Sam Sloan censured by Executive Board
Duncan Oxley
Channing, Goichberg and Hough in favor and Sloan, Marinello, Schultz and
Tanner abstaining.
Bill Goichberg
---
November 29, 2006:
I move that the Executive Board of the USCF censure Sam Sloan for his
failures to adhere to the Standards of Conduct as highlighted and noted in
the attached emails.
( NOTE: I added a * to each of the highlighted lines in case your news
reader does not show it --Duncan)
Joel Channing
Violations of (1c), (2e), (3), (3b) & (3d)
From: Sam Sloan [sams...@samsloan.xxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:59 AM
To: Chess...@aol.xxx; jo...@channingcorporation.xxx;
randal...@yahoo.xxx; Rtan...@aol.xxx; Ches...@aol.xxx;
bh...@uschess.xxx; HJWi...@aol.xxx; mike...@uschess.xxx;
quee...@cox.xxx; pkn...@uschess.xxx; dlu...@uschess.xxx;
daniel....@gmail.xxx; Ches...@aol.xxx; bi...@uschess.xxx;
Beat...@aol.xxx
Subject: Letter Agreement with the Seattle Chess Foundation
Letter Agreement with the Seattle Chess Foundation
*I wish that everybody here would get my email address straight.
*My email address for all official USCF Business including the business of
*the Executive Board is sams...@samsloan.xxx
*Let us try that again. My address is sams...@samsloan.xxx
*Let us try that again. My address is sams...@samsloan.xxx
*Now that I have explained this three more times, I hope that you will
*remember it this time. This is not the first time that you have made this
*mistake. Let us try to make it the last.
I do have an old address, which is sl...@ishipress.xxx. That address is
still working and I use it for newsgroup postings, but I rarely check it,
because I receive more than one thousand spam emails per day at that
address.
However, I did happen to check it this morning, for the first time in more
than a week, and I discovered an email from Bill Hall containing as
attachments the June 2006 contract with AF4C and the May 18, 2000 Letter
Agreement with Seattle Chess Foundation.
*I cannot understand why Bill Hall did not send those important documents to
my actual working address, which is *sams...@samsloan.xxx
*Is this part of the conspiracy?
*Kindly tell Bill Hall that my address is sams...@samsloan.xxx
*Should I say it again? Try to remember this and repeat after me. Sam
Sloan's address is sams...@samsloan.xxx[b]
*Now, turning to the actual document dated May 18, 2000, in no way could
*this be considered to be a legally enforceable contract. It is simply a
*letter, endorsed by George DeFeis. It states that Seattle Chess Foundation
*promises to incorporate by June 15, 2000, so it was not even a corporation
at the time of this letter. In addition, I have no way of *knowing whether
the American Foundation for Chess is the same legal entity as the Seattle
Chess Foundation.
*However, assuming for the sake of argument that it is a legal contract, the
*key paragraph is the following:
*"The format of the SCF/USCF Championships will be set by SCF after prior
*consultation with USCF, but shall be in a manner generally consistent with
*past US Championships and with other events of this caliber or type. SCF
*contemplates that for the year 2000 US Championships the format will be
*either a 10 player or 12 player round robin event for each of the overall
*or women fs categories."
*It also states that after 2005 the SCF agrees to pay to the USCF an annual
*fee of $10,000.
*On page 5 of this document are hand written entries: "$100,000 prize fund".
"$100K was the agreed upon prize fund".
*So, the purported agreement between Bill Goichberg and AF4C (which the
board has never voted on or even known about before it *was posted on the
USCF website) fails to adhere to this agreement in at least the following
respects.
*1. It fails to guarantee a $100,000 prize fund or indeed any prize fund at
*all. It seems obvious that AF4C plans to run an El Cheapo event this year
*with many or most of the games played online and a nominal prize fund.
2. The format of a knock-out event involving two-game matches is not "a
manner generally consistent with past US Championships and with other
events of this caliber or type". No US Championship or any other event of
this caliber or type has ever been conducted in this format.
3. The AF4C has not paid nor has it promised to pay the annual agreed upon
fee of $10,000. I would be interested in knowing whether the AF4C ever paid
the required annual fees for the years 2000-2005. If they have not paid,
they should now pay the back money they owe us, before there are any further
discussions.
