More Q&A

dietchess wrote:

Susan and Paul, again I appreciate your responsiveness to my questions. Certainly, you could have chosen not to answer them. I have to admit that the answers don't help me much as for the most part I am evaluating a "They said, we said" scenario. I have no way of verifying either claim so I will have to wait for future developments. What baffles me is that the lawsuit by Sam Sloan against the USCF and various individuals has turned into an internal EB fight. That part I do not understand at all; unless the claim is (somewhat implied in Susan's question #4) that someone on the EB or related to someone on the EB has instructed Mr. Mottershead to launch an investigation and place wrong leads. As a mechanical engineer and as someone involved in a small business I find it impossible to accept such a possibility.

Dietmar


Dietmar,

I forgot to add a few additional items in my previous responses. As both Susan and I stated before, we repeatedly asked to have our experts examine the USCF data for the past 6+ months. Our requests were turned down by Mr. Goichberg and his board majority.

Not only that Mr. Bill Goichberg refused to step down from the subcommittee investigating this matter (a direct conflict of interest) due to the fact that he was the ONLY board member who knew about this investigation, he and his board majority did everything they could to block our own investigation. They refused to provide us answers or information relating to this "investigation". They refused to open up the official records. So far, we know that Mr. Goichberg admitted in writing that he knew about the investigation but chose not stop it. He also chose not to consult his fellow board members.

The problem is not about this investigation. The problem is this investigation should have been turned over immediately to an independent investigator to continue and finalize. To make matters worse, Mr. Goichberg also admitted in writing that he hid this “unauthorized” investigation from his fellow board members for at least a week until Mr. Mottershead bragged out his investigation publicly. Multiple clauses of the NDA were blatantly violated by a number of parties.

We recently requested for the contact information of Mr. Mottershead, Mr. Bogner and Chess Magnet School since they were/are all directly / indirectly involved in this “unauthorized” investigation. The USCF turned down our request. We were told by the ED that he needed the permission from the parties. A week later, we were informed that Mr. Bogner and Mr. Mottershead turned down our request. More road blocks!

Why? If the USCF board majority and these men are so confident about their position, the data, and their conducts, why are they so afraid to allow us to get to the bottom of this? Don't they want to know the truth? Why are they doing everything in their power to block all the facts from coming out? We are the ones who said to release all information and evidence, including ours. I publicly challenged the entire board majority to engage in a LIVE debate session in front of all interested USCF members. Let's show the members all the evidence. They can introduce all the evidence they have and we will introduce all the evidence we have. I do not see any of them eager to release the facts. So the question is what are they hiding?

They can try to block this matter all they want but the facts will come out one way or another. We ran for the board to clean up the vicious and malicious chess politics. We will not back down to their tactics.

Best regards,
PT

More answers to Dietchess

- One side is clearly not telling the truth. That is why we asked for everything to be released for all USCF members to see. Then the members can make up their own minds. But the board majority wants to hide the facts from all the members. They cannot even answer simple questions to us without hiding behind their attorney. If they feel that they are right, I challenge them to engage in a public debate right here in the Chess Discussion (http://www.chessdiscussion.com/) LIVE chat room for all USCF members to see.

- If the board majority refuses to release the pertinent facts to hide their wrong doing, everything will come out in another venue. But one way or another, we will push for everything to come out. When some members of the board majority started to play games with our lives, jobs, children and families as well as personal safety, we have no choice but to do everything possible to protect ourselves. They have gone too far with their vicious and malicious political games and they will have to answer for their actions. Decades of the same old garbage must stop. Enough is enough.

- We have been advised not to discuss the evidence in public but in a proper venue. - How well the board will work together will depend on Mr. Goichberg and his board majority. We have repeatedly offered to minimize the damages for the USCF and get back on track to fix this federation. Our offer was refused. This is the Bill Goichberg show. Mr. Goichberg refused to remove himself from this investigation even though it is a blatant conflict of interest. We are still waiting for his public apology to end this matter and minimize further damages to the USCF.

