The Mystery of the USCF Computer Taken by Miss P
samsloan
On Frank Niro's new website which is the launching pad for his
forthcoming book there is an interesting story at:
http://www.chesssafari.com/SusanPolgar.htm
He writes:
"Susan Polgar
"I don't know what to say about Susan Polgar beyond the fact that
I'm proud to call her my friend. Susan and her manager/best friend
Paul Truong intervened on my behalf when I left the Chess Federation
after my heart attack in 2003. I wanted my laptop because it had a
number of personal files on it that were important to me. It seemed
like a simple enough request. Not only did Susan and Paul approach the
Board of Directors on my behalf, they offered to pay for it! Then they
drove to New Windsor, picked up the computer, and transported it to me
in Connecticut. I have many wonderful friends but I cannot think of any
other who would have done that."
However, there is more to this story. That computer did not belong to
the Frank Niro. It belonged to the USCF and the files on it belonged to
the USCF.
More importantly, we now know something that we did not know at that
time, which is that while he was Executive Director of the USCF, Frank
Niro was also Director of the Susan Polgar Foundation. When he signed
several contracts as Executive Director with the Susan Polgar
Foundation, he was really signing a contract with himself. When he paid
large checks to the Susan Polgar Foundation, he was paying large checks
to himself.
None of this was known to the USCF Board or to John McCrary, the USCF
President at the time.
This explains why Truong and Polgar would be so anxious to get the
computer that Frank Niro had been using out of the USCF office. That
computer no doubt contained incriminating evidence, evidence that they
did not want the USCF to have. Frank Niro had abruptly disappeared and
gone into hiding during the 2003 US Open in Los Angeles when
simultaneously $300,000 had gone missing too. He was in no position to
go to the USCF office and pick up the computer himself.
Do not expect the current USCF president, Bill Goichberg, to be
investigating this. Goichberg has already specifically directed Joe
Nanna, the new USCF CFO, not to investigate this.
It is important to note that Bill Goichberg specifically directed the
new CFO, Joe Nanna, to stop investigating this matter. On November 30,
2006, in an email entitled "Re: The Golden Girls", Bill Goichberg
wrote:
>I am not aware that any board members have asked that our CFO check the
>entire history of all payments to Polgar, and I suspect this would not be a
>productive use of his time.
>
>Bill Goichberg
However, the above statement was not true. Three board members had
asked Joe Nanna to investigate this. These were Joel Channing, Beatriz
Marinello and myself.
I have since realized that it was actually Bill Goichberg, while he was
Executive Director, who paid the big checks totaling $13,538.36 to Miss
Polgar. (Previously, I had mistakenly concluded that it was Grant Perks
who made these payments.)
I find the story on the Frank Niro posting about the lengths that Paul
Truong and Susan Polgar went to get the computer Frank Niro had been
using from the USCF office after Niro has disappeared due to a claimed
"heart attack" to be interesting. That computer no doubt contained
correspondence between Niro and Truong and Polgar which would have
provided incriminating evidence. This very likely explains why they
would go to such lengths to get it away from the USCF. This was also
theft. The computer belonged to the USCF, not to Frank Niro.
Sam Sloan
mar...@stkittsnevischess.org
Based on this, as an Alternate Delegate, I will bring theft charges
against the people in charge.
The solution is the POKEY, you remember that place!
Marcus Roberts
Chess Freak
I'm constantly amazed at what this cancer to US Chess is trying
to do. He is out to ruin the USCF, and his band of idiots who
illegally voted him in to the EB are right in tight, up his ass.
One word comes to mind: FILTH
I'm voting for Polgar, and will do everything I can to get sloan
kicked out of the USCF.
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167573270.9...@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> The Mystery of the USCF Computer Taken by Miss P
>
<...SNIP MORONIC DRIVEL...>
> Sam "the snake" Sloan
>
Louis Blair
Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:24 pm
Post subject: Re: The Mystery of the USCF Computer Taken
by Miss P
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chesssafari.com/SusanPolgar.htm
He writes:
"Susan Polgar
You are assuming that Niro's position with SPF was a paid
position. Perhaps so, but I don't believe that we know this.
Quote:
None of this was known to the USCF Board or to John
McCrary, the USCF President at the time.
I think this is probably correct and even if he had an unpaid
position with SPF, agree that he should have disclosed this
to the Board.
Quote:
This explains why Truong and Polgar would be so
anxious to get the computer that Frank Niro had been
using out of the USCF office. That computer no doubt
contained incrimination evidence, evidence that they did
not want the USCF to have. Frank Niro had abruptly
disappeared and gone into hiding during the 2003 US
Open in Los Angeles when simultaneously $300,000
had gone missing too. He was in no position to go to
the USCF office and pick up the computer himself.
It is outrageous to allege, without providing proof, that the
computer "no doubt contained incrimination evidence."
Quote:
Do not expect the current USCF president, Bill
Goichberg, to be investigating this. Goichberg has
already specifically directed Joe Nanna, the new USCF
CFO, not to investigate this.
It is important to note that Bill Goichberg specifically
directed the new CFO, Joe Nanna, to stop investigating
this matter. On November 30, 2006, in an email entitled
"Re: The Golden Girls", Bill Goichberg wrote:
>I am not aware that any board members have asked
>that our CFO check the entire history of all payments
>to Polgar, and I suspect this would not be a productive
>use of his time.
>
>Bill Goichberg
However, the above statement was not true. Three
board members had asked Joe Nanna to investigate
this. There were Joel Channing, Beatriz Marinello and
myself.
The statement you quote above was my opinion, that in the
absence of any evidence of wrongdoing, we should not
spend the time to investigate the entire history of all
payments to Polgar. It was not a directive to Nanna, it was
an opinion expressed to the Board.
No Board member but yourself disagreed with the opinion I
expressed. Joel and Beatriz supported an investigation of
the $13,500 plus that Sam suggested might be a double
payment, but I supported this also. Joe Nanna looked into
this and reported that it was not a double payment, instead
the amount was recorded as a payable in October and was
paid in December.
After Hall relayed Nanna's report to the Board, he
complained to me that the investigation had taken up much
of Nanna's time, and I agreed with him that we should not
waste his further time investigating every Polgar payment.
Quote:
I have since realized that it was actually Bill Goichberg,
while he was Executive Director, who paid the big
checks totaling $13,538.36 to Miss Polgar. (Previously,
I had mistakenly concluded that it was Grant Perks who
made these payments.)
Actually, the payable was recorded in October by CFO Linda
Legenos. In December, Linda started to write checks to pay
it off. Grant Perks was in charge of the office in October and I
was Office Manager in December. I had no reason to ask
Linda to re-examine the payable, especially since I knew that
the Board had obtained legal advice and was determined to
pay no more than it had to.
Quote:
I find the story on the Frank Niro posting about the lengths
that Paul Truong and Susan Polgar went to get the
computer Frank Niro had been using from the USCF office
after Niro has disappeared due to a claimed "heart attack"
to be interesting. That computer no doubt contained
correspondence between Niro and Truong and Polgar
which would have provided incriminating evidence.
How can you say it "no doubt" would have provided
incriminating evidence? What proof do you have? So far you
have been unable to present any evidence to back up your
various attacks on Polgar.
Quote:
This very likely explains why they would go to such
lengths to get it away from the USCF. This was also
theft. The computer belonged to the USCF, not to
Frank Niro.
Sam Sloan
Sam, do you read your own posts? You just quoted Niro as
saying:
"Not only did Susan and Paul approach the Board of
Directors on my behalf, they offered to pay for it!"
Does this sound like theft, or does it sound like the Board
was approached with an offer to buy Niro's computer? Sure
seems like the latter to me. If you offer to buy something
and its owner accepts the offer, is that theft?
Bill Goichberg
Mike Murray
wrote:
>Bill Goichberg
>Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:24 pm
>Post subject: Re: The Mystery of the USCF Computer Taken
> by Miss P
> More importantly, we now know something that we did
> not know at that time, which is that while he was
> Executive Director of the USCF, Frank Niro was also
> Director of the Susan Polgar Foundation. When he
> signed several contracts as Executive Director with the
> Susan Polgar Foundation, he was really signing a
> contract with himself. When he paid large checks to the
> Susan Polgar Foundation, he was paying large checks
> to himself.
>You are assuming that Niro's position with SPF was a paid
>position. Perhaps so, but I don't believe that we know this.
> Quote:
> None of this was known to the USCF Board or to John
> McCrary, the USCF President at the time.
>I think this is probably correct and even if he had an unpaid
>position with SPF, agree that he should have disclosed this
>to the Board.
Even if Niro's position with the Polgar Foundation were unpaid, this
appears to be a blatant conflict of interest, especially when the
Polgar foundation was awarded paid contracts by the USCF. According
to his website, Niro has a CPA and academic training in business and
accounting. With this background, he had to be aware of the unethical
nature of holding both positions. Besides disclosing this to the
board, he should have recused himself from any negotiations and
contractual matters with the Polgar foundations.
> Quote:
> I find the story on the Frank Niro posting about the lengths
> that Paul Truong and Susan Polgar went to get the
> computer Frank Niro had been using from the USCF office
> after Niro has disappeared due to a claimed "heart attack"
> to be interesting. That computer no doubt contained
> correspondence between Niro and Truong and Polgar
> which would have provided incriminating evidence.
>How can you say it "no doubt" would have provided
>incriminating evidence? What proof do you have? So far you
>have been unable to present any evidence to back up your
>various attacks on Polgar.
While I agree that what Sloan has presented does not constitute
"proof" that any incriminating evidence was on the computer, let me
pose a question to the USCF folks:
How do you think a company such as IBM or Ford or Boeing would react
if an employee, having terminated, sent representatives of a supplier
or vendor (with whom that employee had financial dealings as an
employee) to buy said employee's computer because it contained
"personal data"? I'll bet dollars to donuts they'd have corporate
security scouring that computer with a fine tooth comb!
Goichberg's retort to Sloan is, to be charitable, is lame in the
extreme.
>
> Quote:
> This very likely explains why they would go to such
> lengths to get it away from the USCF. This was also
> theft. The computer belonged to the USCF, not to
> Frank Niro.
> Sam Sloan
>Sam, do you read your own posts? You just quoted Niro as
>saying:
>"Not only did Susan and Paul approach the Board of
>Directors on my behalf, they offered to pay for it!"
>Does this sound like theft, or does it sound like the Board
>was approached with an offer to buy Niro's computer? Sure
>seems like the latter to me. If you offer to buy something
>and its owner accepts the offer, is that theft?
See comment above. Isn't this a bit like excusing a purse snatcher
because he didn't jaywalk while doing it?
Now, Sloan's quick to make wild claims and detailed, systematic
collection of evidence isn't his bag, and we all know this. But,
unless Bill can document that the computer in question was thoroughly
examined before selling it to those people acting as Niro's agents,
this whole thing smells rotten.
The value of the physical computer itself should not become the issue.
>Bill Goichberg
samsloan
Louis Blair wrote:
> Bill Goichberg
> Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:24 pm
> Post subject: Re: The Mystery of the USCF Computer Taken
> by Miss P
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> samsloan wrote:
> The Mystery of the USCF Computer Taken by Miss P
>
I continue to be astounded by the lengths to which Bill Goichberg will
go to defend the obviously improper activities of his political allies,
Susan Polgar and Paul Truong.
The laptop computer in question obviously belonged to the USCF, not to
Frank Niro. That is why Niro writes that Polgar and Truong ofered to
pay the USCF for it.
I assume that this incident occurred in the few days immediately after
Frank Niro disappeared and nobody knew where he was. Beatriz Marinello
was elected USCF President on August 11, 2003 in Los Angeles. On August
20, 2003, Beatriz walked into the USCF Offices in New Windsor NY and
immediately fired 17 staff members. I was severely critical of her at
that time, but I did not know then a fact that I know now that I am on
the board, which is that the USCF was overdrawn at the bank by
$121,641.25. (This figure is found on page 37 of the CD that was
prepared after I got on the board and demanding an accounting of the
funds.)
