Constitutionally protected speech??

Main

Date: 02 Sep 2008 05:10:41
From: samsloan
Subject: Constitutionally protected speech??

Over on the USCF Issues Forum, Former USCF President Tim Redman is
arguing that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan were "satire" and
"Constitutionally Protected Speech".

However, calling a female chess personality a "bulldyke" and calling a
well known scholastic chess organizer a gay pedophile with a history
of molesting young boys at chess tournaments, as the Fake Sam Sloan
often did, is not satire.

I am deeply shocked that Tim Redman would call such words
"Constitutionally Protected Speech".

Sam Sloan

Date: 11 Sep 2008 10:47:07
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

On Sep 2, 10:53 am, "Judd for the Defense" <[email protected] > wrote:

> [total junk]

"JftD", you're pathetic.

Wlod

Date: 03 Sep 2008 20:32:16
From: none
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

On Sep 3, 11:17=A0pm, Matt Nemmers <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Sep 2, 1:16=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Shirley had nothing to do with this either and by inserting "[is]"
> > with quotation marks around it you have created a false quote which
> > makes you, not me, guilty of libel.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Here Sloan goes again, holding others to standards he doesn't hold
> himself to.
>
> On 2 March 2002 at 2:58pm in the thread "Sam, you're famous," Sloan
> wrote:
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> "In spite of the personal attacks and the death threats I keep
> receiving because of these new pages, there may be a positive
> benefit.
> For example, on the follow up page athttp://blogwars.com/article.php?sid=
=3D151one young man writes that he
> cannot understand why I get more girls than he does since he has
> bigger muscles than I do, but a woman writes, "There's something
> strangly aluring about [Sam Sloan], i mean, it is sick, but i seem
> strangly attracted [to him]."
>
> So my plan is to concentrate on the woman and forget about the man."
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> And on the same day in the same thread, at 9:31pm, John Fernandez
> called him out on it with this:
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> "Sam, you lying, misquoting bitch.
>
> Here is the full post:
> ---------
> Re: E/N gone horribly wrong [Score: 1]
> by Faithless on Wednesday, February 27 @ 08:50:25 PM CST
>
> theres a something strangly aluring about the vagina bit, i mean, it
> is sick,
> but i seem strangly attracted to it, a bit like stiles rantings shoot
> me
> ---------
>
> So a few things:
>
> 1) Faithless is a GUY
> 2) He finds nothing strangely alluring about Sam Sloan, he's talking
> about the
> vagina quote that's on the site
> 3) He is not strangely attracted to you, he's strangely attracted
> again to the
> above quote.
>
> How stupid of you to intentionally change the meaning of a quotation
> that other
> people on this site would catch you on.
>
> John Fernandez"
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Sloan can't be held to ANY standard of decency, even his own. =A0What an
> ultra-maroon.
>
> Busted again, Sammy. =A0Not that it'll stop you from lying some more.
>
> Regards,
>
> Matt

--Busted again, Sammy. Not that it'll stop you from lying some more

How do you bust an E-1 of rhetoric?

Date: 03 Sep 2008 20:17:43
From: Matt Nemmers
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

On Sep 2, 1:16=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Shirley had nothing to do with this either and by inserting "[is]"
> with quotation marks around it you have created a false quote which
> makes you, not me, guilty of libel.
>
> Sam Sloan

Here Sloan goes again, holding others to standards he doesn't hold
himself to.

On 2 March 2002 at 2:58pm in the thread "Sam, you're famous," Sloan
wrote:

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

"In spite of the personal attacks and the death threats I keep
receiving because of these new pages, there may be a positive
benefit.
For example, on the follow up page at
http://blogwars.com/article.php?sid=3D151 one young man writes that he
cannot understand why I get more girls than he does since he has
bigger muscles than I do, but a woman writes, "There's something
strangly aluring about [Sam Sloan], i mean, it is sick, but i seem
strangly attracted [to him]."

So my plan is to concentrate on the woman and forget about the man."

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

And on the same day in the same thread, at 9:31pm, John Fernandez
called him out on it with this:

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

"Sam, you lying, misquoting bitch.

Here is the full post:
---------
Re: E/N gone horribly wrong [Score: 1]
by Faithless on Wednesday, February 27 @ 08:50:25 PM CST

theres a something strangly aluring about the vagina bit, i mean, it
is sick,
but i seem strangly attracted to it, a bit like stiles rantings shoot
me
---------

So a few things:

1) Faithless is a GUY
2) He finds nothing strangely alluring about Sam Sloan, he's talking
about the
vagina quote that's on the site
3) He is not strangely attracted to you, he's strangely attracted
again to the
above quote.

How stupid of you to intentionally change the meaning of a quotation
that other
people on this site would catch you on.

John Fernandez"

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Sloan can't be held to ANY standard of decency, even his own. What an
ultra-maroon.

Busted again, Sammy. Not that it'll stop you from lying some more.

Regards,

Matt

Date: 03 Sep 2008 06:26:38
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

On Sep 3, 8:34=A0am, "McGyver" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:64bc8b95-5d25-42fc-a43a-c47ddf9ba7cc@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Over on the USCF Issues Forum, Former USCF President Tim Redman is
> > arguing that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan were "satire" and
> > "Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
> > However, calling a female chess personality a "bulldyke" and calling a
> > well known scholastic chess organizer a gay pedophile with a history
> > of molesting young boys at chess tournaments, as the Fake Sam Sloan
> > often did, is not satire.
>
> > I am deeply shocked that Tim Redman would call such words
> > "Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
> All speech in the United States is constitutionally protected to some
> extent. =A0The speech you described is constitutionally protected to the
> extent that a law making such speech a crime would not be valid and the
> speaker could not be properly convicted under any such law. =A0The descri=
bed
> speech is not constitutionally protected from a defamation lawsuit under =
the
> rules applicable as satire.
>
> This answer must not be relied on as legal advice for the reasons posted
> here: =A0http://mcgyverdisclaimer.blogspot.com. =A0And I am not your atto=
rney.
>
> McGyver

Thank you.

However, the issue in this case is that when the "Fake Sam Sloan"
called a female chess personality a "bulldyke" and called a well known
scholastic chess organizer a gay pedophile with a history of molesting
young boys at chess tournaments, he signed my name, Sam Sloan, to the
postings.

I believe that is a crime. Do you agree?

