According to Mike Nolan, 11 sets of nominating petitions have been received for candidates in the 2009 EB election.
Here are some of the candidates:
Eric Hecht (Successful businessman, donated a lot of money to chess)
Mikhail Korenman (Well respected by the chess community both in the US and abroad)
IM Blas Lugo (Chess teacher, club owner, organizer, promoter, well respected in the chess community)
Mike Nietman (Have done many good things for chess, especially in scholastic chess)
Bill Goichberg * (responsible for losing a massive amount of money)
Jim Berry * (responsible for losing a massive amount of money)
Mike Atkins (employed by Bill Goichberg for many years)
Ruth Haring (Bill Goichberg’s candidate)
* Currently on the board
Chess Daily News from Susan Polgar
Oh goodie! The USCF lost over $500,000 in the last 2 years under President Goichberg and VP Berry while involving this federation in 6 lawsuits and now they want another 4 years?
Who is best qualified?
Who are the other candidates?
The biggest name is by far Blas Lugo. Mike Nietman is OK. So are Korenman, Atkins and Hecht. Never heard of Haring. I think Atkins worked for Goichberg for 10 years. I’d never vote for the others.
Votes for Goichberg, Berry and their cronies will spell the end for the USCF. That will just mean more lawsuits and more problems.
I’ve heard of Ruth Haring but never heard of Mike Atkins. Who’s Atkins?
Atkins worked as a TD for Goichberg and CCA for many years.
Sam Sloan isn’t running? What’s this world coming to?
(lame attempt at humor)
He’s running but I think Susan said she’ll never publish his name on this blog.
Isn’t Korenman this big organizer from Kansas and manager of Karpov in America.
Are only certain positions up for election? If not, why are Susan and Paul’s name not there?
Sorry, if this is already obvious to my friends in the USCF…
I agree with anon 6:12 about Blas Lugo. Big name. We need women on the board as well.
Can someone tell me how long Bill Goichberg has been on the board and whether there are term limits?
Susan and Paul have better things to do with their time than waste any more time reforming the USCF.
They would have better luck teaching the Devil some Bible stories…
Bill Goichberg has been on the board in a control position for seven years and the USCF has lost money in every one of those seven years.
THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS by GM Larry Evans (page 129)
Lev Alburt was the first grandmaster elected to the seven member USCF board of directors and soon became the odd man out. In this exclusive interview he pierces the veil of secrecy and begins naming names.
After defecting from the USSR in 1979 he settled in Manhattan, married, and quickly became a fixture in American chess. After capturing our nation’s highest title three times, he retired from tournaments to write books and give lessons.
INTERVIEW WITH GM LEV ALBURT
EVANS: Lev, it’s hard to believe that people who are supposed to promote chess in America are actually holding back its growth.
ALBURT: I couldn’t believe it myself. But I learned that everyone in the business office and above all members of the board were interested primarily in doing almost nothing. Nothing real. Nothing to promote chess. When I get together with Allen Kaufman or Jimmy Sherwin of the American Chess Foundation we usually discuss ways to promote growth and emulate the success of England, which sprang from nowhere to one of the top nations.
EVANS: Didn’t the board discuss these things?
ALBURT: No. I was extremely surprised that such topics were never addressed. Never, ever.
EVANS: What was their goal?
ALBURT: Let me continue. Even when we went to a restaurant I always expected them to bring up the subject of what can be done to make chess grow. But always the topics during our sessions was who should run for the board next year, who should be awarded national tournaments, or how to avoid being attacked by critics.
EVANS: Well, what did they get out of serving on the board?
ALBURT: Perks, of course. Free trips, and so forth. Some old timers look upon the federation as their toy, their plaything. They hang around people they chummed with for years. They love to give each other awards. When I left they offered me a Certificate of Service, but I said I wasn’t interested in such things.
EVANS: The board voted to ban tape recorders from open sessions but had to back down when Friends of the USCF blasted them in its newsletter. Isn’t the board spending more and more time in closed session anyway?
ALBURT: They discuss a lot of things in private which to my mind don’t belong in closed session. They often use these sessions as an excuse to say nasty things they would not dare to repeat in public. Sometimes they knock people I respect and I challenge them to produce evidence or shut up.
EVANS: So didn’t they become more careful around you?
ALBURT: To some extent I think I spoiled the good feeling they shared together—the feeling that the less anyone outside knows, the better. When someone new was elected to the board, they immediately closed ranks and developed a bond. Even reform candidates wanted to become one of the boys as soon as they were elected.
Quote by Larry Parr, former editor of Chess Life
[The following item appeared in the USCF Delegates Newsletter, an independent publication of the Friends of the USCF (Volume 2, number 1, May-June 1993.]
GOICHBERG DEFENDS PERSONAL JUDGMENT — PROMISES MORE OF SAME
NEW WINDSOR, N.Y., APRIL. 12–In a telephone interview of April 11,
USCF presidential candidate William Goichberg denied using poor judgment when pressuring the USCF Policy Board to allocate up to $1,000 to investigate five-time U.S. chess champion Larry Evans. If elected, Mr. Goichberg pledged to employ the same standards of judgment on other questions.
“The only thing that I would do differently,” said Goichberg, “is to investigate suspects at private expense, since we felt obliged to reimburse the USCF for the Pinkerton bills after the findings disproved my theory about Evans.”
Questions about Goichberg’s judgment have arisen after a USCF-funded Pinkerton investigation concluded that mailing labels on an anti-Semitic hit letter from the Eddis-Schultz campaign were NOT photocopies of labels used by Grandmaster Evans in a mailing of his own.
“What set the whole thing off,” said Vice President Frank Camaratta, chairman of the committee that investigated GM Evans, “was Bill Goichberg insisting these were copies.
The way he presented it, it was difficult to turn your back on that.”
Poor Judgment?
GM Evans and others have criticized Goichberg’s judgment in light not only of Evans’ exoneration but also of Goichberg’s methodology. States Evans, “I also received a hit letter from San Luis Obispo and simply took the envelope to a photocopy store and asked a clerk if the label was an original or a copy. The clerk answered in about five seconds — it was an original.
Then, I contacted an eminent police documents examiner and received his opinion that it was an original. The cost was only $50 — not the $670 billed to the USCF!”
Goichberg critics argue that before pressuring the Policy Board to undertake what turned out to be a baseless and, they say, embarrassing investigation, he ought to have done his homework like Evans did. Says Goichberg in reply, “I acted on the basis of a reasonable theory.
The theory was obviously mistaken, but there was no attempt to manufacture evidence.”
One Goichberg supporter says, “Look, Bill got caught up in Jerry Hanken’s witch-hunt hysteria. McCarthyism has no place in chess. I know that. But Goichberg is an institution, and he shouldn’t be judged by this single lapse any more than we should condemn Denis Barry for once opposing no-smoking rules in tournaments.”
— Larry Parr
The key people who were responsible for USCF’s failure were Goichberg and Berry. Under them, the USCF will lose well over $400,000 this year. They want to run the USCF for another 4 years so they can abuse what’s left of the USCF for their personal politics. Goichberg promised Berry the Presidency if their slate is elected. Berry is also the guy responsible to chaos in Oklahoma chess.
How much money does Goichberg make from CCA? Is CCA the largest organizer of chess tournaments in the US? Is it a conflict of interest for Goichberg to be both owner of CCA and president of executive board of USCF?
Of course it’s a conflict of interest running a multimillion dollar for profit company while controlling a non-profit USCF. Goichberg made millions with CCA while watching the USCF losing tons of money.
Who’s Haring and Atkins? Never heard of either. Blas Lugo would make a wonderful board member.
Is CCA a public company? Are tax returns available? Is it usual for someone who has so much to gain through his own company to be running the USCF?
Why is Brian Mottershead running for the board? Isn’t he the one responsible for this whole mess to begin with?
If he didn’t breach the NDA and didn’t go on a Goichberg approved withhunt, the USCF wouldn’t be in such turmoil?
I move to have Mottershead’s name stricken from the ballet!
Lugo will be attacked like all professional chess playing board members of the past.
The USCF membership must demand accountability from board members who wish to waste valuable membership money.
Goichberg and Berry need not apply for another term.
You have no say about Mottershead, only Goichberg. He’s on Goichberg’s ticket.
Slaon should not run either!
We should have a USCF rule barring mental patients from the board.
He has the nerve to sue board members using trumped up illegally created evidence and now has the nerve to run for the very same board of the Federation he tried to destroy in his ridiculous lawsuit?
Isn’t he also a convicted felon?
“Anonymous said…
You have no say about Mottershead, only Goichberg. He’s on Goichberg’s ticket.”
Like hell I do have a say!
The USCF is my Federation too!
I vote not for Goichberg, not for Sloan, not for Mottershead, not for Hough, and not for Berry!
They are politicians who care nothing about chess, only to enrich their own parasite businesses by bleeding the USCF of its rightful income from tournaments and sponsorship.
No wonder Gata must beg for support through Chess Life! It is a disgrace to American chess that our number 1 player must beg!
USCF Members, wake up!
Ruth Haring is on the “Bill Goichberg State” of candidates for election and that Bill recruited her to run and helped her collect signatures to get on the ballot.
Goichberg is backing the slate of himself, Berry, Haring, Atkins, Lafferty and Mottershead. Even Sam Sloan is better than these 6.
I vote not for Goichberg, not for Sloan, not for Mottershead, not for Hough, and not for Berry!
I will not eat green eggs and ham.
Sam I am.
Of course Sloan is a better candidate than Goichberg, Berry, Lafferty, Mottershead, Atkins or Haring. Sloan is independent unlike the other Goichberg puppets. Goichberg and Berry are responsible for the USCF losing $400K in this fiscal year.
The USCF members should sue Goichberg and his gang for destroying the federation. They should force CCA to payback all the money they spent.
Now I have to preface this by saying I’m currently not a USCF member, but I have been a number of times in the past.
Why are there no USCF members bringing suit against the dunderheads causing these lawsuits? The way I see it is because of these suits the USCF membership is being devalued. No more Chess Life in a couple years, the USCF going into more debt which means the membership costs will likely increase at some time. Possible future USCF bankruptcy rendering a USCF membership worthless. Not even just an individual suit, but a class action suit against those causing these lawsuits. The ones that are being paid for by the USCF at least.
The state of the USCF is despicable.
Perhaps Bill Goichberg even knows these actions will bankrupt the USCF and therefore put his own CCA in a much stronger financial position. Isn’t this the definition of conflict of interest almost?
The life members of the USCF have by far the most to lose I would guess.
I for one am glad someone as strong as Susan is standing up to these clowns and wish more would join in the fight.
I’m sure I’ll have more thoughts later, but thought I’d at least get the ball rolling for more ideas to come in.
My vote goes to Mike Nietman from Wisconsin. He will definitely help USCF chess.
Nietman is not a bad choice. Lugo and Korenman are also good choices. I would like to know more about Haring and Hetch.
Here are my choices by order of competence:
1. Lugo
2. Korenman
3. Nietman
4. Hetch
5. Haring
6. Atkins
7. Sloan
8. Goichberg
9. Berry
Why even mention these guys:
7. Sloan
8. Goichberg
9. Berry
Its like saying vote for:
7.Dumb (Poor felon)
8.Dumber (Rich old git)
9.Dumbest (Another rich old git)
Yes, but with the USCF money can buy VP position, city of the year and TD of the year awards.
I VOTE SUSAN POLGAR FOR PRESIDENT!!!
Some of the factaul claims above are not correct (I’m not going to debate the opinions).
1) Four spots on the Board are up for election: those currently held by Bill Goichberg, Jim Berry, and Randy Hough (not running again), and the vacant position formerly held by Joel Channing. Susan and Paul have two more years to their terms.
