Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 25th 08, 01:11 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Susan Polgar Flatly Rejects Mediation of her Suit Against Other BoardMembers

Bill,

My mediation offer was and still is solely for the USCF and not all
the parties. This was made very clear to you a number of times.
However, I am not completely against the idea of including the board
members. My position is still the same as it was earlier this year in
Tulsa. It is not applicable to other defendants. Other parties can
contact my attorneys directly if they would like to make a settlement
offer.

Susan Polgar

In a message dated 12/20/2008 10:22:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Chessoffice writes:

The EB Legal Subcommittee, most others named in the Texas lawsuit,
and our attorneys have been discussing the possibility of mediation
and we hope to have a decision soon. Although direct talks showed the
two sides to have completely opposite positions with no apparent
possibility of compromise, I believe that there is always a chance
that any dispute can be settled through mediation, and it should not
be ruled out.

I think everyone appreciates the willingness of Mitch Denker as
well as Harold Winston to help.

Bill Goichberg


In a message dated 12/20/2008 7:23:21 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
SusanPolgar writes:

Dear Mitch,

Thank you for your generous offer. I have stated a number of
times that I am willing to have Mr. Winston mediate the issues related
to the USCF. I offered to have this done back in August. Even though I
am absolutely confident of my position, my offer is for the sole
purpose of saving the USCF from a financial tragedy. I would be happy
to have you involved in resolving all the issues relating to the USCF.
Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear by now that the board majority
does not want this to happen.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
  #2   Report Post  
Old December 25th 08, 04:33 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2008
Posts: 37
Default Susan Polgar Flatly Rejects Mediation of her Suit Against OtherBoard Members

On Dec 25, 7:11*am, samsloan wrote:
Bill,

My mediation offer was and still is solely for the USCF and not all
the parties. This was made very clear to you a number of times.
However, I am not completely against the idea of including the board
members. My position is still the same as it was earlier this year in
Tulsa. It is not applicable to other defendants. Other parties can
contact my attorneys directly if they would like to make a settlement
offer.

Susan Polgar

In a message dated 12/20/2008 10:22:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,

Chessoffice writes:

* * The EB Legal Subcommittee, most others named in the Texas lawsuit,
and our attorneys have been discussing the possibility of mediation
and we hope to have a decision soon. *Although direct talks showed the
two sides to have completely opposite positions with no apparent
possibility of compromise, I believe that there is always a chance
that any dispute can be settled through mediation, and it should not
be ruled out.

* * I think everyone appreciates the willingness of Mitch Denker as
well as Harold Winston to help.

* * Bill Goichberg

* * In a message dated 12/20/2008 7:23:21 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

SusanPolgar writes:

* * * * Dear Mitch,

* * * * Thank you for your generous offer. I have stated a number of
times that I am willing to have Mr. Winston mediate the issues related
to the USCF. I offered to have this done back in August. Even though I
am absolutely confident of my position, my offer is for the sole
purpose of saving the USCF from a financial tragedy. I would be happy
to have you involved in resolving all the issues relating to the USCF.
Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear by now that the board majority
does not want this to happen.

* * * * Best wishes,
* * * * Susan Polgar





Sam, as I am reading Susan's statement, it looks like Susan says she
is willing to consider including the EB members.

"I am not completely against the idea of including the board
members."

Later Susan seems to say she is willing to consider settlement offers
from other defendants.

"Other parties can contact my attorneys directly if they would like to
make a settlement
offer."

To me that doesn't sound like "Flat refusal" but of those involved
would have much more direct knowledge of what has been communicated
directly.
  #3   Report Post  
Old December 25th 08, 06:24 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 114
Default Susan Polgar Flatly Rejects Mediation of her Suit Against OtherBoard Members

On Dec 25, 10:33*am, marknibb wrote:
On Dec 25, 7:11*am, samsloan wrote:



Bill,


My mediation offer was and still is solely for the USCF and not all
the parties. This was made very clear to you a number of times.
However, I am not completely against the idea of including the board
members. My position is still the same as it was earlier this year in
Tulsa. It is not applicable to other defendants. Other parties can
contact my attorneys directly if they would like to make a settlement
offer.


Susan Polgar


In a message dated 12/20/2008 10:22:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,


Chessoffice writes:


* * The EB Legal Subcommittee, most others named in the Texas lawsuit,
and our attorneys have been discussing the possibility of mediation
and we hope to have a decision soon. *Although direct talks showed the
two sides to have completely opposite positions with no apparent
possibility of compromise, I believe that there is always a chance
that any dispute can be settled through mediation, and it should not
be ruled out.


* * I think everyone appreciates the willingness of Mitch Denker as
well as Harold Winston to help.


* * Bill Goichberg


* * In a message dated 12/20/2008 7:23:21 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,


SusanPolgar writes:


* * * * Dear Mitch,


* * * * Thank you for your generous offer. I have stated a number of
times that I am willing to have Mr. Winston mediate the issues related
to the USCF. I offered to have this done back in August. Even though I
am absolutely confident of my position, my offer is for the sole
purpose of saving the USCF from a financial tragedy. I would be happy
to have you involved in resolving all the issues relating to the USCF.
Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear by now that the board majority
does not want this to happen.


* * * * Best wishes,
* * * * Susan Polgar


Sam, as I am reading Susan's statement, it looks like Susan says she
is willing to consider including the EB members.

"I am not completely against the idea of including the board
members."

Later Susan seems to say she is willing to consider settlement offers
from other defendants.

"Other parties can contact my attorneys directly if they would like to
make a settlement
offer."