Another issue is that when The Fake Sam Sloan made defamatory
statements about Hanna Itkis and Laura Ross quoted above, they were
both 17 years old and thus legally children. (Both are now 19). Do you
think that is a crime and actionable?

I know for a fact that some of the people attacked by the Fake Sam
Sloan still believe that I made the postings.

The Real Sam Sloan

Date: 03 Sep 2008 13:33:42
From: Judd for the Defense
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b7138320-e519-47e3-9e83-b0406c7761dd@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

I believe that is a crime. Do you agree?

=======================

What crime do you believe it to be?

Date: 03 Sep 2008 17:18:11
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

Judd for the Defense wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:b7138320-e519-47e3-9e83-b0406c7761dd@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I believe that is a crime. Do you agree?
>
> =======================
>
> What crime do you believe it to be?
>
>
>
Depending on the overall purpose, it may be wire fraud. Because of its
anonymous nature, tt also constitutes internet harassment which has been
made a federal crime only recently.

Date: 03 Sep 2008 17:40:47
From: Deadrat
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

Brian Lafferty <[email protected] > wrote in
news:nFzvk.503$Wd.368@trnddc01:

> Judd for the Defense wrote:
>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:b7138320-e519-47e3-9e83-b0406c7761dd@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com
>> ...
>>
>>
>> I believe that is a crime. Do you agree?
>>
>> =======================
>>
>> What crime do you believe it to be?
>>
>>
>>
> Depending on the overall purpose, it may be wire fraud.

Anybody lose any money?

> Because of
> its anonymous nature,

I doubt "its anonymous nature" has anything to do with it.

> tt also constitutes internet harassment which
> has been made a federal crime only recently.

No, it hasn't. There's been an indictment based on violation of a TOS that
the feds claim constitutes hacking.

Date: 04 Sep 2008 10:38:22
From: Richard
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

Deadrat wrote:
>
>> tt also constitutes internet harassment which
>> has been made a federal crime only recently.
>
> No, it hasn't. There's been an indictment based on violation of a TOS that
> the feds claim constitutes hacking.
>

Actually, I believe that the "Violence Against Women and Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005" made it a Federal crime if made
anonymously. Section 113 provided that anyone who makes a telephone call
or uses a �telecommunications device� (now defined by the new federal
cyberstalking law to include communications using the Internet) �without
disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or
harass any person� can be fined and imprisoned.

Date: 03 Sep 2008 12:34:19
From: McGyver
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:64bc8b95-5d25-42fc-a43a-c47ddf9ba7cc@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> Over on the USCF Issues Forum, Former USCF President Tim Redman is
> arguing that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan were "satire" and
> "Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
> However, calling a female chess personality a "bulldyke" and calling a
> well known scholastic chess organizer a gay pedophile with a history
> of molesting young boys at chess tournaments, as the Fake Sam Sloan
> often did, is not satire.
>
> I am deeply shocked that Tim Redman would call such words
> "Constitutionally Protected Speech".

All speech in the United States is constitutionally protected to some
extent. The speech you described is constitutionally protected to the
extent that a law making such speech a crime would not be valid and the
speaker could not be properly convicted under any such law. The described
speech is not constitutionally protected from a defamation lawsuit under the
rules applicable as satire.

This answer must not be relied on as legal advice for the reasons posted
here: http://mcgyverdisclaimer.blogspot.com . And I am not your attorney.

McGyver

Date: 03 Sep 2008 00:04:41
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

[quote="redman"]I thank Donna for letting me know that I am mentioned
by the Fake Sam Sloan. It still doesn't provoke my curiosity to read
further. I am currently rereading what was, in my view, the greatest
journal of the 20th century, at least in English, The New Age. It can
be found in pdf form at http://www.modjourn.org

Reviewing some of the posts here, what struck me this time was Randy
Bauer's statement that if he presented you with 10 postings by the
real Sam Sloan and 10 by the fake Sam Sloan, you would be hard pressed
to tell the difference. I have no reason to doubt Randy's judgment.

At the same time, I would argue that his assertion confirms my
statement that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan might constitute
parody, which is a subset of satire, but not the same thing.

Parody is either a humorous imitation or a poor and feeble imitation,
a travesty. It does have satirical intent. Satire is the use of
ridicule in exposing vice or folly.

If, as Randy Bauer suggests, one cannot tell the difference between
the real postings by Sam Sloan and the fake postings by the fake Sam
Sloan, I believe the latter fall clearly into the category of parody.
That is, after all, the point -- to produce something that is
congruent and at times indiscernible from the real, yet over time
identifiable as different and thus as parody.

Whether it is in good or execrable taste rather seems to me beyond the
point. I will grant, without reading it, that the community was
offended and it therefore was in bad taste.

Whether Mr. Truong committed misprision is another point entirely.

Cordially,

Tim Redman[/quote]

Tim Redman gets himself into even more trouble by writing about a
subject which he admits he knows nothing about.

The reason it was often difficult to tell the difference between the
postings by the Fake Sam Sloan and the real Sam Sloan (me) is that
one technique that the Fake Sam Sloan often used was to copy something
I actually wrote and then to modify it by adding an obscenity or a
personal attack or two or a reference to the sexual preferences to one
of the targets of the Fake Sam Sloan. For example, according if the
postings by the Fake Sam Sloan, I had relations with virtually every
top female chess player in the country, except for Polgar (the only
one whom I really did have relations with).

In order to tell the difference between the postings by the Fake Sam
Sloan and the Real Sam Sloan one would have to know that I never use
obscenities and the Fake Sam Sloan often does, I never make light of
the sexual preferences of anybody and the Fake Sam Sloan often does,
and I never call people names and the Fake Sam Sloan often did. Also,
one would have to know the email address that I post from, which are
[email protected] and [email protected] whereas the Fake Sam Sloan
never posted from those addresses but posted from a variety of others
including [email protected] and [email protected] and
[email protected] and, as "Ray Gordon", from [email protected]

It is interesting that earlier today Tim Redman claimed that he had
never used the word "satire" to describe the postings by the Fake Sam
Sloan, but now above he uses exactly that word.

I am below providing some more typical postings by The Fake Sam Sloan.
I am interested to know how funny Dr. Redman thinks the targets of
these "satirical" postings finds them to be. All of these postings are
proven to have been written by Susan Polgar and Paul Truong. None of
them are by me. We should find Dr. Redman rolling on the floor with
laughter after he reads these satirical postings. Remember that these
are just a few examples from the hundreds of postings like this by
Polgar and Truong.

