| |
Main
Date: 21 Dec 2008 19:42:31
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Messages From the Dark Side
|
Donna Alarie presents a motion that she says will be proposed by Sue
Polgar. There is no motion by Polgar or Truong in the BINFO. Here is
what she says, followed by my question.
By the way, anyone who starts attacking the messengers here instead of
discussing the issues brought up with this motion will immediately lose
any and all respect from me and you'll find that I will not respond to
your posts. It's time to stop the personal attacks and just stick to the
issues. Those who cannot do so are part of the problem and not the
solution in my opinion. I prefer to work with those who want to find
solutions and move this organization forward in spite of the current
obstacles.
Also, to nip this new rumor in the bud, no, I have not gone over to the
"dark side", nor am I looking for any endorsements from any faction, nor
have I decided whether I will or will not run for the EB. I'm just
sticking to the issues and for the rest of the day, I expect that I'll
be sticking to the Christmas season and in my priority list is trying to
dig our tree out of the 12 inches of snow in the backyard.
Oh yeah, and by the way, being without power or heat for five days, a
phone for seven days, and internet access for a week due to the icestorm
in this area followed by back to back snowstorms reaffirms what's
important in life. Just more food for thought.
Merry Christmas to all!
Donna Alarie
Massachusetts Delegate
*********************************************************
Questions: Who provided you with Polgar's motion? Polgar? Truong?
Muradian? Innes? Mitchell? Brock?
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2008 14:02:52
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
Since Donna is asking for opinions, here is mine:
The idea is absurd, ridiculous. I am surprised that Donna would post
such a half-baked idea, even as a messenger.
One does not just create five "funds" in one fell swoop. Such an idea
could only come from an uneducated person who has never been to
school, like Susan Polgar.
Funds are regulated by state and federal governments. If these funds
hold securities, they may be regulated by the SEC as well. You cannot
just create an entity and call it a "fund". You cannot even use the
word "Fund" in the title of an organization without meeting the
appropriate state regulations.
This proposal does not state whether these funds would be part of the
USCF or a separate outside corporations like the US Chess Trust is. By
the way, the word "Trust" is another one of those magic words that
cannot be used without meeting state requirements.
From the timing, it seems likely that she is proposing that the
$350,000 bequest would be put into these funds. This is probably
border-line illegal without a lot of paper-work. What would these
funds do, where would they get money from, what would they do with the
money? There are all questions that first would have to be addressed
and thought out.
By the way, Donna, I have always assumed that you have some
qualifications along these lines. Apparently I was mistaken. If you
had any background in this field at all you would have realized how
ridiculous this proposal is.
Kindly recall that have worked in the securities industry for thirty
years so I have some knowledge about such matters.
When I was first elected to the board, at my first meeting of the
board I proposed the creation of an "Olympic Host Committee" which
would try to raise funds for and place bids for the holding of a World
Chess Olympiad in the United States. My motion passed but Bill
Goichberg, since he was refusing to appoint me as the liaison to any
committee, refused to make me the liaison to the committee that had
been created on my motion. So, he made Robert Tanner the liaison.
As a result, the committee never got formed and no activity took
place. The Committee still supposedly exists because my motion which
passed was never rescinded, but since the committee has no liaison and
no members nothing is being done.
Why not go back and create that committee, since it seems to be
similar to one of the five that has been outlined above.
And since Donna has set forth such a silly idea, even though she says
that it is Susan's idea, perhaps Donna can tell us what her background
is.
This is almost a bad as Bill Goichberg, who keeps bringing up the idea
of making the USCF into a 501(c)(3), when for more than a decade it
has been repeatedly shown again and again that this would be, for
practical purposes, impossible.
Sam Sloan
[quote="DACP"]And now for something completely different.
I believe that this motion will be coming up in the BINFO shortly.
Ms. Polgar has provided permission to me to post this here:
Per Susan Polgar:
Motion to create the following five (5) funds:
* U.S. Championship (Open and Women) Fund
* U.S. National Scholastic Championships Fund
* U.S. Aspiring Chess Professionals Fund
* U.S. Olympiad Fund
* U.S. World Championship Fund
Donations, sponsorships, and estate bequests made to these funds are
forbidden to be utilized for general operations, pension, employee
benefits, or legal expenses of the USCF.
Each fund will consist of 4 committee members plus the Executive
Director of the USCF. Committee members will be voted upon by the
delegates at the annual meeting of delegates every third year from the
time of inception of the funds. Each fund will carry its own
individual bank account with dual signatory requirement (committee
head and Executive Director).
All minutes of committee meetings are to be made available (via USCF
website) to any USCF member in good standing within 72 hours after
committee meeting has adjourned. No more than 25% of each fund can be
invested in stocks (75% must be kept in low risk financial
instruments).
No sitting USCF Executive Board member can be part of any committee.
No committee members, except for the USCF Executive Director, may be
seated to more than one of the four committees. The USCF Executive
Director is the liaison between the committees and the Executive Board
and may voice the opinions / concerns of the USCF EB.
Prior to seating committee members, exploratory committees to be
created to expand upon the purpose, goals, and guidelines for each.
Exploratory committees to be created by the Feb 2009 EB meeting.
Exploratory committee reports due by the May or June 2009 EB meeting.
Nominations for committee members due by the printing of the delegates
call for the August 2009 Annual Meeting of Delegates. Voting to occur
by the delegates at the August 2009 Annual Meeting of Delegates.
My response to the above is this:
Wow, I am incredibly impressed by this motion by Susan. I really like
all of it except for one thing. Each committee should have a liaison
to the USCF Executive Board with the EB member being an ex officio
member - in other words, no power to vote on matters before it but the
ability to speak at meetings. It would be beneficial for EB members
to be able to give input on items which they may be aware of as EB
members and also to keep the EB informed of proposals in the various
committees in case the EB has other actions which it would like to
take in conjunction with proposals in committees.
Also, there probably needs to be a clause in there as to how to fill
vacancies on a committee should a member of the committee resign or
pass away. And I don't see a clause defining how the heads of the
committees would be selected.
Also, a precedent is set with the LMA. I see no reason why the EB
members need to control the funds which should be set up individually
with specific guidelines. I believe that Kevin Bacheler called this a
Rabbi Trust. In fact, having members dedicated to specific purposes
has worked extremely well in these types of efforts - the US Chess
Trust is another example of something which seems to work well when
the guidelines are well defined.
As for the other posts about paying down the mortgage and the fear of
lawsuits, my recommendation is this. Start thinking about how to
promote USCF and promote chess. Yes, the lawsuits are going to be a
part of life for the next year as best I can tell, so budget for
it...I know this is a novel concept for USCF but it really is possible
to cash manage a business and to streamline operations. It's not
popular, but USCF should have been talking about layoffs in
August...it's overstaffed and/or has the wrong people in the wrong
positions.
The other thing is to stop thinking about cutting services to life
members by eliminating the magazine. People seem to forget that there
are residual benefits to the magazine and there are dominoes that fall
when one deals with it. I'll be very curious to see who the
benefactor here is and if they happened to "like" Chess Life.
However, having said that, Chess Life is not a sacred cow. There is
no reason why it cannot be analyzed by a focus group and a Chess Life
committee as to what is important, what is not, what can be put
online, whether a bi-monthly publication might be acceptable, etc.
Also, let's think about email contacts to members on a monthly basis,
newsletters, and benefits of membership other than a magazine. The
above proposal starts in that direction.
By the way, anyone who starts attacking the messengers here instead of
discussing the issues brought up with this motion will immediately
lose any and all respect from me and you'll find that I will not
respond to your posts. It's time to stop the personal attacks and
just stick to the issues. Those who cannot do so are part of the
problem and not the solution in my opinion. I prefer to work with
those who want to find solutions and move this organization forward in
spite of the current obstacles.
Also, to nip this new rumor in the bud, no, I have not gone over to
the "dark side", nor am I looking for any endorsements from any
faction, nor have I decided whether I will or will not run for the
EB. I'm just sticking to the issues and for the rest of the day, I
expect that I'll be sticking to the Christmas season and in my
priority list is trying to dig our tree out of the 12 inches of snow
in the backyard.
Oh yeah, and by the way, being without power or heat for five days, a
phone for seven days, and internet access for a week due to the
icestorm in this area followed by back to back snowstorms reaffirms
what's important in life. Just more food for thought.
