Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old August 10th 08, 01:19 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default To put additional pressure on Truong and Polgar.

On Aug 9, 5:50 am, wrote:
Greetings.
While I have not been in contact in a week or so, a good amount has
happened, much of it just recently.
Proskauer Representation of Truong & Polgar. Proskauer called me
yesterday morning (the firm representing the USCF in the Sloan suit), and
they asked me if I could give them my opinion about the legitimacy of the
Mottershead report, because they were considering terminating their
representation of Truong and Polgar due to a potential conflict. I told
them that I did not want to say anything at this point, but that I would be
providing a draft letter to the committee later today, with the
recommendation that the committee approves me sending it to Truong and
Polgar. I told them that I would provide the letter to them if the
committee approves it. They then called back 30 minutes later to inform me
that they would definitely be terminating representation of Truong and
Polgar. They provided me a draft termination letter of Truong and Polgar
for my review.
I see this as good timing for us, as I am recommending in this email to
send a letter to Paul, cc’ing Susan. At the outset of the letter, I will
make crystal clear that Board takes the allegations and the Board members’
duties toward its members very seriously, as it must. As a result, we have
established a committee and are aggressively investigating the source of
the “Fake Sam Sloan” postings and related events. The committee expects
everyone who is in any way affiliated with USCF to cooperate in every way
possible in this investigation (this is detailed further below). The
letter would then briefly lay out the grounds for the causes of action USCF
has against the wrongdoer, and informing Truong of his fiduciary duty (as
long as he is a board member) to cooperate with the investigation.

