A thread pulled last night from the USCF Issues Forum:

-------------------------------------------------------
by samsloan on Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:08 am #72195

I have filed a lawsuit against Truong, Polgar, USCF et al

The case has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York at 500 Pearl Street, New York NY 10007.

The case number is 07 CIV 8537

The judge is Judge Denny Chin

The Magistrate Judge is Judge Frank Maas

The suit seeks to overturn the results of the 2007 USCF Election on the
grounds of election fraud and to reinstate the directors who were thrown out
in that election until a new election can be held. The complaint alleges
that defendants Susan Polgar and Paul Truong impersonated Sam Sloan and sent
out three thousand obscene and pornographic newsgroup postings during the
election campaign in order to discredit Sloan and get themselves elected so
as to take over the USCF Finances.

The papers and pleadings filed in the Southern District of New York can be
downloaded at the following addresses:

http://www.samsloan.com/truong-summons.pdf Summons in Sloan vs. Truong

http://www.samsloan.com/truong-polgar-lawsuit.pdf Complaint

http://www.samsloan.com/truong-tro-app.pdf Application for a TRO

http://www.samsloan.com/truong-tro-pdf.pdf Unsigned Temporary Restraining
Order

Sam Sloan

samsloan



Posts: 2461

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 3:17 pm

Location: Bronx, New York

USCFId: 11115292

· Private message

· Website

· YIM

· AIM

Top


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



a.. Reply with quote
b.. Report this post
by Randy Bauer on Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:14 am #72196

samsloan wrote:I have filed a lawsuit against Truong, Polgar, USCF et al

The case has been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York at 500 Pearl Street, New York NY 10007.

The case number is 07 CIV 8537

The judge is Judge Denny Chin

The Magistrate Judge is Judge Frank Maas

The suit seeks to overturn the results of the 2007 USCF Election on the
grounds of election fraud and to reinstate the directors who were thrown out
in that election until a new election can be held. The complaint alleges
that defendants Susan Polgar and Paul Truong impersonated Sam Sloan and sent
out three thousand obscene and pornographic newsgroup postings during the
election campaign in order to discredit Sloan and get themselves elected so
as to take over the USCF Finances.

The papers and pleadings filed in the Southern District of New York can be
downloaded at the following addresses:

http://www.samsloan.com/truong-summons.pdf Summons in Sloan vs. Truong

http://www.samsloan.com/truong-polgar-lawsuit.pdf Complaint

http://www.samsloan.com/truong-tro-app.pdf Application for a TRO

http://www.samsloan.com/truong-tro-pdf.pdf Unsigned Temporary Restraining
Order

Sam Sloan



It's a joke. It is full of unsubstantiated claims (what is known as
foundation in the legal parlance), juvenile factual errors (see for example
the physical address attributed to me) and laughable legal claims.

Tell us, Sam - what were the results (i.e., just who won and lost) in your
previous lawsuits? I don't recall you doing very well in your highly hyped
Crossville lawsuit (and don't give us the 'it was only a technicality'
defense - all that matters are wins and losses).

Randy Bauer

Randy Bauer



Posts: 707

Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 10:19 pm

Location: Urbandale, Iowa

USCFId: 10320372

· Private message

Top


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



a.. Reply with quote
b.. Edit post
c.. Delete post
d.. Report this post
by DACP on Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:24 am #72197

Randy Bauer wrote:It's a joke. It is full of unsubstantiated claims (what is
known as foundation in the legal parlance), juvenile factual errors (see for
example the physical address attributed to me) and laughable legal claims.

Tell us, Sam - what were the results (i.e., just who won and lost) in your
previous lawsuits? I don't recall you doing very well in your highly hyped
Crossville lawsuit (and don't give us the 'it was only a technicality'
defense - all that matters are wins and losses).



Some of us are not laughing about this "joke". There's also a lot of facts
in that lawsuit. And the fact that some newspapers (notice the plural) won't
be laughing about this as well is something the USCF might want to consider.

Donna Alarie
Massachusetts Delegate



by gregory on Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:42 am #72200

Donna,

Let me know when the NY Times publishes this.

Those who make constant threats typically realize that they have nothing
else substantial other than a weak bluff to force someones hand. This is a
stretch Donna.

