| |
Main
Date: 04 Feb 2008 14:41:58
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: First Draft - Affidavit in Opposition - Commernts Please
|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
Sam Sloan,
Plaintiff,
Civil
Action No. 07-CV-8537 (DC)
-against-
Hoainhan "Paul" Truong, Zsuzsanna "Susan" Polgar,
Joel Channing, William Goichberg, The United States
Chess Federation, Bill Hall, Herbert Rodney Vaughn,
Gregory Alexander, Frank Niro, Grant Perks, William
Brock, Randall Hough, Randy Bauer, Jim Berry,
Texas Tech University and United States of America,
Defendants
__________________________________________
AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION
TO DISMISS ON FEDERAL QUESTIONS ISSUE
__________________________________________
Samuel H. Sloan, the plaintiff herein, being duly sworn, deposes and
says:
1. I make this affidavit in opposition to the motion by various
defendants to dismiss this action on the grounds of lack of a federal
question.
2. Frankly, I consider the issues raised by the moving defendants to
be frivolous. There are a great abundance of federal questions here. I
think the defendants are just trying to buy time and to convince their
clients that they are doing the best they can.
3. The United States Chess Federation ("USCF") has 86,000 members.
Every state of the 50 states have members, with the least being
Wyoming with about 500 members. The USCF represents the United States
of America internationally. We are the equivalent to the United States
Olympic Committee, except that instead of representing the USA in
hundreds of sports, we only represent the USA in one activity, chess.
4. It is obvious that if the United States Olympic Committee or any
other comparable organization such as the National Football League or
the National Basket ball Association had experienced the massive
election fraud, identity theft, online forgery, impersonations,
misappropriations of funds and so on as have characterized the USCF in
the past two years, the FBI would have moved in already and started
making arrests. There would be people in jail now. There has not
happened because there is not that much interest in chess.
5. There have been three forensic reports produced thus far. There are
the Mottershead Report, the Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.
These three reports all reach the same conclusion. The Mottershead
Report has proved absolutely, conclusively that Hoainhan "Paul" Truong
sent 2464 fake or forged Internet postings over a two year period from
June 25, 2005 until October, 2007. That is two thousand four hundred
sixty four postings, most of which impersonated me, Sam Sloan,
although some of them impersonated Ray Gordon, Andrew Zito and other
real or fake personalities.
6. As to why I in particular would be the target of most of these
impersonations, the best way to explain it is that I am the equivalent
of the "Jack Anderson" of chess. Jack Anderson as you will recall was
a newspaper columnists reporting on J. Edgar Hoover's apparent ties to
the Mafia, Watergate, the John F. Kennedy assassination, the Nixon
Administration, the Savings and Loan scandal, the CIA plans to
assassinate Fidel Castro, the Iran-Contra affair and so on. He was a
crusader against corruption. Henry Kissinger called Jack Anderson "the
most dangerous man in America". The USCF Insiders such as Bill
Goichberg have the same view of me as Richard Nixon had of Jack
Anderson.
7. Because I have a wide readership, anybody wanting to bring down the
USCF leadership might decide to impersonate me. Paul Truong is a
complete nobody in the world of chess. When he started impersonating
me, nobody would have bothered to read anything written by him.
Therefore, when he wanted to attack somebody he would sign my name
rather than his own name to his postings. Over the period of two and a
half years, Truong, whom we now know to have been "The Fake Sam Sloan"
as he was called, attacked virtually every significant chess
personality except for Paul Truong, Susan Polgar and Joel Channing.
The fact that he never attacked Joel Channing is one of the reasons
that I believe that Joel Channing was in on this from the beginning.
8. I wish to emphasize that it is 100% proven that Paul Truong did
this. Not merely 99% sure, not merely "beyond reasonable doubt", but
absolutely 100% certain, no doubt at all.
9. Next, the motivation. The motivation is clear: He did it to attack
the rivals of his wife, Susan Polgar, and ultimately to seize control
of the financial assets of the United States Chess Federation, which
has $3.2 million in annual revenues.
10. One of the most frequent targets of attack by "The Fake Sam Sloan"
is Beatriz inello, a woman chess grandmaster and President of the
United States Chess Federation from 2003 to 2005. The Fake Sam Sloan
has called her a "bulldyke" one hundred times in Internet postings
over a period of two years. Paul Truong, this time not in disguise,
went to the Scholastic Counsel and other scholastic groups and told
them that inello was a lesbian. Truong also called me, Sam Sloan,
on the phone in 2004 and told me that inello was a lesbian.
11. Most of the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan, whom we now know to be
Truong, contained sexual references, usually making claims about the
sexual preferences of the targets. For example, Grandmaster Alexandria
Kosteniuk, a Russian girl who lives in Florida, is called "a Lolita".
Truong also conducted a campaign to kick Kosteniuk's name off the USCF
Rating lists, since Kostenuik was rated higher than Susan Polgar (who
falsely claims to be a "world champion") and to kick the picture of
Kosteniuk out of Chess Life magazine to be replaced by pictures of
Polgar. (In 2004-2005 most issues of Chess Life magazine had pictures
of Kosteniuk. In 2006-2007 almost every issue of Chess Life had
pictures of Polgar.)
12. Among the most frequent other targets of attack by The Fake Sam
Sloan were US Woman's Champion Jennifer Shahade, former USCF President
Don Schultz, and Chairman of the Seattle Chess Foundation Erik
Anderson.
13. Please remember that most of these thousands of attacks were
signed "Sam Sloan". It thus appeared that I, the Real Sam Sloan, was
attacking all of these people. Also, the 2464 "Fake Sam Sloan"
postings found by the Mottershead Report to have been made by Paul
Truong were crossposted to two and sometimes three usenet groups,
rec.games.chess.politics , rec.games.chess.misc and alt.chess. Thus,
counting the crosspostings, there were more than five thousand
postings. These postings were not made on just one website located in
just one state. They were made on Usenet and broadcast all over the
entire world and picked up and preserved in every country of the
world. The total readership of these postings was at least in the
hundreds of thousands and probably in the millions.
14. In challenging the jurisdiction of this court to consider this
issue, the defendants have cited exactly one case. Best Van Lines,
Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007). However, that case does
not lead to the conclusion they seek, for several reasons.
15. Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007)
involved a website in Iowa that posts reviews of moving companies. I
have looked at this website and it contains statements such as "this
moving company scratched my furniture", "that moving company lost my
suitcase" and so on. I have yet to find a favorable review of any
moving company on that website.
16. Best Van Lines is a moving company located in New York that was
subjected to allegedly defamatory reks by the Walker website in
Iowa. Ass a result, suit was filed in the Southern District of New
York.
17. The District Court ruled and the Second Circuit affirmed that Best
Van Lines must sue in Iowa, where the Walker website is located. By
analogy, this is similar to a case of a small-town in newspaper in
Iowa that has a few readers in New York.
18. However, the case presented here is different for a number of
reasons. One is that the defamatory postings were not made on a simple
website. They were broadcast and propagated all around the world in
every country of the world. In the Best Van Lines case, if the
computer hosting the Walker website were to crash, nobody in the
entire world would be able to see it any more. However, in the case
presented here, if one computer or even one hundred computers crash,
the Truong postings will still be visible in many other places.
Indeed, when Truong was apprehended, he stayed up all night in Mexico
City where he was at the time trying to delete as many of these
postings as he possibly could. He was able to delete many of them from
Google Newsgroups, because that is where he had first posted them, but
he still has not been able to delete them from Forte Inc. Agent, from
Giganews.com or from the many other services that carry these
newsgroups.
19. William Brock in his motion to dismiss states that his postings
which in general stated that I am a child molester were all posted
from his CPA Office in the Chicago Loop. However, the location of his
personal computer is of little moment. What is important is where he
posted them. Not only did he post them on the Usenet groups around the
world, but he posted them on such places as the New York Times website
which is obviously located in New York State.
20. An example of Brock's postings on the New York Times website is
at:
http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/the-lawsuit-against-polgar-and-truong-et-al-a-forum/
21. There, you will see numerous postings by William Brock on the New
York Times website where he provides links to places where, he claims,
one can find proof that I am a child molester and a child
pornographer. Mr. Brock is obviously a sick, disturbed man. Clearly,
Mr. Brock cannot now claim that the New York courts have no
jurisdiction over this.
22. Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239, 250-51 (2d Cir.
2007) involved a moving company in New York complaining about a
website in Iowa. However, in the case before this court, defendants
have made a point of posting on forums read by the widest possible
readership which are broadcast Worldwide. Even after the filing and
service of this lawsuit, Defendant William Brock has made defamatory
postings to the New York Times website which is, of course, located in
New York. The New York Times has published ten articles about this
case, three in the paper print version of the newspaper and the other
seven on the online or "Gambit Blog" of the Newspaper. William Brock
has continued posting his defamatory material accusing me of being a
pornographer to these New York Times Gambit Blogs even while this case
has been pending before this court. The first of these articles in the
New York Times was "Chess Group Officials Accused of Using Internet to
Hurt Rivals" by DYLAN LOEB McCLAIN Published: October 8, 2007 Kindly
take a look at it.
23. Similarly, William Brock has posted these claims that I am a child
molester to the "Daily Dirt" column of the chessninja.com website
which is based in New York and operated by Mig Greengard in Greenwich
Village, New York City and he has posted to the Susan Polgar Blogspot
at susanpolgar.blogspot.com during which time and until approximately
May, 2007 Susan Polgar resided in Rego Park, Queens, New York. Mr.
