Delegates' Meeting, day 2

9:05: Attempting to call the meeting to order, but no one can find Bill Hall, the Secretary.

9:06: Called to order, but I'm not sure who is keeping the minutes. Remaining Alarie motion, requiring appointed Delegates to "opt-in" -- confirm to the USCF that they know they've been appointed. Personally, I think it's a solution with no known problem, but since she saved us the trouble of voting down all her other motions, I suppose we can live with this. More debate than this really deserves. Passed.

9:20: Motion by Mike Atkins to suspend the rules to delay implementation of abolishing the 5-minute deduction. Steve Immitt in New York has apparently been haranguing everybody who will take his IMs, and we get to waste a lot of time on this to placate him. Lots of smoke and mirrors. Since I've spoken against this, it would be unfair for me to summarize everyone's argument. We're up to 9:45 now, no real progress. Several claims that the Delegates "didn't understand" what they voted on. I certainly did. Motion to delay passed implementation for a year. Idiots.

9:50: Back to regular order. Motion from the Governance Task Force to require "voter registration." Delegates are automatically registered. Registration to be limited otherwise to Life Members, continuous members for five years, and people who voted in 2009 and 2010. The point seems to be to reduce election costs. And, well, to discourage people who know nothing and vote at random (e.g. for Sloan or Sloan clone), from polluting the voting pool. Amendment to except 16-18-year-olds from the 5-year requirement. Lots of confusion as to what we're supposed to be debating. Failed. Amendment: for 2011 only, just Delegates who were present at the 2010 Annual Meeting would automatically get to vote. Withdrawn. We're up to 10:30 now, not a lot of progress. Amendment: Require registration but allow anyone over 16 to register. Lowest common denominator, but it wouldn't help all that much in trimming the fat. Lots of bafflegab about "disenfranchising." I'm getting a headache. 10:40: Tim Just calls the question, but since it hasn't been typed yet ... OK, it's up now. Question called. Amendment passed. Silly amendment by Larry Cohen to require Delegates and EB to register. Straw poll negative, withdrawn. Question called. Motion passed as amended.

10:50: Change requirements for nominations to require signatures of 50 voting members including 15 Delegates from 5 states. Filing fee not changed. Some technical changes about dates. Amendment: Allow petitions to be gathered starting July 1. Accepted as friendly. 11:05: Some confusion about what we're voting on, but question called and motion passed.

11:10: Changes in recall provisions. Fighting the last war. Probably harder on EB members. My nose bleeds for them. Passed,

11:13: Report but no motion on making the EB the BOD. This may come up again later, but I suspect it will get referred for another year.

11:15: Alarie sponsors Joe Lux's "No Confidence In EB" Motion. She's now repeating the same stuff as yesterday about the CAS arbitration and her "everything must be public" motion. Postponed indefinitely.

11:18: Recognize 25 years of the Denker tournament. Passed by acclamation.

11:23: Don't sell or outsource (most) National Scholastics. I don't like it, but I suppose the scholastic crowd (which doesn't include any, you know, scholastic players) will get their way. I suspect this will come back to bite them, but it's not my problem. Some tinkering with wording, then passed.

11:30: Motion to add "no 14H claims" to 14H with no requirements for advance notice. Motion to delete the new variation. (Rest of the motion is to revert to the version of 14H from last year.) Amendment failed. Main motion passed. Idiots (squared).

11:45: Add to the Denker, tournament for state junior high and elementary champions. (To be named "Barber Tournaments.") To committee(s) with the EB having authority to act. Some quibbling about junior high/middle school etc. Passed.

11:50: Goichberg -- FMs added to PPHBF eligibility. Passed.

11:55: Kuhns -- Adopt the FIDE rules on Chess960/Fischerrandom and add to the rules-change page. Refer to Rules Committee with authority to implement. Passed. Kuhns -- delete FIDE rules from the web page and just link to the FIDE web site. Passed.

12:02: Votes of thanks. Passed.

12:05: Adjournment.

Delegates' Meeting, day 1

We'll again be liveblogging the USCF Annual Circus ... er, Delegates' Meeting in a few minutes. In theory it starts at 9, but in practice they are unlikely to finish calling the roll before 9:30. The agenda may be modified to discuss the FIDE election/CAS arbitration first (which will probably be protracted as everybody and his brother tries to speak), but we'll see in about 45 minutes.

9:10: After a sincere but slightly macabre ceremony in which each state was asked to name someone who died in the last year for a moment of silence, we are now going through the call of the roll. 9:20: We are told that a quorum is present, but they couldn't be bothered to give the number. (Later: subsequent votes show at least 69.)

9:23: Boilerplate motions. Mike Nolan appointed parliamentarian. 9:25: Now we're bickering about the exact order of motions on the advance agenda. Since the motions in question are losers, kinda pointless.

9:30: Rectifying motion from Winston, that what the Bylaws in the Delegates Cal say is really what the Delegates adopted last year. Or at least we all agree to say so. 9:32: Acceptance of election results. (Walters and Nietman elected, Sloan to the glue factory.) Some Polgar/Truong badinage from the chair, seems well received. Moving along well so far.

9:35: Ratification of EB actions. Should be pro forma. Donna Alarie is arguing against it, displaying her vast legal expertise. Passed, though not unanimously.

9:40: ED's report. He's starting with a hagiography of Jerry Hanken. I'll bite my tongue. 9:45: Still going on. Verbose and lachrymose. I wish Hall would get back to business. 9:50: Finally done with Hanken. Now Hall is telling anecdotes which seem to amount to "Things are better than last year." Unexeptionable but not very informative. OK, finally some specifics -- spending some money on hardware upgrades, getting new people will need better salaries and bennies (what s shock). Bill could spend his time better learning to be terse rather than listening to motivational speakers. Promise of "improved" web services, few specifics. Mention of making the web page "more like Facebook" (pardon me while I cringe). Importance of supporting local clubs, trite but true. Now he's talking about "standardizing training." Sounds like a move to central planning economy. Because, you know,that worked so well the last time it was tried. "Spare a moment to think about our staff. You have no idea what they have to put up with." Oh, I think we do.

10:05: Financial report, Bauer. "Last two years have been very difficult." Well, duh. We've learned to live within a budget, can't spend whatever we want. 10:15: Randy make the mistake of asking for questions from the floor, resulting in some time-wasting irrelevancies. ("Why wasn't there more publicity for the U.S. Open?" A fair question, but it has nothing to do with the budget.)

