|
|
|
Today, Susan Polgar posted the following on her chessdiscussion.com
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1031
The Jerry Hanken issue
Post by Susan Polgar on Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:03 pm
In spite of my good will toward the regrettable recent conduct by Mr.
Hanken, here is what he publicly stated this morning about my husband
and me:
"I believe that If they (Susan and Paul) ever got control of USCF
with a board majority by getting a couple of bootlickers elected while
both held onto their seats, it would be all over for the Federation!
They would suck the USCF dry and leave its hulk in a dumpster while
founding the "Polger Chess Federation". This is NOT a joke and I am
not an alarmist."
It is even more unfortunate that some board members are continuing to
look the other way to protect an individual like this while continuing
to offer him paid USCF projects. This is one of the things I brought
up before and spoke out against. One of the reasons why the USCF is
often in financial difficulties is because we continue to award paid
projects to friends and insiders instead of getting the best people
for the job.
I hope that Mr. Goichberg and his board majority will speak out
against such regrettable statement and conduct by Mr. Hanken and
revoke all paid assignments from individuals like this. What does it
say when board members and the USCF see nothing wrong with this and
continue to support such individuals?
Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
http://www.SusanPolgar.com
|
| |
| |
samsloan wrote:
Today, Susan Polgar posted the following on her chessdiscussion.com
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1031
The Jerry Hanken issue
Post by Susan Polgar on Wed Apr 09, 2008 3:03 pm
In spite of my good will toward the regrettable recent conduct by Mr.
Hanken, here is what he publicly stated this morning about my husband
and me:
"I believe that If they (Susan and Paul) ever got control of USCF
with a board majority by getting a couple of bootlickers elected while
both held onto their seats, it would be all over for the Federation!
They would suck the USCF dry and leave its hulk in a dumpster while
founding the "Polger Chess Federation". This is NOT a joke and I am
not an alarmist."
It is even more unfortunate that some board members are continuing to
look the other way to protect an individual like this while continuing
to offer him paid USCF projects. This is one of the things I brought
up before and spoke out against. One of the reasons why the USCF is
often in financial difficulties is because we continue to award paid
projects to friends and insiders instead of getting the best people
for the job.
I hope that Mr. Goichberg and his board majority will speak out
against such regrettable statement and conduct by Mr. Hanken and
revoke all paid assignments from individuals like this. What does it
say when board members and the USCF see nothing wrong with this and
continue to support such individuals?
Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
http://www.SusanPolgar.com
What is becoming increasingly clear over time is that Ms. Polgar
apparently has no idea of how the democratic political process works and
the fact that we have freedom of speech in the United States. The right
to speak truth to power is what men and women have given their lives for
in founding and defending this country.
To be charitable to Susie Chesspiece, her up bringing in a totalitarian
society with an authoritarian father is probably what has led to he
stunted political outlook. I'm surprised she didn't suggest dousing
Hanken's mouth with hot sauce.
|
| |
| |
To be charitable to Susie Chesspiece, her up bringing in a totalitarian
society with an authoritarian father is probably what has led to he
stunted political outlook. =A0I'm surprised she didn't suggest dousing
Hanken's mouth with hot sauce.
Whatever your opinion of Susan Polgar, that last remark was unworthy
of a gentleman. You should be ashamed for making it, sir.
zdrakec
|
| |
| |
zdrakec wrote:
To be charitable to Susie Chesspiece, her up bringing in a totalitarian
society with an authoritarian father is probably what has led to he
stunted political outlook. I'm surprised she didn't suggest dousing
Hanken's mouth with hot sauce.
Whatever your opinion of Susan Polgar, that last remark was unworthy
of a gentleman. You should be ashamed for making it, sir.
zdrakec
There's precedent for it in their household according to what her kids
told a guardian ad litem. They're quite the enlightened couple. Hot
sauce, blond jokes, slanderous attacks on people like Hanken and Lux,
not to mention being Fake Sam Sloanish, etc. Truth bites.
|
| |
| |
To be charitable to Susie Chesspiece, her up bringing in a totalitarian
society with an authoritarian father is probably what has led to he
stunted political outlook. I'm surprised she didn't suggest dousing
Hanken's mouth with hot sauce.
