| |
Main
Date: 09 Jul 2008 05:50:23
From: samsloan
Subject: BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board
|
BINFO 200803055
Date 2008-07-01
From SusanPolgar
Status Standard Release
Release Date 2008-07-06
Subject Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs Problems"
* To: Chessoffice@xxxxxxx, randallhough@xxxxxxxxx,
AlforChess@xxxxxxx, JABerryCG@xxxxxxx, randybauer2300@xxxxxxxxx,
Joel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Paultruong@xxxxxxx, bhall@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Chessdon@xxxxxxx
* Subject: Re: Goichberg writes "The Answer(s) To The USCFs
Problems"
* From: SusanPolgar@xxxxxxx
* Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2008 10:31:18 EDT
* Cc: pknight@xxxxxxxxxxx, queencapa@xxxxxxx, USCF BINFO System,
joandubois@xxxxxxxxxxx
* Delivered-to: USCF BINFO Systemxxxxxxxxx
* Delivered-to: USCF BINFO System
Hiding the investigation from the other 6 board members, refusing to
step down from the subcommittee due to clear conflict of interest,
then declining to allow our experts the opportunity to inspect the
database to verify the data.
Refusing to take action against contractors who blatantly violated the
NDA, even after it was confirmed that the NDA was clearly violated
multiple times.
Leaking confidential and legal information to Jerry Hanken and others
by one of the board members (Joel Channing and Randy Bauer are
excluded). You even clearly stated that you're aware that Jerry Hanken
received confidential information and he used this to negotiate with
Sam Sloan.
Voting 5-0 to authorize the attorney to interfere with our legal
defense by contacting Chubb to try to cancel our insurance coverage
which is highly unethical.
Not stopping your attorney from trying to investigate the bogus claim
that Paul and I abused my children. These outrageous, vicious, and
damaging charges which were proven completely false were then sent to
multiple high level individuals at Texas Tech as well as the local
media by one of your supporters to try to get me fired from my job.
Please feel free to deny them just as Jerry Hanken.
In a message dated 7/1/2008 9:01:13 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
Chessoffice writes:
What "board act" do you have in mind?
|
|
| |
Date: 07 Aug 2008 08:24:59
From: Rob
Subject: Re: BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board
|
On Aug 7, 8:26=A0am, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 6, 6:13=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 5:02=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Aug 6, 4:40=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Aug 6, 4:31=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected]>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > >> Much of what the FSS wrote had =A0"the specefic =A0[sic] inten=
t to drive
> > > > > >> the attacked person from the board or to effect a change in bo=
ard
> > > > > >> votes, that is a problem and there is a liability there."
> > > > > >That would be assuming the FSS was on the board at the same time=
as
> > > > > >SLoan and there were other board members doing it. Are you sayin=
g the
> > > > > >FSS was someone on the board at the same time as Sam? If that we=
re the
> > > > > >case, someone would have to either have knowledge of how to make
> > > > > >posting appear they came from somewhere else or directed someone=
else
> > > > > >to change them after the fact?
> > > > > >If that were the case it could not have been Paul, could it?
> > > > > Is there a significant difference between (a) someone ON the boar=
d
> > > > > sabotaging a candidate, (b) someone RUNNING FOR the board sabotag=
ing a
> > > > > candidate, (c) an agent of either of these two sabotaging a candi=
date?
>
> > > > Looking strictly from an insurance liability issue, yes. Actions wh=
ile
> > > > not a member of the board would have no coverage under the GL polic=
y.
> > > > In A) both the board member could be sued as well as the organizati=
on
> > > > and the GL would defend. In B) there is no coverage.- Hide quoted t=
ext -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > I don't understand insurance, but if somebody was FSS both before
> > > serving on the board, and while serving on the board, what would that
> > > mean for insurance purposes? I have only a very weak analogy here; I
> > > know that insurance companies have avoided payments in medical
> > > operations citing an unrevealed preexisting condition.
>
> > > Jerry Spinrad
>
> > No act prior to actually being on the board would be covered. The GL
> > policies cover officer and directors for act,errors and ommissions
> > resulting from actions during their term of service. the is trailing
> > coverage after they leave the board for activities during their term
> > of service.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Again, I do not know details of the policy. However, since Paul was
> accused of actions that began before he was on the board, and was
> named separately in the suit on these charges, wouldn't it be
> appropriate to tell the company that the expenses for defending him
> should not be charges to the USCF insurance policy?
>
> Jerry Spinrad- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
No. As an insured I could not say " I don't think you should cover one
of my board members on this charge". That would be for the insurance
company to determine liability and extent of coverage.
Now the actions of other board members and their actions against Susan
and Paul via Mottershead and Bogner, would create a liability issue
for the USCF. The insurance company would have to assign a seperate
attorney to provide protection under the policy if they felt there was
a potential conflict of interest.
They would be obliged to provide Paul and Susan with other counsel if
they anticipated they would have to defend other members of the board
against a legitimate liability claim brought by Paul or Susan against
them.