Last edited by gregory on Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

Gregory Alexander

The ability to better promote chess is inversely proportional to the amount
of politics that are played.

gregory



Posts: 1326

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:27 pm

Location: Seattle, Wa

USCFId: 13474581

· Private message

· Website

Top


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



· Reply with quote

· Report this post

by Harry Payne on Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:50 am #72201

Having taken the time to read all of the lawsuit that Sam filed , I found
alot of it with that Sam flair. But as Donna states there is alot of facts
in it also. To write this off as a joke ,or to not see the possiblity of how
much publicity it may garner could be a serious mistake. How much is
provable is yet to be seen. It certainly turns the spotlight on some
possible dark areas. I am not sure I agree with Sam's reasoning ,but he has
the right to defend his name if any of the fake posting can be substained as
fact. As far as the election being overturned I have my doubts. But were I
some of the people named in the suit I would be concerned. Well another page
turns in the saga. Can Sam win? Stranger things have happened in our courts
of law ,who would have thought Ms Ohare's case would have found listening
ears. Or the pledge to the flag would have been debated for a moment , or
that cases would be pending because of the "In God We Trust" on our legal
tender. Yes stranger things have happened.

" Be not deceived, God is not mocked, whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he
also reap."
When young we sow our wild oats, as we get older we pray for crop failure.
In love of the game. Harry Payne

Harry Payne



Posts: 1292

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:43 am

Location: Marlow, Oklahoma

USCFId: 12705633

· Private message

Top


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



· Reply with quote

· Edit post

· Delete post

· Report this post

by DACP on Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:52 am #72202

gregory wroteonna,

Let me know when the NY Times publishes this.

Those who make constant threats typically realize that they have nothing
else substantial other than a weak bluff to force someones hand. This is a
stretch Donna.



Gregory,

Since you're named in the lawsuit and will have to find a way to defend it,
I'm just glad I'm me and you're you.

Donna Alarie



by gregory on Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:54 am #72203

DACP wrote:

gregory wroteonna,

Let me know when the NY Times publishes this.

Those who make constant threats typically realize that they have nothing
else substantial other than a weak bluff to force someones hand. This is a
stretch Donna.



Gregory,

Since you're named in the lawsuit and will have to find a way to defend it,
I'm just glad I'm me and you're you.



How typical, and sad Donna. I never expected this type of behavior from you.

Shame on you,

Gregory Alexander

The ability to better promote chess is inversely proportional to the amount
of politics that are played.



by gregory on Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:54 am #72203

DACP wrote:

gregory wroteonna,

Let me know when the NY Times publishes this.

Those who make constant threats typically realize that they have nothing
else substantial other than a weak bluff to force someones hand. This is a
stretch Donna.



Gregory,

Since you're named in the lawsuit and will have to find a way to defend it,
I'm just glad I'm me and you're you.



How typical, and sad Donna. I never expected this type of behavior from you.
What a bluff.

Shame on you,

Gregory Alexander

The ability to better promote chess is inversely proportional to the amount
of politics that are played.

gregory



Posts: 1327

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:27 pm

Location: Seattle, Wa

USCFId: 13474581





by gregory on Wed Oct 03, 2007 12:54 am #72203

DACP wrote:

gregory wroteonna,

Let me know when the NY Times publishes this.

Those who make constant threats typically realize that they have nothing
else substantial other than a weak bluff to force someones hand. This is a
stretch Donna.



Gregory,

Since you're named in the lawsuit and will have to find a way to defend it,
I'm just glad I'm me and you're you.



So, what exactly am I getting threatened with this Donna? I bet your not
going to tell me and think that you might scare me by keeping me in the
dark, but I will call your bluff as it is. Let me know where to send a
picture of my mugshot to the papers that publish this; what a bluff.

How very typical, and sad Donna. I never expected this type of behavior from
you.

Shame on you,

Gregory Alexander

The ability to better promote chess is inversely proportional to the amount
of politics that are played.

gregory



Posts: 1327

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 6:27 pm

Location: Seattle, Wa

USCFId: 13474581





by DACP on Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:11 am #72204

gregory wrote:
How typical, and sad Donna. I never expected this type of behavior from you.
What a bluff.

Shame on you,



Gregory,

#1 - The Lawsuit was filed. It is a legal case.
#2 - I've seen the press releases that went out to several newspapers.
#3 - I didn't do any of it. So I don't know what type of behavior you are
talking about.
#4 - I read what Sam wrote - there's a lot of stretch in there, but there's
a lot of issues in there too that have factual basis.

Therefore, I have no clue what you think the "bluff" is. I just don't think
this is a joke or a laughing matter. Sam has put some issues out into the
public purview by filing the lawsuit and there is a strong possibility of
different newspapers who will take the issues raised seriously.