4. The agreement states that the SCF will be holding the US Woman's
Championship, but this year AF4C states that it will not be holding the US
Woman's Championship.
I am extremely disappointed in Bill Goichberg for directing that this
announcement of the US Championship be posted on the uschess.org website,
without addressing these concerns and without even informing the rest of the
board or consulting with the board or taking a vote by the board on these
issues prior to making the announcement.
Sam Sloan
Violations of (1), (1c), (3) & (3b).
From: Sam Sloan [sams...@samsloan.xxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 5:47 AM
To: Chess...@aol.xxx; Ches...@aol.xxx; bh...@uschess.xxx;
randal...@yahoo.xxx; pkn...@uschess.xxx; azc...@cox.xxx;
quee...@cox.xxx; Beat...@aol.xxx; Rtan...@aol.xxx;
bi...@uschess.xxx; CHES...@aol.xxx; Jo...@channingcorporation.xxx
Cc: eand...@westrivercap.xxx
Subject: Re: US Championship
At 01:02 PM 10/11/2006 EDT, Chess...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/11/2006 10:48:46 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>Chessdon writes:
> Dear EB:
> I hereby submit the following motion to you for email vote. I discussed
this with Bill Goichberg and he favors it. I have also talked to Erik
Anderson and he likes it as well.
> Moved: The winner of the 2007 US Championship would defend his titled
title in a match against the winner of the 2008 US Championship Tournament.
The process of a defending champion would continue through time.
> I vote yes.
> Don Schultz
> I vote yes. Also, I like the concept of the champion holding the
>title, which can only be taken away from him in a match of substantial
>length. Bill Goichberg
*As usual, you have not thought clearly about this and considered the
*consquences.
If this motion passes, that will mean that there will no longer be a
tournament for the US Championship, thus ending a tradition that began in
1940.
Instead, there will merely be a series of qualifying tournaments the
ultimate winner of which will get to play a match for the US Champuionship.
*Who will pay for this? Surely not the AF4C, who only wants the prestigue
associaed with the US Championship, not just some *preliminary event.
Don likes the old FIDE System, where there were first zonal tournaments,
then the interzonal, then candidates matches and finally a match for the
World Championship.
However, that system worked because they did not have to pay the players.
Almost all of the top players were from the Soviet Union. Players like
Botvinnik, Keres, Geller, Petrosian and Smyslov were supported by the state
and played free of charge.
Since the break-up of the Soviet Union, the players started demanding to be
paid, and the Interzonal System collapsed.
In 1987, after no country in the world had submitted a bid to hold the
Interzonal, I submitted a bid to hold the event in the US Virgin Islands
and paid the required fee. Since the local country gets to designate two of
its own players to play in the Interzonal, I designated Anand and Zsuzsa
Polgar as my representatives.
In response to my bid, Dr. Lim Kok Ann, General Secretary of FIDE,
responded that the Hungarians were objecting to allowing Zsuzsa Polgar to
play in the Interzonal. Also, the regulations state that the two players
must be from the host country. Anand and Zsuzsa Polgar were not from the
host country.
I replied that unless Zsuzsa Polgar and Anand were allowed to play, I was
not willing to organize the event.
Incidentally, Anand was at the time just a little known young grandmaster,
but I realized that he was a future world champion, years before anybody
else did.
The matter ended there. Dr. Lim refused to agree to allow Anand and Polgar
to play in the Interzonal and I would not organize the event otherwise.
The result was that the interzonal was never held. Not only did I not hold
the Interzonal, but nobody did. Since then, there has never been another
Interzonal.
Now, the current situation is that Don Schultz has made a motion and Bill
Goichberg has vote yes. With only two more votes, it will have been decided
that there will never again be a tournament for the US Championship, without
even consulting the delegates or the membership.
*Frankly, I think that you guys are really stupid.
Sam Sloan
From USCF Forum posting: Violations of (1c) and (3b).
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:28 am
Post subject: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay Files
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Even Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay Filing Fees
*Looking at the list of Candidates for the 2005 elections, it seems that
several approved candidates did not pay the required $250 *filing fee.