10:20: Budget. Let's hope we don't end up trying to rewrite it on the floor, as was often done in the past. Last year expenses came in under budget. We ended up with a small loss because of $111,000 in bad debt write-off. Budget for next year shows a surplus of $100,000 (~3%). Some technical stuff about handling scholarship prizes in future.

10:25: Motion to adopt the budget. Question on FIDE event income -- higher because of KCF donation for the Olympiad, washes out under expenses. Budget adopted.

10:30: Publications. After a brief mention of cows, Dan Lucas is using his time to praise his staff. I don't agree with everything he's saying, but his heart is in the right place. Loyalty to subordinates hasn't always been the USCF's strongest suit.

10:36: Phone call from Richard Conn to pitch the Karpov ticket and the CAS arbitration business. I'm sure he's a fine fellow, but I think the EB is making a mistake in pushing this. Hole, stop digging, etc.

10:50: Conn seems quite impressive, certainly an asset to the Karpov campaign. Interesting to note that Conn started as a Kasparov associate, but then K&K are now good buddies. Mutatis mutandis. The thing is, I doubt there's any significant support here for Ilyumzhinov, so it seems like preaching to the choir. I'd consider this a preemptive strike by the EB against the "revoke the POA" movement, but I doubt they could time Conn's call versus the agenda that closely.

10:55: Finally getting to the point, the CAS arbitration. He makes a decent case, but much of it amounts to "Kirsan is lawless, so we can and must use any weapon available." Plausible, but not a slam dunk. I'll reserve comment until the other side gets to speak.

11:10: I don't really disagree with much of what Conn has to say, but he's going on too long and is probably losing his audience. Don Schultz is prolonging things with some softball questions. Now Tim Redman is complaining about the length. Beatriz Marinello is demanding a chance to reply. This could get ugly.

11:15: Marinello is now speaking. I don't really want to summarize or comment, since my personal opinions of her are quite negative. In a general way, I suppose I blame the chairman for letting this get out of control. Beatriz now seems to be arguing that a) Kirsan is going to win so there's no point in opposing him (resistance is futile?), and b) the incumbent faction has a track record (won't that always be the case?)

11:20: Motion to limit "reports" to 10 minutes

11:21: Chess Trust. Hall of Fame will soon reopen in St. Louis. Assorted CT actions. Request for donations, can be earmarked for the Olympiad.

11:25: FIDE Delegate/International Affairs, Khodarkovsky. 80 people will be going to the World Youth, including coaches and parents. I hope the USCF isn't paying for them all. Olympiad: Conditions in Siberia will not be good. The three hotels the locals promised to build aren't there. Suggestion that the players bring their own food from home. FIDE Presidential Board meeting -- agenda wasn't published, no minutes. Candidates match Topalov-Kamsky moved to Russia, Topalov may refuse to play, be replaced by a Russian. Kamsky might then appeal to CAS. Round and round we go. Another mistake, asking for questions. Couple of dumb and pointless ones from the usual suspects.

11:38: Election of Delegate-appointed committees. Should be routine. Bylaws: Alarie out, replaced by Ken Ballou. Elections: Mike Nolan stepping down as chair, committee to choose its own. Audit: Perks out, Mike Carr added. Ethics: add Harold Stenzel, Roger Gottschall. LMA: Perks out. Add Allan Priest, Steve Doyle.

11:47: Hall of Fame Committee: DelCall left out two of the HOF inductees, Herman Steiner and Jackson Showalter. Now Don Schultz is complaining about, well, everything. Since there's an awards luncheon at noon, we'll presumably shut this off soon.

11:53: Recess until 2 p.m.

2:05: People finally straggling in from the protracted awards luncheon. No telling when we'll get started again.

2:15: Still no sign of the President or most of the officers.

2:25: The Board members have surfaced, and we're about to get started.

2:29: Rules Committee, Kuhns. Naturally, not in writing. This will take a while. I hope we can figure out what we're supposed to be voting on. 1) Confusing formula for redistributing prize money when a player is limited in how much he can win. Passed. 2) Allow G/25 with delay to be regular-rated, and eliminate deduction for time delay. Motion to divide the question, Passed. a) Eliminate 5-minute deduction option for time delay. Passed. (Effective 1 Jan.) b) Allow G/25 w/delay to be regular-rated. Failed. 3) Late arrival -- reduce time for forfeit from one hour to 30 minutes. Failed, 32-37. 4) Abolish 28T, which allows tinkering with pairings to get players norms or FIDE ratings. Passed. 5) No Quick rating with less than G/5. Already the rule, just a reminder.

3:13: Old Business. Winston, continue promotional membership. No one's going to object to this, can't we just pass it? Passed.

3:15: Bylaws, Winston. 10-09. Replacement of absent Delegates. Delegates not present at 9:30 may be replaced by the State Chapter; the replacement serves the rest of the term. If the absent Del sends notice that he/she will be late, he/she can have until 2 p.m. Winston presented a written opinion from our Illinois attorney that this will be fine. Passed.

3:20 10-10, 501c3 status. This has been kicking around for years. Looks like we'll finally get a vote. Quibbles about legal language. Passed. Of course, that doesn't mean that the IRS will approve it.

3:38: 10-11, Camaratta, abolish OMOV. I sympathize, though I don't care for all his details. The workshop split down the middle on everything except postponing the motion for a year. Postponed.

3:36: 10-12 (determine sites for 2011 & 2012 US Opens early), tabled. 10-13, suspend requirement for one game a day in a 12-round U.S. Open. Extensive debate despite the fact that 12-rounders probably died with Hanken. Failed. 10-14, require continuous USCF membership of EB members. Well, duh. Passed.

3:50: 10-15, Committee chairs get special status. Bylaws workshop hated it. Rationale by someone I won't name sounds like sheer paranoia (have outsiders at closed sessions "to make sure they're not doing anything illegal.") Camaratta, one of the sponsors, says he just wanted the Board to tell the Delegates why they overrule a Committee. Withdrawn after debate.

3:57: Technical change of term limit from 8 years to 9 years. Passed.

4:01: New business. Motion by Don Schultz from the Membership meeting to endorse the Power of Attorney and participation in the CAS arbitration. Motion to amend by Ken Ballou to exactly the opposite. It's going to be a long afternoon.

4:15: I'm not going to summarize every speaker. No one has had anything at all original to say. (Con: USCF participation was not essential, Karpov isn't all that much better than Kirsan, Litigation is a dirty word, Pro: Kirsan is Bad, we need to support Karpov, backing out now -- even if the initial action was a mistake -- would hurt Karpov and help Ilyumzhinov.) Stay tuned.