- One of our platforms during the election is to clean up the destructive politics. The USCF will stand to lose over a hundred thousand dollars in various expenses and fees and potentially much more in damages because four people made horrendous decisions which put the federation in this predicament.

- If Mr. Goichberg and his board majority feel that the 10 points raised by Susan are false, he and his board majority are free to publicly deny or dispute all 10 of them.

Best regards,
Paul Truong

Q & A

Question by dietchess:

"the more important question is why we have two differing accounts from Mr. Bauer and GM Polgar."

Mr. Bauer believes in his lawyer. I believe in the facts. I also believe in a fair process. I stand by my statements and I intend to pursue this matter. As I stated before, this matter will not end once the Sloan lawsuit is dismissed or concluded. The board majority will have a lot of answering to do to the USCF members. I am not going to play their games. Their actions and political games of some members of the board majority caused the federation to be in this horrible position.

Here is the summary of what I stated:

1- We asked the board not to include Bill Goichberg in the sub-committee at the last board meeting in Crossville. Things would have gone a lot smoother and faster if Bill was not in the sub-committee. The reason is clear. Since there are a lot of potential legal issues involved in a number of possible cases, we consider it a direct conflict of interest for Bill to have privileged information. He should not be privy to them. We told this to the entire board. In fact, we feel that a full investigation should have been made about this matter which affected many USCF members. The board ignored our request and went ahead to form a committee of five members (including Bill Goichberg) AFTER we left the last board meeting in Crossville. We still ask Bill Goichberg to step down from the sub-committee.

2- For the best interest of the USCF due to the serious legal situation, we recently asked Randy Bauer to step down from the sub-committee due to his clearly documented mistake with the NY Times which caused severe problems for multiple parties, including the USCF. Randy agreed to step down then changed his mind after the board majority convinced him to stay on.

3- We requested the same access to the USCF database as the contractors so that our own experts can examine the validity of the data as well as matching IPs of suspicious posters. Our repeated request was ignored. What are they hiding?

4- We pointed out a handful of suspicious handles and postings directly related to this case to the attorney and other board members. We asked them to investigate. This request, and others, have also been ignored or denied. Are they afraid that it will point to one of their political buddies?

5- There should also be an investigation regarding how non-board members can obtain confidential board information to spread out false rumors for various purposes. If the board majority gives us consent, we can prove the source of the leaks. Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not leak out confidential info as far as I know.

6- We asked the board to authorize ALL (not some or what they want to pick and choose) correspondence in the confidential BINFO from August 2007 to be released to the public. This should include the correspondence of all seven board members, the ED, the attorneys, and all parties relating to this case. This will clearly show the misconduct of the some members of the board majority as well as pertinent information relating to this investigation. The board majority clearly wants to hide the facts from the USCF members.

7- We asked the board to grant us consent and immunity to release all information and board member correspondence and NDAs related to this case. We recommend that ALL confidentiality clauses be waived in order to make the case clear and in order to expedite its conclusion. We propose to show all USCF members any evidence we have of who leaked what to whom, who made what deals under the table and for what reasons, etc. We give consent to the board and their attorneys to publish all information they have about us relating to this case. Everyone can then decide who is clean and who is not.

8- We asked the board to investigate the leaks of confidential board information to Jerry Hanken who used my confidential evidence and info to negotiate with Sam Sloan while the lawsuits against multiple parties are ongoing. Did the board majority authorize this? Did the board majority authorize this? Did the board majority seek permission from the USCF attorney prior to this negotiation? If so, did he authorize this? Will the board majority publicly admit or deny that this negotiation took place? Obviously someone from the board majority leaked confidential information to Sam Sloan (directly or indirectly) because he is using some of this confidential information (which only board members and the USCF attorney would know) in his response to the motion to dismiss. The board refused to investigate their own wrong doing.

