Tomorrow and tomorrow

Main

Date: 27 Aug 2008 17:14:41
From: Chess One
Subject: Tomorrow and tomorrow

I understand that tomorrow an important development will occur in the Susan
Polgar suit against USCF, with a named settlement sum being announced for
cessation of the suit and other specifics relating to USCF actions.

This will no doubt interest those named in it who write here, and exists as
an open offer, should the recipient, USCF, be able to respond to the price
demanded for their accommodation to the offer.

Phil Innes

Date: 29 Aug 2008 04:08:04
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

On Aug 28, 10:55=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:

> It will be especially difficult for the Trolgars,. since he can't file
> for bankruptcy again for a while.

A mere technicality, for perhaps it is
possible, bot under one of the FSS's /other/
names?

Fear not! For just as Uncle Sam eventually
"took care of" Alphonse Capone, he can take
care of others who dare to use intimidation
and scare tactics (a chess term you may not
understand), and who try to undermine the
smooth-as-silk inner workings of the USCF --
an organization (ahem) whose achievements
are unfathomable and multisplendiferous and
supercalifragilistic!

-- help bot

P.S.: About the delay in payment... I have
been having some, er, technical difficulties
in that I no longer win chess trophies. Back
in the day, I was a force to be reckoned
with. Now, they say, it is not a question of
/if/ I will blunder, but of /when/ and /how/.
What about a few issues of "Developments
in the Grob, 1963-1965" instead of trophies?

And yes, it's true that PI was assigned to
heckle TK for FY2008; his was the lowest
bid, and he (just barely) qualified. --hb

Date: 28 Aug 2008 19:55:07
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

On Aug 28, 3:24 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I suppose it is a good sign that someone is starting to talk about a
> > settlement. Unfortunately, I am afraid that it may be a bit like the frog
> > in the blender that offers to go easy on the fellow that is about to throw
> > the switch to Frappe, or Liquefy. Nevertheless, I hope something positive
> > comes from it.
>
> It is an offer. I suppose its detail will be publicly known sometime this
> day, and what people speculate to its motive or effect - whether of goodwill
> or if that is, as it seems to be so often, merely conceived as weakness... ?
>
> ... the result of acceptance or refusal is to great effect on US chess as we
> know it. Without a settlement then one side must fail, and since the stakes
> are now so high, that failure will be catastophic to those who lose.

It will be especially difficult for the Trolgars,. since he can't file
for bankruptcy again for a while.

> In the background of these events there is attempt to bring parties to the
> table and shift the agenda to what best benefits chess in the USA. That is a
> difficult undertaking when one side is intransigent, though they lose not
> place nor power by accepting that basis.
>
> Instead we will in all liklihood witness a resolute and intransigent legal
> pursuit to the very endgame against those who would not bend to any degree.
>
> That is the current tragedic scenario of official chess in the United States
> of America. It is consequent the behavior of USCF that Polgar gets in a suit
> before Russell does - but only to note an almost incidental hierarchy of
> impending legal suits, all of which are serious to the degree that failure
> is life-threatening.
>
> What should engage chess players attention is that whether pro or con USCF's
> activities, here is another reason to not attempt its own mission, a sad
> road not taken these past 30 years.
>
> That is the tomorrow of our existance. Blind.
>
> Phil Innes

Reverend Philsy's memorial sermon for USCF, preached regularly here at
rgcp for the past decade.

Date: 28 Aug 2008 17:49:00
From: Javert
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

On Aug 28, 5:46=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "Javert" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
> On Aug 28, 4:24 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > > I suppose it is a good sign that someone is starting to talk about a
> > > settlement. Unfortunately, I am afraid that it may be a bit like the
> > > frog
> > > in the blender that offers to go easy on the fellow that is about to
> > > throw
> > > the switch to Frappe, or Liquefy. Nevertheless, I hope something
> > > positive
> > > comes from it.
>
> > It is an offer. I suppose its detail will be publicly known sometime th=
is
> > day, and what people speculate to its motive or effect - whether of
> > goodwill
> > or if that is, as it seems to be so often, merely conceived as weakness=
...
> > ?
>
> > ... the result of acceptance or refusal is to great effect on US chess =
as
> > we
> > know it. Without a settlement then one side must fail, and since the
> > stakes
> > are now so high, that failure will be catastophic to those who lose.
>
> > In the background of these events there is attempt to bring parties to =
the
> > table and shift the agenda to what best benefits chess in the USA. That=
is
> > a
> > difficult undertaking when one side is intransigent, though they lose n=
ot
> > place nor power by accepting that basis.
>
> > Instead we will in all liklihood witness a resolute and intransigent le=
gal
> > pursuit to the very endgame against those who would not bend to any
> > degree.
>
> > That is the current tragedic scenario of official chess in the United
> > States
> > of America. It is consequent the behavior of USCF that Polgar gets in a
> > suit
> > before Russell does - but only to note an almost incidental hierarchy o=
f
> > impending legal suits, all of which are serious to the degree that fail=
ure
> > is life-threatening.
>
> > What should engage chess players attention is that whether pro or con
> > USCF's
> > activities, here is another reason to not attempt its own mission, a sa=
d
> > road not taken these past 30 years.
>
> > That is the tomorrow of our existance. Blind.
>
> > Phil Innes
>
> > > "Do that which is right..."
>
> > > Rev. J.D. Walker
>
> Good will would be not asking for a settlement, but withdrawing the
> suit.
>
> But which party do you address, just one of them, Javert?
>
> PI

