Candidate Filing Fees by Polgar and Truong

[samsloan]

[quote="DENTONCHESS"][quote="kbachler"][quote="samsloan"]
It is ridiculous to try to run for election when the ED rigs the
process. Last time the ED ruled I did not have enough signatures even
though did. This time he will no doubt say that Bauer had enough
signatures, even though he doesn't.

Why don't you ask the ED to waive the $250 filing fee requirement? He
has done it in the past for candidates he has favored such as Polgar
and Truong. Perhaps he will do it for you too?[/quote]

In fact, Sam, on my flight back from NY today, I got thinking about
the statement above. I formally challenge you to offer proof of:

1. Last time the ED ruled I did not have enough signatures even though
did.
2. This time he will no doubt say that Bauer had enough signatures,
even though he doesn't.
3. That the ED has waived the $250 fee requirement in the past for
candidates he has favored such as Polgar and Truong.[/quote]

Not a defense of the statements made, but, item 1 is highly subjective
on a
number of points (not that Mr. Sloan would probably have won anyhow),
item 2--is speculation, about the future, which naturally cannot be
"proved",
although, generally when one makes such speculations, one should have
evidence of past behaviors, and item 3-as Sam Sloan was on the board
at
this time, it seems he should have inside knowledge of this,
although,
perhaps there is some breach of confidentiality here.

Rob Jones[/quote]

Correct. When I was on the board I had access to the bank statements
of the USCF. The back statements included the $250 filing fees paid by
the candidates to run for election.

Nothing was paid by either Susan Polgar or Paul Truong to run for the
board or for anything else for that matter during the entire 2006-2007
fiscal year.

Every time I raised this issue the ED would respond that he does not
have time to address this issue because he has important work to do.

As you see, this "unimportant issue" led to a lawsuit that cost the
USCF $600,000 that would have been avoided had they been required to
pay their filing fees or not run.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="kbachler"]There is data. Who has it doesn't matter. What
matters are Sam's actions with respect to this forum. If Sam doesn't
have evidence, he is not to make the accusations in this forum. He
should withdraw the accusation, or suffer the consequences.

The issue here, Rob, is not whether or not someone wants to believe
Sam. The issue is whether Sam is making accusations about illegal
activity in these forums (an AUG violation) without proof (the only
means by which such violation would not occur.) Sam has offered NO
PROOF. Either he needs to provide proof, or he needs to withdraw the
allegations. The time has come to put up, or in these forums, shut-
up. Sam is free to go an publicize such accusations elsewhere, with
whatever legal risks that may entail. He is not free to do so here.[/
quote]

You are mistaken I do have evidence and the evidence is right here in
my computer.

When I was on the board I received statements of all receipts and
disbursements as well as bank statements by the USCF under George
DeFeis in 2001 until the end of my term in 2007.

I still have all those statements. I have not discarded anything. They
are all in my computer hard drive.

I can tell you that in that entire period neither Polgar nor Truong
ever paid the USCF anything. No money, none at all, was ever received
from either of them.

All the ads they ran in Chess Life, all the statements they made, etc.
were all free of charge.

More than that there were many improper payments by the USCF to Polgar
and Truong especially under Frank Niro. Often the USCF under Frank
Niro would buy cartons of books of the book "Queen of the Kings Game"
at the full retail price of $39.95 for each book and then sell those
books to USCF members at a discount thereby taking an immediate loss
on each book. No wonder the USCF Books and Equipment Business was
losing money.

Again, I have documentary proof of this right here. I cannot give it
to you out there in the peanut gallery but since Bauer and Atkins and
Grayson are on the board I can send it to them if they request it.

Better yet, why don't you ask the ED about this? Surely he cannot
refuse you this information, since you are on the board.

