Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

Main

Date: 16 Oct 2008 11:50:34
From: samsloan
Subject: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

Susan Polgar has filed ten different responses to the motions by the
USCF Defendants to dismiss her lawsuit in Texas.

Each response is a little bit different. For example, her response to
Goichberg's motion to dismiss adds new paragraphs 11, 14 and 15.

Her response to Karl Kronenberger adds new paragraphs 13-16.

Here is her response to the USCF's motion to dismiss. All of the other
responses are the same or add a few new paragraphs.

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-response-to-uscf-motion.pdf

Sam Sloan

Date: 25 Oct 2008 06:57:43
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

Dear Donna,

Thank you for informing me that Allen Priest is a member of the
Finance Committee. I knew that he was on important committees but I
did not know which ones.

However, I am surprised at your remark that the USCF is in financial
difficulties because of MY lawsuit. As it turns out, the USCF is
covered by an insurance policy with $10,000 deductible, so the most
that my lawsuit can cost the USCF is that $10,000.

However, the lawsuit Susan Polgar vs. USCF is not covered by that
insurance policy. The potential exposure by the USCF to that lawsuit
is unlimited, expecially since Susan Polgar has stated on her website
that she is going all the way with this and there will be no
compromises or settlements.

Also, you state "it would be really great if some effort could be made
into trying to negotiate to save USCF."

What sort of negotiation would you suggest? Obviously, as long as
Polgar and Truong are on the board no negotiations are possible, and
they have made it clear that under no circumstances will they resign.
They will also be running a slate of candidates in the coming election
to try to complete their takeover of the USCF. It is obvious that they
are after the treasury. Anybody familiar with their extortionistic
financial demands over the last few years such as their demand to be
paid $50,000 for "training" the Woman's Olympiad Team knows that.

Also, you make it sound that it is somehow my fault that this
happened. It was known more than one year before the Mottershead
Report came out that Paul Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan. At my first
meeting of the board on August 14, 2006, I presented proof that Truong
was doing this and I told the board how to verify this, by comparing
IP addresses. The steps to accomplish this were easy and would have
cost zero other than a few minuutes of Mike Nolan's time. Essentially,
what Brian Mottershead did in September 2007 to prove that Truong was
the Fake Sam Sloan is exactly what I said in August 2006 should be
done to accomplish this.

Why did not the board authorize this? The answer is obvious. Goichberg
and Channing were supporters of Polgar and Truong. They wanted for
this to continue to discredit me and to blunt my complaints about
mismanagement of the USCF and the horrific financial losses that were
occurring. It served their purposes for Truong to continue to post
thousands of Fake Sam Sloan messages to discredit me. Indeed, Joel
Channing paid money to Polgar and Truong during this period in support
of their activities and Channing posted on the USCF Issues Forum that
he was "amused" by the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan and that the
only reason he ever looked at rec.games.chess.politics was to see the
latest postings by the Fake Sam Sloan.

Further evidence that Channing and Goichberg knew all along that Paul
Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan and supported their activities is their
reaction once it was proved that they had done it. Joel Channing
demanded that legal proceedings be brought against Brian Mottershead
for revealing this fact. Channing wanted no action taken against
Truong and Polgar and continued to support them until months later
when he resigned in disgrace after the rest of the board refused to
increase the insurance policy to protect Channing's assets. Goichberg
wanted the findings of Brian Mottershead kept secret or at the most
submitted to the Ethics Committee, where he knew it would be
pigeonholed for a year or more. In short, both Goichberg and Channing
behaved as one would if they were guilty. Their actions were not the
behavior of completely innocent persons.

So, in short, my question to you is: What actions do you think should
be taken to settle the two crisis facing the USCF:

1. The "Fake Sam Sloan" situation with thus far five lawsuits pending
in court and I am told one more filed or about to be filed in the next
few days and

2. The continuing horrific financial losses including $258,000 lost
last year and more losses expected this year, with the board unwilling
to take corrective action necessary to stop these losses.

Sam Sloan

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 8:09 AM, Donnachesspals
<[email protected] > wrote:

Sam,

At some point in time, you might just want to get some facts down
before shooting off at the mouth. Mr. Priest was a member of the
finance committee last year (and I think he still is this year) and
his livelihood depends upon his knowledge of accounting. Everything
he said at the meeting does have a basis in fact, was straight to the
point, and it would be nice if you started sticking to issues instead
of going into personal attack mode every time someone said something
with which you disagreed. I oftentimes disagree with Mr. Priest but
we can agree to disagree.

There is no need to attack every single person who comes to this
organization to try to help it establish proper business principles.
All it does is discourage those who could really help the organization
to decide that they have better things to do with their lives and
leaves the organization so much the worse off. USCF has major
financial issues to deal with and personally, I'll be shocked if it
figures out how to survive the legal fees which originated with YOUR
lawsuit. While I empathize with your position in needing to file the
lawsuit, the fact is that the chain of lawsuits is likely to be the
final straws to break USCF's back.

Instead of attacking those trying to better USCF, it would be
really great if some effort could be made into trying to negotiate to
save USCF.

Donna Alarie
Massachusetts Delegate

In a message dated 10/25/08 04:27:36 Eastern Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:

I admit that I went over the top in attacking Mr. Allen Priest
and I apologize for that.

However, please understand that I had a reason.

At the August 9-10, 2008 USCF Delegate's meeting in Dallas,
Mr. Priest felt a need to stand up and speak on every single issue
that came before the delegates. As far as I am aware, Mr. Priest had
never attended one of these meetings before and has no knowledge or
familiarity with the issues. Yet, he seemed to feel a need to inform
us of his views on every subject. Nobody at the meeting spoke more
often or longer than Mr. Allen Priest did.