Whatever your opinion of Susan Polgar,
that last remark was unworthy
of a gentleman. You should be ashamed
for making it, sir.
Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE offended by "hot
saucing" children?
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE
offended by "hot saucing" children?
Hey ace, got a record of a conviction in a court of law or of
child protective services taking action, or just an assertion?
|
| |
| |
invalid@example.com wrote:
Ray Gordon, creator of the "pivot" wrote:
Hey ace, got a record of a conviction in a court of law or of
child protective services taking action, or just an assertion?
I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing. And I've
heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court when the
guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts. Not
assertions.
|
| |
| |
On Apr 10, 11:54=A0am, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
inva...@example.com wrote:
Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE
offended by "hot saucing" children?
I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing. =A0And I've
heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court when the
guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. =A0Facts. Not
assertions.
thank god mr hanken didnt hotsace anyone
|
| |
| |
directing no hot saucing. And I've
heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court when the
guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts. Not
assertions.
thank god mr hanken didnt hotsace anyone
Given Bill's responses in the past, shouldn't he be OUTRAGED by these FACTS?
Why the kid-gloves treatment and deflection by humor?
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
| |
I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them, and
felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
still practiced in this country.
Jerry Spinrad
On Apr 10, 11:54=A0am, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
inva...@example.com wrote:
Wouldn't someone so offended by speech like that be MORE
offended by "hot saucing" children?
I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing. =A0And I've
heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court when the
guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. =A0Facts. Not
assertions.
|
| |
| |
jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu wrote:
I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them, and
felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
still practiced in this country.
Jerry Spinrad
On Apr 10, 11:54 am, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
There is a great deal of debate as to culture and hot saucing. The
trend seems to be for the courts and legislatures to increasingly view
it as child abuse. What research is showing is that the kids with
significant behavior problems were invariably subject to some form of
corporeal punishment as a disciplinary measure. How far can a parent go
before it's abuse? Consult your attorney or local department of child
protective services.
I will say this, I'd never let a child under my care go anywhere with
Mr. Truong unless I or a parent I trusted implicitly were there at all
times. Just my opinion. Opinions will vary.
|
| |
| |
On Apr 10, 9:21=A0am, Brian Lafferty <blaffe...@nowhere.com> wrote:
zdrakec wrote:
To be charitable to Susie Chesspiece, her up bringing in a totalitarian=
society with an authoritarian father is probably what has led to he
stunted political outlook. =A0I'm surprised she didn't suggest dousing
Hanken's mouth with hot sauce.
There's precedent for it in their household according to what her kids
told a guardian ad litem. =A0They're quite the enlightened couple. =A0Hot
sauce, blond jokes, slanderous attacks on people like Hanken and Lux,
not to mention being Fake Sam Sloanish, etc. Truth bites.
That does not give justification to make insulting innuendoes. I'm
sure that you yourself have never done anything that could be
considered wrong, but just in case you have, remember to keep that
first stone firmly in your fist.
Mind you, I also fail to restrain my pen and tongue from time to time,
but that remark was really uncalled-for - IMHO.
zdrakec
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
"jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu" <jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu>
wrote:
I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them, and
felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
still practiced in this country.
Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.
|
| |
| |
On Apr 10, 1:48=A0pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
"jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu" <jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu>
wrote:
Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate. =A0
I think it is still too much of a stretch. If there are accusations as
to what they did to other people's children, that is a different
matter.
Jerry Spinrad
|
| |
| |
invalid@example.com wrote:
I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.
Hey Deuce!
Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
more than that? Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?
Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?
:)))
Phil Innes
And I've heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court
when the guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts.
Not assertions.
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:25:25 -0400, "Chess One" <OneChess@comcast.net>
wrote:
I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.
Hey Deuce!
Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
more than that? Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?
Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?
:)))
So, Phil, you're suggesting the guardian ad litem made it up? Do you
know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
Phil Innes
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:25:25 -0400, "Chess One" <OneChess@comcast.net>
wrote:
I've got a copy of the court order directing no hot saucing.
So, Phil, you're suggesting the guardian ad litem made it up? Do you
Murray, you have declared you have no interest in other than Paul Truong
being the perp, by virtue of the fact that you will not look candidly at
existing evidence, and here intercede because the Line Judge is directly
challenged to his legal representation - and has put his foot in his mouth.
know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?