Merry Christmas to all![/quote]
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 07:17:28
From: billbrock
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
On Dec 22, 5:05=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Donna Alarie writes on the USCF Forum:
> by DACP on Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:40 am #121022
>
> All I have done here is post what will appear in the BINFO's within a
> few days. We all know that Ms. Polgar does not post here and that is her
> prerogative.
>
> While several individuals here seem to want to turn every single thing
> into a discussion of lawsuits, I'd really like to start seeing just a
> few discussions about promoting chess and what USCF plans to do with
> that objective in mind.
>
> I personally believe that the five funds in the motion are well within
> the mission of USCF. I also personally believe that having delegates
> elect committee members who would guide these funds involves more than
> just a chosen few in USCF governance and brings USCF more in line with
> other non-profit structures - successful ones - with which I'm
> affiliated with. Most organizations operate under the theory that the
> more input the better. Setting up restricted funds is a way of life in
> most non-profits which operate based upon receiving grants. Donors who
> provide funds for a specific purpose generally want proof that the money
> has been used for that purpose and one would think that if the
> membership could see concrete guidelines which reassures them that funds
> will be used for the purpose for which the fund was structured that
> maybe, just maybe USCF could start to regain some credibility in the
> marketplace again.
>
> Since the five funds have five different objectives, it would make sense
> that different individuals would have an interest in them and would be
> more likely to take leadership roles to make the funds successful.
>
> I believe that this belongs under the $350k bequest thread because I
> personally would like to see USCF create exploratory committees and seed
> each of those funds with $10k - a whopping $50k total from the bequest,
> but enough to show that USCF cares about chess - what a concept. Oh, and
> by the way, I did say seed the funds. One of those things that other
> organizations do well. They plant seeds and then grow returns on
> investments or use the seeds to run fundraisers, etc. and increase their
> funds with donations from the general public or membership. For some
> reason, this seems like a foreign concept when brought to the USCF table.
>
> Let's see, right now, what is USCF know for? Lawsuits and in-fighting.
> What would promotion of those five funds with five different committees
> with different committee members all trying to make their fund
> successful do? Right. Promote chess. What a novel idea. That might not
> be good for political factions, but it would be good for chess.
>
> As for paying down the mortgage, wonderful. Now all management has to do
> is expand its $150k credit line which was tapped out in November and
> secure it with the real estate. Who is kidding who here folks? Putting
> the money into the real estate doesn't protect it from lawsuits. Just an
> fyi, USCF loses a lawsuit and the courts can force the organization to
> sell its assets to pay off the winner of the lawsuit. Oh, and they
> really won't care that this is a depressed real estate market and not
> the best time to sell. Paying down the mortage would make the most sense
> if simultaneously with that, it were possible to refinance at a lower
> interest rate for a shorter term than the current mortgage. And I
> wouldn't recommend putting all the money in that basket.
>
> By the way, maybe some of you who are discussing the finances want to
> take a look at USCF's bleak financial picture before this bequest rolled
> in? USCF was well on its way to another year in the red...
>
> At the annual meeting, Randy Bauer said that this bequest was not going
> to solve all of USCF's problems and he had a great idea - let's not just
> spend it. I agree with that concept. There is a desperate need to have a
> contingency fund, a reserve, one of those things that USCF had years ago
> for rainy days.
>
> What I'd really love to know is who the benefactor is and what his/her
> views were on USCF. I find it absolutely amazing that someone
> intelligent enough to garner $350k would then just give it to USCF
> without any guidance as to how it should be used especially in light of
> USCF's less than stellar accounting practices of the recent past and
> it's current less than stable financial condition.
>
> However, be that as it may, one would think that the average chess
> enthusiast would have been interested in seeing his bequest do a bit
> more than just pay off a mortgage, pay for lawsuits, pay the electric
> bill, or sit in a bank.
>
> In a perfect world, USCF would create a business plan. If it had one,
> then it would actually have some clue where the bequest might best be
> used. Since it doesn't have one, I can at least appreciate the five
> funds and the objectives as an informal way of heading in the direction
> of one. Exploratory committees really can't hurt and hey, maybe just
> maybe it would help USCF develop new leadership and new ideas.
>
> Okay, I'm done dreaming...back to my Christmas festivity planning...
>
> Continue on with the good will spreading...
> Donna Alarie
> Massachusetts Delegate
> ****************************************************
>
> Donna, you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Says Mr. Lafferty, who associates with Mr. Sloan, and who makes
unsubstantiated allegations about my current associations upthread.
(The world view implied in the title is too sunnily Manichean, as if
there were only one dark side.)
To substance:
Board-designated restrictions can always be undone. These funds would
continue to be part of Unrestricted Net Assets. Given that USCF has
been the home of political infighting for the past three decades,
board restrictions would, absent consensus, do little besides create a
stage for future battles.
Even if the entire $350,000 were board-restricted, one couldn't use
more than (say) $14,000 per year without depleting the corpus -
assuming 6% investment income + inflation in normal times (and these
are ZIRP times).
In light of the macro climate, USCF finances, and USCF's public image,
campaigns for five funds seems overambitious. Even if one had $2.5
million corpus for the U.S. Closed Championships (yields $100K/year)
and $1.5 million for the Olympiad teams (yields $60K/year), one would
still need to do some additional fundraising. The U.S. Chess Trust
is a 501(c)(3) and can hold itself out separately from USCF: these are
both big advantages. But it only had about $750K as of 5/31/06. I
would urge those considering major bequests to make them to the Trust.
Finally, the rumor mill gives one the impression that Ms. Polgar and
Mr. Truong were pleased that USCF was on the brink of insolvency.
From that perspective, the bequest itself would be problematic. I
note again: board members are REQUIRED to subordinate their personal
interests to their fiduciary duty. When they cannot do so, they must
resign. Further, such resignations, in and of themselves, are
honorable acts, and could be presented to one's current employer as
such. (cc to Gov. Blagojevich)
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 15:33:39
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
billbrock wrote:
> On Dec 22, 5:05 am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Donna Alarie writes on the USCF Forum:
>> by DACP on Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:40 am #121022
>>
>> All I have done here is post what will appear in the BINFO's within a
>> few days. We all know that Ms. Polgar does not post here and that is her
>> prerogative.
>>
>> While several individuals here seem to want to turn every single thing
>> into a discussion of lawsuits, I'd really like to start seeing just a
>> few discussions about promoting chess and what USCF plans to do with
>> that objective in mind.
>>
>> I personally believe that the five funds in the motion are well within
>> the mission of USCF. I also personally believe that having delegates
>> elect committee members who would guide these funds involves more than
>> just a chosen few in USCF governance and brings USCF more in line with
>> other non-profit structures - successful ones - with which I'm
>> affiliated with. Most organizations operate under the theory that the
>> more input the better. Setting up restricted funds is a way of life in
>> most non-profits which operate based upon receiving grants. Donors who
>> provide funds for a specific purpose generally want proof that the money
>> has been used for that purpose and one would think that if the
>> membership could see concrete guidelines which reassures them that funds
>> will be used for the purpose for which the fund was structured that
>> maybe, just maybe USCF could start to regain some credibility in the
>> marketplace again.
>>
>> Since the five funds have five different objectives, it would make sense
>> that different individuals would have an interest in them and would be
>> more likely to take leadership roles to make the funds successful.
>>
>> I believe that this belongs under the $350k bequest thread because I
>> personally would like to see USCF create exploratory committees and seed
>> each of those funds with $10k - a whopping $50k total from the bequest,
>> but enough to show that USCF cares about chess - what a concept. Oh, and
>> by the way, I did say seed the funds. One of those things that other
>> organizations do well. They plant seeds and then grow returns on
>> investments or use the seeds to run fundraisers, etc. and increase their
>> funds with donations from the general public or membership. For some
>> reason, this seems like a foreign concept when brought to the USCF table.
>>
>> Let's see, right now, what is USCF know for? Lawsuits and in-fighting.
>> What would promotion of those five funds with five different committees
>> with different committee members all trying to make their fund
>> successful do? Right. Promote chess. What a novel idea. That might not
>> be good for political factions, but it would be good for chess.