I have no objection to newbies coming in and participating. To
the contrary, I would like to see more USCF members participating in
these meetings. However, Mr. Priest must feel that he is more
intelligent and knowledgable than us poor chess players. Otherwise,
why would he find it necessary to speak so often.

By the way, Mr. Priest has a USCF rating of 654. I suspect
that his knowledge of high finance is about the same as his knowledge
of chess.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12874976

Now, Mr. Priest has gotten himself appointed to important USCF
committees and he is rumored to be running for the board.

What really got me ticked off during the meeting in Dallas was
when he rose to speak on the issue of finances and said that we should
ignore the delegate resolutions passed during the prior year's
meetings in Cherry Hill NJ in 2007 because they were contrary to GAAP.
Of course, Mr. Priest had not attended the 2007 meeting so he did not
know what he was telling us to ignore. At the 2007 meeting, the
delegates passed a series of motions designed to force the Executive
Director to become financially responsible. Among other things, they
required that the funds received from the sale of life memberships be
transferred to a special LMA account rather than being spent as
current income as was otherwise being done. They also put a cap of
$50,000 on the amount the USCF could claim to be receiving from the
"Old LMA Account", since the Old LMA Account was closed in 2003 and no
money is there.

When the 2008 meeting in Dallas took place, we learned from
the board that it had been decided to ignore all the resolutions that
had been passed during the 2007 meeting and that accordingly $120,000
of this so-called "imaginary money" had been included as current
income in the financial statements, thus reducing what otherwise would
have been a loss of $190,000 to only minus $70,000.

The delegates also decided to solve the problem of the
requirement that all funds received from new Life Members be placed in
a new LMA Account, by simply abolishing the sale of life memberships.
Thus, there will be no funds to transfer to the LMA Account this year.

This is why I was annoyed by the lengthy speeches by Mr. Allen
Priest in Dallas. What should have happened is that the delegates
should have become outraged upon learning that all of the delegate
resolutions passed during the 2007 meeting had been ignored.

The reason this did not happen is that many of the
traditionally heavy hitters in chess politics already knew about this.
They knew that the Goichberg group had all the cards in their hands.
They knew that they were going to be outvoted. The Goichberg group
continues to run up huge deficits, the real loss was $258,000 this
past fiscal year, and Goichberg will keep spending money willy-nilly
until the USCF goes into oblivion.

The long time chess politicians knew that they did not have
the votes to stop the Goichberg Group from doing this, and why waste
their time and money traveling to Dallas when the conclusion was
foregone. So, they simply boycotted the meeting. Nobody from the New
Jersey group that passed the 2007 resolutions requiring financial
responsibility came to the 2008 meeting. That is the reason why the
2008 meeting room was filled with new people who had never attended
one of these meetings before.

I hope that now you will understand why I went a little
berserk when Mr. Allen Priest started lecturing me on why I should not
be allowed to post a link to the pleading filed by counsel for Susan
Polgar in federal court in the case Polgar vs. USCF.

Again, I apologize.

Sam Sloan

Date: 25 Oct 2008 01:06:14
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

I admit that I went over the top in attacking Mr. Allen Priest and I
apologize for that.

However, please understand that I had a reason.

At the August 9-10, 2008 USCF Delegate's meeting in Dallas, Mr. Priest
felt a need to stand up and speak on every single issue that came
before the delegates. As far as I am aware, Mr. Priest had never
attended one of these meetings before and has no knowledge or
familiarity with the issues. Yet, he seemed to feel a need to inform
us of his views on every subject. Nobody at the meeting spoke more
often or longer than Mr. Allen Priest did.

I have no objection to newbies coming in and participating. To the
contrary, I would like to see more USCF members participating in these
meetings. However, Mr. Priest must feel that he is more intelligent
and knowledgable than us poor chess players. Otherwise, why would he
find it necessary to speak so often.

By the way, Mr. Priest has a USCF rating of 654. I suspect that his
knowledge of high finance is about the same as his knowledge of chess.

http://www.uschess.org/msa/MbrDtlMain.php?12874976

Now, Mr. Priest has gotten himself appointed to important USCF
committees and he is rumored to be running for the board.

What really got me ticked off during the meeting in Dallas was when he
rose to speak on the issue of finances and said that we should ignore
the delegate resolutions passed during the prior year's meetings in
Cherry Hill NJ in 2007 because they were contrary to GAAP. Of course,
Mr. Priest had not attended the 2007 meeting so he did not know what
he was telling us to ignore. At the 2007 meeting, the delegates passed
a series of motions designed to force the Executive Director to become
financially responsible. Among other things, they required that the
funds received from the sale of life memberships be transferred to a
special LMA account rather than being spent as current income as was
otherwise being done. They also put a cap of $50,000 on the amount the
USCF could claim to be receiving from the "Old LMA Account", since the
Old LMA Account was closed in 2003 and no money is there.

When the 2008 meeting in Dallas took place, we learned from the board
that it had been decided to ignore all the resolutions that had been
passed during the 2007 meeting and that accordingly $120,000 of this
so-called "imaginary money" had been included as current income in the
financial statements, thus reducing what otherwise would have been a
loss of $190,000 to only minus $70,000.

The delegates also decided to solve the problem of the requirement
that all funds received from new Life Members be placed in a new LMA
Account, by simply abolishing the sale of life memberships. Thus,
there will be no funds to transfer to the LMA Account this year.

This is why I was annoyed by the lengthy speeches by Mr. Allen Priest
in Dallas. What should have happened is that the delegates should have
become outraged upon learning that all of the delegate resolutions
passed during the 2007 meeting had been ignored.

The reason this did not happen is that many of the traditionally heavy
hitters in chess politics already knew about this. They knew that the
Goichberg group had all the cards in their hands. They knew that they
were going to be outvoted. The Goichberg group continues to run up
huge deficits, the real loss was $258,000 this past fiscal year, and
Goichberg will keep spending money willy-nilly until the USCF goes
into oblivion.

