I have received a letter from a lawyer named Patrick O'Brien
claiming to represent William Brock,
threatening to find a Rule 11 Motion for sanctions against me unless I
withdraw my suit against Mr. Brock.

I am utterly terrified. Which should I do?

It is to be recalled that Mr. Brock had repeatedly dared me to file a
lawsuit against him, while at the same time he was posting thousands
of articles to this forum accusing me of being a "child molester".
These articles have continued even after I filed this suit.

Sam Sloan

On Nov 10, 9:05 am, samsloan wrote:
I have received a letter from a lawyer named Patrick O'Brien
claiming to represent William Brock,
threatening to find a Rule 11 Motion for sanctions against me unless I
withdraw my suit against Mr. Brock.

I am utterly terrified. Which should I do?

It is to be recalled that Mr. Brock had repeatedly dared me to file a
lawsuit against him, while at the same time he was posting thousands
of articles to this forum accusing me of being a "child molester".
These articles have continued even after I filed this suit.

Sam Sloan

What is Rule 11? Specifically why does he believe he is entitled to
sanctions?

On Nov 10, 8:05 am, samsloan wrote:
I have received a letter from a lawyer named Patrick O'Brien
claiming to represent William Brock,
threatening to find a Rule 11 Motion for sanctions against me unless I
withdraw my suit against Mr. Brock.

I am utterly terrified. Which should I do?

It is to be recalled that Mr. Brock had repeatedly dared me to file a
lawsuit against him, while at the same time he was posting thousands
of articles to this forum accusing me of being a "child molester".
These articles have continued even after I filed this suit.

Sam Sloan

Didn't I warn you about Rule 11, Sam? How many times have I posted
Rule 11? The US Supreme
Court will not save you from this one.

Expalin to me why you think this defendant has a legal reason to be
included as the defendant?

Marcus Roberts

On Nov 10, 2:22 pm, wrote:
On Nov 10, 8:05 am, samsloan wrote:

I have received a letter from a lawyer named Patrick O'Brien
claiming to represent William Brock,
threatening to find a Rule 11 Motion for sanctions against me unless I
withdraw my suit against Mr. Brock.

I am utterly terrified. Which should I do?

It is to be recalled that Mr. Brock had repeatedly dared me to file a
lawsuit against him, while at the same time he was posting thousands
of articles to this forum accusing me of being a "child molester".
These articles have continued even after I filed this suit.

Sam Sloan

Didn't I warn you about Rule 11, Sam? How many times have I posted
Rule 11? The US Supreme
Court will not save you from this one.

Expalin to me why you think this defendant has a legal reason to be
included as the defendant?

Marcus Roberts

I think that more than one thousand postings calling me a "child
molester" ought to be sufficient.

On Nov 10, 1:27 pm, samsloan wrote:
On Nov 10, 2:22 pm, wrote:



On Nov 10, 8:05 am, samsloan wrote:

I have received a letter from a lawyer named Patrick O'Brien
claiming to represent William Brock,
threatening to find a Rule 11 Motion for sanctions against me unless I
withdraw my suit against Mr. Brock.

I am utterly terrified. Which should I do?

It is to be recalled that Mr. Brock had repeatedly dared me to file a
lawsuit against him, while at the same time he was posting thousands
of articles to this forum accusing me of being a "child molester".
These articles have continued even after I filed this suit.

Sam Sloan

Didn't I warn you about Rule 11, Sam? How many times have I posted
Rule 11? The US Supreme
Court will not save you from this one.

Expalin to me why you think this defendant has a legal reason to be
included as the defendant?

Marcus Roberts

I think that more than one thousand postings calling me a "child
molester" ought to be sufficient.

http://www.direkickfeud.blogspot.com

help bot wrote:

Too bad. Had you been /killed/ while trying to assert
your "right of way" by running down a child, you might
have (posthumously) been given a Darwin Award.





I don't believe you can be given one any other way!

As I understand it, on Tue, 13 Nov 2007 09:55:59 -0700, Richard
wrote:

help bot wrote:

Too bad. Had you been /killed/ while trying to assert
your "right of way" by running down a child, you might
have (posthumously) been given a Darwin Award.





I don't believe you can be given one any other way!

Technically not given one.


--
Kent
"I'm a ten gov a day guy. It's all I know, and it's all
you need to know, gov!"
- Shouting George

On Nov 14, 7:37 am, The Historian wrote:

into in Central Park on a Sunday when I was seventeen. I'm going about 30
mph

Okay, so you were speeding recklessly...

That was certainly an excessive rate of speed for a multi-use path.

with the right of way

Can you explain this statement? I'm not sure I comprehend
a claim to having the right of way on a bicycle, unless say,
there are signs everywhere prohibiting other forms of traffic
(for instance, a bikes-only trail).

Trail users, regardless of how they are moving, should follow normal
traffic patterns for road use. However, many pedestrians, either from
ignorance or to feel safer with all those big bad bicycles around,
walk against trail traffic. Still, bicycles should brake for
pedestrians in all cases. Cyclists are the 18 wheeled trucks of the
bike path, even if they aren't riding a Surley Long Haul Trucker.

and he stands perpendicular to me, right in my
path.

