Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

Main

Date: 28 Nov 2008 10:45:26
From: samsloan
Subject: Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

In a major development in the USCF vs Polgar case pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
in San Francisco, and in the related case of Polgar vs USCF in the
Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division, Susan Polgar is moving
to quash the subpoenas first served on her last July. She is also
seeking to transfer the California case to the Texas court.

Here is her letter motion sent two days ago and the response by the
USCF's attorney filed later the same day:

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-tries-to-quash.pdf

http://www.anusha.com/karl-responds-to-quash.pdf

This motion is likely to be the decisive moment in this case. If
Polgar can succeed in quashing the subpoenas, she can postpone
testifying for years, giving herself enough time to win the coming
USCF election in July and complete her takeover of the USCF.

On the other hand, if she loses, she may have to flee the country.
Indeed, this may explain why she returned to the United States from
Germany on November 26, 2008, the same day as the date of her letter.

Personally, I think she will lose. San Francisco is uniquely suitable
as a venue, since the allegation is that she broke into Randy Hough's
Yahoo Internet account 111 times, and Yahoo is headquartered in the
San Francisco Bay Area. Also, I do not believe that Judge Patel will
agree to the indefinite postponement of her deposition that she is
seeking.

In addition, the California case was filed before the Texas case so if
anything the Texas case should be transferred to California.

By now, everybody knows that Susan Polgar is guilty as Hell.
Otherwise, why does she so adamantly refuse to testify? As the
attorneys for the USCF have pointed out, if she were not guilty and
were a victim of impersonation, she would be aggressively willing to
testify and she would be actively be seeking to find out her imposter.

When these cases first started, Jim Killion, Susan Polgar's attorney,
called me and said that he wanted to schedule a deposition. I told him
that I am willing to testify under oath any time, any where, and I
will even come to Texas to testify if he pays my airfare.

I have never heard from Mr. Killion since.

Why does not Susan Polgar give a similar answer?

Sam Sloan

Date: 03 Dec 2008 09:13:35
From: Krus T. Olfard
Subject: Re: Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

samsloan <[email protected] > wrote in news:4c658bba-7b83-4d8e-983d-
[email protected]:

> By now, everybody knows that Susan Polgar is guilty as Hell.
> Otherwise, why does she so adamantly refuse to testify?

I am sure you realize that the first statement is not the only possible
reason for the second statement. It is, of course, the one that fits your
agenda but other than that...

--
I'm an opinionated bastard. Everything I post is my opinion. If you do
not like my opinions then killfile me - if you like my opinions then send
me money.

The KTO Dictionary of Subjective Language

Tard: n Someone whose actions/words make her/him look like an idiot in
public but s/he is too disconnected to reality to realize it.

Date: 30 Nov 2008 01:19:56
From:
Subject: Re: Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

foad wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:e456c8b0-9045-4a58-8918-81f0f9397454@j11g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > foad wrote:
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:66f4d1d7-9c0e-4f6a-8817-a346c743f20f@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > samsloan wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Eric Schiller wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Nonsense. This a routine, predictable move that any lawyer would
> >> >> > make.
> >> >> > Nothing major here. Polgar returned from Germany because the
> >> >> > Olympiad
> >> >> > had ended. No deep maneuvers.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Did you read the two letters, Eric ?
> >> >>
> >> >> I disagree. I think this motion is not routine. Note that Polgar has
> >> >> not even answered the complaint yet and instead has asked for an
> >> >> extension of time.
> >> >>
> >> >> I doubt that many lawyers would make this motion in federal court and
> >> >> I expect it to be denied summarily.
> >> >>
> >> >> What do you think she will do then? Do you think she will ever
> >> >> testify? I do not believe that she ever will. She might take the Fifth
> >> >> or else just not show up.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sam
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You can't "take the fifth" in a civil proceeding. The privilege
> >> > against self-incrimination applies only to criminal prosecution. In a
> >> > civil action, if you refuse to testify you lose the case. If the DOJ
> >> > files a criminal action that's another matter, but that hasn't
> >> > happened yet.
> >>
> >> The Self-Incrimination Clause applies to every type of legal proceeding,
> >> whether it is civil, criminal, or administrative in nature.
> >> Traditionally,
> >> the privilege against self-incrimination was most frequently asserted
> >> during
> >> the trial phase of legal proceedings, where individuals are placed under
> >> oath and asked questions on the witness stand. However, in the twentieth
> >> century application of the privilege was extended to the pretrial stages
> >> of
> >> legal proceedings as well. In civil cases, for example, the right against
> >> self-incrimination may be asserted when potentially incriminating
> >> questions
> >> are posed in depositions and interrogatories.
> >>
> >> http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/fifth-amendment
> >
> >
> > Not quite.
>
> Moron makes false statement. Shown quotation disproving false statement,
> moron says "not quite."
>
>
>
> > "...(T)he testimony given in a civil action may subsequently may
> > subsequently be used in a criminal prosecution of the party or
> > witness. If the right against self-incrimination is invoked by a
> > party, however, the invocation may not only be commented upon by an
> > opponent in civil litigation, it may give rise to an adverse inference
> > and bar the invoking party from later introducing documents or
> > testimony that were shielded by the invocation."
> > The Right Against Self-incrimination in Civil Litigation, published
> > by American Bar Association, 2001
> >
> > In other words, you can testify and potentially incriminate yourself,
> > or you can refuse to testify and lose the civil case.
>
> That doesn't say anything of the sort. Try learning to read.
>
> ps You said "You can't "take the fifth" in a civil proceeding. The
> privilege against self-incrimination applies only to criminal prosecution."
> That's false. You're welcome.