2) Bill Goichberg is in the fourth and final year of his term. There is a limit of eight consecutive years on the Board. However, there is also a separate limit of four consecutive years as President, so he can’t serve as President again even if re-elected.
as our new president said change has come to america we need change in uscf in stead of complaining abt situation lets unite together n vote responsibly n with dignity n bring back the people who will change uscf for everyone prosper n n everyone can enjoy chess again in with the nu out with the old
But we must be grateful to lawyer Lafferty for so very clearly showing why he must never be permitted to occupy any position within the USCF, or at least anything except administering the parking of cars outside the Crossville office.
While I do not know for certain when it happened, but will find out, there can be no doubt Lafferty has boasted that when he gets on to the EB, he will abuse his position to get hold of the IP records of all the contributors to the USCF forums. The lawyer will then squander all our federation’s resources pursuing suit against these people who poked fun at him and criticized him.
We must not lose sight that Lafferty is an 1100-rated player who has no more interest in chess than he has in justice. With Lafferty in power, the USCF is doomed to a tightning spiral of lawsuits and recrimination.
http://www.usacycling.org/results/index.php?compid=91977/
Does cyberstalking come to mind? I would vote for Sloan or quit the uscf before I vote for him.
Laugherty the Lawyer has threatened at least two USCF members not connected to the lawsuits with subpoenaing their emails and other correspondence. Before voting for him, think about whether this is someone you want in charge of the USCF. It’s “laughable” that he talks about wanting to emulate the Obama administration in transparency because what his conduct reminds me of is a police state where people are afraid to send emails in case they get hauled in by the Grand Inquisitor Laugherty.
For those who think that BL should be a candidate, remember Duncan Oxley, RIP.
From: Duncan Oxley
To: Bill Hall
Sent: Sun, 19 Aug 2007 3:54 pm
Subject: Brian Lafferty
This is the third time Brian Lafferty has made threats against me
although this threat is a rather mild one this time.
Can Bill Hall or someone please speak with him and explain that he has
no right to ask for the identity of someone making a complaint and
that he can’t make veiled threats against Moderators?
I have bent over backwards to be nice to him. I even offered to speak
to him on the phone (THAT was ignored) and try to explain things to
him.
I don’t see how further communication with him from me can have any
positive effect.
I am also CCing the FOC asking them to have an emergency vote. I think
it’s time for BL to move on to some other Forum where he can cause him
damage there. Or at least take a month time-out here on our Forums.
Thank you,
Duncan Oxley (Moderator3)
BL wrote:
Who is they? I did post Jones’ comments on Polgar’s Saturday open
forum. It was up and then pulled. Someone isn’t telling you he truth
and it’s not me. I will provide you campaign comments a from Polgar
about creating USCF growth to create a viable base for professional
chess in the US. Again, who complained. Provide me the data or I’ll
have not choice but to air this all in public. You better consult your
attorney. I don’t care if this federation goes under.
Brian
Who recruited Laugherty and Muttersmouth? Laugherty says “not Goichberg” and we can only assume “not Polgar.” Someone recruited them. Safe to say that someone does not have the best interests of the USCF at heart.
My friend Grandmaster Larry Evans seems to imply that Lev Alburt was the first grandmaster to serve on the Policy/Executive Board.
In fact, Isaac Kashdan served as USCF Vice President and George Koltanowski served for nine years on the Policy Board, including three as President.
Tim Redman
Kolty was certainly not a GM when he was elected to the Board. He was awarded the title of “Honorary Grandmaster” in 1988, but even if you give full credit for that, it was a decade after his term ended.
The past 30 days of USCF Lawsuit Land has had many turns and twists. One time seeming allies have either gone silent to each others’ defense or have turned hyena like onto one another.
We shall begin with events that have transpired over the past few days.
First we hear that the USCF, Executive Board members Bauer, Hough, Berry, and Goichberg, and USCF ED Hall, have separate counsel from the other defendants of Chess Magnet School, Continental Chess Association, Hal Bogner, Brian Mottershead, and Brian Lafferty.
Why the separation? Could it be that the USCF is looking at a sacrificial offering of these individuals and organizations (though it is strange because CCA is owned by Goichberg) in return to having the Lubbock lawsuit dropped in return? This separation would allow Polgar to drop the USCF from incurring any further costs in the litigation of the suit. A supporting theory here is the attacks made between Mottershead and Goichberg today on
the USCF Issues Forums.
Below is the quoted text of Mottershead and the Goichberg responses:
—————————
[Mottershead comment begin]
Mark, the main problem with your long post, which is very far from the first you have made on this subject, is that it assumes that IP addresses are private data, similar to credit card numbers, which must be treated sensitively so that they don’t become public knowledge. You assume that IP addresses are included with the information that the Terms of Use say will treated by the USCF as private.
They aren’t. IP addresses are not even as private as license plate numbers on cars. Anybody can learn your car license plate number by simply observing you driving around, and license plate numbers are stored in many relatively accessible places. IP addresses are similar, only even less private.
This has all been debated before, something of which give no hint.
The real question is, why are you so intent after all that is happened to argue that the USCF and all its volunteers had a duty to keep it a secret that the IP addresses on Truong’s USCF forum posts matched the IP addresses on his Fake Sam Sloan Usenet posts?
As a volunteer, I don’t believe I had any such duty, either as a result of the USCF Terms of Use policy, or through the confidentiality document that I signed.
As for regrets, I did underestimate the negative reaction by people to having their IP addresses exposed. As I said, I think that reaction was in most cases inappropriate and founded on misunderstanding of how the Internet works. Nevertheless if I had been able to predict the reaction, I might not have done that. I did reverse that decision on my own initiative when it became clear that there was strong opposition to it.
The only other thing that I regret is that I did not give Goichberg a bit longer to consider his position and act privately, after he was initially so reluctant to act publicly on the evidence that Truong was the Fake Sam Sloan. I have since learned that Goichberg dithers and hesitates on many things. It seems to be unduly important to him to avoid conflict, and I don’t find him very forthright. I think his heart is usually in the right place, and he often gets to the right place eventually. But he much prefers to work slowly and indirectly, and it takes him a long time.
[Mottershead comment end]
[Goichberg response begin]
I don’t understand where you get the impression that I tend to “dither and hesitate.” In the case of the FSS evidence, I received a phone call from Bogner informing me that you had proof that Truong was the fake Sloan. How would you expect a USCF leader to respond to this-
“Great, why don’t you post what you have found on the internet”? I don’t think many people, especially not having seen the evidence or any expert opinion regarding it, would have reacted that way.
My first reaction was that if you really had conclusive proof, the EB and ED would decide what to do, but what if your proof was not so convincing and Truong sued USCF for damage to his reputation? So of course, I recommended through Bogner that you not go public.
[Goichberg response end]
[Mottershead comment begin]
In this case, a long time is what it took for Goichberg and the EB to act upon the contents of the Mottershead Report. For example, after promising an expert report, there was none. But, prodded by lawsuits and further egregious misconduct by Truong (and eventually by Polgar) he and the rest of the EB Legal Committee did eventually start taking a series of reasonable actions on the issue. I think the other Board members, the ED, and the lawyers probably had a big role in pushing Goichberg to action. And it was telling that Goichberg did not speak on this issue at the meeting in Dallas.
[Mottershead comment end]
[Goichberg response begin]
You have quite a false impression here too. It was not up to me to act, it was up to the EB. And at the time that the EB was being chided on this forum for allegedly being too slow to act, we were simply following the advice of our attorneys. We did say we would do an expert report and then changed our mind, but that was because our attorneys advised that there was a better course of action.
The idea that “the other board members, the ED, and the lawyers probably had a big role in pushing Goichberg to action” is wrong in several ways.
You seem to misunderstand the role of the USCF President. When we took action it was not the President taking it, but rather the board. So if you talk about the President pushing or not pushing the board that might make sense, but the board pushing or not pushing the President is nonsense. If the board wants the President to do something they need only to vote to make it USCF policy, and the President’s duty is to represent USCF in implementing that policy.
None of the current four members of the current USCF EB legal subcommittee has “pushed” any of the others into supporting any of our actions, nor have our lawyers “pushed” any of us. All four of us have been in solid agreement throughout that USCF must do what is right, cannot overlook improper conduct by board members, and must vigorously defend itself against attack.
I did not speak on the Truong issue in Dallas because the Truong side had accused me of improperly “authorizing” your investigation and asked me to step down from the board’s legal subcommittee. While I believe that request to be without merit, I did not want to contribute to any impression some delegates might have had that I supported the removal of Truong for political reasons, and I trusted that the delegates would make the right decision without my participation, so I decided that unless asked a question, I would stay out of the debate. This was a mistake and I now feel that had I participated and pointed out some facts that the body was overlooking, the outcome might have been different.
[Goichberg response end]
[Mottershead comment begin]
So, if I had given him more time, I reckon Goichberg probably would not have done anything with it. Someone would have leaked the information, and the USCF would have been in the same place it has ended up. Goichberg would have dithered; Truong and Polgar would have postured and been unyielding; and the final outcome would have been the same. But I would be happier in looking back at my decisions in September 2007, if those actions had been taken instead in October or November, and I had not pre-empted Goichberg and the EB quite so soon. There was perhaps a small chance to arrive at a solution out of the public eye, and that was lost. Small though that chance was, it might have been better, and certainly less expensive, than the bitter battle that is now consuming the USCF. I regret that we won’t ever know now what might have happened if Goichberg and the EB had had a few more weeks to act before my actions preempted them.
[Mottershead comment end]
[Goichberg response begin]
Other than the “dither” nonsense you are substantially right here. We don’t know what would have happened if you had kept this matter private, but one possibility is that Truong, given the opportunity to resign while avoiding a lot of bad publicity, might have done so.
Regarding the assumption many seem to have that everything with USCF is “leaked,” it should be pointed out that the Ethics Committee charges against an EB member (Tanner) were not “leaked” for many months while the committee deliberated, and the situation was unknown to the public until the committee’s decision was about to be issued. So it’s far from proven that the case against Truong could not have been kept confidential.
Bill Goichberg
[Goichberg response end]
—————————————————–
We see suddenly also the rhetoric from Brian Lafferty has become minimal at best. He claims he is embracing his Budda nature.
Perhaps the posting here on RGCP of someone looking to file a complaint with the bar association. Brian Lafferty is not admitted to the PA or MA bar (nor registered) and simple calls or web searches of those Bar Associations and the attorney licensing bodies in those states can show that. If the NY attorney registration system is searched for Mr.
Lafferty it will display (unless the online records are incorrect and that is possible) that his next registration was Oct 2008. We are now Feb 2009. Again it is completely possible that the system is inaccurate. The link is http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearch.
Mr. Lafferty, according to his own resume posted on his USCF election blog, has not practiced law in many, many years. He claims to perform grant writing services and says he is willing to assist the USCF with this skill of his even if he is not elected. What is stopping him now
from helping the USCF? Can Mr. Lafferty please provide references for his grant clients? Mr. Lafferty has claimed that he can receive legal counsel from the best at no cost to him and he can represent himself – why does he not face pending suits instead of cowering?
Mr. Lafferty is known for threatening lawsuits but the mere prospect of being served with one had him cowering away and not going to the USCF Delegates meeting in Dallas. He was a delegate and resigned his post. Of course neither did Mr. Mottershead or Mr. Bogner attend. They were capable of throwing accusations however were not capable of having the courage to face those that they accused, speak to delegates to have them vote for removing Mr. Truong from his post as a duly elected EB.
The US Attorney has already turned him away. He went after Mr. Truong with the bankruptcy court only to be turned away there as well (and they were not happy with him meddling where he did not belong, nor with his terse behavior – but what do you expect from someone that was a parking ticket judge for the majority of his legal career).
Mr. Lafferty has stated on the USCF forums that he requested the Mottershead Report. Who else aside from the US Attorney did you provide that report to? Perhaps the same question should be posed to Mr. Mottershead – who was this anonymous source you sought counsel from that you gave a copy of your infamous report to?