Okay, so he suffers from a delusion that the path in
Central Park belongs to him, and him alone.


This used to happen around here all the time; but of
course, all those silly squirrels are now dead. :(

Wasn't the path big enough for Mr. Gordon to go around the child?

Go around? Are you kidding, this guy believes
he *owns* the path. Let everyone else get out
of *his way*, or suffer the consequences!


And if traffic was so heavy that he couldn't pass the kid, why was
he
clocking 30 MPH?

I think maybe the kid obstructed *his path* deliberately,
as in a twisted sense of humor -- cause a crash, make
someone panic. Like when you used to throw rocks
from that overpass at the cars below, or when you had
that magnifying glass, and would terrorize ants with it --
remember?


There has to be more to this story.

Okay. So that kid went on to bigger and better
things. His name? Lex Luthor, as I recall. He made
a brief appearance later in the movie "Marathon Man",
starring Dustin Hoffman -- he knocks DH down while
he is running in Central Park, during a shoot.


-- help bot

No. 07 CV 8537
__________________________________________________ ____________________________

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________________ ____________________________

SAM SLOAN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) The Honorable
) DENNY CHIN,
HOAINHAN "PAUL" TRUONG, ) Judge Presiding.
WILLIAM BROCK, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
__________________________________________________ ____________________________


Defendant William Brock's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions

Defendant William Brock ("Brock") moves for sanctions against
plaintiff Sam Sloan ("Sloan") pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. In
support of this motion, Brock states as follows:
Sloan pleads in his Complaint that he "was elected to the Executive
Board of the United States Chess Federation ["USCF"] in 2006 but was
defeated when he ran for re-election in 2007." Complaint ¶ 10. Sloan
brought this lawsuit, purportedly under the Court's federal-question
jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction, Complaint ¶ 2, against 13
individual defendants, USCF, Texas Tech University, and the United
States of America. He alleges that the individual defendants
committed defamation and other alleged wrongdoing in connection with
Sloan's unsuccessful campaign for reelection to the USCF Executive
Board. As to Brock specifically, Sloan alleges that Brock posted to
the USCF forum and other sites on the Internet assertions that Brock
is "a child molester, a pornographer and a purveyor of 'kiddie porn.'"
See Complaint §§ 62-63.
This Court should award Brock Rule 11 sanctions against Sloan because
(1) controlling Second Circuit caselaw establishes that there is no
basis for personal jurisdiction over Brock, a citizen of Illinois and
(2) Sloan has not pled a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction over
Brock. As such, Sloan's claims against Brock are not "warranted by
existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension,
modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new
law[.]" Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(2). It should also be noted that
Sloan, although not a lawyer, is quite familiar with the legal
system. In addition to his felony conviction in Virginia in 1992, see
Complaint ¶ 24, he pleads that, "In legal circles, Sloan is best known
for about 20 published and reported decisions involving federal
securities laws." Id. ¶ 10. These include a 1978 case in which
Sloan, proceeding pro se, orally argued and briefed a case before the
Supreme Court of the United States, winning 9-0. His opposing counsel
was Harvey Pitt, then the General Counsel of the SEC, who later served
as Chairman of the SEC in 2001-03. See SEC v. Sloan, 436 U.S. 103
(1978).
As required by Rule 11's "safe harbor" provision, Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)
(1)(A), the undersigned counsel served a copy of this motion on Sloan
by e-mail on November 8, 2007, and by mail on November 9, 2007,
requesting that Sloan withdraw his claim against Brock within 21 days
after service. See Exhibit A, infra. Sloan has not done so.

There is no basis for personal jurisdiction over Brock.

