Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Polgar Raises the Stakes

Skip to first unread message


Mar 17, 2009, 11:28:35 AM3/17/09
Polgar Raises the Stakes

Those who are thinking that the court cases between Polgar and the
USCF are close to settlement have not read the latest Polgar amended
complaint filed yesterday, March 16, 2009, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division in
Polgar vs. USCF, 5:08-cv-00169-C.

The amended complaint is filled with nonsense claims by Polgar,
apparently made without regard to whether they are true or not or
whether Polgar can prove them or not. It is obvious that she and her
counsel are just making claims so that they can establish the
jurisdiction of the court, so as to increase her bargaining position
with regard to the very serious charges that are pending or being
investigated against her.

In addition, her complaint alleges things that happened years before
Polgar first came to America or which had nothing to do with her. Her
complaint is filled with paranoid, delusional and completely false
allegations. For example:

In paragraph 28, Polgar states, “Defendants Goichberg, Hanken and
Hough used these tactics and succeeded when Grandmaster Larry Evans
ran for election to the Executive Board in 1992.”

This is not true at all. Grandmaster Larry Evans has never run for
election. If he had run for election, he would have been elected
easily as he is one of the most popular personalities in the world of
chess. Also, Polgar first came to America years later and the 1992
election had no impact on her.

In paragraph 27, she complains that the USCF Executive Board failed to
award to Sevan Muradian his five-year bid to hold the US Game in 30
Championship in Chicago, because of “conflict of interest” by
Goichberg. In reality, Sevan Muradian's bid was completely
unacceptable for several reasons. First, the USCF does not accept five-
year bids. The USCF has had a lot of problems with organizers who bid
for events and then are unable to hold the event after the bid has
been awarded. To have awarded the bid to a new and untested organizer
like Sevan Muradian for a new event like the Game in 30 Championship
for a five year period would have been asking for trouble. Secondly,
national tournaments are supposed to be rotated around the country,
with different cities receiving the opportunity to host the event. If
this new event had been awarded to Chicago for a five year period, it
would have caused an outrage among other chess organizers around the
country. Sevan Muradian should have been satisfied to be awarded the
event for just oner year and then, based on his performance, he could
have hoped to be awarded it for another year.

Susan Polgar keeps saying as in paragraph 23 that she has been a
“Superstar” for 35 the last years. Since she is 40 years old, she is
claiming that she has been a Superstar since she was five years old.
This is utter nonsense. The first anybody ever heard of her was when
she was a teenager.

She states in paragraph 47 that she is currently ranked among the top
three rated women in the world. Not true. She has not even been on the
rating list for many years. If her old rating were restored, she would
still not be in the top three.

She also states in paragraph 47 that she was passed over to play in
the First Mind Sports Olympic Games in Beijing China. Not true. The
reason she was not invited is she has not played in many years and she
previously stated, “I will never represent the United States again.”
Then, when she complained that she had been passed over, she was
immediately invited to play. I was present at the USCF Executive Board
meeting in August 2008 where I told her myself that she was invited to
play in the October event and USCF President Bill Goichberg said the
same thing. Polgar then replied that she could not play because, “I am
too weak”. I hope that the video of this has been preserved where
Polgar said “I am too weak”, so that we can play it at the trial.

In paragraphs 47-48, Polgar complains that the USCF has refused to
advertise her “Susan Polgar National Open Championship for Girls” and
her “Susan Polgar National Chess Challenge for Boys”. Polgar has been
told repeatedly that she is not allowed to use the term “National” to
advertise her private for-profit events. The term “National” is only
allowed to be used for a few major long established events that in
most cases are owned by the USCF. When the USCF holds the National
Scholastic Championships, it regularly gets four to five thousand
players. Susan Polgar's latest event only got 37 players. Susan is
trying to trick players into thinking that her 37 player event is the
same as the 4,000 to 5,000 player event that the USCF holds. I know of
one case where a little girl in the New York Area traveled to Texas to
participate in a Polgar event and was surprised and deeply
disappointed to find that she was almost the only girl there, whereas
on the same weekend she could have participated in a much bigger event
with many times more players her age.

In paragraph 25, Polgar claims that the USCF refused to publish on the
cover of Chess Life a picture of her team of which she was the leader.
Another ridiculous allegation. The Polgar team finished second. Teams
who finish second do not get their pictures on the cover of magazines.
Getting a cover picture on Chess Life or any other magazine is a rare
privilege to which nobody has a right. In addition, there have been a
lot of complaints about the fact that a picture of Polgar appeared in
almost every issue of Chess Life over a two year period, when she was
not even actively playing chess. Polgar is a publicity hound who has
posed for tens of thousands, possibly millions of pictures and tries
to get her her name and her picture published everywhere she can. One
might rightly call her “The Madonna of World Chess”. Now, the one time
when Chess Life failed to publish her picture on the cover, she claims
that this is part of a conspiracy against her.