The following candidates DID pay the $250 fee:
Joel Channing
Greg Shahade
William Goichberg
Sam Sloan
Randy Bauer
Elizabeth Shaughnessy
However, the following candidates appear not to have paid the required $250
fee:
Robert Tanner
George John
Steve Shutt
Of particular interest to me is the case of George John. I have long
suspected that George John does not exist. By that I mean that although I
have met several times a person who calls himself George John, I suspect
that this is not his real name.
Therefore, I have searched for payments of exactly $250.00 by anybody,
thinking that in this way I might be able to find out the real name of
George John.
Looking for payments of exactly $250, I find that this amount was paid by
St. Benilde Chess on January 28, 2005. I suspect that this was the payment
for Steve Shutt.
I find a payment in the amount of $250 by Vela Middle School on 12/1/04. I
suspect that this was unrelated to the election.
There are no other payments of $250 by anybody during the relevant time
period.
*Therefore, at least one and possibly as many as three candidates did not
pay the required $250 filing fee, one of whom was elected.
Kindly investigate this.
samsloan
This is bull shit. Goichberg just hates me for no reason. He's a racist
pig.
Sam Sloan
mar...@stkittsnevischess.org
about it. Sloan, right now, is laughing. Every time you CENSURE Sloan,
you give him more votes in the next election. The best way to embarass
Sloan is to examine his past.
Marcus Roberts
Chess Nuggets
parrt...@cs.com
Okay, then, where is the motion thanking Sam
Sloan for exposing a cheat among the members of the
Executive Board, who has since resigned?
Why aren't Joel Channing, Bill Goichberg and
Randy Hough THANKING Sam for uncovering one of their
members (and friends, to be sure) who misused his
position as a TD so egregiously?
What Sam did was precisely this: he discovered
a deeply untrustworthy member of the Executive Board
who had been a serial cheat -- planning carefully his
ploys -- over several years.
If that effort does not merit a big THANK YOU,
then nothing does from this Board.
It is evidently the case that cleaning out the
Augean stables is not something that the EB horses
much appreciate.
Ray Gordon, creator of the pivot
parrt...@cs.com wrote:
> CLEANING THE AUGEAN STABLES
>
> Okay, then, where is the motion thanking Sam
> Sloan for exposing a cheat among the members of the
> Executive Board, who has since resigned?
>
> Why aren't Joel Channing, Bill Goichberg and
> Randy Hough THANKING Sam for uncovering one of their
> members (and friends, to be sure) who misused his
> position as a TD so egregiously?
>
> What Sam did was precisely this: he discovered
> a deeply untrustworthy member of the Executive Board
> who had been a serial cheat -- planning carefully his
> ploys -- over several years.
>
> If that effort does not merit a big THANK YOU,
> then nothing does from this Board.
>
> It is evidently the case that cleaning out the
> Augean stables is not something that the EB horses
> much appreciate.
> > >
Ange1o DePa1ma
"Chess Nuggets" <spo...@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:1165360840....@73g2000cwn.googlegroups.com...
Which emails? Does anyone have copies?
Chess One
"Ange1o DePa1ma" <angelod...@nospam.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:y_6dnS6Bt_e...@ptd.net...
>>> I move that the Executive Board of the USCF censure Sam Sloan for his
>>> failures to adhere to the Standards of Conduct as highlighted and noted
>>> in
>>> the attached emails.
>
> Which emails? Does anyone have copies?
----
Angelo, here is a collation, reposted here from elsewhere, but in their
entirety without edit or comment from me. I also asked elsewhere which
specific Conduct is cited as failing to adhere to the Standards 'as
highlighted'. There has been no reply - Phil Innes
----
The following motion by Joel Channing has passed by a vote of 3-0 with
Channing, Goichberg and Hough in favor and Sloan, Marinello, Schultz and
Tanner abstaining.
Bill Goichberg
November 29, 2006:
I move that the Executive Board of the USCF censure Sam Sloan for his
failures to adhere to the Standards of Conduct as highlighted and noted in
the attached emails.
Joel Channing
Violations of (1c), (2e), (3), (3b) & (3d)
From: Sam Sloan [sams...@samsloan.xxx]
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 4:59 AM
To: Chess...@aol.xxx; jo...@channingcorporation.xxx;
randal...@yahoo.xxx; Rtan...@aol.xxx; Ches...@aol.xxx;
bh...@uschess.xxx; HJWi...@aol.xxx; mike...@uschess.xxx;
quee...@cox.xxx; pkn...@uschess.xxx; dlu...@uschess.xxx;
daniel....@gmail.xxx; Ches...@aol.xxx; bi...@uschess.xxx;
Beat...@aol.xxx
Subject: Letter Agreement with the Seattle Chess Foundation
Letter Agreement with the Seattle Chess Foundation
I wish that everybody here would get my email address straight.