4:28: Some of the Delegates started complaining that they didn't know what the case is about, so the lawyer from Case and White is explaining it in very general terms. People keep threatening to demand a closed session so we can get more details. We'll be here forever if that happens.

4:38: Substitution defeated. Schultz motion passed.

4:40: Bunch of motions to clean up the DACIs by deleting obsolete ones. Wonder if anyone will insist on debating them? Passed, after only a little time-wasting.

4:50: Cohen, detailed micromanagement of state chapters. Referred to States Committee.

4:59: 10-22, raise dues for 2- and 3-year memberships. Passed.

5:00: Bunch of Donna Alarie motions, all withdrawn.

5:00: Recess until 9 a.m. Sunday.

USCF Election: Doomsday postponed

On July 21, ballots were counted in Crossville for the USCF special election to fill two one-year terms on the Executive Board. Results were: Mike Nietman 1517, Gary Walters 1472, and the unspeakable Sam Sloan 693. So Nietman and Walters are elected, and Sloan goes back under his rock.

Say not the struggle naught availeth ...

Good news for a change: the tangle of lawsuits between and among Susan Polgar, the USCF, assorted EB members and others is over. A settlement has been reached and a "Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice" has been submitted to the court. Regardless of who is to blame, the lawsuits have been a disaster for all parties, and ending them should be met with rejoicing by all except a few revanchists anxious to pursue a crusade with other peoples' money.

For the full text of the court filing, click here.

The Eternal Election

It's been confirmed that Gary Walters and Mike Nietman will be running for the Executive Board. Both are perfectly decent candidates, though I want to see some position statements before saying anything more. Reports are that Sam Sloan also wants to run (again) but has so far been unable to find thirty signatures. We can only hope.

End of the tunnel?

It appears that a settlement may be near in the Polgar v USCF money pit. Wick Deer has some sensible things to say about it at his USCF Poltics Blog.

Neverending Story

The USCF has issued a call for nominations for a special EB election to fill the positions formerly held by Susan Polgar and Paul Truong. Personally I think five is already too many Board members, but perhaps the EB wanted to close off any chance of P&T making a comeback (dig a hole, fill it up). So far the only announced candidate is Gary Walters of Ohio. He's an active Class A player (well, he took off from 1994 to 2007, but never mind) and correspondence player. He's also a lawyer, whose USCF Forum posts on the Polgar litigation were unusual in that venue for showing good sense. Whether I will vote for him depends on who else is running. Very likely Sam Sloan will slither from under his rock and run again; whether I will vote for him will not depend on who else is running.

The announcement from the USCF web page:

Special Election For Two USCF Executive Board Seats

Due to the revocation of the memberships of Susan Polgar and Paul Truong which took place at the USCF delegates’ meeting this past August, there will be a special election in June to elect two board members to one-year terms. Deadline for receipt of nominating petitions is midnight, January 11, 2010 and they should be sent to Cheryle Bruce at the USCF office, P.O. Box 3967, Crossville, TN 38557. Petitions must include 30 USCF-voting-member signatures, and the filing fee is $250.

Any current USCF member who is not a current USCF employee or designated contractor (see the USCF bylaws for these definitions) can be nominated as a candidate for election to the USCF executive board.

The nomination petitions must contain the dated signatures, printed names and USCF IDs of each voting member, and should contain the following text: We, the undersigned, being voting members of the U.S. Chess Federation, nominate __(candidate name goes here)__ as a candidate for election to the USCF executive board in the 2010 election. We also consent to having our names and USCF IDs published as having signed this petition. A sample nomination form will be made available on the USCF website.

Candidates must consent to be on the ballot, either by signing their own nominating petition or by a separate notice to the USCF.

Any USCF Member who is 16 years old by June 30th of an election year is a Voting Member, providing that person was a current member on May 5th for the entire day, Central Time.

Later:
1) Gary Walters has a blog at http://graysonebc.blogspot.com/. Looks like good stuff, check it out.

2) While I haven't seen this confirmed, I'm told that Mike Nietman of Wisconsin plans to run again. I rated him as acceptable last time, and see no reason to change that now, though he was a somewhat torpid campaigner.

Mote, beam

Today on her blog, Susan Polgar wrote:

"I first learned about the world of blogging on May 23, 2005 from my friend Amy. Today, the 19,000th post was made.

How things started and my vision:

Chess news used to be monopolized by a few major chess media sources. It was appalling for me to see news about chess tournaments and events published sometimes weeks and months later or not at all. To make matters worse, some tournaments, organizers, and players were blackballed because of dirty chess politics or other petty reasons.

This is why I decided to take on the “establishments” and started this blog over 4 years ago. I want to give the “little guys” a voice. If organizers want to promote his / her events, just send me the announcements, updates, or reports, and I will publish them.

I am happy to see countless chess blogs and websites popping up in the last few years. If players unite and do the right things for chess, we will succeed in making our wonderful game a lot more visible globally.

The “typical” approach to chess in the past few decades is not working. It is time to “rock the boat” and push through new and refreshing ideas to make our game more appealing for the media, the public, and young people, especially girls.

People often tell me that chess is not attractive or exciting enough for the media or the general public. Wrong! Just come to Lubbock, Texas and you can see how chess has exploded in this city in just 2 years. Look at St. Louis, MO, Fresno, CA, and Bellevue, WA. Look at what the AF4C or Chess in the Schools have done. Those are just a few of many chess success stories.

Many of the long time and stagnant chess establishments are now “irrelevant”. We can succeed if we move ahead in the right direction instead of just sitting still and procrastinate. It is time for action. A special thank you to all of you for your continued support!"

Sigh. Susan has done a terrific job with her blog, and I highly recommend it. She’s also done a lot of good things with SPICE and Texas Tech. Why can’t she be content with highlighting her very real achievements, rather than searching for enemies? This sort of paranoid approach – “There are those who …”, conveniently unnamed but tagged with plenty of negative adjectives – only makes her look small. “It is not enough to succeed; all others must be seen to fail.” Polgar and Truong are not the only ones in the chess world with that attitude, but they are among the minority who could have succeeded on their own merits. It’s a shame.

USCF Delegates Meeting, day 2

9 a.m.: Call to order. The chair announced that committee reports would be deferred to the end (which probably means never) unless they have motions included.

