Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 24th 09, 12:06 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,alt.forgery
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2009
Posts: 57
Default PROOF Lafferty used Hal Bogner's E-mail

YOU'D BETTER STOP CALLING ME AN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE IF YOU KNOW WHAT'S
GOOD FOR YOU.


"Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
...
SAM SLOAN READ THIS TEN TIMES TILL YOU UNDERSTAND

"samsloan" wrote in message
:
"I must admit that it is quite convincing."

"samsloan" wrote in message
:
"the above anonymous poster seems to make a strong case that you,
Brian Lafferty, are "foad".
I believe the case that Brian Lafferty is foad is strong enough
that I will henceforth consider it to be a real possibility."

Mr Sloan - there is no reason to think the evidence is just "strong".
The evidence is conclusive and not rebuttable. A "slam dunk". Learn
how to read postal headers. "foad" = Brian Lafferty, proven. When
Lafferty posts under his own name or that of "Mr.Vidmar" (whom he
wants everyone to know is BL), he uses Thunderbird. When posting
as "foad", he (or Brian M./Hal B.) does not. All from Verizon, who
connect to NNTP/Usenet/Port 119 via gnilink... check the headers,
all the information is there. CHECK THE PATH: header READING IT
BACKWARDS (from RIGHT TO LEFT). Even with the cleverest forgery
and pre-inserted paths, at some point the Path: becomes genuine.
In the case of the "foad", "Mr.Vidmar" and "B. Lafferty" posts,
the path is ALL legitimate and all originate from the same place.
In my friend the "do
not archive me" Nomen Nescio already proved it, but I have now
explained it a little more.

Here we catch the lowlife O'Laugherty in a DIFFERENT lie:

"Mr.Vidmar" wrote in message
:
"Sam, I've never posted as "foad." You've been taken in by another
fraud."

Answers. Respectively: You are a liar and you take Sam for a fool. No.

And Lafferty goes on to write:
"I've also never used, or even heard of, the purported Bogner email
address."

It is PROVEN repeat PROVEN below that BL posted from . BL
even admitted to it when caught red-handed with the words "Absolutely. I
occasionally use that account when access through verizon is problematic."
Your memory failed you? Or more likely you, abusenik of Sloan, think that
because the admission was in 2007 (From: "B. Lafferty" ,
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:03:00 EST, Subject: Judge Brian Lafferty
caught mailing using an anonymous account, Message-ID: 8QOaj.11065$Vg1.
[email protected], NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.203.163.89, no remailer used) that
Sam forgot? No worries, the post is shown here.

Brian can "ROTFLMAO!" as much as he wants. He has overstepped and now we
have the proof. Also proof that the "Hal" is the same "Hal" who runs
Chess Magnet...

On Feb 21, 5:41 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
wrote:
None wrote:
On Feb 21, 4:35 am, wrote:
samsloan wrote:
On Feb 19, 9:05 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" wrote:
I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious
prosecution
action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
dismissed. I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
action to consider doing the same. Another eight or ten actions
around
the country..........priceless.

This will not work.
The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one is
what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.
Sam Sloan

1) The kind that doesn't care about legal ethics. 2) Mal pros is very
difficult to win (it's a "disfavored action" in most jurisdictions),
though it's true Polgar's lawsuit is pretty clearly abusive. If
Lafferty wants to engage in that kind of vindictiveness, though, it
might give him an incentive to discourage settlement. Do we really
want someone like that on the Board?

Someone with balls you mean? Yea I think so.

Sure. If you want someone with a loud mouth, a big ego, and no ethics,
by all means vote for Brian L. Some of us have higher standards.


No ethics? Substantiate or retract, John.


To whom? To a some one who lacks even the courage to sign his own name,
Mr.
Milan? We've spoken to Mr. Thomas Weisel about a real weasel. Payola time!
The member of the NY bar with registration number 1695048 has more than a
little to hide, John. Don't let one braying Jackass anon intimidate you.
If
anyone thought that having a K----------r * on the EB was bad, Brian L.
can
confidently be expected to surpass CanSpam Sam. Discreet enquiries with
the
other USCF, the one for two-wheelers, has already yielded more than enough
to s/quash, when it is circulated, any chances Brian L. has in the
election.

* K----------r does not speak to the peerless Karl S. Kronenberger, but to
the wannabe chess coach for Cynthia Beloff's young daughter.