Factors Influencing Strategy. As we discussed in our conference call a
few weeks ago, we want to put Truong in a position where he has an
incentive to resign from the board, and indeed does resign from the board..
At the same time, we want to get out of the Sloan litigation as soon as
possible. After several discussions with Proskauer, and after a good
amount of research into Sloan and his litigious nature, I am now of the
opinion that not only will the litigation drag on for quite some time, but
that the USCF’s best defense will be to prove that Paul Truong is indeed
the Fake Sam Sloan. I must emphasize that, while the litigation may be
protracted, it still appears that the current and potential causes of
action against USCF and its board members (with the exception of Truong and
Polgar) relating to the Fake Sam Sloan postings are without merit and will
eventually all be dismissed.
Expert Assistance. You have provided me information from United Forensics
in St. Louis as a possible firm to review Mottershead’s report. My
recommendation is that the board should not just engage an expert to verify
this report, but it should engage an expert to review all of the evidence
that we now have and that we will obtain through the discovery process.
This expert should have the experience to be our expert at trial as well.
Importantly, because you will need to engage an expert at some point in the
litigation, it would be more cost efficient to use the same expert for both
fact gathering / verification and for serving as a litigation expert in
depositions and trial. To gain the maximum work product privilege for the
work of the expert, the expert needs to be engaged for the purpose of
litigation and not in the ordinary course of the USCF’s business. That
said, you will need an expert who is well versed in Usenet, SMTP, HTTP and
Internet security. With characters such as Fritz Wuehler muddying the
waters, you need an expert who can immediately cut through the misleading
statements (statements about “spoofing” IP addresses as just one example).
There are many experts from which to choose, but I can point to one expert
that has the type of background you need (Fred Cohen, CV will be
distributed by Bill Hall). Regardless of who you choose, knowledge of
Usenet and SMTP protocols is essential (United Forensics seems to be very
criminal law-focused, by the way). I have used Dr. Cohen in the past, and
he has been excellent. Proskauer may also have some recommendations, and
if you need more, I would gladly provide more options for you. Once
Proskauer’s termination of Truong and Polgar is effective, I will bring up
this issue with them.
Also regarding the engagement of an expert, if you choose an expert who
can be used at trial, then your insurance company would most likely cover
the expense, even if you need to engage someone early on.
Recommendation: Based on Polgar’s and Truong’s recent comments,
conversations with Proskauer, and additional verifications I have conducted
the Mottershead report, I recommend that I draft a letter to Truong,
cc’ing Polgar, explaining the following:
· that the USCF takes the allegations of about Truong’s fake web
postings, and Truong’s and Polgar’s accusations against USCF, very
seriously, hence the formation of the committee and the aggressive
investigation;
· that the allegations against Truong, true or not, have caused and will
continue to cause USCF to incur significant legal fees and costs;
· that although USCF cannot draw any conclusions until such time as it
has finished its investigation, it must conclude that however the situation
unfolds, USCF will have multiple causes of action against any number of
parties, including without limitation for indemnity, breaches of fiduciary
duties, fraud, defamation, interference with business relationships,
violations of various state identify theft statutes, and additional causes
of action;
· that the Board has a duty to its membership to continue to investigate
the allegations against Truong until such time as USCF has a greater
comfort level with the surrounding facts;
· that the Board will continue to work with its experts in investigating
this matter;
· that, importantly, due to Truong’s status as a board member, Truong
has continuing fiduciary duties to USCF and its membership to cooperate to
the greatest extent possible in the Board’s investigation of the alleged
wrongdoing;
· that Truong immediately do the following or provide the following
information to assist in the investigation, as his fiduciary duties
requi
o that Truong formally admit or deny, in writing, whether he was
involved in the “Fake Sam Sloan” postings, or had knowledge of who made
such postings;
o that Truong provide the IP address of all of his home and work
Internet connections since 2005, or provide consent for the Board obtaining
and cooperate in the Board obtaining, such IP addresses from ISPs and other
entities;
o that Truong provide all information that would support his argument
that he was not located at his computer(s) at the time of alleged Fake Sam
Sloan postings, to include information relating to Truong’s travel;
o that Truong comply with the forgoing before December 7, 2008.
Truong and Polgar would get this letter on the same day or a day after
they receive notice that Proskauer has terminated them as a client. When
they present my letter to new counsel appointed by Chubb, or when they
present my letter to their other counsel, I suspect that their counsel
would advise Truong to consider resigning from the Board, to avoid further
allegations of breaches of his fiduciary duties.
If and when I would speak to Truong’s counsel, I would suggest that Truong
immediately resign due to his continuing breach of his past and current
obligations to cooperate with the investigation. There could be some room
to negotiate on terms of a resignation, but we can discuss the
possibilities later if Truong is amenable to resigning. Very importantly,
if Truong chooses to fight Sloan or the USCF in this litigation, the USCF
will have no choice but to prove up its case with the great technical and
financial resources USCF has at its disposal, and much of the benefit of
that work by USCF would directly benefit Sloan, who, as stated above, does
not have the resources or legal acumen to attack Truong compared to the
USCF.
To put additional pressure on Truong and Polgar, I would like to contact
the insurer, Chubb, and argue that they should not extend coverage to
Truong and Polgar because the complaint does not allege that their
wrongdoing arises from their status as directors and because Truong and
Polgar both deny that they played any part in the postings. If Chubb does
not cover them, then USCF benefits from Truong and Polgar hiring
potentially lower quality (less expensive) counsel.
Mottershead Continued Involvement with USCF. We need to be careful how we
deal with Mottershead. We want to keep him as friendly as possible, so he
cooperates with us in our defense; however, the Board may need to take
action against him due to the allegations of him breaching his
confidentiality agreement. I suggest that we send a letter to Mottershead
thanking him for his volunteer activities, but informing him that due to
the pending litigation, we will need to suspend our relationship with him
pending the outcome of the case. Thereafter, we need to change all
administrator and moderator passwords that he possesses. This is a middle
ground, where we can point the blame toward Sloan, and at the same time we
create a record of the Board taking action in response to the allegations
by Polgar and Truong.
Future Compliance / Risk Avoidance. I do have drafts of Terms of and
Conditions of Use and a Privacy Policy for your website, which I need to
review one more time before forwarding to Bill Hall for review. These new
documents will give USCF considerable protection in the future in web
disputes.
Let me know if you have any questions, and if not, let me know whether you
want me to send the letter as described above.
Very
...

read more »


I am saving this posting in order to preserve it.

Signed,

Defeated in Dallas
  #2   Report Post  
Old August 10th 08, 01:25 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,053
Default To put additional pressure on Truong and Polgar.