My email address for all official USCF Business including the business of
the Executive Board is sams...@samsloan.xxx
Let us try that again. My address is sams...@samsloan.xxx
Let us try that again. My address is sams...@samsloan.xxx
Now that I have explained this three more times, I hope that you will
remember it this time. This is not the first time that you have made this
mistake. Let us try to make it the last.
I do have an old address, which is sl...@ishipress.xxx. That address is
still working and I use it for newsgroup postings, but I rarely check it,
because I receive more than one thousand spam emails per day at that
address.
However, I did happen to check it this morning, for the first time in more
than a week, and I discovered an email from Bill Hall containing as
attachments the June 2006 contract with AF4C and the May 18, 2000 Letter
Agreement with Seattle Chess Foundation.
I cannot understand why Bill Hall did not send those important documents to
my actual working address, which is sams...@samsloan.xxx
Is this part of the conspiracy?
Kindly tell Bill Hall that my address is sams...@samsloan.xxx
Should I say it again? Try to remember this and repeat after me. Sam Sloan's
address is sams...@samsloan.xxx[b]
Now, turning to the actual document dated May 18, 2000, in no way could
this be considered to be a legally enforceable contract. It is simply a
letter, endorsed by George DeFeis. It states that Seattle Chess Foundation
promises to incorporate by June 15, 2000, so it was not even a corporation
at the time of this letter. In addition, I have no way of knowing whether
the American Foundation for Chess is the same legal entity as the Seattle
Chess Foundation.
However, assuming for the sake of argument that it is a legal contract, the
key paragraph is the following:
"The format of the SCF/USCF Championships will be set by SCF after prior
consultation with USCF, but shall be in a manner generally consistent with
past US Championships and with other events of this caliber or type. SCF
contemplates that for the year 2000 US Championships the format will be
either a 10 player or 12 player round robin event for each of the overall
or women fs categories."
It also states that after 2005 the SCF agrees to pay to the USCF an annual
fee of $10,000.
On page 5 of this document are hand written entries: "$100,000 prize fund".
"$100K was the agreed upon prize fund".
So, the purported agreement between Bill Goichberg and AF4C (which the board
has never voted on or even known about before it was posted on the USCF
website) fails to adhere to this agreement in at least the following
respects.
1. It fails to guarantee a $100,000 prize fund or indeed any prize fund at
all. It seems obvious that AF4C plans to run an El Cheapo event this year
Sam Sloan
From: Sam Sloan [sams...@samsloan.xxx]
Cc: eand...@westrivercap.xxx
Subject: Re: US Championship
As usual, you have not thought clearly about this and considered the
consquences.
If this motion passes, that will mean that there will no longer be a
tournament for the US Championship, thus ending a tradition that began in
1940.
Instead, there will merely be a series of qualifying tournaments the
ultimate winner of which will get to play a match for the US Champuionship.
Who will pay for this? Surely not the AF4C, who only wants the prestigue
associaed with the US Championship, not just some preliminary event.
Frankly, I think that you guys are really stupid.
Sam Sloan
From USCF Forum posting: Violations of (1c) and (3b).
Posted: Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:28 am
Post subject: Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay Files
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even Bigger Scandal: Some Insider Candidates Did Not Pay Filing Fees
Looking at the list of Candidates for the 2005 elections, it seems that
several approved candidates did not pay the required $250 filing fee.
Therefore, at least one and possibly as many as three candidates did not pay
rexar...@yahoo.com
Chess One wrote:
> Angelo, here is a collation, reposted here from elsewhere, but in their
> entirety without edit or comment from me. I also asked elsewhere which
> specific Conduct is cited as failing to adhere to the Standards 'as
> highlighted'. There has been no reply - Phil Innes
> ----
You could try the USCF BINFO system or the USCF Forums. Of course, you
must be a member of the USCF to get there. But, you aren't, are you?
So why the hell are you bothering the rest of us? Get off, idiot,
Ange1o DePa1ma
this email part of public discussions?), but mere testiness in a private
meeting among peers.