PI
Phil Innes
And I've heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court
when the guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts.
Not assertions.
|
| |
| |
Mike Murray wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
"jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu" <jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu>
wrote:
Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.
I agree. For parents to make that decision intelligently, they need to
know all the facts.
|
| |
| |
Chess One wrote:
Hey Deuce!
Is that a pro-forma injunction requiring the court to record it, and any
more than that?
Your ignorance is showing Bowel Boy. The children's father tells me
that his kids told the guardian ad litem, in private, what was being
done to them. The guardian, quite properly, told the court. The court
issued its order.
Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?
You decide. What motive would the kids have to lie to the guardian ad
litem when they have such an idyllic life with Chesspiece and the
Pufferfish. Next interview you do, ask the Pufferfish. Ask him to sign
a sworn statement if he denies it. Do you have the balls to ask the
question BB? :-)
Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?
:)))
Phil Innes
|
| |
| |
Chess One wrote:
Murray, you have declared you have no interest in other than Paul Truong
being the perp, by virtue of the fact that you will not look candidly at
existing evidence, and here intercede because the Line Judge is directly
challenged to his legal representation - and has put his foot in his mouth.
Ah Bowel Boy, you are releasing intellectual diarrhea. Immodium for your
brain is needed.
You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?
See my comment on another post that answers your stupid questions.
PI
Phil Innes
And I've heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court
when the guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts.
Not assertions.
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:49:59 -0400, "Chess One" <OneChess@comcast.net>
wrote:
know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
You mean the Line Judge should not be required to answer his public
proposition - which would render it merely a supposition, and this
would/would not, make it a kangaroo court a-la-McCarthy?
Well, this answers my question. You have no idea what a guardian ad
litem does. Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
about it, does it?
|
| |
| |
On Apr 10, 4:51 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:49:59 -0400, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net>
wrote:
know what a guardian ad litem does ? Or this he/she just one more
stooge of the kangaroo court you keep fretting about?
Well, this answers my question. You have no idea what a guardian ad
litem does. Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
about it, does it?
Must be more of the "erudition" you claimed for this 'man', Mike.
|
| |
| |
On Apr 10, 4:51 pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
Well, this answers my question. You have no idea what a guardian ad
litem does. Yet, that doesn't stop you from ignorantly prattling
about it, does it?
Well, he's consistent.
|
| |
| |
I think it is still too much of a stretch. If
there are accusations as
to what they did to other people's
children, that is a different
matter.
Susan's ex-husband is the "other person" in this case.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
Finding Your A-Game:
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy (FREE!)
The book Neil Strauss and VH-1 STOLE The Pivot From
Click HERE: for the ORIGINAL pivot chapter:
http://www.cybersheet.com/pivot.pdf
Here's my Myspace Page: And Pickup Blog (FREE advice)
http://www.myspace.com/snodgrasspublishing
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-marketed commercial seduction methods which
no longer work. Learn the methods the gurus USE with the money they make
from what they teach.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
Jerry Spinrad
|
| |
| |
In a message dated 4/9/2008 9:52:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
JerryHanken writes:
Dear Susan, I note that you have written a "confidential" email
repeating the same old mistatements about me to 29 people but, of
course, not to me. Golly, someone (or more) of those must have
"leaked" it to me. It's a new scandal!!
I don't want to waste my time refuting your nonsense in detail,
but Jim Berry remembers our Oak Brook encounter quite differently than
you describe, your description of our conversation in Las Vegas is
pure fiction, and I never asked you or Paul for a job.
You demand that I be fired as a writer for Chess Life. If your tales
about me are correct, even though I have written for 16 Chess Life
editors, perhaps I should not get future assignments. Of course, what
you say about me is not true at all, so shouldn't you resign from the
EB, along with Paul who should have quit long ago for refusing to
cooperate with the fake Sloan investigation?
I am copying the same 29 people you wrote to, and DARE you to put this
on your website which is filled with phony "anonymous posts" blasting
your critics and where those who disagree that you are the greatest
thing ever to happen to American chess are quickly silenced.
