| |
Main
Date: 04 Apr 2008 13:12:45
From: samsloan
Subject: Susan's Rant Today
|
Today, Susan launched into her usual rant of late. What I find
interesting is that today Susan complained that Jerry Hanken had
leaked confidential information to me and I in turned had used that
confidential information in my opposition to her attorney's motion to
dismiss.
However, I am unaware of any confidential information, either in what
Jerry Hanken leaked to me or in what I used in my opposition to her
motion to dismiss.
Could anybody please tell it what it was?
Here is what Susan posted at
http://chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=992 :
Board members are covered by the USCF insurance policy. Chubb is the
insurance company and Chubb assigned a lawyer to defend us against the
Sloan lawsuit. This has nothing to do with the USCF attorney. It was
paid by Chubb. The board members authorized by the vote of 5-0
(obviously we were excluded from this vote) to have their USCF "paid"
attorney contact Chubb to try to convince Chubb not to cover us so
that we cannot defend ourselves against the Sloan suit.
When that did not work, confidential legal information which we were
asked to submit to the USCF was leaked to Jerry Hanken. He then used
this information in at least 2 unauthorized negotiation sessions with
Sloan. Sloan used some of this information in his response to the
motion to dismiss.
And in the mean time, the board majority purposely mislead the USCF
members by saying we did not cooperate, which is blatantly false. The
USCF paid attorney NEVER asked us for additional information after it
was submitted to him. He never said to us that it is not enough and to
please provide more. If he did then please produce the evidence to
support this. This is why the board desperately tries to fight the
idea of releasing all correspondence for USCF members to see because
it will contradict what they stated publicly to the USCF members. In
addition, false and misleading information was used in the recall
petition to fool the delegates.
None of the board members deny this publicly because they know we have
the proof. I even made an offer that once all correspondence is
released and if what we say is false, we will resign immediately. But
it what we say is true, the board majority will resign imediately.
They obviously did not accept this offer for abundantly clear reasons.
Unless the board majority apologizes for what they have done to me and
my personal and professional reputation, this matter will not go away
and they will have to answer for their actions at appropriate venues.
I am not backing off from this issue. They have no right playing games
with people's lives. If they have nothing to hide then release all
information and allow USCF members to make up their own minds.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Apr 2008 16:47:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan's Rant Today
|
[quote="marknibb"][quote="samsloan"][quote="Susan Polgar"][b]
[color=#0000FF]When that did not work, confidential legal information
which we were asked to submit to the USCF was leaked to Jerry Hanken.
He then used this information in at least 2 unauthorized negotiation
sessions with Sloan. Sloan used some of this information in his
response to the motion to dismiss.[/color]
[/b][/quote]
I would like to know what this is all about. I am not aware of any
confidential information or indeed any information at all that was
leaked by Jerry Hanken to me. I am also not aware of any confidential
information that I used in response to the Motion to Dismiss.
Everything I wrote in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss were common
and well known facts. I did not reveal any confidential or secret
information.
My opposition to the motion to dismiss is posted online and if anybody
can find any confidential information in there, please let me know.
Sam Sloan[/quote]
Sam, did the negotiations with Jerry Hanken which Susan speaks of take
place ? BTW... the above quote should be properly attributed to Susan
Polgar.[/quote]
Many people have called me trying to negotiate a settlement to this
suit.
Unfortunately, thus far, the other side has not been willing to move
an inch, and thus these negotiations have been fruitless.
For example, last weekend at the Foxwoods Open I suggested a proposed
settlement which many other pro-Goichberg people had already agreed
was quite reasonable, and one that Goichberg should accept.
However, in response, Goichberg said, "That's ridiculous".
Goichberg is like a man who refuses a draw in a lost position, and
thus is headed for total defeat.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 05 Apr 2008 04:54:34
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan's Rant Today
|
[quote="marknibb"][b][color=#0000FF]When that did not work,
confidential legal information which we were asked to submit to the
USCF was leaked to Jerry Hanken. He then used this information in at
least 2 unauthorized negotiation sessions with Sloan. Sloan used some
of this information in his response to the motion to dismiss.[/color]
[/b][/quote]
I would like to know what this is all about. I am not aware of any
confidential information or indeed any information at all that was
leaked by Jerry Hanken to me. I am also not aware of any confidential
information that I used in response to the Motion to Dismiss.
Everything I wrote in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss were common
and well known facts. I did not reveal any confidential or secret
information.
My opposition to the motion to dismiss is posted online and if anybody
can find any confidential information in there, please let me know.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 04 Apr 2008 18:30:13
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan's Rant Today
|
On Apr 4, 4:22 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:3b67dfd5-4f4c-4396-9192-1b6a23615a95@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 4, 4:55 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 4, 3:43 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > computer chess eliminated from this message.