Is this all there is? Could this be payback for uncovering Tanner's alleged
misdeeds?
I say "alleged" because while I strongly agree with Tanner's decision to
quit the board, it's unclear to me that he did anything that was against the
rules. Is an expert/master TD permitted to play fill-in games in the U-1200
section of tournaments he runs? I don't know. If it's a gray legal area such
behavior can be viewed in one of two ways: he's skimming rating points
(bad), or he's giving beginners a chance to play someone rated over 2000
(good).
As for his peripatetic tournaments with Hans and Franz, I have two
observiations. Where was the person who was rating these events when the
reports were submitted? Didn't he or she notice anything strange? Second, it
is not up to Tanner, 15 years after the fact, to prove that these guys
exist. Since USCF was accusing him of malfeasance it is up to them to prove
they do *not* exist. Since you can't prove a negative, and considering the
time that has elapsed, this matter should have been dropped with a valuable
lesson learned. Had the rating administrator 15 years ago raised a red flag
it would have been reasonable to ask him to produce these characters. Not
today.
Angelo DePalma
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:q0zdh.2103$g_3.1521@trndny02...
rexar...@yahoo.com
Ange1o DePa1ma wrote:
> His "stupid" remark would qualify as unprofessional in a public forum (was
> this email part of public discussions?), but mere testiness in a private
> meeting among peers.
His stupid "stupid" remark was made in a non-confidential BINFO post.
Anyone that is a member of the USCF can read it.
> Is this all there is?
No. You quoted another part of it which was Sloan lying about
candidates not having filed election fees.
Chess One
>> violations are being cited as Censured? PI
> ********************************
> You can find a complete copy of the Standards of
> Conduct here:
>
> http://uschess.org/org/govern/conduct.html
>
> The Channing e-mail (partially copied below) lists the
> sections where violations are claimed.
>
> Note that a censure from the Executive Board is not
> the same thing as a censure from the Ethics Committee.
> The former is a mere opinion of the EB, while the
> latter is a formal finding carrying greater weight, as
> well as an automatic probationary period of one year.
Thanks Hal!
As a completely non-partisan observer on the personality level [a rarity] I
am still trying to connect the conduct censure with the specific
activities - can it be mention of the Tanner Ethics issue? Perhaps there are
multiple issues here, though from what I have read, Mr. Tanner seemed
disinclined to note the ethics finding - and I personally find the
combination of the subject of ethics and secrecy to be oxymoronic.
I can't imagine what is censurable about disclosing cheating, especially
since the individual named was himself on a Fide Ethics committee.
Would it not have been better to differentiate one censured topic from
another? - the cited material below does seem to range widely. I can see
some objectionable elements in them, but cannot understand others.
The unfortunate, and perhaps unintended effect of admixing them, is to seem
to achieve a board censure of Sam Sloan for disclosing board member ethical
violations. This, indeed, is now the popular perception of the board's
actions.
Rather than perceive Mr. Sloan as worthy of censure where it seems due, that
is lost in a sense of persecuting what is considered a just exposition,
thus, if I wanted to actually enhance Mr. Sloan's image prospects, I would
act just as the board has done.
Phil Innes
> -- Hal Terrie
> **************************************
rexar...@yahoo.com
Chess One wrote:
> As a completely non-partisan observer on the personality level [a rarity] I
Prevarication right off the bat. There's a good start.
> am still trying to connect the conduct censure with the specific
> activities - can it be mention of the Tanner Ethics issue?
The motion was clear. Sloan defamed various USCF officials and
members, lied about candidates regarding payment of fees, etc... What
about this is not clear to you? Of course, if you were a member then
you could look at the original motion on the USCF Forum or in the
BINFOs.
But you are not, are you?
So what the hell does it matter to you? Go away.
Chess One
<rexar...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1165423845.6...@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chess One wrote:
>> As a completely non-partisan observer on the personality level [a rarity]
>> I
>
> Prevarication right off the bat. There's a good start.
Prevarication! But not of what.
>> am still trying to connect the conduct censure with the specific
>> activities - can it be mention of the Tanner Ethics issue?