Brock has posted 97 times to my biography on the Wikipedia
Encyclopedia. Most importantly, William Brock has posted thousands of
times since 2004 to the Internet Usenet groups
rec.games.chess.politics and rec.games.chess.misc . These Usenet
postings are not maintained at any one location. They are propagated
and broadcast all over the world. If one computer crashes there will
be plenty of others to back it up. That is the reason why the Internet
is called "the World Wide Web". Although Google Newsgroups is the most
popular place to post to and view these newsgroups, there are many
others including Forte Agent and Giganews.
24. There is a big difference between the Bill Brock postings and the
Paul Truong postings. Bill Brock signs his own name. He openly states
that he is the poster and has many times challenged and dared me to
sue him.
25. Paul Truong, however, signs MY NAME to his postings. He says that
he is me. This is a much more serious case of Internet Identity Theft,
Forgery and Impersonation.
26. Paul Truong does post under his own name on the USCF Issues Forum
on the uschess.org website, because Fake-Name postings are not allowed
there (This rule was enacted to stop Herbert Rodney Vaughn who posts
as tanstaafl from posting his anonymous attacks on me.) Here is a
posting by Truong on Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:32 am #16962
Well, as a life member of the USCF and someone who devote a lot of
time, energy and money to promote scholastic chess, and someone with
children playing chess, the background of a board member is vital to
me, especially when someone has a horrific sexual history with minors.
You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. Sam Sloan
is a danger to my children, the young members of the USCF and a
serious legal liability to the USCF. Frankly, it appalls me the there
are people who are willing to close their eyes and accept this
monster.
27. As we now know, the real danger to Truong's children is Paul
Truong himself because two judges of the Queens Family Court, Judge
Friedman and Referee Nigron, have issued orders of protection
prohibiting Paul Truong and Susan Polgar from inflicting corporal
punishment on their children for refusing to play chess. I have never
received any such order of this nature from any judge.
28. Not only has Bill Brock stated that I am a child molester thousand
of times on the public newgroups, but he was also allowed to post that
on the USCF website:
by billbrock on Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:19 am #16303
For the record: Sam Sloan is a convicted felon. His two felony
convictions directly impacted the safety and well-being of his
children, but were not sexual in nature AFAIK.
For the record: I maintain that Sloan is a child molester by his
self-admitted conduct. He has never been convicted of such.
29. On this last point, I ask this court to search Lexus-Nexus and
find the 6-3 decision by the Virginia Court of Appeals which affirmed
my conviction. Please read carefully the opinion by the three
dissenting judges. That dissenting opinion makes it clear that I was
not remotely guilty of anything and could not possibly have been
convicted in a properly conducted trial with a proper defense.
30. All this pertains to just one count of the complaint, namely the
thousands of Internet postings by Truong and Brock impersonating me or
calling me a "child molester" and other names.
31. There are four other counts to the complaint, numerous sub-counts
and numerous causes of action.
32. One of these concerns the criminal theft by Truong and Polgar on
August 20, 2003 of the USCF laptop computer which would have contained
information about the missing two million dollars of USCF funds.
33. In 1999 the USCF had approximately two million dollars on deposit
with the Oberweiss Fund, a mutual fund listed on the New York Stock
Exchange.
24. By 2003 that two million dollars had been reduced to five dollars.
Since there was no point in having an account with only five dollars
in it, the Oberweiss account was closed. When the account was closed,
Frank Niro, who was the Executive Director at the time, changed the
accounting system to hide the horrific losses. The real question is:
Who lost the money and what happened to it? The two Executive
Directors during the relevant period were George DeFeis and Frank
Niro. Both probably padded their resumes to get hired. DeFeis probably
did not really have a Masters Degree in Business administration from
Bernard Baruch School of Finance. Frank Niro claimed that he had
received as award of "Hospital Administrator of the Year" but we have
not been able to find out what hospital and what organization gave
this award. (On this point, Bill Hall is a vast improvement on his
predecessors. Unlike DeFeis and Niro who probably padded their
resumes, Bill Hall honestly admits that he has no qualifications
whatever for the job of Executive Director.) In either case, nearly
two million dollars is missing and the laptop is missing too that
would tell us what happened to the money. Polgar and Truong have
admitted to taking the laptop, which was obviously criminal theft, and
they have refused to return it. Bill Goichberg has made no effort to
recover the laptop. Frank Niro is named as a defendant to this lawsuit
but his own attorney, Proskauer Rose, has been unable to locate him.
Truong and Polgar know where Frank Niro is. They have even visited him
in Washington State fairly recently and posed for pictures with him
there which are on the susanpolgar.com website, but refuse to reveal
where he can be contacted. Frank Niro has also posted about this case
on Paul Truong's chessdiscussion.com website so he certainly knows
about it.
25. I personally believe that George DeFeis lost most of the money but
that Frank Niro ripped of a fair piece of change for himself and is
hiding, waiting for the statute of limitations to expire.
26. Meanwhile, Jeff Loomis, who was the Chief Financial Officer under
DeFeis has suddenly reappeared TODAY !!! and has just posted on Susan
Polgar's Chess Discussion group. Perhaps we can bring him in since the
rest of them have absconded.
27. In short, there are more than enough grounds for federal
jurisdiction here. Also, if not here, then where? If this sort of case
does not raise a federal question, it then becomes possible for
someone in Timbuktu, Mali, or in Russia, China or Nigeria to blanket
the Internet with fraudulent postings. We already have millions of
"Nigerian Scam" letters being received in people's email boxes every
day. Undoubtedly, there are people who fall for these scams because
the emails keep coming. Would this court rule that a victim would have
to go to Nigeria to sue them? We also have a United States
Presidential Election coming up and already there have been reports
and complaints of similar Internet scams involving the presidential
candidates. Those cases are much smaller than the instant case in that
here we have 2,464 fake Usenet postings impersonating me and others,
whereas most comparable cases involve just one or two emails.
28. A comparable and relevant case is Global Ministries vs.
Cablevision Lightpath, CV 06-3669 (DRH) decided in the Eastern
District of New York on November 30, 2006. This case involves an issue
in this case, because that case turned on the right to obtain IP
addresses. The Mottershead Report which found that Paul Truong had
made the 2,464 Usenet postings under the name of Sam Sloan tracked the
IP addresses of the various computers used by Truong and matched them
with the computers used by the "Fake Sam Sloan". This showed a
rekable coincidence in that where ever Paul Truong was the Fake Sam
Sloan was there too. When Paul Truong posted from Rego Park, Queens,
the Fake Sam Sloan posted from Rego Park Queens too. When Paul Truong
moved to Lubbock, Texas to work for Texas Tech University the Fake Sam
Sloan moved there. When Paul Truong and Susan Polgar went to Mexico
City in September 2007 to visit the World Chess Championship, the Fake
Sam Sloan posted from there too. Not only that, but they used the same
computers, the same IP address and the same User Agent String.
29. With this happened consistently over and over again it became
obvious that the Fake Sam Sloan and Paul Truong were one and the same.
30. This is why Paul Truong's priy defense as reported by the New
York Times is that the evidence against him was "illegally" obtained.
31. However, in Global Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath, CV
06-3669 (DRH) decided November 30, 2006, the court ruled:
III.Ms. Brown's Constitutional Rights
The court must consider whether granting the petition will violate Ms.
Brown's constitutional rights. The unknown defendant is alleged to
have used Cablevision's services to access the stored electronic
communications of petitioner, without authorization. In addition, the
unknown defendant logged into the e-mail account of an employee of
petitioner and used that person's e-mail to send fictitious messages
of termination to other employees. Such a person has a "minimal
expectation of privacy," if any, in using an Internet service provider
to engage in such tortious conduct. See Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.
V. Does 1-40, 326 F.Supp. 2d 556 (S.AN.Y.2004) ("defendants have
little expectation of privacy in downloading and distributing
copyrighted songs without permission.)
32. In the case presented here, we already know Mr. Truong's IP
addresses. Brian Mottershead found them in the course of his duties as
Administrator of the uschess.org website. Here is where Paul Truong
made his big mistake. As "the Fake Sam Sloan", he personally attacked
Brian Mottershead, thereby giving Mr. Mottershead the incentive to
research and find out who was writing these nasty things about him.
33. On a related subject, Gregory Alexander, who is also a defendant
here, has been contacting the authors of the three reports that prove
that Paul Truong did it and has been making threatening and
intimidating reks. Gregory Alexander has repeatedly contended that
Brian Mottershead committed a crime by revealing the IP address of
Paul Truong. I suspect that Gregory Alexander may have committed some
offenses related to threatening or intimidating a federal witness.
34. Robert Jones, author of the "Jones Report", wrote the following:
"Just wanted to let you know that I had an odd phone call from someone
purporting to be from the USCF but I'm not sure if that is really the
case. I answered the phone and this guy said he was Gregory Alexander
from the USCF and immediately launched into a series of questions
about my expertise in internet forensics, had I ever given evidence in
court, etc. I was a bit taken aback but figured he was a USCF staffer
or lawyer or something. I was happy to give him that information but
then he asked me if I was aware that Brian Mottershead had hacked into
his account, and was I aware the Paul Truong had criticized him two
weeks before he prepared his report and would that knowledge change my
conclusions on the data analysis.
I explained to him exactly what I say in the report that I performed a
technical analysis of the data associated with the Mottershead report
and that I stand by the conclusions in my report. I said that I don't
know Truong, Mottershead or any of the other players in this dispute.
He then went on to say that Truong is a friend of his and that he has
evidence that Truong is not involved in any of this - something about
a friend of his has seen plane tickets (?) - and that making a defense
against the claims out there against Truong is very difficult. I
reiterated that my analysis was a straight technical analysis, done in
response to your request, as an independent review of Mottershead's
report.
