Transcript of Hearing 4-13-09 before Judge Patel
Mr.Vidmar
4 THE CLERK: Calling civil 08-5126, United States Chess
5 Federation versus Susan Polgar et al.
6 THE COURT: May I have your appearances, please.
7 MR. KRONENBERGER: Good afternoon, your Honor. Karl
8 Kronenberger for the U.S. Chess Federation and Randy Hough,
9 plaintiffs.
10 THE COURT: Good afternoon.
11 MR. LEIGH: Good afternoon, your Honor. Whitney Leigh
12 for Susan Polgar. Also with me is Matt Springman, who is also
13 with my office. He's present in the courtroom.
14 THE COURT: Good afternoon.
15 Let me get all these papers out.
16 I don't know if you received a copy. I finally
17 went over the order that we were going to issue and -- and
18 got it out today with respect to the motion to amend.
19 And I don't know -- did you get a copy of it today?
20 MR. KRONENBERGER: Yes, your Honor.
21 THE COURT: Okay. And I think you can understand it.
22 So the motion to amend insofar as the answer is
23 concerned and theories that were being added to the answer
24 I've allowed, as well as the abuse of process claim.
25 And I went through quite a bit of consideration and
analysis with regard to the basis for supplemental
2 jurisdiction, and I think it's there, given this whole what I
3 call continuum of activities that have been going on that
4 relate to what you've got there in your complaint and
5 against -- there were other actions as well, but we're
6 talking only about what's filed here, and that continuum
7 going into, you know, what you're alleging with respect to
8 the abuse of process.
9 I don't think we need all these other allegations
10 about other things that may have happened at the board
11 meetings at other times in so far as they really are related
12 to the claim for abuse of process.
13 The breach of fiduciary duty I have more of a
14 problem with in terms of whether it states a claim, and so
15 I've told you what you need to do with respect to that if
16 you're going to assert that.
17 Now, the other matter that -- Mr. Alexander is not
18 here, so I will just put it on the record and not hear any
19 argument about it.
20 But I determined that there is personal
21 jurisdiction over Mr. Alexander, and that he's had enough --
22 given the nature of his activities on the Internet, or at
23 least what's alleged, because at this point we don't
24 determine the truth or falsity of the allegations in the
25 complaint. The question is whether or not those allegations
1 create a prima facie showing with respect to personal
2 jurisdiction.
3 And that he was involved in enough activities that
4 under the, you know, the effects test or the, you know -- in
5 the, you know, the Calder-type test it would not be
6 unreasonable to expect to be hailed into a court in
7 California where those activities would in fact to have some
8 cause and effect in that state.
9 So when we get out the issue on this motion to dismiss
10 a transfer -- well, it's actually a motion to transfer -- excuse
11 me -- and we will also include something on the motion to
12 dismiss with respect to Mr. Alexander.
13 But that brings us to the question of transfer, and
14 I'll get to that in a moment, but I'm very troubled by what's
15 going on here in this proliferation of lawsuits. There was one
16 in New York. That has been dismissed as I understand by Judge
17 Chin. There's one in another federal court.
18 Where is that?
19 MR. KRONENBERGER: In Illinois, your Honor.
20 THE COURT: In Illinois, and in a state court.
21 MR. KRONENBERGER: Actually, it's been removed to
22 federal court.
23 THE COURT: Where?
24 MR. KRONENBERGER: In Illinois.
25 THE COURT: In Illinois.
1 So they are both now before the same district
2 court? Or were they in different districts?
3 MR. LEIGH: No. There was only one state court case
4 in Illinois that has been removed. So the case -- it's the same
5 case that has been removed.
6 THE COURT: Oh, it's the same case?
7 MR. LEIGH: Yes. There's a separate action in Texas
8 that's also in Texas federal court.
9 THE COURT: Well, that's the one we're talking about,
10 and you want to transfer this one to Texas?
11 MR. LEIGH: That's correct.
12 THE COURT: So it's just the two of them, then -- just
13 the two actions -- one in Illinois and one in Texas?
14 MR. LEIGH: Yes. There also is a Pennsylvania action.
15 I expect that will be dismissed shortly.
16 THE COURT: Where is that pending?
17 MR. LEIGH: I believe in the Eastern District of
18 Pennsylvania.
19 MR. KRONENBERGER: I believe so.
20 THE COURT: Okay. And what's involved in that case?
21 MR. LEIGH: That involves -- I think it actually is
22 unrelated. It involved some allegations of another individual
23 against Ms. Polgar and other board members.
24 THE COURT: Is that person a member of the board also?
25 MR. LEIGH: No. I don't believe so.
1 THE COURT: Member? Just a member of the
2 organization?
3 MR. LEIGH: I believe he is just a member.
4 Mr. Kronenberger might be able to speak more closely to those
5 facts.
6 MR. KRONENBERGER: He is a member, your Honor. It
7 arises out of what's -- what people call the fake Sam Sloan
8 matter. He was one of the people who was impersonated.
9 Mr. Sloan was impersonated.
10 Mr. Parker who filed the action in Pennsylvania was
11 impersonated. Sloan filed in New York. Parker filed in
12 Pennsylvania. Sloan's action was dismissed for
13 jurisdictional reasons in New York. In Pennsylvania the
14 action is -- may be dismissed soon because he hasn't served
15 Mr. Truong.
16 MR. LEIGH: So, your Honor --
17 THE COURT: Yeah.
18 MR. LEIGH: -- one point that I would note that is,
19 the Texas action, we noted in our notice of related case, that
20 court described this case as a subset of the broader dispute
21 that's at issue in Texas. And there also are many more parties
22 involved, including Mr. Sloan who is at least attempting to
23 pursue some of his claims on that action as well.
24 THE COURT: Well, I --
25 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, I dispute that. I've
1 never seen that.
2 THE COURT: I don't care about that court's
3 characterization of this suit, et cetera.
4 But my -- I've a couple of threshold questions.
5 First of all, this organization, this federation, the
6 U.S. Federation is a member of an international federation;
7 correct?
8 MR. KRONENBERGER: Yes, your Honor.
9 THE COURT: Has the international federation been
10 involved at all in what's been going on?
11 MR. KRONENBERGER: No. Because there's really no
12 governance or control that the federation has over the U.S.
13 Chess Federation at all.
14 THE COURT: Well, they could -- I guess they could
15 kick the federation out as a member, could they not?
16 MR. KRONENBERGER: Well, I think the federation needs
17 to police itself, and at the delegates' meeting --
18 THE COURT: Well, I would agree, and I'm getting to
19 that in a moment.
20 But you're not policing yourself, you know. These
21 cases have multiplied through the courts. So I don't think
22 they are doing that.
23 But as I see the -- I took a look at the
24 international federation. You know, they have something they
25 call a -- it's not a manual, but essentially it's like a –
1 would essentially be their bylaws or their rules, et cetera,
2 and they do have the ability both to deal with problems as a
3 national federation or a regional federation. And also they
4 are members of what is a sports arbitration association,
5 where matters in dispute, at least in the international, can
6 be taken -- including organizational issues can be taken to
7 that arbitration panel.
8 But, you know, this is a membership organization.
9 And -- I don't know. I haven't seen any bylaws. I don't know
10 if the bylaws have some provision for resolving disputes.