The long time chess politicians knew that they did not have the votes
to stop the Goichberg Group from doing this, and why waste their time
and money traveling to Dallas when the conclusion was foregone. So,
they simply boycotted the meeting. Nobody from the New Jersey group
that passed the 2007 resolutions requiring financial responsibility
came to the 2008 meeting. That is the reason why the 2008 meeting room
was filled with new people who had never attended one of these
meetings before.

I hope that now you will understand why I went a little berserk when
Mr. Allen Priest started lecturing me on why I should not be allowed
to post a link to the pleading filed by counsel for Susan Polgar in
federal court in the case Polgar vs. USCF.

Again, I apologize.

Sam Sloan

Date: 24 Oct 2008 06:21:42
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

[quote="Allen"]You asked if someone had checked the link.
I did.
Your statement was wrong.
Why imply a motive to me that was not stated in anything that I
posted?

I am sure that this next is a waste of my time. But here goes
nothing.

See, Mr. Sloan, one of your problems in dealing with people is that
you are very quick to accuse and quick to insinuate without
considering really having all the facts.

I will not respond to further messages from you.[/quote]

I see that you are very quick to make statements on subjects you know
nothing about.

Such as your statement at the USCF Delegates meeting in Dallas that
the $50,000 cap on "imaginary money" should be abolished because
according to you it does not conform to GAAP.

Do you even know what "imaginary money" is? It is money that was lost
during the period 1999-2003 and there is no hope of ever recovering
it. Nevertheless, the board carries on the books that it is receiving
$120,000 of this imaginary money every year, which makes the balance
sheet look $120,000 better than it really is. So, instead of losing
the $70,000 that was reported, the USCF really lost $190,000 in the
last fiscal year.

Actually, the USCF really lost $258,000, but it was brought down to
only a $70,000 loss due to other voodoo playing with the books.

Of course, I cannot say this on the USCF Issues Forum because that
would be calling the entire board a bunch of liars, which of course
they are and is not allowed.

By the way, the word is out that you are running for USCF Election on
the Polgar-Truong Slate. What do you have to say about that?

Of course, with idiots like you who like to speak on subjects you know
nothing about, you will make a fine board member.

Sam Sloan

Date: 23 Oct 2008 13:08:15
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

The rule you cite states, "Do not post phone numbers, email addresses
or other personal information of others". It says nothing about postal
addresses. How do you know that these are home addresses? Almost all
are obviously business addresses plus two are PO boxes. To the extent
that they are home addresses, those are the addresses they are using
as delegates or contractors.

In any event, I stand corrected. I failed to notice that an extra page
had been added at the end which included the address of Brian
Mottershead.

So, I will make a compromise. I will agree to delete the last three
pages, that being pages 10, 11 and 12, from the PDF File, so that the
USCF membership will not know the name, the address or the telephone
number of the law firm that filed the document. I think that this is
ridiculous and asinine, and this is just a typical example of what you
have been doing all along as moderator here, something that virtually
every member of the USCF Issues Forum has been complaining about.

Meanwhile, this document was filed in federal court on October 16,
eight days ago, and still the members have not been allowed to know
about it.

Do we have a deal?

Sam Sloan

[quote="tsawmiller"][b]Do not post phone numbers, email addresses or
other personal information of others. [/b]

The pleading contains home addresses.

[url=http://main.uschess.org/forums/viewtopic.php?
p=116075#p116075]Subject: MQ:Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to
Dismiss Her Laws[/url]

[quote="samsloan"]Susan Polgar has filed ten different responses to
the motions by the USCF Defendants to dismiss her lawsuit in Texas.

Each response is a little bit different. For example, her response to
Goichberg's motion to dismiss adds new paragraphs 11, 14 and 15.

Her response to Karl Kronenberger adds new paragraphs 13-16.

Here is her response to the USCF's motion to dismiss. All of the other
responses are the same or add a few new paragraphs.

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-response-to-uscf-motion.pdf

Sam Sloan[/quote][/quote]

Date: 23 Oct 2008 10:58:42
From: Sanny
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

> I don't wish to quibble. However in this case he's either too stupid to
> understand the words on the paper, in which case he cannot be purposefully
> misrepresenting them or he's barely smart enough to understand the words and
> is lying about what they say. But he can't be both, at least not in this
> particular instance. I do however agree with your general assessment of his
> incompetence and venality.

Hello foad,

Do you know Help Bot? You were talking to him on Oct 2. After that he
disappeared from newsgroup.

Your messages looks like that of Help Bot and that make me feel you
are cousin of Help Bot or are twins.

I got the confusion please clear that.

How good you play Chess? Whats your Rating. If you are a good player
have a try at GetClub.

-- Help Bot (Missing you)

Bye
Sanny

Play Chess at: http://www.GetClub.com/Chess.html

Date: 23 Oct 2008 19:43:21
From: foad
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

"Sanny" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:403fcd3d-5705-4b13-88a2-483a5d11dcd8@d10g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> I don't wish to quibble. However in this case he's either too stupid to
>> understand the words on the paper, in which case he cannot be
>> purposefully
>> misrepresenting them or he's barely smart enough to understand the words
>> and
>> is lying about what they say. But he can't be both, at least not in this
>> particular instance. I do however agree with your general assessment of
>> his
>> incompetence and venality.
>
>
> Hello foad,

Hi.

> Do you know Help Bot?

No

> You were talking to him on Oct 2. After that he
> disappeared from newsgroup.

Foul play?

> Your messages looks like that of Help Bot and that make me feel you
> are cousin of Help Bot or are twins.

Your message look like that of a Down's baby and make me think you are a
retard.

