Sunday, May 31, 2009

Reply to Wick's Response Re: My USCf Litigation Page

Quoting MorfeoKnight
I am sick and tired of seeing Chess Life and the USCF website being used to portray a one-sided and inaccurate account of the lawsuits. Accordingly, I am dedicating space on my server to enlighten the members of all the facts - you may view it at USCF Legal Issues.
Quoting Wick

I read your website with interest. I had some comments on your analysis, which I posted on my blog. Comments are welcome.
A summary of Wick's response posted at this blog:
  1. Feels Hall's summaries have been measured while providing accurate and fair updates;
  2. Points out Goichberg can post what he wishes on his site;
  3. Refers to semantics and legalese in response to who sued first;
  4. With respect to the settlement offer made by Polgar, concedes it is accurate and yet misleading. He concedes she does not want to bankrupt the USCF and yet delves into personal opinions and analysis to disprove his concession;
  5. Regarding Alexander's pleading, Wick discounts it as sloppy and points out the redacted material only proves Polgar did not have an anonymizer account fails to exonerate Alexander; and
  6. With respect to the failed attempt to remove Truong and the alleged bribery, he asserts it fails to deliver the quid pro quo.
As previously mentioned, it was not my intent to cover all the intricacies of any one case or the sum of cases. Rather, my objective is to briefly raise some issues that are conveniently being omitted from updates, reports and mail-outs to the membership.

Point 1. Goichberg has no choice but to be measured and appear to be fair and forthcoming. However, the record reflects that he has been anything but the opposite and disparaged the opposition to diverge attention from his failure and shortcomings.

Point 2. I do not question Goichberg's posting on his site but rather object to the inappropriate and incompleteness of the updates in Chess Life and the USCF website. I do admit to being called into action after seeing the post on the Chicago Open site. Yes I was aware that he own CCA and he has a right to post on it what he wishes - he receives no opposition from me for having done so. I do, however, passionately object to his use of Chess Life and the USCF website for propaganda.

Point 3. The fact is the June 25, 2008 suit was filed 43 days before the August 7, 2009 suit. I believe, as does Polgar, they intended to harass, intimidate and rid themselves of her, by hook or crook. I do not expect Goichberg, et. al, to confess as to their intent and scheme. Instead, their approach has and continues to be measured, calculating and deceitful. The basis for my argument are:

  1. USCF's Illinois Complaint filed on December 29, 2009, reads; "Between November 26, 2007 and June 24, 2008, with full knowledge that Polgar and her husband were under investigation by the USCF, Polgar and an accomplice unlawfully accessed the e-mail account of Excutive Board member Randall Hough (hereinafter "Hough") at least 111 times." They claim they did not know the identities at the time of the initial filing but I am not buying it.
  2. On November 17, 2008, Goichberg issued the following statement: "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..." It is well documented Polgar has come short of begging for the Goichberg gang to cease and desist in the interest of the USCF, all the way leading up to the delegates meeting and since.
  3. Alexander's Pleading filed January 12, 2009, reads; "Actually, I spoke to Bill Hall before I switched on the IP addresses. Goichberg has also been involved in discussions. The discussion was not about my switching on the IP addresses; I decided to do that on my o[w]n after speaking to Hall. The information I had prior to doing that was already quite persuasive, and both Hall and Goichberg are quite eager to have the FRG/FSS character out of the USCF. Hall encouraged me to develop more information to strengthen the case, and to file an Ethics complaint. I am encouraged by this..." 'Develop more information'!? Messrs Goichberg, Hall and Kroenenberger have been 'developing' information from 2007 and this practise continues today in order to eliminate Goichberg enemies." Yet, Goichberg and gang continue to deny any wrongdoing or vendettas.
  4. Finally, I use an analogy to make my final point as to why Goichberg should not be trusted. When faced with the dilemma of who to give the baby to, King Solomon asked a soldier to cut the baby in half so each woman can have a part of him. The real mother pleaded not to harm the baby but instead give it to the other woman. The "fake" mother agreed to the detestable act. Similarly, Polgar has held that an open and complete investigation by independent parties and if the evidence shows they have committed any wrongdoing they would resign. On the other hand, if evidence shows the Goichberg and gang committed the wrongdoing, they should resign. The "fake mother" would much rather harm the "baby" than tell the truth.
Point 4. The offer of the settlement is public record and I believe remains on the table still today. The fact he is hiding behind his fiduciary duty to the members is crap - the members he has failed and whose privacy he allegedly violated?!