Donna Alarie
Massachusetts Delegate

DACP



Posts: 555

Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:30 pm

Location: Massachusetts

USCFId: 12447542





by snits on Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:14 am #72205

If the press release is anything like the complaint, when they do their fact
checking they will likely come up with a different story. There are major
leaps in there unless someone would like to give more evidence than has been
provided thus far.





by gregory on Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:19 am #72206

Great, I will see Sam in court. He better be quite prepared Donna.

How is it that you saw this, do you have a legal posse around you that likes
to threaten and harrass people into getting your way? How much did you know
about this before it actually happened Donna. Your not innocent in the
company that you keep.

Gregory Alexander

The ability to better promote chess is inversely proportional to the amount
of politics that are played.



by DACP on Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:24 am #72207

gregory wrote:Great, I will see Sam in court. He better be quite prepared
Donna.

How is it that you saw this, do you have a legal posse around you that likes
to threaten and harrass people into getting your way? How much did you know
about this before it actually happened Donna. Your not innocent in the
company that you keep.



Gregory,

Take it up with Sam who filed the suit, not me.

As far as how I saw it...how about taking a look at the "other forums" out
there? They aren't all moderated.

Donna Alarie
Massachusetts Delegate









by Hal Terrie on Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:27 am #72208

gregory wrote:How is it that you saw this, do you have a legal posse around
you that likes to threaten and harrass people into getting your way? How
much did you know about this before it actually happened Donna. Your not
innocent in the company that you keep.


Gregory, Sam has published it just about everywhere on the internet.
Everyone has seen it, not just Donna. If you look at the first post in this
thread, you will find links to PDFs of the relevant documents.

-- Hal Terrie



by gregory on Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:29 am #72209

This is a joke. Have your friends sue me and everyone else that volunteers
their time to help chess Donna. Thanks for helping the state of the USCF. It
is so very much appreciated.

What the heck am I even doing trying to volunteer to help this community? Is
this crap worth it? I have lost count of the times that I have been
threatened to be sued now.

Gregory Alexander

The ability to better promote chess is inversely proportional to the amount
of politics that are played.



by gregory on Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:32 am #72210

"Since you're named in the lawsuit and will have to find a way to defend it,
I'm just glad I'm me and you're you." -- Donna

And let the posse leader jump in and laugh Hal. I am not scared.

Gregory Alexander



by Harry Payne on Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:46 am #72211

Gregory,
I think you are attacking the wrong person ,Donna did not file the suit. I
have not herad Hal's name even mentioned here. Although I believe alot of
the suit is puff, I think you might be wise to take it a bit more serious.
If some facts can be substained, it could get to be unpleasent. As I stated
in my earlier post ,stranger things have happen in our courts of law. If the
fake posting took place as it appears ,I may disagree with Sam's method but
he does have the right to defend his name. Just my take.

" Be not deceived, God is not mocked, whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he
also reap."
When young we sow our wild oats, as we get older we pray for crop failure.
In love of the game. Harry Payne





by snits on Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:49 am #72212

Who is supposed to pay the $20M ? I'm not sure I understand why the USA
needs to be listed as a defendant b/c Sam wants them to conduct an election.
Any legal eagle care to explain that part?

snits



Posts: 265

Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 12:09 am

Location: Chandler, AZ

USCFId: 12652674

· Private message

· Website

· MSNM/WLM

· YIM

· AIM

Top


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



· Reply with quote

· Report this post

by gregory on Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:54 am #72213

Harry Payne wrote:Gregory,
I think you are attacking the wrong person ,Donna did not file the suit. I
have not herad Hal's name even mentioned here. Although I believe alot of
the suit is puff, I think you might be wise to take it a bit more serious.
If some facts can be substained, it could get to be unpleasent. As I stated
in my earlier post ,stranger things have happen in our courts of law. If the
fake posting took place as it appears ,I may disagree with Sam's method but
he does have the right to defend his name. Just my take.



Donna is the posse leader and she will not have the last laugh in this one
Harry. I guess I will wait for the summons to cross my door. I can assure
you that Sam and company will have to pay dearly for summoning me to court,
and I will make sure to get a nice vacation in New York.

Gregory Alexander

The ability to better promote chess is inversely proportional to the amount
of politics that are played.





· Private message

A note to Gregory. Donna Alarie had nothing to do with Sam Sloan filing his
legal action. It was his idea, he wrote it, decided which parties to join
and decided to seek injunctive relief which may or may not be granted. I
agree with Donna and Harry, that there is much in his complaint to be
concerned about. He may ultimately not prevail, but Sam is not without
brains and courtroom savvy (recall that he argued and won his own case
before the US Supreme Court). Also, the courts generally give great leeway
to pro se parties in actions precisely because they are non-lawyers and the
court will try to protect their rights and interests more so that a litigant
represented by counsel. When Sam goes to court for the hearing on his
motion for injunctive relief, he will no doubt be dressed in a suit and tie
making him look quite different from the average homeless pro se defendant.

