To: Bill Hall, Executive Director, USCF

From: Brian Lafferty, Esq., USCF Member

Re: Issues Regarding Forum Oversight Committee Actions

As per your request, what follows are concerns that I and others have with the proceedings of the FOC.  Several principles should guide the FOC in the hearing and determination of complaints brought before it regarding violation of posting guidelines known as the AUG.  I will first address problem of procedure and then substantive problem with the AUG.  This is presented to you for the purpose of obtaining advice of USCF counsel so as to avoid possible problems with the Illinois Non-Profit Corporation Law, particularly regarding political use of the forum by the FOC for the advancement of political agendas affecting the outcome of the current election campaign for the USCF Executive Board.

FOC Procedures

There are several problem areas regarding FOC procedure that negatively impact the fairness of the process.

• Pulling of Posted Messages—Many members have seen their messages to the Issue Forum (posts) pulled by Moderators and/or the FOC with no explanation regarding how their post violated the AUG.  Oftentimes, requests for explanation are not responded to by the Moderators or FOC.
• Moderators’ Identities Are Secret—Posts are being pulled by unknown moderators.  This secrecy negatively impacts the fairness and credibility of the moderators.  It is very difficult if not impossible to judge the motives of unknown actors in the process.
• Failure to Give Notice of Complaint and an Opportunity to be Heard—In most cases there is no formal notice of a complaint advising a respondent who has filed the complaint, the allegation therein nor is the respondent afforded the opportunity to be heard by the FOC in defense of the complaint.
• Ex Parte Communication During the FOC Deliberation Process—In at least one instance, involving the undersigned, a defamatory email was received by an FOC member and forwarded to other FOC members for consideration in their deliberative process. The person sending this ex parte communication, Mr. Paul Truong, did not provide a copy of said communication to the respondent, Brian Lafferty. A copy of the defamatory email came into Mr. Lafferty’s possession after the FOC had reached its decision an imposed a sanction. It should be noted that Mr. Lafferty has been a vocal critic of Mr. Truong’s candidacy for the USCF Executive Board.  Mr. Lafferty obtained advice of counsel in New York who communicated with Mr. Truong and the FOC advising them to cease publication of defamatory remarks and the forwarding of same lest an action for defamation be commenced. Copies of attorney’s letters are in Mr. Hall’s possession.

           It is unknown how many other cases of ex parte communication have occurred             in FOC deliberations.  That it happened once in a political context resulting in               a sanction preventing the respondent from posting to the forum is cause for                       concern regarding the legitimacy of the USCF hearing and election process.

At present the FOC operates very much in secret as the Star Chamber of old.  This is not in the best interests of the USCF and its members.  Mr. Hall has asked that the undersigned work with a newly created committee to write fair, open procedures for the FOC to operate by.  In the meantime, the FOC continues to pull posts and issue sanctions in an increasingly political manner.  Finance Committee member and Massachusetts Delegate Donna Alarie posted the following after seeing her post and others pulled by the FOC,

            “While I disagree with Attorney Lafferty's methodology of posting legal issues and forewarning of potential legal avenues, at the same time, I take those posts quite seriously as items of concern. I would much rather have heard about legal issues from a fellow USCF member than to have heard it in the form of a legal notice from an outside law firm.

As far as reading everyone's posts - I don't. While other forums have ignore features, I just use my personal ignore and skim over posts of rants. Those who don't appreciate Mr. Lafferty's posts have the ability to do the same.

I learned a long time ago that flame mail wars are unsuccessful - both sides get burned.

The issue remains the same - there is a series of posts that have been removed from this forum without due process, without proper explanation, and due to the nature of the posts, it appears as though they may have been pulled because of the unfavorable nature of the posts towards a particular candidate. Until someone explains it differently, many are going to take that appearance as a reality.” [Emphasis added]

The undersigned can, on request, provide copies of numerous post that have been inappropriately pulled from the forum by the FOC.

Substantive Problems with the Acceptable Use Guidelines

• Vagueness of the AUG-- In several respects the AUG needs to be tightened up so that members will know fully the meaning of the rules.  Many rules, such as the anti-repetitiveness rule, are unclear. 
• Definition of Making Threats—The making of threat against other members is prohibited as well it should be.  However there has been a major problem in the application of the threat prohibition to instances where a member who, for example, has been defamed in the forum has been sanction for advising that if the behavior did not stop, legal action for defamation might be commenced.  In such circumstances the FOC has been reticent to act against the defamer but quick to act against the defamed party asserting their legal rights.  The assertion of a legal right in the forum should not be viewed as a threat of the type that should be sanctioned such as a threat of violence against another member.

Thank you for the opportunity to be heard.  Hopefully we will be able to move forward in a constructive manner.

Brian Lafferty