>>
>> As for paying down the mortgage, wonderful. Now all management has to do
>> is expand its $150k credit line which was tapped out in November and
>> secure it with the real estate. Who is kidding who here folks? Putting
>> the money into the real estate doesn't protect it from lawsuits. Just an
>> fyi, USCF loses a lawsuit and the courts can force the organization to
>> sell its assets to pay off the winner of the lawsuit. Oh, and they
>> really won't care that this is a depressed real estate market and not
>> the best time to sell. Paying down the mortage would make the most sense
>> if simultaneously with that, it were possible to refinance at a lower
>> interest rate for a shorter term than the current mortgage. And I
>> wouldn't recommend putting all the money in that basket.
>>
>> By the way, maybe some of you who are discussing the finances want to
>> take a look at USCF's bleak financial picture before this bequest rolled
>> in? USCF was well on its way to another year in the red...
>>
>> At the annual meeting, Randy Bauer said that this bequest was not going
>> to solve all of USCF's problems and he had a great idea - let's not just
>> spend it. I agree with that concept. There is a desperate need to have a
>> contingency fund, a reserve, one of those things that USCF had years ago
>> for rainy days.
>>
>> What I'd really love to know is who the benefactor is and what his/her
>> views were on USCF. I find it absolutely amazing that someone
>> intelligent enough to garner $350k would then just give it to USCF
>> without any guidance as to how it should be used especially in light of
>> USCF's less than stellar accounting practices of the recent past and
>> it's current less than stable financial condition.
>>
>> However, be that as it may, one would think that the average chess
>> enthusiast would have been interested in seeing his bequest do a bit
>> more than just pay off a mortgage, pay for lawsuits, pay the electric
>> bill, or sit in a bank.
>>
>> In a perfect world, USCF would create a business plan. If it had one,
>> then it would actually have some clue where the bequest might best be
>> used. Since it doesn't have one, I can at least appreciate the five
>> funds and the objectives as an informal way of heading in the direction
>> of one. Exploratory committees really can't hurt and hey, maybe just
>> maybe it would help USCF develop new leadership and new ideas.
>>
>> Okay, I'm done dreaming...back to my Christmas festivity planning...
>>
>> Continue on with the good will spreading...
>> Donna Alarie
>> Massachusetts Delegate
>> ****************************************************
>>
>> Donna, you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
>
> Says Mr. Lafferty, who associates with Mr. Sloan, and who makes
> unsubstantiated allegations about my current associations upthread.
> (The world view implied in the title is too sunnily Manichean, as if
> there were only one dark side.)
Mr. Brock, you know quite well that no allegation was made. To say
there was an allegation from me regarding you is disingenuous at best. I
asked a question as to who drafted the motion that Ms. Alarie says Sue
Polgar is about to make. If you are saying you didn't draft it or have
a hand in drafting it, that no doubt answers the question of Alarie as
to you. I can't imagine that you would misrepresent your involvement in
something such as the possible motion.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Dec 2008 22:23:18
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
What I would like to know is, who came up with this idea but is unable
or unwilling to post and discuss it on the USCF Forums. That Donna is
the messenger is consistent with the long and ongoing communications she
has had with Sevan Muradian, who is himself in frequent communication
with Polgar and Truong, and direct communications she has occasionally
had with Polgar herself. None of this is a secret. So again, why
can't/doesn't the originator of the "motion" put it out under his/her
own name and discuss it on its merits?
Perhaps Polgar and Truong were hoping to force the USCF to capitulate
due to running out of money. Now that isn't going to happen, so what
better way to win than prevent the EB from using bequest money to defend
the USCF from two board members who have violated their fiduciary duties
to the organization in numerous ways? Rather ironic considering the
$50,000+ that Trolgar has needlessly caused the USCF to expend in legal
fees due to their skulduggery.
samsloan wrote:
> Since Donna is asking for opinions, here is mine:
>
> The idea is absurd, ridiculous. I am surprised that Donna would post
> such a half-baked idea, even as a messenger.
>
> One does not just create five "funds" in one fell swoop. Such an idea
> could only come from an uneducated person who has never been to
> school, like Susan Polgar.
>
> Funds are regulated by state and federal governments. If these funds
> hold securities, they may be regulated by the SEC as well. You cannot
> just create an entity and call it a "fund". You cannot even use the
> word "Fund" in the title of an organization without meeting the
> appropriate state regulations.
>
> This proposal does not state whether these funds would be part of the
> USCF or a separate outside corporations like the US Chess Trust is. By
> the way, the word "Trust" is another one of those magic words that
> cannot be used without meeting state requirements.
>
> From the timing, it seems likely that she is proposing that the
> $350,000 bequest would be put into these funds. This is probably
> border-line illegal without a lot of paper-work. What would these
> funds do, where would they get money from, what would they do with the
> money? There are all questions that first would have to be addressed
> and thought out.
>
> By the way, Donna, I have always assumed that you have some
> qualifications along these lines. Apparently I was mistaken. If you
> had any background in this field at all you would have realized how
> ridiculous this proposal is.
>
> Kindly recall that have worked in the securities industry for thirty
> years so I have some knowledge about such matters.
>
> When I was first elected to the board, at my first meeting of the
> board I proposed the creation of an "Olympic Host Committee" which
> would try to raise funds for and place bids for the holding of a World
> Chess Olympiad in the United States. My motion passed but Bill
> Goichberg, since he was refusing to appoint me as the liaison to any
> committee, refused to make me the liaison to the committee that had
> been created on my motion. So, he made Robert Tanner the liaison.
>
> As a result, the committee never got formed and no activity took
> place. The Committee still supposedly exists because my motion which
> passed was never rescinded, but since the committee has no liaison and
> no members nothing is being done.
>
> Why not go back and create that committee, since it seems to be
> similar to one of the five that has been outlined above.
>
> And since Donna has set forth such a silly idea, even though she says
> that it is Susan's idea, perhaps Donna can tell us what her background
> is.
>
> This is almost a bad as Bill Goichberg, who keeps bringing up the idea
> of making the USCF into a 501(c)(3), when for more than a decade it
> has been repeatedly shown again and again that this would be, for
> practical purposes, impossible.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> [quote="DACP"]And now for something completely different.
>
> I believe that this motion will be coming up in the BINFO shortly.
> Ms. Polgar has provided permission to me to post this here:
>
> Per Susan Polgar:
>
> Motion to create the following five (5) funds:
>
>
>
> * U.S. Championship (Open and Women) Fund
>
>
>
> * U.S. National Scholastic Championships Fund
>
>
>
> * U.S. Aspiring Chess Professionals Fund
>
>
>
> * U.S. Olympiad Fund
>
> * U.S. World Championship Fund
>
> Donations, sponsorships, and estate bequests made to these funds are
> forbidden to be utilized for general operations, pension, employee
> benefits, or legal expenses of the USCF.
>
>
>
> Each fund will consist of 4 committee members plus the Executive
> Director of the USCF. Committee members will be voted upon by the
> delegates at the annual meeting of delegates every third year from the
> time of inception of the funds. Each fund will carry its own
> individual bank account with dual signatory requirement (committee
> head and Executive Director).
>
>
>
> All minutes of committee meetings are to be made available (via USCF
> website) to any USCF member in good standing within 72 hours after
> committee meeting has adjourned. No more than 25% of each fund can be
> invested in stocks (75% must be kept in low risk financial
> instruments).
>
>
>
> No sitting USCF Executive Board member can be part of any committee.
> No committee members, except for the USCF Executive Director, may be
> seated to more than one of the four committees. The USCF Executive
> Director is the liaison between the committees and the Executive Board
> and may voice the opinions / concerns of the USCF EB.
>
>
>
> Prior to seating committee members, exploratory committees to be
> created to expand upon the purpose, goals, and guidelines for each.
> Exploratory committees to be created by the Feb 2009 EB meeting.
> Exploratory committee reports due by the May or June 2009 EB meeting.
> Nominations for committee members due by the printing of the delegates
> call for the August 2009 Annual Meeting of Delegates. Voting to occur
> by the delegates at the August 2009 Annual Meeting of Delegates.