I have a recollection of the incident involving the computer because at
that time Paul Truong was often calling me and informing me of the
latest goings on. (We were allies at that time, or at least I thought
that we were.)
What needs to be done now and what I call upon Bill Goichberg to do is
find out who has the computer now and take steps to get it back. The
data on that computer clearly belongs to the USCF and would be helpful
in finding out what happened to the two million dollars the USCF lost,
most of which was lost when Frank Niro and his immediate predecessor
George DeFeis were Executive Director.
We also need to know who on the board was "approached" (especially
since the board was fractured at that point in time. Was this before or
after McCrary and Camaratta resigned?), and who authorized Paul Truong
and Susan Polgar to take that computer from the USCF's office, or did
they just steal it.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
election.
Sam Sloan
Louis Blair
Posted: Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:25 pm
Post subject: Re: The Mystery of the USCF Computer Taken
by Miss P
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
samsloan wrote:
chessoffice wrote:
Sam Sloan
Bill Goichberg
Yes, it clearly belonged to USCF. Just as clearly, there is
zero evidence that it was stolen from USCF. You should
retract that outrageous charge immediately.
Quote:
I assume that this incident occurred in the few days
immediately after Frank Niro disappeared and nobody
knew where he was. Beatriz Marinello was elected USCF
President on August 11, 2003 in Los Angeles. On
August 20, 2003, Beatriz walked into the USCF Offices
in New Windsor NY and immediately fired 17 staff
members. I was severely critical of her at that time, but I
did not know then a fact that I know now that I am on the
board, which is that the USCF was overdrawn at the bank
by $121,641.25. (This figure is found on page 37 of the
CD that was prepared after I got on the board and
demanding an accounting of the funds.)
It was worse than that, USCF also owed about $400,000 to
creditors. But how does this justify your alleging that a
computer was stolen, when there is no proof of this?
Quote:
I have a recollection of the incident involving the computer
because at that time Paul Truong was often calling me
and informing me of the latest goings on. (We were allies
at that time, or at least I thought that we were.)
What needs to be done now and what I call upon Bill
Goichberg to do is find out who has the computer now
and take steps to get it back. The data on that computer
clearly belongs to the USCF and would be helpful in
finding out what happened to the two million dollars the
USCF lost, most of which was lost when Frank Niro and
his immediate predecessor George DeFeis were
Executive Director.
I would assume that USCF sold the computer to Niro and
that he either still owns it, or it has since been junked and
important data copied to another computer. In either case,
we would have no grounds for trying to compel Niro to return
the computer or the data.
It seems very unlikely that the computer has data valuable
to USCF. If it does, we can't force Niro to turn it over to us.
Quote:
We also need to know who on the board was
"approached" (especially since the board was fractured
at that point in time. Was this before or after McCrary
and Camaratta resigned?), and who authorized Paul
Truong and Susan Polgar to take that computer from
the USCF's office, or did they just steal it.
Sam Sloan
You say above of the transfer of the computer, "This was
also theft." It's outrageous to say this as you have no
evidence, but now you have added, "did they just steal it."
Charging people with illegal activity with no evidence is
despicible. These are smear attacks, using an old technique-
say it enough times and some people will believe it.
You talk about USCF losing money, about your former
dealings with Truong, and about how important recovery of
this computer would be to USCF. None of this backs up
your charges of theft or hiding incriminating data.
Obviously you have no evidence to support your claims, or
we would have heard it by now. You should retract and
apoloigize for your charges.
Bill Goichberg
samsloan
Louis Blair wrote:
Are you calling me a liar?
Sam Sloan
samsloan
August, 2003 under the heading "Niro's Back". This is one of the many
posts where Truong claims that he and Susan are not paid anything and
are doing all this for the good of chess. Now, we find that the USCF
paid $13,538.36 for one of these "free" appearances.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/69b7fc7bb10ebe42?
> > As long as we are beating dead horses, we were led to believe
> > that Niro was working for nothing when he was interim ED. Was he in
> > fact not paid for his time as interim ED?
> Famous saying--You think it's expensive now, wait till it's free.
> Now only the board and committee folks are working for free. Oops, I forgot
> Paul Proung. He's working for free. If you don't believe me ask him how much
> the USCF has paid him or owes him for expenses and appearances for him and
> Susan Polgar (his client) and any other entities that he(she) are involved
> with. In fact ask him what we paid the GM volunteer of the year for her
> volunteer work.
> StanB
samsloan
Polgar works entirely for free and is never paid. However, we now know
that Bill Goichberg, as Executive Director, paid Polgar $13,538.36 in
December 2003 for these "free" appearances. He did this without
informing the board or the president. At the Executive Board meeting on
November 17, 2006, Beatriz Marinello, who was USCF President in 2003 at
the time of the events in question, said that had have never known that
this money was paid until I discovered this payment on the CD and made
an issue over it.
This proves that Bill Goichberg was paying large amounts of money to
his political allies without informing the board.
Sam Sloan
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/69b7fc7bb10ebe42?
"Dear Stan:
"Thank you for bringing up this point. USCF does not pay me any cash
for my appearances. US Chess Trust also does not pay me any cash for
my appearances to help do fundraising for them. In fact, I have
fronted a lot of my own money for a number USCF activities including
the Women's Olympiad Program. Since January 2003, I have spent about
$100,000 of my own time and money for various activities to help US
Chess. I have also donated a lot of work for USCF for Chess Life
without charge. In some events, USCF paid for my airfare and hotel
and in some other events, I paid myself."
samsloan
that the computer belonged to the USCF, not to Frank Niro. Niro claimed
that he wanted the computer because it contained personal information.
However, that is not a good thing either. Why was he using the USCF's
computer for his personal business? I admit that everybody does it, but
that does not make it right.
I do not think you were around then and I do not believe that you are
familiar with this history. Frank Niro had reported that the USCF was
very profitable and that he was on his was to the meetings in Los
Angeles to present the financial report.
On August 1, 2003, Frank Niro wrote a check to himself for $2618.85.
Check number 60170. You will find it on page 29 of the CD. It is right
below his check for $1500.00 to John Hillary.
This was the final blow-out check. Usually, Frank Niro wrote checks to
himself for about $1100, perhaps to avoid a two-signature requirement.
This last time he went way over his normal limit.
Frank Niro was supposed to be flying directly from New Windsor to Los
Angeles. However, he never showed up in Los Angeles. He simply
disappeared. I do not know whether he ever submitted an official letter
of resignation or not.
However, the financial report did arrive in Los Angeles, directly from
the auditors. Rather than show a profit as Niro had said it would show,
it showed a loss of over $300,000.
This threw the USCF into a crisis. Nobody knew who was in charge. USCF
President John McCrary, who had been expecting to be re-elected,
resigned instead. Everyone was shocked when Beatriz Marinello, who had
been elected to the board primarily because it had been said that she
was a nice young girl who would not cause any trouble, suddenly emerged
as USCF President.
All Hell broke loose. It was probably at about this time that Paul
Truong and Susan Polgar simply walked into the USCF offices in New
Windsor and took the computer. Nobody was in charge and therefore there
was nobody to tell them "no".
Unless Paul Truong and Susan Polgar can produce some documents
authorizing them to take the USCF's computer, I would say that they
stole it.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Niro paid to himself.
This is check number 48907 dated 8/7/03 for $1150.00. Note the
difference in check number. This was from a different checkbook, a
checkbook that was not often used. This may explain why I missed it
previously.
I am fairly certain that Niro was no longer in the office by August 7.
He was supposed to have been in Los Angeles to attend the USCF
delegates meeting by that time. This tends to show that Frank Niro was
not ill as he claims to have been.
On August 11, four days later, Beatriz Marinello was elected USCF
President. On August 20, 2003, Beatriz Marinello walked into the USCF
offices and fired 17 staff members. I believe that by then the computer
had already been taken. I am absolutely certain that Beatriz Marinello,
who was in charge by then, would never have allowed Polgar to remove
that computer from the USCF office.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Monday, January 01, 2007 12:31:56 PM
SusanPolgar
SusanPolgar said...
Jack,
I will not bother to respond to liars and demented people. The
laptop belong to Mr. Niro, not the USCF. He began his tenure of ED as a
volunteer. As part of the agreement with that board, he received a
laptop but no pay. He later became a paid ED but the laptop was already
his.
When the new board took over in August 2003, they were not aware of
the situation. I even offered to pay for it if they refused to honor
the agreement of the previous board with Mr. Niro. However, that was
not neeeded as they agreed to give him back his laptop.
I took the laptop to Mr. Niro who was recovering from a heart
attack in Connecticut. It was the right thing to do.
In regards to personal info on the laptop, Mr. Niro had pictures of
his children in it as well as the book that he is writing to his son.
It does not matter how many times I answer, more lies will surface.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.PolgarChess.com
Monday, January 01, 2007 12:40:18 PM
politi...@gmail.com
[...]
>
> On August 11, four days later, Beatriz Marinello was elected USCF
> President. On August 20, 2003, Beatriz Marinello walked into the USCF
> offices and fired 17 staff members. I believe that by then the computer
> had already been taken. I am absolutely certain that Beatriz Marinello,
> who was in charge by then, would never have allowed Polgar to remove
> that computer from the USCF office.
>
> Sam Sloan
But, granting your hypothetical, wouldn't Beatriz Marinello (based on
your prior sworn statements as currently posted on your personal
website) have been likely to abscond with the laptop to Chile? If
you believe that everyone in USCF is a felon, then USCF was always
already SOL.
(Per Larry Parr and Phil Innes non-child molesters who complain about
child molesters are projecting illicit desires and past sexcrimes,
while felons who careless ascribe criminal conduct to others are good
fiduciaries. I know Socrates liked 'em young, too, but can't USCF find
an *ethical* gadfly?)
http://www.samsloan.com/marinello-transcript.htm
**BEGIN SELECTION FROM TRANSCRIPT**
<<21 MR. SLOAN: [...]
Proceedings 7
14 They sold the building without even a vote of
15 the board. They certainly didn't ask the members to
16 sell the building. They have taken the money, five
17 hundred and thirteen thousand dollars, and as a
18 matter of fact, Kim Hanky (phon), one of the
19 defendants, said on an Internet posting last week,
20 that he has put the money in a duffle bag, five
21 hundred and thirteen thousand, and he's carrying the
22 money around in the trunk of his car. He said it as
23 a joke, I realize, but nevertheless, the fact is
24 that we have got five hundred thousand dollars
25 sloshing around here, and nobody knows who has the
Neil Bostock, RPR-CM
Proceedings 8
1 money, or what they're going to do with it. It's a
2 not-for-profit corporation and the law says that
3 when a building is sold, the funds must be placed in
4 escrow, and that is what I'm asking you to do, is to
5 place these funds in an escrow account, under the
6 supervision of the court, so that these people
7 cannot literally run off with the money, because
8 that is exactly what they're planning to do.
9 Beatriz Marinello is not even a citizen of the
10 United States. She is going to Chile quite often,
11 and could take this five hundred thousand and run
12 with it down to Chile. There is nothing, absolutely
13 nothing stopping her from doing it right now,
14 because she has signing authority of the money. As
15 a matter of fact the reason why she hasn't done it,
16 I just found out yesterday, is because under the
17 Patriot Act she has to provide information to the
18 bank before they give her the five hundred thousand
19 dollars. That is why the bank hasn't given her the
20 money, Key Bank in --
21 THE COURT: Do you want to respond to any of
22 that? >>
**END SELECTION FROM TRANSCRIPT**
Also, why I haven't I received a refund for the $4.95 "shipping and
handling" you currently charge on your website for "donations"? And
isn't it cowardly of you -- but rather in character for you ;-) -- to
blame your own son for this petty theft?
politi...@gmail.com
Careless of me.
samsloan
were involved in the events in question in August, 2003. I have
determined the following facts:
1. The newly elected Executive Board took office at the conclusion of
the delegate's meeting on Sunday August 10, 2003 and on August 11 the
newly elected officers took office, with Beatriz Marinello as
President, Tim Hanke as VP of Finance and Don Schultz as Secretary.
