Main
Date: 25 Dec 2008 05:11:21
From: samsloan
Subject: Susan Polgar Flatly Rejects Mediation of her Suit Against Other Board
Bill,

My mediation offer was and still is solely for the USCF and not all
the parties. This was made very clear to you a number of times.
However, I am not completely against the idea of including the board
members. My position is still the same as it was earlier this year in
Tulsa. It is not applicable to other defendants. Other parties can
contact my attorneys directly if they would like to make a settlement
offer.

Susan Polgar

In a message dated 12/20/2008 10:22:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,
Chessoffice writes:

The EB Legal Subcommittee, most others named in the Texas lawsuit,
and our attorneys have been discussing the possibility of mediation
and we hope to have a decision soon. Although direct talks showed the
two sides to have completely opposite positions with no apparent
possibility of compromise, I believe that there is always a chance
that any dispute can be settled through mediation, and it should not
be ruled out.

I think everyone appreciates the willingness of Mitch Denker as
well as Harold Winston to help.

Bill Goichberg


In a message dated 12/20/2008 7:23:21 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
SusanPolgar writes:

Dear Mitch,

Thank you for your generous offer. I have stated a number of
times that I am willing to have Mr. Winston mediate the issues related
to the USCF. I offered to have this done back in August. Even though I
am absolutely confident of my position, my offer is for the sole
purpose of saving the USCF from a financial tragedy. I would be happy
to have you involved in resolving all the issues relating to the USCF.
Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear by now that the board majority
does not want this to happen.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar




 
Date: 26 Dec 2008 18:39:00
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Flatly Rejects Mediation of her Suit Against Other
by Randy Bauer on Fri Dec 26, 2008 11:24 am #121429

And the USCF continues to have to pay the costs associated with her
suit against individual board members. And the USCF as an organization
apologizes for . . . what exactly?

Doesn't sound all that palatable to me. But, hey - I'm willing to
listen, and no, I don't mind you bringing up the settlement offer.

Explain why the USCF as an organization should apologize, for
starters. Sure sounds like an admission of having done something
wrong.

I'm not buying it - but please lay it out for me: you know, the years
of paying Susan and Paul to write columns for Chess Life, the
countless pictures and publicity for Susan in Chess Life and on the
website, the awards to Lubbock Texas and Texas Tech (their employer).
Wow, sure sounds abusive. Please explain all the above, because I sure
am happy to discuss it.

Randy Bauer


 
Date: 26 Dec 2008 18:07:44
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Flatly Rejects Mediation of her Suit Against Other
In 1999, Susan Polgar sued FIDE in the sporting court in Switzerland
for stripping her of her Woman's World Championship Title for refusing
to defend it.

The grounds for her suit were that she should not be required to
defend her world chess title because she was first pregnant and later
nursing.

However, her suit was frivolous because she was supposed to have
defended her title in 1998. FIDE kept postponing the match at her
request. Finally, after a delay of more than one year, FIDE could wait
no longer because the time had arrived for the subsequent woman's
world championship. So, FIDE stripped her of the title and awarded the
title match to her two top challengers.

After Susan Polgar sued FIDE, FIDE eventually agreed to settle the
case by paying her attorney's fees. Although Susan did not get any
money nor did she get her title back, she announced that she had "won"
the suit against FIDE.

Susan also claims that she is still the world champion, because she
has never been defeated. (She has never competed since, either.)

If the USCF agrees to "settle" the current suit by paying her a
dollar, admitting wrongdoing and apologizing, she will again claim
that she has "won" the case and that will give her strong grounds for
continuing her lawsuit against the individual defendants, against whom
she says that she has no intention of settling.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 26 Dec 2008 04:39:59
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Flatly Rejects Mediation of her Suit Against Other
Let's do it this way:

All six board members testify under oath.

Then we will see which ones testify openly and which ones take the
Fifth.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 25 Dec 2008 10:37:35
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Flatly Rejects Mediation of her Suit Against Other
On Dec 25, 1:16=A0pm, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 08:33:05 -0800 (PST), marknibb
>
> <markn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Sam, as I am reading Susan's statement, it looks like Susan says she
> >is willing to consider including the EB members.
> >"I am not completely against the idea of including the board
> >members."
> >Later Susan seems to say she is willing to consider settlement offers
> >from other defendants.
> >"Other parties can contact my attorneys directly if they would like to
> >make a settlement
> >offer."
> >To me that doesn't sound like "Flat refusal" =A0but of those involved
> >would have much more direct knowledge of what has been communicated
> >directly.
>
> Sounds like obsequious groveling would get serious consideration.