The party of the first part.

Date: 28 Aug 2008 15:59:50
From:
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

Mike Murray wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:46:09 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Good will would be not asking for a settlement, but withdrawing the
> >suit.
>
> >But which party do you address, just one of them, Javert?
>
> So you think it would be good trade for the USCF to drop the John Doe
> suit in return for Polgar dropping her suit?

Since the Doe suit has merit and Polgar's has none, this would present
some, ah, ethical problems.

Date: 28 Aug 2008 16:31:23
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:59:50 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:

>Mike Murray wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:46:09 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:

>> >Good will would be not asking for a settlement, but withdrawing the
>> >suit.

>> >But which party do you address, just one of them, Javert?

>> So you think it would be good trade for the USCF to drop the John Doe
>> suit in return for Polgar dropping her suit?

>Since the Doe suit has merit and Polgar's has none, this would present
>some, ah, ethical problems.

Kinda like trading a Rook for a backward and doubled Pawn?

Date: 28 Aug 2008 13:38:28
From: Javert
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

On Aug 28, 4:24=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I suppose it is a good sign that someone is starting to talk about a
> > settlement. =A0Unfortunately, I am afraid that it may be a bit like the=
frog
> > in the blender that offers to go easy on the fellow that is about to th=
row
> > the switch to Frappe, or Liquefy. =A0Nevertheless, I hope something pos=
itive
> > comes from it.
>
> It is an offer. I suppose its detail will be publicly known sometime this
> day, and what people speculate to its motive or effect - whether of goodw=
ill
> or if that is, as it seems to be so often, merely conceived as weakness..=
. ?
>
> ... the result of acceptance or refusal is to great effect on US chess as=
we
> know it. Without a settlement then one side must fail, and since the stak=
es
> are now so high, that failure will be catastophic to those who lose.
>
> In the background of these events there is attempt to bring parties to th=
e
> table and shift the agenda to what best benefits chess in the USA. That i=
s a
> difficult undertaking when one side is intransigent, though they lose not
> place nor power by accepting that basis.
>
> Instead we will in all liklihood witness a resolute and intransigent lega=
l
> pursuit to the very endgame against those who would not bend to any degre=
e.
>
> That is the current tragedic scenario of official chess in the United Sta=
tes
> of America. It is consequent the behavior of USCF that Polgar gets in a s=
uit
> before Russell does - but only to note an almost incidental hierarchy of
> impending legal suits, all of which are serious to the degree that failur=
e
> is life-threatening.
>
> What should engage chess players attention is that whether pro or con USC=
F's
> activities, here is another reason to not attempt its own mission, a sad
> road not taken these past 30 years.
>
> That is the tomorrow of our existance. Blind.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > "Do that which is right..."
>
> > Rev. J.D. Walker

Good will would be not asking for a settlement, but withdrawing the
suit.