I suggest you consult an attorney and follow his/her advice. Under no
circumstances ignore the complaint. A default judgment for $20 million will
be difficult to vacate.
Best wishes, Brian

On Oct 3, 9:29 am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
A note to Gregory. Donna Alarie had nothing to do with Sam Sloan filing his
legal action. It was his idea, he wrote it, decided which parties to join
and decided to seek injunctive relief which may or may not be granted. I
agree with Donna and Harry, that there is much in his complaint to be
concerned about. He may ultimately not prevail, but Sam is not without
brains and courtroom savvy (recall that he argued and won his own case
before the US Supreme Court). Also, the courts generally give great leeway
to pro se parties in actions precisely because they are non-lawyers and the
court will try to protect their rights and interests more so that a litigant
represented by counsel. When Sam goes to court for the hearing on his
motion for injunctive relief, he will no doubt be dressed in a suit and tie
making him look quite different from the average homeless pro se defendant.

I suggest you consult an attorney and follow his/her advice. Under no
circumstances ignore the complaint. A default judgment for $20 million will
be difficult to vacate.
Best wishes, Brian

Mr. Lafferty has hit the nail on the head. Sloan won at the US Supreme
Court. He will cost the USCF
thousnads of dollars in legal fees to throw out his case. The facts he
brings out are quite serious.
If Sloan can spend a few hundred dollars, and cost the USCF over 5,000
dollars in legal fees, then
has he no WON THE CASE?

I am preparing a lawsuit against the USCF. However, with my asset
base, I can't sue PRO SE. I will hire a law firm
in New Jeresy or IL. If Sloan prevails, I just wonder what would
happen if I filed an INTERPLEADER...

Marcus Roberts
IED bombing suspect
former USCF Vice President

B. Lafferty wrote:
He may ultimately not prevail, but Sam is not without
brains and courtroom savvy (recall that he argued and won his own case
before the US Supreme Court).

Transcript of Hearing before Judge Douglas S. Wong
October 5, 2005

THE COURT: Mr. Sloan, I just want to warn you, you're in a courtroom
in a court of law, and you're going to act in an appropriate manner in
terms of listening to court officers' directions and not arguing. If
there is a problem with you, then, I can sanction you, which means
putting you in jail. So, there better not be any problems with you in
this courtroom.

MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I be heard?
THE COURT: No. Okay. As to Mr. Sloan's custody petition against Ms.
Rankoth, I understand she's going to accept service and jurisdiction
of the court, is that correct?
MR. KARAM: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Even though Mr. Sloan doesn't have an affidavit.
MR. KARAM: Yes, your Honor. Service wasn't timely, but she will accept
service, yes.
THE COURT: Respondent accepts service and jurisdiction. Issue is
joined.
Now, this was already discussed with you with my court attorney. It's
the same thing I just discussed with Ms. Rankoth. She filed a petition
today for an order of protection. Normally, you could either wait to
be served with the paperwork by her, and she would have to bring back
an affidavit of service, Mr. Sloan. However, if you want to, you can
agree to service and jurisdiction of the court on that case today so
that both cases can proceed ahead. That's up to you. Do you want to
wait to be served with the paperwork by Ms. Rankoth, or do you want to
accept service and jurisdiction?
MR. SLOAN: I will accept service, but I want to speak to the issue.
THE COURT: I'm not dealing with the issue now. I want to know --
MR. SLOAN: I'm trying to move to disqualify this attorney because I
have had conflicts with his law firm for fourteen years.