Point 5. Regarding his claim of sloppiness (not sure if he refers to my work or how the complaint was worded, which is where I "borrowed" from) but it is irrelevant. The fact is Kronenberger, the USCF's attorney, is trying to build the case that Polgar and Alexander hacked into personal emails. Kronenberger submits anonymizer accounts and IP's to make his case. However, the evidence not only fails to make his case but in fact disproves it, at least to the extent that Polgar does not have an account and, "After diligently searching our records, I am unable to find anything concerning the requested IP addresses." That report not only exonerates Polgar (no account) but Alexander as well (nothing found regarding the IP's submitted for review). More importantly, however, is the fact that Kronenberger allegedly doctored the evidence to conceal pertinent information and portray it as damaging to Polgar and Alexander.

Point 6. I would suspect the elements of bribery may differ from state to state but believe the core elements exist in all of them. To be sure, I briefly researched Texas and California where the two principle cases are filed. My source for the former was a copy of the 1987-1988 Texas Criminal Laws book as it reads:

Sec. 36.02. Bribery.
  1. A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly offers, confers, or agrees to confer on another, or solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from another:
  • any benefit as consideration for the recipient's decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official, or voter;
  • any benefit as consideration for the recipient's decision, vote, recommendation, or other exercise of official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding; or
  • any benefit as consideration for a violation of a duty imposed by law on a public servant or party official.
  1. It is no defense to prosecution under this section that a person whom the actor sought to influence was not qualified to act in the desired way whether because he had not yet assumed office or he lacked jurisdiction or for any other reason.
  2. It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the benefit is not offered or conferred or that the benefit is not solicited or accepted until after:
  • the decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion has occurred; or
  • the public servant ceases...etc.

The source for the latter state is the online version of Vol. IV of California Jurisprudence, Section 5, which reads, "Value of a Bribe. - It will be seen by reference to the legislative definition that a bribe may be "anything of value or advantage, present or prospective. While money is the usual consideration of a bribe, it is clear that almost anything may be the consideration which has sufficient value to influence the conduct of the person bribed. It is not necessary to the completion of the crime of offering to give a bribe that the thing offered as a bribe should have a present and ascertained value. To offer a thing in the future which, at the time agreed upon for future delivery, will have being and value is to offer a valuable thing within the meaning of the statute; and as the gravamen of the offense is the tendency which the thing offered as a bribe may have to pervert justice or corrupt official action, the crime is complete the moment an offer is made to give something, which may have a future existence and a prospective value."

In conclusion, I would like to be able to address several other issues but I have dedicated more time to this than I like to - it has taken away from some other very important issues. I leave you with the following questions:
  1. Much has been made about the fiduciary duty of Polgar and Truong - what about the fiduciary duty of the remaining board members?
  2. With declining numbers and already busted budgets can we afford settlements of $25 million, one million or attorney's fees of half or three-quarters of million? Putting aside the California and Texas cases, was the Illinois case wise and necessary? I submit it is beneficial to the attorneys but not the membership for whom the entire executive board has an obligation to uphold.
  3. What about violations of the open meetings act? Most states have procedures governing the conduct of public meetings and consider it a violation of those laws if two or more members meet (and it does not have to be in person) to discuss official business. How may violations of the this law were there?
  4. Is the intimidation and threat of lawsuits against delegates in their upcoming meeting an exercise or violation of their fiduciary duties?
  5. Was the "meeting" to discuss the creation of the Chairmanship for Polgar a violation? I submit it was all a charade to get Polgar and Truong to go along for the good of the USCF while they were "developing" a scheme for her demise long before she took office.
  6. Would the demise of the USCF benefit or damage the Continental Chess Association?
I beseech all USCF members and delegates to carefully consider their votes and make your decisions in the interest of saving the USCF.

Thank you for your indulgence and kind attention

John B. Flores
USCF Litigation
USCF Executive Board Endorsements

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

USCF Delegate Proposals In Search of a Delegate

I think the deadline for Advanced Delegate Motions is 1 June 2009. I hope these two proposals can find a delegate or delegates to champion them in Indianapolis.