35. Gregory Alexander is not "from the USCF". He is a close associate
of Polgar and Truong. He is also the webmaster of their website. The
"plane tickets" defense we already know about. It is one of the
standard defenses Truong uses. Another is the "somebody is following
me" defense. The "plane tickets" defense was used in the "Voice of
Reason" case where Mig Greendard who had previously been one of their
strongest supporters realized that his Daily Dirt website was being
bombarded with postings by all sorts of different people all saying
the same thing and all posting from the same IP address. This is one
of Paul Truong's modus operandi. Truong creates dozens of fake
personalities and posts under their names. When Mig Greengard realized
that all these different identities were the same person, Truong and
Polgar claimed that it could not have been them since they were
traveling at the time and were on an airplane in mid-flight. This is
probably the sort of "rock solid" evidence they claim to have recently
provided to the board proving that it was not them. An Internet gadfly
has posted what he calls "The List of the Blind Monkey" listing so far
41 ridiculous defenses presented by Truong allies which supposedly
prove that they could not possibly be responsible for the 2,464
postings by the Fake Sam Sloan. The "somebody is following me" defense
we know about too. It was also used by Paul Truong when in 2003 it was
proven through IP addresses that he was the same person as "Bob
Bennett".
36. In the last month or so, new fake posters have appeared. Their
postings are "remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer
software". They sometimes sign as "Sam Sloan" but usually do not give
a name at all. Top suspects are Gregory Alexander and Paul Truong but
it could be anybody. These anonymous fakes are posting every day
lately, so please take a look.
37. Another issue in this case concerns the sale of the USCF building
in New Windsor. In November, 2004, the USCF owned a fully paid for
office building in New Windsor, New York. Bill Goichberg took it upon
himself to sell it. He never consulted the board. There was no debate
nor vote on this issue. At least two board members, Frank Brady and
Don Schultz, were adamantly opposed to this sale and would have voted
against had it come up for a vote. Unfortunately, Bill Goichberg who
was Executive Director at the time, seems to treat the USCF as if he
owns it and makes decisions without consulting the delegates or the
board. The complete USCF minutes for every meeting for that period are
available online. One can check the minutes and see that nowhere in
the minutes does it show that the board ever debated, voted on and
passed a resolution to sell the building. In short, the sale of the
building was illegal, without corporate authority.
38. It is important to note that New Windsor is in Orange County which
is in the Southern District of New York. Since most of the bad acts
that are the subject of this lawsuit took place in New Windsor, this
establishes the jurisdiction and venue of this court.
39. Finally, the USCF election itself was rife with fraud. Three times
during the election campaign period I was suspended from posting for
ten days each. Goichberg and Co. appointed the most hostile moderators
they could find to moderate my postings and the postings of anybody
who supported me including Gregory Alexander, Herbert Rodney Vaughn
and Louis Blair. Not only was I suspended from posting but anybody who
supported me was suspended from posting as well. Anybody who asked an
embarrassing question of Polgar and Truong had their postings pulled
and was suspended from posting. Questions asking Polgar and Truong
whether they were ried to each other or not were not allowed.
Questions were not allowed asking about the eleven national chess
championships Truong falsely claims to have won or about the fake PhD
degree Truong claimed to have had or about the billion dollar
corporations Truong claims to have rescued and saved. More than one
thousand postings were pulled by the pro-Truong and Polgar moderators.
Dozens of individual USCF members were suspended from posting. I
protested vehemently at the appointments by Goichberg of these
anti-Sloan and pro-Polgarite moderators. Goichberg supported Polgar
and Truong for election until just before the ballots were mailed out.
Sometimes, Goichberg would appoint a moderator who failed to
understand that his mandate was to stop me and my supporters from
posting. Although vehemently hostile to me at the time they were
appointed, a few of the moderators suddenly saw the light and reversed
course. Examples of this are Ron Suarez and Steve Owens (�Steve of
Tennessee�). When Goichberg and Channing realized that these
moderators were not carrying out their mandate to muzzle me, they
would contact these moderators, telling them to crack down on me and
my supporters. At least two moderators resigned, protesting
interference by the board, and one of the moderators committed
suicide.
40. At a hearing, I will demonstrate and prove that Bill Goichberg and
Joel Channing knew all along that Paul Truong was the "Fake Sam
Sloan". They took no steps to stop him from doing this because it
served their purposes to have someone impersonating me. Because of
these and numerous other irregularities, I will be asking this court
to declare the election null and void and to schedule a new election.
I will also request that this court enjoin Polgar, Truong, Goichberg
and Channing from running for office again or from ever holding office
in the United States Chess Federation again, due to their numerous bad
acts committed by these four defendants.
41. I am attaching as exhibits the three forensic reports that prove
that Paul Truong did it. These are The Mottershead Report, the Jones
Report and the Ulevitch Report. These reports are supported by more
than one thousand pages of data that are available online.
42. In addition, I am attaching two orders of protection of the Queens
Family Court prohibiting Susan Polgar and Paul Truong from abusing
their children (by forcing them to play chess) plus several newspaper
articles about this case. These have been three articles in the print
edition of the New York Times about this case, plus seven additional
articles in the online version of the New York Times, plus articles in
the Boston Globe, the New York Post, the Lubbock Texas Avalanche
Journal, the Daily Toreador campus newspaper of Texas Tech University,
plus articles in "The Independent" newspaper in England. There are at
least twenty online blogs and websites devoted to this case and there
have been at least one thousand Internet postings about this case. (If
this court or any of the attorneys have received any "nutty" or
"screwball" letters about this case, I hope that the court recognizes
that I have nothing to do with them. There are some seriously
disturbed people out there who also happen to play chess.)
43. Also, be prepared to hear the "I am a victim" defense. If you look
at Susan Polgar's blogs and websites you would believe that there is
this massive conspiracy against her involving now the majority of the
Executive Board of the United States Chess Federation (who finally
stripped her of her fake titles on Saturday, February 2, 2008 (two
days ago)). According to her, the USCF Board now joins co-conspirators
the World Chess Federation ("FIDE"), newspaper reporters in the New
York Times and other publications, the Hungarian Chess Federation and
others. This probably explains why Polgar and Truong switched
attorneys two weeks ago. She has been playing the role of "Everybody
is Against me Because I am a Poor Jewish Girl" for the past 25 years.
If you look at her performance on the BBC Broadcast "My Brilliant
Brain - Make Me a Genius", now available on YouTube, you would never
imagine that she never went to school and never learned the basic
skills of reading, writing and arithmetic. Her two children complain
that she cannot help with them with their homework in the second grade
because she never learned that stuff. The only thing she can do is
play chess (very well). She communicates with the outside world by
emails and Internet postings that are undoubtedly written by Paul
Truong and others, that she will no doubt disavow when the time comes.
She already claims that she did not write her book "Queen of the
King's Game" which attacks numerous of her past sponsors and
benefactors.
WHEREFORE, the motions to dismiss this case must be denied.
_____________________
Samuel H.
Sloan
1664 Davidson
Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453
917-507-7226
1-347-869-2465
[email protected]
STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss:
COUNTY OF BRONX )
VERIFICATION
_________________________
Signature of
Petitioner
On the 4th Day of February, 2008 before me personally came Samuel H.
Sloan to me known to be the person described herein and who executed
the foregoing instrument. Such person duly swore to such instrument
before me and duly acknowledged that he executed the same.
_____________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
Affidavit of Service
Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on February
4, 2008 he mailed the within affidavit in opposition to motion to
dismiss this action for lack of diversity to the following addresses:
Jeremy Brown
Attorney for USCF, William Goichberg defendants
Proskauer Rose LLP
One Newark Center
Newark NJ 07102-5211
Joseph J. Ortego
Nixon Rose LLP
Attorneys for Hoainhan "Paul" Truong and Zsuzsanna "Susan" Polgar
50 Jericho Quadrangle
Jericho NY 11753-2729
Emily E. Daughtry
Attorney for United States of America
US Attorney's Office
86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor
New York NY 10007-2632
Patrick M. O'Brien, Esq.
Attorney for William Brock
309 Elmore Street
Park Ridge, Illinois 60068-3569
Arthur M. Handler
Attorney for William Brock
Handler & Goodman LLP
805 Third Avenue
8th Floor
New York NY 10022
Scot M. Graydon
Attorney for Texas Tech University
Assistant Attorney General, General Litigation Division
Attorney General of Texas
PO Box 12548
Austin Texas 78711-2446
June Duffy
Assistant Attorney General of New York
120 Broadway
New York NY 10271
__________________________
Samuel H.
Sloan
Sworn to before me this 4th
Day of February, 2008
______________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC
|
|
| |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 12:31:02
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: First Draft - Affidavit in Opposition - Commernts Please
|
As for advice on this, drop all the silly charges and stick to the one
that matters. You have been impersonated by (you believe and can show
evidence supporting your charge) Paul Truong. The USCF, Bill Brock,
etc had nothing to do with it.
You have the potential to make this an interesting case. So much of
your life has been spent creating an on-line identity that you can
make a much better case that this caused harm to you than most people
could. Lay off the assertions of your huge importance in the non-
virtual world, to USCF elections and such; these can be countered by
showing your low vote totals. Above all, drop the Jack Anderson claim;
this smells of megalomania.
I am not a lawyer, but it looks like you have turned a pretty clear
specific complaint into something that will be dismissed as being a
fishing expedition, much too vague to press charges on.
It is important to keep this in play until Truong is forced to testify
under oath; don't blow your chance!
