Proskauer Rose represented to Judge Chin of the US District Court in the
Southern NY District that it was representing the USCF and all the named
defendants who were USCF members (Frank Nero excepted as PR could not
contact him).

Two rumors have circulated the past few days which promted the plaintif to
contact Proskauer Rose. The first rumor is that Proskauer Rose will not
represent defendants Polgar and Truong. The second is that Proskauer Rose
will no longer be representing any of the USCF defendants and the USCF
because at least one board member engaged in FSS copycat postings to Usenet
and one or more other EB members may have known about it.

M. Sloan advised me today that this afternoon he spoke with counsel on the
case at Proskauer Rose and asked if Proskauer Rose was still representing
all of the defendants it told the court it was representing. Counsel refused
to answer Mr. Sloan's question.

What I suppose may be happening is that Proscauer Rose may have
decided that he can no longer represent them, because their acts are
not covered by the insurance policy. Illegal acts, such as those I am
alleging in the complaint, may not be covered by the insurance policy.

However, he cannot withdraw as counsel without permission of the
court, so he may have asked them to find substitute counsel and have
given them time to do so.

It could be that the noose is tightening around their necks, as they
are clearly guilty of the conduct I am alleging in the complaint.

If I were their adviser, I would advise them to resign, as it will not
get any better for them. It can only get worse.

Sam Sloan

On Dec 10, 7:23 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
Proskauer Rose represented to Judge Chin of the US District Court in the
Southern NY District that it was representing the USCF and all the named
defendants who were USCF members (Frank Nero excepted as PR could not
contact him).

Two rumors have circulated the past few days which promted the plaintif to
contact Proskauer Rose. The first rumor is that Proskauer Rose will not
represent defendants Polgar and Truong. The second is that Proskauer Rose
will no longer be representing any of the USCF defendants and the USCF
because at least one board member engaged in FSS copycat postings to Usenet
and one or more other EB members may have known about it.

M. Sloan advised me today that this afternoon he spoke with counsel on the
case at Proskauer Rose and asked if Proskauer Rose was still representing
all of the defendants it told the court it was representing. Counsel refused
to answer Mr. Sloan's question.

I will complain to Judge Chin, and to the House Committee on the
Judicary, and ask for judge
Chin's removal from the case.

I am a professional lobbist (who has been deatly ill for over a year)
but I am recovering.

If the judge ignores me, she can (in theory) be impeached.

Time to go back to work.

Marcus Roberts

On Dec 10, 8:23 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
Proskauer Rose represented to Judge Chin of the US District Court in the
Southern NY District that it was representing the USCF and all the named
defendants who were USCF members (Frank Nero excepted as PR could not
contact him).

Two rumors have circulated the past few days which promted the plaintif to
contact Proskauer Rose. The first rumor is that Proskauer Rose will not
represent defendants Polgar and Truong. The second is that Proskauer Rose
will no longer be representing any of the USCF defendants and the USCF
because at least one board member engaged in FSS copycat postings to Usenet
and one or more other EB members may have known about it.

M. Sloan advised me today that this afternoon he spoke with counsel on the
case at Proskauer Rose and asked if Proskauer Rose was still representing
all of the defendants it told the court it was representing. Counsel refused
to answer Mr. Sloan's question.

Are they obliged to answer the question? It could be a routine
response.

On Dec 11, 9:00 am, wrote:
On Dec 10, 7:23 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:





Proskauer Rose represented to Judge Chin of the US District Court in the
Southern NY District that it was representing the USCF and all the named
defendants who were USCF members (Frank Nero excepted as PR could not
contact him).

Two rumors have circulated the past few days which promted the plaintif to
contact Proskauer Rose. The first rumor is that Proskauer Rose will not
represent defendants Polgar and Truong. The second is that Proskauer Rose
will no longer be representing any of the USCF defendants and the USCF
because at least one board member engaged in FSS copycat postings to Usenet
and one or more other EB members may have known about it.

M. Sloan advised me today that this afternoon he spoke with counsel on the
case at Proskauer Rose and asked if Proskauer Rose was still representing
all of the defendants it told the court it was representing. Counsel refused
to answer Mr. Sloan's question.

I will complain to Judge Chin, and to the House Committee on the
Judicary, and ask for judge
Chin's removal from the case.

I am a professional lobbist (who has been deatly ill for over a year)
but I am recovering.

If the judge ignores me, she can (in theory) be impeached.

Time to go back to work.

Marcus Roberts- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Evidently, not quite deathly enough. Pity.

Complete scorn,
zdrakec

On Dec 11, 9:02 am, The Historian wrote:
On Dec 10, 8:23 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:



Proskauer Rose represented to Judge Chin of the US District Court in the
Southern NY District that it was representing the USCF and all the named
defendants who were USCF members (Frank Nero excepted as PR could not
contact him).

