by jlemoine on Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:06 am
My take on this story:

In a dramatic challenge to President Goichberg and the rest of her
opponents, Susan Polgar offered to resign from the USCF Executive
Board Monday provided they (1) "give me the FULL CONSENT to release
all information to ALL USCF members" and (2) " If I cannot prove what
I said is true then I will resign immediately."

The other half of the challenge: "However, if I can prove that what I
said is true then President Goichberg would resign from the board
immediately."

Read the thread for the "what I said" part. These statements contain
significant revelations.

Polgar has been complaining for months that she possesses major
information that she is unable to disclose to the public only because
of Board confidentiality requirements. On the other hand, she has also
stated in the past that she has had to withhold information on the
advice of her lawyer, so the stonewalling cannot be laid entirely at
Bill Goichberg's door.

The gist of Polgar's point is that if the information were revealed,
then people could see that it was her side that was trying to get the
truth out about the scandal and the other side that was not. If this
point were to be proved, this would still not prove Truong's innocence
as the fake Sam Sloan. However, it would definitely target the finger
of suspicion to other directions.

These statements also affects the recall effort on Paul Truong. It is
based on "breach of fiduciary duty" - he allegedly failed to disclose
information to the USCF attorney defending the organization against
Sloan's lawsuit. If, in fact, other Board Members and staff were
leaking information to Sloan, then this disclosure would certainly
trump the Truong issue. Failure to disclose needed information versus
providing confidential information to legal adversaries.

The most significant part of these developments is that far from
relying on "reasonable doubt" and such-like escapes, Polgar has boldly
assumed the burden of proof on several key aspects of the simmering
scandal.
Jack Le Moine
lemoine.blogspot.com

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB...start=20#p7628

The original posting by Jack LeMoine, a long-time supporter of Susan
Polgar, regarding Susan's conditional offer to resign, is here under
"Polgar to Resign if ..." :

http://jacklemoine.blogspot.com/2008...resign-if.html

As best I can determine, the complaint by Susan Polgar regarding
"leaks" of confidential information is that she sent a confidential
email to Bill Goichberg and Randy Bauer and that one of them forwarded
it to somebody else who in turn forwarded it to somebody else and so
on. She writes that if she cannot prove this, she will resign
immediately but if she can prove it she expects Bill Goichberg and the
rest of the board except for her husband to resign.

Her offer is probably safe. I have very little doubt that if she sent
an incendiary email to Goichberg then he would forward it to a few of
his political allies. It is only natural. How could she expect that
such an email would be kept secret?

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" wrote in message
...
The original posting by Jack LeMoine, a long-time supporter of Susan
Polgar, regarding Susan's conditional offer to resign, is here under
"Polgar to Resign if ..." :

http://jacklemoine.blogspot.com/2008...resign-if.html

As best I can determine, the complaint by Susan Polgar regarding
"leaks" of confidential information is that she sent a confidential
email to Bill Goichberg and Randy Bauer and that one of them forwarded
it to somebody else who in turn forwarded it to somebody else and so
on. She writes that if she cannot prove this, she will resign
immediately but if she can prove it she expects Bill Goichberg and the
rest of the board except for her husband to resign.

Sam Sloan omits to say that she is "100% certain" she can prove material was
forwarded to Hanken, and other instances - was his own name mentioned?

Since Sam Sloan has excited on the ethics committee issue, I also noted this
comment:

"I would have loved for the ethics committee to take on this case. This
would have then given me the opportunity to provide all the evidence to show
the truth without interfering with the Sloan lawsuit as clearly instructed
by our attorneys several times." -Susan Polgar

Her offer is probably safe. I have very little doubt that if she sent
an incendiary email to Goichberg then he would forward it to a few of
his political allies. It is only natural. How could she expect that
such an email would be kept secret?

Since Sam Sloan is an interested party to this affair, and since his
reporting is highly selective, including his own wording 'and that one of
them forwarded it to somebody else who in turn forwarded it to somebody else
and so on.' When he could have actually quoted the material directly,
including his own name...