Jerry Spinrad
On Feb 4, 8:41=A0am, [email protected] (Sam Sloan) wrote:
> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
> SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
> __________________________________________
>
> Sam Sloan,
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Plaintiff,
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Civil
> Action No. 07-CV-8537 (DC)
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 -against-
>
> Hoainhan "Paul" Truong, Zsuzsanna "Susan" Polgar,
> Joel Channing, William Goichberg, The United States
> Chess Federation, Bill Hall, Herbert Rodney Vaughn,
> Gregory Alexander, Frank Niro, Grant Perks, William
> Brock, Randall Hough, Randy Bauer, Jim Berry,
> Texas Tech University and United States of America,
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Defendants
> __________________________________________
>
> AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION
> TO DISMISS ON FEDERAL QUESTIONS ISSUE
>
> __________________________________________
>
> Samuel H. Sloan, the plaintiff herein, being duly sworn, deposes and
> says:
>
> 1. I make this affidavit in opposition to the motion by various
> defendants to dismiss this action on the grounds of lack of a federal
> question.
>
> 2. Frankly, I consider the issues raised by the moving defendants to
> be frivolous. There are a great abundance of federal questions here. I
> think the defendants are just trying to buy time and to convince their
> clients that they are doing the best they can.
>
> 3. The United States Chess Federation ("USCF") has 86,000 members.
> Every state of the 50 states have members, with the least being
> Wyoming with about 500 members. The USCF represents the United States
> of America internationally. We are the equivalent to the United States
> Olympic Committee, except that instead of representing the USA in
> hundreds of sports, we only represent the USA in one activity, chess.
>
> 4. It is obvious that if the United States Olympic Committee or any
> other comparable organization such as the National Football League or
> the National Basket ball Association had experienced the massive
> election fraud, identity theft, online forgery, impersonations,
> misappropriations of funds and so on as have characterized the USCF in
> the past two years, the FBI would have moved in already and started
> making arrests. There would be people in jail now. There has not
> happened because there is not that much interest in chess.
>
> 5. There have been three forensic reports produced thus far. There are
> the Mottershead Report, the Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.
> These three reports all reach the same conclusion. The Mottershead
> Report has proved absolutely, conclusively that Hoainhan "Paul" Truong
> sent 2464 fake or forged Internet postings over a two year period from
> June 25, 2005 until October, 2007. That is two thousand four hundred
> sixty four postings, most of which impersonated me, Sam Sloan,
> although some of them impersonated Ray Gordon, Andrew Zito and other
> real or fake personalities.
>
> 6. As to why I in particular would be the target of most of these
> impersonations, the best way to explain it is that I am the equivalent
> of the "Jack Anderson" of chess. Jack Anderson as you will recall was
> a newspaper columnists reporting on J. Edgar Hoover's apparent ties to
> the Mafia, Watergate, the John F. Kennedy assassination, the Nixon
> Administration, the Savings and Loan scandal, the CIA plans to
> assassinate Fidel Castro, the Iran-Contra affair and so on. He was a
> crusader against corruption. Henry Kissinger called Jack Anderson "the
> most dangerous man in America". The USCF Insiders such as Bill
> Goichberg have the same view of me as Richard Nixon had of Jack
> Anderson.
>
> 7. Because I have a wide readership, anybody wanting to bring down the
> USCF leadership might decide to impersonate me. Paul Truong is a
> complete nobody in the world of chess. When he started impersonating
> me, nobody would have bothered to read anything written by him.
> Therefore, when he wanted to attack somebody he would sign my name
> rather than his own name to his postings. Over the period of two and a
> half years, Truong, whom we now know to have been "The Fake Sam Sloan"
> as he was called, attacked virtually every significant chess
> personality except for Paul Truong, Susan Polgar and Joel Channing.
> The fact that he never attacked Joel Channing is one of the reasons
> that I believe that Joel Channing was in on this from the beginning.
>
> 8. I wish to emphasize that it is 100% proven that Paul Truong did
> this. Not merely 99% sure, not merely "beyond reasonable doubt", but
> absolutely 100% certain, no doubt at all.
>
> 9. Next, the motivation. The motivation is clear: He did it to attack
> the rivals of his wife, Susan Polgar, and ultimately to seize control
> of the financial assets of the United States Chess Federation, which
> has $3.2 million in annual revenues.
>
> 10. One of the most frequent targets of attack by "The Fake Sam Sloan"
> is Beatriz inello, a woman chess grandmaster and President of the
> United States Chess Federation from 2003 to 2005. The Fake Sam Sloan
> has called her a "bulldyke" one hundred times in Internet postings
> over a period of two years. Paul Truong, this time not in disguise,
> went to the Scholastic Counsel and other scholastic groups and told
> them that inello was a lesbian. Truong also called me, Sam Sloan,
> on the phone in 2004 and told me that inello was a lesbian.
>
> 11. Most of the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan, whom we now know to be
> Truong, contained sexual references, usually making claims about the
> sexual preferences of the targets. For example, Grandmaster Alexandria
> Kosteniuk, a Russian girl who lives in Florida, is called "a Lolita".
> Truong also conducted a campaign to kick Kosteniuk's name off the USCF
> Rating lists, since Kostenuik was rated higher than Susan Polgar (who
> falsely claims to be a "world champion") and to kick the picture of
> Kosteniuk out of Chess Life magazine to be replaced by pictures of
> Polgar. (In 2004-2005 most issues of Chess Life magazine had pictures
> of Kosteniuk. In 2006-2007 almost every issue of Chess Life had
> pictures of Polgar.)
>
> 12. Among the most frequent other targets of attack by The Fake Sam
> Sloan were US Woman's Champion Jennifer Shahade, former USCF President
> Don Schultz, and Chairman of the Seattle Chess Foundation Erik
> Anderson.
>
> 13. Please remember that most of these thousands of attacks were
> signed "Sam Sloan". It thus appeared that I, the Real Sam Sloan, was
> attacking all of these people. Also, the 2464 "Fake Sam Sloan"
> postings found by the Mottershead Report to have been made by Paul
> Truong were crossposted to two and sometimes three usenet groups,
> rec.games.chess.politics , rec.games.chess.misc and alt.chess. Thus,
> counting the crosspostings, there were more than five thousand
> postings. These postings were not made on just one website located in
> just one state. They were made on Usenet and broadcast all over the
> entire world and picked up and preserved in every country of the
> world. The total readership of these postings was at least in the
> hundreds of thousands and probably in the millions.
>
> 14. In challenging the jurisdiction of this court to consider this
> issue, the defendants have cited exactly one case. Best Van Lines,
> Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007). However, that case does
> not lead to the conclusion they seek, for several reasons.
>
> 15. Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007)
> involved a website in Iowa that posts reviews of moving companies. I
> have looked at this website and it contains statements such as "this
> moving company scratched my furniture", "that moving company lost my
> suitcase" and so on. I have yet to find a favorable review of any
> moving company on that website.
>
> 16. Best Van Lines is a moving company located in New York that was
> subjected to allegedly defamatory reks by the Walker website in
> Iowa. Ass a result, suit was filed in the Southern District of New
> York.
>
> 17. The District Court ruled and the Second Circuit affirmed that Best
> Van Lines must sue in Iowa, where the Walker website is located. By
> analogy, this is similar to a case of a small-town in newspaper in
> Iowa that has a few readers in New York.
>
> 18. However, the case presented here is different for a number of
> reasons. One is that the defamatory postings were not made on a simple
> website. They were broadcast and propagated all around the world in
> every country of the world. In the Best Van Lines case, if the
> computer hosting the Walker website were to crash, nobody in the
> entire world would be able to see it any more. However, in the case
> presented here, if one computer or even one hundred computers crash,
> the Truong postings will still be visible in many other places.
> Indeed, when Truong was apprehended, he stayed up all night in Mexico
> City where he was at the time trying to delete as many of these
> postings as he possibly could. He was able to delete many of them from
> Google Newsgroups, because that is where he had first posted them, but
> he still has not been able to delete them from Forte Inc. Agent, from
> Giganews.com or from the many other services that carry these
> newsgroups.
>
> 19. William Brock in his motion to dismiss states that his postings
> which in general stated that I am a child molester were all posted
> from his CPA Office in the Chicago Loop. However, the location of his
> personal computer is of little moment. What is important is where he
> posted them. Not only did he post them on the Usenet groups around the
> world, but he posted them on such places as the New York Times website
> which is obviously located in New York State.
>
> 20. An example of Brock's postings on the New York Times website is
> at:
>
> http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/the-lawsuit-against-polgar...
>
> 21. There, you will see numerous postings by William Brock on the New
> York Times website where he provides links to places where, he claims,
> one can find proof that I am a child molester and a child
> pornographer. Mr. Brock is obviously a sick, disturbed man. Clearly,
> Mr. Brock cannot now claim that the New York courts have no
> jurisdiction over this.
>
> 22. Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239, 250-51 (2d Cir.
> 2007) involved a moving company in New York complaining about a
> website in Iowa. However, in the case before this court, ...
>
> read more =BB
|
| | |
Date: 07 Feb 2008 13:31:02
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
On Feb 7, 1:32=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:35:33 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I read somewhere in a newsgroup post that some member of the board was
> >trying to settle this behind closed doors with Sloan. Or something
> >like that. ... If you could kindly bring me up to speed with the
> >FACTs of what has gone on over the last two months sansthew
> >speculation from other parties, I would be most appreciative.