To me that doesn't sound like "Flat refusal" *but of those involved
would have much more direct knowledge of what has been communicated
directly.


I agree that Sam's headline is not accurate -- imagine that. OTOH, GM
Polgar
does not seem to be brimming with enthusiasm for the idea.

As someone who has been trained as a mediator and participated in
hundreds of mediations,
I am acutely aware that some cases are not amenable to mediation, but
some are not. Frankly,
the only way that mediation could work in this case is if one side or
the other is willing to concede,
at least privately, that their publicly stated positions are without
merit.
  #4   Report Post  
Old December 25th 08, 06:27 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default Susan Polgar Flatly Rejects Mediation of her Suit Against OtherBoard Members

Wick wrote:
On Dec 25, 10:33 am, marknibb wrote:
On Dec 25, 7:11 am, samsloan wrote:



Bill,
My mediation offer was and still is solely for the USCF and not all
the parties. This was made very clear to you a number of times.
However, I am not completely against the idea of including the board
members. My position is still the same as it was earlier this year in
Tulsa. It is not applicable to other defendants. Other parties can
contact my attorneys directly if they would like to make a settlement
offer.
Susan Polgar
In a message dated 12/20/2008 10:22:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Chessoffice writes:
The EB Legal Subcommittee, most others named in the Texas lawsuit,
and our attorneys have been discussing the possibility of mediation
and we hope to have a decision soon. Although direct talks showed the
two sides to have completely opposite positions with no apparent
possibility of compromise, I believe that there is always a chance
that any dispute can be settled through mediation, and it should not
be ruled out.
I think everyone appreciates the willingness of Mitch Denker as
well as Harold Winston to help.
Bill Goichberg
In a message dated 12/20/2008 7:23:21 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
SusanPolgar writes:
Dear Mitch,
Thank you for your generous offer. I have stated a number of
times that I am willing to have Mr. Winston mediate the issues related
to the USCF. I offered to have this done back in August. Even though I
am absolutely confident of my position, my offer is for the sole
purpose of saving the USCF from a financial tragedy. I would be happy
to have you involved in resolving all the issues relating to the USCF.
Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear by now that the board majority
does not want this to happen.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar

Sam, as I am reading Susan's statement, it looks like Susan says she
is willing to consider including the EB members.

"I am not completely against the idea of including the board
members."

Later Susan seems to say she is willing to consider settlement offers
from other defendants.

"Other parties can contact my attorneys directly if they would like to
make a settlement
offer."

To me that doesn't sound like "Flat refusal" but of those involved
would have much more direct knowledge of what has been communicated
directly.


I agree that Sam's headline is not accurate -- imagine that. OTOH, GM
Polgar
does not seem to be brimming with enthusiasm for the idea.

As someone who has been trained as a mediator and participated in
hundreds of mediations,
I am acutely aware that some cases are not amenable to mediation, but
some are not. Frankly,
the only way that mediation could work in this case is if one side or
the other is willing to concede,
at least privately, that their publicly stated positions are without
merit.


Can't imagine which side that might be. ;-)
  #5   Report Post  
Old December 26th 08, 12:39 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Susan Polgar Flatly Rejects Mediation of her Suit Against OtherBoard Members

Let's do it this way:

All six board members testify under oath.

Then we will see which ones testify openly and which ones take the
Fifth.

Sam Sloan


  #6   Report Post  
Old December 27th 08, 02:07 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Susan Polgar Flatly Rejects Mediation of her Suit Against OtherBoard Members

In 1999, Susan Polgar sued FIDE in the sporting court in Switzerland
for stripping her of her Woman's World Championship Title for refusing
to defend it.

The grounds for her suit were that she should not be required to
defend her world chess title because she was first pregnant and later
nursing.

However, her suit was frivolous because she was supposed to have
defended her title in 1998. FIDE kept postponing the match at her
request. Finally, after a delay of more than one year, FIDE could wait
no longer because the time had arrived for the subsequent woman's
world championship. So, FIDE stripped her of the title and awarded the
title match to her two top challengers.

After Susan Polgar sued FIDE, FIDE eventually agreed to settle the
case by paying her attorney's fees. Although Susan did not get any
money nor did she get her title back, she announced that she had "won"
the suit against FIDE.

Susan also claims that she is still the world champion, because she
has never been defeated. (She has never competed since, either.)

If the USCF agrees to "settle" the current suit by paying her a
dollar, admitting wrongdoing and apologizing, she will again claim
that she has "won" the case and that will give her strong grounds for
continuing her lawsuit against the individual defendants, against whom
she says that she has no intention of settling.

Sam Sloan
  #7   Report Post  
Old December 27th 08, 02:39 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Susan Polgar Flatly Rejects Mediation of her Suit Against OtherBoard Members

by Randy Bauer on Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:24 am #121429

And the USCF continues to have to pay the costs associated with her
suit against individual board members. And the USCF as an organization
apologizes for . . . what exactly?

Doesn't sound all that palatable to me. But, hey - I'm willing to
listen, and no, I don't mind you bringing up the settlement offer.

Explain why the USCF as an organization should apologize, for
starters. Sure sounds like an admission of having done something
wrong.

I'm not buying it - but please lay it out for me: you know, the years
of paying Susan and Paul to write columns for Chess Life, the
countless pictures and publicity for Susan in Chess Life and on the
website, the awards to Lubbock Texas and Texas Tech (their employer).
Wow, sure sounds abusive. Please explain all the above, because I sure
am happy to discuss it.

Randy Bauer
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Motion for Summary Judgment in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 October 5th 08 09:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:28 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