Apparently you're used to dealing with cretins like Sloan. That
approach doesn't work well with your intellectual superiors. What I
wrote is an accurate paraphrase of what the ABA article says. In a
criminal proceeding, a) the prosecutor may not use refusal to testify
on grounds of self-incrimination to infer guilt, and b) the state has
the power to compel testimony by threat of fine or imprisonment. In a
civil case, a) the opposing side is free to use any refusal to testify
as an argument against the invoking party (Do you understand what
"adverse inference means? Do you understand what "inference" means? Do
you understand what "clean hands" means?), and b) the penalty for
refusal is loss of the case. (Well, you can get hit with contempt, or
possibly sanctioned, if you really work at it, but that's hardly
relevant here.)

Sorry if I used too many big words for you. Now why don't you get back
under your bridge?

Date: 30 Nov 2008 15:48:52
From: foad
Subject: Re: Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Apparently you're used to dealing with cretins like Sloan.

On the contrary, in usenet I deal with a vast panorama of cretins.

> That approach doesn't work well with your intellectual superiors.

Intellectual superiors'd be you I take it. Rest assured, I'm all
afuckingtremble.

> What I wrote is an accurate paraphrase of what the ABA article says.

No. If you're merely a barely literate ignoramus it's a wildly inaccurate
mischaracterization of the ABA article. If you're of close to normal
intelligence then it's a brazen lie. There is no middle ground.

> In a
> criminal proceeding, a) the prosecutor may not use refusal to testify
> on grounds of self-incrimination to infer guilt, and b) the state has
> the power to compel testimony by threat of fine or imprisonment.

We're not discussing a criminal proceeding, so who fucking cares.

> In a
> civil case, a) the opposing side is free to use any refusal to testify
> as an argument against the invoking party (Do you understand what
> "adverse inference means? Do you understand what "inference" means? Do
> you understand what "clean hands" means?),

Well yes, as a lawyer I'm aware of the meaning of many common everyday legal
phrases. Obviously you're not though, because you think "adverse inference"
means "lose the case," which frankly makes you appear something of a
chowderfuckinghead. Allow me to enlighten you. I'll go slow and you try and
follow along, using your finger if necessary.

1. First you said "The privilege against self-incrimination applies only to
criminal prosecution." This is obviously incorrect, wrong, and stupid,
meaning that you know even less about this subject than the imbecile Sloan.
Not a very auspicious beginning for a self-proclaimed sooper genyious such
as yourself. And in fact, your own citation proved you wrong. In attempting
to prove that "You can't take the fifth in a civil proceeding" you provided
a source that discusses situations where "the right against
self-incrimination is invoked by a party. . . in civil litigation." So your
own source disproved your initital pronouncement. Wot a maroon.

2. Second, your source discusses the consequences of asserting the
privilege. Taking the fifth in a civil case "may give rise to an . . .
inference" and "[may] bar the party from introducing [evidence] shielded by
the invocation."

