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©

Monday, January 19, 2009

Doctoring Court Evidence?




The doctored version of the evidence which was submitted to the court by the USCF with the initial of the person who placed that black box.



The actual doctored version which was submitted to the court by the USCF.



What's underneath the true evidence which was purposely hidden from the court.



Notarized affidavit from the third party.

Back in August 2008, the USCF received crucial evidence which showed that I had NOTHING to do with the hacking they claimed. Unbeknown to me, the USCF requested and obtained this information. Even after receiving the notarized affidavit from a third party which completely cleared me, the USCF decided to file a lawsuit anyway claiming that I hacked another board member's email account 111 times. They also did not disclose this evidence to me or my team of attorneys.

No credible evidence was ever shown that I had anything to do with it. The IP did not match and I did not even have an account with this company. In fact, the USCF could not provide any IP matching mine. This doctored USCF evidence was submitted to the court instead. A computer expert was able to discover what was really underneath it. This is a very serious legal matter.

You can now see for yourself step by step. If you click on the images, they will enlarge to make it easier to see.

The USCF spent $180,000 so far this fiscal year (about 6-7 months) on legal fees. They also spent an incredible amount of money last year. There is a strong likelihood that the insurance company will not renew the USCF D&O insurance policy.

Once some of these legal cases in 4 different states get to court, the legal fees may escalate to well over $500,000. I offered the USCF and the board majority a way out to save this federation. They refused and instead went to court with doctored evidence while continuing to defame and libel me.
Posted by Picasa

Labels: , , ,

19 Comments:

  • At Monday, January 19, 2009 12:40:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    What????? An attorney did this? And the USCF paid this guy over $100,000 to do this?

     
  • At Monday, January 19, 2009 12:41:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    What's the penalty for a lawyer who's caught doing this?

     
  • At Monday, January 19, 2009 9:22:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Bill Hall, Bill Goichberg, Jim Berry, Randy Bauer and Randy Hough should all resign immediately. The USCF should go after the person who did it. Isn't that criminal?

     
  • At Monday, January 19, 2009 10:54:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I have followed Susan's blog for some time and have read about the type of professional she has been throughout her life. Is it any surprise that she had an important role in the latest Olympiad? Is it any surprise that she holds a very distinguished position at Texas Tech? Is it any surprise that she consistently convinces sponsors to support her causes and tournaments? Not if you know anything about Susan.

    I have no problem with her filing a lawsuit against the USCF and certain board members, because I trust that she has more than valid reasons that the general public just isn't privy to.

    It's almost as if the board majority is purposely trying to sink the USCF financially because they know they will lose and don't want to leave Susan much to work with after the truth comes out. What logical reason would there be to harass and discredit Susan? They hold the board majority already so why are they so vindictive since they can vote in whatever proposals they like to begin with? It reeks of 5 year olds getting mad because someone made them share their toy...so now they are just trying to break the toy so no one can play with it...

    The biggest reason for them to try to discredit her is that she has the ability to expose all the BS these dimwits are trying to get away with.

    If you are a USCF member or know any please let them know what's going on with their organization and the dunderheads running it. I've only gotten 1 tournament membership in the last 7 or so years as I'm not that active an OTB player these days, but I will join again before the election just to vote against the ridiculousness that is Goichberg, Sloan, Hall, Lafferty, Bauer, Berry and others that just don't have a clue how to run a professional organization.

     
  • At Monday, January 19, 2009 11:16:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I'm curious as well. What's the penalty for submitting false or doctored evidence in court? What's the consequence for the USCF, its board members and their attorney?

     
  • At Monday, January 19, 2009 11:20:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I hope the judge will throw the book at them and they'll lose big time in civil court.

     
  • At Monday, January 19, 2009 5:49:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    I think the reason they are so bad about trying to get rid of Susan and Paul is because they are in panic mode. If good people are elected in this upcoming election they could lose their control. The only way to get rid of the corruption is to get some good people into office who can change the direction of the USCF. Susan is the best person to replace Bill G as President. Then some positives will finally begin to take place. Hopefully Goichberg and his buddies will be voted out of office this election. Watch out as the voting time gets closer. Goichberg will panic.

    The USCF has never had a true professional like Susan. We must fight to get rid of the corruption. Allowing Goichberg and his people to keep control is insanity. More reckless spending and waste and corruption. Susan is our best chance for an honest uscf that will get back to chess and stop the insanity.

