Posted by Randy Bauer on the USCF Forums:

"The Executive Board has agreed to retain the services of Kronenberger
Burgoyne, LLP of San Francisco to advise and represent the USCF in matters
pertaining to Internet law and lawsuits arising from that subject matter.

Kronenberger Burgoyne's practice is entirely devoted to Internet law, and
they regularly litigate in state and federal court. Karl Kronenberger has
agreed to act as primary counsel to the USCF. He is a former prosecutor and
Army JAG corps officer, has served as general counsel to several
corporations, and has litigated numerous Internet defamation cases,
including cases involving Usenet newsgroups.

Kronenberger Burgoyne will now assist the USCF with retaining an independent
expert to provide additional advice relating to charges and lawsuits
involving the USCF. That process is well under way and should be concluded
in the near future."

On Oct 21, 3:47 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
Posted by Randy Bauer on the USCF Forums:

"The Executive Board has agreed to retain the services of Kronenberger
Burgoyne, LLP of San Francisco to advise and represent the USCF in matters
pertaining to Internet law and lawsuits arising from that subject matter.

Kronenberger Burgoyne's practice is entirely devoted to Internet law, and
they regularly litigate in state and federal court. Karl Kronenberger has
agreed to act as primary counsel to the USCF. He is a former prosecutor and
Army JAG corps officer, has served as general counsel to several
corporations, and has litigated numerous Internet defamation cases,
including cases involving Usenet newsgroups.

Kronenberger Burgoyne will now assist the USCF with retaining an independent
expert to provide additional advice relating to charges and lawsuits
involving the USCF. That process is well under way and should be concluded
in the near future."

Judge Lafferty

I take it that you approve of this law firm that the USCF hired. The
problem that I have
As a former officer is legal, and quite real. The delegates must VOTE
to pay Susan's or Paul's
LEGAL BILL. The Executive Board can't indemnify officers, it takes the
delegates. The Delegates had
No idea that Paul or Susan was involved during the vote to certify
their elections, and I was thrown
Out of that meeting by police. The proper procedure is for President
Goichberg to call an EMERGENCY
MEETING of the delegates, and request Susan and Paul are indemnified.
This is not happening....

Therefore, this LAW FIRM has no legal right under USCF custom and
practice to represent Susan Polgar
And Paul Troung for these e-mails. The delegates must meet in
emergency session, and that isn't going
To happen.

Susan and Paul's interests are in conflict with USCF interests. Susan
and Paul need their own (perhaps
seperate) legal counsel.

We have had these votes before, but never about something like this.

Thanks for the update

Marcus Roberts
former USCF Vice President

They certainly seem to be the ideal firm to appear in this case.

http://www.kronenbergerlaw.com/

It seems that most of their practice to date has consisted of
representing persons on my side of the case, that is the person being
defamed.

I wonder if they will feel uncomfortable representing the defamers.

The first question will be whether they are just representing just the
USCF, or if they are representing all USCF defendants, including
Truong, Polgar, Goichberg and Channing.

Sam Sloan

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

wrote:
On Oct 21, 3:47 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
Posted by Randy Bauer on the USCF Forums:

"The Executive Board has agreed to retain the services of Kronenberger
Burgoyne, LLP of San Francisco to advise and represent the USCF in matters
pertaining to Internet law and lawsuits arising from that subject matter.

Kronenberger Burgoyne's practice is entirely devoted to Internet law, and
they regularly litigate in state and federal court. Karl Kronenberger has
agreed to act as primary counsel to the USCF. He is a former prosecutor and
Army JAG corps officer, has served as general counsel to several
corporations, and has litigated numerous Internet defamation cases,
including cases involving Usenet newsgroups.

Kronenberger Burgoyne will now assist the USCF with retaining an independent
expert to provide additional advice relating to charges and lawsuits
involving the USCF. That process is well under way and should be concluded
in the near future."

Judge Lafferty

I take it that you approve of this law firm that the USCF hired. The
problem that I have
As a former officer is legal, and quite real. The delegates must VOTE
to pay Susan's or Paul's
LEGAL BILL. The Executive Board can't indemnify officers, it takes the
delegates. The Delegates had
No idea that Paul or Susan was involved during the vote to certify
their elections, and I was thrown
Out of that meeting by police. The proper procedure is for President
Goichberg to call an EMERGENCY
MEETING of the delegates, and request Susan and Paul are indemnified.
This is not happening....

Therefore, this LAW FIRM has no legal right under USCF custom and
practice to represent Susan Polgar
And Paul Troung for these e-mails. The delegates must meet in
emergency session, and that isn't going
To happen.

Susan and Paul's interests are in conflict with USCF interests. Susan
and Paul need their own (perhaps
seperate) legal counsel.

We have had these votes before, but never about something like this.

Thanks for the update

Marcus Roberts
former USCF Vice President

What does Randy's statement have to do with Susan and Paul's legal bill? Sam
named the federation as a defendant in the case. As Randy stated the firm will
be representing the USCF.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFHG9iUOlUOp/+ZgKYRAmQAAJ9x/OlUhurU9e5KlUTs7rfSl5YSjgCeKYsN
J3Mnbe7fkvoYXn6DigfFJjI=
=Nsup
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Oct 21, 7:15 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:

I would be surprised if the firm represents Polgar and Truong individually
as their interests may well not be the same as the USCF's It would also not
surprise me to see the UCF cross claim against Polgar and Truong for damages
and legal fees if the expert hired by this law firm concludes that Truong is
the FSS, et al.

Why do you say that they are going to represent Truong and Polgar?
They are to represent primarily the USCF.

I am wondering if they determine that Truong and Polgar are guilty,
will they file a cross complaint against them?

Sam Sloan

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:23:37 -0000, The Historian
wrote:


Mr. Lafferty, how likely is it that an expert hired by a firm
defending USCF will find the Mottershead Report accurate in its
conclusions?

Might the old phrase, " leave him to twist slowly, slowly in the wind"
be applicable here? (And no, Phil, it doesn't mean an actual
execution).

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:34:31 -0700, samsloan
wrote:

They certainly seem to be the ideal firm to appear in this case.

http://www.kronenbergerlaw.com/

It seems that most of their practice to date has consisted of
representing persons on my side of the case, that is the person being
defamed.

I wonder if they will feel uncomfortable representing the defamers.

The first question will be whether they are just representing just the
USCF, or if they are representing all USCF defendants, including
Truong, Polgar, Goichberg and Channing.

Sam Sloan


My guess is this firm will coordinate the USCF's review of the
Mottershead data and monitor things to make sure nobody's rights are
violated or liabilities incurred, as well as defending the Federation
from you. I mean, in an ideal world.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:23:37 -0000, The Historian
wrote:


Mr. Lafferty, how likely is it that an expert hired by a firm
defending USCF will find the Mottershead Report accurate in its
conclusions?

I wonder if Judge Lafferty is offering his impartial opinion about due legal
process, or acting as a very partial advocate? I don't think he can do both
/at the same time/, can he?

Might the old phrase, " leave him to twist slowly, slowly in the wind"
be applicable here? (And no, Phil, it doesn't mean an actual
execution).

Mike, you might do your own thinking, rather than suggest that if others do,
what that doesn't mean, etc.

Otherwise you become a bit like the hangin' judge above - not content with
impartial representation of due process, you take over the prosecution too -
and then, skippity-hop over to the jury seats to vote on your own brilliant
presentation.

Cordially, Phil Innes