On Aug 10, 7:19*am, samsloan wrote:
On Aug 9, 5:50 am, wrote:

Greetings.
*While I have not been in contact in a week or so, a good amount has
happened, much of it just recently.
*Proskauer Representation of Truong & Polgar. *Proskauer called me
yesterday morning (the firm representing the USCF in the Sloan suit), and
they asked me if I could give them my opinion about the legitimacy of the
Mottershead report, because they were considering terminating their
representation of Truong and Polgar due to a potential conflict. *I told
them that I did not want to say anything at this point, but that I would be
providing a draft letter to the committee later today, with the
recommendation that the committee approves me sending it to Truong and
Polgar. *I told them that I would provide the letter to them if the
committee approves it. *They then called back 30 minutes later to inform me
that they would definitely be terminating representation of Truong and
Polgar. *They provided me a draft termination letter of Truong and Polgar
for my review.
* I see this as good timing for us, as I am recommending in this email to
send a letter to Paul, cc’ing Susan. *At the outset of the letter, I will
make crystal clear that Board takes the allegations and the Board members’
duties toward its members very seriously, as it must. *As a result, we have
established a committee and are aggressively investigating the source of
the “Fake Sam Sloan” postings and related events. *The committee expects
everyone who is in any way affiliated with USCF to cooperate in every way
possible in this investigation (this is detailed further below). *The
letter would then briefly lay out the grounds for the causes of action USCF
has against the wrongdoer, and informing Truong of his fiduciary duty (as
long as he is a board member) to cooperate with the investigation.


