US Chess Discussion

Welcome! This blog has no connection with the USCF. It's a blog where I provide chess fans with general information about US Chess as well as the USCF. It's also a site where everyone can productively discuss or ask questions about various USCF issues! Your contributions and comments are welcome! PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL & RESPECT OTHERS! Enjoy! All posts that do not meet this guideline will be deleted -- WIN WITH GRACE, LOSE WITH DIGNITY!(TM) --- 2006 Susan PolgarĀ©

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

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
Posted by Picasa

Labels: , , ,

1 Comments:

  • At Thursday, February 21, 2008 3:57:00 AM, Anonymous Post by Larry Parr said…

    THINGS TO COME?

    Susan Polgar's call for full transparency is more than an exercise in good USCF citizenship. It is also an unmistakable threat to the Board majority. And almost certainly a substantive threat.


    Namely: a bunch of podunk chess politicians, who were feeling their power-oats, committed countless arrogant acts that make no legal sense whatsoever and have likely empowered Truong-Polgar in this legal case.


    If one understands the true nature and, more importantly, the manifestations of the political beast that is a USCF politician, one understands that irresponsible, self-defeating arrogance has been and continues to be the modus operandi.


    The self-confident and very detailed demands by Susan Polgar for full disclosure leads me to alter an earlier conclusion. I wrote that were Sam's legal action dismissed tomorrow, GM Polgar would still rue the day she ever became involved in USCF politics.


    The glimmer of a different outcome peaks through the curtain of events yet to come. Sam's legal action, whatever its objective merits, will likely fail because the legal talent arrayed against our caped crusader will outmatch his legal savvy and resources. But there is another legal action that suggests itself: Polgar-Truong v USCF. And that could turn out to be the final chapter for the USCF as we know it.


    What would better serve chess promotion in the United States? The semi-public USCF that we have now or a privately held USCF, owned and run by Polgar-Truong?


    But none of the above answers the question that stays with me: why did Susan and Paul court Nemesis in the form of Sam Sloan? Whether he is in the right or the wrong, Sam's essential characteristic is constant: he is a slavering-at-the-chops bulldog. He gets a grip on a person's ankle -- before, perhaps, moving upwards into more vulnerable bodily and legal areas -- and hangs on forever. Or, at least, the number of years is large enough to make it seem like forever.


    Then there is Frank Niro. He had serious health problems, and now this fated human moth is heading south into the U.S. Open flame. The man must have been driven mad by illness and his stint as USCF executive director. Or, in a fit of penitential maundering, he has settled upon painful, chest-pounding self destruction as a penance. There are simply no other explanations for his wishing to attend the U.S. Open -- of all possible chess tournaments.


    So, then, Mr. Niro will launch his own Charge of the Light Chess Brigade. "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre," said the French military observer Bosquet while viewing the attack. We imagine Mr. Niro, like Chesterton's Napoleon of Notting Hill in the eponymous novel, carrying a pennant -- perhaps
    of Oregon City, Oregon -- and expiring even as he drives its pointed shaft into the left foot of Randy Bauer.


    Mr. Bauer will then be hopping about on his right hoof, holding his left in total agony, screaming for a doctor. Mr.Niro's inert form will be lying face down on the hotel carpet at the Delegates Meeting. A curious bystander will prod at the corpse with a foot and eventually turn it over. His eyelids unclosed, Mr. Niro will be staring upwards, a subtle smile on his lips that will eventually, in rigor mortis, harden into a very wicked grin.


    Unnoticed by others, Paul Truong will saunter past the hopping Mr. Bauer and bring down with crushing force the elevated heel of his right shoe onto the toes of Mr. Bauer's uninjured foot. The latter will then fly through the air onto the floor,
    his corpus jerking like a speared fish, with redoubled cries of agony beyond bearing.


    Nearby, Sam Sloan quietly draws a line through Frank Niro's name as among the defendants of his lawsuit.


    Yours, Larry Parr

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home