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 Polgar©

Thursday, December 04, 2008

Another lawsuit against the USCF


Although this case was filed on November 13, the board majority (Bill Goichberg, Jim Berry, Randy Bauer, and Randy Hough) and the Executive Director (Bill Hall) did not inform the USCF members or the board minority. Even though I am a board member of the USCF, I did not find out about it until today.

Case Detail View
Scheduled Court Dates
http://civilinquiry.jud.ct.gov/DispDetail.asp?DocNum=AAN-CV-08-4010781-S

Data Updated as of: 12/4/2008

Plaintiff Name VS Defendant Name
CYBERCAFES,LLC v. UNITED STATES OF AME
Docket Number: AAN-CV-08-4010781-S Court Location: Milford
File Date: Nov 13 2008 Return Date: Nov 13 2008
* Last Action Date: Nov 21 2008 ADR Status: Not Applicable
Case Type: MISC - INJUNCTION
List Type: .
Disposition Date:
Judge/Magistrate: Trial List Claim:
Disposition:
* 'Last Action Date' is a data entry date, not actual date

Parties / Attorneys
Party Name & Address
Pty No. Pltf / Def Self-
Rep. Non Appear No Fee Party

CYBERCAFESLLC 01 P . . .
Attorney: COHEN & WOLF PC (Juris No. 010032)
PO BOX 1821
BRIDGEPORT , CT 06601

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CHESS FEDERATION 50 D . Y .

Motions / Pleadings / Objections
Entry No Entry Date Description Initiated By Argu able Result Result Date Ordered By
101.00 Nov 13 2008 TEMPORARY INJUNCTION P No
102.00 Nov 20 2008 RETURN OF SERVICE No

CYBERCAFES,LLC v. UNITED STATES OF AME
The following table lists events that have been individually scheduled for this case for today, or for a date in the future*. Other court activity may be separately scheduled on short calendars.
This table was last updated on 12/4/2008.
Individually Scheduled Court Dates
# Date Time Event Description Status
1 12/15/2008 9:30 AM Hearing Proceeding

Labels: ,

posted by Chess Daily News @ 12/04/2008 05:55:00 PM  

8 Comments:

  • At Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Congratulations Bill Goichberg. You are doing such a wonderful job. Your leadership is so wonderful. Who else could add this huge expense to the current situation as outlined in another thread.

    This was post by Illinois delegate Sevan Muradian on Fri Oct 31, 2008 4:24 pm #117066

    I've looked at the financials from Sept (delegates I would request that you also request them from the office and peruse yourself) and they are nothing short of concerning.

    Cash in the operating account is less than $4k

    Accounts Payable is $116k

    We lost just under $8k for the US Open. Pan American's show an under $30k loss. World Junior lost under $10k.

    Line of credit is tapped fully (Sept finanicals shows $120k but I've been told all $150k has been tapped). Bill Goichberg states that the bank would extend the line of credit if requested but says that it wouldn't be necessary. However the line of credit is secured by the LMA which is not doing well.

    Sept net loss was $122k and YTD loss is $255k

    So we have near zero in the bank, $116k in payables and in Oct we will have the costs for the World Youth to pay (estimated loss is $14.5k), Olympiad costs (estimated loss of $14k though I think this number is short), any professional fees, and standard operating costs such as payroll, etc.

    What do you think Bill Goichberg. Will anyone answer the USCF phone in the spring or will members get the operator saying the number has been disconnected and there is no information. Have you asked your lawyers if you can bankrupt USCF out of all the lawsuits or will you still be personally responsible if the USCF is non existant in 3 months.

    Good Job Bill. I dont think anyone could have bankrupted USCF so efficiently and quickly. Your personal touch is so appreciated by the members.

    I keep forgetting that the only one making money out of chess is the Bill Goichberg Continential Chess Assoc. I guess you push all chess assets toward your little baby while draining any value out of the membership. Glad to see you are rich on taking away any value out of the lifetime memberships.