Date: 28 Aug 2008 17:46:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

"Javert" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Aug 28, 4:24 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > I suppose it is a good sign that someone is starting to talk about a
> > settlement. Unfortunately, I am afraid that it may be a bit like the
> > frog
> > in the blender that offers to go easy on the fellow that is about to
> > throw
> > the switch to Frappe, or Liquefy. Nevertheless, I hope something
> > positive
> > comes from it.
>
> It is an offer. I suppose its detail will be publicly known sometime this
> day, and what people speculate to its motive or effect - whether of
> goodwill
> or if that is, as it seems to be so often, merely conceived as weakness...
> ?
>
> ... the result of acceptance or refusal is to great effect on US chess as
> we
> know it. Without a settlement then one side must fail, and since the
> stakes
> are now so high, that failure will be catastophic to those who lose.
>
> In the background of these events there is attempt to bring parties to the
> table and shift the agenda to what best benefits chess in the USA. That is
> a
> difficult undertaking when one side is intransigent, though they lose not
> place nor power by accepting that basis.
>
> Instead we will in all liklihood witness a resolute and intransigent legal
> pursuit to the very endgame against those who would not bend to any
> degree.
>
> That is the current tragedic scenario of official chess in the United
> States
> of America. It is consequent the behavior of USCF that Polgar gets in a
> suit
> before Russell does - but only to note an almost incidental hierarchy of
> impending legal suits, all of which are serious to the degree that failure
> is life-threatening.
>
> What should engage chess players attention is that whether pro or con
> USCF's
> activities, here is another reason to not attempt its own mission, a sad
> road not taken these past 30 years.
>
> That is the tomorrow of our existance. Blind.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
> > "Do that which is right..."
>
> > Rev. J.D. Walker

Good will would be not asking for a settlement, but withdrawing the
suit.

But which party do you address, just one of them, Javert?

PI

Date: 28 Aug 2008 14:53:45
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:46:09 -0400, "Chess One" <[email protected] >
wrote:

>Good will would be not asking for a settlement, but withdrawing the
>suit.

>But which party do you address, just one of them, Javert?

So you think it would be good trade for the USCF to drop the John Doe
suit in return for Polgar dropping her suit?

Date: 28 Aug 2008 21:05:13
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

Javert wrote:
> On Aug 28, 4:24 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> I suppose it is a good sign that someone is starting to talk about a
>>> settlement. Unfortunately, I am afraid that it may be a bit like the frog
>>> in the blender that offers to go easy on the fellow that is about to throw
>>> the switch to Frappe, or Liquefy. Nevertheless, I hope something positive
>>> comes from it.
>> It is an offer. I suppose its detail will be publicly known sometime this
>> day, and what people speculate to its motive or effect - whether of goodwill
>> or if that is, as it seems to be so often, merely conceived as weakness... ?
>>
>> ... the result of acceptance or refusal is to great effect on US chess as we
>> know it. Without a settlement then one side must fail, and since the stakes
>> are now so high, that failure will be catastophic to those who lose.
>>
>> In the background of these events there is attempt to bring parties to the
>> table and shift the agenda to what best benefits chess in the USA. That is a
>> difficult undertaking when one side is intransigent, though they lose not
>> place nor power by accepting that basis.
>>
>> Instead we will in all liklihood witness a resolute and intransigent legal
>> pursuit to the very endgame against those who would not bend to any degree.
>>
>> That is the current tragedic scenario of official chess in the United States
>> of America. It is consequent the behavior of USCF that Polgar gets in a suit
>> before Russell does - but only to note an almost incidental hierarchy of
>> impending legal suits, all of which are serious to the degree that failure
>> is life-threatening.
>>
>> What should engage chess players attention is that whether pro or con USCF's
>> activities, here is another reason to not attempt its own mission, a sad
>> road not taken these past 30 years.
>>
>> That is the tomorrow of our existance. Blind.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Do that which is right..."
>>> Rev. J.D. Walker
>
> Good will would be not asking for a settlement, but withdrawing the
> suit.

Good will would also be showing up for court ordered proceedings like
depositions under oath. Good will would also be producing ones
computers for examination. Good will would also be assisting the USCF's
attorneys in defending the Sloan law suit. Good will is not
stonewalling and refusing to sign a sworn statement that one is not the
Fake Sam Sloan. Good will is not commencing a bogus law suit brought by
a PI lawyer TTU grad in Lubbock, Texas. IMO, good will and good faith
are not concepts that Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar have on their life
radar screens.

So Phil, do let us know what Polgar's "offer" is when she sees fit to
announce it to the world at large.

Date: 28 Aug 2008 18:20:38
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:dqEtk.1155$Ro1.708@trnddc04...
>
>>
>> Good will would be not asking for a settlement, but withdrawing the
>> suit.
>
> Good will would also be showing up for court ordered proceedings like
> depositions under oath. Good will would also be producing ones computers
> for examination. Good will would also be assisting the USCF's attorneys
> in defending the Sloan law suit. Good will is not stonewalling and
> refusing to sign a sworn statement that one is not the Fake Sam Sloan.

Brian, you are in quite a passion already, but no equitable passion? Of
course the issue is whether your statement intends any specific party should
respond to it, or whether you intend, as you seem to do, all parties should
do so. In short, of any good, good for what?