>
> The motion was clear. Sloan defamed various USCF officials and
> members, lied about candidates regarding payment of fees, etc... What
> about this is not clear to you? Of course, if you were a member then
> you could look at the original motion on the USCF Forum or in the
> BINFOs.
I am aware of what's written which is as vague as your post. If you hadn't
snipped my comments that it wouldn't be necessary to make yours <yawn>
And I can read the Forum, anyway ;)
I simply resent the idea of having to say I am a member of the smelly-foot
society, in order to notice that some people's feet stink.
> But you are not, are you?
>
> So what the hell does it matter to you? Go away.
Up yours too! This is a public forum, if you don't like it, you go away to
the nice edited, but supremely boring monitored one at USCF.
Quondam Aquarius, Phil Innes
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot"
from the board?
(2)(a) Except where noted below, ****no Executive Board member or a member
of his immediate family may receive financial compensation from the USCF for
any reason, except for standard reimbursement of expenses, during his tenure
on the Board, or for two years after***** completing his tenure if such
compensation results from bids accepted or agreements made by the Board
during his tenure. In claiming expense reimbursement, a Board member must
claim only that portion of expenses that were incurred in non-political
activities that were a legitimate exercise of the Board member's duties. Any
unusual expenses for which reimbursement is questionable must be referred to
the full Board for consideration. Board members are expected to exercise all
reasonable frugality in incurring expenses to be reimbursed.
--
Ray Gordon, Author
The OFFICIAL Ray Gordon Blog:
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
"Chess One" <inn...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:6iCdh.5473$sM2.2773@trndny05...
samsloan
board emails to be published, and will require the tapes and
transcripts to be posted, which has not happened thus far although it
is required by the by-laws, it will be seen that the real situation is
that the Mr. Channing and Mr. Goichberg have consumed tremendous
amounts of board time by attacking me.
Bill did not reveal this, but he made a previous motion to reprimand or
censure me back in August, 2006. After a lengthy and divisive debate,
that motion passed by 4-2, with Don Schultz and Beatriz Marinello
voting against and me not voting at all.
Since then, there has been little substantive discussion by the board
on any subject. Indeed, the three emails for which they censured me
constitutes virtually the only real commentary on the important US
Championship issue.
As for my requests taking up the time of the office, my requests have
all been reasonable and for documents which should have been readily
available. At my first meeting of the board, I asked for copies of the
Truong contracts and the AF4C contracts. I was told that they were lost
along with almost all the other financial records and important
documents from New Windsor. As a result of my persistent requests for
these documents, one month later they were finally located in the
lawyer's office. The originals in the USCF files still have not been
located. Also, all the original Chess Life word processing files in
Quark Express have been lost and are said to be in the Crossville
Landfill.
In addition, for nearly one month from about August 25 to late
September 2006, I received few emails from the board because, they
claimed, my email address was not working. This was a lie. My email
address worked fine. They were accidentally on purpose sending all the
emails to a non-existent address.
With this background, plus Joel Channing yelling and screaming at me
during the meeting in Stamford, it is obvious that the motion to
censure me was done for political purposes.
Sam Sloan
parrt...@cs.com
There ought to be a motion thanking Sam
Sloan He was censured in revenge for dragging
down insider Robert Tanner.
politi...@gmail.com
> REVENGE -- PURE AND SIMPLE
>
> There ought to be a motion thanking Sam
> Sloan He was censured in revenge for dragging
> down insider Robert Tanner.
>
You may be correct.
But I still haven't received an answer to my questions from Sloan. The
answer has a direct bearing on the propriety of Sloan's conduct as a
Board member.
1. Does Sloan acknowledge authorship of deleted BINFO 200603590?
2. Does Sloan acknowledge the text below as the text of that BINFO?
These are simple questions, and Sloan claims to be an honest man.
"Yes" or "No" should suffice.
*********
BEGIN QUOTATION
BINFO 200603590
Date 2006-09-25
>From samsloan
Status Standard Release
Release Date 2006-10-03
Subject Resolution of the Executive Board
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To: Chessoffice@xxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Resolution of the Executive Board
From: Sam Sloan <samsloan@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 19:47:41 -0400
Cc: Joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Beatchess@xxxxxxx, Rtannerae@xxxxxxx,
randallhough@xxxxxxxxx, samsloan@xxxxxxxxxxxx, CHESSJOEL@xxxxxxx,
bhall@xxxxxxxxxxx, Chessdon@xxxxxxx, pknight@xxxxxxxxxxx,
queencapa@xxxxxxx , USCF BINFO System, Chessoffice@xxxxxxx
Delivered-to: USCF BINFO Systemxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: USCF BINFO System
In-reply-to: <3.0.6.32.20060925110012.01f13280@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At 11:00 AM 9/25/2006 -0400, Chessoffice@xxxxxxx wrote:>>I move in open
session that the Board approve the following resolution>written by our
attorney, Mike Matsler. I vote yes.
