My recent endorsement of Don Schultz as the most outstanding and qualified candidate for the Executive Board, was attacked and criticized by a guy named Richard Peterson.
If I were running for office, I would want Peterson to be against me !!!!. . I can't think of anyone whose opposition would make a greater a contribution to any campaign.
We all recall that he was sued by USCF for his twenty five thousand dollar debt to USCF, and we cannot forget his SECOND Bankruptcy that defeated the claim.
Look at Don's record of service. Note the people who SUPPORT Don Schultz, and look at his many contributions to chess and to USCF. Draw your own conclusions.
>bobch...@aol.com (BobChess) >Date: 7/4/2003 5:00 PM Pacific Standard Time >Message-id: <20030704200018.23474.00000...@mb-m23.aol.com>
>My recent endorsement of Don Schultz as the most outstanding and qualified >candidate for the Executive Board, was attacked and criticized by a guy >named >Richard Peterson.
>If I were running for office, I would want Peterson to be against me !!!!. . >I >can't think of anyone whose opposition would make a greater a contribution to >any campaign.
>We all recall that he was sued by USCF for his twenty five thousand dollar >debt >to USCF, and we cannot forget his SECOND Bankruptcy that defeated the claim.
Bob wanted Peterson to oppose him. I did and he had to resign the USCF Presidency in disgrace. One major cause was the number of lies where the proof was Smith's own signature.
Bob can no longer claim insanity as his defense. He knows all that he wrote is a lie.
Bob Smith, an attorney and member of the bar, hid the evidence which confirms that no such claimed debt ever existed. In USCF's name and as USCF President, he signed a settlement agreement which he had no intention of honoring. This caused the bankruptcy. Bear in mind, Smith himself hid the evidence, made a settlement deal which he signed in my pressence, and then did not live up to the settlement agreement.
In other words, Bob Smith is lying right down the line. Bob, why didn't you produce the John L White report that you commissioned as USCF President when it was subpoenaed?
Why can't you answer? Is it because you are the second biggest liar to ever have held the office of USCF President? Isn't that why you had to resign in disgrace after just one year of office?
Before I forgave you because I believed there was something badly mentally wrong with you. It looks as if I was too kind.
First of all, Peterson's animosity toward me has nothing to do with the candidacy of Don Schultz. Don's record and achievements stand for themselves.
Peterson owed $25,000 to USCF and managed to beat it with his SECOND bankruptcy.
Peterson accuses me of having mental instability. Now let's look at the record.
Peterson may not be mentally changelled,. but we all know from postings on RGCF and anyone who has reviewed the court records in Phoenix, that Peterson was unable to recall the name of his third wife. Maybe it was his fourth wife, but whatever.
Without further comment, I apologize for this digression. Peterson is certainly not a candidate in this or any other race. He is certainly not to be taken seriously.
We need strong leadership. John McCrary and his Board have fulfilled their promises and now need strong support for the future..
"Bob, as the Secretary you are in charge of the election. Don't you see it as inappropriate for you to be endorsing any candidates? -- Mike Nolan"
I agree with this statement! It's also inappropriate that the Co-chair of the Election Committee, Bill Goichberg is endorsing and campaigning for some of the candidates.
Regardless of the outcome of the election, I would like to request an evaluation of the procedures and regulations in connection with the USCF Executive Board's election, specially in regard of the ethical responsibilities and obligations of the people directly involve in handling the technical aspects of the election.
ASCACHESS wrote: >>bobch...@aol.com (BobChess) >>Date: 7/4/2003 5:00 PM Pacific Standard Time >>Message-id: <20030704200018.23474.00000...@mb-m23.aol.com>
>>My recent endorsement of Don Schultz as the most >> outstanding and qualified >>candidate for the Executive Board, was attacked and >> criticized by a guy >>named >>Richard Peterson. > etc.. > Bob wanted Peterson to oppose him. I did and he had to > resign the USCF > Presidency in disgrace. One major cause was the number of > lies where the proof > was Smith's own signature.
> Bob can no longer claim insanity as his defense. > He knows all that he wrote is a lie.
> Bob Smith, an attorney and member of the bar, hid the > evidence which confirms > that no such claimed debt ever existed. > In USCF's name and as USCF President, he signed a > settlement agreement which he > had no intention of honoring. This caused the bankruptcy. > Bear in mind, Smith himself hid the evidence, made a > settlement deal which he > signed in my pressence, and then did not live up to the > settlement agreement.