9- Who authorized the board majority and their attorney to investigate completely false charges against my husband and me which relate to my divorce / custody case? It has absolutely nothing to do with this investigation. I find their conducts appalling. How did this even come up for discussion? This is my personal business and it has nothing to do with the USCF. Is this what board members are elected to do? Did the board majority use USCF money for this? Will the board majority publicly admit or deny that they tried to involve my personal situation into their political game?

10- I have reasons to believe that the board majority also tried to interfere with my legal case. We fully cooperated with the attorneys assigned by the insurance company and there was no problem. I strongly believe that board majority authorize a discussion / conversation with the insurance company to purposely try to persuade the insurance company to drop the coverage for Paul and me. Is this legal or ethical? Obviously, it did not work in spit of their wish. If it is not true, will the board majority publicly deny this? So far, they refused to deny it.

As of the evidence, after I faxed it to the USCF attorney, I received an email confirmation immediately that it was received. I was under the impression that it was enough as it is quite conclusive to show serious flaws with the conclusion of the Mottershead report. The board majority said more than a month later that it was not enough. However, they also clearly asked me to ONLY communicate through their attorney but their attorney never once asked for additional proof.

If the board majority strongly believes in their case, let them pursue it. If they have nothing then apologize and move on. But they are doing neither while the federation continues to suffer.

I will not come back to the USCF forum until it can be run properly. Paul and I were two of the most frequent posters there until it became a nasty and vicious political forum. I also cannot approve spending over $50K for various expenses relating to the USCF forum while the USCF finances are in horrendous shape. If Mr. Bauer feels that the 10 points I made are false, I would challenge Mr. Bauer to publicly deny my allegations and state his facts on all 10 issues.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar

Comment from Mig Greengard

This is the latest comment from Mig Greengard on his Chess Ninja site:

"My homeboy and regular ICC Chess.FM pilot Joel Benjamin is guest blogging over at the NY Times Gambit blog. Perhaps a permanent gig? I stopped reading it when it started treating the moronic Sloan lawsuit and similar USCF-related idiocy as regular chess news. Anyone can sue anybody. If someone wins or loses, that might be news. (Might.) Feeding a troll is feeding a troll whether it's in an obscure message board or the New York Times. I'd be happy to see a focus on bringing more chess to the masses instead of waving dirty laundry around every time a USCF politician soils his drawers..."

Some of the key issues

Here are some very serious issues which can potentially lead to many problems for the USCF:

1. Who leaked confidential board information to their circle of friends? Only 5 board members (Goichberg, Berry, Bauer, Hough and Channing), the ED and the attorney(s) for the board majority know the information. I am confident that Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not do it. Then who did? Why did the board majority refuse to investigate? What are they hiding?

2. Did the board majority authorize a discussion / conversation with the insurance company to purposely try to persuade the insurance company to drop the coverage for Paul and me? Is this legal or ethical? Will the board majority publicly admit or deny this?

3. Who leaked confidential board information to Jerry Hanken and who authorized Jerry Hanken to negotiate with Sam Sloan while the lawsuits against multiple parties are ongoing? Did the board majority authorize this? Did the board majority seek permission from the USCF attorney prior to this negotiation? If so, did he authorize this? Will the board majority publicly admit or deny that this negotiation took place? Obviously someone from the board majority leaked confidential information to Sam Sloan because he is using some of this confidential information in his response to the motion to dismiss.

4. Who authorized the board majority and their attorney to investigate false charges against my husband and me which relate to my divorce / custody case? How did this even come up for discussion? This is my personal business and it has nothing to do with the USCF. Is this what board members are elected to do? Did the board majority use USCF money for this? Will the board majority publicly admit or deny that they tried to involve my personal situation into their political game?

5. Why did the board majority refuse to allow our experts to examine the USCF data? We asked for this since September 2007. We requested the same access to the USCF database as the contractors so that our own experts can examine the validity of the data as well as matching IPs of suspicious posters. Our repeated request was ignored. What are they hiding?