Sam Sloan

Article: 302304
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: My chess goal
Date: 7 Oct 2006 17:08:49 -0700

I had sexual relationships with Rusudan Goletiani, Jennifer Shahade,
Anna Zatonskih, Tatev Abrahamyan, Chimi Batchimeg and Laura Ross. My
goal is to fuck every female player rated over 2200.

Sam Sloan

Article: 300715
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Shahade, Ross & Itkis
Date: 1 Sep 2006 08:08:41 -0700

I'll make a motion to use Jennifer Shahade, Laura Ross and Hana Itkis
in bikinis to promote scholastic chess. They're girls with very nice
racks. The boys will certainly love this idea and the girls will want
to be famous like them. This is the best way to raise scholastic
memberships.

Sam Sloan

Article: 289807
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Kosteniuk to appear in the May issue of Penthouse
Date: 5 Apr 2006 01:03:51 -0700

Congratulations to Mrs. Kosteniuk! Both Manakova and Kosteniuk have
publicly stated that they very much enjoy giving heads. They said they
like the attention they get from men when they perform oral sex. When
asked if they spit or swallow, they prefer the second one. We also
have Jennifer Shahade stating that she lusts for her female and male
opponents in threesome arrangements. Who wants to be first in line to
test these theories?

Sam Sloan

Article: 289758
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Re: chess bitch
Date: 4 Apr 2006 05:23:23 -0700

It's a must buy. Lesbians who love to give blowjobs. Shahade,
Kosteniuk and Manakova make a formidable team. It can't be any better.

Sam Sloan

Article: 289751
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Re: chess bitch
Date: 4 Apr 2006 00:44:27 -0700

I must say that Jennifer Shahade has the nicest pair of tits in
chess.Too bad she's a lesbian. I wouldn't mind converting here though.

Sam Sloan

Article: 289708
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
Subject: Re: Is Our Building in Crossville Insured against Tornado
Damage?
Date: 3 Apr 2006 08:48:13 -0700

I also hope that the USCF took out insurance coverage for Jennifer
Shahade's perky tits. They are national treasures.

Sam Sloan

Article: 289604
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Re: Who is the best role model for Chess?
Date: 2 Apr 2006 01:50:26 -0800

I want to see Kosteniuk pose naked in Hustler or Penthouse. That would
help popularize chess. Those perky little tits would do the trick.

Sam Sloan

Article: 287420
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Who has the biggest ...
Date: 5 Mar 2006 08:41:36 -0800

...boobs among women players? Marinello or Jennifer Shahade?

Who has the smallest boobs? Vicary or Kosteniuk?

Discuss among yourself.

Sam Sloan

Date: 03 Sep 2008 11:30:55
From: Judd for the Defense
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [quote="redman"]I thank Donna for letting me know that I am mentioned
> by the Fake Sam Sloan. It still doesn't provoke my curiosity to read
> further. I am currently rereading what was, in my view, the greatest
> journal of the 20th century, at least in English, The New Age. It can
> be found in pdf form at http://www.modjourn.org
>
> Reviewing some of the posts here, what struck me this time was Randy
> Bauer's statement that if he presented you with 10 postings by the
> real Sam Sloan and 10 by the fake Sam Sloan, you would be hard pressed
> to tell the difference. I have no reason to doubt Randy's judgment.
>
> At the same time, I would argue that his assertion confirms my
> statement that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan might constitute
> parody, which is a subset of satire, but not the same thing.
>
> Parody is either a humorous imitation or a poor and feeble imitation,
> a travesty. It does have satirical intent. Satire is the use of
> ridicule in exposing vice or folly.
>
> If, as Randy Bauer suggests, one cannot tell the difference between
> the real postings by Sam Sloan and the fake postings by the fake Sam
> Sloan, I believe the latter fall clearly into the category of parody.
> That is, after all, the point -- to produce something that is
> congruent and at times indiscernible from the real, yet over time
> identifiable as different and thus as parody.
>
> Whether it is in good or execrable taste rather seems to me beyond the
> point. I will grant, without reading it, that the community was
> offended and it therefore was in bad taste.
>
> Whether Mr. Truong committed misprision is another point entirely.
>
> Cordially,
>
> Tim Redman[/quote]
>
> Tim Redman gets himself into even more trouble by writing about a
> subject which he admits he knows nothing about.
>
> The reason it was often difficult to tell the difference between the
> postings by the Fake Sam Sloan and the real Sam Sloan (me) is that
> one technique that the Fake Sam Sloan often used was to copy something
> I actually wrote and then to modify it by adding an obscenity or a
> personal attack or two or a reference to the sexual preferences to one
> of the targets of the Fake Sam Sloan. For example, according if the
> postings by the Fake Sam Sloan, I had relations with virtually every
> top female chess player in the country, except for Polgar (the only
> one whom I really did have relations with).
>
> In order to tell the difference between the postings by the Fake Sam
> Sloan and the Real Sam Sloan one would have to know that I never use
> obscenities and the Fake Sam Sloan often does, I never make light of
> the sexual preferences of anybody and the Fake Sam Sloan often does,
> and I never call people names and the Fake Sam Sloan often did. Also,
> one would have to know the email address that I post from, which are
> [email protected] and [email protected] whereas the Fake Sam Sloan
> never posted from those addresses but posted from a variety of others
> including [email protected] and [email protected] and
> [email protected] and, as "Ray Gordon", from [email protected]
>
> It is interesting that earlier today Tim Redman claimed that he had
> never used the word "satire" to describe the postings by the Fake Sam
> Sloan, but now above he uses exactly that word.
>
> I am below providing some more typical postings by The Fake Sam Sloan.
> I am interested to know how funny Dr. Redman thinks the targets of
> these "satirical" postings finds them to be. All of these postings are
> proven to have been written by Susan Polgar and Paul Truong. None of
> them are by me. We should find Dr. Redman rolling on the floor with
> laughter after he reads these satirical postings. Remember that these
> are just a few examples from the hundreds of postings like this by
> Polgar and Truong.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
> Article: 302304
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: My chess goal
> Date: 7 Oct 2006 17:08:49 -0700
>
> I had sexual relationships with Rusudan Goletiani, Jennifer Shahade,
> Anna Zatonskih, Tatev Abrahamyan, Chimi Batchimeg and Laura Ross. My
> goal is to fuck every female player rated over 2200.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Article: 300715
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
> Subject: Shahade, Ross & Itkis
> Date: 1 Sep 2006 08:08:41 -0700
>
> I'll make a motion to use Jennifer Shahade, Laura Ross and Hana Itkis
> in bikinis to promote scholastic chess. They're girls with very nice
> racks. The boys will certainly love this idea and the girls will want
> to be famous like them. This is the best way to raise scholastic
> memberships.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Article: 289807
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups:
> rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
> Subject: Kosteniuk to appear in the May issue of Penthouse
> Date: 5 Apr 2006 01:03:51 -0700
>
> Congratulations to Mrs. Kosteniuk! Both Manakova and Kosteniuk have
> publicly stated that they very much enjoy giving heads. They said they
> like the attention they get from men when they perform oral sex. When
> asked if they spit or swallow, they prefer the second one. We also
> have Jennifer Shahade stating that she lusts for her female and male
> opponents in threesome arrangements. Who wants to be first in line to
> test these theories?
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
>
> Article: 289758
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups:
> rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: chess bitch
> Date: 4 Apr 2006 05:23:23 -0700
>
> It's a must buy. Lesbians who love to give blowjobs. Shahade,
> Kosteniuk and Manakova make a formidable team. It can't be any better.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Article: 289751
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups:
> rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: chess bitch
> Date: 4 Apr 2006 00:44:27 -0700
>
> I must say that Jennifer Shahade has the nicest pair of tits in
> chess.Too bad she's a lesbian. I wouldn't mind converting here though.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Article: 289708
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
> Subject: Re: Is Our Building in Crossville Insured against Tornado
> Damage?
> Date: 3 Apr 2006 08:48:13 -0700
>
> I also hope that the USCF took out insurance coverage for Jennifer
> Shahade's perky tits. They are national treasures.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
>
> Article: 289604
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: Re: Who is the best role model for Chess?
> Date: 2 Apr 2006 01:50:26 -0800
>
> I want to see Kosteniuk pose naked in Hustler or Penthouse. That would
> help popularize chess. Those perky little tits would do the trick.
>
> Sam Sloan
>
>
> Article: 287420
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
> Subject: Who has the biggest ...
> Date: 5 Mar 2006 08:41:36 -0800
>
> ...boobs among women players? Marinello or Jennifer Shahade?
>
> Who has the smallest boobs? Vicary or Kosteniuk?
>
> Discuss among yourself.
>
> Sam Sloan