> I got the confusion please clear that.

I'm a lawyer not a magician: I can't cure stupid.

> How good you play Chess?

I play chess not so good.

> Whats your Rating.

My credit rating is 740, I got 760 on my LSATs, and I get an A+ in the sack.
What else you want to know.

> If you are a good player
> have a try at GetClub.

Okay. I have a site as well, called GetFucked. I suggest you visit.

Date: 23 Oct 2008 08:37:17
From:
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

On Oct 23, 9:49=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Oct 23, 7:23=A0am, "foad" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So to recap: you're either stupid or lying. Which is it?
>
> =A0 Sam admits no limits on his ability. He's one of the few people I
> know with the courage to be both.

Here's our Sam's theme song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dnll8-kSlq6c

Date: 23 Oct 2008 07:24:25
From: None
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

On Oct 23, 9:49=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Oct 23, 7:23=A0am, "foad" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > So to recap: you're either stupid or lying. Which is it?
>
> =A0 Sam admits no limits on his ability. He's one of the few people I
> know with the courage to be both.

Sam says you can't modify a PDF file. That's a fact if you don't own
the PDF software. Otherwise it is easy enough to modify any PDF
document. Once again we find Sam talking out of his ass.

Date: 23 Oct 2008 06:49:44
From:
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

On Oct 23, 7:23=A0am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> So to recap: you're either stupid or lying. Which is it?

Sam admits no limits on his ability. He's one of the few people I
know with the courage to be both.

Date: 23 Oct 2008 17:36:47
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:1f3c6367-91e3-4cb5-8dd9-48500c869bee@d31g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 23, 7:23 am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
>
> So to recap: you're either stupid or lying. Which is it?

Sam admits no limits on his ability. He's one of the few people I
know with the courage to be both.

**Ability or irresponsibility? 5 Years ago this would just have been the
usual political drivel issued by a current serving board member, a board
wannabee, or a past-one. But here we got attorneys willing to prosecute for
'serious offences' and talking of jail-time.

What is completely obscured is USCF's activities, what it is currently
doing, and how well?

The run-down magazine is their least serious product and bettered
everywhere, and the ratings system can be performed by 3 competent nuns.

What else is there that they do other than promote highly contentious
Armageddon rules to national chess championships, a sort of brinkmanship
equal to their legal affairs!

But come the cold months of Jan, Feb March 09, how many lay-offs will there
be - can it be less than half a dozen? A hundred+ grand a year for 2 years
straight would indicate that much, and who will loan them anything against
negative income? Current ts of money have gone to the legal fund...
including one or two six-figure amounts, not to maintaining staff

Sloan is indeed either stupid to these factors, and possibly untruthful too.
But why should this be all about Sloan? Sloan wishes it to be since what
other access does he have to the chess scene? If USCF has come down to
whatever the Sloan drives as its agenda, and it has, why should this
interest any chess player at all?

Those are consequent questions, and the high stakes game of lawyers will
likely result in someone's demise - since sufficient rigidity exists to
gamble the whole lot on whatever happens in a courtroom.

Given that USCF should fail entirely, what does anyone imagine would the
scene 12 months later? Would all the pieces worth picking up be collected?
Another national ratings service introduced, and some rules people to audit
affairs pro-bono caissa... The National Championship and so on could be
organised on the same basis, if there were a current basis - and since that
is outside funded now, will likely remain as commercial as it already is.

Those are the 'so what's' of USCF's failure, and naturally, the Sloan has
nothing to do with causing any of it in a positive sense, and yet most USCF
people do not have a positive sense of their own future and seem to wish to
end it all, since it ain't whatever it was, or they thought it was, and they
would rather sink than swim.

Phil Innes

Date: 23 Oct 2008 17:09:25
From: foad
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

Date: 23 Oct 2008 06:25:55
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

Here is the posting by Bill Goichberg on this same issue. (Note that
Goichberg believed at the time that the reason that Tim Sawmiller
disallowed this posting was that the posting contained objectionable
language. However, that was the reason why Sawmiller disallowed my
posting of the response that counsel for Polgar and Truong filed to
the Parker vs USCF lawsuit in Philadelphia. The reason that Sawmiller
gave for not allowing this Texas filing in Polgar vs. USCF by counsel
for Polgar was that the PDF file contained telephone numbers.
Nevertheless, Goichberg's remarks apply to both situations.) The
question here is whether the pleadings filed in court by an attorney
representing a board member, Susan Polgar, in a lawsuit against the
USCF, should be allowed to appear on the USCF Issues Forum:

Sent at: Tue Oct 21, 2008 5:43 pm
From: chessoffice
To: samsloan Forum Oversight Committee Moderator Committee

I'm not sure what Sam is complaining about, but it sounds as if there
may have been a ruling that posting Susan Polgar's lawsuit against
USCF, or a link to it, violates the AUG.

I hesitate to say anything as I don't have the power or desire to give
instructions, and it's up to the Moderators what to allow, but I don't
think that the posting of the wording of a lawsuit involving USCF
should ever be considered in violation of the AUG, even if the suit
contains language that would otherwise be a violation. Once that
unacceptable wording is placed into a publicly filed lawsuit, it
should become acceptable for posting as part of the suit, as the suit
is a legitimate USCF issue for discussion. Or at least, posting a link
to the lawsuit should be acceptable.

A similar situation would be if a person prominent in USCF made a
baseless public attack on someone, an attack which would violate the
AUG if posted by the attacker. That person should not be permitted to
use the Forum to make such an attack, however if the attack was made
elsewhere, say at the delegates meeting, I believe it would be proper
for a poster to quote that attack on the Forum in the context of
discussing the behavior of the person who made that attack.