2. Paul Truong was made Director of Marketing. As Director of
Marketing, he could probably have just walked in to the USCF's office
in New Windsor and taken the computer with no questions asked.
3. Mike Nolan was made Executive Director. However, Mike Nolan only
held that position for about a week until his house burned down and he
had to return to Nebraska.
4. The newly elected officers, Beatriz Marinello, Tim Hanke and Don
Schultz, arived in the New Windsor offices on Wednesday, August 20. The
first thing they did was look for that computer. It was already
missing.
5. None of the newly elected board members have any recollection of
being asked by Susan Polgar or Paul Truong for permission to take that
computer. Also, they would not have given that permission, if asked.
6. As to the claim that Frank Niro was given that computer by the
previous board as employee compensation, nobody has been able to
confirm this. If true, why was it in the USCF office rather than in
Frank Niro's home?
7. As to the claim that Frank Niro was in a hospital in Connecticut,
nobody has been able to confirm this either, as Frank Niro never
contacted the board to inform them of his whereabouts.
8. Susan Polgar, in her posting to her Blog, has failed to provide the
name of any board member who was contacted with a request for the
computer. None of the board members can recall being contacted. Until
she comes up with the name of a person, her claim lacks credulity and
does not even make sense.
9. Since it was Mike Nolan who was most likely in charge of the office
when the computer went missing, he should be contacted and asked what
he remembers about this incident.
Moderator intervention please?
Sam Sloan
samsloan
"I don't recall anything involving Susan or Paul and Niro's computer
while I was in New Windsor, and I think it was still sitting on the
table in the ED's office when I left to return to Nebraska. Susan and
Paul were just arriving at the USCF office for the first time since the
US Open as I was leaving for the airport that day. (Had such a request
been made to me, I would not have turned it over without at least
making a copy of all files on it first.)"
This occurred on August 20, 2003. Later that same day, the three newly
elected members of the board arrived. They report that when they got
there, the laptop was already missing.
So, it seems that it was during that short period of time of not more
than a few hours after Mike Nolan left and before the new board
arrived, that Susan Polgar and Paul Truong grabbed the laptop off the
ED's desk and made off with it.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
That's a complete fabrication of what happened, Sam.
Don, Beatriz, Tim and I were there on Monday, we all went out to dinner
at a local Italian restaurant. (Al Lawrence was at that dinner, too.)
Paul and Susan didn't get there until some time around noon on Tuesday.
Mike Nolan
Louis Blair
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:46 pm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator intervention please?
Sam Sloan
and will you name those you contacted to receive the above
information Sam?
Louis Blair
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 1:03 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
samsloan wrote:
I have made a few calls around the country this morning
to people who were involved in the events in question in
August, 2003. I have determined the following facts:...
Anonymous sources are wonderful things, since they can
say whatever you need them to say without being held
accountable. Who are your sources, Sam? If you're unwilling
to identify them, then your "facts" lack credibility.
_________________
*******************
--Anthony Ragan
"Stop it! You're driving me sane!!"
Chess One
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167687766.5...@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
> samsloan wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>
>> On August 11, four days later, Beatriz Marinello was elected USCF
>> President. On August 20, 2003, Beatriz Marinello walked into the USCF
>> offices and fired 17 staff members. I believe that by then the computer
>> had already been taken. I am absolutely certain that Beatriz Marinello,
>> who was in charge by then, would never have allowed Polgar to remove
>> that computer from the USCF office.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
> But, granting your hypothetical, wouldn't Beatriz Marinello (based on
> your prior sworn statements as currently posted on your personal
> website) have been likely to abscond with the laptop to Chile? If
> you believe that everyone in USCF is a felon, then USCF was always
> already SOL.
>
> (Per Larry Parr and Phil Innes non-child molesters who complain about
> child molesters are projecting illicit desires and past sexcrimes,
> while felons who careless ascribe criminal conduct to others are good
> fiduciaries. I know Socrates liked 'em young, too, but can't USCF find
> an *ethical* gadfly?)
I will only speak for myself, and offer you your own comments, that you had
something in the closet.
In terms of protecting children I believe I have written rather more than
you on the subject, and indeed, recommending the point of view of those
abused, rather than, say, politics as a basis for standards of behavior.
If indeed Sloan is guilty of molesting children then considering there is
some much dislike of him, why have no criminal charge been brought?
What I wrote is about a specific person who is so disturbed by Sloan's
material that he then must invent all sorts of stuff about it, on Slaon, and
indeed, on Innes and Parr.
This is no abstract comment about projection, but is a specific one.
Nevertheless, this person thinks his point of view should prevail in a
kangaroo court conducted in a newsgroup, while completely absenting his own
predelictions from the scene, so as to appear as impartial prosecutor, judge
and jury, all-in-one. This has nothing to do with standards which will
protect children, and all to do with creating a scapegoat who can be
sacrificed on the pyre of our anger, as if to immolate the condition with
the sacrifice.
I have never recommended that Sloan have anything to do with creating or
deploying standards of public health, for much the same reason as I cannot
think the brave distortions of opinions by the writer above would qualify
his opinion either - so brave are his opinions that he would rather invent
these demons he holds to be of other people, than quote them, as might be
seen to be sober judgement - or indeed, some concern for children
themselves.
Q.E.D.
Phil Innes
politi...@gmail.com
offender, as one can readily ascertain via FBI and California public
databases. By Poland's own account, he performed cunnilingus on a
minor on three separate occasions. At the time of the first incident,
the girl was eight years old.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/6ef7dc5bba556b6c
Here's what Sloan had to say about Poland in Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jefferson_Poland&oldid=41759835
BEGIN QTN 1
<<In the early 1980s, Poland was charged with child molestation.
Apparently, a nudist couple, including David Irving and his girlfriend,
had entrusted Poland with the care of their daughter while they were
nude sunbathing on Black's Beach in La Jolla, California near San
Diego. Some time later, the nudist couple accused Poland of having
performed cunnalingus [sic--WHB] on their daughter while they were nude
sunbathing. Poland fled the country rather than face these charges. He
lived for five years as a fugitive in Australia until 1988, when he was
extradited back to America. In view of the passage of time and the
obvious complicity of his accusers, Poland probably could have
successfully fought the charges. However, by that time he had changed
his name legally to "Clitlick" and he preferred to plead guilty to the
cunnalingus [sic--WHB] charge. He served about nine months in San Diego
County Jail. Upon his release, he returned to live in San Francisco. He
turned over his archives to the Bancroft Library of the University of
California at Berkeley, where they are now available for public viewing
by academic researchers. Poland now lives in San Francisco, where he is
monitored as a registered sex offender. >>
END QTN 1
Here's what Sloan wrote about the parents of Poland's victim on the
Wikipedia "talk" page. This passage has been permanently removed by a
WP admin, so no directly link. It was, however, previously cited by me
before its removal (again at
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/6ef7dc5bba556b6c
)
BEGIN QTN 2
<<I have not seen or spoken to Jefferson Poland since 1967. However,
based on what I have read, I strongly suspect that he was the victim of
a setup. In the years I knew him, I never saw him express any interest
in children. I never even saw him express much interest in adult woman,
except that he had a girlfriend, Holly Tannen, who followed him around
like a little puppy-dog everywhere he went.
Those were the glory days of sexual freedom. There was always a bevy of
naked hippie chicks laying around with their legs spread open waiting
for some guy to come along. I partook of these opportunities
frequently, but I never saw Jefferson have sex with a woman, although
there were plenty of available women around.
My guess is that the nudist couple were themselves abusing the child.
Then, they left the child briefly in the care of Jefferson, so that
they could come back and accuse him of what they had actually done. If
the San Diego prosecutor really had proof that Jefferson was guilty, he
would not have let him off with only nine months in jail. Sam Sloan
16:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC) >>
END QTN 2
Sloan and his correspondent Andrew Morrow derived considerable
amusement from this incident: see Sloan's WP talk page. "18-month-old
Kira" is the daughter of WP founder Jimbo Wales.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sam_Sloan&oldid=46369514
Follow the link and read the words yourself: I won't cite them here.
The references to Kira have been scrubbed from the current version on
WP, but remain in the WP history.
In the context of a discussion of Sloan's election on Susan Polgar's
blog, Morrow also found it amusing to inquire after the well-being of
Polgar's children, naming the school that the boys attend.
Since you don't trust my word, ask Susan.
Does Larry Parr wish to dispute the accuracy of this account?
Does Phil Innes wish to dispute the accuracy of this account?
politi...@gmail.com
here.
The references to Kira have been scrubbed from the current version on
WP, but remain in the WP history."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sam_Sloan&oldid=46369514
I should have added that the relevant passage is in item 37, "Yoo-hoo!"
politi...@gmail.com
<<Does Larry Parr wish to dispute the accuracy of this account?
Does Phil Innes wish to dispute the accuracy of this account? >>
Guess not.
Let this be the starting point for any discussion of "standards."
Jah
you are a one man avenger of justice? The sword of God?
politi...@gmail.com
> So you are the guy that keeps posting those fake samsloan messages? I guess
> you are a one man avenger of justice? The sword of God?
Not me on either count.
It's clear that samh...@gmail.com is Sloan (just compare these posts
to those on the uschess forum). The other gmail account,
ismai...@gmail.com, appears to be the impersonator.
It's Sloan who continually attacks a multitude of others on *moral*
grounds.
I've already noted that I'm imperfect myself--see thread title ;-) But
board members also are imperfect human beings--so one strives for
certain minimum, er, standards.
It's obviously the consensus that manipulating one's USCF rating is
inconsistent with board service--that's why Tanner resigned.
Is being an apologist for a convicted & confessed child molester, and
groundlessly accusing the parents of a child victim who was eight years
old of themselves being the molesters, also inconsistent with service
on the board of a national nonprofit organization, a majority of whose
members are themselves minors?
I'd like to discuss this standard with Innes.
Jah
molester, and groundlessly accusing the parents of a child victim who was
eight years
> old of themselves being the molesters,<<
How do you know the accusation is groundless? Most kids that get molested
once then become victims again. The convict admitted that he molested the
kid, but he may not have been the first or the last.
In what context of perversion Sloan has discussed these issues I don't know,
as I never waste my time reading his website. I made the mistake of looking
at some page regarding his kidnapped children once, and the annoying music
and insipid writing made me promise never to return.
politi...@gmail.com
> <politikalhack@> Is being an apologist for a convicted & confessed child
> molester, and groundlessly accusing the parents of a child victim who was
> eight years
> > old of themselves being the molesters,<<
>
> How do you know the accusation is groundless? Most kids that get molested
> once then become victims again. The convict admitted that he molested the
> kid, but he may not have been the first or the last.
[....]
Groundless AFAIK, and Sloan cited no evidence. Phil Innes and Larry
Parr are likely to say that you're projecting. If so, please take it
up with them.
Of course, when Sloan accused the parents of molesting their child, he
wasn't projecting. He's Sloan, and therefore above the law.
politi...@gmail.com
upon an eight-year-old, it is probably a strategic error to change
one's middle name to "Clitlick."
politi...@gmail.com
I've made the above error more than once on rgcp; Sloan's Wikipedia
entry appears to be consistent with one of Poland's aliases as listed
by the FBI.
In fact, Poland changed his *surname* to "Clitlick."
parrt...@cs.com
We have more of Bill Brock's trial by
accusation. There has been no proof adduced that Sam
Sloan ever molested any child.
Now, then, what to make of Mr. Brock's comment
about projection?
The man is saying that Phil Innes and I believe
that Mr. Brock is guilty of molestation and, therefore, reckon
that, in an act of demented expiation, he seeks to molest
Sam Sloan verbally because he believes or wishes to believe
Mr. Sloan is a child molester.
