Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 22nd 10, 09:37 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 Transparency -- USCF Style

USCF PRESS RELEASE

This announcement makes it sound like only $170,000 in insurance money
was spent without mentioning that around $500,000 in additional
membership money was lavished on this lawsuit. If that figure is
incorrect, perhaps Randy Bauer or another board member can correct it.
USCF Agrees to Settle Lawsuits with Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
By USCF Executive Board
January 23, 2010

The USCF announced it has agreed to a settlement with Susan Polgar and
Paul Truong stemming from lawsuits filed by both parties. Polgar’s
lawsuit, filed in August 2008, alleged libel, slander, defamation and
other claims. USCF’s California lawsuit, adding claims against Susan
Polgar in October 2008, alleged email hacking and wire fraud. The USCF
also filed an Illinois lawsuit against Susan Polgar and Paul Truong to
remove them as Executive Board members and end their relationship with
the USCF for not acting in the best interests of the USCF.

Under the settlement agreement, all named parties except Gregory
Alexander and Sam Sloan have agreed to dismiss all claims and counter-
claims in the actions in Texas and California. The Illinois lawsuit
will end with a judgment confirming that Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
are no longer Executive Board members. The USCF’s civil case against
Alexander for email hacking and wire fraud continues, and Alexander is
also facing similar federal criminal charges in California.

As part of the settlement, Polgar and Truong have agreed to never
contest the USCF Executive Board’s action in revoking their USCF
memberships; acknowledge that they are no longer members of the USCF
or members of the USCF Executive Board; agree to never seek, run for,
or accept a leadership position in the USCF; and will never contest
the Delegate’s actions that ratified the decisions of the USCF
Executive Board at the August 2009 Annual Delegates Meeting.

Under the settlement, the USCF will allow Polgar and Truong to be
playing, non-members of the USCF and will be listed as “Playing Non-
Member Status.”

The USCF Insurer, Ansur America Insurance Company, a member of
Frankenmuth Financial Group, has agreed to provide $131,000 to the
USCF and $39,000 to Polgar’s attorneys.

The USCF is pleased that this matter is finally settled and that no
USCF funds will go to Polgar and Truong. Additionally, the USCF
receives $131,000 to agree to a settlement.
  #2   Report Post  
Old February 23rd 10, 12:29 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
sd sd is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 922
Default Transparency -- USCF Style

On Feb 22, 5:59*pm, "Mr. Vidmar" wrote:

Anyone following the litigation should know that it cost the USCF $500+K to
defend itself. *No secrets there.


Liarry delights in making the painfully obvious to appear a deep dark
secret that was somehow hidden from the membership.

SBD






  #3   Report Post  
Old February 23rd 10, 01:44 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,026
Default Transparency -- USCF Style

RYND/DOWD STRIKES AGAIN

Liarry delights in making the painfully obvious to appear a deep dark
secret that was somehow hidden from the membership. -- SBD

Dear Mr. Dowd,

Please point out where in the press release an unbiased observer can
find the true cost of litigation to the USCF. Since this press release
was authorized by the Executive Board, we await confirmation from a
board member of the true cost.





sd wrote:
On Feb 22, 5:59 pm, "Mr. Vidmar" wrote:

Anyone following the litigation should know that it cost the USCF $500+K to
defend itself. No secrets there.


Liarry delights in making the painfully obvious to appear a deep dark
secret that was somehow hidden from the membership.

SBD

  #5   Report Post  
Old February 23rd 10, 06:14 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2009
Posts: 360
Default Transparency -- USCF Style



Larry, the true cost has been discussed ad nausium on the issues forum
for weeks. Nothing is being hidden by the EB. *It can't be as the
financial records of the organization have to show them. The press
release merely set out the basic settlement terms, nothing more.


MrVidmar,

Well we would *hope* it is over -- nicely wrapped up in pretty paper,
ribbons and all, signed sealed and delivered, but the man who started
it all, Sam Sloan, has filed a Notice of Appeal. Hopefully, we have
heard the final notes from the Fat Woman, and not the end of her warm
up.


  #6   Report Post  
Old February 23rd 10, 07:27 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Mar 2005
Posts: 131
Default Transparency -- USCF Style

On Feb 22, 5:49*pm, MrVidmar wrote:
wrote:
RYND/DOWD STRIKES AGAIN


Liarry delights in making the painfully obvious to appear a deep dark
secret that was somehow hidden from the membership. -- SBD


Dear Mr. Dowd,


Please point out where in the press release an unbiased observer can
find the true cost of litigation to the USCF. Since this press release
was authorized by the Executive Board, we await confirmation from a
board member of the true cost.


sd wrote:
On Feb 22, 5:59 pm, "Mr. Vidmar" wrote:


Anyone following the litigation should know that it cost the USCF $500+K to
defend itself. *No secrets there.
Liarry delights in making the painfully obvious to appear a deep dark
secret that was somehow hidden from the membership.


SBD


Larry, the true cost has been discussed ad nausium on the issues forum
for weeks. Nothing is being hidden by the EB. *It can't be as the
financial records of the organization have to show them. The press
release merely set out the basic settlement terms, nothing more.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Not secrets. Probably just political lies.
I have heard numbers thrown around but have yet to see financials
which show that $500K was actually spent on attorneys fees without
reimbursement. As if USCF's financials have historically been any
kind of gold standard where accuracy is concerned.
What kind of policy only pays less than 1/3rd of the loss? That is
one hell of a deductible.

My suspicion is that 500K was the usual scare tactic the insiders use
to frighten support. The truth usually comes out after it is too late
to do anything about it.
See how confused the delegates are this year when the insiders try to
tell them that this years 500K losses are the result of the Polgar/
Truong litigation when in reality the USCF has been reimbursed for all
but the deductible. I seriously doubt the deductible was 340K.

Sheesh

Rp
  #7   Report Post  
Old February 23rd 10, 10:37 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Transparency -- USCF Style

Bobcat wrote:

Larry, the true cost has been discussed ad nausium on the issues forum
for weeks. Nothing is being hidden by the EB. It can't be as the
financial records of the organization have to show them. The press
release merely set out the basic settlement terms, nothing more.


MrVidmar,

Well we would *hope* it is over -- nicely wrapped up in pretty paper,
ribbons and all, signed sealed and delivered, but the man who started
it all, Sam Sloan, has filed a Notice of Appeal. Hopefully, we have
heard the final notes from the Fat Woman, and not the end of her warm
up.


Indeed. Should Sloan lose in the 5th Circuit, he will undoubtedly
request a rehearing en banc followed by a request for Cert from the
Supremes. This could cost the USCF more money, but it is not likely as
the USCF settled out of the Texas litigation, not Sam.
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
Opposition to Polgar Ultra Vires Motion MrVidmar rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 June 23rd 09 02:18 PM
Opposition to Polgar Ultra Vires Motion MrVidmar rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 June 23rd 09 02:18 PM
"half-truths, unsupported rumors and paranoid fantasies" samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 9 June 23rd 07 02:06 AM
Should the USCF rate the Olympiads? Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 9 March 29th 06 11:52 PM
Should the USCF rate the Olympiads? Sam Sloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 9 March 29th 06 11:52 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:07 PM.

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