Those who make false and reckless public charges should not be
protected by the AUG from having their bad behavior known to the
membership. The intent of the AUG is to prevent the Forum from being
used to make such charges, not to protect those who are making those
charges elsewhere from discovery by the membership.

Bill Goichberg

On Oct 16, 2:50=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Susan Polgar has filed ten different responses to the motions by the
> USCF Defendants to dismiss her lawsuit in Texas.
>
> Each response is a little bit different. For example, her response to
> Goichberg's motion to dismiss adds new paragraphs 11, 14 and 15.
>
> Her response to Karl Kronenberger adds new paragraphs 13-16.
>
> Here is her response to the USCF's motion to dismiss. All of the other
> responses are the same or add a few new paragraphs.
>
> http://www.anusha.com/polgar-response-to-uscf-motion.pdf
>
> Sam Sloan

Date: 22 Oct 2008 20:26:59
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

[quote="Allen"]I did check the link. The last page and next to last
page has personal addresses for those served. Including Sam Slaons on
the next to last page.[/quote]

The only personal address it has is my own address which is public
knowledge since it was published in every issue of Chess Life while I
was on the board. The other three addresses are the addresses of the
offices of the three law firms, two of which represent the USCF,
involved in the case, Susan Polgar vs. USCF.

I take it that you are among those who do not want the general USCF
forum membership to know about the status of this litigation.

Why is that?

Sam Sloan

Date: 22 Oct 2008 16:49:00
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

[quote="tsawmiller"]Mr. Sloan,

You are referring to the lawsuit link that also contained some USCF
member addresses.
Brian Mottershead was listed first, which was sufficient for me to
disallow the post.
Why don't you stop being so contrary and just post the text minus the
address information?
Is that REALLY so hard to do?

Tim Sawmiller
Chair MOC[/quote]

Mr. Sawmiller,

It appears that you are not even bothering to look at the document I
am trying to post.

In this instance, what I am attempting to post is this link:

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-response-to-uscf-motion.pdf

This is a link to a PDF File of a document I downloaded from PACER. It
happens to contain the telephone number of the attorney who filed the
document in federal court. It is not "personal information". It simply
contains the public telephone number of a large law firm.

It does not contain the private telephone number or the address of
Brian Mottershead or of any other person. Have you even looked at it?

I cannot simply delete the telephone number because it is a PDF File
and a PDF File cannot be modified. I am surprised that you do not know
this. How did you get to be moderator if you did not know that?

That is why I write that it is absurd and ridiculous to deny this
posting to the USCF Issues Forum under such a pretext.

Sam Sloan

Date: 23 Oct 2008 11:23:29
From: foad
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:40b82d9c-f453-4d51-b21f-1cc08dde11b8@k16g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...

> This is a link to a PDF File of a document I downloaded from PACER. It
> happens to contain the telephone number of the attorney who filed the
> document in federal court. It is not "personal information". It simply
> contains the public telephone number of a large law firm.
>
> It does not contain the private telephone number or the address of
> Brian Mottershead or of any other person.

Er imbecile, it contains the names and address of the defendants on pages 11
and 12.

Brian Mottershead
118 Nxxxxx Fxxxx Road
Cxxxxxx, MA 01741

Brian Lafferty
111 Cxxxxx Pxxxx
Lxx Mxxxxx, MA 01106

etc

>Have you even looked at it?

Fans of irony take note.

> I cannot simply delete the telephone number because it is a PDF File
> and a PDF File cannot be modified. I am surprised that you do not know
> this. How did you get to be moderator if you did not know that?
>
> That is why I write that it is absurd and ridiculous to deny this
> posting to the USCF Issues Forum under such a pretext.

So to recap: you're either stupid or lying. Which is it?

Date: 22 Oct 2008 16:08:33
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

On Oct 22, 3:19=A0pm, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:

> You seem pretty up on the status of the litigation. Obssessed even. Clear=
ly
> nobody's blocking your access to information.
>
> If the USCF thinks its in its own best interest to not provide a forum wh=
ere
> petty disgusting little creatures such as yourself gossip about fanciful
> interpretations of made up details of an ongoing lawsuit that "has the
> potential to put the USCF out of busines", I agree with them. You are the
> worst. advocate. ever.

I have better access to the information than any other USCF member
because I am one of the 15 defendants plus I am on the service list so
I get served directly with any papers and pleadings that are filed.

What we have here is one moderator, Tim Sawmiller of Michigan, who
consistently manufactures various pretexts under which I am not
allowed to post things.

In this instance, what I am attempting to post is this link:

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-response-to-uscf-motion.pdf

This is a link to a PDF File of a document I downloaded from PACER. It
happens to contain the telephone number of the attorney who filed the
document in federal court. It is not "personal information". It is
simply the public telephone number of a large law firm.

That is why I write that it is absurd and ridiculous to deny this
posting to the USCF Issues Forum under such a pretext.

Sam Sloan

Date: 23 Oct 2008 11:17:07
From: foad
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:fc8ae8a0-cded-45ab-98ba-5484d5b26276@u75g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 22, 3:19 pm, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:

> You seem pretty up on the status of the litigation. Obssessed even.
> Clearly
> nobody's blocking your access to information.
>
> If the USCF thinks its in its own best interest to not provide a forum
> where
> petty disgusting little creatures such as yourself gossip about fanciful
> interpretations of made up details of an ongoing lawsuit that "has the
> potential to put the USCF out of busines", I agree with them. You are the
> worst. advocate. ever.

I have better access to the information than any other USCF member
because I am one of the 15 defendants plus I am on the service list so
I get served directly with any papers and pleadings that are filed.

What we have here is one moderator, Tim Sawmiller of Michigan, who
consistently manufactures various pretexts under which I am not
allowed to post things.

