The Race for Executive Board

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

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?

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?

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.

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

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!

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.