9:05: Budget adopted, no debate. CL editor Dan Lucas is now speaking. Printing contract stuff, important but not glamorous. (E.g., unit cost of CL reduced from ~$.46 to $.37.) No US Open program book this year because they were too busy. Lucas seems to think it's unimportant. I disagree, but that's just me.

9:15: Harold Winston reporting on the Chess Trust. Give till it hurts -- there's a $4900 matching grant. The Hall of Fame is probably going to have to move because of Excalibur's financial troubles, possibly to St. Louis.

9:20: Don Schultz presents a FIDE report. Nothing significant.

9:22: Reappointment of Delegate-selected committees. No controversies. Donna Alarie and John Hillery added to Bylaws. Heh.

9:25: Committee reports: PPHBF proposes guidelines for those seeking support. The text is shown on a big screen, but some of the Dels can't see it and John McCrary has to read it. Passed without debate. Rules has several proposals, confusingly worded and poorly presented. I suspect we'll find we've voted something we didn't mean. Motion to adopt the FIDE rule that anyone whose cell phone rings loses the game. Failed. A confusing motion which looks to me like it's pretty much the same as the current rule is next. An amendment to make penalties harsher fails. Main motion passed. Next, a motion which would make it illegal to speak to anyone on a telephone during the game, even outside the playing hall. I think it's impractical and grossly punitive. Oh, and David Kuhns just mentioned in passing that the Workshop opposed this 1-20. The Delegates agreed. Failed. Lastly, a redundant motion saying that you can't get advice from an electronic device. Failed 26-28. We're up to 9:50 now.

9:55: Old business. Motion requiring voter registration. Starting to drag, as everybody wants to debate minutiae. Kicked back to committee.

10:00: Post minutes on the web site, charge for hard copy. Common sense. Passed. Transfer "secretary" function to someone other than the Secretary. Passed.

10:05: Arcane motions about recognition of income. Referred back to committee. Boilerplate authorizing promotional memberships. Passed.

10:10: Recall motions against Truong and Polgar. Argument about whether it's moot. My opinion: always go with suspenders and belt. Tabled until the lawyer is present.

10:25: Motion to make it possible to go after 501(c)(3) status. Lots of "Whereases." Everyone wants to speak to this, God knows why. Referred to Bylaws.

10:37: Raise non-magazine Adult membership from $29 to $34. Some really dumb arguments about what the new number should be. The floor of the Delegates Meeting is not the place to argue about this, no matter how smart the debater thinks he is. Passed.

10:45: Decrease the number of Delegates. Alarie's original proposal was dropping from 125 to 100, now changed to 120. This isn't going anywhere. (Will the proposers of such motions volunteer to be downsized?) Failed.

10:55: Anti-nepotism amendment. (Anti-Polgar amendment?) Some pointless nit-picking about whether you could have three siblings but not two. Now they're arguing about whether a "legal relationship" is required rather than simple cohabitation. (Is the USCF encouraging living in sin?) Bill is being a little too tolerant of people who want to keep talking. Postponed for language cleanup.

11:02: Another major Bylaws revision, changing EB terms to three years. Passed. Because, you know, making major changes without much thought has worked so well in the past.

11:05: ... And reconsidered, to add a change in the term limit from eight years to nine. Now we're debating this thing again. Randy Bauer is complaining that he might not be able to run for a third term. What a waste of time. Passed, again.

11:15: Anti-nepotism redux. Passed.

11:20: Motion by Frank Camaratta to have the Bylaws Committee prepare proposal for getting rid of OMOV. At least they didn't try to do it on the floor.

11:30: Proposal to reduce affiliate commissions from $3 to $2. Failed.

11:35: Request for indemnification of Polgar and Alexander for being sued by USCF. Answer: no.

11:58: Motion to create a Blitz rating system. Failed. Instead we passed a motion saying that Blitz can be rated under the Quick rating system, which everyone except David Kuhns thinks we were doing already.

12:14: Motion to abolish 14H. Heated debate. Failed. A small change was adopted, making the insertion of a delay clock the preferred option. Probably a good idea, as it helps to get TDs out of the business of adjudication.

12:40: A lot of time-wasting and posturing. We're now arguing whether P&L reports for individual tournaments should be supplied to the Dels. Referred.

1:02: Presentation of certificates to outgoing EB members. Installation of new EB members.

1:05: Adjournment. Finally. Oh, yeah, we never got around to the Polgar/Truong recall motions. Either because they couldn't find the attorney or because everyone forgot about it.

We cam na here to view your warks,
In hopes to be mair wise,
But only, lest we gang to hell,
It may be nae surprise.

USCF Delegates Meeting

9:35: Initial call of the roll. 72 present (well above a quorum), later increased to 75. After some trivialities like approval of the minutes, the first item of business is a motion from the Bylaws committee to suspend the rules for a number of amendments. And the chair announced that we'd go into closed session at 2 p.m. to consider the appeal by Polgar and Truong to their membership suspension. This is taking longer than it should. I'm afraid Bill G does not run a very taut meeting.

9:45: Finally we get to the Bylaws amendments. Boiled down, we have: 1) Prohibition against an EB member suing the USCF, with compulsory arbitration; 2) Get rid of SOMOV. Delegates to be appointed to 1-year terms by the State Chapters. 3) Ratification of every vote since 1998, just in case. Harold Winston is now speaking.

9:55: Ratification passed. Litigation ban approved. Also, anyone suing the USCF must disclose it in CL when running. (This seems pretty unlikely to arise.)

10:15: Currently debating a sleeper clause, which would allow states to appoint Delegates from other states. I think it's a lousy idea, but it proved popular and was passed easily. It turns out that the Bylaws Committee proposal will continue to allow door appointments (with 1-year terms, the absent Delegates can simply be declared to have resigned). This, of course, would continue to allow a small group to pack the meeting. Here comes the new boss ...

10:35: To the heart of the matter: Go back to having State Chapters select Delegates for 1 (calendar) year terms. This would start in 2011, after the current Delegate terms expire. Much of the debate seems to be from people who don't like whoever is running their State Chapter. My nose bleeds for them. Passed.

10:45: Last Bylaws items: 1) A "severability" boilerplate clause. Passed. 2) Allowing the membership meeting to appoint up to five "extra" Delegates for that meeting. The backstory is that a few states have active feuds which froze out the losing side. Also, there are a few old-timers who always come to the Delegates Meeting but are not real popular in their own states. (The closer they are ...) Some trivial debate, but everybody knows they're going to pass this. Can't we just do it?