Mr. Lafferty also made claims that the postings on RGCP by the ‘Fake Joe Lux’ and the ‘Fake Dylan McClain’ did not originate where the IP addresses show them to have originated from, which was the Jersey City Library and the NY Times building. However Mr. Mottershead, previously claiming that the IP’s cannot be faked, is now saying that they can be faked. So which is it? And if the ‘technical expert’ that Mr. Lafferty was trumping for the past year is saying the opposite, how can faith be placed in the infamous ‘Mottershead Report’. Shall the process of showing the trail to the IP’s be posted for anyone here that wishes to check for themselves can self-validate.
Perhaps the report should be renamed the Motormouth Report. A USCF forums poster XPLOR has stated that Mr. Mottershead maintained the chain of custody of the data.
How is that possible? Did Mr. Mottershead create a read-only replica of all USCF forum logs, forum database, and web server logs to ensure against data tampering? In the USCF delegates meeting in Dallas, Mr. Mike Nolan – the IT specialist of the USCF, stated that he has NOT been asked by USCF attorney’s for any data from any of the systems. So if Mr. Nolan did not perform
these tasks then who did? Mr. Mottershead? Mr. Bogner? Inquiring minds want to know! It is quite evident that chain of custody has been broken and there is no way of validating the authenticity of the underlying data. No one is questioning the process that was followed however even the ‘expert opinions’ stated that their opinions are valid only if the underlying data was not tainted.
We will not discuss the NDA issue that Mr. Mottershead claims he did not violate. A court will decide that. Of course I would not be surprised if one of the reasons to separate counsel is for the USCF to throw Mr. Mottershead under the bus and say he violated his NDA and went against the wishes of the what the USCF President had instructed him (see the above dialog between Mottershead and Goichberg). Perhaps now is why Mr. Bogner is concerned that the Lubbock suit will enter into the discovery phase – he sees the writing on the wall where he too is being thrown under the bus along with his business and by association his business partners (I bet they are not pleased with him at this point!)
———————————————————–
Let us now change our attention to actions that transpired this past week. There was a court date in the USCF vs Polgar, Alexander, and John Doe 1-10 lawsuit. The judge told counsel to go talk with each other prior to getting in front of her. Huh? Why did this happen? Something’s not right…..
Wait – breaking news – the USCF Attorney popped a surprise tactic – he requested that all parties enter into mediation with Harold Winston as the mediator! What the heck is this? This topic has been heatedly debated by the ‘experts of the USCF forums’ that mediation is not possible unless Polgar and Truong walk away, reimburse legal fees, and never do anything with the USCF for 10 years! We know that Polgar and Truong have their own version of mediation.
Why would this be happening now? Is the USCF concerned that they will not be able to prevail in the lawsuit? Is it because without the generosity of a departed chess lover, the USCF would have no money at this point? Or have other things transpired?
Perhaps because it has been learned that the subpeona’s for records requested by the USCF attorney were not authorized by a judge. The judge had stated to the USCF attorney to contact those company’s the subpeona’s were sent to to inform them not to comply as they were not duly authorized.
Let us follow the events over the next month and see what else will transpire.
A question to ask yourself – was the USCF aware of the tactics employed by their attorney or were they kept in the dark? Should they seek recompense from their attorney if they were not aware of these tactics that the court has frowned upon?
————————————————————–
Of course there is the IL lawsuit to have Polgar and Truong removed from office. This lawsuit has been in the works at least since September (the month after the delegates meeting) as the USCF paid a $5000 retainer to the lawfirm. The suit was then filed only at the end of Dec? Why the wait? Political move to see who was going to run for the board and to discredit anyone attached to Polgar and Troung?
Service of the suit has not occurred to date. What is the length of time for serving them? Why is Mr. Bogner stating that Polgar and Truong are refusing service? What proof does he have of this allegation?
—————————————————————
What does the end game hold? USCF running out of money? USCF throwing the others under the bus to save the federation and themselves? Only time will tell…… The only winners so far are the lawyers.
Here are the things that are known about candidate Lafferty:
1. He’s a new member to the USCF and he has a lower chess rating than many 6 year old kids. His chess resume in any capacity is extremely thin.
2. He made multiple legal threats to board members, FOC members, MOC members, USCF members, etc.
3. He made thousands of posts on different forums to insult the ED, various board members, and USCF members.
4. He said: “You better consult your attorney. I don’t care if this federation (USCF) goes under.”
5. He said: “At this point, IMMHO, bankruptcy would be the best medicine this organization (USCF) could ever be given.”
But USCF members don’t know what are his plans to improve the federation other than “Candidate Brian Lafferty wants to involve the USCF in another lawsuit options” according chess journalist Sam Sloan. We don’t even know who he is.
What do we really know about this candidate? Is he willing to provide the names, telephone numbers or addresses of his current and past employers so we can verify who he is?
Do you really expect Laugherty to provide you with answers and contact information? Get real. Even Sloan is more qualified than him and Mottersmouth.
One can only hope that the innate snobbery of chess players prevents them from voting for candidates with such thin chess resumes.
The fact is that Bill Goichberg is just completing four years as USCF President, four years of failure and enormous financial losses. By even conservative calculations, the USCF has lost more than $500,000 during the four years that Bill Goichberg has been USCF President. That is half a million dollars. Before then, Bill Goichberg was executive director and before that he was Vice-President and a board member. We have a decade of failure under Bill Goichberg and the time has come for him to go back to running chess tournaments which he is quite good at and let the running of the USCF as a business go to serious business people.
Two post-messages to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc.
One from Lafferty, the candidate for the USCF EB, the other from Milan Vidmar (resurrection edition).
But — our forensic team proved both came from the same PC.
To make things clearer only the relevant headers are displayed.
[message 1]
From: “B. Lafferty ” m…@nowhere.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Is BocaJunior Learning Disabled?
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:05:11 GMT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Path: g1news2.google.com!news1.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!cyclone1.gnilink.net!
spamkiller.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!nwrddc01.gnilink.net.POSTED!302ce388!
not-for-mail
(snip of Lafferty election rhetoric)
[message 2]
From: “Mr.Vidmar” vid…@nowhere.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Where Will Polgar Be?
Date: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 16:26:10 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Path: g1news2.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!
not-for-mail
(snip of stalking of and threats to GM S.Polgar and family)
The only conclusion can be that Brian Lafferty is as unelectable as his buddy Sam Sloan.
Anonymous said…
The fact is that Bill Goichberg is just completing four years as USCF President, four years of failure and enormous financial losses. By even conservative calculations, the USCF has lost more than $500,000 during the four years that Bill Goichberg has been USCF President. That is half a million dollars. Before then, Bill Goichberg was executive director and before that he was Vice-President and a board member. We have a decade of failure under Bill Goichberg and the time has come for him to go back to running chess tournaments which he is quite good at and let the running of the USCF as a business go to serious business people.
There’s at least one obvious factual error in this. Prior to 2005, the last time Bill Goichberg served on the Board was in 1998. Several of the intervening Boards didn’t like him a whole lot. This kind of easily checked falsehood makes it hard to take the poster’s other claims seriously.
What is Renaissance Knights chess program in Illinois and why are they supporting B. Lafferty for EB? I can come up with reasons to vote for every other candidate but no reasons to vote for him. Member of USCF for 2 years. Played in fewer than 10 tournaments, all in Mass. Already resigned from Mass Chess Board in some controversy. Keyboard diarrhea.
Eric Hecht is one of the best most honest business men in the country. He deserves a first vote. Not well known but a terrific person. Here is the best way to vote.
Eric Hecht
Mikhail Korenman
Blas Lugo
Mike Nietman
I am a long time Life Member. I know what is going on in the back rooms of the USCF. If you want a new era in chess cleaned up and the corruption thrown out then vote for these 4. Make no mistake. Expect to see these 4 attacked almost unbelieveably by the Goichberg crowd. It is going to get really bloody before the election. Expect Goichberg to unleash his attacks without mercy.
Not necessarily in the above order. Just make sure you vote for these 4. Do not waver in your choices.
Atkins has worked for Goichberg for over 10 years and is running on a policy of support for Goichberg. Haring was recruited by Goichberg and strongly supports spending unlimited money on the lawsuits. A Goichberg goon for sure. Goichberg has already signaled that his 4 are himself, berry and atkins and haring.
Berry will be the figurehead President with Goichberg still pulling the strings. After 2 years Goichberg moves back in as the official President once again. That is the plan to maintain power and corruption.
Renaissance Knights chess program
http://www.renaissanceknights.org/About%20Us/Accomplishments.htm
Provided over 1000 free Chess Express Rating memberships.
Chess Express is a competitor of USCF. Chess Express would work to see USCF Bankrupt. Chess Express is attempting to take the scholastic market away from USCF. Lafferty is a natural match for them. They both want to see USCF fail. This proves Lafferty is a menace to USCF. Lafferty has several times talked about USCF going into bankruptcy.
USCF members are beginning to revolt on the USCF Forums. They have begun to openly oppose Goichberg. Battle lines are being drawn. Talk of Susan for President being best for USCF has been openly mentioned. Strong discontent is boiling just below the surface ready to explode on Goichberg. None of this was possible a year ago.
I am rather edgy (to say the least) on this topic for reasons which go back a long way.
When I first joined the USCF in 1973, Burt Hochberg was the editor of Chess Life and Review, as it was then called. Largely on his own, he made that magazine readable and accessible to the chess-playing public.
USCF dropped rapidly in membership during my first few years, as the “Fischer boom” went bust. I don’t want to point any fingers at anybody except possibly Larry Evans. Evans went against Hochberg and USCF Executive Director Edmond B. Edmondson, among others, in opposing Bobby Fischer’s wishes for a return match. Hochberg published many articles in support of Fischer. I’d encourage you to read the CL&R archives from Hochberg’s time and draw your conclusions about his writing ability and editing ability before drawing your conclusions about his support of Fischer.
In 1977, Evans was dropped from Chess Life and Review and replaced by a committee called “Ask the Masters.” Hochberg claimed that he and Evans were in a bitter contract dispute and that Evans said “some silly things” (quoted in Texas Knights in 1979). Edmondson left the USCF in 1977 as well after being attacked by Policy Board candidate (and future Grandmaster) Arnold Denker, although I don’t know how much the attack was related to his departure. He continued as United States delegate to the Karpov-Korchnoi match in 1978 and wrote a book where the title tells all: “Chess Scandals.”
In 1978, a “reform ticket” headed by Gary Sperling took over USCF. Morale plummeted. In late September of that year, many USCF employees (including Bill Goichberg, it must be noted) resigned en masse. Hochberg stayed on, in constant conflict with Sperling, until the October 1979 issue and then quit. Only once did he return to the magazine, in a memorial tribute to Edmondson.
I would argue that USCF has been in decline or in trouble ever since the late 1970s. I will say that I am a friend and supporter of GM Polgar and FM Truong, and they have treated me with every courtesy and sometimes have gone far beyond the call of duty to help me in my chess teaching programs. However, I am deeply confused about the state of the USCF and feel that some of the projected reform ideas may (I emphasize “may”) be the same as those launched by Sperling in the 1970s. I think those were unqualified disasters. I walked out on the 10th year of a sustaining membership in 1993 rather than read more of what Evans wrote, not just in his own column but in comments about Fischer-Spassky II and other matches. I also disliked Evans’ tendency toward self-promotion on an unusually heavy scale. I did not return until 2004 and now continue on a year-to-year basis, very wary not only of one side but of the other.
Peter Harris
Dear Voting Member,
I wish I could believe what the President and Vice President of the USCF have written to you during this election cycle, but I am writing to tell you that I cannot. They are not openly lying to you, in my opinion, but they are transferring their own massive confusion and misunderstandings of fact to voting members. Our most experienced financial analysts are telling us that we have a financial problem. Schultz, and Goichberg are telling you that we do not.
The facts are clear. Schultz and Goichberg are wrong.