Of course, I am NOT marking this reply as confidential so it may
appear in lots of places. "Murder, though it hath no tongue, will
speak with most miraculous organ." You are a wonderful player, but
many people are becoming aware that you and Paul have little interest
in the USCF, except for what you can get from it. The truth will
prevail. Regards, Jerry Hanken
|
| |
| |
samsloan wrote:
In a message dated 4/9/2008 9:52:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
JerryHanken writes:
Dear Susan, I note that you have written a "confidential" email
repeating the same old mistatements about me to 29 people but, of
course, not to me. Golly, someone (or more) of those must have
"leaked" it to me. It's a new scandal!!
I don't want to waste my time refuting your nonsense in detail,
but Jim Berry remembers our Oak Brook encounter quite differently than
you describe, your description of our conversation in Las Vegas is
pure fiction, and I never asked you or Paul for a job.
You demand that I be fired as a writer for Chess Life. If your tales
about me are correct, even though I have written for 16 Chess Life
editors, perhaps I should not get future assignments. Of course, what
you say about me is not true at all, so shouldn't you resign from the
EB, along with Paul who should have quit long ago for refusing to
cooperate with the fake Sloan investigation?
I am copying the same 29 people you wrote to, and DARE you to put this
on your website which is filled with phony "anonymous posts" blasting
your critics and where those who disagree that you are the greatest
thing ever to happen to American chess are quickly silenced.
Of course, I am NOT marking this reply as confidential so it may
appear in lots of places. "Murder, though it hath no tongue, will
speak with most miraculous organ." You are a wonderful player, but
many people are becoming aware that you and Paul have little interest
in the USCF, except for what you can get from it. The truth will
prevail. Regards, Jerry Hanken
Jerry makes good points about the Trolgar state media led by its chief
censor, Commissar Gregory le Petit.
|
| |
| |
Chess One wrote:
Your ignorance is showing Bowel Boy. The children's father tells me that
his kids told the guardian ad litem, in private, what was being done to
them. The guardian, quite properly, told the court. The court issued its
order.
That is not an answer to my question. I asked if the condition was
necessarily any more than pro-forma. Brian lafferty skips answering that,
which is as indecent a response as the language he uses to make his reply.
Does it indicate any necessary truth in the accusation?
You decide.
I see. You decline to respond with knowlegde of any legalities. But... [see
below]
What motive would the kids have to lie to the guardian ad litem when they
have such an idyllic life with Chesspiece and the Pufferfish. Next
interview you do, ask the Pufferfish. Ask him to sign a sworn statement if
he denies it. Do you have the balls to ask the question BB? :-)
I don't exist to fly accusations at people when there is plain fact at
hand - I am a journalist, not the Prosecutor General.
WHAT'S TRUE
Isn't the truth that the family court judge investigated this incident on 5
occassions, including teacher, doctor, school nurse, neighbours, and found
nothing whaever to justify it to the extent that the charge was dropped?
If Brian Lafferty already knew this, I think he just portrayed a certain
orientation of his views in public, of which I need make no necessary
comment about his behavior, trusting any reader to determine for themselves
what is what.
The same stance, in fact, as I would wish any reader to adopt on the FSS
afair, to open it up and let people assess the truth for themselves.
If Brian Lafferty did not know this, then it will or will not occur to him
to offer the insulted parties an apology.
Phil Innes
Come on line-Judge, honesty time, or is the truth above you?
:)))
Phil Innes
And I've heard about it directly from the kid's father who was in court
when the guardian ad litem brought it to the court's attention. Facts.
Not assertions.
|
| |
| |
On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 10:18:33 -0700 (PDT),
"jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu" <jeremy.p.spinrad@vanderbilt.edu>
wrote:
Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.
I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to Brian
Lafferty.
If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
candid representations of any truth.
If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
gentlemen.
Phil Innes
|
| |
| |
On Apr 11, 9:28=A0am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
I'll weigh in on the side of not bringing this up. Many parent's
decisions seem weird and creepy to other parents. I knew of parents
who washed their children's mouths out with soap, which seems creepy
to me, but it does no lasting harm and I am sure they were doing what
they thought was best; they also had probably had it done to them, and
felt it was normal. Hot saucing seems about the same. I wouldn't do
it, but it does not seem so out of the range of normal behavior as to
make an issue of it. The father has the right to bring it up, but I
don't think we do. In particular, it is the sort of thing parents do
which they think is best for their children. It is less likely to
cause serious damage than various other forms of discipline which are
still practiced in this country.