> Good will is not commencing a bogus law suit brought by
> a PI lawyer TTU grad in Lubbock, Texas.

And here we deviate from my question above which addresses if all persons
are addressed thus, to which person actually brings the suit to us, and if
the gent mentioned is indeed 'bogus', no doubt a legal term, and if this is
of greater significance according to Brian Lafferty, himself a lawyer and
himself named in the litigation

> IMO, good will and good faith are not concepts that Mr. Truong and Ms.
> Polgar have on their life radar screens.

These are acceptible matters of personal opinion to express in the public
domain, IMO, albeit they are blandly expressed and uninviting of
conversation - more proclamations as such.

> So Phil, do let us know what Polgar's "offer" is when she sees fit to
> announce it to the world at large.

Who is 'us'? Did you personally wish to know the offer - but write of 'us'?
????

I have yet to comment on it myself, except to note privately on its wisdom.

----

What shall happen as result in public business will either, as I see it,
sink Polgar and Truong, or sink USCF as we know it.

Stakes are high! Higher than most can gamble on their own nickel, and for
what exactly?

These law suits have stolen the issue away from members benefits [who take
no part in their decision], from cohesive board action to any stated goal to
promote chess [which would be, rara avis, a novelty for the board to attend
to their mission and reason to exist at all!] and from the public too, who
have enjoyed chess mostly from the experience of their children in it, and
report on what it did for them. Almost entirely to the positive sentiment.

Those perspectives are lost in what Larry Parr said would happen to USCF a
year ago - a rule by lawyers and suits.

What that has to do with promoting chess - which is the ONLY reason that
USCF exists as a non-profit, as recorded in their own mission statement as
item #1, no one much addresses.

NOT ANY

No one. I cordially extend this criticism to Susan Polgar, Paul Truong,
[what I mean is that I already did so] plus continuously to the entire USCF
board, and all its boosters, delegates and its hangers-on, and sundry
commentators and aspirants!

I privately offer Polgar and Truong harsh criticism that they did more
before to promote chess than they do now at USCF; which is as numb to
criticism as it has ever been.

If we, whatever whacko tribe we comprise, want to promote chess, we need to
act like promoting chess is job #1, as it says in the abandoned USCF mission
statement. If WE do not address that, we are, each of us, frauds.

That is the truth of the state of the chess art, 2008 in USA. So I submit to
your attentions. We disagree on the means of doing such, but that is already
a step too far. First there must be some will to live.

Phil Innes

Date: 28 Aug 2008 23:06:27
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

Chess One wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:dqEtk.1155$Ro1.708@trnddc04...
>>> Good will would be not asking for a settlement, but withdrawing the
>>> suit.
>> Good will would also be showing up for court ordered proceedings like
>> depositions under oath. Good will would also be producing ones computers
>> for examination. Good will would also be assisting the USCF's attorneys
>> in defending the Sloan law suit. Good will is not stonewalling and
>> refusing to sign a sworn statement that one is not the Fake Sam Sloan.
>
> Brian, you are in quite a passion already, but no equitable passion? Of
> course the issue is whether your statement intends any specific party should
> respond to it, or whether you intend, as you seem to do, all parties should
> do so. In short, of any good, good for what?
>
> > Good will is not commencing a bogus law suit brought by
>> a PI lawyer TTU grad in Lubbock, Texas.
>
> And here we deviate from my question above which addresses if all persons
> are addressed thus, to which person actually brings the suit to us, and if
> the gent mentioned is indeed 'bogus', no doubt a legal term, and if this is
> of greater significance according to Brian Lafferty, himself a lawyer and
> himself named in the litigation
>
>> IMO, good will and good faith are not concepts that Mr. Truong and Ms.
>> Polgar have on their life radar screens.
>
> These are acceptible matters of personal opinion to express in the public
> domain, IMO, albeit they are blandly expressed and uninviting of
> conversation - more proclamations as such.
>
>> So Phil, do let us know what Polgar's "offer" is when she sees fit to
>> announce it to the world at large.
>
> Who is 'us'? Did you personally wish to know the offer - but write of 'us'?
> ????
>
> I have yet to comment on it myself, except to note privately on its wisdom.
>
> ----
>
> What shall happen as result in public business will either, as I see it,
> sink Polgar and Truong, or sink USCF as we know it.
>
> Stakes are high! Higher than most can gamble on their own nickel, and for
> what exactly?
>
> These law suits have stolen the issue away from members benefits [who take
> no part in their decision], from cohesive board action to any stated goal to
> promote chess [which would be, rara avis, a novelty for the board to attend
> to their mission and reason to exist at all!] and from the public too, who
> have enjoyed chess mostly from the experience of their children in it, and
> report on what it did for them. Almost entirely to the positive sentiment.
>
> Those perspectives are lost in what Larry Parr said would happen to USCF a
> year ago - a rule by lawyers and suits.
>
> What that has to do with promoting chess - which is the ONLY reason that
> USCF exists as a non-profit, as recorded in their own mission statement as
> item #1, no one much addresses.
>
> NOT ANY
>
> No one. I cordially extend this criticism to Susan Polgar, Paul Truong,
> [what I mean is that I already did so] plus continuously to the entire USCF
> board, and all its boosters, delegates and its hangers-on, and sundry
> commentators and aspirants!
>
> I privately offer Polgar and Truong harsh criticism that they did more
> before to promote chess than they do now at USCF; which is as numb to
> criticism as it has ever been.
>
> If we, whatever whacko tribe we comprise, want to promote chess, we need to
> act like promoting chess is job #1, as it says in the abandoned USCF mission
> statement. If WE do not address that, we are, each of us, frauds.
>
> That is the truth of the state of the chess art, 2008 in USA. So I submit to
> your attentions. We disagree on the means of doing such, but that is already
> a step too far. First there must be some will to live.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
>
Yada, yada, yada, Phil.