It is small wonder that voters are getting distinctly different accounts of the USCF’s financial status. The leaders of the organization, the very people you ought to be able to trust, are openly, if not intentionally, misleading you. I wish that Don Schultz and Bill Goichberg had not chosen to make Mike Cavallo’s performance in issue in this campaign, but they have.
They Are Wrong About Our Debt
Mike Cavallo has openly boasted about adding $300,000 in capital improvements while maintaining the same level of debt during his tenure in office. Bill Goichberg wrote to you and stated pretty much the same thing, citing the capital improvements and putting the addition debt figure at $78,000. The problem is that this is simply not the case. I wish to again stress that I do not believe that either Cavallo or Goichberg are intentionally lying to you. I believe that they are confused.
When I asked Bill to justify the figure he cited in his letter, it became apparent that he was double counting a $200,000 liability. He counted it first separately and then again under accounts payable. Mike Cavallo was making the same, rather elementary, mistake. His handling of these capital improvements is open to question, but even granting the assumption that they were handled competently, the contention that the debt level remained the same while doing so is ludicrous.
The latest USCF Operations balance sheet available to me is that of April, 1999. Our notes payable (loans) total $464,644.97 this year as opposed to $175,000 last year, which is an increase of $290,000 (rounded). This is from last year to this year! It is absurd to try to blame, as both Cavallo and Schultz repeatedly have done, previous administrations for what we are responsible for today. One is normally allowed a one year grace period, for scapegoating a previous administration, but I think it peculiar to President Schultz to have done so for his entire term of office.
The other big ticket liability item is accounts payable. This April the figure is $432,771.36, while last April it was $225,045.11. The rounded difference is $208,000. We owe more people more money, and we are not paying what we owe in a timely manner.
Simply by adding notes payable to accounts payable, it is crystal clear that we owe close to a half million dollars more than we did last year at this same time!. Cavallo and Goichberg may try to tell you otherwise, but the facts are against them.
They’re Wrong About the Candidates
This increase in debt would be a trend that reasonable people would be concerned about. Yet we have our President calling Steve Doyle’s financial analysis reckless, Goichberg relentlessly mounting personal attacks against the Treasurer, and both Goichberg and Schultz trying to convince voters that it is the candidates themselves who are exaggerating our problems!. What is really reckless is the continuing cycle of first denial and then scapegoating seen throughout the Schultz administration.
Perhaps I’m being unfair. When considering liabilities one ought to also consider assets. Our cash on hand is $7,872.41, which is insufficient to meet payroll, let alone pay down our line of credit! In March two checks were credited as paid accounts, but the checks were kept locked in the office safe until they could clear. This is not in accordance with the generally acceptable principals of accounting, and a further symptom of our cash flow problems. No, I’m not making this up.
If we are struggling to simply pay our bills today following the cash rich Christmas selling season, how are we going to survive the cash poor summer months? More loans?
They Are Wrong All Over Again
Bill Goichberg and Don Schultz have been misrepresenting the facts to voters, and this has led to some confusion. For me personally, this is Deja Vu all over again.
Many of you know that I consider Tom Dorsch a hero. Way back in 1996, he blew the whistle on office management and the federation’s finances. Goichberg and Schultz reacted in their now all too familiar patterns. Don blamed somebody, anybody else, and Bill launched into personal attacks against Dorsch, which have been unrelenting for nearly three years now.
The counter attack against Dorsch culminated in the 12/23/96 motion to remove the Treasurer from core responsibilities inherent to his office. They made the dubious argument that there was no intrinsic relationship between finances and the office of the Treasurer. In a word they tried to shut him up.
Tom did not shut up, but carried on despite the continued attempts to destroy his credibility. His voice grew increasingly more strident. Finally he was vindicated. Five past presidents asked the delegates to formally restore the powers of the Treasurer and they did so by acclamation.
When Mike Cavallo was hired he explained to Goichberg and Schultz that Tom had been correct, or if anything, Tom had been understating the extent of our problems at the time. Mike did an excellent job of controlling expenses in his first year and we seemed headed in the right direction. This proved to be an illusion.
They Were Wrong About Profitability
Both Cavallo, in a press release, and Schultz in his president’s report made extravagant claims as to our profitability. I’ve enclosed those documents as addenda. Our audited financial statement for last year showed a deficit of over $20,000. Where were the profits they predicted? Were they lying? I don’t think so, I think they were confused. Incidentally, these misimpression’s were never corrected, and remain, to this day, what many voters consider to be the facts.
Expense cutting, Mike’s strength, can only take an organization so far. At some point it has to produce sufficient revenue to fuel growth. We remained in a period of stagnation and decline. This year it caught up to us.
Deja Vu Part Two: They Are Wrong Again
In our December, 1998 Board meeting, Treasurer Tom Dorsch again informed the Board of a looming financial crisis. He was immediately attacked by Goichberg. Goichberg demonstrated his ignorance of the situation by issuing an Internet posting that claimed that the deficit was primarily due to stock market fluctuations. He added that we might even run a surplus!
Dorsch asked for the finance committee to review his work, and it turned out that the people with actual financial credentials agreed with Tom and not Bill. They recommended an emergency meeting to be held at the site of the US Amateur Team East.
They Were Wrong to Not Attend
Goichberg and Schultz skipped the meeting. No, I am not making that up. Schultz was actually in the building, but chose not to attend Apparently, these officers of the federation were disinterested in helping to determine the fate of the organization.
They Are Wrong About Dorsch
Perhaps a few of you are beginning to understand why Dorsch becomes frustrated from time to time. Schultz and a Board majority have done everything in their power to frustrate the Treasurer. They consider it a political victory when they aggravate him so much that they get another sound bite!
Dorsch has been right on the issues all along. They are reduced to trying tomake Dorsch an issue. We’ve already seen some of the twenty promised hit letters. Why are they so afraid of this guy?
First Dorsch blows the whistle on problems that everyone now routinely agrees were problems, and they try to strip the guy of his responsibilities. Then we think things are getting better under Cavallo, until we learn that Cavallo and Schultz were playing with fantasy figures last year. They were completely inaccurate, but never issued retractions. After the auditor discovered all the accounting errors in our big turn around year we ended up with a deficit! (I believe that Schultz will be the first President to run a deficit in each of his three years in office.)
When Dorsch blows the whistle on problems in the office and with our finances in December, 1998 Schultz and Goichberg respond with denials and personal attacks. This whole time Schultz and Goichberg are uncritically accepting of whatever Cavallo tells them, and escalating their attempts to discredit Dorsch. It is small wonder that Tom crosses the line from time to time.
These people are infuriating!
Yet, they control the press releases, the web site and the pages of Chess Life. They are confused, but they have the power. Dorsch has valiantly
fought the good fight against the entrenched powers that be, at great personal cost. He is a hero.
They Are Wrong About Next Year’s Budget Too
The biggest travesty of our May, 1999 budget meeting involved the funding for the (alleged) FIDE World Team Tournament. Cavallo proposed funding $30,000 for the event. It turns out that there is no such tournament this year! Who is our Board FIDE liaison? Don Schultz. These guys are confused.
They are telling us that everything is under control, but confusion reigns supreme. I predict that these sorts of mistakes will increase in frequency in the future, because of a misguided policy concerning office staffing. We are hoping to balance the books on the backs of people who are already overworked and underpaid.
http://georgejohn.bcentralhost.com/Geor … s/je1.html
This was a letter from Eade
They Are Wrong About Our Staffing Needs
There have been two primary responses to the financial crisis that Cavallo, Goichberg and Schultz are pretending does not exist. First, they cut pages in Chess Life. Second, they are letting people go without replacing them.
We can argue the wisdom of cutting one of the few tangible membership services in an era of membership stagnation and decline, but I am most
concerned about the disregard for the professional staff. Theirs is the smallest voice of all. Who will argue for them?
If you guessed that I would, you would be correct. The club director left, the associate director Eric Johnson has gone, and our accountant followed soon after. There is a trend here and it is not a healthy one.
There is no intention on the part of the team of Cavallo, Goichberg and Schultz to replace these people. They are simply asking others to do more with less. Again. This policy is already backfiring. Morale is at or near an all time low. People are discovering that there are better opportunities elsewhere, and the USCF is simply no longer a good employer.
It has long been accepted that we need two executives in the office. We’ve been operating with only one, and he is only in the office three days a week on average. We went from two directors and near universe coverage to an environment where Mike’s absenteeism has really caused problems.
We need to hire a number two person. Mike cannot do the job by himself, and I would argue that no one can be successful in that job by themselves. Mike can continue to hold down expenses, as the de facto comptroller, but we clearly must have a Marketing Executive to capitalize on revenue opportunities, if we are to recover and sustain our fiscal health.
Above all else, don’t continue to balance the books on the backs of the people who remain. Get them some help.
They Are Wrong that Smear Tactics Will Work
Or, at least I hope they’re wrong about that. Goichberg is working harder to defeat Dorsch now than Bill did for his own candidacy in 1996. His personal vendetta has stretched almost to three years. He has used personal attacks, Ken Starr tactics such his Ethics filing, and hit letters to bring Dorsch down.
Do you really think it is because Dorsch has a sharp tongue and doesn’t pull his punches? Or is that Bill understands that his time is past and that Dorsch represents change. Bill belongs in our Hall of Fame for his many contributions over many, many years, but he has been wrong on the issues right down the line during his current Board service. The Internet is our future, but Bill will not profit from it, and he has been frustratingly slow to grasp it. It is time for Bill to get out of the way.
Instead, he orchestrates a nation wide campaign of hate. He digs up people like this Babcock person to write his hit letters for him and ensures that every voting member sees it. You will find my response to her holier than thou screed at the end of this mailing.
Bill has managed to win some share of small triumphs, such as getting the Ethics committee to slap Tom’s wrist with a reprimand. I do not consider Bill to be a white collar criminal, and I wish that Tom would not make such remarks, but I would much rather have Dorsch, warts and all, leading us into the future, than have the Schultz/Goichbergs clinging desperately to the past.
They’ve controlled the media, but the haven’t told you the truth.. Don’t believe them, and don’t let them confuse you.
—————————–
Watch out for the mudslide!
While the overwhelming majority of USCF Delegates enthusiastically welcomed the changes proposed by the Blue Ribbon Committee on USCF Governance Reform, there was determined resistance from the small but vocal group that weilds extraordinary power and influence in the USCF. I call this group “the special interests.” The special interests failed in their attempt to derail the reform movement, but they have not abandoned their efforts. This is seen by the fact that the first election under the new system this year has been nastier and more personal than any election since at least 1978.
The special interests have targeted the reform candidates, in particular this writer. In Hawaii (1998 US Open), I was promised by Jerry Hanken that he and his colleagues would generate “twenty hit letters” and guarantee my defeat if I chose to run. Although at the time I was leaning against running—three years like the last three is punishment enough for trying to better the organization—I then knew that I had to make the race.
Sure enough, the special interests have fulfilled their pledge to make this a nasty campaign. They have two objectives: to discredit the new reform bylaws, and to exercize veto power over a candidate who has been immune to all their bribes, blandishments, and threats. If their “twenty hit letter” strategy succeeds, we can look forward to this type of mudslinging as a permanent feature of USCF elections, because any strategy that succeeds will never be voluntarily abandoned.
The personal attacks rely on the strategy of taking statements out of context, slightly altered, or misinterpreted—even sometimes completley abricated—to try to show that the victim has bad character.
USCF Treasurer Tom Dorsch
San Francisco, California
March 12, 2009
3:00 p.m.
The full transcript can be obtained via the Official Reporter.
THE COURT: With any luck somebody will get sanctioned at the end of this, so let’s figure it out who that is.
THE COURT: So who served a subpoena on you in the Texas litigation which you are, I guess, a defendant?
MR. LEIGH: His attorney, but it’s also the attorney for the U.S.C.F.
MR. KRONENBERGER: He represents both the Federation he represents pretty much all the defendants there in Texas.
THE COURT: And he issued a subpoena to you for what?
MR. KRONENBERGER: All the subpoenas that I served in the California case and all the results from those subpoenas.
