Notice to Court, Lubbock, Texas
MrVidmar
NOTICE TO THE COURT OF TENTATIVE, POSSIBLE, PARTIAL SETTLEMENT
Plaintiff, Susan Polgar, and Brian Lafferty, Brian Mottershead, Hal
Bogner, Karl S. Kronenberger, Kronenberger Burgoyne, LLP, Continental
Chess Incorporated, United States of America Chess Federation, Inc.,
Bill Goichberg, James Berry, Randy Bauer, Randall Hough, and Bill Hall
(all Defendants except Sam Sloan and Gregory Alexander) file this Notice
to the Court and respectfully show unto the Court as follows:
1. Daniel Bowling and Robin Siefkin are mediators appointed by the
California court have continued to assist the parties in trying to
resolve this matter. Plaintiff and these Defendants disagree with the
statements recently made by Sam Sloan with regard to his recent court
filing regarding mediation and/or settlement issues.
2. Plaintiff and these Defendants have reached a tentative, possible
oral settlement. Plaintiff and these Defendants all consent that this
Court can contact the mediators to confirm such facts.
3. The parties have exchanged proposed settlement documents and are
trying to agree on specific language in the settlement documents. The
parties have agreed to postpone the discovery deadline as seen by the
attached Exhibit A to allow the parties to have additional time to try
to finalize the possible settlement. Assuming the settlement finalizes
and the settlement documents are executed, the only remaining claims
would be by and between Plaintiff and Sam Sloan and the USCF and Gregory
Alexander (regarding the claims that had been transferred from the
California proceeding). The possible, anticipated settlement would
settle all claims in the Illinois proceeding as well as the vast
majority of the claims in the California proceeding that was transferred
to this proceeding.
4. Plaintiff and these Defendants believe that if the Court makes
rulings on any pending motions, it could complicate the respective
attempts to finalize the settlement. Consequently, Plaintiff and these
Defendants request that this Court not make any rulings at this time
and/or formally or informally abate the case to see if the settlement
can be finalized.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff and these Defendants wanted
to make this Court aware of these facts, and Plaintiff and Defendants
request that this Court not make any rulings at this time and/or
formally or informally abate the case to see if the settlement can be
finalized.
Respectfully submitted,
William P. Huttenbach
Federal I.D. No. 21742
State Bar No. 24002330
Forsythe
> NOTICE TO THE COURT OF TENTATIVE, POSSIBLE, PARTIAL SETTLEMENT
>
> Plaintiff, Susan Polgar, and Brian Lafferty, Brian Mottershead, Hal
> Bogner, Karl S. Kronenberger, Kronenberger Burgoyne, LLP, Continental
> Chess Incorporated, United States of America Chess Federation, Inc.,
> Bill Goichberg, James Berry, Randy Bauer, Randall Hough, and Bill Hall
> (all Defendants except Sam Sloan and Gregory Alexander) file this Notice
> to the Court and respectfully show unto the Court as follows:
>
Weird, the USCF is at a level they have to make a deal before they go
bankrupt. In the end, the USCF comes out as the losers. The USCF has
very little amount of money left. With Polgar and Truong, they are
still very young. Their supporters are still very young. With
Goichberg, and his supporters, they should be thinking of updating
their wills and living wills.
How to take care of the Goichberg supporters, just let the years pass.
How to take care of the Sloan supporters, just let the years pass.
samsloan
Polgar and Truong will almost certainly want to be reinstated as USCF
members and put back on the board.
Do the defendants even have the authority to agree to this?
The mediators want the terms of any settlement to be kept confidential
and secret "forever". How is this possible, since it involves an
organization with 80,000 members?
Sam Sloan
MrVidmar
system, you are amazingly ignorant and ill informed.
samsloan
> 4. Plaintiff and these Defendants believe that if the Court makes
> rulings on any pending motions, it could complicate the respective
> attempts to finalize the settlement. Consequently, Plaintiff and these
> Defendants request that this Court not make any rulings at this time
> and/or formally or informally abate the case to see if the settlement
> can be finalized.
>
> WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff and these Defendants wanted
> to make this Court aware of these facts, and Plaintiff and Defendants
> request that this Court not make any rulings at this time and/or
> formally or informally abate the case to see if the settlement can be
> finalized.