>
> If I *knew* all the facts, I'd also be appreciative. :-)
>
> Gregory Alexander made some claims recently that Donna Alarie was in
> covert cahoots with Sam. =A0She challenged Gregory on this claim, and
> the consensus seems to be that his attempts at substantiation have
> been weak. =A0The fact that one listens to Sloan and occasionally talks
> to him doesn't demonstrate an alliance. =A0She's not on the USCF board,
> of course, but is an active state representative, AFAIK. =A0This could
> be what you're referencing.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me if some board members (or their surrogate) had
> been in contact with RSS, asking what it would take to make this thing
> go away. =A0 But I don't recall seeing anything concrete. From what I
> understand, offers and suggestions made in this sort of negotiation
> can remain privileged and confidential, and can't be used in
> subsequent court proceedings, but, not being a lawyer, I might be
> wrong on this.
>
> Since all the key players, even those technically just USCF members
> currently, seem to know each other and have long histories of
> interaction, it would be easy to claim that anything initiated by damn
> near anybody could be a trial balloon by the board. =A0Dunno.
>
> A lot of strange anonymouse claims are popping up -- your guess is as
> good as mine as to what they mean.
>
>
>
> > I thinkfor the most part you tend to be openminded and rather neutral in=
this
> >stuff. Thanks,
> >Rob-
>
Thanks Mike!
I would have responded sooner back to your post. The weather here has
distracted us all. I think all of us wish we knew all of the facts. I
think it's time for a full and open disclosure by all parties on
everything. I am not a poker player but it seems to me from what I
have observed is the person who is holding the best hand is willing to
show all of their cards first. Didn't Paul and Susan offer fully
disclose everything if the opposing side did or was it the other way
around? I really don't know. I will also confess a personal bias as I
know Paul and Susan on a personal level. I would naturally tend to
believe them before I would someone like Sloan.
In the mean time, by Sloans ability to act as perpetual gadfly to the
USCF, it ahs become mired in legal suits. The appearance is that his
ego is more important than an entire organization dedicated to
promoting a game he claims to love.
Well, I have gone on about nothing that will change anything long
enough. Thanks for responding in your usual level- headed way. :-)
Best Wishes,
Rob
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Feb 2008 14:51:26
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:31:02 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
> I am not a poker player but it seems to me from what I
>have observed is the person who is holding the best hand is willing to
>show all of their cards first.
If you have a winning hand, you don't advertise it. You want to suck
the other guy(s) in. Sometimes you bluff but mostly for
"advertising". After all the cards are dealt and all the bets are in,
it doesn't make any difference who shows first.
>Didn't Paul and Susan offer fully
>disclose everything if the opposing side did or was it the other way
>around?
AFAIK, they offered to mutually make public all the existing USCF
correspondence and internal documentation associated with the case,
but did not offer to comply with the USCF attorney's request to open
up PT's ISP records, and for PT to make a legally binding denial of
being the FSS. My opinion is that their openness gambit is a
promotional distraction.
> I really don't know. I will also confess a personal bias as I
>know Paul and Susan on a personal level. I would naturally tend to
>believe them before I would someone like Sloan.
It's always hard to believe someone with whom you've had cordial and
correct relations may have a dark side. But, most of us have been
unpleasantly surprised more than once by this sort of thing. A fellow
I worked with for several years once spontaneously blurted out to me,
"You know,Murray, you can't tell about some people. I look like a
mild-mannered guy, but sometimes I just go home and beat hell out of
my wife."
It's really not a question of believing Sam Sloan. Yes, he filed
suit, so they have to respond to him. And his suit, again IMO,
contains all sorts of ancillary issues only tenuously related to the
FSS. The key "deliverables" are the Mottershead Report and the
evaluation of that report by two experts. Assuming the underlying
data matches PT's ISP records, the only alternative to believing PT is
the FSS seems to be a far-fetched multi-year hacking scheme.
IMO, the FSS is an online bully and deliberately chose to impersonate
(mostly) Sloan and Parker because (1) of the relatively poor opinion
most posters had of these two folks, (2) their history of
unsuccessful pro se litigation seemed to indicate there was no real
danger in antagonizing either or both, (3) neither appeared to have
the technical skills or financial resources to seriously threaten
"unmasking" him. (I have a fourth reason, but it's too speculative to
mention, more along the lines of Innes' stylistic analysis) The FSS
used these impersonations to beat on a wide variety of chess
personalities and to promote or denigrate a wide variety of issues.
Again, as time passed, the FSS became more and more convinced of his
invulnerability and this led to the carelessness that Mottershead
pounced upon. Since Mottershead, the anonymouse posts have gone
through remailers, something the FSS never bothered with earlier.
>In the mean time, by Sloans ability to act as perpetual gadfly to the
>USCF, it ahs become mired in legal suits. The appearance is that his
>ego is more important than an entire organization dedicated to
>promoting a game he claims to love.
Sloan likes the limelight, no question about it. But he's been around
chess for over fifty years and really loves the game, IMO. I keep
asking myself, would *anything* have happened if Sam had *not* filed
suit? Dunno.
>Well, I have gone on about nothing that will change anything long
>enough. Thanks for responding in your usual level- headed way. :-)
>Best Wishes,
>Rob
|
| | |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 21:35:33
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
On Feb 6, 12:24 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:18:37 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >Mike,
> >I have been away for a while but little seems to have changed. The
> >same groups attack another group without shame with any hint of
> >suggestive impropriety being presented. I may need for you to get me
> >up to speed on what these "secret meetings" with Sloan are about ect.
> >Thanks Rob
>
> Secret meetings with Sloan? Not ringing a bell. Can you be more
> specific?
I read somewhere in a newsgroup post that some member of the board was
trying to settle this behind closed doors with Sloan. Or something
like that. It amazes me how reading the news groups gives on an
impression that USCF stands for the Useless Sloan Chess
Federation.Anyway, If you could kindly bring me up to speed with the
FACTs of what has gone on over the last two months sansthew
speculation from other parties, I would be most appreciative. I think
for the most part you tend to be openminded and rather neutral in this
stuff.
Thanks,
Rob
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Feb 2008 11:32:46
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
On Wed, 6 Feb 2008 21:35:33 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
>I read somewhere in a newsgroup post that some member of the board was
>trying to settle this behind closed doors with Sloan. Or something
>like that. ... If you could kindly bring me up to speed with the
>FACTs of what has gone on over the last two months sansthew
>speculation from other parties, I would be most appreciative.
If I *knew* all the facts, I'd also be appreciative. :-)
Gregory Alexander made some claims recently that Donna Alarie was in
covert cahoots with Sam. She challenged Gregory on this claim, and
the consensus seems to be that his attempts at substantiation have
been weak. The fact that one listens to Sloan and occasionally talks
to him doesn't demonstrate an alliance. She's not on the USCF board,
of course, but is an active state representative, AFAIK. This could
be what you're referencing.
It wouldn't surprise me if some board members (or their surrogate) had
been in contact with RSS, asking what it would take to make this thing
go away. But I don't recall seeing anything concrete. From what I
understand, offers and suggestions made in this sort of negotiation
can remain privileged and confidential, and can't be used in
subsequent court proceedings, but, not being a lawyer, I might be
wrong on this.
Since all the key players, even those technically just USCF members
currently, seem to know each other and have long histories of
interaction, it would be easy to claim that anything initiated by damn
near anybody could be a trial balloon by the board. Dunno.
A lot of strange anonymouse claims are popping up -- your guess is as
good as mine as to what they mean.
> I thinkfor the most part you tend to be openminded and rather neutral in this
>stuff. Thanks,
>Rob
|
| | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 20:18:37
From: Rob
Subject: Why deal?
|
On Feb 5, 3:28 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:04:07 -0800 (PST),
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >I think that he will listen to legal advice, and that the lawyers will
> >tell him that the case against him for perjury given the evidence
> >collected would be very hard to defend, while the admission that he
> >made the posts simply to make fun of Sloan, which (he will contend)
> >might be viewed as impolite but is not a crime, especially given
> >Sloan's general reputation and attacks he can cite; and that this
> >charge can be beaten. Of course, his preference would be to get the
> >case dismissed, which still seems like a definite possibility.
>
> The FSS has been an umbrella term for a wide variety of
> impersonations. Some problems with your analysis:
>
> First, it's hard to admit being the FSS only to make fun of the RSS,
> without getting caught up in the many FSS posts which used the RSS
> (and Parker) as a club to attack other chess personalities.
>
> Second, some of the FSS posts involved threats of harm to persons
> widely regarded as unstable.
>
> Third, some of the posts involved outright slander, for example, where
> the FSS suggested Bognar's company might be involved in credit card
> fraud.
>
> Fourth, some important aspects of PT's career involve scholastic chess
> and academic programs, where the number of obscene, misogynistic and
> racist posts made under a variety of assumed identities might be the
> kiss of death.
>
> Fifth, others may be waiting for the RSS's suit to reveal something
> juicy before initiating their own legal actions.
>
> Of course, none of these lessens the consequences of perjury, but they
> do suggest cutting a deal with the RSS many not end the tribulations.
Mike,
I have been away for a while but little seems to have changed. The
same groups attack another group without shame with any hint of
suggestive impropriety being presented. I may need for you to get me
up to speed on what these "secret meetings" with Sloan are about ect.
Thanks Rob
|
| | | |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 10:24:10
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 20:18:37 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Mike,
>I have been away for a while but little seems to have changed. The
>same groups attack another group without shame with any hint of
>suggestive impropriety being presented. I may need for you to get me
>up to speed on what these "secret meetings" with Sloan are about ect.
>Thanks Rob
Secret meetings with Sloan? Not ringing a bell. Can you be more
specific?
|
| | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 13:04:07
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: First Draft - Affidavit in Opposition - Commernts Please
|
On Feb 5, 2:37=A0pm, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 5, 3:31 pm, "[email protected]"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > As for advice on this, drop all the silly charges and stick to the one
> > that matters. You have been impersonated by (you believe and can show
> > evidence supporting your charge) Paul Truong. The USCF, Bill Brock,
> > etc had nothing to do with it.