*Factors Influencing Strategy. *As we discussed in our conference call a
few weeks ago, we want to put Truong in a position where he has an
incentive to resign from the board, and indeed does resign from the board.
At the same time, we want to get out of the Sloan litigation as soon as
possible. *After several discussions with Proskauer, and after a good
amount of research into Sloan and his litigious nature, I am now of the
opinion that not only will the litigation drag on for quite some time, but
that the USCF’s best defense will be to prove that Paul Truong is indeed
the Fake Sam Sloan. *I must emphasize that, while the litigation may be
protracted, it still appears that the current and potential causes of
action against USCF and its board members (with the exception of Truong and
Polgar) relating to the Fake Sam Sloan postings are without merit and will
eventually all be dismissed.
*Expert Assistance. *You have provided me information from United Forensics
in St. Louis as a possible firm to review Mottershead’s report. *My
recommendation is that the board should not just engage an expert to verify
this report, but it should engage an expert to review all of the evidence
that we now have and that we will obtain through the discovery process.
This expert should have the experience to be our expert at trial as well.
Importantly, because you will need to engage an expert at some point in the
litigation, it would be more cost efficient to use the same expert for both
fact gathering / verification and for serving as a litigation expert in
depositions and trial. *To gain the maximum work product privilege for the
work of the expert, the expert needs to be engaged for the purpose of
litigation and not in the ordinary course of the USCF’s business. *That
said, you will need an expert who is well versed in Usenet, SMTP, HTTP and
Internet security. *With characters such as Fritz Wuehler muddying the
waters, you need an expert who can immediately cut through the misleading
statements (statements about “spoofing” IP addresses as just one example).
There are many experts from which to choose, but I can point to one expert
that has the type of background you need (Fred Cohen, CV will be
distributed by Bill Hall). *Regardless of who you choose, knowledge of
Usenet and SMTP protocols is essential (United Forensics seems to be very
criminal law-focused, by the way). *I have used Dr. Cohen in the past, and
he has been excellent. *Proskauer may also have some recommendations, and
if you need more, I would gladly provide more options for you. *Once
Proskauer’s termination of Truong and Polgar is effective, I will bring up
this issue with them.
*Also regarding the engagement of an expert, if you choose an expert who
can be used at trial, then your insurance company would most likely cover
the expense, even if you need to engage someone early on.
*Recommendation: *Based on Polgar’s and Truong’s recent comments,
conversations with Proskauer, and additional verifications I have conducted
the Mottershead report, I recommend that I draft a letter to Truong,
cc’ing Polgar, explaining the following:
*· * that the USCF takes the allegations of about Truong’s fake web
postings, and Truong’s and Polgar’s accusations against USCF, very
seriously, hence the formation of the committee and the aggressive
investigation;
*· * that the allegations against Truong, true or not, have caused and will
continue to cause USCF to incur significant legal fees and costs;
*· * that although USCF cannot draw any conclusions until such time as it
has finished its investigation, it must conclude that however the situation
unfolds, USCF will have multiple causes of action against any number of
parties, including without limitation for indemnity, breaches of fiduciary
duties, fraud, defamation, interference with business relationships,
violations of various state identify theft statutes, and additional causes
of action;
*· * that the Board has a duty to its membership to continue to investigate
the allegations against Truong until such time as USCF has a greater
comfort level with the surrounding facts;
*· * that the Board will continue to work with its experts in investigating
this matter;
*· * that, importantly, due to Truong’s status as a board member, Truong
has continuing fiduciary duties to USCF and its membership to cooperate to
the greatest extent possible in the Board’s investigation of the alleged
wrongdoing;
*· * that Truong immediately do the following or provide the following
information to assist in the investigation, as his fiduciary duties
requi
*o * that Truong formally admit or deny, in writing, whether he was
involved in the “Fake Sam Sloan” postings, or had knowledge of who made
such postings;
*o * that Truong provide the IP address of all of his home and work
Internet connections since 2005, or provide consent for the Board obtaining
and cooperate in the Board obtaining, such IP addresses from ISPs and other
entities;
*o * that Truong provide all information that would support his argument
that he was not located at his computer(s) at the time of alleged Fake Sam
Sloan postings, to include information relating to Truong’s travel;
*o * that Truong comply with the forgoing before December 7, 2008.
*Truong and Polgar would get this letter on the same day or a day after
they receive notice that Proskauer has terminated them as a client. *When
they present my letter to new counsel appointed by Chubb, or when they
present my letter to their other counsel, I suspect that their counsel
would advise Truong to consider resigning from the Board, to avoid further
allegations of breaches of his fiduciary duties.
*If and when I would speak to Truong’s counsel, I would suggest that Truong
immediately resign due to his continuing breach of his past and current
obligations to cooperate with the investigation. *There could be some room
to negotiate on terms of a resignation, but we can discuss the
possibilities later if Truong is amenable to resigning. *Very importantly,
if Truong chooses to fight Sloan or the USCF in this litigation, the USCF
will have no choice but to prove up its case with the great technical and
financial resources USCF has at its disposal, and much of the benefit of
that work by USCF would directly benefit Sloan, who, as stated above, does
not have the resources or legal acumen to attack Truong compared to the
USCF.
*To put additional pressure on Truong and Polgar, I would like to contact
the insurer, Chubb, and argue that they should not extend coverage to
Truong and Polgar because the complaint does not allege that their
wrongdoing arises from their status as directors and because Truong and
Polgar both deny that they played any part in the postings. *If Chubb does
not cover them, then USCF benefits from Truong and Polgar hiring
potentially lower quality (less expensive) counsel.
*Mottershead Continued Involvement with USCF. *We need to be careful how we
deal with Mottershead. *We want to keep him as friendly as possible, so he
cooperates with us in our defense; however, the Board may need to take
action against him due to the allegations of him breaching his
confidentiality agreement. *I suggest that we send a letter to Mottershead
thanking him for his volunteer activities, but informing him that due to
the pending litigation, we will need to suspend our relationship with him
pending the outcome of the case. *Thereafter, we need to change all
administrator and moderator passwords that he possesses. *This is a middle
ground, where we can point the blame toward Sloan, and at the same time we
create a record of the Board taking action in response to the allegations
by Polgar and Truong.
*Future Compliance / Risk Avoidance. *I do have drafts of Terms of and
Conditions of Use and a Privacy Policy for your website, which I need to
review one more time before forwarding to Bill Hall for review. *These new
documents will give USCF considerable protection in the future in web
disputes.
*Let me know if you have any questions, and if not, let me know whether you
want me to send the letter as described above.
*Very
...


read more »


I am saving this posting in order to preserve it.

Signed,

Defeated in Dallas


Mr.'s Sloan and Lafferty, any presents yet?
  #3   Report Post  
Old August 10th 08, 01:49 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
Rob Rob is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,053
Default To put additional pressure on Truong and Polgar.



Has Sam been served?





