Steve Owens regarding a matter involving me before the FOC. This was an
ex parte communication. Mr. Ouinn made this communication known in an
act of moral courage, doing the right thing in the face of tremendous
pressure from other FOC members to keep silent and do an injustice. The
EB agreed with Mr. Quinn's action by voting 6-0 not to remove Mr. Quinn
from the FOC on Mr. Winchester's motion to do so.

2. On seeing Mr. Truong's communication referenced above, I consulted
with my attorney in New York City who communicated with Mr. Truong and
Mr. Owens with a courtesy copy of the Owens letter to Mr. Hall.
Copies of those two letters can be viewed at the following web address:
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzewuo9u/

3. To my knowledge, Mr. Truong and Mr. Owens have complied with the
requests of my attorney and I consider the matter presently to be closed.

4. Contrary to speculation here, no legal action has been commenced by
me against Mr. Truong, Mr. Owens or the FOC/USCF and none is presently
contemplated. As a note to at least one poster on this thread, the
sending of an attorney's communication, as here, does not constitute the
commencement of a legal action. In NY State that can only be done by
service of a Summons and Complaint on defendants. That has not been done.

5. On learning that Mr. Winchester was seeking to have Mr. Quinn removed
from the FOC, I sent the following email to Mr. Hall and the members of
the EB and the FOC.

Dear Board Members:

I and others have serious concerns about how the FOC is both operating
and apparently controlled by several members who do not appreciate norms
of openness and fair process in the hearing and deciding of complaints
regarding alleged violations of the AUG. Indeed, it has appeared to more
than one USCF member that the actions of the FOC are becoming
increasingly political and if allowed to continue will jeopardize the
legitimacy of the upcoming Executive Board election.

In the sincere hope that regulatory complaint and court action over this
mater can be avoided, I attach herewith a slightly modified memoranda
prepared last week for Executive Director Bill Hall to forward to USCF
counsel for an opinion as to the potential liabilities being needlessly
created by the chair of the FOC and his supporters on the FOC.

Additionally, it has come to my attention that Mr. Winchester and
friends on the FOC are attempting to have David Quinn removed from the
FOC for releasing an ex parte communication received by Mr. Steve Owens
from Mr. Paul Truong during the consideration of a complaint against me.
This communication from Mr. Truong was defamatory and prejudicial to me
in the matter before the FOC. That Mr. Quinn had the ethical good sense
and backbone to do the right thing and make known this improper
communication should not result in Mr. Quinn's removal from the FOC.
Rather, Mr. Quinn should be lauded for doing the right thing by blowing
the whistle on the improper actions of a fellow FOC member and the
abject failure of the FOC chair, Mr. Winchester, to correct Mr. Truong
and Mr. Owens' actions.

While I am only a recent member of the USCF, I am an active chess player
and organizer of youth chess in my area. We have just completed our
first year of chess club at my daughter's elementary school. We
consistently had 25+ students actively playing and learning chess and
the values of fair play. Would that the same lesson be learned by the
chair and other members of the FOC.

Respectfully,
Brian Lafferty

PS-I do not have Mr. Winchester's email address. I will copy this email
and send it to Mr. Winchester via pm. I ask that Mr. Hall or Mr. Owens
provide him with a copy of the memoranda attachment.

The defensive power of a pinned piece is only imaginary. --Aaron Nimzovich

6. A copy of my memorandum for consideration by USCF counsel can also be
found on the web site above.

I trust this makes clear my actions and involvement in this most
unfortunate occurence.
Last edited by Brian Lafferty on Thu May 31, 2007 5:18 am, edited 1 time
in total.
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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:53 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