USCF Politics Blog

Should the USCF Executive Board be made the board of directors?

2011-05-04T19:41:00.004-05:00

Perhaps the membership itself should ultimately decide rather than a small group of insiders based upon the recommendations from a Special Task Force on USCF Governance that has been trying to ponder the question since its establishment on February 25, 2010.

Regardless below are some links which should help structure the answer to the question.

Regards,
Wayne Praeder
http://www.boardsource.org/Knowledge.asp?ID=3.368

http://www.nonprofit.pro/nonprofit_board_directors.htm

http://www.eidebailly.com/industries/nonprofit/serving_np_bod.aspx

http://www.boardsource.org/Knowledge.asp?ID=3.101

http://www.betteruscf.org/omov.htm
http://www.betteruscf.org/order.htm

Hedy Lamarr on Success

2011-03-31T01:00:00.002-05:00

Any girl can be glamorous. All you have to do is stand still and look stupid.

- Hedy Lamarr

More on Hedy Lamarr.

Dale Carnegie on Success

2011-03-24T01:00:00.003-05:00

You can make more friends in two months by becoming interested in other people than you can in two years by trying to get other people interested in you.

- Dale Carnegie

More on Dale Carnegie.

Benchley on Success

2011-03-17T01:00:00.001-05:00

It took me fifteen years to discover I had no talent for writing, but I couldn’t give it up because by that time I was too famous.

- Robert Benchley

More about Robert Benchley.

Picture: from "How to Sleep". The short film became his best-known work, and earned him an Academy Award.

More Attacks on Polgar on USCF's Forums

2011-03-14T09:32:00.003-05:00

My reply:

All Truong and Polgar wanted was their day in court. It is not their fault that the justice system costs so much money. They were as victimized by the absurd costs to get a verdict as anyone else.

Justice ought to not be just for the rich, nor should it be so costly as to be unobtainable. BL, I wrote a lot of my desire for the truth to come out and you and your's spent much time deriding that. There ought to have been a trial and there ought to have been a verdict. BL, you also wrote much here speculating on how deep SP's pockets were and the impact that would have. How deep or shallow their pockets were should not have been important to obtaining a verdict.

Blaming them for the costliness of trials and verdicts is burdening them with societal problems that are outside of their control.

Bismark on Success

2011-03-10T01:00:00.001-06:00

Be polite; write diplomatically; even in a declaration of war on observes the rules of politeness.

- Otto von Bismark

More about Otto von Bismark.

Picture (cc by-sa 3.0) by SPBer.

Candidate Allen Priest Comments on Financial Issues

2011-03-01T08:34:00.001-06:00

From USCF's Forums:

Jack LeMoine made these comments last year and asked about an update in another thread.

“1) The accounting reports have improved since I saw them a couple of years ago.

2) The main problem accountingwise that the USCF faces is the inability to know how ahead or behind we are during the course of the year. However far behind we are mid-year, management always responds with first, "The second half of the year is always better" and "The auditors always make year-end accruals that could vary the bottom lines by many thousands of dollars".

3) The members badly need to know how much the average rate of increase the second half revenues are over the first half. This gives you an historical, verifiable, and measurable benchmark to project the annual result.

4) I wouldn't depend too much on comparing first half results with prior years. It is like comparing middle-game positions in a game of chess. You may have fewer pieces but still be ahead. There are other factors than just how many and what pieces you have. The same is true for comparing dollars to dollars mid-year. It is the end of the year that counts. Management is correct to point to annual results instead of interim results.

5) The problem of membership accruals at year-end needs to be addressed. I note that Mike Nolan has come out in favor of a database for this.

6) Various audit issues have been discussed at very great length on this forum. Amid all the drek, there's been some legitimate points raised. I have pointed out (see some of my earliest posts) that we have independent auditors and these issues ought to be taken up with them. I favor the Executive Board meeting with the auditors on an annual basis to discuss matters that have come up and to ask questions. Such questions could relate to findings that did not rise to the level of financial statement disclosure but that people would still be interested in knowing. (e.g. the infamous Susan Polgar laptop computer incident. Did the auditors look into this or did they not? If they did, what did they find? Another audit mystery is the documentation of the Crossville land and building valuation. Did the auditors examine them or did they not? How did they verify the valuations used?) Bill Goichberg opposed this; Randy Bauer hasn't taken a position.

7) Sevan Murdian brought up the subject of operational/internal audits about a year and a half ago. He offered his services for free and I had said I would help. Mike Nolan was right to say that these would only work if people did the work in Crossville. At this point, I'm unclear how this would help but perhaps it is worth looking into.

8 )The unpaid post-employment money owed remains a critical issue. I am unsure why the USCF hasn't been sued over this. The money owed ought to be paid ASAP. If cash flow was a problem, then the bequest money ought to have taken care of it (cash flow).

9) The invite to me to summarize the accounting issues was kindly appreciated and this was a quick and dirty response. The proper person who ought to summarize these issues is Randy Bauer, the USCF's Vice-President of Finance. Recently, we exchanged views on this forum on the matter. RB was quite adament that he no longer feels responsibility for discussing USCF Finances because of the lawsuits and because he is just a volunteer. (From his statements, I infer that he won't address USCF finances in any other manner, either, but I could be mistaken. He could still be functioning in some way. - Or not.) I believe he ought to reverse his position on this issue.”

Allen Priest's comments follow:

First to address my thoughts on each issue in turn:
1) The accounting reports have improved. There are always ways to get better. Joe Nanna took some input from the Finance Committee and the internal reports are much easier to read. The most important use for the internal statements is to be useful for management. The way one refines internal statements is to ask the users. This needs to be done regularly. That is one of the first things I will do. It may be that the internal users are satisfied with the information, and little or no changes are needed. The cash flow statement is a critical piece of information that many users do not fully appreciate.
2) And
3) are related. Budgets or plans that take an annual total and divide it by 12 to get a monthly amount are only useful for those items that are actually the same each month. Our management budgets are more helpful when we project costs as expected for each month. Our reliance on good performance from tournaments that are at the end of our fiscal year is a problem. But all of those events have budgets and we can incorporate those budgets as well. In my work with non-profits I have found it insufficient to only plan on a net amount from an event. The problem with a net approach is that one can lose track of costs as long as a certain net is reached. No non-profit can really afford to do that. Costs can reasonably grow for an event if the event attendance grows – it has to do that. But that has to be planned. In my experience the USCF national events staff does a pretty good job of watching costs – but I know there have been issues raised particularly about the last SuperNationals. The EB and the Finance Committee need the details to know that matters are being managed properly. Having said that I do not believe every cost detail needs to be posted on the website.
4) Comparing months and YTD results to the same periods from prior years has value, but only comparing then to the immediately prior year is less useful than comparing them to a series of prior periods. Further the results will and should differ. One has to understand why there are differences.
5) I do not disagree that this continues to need improvement. I also do not think this total needs to be adjusted each month. The cost to track and adjust these totals seem to me to outweigh the benefit to the information. It is more important to continue to move the multi-year membership money into the LMA as we have been doing. We also need to make sure we do a cash flow budget in addition to the income and expense budget. One reason is to remove the non-cash revenue recognition from old multi-year memberships. Another is to plan for the actual cash impact of multi-year memberships. We have to keep identifying and segregating the multi-year membership cash flows so that we do not spend all of the cash when received as has happened in the past.
6) The Audit committee needs to take a larger role in dealing with the a, auditors. The audit committee is delegate appointed and so is the direct link between the directors and the auditors. I am not sure how clear that is to everyone. It will be a lot clearer this year.
7) Internal audits generally focus on compliance with internal controls. The USCF office staff is so small that separation of duties will always be a challenge to implement. IT is a good idea to review such. The external auditors are now required to develop a much deeper understanding of the control structure than they used to be required to do. Those understandings and their recommendations need to be understood and considered. The good news is that this is what I do for a living.
I’m not sure that I understand exactly what others have considered as “operational audits” to be able to comment on that. But as I have stated elsewhere, we need a multiyear plan for technology investment/development. At our accounting firm I use a rolling three year plan to consider where we need to be and what I need to be spending or learning about now so that we can be ready as we go forward.
8 ) This has been resolved.
9) This is a personal issue of which I am not a part.

Gary Walters' USCF Thread

2011-02-28T10:12:00.001-06:00

Over at the USCF Forums, Hal Bogner started a cool thread asking GW what if anything he has done or even learned since he got elected. Also, what are his stands on the issues.

Good start, but since it was GW of course the thread descended to pure drivil. (Sigh!)

Election Year Again

2011-02-27T10:41:00.000-06:00

Yes, again. They seem to be having one every year now. Already the trashing has begun. Sevan Murdian is an International Abritrator for the World Chess Federation and runs many tournaments both International and Local. He's been tagged as being pro-Susan Polgar (he's not really, but whatever) so he's being attacked in the usual fashion. Investigations have uncovered a cell phone having gone off in one of his tournaments (he disciplined the player) and of course, the usual personal pecedillos. They had to do a lot of digging to find them but with a sufficient amount of ruthlessness and determination, I gues water can be struck, no matter how deep they got sink the shaft.

Meanwhile, Gary Walters, another candidate is skating right through because he has never done anything - no experience in chess clubs, state organizations, tournament directing, so there's nothing to criticize.

A Loose End

2011-01-29T15:51:00.001-06:00

Last month, I learned from Hal Bogner that the principals to the Polgar lawsuits have the files on Chess Discussion.com. (Thank you, Hal!) This website had been run by Susan Polgar but has been taken down.

From Hal, I learned that the 3 top people (Susan, Paul, and Gregory) had a super-secret section on that forum just for themselves. I infer from Hal’s comments that this was where the lawyers’ interest lay. He quoted to me some of Gregory’s et al’s comments about me that were negative.

My reactions to these disclosures:

I do not mind top management having a discussion area of their own. This is a necessary thing in most companies.

Their negative comments pertained to their judgment that I was not politically reliable. I do not mind this, either because that judgment was true. I stated many times that I wanted the truth of all that mess. My continued support of them was based on continuing bad statements and actions of the USCF and their other detractors, while noting Polgar’s bad actions, too.

Controversies related to forum management: I would have preferred to have Lafferty, Mottershead, et al to have full access to the forum. During the time, I tried various work-arounds. I was persuaded to Susan’s point of view only by (a) her desire to have the forum as non-political as possible and (b) by their exclusive and negative political content. My changing position on this front was the result of evolution, not duplicity. However, in retrospect, my biggest regret was not coming down hard on Polgar’s political supporters much earlier than I did. The policy of discouraging political diatribes was not executed fairly.

Postscript: Brian Lafferty has stated that he intends to publish the entirety of the forum someday. Believe that? Use your own judgment

The Giuoco Piano

2010-04-09T19:23:00.001-05:00

Here's another opening for us to study - and a video to go along with it.

Lots of tactical twists, but so is the Ruy Lopez, too! Last century, this was one of the majors that everyone had to know.

Armed Forces Chess

2010-03-17T20:22:00.005-05:00

A few days ago, I asked about this. USCF EB Member Mike Atkins responded:

The previous US Armed Forces Opens were held at:
2009- Gettysburg War Museum, Army, Chief TD/Organizer Mike Hoffpauir
2008- Bethesda Naval Hospital, Navy, Tom Belke Organzier, Ernie Schlich Chief TD
2007- Henderson Hall Marine Corps Base (On the grounds of Fort Myer, next to Arlington Cemetary), John Farrell/Organizer, Michael Atkins, Chief TD
2006 - Washington DC Old Soldier's Home, Org/Lt. Col Doug Taffinder, Chief TD/Michael Atkins
For the 2006 event we brought in as special speaker retired USAF Lt. General William Earn Brown, a chessplayer who was in one of the Tuskeegee Airman graduating classes in the late 1940's.

The US Armed Forces Open is open to solder who are active-duty, retirees (20+ year retirees) and students at the Academies.

This year's event is being organized by Lt Col Taffinder again and will be in the DC area. They do a wonderful job in securing donated prizes and have gotten financial support in the past in order to purchase great trophies. The Military Academies participate in the tournament with West Point typically bringing the most players. When it is being held on military bases, the rooms for the academy students are usually free and the EF is always free for everyone.

The Military Chair recently resigned and they are in the process of ironing out a strategy to always have a Chair. I am the EB Liaison to the Military Committe.

Mike

(Used with permission.) Here's a chess site devoted to this topic:
http://www.usmilitarychess.org/

Walters' Chess Qualifications

2010-03-15T04:00:00.000-05:00

Here's a short list:

Chess Club Official: None
Tournament Director: None
State Affiliate: None
USCF Committeework: None
Newsletter/Magazine: None
Blog: Started one after he announced his campaign. (See below.)

Walters is saying the typical things chess politicians say when they have no real credentials:

a) He's going to represent the players, since he has no organizer experience.

Trying to turn a liability into an asset. So, why didn't/won't he represent the players in his state or his local chess club?

b) He's passionate about chess.

Sure, and the other pols are not? Since his one claim to contributing to chess other than just playing it is this blog, it sure would be nice if there were at least more than one post to it since Feb. 18 - and that was just a crosstable!

c) He's posted 300 odd comments to the USCF's Issues Forum. Mostly mean, nasty attacks or else some petty comment. These means that he fits right in with the USCF politics culture. (Sigh!)

----------

Note John Hillery's comment to yesterday's post. Walters should be elected only to keep Sam Sloan out. This is what the USCF has come to.

Walters' Campaign Blog

2010-03-14T04:00:00.001-05:00

Earlier I had stated that Gary Walters, candidate for the USCF Executive Board, had done nothing in chess but put up a campaign blog after he began his electioneering. More on that in later posts, but on the blog issue John Hillery commented, saying that my characterization of his blog was unjust.

(Sadly the links do not show up in this blog very well. You have to move your cursor around to find them.)

I am not the only one who's saying this blog is for campaigning. This from the USCF's Forums, thread "I Will Only Vote Positively", post #180806, Gary Walters himself says,

I am also campaigning actively on my blog at http://graysonebc.blogspot.com/. You can find out more about me there.

This compares to Hillery's comment cited above:

"You failed to mention that he only started his blog after he launched his election campaign." [quoting me - JL]

That would be a fair point if his blog were primarily (or even significantly) about politics. It isn't. It's a chess news and analysis site, and a good one.

The point of all this is that what we have is a candidate who is not willing to work his way up but wants to start at the top. In order to make up for his lack of chess experience, he launches a blog so that he can have at least some chess thing to campaign on.

Let's face it. In a year with the USCF in a financial crisis, it is going to need a very active Executive Board, aggressively helping with fundraising and promoting. It's stuck with Walters because the alternative is so unacceptable. If the members expect this pol to be more than just a resume credential collector, they are likely to be disappointed.

Adventures In NY, Boston, and Elsewhere

2010-03-13T04:00:00.000-06:00

Just learned of a new chess blog. Well, chess and lots of other stuff, too. Rather like my own at Jack Le Moine's Blog.

This blog is run by Erabin at Brandais University. Check his blog out and tell him Jack sent you!

Queen's Gambit

2010-03-12T04:00:00.003-06:00

Get ready to play in a chess tournament this weekend.

Here's a little video to help you get your engine started. (-or to just learn a little more about the game.)

Almost always, when the Queen Pawn meets the Queen Pawn in the center, White supports with the Queen Bishop Pawn. While this forumation is not as deadly as its brother formation on the Kingside, it is more strategic and hence more practical.

I usually play this. I note that the QB pawn usually moves up next to the Q pawn no matter what Black does.

This is an overview for beginners.

Chess events in your area . . . and visit The Chess Website who created these wonderful videos.

www.jacklemoine.com

Old Finances

2010-03-11T04:00:00.001-06:00

This is from my Way-Back Machine at the USCF's Forum. An oldie but goodie from 1/1/2007. Post 25787.

Thanks for the audit reports. I did look up the ones going back to 2002. Just a few comments. I note that all of the reports for all years was unqualified. This meant that the auditors found nothing materially wrong with the financials. If there were significant missing moneys, then that would have been noted somewhere - especially if they were in the ballpark of millions of dollars. There were no internal control reports - that dispenses with that issue. There should have been management reports, too. Those are not normally made available to the public.

I know that this next may stick in your craw but the Executive Board members should be given access to those reports. That's the price of having SS on the board. I don't mean to be troublesome here, just fair. I don't think there's a legal requirement for that, that's just my opinion.