On Aug 10, 7:25*am, Rob wrote:
On Aug 10, 7:19*am, samsloan wrote:

On Aug 9, 5:50 am, wrote:


Greetings.
*While I have not been in contact in a week or so, a good amount has
happened, much of it just recently.
*Proskauer Representation of Truong & Polgar. *Proskauer called me
yesterday morning (the firm representing the USCF in the Sloan suit), and
they asked me if I could give them my opinion about the legitimacy of the
Mottershead report, because they were considering terminating their
representation of Truong and Polgar due to a potential conflict. *I told
them that I did not want to say anything at this point, but that I would be
providing a draft letter to the committee later today, with the
recommendation that the committee approves me sending it to Truong and
Polgar. *I told them that I would provide the letter to them if the
committee approves it. *They then called back 30 minutes later to inform me
that they would definitely be terminating representation of Truong and
Polgar. *They provided me a draft termination letter of Truong and Polgar
for my review.
* I see this as good timing for us, as I am recommending in this email to
send a letter to Paul, cc’ing Susan. *At the outset of the letter, I will
make crystal clear that Board takes the allegations and the Board members’
duties toward its members very seriously, as it must. *As a result, we have
established a committee and are aggressively investigating the source of
the “Fake Sam Sloan” postings and related events. *The committee expects
everyone who is in any way affiliated with USCF to cooperate in every way
possible in this investigation (this is detailed further below). *The
letter would then briefly lay out the grounds for the causes of action USCF
has against the wrongdoer, and informing Truong of his fiduciary duty (as
long as he is a board member) to cooperate with the investigation.