THE COURT: Any motion has to be in writing. Respondent accepts service
and jurisdiction. Issue is joined on all cases.
Since there is no consent on these cases, the cases will be proceeding
ahead to a hearing. Each of you can bring in all your evidence and
witnesses on the next date for the hearing. You can testify at the
hearing if you want to do so. You can question each other's witnesses
at the hearing. At the end of the hearing, a judge listening to all
the evidence on each petition, will make a final decision whether to
grant a final order of protection or not, and also make a decision on
the custody and visitation petition involving the child.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, she has two methyl amphetamine addicts living
in her home.
THE COURT: Okay, sir. I just warned you about interrupting me, and I'm
not going to warn you again. All those issues that you're presenting,
you should save those for the hearing in front of a judge. I'm not
interested in those issues at this time.
MR. SLOAN: I would like to be heard.
THE COURT: The incident with the order of protection from October 3,
did your client report that to the police?
MR. KARAM: She did not, your Honor. Other than the contact and the
threatening words spoken, there was nothing else related to it. She
conveyed that to me, as well as the incidents that happened a week
before when Mr. Sloan appeared at the apartment and banged on the
door.
THE COURT: What about these allegations from 1988?
MR. KARAM: At the time, the parties were living in Abu Dhabi in the
United Arab Emirates.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I be heard?
THE COURT: No. I did receive this answer to the custody petition and
counterclaim. Once again, I'm putting that in the file for the judge
who conducts the hearing, but I have reviewed it and informed ACS of
the allegations.
ACS will be doing a full investigation of this matter and reporting
their findings back to the Court. Both sides have to cooperate with
the Administration for Child Services' investigation and report.
How old is the child here?
MR. KARAM: There are five children living -in the home. The child in
question is going to turn fourteen next month.
THE COURT: Are the children all with your client at the current time?
MR. KARAM: Yes. Three of them she has in common with Mr. Sloan. Two
are not related to Mr. Sloan.
THE COURT: Okay, and Mr. Cadet, do you have a report for the Court?
MR. CADET: Yes, Judge. I did have an opportunity to speak with my
client. She denied all of the allegations in Mr. Sloan's custody
petition alleging drug use in the home. She indicated there is no
problem in the home.
She also indicated she wanted no contact with her father. I asked her
why. She expressed to me concerns that her older sibling had told her
when she was younger Mr. Sloan would often walk into the bathroom when
she was bathing, just open the door. She's afraid about that, and also
that she was aware that allegedly in the past, Mr. Sloan had abducted
two of her siblings and went to California.
MR. SLOAN: May I address this, your Honor?
THE COURT: No. As I indicated, you'll be able to address all these
issues at the hearing.
MR. SLOAN: Well, especially the part about the police coming to her
house
THE COURT: Just get out your calendars.
MR. SLOAN: I would like to address
COURT OFFICER: Quiet.
THE COURT: Sir, I'm not going to warn you again about interrupting me
and talking out of turn. If you do that again, you're going to be held
in contempt of court and you're going to be incarcerated.
Pick a date for each of the hearings. November 22,
23, 28, 29 or 30?
MR. CADET: November 28, your Honor.
THE COURT: Part 9, November 28. I'm actually going to be putting in
the order, all sides must cooperate with ACS and law guardian
investigation and reports, and I will be granting your client, on her
petition, the order of protection.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I address that?
THE COURT: Mr. Sloan is not to commit any criminal offense against
her, and this includes the children; not to assault, harass, threaten
or menace her or the children. He has to stay away from her and the
children at all times.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, I need to speak.
THE COURT: If you violate the order of protection, after being served
with the order, then, you'll be arrested for violating the order of
protection.
Also, there will be no communication or have anybody else contact her
on your behalf.
MR. SLOAN: I need to address the Court on this.
THE COURT: Part 9, November 28, for the hearing. Thank you. Just wait
outside.
MR. SLOAN: I'm making a complaint against you. You did not allow me to
speak.
THE COURT: Step out, sir.
COURT OFFICER: Let's go, sir. Step out. (Whereupon, the matter was
adjourned.)

Certified to be a true and accurate transcript.
STEPHEN E. GENDEL, Official Court Reporter

wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
He may ultimately not prevail, but Sam is not without
brains and courtroom savvy (recall that he argued and won his own case
before the US Supreme Court).

Transcript of Hearing before Judge Douglas S. Wong
October 5, 2005

THE COURT: Mr. Sloan, I just want to warn you, you're in a courtroom
in a court of law, and you're going to act in an appropriate manner in
terms of listening to court officers' directions and not arguing. If
there is a problem with you, then, I can sanction you, which means
putting you in jail. So, there better not be any problems with you in
this courtroom.

MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I be heard?
THE COURT: No. Okay. As to Mr. Sloan's custody petition against Ms.
Rankoth, I understand she's going to accept service and jurisdiction
of the court, is that correct?
MR. KARAM: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Even though Mr. Sloan doesn't have an affidavit.
MR. KARAM: Yes, your Honor. Service wasn't timely, but she will accept
service, yes.
THE COURT: Respondent accepts service and jurisdiction. Issue is
joined.
Now, this was already discussed with you with my court attorney. It's
the same thing I just discussed with Ms. Rankoth. She filed a petition
today for an order of protection. Normally, you could either wait to
be served with the paperwork by her, and she would have to bring back
an affidavit of service, Mr. Sloan. However, if you want to, you can
agree to service and jurisdiction of the court on that case today so
that both cases can proceed ahead. That's up to you. Do you want to
wait to be served with the paperwork by Ms. Rankoth, or do you want to
accept service and jurisdiction?
MR. SLOAN: I will accept service, but I want to speak to the issue.
THE COURT: I'm not dealing with the issue now. I want to know --
MR. SLOAN: I'm trying to move to disqualify this attorney because I
have had conflicts with his law firm for fourteen years.