===============

If I moderated a forum I'd do the same thing. You're a nitwit, you're a
liar, and you're a bore. You bring nothing to the table, you contribute
nothing to the discussion, and from all available evidence here you're a
petty, snivelling, coward and an appalling human being.

In this instance, what I am attempting to post is this link:

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-response-to-uscf-motion.pdf

This is a link to a PDF File of a document I downloaded from PACER. It
happens to contain the telephone number of the attorney who filed the
document in federal court. It is not "personal information". It is
simply the public telephone number of a large law firm.

That is why I write that it is absurd and ridiculous to deny this
posting to the USCF Issues Forum under such a pretext.
==================

The forum rule states "Do not post . . . personal information of others."

The document in question contains personal information: the names,
addresses and in your case telephone number, of the various defendants.

Thus you may not post it. Full stop.

If this Sawmiller guy's busting your balls about it more power to him.

In any event, you should stop blubbering about it, you come across as a big
girl's blouse.

Date: 22 Oct 2008 11:42:32
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

Tim Sawmiller still continues to refuse to allow a link to the
pleading filed by the attorney for Susan Polgar to be posted in the
USCF Issues Forum.

Please note that the objection by Mr. Sawmiller to this particular
posting was not that the posting contained objectionable language, and
indeed it did not, but rather because the posting contained the
telephone number and the address of the attorney representing Polgar
in the lawsuit, Polgar vs. USCF.

Mr. Sawmiller quoted the provision of the AUG which states: "Do not
post phone numbers, email addresses or other personal information of
others."

This is quite obviously an absurd and ridiculous interpretation of the
rules by Mr. Sawmiller to say that the telephone number of the law
firm that filed the motion must be deleted.

In addition, I wish to point out that is the USCF were a publicly
traded company, the company would be REQUIRED to disclose this
information to the stockholders. The Polgar vs. USCF lawsuit clearly
has the potential to put the USCF out of business and the moderators
should be required to let the membership know about the current status
of the litigation.

Sam Sloan

Date: 22 Oct 2008 19:19:03
From: foad
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> This is quite obviously an absurd and ridiculous interpretation of the
> rules by Mr. Sawmiller to say that the telephone number of the law
> firm that filed the motion must be deleted.

Allow me to rebut your "reasoning" completely:

No.

> In addition, I wish to point out that is the USCF were a publicly
> traded company, the company would be REQUIRED to disclose this
> information to the stockholders.

And if the USCF were a pig and it had wings it'd be a flying pig. But it's
not. And it's not publically traded either so you don't have a point. And
even if it were REQUIRED to disclose in big capital letters the opposing
attorney's phone number, which seems to be your claim, that they have a duty
to post a phone number, which is absurd, even if they did, they wouldn't be
REQUIRED to post it in your favorite dopey chatroom.

> The Polgar vs. USCF lawsuit clearly
> has the potential to put the USCF out of business and the moderators
> should be required to let the membership know about the current status
> of the litigation.

You seem pretty up on the status of the litigation. Obssessed even. Clearly
nobody's blocking your access to information.

If the USCF thinks its in its own best interest to not provide a forum where
petty disgusting little creatures such as yourself gossip about fanciful
interpretations of made up details of an ongoing lawsuit that "has the
potential to put the USCF out of busines", I agree with them. You are the
worst. advocate. ever.

Date: 19 Oct 2008 09:28:44
From: jblubaugh
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

On Oct 19, 10:42=A0am, J=FCrgen R. <[email protected] > wrote:
> > Then explain why, when Susan Polgar agreed to settle her case against
> > FIDE in Polgar vs. FIDE, under which FIDE agreed to pay her attorney's
> > fees only, Susan went around telling the world that she had "won" the
> > case?
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> People who usually lose cherish a rare victory disproportionately
>
> Why do you still run around bragging about your embarrassing
> performance before the Supreme Court, even though you lost your dealer's
> license?

Well, Jurgen, it appears you always have comments on these kinds of
things and they are always the same. Everyone is always guilty in your
eyes and any attempt by them to claim they are innocent or to seek
justice is embarrassing. I find you to be embarrassing with your
closed eyes approach to everything.

I am a bridge player who suffered an injustice and I was accused and
convicted in the bridge world for something I did not do. I have taken
my case to the Supreme Court and I am considering filing another round
of law suits against the American Contract Bridge League. I have
handicaps that Jurgen dismisses and this organization came after me
for purely political motives. It seems Jurgen spews his nonsense on
other forums too.

JB

Date: 31 Oct 2008 22:35:51
From: marika
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

"jblubaugh" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:a6bb032f-6321-4468-81ea-1e08241042f4@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

I am a bridge player who suffered an injustice and I was accused and
convicted in the bridge world for something I did not do. I have taken
my case to the Supreme Court and I am considering filing another round
of law suits against the American Contract Bridge League. I have
handicaps that Jurgen dismisses and this organization came after me
for purely political motives. It seems Jurgen spews his nonsense on
other forums too.

JB

-------==============

bridge to nowhere

mk5000

----- Original Message -----
From: "marika" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups:
soc.culture.usa,soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.japan,soc.culture.australian,alt.usenet.legends.lester-mosley
Sent: Sunday, October 19, 2008 1:01 PM
Subject: Re: INTERNATIONAL STUFF - Global Financial Remedy

Date: 19 Oct 2008 06:47:27
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

On Oct 19, 9:12=A0am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:c6adb71e-d943-471b-a8d3-8292e212f797@u28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Susan Polgar is suing the USCF and its Executive Director and its
> entire Board of Directors, other than herself and her husband. Any
> admission that the USCF committed any wrong doing, such as defaming or
> harassing her, would consitute an admission that the Executive
> Director and the other board members did those things.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Wrong, as usual.
>
> ITFP evidence of settlement is inadmissble to prove liability against the
> settling party under Rule 408, much less against a non settling party.
>
> Compromise and Offers to Compromise
>
> (a) . . . not admissible ... =A0(1) furnishing or offering or promising t=
o
> furnish--or accepting or offering or promising to accept--a valuable
> consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim
>
> ITSP, even if admissible, which it's not, settling is not an admission of
> guilt, it is a relase from liability in exchange for agreed consideration=
.
> Any competently drafted settlement agreement says exactly that.
>
> And ITTP the Board's liability is based either on administrative activiti=
es
> it undertook and or based upon the actions of one or some or all of the
> Board members individually. So an admission by B, even if admissible, whi=
ch
> it isn't, and even if probative of guilt, which its not, would not taint
> particular board members. That is, an admission by A that he is liable fo=
r
> an action by B is not proof of C's culpability.