I note that the building and land in TN is valued at near the price SS claimed was paid for it. The FY 2006 financials noted that the land was appraised but the building was not. Professional appraisers as a rule value property based upon all relevant factors. If encumbrances had the effect of significantly reducing the re-sale value aka the fair market value of the land, then the appraisers should have included that in their appraisal. Accounting rules require that assets be recorded at the lower of cost or market. Since the auditor did not write down the HQ in Crossville, this supports Joel Chandler's explanations and not Sam Sloan's. That should dispense with that issue. The building will be appraised this year. I do wonder why the building and land weren't both appraised at the same time.

I note that the 2005 report is marked "draft". This looks bad. You really should get the final version of the report up, even if it has no changes from the draft version.

Summary: the audit reports do not support Sam Sloan's allegations.*
-----
* He was claiming $3 million were missing from the treasury.

What Sam Sloan Should Do

2010-03-10T05:00:00.001-06:00

Sloan does have a big positive. He comes across pretty good on video. He could concentrate on producing videos for youtube and elsewhere. He’s got eccentric ideas on openings and other strategies but here, this works in his favor. Chess needs coverage of eccentric openings and not just more of the same old stuff. - Yet another video of the Najdorf Sicilian (for example)!

If he gets a director to coach him and line up shots, together with some post-production editing, he could make a name for himself – which is to say, he could re-brand himself in the chess world.

Conclusion: how Sloan could rehabilitate himself is an interesting exercise for a lazy afternoon.

www.jacklemoine.com

Non-Chess Jack 3/9/10

2010-03-09T16:08:00.009-06:00

What am I up to when I'm not playing chess and chess politics?

Yesterday, I read a book on Twitter. It was really an eye-opener for me. I did a little bit to my twitter site and my twitter practice. I went up from 6 to 65 followers. Here's my Twitter site, and check out the book, too.

- Yes, I know. You saw on the USCF's Forum this:

Big picture time here: I notice I have 63 followers on Twitter.

- Myself, Post 183785

Same terminology used by the Rev. Jim Jones. Scary.

- Another USCF poster, citing the leader of a famous mass suicide in the early 1980's, Post 183786

I had to inform the group that "followers" is the official term used by Twitter, Google (see the right panel here) and other major social internet sites. Why bother with such crazies?

Also:

Here's another installment of Herodotus on my History Blog. H was a tourist as well as an historian in the 5th. century BC, so his description of the ancient Egypt he saw takes us back in time 2,400 years.

Now, with securities prices low is the best time to invest. In my Finance Blog, I ruminate on wisdom I found from Rich Dad and others.

Health Care dominates the news on my Politics Blog but the most far-reaching news is Obama's cutting back on the Space Program. What are the Left's goals in Space?

and don't forget my first Youtube video ever!

Sam Sloan's Tricky Ingredients

2010-03-09T06:00:00.001-06:00

The above are easy stuff. More tricky is his belief system relating to that 3 letter word that begins with s and ends with x. He’s been really in-your-face with it and it has caused him a lot of trouble on this forum and elsewhere. For me, this is a deal-breaker but I realize that for most, they do not take the kind of moral stands as I do. So, what is his optimal strategy here?

First, we’ve got to respect the fact that he is sincere in what he believes. His record goes back a half-century now to his days in Berkley. As for the children issue, he notes that it is/was legal in the countries where he did it.

Second, we’ve got an environment where tolerance for matters related to the s word is artificially high. It is plausible to see a scenario where Sloan responds to concerns about his website, books, and other media by successfully urging a live-and-let-live attitude.

His best bet would be to put his s-word related stuff on the web behind some kind of wall like other adult-content sites do. As I recall, this was the chief complaint by people on this forum during the time Sloan was on the Board.

As for his views on adults, children, and the s-word, they are what they are. While parents will probably always be uncomfortable having him around their children at chess tournaments, at the rate society keeps accepting more and more gross behavior, it is plausible to imagine his views gaining wider acceptance in the years to come.

The issue needs more finesse than Sloan is probably capable of but once again, it is possible for him to do it.

Sam Sloan's No-Brainer Ingredients

2010-03-08T20:32:00.000-06:00

I know that it is difficult to imagine a Sam Sloan that has some measure of respectability in the chess world but it is possible. Like Nixon’s case after Watergate, it will take awhile. What are the ingredients of a Sloan rehabilitation?

1) He’s got to dial back on chess politics. Post less on USCF Issues and more on All Things Chess.

2) Lawsuits against Polgar/Truong are popular but not against the USCF. He’s got to refrain from any more anti-USCF litigation.

3) Stay out of trouble with the law. This especially goes for child-related trouble!

This is the no-brainer stuff.

Positively Sam Sloan

2010-03-07T00:36:00.001-06:00

Is there a strategy for Sloan getting back to some status of respectability in the chess world? (I’m thinking of something like the post-Watergate Nixon did.)

First, let’s clear out some underbrush. About the election:

Sloan’s election chances are slim. The worst thing from his standpoint was that he’s in an effectively 2 man race. Had there been a third man for that last slot, then he might have had a shot at getting in by the majority of anti-Sloan voters splitting their vote. As it is, every one of them can concentrate their votes on Walters. The election is Walters’ to loose. He does not need to be qualified or even knowledgeable; he just needs to avoid anything stupid. Sloan’s only hope is to get people thinking the USCF is badly managed and then go negative on Walters. He’s not up to the job; he cannot fix things – that sort of spiel. This is a plausible strategy for him; he likes attacking people. Still, Sloan faces the problem that he has no base of support. Further, in his case, his experience on the Board actually works against him in this election.

I just do not see him winning this. Even if he does win, what does he get? - A seat at a Board where he will once again be isolated. Worse, Sloan being Sloan, he probably won’t be able to resist the opportunities to cause trouble. Having gone to the well once already, the USCF may do unto Sloan what it did to Polgar and Truong and expel him. Eviscerating the rules for removal from the Board will not be the novelty it was last year.

Sloan’s best bet would be to withdraw from the race so that he can get an early start on his rehabilitation but to analyze that move would be to withdraw from any plausible Sloan-like behavior into fantasy. So, I assume that he will run, adopt some strategy such as I imagine, and loose.

Then what? What is his best strategy from that point?

More on That Miami Tournament

2010-03-06T06:00:00.000-06:00

(Continuation of the March 1 post.)

There's some further information on this issue:

1) The organizers had set unrealistically high guaranteed prizes. They would have been unlikely to have broken even - even if there had been no hurricanes and the weather had been perfect.

2) They had not done unusual publicity to boost the attendance, meaning

3) The guaranteed prize fund was their publicity and they just used the hurricane warning as an excuse to pull it.

4) The USCF delayed action on this until after the election so that the appearance of political manipulation could be avoided.

These are pretty substantial arguements on the other side of this issue. In light of this, the organizers really ought to explain themselves to the chess public.

Dutch Defense, Stonewall

2010-03-05T21:18:00.005-06:00

Get ready to play in a chess tournament this weekend.

Here's a little video to help you get your engine started. (-or to just learn a little more about the game.)

The Stonewall has pawns on KB4, K3, Q4, and QB3. Either Black or White can move into this formation. In my experience, it is really hard to bust this formation. I recall Max Euwe's book on the middlegame had an extensive chapter on how to bust it.

This is one opening I recommend for beginning players.

Chess events in your area . . . and visit jrobi who created these wonderful videos.

Hurricanes, Tsunamis, and Chess Tournaments

2010-03-01T21:41:00.003-06:00

The 2008 Miami tournament is back in the news with an appeal from the Rules Committee. - Fallout from the organizers lowering the prize funds due to Hurricane Ike - which did not hit.

Hurricanes and other natural disasters do occur. Experts put out alerts and then they turn out to be wrong. Just look at the tsumami warnings in Hawaii and throughout the Pacific this weekend. Experts thought it might happen; mass evacuations were declared and made. Fox, CNN, and MSNBC provided all-day coverage of an anticipated disaster that did not happen.

It does not help chess organization in the future to create precidents that discourage organizers by blaming them for National Weather Service warnings that do not pan out.

The Race for Executive Board

2010-02-28T19:54:00.002-06:00

Since Susan Polgar and Paul Truong were forced off last year, their seats are vacant. This July the members will elect 2 people to replace them. 3 candidates have filed:

1) Mike Neitman, who has served for a very long time in Scholastic Chess Committees and has a long record in USCF affairs.

2) Gary Walters, who has no record at all but has played a few rated games in the past few years. He has also posted 300+ times on the USCF's forums, mostly attacking yours truly.

3) Sam Sloan, who has a very long record in USCF affairs but it is really bad. He served 1 year on the EB in 2006-2007.

Of the candidates, Neitman is a lock, so the real election is between Walters and Sloan for that last seat. Because Sloan is so unacceptable, people are trying to pump up Walters by exagerating his qualifications and downgrading the qualifications expected of an Executive Board Member.

I shall provide much more explanations of this short summary in the future.

Alekhine Defense

2010-02-27T05:59:00.003-06:00

Here's another cool opening video. I always seem to get crushed with the 4 Pawns attack, so I need to look for another variation.

http://www.jacklemoine.com/2010/02/alekhine-defense.html

Is Debt Cancellation Income?

2010-01-24T21:20:00.004-06:00

Since there's so much confusion at the USCF, Wick, and others, I'll make one last post on this issue.

Was their legal liabilities reduced by $39,000 or not? About that crack about "HONESTLY portrayed that way" (see below) have you checked with the IRS regarding rules on taxable income? A phone call may help you guys clarify the matter of debt cancellation being income.

------

Confusion Alert: Susan owes money to the lawyers; her lawyers did not owe money to Susan. It was her debt (not the lawyers') that was partially cancelled by the insurance payment. This seems to be the point which is leading the USCF, Wick, and others astray.

A Voice Which Should Be Included?

2010-01-24T16:11:00.004-06:00

Subject: my post to the MQ...
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2010 13:20:43 -0800
From: Hal Bogner

"... a voice which should be included"?

Sent at: Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:05 pm
From: hmb
To: WPraeder

Hi Wayne - I just submitted this to the censors, and am putting it into
a PM in case it never otherwise sees the light of day.

[quote="Terry_Vibbert"][quote="marknibb"]...

I do think HMB needs to be allowed to post - coming out of settlement,
his is a voice which should be included.

[/quote]

No one in the MQ is forbidden from posting. It is just that the post is
reviewed before being released.

[/quote]

If my posts will need to be subject to prior review (i.e., read by
censors), then my voice will go away.

Steve Jones' voice has gone away for this reason. After advocating for
changes in the moderation, and after having worked on the inside of the
MOC/FOC system as a volunteer, he chose to let his membership lapse over
this issue and this issue alone.

Kevin Bachler is also in the MQ. I sent him a PM, and he replied, and
encouraged me to post his reply.

This will be the only post that I will make while under this censorship
regime. Members will only see it if it is approved by those responsible
for performing such prior censorship. Thank you to all who are standing
up on this issue. I hope that everyone will someday have the same
privileges that I myself insist upon here as a member, and I will only
remain a member if they are granted. If I also am to let my membership
expire, it will not be the end of my various activities in chess, just
as it is not the end for others who have checked out from USCF in one
way or another.

Re: et tu?

Sent at: Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:35 am
From: kbachler
To: hmb
[quote="hmb"]

Hi Kevin,

I've just joined you on the moderation
queue.

Is that why you stopped posting?

Thanks,

Hal

[/quote]

Hello Hal,

I stopped posting because I informed USCF that I would let my membership
expire and will not rejoin. The moderators are incompetent and biased
generally, but Sawmiller in particular. He gleefully "punishes" some
people for transgressions that he even refuses to acknowledge in others.
The moderators take all critiques as personal criticism, they appear
either incapable or unwilling to learn. I found it amazing that their
"defense" as to why they were unbiased is that they allowed me to post
legally-required identifying information when I made comments of
an investment nature.

USCF also does not set expectations and/or requirements of decorum and
comportment, thereby letting people slander other members - often
volunteers - with impunity. USCF is first and foremost a membership
organization, and the members must get along for USCF to grow and
thrive. That USCF cannot recognize this simple social reality (a social
reality that IS recognized by other social groups - even nationally
smaller ones like MENSA) is a testament to the social ineptness in USCF.
USCF appears to be an organization where many of the volunteers/workers
find the only "power" in their lives, so they'd rather exercise that
power than improve USCF for its members. A perceived challenge to their
power is dealt with severely - even if the reason is in actuality an
improving in the lot of the members.

So, frankly, I've had it with USCF. There are fun things I can do with
my life instead. A hobby should be fun. Volunteering for one's hobby
should be fun. USCF is NOT fun.

I'm focusing on playing via ICCF and recently won a Master class
section. It's fun, and enjoyable and doesn't involve any of the
political crap and refusal to improve that one finds in USCF. It is,
frankly, about chess.

I've also focused more on my job and career - both of which have
received significant challenges in the recent economy.

In a few months my membership will expire, quietly. I suspect/hope that
this time no one will renew it for me, and that's just fine.

I can be reached in the future at kevin_bachler@comcast.net.

Feel free to share this email, including the above email addres with the
forum when you are able. I don't expect to check this mailbox.

Sincerely,

Kevin

Our Long National Nightmare is Over.

2010-01-23T15:34:00.002-06:00

The USCF v. Polgar and Truong lawsuits were, in the main, settled. The stipulation of dismissal was filed with the court yesterday afternoon.

Polgar received no money. Her lawyers did receive $39,000 from USCF's insurance company, which, may cover the out of pocket expenses the lawyers incurred. It certainly doesn't cover even 20% of Ms. Polgar's legal fees.

In a prior post Jack LeMoine interpreted the settlement as a vindication of Paul Truong from the FSS allegations -- not so much. The brutal fact of the matter is that the Mottershead report remains unrebutted. Indeed, it's findings have been bolstered with more data -- data that was not within USCF's control.

I would also note that the 39k paid by USCF's insurer is what is known in the trade as a costs-of-defense settlement. When it would cost you 80k to try a case, and 39k to settle it, many insurers will cut their losses and pay to settle the claim. (Whether this is a good long term business strategy is a facinating question -- but beyond the scope of this blog.)

Polgar Wins

2010-01-23T08:32:00.001-06:00

Indications from the USCF's Forums that the settlement involved cash payments to Susan Polgar. Amid all of the spin that has come from that place, money talks loudest.

If this proves to be true, then this fact addresses the central question of Paul Truong's innocence of the FSS Affair.

We'll keep track of this story and report developments.

----------

New development: USCF issues Press Release.

My summary:
1) Polgar/Truong to stay out of USCF.
2) USCF's insurance company pays $131,000 to USCF and $39,000 to Polgar's lawyers.
3) They release each other from all claims.
4) Does not cover Gregory Alexander or Sam Sloan.

Lawsuits Settled!

2010-01-22T21:28:00.000-06:00

The USCF settled the lawsuits between it and Susan Polgar and Paul Truong. It has not settled the suits it has with Gregory Alexander. Susan Polgar's lawsuit versus Sam Sloan is ongoing.

This is breaking news. More as it becomes available.

The Danish Gambit

2010-01-22T20:46:00.001-06:00

Here's another cool opening video. This one is on the Danish. Black's Queen sac was memorable when I first saw it and it sticks with me to this day.
http://www.jacklemoine.com/2010/01/danish-gambit.html

Chess Blogging: Why So Little?

2010-01-17T20:15:00.002-06:00

The Georgia Society of CPA's launched a blog last week and I contributed a few posts to help them get started. This one was about blogging versus chatting and I used the USCF's activities as an example of the behavior. As you can see, while USCF politics was discussed therein, it really wasn't about that. Rather, I addressed this question: why is it so hard for people to blog?

I think that this is especially of interest to the chess community. Chess in the US needs all the promotion that it can get.

Here's the link to the CPA Society's post: GSCPA

And don't forget about the Chess Blog Carnival coming up at the end of this month. (Plug!)

Footnote: While I did not mention names in that post, the chess community will recognize the references to Brian Lafferty and Brian Mottershead. Not important to the point of my posting, just FYI here in this forum.

The English Opening

2010-01-16T11:57:00.003-06:00

- Here we go again. . .

Get ready to play in a chess tournament this weekend.

Here's a little video to help you get your engine started. (-or to just learn a little more about the game.)

http://www.jacklemoine.com/2010/01/english-opening.html

(sorry, I couldn't get the window to fit onto the column width, so I just left a link.)

The English (1.c4) is another flexible opening. This means that an immense number of variations occur quickly. This video covers the 1. ... e5 response with an early ... Bb4. Be leery of the claims of "book move" and so on as there are so many other good choices for both Black and White.

Notice that after White occupies c4, d4, and e4 with his pawns, Black can capture e5 x d4 and when White's Queen responds Q x d4, Black can develop his Knight to c6 and gain time. While his center pawn has to lay back at d6, White's trio of pawns is busted up and Black has the e file to attack down after castling. So, things aren't as cut and dried as the pundit makes it look.