1) Correspondence Chess
Posted at the USCF Issues Forum

Correspondence Chess has again fallen by the way side in the USCF. Two years ago we faced a crisis and the USCF stepped up to make sure that CC players in ICCF-US retained our representation in ICCF. IM Corky Schakel has taken over operation of ICCF-US and is doing a bang up job (see

Also two years ago there was one USCF CC event offered via web server on the ICCF server (WALTER MUIR E-QUADS) according to the CC web page ( There is still only that same event offered via web server. CC via web server is the preferred method of most CC players by far (see

Alex Dunne's column, in addition to being taken out of Chess Life (print and online) has not been made available via syndication (RSS, Atom, etc...) and is not promoted in the print or online Chess Life. I have spoken with quite a few CC players who used to read Dunne's column with regularity but now forget about it for months at a time as there is no way to be reminded that a new column is out.

We need a delegate to propose the following:
1) That all* USCF CC events be offered via web server (our own or the ICCF server) in addition to the current practice of offering them by post or email.
2) That failing the restoration of Check/Mail to Chess Life, that it should be syndicated via RSS/Atom and promoted in at least the online Chess Life.

*I understand that some events must be postal or email. However, almost every event I see on the Events page should be offered via web server.

I also understand that the USCF has been exploring setting up our own server. However, that exploration is now at least two years old. We received a bequest that was designated, at least in part, for CC. All I have seen from that is the proposal of starting a new CC event. With the current troubles cause by the varied litigants who have sued the USCF I understand that the bequests have had to be spent on litigation. However, the cost to the USCF to accomplish the two points above should be negligible and entry fees should offset that expense.

2) Online Chess Rating
Posted at the USCF Issues Forum

We need a delegate to champion the cause of those USCF members who can not play traditional OTB chess because of geographical or economic restraints but who CAN play online on one of the various ICS systems.

The USCF should establish an OnLine rating to be used for "standard" games. "Standard" games are usually defined as 10 minutes per game or longer. These games would differentiate from currently sanctioned ICS games in that they would not have TDs attending them at each location. Currently sanctioned online play under those terms are already rated under the current rating system.

-This new rating would necessitate an addition to the current "Regular" "Quick" and "Correspondence" ratings.
-Accommodation would have to be negotiated with an ICS (WCN seems the most likely candidate though I would prefer ICC) if the USCF chooses to have the ICS TD and charge rating fees. Alternatively, the USCF could set up an area on the website for players to submit their games and fees.
-Rating fees would have to be researched to see what would be profitable and what the market would bear.

This new rating could result in more than just friendly matches. The ability to hold OnLine tournaments and other events would be available to non-traditional players just as they are for traditional OTB players.

I know many former members who would have stayed if the USCF were relevant to them. If the USCF is to grow - and meet the organizational mission of promoting chess - it must find a way to develop an affinity for the organization among those who can not play traditional OTB events. The goal of this and the CC proposal ( is to develop that affinity and promote chess where the USCF is currently absent or has a very low profile.
If you are a member of the USCF and have an opinion or input about these issues, please go to the forum and get involved. If you are a delegate and agree with one or both please consider advancing an ADM on the topics.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Response to MorfeoKnight's Website Litigation Summary

MorfeoKnight has posted a page describing the USCF litigation. I have some comments on his site, which I will make. I invite him, or anyone else to contribute to the discussion.

USCF Belongs to the Members
We Deserve and Should Demand the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth, so Help the USCF

The inappropriate use of Chess Life and the USCF website to provide a one-sided account of the lawsuits, USCF v. Polgar, and vice-versa, has troubled me. Yesterday, when checking on the progress of the Chicago Open I noticed that site also being used to give an inaccurate and incomplete account of the facts.

Accordingly, I will use this space to provide as accurate and complete account of the facts. I trust and expect all visitors will review the complete record before drawing any conclusions.

In the words of the late Paul Harvey..."and now, for the rest of the story".

I must say that I found the invective regarding Bill Hall's litigation summaries in Chess Life to be puzzling. While Chess Life's publication schedule does not allow these updates to be as timely as one would like, I have thought Mr. Hall's statements in the magazine to be remarkably measured.

Obviously, the fine folks at chess disagree with me, feeling that the account is somehow one sided and unfair. Unfortunately, my requests for the fine folks at Chess Discussion to explain specifically why the statements by Mr. Hall were unfair or misleading were ignored.

Mr. Hall's statements are still available on the web, and can be found here and here.  Can someone, anyone, explain to me what specific language in this statement is inaccurtate, incomplete, or unfair?  I just don't see it.  I am willing to have my mind changed, but I just don't see it.

As far as the publicity on the Chicago Open website, the Chicago tournament is a CCA tournament, not USCF's tournament, and Bill can put whatever he wants to on his website.  While his writing was obviously advocacy, not a dispassionate summary, I did not see anything that was inaccurate.  

