View Single Post
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 9th 10, 03:51 PM posted to,,,,alt.chess
Chris Falter Chris Falter is offline
external usenet poster
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2009
Posts: 57
Default Response to Polgar's Rule 41 Motion

On Feb 8, 8:00*pm, samsloan wrote:
In text format, this pleading is confusing because it is difficult to
tell the difference between the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan and the
real postings by me.

So, here is the real pleading in PDF Format.

Sam Sloan

Sam, You'd really do yourself a huge favor if you'd stick to the
relevant issues. You make a good point about the expense and time
you've already spent on the litigation; so why should the plaintiffs
be allowed to dismiss the case with the option of refiling it? And
why should your claims, which you consider valid, be dismissed?

After such a good start, it's all downhill very. very rapidly.

Sanctions for a motion to dismiss? The bar to prove that a motion was
made in bad faith is extremely high, so you must offer far, far more
than pure assertion to convince the court that sanctions should be
entertained. The fact that you neither trust nor like the plaintiffs
does not start to prove anything.

Plaintiffs are continuing their behavior? Until you can do an
analysis of the IP addresses of the recent FSS posts, and tie them to
Polgar/Truong, all you have is 100% unadulterated speculation.

Bill Brock? What does Brock have to do with the lawsuit? What on
earth do Brock's recent posts in the USCF Issues forum have to do with
this lawsuit? So why mention them?

Vaughn? What does he have to do with the lawsuit?

Other USCF figures such as Goichberg? They've been dismissed from the

Honestly, this whole filing looks like the work of a riled up man who
couldn't stop spewing his complaints once he got started. And I
suspect that the court will view it as such.

Which is a've got a legitimate point or two in there. If
you'd stop hiding them amidst all the other ranting, you'd
dramatically increase your chances of success.