Another brilliant move by the legal sooper genyious the alleged real Sam
Sloan, who republishes allegedly libelous material written by an alleged
imposter under his own alleged real screen name and then signs them using
his own real screen name. So not only has he demonstrated by juxtaposition
that anyone with half a brain would know that they were fake -- which is
obvious, because the postings in question are vaguely amusing, whereas as
the real Sloan is a deadly tedious bore -- but he's repeated himself
published material that allegedly damages his reputation, thereby diminshing
his damages. The Nitwit Gambit, nut to nut two, check.

Date: 02 Sep 2008 18:39:20
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Timothy P. Redman
<[email protected] > wrote:

Thank you, Mr. Sloan, for getting the quotes right.

However, your speculation about what happened at the meeting, my
having
votes in my hip pocket, etc., is the usual nonsense. Before I
voted I
consulted with two trusted friends from Texas, Dr. Alexey Root and
Luis
Salinas, and an old friend from Illinois, Fred Gruenberg, about
what
they thought. I voted with them, not the other way around.

Sincerely,

Tim Redman

I see.

So, instead of thinking for yourself, you let others do your thinking
for you.

Please note that the Fake Sam Sloan posted from [email protected] and
[email protected] and, as Ray Gordon, posted from
[email protected]

Neither I nor the Real Ray Gordon ever posted from any of those
addresses.

Although Tim Redman says that he does not care about this, some of the
other targets of the Fake Sam Sloan do care about this. They will be
interested to learn that Tim Redman considers these attacks to be
constitutionally protected satire and parody.

Since you state that you do not care what the Fake Sam Sloan said
about you, here are a few quotes from postings by the Fake Sam Sloan:

From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: Re: Redman to step down as UTD chess director
Date: 1 Sep 2006 08:03:46 -0700

That's good news. Redman is the worst USCF President ever. The
USCF
lost over $1 million under his presidency. He also tried to stop
me
from running for the board. But it's me who have the last laugh.

Sam Sloan

Article: 304660
Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!
out02a.usenetserver.com!news.usenetserver.com!in02.usenetserver.com!
news.usenetserver.com!postnews.google.com!79g2000cws.googlegroups.com!
not-for-mail
From: "samsloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
Subject: Re: Gay Chess Tournaments?
Date: 5 Dec 2006 19:21:58 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 32
Message-ID:
<[email protected] >
References: <[email protected] >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.67
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1165375325 21093 127.0.0.1 (6 Dec 2006
03:22:05 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 03:22:05 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected] >
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows
NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC
4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 (Velocity/1.3.32 [uScMs f p eN:t cCMp s ]), HTTP/
1.1 Turboweb [rtc-te092 8.4.1], HTTP/1.1 cache-rtc-
ab03.proxy.aol.com[98A36443] (Traffic-Server/6.1.3 [uScM])
Complaints-To: [email protected]
Injection-Info: 79g2000cws.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=152.163.100.67;
posting-account=Ua1dlw0AAAA1_dVRiSGiD5ejBHhRdV9F
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.games.chess.politics:304660
rec.games.chess.misc:269795 alt.chess:13396

We do have many gays and lesbians chess players. Here are some of
them:

- Sam Sloan
- Marcus Roberts
- Beatriz Marinello
- Eric Johnson
- Randy Hough
- Robert Tanner
- Tim Redman
- Ray Gordon
- Elizabeth Shaunessy
- Almira Skripchenko