The first part ("may give rise to an . . . inference") means that the jury
in a civil case is permitted to consider the assertion of privilege in its
deliberations. May - notice the permissive may, not the directive "shall" -
give rise to an inference that the party is guilty of the crime toward which
the assertion is directed. There are any number of situations where an
inference of guilt does not constitute proof of liability in the civil case,
as for example where allegations of criminal conduct are introduced to
influence or rebut issues of reputation, credibility, or character. In any
event, giving rise to an adverse inference on one particular issue is not
the same as "lose the case." There might be situations where an adverse
inference is dispositive on the issue of liability -- eg where a driver in a
wrongful death suit asserts the fifth in response to answer questions
regarding whether he was drinking while driving the jury may be permitted to
infer that he was intoxicated and thus at fault -- but its hardly true in
every case.

The second part ("[may] bar the party from introducing [evidence] shielded
by the invocation") means just what it says, that the asserting party may -
again may, not shall - not be permitted to later introduce evidence
regarding issues about which he refused to testify earlier. That is the
"penalty" for the assertion: the possible exclusion of certain evidence.
Which, again, is not the same as a directed verdict.

But don't take my word for it, enjoy some federal law:

"When a defendant at trial invokes the Fifth Amendment and chooses not to
testify, there is a risk that the jury will assign culpability to him by
assuming merely from his silence that he has something to hide."
Hinojosa v. Butler, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 22282

"The Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to
civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence
offered against them. The negative inference against a witness who invokes
the Fifth Amendment in a civil case is permissive, not required."
513 F.3d 735; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 1246

> and b) the penalty for refusal is loss of the case.

No. And you merely repeating this stupidity over and over and over and over
and over again in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary isn't
going to make it so. So I have an idea. How about you provide a citation
that says the penalty for asserting your fifth amendment right in a civil
case is an adverse directed verdict, a citation that doesn't involve you
"paraphrasing" or saying "in other words"-- you know, one that doesn't
involve you talking completely out your fucking ass.

(Well, you can get hit with contempt, or
> possibly sanctioned, if you really work at it, but that's hardly
> relevant here.)

If you really work at what, nitwit? Taking the fifth? So if you assert the
fifth you "lose the case," but if you "really work at" taking the fifth
you'll be held in contempt and you'll be also sanctioned? How does one work
hard at taking the fifth? Does the witness get all trussed up like Houdini
and then attempt to assert his constitutional rights while escaping from a
trunk or summat? Because that sounds exciting.

>
> Sorry if I used too many big words for you. Now why don't you get back
> under your bridge?

Yeah golly, you're a real force.

Date: 29 Nov 2008 21:10:02
From:
Subject: Re: Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

foad wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:66f4d1d7-9c0e-4f6a-8817-a346c743f20f@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > samsloan wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Eric Schiller wrote:
> >>
> >> > Nonsense. This a routine, predictable move that any lawyer would make.
> >> > Nothing major here. Polgar returned from Germany because the Olympiad
> >> > had ended. No deep maneuvers.
> >>
> >>
> >> Did you read the two letters, Eric ?
> >>
> >> I disagree. I think this motion is not routine. Note that Polgar has
> >> not even answered the complaint yet and instead has asked for an
> >> extension of time.
> >>
> >> I doubt that many lawyers would make this motion in federal court and
> >> I expect it to be denied summarily.
> >>
> >> What do you think she will do then? Do you think she will ever
> >> testify? I do not believe that she ever will. She might take the Fifth
> >> or else just not show up.
> >>
> >> Sam
> >
> >
> > You can't "take the fifth" in a civil proceeding. The privilege
> > against self-incrimination applies only to criminal prosecution. In a
> > civil action, if you refuse to testify you lose the case. If the DOJ
> > files a criminal action that's another matter, but that hasn't
> > happened yet.
>
> The Self-Incrimination Clause applies to every type of legal proceeding,
> whether it is civil, criminal, or administrative in nature. Traditionally,
> the privilege against self-incrimination was most frequently asserted during
> the trial phase of legal proceedings, where individuals are placed under
> oath and asked questions on the witness stand. However, in the twentieth
> century application of the privilege was extended to the pretrial stages of
> legal proceedings as well. In civil cases, for example, the right against
> self-incrimination may be asserted when potentially incriminating questions
> are posed in depositions and interrogatories.
>
> http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/fifth-amendment

Not quite.

