Boycott USCF for revoking Truong/Polgar Membership
RayGordon
Revoking their USCF membership is NOT the proper channels. They
should be allowed to play rated chess anytime they want.
And, \as I've said, if they came for them, one day they might come for
Sloan.
It is situations like this which test institutional tolerance, and
USCF has failed that test.
Ray GVordon
http://www.toosmart\tofil.com
MrVidmar
Thank you for sharing your thoughts, Bill.
RayGordon
Okay Julie.
jkh001
What the Board voted was to suspend their memberships _but_ include an
exception allowing them to continue to play in rated tournaments.
There are problems with this as well -- it's clearly an attempt to do
something indirectly (remove a sitting Board member) which they are
forbidden to do directly -- but it renders your argument nugatory.
RayGordon
It raises even more troublesome arguments.
asca...@aol.com
>
> What the Board voted was to suspend their memberships _but_ include an
> exception allowing them to continue to play in rated tournaments.
> There are problems with this as well -- it's clearly an attempt to do
> something indirectly (remove a sitting Board member) which they are
> forbidden to do directly -- but it renders your argument nugatory.
A riddle wrapped in an enigma engulfed in fog. In other words, USCF
business as usual.
I find myself agreeing with John.
It is clearly an attempt to do something indirectly which USCF is
forbidden to do directly.
Then what was the point of all this? Just the election?
They can play in rated tournaments.
Can they continue to run the very successful Susan Polgar scholastic
tournaments?
Personally I hope so. My daughters would be very upset.
It would take on the appearance of a certain organizer attempting to
wipe out another organizer as has occurred previously.
This brings into question what a USCF membership is really about.
Anybody want to venture an explanation of a current USCF membership
now that we are post Polgar?
Richard Peterson
Wick
> On Aug 8, 10:15 am, jkh001 <jkh...@aim.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > What the Board voted was to suspend their memberships _but_ include an
> > exception allowing them to continue to play in rated tournaments.
> > There are problems with this as well -- it's clearly an attempt to do
> > something indirectly (remove a sitting Board member) which they are
> > forbidden to do directly -- but it renders your argument nugatory.
>
> A riddle wrapped in an enigma engulfed in fog. In other words, USCF
> business as usual.
>
> I find myself agreeing with John.
> It is clearly an attempt to do something indirectly which USCF is
> forbidden to do directly.
>
> Then what was the point of all this? Just the election?
>
Actually, I think the goal was an attempt to staunch the hemorrhaging
legal bills. It may be possible to dismiss the Illinois action now,
and the SF action may be simplified as well.
> They can play in rated tournaments.
> Can they continue to run the very successful Susan Polgar scholastic
> tournaments?
> Personally I hope so. My daughters would be very upset.
> It would take on the appearance of a certain organizer attempting to
> wipe out another organizer as has occurred previously.
>
Did that other organizer cost USCF hundreds of thousands of legal
bills? Did that other organizer create the potential for USCF to be
sued for vast sums? Did the other organizer publish confidential USCF
documents on the internet?
Frankly, I'm not crazy about the precedent either, but, in this
highly, highly, unusual circumstance, I think it's justified.
asca...@aol.com
> > Then what was the point of all this? �Just the election?
>
> Actually, I think the goal was an attempt to staunch the hemorrhaging
> legal bills. �It may be possible to dismiss the Illinois action now,
> and the SF action may be simplified as well.
>
Could you explain that? How can what has already been done while they
were on the board be undone when they are off?
It may have just the opposite reaction. There could well be another
suit for restraint of trade.
> > They can play in rated tournaments.
> > Can they continue to run the very successful Susan Polgar scholastic
> > tournaments?
> > Personally I hope so. �My daughters would be very upset.
> > It would take on the appearance of a certain organizer attempting to
> > wipe out another organizer as has occurred previously.
>
> Did that other organizer cost USCF hundreds of thousands of legal
> bills? �Did that other organizer create the potential for USCF to be
> sued for vast sums? �Did the other organizer publish confidential USCF
> documents on the internet?
>
> Frankly, I'm not crazy about the precedent either, but, in this
> highly, highly, unusual circumstance, I think it's justified.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I still don't know what exactly this expulsion entails.
Have the terms of the expulsion motion been printed anywhere?
Does it prevent them from doing business or was the purpose solely to
remove them from the board through this convoluted machination.
I am still waiting to hear a definition of what a USCF membership
entails since it can be stripped from you but you can still play in
rated tournaments. Can you still run tournaments? Can you bid on
national events? Can you coach our national teams?
From everything we know, how did Susan Polgar get involved in this?
Rp
Wick
> On Aug 9, 5:48 pm, Wick <Wick.D...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 9, 6:59 pm, ascach...@aol.com wrote:
> > > Then what was the point of all this? Just the election?