>
> > You have the potential to make this an interesting case. So much of
> > your life has been spent creating an on-line identity that you can
> > make a much better case that this caused harm to you than most people
> > could.
>
> Hmm, I'd never considered that aspect of the case. So it's not so much
> Sam Sloan's good name he is defending, but the name, good or bad, he's
> created for himself.
>
> Lay off the assertions of your huge importance in the non-
>
> > virtual world, to USCF elections and such; these can be countered by
> > showing your low vote totals. Above all, drop the Jack Anderson claim;
> > this smells of megalomania.
>
> > I am not a lawyer, but it looks like you have turned a pretty clear
> > specific complaint into something that will be dismissed as being a
> > fishing expedition, much too vague to press charges on.
>
> > It is important to keep this in play until Truong is forced to testify
> > under oath; don't blow your chance!
>
> > Jerry Spinrad
>
> Jerry, what leads you to believe Truong will tell the truth under
> oath?
I think that he will listen to legal advice, and that the lawyers will
tell him that the case against him for perjury given the evidence
collected would be very hard to defend, while the admission that he
made the posts simply to make fun of Sloan, which (he will contend)
might be viewed as impolite but is not a crime, especially given
Sloan's general reputation and attacks he can cite; and that this
charge can be beaten. Of course, his preference would be to get the
case dismissed, which still seems like a definite possibility.
Jerry Spinrad
|
| | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 13:28:44
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: First Draft - Affidavit in Opposition - Commernts Please
|
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 13:04:07 -0800 (PST),
"[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>I think that he will listen to legal advice, and that the lawyers will
>tell him that the case against him for perjury given the evidence
>collected would be very hard to defend, while the admission that he
>made the posts simply to make fun of Sloan, which (he will contend)
>might be viewed as impolite but is not a crime, especially given
>Sloan's general reputation and attacks he can cite; and that this
>charge can be beaten. Of course, his preference would be to get the
>case dismissed, which still seems like a definite possibility.
The FSS has been an umbrella term for a wide variety of
impersonations. Some problems with your analysis:
First, it's hard to admit being the FSS only to make fun of the RSS,
without getting caught up in the many FSS posts which used the RSS
(and Parker) as a club to attack other chess personalities.
Second, some of the FSS posts involved threats of harm to persons
widely regarded as unstable.
Third, some of the posts involved outright slander, for example, where
the FSS suggested Bognar's company might be involved in credit card
fraud.
Fourth, some important aspects of PT's career involve scholastic chess
and academic programs, where the number of obscene, misogynistic and
racist posts made under a variety of assumed identities might be the
kiss of death.
Fifth, others may be waiting for the RSS's suit to reveal something
juicy before initiating their own legal actions.
Of course, none of these lessens the consequences of perjury, but they
do suggest cutting a deal with the RSS many not end the tribulations.
|
| | | | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 23:18:04
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: First Draft - Affidavit in Opposition - Commernts Please
|
> Fifth, others may be waiting for the RSS's suit to reveal something
> juicy before initiating their own legal actions.
Old saying on Wall Street: the second mouse gets the cheese.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | |
Date: 05 Feb 2008 12:37:53
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: First Draft - Affidavit in Opposition - Commernts Please
|
On Feb 5, 3:31 pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:
> As for advice on this, drop all the silly charges and stick to the one
> that matters. You have been impersonated by (you believe and can show
> evidence supporting your charge) Paul Truong. The USCF, Bill Brock,
> etc had nothing to do with it.
>
> You have the potential to make this an interesting case. So much of
> your life has been spent creating an on-line identity that you can
> make a much better case that this caused harm to you than most people
> could.
Hmm, I'd never considered that aspect of the case. So it's not so much
Sam Sloan's good name he is defending, but the name, good or bad, he's
created for himself.
Lay off the assertions of your huge importance in the non-
> virtual world, to USCF elections and such; these can be countered by
> showing your low vote totals. Above all, drop the Jack Anderson claim;
> this smells of megalomania.
>
> I am not a lawyer, but it looks like you have turned a pretty clear
> specific complaint into something that will be dismissed as being a
> fishing expedition, much too vague to press charges on.
>
> It is important to keep this in play until Truong is forced to testify
> under oath; don't blow your chance!
>
> Jerry Spinrad
Jerry, what leads you to believe Truong will tell the truth under
oath?
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Feb 2008 19:36:37
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
On Feb 7, 5:51 pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 13:31:02 -0800 (PST), Rob <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > I am not a poker player but it seems to me from what I
> >have observed is the person who is holding the best hand is willing to
> >show all of their cards first.
>
> If you have a winning hand, you don't advertise it. You want to suck
> the other guy(s) in. Sometimes you bluff but mostly for
> "advertising". After all the cards are dealt and all the bets are in,
> it doesn't make any difference who shows first.
>
> >Didn't Paul and Susan offer fully
> >disclose everything if the opposing side did or was it the other way
> >around?
>
> AFAIK, they offered to mutually make public all the existing USCF
> correspondence and internal documentation associated with the case,
> but did not offer to comply with the USCF attorney's request to open
> up PT's ISP records, and for PT to make a legally binding denial of
> being the FSS. My opinion is that their openness gambit is a
> promotional distraction.
>
> > I really don't know. I will also confess a personal bias as I
> >know Paul and Susan on a personal level. I would naturally tend to
> >believe them before I would someone like Sloan.
>
> It's always hard to believe someone with whom you've had cordial and
> correct relations may have a dark side. But, most of us have been
> unpleasantly surprised more than once by this sort of thing. A fellow
> I worked with for several years once spontaneously blurted out to me,
> "You know,Murray, you can't tell about some people. I look like a
> mild-mannered guy, but sometimes I just go home and beat hell out of
> my wife."
>
> It's really not a question of believing Sam Sloan. Yes, he filed
> suit, so they have to respond to him. And his suit, again IMO,
> contains all sorts of ancillary issues only tenuously related to the
> FSS. The key "deliverables" are the Mottershead Report and the
> evaluation of that report by two experts. Assuming the underlying
> data matches PT's ISP records, the only alternative to believing PT is
> the FSS seems to be a far-fetched multi-year hacking scheme.
>
> IMO, the FSS is an online bully and deliberately chose to impersonate
> (mostly) Sloan and Parker because (1) of the relatively poor opinion
> most posters had of these two folks, (2) their history of
> unsuccessful pro se litigation seemed to indicate there was no real
> danger in antagonizing either or both, (3) neither appeared to have
> the technical skills or financial resources to seriously threaten
> "unmasking" him. (I have a fourth reason, but it's too speculative to
> mention, more along the lines of Innes' stylistic analysis)
Would it be that both Parker and Sloan were the two posters who most
prominently criticized Susan Polgar?
The FSS
> used these impersonations to beat on a wide variety of chess
> personalities and to promote or denigrate a wide variety of issues.
>
> Again, as time passed, the FSS became more and more convinced of his
> invulnerability and this led to the carelessness that Mottershead
> pounced upon. Since Mottershead, the anonymouse posts have gone
> through remailers, something the FSS never bothered with earlier.
>
> >In the mean time, by Sloans ability to act as perpetual gadfly to the
> >USCF, it ahs become mired in legal suits. The appearance is that his
> >ego is more important than an entire organization dedicated to
> >promoting a game he claims to love.
>
> Sloan likes the limelight, no question about it. But he's been around
> chess for over fifty years and really loves the game, IMO. I keep
> asking myself, would *anything* have happened if Sam had *not* filed
> suit? Dunno.
>
> >Well, I have gone on about nothing that will change anything long
> >enough. Thanks for responding in your usual level- headed way. :-)
> >Best Wishes,
> >Rob
|
| | | | |
Date: 10 Feb 2008 14:43:38
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
> Would it be that both <ray> and Sloan were the two posters who most
> prominently criticized <snip>?
Not initially. The timing in my case suggests that my concerns about the
chess life hiring were the trigger. The 9/19 post was made days after I
chose not to sue and they thought they were in the clear.
When one wants to flush out an anonymous attacker, however, the best way to
do it is to test their claims of objectivity.
Often when they can't admit why they're so passionate about something, they
overstep, cross lines, and well, you know the rest.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Feb 2008 21:21:19
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 19:36:37 -0800 (PST), The Historian
<[email protected] > wrote:
>> (I have a fourth reason, but it's too speculative to
>> mention, more along the lines of Innes' stylistic analysis)
>Would it be that both Parker and Sloan were the two posters who most
>prominently criticized Susan Polgar?
Something like that.. Both said stuff that was over the top and out
of line, IMO. If PT had come in as himself (or as an anonymouse) and
verbally flogged 'em, I doubt anybody would have done other but nod
approval.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 10 Feb 2008 14:44:38
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
> Something like that.. Both said stuff that was over the top and out
> of line, IMO.
You mean that Susan Polgar is a dumb cunt who can't choose men?
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Feb 2008 21:40:22
From: an anonymouse
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
Mike Murray wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 19:36:37 -0800 (PST), The Historian
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> (I have a fourth reason, but it's too speculative to
> >> mention, more along the lines of Innes' stylistic analysis)
>
> >Would it be that both Parker and Sloan were the two posters who most
> >prominently criticized Susan Polgar?
>
> Something like that.. Both said stuff that was over the top and out
> of line, IMO. If PT had come in as himself (or as an anonymouse) and
> verbally flogged 'em, I doubt anybody would have done other but nod
> approval.
A fair appraisal. So, does PT deserve crucifixion because of a momentary
lapse of judgement, a few unwise words uttered twice? PT got into a bad
habit, that is all there is to it, and pursued things with his youthful
zest and vigor that makes him so refreshing an asset in other spheres.