    Bill I bet you can drum up a few more lawsuits for good measure. If one is good a dozen must be even better.

    Chewy

     

  • At Friday, December 12, 2008 2:17:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Why is the United States Chess Federation paying the legal fees of Hal Bogner, Brain Mottershead, and Brain Lafferty with the very limited money the United States Chess Federation has? Why also is the United States Chess Federation paying the legal fees to Chess Magnet and the Continental Chess Association?

     

  • At Friday, December 12, 2008 2:18:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Just read in the BINFO files of the United States Chess Federation that the United States Chess Federation has already paid seventy five thousand ($75,000) dollars in legal fees since August 2008. With more legal fees because of the contract dispute with Chess Café, more legal fees that is not covered under the insurance coverage it begs the question how long can the United States Chess Federation can keep up the high level of lawsuits.

    Do understand that the lawsuit from Susan Polgar verses the United States Chess Federation has increased the level of legal fees because it is a director to director lawsuit. Still, it could have been resolved as early as August 2008 with the majority of the United States Chess Federation Executive Board accepting to take some humble pie to safe guard the United States Chess Federation from increased legal fees.

    Writing the above comments a brainstorm just came to my attention with the director to director lawsuits not being covered with the insurance. The last Delegates Meeting (August 2008) the delegates past a bylaw change to confirm that the delegates were and are the directors of the United States Chess Federation: as this does raise an interesting question with director to director lawsuit.

    Does the United States Chess Federation have zero insurance coverage from lawsuits from the elected delegates and elected alternate delegates of the United States Chess Federation?

    Just asking, as there is a delegate from New York that has a long track record with filing lawsuits against the United States Chess Federation. If he does file a lawsuit against the United States Chess Federation and other elected delegates and alternate delegates of the United States Chess Federation: the United States Chess Federation may have to pay the total amount of legal fees (no insurance coverage) because it is a director to director lawsuit.

    True, I could be wrong with the term uninsured because of a director to director lawsuit. Then again, the term director to director being printed within the United States Chess Federation could be misleading. Anyway, I hope I have opened some ideas that need to be debated.

     

  • At Friday, December 12, 2008 2:18:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It is strange that the majority members of the United States Chess Federation Executive Board have been so determine not to find a practical settlement. True, I do understand that the majority just spent their political capital with an effort to remove Paul Truong and their belief that Susan Polgar would leave at the same time. Still, it has always been my personal belief that the leaking of information and the lawsuit from Sam Sloan was prearranged. Just my personal judgment, that the reason that the majority on the United States Chess Federation Executive Board does not want to settle: is that the leaking of information and the lawsuit from Sam Sloan was prearranged and the lawsuit would be covered under the insurance from legal lawsuits. If it was prearranged and the evidence was produced, the insurance company could cancel the coverage and bring their lawsuit against the United States Chess Federation on the grounds of insurance fraud.

    Willfully leaking confidential information and willfully encouraging someone to bring a lawsuit against the United States Chess Federation just to be used as a political tool and to be covered under the insurance is in my judgment insurance fraud. True, this is just my personal judgment and my personal viewpoint of the majority on the United States Chess Federation Executive Board. The only resolution with the conduct of the majority on the United States Chess Federation Executive Board would be the election of new members during the 2009 executive board election. To prove or disprove, the United States Chess Federation Executive Board would have to open their records to an independent investigation that has the authority to prosecute if need be.

    Still, my primary question needs to be debated. Does the United States Chess Federation have zero insurance coverage from lawsuits from the elected delegates and elected alternate delegates of the United States Chess Federation?

    If the insurance does not cover director to director lawsuits, and during the Delegates Meeting the delegates made it clear that the delegates are the directors of the United States Chess Federation. Then a lawsuit filed from an elected delegate and a elected alternate delegate against anyone that is an elected delegate or an elected alternate delegate and even members of the United States Chess Federation Executive board with a lawsuit against the United States Chess Federation – would not be covered under the insurance because it is a director to director lawsuit. If that is the case, that would greatly empower the ability of anyone that is a elected delegate or even a elected alternate delegate of the United States Chess Federation.