Chess events in your area . . . and visit jrobi who created these wonderful videos.

Najdorf Sicilian

2010-01-08T13:51:00.002-06:00

Get ready to play in a chess tournament this weekend.

Here's a little video to help you get your engine started. (-or to just learn a little more about the game.)

I notice that this blog's column width isn't large enough to accommodate the YouTube video - that pesky Google ad which can be turned off, only the button is to the right of the column's cutoff pixel.

Here's a link to Jack Le Moine's Blog where you can watch it, together with a few remarks of my own.

2010 Chess Blog Carnival

2010-01-03T21:38:00.001-06:00

A new year is upon us. Even if it is not regular, an occasional carnival showcasing the chess blogging talent out there is a good thing.

Here's the chess carnival's page. It also lists past chess carnivals. If you blog on chess, then showcase your work in the carnival. It will publish on 2/1/10.

----------

On a related topic:
If you blog on other subjects, then check out the many blog carnivals out there. These carnivals cover a broad range of areas of interest. Blog Carnivals have become one of the many resources for bloggers to promote their work and for the public to search for quality blogs.

I began the Chess Blog Carnival 2 years ago when I discovered that there was none for chess.

Is Settlement on the Horizon?

2010-01-02T07:42:00.005-06:00

USCF's attorneys in the Texas case have filed a paper with the court curiously entitled NOTICE TO THE COURT OF TENTATIVE, POSSIBLE, PARTIAL SETTLEMENT. (I am not sure guys, but could you put a few more qualifiers in that title?) The settlement would resolve all claims in the TX, CA, and IL actions except USCF v. Gregory Alexander (formerly in CA, but transfered to Texas) and Polgar v. Sloan (in Texas). The settlement would not have any effect on the Alexander criminal case. The document does not discuss terms.

For information about settlement, we need to turn to a bizarre filing by Sam Sloan. While Sloan's filing itself is hardly a reliable source of information, the emails between Sloan and the mediators indicate that the parties are agreeing to a mutual dismissal of the claims, without payment by either party. An email to Sloan from the mediators states:

You'll be surprised, and hopefully pleased, to know that the USCF & Susan Polgar have agreed to settle all of the current cases. Basically, both sides agreed to walk away & provide mutual releases back and forth.

Sam, in his inimitable fashion, has reacted to a proposed settlement by throwing a public snit fit. A less charitable mind than mine might form the opinion that Sam was trying to cause trouble in the hopes that one side or the other would pay him money to shut up and go away.

As to the settlement terms, as far as known, do not seem unreasonable under the circumstances. USCF has claims against Polgar which, if reduced to a judgment would be, at a minimum, very difficult to collect. Polgar's claims are flimsy and unlikely to prevail. Of course, the precise details of the settlement are unknown at this point.

There has been some speculation about possible settlement terms that do not strike me as reasonable. Sloan has claimed that Polgar and Truong would be restored to the board. Not bloody likely. First of all, I don't think the EB has the power to do that. Secondly, from USCF's point of view, the entire goal has been to eliminate potential liabilities arising from the FSS affair. Restoring Polgar and Truong to the Board would completely frustrate that goal. I just don't see any reasonable scenario where that could fly.

Some have made a claim about our FIDE affiliation. I don't see that as being realistically involved. Our FIDE affiliation is not ours to give. FIDE's affiliation belongs to FIDE, and FIDE can give it to whoever it wants to.

In all, it would prove to be a tragic waste of time, money, opportunity and potential, but, at least, it would all be over.

The Reti Opening

2009-12-20T00:45:00.001-06:00

Get ready to play in a chess tournament this weekend.

Here's a little video to help you get your engine started. (-or to just learn a little more about the game.)

Flexible, versatile - okay, got it. B to g2. Got that, too. And possible c-4 for White. Too, bad he didn't show Reti's very odd looking Na3 and the long term plans that result from that.

This is the opening I used for both White and Black when I started tournament play years ago. It is still good. With this kind of opening set up, it is very hard for superior players to wipe you out in the first few moves. - Though I've seen beginners try it but forget to castle and get wiped out, anyway. Be sure to castle and also watch out for those rook pawn advances.

Chess events in your area . . . and visit jrobi who created these wonderful videos.

www.jacklemoine.com/

USCF Cancels Girls Championship

2009-11-10T03:04:00.002-06:00

The USCF announced today that they have, in effect, ended the national girls champtionship. This event had been founded and organized by Susan Polgar. At their Executive Board Meeting, they chose to not renew the contract with Polgar. They have not announced a replacement event or the intent to put one out for bid.

Susan Polgar is allowed to hold a girls championship on her own, and the players will have their games rated by the USCF, but the event will no longer be recognized by the USCF as a national event.

-------------

In a related story, this brings to a climax a long controversy between myself and various figures within the USCF regarding how USCF politics ought to be reported to the outside world. I first broke this story last month when I stated that the USCF "may" not renew the Polgar contract. People took issue with this statement, saying that without any official announcement, such speculation was unwarranted. My position was (and is) that chess politics ought to be reported like regular politics: all factors ought to be taken into account when deciding on the merits of the story, not just whether or not officials have made a statement.

In any case, my story turned out to be true.

-------------

And in yet another story related to this, a plethora of challenges were raised to my after-the-fact questioning of the USCF Board's official actions. USCF folks didn't want this story to come out before the event and they opposed the story coming out after the event, too.

Footnote: The announcement.

The contract between USCF and Susan Polgar to recognize the Polgar Invitational as a national event expired with the 2009 tournament. This has been a fine event, has an outstanding sponsor in Texas Tech, and we hope that it will continue. Even though it is no longer a national, Susan Polgar has the right to organize it, as well as other tournaments, as USCF-rated events.

Bill Goichberg

Lamer than lame

2009-11-05T18:06:00.004-06:00

Ms. Polgar's attorneys filed their response to some of the summary judgment motions today. In yesterday's filing, there is a claim regarding the alleged defamation by the CCA that boggles the mind. The brief filed by Ms. Polgar's attorneys states:

10. Defendant Continental Chess, in two postcards, accused Plaintiff of violating fiduciary duties to the USCF and working for the destruction of the same. See Exhibit D, Appx. pp. 15-16. Each of these statements constitutes a purported statement of fact about Plaintiff, which is false and defamatory. Further, each statement is defamatory per se, in that it imputes a crime, injures Plaintiff in her occupation as a chess personality and USCF member and Board member, and impeaches her honesty, integrity, virtue, and reputation. Thus, injury to Plaintiff’s Reputation is presumed.

What did the postcards actually say:

USCF has been sued for $10 million by a member of its executive board, and $20 million by a board candidate. Executive Board members have a fiduciary duty to work for the interests of their organization, not for its destruction, and I find these lawsuits outrageous.

First of all, the statement is a response to the lawsuit. Suing someone for defamation and then basing the claim on statements made only after the lawsuit was filed is dirty pool.

Secondly, there is nothing even remotely defamatory about the statements.

Finally, and most importantly, the statements are true.

Once More into the Breach . . .

2009-10-23T12:25:00.007-05:00

I suppose that it is time for yet another update of the USCF litigation follies. There have been some . . . interesting developments, so let's get started.

After a flurry of repetitive, tiresome briefing, Judge Patel had a hearing on Polgar's motion to disqualify Kronenberger. As predicted, it was denied. Judge Patel, then, after chewing out both attorneys, sua sponte, ordered the matter transferred to Texas.

If I were Judge Cummings, in Texas, I'd be sorely tempted to send the case back to her with a box of chocolates; however, it is probably for the best that the matters be consolidated. The interaction of the discovery in the two actions was cumbersome and awkward at best. Both sides should be able to realize a substantial savings in attorney's fees.

Meanwhile, in Texas, in the course of some discovery fighting, Ms. Polgar's deposition entered the public domain. Despite a an amusing, but worthless snit by Whitney Leigh, it remains so. Despite several attempts, I have been unable to wade through the entire deposition, but I didn't see anything in it that has much effect on my opinion of the value, or lack thereof, of her claims. The deposition was also taken of a Mr. Williams who had written a letter implying that the publicity about the cases lead to the cancellation of a business venture with Polgar. At his deposition, Williams admitted, in essence, that his letter was complete bullshit. There was no prior agreement. There was no agreed upon renumeration. There was no company in business to pay the money, and Williams wasn't even really authorized to act for the company anyway. Other than that . . . it was a great letter.

Truong was also deposed, finally. No information about that deposition has made it into the public domain as yet.

The deadline for the disclosure of experts has come and gone. USCF designated Mottershead and Dr. Frederick Cohen. I discussed Cohen's findings in an earlier post.

Meanwhile, a cavalcade of summary judgment motions has begun. Jim Berry's was the first, followed quickly by several of the other defendants. Plaintiff has responded only to Berry's at this point, and I found the response to be shockingly lame.

Another Example of How to Promote Chess

2009-10-03T20:27:00.002-05:00

The sound track speaks for itself. Too bad the still photographer stepped in front of the video camera.*

As for the general idea of recognizing top chess players, this is the kind of thing that ought to be done at universities throughout the country.

------

* Footnote: Susan should have had an assistant on the field to properly manage the still and video photography. Paul, where were you?

Mediation with a hint of Spice

2009-09-26T06:29:00.000-05:00

One thing bothers me about this whole PT is to busy with the SPICE tournament to give a deposition in Lubbock discussion.

If he doesn't have time to give a deposition in Lubbock, how are we supposed to believe that he and his wife ever intended to, in the middle of the SPICE tournament, fly to California and participate in a mediation?

What is Forum Moderation Bias?

2009-09-22T19:09:00.003-05:00

Bias is defined as a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question. Such bias can cause partiality (positive or negative) towards a particular person. Such a preference or an inclination can inhibit impartial judgment.

We see this displayed in forum moderation through the closing or pulling of threads for no stated or obvious reason. Posts can also be deleted for no stated or obvious reason. This can be against a person or an idea. In the worst case sanctions can be applied to certain individuals in an arbitrary or inconsistent manner. We rarely see traditional bias demonstrated against race, disability, or affiliation but it is often demonstrated through the provision of much greater scrutiny of the posts of those we dislike while allowing the benefit of the doubt for those in their own group or in positions of authority. This type of inconsistency is what we most often refer to as moderator bias.

When I was on the USCF FOC other than regulating SPAM, moderation bias was of great concern and in my opinion regularly permitted. I took great pains to not post on the forums while also on the FOC to preclude the appearance of bias in that I was debating issues with those I had the power to suggest sanctions against. In reviewing the forum archives one could see the generation of this bias from the earliest days of the forum where the team saw something they did not like an then parsed the AUG to try to find a reason to remove the post or sanction the involved individual. Sanctions were often stacked up or parts of the same posts were used as a justification to pile on certain individuals. Topics on the issue of moderation practices were particularly scrutinized as there appeared to be too much concern that members might defy the FOC’s authority (which the FOC considered disrespectful of themselves) rather than making efforts to improve respectful speech between individual members.

Below is a current example of an ongoing struggle against inconsistent USCF Forum moderation practices. I will leave it up to the readers to determine if any bias is involved with this endeavor.

please explain #2

Sent at: Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:25 am
From: hmb
To: Ron Suarez WPraeder tsawmiller Brian Mottershead BrianLafferty rharing Moderator Committee

Tim - As you were kind enough to answer my previous question about Ron's offer, perhaps you could explain what was inappropriate about Ron's post, which follows. Suggested changes to bring it into conformance with the law of the AUG in your opinion would be appreciated, too.

Thank you.

----[Start Ron Suarez post]

First off, I need to remind the moderators that this forum is part of the USCF and its operation is certainly an USCF Issue.

Secondly, I need to remind the moderators that I am not writing anything in this post about any one particular person or groups of persons. Therefore, I am not attacking, disparaging, etc. anyone or any group of people.

Therefore you must allow this post and thread to remain, by the law of the AUG.

OK, so I am writing to all of the forum members that feel they have either personally been wronged or know of anyone that has been wronged by the system that administers and moderates this forum.

Please do not post your complaints of the system on the forum as you will then be exposed to the moderative wrath of this forum.

I repeat, do not post your complaints here.

What you need to do is send me a PM with your complaint and any and all details of the complaint you can provide.

I am now compiling a file that I will present to Bill Hall at a future time. My presentation will show problems and of course solutions to those problems. Understand that when I speak of problems I am talking of structural and strategic problems. By improving the structure of this forum operation, we can and will have a better discussion forum for the USCF and all its matters.

Thank you all.[End Ron Suarez post]
Hal Bognermailto:Bognerhal@chessmagnet.com
Please note: Although I am a partner in Chess Magnet School and perform consulting for USCF and others, nothing I post here represents the opinions of my clients or partners unless stated otherwise.

SPICE Craziness at USCF

2009-09-22T09:25:00.001-05:00

Will somebody please explain to those poor opinionators at the USCF that more goes on behind the scenes at a FIDE tournament than just playing and directing? They're saying that since the tournament has started, Paul has nothing to do, since he's only the organizer so he should be working on the lawsuits instead.

What do organizers do behind the scenes (non-TD work) while an international chess tournament is in progress? Will someone help list some of these things to those folks at the USCF?

The Lord of the King

2009-09-19T17:34:00.001-05:00

Rush to your nearest chess tournament and experience the adventure!

Spice Cup 2009

2009-09-19T11:58:00.004-05:00

Just for perspective, note that the SPICE Cup Tournament is now in progress. Section A is FIDE Category 16, while Section B is FIDE Category 11.

(SPICE = Susan Polgar Institute for Chess Excellence.)

To compare, how many other international tournaments have been held in the USA in 2008 or 2009 and what was their FIDE strengths?

For more info:
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2009/09/spice-cup-b.html

USCF Expert Report

2009-09-15T21:12:00.005-05:00

I mentioned at one point, USCF should get it's own expert to independently confirm Mottershead's report. Thankfully, they did so. (I'm sure they didn't need me to come up with the idea.) The expert went well beyond Mottershead's work. Brian Lafferty just posted the Executive Summary portion of the expert's report. Of particular interest, is the following passage:

At least 100 unauthorized access attempts to Mr. Hough's email account, some or all of which were apparently successful, including those related to the two specific emails identified above, came from IP addresses that:

"
(1) were used in comparable time frames to post to the USCF online forum under Alexander's user name, and/or
"
(2) were used in comparable time frames to post to the usenet forums under Alexander's identity, and/or
"
(3) were used from an Anonymizer account that identified Alexander as the account holder and that was used from IP addresses (a) assigned to Alexander by Comcast, (b) used to make postings to the USCF online forum from Alexander's USCF account, and/or (c) used to make newsgroup postings under Alexander's identity.

Ouch. That's going to leave a mark!

The report also gives opinions that many of the FSS postings can be linked to Truong:

*I found that the Internet Protocol (IP) addresses recorded as the sources of identified FSS postings were used at the times of those postings by a user logged in as "chessspammer@netzero.net", whose registration data indicated Truong and whose account was paid for over the period in question by Polgar. The terms of service indicate that Truong is responsible, and the same IP addresses and account were used for other business purposes by Polgar and Truong, including a posting to RGCP by Truong under his own name and from his user account at America Online.

*Within 64 out of the more than 200,000 postings to RGCP and RGCM, I found sequences regularly and contemporaneously recorded by servers not in the control or custody of parties to this case that normally record characteristics of computers used to make postings. These sequences were common only to one posting made by Truong from his AOL account and 63 postings identified as part of the FSS postings. This header is consistent with a computer using a Mozilla version 4.0 Web browser on a computer with a Windows NT 6.0 operating system, using AOL 9.0, Microsoft Internet Explorer version 7.0, and with several other specific versions of specific software packages present, and that were only recorded for Truong's posting and FSS postings. This same information was indicated in 80 records of postings made by Truong's identity at the
USCF online forum.

*I found that the same IP addresses recorded as the sources for FSS postings contemporaneously and independently by Web servers not under the control or in the possession of parties to this case, were also recorded in the USCF records, indicating that those same IP addresses were used in postings to the USCF internal forums under the identity used by Truong.

*I found that 9 different "posting account" identifiers were used in the postings identified with FSS. These identifiers are apparently used to indicate a particular login credential, and are recorded by systems not under the control or in the possession of parties to this action. All except one of these posting accounts were used exclusively for postings identified as FSS postings, the same IP addresses used for posting under three of these accounts was also used by Truong for postings from his AOL account, and they were all used from IP addresses also used by Truong's identity at the USCF site contemporaneously.

Finally, the expert gives the opinion that GM Polgar had possession of several of the stolen emails before they were published on the net, which is consistent with Bill Hall's remarks at the end of the litigation forum this August.