Brock, as he establishes in his affidavit submitted in support of his
motion to dismiss, has been a citizen of Illinois for the past 30
years, and has never been a citizen or resident of New York. Notably,
Sloan does not contend otherwise. He pleads that Brock: "is a
Chicago CPA residing in Chicago," is "Past President of the Illinois
Chess Association," his "CPA office [is] in the Chicago Loop," and his
address is "230 West Monroe, Suite 330, Chicago, Illinois
60606-4701." Complaint ¶ 35.
Sloan alleges no connection between Brock and New York other than that
Brock has posted comments on the Internet that are presumably
accessible in New York (and anywhere else in the world). See
Complaint ¶¶ 35, 62-65. As Brock's affidavit establishes, all of
these posts were made from Brock's computers in Chicago, Illinois.
Again, Sloan does not allege otherwise.
It is well-settled that a defendant's acts of posting on the Internet,
from a state other than New York, defamatory allegations about a
person do not give rise to personal jurisdiction over the defendant in
New York. This is definitively established by the Second Circuit's
recent controlling decision in Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.
3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007). There, the Second Circuit, affirming a
decision by Judge Lynch of this Court, held that an Iowa resident's
posting to the Internet of defamatory information about the plaintiff,
a New York-based moving company, did not give rise to personal
jurisdiction over the defendant in New York. The Court noted that New
York's long-arm statute expressly exempts causes of action for
defamation of character from the provisions of its long-arm statute
pertaining to "commission of a tortious act" within or without the
state of New York. Id. at 244-45 (citing 35 N.Y. C.P.L.R. §§ 302(a)
(2), 302(a)(3)).
As to section 302(a)(1) of the C.P.L.R., relating to "transact[ing]
any business within the state or contract[ing] anywhere to supply
goods or services in the state," 35 N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 302(a)(1), the
Second Circuit noted that federal district courts in New York have
consistently held that:
the posting of defamatory material on a website accessible in New York
does not, without more, constitute "transact[ing] business" in New
York for the purposes of New York's long-arm statute. See Realuyo [v.
Villa Abrille, 01 Civ. 10158,] 2003 WL 21537754, at *7, 2003 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 11529, at *20-21 (deciding that the availability of an
article on a website, without more, does not amount to "transaction of
business" for purposes of section 302(a)(1)); see also Starmedia
Network, Inc., 00 Civ. 4647, 2001 WL 417118, at *3, 2001 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 4870, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2001) ("[i]t is now well
established that one does not subject himself to the jurisdiction of
the courts in another state simply because he maintains a web site
which residents of that state visit.") (citation and quotation
indication omitted). In addition, to the extent that there are
business transactions incident to establishing a website, a defamation
claim based on statements posted on a website does not "arise from"
such transactions. See Realuyo, 2003 WL 21537754, at *7, 2003 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 11529, at *20-22 (finding that "the publication of the
article was not the transaction of business in New York" and the
defamation claim did not arise from advertising links on the website;
see also Competitive Techs., Inc. v. Pross, 13297/2006, 14 Misc. 3d
1224(A), 2007 WL 283075, at *3, 2007 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 217, at *8 (Sup.
Ct. Suffolk County, Jan. 26, 2007) (concluding that libelous
statements posted on a Yahoo! message board did not give rise to
jurisdiction because they were "not in connection with any business
transactions").

Best Van Lines, 490 F.3d at 250-51. Following these cases, the Second
Circuit held that the defendant's posting of defamatory statements
about plaintiff on the "Black List Report" on his website, his
defamatory answer to a user's question about the plaintiff, and his
solicitation of donations did not give rise to personal jurisdiction
over the defendant in New York. Id. at 253-55.
There is no legitimate basis upon which Sloan can distinguish Best Van
Lines from this case. If anything, the lack of personal jurisdiction
over Brock here follows a fortiori from Best Van Lines. The defendant
in that case operated an Internet business, a not-for-profit website
that provided information about household movers and solicited
donations from the public. Id. at 240, 254-55. Here, Sloan does not
contend that Brock operated an Internet business, but rather that he
has posted defamatory statements about Sloan on public forums operated
by the USCF and others. Complaint ¶¶62-63. It is thus even more
difficult than in Best Van Lines to contend that Brock's posting of
defamatory statements about Sloan constituted "transacting business"
in New York for purposes of the state's long-arm statute.

Sloan has not pled any basis for subject-matter jurisdiction over his
claim against Brock.

Sloan does not explain what, if anything, is the substantive basis for
his claim against Brock. That claim appears to sound in defamation,
if anything. See Complaint ¶ 62 ("defendants . . . have posted
thousands of times on the Internet accusations that Plaintiff is a
child molester, a pornographer and a purveyor of 'kiddie porn'").
That is of course a state, not federal, cause of action, cf. Paul v.
Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (defamation not actionable under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983), and thus provides no basis for federal-question jurisdiction.
1
Nor has Sloan pled a basis for diversity jurisdiction. "It is well
established that the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. §1332 bears the burden of demonstrating that grounds for
diversity exist and that diversity is complete." Herrick Co. v. SCS
Communications, Inc., 251 F.3d 315, 322-23 (2d Cir. 2001) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). Sloan's complaint, far from
pleading that complete diversity exists, suggests that it does not.
Sloan pleads that he resides in New York, and that defendant William
Goichberg resides in both New York and California. Complaint ¶ 22.
If Sloan and Goichberg are both "citizens" of New York (the statutory
term, 28 U.S.C. §1332, which does not equate to "residence," see
Franceskin v. Credit Suisse, 214 F.3d 253, 255-56 (2nd Cir. 2000)
(collecting cases)), then the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction, as
well.

Conclusion

In short, controlling Second Circuit caselaw establishes that Sloan
has no basis for claiming that this Court has personal jurisdiction
over Brock, nor has Sloan pled any basis for subject-matter
jurisdiction over his claim against Brock. This Court should
accordingly impose sanctions against Sloan pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 11, and should award Brock the attorney's fees and
costs he incurred in defending this action.

Respectfully submitted,



_______________________________
Patrick M. O'Brien
Law Offices of Patrick M. O'Brien
309 Elmore St.
Park Ridge, IL 60068-3569
(847) 692-2320

Attorney for Defendant William Brock

samsloan wrote:
... As to Brock specifically, Sloan alleges that Brock posted to
the USCF forum and other sites on the Internet assertions that Brock
is "a child molester, a pornographer and a purveyor of 'kiddie porn.'"
See Complaint §§ 62-63. ...

Sloan's suing Brock because Brock defamed himself?