"...(T)he testimony given in a civil action may subsequently may
subsequently be used in a criminal prosecution of the party or
witness. If the right against self-incrimination is invoked by a
party, however, the invocation may not only be commented upon by an
opponent in civil litigation, it may give rise to an adverse inference
and bar the invoking party from later introducing documents or
testimony that were shielded by the invocation."
The Right Against Self-incrimination in Civil Litigation, published
by American Bar Association, 2001

In other words, you can testify and potentially incriminate yourself,
or you can refuse to testify and lose the civil case.

Date: 30 Nov 2008 06:23:43
From: foad
Subject: Re: Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:e456c8b0-9045-4a58-8918-81f0f9397454@j11g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> foad wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:66f4d1d7-9c0e-4f6a-8817-a346c743f20f@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> >
>> > samsloan wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Eric Schiller wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Nonsense. This a routine, predictable move that any lawyer would
>> >> > make.
>> >> > Nothing major here. Polgar returned from Germany because the
>> >> > Olympiad
>> >> > had ended. No deep maneuvers.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Did you read the two letters, Eric ?
>> >>
>> >> I disagree. I think this motion is not routine. Note that Polgar has
>> >> not even answered the complaint yet and instead has asked for an
>> >> extension of time.
>> >>
>> >> I doubt that many lawyers would make this motion in federal court and
>> >> I expect it to be denied summarily.
>> >>
>> >> What do you think she will do then? Do you think she will ever
>> >> testify? I do not believe that she ever will. She might take the Fifth
>> >> or else just not show up.
>> >>
>> >> Sam
>> >
>> >
>> > You can't "take the fifth" in a civil proceeding. The privilege
>> > against self-incrimination applies only to criminal prosecution. In a
>> > civil action, if you refuse to testify you lose the case. If the DOJ
>> > files a criminal action that's another matter, but that hasn't
>> > happened yet.
>>
>> The Self-Incrimination Clause applies to every type of legal proceeding,
>> whether it is civil, criminal, or administrative in nature.
>> Traditionally,
>> the privilege against self-incrimination was most frequently asserted
>> during
>> the trial phase of legal proceedings, where individuals are placed under
>> oath and asked questions on the witness stand. However, in the twentieth
>> century application of the privilege was extended to the pretrial stages
>> of
>> legal proceedings as well. In civil cases, for example, the right against
>> self-incrimination may be asserted when potentially incriminating
>> questions
>> are posed in depositions and interrogatories.
>>
>> http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/fifth-amendment
>
>
> Not quite.

Moron makes false statement. Shown quotation disproving false statement,
moron says "not quite."

> "...(T)he testimony given in a civil action may subsequently may
> subsequently be used in a criminal prosecution of the party or
> witness. If the right against self-incrimination is invoked by a
> party, however, the invocation may not only be commented upon by an
> opponent in civil litigation, it may give rise to an adverse inference
> and bar the invoking party from later introducing documents or
> testimony that were shielded by the invocation."
> The Right Against Self-incrimination in Civil Litigation, published
> by American Bar Association, 2001
>
> In other words, you can testify and potentially incriminate yourself,
> or you can refuse to testify and lose the civil case.

That doesn't say anything of the sort. Try learning to read.

ps You said "You can't "take the fifth" in a civil proceeding. The
privilege against self-incrimination applies only to criminal prosecution."
That's false. You're welcome.

Date: 29 Nov 2008 06:55:46
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

On Nov 29, 1:59=A0am, Offramp <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 28, 6:45 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Why does not Susan Polgar give a similar answer?
>
> Susan Polgar stars in The Quash of Subpoenas (rated XXX Contains
> prolonged and very prolonged boredom).

Ah, that must be the alleged snuff film she appeared in.

Date: 28 Nov 2008 22:59:16
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

On Nov 28, 6:45 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:

> Why does not Susan Polgar give a similar answer?

Susan Polgar stars in The Quash of Subpoenas (rated XXX Contains
prolonged and very prolonged boredom).

Date: 28 Nov 2008 18:32:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

Date: 28 Nov 2008 17:37:54
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

Please note that by this motion, counsel for Susan Polgar seeks to
quash subpoenas served on America Online, American Express, Comcast
Cable Company and CrystalTech Web Hosting.

It is obvious that, through these subpoenas, the USCF seeks to prove
that Susan Polgar is "The Fake Sam Sloan" and also that it was Susan
Polgar who broke in to Randy'Hough's Yahoo Internet Account 111 times.