Like they say, there are two side to every story and the truth often
time lies somewhere in between..
|
| |
Date: 07 Aug 2008 06:26:59
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board
|
On Aug 6, 6:13=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 6, 5:02=A0pm, "[email protected]"
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Aug 6, 4:40=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 6, 4:31=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > >> Much of what the FSS wrote had =A0"the specefic =A0[sic] intent =
to drive
> > > > >> the attacked person from the board or to effect a change in boar=
d
> > > > >> votes, that is a problem and there is a liability there."
> > > > >That would be assuming the FSS was on the board at the same time a=
s
> > > > >SLoan and there were other board members doing it. Are you saying =
the
> > > > >FSS was someone on the board at the same time as Sam? If that were=
the
> > > > >case, someone would have to either have knowledge of how to make
> > > > >posting appear they came from somewhere else or directed someone e=
lse
> > > > >to change them after the fact?
> > > > >If that were the case it could not have been Paul, could it?
> > > > Is there a significant difference between (a) someone ON the board
> > > > sabotaging a candidate, (b) someone RUNNING FOR the board sabotagin=
g a
> > > > candidate, (c) an agent of either of these two sabotaging a candida=
te?
>
> > > Looking strictly from an insurance liability issue, yes. Actions whil=
e
> > > not a member of the board would have no coverage under the GL policy.
> > > In A) both the board member could be sued as well as the organization
> > > and the GL would defend. In B) there is no coverage.- Hide quoted tex=
t -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I don't understand insurance, but if somebody was FSS both before
> > serving on the board, and while serving on the board, what would that
> > mean for insurance purposes? I have only a very weak analogy here; I
> > know that insurance companies have avoided payments in medical
> > operations citing an unrevealed preexisting condition.
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> No act prior to actually being on the board would be covered. The GL
> policies cover officer and directors for act,errors and ommissions
> resulting from actions during their term of service. the is trailing
> coverage after they leave the board for activities during their term
> of service.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Again, I do not know details of the policy. However, since Paul was
accused of actions that began before he was on the board, and was
named separately in the suit on these charges, wouldn't it be
appropriate to tell the company that the expenses for defending him
should not be charges to the USCF insurance policy?
Jerry Spinrad
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 16:13:17
From: Rob
Subject: Re: BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board
|
On Aug 6, 5:02=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 6, 4:40=A0pm, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 6, 4:31=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >> Much of what the FSS wrote had =A0"the specefic =A0[sic] intent to=
drive
> > > >> the attacked person from the board or to effect a change in board
> > > >> votes, that is a problem and there is a liability there."
> > > >That would be assuming the FSS was on the board at the same time as
> > > >SLoan and there were other board members doing it. Are you saying th=
e
> > > >FSS was someone on the board at the same time as Sam? If that were t=
he
> > > >case, someone would have to either have knowledge of how to make
> > > >posting appear they came from somewhere else or directed someone els=
e
> > > >to change them after the fact?
> > > >If that were the case it could not have been Paul, could it?
> > > Is there a significant difference between (a) someone ON the board
> > > sabotaging a candidate, (b) someone RUNNING FOR the board sabotaging =
a
> > > candidate, (c) an agent of either of these two sabotaging a candidate=
?
>
> > Looking strictly from an insurance liability issue, yes. Actions while
> > not a member of the board would have no coverage under the GL policy.
> > In A) both the board member could be sued as well as the organization
> > and the GL would defend. In B) there is no coverage.- Hide quoted text =
-
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I don't understand insurance, but if somebody was FSS both before
> serving on the board, and while serving on the board, what would that
> mean for insurance purposes? I have only a very weak analogy here; I
> know that insurance companies have avoided payments in medical
> operations citing an unrevealed preexisting condition.
>
> Jerry Spinrad
No act prior to actually being on the board would be covered. The GL
policies cover officer and directors for act,errors and ommissions
resulting from actions during their term of service. the is trailing
coverage after they leave the board for activities during their term
of service.
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 15:02:14
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board
|
On Aug 6, 4:40=A0pm, Rob <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Aug 6, 4:31=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> > >> Much of what the FSS wrote had =A0"the specefic =A0[sic] intent to d=
rive
> > >> the attacked person from the board or to effect a change in board
> > >> votes, that is a problem and there is a liability there."
> > >That would be assuming the FSS was on the board at the same time as
> > >SLoan and there were other board members doing it. Are you saying the
> > >FSS was someone on the board at the same time as Sam? If that were the
> > >case, someone would have to either have knowledge of how to make
> > >posting appear they came from somewhere else or directed someone else
> > >to change them after the fact?
> > >If that were the case it could not have been Paul, could it?
> > Is there a significant difference between (a) someone ON the board
> > sabotaging a candidate, (b) someone RUNNING FOR the board sabotaging a
> > candidate, (c) an agent of either of these two sabotaging a candidate?
>
> Looking strictly from an insurance liability issue, yes. Actions while
> not a member of the board would have no coverage under the GL policy.
