God help me, I actually read something posted on Sam's site, in
particular the decision handed down by the court.

Essentially, the judge tossed Sam's suit for failure to follow proper
procedure. Imagine that. While it is without prejudice, meaning he
can come back, he also included this paragraph:

"Based on the complex nature of the issues involved, this Court
requires, pursuant to CPLR §1101(b), that this movant submit a
certificate of an attorney stating that the attorney has examined the
action and believes there is merit to the moving party's contentions.
The attorney should address issues such as standing and the
appropriateness of the remedies requested (including the issuance of
an injunction against an official of another state)."

These are sufficiently complex issues that no lawyer worth his salt
would file such an affidavit without some significant research.
Hopefully, none of my brothers in the NY bar will assist the looney,
and this will be a dead issue.

There is justice.

==Dondo

"Don C. Aldrich" wrote in message
...
God help me, I actually read something posted on Sam's site, in
particular the decision handed down by the court.

Essentially, the judge tossed Sam's suit for failure to follow proper
procedure. Imagine that. While it is without prejudice, meaning he
can come back, he also included this paragraph:

"Based on the complex nature of the issues involved, this Court
requires, pursuant to CPLR §1101(b), that this movant submit a
certificate of an attorney stating that the attorney has examined the
action and believes there is merit to the moving party's contentions.
The attorney should address issues such as standing and the
appropriateness of the remedies requested (including the issuance of
an injunction against an official of another state)."

These are sufficiently complex issues that no lawyer worth his salt
would file such an affidavit without some significant research.
Hopefully, none of my brothers in the NY bar will assist the looney,
and this will be a dead issue.

There is justice.

==Dondo

I know Attorney Don Aldrich. Attorney Don Aldrich is a friend of mine. Sam
Sloan is no Don Aldrich.

Randy Bauer

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 04:53:26 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
wrote:


"Don C. Aldrich" wrote in message
.. .
God help me, I actually read something posted on Sam's site, in
particular the decision handed down by the court.

Essentially, the judge tossed Sam's suit for failure to follow proper
procedure. Imagine that. While it is without prejudice, meaning he
can come back, he also included this paragraph:

"Based on the complex nature of the issues involved, this Court
requires, pursuant to CPLR §1101(b), that this movant submit a
certificate of an attorney stating that the attorney has examined the
action and believes there is merit to the moving party's contentions.
The attorney should address issues such as standing and the
appropriateness of the remedies requested (including the issuance of
an injunction against an official of another state)."

These are sufficiently complex issues that no lawyer worth his salt
would file such an affidavit without some significant research.
Hopefully, none of my brothers in the NY bar will assist the looney,
and this will be a dead issue.

There is justice.

==Dondo

I know Attorney Don Aldrich. Attorney Don Aldrich is a friend of mine. Sam
Sloan is no Don Aldrich.

Randy Bauer

You are both wrong. The suit is not tossed. I paid the filing fee of
$305 on Friday, November 12. In a strange ruling, the clerk of court
decided that I had to re-file it under a new index number. So the case
now has a new index number of 2004-7739.

The new suit is definately still pending because by the time I paid
the filing fee, the judge was gone for the day, so the first time he
could rule upon it would be Monday, which is later today.

You can find the case by doing a search at
http://portal.courts.state.ny.us/pls...SCHEDULES.show

Sam Sloan

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 22:41:49 -0600, Don C. Aldrich
wrote:

Hopefully, none of my brothers in the NY bar will assist the looney,

It is good to hear that nobody in New York will assist Looney &
Looney, the Crossville Tennessee law firm that started this whole
thing by threatening to sue the USCF Board if the USCF did not move to
Crossville.

Sam Sloan

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:09:46 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

You can find the case by doing a search at
http://portal.courts.state.ny.us/pls...SCHEDULES.show

Sam Sloan

Note that when you do a search at the above address, you will find
that they spelled the name of Beatriz Marinello wrong. They spelled it
Mariello.

This should make Tin Hanke happy.

Sam Sloan

Well, if you didn't include an affidavit from an attorney as
instructed by the judge, you can kiss that filing fee goodbye.

==Dondo

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:09:46 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

You are both wrong. The suit is not tossed. I paid the filing fee of
$305 on Friday, November 12. In a strange ruling, the clerk of court
decided that I had to re-file it under a new index number. So the case
now has a new index number of 2004-7739.

The new suit is definately still pending because by the time I paid
the filing fee, the judge was gone for the day, so the first time he
could rule upon it would be Monday, which is later today.

You can find the case by doing a search at
http://portal.courts.state.ny.us/pls...SCHEDULES.show

Sam Sloan

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:11:02 -0600, Don C. Aldrich
wrote:

Well, if you didn't include an affidavit from an attorney as
instructed by the judge, you can kiss that filing fee goodbye.

==Dondo

You are not nearly as great an attorney as you claim to be.

That is not what the judge wrote at all. He wrote that I must either
pay the $305 filing fee or provide an affidavit from an attorney, but
not both.

Dumbkoff.

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

That is not what the judge wrote at all. He wrote that I must either
pay the $305 filing fee or provide an affidavit from an attorney, but
not both.

Since you have neither I guess it's all so much **** for the birds.

Dumbkoff.

Poor Sam, he makes reference to himself.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 20:31:38 -0500, "StanB"
wrote:


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

That is not what the judge wrote at all. He wrote that I must either
pay the $305 filing fee or provide an affidavit from an attorney, but
not both.

Since you have neither I guess it's all so much **** for the birds.

Dumbkoff.

Poor Sam, he makes reference to himself.

Stan is wrong, as usual. I paid the $305 filing fee on Friday.

Sam Sloan

Sam,

My bridge partner, who lives a few blocks away from you, is also an amaateur
litigator. It's a waste of time. Even when you're right, they find a way to
screw you.

After a couple of glasses of wine even George says so, and he's one of the
most stubborn people who's ever been born.

You'll have better luck changing their minds by filling paper bags with
puppy-trek, ringing their doorbells, setting the bag on fire, and running.
"Lay on ground -- light bag -- retire quickly."

adp

"Don C. Aldrich" wrote in message
...
God help me, I actually read something posted on Sam's site, in
particular the decision handed down by the court.

Essentially, the judge tossed Sam's suit for failure to follow proper
procedure. Imagine that. While it is without prejudice, meaning he
can come back, he also included this paragraph:

"Based on the complex nature of the issues involved, this Court
requires, pursuant to CPLR §1101(b), that this movant submit a
certificate of an attorney stating that the attorney has examined the
action and believes there is merit to the moving party's contentions.
The attorney should address issues such as standing and the
appropriateness of the remedies requested (including the issuance of
an injunction against an official of another state)."

These are sufficiently complex issues that no lawyer worth his salt
would file such an affidavit without some significant research.
Hopefully, none of my brothers in the NY bar will assist the looney,
and this will be a dead issue.

There is justice.

==Dondo