Vice President Newsom: I was hoping to avoid the burden of addressing this issue again, however, to the extent that you have contorted the facts, I feel compelled to reply. First, you have attempted to display this  "harmless teddy bear" impression that disguises your true agenda (which, in order to stifle local competition, is to ruin Leland Fuerstman's reputation and put the Charlotte Chess Club out of business). Since you did NOT deny any of the facts,  evidently all of which I have stated is true. Furthermore, neither you, nor any other officers have ever addressed any of the issues which have been raised. You have a strange way of sidestepping the important questions while fabricating history... an important tool for a creative writer! That's why I suggested that you be President! Regardless of it's spin, it is obvious that, at least, you have the ability to communicate in some manner, which I am now absolutely convinced that President Victor Beaman does not. In your message you stated, "...It seems that [the CCC message] board is in fact not a place to go for the free and open discussion that would be necessary in order to publicly debate issues such as these." Oh, really?! The informative, emotional responses of past President Randy Wheeless twice, Patrick McCartney twice, Tom Hales (who seems to have ended up doing all of the NCCA's  work) three times, Ken Baxter twice and Rob Morse seem to completely prove your argument to be ridiculous! Maybe you didn't take the time to read OUR opinions, but literally hundreds of others did. (The CCC "Go-Stats" are published daily and often display more hits than the QCCA or NCCA websites combined). The newly fabricated excuse that "my questions were not addressed because they were not posted on the NCCA message board" is misleading and negligent. You further state that you, "made the suggestion that 'we' should pleasantly inform 'Leland' that if you are looking for someone to address your issues, you should move the conversation over to this venue..." The fact is that neither you, nor any other officer called me on the phone, nor wrote me a letter, NOR SENT ME AN E-MAIL nor even posted a message to that effect "pleasantly" or otherwise?! Apparently, none of the officers followed through with your "suggestion." In my opinion, you were simply continuing to treat me like a "non-person" while ignoring the responsibility of responding to legitimate complaints and addressing important issues. You further state that the "pleasant" messages that you wrote to your officers contained "no vendetta's... no foaming at the mouth... just, simple common sense." Then, why not provide copies of those E-mails for all to observe so we may form our own opinion? (I really don't believe you guys are quite that transparent). Now, as for the clouded recollection of your, and Beamans behavior at the NC Championship, please allow me to elaborate. It was reported to me, that the tournament director, Victor Beaman, approached you during the course of your final round and advised you that "if you Draw the game, you would qualify for the NCCA Invitational," (which at that time was not exactly true) whereupon you quickly agreed to the Draw!? Aren't the officers of the NCCA required to abide by the same rules as the rest of the players? According to Tom Hales, you said "you didn't consider "that" to be a violation of the rules?!" However, according to the USCF Official Rules of Chess, p.80, Rule 20E. Soliciting or using advice prohibited, "players are forbidden to have recourse to the advice or opinion of a third party, whether solicited or not." 20E2. Unsolicited advice. "Ruling on unsolicited advice can be difficult. The giver deserves a penalty, but what of the recipient? The "directors task " is to prevent a player from benefiting from advice but also not unduly penalize the player for another's offense. There is sometimes no good solution to this problem..." i. "In all such situations, if the unsolicited advice comes from a relative, close friend, teammate or coach, the director may impose a more severe penalty than otherwise and may consider the advice solicited." Since, in this case, the person offering the advice was the Director who was also the "President" of the NCCA and the person receiving it was the "Vice-President," one might sense a possible conflict of interest, to say the least. Regardless, since the Director did not report it, the witnesses should have reported the incident to the USCF so it could be dealt with in the official manner. After your subsequent desperate attempt to obtain a seat into the Invitational, you stated that "there was nothing sinister about it"... and that your miscalculation of the tie-break system "was just a simple mistake." Somehow, that is hard for me to swallow. To echo your own words, both you and your confederate have "egg on your face." Finally, regardless of all of the effort you have put into publicly berating me behind my back and attempting to shut down the Charlotte Chess Club, somehow we have continued to survive. I am happy to report that participation is beginning to pick up and a number of "brand new players" have joined! Each time I inquire as to WHY you refuse to trade links with the CCC, you never respond. Officers of the NCCA should be ambassadors for chess and naturally make an attempt to recognize and encourage all chess activity. Personal differences should not prevent you from properly doing your job without prejudice. Now, I know it might seem somewhat of a paradox for me to suggest that you should be President, but for the good of every NCCA member, please do the right thing and shuffle your positions. Look, the Charlotte Chess Club is here to stay! So, stop trying to shut us down and start supporting our efforts as you should everyone else's. I hope more players will join us on Wednesday evening at the comfortable Seafarer Restaurant (Just look for the 3-D Whale) for great food, interesting conversation and exciting chess! I remain, NM Leland Fuerstman