Hanken Welcome Wagon
Larry Parr
am hereby changing the header.]
AN RGCP WELCOME TO JERRY HANKEN
Dear Jerry,
Permit me to extend to you a good old-fashioned r.g.c.p. welcome in
the form of this open letter. To be sure, I think that you would better
spend your time writing those chess memoirs that we all wish to read or
doing some community playhouse Shakespeare. But to paraphrase your
beloved Bard in a way to avoid the ire of feminazis, "Do you not know I
am a man? When I think, I must speak." And you obviously wish to speak
to the "mob," as you describe us so felicitously, on r.g.c.p.
So, here you are. With us. On r.g.c.p.
But with whom are we really speaking, old chap? We all know, my
good fellow, that you are not writing the postings on Federation
finances that appear in your name. So why not fess up and take the
first few steps of your r.g.c.p. career in a straight rather than
crooked line?
You have nothing to lose and, perhaps, a reputation to regain.
A fashionable piece of advice among pop-psychologists these days is
that we "get in touch" with our "inner child." Robert de Niro even
starred in a comedy about a Mafia don trying to do the same. My view,
which your close friend Randy Hough shares, is that you have been in
unremitting contact with your "inner child" since the cradle. So, in
this open letter, I will try to touch your inner adult.
Fair enough?
THE HANKEN DEFENSE
I enjoyed reading your posting of February 15, in which you wrote
about the famous "Fists Up, Pants Down" (my headline) episode involving your
threat to murder former USCF President Denis Barry. If we examine your
claims in extenso, we will find that with the exception of a couple of
details, you backed up the specifics of my account while offering a
totally different spin.
Still reading? I hope so.
You will correct me if I am wrong, but the point of your defense
was to spin the episode so that you were actually an in-control muchacho
who got stung by the force of circumstance. You were the aggrieved
party who, admittedly, overreacted a smidgin to President Barry's
alleged shouting. You were the earnest Policy Board member who
unluckily got pantsed by former USCF Veep Fred Gruenberg, who falsely
imagined you meant to murder the Prez. And "unfortunately," you
were being frolicsome precisely when this writer was on hand to capture
your "immortal humiliation!" Finally, you were the victim of this
writer's account that appeared in the "Delegates Newsletter."
Really, Jerry, the Hanken Defense will need some brushing up if you
ever intend to enter another USCF political "tournament."
WHERE WE AGREE
Still, we agree on many of the saucier details. I wrote that Veep
Gruenberg pantsed you. You write that you "exclaimed" to former Veep
Gruenberg, "Fred, you moron, you pulled my pants down." I wrote that
you were shouting in the meeting room. You write that you "exclaimed"
and uttered "loudly enough" so that all could hear. I wrote that,
most likely, you did not pull down your pants. You write, "I did not
pull my pants down." I wrote that your pants were sub-knee but
ueber-ankle. You write that your pants were at about knee level. (We
are within a few inches of agreement.) I wrote that you had clenched
fists. You write that you "unclenched" your fist "as soon as [you]
realized what had happened."
Interesting, don't you think, that last bit about how you
unclenched your fist "as soon as" you finally "realized" what was
happening? Inadvertently revealing. More anon on this subject.
Let us return to the areas in which we agree. I wrote that the
episode had the office staff giggling and turning their faces away. You
write, "Then it got funny." I wrote that your supporters often excused
your manic-depressive episodes because you were on medication. You
write that your diabetes rather than the medication affected your
behavior. (We are close here.) I wrote that preceding the threat to
murder Prez. Barry, you were screaming at Veep G. You write that you
were having an "intense" discussion with the Veep. I wrote that the
Veep stated on tape that you intended to kill Prez. Barry. You write
that Veep G. "may well have mistaken a shouting match for a dangerous
situation." (Indeed, he "may well have.") I wrote that you stood up
to face Prez. Barry. You write, "I had gotten up from my chair and
stood to face Denis."
Our accounts have a lot in common.
WHERE WE DISAGREE
Alas, we do have some disagreements. Let us look at them and
permit readers to decide whose account is more likely. Fair enough?