THE COURT: Well, that sounds a little bit collusive.
THE COURT: Let’s not play games, okay? I mean, your own attorney is serving a subpoena on you in the Texas litigation for documents here…
THE COURT: Well, you are serving subpoenas on yourself for all intents and purposes…
THE COURT: Okay. I don’t want any subpoenas issued in this case by anyone…
THE COURT: I will make it easy for you. No discovery is to be done in this case until we have had the motion to dismiss or transfer. Period.
THE COURT: And with respect to anything related to the Texas case, you have got a Texas Court. You are going to have to go back there and get your relief from the Texas Court. Maybe this whole thing will end up in Texas, who knows?
MR. KRONENBERGER: So we will — I have an obligation, you know, because I have got the subpoena that was served on me. And I have —
THE COURT: From your cohorts.
MR. KRONENBERGER: That’s right. But, your Honor, I was fearful that this would happen.
THE COURT: Did you ever hear of a motion to quash?
MR. KRONENBERGER: Regarding — your Honor, regarding outstanding subpoenas —
THE COURT: Just issue something. You sent them out, you call them back.
THE COURT: And you ought to be in one place. I don’t care where, here or there, but this suit does not — you know, we don’t need to have two lawsuits. And this is just the kind of thing that is a good example of what happens. And we don’t need to proliferate litigation. There is enough litigation in this country as it is without your multiplying it. And doesn’t Rule 11 say something about — and 1927 say something about multiplication of litigation? Don’t do it. Don’t go there. Because the next time it will be sanctioned.
A little bit of clarification on my Remembrances of Things Past:
Jerry Hanken was a board member in 1978, newly elected along with Sperling and Tim Redman (who succeeded Sperling as President and whom I think is a good person) and several other board members.
Ruth Haring was a Women’s International Master and played on at least one Olympic team (1976). She was married and may still be married to GM Peter Biyiasas of Canada. I hadn’t heard about her in about 30 years.
Goichberg was one of the people who walked out in September 1978 in reaction to some of Sperling’s actions.
Larry Parr, who sometimes works with Larry Evans on books and articles, was the editor of Chess Life when I quit the Federation.
And something I have never heard of again: Susan Polgar was named Chair of the USCF Executive Board upon her election to the board. The position hadn’t existed before and doesn’t exist now. She went back to being a Member-At-Large after one year. I presume Goichberg and certain other parties abolished the position, although it seems largely ceremonial.
Finally, does anybody like Sloan? Goichberg certainly doesn’t. It’s not hard to see why; Sloan wants to vote No to everything and use some printable but colorful language to describe it. He did run for and win an open spot on the EB, filling out the last year of a term, but his two tries to date for four-year terms have seen him near the bottom of the vote totals. Some assumptions about him may be incorrect and unfair, but saying he has a major chip on his shoulder does seem to be correct and fair.
It also seems correct and fair to say that, in this current American economy, a lot more people will be hurting in the wallet during the coming year and USCF may not solve its financial problems for years, if at all. I don’t know if any candidates can solve all the problems, just because some of those problems are beyond anyone’s control (including Congress and the White House).
Comments are welcome.
Misrepresentations in Goichberg’s Campaign Statement
The April Chess Life has just arrived and the campaign statement of USCF President Bill Goichberg is on page 35.
After recounting his long record as a tournament player and organizer, only in the final sentence does Goichberg say what he has actually accomplished. He states: “While Office and Manager and executive
Director, USCF improved from approximately $400,000 debt to $200,000 surplus, not counting building sale, with record profits in fiscal 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 after seven consecutive years of losses.”
There is a lot omitted from this. The so called “profit” comes from mostly two items: First, the “gift” of “free land” valued at $264,000 by the City of Crossville. However, that was an Indian Gift, as the USCF cannot sell the land and thus has no real right of ownership. Secondly: Most of the cash profit was the sale of the building in New Windsor for $513,000. Since the building that the USCF had owned for 37 years had been depreciated down to nearly zero, the proceeds from the sale was almost all “profit”.
However, then the USCF proceeded to build a much smaller building for $650,000 in Crossville Tennessee, which we now cannot sell because we do not own the land under it, so we are now $137,000 in the hole plus we are locked onto Crossville.
Also, Bill Goichberg was just an employee then, so he cannot take full credit for this. Much of the credit must go to the board, which was in opposition to Goichberg much of the time.
More importantly, Goichberg makes no mention of his four years as USCF President from 2005 to 2009. The reason he does not mention this is obvious: The USCF has lost more than a half million dollars during the four years that Goichberg has been president. The USCF has just been bailed out by the $350,000 bequest which has already been almost completely spent. Otherwise, the USCF would be nearly bankrupt now.
Sam Sloan
Peter Harris said…
Goichberg was one of the people who walked out in September 1978 in reaction to some of Sperling’s actions.
If you’re referring to the resignation of Martin Morrison and most of the senior staff, I don’t believe that’s correct. Bill Goichberg was not a USCF employee during that period.
Finally, does anybody like Sloan?
Yes, though I find it incomprehensible
He did run for and win an open spot on the EB, filling out the last year of a term, but his two tries to date for four-year terms have seen him near the bottom of the vote totals.
He’s run more than that. He finished last in 1999, last in 2001, eighth (out of nine) in 2005, and ninth (out of ten) in 2007. I’m fairly sure he ran a couple of times before that, but I don’t have those records handy.
Harry, with all due respect, you just joined the USCF for the first time about three years ago. You seem to be suggesting that all the problems that the USCF faces are because of me. You even suggest that I should be kicked out of the USCF. You are stating that, if only I and a few other miscreants would go away or be kicked out, “The USCF would be in very good shape financially, the Executive Board, Staff,
and members would be considering, how to correct other problems and how to promote the Game of Chess and it’s Players of all ages”, and everything would be just hunky dory.
If you would read a little more and write a little less you would find out that these problems go back a long time. These are not new developments. I first joined the USCF in 1956. Like most other members, I stayed out of chess politics and did not even bother to keep track of the elections for the first 40 years until 1996. It was then that I realized that there were serious problems and I started to get involved.
The problems I thought we had then are trivial compared to what we have now. Actually, the year 1996 when things seemed bad was actually the peak in terms of memberships, revenues and sales. We were profitable up until then. It was then that the downward slide began.
You will note that Bill Goichberg’s candidates statement says, “with record profits in fiscal 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 after seven consecutive years of losses.” Do a little math. Seven years before 2003 was 1996. That was the last profitable year. That was also the year when Bill Goichberg was first elected Vice President of the USCF. Goichberg was Vice-president from 1996 to 1999 and now has been President from 2005 until now. In every one of the seven years that Goichberg has been on the board, the USCF has suffered huge losses, whereas all the years leading up to 1996 were highly profitable. Also, as Tim Redman has pointed out in another thread, during the 1996-1999 period although it seemed like the losses were minor, only $20,000 in one year, in reality our losses in operations were huge, over $300,000
in one year, but were shielded by big stock market gains, as the LMA was mostly invested in stocks. Because of the profits in the stock market, an outsider reading the financial statements would think that we were doing OK. Then, when the stock market started going down, the operating losses added to the stock market losses created huge deficits.
So, altogether, for the total of seven years that Goichberg has been on the board, three as vice-president and four as president, the USCF has suffered close to a million dollars in total operating losses, but Harry Payne, a newcomer, thinks that Goichberg is doing a great job and will vote for him and thinks that everything would be sweetness and light if only that Sam Sloan were kicked out of the USCF so he could not bother these people any more.
Sam Sloan
Since Bill Goichberg’s statement that the Federation didn’t start to lose money until the last year (fy 99) that you were both on the Board didn’t jive with my memory, and since you also have a different recollection, I went back to check the audited financials. Here is what I discovered:
1996-1997 (fy 97)
Increase or (Decrease) in Net USCF Assets: (117,542).
Gain or (Loss) resulting from LMA investments: 120,601.
Gain or (Loss) due to Operations: (238,143).
Thus for that year, LMA gains masked operational losses.
1997-1998 (fy 98)
Increase or (Decrease) in Net USCF Assets: (2,916).
Gain or (Loss) resulting from LMA Investments: 101,283.
Gain (or Loss) due to Operations: (104,244).
Thus for that year, LMA gains masked operational losses.
1998-1999 (fy 99)
Increase or (Decrease) in Net USCF Assets: (226,505).
Gain or (Loss) resulting from LMA Investments: 148,033.
Gain or (Loss) due to Operations: (374,538).
Thus for that year, too, the third year in a row, LMA gains masked operational losses.
LMA gains or losses are due to the actions of the LMA Committee which acts independently of the Board. Operational gains or losses are under the control of the Board and management.
One anecdote. In Istanbul at the Olympiad in Fall of 2000, Sam Sloan approached me expressing serious concern about LMA losses. I’m afraid that he was shocked when I shrugged him off, but my view was that the LMA operated completely outside of Board control and thus I couldn’t do anything about it. In fact, LMA lost (98,096) in 2000-2001 (fy 2001).
Therefore, using the audited financial statements, we can see that serious operational losses started in 1996-1997, and for three years they were masked by gains in the LMA Fund.
Cordially,
Tim Redman
Former USCF President
Re Mr. Hillery’s comment:
Thank you for answering some of my questions in my last post.
My memory of Bill Goichberg being a Federation employee is actually based on a 1975 photo which shows him beside newly-elected President George Koltonowski (sp?). I am sure Mr. Hillery is correct when he says Mr. Goichberg was not employed by USCF at the time.
I appreciate Mr. Hillery bringing up the name of Martin E. Morrison. I knew that GM Arnold Denker, in a 1976 run for the Policy Board I mentioned earlier, had wanted Executive Director Ed Edmondson to resign on the spot and for Mr. Morrison to succeed him. That is in fact what happened, although Col. Edmondson may have voluntarily retired.
Texas Knights published a long interview between Burt Hochberg and a leading writer for the Illinois chess magazine (her name just escapes me but I believe it is Helen Warren), which gave me many of the points I made about Gary Sperling. The interview was conducted on Mr. Hochberg’s next-to-last day as Editor of what was still Chess Life and Review. (Can anyone tell me why the title reverted to Chess Life during the Sperling era?)
Mr. Hillery is also correct that some people will vote for Sam Sloan to fill an EB spot. I was one of them when he ran in 2005: I sent in my ballot early before some of his own comments reduced his esteem in my eyes. I wish to emphasize that I tried to vote my own beliefs and tried to avoid being influenced by negative comments made by other candidates. (In 2007, Mr. Goichberg direct-mailed me and presumably many other members with his lists of “acceptable” and “unacceptable” candidates, along with detailed reasons why they were or were not acceptable. Three of the four “unacceptable” candidates were Susan Polgar, Paul Truong and Sam Sloan. I do not have that card anymore.)
It is unfair in all respects except one for me to compare the situation in the late 1970s to that in the early 2000s. But the one area where they do compare are in levels of “divisiveness and hostility,” cited in the 1978 resignation letter by Morrison et al.
In my view, Mr. Goichberg and Mr. Jerry Hanken are very good reporters of the tournaments they have played in. But that is my only viewpoint on them. In matters of expressing opinion, they are far more subtle than Mr. Sloan.
You cannot fool all of the people all of the time, but you can fool many of the people much of the time. Only a relative few people have full knowledge of all the details of USCF’s state. I am certainly not one of them. I also admit to certain biases which I have already stated regarding GM Evans and some of the other people I have mentioned in earlier posts.
Being human, I do form opinions and I can be influenced, but usually negative influences boomerang on the senders.
I appreciate the opportunity to post on this forum and I wish to remain civil in all cases.
Peter Harris
My memory of Bill Goichberg being a Federation employee is actually based on a 1975 photo which shows him beside newly-elected President George Koltonowski (sp?). I am sure Mr. Hillery is correct when he says Mr. Goichberg was not employed by USCF at the time.