    I have been an active chess player for over 10 years. I have talked to many friends who tell be about the failures going all the way back in time. It is now time to try someone new like Susan to run the USCF in a professional way. Chess is a great game and sport. It deserves honest professionalism that Susan will bring to the USCF.

    This coming election will turn out to be the most important election in USCF history. Goichberg will run on a record of corruption and failure of course he will try to spin it as honesty and success. We must be strong and know the truth.

     
  • At Monday, January 19, 2009 7:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Members of the USCF should file a class action against Bill Hall, Bill Goichberg, Randy Bauer, Jim Berry, Randy Hough and Kronenberger. These guys repeatedly violated the USCF bylaws and their fiduciary duties.

     
  • At Monday, January 19, 2009 7:59:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 129)

    Lev Alburt was the first grandmaster elected to the seven member USCF board of directors and soon became the odd man out. In this exclusive interview he pierces the veil of secrecy and begins naming names.

    After defecting from the USSR in 1979 he settled in Manhattan, married, and quickly became a fixture in American chess. After capturing our nation’s highest title three times, he retired from tournaments to write books and give lessons.

    INTERVIEW WITH GM LEV ALBURT

    EVANS: Lev, it’s hard to believe that people who are supposed to promote chess in America are actually holding back its growth.

    ALBURT: I couldn’t believe it myself. But I learned that everyone in the business office and above all members of the board were interested primarily in doing almost nothing. Nothing real. Nothing to promote chess. When I get together with Allen Kaufman or Jimmy Sherwin of the American Chess Foundation we usually discuss ways to promote growth and emulate the success of England, which sprang from nowhere to one of the top nations.

    EVANS: Didn’t the board discuss these things?

    ALBURT: No. I was extremely surprised that such topics were never addressed. Never, ever.

    EVANS: What was their goal?

    ALBURT: Let me continue. Even when we went to a restaurant I always expected them to bring up the subject of what can be done to make chess grow. But always the topics during our sessions was who should run for the board next year, who should be awarded national tournaments, or how to avoid being attacked by critics.

    EVANS: Well, what did they get out of serving on the board?

    ALBURT: Perks, of course. Free trips, and so forth. Some old timers look upon the federation as their toy, their plaything. They hang around people they chummed with for years. They love to give each other awards. When I left they offered me a Certificate of Service, but I said I wasn’t interested in such things.

    EVANS: The board voted to ban tape recorders from open sessions but had to back down when Friends of the USCF blasted them in its newsletter. Isn’t the board spending more and more time in closed session anyway?

    ALBURT: They discuss a lot of things in private which to my mind don’t belong in closed session. They often use these sessions as an excuse to say nasty things they would not dare to repeat in public. Sometimes they knock people I respect and I challenge them to produce evidence or shut up.

    EVANS: So didn’t they become more careful around you?

    ALBURT: To some extent I think I spoiled the good feeling they shared together—the feeling that the less anyone outside knows, the better. When someone new was elected to the board, they immediately closed ranks and developed a bond. Even reform candidates wanted to become one of the boys as soon as they were elected.

    [The following item appeared in the USCF Delegates Newsletter, an independent publication of the Friends of the USCF (Volume 2, number 1, May-June 1993.]

    GOICHBERG DEFENDS PERSONAL JUDGMENT -- PROMISES MORE OF SAME
    NEW WINDSOR, N.Y., APRIL. 12--In a telephone interview of April 11,

    USCF presidential candidate William Goichberg denied using poor judgment when pressuring the USCF Policy Board to allocate up to $1,000 to investigate five-time U.S. chess champion Larry Evans. If elected, Mr. Goichberg pledged to employ the same standards of judgment on other questions.

    "The only thing that I would do differently," said Goichberg, "is to investigate suspects at private expense, since we felt obliged to reimburse the USCF for the Pinkerton bills after the findings disproved my theory about Evans."

    Questions about Goichberg's judgment have arisen after a USCF-funded Pinkerton investigation concluded that mailing labels on an anti-Semitic hit letter from the Eddis-Schultz campaign were NOT photocopies of labels used by Grandmaster Evans in a mailing of his own.

    "What set the whole thing off," said Vice President Frank Camaratta, chairman of the committee that investigated GM Evans, "was Bill Goichberg insisting these were copies.

    The way he presented it, it was difficult to turn your back on that."

    Poor Judgment?