Date: 28 Aug 2008 17:48:39
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

KILLION LAW FIRM

JAMES L. KILLION *
SAMANTHA PEABODY ESTRELLO**

* BOARD CERTIFIED
PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL LAW
TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION
** ALSO LICENSED IN NEW MEXICO

2521 74TH STREET
LUBBOCK, TEXAS 79423
TELEPHONE: (806) 748-5500
TELECOPIER: (806) 748-5505

P.O. BOX 64670
LUBBOCK, TEXAS 79464-4670

August 26, 2008

Mr. Bill Hall
Executive Director and
Pro Se Counsel for USCF, Inc.
1190 Fred Ford Road
Crossville, Tennessee 38571-0240

Re: Cause No. 5:08-cv-00169-C; in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division; Susan Polgar v. United States
of America Chess Federation, Inc., et al

Dear Mr. Hall:

On behalf of Susan Polgar, I am authorized to extend to the United States of
American Chess Federation, Inc., the following unqualified demand of
settlement relative to the above referenced litigation. Susan Polgar will
compromise, settle and relieve all claims she may have against the United
States of America Chess Federation, Inc., only in consideration of the
following:

(1) United States of America Chess Federation, Inc., will pay One Dollar
($1.00) to Susan Polgar;

2) United States of America Chess Federation, Inc., will issue a written
public apology to Susan Polgar and to the USCF membership relative to its
participation in the events, acts and/or omissions as alleged by Susan
Polgar in the above referenced litigation; and

(3) United States of America Chess Federation, Inc., will agree to the entry
of an appropriate cease and desist order of the Court relative to any and
all future acts of slander, slander per se, tortious interference with
existing and future contracts, business disparagement, and tortious
interference with any future business relationships of Susan Polgar.

In making this offer of compromise and settlement, Susan Polgar specifically
retains and reserves any and all claims and causes of action she has or may
have against all other persons, entities or parties including but not
limited to those parties named in the above referenced litigation.

Susan Polgar makes this offer of compromise and settlement solely for the
purpose of allowing USCF, Inc., and its membership, to avoid the burden and
expense of protracted litigation and with the knowledge and understanding
that the mission, spirit and assets of the USCF have been grievously
compromised and subverted by the actions of members of its Board, its
Administration and its attorneys acting in furtherance of their personal
interests.

Your prompt written response will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
James L. Killion