11 MR. KRONENBERGER: They do not, your Honor.
12 THE COURT: But how does the organization -- how does
13 the organization have money to do what it does? Does this come
14 from membership fees?
15 MR. LEIGH: It does largely.
16 There also are -- as a separate entity that
17 actually owned a lot of property and that has donated
18 proceeds to the company, they had insurance. It may be that
19 they are losing that.
20 But with respect to bylaws, your Honor, the
21 board -- we actually have submitted those, and they do
22 expressly have means for resolving disputes like this.
23 For example, if there is an allegation of misconduct
24 by a board member, that board member can be removed either by
25 petition or by a vote of the board of delegates, and it's quite
1 express as to the procedures for how those allegations can be
2 adjudicated and who has the authority to do it, and it's only
3 the board of delegates.
4 In this case, the individuals who comprise those board
5 members who are seeking to remove Ms. Polgar and her husband
6 have used both of those procedures, and in both instances they
7 lost. They then filed these lawsuits without -- essentially by
8 ignoring the board -- the bylaws.
9 So there's no question -- and I can cite you the
10 provisions if you'd like me to -- that expressly provide for
11 how these disputes should have been resolved. The problem is
12 when the -- certain board members didn't get the result that
13 they liked they decided to just file the lawsuits all over
14 the country. That's what happened.
15 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, that is -- it's not
16 necessarily the case.
17 We attempted to go through the procedures.
18 However, the delegates, the controlling body of the
19 organization said it was too complicated for the delegates to
20 handle at a delegate meeting. That was a presentation that
21 I -- where I represented the executive board and the
22 federation and presented all the facts on this separate
23 matter, which is the fake Sam Sloan matter, to the delegates,
24 and they said, "It needs to go to court."
25 There were multiple people that stood up to my
1 face -- told me and the board who was standing behind me, "It
2 needs to go to court because it's too complicated."
3 Now, your Honor --
4 THE COURT: Well, the organization ought to come up
5 with some mechanism for resolving disputes that is one that they
6 can handle rather than putting in place or having bylaws a
7 mechanism that's so complicated that they can't handle it, if
8 that was, in fact, what was said.
9 But what seems to me that's happening is that this
10 organization is being torn apart, and I would be concerned if
11 I were you that at some point the international might just
12 kick you out and say, "Enough of this nonsense. You're
13 behaving badly."
14 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, from the federation's
15 perspective, and I think you should put yourself in the
16 federation's perspective back in June of last year, because the
17 Sloan litigation was being financed -- the defense was being
18 financed by insurance.
19 Back in June the board found out that someone had
20 hacked into its e-mail and was distributing attorney-client
21 privileged materials. Extremely disturbing. Most of them
22 were my e-mails -- highly confidential, privileged advice to
23 my client was stolen.
24 And at that point we had no choice, because the
25 only person to have possession of it was Ms. Polgar, and with
1 sort of a catch-me-if-you-can cavalier attitude she's waiving
2 the e-mails and saying, "I'm not going to tell you where we
3 got them."
4 We had no choice but to file the Doe action.
5 THE COURT: We're not going to go -- we're not going
6 to visit these issues now. I'm trying to see if there is some
7 way of salvaging -- first of all, I'm going to tell you one
8 thing also.
9 Doesn't this organization have an anti-nepotism
10 rule? I mean, it's one of the worst ideas in the world to
11 have spouses on the same board.
12 MR. KRONENBERGER: Absolutely. That was not disclosed
13 when they ran for the board is the problem.
14 THE COURT: No organization would generally allow that
15 to happen.
16 MR. LEIGH: Your Honor, if I could speak to a couple
17 of points.
18 First of all, Mr. Kronenberger indicated that their
19 marital relationship was not known. There's not true.
20 THE COURT: Well, even if it was --
21 MR. LEIGH: I understand the Court's point.
22 THE COURT: I mean, one of them ought to give up their
23 position.
24 MR. LEIGH: Yes. But I want to get to another point,
25 though, which I think is even more important, because
1 Mr. Kronenberger has made this assertion before, and it is not
2 true. He has said essentially that the reason why they filed
3 these lawsuits is certain people said, "This is too
4 complicated."
5 That is not -- first of all, he's never identified
6 it on any statement. He's essentially offering hearsay
7 statements that a few delegates said something to him, and
8 he's trying to transmute that into some sort of authorization
9 in a context where the -- how the rules are supposed to apply
10 is very clear.
11 And there was no vote where the board members said,
12 "Well, listen, if we can't do this will the board of
13 delegates vote to authorize us to resolve this through the
14 court because we can't resolve it individually?"
15 THE COURT: Well, you anticipate one of the questions
16 I was going to ask, and that is, was there a resolution by the
17 board authorizing this lawsuit?
18 MR. KRONENBERGER: Absolutely, your Honor.
19 MR. LEIGH: There was not.
20 THE COURT: Well, I would presume that if there is one
21 it would be in the minutes of the -- I presume they take minutes
22 or is that too optimistic?
23 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, we have a record of
24 everything, and we were actually going to be turning over things
25 in discovery before it was stayed. Of course, there was a vote.
Even if there was not a vote it's something that
2 could be ratified within an hour. It's just a non-issue.
3 THE COURT: No, no. It is an issue, because the
4 viability of this organization is important, and I'm sure there
5 are a lot of members out there who are concerned about what's
6 going on, how their money is being spent; and, you know, their
7 ability to compete, for example, worldwide may be affected. All
8 kinds of things can be affected by this behavior that's going
9 on.
10 So first of all I will tell you what I'm going to
11 do on the motion. But before I do that I think I may talk to
12 the judge in Texas, and I will -- I don't know if we need to
13 talk to the one in Illinois or not -- and everybody agree to
14 send this matter to mediation or some kind of arbitration.
15 And we have some very, very senior, experienced
16 people in the court's ADR panel who have had a lot of
17 experience doing mediating. They run the program here now,
18 but occasionally they do some of the mediation, and I think
19 that they would -- one of them, particularly Mr. Bolling
20 would have a lot of experience in terms of trying to mediate
21 something like this.
22 There's a couple of sports mediators. I know
23 somebody who was a dean of a law school back in New York who
24 mediates a lot of, you know, basketball, particularly, you
25 know, the NBA and things like that, and somebody who has got
1 some mediation experience to sit down with these people and
2 work out some sort of resolution.
3 Number one, husband and wife should not be on the
4 board, so one of them ought to resign. Number two, they ought
5 not to have all of this filing of lawsuits without an actual
6 resolution by whatever members of the board would have to vote
7 in favor of bringing such a lawsuit, and the first thing they
8 ought to do is save the organization's money and try to find a
9 way of -- you know, there are other ways besides filing
10 expensive lawsuits.
11 And I don't know if you're getting paid, but if
12 you're getting paid by them there may be some conflict in
13 your advising them what to do.
14 MR. LEIGH: Your Honor, if I could speak to that.
15 THE COURT: Yes.
16 MR. LEIGH: First of all, I can tell you that I've
17 looked at all of the minutes of the board, and the rules are
18 always very clear on this as well that -- how the board has to
19 act.
20 There has been no vote to approve any of these
21 lawsuits. That has never occurred.
22 In addition where there are -- as in this case, the
23 board members themselves are arguably interested in the action
24 since they are defendants in some of the lawsuits, and Ms.
