Declaration of Susan Polgar
MrVidmar
REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
I, Susan Polgar, declare and state as follows:
1. I am a defendant in the present case. The matters set forth herein
are within my personal knowledge and if called and sworn as a witness, I
could competently testify thereto.
2. Attached as Exhibit A is a July 23, 2009 posting by Brian Lafferty on
the Google chess discussion forum.
3. In previous filings in this proceeding, I have thoroughly refuted
plaintiffs' allegations under oath in several declarations. See for
example Docket No. 81.
4. I have also testified in deposition over two days refuting the same.
5. My appeal of the Board's vote to revoke my membership to the USCF
will be heard next month at the USCF Board of Delegates Meeting.
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of
California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on July 23,
2009 at San Francisco, California
/s/ Susan Polgar
-------------------------------------
Wow!
The Historian
I haven't seen any notice of Susan Polgar's membership in the USCF
being revoked. Does the EB have the power to revoke memberships? And
if they do, does that automatically boot her from the EB?
MrVidmar
board's decision.
I do hope that Whitney Leigh notices that I am posting Polgar's filings
as well as those of the USCF. If Mr. Leigh has a filing that I haven't
posted that he specifically wants me to post, all he has to do is send
it along to me with a nice note. :-)
jkh001
USCF Bylaws, Article III:
"Section 12. Revocation of Membership. The Executive Board,
subject to the provisions of Article III, Section 12, may revoke
or suspend the membership of any member for good cause.
...
"Section 13. Revocation of Membership or Affiliation. In the
event that the Executive Board shall revoke or suspend the
membership of an individual or affiliate ... it shall, prior to taking
such action, give to the individual or affiliate 30 days written
notice of the proposed action. Within said time said individual
or affiliate may submit in writing to the Executive
Board reasons why such actions should not be taken. The
Executive Board may thereafter, if it sees fit, act upon the
written suggestion or set a date for a hearing to be held at or
prior to the next Annual Meeting of the Federation, but before
the meeting of the Board of Delegates. Any person or affiliate
aggrieved by any action of the Executive Board may appeal to
the Board of Delegates at the said Annual Meeting if the
action is taken at the said meeting, or at the next meeting of
the Board of Delegates. The Board shall affirm, reverse, or
modify the action of the Executive Board."
Whether suspension/revocation of membership automatically a removes
one from the EB is an interesting question on which you can get
differing legal opinions.
asca...@aol.com
Should we not just admit the bribing controversy and mark it off
against whatever involvement Susan Polgar had with that guy with the
emails in Washington?
Should we not just call it even and get on with it?
The insiders really want to get rid of Susan Polgar that badly? That
is just crazy.
She will be on every talk show in America and USCF will again look
small and stupid.
Who would speak on behalf of USCF? Goichberg? Hanken? The Weasel?
Somehow, USCF missed the cable revolution and we have never had a
television show.
Now we are about to screw over the best publicity machine since
"Searching for Bobby Fischer".
Just nuts.
Richard Peterson
On Jul 25, 1:08 pm, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> if they do, does that automatically boot her from the EB?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The Historian
> Could USCF possibly be that stupid?
> Should we not just admit the bribing controversy and mark it off
> against whatever involvement Susan Polgar had with that guy with the
> emails in Washington?
Except the 'bribing controversy' is no more than Polgar blowing smoke
from some orifice or other. The emails matter is now, pardon the
expression, a Federal case.
> Should we not just call it even and get on with it?
>
> The insiders really want to get rid of Susan Polgar that badly? That
> is just crazy.
I'm not a USCF member, let alone an insider, and I think Norma Tweed
Polgar and her consort should be off the EB. I realize you probably
consider her a kindred soul, and thus feel differently.
> She will be on every talk show in America and USCF will again look
> small and stupid.
Why isn't she on them now?
> Who would speak on behalf of USCF? Goichberg? Hanken? The Weasel?
Why does USCF need someone to speak for them? Assuming the host of one
of these alleged talk shows that have Ms. Polgar as a guest has more
brains than, say, Innes, there's no need for a USCF spokesman. I can't
see The Daily Show , for example, having Polgar on and NOT asking
questions she would find uncomfortable.