I wrote that the curtains to the meeting room were not completely
closed and that I could see through at an angle near the desk of the
ED's secretary. You write, "Remember, no one outside could see into the
room." (The drapes were only later closed completely during your long
convalescence before reappearing in the meeting area for your censure in
open session.) I wrote that Veep Gruenberg stated on tape that he
pulled down your pants to prevent a catastrophe. You write, "Fred, in
his zeal, accidentally pulled my pants down." (Veep G. also told the
same story to others at the time. Your pantsing was no accident unless
the Veep was lying for some unaccountable reason.) I wrote at the time
that your pants were at slightly below half-mast for about a quarter of
a minute or more and that you teetered forward to pull them up. You
write that the pantsing was "for only a second." (Readers are invited
to gain about 200 pounds, have themselves pantsed in a moment of great
emotional turbulence, then bend over to what Mr. Hanken calls his "knee"
and pull them up. This action cannot be performed in "a second" even by
a physically fit man primed to pull up his knickers. Mr Hanken remained
pantsed and palsied for many seconds as his trousers languished sub-knee
though ueber-ankle.)
So we are disagreeing. But to disagree is human. Fair enough?
I wrote that you screamed you would kill Prez. Barry. You write
that "Denis swears" that you so threatened but that you have "no
recollection of that" -- perhaps because, as you noted elsewhere, you had
not yet "realized what had happened." Strange this business about not
realizing what had happened even though you claim to have been in
control! (I would add that Veep Gruenberg also testified hearing your
death threat.) I wrote that the S.S. Hanken took a step toward Prez
Barry. You write that you were veering doorwards under the guidance of
that human tugboat, Veep G. (Prez Barry will, perhaps, back up my
reporting that he assumed a defensive crouch within a foot or two of the
monumentally inattentive Frank Camaratta to meet what he obviously
believed to be an imminent rush or senescent amble in his direction.)
Others wrote that a meeting was in session when you threatened to murder
Prez Barry. You write by way of what you believe to be extenuation
that no meeting was in session. (Sorry, the meeting was still in
session though PB members had left the room. This issue was later
discussed in open session when you finally reappeared following the
brouhaha. Still, I award you rather than Tom Dorsch this particular
point. He was right but on a technicality, and we do not wish to permit
such technicalities to obstruct our search for what really happened that
day in New Windsor so many moons ago.)
Fair enough?
IN SEARCH OF HISTORY
I think that as we try to determine whether your death-threat episode
was a freak occurrence like a hailstorm in the tropics, we ought to
examine whether other similar events occurred in your USCF biography.
Fair enough?
We might mention the famous tape-recorded threat to attack GM Larry
Evans physically during an interview that he was conducting with you.
You wanted to take him out in the "parking lot" by way of answering one
of his queries.
Care to deny the threat?
Or there was the chair-throwing episode that others have described
better than I. Or there was the Tears Down, Chin Down embarrassment
when you left the Policy Board table to blubber near where the trophies
used to be kept in New Windsor. If memory serves, that was back in
1985. I was brand new to the Federation, and at first I thought you had
something in your eye. Really, I did! Then, when two of your fellow
Board members left the table to console you out by the trophies, I
understood what was happening. The employees were giggling.
Salzburg had its "Sound of Music." New Windsor has its "Sound of
Giggling."
Or there was the memorable PB meeting in Seattle, when I became the
object of your ire for reading to the Board a message from GM Evans.
You began to pound the table with your fist and to chant that I, as the
messenger, was a piece of sh-t. You stood up, advanced in my direction
and threw the torn pieces of GM Evans' message at me. The chair then
offered an apology for your behavior and language. The meeting was
adjourned. Poor Bill Goichberg literally ran to the bathroom and
upchucked. You went with John Donaldson, who calmed you down.
More or less fair enough?
To tell the whole story, your friend Gary Sperling was present,
and he neither saw nor heard anything that he could remember. And true
enough: The angle of this cagey attorney's head never moved from the
table top just as Mr. Camaratta noticed nothing even as Prez Barry,
within a foot or so of Mr. Camaratta squared away to meet you charge.