25 Polgar is a defendant, the rules are that the board is to
1 appoint an independent counsel to evaluate and make a
2 determination.
3 That's also never occurred. What has occurred is
4 they've never -- and I think that could have brought some
5 sense to the procedure if they had gotten someone who wasn't
6 interested --
7 THE COURT: Is there any reason why you didn't bring a
8 motion to dismiss on the basis that they never obtained a
9 resolution; that they didn't have a right to bring this lawsuit?
10 MR. LEIGH: No, your Honor. There is -- that's a
11 motion that we anticipated bringing, but we are trying to
12 develop all the -- we haven't received all the minutes.
13 They've been insisting that these votes existed.
14 They haven't given them to us. But, of course, discovery was
15 stayed, and we've been trying to develop that.
16 We did articulate it in our ultra vires defense,
17 but we don't have all the information yet, because, although
18 Ms. Polgar has the right to -- all these meetings are
19 recorded. These are not just written down. They are
20 recorded. So this is not something that could be ambiguous.
21 Ms. Polgar has the right to that information. They
22 refuse to give it to her outside of discovery, and as the
23 Court knows, we discussed all discovery. So if we could get
24 that information turned over we would bring that motion, but
25 we were trying to develop the facts for it.
1 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, there was a vote. I
2 was there. It was on the phone and it was verified by e-mail.
3 There was a phone.
4 THE COURT: Then I think you need to have it in
5 writing. We need to have evidence of that, and so I'm going to
6 to order that you turn over any and all information -- minutes,
7 recordings -- whatever there may be that show that there was a
8 vote taken authorizing this particular action, since this is the
9 only one that's brought by the federation itself; right?
10 MR. KRONENBERGER: That's right.
11 THE COURT: Yeah, and provide that both to the Court
12 and to counsel.
13 In the meantime, I am going to refer you to
14 Mr. Bolling, who is the ADR -- one of the ADR officials here on
15 the Court, and who has got a lot of experience in mediating, and
16 have him, or if he has some other designee he would suggest,
17 meet with the attorneys in this case and in the other case and
18 see if you can come -- and are the attorneys the same in both
19 cases now?
20 MR. LEIGH: Well, I think it would be -- for Ms.
21 Polgar, she has Texas counsel and she has Illinois counsel.
22 She's going to be moving to transfer that matter to Texas,
23 because the Illinois case, in our view, is essentially a
24 duplication of the Texas claims. I'm sure they will oppose
25 that, but that case is –
1 THE COURT: Well, that doesn't preclude me from
2 talking to judges in both cases, and I will.
3 MR. LEIGH: Of course not. But they do have counsel.
4 THE COURT: Yeah.
5 MR. LEIGH: And I will get that information to the
6 Court. If that's what you're asking I can get you that
7 information.
8 THE COURT: Well -- and I think to try to have some --
9 and if they can join in and try to have some sort of global
10 resolution of this, because it's legally deleterious to the
11 organization as a whole. And I think the sooner it's resolved
12 the better.
13 And if that means some changes on the board,
14 because there are such clashes -- and I think that there
15 ought to be, you know, at least if not a nepotism rule there
16 ought to be some understanding that it's just inappropriate,
17 and it is -- it is a, you know, train wreck waiting to
18 happen.
19 MR. LEIGH: I understand.
20 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, I've spoken to Texas
21 counsel for the federation as well as Texas counsel for all the
22 other defendants, and they would be completely open to any form
23 of mediation.
24 THE COURT: Well, let's do that. But if that fails I
25 think this case has to go to Texas.
1 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor --
2 THE COURT: That's where everybody else is right now,
3 and it certainly -- the -- it's sounds to me like -- I think
4 that judge is right. Independently of what that judge may have
5 said, and that -- that is piece of the larger piece.
6 MR. KRONENBERGER: May I address that issue?
7 THE COURT: You can, but I don't think it's going to
8 do you much good. I've read the papers, and I think --
9 MR. KRONENBERGER: What the plaintiff --
10 THE COURT: -- you can't be in two places --
11 MR. KRONENBERGER: What the plaintiff --
12 THE COURT: -- and I think that, you know, the Texas
13 case is going to take precedence over this one.
14 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, this case was filed
15 first.
16 THE COURT: Well, only in a manner of speaking.
17 MR. KRONENBERGER: Actually, not according to case
18 law, your Honor.
19 THE COURT: Well --
20 MR. KRONENBERGER: Case law says it doesn't matter if
21 it was in state court first. It doesn't matter if it was a Doe
22 action.
23 THE COURT: That may be, but it was a Doe action, and
24 given that the very issue of the legitimacy of that filing is an
25 issue, I would not be willing to count it for the purposes of
1 which case got filed first.
2 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, according to the
3 Medtronic decision as well as --
4 THE COURT: I know Medtronic, but this is a unique
5 situation, and given what the nature of this action was before
6 it became an action in which you had real defendants, you had
7 Doe defendants, and you were trying to find out who to name in
8 this case according to your allegations. I know that's in
9 dispute. That's an issue. That's part of one of the claims
10 here, and the substance of the case is in Texas as well, so ---
11 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, would you please
12 explain that? Because from my perspective this is a hacking
13 case. Nowhere in the complaint in Texas does it mention
14 hacking. Nowhere in any of their correspondence have they ever
15 referenced it. They're completely different and distinct.
16 THE COURT: That's because, while the claims may be
17 different, they really are a part of a bigger picture -- a much
18 larger picture I think in terms of the disputes in this
19 organization, and those are just claims that are brought within
20 that context.
21 So that's the reason for it, and I'll issue an
22 order that will explain it all.
23 In the meantime, before doing that I would like to
24 see if we couldn't get this resolved.
25 Do you think there are any prospects of that?
1 MR. LEIGH: Your Honor, we actually have spoken to the
2 Court's ADR person, and I believe that Mr. Polgar and Mr.
3 Truong -- and this is very burdensome to them. They are paying
4 for it themselves. The answer is absolutely "yes." They would
5 be interested in mediation if there's a way to resolve this.
6 THE COURT: And where is it pending? In Illinois?
7 It's now in the federal court there?
8 MR. LEIGH: Yeah.
9 THE COURT: Is that in the Northern District of
10 Illinois?
11 MR. LEIGH: It is in the Northern District. That
12 is -- the issue of the removal I believe is being litigated
13 right now, so that has not been decided with finality.
14 THE COURT: I see.
15 MR. KRONENBERGER: But your Honor --
16 THE COURT: Maybe if we got you all together the
17 people who are involved here and the people who are involved in
18 the Texas case, at least those people, you could pretty much
19 settle whatever is going on in Illinois.
20 MR. KRONENBERGER: Absolutely, your Honor.
21 One of the issues that we were struggling with is
22 getting all the parties together, because there are a lot of
23 parties.
24 One thing I suggested was to have some of the core
25 parties attend personally, and then have others either attend
1 by phone or have powers of attorney signed where -- where,
2 you know, the federation can settle on their behalf. Because
3 there are a lot of parties that have actually nothing to do
4 with this hacking case that are named in Texas. So that was
5 something --
6 THE COURT: And will be named here if on the abuse
7 of -- well, I guess on the abuse of process suit as well?
8 MR. LEIGH: Not all of the parties, but the hacking
9 allegations are a part of the defamational allegation, which is
10 a part of the action in Texas.