> In other words, Bob Smith is lying right down the line. > Bob, why didn't you produce the John L White report that > you commissioned as > USCF President when it was subpoenaed?
> Why can't you answer? > Is it because you are the second biggest liar to ever have > held the office of > USCF President? Isn't that why you had to resign in > disgrace after just one > year of office?
> Before I forgave you because I believed there was > something badly mentally > wrong with you. It looks as if I was too kind.
> Richard Peterson
______________________________________
Rp:
I have no first hand knowledge of any of the facts or defenses of the USCF's claim against you, or your claims against it. It just strikes me that with the minimal legal budget the USCF must have had, if your case was as strong as you claim it is, you could/should have litigated and won rather than liquidating/avoiding your debt in bankruptcy.
>I have no first hand knowledge of any of the facts or defenses of the >USCF's claim against you, or your claims against it. It just strikes me >that with the minimal legal budget the USCF must have had, if your case >was as strong as you claim it is, you could/should have litigated and >won rather than liquidating/avoiding your debt in bankruptcy.
>KidDon
The evidence withheld by Bob Smith did not appear until the summer of 2000.
But I do have to agree with your first point, you do know nothing. Further, by approaching the USCF and through the USCF Secretary obtaining an "extraordinary ballot" where both you and the USCF Secretary are announced supporters of Don Schultz, let me be the first to accuse the two of you of cheating in this election.
>Bob, as the Secretary you are in charge of the election. Don't you see >it as inappropriate for you to be endorsing any candidates? >--
Mike, what USCF secretaries have not endorsed candidates?
In the great tradition of the USCF Secretaries - Rachel Lieberman, Randy Hough, Marshall Rohland, Leroy Dubeck, Bob Karch etc. , I cannot think of any that didn't at one time or another support candidates.
>Bob, as the Secretary you are in charge of the election. Don't you see >it as inappropriate for you to be endorsing any candidates? >-- >Mike Nolan
Mike, While I agree with you, (Bob Smith is once again stepping all over the ethics rules as he did in the Goichberg/Dorsch matter) you still have not answered the questions regarding your consulting contract with the office which would preclude you from being the parliamentarian for the same reasons you cite for the demented Mr. Smith.
This would be a good time to come forward. Otherwise, you are not the one to be making the complaint.
>Mike, what USCF secretaries have not endorsed candidates?
>In the great tradition of the USCF Secretaries - Rachel Lieberman, Randy >Hough, >Marshall Rohland, Leroy Dubeck, Bob Karch etc. , I cannot think of any that >didn't at one time or another support candidates.
"The great tradition" LOL
Don Schultz falls into another ethical chasm.
This USCF Secretary (Bob Smith), who has never been able to get the minutes out in any reasonable form or time period, is granting additional late ballots to your supporters without the benefit of a written rule supporting this cheating. In addition, the USCF Secretary is supporting the candidacy of Don Schultz.
Richard Petrson, as we all know, was unable or unwilling to pay USCF some $25,000.00 from his tournament in Phoenix. He chose Bankrutcy instead. y parrots Doris Barry, his political ally, who resigned from the Executive Board.
My work as Secretary? He simply parrots the sour grapes of Doris Barry, former Secretary.
Is this politics? I wish I could say that Peterson's diatribes are just politics, but they are merely an insight into what he really is.
chess...@aol.com (Don Schultz) writes: >>Bob, as the Secretary you are in charge of the election. Don't you see >>it as inappropriate for you to be endorsing any candidates? >>-- >Mike, what USCF secretaries have not endorsed candidates?
And that makes it proper? I believe that the Secretary has a duty to remain impartial, and endorsing a candidate might give the appearance of favoring that candidate should an issue arise upon which the Secretary has to rule. In point of fact, the Secretary has already ruled on several points in this year's election, and at least one of those rulings could be seen as favoring some of the candidates. -- Mike Nolan
>>>Bob, as the Secretary you are in charge of the election. Don't you see >>>it as inappropriate for you to be endorsing any candidates? >>>--
>>Mike, what USCF secretaries have not endorsed candidates?