>
> My response to the above is this:
>
> Wow, I am incredibly impressed by this motion by Susan. I really like
> all of it except for one thing. Each committee should have a liaison
> to the USCF Executive Board with the EB member being an ex officio
> member - in other words, no power to vote on matters before it but the
> ability to speak at meetings. It would be beneficial for EB members
> to be able to give input on items which they may be aware of as EB
> members and also to keep the EB informed of proposals in the various
> committees in case the EB has other actions which it would like to
> take in conjunction with proposals in committees.
>
> Also, there probably needs to be a clause in there as to how to fill
> vacancies on a committee should a member of the committee resign or
> pass away. And I don't see a clause defining how the heads of the
> committees would be selected.
>
> Also, a precedent is set with the LMA. I see no reason why the EB
> members need to control the funds which should be set up individually
> with specific guidelines. I believe that Kevin Bacheler called this a
> Rabbi Trust. In fact, having members dedicated to specific purposes
> has worked extremely well in these types of efforts - the US Chess
> Trust is another example of something which seems to work well when
> the guidelines are well defined.
>
> As for the other posts about paying down the mortgage and the fear of
> lawsuits, my recommendation is this. Start thinking about how to
> promote USCF and promote chess. Yes, the lawsuits are going to be a
> part of life for the next year as best I can tell, so budget for
> it...I know this is a novel concept for USCF but it really is possible
> to cash manage a business and to streamline operations. It's not
> popular, but USCF should have been talking about layoffs in
> August...it's overstaffed and/or has the wrong people in the wrong
> positions.
>
> The other thing is to stop thinking about cutting services to life
> members by eliminating the magazine. People seem to forget that there
> are residual benefits to the magazine and there are dominoes that fall
> when one deals with it. I'll be very curious to see who the
> benefactor here is and if they happened to "like" Chess Life.
>
> However, having said that, Chess Life is not a sacred cow. There is
> no reason why it cannot be analyzed by a focus group and a Chess Life
> committee as to what is important, what is not, what can be put
> online, whether a bi-monthly publication might be acceptable, etc.
>
> Also, let's think about email contacts to members on a monthly basis,
> newsletters, and benefits of membership other than a magazine. The
> above proposal starts in that direction.
>
> By the way, anyone who starts attacking the messengers here instead of
> discussing the issues brought up with this motion will immediately
> lose any and all respect from me and you'll find that I will not
> respond to your posts. It's time to stop the personal attacks and
> just stick to the issues. Those who cannot do so are part of the
> problem and not the solution in my opinion. I prefer to work with
> those who want to find solutions and move this organization forward in
> spite of the current obstacles.
>
> Also, to nip this new rumor in the bud, no, I have not gone over to
> the "dark side", nor am I looking for any endorsements from any
> faction, nor have I decided whether I will or will not run for the
> EB. I'm just sticking to the issues and for the rest of the day, I
> expect that I'll be sticking to the Christmas season and in my
> priority list is trying to dig our tree out of the 12 inches of snow
> in the backyard.
>
> Oh yeah, and by the way, being without power or heat for five days, a
> phone for seven days, and internet access for a week due to the
> icestorm in this area followed by back to back snowstorms reaffirms
> what's important in life. Just more food for thought.
>
> Merry Christmas to all![/quote]
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 11:05:16
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
Donna Alarie writes on the USCF Forum:
by DACP on Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:40 am #121022
All I have done here is post what will appear in the BINFO's within a
few days. We all know that Ms. Polgar does not post here and that is her
prerogative.
While several individuals here seem to want to turn every single thing
into a discussion of lawsuits, I'd really like to start seeing just a
few discussions about promoting chess and what USCF plans to do with
that objective in mind.
I personally believe that the five funds in the motion are well within
the mission of USCF. I also personally believe that having delegates
elect committee members who would guide these funds involves more than
just a chosen few in USCF governance and brings USCF more in line with
other non-profit structures - successful ones - with which I'm
affiliated with. Most organizations operate under the theory that the
more input the better. Setting up restricted funds is a way of life in
most non-profits which operate based upon receiving grants. Donors who
provide funds for a specific purpose generally want proof that the money
has been used for that purpose and one would think that if the
membership could see concrete guidelines which reassures them that funds
will be used for the purpose for which the fund was structured that
maybe, just maybe USCF could start to regain some credibility in the
marketplace again.
Since the five funds have five different objectives, it would make sense
that different individuals would have an interest in them and would be
more likely to take leadership roles to make the funds successful.
I believe that this belongs under the $350k bequest thread because I
personally would like to see USCF create exploratory committees and seed
each of those funds with $10k - a whopping $50k total from the bequest,
but enough to show that USCF cares about chess - what a concept. Oh, and
by the way, I did say seed the funds. One of those things that other
organizations do well. They plant seeds and then grow returns on
investments or use the seeds to run fundraisers, etc. and increase their
funds with donations from the general public or membership. For some
reason, this seems like a foreign concept when brought to the USCF table.
Let's see, right now, what is USCF know for? Lawsuits and in-fighting.
What would promotion of those five funds with five different committees
with different committee members all trying to make their fund
successful do? Right. Promote chess. What a novel idea. That might not
be good for political factions, but it would be good for chess.
As for paying down the mortgage, wonderful. Now all management has to do
is expand its $150k credit line which was tapped out in November and
secure it with the real estate. Who is kidding who here folks? Putting
the money into the real estate doesn't protect it from lawsuits. Just an
fyi, USCF loses a lawsuit and the courts can force the organization to
sell its assets to pay off the winner of the lawsuit. Oh, and they
really won't care that this is a depressed real estate market and not
the best time to sell. Paying down the mortage would make the most sense
if simultaneously with that, it were possible to refinance at a lower
interest rate for a shorter term than the current mortgage. And I
wouldn't recommend putting all the money in that basket.
By the way, maybe some of you who are discussing the finances want to
take a look at USCF's bleak financial picture before this bequest rolled
in? USCF was well on its way to another year in the red...
At the annual meeting, Randy Bauer said that this bequest was not going
to solve all of USCF's problems and he had a great idea - let's not just
spend it. I agree with that concept. There is a desperate need to have a
contingency fund, a reserve, one of those things that USCF had years ago
for rainy days.
What I'd really love to know is who the benefactor is and what his/her
views were on USCF. I find it absolutely amazing that someone
intelligent enough to garner $350k would then just give it to USCF
without any guidance as to how it should be used especially in light of
USCF's less than stellar accounting practices of the recent past and
it's current less than stable financial condition.
However, be that as it may, one would think that the average chess
enthusiast would have been interested in seeing his bequest do a bit
more than just pay off a mortgage, pay for lawsuits, pay the electric
bill, or sit in a bank.
In a perfect world, USCF would create a business plan. If it had one,
then it would actually have some clue where the bequest might best be
used. Since it doesn't have one, I can at least appreciate the five
funds and the objectives as an informal way of heading in the direction
of one. Exploratory committees really can't hurt and hey, maybe just
maybe it would help USCF develop new leadership and new ideas.
Okay, I'm done dreaming...back to my Christmas festivity planning...
Continue on with the good will spreading...
Donna Alarie
Massachusetts Delegate
****************************************************
Donna, you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
|
| |
Date: 21 Dec 2008 13:29:04
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
You have left out the proposed motion. Here it is:
by DACP on Sun Dec 21, 2008 1:06 pm #120955
And now for something completely different.
I believe that this motion will be coming up in the BINFO shortly. Ms.
Polgar has provided permission to me to post this here:
Per Susan Polgar:
Motion to create the following five (5) funds:
* U.S. Championship (Open and Women) Fund
* U.S. National Scholastic Championships Fund
* U.S. Aspiring Chess Professionals Fund
* U.S. Olympiad Fund
* U.S. World Championship Fund
Donations, sponsorships, and estate bequests made to these funds are
forbidden to be utilized for general operations, pension, employee
benefits, or legal expenses of the USCF.
Each fund will consist of 4 committee members plus the Executive
Director of the USCF. Committee members will be voted upon by the
delegates at the annual meeting of delegates every third year from the
time of inception of the funds. Each fund will carry its own
individual bank account with dual signatory requirement (committee
head and Executive Director).
All minutes of committee meetings are to be made available (via USCF
website) to any USCF member in good standing within 72 hours after
committee meeting has adjourned. No more than 25% of each fund can be
invested in stocks (75% must be kept in low risk financial
instruments).
No sitting USCF Executive Board member can be part of any committee.