THE COURT: Any motion has to be in writing. Respondent accepts service
and jurisdiction. Issue is joined on all cases.
Since there is no consent on these cases, the cases will be proceeding
ahead to a hearing. Each of you can bring in all your evidence and
witnesses on the next date for the hearing. You can testify at the
hearing if you want to do so. You can question each other's witnesses
at the hearing. At the end of the hearing, a judge listening to all
the evidence on each petition, will make a final decision whether to
grant a final order of protection or not, and also make a decision on
the custody and visitation petition involving the child.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, she has two methyl amphetamine addicts living
in her home.
THE COURT: Okay, sir. I just warned you about interrupting me, and I'm
not going to warn you again. All those issues that you're presenting,
you should save those for the hearing in front of a judge. I'm not
interested in those issues at this time.
MR. SLOAN: I would like to be heard.
THE COURT: The incident with the order of protection from October 3,
did your client report that to the police?
MR. KARAM: She did not, your Honor. Other than the contact and the
threatening words spoken, there was nothing else related to it. She
conveyed that to me, as well as the incidents that happened a week
before when Mr. Sloan appeared at the apartment and banged on the
door.
THE COURT: What about these allegations from 1988?
MR. KARAM: At the time, the parties were living in Abu Dhabi in the
United Arab Emirates.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I be heard?
THE COURT: No. I did receive this answer to the custody petition and
counterclaim. Once again, I'm putting that in the file for the judge
who conducts the hearing, but I have reviewed it and informed ACS of
the allegations.
ACS will be doing a full investigation of this matter and reporting
their findings back to the Court. Both sides have to cooperate with
the Administration for Child Services' investigation and report.
How old is the child here?
MR. KARAM: There are five children living -in the home. The child in
question is going to turn fourteen next month.
THE COURT: Are the children all with your client at the current time?
MR. KARAM: Yes. Three of them she has in common with Mr. Sloan. Two
are not related to Mr. Sloan.
THE COURT: Okay, and Mr. Cadet, do you have a report for the Court?
MR. CADET: Yes, Judge. I did have an opportunity to speak with my
client. She denied all of the allegations in Mr. Sloan's custody
petition alleging drug use in the home. She indicated there is no
problem in the home.
She also indicated she wanted no contact with her father. I asked her
why. She expressed to me concerns that her older sibling had told her
when she was younger Mr. Sloan would often walk into the bathroom when
she was bathing, just open the door. She's afraid about that, and also
that she was aware that allegedly in the past, Mr. Sloan had abducted
two of her siblings and went to California.
MR. SLOAN: May I address this, your Honor?
THE COURT: No. As I indicated, you'll be able to address all these
issues at the hearing.
MR. SLOAN: Well, especially the part about the police coming to her
house
THE COURT: Just get out your calendars.
MR. SLOAN: I would like to address
COURT OFFICER: Quiet.
THE COURT: Sir, I'm not going to warn you again about interrupting me
and talking out of turn. If you do that again, you're going to be held
in contempt of court and you're going to be incarcerated.
Pick a date for each of the hearings. November 22,
23, 28, 29 or 30?
MR. CADET: November 28, your Honor.
THE COURT: Part 9, November 28. I'm actually going to be putting in
the order, all sides must cooperate with ACS and law guardian
investigation and reports, and I will be granting your client, on her
petition, the order of protection.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, may I address that?
THE COURT: Mr. Sloan is not to commit any criminal offense against
her, and this includes the children; not to assault, harass, threaten
or menace her or the children. He has to stay away from her and the
children at all times.
MR. SLOAN: Your Honor, I need to speak.
THE COURT: If you violate the order of protection, after being served
with the order, then, you'll be arrested for violating the order of
protection.
Also, there will be no communication or have anybody else contact her
on your behalf.
MR. SLOAN: I need to address the Court on this.
THE COURT: Part 9, November 28, for the hearing. Thank you. Just wait
outside.
MR. SLOAN: I'm making a complaint against you. You did not allow me to
speak.
THE COURT: Step out, sir.
COURT OFFICER: Let's go, sir. Step out. (Whereupon, the matter was
adjourned.)