*After the time at which the emails in question existed, and before they were otherwise publicly released, Alexander, who worked for Polgar on a voluntary basis and operated her Web site, appears to have accessed an email account containing those emails.

*Those emails or portions quoted therefrom were subsequently released to parties not authorized to have them, via emails sent from Susan Polgar's email account, and she has not disputed having sent those emails.

Lafferty reports that the full report will be available for download. No word on what experts, if any, were designated by Ms. Polgar

Update: The full report can be downloaded here. Polgar did miss her deadline to disclose experts in the Texas action. Since her primary claim in the Texas action was that the Mottershead report defamed her, she will be completely unable to prove that allegation. (Although given that the Mottershead report barely mentioned GM Polgar, that dog wasn't going to hunt anyway.)

Susan's Girls Tournament

2009-09-11T09:06:00.000-05:00

I see in the USCF's Forums that they may stop supporting Susan's annual tournament for girls. Since this is the 5th. year of a 5 year contract, they may not want to renew it.

If so, then this leaves 2 options for the USCF: 1) they run one on their own or 2) they drop the tournament entirely.

Susan has the same 2 options.

About Susan Polgar's Chess Discussion Forum

2009-09-05T01:02:00.000-05:00

While I’ve lost interest in chess temporarily, I am still the Moderator at Susan Polgar’s Chess Discussion Blog (along with Paul Truong and Susan herself), so I think I ought to draw attention to this exchange.

Jack:

I really can't comment on your own experiences with forum moderations. I will say that my experience with chess-discussion-moderators-not-named-Jack has occasionally been frustrating. See http://wduscf.blogspot.com/2009/04/adventures-at-chessdiscussioncom.html

Unfortunately, Chess Discussion has turned into Alt.rants.Zarathustra.silly, so I haven't had much cause to post there recently.

- From the USCF Politics Blog

Wick, I believe that you describe a problem that is all to frequent in discussion forums throughout the internet, not just chess forums, either. One, or a small group of very frequent individuals post lots of posts and give the impression that they “own” the site. Because of the frequency and ubiquitiousness of their posts, everybody else ends up dancing to their tune.

A specific problem is that you may begin a new topic on something and the next thing you know, they’ve posted a response. Due to the provocative nature of their response, you feel you must response to their response and then you’re off.

So, what is the rest of the public to do?

One solution is to abandon the field. The trouble is that the quality of discussion is lowered overall and the bad elements take over choice pieces of internet real-estate.

Another solution is to continue to post on topics that interest you and ignore them. I believe this to be a better solution to the problem.

As for moderator problems: Yes, the lawsuits have poisoned everything – and not just at Susan’s sites, either. For example, the USCF’s Moderators and their amen corner continually congratulate themselves on the great job they’re doing. I could offer stories that are every bit as bad as the one you offer above.

Unfortunately, I don’t see much improvement in this area – either at Susan’s site, the USCF’s site, or some of the rest. I have two suggestions:

For USCF politics, how about people looking more towards Wick’s Blog? Also, contact Chessvine, too.
There’s more to chess that USCF politics. The main thrust of Susan’s site as well as her main interest is pure chess: things like tournament news, strategy, tactics, openings – things like that. The source of problems and complaints have been near 100% on the USCF Politics section. How about people using Susan’s site more for those other things.

Finally, don’t forget the Chess Discussion Viewer – easily the best tool for chess discussion on the internet today. You can input games, positions, puzzles, together with variations and comments thereon and have that all visible from within the site. All that is needed for people to see the moves is to click the mouse – much as they maneuver through positions in ChessBase or Chess Assistant. They can then comment on it on the forum just like they can comment on politics. - Chess over politics – what a heresy!

A Note to Mark Weeks

2009-09-03T22:01:00.001-05:00

I sent this message to Mark Weeks on Facebook tonight and I thought I would share it here.

Mark, thanks for connecting to me. I really like your blog. You should put a link to it here. I am just sick about what happened at the USCF Delegate's meeting last month. I don't think that Paul and Susan were treated right at all. I ...especially dislike not being able to talk about it. - And poor Gregory Alexander! I just don't know what to think about that! I bet when the facts come out - and someday they will - history will take a dim view about what happened.

Even though I've become active in blogging again, is difficult for me to think of chess. It will take time for me to get over this.

Of course, Mark has nothing to do with the events I'm complaining about. I'm sharing this venting, because it summarizes my feelings and may help explain why I'm not so active in chess as before.

Mark is one of the premier chess bloggers out there. You should check out his blog, Chess for All Ages. Tell him Jack sent you!

P.S. Yes, that's the guy who is pictured under followers to the right.

Q & A & A

2009-09-02T17:43:00.007-05:00

Susan Polgar posted some comments under her blog in a Q & A format. I can't resist posting my own answers to the questions:

Jackson (Denver, CO): I read on the USCF website about the revocation of your USCF memberships. Is it true and why?

PT: It is true. The Executive Board’s action is deplorable. Instead of doing what is best for chess and the USCF, these people appear to put their personal and political interests first. They are doing everything they can to hide their misconduct from the USCF members and delegates, even if this costs jobs for USCF employees and perhaps even cause the collapse of the entire federation. They used Chess Life and Chess Life Online to spread false information to hide the truth. But the facts will come out eventually.

Wick's Answer:

The irony of a (now ex) board member suing the federation for millions of dollars and then whining that others are putting their personal and professional interests first is readily apparent.

Again the allegations that false statements were made in Chess Life. At risk of being repetitive myself, can anyone quote a specific statement in Chess Life that was false? In response to this allegation, I have repeatedly requested here and at Chess Discussion that anyone point to a specific statement of fact that is false. The silence has been deafening.

JS (Los Angeles, CA): I have read only the USCF side of the story. Could you please summarize the cause of these lawsuits?

PT: Our position is that the USCF Executive Board and the USCF Executive Director continuously violated the USCF bylaws. I believe they abused their authority and used USCF members’ money for their own political agenda. I believe the legal cost so far exceeds $1 million for both sides, not counting what the USCF insurance has paid separately on behalf of the USCF. These people claim that the USCF has no money to support scholastic chess, college chess, women’s chess, professional chess, or chess promotion, etc. But they have no problem spending over $600,000 of members’ money for their own political agenda. It is inconceivable that these people are doing this in the middle of the worst economy in decades, and where countless USCF members have lost their jobs. These people could not care less about the welfare of chess or the USCF. They tried to blame this on us, while this has been their pattern of conduct for years.

These individuals can try to hide the facts, but the truth will come out in court. We have received tremendous support from countless USCF members encouraging us to stand tall and fight against these corrupt chess politicians.

The USCF has to cut their operating schedule to a four-day work week. The position of USCF Scholastic Director and FIDE Director had to be cut because of a serious financial meltdown. We offered to drop the lawsuit against the USCF for $1. The Executive Board rejected the offer because if the lawsuit against the USCF is dropped, they can not longer hide behind our federation to conceal their misconduct.

It also appears that they are also hiding from USCF members that Susan’s lawsuit against the USCF and its board members is covered by the insurance company. Mr. Jeff Jones is representing the USCF, and individual members of the Executive Board. These same people spent over $500,000 of members’ money to file frivolous lawsuits and to defend the misconduct of their political supporters from the lawsuit. They simply conveniently forgot to tell the USCF members this.

Wick's Answer:

Well, I would certainly agree that the money spent on legal fees in this matter could have been better spent on chess; however, the implication that this is solely the board's political agenda is, pardon my French, bullshit.

This is a complicated situation, and a lot of people made a lot of decisions that gave rise to the situation. To claim that the whole matter is a political witch hunt is asking the reader to believe that the Mottershead report was a frame job. Not content with that frame job, the conspirators then came up with a second frame job to implicate Ms. Polgar's webmaster for stealing Randy Hough's emails. This second frame was so nefariously convincing that the U.S. Attorney was actually suckered into indicting Mr. Alexander. Furthermore, despite the fact that these frames were intended to discredit Ms. Polgar, the conspirators did not frame Ms. Polgar, but rather her husband and her webmaster.

I'm sorry, but I find this conspiracy theory less convincing than the Illuminatus Trilogy.

Furthermore, it is pretty obvious from even a casual observation that Polgar's legal strategy has not been designed to simplify the litigation or lower USCF's legal expenses.

Also, the fact that some defendants have been defended by USCF's insurance company in the Texas action is anything but a secret.

Chess Mom (Detroit, MI): Is it legal for the Executive Board to revoke
your USCF Life Memberships and Executive Board status?

PT: We don’t think so. But it is up to the court to decide. But we do believe their actions directly violated the USCF bylaws.

Wick's Answer:

I'm not sure what what the claim of a violation of the by-laws is refering to.

As far as expelled from the board, it's not as if they were like, showing up or participating in the meetings or anything like that.

Albert (Henderson, NV): What is your future plan with chess?

SP: We will continue to promote chess in multiple aspects. Nothing has changed. The SPICE Cup is the next big event on our calendar. You can follow our activities by checking out www.ChessDailyNews.com.

Wick's Answer:

More power to you. I would gently suggest that these activities to promote chess are much more productive than the litigation.

Jim (Des Moines, IA): Can you still compete in chess tournaments?

SP: No. The Executive Board revoked our USCF memberships. They claimed that we can still play. But there is no such thing as being able to play rated chess and not being a member. They are just making things up as they go along and this is clearly against the USCF rules. In addition, I cannot play in world championships or Olympiads unless I am a member of a national federation. So basically what the Executive Board did is to destroy what is left of my playing career.

Wick's Answer:

(Rolls eyes.)

First of all, the expulsion specifically states that they can still play chess. Secondly, GM Polgar has played a grand total of one rated game since 2006. FM Truong played one rated game in 2009. He played 8 rated games in 2008.

RR: Paul, a few newspapers published some articles about problems with the chess federation. Can you explain? What does this mean? There are people out there writing things in papers and online that don’t do your good work justice.

PT: As the saying goes, you can either lead, follow, or get out of the way. We’re trying to lead, and they’re trying to make us get out of the way. Susan has worked very hard to get to where she is, and when you’re at the top of the game there will always be people who are jealous. The U.S. Chess Federation (USCF) is very political and extremely ineffective.

The bad PR we’ve received, yes, has been very unfortunate, and it came from people who want to see Susan and SPICE fail. It is a concerted effort on their part to try to stop our success. This is hurting our entire sport. Unfortunately, there is little we can do when people are not telling the truth. Things people claim are highly misleading and even slanderous. But, we’re doing good work, and it shows.

Wick's comment:

SSDD. See above on the "This is all a conspiracy because everyone is jealous of GM Polgar.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Mottershead report put USCF in a perilous legal situation. They took steps to minimize that exposure, but every step has resulted in actions from GM Polgar and FM Truong that escalated the situation.

CD and USCF's Forum Moderation

2009-08-26T21:33:00.000-05:00

I've spent wa-ay too much time on the USCF's Forums in the past few months. I had a reason: the campaign against Paul Truong and Susan Polgar. But that's over now. The USCF has expelled them entirely. So now the attacks become ever more petty and the gimmicks to purnish Polgar supporters (me) ever more arbitrary. They won; we lost. And they've made it clear that there will be no olive branch to the loosers.

I can go into the latest problem but why bother? (It was another attack on Susan's Chess Discussion Forum of which I am a Moderator.)

The USCF's forum still has useful information that comes up from time to time so I recommend that you still go there if you can. But I can't recommend becoming too involved in it. Most of the time, they're just going round in circles in meaningless discussions on lawsuits. The central questions surrounding the Delegate's verdict are all hush hush. So, forget trying to find them out.

As for much else, well. It's all so sad, really. On a more positive note, there are several really good chess sites - much the much maligned Susan Polgar's Chess Discussion. And Chessvine, too.

(Yes, I am a contributor to both.) Which brings me to my main point of this: I really need to start spending more of my time on those places (and here, too!) than on the USCF's Forums.

Eye Roll

2009-08-10T07:39:00.003-05:00

Polgar's attorney on the expulsion as quoted by the New York Times:

“We are disappointed but by no means surprised in the outcome because it was run by a majority of the executive board who were determined to disregard the U.S.C.F.’s bylaws and to do everything they could to prevent the delegates from hearing the facts.”

Dude. Seriously. You were given 1 1/4 hours to present the "facts" to the delegates. You had a format where you were not bound by the rules of evidence and were free to present any "facts" you wanted. If you couldn't present the "facts" in that time, it's on you.

Breaking News

2009-08-08T18:17:00.002-05:00

Susan Polgar and Paul Truong have just been expelled from the US Chess Federation. The Executive Board started the process last month; a final hearing was held last night; and the Delegates rejected the final appeal this afternoon. Susan and Paul appeared with their lawyer shortly after 2 p.m. Eastern Time. The meeting lasted until after 6:30.

The preliminary numbers we have to uphold the EB action was:

Paul Truong: 58 for, 18 against, 5 abstaining
Susan Polgar: 55 for, 21 against, 5 abstaining

Bill Hall, the USCF Executive Director has banned any discussion of the meeting from the USCF's Forums. This does not prevent this blog or any other independent news organization from reporting the news about events they deem the public has a right to know.

Polgar and Truong Expelled

2009-08-08T18:17:00.000-05:00

Last night the executive board voted to expel Truong and Polgar. They
appealed to the delegates. After 3 hours in executive session, the
delegates voted to uphold the expulsions.

Delegate vote totals for sustaining the EB action:

Paul Truong: 58 for, 18 against, 5 abstaining
Susan Polgar: 55 for, 21 against, 5 abstaining

No further public comment will be forthcoming, in theory anyway.

Ooops

2009-08-06T22:34:00.002-05:00

I watched the video of the USCF legal issues workshop posted here. Thanks to Terry Vibbert for recording and posting the meeting.

I didn't learn all that much, but, at the end of the USCF litigation workshop, Bill Hall disclosed some new information on the hacked emails. USCF can document several instances where Susan Polgar quoted verbatim from hacked emails shortly after the hacking, and before the hacked emails appeared elsewhere on the net.

Ooops.

Litigation Update -- In which the parties start using live ammo.

2009-07-25T09:25:00.011-05:00

It had been some time since my last update on the pending litigation, so I might as well bring us up to date:

The Illinois litigation:

The federal court, as predicted, held that there was no federal question and remanded the case to state court. Now that the matter is back in state court, I suspect the information about it will be less generally available as state court dockets are much less web accessible, in most jurisdictions.

Texas Litigation:

USCF's attempt to add Truong as a third-party defendant, was shot down in flames. It was a bad idea strategically and procedurally, and the Court struck it down on procedural grounds.

There has also been an extensive amount of discovery jousting. The issues under dispute include whether USCF would need to produce documents regarding their communications with law enforcement and the allegedly stolen emails. The court reviewed the documents in camera, and then ruled that the documents should not be produced. There has been a great deal of briefing about the allegedly stolen emails and the appropriateness, or lack thereof, of using the crystaltech dvd obtained through discovery. (Polgar's counsel is apparently taking the position that merely opening the case of the crystal tech dvd will lead to dire consequences, including criminal penalties, civil liability, and the bubonic plague.)

Kronenberger and his firm have moved for summary judgment as to the allegations against it. Having reviewed the briefing, I think that the Motion has an excellent chance of being granted. I initially found the allegations against the law firm to be laughable, and I don't see anything in the briefing to change my opinion. One interesting note in the entire fight is that Polgar is attempting to use the allegedly stolen emails in an attempt to defeat the motion. (Needless to say, USCF's attorney has a problem with this.)

Kronenberger has been deposed. Other than some sock puppet on Chess Discussion talking about Kronenberger's lack of experience, nothing has emerged as to the deposition. It has also been alleged that Truong was trying to surreptitously record the deposition with his laptop. If so, that's a remarkably bad idea. Polgar was also deposed. Amusingly, posts appeared on her blog during the deposition, which led to her admitting that Truong was authorized to post on her blog in her name.

In San Francisco:

Mediation was held in July. It was at a lunch break in the mediation that the Secret Service appeared to arrest Gregory Alexander, which, no doubt, did little to put the parties in a conciliatory mood.

Polgar has filed Motions to Disqualify Kronenberger and a Motion for Summary Judgment based on the corporate authorization issue. Both have been briefed, but the hearings have been delayed to allow for mediation. I don't see either motion as being likely to succeed. The motion to disqualify in particular, just looks like a transparent attempt to heap mud on opposing counsel.

Meanwhile, the board has begun proceeding to revoke the membership of Truong and Polgar. This motion has been timed so as to allow an immediate appeal to the delegates at the annual meeting. Frankly, this looks like creating more issues than it will solve, but we'll have to see how it plays out.