"No money, no grovel!"


 
Date: 25 Dec 2008 10:24:08
From: Wick
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Flatly Rejects Mediation of her Suit Against Other
On Dec 25, 10:33=A0am, marknibb <markn...@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Dec 25, 7:11=A0am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bill,
>
> > My mediation offer was and still is solely for the USCF and not all
> > the parties. This was made very clear to you a number of times.
> > However, I am not completely against the idea of including the board
> > members. My position is still the same as it was earlier this year in
> > Tulsa. It is not applicable to other defendants. Other parties can
> > contact my attorneys directly if they would like to make a settlement
> > offer.
>
> > Susan Polgar
>
> > In a message dated 12/20/2008 10:22:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> > Chessoffice writes:
>
> > =A0 =A0 The EB Legal Subcommittee, most others named in the Texas lawsu=
it,
> > and our attorneys have been discussing the possibility of mediation
> > and we hope to have a decision soon. =A0Although direct talks showed th=
e
> > two sides to have completely opposite positions with no apparent
> > possibility of compromise, I believe that there is always a chance
> > that any dispute can be settled through mediation, and it should not
> > be ruled out.
>
> > =A0 =A0 I think everyone appreciates the willingness of Mitch Denker as
> > well as Harold Winston to help.
>
> > =A0 =A0 Bill Goichberg
>
> > =A0 =A0 In a message dated 12/20/2008 7:23:21 P.M. Pacific Standard Tim=
e,
>
> > SusanPolgar writes:
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Dear Mitch,
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Thank you for your generous offer. I have stated a numb=
er of
> > times that I am willing to have Mr. Winston mediate the issues related
> > to the USCF. I offered to have this done back in August. Even though I
> > am absolutely confident of my position, my offer is for the sole
> > purpose of saving the USCF from a financial tragedy. I would be happy
> > to have you involved in resolving all the issues relating to the USCF.
> > Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear by now that the board majority
> > does not want this to happen.
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Best wishes,
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Susan Polgar
>
> Sam, as I am reading Susan's statement, it looks like Susan says she
> is willing to consider including the EB members.
>
> "I am not completely against the idea of including the board
> members."
>
> Later Susan seems to say she is willing to consider settlement offers
> from other defendants.
>
> "Other parties can contact my attorneys directly if they would like to
> make a settlement
> offer."
>
> To me that doesn't sound like "Flat refusal" =A0but of those involved
> would have much more direct knowledge of what has been communicated
> directly.

I agree that Sam's headline is not accurate -- imagine that. OTOH, GM
Polgar
does not seem to be brimming with enthusiasm for the idea.

As someone who has been trained as a mediator and participated in
hundreds of mediations,
I am acutely aware that some cases are not amenable to mediation, but
some are not. Frankly,
the only way that mediation could work in this case is if one side or
the other is willing to concede,
at least privately, that their publicly stated positions are without
merit.


