Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 14th 09, 11:27 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default The Five Goichberg Letters

Anybody, who does not realize that all seven lawsuits in which the
USCF is now mired were started or provoked by Bill Goichberg should
consider the five letters that Goichberg wrote to the USCF's
litigation attorney in July and August 2006.

During July and August 2006 Bill Goichberg wrote five letters to the
USCF's litigation attorney Michael Matsler asking for ways to initiate
legal proceedings either to stop Sam Sloan from taking office to which
he had just been elected on the board or to remove him from the board
once he had taken office. In each case, the attorney, to his credit,
declined the suggestion. The attorney billed the USCF $4800 for
replying to each of Bill Goichberg's five letters.

Although the letters were officially signed by Bill Hall, it was
obvious that Bill Goichberg had actually written them and had
instructed Bill Hall to sign them. Neither of them have ever denied
that this was the case.

I am hereby asking that Bill Hall and/or Bill Goichberg publicly post
the five letters. The five letters are all in the confidential BINFOS
for July and August 2006 and any board member has access to them in
the confidential BINFOS. The dues paying members have the right to see
these letters.

Once the letters are posted, it will become obvious that the
litigation in which the USCF is now mired all started with Bill
Goichberg. In addition, Bill Goichberg recruited Susan Polgar to run
for election as an anti-Sam Sloan candidate, knowing her historic
inclination to make unfounded demands and charges and her tendency to
resort to the courts.

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old February 15th 09, 04:16 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default The Five Goichberg Letters

My point to this entire thread is that Goichberg would have you
believe that it is the fault of me, Polgar and others who are guilty
of involving the USCF litigation and that Goichberg himself is totally
innocent of any wrong doing.

I am stating that all seven of the lawsuits in which the USCF is
involved (at last count) are directly traceable to the actions of Bill
Goichberg and to nobody else.

I am further stating that the five letters to Matsler which nobody on
this forum other than Goichberg and myself have seen prove this.

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old February 15th 09, 07:52 AM 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 The Five Goichberg Letters

On Feb 14, 6:27*pm, samsloan wrote:
Anybody, who does not realize that all seven lawsuits in which the
USCF is now mired were started or provoked by Bill Goichberg should
consider the five letters that Goichberg wrote to the USCF's
litigation attorney in July and August 2006.

During July and August 2006 Bill Goichberg wrote five letters to the
USCF's litigation attorney Michael Matsler asking for ways to initiate
legal proceedings either to stop Sam Sloan from taking office to which
he had just been elected on the board or to remove him from the board
once he had taken office. In each case, the attorney, to his credit,
declined the suggestion. The attorney billed the USCF $4800 for
replying to each of Bill Goichberg's five letters.

Although the letters were officially signed by Bill Hall, it was
obvious that Bill Goichberg had actually written them and had
instructed Bill Hall to sign them. Neither of them have ever denied
that this was the case.

I am hereby asking that Bill Hall and/or Bill Goichberg publicly post
the five letters. The five letters are all in the confidential BINFOS
for July and August 2006 and any board member has access to them in
the confidential BINFOS. The dues paying members have the right to see
these letters.

Once the letters are posted, it will become obvious that the
litigation in which the USCF is now mired all started with Bill
Goichberg. In addition, Bill Goichberg recruited Susan Polgar to run
for election as an anti-Sam Sloan candidate, knowing her historic
inclination to make unfounded demands and charges and her tendency to
resort to the courts.

Sam Sloan


Quote:
Originally Posted by chessoffice
Sam, you brought this matter up a few years ago
on the forum and extensive discussion followed. I don't know why it's
necessary to repeat all this, but for those who don't wish to do the
research, after you were elected, many people did not want you seated,
and we needed to tell the delegates what USCF's options were. I
suspected that a delegate motion to bar you would entail unacceptable
legal risk to USCF, and that is what our attorney confirmed. At Oak
Brook, Bill Hall and I told various delegates that attempts to prevent
your seating as a board member would not be wise. One meeting that I
recall involved Dewain Barber, Paul Truong, Bill Hall and myself, at
which Bill Hall and I argued against a delegate attempt to prevent
your seating.