Article: 304674
Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!
198.186.194.247.MISMATCH!news-out.readnews.com!news-
xxxfer.readnews.com!postnews.google.com!l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com!
not-for-mail
From: "Ray Gordon, creator of the pivot"
<[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: After a decent interval....
Date: 6 Dec 2006 04:29:25 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 129
Message-ID:
<[email protected] >
References:
<[email protected] >
<[email protected] >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.67
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1165408170 4471 127.0.0.1 (6 Dec 2006
12:29:30 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 12:29:30 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To:
<[email protected] >
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; AOL 9.0; Windows
NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC
4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; IEMB3; IEMB3),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 (Velocity/1.3.32 [uScMs f p eN:t cCMp s ]), HTTP/
1.1 Turboweb [rtc-tf044 8.4.1], HTTP/1.1 cache-rtc-
ab03.proxy.aol.com[98A36443] (Traffic-Server/6.1.3 [uScM])
Complaints-To: [email protected]
Injection-Info: l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=152.163.100.67;
posting-account=pzt0Dg0AAABJOWkhIGYqJEkINXRErvy4
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.games.chess.politics:304674
rec.games.chess.misc:269833

Evans is senile and can't write anymore. Parr ghost writes for him
for
50% fees. That's why Parr is pissed because he lost a monthly
paycheck
for ranting about Fischer. What a fucking pig. Byrne resigned and
so
should Evans. Bring on young cunts like Irina, Beatriz or
Jennifer.

Ray Gordon

Article: 304694
Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com!not-
for-mail
From: "samsloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: I will stop Polgar from getting elected to the EB
Date: 6 Dec 2006 17:53:41 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 9
Message-ID:
<[email protected] >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.67
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1165456427 20272 127.0.0.1 (7 Dec 2006
01:53:47 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 01:53:47 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; AOL 9.0; Windows
NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC
4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 (Velocity/1.3.32 [uScMs f p eN:t cCMp s ]), HTTP/
1.1 Turboweb [rtc-tb091 8.4.1], HTTP/1.1 cache-rtc-
ab03.proxy.aol.com[98A36443] (Traffic-Server/6.1.3 [uScM])
Complaints-To: [email protected]
Injection-Info: n67g2000cwd.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=152.163.100.67;
posting-account=Ua1dlw0AAAA1_dVRiSGiD5ejBHhRdV9F
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.games.chess.politics:304694
rec.games.chess.misc:269935 rec.games.chess.computer:177694

I'll do anything to stop Polgar from getting elected. This bitch is
not
going to stop my dream of getting re-elected for the executive board.
I
want 4 more years. I'll take her down. I'll do whatever it takes.
Her
idea of getting non-chess politicians to run for the EB is
stupid.
It'll never work. The USCF needs chess politicians like me. Vote
for
me! 4 more years! 4 more years!

Sam Sloan

Article: 304717
Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com!not-
for-mail
From: "Ray Gordon, creator of the pivot"
<[email protected] >
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
Subject: Sam Sloan the rapist
Date: 7 Dec 2006 04:20:51 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 101
Message-ID:
<[email protected] >
References:
<[email protected] >
NNTP-Posting-Host: 152.163.100.67
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1165494073 25506 127.0.0.1 (7 Dec 2006
12:21:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: [email protected]
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:21:13 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To:
<[email protected] >
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; AOL 9.0; Windows
NT 5.1; .NET CLR 1.0.3705; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; Media Center PC
4.0; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; IEMB3; IEMB3),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: HTTP/1.1 (Velocity/1.3.32 [uScMs f p eN:t cCMp s ]), HTTP/
1.1 Turboweb [rtc-tc063 8.4.1], HTTP/1.1 cache-rtc-
ab03.proxy.aol.com[98A36443] (Traffic-Server/6.1.3 [uScM])
Complaints-To: [email protected]
Injection-Info: 16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=152.163.100.67;
posting-account=pzt0Dg0AAABJOWkhIGYqJEkINXRErvy4
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com rec.games.chess.politics:304717
rec.games.chess.misc:269990 alt.chess:13402

It has been confirmed by Goichberg, Channing and Schultz that
Sloan
raped young boys.

Date: 04 Sep 2008 10:25:26
From: Richard
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

samsloan wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 5:58 PM, Timothy P. Redman
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you, Mr. Sloan, for getting the quotes right.
>>
>> However, your speculation about what happened at the meeting, my
>> having
>> votes in my hip pocket, etc., is the usual nonsense. Before I
>> voted I
>> consulted with two trusted friends from Texas, Dr. Alexey Root and
>> Luis
>> Salinas, and an old friend from Illinois, Fred Gruenberg, about
>> what
>> they thought. I voted with them, not the other way around.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Tim Redman
>
>
> I see.
>
> So, instead of thinking for yourself, you let others do your thinking
> for you.
>

I'm sorry, but consulting with people does not equal having them think
for you. By it's very definition, "consulting" means you are thinking.
You are gaining knowledge and/or advice with a view to solving a problem
or coming to a conclusion. Your conclusion based on what Mr Redman said,
is incorrect.

Date: 02 Sep 2008 17:33:42
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

On Sep 2, 7:37=A0pm, richard <[email protected] > wrote:

> wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!
>
> So file suit asshole.
> Yeah it's protected free speech, but there ain't no laws preventing
> the courts to make you pay for the privilege.

It seems you missed the point.

I filed the suit. It was dismissed "for lack of a federal question".

Sam Sloan

Date: 02 Sep 2008 16:37:19
From: richard
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 05:10:41 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:

>Over on the USCF Issues Forum, Former USCF President Tim Redman is
>arguing that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan were "satire" and
>"Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
>However, calling a female chess personality a "bulldyke" and calling a
>well known scholastic chess organizer a gay pedophile with a history
>of molesting young boys at chess tournaments, as the Fake Sam Sloan
>often did, is not satire.
>
>I am deeply shocked that Tim Redman would call such words
>"Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
>Sam Sloan

wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

So file suit asshole.
Yeah it's protected free speech, but there ain't no laws preventing
the courts to make you pay for the privilege.

Date: 02 Sep 2008 13:02:04
From: none
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

On Sep 2, 2:41=A0pm, "Judd for the Defense" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:a31ba159-0402-4ba2-ada1-35c6c409f42c@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Shirley had nothing to do with this either and by inserting "[is]"
> > with quotation marks around it you have created a false quote which
> > makes you, not me, guilty of libel.
>
> So you are retarded then. Okay.

Okay, okay boys...there is an six inch penalty for being rude duirng a
pissing match.