Further, your friend Mr. Goichberg later contended that his upchucking
was merely a coincidence unrelated to events.
So many coincidences, so much forgetfulness, don't you think?
YOUR CAREER AS A PB MEMBER
Jerry: I do not toe a party line. Tom Dorsch is wrong to say that
you were the worst Policy Board member in USCF history. The most
obstreperous, yes. The loudest, yes. The crudest, absolutely. The
least productive, arguably. But the worst, no.
Let's discuss criteria.
My criteria or, more accurately, criterion for sheer awfulness is
to have formulated damaging policies. By this standard, Harold Winston
makes you look like Lev Alburt fruitlessly proposing for years an 800
sales number. Jerry: you are not the worst PB member in USCF history
because to win that coveted Old Guard honor, you had to develop, formulate
and initiate major policy initiatives which proved to be disastrous.
You did virtually nothing for 10 years. In 1992 you spearheaded a
drive to allocate up to $1,000 for the Pinkertons to investigate GM
Evans for an anti-Semitic campaign letter that was probably mailed along a
route from Los Angeles to San Francisco by your fellow PB member
Randall Hough on the very day it was postmarked along that route.
After GM Evans was cleared by the Pinkertons, you were suspected of
penning that anonymous letter but the investigation ceased even though
people heard you utter phrases used in that letter.
You once told me that your ambition was to be seen to be at the
center of events. You achieved this ambition. For over 10 years, you
were on and off the Board. You came to peronsify a certain kind of
governance. You came to symbolize the Old Guard for many. But you were
never what Newt Gingrich has called a "policy wonk." You were a policy
follower rather than a policy initiator.
For all of your virile posturing and chair-throwing, you were a
policy neuter. Fair enough?
THE QUESTION OF FRIENDSHIP
Someone should write a book about shifting friendships and hatreds
within the USCF. They shift in the political wind like the desert sand
in a storm.
You, Jerry, now refer to the recent past USCF president as "my
friend Don Schultz." But I recollect in the days before the 1992
Eddis-Schultz race that your opinion of Mr. Schultz was far different.
Too, Bill Goichberg once came in to my office during office hours at
Chess Life offering to show me documents proving that Gary Sperling was
a liar and crook. Later, both you and Mr. Goichberg worked on behalf of
Mr. Schultz and Mr. Sperling. Mr. Goichberg told me that Gary Sperling
had "changed," and I responded that adults in their 40s do not suddenly
become new people.
Readers may judge for themselves.
Certain hatreds however, stand the test of political time. Jerry,
you are now calling Mr. Dorsch "The Evil One Dorsch," which you rather
sloppily rendered as an acronym, "TEO" rather than "TEOD." Frankly, I
have never known you to be a religious man, and if your reference to
"The Evil One Dorsch" is a harbinger of your conversion to my religion
of Catholicism, then I rejoice for the salvation of your soul.
Welcome, Jerry, to the communion of the Holy Roman Catholic Church
and its unbroken apostolic succession.
Welcome, Jerry, to the communion of the r.g.c.p. You may rest
assured that your threat to murder Denis Barry will continue to be
discussed as we go together on this forum, intellectual hand in hand, in
search of history.
Welcome, Jerry.
--
Larry Parr
Peter Coleman
Actually, when you look at the accounts, there's a bit in your's that doesn't
ring true, Larry.
The crack in the curtain. Unless the crack was a chasm, or you were sitting with
your eye pressed right up against it, it would be quite impossible for you to
see the detail you claim. I see neither of these in your account.
No, the "crack in the curtain" is there to give spurious authenticity to your
account. Clearly, either you had inside information or you have put two and two
together and made five.
Which is it, Larry?
Larry Parr
Evans as the author of an anonymous hit letter postmarked from San
Luis Obispo during the 1992 election campaign between Don Schultz and
Nigel Eddis.)