>
> > Actually, I think the goal was an attempt to staunch the hemorrhaging
> > legal bills. It may be possible to dismiss the Illinois action now,
> > and the SF action may be simplified as well.
>
> Could you explain that? How can what has already been done while they
> were on the board be undone when they are off?
> It may have just the opposite reaction. There could well be another
> suit for restraint of trade.
>
At the moment, I have no position with USCF other than humble member
and heckler, but actually, I'm not sure Polgar's ability to organize
is affected by the revocation. AFAIK, the affilliate she uses has not
been revoked. She would need a TD, but I don't think she was acting
as TD anyway.
As far as bidding on events, I think the affilliate could still do
that. Whether a board composed of persons who Ms. Polgar has sued, in
their personal capacities, alleging millions of dollars of damages,
would be favorably disposed to such bids . . . that problem would be
there with or without the revocation.
As far as the Illinois suit goes, the only remedy sought by USCF in
that suit was the removal of Polgar and Truong from the board. Since
they are now off the board, the suit seems moot.
Now the Texas and SF suits will continue, but some of the side issue
may be pruned away by this.
>
>
>
>
> > > They can play in rated tournaments.
> > > Can they continue to run the very successful Susan Polgar scholastic
> > > tournaments?
> > > Personally I hope so. My daughters would be very upset.
> > > It would take on the appearance of a certain organizer attempting to
> > > wipe out another organizer as has occurred previously.
>
> > Did that other organizer cost USCF hundreds of thousands of legal
> > bills? Did that other organizer create the potential for USCF to be
> > sued for vast sums? Did the other organizer publish confidential USCF
> > documents on the internet?
>
> > Frankly, I'm not crazy about the precedent either, but, in this
> > highly, highly, unusual circumstance, I think it's justified.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I still don't know what exactly this expulsion entails.
> Have the terms of the expulsion motion been printed anywhere?
> Does it prevent them from doing business or was the purpose solely to
> remove them from the board through this convoluted machination.
>
> I am still waiting to hear a definition of what a USCF membership
> entails since it can be stripped from you but you can still play in
> rated tournaments. Can you still run tournaments? Can you bid on
> national events? Can you coach our national teams?
>
> From everything we know, how did Susan Polgar get involved in this?
>
> Rp
To my knowledge, there was a written motion, but I don't think it has
been published. Because under Robert's Rules disciplinary proceedings
are confidential, I am not sure whether the contents of that motion
will be made public.
As far as how did Susan Polgar get involved in this . . . whiskey
tango foxtrot ? ? ?
Have you been paying attention at all?
1. Polgar sued the USCF and board members alleging millions of
dollars of damages. Her main claim seems to be that she was defamed
by things people said about her husband -- a claim that verges on the
nonsensical.
2. Polgar's webmaster has been indicted in the Northern District of
California for hacking into board member Randy Hough's email. In a
civil suit, USCF has alleged that Polgar and her webmaster conspired
to do the hacking, and USCF has produced evidence, circumstantial but
compelling, to back its claim.
asca...@aol.com
> To my knowledge, there was a written motion, but I don't think it has
> been published. �Because under Robert's Rules disciplinary proceedings
> are confidential, I am not sure whether the contents of that motion
> will be made public.
>
> As far as how did Susan Polgar get involved in this . . . whiskey
> tango foxtrot ? ? ?
whiskey tango foxtrot :-) You are a riot. Your restraint is
appreciated even when we disagree.
>
> Have you been paying attention at all?
>
> 1. �Polgar sued the USCF and �board members alleging millions of
> dollars of damages. �Her main claim seems to be that she was defamed
> by things people said about her husband -- a claim that verges on the
> nonsensical.
>
> 2. �Polgar's webmaster has been indicted in the Northern District of
> California for hacking into board member Randy Hough's email. �In a
> civil suit, USCF has alleged that Polgar and her webmaster conspired
> to do the hacking, and USCF has produced evidence, circumstantial but
> compelling, to back its claim.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, my question was more general than specific regarding her
involvment. The whole thing has reeked of foolishness on both sides
with much to be lost and little to be gained by either.
It must be recalled USCF sued first and Polgar responded.
I don't know Polgar but I do know the insiders which gives me pause as
to their motives. Maybe their hands were clean in this matter but
based on experience I wonder.
Was the guy from Washington Polgar's own webmaster? This is the first
time I had heard that. I read previously that he had worked on the
web for USCF.
I don't know Truong either but I was told nearly ten years ago that he
was a new guy and that Truong was a millionaire who wanted to invest
in the game. That description now seems in question. I wonder how
the description (given to me by an insider) originated.