JLK/mhv

cc: Ms. Susan Polgar

Date: 28 Aug 2008 21:49:52
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

Chess One wrote:
> KILLION LAW FIRM
>
> JAMES L. KILLION *
> SAMANTHA PEABODY ESTRELLO**
>
> * BOARD CERTIFIED
> PERSONAL INJURY TRIAL LAW
> TEXAS BOARD OF LEGAL SPECIALIZATION
> ** ALSO LICENSED IN NEW MEXICO
>
> 2521 74TH STREET
> LUBBOCK, TEXAS 79423
> TELEPHONE: (806) 748-5500
> TELECOPIER: (806) 748-5505
>
> P.O. BOX 64670
> LUBBOCK, TEXAS 79464-4670
>
> August 26, 2008
>
> Mr. Bill Hall
> Executive Director and
> Pro Se Counsel for USCF, Inc.
> 1190 Fred Ford Road
> Crossville, Tennessee 38571-0240
>
> Re: Cause No. 5:08-cv-00169-C; in the United States District Court for the
> Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division; Susan Polgar v. United States
> of America Chess Federation, Inc., et al
>
> Dear Mr. Hall:
>
> On behalf of Susan Polgar, I am authorized to extend to the United States of
> American Chess Federation, Inc., the following unqualified demand of
> settlement relative to the above referenced litigation. Susan Polgar will
> compromise, settle and relieve all claims she may have against the United
> States of America Chess Federation, Inc., only in consideration of the
> following:
>
> (1) United States of America Chess Federation, Inc., will pay One Dollar
> ($1.00) to Susan Polgar;
>
> 2) United States of America Chess Federation, Inc., will issue a written
> public apology to Susan Polgar and to the USCF membership relative to its
> participation in the events, acts and/or omissions as alleged by Susan
> Polgar in the above referenced litigation; and
>
> (3) United States of America Chess Federation, Inc., will agree to the entry
> of an appropriate cease and desist order of the Court relative to any and
> all future acts of slander, slander per se, tortious interference with
> existing and future contracts, business disparagement, and tortious
> interference with any future business relationships of Susan Polgar.
>
> In making this offer of compromise and settlement, Susan Polgar specifically
> retains and reserves any and all claims and causes of action she has or may
> have against all other persons, entities or parties including but not
> limited to those parties named in the above referenced litigation.
>
> Susan Polgar makes this offer of compromise and settlement solely for the
> purpose of allowing USCF, Inc., and its membership, to avoid the burden and
> expense of protracted litigation and with the knowledge and understanding
> that the mission, spirit and assets of the USCF have been grievously
> compromised and subverted by the actions of members of its Board, its
> Administration and its attorneys acting in furtherance of their personal
> interests.
>
> Your prompt written response will be greatly appreciated.
>
> Sincerely,
> James L. Killion
>
> JLK/mhv
>
> cc: Ms. Susan Polgar
>
>
We know Phil. It's up on its own thread.

Date: 27 Aug 2008 14:49:35
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

On Aug 27, 5:14 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I understand that tomorrow an important development will occur in the Susan
> Polgar suit against USCF, with a named settlement sum being announced for
> cessation of the suit and other specifics relating to USCF actions.
>
> This will no doubt interest those named in it who write here, and exists as
> an open offer, should the recipient, USCF, be able to respond to the price
> demanded for their accommodation to the offer.
>
> Phil Innes

Very funny.

Do you mean to say that she will make an offer, or that there will be
an agreement?

Sam Sloan

Date: 27 Aug 2008 21:55:52
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

samsloan wrote:
> On Aug 27, 5:14 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I understand that tomorrow an important development will occur in the Susan
>> Polgar suit against USCF, with a named settlement sum being announced for
>> cessation of the suit and other specifics relating to USCF actions.
>>
>> This will no doubt interest those named in it who write here, and exists as
>> an open offer, should the recipient, USCF, be able to respond to the price
>> demanded for their accommodation to the offer.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>
> Very funny.
>
> Do you mean to say that she will make an offer, or that there will be
> an agreement?
>
> Sam Sloan
I wonder if Ms. Polgar knows what Civil RICO actions are all about.

Date: 27 Aug 2008 15:03:34
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

Brian Lafferty wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
>> On Aug 27, 5:14 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> I understand that tomorrow an important development will occur in the
>>> Susan
>>> Polgar suit against USCF, with a named settlement sum being announced
>>> for
>>> cessation of the suit and other specifics relating to USCF actions.
>>>
>>> This will no doubt interest those named in it who write here, and
>>> exists as
>>> an open offer, should the recipient, USCF, be able to respond to the
>>> price
>>> demanded for their accommodation to the offer.
>>>
>>> Phil Innes
>>
>> Very funny.
>>
>> Do you mean to say that she will make an offer, or that there will be
>> an agreement?
>>
>> Sam Sloan
> I wonder if Ms. Polgar knows what Civil RICO actions are all about.