11 One action, your Honor, I don't know if Mr. Bolling
12 has had contact with the mediation process in Texas, but since
13 the majority of the parties are there, that might be a forum
14 where you would have less trouble of getting the parties to
15 appear personally.
16 And I do think this is the kind of situation where
17 it might -- I'm not sure that having everybody there is going
18 to be helpful, frankly, given all the parties, but I think it
19 probably is necessary to get some resolution.
20 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, there are actually more
21 parties in California than in any other state. You have
22 Mr. Bognar, who's actually in court today. You have Mr. Hough.
23 And this is where the federation elected to sue on the hacking
24 case. There's a very sophisticated ADR program in the Northern
25 District of California. I would rather keep it there.
THE COURT: That I know. That I know. But some of
2 them are from Tennessee as I understood.
3 MR. KRONENBERGER: That's right. But that's the
4 federation, and they are willing to come to California
5 obviously.
6 THE COURT: Now, in terms of people who've either been
7 sued in Texas or are sued here or about to be sued, are they on
8 something called the executive board?
9 MR. LEIGH: There are several parties. There is
10 Mr. Sloan, who is a former member of the executive board. There
11 are also entities related to some of the executive board
12 members.
13 I know the Court has indicated some concern about
14 the -- having board members that are married. One other
15 problem I think with this board is you have board members who
16 engage in sort of closed transactions; essentially do a lot
17 of business with the USCF. That's another problem they
18 haven't addressed, and that -- some of those entities which
19 are essentially --
20 THE COURT: Not arm's length transactions?
21 MR. LEIGH: Not at all arm's length.
22 THE COURT: Well, I see this organization needs some
23 shaping up.
24 MR. KRONENBERGER: I agree, your Honor. I think the
25 bylaws –
1 THE COURT: No more coziness and all this kind of
2 stuff, and little cozy groups here, and, you know, some of them
3 happen to sleep with each other, probably. We know. The
4 husband and wife -- presumably they do. I'm only making certain
5 assumptions. So it's all a little too cozy.
6 MR. KRONENBERGER: Well, I agree, your Honor, the
7 bylaws need to be revamped. There should be an arbitration
8 clause in the bylaws. That would have involved all of this.
9 But keep in mind the federation didn't know it was
10 a board member they were suing when they filed the Doe
11 action. They didn't know and -- and --
12 THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to get into that,
13 because I know there's an issue there. And, you know, at least
14 there's a contention there's an issue.
15 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor --
16 THE COURT: How many of these people are members of --
17 I assume there are -- let me back up.
18 There's a board and then an executive committee of
19 the board?
20 MR. KRONENBERGER: There's -- the board is called "the
21 executive board."
22 THE COURT: So the entire board is the executive
23 board.
24 MR. KRONENBERGER: That's right. And then there are
25 150 people that are the body of the delegates.
1 There was a litigation committee that was created
2 when there were allegations made against Ms. Polgar and Mr.
3 Truong that were all the executive board members except
4 Polgar and Truong.
5 And the purpose of that was to engage in
6 confidential conversations, because Mr. Sloan sued everybody,
7 and there was a report that said Truong was behind the
8 misconduct. So because of that conflict the board created a
9 litigation committee for confidentiality.
10 It is that litigation committee that has taken a
11 lot of the action approving lawsuits. It constitutes a
12 majority of the executive board approving lawsuits, engaging
13 in conversations with me -- attorney-client privilege
14 conversations. It's that litigation committee that's the key
15 body for decision making on a lot of these issues you're
16 bringing up, your Honor.
17 MR. LEIGH: Your Honor, if I could just comment
18 briefly on that?
19 THE COURT: Yeah.
20 MR. LEIGH: The description of that as a litigation
21 committee is I think not accurate.
22 This was -- Mr. Kronenberger was originally
23 retained to investigate two things: The allegations of the
24 fake Sam Sloan allegations, but also the invasion of several
25 members' e-mail by an individual named Brian Mottershead.
1 One of the primary victims of that behavior, which
2 the UCSF found was a violation and was in fact an invasion of
3 his e-mail, was Mr. Gregory Alexander, who Mr. Kronenberger
4 and the UCSF are now suing. So there was two points.
5 Secondly, this was not -- and I've spoken with other
6 board members, okay, who will affirm, if we get the documents
7 and bring our motion that the litigation committee was not
8 formed with any authority to issue lawsuits and the executive
9 board never voted to give them that.
10 So what you have here --
11 THE COURT: We'll have to take a look at all of those
12 documents, but also, who selected the litigation committee? Was
13 it a self-selecting body or was it everybody other than --
14 MR. KRONENBERGER: There's a record in the minutes.
15 There's a record in the minutes, your Honor. It was -- the
16 executive board voted to create the committee --
17 THE COURT: How many people are on the committee?
18 MR. KRONENBERGER: There were -- there are four.
19 There were five, and then one board member resigned.
20 MR. LEIGH: Your Honor --
21 THE COURT: Hold on just a minute.
22 And how many members are on the executive board?
23 MR. KRONENBERGER: Right now six, because there is
24 usually seven.
25 THE COURT: On the executive board?
1 MR. KRONENBERGER: That's right. There's usually
2 seven, but Mr. Channing resigned. So now it's four members in
3 the -- in the --
4 THE COURT: And we have -- two of them are defendants
5 in this lawsuit?
6 MR. KRONENBERGER: That's right. So it's -- the vote
7 is four to two right now.
8 THE COURT: Is Mr. Alexander an executive board
9 member?
10 MR. KRONENBERGER: He's not.
11 THE COURT: He is just a member of the organization.
12 MR. LEIGH: He's just a member of the organization.
13 He was a volunteer.
14 Your Honor, there is -- I -- I want to just come back
15 to the issue of the independent counsel, because I know you've
16 talked about the multiplication of the lawsuits.
17 This has been quite burdensome to Ms. Polgar, and
18 one of the provisions of the bylaws -- it calls for
19 indemnification. All of the other members, they basically
20 voted -- the four that brought the lawsuit have voted to
21 indemnify themselves through their insurance for any
22 cross-claims. So they are really not paying -- they are not
23 feeling it the way Ms. Polgar is.
24 She has a right to indemnification, or at least to
25 have that determined by independent counsel. We've asked
them to make that determination. Mr. Kronenberger has told
2 me there is independent counsel supposedly that's been
3 appointed, but for months he's refused to tell me who it is.
4 So the only person now that's making a
5 determination as to whether or not Ms. Polgar has the right
6 to indemnification for the claims here, which the Court's
7 already seen how thin they really are, is Mr. Kronenberger,
8 which is completely unfair, because as much as he might try
9 to be fair he's not in the position to do that impartially.
10 THE COURT: Uh-huh. I don't know if I said that the
11 allegations are thin.
12 MR. KRONENBERGER: That's why indemnification is so
13 absurd. She hacks in -- she engages in a criminal act and she
14 wants to be indemnified for it. It's absurd.
15 THE COURT: Well, but still an independent counsel
16 will have to make that determination --
17 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, we have Illinois
18 counsel on all these corporate issues. I'm not involved --
19 THE COURT: And who is that?
20 MR. KRONENBERGER: It's David Herman. He's the
21 attorney who is litigating the allegation in Illinois.