Rp
Wick
> On Aug 10, 5:58 pm, Wick <Wick.D...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > To my knowledge, there was a written motion, but I don't think it has
> > been published. Because under Robert's Rules disciplinary proceedings
> > are confidential, I am not sure whether the contents of that motion
> > will be made public.
>
> > As far as how did Susan Polgar get involved in this . . . whiskey
> > tango foxtrot ? ? ?
>
> whiskey tango foxtrot :-) You are a riot. Your restraint is
> appreciated even when we disagree.
>
I try and be civil, mostly. On my good days, I manage.
> > Have you been paying attention at all?
>
> > 1. Polgar sued the USCF and board members alleging millions of
> > dollars of damages. Her main claim seems to be that she was defamed
> > by things people said about her husband -- a claim that verges on the
> > nonsensical.
>
> > 2. Polgar's webmaster has been indicted in the Northern District of
> > California for hacking into board member Randy Hough's email. In a
> > civil suit, USCF has alleged that Polgar and her webmaster conspired
> > to do the hacking, and USCF has produced evidence, circumstantial but
> > compelling, to back its claim.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Actually, my question was more general than specific regarding her
> involvment. The whole thing has reeked of foolishness on both sides
> with much to be lost and little to be gained by either.
>
I never was ethereal enough to do well in College English, but I would
agree that the whole matter seems to have the arc of classic tragedy.
> It must be recalled USCF sued first and Polgar responded.
I'm sorry Richard, but this is factually incorrect. Polgar sued USCF
in August of 2008. The USCF did not sue Polgar until October of
2008. USCF did file a John Doe action in July of 2008, in order to
subpoena records to find out if Board emails were being hacked.
> I don't know Polgar but I do know the insiders which gives me pause as
> to their motives. Maybe their hands were clean in this matter but
> based on experience I wonder.
As someone who has not exactly been the President of the Bill
Goichberg's fan club, I can understand your trepidation. On the other
hand, when the information contained in the Mottershead Report came to
USCF's attention, the USCF was caught between a rock and a hard
place. On one hand, it was faced with the prospect of getting tangled
in litigation with two board members. On the other hand, if it just
stood by, USCF becomes a potential defendant for a really ugly stream
of lawsuits. The Sloan and Gordon suits were the potential tip of the
iceberg. The FSS said a lot of potentially defamatory things about a
whole bunch of people. If the USCF just twiddles its thumbs with
information that the FSS was on the board, USCF would have been
setting itself up to write a whole bunch of checks to folks that the
FSS defamed. The Board was a no win situation.
> Was the guy from Washington Polgar's own webmaster? This is the first
> time I had heard that. I read previously that he had worked on the
> web for USCF.
>
He was the developer and a moderator for Polgar's Chess Discussion
Forums. He was also, briefly, a moderator for the USCF forums, but,
to my knowledge, Alexander was not involved in the development of the
USCF forums. He also resigned as a moderator in July of 2007, before
the FSS imbroglio started.
> I don't know Truong either but I was told nearly ten years ago that he
> was a new guy and that Truong was a millionaire who wanted to invest
> in the game. That description now seems in question. I wonder how
> the description (given to me by an insider) originated.
>
> Rp
Mr. Truong has made a number of claims about his experiences that
are . . . difficult to verify. What is undisputed is that he
declared bankruptcy as he took the position at Texas Tech.
jkh001
Individuals don't "run" tournaments. Affiliates do. Membership status
has nothing to do with the ability to bid on national tournaments or
seek to coach national teams, though it would have an effect on the
likelihood of winning the bid or being hired. The motions the EB
adopted, which were appealed to the Delegates, have been available on
line for some time as attachments to BINFO 200900306. There were some
minor changes, such as the rider allowing them to continue to play in
rated tournaments, but what you see is pretty much what the Delegates
got.
asca...@aol.com
>
> > It must be recalled USCF sued first and Polgar responded.
>
> I'm sorry Richard, but this is factually incorrect. Polgar sued USCF
> in August of 2008. The USCF did not sue Polgar until October of
> 2008. USCF did file a John Doe action in July of 2008, in order to
> subpoena records to find out if Board emails were being hacked.
I do not have first hand knowledge but I believe John Hillery wrote in
response to my question that USCF filed the first suit against John
Does prior to Polgar filing suit. Is this not accurate?
Rp
jkh001
Certainly. But a lawsuit against "John Doe" is not a lawsuit against
Polgar. Unless, of course, you assume that she's guilty.
asca...@aol.com
>
> > I do not have first hand knowledge but I believe John Hillery wrote in
> > response to my question that USCF filed the first suit against John
> > Does prior to Polgar filing suit. Is this not accurate?
>
> > Rp
>
> Certainly. But a lawsuit against "John Doe" is not a lawsuit against
>
> - Show quoted text -
There seems little question that the John Doe suit was aimed at the
Polgars. This does not imply guilt, only who was targeted.
