LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old August 9th 08, 02:49 AM posted to,,,alt.chess
external usenet poster
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 1,558
Default Frustrated Kronenberger

On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:58:28 -0600 (MDT), wrote:

28 Dec 2008
I wanted to give you a quick update. I must say that I am a bit
frustrated with how slow this process has taken, but we did have a bit of a
breakthrough today. To summarize, when I spoke to the Proskauer firm, they
were able to get one of their corporate law attorneys on the call to review
some of my thoughts and potential recommendations to the committee.
Unfortunately, they are unwilling to push Chubb to pay for an expert now,
which is the main reason I wanted to talk to them. The corporate counsel
did give me, to an extent, her comments on my suggestions. However, they
were unwilling to put any time into researching the important Illinois
corporate law issues I wanted them to look into. They said they know Chubb
would reject this, due to where they are in the case right now (moving into
a motion to dismiss). Thereafter, my associate did some research, and
today we did reach some conclusions on the corporate law matter. I will
work diligently to summarize my thoughts.
Regarding the demand to Truong, he did not comply with the demand, except
for a fax Polgar sent containing a Southwest ticket confirmation and a pay
stub at his new job. As I told Polgar, all US Chess needs to do is to
prove one, just one, instance where Truong impersonated Sloan in order to
prevail. More importantly, Truong has not provided confirmation of his IP
addresses, consented to us obtaining is IP addresses, or denied in writing
that he has any knowledge or involvement in the Fake Sam Sloan postings (I
believe that one person on this committee commented that Truong has denied
this in an email, but a) I could not find that email and b) I want a clear
denial in writing faxed or FedEx’ed to my office – which I will clarify to
him later).
As I said, I will work diligently to get my recommendations to you now
that I have this research under my belt.
3 Jan 2007:
It has already been confirmed in writing, publicly, and he was told that
if he didn't step down he would be suspended. Are you suggesting we make a
public announcement now that if he hadn't stepped down he would have been
suspended? I don't like this because we urged him to step down precisely
to avoid that type of announcement being made, so we would not be keeping
our word.
Bill Goichberg
I concur that we do not want to let Mottershead off the hook. What he
did was clearly wrong, and he likely knew it was wrong at the time. What I
am suggesting is that we create a private paper trail that evidences how we
have dealt with Mottershead.

I am responding to insure that this important posting is preserved
beyond the six days.
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Frustrated by the lack of traffic coming to your site? SALLY (Chess Politics) 0 April 25th 07 06:15 PM
Frustrated by Chessmaster 5000 tutorials pongo (Computer Chess) 4 November 28th 05 11:30 AM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.

About Us

"It's about Chess"


Copyright © 2017