Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 15th 09, 11:41 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Grant Perks Caught in a Lie

According to the Goichberg Rules of the USCF Issues Forum, nobody is
allowed to call anybody a liar unless there is "substantial proof".

This means that if there is "substantial proof", you are allowed to
call someone a liar.

I have the "substantial proof" that Grant Perks has lied several times
today.

Grant Perks has stated today that he never filed an "ethics complaint"
against me, only that it was "deemed" an ethics complaint by the
office, and that there was no requirement that he pay a filing fee of
$25.

Here is the proof that these statements are lies. It is a cover letter
he sent to the USCF offices at the time that Grant Perks filed his
ethics complaint. It states:

From:
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:44 AM
To:

Cc:

Subject: Sam Sloan Ethics Charge
Hello Pat,

Attached please find a pdf of my ethics complaint against Sam Sloan.
Bill Hall has agreed to wave the $25 filing fee. I will send a check
to the US Chess Trust.

Best,
Grant


I must add here that a lot of the financial problems the USCF faces
now can be traced to Grant Perks. Among other things, it is Grant
Perks who keeps telling the office and the board to ignore the rule
passed by the USCF delegates in 2007 in Cherry Hill to limit the
"imaginary money" to only $50,000. Grant Perks is telling the board
to claim receipt of the full $100,000 in "imaginary money".

Note that this letter was sent on the day after the votes had been
counted and it had determined that Grant Perks had lost the election
to me.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old January 16th 09, 02:53 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2005
Posts: 45
Default Another Sam Sloan Distortion

On Jan 15, 6:41*pm, samsloan wrote:
According to the Goichberg Rules of the USCF Issues Forum, nobody is
allowed to call anybody a liar unless there is "substantial proof".

This means that if there is "substantial proof", you are allowed to
call someone a liar.

I have the "substantial proof" that Grant Perks has lied several times
today.

Grant Perks has stated today that he never filed an "ethics complaint"
against me, only that it was "deemed" an ethics complaint by the
office, and that there was no requirement that he pay a filing fee of
$25.

Here is the proof that these statements are lies. It is a cover letter
he sent to the USCF offices at the time that Grant Perks filed his
ethics complaint. It states:

From:
Sent: * Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:44 AM
To: * *
Cc: * *
Subject: Sam Sloan Ethics Charge
Hello Pat,

Attached please find a pdf of my ethics complaint against Sam Sloan.
Bill Hall has agreed to wave the $25 filing fee. I will send a check
to the US Chess Trust.

Best,
Grant

I must add here that a lot of the financial problems the USCF faces
now can be traced to Grant Perks. Among other things, it is Grant
Perks who keeps telling the office and the board to ignore the rule
passed by the USCF delegates in 2007 in Cherry Hill to limit the
"imaginary money" to only $50,000. *Grant Perks is telling the board
to claim receipt of the full $100,000 in "imaginary money".

Note that this letter was sent on the day after the votes had been
counted and it had determined that Grant Perks had lost the election
to me.

Sam Sloan


Sam,

The day before the complaint was filed I called the USCF office to
determine if I could send it via email. I was told that a pdf was
acceptable and that the $25 deposit was waived. The waiver of the fee
was volunteered by the ED as I did not ask to have it waived. The
justification I received was that it would obviously be returned since
the complaint wasn't frivolous.

The email you quote has apparently been manually edited. The first
clue is the email address listed is not my AOL email account. While it
isn't clear to me if I did or didn't type the rest of the email, the
text as you quote does not contradict what I wrote in the USCF forums.
It was the USCF's office determination to forward my complaint to the
ethics committee, I did not make that call.

The revenue $100,000 deferred revenue recognized by the USCF was not
my call either. The ED, CFO, and auditors all made that call.
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
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 rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 January 27th 07 02:54 PM
Answer by Sam Sloan to Ethics Complaint by Grant Perks samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 January 27th 07 02:54 PM
Grant Perks Ethics Complaint against Sam Sloan samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 January 27th 07 10:13 AM
Grant Perks Ethics Complaint against Sam Sloan samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 January 27th 07 10:13 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:35 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