Rp
jkh001
Nonsense. The lawsuit was directed at the person or persons who had
hacked Randy Hough's e-mails. If she wasn't guilty, it wasn't aimed at
her. If she was guilty, what are you doing defending her? Trying to
equate this with Polgar's filing an abusive and harassing lawsuit
against the USCF and a wide assortment of her personal enemies is
utterly frivolous.
samsloan
In reality, the John Doe suit was aimed at Truong.
Everybody was surprised when the net did not catch Truong but caught
Polgar and Alexander instead.
Sam Sloan
None
> On Aug 13, 12:45 am, ascach...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 12, 3:28 pm, jkh001 <jkh...@aim.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I do not have first hand knowledge but I believe John Hillery wrote in
> > > > response to my question that USCF filed the first suit against John
> > > > Does prior to Polgar filing suit. Is this not accurate?
>
> > > > Rp
>
> > > Certainly. But a lawsuit against "John Doe" is not a lawsuit against
> > > Polgar. Unless, of course, you assume that she's guilty.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > There seems little question that the John Doe suit was aimed at the
> > Polgars. This does not imply guilt, only who was targeted.
>
> > Rp
In reality, the John Doe suit was aimed at Truong.- Sam Sloan
What is John's rating? Did Rp charge him for water too?
jkh001
Considerably higher than yours, I suspect, but I fail to see the
relevance. RP is obviously still feuding with the so-called
"insiders" (you know, the people who actually do the work) over
various past incidents. In consequence, he's defending anyone who's
the enemy of his enemies -- which in this case means defending the
indefensible. I don't think this shows much in the way of good sense
or intelligence, but so what? It's not going to change anyone's mind.
On either side.
The Historian
It also appears to be pretty much common practice in the chess
community.
asca...@aol.com
RP is obviously still feuding with the so-called
> "insiders" (you know, the people who actually do the work) over
> various past incidents.
Hmmmm.
"the people who actually do the work"
No matter how I might feel about the insiders, I would denigrate their
actual work efforts for chess as opposed to their work for their own
self interests. It appears you only recognize the "work" of the
insiders without recognizing the work of the people who are just
disgusted. Certainly the only people who get awards from the insiders
are insiders.
Chess would not be the same without Goichberg but there is a great
difference between working for one's own benefit and working for the
highest and best interests of chess. Has Bill succeeded in separating
the two? I don't think so. Not by a mile.
I confess I do not know what Don Schlultz ever did although lord knows
he was around long enough to have written the Bible, Gone with the
Wind, and the Encyclopedia Britannica and it is pretty obvious that
the designation of Mike Cavallo as a "financial expert" by Schultz was
a case of the blind leading the blind. Did Schlutz ever take
responsibility for a mistake? He made GW look like Mr.
Responsibility.
Niro? Come on.
Affable Frank Camaretta? As Treasurer, didn't he pay himself first
when USCF was in a cash crunch?
Jerry Hanken? In a word, "mean". Bet you are surprised the word was
not "journalist".
There are so many others but getting to be fewer all the time.
It would be interesting to count the number of quality people who the
insiders have driven away from chess out of frustration with the
inbred dealings.
In the end, you better get used to working with Polgar. She will win
by attrition. The old gang is dying out.
It is tough to be "Mr. Meanie" in a smiling world :-)
Rp
jkh001
Aren't you a little behind the times? Frank Niro, for example, has
been out of chess since 2003. Cavallo goes back even further. If you
want to keep gnawing your ancient grudges, fine. No one is paying any
attention. And as long as you keep doing so, you are in no position to
object if others bring up the things you did to cause these quarrels,
which most of us think were almost entirely your fault.
New people are taking over, but it won't be you and it won't be Polgar.
asca...@aol.com
>
> New people are taking over, but it won't be you and it won't be Polgar.- Hide quoted text -
>
Ah, defense by verbal attack. Nothing new from you there, eh?
You seem incapable of response without spewing poison.
Did I indicate that I would be "taking over" or even running for
office?
The simple fact is that your group is aging to the point that they are
leaving through natural process. It is undeniable and I see no young
people who are willing to step forward as your (meaning hard working,
self serving insiders) proxies. Have you asked yourself what is going
to happen when Goichberg dies? The average age of Americans passing
is 78. How old is Bill? Is there a succession plan?
Why don't you run for EB?
If no one remembers the past, we will certainly be condemned to repeat
it.
Do you disagree that the last decade has been a financial disaster for
USCF? Should we just forget about the fact that the LMA is now
empty? You claim the insiders are the ones who do the "work".
Are those self interested insiders not responsible for sending USCF
off a financial cliff?
Do you claim those hard working insiders have been financially
responsible?
Rp