In Paragraph 25, Polgar complains that Goichberg showed his “ill will”
towards Polgar by canceling in 2004 her Woman's Team Olympiad Training
program. Another absurd allegation. Polgar was demanding to be paid
$50,000 to train the Woman's Olympiad Team. The USCF did not have the
money, plus some of the Olympiad players who are rivals of Susan
Polgar objected to being trained by her and complained that her
training consisted of Paul Truong telling them what to do during their
menstrual periods. Goichberg had a choice, make a deal with Polgar
where the USCF would pay money to Polgar, or make a deal with the
Kasparov Chess Foundation where the Kasparov Chess Foundation would
both pay money to the USCF and the team members would be trained by
the Real World Champion, Garry Kasparov. Which deal was better?

Also in paragraph 25, she complains that the USCF reneged on a
contract to pay her team bonuses. I am informed and believe that there
was no such contract. I have been trying for the past five years since
2004 to obtain a copy of this contract, of there is one. I call upon
her to produce this contract. If she cannot produce one, I think the
courts should consider sanctions. In addition, she publicly waived the
right to receive this money. I am informed that her team got paid
double. The Woman's Team was not sponsored by the USCF. The Kasparov
Chess Foundation paid the team, and then Polgar demanded to be paid a
second time for the same thing by the USCF. The Kasparov Chess
Foundation has since stated that it wants no further dealings with
Polgar. “We will not sit at the same table with Polgar” is an exact
quote of an official of the Kasparov Chess Foundation.

In paragraph 31, she complains that Mottershead “illegally accessed
Alexander's account on the USCF Forums”. We sure are glad she is
making this allegation. This ties her directly to Alexander through
her own words. At a hearing before Judge Marilyn Patel held on
February 23, 2009 in the USCF vs. Polgar. Gregory Alexander informed
the court that the United States Secret Service is investigating his
links to Polgar and has executed a search warrant in which the Secret
Service confiscated his computer. The allegation they are
investigating is that Alexander and Polgar hacked into Randy Hough's
Yahoo email account 111 times. Since then, Polgar has been claiming
that she barely knows Alexander, but now this allegation on paragraph
31 establishes a link between Alexander and Polgar. Also, Mottershead
was the Administrator of the USCF website, so he had every right to
access the account of anybody with an account on the website.

In paragraph 34, she complains about an allegedly defamatory blogspot.
I had never seen nor heard about this blogspot until I read this today
and I doubt that any of the other defendants have either. (I will not
provide the URL of this blogspot here, because then everybody will
look at it.) It is completely inactive and has only received two
comments since 2006. I must conclude that Susan Polgar welcomes the
attention that this blogspot will bring if people will look at, and
therefore she cites it in this pleading in order to bring attention to

Polgar complains that Goichberg opposed her for election. This is not
true. In fact, I have the opposite complaint. Not only did Goichberg
support her in the initial stages, but he rigged the election in her
favor by appointing pro-Polgar and anti-Sam Sloan moderators to the
USCF Issues Forum, including Herbert Rodney Vaughn, Gregory Alexander,
Tim Sawmiller and Terry Winchester as moderators or Forum Oversight
Committee members. For this reason, any anti-Polgar posting was pulled
from public view. For example, any posting that asked Polgar and
Truong whether they were married to each other or not was pulled.
Truong was allowed to say that he was fabulously wealthy and
successful, having rescued and saved many “multibillion dollar
companies” and nobody was allowed to question it. It is true that late
in the campaign, Goichberg turned against them and send a mildly
worded postcard to 17,000 players, but he did that only after Polgar
started attacking Goichberg on her blogspot.

The court directed the filing of this amended complaint so that Polgar
could establish the jurisdiction of Texas over out-of-state defendants
like Bogner, Lafferty, Motterhead and the Chess Magnet School. Her
allegations as to that are that Bogner spoke to somebody in Texas,
Lafferty spoke to newspaper reporters in Texas and Mottershead issued
the Mottershead Report which negatively affected Polgar, even though
Mottershead never came to Texas.

I do not think that these allegations are sufficient. In the first
place, the Mottershead Report said nothing about Polgar. It only spoke
of Truong.

I doubt that speaking to a newspaper reporter on the telephone, as
Lafferty allegedly did, or speaking to somebody in person, as Bogner
allegedly did, is enough to establish the jurisdiction of the court
over those persons, especially since there is no allegation as to what
they said. It is Hornbook Law that in order to sustain a complaint for
libel or slander one must allege the EXACT WORDS spoken or written.
Except for citing newsgroup postings by Lafferty, the Polgar complaint
never states which words, either spoken by Mottershead or Bogner or
published in the newspapers she complains about, which include the
Lubbock Avalanche Journal, The Daily Toreador Texas Tech Campus
newspaper or the New York Times, were defamatory. Consequently, I
anticipate that her complaints against those persons will be
dismissed. Indeed, her complaint is weak as to all of the defendants,
not only Mottershead, Lafferty and Bogner.

