A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Sound and Fury in Polgarland



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 15th 08, 01:01 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,re.games.chess.misc
B. Lafferty[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 570
Default Sound and Fury in Polgarland

The real question is--hope many people were really posting to this
Saturday open forum thread?

------------------------------------Will the uscf go out of business due
to the incompetence of Goichberg and pips?

Saturday, December 13, 2008 1:45:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
Is USCF on the verge of going bankrupt ? If so, how soon does the money
run out ?

Saturday, December 13, 2008 2:25:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
Susan, You can help USChess if you drop your $25 million lawsuit; it wil
cost you and the USCF thousands in lawyers fees. For the best interests
of you and the USCF and chess players, it would be great if you do this.
Please, for all chess players.

Saturday, December 13, 2008 2:25:00 PM CST

SusanPolgar said...
I will drop the $25 million lawsuit against the USCF when the USCF
publicly apologize to me and sign an affidavit that they will never
harass or bother me or my family again. This is the one condition I will
not budge on.

I have put up with the constant harassment and abuse for more than a
year. Enough is enough. This organization has done this to everyone good
person who wants to help. This has gone on for decades. The difference
is when this happened, good people simply walked away and many never
came back.

I ran for the board with the mission to clean up the same old dirty and
disgusting chess politics that destroy this federation. It is time
someone stands up against this kind of corruption and incompetence at
the highest level or this federation will never get better.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar

Saturday, December 13, 2008 2:38:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
It strikes me as counterproductive to sue the USCF. If you sue the
individual culprits you will acheive the result you want without
jeopardizing the future existance of our federation.

Saturday, December 13, 2008 3:37:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
She has to sue the USCF since Goichberg and his gang are hiding behind
it. They're not using their money for legal fees. They're clearly
abusing their authority and members' money. I hope Susan will go all the
way so this federation can be fixed at once.

Saturday, December 13, 2008 3:40:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
I don't think Polgar has a choice. The USCF filed a frivolous lawsuit
against her first. The party which loses should be banned from chess
forever.

Saturday, December 13, 2008 3:59:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
Kudos to Susan for having the courage to stand up against these
political thugs.

Saturday, December 13, 2008 4:17:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
Fight all the way. No settlement please. Let's fight to the death.

Saturday, December 13, 2008 4:22:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
If the USCF loses this lawsuit, all members should start a class action
against Goichberg, Berry, Bauer, Hough, Lafferty, Bogner, Hanken,
Mottershead and Hall. They're the ones who are responsible for
destroying this federation.

Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:11:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
Susan
You should sue them individually too, for personal liability for their
actions.
Seeing their name personally on a $25 million lawsuit would be quite
sobering.
Especially since punitive damage awards do not go away with a personal
bankruptcy.

Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:15:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
She's suing them individually as well. Any sane individual could see
that the USCF and the Goichberg gang are in big trouble. But they're too
proud to apologize for their stupidity.

Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:18:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
William Goichberg:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:22:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
Randy Bauer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:22:00 PM CST

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:23:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
Just read in the BINFO files of the United States Chess Federation that
the United States Chess Federation has already paid seventy five
thousand ($120,000) dollars in legal fees since August 2008. With more
legal fees because of the contract dispute with Chess Café, more legal
fees that is not covered under the insurance coverage it begs the
question how long can the United States Chess Federation can keep up the
high level of lawsuits.

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

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

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

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

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

Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:23:00 PM CST

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

Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:24:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
Have been debating with myself the practical and social reasons why
someone would be interested in the political nature of chess politics.
More to the point, the personal reason someone would be willing to deal
with the politics of the United States Chess Federation. The basic
argument that people of good standing and willing to be a productive
volunteer would stand for a public election. If elected serve as a
volunteer and provide for the wellbeing of the United States Chess
Federation without public of private monetary rewards during their
tenure of service.

Are we really better off with a United States Chess Federation when our
leaders are unpaid volunteers?

Other then utopia societies written as a political theory, there has
never been a political organization that controls the people and the
leadership is unpaid volunteers that does not receive monetary rewards.
True, the United States Chess Federation does mirror the most with
organized religion. Still, the highest level of leadership of organized
religion does receive some type of monetary reward for their services.