Certified to be a true and accurate transcript.
STEPHEN E. GENDEL, Official Court Reporter

What's actually appaling here is the conduct of the judge. A pro se party
not allowed to speak to the issue of a protective order being granted is
shocking.

B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
He may ultimately not prevail, but Sam is not without
brains and courtroom savvy (recall that he argued and won his own case
before the US Supreme Court).

What's actually appalling here is the conduct of the judge. A pro se party
not allowed to speak to the issue of a protective order being granted is
shocking.

Transcript of Hearing of April 6, 2004
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE CIRCUIT COURT: SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
COUNTY OF AIKEN

MR. SLOAN: Okay. Your Honor, first place, about the costs I -- like I
say, after the hearing was held before Judge Hocker I drove down there
from Laurens to Aiken, and I went to the Clerks office, and I asked
them exactly about how much was the filing fee to file an appeal. I
told them I was going to file an appeal, but I wanted to give my
brother a little bit of time to comply with the Court Order in case --
in the off-chance he would decide to comply with it. They told me that
they did not know what the filing fee was. But what I should just do
was go ahead and file a Notice of Intent to Appeal and then if they --
once they found out what the filing fee was they would send it back to
me and they would notify me as to what the filing fee was. So I did
exactly what -- what they told me to do. You can ask them in the
Clerk's office and I'm sure they remember the conversation that we had
about this filing fee.

Now, I'd also like to point out that Ms. Kennedy was in default for
one year in this case. My mother died in May -- in May 16th of 2002. I
filed -- as soon as I found out my brother didn't file anything, I'm
the one who filed the death certificate and started this whole
proceeding. My brother did not appear in this case until January 2003,
nine months later. And that appearance wasn't served on my either I
didn't finally get service on the proceedings until August of 2003,
and then finally this case was transferred around to several different
judges, and finally wound up here. So they are one year late in
appearing in this case. They are in default a couple of months after
my mother died in May 2002. So here they come in saying I'm two days
late. Another thing about the transcript is, Judge Hocker made the
statement in open court that he was not ready to receive any filings
from me by mail. As a matter of fact, I had sent him a pleading and he
-- he had the envelop in open court and -- in Laurens. He said, I
received this in the mail, I'm not going to open any envelops from you
at all. And he handed it back to me in the presence of Ms. Kennedy, my
adversary. And here he's making a statement that he's not willing to
open any mail that I send him about the case; any pleadings, any
motions, any affidavits, anything like that. He wouldn't even open the
letter. So how can he suddenly come around and say that I'm two days
late for filing the grounds for appeal when he isn't even -- he's on
record, and that's why, again, I say that the transcripts of this case
is very necessary, because if the transcript is here I can show you
exactly where he said this.

I also asked him questions about the time to appeal. He said, well,
I'm not here to give legal advice. Very strange that a judge would say
of the time limits and not admitting -- things like that, that he
would say he's not going to give legal advice. That's not legal
advice, that's procedure. Procedure varies from courtroom to courtroom
from state to state. I live in New York. In New York the time to
appeal starts with service of a Notice - an affidavit of service with
Notice of Entry. That's - Affidavit of Service with Notice of Entry
starts the time limit of thirty days to run an appeal in New York.
That's a case I'm familiar with.

By the way, you may not know this about me, but I once argued orally
before the United States Supreme Court. It's a famous case. I'm the
last non-lawyer ever to argue and win a case in the United States
Supreme Court.

THE COURT: And I hope you stuck to the subject matter before the
Supreme Court in Washington better than you're doing today. Because
most of what you said doesn't have anything to do with the issue
before the Court.

Yep, really shows his courtroom savvy.

wrote in message
ups.com...

THE COURT: And I hope you stuck to the subject matter before the
Supreme Court in Washington better than you're doing today. Because
most of what you said doesn't have anything to do with the issue
before the Court.

Yep, really shows his courtroom savvy.

Apparently he did, because he won before the Supremes. I've actually seen
worse pro se defendants. Most judges who are aware of the increased
obligations placed on them by pro se litigants, will attempt to focus the
litigant with questions and prodding before they ramble too much. This
judge didn't do that and let his frustrations show with sarcastic remarks.
I wouldn't expect much better from a county level judge in S. Carolina. I
can tell you that in the Federal courts, judges do a much better job than
this S. Carolina judge did.

Every case is different. I suspect the facts are a good deal better in the
present Truong action than they were for him in S. Carolina. Time will
tell. :-)

B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

THE COURT: And I hope you stuck to the subject matter before the
Supreme Court in Washington better than you're doing today. Because
most of what you said doesn't have anything to do with the issue
before the Court.