Date: 03 Sep 2008 11:10:51
From: Judd for the Defense
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

"none" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:69930e5c-1ebd-4d95-9a8f-75b89d785e8f@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 2, 2:41 pm, "Judd for the Defense" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:a31ba159-0402-4ba2-ada1-35c6c409f42c@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Shirley had nothing to do with this either and by inserting "[is]"
> > with quotation marks around it you have created a false quote which
> > makes you, not me, guilty of libel.
>
> So you are retarded then. Okay.

Okay, okay boys...there is an six inch penalty for being rude duirng a
pissing match.

===

What's the penalty for being an insufferable condescending fuckhead? Eight
inches?

Date: 02 Sep 2008 11:16:28
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

Shirley had nothing to do with this either and by inserting "[is]"
with quotation marks around it you have created a false quote which
makes you, not me, guilty of libel.

Sam Sloan

Date: 02 Sep 2008 18:41:17
From: Judd for the Defense
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:a31ba159-0402-4ba2-ada1-35c6c409f42c@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Shirley had nothing to do with this either and by inserting "[is]"
> with quotation marks around it you have created a false quote which
> makes you, not me, guilty of libel.

So you are retarded then. Okay.

Date: 02 Sep 2008 10:39:51
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

On Sep 2, 1:32=A0pm, "Judd for the Defense" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Again, I must ask you or Mr Sloan f they have proof of this despicable al=
legation.

The truth is that the Fake Sam Sloan, Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
all said that about another candidate they opposed. They did not say
that about me or Dr. Redman.

Sam Sloan

Date: 02 Sep 2008 17:53:05
From: Judd for the Defense
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b6fe4a63-a833-4ec4-881c-6c2c64c64c01@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 2, 1:32 pm, "Judd for the Defense" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Again, I must ask you or Mr Sloan f they have proof of this despicable
> allegation.

The truth is that the Fake Sam Sloan, Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
all said that about another candidate they opposed. They did not say
that about me or Dr. Redman.

====

On the contrary, you made the allegation that "Dr. Redman [is] a gay
pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments he
directs" and I am asking you for evidence. Shirley with your sooper geniouos
legal IQ you don't think that making a statement like that and merely
masking it in the hypothetical makes it not libel and not actionable, do
you, you fucking retard?

Date: 02 Sep 2008 08:21:49
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

On Tue, Sep 2, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Timothy P. Redman
<[email protected] > wrote:
Dear Mr. Sloan,

I am also shocked that I used such terms as "satire" and
"Constitutionally Protected Speech." =A0In fact, unless I am gravely
mistaken, I never used the terms "satire" and "Constitutionally
Protected Speech."

These are inventions by you, Mr. Sloan.

Like all of your inventions, they are amusing, about 10% reliable, and
the result of someone who shoots from the lip.

Recommendation.

If Mr. Sloan would be so good as to quell his impetus to simply lash
out at people, and actually do some fact checking, he might at some
future point be of some benefit to the Federation.

In my profession, quotation marks are used for something that someone
actually said.

Mr. Sloan invents quotes me for things that I never said. For example,
if I said that Mr. Sloan said the he was a "homeless, penniless
dirtbag" who delighted in the "meritless attention he was receiving
from the USCF" and that he was being "treated for a narcissistic
disorder," I would be dead wrong. Mr. Sloan, in fact, never said those
things.

Temper, Mr. Sloan, temper. Or perhaps distemper.

I am sure that your case will get a home in some court, in some
jurisdiction, somewhere, sometime.

Cordially,

Tim Redman

p.s. I am sure that we will soon get an e-mail from Mr. Sloan
correcting me and explaining that, in fact, his quotation marks are
not really quotation marks, but what he thought I meant, or what I
ought to have meant, or what he was too lazy to look into and report
factually.

God bless.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Tim Redman insists that I quote him directly rather than my summary
=93Constitutionally protected speech=94.

I admit that the terms "protected speech" and "satire" are quotes from
John Hillary, not from Tim Redman, but in the next posting Redman
wrote that they finally agree on something.

Here are Dr. Redman's exact words in response to the statement by John
Hillery about satire and protected speech.

"And hello, John Hillery. Is it possible that we agree on something?
Well, after all of these years I have to say, you must be right."

However, Dr. Redman did use the term "parody". He wrote "parody, to
me, is a legitimate genre of dissent."

I would like for Dr. Redman to explain to us all why it is "parody" to
call the USCF President a "bulldyke" or why it is parody to call an
election opponent a "gay pedophile".

Tim Redman repeatedly invokes the US Constitution and his membership
in the ACLU in his defense of the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan. He
calls the postings parody.

I note that Tim Redman was never attacked by the Fake Sam Sloan. I
wonder why. I would have been willing to wager that if the Fake Sam
Sloan had ever called Dr. Redman a gay pedophile with a history of
soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments he directs, then Dr.
Redman would suddenly drop his high sounding words about the US
Constitution protecting satire and parody.

I am also shocked by the fact that at the USCF Delegates Meeting in
Dallas, Tim Redman spoke several times in defense of Truong and he had
a group of fellow Texans with him who constituted the swing-bloc which
brought about the defeat of the motions, yet he now admits that he has
never read the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan or the Mottershead
Report and that all he knows about them is what was presented to the
delegates. I am shocked that a former USCF President would come to
such an important meeting and cast such important votes without
bothering to familiarize himself with the issues either before or
since. Now he writes about the USCF election next year, basically
implying that if his group wins election, all of the USCF lawsuits
will be dismissed.

Since Dr. Redman insist on exact quotes, here they are:

"The founders/framers took a great deal of trouble in defining
treason, the only crime, if I recall, mentioned in the Constitution.
Their necks were on the line, as it were.

"Under the "mere words" doctrine, treasonable speech, by whoever's
standards, cannot be prosecuted.

"Cordially,

"Tim"

"Two legitimate points have been raised. The first is that I have not
read the Fake Sam Sloan postings. I have not and do not intend to.

"My point simply was conceptual and [i]a priori[/i]: free speech is
allowed, politically incorrect, blasphemous, inciting terrorist or
treasonable acts, racist, homophobic, sexist, or whatever. As I think
I pointed out, I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU.

"I continue to deplore our recourse to litigation, but I have been
around long enough to realize that all of this has less to do with the
merits of the various cases than it has to do with the upcoming
Executive Board election.

"Cordially,

"Tim Redman"

"I have been following this thread with sorrow. My feelings come not
because of the posts, all in the best interests of the Federation, all
within the bounds of respectful discourse, all contributing to the
kind of comity we need to advance the cause of the USCF. They come
because the Federation has finally come to the point that litigation
seems the only possible resolution to our problems.

