| |
Main
Date: 23 Sep 2008 19:51:36
From: samsloan
Subject: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
Sam Sloan,
Plaintiff,
-against-
Hoainhan =93Paul=94 Truong, Zsuzsanna =93Susan=94 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
__________________________________________
MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURTS ORDER AND
JUDGMENT DISMISSING THIS COMPLAINT
__________________________________________
Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I hereby remove for a rehearing and reconsideration of this courts
order and judgment dated August 29, 2008 dismissing this action.
2. The court, in its decision, made a serious error, in the following
statement.
Goichberg has submitted ample evidence to show that he is a "citizen"
of New York for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, including: the
deed to his house in Orange County, New York; property tax records for
his New York residence; and affidavits attesting that he votes, pays
taxes, and resides exclusively in New York. (See Goichberg Aff. &
Suppl. Aff.).
3. This is not true. Goichberg DID NOT provide to the court =93the deed
to his house in Orange County, New York=94 or =93property tax records for
his New York residence=94. The only thing he provided was a brief
summary affidavit saying that he votes and pays taxes in New York and
nowhere else.
4. I was quite concerned and alarmed when I saw this statement in the
decision of this court because this might indicate that my adversaries
filed there documents in court without sending a copy to me. However,
I have checked on PACER and no such documents have been filed with
this court.
5. However, subsequent to the decision of this court, one of my
adversaries, Proskauer Rose, submitted a bill of costs and included as
an exhibit a deed to property in New York. However, the document he
submitted shows that he did not make his request to the Orange County
Clerk until February 6 which was after his final submission to this
court which means that he did not receive it until it was too late to
submit it.
6. More than that, the deed he submitted, which is dated 1991, is a
deed to an EMPTY LOT. Unless Bill Goichberg has constructed a building
on that property or lives in a tent, that is not his residence.
7. My affidavit opposition stated:
5. In his moving affidavit he states that his residence is at 2084
Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY 12577. If that is the case, how come I
cannot find this address listed anywhere? Not only it is not listed
anywhere as his address, but it is not listed anywhere at all.
6. In fact, the address of 2084 Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY 12577
DOES NOT EXIST.
7. My investigation confirms that 2084 Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY
12577 is not a residence or a domiciliary address. I have checked
every possible source for the address of 2084 Route 94, Salisbury
Mills NY 12577. For example, I checked the US Postal Service website
which has the full 9-digit zip code for every address in America at
http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/zcl_0_results.jsp
8. The decision of this court implies that I merely stated that
Goichberg does not answer his telephone when I call. That is not what
I wrote. What I wrote was that Goichberg DOES NOT HAVE A HOME
TELEPHONE because GOICHBERG DOES NOT HAVE A HOME.
9. Goichberg is constantly =93on the road=94. He never stops anywhere long
enough to declare any one place to be his permanent home. He moves
from cheap hotel room to cheap hotel room. That is his live style.
10. Just to make sure that this has not changed while this case has
been going, I went to the US Postal Service Website at
http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/zcl_0_results.jsp and entered the address
Goichberg told this court was his address, which was 2084 Route 94,
Salisbury Mills NY 12577.
11. The answer that came back, which anybody can check, was:
We're sorry! We were unable to process your request.
The address was not found. Please check the address below.
You may want to utilize the Yellow Pages and/or White Pages below.
9. Since Goichberg and I are still talking to each other, I asked him
about this at a recent chess tournament and he replied that he does
not want to reveal his real address because he does not want chess
players to know where he lives. He does not want people to come to his
house and demand their prize money and things like that.
10. Goichberg is not hiding or anything like that. He can be found
almost any time at a chess tournament somewhere around the country or,
if no chess tournament is then talking place he will be at the race
track. However, he does not have an address, other than a PO Box. I
submit that a person who does not have an address or is refusing to
reveal it cannot use that secret address to defeat diversity
jurisdioction.
11. The mail point here is all we have seen is a deed to an empty lot
dated 1991, which is annexed as an exhibit. We do not even know if he
still owns that lot. This is clearly insufficient to establish
citizenship to defeat a diversity claim. Her has submitted no tax
records or other documents of any kind.
12. Next Goichberg says that he pays taxes only in New York State and
nowhere else. This should be cause for concern because he derives
virtually no income in New York State. All of his income comes from
other states. He makes his primary income from four mega-tournaments
held every year. These can be found posted on his website at
http://www.chesstour.com/ . They are:
The World Open held every year in Philadelphia over July 4th weekend
with at least $350,000 in prizes.
The Chicago Open held every year over Memorial Day Weekend with
$100,000 in prizes.
The North American Open held at Bally's Las Vegas every December
26-29 with $100,000 in prizes.
The Foxwoods Open held at Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut every
Easter weekend with $100,000 in prizes.
Other than these huge events to which chess players come from all over
the world to play, Goichberg holds smaller events such as the Midwest
Class Championships in Chicago with only $20,000 in prizes.
13. You will notice that none of these tournaments are in New York
State. Goichberg often states that he avoids New York State because it
is =93too expensive=94.
14. However, he does hold one tournament per year which is the New
York State Championship which is always held in Upstate New York,
never in New York City. However, unlike the other tournaments listed,
he does not direct that one. He always hires somebody else to direct
it. This means that his profits from that event are little or nothing.
The reason he holds that tournament but does not direct is is that
keeps him in control of the New York State Chess Federation.
Otherwise, he risks being voted out of office.
15. There are certainly a lot of people who would like to vote
Goichberg out of office. There are many complaints about =93conflict of
interest=94 in that he is by far the biggest chess tournament organizer
in America while he is also the USCF President. However, I am not part
of the anti-Goichberg crowd. I have been supporting and defending
Goichberg from these attacks for more than 40 years, which makes it so
strange that he started attacking me from the day that I got elected
to the USCF Executive Board in July 2006.
16. The question here is: How can Goichberg claim that he only pays
taxes in New York State and not in any other state when he derived
virtually zero income from New York State and all of his income comes
from other states? I believe that he should submit his income tax
statement to this court. If he refuses, as he probably will, then his
non-diversity defense should be denied.
17. I provided to this court the address where Goichberg was living
when this case was filed. I wrote, =93He presently resides at the Santa
Anita Inn located at 130 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007.
This is near to the Santa Anita Race Track, where Mr. Goichberg plays
the horses.=94
18. Mr. Goichberg did not deny this or even respond to this point.
Therefore, I do not see how he can win on the diversity issue.
19. In addition, I stated that I would be willing to eliminate
Goichberg as a defendant it necessary to preserve diversity. None of
the other defendants are claiming New York Citizenship. Thus, I fail
to understand why the court made such a Draconian Remedy as to dismiss
my claim =93with prejudice=94.
20. At a minimum there should be a fact hearing where Goichberg can
present his evidence and I can present my contrary evidence. This will
give Goichberg a change to produce his =93 concrete evidence=94 that he
claims to have but has not thus far produced.
21. Next, this court makes the shocking ruling that Internet Identity
theft fails to state a federal cause of action. This, only a few days
after the New York Times reported that the United States Secret
Service is investigating this and a closely related case, also
involving some of the same defendants.
22. This court stated:
a criminal statute that prohibits the making of "obscene or harassing"
telecommunications, but creates no private right of action. See
Ghartey v. Chrysler Credit Corp., No. CV-92-1782 (CPS), 1992 WL
373479, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 1992).
23. This is an unreported district court decision that has no
presidential value. More than that, it does not concern Internet
identity theft. Indeed, back in 1992 Internet identity theft did not
yet exist. Nowadays, there are millions of victims of Internet
identity theft of which I am just one. For obvious reasons, the state
courts are ill equipped to deal with Internet identity theft. One of
the reasons is obvious from the facts of this case. Since this case
was filed on October 2, 2007, Susan Polgar and Paul Truong have
traveled the world, to such diverse places as Germany, Argentina,
Sardenia, Scotland, India, Hungary and many other countries. She has
posted photos of herself on her website standing in front of the Taj
Mahal in India, overlooking the Grand Canyon in Arizona and many other
places. She is living a =93If this is Tuesday, This Must be Belgium=94
existence. Yet, during all these travels, she and Truong are never far
from their laptop computers where they post vile, vicious personal
attacks on various chess personalities almost every day.
24. What can a New York State Court judge do about this? Only the
federal courts can handle this.
25. An ancient Roman legal maxim states: ubi ius, ibi remedium. =93Where
there is a right, there is a remedy.=94 Generally, the law will not
countenance a situation where a person has a legal right but no means
of enforcing it. The law will provide a means. Or, in the English
common-law tradition, where the law does not provide a means of
enforcing a right, equity will.
26. The Mottershead Report has documented 2464 =93Fake Sam Sloan=94
postings along with proof that all of these 2464 postings were by Paul
Truong and Susan Polgar. Many are too obscene to quote here but, if
you have a strong stomach, they can be found at:
http://www.mottershead.info/uscfdocs/fake-sam-sloan.txt This is a 5mb
file thousands of pages long and therefore is not included here. Each
of these 2464 Internet postings were cross-posted to two and sometimes
three Internet newsgroups and thus there were more than 5,000 postings
altogether. These postings have been the subject of 12 articles in the
New York Times plus articles in the Lubbock Avalanche Journal and
other newspapers around the world. There have been dozens of blogs and
websites devoted to this issue and thousands of emails and newsgroup
postings devoted to this.
27. Here is one of these postings. Susan Polgar, posting as the =93Fake
Sam Sloan=94, stated the following from the email address
[email protected] which is an email address that the Real Sam
Sloan never uses and is used exclusively by the Fake Sam Sloan:
Article: 302304
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: My chess goal
Date: 7 Oct 2006 17:08:49 -0700
I had sexual relationships with Rusudan Goletiani, Jennifer Shahade,
Anna Zatonskih, Tatev Abrahamyan, Chimi Batchimeg and Laura Ross. My
goal is to [explicative deleted] every female player rated over 2200.
Sam Sloan
48. All of the players listed above are top female chess masters and
rivals of Susan Polgar. I have never had relations (other than normal,
friendly non-sexual relations) with any of them. Of the above, Laura
Ross was only 17 years old at the time of this posting and Tatev
Abrahamyan was only 18. The others were all in their early 20s. None
of them had ever been married at that time. (Several had gotten
married since.) Had I posted this, I would have been guilty of libel
per se. But, I did not post this. It was posted by Susan Polgar and
Paul Truong, who signed my name to it. This was clearly a crime, yet
this court has ruled that I cannot sue them in federal court for this.
49. Now, because of the ruling of this court which in effect immunized
Susan Polgar and Paul Truong from any civil liability for doing this.
Therefore, they are back. Only three days ago, on September 21, 2008,
the following was posted on rec.games.chess.politics:
I am too much of a gentleman to reveal the locations of Krush's two
distinctive birthmarks.
To find out more, you will have to wait until I publish my book "What
Irina Krush Could Teach You". It will be available from Amazon later
in 2008.
Sam Sloan
50. Although we do not have the proof that Polgar and Truong posted
this, it is so typical of the kinds of things that they post that it
is almost certain that they did this. Irina Krush, 25, is the top
rated woman chess player in the United States. Up until now, Truong
and Polgar have left her alone, rarely attacking her. Susan must be
mad at her about something.
51. Then, only a few minutes later, Polgar and Truong had the audacity
to attack the judge of the court, the judge who had been so nice to
them by dismissing my complaint. Here is what they wrote:
Judge Denny Chin must be very stupid. A paternal great-grandfather of
mine, John Hale Sloan II, who worked as an immigration agent in 1904,
may have been the person who did not permit Chin's slit-eyed forebear
Rong-pha Chin to enter the country.
http://www.samsloan.com/dennychin-illegal.htm
So, Denny Chin should have recused himself in my case. All this will
be very useful when I re-file the suit. I doubt that, after rendering
such an erroneous judgement, any further important cases will ever be
given to Chin.
Further, given the evidence I expect to find soon, Chin's own INS
status may be reviewed and his citizenship revoked. I expect that Ishi
Press will publish a book about the scandal.
The Real Sam Sloan
52. Again, they signed my name, but everybody who has been following
their history will realize that Polgar and Truong posted this as they
have been posting things exactly like this for years.
53. I am providing the quote above in the hope that it will galvanize
this court into trying to find out who is doing this, since it seems
to have no interest in finding out who is doing this to me.
54. Right now, the USCF is on the verge of total collapse because of
this issue. Efforts were made to resolve this issue at the USCF
delegates meeting in Dallas August 9-10, 2008. These efforts failed in
part because both sides stacked the meeting with unqualified
alternated. Here is a video showing Bill Hall reading especially
obscene postings by the =93Fake Sam Sloan=94 in which the Fake Sam
attacked former US Woman's Champion Jennifer Shahade. If you play this
video, be prepared to be deeply offended. It is posted on Google
videos, but is not searchible:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D6138728192537752772&hl=3Den
55. There have been thus far four lawsuits filed over these =93Fake Sam
Sloan=94 issues. More are expected. The second, filed in Philadelphia,
was Parker vs. Sloan et al, which was dismissed only a few days after
this one was. The third is United States of America Chess Federation
vs. John Does 1-10 filed in San Francisco Superior Court. The 4th is
Susan Polgar vs. United States Chess Federation et all pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Lubbock Division. As you will observe, I am a party to all of these
cases except for the third one, but I only filed the first one.