The Preliminary Results were not misleading

2009-07-25T09:15:00.001-05:00

Here are the final totals, detailed totals by region will be available on the USCF home page later today:

1. Jim Berry 3030
2. Bill Goichberg 3014
3. Ruth Haring 2953
4. Mike Atkins 2672
5. Mikhail Korenman 822
6. Mike Nietman 732
7. Eric Hecht 717
8. Blas Lugo 657
9. Sam Sloan 588
10. Brian Lafferty 576
11. Brian Mottershead 435

Congratulations and good luck to the "winners." Hopefully they won't be regretting their victory too much.

The impish part of me wants to start on a pool to guess the date when Atkins and Haring become defendants in a lawsuit. My best guess is August 20. I hope I'm wrong, but . . .

Preliminary votes make it look like a landslide

2009-07-22T22:33:00.003-05:00

Per Mike Nolan, with just over half the state counted:

Jim Berry 1829
Bill Goichberg 1826
Ruth Haring 1802
Mike Atkins 1569
Mikhael Korenman 483
Eric Hecht 420
Mike Nietman 400
Sam Sloan 360
Blas Lugo 358
Brian Lafferty 348
Brian Mottershead 252
Various Write-ins 75

Looks like a landslide in the making for the Candidates endorsed by Goichberg. The worst of them still has 3 times the votes of his nearest rival.

The Feds Step In

2009-07-18T07:54:00.003-05:00

Gregory Alexander has been indicted. He is charged with 35 felony counts of for allegedly breaking into Randy Hough's email. Brian Lafferty has posted a copy of the indictment here. A Press Release by the US Attorney is here.

I have to confess that I often view the world of chess politics and chess politics litigation with a sense of bemusement at the comic opera quality of the whole dispute.

The comedy is over folks.

Flores Finale

2009-06-16T21:47:00.004-05:00

I had planned on posting a response to Mr. Flores sooner, but then I took my own advice and got a bit more of a life and got out some.

If Mr. Flores choses not to come back, that is his privilege; however, he is still authorized to post here whenever or if ever the mood strikes him.

While I am always pleased to be called intelligent, articulate and clever, I was somewhat vexed by his claim that I ignored his questions or the facts. Given the length to which I went to address his various points, I am hard pressed to see what I ignored. I did decline to repeat responses to repetitious argument, but that hardly seems to fit his description. Oh well.

Mr. Flores leaves the floor because neither of us was likely to be swayed by further discussion. True enough, I suppose, but that ignores the other readers who may actually have been following the discussion. I have had the modest hope that the discussion on this blog would be helpful to lurkers in formulating their opinions.

I am somewhat puzzled by Mr. Flores assertion that there are at least seven lawsuits. I know of six, all of which were discussed by Bill Hall in the litigation update. If Mr. Flores (or anyone else) could advise me of the seventh, I would appreciate it.

Mr. Flores complains that the USCF updates do not include references to the "doctored" evidence, or the alleged bribery. Leaving aside that the allegations are, to put it kindly, overstated (as I have discussed repeatedly), USCF, as a party to the litigation, can hardly be expected to act as an advocate for a person who is suing it. Further, the summary is, just that, a summary and can not be expected to be exhaustive.

Speaking of exhausive, I am currently exhausted and will now call it an evening.

Good night.

Please don't forget to vote for the candidate of your choice.

USCF Litigation Dialog

2009-06-07T22:35:00.003-05:00

First, it should be noted I may have been a fool to accept Mr. Deer's invitation to be a contributor on this blog. I give him props for he is intelligent, articulate and clever. That said, how can one expect to win a fair debate when the host simply ignores the question and/or the facts? Nonetheless, I do appreciate your invitation and generous offer - thank you!

It appears Mr. Deer is willing to dedicate more time to trivial matters and discount the more pressing issues. Thus, the reason for my non-responsiveness to his June 1st post. Furthermore, because it seems we are unable to sway or be swayed, there is little incentive to continue this dialog. Accordingly, I hope to make this my final post here and return to the important projects I have neglected, i.e., chess camp, etc.)

With respect to your June 1, 2009 post, I admit to inadvertently naming Goichberg when I should have referred to Hall, at least, as it relates to the updates. That said, it is clear to me they both want Polgar out; possibly for smiliar and/or different reasons. Accordingly, it does not matter who you associate with the carefully worded updates; whether it is Hall, Goichberg or both. They have both done it, if not in Chess Life and USCF website, then in mail-outs and by other means.

Furthermore, I recognize and admit there are multiple parties involved (I refer to my use of the terms "gang" and "et. al."). My reference to "Goichberg" does not infer he is acting alone, but instead, refers to his role as leader (if not in plotting, at the very least, as head of the organization). Whether they are all on good or speaking terms with one another is irrelevant. Similarly, to portray them all as adversarial to each other or political opponents is misleading (I introduce Lafferty's withdrawn candidacy and subsequent endorsement of Goichberg as proof.). Anyone with an objective mind can clearly see they are all working to oust Polgar and Troung.

Regarding the updates, I submit the sum of some parts do not equate to the sum of the whole. Even those cases where we are receiving updates, they fail to provide critical information, thus, failing to meet the lower standard of the sum of some parts. I have always asserted they were "measured" but that does not mean they are complete nor accurate. Regarding the question of who filed first, we can continue to debate the merits of both sides, or not (I prefer the latter). The fact remains, June comes before August in the calendar and all the debate in the world will not change that. Shall we consider this point a draw and defer to the three different courts where this issue is now being considered?

In my view, Chess Life and the USCF website updates are incomplete and inaccurate because they fail to list all of the lawsuits (I understand there are at least seven suits), and if they are all listed, fail to provide critical information which members have a right to know. For example, they fail to mention the authority by which the two suits (CA and IL) were filed. They fail to mention Polgar and Truong's request and denial for indemnification, its abuse of process and violation of USCF Bylaws in said denial. The updates fail to inform of the alleged doctoring of evidence introduced in filed pleadings and the alleged bribery which may have been presented to the courts.

If, for no other reason, it is inaccurate because it misleads members into believing the four-day week was brought about by the Polgar suit. That is unfair, untrue and propaganda in its truest form. You asked about propaganda so let us begin with Merriam-Webster's definition:

Spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, a cause, or a person; ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause.

Accordingly, the overt and covert actions by Goichberg, et. al., to harm, slander and portray her as the villian is inaccurate, unjust and in fact propaganda. I have received multiple mail-outs by Goichberg, the latest of which contained three full and double-sided pages of propaganda. Due to the length of this post I will only address two points from said mail-out.

The second sentence of the fourth paragraph from Goichberg's letter reads, "Polgar has long insisted that the USCF investigation of misconduct by Troung be dropped and threatened a lawsuit should this not happen, and finally carried out her threat." Yet Goichberg's public statement issued Nov. 17, 2008 claims, "Ms. Polgar gave no advance warning of the lawsuit."
The second point is derived from a full page with the following heading, "Statement by Randy Bauer". The fifth paragraph reads, "There have been a lot of misrepresentations about the state of the USCF. Susan Polgar's website has been the source of claims about the USCF financial condition that are at best only a partial truth. The USCF has, like many not-for-profit organizations, seen a decline in membership during this very difficult economy - families across the country do not have a as much mony to spend on recreational activities. That said, the USCF has run remarkably close to budget all year long on the revenue side and has held normal expenses in check as well. The single biggest financial issue the USCF has faced - and will continue to face - are lawsuits where the USCF and Susan Polgar are adverse parties."

Why is Bauer's statement important? It is carefully worded so as not to be caught in a lie and thus, his concession, "...are at best only a partial truth." Goichberg and Hall would have you believe all of Polgar's statements and deeds are false and evil. Secondly, he points to the failing economy as a contributing factor to the USCF's financial woes. Finally, and more importantly, Bauer concedes the "single biggest financial issue" are the lawsuits (plural) where "the USCF and Susan Polgar are adverse parties". Polgar's suit is sandwiched by the first and third suits filed by the USCF.

Now let me check the math; the USCF files two suits, Polgar one, and yet she is blamed for the financial woes? That is fuzzy math and logic. The organization's insurance indemnifies the USCF and board against the Polgar suit so the financial woes must have skyrocketed by the hundreds of thousands paid to the USCF's attorney for the suits (plural) they initiated.

As closure to the financial woes issue I submit two USCF forums posts; one made by "Artichoke" and the other by Goichberg:

"artichoke wrote:
Mike, as I said in another thread, we must not show weakness. At this time, to fail to develop a potential winning line of attack because of additional legal expense is penny wise and pound foolish in my opinion. If we can remove this cancerous presence on our EB, a member who is suing the USCF, we should have the operation even if it's more expensive than pain pills.

"chessoffice wrote:
Our lawsuit in Illinois appear a more promising way to remove both Polgar and Truong. A speciall meeting might fail to have a quorum, might fail to pass the desired motion even if there is quorum, and even if the motion passed there would likely be a legal challenge. Also, the suggested motion would not remove Truong. -- Bill Goichberg

I decline the bonus points, indeed all debate points, in exchange for you and others to open your eyes to what is happening. Lest I be accused of the same, I submit I do not agree with everything Polgar says or does. That is NOT reason enough, however, to defame, slander, intimidate, harass and goat her into a lawsuit. That was idiotic. Worst yet, filing the third lawsuit (second by the USCF) really takes the cake. Oh what the heck, the members will buy the BS and pay.

Plogar's courage, grit and determination should be applauded because she truly does have the best interest of the USCF at heart. As a regular member, tournament director and chess organizer, that is important to me and thus, the reason I have weighed in on this tragedy caused by the rogue board.

This post is lengthy enough I will not cover the other points as they are prima facie issues.

For those that truly wish to salvage what is left of the USCF, I challenge you to vote your conscious and be ready to withstand the intimidation and parliamentary maneuvers that will surely follow.

I have not yet received my ballot even though my neighbor received it last week. A coincidence? Possibly.

This political mess has permeated the USCF long before Polgar arrived on the scene and will continue if we allow it. The heavy lifting has been done but Polgar can not do it alone.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Thank you for your indulgence and for taking action!

Continuing the Flores Dialog

2009-06-03T19:52:00.016-05:00

NEXT TOPIC: WHO SUED WHO FIRST, AND WHY SHOULD WE CARE?

Mr. Flores made the claim that USCF sued Polgar before Polgar sued USCF. I responded with a chronology showing who was made a party to the lawsuit when. I further propounded the proposition that who sued who first was the important issue, compared to the relative merits of the claims.

Mr. Flores simply dismisses my comments as "semantics and legalese." If I had moved my e pawn two squares on its first move, one wonders if he would accuse me of being a rules lawyer. Seriously, I have no idea what he is talking about. This ain't rocket science.

Mr. Flores completely ignores my comment about the dispute being of minimal importance. (Hi there boys and girls, can you say "Red Herring?" Sure you can.)

Mr. Flores goes into a lengthy anti-Goichberg diatribe, that really doesn't have a ton of relevance to the issue at hand. I like a good anti-Goichberg diatribe as well as the next man: I supported Tom Dorsch. However, I am not going to let personalities overcome the evidence. I would also point out that Mr. Flores is trying to pretend that Goichberg is the only actor here. (Not so much.)

1. For his first paragraph, Mr. Flores quotes a portion of the USCF's complaint in December of 2008, and tries to infer that it has some relevance to what USCF knew in July of 2008. I have to admit that the logic escapes me.

2. For his second point, Mr. Flores points out that he doesn't believe Mr. Goichberg's claimed surprise at the August 08 lawsuit was real, given the cease and desist letter from Polgar's attorney. Perhaps he shouldn't have been surprised, but people get surprised all the time by things that seem obvious in retrospect. Furthermore, even if Goichberg was being disingenuous on that point, that doesn't mean that other acts done by the USCF were undertaken in bad faith.

3. Flores then quotes a pleading from Gregory Alexander regarding the investigation of the Fake Sam Sloan matter by Mottershead. Although Flores's post leaves the impression that the words were spoken by Alexander, the quote was actually from Brian Mottershead. The quote indicates that Hall and Goichberg were aware of, and encouraged, Mottershead's investigation.

So what?

A USCF volunteer discovers that a USCF EB member may be behind anonymous posts on the internet which could cause USCF serious legal trouble. The volunteer isn't supposed to tell the ED and the President? The ED and President are supposed to ignore the information? Mr. Flores completely fails to appreciate the astronomical potential liabilities that could arise if the a board member was posting the kind of defamatory, offensive, and otherwise repulsive screed that the FSS was posting on a regular basis. Had Hall and Goichberg stuck their heads in the sand, the resulting legal nightmare would have dwarfed the current litigation. To ignore Mottershead's findings would have been the height of irresponsibility. To criticize Goichberg and Hall for acting on the information presented to them is like criticizing a fireman for damaging a burning building while fighting a fire.

4. Mr. Flores's point 4 is that he doesn't trust Goichberg. Mr. Flores seems to be under the delusion that Goichberg completely controls the EB. Again, he is pretending that all the actors who have opposed Polgar are mere puppets on Goichberg's strings. Not so much. If Goichberg really controlled the USCF, the organization would never have moved to Tennessee. Goichberg fought very hard against the move, and publicly criticized the decision after it had been made. The remaining board members (which included Randy Bauer) won that fight.

Next Point: Polgar's $1 settlement offer is illusory.

I pointed out that Ms. Polgar's $1 settlement offer to USCF is illusory because it does not include the officers and directors. (It's like offering to settle with me, but continuing to sue my wife -- my house is at risk either way.)

Mr. Flores's response to this is as follows:

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?!

In response:

a. The fact that the offer is public record does not make it any less illusory. In fact, the fact that offer was made publicly is consistent with my point that the "offer" is worthless grandstanding.

b. A corporate officer's right to indemnification has nothing to do with his fiduciary duties. You are confusing your concepts here.

c. Goichberg's alleged invasions of privacy (and I'd have to guess what you are talking about here) don't have anything to do with the issue under discussion -- whether the settlement offer is illusory.

Next Point: The redacted document does not exonerate Polgar or Alexander.

In my post, I explained in some detail why the redacted document doesn't prove what Mr. Flores and others claim it proves. Mr. Flores's response is to repeat his original statement, which is the debating equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and loudly proclaiming LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA.

If you have a critique of my points -- fine, but I am not going to bother to further rebut regurgitated statements that completely ignore the points I made.

Last point addressing my original posts: In order for their to be a bribe, there needs to be a quid pro quo -- which there wasn't.

In addressing the allegations of bribery, I was pointed out the lack of quid pro quo. Mr. Flores goes into the definition of bribery, which includes the requirement of a quid pro quo. See the repeated phrase "as a consideration for". I pointed out that evidence of a quid pro quo was lacking. Indeed, the quoted emails stated that "You wouldn't owe Bill anything." Mr. Flores ignored my point.

Mr. Flores brings up a number of additional subjects.

Much has been made about the fiduciary duty of Polgar and Truong - what about the fiduciary duty of the remaining board members?

All EB members have fiduciary duties. What's your point?

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.

We can't afford the legal fees. Then again, what is the price of inaction. If Paul Truong is, in fact, the FSS, and he continues to spew his garbage while a board member, then the USCF faced massive potential liabilities. Having lawyers is very expensive. Not having lawyers when you need them is very, very, very expensive.

Actually, in a previous post, I gave an evaluation of the relative wisdom of the various actions here.

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?

Open meetings acts apply only to governmental entities. USCF is not a governmental entity, it is a not-for-profit corporation. Those laws have no application to USCF.

Is the intimidation and threat of lawsuits against delegates in their upcoming meeting an exercise or violation of their fiduciary duties?

First of all, I thought the claim that that particular forum post was a threat of litigation was exaggerated and silly. Also, the person who made the post has no official office with USCF whatsoever.

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.

Violaton of what? Open meetings laws? They don't apply? The remainder of this paragraph is, in my opinion, wild conjecture.

Would the demise of the USCF benefit or damage the Continental Chess Association?

USCF's demise would probably hurt the CCA. If Bill Goichberg were really wanting to destroy the USCF, he could easily have done so early in this decade. USCF was completely broke, and the only reason they didn't have to declare bankruptcy was that Bill Goichberg prepaid for a bunch of advertising, which gave USCF the cash to keep the doors open.

Apologies to all readers for the unwieldy length of this post. Mr. Flores, if you have additional points you wish to make, I would welcome further commentary. For that matter, anyone is welcome to chip in.

Welcome Mr. Flores

2009-06-01T21:14:00.005-05:00

First of all, I would like to welcome John Flores (aka MorfeoKnight) as a poster to the blog. He was kind enough to post a response to my critique of his litigation webpage.