How Brian L. came to the conclusion that duty called him is seen in posts
sent by him less than four days apart. Some mysterious "anonymous remails"
jerk convinced Brian L. he must stand, so all the rumors that he, Brian M.
and Hal B. had prearranged this frameup and preagreed to take over the
USCF
were false. How extraordinarily convenient for Brian L. Here are the
posts:

-- quotes --
From: "B. Lafferty"
Reply-To:

User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.18 (Windows/20081105)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.,games.chess.misc
Subject: Setting Out Some Facts for Trolgar
Message-ID:
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:44:19 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 98.118.116.182
X-Complaints-To:

X-Trace: nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1230410659 98.118.116.182 (Sat, 27 Dec
2008 15:44:19 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:44:19 EST
Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.d ca.giganews.com!
border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cy clone1.gnilink.net!
spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nwrddc01.gnilin k.net.POSTED!302ce388!
not-for-mail

...I understand that when a rumor was begun a week or so ago to the
effect that I was planning to run for the EB in the coming election
(which I am definitely not planning to do), the misinformation floated
today on Trolgar's web site began circulating in the mid-West.
...
Brian Lafferty
-- \quotes --

-- quotes --
From: "B. Lafferty"
Reply-To:

User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Thank You "revenge will be to (sic) sweet"
Message-ID:
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:25:08 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 98.118.116.182
X-Complaints-To:

X-Trace: nwrddc01.gnilink.net 1230747908 98.118.116.182 (Wed, 31 Dec
2008 13:25:08 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:25:08 EST
Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.d ca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!spamkiller. gnilink.net!gnilink.net!
nwrddc01.gnilink.net.POSTED!302ce388!not-for-mail

...I had not planned to run for the USCF EB, but your anonymous remails
crap has convinced me otherwise. If I can get the petition signatures
needed, I will run for the EB in the coming USCF election.
I will campaign on three fundamental principles:
1. Transparency in all USCF Dealings
2. Fiscal Responsibility
3. Ethical Behavior
Again, thanks "to (sic) sweet" for helping me come to a decision.
-- \quotes --

This only suggests that the author of that "anonymous remails crap" is
Brian L. himself, or more probably one of his more capable accomplices.
That the two Brians and Hal B. are operating as a gang was proven on
Dec 20, 2007 when the following posts appeared just 5 minutes apart,
both written by Brian L. (he acknowledged authorship of the first),
one from Hal B.'s E-mail account , and the second from
Brian L.'s :

-- quotes --
From: "Hal"
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:03:16 -0500
Subject: Typical Document from a nasty divorce
Message-ID:
References:

Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
X-Proxy-User: $$no5i9e513n-z
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-Report: Please report illegal or inappropriate use to
. Forward a copy of ALL headers INCLUDING
the
body. (DO NOT SEND ATTACHMENTS)
X-Comments2: IMPORTANT: Superfeed.net does not condone,support,nor
tolerate spam or any illegal or copyrighted postings.
X-Comments: This message was posted through Superfeed.net
Organization: Superfeed.net
Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news-out.nuthinbutnews.com!
sp12lax.superfeed.net!not-for-mail

"The Historian" wrote in message
...
On Dec 20, 9:40 am, (Sam Sloan) wrote:
Order of Protection directing Polgar and Truong to stop beating
Susan's kids
http://www.shamema.com/polgar-op-1.pdf
So Ms. Polgar and her former husband had a messy divorce. This could
be nothing more than nastiness on his part.

According to the children's father, a guardian ad litem was appointed to
protect the interests of the children. The father told me yesterday via
telephone the when the children were alone with the guardian ad litem they
told the guardian that Truong beat them to make them study chess. I have
no independent verification that this is true and I have email Susan
Polgar
asking for comment. I have also been advised by three people that using
hot sauce to discipline children is a common practice in Vietnam. If,
repeat, IF, the underlying facts are true what does this say for the
couple
who ran their EB campaign on the supposed moral high ground?
---- Posted via Pronews.com - Premium Corporate Usenet News Provider
----
http://www.pronews.com offers corporate packages that have access to
100,000+ newsgroups
-- \quotes --

-- quotes --
From: "B. Lafferty"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
References:

Subject: Typical Document from a nasty divorce
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
Message-ID: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:09:30 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.203.163.89
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: trndny06 1198174170 151.203.163.89 (Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:09:30
EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:09:30 EST
Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!cycny01.gnilin k.net!spamkiller2.
gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trndny06.POSTED!d8cce190!n ot-for-mail

"The Historian" wrote in message
...
On Dec 20, 9:40 am, (Sam Sloan) wrote:
Order of Protection directing Polgar and Truong to stop beating
Susan's kids
http://www.shamema.com/polgar-op-1.pdf
So Ms. Polgar and her former husband had a messy divorce. This could
be nothing more than nastiness on his part.