> In A) both the board member could be sued as well as the organization
> and the GL would defend. In B) there is no coverage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I don't understand insurance, but if somebody was FSS both before
serving on the board, and while serving on the board, what would that
mean for insurance purposes? I have only a very weak analogy here; I
know that insurance companies have avoided payments in medical
operations citing an unrevealed preexisting condition.
Jerry Spinrad
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 14:40:40
From: Rob
Subject: Re: BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board
|
On Aug 6, 4:31=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> Much of what the FSS wrote had =A0"the specefic =A0[sic] intent to dri=
ve
> >> the attacked person from the board or to effect a change in board
> >> votes, that is a problem and there is a liability there."
> >That would be assuming the FSS was on the board at the same time as
> >SLoan and there were other board members doing it. Are you saying the
> >FSS was someone on the board at the same time as Sam? If that were the
> >case, someone would have to either have knowledge of how to make
> >posting appear they came from somewhere else or directed someone else
> >to change them after the fact?
> >If that were the case it could not have been Paul, could it?
> Is there a significant difference between (a) someone ON the board
> sabotaging a candidate, (b) someone RUNNING FOR the board sabotaging a
> candidate, (c) an agent of either of these two sabotaging a candidate?
Looking strictly from an insurance liability issue, yes. Actions while
not a member of the board would have no coverage under the GL policy.
In A) both the board member could be sued as well as the organization
and the GL would defend. In B) there is no coverage.
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 13:39:35
From: Rob
Subject: Re: BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board
|
On Aug 6, 3:14=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:41:58 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >> >### Note: If someone threatenes your livlihood by forcing a change in
> >> >proceedures at the board level, that might be a problem. Right?
> >> What changes? =A0Empty posturing doesn't count.
> >We know that Susan and Paul werre coming in as reformers.
>
> Unless you can cite something *specific*, then, as Spinrad wrote,
> "being a political opponent/supporter of the accused is not in itself
> a conflict of interest". =A0
>
> >> >### Note: Does not the accused have the right to review the evidence
> >> >against them?
> >> Aren't you confusing a court case with business practice?
> >No. In business you have to show cause for actions against someone.
> Does showing cause require giving the accused access to the evidence?
Yes.
> >> >> > Voting 5-0 to authorize the attorney to interfere with our legal
> >> >> > defense by contacting Chubb to try to cancel our insurance covera=
ge
> >> >> > which is highly unethical.
> >> >### Note: It is also a violation of the law. Chubb cannot refuse to
> >> >provide them liability protection. The board cannot selectivly exclud=
e
> >> >board members from coverage. Whoever suggested this is an idiot and
> >> >should have contacted me first. Or any insurance agent before steppin=
g
> >> >into this.
> >> Do you have any knowledge as to who was contacted? Why on earth would
> >> they contact you? =A0AFAIK, you have no standing in this whole procedu=
re
> >> and are a known SP/PT partisan. =A0
> >I am an insurance professional. If they wanted advise they should have
> >consulted with someone prior to taking action. I have advised in the
> >past.
>
> I'm assuming they had consulted attorneys provided by the insurance
> company and were proceeding upon their advice. =A0Aren't you a field
> agent? =A0Did you provide advice on matters in litigation?
To my knowledge they consulted with no attorney prior to taking the
action.
I do provide opinions on insurance to attorneys concerning coverages
under policies and limitations and extent of liabilities.
> >While I am not an attorney, I do consult with them quite often. They
> >are generally very careful not to stray too far from the legal scope
> >of what they are charged to investigate or defend. Their personal
> >family life simply had no place in things.
> Now, weren't you singing a different song when it was Sloan's personal
> family life, and court actions resulting from it a few years ago?
> Anyway, if the USCF did this investigation upon advice of their legal
> counsel, are you suggesting their counsel wasn't following standard
> practice?
I am saying it is my belief that none of these actions looking into
and broadcasting of their personal information was the result of any
communication with an attorney. Any information about Mr. Sloan was
taken from statements he himself broadcast as public knowledge. There
is a difference.
> >> >Those guilty of the
> >> >actions of attempting to personally and publically destroy these two
> >> >fine people should suffer for their actions.
>
> You know, Rob, changing the spelling =A0in QUOTED MATERIAL =A0is
> considered a no-no. =A0Here's what you originally wrote:
>
> "Those guilty of the actions of attempting to personally and pubically
> destroy these two fine people should suffer for their actions."
>
> You can't go back to the past and change what you published. =A0Even if
> your name is Paul Truong, you can't do that. =A0 If you could, it would
> ruin my joke.
Mike.. I reserve the right tospell check! LOL :-)
> >> An employer is liable for something an employee does on his own
> >> initiative on his own time using his own facilities? =A0You say this
> >> stuff so confidently, Rob. =A0
> >I think you misunderstood what I said. Maybe I said it wrong.
> >If I hired a contractor to rewire my office for phones. While doing it
> >he tapped the lines and overheard that someone else in my office was
> >selling drugs. I told him to continue listening. I am as guilty of
> >wire tapping as he is. I am sure there are better analogies, but that
> >the gist of it.
> How close is your analogy to the way it happened?