    GM Evans and others have criticized Goichberg's judgment in light not only of Evans' exoneration but also of Goichberg's methodology. States Evans, "I also received a hit letter from San Luis Obispo and simply took the envelope to a photocopy store and asked a clerk if the label was an original or a copy. The clerk answered in about five seconds -- it was an original.

    Then, I contacted an eminent police documents examiner and received his opinion that it was an original. The cost was only $50 -- not the $670 billed to the USCF!"

    Goichberg critics argue that before pressuring the Policy Board to undertake what turned out to be a baseless and, they say, embarrassing investigation, he ought to have done his homework like Evans did. Says Goichberg in reply, "I acted on the basis of a reasonable theory.

    The theory was obviously mistaken, but there was no attempt to manufacture evidence."

    One Goichberg supporter says, "Look, Bill got caught up in Jerry Hanken's witch-hunt hysteria. McCarthyism has no place in chess. I know that. But Goichberg is an institution, and he shouldn't be judged by this single lapse any more than we should condemn Denis Barry for once opposing no-smoking rules in tournaments."

    -- Larry Parr

     
  • At Monday, January 19, 2009 8:00:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Goichberg's improper actions against Evans seems very similar to the same bad judgement and improper actions against Susan and Paul. It looks to me like Goichberg has a problem that he is not fixing. How many times will he keep attacking other people wrongly.

    I hope Goichberg is voted out of office entirely this coming election.

     
  • At Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:23:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Isn't it amazing that the whole gang is so quiet about this. Checkmate! The penalty for this is severe. The best thing for the USCF is to end this nonsense right now and go after their attorney for malpractice.

     
  • At Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:30:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Can uscf members start a class action against Goichberg, Berry, Hough, Bauer, Hall, Kronenberger, Hanken and all the other stooges for destroying this federation and its assets?

     
  • At Tuesday, January 20, 2009 10:34:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Corruption would be filing lawsuits for personal gain using USCF funds for attorneys.

    Corruption would be pulling people off the street to be Delegates for the simple reason of influencing a vote.

    Corruption would be falsely accusing others of wrongdoing for personal gain (lying, libel, or slander).

    Corruption would be threatening Susan and/or her family members.

    Corruption would be using your position in a non-profit organization (USCF) to influence and benefit a for profit business run by the same person (CCA).

    I'm sure someone else could probably come up with a dozen more examples of corruption, but I'll just leave it at that.

    A vote for Goichberg, Berry and their slate will only make things worse.

     
  • At Wednesday, January 21, 2009 3:41:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This is unethical and probably criminal. I wish Goichberg, Berry and their entire slate would just drop out of the EB election for the sake of the USCF and its members. They've done enough damage already.

     
  • At Thursday, January 22, 2009 1:04:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    But we must be grateful to lawyer Lafferty for so very clearly showing why he must never be permitted to occupy any position within the USCF, or at least anything except administering the parking of cars outside the Crossville office.

    While I do not know for certain when it happened, but will find out, there can be no doubt Lafferty has boasted that when he gets on to the EB, he will abuse his position to get hold of the IP records of all the contributors to the USCF forums. The lawyer will then squander all our federation's resources pursuing suit against these people who poked fun at him and criticized him.

    We must not lose sight that Lafferty is an 1100-rated player who has no more interest in chess than he has in justice. With Lafferty in power, the USCF is doomed to a tightning spiral of lawsuits and recrimination.
    http://www.usacycling.org/results/index.php?compid=91977/

     
  • At Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:27:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    This is USCF politics at its worst! Goichberg, Hough and Hanken have a long history of corruption and abusing uscf funds.

     
  • At Thursday, January 22, 2009 7:02:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Anon above has a good point. What has he done for chess? Nothing except being an obnoxious cyber stalker. He's worst than Sloani. That's bad.

     
  • At Monday, January 26, 2009 1:10:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    For those who think that BL should be a candidate, remember Duncan Oxley, RIP.

    From: Duncan Oxley
    To: Bill Hall
    Sent: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 3:54 pm
    Subject: Brian Lafferty

    This is the third time Brian Lafferty has made threats against me although this threat is a rather mild one this time.


    Can Bill Hall or someone please speak with him and explain that he has no right to ask for the identity of someone making a complaint and that he can't make veiled threats against Moderators?


    I have bent over backwards to be nice to him. I even offered to speak to him on the phone (THAT was ignored) and try to explain things to him.


    I don't see how further communication with him from me can have any positive effect.


    I am also CCing the FOC asking them to have an emergency vote. I think it's time for BL to move on to some other Forum where he can cause him damage there. Or at least take a month time-out here on our Forums.