I believe that photo was taken when Bill was elected to the Board in 1975.
I’ve eliminated Lafferty and Mottershead from the list for having absolutely no chess experience. Lafferty has no ability to work in a team environment. I’ve eliminated Goichberg and Jim Berry for their decision to cause the USCF to lose a few hundred thousand dollars during their current term. I’ve eliminated Sam Sloan because he’s done nothing positive for chess. I’ve just eliminated Ruth Haring today for publicly stating that she supports the USCF lawsuits which will for sure bankrupt this federation. Other than being a chess player, she has no real record of doing anything in chess other than being recruited by other life long chess politicians.
The remaining candidates are:
– Mike Nietman
– Mikhail Korenman
– Blas Lugo
– Eric Hetch
I eliminated Atkins because he has worked for Goichberg for over 10 years. I see him as a Goichberg vote. His resume in chess life is neutral. nothing great so I will play it safe and pass him this election.
The other 4 seem solid and good. But I too am open to suggestions.
I should add that my vote for Hecht, Lugo and Korenman are solid. Rock Solid. The only other one to consider pass would be Nietman because I know less about him. But his Chess Life statement shows him to be head and shoulders above Atkins. Nietman has the experience. So that makes things pretty solid for me.
The rejections of
Sloan, Mottershead, Lafferty, Goichberg, Berry, Haring were easy. Well I picked up on Haring supporting the lawsuits also and rejected her for that also. She was brought in by Goichberg. I feel confident that in a vote Atkins will vote to keep the lawsuits going. He has simply avoided the issue so far. But he will have to support Goichberg and the lawsuits if he wants to keep his job and friendship.
I wish I could print up my analysis in Chess Life. Some people might not be so well informed if they only use the magazine.
I’ve eliminated Lafferty and Mottershead from the list for having absolutely no chess experience. Lafferty has no ability to work in a team environment. I’ve eliminated Goichberg and Jim Berry for their decision to cause the USCF to lose a few hundred thousand dollars during their current term. I’ve eliminated Sam Sloan because he’s done nothing positive for chess. I’ve just eliminated Ruth Haring today for publicly stating that she supports the USCF lawsuits which will for sure bankrupt this federation. Other than being a chess player, she has no real record of doing anything in chess other than being recruited by other life long chess politicians.
The remaining candidates are:
– Mike Nietman
– Mikhail Korenman
– Blas Lugo
– Eric Hetch
Again, thanks to Mr. Hillery for his remarks. I would have to look up CL&R in a library to see the photo and the comments.
Re my other comments: I stand by them. Basically, Mr. Sloan took himself out of contention for my support by his words alone. I also know that Mr. Jerry Hanken, in one of the first articles I read when rejoining the USCF in 2004, slammed former Executive Director Frank Niro directly in his choice of South Florida for the United States Open that year, and made comments (some of them borrowed and attributed) about the low prize fund. It’s not specifically stated, but Mr. Hanken seems to believe super-money tournaments such as the World Open (which he also reported in that issue) are the ways to get high-ranking masters and recreational players willing to invest some $1,500 (his own calculation based on entry fees and accommodations) to win larger monteary prizes. Mr. Hanken also bemoaned the high share of prize funds that went to class/recreational players. The point is reasonable from my standpoint, and if I ran some kind of super-tournament the top-master prizes WOULD take up a larger percentage of the prize fund. But I am also keenly aware that the era where I was a junior player 1973-1979) is very different from now. I never entered a scholastic section in my life and took on players often double, triple or quadruple my age in the Open sections. I think scholastic tournaments were almost exclusively New York City-based, and students elsewhere who played chess did it strictly for recreation at school or entered open sections. (Yasser Seirawan and Joel Benjamin are two such players from my time. There are quite a few others.)
On a different note, I was delighted to see GM Polgar and IM Truong move to Lubbock and to Texas Tech in 2007. Lubbock is about as “heartland of America” as they make it, and I hope other masters will follow their examples and set up chess programs throughout the Central and Mountain time zones, plus states in the South and in the Pacific Northwest. I know that some people (Sam Sloan included) objected strongly to the move of USCF headquarters from New Windsor to Crossville — I think Mr. Sloan specifically said the move was to bolster scholastic chess events while ignoring the adult players. I feel personally that the scholastic players of today will be the adult players and boosters of tomorrow.
I wonder to a degree about the changes in the United States Championship format, where the players no longer went for a large prize fund after 2006. Whose objections led to that being discontinued? I thought Mr. Sloan, who was on the EB in 2007, may have played a role in that directly by objecting to that (and sponsors may have objected to working with him), but I don’t think he was the only one.
Finally, I have not heard anything further about Susan Polgar receiving the title of Chair of the USCF in 2007 and then reverting to Member-At-Large in 2008. And by not hearing anything I mean not hearing ANYTHING. No one involved with either decision has spoken.
I speak as a Polgar-Truong supporter and speak out of some bias toward them, and speak out of some bias toward Mr. Goichberg’s and Mr. Hanken’s reporting skills. They are certainly engaging and accessible writers. So are Ms. Polgar and Mr. Truong, who usually work as a team. I know chess writing is extraordinarily difficult, and I support such writers as GM Soltis, GM Alburt, GM Benko and the people who assist him, and even GM Evans (I just did not like his lengthy and vehement editorializing). If I could write like they do, I would. Maybe I can and will. As for everyone else who wrote for CL&R … that’s why Mr. Hochberg was crucial to the magazine and, to a large extent, to USCF. Until the day he died I held out hope that he would come back.
Peter Harris
i wanna say susan cant run at moment probably until she successful in her law suit i mdu hope they all r founf guilty bcause i really beleive susan honest trustworthy we need her as uscf president they dont want a woman in charge they will du whts rite for uscf n its members not greedy for themselves i du sincerely hope she wins her lawsuit defamation of caracter go polgar uscf n its members need u to bring back integrity honesty to all
Lafferty said the following in a number of places:
“The USCF has flatly rejected this crass attempt by Susan Polgar to keep the USCF membership uninformed…”
But the same USCF (which is controlled by Goichberg, Hall, Jim Berry and Bauer) is desperately trying to hide the screw ups by Bill Goichberg, Jim Berry and Bill Hall with the ChessCafe deal, something which will cost the members perhaps more than $100,000!
It’s Bill Hall and Bill Goichberg who were directly involved in violating the exclusive contract with their vendor. If it’s false, these guys would have gone on the record to attack the people who brought it up. Let Bill Hall and Bill Goichberg go on the record to deny that there wasn’t any discount coupon from another vendor sent to USCF members while under an exclusive contract with ChessCafe. I bet you $100 they won’t ever publicly admit to their screw ups. This is their pattern in the past. They obviously can’t deny it because it’s true and if they lie on in writing, they would face legal problems. And they can’t ask all the USCF members who received this coupon to destroy it. So there are ample evidence out there.
It’s Bauer who wants the tough and direct questions yanked while they work together to lie about Polgar without any evidence. Is this how they honor their fiduciary duty, to deliberately lie to members and waste their money for frivolous lawsuits against their political opponents? None of them could give even one piece of evidence against Polgar but they’re quick to claim that she’s guilty.
It is Lafferty, Mottershead, Jim Berry, Bill Hall, and Bill Goichberg who got the USCF in more than half a dozen lawsuits. But you won’t hear them report that to the USCF members. How long before the same gang will jump in to defend Lafferty’s lies?
Mr. Goichberg, Hall, Berry, Bauer and Hough are completely clueless about the B&E business. This is the main problem. USCFSales’ prices had to be higher because of the high commission to the USCF. They can’t possibly match the prices of other U.S. vendors. This will be the case with any new vendor coming in. The profit margin for B&E is extremely small. It was good for the USCF to make money from USCFSales without any risk. But they had to screw it up by violating their exclusive contract with their official vendor. But you don’t hear them admitting to their bonehead action, do you?
They keep this hush hush over at the forums. What did they do? I really want to know. What bonehead action etc.
They did have a sweetheart deal with USCFsales.com No one will match that bid. But I do not know what went wrong. They never discuss the lawsuit for example. What was that all about.
Now you have me interested. I would like to hear facts. What happened.
Like Dragnet used to say. “We just want the facts….”
The USCF had an exclusive deal with ChessCafe. Then how come new members were getting discount coupons from Bill Hall and the USCF for other vendors? This was a direct violation of their agreement. It doesn’t take a lawyer to figure this out. Goichberg knew about it. I know for sure because several of my friends joined the USCF and got the discount coupons along with their new memberships. When my friends were trying to redeem their discount coupons, someone at ChessCafe said that they won’t honor them since they didn’t come from them.
This was one of the causes for the lawsuits. Why don’t you get Bill Hall or Bill Goichberg to make a public denial or better yet I would like to see them issue an official statement stating that the USCF didn’t send out any discount coupons to other vendors. I’m tired of your automatic position in defending Bill Hall, Bill Goichberg and the USCF. Why don’t you do your research then get back to me when you know what’s going on. I bet you Bill Hall and Bill Goichberg won’t ever condemn themselves for thinking that they can pull a fast one over a lawyer who was once the USCF general counsel.
This was addressed to candidate Brian Lafferty:
You really suck, do you know that? I’m not even renewing my USCF
membership until I am sure that neither you or Sloan are in any way involved with its governance. You have demonstrated a remarkable
ability to back-bite, and your only goal seems to be to pull down
Polgar. I can’t see either as qualifying you to be on the board of anything.
Scornfully,
zdrakec
I would chop off my right arm. both arms both legs to get rid of the corruption of USCF. Chess is such a good game. And all the chess players are used to suck money out of them like leeches. These politicians care nothing about the members. They simply covet our money and their power.
This is a revolution. We fought hard for One Man One Vote. Well now we have OMOV and we better get off our butts and organize everyone to vote properly or our goose is cooked. If we lose this time who is going to sacrifice to struggle against the corruption. We members are going to get left out to hang.
It has been over 10 years that I have not played in a USCF tournament. I told them as I left I would not support the corruption. I got sick and tired of the corruption even of the tournaments. We are used blued and tatooed. They get no penny from me in a long long time. I refuse to give my money to corruption. I will oppose them and fight against them and vote against them until I lay in my grave. I am working on fighting them after I am dead but I do not have that one figured out just yet.
I can remember 40 years ago when I paid for Life Membership. My expectations and talking to my friends about how chess was going to get better. That the USCF would surely change. Maybe slowly but change it must. Well it has not changed one drop. Did I waste my life waiting and expecting some commonsense to hit USCF. Maybe it was all about today. Maybe I suffered 40 years so I could wake up the youngsters today. If so then I rattle you in your dreams. Wake Up. It is time to fight the enemy. It is time to get up and organize and win this election.
I guess I should say who I intend to vote for.
Hecht I am very impressed by Hecht. We could use the entire EB with people like Hecht. Definitely one of the freshest best candidates in decades.
Lugo is such a good person. He is going to help bring USCF into a new era of prosperous chess for the membership. Lugo is gold.
Nietman is very impressive. I Do not allow him to escape contributing to USCF. He is a solid honest man with extremely impressive credentials.
Korenman is a great chess man. I support him 100% One of the very best chess organizers. Works his heart out for his love for chess. Does not play political games. Gets the work done.
I love all 4 of these people. I hope they are elected in a landslide victory.
The rest of the candidates. It is better I skip my opinion of them. Although some must be worse then others it is hard to figure that out. When Dante wrote the Inferno did he send some lower then others ❓
Anyway I prefer to focus on the best 4 candidates and vote them into office. I invite everyone to join with me to finally put USCF onto a new path after 40 years of hope and struggle. Chess is a good game. It deserves better then it has gotten these past 70 years. The membership deserves to be treated with dignity and respect by the leadership. Let us make OMOV a reality.