This whole thing should not become a meal ticket for life for Sam. Not
even a soup kitchen for him. If even a wooden USCF nickel is paid over
to Sam, I'd consider it a travesty. Bye-bye from me to the USCF as far
as my future membership and dues are concerned. I have no hard feelings
at all against Sam, but it is just that I can't see what the blazes this
has to do with the USCF, other officers, Bill B. and so on. PT and Sam,
that is all it should have been. All the conspiracy chatter is hooey.
I appeal to the better side of Sam, to set aside these petty matters, to
see the bigger picture, to play the elder statesman, to display his good
heart, to secure his place in history, to forgive his transgressor, to
move on and upwards.
I apologize for the dirty speculations of my anony-brethren. They make
me ashamed. This whole scandal cross-posted by the usual suspect into
the privacy or anony-posting newsgroups is responsible for some or most
of the anonymice. Eventually, having no interest in chess, they will
get bored teasing cus and probing Brian, find something better to do
and vanish. Please, Sam, stop the cross-posting vandalism. Thanks.
Sam, if you are one of the anonymice, or know the answer, tell me how I
can switch this No-Archive switch to off. Thanks again.
[an anonymouse]
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Feb 2008 01:27:01
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
On Feb 11, 2:50 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected] > wrote:
> > After I sued them, they made some subtle changes in their retention and
> > search policies, that better protect authors' rights. I don't know if it
> > was my suit or a general concern, but the policy did change.
>
> So, would you care to state what these "subtle changes" actually were ?
>
> Or is this *yet another* case of you making claims without evidence ?
Um, Earth to moron: a lawsuit is a matter of
public record; he needn't provide any "evidence"
since any dufus who wants to can research the
matter for himself.
It's a bit like my relating of what former world
champ Tigran Petrosian has written; along
came some doubting-Thomases, who at first
insisted that TP had not written what I said, on
account of them not liking me; this later
transmogrified into them insisting that I needed
to name the book or article, and finally, to a
demand for page numbers and extensive
quotations. Logic dictates that no matter how
many of these "steps" I might take, the matter
would remain in doubt to those who are quite
ignorant of chess history, so what was in fact
required was a spot of research on their part,
to set things straight in their puny minds.
But don't let this guy intimidate you; he has
never argued successfully before the Supreme
Court. Just kick back and watch how the pros
do it-- watch lawyer Sam Sloan, not Flash
Gordon.
-- help bot
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Feb 2008 11:50:33
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!proxad.net!
feeder1-2.proxad.net!feeder.erje.net!news.exosphere.de!
news2.arglkargh.de!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!mail2news-x2!mail2news
Subject: Re: Why deal?
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
From: an anonymouse <[email protected] >
X-No-Archive: yes
References: <[email protected] >
Message-ID: <[email protected] >
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2008 21:40:22 +0000 (UTC)
Mail-To-News-Contact: [email protected]
Organization: [email protected]
On Feb 8, 4:40 pm, an anonymouse <[email protected] > wrote:
> Mike Murray wrote:
> > On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 19:36:37 -0800 (PST), The Historian
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> (I have a fourth reason, but it's too speculative to
> > >> mention, more along the lines of Innes' stylistic analysis)
>
> > >Would it be that both Parker and Sloan were the two posters who most
> > >prominently criticized Susan Polgar?
>
> > Something like that.. Both said stuff that was over the top and out
> > of line, IMO. If PT had come in as himself (or as an anonymouse) and
> > verbally flogged 'em, I doubt anybody would have done other but nod
> > approval.
>
> A fair appraisal. So, does PT deserve crucifixion because of a momentary
> lapse of judgement, a few unwise words uttered twice? PT got into a bad
> habit, that is all there is to it, and pursued things with his youthful
> zest and vigor that makes him so refreshing an asset in other spheres.
>
> This whole thing should not become a meal ticket for life for Sam. Not
> even a soup kitchen for him. If even a wooden USCF nickel is paid over
> to Sam, I'd consider it a travesty. Bye-bye from me to the USCF as far
> as my future membership and dues are concerned. I have no hard feelings
> at all against Sam, but it is just that I can't see what the blazes this
> has to do with the USCF, other officers, Bill B. and so on. PT and Sam,
> that is all it should have been. All the conspiracy chatter is hooey.
>
> I appeal to the better side of Sam, to set aside these petty matters, to
> see the bigger picture, to play the elder statesman, to display his good
> heart, to secure his place in history, to forgive his transgressor, to
> move on and upwards.
>
> I apologize for the dirty speculations of my anony-brethren. They make
> me ashamed. This whole scandal cross-posted by the usual suspect into
> the privacy or anony-posting newsgroups is responsible for some or most
> of the anonymice. Eventually, having no interest in chess, they will
> get bored teasing cus and probing Brian, find something better to do
> and vanish. Please, Sam, stop the cross-posting vandalism. Thanks.
>
> Sam, if you are one of the anonymice, or know the answer, tell me how I
> can switch this No-Archive switch to off. Thanks again.
>
> [an anonymouse]
This response is just to preserve this posting, that will otherwise be
deleted in 5 days.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Feb 2008 00:11:27
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
samsloan wrote:
>This response is just to preserve this posting, that will
>otherwise be deleted in 5 days.
Nope. It will stay on various NNTP servers for years or longer.
Once again you are confusing Google Groups -- a commercial website
that downloads material from Usenet, inserts advertisements, and
then pretends that it is original content -- with the actual Usenet
that Google Groups parasitises.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Feb 2008 18:02:54
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008 00:11:27 +0000, Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
>
>
>
>samsloan wrote:
>
>>This response is just to preserve this posting, that will
>>otherwise be deleted in 5 days.
>
>Nope. It will stay on various NNTP servers for years or longer.
>
>Once again you are confusing Google Groups -- a commercial website
>that downloads material from Usenet, inserts advertisements, and
>then pretends that it is original content -- with the actual Usenet
>that Google Groups parasitises.
And if a person compounds that by confusing Google with a real
newsreader.... it gets ugly real fast.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Feb 2008 01:49:15
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
>
> And if a person compounds that by confusing Google with a real
> newsreader.... it gets ugly real fast.
Google operates a web-based USENET server and a separate USENET archive.
After I sued them, they made some subtle changes in their retention and
search policies, that better protect authors' rights. I don't know if it
was my suit or a general concern, but the policy did change.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
"Ray Gordon" wrote:
>> And if a person compounds that by confusing Google with a real
>> newsreader.... it gets ugly real fast.
>
> Google operates a web-based USENET server and a separate USENET archive.
>
> After I sued them, they made some subtle changes in their retention and
> search policies, that better protect authors' rights. I don't know if it
> was my suit or a general concern, but the policy did change.
So, would you care to state what these "subtle changes" actually were ?
Or is this *yet another* case of you making claims without evidence ?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 10 Feb 2008 14:45:45
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
>I can't see what the blazes this
> has to do with the USCF, other officers, Bill B. and so on.
Be patient.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Feb 2008 09:27:47
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
On Feb 9, 10:17 am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> >I appeal to the better side of Sam, to set aside these petty matters, to
> >see the bigger picture, to play the elder statesman, to display his good
> >heart, to secure his place in history, to forgive his transgressor, to
> >move on and upwards.
>
> This sort of happy-ending-with-lessons-learned scenario usually
> involves the transgressor TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS. Do
> you envision this as part of the script ?
He's an anonymouse, Mike. He can't even take responsibility for his
own posting.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Feb 2008 12:03:30
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008 09:27:47 -0800 (PST), The Historian
<[email protected] > wrote:
>He's an anonymouse, Mike. He can't even take responsibility for his
>own posting.
I don't have a problem with someone posting anonymously. There may be
professional or personal reasons, separate from the discussion topic,
for not disclosing one's identity. I do think it helps continuity in
discussion if the anonymouse adopts a consistent online handle.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 09 Feb 2008 07:17:00
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Why deal?
|
On Fri, 8 Feb 2008 21:40:22 +0000 (UTC), an anonymouse
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Mike Murray wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 19:36:37 -0800 (PST), The Historian
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >Would it be that both Parker and Sloan were the two posters who most
>> >prominently criticized Susan Polgar?
>> Something like that.. Both said stuff that was over the top and out
>> of line, IMO. If PT had come in as himself (or as an anonymouse) and
>> verbally flogged 'em, I doubt anybody would have done other but nod
>> approval.
>A fair appraisal. So, does PT deserve crucifixion because of a momentary
>lapse of judgement, a few unwise words uttered twice? PT got into a bad
>habit, that is all there is to it, and pursued things with his youthful
>zest and vigor that makes him so refreshing an asset in other spheres.
Your two sentences above contradict each other. A bad habit pursued
with zest and vigor does not equate to a "momentary lapse in judgment,
a few unwise words uttered twice".
The FSS made several thousand posts, many going far beyond retribution
for caddish behavior against Ms Polgar.
Falsely using the names of real people, the FSS (1) slandered folks
who supported various USCF issues opposed by the FSS, (2) falsely
associated with the RSS, folks who opposed the Board candidacies
supported by the FSS, (3) attempted to manipulate the Board election
of the USCF, a non-profit corporation, (4) physically threatened
people.
>...I can't see what the blazes this
>has to do with the USCF, other officers, Bill B. and so on. PT and Sam,
>that is all it should have been. All the conspiracy chatter is hooey.
PT was part of slate of candidates, essentially attempting to take
over the USCF, and, arguably, was the architect of this endeavor. The
USCF is a multi-million dollar business with many employees. Seems
like any mano-e-mano stuff between him and Sloan was relegated far
into the background. The FSS attacked *all* the alternatives to this
slate. The FSS attacked supporters of alternative candidates.