I suck at analogise. Thats why I said you could probably find a
better one. :-)
> >> >### Note: If a board member used their position as a board member to
> >> >obtain sensitive information or if they conspired with an outsider
> >> >while they were an acting board member with an outside third party fo=
r
> >> >the specefic intent to drive the attacked person from the board or to
> >> >effect a change in board votes, that is a problem and there is a
> >> >liability there.
> >> I'm glad to see you're starting to oppose Innes' ignorant nonsense
> >> about the FSS' attempts to influence the board election as just a
> >> juvenile satirical prank. =A0Nice to see you finally developing your o=
wn
> >> voice in these matters, Rob.
=A0
> >Mike, that has nothing to do with the FSS case. =A0Please point out how
> >my paragraph has anything to do with the FSS?
> Much of what the FSS wrote had =A0"the specefic =A0[sic] intent to drive
> the attacked person from the board or to effect a change in board
> votes, that is a problem and there is a liability there."
That would be assuming the FSS was on the board at the same time as
SLoan and there were other board members doing it. Are you saying the
FSS was someone on the board at the same time as Sam? If that were the
case, someone would have to either have knowledge of how to make
posting appear they came from somewhere else or directed someone else
to change them after the fact?
If that were the case it could not have been Paul, could it?
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 14:31:25
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board
|
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> Much of what the FSS wrote had �"the specefic �[sic] intent to drive
>> the attacked person from the board or to effect a change in board
>> votes, that is a problem and there is a liability there."
>That would be assuming the FSS was on the board at the same time as
>SLoan and there were other board members doing it. Are you saying the
>FSS was someone on the board at the same time as Sam? If that were the
>case, someone would have to either have knowledge of how to make
>posting appear they came from somewhere else or directed someone else
>to change them after the fact?
>If that were the case it could not have been Paul, could it?
Is there a significant difference between (a) someone ON the board
sabotaging a candidate, (b) someone RUNNING FOR the board sabotaging a
candidate, (c) an agent of either of these two sabotaging a candidate?
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 12:41:58
From: Rob
Subject: Re: BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board
|
On Aug 6, 2:00=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:05:37 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Jul 9, 2:36=A0pm, "[email protected]"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >=A0refusing to step down from the subcommittee due to clear conflict =
of interest
> >> This charge is still not clear, since we don't know what conflict of
> >> interest accusation is being made. I see no obvious conflict of
> >> interest here; Goichberg has no obvious interest in manipulating the
> >> information regarding FSS. Being a political opponent/supporter of the
> >> accused is not in itself a conflict of interest; everyone can be
> >> accused of having some political bias.
> >### Note: If someone threatenes your livlihood by forcing a change in
> >proceedures at the board level, that might be a problem. Right?
>
> What changes? =A0Empty posturing doesn't count.
We know that Susan and Paul werre coming in as reformers.
> >> > then declining to allow our experts the opportunity to inspect the
> >> > database to verify the data.
> >### Note: Does not the accused have the right to review the evidence
> >against them?
> Aren't you confusing a court case with business practice?
No. In business you have to show cause for actions against someone.
> >> > Voting 5-0 to authorize the attorney to interfere with our legal
> >> > defense by contacting Chubb to try to cancel our insurance coverage
> >> > which is highly unethical.
> >### Note: It is also a violation of the law. Chubb cannot refuse to
> >provide them liability protection. The board cannot selectivly exclude
> >board members from coverage. Whoever suggested this is an idiot and
> >should have contacted me first. Or any insurance agent before stepping
> >into this.
> Do you have any knowledge as to who was contacted? Why on earth would
> they contact you? =A0AFAIK, you have no standing in this whole procedure
> and are a known SP/PT partisan. =A0
I am an insurance professional. If they wanted advise they should have
consulted with someone prior to taking action. I have advised in the
past.
> >> ...if the lawyers tell
> >> you that the charges should be investigated, I would hesitate to say
> >> it is wrong to allow them to follow what they tell you is standard
> >> practice.
> >### Note: If it is despicible, and you seem to agree that it is, don't
> >back down from that. Lawyers would never tell you it should be
> >investigated, unless you are refrencing Lafferty as the attorney .
> Not being an attorney, how would you know what sort of things should
> be investigated, the extent of the investigation, =A0or the reasons for
> it. =A0Has the reasoning behind it or the extent of it been disclosed
> yet?
While I am not an attorney, I do consult with them quite often. They
are generally very careful not to stray too far from the legal scope
of what they are charged to investigate or defend. Their personal
family life simply had no place in things.
> >Those guilty of the
> >actions of attempting to personally and publically destroy these two
> >fine people should suffer for their actions.
>
> At last we agree on something. =A0Public destruction is despicable and
> prohibited under the Geneva Convention. =A0
Not sure what legal in Geneva or Amsterdam. :-)
> >> If Goichberg told the supporter to do this, I agree that it is
> >> something to resign over. However, the fact that one of your
> >> supporters did something nasty does not mean that you are guilty of
> >> the nasty deed.
> >### Note: If you are responsible for that individuals actions by right
> >of an employee/employer relationship, you do have liability.