>
> > > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > >news:ce4c8030-197f-4575-941a-ec4b316d8da0@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > Today, Susan launched into her usual rant of late. What I find
> > > > interesting is that today Susan complained that Jerry Hanken had
> > > > leaked confidential information to me and I in turned had used that
> > > > confidential information in my opposition to her attorney's motion to
> > > > dismiss.
>
> > > > However, I am unaware of any confidential information, either in what
> > > > Jerry Hanken leaked to me
>
> > > Ah! So Jerry Hanken did leak something to you?
>
> > > Apart from the most obvious questions of what that was, the other
> > > equally
> > > obvious question was how come Hanken was involved at all, and who
> > > 'involved'
> > > him? ;))
>
> > > Phil Innes
>
> > I am now aware of Jerry Hanken leaking anything to me, confidential or
> > otherwise.
>
> Hmmm, I think Sam meant to type "not" instead of "now," but the
> latter may be more accurate. Freudian slip?
>
> Freudian slut. Besides he slutted twice in the same message.
>
> PI
Thank you. Right. I am not aware (not "now aware").
Point is, many USCF members call me and no doubt call the opposing
sides trying to bring about a settlement of this suit. What is wrong
with that? It should be encouraged. However, as long as Truong and
Polgar remain on the board there seems to be no chance that an
agreement can be reached.
Keep your sluts to yourself. You have your sluts. I have mine.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 04 Apr 2008 13:58:39
From:
Subject: Re: Susan's Rant Today
|
On Apr 4, 4:55=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 4, 3:43 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > computer chess eliminated from this message.
>
> > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:ce4c8030-197f-4575-941a-ec4b316d8da0@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...=
>
> > > Today, Susan launched into her usual rant of late. What I find
> > > interesting is that today Susan complained that Jerry Hanken had
> > > leaked confidential information to me and I in turned had used that
> > > confidential information in my opposition to her attorney's motion to
> > > dismiss.
>
> > > However, I am unaware of any confidential information, either in what
> > > Jerry Hanken leaked to me
>
> > Ah! So Jerry Hanken did leak something to you?
>
> > Apart from the most obvious questions of what that was, the other equall=
y
> > obvious question was how come Hanken was involved at all, and who 'invol=
ved'
> > him? =A0;))
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> I am now aware of Jerry Hanken leaking anything to me, confidential or
> otherwise.
Hmmm, I think Sam meant to type "not" instead of "now," but the
latter may be more accurate. Freudian slip?
|
| | |
Date: 04 Apr 2008 17:22:01
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan's Rant Today
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:3b67dfd5-4f4c-4396-9192-1b6a23615a95@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 4, 4:55 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Apr 4, 3:43 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > computer chess eliminated from this message.
>
> > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:ce4c8030-197f-4575-941a-ec4b316d8da0@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Today, Susan launched into her usual rant of late. What I find
> > > interesting is that today Susan complained that Jerry Hanken had
> > > leaked confidential information to me and I in turned had used that
> > > confidential information in my opposition to her attorney's motion to
> > > dismiss.
>
> > > However, I am unaware of any confidential information, either in what
> > > Jerry Hanken leaked to me
>
> > Ah! So Jerry Hanken did leak something to you?
>
> > Apart from the most obvious questions of what that was, the other
> > equally
> > obvious question was how come Hanken was involved at all, and who
> > 'involved'
> > him? ;))
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> I am now aware of Jerry Hanken leaking anything to me, confidential or
> otherwise.
Hmmm, I think Sam meant to type "not" instead of "now," but the
latter may be more accurate. Freudian slip?
Freudian slut. Besides he slutted twice in the same message.
PI
|
| |
Date: 04 Apr 2008 13:55:27
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan's Rant Today
|
On Apr 4, 3:43 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> computer chess eliminated from this message.
>
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:ce4c8030-197f-4575-941a-ec4b316d8da0@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Today, Susan launched into her usual rant of late. What I find
> > interesting is that today Susan complained that Jerry Hanken had
> > leaked confidential information to me and I in turned had used that
> > confidential information in my opposition to her attorney's motion to
> > dismiss.
>
> > However, I am unaware of any confidential information, either in what
> > Jerry Hanken leaked to me
>
> Ah! So Jerry Hanken did leak something to you?
>
> Apart from the most obvious questions of what that was, the other equally
> obvious question was how come Hanken was involved at all, and who 'involved'
> him? ;))
>
> Phil Innes
I am now aware of Jerry Hanken leaking anything to me, confidential or
otherwise. However, I speak to him from time to time. Last week he was
at the Foxwoods Open and I was there too so naturally I spoke to him.