6. We pointed out a handful of suspicious handles and postings directly related to this case to the attorney and other board members. We asked them to investigate. This request, and others, have also been ignored or denied. Why? Isn't the USCF interested to find out the truth or is this just a political game?

7. We requested to have a thorough independent review of how this federation spends money. We need to know why we wasted money to revamp the website TWICE and how the contracts came about. Were there fair and open biddings? I never saw any advertisement in Chess Life or other publications. I would like to know who approved this and who we can hold accountable for the financial blunders. This request was also ignored. Isn't saving the USCF an important task?

I will continue to point out the facts and the members can make up their own minds. I am very confident that once everything is opened up, all USCF members can then determine who did what and what games were played. I stand by my earlier statements about complete transparency from all seven board members, the ED, USCF contractors, attorneys and related parties.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar

More political games by the USCF

The latest nonsense by the subcommittee
by SusanPolgar on Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:07 pm

This email was just sent to the board by VP of Finance Randy Bauer:

Committee members,

Given the current legal issues surrounding Paul and the USCF, I make the following Committee motion and vote yes:

I move that the Committee recommend that Paul Truong's title as Vice President Marketing and Communications be removed.

I further move that the Committee recommend that Paul Truong be removed as liaison to any and all board or delegate appointed USCF committees.

Randy Bauer


This was my response:

You have no sufficient evidence for any of these charges. After more than four months of investigation and wasting tens and thousands dollars of USCF money, you still have nothing. The evidence which was sent to Mr. Kronenberger was more than enough to show that the report had the wrong conclusion.

- The board majority refused to allow our experts to examine the data for more than 4 months.
- The board majority refused to investigate wrong doings by the USCF contractors and members of the board majority.
- The board majority refused to investigate leaks of confidential information as well as the "unauthorized secret negotiation" between Jerry Hanken and Sam Sloan using confidential board information in the middle of a lawsuit.
- The board majority refused to open up all records for independent investigation.

The USCF is losing money and we have financial problems. Instead of focusing on promoting the USCF positively to gain more members and raise much needed revenues, you want to focus on this complete garbage.

But if this is the game you want to play, you may as well vote to remove my title as Chairman as well. If this board passes this motion to remove Paul and not me, I will also step down as Chairman since I am involved in this legal situation just like all seven members of the board including you.

I will help you publicize your votes since I am sure you want all members to know about your plans. While you are at it, do you want to vote to exclude us from the board meeting tomorrow and Sunday? What is next? You cannot have a double standard unless you know something I do not.

Susan Polgar

The USCF members will clearly see how the board operates and why so many members are disgusted with the USCF.

Randy Bauer voted yes.
Randy Hough voted yes.
Bill Goichberg voted yes.
Jim Berry voted yes.
Joel Channing voted no.

Can this really be a surprise to anyone?

USCF Membership Breakdown

Texas 7978
New York 7191
S. California 4596
Illinois 4586
N. California 4505
Florida 4320
Pennsylvania 3459
New Jersey 3277
Virginia 2669
Ohio 2584
Arizona 2412
Michigan 2388
North Carolina 2165
Maryland 2055
Kentucky 2038
Massachusetts 1904
Indiana 1752
Georgia 1652
Tennessee 1613
Missouri 1327
Connecticut 1317
Washington 1290
Wisconsin 1252
Colorado 1164
Minnesota 1117
Oklahoma 886
Nevada 880
New Mexico 843
Alabama 780
Oregon 769
Louisiana 721
Iowa 644
Kansas 547
Maine 503
Utah 502
South Carolina 476
New Hampshire 468
West Virginia 368
Nebraska 316
Mississippi 299
Arkansas 280
Rhode Island 253
Idaho 237
District of Columbia 220
Vermont 208
Hawaii 201
South Dakota 193
Delaware 160
Alaska 135
North Dakota 98
Montana 84
Wyoming 57

---------------------------

Canada 372
Foreign (ex Mex/Can) 391
US Territories 151
Military 98
Mexico 52