*Factors Influencing Strategy. *As we discussed in our conference call a
few weeks ago, we want to put Truong in a position where he has an
incentive to resign from the board, and indeed does resign from the board.
At the same time, we want to get out of the Sloan litigation as soon as
possible. *After several discussions with Proskauer, and after a good
amount of research into Sloan and his litigious nature, I am now of the
opinion that not only will the litigation drag on for quite some time, but
that the USCF’s best defense will be to prove that Paul Truong is indeed
the Fake Sam Sloan. *I must emphasize that, while the litigation may be
protracted, it still appears that the current and potential causes of
action against USCF and its board members (with the exception of Truong and
Polgar) relating to the Fake Sam Sloan postings are without merit and will
eventually all be dismissed.
*Expert Assistance. *You have provided me information from United Forensics
in St. Louis as a possible firm to review Mottershead’s report. *My
recommendation is that the board should not just engage an expert to verify
this report, but it should engage an expert to review all of the evidence
that we now have and that we will obtain through the discovery process.
This expert should have the experience to be our expert at trial as well.
Importantly, because you will need to engage an expert at some point in the
litigation, it would be more cost efficient to use the same expert for both
fact gathering / verification and for serving as a litigation expert in
depositions and trial. *To gain the maximum work product privilege for the
work of the expert, the expert needs to be engaged for the purpose of
litigation and not in the ordinary course of the USCF’s business. *That
said, you will need an expert who is well versed in Usenet, SMTP, HTTP and
Internet security. *With characters such as Fritz Wuehler muddying the
waters, you need an expert who can immediately cut through the misleading
statements (statements about “spoofing” IP addresses as just one example).
There are many experts from which to choose, but I can point to one expert
that has the type of background you need (Fred Cohen, CV will be
distributed by Bill Hall). *Regardless of who you choose, knowledge of
Usenet and SMTP protocols is essential (United Forensics seems to be very
criminal law-focused, by the way). *I have used Dr. Cohen in the past, and
he has been excellent. *Proskauer may also have some recommendations, and
if you need more, I would gladly provide more options for you. *Once
Proskauer’s termination of Truong and Polgar is effective, I will bring up
this issue with them.
*Also regarding the engagement of an expert, if you choose an expert who
can be used at trial, then your insurance company would most likely cover
the expense, even if you need to engage someone early on.
*Recommendation: *Based on Polgar’s and Truong’s recent comments,
conversations with Proskauer, and additional verifications I have conducted
the Mottershead report, I recommend that I draft a letter to Truong,
cc’ing Polgar, explaining the following:
*· * that the USCF takes the allegations of about Truong’s fake web
postings, and Truong’s and Polgar’s accusations against USCF, very
seriously, hence the formation of the committee and the aggressive
investigation;
*· * that the allegations against Truong, true or not, have caused and will
continue to cause USCF to incur significant legal fees and costs;
*· * that although USCF cannot draw any conclusions until such time as it
has finished its investigation, it must conclude that however the situation
unfolds, USCF will have multiple causes of action against any number of
parties, including without limitation for indemnity, breaches of fiduciary
duties, fraud, defamation, interference with business relationships,
violations of various state identify theft statutes, and additional causes
of action;
*· * that the Board has a duty to its membership to continue to investigate
the allegations against Truong until such time as USCF has a greater
comfort level with the surrounding facts;
*· * that the Board will continue to work with its experts in investigating
this matter;
*· * that, importantly, due to Truong’s status as a board member, Truong
has continuing fiduciary duties to USCF and its membership to cooperate to
the greatest extent possible in the Board’s investigation of the alleged
wrongdoing;
*· * that Truong immediately do the following or provide the following
information to assist in the investigation, as his fiduciary duties
requi
*o * that Truong formally admit or deny, in writing, whether he was
involved in the “Fake Sam Sloan” postings, or had knowledge of who made
such postings;
*o * that Truong provide the IP address of all of his home and work
Internet connections since 2005, or provide consent for the Board obtaining
and cooperate in the Board obtaining, such IP addresses from ISPs and other
entities;
*o * that Truong provide all information that would support his argument
that he was not located at his computer(s) at the time of alleged Fake Sam
Sloan postings, to include information relating to Truong’s travel;
*o * that Truong comply with the forgoing before December 7, 2008..
*Truong and Polgar would get this letter on the same day or a day after
they receive notice that Proskauer has terminated them as a client. *When
they present my letter to new counsel appointed by Chubb, or when they
present my letter to their other counsel, I suspect that their counsel
would advise Truong to consider resigning from the Board, to avoid further
allegations of breaches of his fiduciary duties.
*If and when I would speak to Truong’s counsel, I would suggest that Truong
immediately resign due to his continuing breach of his past and current
obligations to cooperate with the investigation. *There could be some room
to negotiate on terms of a resignation, but we can discuss the
possibilities later if Truong is amenable to resigning. *Very importantly,
if Truong chooses to fight Sloan or the USCF in this litigation, the USCF
will have no choice but to prove up its case with the great technical and
financial resources USCF has at its disposal, and much of the benefit of
that work by USCF would directly benefit Sloan, who, as stated above, does
not have the resources or legal acumen to attack Truong compared to the
USCF.
*To put additional pressure on Truong and Polgar, I would like to contact
the insurer, Chubb, and argue that they should not extend coverage to
Truong and Polgar because the complaint does not allege that their
wrongdoing arises from their status as directors and because Truong and
Polgar both deny that they played any part in the postings. *If Chubb does
not cover them, then USCF benefits from Truong and Polgar hiring
potentially lower quality (less expensive) counsel.
*Mottershead Continued Involvement with USCF. *We need to be careful how we
deal with Mottershead. *We want to keep him as friendly as possible, so he
cooperates with us in our defense; however, the Board may need to take
action against him due to the allegations of him breaching his
confidentiality agreement. *I suggest that we send a letter to Mottershead
thanking him for his volunteer activities, but informing him that due to
the pending litigation, we will need to suspend our relationship with him
pending the outcome of


...

read more »


  #4   Report Post  
Old August 10th 08, 02:04 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default To put additional pressure on Truong and Polgar.

Rob wrote:
On Aug 10, 7:19 am, samsloan wrote:
On Aug 9, 5:50 am, wrote:

Greetings.
While I have not been in contact in a week or so, a good amount has
happened, much of it just recently.
Proskauer Representation of Truong & Polgar. Proskauer called me
yesterday morning (the firm representing the USCF in the Sloan suit), and
they asked me if I could give them my opinion about the legitimacy of the
Mottershead report, because they were considering terminating their
representation of Truong and Polgar due to a potential conflict. I told
them that I did not want to say anything at this point, but that I would be
providing a draft letter to the committee later today, with the
recommendation that the committee approves me sending it to Truong and
Polgar. I told them that I would provide the letter to them if the
committee approves it. They then called back 30 minutes later to inform me
that they would definitely be terminating representation of Truong and
Polgar. They provided me a draft termination letter of Truong and Polgar
for my review.
I see this as good timing for us, as I am recommending in this email to
send a letter to Paul, cc’ing Susan. At the outset of the letter, I will
make crystal clear that Board takes the allegations and the Board members’
duties toward its members very seriously, as it must. As a result, we have
established a committee and are aggressively investigating the source of
the “Fake Sam Sloan” postings and related events. The committee expects
everyone who is in any way affiliated with USCF to cooperate in every way
possible in this investigation (this is detailed further below). The
letter would then briefly lay out the grounds for the causes of action USCF
has against the wrongdoer, and informing Truong of his fiduciary duty (as
long as he is a board member) to cooperate with the investigation.
Factors Influencing Strategy. As we discussed in our conference call a
few weeks ago, we want to put Truong in a position where he has an
incentive to resign from the board, and indeed does resign from the board.
At the same time, we want to get out of the Sloan litigation as soon as
possible. After several discussions with Proskauer, and after a good
amount of research into Sloan and his litigious nature, I am now of the
opinion that not only will the litigation drag on for quite some time, but
that the USCF’s best defense will be to prove that Paul Truong is indeed
the Fake Sam Sloan. I must emphasize that, while the litigation may be
protracted, it still appears that the current and potential causes of
action against USCF and its board members (with the exception of Truong and
Polgar) relating to the Fake Sam Sloan postings are without merit and will
eventually all be dismissed.
Expert Assistance. You have provided me information from United Forensics
in St. Louis as a possible firm to review Mottershead’s report. My
recommendation is that the board should not just engage an expert to verify
this report, but it should engage an expert to review all of the evidence
that we now have and that we will obtain through the discovery process.
This expert should have the experience to be our expert at trial as well.
Importantly, because you will need to engage an expert at some point in the
litigation, it would be more cost efficient to use the same expert for both
fact gathering / verification and for serving as a litigation expert in
depositions and trial. To gain the maximum work product privilege for the
work of the expert, the expert needs to be engaged for the purpose of
litigation and not in the ordinary course of the USCF’s business. That
said, you will need an expert who is well versed in Usenet, SMTP, HTTP and
Internet security. With characters such as Fritz Wuehler muddying the
waters, you need an expert who can immediately cut through the misleading
statements (statements about “spoofing” IP addresses as just one example).
There are many experts from which to choose, but I can point to one expert
that has the type of background you need (Fred Cohen, CV will be
distributed by Bill Hall). Regardless of who you choose, knowledge of
Usenet and SMTP protocols is essential (United Forensics seems to be very
criminal law-focused, by the way). I have used Dr. Cohen in the past, and
he has been excellent. Proskauer may also have some recommendations, and
if you need more, I would gladly provide more options for you. Once
Proskauer’s termination of Truong and Polgar is effective, I will bring up
this issue with them.
Also regarding the engagement of an expert, if you choose an expert who
can be used at trial, then your insurance company would most likely cover
the expense, even if you need to engage someone early on.
Recommendation: Based on Polgar’s and Truong’s recent comments,
conversations with Proskauer, and additional verifications I have conducted
the Mottershead report, I recommend that I draft a letter to Truong,
cc’ing Polgar, explaining the following:
· that the USCF takes the allegations of about Truong’s fake web
postings, and Truong’s and Polgar’s accusations against USCF, very
seriously, hence the formation of the committee and the aggressive
investigation;
· that the allegations against Truong, true or not, have caused and will
continue to cause USCF to incur significant legal fees and costs;
· that although USCF cannot draw any conclusions until such time as it
has finished its investigation, it must conclude that however the situation
unfolds, USCF will have multiple causes of action against any number of
parties, including without limitation for indemnity, breaches of fiduciary
