> Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 11:05:37 -0700
> Subject: Re: BINFO 200803055 from Susan Polgar to the Rest of the Board
> From: robmtchl@...
> To: uscf-chess@googlegroups.com
> CC: uscf-chess@googlegroups.com
>
>
> On Jul 9, 2:36 pm, "jeremy.p.spin...@..."
> <jeremy.p.spin...@...> wrote:
>
> > > Hiding the investigation from the other 6 board members
>
>
> > If serious charges are brought to the attention of the executive
> > director, it is hard to decide who he should tell and who he should
> > keep in the dark. If the investigation would prove the accused person
> > innocent, you wouldn't want everyone to know about the slurs. If there
> > was a possibility of the accused erasing evidence, you wouldn't want
> > to tell them before there was a preliminary investigation. I feel this
> > action is reasonable.
>
>
> > > refusing to step down from the subcommittee due to clear conflict of interest
> >
>
> > This charge is still not clear, since we don't know what conflict of
> > interest accusation is being made. I see no obvious conflict of
> > interest here; Goichberg has no obvious interest in manipulating the
> > information regarding FSS. Being a political opponent/supporter of the
> > accused is not in itself a conflict of interest; everyone can be
> > accused of having some political bias.
>
>
> ### Note: If someone threatenes your livlihood by forcing a change in
> proceedures at the board level, that might be a problem. Right?
>
> > > then declining to allow our experts the opportunity to inspect the
> > > database to verify the data.
>
> ### Note: Does not the accused have the right to review the evidence
> against them?
>
> > The correct step at this point must be to ask the lawyers what is
> > appropriate, and take their advice. If this was done on legal advice,
> > this is certainly not grounds for resigning.
> >
> >
>
> > > Refusing to take action against contractors who blatantly violated the
> > > NDA, even after it was confirmed that the NDA was clearly violated
> > > multiple times.
>
> ### Note: In my experience not generally as it relates to independant
> contractors and then the only possible exception might be the blatant
> violation of national security or to protect the life of an innocent.
>
> > This comes up often in whistle-blowing cases; you can get in lots of
> > trouble for acting against someone who uncovers a crime even if you
> > say they violated some technical issue. Not grounds for resignation.
> >
>
> >
> > > Leaking confidential and legal information to Jerry Hanken and others
> > > by one of the board members (Joel Channing and Randy Bauer are
> > > excluded). You even clearly stated that you're aware that Jerry Hanken
> > > received confidential information and he used this to negotiate with
> > > Sam Sloan.
>
>
>
> > This is a legal strategy issue. Trying to get Sloan to drop the case
> > was clearly in the interests of the USCF. It is not clear what
> > information leaked was supposed to be "confidential and legal" here;
> > Sloan already had the Motterhead report at this time. Certainly if the
> > lawyers advised this, it is not an approach which should be condemned.
> > Unless some shocking leak of legal information is at issue here, I
> > think this is way overblown.
> >
>
> ### Note: WHen someone is supposed to be protected by a liability
> policy and then a deal is attempted to be negotiated without knowledge
> or concent of the accused parties, that is a problem. Attorneys would
> not suggest their clients attempt to negotiate without the attorneys
> being present aor with full knowledge of the proceedings.
>
> >
> > > Voting 5-0 to authorize the attorney to interfere with our legal
> > > defense by contacting Chubb to try to cancel our insurance coverage
> > > which is highly unethical.
>
>
> ### Note: It is also a violation of the law. Chubb cannot refuse to
> provide them liability protection. The board cannot selectivly exclude
> board members from coverage. Whoever suggested this is an idiot and
> should have contacted me first. Or any insurance agent before stepping
> into this.
>
>
> > I do not know enough about legal ethics to say. My impression was that
> > the vote was to separate out the USCF as defendants from the Polgars
> > as defendants, which is clearly appropriate. As to contacting Chubb,
> > who Chubb was representing, and what the appropriate legal ethics are
> > here, I defer to others. By the interpretation of the vote I
> > understand, at least the vote itself was correct rather than something
> > to resign over.