> An employer is liable for something an employee does on his own
> initiative on his own time using his own facilities? =A0You say this
> stuff so confidently, Rob. =A0
I think you misunderstood what I said. Maybe I said it wrong.
If I hired a contractor to rewire my office for phones. While doing it
he tapped the lines and overheard that someone else in my office was
selling drugs. I told him to continue listening. I am as guilty of
wire tapping as he is. I am sure there are better analogies, but that
the gist of it.
> >### Note: If a board member used their position as a board member to
> >obtain sensitive information or if they conspired with an outsider
> >while they were an acting board member with an outside third party for
> >the specefic intent to drive the attacked person from the board or to
> >effect a change in board votes, that is a problem and there is a
> >liability there.
> I'm glad to see you're starting to oppose Innes' ignorant nonsense
> about the FSS' attempts to influence the board election as just a
> juvenile satirical prank. =A0Nice to see you finally developing your own
> voice in these matters, Rob. =A0
Mike, that has nothing to do with the FSS case. Please point out how
my paragraph has anything to do with the FSS?
Take care!
Rob
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 13:14:11
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board
|
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 12:41:58 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
>> >### Note: If someone threatenes your livlihood by forcing a change in
>> >proceedures at the board level, that might be a problem. Right?
>> What changes? �Empty posturing doesn't count.
>We know that Susan and Paul werre coming in as reformers.
Unless you can cite something *specific*, then, as Spinrad wrote,
"being a political opponent/supporter of the accused is not in itself
a conflict of interest".
>> >### Note: Does not the accused have the right to review the evidence
>> >against them?
>> Aren't you confusing a court case with business practice?
>No. In business you have to show cause for actions against someone.
Does showing cause require giving the accused access to the evidence?
>> >> > Voting 5-0 to authorize the attorney to interfere with our legal
>> >> > defense by contacting Chubb to try to cancel our insurance coverage
>> >> > which is highly unethical.
>> >### Note: It is also a violation of the law. Chubb cannot refuse to
>> >provide them liability protection. The board cannot selectivly exclude
>> >board members from coverage. Whoever suggested this is an idiot and
>> >should have contacted me first. Or any insurance agent before stepping
>> >into this.
>> Do you have any knowledge as to who was contacted? Why on earth would
>> they contact you? �AFAIK, you have no standing in this whole procedure
>> and are a known SP/PT partisan. �
>I am an insurance professional. If they wanted advise they should have
>consulted with someone prior to taking action. I have advised in the
>past.
I'm assuming they had consulted attorneys provided by the insurance
company and were proceeding upon their advice. Aren't you a field
agent? Did you provide advice on matters in litigation?
>While I am not an attorney, I do consult with them quite often. They
>are generally very careful not to stray too far from the legal scope
>of what they are charged to investigate or defend. Their personal
>family life simply had no place in things.
Now, weren't you singing a different song when it was Sloan's personal
family life, and court actions resulting from it a few years ago?
Anyway, if the USCF did this investigation upon advice of their legal
counsel, are you suggesting their counsel wasn't following standard
practice?
>> >Those guilty of the
>> >actions of attempting to personally and publically destroy these two
>> >fine people should suffer for their actions.
You know, Rob, changing the spelling in QUOTED MATERIAL is
considered a no-no. Here's what you originally wrote:
"Those guilty of the actions of attempting to personally and pubically
destroy these two fine people should suffer for their actions."
You can't go back to the past and change what you published. Even if
your name is Paul Truong, you can't do that. If you could, it would
ruin my joke.
>> An employer is liable for something an employee does on his own
>> initiative on his own time using his own facilities? �You say this
>> stuff so confidently, Rob. �
>I think you misunderstood what I said. Maybe I said it wrong.
>If I hired a contractor to rewire my office for phones. While doing it
>he tapped the lines and overheard that someone else in my office was
>selling drugs. I told him to continue listening. I am as guilty of
>wire tapping as he is. I am sure there are better analogies, but that
>the gist of it.
How close is your analogy to the way it happened?
>> >### Note: If a board member used their position as a board member to
>> >obtain sensitive information or if they conspired with an outsider
>> >while they were an acting board member with an outside third party for
>> >the specefic intent to drive the attacked person from the board or to
>> >effect a change in board votes, that is a problem and there is a
>> >liability there.
>> I'm glad to see you're starting to oppose Innes' ignorant nonsense
>> about the FSS' attempts to influence the board election as just a
>> juvenile satirical prank. �Nice to see you finally developing your own
>> voice in these matters, Rob. �
>Mike, that has nothing to do with the FSS case. Please point out how
>my paragraph has anything to do with the FSS?
Much of what the FSS wrote had "the specefic [sic] intent to drive
the attacked person from the board or to effect a change in board
votes, that is a problem and there is a liability there."
|
| |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 11:05:37
From: Rob
Subject: Re: BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board
|
On Jul 9, 2:36=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> > Hiding the investigation from the other 6 board members
> If serious charges are brought to the attention of the executive
> director, it is hard to decide who he should tell and who he should
> keep in the dark. If the investigation would prove the accused person
> innocent, you wouldn't want everyone to know about the slurs. If there
> was a possibility of the accused erasing evidence, you wouldn't want
> to tell them before there was a preliminary investigation. I feel this
> action is reasonable.