duties, fraud, defamation, interference with business relationships,
violations of various state identify theft statutes, and additional causes
of action;
· that the Board has a duty to its membership to continue to investigate
the allegations against Truong until such time as USCF has a greater
comfort level with the surrounding facts;
· that the Board will continue to work with its experts in investigating
this matter;
· that, importantly, due to Truong’s status as a board member, Truong
has continuing fiduciary duties to USCF and its membership to cooperate to
the greatest extent possible in the Board’s investigation of the alleged
wrongdoing;
· that Truong immediately do the following or provide the following
information to assist in the investigation, as his fiduciary duties
requi
o that Truong formally admit or deny, in writing, whether he was
involved in the “Fake Sam Sloan” postings, or had knowledge of who made
such postings;
o that Truong provide the IP address of all of his home and work
Internet connections since 2005, or provide consent for the Board obtaining
and cooperate in the Board obtaining, such IP addresses from ISPs and other
entities;
o that Truong provide all information that would support his argument
that he was not located at his computer(s) at the time of alleged Fake Sam
Sloan postings, to include information relating to Truong’s travel;
o that Truong comply with the forgoing before December 7, 2008.
Truong and Polgar would get this letter on the same day or a day after
they receive notice that Proskauer has terminated them as a client. When
they present my letter to new counsel appointed by Chubb, or when they
present my letter to their other counsel, I suspect that their counsel
would advise Truong to consider resigning from the Board, to avoid further
allegations of breaches of his fiduciary duties.
If and when I would speak to Truong’s counsel, I would suggest that Truong
immediately resign due to his continuing breach of his past and current
obligations to cooperate with the investigation. There could be some room
to negotiate on terms of a resignation, but we can discuss the
possibilities later if Truong is amenable to resigning. Very importantly,
if Truong chooses to fight Sloan or the USCF in this litigation, the USCF
will have no choice but to prove up its case with the great technical and
financial resources USCF has at its disposal, and much of the benefit of
that work by USCF would directly benefit Sloan, who, as stated above, does
not have the resources or legal acumen to attack Truong compared to the
USCF.
To put additional pressure on Truong and Polgar, I would like to contact
the insurer, Chubb, and argue that they should not extend coverage to
Truong and Polgar because the complaint does not allege that their
wrongdoing arises from their status as directors and because Truong and
Polgar both deny that they played any part in the postings. If Chubb does
not cover them, then USCF benefits from Truong and Polgar hiring
potentially lower quality (less expensive) counsel.
Mottershead Continued Involvement with USCF. We need to be careful how we
deal with Mottershead. We want to keep him as friendly as possible, so he
cooperates with us in our defense; however, the Board may need to take
action against him due to the allegations of him breaching his
confidentiality agreement. I suggest that we send a letter to Mottershead
thanking him for his volunteer activities, but informing him that due to
the pending litigation, we will need to suspend our relationship with him
pending the outcome of the case. Thereafter, we need to change all
administrator and moderator passwords that he possesses. This is a middle
ground, where we can point the blame toward Sloan, and at the same time we
create a record of the Board taking action in response to the allegations
by Polgar and Truong.
Future Compliance / Risk Avoidance. I do have drafts of Terms of and
Conditions of Use and a Privacy Policy for your website, which I need to
review one more time before forwarding to Bill Hall for review. These new
documents will give USCF considerable protection in the future in web
disputes.
Let me know if you have any questions, and if not, let me know whether you
want me to send the letter as described above.
Very
...
read more »

I am saving this posting in order to preserve it.

Signed,

Defeated in Dallas


Mr.'s Sloan and Lafferty, any presents yet?


I don't believe MA Sheriffs serve process on Sunday. Anyway, I have
attorney preparing a present for Polgar/Truong in a jurisdiction where
long-arm personal jurisdiction over them will not be a problem. I also
have a TX Supreme Ct certified process server ready in Lubbock to serve
them. I look forward to seeing their complaint.

It is also my understanding that Kronenberger showed the USCF board
definitive proof that Truong was on the TTU payroll on June 1,
2007--twenty days before he swore to a bankruptcy court that he was
unemployed. That information will be going to Judge Milton, the Queens
Co. DA and the IRS.

What truly amazes me in all this is the stupidity of Polgar and Truong.
They could have walked away from this a year ago, intact in reputation
and with no criminal offense clouds on their horizon. So it goes. The
dogs of war are loose. I will not be commenting further on any
litigation matters here.
Reply
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



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:58 AM.

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