I think that the USCF will win on this. The governing case is Global
Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath, CV 06-3669 (DRH) decided in the
Eastern District of New York on November 30, 2006. That 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".

However, in the instant case, counsel for the USCF seems to be saying
that it was Susan Polgar, not Paul Truong, who was the Fake Sam Sloan.

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-tries-to-quash.pdf

http://www.anusha.com/karl-responds-to-quash.pdf

This will be a remarkable development, if it proves to be true.

Those who know Susan well say that she is entirely capable of making
the short and obscene comments that are so characteristic of postings
by The Fake Sam Sloan.

The Real Sam Sloan

On Nov 28, 3:33=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Eric Schiller wrote:
> > Nonsense. This a routine, predictable move that any lawyer would make. =
Nothing major here. Polgar returned from Germany because the Olympiad had e=
nded. No deep maneuvers.
>
> Did you read the two letters, Eric ?
>
> I disagree. I think this motion is not routine. Note that Polgar has
> not even answered the complaint yet and instead has asked for an
> extension of time.
>
> I doubt that many lawyers would make this motion in federal court and
> I expect it to be denied summarily.
>
> What do you think she will do then? Do you think she will ever
> testify? I do not believe that she ever will. She might take the Fifth
> or else just not show up.
>
> Sam

Date: 28 Nov 2008 15:21:13
From:
Subject: Re: Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

On Nov 28, 12:45=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> In a major development in the USCF vs Polgar case pending in the
> United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
> in San Francisco, and in the related case of Polgar vs USCF in the
> Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division, Susan Polgar is moving
> to quash the subpoenas first served on her last July. She is also
> seeking to transfer the California case to the Texas court.
>
> Here is her letter motion sent two days ago and the response by the
> USCF's attorney filed later the same day:
>
> http://www.anusha.com/polgar-tries-to-quash.pdf
>
> http://www.anusha.com/karl-responds-to-quash.pdf
>
> This motion is likely to be the decisive moment in this case. If
> Polgar can succeed in quashing the subpoenas, she can postpone
> testifying for years, giving herself enough time to win the coming
> USCF election in July and complete her takeover of the USCF.
>
> On the other hand, if she loses, she may have to flee the country.
> Indeed, this may explain why she returned to the United States from
> Germany on November 26, 2008, the same day as the date of her letter.
>
> Personally, I think she will lose. San Francisco is uniquely suitable
> as a venue, since the allegation is that she broke into Randy Hough's
> Yahoo Internet account 111 times, and Yahoo is headquartered in the
> San Francisco Bay Area. Also, I do not believe that Judge Patel will
> agree to the indefinite postponement of her deposition that she is
> seeking.
>
> In addition, the California case was filed before the Texas case so if
> anything the Texas case should be transferred to California.
>
> By now, everybody knows that Susan Polgar is guilty as Hell.
> Otherwise, why does she so adamantly refuse to testify? As the
> attorneys for the USCF have pointed out, if she were not guilty and
> were a victim of impersonation, she would be aggressively willing to
> testify and she would be actively be seeking to find out her imposter.
>
> When these cases first started, Jim Killion, Susan Polgar's attorney,
> called me and said that he wanted to schedule a deposition. I told him
> that I am willing to testify under oath any time, any where, and I
> will even come to Texas to testify if he pays my airfare.
>
> I have never heard from Mr. Killion since.
>
> Why does not Susan Polgar give a similar answer?
>
> Sam Sloan

No Sam, she is writing Hillary a letter to ask to negoitate with me on
behalf of Secretary Clinton.
If that happens, the UK Ambassador to USA will be a chess nerd.
Hillary Clinton and Susan Polgar
can molest children on behalf of New York and Texas.

Marcus Roberts
Ambassador of St Kitts and Nevis

Date: 28 Nov 2008 23:02:41
From: foad
Subject: Re: Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:4c658bba-7b83-4d8e-983d-21abac47b7ca@j35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

> if she loses, she may have to flee the country.
> Indeed, this may explain why she returned to the United States

Well yes, it'd be difficult for her to flee the country if she were already
abroad.