Also, the $4800 bill from the attorney covered several subjects, not
just the inquiry regarding your seating.

I see only one new claim in your post, that I "recruited Susan Polgar
to run for election as an anti-Sam Sloan candidate." This is total
fiction. I never encouraged Susan to run, nor was I ever in contact
with her regarding the possibility of her becoming a candidate.
Unless you can provide some evidence that I recruited her to run, I
suggest that you retract this claim.

Bill Goichberg
That is Bill's story, and he is sticking to it, but it is a typical
example of Bill's tendency to be, shall we say, "disingenuous".

I have shown the letters Bill wrote to several people and all of them
agree that the letters do not reflect a concern by Bill that somebody
else might sue to stop me from taking office after I had been elected.
Rather, those letters were a request by Bill Goichberg that Michael
Matsler file a lawsuit to stop me from taking office.

Michael Matsler in essence replied that it would be impossible for him
to file a lawsuit to stop me from taking office, because I had been
elected by the members and was already in office, even though I had
not yet been seated on the board.

This explains Bill's change in strategy to remove me from office after
I had taken office rather than try to stop me from taking office.

As to his claim that the bill for $4800 represented "other things"
besides Bill Goichberg's efforts to have me removed from the board, I
researched that contention and found that Michael Matsler did no other
legal work for the USCF during the 2006-2007 period other than write
the five letters in response to Bill's five letters.

The statement above by Bill Goichberg that "we needed to tell the
delegates" about this, shows that Bill was trying to stir the pot. If
he merely had wanted to head off the attempts by Dewain Barber, Susan
Polgar and Paul Truong to stop me from taking office, he would have
sought the advice of the lawyers who volunteer their services to the
USCF, including Stephen Jones, Harold Dondis, Harold Winston, Hanon
Russell and several others. When the USCF wants to file a lawsuit, it
goes to Michael Matsler, who has traditionally handled any litigation
involving the USCF. The fact that Goichberg went to Matsler rather
than any of the others shows that he wanted to sue to prevent me from
taking office through litigation.

As to the claim that Goichberg's letter to Matsler is protected by
attorney-client privilege, I disagree. Matsler is the USCF's attorney,
not Goichberg's attorney. Goichberg was a member of the board writing
to the USCF's attorney asking him to undertake litigation against
another member of the board. I do not think that such a letter is
protected by privilege.

Again, I call upon Bill Goichberg to post here the five letters he
wrote to Matsler. Since Bill Goichberg is running against me for
election, I feel that the members are entitled to see the letters.
Only then will the members be able to see who is telling the truth and
who is being "disingenuous".

Sam Sloan
  #4   Report Post  
Old February 15th 09, 09:08 AM 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 The Five Goichberg Letters

[quote="Grayson"]
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsloan
As to the claim that Goichberg's
letter to Matsler is protected by attorney-client privilege, I
disagree. Matsler is the USCF's attorney, not Goichberg's attorney.
Goichberg was a member of the board writing to the USCF's attorney
asking him to undertake litigation against another member of the
board. I do not think that such a letter is protected by privilege. [/
quote]

You're running for election to the EB of this organization; quit
demanding that it post letters to its counsel on this forum.
I think you are failing to consider the fact that the five letters
that Bill Goichberg wrote to Michael Matsler and the replies that he
received from Michael Matsler are already posted. The first posting
was on August 1, 2006 and was and presumably still is in the BINFOS.

However, they are marked "confidential" which means that only those
persons who are authorized to read the confidential BINFOS can read
them. I do not know exactly who is on the list of persons entitled to
read confidential BINFOS but it is more than just the board members.

If you know how to read the BINFOS I suggest that you read BINFO
200603388 by Bill Goichberg entitled "Legal Threats from Polgar and
Truong". This letter by Goichberg makes it clear that Polgar and
Truong were already threatening to sue the USCF in August 2006. In
fact, they had made a series of threats to sue the USCF going back to
2003. They threatened to sue the USCF over the Anna Hahn Affair, over
the selection of the "Dream Team", over the 2004 US Woman's
Championship, over the chess calenders, over payment for training the
Olympiad Team and many other things. Many of these threats were posted
by them on my email group and are still
there as I never delete anything.