> >=A0refusing to step down from the subcommittee due to clear conflict of =
interest
>
> This charge is still not clear, since we don't know what conflict of
> interest accusation is being made. I see no obvious conflict of
> interest here; Goichberg has no obvious interest in manipulating the
> information regarding FSS. Being a political opponent/supporter of the
> accused is not in itself a conflict of interest; everyone can be
> accused of having some political bias.
### Note: If someone threatenes your livlihood by forcing a change in
proceedures at the board level, that might be a problem. Right?
> > then declining to allow our experts the opportunity to inspect the
> > database to verify the data.
### Note: Does not the accused have the right to review the evidence
against them?
> The correct step at this point must be to ask the lawyers what is
> appropriate, and take their advice. If this was done on legal advice,
> this is certainly not grounds for resigning.
>
>
> > Refusing to take action against contractors who blatantly violated the
> > NDA, even after it was confirmed that the NDA was clearly violated
> > multiple times.
### Note: In my experience not generally as it relates to independant
contractors and then the only possible exception might be the blatant
violation of national security or to protect the life of an innocent.
> This comes up often in whistle-blowing cases; you can get in lots of
> trouble for acting against someone who uncovers a crime even if you
> say they violated some technical issue. Not grounds for resignation.
>
>
> > Leaking confidential and legal information to Jerry Hanken and others
> > by one of the board members (Joel Channing and Randy Bauer are
> > excluded). You even clearly stated that you're aware that Jerry Hanken
> > received confidential information and he used this to negotiate with
> > Sam Sloan.
> This is a legal strategy issue. Trying to get Sloan to drop the case
> was clearly in the interests of the USCF. It is not clear what
> information leaked was supposed to be "confidential and legal" here;
> Sloan already had the Motterhead report at this time. Certainly if the
> lawyers advised this, it is not an approach which should be condemned.
> Unless some shocking leak of legal information is at issue here, I
> think this is way overblown.
>
### Note: WHen someone is supposed to be protected by a liability
policy and then a deal is attempted to be negotiated without knowledge
or concent of the accused parties, that is a problem. Attorneys would
not suggest their clients attempt to negotiate without the attorneys
being present aor with full knowledge of the proceedings.
>
> > Voting 5-0 to authorize the attorney to interfere with our legal
> > defense by contacting Chubb to try to cancel our insurance coverage
> > which is highly unethical.
### Note: It is also a violation of the law. Chubb cannot refuse to
provide them liability protection. The board cannot selectivly exclude
board members from coverage. Whoever suggested this is an idiot and
should have contacted me first. Or any insurance agent before stepping
into this.
> I do not know enough about legal ethics to say. My impression was that
> the vote was to separate out the USCF as defendants from the Polgars
> as defendants, which is clearly appropriate. As to contacting Chubb,
> who Chubb was representing, and what the appropriate legal ethics are
> here, I defer to others. By the interpretation of the vote I
> understand, at least the vote itself was correct rather than something
> to resign over.
###Note: you can vote to exclude coverage. But thats only because you
can vote on anything. Legally you cannot exclude them from coverage.
It was stupid for them to try that. Ignorant.
> > Not stopping your attorney from trying to investigate the bogus claim
> > that Paul and I abused mychildren.
> I find this investigation extremely distasteful. Yet lawyers I know
> well tell me that distasteful pursuit of damaging evidence against
> your legal opponents is simply the way law works. It seems despicable,
> since it is irrelevant to the FSS issue; however, if the lawyers tell
> you that the charges should be investigated, I would hesitate to say
> it is wrong to allow them to follow what they tell you is standard
> practice.
### Note: If it is despicible, and you seem to agree that it is, don't
back down from that. Lawyers would never tell you it should be
investigated, unless you are refrencing Lafferty as the attorney . It
is irrelevant to the FSS issue. The inclusion of this information and
the attempt to destroy Paul and Susan's reputations by broadcasting
their personal information and court filings is misleading,evil,vile
and worthy of only the most putrid of souls. Those guilty of the
actions of attempting to personally and pubically destroy these two
fine people should suffer for their actions.
>> These outrageous, vicious, and
> > damaging charges which were proven completely false were then sent to
> > multiple high level individuals at Texas Tech as well as the local
> > media by one of your supporters to try to get me fired from my job.
> This is the one charge which is really serious. Certainly, the lawyers
> would not recommend this course of action. It is morally
> reprehensible, and does not even have the cover of being standard
> operating practice.
>
>
> If Goichberg told the supporter to do this, I agree that it is
> something to resign over. However, the fact that one of your
> supporters did something nasty does not mean that you are guilty of
> the nasty deed.
### Note: If you are responsible for that individuals actions by right
of an employee/employer relationship, you do have liability.