10:50: OK, passed. Done with Bylaws. Now we get to listen to committee reports for a while.

11:20: Reports from the President and ED. Heartwarming stuff, but it's kinda dragging. I doubt we'll get to anything substantive before lunch, and then we'll only have an hour until we have to deal with the Polgar/Truong mess.

11:45: An annoying person not familiar to me moved to reconsider the ratification motion, on the grounds that not everyone has read the entire info package. Looks like it will pass, and we'll have to do all this again in a couple of hours. Seems idiotic to me, since the info package is about the size of Crime and Punishment. No one is going to read it in the next two hours. Of course, most of it is a waste of paper -- complete copies of all legal filings, complete transcripts (not minutes) of EB meetings, and such piffle. If the Delegates haven't made up their minds yet, they're not going to change now.

11:58: Reconsideration passed. Idiots. (Oh, did I say that out loud?) Now we get to vote on it again at 2. Probably no blogging for a while after that, since we'll be in executive session for the Polgar/Truong appeal.

2:10: Still waiting for the President to show up so we can start. When we finally do, we'll have to deal with the "ratification" business again, followed by the Polgar/Truong appeal in executive session.

2:15: Back in session. Ratification passed again, near-unanimous with one abstention.

5:25: After an extended debate, which I'm not allowed to talk about (Question from the floor: "How long does confidentiality last?" Answer from the chair: "In microseconds?"), the revocation of Paul Truong's membership was upheld by a vote of 58-16, and Susan Polgar's by 55-21.

(Click here for day 2.)

U.S. Open 1

* After the merge, total attendance is 455. Not impressive by the standards of the 70s and 80s, but pretty good for the current decade. The dog-and-pony show of 9-, 6-, and 4-day schedules has produced some oddities, like young master Jonathan Hilton facing GM Alex Yermolinsky on Board 2, but at least there will be three rounds for everyone to compete together. The Indianapolis Marriott East is a very nice playing site, but it's easy to see why it sold out early -- aside from the function space, it's a pretty small hotel. Complete standings may be found through the USCF web page, but they apparently cannot be linked to because of some some very annoying web design choices.

* Abby Marshall of Virginia took first place in the Denker Touranment of High School Champions with 5.5 out of 6. I think this is a first, though I haven't had a chance to check. Tied for second with 5-1 were Jeffrey Haskel of Florida and Michael Yang of Minnesota.

* Rumor is that the Bylaws Committee wants to deal with whinng complaints about the legality of the Delegate selection process by repealing the changes made by the "Blue Ribbon Commission" back in 1998 -- returning to appointment of Delegates by the State Chapters to one-year terms. We won't know for sure until the Delegates Meeting tomorrow. Which will also have the inestimable pleasure of ruling on whether it's OK to revoke the memberships of Polgar and Truong. It's going to be a long weekend.

USCF election final

Final totals for the USCF Executive Board election:

Jim Berry: 3030
Bill Goichberg: 3014
Ruth Haring: 2952
Michael Atkins: 2672
Michael Korenman: 822
Mike Nietman: 732
Eric Hecht: 717
Blas Lugo: 657
Sam Sloan: 588
Brian Lafferty: 576
Brian Mottershead: 435

There were also 123 Write-in ballots. A total of 4379 ballots were received.

No significant changes from yesterday. A breakdown of votes by USCF Region may be found here.

Comments: Brian Lafferty did surprisingly well for someone who dropped out in May. Perhaps he was seen as a "safe" choice for a protest vote. Brian Mottershead was unable to make traction out of inciting the USCF's current legal problems with the eponymous "Mottershead Report." Sam Sloan's support continues ot decline, but, well, every nut has a hard kernel. Numbers for the "Goichberg group" are comparable to the vote totals he and his endorsees received in 2005 (a bit lower, but not by a lot), but the "Polgar group" got clobbered. Seems like the voters looked at the facts rather than the spin.

USCF election, day 1

Mike Nolan has posted the results of the first day's counting on the USCF Forum. He writes:

They're a bit over half way through the states after the first day of counting.

So far the states that have been counted are:

CT, ME, NY, PA, DE, DC , SC, GA, IN, OH, MI, MN, IL, MO, AL, AR, TN, LA, KS, CO, OK, AZ, CA, AK, WA, MT and foreign.

The vote tallies so far are:

Jim Berry 1829
Bill Goichberg 1826
Ruth Haring 1802
Mike Atkins 1569
Mikhael Korenman 483
Eric Hecht 420
Mike Nietman 400
Sam Sloan 360
Blas Lugo 358
Brian Lafferty 348
Brian Mottershead 252

Various Write-ins 75

I think they'll be complete some time Thursday afternoon, at which time detailed totals by region will be released.

A total of 4379 ballots were received.

Could be better, could be a lot worse.

USCF Election: Dark is the day

It is the logic of our times
No subject for immortal verse
That we who lived by honest dreams
Defend the bad against the worse.

We’re two months closer to the USCF election. The candidates have had two chances to present their cases in Chess Life, but from where I’m sitting little has changed. I gave more detail in my earlier post, but here’s the Cliffs Notes version.

Reasonable
Michael Atkins – Active TD in the MD-VA area. He’s shown a certain lack of restraint with regard to the USCF’s legal problems, but he’s qualified for the job.
Jim Berry – Coming off a two-year term. I am generally unenthusiastic about people running for re-election, but he’s done well enough.
Ruth Haring – Experienced player (she competed in the U.S. Women’s Championship a few times), excellent real-world credentials. A shot in the dark, but worth a try.

Marginal
Mike Nietman – I don’t know him well. Personally pleasant. Mainly a scholastic person, which is not a plus in my book but not disqualifying either.
Bill Goichberg – I wish I could rank him higher. I have enormous respect for Bill’s accomplishments, but he’s a lightning rod for controversy and he’s been on the Board too long. He’s served with honor; now he should step aside with honor.
Mikhail Korenman – He did a good job a few years ago with the “Karpov Chess School” in Lindsborg, Kansas, but his performance since then has been unimpressive. Seems to lack follow-through.
Eric Hecht – He was one of Blas Lugo’s backers for the Miami Open (see below). Unless he dissociates himself from that fiasco (which he hasn’t even tried to do yet), I have to rate him as unacceptable.