56. I filed my answer and counterclaim in the Lubbock, Texas case last
week. The remaining defendants have been given until Friday, September
26, 2008 to answer. I am attaching my answer and counterclaim here as
an exhibit. This courts decision puts me in a quandary. Since this
court dismissed my complaint =93with prejudice=94 am I foreclosed from
raising these same issues as a defense in the Lubbock Texas case. I am
afraid that I know what the answer it and this again is another reason
why this motion for a rehearing should be granted and this courts
decision should be reversed.
WHEREFORE, this motion for reconsideration should be granted and the
decision and judgment of this court should be vacated and set aside.
_______________________
Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453
1-917-507-7226
1-917-659-3397
[email protected]
STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss:
COUNTY OF BRONX )
VERIFICATION
1, the undersigned, the petitioner named in the foregoing petition,
being duly sworn, says:
I have read the foregoing petition subscribed by me and know the
contents thereof and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as
to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and
belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true.
__________________________________
Signature of Plaintiff
On the 23rd Day of September, 2007 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
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2008 10:46:16
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
Has anybody noticed that I invoked the principle of "libel per se".
The classic example of libel per se is imputations of unchastity in a
woman
"Unchastity" is essentially meaningless as an accusation against an
adult woman, but probably is still grounds for legal action when made
against a teenage girl.
One particular posting by the Fake Sam Sloan which I cited claimed
that I had slept with 6 different top rated female chess masters. Of
those six, one was 17, one was 18 and the other four were in their
early 20s.
The truth is that I have slept with none of those young women, but I
know or I have met all of them.
Everybody who knows me knows that I would have been overjoyed to have
slept with those women but, alas, I have not.
Could I win significant damages is a libel suit? I do not know the
answer but I doubt it. However, they most certainly could.
One of them could sue me for millions of dollars claiming that because
of the posting by "Sam Sloan" who was in reality the Fake Sam Sloan, a
man she loved refused to marry her because (1) she was not a virgin
and (2) worse yet she had slept with that loathsome person, Sam Sloan.
If such a suit were brought, she would easily win because it is libel
per se and I would have no defense. My defense would, of course, be
that I did not write that, rather that Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
did.
Would any jury believe that Paul Truong and Susan Polgar were the real
authors of that posting? I doubt it.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2008 05:44:27
From:
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
On Sep 24, 5:34=A0am, "David L. Martel" <[email protected] > wrote:
> Nomen,
>
> =A0 =A0I typed this address into Google maps then requested a satellite i=
mage. I
> see an empty piece of land at the corner of Penny Lane.. This satellite
> image might be old, Google might not be correctly locating the address bu=
t
> this quick check does back up Sloan's claim.
> =A0 =A0Why do you believe that Sloan is wrong?
>
> Good luck,
> Dave M.
His lips are moving?
More seriously: 1) Several people have told me they've been there. 2)
If Goichberg lied about the existence of his house, he committed
perjury. He'd have to be crazy to do that. Sloan is crazy, Goichberg
isn't. 3) I also put the address into Google Maps and asked for a
satellite image. It's about 8 a.m. there, so the shadows are clear. I
saw what certainly looked like a house at the end of a driveway.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2008 09:11:05
From: Thom E. Geiger
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 05:44:27 -0700 (PDT), [email protected] wrote:
>On Sep 24, 5:34�am, "David L. Martel" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Nomen,
>>
>> � �I typed this address into Google maps then requested a satellite image. I
>> see an empty piece of land at the corner of Penny Lane.. This satellite
>> image might be old, Google might not be correctly locating the address but
>> this quick check does back up Sloan's claim.
>> � �Why do you believe that Sloan is wrong?
>>
>> Good luck,
>> Dave M.
>
>
>His lips are moving?
>
>More seriously: 1) Several people have told me they've been there. 2)
>If Goichberg lied about the existence of his house, he committed
>perjury. He'd have to be crazy to do that. Sloan is crazy, Goichberg
>isn't. 3) I also put the address into Google Maps and asked for a
>satellite image. It's about 8 a.m. there, so the shadows are clear. I
>saw what certainly looked like a house at the end of a driveway.
85-SurSAT One is an old lookdown, but it has it as a residence.
http://www.heavydata.net/Goichberg.jpg
Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
Newsloon.com
Legal exhibit submitted by Gordon Roy Parker into the public record in PAED case #03-cv-6396
http://www.HeavyData.net/exhibit-c-parker-v-LTSC-03-cv-6396-EDPA--rayFAQ.zip
Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.
Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker:
>The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics
>groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
>hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 22:27:10
From: RayGordon
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
The previous poster ("Teddybear") has a long history of cyberstalking
me, following me around from group to group, and giving bogus legal
advcie to my adversaries, that often nicludes things which might get
them sued. Like any internet cockroach, he finds bravery only in
anonymity.
He warps the record, noting those parts of it which suit him, and
endorses rulings with which he agrees, while pretending that other
rulings either were never made, or did not say what they said. For
example, it quotes a pleading of mine where I took the other party to
task for saying something, and quotes it as if the COURT said it,
which it never did. He lies like that because he believes the public
is too stupid to know the difference.
In my case, the judge dismissed "with leave to amend," which is not a
true dismissal at all, and the rule under which it was dismissed
allows for refiling anyway. Rule 8(a) is vague, as is Rule 12(b)(6),
and these rules are rarely invoked against attorneys the way they are
routinely used to dispose of pro-se litigants. To "follow the rules"
is easy when those rules are not vague or inconsitently enforced.
Rule 8(a) has no page limits; indeed, the defendants who moved under
that rule went over the page limits for motions when doing so.
"Teddybear" almost never posts on topic to either of these groups, a
clear disrespect for USENET protocol, yet wants that ignored as well.
The only thing that will change him is either enforcement of the new
cyberstalking laws, or having to defend his actionable statements in a
court of law. Whenever that happens, the cockroaches disappear, never
to be hear from on these groups again. As it is, if he were the
person he's trying to pretend to be, he wouldn't be hiding behind
pseudonyms.
The imposter was just as overconfident when it was running rampant
here, as were many others online, like the men in the Autoadmit case,
who changed their tune fast when they were identified, and they were
supposedly 'anonymous" too (there are tricks to uncovering their
identity which are perfectly legal and which were used in that case).
My point about sloan is that his case hasn't been dismissed with
prejudice, he riled a counterclaim in Texas, and could refile in state
court in NY or Illinois if he wanted to, though "wrong forum estoppel"
likely won't protect him in NY that much longer.
Before anyone goes blaming pro ses for tying up the courts, they
should review the pleadings from lawsuits involving wealthy
individuals or big corporations. Long comlaints are commonplace, and
are given far more leeway than those submitted by pro-ses. Most every
attorney freely admits that the system is biased, yet those with an
axe to grind (often who are paid to flame a target) ignore that,
because doing so is profitable for them.
What is amusing is that when these folks focus so much on
technicalities, it shows that they are quite aware that they'd shit
bricks if an attorney suddenly showed up, or if lawenforcement started
investigating. If they continue to act out in an actionable manner,
the odds of this occurring become greater over time.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2008 10:25:06
From: An Old Friend
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
In article
<7bb92bd0-c31a-4007-a617-6506022b3e8b@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
RayGordon <[email protected] > "self-proclaimed error-free typist"
wrote:
> advcie [sic]
> nicludes [sic]
> inconsitently [sic]
> never to be hear [sic] from
> 'anonymous" [sic]
> he riled [sic] a counterclaim
> comlaints [sic]
> lawenforcement [sic]
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2008 18:20:20
From: Kent Wills
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:27:10 -0700 (PDT), RayGordon
<[email protected] > wrote:
>The previous poster ("Teddybear") has a long history of cyberstalking
>me, following me around from group to group, and giving bogus legal
>advcie to my adversaries, that often nicludes things which might get
>them sued.
You threatened, in a round-about way, to sue me. I'm still
waiting to be served. I'm starting to take the lack of a visit
personal.
>Like any internet cockroach, he finds bravery only in
>anonymity.
Is that why you use the nym Ray Gordon?
BTW, Teddiebear isn't anonymous. He doesn't post with his real
name, but those with a right to know can find out who he is legally.
It's just your misfortune that you don't have the legal right to know.
At least not at this time.
>
>He warps the record,
He does?
The limited number of posts I've read don't show this.
>noting those parts of it which suit him, and
>endorses rulings with which he agrees, while pretending that other
>rulings either were never made, or did not say what they said.
As I recall, he quotes the rulings. Kind of hard to ignore or
warp something when quoting.
> For
>example, it quotes a pleading of mine where I took the other party to
>task for saying something, and quotes it as if the COURT said it,
>which it never did. He lies like that because he believes the public
>is too stupid to know the difference.
Would you be so kind as to post the MID and/or Google link to
such a post? It's possible such a post exists. Since I don't read
much of your discussions, I can't know one way or the other.
>
>In my case, the judge dismissed "with leave to amend," which is not a
>true dismissal at all,
It is a dismissal. It even says dismissal.
It wasn't a dismissal with prejudice, but I've not seen anyone
claim it was/is.
>and the rule under which it was dismissed
>allows for refiling anyway. Rule 8(a) is vague, as is Rule 12(b)(6),
>and these rules are rarely invoked against attorneys the way they are
>routinely used to dispose of pro-se litigants. To "follow the rules"
>is easy when those rules are not vague or inconsitently enforced.
>Rule 8(a) has no page limits; indeed, the defendants who moved under
>that rule went over the page limits for motions when doing so.
Maybe you worded that poorly, but I can't see how someone can go
over the page limits if there are no limits.
>
>"Teddybear" almost never posts on topic to either of these groups,
Since he posts about law suits, the posts are on-topic for
misc.legal. I've not seen anything directly off-topic from him.
>a
>clear disrespect for USENET protocol, yet wants that ignored as well.
>The only thing that will change him is either enforcement of the new
>cyberstalking laws, or having to defend his actionable statements in a
>court of law. Whenever that happens, the cockroaches disappear, never
>to be hear from on these groups again. As it is, if he were the
>person he's trying to pretend to be, he wouldn't be hiding behind
>pseudonyms.
Like Ray Parker... Oops.
>
>The imposter was just as overconfident when it was running rampant
>here, as were many others online, like the men in the Autoadmit case,
>who changed their tune fast when they were identified, and they were
>supposedly 'anonymous" too (there are tricks to uncovering their
>identity which are perfectly legal and which were used in that case).
Yes. And?
>
>My point about sloan is that his case hasn't been dismissed with
>prejudice,
Has anyone claimed it was? Seriously. I don't get to see most
of the discussion, so I can't know.
>he riled a counterclaim in Texas, and could refile in state
>court in NY or Illinois if he wanted to, though "wrong forum estoppel"
>likely won't protect him in NY that much longer.
>
>Before anyone goes blaming pro ses for tying up the courts,
Pro se litigants have every right to the courts as those who hire
attorneys.
>they
>should review the pleadings from lawsuits involving wealthy
>individuals or big corporations. Long comlaints are commonplace, and
>are given far more leeway than those submitted by pro-ses. Most every
>attorney freely admits that the system is biased, yet those with an
>axe to grind (often who are paid to flame a target) ignore that,
>because doing so is profitable for them.
>
>What is amusing is that when these folks focus so much on
>technicalities, it shows that they are quite aware that they'd shit
>bricks if an attorney suddenly showed up, or if lawenforcement started
>investigating.
I'm still waiting to be served. You quasi-stated you were going
to file suit against me many months ago.
>If they continue to act out in an actionable manner,
>the odds of this occurring become greater over time.
Uh huh. I hope you'll understand if I don't have cucumber
sandwiches and lemonade prepared in advance.
--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 05:12:40
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
Sam Sloan,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 07-CV-8537 (DC)
-against-
Hoainhan =93Paul=94 Truong, Zsuzsanna =93Susan=94 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
__________________________________________
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURTS
ORDER AND JUDGMENT DISMISSING THIS COMPLAINT
__________________________________________
Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I hereby move for a reconsideration of this courts order and
judgment dated August 29, 2008 dismissing this action.
2. The court, in its decision, made a serious error, in the following
statement.
Goichberg has submitted ample evidence to show that he is a "citizen"
of New York for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, including: the
deed to his house in Orange County, New York; property tax records for
his New York residence; and affidavits attesting that he votes, pays
taxes, and resides exclusively in New York. (See Goichberg Aff. &
Suppl. Aff.).
3. This is not true. Goichberg DID NOT provide to the court =93the deed
to his house in Orange County, New York=94 or =93property tax records for
his New York residence=94. The only thing he provided was a brief
summary affidavit saying that he votes and pays taxes in New York and
nowhere else.
4. I was quite concerned and alarmed when I saw this statement in the
decision of this court because this might indicate that my adversaries
filed these documents in court without sending a copy to me. However,
I have checked on PACER and no such documents have been filed with
this court.