More than a year back, Bill Brock wrote what
can only be read as an admission that he molested one
or more children. We can reprint the admission, if
the man so wishes.
I stipulated at the time and continue to so
stipulate that Mr. Brock did not mean to write what he
wrote. The man, while not stupid, is in over his
head. Like many people, he cannot put thoughts on
paper with precision.
What remains true is this: the only proof thus
far that anyone on this forum is a child molester
comes from Bill Brock. For this man accused HIMSELF
of the crime. He did not mean to do so, and he is
almost certainly not guilty as self-charged.
Yet ... to the extent that there is any proof
that someone here is a child molester, then that
person is our self-charged sillyhead, Bill Brock, a
true political hack who continues to clutter this forum
with the same old garbage.
politi...@gmail.com
Now what about Sloan?
help bot
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> TRIAL BY ACCUSATION
>
> We have more of Bill Brock's trial by
> accusation. There has been no proof adduced that Sam
> Sloan ever molested any child.
For some strange reason this post reminds me of an
incident long ago in which Larry Parr tried, convicted,
and hanged the president of FIDE without anything
more than just circumstantial evidence. It goes without
saying that, when it suits his fancy, Mr. Parr will play
either side of this "trial by accusation" game, and play
to win. He has no standards whatever, apart from the
double-standard.
> More than a year back, Bill Brock wrote what
> can only be read as an admission that he molested one
> or more children. We can reprint the admission, if
> the man so wishes.
How odd. I would think if BB wished for LP to reprint
such an "admission", he would be the one to first bring it
up.
> I stipulated at the time and continue to so
> stipulate that Mr. Brock did not mean to write what he
> wrote. The man, while not stupid, is in over his
> head. Like many people, he cannot put thoughts on
> paper with precision.
Well, here is a case where LP's ability to "put thoughts
on paper with precision" has resulted in him being caught
as a hypocrite, so maybe a little confusion could be seen
as a good thing. :>D
> What remains true is this: the only proof thus
> far that anyone on this forum is a child molester
> comes from Bill Brock. For this man accused HIMSELF
> of the crime. He did not mean to do so, and he is
> almost certainly not guilty as self-charged.
Forgetting about old pal, Sam Sloan, and his many
misadventures. No surprise there.
> Yet ... to the extent that there is any proof
> that someone here is a child molester, then that
> person is our self-charged sillyhead, Bill Brock, a
> true political hack
I must admit that these names often leave me in the
dark. Maybe the poster formerly known as "political
hack" is Bill Brock? And I thought they were nearly
all Taylor Kingston, posting "in praise of" himself!
> who continues to clutter this forum with the same old garbage.
Another (unwitting) self-description of Larry Parr.
At least no one can say he is not consistent. Here is a
small piece of wisdom I snatched from a busy troll: when
you find yourself in a hole, stop digging!
-- help bot
politi...@gmail.com
>> TRIAL BY ACCUSATION
>>
>> We have more of Bill Brock's trial by
>> accusation. There has been no proof adduced that Sam
>> Sloan ever molested any child.
politi...@gmail.com wrote:
> Grant your hypothetical.
>
> Now what about Sloan?
Restrict your reply to a defense of Sloan's conduct in his writings
about Jefferson Poland, Parr. I have a nasty cold, and could use
some comic relief.
politi...@gmail.com
http://www.samsloan.com/orgyhost.htm
Poor orgy host caught holding reefer (cool with Larry Evans--cool with
me) and contributing to the delinquency of a minor (not as cool).
Might have been the projecting Bill Brock!
politi...@gmail.com
"Judge Brunn ordered the bail reduced on the contributing charge [...]
and on the marijuana charge [...] on the condition Sloan vacate the
'orgy house' across the street from Willard Junior High School and if
he will avoid associating with minors at any party involving alcoholic
beverages."
Doubtless the reporter was projecting.
politi...@gmail.com
heaven!"
Who am I to argue? Sexual freedom between consenting adults is a
wonderful thing.
And yet...to be very *very* young? Kids of unior high school kids in
both Berkeley and Thailand?
Doubtless these were mere "dalliance[s]" ;-)
politi...@gmail.com
> And yet...to be very *very* young? Kids of unior high school kids in
> both Berkeley and Thailand?
>
> Doubtless these were mere "dalliance[s]" ;-)
Should have been "Kids of junior high school age in both Berkeley and
Thailand?" I cannot put words on paper with precision. :-(
It is important to note that by Susan Polgar's own account (supported
in part by Sloan), Sloan did not proposition her until Susan was 16.
Appears to be legal in Hungary.
Anyway, one awaits Parr's celebration of Sloan's conduct.
Chess One
<parrt...@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1167887320.6...@s34g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> TRIAL BY ACCUSATION
>
> We have more of Bill Brock's trial by
> accusation. There has been no proof adduced that Sam
> Sloan ever molested any child.
>
> Now, then, what to make of Mr. Brock's comment
> about projection?
>
> The man is saying that Phil Innes and I believe
> that Mr. Brock is guilty of molestation and, therefore, reckon
> that, in an act of demented expiation, he seeks to molest
> Sam Sloan verbally because he believes or wishes to believe
> Mr. Sloan is a child molester.
Do you actually think he is aware of what he is doing, Larry Parr?
> More than a year back, Bill Brock wrote what
> can only be read as an admission that he molested one
> or more children. We can reprint the admission, if
> the man so wishes.
He already denied to me that he did so, I doubt he will make supplication to
you.
> I stipulated at the time and continue to so
> stipulate that Mr. Brock did not mean to write what he
> wrote. The man, while not stupid, is in over his
> head. Like many people, he cannot put thoughts on
> paper with precision.
>
> What remains true is this: the only proof thus
> far that anyone on this forum is a child molester
> comes from Bill Brock. For this man accused HIMSELF
> of the crime. He did not mean to do so, and he is
> almost certainly not guilty as self-charged.
>
> Yet ... to the extent that there is any proof
> that someone here is a child molester, then that
> person is our self-charged sillyhead, Bill Brock, a
> true political hack who continues to clutter this forum
> with the same old garbage.
There is for sure a relationship in these obsessions between accuser and
accused which is not generally admitted. It is as taboo a subject as any
Victorian might wish!
I do not take it that Sloan should have priviledges to describe the course
for any activity whatever, and have rather severe reservations about him,
but by the same token as we see here, I can liberally extend these
reservations of what I perceive as his worth to many other people.
The extent of predatory sexual activity in the USA is on the increase to the
extent, like it or not, that positive-vetting seems absolutely necessary in
this society. This conversation is very far from any acknowledgement of
that, and in truth, seems hardly concerned with the welfare of children, and
more with political a-hagiography combined with very naive psychological
understanding.
Sometimes the truest thing to say is 'I resent that, I resemble that!' But
this level of honesty is the hardest thing to achieve in life, and requires
not only no judgement of other people, but no judgement of one's self
either. Judgements are evasions of understanding, and only understanding
releases us. That is the key.
While positive resolutions do not need judgemental edicts, it still require
discrimination, though. That is the factor which allows those who really
care for children's welfare, or any group of abused people, to properly
address the issue, as if they actually cared for the children themselves.
And such levels of discrimination can crystallize into impersonal ethical
standards. That is what is absent from this scene.
Phil Innes
politi...@gmail.com
further assume not only that I am A Very Bad Person in the Manner
Intimated, but also A Very Bad Person in a Variety of Ways. (This
passage will doubtless be cited many years from now as proof that I am
A Very Bad Person in a Variety of Ways.)
The issue of Sloan's conduct with respect to the matters above remains
unaddressed by Innes and Parr. Remarkable, given the number of times
I've posed the question.
Perhaps I have misrepresented certain facts? These misrepresentations
should be corrected.
Perhaps I have represented facts correctly, but jumped to unwarranted
conclusions (re Sloan and S. Polgar, re the 'orgy house' across the
street from Willard Junior High School, re Sloan's apologia for
Jefferson Poland, etcetera etcetera etcetera)?
And did Parr ever answer this question?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/460ba20738c47096?hl=en&
Perhaps Innes could answer on Parr's behalf..
Why did Sloan pull these pages from his website? (I'm glad he did; he
has more pages to pull.) Working links courtesy of the archive.org
Wayback Machine....
http://web.archive.org/web/20060503021436/http://www.ishipress.com/girlsgot.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20050829115609/http://www.ishipress.com/burmese2.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/20060518090358/http://www.ishipress.com/burmese.htm
And we have the matter of BINFO 200603590....
politi...@gmail.com
question? Polgar claims that Sloan "made a number of completely
inappropriate solicitation[s] to me, a minor at that time [...]"
Perhaps Ms. Polgar is projecting, too?
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2006/07/you-can-protect-uscf.html
Thursday, July 27, 2006
You can protect the USCF
If you are just as outraged as I am about the recent USCF Executive
Board Election, you can do something about it! You can call or write to
your state delegates and let them know the truth about Mr. Sam Sloan.
If your state delegates do not attend the US Open then anyone can be
nominated to be a delegate. The most important thing is vote.
In order for Mr. Sloan to take office, he has to be certified by the
delegates of the USCF. I strongly believe that a sexual predator (by
his own admission) and a convicted felon should not be allowed to serve
on the Executive Board of a non-profit organization with tens and
thousands of young members.
Mr. Sloan lied about his criminal record. He told the members of the
USCF that he has no criminal record while the chess community clearly
knows that he spent a considerable amount of time in jail. Mr. Sloan
also publicly admitted that he had inappropriate sexual relations with
minors. He also publicly admitted to other illegal and criminal
conducts.
He lied about me. He lied and attacked people who are associated with
me and the Susan Polgar Foundation. He lied and attacked other members,
sponsors, supporters and partners of the USCF. He spares no one.
I know first hand what Mr. Sloan is capable of. I will post the letter
I wrote on the official USCF forum in the comment section of this post.
Please feel free to look at it.
As a group, we must protect the young members of this federation. We
must protect all members. We must protect the integrity of the United
States Chess Federation. Together, we can stop this monster! Please
contact your state delegates and let them know what you think. Thank
you!
Posted by Picasa
posted by SusanPolgar at 7/27/2006 10:09:00 PM
25 Comments:
SusanPolgar said...
I would like to make a few points about Mr. Sloan in response to
Mr. Sloan's comments. This is what Mr. Sloan stated:
Quote from Mr Sam Sloan:
<< ....it is significant that in 1986 I gave Susan Polgar an
expensive computer and I lived in her apartment in Budapest for several
months when Susan was 16 years old and her sisters Sophia and Judit
were 10 and 9. In the 20 years that have since passed, Susan Polgar has
never made any such claim. Frankly, as a result of living with them, I
know a lot of family secrets of the Polgar Family, which would be
highly embarrassing to Susan if I revealed them, but I will not go that
route.>>
First of all, my family has hosted countless chess players and
personalities from around the world in our apartment in Budapest over
the years. This is a very common occurrence in the European culture. At
that time, Mr. Sloan seemed to be normal.
Secondly, Mr. Sloan stayed at my family's apartment for a very
short period of time and not several months as he claimed. In addition,
Mr. Sloan was never my manager as he falsely stated.
Thirdly, during his stay, he made a number of completely
inappropriate solicitation to me, a minor at that time, and he was
promptly and firmly told no. To his credit, he did not try it again.
But he tried with others. Since that time, I tried to be polite to Mr.
Sloan in public but I tried to avoid him as much as I could. I am not
surprised about the inappropriate sexual conducts that he claimed in
the past. He believes that it is OK.
Over the years, his behavior and conduct became much worst. I
believe that he is capable of anything and I hope that the USCF
delegates can understand this very serious situation. By me speaking
up, he already started to imply about trying to embarrass me with my
family secret. There are no secrets unless he plans to fabricate them.
He is using this tactic to try to avoid the real issues about him.