I note that no current board member has disputed the accuracy of my
statements.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="kbachler"][quote="DENTONCHESS"]
Kevin, Sam HAS clearly in previous threads demonstrated some of the
lets say, ambiguity, in the "vetting" rules. His point as to the
correctness, thereof, is open to interpretation, and the ED in this
case, did not interpret the rules for vetting the same as Sam. But,
there certainly was ambiguity, or a lack of clarity in the rules as
stated for vetting in the last election cycle in which Sam ran.
[/quote]
I haven't seen Sam demonstrate anything. CLAIMS are NOT
demonstrations. Evidence is required.

[quote="DENTONCHESS"]
Point 2 is this. The ED serves at the whim of the Executive Board of
which Bauer was then a part of. As such, it would seem that Sam's
shot was more "across the bow" of candidate Bauer than the ED.
[/quote]
Which means that he is accusing the ED of an illegal activity which is
in violation of forum rules. He needs to withdraw the statement or
appropriate punishment should result.

[quote="DENTONCHESS"]
Point 3: Is there data to indicate this on way or the other?? Has
this question been answered, and are their accounting records proving
payments from all of the candidates?? If there are, then yes, Sam's
statements are off base. But, whom is more likely to have access to
those records at this time?? Sam, or the ED??

Rob Jones[/quote]

There is data. Who has it doesn't matter. What matters are Sam's
actions with respect to this forum. If Sam doesn't have evidence, he
is not to make the accusations in this forum. He should withdraw the
accusation, or suffer the consequences.

The issue here, Rob, is not whether or not someone wants to believe
Sam. The issue is whether Sam is making accusations about illegal
activity in these forums (an AUG violation) without proof (the only
means by which such violation would not occur.) Sam has offered NO
PROOF. Either he needs to provide proof, or he needs to withdraw the
allegations. The time has come to put up, or in these forums, shut-
up. Sam is free to go an publicize such accusations elsewhere, with
whatever legal risks that may entail. He is not free to do so here.[/
quote]

The answer to your question is simple.

I very carefully checked ALL the bank statements and ALL cash receipts
and disbursements for every month for a seven year period from 2001
through 2007 while I was on the board.

Neither Polgar nor Truong EVER paid anything. There was NEVER any
money received from Polgar or Truong for any thing or for any reason
whatever.

The USCF Election rules clearly and specifically state that candidate
filing fees must be paid BY CHECK. Thus they cannot claim that it was
paid by Master Card or as an offset for something else.

There is a reason for that rule and it is to avoid situations like
this.

Also, the ED has a history of doing this. When I was running for the
board in 2006, the time I won, Grant Perks, a rival candidate, filed
an ethics complaint against me and the ED waived the $25 filing
requirement. Thus, the ED interfered in an election while the election
was going by allowing my opponent to file a complaint against me
without paying the required fees.

This was unsuccessful as I defeated Perks any way.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="Hal Terrie"][quote="samsloan"]The USCF Election rules clearly
and specifically state that candidate filing fees must be paid BY
CHECK. Thus they cannot claim that it was paid by Master Card or as an
offset for something else.[/quote]

From the USCF Bylaws, Article VI, Section 4:

[b]Section 4. Nomination. Any USCF member not a current employee of
the USCF is nominated for election to the Executive Board upon
submission to the Election Committee of the following by December 31
of the year before an election year:
1. A valid nominating petition containing the signatures of fifty (50)
or more Voting Members, of whom at least fifteen (15) shall be
Delegates. The fifteen (15) Delegates must represent at least five (5)
different states. A nominating petition listing more than one
candidate is not valid.
2. A filing fee of $250 made payable to the USCF
3. A signed statement that they are running for the Executive Board
and that they will serve if elected.[/b]

I don't see any requirement for the filing fee to be paid by check. A
credit card charge can be "made payable" to USCF.

-- Hal Terrie[/quote]

Interesting point. As far as I know everybody has interpreted that
sentence, "A filing fee of $250 made payable to the USCF" as meaning
payment by check.

All of the other candidates in that election year paid by check.

However, if they or the ED or anybody else can show that they paid by
credit card or by any means whatever I will withdraw my statement.

Please recall that this exact issue was debated at that time with
Harry Payne chiming in later on that he would be willing to pay their
fees.