5. However, subsequent to the decision of this court, one of my
adversaries, Proskauer Rose, submitted a bill of costs and included as
an exhibit a deed to property in New York. However, the document he
submitted shows that he did not make his request to the Orange County
Clerk until February 6 which was after his final submission to this
court, which means that he did not receive it until it was too late to
submit it.
6. More than that, the deed he submitted, which is dated 1991, is a
deed to an EMPTY LOT. Unless Bill Goichberg has constructed a building
on that property or lives in a tent, that is not his residence.
7. My affidavit opposition stated:
5. In his moving affidavit he states that his residence is at 2084
Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY 12577. If that is the case, how come I
cannot find this address listed anywhere? Not only it is not listed
anywhere as his address, but it is not listed anywhere at all.
6. In fact, the address of 2084 Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY 12577
DOES NOT EXIST.
7. My investigation confirms that 2084 Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY
12577 is not a residence or a domiciliary address. I have checked
every possible source for the address of 2084 Route 94, Salisbury
Mills NY 12577. For example, I checked the US Postal Service website
which has the full 9-digit zip code for every address in America at
http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/zcl_0_results.jsp
8. The decision of this court implies that I merely stated that
Goichberg does not answer his telephone when I call. That is not what
I wrote. What I wrote was that Goichberg DOES NOT HAVE A HOME
TELEPHONE because GOICHBERG DOES NOT HAVE A HOME.
9. Goichberg is constantly =93on the road=94. He never stops anywhere long
enough to declare any one place to be his permanent home. He moves
from cheap hotel room to cheap hotel room. That is his life style. He
is not permanently a citizen of any state.
10. Just to make sure that this has not changed while this case has
been going, I just went again to the US Postal Service Website at
http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/zcl_0_results.jsp and entered the address
Goichberg told this court was his address, which was 2084 Route 94,
Salisbury Mills NY 12577.
11. The answer that came back, which anybody can check, was:
We're sorry! We were unable to process your request.
The address was not found. Please check the address below.
You may want to utilize the Yellow Pages and/or White Pages below.
12. Since Goichberg and I are still talking to each other, I asked him
about this at a recent chess tournament and he replied that he does
not want to reveal his real address because he does not want chess
players to know where he lives. He does not want people to come to his
house and demand their prize money and things like that.
13. Goichberg is not hiding or anything like that. He can be found
almost any time at a chess tournament somewhere around the country or,
if no chess tournament is then talking place he will be at the race
track. However, he does not have an address, other than a PO Box. I
submit that a person who does not have an address or is refusing to
reveal it cannot use that secret address to defeat diversity
jurisdiction.
14. The mail point here is all we have seen is a deed to an empty lot
dated 1991, which is annexed as an exhibit. We do not even know if he
still owns that lot. This is clearly insufficient to establish
citizenship to defeat a diversity claim. Her has submitted no tax
records or other documents of any kind.
15. Next Goichberg says that he pays taxes only in New York State and
nowhere else. This should be cause for concern because he derives
virtually no income in New York State. All of his income comes from
other states. He makes his primary income from four mega-tournaments
held every year. These can be found posted on his website at
http://www.chesstour.com/ . They are:
The World Open held every year in Philadelphia over July 4th weekend
with at least $350,000 in prizes.
The Chicago Open held every year over Memorial Day Weekend with
$100,000 in prizes.
The North American Open held at Bally's Las Vegas every December
26-29 with $100,000 in prizes.
The Foxwoods Open held at Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut every
Easter weekend with $100,000 in prizes.
Other than these huge events to which chess players come from all over
the world to play, Goichberg holds smaller events such as the Midwest
Class Championships in Chicago with only $20,000 in prizes.
16. You will notice that none of these tournaments are in New York
State. Goichberg often states that he avoids New York State because it
is =93too expensive=94.
17. However, he does hold one tournament per year, which is the New
York State Championship which is always held in Upstate New York,
never in New York City. However, unlike the other tournaments listed,
he does not direct that one. He always hires somebody else to direct
it. This means that his profits from that event are little or nothing.
The reason he holds that tournament but does not direct it is that
keeps him in control of the New York State Chess Federation.
Otherwise, he risks being voted out of office.
18. There are certainly a lot of people who would like to vote
Goichberg out of office. There are many complaints about =93conflict of
interest=94 in that he is by far the biggest chess tournament organizer
in America while he is also the USCF President. However, I am not part
of the anti-Goichberg crowd. I have been supporting and defending
Goichberg from these attacks for more than 40 years, which makes it so
strange that he started attacking me from the day that I got elected
to the USCF Executive Board in July 2006.
19. The question here is: How can Goichberg claim that he only pays
taxes in New York State and not in any other state when he derives
virtually zero income from New York State and all of his income comes
from other states? I believe that he should submit his income tax
statement to this court. If he refuses, as he probably will, then his
non-diversity defense should be denied.
20. I provided to this court the address where Goichberg was living
when this case was filed. I wrote, =93He presently resides at the Santa
Anita Inn located at 130 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007.
This is near to the Santa Anita Race Track, where Mr. Goichberg plays
the horses.=94 There is proof of this because at the meeting the USCF
Executive Board meeting held in Crossville Tennessee on November 3,
2007, Goichberg stated that he was insisting that the February 2008
board meeting be held in Los Angeles California because he would not
be leaving California until Spring and he was not willing to travel to
any other state. Those of us who know Goichberg know the reason. The
horses are running at the Santa Anita Race Track at that time and
Goichberg cannot travel to any other state because then he would miss
one of the races. The video tape of this meeting was broadcast,
available for public viewing. The debate on this topic laster for over
a half hour. Truong demanded that the meeting be held in any one of
the other 49 states, saying that he is willing to travel to anywhere
else except for California. Goichberg stated that he was not willing
to be anywhere else but California. The eventual result was that the
February 2008 meeting was held online. On this same tape, one can see
my process server, Robert Collester, serving the summons and complaint
in this case. That is how I was able to get all the USCF defendants
served at one time. The audio tape is available at:
http://evansvillescholasticchess.org/webcast/
21. Mr. Goichberg did not deny this or even respond to this point that
he was residing at the Santa Anita Inn located at 130 West Huntington
Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007. Therefore, I do not see how he can win on
the diversity issue.
22. In addition, I stated that I would be willing to eliminate
Goichberg as a defendant if necessary to preserve diversity. None of
the other defendants are claiming New York Citizenship. Thus, I fail
to understand why the court made such a Draconian Remedy as to dismiss
my claim =93with prejudice=94.
23. At a minimum, there should be a fact hearing where Goichberg can
present his evidence and I can present my contrary evidence. This will
give Goichberg a chance to produce his =93concrete evidence=94 that he
claims to have but has not thus far produced.
24. Next, this court makes the shocking ruling that Internet Identity
theft fails to state a federal cause of action. This, only a few days
after the New York Times reported that the United States Secret
Service is investigating this and a closely related case, also
involving the USCF and some of the same defendants.
25. This court stated:
a criminal statute that prohibits the making of "obscene or harassing"
telecommunications, but creates no private right of action. See
Ghartey v. Chrysler Credit Corp., No. CV-92-1782 (CPS), 1992 WL
373479, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 1992).
26. This is an unreported district court decision that has no
precedential value. More than that, it does not concern Internet
identity theft. Indeed, back in 1992 Internet identity theft did not
yet exist. Nowadays, there are millions of victims of Internet
identity theft of which I am just one. For obvious reasons, the state
courts are ill equipped to deal with Internet identity theft. One of
the reasons is obvious from the facts of this case. Since the date
this case was filed on October 2, 2007, Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
have traveled the world, to such diverse places as Germany, Argentina,
Sardenia, Scotland, India, Hungary and many other countries. Susan has
posted photos of herself on her website standing in front of the Taj
Mahal in India, overlooking the Grand Canyon in Arizona and many other
places in between. She is living a =93If this is Tuesday, This Must be
Belgium=94 existence. Yet, during all these travels, Polgar and Truong
are never far from their laptop computers where they post vile,
vicious, personal attacks on various chess personalities almost every
day.
27. What can a New York State Court judge do about this? Only the
federal courts can handle this.
28. An ancient Roman legal maxim states: ubi ius, ibi remedium. =93Where
there is a right, there is a remedy.=94 Generally, the law will not
countenance a situation where a person has a legal right but no means
of enforcing it. The law will provide a means. Or, in the English
common-law tradition, where the law does not provide a means of
enforcing a right, equity will.
29. Where is my remedy here? The Mottershead Report has documented
2464 =93Fake Sam Sloan=94 postings along with proof that all of these 2464
postings were by Paul Truong and Susan Polgar. Many are too obscene to
be quoted here but, if you have a strong stomach, they can be found
at:
http://www.mottershead.info/uscfdocs/fake-sam-sloan.txt This is a 5mb
file thousands of pages long and therefore is not included here. Each
of these 2464 Internet postings were cross-posted to two and sometimes
three Internet newsgroups and thus there were more than 5,000 postings
altogether. These postings have been the subject of 12 articles in the
New York Times plus articles in the Lubbock Avalanche Journal and
other newspapers around the world. There have been dozens of blogs and
websites devoted to this issue and thousands of emails and newsgroup
postings devoted to this.
30. Here is one of these postings. Susan Polgar, posting as the =93Fake
Sam Sloan=94, stated the following from the email address
[email protected] which is an email address that the Real Sam
Sloan never uses and is used exclusively by the Fake Sam Sloan:
Article: 302304
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: My chess goal
Date: 7 Oct 2006 17:08:49 -0700
I had sexual relationships with Rusudan Goletiani, Jennifer Shahade,
Anna Zatonskih, Tatev Abrahamyan, Chimi Batchimeg and Laura Ross. My
goal is to [explicative deleted] every female player rated over 2200.
Sam Sloan
31. All of the players listed above are top female chess masters and
rivals of Susan Polgar. I have never had relations (other than normal,
friendly non-sexual relations) with any of them. Of the above, Laura
Ross was only 17 years old at the time of this posting and Tatev
Abrahamyan was only 18. The others were all in their early 20s. None
of them had ever been married at that time. (Several had gotten
married since.) Had I posted this, I would have been guilty of libel
per se. But, I did not post this. It was posted by Susan Polgar and
Paul Truong, who signed my name to it. This was clearly a crime, yet
this court has ruled that I cannot sue them in federal court for this.
32. Now, because of the ruling of this court which in effect immunized
Susan Polgar and Paul Truong from any civil liability for doing this,
they are back. Only three days ago, on September 21, 2008, the
following was posted on rec.games.chess.politics:
I am too much of a gentleman to reveal the locations of Krush's two
distinctive birthmarks.
To find out more, you will have to wait until I publish my book "What
Irina Krush Could Teach You". It will be available from Amazon later
in 2008.
Sam Sloan
33. Although we do not have the proof yet that Polgar and Truong
posted this, it is so typical of the kinds of things that they post
and nobody else does that it is almost certain that they did this.
Irina Krush, 25, is the top rated woman chess player in the United
States. Up until now, Truong and Polgar have left her alone, rarely
attacking her. Susan must be mad at her about something now.
34. Then, only a few minutes later, Polgar and Truong had the audacity
to attack the judge of the court, the judge who has been so nice to
them by dismissing my complaint. Here is what Truong and Polgar wrote
on rec.games.chess.politics on September 21, 2008:
Judge Denny Chin must be very stupid. A paternal great-grandfather of
mine, John Hale Sloan II, who worked as an immigration agent in 1904,
may have been the person who did not permit Chin's slit-eyed forebear
Rong-pha Chin to enter the country.
http://www.samsloan.com/dennychin-illegal.htm
So, Denny Chin should have recused himself in my case. All this will
be very useful when I re-file the suit. I doubt that, after rendering
such an erroneous judgement, any further important cases will ever be
given to Chin.
Further, given the evidence I expect to find soon, Chin's own INS
status may be reviewed and his citizenship revoked. I expect that Ishi
Press will publish a book about the scandal.
The Real Sam Sloan
35. Here again, they signed my name, but everybody who has been
following their history will realize that Polgar and Truong posted
this, as they have been posting things exactly like this for years.
The URL cited above is fake. No such website exists.
36. I am providing the quote above in the hope that it will galvanize
this court into trying to find out who is doing this, since the court
seems to have no interest in finding out who is doing this to me.
37. Right now, the USCF is on the verge of total collapse because of
this and financial issues. Efforts were made to resolve this issue at
the USCF delegates meeting in Dallas on August 9-10, 2008. These
efforts failed in part because both sides stacked the meeting with
unqualified alternates. For example, a non-chess player named =93Hero
Smith=94 (not his real name) had his USCF membership dues paid to join
the USCF so that he could instantly be made a delegate just so that he
could vote against Polgar and Truong. Instead, he defected and voted
for Truong because, he said, he was Asian and Truong is Asian too, so
he had to show solidarity. This incident gave rise to a =93bribery=94
claim that has been appearing on Susan Polgar's websites. Here is a
video showing Bill Hall reading especially obscene postings by the
=93Fake Sam Sloan=94 in which the Fake Sam attacked former US Woman's
Champion Jennifer Shahade. If you play this video, be prepared to be
deeply offended. It is posted on Google videos, but is not searchable
in the index:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D6138728192537752772&hl=3Den
38. There have been thus far four lawsuits filed over these =93Fake Sam
Sloan=94 issues. More are expected. The second, filed in Philadelphia,
was Parker vs. Sloan et al, which was dismissed only a few days after
this one was. The third is United States of America Chess Federation
vs. John Does 1-10 filed in San Francisco Superior Court. The 4th is
Susan Polgar vs. United States Chess Federation et al, 08-cv-00169,
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas Lubbock Division. As you will observe, I am a party to all of
these cases except for the third one, but I only filed the first one.