Sam Sloan

Mar 17, 2009, 12:49:18 PM3/17/09
Oh, oh, oh. USCF is in deep doodoo now. USCF has no way of remedying
all these past offenses. Woe is USCF. I hope USCF doesn't get all
hysterical over it.

David Ames


Mar 17, 2009, 3:04:35 PM3/17/09
The order of Judge Cummings dated

"(2) Plaintiff SHALL FILE an amended pleading in conformity with this
order and
setting forth the bases for jurisdiction and venue over Defendants
Lafferty, Mottershead, Bogner,
and Chess Magnet, LLC on or before 3:00 p.m. March 16, 2009;"

The pertinant part of that order states:

"Although Plaintiff’s state court Petition meets the Rule 8(a) liberal
notice pleading requirements (see infra), the generic use of the term
“Defendants” does little to enlighten the Court as to the jurisdictional
basis for Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants Lafferty,
Mottershead, Bogner, and Chess Magnet, LLC. Likewise, it is unclear to
the Court whether venue is proper as to these respective Defendants
based upon Plaintiff’s sparse state court
Petition. Accordingly, Plaintiff SHALL FILE an amended pleading setting
forth the bases for jurisdiction and venue over Defendants Lafferty,
Mottershead, Bogner, and Chess Magnet, LLC. Plaintiff’s amended pleading
shall conform to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local
Rules of this Court. Plaintiff’s amended pleading shall be due on or
before 3:00 p.m. on March 16, 2009. Thus, the respective Motions to
Dismiss filed pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and
(3) by Defendants Lafferty, Mottershead, Bogner, and Chess Magnet are
DENIED, without prejudice to re-filing following the filing of
Plaintiff’s amended pleading."

Polgar never asked the court for leave to file an amended complaint as
to all of the parties, nor did she ask for leave to file an amended
complaint with additional allegations other than as related to
jurisdiction and venue over the foreign defendants.


Mar 20, 2009, 10:21:27 PM3/20/09
"Mr.Vidmar" <> wrote in
> pertinant

Admit it, Laugherty, you weren't too hot at writing parking tickets.

What "pertinance" do past $11.2M transfers have to the present? None.
You are out of your depth and sinking fast, and that is "pertinant".


Mar 23, 2009, 4:55:33 PM3/23/09

I didn't write this.

- Danny Purvis


Mar 23, 2009, 6:51:11 PM3/23/09

Oops. Now we have a Fake Danny Purvis.

See below:

Subject: Re: Polgar Raises the Stakes
From: DannyPurvis <>
Massage-ID: <83449b59-3c2c-438d-92e9->
X-Trace: 1237302343 915 (17 Mar 2009
21:47:16 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:47:16 -0700 (PDT)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Old-X-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:47:16 -0700 PDT
Injection-Info:; posting-
host=; posting-account=Ib3K5woAAABP2b-B28mF4frWrf_0ANFt
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT
5.1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
311390 alt.chess:298157
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 2009 03:21:27 +0100

help bot

Mar 23, 2009, 7:25:04 PM3/23/09
On Mar 23, 6:51 pm, samsloan <> wrote:

> > > Admit it, Laugherty, you weren't too hot at writing parking tickets.
> > > What "pertinance" do past $11.2M transfers have to the present?  None.
> > > You are out of your depth and sinking fast, and that is "pertinant".
> > I didn't write this.
> > - Danny Purvis

> Oops. Now we have a Fake Danny Purvis.

Any theories on how this may somehow
relate to attempts to keep you from getting
elected to the board?

Look at the key elements: being out of
one's depth, sinking fast, parking tickets;
are these not all clear jabs at Mr. Sloan?

I tried rearranging the letters "dannypurvis"
to somehow get "samsloan". If you use
standard cryptology methods and back up
each letter by fourteen (the median age of
Mr. Sloan's girlfriends) spots, it comes out

What's more, $11.2 million is the exact
amount Mr. Sloan was paid for his stock
brokerage business when he was forced
to sell it. Clearly then, BG and his gang
must be behind this latest conspiracy.

Why can't everyone just stay out of this
election business and let Mr. Sloan sweep
it, as he naturally would, on the basis of

-- help bot


Mar 24, 2009, 8:18:33 AM3/24/09
On Mar 23, 7:25 pm, help bot <> wrote:

>   Look at the key elements: being out of
> one's depth, sinking fast, parking tickets;
> are these not all clear jabs at Mr. Sloan?

The parking tickets jab has nothing to do with me once being a taxi
driver. It pertains to Brian Lafferty's previous career as an NYC
Administrative Law Judge, although he claims that he was never a
parking tickets judge but rather that he was a judge pertaining to
heavy equipment.

Sam Sloan


Mar 24, 2009, 10:51:08 AM3/24/09

Mmmm, it's unusual for a judge to spell 'pertinent' wrong - 'course, it
might've been a simple error, but for the follow-on dolt to compound the
wrongness bespeaks the desired level as well below basic..


0 new messages