22 THE COURT: Is he on the board?
23 MR. KRONENBERGER: No. He's not an independent
24 counsel. The independent counsel is an option that the
25 federation can take if they chose to to evaluate the
1 indemnification claim.
2 There is no judgment here. It's completely
3 premature to talk about indemnification.
4 THE COURT: No, it's not if, in fact, you're entitled
5 to indemnification. You need to know whether or not you're
6 going to have counsel representing you or if your attorney's
7 fees are going to be paid or whatever.
8 MR. KRONENBERGER: The opinion of counsel -- the
9 federation's counsel on corporate issues in Illinois -- this is
10 under Illinois law -- is that it's premature. However, it's in
11 their hands.
12 And this whole independent counsel thing -- it's an
13 option the federation may take, or it may go right to the
14 delegates and have the delegates vote on it. But the thing
15 is, the delegates only meet twice a year so --
16 THE COURT: It seems to me that those are things that
17 the board -- if it is a board that is properly constituted and
18 is fair and unbiased they should be able to determine it.
19 The problem is that with all the problems this
20 board is having -- I don't know.
21 Is there anybody on that board who is fair and
22 unbiased, or who isn't in one camp or the other?
23 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, I don't see any
24 problems at all. You view this as what you called a "food
25 fight." The problem with that is it is accepting the
1 characterization of Ms. Polgar.
2 THE COURT: I didn't call it a food fight. It does
3 have the overtones of that, but there's a lot of emotion
4 involved.
5 Well, I tell you what I'm going to do. I'm going
6 to refer it to Mr. Bowling, and I'm going to talk to the
7 judge in Texas and talk to the judge in Illinois, too.
8 But I think that I would leave it to Mr. Bolling to
9 meet with you and find out -- Who are the members of the
10 boards? Who is being sued? Who would be the parties? Who
11 would be the persons best to have available either in person
12 or by phone for a mediation?
13 And you may have to have one round of mediation
14 just to figure some of that out and to essentially set up the
15 protocol for the mediation, and then let him determine --
16 'cause that's his field of expertise -- what should happen:
17 Who should be there? How should it be structured? How much
18 of this can be included in it? And also, you know, in the
19 discussion of settlement -- all of the cases.
20 And also trying to find out if there isn't some way
21 as part of this resolution of amending some of the bylaws to
22 make sure that there are ways of resolving these kinds of
23 disputes in the future, and also trying to minimize the
24 friction among various board members that is apparently is
25 going on.
1 It's got to be a not very pleasant session to have
2 a board meeting with this bunch.
3 MR. KRONENBERGER: Well, Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong --
4 usually they just won't attend.
5 It's not that bad from the perspective --
6 THE COURT: What's the point of having them as board
7 members?
8 MR. LEIGH: That's exactly -- your Honor, that's not
9 true. I don't want to -- we're getting fair afield. But I
10 would say one thing.
11 Mr. Kronenberger expressly told me on two occasions
12 that independent counsel had been hired and retained, and I
13 haven't heard a clear answer from the Court -- and this is
14 important because we need to get -- they may have an
15 opinion -- the board members who are involved in the fight
16 should not be making that determination, and the rules
17 provide for just this kind of situation. They say you have
18 to have independent counsel. It's not a discretionary issue.
19 And he won't tell me who it is.
20 THE COURT: Okay. Number one, where are -- the
21 bylaws -- are they part -- you said they've been submitted?
22 MR. LEIGH: Yes, they have, your Honor.
23 THE COURT: What exhibit number are they?
24 MR. LEIGH: Just a minute.
25 THE COURT: In the meantime, I guess you would be the
1 repository, or have access to this information.
2 But the information that we talked about earlier
3 about the minutes of the board resolutions, whatever, that
4 authorize the bringing of this lawsuit and matters related to
5 that -- any matters that the board took up in connection with
6 that, those need to be provided to counsel and to me.
7 And then also provide him with a copy of the name
8 and address and phone number, et cetera, of the attorney in
9 Illinois that is supposed to either be the independent
10 counsel or be the point person --
11 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, there is no independent
12 counsel.
13 THE COURT: -- in determining -- well, for the person
14 that you referred to who is supposed to determine whether
15 someone gets independent counsel.
16 MR. KRONENBERGER: If I was misunderstood, I
17 apologize. I said that the federation has counsel. It does not
18 have the independent counsel under the bylaws. That counsel is
19 Mr. Herman in Illinois. He's making, advising --
20 THE COURT: "That counsel" being not independent
21 counsel but counsel for the organization.
22 MR. KRONENBERGER: That's right.
23 THE COURT: Do you know who Mr. Herman is?
24 MR. LEIGH: I do, your Honor. But I'm a little
25 frustrated because I think -- I feel somewhat misled.
1 But putting that aside, this is a typical
2 reservation of rights situation in my view. A truly
3 independent counsel I think would see that.
4 THE COURT: Why don't you talk with Mr. Herman?
5 MR. LEIGH: All right. I will do that right away,
6 your Honor.
7 THE COURT: And find out what he has say about getting
8 an independent counsel and when that's triggered, et cetera,
9 according to his understanding.
10 MR. LEIGH: Yes, your Honor.
11 THE COURT: In the meantime, I am going to -- before
12 taking any action with regard to transferring this case, I'm
13 going to talk to Mr. Bolling and have him -- either him or
14 someone that he selects -- because I think this is a unique kind
15 of situation. It's not your typical mediation or settlement
16 conference -- and have him either do it or select someone who
17 might have some relevant experience that would be helpful in
18 trying to get all of this settled before you all spend the
19 organization's money and the board members' money unnecessarily.
20 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, I agree that we want to
21 get this wrapped up.
22 I must say, though, that the harm is self-inflicted
23 by Ms. Polgar. She sued in Texas.
24 THE COURT: I'm not going --
25 MR. KRONENBERGER: She made the decision -- after she
1 had notice of this lawsuit she made the decision. She's
2 incurring those fees. That's her decision. And the federation
3 should not have to answer to her.
4 THE COURT: I'm not even talking about that now. I'm
5 talking about trying to resolve the whole thing.
6 MR. KRONENBERGER: Yes, your Honor.
7 Regarding deadlines for ADR, you know, we have
8 spoken --
9 THE COURT: All deadlines are vacated. We're going to
10 handle it -- you know, Mr. Bolling will be in touch with you.
11 MR. KRONENBERGER: Okay.
12 THE COURT: We'll go from there; okay?
13 With respect to discovery, I think you should go
14 ahead with the discovery, 'cause you're going to have to do
15 it either here or there -- wherever you are, and certainly
16 with respect to the things we just talked about with respect
17 to this lawsuit but other discovery as well. I think you
18 might as well go ahead with it. Except no depositions until
19 we have a discovery plan, but request for documents, requests
20 for production, interrogatories. No requests for admission,
21 but a reasonable number of interrogatories. These you may go
22 ahead with; okay?
23 MR. LEIGH: Your Honor --
24 THE COURT: And depositions only with leave of Court
25 and after we have had a discovery plan –
1 MR. LEIGH: Your Honor, that's fine. I guess -- can I
2 make one --
3 THE COURT: -- or if you have one there, depending on
4 where you are.
5 MR. LEIGH: Yes, yes. One request, though.
6 I think the Court may well dismiss the case
7 after -- and it looks like we don't have the bylaws, but we
8 will be doing that. And so I'd like to, if I could --
9 THE COURT: Then you submit the bylaws to me. Make
10 sure that you both agree that those are the existing bylaws.