According to the children's father, a guardian ad litem was appointed to
protect the interests of the children. The father told me yesterday via
telephone the when the children were alone with the guardian ad litem they
told the guardian that Truong beat them to make them study chess. I have
no independent verification that this is true and I have email Susan
Polgar
asking for comment. I have also been advised by three people that using
hot sauce to discipline children is a common practice in Vietnam. If,
repeat, IF, the underlying facts are true what does this say for the
couple
who ran their EB campaign on the supposed moral high ground?
BL
-- \quotes --

So why was Brian L. using Hal B.'s E-mail (when challenged, his excuse
about temporary undefinable technical problems with his own mail settings
is obvious crap - how would Brian L. have access to Hal B.'s E-mail,
unless
the two were acting together? Hal B. never protested that 12/20 use) and
later using a remailer between 12/27 and 12/31 to provide phoney
justification for Brian L.'s standing for USCF high office? It is a scam,
and it stinks, and it indicates where the "Secret Service" should be
investigating for improper E-mail access, instead of harassing innocent
victims.

Brian L.'s use of Hal B.'s E-mail has been proved. Brian M. admitted to
accessing and spoofing Bill G.'s E-mail. Brian M. called it "testing" the
chessoffice settings, could be like he also "tested" the chesspromotion
settings, and installed something there?

It is a small step to connecting the three (NOT Bill G.) with framing Greg
A.'s IP (Back Orifice again) with the accessing of Randall H.'s E-mail, if
indeed Randall H. did not explicitly, implicitly or via a proxy or agent
(Bill G.) consent to any access? The behavior of Hal B. (a net expert),
Brian M. (another net expert) and Brian L. (the "legalizer", provocateur
and probably a net expert) calls into question or dismisses the integrity
of all computer evidence to which any of them have had access or in whose
interpretation any of them has an interest.

The courts of California, Illinois and even WA will be as ready as those
in
New York and Philadelphia to recognize that the cause of justice can only
be served by a complete exoneration of the chess players and an indictment
of the dirty chess politicians who took the side of Sam Sloan.

One can have reasonable confidence that Randall H., Bill G. Randy B., Jim
B. and Ed H. do not wish posterity to record them grouped among dirty
chess
politicians. Their only way to do this is to reach an accommodation with
the chess players, in an honorable manner, and work together to deny
either
Brian a position on the EB. One Brian has shown he cannot be trusted with
an NDA and personal data, and the other has demonstrated a vindictiveness
and malice that suggest he will plunge the USCF into a neverending spiral
of litigation. Only concerted work will deny their slate -- they are not
alone -- success, unless you think Brian M. is not in possession of all
the E-mail addresses they need for their coming campaign.

Save our USCF from this unspeakable gang, Sam. The others on the EB, even
Randy, are not smart enough.

The more I discover about the degree of linkage between the two Brians and
Bogner, the more I think that it might even be possible that Paul was set
up (at first I thought the rumor was trollsby using dizum). It is
technically feasible, though the "Slimes" (as Lafferty calls it via "foad"
while praising it to that numskull McClain's face) would have you believe
there is only one explanation for the FSS phenomenon. To think they had
the audacity to try to pull this off...

I think EVEN /IF/ PT is guilty of some mischief, his guilt (as a provoked
party) pales into insignificance compared to the war waged against Sam
both by "foad" posting insults openly and by their army of remailers. I
support remailers because in some places like China there is no other way
of safely protesting. Legitimate people who run our federation are being
sidelined and confused by a shameless bunch of liars, who should not be
trusted anywhere near the EB.

