Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 15th 09, 12:23 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 BINFO 200603388 Dated 2006-08-28 by Bill Goichberg entitled "LegalThreats from Polgar and Truong"

* Delivered-to: USCF BINFO Systemxxxxxxxxx
* Delivered-to: USCF BINFO System

In a message dated 8/28/2006 10:56:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

In [email protected], [email protected] wrote:

In a message dated 8/27/2006 1:22:57 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

[email protected] writes:

This is a public note to Eric Johnson. I too am bored out of my

mind with
this non issue. The picture was taken by Paul, not disputed at

all by
anyone,
then he sent it to Sam, as he had other Susan pictures umpteen

times in
the last
couple of years, and Sam put it up on his website as he had many

others,
When
Sam got elected, Paul decided that he could get some kind of

points by
attacking Sam, who knows why (I have my own theory), but that is

irrelevant.
The Official USCF lawyer has opined that Paul has no legal

right to
demand that
Sam take the picture down.

That is incorrect. The Board has received a confidential letter

from our
attorney, and as what you post is wrong, you are obviously not

aware of its
contents.

Bill Goichberg



I am deeply disturbed by this posting by Bill Goichberg. I am a
member of
the board and I have not been informed that advice of counsel was
solicited
on the Picturegate Affair, or that the lawyer had written a letter
about
this.

Sam, Bill Hall emailed a copy of Mike Matsler's letter to the entire
Board, including you, at 4:57:32 pm on August 25.

Lawyers generally do not write letters free of charge. If the
lawyer
was paid one thousand dollars to write this letter, that means
that the
membership dues of 25 members at $40 per member has gone down the
drain.

I have not received any board BINFOS or group emails from the
board in
several days. I do not know whether this is because I am being
excluded
from board discussions, or if there simply have been no board
emails.

I don't think there have been any Board emails in several days until
today except for the Matsler letter sent by Bill Hall.



Here above Bill Goichberg states that the information provided by
Jerry
Hanken about the lawyer's advice is wrong, but fails to inform us
what the
lawyer actually said. More importantly, he has failed to inform me
of what
the lawyer said, even though I am a member of the board and the
subject of
the letter.

You should have received the letter, which is marked confidential. My
copy's recipient list shows that you were copied by Bill Hall. I am
not going to post what the lawyer said on the internet and you should
not either.



Bill has done this many times before. For example, when I wrote
that the
USCF had paid more than $39,000 as a result of the legal threats
made by
Truong over the issues involving the Woman's Olympiad Team,
Goichberg
vehemently denied this but refused to state what the correct
amount was or
to whom it was paid or for what it was paid.

You said that $39,000 was paid to Truong, but nothing was paid to
Truong.

As I have said more than once, the mistake by Diane Reese resulted in
$5000 each being paid to Zatonskih, Krush and Shahade. Susan waived
her claim to that $5000. Nothing went to Truong.

And under the Niro contract with KCF and two Polgar groups, about
$19,500 was paid to KCF and SPF as reimbursement, based on receipts,
for Olympiad training expenses. Some of this (I believe well under
$10,000, I don't remember the exact figure) went to Susan for training
the other women, but there were also other trainers (Kasparov, Gulko)
and some of the money went to the players for travel expenses.
Nothing went to Truong.

If you say that USCF paid $34,500 and that Truong was pushing for this
payment, you may be right. If you say that USCF paid $39,000 to
Truong you are totally wrong.



I am certain that the amount of $39,000+ is correct. So, the
questions
remain as to whom it was paid and for what. When I raised this
issue in my
first closed meeting of the board and asked to see copies of the
Truong
documents, including the legal contracts, I was told that the
documents
could not be found. When, later in the same meeting, I asked to
see the
AF4C Contracts, I was told that those contracts and supporting
documents
could not be found either. My further inquiries along this subject
line
eventually led to the revelations about the 300 missing boxes.

I have since been informed that the Truong documents, the AF4C
documents,
and all other contracts were kept together in one binder in a
filing
cabinet near Barbara VanderMark's desk. That binder cannot be
found. I tend
to suspect that the binder has been swiped. I would like an
inquiry to be
made as to who last saw that binder and who has had access to that
filing
cabinet.