All of these cases, except for the third one, have approximately the
same list of defendants but different plaintiffs.
39. I filed my answer and counterclaim in the Lubbock, Texas case last
week. The remaining defendants have been given until Friday, September
26, 2008 to answer. I am attaching my answer and counterclaim here as
an exhibit. This court's decision puts me in a quandary. Since this
court dismissed my complaint =93with prejudice=94 am I foreclosed from
raising these same issues as a defense in the Lubbock Texas case? I am
afraid that I know what the answer is and this again is another reason
why this motion for reconsideration should be granted and this courts
decision should be reversed.
WHEREFORE, this motion for reconsideration should be granted and the
decision and judgment of this court should be vacated and set aside.
_______________________
Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453
1-917-507-7226
1-917-659-3397
[email protected]
STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss:
COUNTY OF BRONX )
VERIFICATION
1, the undersigned, the petitioner named in the foregoing petition,
being duly sworn, says:
I have read the foregoing petition subscribed by me and know the
contents thereof and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as
to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and
belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true.
__________________________________
Signature of Plaintiff
On the 23rd Day of September, 2007 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
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 00:21:13
From: RayGordon
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
>
> We really need some kind of tort reform to keep pro se imbeciles like
> Sloan from wasting the taxpayers' money.
I'ev prepared pleadings for attorneys through my work for years, and
none of them ever had problems, even when the attorney just reviewed
my work and signed off on it.
The problem is the way courts treat pro ses, dismissing cases on
technical grounds, without prejudice, often with defendants who are
just trying to avoid filing an answer or trial on the merits.
Instead, they get refilings, and then new causes of action when the
"winning" side thinks it has a license to keep acting out. Then they
go to court again, the process is repeated, etc.
Why did Sloan wait 23 days to file the motion when the normal limit is
10 days anyway?
The real problem in the courts are when big corporations sue each
other, the lawyers drag it out, and the shareholders and customers
foot the bill.
In my lawsuit against Yahoo, the judge took the liberty to hold
extensive oral arguments on the main issues, noted that she could have
just copied the google ruling, but didn't, and because she gave the
issues a fair hearing, there is likely to be some type of law set down
that people can easily follow. More important, she also let Yahoo and
Microsoft know that my being a pro se, or even having lost a somewhat
simialr case before a judge who never really litigated it, wasn't
going to make it a slam dunk for them.
Tell me, what do you think would hve happened had the motion to
dismiss been denied? Think the other side would have been so eager to
continue into discovery?
Anyone who moves to dismiss a case on technical grounds should not
complain about their legal expenses being run up, because THEY are the
ones doing it, by delaying a trial they hope does not become
inevitable, and by hoping for a technicality to go their way, rather
than something that would dismiss it with prejudice.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 22:33:01
From: Thom E. Geiger
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:21:13 -0700 (PDT), RayGordon
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Anyone who moves to dismiss a case on technical grounds should not
>complain about their legal expenses being run up, because THEY are the
>ones doing it, by delaying a trial they hope does not become
>inevitable, and by hoping for a technicality to go their way, rather
>than something that would dismiss it with prejudice.
You're a child obsessed liar, Gordon Roy Parker. If you wanted to get
me or anyone else into a courtroom, all you have to do is file in the
district that has jurisdiction over the person you're filing against.
But then again, you've never intended to show up in any courtroom, in
any case, even your Yahoo or M$ or any other case. Who doesn't know
you're terrified of the media exposing you on a front page or
television, not to mention Youtube, myspace, etc., etc., etc. I have
my own theory that you fear that happening because of the women and
small children who would identify you for one reason or another, but
whatever the reason is, you're too scared shitless to appear in any
court and you know it.
So you're still shovelling bullshit as usual, you child stalking
dumbass. Jurisdiction is no small technicality. Its YOU, pedoshit,
that chooses where you file and you're a coward and a litigation
junkie. You never want your shit against private citizen defendants to
ever get into any courtroom. You'd have to put yourself at the mercy
of the court in MY jurisdiction and with your history of harassing the
single mothers of small children and threatening the lives of young
kids, your ass would be grass. But drag your festered a-hole down
here, porker. Go for it. What's stopping you but fear?
Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
Newsloon.com
Legal exhibit submitted by Gordon Roy Parker into the public record in PAED case #03-cv-6396
http://www.HeavyData.net/exhibit-c-parker-v-LTSC-03-cv-6396-EDPA--rayFAQ.zip
Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.
Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker:
>The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics
>groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
>hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 13:11:40
From:
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
On 24-Sep-2008, RayGordon <[email protected] > wrote:
> > We really need some kind of tort reform to keep pro se imbeciles like
> > Sloan from wasting the taxpayers' money.
>
> I'ev prepared pleadings for attorneys through my work for years, and
> none of them ever had problems, even when the attorney just reviewed
> my work and signed off on it.
Nobody ever said that there were not complete idiots amongst the ranks of
attorneys. Bi Polar disorder is degenerative, presumably you were in better
mental health in those days, years ago.
>
> The problem is the way courts treat pro ses, dismissing cases on
> technical grounds, without prejudice, often with defendants who are
> just trying to avoid filing an answer or trial on the merits.
> Instead, they get refilings, and then new causes of action when the
> "winning" side thinks it has a license to keep acting out. Then they
> go to court again, the process is repeated, etc.
>
Jurisdictional rules are there to keep idiot pro ses from dragging people
into court thousands of miles from home. If you don't have sense enough to
follow the rules, why should the courts grant you a special license to
ignore them? If you don't know what you are doing, hire a lawyer to assist
you.....
> Why did Sloan wait 23 days to file the motion when the normal limit is
> 10 days anyway?
>
> The real problem in the courts are when big corporations sue each
> other, the lawyers drag it out, and the shareholders and customers
> foot the bill.
>
Welcome to the American Court System.
> In my lawsuit against Yahoo, the judge took the liberty to hold
> extensive oral arguments on the main issues, noted that she could have
> just copied the google ruling, but didn't, and because she gave the
> issues a fair hearing, there is likely to be some type of law set down
> that people can easily follow. More important, she also let Yahoo and
> Microsoft know that my being a pro se, or even having lost a somewhat
> simialr case before a judge who never really litigated it, wasn't
> going to make it a slam dunk for them.
>
> Tell me, what do you think would hve happened had the motion to
> dismiss been denied? Think the other side would have been so eager to
> continue into discovery?
We will never know, you have never survived the MTD stage. That's because
you don't know what you are doing, and won't accept help.
>
> Anyone who moves to dismiss a case on technical grounds should not
> complain about their legal expenses being run up, because THEY are the
> ones doing it, by delaying a trial they hope does not become
> inevitable, and by hoping for a technicality to go their way, rather
> than something that would dismiss it with prejudice.
Yeah, everyone should bow down to you and litigate all your bizarre lawsuits
in the ED of Pa for your convienence huh? Idiot Savant...hmmm
--
"...serial and vexatious litigant in both the state and federal courts..."
Gordon Roy Parker in his Memorandum Opposing Google's MTD
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 13:31:16
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
[email protected] wrote:
> On 24-Sep-2008, RayGordon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> We really need some kind of tort reform to keep pro se imbeciles like
>>> Sloan from wasting the taxpayers' money.
>> I'ev prepared pleadings for attorneys through my work for years, and
>> none of them ever had problems, even when the attorney just reviewed
>> my work and signed off on it.
>
> Nobody ever said that there were not complete idiots amongst the ranks of
> attorneys. Bi Polar disorder is degenerative, presumably you were in better
> mental health in those days, years ago.
>> The problem is the way courts treat pro ses, dismissing cases on
>> technical grounds, without prejudice, often with defendants who are
>> just trying to avoid filing an answer or trial on the merits.
>> Instead, they get refilings, and then new causes of action when the
>> "winning" side thinks it has a license to keep acting out. Then they
>> go to court again, the process is repeated, etc.
>>
> Jurisdictional rules are there to keep idiot pro ses from dragging people
> into court thousands of miles from home.
Actually, jurisdiction has nothing to do with pro se parties. It has to
do with things like federalism, types of claims, monetary limits to
certain courts as a reflection of public policy......
If you don't have sense enough to
> follow the rules, why should the courts grant you a special license to
> ignore them? If you don't know what you are doing, hire a lawyer to assist
> you.....
>
>> Why did Sloan wait 23 days to file the motion when the normal limit is
>> 10 days anyway?
>>
>> The real problem in the courts are when big corporations sue each
>> other, the lawyers drag it out, and the shareholders and customers
>> foot the bill.
>>
> Welcome to the American Court System.
>
>> In my lawsuit against Yahoo, the judge took the liberty to hold
>> extensive oral arguments on the main issues, noted that she could have
>> just copied the google ruling, but didn't, and because she gave the
>> issues a fair hearing, there is likely to be some type of law set down
>> that people can easily follow. More important, she also let Yahoo and
>> Microsoft know that my being a pro se, or even having lost a somewhat
>> simialr case before a judge who never really litigated it, wasn't
>> going to make it a slam dunk for them.
>>
>> Tell me, what do you think would hve happened had the motion to
>> dismiss been denied? Think the other side would have been so eager to
>> continue into discovery?
>
> We will never know, you have never survived the MTD stage. That's because
> you don't know what you are doing, and won't accept help.
>> Anyone who moves to dismiss a case on technical grounds should not
>> complain about their legal expenses being run up, because THEY are the
>> ones doing it, by delaying a trial they hope does not become
>> inevitable, and by hoping for a technicality to go their way, rather
>> than something that would dismiss it with prejudice.
>
> Yeah, everyone should bow down to you and litigate all your bizarre lawsuits
> in the ED of Pa for your convienence huh? Idiot Savant...hmmm
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 22:40:29
From: Thom E. Geiger
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:31:16 GMT, Brian Lafferty
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Actually, jurisdiction has nothing to do with pro se parties. It has to
>do with things like federalism, types of claims, monetary limits to
>certain courts as a reflection of public policy......
Hhmm, ah yes, a lawyer's answer, but states are territorial when it
comes to who it is that removes property/money from its citizens (i.e.
divorce, etc.), reducing the state's wealth.
Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
Newsloon.com
Legal exhibit submitted by Gordon Roy Parker into the public record in PAED case #03-cv-6396
http://www.HeavyData.net/exhibit-c-parker-v-LTSC-03-cv-6396-EDPA--rayFAQ.zip
Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.
Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker:
>The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics
>groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
>hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2008 13:22:01
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
While it is unlikely that Judge Chin will grant the motion, I can't help
but wonder what the judge will do when he sees the anonymous remailer
post about him. Somewhere there is a government computer that is
capable of tracing it back to the poster. Just ask the NY Times.
Thom E. Geiger wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:31:16 GMT, Brian Lafferty
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Actually, jurisdiction has nothing to do with pro se parties. It has to
>> do with things like federalism, types of claims, monetary limits to
>> certain courts as a reflection of public policy......
>
> Hhmm, ah yes, a lawyer's answer, but states are territorial when it
> comes to who it is that removes property/money from its citizens (i.e.
> divorce, etc.), reducing the state's wealth.
>
> Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
> Ray-Gordon.com
> Ray-Gordon.net
> Newsloon.com
>
> Legal exhibit submitted by Gordon Roy Parker into the public record in PAED case #03-cv-6396
> http://www.HeavyData.net/exhibit-c-parker-v-LTSC-03-cv-6396-EDPA--rayFAQ.zip
> Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
> stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.
>
> Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker:
>> The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics
>> groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
>> hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2008 08:43:03
From: Thom E. Geiger
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:22:01 GMT, Brian Lafferty
<[email protected] > wrote:
>While it is unlikely that Judge Chin will grant the motion, I can't help
>but wonder what the judge will do when he sees the anonymous remailer
>post about him. Somewhere there is a government computer that is
>capable of tracing it back to the poster. Just ask the NY Times.
and as a government official, what might the judge's justification be
for a request for/or allocatiion of government resources for such
tasking that doesn't violate current regulations, laws or qualify as
abuse of resources? The government doing all manner of surveillance
within its own networks is one thing, but commercial carriers is
another. Of course, perhaps the judge can dress it up in some puppet
clothes and sell it as a search that qualifies for immunity under the
president's latest telecomm eavesdropping victory in congress.
Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
Newsloon.com
Legal exhibit submitted by Gordon Roy Parker into the public record in PAED case #03-cv-6396
http://www.HeavyData.net/exhibit-c-parker-v-LTSC-03-cv-6396-EDPA--rayFAQ.zip
Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.
Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker:
>The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics
>groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
>hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2008 15:46:55
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
Thom E. Geiger wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:22:01 GMT, Brian Lafferty
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> While it is unlikely that Judge Chin will grant the motion, I can't help
>> but wonder what the judge will do when he sees the anonymous remailer
>> post about him. Somewhere there is a government computer that is
>> capable of tracing it back to the poster. Just ask the NY Times.
>
> and as a government official, what might the judge's justification be
> for a request for/or allocatiion of government resources for such
> tasking that doesn't violate current regulations, laws or qualify as
> abuse of resources? The government doing all manner of surveillance
> within its own networks is one thing, but commercial carriers is
> another. Of course, perhaps the judge can dress it up in some puppet
> clothes and sell it as a search that qualifies for immunity under the
> president's latest telecomm eavesdropping victory in congress.
FSS wrote, "Further, given the evidence I expect to find soon, Chin's
own INS status may be reviewed and his citizenship revoked."
It all depends on how the judge interprets what FSS wrote.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2008 11:56:58
From: Thom E. Geiger
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:46:55 GMT, Brian Lafferty
<[email protected] > wrote:
>Thom E. Geiger wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:22:01 GMT, Brian Lafferty
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> While it is unlikely that Judge Chin will grant the motion, I can't help
>>> but wonder what the judge will do when he sees the anonymous remailer
>>> post about him. Somewhere there is a government computer that is
>>> capable of tracing it back to the poster. Just ask the NY Times.
>>
>> and as a government official, what might the judge's justification be
>> for a request for/or allocatiion of government resources for such
>> tasking that doesn't violate current regulations, laws or qualify as
>> abuse of resources? The government doing all manner of surveillance
>> within its own networks is one thing, but commercial carriers is
>> another. Of course, perhaps the judge can dress it up in some puppet
>> clothes and sell it as a search that qualifies for immunity under the
>> president's latest telecomm eavesdropping victory in congress.
>
>FSS wrote, "Further, given the evidence I expect to find soon, Chin's
>own INS status may be reviewed and his citizenship revoked."
>
>It all depends on how the judge interprets what FSS wrote.
You might be right, but he'd have to convince many others that his
reasoning is sound justification for the mouse hunt.
On a related but separate matter, when it comes to libel, defamation
and so on (IANAL, thank God), is there a reasonable possibility that
any statements or claims made might be true, or as in Flint, are such
allegations obviously absurd on their face? Making the argument that a
reasonable person might accept such statements are true, no matter
what the content or the person/entity referred to, can do as much or
more damage to a person's (or corp, bus, etc) reputation than the
offending allegations.
It is understandable that trial lawyers would have it that any and all
false claims, even ones that fall under parody or satire, would be
grounds for civil action, but I see no major erosion of Flint that
would make that possible, but maybe it will be under the Christmas
tree one year.
Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
Newsloon.com
Legal exhibit submitted by Gordon Roy Parker into the public record in PAED case #03-cv-6396
http://www.HeavyData.net/exhibit-c-parker-v-LTSC-03-cv-6396-EDPA--rayFAQ.zip
Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.
Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker:
>The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics
>groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
>hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2008 17:18:26
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
Thom E. Geiger wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 15:46:55 GMT, Brian Lafferty
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Thom E. Geiger wrote:
>>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 13:22:01 GMT, Brian Lafferty
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> While it is unlikely that Judge Chin will grant the motion, I can't help
>>>> but wonder what the judge will do when he sees the anonymous remailer
>>>> post about him. Somewhere there is a government computer that is
>>>> capable of tracing it back to the poster. Just ask the NY Times.
>>> and as a government official, what might the judge's justification be
>>> for a request for/or allocatiion of government resources for such
>>> tasking that doesn't violate current regulations, laws or qualify as
>>> abuse of resources? The government doing all manner of surveillance
>>> within its own networks is one thing, but commercial carriers is
>>> another. Of course, perhaps the judge can dress it up in some puppet
>>> clothes and sell it as a search that qualifies for immunity under the
>>> president's latest telecomm eavesdropping victory in congress.
>> FSS wrote, "Further, given the evidence I expect to find soon, Chin's
>> own INS status may be reviewed and his citizenship revoked."
>>
>> It all depends on how the judge interprets what FSS wrote.
>
> You might be right, but he'd have to convince many others that his
> reasoning is sound justification for the mouse hunt.
>
> On a related but separate matter, when it comes to libel, defamation
> and so on (IANAL, thank God), is there a reasonable possibility that
> any statements or claims made might be true, or as in Flint, are such
> allegations obviously absurd on their face? Making the argument that a
> reasonable person might accept such statements are true, no matter
> what the content or the person/entity referred to, can do as much or
> more damage to a person's (or corp, bus, etc) reputation than the
> offending allegations.
A parody of whom?
> It is understandable that trial lawyers would have it that any and all
> false claims, even ones that fall under parody or satire, would be
> grounds for civil action, but I see no major erosion of Flint that
> would make that possible, but maybe it will be under the Christmas
> tree one year.
Good lawyers don't bring frivolous legal actions.
>
> Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
> Ray-Gordon.com
> Ray-Gordon.net
> Newsloon.com
>
> Legal exhibit submitted by Gordon Roy Parker into the public record in PAED case #03-cv-6396
> http://www.HeavyData.net/exhibit-c-parker-v-LTSC-03-cv-6396-EDPA--rayFAQ.zip
> Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
> stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.
>
> Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker:
>> The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics
>> groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
>> hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2008 23:05:45
From: Thom E. Geiger
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:18:26 GMT, Brian Lafferty
<[email protected] > wrote:
>A parody of whom?
Anybody who steps into a public forum or arena, ESP. celebrities,
government and public officials, public figures (even limited purpose
public figures), which both Sam Sloan and Gordon Roy Parker are, both
through their over advertised self-aggrandizing and their personal
public promotion (Parker even publicly claimed that status).
>Good lawyers don't bring frivolous legal actions.
Like Berger Singerman? Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP ? Curran & Parry?
Dorsey & Whitney? McNutt & Litteneker, LLP?
Coming from a lawyer, is it worth asking what "good" mean? Successful?
Gets a job done? That could be said about Eric Harris and Dylan
Klebold. An earthworm and a maggot can do a "good" job.
Now if the term "good" implies some semblence of moral contemplation
and ethical reservation (if any in the profession are capable of such
things), then I'd say you're right and I agree, but good lawyers are
also poor lawyers. Attorneys don't make money by being either moral or
ethical.
Who was it that said lawyers have the morals of an alley cat and the
ethics of a gangster? IMHO, the only thing that differentiates an
attorney from a serial killer is a law degree.
Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
Newsloon.com
Legal exhibit submitted by Gordon Roy Parker into the public record in PAED case #03-cv-6396
http://www.HeavyData.net/exhibit-c-parker-v-LTSC-03-cv-6396-EDPA--rayFAQ.zip
Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.
Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker:
>The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics
>groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
>hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2008 11:10:46
From: foad
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
"Thom E. Geiger" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:18:26 GMT, Brian Lafferty
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Good lawyers don't bring frivolous legal actions.
> Like Berger Singerman? Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP ? Curran & Parry?
> Dorsey & Whitney? McNutt & Litteneker, LLP?
> Coming from a lawyer, is it worth asking what "good" mean? Successful?
> Gets a job done? That could be said about Eric Harris and Dylan
> Klebold. An earthworm and a maggot can do a "good" job.
> Now if the term "good" implies some semblence of moral contemplation
> and ethical reservation (if any in the profession are capable of such
> things), then I'd say you're right and I agree, but good lawyers are
> also poor lawyers. Attorneys don't make money by being either moral or
> ethical.
Lawyers are in fact required by the legal code of ethics to file frivolous
suits where such suits are in the best interest of their clients. Anything
less would be in derogation of their obligation of zealous representation.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2008 12:36:17
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
foad wrote:
>
> "Thom E. Geiger" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:18:26 GMT, Brian Lafferty
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Good lawyers don't bring frivolous legal actions.
>
>> Like Berger Singerman? Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP ? Curran & Parry?
>> Dorsey & Whitney? McNutt & Litteneker, LLP?
>
>> Coming from a lawyer, is it worth asking what "good" mean? Successful?
>> Gets a job done? That could be said about Eric Harris and Dylan
>> Klebold. An earthworm and a maggot can do a "good" job.
>
>> Now if the term "good" implies some semblence of moral contemplation
>> and ethical reservation (if any in the profession are capable of such
>> things), then I'd say you're right and I agree, but good lawyers are
>> also poor lawyers. Attorneys don't make money by being either moral or
>> ethical.
>
> Lawyers are in fact required by the legal code of ethics to file
> frivolous suits where such suits are in the best interest of their
> clients. Anything less would be in derogation of their obligation of
> zealous representation.
>
>
>
>
That is incorrect. Zealous representation does not include the filing
of frivolous actions that will lead a client into a malicious
prosecution/abuse or process action and attorney sanctions, particularly
Rule 11 violations.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2008 14:41:19
From: foad
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> That is incorrect. Zealous representation does not include the filing of
> frivolous actions that will lead a client into a malicious
> prosecution/abuse or process action and attorney sanctions, particularly
> Rule 11 violations.
No it's not incorrect. There are myriad situations where zealous
representation of the client's interests demands the filing of frivolous and
outlandish suits, actions, papers, pleadings, and motions. There are a
variety of strategical reasons for this, which you can work out on your own.
Even mutt lawyers can get away with these things w/o exposing the client to
liability, because most judges are quite stupid political hacks. If they
could make it in private practice they would, but they can't, so they suckle
from the public teat bleating self importantly in their dopey robes, hoping
for an afternoon teevee show. It's sad really. As for a wonderfully devious
legal malcontent such as myself, you can't even imagine what I get away
with, it's curl your fucking wig. As for attorney sanctions, who cares.
Justice is a dirty business.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2008 15:24:44
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
foad wrote:
>
> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> That is incorrect. Zealous representation does not include the filing
>> of frivolous actions that will lead a client into a malicious
>> prosecution/abuse or process action and attorney sanctions,
>> particularly Rule 11 violations.
>
> No it's not incorrect. There are myriad situations where zealous
> representation of the client's interests demands the filing of frivolous
> and outlandish suits, actions, papers, pleadings, and motions. There are
> a variety of strategical reasons for this, which you can work out on
> your own. Even mutt lawyers can get away with these things w/o exposing
> the client to liability, because most judges are quite stupid political
> hacks. If they could make it in private practice they would, but they
> can't, so they suckle from the public teat bleating self importantly in
> their dopey robes, hoping for an afternoon teevee show. It's sad really.
> As for a wonderfully devious legal malcontent such as myself, you can't
> even imagine what I get away with, it's curl your fucking wig. As for
> attorney sanctions, who cares. Justice is a dirty business.
EC 7-1
The duty of a lawyer, both to his client1 and to the legal system, is to
represent his client zealously2 within the bounds of the law,3 which
includes Disciplinary Rules and enforceable professional regulations.4
The professional responsibility of a lawyer derives from his membership
in a profession which has the duty of assisting members of the public to
secure and protect available legal rights and benefits. In our
government of laws and not of men, each member of our society is
entitled to have his conduct judged and regulated in accordance with the
law;5 to seek any lawful objective6 through legally permissible means;7
and to present for adjudication any lawful claim, issue, or defense.
EC 7-4
The advocate may urge any permissible construction of the law favorable
to his client, without regard to his professional opinion as to the
likelihood that the construction will ultimately prevail.11 His conduct
is within the bounds of the law, and therefore permissible, if the
position taken is supported by the law or is supportable by a good faith
argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of the law.
However, a lawyer is not justified in asserting a position in litigation
that is **frivolous.**12
-------------------------------------------------------
FRCP Rule 11(b)
(b) Representations to the Court.
By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper �
whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it � an
attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the
person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry
reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for *any improper purpose*, such as to
harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
litigation;
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by
existing law or by a *nonfrivolous* argument for extending, modifying,
or reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically
so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable
opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
(4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or,
if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack
of information.
----------------------------------------------------
Abuse of process is a wrong committed during the course of litigation.
It is a perversion of lawfully issued process and is different from
Malicious Prosecution, a lawsuit started without any reasonable
cause.--West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.
--------------------------------------------------------
malicious prosecution n. filing a lawsuit with the intention of creating
problems for the defendant such as costs, attorneys fees, anguish, or
distraction when there is no substantial basis for the suit. If the
defendant in the lawsuit wins, and has evidence that the suit was filed
out of spite and without any legal or factual foundation, he/she may, in
turn, sue for damages against the person who filed the original action.
If malice is clearly proved against the party who brought the original
suit, punitive damages may be awarded along with special and general
damages. In recent cases, courts have ruled that an attorney who
knowingly assists a client in filing a worthless lawsuit out of malice
or spite may be liable for damages along with the client. The suit by
the victim to recover damages for a malicious prosecution cannot be
filed until the original law suit is decided in favor of the victim.
(See: malice)
Copyright � 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right
reserved.
---------------------------------------------
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 27 Sep 2008 12:02:09
From: foad
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
"Brian Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> foad wrote:
>>
>> "Brian Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> That is incorrect. Zealous representation does not include the filing
>>> of frivolous actions that will lead a client into a malicious
>>> prosecution/abuse or process action and attorney sanctions, particularly
>>> Rule 11 violations.