This is the confession Lafferty thought we would never find--

-- quotes --
From: "B. Lafferty"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,alt.lawyers,alt.privacy.a non-server
References:

[email protected]
emailer.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:03:00 EST
Subject: Judge Brian Lafferty caught mailing using an anonymous
account
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Message-ID: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Host: 151.203.163.89
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: trndny04 1198242180 151.203.163.89 (Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:03:00
EST)
Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!cycny01.gnilin k.net!spamkiller2.
gnilink.net!gnilink.net!trndny04.POSTED!d8cce190!n ot-for-mail

Absolutely. I occasionally use that account when access through verizon
is
problematic. I simply forgot to sign my name and or course reposted via
verizon when the first post came through on the verizon server. And
please
do note, I never post under the name of another real person.

"Fritz Wuehler"
wrote in message .
theremailer.net...
It unravels piece by piece. A disturbed anonym
has today been
demonstrated to be none other than ex-Judge Brian Lafferty-
1) The anon posted (using superfeeds a/k/a pronews which
masks the IP and other identifying characteristic) some scandalous stuff
at
13:03, in reply to a post from and
2) then at 13:09 merely 6 minutes later Lafferty
posted the
identical salacious junk, word for word the same and describing his own
personal experience, in reply to the same original neilpost and
3) the significance of Lafferty's post being a reply to
[email protected]
gmail.com and not to (as the references header) proves is
that Lafferty cannot claim he was merely quoting in an
unorthodox way and without adding a word.
I wonder. Anything to say, Judge? One must ask if you have been caught
hiding behind and Superfeeds what else have you been doing
anonymously?
Can someone find what else has been done by of superfeeds?
Let us see what the Judge does when he thinks no one is watching.
Poor Sam. With allies like that, who needs enemies? Honorable Judge (not
just ALJ) Chin has a sufficient number of credible suspects for
whodundastingtruong.
And so it goes.
-- \quotes --

Here's one of Mr Hal's uses of the same
, using Giganews+
Superfeed+Newsfeeds+ProNews AND NOT GNILINK--

-- quotes --
From: "Hal"
Subject: Off with their heads; Off with their heads--Bill Hall
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 07:45:47 -0500
Message-ID:
Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.d ca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!news-out.spamkiller.net!sp12lax.superfeed.net
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
X-Comments: This message was posted through Newsfeeds.com
Organization: Superfeed.net
X-Proxy-User: $$no5i9e513n-z
-- \quotes --

There are similar posts from
in September (eg. in thread
"Letters from Iwo Jima").
But HaL-afferty slipped up in the December post by posting twice.

Sam, rely on OBJECTIVE information, not on the bull**** from Toad/Foad,
who thinks posting his "The tip off if "gnlink" LOL!" when every post
from "B. Lafferty", "Mr.Vidmar", "foad" AND SOME OTHERS is stamped by
the NNTP-server gnilink that Verizon uses only IN MASSACHUSETTS. The
only time gnilink will not appear is when they (Hal) uses Superfeed and
Giganews to bypass the Verizon NNTP server (Verizon is still used, but
the IP does not show up in the headers as Giganews encrypts it).

I think you should be formulating a suit against Lafferty. There are
three causes of action open to you.

But if you are scared of suing a hotshot New York attorney, we understand.
Still you can help to make sure this gang of four (3 I have named - BHB -
and the fourth you know) does NOT get elected!

Put the USCF and chess first, Sam. You will then earn my respect. Do not
get hoodwinked again.

Nomen Nescio. non-attorney.
Estimated count of different users of Nomen Nescio/dizum = 25,000+
I asked in apa-s why the anonmailed posts from different people tend to
appear around the same time. Apparently it is because rgcp is classified
as a flamewar zone, so posts are queued and autoreleased in batches.
Any other posts you see at the same time as this have no connection to
mine. It is flood control working to stop remailer abuse by spammers.
My guess is most abusive posts come from one or more in the gang of 4.
If they are so bold to put such abuse in "foad"'s posts, which is
trace-possible by the SS (not SS), you can guess what they feel bold
enough to put in their remailer proof. So which one installed Back
Orifice on the target PC?


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
Reply to Polgar B. Lafferty[_6_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 2 December 27th 08 05:58 PM
Reply to Polgar B. Lafferty[_6_] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 December 27th 08 05:58 PM
What The USCF Censors Object To B. Lafferty[_2_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 November 21st 07 01:33 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:45 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