From: Pinkerton Investigation Services
To: Frank Camaratta, USCF vice president
February 15, 1993
Dear Mr. Camaratta:
Reference is made to your letters dated January 25, 1993, and February 2,
1993, wherein you requested sets of envelopes, mailing labels, and postmarks
be examined to determine the following:
1. Determine whether one mailing label in the set is a copy of the other.
2. Determine whether the label on the envelope has been tampered with. For
example, has there been a label removed and another inserted in its place.
3. Has the postmark been tampered with, is it the original postmark that was
imprinted on the envelope, or has it been copied on, etc.
Pursuant to your request, a microscopic examination of the labels and
postmarks was made of the envelopes you provided. The first set of envelopes,
hereafter referred to as the "Evans" envelopes, are three letters, postmarked
on February 4, 1992, from the Reno, Nevada Post office, and sent to the
following addresses:
Jerome B. Hanken
2012 Yosemite Apt 1
Los Angeles Ca 90041
William Goichberg
c/o Continental Chess
PO Box 249
Salisbury Mills NY 12577
Ralph E Whitford
11835 Pegasus Drive
Jax Fl 32223
The envelopes bear the following imprinted return address: Evans on Chess,
Box 1182, Reno, Nevada 89504.
The second set of envelopes, hereafter referred to as the "Prentice"
envelopes were sent to the same addresses as the Evans letters, but show a
postmark of June 27, 1992. Two (2) of the letters were processed by the San
Luis Obispo, California Post Office and the third carries a Santa Barbara,
California postmark. The envelopes do not reflect a return address.
Examination of the Evans envelopes and Prentice envelopes revealed the
following:
1. THE PRENTICE LABELS ARE ORIGINAL LABELS, NOT PHOTOCOPIES OF THE EVANS
LABELS [emphasis added]. All of the labels were produced by the same type of
printer; however, without existing irregularities in the pin pattern in one
of the printers, it is not possible to determine if the same printer produced
labels for both sets of envelopes.
2. The labels on the envelopes were not tampered with.
3. The postmark on each letter is the original postmark and shows no sign of
tampering.
Both sets of envelopes are enclosed. You will note a green "k" at the right
bottom corner of each envelope. This is for evidence marking purposes.
If, after reviewing the enclosed documents, you have any questions, please do
not hesitate to call. Our invoice for services will be forwarded under
separate cover.
Sincerely,
OWEN MADSEN
Senior Managing Director
Pinkerton Investigation Services
900 Circle 75 Parkway
Suite 1360
Atlanta, Ga 30339
(Signed and notarized)
********************
The following mailing was made to all USCF voters by Nigel Eddis,
treasurer of Friends of the USCF, on April 22, 1993:
CAMARATTA REPORT ALTERED
(Key Paragraph is Deleteted After Report was Signed and Released)
What Hanken, Hough and Sperling Did Not Want
You to Read in the Policy Board Newsletter
Attached is a signed, dated and publicly released copy of USCF Vice President
Frank Camaratta's "Executive Summary" of his lengthy report concerning the
letter signed by the mythical 'Fred Prentice' and mailed from San Luis Obispo
during the campaign of 1992 between Donald Schultz and Nigel Eddis.
This "Executive Summary" was to have been included in the Policy Board
Newsletter (PBN). Instead, an altered version has appeared in which virtually
the entire fourth paragraph, which outlines Grandmaster Larry Evans' views
concerning the roles of Jerry Hanken, Randy Hough and William Goichberg, has
been deleted.
What PB members Hanken, Hough and Gary Sperling wanted to suppress from the
already highly politicized minutes is on the enclosed page. VP Camaratta
agreed to delete the paragraph after pressure from these 3 politicians.
In the altered "Executive Summary," Camaratta still clears GM Evans. He
writes that the "hypothesis attempting to link GM Larry Evans with the
fraudulent mailings has been DISPROVED. This "hypothesis" was actually the
invention of Mr. Goichberg. What is wrong with the altered version is not what
it contains, but what has been deleted.