>>
>> No it's not incorrect. There are myriad situations where zealous
>> representation of the client's interests demands the filing of frivolous
>> and outlandish suits, actions, papers, pleadings, and motions. There are
>> a variety of strategical reasons for this, which you can work out on your
>> own. Even mutt lawyers can get away with these things w/o exposing the
>> client to liability, because most judges are quite stupid political
>> hacks. If they could make it in private practice they would, but they
>> can't, so they suckle from the public teat bleating self importantly in
>> their dopey robes, hoping for an afternoon teevee show. It's sad really.
>> As for a wonderfully devious legal malcontent such as myself, you can't
>> even imagine what I get away with, it's curl your fucking wig. As for
>> attorney sanctions, who cares. Justice is a dirty business.
>
> EC 7-1
>
> The duty of a lawyer, both to his client1 and to the legal system, is to
> represent his client zealously2 within the bounds of the law,3 which
> includes Disciplinary Rules and enforceable professional regulations.4 The
> professional responsibility of a lawyer derives from his membership in a
> profession which has the duty of assisting members of the public to secure
> and protect available legal rights and benefits. In our government of laws
> and not of men, each member of our society is entitled to have his conduct
> judged and regulated in accordance with the law;5 to seek any lawful
> objective6 through legally permissible means;7 and to present for
> adjudication any lawful claim, issue, or defense.
>
>
> EC 7-4
>
> The advocate may urge any permissible construction of the law favorable to
> his client, without regard to his professional opinion as to the
> likelihood that the construction will ultimately prevail.11 His conduct is
> within the bounds of the law, and therefore permissible, if the position
> taken is supported by the law or is supportable by a good faith argument
> for an extension, modification, or reversal of the law. However, a lawyer
> is not justified in asserting a position in litigation that is
> **frivolous.**12
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> FRCP Rule 11(b)
>
> (b) Representations to the Court.
>
> By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper �
> whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it � an
> attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's
> knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable
> under the circumstances:
>
> (1) it is not being presented for *any improper purpose*, such as to
> harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of
> litigation;
>
> (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by
> existing law or by a *nonfrivolous* argument for extending, modifying, or
> reversing existing law or for establishing new law;
>
> (3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically
> so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable
> opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and
>
> (4) the denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or,
> if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on belief or a lack of
> information.
> ----------------------------------------------------
Bwah! Thanks for posting these, I'd forgotten how funny thay are.
> Abuse of process is a wrong committed during the course of litigation. It
> is a perversion of lawfully issued process and is different from Malicious
> Prosecution, a lawsuit started without any reasonable cause.--West's
> Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.
> --------------------------------------------------------
Gosh, you did a good job cutting and pasting this on-point info. Have a
cookie.
> malicious prosecution n. filing a lawsuit with the intention of creating
> problems for the defendant such as costs, attorneys fees, anguish, or
> distraction when there is no substantial basis for the suit. If the
> defendant in the lawsuit wins, and has evidence that the suit was filed
> out of spite and without any legal or factual foundation, he/she may, in
> turn, sue for damages against the person who filed the original action. If
> malice is clearly proved against the party who brought the original suit,
> punitive damages may be awarded along with special and general damages. In
> recent cases, courts have ruled that an attorney who knowingly assists a
> client in filing a worthless lawsuit out of malice or spite may be liable
> for damages along with the client. The suit by the victim to recover
> damages for a malicious prosecution cannot be filed until the original law
> suit is decided in favor of the victim. (See: malice)
Wow, more breaking news. You certainly are a tedious nitwit. I'm sorry, did
I say tedious nitwit? I meant well informed poster.
pyright � 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right
> reserved.
> ---------------------------------------------
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2008 23:46:03
From:
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
If this is the best Sloon, er, Sloan can do, his victims have little
to worry about. A number of people have visited Goichberg's home, but
perhaps the elves who taught Sloan law disassembled it after they
left. Doofus.
> 22. This court stated:
>
> a criminal statute that prohibits the making of "obscene or harassing"
> telecommunications, but creates no private right of action. See
> Ghartey v. Chrysler Credit Corp., No. CV-92-1782 (CPS), 1992 WL
> 373479, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 1992).
>
> 23. This is an unreported district court decision that has no
> presidential value. More than that, it does not concern Internet
> identity theft.
Apparently Sloan really does not understand that a criminal statute
does not, in general, create a private right of action. Doofus
(squared).
We really need some kind of tort reform to keep pro se imbeciles like
Sloan from wasting the taxpayers' money.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 11:12:10
From: Brian Lafferty
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> We really need some kind of tort reform to keep pro se imbeciles like
> Sloan from wasting the taxpayers' money.
Be careful what you wish for.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 08:20:22
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
I follow the convention of replying to this shit behind double-asterisks.
In news:1b9020e0-b443-4480-b0b5-071cc58b6fd6@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com,
"samsloan" <[email protected] > is alleged to have written
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________
Sam Sloan,
Plaintiff,
-against-
Hoainhan =93Paul=94 Truong, Zsuzsanna =93Susan=94 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
__________________________________________
MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURTS ORDER AND
JUDGMENT DISMISSING THIS COMPLAINT
__________________________________________
Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. I hereby remove for a rehearing and reconsideration of this courts
order and judgment dated August 29, 2008 dismissing this action.
**Remove your jism.
2. The court, in its decision, made a serious error, in the following
statement.
**It is Sloan, not the court, who made serious errors.
Goichberg has submitted ample evidence to show that he is a "citizen"
of New York for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, including: the
deed to his house in Orange County, New York; property tax records for
his New York residence; and affidavits attesting that he votes, pays
taxes, and resides exclusively in New York. (See Goichberg Aff. &
Suppl. Aff.).
3. This is not true. Goichberg DID NOT provide to the court =93the deed
to his house in Orange County, New York=94 or =93property tax records for
his New York residence=94. The only thing he provided was a brief
summary affidavit saying that he votes and pays taxes in New York and
nowhere else.
4. I was quite concerned and alarmed when I saw this statement in the
decision of this court because this might indicate that my adversaries
filed there documents in court without sending a copy to me. However,
I have checked on PACER and no such documents have been filed with
this court.
5. However, subsequent to the decision of this court, one of my
adversaries, Proskauer Rose, submitted a bill of costs and included as
an exhibit a deed to property in New York. However, the document he
submitted shows that he did not make his request to the Orange County
Clerk until February 6 which was after his final submission to this
court which means that he did not receive it until it was too late to
submit it.
6. More than that, the deed he submitted, which is dated 1991, is a
deed to an EMPTY LOT. Unless Bill Goichberg has constructed a building
on that property or lives in a tent, that is not his residence.
**Sloan fails to note it was an empty lot in 1991. It was not an empty
lot in 2007.
7. My affidavit opposition stated:
5. In his moving affidavit he states that his residence is at 2084
Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY 12577. If that is the case, how come I
cannot find this address listed anywhere? Not only it is not listed
anywhere as his address, but it is not listed anywhere at all.
6. In fact, the address of 2084 Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY 12577
DOES NOT EXIST.
**Sloan is wrong again.
7. My investigation confirms that 2084 Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY
12577 is not a residence or a domiciliary address. I have checked
every possible source for the address of 2084 Route 94, Salisbury
Mills NY 12577. For example, I checked the US Postal Service website
which has the full 9-digit zip code for every address in America at
http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/zcl_0_results.jsp
**Sloan's imvestigation is, as usual, erroneous.
8. The decision of this court implies that I merely stated that
Goichberg does not answer his telephone when I call. That is not what
I wrote. What I wrote was that Goichberg DOES NOT HAVE A HOME
TELEPHONE because GOICHBERG DOES NOT HAVE A HOME.
9. Goichberg is constantly =93on the road=94. He never stops anywhere long
enough to declare any one place to be his permanent home. He moves
from cheap hotel room to cheap hotel room. That is his live style.
10. Just to make sure that this has not changed while this case has
been going, I went to the US Postal Service Website at
http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/zcl_0_results.jsp and entered the address
Goichberg told this court was his address, which was 2084 Route 94,
Salisbury Mills NY 12577.
11. The answer that came back, which anybody can check, was:
We're sorry! We were unable to process your request.
The address was not found. Please check the address below.
You may want to utilize the Yellow Pages and/or White Pages below.
9. Since Goichberg and I are still talking to each other, I asked him
about this at a recent chess tournament and he replied that he does
not want to reveal his real address because he does not want chess
players to know where he lives. He does not want people to come to his
house and demand their prize money and things like that.
10. Goichberg is not hiding or anything like that. He can be found
almost any time at a chess tournament somewhere around the country or,
if no chess tournament is then talking place he will be at the race
track. However, he does not have an address, other than a PO Box. I
submit that a person who does not have an address or is refusing to
reveal it cannot use that secret address to defeat diversity
jurisdioction.
11. The mail point here is all we have seen is a deed to an empty lot
dated 1991, which is annexed as an exhibit. We do not even know if he
still owns that lot. This is clearly insufficient to establish
citizenship to defeat a diversity claim. Her has submitted no tax
records or other documents of any kind.
**Sloan's arguments are specious and his claim is a lie.
12. Next Goichberg says that he pays taxes only in New York State and
nowhere else. This should be cause for concern because he derives
virtually no income in New York State. All of his income comes from
other states. He makes his primary income from four mega-tournaments
held every year. These can be found posted on his website at
http://www.chesstour.com/ . They are:
The World Open held every year in Philadelphia over July 4th weekend
with at least $350,000 in prizes.
The Chicago Open held every year over Memorial Day Weekend with
$100,000 in prizes.
The North American Open held at Bally's Las Vegas every December
26-29 with $100,000 in prizes.
The Foxwoods Open held at Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut every
Easter weekend with $100,000 in prizes.
Other than these huge events to which chess players come from all over
the world to play, Goichberg holds smaller events such as the Midwest
Class Championships in Chicago with only $20,000 in prizes.
13. You will notice that none of these tournaments are in New York
State. Goichberg often states that he avoids New York State because it
is =93too expensive=94.
14. However, he does hold one tournament per year which is the New
York State Championship which is always held in Upstate New York,
never in New York City. However, unlike the other tournaments listed,
he does not direct that one. He always hires somebody else to direct
it. This means that his profits from that event are little or nothing.
The reason he holds that tournament but does not direct is is that
keeps him in control of the New York State Chess Federation.
Otherwise, he risks being voted out of office.
15. There are certainly a lot of people who would like to vote
Goichberg out of office. There are many complaints about =93conflict of
interest=94 in that he is by far the biggest chess tournament organizer
in America while he is also the USCF President. However, I am not part
of the anti-Goichberg crowd. I have been supporting and defending
Goichberg from these attacks for more than 40 years, which makes it so
strange that he started attacking me from the day that I got elected
to the USCF Executive Board in July 2006.
16. The question here is: How can Goichberg claim that he only pays
taxes in New York State and not in any other state when he derived
virtually zero income from New York State and all of his income comes
from other states? I believe that he should submit his income tax
statement to this court. If he refuses, as he probably will, then his
non-diversity defense should be denied.
**Sloan has no evidence let aside proof of what he claims.
17. I provided to this court the address where Goichberg was living
when this case was filed. I wrote, =93He presently resides at the Santa
Anita Inn located at 130 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007.
This is near to the Santa Anita Race Track, where Mr. Goichberg plays
the horses.=94
18. Mr. Goichberg did not deny this or even respond to this point.
Therefore, I do not see how he can win on the diversity issue.
**Bill G. did not need to respond to the point as there was no point.
19. In addition, I stated that I would be willing to eliminate
Goichberg as a defendant it necessary to preserve diversity. None of
the other defendants are claiming New York Citizenship. Thus, I fail
to understand why the court made such a Draconian Remedy as to dismiss
my claim =93with prejudice=94.
**The dismissal was because you are a stupid asshole.
20. At a minimum there should be a fact hearing where Goichberg can
present his evidence and I can present my contrary evidence. This will
give Goichberg a change to produce his =93concrete evidence=94 that he
claims to have but has not thus far produced.
21. Next, this court makes the shocking ruling that Internet Identity
theft fails to state a federal cause of action. This, only a few days
after the New York Times reported that the United States Secret
Service is investigating this and a closely related case, also
involving some of the same defendants.
**Irrelevant, Sloan.
22. This court stated:
a criminal statute that prohibits the making of "obscene or harassing"
telecommunications, but creates no private right of action. See
Ghartey v. Chrysler Credit Corp., No. CV-92-1782 (CPS), 1992 WL
373479, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 1992).
23. This is an unreported district court decision that has no
presidential value. More than that, it does not concern Internet
identity theft. Indeed, back in 1992 Internet identity theft did not
yet exist. Nowadays, there are millions of victims of Internet
identity theft of which I am just one. For obvious reasons, the state
courts are ill equipped to deal with Internet identity theft. One of
the reasons is obvious from the facts of this case. Since this case
was filed on October 2, 2007, Susan Polgar and Paul Truong have
traveled the world, to such diverse places as Germany, Argentina,
Sardenia, Scotland, India, Hungary and many other countries. She has
posted photos of herself on her website standing in front of the Taj
Mahal in India, overlooking the Grand Canyon in Arizona and many other
places. She is living a =93If this is Tuesday, This Must be Belgium=94
existence. Yet, during all these travels, she and Truong are never far
from their laptop computers where they post vile, vicious personal
attacks on various chess personalities almost every day.