Date: 28 Nov 2008 14:34:46
From:
Subject: Re: Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

samsloan wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Eric Schiller wrote:
>
> > Nonsense. This a routine, predictable move that any lawyer would make. Nothing major here. Polgar returned from Germany because the Olympiad had ended. No deep maneuvers.
>
>
> Did you read the two letters, Eric ?
>
> I disagree. I think this motion is not routine. Note that Polgar has
> not even answered the complaint yet and instead has asked for an
> extension of time.
>
> I doubt that many lawyers would make this motion in federal court and
> I expect it to be denied summarily.
>
> What do you think she will do then? Do you think she will ever
> testify? I do not believe that she ever will. She might take the Fifth
> or else just not show up.
>
> Sam

You can't "take the fifth" in a civil proceeding. The privilege
against self-incrimination applies only to criminal prosecution. In a
civil action, if you refuse to testify you lose the case. If the DOJ
files a criminal action that's another matter, but that hasn't
happened yet.

Date: 29 Nov 2008 01:00:52
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

[email protected] wrote:
>
> samsloan wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Eric Schiller wrote:
>>
>>> Nonsense. This a routine, predictable move that any lawyer would make. Nothing major here. Polgar returned from Germany because the Olympiad had ended. No deep maneuvers.
>>
>> Did you read the two letters, Eric ?
>>
>> I disagree. I think this motion is not routine. Note that Polgar has
>> not even answered the complaint yet and instead has asked for an
>> extension of time.
>>
>> I doubt that many lawyers would make this motion in federal court and
>> I expect it to be denied summarily.
>>
>> What do you think she will do then? Do you think she will ever
>> testify? I do not believe that she ever will. She might take the Fifth
>> or else just not show up.
>>
>> Sam
>
>
> You can't "take the fifth" in a civil proceeding. The privilege
> against self-incrimination applies only to criminal prosecution. In a
> civil action, if you refuse to testify you lose the case. If the DOJ
> files a criminal action that's another matter, but that hasn't
> happened yet.

Not correct. The privilege against self-incrimination can be invokded
in any proceeding. Think of the people at the McCarthy hearing who
asserted it. Of course, a grant of immunity can compel
testimony--requested or simply given.

Date: 28 Nov 2008 22:57:45
From: foad
Subject: Re: Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:66f4d1d7-9c0e-4f6a-8817-a346c743f20f@f13g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> samsloan wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Eric Schiller wrote:
>>
>> > Nonsense. This a routine, predictable move that any lawyer would make.
>> > Nothing major here. Polgar returned from Germany because the Olympiad
>> > had ended. No deep maneuvers.
>>
>>
>> Did you read the two letters, Eric ?
>>
>> I disagree. I think this motion is not routine. Note that Polgar has
>> not even answered the complaint yet and instead has asked for an
>> extension of time.
>>
>> I doubt that many lawyers would make this motion in federal court and
>> I expect it to be denied summarily.
>>
>> What do you think she will do then? Do you think she will ever
>> testify? I do not believe that she ever will. She might take the Fifth
>> or else just not show up.
>>
>> Sam
>
>
> You can't "take the fifth" in a civil proceeding. The privilege
> against self-incrimination applies only to criminal prosecution. In a
> civil action, if you refuse to testify you lose the case. If the DOJ
> files a criminal action that's another matter, but that hasn't
> happened yet.

The Self-Incrimination Clause applies to every type of legal proceeding,
whether it is civil, criminal, or administrative in nature. Traditionally,
the privilege against self-incrimination was most frequently asserted during
the trial phase of legal proceedings, where individuals are placed under
oath and asked questions on the witness stand. However, in the twentieth
century application of the privilege was extended to the pretrial stages of
legal proceedings as well. In civil cases, for example, the right against
self-incrimination may be asserted when potentially incriminating questions
are posed in depositions and interrogatories.

http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-encyclopedia/fifth-amendment

Date: 28 Nov 2008 12:33:26
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Eric Schiller wrote:

> Nonsense. This a routine, predictable move that any lawyer would make. Nothing major here. Polgar returned from Germany because the Olympiad had ended. No deep maneuvers.

Did you read the two letters, Eric ?

I disagree. I think this motion is not routine. Note that Polgar has
not even answered the complaint yet and instead has asked for an
extension of time.

I doubt that many lawyers would make this motion in federal court and
I expect it to be denied summarily.

What do you think she will do then? Do you think she will ever
testify? I do not believe that she ever will. She might take the Fifth
or else just not show up.

Sam