    Thank you,
    Duncan Oxley (Moderator3)

    BL wrote:

    Who is they? I did post Jones' comments on Polgar's Saturday open
    forum. It was up and then pulled. Someone isn't telling you he truth
    and it's not me. I will provide you campaign comments a from Polgar
    about creating USCF growth to create a viable base for professional chess in the US. Again, who complained. Provide me the data or I'll have not choice but to air this all in public. You better consult your attorney. I don't care if this federation goes under.

    Brian

     
  • At Sunday, February 01, 2009 10:54:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    The past 30 days of USCF Lawsuit Land has had many turns and twists. One time seeming allies have either gone silent to each others' defense or have turned hyena like onto one another.

    We shall begin with events that have transpired over the past few days.

    First we hear that the USCF, Executive Board members Bauer, Hough, Berry, and Goichberg, and USCF ED Hall, have separate counsel from the other defendants of Chess Magnet School, Continental Chess Association, Hal Bogner, Brian Mottershead, and Brian Lafferty.

    Why the separation? Could it be that the USCF is looking at a sacrificial offering of these individuals and organizations (though it is strange because CCA is owned by Goichberg) in return to having the Lubbock lawsuit dropped in return? This separation would allow Polgar to drop the USCF from incurring any further costs in the litigation of the suit. A supporting theory here is the attacks made between Mottershead and Goichberg today on
    the USCF Issues Forums.

    Below is the quoted text of Mottershead and the Goichberg responses:
    ---------------------------

    [Mottershead comment begin]

    Mark, the main problem with your long post, which is very far from the first you have made on this subject, is that it assumes that IP addresses are private data, similar to credit card numbers, which must be treated sensitively so that they don't become public knowledge. You assume that IP addresses are included with the information that the Terms of Use say will treated by the USCF as private.

    They aren't. IP addresses are not even as private as license plate numbers on cars. Anybody can learn your car license plate number by simply observing you driving around, and license plate numbers are stored in many relatively accessible places. IP addresses are similar, only even less private.

    This has all been debated before, something of which give no hint.

    The real question is, why are you so intent after all that is happened to argue that the USCF and all its volunteers had a duty to keep it a secret that the IP addresses on Truong's USCF forum posts matched the IP addresses on his Fake Sam Sloan Usenet posts?

    As a volunteer, I don't believe I had any such duty, either as a result of the USCF Terms of Use policy, or through the confidentiality document that I signed.

    As for regrets, I did underestimate the negative reaction by people to having their IP addresses exposed. As I said, I think that reaction was in most cases inappropriate and founded on misunderstanding of how the Internet works. Nevertheless if I had been able to predict the reaction, I might not have done that. I did reverse that decision on my own initiative when it became clear that there was strong opposition to it.

    The only other thing that I regret is that I did not give Goichberg a bit longer to consider his position and act privately, after he was initially so reluctant to act publicly on the evidence that Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan. I have since learned that Goichberg dithers and hesitates on many things. It seems to be unduly important to him to avoid conflict, and I don't find him very forthright. I think his heart is usually in the right place, and he often gets to the right place eventually. But he much prefers to work slowly and indirectly, and it takes him a long time.

    [Mottershead comment end]

    [Goichberg response begin]

    I don't understand where you get the impression that I tend to "dither and hesitate." In the case of the FSS evidence, I received a phone call from Bogner informing me that you had proof that Truong was the fake Sloan. How would you expect a USCF leader to respond to this-

    "Great, why don't you post what you have found on the internet"? I don't think many people, especially not having seen the evidence or any expert opinion regarding it, would have reacted that way.

    My first reaction was that if you really had conclusive proof, the EB and ED would decide what to do, but what if your proof was not so convincing and Truong sued USCF for damage to his reputation? So of course, I recommended through Bogner that you not go public.

    [Goichberg response end]

    [Mottershead comment begin]

    In this case, a long time is what it took for Goichberg and the EB to act upon the contents of the Mottershead Report. For example, after promising an expert report, there was none. But, prodded by lawsuits and further egregious misconduct by Truong (and eventually by Polgar) he and the rest of the EB Legal Committee did eventually start taking a series of reasonable actions on the issue. I think the other Board members, the ED, and the lawyers probably had a big role in pushing Goichberg to action. And it was telling that Goichberg did not speak on this issue at the meeting in Dallas.