> >Bill Goichberg>I am deeply discouraged and disappointed that Bill, acting like a bull in a china shop, has brought this into the public forum by making a public motion and posting it to USCF BINFO System, as a result of which this matter will disseminated and the entire world will know about it in due course.The fact is that my relationship with Zsuzsa Polgar (who now calls herself Susan) was not entirely Platonic. I have been discrete
and have not revealed to anyone other than a few close friends the true
nature of
our prior relationship, until now. Now, Bill's public motion
effectively forces me to reveal what really happened those many years
ago. This will do no good either to me, Zsuzsa,
Bill or the USCF, but it appears that now I will have no real choice
but to tell the whole story. Sam Sloan
END QUOTATION
politi...@gmail.com
politi...@gmail.com
> He "has no real choice," n'est-ce pas?
s/h/b
He has "no real choice," n'est-ce pas?
:-)
politi...@gmail.com
entirely Platonic" (indeed, not at all....)
Ange1o DePa1ma
news:1165418064....@n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
An accusation is not a lie if the accuser has reason to believe the charge
is true. According to your logic every public prosecutor who loses a case
should be tried for malpractice.
Sam Sloan's chess life, writing, and whistle-blowing is conducted "on the
edge." Sometimes he is fabulously wrong, as when he reported the death of
Peter Leko. Sometimes, as with the Tanner incident, he is so dead-on that
you have to wonder about people who have disparaged him over the years, and
what their agendas might be.
One thing is for certain: he loves chess, and he does not conduct his chess
affairs with the expectation of financial reward. That's a pretty good start
for a USCF board member.
I didn't vote for him last time (I didn't vote for anyone, actually). Next
time I will campaign for him.
Taylor Kingston
On Dec 7, 9:10 am, "Ange1o DePa1ma" <angelodpnos...@nospam.gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Sam Sloan's chess life, writing, and whistle-blowing is conducted "on the
> edge." Sometimes he is fabulously wrong, as when he reported the death of
> Peter Leko. Sometimes, as with the Tanner incident, he is so dead-on that
> you have to wonder about people who have disparaged him over the years, and
> what their agendas might be.
Angelo, get real. All this shows is that a weatherman who predicts
rain every day will sometimes be right, even in the Sahara.
Mike Murray
<angelod...@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
>Sam Sloan's chess life, writing, and whistle-blowing is conducted "on the
>edge." Sometimes he is fabulously wrong, as when he reported the death of
>Peter Leko.
Hell, even this has been blown out of proportion. He was trying for a
newsgroup scoop, and repeated what may have been a deliberate hoax. He
admitted his mistake and corrected himself the next day. If only the
Federation's errors were put right this fast....
>Sometimes, as with the Tanner incident, he is so dead-on that
>you have to wonder about people who have disparaged him over the years, and
>what their agendas might be.
People like to stay with the business-as-usual comfort zone for
personal and financial reasons. Plus, it's hard to play the role of
dignified international "sports" personality when there's a ferret in
your shorts. And some are honestly offended by his personal life and
publications.
>One thing is for certain: he loves chess, and he does not conduct his chess
>affairs with the expectation of financial reward. That's a pretty good start
>for a USCF board member.
>I didn't vote for him last time (I didn't vote for anyone, actually). Next
>time I will campaign for him.
Parr remarked some time ago that we wouldn't want all Sloans on the
board, but one's not such a bad idea.
Ange1o DePa1ma
news:7ebgn2p6g0b0952l8...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 09:10:13 -0500, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
> <angelod...@nospam.gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Sam Sloan's chess life, writing, and whistle-blowing is conducted "on the
>>edge." Sometimes he is fabulously wrong, as when he reported the death of
>>Peter Leko.