This is why I am very adamant about my position. As I stated
before, the Susan Polgar Foundation cannot accept Mr. Sloan or work
with someone like Mr. Sloan. The mission of the Susan Polgar Foundation
is to promote chess for young people, especially girls, with integrity
and high morals. Mr. Sloan is a danger to himself, the USCF and young
members of this federation. I believe that this federation MUST protect
our young members. Mr. Sloan's conduct is not appropriate for a
national organization with tens and thousands of young people.
I hope that you can understand my position. This is not a situation
that any woman want to be in. I did not bring this out before because
Mr. Sloan was not an elected official of the USCF. Now that he is, I
must speak up to protect other young players. Thank you for your
understanding.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
www.SusanPolgarFoundation.org
www.SusanPolgar.com
Thursday, July 27, 2006 10:26:45 PM
parrt...@cs.com
My heavens -- and others' hells. Bill Brock
does go on. And on and on and on.
The man's subject is the still-to-be-proven
charge that Sam Sloan is a "child molester." His
technique is trial by accusation, his method is
verbal spraying of intellectual incontinence, his
tragedy a thin skin, his fate silvery laughter from
his betters and defenses from Greg Kennedy, the
wounded Indiana lad who now calls himself Help Bot.
Once again: over a year ago Bill Brock
inadvertently accused himself (HIMSELF -- for Pete's
sake!) of being a child molester. He spoke of having
skeletons in his closet, and the comment could only
fairly be read as a reference to an antecedent
involving child molestation -- his precise charge against Sam
Sloan. (If Mr. Brock wishes to contest my reading of
his admission, I shall once again work my way through
the given instance of his accident-prone prose.)
In response, we have Mr. Brock talking about
everything except his charge that Sam Sloan molested
children. He still offers no proof.
Instead, Mr. Brock implores this writer and
others to read what Sam wrote about a cove named
Jefferson Poland (a descendant perhaps of Thaddeus
Kosciusko?); he tells us that Sam was a leader of free
sex at Berkeley (I had always thought that tens of
millions of willing bodies in this country and, for
that matter, all countries at that time and, for that
matter, for all times, have been similary occupied);
and he goes on and on and, yes, on about Thai girls
who look young in photographs (I once said "young
girl" -- thinking her to be 10 or 11 -- to a Thai
woman who promptly told me she was 29 and had two
children). The one thing that Mr. Brock never does is
to provide proof for his accusation that Sam Sloan
ever molested children.
In partial mitigation of Mr.Brock's windy but
alas never breezy exhalations, Phil Innes has
suggested that our correspondent may be clumsily
reaching out to Mr. Sloan. "I am what you are," Mr.
Brock may be trying to say to Mr. Sloan as well as
confess to us inhabitants of Tiny Town. In this
reading, the Mr.Brock becomes an e-incarnation of
the Right Rev. Arthur Dimmesdale, who so often tried
to confess to the inhabitants of old Salem.
If Phil's surmise is true, then we have an
interesting example of empathy shorn utterly of
sympathy. Which is a fancy way of saying that
self-hatred has given voice to itself.
Indeed, a sexually obsessive self-hatred.
That is our Bill Brock, who has become a troll.
help bot
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> TRIAL BY ACCUSATION (continued)
Note: this "trial" is not the same as the one in which Larry Parr
tried-by-accusing the evil President of FIDE, without bothering to
give any substantive evidence. That trial ended with a sentence
of hanging, delivered by His Honor, Judge Parr. (On the plus side,
taxpayers were spared the expense of a fair, American-style trial.)
> My heavens -- and others' hells. Bill Brock
> does go on. And on and on and on.
Translation: he is "getting to" LP. Something like heartburn,
I would imagine. My prescription is to stop reading postings
by Bill Brock. I know it only addresses the symptoms, and
is not a real cure, but still... .
> The man's subject is the still-to-be-proven
> charge that Sam Sloan is a "child molester." His
> technique is trial by accusation, his method is
> verbal spraying of intellectual incontinence,
We have seen this method before (see above).
> his tragedy a thin skin, his fate silvery laughter from
> his betters
It's true; sometimes I laugh when I win. (But I don't recall
having ever played Bill Brock.)
> and defenses from Greg Kennedy,
Oh. That explains it.
> the wounded Indiana lad who now calls himself Help Bot.
An imposter. It seems everyone envies my top ranking on
GetClub.com, and my official "star" status there. (Even
ghosts!)
> Once again: over a year ago Bill Brock
> inadvertently accused himself (HIMSELF -- for Pete's
> sake!) of being a child molester.
I wonder if LP fails to give the substantiating quotes now
because they must be "interpreted" in a peculiar, Parrian
way to fit the above claim, or perhaps just out of laziness.
If the latter, I can certainly sympathize.
> He spoke of having
> skeletons in his closet, and the comment could only
> fairly be read as a reference to an antecedent
> involving child molestation
I follow so far.
> -- his precise charge against Sam
> Sloan. (If Mr. Brock wishes to contest my reading of
> his admission, I shall once again work my way through
> the given instance of his accident-prone prose.)
Perhaps that would be useful, since the injection of
a Parrian leap of logic (that whatever events BB talked
about necessarily had *him* as the evil perpetrator) has
crept in somehow. This "creeping in" of strangeness
seems to be a recurring theme of LP's postings. Perhaps
he has trouble thinking logically.
> In response, we have Mr. Brock talking about
> everything except his charge that Sam Sloan molested
> children. He still offers no proof.
Snipping the rest of LP's longwinded rant, I want to ask
a simple question:
In defense of Sam Sloan, someone pointed out that
Susan Polgar was 16 years of age when she was, um,
propositioned by him. Now it has also been maintained
that in Hungary, the age of consent is 16, so it's all
perfectly legal and all that. But then I read a quote of
Susan Polgar saying she was -- and I quote, Dr. Blair --
"a minor" at the time. Anybody notice a contradiction
here?
Another item that grabbed my attention was the comment
that Sam Sloan seemed perfectly normal, and this is why
he was foolishly allowed access to the Polgar girls. I think
it was Susan Polgar who commented that he was getting
worse over time; does this have any truth to it, I wonder?
My advice to Mr. Parr would be that he ought to take
care when choosing his friends or allies. A man is known
by the company he keeps, and look at all the work
involved in constantly having to defend such men as SS
or even PI -- a never-ending chore! Work, work, work;
you know what they say: all work and no play makes
Jack a dull boy. That's why I would always vote against it,
(if only it weren't so much trouble to vote).
-- lazy bot
Chess One
<politi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167950840.2...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> Again, let us grant the hypotheticals of both Innes and Parr,
Hypotheticals?
> and
> further assume not only that I am A Very Bad Person in the Manner
> Intimated,
In the manner /volunteered/ here by yourself.
But I think you have retreated from owning your statement, and use a
metaphysical 'we' above, and also suggest that your own admitted activity is
another's proposition.
But you are already so far off course that you cannot engage the Innes/Parr
exchange, since you [hypothetically] make a self-judgement, whereas I said
judgements and blaming [including self-blame] were a form of evasion rather
than a manner of understanding.
> but also A Very Bad Person in a Variety of Ways. (This
> passage will doubtless be cited many years from now as proof that I am
> A Very Bad Person in a Variety of Ways.)
Such anodyne confessio have no significance to me whatever.
> The issue of Sloan's conduct with respect to the matters above remains
> unaddressed by Innes and Parr.
Untrue! In fact if the current writer had not bravely snipped my comment,
then the words 'severe reservations' could have been noted!
But I think this writer is not that brave! How much better to make people
villains - to insist they are, despite what they say. And to pretend that
this then exorcises one's own, or society's demons.
Then we can suppose very much about these scapegoats of our dissaffection,
regardless of how they actaully are. Anything at all but addressing the
topic of the welfare of children and other abused constituencies in chess..
> Remarkable, given the number of times
> I've posed the question.
What is remarkable is to eliminate the response, then continue to suppose.
Is that really so rational a proposition? Is that even sincere?
> Perhaps I have misrepresented certain facts? These misrepresentations
> should be corrected.
>
> Perhaps I have represented facts correctly, but jumped to unwarranted
> conclusions (re Sloan and S. Polgar, re the 'orgy house' across the
> street from Willard Junior High School, re Sloan's apologia for
> Jefferson Poland, etcetera etcetera etcetera)?
>
> And did Parr ever answer this question?
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/460ba20738c47096?hl=en&
> Perhaps Innes could answer on Parr's behalf..
With perhaps you can get all Paris in a bottle.
And so to reply to this sort of message which consistently does not address
any basis of a standard of behavior for USCF employees or board members,
[which to be fair to this writer, USCF themselves ignore]; nor cites legal
proofs of offenses but suggestively admixes terms; nor admits the stated
opinions of other people while continuing to suppose upon them in
contradistinction to what has been plainly expressed - these factors do
//nothing at all// to defend offended constituencies, nor is their writer
demonstrating any ability to do so.
The /degree/ of what is supposed of Innes and Parr is also supposed of
Sloan - and this utter lack of discrimination to discern what is morbid
fascination compared with anything factual, makes this writer's filter of
information very opaque indeed.
This person keeps provoking comments by supposing on what Innes and Parr
would support or believe, while not letting their actual words stand, nor
addressing an impersonal impartial standard that is independent of his own
condition, and whatever is true of Sloan!
As a basis for public health, this quasi-hysterium should be dismissed as
entirely immoderate, insufficient and insincere.
Phil Innes
politi...@gmail.com
>
> Instead, Mr. Brock implores this writer and
> others to read what Sam wrote about a cove named
> Jefferson Poland (a descendant perhaps of Thaddeus
> Kosciusko?);
Poland molested an eight-year-old. Don't believe me; believe the State
of California.
Sloan (who, many years prior to the molestation) co-authored a book
with Poland) defended Poland by accusing *the child's parents* of
themselves being the molesters, many years after Poland's confession
and conviction.
Discuss.
politi...@gmail.com
she also recently lost to 1.g4)
****
Bill Brock wrote:
Hello Susan
If you would be so kind as to consider a one-shot post on
rgcp...just affirming my quotation of your words.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/e1e7cfde0bb63cf9?hl=en&
Best regards, Bill
***
Susan Polgar wrote:
You are free to post my answer.
Dear Bill,
Sorry but I do not visit rec.games. However, my opinion about Mr. Sloan
has not changed. In fact, it has become worse. Mr. Sloan is absolutely
unfit to serve on the USCF Executive Board. He is not capable of
telling the truth. He is not capable of being civil. He is not capable
of being professional. For every one good thing he did, the damages
that he caused is many many times larger.
This is precisely the reason why I chose to run for the board this
year. I vowed to restore the respectability, honesty, integrity and
credibility back to the USCF and US Chess. That is why I also asked
some of the most qualified and honorable people to run as well to help
the USCF. We, as a federation, can do better. We must do better.
The same old status quo is no longer acceptable. The same old
destructive politics must go.
Happy New Year and I am looking forward to a much better 2007 and
beyond for chess.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
Taylor Kingston
On Jan 5, 12:13 pm, "politikalh...@gmail.com"
<politikalh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >From an email exchange this a.m. with Susan Polgar (a secret sharer:she also recently lost to 1.g4)
>
> ****
>
> Bill Brock wrote: Hello Susan
>
> If you would be so kind as to consider a one-shot post on
> rgcp...just affirming my quotation of your words.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/e1e7cfde0...
>
> Best regards, Bill
>
> ***
>
> Susan Polgar wrote:You are free to post my answer.
>
> Dear Bill,
>
> Sorry but I do not visit rec.games. However, my opinion about Mr. Sloan
> has not changed. In fact, it has become worse. Mr. Sloan is absolutely
> unfit to serve on the USCF Executive Board. He is not capable of
> telling the truth. He is not capable of being civil. He is not capable
> of being professional. For every one good thing he did, the damages
> that he caused is many many times larger.
>
> This is precisely the reason why I chose to run for the board this
> year. I vowed to restore the respectability, honesty, integrity and
> credibility back to the USCF and US Chess. That is why I also asked
> some of the most qualified and honorable people to run as well to help
> the USCF. We, as a federation, can do better. We must do better.