> I would not hold Truong orPolgar responsible for
> disgusting statements made by Nomen Nescio (or incomprehensible
> statements by Phil Innes), and I wouldn't hold Goichberg responsible
> for whoever leaked this information unless he authorized it or passed
> it on with the intention of it being used in this way. As I understand
> it, this information probably did not come from the USCF. After all,
> it was posted on rgcp as well, and there are many overwrought people
> not tied to the USCF who seem to hate the Polgars and might send this
> information out to damage them. I could see Sam Sloan, Brian Lafferty,
> Ray Gordon, Susan's ex-husband or others doing this. Each might have
> their own reasons, and each might be viewed as a supported on the FSS
> issue, but the information wouldn't have come from the USCF and the
> USCF should not be responsible for this extremely reprehensible
> behavior; it would not be a reason to resign.
>
### Note: If a board member used their position as a board member to
obtain sensitive information or if they conspired with an outsider
while they were an acting board member with an outside third party for
the specefic intent to drive the attacked person from the board or to
effect a change in board votes, that is a problem and there is a
liability there. The question that arises here is if the liability
policy will cover the board member who is perpatrating the conspiracy.
I am checking on this. My feeling is that deliberate and blatant
criminal acts may be excluded from protection under the liability
policy.
>
> > Please feel free to deny them just as Jerry Hanken.
>
> > In a message dated 7/1/2008 9:01:13 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
>
> > Chessoffice writes:
>
> > =A0 =A0 What "board act" do you have in mind?
>
> My conclusion, and it is not a shocking one, is that the resignation
> challenge in no way answers the FSS accusations, and that even if the
> allegations themselves are all technically true they are not in
> themselves reasons for the board to resign.
>
> JerrySpinrad
I would advise everyone to carefully read what has been written above
and digest it thoroughly.
Rob
|
| | |
Date: 06 Aug 2008 12:00:48
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board
|
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:05:37 -0700 (PDT), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
>On Jul 9, 2:36�pm, "[email protected]"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>> >�refusing to step down from the subcommittee due to clear conflict of interest
>> This charge is still not clear, since we don't know what conflict of
>> interest accusation is being made. I see no obvious conflict of
>> interest here; Goichberg has no obvious interest in manipulating the
>> information regarding FSS. Being a political opponent/supporter of the
>> accused is not in itself a conflict of interest; everyone can be
>> accused of having some political bias.
>### Note: If someone threatenes your livlihood by forcing a change in
>proceedures at the board level, that might be a problem. Right?
What changes? Empty posturing doesn't count.
>> > then declining to allow our experts the opportunity to inspect the
>> > database to verify the data.
>### Note: Does not the accused have the right to review the evidence
>against them?
Aren't you confusing a court case with business practice?
>> > Voting 5-0 to authorize the attorney to interfere with our legal
>> > defense by contacting Chubb to try to cancel our insurance coverage
>> > which is highly unethical.
>### Note: It is also a violation of the law. Chubb cannot refuse to
>provide them liability protection. The board cannot selectivly exclude
>board members from coverage. Whoever suggested this is an idiot and
>should have contacted me first. Or any insurance agent before stepping
>into this.
Do you have any knowledge as to who was contacted? Why on earth would
they contact you? AFAIK, you have no standing in this whole procedure
and are a known SP/PT partisan.
>> ...if the lawyers tell
>> you that the charges should be investigated, I would hesitate to say
>> it is wrong to allow them to follow what they tell you is standard
>> practice.
>### Note: If it is despicible, and you seem to agree that it is, don't
>back down from that. Lawyers would never tell you it should be
>investigated, unless you are refrencing Lafferty as the attorney .
Not being an attorney, how would you know what sort of things should
be investigated, the extent of the investigation, or the reasons for
it. Has the reasoning behind it or the extent of it been disclosed
yet?
>Those guilty of the
>actions of attempting to personally and pubically destroy these two
>fine people should suffer for their actions.
At last we agree on something. Pubic destruction is despicable and
prohibited under the Geneva Convention.
>> If Goichberg told the supporter to do this, I agree that it is
>> something to resign over. However, the fact that one of your
>> supporters did something nasty does not mean that you are guilty of
>> the nasty deed.
>### Note: If you are responsible for that individuals actions by right
>of an employee/employer relationship, you do have liability.
An employer is liable for something an employee does on his own
initiative on his own time using his own facilities? You say this
stuff so confidently, Rob.
>### Note: If a board member used their position as a board member to
>obtain sensitive information or if they conspired with an outsider
>while they were an acting board member with an outside third party for
>the specefic intent to drive the attacked person from the board or to
>effect a change in board votes, that is a problem and there is a
>liability there.
I'm glad to see you're starting to oppose Innes' ignorant nonsense
about the FSS' attempts to influence the board election as just a
juvenile satirical prank. Nice to see you finally developing your own
voice in these matters, Rob.
|
| |
Date: 14 Jul 2008 08:50:08
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board
|
Please note that this posting, which merely copies without any changes
or comments a BINFO which is available to the USCF membership, has not
been allowed to appear on the USCF Issues Forum.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 09 Jul 2008 12:36:19
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board
|
This seems to be the challenge of Susan Polgar to the board (you
resign if I am right on these, I will resign if I am wrong). As was
widely predicted, these charges might all be true even assuming that
Paul Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan, as in Mike Murray's amusing analogy
that Nixon would defend himself on Watergate by making accusations
about Alger Hiss.