    In my judgment if and only if the United States Chess Federation does not have insurance with a lawsuit, it would empower the elected alternate delegates to seek changes to the United States Chess Federation outside the scope of the Delegates Meeting. Changes to the United States Chess Federation that would not happen during an up or down voted during the Delegates Meeting would have to be settled in the courts or to withdraw the lawsuit with a settlement of a change in the rules with a vote to change the rules with the United States Chess Federation Executive Board. In theory, elected alternate delegates that would not wilfully attended the Delegates Meeting because of distance or a feeling they could not get the votes with an up or down vote at the Delegates Meeting could change policy or rules with a lawsuit against the United States Chess Federation and the United States Chess Federation being forced to pay legal fees as it is a director to director lawsuit.

     

  • At Friday, December 12, 2008 2:18:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Randy Bauer:

    Do understand that you will not respond to this letter. Still, it is my personal judgment that this open letter to you would give you some pause when you visit and read. With the actions with the majority of the United States Chess Federation, and the supporters with the majority: the lawsuit was the only practical way to address and receive a fair and honest settlement. Remember, if the settlement was taken care of in August 2008, the United States Chess Federation would be out only a dollar ($1) and Susan Polgar would have spent thousands of dollars just to get a settlement.

    Anyway, since this case has gone past the level of a rational political settlement. With your viewpoint that the United States Chess Federation needs a legal defense fund and requesting that people donate to the legal defense fund than the United States Chess Trust: will confuse the donators and undermine the United States Chess Trust.

    If the United States Chess Federation does not have insurance coverage with director to director lawsuits, and the need to have a standing legal defense fund because of the current lawsuit it begs the question what would happen to the legal defense fund after the lawsuit is settled. Starting a legal defense fund and being a tax deductible organization is something that is hard to start and becomes impractical to dissolve.

    If it is true, that director to director is not covered with the insurance and the need to have a legal defense fund because of director to director lawsuits – it only increases lawsuits if and only if the legal defense fund has a large endowment that can be tapped to cover lawsuits and monetary settlements. Since the delegates at the last Delegates Meeting approved to confirm that the delegates are the directors of the United States Chess Federation. With over two hundred and forty elected delegates and elected alternate delegates: the legal defense fund will only empower the elected delegates and elected alternate delegates to bring lawsuits against the United States Chess Federation.

    If that happens, the standard practice to have the delegates going to the Delegates Meeting to debate and change or reconfirm the rules or reconfirm the standard policy would be shifted to the courts to change the rules and change the standard policy of the United States Chess Federation. If there is a legal defense fund, the United States Chess Federation would be shifting the authority from the Delegates Meeting to having political settlements and rule changes be done with judges legislating from the bench.

    With the political and social position of the donators to the United States Chess Trust, would see a decline with donators to the United States Chess Trust and to the legal defense fund as the legal defense fund would be promoting judges legislating from the bench. It would also with the legal defense fund be promoting more lawsuits against the United States Chess Federation. If the United States Chess Federation feels that lawsuits are undermining the United States Chess Federation: your political support of a legal defense fund would be encouraging a higher level of lawsuits against the United States Chess Federation.

     

  • At Friday, December 12, 2008 2:19:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    William Goichberg:

    You are the President of the United States Chess Federation and the leader of the board majority of the United States Chess Federation. It is important to ask you a number of questions dealing with the amount of legal fees that has been spent against Susan Polgar and Paul Truong. The reason why I ask, as I never in my life notice any type of organization willing to spend or willfully undermine anyone that is in the minority of a political organization as it has been with Susan Polgar and Paul Truong.