>
> The same old status quo is no longer acceptable. The same old
> destructive politics must go.
>
> Happy New Year and I am looking forward to a much better 2007 and
> beyond for chess.
>
> Best wishes,
> Susan
Hear, hear. Good luck, Susan.
Chess One
"help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167982881.9...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
> My advice to Mr. Parr would be that he ought to take
> care when choosing his friends or allies. A man is known
> by the company he keeps, and look at all the work
> involved in constantly having to defend such men as SS
> or even PI -- a never-ending chore! Work, work, work;
> you know what they say: all work and no play makes
> Jack a dull boy. That's why I would always vote against it,
> (if only it weren't so much trouble to vote).
>
> -- lazy bot
Dear Hapless in Indiana.
You too don't care for children's welfare, and you mock those who would? And
you prefer to comment how a man seems, rather than how he is? Is that the
standard where you are? Heuch!
Your advice is nothing to do with wisdom or sympathy - its what you wish
other people would do, or not do, as long as your freedom to say so does not
require any actual effort on your part to sustain it.
And I can't think you are a man with a daughter.
"PI"
help bot
Chess One wrote:
> "help bot" <nomor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1167982881.9...@51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> > My advice to Mr. Parr would be that he ought to take
> > care when choosing his friends or allies. A man is known
> > by the company he keeps, and look at all the work
> > involved in constantly having to defend such men as SS
> > or even PI -- a never-ending chore! Work, work, work;
> > you know what they say: all work and no play makes
> > Jack a dull boy. That's why I would always vote against it,
> > (if only it weren't so much trouble to vote).
> >
> > -- lazy bot
>
> Dear Hapless in Indiana.
That was an incomplete sentence, except if the intended
(invisible) verb was "are", and you misspelled "deer", in
which case your adjective (Hapless) should not have been
capitalized. I give you full credit for spelling an insignificant
state correctly, though.
> You too don't care for children's welfare, and you mock those who would?
That was a compound *statement*, not a question. Which
grade are you in now, may I ask? Fourth? Fifth?
> And
> you prefer to comment how a man seems, rather than how he is?
Good observation. Here in rgc, it is neigh well impossible
to determine how a man "is", except by what he has written
and what few facts are known about him. That is why I often
write about how any given poster "seems", not pretending to
know all there is to know about the man behind the curtain.
(Would you believe I had no inkling that "politicalhack" was
in fact, Bill Brock?)
> Is that the standard where you are?
No. Where I am, the standard is complacency, or perhaps
mediocrity. This is why I am so eager to leave! Does anyone
know of a place -- with a reasonable cost of living and decent
weather -- where the standards are substantively higher? I'm
all ears.
> Heuch!
Gazuntite.
> Your advice is nothing to do with wisdom or sympathy - its what you wish
> other people would do, or not do, as long as your freedom to say so does not
> require any actual effort on your part to sustain it.
You are suggesting that I am lazy? Preposterous!
(Whew -- typing such a long word has left me nearly
exhausted.)
> And I can't think you are a man with a daughter.
Here is my two-cents-worth on that: if you have a daughter,
and indeed "care" so much, why not do more than just play
silly ad hominem games on rgc? Do you expect ad hom. to
have constructive results in the realm of protecting your
loved ones? Surely not. I say, get up off your fat, lazy
behind and do something real; don't just spout these insults,
at the wrong targets even. Susan Polgar seems to be trying
to oust one such sicko from the USCF, but I suspect a
personal motive since she has personally been victimized by
Mr. Sloan. A much broader approach would be in order, for
SS is but one of a multitude of similar sickos.
Don't confound my chiding of LP for his never-ending need
to defend the indefensible, with discussion of an issue which
concerns you more dearly. My position on that issue is
that it is far too important to try and address effectively in
rgc. This forum is filled with nincompoops, trolls, and
braggarts; the ones you need to contact are simply not
here. As Yoda might say, "do or do not". That is the real
measure of your concern, not empty words.
-- help bot
parrt...@cs.com
Bill Brock (politikalhack) continues to change topics
under the umbrella subject of Samuel Sloan.
We were asked long ago to comment about whether
Sam Sloan had admitted to being a child molester. Mr.
Brock had written palpable lies that such admissions
existed, but he then failed to provide proof.
There began a game, a tactical melee. Mr. Brock
decided that rather than fulfill his promise to
provide proof, he would search for other alleged
failings on the part of Mr. Sloan. The ploy was to
ask us to comment on each one of them.
We have responded by demanding that Mr. Brock
admit that he lied wantonly and repeatedly over a long
period of time about having proof that Mr. Sloan
molested children. No such admission was forthcoming.
Instead, there came the attempts to change
subjects and a smear campaign. The current
Brockian hobbyhorse involves who lied about a
supposed liaison 20 years ago, GM Susan Polgar
or Sam Sloan. One is supposed to vouchsafe an
opinion that is meaningless. We are to vote on what
happened in a house in Hungary about which we know nothing.
Nutty-buddy stuff.
Still, there remains an issue that can be
resolved by reasonable men. Mr. Brock claimed to have
proof that Sam Sloan molested children. He can simply
take it to the authorities and ask them to pursue it.
There are those who favor killfiling Mr. Brock.
We are not among them. The man spends hours a day
feverishly pounding out 10s of thousands of bytes of
material on his keyboard regarding pornography and its
history and, arguendo, it hysterics. This forum evidently
plays an important role in Bill Brock's life.
We may not often read Mr. Brock, but we wish him
to believe that others pay him attention. He may need
that consolation at this point in his life.
Yours, Larry Parr
samsloan
Why cannot Bill Brock start his own subject instead of hijacking the
discussions started by others?
On Dec 31 2006, 8:54 am, "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Mystery of the USCF Computer Taken by Miss P
>
> On Frank Niro's new website which is the launching pad for his
> forthcoming book there is an interesting story at:
>
> http://www.chesssafari.com/SusanPolgar.htm
>
> He writes: "Susan Polgar
>
> "I don't know what to say about Susan Polgar beyond the fact that
> I'm proud to call her my friend. Susan and her manager/best friend
> Paul Truong intervened on my behalf when I left the Chess Federation
> after my heart attack in 2003. I wanted my laptop because it had a
> number of personal files on it that were important to me. It seemed
> like a simple enough request. Not only did Susan and Paul approach the
> Board of Directors on my behalf, they offered to pay for it! Then they
> drove to New Windsor, picked up the computer, and transported it to me
> in Connecticut. I have many wonderful friends but I cannot think of any
> other who would have done that."
>
> However, there is more to this story. That computer did not belong to
> the Frank Niro. It belonged to the USCF and the files on it belonged to
> the USCF.
>
> More importantly, we now know something that we did not know at that
> time, which is that while he was Executive Director of the USCF, Frank
> Niro was also Director of the Susan Polgar Foundation. When he signed
> several contracts as Executive Director with the Susan Polgar
> Foundation, he was really signing a contract with himself. When he paid
> large checks to the Susan Polgar Foundation, he was paying large checks
> to himself.
>
> None of this was known to the USCF Board or to John McCrary, the USCF
> President at the time.
>
> This explains why Truong and Polgar would be so anxious to get the
> computer that Frank Niro had been using out of the USCF office. That
> computer no doubt contained incriminating evidence, evidence that they
> did not want the USCF to have. Frank Niro had abruptly disappeared and
> gone into hiding during the 2003 US Open in Los Angeles when
> simultaneously $300,000 had gone missing too. He was in no position to
> go to the USCF office and pick up the computer himself.
>
> Do not expect the current USCF president, Bill Goichberg, to be
> investigating this. Goichberg has already specifically directed Joe
> Nanna, the new USCF CFO, not to investigate this.
>
> It is important to note that Bill Goichberg specifically directed the
> new CFO, Joe Nanna, to stop investigating this matter. On November 30,
> 2006, in an email entitled "Re: The Golden Girls", Bill Goichberg
> wrote:
>
> >I am not aware that any board members have asked that our CFO check the
> >entire history of all payments to Polgar, and I suspect this would not be a
> >productive use of his time.
>
> >Bill GoichbergHowever, the above statement was not true. Three board members had
> asked Joe Nanna to investigate this. These were Joel Channing, Beatriz
> Marinello and myself.
>
> I have since realized that it was actually Bill Goichberg, while he was
> Executive Director, who paid the big checks totaling $13,538.36 to Miss
> Polgar. (Previously, I had mistakenly concluded that it was Grant Perks
> who made these payments.)
>
> I find the story on the Frank Niro posting about the lengths that Paul
> Truong and Susan Polgar went to get the computer Frank Niro had been
> using from the USCF office after Niro has disappeared due to a claimed
> "heart attack" to be interesting. That computer no doubt contained
> correspondence between Niro and Truong and Polgar which would have
> provided incriminating evidence. This very likely explains why they
> would go to such lengths to get it away from the USCF. This was also
> theft. The computer belonged to the USCF, not to Frank Niro.
>
> Sam Sloan
politi...@gmail.com
prostitute of junior high school age to Sloan's webpage of girls Sloan
claimed to have f****d, never did his homework on Sloan's claim to have
had a "seamy" and "not entirely Platonic" relationship with the
teenaged Susan Polgar.
Something else for Parr to dodge. Does he endorse the Sloan/Poland
platform of sexual emancipation for children, as detailed in "Sex
Marchers"? An excerpt is cited below:
http://www.sterneck.net/cybertribe/sex/sexual-freedom-league/index.php
<< 1. He/she goes naked most of the time, except when there is some
positive reason (not shame or modesty or fear) to dress up. "Clothes
are bandages for sick bodies", says Tuli Kupferberg. I believe nudism
is fundamental and necessary prerequisite for sexual freedom. Clothes
commonly build barriers of sexual fear and hostility. We learn
"Don't look" when we are still too young to comprehend "Don't
fuck". Each adult needs to spend several years living in a nude
society, in order to overcome the bad effects of our shame-filled
childhoods. And our children should be completely spared the morbid
sickness of hiding their beautiful bodies like some sort of carrion
deemed too foul for the light of day .>>
The problem is not advocacy of naturism, but the advocacy of naturism
*for children in the context of a manifesto for sexual freedom*. Both
Sloan and Jefferson Poland used that freedom to have sex with minors.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Poland
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Clitlick.html
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Clitlick2.html
http://www.meganslaw.ca.gov/cgi/prosoma.dll?searchBy=offender&id=1869408310214
politi...@gmail.com
politi...@gmail.com
might well write:
"In the past at rgcp, the typical scenario has been dozens of postings
filled with feral language attributing crimes to [Bill Brock] ([accused
by the despicable Sam Sloan of "hijacking" a thread], an affair of the
heart that would not even have been in the courts a couple of
generations back) and after constant abuse directed at him [Bill]
occasionally loses his temper, though not often."
One supposes that my 10th-dimensional clone (pedantic even in that
universe) would then cite the following testimony:
"Richard Groff, who was present to supervise the visit, testified that
appellant [Brock] took [the RGCP thread] to an awaiting rental car.
After appellant started the car, Groff opened the door and grabbed the
steering wheel. Appellant [Brock] accelerated, dragging Groff
approximately 100 yards, and attempted to push Groff away from the car.
After a struggle ensued, Groff broke the key in the ignition, and Groff
removed the [hijacked RGCP thread] from appellant's rental car."
politi...@gmail.com
<< The current Brockian hobbyhorse involves who lied about a supposed
liaison 20 years ago, GM Susan Polgar or Sam Sloan. One is supposed to
vouchsafe an opinion that is meaningless. We are to vote on what
happened in a house in Hungary about which we know nothing.
Nutty-buddy stuff. >>
One would assume that Parr would believe Sloan. One would assume that
Parr would take Sloan at his word when Sloan intimates that he had
prior sexual relations with a named minor. Particularly when the
person in question, now an adult, offers limited corroboration to the
extent of admitting that, when she was sixteen, Sloan made sexual
advances on her.