No committee members, except for the USCF Executive Director, may be
seated to more than one of the four committees. The USCF Executive
Director is the liaison between the committees and the Executive Board
and may voice the opinions / concerns of the USCF EB.
Prior to seating committee members, exploratory committees to be
created to expand upon the purpose, goals, and guidelines for each.
Exploratory committees to be created by the Feb 2009 EB meeting.
Exploratory committee reports due by the May or June 2009 EB meeting.
Nominations for committee members due by the printing of the delegates
call for the August 2009 Annual Meeting of Delegates. Voting to occur
by the delegates at the August 2009 Annual Meeting of Delegates.
My response to the above is this:
Wow, I am incredibly impressed by this motion by Susan. I really like
all of it except for one thing. Each committee should have a liaison
to the USCF Executive Board with the EB member being an ex officio
member - in other words, no power to vote on matters before it but the
ability to speak at meetings. It would be beneficial for EB members to
be able to give input on items which they may be aware of as EB
members and also to keep the EB informed of proposals in the various
committees in case the EB has other actions which it would like to
take in conjunction with proposals in committees.
Also, there probably needs to be a clause in there as to how to fill
vacancies on a committee should a member of the committee resign or
pass away. And I don't see a clause defining how the heads of the
committees would be selected.
Also, a precedent is set with the LMA. I see no reason why the EB
members need to control the funds which should be set up individually
with specific guidelines. I believe that Kevin Bacheler called this a
Rabbi Trust. In fact, having members dedicated to specific purposes
has worked extremely well in these types of efforts - the US Chess
Trust is another example of something which seems to work well when
the guidelines are well defined.
As for the other posts about paying down the mortgage and the fear of
lawsuits, my recommendation is this. Start thinking about how to
promote USCF and promote chess. Yes, the lawsuits are going to be a
part of life for the next year as best I can tell, so budget for
it...I know this is a novel concept for USCF but it really is possible
to cash manage a business and to streamline operations. It's not
popular, but USCF should have been talking about layoffs in
August...it's overstaffed and/or has the wrong people in the wrong
positions.
The other thing is to stop thinking about cutting services to life
members by eliminating the magazine. People seem to forget that there
are residual benefits to the magazine and there are dominoes that fall
when one deals with it. I'll be very curious to see who the benefactor
here is and if they happened to "like" Chess Life.
However, having said that, Chess Life is not a sacred cow. There is no
reason why it cannot be analyzed by a focus group and a Chess Life
committee as to what is important, what is not, what can be put
online, whether a bi-monthly publication might be acceptable, etc.
Also, let's think about email contacts to members on a monthly basis,
newsletters, and benefits of membership other than a magazine. The
above proposal starts in that direction.
By the way, anyone who starts attacking the messengers here instead of
discussing the issues brought up with this motion will immediately
lose any and all respect from me and you'll find that I will not
respond to your posts. It's time to stop the personal attacks and just
stick to the issues. Those who cannot do so are part of the problem
and not the solution in my opinion. I prefer to work with those who
want to find solutions and move this organization forward in spite of
the current obstacles.
Also, to nip this new rumor in the bud, no, I have not gone over to
the "dark side", nor am I looking for any endorsements from any
faction, nor have I decided whether I will or will not run for the EB.
I'm just sticking to the issues and for the rest of the day, I expect
that I'll be sticking to the Christmas season and in my priority list
is trying to dig our tree out of the 12 inches of snow in the
backyard.
Oh yeah, and by the way, being without power or heat for five days, a
phone for seven days, and internet access for a week due to the
icestorm in this area followed by back to back snowstorms reaffirms
what's important in life. Just more food for thought.
Merry Christmas to all!
Donna Alarie
Massachusetts Delegate
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 16:01:36
From:
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
foad wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > foad wrote:
> >>
> >> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>> To me, Donna Alarie has lost credbility with this motion of hers, and
> >>> I am now convinced that this is her motion, not Susan Polgar's.
> >>> Therefore, do not be surprised if it does not show up in the BINFOS.
> >>>
> >>> Any proposal by Susan Polgar will always be about how she can get the
> >>> money. For example, she will propose that Paul Truong be sent on a
> >>> nationwide speaking and lecture tour. (This is an actual proposal by
> >>> Susan Polgar. You can find it in the BINFOS.)
> >>>
> >>> Donna's Proposal is how to put the money in a place where the board
> >>> cannot spend it or lose it. Donna seriously suggests that Susan Polgar
> >>> might win a substantial money judgment.
> >>
> >>
> >> Polgar may well win a substantial money judgment: you slander her on
> >> nearly a daily basis. And she has a reputation to be damaged, as opposed
> >> to say, a commonplace variety of usenet fucktard, that is, you. It'll be
> >> highly amusing to see how your jointly and severally liable co defendants
> >> react when their allegedly judgment proof point man drags them to
> >> bankruptcy over a case of unrequited puppy love. So contrary to what's
> >> been said recently, it's essential that you keep x posting, as I've
> >> already made the popcorn.
> >>
> > Don't hold your breath waiting for her to win a judgment. She's a public
> > figure who must prove actual malice meaning that the statements made about
> > her were made knowing that they were false or with reckless disregard for
> > their truth or falsity.
>
> There's more than one COA in the complaint. In any event, if you don't think
> Sloan exhibits the malice of a scorned woman you're not paying attention.
>
>
> > Ms Polgar can't even plead the specific words she claims defamed her
> > because she says she needs to look at private emails and such in the
> > USCF's possession. I don't think the court will take kindly to Polgar
> > suing people for defamation when she admits she knows of no defamatory
> > words. Her complaint is brought in bad faith. I expect down the to be
> > requesting Rule 11 sanctions against her, Killion and his associate
> > Estrella.
>
> And I expect the judge will laugh at you.
While it pains me to agree with Brian L. it's pretty obvious that you
do not understand what "actual malice" means. When you don't
understand, you should keep silent.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2008 01:32:23
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> foad wrote:
>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> foad wrote:
>>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> To me, Donna Alarie has lost credbility with this motion of hers, and
>>>>> I am now convinced that this is her motion, not Susan Polgar's.
>>>>> Therefore, do not be surprised if it does not show up in the BINFOS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any proposal by Susan Polgar will always be about how she can get the
>>>>> money. For example, she will propose that Paul Truong be sent on a
>>>>> nationwide speaking and lecture tour. (This is an actual proposal by
>>>>> Susan Polgar. You can find it in the BINFOS.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Donna's Proposal is how to put the money in a place where the board
>>>>> cannot spend it or lose it. Donna seriously suggests that Susan Polgar
>>>>> might win a substantial money judgment.
>>>>
>>>> Polgar may well win a substantial money judgment: you slander her on
>>>> nearly a daily basis. And she has a reputation to be damaged, as opposed
>>>> to say, a commonplace variety of usenet fucktard, that is, you. It'll be
>>>> highly amusing to see how your jointly and severally liable co defendants
>>>> react when their allegedly judgment proof point man drags them to
>>>> bankruptcy over a case of unrequited puppy love. So contrary to what's
>>>> been said recently, it's essential that you keep x posting, as I've
>>>> already made the popcorn.
>>>>
>>> Don't hold your breath waiting for her to win a judgment. She's a public
>>> figure who must prove actual malice meaning that the statements made about
>>> her were made knowing that they were false or with reckless disregard for
>>> their truth or falsity.
>> There's more than one COA in the complaint. In any event, if you don't think
>> Sloan exhibits the malice of a scorned woman you're not paying attention.
>>
>>
>>> Ms Polgar can't even plead the specific words she claims defamed her
>>> because she says she needs to look at private emails and such in the
>>> USCF's possession. I don't think the court will take kindly to Polgar
>>> suing people for defamation when she admits she knows of no defamatory
>>> words. Her complaint is brought in bad faith. I expect down the to be
>>> requesting Rule 11 sanctions against her, Killion and his associate
>>> Estrella.
>> And I expect the judge will laugh at you.
>
>
> While it pains me to agree with Brian L. it's pretty obvious that you
> do not understand what "actual malice" means. When you don't
> understand, you should keep silent.
A big hug to you, John. Happy Holidays, too.
|
| | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2008 00:09:14
From: foad
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> foad wrote:
>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> > foad wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[email protected]...