Wick
> Could USCF possibly be that stupid?
> Should we not just admit the bribing controversy and mark it off
> against whatever involvement Susan Polgar had with that guy with the
> emails in Washington?
False equivalence. The "bribing controversy" is missing an essential
element of a "bribe", a quid pro quo. There has been no evidence
whatsoever of a quid pro quo.
Secondly, the "bribery controversy" is nothing but a red herring in
Polgar's Texas suit, because Polgar can never, ever, ever, prove any
damage to her from the alleged "bribe." USCF can prove damage for
having its private emails stolen.
> Should we not just call it even and get on with it?
>
The things aren't even, and calling them so would not make it so.
Personally, and I can only speak for myself, I would be fine with an
"everyone takes their toys and go home" settlement, provided that
Truong resigns from the board. If Truong stays on the board, then
USCF would be facing the possibility of a further wave of lawsuits
which would put the current crop to shame.
> The insiders really want to get rid of Susan Polgar that badly? That
> is just crazy.
Personally, and I am hardly an insider, I would prefer that Ms. Polgar
stay on the board if she were willing to decouple herself from her
husband. She has shown excellent abilities for publicity,
sponsorship, and fundraising, and I would be delighted if she
channeled those aptitudes constructively. She has not.
Unfortunately, she has chained herself to the mast to her husband's
sinking ship. In so doing, there is substantial evidence that she has
taken actions that violate her duties as a board member.
> She will be on every talk show in America and USCF will again look
> small and stupid.
Why would the talk shows give a care? This is of less than no
interest to the general public. Furthermore, given the political
orientation of most talk shows, they are unlikely to give a
sympathetic ear to claims of discrimination. Furthermore, given the
extraordinarily thin skin displayed by Ms. Polgar, I doubt she would
cope well with the talk show environment.
> Who would speak on behalf of USCF? Goichberg? Hanken? The Weasel?
>
Why should anyone bother to respond to such drivel.
> Somehow, USCF missed the cable revolution and we have never had a
> television show.
Chess makes crappy television. This has been throughly demonstrated.
> Now we are about to screw over the best publicity machine since
> "Searching for Bobby Fischer".
> Just nuts.
>
If she would channel that ability more constructively, that would be
wonderful. Right now, she is doing far more harm than good.
Wick Deer
The Historian
> On Jul 25, 10:15 pm, ascach...@aol.com wrote:
> > Somehow, USCF missed the cable revolution and we have never had a
> > television show.
>
> Chess makes crappy television. This has been thoroughly demonstrated.
By Ms. Polgar, Mr. Truong, Mr. Innes, and Mr. Mitchell back in 2005.
Incidentally, that broadcast was filmed in Nashville about the time
the FSS postings began. Remember the FSS? Remember the Mottershead
Report, folks?
Rob
wrote:
I will agree that chess is not an easy subject to make entertaining
television.Theres always chess boxing!
asca...@aol.com
> On Jul 25, 10:15 pm, ascach...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Could USCF possibly be that stupid?
> > Should we not just admit the bribing controversy and mark it off
> > against whatever involvement Susan Polgar had with that guy with the
> > emails in Washington?
>
> False equivalence. The "bribing controversy" is missing an essential
> element of a "bribe", a quid pro quo. There has been no evidence
> whatsoever of a quid pro quo.
Based on their emails, it seems clear that the people who were being
bribed think they were being bribed.
Since there has been no serious investigation into this, I wonder what
standard of evidence you are using?
>
> Secondly, the "bribery controversy" is nothing but a red herring in
> Polgar's Texas suit, because Polgar can never, ever, ever, prove any
> damage to her from the alleged "bribe." USCF can prove damage for
> having its private emails stolen.
Forgive me Wick, but this sounds like an attorney's answer. That is
to say on point without being responsive. Exactly what damage was
done to USCF? What was the monetary loss? Perhaps you know what was
in the emails. I certainly do not. Is there evidence that Susan
Polgar initiated the email kaper?
>
> > Somehow, USCF missed the cable revolution and we have never had a
> > television show.
>
> Chess makes crappy television. This has been throughly demonstrated.