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> William P. Huttenbach
> Federal I.D. No. 21742
> State Bar No. 24002330
I cannot understand the logic behind this. Right now, the USCF has
several motions for summary judgment filed and pending. If any one of
these motions are granted that will end the litigation because it will
result in a large judgment in favor of the USCF that Polgar and Truong
will be unwilling or unable to pay.
So, why tell the judge to stop considering these motions? It would
cost the USCF nothing just to sit and wait while the judge decides
these motions. If we win, the case is over. Only if we lose will we
need to contemplate the costs of going to trial.
Sam Sloan
MrVidmar
to know anyway.
samsloan
would not be legal but political. Many Delegates will want to know
what we got for our $500,000 and why the Federation took such an
aggressive stance with countersuits in San Francisco and Chicago.
That's another matter.
I, too, contributed to the legal defense fund. We will just have to
wait and see.
Cordially,
Tim Redman[/quote]
Mr. Redman, while we may have "always operated with the understanding
that matters of litigation and personnel could be kept confidential by
the Executive Board.", there is a critical missing component of that
"understanding" and that is that the delegates are the directors of
the corporation, not the EB members. Also, Mr. Winston's previous
"explanations" as to what ratifying the actions of the EB mean was not
quite the same as the explanation which we garnered in this past year.
However, I agree with the part about waiting and seeing.
Donna Alarie [/quote]
I disagree with the "wait and see" attitude. The attorneys, the judges
and especially the mediators must be told now in no uncertain terms
that the settlement cannot be kept secret from the 125 delegates and,
even if the current 125 delegates all agree to keep it secret, the
next board and the next delegates will want to know and they cannot be
bound by any such agreement.
If we "wait and see" now, it will be too late when the secret deal
with Polgar is made.
Where is Jerry Hanken when we need him? "Secret Deals" were not his
forte.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
EB should not be able to decide on their own etc.. Actually, in the
absence of a fairly soon summary judgment, I am in favor of
settlement.
It sems to me that proceeding, with (1) a secret agreement and (2)
voted upon by Board members having an obvious conflict of interest,
has questionable validity and potentially could cause serious problems
down the line. I therefore suggest:
We ask the judge if a possibility for a summary judgment prior to
trial is possible and if we can't get a positive reply, we, because of
financial hardship, call an emergency delegates meeting with an eye to
ratify a proposed settlement.
Don Schultz[/b][/i][/quote]
We know that summary judgment before trial is possible because at
least five motions for summary judgment are pending now, except that
the USCF's attorney just asked the judge to suspend consideration of
these motions.
In addition, there are motions pending to compel Polgar and Truong to
answer questions they have been refusing to answer, including
questions about whether they were "The Fake Sam Sloan".
We know that if compelled to answer they will not answer and therefore
we will win the case by default.
This is why is makes no sense to ask the judge to suspend
consideration of the pending motions.
Sam Sloan
None
I'd tell you, but you aren't in our joint defense group and have no
need
to know anyway. --BL
So if you told him then you would have to kill him. That's how I read
that. I'm okay with that. Go ahead and tell him.
MrVidmar
samsloan
emergency and no need to call an emergency meeting. At Irvine, the
delegates will as usual be asked to ratify that the Board had the
right to take the actions that it did, and approval of this
ratification motion will have the same legal effect that earlier
approval at a special meeting would. A special delegates meeting
would, in addition to possibly not having a quorum, be a waste of time
and money.
Bill Goichberg[/quote]
Bill Goichberg misses the point, or at least pretends to.
The proposal to hold a special meeting of delegates, most likely at
the World Amateur Team Championships scheduled to be held February
13-15, 2010 in Parsippany, New Jersey, would not be for the routine
annual measure of ratifying the actions of the board. Rather, it would
be for the purpose of demanding to know what the settlement deal is
and, if necessary, for the purpose of overturning the actions of the
board in agreeing to this settlement and thereby sending the case to
trial.
It has been pointed out that you personally are one of the main
targets of the Polgar lawsuit and therefore there is a conflict of
interest and you and the other named defendants should not be allowed
to vote on the question of whether the USCF should accept this
settlement.
The delegates will demand to know why the USCF has spent $600,000 on
this litigation and then suddenly settles in a way that completely
vindicates and benefits Polgar.
Sam Sloan