Is Parr being ungentlemanly enough to call Sloan's honesty into
question?
politi...@gmail.com
So cries the tortured Sloan.
His honesty had always been called into question by the unjust; he
could deal with that. But now, even Larry Parr doesn't trust Sloan's
word....
politi...@gmail.com
wrote:
Don't abandon Sloan in his hour of need, kiddo. I suggest the
Dalliance Defense Deferred.
2000 words, chop chop.
politi...@gmail.com
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/3b110ece6c863de4
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
<<CHOP CHOP
<2000 words: chop chop.> -- Bill Brock (Politikalhack)
Writes Bill Brock, "Parr's writing assignment:
'not entirely Platonic' WRT Polgar is formally
equivalent to the 'dalliance' WRT the Burmese prostitute."
For Pete's sake, what is the man going on about?
Burmese prostitute? Dalliance with same?
One figures, though not for sure, that Mr. Brock
is once again hysterically accusing Sam Sloan of
molesting children, though once again offering no
evidence. Still, the concept of a Burmese prostitute
seems new and the idea of having a "dalliance" with
same also appears a novelty. >>
**********************************
May I refresh your memory?
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/7d8d5c1f4dc7c124
<< YOU CAN'T PROVE A NEGATIVE
>You are a good advocate for Sam Sloan. I can picture you in the
courtroom sitting next to the defendant. Even axe murderers have
advocates that vigorously protest claim of guilt. BUT WHERE IS SAM
SLOAN IN ALL OF THIS? WHY DOES HE REMAIN SILENT?> Tyrone Slothrop
Tyrone Slothrop improves. He asks a legitimate question, though
predicating it on a false assumption.
I am in no way Sam Sloan's advocate. I never stated my own
beliefs about his conduct. I merely made a simple observation: the
man has been accused of child molestation without a scintilla of proof
proffered.
Indeed, to the extent that the material he presents contains any
"implications," they are that he did NOT have, say, sex with the
Burmese girl in the picture. He wrote of a "dalliance" which does not
involve sexual intercourse.
Still, Mr. Slothrop wants to know why Sam is so signally
silent. Which he is.
Why doesn't Sam simply write, "I've never had sexual
intercourse with a girl under the age of consent in any country"?
If we listen to the critics of Sam, then we must assume, given
their claims that he is a pathological liar, he is not constrained from
writing such a denial because of any sense of primal honesty which
prevents lying.
So why the silence?
In the past Sam has issued strong denials of wrongdoing and
often proven his case. The response has been: he doth protest too
much; he doth denieth too much. That kind of thing.
The main difference between Stan Booz, an ex-marine who indulged
in all kinds of escapades, and Sam Sloan, who founded the Sexual
Freedom League, is that Sam writes about his escapades and Stan
doesn't.
[...]
...Sam has NOTHING TO GAIN by blanket denial, which is the
only productive form of denial. There will be the usual voices -- the
predictable voices -- shouting that he is protesting and denying too
much. So he can't win.
Smears stick. The awful thing is that the above rhetorical
device arrayed against Sam or myself (two peas in a pod?) is always
effective because you cannot prove a negative. Sam can never prove he
did NOT do something.
All that can be said with certainty thus far is the following:
Sam has been accused of child molestation without a scintilla of proof
offered in support of the charge. He paid prostitutes in the sex trade,
as did millions of American soldiers stationed abroad. If he is guilty
of child molestation, so are they. >>
politi...@gmail.com
> Indeed, to the extent that the material [Sloan] presents contains any
> "implications," they are that he did NOT have, say, sex with the
> Burmese girl in the picture. He wrote of a "dalliance" which does not
> involve sexual intercourse.
So too Sloan's relationship with the teenaged S. Polgar: when Sloan
characterizes it as "not entirely Platonic" and, in certain aspects,
"seamy," then it is Parr's obligation to argue that Sloan is *not*
suggesting a sexual relationship with a minor.
Opchay opchay.
politi...@gmail.com
you used it:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060518090358/http://www.ishipress.com/burmese.htm
( "A young girl from Burma trying to lure me into a further
***dalliance*** with her" )
http://web.archive.org/web/20060503021436/http://www.ishipress.com/girlsgot.htm
("Girls I got" -- note top row, fifth from left - original location of
that image was http://www.ishipress.com/burmese2.jpg )
http://web.archive.org/web/20050829115609/http://www.ishipress.com/burmese2.htm
(Look familiar?)
politi...@gmail.com
Sam Sloan
the lengths to which Bill Goichberg will go to defend the obviously
improper activities of his political allies, Susan Polgar and Paul
Truong.
The laptop computer in question obviously belonged to the USCF, not to
Frank Niro. That is why Niro writes that Polgar and Truong ofered to
pay the USCF for it.[/quote]
Yes, it clearly belonged to USCF. Just as clearly, there is zero
evidence that it was stolen from USCF. You should retract that
outrageous charge immediately.
[quote]I assume that this incident occurred in the few days
immediately after Frank Niro disappeared and nobody knew where he was.
Beatriz Marinello was elected USCF President on August 11, 2003 in Los
Angeles. On August 20, 2003, Beatriz walked into the USCF Offices in
New Windsor NY and immediately fired 17 staff members. I was severely
critical of her at that time, but I did not know then a fact that I
know now that I am on the board, which is that the USCF was overdrawn
at the bank by $121,641.25. (This figure is found on page 37 of the CD
that was prepared after I got on the board and demanding an accounting
of the funds.)[/quote]
It was worse than that, USCF also owed about $400,000 to creditors.
But how does this justify your alleging that a computer was stolen,
when there is no proof of this?
[quote]I have a recollection of the incident involving the computer
because at that time Paul Truong was often calling me and informing me
of the latest goings on. (We were allies at that time, or at least I
thought that we were.)
What needs to be done now and what I call upon Bill Goichberg to do is
find out who has the computer now and take steps to get it back. The
data on that computer clearly belongs to the USCF and would be helpful
in finding out what happened to the two million dollars the USCF lost,
most of which was lost when Frank Niro and his immediate predecessor
George DeFeis were Executive Director.[/quote]
I would assume that USCF sold the computer to Niro and that he either
still owns it, or it has since been junked and important data copied
to another computer. In either case, we would have no grounds for
trying to compel Niro to return the computer or the data.
It seems very unlikely that the computer has data valuable to USCF.
If it does, we can't force Niro to turn it over to us.
[quote]We also need to know who on the board was "approached"
(especially since the board was fractured at that point in time. Was
this before or after McCrary and Camaratta resigned?), and who
authorized Paul Truong and Susan Polgar to take that computer from the
USCF's office, or did they just steal it.
Sam Sloan[/quote]
You say above of the transfer of the computer, "This was also theft."
It's outrageous to say this as you have no evidence, but now you have
added, "did they just steal it."
Charging people with illegal activity with no evidence is despicible.
These are smear attacks, using an old technique- say it enough times
and some people will believe it.
You talk about USCF losing money, about your former dealings with
Truong, and about how important recovery of this computer would be to
USCF. None of this backs up your charges of theft or hiding
incriminating data.
Obviously you have no evidence to support your claims, or we would
have heard it by now. You should retract and apologize for your
charges.
Bill Goichberg[/quote]
Here is one of the other issues in my lawsuit.
The laptop computer in question and more importantly the financial
data in it clearly belonged to the USCF and Polgar and Truong have
admitted that they took it.
Why has not Goichberg taken steps to recover the missing laptop and
why are we not allowed to discuss this subject on the USCF Forum?
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Here is one of the other issues in my lawsuit.
The laptop computer in question and more importantly the financial
data in it clearly belonged to the USCF and Polgar and Truong have
admitted that they took it.
Why has not Goichberg taken steps to recover the missing laptop and
why are we not allowed to discuss this subject on the USCF Forum?
Sam Sloan[/quote]
How many times are you going to repeat this nonsense, Sam? Even if,
[i]arguendo[/i], the computer belonged to the USCF, what possible use
would it be now? There wouldn't be any data on it from 2003. More
likely it's been scrapped.
John Hillery[/quote]
Corporate records are required by law to be kept or maintained for
seven years.
The computer was taken from the USCF offices on August 20, 2003 which
was less than seven years ago.
If the computer was scrapped, then a crime has been committed.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Here is the quote I am looking for.
Susan directly states:
"I took the laptop."
Jack,
I will not bother to respond to liars and demented people. The
laptop belong to Mr. Niro, not the USCF. He began his tenure of ED as
a volunteer. As part of the agreement with that board, he received a
laptop but no pay. He later became a paid ED but the laptop was
already his.
When the new board took over in August 2003, they were not aware
of the situation. I even offered to pay for it if they refused to
honor the agreement of the previous board with Mr. Niro. However, that
was not neeeded as they agreed to give him back his laptop.
I took the laptop to Mr. Niro who was recovering from a heart
attack in Connecticut. It was the right thing to do.
In regards to personal info on the laptop, Mr. Niro had pictures
of his children in it as well as the book that he is writing to his
son.
It does not matter how many times I answer, more lies will
surface.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
www.PolgarChess.com
Monday, January 01, 2007 11:40:00 AM
Chess One
>> I would assume that USCF sold the computer to Niro and that he either
>> still owns it, or it has since been junked and important data copied
>> to another computer. In either case, we would have no grounds for
>> trying to compel Niro to return the computer or the data.
>>
>> It seems very unlikely that the computer has data valuable to USCF.
>> If it does, we can't force Niro to turn it over to us.
>>
>>
>
> paper trail. //wrote Eric Johnson
---
From my year's study of Torts, even verbal contracts are legal, and lack of
a paper trail argues no ownership either way. It would seem like a simple
measure to ask the previous board what they determined in respect of this
computer - and extremely strange that Sam Sloan has not done so instead of
his usual 'questions' which are merely devices for blaming other people.
In terms of the data contained on the computer, I have failed to understand
what that is, or why it is in question - since surely it cannot be /unique/
data on USCF business? What nincompoop board would allow that without
challenge?
Sloan also does not identify what use any unique information would be to
others, or even if whatever he has in mind, has been acted upon.
I also completely fail to understand that after 1 year in office, Sam Sloan
did not bring a motion to investigate it, or if he had done so, and I missed
same, why USCF itself did not think it warranted any further investigation?
Is this another Sam Sloan accusation without any evidence, without a victim,
or even a suggestion of who suffered?
Since Susan Polgar offered to pay for the machine, especially in
consideration of Frank's condition, it cannot be any question of theft,
right?
Instead we have yet another accusation from Sloan, though no one is able
after 500 posts on this subject, to even identify what were the facts, and
what, if anything was stolen, least of all Sloan himself, who acts as if he
were not responsible for whatever he thinks was stolen - while sitting in
the seat that was responsible for it.
In short, if he has something to say to the above, he accuses himself for
doing nothing about it when he could.
pfft@! How usual!
Phil Innes
ps; Mr Sloan might note that his postings to other newsgroups are given
chess bad name. Since I do not discount that that is his intent, by virtue
of his ignoring remarks about chess-spam, can other writers try to eliminate
the widespread fucking-over of our game's reputation? Thanks PI
> ECJ
help bot
> In terms of the data contained on the computer, I have failed to understand
> what that is, or why it is in question
I think it may have something to do with the "fact" that
SP took the computer. If you understand anything about
SS, you will understand that if SP was connected with
X, then accusations must be leveled regarding something
relating to X, by rote.
> I also completely fail to understand that after 1 year in office, Sam Sloan
> did not bring a motion to investigate it, or if he had done so, and I missed
> same, why USCF itself did not think it warranted any further investigation?