Again, I would like to point out that this entire issue arises
because of
the abolition of the paper BINFO System. Ken ("The Good") Sloan
has been
complaining about this since 2000, because he was a paid
subscriber to the
BINFOS. Had the BINFO system not been abolished, then all board
members
plus qualified outside scribers such as Ken Sloan would have
copies of the
contracts and there would be no danger that they would be lost.

Regarding the legally frivolous threat by Truong to sue the USCF
over the
three pictures on my website, I will state categorically that the
pictures
are not coming down. They will remain on my website for as long as
I have a
website. As several others have pointed out, they stand as Exhibit
A in my
defense to the utterly false and outrageous claims that Truong
keeps making
about me.

The pictures themselves prove that Truong is a liar. I do not have
to write
one additional word about it.

More than that, Truong has a long history of threatening to sue
the USCF.
Each time, the USCF has capitulated, either caving in to his
demands or
sidestepping the issue. Truong is not the first to learn that if
you want
to get some money out of the USCF, just threaten to sue. Just ask
Ed Labate
who, as I recall, was paid $30,000 in response to a threat to sue,
even
though he had no case. (Recently, Labate has been threatening to
sue Chess
Digest. Will they pay too?)

Your recollection regarding Labate is misleading. USCF paid him
$30,000 because the Federation's lawyer (consulted too late) advised
that due to the failure of USCF to follow proper legal procedure, the
Federation was vulnerable to having to pay a large judgment if we did
not agree to a settlement.



Some of the new board members may not be aware that Truong has
repeatedly
threatened to sue the USCF. Here are some examples.

1. Truong threatened to sue over the Anna Hahn Affair. The USCF
sidestepped
by holding the 2004 US Woman's Championship. Truong was not happy
and
complained bitterly about it, but did not sue.

2. Truong threatened to sue over a report that apparently
originated from
Grant Perks (who strangely is now his Best Buddy) and circulated
by Stan
Booz that Susan Polgar cheated in a 2003 Internet chess match
against
Grandmaster Boris Gulko, by being assisted by Paul Truong who was
using a
computer. Polgar won the match against Gulko by 2-0. It was
reported that
many of the moves played by Susan matched those suggested by a
computer.

3. Truong demanded to be paid $50,000 for providing chess lessons
for the
2004 Woman's Olympiad Team. This was settled by the payment to the
Susan
Polgar Foundation, of which Truong, Susan Polgar and Frank Niro
are members
of the board, of $19,000+.

See above. The SPF is not Truong, the KCF is certainly not Truong,
and the payments were based on receipts.



4. Truong demanded $5,000 for each player, or a total of $20,000
for the
four players on the Woman's Olympiad team, even though it was well
known
that the USCF was not sponsoring the Woman's Team but was only
sponsoring
the Men's Team. This was due to an ambiguity in a letter (which I
still
have not been allowed to see, so I do not know what it contains)
which
stated that the team would receive a total of $5,000 each if they
won the
silver medal. This amount of $20,000 was paid. I do not know if it
was paid
to Truong, to a Truong entity such as the SPF, or to the players
individually. I would like to find out.

How many times do I have to tell you? Three players received $5000
each directly from USCF and Susan waived her payment. The total was
$15,000, not $20,000.



5. Truong has repeatedly threatened to sue the USCF over what he
calls the
"illegal contract" the USCF made with the Kasparov Chess
Foundation, or
KCF, to sponsor the 2006 Woman's Team. Truong apparently feels
that the
USCF was required to renew the 2004 contract, so that Truong would
get
another $19,000+. Meanwhile, the USCF has thanked the KCF for
providing
$40,000 in sponsorship money for the 2006 Woman's Team. (Susan
Polgar did
not play on that team as a result of what Truong called the
illegal deal
with KCF.)

Throughout this time, Truong has repeatedly referred to both the
current
board and to the previous board as "Evil Chess Politicians".

Now, Truong threatens to sue the USCF over something that has
nothing to do
with the USCF, specifically three pictures of Susan Polgar and I
together,
which are on my website.

I believe that the time has long since arrived that the USCF needs
to take
a stand against Truong and against all others who would threaten
lawsuits.
No major organization can afford to capitulate to frivolous
threats of
litigation, for the simple reason that once you start paying
blackmail
money, the demands will never cease.

The time to stop paying money to Paul Truong is NOW.

I am not aware of any request from Paul Truong for money, so exactly
what is it that you don't want us to pay?

Bill Goichberg
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 01:33 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