The Policy Board politicians do not want you to know that Secretary Hough was
WHERE the letters were mailed (in terms of postmark area) WHEN they were
mailed. (According to a US Post Office official, letters mailed along the I-5
route in California travelled by Mr. Hough would have had the same postmarks
as the 'Prentice' letter.)
This coincidence does not, of course, prove anything. The circumstantial
evidence against Mr. Hanken and Mr. Hough might not stand up in court. And I
completely oppose wasting our money investigating these two men, just as I
opposed setting Pinkerton detectives on the trail of GM Larry Evans.
Allow me however to point out that the Policy Board voted to hire private
investigators to hound GM Evans, against whom there was no evidence of any
kind -- circumstantial or otherwise. -- Nigel Eddis
*******
THE PRENTICE AFFAIR
Executive Summary
By Frank Camaratta, March 12, 1993
In response to election fraud charges surrounding the 1992 campaign for USCF
Member-at-Large, the USCF Policy Board authorized (PB93-27) the expenditure
of $1000 to have certain physical evidence examined by the Pinkerton
Investigative Services. The request for members to submit related physical
evidence was answered by six parties: GM Larry Evans, Mr. William Goichberg,
Mr. Jerome Hanken, Mr. Ralph Whitford, Mr. Donald Schultz and the USCF
office.
The office provided examples of mailing labels printed on its two printers,
as well as a list of members who had ordered voting member mailing labels and
disks. The period covered was from March to June, 1992.
Messrs. Goichberg, Hanken and Whitford submitted physical evidence in the
form of original mailing envelopes containing campaign literature from GM
Larry Evans and original mailing envelopes containing the apparently
fraudulent Fred Prentice letter. The thrust of the hypothesis was that, if
the mailing labels on the Prentice envelopes were copies of those on the
Evans envelopes, then GM Larry Evans would be implicated.
THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH WAS DELETED
GM Larry Evans submitted circumstantial evidence and conjecture which, he
contended, could implicate Messrs. Hanken, Hough and Goichberg. The essence
of that evidence was: the alleged presence of Mr. Randall Hough in the San
Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara areas on the day the Prentice letters were
postmarked (Hough and a witness state that they were travelling that day on
I-5 between LA and the San Francisco Bay Area -- over 100 miles from San Luis
Obispo and Santa Barbara); striking similarities between specific phrases
found in the Prentice letter and language allegedly used by Mr. Hanken during
certain conversations (which Mr. Hanken denies); and the contention that Mr.
Goichberg had "free reign" in the New Windsor offices of the USCF after hours
and on weekends, during which time, it is alleged, he could have made
unauthorized mailing labels.
CAMARATTA'S OFFICIAL REPORT CONTINUES
No examples of the Mounier envelopes were submitted. The Pinkerton
investigation concluded that the labels from the Evans campaign letters and
the labels from the Prentice mailing were ORIGINALS AND THAT NEITHER THE
LABELS NOR THE POST MARKS SHOWED ANY SIGNS OF TAMPERING. HENCE, THE MAILING
LABELS WERE NOT COPIES AND THIS HYPOTHESIS ATTEMPTING TO LINK GM LARRY EVANS
WITH THE FRAUDULENT MAILINGS HAS BEEN DISPROVED [italics ours]. No attempt
was made to pursue the circumstantial evidence and conjecture submitted by
Mr. Evans because of the difficulty in proving the allegations, the cost
involved and because it was beyond the narrow charge of the subcommittee.
There can be no conclusions drawn from the results of this investigation
other than the fact that the Evans and Prentice mailing labels were
originals. The total cost of the investigation was $670.
Frank A. Camaratta, jr. U.S.C.F. Vice President -- March 12, 1993
****************
--
Larry Parr
Larry Parr
blow his top. Here is the transcript:
LARRY EVANS' INTERVIEW OF JEROME HANKEN ON JULY 22, 1992.
Evans: Ray Orwig [USCF delegate from Northern California] says he has some
letters from you, and you made some crank...
Hanken: He has some letters from me telling him essentially that I think he
did an almost criminal thing.