Two rumors have circulated the past few days which promted the plaintif to
contact Proskauer Rose. The first rumor is that Proskauer Rose will not
represent defendants Polgar and Truong. The second is that Proskauer Rose
will no longer be representing any of the USCF defendants and the USCF
because at least one board member engaged in FSS copycat postings to Usenet
and one or more other EB members may have known about it.

M. Sloan advised me today that this afternoon he spoke with counsel on the
case at Proskauer Rose and asked if Proskauer Rose was still representing
all of the defendants it told the court it was representing. Counsel refused
to answer Mr. Sloan's question.

Are they obliged to answer the question? It could be a routine
response.

None whatsoever.

B. Lafferty wrote:
Proskauer Rose represented to Judge Chin of the US District Court in the
Southern NY District that it was representing the USCF and all the named
defendants who were USCF members (Frank Nero excepted as PR could not
contact him).

Two rumors have circulated the past few days which promted the plaintif to
contact Proskauer Rose. The first rumor is that Proskauer Rose will not
represent defendants Polgar and Truong. The second is that Proskauer Rose
will no longer be representing any of the USCF defendants and the USCF
because at least one board member engaged in FSS copycat postings to Usenet
and one or more other EB members may have known about it.

M. Sloan advised me today that this afternoon he spoke with counsel on the
case at Proskauer Rose and asked if Proskauer Rose was still representing
all of the defendants it told the court it was representing. Counsel refused
to answer Mr. Sloan's question.


Brian, weren't you the one who (pompously and pointlessly) pronounced
that you could not answer a question about who you had represented on
grounds of attorney-client privilege? Were you wrong then, or are you
being disingenuous now? Please choose one.

wrote in message
...


B. Lafferty wrote:
Proskauer Rose represented to Judge Chin of the US District Court in the
Southern NY District that it was representing the USCF and all the named
defendants who were USCF members (Frank Nero excepted as PR could not
contact him).

Two rumors have circulated the past few days which promted the plaintif
to
contact Proskauer Rose. The first rumor is that Proskauer Rose will not
represent defendants Polgar and Truong. The second is that Proskauer Rose
will no longer be representing any of the USCF defendants and the USCF
because at least one board member engaged in FSS copycat postings to
Usenet
and one or more other EB members may have known about it.

M. Sloan advised me today that this afternoon he spoke with counsel on
the
case at Proskauer Rose and asked if Proskauer Rose was still representing
all of the defendants it told the court it was representing. Counsel
refused
to answer Mr. Sloan's question.


Brian, weren't you the one who (pompously and pointlessly) pronounced
that you could not answer a question about who you had represented on
grounds of attorney-client privilege? Were you wrong then, or are you
being disingenuous now? Please choose one.

Once an attorney has made an appearance in a court case as attorney of
record, the fact that he represents a particular client is no longer
privileged and confidential. The client has waived any such confidentiality
as to the lawyer's representation of him as a party to the action. I have
not appeared as attorney of record for any of the parties in the Sloan
action.

Proskauer may not have an obligation to answer Sloan's question, but the
fact that they refused pretty much confirms that the rumors of conflicts
between USCF defendants exists. How it plays out will be interesting.

On Dec 12, 4:32 am, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
wrote in message

...







B. Lafferty wrote:
Proskauer Rose represented to Judge Chin of the US District Court in the
Southern NY District that it was representing the USCF and all the named
defendants who were USCF members (Frank Nero excepted as PR could not
contact him).

Two rumors have circulated the past few days which promted the plaintif
to
contact Proskauer Rose. The first rumor is that Proskauer Rose will not
represent defendants Polgar and Truong. The second is that Proskauer Rose
will no longer be representing any of the USCF defendants and the USCF
because at least one board member engaged in FSS copycat postings to
Usenet
and one or more other EB members may have known about it.

M. Sloan advised me today that this afternoon he spoke with counsel on
the
case at Proskauer Rose and asked if Proskauer Rose was still representing
all of the defendants it told the court it was representing. Counsel
refused
to answer Mr. Sloan's question.

Brian, weren't you the one who (pompously and pointlessly) pronounced
that you could not answer a question about who you had represented on
grounds of attorney-client privilege? Were you wrong then, or are you
being disingenuous now? Please choose one.

Once an attorney has made an appearance in a court case as attorney of
record, the fact that he represents a particular client is no longer
privileged and confidential. The client has waived any such confidentiality
as to the lawyer's representation of him as a party to the action. I have
not appeared as attorney of record for any of the parties in the Sloan
action.

Proskauer may not have an obligation to answer Sloan's question, but the
fact that they refused pretty much confirms that the rumors of conflicts
between USCF defendants exists. How it plays out will be interesting.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Poor Judge Chin. She will never sit on the Suprmeme Court becasue of
this.