In fairness, the vast amount of the citizenship has willfully
volunteered their services for some organization or even for an
unorganized society that only serves the interests for family members or
a group that wants to give enrichment for their children and others.
Whatever the level, it is altruism.

Altruism is important, but, altruism with an organized political body is
counterproductive and ends as an oxymoron. Sure, the United States Chess
Federation can have volunteers that perform selfless acts with concerns
for the welfare of the United States Chess Federation. Accepting
political power with the goal of performing selfless acts with concerns
for the welfare of the United States Chess Federation: only produces
people wanting respect and achieved status.

Max Webb (1864 – 1920) with the three (3) dimensions of stratification
has property, prestige and power as the core principles. The achieved
status the United States Chess Federation provides is prestige and power
only. With the United States Chess Federation, altruism increases
prestige and prestige increases power.

The reason why the United States Chess Federation is so engaged with
character assignation is because it devalues the prestige of the person.
If a group can devalue the prestige of someone it is their belief you
have devalued their political power. The downfall with this system, it
is so engaged with character assignation it fails to address the social
and political willpower to the current economic status.

In my judgment, the unpaid volunteer system has left the United States
Chess Federation stunted and has retarded the progress of chess within
the United States. As other organizations has produced growth with
monetary rewards to encourage their leadership base and therefore
increase the general population within the organization. The United
States Chess Federation has only the ability to increase the membership
base with prestige.

Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:25:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
I must admit that I have a hard time following your philosophical
discussions. I am not a member of the United States Chess Federation and
what I am about to offer is merely in the spirit of debate.

I would argue that, in the business world, every failed organization
used a monetary reward system to encourage, identify and promote their
leadership. Since these organizations still failed, it is reasonable to
assume that monetary rewards do not guarantee good leadership.

But is not really fair to compare the USCF to a for-profit business - I
assume that the USCF is a non-profit organization. Nor should it be
compared to just any non-profit organization. It is not a charity such
as the Peace Corps, Red Cross or a religion (they generally do a fair
amount of charitable work). It should be compared with organizations
such as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Little League or the Amateur Athletic
Union.

I assume that the USCF has a permanent paid staff and a part time
volunteer board to oversee/guide operations. I would assume that
Scouting, Little League and the AAU are operated in a similar manner,
but I do not know this for a fact. It is something you can look into if
you desire. The point is that a volunteer board can successfully lead a
non-profit organization.

I might also argue that rewarding a board with a significant amount of
money to attract the best leadership risks disenfranchising the purely
voluntary work at the bottom level. Without these large numbers of
volunteers, an organization such as the USCF is likely doomed.

If you would like something else to think about, consider this:

Generally speaking, organizations similar to the USCF probably started
with an individual or a small group of people who wanted to share
something they enjoyed with others. More importantly, they wanted to
pass what they learned through their experiences on to others. In other
words, education was at the heart and core of the organizations they
created.

When I read the USCF/FIDE posts I often find discussions about politics,
memberships and tournaments. I do not think I have seen a single thread
discussing education or how to reach out to a broader base. Perhaps this
is why the USCF is not growing. It is too focused on tournaments and
memberships and not focused enough on what should be its primary
function - education.

Maybe you need to ask why the USCF exists, how well it is fulfilling its
mission and why people become members. Failure is more likely to be due
to a lack of altruism, member apathy or loosing site of the mission (or
the wrong mission) than the lack of a small financial reward for the
overseeing board.

Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:25:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
I agree with the former and possibly with the latter, but it would not
change the mission/charter of your organization. New educational
programs should have been introduced.

By the way, I am not saying that tournaments were not part of your
original charter or that they should not be a part of USCF activities. I
am only suggesting that successful non-profit organizations of your type
keep education as the foundation of their existence.

I brought up education because I expect it to be part or the USCF
charter, yet I have not heard any mention of educational activities
contributing to USCF cash flow; only memberships and tournaments.

Saturday, December 13, 2008 5:26:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
If you are suing your own federation, it's high time to go back to Hungarya.

Saturday, December 13, 2008 6:52:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
"This is the one condition I will not budge on."

Aw, come on!

Saturday, December 13, 2008 6:53:00 PM CST

Anonymous said...
Another troll post deleted! Thanks moderator!

Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:21:00 AM CST

Anonymous said...
During the fiscal year 2007-2008, the USCF financial statements recorded
the receipt of $120,000 of this imaginary money. Since it did not
actually get this money, this means that instead of losing the reported
$70,000, USCF actually lost $190,000. However, it lost even more than
that because the financial statements also included an "accounts
receivable" of approximately $85,000 from Hanon Russell. It was already
known by the time of the meetings in Dallas that Hanon Russell was
refusing to pay this amount. This has been confirmed by the lawsuit that
Hanon Russell filed against the USCF last month, so the real loss for
the 2007-2008 fiscal year was $275,000, unless, of course, the USCF wins
a money judgment and collects from Hanon Russell.
All this is still being ignored by the USCF President. In a posting I
wrote that has not been allowed to appear on the USCF Issues Forum but
will appear in the BINFOS shortly, I stated that the USCF has
consistently lost $250,000 per year except for the one year that I was
on the board. Bill Goichberg wrote back denying this, saying that the
USCF has only lost $250,00 one year and that was back in the beginning
of 2000 when Goichberg was neither on the board nor Executive Director.
He also claimed big profits when he was executive director, ignoring the
fact that most of those "profits" came from the sale of the USCF's
building in New Windsor NY. Since the building which had been owned by
the USCF since the early 1970s had been depreciated down to almost
nothing, the full revenues received from the sale of the building was
recorded as a "profit", even though we had to spend more to build a
smaller building in Crossville TN.
Goichberg is the most incompetent USCF President ever. The USCF will die
because of him and his gang. It is a fight to the death because the USCF
will die if people like Goichberg keep ignoring the continuing huge
financial losses the USCF suffers every year and remain unwilling to
make any changes or to do anything about it.

Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:25:00 AM CST

Anonymous said...
Right now the USCF is losing an average of $250,000 per year. This has
been the case for the past decade .

Until now the USCF's involvement in scholastic chess has been passive.
The kiddies send in their money and the USCF cashes their checks. There
is absolutely no promotion of scholastic chess. Have you ever seen any
publicity or a news announcement regarding a scholastic event? Do not
you find it remarkable that sometimes more than 4,000 (four thousand)
,kids show up for a scholastic chess tournament that the USCF has never
advertised or done anything to promote? Think of how many more kids
would come if they knew about these events.

Goichberg's idea to cut expenses is to cut Chess Life and Chess Life for
Kids magazines. This has to be the worst idea imaginable. The magazines
are the only benefit that most members get.

The "change in the dues structure" that Bill Goichberg now so proudly
gives himself credit for was to eliminate Chess Life magazine for all
regular members of the USCF. Most members of the USCF do not know about
this yet but they will find out when they renew and discover that they
are no longer receiving the magazine in the mail.


Now Goichberg wants another 4 years to completely bankrupt this
federation. I think not.

Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:34:00 AM CST
  #2  
Old December 15th 08, 04:14 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
samsloan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,859
Default Sound and Fury in Polgarland

Take a close look at the quotes above.

In many cases, they have taken something I actually wrote and have
added some remarks of their own at the end.

Sam Sloan
  #3  
Old December 15th 08, 04:52 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
samsloan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 14,859
Default Sound and Fury in Polgarland

On Dec 14, 11:14*pm, samsloan wrote:
Take a close look at the quotes above.

In many cases, they have taken something I actually wrote and have
added some remarks of their own at the end.

Sam Sloan


The posts are he

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008...-forum_13.html

Note that they have taken real posts from a variety of people
including me, and have mixed them up and posted them as "anonymous".

Sam Sloan
  #4  
Old December 15th 08, 09:20 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
B. Lafferty[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 570
Default Sound and Fury in Polgarland

samsloan wrote:
On Dec 14, 11:14 pm, samsloan wrote:
Take a close look at the quotes above.

In many cases, they have taken something I actually wrote and have
added some remarks of their own at the end.

Sam Sloan


The posts are he

http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2008...-forum_13.html

Note that they have taken real posts from a variety of people
including me, and have mixed them up and posted them as "anonymous".

Sam Sloan

Correct
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright ©2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.