The result was the same. There was no evidence or indication that they
ever paid their filing fees.

[samsloan]

The suit that cost the USCF $600,000 was not my suit.

It was Polgar's suit against the USCF while she was a board member.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="tsawmiller"]It's amazing how long this particular item has
been kicked around.
See
http://uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=35648#p35648[/quote]

The thread linked above pertained to the 2005 election campaign.

That issue became moot when all of the candidates about whom there was
doubt lost the election.

It was in the 2007 election that there was a serious issue because it
was clear that Polgar and Truong had not paid and yet they were
elected.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="Smythe Dakota"][quote="Ron Suarez"] .... the issue of
individuals not paying the fee for their candidacy was resolved quite
awhile back. .... I distinctly recall that it was found where the
monies were collected. ....[/quote]
Certainly, it is reasonable to expect that Sam Sloan provide
documentation. The failure of anything to be on his computer can
hardly be considered adequate documentation.

OTOH, if Ron Suarez (or anybody else) has any kind of documentation in
the opposite direction, it would be a[i][b] tremendous [/b][/i]favor
to all of us (though well above the call of duty, and not legally nor
morally required) if he (or whoever) could post it here.

Bill Smythe[/quote]

It is impossible to prove a negative. Thus, nobody can prove that
something does not exist.

However, in this case it is extremely easy to prove that something
does exist, if indeed it does, by simply producing a copy of a
cancelled check.

[samsloan]

[quote="MichaelAtkins"][quote="hmb"][quote="DENTONCHESS"]
[quote="MichaelAtkins"][quote="samsloan"]The suit that cost the USCF
$600,000 was not my suit.

It was Polgar's suit against the USCF while she was a board member.[/
quote]

Semi-true, but it was YOUR lawsuit that caused everything later on.
USCF asking Truong to join the defense agaist you, his refusal, the
splitting of the board into 2 camps and then the lawsuits. Had you not
sued, or at least not sued THE USCF, high probablility that it would
have played out very differently. Without your lawsuit, the EB
wouldn't have asked Truong to join the defense because there would
have been nothing to join. Can you understand this?[/quote]

Thank you Mike for this perspective. It needs repeating every now and
then.

Rob Jones[/quote]
Rob - I don't believe that Mike's perspective is correct. And Sam
Sloan's statement here is accurate.

The lawsuits that cost so much money stemmed from acts by Susan
Polgar, not by Paul Truong.

Further, the EB was compelled to address the evidence that Paul Truong
had made the multitude of horrific internet postings, regardless of
Sam Sloan providing a side show with his own short lived lawsuit. We
now know that the EB retained counsel who investigated, culminating in
the request made to Mr. Truong to resign. It was Ms. Polgar's attempt
to make the rest of the EB let the matter go that led to the filing of
lawsuits that were not all easily dealt with, and which were not
completely covered by USCF's insurance.

Let's not rewrite history, please.[/quote]

This doesn't rewrite history at all. Had Sloan not sued the USCF, the
course of events as happened simply would have been different. That
was the precipitating event. Had there been no Sloan lawsuit, Truong
wouldn't have been asked to join the defense, his denial being one of
the reasons that the split in the board was magnified and polarized,
hiring counsel and the eventual request for him to resign. I think
very similar things might have happened in the long run and the final
result might have been the same, but that would be re-writing history.
Had there been no Sloan lawsuit, the sequence you describe above would
have played out differently. [b]In no way does that absolve Polgar and
Truong [/b]for what they did and what they cost the USCF. It just
recognizes Sloan for his spot in the chain of dominoes. People's
behavior affects others, something that is forgotten at times.[/quote]

You are forgetting that Polgar and Truong were trying to take over the
USCF and very nearly succeeded. They had three votes on a seven member
board. Their third vote was Channing. All they needed was one more
compliant board member and they would have owned the USCF for
practical purposes.

