LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 18th 08, 02:50 AM posted to,,,,alt.chess
external usenet poster
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870

After conferring with our attorneys, USCF issues the following

Bill Goichberg


November 17, 2008

Susan Polgar has sued the United States Chess Federation in a lawsuit
styled Susan Polgar v. United States of America Chess Federation,
Inc., et al.; cause no. 5:08-cv-00169-C; in the United States District
Court, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division. Ms. Polgar filed
the lawsuit and served many of the volunteer USCF board members while
they attended the USCF annual convention in Dallas, Texas in August
2008. Notwithstanding the fact that they were attending the USCF
meeting as part of their official duties, four Executive Board
members, another delegate, and the Executive Director were
individually named and served while they were in Texas. Consequently,
Ms. Polgar caused the initial lawsuit to be filed against the USCF and
these other defendants.

Ms. Polgar gave no advance warning of the lawsuit. She filed it and
served the defendants right before the delegates meeting was about to
begin, in full view of a large number of delegates. Ms. Polgar
apparently did not want anyone to know that the lawsuit was going to
be filed and waited until the last minute before filing same and
attempting service over the various individual defendants. Ms. Polgar
apparently wanted to serve those individual defendants in Texas in
order to allege a jurisdictional ground over the defendants. Indeed,
many of the defendants have little, if any, contact with the state of
Texas and they would normally not be subject to jurisdiction in Texas
and/or being sued in the state of Texas.

After continuing an investigation USCF had begun months earlier, USCF
made the decision to amend a previously filed California lawsuit and
included Gregory Alexander and Susan Polgar as defendants in the
California proceeding. Unlike the Texas lawsuit, the allegations in
the California action contain significant connections between the
state of California and Ms. Polgar. USCF believes that the allegations
in the California action are based on completely different factual and
legal grounds than the allegations in the Texas action. USCF believes
that Ms. Polgar needs to be held accountable for her actions in
California. Due to her actions, which, as the complaint alleges,
occurred in the state of California, USCF believes that suing Ms.
Polgar in California was proper. Ms. Polgar chose to have courts
decide various disputes, and USCF made the decision to have courts
decide other, unrelated disputes. After Ms. Polgar and her husband had
refused to cooperate with USCF on various issues, USCF did not file a
formal lawsuit against them, and instead initiated a process under
Texas law to compel cooperation without filing a formal lawsuit.
Unfortunately, Ms. Polgar and her husband did not show up at their
depositions in Texas, and their attorney had refused to accept service
of pre-litigation paperwork.

Even though Ms. Polgar chose to cause USCF and various individual
defendants to be publicly served during a formal meeting, the process
server used to serve Ms. Polgar in California was instructed to serve
her with as little disruption as possible. For example, USCF did not
want the papers to be served during the actual exhibition. USCF was
faced with knowing that Ms. Polgar would likely not cooperate with
being served and might even try to avoid being served. Thus, we were
faced with trying to balance all of these issues.

Unlike the service of USCF leaders by Ms. Polgar, the service in
Fresno was not public. It did not occur in the hall where the
exhibition was about to take place, instead, the process server saw
Ms. Polgar in a hallway that led to the main room. Ms. Polgar was
posing for a picture. After the picture, she headed down the hallway,
at which point the process server called out to her: “Susan.” She
looked at him, and the process server stated, “Susan Polgar, I have
some legal paperwork for you.” The server held the paperwork out for
Ms. Polgar, but she would not take it. The server then dropped it at
her feet and walked away. When the process server looked back, he saw
Ms. Polgar pick up the packet of paperwork. We assume after that point
that she entered the room to engage in the chess exhibition.

USCF is very sorry if the legal service affected the Fresno Chess
Club’s event; this was certainly something we did not intend. It was
only as a result of the issues caused by Ms. Polgar that USCF was
forced into having to try to effectuate service against her. USCF has
the highest regard for the great work done by the Fresno Chess Club to
promote chess, and very much desired to accomplish this legal service
without disrupting this important event. We are surprised to hear
that, despite our effort to avoid such disruption, club leaders feel
that the event was negatively impacted.
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
Motion for Summary Judgment in Polgar vs. USCF - First Draft samsloan (Computer Chess) 3 October 6th 08 03:55 AM
Polgar's Idea of Free Speech--???! Vidmar (Chess Politics) 1 May 7th 07 11:04 PM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:32 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