Is this what you are talking about?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker

Date: 27 Aug 2008 22:07:41
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

J.D. Walker wrote:
> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>> samsloan wrote:
>>> On Aug 27, 5:14 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I understand that tomorrow an important development will occur in
>>>> the Susan
>>>> Polgar suit against USCF, with a named settlement sum being
>>>> announced for
>>>> cessation of the suit and other specifics relating to USCF actions.
>>>>
>>>> This will no doubt interest those named in it who write here, and
>>>> exists as
>>>> an open offer, should the recipient, USCF, be able to respond to the
>>>> price
>>>> demanded for their accommodation to the offer.
>>>>
>>>> Phil Innes
>>>
>>> Very funny.
>>>
>>> Do you mean to say that she will make an offer, or that there will be
>>> an agreement?
>>>
>>> Sam Sloan
>> I wonder if Ms. Polgar knows what Civil RICO actions are all about.
>
> Is this what you are talking about?
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
>

Yes.

Date: 27 Aug 2008 15:52:34
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

Brian Lafferty wrote:
> J.D. Walker wrote:
>> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>>> samsloan wrote:
>>>> On Aug 27, 5:14 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> I understand that tomorrow an important development will occur in
>>>>> the Susan
>>>>> Polgar suit against USCF, with a named settlement sum being
>>>>> announced for
>>>>> cessation of the suit and other specifics relating to USCF actions.
>>>>>
>>>>> This will no doubt interest those named in it who write here, and
>>>>> exists as
>>>>> an open offer, should the recipient, USCF, be able to respond to
>>>>> the price
>>>>> demanded for their accommodation to the offer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Phil Innes
>>>>
>>>> Very funny.
>>>>
>>>> Do you mean to say that she will make an offer, or that there will be
>>>> an agreement?
>>>>
>>>> Sam Sloan
>>> I wonder if Ms. Polgar knows what Civil RICO actions are all about.
>>
>> Is this what you are talking about?
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
>>
>
> Yes.

I suppose it is a good sign that someone is starting to talk about a
settlement. Unfortunately, I am afraid that it may be a bit like the
frog in the blender that offers to go easy on the fellow that is about
to throw the switch to Frappe, or Liquefy. Nevertheless, I hope
something positive comes from it.
--

"Do that which is right..."

Rev. J.D. Walker

Date: 29 Aug 2008 10:47:59
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

J.D. Walker wrote:
.
> I suppose it is a good sign that someone is starting to talk about a
> settlement. Unfortunately, I am afraid that it may be a bit like the
> frog in the blender that offers to go easy on the fellow that is about
> to throw the switch to Frappe, or Liquefy. Nevertheless, I hope
> something positive comes from it.
> --

Doubtless a delicious frog mousse - dear chap..

t.

Date: 29 Aug 2008 21:50:34
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

thumbody wrote:
>
> J.D. Walker wrote:
> .
> > I suppose it is a good sign that someone is starting to talk about a
> > settlement. Unfortunately, I am afraid that it may be a bit like the
> > frog in the blender that offers to go easy on the fellow that is about
> > to throw the switch to Frappe, or Liquefy. Nevertheless, I hope
> > something positive comes from it.
> > --
>
> Doubtless a delicious frog mousse - dear chap..
>
> t.

Look. Yea'h all 'ad enoch time yah scum. Whit's wrang wiv use? Are ye
robots?. You'se all be a buncha humorless gits I'm telling y'all now.
Ferkin scum, make me fit to puke. Can't take a joke - well fuk it!! Ram
it up 'er johny-'n scam it roun' her itchy 'ole - soap-scud chess
knggggs... 'n fuk yu big-time - kuntzzz! ..

t.*

*Em. pls. tell that johny-come-lately fellow, that *priest* that *vicar*
that vampire of the mind - that *reverend* prick - that he's an
uninteresting turkey..

Thanks mate..

t.

Date: 28 Aug 2008 16:24:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> I suppose it is a good sign that someone is starting to talk about a
> settlement. Unfortunately, I am afraid that it may be a bit like the frog
> in the blender that offers to go easy on the fellow that is about to throw
> the switch to Frappe, or Liquefy. Nevertheless, I hope something positive
> comes from it.

It is an offer. I suppose its detail will be publicly known sometime this
day, and what people speculate to its motive or effect - whether of goodwill
or if that is, as it seems to be so often, merely conceived as weakness... ?

... the result of acceptance or refusal is to great effect on US chess as we
know it. Without a settlement then one side must fail, and since the stakes
are now so high, that failure will be catastophic to those who lose.

In the background of these events there is attempt to bring parties to the
table and shift the agenda to what best benefits chess in the USA. That is a
difficult undertaking when one side is intransigent, though they lose not
place nor power by accepting that basis.

Instead we will in all liklihood witness a resolute and intransigent legal
pursuit to the very endgame against those who would not bend to any degree.