Then explain why, when Susan Polgar agreed to settle her case against
FIDE in Polgar vs. FIDE, under which FIDE agreed to pay her attorney's
fees only, Susan went around telling the world that she had "won" the
case?

Sam Sloan

Date: 19 Oct 2008 16:42:44
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen_R.?=
Subject: AW: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

>
> Then explain why, when Susan Polgar agreed to settle her case against
> FIDE in Polgar vs. FIDE, under which FIDE agreed to pay her attorney's
> fees only, Susan went around telling the world that she had "won" the
> case?
>
> Sam Sloan

People who usually lose cherish a rare victory disproportionately

Why do you still run around bragging about your embarrassing
performance before the Supreme Court, even though you lost your dealer's
license?

Date: 19 Oct 2008 14:34:59
From: foad
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Oct 19, 9:12 am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:c6adb71e-d943-471b-a8d3-8292e212f797@u28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Susan Polgar is suing the USCF and its Executive Director and its
> entire Board of Directors, other than herself and her husband. Any
> admission that the USCF committed any wrong doing, such as defaming or
> harassing her, would consitute an admission that the Executive
> Director and the other board members did those things.
>
> ===========
>
> Wrong, as usual.
>
> ITFP evidence of settlement is inadmissble to prove liability against the
> settling party under Rule 408, much less against a non settling party.
>
> Compromise and Offers to Compromise
>
> (a) . . . not admissible ... (1) furnishing or offering or promising to
> furnish--or accepting or offering or promising to accept--a valuable
> consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim
>
> ITSP, even if admissible, which it's not, settling is not an admission of
> guilt, it is a relase from liability in exchange for agreed consideration.
> Any competently drafted settlement agreement says exactly that.
>
> And ITTP the Board's liability is based either on administrative
> activities
> it undertook and or based upon the actions of one or some or all of the
> Board members individually. So an admission by B, even if admissible,
> which
> it isn't, and even if probative of guilt, which its not, would not taint
> particular board members. That is, an admission by A that he is liable for
> an action by B is not proof of C's culpability.

Then explain why, when Susan Polgar agreed to settle her case against
FIDE in Polgar vs. FIDE, under which FIDE agreed to pay her attorney's
fees only, Susan went around telling the world that she had "won" the
case?

=========

I realize that Susan Polgar is your Jesus, but in the real world anything
she might have said doesn't effect the federal rules of evidence.

You have the critical thinking skills of a sea cucumber. If you weren't such
a pompous buffoon you'd be pathetic, nearly.

Date: 18 Oct 2008 09:50:31
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

On Oct 18, 11:12=A0am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:4bcc9f56-12a0-4f43-9e67-ebcd5ae59a45@l77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 18, 8:34 am, raylopez99 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 11:50 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.anusha.com/polgar-response-to-uscf-motion.pdf
>
> > Sheez! People actually read these forums? I thought this place was
> > dead. No wonder she's asking for $1 damages. A tempest in a teapot;
> > nobody really cares.
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/nyregion/08chess.html?_r=3D1&oref=3Dsl=
ogin
>
> > Sam (if you're really Sam) do you or do you not appear in a photo with
> > this gentleman, N. T. Whitaker, sitting on his knee? It's been
> > reproduced in a book on his life. State for the record please.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Tweed_Whitaker
>
> > RL
>
> Susan Polgar is asking for $25 million in damages, not $1 in damages.
>
> She offered to settle her suit against the USCF (but not against the
> individual defendants) for $1 plus an apology from the USCF for all of
> the grievous wrongs done to her. This was obviously just a ploy. If
> the USCF confessed to these supposedly terrible things, then the
> individual defendants would be on the hook.
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Wrong as usual. Settlement by a joint tortfeasor is not an admission by a
> codefendant. The settlement in fact reduces the codefendants liability, i=
f
> any, by the amount of the settlement.

Susan Polgar is suing the USCF and its Executive Director and its
entire Board of Directors, other than herself and her husband. Any
admission that the USCF committed any wrong doing, such as defaming or
harassing her, would consitute an admission that the Executive
Director and the other board members did those things.

Sam Sloan

Date: 19 Oct 2008 13:12:28
From: foad
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:c6adb71e-d943-471b-a8d3-8292e212f797@u28g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

Susan Polgar is suing the USCF and its Executive Director and its
entire Board of Directors, other than herself and her husband. Any
admission that the USCF committed any wrong doing, such as defaming or
harassing her, would consitute an admission that the Executive
Director and the other board members did those things.

===========

Wrong, as usual.

ITFP evidence of settlement is inadmissble to prove liability against the
settling party under Rule 408, much less against a non settling party.

Compromise and Offers to Compromise

(a) . . . not admissible ... (1) furnishing or offering or promising to
furnish--or accepting or offering or promising to accept--a valuable
consideration in compromising or attempting to compromise the claim

ITSP, even if admissible, which it's not, settling is not an admission of
guilt, it is a relase from liability in exchange for agreed consideration.
Any competently drafted settlement agreement says exactly that.