11 Give me only extant. I don't want historical records.
12 MR. LEIGH: All right. We'll get to those to you by
13 the end of the week.
14 THE COURT: The items I've discussed with you -- to
15 get to each other by Friday.
16 MR. LEIGH: Okay. Your Honor, in that case, if we are
17 going to bring our motion to dismiss could we limit discovery to
18 that until after that motion is heard?
19 If the case is going to get -- I think there is a
20 good -- a very good reason for that to be heard, and we've
21 already responded to a bunch of discovery. We've -- and I'm
22 anticipating --
23 THE COURT: Well, we still have the other lawsuit.
24 I'm going to let discovery go forward, because it's been stayed
25 for a while now but with those limations.
1 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, with requests that are
2 outstanding, can we set a deadline for the parties to respond;
3 say, ten days?
4 THE COURT: Ten days, two weeks; is that reasonable?
5 MR. KRONENBERGER: I'd like ten days if we could.
6 MR. LEIGH: I think we've already responded. I think
7 we owe some verifications, but other than that the --
8 MR. KRONENBERGER: Mr. Alexander --
9 THE COURT: Mr. Alexander. Yes. Well, he's pro se.
10 Within two weeks.
11 MR. KRONENBERGER: Two weeks.
12 THE COURT: And we'll notify you in the meantime.
13 What is your next court date in Texas?
14 MR. LEIGH: I don't know, your Honor, actually.
15 With respect to Mr. Alexander, because he's in pro
16 se -- the Court may recall there have been references to
17 criminal proceedings, in the -- in our view in an effort to
18 initiate them. He's already been -- there's already been
19 some at least effort to do that.
20 The Court earlier noted that because of that potential
21 in the event that he -- that the Court denies his motion that he
22 might actually be moving to stay the proceedings, so -- and also
23 to express some concern about him responding to discovery.
24 THE COURT: He filed his papers earlier. We'll let
25 him take care of himself.
1 MR. LEIGH: I just mean with respect to the two-week
2 deadline. It think it might make sense to give him a little
3 more time.
4 THE COURT: Well, we can ask him for an extension.
5 MR. LEIGH: Okay. Thank you.
6 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, one last thing
7 regarding discovery.
8 There are a number of subpoenas that we'd like to
9 meet and confer about and then serve.
10 THE COURT: Third parties, I'm assuming; right?
11 MR. KRONENBERGER: That's right.
12 MR. LEIGH: Your Honor, with respect to --
13 THE COURT: Well, meet and confer.
14 MR. LEIGH: We can, your Honor.
15 THE COURT: Try to come to some agreement on them, and
16 be reasonable in terms of time, because keep in mind that some
17 of this is going to come to the surface anyway in the Texas
18 case, so it's not as if what you do here is for naught.
19 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, one final matter -- I
20 promise, the final matter.
21 There's a designation that Mr. Leigh put on a lot
22 of documents -- thousands -- of "attorneys' eyes only," and
23 he -- I guess he filed a motion to unseal a couple of
24 documents with the Court, but there are still thousands of
25 documents that are AEO, and I can't have my client review
1 them in order to prepare for -- to analyze it.
2 I'd like to know if we could get some movement on
3 that. It's --
4 MR. LEIGH: Your Honor, if I could speak to that.
5 I'm glad he raised that because -- and this is the
6 issue that I wanted to raise is that Mr. Kronenberger has
7 obtained discovery that the breadth of it we're just starting
8 to figure out. And it is so broad, and the information he
9 has is so invasive of the privacy rights of hundreds of
10 individuals who have no notice of the fact that he's reading
11 their private messages right now we need to present the Court
12 with a motion to quash and to return some of these materials.
13 There's black letter law addressing this issue.
14 THE COURT: What are these? These are e-mails between
15 members of the board and --
16 MR. LEIGH: Ms. Polgar maintains a private blog for
17 individuals who want to sign up to communicate with each other,
18 and you have to register. Some of these messages are quote,
19 "private messages," which are a higher level of privacy.
20 Mr. Kronenberger issued a subpoena and got the
21 entire -- all the text messages, everything from the whole
22 domain.
23 THE COURT: From where?
24 MR. LEIGH: From I believe -- Crystal Tech is one of
25 the companies, but he's issued subpoenas all over the place, and
they are so broad.
2 Ms. Polgar has an obligation, because these are
3 people who have signed up for her board privately, and he
4 issued a subpoena essentially that got all of these e-mails
5 having nothing to do with Ms. Polgar. And we need to get
6 these returned and to notify the people --
7 THE COURT: What is this? Getting all e-mails?
8 Getting all e-mails?
9 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, this exact issue was
10 litigated in Texas in a motion to quash and it was denied. It's
11 all -- the information is in now in the case in Texas -- all of
12 it.
13 We have offered to treat as AEO any third party
14 communications and discuss them. And it's not hundreds of
15 people. I don't -- it's primarily --
16 THE COURT: Well, first of all, is this being
17 litigated in Texas already?
18 MR. LEIGH: I don't believe that it has, your Honor.
19 I don't believe that that's accurate. This has not been raised
20 --
21 MR. KRONENBERGER: Your Honor, I can tell you the
22 chronology.
23 THE COURT: I want you to meet and confer, and you
24 better show each other whatever -- well --
25 MR. KRONENBERGER: Everything has been turned over –
1 THE COURT: -- if you have orders from the Texas court
2 then show them to him.
3 MR. LEIGH: He's referring to entire -- separate --
4 he's talking about the subpoenas that he issued to himself --
5 not the subpoenas I'm talking about.
6 MR. KRONENBERGER: That's right.
7 MR. LEIGH: If the Court will recall
8 Mr. Kronenberger's own attorney issued --
9 THE COURT: You understood what he's talking about.
10 These are the third parties for essentially anything and
11 everything I guess that Ms. Polgar has generated or received.
12 MR. KRONENBERGER: It's primarily public messages on a
13 public message board, Chessdiscussion.com. And we handed
14 everything over in initial disclosures, and we then received the
15 subpoena according to procedure we agreed upon. I received a
16 subpoena from counsel in the Texas action, handed it over, or
17 gave notice to the other side and said, "File your motion to
18 quash or I'm going to hand it over."
19 They filed a motion to quash. Counsel in Texas
20 opposed it. The judge said, "no." He's going to deny the
21 motion. They're negotiating a protective order now.
22 What we propose is that we just negotiate.
23 THE COURT: Why don't you become a part of that
24 protective order and negotiate it? And you better talk to the
25 counsel in Texas also.
1 MR. LEIGH: I will, your Honor.
2 THE COURT: And then sign on to the protective order
3 that's agreed to. And I'm not going to entertain any motions
4 here for discovery. You've got to make an attempt to work this
5 out.
6 MR. LEIGH: Your Honor, I'm happy to try to work it
7 out, your Honor. He's referring to really a separate subpoena.
8 THE COURT: Well, he's talking about apples and you're
9 talking about oranges, and you meet and you talk about the
10 apples and the oranges and anything in between.