I followed this forum and the USCF forums for a long time. This is the first time that I post. In my opinion, I believe that a fair minded person would agree that Bill Goichbger, Randy Baur, Jim Berry, Randy Hough and Bill Hall have crossed the line with their conduct and behavior in the past year or two. They’re elected to represent the members and not their own personal or political interest. I hope that these people will soon recognize their mistakes before it’s too late. This federation can’t afford another year of spending a few hundred thousand dollars in legal fees. I also have a problem with the professional conduct of the USCF attorney Karl Kronenberger. This board should dump their attorney. All he has done so far is make big money while destroying this federation. Just my 2 cents.
I have no connection with anyone on the board or in the USCF. My position is IF Ms. Polgar is found guilty of the charges, the USCF can do whatever it wishes after. But if she’s innocent and this turns out to be dirty political tricks by the people who run the USCF, how on earth will they ever restore her personal or professional reputation?
Do you approve of the way many of these people or this federation act if it was done to your wife or daughter and it turns out to be untrue? As Mr. Wick said, “Personally, I don’t think any of the litigants should be discussing either case on the web at all. Period. Not a freaking word.” If the USCF (members’ money) is paying for the legal fees for these people, they should demand for everyone to shut up.
What would you say if the USCF pays a lot of money to defend these blabbermouth posters and Ms. Polgar prevails in court and the USCF is forced to pay X amount of money. Why should members’ money (yours and mine) be used for anyone who can’t keep their mouths shut? Should the USCF then go after these people to recoup the money?
These people obviously know to shut up when it comes to the chess cafe lawsuit. Do Bauer, Goichberg or Hall come out and publicly say that it’s frivolous and Hanon Russell is a crook who cheats them out of money? They don’t dare. They keep real quiet. This is obviously a gross double standard. Please don’t insult my intelligence by saying that the USCF, its board members, its ED and some of the other defendants didn’t purposely publicize Ms. Polgar’s cases in a way to make her look bad. Mr. Hall, Mr. Goichberg, Mr. Bauer, Lafferty and others were quoted in various publications making accusations toward Ms. Polgar long before she is guilty of anything. Is this how a national organization supposed to behave? I’m personally disappointed.
This is just my personal opinion. I just think some of these people are classless. Please don’t drag me into these endless debates. Thank you.
I agree Kronenberger lied. He is trying to confuse the issue. The Delegates are definitely the Board of Directors. He said he was on the phone when they took the vote. That is ridiculous on the face of it. He meant the EB was on the phone. The Board of Directors never get on the phone. Too many of them.
I believe that the USCF took a motion to settle the issue that the Delegates are the Board of Directors.
This is a killer issue. I hope the lawyer opposing Kronenberger is ready on the next court appearance and the Judge will throw the case out.
The delegates are the only one to have the authority to approve the budget. This lawsuit was known to be expensive. The Judge keeps complaining that the lawsuit is too expensive for USCF members to pay for. The Judge is more interested in the welfare of the USCF members and the Judge views Goichberg as not caring.
This is the perfect issue to press and win the case. They have to appear in court with a motion to dismiss based on the Board of Directors not approving the court case and that will end the issue and save the USCF money.
We must get rid of the entire Goichberg crew to save the USCF. He must be voted out of office forever.
I may not understand of the legal terminologies well. From what I read, Mr. Kronenberger said something in court under oath which isn’t true. He said that the USCF delegates authorized this lawsuit against Ms. Polgar. I read the delegates motions and reports. It’s not in there. He also spread the rumors to the NY Times, Lafferty, Bogner and others that there’re solid evidence against Ms. Polgar. His people then went out to attack Ms. Polgar publicly. We’ve yet to see it. Let’s see how the USCF will explain this.
“I finally took the time to read thru the transcript as posted to lead off this topic. The attorneys have not yet submitted the minutes and/or the passed motion from the EB that authorized the Does lawsuit?? Are you kidding me? I’m suprised the Judge didn’t toss the whole thing out right there! What happened? Did the “committee” make that decision, and then just assume it’s a Board motion as well, because a majority already voted for it? Please tell me that’s not the case…”
TSawmiller
Do these guys have enough senses to admit their mistakes and back down? I hope so but I don’t think so. Goichberg has never apologized or admit that he’s wrong. He puts his own personal interest and ego above the USCF. Mike Atkins and Ruth Haring were on the record blindly supporting Goichberg and the USCF to continue with the lawsuit against Ms. Polgar. So is Jim Berry. So what will be of the USCF if these people bankrupt this federation?
If you do a search on the USCF forums, rgcp and other forums, you can find thousands of posts by many of the defendants insulting, attacking and defaming Ms. Polgar while they deny her a chance to defend herself. Did they offer her a page in Chess Life or the USCF website to answer the fabrication by the USCF? It looks like they collectively work as a group to destroy her career. I don’t think it takes a genius to prove that to the jurors. Can the USCF members go after the personal assets of Goichberg, Berry, Hough, Bauer, Hall, Kronenberger, Lafferty, Bogner, Mottershead and others to get back members’ money? What’s the law? Why should the innocent members pay for their personal and political quest?
The USCF had the best deal in place with Chess Cafe and Bill Hall, Bill Goichberg and Jim Berry screwed up by violating an exclusive contract with a prominent attorney who was once the general counsel of the USCF. Then you have the genius Randy Bauer insulting the man’s son and family. Now all these geniuses are covering up their screw ups. As a member, do you have a problem with these guys blowing $150K a year in guarantee revenues because of their stupidity and incompetence? I do. No one is stupid enough to guarantee the USCF $150K a year with this economy and Amazon.
Who should pay for their dumb moves? And you trust what Hall has to say? Do you want to buy the Golden Gate Bridge? It’s for sale.
OK, let’s see. The USCF lost 419,968 in the first 7 months according to Joe Nanna (confirmed by USCF CFO Joe Nanna himself). The numbers may have gone up because of additional legal fees. Bill Hall, Bill Goichberg and Jim Berry directly caused the chesscafe lawsuit and loss of $150,000 guaranteed annual income. Bill Goichberg, Bill Hall, and Jim Berry are behind lawsuits to destroy their political opponents while they have no evidence to back it up and Judge Patel granted Polgar the opportunity to counter sue. Bill Goichberg, Bill Hall, Randy Bauer Jim Berry authorized the USCF to pay for legal fees of non directors and officers such as Bogner, Lafferty, Mottershead, CCA, Chess Magnet, etc. while denying the other side defense.
We’re losing a month or two of revenues from B&E because of the direct mistakes of Bill Hall, Bill Goichberg, and Jim Berry. In a week or two, Judge Patel may toss the entire case out the door or transfer it to Texas where the USCF has to start from scratch. In this critical time, instead of shutting the heck up, the same gang is still trying to play politics by posting one sided bologna outdated legal update while hiding the chess cafe matter completely even though it’s still not over. It’s because they screwed up big time and they don’t want the members to know. Isn’t that obvious? If they can’t discuss legal cases then they would not have posted bullshit about the Polgar case.
Is that enough or do you still ask for more smoke and mirror? Oh, and I forgot.
– The USCF attorney purposely gave Judge Patel wrong information by hiding critical evidence to prove the innocence of Polgar while refusing to allow Polgar and her experts the opportunity to examine the evidence.
– The same attorney told the Judge that he’s full authorized by the delegates and EB to sue. But he can’t produce these minutes and records. Hmmmm. Perhaps they’ll make something up now? Wonder what the penalty is for fabricating evidence? Wonder if he knows the USCF has all the board minutes and voting records recorded.
– He told the Judge that he has overwhelming evidence to prove that Polgar hacked Hough’s email 111 times but he can’t even show one single IP match so he blacked out the evidence.
– Then he changed the story by saying that she ordered this done but can’t prove it.
– He also said that Polgar and Alexander are partners in multiple ventures but can’t produce a drop of evidence. Her giving a free simul constitutes partnership in multiple ventures. Who are you kidding?
– The there was a smoking gun which is probably a water gun.
– Then there are a bunch of illegal subpoenas. This is a world class attorney according to Bauer and Polgar’s attorneys are a bunch of redneck small town ambulance chasers. But this world class attorney has never heard of conflict of interest, collusion, quashing a subpoena, etc.
Am I stupid or am I the only one who read these things in the court papers? What say you Mr. Deer and Mr. LeMoine?
For the sake of transparency, here is my full disclosure. I get my legal knowledge from watching beautiful Judge Judy and the People’s Court. Thank you.
Goichberg and Jim Berry claim that the USCF has no money to:
– Continue Chess Life
– Send teams to the Olympiad
– Send teams to the Pan Am Team Championship
– Send teams to the World Team Championship
– Organize the US Championships
– Organize the US Women’s Championships
– Create programs to help our top young players, etc.
But then Goichberg and Jim Berry have no problem filing illegal and malicious lawsuits to go after their political opponents. Jim Berry has done nothing since he’s been elected other than to vote yes with everything Goichberg says.
Now Goichberg recruited Mike Atkins and Ruth Haring who are already on the record supporting lawsuits without a single piece of evidence to back up their claim.
Imagine what would happen to the USCF if you have Goichberg, Jim Berry, Atkins, Haring and Bauer on the board with Hall running the office? The USCF won’t last another year.
Goichberg won’t spend his own money to file lawsuits or to defend his own company Continental Chess. Even though he makes millions from chess because of the USCF, he’ll make the USCF pays for his legal expenses. Just as when he was the “volunteer ED”, he had no problem cashing a $25,000 gift check from the USCF. So much for volunteering. He won’t charge the USCF money for EB meeting but spend $400,000 for legal fees. Who’s the phoney now?
Doesn’t anyone notice a strange pattern? When these thugs received words to smear people’s name, they all do it at the same time. All of sudden, their counsel is in trouble for not telling Judge Patel the truth, they’re all quiet. Not even a single one of them would question Goichberg, Jim Berry, Randy Bauer, Bill Hall, Ruth Haring, or Mike Atkins about these issues? They seem to think that everyone is so stupid that no one can see through their stupid scheme. None of them can show a single piece of evidence of wrong doing by Polgar. None of them can show when was the votes taken. None of them can explain why their counsel chose not to tell Judge Patel the truth? It’s the same pattern of hiding about the Chess Cafe issue. They’ll work together to hide the truth from the USCF members while putting the complete crap on the USCF website and magazine about the BS legal update. Hall should be fired on the spot and Goichberg, Jim Berry, Randy Bauer and Randy Hough should all resign at once in exchange for Polgar dropping the suit against the USCF. Shame on them for lying to the USCF members.
I remember back when USCF decided it could not sell books. It had old inventory, bad inventory, no inventory of various items. They never had the things that people wanted in inventory. It could not get organized. The people doing the work sat around all day doing nothing. So they decided to farm it out. People screamed that the business would disappear in a few years.
Well here we are out of business. They probably will get a vendor but after this one is gone the business will probably be abandoned. What is Hall and Goichberg doing for what we pay them. A couple of high school kids could run a book business.
They over spend a million dollars and demand they get reelected by destroying other people’s reputation. What is wrong with the USCF. Is there any hope. I have no hope left. I have begun to accept that there is no hope.
It is good to have this web site to come to so as to find other people who agree with me. I hope the bums are thrown out hard and fast. I am ready to cast my vote.
Legal votes now are all members age 16 by June 30 who are members by May 31. Both in USA and in the entire world this year. All members get the vote who are 16.
I hope the older scholastic members all vote. That will help big time. Remember to talk to all your friends. Help them know the best 4 votes.
Peter Harris said…
I wonder to a degree about the changes in the United States Championship format, where the players no longer went for a large prize fund after 2006. Whose objections led to that being discontinued? I thought Mr. Sloan, who was on the EB in 2007, may have played a role in that directly by objecting to that (and sponsors may have objected to working with him), but I don’t think he was the only one.AF4C decided they didn’t want to put up the money any more. Sloan may have been a factor, but he may also have been a convenient excuse. It’s not realistic to assume a sponsor putting up six-figure amounts every year is the normal state of affairs.
