Flores Finale

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

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.

1. 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."
2. 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

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

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

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:

1. Feels Hall's summaries have been measured while providing accurate and fair updates;
2. Points out Goichberg can post what he wishes on his site;
3. Refers to semantics and legalese in response to who sued first;
4. With respect to the settlement offer made by Polgar, concedes it is accurate and yet misleading. He concedes she does not want to bankrupt the USCF and yet delves into personal opinions and analysis to disprove his concession;
5. Regarding Alexander's pleading, Wick discounts it as sloppy and points out the redacted material only proves Polgar did not have an anonymizer account fails to exonerate Alexander; and
6. With respect to the failed attempt to remove Truong and the alleged bribery, he asserts it fails to deliver the quid pro quo.

As previously mentioned, it was not my intent to cover all the intricacies of any one case or the sum of cases. Rather, my objective is to briefly raise some issues that are conveniently being omitted from updates, reports and mail-outs to the membership.

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

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

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

1. USCF's Illinois Complaint filed on December 29, 2009, reads; "Between November 26, 2007 and June 24, 2008, with full knowledge that Polgar and her husband were under investigation by the USCF, Polgar and an accomplice unlawfully accessed the e-mail account of Excutive Board member Randall Hough (hereinafter "Hough") at least 111 times." They claim they did not know the identities at the time of the initial filing but I am not buying it.
2. On November 17, 2008, Goichberg issued the following statement: "Susan Polgar has sued the United States Chess Federation in a lawsuit styled Susan Polgar v. United States of America Chess Federation, Inc., et al.; cause no. 5:08-cv-00169-C; in the United States District Court, Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division. Ms. Polgar filed the lawsuit and served many of the volunteer USCF board members while they attended the USCF annual convention in Dallas, Texas in August 2008. Notwithstanding the fact that they were attending the USCF meeting as part of their official duties, four Executive Board members, another delegate, and the Executive Director were individually named and served while they were in Texas. Consequently, Ms. Polgar caused the initial lawsuit to be filed against the USCF and these other defendants. Ms. Polgar gave no advance warning of the lawsuit..." It is well documented Polgar has come short of begging for the Goichberg gang to cease and desist in the interest of the USCF, all the way leading up to the delegates meeting and since.
3. Alexander's Pleading filed January 12, 2009, reads; "Actually, I spoke to Bill Hall before I switched on the IP addresses. Goichberg has also been involved in discussions. The discussion was not about my switching on the IP addresses; I decided to do that on my o[w]n after speaking to Hall. The information I had prior to doing that was already quite persuasive, and both Hall and Goichberg are quite eager to have the FRG/FSS character out of the USCF. Hall encouraged me to develop more information to strengthen the case, and to file an Ethics complaint. I am encouraged by this..." 'Develop more information'!? Messrs Goichberg, Hall and Kroenenberger have been 'developing' information from 2007 and this practise continues today in order to eliminate Goichberg enemies." Yet, Goichberg and gang continue to deny any wrongdoing or vendettas.
4. Finally, I use an analogy to make my final point as to why Goichberg should not be trusted. When faced with the dilemma of who to give the baby to, King Solomon asked a soldier to cut the baby in half so each woman can have a part of him. The real mother pleaded not to harm the baby but instead give it to the other woman. The "fake" mother agreed to the detestable act. Similarly, Polgar has held that an open and complete investigation by independent parties and if the evidence shows they have committed any wrongdoing they would resign. On the other hand, if evidence shows the Goichberg and gang committed the wrongdoing, they should resign. The "fake mother" would much rather harm the "baby" than tell the truth.

Point 4. The offer of the settlement is public record and I believe remains on the table still today. The fact he is hiding behind his fiduciary duty to the members is crap - the members he has failed and whose privacy he allegedly violated?!

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

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

Sec. 36.02. Bribery.

1. A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly offers, confers, or agrees to confer on another, or solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from another:

• any benefit as consideration for the recipient's decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official, or voter;
• any benefit as consideration for the recipient's decision, vote, recommendation, or other exercise of official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding; or
• any benefit as consideration for a violation of a duty imposed by law on a public servant or party official.
  

1. It is no defense to prosecution under this section that a person whom the actor sought to influence was not qualified to act in the desired way whether because he had not yet assumed office or he lacked jurisdiction or for any other reason.
2. It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the benefit is not offered or conferred or that the benefit is not solicited or accepted until after:

• the decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion has occurred; or
• the public servant ceases...etc.

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

In conclusion, I would like to be able to address several other issues but I have dedicated more time to this than I like to - it has taken away from some other very important issues. I leave you with the following questions:

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

I beseech all USCF members and delegates to carefully consider their votes and make your decisions in the interest of saving the USCF.

Thank you for your indulgence and kind attention

John B. Flores
USCF Litigation
USCF Executive Board Endorsements

USCF Delegate Proposals In Search of a Delegate

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

1) Correspondence Chess

Posted at the USCF Issues Forum

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

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.