That is the current tragedic scenario of official chess in the United States
of America. It is consequent the behavior of USCF that Polgar gets in a suit
before Russell does - but only to note an almost incidental hierarchy of
impending legal suits, all of which are serious to the degree that failure
is life-threatening.

What should engage chess players attention is that whether pro or con USCF's
activities, here is another reason to not attempt its own mission, a sad
road not taken these past 30 years.

That is the tomorrow of our existance. Blind.

Phil Innes

>
> "Do that which is right..."
>
> Rev. J.D. Walker

Date: 27 Aug 2008 23:18:59
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

J.D. Walker wrote:
> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>> J.D. Walker wrote:
>>> Brian Lafferty wrote:
>>>> samsloan wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 27, 5:14 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> I understand that tomorrow an important development will occur in
>>>>>> the Susan
>>>>>> Polgar suit against USCF, with a named settlement sum being
>>>>>> announced for
>>>>>> cessation of the suit and other specifics relating to USCF actions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This will no doubt interest those named in it who write here, and
>>>>>> exists as
>>>>>> an open offer, should the recipient, USCF, be able to respond to
>>>>>> the price
>>>>>> demanded for their accommodation to the offer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Phil Innes
>>>>>
>>>>> Very funny.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you mean to say that she will make an offer, or that there will be
>>>>> an agreement?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sam Sloan
>>>> I wonder if Ms. Polgar knows what Civil RICO actions are all about.
>>>
>>> Is this what you are talking about?
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
>>>
>>
>> Yes.
>
> I suppose it is a good sign that someone is starting to talk about a
> settlement. Unfortunately, I am afraid that it may be a bit like the
> frog in the blender that offers to go easy on the fellow that is about
> to throw the switch to Frappe, or Liquefy. Nevertheless, I hope
> something positive comes from it.

I suppose that there might be some relatively minor monetary value to
Trolgar resigning from the EB and agreeing to not take any part in USCF
governance affairs, directly or indirectly, for say 15 years, drop her
legal action and give all those named in her action general releases by
Truong and Polgar from all claims to the date of the releases. How much
might that be worth in money to some of the defendants? Who knows?
Considering that her "claims" have no merit whatsoever, it could be a
good deal for her and save the USCF some legal fees down the road.

It might also be nice to obtain a judgment against them and garnish
their earnings for years to come. Of course, I'm just speculating off
the top of my head. We'll have to see if she is serious about getting
out from under the prospect of Federal court litigation and other
potential legal actions against them, repeat, them.

Date: 27 Aug 2008 21:29:05
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

Chess One wrote:
> I understand that tomorrow an important development will occur in the Susan
> Polgar suit against USCF, with a named settlement sum being announced for
> cessation of the suit and other specifics relating to USCF actions.
>
> This will no doubt interest those named in it who write here, and exists as
> an open offer, should the recipient, USCF, be able to respond to the price
> demanded for their accommodation to the offer.
>
> Phil Innes
>
>
As my dog says, it never hurts to beg.

Date: 27 Aug 2008 17:57:17
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:29:05 GMT, Brian Lafferty
<[email protected] > wrote:

>Chess One wrote:
>> I understand that tomorrow an important development will occur in the Susan
>> Polgar suit against USCF, with a named settlement sum being announced for
>> cessation of the suit and other specifics relating to USCF actions.

>> This will no doubt interest those named in it who write here, and exists as
>> an open offer, should the recipient, USCF, be able to respond to the price
>> demanded for their accommodation to the offer.

> As my dog says, it never hurts to beg.

Is this like sacrificing a piece and when the combino starts coming
unraveled, saying, "Draw?"

Date: 28 Aug 2008 01:41:51
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Tomorrow and tomorrow

Mike Murray wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 21:29:05 GMT, Brian Lafferty
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> I understand that tomorrow an important development will occur in the Susan
>>> Polgar suit against USCF, with a named settlement sum being announced for
>>> cessation of the suit and other specifics relating to USCF actions.
>
>>> This will no doubt interest those named in it who write here, and exists as
>>> an open offer, should the recipient, USCF, be able to respond to the price
>>> demanded for their accommodation to the offer.
>
>> As my dog says, it never hurts to beg.
>
> Is this like sacrificing a piece and when the combino starts coming
> unraveled, saying, "Draw?"

Good analogy. Reminds me of a Bulgarian I played the other night on CA
Club. I had a mate in 2 and he offered a draw. Come to think of it, a
similar thing happened to me once before with another Bulgarian. Is
this standard practice for Bulgarians? Kamsky better watch out.