He makes numerous points that merit further discussion. I will start with this post, but will continue with the rest at a later date. There are two reasons for this:

The discussion is getting sufficiently lengthy that a full discussion would be unwieldy and, perhaps more importantly, I've had a long day and want to get to bed at a decent hour.

My first point was as to the statements in chess life, and by Mr. Goichberg on his own website. Mr. Flores had the following comments:

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.

First of all, I would note that, in his Point 1, Mr. Flores changes the subject from Mr. Hall's statements (links here and here) to Mr. Goichberg. Despite complaints by Mr. Flores and the Fine Folks at ChessDiscussion.com, no one has ever pointed out any specific language in Mr. Hall's Chess Life statements that was unfair. The floor is still open, but the silence, both here and at chess discussion, has been deafening.

Secondly, Mr. Flores, throughout his response, treats all the entities on the opposite side of the litigation from GM Polgar as if they were Bill Goichberg. That just isn't appropriate. There is a wide cast of characters in this litigation, many of whom are not allies of Bill Goichberg. Lafferty and Mottershead are running against Goichberg for the EB.

Finally, for this evening anyway, Mr. Flores makes the claim that the USCF website and Chess Life have printed propaganda for Mr. Goichberg. I would be greatly obliged if Mr. Flores (or anyone else for that matter) can point to anything on the website (other than the forums) or in Chess Life that is "propaganda." Bonus points if you explain why you believe it to be propaganda.

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

2009-05-31T22:49:00.007-05:00

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
Hi:

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:

Feels Hall's summaries have been measured while providing accurate and fair updates;
Points out Goichberg can post what he wishes on his site;
Refers to semantics and legalese in response to who sued first;
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;
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
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:

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.
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.
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.
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.

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.

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.
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:

Much has been made about the fiduciary duty of Polgar and Truong - what about the fiduciary duty of the remaining board members?
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.
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?
Is the intimidation and threat of lawsuits against delegates in their upcoming meeting an exercise or violation of their fiduciary duties?
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.
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

USCF Delegate Proposals In Search of a Delegate

2009-05-27T21:10:00.001-05:00

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 http://iccfus.com/).

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 (http://main.uschess.org/content/view/7523/393/). 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 http://sdo1.blogspot.com/2007/06/web-server-correspondence-chess-growth.html).

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 (http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=10193) 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.

Response to MorfeoKnight's Website Litigation Summary

2009-05-26T17:19:00.016-05:00

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 discussion.com 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.

Decisions are made by those who show up.

2009-05-17T20:25:00.005-05:00

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.

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

2009-05-08T07:11:00.001-05:00

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, Blogspot.com.
Google, Inc. is located in the District. Defendants’ blog was entitled, USCFSaid.
Blogspot.com (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, http://uscf-said.blogspot.com, 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 http://uscf-said.blogspot.com 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.

Brian Lafferty Needs a Muzzle

2009-05-03T18:42:00.002-05:00

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.

Further Update

2009-04-30T19:03:00.003-05:00

The Judge in Texas dismissed Chess Magnet Schools, but denied the motions to dismiss as to the other defendants.

As to the other defendants, it is game on.

Still more adventures in the bizarro world of USCF litigation

2009-04-29T19:26:00.010-05:00

There have been additional developments in the various trees of the current outbreak of USCF litigation. Let's get the easy stuff out of the way first.

First, the obligatory disclaimer. This is a work of opinion based on examination of publicly available information. I do not represent any party to the litigation -- thank god.

In the Illinois action, Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong have filed an objection to remand. I wasn't particularly impressed with their brief, but we'll see what the court does with it.

In Texas, there was a brief discovery tiff about the documents that USCF had previously obtained in California. Polgar moved for a protective order which was denied, so USCF in Texas now has access to all the data in the possession of USCF in California. (Yeah, that's just a bit wierd.)

There has been further briefing in some defendant's renewed motions to dismiss. In support of the attempt to keep Hal Bogner in the case, Paul Truong submitted an affidavit stating the following:

“I ran into Hal Bogner in Houston, Texas in December 2007 when I attended the National K-12 Chess Championship. While I was in Houston, Mr. Bogner approached me to discuss the “Fake Sam Sloan” issue, and I categorically told him that I had nothing to do with it.
Although I cannot remember the exact words used, Bogner told me that it does not matter if I had nothing to do with the Fake Sam Sloan because Bill Hall and Bill Goichberg are out to get me and my wife, Susan Polgar. He communicated that unless my wife and I resign from the Executive Board of the USCF and leave chess, our lives would be permanently ruined. He said that because the USCF controls the USCF forums, website and database, nothing I say will matter.
I asked him what that statement meant. Bogner replied that because he and Brian Mottershead have been authorized by Bill Hall and Bill Goichberg to launch the Fake Sam Sloan investigation, Bogner and Mottershead have produced a lot of evidence to “nail” my wife and me, and unless my wife and I resign from the Executive Board, this information will be slowly leaked to the NY Times, to other mainstream media, and to Texas Tech University. By the time they (Bogner, Mottershead, Hall and Goichberg) are done, Texas Tech University would want nothing to do with my wife or me anymore. Bogner also told me that he was authorized by Bill Hall and Bill Goichberg to gain access to the Moderator and Forum Oversight Committee (“FOC”) private discussion areas, which are private and restricted areas. Even though Bogner had no standing to have access to these private and confidential chat areas, Bogner said that Bill Hall wanted him (Bogner) to find out what goes on so they (Hall and Goichberg) can keep all the moderators and FOC members in check.
Bogner said that because of his access, he knows quite a bit about what goes on behind the scene. Bogner said that he, Bill Hall, and Bill Goichberg would fight back if Susan or I challenged their actions. He added that Goichberg will not ever allow Susan to serve as President of the USCF because Susan is Hungarian and she has no idea how things work within the USCF. Bogner also said that they have the trusted legal advice of Brian Lafferty and that Lafferty knows how to make our lives a living #### with the US Attorneys, District Attorneys, Attorney General, IRS, and the like. He implied that Lafferty will contact every state and federal agency he could until Susan and I resign.
The encounter ended with Bogner saying the following: “Don’t be stupid. You can’t fight the system. Resign now and you can still salvage your chess business and positions at Texas Tech University. Susan can make a few extra dollars by being the spokesperson for Chess Magnet. It’s useless trying to fight this. The longer you drag this out, the worse it will be for you. You’ll end up being sorry if you don’t.’ ”

OMG.

I wasn't there. I can't say for sure what was said that day. What follows is only my opinion. Opinions expressed by me are purely my opinions, and not those of Blogspot, USCF, or any other person or entitity. Now, with all that out of the way:

What a crock!

This reads like dialog in a movie script so bad that Roger Corman would reject it. People just don't talk that way in the real world. In my 20 plus years of practicing law, I have never seen a less credible statement under oath, and the competition for that award is pretty freaking fierce.

As a reality check, I had my wife, who is also an attorney read the affidavit. She found it sufficiently incredible that she was literally chuckling as she read it.

We are currently awaiting the judge's decision on the second rounds of motions to dismiss.

Most of the action, however, is in San Francisco. In the supplemental briefing, USCF revealed their much anticipated direct evidence of Polgar's involvement in the email hacking. The anticipation of this "smoking gun" revelation on USCF forums verged on the hilarious. Brian Lafferty was hyperventilating so much that I was begining to think he had gone directly to his computer after running a marathon. I felt compelled to note that I had heard a lot of attorneys talk about a "smoking gun." Sometimes it's a smoking gun; sometimes it's smoke and mirrors.

When the evidence emerged, it was a ChessDiscussion PM from GM Polgar to Gregory Alexander.

"Thu, Apr 10, 2008, 5:58 am

BTW, I sent to the board a confidential letter about Hanken yesterday. Can you check whether Randy H forwarded to Hanken? Thanks!"

USCF has submitted a list of dates of purported unauthorized access to Randy Hough's email. Per that list, there had not been any unauthorized access to Hough's email account since March 12, 2008. Two days after the post, the allegedly unauthorized access happened again, and there were several more alleged hacks in the next week.

Ms. Polgar has submitted an explanation to the Court. She claims that, because she did not access to USCF forums, she was asking Mr. Alexander to check on USCF forums and see if Hanken posted on there about her letter.

Well, it's an explanation, but there are some problems with it.

a. The email was sent to many people, not just Hough. Why was she asking about Hough in particular?

b. Furthermore, how would she know if the email were forwarded? For all she knows, Hough (or Goichberg or whoever) called Hanken on the phone, talked to him in person, or whatever.

c. If she was asking for Gregory to check USCF forums, you would expect her

1 to say "someone" rather than identify Hough specifically.

2 to say "leaked" instead of forwarded

3. to specifically direct Gregory to USCF forums.

d. Why ask Gregory to check USCF forums. Ms Polgar may no longer have had an account, but her husband did. Why ask Gregory?

e. Hanken doesn't post on USCF forums all that much.

The evidence isn't a smoking gun, but it is powerful circumstantial evidence. In my opinion, Ms. Polgar's explanation doesn't help her case at all.

A hearing was held in the SF action. The upshot:

-- Gregory Alexander's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction will be denied.

--The case has been ordered to mediation with an experienced mediator.

--USCF has been ordered to produce documentation regarding the authorization of the filing of the lawsuit.

--The court indicated, but did not rule, that the motion to dismiss would probably be denied, but that she was inclined to transfer the case to Texas.

I think the mediation order is the most important thing to flow from that hearing. Mediation is, in essence a settlement conference conducted by an experienced attorney trained as being a mediator. The mediator plays devil's advocate to both sides, in an attempt to look at both the strengths and weaknesses of their case. I'm a big fan of mediation, and, if both sides come to the table with an open mind, it is quite successful in achieving settlements.

The folks over at ChessDiscussion are all atwitter over the corporate authorization issue, having convinced themselves that USCF's attorney mislead the court. They seem to be reading things into the transcript that I don't see, but I don't think this argument will be successful (or, as we say in Indiana, "That dog won't hunt.") Multiple reasons:

1. USCF has in the past, initiated major litigation solely on the ED's authority -- without board approval.

2. The delegates ratified all acts after the lawsuit was filed against John Does in California, so the initial filing is covered.

3. The act was subsequently ratified by formal motion of the litigation subcommittee and by EB.

We'll see.

Adventures at ChessDiscussion.com

2009-04-08T20:43:00.006-05:00

I've begun posting at ChessDiscussion.com's USCF/FIDE forum. It has been quite the experience.

I was under no delusion that my opinions would be popular there. I was under no illusions that I would "convert the pagans" as one poster charmingly put it. I was hopeful that we could discuss some of the issues politely and, perhaps, cut back on some of the hyperbole that is so prevalent there. I've tried to be polite and respectful -- to obey the hostess's exhortation to "be nice."

It's been a challenge. A few observations.

1. The exhortation to "be nice" seems to be regularly ignored. For a bunch of people who complain about dirty politics, they are sure liberal in the use of words like "corrupt", "vicious", and "goon". They seem to be imitating the behavior that they attribute to "the enemy."

2. They get oddly offended when asked to back up their claims. For example, one poster referred to Randy Bauer as attacking Susan Polgar viciously. I politely disagreed, and asked him to provide an example. I was roundly ignored. The claim was also been made that Bill Hall's Chess Life statement was defamatory. Having read the statement, and having thought it was remarkably measured, I took issue with this and challenged them to point to a single false statement in the report. Multiple folks claimed it was defamatory, but not a single poster could cite a single false word.

Now if Mr. Hall's statement were really all that heinous, you would think they would be eager to point me to all the false statements. Nada. Squat. Bubkis. Lots of sound and fury, but no actual proof was cited.

It got worse. The claim has been made, repeatedly, on chessdiscussion, that that Ms. Polgar was sued by USCF before she sued USCF. This statement is factually incorrect. They attempt to rely on statements by attorney Kronenberger. When I went to the document that Kronenberger actually filed and posted the actual words that Kronenberger said, the post got pulled, and the thread was locked. If people have different opinions than I do, I can live with that, but I have to confess I find it very annoying when people make incorrect statements of fact, and I am not allowed to make the record clear.

3. For all the whining about the moderation on the USCF forums, ChessDiscussion is much more heavily moderated than the forums.

4. My favorite chessdiscussion moment came courtesy of Albert:

"I come here to be with people who share my opinion. "

Kinda says it all, right there.

Response to a Question from ChessDiscussion.com

2009-03-31T21:19:00.004-05:00

I've been participating in the dialog at ChessDiscussion.com. I received the following question, which I thought was interesting:

"Since you're an attorney, would you recommend Goichberg and Hall to continue these multiple lawsuits based on what's known so far?"

I drafted a response, but decided that it would probably give the moderator a heart attack, so I will post my response here:

Complex question, and one that is difficult to answer based on the information available publicly. Because there are 5 separate lawsuits, it is really 5 different questions (although the Sloan and Parker lawsuits are, for purposes of this analysis very similar).

I should also include a lawyerly disclaimer. The following is strictly my personal opinion. I do not represent, and have not represented, any party to any of the pending litigation. I can also only rely on such documentation that has been made public. I also have been following USCF's various adventures in litigation as a hobby only. (Memo to self: Must get life. Must get out more often.) While I have had the chance to read many of the various filings, I have not had a chance to review supporting law, and I do not claim any familiarity with the law of Texas, California, or Illinois. I have also not had the time or the inclination to do a detailed, point by point analysis of all the various allegations. With that said:

1. The Sloan and Parker suits really aren't within USCF's control. USCF is on the defense, and the defense is being handled by the insurance company. USCF really shouldn't interfere in those suits, which may disappear in the natural course of events.

2. The Texas action filed by Ms. Polgar is also, to a great degree, out of USCF's hands because USCF is the defendant. Now the USCF has filed a third-party action against Mr. Truong, and I have serious doubts about the wisdom of bringing him into the action. I am, at this point, generally supportive of a vigorous defense of this action, by USCF and its directors.

a. Ms. Polgar's allegations pertaining to the Mottershead report have an obvious and glaring fundamental flaw: The Motorshead report is all about Mr. Truong, not Ms. Polgar. The Answers filed by the defendants pounded on that flaw repeatedly.

b. Some of the acts alleged to be performed by Mr. Lafferty, Mr. Mottershead and Mr. Bogner are highly unlikely to be imputed to USCF.

c. I find the allegations of a grandiose conspiracy to be inherently unlikely.

3. As far as the California action is concerned, I don't have enough information to assess how strong this case is or isn't. That requires technical evidence and expertise that isn't publicly available. I also have serious doubts as to what can be gained from that litigation ultimately, and whether those gains will be worth the financial investment.

4. As far as the Illinois action, the advisability of that action splits into two parts: (a) the removal of Mr. Truong and (b) the removal of Ms. Polgar.

The advisability of pursuing Mr. Truong's depends primarily on the analysis of the Mottershead report. If you believe the Mottershead report, then Mr. Truong should not be a director of USCF -- not because of the Sloan and Parker suits, but because of the danger of persons suing USCF who, unlike Parker and Sloan, had reputations that could be damaged.

The advisability of removing Ms. Polgar is much less clear to me. I do have a serious problem with her suing USCF for ungodly amounts of money. If it is proven that she posted confidential USCF material on the web, I also have a real problem with that. On the other hand, Ms. Polgar has so much to offer chess that I would much prefer that a way could be found that the litigation could settle and the could remain on the board.

Litigation Update

2009-03-24T07:38:00.004-05:00

There have been developments since my last update.

In the Texas action, the Court ruled on the pending preliminary motions, ordering Sloan to replead, and ordering Polgar to replead so the court could understand her claims of jurisdiction against Bogner, Lafferty, Mottershead, and Chess Magnet Schools. Although the Court noted that the plaintiff's allegations were "lacking and a poor pleadings style", the judge did not order repleading of the allegations against USCF and the other defendants.

After the judge's rulings, the defendants filed answers. USCF filed a "third-party complaint" against Paul Troung. While I can certainly understand the desire to bring Truong into the case, I am not sure that the third-party complaint is procedurally appropriate, and I think it undercuts one of the best defenses to GM Polgar's action: that the Mottershead report was about Truong, not her.

GM Polgar filed an Amended Complaint, which went considerably beyond just making jurisdictional allegations against the various defendants. If I have the energy or inclination, I will analyze this complaint in detail in a separate post.

Answers have been filed. The non-Texas defendants have again moved to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction.

In San Francisco, GM Polgar is moving to dismiss or transfer the action to Texas. Those Motions are set form Mid-April. I would be very surprised if the Motion to Dismiss was granted. I would be much less surprised if the Motion to Transfer was granted, just because the judge doesn't seem to like the case much.