  
Date: 25 Dec 2008 18:27:00
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Flatly Rejects Mediation of her Suit Against Other
Wick wrote:
> On Dec 25, 10:33 am, marknibb <markn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 25, 7:11 am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Bill,
>>> My mediation offer was and still is solely for the USCF and not all
>>> the parties. This was made very clear to you a number of times.
>>> However, I am not completely against the idea of including the board
>>> members. My position is still the same as it was earlier this year in
>>> Tulsa. It is not applicable to other defendants. Other parties can
>>> contact my attorneys directly if they would like to make a settlement
>>> offer.
>>> Susan Polgar
>>> In a message dated 12/20/2008 10:22:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>>> Chessoffice writes:
>>> The EB Legal Subcommittee, most others named in the Texas lawsuit,
>>> and our attorneys have been discussing the possibility of mediation
>>> and we hope to have a decision soon. Although direct talks showed the
>>> two sides to have completely opposite positions with no apparent
>>> possibility of compromise, I believe that there is always a chance
>>> that any dispute can be settled through mediation, and it should not
>>> be ruled out.
>>> I think everyone appreciates the willingness of Mitch Denker as
>>> well as Harold Winston to help.
>>> Bill Goichberg
>>> In a message dated 12/20/2008 7:23:21 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>>> SusanPolgar writes:
>>> Dear Mitch,
>>> Thank you for your generous offer. I have stated a number of
>>> times that I am willing to have Mr. Winston mediate the issues related
>>> to the USCF. I offered to have this done back in August. Even though I
>>> am absolutely confident of my position, my offer is for the sole
>>> purpose of saving the USCF from a financial tragedy. I would be happy
>>> to have you involved in resolving all the issues relating to the USCF.
>>> Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear by now that the board majority
>>> does not want this to happen.
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Susan Polgar
>> Sam, as I am reading Susan's statement, it looks like Susan says she
>> is willing to consider including the EB members.
>>
>> "I am not completely against the idea of including the board
>> members."
>>
>> Later Susan seems to say she is willing to consider settlement offers
>> from other defendants.
>>
>> "Other parties can contact my attorneys directly if they would like to
>> make a settlement
>> offer."
>>
>> To me that doesn't sound like "Flat refusal" but of those involved
>> would have much more direct knowledge of what has been communicated
>> directly.
>
> I agree that Sam's headline is not accurate -- imagine that. OTOH, GM
> Polgar
> does not seem to be brimming with enthusiasm for the idea.
>
> As someone who has been trained as a mediator and participated in
> hundreds of mediations,
> I am acutely aware that some cases are not amenable to mediation, but
> some are not. Frankly,
> the only way that mediation could work in this case is if one side or
> the other is willing to concede,
> at least privately, that their publicly stated positions are without
> merit.

Can't imagine which side that might be. ;-)


 
Date: 25 Dec 2008 08:33:05
From: marknibb
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Flatly Rejects Mediation of her Suit Against Other
On Dec 25, 7:11=A0am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Bill,
>
> My mediation offer was and still is solely for the USCF and not all
> the parties. This was made very clear to you a number of times.
> However, I am not completely against the idea of including the board
> members. My position is still the same as it was earlier this year in
> Tulsa. It is not applicable to other defendants. Other parties can
> contact my attorneys directly if they would like to make a settlement
> offer.
>
> Susan Polgar
>
> In a message dated 12/20/2008 10:22:04 P.M. Central Standard Time,
>
> Chessoffice writes:
>
> =A0 =A0 The EB Legal Subcommittee, most others named in the Texas lawsuit=
,
> and our attorneys have been discussing the possibility of mediation
> and we hope to have a decision soon. =A0Although direct talks showed the
> two sides to have completely opposite positions with no apparent
> possibility of compromise, I believe that there is always a chance
> that any dispute can be settled through mediation, and it should not
> be ruled out.
>
> =A0 =A0 I think everyone appreciates the willingness of Mitch Denker as
> well as Harold Winston to help.
>
> =A0 =A0 Bill Goichberg
>
> =A0 =A0 In a message dated 12/20/2008 7:23:21 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
>
> SusanPolgar writes:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Dear Mitch,
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Thank you for your generous offer. I have stated a number=
of
> times that I am willing to have Mr. Winston mediate the issues related
> to the USCF. I offered to have this done back in August. Even though I
> am absolutely confident of my position, my offer is for the sole
> purpose of saving the USCF from a financial tragedy. I would be happy
> to have you involved in resolving all the issues relating to the USCF.
> Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear by now that the board majority
> does not want this to happen.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Best wishes,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Susan Polgar




Sam, as I am reading Susan's statement, it looks like Susan says she
is willing to consider including the EB members.

"I am not completely against the idea of including the board
members."

Later Susan seems to say she is willing to consider settlement offers
from other defendants.

"Other parties can contact my attorneys directly if they would like to
make a settlement
offer."

To me that doesn't sound like "Flat refusal" but of those involved
would have much more direct knowledge of what has been communicated
directly.


  
Date: 25 Dec 2008 10:16:45
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Susan Polgar Flatly Rejects Mediation of her Suit Against Other Board Members
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 08:33:05 -0800 (PST), marknibb
<marknibb@gmail.com > wrote:


>Sam, as I am reading Susan's statement, it looks like Susan says she
>is willing to consider including the EB members.

>"I am not completely against the idea of including the board
>members."

>Later Susan seems to say she is willing to consider settlement offers
>from other defendants.

>"Other parties can contact my attorneys directly if they would like to
>make a settlement
>offer."

>To me that doesn't sound like "Flat refusal" but of those involved
>would have much more direct knowledge of what has been communicated
>directly.

Sounds like obsequious groveling would get serious consideration.