Evans: Well, he also said you've been pestering him. He had to see a lawyer,
and he also said that in one of the letters you accused President Dlugy of
stealing from the USCF.
Hanken: I certainly do. Dlugy has stolen from the USCF, and I'll go on record
on that.
Evans: But if he's -- if he's reimbursed by the Delegates [at Dearborn] then
your charge that he's stealing remains just another libel.
Hanken: Well, I beg your pardon. It's no more a libel than your accusing me
of having written the letters that you wrote [the two hit letters during the
Eddis-Schultz election].
Evans: What about the Policy Board setting up an independent investigation?
Hanken: Larry, we don't have to share anything with you. You're a suspect.
You're the chief suspect.
Evans: But you're a suspect too.
Hanken: You know, maybe we should just settle this like men -- go out into
the parking lot.
Evans: [laughing]: Jerry, this is not personal. You personalize everything.
Hanken: It's not personal? You sound like the Mafia. Evans, I can tell you
that there's going to be some consequences because your behavior is so
outrageous that your mucky, disgusting yellow journalism is so hideous...I
just want to let you know that you are the worst, lowest kind of person that
I ever, ever heard of.
Evans: Did you tell the board of the Southern California people about Alex
Dunne's analysis [showing that on the basis of a standard adverbial analysis
Hanken could not be ruled out as a suspect in writing the hit letters]?
Hanken: I certainly did. Alex is part of your conspiracy.
Evans: You asked Alex Dunne to investigate.
Hanken: Yes, I did. And I made the mistake of not realizing that Alex Dunne
was one of the conspirators.
Evans: Well, at any rate, I am asking you for comments.
Hanken: My comments are that you are a mucking, yellow journalist. Anything
you write has no merit; anything you say is probably a lie; and if you want
to quote me, you can quote me. But of course you won't quote me on that.
Evans: Well, in other words, Orwig is also lying?
Hanken: Everything that you say is suspect because you are a mucking, yellow
journalist. That's my comment.
Evans: You asked me to call you before I went to press. I am just calling you
as a courtesy, Jerry.
Hanken: You are a lowdown liar.
Evans: Fine, but I'm merely...
Hanken: A lowdown, complete liar and a slanderer and a vicious lowlife
person. And you have no reason to be in the chess world. You should be driven
from the chess world.
Evans: Jerry, listen, this is really pointless. If you have no comments...
Hanken: There is a perfectly good point because I wanted to say these things
to you for some time, Larry, and I'm glad to be able to say 'em on your
fuckin' nickel...By the way, when's the last time you played chess, Larry?
Evans: If I've retired from the game, what does it have to do with this?
Hanken: [screaming]: Well, if you've retired from the game, get the hell out
and stop bothering people who like to play! Get out, Larry!! Get out!!
Evans: I should stop writing about it, too?
Hanken: Stop writing about it, stop harassing people, stop slandering people,
stop with your garbage.
Evans: Jerry, you asked me to call you to get your comments. I have some
statements from Orwig that are very, very damaging...
Hanken: You've got my comments, you've got them all. You're a yellow, mucking
journalist. Anything you print is obviously twisted, distorted and a lie.
Evans: Jerry, you're repeating yourself. I'm asking you: Do you have any
comments on the Orwig story?
Hanken: Yes, my comments are anything that you print is twisted and
distorted. You're a mucking yellow journalist, and I dare you to print what I
really said.
Evans: Okay. Goodbye, Jerry.
Hanken: I dare you to print what I said. Goodbye, Lar-re-eee.
********************
--
Larry Parr
Larry Parr
Peter Coleman
> THE GAP IN THE CURTAIN
>
> Ought I to have written the "gap" in the curtain (after the
The story changes.
>eponymous John Buchan collection of short stories) or the "crack"? That
>seems to be the burden of Peter Coleman's posting of February 18. As
>for Mr. Notmeru, Mr. Coleman's comrade-in-arms in trying to debunk my
He damns me by associating me with the anonymous egoist.
>detailed description of Jerry Hanken's threat to murder then USCF
>President Denis Barry, I shall also deal with his views, if that is
>quite the word.