>> >>> To me, Donna Alarie has lost credbility with this motion of hers, and
>> >>> I am now convinced that this is her motion, not Susan Polgar's.
>> >>> Therefore, do not be surprised if it does not show up in the BINFOS.
>> >>>
>> >>> Any proposal by Susan Polgar will always be about how she can get the
>> >>> money. For example, she will propose that Paul Truong be sent on a
>> >>> nationwide speaking and lecture tour. (This is an actual proposal by
>> >>> Susan Polgar. You can find it in the BINFOS.)
>> >>>
>> >>> Donna's Proposal is how to put the money in a place where the board
>> >>> cannot spend it or lose it. Donna seriously suggests that Susan
>> >>> Polgar
>> >>> might win a substantial money judgment.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Polgar may well win a substantial money judgment: you slander her on
>> >> nearly a daily basis. And she has a reputation to be damaged, as
>> >> opposed
>> >> to say, a commonplace variety of usenet fucktard, that is, you. It'll
>> >> be
>> >> highly amusing to see how your jointly and severally liable co
>> >> defendants
>> >> react when their allegedly judgment proof point man drags them to
>> >> bankruptcy over a case of unrequited puppy love. So contrary to what's
>> >> been said recently, it's essential that you keep x posting, as I've
>> >> already made the popcorn.
>> >>
>> > Don't hold your breath waiting for her to win a judgment. She's a
>> > public
>> > figure who must prove actual malice meaning that the statements made
>> > about
>> > her were made knowing that they were false or with reckless disregard
>> > for
>> > their truth or falsity.
>>
>> There's more than one COA in the complaint. In any event, if you don't
>> think
>> Sloan exhibits the malice of a scorned woman you're not paying attention.
>>
>>
>> > Ms Polgar can't even plead the specific words she claims defamed her
>> > because she says she needs to look at private emails and such in the
>> > USCF's possession. I don't think the court will take kindly to Polgar
>> > suing people for defamation when she admits she knows of no defamatory
>> > words. Her complaint is brought in bad faith. I expect down the to be
>> > requesting Rule 11 sanctions against her, Killion and his associate
>> > Estrella.
>>
>> And I expect the judge will laugh at you.
>
>
> While it pains me to agree with Brian L. it's pretty obvious that you
> do not understand what "actual malice" means. When you don't
> understand, you should keep silent.
Blow me.
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2008 01:45:36
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
foad wrote:
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>
>> foad wrote:
>>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> > foad wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> >>
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>> >>> To me, Donna Alarie has lost credbility with this motion of hers,
>>> and
>>> >>> I am now convinced that this is her motion, not Susan Polgar's.
>>> >>> Therefore, do not be surprised if it does not show up in the BINFOS.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Any proposal by Susan Polgar will always be about how she can get
>>> the
>>> >>> money. For example, she will propose that Paul Truong be sent on a
>>> >>> nationwide speaking and lecture tour. (This is an actual proposal by
>>> >>> Susan Polgar. You can find it in the BINFOS.)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Donna's Proposal is how to put the money in a place where the board
>>> >>> cannot spend it or lose it. Donna seriously suggests that Susan
>>> >>> Polgar
>>> >>> might win a substantial money judgment.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Polgar may well win a substantial money judgment: you slander her on
>>> >> nearly a daily basis. And she has a reputation to be damaged, as
>>> >> opposed
>>> >> to say, a commonplace variety of usenet fucktard, that is, you.
>>> It'll >> be
>>> >> highly amusing to see how your jointly and severally liable co >>
>>> defendants
>>> >> react when their allegedly judgment proof point man drags them to
>>> >> bankruptcy over a case of unrequited puppy love. So contrary to
>>> what's
>>> >> been said recently, it's essential that you keep x posting, as I've
>>> >> already made the popcorn.
>>> >>
>>> > Don't hold your breath waiting for her to win a judgment. She's a
>>> > public
>>> > figure who must prove actual malice meaning that the statements
>>> made > about
>>> > her were made knowing that they were false or with reckless
>>> disregard > for
>>> > their truth or falsity.
>>>
>>> There's more than one COA in the complaint. In any event, if you
>>> don't think
>>> Sloan exhibits the malice of a scorned woman you're not paying
>>> attention.
>>>
>>>
>>> > Ms Polgar can't even plead the specific words she claims defamed her
>>> > because she says she needs to look at private emails and such in the
>>> > USCF's possession. I don't think the court will take kindly to Polgar
>>> > suing people for defamation when she admits she knows of no defamatory
>>> > words. Her complaint is brought in bad faith. I expect down the
>>> to be
>>> > requesting Rule 11 sanctions against her, Killion and his associate
>>> > Estrella.
>>>
>>> And I expect the judge will laugh at you.
>>
>>
>> While it pains me to agree with Brian L. it's pretty obvious that you
>> do not understand what "actual malice" means. When you don't
>> understand, you should keep silent.
>
> Blow me.
>
He'll need your address for that.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Dec 2008 02:17:18
From: foad
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> foad wrote:
>>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>> foad wrote:
>>>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> > foad wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> >>
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> >>> To me, Donna Alarie has lost credbility with this motion of hers,
>>>> and
>>>> >>> I am now convinced that this is her motion, not Susan Polgar's.
>>>> >>> Therefore, do not be surprised if it does not show up in the
>>>> >>> BINFOS.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Any proposal by Susan Polgar will always be about how she can get
>>>> the
>>>> >>> money. For example, she will propose that Paul Truong be sent on a
>>>> >>> nationwide speaking and lecture tour. (This is an actual proposal
>>>> >>> by
>>>> >>> Susan Polgar. You can find it in the BINFOS.)
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Donna's Proposal is how to put the money in a place where the board
>>>> >>> cannot spend it or lose it. Donna seriously suggests that Susan
>>>> >>> Polgar
>>>> >>> might win a substantial money judgment.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Polgar may well win a substantial money judgment: you slander her on
>>>> >> nearly a daily basis. And she has a reputation to be damaged, as
>>>> >> opposed
>>>> >> to say, a commonplace variety of usenet fucktard, that is, you.
>>>> It'll >> be
>>>> >> highly amusing to see how your jointly and severally liable co >>
>>>> defendants
>>>> >> react when their allegedly judgment proof point man drags them to
>>>> >> bankruptcy over a case of unrequited puppy love. So contrary to
>>>> what's
>>>> >> been said recently, it's essential that you keep x posting, as I've
>>>> >> already made the popcorn.
>>>> >>
>>>> > Don't hold your breath waiting for her to win a judgment. She's a
>>>> > public
>>>> > figure who must prove actual malice meaning that the statements
>>>> made > about
>>>> > her were made knowing that they were false or with reckless
>>>> disregard > for
>>>> > their truth or falsity.
>>>>
>>>> There's more than one COA in the complaint. In any event, if you don't
>>>> think
>>>> Sloan exhibits the malice of a scorned woman you're not paying
>>>> attention.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > Ms Polgar can't even plead the specific words she claims defamed her
>>>> > because she says she needs to look at private emails and such in the
>>>> > USCF's possession. I don't think the court will take kindly to
>>>> > Polgar
>>>> > suing people for defamation when she admits she knows of no
>>>> > defamatory
>>>> > words. Her complaint is brought in bad faith. I expect down the
>>>> to be
>>>> > requesting Rule 11 sanctions against her, Killion and his associate
>>>> > Estrella.
>>>>
>>>> And I expect the judge will laugh at you.
>>>
>>>
>>> While it pains me to agree with Brian L. it's pretty obvious that you
>>> do not understand what "actual malice" means. When you don't
>>> understand, you should keep silent.
>>
>> Blow me.
>>
> He'll need your address for that.
Just the zip code actually.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 05:44:49
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
To me, Donna Alarie has lost credbility with this motion of hers, and
I am now convinced that this is her motion, not Susan Polgar's.
Therefore, do not be surprised if it does not show up in the BINFOS.
Any proposal by Susan Polgar will always be about how she can get the
money. For example, she will propose that Paul Truong be sent on a
nationwide speaking and lecture tour. (This is an actual proposal by
Susan Polgar. You can find it in the BINFOS.)