Awful
Blas Lugo – IM and tournament organizer from Florida. Only one problem, but it’s a big one – at last year’s Miami Open, he reneged on a guaranteed prize fund, shorting the players by several thousand dollars. If you’ve ever played in a tournament and expected to receive your prize, don’t vote for him.
Brian Mottershead & Brian Lafferty – A pair of nasty, backbiting trolls with zero knowledge or experience in chess, who think they should be able to start at the top. In a better year, their candidacies would be a joke. Let’s make it so.
Sam Sloan – Perpetual candidate. Serial and vexatious litigant. Ratbag of note. If you want to cast a protest vote, write in Mickey Mouse. He’d do a better job.

Speaking sense

Wick Deer has started a USCF politics blog, which so far has had a lot of sensible things to say. I especially liked this one.

The lost art of compromise

Recently Brian Lafferty, of all people, made a sensible comment on the USCF Forums. He wrote, "The best negotiated settlement leaves each side feeling that they did not get what they wanted, but got what they could live with." He continued, "I haven't seen anything other than posturing from Polgar and Truong." That's quite true. Of course, he neglected to add that same was true of the other side. What was that business about motes and beams?

Is a negotiated settlement possible? Yes. Is it likely? Not unless some very narrow minds get changed. Here's a modest proposal.

1) Everyone agrees to drop all lawsuits against the USCF or any sitting Board members. If the various parties want to sue anyone else, they won't get much respect from me, but it won't be the USCF's problem. Frivolous litigation is one of the hazards of modern city life, along with muggers, crack dealers and bureaucrats.

2) The "Ins" accept that Polgar and Truong are going to serve out their terms. They were duly elected, and there is no special clause in OMOV requiring that one side always gets to win.

3) The "Ins" agree to remove the logjam on the USCF Forum which has shielded Sam Sloan and Brian Lafferty from the one-year suspensions they long ago earned. It's time to stop coddling useful idiots.

4) The "Outs" (Polgar and Truong) accept that the USCF is not going to stop people from criticizing them. If you can't take it, stay out of politics. They also accept that the majority rules. If they want to win votes, they'll have to persuade people to vote with them or elect people who agree with them.

5) Polgar apologizes to to Kronenberger Burgoyne. Of course this will be galling, but suing the attorney was an incredibly stupid move for which Polgar must pay the price. And without this, Kronenberger, whose interests are not identical to those of the USCF, has no incentive not to litigate her into the ground.

5) Polgar and Gregory Alexander accept that they must take their chances with the criminal investigation of their alleged e-mail hacking. If they're innocent, they have nothing to worry about.

6) Both sides accept that their opponents do not have a monopoly on arrogance or self-righteousness.

Just when you thought it was safe ...

... Another USCF election crawls out of the ooze. This year, there are eleven candidates for four slots. Things could change later, but here are my views at the starting gate.


Mostly Harmless

Mike Atkins: Class A player, very active TD in the Maryland-Virginia area. He looks like the best bet this year. There's an interview with him by Elizabeth Vicary here.

Jim Berry: Incumbent EB member. Organizer and TD from Oklahoma. Not to be confused with Frank Berry, though since they’re twin brothers this is sometimes easy to do. It’s true he’s running for re-election, but he’s only been on the Board for a year and a half, and seems to have done a satisfactory job. He probably deserves the chance at a full term.

Ruth Haring: Depending on how long you’ve been around, you may know her as Ruth Orton or Ruth Biyiasas. WIM, active player, very impressive resume. Not much experience in chess organization, but she’s a new face with no obvious ties to the mutually hostile factions which have been making so much trouble. A throw of the dice, but I’ll probably end up voting for her.


If you must vote for someone

Mike Nietman: Scholastic organizer, active in the “Scholastic Council." Not exactly a plus for me, but he’s also been a real player and tournament director in the past. Comes across well in person, and has had the good sense not to get into on-line spitting matches. Worth considering.

Bill Goichberg: I wish I could rank Bill higher, but I can’t. He’s running for re-election, always a negative in my book (the desire disqualifies one). He’s a controversial figure, and his continued presence on the Board will do nothing to reduce the internecine quarrels that have wasted so much time and money. And, by the time the election rolls around, he will have been USCF President or ED for 5 1/2 of the last six years. That’s plenty of time to accomplish what he set out to do. (I don’t buy the “indispensable man” argument.) Bill has done as good a job with the thankless position of USCF President as anyone could have under the circumstances. He has served honorably. Now it’s time for him to step aside honorably.

Mikhail Korenman did an excellent job with the “Karpov Chess School” in Lindsborg, Kansas (featured in National Geographic), but he abandoned the project when he moved to Chicago shortly afterward. His subsequent activities have been less impressive, including an abortive project to raise grant money for the USCF. He ran in 2007, and didn’t really seem to care whether he won. I’m puzzled as to why he’s doing it again.

Eric Hecht: A rich guy, who divides his time between New York and Florida. Not entirely without experience (he’s currently treasurer of the Marshall Chess Club), but his main claim to fame is being one of Blas Lugo’s sponsors for the Miami Open (see below). As such, he shares at least some of the blame. Vote for him if you like, but I suspect you’ll regret it.


Glue Factory

Brian Mottershead: Probably the best of this group, but that’s not saying much. He does have some playing experience back in the 80s, but he spent the next couple of decades working in Europe. Upon his return in 2007, he was recruited to assist with the redesign of the USCF Forums, which he did fairly well. He soon made it clear, however, that he considered himself qualified to make pronouncements on law (though he is not a lawyer), publishing (though he is not a publisher), and tournament directing (though he has never directed a tournament). He reminds me of some people I knew in college, but they generally grew out of it by their sophomore year. In my opinion, he’s a pompous, conceited twit, who would make a very bad Board member.

Blas Lugo is an IM living in Florida. A couple of years ago, he decided to jump-start big-money chess in the area with the Miami Open. So far, so good. However, his reach exceeded his grasp, and in September 2008 he reneged on the prize fund he had guaranteed. They had advertised “$100,000 based on 650, 70% guaranteed,” but then decided to pay out only 50% “because of the hurricane.” Not because there was a hurricane in progress, mind you, but because the possibility of a hurricane might have scared people away. One would assume that the organizers knew of the hurricane season before they scheduled the tournament. That the organizer did this is disgraceful. That the ED allowed it is worse, but that’s a subject for another day. If you’ve ever played in a tournament and expected to receive your prize, don’t vote for this guy.