We can all make our own minds up about how serious these charges are.
I find most of the charges, assuming they are true, as defensible
decisions in a difficult situation rather than issues to resign over.
>
> Hiding the investigation from the other 6 board members
If serious charges are brought to the attention of the executive
director, it is hard to decide who he should tell and who he should
keep in the dark. If the investigation would prove the accused person
innocent, you wouldn't want everyone to know about the slurs. If there
was a possibility of the accused erasing evidence, you wouldn't want
to tell them before there was a preliminary investigation. I feel this
action is reasonable.
refusing to
> step down from the subcommittee due to clear conflict of interest
This charge is still not clear, since we don't know what conflict of
interest accusation is being made. I see no obvious conflict of
interest here; Goichberg has no obvious interest in manipulating the
information regarding FSS. Being a political opponent/supporter of the
accused is not in itself a conflict of interest; everyone can be
accused of having some political bias.
> then declining to allow our experts the opportunity to inspect the
> database to verify the data.
The correct step at this point must be to ask the lawyers what is
appropriate, and take their advice. If this was done on legal advice,
this is certainly not grounds for resigning.
>
> Refusing to take action against contractors who blatantly violated the
> NDA, even after it was confirmed that the NDA was clearly violated
> multiple times.
This comes up often in whistle-blowing cases; you can get in lots of
trouble for acting against someone who uncovers a crime even if you
say they violated some technical issue. Not grounds for resignation.
>
> Leaking confidential and legal information to Jerry Hanken and others
> by one of the board members (Joel Channing and Randy Bauer are
> excluded). You even clearly stated that you're aware that Jerry Hanken
> received confidential information and he used this to negotiate with
> Sam Sloan.
This is a legal strategy issue. Trying to get Sloan to drop the case
was clearly in the interests of the USCF. It is not clear what
information leaked was supposed to be "confidential and legal" here;
Sloan already had the Motterhead report at this time. Certainly if the
lawyers advised this, it is not an approach which should be condemned.
Unless some shocking leak of legal information is at issue here, I
think this is way overblown.
>
> Voting 5-0 to authorize the attorney to interfere with our legal
> defense by contacting Chubb to try to cancel our insurance coverage
> which is highly unethical.
I do not know enough about legal ethics to say. My impression was that
the vote was to separate out the USCF as defendants from the Polgars
as defendants, which is clearly appropriate. As to contacting Chubb,
who Chubb was representing, and what the appropriate legal ethics are
here, I defer to others. By the interpretation of the vote I
understand, at least the vote itself was correct rather than something
to resign over.
>
> Not stopping your attorney from trying to investigate the bogus claim
> that Paul and I abused my children.
I find this investigation extremely distasteful. Yet lawyers I know
well tell me that distasteful pursuit of damaging evidence against
your legal opponents is simply the way law works. It seems despicable,
since it is irrelevant to the FSS issue; however, if the lawyers tell
you that the charges should be investigated, I would hesitate to say
it is wrong to allow them to follow what they tell you is standard
practice.
These outrageous, vicious, and
> damaging charges which were proven completely false were then sent to
> multiple high level individuals at Texas Tech as well as the local
> media
This is the one charge which is really serious. Certainly, the lawyers
would not recommend this course of action. It is morally
reprehensible, and does not even have the cover of being standard
operating practice.
by one of your supporters to try to get me fired from my job.
If Goichberg told the supporter to do this, I agree that it is
something to resign over. However, the fact that one of your
supporters did something nasty does not mean that you are guilty of
the nasty deed. I would not hold Truong or Polgar responsible for
disgusting statements made by Nomen Nescio (or incomprehensible
statements by Phil Innes), and I wouldn't hold Goichberg responsible
for whoever leaked this information unless he authorized it or passed
it on with the intention of it being used in this way. As I understand
it, this information probably did not come from the USCF. After all,
it was posted on rgcp as well, and there are many overwrought people
not tied to the USCF who seem to hate the Polgars and might send this
information out to damage them. I could see Sam Sloan, Brian Lafferty,
Ray Gordon, Susan's ex-husband or others doing this. Each might have
their own reasons, and each might be viewed as a supported on the FSS
issue, but the information wouldn't have come from the USCF and the
USCF should not be responsible for this extremely reprehensible
behavior; it would not be a reason to resign.
>
> Please feel free to deny them just as Jerry Hanken.
>
> In a message dated 7/1/2008 9:01:13 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
>
> Chessoffice writes:
>
> =A0 =A0 What "board act" do you have in mind?
My conclusion, and it is not a shocking one, is that the resignation
challenge in no way answers the FSS accusations, and that even if the
allegations themselves are all technically true they are not in
themselves reasons for the board to resign.
Jerry Spinrad
|
|
