by SusanPolgar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:25 pm
Here are some very serious issues which can potentially lead to many
problems for the USCF:


1. Who leaked confidential board information to their circle of friends?
Only 5 board members (Goichberg, Berry, Bauer, Hough and Channing), the
ED and the attorney(s) for the board majority know the information. I am
confident that Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not do it. Then who
did? Why did the board majority refuse to investigate? What are they hiding?
-------------------------------------------------------
What information, Suzie? What is it's relevance to your hubby being
caught out as the FSS in one report and two expert evaluations of that
report?
----------------------------------------------------------------

2. Did the 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? Will the
board majority publicly admit or deny this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzie dearest, any member of the board or other defendant represented by
Proskauer Rose is entitled to consult with Proskauer Rose. Proskauer
Rose made a decision on the law and acts that it could no longer
represent you and hubby because hubby would not cooperate in the defense
by providing his ISP data and would not, in writing signed by him, state
that he is not the FSS.
Thus, your hubby effectively caused there to be an adverse interest
between you and hubby on the one hand and all the other defendants
represented by Proskauer Rose. But, isn't Chubb paying the legal bills
from your new counsel, Nixon Peabody?

BUT, are you now telling us that Chubb has declined to cover you in this
action? That would be another kettle of fish, wouldn't it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Who leaked confidential board information to Jerry Hanken and who
authorized Jerry Hanken to negotiate with Sam Sloan while the lawsuits
against multiple parties are ongoing? 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 because he is using some of this confidential
information in his response to the motion to dismiss.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
What proof do you have that anything confidential was leaked to Jerry
Hanken? Nothing is obvious as you state it to be, Suzie.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

4. Who authorized the board majority and their attorney to investigate
false charges against my husband and me which relate to my divorce /
custody case? 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?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Suszie, it's called preparing to defend a legal action against the
defendants. Anything hat might impact on your credibility is fair game
to investigate, particularly no that you are at adverse interest to the
other defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------


5. Why did the board majority refuse to allow our experts to examine the
USCF data? We asked for this since September 2007. 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?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Serve a subpoena.
----------------------------------------------------------------

6. 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. Why? Isn't the USCF interested to find out the truth or is this
just a political game?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Is this relevant to defending the charges that hubby is the FSS? Answer,
it isn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------

7. We requested to have a thorough independent review of how this
federation spends money. We need to know why we wasted money to revamp
the website TWICE and how the contracts came about. Were there fair and
open biddings? I never saw any advertisement in Chess Life or other
publications. I would like to know who approved this and who we can hold
accountable for the financial blunders. This request was also ignored.
Isn't saving the USCF an important task?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ssuzie, you haven't done squat as to finances since you were elected.
Also, this has nothing to do with the law suit.
----------------------------------------------------------------

I will continue to point out the facts and the members can make up their
own minds. I am very confident that once everything is opened up, all
USCF members can then determine who did what and what games were played.
I stand by my earlier statements about complete transparency from all
seven board members, the ED, USCF contractors, attorneys and related
parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You do that, Suzie. But, next time, try putting a few fact out there
instead of more of your pitiful smoke and mirrors.

On Feb 7, 1:47*pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
by SusanPolgar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:25 pm
Here are some very serious issues which can potentially lead to many
problems for the USCF:

1. Who leaked confidential board information to their circle of friends?
Only 5 board members (Goichberg, Berry, Bauer, Hough and Channing), the
ED and the attorney(s) for the board majority know the information. I am
confident that Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not do it. Then who
did? Why did the board majority refuse to investigate? What are they hiding?
-------------------------------------------------------
What information, Suzie? *What is it's relevance to your hubby being
caught out as the FSS in one report and two expert evaluations of that
report?
----------------------------------------------------------------

2. Did the 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? Will the
board majority publicly admit or deny this?


The insurance company cannot drop coverage.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzie dearest, any member of the board or other defendant represented by
Proskauer Rose is entitled to consult with Proskauer Rose. Proskauer
Rose made a decision on the law and acts that it could no longer
represent you and hubby because hubby would not cooperate in the defense
by providing his ISP data and would not, in writing signed by him, state
that he is not the FSS.
Thus, your hubby effectively caused there to be an adverse interest
between you and hubby on the one hand and all the other defendants
represented by Proskauer Rose. *But, isn't Chubb paying the legal bills
from your new counsel, Nixon Peabody?

BUT, are you now telling us that Chubb has declined to cover you in this
action? *That would be another kettle of fish, wouldn't it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The insurance company is obligated to defend.