**That Sloan thinks "presidential" is the correct word to use gives
sufficient evidence of what he knows and also sets a suitable precedent
for dismissing with prejudice all his future rantings.
24. What can a New York State Court judge do about this? Only the
federal courts can handle this.
25. An ancient Roman legal maxim states: ubi ius, ibi remedium. =93Where
there is a right, there is a remedy.=94 Generally, the law will not
countenance a situation where a person has a legal right but no means
of enforcing it. The law will provide a means. Or, in the English
common-law tradition, where the law does not provide a means of
enforcing a right, equity will.
**Unfortunately Sloan is not suing in an ancient Roman court.
26. The Mottershead Report has documented 2464 =93Fake Sam Sloan=94
postings along with proof that all of these 2464 postings were by Paul
Truong and Susan Polgar. Many are too obscene to quote here but, if
you have a strong stomach, they can be found at:
http://www.mottershead.info/uscfdocs/fake-sam-sloan.txt This is a 5mb
file thousands of pages long and therefore is not included here. Each
of these 2464 Internet postings were cross-posted to two and sometimes
three Internet newsgroups and thus there were more than 5,000 postings
altogether. These postings have been the subject of 12 articles in the
New York Times plus articles in the Lubbock Avalanche Journal and
other newspapers around the world. There have been dozens of blogs and
websites devoted to this issue and thousands of emails and newsgroup
postings devoted to this.
27. Here is one of these postings. Susan Polgar, posting as the =93Fake
Sam Sloan=94, stated the following from the email address
[email protected] which is an email address that the Real Sam
Sloan never uses and is used exclusively by the Fake Sam Sloan:
Article: 302304
From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected] >
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: My chess goal
Date: 7 Oct 2006 17:08:49 -0700
I had sexual relationships with Rusudan Goletiani, Jennifer Shahade,
Anna Zatonskih, Tatev Abrahamyan, Chimi Batchimeg and Laura Ross. My
goal is to [explicative deleted] every female player rated over 2200.
Sam Sloan
48. All of the players listed above are top female chess masters and
rivals of Susan Polgar. I have never had relations (other than normal,
friendly non-sexual relations) with any of them. Of the above, Laura
Ross was only 17 years old at the time of this posting and Tatev
Abrahamyan was only 18. The others were all in their early 20s. None
of them had ever been married at that time. (Several had gotten
married since.) Had I posted this, I would have been guilty of libel
per se. But, I did not post this. It was posted by Susan Polgar and
Paul Truong, who signed my name to it. This was clearly a crime, yet
this court has ruled that I cannot sue them in federal court for this.
**This posting of 7 October 2006 was probably made by the Real Sam Sloan
pretending to be the Fake Sam Sloan.
49. Now, because of the ruling of this court which in effect immunized
Susan Polgar and Paul Truong from any civil liability for doing this.
Therefore, they are back. Only three days ago, on September 21, 2008,
the following was posted on rec.games.chess.politics:
I am too much of a gentleman to reveal the locations of Krush's two
distinctive birthmarks.
To find out more, you will have to wait until I publish my book "What
Irina Krush Could Teach You". It will be available from Amazon later
in 2008.
Sam Sloan
**This posting of 21 September 2008 was probably made by the Real Sam
Sloan pretending to be the Fake Sam Sloan, fabricating "evidence" to
support a MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION.
50. Although we do not have the proof that Polgar and Truong posted
this, it is so typical of the kinds of things that they post that it
is almost certain that they did this. Irina Krush, 25, is the top
rated woman chess player in the United States. Up until now, Truong
and Polgar have left her alone, rarely attacking her. Susan must be
mad at her about something.
51. Then, only a few minutes later, Polgar and Truong had the audacity
to attack the judge of the court, the judge who had been so nice to
them by dismissing my complaint. Here is what they wrote:
Judge Denny Chin must be very stupid. A paternal great-grandfather of
mine, John Hale Sloan II, who worked as an immigration agent in 1904,
may have been the person who did not permit Chin's slit-eyed forebear
Rong-pha Chin to enter the country.
http://www.samsloan.com/dennychin-illegal.htm
So, Denny Chin should have recused himself in my case. All this will
be very useful when I re-file the suit. I doubt that, after rendering
such an erroneous judgement, any further important cases will ever be
given to Chin.
Further, given the evidence I expect to find soon, Chin's own INS
status may be reviewed and his citizenship revoked. I expect that Ishi
Press will publish a book about the scandal.
The Real Sam Sloan
52. Again, they signed my name, but everybody who has been following
their history will realize that Polgar and Truong posted this as they
have been posting things exactly like this for years.
**This posting of 21 September 2008 was probably made by the Real Sam
Sloan pretending to be the Fake Sam Sloan, fabricating "evidence" to
support a MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION. Which the stupid
asshole Sloan has filed only one day later. If Sloan had any sense he
would have waited a few days after making the posts forging himself
before filing his motion for rehearing. But Sloan has no sense. The
timeline makes it obvious what Sloan is trying to perpetrate.
53. I am providing the quote above in the hope that it will galvanize
this court into trying to find out who is doing this, since it seems
to have no interest in finding out who is doing this to me.
**The one "doing this" is you. Since you finally learned to use the
remailer in 2002 or earlier, you have been busy.=20
The court is not such an idiot as to fall for your carnival tricks.
54. Right now, the USCF is on the verge of total collapse because of
this issue. Efforts were made to resolve this issue at the USCF
delegates meeting in Dallas August 9-10, 2008. These efforts failed in
part because both sides stacked the meeting with unqualified
alternated. Here is a video showing Bill Hall reading especially
obscene postings by the =93Fake Sam Sloan=94 in which the Fake Sam
attacked former US Woman's Champion Jennifer Shahade. If you play this
video, be prepared to be deeply offended. It is posted on Google
videos, but is not searchible:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D6138728192537752772&hl=3Den
**We already knew that you were unsuccessful in fucking her.
55. There have been thus far four lawsuits filed over these =93Fake Sam
Sloan=94 issues. More are expected. The second, filed in Philadelphia,
was Parker vs. Sloan et al, which was dismissed only a few days after
this one was. The third is United States of America Chess Federation
vs. John Does 1-10 filed in San Francisco Superior Court. The 4th is
Susan Polgar vs. United States Chess Federation et all pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Lubbock Division. As you will observe, I am a party to all of these
cases except for the third one, but I only filed the first one.
**So?
56. I filed my answer and counterclaim in the Lubbock, Texas case last
week. The remaining defendants have been given until Friday, September
26, 2008 to answer. I am attaching my answer and counterclaim here as
an exhibit. This courts decision puts me in a quandary. Since this
court dismissed my complaint =93with prejudice=94 am I foreclosed from
raising these same issues as a defense in the Lubbock Texas case. I am
afraid that I know what the answer it and this again is another reason
why this motion for a rehearing should be granted and this courts
decision should be reversed.
**You should be afraid.
WHEREFORE, this motion for reconsideration should be granted and the
decision and judgment of this court should be vacated and set aside.
**It won't be granted.
_______________________
Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453
1-917-507-7226
1-917-659-3397
[email protected]
STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss:
COUNTY OF BRONX )
VERIFICATION
1, the undersigned, the petitioner named in the foregoing petition,
being duly sworn, says:
I have read the foregoing petition subscribed by me and know the
contents thereof and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as
to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and
belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true.
__________________________________
Signature of Plaintiff
On the 23rd Day of September, 2007
**Does the dumb cunt not know the year is 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.
_____________________________
KAYO KIMURA SLOAN
NOTARY PUBLIC
**How can your stupid imported wife notarize your submission? She
stands to gain from it.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2008 12:34:09
From: David L. Martel
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
Nomen,
I typed this address into Google maps then requested a satellite image. I
see an empty piece of land at the corner of Penny Lane.. This satellite
image might be old, Google might not be correctly locating the address but
this quick check does back up Sloan's claim.
Why do you believe that Sloan is wrong?
Good luck,
Dave M.
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2008 20:54:24
From:
Subject: Re: Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY
|
On Sep 23, 9:51=A0pm, samsloan <[email protected] > 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 -against-
>
> Hoainhan =93Paul=94 Truong, Zsuzsanna =93Susan=94 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
>
> __________________________________________
>
> MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURTS ORDER AND
> JUDGMENT DISMISSING THIS COMPLAINT
>
> __________________________________________
>
> Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
>
> 1. I hereby remove for a rehearing and reconsideration of this courts
> order and judgment dated August 29, 2008 dismissing this action.
>
> 2. The court, in its decision, made a serious error, in the following
> statement.
>
> Goichberg has submitted ample evidence to show that he is a "citizen"
> of New York for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, including: the
> deed to his house in Orange County, New York; property tax records for
> his New York residence; and affidavits attesting that he votes, pays
> taxes, and resides exclusively in New York. (See Goichberg Aff. &
> Suppl. Aff.).
>
> 3. This is not true. Goichberg DID NOT provide to the court =93the deed
> to his house in Orange County, New York=94 or =93property tax records for
> his New York residence=94. The only thing he provided was a brief
> summary affidavit saying that he votes and pays taxes in New York and
> nowhere else.
>
> 4. I was quite concerned and alarmed when I saw this statement in the
> decision of this court because this might indicate that my adversaries
> filed there documents in court without sending a copy to me. However,
> I have checked on PACER and no such documents have been filed with
> this court.
>
> 5. However, subsequent to the decision of this court, one of my
> adversaries, Proskauer Rose, submitted a bill of costs and included as
> an exhibit a deed to property in New York. However, the document he
> submitted shows that he did not make his request to the Orange County
> Clerk until February 6 which was after his final submission to this
> court which means that he did not receive it until it was too late to
> submit it.
>
> 6. More than that, the deed he submitted, which is dated 1991, is a
> deed to an EMPTY LOT. Unless Bill Goichberg has constructed a building
> on that property or lives in a tent, that is not his residence.
>
> 7. My affidavit opposition stated:
>
> 5. In his moving affidavit he states that his residence is at 2084
> Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY 12577. If that is the case, how come I
> cannot find this address listed anywhere? Not only it is not listed
> anywhere as his address, but it is not listed anywhere at all.
>
> 6. In fact, the address of 2084 Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY 12577
> DOES NOT EXIST.
>
> 7. My investigation confirms that 2084 Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY
> 12577 is not a residence or a domiciliary address. I have checked
> every possible source for the address of 2084 Route 94, Salisbury
> Mills NY 12577. For example, I checked the US Postal Service website
> which has the full 9-digit zip code for every address in America athttp:/=
/zip4.usps.com/zip4/zcl_0_results.jsp
>
> 8. The decision of this court implies that I merely stated that
> Goichberg does not answer his telephone when I call. That is not what
> I wrote. What I wrote was that Goichberg DOES NOT HAVE A HOME
> TELEPHONE because GOICHBERG DOES NOT HAVE A HOME.
>
> 9. Goichberg is constantly =93on the road=94. He never stops anywhere lon=
g
> enough to declare any one place to be his permanent home. He moves
> from cheap hotel room to cheap hotel room. That is his live style.
>
> 10. Just to make sure that this has not changed while this case has
> been going, I went to the US Postal Service Website athttp://zip4.usps.co=
m/zip4/zcl_0_results.jspand entered the address
> Goichberg told this court was his address, which was 2084 Route 94,
> Salisbury Mills NY 12577.
>
> 11. The answer that came back, which anybody can check, was:
>
> We're sorry! We were unable to process your request.
>
> The address was not found. Please check the address below.
> You may want to utilize the Yellow Pages and/or White Pages below.
>
> 9. Since Goichberg and I are still talking to each other, I asked him
> about this at a recent chess tournament and he replied that he does
> not want to reveal his real address because he does not want chess
> players to know where he lives. He does not want people to come to his
> house and demand their prize money and things like that.
>
> 10. Goichberg is not hiding or anything like that. He can be found
> almost any time at a chess tournament somewhere around the country or,
> if no chess tournament is then talking place he will be at the race
> track. However, he does not have an address, other than a PO Box. I
> submit that a person who does not have an address or is refusing to
> reveal it cannot use that secret address to defeat diversity
> jurisdioction.
>
> 11. The mail point here is all we have seen is a deed to an empty lot
> dated 1991, which is annexed as an exhibit. We do not even know if he
> still owns that lot. This is clearly insufficient to establish
> citizenship to defeat a diversity claim. Her has submitted no tax
> records or other documents of any kind.
>
> 12. Next Goichberg says that he pays taxes only in New York State and
> nowhere else. This should be cause for concern because he derives
> virtually no income in New York State. All of his income comes from
> other states. He makes his primary income from four mega-tournaments
> held every year. These can be found posted on his website athttp://www.ch=
esstour.com/. They are:
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The World Open held every year in Philade=
lphia over July 4th weekend
> with at least $350,000 in prizes.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The Chicago Open held every year over Mem=
orial Day Weekend with
> $100,000 in prizes.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The North American Open held at Bally's L=
as Vegas every December
> 26-29 with $100,000 in prizes.