In view of the numerous threats by Polgar and Truong to sue the USCF,
the decision by Goichberg to back and support Susan Polgar for
election, knowing this and not informing the general membership of the
likely consequences of the election of Susan to the board, was
unconscionable. It was inevitable that once Susan got on the board
there would be lawsuits, knowing her history.

Again, how can you say that the letters to and from Matsler are
protected by privilege when they have already been posted, they were
just not posted here?

Sam Sloan
  #5   Report Post  
Old February 15th 09, 10:35 AM 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 The Five Goichberg Letters

I just spent several minutes checking the BINFOS to see whether the
Matsler letters were marked confidential or non-confidential. The five
letters Bill Goichberg wrote to Michael Matsler seeking ways to stop
me from taking office or to remove me from the board after I had taken
office were all written between July 21, 2006 when I was first elected
and August 13, 2006 when I actually took office. However, some of the
replies from Matsler did not come until after I took office.

I know that these letters and the replies are in the BINFOS because
that is how I know about them. Before I took office, was not allowed
to see the confidential BINFOS, but once I was on the board they were
available to me.

BINFO 200603298 is dated August 1, 2006 and is entitled "Paul Truong
is The Fake Sam Sloan". One can tell if a BINFO is confidential
because a number is missing from the sequence. The next BINFO one can
see is 200603302. This means that three BINFOS, 200603299, 200603300
and 200603301, are confidential.

I am almost certain that at least one of Bill's letters to Matsler and
Matsler's reply to the letter is in one of those BINFOS.

Accordingly, I am calling upon Bill Goichberg (or whomever is in
charge of the BINFOS) to make those BINFOS available to the
membership. This can be done simply by changing their status from
"confidential" to "non-confidential".

Sam Sloan


  #6   Report Post  
Old February 15th 09, 11:43 AM 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 The Five Goichberg Letters

Quote:
Originally Posted by chessoffice
I don't know why it's necessary to repeat all
this, but for those who don't wish to do the research, after you were
elected, many people did not want you seated, and we needed to tell
the delegates what USCF's options were.

Bill Goichberg
Consider carefully what Bill Goichberg is stating above.

After I was elected to the board by a wide margin over a candidate
favored by Bill Goichberg, there were "many people" [including Bill
Goichberg] who did not want me seated and therefore [Bill Goichberg]
"needed to tell the delegates what USCF's options were".

The options obviously were (1) to file a lawsuit to stop me from
taking office or (2) to unilaterally declare that I was not a member
of the board and wait for me to file a lawsuit. There were other
options proposed on the forum (by Grant Perks) which included simply
abolishing the Executive Board altogether before I could take office
and or changing the state of incorporation to another state that would
make it easier for the board to keep me off.

What actually was done, by Tanstaafl here, was to make a change in the
by-laws making it easier to remove a board member. Although Tanstaafl
intended that change to be used against me, it is ironically being
used now against Paul Truong and Susan Polgar.

The reason that I want the five Goichberg letters made public now is
that they will prove:

1. That Goichberg wanted the USCF to file a lawsuit to keep me off the
board even though I had been elected by 1193 votes, which shows that
it was initially Goichberg who made the first moves to start the
litigation that now engulfs the USCF, and

2. That Polgar and Truong were already making numerous threats to sue
the USCF over a wide variety of things including the Kasparov Chess
Foundation Contract which Susan called "an illegal contract", over her
demands for payment for training the Woman's Olympiad Team and a long
list of other things. Susan also had called the USCF Board "evil chess
politicians" in a article published by Chess Cafe, which she later
revised at the request of Joel Channing.

Polgar had never filed any of these lawsuits she was threatening to
file because she lacked the resources to do so. However Bill
Goichberg, who supported Susan for election to use her to attack me,
should have been able to see that putting her on the board was bound
to lead to the litigation that in fact it has led to.