3. Who leaked confidential board information to Jerry Hanken and who
authorized Jerry Hanken to negotiate with Sam Sloan while the lawsuits
against multiple parties are ongoing? 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 because he is using some of this confidential
information in his response to the motion to dismiss.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
What proof do you have that anything confidential was leaked to Jerry
Hanken? *Nothing is obvious as you state it to be, Suzie.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

4. Who authorized the board majority and their attorney to investigate
false charges against my husband and me which relate to my divorce /
custody case? 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?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Suszie, it's called preparing to defend a legal action against the
defendants. Anything hat might impact on your credibility is fair game
to investigate, particularly no that you are at adverse interest to the
other defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

5. Why did the board majority refuse to allow our experts to examine the
USCF data? We asked for this since September 2007. 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?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Serve a subpoena.
----------------------------------------------------------------

6. 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. Why? Isn't the USCF interested to find out the truth or is this
just a political game?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Is this relevant to defending the charges that hubby is the FSS? Answer,
it isn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------

7. We requested to have a thorough independent review of how this
federation spends money. We need to know why we wasted money to revamp
the website TWICE and how the contracts came about. Were there fair and
open biddings? I never saw any advertisement in Chess Life or other
publications. I would like to know who approved this and who we can hold
accountable for the financial blunders. This request was also ignored.
Isn't saving the USCF an important task?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ssuzie, you haven't done squat as to finances since you were elected.
Also, this has nothing to do with the law suit.
----------------------------------------------------------------

I will continue to point out the facts and the members can make up their
own minds. I am very confident that once everything is opened up, all
USCF members can then determine who did what and what games were played.
I stand by my earlier statements about complete transparency from all
seven board members, the ED, USCF contractors, attorneys and related
parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You do that, Suzie. *But, next time, try putting a few fact out there
instead of more of your pitiful smoke and mirrors.

On Feb 7, 1:47*pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
by SusanPolgar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:25 pm
Here are some very serious issues which can potentially lead to many
problems for the USCF:

1. Who leaked confidential board information to their circle of friends?
Only 5 board members (Goichberg, Berry, Bauer, Hough and Channing), the
ED and the attorney(s) for the board majority know the information. I am
confident that Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not do it. Then who
did? Why did the board majority refuse to investigate? What are they hiding?
-------------------------------------------------------
What information, Suzie? *What is it's relevance to your hubby being
caught out as the FSS in one report and two expert evaluations of that
report?
----------------------------------------------------------------

2. Did the 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? Will the
board majority publicly admit or deny this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Suzie dearest, any member of the board or other defendant represented by
Proskauer Rose is entitled to consult with Proskauer Rose. Proskauer
Rose made a decision on the law and acts that it could no longer
represent you and hubby because hubby would not cooperate in the defense
by providing his ISP data and would not, in writing signed by him, state
that he is not the FSS.
Thus, your hubby effectively caused there to be an adverse interest
between you and hubby on the one hand and all the other defendants
represented by Proskauer Rose. *But, isn't Chubb paying the legal bills
from your new counsel, Nixon Peabody?

BUT, are you now telling us that Chubb has declined to cover you in this
action? *That would be another kettle of fish, wouldn't it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Who leaked confidential board information to Jerry Hanken and who
authorized Jerry Hanken to negotiate with Sam Sloan while the lawsuits
against multiple parties are ongoing? 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 because he is using some of this confidential
information in his response to the motion to dismiss.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
What proof do you have that anything confidential was leaked to Jerry
Hanken? *Nothing is obvious as you state it to be, Suzie.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

4. Who authorized the board majority and their attorney to investigate
false charges against my husband and me which relate to my divorce /
custody case? 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?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Suszie, it's called preparing to defend a legal action against the
defendants. Anything hat might impact on your credibility is fair game
to investigate, particularly no that you are at adverse interest to the
other defendants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

5. Why did the board majority refuse to allow our experts to examine the
USCF data? We asked for this since September 2007. 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?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Serve a subpoena.
----------------------------------------------------------------

6. 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. Why? Isn't the USCF interested to find out the truth or is this
just a political game?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Is this relevant to defending the charges that hubby is the FSS? Answer,
it isn't.
------------------------------------------------------------------

7. We requested to have a thorough independent review of how this
federation spends money. We need to know why we wasted money to revamp
the website TWICE and how the contracts came about. Were there fair and
open biddings? I never saw any advertisement in Chess Life or other
publications. I would like to know who approved this and who we can hold
accountable for the financial blunders. This request was also ignored.
Isn't saving the USCF an important task?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ssuzie, you haven't done squat as to finances since you were elected.
Also, this has nothing to do with the law suit.
----------------------------------------------------------------

I will continue to point out the facts and the members can make up their
own minds. I am very confident that once everything is opened up, all
USCF members can then determine who did what and what games were played.
I stand by my earlier statements about complete transparency from all
seven board members, the ED, USCF contractors, attorneys and related
parties.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You do that, Suzie. *But, next time, try putting a few fact out there
instead of more of your pitiful smoke and mirrors.