>And that makes it proper? I believe that the Secretary has a duty to >remain impartial, and endorsing a candidate might give the appearance >of favoring that candidate should an issue arise upon which the Secretary >has to rule. In point of fact, the Secretary has already ruled on several >points in this year's election, and at least one of those rulings could be >seen as favoring some of the candidates. >--
I heartily endorse Mike Nolan's position here.
Past practices of USCF officers have not always been examples to follow in avoiding the appearance of partiality or impropriety.
If nothing else, the OMOV changes should prompt us to look at the organization's past practices with an eye to improvement.
Bob Smith wrote: >Richard Petrson, as we all know, was unable or unwilling to pay USCF some >$25,000.00 from his tournament in Phoenix. He chose Bankrutcy instead. y >parrots Doris Barry, his political ally, who resigned from the Executive >Board.
>My work as Secretary? He simply parrots the sour grapes of Doris Barry, >former >Secretary.
>Is this politics? I wish I could say that Peterson's diatribes are just >politics, but they are merely an insight into what he really is.
>He just caught his hand in the cookie jar.
A review of the Google postings of the period would show that this interpretation of the facts is subject to question. Frankly, neither the posts of Mr. Peterson or Mr. Smith are very informative, as they are two busy chewing on each other like Rotweillers with the munchies.
A more objective brief summary of the facts would be as follows:
1. Richard Peterson is awarded a bid to conduct the 1999 National Elementary in Pheonix.
2. Peterson is later awarded the bid for the 2000 National Elementary in Dallas.
3. A dispute arises between Peterson and USCF about the accounting for the National Elementary. Frankly, neither side has documented the transaction in a remotely businesslike way. The parties don't even agree what the contract says, and the contract is silent on several points which are later in dispute. USCF claims Peterson owes over $25,000, despite the fact that USCF, not Peterson, collected the vast majority of the entry fees.
4. USCF sues Peterson
5. USCF board revokes the bid for the 2000 National Elementary.
6. Despite the revocation, Peterson signs a contract with a hotel for the 2000 tournament in Dallas.
7. USCF sets up a simultaneous event at a different Dallas Hotel.
8. Smith and Peterson (and their lawyers) reach an oral agreement to settle the case against Peterson. Terms of the oral agreement include holding the National Elementary at Peterson's hotel, thus eliminating Peterson's obligation to the hotel.
9. The oral agreement falls through.
10. Peterson declares bankruptcy. His stated reason for the bankruptcy is to cancel the hotel contract (a claim that is one of the few statements made by either side about this entire affair that makes any sense logically.)
This is a simplified summary of a very complicated affair. I have tried to be concise and accurate to the best of my memory. I think an objective observer with a sense of humor could find hours of entertainment in researching the Google records for the various details.
>I have no first hand knowledge of any of the facts or defenses of the >USCF's claim against you, or your claims against it. It just strikes me >that with the minimal legal budget the USCF must have had, if your case >was as strong as you claim it is, you could/should have litigated and >won rather than liquidating/avoiding your debt in bankruptcy.
>KidDon
Don:
Please see my summary of events posted elsewhere in this thread. The bankruptcy may well have had a lot more to do with cancelling an executory contract than with this litigation.
Also, USCF was in better fianancial shape at the time (or at least they were claiming to be in better financial shape.)
If you are interested contact me for a lawyer to lawyer chat on some of the details. Suffice it to say that no one concerned would have made their lawyers very happy with the way this affair was handled.
>6. Despite the revocation, Peterson signs a contract with a hotel for the >2000 >tournament in Dallas.
The contract for the hotel in Dallas was signed a full year before USCF cancelled the contract.
>8. Smith and Peterson (and their lawyers) reach an oral agreement to settle >the case against Peterson. Terms of the oral agreement include holding the >National Elementary at Peterson's hotel, thus eliminating Peterson's >obligation >to the hotel.
The agreement was not oral it was in writing and if you check the dejas, you can find a verbatim copy. A copy was distributed to all the delegates at St Paul.
>9. The oral agreement falls through.
Smith does not act on the written agreement.
When the delegate packets come out, I discover that Mr. John L White has done a management study at the request of Mr. Smith which is presented to Smith in September of 1999. This study is subject to subpoena, but Smith withholds it.
The White report states in no uncertain terms that no one in the office has done any tournament accounting and that no one seemed to care. Since the basis for the lawsuit was supposed to be a debt, Smith's withholding the White report was a deliberate fraud on the part of the USCF President.