.... Sloan now indicates that this is about some singular e-mail, rather than
again, any quotation of what it says - and certainly as a paraphrase Sloan's
is deceptive.

It is not a 'resignation offer', it is a gauntlet!

Phil Innes

Sam Sloan

On Jul 3, 8:32 am, samsloan wrote:
by jlemoine on Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:06 am

The most significant part of these developments is that far from
relying on "reasonable doubt" and such-like escapes, Polgar has boldly
assumed the burden of proof on several key aspects of the simmering
scandal.
Jack Le Moine
lemoine.blogspot.com

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB...&t=1267&start=...

Very nice. When is she, and her husband, going to address the three
computer analysis that trace 2500 postings under fake names to her
husband?

As I understand it, the Polgar offer regards some issue we do not know
of, but which she seems to think is a scandal worthy of making Bill
Goichberg resign. Since we have no idea what her accusation is, it is
hard to know whether it is something worth resigning over. It may be
serious, but it may also be an issue which she has overblown (eg
secret dealings to negotiate with Sloan on dropping the lawsuit vs the
USCF, which she thinks is inappropriate but hardly seems so to me; or
perhaps leaking of emails which she felt were confidential, which also
does not seem like an issue to resign over).

On the other hand, as I understand her proposed explanation for the
FSS incident, the USCF does not know of anything which would prove
Truong's innocence; they merely did not do all she felt should have
been done to help clear him. Thus, revealing all the information would
neither clear Truong on the FSS case, nor would there be anything
directly related to the case which should cause Goichberg to resign.
Goichberg et al came to believe that Truong was guilty, turned to
their lawyers who told them how to treat the case (basically to
distance the USCF from Truong and Polgar on the issue). Susan may not
like that, but it is certainly not cause for resignation.

In my opinion, the Polgar line of defending Paul by wild attacks on
Goichberg is completely inappropriate. It makes it seem like Goichberg
is somehow responsible for the FSS issue, when that is not consistent
with her own explanations.

Jerry Spinrad

On Jul 3, 9:31*am, The Historian wrote:
On Jul 3, 8:32 am, samsloan wrote:

by jlemoine on Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:06 am
The most significant part of these developments is that far from
relying on "reasonable doubt" and such-like escapes, Polgar has boldly
assumed the burden of proof on several key aspects of the simmering
scandal.
Jack Le Moine
lemoine.blogspot.com

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB...&t=1267&start=...

Very nice. When is she, and her husband, going to address the three
computer analysis that trace 2500 postings under fake names to her
husband?

On Thu, 3 Jul 2008 07:52:29 -0700 (PDT),
"
wrote:

As I understand it, the Polgar offer regards some issue we do not know
of, but which she seems to think is a scandal worthy of making Bill
Goichberg resign.

Nixon: " I'm all for transparency. If Alger Hiss can prove he was
not a commie, I'll resign, but if he can't, we'll agree this
Watergate stuff is nonsense and the Speaker of the House and all
Democratic senators will resign."

wrote in message
...
As I understand it, the Polgar offer regards some issue we do not know
of, but which she seems to think is a scandal worthy of making Bill
Goichberg resign. Since we

**Twice already! An omnipotent 'we'. Since some many 'we' people have
declared that their only interest is in the matter is if Paul Truong is the
perp - is it any wonder that this is "some issue we do not know of", since
'we' have studiously avoided looking?

have no idea what her accusation is, it is
hard to know whether it is something worth resigning over. It may be
serious, but it may also be an issue which she has overblown (eg
secret dealings to negotiate with Sloan on dropping the lawsuit vs the
USCF, which she thinks is inappropriate but hardly seems so to me; or
perhaps leaking of emails which she felt were confidential, which also
does not seem like an issue to resign over).

**Jerry Spinrad supposes on the content, rather than comments on material
he, or we, have not seen - and irrespective of their content is dismissive
of the fact of them being even in his own words "secret dealings " with
Sloan. These do not seem smile to Jerry Spinrad, issues to resign over -
albeit their legality, and their previous suppression, whereas known
allegations against others were let stand.