Donna's Proposal is how to put the money in a place where the board
cannot spend it or lose it. Donna seriously suggests that Susan Polgar
might win a substantial money judgment. Donna writes the following:
"As for paying down the mortgage, wonderful. Now all management has to
do
is expand its $150k credit line which was tapped out in November and
secure it with the real estate. Who is kidding who here folks? Putting
the money into the real estate doesn't protect it from lawsuits. Just
an
fyi, USCF loses a lawsuit and the courts can force the organization to
sell its assets to pay off the winner of the lawsuit. Oh, and they
really won't care that this is a depressed real estate market and not
the best time to sell."
Up into now, other than her attacks on me, Donna's postings have been
about what the USCF is doing wrong, and almost every thing Donna has
written has been spot on. She has been correct on most issues.
However, now that the USCF supposedly has some money coming in and
Donna has to advocate something positive, rather than tear down what
others have done or tried to do, Donna has come up with this
unspeakably ridiculous proposal.
Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 14:09:47
From: foad
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> To me, Donna Alarie has lost credbility with this motion of hers, and
> I am now convinced that this is her motion, not Susan Polgar's.
> Therefore, do not be surprised if it does not show up in the BINFOS.
>
> Any proposal by Susan Polgar will always be about how she can get the
> money. For example, she will propose that Paul Truong be sent on a
> nationwide speaking and lecture tour. (This is an actual proposal by
> Susan Polgar. You can find it in the BINFOS.)
>
> Donna's Proposal is how to put the money in a place where the board
> cannot spend it or lose it. Donna seriously suggests that Susan Polgar
> might win a substantial money judgment.
Polgar may well win a substantial money judgment: you slander her on nearly
a daily basis. And she has a reputation to be damaged, as opposed to say, a
commonplace variety of usenet fucktard, that is, you. It'll be highly
amusing to see how your jointly and severally liable co defendants react
when their allegedly judgment proof point man drags them to bankruptcy over
a case of unrequited puppy love. So contrary to what's been said recently,
it's essential that you keep x posting, as I've already made the popcorn.
Donna writes the following:
>
> "As for paying down the mortgage, wonderful. Now all management has to
> do
> is expand its $150k credit line which was tapped out in November and
> secure it with the real estate. Who is kidding who here folks? Putting
> the money into the real estate doesn't protect it from lawsuits. Just
> an
> fyi, USCF loses a lawsuit and the courts can force the organization to
> sell its assets to pay off the winner of the lawsuit. Oh, and they
> really won't care that this is a depressed real estate market and not
> the best time to sell."
>
> Up into now, other than her attacks on me, Donna's postings have been
> about what the USCF is doing wrong, and almost every thing Donna has
> written has been spot on. She has been correct on most issues.
>
> However, now that the USCF supposedly has some money coming in and
> Donna has to advocate something positive, rather than tear down what
> others have done or tried to do, Donna has come up with this
> unspeakably ridiculous proposal.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 15:40:55
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
foad wrote:
>
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> To me, Donna Alarie has lost credbility with this motion of hers, and
>> I am now convinced that this is her motion, not Susan Polgar's.
>> Therefore, do not be surprised if it does not show up in the BINFOS.
>>
>> Any proposal by Susan Polgar will always be about how she can get the
>> money. For example, she will propose that Paul Truong be sent on a
>> nationwide speaking and lecture tour. (This is an actual proposal by
>> Susan Polgar. You can find it in the BINFOS.)
>>
>> Donna's Proposal is how to put the money in a place where the board
>> cannot spend it or lose it. Donna seriously suggests that Susan Polgar
>> might win a substantial money judgment.
>
>
> Polgar may well win a substantial money judgment: you slander her on
> nearly a daily basis. And she has a reputation to be damaged, as opposed
> to say, a commonplace variety of usenet fucktard, that is, you. It'll be
> highly amusing to see how your jointly and severally liable co
> defendants react when their allegedly judgment proof point man drags
> them to bankruptcy over a case of unrequited puppy love. So contrary to
> what's been said recently, it's essential that you keep x posting, as
> I've already made the popcorn.
>
Don't hold your breath waiting for her to win a judgment. She's a
public figure who must prove actual malice meaning that the statements
made about her were made knowing that they were false or with reckless
disregard for their truth or falsity. Ms Polgar can't even plead the
specific words she claims defamed her because she says she needs to look
at private emails and such in the USCF's possession. I don't think the
court will take kindly to Polgar suing people for defamation when she
admits she knows of no defamatory words. Her complaint is brought in
bad faith. I expect down the to be requesting Rule 11 sanctions against
her, Killion and his associate Estrella.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 16:35:59
From: foad
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
"B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> foad wrote:
>>
>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> To me, Donna Alarie has lost credbility with this motion of hers, and
>>> I am now convinced that this is her motion, not Susan Polgar's.
>>> Therefore, do not be surprised if it does not show up in the BINFOS.
>>>
>>> Any proposal by Susan Polgar will always be about how she can get the
>>> money. For example, she will propose that Paul Truong be sent on a
>>> nationwide speaking and lecture tour. (This is an actual proposal by
>>> Susan Polgar. You can find it in the BINFOS.)
>>>
>>> Donna's Proposal is how to put the money in a place where the board
>>> cannot spend it or lose it. Donna seriously suggests that Susan Polgar
>>> might win a substantial money judgment.
>>
>>
>> Polgar may well win a substantial money judgment: you slander her on
>> nearly a daily basis. And she has a reputation to be damaged, as opposed
>> to say, a commonplace variety of usenet fucktard, that is, you. It'll be
>> highly amusing to see how your jointly and severally liable co defendants
>> react when their allegedly judgment proof point man drags them to
>> bankruptcy over a case of unrequited puppy love. So contrary to what's
>> been said recently, it's essential that you keep x posting, as I've
>> already made the popcorn.
>>
> Don't hold your breath waiting for her to win a judgment. She's a public
> figure who must prove actual malice meaning that the statements made about
> her were made knowing that they were false or with reckless disregard for
> their truth or falsity.
There's more than one COA in the complaint. In any event, if you don't think
Sloan exhibits the malice of a scorned woman you're not paying attention.
> Ms Polgar can't even plead the specific words she claims defamed her
> because she says she needs to look at private emails and such in the
> USCF's possession. I don't think the court will take kindly to Polgar
> suing people for defamation when she admits she knows of no defamatory
> words. Her complaint is brought in bad faith. I expect down the to be
> requesting Rule 11 sanctions against her, Killion and his associate
> Estrella.
And I expect the judge will laugh at you.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 20:05:41
From: Deadrat
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
"foad" <[email protected] > wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> foad wrote:
>>>
>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>> ...
>>>> To me, Donna Alarie has lost credbility with this motion of hers,
>>>> and I am now convinced that this is her motion, not Susan Polgar's.
>>>> Therefore, do not be surprised if it does not show up in the
>>>> BINFOS.
>>>>
>>>> Any proposal by Susan Polgar will always be about how she can get
>>>> the money. For example, she will propose that Paul Truong be sent
>>>> on a nationwide speaking and lecture tour. (This is an actual
>>>> proposal by Susan Polgar. You can find it in the BINFOS.)
>>>>
>>>> Donna's Proposal is how to put the money in a place where the board
>>>> cannot spend it or lose it. Donna seriously suggests that Susan
>>>> Polgar might win a substantial money judgment.
>>>
>>>
>>> Polgar may well win a substantial money judgment: you slander her on
>>> nearly a daily basis. And she has a reputation to be damaged, as
>>> opposed to say, a commonplace variety of usenet fucktard, that is,
>>> you. It'll be highly amusing to see how your jointly and severally
>>> liable co defendants react when their allegedly judgment proof point
>>> man drags them to bankruptcy over a case of unrequited puppy love.
>>> So contrary to what's been said recently, it's essential that you
>>> keep x posting, as I've already made the popcorn.
>>>
>> Don't hold your breath waiting for her to win a judgment. She's a
>> public figure who must prove actual malice meaning that the
>> statements made about her were made knowing that they were false or
>> with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.
>
> There's more than one COA in the complaint. In any event, if you don't
> think Sloan exhibits the malice of a scorned woman you're not paying
> attention.
And if you think "malice" in this instance means personal animus, then
*you're* not paying attention.
Oh, but I forgot. You're not reading my posts. Can you even imagine how
depressed that makes me?