Mr. Sloan cannot be all things to all people; he cannot
be expected to save the world from all evils in but a single
year. If only he had been allowed to stay longer -- say
ten years or so -- then he of course would have solved
every such mystery, rebuilt the USCF from the ground
up, and saved humanity and attained world peace. But
unfortunately he was denied his destiny... . (Sob)
-- help bot
samsloan
> http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/01/first-of-2007.html
>
> When the new board took over in August 2003, they were not aware
> of the situation. I even offered to pay for it if they refused to
> honor the agreement of the previous board with Mr. Niro. However, that
>
> Best wishes,
> Susan Polgar
> www.PolgarChess.com
> Monday, January 01, 2007 11:40:00 AM
This is the key question. I have asked everybody: Beatriz Marinello,
Tim Hanke, Mike Nolan, Bill Goichberg, Judy Misner, Joan Dubois
everybody else connected with the USCF at that time and none of them
say that they authorized Susan Polgar to take that laptop computer.
None of them even knew that Polgar had taken the computer until Frank
Niro mentioned it on his personal website in December 2006 more than
three years later.
So, when Polgar says "they agreed to give him back his laptop", who is
they? Everybody involved says that that did not agree and never would
have agreed to let Polgar take that laptop. Also, Beatriz Marinello,
who was then the new USCF President, stated that when she and Tim
Hanke arrived in the USCF's offices on August 20, 2003 the first thing
they did it go to that laptop to examine what it contained only to
find that the laptop was missing.
Of course they did not realize that Susan Polgar had stolen it just a
few minutes earlier.
Sam Sloan
Chess One
> On Oct 21, 6:02 pm, "Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>> In terms of the data contained on the computer, I have failed to
>> understand
>> what that is, or why it is in question
>
> I think it may have something to do with the "fact" that
> SP took the computer. If you understand anything about
> SS, you will understand that if SP was connected with
> X, then accusations must be leveled regarding something
> relating to X, by rote.
So x=sp/ss^2*r ?
Unless sp = 0
when
Let ss bite pt
>> I also completely fail to understand that after 1 year in office, Sam
>> Sloan
>> did not bring a motion to investigate it, or if he had done so, and I
>> missed
>> same, why USCF itself did not think it warranted any further
>> investigation?
>
> Mr. Sloan cannot be all things to all people; he cannot
> be expected to save the world from all evils in but a single
> year.
Besides, even if he did save the world from just one evil, there are many
Evil people out there generating new evils, like Lex! a close friend of Zed,
who are both probably tunnelling under ChessHut, this very minute!
> If only he had been allowed to stay longer -- say
> ten years or so -- then he of course would have solved
> every such mystery, rebuilt the USCF from the ground
> up,
Actually, I think he'd need to start a bit lower than that.
Oddly enough, Moskow and Anderson seem to be of the same opinion, except for
the need to wait 10 years for anything.
> and saved humanity and attained world peace. But
> unfortunately he was denied his destiny... . (Sob)
Needs a tune. Maybe the shower-scene music from Psycho?
Cornflakes, Phil Luther.
> -- help bot
>
>
>
>
Chess One
"samsloan" <samh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193047278.8...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Susan Polgar wrote at:
>> http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/01/first-of-2007.html
>>
>> When the new board took over in August 2003, they were not aware
>> of the situation. I even offered to pay for it if they refused to
>> honor the agreement of the previous board with Mr. Niro. However, that
>> was not needed as they agreed to give him back his laptop.
>
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Susan Polgar
>> www.PolgarChess.com
>> Monday, January 01, 2007 11:40:00 AM
>
> This is the key question. I have asked everybody: Beatriz Marinello,
> Tim Hanke, Mike Nolan, Bill Goichberg, Judy Misner, Joan Dubois
> everybody else connected with the USCF at that time and none of them
> say that they authorized Susan Polgar to take that laptop computer.
Did they say any authorisation was necessary. Its interesting to have
verbally deposed people then report what they didn't say, and even more so,
because
> None of them even knew that Polgar had taken the computer until Frank
> Niro mentioned it on his personal website in December 2006 more than
> three years later.
Whatever was on it, as well as its absence was therefore, by this evidence,
not even noticed for 3 years...
> So, when Polgar says "they agreed to give him back his laptop", who is
> they? Everybody involved says that that did not agree and never would
> have agreed to let Polgar take that laptop.
":never would have" !
But it seems to me that they didn't even know about the computer, as if, in
fact, it was not their own to know about - OR - they were complicit in its
release, as if it were in fact OK - OR - they were grossly negligent in
doing nothing for 3 years. Which is it?
So our evidence so far, staff and board had not even any memory of the
computer, until prompted about its existence 3 years later on - nevermind
remember the circumstances surrounding it, and reminded by the person who
purportedly 'stole' it.
But I think since the Ex Dir is an important position - surely the terms and
conditions of emplyment for the Ex Dir will indicate whether indeed he was
working pro-bono before full-time employment, and thereby if the computer
played some part in that = and here's the BIG ONE, if USCF documented
issuing him a computer, with all the normal things one does, like requiring
a signature for it, insuring it for current worth, and making any statements
about its use, location, ownership, etc.
So where is that normal business document - and who issued it? If Sloan say
above that 'none of them authorised' the taking of the computer, did any of
them authorise the issue of the computer. Or possibly, can none of them
remember being responsible for that either?
> Also, Beatriz Marinello,
> who was then the new USCF President, stated that when she and Tim
> Hanke arrived in the USCF's offices on August 20, 2003 the first thing
> they did it go to that laptop to examine what it contained only to
> find that the laptop was missing.
The first thing !
And we are to suppose that the person who exposed Frank Niro, Frank Niro
himself, doesn't seem to have received any questions in the interim that
challenged ownership, and acted as if he owned it - by plainly saying so,
which is not exactly the act of a guilty party.
Yet we are asked to believe that for Marinello and Hanke this was job #1.
> Of course they did not realize that Susan Polgar had stolen it just a
> few minutes earlier.
But how bizzare! Its like a scene from the Marx Brothers, "A Day at
ChessHut."
Thank you for sharing!
Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
Again, I cut several newsgroups, since Sam Sloan is 'attacking' their
airspace, and possibly even 'stealing' it. But certainly, blithely
continuing to entertain the world of chess as one comprising obsessed
cloth-eared hysterics
Guy Macon
Please stop posting material to rec.games.chess.computer
that has nothing to do with computer chess.
Sam Sloan
It seems that Frank Niro has forgotten about this thread or never knew
about it.
Here it is again.
Sam Sloan
Rob
samsloan
> soup
Allow me to introduce you to Rob ("The Robber") Mitchell. Rob hopes to
become Executive Director of the USCF some day, succeeding Frank Niro.
He hopes to be able to steal even more money than Frank Niro stole,
which is why he has applied for that job.
Rob hopes to accomplish this by covering up on Google every post I
make by another post header entitled "SOUP".
Perhaps we should tell all of Rob's life insurance clients (if he
really has any) about this scheme.
Rob
> On Mar 1, 7:26 am, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > soup
>
> become Executive Director of the USCF some day, succeeding Frank Niro.
> He hopes to be able to steal even more money than Frank Niro stole,
> which is why he has applied for that job.
>
>
Thank you Mr. Sloan. Your above unqualified post gives Mr. Niro
everything he needs.
:-)
samsloan
> On Mar 1, 6:53 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > become Executive Director of the USCF some day, succeeding Frank Niro.
> > He hopes to be able to steal even more money than Frank Niro stole,
> > which is why he has applied for that job.
>
> everything he needs.
> :-)
If you are suggesting that Frank Niro might sue me, I am not worried.
If he sues me then he will be required to answer questions under oath,
which he will not wish to do, such as what happened to the laptop and
the $2 million dollars.
Same with Susan Polgar and Paul Truong. They have been making waves,
asking for the addresses of potential defendants, as though they are
planning a big lawsuit. Nobody is worried. Notice that they do not
post here any more. They only post on their own forums which they
control. They also do not want to be required to answer questions.
Sam Sloan
jkh...@aim.com
1) Everyone except you already knows what happened to the laptop
(Niro's property, long since junked) and the $2M (USCF sent more than
it was taking in each year and used reserves to cover it). 2) Your
statement about Niro was clearly libelous. The reason no one will
bother to sue you is that you are an indigent bum, and the filing
costs alone would exceed what could be collected from you. Sadly,
debtor's prisons have been abolished.
samsloan
feeder1-2.proxad.net!feeder.erje.net!news.exosphere.de!
news2.arglkargh.de!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news-x5!mail2news-
x4!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news
From: George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it>
Subject: Re: The Mystery of the USCF Computer Taken by Miss P
References: <5720d25c-0a20-4f15-9e3d-
ce24db...@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
X-No-Archive: Yes
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,alt.lawyers,misc.legal
Message-ID: <4c50b11c8cef5143...@mixmaster.it>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2008 02:22:18 +0100 (CET)
Mail-To-News-Contact: ab...@dizum.com
Organization: mail2n...@dizum.com
On Mar 1, 8:22 pm, George Orwell <nob...@mixmaster.it> wrote:
> Preserved on behalf of Mr Frank Niro, who has been made aware that Oregon
> is one of the few states with a criminal libel statute against which Sam's
> status as a pauper will prove no deterrent to action. Once Sam's back where
> he belongs (inside) a bunch of us good samaritans will mail Kayo a couple
> tickets to Hiroshima or Okinawa -so she can whisk Sandra away to safety.
> Yeah Sam, we fully understand why you prefer to have as a "wife" someone
> dumber than a rock. Besides the fact that only dumber than a rock female
> would have you, if she is megadumb it means she can't detect what happens
> under her own nose. Mr Frank Niro please deliver innocents from the evil.
>
> Path: postnews.google.com!41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
> Subject: Re: The Mystery of the USCF Computer Taken by Miss P
> Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 04:53:46 -0800 (PST)
> Organization:http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 13
> Message-ID:
> <5720d25c-0a20-4f15-9e3d-ce24db061...@41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
> References: <1167573270.9...@n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
> <47c8c3da.174661...@ca.news.verio.net>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.120.149.154
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1204376027 5243 127.0.0.1 (1 Mar 2008 12:53:47
> GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 12:53:47 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
> Injection-Info: 41g2000hsc.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.120.149.154;
> posting-account=h0BplggAAACbakJwttbpVF72VZ8jVCAq
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US;
> rv:1.8.1.12)
> Gecko/20080201 Firefox/2.0.0.12,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
> Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this
> non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real
> reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an
> di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system
> Per maggiori informazioni |For more info
> https://www.mixmaster.it
Kayo and Sandra will appreciate a round trip ticket to Japan (but not
to Okinawa) as they are planning to go there soon.
Sam Sloan
Chess...@yahoo.com
> On Mar 1, 11:14 am, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 1, 6:53 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 1, 7:26 am, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > soup
>
> > > Rob hopes to
> > > become Executive Director of the USCF some day, succeedingFrankNiro.
> > > He hopes to be able to steal even more money thanFrankNirostole,
> > > which is why he has applied for that job.
>
> > Thank you Mr. Sloan. Your above unqualified post gives Mr.Niro
> > everything he needs.
> > :-)
>
>
> If he sues me then he will be required to answer questions under oath,
> which he will not wish to do, such as what happened to the laptop and
> the $2 million dollars.
>
> Same with Susan Polgar and Paul Truong. They have been making waves,
> asking for the addresses of potential defendants, as though they are
> planning a big lawsuit. Nobody is worried. Notice that they do not
> post here any more. They only post on their own forums which they
> control. They also do not want to be required to answer questions.
>
> Sam Sloan
Sam, I'm not going to sue you. But I will use all my energy to set the
record straight.
I will also respond to any questions under oath at any time. As amer
of fact, I'd be glad to have a candid one-on-one conversation with
you.
There's another side of the story about my life. You have perused my
web site and my blogs, obviously. Why haven't you mentioned this, for
example?
http://twchesssafari.blogspot.com/2007/11/eddie-heads-back-to-nc.html
Does that sound like a crook?
How about this one?
http://chesssafari.blogspot.com/2006_08_01_archive.html
Or this?
http://chesssafari.blogspot.com/2005_09_01_archive.html
Why must you go around causing havoc? Why must your every word be a
lie? You probably don't know either.
Best wishes always,
Frank