"I do not believe that the Sloan suit has merit, as a lawsuit. But I
think it has cause. I am a card-carrying member of the American Civil
Liberties Union, I am also the President of a chapter in PEN USA. PEN
is the oldest international human rights organization that defends the
right of authors to say what they think.

"When it comes to the Fake Sam Sloan postings, parody, to me, is a
legitimate genre of dissent. Mr, Sloan's rights should be protected.

"At the same time, I have not looked at the Fake Sam Sloan postings,
and only know what was read to us by Executive Director Bill Hall. I
am sure, from the example we were given, that they were very
offensive.

"Last time I looked, bad taste is not a shooting offense (except in
Texas).

"Election results will change politics. The current suits are in that
respect temporizing. All will depend upon the next election of the
Executive Board. These people will be elected under our One Member One
Vote system (OMOV). The new Executive Board will be able to dismiss
any current lawsuits.

"Cordially,

"Tim Redman"

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

I find most curious the above quote where he writes: "When it comes to
the Fake Sam Sloan postings, parody, to me, is a legitimate genre of
dissent. Mr, Sloan's rights should be protected."

Strangely, he writes, "the Federation has finally come to the point
that litigation seems the only possible resolution to our problems."

However, this is because Redman and his group voted against the motion
to recall Truong. Redman, who lives in Texas, had enough votes in his
hip pocket to swing the result of the vote in Dallas. If instead the
vote had carried and Truong had been removed, my lawsuit and now my
appeal might not have been necessary. Now, with the forthcoming
election coming up, if two Truong candidates are elected, Truong will
control the USCF and can do whatever he wants with the $3.2 million in
annual revenues the USCF receives. This, all because of Dr. Redman's
votes.

The central issue is not what Paul Truong wrote, but the fact that he
signed my name to his postings. What we have here is forgery,
impersonation, and identity theft, all of which are crimes punishable
by years in prison. We have absolute, conclusive proof that all this
was done in thousands of postings by Paul Truong in which he signed
either my name or the names of others such as Ray Gordon. If Paul
Truong had signed his own name to his postings, I would agree that he
would have a constitutional right to do that, but I fail to understand
why Tim Redman seems to be claiming that Paul Truong had a
constitutional right to sign my name to his postings.

Also, had Paul Truong signed his own name to his postings, he would
have lost the election. By signing my name to his obscene postings, he
caused me to lose the election and enabled him to win the election.
That is the point to my lawsuit.

The decision by Judge Chin stated that the statute I cite as having
been violated is a criminal statute which does not create a private
right of action. However, the only case Judge Chin cites is a 1992
unreported district court case from the Eastern District of New York.
That case, being a lower court case, is not controlling authority and
it did not deal with Internet identity theft, as Internet identity
theft did not even exist in 1992 or, if it did exist, it did not
affect millions of people as it does today.

I fully believe that Judge Chin's decision will be overturned on
appeal and I even believe that some of my opponents in this litigation
will be unwilling to support Judge Chin's ruling.

Sam Sloan

Date: 02 Sep 2008 15:41:57
From: Judd for the Defense
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:640ce2a6-98e3-437e-9089-2d98c1fb5e00@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...

Dr. Redman a gay pedophile with a history of
soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments he directs,

===============

Do you have any evidence to back up this libelous allegation against Dr
Redman?

Date: 02 Sep 2008 17:09:19
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

Judd for the Defense wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:640ce2a6-98e3-437e-9089-2d98c1fb5e00@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dr. Redman a gay pedophile with a history of
> soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments he directs,
>
> ===============
>
> Do you have any evidence to back up this libelous allegation against Dr
> Redman?
>
>
That isn't what Mr. Sloan wrote. Sloan wrote, "I would have been
willing to wager that if the Fake Sam Sloan had ever called Dr. Redman a
gay pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex at chess
tournaments he directs, then Dr. Redman would suddenly drop his high
sounding words about the US Constitution protecting satire and parody."

Not actionable at all.

Date: 02 Sep 2008 17:32:01
From: Judd for the Defense
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:3revk.354$393.180@trnddc05...
> Judd for the Defense wrote:
>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:640ce2a6-98e3-437e-9089-2d98c1fb5e00@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Dr. Redman a gay pedophile with a history of
>> soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments he directs,
>>
>> ===============
>>
>> Do you have any evidence to back up this libelous allegation against Dr
>> Redman?
> That isn't what Mr. Sloan wrote. Sloan wrote, "I would have been willing
> to wager that if the Fake Sam Sloan had ever called Dr. Redman a gay
> pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments
> he directs, then Dr. Redman would suddenly drop his high sounding words
> about the US Constitution protecting satire and parody."
>
> Not actionable at all.

If I understand you correctly you're saying that truth is a defense to libel
and that you're agreeing with Sam Sloan when states that "Dr. Redman [is] a
gay pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments
he directs." Again, I must ask you or Mr Sloan f they have proof of this
despicable allegation.

Date: 08 Sep 2008 00:44:17
From: Mike
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

"Judd for the Defense" <[email protected] > wrote in
news:lMevk.246$Dj1.117@trnddc02:

>
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:3revk.354$393.180@trnddc05...
>> Judd for the Defense wrote:
>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]
>>> m...
>>>
>>> Dr. Redman a gay pedophile with a history of
>>> soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments he directs,
>>>
>>> ===============
>>>
>>> Do you have any evidence to back up this libelous allegation against
>>> Dr Redman?
>> That isn't what Mr. Sloan wrote. Sloan wrote, "I would have been
>> willing to wager that if the Fake Sam Sloan had ever called Dr.
>> Redman a gay pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex at
>> chess tournaments he directs, then Dr. Redman would suddenly drop his
>> high sounding words about the US Constitution protecting satire and
>> parody."
>>
>> Not actionable at all.
>
> If I understand you correctly you're saying that truth is a defense to
> libel and that you're agreeing with Sam Sloan when states that "Dr.
> Redman [is] a gay pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex
> at chess tournaments he directs." Again, I must ask you or Mr Sloan f
> they have proof of this despicable allegation.
>
>
>
Not my argument but you argue like gordy roy parker - you take things and
twist their context and then whine about it.
you also use one of his favorite tactics when you say "If I understand
you correctly you're saying that..." and then proceed to say something
that is not at all what was said.