Yep, really shows his courtroom savvy.

Apparently he did, because he won before the Supremes. I've actually seen
worse pro se defendants. Most judges who are aware of the increased
obligations placed on them by pro se litigants, will attempt to focus the
litigant with questions and prodding before they ramble too much. This
judge didn't do that and let his frustrations show with sarcastic remarks.
I wouldn't expect much better from a county level judge in S. Carolina. I
can tell you that in the Federal courts, judges do a much better job than
this S. Carolina judge did.

Every case is different. I suspect the facts are a good deal better in the
present Truong action than they were for him in S. Carolina. Time will
tell. :-)

"During this series of suspensions respondent Sloan ...filed a
petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
challenging the orders on a variety of grounds. On October 15, 1975,
the court dismissed as frivolous all respondent's claims, except his
allegation that the "tacking" of 10-day summary suspension orders for
an indefinite period was an abuse of the agency's authority and a
deprivation of due process." Justice Rehnquist on SEC v Sloan.

Even a blind shooter will hit the target sometimes. Might be a little
hard on the bystanders, though.

How many cases has Sam actually won? Out of how many filed?

wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

THE COURT: And I hope you stuck to the subject matter before the
Supreme Court in Washington better than you're doing today. Because
most of what you said doesn't have anything to do with the issue
before the Court.

Yep, really shows his courtroom savvy.

Apparently he did, because he won before the Supremes. I've actually
seen
worse pro se defendants. Most judges who are aware of the increased
obligations placed on them by pro se litigants, will attempt to focus the
litigant with questions and prodding before they ramble too much. This
judge didn't do that and let his frustrations show with sarcastic
remarks.
I wouldn't expect much better from a county level judge in S. Carolina.
I
can tell you that in the Federal courts, judges do a much better job than
this S. Carolina judge did.

Every case is different. I suspect the facts are a good deal better in
the
present Truong action than they were for him in S. Carolina. Time will
tell. :-)

"During this series of suspensions respondent Sloan ...filed a
petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
challenging the orders on a variety of grounds. On October 15, 1975,
the court dismissed as frivolous all respondent's claims, except his
allegation that the "tacking" of 10-day summary suspension orders for
an indefinite period was an abuse of the agency's authority and a
deprivation of due process." Justice Rehnquist on SEC v Sloan.

Even a blind shooter will hit the target sometimes. Might be a little
hard on the bystanders, though.

Even harder on the target.

How many cases has Sam actually won? Out of how many filed?

Don't know. Don't care.

B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

B. Lafferty wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

THE COURT: And I hope you stuck to the subject matter before the
Supreme Court in Washington better than you're doing today. Because
most of what you said doesn't have anything to do with the issue
before the Court.

Yep, really shows his courtroom savvy.

Apparently he did, because he won before the Supremes. I've actually
seen
worse pro se defendants. Most judges who are aware of the increased
obligations placed on them by pro se litigants, will attempt to focus the
litigant with questions and prodding before they ramble too much. This
judge didn't do that and let his frustrations show with sarcastic
remarks.
I wouldn't expect much better from a county level judge in S. Carolina.
I
can tell you that in the Federal courts, judges do a much better job than
this S. Carolina judge did.

Every case is different. I suspect the facts are a good deal better in
the
present Truong action than they were for him in S. Carolina. Time will
tell. :-)

"During this series of suspensions respondent Sloan ...filed a
petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
challenging the orders on a variety of grounds. On October 15, 1975,
the court dismissed as frivolous all respondent's claims, except his
allegation that the "tacking" of 10-day summary suspension orders for
an indefinite period was an abuse of the agency's authority and a
deprivation of due process." Justice Rehnquist on SEC v Sloan.



Even a blind shooter will hit the target sometimes. Might be a little
hard on the bystanders, though.

Even harder on the target.

How many cases has Sam actually won? Out of how many filed?

Don't know. Don't care.


Not surprised. Those pesky facts are so constricting, aren't they?

One more illustration:
__________________________________________________ ___________________

MR. SLOAN: You have to understand that the individual respondents, one
is in Tennessee, one is in California, one is in Florida, one is in --

THE COURT: With all due respect, I don't have to understand. My Order
to Show Cause says personal service is to be made by the 22nd of
November. What is it that I have to understand other than there is an
order in black and white?

....

MR. SLOAN: All the people received the notice by regular mail, by
certified mail, by e-mail, by web site, all received it five different
times.

THE COURT: That is fine. So when you get elected judge you can write
your orders.
__________________________________________________ __________________

I guess all those judges are in it together against poor Sam.