I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not kno=
w
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to Bri=
an
Lafferty.
If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
candid representations of any truth.
If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
gentlemen.
Phil Innes- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
If Mr. Lafferty had conversations about and to a judge,court reporter
or anyone having to do with a confidential case involving minors; I
believe he may have committed an actionable event. Does anyone know?
Rob
|
| |
| |
Chess One wrote:
I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to Brian
Lafferty.
If you did know the truth, that after substantial investigation the
investigating judge threw out the charge, then these comments are hardly
candid representations of any truth.
You really are clueless as to how the courts work.
As I stated before;
1. The children's father revealed to me and others that the guardian ad
litem assigned in his custody case to look after his children's
interests in the proceeding, was told in private by the children that
they had been hot sauced and corporally punished by Mr. Truong.
2. The court was advised of this and entered an order barring hot
saucing and corporeal punishment on the children.
3. The father of the children produced a copy of that order and gave it
to a number of people.
4. A judge throwing out the charge is really not applicable to this type
of proceeding which is civil, BB, not criminal. Courts will often deal
with such situations by issuing what amounts to a protective order if
the judge feels there is a reasonable basis for doing so.
If you did not know, then apology to injured parties is indicated to
gentlemen..
The above are facts that I have been given, including a copy of the
court order. As I suggested, the next time you do an "interview" with
Mr. Truong, I hope you will ask him if the facts are correct and true.
If he denies hot saucing and corporeal punishment, please ask him to
sign a sworn affidavit to that effect.
Phil Innes
|
| |
| |
Rob wrote:
On Apr 11, 9:28 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
If Mr. Lafferty had conversations about and to a judge,court reporter
or anyone having to do with a confidential case involving minors; I
believe he may have committed an actionable event. Does anyone know?
Rob
Rob darling, see my response to Bowel Boy. FWI, I haven't spoken with
any Queens County judges, reporters or other court personnel for many
years. Even when I practiced law in Manhattan, I rarely crossed the
border into Queensland.
|
| |
| |
Chess One wrote:
You really are clueless as to how the courts work.
The question is how you work, Mr. Lafferty.
As I stated before;
Those are not answers to my questions [which are not even repeated here -
they have become snippage] of what you understood when /you/ wrote /your/
statements. They are accusations, investigated and not unproven, but
dismissed! If you will not answer the questions I put to you, that itself is
an answer ;)
As it stands you dare not even repeat the questions.
Heuch!
Phil Innes
1. The children's father revealed to me and others that the guardian ad
litem assigned in his custody case to look after his children's interests
in the proceeding, was told in private by the children that they had been
hot sauced and corporally punished by Mr. Truong.
2. The court was advised of this and entered an order barring hot saucing
and corporeal punishment on the children.
3. The father of the children produced a copy of that order and gave it
to a number of people.
4. A judge throwing out the charge is really not applicable to this type
of proceeding which is civil, BB, not criminal. Courts will often deal
with such situations by issuing what amounts to a protective order if the
judge feels there is a reasonable basis for doing so.
The above are facts that I have been given, including a copy of the court
order. As I suggested, the next time you do an "interview" with Mr.
Truong, I hope you will ask him if the facts are correct and true. If he
denies hot saucing and corporeal punishment, please ask him to sign a
sworn affidavit to that effect.
|
| |
| |
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:28:34 -0400, "Chess One" <OneChess@comcast.net>
wrote:
Normally, I'd agree with you, but given Truong and Polgar's
involvement with scholastic chess, it's probably something that
parents of prospective clients should evaluate.
I would say that comment is actionable. Of course, Mike Murray may not know
the truth, and I say the same to him as some moments before, I said to Brian
Lafferty.
"Actionable"? You would say? The comment that a parent should
*evaluate* the published discussion concerning a guardian ad litem
report before entrusting their child to one of the subjects of the
report -- this is "actionable" ?
Phil, you are truly an ignorant blowhard.
You and Rob toss around legal terminology with all the authority of | | |