>
> Hell, even this has been blown out of proportion. He was trying for a
> newsgroup scoop, and repeated what may have been a deliberate hoax. He
> admitted his mistake and corrected himself the next day. If only the
> Federation's errors were put right this fast....
I agree. Newspapers make mistakes like this, and worse, all the time and we
still buy them.
>>Sometimes, as with the Tanner incident, he is so dead-on that
>>you have to wonder about people who have disparaged him over the years,
>>and
>>what their agendas might be.
>
> People like to stay with the business-as-usual comfort zone for
> personal and financial reasons. Plus, it's hard to play the role of
> dignified international "sports" personality when there's a ferret in
> your shorts. And some are honestly offended by his personal life and
> publications.
>
>>One thing is for certain: he loves chess, and he does not conduct his
>>chess
>>affairs with the expectation of financial reward. That's a pretty good
>>start
>>for a USCF board member.
>
>>I didn't vote for him last time (I didn't vote for anyone, actually). Next
>>time I will campaign for him.
>
> Parr remarked some time ago that we wouldn't want all Sloans on the
> board, but one's not such a bad idea.
Great point.
Let's face it, the Tanner fiasco exposed a lot more than the alleged
misdeeds of one individual. Think about everyone who must have known
something was fishy and didn't say anything.
Sam is not good for the status quo. He raises issues about salaries,
contracts, and all that sweet stuff that's been the fiefdom of entrenched
USCF interests since I was a kid.
GO SAM!
parrt...@cs.com
We recollect when Bill Goichberg moved a motion
to have the Pinkerton Detective Agency investigate
Larry Evans (without, as it turned out, even probable
cause). Now, we have expensive consultations with
lawyers about how to get rid of Sam Sloan.
Imagine: a Federation actually spying on GM
Evans. Result: GM Evans was cleared and it turned
out that a board member himsedlf was guilty of the
"crime" he tried to pin on the 5-time U.S. champion.
Suddenly the "investigation" was dropped like a
hot potato.
Tthe embarrassment was such that Board
members voting in favor of the Pinkerton investigation
of GM Evans later reimbursed the Federation out of their
own pockets for the amount wasted.
Perhaps Sam Sloan should introduce a resolution
requiring Bill Goichberg and Joel Channing to pay for
the legal bills incurred while trying to unseat Sam without
an election.
samsloan wrote:
> I cannot answer these questions because my hard drive crashed and,
> although a donor gave me money to buy a new computer, I still cannot
> get access to the confidential board BINFOS (Mike Nolan says that there
> is a technical problem that he has not been able to solve) so I cannot
> recover the text of the motion made by Bill Goichberg or the
> acrimoneous debate that followed (in which I did not participate).
>
> I would appreciate it if somebody can locate and post the two lengthy
> letters Bill Goichberg wrote to the USCF's attorney, Michael Matsler,
> asking "How to get rid of Sam Sloan". One of these letters was dated on
> about August 25, 2006. Also, the two three page letters Michael Matsler
> wrote back (for which the USCF was no doubt charged at least a thousand
> dollars) should be posted.
>
> I believe that the members have a right to know how their membership
> dues are being spent and that the USCF President, Bill Goichberg, and
> the VP of Finance, Joel Channing, have spent a tremendous amount of the
> board's time and the USCF's money trying to get rid of a duly elected
> board member, me.
>
> To begin with, all the "Confidential" emails on this subject should be
> made public.
>
> Sam Sloan
samsloan
> CONFIDENTIAL MEMOS
>
> We recollect when Bill Goichberg moved a motion
> to have the Pinkerton Detective Agency investigate
> Larry Evans (without, as it turned out, even probable
> cause). Now, we have expensive consultations with
> lawyers about how to get rid of Sam Sloan.
Exactly right. Bill Goichberg wrote at least five letters to the USCF's
attorney Michael Matsler asking how to (legally) get rid of Sam Sloan
and received at least five letters back from the USCF's attorney. This
started right after the votes were counted in July and before I took
office.
This lawyer does not work cheap and I am sure that the legal bills for
these five letters came to several thousand dollars.
Bill Goichberg should pay those bills. I was elected by the members and
the members should not have to pay the legal bills for the efforts of
Bill Goichberg (who opposed me for election) to stop me from taking
office or to remove me from office.
Sam Sloan