Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 26th 10, 08:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,026
Default Who won the lawsuit?

WHY DID THE USCF SETTLE?

Something stinks to high heaven.

Someone claimed that the settlement was "a complete victory" for the
USCF despite the expenditure of around $600,000. It doesn't look that
way from here.

The Wickster, who once headed the USCF Ethics Committee, tells us that
nobody won. Yet the Polgars are claiming victory.

If the case against Susan Polgar and Paul Truong was so airtight -- as
Brian Lafferty and others led us to believe for lo these many years
("stay tuned" was the mantra) -- why didnít the USCF go all the way?
Or at least push for attorney fees?

The board owes its members a complete explanation of what they did and
why.

  #2   Report Post  
Old January 26th 10, 09:12 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,381
Default Who won the lawsuit?

On Jan 26, 3:59*pm, " wrote:
WHY DID THE USCF SETTLE?

Something stinks to high heaven.

Someone claimed that the settlement was "a complete victory" for the
USCF despite the expenditure of around $600,000. *It doesn't look that
way from here.

The Wickster, who once headed the USCF Ethics Committee, tells us that
nobody won. Yet the Polgars are claiming victory.

If the case against Susan Polgar and Paul Truong was so airtight -- as
Brian Lafferty and others led us to believe for lo these many years


The nice point.

("stay tuned" was the mantra) -- why didnít the USCF go all the way?
Or at least push for attorney fees?

The board owes its members a complete explanation of what they did and
why.


And there is the dilemma. Even if mutual faults would be exposed in a
legal sense, how to explain spending $600,000 as if playing a poker
bluff, with other people's [member's] money?

That is what team-Goichberg have to explain to members and potential
donors to USCF.

Phil Innes
  #3   Report Post  
Old January 26th 10, 09:34 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2009
Posts: 122
Default Who won the lawsuit?


WHY DID THE USCF SETTLE?

Because it cost too much to continue, and it was in the best interests of
the USCF to settle.

WHO WON?

The Courts and the Legal Profession, who alsways wins.

Nuff said...



  #4   Report Post  
Old January 26th 10, 10:17 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Who won the lawsuit?

On Jan 26, 4:34*pm, "Teddybear" wrote:
WHY DID THE USCF SETTLE?

Because it cost too much to continue, and it was in the best interests of
the USCF to settle.

WHO WON?

The Courts and the Legal Profession, who alsways wins.

Nuff said...


Might be there insurance company said settle or pay all legal fees.
  #5   Report Post  
Old January 26th 10, 10:55 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default Who won the lawsuit?

On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:59:17 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

WHY DID THE USCF SETTLE?


Something stinks to high heaven.


Someone claimed that the settlement was "a complete victory" for the
USCF despite the expenditure of around $600,000. It doesn't look that
way from here.


The Wickster, who once headed the USCF Ethics Committee, tells us that
nobody won. Yet the Polgars are claiming victory.


If the case against Susan Polgar and Paul Truong was so airtight -- as
Brian Lafferty and others led us to believe for lo these many years
("stay tuned" was the mantra) -- why didnít the USCF go all the way?
Or at least push for attorney fees?


THE BLUFF THAT ROARED

USCF basic position: (1) trying NOT to pay the 10 million, (2)
Getting (mainly) Truong and (later) Polgar off the board.

PT & SP basic position: (1) Millions in damages, (2) retain their
positions on EB.

Better to ask why Polgar and Truong didn't push on.

If they were confident of vindication, why did they not give the
Mottershead Report its due refutation in a court of law, as many
partisans (e.g., our own Phil Innes) had brayed would happen for a
couple years? Why did they leave Troung's reputation smeared with
these allegations if a court case would have cleared him? Seems
obvious to me they were afraid of the results.

I mean, the USCF used the Mottershead Report and Truong's lack of
cooperation in denying his role in the FSS affair, as the reason for
booting him off the board. Well, he's been booted. And he and Polgar
have signed documents accepting it, forever. What does this say about
their confidence in their position?

Why did Polgar, after INITIATING a lawsuit for many, many, millions,
settle for a tiny portion of what she spent ON that lawsuit? Seems
pretty obvious she knew she wouldn't win. Why didn't she push for
REAL attorney fees, not a dime on the dollar?

So, who won? Let's just say the latter's claim of "victory" rings
pretty hollow.

Call it "the bluff that failed". In my opinion, the Polgar's suit
was merely a tool of intimidation, and she was always reasonably
confident the USCF would settle. With the trial immanent and the
Goich showing much more resolve than the hapless Niro of yore, she
implemented "plan B" -- settle and proclaim victory.

None of this is to claim the USCF partial victory was anything but
Pyrrhic, of course. Game theoreticians have a name for what was
played. And both sides lose, as usual, in such a game.

The board owes its members a complete explanation of what they did and
why.


From the discussion on USCF Members Forum, they were out of money.
Insurance companies said, in effect, "settle or you don't get the 120K
we offered and we don't cover any more." Credit lines evidently
pretty much tapped out. Legal opinion was that a total win in court
would do very little towards actually collecting attorney fees or
damages.


  #6   Report Post  
Old January 27th 10, 12:54 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2005
Posts: 131
Default Who won the lawsuit?

On Jan 26, 12:59*pm, " wrote:
WHY DID THE USCF SETTLE?

Something stinks to high heaven.

Someone claimed that the settlement was "a complete victory" for the
USCF despite the expenditure of around $600,000. *It doesn't look that
way from here.

The Wickster, who once headed the USCF Ethics Committee, tells us that
nobody won. Yet the Polgars are claiming victory.