    My question is why the Kronenbeger attorneys were hired when Chubb insurance had assigned attorneys without cost to the United States Chess Federation. It is also a question why the Kronenberger attorneys were going at Paul Truong and Susan Polgar when they were claimed to be going after the Sam Sloan lawsuit. It also begs the question on the slow response of Kronenbeger attorneys to get the lawsuit file by Sam Sloan to be dismissed (dismissed for lack of jurisdiction).

    It is also a question, why the records of the United States Chess Federation have not received independent examination with the data, the database and all records dealing with the charges imposed against Paul Truong. The board majority of the United States Chess Federation was so determined just to prove their case against Paul Truong: it would have been more convincing if an independent examination was performed. Since the headquarters is in Crossville Tennessee, in my judgment the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation would have been a neutral investigation.

    It is also disturbing, that the Kronenberger attorneys that defended the United States Chess Federation in the lawsuit against Sam Sloan were the same attorneys that sent an attorney to the Delegates Meeting to prove to the delegates that Paul Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan and to convince the delegates to recall Paul Truong. The Kronenberger attorneys were hired to defend the United States Chess Federation from the lawsuit from Sam Sloan. It was their job to have the lawsuit filed from Sam Sloan dismissed and if it was not dismissed to prove to the courts that Paul Truong was not the Fake Sam Sloan. There is a conflict of interests with the Kronenberger attorneys to turn around, send a lawyer to the Delegates Meeting and to prove to the delegates that Paul Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan. It is also a given fact, that the lawyer sent to the Delegate Meeting in Dallas Texas was paid five thousand ($5,000) dollars just to turn around and convince the delegates that Paul Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan.

    It must be interesting to Chubb insurance, that they were being changed to defend the United States Chess Federation from the liability of Paul Truong to be the Fake Sam Sloan and also being charged to prove a liability that Paul Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan. In all my years of life, I have never noticed an insurance company willing to defend against a liability and to prove a liability. If this is the practice of the United States Chess Federation, it begs the question if the United States Chess Federation is not an honest company.

    It is also a question why the United States Chess Federation is paying the legal fees for the Continental Chess Association and other private members that has supported the majority of the United States Chess Federation Executive Board. Since the United States Chess Federation is paying the legal fees for the Continental Chess Association: this does raise the ethical question that William Goichberg as the President of the United States Chess Federation is profiting from the United States Chess Federation. If the United States Chess Federation was not paying the legal fees to the Continental Chess Association: William Goichberg would have to pay for the legal fees himself.

     

  • At Tuesday, December 16, 2008 12:23:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I just saw this on pacer. How accurate is it?

    Factual Background

    This lawsuit is part of a scheme by Bill Goichberg and Sam Sloan to defame their political opponents through a campaign of falsehoods and innuendo. But there is simply no substance to their false claims. Goichberg and Sloan have no intention of bringing the matter to trial. The main purpose of the suit is to financially cripple their victims. Goichberg has ensured that all of his cronies’ and accomplices’ legal fees are being paid by membership fees of the United States Chess Federation, which he controls. And Goichberg is ensuring that his political opponents are not being indemnified or defended, even though they are entitled to a defense under the USCF bylaws, and indeed, they were previously proffered a defense by the USCF in connection with earlier related lawsuits. Every day, Goichberg and his cronies post a relentless series of falsehoods and half-truths on USCF-related websites, aimed at smearing the Defendants’ reputations in the chess community. They are using this lawsuit as a weapon to financially and politically destroy their opponents, by forcing the Defendants to appear in an unfamiliar forum thousands of miles from their homes.

    Bill Goichberg is the President of the United States Chess Federation, the governing body of American chess. Under his control, the USCF has been plagued by inept management, self-interested dealings, petty politics, and unethical violations of computer confidentiality policies. As owner of the Continental Chess Association, a for-profit corporation which runs chess tournaments throughout the United States, Goichberg’s involvement in the USCF presents numerous conflicts of interest.