Incidently, I visited the Chicago Open on Sunday afternoon.  Bill also included campaign statements regarding the litigation on flyers distributed at the event.  Mike Nietman was also in attendance and had flyers available in the tournament hall.  Despite being a Chicago resident, Korenman had no presence at the event, which I found surprising, although consistent with the lack of energy which has permeated his last two campaigns.

Back to MorfeoKnight's website.

The following is a short list of allegations and corresponding facts.

It is alleged Susan Polgar "sued" the USCF.

Fact: The USCF first filed suit against Polgar on June 25, 2008, alleging hacking into email accounts and impersonating someone (see Pleading 1). Polgar filed suit on August 7, 2008 (see Pleading 2) and later amended her complaint on March 16, 2009 (see Pleading 3 ).

Unfortunately, this summary is neither complete nor accurate. What actually happened was:

1. On June 25, 2008, USCF filed a lawsuit against 10 John Does alleging that persons unknown had hacked into the email of Berry, Hough and/or Goichberg.

2. On August 7, 2008, Susan Polgar sues USCF.

3. On October 24, 2008, USCF amends its complaint in the California action to claim that Gregory Alexander and Susan Polgar conspired together to break into Randy Hough's email account.  Until this time, USCF had not sued Ms. Polgar, therefore, Ms. Polgar did, in fact, sue USCF, before USCF sued Ms. Polgar.

Now, in order to present the complete picture, it should be noted that Ms. Polgar has alleged, in response to the Amended Complaint in California that the John Doe action was a pretext and that USCF filed the lawsuit intending to sue Ms. Polgar the entire time.  I haven't found the evidence cited by her attorneys thus far to be particularly convincing; however, the litigation is still in its early stages.

Finally, and most importantly, it should be noted that it really doesn't matter a rat's ass who sued who first.  What matters is whether the underlying actions have merit.  

Returning now to MorfeoKnight's website, his next comment is as follows:

It is alleged Polgar wishes to bankrupt the USCF.

Fact: Polgar offered to settle for One ($1.00) Dollar even though she suffered personally and professionally from her opponents vicious attacks. She did so, with the best interest of the USCF and its members at heart, however, the settlement proposal was rejected. (I am unable to find the pleading for the proposed settlement so I am linking a copy of the announcement posted on Chess Discussion Blog [see 4].)

This is accurate as far as it goes, but is so incomplete that it would be misleading to one that reads it. To be fair, the incompleteness of the statements is not at all obvious to someone without legal training or a lawyer's advice, so I don't wish to indicate in anyway that MorfeoKnight intended to be misleading.

First of all it should be noted that I am sure that Ms. Polgar does not "want" to bankrupt USCF. Nonetheless, she has sued USCF and its ED and board members for absurd sums of money, and, in the unlikely event she is awarded what she is asking for, then USCF would be driven to bankruptcy.

GM Polgar offered to release USCF for $1 and an apology and a promise not to slander her in the future. That sounds nice until you think through the implications of the offer.

The major problem with the offer from USCF's perspective is that the offer is only to USCF, not it's board members or executive director. Because the USCF has a duty to defend and indemnify Goichberg, Berry, Bauer, Hough and Hall, the USCF could accept this offer and still go broke if a jury were to award a large judgment against Goichberg, Berry, Bauer, Hough or Hall. As such the settlement offer to USCF only is illusory.

Actually, it is worse than that. With the demand of an apology, USCF, by apology, would probably implicate the other defendants that USCF has the duty to indemnify. In short, while superficially attractive, accepting the offer would probably cost USCF in the long run.

Turning to MorfeoKnight's next point:

It is alleged Gregory Alexander hacked and impersonated others.

Fact: Alexander's pleading filed on January 12, 2009, implicate the USCF attorney, Karl Kronenberger, of concealing crucial exculpatory evidence and misleading the court (see Pleading 5 , page 4). On page 3 of said pleading, it asserts: "Exhibit G has been electronically doctored by Kronenberger to intentionally conceal crucial exculpatory evidence and to mislead the court. Exhibit G contains two large black boxes that obscure language hidden beneath. Mr. Kronenberger forgot to flatten the file, and anyone who uses Adobe Acrobat Professional can remove the black box which he wanted to hide from the court, and read what is underneath".

Sorry, but this is half-assed and sloppy.

In the first place, the describing the evidence as "exculpatory" is a bit of a stretch. The redacted evidence indicates that Ms. Polgar does not have an anonymizer account, although Mr. Alexander does. I will fall back on an earlier Chess Discussion post I made back in March:

With all due respect, I think the claim that the redacted material "clears the name of Ms. Polgar" is overstated.