Peter Harris said…
I think scholastic tournaments were almost exclusively New York City-based, and students elsewhere who played chess did it strictly for recreation at school or entered open sections. I don’t think that’s correct. Scholastic tournaments were common in Massachusetts in the 1970s, but only New York events got much publicity. The difference was that there was considerable overlap between scholastic and “real” tournaments. Nowadays we have a large “underclass” which competes only in scholastic events. That’s why the membership jump in the 1990s was at least partly illusory. We ended up with the same number of serious, long-term players as before, but added a lot of temporary, non-serious players. I’m not saying this is bad — exposing more people to chess is obviously a good thing — but it should be recognized for what it is.
Under the leadership of President Bill Goichberg and VP Jim Berry, the USCF spent over $250,000 in (offensive) litigation. Is this money well spent? I think not. What did they get out of it? Not much except more legal problems. They were responsible for losing the guaranteed $150,000 annual income from Chess Cafe.
Under their leadership, the USCF stands to lose over $500,000 and perhaps a lot more.
They also often ignored the bylaws and put the USCF in further potential legal problems.
This has been two of the worst leaders of the USCF. Why should the voters give them another 4 years so they can bankrupt this federation?
1. Jim Berry had nothing to do with saving the US Championship. 100% of the money came from Frank K. Berry. Frank sponsored the US Championship, not Jim.
2. The John Doe 1-10 lawsuit against Polgar which costs the USCF a few hundred thousand dollars was directly caused by Jim Berry. Polgar’s confidential email to Jim and Jim alone was turned over to the USCF and the attorney to start the lawsuit.
3. Since becoming a board member, he voted with Goichberg each and every time. His loyalty to Goichberg is in exchange for the Presidency if he’s reelected with Goichberg and his gang. He’s the most corrupt candidate behind Goichberg. His history in Oklahoma chess politics clearly confirms this.
I’m from Oklahoma and I voted for him last time. He made promises to me and others to get our votes and he didn’t keep his promises. I’m not the only one from Oklahoma who feel this way. We closed our eyes the first time and gave him the benefit of the doubt. Not anymore. He’s no different than the rest of Goichberg’s corrupted guys.
Berry ran as a person on Susan platform. Immediately upon election he turned against Susan. Same for Randy B.
Berry fought against Scholastics in OK for years. It was only the pressure brought upon him during the election that caused him to have a settlement with Scholastic in OK.
As soon as being elected he voted 100% against Susan who does so much for scholastic chess. He is not to be trusted. He has an inner agenda. He manipulates to get elected. He is not good for a major section of chess. The scholastic people who are important to USCF and deserve to have their voice heard.
I also was tricked by Berry. I will never vote for him again. We must oppose Berry with everything.
Berry got elected because his brother put up the money for the US Championships. $50,000. And also because of his supposed support of Susan and his so called settlement with the Scholastics group in OK. Which is ridiculous because the scholastic group was the official uscf chess group. Berry had been trying to establish a group outside the USCF to oppose the official uscf group headed up by people he opposed.
We have had a similar fight here at USCF since Berry came here. He will fight and not settle. He is not good for chess. Oppose Berry. Remember Berry votes to spend all the money on lawyers. Berry always wants his way.
Polgar sent Jim Berry an email marked confidential. She asked him to please help her fight corruption and help the USCF moves toward a different direction. He took the private email she sent him and turned it over to Goichberg and the USCF attorney as ground to file the SF lawsuit. The email contained facts which show the USCF corruption. It’s hard to find this small piece of evidence since the other side didn’t publicize it all over the place as it would make Berry look very bad. Berry protected his friend Goichberg and to advance his own personal and political chess career. He voted to fry Polgar and Truong.
I don’t fault Jim Berry for jumping ship for a better deal for himself. He’s entitled to do what’s best for him and his political career. He had no problem trying to destroy scholastic chess in Oklahoma. When it’s convenient for him to pretend that he cared about scholastic chess, he made the switch. My problem is he did nothing since he’s elected other than wasting members’ money for his political ambition. If he wanted to spend his own money to go after Polgar, I would have no problem. To milk a federation which is in its last dime is unethical.
I see that the two Brians have their knives out directly for Polgar-Truong. Lafferty accessed SP’s newspaper column for last week and left a variety of complaints, including repeating what he said in Chess Life and pointing out much of Paul Truong’s escape story is unverifiable.
Unverifiable? I can accept that. I was around at the time but I wasn’t in or near Vietnam. We heard many stories of boat people, much of them stemming from the Vietnam-Cambodia war when Pol Pot’s brand of Communist extremism got so bad that even Communist Vietnam (possibly with prodding from China) found it untenable. We heard lots of stories of Cambodian refugees going to the high seas and a lot of what Mr. Truong says in his interview certainly happened. I heard less about Vietnamese refugees, but with the war threatening to spill over into their infamously vulnerable country, I am not surprised that many people took the same way out.
On the same page, Brian Moorehead (correct last name? I don’t think so) uses the Obama buzzword “transparency” to attack Polgar-Truong. Moorehead didn’t know he was using one of the words I loathe most. Not just because of the Obama administration’s use of it to repudiate much of what the Bush administration has done, but because at one of my jobs we have to use that and NOT tell people who are telephoned that the people calling them are planning to steal them blind. Honest. Now transparency in the job has a good reason for it (you want to make a phone call without the operator being a butt-in-ski), but reading material from thieves, stalkers and the like verbatim is enough to really rankle anybody. Transparency might lead to a lot of people inventing dirt on people they don’t like and getting it published and unquestioningly accepted. At my school, we deal with minor children and you can imagine what would happen if their records were leaked. The same could apply to enemy combatants (or enemy spies) in a war, and I honestly believe the United States has been in a state of war since September 11, 2001, maybe longer than that. These people need to carefully reconsider what they are saying. I won’t support them anyway but they may wind up standing in court with serious charges against them if they take transparency to its limit.
Peter Harris
Oops! “Brian Lafferty” is Brian Mottershead. Please accept my apology on this one count.
Peter Harris
Oops! “Brian Lafferty” is Brian Mottershead. Please accept my apology on this one count.
Peter Harris
As a Life member that’s not allowed to vote because I live outside the U.S., it’s sad to look at the USCF. If this policy ever gets changed, perhaps I’ll become active in the USCF again. For now I’m done with it.
Second Class USCF Member
small examples. Go do your own research for the rest:
Example 1: (Hanken to Goichberg)
Come on Bill, I will go half on the airfare. There are so many good reasons to do this. Give it some thought. Just think what going half means to me and what it means to you. If we lose a critical vote, you will think of this. All the money you have given the USFCF will be in the toilet if we ultimately lose this fight.
Jerry
Example 2: (Hanken to the person who they bribed)
If Bill says “yes”, you wouldn’t owe anything to him. I asked for a sponsorship gift, not a loan. At the Open, you could still spend lots of time with … Also you may have some pay for the blog you will do for Jennifer.
…Notice that I am willing to provide some food for you and …. I will have a fridge which will help. As to changeing, aren’t you on Southwest? They .don’t charge to change or cancel a trip.
Example 3: (Hanken to the persons who they bribed)
Dear …. and ….,
If …. is willing to serve as a Delegate, it is important that you go on line today (when it is still July) and purchase a six month membership in USCF. It is $25 and I will personally reimburse you this money. I hope to talk with you later today, ….
Jerry
Note that both persons were certified by S. CA and NY (by Goichbrg himself), states of Hough, Hanken, and Goichberg!!! And look up when one person became a USCF member, days before the vote. There are plenty more. It can also be backed up with phone records among all parties. You can do your own research for the rest.
Bribery is illegal. This one involved the USCF President Bill Goichberg, USCF Secretary Randy Hough and Chess Journalist of America President Jerry Hanken. USCF VP of Finance Randy Bauer, USCF VP Jim Berry and USCF ED Bill Hall are hiding this very serious illegal conduct from ALL USCF members. When will honest Randy Bauer, Jim Berry and Bill Hall launch an investigation against Goichberg, Hough and Hanken? Hmmm? When will you demand for Goichberg, Hough, Bauer, Hall and Berry to resign? How come I don’t hear the bogus moral outrage scream from Harry Payne, Ruth Haring, Mike Atkins, Brian Lafferty, Brian Mottershead, and the rest of the gang? Where’s the phone call from Lafferty to the authority to report this illegal conduct? How pathetic!
It’s pathetic that the USCF and the board majority (Randy Bauer and Jim Berry) chose to cover up corruption and illegal conduct by the USCF President Bill Goichberg and others.
Now it’s clear why Goichber are so anxious to go after Polgar. He doesn’t want anyone who can expose his long time pattern of despicable behavior on the board. Bauer is screaming about fiduciary duty all the time and yet he and Jim Berry chose to do NOTHING! What a hypocrite!
The Rules for Voting were changed. This year for the first year all members can vote no matter where they live. Members who live outside the country can vote. You should be sent a ballot to vote. Fill it out and get it back quickly. I hope you support Hecht, Korenman, Lugo and Nietman. They are by far the best for the USCF. The others are corrupt.
All Members 16 years old by June ( not sure if that is june 1 or june 30) will get to vote. You can live anywhere in the world and get to vote. But you will have to get the ballot back to USCF.
Make sure everyone votes. This is an important election.
If you are a member and not receiving your monthly magazine then notify the USCF immediately of your address and that you want a ballot.
You should be getting your magazine. But you definitely want your ballot.
Become a First Class USCF Member with full voting rights.
Atkins and Haring and Berry are Goichberg puppets.
The correct 4 to vote for are
Hecht
Nietman
Lugo
Korenman
I just came home from my job as a chess teacher and found Chess Life and the ballot on my desk. As soon as I can get a pen, I’ll fill out the ballot and mail it in.
I am very despondent over the way things are going, not just in Crossville but across the country. Both the teaching job and another job I hold could be in serious jeopardy. I have put a tremednous amount of effort into both of them, probably far more than I really should have to be effective.
I admit to mainly supporting the ticket endorsed by Polgar-Truong because of their personal friendliness toward me and willingness to help out as much as they can. I do not claim to promise them anything in return. I simply try to be very loyal to people who actually help me.
The people who attack Polgar-Truong use a self-superior tone which I saw a lot of in the latter years of the George W. Bush administration, and a tone which I grew to despise. Furthermore, anyone who attacks someone I support is attacking me personally. In fact it is even worse than attacking me personally. I have not accomplished all I wanted to accomplish as a teacher or in the workplace, and nearly all of it is my fault. But when someone supports me and helps me, I feel that person or those people should have my support and help as far as it will go.
I will put the ballot in the mail now.
Peter Harris
http://uscf.fiorechess.org/
Pages 14 and 15 of Susan’s Amended Complaint reads as follows:
42. Defendants Hanken, Hough and Goichberg wanted so badly to see Truong removed from the Board that they even went as far as bribing a USCF member, Jessica Lauser, and her husband, Hero Smith, with free hotel accommodations, airline tickets, tournament entry fees, meals and future writing opportunities in exchange for them to come to Dallas for the Delegates Meeting and vote to remove Truong. Lauser was never a Delegate, and Smith was not even a member of the USCF until days before the USCF Delegates’ Meeting, when Hanken, Hough and Goichberg paid Smith’s membership fees. Hough and Goichberg then certified both Lauser and Smith as Delegates so they could vote against Truong in the motions to remove Truong from the Executive Board. After the “USCF trial” against Truong, Lauser and Smith voted against removing Truong from the Executive Board. Despite attending the meeting with the purpose of voting for Truong’s removal, they changed their votes after hearing facts Truong presented in his defense and which facts were suppressed by
Defendants Kronenberger, Goichberg, Hall, Hough, Hanken, and Berry.
I am sick and tired of seeing Chess Life and the USCF website being used to portray a one-sided and inaccurate account of the lawsuits. Accordingly, I am dedicating space on my server to enlighten the members of all the facts – you may view it at USCF Legal Issues.
To read the filings against Goichberg, Berry and the USCF
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/fullphpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=2565