    In order to silence his political opponents and to eliminate economic rivals, Goichberg has authorized frivolous, unfounded, and unnecessary lawsuits, funded by USCF funds. When members of the current board of directors were sued by disgruntled former director Sam Sloan, Goichberg saw to it that the board members who supported him received a legal defense funded by the USCF. But Goichberg also manufactured a pretext which he used to deny a legal defense and USCF funding to those board members who opposed him.

    Goichberg has tacitly encouraged his cronies to engage in a systematic campaign of harassment against his political opponents. For example, he has expressly ordered USCF computer system administrators, who have access to confidential USCF databases, to violate the USCF’s own internal confidentiality policy. At Goichberg’s direction, those computer administrators admit that they obtained the private passwords of USCF moderators and general USCF members, so that they could access private communications and leak damaging and embarrassing information about Goichberg’s political opponents.

    * As a long-time volunteer moderator for the USCF forums, I have personal knowledge that Bill Goichberg authorized Hal Bogner and Brian Mottershead to improperly access moderators’ confidential passwords so that Mottershead could obtain confidential communications which Goichberg disclosed publicly on the internet and used to attack his political opponents. Furthermore, in regards to Mottershead; Goichberg allowed brash disregard to the security of confidential information, and the passwords stored in the USCF database that could have been used to hack into other peoples' outside accounts.

    * This lawsuit is part of a plan to attack and impoverish his political opponents...all of the illegal conduct alleged has been committed by USCF certain appointed system administrators and by friends and cronies of Bill Goichberg, at Bill Goichberg’s tacit or express encouragement. Forcing me to appear in a distant forum to defend false allegations is part of a strategy to impoverish me and punish me for opposing Goichberg’s unethical conduct.

     

  • At Sunday, December 21, 2008 12:40:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I think that most of the Delegates were very disgusted with the approach that was taken to oust Paul and Susan. If there was any wrong doing it should have been sent to the Ethics Committee and had no place on the floor of the Delegates meeting. Proving a point with an "unbiased" ( ? ) attorney that was more of an attacking bull dog, questionable data from an associate of someone that may have been involved and facts that could have certainly been altered before the attorney saw them proved that the Delegates weren't going to just rubber stamp the accusations.

    It is also pathetic that the President and Jerry Hanken conspired to give two unknowns money and delegates status just to win this vote. Actually a free entry for political reasons is the same as stealing from the USCF. Shame, shame.

    After last Friday's conversation with Bill Hall, I understand that there is some doubt as to what I said. Sorry, folks, I DO NOT LIE!!!! But, I understand that the Board will now be vindictive toward me so I will accommodate you:I resign my Chair of the PPHBF ( I hope in favor of McCrary ), I will also resign from the Awards Committee and 2009 will be my last National Open. I will miss being MC of the Awards Banquet. But, there is life after chess.

    That sums it up - except, hey, maybe your wrong!! I'm attaching an unbiased analysis of some of the postings that I hope you read and contemplate.

    Reminds me of the movie " 12 Angry Men". I'll mail you all a copy.

    Fred Gruenberg

    Here is just a small sample of what took place (There are plenty more which directly link President Bill Goichberg, Secretary Randy Hough, and President of CJA Jerry Hanken). There are also other witnesses who are willing collaborate these charges. There are also additional physical evidence to back up the story.

    In addition, I have asked to see the list of elected delegates and people who were certified on the spot Saturday morning. I also requested to see who certified these people. So far, President Bill Goichberg is stonewalling this process and Bill Hall refused to release this information without the authorization from President Bill Goichberg.

    "If Bill (Goichberg) says "yes", you wouldn't owe anything to him."

    "Come on Bill (Goichberg), I will go half on the airfare. There are so many good reasons to do this. Give it some thought. Just think what going half means to me and what it means to you. If we lose a critical vote, you will think of this. All the money you have given the USFCF will be in the toilet if we ultimately lose this fight."

    "Could you get this done today ... I will pay."

    "...it is important that you go on line today (when it is still July) and purchase a six month membership in USCF. It is $25 and I will personally reimburse you this money."

     

Post a Comment

<< Home