I wonder if Susan wipes her ass when she ****s? Her **** stinks to
high heaven!

On Feb 7, 4:59 pm, Rob wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:



by SusanPolgar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:25 pm
Here are some very serious issues which can potentially lead to many
problems for the USCF:

1. Who leaked confidential board information to their circle of friends?
Only 5 board members (Goichberg, Berry, Bauer, Hough and Channing), the
ED and the attorney(s) for the board majority know the information. I am
confident that Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not do it. Then who
did? Why did the board majority refuse to investigate? What are they hiding?
-------------------------------------------------------
What information, Suzie? What is it's relevance to your hubby being
caught out as the FSS in one report and two expert evaluations of that
report?
----------------------------------------------------------------

2. Did the 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? Will the
board majority publicly admit or deny this?

The insurance company cannot drop coverage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Suzie dearest, any member of the board or other defendant represented by
Proskauer Rose is entitled to consult with Proskauer Rose. Proskauer
Rose made a decision on the law and acts that it could no longer
represent you and hubby because hubby would not cooperate in the defense
by providing his ISP data and would not, in writing signed by him, state
that he is not the FSS.
Thus, your hubby effectively caused there to be an adverse interest
between you and hubby on the one hand and all the other defendants
represented by Proskauer Rose. But, isn't Chubb paying the legal bills
from your new counsel, Nixon Peabody?

BUT, are you now telling us that Chubb has declined to cover you in this
action? That would be another kettle of fish, wouldn't it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The insurance company is obligated to defend.


The insurance company is obligated to defend, but the person who is
being defended also has a duty to cooperate with the insurance
company. Willful failure to cooperate with the investigation could
lead to a denial of coverage based on that non-cooperation.

Wick Deer

Wick wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:59 pm, Rob wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:



by SusanPolgar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:25 pm
Here are some very serious issues which can potentially lead to many
problems for the USCF:
1. Who leaked confidential board information to their circle of friends?
Only 5 board members (Goichberg, Berry, Bauer, Hough and Channing), the
ED and the attorney(s) for the board majority know the information. I am
confident that Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not do it. Then who
did? Why did the board majority refuse to investigate? What are they hiding?
-------------------------------------------------------
What information, Suzie? What is it's relevance to your hubby being
caught out as the FSS in one report and two expert evaluations of that
report?
----------------------------------------------------------------
2. Did the 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? Will the
board majority publicly admit or deny this?
The insurance company cannot drop coverage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Suzie dearest, any member of the board or other defendant represented by
Proskauer Rose is entitled to consult with Proskauer Rose. Proskauer
Rose made a decision on the law and acts that it could no longer
represent you and hubby because hubby would not cooperate in the defense
by providing his ISP data and would not, in writing signed by him, state
that he is not the FSS.
Thus, your hubby effectively caused there to be an adverse interest
between you and hubby on the one hand and all the other defendants
represented by Proskauer Rose. But, isn't Chubb paying the legal bills
from your new counsel, Nixon Peabody?
BUT, are you now telling us that Chubb has declined to cover you in this
action? That would be another kettle of fish, wouldn't it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The insurance company is obligated to defend.


The insurance company is obligated to defend, but the person who is
being defended also has a duty to cooperate with the insurance
company. Willful failure to cooperate with the investigation could
lead to a denial of coverage based on that non-cooperation.

Wick Deer

Correct. Also, the insurance company may have a claim against the insured.