The redacted material shows that Ms. Polgar does not have an anonymizer account. While that is useful information, it does not exonerate her.

1. Per USCF's complaint, not all the attempts to hack the email went through the anonymizer.
2. It does not eliminate the possibility that Ms. Polgar used an anonymizer account registered to another person.
3. It does not eliminate the possibility that another person did the hacking at Ms. Polgar's request or direction. USCF's attorney apparently claimed in open court that they have direct evidence to that effect. As yet, we do not have any knowledge what this purported direct evidence may be.

As fun as it is to comment on the internet, no one commenting on the web has access to all the evidence.

Secondly, the person allegedly exonerated by the redacted document was Ms. Polgar, not Mr. Alexander. Nothing in the redacted material helped Mr. Alexander's case in any way.

MorfeoKnight's Final point, although he promises more at a later date:

It is alleged Paul Truong was the "FSS" and the August 2008 Annual Delegates Meeting was used to try to remove him from the Executive Board.
Fact: Truong's "USCF trial" not only caught him and Polgar by surprise but they were not informed of Kronenberger's presentation. The four motions brought against Truong failed to remove him from the EB despite an alleged bribery. Pleading 3, pages 14 and 15, assert arrangements and other offers were made for two individuals in exchange for their vote to remove Troung. Page 15 reads, "Despite attending the meeting with the purpose of voting for Truong's removal, they changed their votes after hearing facts Truong presented in his defense and which facts were suppressed by Defendants Kronenberger, Goichberg, Hall, Hough, Hanken, and Berry." Internet discussion groups have reported a well respected individual in chess, and others, can testify and provide documentation to substantiate this assertion.

The allegation and the response don't really go together real well.

Whether Paul Troung was the FSS will be established by the technical evidence, which includes, but is by no means limited to, the Mottershead report. (Frankly, if I were representing USCF, I would be handing the data, but not Mottershead's analysis, to an expert and seeing if he draws the same conclusions that Mottershead does.) What happened at the August 2008 director's meeting has any real bearing on the core issue as to whether Mr. Truong was the FSS.

Some delegates tried to remove Mr. Truong at the 2008 meeting. The attempt failed. I'm not sure it's useful to try and divine why the delegates voted the way they did.

As far as the bribery allegation, the allegation seems to lack the essential element of bribery, the quid pro quo. Essentially bribery is offering inducement X to Y so that Y will do act Z. Because the alleged recipients of the bribe did not, in fact, vote the way that the Hanken allegedly wanted them to vote, tends to prove that there was no bribe. Furthermore, an allegedly incriminating email was posted on chessdiscussion, which said.

"If Bill says "yes", you wouldn't owe anything to him." If you don't owe anything to him, then there would be no quid pro quo.

Please note, this is a snippet of a snippet from an email exchange. Seeing the whole exchange in context would be more helpful.

Well those are my thoughts on MorfeoKnight's post. I think when it comes to presenting the whole truth, I think MorfeoKnight has a bit of work to do.

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Decisions are made by those who show up.

After the St. Louis EB meeting, Randy Bauer posted the following at the USCF forums:

"It should be noted that only four members of the Executive Board attended the meeting: Bill Goichberg, Jim Berry, Randy Hough and Randy Bauer. Susan Polgar and Paul Truong did not attend - even though they had been in St. Louis earlier in the week for activities around the US Championship. While that is their choice, I find it incredibly galling that Polgar and Truong indicated to Pat Knight that they would participate by phone, and arrangements were made for that participation. Not only did they not participate, they didn't respond to repeated phone calls and emails - and as a result, the USCF wasted $293 on a conference call phone line in the meeting room at the hotel. Personally, I find that extremely poor behavior on both their part."

Ya think?

The USCF board meets four times per year.  Actually attending the meetings, either in person or by telephone, does not seem to be too much to ask.

I have already stated my opinion that Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong should resign their positions due to the conflicts of interest.  Mr Truong is either the FSS, or he has, despite his innocence, failed to cooperate with USCF in proving his innocence, which is a gross violation of his fiduciary duties as a board member.  Ms. Polgar is suing the corporation and her fellow directors for laughable sums of money based on the absurd premise that statements about her husband's conduct somehow defame her.   (Earth to Polgar:  in order to defame someone, one need to be talking about the person allegedly defamed, not her husband, kids, or housepets.)