**For myself, I would wonder if any jury thought this would seem to think
this was just like suppression of evidence?

On the other hand, as I understand her proposed explanation for the
FSS incident, the USCF does not know of anything which would prove
Truong's innocence; they merely did not do all she felt should have
been done to help clear him. Thus, revealing all the information would
neither clear Truong on the FSS case, nor would there be anything
directly related to the case which should cause Goichberg to resign.

**Continuing this fascinating hypothesis, Jerry Spinrad opines that the
deliberated witholding of this material which he abmits he knows not the
content thereof, would neither clear Truong ... but isn't that a matter of
opinion? Especially the opinion of a jury and based on what that material
actually contains?

Goichberg et al came to believe that Truong was guilty, turned to
their lawyers who told them how to treat the case (basically to
distance the USCF from Truong and Polgar on the issue). Susan may not
like that, but it is certainly not cause for resignation.

**That seems to be USCF's stance. But it is no independent opinion under any
rules of evidence. It is merely to assert that "secret dealings " whatever
they are in Jerry Spinrad's opinion, are "certainly not ..."

**Surely, they certainly could be?

In my opinion, the Polgar line of defending Paul by wild attacks on
Goichberg is completely inappropriate. It makes it seem like Goichberg
is somehow responsible for the FSS issue, when that is not consistent
with her own explanations.

**Too much opinion, too much unsubstantiated bias - no reference to
independent assessment - as if that were taboo !! Now, perhaps Jerry
Spinrad means that if the "secret material" was only as he said it was,
though he admits he doesn't know what it is, then... in his opinion...
Goichberg need not resign? Of course, if the "secret material" was other
than he said, I wonder what conditions Jerry Spinrad would think ripe for
resignation?

Phil Innes
Vermont

--------

Jerry Spinrad

On Jul 3, 9:31 am, The Historian wrote:
On Jul 3, 8:32 am, samsloan wrote:

by jlemoine on Thu Jul 03, 2008 2:06 am
The most significant part of these developments is that far from
relying on "reasonable doubt" and such-like escapes, Polgar has boldly
assumed the burden of proof on several key aspects of the simmering
scandal.
Jack Le Moine
lemoine.blogspot.com

http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB...&t=1267&start=...

Very nice. When is she, and her husband, going to address the three
computer analysis that trace 2500 postings under fake names to her
husband?

On Jul 3, 10:55 am, "Chess One" wrote:

But it is no independent opinion under any
rules of evidence.

When will Susan Polgar and her husband, and you as their unofficial
spokesman, address the three computer analysis that trace 2500
postings under fake names to Paul Truong?

The Historian wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:55 am, "Chess One" wrote:

But it is no independent opinion under any
rules of evidence.

When will Susan Polgar and her husband, and you as their unofficial
spokesman, address the three computer analysis that trace 2500
postings under fake names to Paul Truong?

They will never address it unless forced to do so in depositions and/or
at trial. Reason? They have no refutation available to them from a
creditable expert.

"Brian Lafferty" wrote in message
news:mC7bk.202$qW.157@trndny03...
The Historian wrote:
On Jul 3, 10:55 am, "Chess One" wrote:

But it is no independent opinion under any
rules of evidence.

When will Susan Polgar and her husband, and you as their unofficial
spokesman, address the three computer analysis that trace 2500
postings under fake names to Paul Truong?

They will never address it unless forced to do so in depositions and/or at
trial. Reason? They have no refutation available to them from a
creditable expert.

The point of all is to have all the records examined by an /independent/
expert. That has ever been the stance, and that is the current initiative.
In fact, the first independent expert to look at the materials was dismissed
by USCF since his conclusions were apparently not to their taste. Now the
only real way to resolve the issue is to have independent expertise attend
the matter, whose results can not be dismissed, but will be taken into
formal account; the implications of that inquiry being properly constituted
evidence - and let the chips fall where they may!

This, naturally, terrifies some people since it at once removes any idea of
hiding information, and secondly, might implicate other parties.



Phil Innes