On Feb 7, 7:46 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Wick wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:59 pm, Rob wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

by SusanPolgar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:25 pm
Here are some very serious issues which can potentially lead to many
problems for the USCF:
1. Who leaked confidential board information to their circle of friends?
Only 5 board members (Goichberg, Berry, Bauer, Hough and Channing), the
ED and the attorney(s) for the board majority know the information. I am
confident that Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not do it. Then who
did? Why did the board majority refuse to investigate? What are they hiding?
-------------------------------------------------------
What information, Suzie? What is it's relevance to your hubby being
caught out as the FSS in one report and two expert evaluations of that
report?
----------------------------------------------------------------
2. Did the 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? Will the
board majority publicly admit or deny this?
The insurance company cannot drop coverage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Suzie dearest, any member of the board or other defendant represented by
Proskauer Rose is entitled to consult with Proskauer Rose. Proskauer
Rose made a decision on the law and acts that it could no longer
represent you and hubby because hubby would not cooperate in the defense
by providing his ISP data and would not, in writing signed by him, state
that he is not the FSS.
Thus, your hubby effectively caused there to be an adverse interest
between you and hubby on the one hand and all the other defendants
represented by Proskauer Rose. But, isn't Chubb paying the legal bills
from your new counsel, Nixon Peabody?
BUT, are you now telling us that Chubb has declined to cover you in this
action? That would be another kettle of fish, wouldn't it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The insurance company is obligated to defend.

The insurance company is obligated to defend, but the person who is
being defended also has a duty to cooperate with the insurance
company. Willful failure to cooperate with the investigation could
lead to a denial of coverage based on that non-cooperation.

Wick Deer

Correct. Also, the insurance company may have a claim against the insured.

really? what part of the policy give the insurance company the right
to sue the insured? Please show me?

On Feb 7, 6:50 pm, Wick wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:59 pm, Rob wrote:



On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

by SusanPolgar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:25 pm
Here are some very serious issues which can potentially lead to many
problems for the USCF:

1. Who leaked confidential board information to their circle of friends?
Only 5 board members (Goichberg, Berry, Bauer, Hough and Channing), the
ED and the attorney(s) for the board majority know the information. I am
confident that Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not do it. Then who
did? Why did the board majority refuse to investigate? What are they hiding?
-------------------------------------------------------
What information, Suzie? What is it's relevance to your hubby being
caught out as the FSS in one report and two expert evaluations of that
report?
----------------------------------------------------------------

2. Did the 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? Will the
board majority publicly admit or deny this?

The insurance company cannot drop coverage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Suzie dearest, any member of the board or other defendant represented by
Proskauer Rose is entitled to consult with Proskauer Rose. Proskauer
Rose made a decision on the law and acts that it could no longer
represent you and hubby because hubby would not cooperate in the defense
by providing his ISP data and would not, in writing signed by him, state
that he is not the FSS.
Thus, your hubby effectively caused there to be an adverse interest
between you and hubby on the one hand and all the other defendants
represented by Proskauer Rose. But, isn't Chubb paying the legal bills
from your new counsel, Nixon Peabody?

BUT, are you now telling us that Chubb has declined to cover you in this
action? That would be another kettle of fish, wouldn't it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The insurance company is obligated to defend.

The insurance company is obligated to defend, but the person who is
being defended also has a duty to cooperate with the insurance
company. Willful failure to cooperate with the investigation could
lead to a denial of coverage based on that non-cooperation.

Wick Deer

It could? Anything is possible, not probable though.

On Feb 7, 9:41 pm, Rob wrote:
On Feb 7, 6:50 pm, Wick wrote:



On Feb 7, 4:59 pm, Rob wrote:

On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

by SusanPolgar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:25 pm
Here are some very serious issues which can potentially lead to many
problems for the USCF:

1. Who leaked confidential board information to their circle of friends?
Only 5 board members (Goichberg, Berry, Bauer, Hough and Channing), the
ED and the attorney(s) for the board majority know the information. I am
confident that Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not do it. Then who
did? Why did the board majority refuse to investigate? What are they hiding?
-------------------------------------------------------
What information, Suzie? What is it's relevance to your hubby being
caught out as the FSS in one report and two expert evaluations of that
report?
----------------------------------------------------------------

2. Did the 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? Will the
board majority publicly admit or deny this?

The insurance company cannot drop coverage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Suzie dearest, any member of the board or other defendant represented by
Proskauer Rose is entitled to consult with Proskauer Rose. Proskauer
Rose made a decision on the law and acts that it could no longer
represent you and hubby because hubby would not cooperate in the defense
by providing his ISP data and would not, in writing signed by him, state
that he is not the FSS.
Thus, your hubby effectively caused there to be an adverse interest
between you and hubby on the one hand and all the other defendants
represented by Proskauer Rose. But, isn't Chubb paying the legal bills
from your new counsel, Nixon Peabody?

BUT, are you now telling us that Chubb has declined to cover you in this
action? That would be another kettle of fish, wouldn't it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The insurance company is obligated to defend.

