• Board's Abuse Of Power

    From frank.a.camaratta@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Larry Parr on Sun Sep 11 12:19:17 2016
    On Sunday, April 26, 1998 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Larry Parr wrote:
    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

    Parr is referring to the Executive Summary, which appears at the beginning of the "Prentice Affair" report and, as such, it is only a summary. The paragraph mentioned was never part of my Executive Summary, it can be found in its entirety in the report
    itself. In addition, Parr's version of that paragraph (see above) has been altered from the original report by Parr himself. That paragraph exists in its entirety in the "Prentice Affair" report which represents my findings and mine alone. There was no
    influence exerted by the Board as to the contents of either the Executive Summary of the report or the contents of the report itself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Eugene Delmar's Ghost@21:1/5 to frank.a.camaratta@gmail.com on Tue Sep 27 15:46:27 2016
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA512

    In article <6bb75ec4-e54a-4f37-91f5-df1b64f66b6c@googlegroups.com> frank.a.camaratta@gmail.com wrote:

    On Sunday, April 26, 1998 at 2:00:00 AM UTC-5, Larry Parr wrote:
    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

    Parr is referring to the Executive Summary, which appears at the
    beginning of the "Prentice Affair" report and, as such, it is only a
    summary. The paragraph mentioned was never part of my Executive Summary,
    it can be found in its entirety in the report itself. In addition,
    Parr's version of that paragraph (see above) has been altered from the original report by Parr himself. That paragraph exists in its entirety
    in the "Prentice Affair" report which represents my findings and mine
    alone. There was no influence exerted by the Board as to the contents of either the Executive Summary of the report or the contents of the report itself.

    Thank you for clearing that up in such a timely manner.

    I'm sure we've all been waiting for your clarification for the past
    18+ years.



    Eugene Delmar's Ghost <edg@invalid.invalid>

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: N/A

    iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJX6h3KAAoJENV3hVGSv/15/FwP/jM8/2PTsF7VDu/lbMAj76em t/kuppVWhdJR+dJlxxx3BZ0sZ6j/Yv7vCmoJdjPJXJ3bfHodyX1R6GrmuEYmDR8p nD7iPPWEfCW64b9Yt0z86zUodf4mC0ifm28sIXTHjky4J1iLdgmhAzWCeC7ll6+N p08FYkOoT/LUCAphsETA0XqIgGTt1voCecMC5ixLG/gEhSzMuHQ2bNWGP/yYO5jo BIAdQ928WCl6JElN46H2VSn5hQXK+wHqAJZEV0oy8P5EX4IP1abgb0GYv8BDy2p2 fvgjhtmeWNUs/8JqN60dP4msX7RUstIMri4TGqOjqxecMM1b+e3+ie/ACcdJpK1u B3S/fztsTSmfrna3LYfihFtOHP8q03xIA3mRRXf+it4cSNskO41vOFU3q5CqSkEV v2RhHQUR9yPg6PMe9kuTS/LPlgQjnkd89/qRysjSp1FgkxSkClwy9IzMjW6ksIii 5p25zBzLdNCyKJB899YYHzExyvkoA2lPtjIWqGNO4dpMlkDa6c/j97kAXjGvPs29 taJosmrRTcZDCBz7sJqHFMaXs7QztIGdAETn8kCyxKJkHkcAorPbdT8IUIZm/Y0Z C03kZBVOjjFfCEs0FvJFLh5BpbsWrMiHGlJMWAD7xzqeuJnBZs+M9ualQytakvuG hZoBY16xole7nwLZ7OSj
    =Z+oz
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From samsloan@21:1/5 to Larry Parr on Tue Sep 27 08:53:08 2016
    On Sunday, April 26, 1998 at 3:00:00 AM UTC-4, Larry Parr wrote:
    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

    I am glad to see Larry Parr back in action.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)