I do understand that you feel the need to do this when you have
absolutely no chance of prevailing using truth and logic but a more
interesting question might be asking why you feel the need to win at any
cost?

Date: 02 Sep 2008 20:58:30
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

Judd for the Defense wrote:
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:3revk.354$393.180@trnddc05...
>> Judd for the Defense wrote:
>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:640ce2a6-98e3-437e-9089-2d98c1fb5e00@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Dr. Redman a gay pedophile with a history of
>>> soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments he directs,
>>>
>>> ===============
>>>
>>> Do you have any evidence to back up this libelous allegation against Dr
>>> Redman?
>> That isn't what Mr. Sloan wrote. Sloan wrote, "I would have been willing
>> to wager that if the Fake Sam Sloan had ever called Dr. Redman a gay
>> pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments
>> he directs, then Dr. Redman would suddenly drop his high sounding words
>> about the US Constitution protecting satire and parody."
>>
>> Not actionable at all.
>
> If I understand you correctly you're saying that truth is a defense to libel
> and that you're agreeing with Sam Sloan when states that "Dr. Redman [is] a
> gay pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments
> he directs." Again, I must ask you or Mr Sloan f they have proof of this
> despicable allegation.
>
>
No. The exact statement made by Mr. Sloan stated a clear hypothetical
noting that IF such an allegation had been made by the FSS as to Mr.
Redman, Mr. Redman, in Mr. Sloan's opinion, would have been upset.

Date: 03 Sep 2008 11:21:48
From: Judd for the Defense
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:WNhvk.259$Dj1.172@trnddc02...
> Judd for the Defense wrote:
>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:3revk.354$393.180@trnddc05...
>>> Judd for the Defense wrote:
>>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>> news:640ce2a6-98e3-437e-9089-2d98c1fb5e00@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Dr. Redman a gay pedophile with a history of
>>>> soliciting boys for sex at chess tournaments he directs,
>>>>
>>>> ===============
>>>>
>>>> Do you have any evidence to back up this libelous allegation against Dr
>>>> Redman?
>>> That isn't what Mr. Sloan wrote. Sloan wrote, "I would have been
>>> willing to wager that if the Fake Sam Sloan had ever called Dr. Redman a
>>> gay pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex at chess
>>> tournaments he directs, then Dr. Redman would suddenly drop his high
>>> sounding words about the US Constitution protecting satire and parody."
>>>
>>> Not actionable at all.
>>
>> If I understand you correctly you're saying that truth is a defense to
>> libel and that you're agreeing with Sam Sloan when states that "Dr.
>> Redman [is] a gay pedophile with a history of soliciting boys for sex at
>> chess tournaments he directs." Again, I must ask you or Mr Sloan f they
>> have proof of this despicable allegation.
>>
>>
> No. The exact statement made by Mr. Sloan stated a clear hypothetical
> noting that IF such an allegation had been made by the FSS as to Mr.
> Redman, Mr. Redman, in Mr. Sloan's opinion, would have been upset.

Right. And I'm asking what evidence exists to support the hypothetical
(supposition; conjecture; based primarily on surmise rather than adequate
evidence) that this Redman fellow like to stick his engorged peepee in
little boys, which is the libelous conjecture put forth by Sloan. Shirley
you don't think that you can willy nilly make any heinous statement you want
about anyone you want as long as phrase it as some dopey hypothetical.
Suppose Brian Lafferty were a pedophile wearing a red shirt and that he had
raped and murdered several children who buried them in his basement. How
many children do you suppose the pedophile Brian Lafferty would have raped
murdered and buried in his basement if he'd been wearing a blue shirt.
Discuss.

Date: 02 Sep 2008 07:44:51
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

On Sep 2, 7:10=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Over on the USCF Issues Forum, Former USCF President Tim Redman is
> arguing that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan were "satire" and
> "Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
> However, calling a female chess personality a "bulldyke" and calling a
> well known scholastic chess organizer a gay pedophile with a history
> of molesting young boys at chess tournaments, as the Fake Sam Sloan
> often did, is not satire.
>
> I am deeply shocked that Tim Redman would call such words
> "Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
> Sam Sloan

Whether these are constitutionally protected or not doesn't matter
much with regard to fitness to serve on the board. Truong denied these
were his repeatedly, and this led to a prolonged fight which is bad
for the board. If (as I believe) he is the poster, he must step down
from the board; the court can then decide issues of whether this was
just nasty or illegal behavior.

Jerry Spinrad

Date: 02 Sep 2008 07:36:18
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

samsloan wrote:

> Over on the USCF Issues Forum, Former USCF President Tim Redman is
> arguing that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan were "satire" and
> "Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
> However, calling a female chess personality a "bulldyke" and calling a
> well known scholastic chess organizer a gay pedophile with a history
> of molesting young boys at chess tournaments, as the Fake Sam Sloan
> often did, is not satire.

It is incorrect to characterize all of the FSS
postings as if they were homogenized, mixed
and stirred with some secret ingredient that
keeps them everywhere the same.

The fact is, some of the postings may fit
the definition of satire, while others may well
be described as something else, something
criminal.

Obviously, the lawsuit against the FSS will
tend to pea-pick examples which are not
merely satire, while a defense lawyer may
try to give examples which were-- to muddy
the waters. But all it should take for a win is
to show that /some/ of the FSS postings
amounted to criminal behavior, and of course
demonstrating the identity of the FSS.

-- help bot

Date: 02 Sep 2008 13:47:42
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Constitutionally protected speech??

samsloan wrote:
> Over on the USCF Issues Forum, Former USCF President Tim Redman is
> arguing that the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan were "satire" and
> "Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
> However, calling a female chess personality a "bulldyke" and calling a
> well known scholastic chess organizer a gay pedophile with a history
> of molesting young boys at chess tournaments, as the Fake Sam Sloan
> often did, is not satire.
>
> I am deeply shocked that Tim Redman would call such words
> "Constitutionally Protected Speech".
>
> Sam Sloan

Mr. Redman is completely incorrect if he thinks that the FSS postings
were satire. They were anonymous harassment and defamation. The
satire/parody defense has been periodically floated by Trolgar minions
before. It's sad to see supposedly intelligent people acting as
apologists for these kinds of acts by such people. But, that's not
unusual in our world. The motives vary, but one motive is never
there--truth.