    [Mottershead comment end]

    [Goichberg response begin]

    You have quite a false impression here too. It was not up to me to act, it was up to the EB. And at the time that the EB was being chided on this forum for allegedly being too slow to act, we were simply following the advice of our attorneys. We did say we would do an expert report and then changed our mind, but that was because our attorneys advised that there was a better course of action.

    The idea that "the other board members, the ED, and the lawyers probably had a big role in pushing Goichberg to action" is wrong in several ways.

    You seem to misunderstand the role of the USCF President. When we took action it was not the President taking it, but rather the board. So if you talk about the President pushing or not pushing the board that might make sense, but the board pushing or not pushing the President is nonsense. If the board wants the President to do something they need only to vote to make it USCF policy, and the President's duty is to represent USCF in implementing that policy.

    None of the current four members of the current USCF EB legal subcommittee has "pushed" any of the others into supporting any of our actions, nor have our lawyers "pushed" any of us. All four of us have been in solid agreement throughout that USCF must do what is right, cannot overlook improper conduct by board members, and must vigorously defend itself against attack.

    I did not speak on the Truong issue in Dallas because the Truong side had accused me of improperly "authorizing" your investigation and asked me to step down from the board's legal subcommittee. While I believe that request to be without merit, I did not want to contribute to any impression some delegates might have had that I supported the removal of Truong for political reasons, and I trusted that the delegates would make the right decision without my participation, so I decided that unless asked a question, I would stay out of the debate. This was a mistake and I now feel that had I participated and pointed out some facts that the body was overlooking, the outcome might have been different.

    [Goichberg response end]

    [Mottershead comment begin]

    So, if I had given him more time, I reckon Goichberg probably would not have done anything with it. Someone would have leaked the information, and the USCF would have been in the same place it has ended up. Goichberg would have dithered; Truong and Polgar would have postured and been unyielding; and the final outcome would have been the same. But I would be happier in looking back at my decisions in September 2007, if those actions had been taken instead in October or November, and I had not pre-empted Goichberg and the EB quite so soon. There was perhaps a small chance to arrive at a solution out of the public eye, and that was lost. Small though that chance was, it might have been better, and certainly less expensive, than the bitter battle that is now consuming the USCF. I regret that we won't ever know now what might have happened if Goichberg and the EB had had a few more weeks to act before my actions preempted them.

    [Mottershead comment end]

    [Goichberg response begin]

    Other than the "dither" nonsense you are substantially right here. We don't know what would have happened if you had kept this matter private, but one possibility is that Truong, given the opportunity to resign while avoiding a lot of bad publicity, might have done so.

    Regarding the assumption many seem to have that everything with USCF is "leaked," it should be pointed out that the Ethics Committee charges against an EB member (Tanner) were not "leaked" for many months while the committee deliberated, and the situation was unknown to the public until the committee's decision was about to be issued. So it's far from proven that the case against Truong could not have been kept confidential.

    Bill Goichberg

    [Goichberg response end]

    -----------------------------------------------------
    We see suddenly also the rhetoric from Brian Lafferty has become minimal at best. He claims he is embracing his Budda nature.

    Perhaps the posting here on RGCP of someone looking to file a complaint with the bar association. Brian Lafferty is not admitted to the PA or MA bar (nor registered) and simple calls or web searches of those Bar Associations and the attorney licensing bodies in those states can show that. If the NY attorney registration system is searched for Mr.

    Lafferty it will display (unless the online records are incorrect and that is possible) that his next registration was Oct 2008. We are now Feb 2009. Again it is completely possible that the system is inaccurate. The link is http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch.

    Mr. Lafferty, according to his own resume posted on his USCF election blog, has not practiced law in many, many years. He claims to perform grant writing services and says he is willing to assist the USCF with this skill of his even if he is not elected. What is stopping him now

    from helping the USCF? Can Mr. Lafferty please provide references for his grant clients? Mr. Lafferty has claimed that he can receive legal counsel from the best at no cost to him and he can represent himself - why does he not face pending suits instead of cowering?
    Mr. Lafferty is known for threatening lawsuits but the mere prospect of being served with one had him cowering away and not going to the USCF Delegates meeting in Dallas. He was a delegate and resigned his post. Of course neither did Mr. Mottershead or Mr. Bogner attend. They were capable of throwing accusations however were not capable of having the courage to face those that they accused, speak to delegates to have them vote for removing Mr. Truong from his post as a duly elected EB.