11 MR. KRONENBERGER: It's a disk.
12 MR. LEIGH: Okay.
13 MR. KRONENBERGER: It's one disk. It's one DVD.
14 That's what we're talking about.
15 THE COURT: Okay. Well, then, you can sit down and
16 resolve that? You need to talk with each other, and you need to
17 talk to the attorney in Texas, and you need to turn over
18 whatever you've --
19 MR. KRONENBERGER: We have. We've turned over
20 everything.
21 THE COURT: -- you've received that's in response to
22 the third party subpoena.
23 MR. KRONENBERGER: We did. We gave them everything.
24 THE COURT: Well, meet and confer.
25 MR. KRONENBERGER: He immediately designated the
1 entire disk as AEO. I can't have my client look at it, because
2 we need to negotiate and take -- there's maybe one percent --
3 THE COURT: Sit down and work out a protective order,
4 and then go through these things and what is subject to a
5 protective order, and try to sign on to the same protective
6 order they have in Texas. That's it.
7 MR. LEIGH: Your Honor --
8 THE COURT: That's it. I'm not going to preside over
9 your silly discovery disputes. That, you ought to be able to
10 work out.
11 MR. KRONENBERGER: Yes, your Honor.
12 THE COURT: You need to work very hard. You need to
13 learn to work together.
14 MR. LEIGH: I will work very hard to do so. The only
15 thing is --
16 THE COURT: This has nothing to do with the merits of
17 the case. This has to do with getting to the merits, and I
18 don't want to spend a lot of time on that; okay?
19 So I'll give you two weeks to sit down and get that
20 resolved and sign on to a protective order.
21 MR. KRONENBERGER: The protective order hasn't been
22 entered yet in Texas. They're just talking about it --
23 THE COURT: Well, then, you can draft your own
24 protective order.
25 MR. KRONENBERGER: We have one in this case. We have
1 one in this case.
2 THE COURT: Okay. Well --
3 MR. LEIGH: Your Honor, what I'm hoping is we can work
4 out a narrowing and returning of the information, because Ms.
5 Polgar has an obligation to all of these members, and this -- a
6 protective order to delimit discovery is one thing. It doesn't
7 stop him from continuing to have information totally unrelated
8 to the case. For individuals --
9 THE COURT: You would have to determine -- one would
10 have to determine what is related and what is not related --
11 MR. LEIGH: And that's fine --
12 THE COURT: And that's why who you meet and confer --
13 MR. LEIGH: I will do that.
14 THE COURT: -- to figure out what really is related
15 and what isn't.
16 But I'm not sitting here and going through a bunch
17 of e-mails and saying, "yes, no, yes, no"; okay? I mean,
18 you've got to be kidding.
19 All right. That's your job.
20 MR. KRONENBERGER: Should -- could you set a deadline
21 of two weeks for us to work that out?
22 THE COURT: Two weeks to work that out and to get -- I
23 don't care if you use a Texas protective order. I want you to
24 sign on to that one also.
25 Also, get something worked out here if what you
1 have is a protective order right now is not sufficient, and
2 then you show him to the extent that you have not already
3 showed him or provided to him all of these e-mails that have
4 been received, and figure out how they can be handled and
5 what really should be attorneys' eyes only and what should be
6 available to other persons, other parties.
7 I hope they are not showing up on the Internet
8 somewhere other than where they have already shown up.
9 MR. KRONENBERGER: I must say I was very careful with
10 that disk and I didn't show it to my client. I didn't show it
11 to anybody until I received the subpoena, and I gave a copy to
12 both counsel in Texas; to counsel for Ms. Polgar and counsel for
13 the federation.
14 THE COURT: Okay. That's fine. So, you know -- but
15 you understand the tenor of all of this?
16 MR. KRONENBERGER: I do.
17 THE COURT: What you're not entitled to that you got
18 just by virtue of having subpoenaed a third party you give back.
19 MR. KRONENBERGER: And frankly, we're not interested
20 in the --
21 THE COURT: If it's not relevant to the dispute at
22 hand then you give it back.
23 MR. KRONENBERGER: We're open to that, your Honor. It
24 doesn't help us anyway --
25 THE COURT: You can sit down in any room together, not
1 on the phone -- in person, face-to-face and work this out; okay?
2 It's amazing how much you can work out when you do
3 that. I know he's the enemy, but --
4 MR. LEIGH: Hope springs eternal.
5 THE COURT: There seems to be a new mood in the air
6 out there about talking to the enemy now; right? So you got to
7 do that. Both of you. Okay.
8 Now, what -- the other items we talked about
9 earlier with regard to the minutes, resolutions, et cetera,
10 bylaws -- all of that, get that in to each other and to me by
11 Friday, and then working out the details regarding some of
12 this discovery -- these discovery problems two weeks from
13 today, which would be April the 27th.
14 And in the meantime I will talk to Mr. Bolling;
15 okay? And you'll hear from probably Mr. Bolling directly or
16 my courtroom deputy, Mr. Bowser. Okay. Thank you.
17 MR. KRONENBERGER: Thank you.
18 MR. LEIGH: Your Honor, we also have a motion to
19 dismiss on for today -- Ms. Polgar's motion to dismiss the
20 claims -- the complaint.
21 THE COURT: Well, if anything, they are going to be
22 transferred, not dismissed.
23 MR. LEIGH: Okay. Would the Court -- would that be
24 without ruling on them or -- Texas counsel certainly can argue.
25 If that could be put over for that, that's fine.
1 THE COURT: We'll issue an order when that time comes,
2 but right now we're going to try to get this thing resolved. So
3 I'm going to hang it over your head.
4 MR. LEIGH: Okay.
5 (The proceedings concluded at 3:15 p.m.)
samsloan
regular delegates were there. Their seats were often filled with
ringers. The issues had all been explained in the Delegate's Call but
it was obvious that few delegates had read it. Many delegates remarked
that they had never heard of this issue before. I was especially
shocked by Bob Holliman, a former candidate for USCF President, who
said "the first time I ever heard about this is today".
Issues quite familiar to us who have been debating this for the last
one and a half years were new to the delegates.
Then there was Susan Polgar, who spoke at length saying that it was
all "nonsense". She defended the fact that she kept her marriage a
secret to Truong for as long as she did. She said, "Irina Krush got
married, Anna Zontinskih got married, Rusiko Goletiani got married,
nobody made a big issue over it. Why are they making an issue over the
fact that I got married?"
There was an obvious answer to this question, but nobody said
anything.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
ringers, I believe that who seated the alternates was in the notes.
Now, by convention I know first hand we try to seat our Texas
Alternates first, and if we still need to fill a seat we would seat
one of our friends from Oklahoma. We follow the rules, and I belive so
do the rest of the Delegates and Alternates.[/quote]
I am not complaining or saying that something improper was done.
However, at the delegates meeting the previous year, the 2007 meeting
in Cherry Hill NJ, I knew every person in the meeting room. At the
previous meeting, 2006 in Chicago, I knew every person in the room but
one. That one person was tanstaafl here, who had been seated by Grant
Perks as an anti-Sam Sloan delegate from Ohio, who had fled the
meeting room even before the meeting had started so that it could not
been questioned.
Since tanstaafl had been posting here anonymously up until that time
(check the archives for proof of this) we had no idea that his real
name was Herbert Rodney Vaughn, and he proceeded to tie up the
delegates meeting with his long-winded anti-Sam Sloan diatribes.