The insurance company is obligated to defend, but the person who is
being defended also has a duty to cooperate with the insurance
company. Willful failure to cooperate with the investigation could
lead to a denial of coverage based on that non-cooperation.

Wick Deer

It could? Anything is possible, not probable though.

http://www.dcba.org/brief/janissue/2001/art30101.htm

On Feb 7, 8:46 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:
Wick wrote:
On Feb 7, 4:59 pm, Rob wrote:
On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

by SusanPolgar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:25 pm
Here are some very serious issues which can potentially lead to many
problems for the USCF:
1. Who leaked confidential board information to their circle of friends?
Only 5 board members (Goichberg, Berry, Bauer, Hough and Channing), the
ED and the attorney(s) for the board majority know the information. I am
confident that Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not do it. Then who
did? Why did the board majority refuse to investigate? What are they hiding?
-------------------------------------------------------
What information, Suzie? What is it's relevance to your hubby being
caught out as the FSS in one report and two expert evaluations of that
report?
----------------------------------------------------------------
2. Did the 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? Will the
board majority publicly admit or deny this?
The insurance company cannot drop coverage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Suzie dearest, any member of the board or other defendant represented by
Proskauer Rose is entitled to consult with Proskauer Rose. Proskauer
Rose made a decision on the law and acts that it could no longer
represent you and hubby because hubby would not cooperate in the defense
by providing his ISP data and would not, in writing signed by him, state
that he is not the FSS.
Thus, your hubby effectively caused there to be an adverse interest
between you and hubby on the one hand and all the other defendants
represented by Proskauer Rose. But, isn't Chubb paying the legal bills
from your new counsel, Nixon Peabody?
BUT, are you now telling us that Chubb has declined to cover you in this
action? That would be another kettle of fish, wouldn't it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The insurance company is obligated to defend.

The insurance company is obligated to defend, but the person who is
being defended also has a duty to cooperate with the insurance
company. Willful failure to cooperate with the investigation could
lead to a denial of coverage based on that non-cooperation.

Wick Deer

Correct. Also, the insurance company may have a claim against the insured.

This would be in a situation, just to speak hypothetically, where a
person on a board of a not-for-profit signs a statement he didn't
commit identity theft, and then it emerges he did just that. If the
insurer suffers a loss defending such a bad-faith claim, they may sue
their insured. Correct?

On Feb 7, 8:41 pm, Rob wrote:
On Feb 7, 6:50 pm, Wick wrote:



On Feb 7, 4:59 pm, Rob wrote:

On Feb 7, 1:47 pm, Brian Lafferty wrote:

by SusanPolgar on Thu Feb 07, 2008 5:25 pm
Here are some very serious issues which can potentially lead to many
problems for the USCF:

1. Who leaked confidential board information to their circle of friends?
Only 5 board members (Goichberg, Berry, Bauer, Hough and Channing), the
ED and the attorney(s) for the board majority know the information. I am
confident that Joel Channing and Randy Bauer did not do it. Then who
did? Why did the board majority refuse to investigate? What are they hiding?
-------------------------------------------------------
What information, Suzie? What is it's relevance to your hubby being
caught out as the FSS in one report and two expert evaluations of that
report?
----------------------------------------------------------------

2. Did the 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? Will the
board majority publicly admit or deny this?

The insurance company cannot drop coverage.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- Suzie dearest, any member of the board or other defendant represented by
Proskauer Rose is entitled to consult with Proskauer Rose. Proskauer
Rose made a decision on the law and acts that it could no longer
represent you and hubby because hubby would not cooperate in the defense
by providing his ISP data and would not, in writing signed by him, state
that he is not the FSS.
Thus, your hubby effectively caused there to be an adverse interest
between you and hubby on the one hand and all the other defendants
represented by Proskauer Rose. But, isn't Chubb paying the legal bills
from your new counsel, Nixon Peabody?

BUT, are you now telling us that Chubb has declined to cover you in this
action? That would be another kettle of fish, wouldn't it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The insurance company is obligated to defend.

The insurance company is obligated to defend, but the person who is
being defended also has a duty to cooperate with the insurance
company. Willful failure to cooperate with the investigation could
lead to a denial of coverage based on that non-cooperation.

Wick Deer

It could? Anything is possible, not probable though.

Depends on the nature of the non-cooperation. Ordinary
irresponsibility, errors, and goofs will not establish sufficient non-
cooperation. Repeatedly refusing to provide material reasonably
requested and necessary to the defense could well do the trick. It
depends on the actions of the insured and the harm to the defense due
to the non-cooperation.

Wick