>
> Mr. Coleman says that unless I had my "eye pressed right up
>against" the posited crack in the curtains across a long rectangular
>window, I could not have seen Mr. Hanken's pants hanging a bit past
>half-mast.
>
> Now, who is right? Mr. Coleman who doubts my capacity as a snoop?
>Or the Old Guardists who posted attacks on me at the time for being a
>snoop who ostentatiously positioned himself to view the proceedings
>even as others shied away in embarrassment? (Mr. Hanken's "intense"
>discussion with Mr. Gruenberg had already warned off quite a few people.)
Please, let's see these "Old Guardist" attacks. Not that I'm saying your memory
sometimes plays you funny tricks, Larry, but this is nothing but hearsay.
> One thing is clear: The Old Guardists on the scene at the time
>who seethed with hatred of me for espying the event or Mr. Coleman
>who does not believe I saw what I saw cannot both be right. Readers
>must judge for themselves.
They must decide exactly what credence they place on the words of a "yellow"
journalist. I merely pointed out that you can't see much through a "crack" in
the curtain. The "crack" became a "gap". Where will it end?
<snip irrelevant verbiage>
> Notmeru, like Mr. Coleman, objects to portions of my "Open
>Letter" to Mr. Hanken. His advocacy, though, seems to contradict Mr.
>Coleman on a key point.
Parr for the course. Mr. Ru wants to take some cheap shots on Parrvert Per. Mr.
Parrvert therfore, once again, tries to associate us. When people stoop to such
tricks I tend to think I've scored a bullseye. Ole, lascivious Lazza.
Larry Parr
Friends of the USCF, Volume 3, Number 1, June 1994. Chairman: GM Larry
Evans. Newsletter Editors: Larry Parr, Nigel Eddis.
Text of USCF Policy Board motion on Jerry Hanken:
"Due to behavior totally unacceptable as a Policy Board
member, Jerry Hanken is hereby reprimanded for such
behavior." Passed 6-0-1.
FISTS UP, PANTS DOWN!
YOUR USCF DUES $$'s AT WORK
New Windsor, NY., May 21 -- "Now I finally know what the Policy Board does
during closed sessions," said one visitor today just as the door to the
meeting room flung open at about 10:20 a.m.
The visitor saw Member at Large Jerry Hanken with his left fist raised and
right hand cocked. "I'm going to kill him! I'm going to kill him!" Mr. Hanken
screamed while appearing to move toward USCF President Denis Barry. Meanwhile
Vice President Fred Gruenberg, like a referee in a boxing match, struggled to
restrain Mr. Hanken -- WHOSE PANTS THEREUPON FELL DOWN!
Executive Director Al Lawrence quickly drew the blinds of the office window
and closed the door. The PB briefly continued its "meeting."
The Delegates Newsletter has learned that Mr. Hanken's outburst came after a
PB decision to deny Randall Hough, ex-USCF secretary and close Hanken ally, a
Distinguished Service Award.
States one PB member, "Jerry and Fred began to argue about Randy, while Jerry
accused Fred of disliking his buddy. Denis decided to call the meeting to
order by first using his gavel and then his voice."
"You think that you can yell louder than I can?" Mr. Hanken roared in
response. "Well, I'll show you who can yell loudest!"
Later, while Mr. Hanken remained in the now-darkened office to regain his
composure, American Chess Foundation President Fanueil Adams told President
Barry, "Congratulations, stand up to that guy!" Mr. Adams told Mr. Gruenberg,
"You should have let him [Hanken] hit him [Barry], and then he'd go to jail."
Responded Mr. Gruenberg, "Yeah, you're right. But I took one look at Jerry's
size and Denis' and had to step in."
Mr. Adams said, "You're right. He's a big one."
An excited Mr. Gruenberg continued, "He was going to hurt him. You know that.
He's big and strong. I had to stop it." And then Mr. Gruenberg said to Mr.
Hanken, who had finally reappeared, "You were going to attack him."
Replied Mr. Hanken, "No, I was going to hit YOU."