By contrast, at the 2008 meeting the room was filed with people I had
never seen before, people who had never attended a delegates meeting
previously and who had no knowledge of the issues that were common
knowledge to the regular delegates.
Sam Sloan
Rob
Sam Sloan
samsloan
covering up a posting unfavorable to his patron, the Trollgars.
Meanwhile, Rob the Robber has started again posting unwanted emails to
my fide-chess Yahoo group.
Sam Sloan
Rob
> On Apr 17, 1:51 pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sam Sloan
Slimy Sloon is delusional again. He like to make things up when no one
pays attention to him. ANd I am not trying to protect anyone. I am
just trying to minimize your "noise" in the newsgroup. Too bad you
stay up North.
help bot
> Slimy Sloon is delusional again. He like to make things up when no one
> pays attention to him. ANd I am not trying to protect anyone. I am
> just trying to minimize your "noise" in the newsgroup. Too bad you
> stay up North.
I will advise the Committee of your pro bono
work to reduce the "noise" level in the chess
newsgroups, and once again request that
your efforts be properly rewarded. In this
regard, can you help me out by helping to
silence other noisy nitwits, not just Mr. Sloan?
You see, if the Committee gets the impres-
sion that you are on a /personal vendetta/,
they will never agree to pay you, for they are
cheap b*stards (but they are OUR cheap
b*stards)! Targeting one specific individual
(even Sam Sloan) renders your actions less
palatable than if you were to thrash all those
who are deserving equally, without regard to
such things as race, creed, USCF rating or
looks (it does /appear/ that you have singled
out poor Mr. Sloan because of his, shall we
say, homeliness).
Once again, don't get your hopes up-- the
Committee is reputed to refuse to even pay
for a stamp, if they can hand-deliver an
envelope or send a series of faxes for free.
Regular meetings are often held at the local
McDonalds, to which half of them walk and
the other half carpool in a 1967 VW Beetle... .
-- help bot
samsloan
transcript as posted to lead off this topic. The attorneys have not
yet submitted the minutes and/or the passed motion from the EB that
authorized the Does lawsuit?? Are you kidding me? I'm suprised the
Judge didn't toss the whole thing out right there! What happened?
Did the "committee" make that decision, and then just assume it's a
Board motion as well, because a majority already voted for it? Please
tell me that's not the case.....[/quote]
It does not require a motion from the board to file a lawsuit. For
example, the USCF under Cavallo sued Richard Peterson over the 1999
National Elementary Championship without any vote by the board.
Corporations file lawsuits all the time without votes by their boards.
Any individual USCF member represented by counsel can file suit to
remove the entire board. It is called a derivative suit and is
essentially the nature of my own suit.
I believe that the argument by Susan Polgar's attorney that the suit
is invalid because Susan did not vote on it to be rejected by the
courts. He has cited no case law in support of his contention.
Sam Sloan
Rob
SLimy SLoan has no assets to be lost in a lawsuit. He lives off social
security. SHould those records be shared in this forum? I am sure
someone has that data and will make it public. Right Marcus?
None
>
> - Show quoted text -
Social Security is based on your lifetime earned income.
Not something Sam had much of. Probalby 6-700
a month is all he gets,
Rob
Exactly correct. Now what he gets for his child and wife Is open to
conjecture. Food stamps may feed them and the State provides his
daughters health insurance. A pity he cannont support his own family.
He relies on the public charity to provide.
Slimy Sloan:
ugly shriveled up sack of dung beetle juice.
You are a stalker and a liar and teller of half truths
samsloan
Rob the Robber fails to address the question posted by Professor Dr.
Bot, which is:
"Anyway, stop being so petty and jealous, it makes it look as if you
wish that /you/ could be as famous and important and amazing and
fantastic as he is. I am beginning to wonder if there might be a
technical term for someone who follows one of the rich and famous
around and heckles and harasses him compulsively. Something from the
realm of psychology, I mean."
" -- help bot"
So, what is the proper psychological term to describe the malady
suffered by Mr. Rob the Robber?
Rob
SLimy Sloan
Ugly shriveled up sack of dung beetle juice.
Mike Murray
wrote:
Flooding the newsgroups with these repetitive childish posts insults
your own image more than Sloan's. I'm serious. Either find some
clever zingers (to amuse, if not enlighten, the rest of us) to zap him
with, or sit on your hands until the urge to post passes. This stuff
makes you look like a cross between Pee Wee Herman and a well-known
ambassador.
Rob
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 06:52:22 -0700 (PDT), Rob <robmt...@gmail.com>
Until he stops cross posting stupid crap to every newsgroup out there,
I will continue. Actuallt I wish he would confine his rants to his own
yahoo group.
I doubt anyone cares about who Slimy Sloan is suing.
But he will spam all anyway.
But if l act together,whether crass or real clever,
Mayby Slimy Sloan will go away
But if we tolerate him instead of berate him
These news groups will never get better
So all must decide if they fight him or hide
Because if you do nothing he stays.
Mike Murray
wrote:
>So all must decide if they fight him or hide
>Because if you do nothing he stays.
You're missing the point, Rob. I have nothing against your fighting
Sloan. But if you do it, do it well. Make us chuckle. Make him
blush. Don't just smear feces on the wall.
Rob
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 07:52:28 -0700 (PDT), Rob <robmt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So all must decide if they fight him or hide
> >Because if you do nothing he stays.
>
> You're missing the point, Rob. I have nothing against your fighting
> Sloan. But if you do it, do it well. Make us chuckle. Make him
> blush. Don't just smear feces on the wall.
Didn't you like my rhyme?
I doubt anyone cares
who Sloan is suing.
But he will spam all anyway.
But if l act together,
whether crass or real clever,
Maybe Slimy Sloan
will go away
But if we tolerate him
instead of berate him
These news groups will never get better
So all must decide i
Mike Murray
wrote:
>On Apr 19, 10:09 am, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
It's the right idea. Can't say I find it especially memorable, but de
gustibus...
Now, if you post it multiple times in multiple threads, you get
flogged.
The Historian
> On Sun, 19 Apr 2009 07:52:28 -0700 (PDT), Rob <robmt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >So all must decide if they fight him or hide
> >Because if you do nothing he stays.
>
> You're missing the point, Rob. I have nothing against your fighting
> Sloan. But if you do it, do it well. Make us chuckle. Make him
> blush. Don't just smear feces on the wall.
Consider who is his mentor in on-line behavior. You are asking a lot.
Rob
wrote:
Neil, I have no mentor. I fly solo. :-)
Mike Murray
<nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
>J.A. Laugherty wrote...
>((hosed))
>Mike Murray wrote...
>From someone whose idea of a good time is fucking his own mother, one
>can only wonder what would raise a ''chuckle''. Mike Murray is a
>worthless louse whose very existence is an affront to humanity!
See the risk Rob? You post garbage and people will start thinking
you're as dumb as Nomen Nescio, who, with all the time in the world,
comes up with this "creative" insult or zinger. Pretty pathetic,
don't you think?
Of course, they won't think you're a gutless anonymouse like he is,
since you post under your own name.
But why risk being confused with such pond scum? You're better than
that.
Rob
Perhaps We all should simply stop posting to any thread the TARBABY,
Slimy Sloan, creates?
samsloan
>
> read more »
I wish Rob the Robber would stop covering up this transcript by
changing the name.
Sam Sloan