It doesn't have to be crappy.
Perhaps you have never seen Maurice Ashley on video or Yasser Seirawan
in person. Roman D. is a simply fantastic teacher. Who knew?
If bass fishing has a future on cable, why not chess.
>
> > Now we are about to screw over the best publicity machine since
> > "Searching for Bobby Fischer".
> > Just nuts.
>
> If she would channel that ability more constructively, that would be
> wonderful. Right now, she is doing far more harm than good.
>
> Wick Deer
The knee jerk reaction is that ANYTHING that criticizes USCF is more
harm than good. I beg to differ. Susan Polgar is everywhere (in
Fresno for goodness sakes) and for better or worse she is a magnet to
the chess community who is doing more for chess on a local level than
the whole group of aging insiders combined.
Age is certainly on her side. I suspect and hope she will be around
when the current group of insiders expire under natural circumstances
and are pushing daisies instead of pawns.
Rp
Wick
> On Jul 26, 7:59 am, Wick <Wick.D...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 25, 10:15 pm, ascach...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > Could USCF possibly be that stupid?
> > > Should we not just admit the bribing controversy and mark it off
> > > against whatever involvement Susan Polgar had with that guy with the
> > > emails in Washington?
>
> > False equivalence. The "bribing controversy" is missing an essential
> > element of a "bribe", a quid pro quo. There has been no evidence
> > whatsoever of a quid pro quo.
>
> Based on their emails, it seems clear that the people who were being
> bribed think they were being bribed.
> Since there has been no serious investigation into this, I wonder what
> standard of evidence you are using?
>
When I say no evidence, I mean no evidence.
Incidently, if they think they think they were being bribed, they
really should not discuss the matter. Taking a bribe is every bit as
inappropriate as offering one. Taking the bribe and then
doublecrossing the person offering a bribe is not a defense.
>
>
> > Secondly, the "bribery controversy" is nothing but a red herring in
> > Polgar's Texas suit, because Polgar can never, ever, ever, prove any
> > damage to her from the alleged "bribe." USCF can prove damage for
> > having its private emails stolen.
>
> Forgive me Wick, but this sounds like an attorney's answer. That is
> to say on point without being responsive. Exactly what damage was
> done to USCF? What was the monetary loss? Perhaps you know what was
> in the emails. I certainly do not. Is there evidence that Susan
> Polgar initiated the email kaper?
>
>
I see. Do you reject GM analysis of endgames as a chess player's
answer?
I'm not sure what you mean by the email caper? The alleged Hough
Hacking of the alleged bribe emails.
>
> > > Somehow, USCF missed the cable revolution and we have never had a
> > > television show.
>
> > Chess makes crappy television. This has been throughly demonstrated.
>
> It doesn't have to be crappy.
> Perhaps you have never seen Maurice Ashley on video or Yasser Seirawan
> in person. Roman D. is a simply fantastic teacher. Who knew?
> If bass fishing has a future on cable, why not chess.
>
>
I saw the Ashley commentary on tournaments on ESPN however many years
ago. Maybe chess can be made into good television, but it's been
tried repeatedly without success.
>
> > > Now we are about to screw over the best publicity machine since
> > > "Searching for Bobby Fischer".
> > > Just nuts.
>
> > If she would channel that ability more constructively, that would be
> > wonderful. Right now, she is doing far more harm than good.
>
> > Wick Deer
>
> The knee jerk reaction is that ANYTHING that criticizes USCF is more
> harm than good. I beg to differ. Susan Polgar is everywhere (in
> Fresno for goodness sakes) and for better or worse she is a magnet to
> the chess community who is doing more for chess on a local level than
> the whole group of aging insiders combined.
>
> Age is certainly on her side. I suspect and hope she will be around
> when the current group of insiders expire under natural circumstances
> and are pushing daisies instead of pawns.
>
> Rp
Oy. You of all people should know that I am anything but a knee jerk
defender of USCF. You may recall that I repeatedly posted in your
defense with regard to Cavallo's idiotic lawsuit against you.
None
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Be careful, Dick knows law, he once filed a pro se suit against the
USCF. Ask him how he did.