>> Ms Polgar can't even plead the specific words she claims defamed her
>> because she says she needs to look at private emails and such in the
>> USCF's possession. I don't think the court will take kindly to
>> Polgar suing people for defamation when she admits she knows of no
>> defamatory words. Her complaint is brought in bad faith. I expect
>> down the to be requesting Rule 11 sanctions against her, Killion and
>> his associate Estrella.
>
> And I expect the judge will laugh at you.
Much the same way that I'm laughing at you?
Oh, but I forgot, ...
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 16:48:11
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
foad wrote:
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> foad wrote:
>>>
>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> To me, Donna Alarie has lost credbility with this motion of hers, and
>>>> I am now convinced that this is her motion, not Susan Polgar's.
>>>> Therefore, do not be surprised if it does not show up in the BINFOS.
>>>>
>>>> Any proposal by Susan Polgar will always be about how she can get the
>>>> money. For example, she will propose that Paul Truong be sent on a
>>>> nationwide speaking and lecture tour. (This is an actual proposal by
>>>> Susan Polgar. You can find it in the BINFOS.)
>>>>
>>>> Donna's Proposal is how to put the money in a place where the board
>>>> cannot spend it or lose it. Donna seriously suggests that Susan Polgar
>>>> might win a substantial money judgment.
>>>
>>>
>>> Polgar may well win a substantial money judgment: you slander her on
>>> nearly a daily basis. And she has a reputation to be damaged, as
>>> opposed to say, a commonplace variety of usenet fucktard, that is,
>>> you. It'll be highly amusing to see how your jointly and severally
>>> liable co defendants react when their allegedly judgment proof point
>>> man drags them to bankruptcy over a case of unrequited puppy love. So
>>> contrary to what's been said recently, it's essential that you keep x
>>> posting, as I've already made the popcorn.
>>>
>> Don't hold your breath waiting for her to win a judgment. She's a
>> public figure who must prove actual malice meaning that the statements
>> made about her were made knowing that they were false or with reckless
>> disregard for their truth or falsity.
>
> There's more than one COA in the complaint. In any event, if you don't
> think Sloan exhibits the malice of a scorned woman you're not paying
> attention.
All the other COAs are equally devoid of a factual basis.
>
>
>> Ms Polgar can't even plead the specific words she claims defamed her
>> because she says she needs to look at private emails and such in the
>> USCF's possession. I don't think the court will take kindly to Polgar
>> suing people for defamation when she admits she knows of no defamatory
>> words. Her complaint is brought in bad faith. I expect down the to
>> be requesting Rule 11 sanctions against her, Killion and his associate
>> Estrella.
>
> And I expect the judge will laugh at you.
Time will tell.
>
>
>
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 04:09:06
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
It is starting to look like this is Donna's idea, not Susan's. I have
never seen Donna so zealously advocate an idea that she says comes
from someone else.
The idea is ridiculous: Setting up five funds and seeding them with
$10,000 each, and appointing a committee of five for each of the five
to do fundraisers. Donna still has not explained how these entities
will be constituted. Will they each be a separate corporation? Will
the by-laws of the USCF have to be amended to create these entities?
Then Donna writes about the USCF losing the Polgar lawsuit as though
this is something that might really happen and the USCF might wind up
paying Polgar hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. I am
confident that no judge will ever order the USCF to pay a penny to
Miss Polgar. In the extremely unlikely event that Polgar wins her
frivolous lawsuit, the worst that could possibly happen would be that
the court would order some person such as Bill Goichberg or Randy
Bauer to pay her money for =93TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTS AND
BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS=94, which is one of the allegations of Polgar's
complaint. The risk to the USCF is not that it will lose this case
because there is zero chance of that, but rather that the attorney's
fees will eat up the USCF. That is a real possibility. Nevertheless,
the USCF must defend against this suit. It cannot be allowed to go
into default.
I am wondering if Donna is running for election. I know that she is
thinking of running. Is this part of her campaign platform? Is this
really Polgar's proposal or is it a proposal that Donna is asking
Polgar to make?
Sam Sloan
On Dec 21, 4:29=A0pm, by DACP on Sun Dec 21, 2008 1:06 pm #120955
> And now for something completely different.
>
> I believe that this motion will be coming up in the BINFO shortly. Ms.
> Polgar has provided permission to me to post this here:
>
> Per Susan Polgar:
>
> Motion to create the following five (5) funds:
>
> * U.S. Championship (Open and Women) Fund
>
> * U.S. National Scholastic Championships Fund
>
> * U.S. Aspiring Chess Professionals Fund
>
> * U.S. Olympiad Fund
>
> * U.S. World Championship Fund
>
> Donations, sponsorships, and estate bequests made to these funds are
> forbidden to be utilized for general operations, pension, employee
> benefits, or legal expenses of the USCF.
>
> Each fund will consist of 4 committee members plus the Executive
> Director of the USCF. Committee members will be voted upon by the
> delegates at the annual meeting of delegates every third year from the
> time of inception of the funds. Each fund will carry its own
> individual bank account with dual signatory requirement (committee
> head and Executive Director).
>
> Merry Christmas to all!
> Donna Alarie
> Massachusetts Delegate
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2008 12:16:57
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Messages From the Dark Side
|
It's quite possible given the communication between Donna and the Polgar
camp in the past related to finances. I think her intentions are
probably good, but the world isn't as black and white as some and she,
might think. While Pogar and Hubby are still causing the USCF to bleed
money because of their breaches of fiduciary duty, financial
restructuring such as this should not, IMO, even be on the table.
Perhaps if Polgar had named her as a defendant in Texas she might have a
somewhat different view. It does become a bit clearer why she wasn't
named. Polgar has use of her, although I doubt Donna really understands
how she is being used.
samsloan wrote:
> It is starting to look like this is Donna's idea, not Susan's. I have
> never seen Donna so zealously advocate an idea that she says comes
> from someone else.
>
> The idea is ridiculous: Setting up five funds and seeding them with
> $10,000 each, and appointing a committee of five for each of the five
> to do fundraisers. Donna still has not explained how these entities
> will be constituted. Will they each be a separate corporation? Will
> the by-laws of the USCF have to be amended to create these entities?
>
> Then Donna writes about the USCF losing the Polgar lawsuit as though
> this is something that might really happen and the USCF might wind up
> paying Polgar hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars. I am
> confident that no judge will ever order the USCF to pay a penny to
> Miss Polgar. In the extremely unlikely event that Polgar wins her
> frivolous lawsuit, the worst that could possibly happen would be that
> the court would order some person such as Bill Goichberg or Randy
> Bauer to pay her money for �TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTS AND
> BUSINESS RELATIONSHIPS�, which is one of the allegations of Polgar's
> complaint. The risk to the USCF is not that it will lose this case
> because there is zero chance of that, but rather that the attorney's
> fees will eat up the USCF. That is a real possibility. Nevertheless,
> the USCF must defend against this suit. It cannot be allowed to go
> into default.
>
> I am wondering if Donna is running for election. I know that she is
> thinking of running. Is this part of her campaign platform? Is this
> really Polgar's proposal or is it a proposal that Donna is asking
> Polgar to make?
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> On Dec 21, 4:29 pm, by DACP on Sun Dec 21, 2008 1:06 pm #120955
>> And now for something completely different.
>>
>> I believe that this motion will be coming up in the BINFO shortly. Ms.
>> Polgar has provided permission to me to post this here:
>>
>> Per Susan Polgar:
>>
>> Motion to create the following five (5) funds:
>>
>> * U.S. Championship (Open and Women) Fund
>>
>> * U.S. National Scholastic Championships Fund
>>
>> * U.S. Aspiring Chess Professionals Fund
>>
>> * U.S. Olympiad Fund
>>
>> * U.S. World Championship Fund
>>
>> Donations, sponsorships, and estate bequests made to these funds are
>> forbidden to be utilized for general operations, pension, employee
>> benefits, or legal expenses of the USCF.
>>
>> Each fund will consist of 4 committee members plus the Executive
>> Director of the USCF. Committee members will be voted upon by the
>> delegates at the annual meeting of delegates every third year from the
>> time of inception of the funds. Each fund will carry its own
>> individual bank account with dual signatory requirement (committee
>> head and Executive Director).
>>
>> Merry Christmas to all!
>> Donna Alarie
>> Massachusetts Delegate
|
|