    The US Attorney has already turned him away. He went after Mr. Truong with the bankruptcy court only to be turned away there as well (and they were not happy with him meddling where he did not belong, nor with his terse behavior - but what do you expect from someone that was a parking ticket judge for the majority of his legal career).

    Mr. Lafferty has stated on the USCF forums that he requested the Mottershead Report. Who else aside from the US Attorney did you provide that report to? Perhaps the same question should be posed to Mr. Mottershead - who was this anonymous source you sought counsel from that you gave a copy of your infamous report to?

    Mr. Lafferty also made claims that the postings on RGCP by the 'Fake Joe Lux' and the 'Fake Dylan McClain' did not originate where the IP addresses show them to have originated from, which was the Jersey City Library and the NY Times building. However Mr. Mottershead, previously claiming that the IP's cannot be faked, is now saying that they can be faked. So which is it? And if the 'technical expert' that Mr. Lafferty was trumping for the past year is saying the opposite, how can faith be placed in the infamous 'Mottershead Report'. Shall the process of showing the trail to the IP's be posted for anyone here that wishes to check for themselves can self-validate.

    Perhaps the report should be renamed the Motormouth Report. A USCF forums poster XPLOR has stated that Mr. Mottershead maintained the chain of custody of the data.

    How is that possible? Did Mr. Mottershead create a read-only replica of all USCF forum logs, forum database, and web server logs to ensure against data tampering? In the USCF delegates meeting in Dallas, Mr. Mike Nolan - the IT specialist of the USCF, stated that he has NOT been asked by USCF attorney's for any data from any of the systems. So if Mr. Nolan did not perform

    these tasks then who did? Mr. Mottershead? Mr. Bogner? Inquiring minds want to know! It is quite evident that chain of custody has been broken and there is no way of validating the authenticity of the underlying data. No one is questioning the process that was followed however even the 'expert opinions' stated that their opinions are valid only if the underlying data was not tainted.

    We will not discuss the NDA issue that Mr. Mottershead claims he did not violate. A court will decide that. Of course I would not be surprised if one of the reasons to separate counsel is for the USCF to throw Mr. Mottershead under the bus and say he violated his NDA and went against the wishes of the what the USCF President had instructed him (see the above dialog between Mottershead and Goichberg). Perhaps now is why Mr. Bogner is concerned that the Lubbock suit will enter into the discovery phase - he sees the writing on the wall where he too is being thrown under the bus along with his business and by association his business partners (I bet they are not pleased with him at this point!)

    -----------------------------------------------------------
    Let us now change our attention to actions that transpired this past week. There was a court date in the USCF vs Polgar, Alexander, and John Doe 1-10 lawsuit. The judge told counsel to go talk with each other prior to getting in front of her. Huh? Why did this happen? Something's not right.....

    Wait - breaking news - the USCF Attorney popped a surprise tactic - he requested that all parties enter into mediation with Harold Winston as the mediator! What the heck is this? This topic has been heatedly debated by the 'experts of the USCF forums' that mediation is not possible unless Polgar and Truong walk away, reimburse legal fees, and never do anything with the USCF for 10 years! We know that Polgar and Truong have their own version of mediation.

    Why would this be happening now? Is the USCF concerned that they will not be able to prevail in the lawsuit? Is it because without the generosity of a departed chess lover, the USCF would have no money at this point? Or have other things transpired?

    Perhaps because it has been learned that the subpeona's for records requested by the USCF attorney were not authorized by a judge. The judge had stated to the USCF attorney to contact those company's the subpeona's were sent to to inform them not to comply as they were not duly authorized.

    Let us follow the events over the next month and see what else will transpire.
    A question to ask yourself - was the USCF aware of the tactics employed by their attorney or were they kept in the dark? Should they seek recompense from their attorney if they were not aware of these tactics that the court has frowned upon?

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

    Of course there is the IL lawsuit to have Polgar and Truong removed from office. This lawsuit has been in the works at least since September (the month after the delegates meeting) as the USCF paid a $5000 retainer to the lawfirm. The suit was then filed only at the end of Dec? Why the wait? Political move to see who was going to run for the board and to discredit anyone attached to Polgar and Troung?

    Service of the suit has not occurred to date. What is the length of time for serving them? Why is Mr. Bogner stating that Polgar and Truong are refusing service? What proof does he have of this allegation?

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

    What does the end game hold? USCF running out of money? USCF throwing the others under the bus to save the federation and themselves? Only time will tell...... The only winners so far are the lawyers.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home