And ITTP the Board's liability is based either on administrative activities
it undertook and or based upon the actions of one or some or all of the
Board members individually. So an admission by B, even if admissible, which
it isn't, and even if probative of guilt, which its not, would not taint
particular board members. That is, an admission by A that he is liable for
an action by B is not proof of C's culpability.

Date: 18 Oct 2008 07:29:06
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

On Oct 18, 10:14=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 18, 8:34=A0am, raylopez99 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 16, 11:50=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.anusha.com/polgar-response-to-uscf-motion.pdf
>
> > Sheez! =A0People actually read these forums? =A0I thought this place wa=
s
> > dead. =A0No wonder she's asking for $1 damages. =A0A tempest in a teapo=
t;
> > nobody really cares.
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/nyregion/08chess.html?_r=3D1&oref=3Dsl=
ogin
>
> > Sam (if you're really Sam) do you or do you not appear in a photo with
> > this gentleman, N. T. Whitaker, sitting on his knee? =A0It's been
> > reproduced in a book on his life. =A0State for the record please.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Tweed_Whitaker
>
> > RL
>
> Susan Polgar is asking for $25 million in damages, not $1 in damages.
>
> She offered to settle her suit against the USCF (but not against the
> individual defendants) for $1 plus an apology from the USCF for all of
> the grievous wrongs done to her. This was obviously just a ploy. If
> the USCF confessed to these supposedly terrible things, then the
> individual defendants would be on the hook.
>
> Note that she is suing but for defamation but when asked what
> defamatory words were spoken or written against her, she replies that
> she does not know but when she has access to the archives then she
> will be able to find out what bad things have been said about her.
>
> Sam Sloan

Please note paragraph 3 of her response. It states:

3. Defendant=92s claim that Plaintiff failed to state a claim for
defamation because the pleadings fail to provide specific examples and
because =93Plaintiff has chosen to sue so many Defendants, Plaintiff
needed to specifically state whatever Defendant did or said, when such
alleged acts were done and how Plaintiff was damaged by said alleged
acts=94 is untenable. Defendant=92s argument is not supported by law, and
Defendant=92s claim improperly heightens the =93short and plain statement=
=94
pleading requirements of Rule 8. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a). Plaintiff
clearly indicated in Part XVIII of her original petition that the
defamatory statements made by defendants are contained in electronic
form in archives controlled by Defendants; therefore, Plaintiff=92s
ability to state Defendant=92s defamatory statements =93specifically=94is
dependant on her access to these archives.

In other words, Polgar is claiming that she should be allowed to
search the archives so that she can try to find something defamatory
said or written about her.

Sam Sloan

Date: 18 Oct 2008 07:14:39
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

On Oct 18, 8:34=A0am, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 16, 11:50=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >http://www.anusha.com/polgar-response-to-uscf-motion.pdf
>
> Sheez! =A0People actually read these forums? =A0I thought this place was
> dead. =A0No wonder she's asking for $1 damages. =A0A tempest in a teapot;
> nobody really cares.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/nyregion/08chess.html?_r=3D1&oref=3Dslo=
gin
>
> Sam (if you're really Sam) do you or do you not appear in a photo with
> this gentleman, N. T. Whitaker, sitting on his knee? =A0It's been
> reproduced in a book on his life. =A0State for the record please.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Tweed_Whitaker
>
> RL

Susan Polgar is asking for $25 million in damages, not $1 in damages.

She offered to settle her suit against the USCF (but not against the
individual defendants) for $1 plus an apology from the USCF for all of
the grievous wrongs done to her. This was obviously just a ploy. If
the USCF confessed to these supposedly terrible things, then the
individual defendants would be on the hook.

Note that she is suing but for defamation but when asked what
defamatory words were spoken or written against her, she replies that
she does not know but when she has access to the archives then she
will be able to find out what bad things have been said about her.

Sam Sloan

Date: 18 Oct 2008 15:12:30
From: foad
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:4bcc9f56-12a0-4f43-9e67-ebcd5ae59a45@l77g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 18, 8:34 am, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 16, 11:50 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >http://www.anusha.com/polgar-response-to-uscf-motion.pdf
>
> Sheez! People actually read these forums? I thought this place was
> dead. No wonder she's asking for $1 damages. A tempest in a teapot;
> nobody really cares.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/nyregion/08chess.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
>
> Sam (if you're really Sam) do you or do you not appear in a photo with
> this gentleman, N. T. Whitaker, sitting on his knee? It's been
> reproduced in a book on his life. State for the record please.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Tweed_Whitaker
>
> RL

Susan Polgar is asking for $25 million in damages, not $1 in damages.

She offered to settle her suit against the USCF (but not against the
individual defendants) for $1 plus an apology from the USCF for all of
the grievous wrongs done to her. This was obviously just a ploy. If
the USCF confessed to these supposedly terrible things, then the
individual defendants would be on the hook.
====================

Wrong as usual. Settlement by a joint tortfeasor is not an admission by a
codefendant. The settlement in fact reduces the codefendants liability, if
any, by the amount of the settlement.

Date: 18 Oct 2008 05:34:55
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Responds to USCF motions to Dismiss Her Lawsuit

On Oct 16, 11:50=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:

> http://www.anusha.com/polgar-response-to-uscf-motion.pdf
>

Sheez! People actually read these forums? I thought this place was
dead. No wonder she's asking for $1 damages. A tempest in a teapot;
nobody really cares.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/nyregion/08chess.html?_r=3D1&oref=3Dslogi=
n

Sam (if you're really Sam) do you or do you not appear in a photo with
this gentleman, N. T. Whitaker, sitting on his knee? It's been
reproduced in a book on his life. State for the record please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Tweed_Whitaker

RL