Judge Patel, in the recent hearing in San Francisco, bluntly stated as follows:

THE COURT: We're not going to go --we're not going to visit these issues now. I'm trying to see if there is some way of salvaging --first of all, I'm going to tell you one thing also.  Doesn't this organization have an anti-nepotism rule? I mean, it's one of the worst ideas in the world to have spouses on the same board.

MR. KRONENBERGER: Absolutely. That was not disclosed when they ran for the board is the problem.
THE COURT: No organization would generally allow that  to happen.

MR. LEIGH: Your Honor, if I could speak to a couple of points.   First of all, Mr. Kronenberger indicated that their marital relationship was not known. There's not true.

THE COURT: Well, even if it was . . .

MR. LEIGH: I understand the Court's point.
THE COURT: I mean, one of them ought to give up their position.

MR. LEIGH: Yes.  (Then changes subject.)

When a judge makes such a remark on the record, a litigant ignores the suggestion at their peril. My wife used to refer to such judicial suggestions as hitting someone upside the head with a clue-by-four.  

Despite all that, there has been no resignation.

If you don't want to resign fine. But if you won't resign, the least you can do is show up for the freaking meetings. If you don't have the decency to do that, an RSVP is the least you can do.

Friday, May 8, 2009

One of These Things is Not Like the Other . . .

From USCF's Complaint v. Polgar in San Francisco:
After viewing and copying USCF’s confidential communications, 
Defendants created a blog with the Google-owned service, 
Google, Inc. is located in the District. Defendants’ blog was entitled, USCFSaid. (the “Blog”). Defendants published some of the 
confidential communications taken from Hough’s email account on this Blog 
for third parties to view. At various times, Defendants have described the 
Blog as their source of the confidential emails in an effort to hide the fact 
that Defendants themselves stole and distributed these emails.

From a Motion for Protective Order filed by Susan Polgar in Texas yesterday:
For example, 
on a number of occasions, Defendants Kronenberger, Kronenberger Burgoyne, L.L.P., and their 
clients/co-defendants published privileged statements, strategy, and investigatory results in public 
fora, including on a website and blog owned or operated by the Defendants who are now invoking 
the privilege. A publicly viewable blog,, is a blog on which USCF 
board members regularly posted messages to each other regarding the state of affairs of the USCF. 
Posted on this blog for all the world to see were communications written by Karl Kronenberger to 
board members of the USCF. A true and correct copy of is attached 
hereto as Exhibit “A.”

Well isn't that special? Each side is accusing the other of creating the blog.

Hopefully, Google records will make the identity of the blog creator clear. Frankly, the allegations that USCF directors would post this material on a publicly viewable blog doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Also, all the messages were posted from the same account, which does not seem consistent with the allegations that "board members posted messages to each other." Further the account is named, "to fall on the ground from the sky", which seems to denote leaked material rather than a spot for board deliberation.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Brian Lafferty Needs a Muzzle

As an attorney, I cordially despise the vast majority of legal thrillers or dramas.  The utter lack or realism really drives me bats.   One of the few exceptions was the first season of show Murder One. In the pilot, the lead character attorney tells his client, "What you don't understand, Richard, is that in what you are involved in now, facts are weapons.  I can be the best lawyer in the world, but if I go into court unarmed, I'll get my ass kicked."

I am reminded of this every time I see Brian Lafferty publish yet another internet post on Ms. Polgar.  Frankly, I don't see Lafferty's comments as defamatory, which is not to say that they aren't childish, pointless, and reckless.  Already, his post lawsuit comments have been cited in court filings as evidence against him.  

Brian seems confident that his postings are within the bounds of the law.  Fine, but, others might disagree, and, ultimately, his fate may come down to whether 6 folks in Lubbock think he stayed on the right side of the line.  Polgar's best chance of winning this lawsuit, IMHO, is to portray Lafferty as a cyber-stalker.  Which every post, he is helping her paint that picture.  

Now, Brian holds no position with USCF, and I don't think his words can or should be attributed to USCF.  If he were paying his own legal fees, I would say fine, but USCF is paying his legal fees. He is, thus, wasting the membership's money by needlessly complicating his case.

When your opponent is drowning, don't throw them a rope; throw them an anvil.  Brian is throwing ropes, lots of them.  Those ropes may not be enough to save Ms. Polgar's case, but it is a foolish risk to take.

Frankly, USCF's attorneys should order him to stop posting or discussing the case with anyone. If he won't follow their advice, they should withdraw, and let him pay for his own damn defense. If he wants to play with fire, let him do it on his own dime.