>I appeal to the better side of Sam, to set aside these petty matters, to
>see the bigger picture, to play the elder statesman, to display his good
>heart, to secure his place in history, to forgive his transgressor, to
>move on and upwards.
This sort of happy-ending-with-lessons-learned scenario usually
involves the transgressor TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR HIS ACTIONS. Do
you envision this as part of the script ?
|
| |
Date: 04 Feb 2008 19:19:57
From: Ted E Bear
Subject: Re: First Draft - Affidavit in Opposition - Commernts Please
|
In the absence of a properly drafted "Amended Complaint", I predict that
this case will be dismissed. The advantage of an Amended Complaint are
many. First you can more carefully address the arguments raised in the
various Motions to Dismiss and remove extraneous material from your
pleading. Secondly, misjoinder of parties can be corrected. And most
important, all the MTD are then MOOT.
Ask Ray, he usually files an Amended Complaint when he finds out what the
objections are. Sadly he only refiles more word salad with no substance,
but he has IMHO, learned the age old tactic of the stall. Amateurs always
paint with a broad brush and try and right the "wrongs" of the world.
Professionals determine what laws have been broken, who broke them, what the
precedents are, and keep their pleadings on point. They also don't sue
people the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over.
Perhaps you should that in mind and reread what you are proposing to file.
If it looks frivolous, and sounds frivolous, it probably is a duck...
Disclaimer, do not consider any of the above to be legal advice. It's a
statement of my opinion only, protected by the First Amendment. You are
free to ignore me, in fact it would be better if you did..... Thank you.
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
| |
Date: 04 Feb 2008 15:09:49
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: First Draft - Affidavit in Opposition - Commernts Please
|
On behalf of pro-ses everywhere, especially those who used to work at big
law firms and had to prepare pleadings that held up in court, I thank you
for carrying the flag in court as only you can.
Your impact on pro-se cases eveywhere is simply beyond words, Samuel H.
Sloan.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
no longer work.
Thinking of taking a seduction "workshiop?" Read THIS:
http://www.dirtyscottsdale.com/?p=1187
Beware! VH-1's "The Pickup Artst" was FRAUDULENT. Six of the eight
contestants were actors, and they used PAID TARGETS in the club. The paid
targets got mad when VH-1 said "there are no actors in this club" and ruined
their prromised acting credit. What else has Mystery lied about?
|
| |
Date: 04 Feb 2008 15:04:54
From: Jonathan Kamens
Subject: Re: First Draft - Affidavit in Opposition - Commernts Please
|
Sam,
It appears that there are a lot of allegations in your proposed
affidavit which have nothing to do with the defendants' motion to
dismiss. I assume that you have already made these allegations in
the filings in which you initiated the lawsuit. If you did, then you
don't need to repeat them here, and if you didn't, then you need to
amend your lawsuit, rather than including new allegations in this
filing, because it's not the appropriate place for it.
This filing should specifically respond to the defendants' reasoning
in their motion to dismiss.
Repeating and/or raising new allegations in a response to a motion to
dismiss makes you look like a raving loony, which I doubt is the image
you wish to project to the judge.
IANAL, so take this advice for whatever you think it's worth.
--
Help stop the genocide in Darfur!
http://www.genocideintervention.net/
|
| | |
Date: 06 Feb 2008 06:16:59
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: First Draft - Affidavit in Opposition - Commernts Please
|
On Feb 4, 10:49 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 10:33 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 9:30 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 4, 10:13 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 4, 9:04 am, [email protected] (Jonathan Kamens)
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Sam,
>
> > > > [...]
>
> > > > > Repeating and/or raising new allegations in a response to a motion to
> > > > > dismiss makes you look like a raving loony, which I doubt is the image
> > > > > you wish to project to the judge.
>
> > > > [...]
>
> > > > Jonathan,
>
> > > > You're speaking to someone who's prevailed in the Supreme Court, one
> > > > of the finest legal minds of our times.
>
> > > > I think Mr. Sloan should correct the spelling of the name of cus
> > > > Roberts' future colleague (only one "s" in "Oberweis") and call it a
> > > > day.
>
> > > Thank you, Bill Brock, for correcting the spelling error in my
> > > affidavit against you.
>
> > > I shall also use your quote "one of the finest legal minds of our
> > > times" on the back cover blurb of my next book.
>
> > > Sam Sloan
>
> > You have my permission: guess who'll be collecting the royalties on
> > your next book?
>
> Seriously, my next book is really good. It has about 200 pictures in
> it.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891900
>
> However, as it is being printed right now, it is too late to quote
> you. It only quotes the Boston Globe article about me on the back
> cover blurb.
>
> Sam Sloan
If you want to order this book, you had better order it right now
because it is in the very final stages of production. Within no more
than 2 or 3 days the book will be out and Amazon will raise the price,
I believe.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891900
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2008 17:53:47
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: First Draft - Affidavit in Opposition - Commernts Please
|
Jonathan Kamens wrote:
[SNIP]
Jonathan, when Sam Slaon crossposts to...
rec.games.chess.politics,
misc.legal,
rec.games.chess.misc,
tx.politics,
rec.games.chess.computer,
alt.chess,
soc.culture.usa
... please trim the newsgroups when you reply to whatever subset
you determine the post to be on-topic in. Certainly this has
nothing to do with Texas politics or computer chess, so you
shouldn't be posting it to tx.politics or rec.games.chess.computer.
--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2008 07:49:12
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: First Draft - Affidavit in Opposition - Commernts Please
|
On Feb 4, 10:33 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 4, 9:30 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 10:13 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 4, 9:04 am, [email protected] (Jonathan Kamens)
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Sam,
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > > Repeating and/or raising new allegations in a response to a motion to
> > > > dismiss makes you look like a raving loony, which I doubt is the image
> > > > you wish to project to the judge.
>
> > > [...]
>
> > > Jonathan,
>
> > > You're speaking to someone who's prevailed in the Supreme Court, one
> > > of the finest legal minds of our times.
>
> > > I think Mr. Sloan should correct the spelling of the name of cus
> > > Roberts' future colleague (only one "s" in "Oberweis") and call it a
> > > day.
>
> > Thank you, Bill Brock, for correcting the spelling error in my
> > affidavit against you.
>
> > I shall also use your quote "one of the finest legal minds of our
> > times" on the back cover blurb of my next book.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> You have my permission: guess who'll be collecting the royalties on
> your next book?
Seriously, my next book is really good. It has about 200 pictures in
it.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891900
However, as it is being printed right now, it is too late to quote
you. It only quotes the Boston Globe article about me on the back
cover blurb.
Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 04 Feb 2008 08:44:41
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: First Draft - Affidavit in Opposition - Commernts Please
|
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 07:49:12 -0800 (PST), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Seriously, my next book is really good. It has about 200 pictures in
>it.
>
>http://www.amazon.com/dp/0923891900
How did you get Ms Exner to co-author ?
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2008 07:33:15
From:
Subject: Re: First Draft - Affidavit in Opposition - Commernts Please
|
On Feb 4, 9:30 am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Feb 4, 10:13 am, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 4, 9:04 am, [email protected] (Jonathan Kamens)
> > wrote:
>
> > > Sam,
>
> > [...]
>
> > > Repeating and/or raising new allegations in a response to a motion to
> > > dismiss makes you look like a raving loony, which I doubt is the image
> > > you wish to project to the judge.
>
> > [...]
>
> > Jonathan,
>
> > You're speaking to someone who's prevailed in the Supreme Court, one
> > of the finest legal minds of our times.
>
> > I think Mr. Sloan should correct the spelling of the name of cus
> > Roberts' future colleague (only one "s" in "Oberweis") and call it a
> > day.
>
> Thank you, Bill Brock, for correcting the spelling error in my
> affidavit against you.
>
> I shall also use your quote "one of the finest legal minds of our
> times" on the back cover blurb of my next book.
>
> Sam Sloan
You have my permission: guess who'll be collecting the royalties on
your next book?
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2008 07:30:59
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: First Draft - Affidavit in Opposition - Commernts Please
|
On Feb 4, 10:13 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Feb 4, 9:04 am, [email protected] (Jonathan Kamens)
> wrote:
>
> > Sam,
>
> [...]
>
> > Repeating and/or raising new allegations in a response to a motion to
> > dismiss makes you look like a raving loony, which I doubt is the image
> > you wish to project to the judge.
>
> [...]
>
> Jonathan,
>
> You're speaking to someone who's prevailed in the Supreme Court, one
> of the finest legal minds of our times.
>
> I think Mr. Sloan should correct the spelling of the name of cus
> Roberts' future colleague (only one "s" in "Oberweis") and call it a
> day.
Thank you, Bill Brock, for correcting the spelling error in my
affidavit against you.
I shall also use your quote "one of the finest legal minds of our
times" on the back cover blurb of my next book.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 04 Feb 2008 07:13:50
From:
Subject: Re: First Draft - Affidavit in Opposition - Commernts Please
|
On Feb 4, 9:04 am, [email protected] (Jonathan Kamens)
wrote:
> Sam,
>
[...]
>
> Repeating and/or raising new allegations in a response to a motion to
> dismiss makes you look like a raving loony, which I doubt is the image
> you wish to project to the judge.
>
[...]
Jonathan,
You're speaking to someone who's prevailed in the Supreme Court, one
of the finest legal minds of our times.
I think Mr. Sloan should correct the spelling of the name of cus
Roberts' future colleague (only one "s" in "Oberweis") and call it a
day.
|
|