Sam Sloan: Perpetual candidate. Serial litigant. Ratbag of note. Sloan has been a sleazy but colorful figure on the tournament scene for decades. He’s run for the Board many times. In the days before OMOV, when the voters actually knew who he was, he generally had trouble breaking two figures. In 2006, an off-year election in which several candidates split the sane-people vote, he got elected to a one-year term, and proceeded to make a fool of himself and a laughingstock of the USCF with his weekly paranoid fantasies. After being tossed out in 2007, he filed a lawsuit demanding a re-run of the election. Anyone who votes for him this time should be ashamed of himself. If you want to cast a protest vote, write in Mickey Mouse. He’d do a better job.

Brian Lafferty joined the USCF for the first time less than two years ago. He has played fewer than 20 rated games in his life (Class E with a sinker). He has never organized or directed a tournament. Nevertheless, he considers himself qualified to sit on the USCF’s Executive Board. He’s a former lawyer (oh yes he is, he misses no opportunity to boast of it), a former Administrative Law Judge (something most people would be reluctant to admit), and an all-around officious busybody. He’s violently hostile to Susan Polgar and Paul Truong, but there’s no particular reason to think this is based on conviction, since he’s violently hostile to almost everyone. It takes a lot to rank below Sam Sloan, especially since Sam has had decades to prove himself a dolt; Brian did it in mere months. If you want to cast another protest vote, try Donald Duck. He and Lafferty have much in common.

When you're in over your head, keep digging

Since my earlier post on USCF lawsuits has fallen off the page, I have reluctantly decided to add a new one. The latest in the series is a suit filed by the USCF in Illinois (the state in which the USCF is incorporated) seeking to remove Susan Polgar and Paul Truong from the Executive Board.

If you don't want to plow through the whole thing (for which I wouldn't blame you), the key paragraphs are 18-21 (alleging that Truong authored the so-called "Fake Sam Sloan" posts, and 50-53 (asserting that Polgar obtained illegal access to Randy Hough's e-mail account and published illegally obtained material). The first argument seems the weaker of the two, as it simply assumes that childish scribbling on the Internet justifies removal of an elected Board member. (We've had several oafs and buffoons on the Board in the past, and no one suggested removing them.) The second is more serious, as the charges, if proved, could carry jail time. While holding office from jail is an honored tradition in Boston, Chicago and New Jersey, it's one the USCF can probably do without.

What all this demonstrates is that neither side has any interest in compromise. Rather than seeking to reduce the tension, the majority faction on the Board has chosen to ramp it up. Of course, Polgar is equally at fault here (see the frivolous lawsuit she filed in Texas, not to mention the incredibly stupid move of naming attorney Karl Kronenberger as one of the defendants). But the majority faction, being in the stronger position, really ought to be the ones trying to make peace.

Update 1/4/08: There's an account of the latest lawsuit in the January 3 New York Times. Despite the source, it seems fair and balanced.

... a plague a' both your houses

On November 30, Susan Polgar distributed the following via the USCF BINFO system, in response to suggestions by Jim Eade and Harold Dondis that she ramp down the litigiousness.

Dear Jim and Mr. Dondis,

As I have said before, I pleaded with this board for MORE THAN 1 YEAR to leave me, my family, and my job alone. They refused. The USCF and each board member received a Cease and Desist letter from my attorney dated May 14, 2008 (which is many months before I filed the lawsuit). They ignored it. I even offered to end it prior to filing the lawsuit shortly before the Dallas Delegates Meeting. They ignored it again. Now the USCF is trying to go after me criminally.

What would you like me to do? What do you suggest? Do you think I enjoy being accused of being a child abuser, child molester, and a criminal? Do you think I enjoy having people calling the media and my employers to spread baseless and defamatory accusations? Do you think I enjoy having my kids, my friends, my family, and my employer read about all of these things on the Internet? Do you think I enjoy spending over $75,000 in legal fees from my own pocket to defend against absolute nonsense? Do you think I enjoy losing one business / sponsorship deal after another because of all the garbage on the Internet? And these are just some of the major damages I suffered so far.

It is not me who started this. I spent 35 years building my excellent reputation in chess and it took 1 year for the USCF to destroy it. If anyone can think of a way to resolve this amicably and to have my reputation fully restored then please feel free to suggest it. It is NOT me who want to prolong this. But as long as the USCF and its board members continue to go down this road, I have no choice but to defend myself and my family.

Instead of allowing me to bring U.S. chess and the USCF up another level, I had to waste more than a year with this nonsense. They left me with no choice. I will do everything possible to defend and protect myself, my family, and my job.

I offered the USCF and this board various ways to end this in each board meeting only to have my offers laughed at and ignored each time for more than one year. Unless the USCF backs off completely and leave me and my family alone, this cannot stop.

My offer to withdraw the lawsuit against the USCF still stands. All parties are welcome to contact my attorneys if they wish to settle and end this.

Best wishes,

Susan Polgar

The problem with all this is that the portions of her lawsuit which concern the USCF are utterly baseless. The USCF did not accuse her of being a child abuser or interfere with her sponsorship efforts. If Polgar objects to the USCF allowing others to criticize her, she should either lobby Congress to change the law, or move to a country that doesn’t have freedom of speech.

Conceivably Polgar might have a claim against some of the other named defendants. Brian Lafferty, Sam Sloan, and Jerry Hanken have certainly made defamatory statements about her, though whether she could win a libel case is another matter. But the inclusion of the USCF in her laundry list has no basis in fact – and even if it did, for her to sue the USCF while remaining on the Executive Board is simply unethical.

It is true that four of the EB members (and the ED) have harshly criticized Polgar’s husband Paul Truong, and sought (unsuccessfully) to mount a recall against him. I suspect that this is the real reason behind Polgar’s naming the USCF as a defendant. But, whether you agree with it or not, this was legitimate political discourse, and if you can’t take it, you have no business running for office.

This is not to say that I have much sympathy for the other side. They brought this on themselves, which is fine – and on us, which is not. The “Board majority,” led by Bill Goichberg, decided that they could use the “Fake Sam Sloan” controversy to lever Truong off the Board. At least some of them may have been acting out of sincere conviction that Truong’s actions (well, the actions of which he was accused) were unconscionable. Sincerity is overrated. They had an obligation as stewards of the USCF to consider what would happen if they failed. They did fail. Now we have live with it.

Nut Cases

The USCF has been plagued by lawsuits lately. Most members don’t know or care much about it. Unfortunately, that means what information the members do receive tends to be biased and inaccurate. Discussing the matter is distasteful, but hiding it is not going to help matters.