>
> ###Note: you can vote to exclude coverage. But thats only because you
> can vote on anything. Legally you cannot exclude them from coverage.
> It was stupid for them to try that. Ignorant.
>
>
> > > Not stopping your attorney from trying to investigate the bogus claim
> > > that Paul and I abused mychildren.
>
>
>
> > I find this investigation extremely distasteful. Yet lawyers I know
> > well tell me that distasteful pursuit of damaging evidence against
> > your legal opponents is simply the way law works. It seems despicable,
> > since it is irrelevant to the FSS issue; however, if the lawyers tell
> > you that the charges should be investigated, I would hesitate to say
> > it is wrong to allow them to follow what they tell you is standard
> > practice.
>
> ### Note: If it is despicible, and you seem to agree that it is, don't
> back down from that. Lawyers would never tell you it should be
> investigated, unless you are refrencing Lafferty as the attorney . It
> is irrelevant to the FSS issue. The inclusion of this information and
> the attempt to destroy Paul and Susan's reputations by broadcasting
> their personal information and court filings is misleading,evil,vile
> and worthy of only the most putrid of souls. Those guilty of the
> actions of attempting to personally and pubically destroy these two
> fine people should suffer for their actions.
>
>
>
> >> These outrageous, vicious, and
> > > damaging charges which were proven completely false were then sent to
> > > multiple high level individuals at Texas Tech as well as the local
> > > media by one of your supporters to try to get me fired from my job.
>
>
> > This is the one charge which is really serious. Certainly, the lawyers
> > would not recommend this course of action. It is morally
> > reprehensible, and does not even have the cover of being standard
> > operating practice.
> >
>
> >
> > If Goichberg told the supporter to do this, I agree that it is
> > something to resign over. However, the fact that one of your
> > supporters did something nasty does not mean that you are guilty of
> > the nasty deed.
>
> ### Note: If you are responsible for that individuals actions by right
> of an employee/employer relationship, you do have liability.
>
> > I would not hold Truong orPolgar responsible for
> > disgusting statements made by Nomen Nescio (or incomprehensible
> > statements by Phil Innes), and I wouldn't hold Goichberg responsible
> > for whoever leaked this information unless he authorized it or passed
> > it on with the intention of it being used in this way. As I understand
> > it, this information probably did not come from the USCF. After all,
> > it was posted on rgcp as well, and there are many overwrought people
> > not tied to the USCF who seem to hate the Polgars and might send this
> > information out to damage them. I could see Sam Sloan, Brian Lafferty,
> > Ray Gordon, Susan's ex-husband or others doing this. Each might have
> > their own reasons, and each might be viewed as a supported on the FSS
> > issue, but the information wouldn't have come from the USCF and the
> > USCF should not be responsible for this extremely reprehensible
> > behavior; it would not be a reason to resign.
> >
>
> ### Note: If a board member used their position as a board member to
> obtain sensitive information or if they conspired with an outsider
> while they were an acting board member with an outside third party for
> the specefic intent to drive the attacked person from the board or to
> effect a change in board votes, that is a problem and there is a
> liability there. The question that arises here is if the liability
> policy will cover the board member who is perpatrating the conspiracy.
> I am checking on this. My feeling is that deliberate and blatant
> criminal acts may be excluded from protection under the liability
> policy.
>
> >
> > > Please feel free to deny them just as Jerry Hanken.
> >
> > > In a message dated 7/1/2008 9:01:13 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
> >
> > > Chessoffice writes:
> >
> > >     What "board act" do you have in mind?
> >
> > My conclusion, and it is not a shocking one, is that the resignation
> > challenge in no way answers the FSS accusations, and that even if the
> > allegations themselves are all technically true they are not in
> > themselves reasons for the board to resign.
> >
> > JerrySpinrad
>
> I would advise everyone to carefully read what has been written above
> and digest it thoroughly.
> Rob
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "USCF Chess" group.
> To post to this group, send email to USCF-Chess@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to USCF-Chess+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/USCF-Chess
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>

---

Get more from your digital life. Find out how.