Mad Dog Or Old Yeller!
As the PB reassembled for open session, Member at Large Bill Snead spoke
first. "Jerry," he said, "we're not yet in session. As a courtesy to us, I
wish you would resign from this Board. Just as a courtesy, you understand."
Mr. Snead, who along with Mr. Gruenberg had earlier threatened to resign,
said, "The issue is whether we will enforce minimal acceptable standards of
civil conduct. What we saw here today meets no standard, let alone a minimal
one."
USCF Secretary Rachel Lieberman said, "In my opinion, Denis was only trying to
call the meeting to order and was simply doing his job as chairman."
Mr. Gruenberg reiterated his earlier statements. "There is no question in my
mind," he said, "that he would have hit Denis."
Treasurer Frank Camaratta, who in no sense defended Mr. Hanken's conduct,
argued that Mr. Gruenberg overreacted and mistook Old Yeller for a mad dog.
"I've seen him yell like this before," Mr. Camaratta said, "and I'm sure he
never intended to hit Denis."
"I was never out of control," said Mr. Hanken. "I felt physically attacked by
you [Gruenberg]. It changed from a yelling contest that I started to a
physical thing between you and me. I don't know how it happened. I love you,
Fred. You know that."
Mr. Gruenberg stated, "Jerry, I pushed you back because I had to."
In a tear-choked voice, Mr. Hanken replied, "And that's when my pants fell
down."
"At last," said the out of town visitor at the PB meeting, "I got to see our
USCF dues dollars at work. But I'm confused. Did the Board reprimand Mr.
Hanken for threatening to kill President Barry, or for losing his pants?"
*************
EDITORIAL: FUNNY PANTS?
By Larry Parr
"The democrats of IL MONDO want to know our program," said Benito Mussolini.
"It is to break the bones of the democrats of IL MONDO. And the sooner the
better."
There were no bones broken during the Policy Board meeting from May 20 to 22
[1994] though there might easily have been. President Barry, who broke his
back four years ago, could have been crippled for life if he had suffered a
second accident; Fred Gruenberg, who later complained of a bad headache, was
in the pre-stroke stage of a cold sweat; and Jerry Hanken, whose trousers were
at half-mast, could have toppled forward in a fall that might have been fatal
for someone of his age and size.
So while the national chess community is laughing over Mr. Hanken's
embarrassment, and while one prominent East Coast organizer is saying that Mr.
Hanken's next political slogan should be "Fists up, Pants down!" we at the
Friends of the USCF do not regard it all as good dirty fun.
Bill Snead wondered what will now be considered acceptable and unacceptable.
We have a simple answer: What is acceptable is that which is accepted.
The Delegates have accepted two FIDE title matches in which the family of one
of the participants was held hostage in the Soviet Union; the Delegates have
accepted Don Schultz's support for FIDE declaring a journalist persona non
grata; the Delegates have accepted Florencio Campomanes placing his mistress
on FIDE's payroll and publicly humiliating his wife; the Delegates have
accepted President Campomanes' threats to kill several journalists; the
Delegates have accepted President Campomanes placing FIDE funds (including
cash from the USCF) in a private account in his personal name; the Delegates
have accepted the beating of one anti-Campomanes campaigner in Latin America;
the Delegates have accepted the utter corruption of FIDE's rating list and
title award system; the Delegates have accepted the decision of a previous
Policy Board to hire the Pinkerton Detective Agency to investigate GM Larry
Evans; and we are sure that the Delegates will accept Mr. Hanken's behavior in
New Windsor.
Mr. Snead: At every time and every place in the long history of man, what's
acceptable is what's accepted.
--
Larry Parr
Peter Coleman
>From the USCF Delegates Newsletter, an independent publication of the
>Friends of the USCF, Volume 3, Number 1, June 1994. Chairman: GM Larry
>Evans. Newsletter Editors: Larry Parr, Nigel Eddis.
Hope you had that on file!
I asked to see the "Old Guardist" attacks. You post one of your articles. I'm
not sure if you thought that constituted an answer or not.