If the case against Susan Polgar and Paul Truong was so airtight -- as
Brian Lafferty and others led us to believe for lo these many years
("stay tuned" was the mantra) -- why didnít the USCF go all the way?
Or at least push for attorney fees?

The board owes its members a complete explanation of what they did and
why.


Fat chance. They will change the subject to something else before the
next delegates meeting.

In most cases, I would refrain from saying I told you so, but in this
instance....

The point was never who was right or wrong. All the puffery about so
and so did this and the board did that was irrelevant. It was all
about who retained control of the organization and they could care
less if they bankrupt the USCF in the process. Just as long as the
insiders retain control and can keep giving out their endless trail of
meaningless awards and contracts to their favorites, all is well with
our "fiduciaries". Just as long as the organization dies one day
after the alleged weasel and the alleged king rat die they have
succeeded.

Somewhere, Jerry Hanken is smiling and cashing his residuals.

Sometimes my friend Wick understands all the legal niceties and none
of the politics. Retaining control is the thing and they will keep it
going with other people's money until they get the result they want.
When that point is reached, they are happy to settle.

Rp
  #7   Report Post  
Old January 27th 10, 01:53 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2009
Posts: 122
Default Who won the lawsuit?


"None" wrote in message
...
On Jan 26, 4:34 pm, "Teddybear" wrote:
WHY DID THE USCF SETTLE?

Because it cost too much to continue, and it was in the best interests of
the USCF to settle.

WHO WON?

The Courts and the Legal Profession, who alsways wins.

Nuff said...


Might be there insurance company said settle or pay all legal fees.


Actually, when it's all said and done, the USCF should not be out of pocket
any more than the policy deductable. Maybe less depending on how bad the
carrier wants to get out of it. When it gets to this point, the bean
counters take over.


  #8   Report Post  
Old January 27th 10, 05:23 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,170
Default Who won the lawsuit?

On 26 Jan, 20:59, " wrote:
WHY DID THE USCF SETTLE?

Something stinks to high heaven.

Someone claimed that the settlement was "a complete victory" for the
USCF despite the expenditure of around $600,000.


I feel sorry - posthumously - for the great man who donated a fortune
to the USCF in his will. Can someone remember the guy's name, from a
year or so ago?
And as he looked down from Valhalla he must have been gritting his
teeth as the USCF poured his money down lawyer's throats as if they
were p‚tť-de-foie-gras ducks!

LOROL! Not even one laptop!
  #9   Report Post  
Old January 27th 10, 06:27 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 235
Default Who won the lawsuit?

Oh please, USCF won easily.

I could still refile my case in Lubbock, but don't want to enrich
attorneys, and Sloan isn't done with them yet.

Polgar and Truong are done with USCF and its board.

I just decided to go the criminal-complaint route because that leaves
it up to the cops to decide what to do, and I'm not putting any
attorney's kids through Harvard.

There's also the MEDIA for one to get the truth out, without further
enriching attorneys. That was my main reason for "delitigating" over
the past few years. I had a clear win here; all I needed to do was
prove that they indeed behind the postings. Had they remained in NYC,
I probably would have. Texas is no place to be winning a lawsuit of
this nature, becuase even a win is a loss.

It's like when I quit chess at age 24, PROBABLY THE SAMRTEST THING i
EVER DID.

I do think USCF should have let them stay as regular members. Heck,
maybe they could put them in charge of their PRISON chess program.

Any word on why Truong seems to be getting a pass on bankruptcy-fraud
laws?

Ray
  #10   Report Post  
Old January 27th 10, 08:08 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,977
Default Who won the lawsuit?

On Jan 26, 12:59*pm, " wrote:
WHY DID THE USCF SETTLE?

Something stinks to high heaven.

Someone claimed that the settlement was "a complete victory" for the
USCF despite the expenditure of around $600,000. *It doesn't look that
way from here.

The Wickster, who once headed the USCF Ethics Committee, tells us that
nobody won. Yet the Polgars are claiming victory.

If the case against Susan Polgar and Paul Truong was so airtight -- as
Brian Lafferty and others led us to believe for lo these many years
("stay tuned" was the mantra) -- why didnít the USCF go all the way?
Or at least push for attorney fees?

The board owes its members a complete explanation of what they did and
why.


There is the strategical picture, and the tactical.

Let me start with the tactical. The relative success (so far)
of the evil Truong and immature Polgar rests mainly on Sam
Sloan's stupidity. Sam was too greedy, he wanted to win it all.
In the forst place he wanted (what an idiot) to justify his
political standing within the USCF. As the result he forgot the
major tactical weiqi device -- the safe group (also the notion
of the "safe play" comes from bridge, which means to make sure
tht you win the contract, and never mind the extras). Sam should
have focus exclusively on FSS. Well, Sam blow it. An idiot will
always find a way to part with the success and with the money,
despite his everyday busy schedule.

Now, about the strategic picture. Truong is an evil person,
dishionest to his last bone. But USCF executives have a lot
of dirt to hide. Thus Truong & Polgar used the only resource
available to them. They were not able to defend themselves,
hence they attacked the USCF executives. And that was enough
to save their skin due to the heavy baggage carried by the USCF
guys.

That's how I saw it and still see it now after reading hundreds
of posts on rgcm.

Regards,

Wlod
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Polgar Opposition to Cross-Motion MrVidmar rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 September 9th 09 06:11 PM
Polgar Opposition to Cross-Motion MrVidmar rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 September 9th 09 06:11 PM
Polgar Opposition to Cross-Motion MrVidmar alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 September 9th 09 06:11 PM
USCF Makes Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss In CA MrVidmar rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 August 25th 09 03:08 AM
Sound and Fury in Polgarland B. Lafferty[_6_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 December 15th 08 09:20 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:30 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