In Illinois, GM Polgar and Mr. Truong have appeared, and removed the matter to Federal Court. USCF has moved to remand the matter to State Court, filing a very well written brief. I expect USCF's motion to be successful, and the matter will be remanded to state court.

Most Of Us Only Want

2009-03-08T07:13:00.001-05:00

“Most of us only want” seems to be a continuing battle cry from those in USCF leadership to justify their ongoing lobbying. Because of this USCF governance can be viewed as a saga of a handful of individuals who put their personal interests or beliefs above nonprofit best practice or the interest of the organization. We have the appearance that our leaders often focus on trying to promote what they personally feel the purpose of the USCF should be but not what it actually is.

It is important to note that nonprofit corporations are organized to achieve specific objectives or purposes, which are generally set forth in the organization's by-laws and charters. Adherence to the purposes of the organization is critical as they form the basis for the corporation's tax exemption and, thus, its status as a nonprofit entity.

It appears many in USCF leadership only seem to state what they feel the interests of the membership are, but never ask the general membership. Two key concepts underlying Six Sigma are a focus on the customer and a fact based management style. Accordingly, the best way to discover what the membership values most is to ask them. Too often board members unilaterally decide what is best for the USCF membership. If one's primary focus is really on the membership than you ask or confirm with that membership what you should do on their behalf. The greatest defect is failing to deliver what the membership wants. Ultimately to be successful organization must align itself to the wishes of its owners – the dues paying membership.

Meaningless numbers

2009-02-17T21:50:00.003-06:00

It never ceases to amuse me when people talking about Susan Polgar's lawsuit treat the $25,000,000 ad damnum figure as if it has some basis in reality. It bears even less relation to reality than any RGCP post by Sam Sloan or Phil Innes.

This number was created by Polgar's lawyer using a time honored legal technique known as "pulling it out of your ass." Such a number has no conceivable rational basis. People should stop dignifying it with repetition.

She wants $25,000,000. That's fine. I want world peace, the Pittsburgh Pirates to win the World Series, and a night on the town with Jessica Alba. As a practical matter, nothing like this is ever going to happen in the real world.

USCF Finances - A Summary

2009-02-15T11:02:00.001-06:00

Yesterday I vetted my summary of the financial issues facing the USCF. The below is based upon what that, modified by pertinent critiques.

Appreciate the kind thoughts expressed in another thread about my summarizing the accounting issues facing the USCF.

I like the legal summary that Wick Deer put on his blog: http://wduscf.blogspot.com/
It would be nice if someone (like Jack LeMoine, for example) with an accounting background would post a summary of the financial issues facing the USCF.

Jim

Just off the top of my head are:

1) The accounting reports have improved since I saw them a couple of years ago.

2) The main problem accountingwise that the USCF faces is the inability to know how ahead or behind we are during the course of the year. However far behind we are mid-year, management always responds with first, "The second half of the year is always better" and "The auditors always make year-end accruals that could vary the bottom lines by many thousands of dollars".

3) The members badly need to know how much the average rate of increase the second half revenues are over the first half. This gives you an historical, verifiable, and measurable benchmark to project the annual result.

4) I wouldn't depend too much on comparing first half results with prior years. It is like comparing middle-game positions in a game of chess. You may have fewer pieces but still be ahead. There are other factors than just how many and what pieces you have. The same is true for comparing dollars to dollars mid-year. It is the end of the year that counts. Management is correct to point to annual results instead of interim results.

5) The problem of membership accruals at year-end needs to be addressed. I note that Mike Nolan has come out in favor of a database for this.

6) Various audit issues have been discussed at very great length on this forum. Amid all the drek, there's been some legitimate points raised. I have pointed out (see some of my earliest posts) that we have independent auditors and these issues ought to be taken up with them. I favor the Executive Board meeting with the auditors on an annual basis to discuss matters that have come up and to ask questions. Such questions could relate to findings that did not rise to the level of financial statement disclosure but that people would still be interested in knowing. (e.g. the infamous Susan Polgar laptop computer incident. Did the auditors look into this or did they not? If they did, what did they find? Another audit mystery is the documentation of the Crossville land and building valuation. Did the auditors examine them or did they not? How did they verify the valuations used?) Bill Goichberg opposed this; Randy Bauer hasn't taken a position.

7) Sevan Murdian brought up the subject of operational/internal audits about a year and a half ago. He offered his services for free and I had said I would help. Mike Nolan was right to say that these would only work if people did the work in Crossville. At this point, I'm unclear how this would help but perhaps it is worth looking into.

8) The unpaid post-employment money owed remains a critical issue. I am unsure why the USCF hasn't been sued over this. The money owed ought to be paid ASAP.

9) The invite to me to summarize the accounting issues was kindly appreciated and this was a quick and dirty response. The proper person who ought to summarize these issues is Randy Bauer, the USCF's Vice-President of Finance. Recently, we exchanged views on this forum on the matter. RB was quite adament that he no longer feels responsibility for discussing USCF Finances because of the lawsuits and because he is just a volunteer. (From his statements, I infer that he won't address USCF finances in any other manner, either, but I could be mistaken. He could still be functioning in some way. - Or not.) I believe he ought to reverse his position on this issue.

Note: After publication of the above on the USCF’s Forums, the VP-Finance broke his silence on USCF finances. His major points were:

USCF finances, through the first 8 months of the fiscal year, are remarkably on track with the budgeted amounts on the revenue side. In fact, the differences are so not material in almost every major category to be, well, remarkable.

That said, one expenditure area has a large variance from budget: professional services - i.e., legal fees. This is about $129,000 over budget.

The overall picture through 8 months has us about $246,000 ahead of budget, of which almost $400,000 is bequests. The difference between the two numbers is almost entirely additional legal fees.

Wow, that sounds like some serious mis-management. Got a blog post ready to go on that, Jack?
- Post 127870

And this:

I don't see any "accounting issues" to "clean up" - I think our current accounting processes are just fine and are now a lot more straightforward with reports developed straight out of the Peachtree accounting system.
- Post 127927

Management’s annual demurs about unknown year-end membership accruals usually comes around April and May. These accruals throw the final bottom line off by many thousands of dollars. The USCF looks to the auditors to calculate. This means that the USCF doesn’t know how it is doing until after the year is over.

Until then, the accounting is just fine. This has been management’s story for several years now.

Respect is Everything

2009-02-14T03:36:00.000-06:00

Respect is the cornerstone of a good environment. You create a respectful community by requiring that everyone treat everyone else with the respect that they deserve. You do this by having written policies and by actively enforcing those policies. Don’t let people get away with disrespectful comments. All members of your community (regular members and staff members) must treat one another with respect at all times.

You should encourage your members to attack the point and not the person. Address what people say, don’t try to attack them as human beings for having a given view. This extends to respect of choice.

[Managing Online Forums by Patrick O’Keefe pages 219-220]

Last Call for Feb. Chess Blog Carnival

2009-02-13T22:03:00.001-06:00

The February Edition of the Chess Blog Carnival is just days away. Deadline for bloggers to submit their best article is February 15. Chessvine will edit and host this edition.

This is a tremendous opportunity for the chess fans to sample the best of the chess blogs that are active today. The internet contains many talented writers and analysts who are both famous and unknown. One of the exciting things about this project is that you may discover the earliest writings of one of the great players and/or pundits of the future. January saw a tremendous response. Even Susan Polgar was in on the action. Carnival articles include these categories:

Annotated Games
Book Reviews
Chess Culture and Politics
Chess Events
Endgame Play
Humor
Improvement
Opening Theory
Position Analysis
Strategic Concepts

Click on the logo for previous editions of the Chess Blog Carnival.

Should those who represent the USCF be held to a higher standard?

2009-02-13T07:43:00.000-06:00

Should those who represent the USCF be held to a higher standard and subject to a higher degree of criticism merely because of their position, as opposed to their alleged wrongdoing? Putting it another way, if both a USCF representative and a USCF member were accused of the same infraction, should both be subject to an identical amount of coverage, commentary and scrutiny? USCF officials have expressed that USCF members should be held to the same or higher standards as our USCF representatives and leaders. Many others feel those in a position of leadership or authority should be held to a higher standard of conduct than the USCF membership.

Further we often hear from those who have authority over us “I am not a paid employee of the USCF - I am a volunteer.” Some people feel that giving volunteers that serve us a break for not doing a good job should be the standard. We are told we ought to recognize their volunteer status and be more lenient. Our volunteers often argue this largess should apply to them. When a poor job is done we usually hear a litany of rationalizations as well as all the effort, hard work, time and money the individual provides for chess as if this mitigates poor behavior or results. We are always reminded since they receive no money for their service they should not be held to higher standards or even a simple professional standard of care.

Those in authority might argue at best they should be treated no differently than anyone else. However, in the view of many, it is thought those in a position of authority over us should have a duty to set an example. Like it or not, they can be viewed as role models and, as such, these people have a special responsibility to the membership. People who we delegate authority to are accountable to a special degree, ex officio - merely because of their position. What is usually forgotten is these individuals have been given positions of authority and with extra authority comes extra responsibility. Even though we very much appreciate the work of our volunteers, a bottom line argument is if people don't want responsibility or to be accountable for their actions they should not volunteer to serve a tax exempt organization.

With Korenman

2009-02-11T21:00:00.000-06:00

I'm on the left; Mikhail Korenman is on the right.
Mikhail is a candidate for the USCF Executive Board this year. I hope he wins. He's been on the Scholastic Committee and he has some great ideas.

This is another picture from last year's National High School Championships that I just discovered.

Bill Hall and Mike Mulford

2009-02-09T15:41:00.000-06:00

That's Bill on the left and Mike on the right.
Another picture from the National High School Championship last year. Bill Hall is the Executive Director of the US Chess Federation. Mike Mulford was a friend of mine back in the 1970's. We played a match in his college dorm room in Seattle. He hired me for my first accounting job in 1983.

Mulford goes by the handle "Mulfish" in his internet chess postings. This picture was taken just after an impromptu meeting with us and Hal Bogner. Bill and Hal led Mike and me through the whole FSS/Mottershead Report scandal, how it first came to their attention and what they did. They were very nice and informative. They answered my questions as best as they were able to do, given the legal constraints that they were under.

Jack Le Moine
http://www.jacklemoine.com

Hal Bogner and Me

2009-02-08T12:34:00.000-06:00

That's Hal on the left and myself on the right.
In the next few days I shall post some pictures from last year's National High School Championship. I was new to the digital camera game and I had thought that I had lost my pictures. I did find a few. Also, because I was a newbie, the date and time stamp are not reliable. I think it was on the 16th not the 14th that the picture was taken.

Hal Bogner has been active in chess for all his adult life. He was in on the ground floor of the Chessmaster computer playing program, ChessBase, the database program, General Manager of the Internet Chess Club, and currently a partner in The Chess Magnet School. We spent a great deal of time together. While we're in opposite camps as far as USCF politics goes, I don't see why he's such a bad guy.

I recommend his Chess Magnet School. Tell him Jack sent you!

Jack Le Moine
http://www.jacklemoine.com

Why have formal processes for board member removal?

2009-02-03T01:05:00.002-06:00

What are the proper or usual steps to remove a board member?

1. Discuss situation with member and/or submit a report to the board
2. Ask member to resign or schedule a leave of absence
3. Accept complaint/report activating a committee process
4. Petition a recall or conduct board removal vote
5. Seek impeachment or court removal
6. Ultimately term limits (including the length of time on the board and how many total terms) should remove the member

Why should a board member be removed? An ineffective board member causes stress, slows progress and weakens the morale of the rest of the board. Reasons for removal should be based on the person's current actions with regard to the organization, not on whether they are not a nice person, on something objectionable done in the past, or on their non public behavior. Constantly missing meetings, introducing conflicts of interest, other breaches of fiduciary duty or board policy, illegal or inappropriate behavior while serving on/running for the board, and preventing others from functioning are all reasons why a board member should be removed. Actions that are contrary to the wishes of the membership are harder to justify unless the actions have injured the reputation or negatively affected the finances or viability (like loss of membership/sponsorship) of the organization. All of the above should be items considered by our organization’s Bylaws/Ethics Committees and ultimately by our Board of Directors when putting proper steps in place.

What happened? In October 2007 when I was discussing with Bill Hall the steps to take in regard to the allegations presented in the Mottershead report it became clear there were no formal procedures in place to be able to resolve such concerns. With no formal procedures, we understand the President of the USCF Executive Board and also possibly the USCF Executive Director felt it might be best to come up with a report and suggested it be sent it to the USCF Ethics Committee. As a result a report was created and submitted to the USCF Executive Board for their review. In the mean time the information was distributed throughout the organization which within a few weeks found itself in the hands of the media and general public. The USCF Executive Board (EB) appointed a Board Subcommittee to consider issues related to charges made by Brian Mottershead. Once the report’s conclusions were verified a complaint was also submitted to the USCF Ethics Committee for their review. A request for resignation and a petition for recall were attempted. Eventually an action was submitted for court removal of the board member.

So what? It has been argued that if the initial findings had been presented to Bill Hall, and he determined a more thorough investigation take place, a person with more background and loyalty to the USCF should have picked it up and carried the finding to the ethics committee, or a special committee set up by the EB to investigate it. One can argue this actually is what happened - just not in a way everyone desired. We can endlessly debate the lack of formal process, the slowness of the activities, the uncoordinated and overlapping steps, media reporting impacts, as well all the related infighting and finger pointing. One can only point out that as far as we know the duplicative steps of impeachment or a forced leave of absence were not invoked and all of those involved in pursuing proper steps appear to have suffered some form of retaliation. Perhaps better term limits could have helped. It seemed like more membership energy was expended trying to verify/discredit the report or discover how the public got the information rather than to properly adjudicate who did what the report had claimed. When our leadership sets an example by fighting we should expect no less from our members. If we are to learn from what has happened, all of these points can be areas for future improvement as well as provide motivation for a more formal process for board member removal.

Lawsuits . . . the saga continues

2009-01-31T08:13:00.011-06:00

When we last left our merry band of chess volunteers, they had been fighting off two absurd lawsuits filed by Ray Parker and Sam Sloan, arising out of the RGCP postings of the "Fake Sam Sloan", who had been posting trash that was beyond the pale, even by usenet standards.

Incidently, I apologize to my eager readers, both of them, for the delay in part 2 of this analysis. My father-in-law passed away, and I have been having to deal with the family obligations inherent in that. I should also advise that I do not, and have never, represented USCF or any of the parties involved in this litigation. The information posted has been gleened from pleadings in the cases and forum posts, some of which are from the parties to the lawsuit.

As a further aside, I must confess that if I would be advising my clients not to post a word on the internet regarding the litigation. The propensity of some of the actors to post about the litigation, while informative to me as a spectator, is amazing to me. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law, so the parties should STFU.

In response to these lawsuits, the USCF retained a lawyer, who advised them to form a litigation committee of the EB to deal with the lawsuits. This committee included every director except Polgar and Truong. The committee and the lawyer asked Truong to provide (a) a sworn affidavit that he was not FSS (b) information about his IP addresses so that the allegations against him could be confirmed or denied and (c) information supporting his arguments that he was not at his computer when FSS was posting.

Truong, apparently on advice of counsel, provided two pay stubs and a flight confirmation in response to (c); he apparently did not provide any information regarding requests (a) or (b).

Shortly thereafter, emails between the litigation committee and counsel were published on the internet. It was alleged in some quarters that the memos leaked, but USCF filed suit in California State Court alleging that persons unknown had hacked Randy Hough's email account, and taken the messages from it. The suit was filed against John Does, which is apparently allowed in California. USCF served subpoenas to trace the alleged hacker.

At this point, immediately before the annual meeting in Dallas; Susan Polgar filed her own lawsuit, against USCF, the other directors, Sam Sloan, Brian Lafferty; Jerry Hanken, Hal Bogner, Brian Mottershead, CCA, Chess Magnet Schools, the USCF's lawfirm, and the entire cast of Searching for Bobby Fischer. The grandiosity of the allegations is matched only by their vagueness. I can only say that, in my professional opinion, the complaint is very poorly drafted and provides the parties, and the reader virtually no information about what bad acts are being alleged, who did them, and how the parties worked together for the alleged conspiracy. The allegations against the law firm are laughably bad.

It is also interesting, to say the least, that the lawsuit was filed by Ms. Polgar and not Mr. Truong. Given that all the comments about Mr. Truong, one would expect him to be the plaintiff, or at the very least, one of two plaintiffs. For the action to be filed on her behalf only is curious.