I don't know you at all. If you think that this election (or any othe USCF election) is on the up and up, you have another think coming. Watch the ballot box security procedures, who has the key, and any othe custodial issues you can think of.
> "Bob, as the Secretary you are in charge of the election. Don't you see > it as inappropriate for you to be endorsing any candidates? > -- > Mike Nolan"
> I agree with this statement! It's also inappropriate that the Co-chair of the > Election Committee, Bill Goichberg is endorsing and campaigning for some of the > candidates.
> Regardless of the outcome of the election, I would like to request an > evaluation of the procedures and regulations in connection with the USCF > Executive Board's election, specially in regard of the ethical responsibilities > and obligations of the people directly involve in handling the technical > aspects of the election.
Somebody whom apparently is afraid to use her/his real name said:
>That's exactly like saying, what criminals don't commit crimes?
My reply: Throughout the USA election supervisors are political and endorse candidates. Now there may be good arguments against them doing this, BUT that is the way it is and has been both in USA national elections and in the USCF. To jump all over Bob for following this tradition is not at all like asking what criminals don't commit crimes let alone exactly like it.
>My reply: Throughout the USA election supervisors are political and endorse >candidates. Now there may be good arguments against them doing this, BUT that >is the way it is and has been both in USA national elections and in the USCF. >To jump all over Bob for following this tradition is not at all like asking >what criminals don't commit crimes let alone exactly like it.
Another absurdity from Chessdon.
USCF Secretary Smith is issuing ballots to people who support Don Schultz when there is no written basis for this preferential treatment.
A reasonable person would doubt that these rules would have been ignored if the person asking was one of your opponents.
Kiddon makes a big point of telling us that he requested his ballot before July 1. Of course, he said this one July 3 when no one else would qualify under this supposed rule.
>Past practices of USCF officers have not always been examples to follow in >avoiding the appearance of partiality or impropriety.
>If nothing else, the OMOV changes should prompt us to look at the >organization's past practices with an eye to improvement.
>Wick Deer
Wick,
Dons improper appeal to practice is clearly not sufficient to justify or excuse the conduct being criticized.
It is time to change the lack of results, poor business practice, wretched accountability, and weak ethics that have plagued the USCF leadership for the last two decades.
Those who argue for more of the same demonstrate most strongly the need for term limits.
A vision for what we want the organization to be, and a road map of how we want to get from here to there, is absolutely essential if we are to be a good steward of our organizations resources. Let's take the opportunity to learn from past mistakes and continue working towards building a better USCF.
> Regardless of the outcome of the election, I would like to request an > evaluation of the procedures and regulations in connection with the USCF > Executive Board's election, specially in regard of the ethical responsibilities > and obligations of the people directly involve in handling the technical > aspects of the election.
You may be interested to know that an informal poll at the World Open has you winning along with Schultz and Wagner.
"From: chess...@aol.com (Don Schultz) Date: 7/5/2003 2:35 AM Eastern Standard Time Message-id: <20030705023504.23775.00000132@mb-m04.aol.com>
Somebody whom apparently is afraid to use her/his real name said:
>That's exactly like saying, what criminals don't commit crimes?
My reply: Throughout the USA election supervisors are political and endorse candidates. Now there may be good arguments against them doing this, BUT that is the way it is and has been both in USA national elections and in the USCF. To jump all over Bob for following this tradition is not at all like asking what criminals don't commit crimes let alone exactly like it. "
Don,
I agree that there may be good arguments to chance the historical and current handle of the people directly involve with the election.
Mr. Bob Smith as a USCF Secretary had access to confidential information, such as reviewing a copy of the ballot. I know for a fact that he shared this information with you, one of the candidates, since you sent a e-mail suggesting some revisions. This is a not acceptable, I respect loyalty and friendship, but this is strictly business.
At the same time, Mr. Bill Goichberg, who is the co-chair of the Election Committee had access to an electronic copy of the labels prepared specially for the election, I do not this for a fact, but there was a rumor that he shared with confidential information with other people. I called the office in relation to this matter and the solution was to offer similar information to all candidates. Mr. Mike Nolan sent a e-mail to all the candidates offering this information.
On a positive side, I trust the other poeple envolve in handling the election, specially Mr. Glen Peterson, who will be the Chief teller of this year's election.
In conclusion, yes I agree with you about making some chances for future elections.