Is that a crime?
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 04 Apr 2008 17:21:08
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan's Rant Today
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Apr 4, 3:43 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> computer chess eliminated from this message.
>>
>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ce4c8030-197f-4575-941a-ec4b316d8da0@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Today, Susan launched into her usual rant of late. What I find
>> > interesting is that today Susan complained that Jerry Hanken had
>> > leaked confidential information to me and I in turned had used that
>> > confidential information in my opposition to her attorney's motion to
>> > dismiss.
>>
>> > However, I am unaware of any confidential information, either in what
>> > Jerry Hanken leaked to me
>>
>> Ah! So Jerry Hanken did leak something to you?
>>
>> Apart from the most obvious questions of what that was,
You are now 'aware' of Jerry Hanken leaking 'something' to you?
>> the other equally
>> obvious question was how come Hanken was involved at all, and who
>> 'involved'
>> him? ;))
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> I am now aware of Jerry Hanken leaking anything to me,
Good! You are now 'aware' of Jerry Hanken leaking 'something' to you.
> confidential or
> otherwise. However, I speak to him from time to time.
However you speak to him or however occassionally?
> Last week he was
> at the Foxwoods Open and I was there too so naturally I spoke to him.
>
> Is that a crime?
I did not raise the issue of your conversations with Hanken from time to
time being a crime.
You did. Is it? Or, are they crimes? Its hard to tell since you merely
reference the conversation rather than their content.
I would ask Hanken himself, but you know, he will either offer to kill me,
or dismiss the issue of your conversations as meaninless.
I am afraid he is thereby isolated in mutable scope [he can't get to any
point of what passes betwixt his own ears and others] whatever sense he has
of whatever you now say [twice] in this message about your conversations
together.
Of course the important conversation I spoke of is that you admit above, his
involvement in the Truong/FSS affair with yourself, and the provenance of
how he was involved in that, as a context I ask how come he was involved at
all?
Cordially, Phil Innes
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 04 Apr 2008 16:43:14
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Susan's Rant Today
|
computer chess eliminated from this message.
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:ce4c8030-197f-4575-941a-ec4b316d8da0@n14g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Today, Susan launched into her usual rant of late. What I find
> interesting is that today Susan complained that Jerry Hanken had
> leaked confidential information to me and I in turned had used that
> confidential information in my opposition to her attorney's motion to
> dismiss.
>
> However, I am unaware of any confidential information, either in what
> Jerry Hanken leaked to me
Ah! So Jerry Hanken did leak something to you?
Apart from the most obvious questions of what that was, the other equally
obvious question was how come Hanken was involved at all, and who 'involved'
him? ;))
Phil Innes
> or in what I used in my opposition to her
> motion to dismiss.
>
> Could anybody please tell it what it was?
>
> Here is what Susan posted at
> http://chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=992 :
>
> Board members are covered by the USCF insurance policy. Chubb is the
> insurance company and Chubb assigned a lawyer to defend us against the
> Sloan lawsuit. This has nothing to do with the USCF attorney. It was
> paid by Chubb. The board members authorized by the vote of 5-0
> (obviously we were excluded from this vote) to have their USCF "paid"
> attorney contact Chubb to try to convince Chubb not to cover us so
> that we cannot defend ourselves against the Sloan suit.
>
> When that did not work, confidential legal information which we were
> asked to submit to the USCF was leaked to Jerry Hanken. He then used
> this information in at least 2 unauthorized negotiation sessions with
> Sloan. Sloan used some of this information in his response to the
> motion to dismiss.
>
> And in the mean time, the board majority purposely mislead the USCF
> members by saying we did not cooperate, which is blatantly false. The
> USCF paid attorney NEVER asked us for additional information after it
> was submitted to him. He never said to us that it is not enough and to
> please provide more. If he did then please produce the evidence to
> support this. This is why the board desperately tries to fight the
> idea of releasing all correspondence for USCF members to see because
> it will contradict what they stated publicly to the USCF members. In
> addition, false and misleading information was used in the recall
> petition to fool the delegates.
>
> None of the board members deny this publicly because they know we have
> the proof. I even made an offer that once all correspondence is
> released and if what we say is false, we will resign immediately. But
> it what we say is true, the board majority will resign imediately.
> They obviously did not accept this offer for abundantly clear reasons.
>
> Unless the board majority apologizes for what they have done to me and
> my personal and professional reputation, this matter will not go away
> and they will have to answer for their actions at appropriate venues.
> I am not backing off from this issue. They have no right playing games
> with people's lives. If they have nothing to hide then release all
> information and allow USCF members to make up their own minds.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Susan Polgar
|
|