The next major development was the amendment of the California action by USCF and Hough to specifically name Gregory Alexander and Susan Polgar as defendants. Alexander had been the webmaster of the Chess Discussion forums. Apparently, the documents in response to the USCF subpoenas led them to Alexander as the user of the IP addresses used to access Hough's email account.

Both the Texas and California actions have been removed to Federal Court.

Lastly, USCF has filed an action in Illinois to remove Polgar and Truong from the board. The filing contains documents linking Truong to IP addresses used to post the FSS posts. As far as I know, there have been no further developments in the Illinois actions.

Most of the Defendants have filed Motions to Dismiss in the Texas lawsuits. Polgar has requested leave to file a counter-claim in the California action. Gregory Alexander is representing himself in the San Francisco suit. He has moved to dismiss the action against him. In his motions he has made several admissions that may well prove to be highly embarrassing later.

Who Killed ChessUSA.Net?

2009-01-26T21:05:00.005-06:00

As the chess world absorbed the news of the closure of ChessUSA blog, the mystery of who did it ricocheted around the chess forums like a bullet. Fingers first pointed towards the hated Susan Polgar. She said this:

I was just told that Mr. Steve Owens received a credible legal threat from an interested party in the upcoming 2009 USCF Executive Board election. I find this appalling. I do not agree with Mr. Owens’ view on many occasions but this is chess politics at its worst. This is wrong.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar

The President of the USCF rejected this, however. He issued this statement to the USCF’s Forums:

. . . Where did Susan say it was not her? She said it was "chess politics at its worst" and "This is wrong," but where did she deny that it was her?

Remember, when Brian Lafferty asked Susan and Paul on this Forum about February 2007 if they were married to each other, their response was to ignore the question and attack Brian. Most posters saw this reaction as a "no" answer to the question, but it was not. In May it was learned that they were married in December 2006, but this info was not in the June Chess Life and had it been, Paul might not have been elected, as many voters feel it is improper for one family to control two votes (half the number of votes necessary to pass a board motion). Susan and Paul subsequently denied trying to hide their marriage, and they were apparently correct that they didn't say they were not married to each other, just gave that impression without saying so.

Bill Goichberg

This was a most serious comparison. My response to this comparison was censored off the USCF’s Forums and no further rebuttal to this has appeared on that venue by anybody else. This is what I wrote:

Bill Goichberg, in the dishonest way that has become the staple of discussion of anything Polgar by USCF’s leaders, said about Susan’s first statement that “This was wrong” did not constitute a denial and compared her statement to her earlier statement in 2007 regarding her marriage. To be honestly comparable, she would have to said her marriage was “appalling”; “it is chess politics at its worst”; and “this is wrong”. In fact, in her statement on her marriage, she only said that she found Brian Lafferty’s question rude and insulting and she refused to answer it. Reasonable people would find some degree of gap between one statement and the other.

As for Steve's case, I can’t help but wonder how Susan's lawyer would handle a case that his client had just publicly and on the record labeled “appalling” and “wrong”. I’m no lawyer, but if I had to and if I was allowed, I bet that even I could defend Steve and win!

A few minutes later, he posted this:

I didn't say that it was Susan, only that she has not denied that it was her.

"Chess politics at its worst" is not a denial. "This is wrong" is not a denial.

I suppose it could be someone else described in "This party has silenced opposition in venues under their control -- and that is their right." There aren't many who fit that description, but there might be someone else out there who operates blogs or groups on which opposition is silenced.

Following is the last post Steve made before announcing the closing of his blog. Did this post cause Polgar or Truong to threaten legal action? I don't know for sure, but see no reason to rule out the possibility.

Bill Goichberg

Here is the post BG quoted.

The inhabitants at the USCF’s Forums leapt to the conclusion that Susan and/or Paul Truong were the murderers.

Steve, in your post on ChessUSA.net you stated (1) that the people concerned are "interested parties" in the Executive Board election; and (2) that they have multiple online venues under their control in which they have also silenced opposition. Since you are using plural here ("parties", "their control", "they") we can also assume (3) that the threat comes from at least two people acting in concert and jointly controlling online venues.

In my opinion, the only people who fit this bill are Polgar and Truong. I hope you will correct me if I am drawing the wrong conclusion.

- Brian Mottershead

Since I was the one man who was at the intersection of the mystery, (partner in the deceased blog and also Moderator in Susan’s forum) I contacted Susan who replied by e-mail.

Jack,

The first I heard about this was a few hours ago from one of the USCF members who alerted me about the wild accusations and speculations which surfaced on the net. Neither Paul or I have anything to do with this and we hope that Steve would go public with this information. In fact, I encourage him to go public with it for the sake of all USCF members.

Best wishes,
Susan

I also contacted Steve Owens, the legal owner of ChessUSA. He would not give more information to me beyond what he had publicly announced.

I felt like Lieutenant Columbo of TV Fame as I asked the chess players to look at the evidence instead of leaping to conclusions. Here’s a portion of what I said.

But anyway, what’s a few facts getting in the way of all the anti-Polgar mania? Well, let’s list a few facts, anyway.

Item: Bill Goichberg’s other piece of evidence was “Steve’s” last statement on the blog before he closed it. Very clever wordplay by the USCF’s President for sure. Yes, indeedy, the anti-Polgar post quoted by Bill G was the very last one done by Steve but it was not the last one done on the blog.

Item: The last one done on the blog was done by myself!!! It was a rebuttal of the last post by Steve. That last blog post defended Susan and attacked the USCF leadership.

Item: The post Bill G gave so much weight to, contained 4 comments which he did not quote. 2 were by me, one by Donna A, and one by Steve. 2 of those 4 comments (50%) were critical of the USCF leadership (Donna and me), 1 was neutral (me), and Steve’s was anti-Polgar.

Item: Since December 1, 2008 (last 2 months) there have been a total of 13 posts. 9 were by me and 4 by Steve. 4 posts attacked the USCF leadership while only 1 post attacked Susan – the one Bill Goichberg quoted.

Item: ChessUSA should be considered a Pro-Polgar blog by a 4 to 1 ratio in the last 2 months.

Query: In earlier months the ratio changed depending upon whether Steve or myself was active. So, why would Susan suddenly launch this kind of attack just when the ratio had swung decisively in her favor?

Query: If Susan had given any attention to what was on the blog at all, which I doubt, wouldn’t a better course have been to quietly encourage me to post more on it and turn it into an even more pro-Polgar bastion than it already was? - Especially in light of Steve’s reluctance to post on it, by his own statement as well as his history?

So, if the obvious suspect did not do it, then who did? As Lieutenant Columbo might have asked, as he gazed down at the murder victim, “Who dunnit?”

ChessUSA.Net – RIP

2009-01-25T20:37:00.001-06:00

A mysterious litigator managed to close a chess site Friday. Though I was a partner in that site, I was not legally one, so I don’t know anything beyond what was posted there. Nor, do I know what was written that triggered the lawyer attack.

This is now the second chess site that has been attacked in as many months. In the Chess Blog Carnival on Jan. 1, I wrote this:

2008 had too many stories of governments and other official bodies censoring, punishing, and other wise taking control of the internet. Here in the chess world the internet war between Susan Polgar and the US Chess Federation begat dangers for the rest of us. First came the accusation that SP had conspired to hack into a USCF leader’s e-mail account. The USCF then used that as a pretext to commence legal attacks on her websites, ostensibly seeking the data to verify this accusation. The legal tactic was to serve papers on the internet service providers. Once the “keys to the kingdom” were turned over to the USCF, it could then use them to get the IP addresses of anybody who had ever posted anything and then go after them. (They are suing Susan, Gregory Alexander, and 10 other “John Does”.) Both defendants deny having anything to do with this.

Up to this point, the chess world can say that this is just a personal problem of Susan and Gregory. But those John Does are what concerns the rest of us. If the USCF are just targeting Susan and Gregory just because of politics, then they could target anybody. Do any of you reading this want chess politicians who may not like you, tracking your internet surfing and then use that information to embarrass you? Do any of you want to be victimized by specious lawsuits? - Just because you rubbed someone in power the wrong way?

On the other hand, the chess world should not hinder legitimate investigations into actual wrongs done on the internet. What we need is a statement from the USCF telling us what their policies, procedures, and safeguards are in this area. In the USCF’s Issues Forums I posted extensively on this and the USCF roundly rebuffed this call.

In the future, we may see other authorities in other countries who may want to target chess bloggers. Sadly, these events mean that we won’t be able to look to the chess leaders of the United States for support.

Little did I expect that the next victim would be hit so soon or that it would hit so close to home.

Why the USCF Needs a Whistleblower Policy

2009-01-25T07:09:00.003-06:00

In October 2007 when I was discussing with Bill Hall the steps to take in regard to the allegations presented in the Mottershead report it became clear there were no formal procedures in place to be able to resolve such concerns. The organizations code of ethics tends to focus on behaviors related to participation in activities sponsored by or sanctioned by the USCF and the standards of conduct tends to focus on USCF officer behavior relating to board meetings. Having incomplete processes to funnel concerns about inappropriate behavior of our directors, in my view, encourages leaks to occur and fosters a climate of premature litigation.

These days many nonprofit organizations require their directors, other volunteers, and employees to observe high standards of business and personal ethics in the conduct of their duties and responsibilities. Employees and representatives of the organization must practice honesty and integrity in fulfilling their responsibilities and comply with all applicable laws and regulations. These organizations have a process to follow if anyone feels that the organizations code of ethics has been violated or that there has been a lack of compliance with any law, regulation, standard, or rule by its representatives. Such standards usually apply to all behavior occurring during or at an activity or function that is associated with the organization and even addresses related objectionable public behavior by these individuals outside of organization activities that can reflect negatively on the organization. To enforce these standards there needs to be associated complaint as well as disciplinary procedures. The policies for addressing behavior under the auspices of the Executive Director have many precedents in the corporate world but what about that of our volunteer leadership?

In late December the IRS announced the release of the final 2008 Form 990. Some of the most significant changes to the new 990 are the required disclosures related to governance and compensation of officers, directors and key employees. Because of the new reporting requirements, many organizations will need to reevaluate their overall governance policies and procedures, as well as the composition and responsibilities of the board of directors. In some cases these changes will be significant and will require considerable time and resources to implement. Line 13 of Part VI of the 2008 Form 990 asks whether the filing organization has a written whistleblower policy. A whistleblower protection policy outlines an organization’s approach to situations of whistleblowing, and establishes procedures for the reporting of inappropriate behavior. A whistleblower policy encourages staff and volunteers to come forward with credible information on illegal practices or violations of adopted policies of the organization, specifies that the organization will protect the individual from retaliation, and identifies those staff or board members or outside parties to whom such information can be reported.

Whistleblower reporting mechanisms are a means of both improving the internal control environment that discourages inappropriate conduct, and reducing the loss exposure if a problem occurs. Whistleblower reporting systems are now a best corporate practice. Formal collection mechanisms for whistleblower complaints should be adopted by all nonprofits. At this point, Boards of Directors who do not address this area of concern will be criticized.

Note having a better way to report a concern regarding our leadership’s behavior compliant with good practice is but one dimension of an organizational problem that does not preclude improvements in our standards of conduct or associated disciplinary procedures.

For further information see:

Good Governance

Policy Challenges

Sample Whistleblower Policy

Lawsuits

2009-01-24T19:54:00.001-06:00

As promised, I will post an analysis of the pending lawsuits arising out of the FSS fiasco. In a previous post, I referred to them collectively as a clusterf***. That was inappropriate, and I would like to apologize to clusterf***s everywhere for the unflattering comparison.

The first lawsuit was filed by perennial pro se litigant Sam Sloan. (Pro se, being the legal term for a person representing themselves -- it is also rumored to be Latin for "loser.") Sloan sued any number of defendants, but his main claim was that USCF director Paul Truong was the "Fake Sam Sloan."

The newsgroup Rec.Games.Chess.Politics, never a hotbed of civility, had been infested by a creature impersonating Sam Sloan, Ray Parker, Brian Lafferty and others. Even by usenet standards, this troll was profane, obnoxious, and idiotic. This clown upchucked all over rgcp, making it virtually uninhabitable for vaguely civilized folks. Most of the attacks were aimed at persons who were not allies of Troing. This activity peaked before the election where Polgar and Truong were elected.

Shortly after their election, Brian Mottershead, acting as a sysadmin on the USCF boards, noted that the FSS and Paul Truong had similar IP addresses when posting at the same time. FSS started in New York, and then moved to Lubbock Texas at the time that Truong did. FSS also posted from Mexico City at a time when Truong was also posting from Mexico City. Mottershead prepared a report documenting his investigation and conclusions, which he supplied to USCF and, apparently, 2 other people.

Someone leaked the report, and the accusation became public. It is still available for download at http://rs235.rapidshare.com/files/62649719/mottershead.zip,

It is worth noting that this was not the first time that Mr. Truong had been accused of posting to rgcp under a false name. Back in 2003, an obnoxious rgcp poster named "Bob Bennett" was linked to Truong. See the following link:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/browse_thread/thread/44a04d745cd3df50?hl=en&q=fun+with+ip+addresses+group:rec.games.chess.politics#5ed95824bbd7b9f8

Shortly after this posting, Bob Bennett disappeared from the rgcp stage never to return.

Sloan claimed that the that the FSS destroyed his reputation, a notion that I must confess I found highly amusing -- what's another dent on a car that has already been through 15 demolition derbies? Sloan also asked that his the 2007 election be set aside, claiming that the FSS cost him his seat on the EB.

As ridiculous as the suit was, USCF's insurance had counsel appear to defend it. Members of the EB who were not parties to the lawsuit also hired counsel to advise them. This counsel requested Mr. Truong to sign an affidavit saying that he was not the FSS, and provide IP information on his computer. While Truong supplied some information, he did not provide either an affidavit or the IP addresses.

In Philidelphia, Ray Parker filed a copycat lawsuit against many of the same defendants also arising out of the FSS postings. USCF's insurance company was also defending that lawsuit, although, by this time, separate counsel were retained by the insurer to represent USCF and Polgar/Truong.

Sloan's suit was dismissed by the judge. Parker's suit was dismissed as to all defendants except Polgar/Truong. Had the matter stopped there, the litigation could have been under control, although the political fires would have raged.

Unfortunately, the matter was going to spin further out of control.

To be continued -- this blogger is too tired.

Where I coming from

2009-01-24T11:43:00.000-06:00

I suppose everyone will want to know my own biases, preconceptions, etc. I will give a bit of biography/political background.

I was taught to play chess by my father and my uncle. My father was never an active tournament player, although I have heard family stories that my late Uncle Bill, was an active tournament player at some point. I played in high school, but lost the game when I went to college.

In about 1992, I wandered into my local library, and saw a bunch of guys playing speed chess. I sat down and promptly got my ass kicked. I figured that I was rusty. It took about three weeks before I realized that I wasn't just rusty -- these guys were good.

I then got involved in tournament chess, and became active in my state chess association. Somebody decided it would be a good idea to have a lawyer on the board, and I was elected to the state board. A local vacuum pulled me into tournament organizing and directing.

Being on the board exposed me to USCF elections, a process that I found to be simultaneously bemusing and horrifying. After being publicly critical of the Ethics Committee's method of handling the Goichberg v. Dorsch case, I was appointed to the Ethics Committee, on which I served until last August, when, because of work and family situations, I felt unable to devote proper attention to the work. Other than a brief tenure on the by-laws committee, I have never served in any other USCF office or committee. I have never attended a Delegate meeting or National Scholastic event, so I have no personal relationships with any of the current political actors.

In 2005 I relocated for a new job. As a result, the nearest rated chess is well over an hour's drive away, so I haven't been able to play much chess, other than patzer chess on ICC.

As an attorney who has been tring civil cases for over 20 years, I have taken an interest in the various legal disputes that USCF has been embroiled in over the years.

I am sure I will be commenting later about the current legal clusterf***. I will simply note, at this point, I feel that Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar should resign for the good of USCF. It is also pretty well documented that I have also not been a big fan of Bill Goichberg over the years.

Good Day

2009-01-24T11:04:00.000-06:00

This blog is being started for a frank, but sane, discussion of USCF politics. It is being opened partially in response to the closing of ChessUSA.net. I will welcome posters with all points of view.

If anyone is interesting in having posting privileges on this blog, please contact me. If you wish to post pseudonimously, I will work with you as long as:

(a) I am aware of, and can verify, your true identity;

(b) You are not a USCF employee, EB member, or EB candidate;

(d) You are not bug-eyed crazy.

I, in my sole discretion, will determine if you meet these criteria.

I'm making this up as I go along, so additional criteria may evolve over time.

I want to encourage all points of view. I don't want to be a censor. I want a full-throated discussion. That said, it's my blog, and I reserve the right to act as editor.