Were it not for these lawsuits there can be little doubt that they
would have succeeded in gaining complete control over the USCF.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="Grayson"][quote="jwiewel"][quote="MstrHyde"]...
I can't think of a better endorsement for a candidate than an attack
from Sam Sloan![/quote]
I'll disagree a bit. Support from Sam is something that would require
careful investigation to determine why the candidate is somebody Sam
would support, and whether that makes the candidate too suspect.
But an attack from Sam could still target a candidate that is not that
great even though that attack is occurring (such as the start of the
"recent unpleasantness").

I'll wait until I see the full list, but I already know that Randy is
on the short list of those who'd be decent to vote for.[/quote]

Candidates submitting petitions and paying the fee follow. There are
four seats to be filled. I do not believe the Elections Committee has
blessed any of the filings yet, as they must scrub the petitions.

Ruth Haring
Mike Atkins
Randy Bauer
Chuck Unruh
Tim Redman
Beatriz Marinello[/quote]

Are they allowing you to see evidence that these people all paid their
$250 filing fee.

I am sure they all did. I do not doubt that at all. However, it is to
be recalled that in the past two people were allowed to run without
paying their filing fees and they both were elected.

Steps should be taken to make sure that this cannot happen again.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="mfschulte"]Mr. Sloan,

You have been warned once that you are not to continue with your
implication (bolded below) that Polgar and Truong did not pay the fee
unless you can offer clear and specific evidence supporting the
accusation. You have not done so.

If you intended that remark to refer to other individuals, provide the
names and the concrete evidence or stop making the comment.

Consider this a second warning and consider the warning to apply to
all accusations and implications that you may be inclined to make here
in the forums.

Mike

[quote="samsloan"][quote="Grayson"][quote="jwiewel"]
[quote="MstrHyde"]...
I can't think of a better endorsement for a candidate than an attack
from Sam Sloan![/quote]
I'll disagree a bit. Support from Sam is something that would require
careful investigation to determine why the candidate is somebody Sam
would support, and whether that makes the candidate too suspect.
But an attack from Sam could still target a candidate that is not that
great even though that attack is occurring (such as the start of the
"recent unpleasantness").

I'll wait until I see the full list, but I already know that Randy is
on the short list of those who'd be decent to vote for.[/quote]

Candidates submitting petitions and paying the fee follow. There are
four seats to be filled. I do not believe the Elections Committee has
blessed any of the filings yet, as they must scrub the petitions.

Ruth Haring
Mike Atkins
Randy Bauer
Chuck Unruh
Tim Redman
Beatriz Marinello[/quote]

Are they allowing you to see evidence that these people all paid their
$250 filing fee.

I am sure they all did. I do not doubt that at all. [b]However, it is
to be recalled that in the past two people were allowed to run without
paying their filing fees and they both were elected.[/b]

Steps should be taken to make sure that this cannot happen again.[/
quote][/quote]

I was on the board and I have documents showing that they did not pay
the fees.

Neither you nor anybody else has ever produced anything, not even a
statement that they did pay the fees.

Since this issue wound up costing the USCF $600,000 in legal fees the
members have a right to know what happened to their dues money.

Sam Sloan

[samsloan]

[quote="Ron Suarez"][quote="samsloan"]I was on the board and I have
documents showing that they did not pay the fees.

Neither you nor anybody else has ever produced anything, not even a
statement that they did pay the fees.

Since this issue wound up costing the USCF $600,000 in legal fees the
members have a right to know what happened to their dues money.

Sam Sloan[/quote]

Sam,

I just spoke with USCF headquarters and Bill Hall.

They do have documentation that Paul and Susan did pay their fee for
the election that they ran in.

You say you have documentation that they did not pay those fees.
Well, you better produce that documentation to us moderators or quit
making that false claim.

Since Bill Hall and the USCF do have documentation of them paying
those fees, and since they have made a statement to that regard, you
need to simply stop saying they did not make the payment(s).

We will not allow you to make that claim on this forum again.

Ron Suarez
Chief Moderator[/quote]

Where is that documentation and where is that statement? And what form
is that documentation in?

Why was it not given to the election committee? Bill Hall is not
supposed to be handling these matters, since he works for the board.

Sam Sloan