>
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 The Foxwoods Open held at Foxwoods Casino=
in Connecticut every
> Easter weekend with $100,000 in prizes.
>
> Other than these huge events to which chess players come from all over
> the world to play, Goichberg holds smaller events such as the Midwest
> Class Championships in Chicago with only $20,000 in prizes.
>
> 13. You will notice that none of these tournaments are in New York
> State. Goichberg often states that he avoids New York State because it
> is =93too expensive=94.
>
> 14. However, he does hold one tournament per year which is the New
> York State Championship which is always held in Upstate New York,
> never in New York City. However, unlike the other tournaments listed,
> he does not direct that one. He always hires somebody else to direct
> it. This means that his profits from that event are little or nothing.
> The reason =A0he holds that tournament but does not direct is is that
> keeps him in control of the New York State Chess Federation.
> Otherwise, he risks being voted out of office.
>
> 15. There are certainly a lot of people who would like to vote
> Goichberg out of office. There are many complaints about =93conflict of
> interest=94 in that he is by far the biggest chess tournament organizer
> in America while he is also the USCF President. However, I am not part
> of the anti-Goichberg crowd. I have been supporting and defending
> Goichberg from these attacks for more than 40 years, which makes it so
> strange that he started attacking me from the day that I got elected
> to the USCF Executive Board in July 2006.
>
> 16. The question here is: How can Goichberg claim that he only pays
> taxes in New York State and not in any other state when he derived
> virtually zero income from New York State and all of his income comes
> from other states? I believe that he should submit his income tax
> statement to this court. If he refuses, as he probably will, then his
> non-diversity defense should be denied.
>
> 17. I provided to this court the address where Goichberg was living
> when this case was filed. I wrote, =93He presently resides at the Santa
> Anita Inn located at 130 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007.
> This is near to the Santa Anita Race Track, where Mr. Goichberg plays
> the horses.=94
>
> 18. Mr. Goichberg did not deny this or even respond to this point.
> Therefore, I do not see how he can win on the diversity issue.
>
> 19. In addition, I stated that I would be willing to eliminate
> Goichberg as a defendant it necessary to preserve diversity. None of
> the other defendants are claiming New York Citizenship. Thus, I fail
> to understand why the court made such a Draconian Remedy as to dismiss
> my claim =93with prejudice=94.
>
> 20. At a minimum there should be a fact hearing where Goichberg can
> present his evidence and I can present my contrary evidence. This will
> give Goichberg a change to produce his =93 concrete evidence=94 that he
> claims to have but has not thus far produced.
>
> 21. Next, this court makes the shocking ruling that Internet Identity
> theft fails to state a federal cause of action. This, only a few days
> after the New York Times reported that the United States Secret
> Service is investigating this and a closely related case, also
> involving some of the same defendants.
>
> 22. This court stated:
>
> a criminal statute that prohibits the making of "obscene or harassing"
> telecommunications, but creates no private right of action. See
> Ghartey v. Chrysler Credit Corp., No. CV-92-1782 (CPS), 1992 WL
> 373479, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 1992).
>
> 23. This is an unreported district court decision that has no
> presidential value. More than that, it does not concern Internet
> identity theft. Indeed, back in 1992 Internet identity theft did not
> yet exist. Nowadays, there are millions of victims of Internet
> identity theft of which I am just one. For obvious reasons, the state
> courts are ill equipped to deal with Internet identity theft. One of
> the reasons is obvious from the facts of this case. Since this case
> was filed on October 2, 2007, Susan Polgar and Paul Truong have
> traveled the world, to such diverse places as Germany, Argentina,
> Sardenia, Scotland, India, Hungary and many other countries. She has
> posted photos of herself on her website standing in front of the Taj
> Mahal in India, overlooking the Grand Canyon in Arizona and many other
> places. She is living a =93If this is Tuesday, This Must be Belgium=94
> existence. Yet, during all these travels, she and Truong are never far
> from their laptop computers where they post vile, vicious personal
> attacks on various chess personalities almost every day.
>
> 24. What can a New York State Court judge do about this? Only the
> federal courts can handle this.
>
> 25. An ancient Roman legal maxim states: ubi ius, ibi remedium. =93Where
> there is a right, there is a remedy.=94 Generally, the law will not
> countenance a situation where a person has a legal right but no means
> of enforcing it. The law will provide a means. Or, in the English
> common-law tradition, where the law does not provide a means of
> enforcing a right, equity will.
>
> 26. The Mottershead Report has documented 2464 =93Fake Sam Sloan=94
> postings along with proof that all of these 2464 postings were by Paul
> Truong and Susan Polgar. Many are too obscene to quote here but, if
> you have a strong stomach, they can be found at:
> =A0http://www.mottershead.info/uscfdocs/fake-sam-sloan.txtThis is a 5mb
> file thousands of pages long and therefore is not included here. Each
> of these 2464 Internet postings were cross-posted to two and sometimes
> three Internet newsgroups and thus there were more than 5,000 postings
> altogether. These postings have been the subject of 12 articles in the
> New York Times plus articles in the Lubbock Avalanche Journal and
> other newspapers around the world. There have been dozens of blogs and
> websites devoted to this issue and thousands of emails and newsgroup
> postings devoted to this.
>
> 27. Here is one of these postings. Susan Polgar, posting as the =93Fake
> Sam Sloan=94, stated the following from the email address
> [email protected] which is an email address that the Real Sam
> Sloan never uses and is used exclusively by the Fake Sam Sloan:
>
> Article: 302304
> From: "Sam Sloan" <[email protected]>
> Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
> Subject: My chess goal
> Date: 7 Oct 2006 17:08:49 -0700
> I had sexual relationships with Rusudan Goletiani, Jennifer Shahade,
> Anna Zatonskih, Tatev Abrahamyan, Chimi Batchimeg and Laura Ross. My
> goal is to [explicative deleted] every female player rated over 2200.
> Sam Sloan
>
> 48. All of the players listed above are top female chess masters and
> rivals of Susan Polgar. I have never had relations (other than normal,
> friendly non-sexual relations) with any of them. Of the above, Laura
> Ross was only 17 years old at the time of this posting and Tatev
> Abrahamyan was only 18. The others were all in their early 20s. None
> of them had ever been married at that time. (Several had gotten
> married since.) Had I posted this, I would have been guilty of libel
> per se. But, I did not post this. It was posted by Susan Polgar and
> Paul Truong, who signed my name to it. This was clearly a crime, yet
> this court has ruled that I cannot sue them in federal court for this.
>
> 49. Now, because of the ruling of this court which in effect immunized
> Susan Polgar and Paul Truong from any civil liability for doing this.
> Therefore, they are back. Only three days ago, on September 21, 2008,
> the following was posted on rec.games.chess.politics:
>
> I am too much of a gentleman to reveal the locations of Krush's two
> distinctive birthmarks.
> To find out more, you will have to wait until I publish my book "What
> Irina Krush Could Teach You". It will be available from Amazon later
> in 2008.
> Sam Sloan
>
> 50. Although we do not have the proof that Polgar and Truong posted
> this, it is so typical of the kinds of things that they post that it
> is almost certain that they did this. Irina Krush, 25, is the top
> rated woman chess player in the United States. Up until now, Truong
> and Polgar have left her alone, rarely attacking her. Susan must be
> mad at her about something.
>
> 51. Then, only a few minutes later, Polgar and Truong had the audacity
> to attack the judge of the court, the judge who had been so nice to
> them by dismissing my complaint. Here is what they wrote:
>
> Judge Denny Chin must be very stupid. A paternal great-grandfather of
> mine, John Hale Sloan II, who worked as an immigration agent in 1904,
> may have been the person who did not permit Chin's slit-eyed forebear
> Rong-pha Chin to enter the country.http://www.samsloan.com/dennychin-ille=
gal.htm
> So, Denny Chin should have recused himself in my case. All this will
> be very useful when I re-file the suit. I doubt that, after rendering
> such an erroneous judgement, any further important cases will ever be
> given to Chin.
> Further, given the evidence I expect to find soon, Chin's own INS
> status may be reviewed and his citizenship revoked. I expect that Ishi
> Press will publish a book about the scandal.
> The Real Sam Sloan
>
> 52. Again, they signed my name, but everybody who has been following
> their history will realize that Polgar and Truong posted this as they
> have been posting things exactly like this for years.
>
> 53. I am providing the quote above in the hope that it will galvanize
> this court into trying to find out who is doing this, since it seems
> to have no interest in finding out who is doing this to me.
>
> 54. Right now, the USCF is on the verge of total collapse because of
> this issue. Efforts were made to resolve this issue at the USCF
> delegates meeting in Dallas August 9-10, 2008. These efforts failed in
> part because both sides stacked the meeting with unqualified
> alternated. Here is a video showing Bill Hall reading especially
> obscene postings by the =93Fake Sam Sloan=94 in which the Fake Sam
> attacked former US Woman's Champion Jennifer Shahade. If you play this
> video, be prepared to be deeply offended. It is posted on Google
> videos, but is not searchible:
>
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3D6138728192537752772&hl=3Den
>
> 55. There have been thus far four lawsuits filed over these =93Fake Sam
> Sloan=94 issues. More are expected. The second, filed in Philadelphia,
> was Parker vs. Sloan et al, which was dismissed only a few days after
> this one was. The third is United States of America Chess Federation
> vs. John Does 1-10 filed in San Francisco Superior Court. The 4th is
> Susan Polgar vs. United States Chess Federation et all pending in the
> United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
> Lubbock Division. As you will observe, I am a party to all of these
> cases except for the third one, but I only filed the first one.
>
> 56. I filed my answer and counterclaim in the Lubbock, Texas case last
> week. The remaining defendants have been given until Friday, September
> 26, 2008 to answer. I am attaching my answer and counterclaim here as
> an exhibit. This courts decision puts me in a quandary. Since this
> court dismissed my complaint =93with prejudice=94 am I foreclosed from
> raising these same issues as a defense in the Lubbock Texas case. I am
> afraid that I know what the answer it and this again is another reason
> why this motion for a rehearing should be granted and this courts
> decision should be reversed.
>
> WHEREFORE, this motion for reconsideration should be granted and the
> decision and judgment of this court should be vacated and set aside.
>
> =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 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Samuel H. Sloan
> =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 1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
> =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 Bronx NY 10453
>
> =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 1-917-507-7226
> =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 1-917-659-3397
> =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 [email protected]
>
> STATE OF NEW YORK =A0 =A0 =A0 )
> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 s=
s:
> COUNTY OF BRONX )
>
> VERIFICATION
>
> 1, the undersigned, the petitioner named in the foregoing petition,
> being duly sworn, says:
> I have read the foregoing petition subscribed by me and know the
> contents thereof and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as
> to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and
> belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true.
>
> =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 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Signature of Plaintiff
>
> On the 23rd Day of September, 2007 before me personally came Samuel
> H. =A0Sloan 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
WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ABOUT? Are you really Sam Sloan?
You filed against Goichberg in SDNY (souther district of New York)
and you are aruging that Goichberg is NOT a citizen of New York?
What is the revealance? Do you want to hear yourself talk?
WHAT DOES IT MATTER THE CITIZENSHIP of Goichberg? You sued him in New
York,
you FOOL, and you argue that HE DOES NOT REALLY LIVE IN NEW YORK?
I don't beleive anything you are writing, and neither does Judge Chin.
Points 2,3,4 are so weak, that you miss
the real facts, Sloan.
You are a loser in fact and law. You never won a case before the US
Supreme Court. You never made a real legal
argument other than rant and rave (to hear yourself talk) and got
lucky on a minor point which you never
really intended to win. You never got your SEC licences back, you did
get a very minor point of law and you claim
that win from 1978. 30 years later, and your filings are all the
weaker!
I told you take your case to a jury. A jury decides fact, a court
decides law in US Common law. Now, you want to take your
case to a court of appeals to hear yourself babble. You are unable to
represent yourself in front of a jury!
If you were disbarred, courts would prevent you from filing this crap.
Sloan, you are the insane pro se "lawyer" who gets
to file becasue some people really need to represent themselves in
criminal cases. At the end of the day, the courts
fear crazy people can't win a real appeal, so they say: US Courts
TOLERATE SAM SLOAN to vindicate our wicked legal system!
In IRAN, they would whip you for filing this shit.
Marcus Roberts
> 2. The court, in its decision, made a serious error, in the following
> statement.
>
> Goichberg has submitted ample evidence to show that he is a "citizen"
> of New York for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, including: the
> deed to his house in Orange County, New York; property tax records for
> his New York residence; and affidavits attesting that he votes, pays
> taxes, and resides exclusively in New York. (See Goichberg Aff. &
> Suppl. Aff.).
>
> 3. This is not true. Goichberg DID NOT provide to the court =93the deed
> to his house in Orange County, New York=94 or =93property tax records for
> his New York residence=94. The only thing he provided was a brief
> summary affidavit saying that he votes and pays taxes in New York and
> nowhere else.
|
|