There have been four lawsuits filed since last October, maybe five if you stretch a point. To take them in order:

1) In October 2007 Sam Sloan, a former USCF EB member and contumacious Internet troll, sued the USCF, the Board members individually, and a laundry list of people who had said mean things about him. He demanded $20,000,000 in damages and a re-run of the 2007 USCF election, with his enemies disqualified from running. His theory, to the extent one could follow his tendentious ramblings, seems to have been that a series of scurrilous Usenet posts by a “Fake Sam Sloan” had been made by Paul Truong, that their purpose was to keep Sloan from being re-elected in 2007, and that Bill Goichberg and the USCF had known about this and failed to stop it. Problems: Sloan’s accusation against Truong was one of dozens of charges he made, almost all false; Sloan finished a distant ninth out of ten in the election and never had any serious chance of winning; and, given the 1st Amendment, there was nothing the USCF could have done about the FSS posts if it had wanted to. The case was dismissed by Judge Denny Chin on August 28 (full text here). Dismissal was on procedural grounds – the case never belonged in Federal court in the first place – but while he did not reach the “merits” (using the term loosely) of Sloan’s claims, his comments (“(T)he complaint largely interweaves purported 'facts' with Sloan’s own subjective rantings and commentary and commentary about their alleged shortcomings. For the most part, these are simply personal, vindictive, and nonsensical attacks that do not belong in a pleading filed in a judicial proceeding.“) do not inspire confidence in Sloan’s prospects in state court.

2) A few months later, one Gordon Roy Parker, who operates a web page on how to seduce women under the name of Ray Gordon, filed another lawsuit. He had a slightly different theory: that Truong, Goichberg, Sloan, and the rest of the USCF had conspired to make those fake Usenet posts in order to defame Parker. Exactly why anyone would bother is hard to fathom, and was not explained in his prolix pleading. Parker, who hasn’t been a USCF member since 1996, is chiefly noted as a "serial and vexatious litigant." (He lost one case, against the University of Pennsylvania for not offering a clerk’s job, when he refused to show up for a court-ordered psych test.) This case too was dismissed, and although it was “without prejudice” – the judge wrote that “We grant Plaintiff leave to re-file his Complaint if he is able to cure the deficiencies“ – he wrote in addition “We also caution Plaintiff to review Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) allowing a court to strike material from a pleading which is 'redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous.' A review of Plaintiff’s Complaint shows that he has alleged immaterial facts which are both scandalous and redundant in contravention of Rule 12(f)." Parker may pop out of his hole again, but he’s a nuisance, not a threat.

3) The next one was filed by the USCF, against “John Does 1-10.” In July, excerpts from e-mail correspondence among EB members, and between EB members and their attorney, Karl Kronenberger, began to appear on the Internet, notably on Susan Polgar’s chessdiscussion forum. Polgar used them as examples of how everyone was plotting against poor Paul. Since the only way the e-mails could have been obtained was through illegal access to EB members’ accounts (a Federal crime which can carry serious jail time), the USCF got nasty about it. Polgar and Truong have denied responsibility for the hacking, but have not offered a satisfactory explanation as to where they obtained the material (“We saw it somewhere on the Internet” won’t fly.) The USCF has not accused Polgar or Truong specifically, but is seeking to depose them, which would require them to testify under oath. Unlike the others, this suit actually has merit. Not coincidentally, was drafted and filed by a real attorney.

4) In response to “3,” Susan Polgar filed suit against the USCF, Sloan, the Board members other than herself and her husband, the USCF’s attorney, and another laundry list of enemies, demanding $25,000,000. (Probably wanted to keep ahead of the Sloans.) Her pleading alleged various torts, but no specific actions, and included a long and rather whiny complaint that those mean Americans had all been against her because she was a woman and a foreigner. Suing the organization of which she is an officer was probably not a good PR move. Naming attorney Karl Kronenberger as a defendant was not a good move, period. The case has been removed to Federal court, and is currently pending. (Text is here, as an appendix to the motion to remove.)

5) Sloan has filed a response to #4. It’s as rambling and prolix as most of his output. He apparently wants to file a cross-claim, for another $20,000,000, though his legal theory escapes me. Perhaps it’s buried in the verbiage. I doubt this is going anywhere, but I include it for completeness.

The law is supposed to be a shield. Every time someone files a frivolous or abusive lawsuit, respect for the law declines, and we’re all a bit less safe.

Update 9-23: Sloan is apparently attempting to appeal the dismissal of #1. His filing is (surprise!) tendentious drivel. He asserts that Bill Goichberg's house in New York does not exist (the people who have been there will be surprised), and that a federal criminal statute creates a private right of action (the judge will be surprised). The people who voted for this doofus in 2006 should be ashamed of themselves.

Update 9-27: The USCF's attorney has filed a motion to dismiss #4 on grounds of failure to state a cause for which relief may be granted, or, alternatively, to require a more definite statement of pleading.

Update 10-17: Polgar's attorney has filed a response to the motion to dismiss. The legal arguments are for the judge to decide. But merely filing such a lawsuit makes it extremely unlikely that I would vote for Polgar, Truong, or anyone they endorsed in any future election. Not that I have a lot of use for their opponents, either. "None of the above" is looking better and better.

Update 10-24: More news on Number 3, as Kronenberger Burgoyne filed an amended complaint naming two of the John Does.

Update 12/21/08: Gregory Alexander (one of the named "John Does") has filed a somewhat rambling motion to dismiss. I'm not going to comment on his legal arguments, but it's worth noting that his assertion "... the identical allegations are already being litigated in a lawsuit which was filed in state court in Lubbock, Texas" is simply false. Polgar's lawsuit has absolutely nothing to do with the charges of e-mail hacking against Alexander and Polgar, except perhaps in the area of motive.

Update 1/14/09: Litigious crank Gordon Roy Parker re-filed #2, and nearly all of it has now been dismissed "with predjudice" (meaning he can't waste any more of the court's time). The only part the judge allowed was a libel claim against Truong and Polgar for two specific statements. So, if Parker can demonstarte that Polgar and Truong have sufficient "connections" in Pennsylvania to be subject to its courts, and if he can prove that Truong and/or Polgar were responsible for the two Usenet posts, and if he can convince a jury that the statements would be taken by a rational observer as fact (rather than satire, opinion, or hyperbole in context), and, oh yes, if he manages to serve the defendants properly, he might have a case. Tort reform, anyone? At least it won't be the USCF's money being wasted.