Sam Sloan
  #7   Report Post  
Old February 15th 09, 03:36 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 The Five Goichberg Letters

Quote:
Originally Posted by tsawmiller
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsloan
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsawmiller
You are a
USCF volunteer, are you not? In fact, you also do paid work for the
USCF, do you not? How is that you can criticize Sam Sloan, and other
volunteers cannot? Strikes me as a double standard.
I am not objecting to the fact that people criticize me. I am a
candidate for election and that is bound to happen. Also, I believe in
Freedom of Speech.

What I do object to is the prohibition on saying anything negative
about certain people. How soon we forget that during the last election
campaign no real criticism of Polgar and Truong was allowed and Polgar
even became known as "The One Whose Name We Dare Not Speak".

That certainly helped Polgar and Truong get elected. If we had been
allowed to tell the membership what we knew about them, they may well
have not been elected.

Sam Sloan
Well that's provably false, since there is PLENTY of criticism
of them leading up to the election still quite visible in the USCF
Issues Forum.
I believe that you have access to the "Graveyard" of pulled postings
that we cannot see.

I believe that you were not a moderator during the last election
campaign, but why don't you go into that graveyard and see how many
postings were pulled solely because they were critical of Polgar or
Truong.

You will find the number to be in the hundreds and possibly in the
thousands.

Also, remember the moderators and FOC members during that period:
Gregory Alexander, Herbert Rodney Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl and Terry
Winchester, all supporters of the election of Susan Polgar.

Sam Sloan
  #8   Report Post  
Old February 15th 09, 05:39 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 The Five Goichberg Letters

On Feb 15, 10:36*am, samsloan wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsawmiller
Quote:
Originally Posted by samsloan
Quote:
Originally Posted by tsawmiller
You are a
USCF volunteer, are you not? *In fact, you also do paid work for the
USCF, do you not? *How is that you can criticize Sam Sloan, and other
volunteers cannot? *Strikes me as a double standard.

I am not objecting to the fact that people criticize me. I am a
candidate for election and that is bound to happen. Also, I believe in
Freedom of Speech.

What I do object to is the prohibition on saying anything negative
about certain people. How soon we forget that during the last election
campaign no real criticism of Polgar and Truong was allowed and Polgar
even became known as "The One Whose Name We Dare Not Speak".

That certainly helped Polgar and Truong get elected. If we had been
allowed to tell the membership what we knew about them, they may well
have not been elected.

Sam Sloan
Well that's provably false, since there is PLENTY of criticism
of them leading up to the election still quite visible in the USCF
Issues Forum.

I believe that you have access to the "Graveyard" of pulled postings
that we cannot see.

I believe that you were not a moderator during the last election
campaign, but why don't you go into that graveyard and see how many
postings were pulled solely because they were critical of Polgar or
Truong.

You will find the number to be in the hundreds and possibly in the
thousands.

Also, remember the moderators and FOC members during that period:
Gregory Alexander, Herbert Rodney Vaughn a/k/a tanstaafl and Terry
Winchester, all supporters of the election of Susan Polgar.

Sam Sloan


Quote:
Originally Posted by sdo1
I protest the continued slights made on the
reputations of myself and others [b]by the initiator of this thread[/
b].
Steve, I am surprised at your statement, which I assume refers to me.

Anybody can do a simple search of this forum and see that you have
posted more than one thousand times here and at the beginning a
majority of your postings were substantially attacks on me. (To your
credit, you have largely stopped doing that lately.)

In addition, you attacked me on my own
several hundred times. The group is open any anybody can go there and
count the number of times you attacked me.

The proof that I truly believe in Freedom of Speech is that I never
deleted any of the attacks posted by you, or by Phil Innes, or by John
Fernandez (who used to attack me all the time), or by anybody else.
They are all still there. A lot of people are surprised that I allow
people to attack me on my own groups which I moderate, but I do.

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
Explanation of Need to Oust Goichberg samsloan rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 0 August 2nd 08 02:15 AM
Explanation of Need to Oust Goichberg samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 August 2nd 08 02:15 AM
Explanation of Need to Oust Goichberg samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 August 2nd 08 02:15 AM
Explanation of Need to Oust Goichberg samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 August 2nd 08 02:15 AM
Explanation of Need to Oust Goichberg samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 August 2nd 08 02:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:46 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