Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 10th 09, 12:10 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2006
Posts: 114
Default Truong Response to Motion to Compel

On Dec 8, 4:31*pm, Chris Falter wrote:
I have no reason to doubt the applicability of Rule 45. *However,
Estrella made another point: Truong's testimony is irrelevant and
therefore he need not answer the request.

This strikes me as odd; why would the court have permitted any
subpoena/testimony at all if this were the case? *


The court does not approve depositions or subpoenas before they are
issued. The system is designed so that the parties take care of this
privately, and the court only gets involved if there is a dispute.
Further, Courts absolutely despise this sort of dispute, and make the
parties attempt an informal resolution before even filing a motion.

Why did Killion, et
al. not raise these issues when the subpoena was first processed? *Or
perhaps they did, and the court ruled on the issue??


Generally such objections are raised when the subpoena is responded
to.

Also, Paul's qualifications as business mgr would seem to affect
Susan's ability to gain income (and therefore the extent of possible
damages). *Was this not previously discussed by the parties/the court?


Polgar's position on this appears to be that "If I don't want to talk
about it, then it isn't relevant." To put it kindly, this is a
position of dubious merit. For discovery purposes, Federal Courts
define relevancy very broadly. Any request reasonably calculated to
lead to admissible evidence is appropriate. Frankly, I am amazed that
Polgar's attorneys have made some of the arguments submitted with a
straight face.


As to the FSS stuff, did not Susan testify that the accusations were
part of the defendants' allegedly malicious conduct designed to harm
her? *


Yes.

If so, questioning Paul about FSS should be in bounds.


Absolutely.

Moreover, could not the defendants assert that the FSS issue is
germane to the public's perception of Polgar? *(I.e., everyone thinks
her husband/business manager has done terrible things, why would they
give her an endorsement deal?)


Don't recall that argument being made in the filings, but it is a
legitimate point.

In this post, I make no assertions regarding the facts of Paul's
education or alleged FSS activities. *I'm interested in the legal
questions.


Me too.

  #2   Report Post  
Old December 10th 09, 01:30 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Truong Response to Motion to Compel

Wick wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:31 pm, Chris Falter wrote:
I have no reason to doubt the applicability of Rule 45. However,
Estrella made another point: Truong's testimony is irrelevant and
therefore he need not answer the request.

This strikes me as odd; why would the court have permitted any
subpoena/testimony at all if this were the case?


The court does not approve depositions or subpoenas before they are
issued. The system is designed so that the parties take care of this
privately, and the court only gets involved if there is a dispute.
Further, Courts absolutely despise this sort of dispute, and make the
parties attempt an informal resolution before even filing a motion.

Why did Killion, et
al. not raise these issues when the subpoena was first processed? Or
perhaps they did, and the court ruled on the issue??


Generally such objections are raised when the subpoena is responded
to.

Also, Paul's qualifications as business mgr would seem to affect
Susan's ability to gain income (and therefore the extent of possible
damages). Was this not previously discussed by the parties/the court?


Polgar's position on this appears to be that "If I don't want to talk
about it, then it isn't relevant." To put it kindly, this is a
position of dubious merit. For discovery purposes, Federal Courts
define relevancy very broadly. Any request reasonably calculated to
lead to admissible evidence is appropriate. Frankly, I am amazed that
Polgar's attorneys have made some of the arguments submitted with a
straight face.


I hope that the appropriate oversight authorities find themselves amused
by Killion and Estrella's antics down the road. If this case isn't
settled by the end of the year, I would expect them to withdraw as
counsel in as much as it is now clear that their client(s) either lied
to them about the proof they had of their claims or they utterly failed
to do their due diligence as attorneys before commencing what is now
clearly an unsupported, frivolous, bad-faith litigation. The longer they
continue to act in bad faith with court filing like this, the more
untenable their position as attorneys becomes.
  #3   Report Post  
Old December 10th 09, 05:15 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Dec 2009
Posts: 57
Default Truong Response to Motion to Compel

On Dec 9, 7:10*pm, Wick wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:31*pm, Chris Falter wrote:

I have no reason to doubt the applicability of Rule 45. *However,
Estrella made another point: Truong's testimony is irrelevant and
therefore he need not answer the request.


This strikes me as odd; why would the court have permitted any
subpoena/testimony at all if this were the case? *


The court does not approve depositions or subpoenas before they are
issued. *The system is designed so that the parties take care of this
privately, and the court only gets involved if there is a dispute.
Further, Courts absolutely despise this sort of dispute, and make the
parties attempt an informal resolution before even filing a motion.

Why did Killion, et
al. not raise these issues when the subpoena was first processed? *Or
perhaps they did, and the court ruled on the issue??


Generally such objections are raised when the subpoena is responded
to.

Also, Paul's qualifications as business mgr would seem to affect
Susan's ability to gain income (and therefore the extent of possible
damages). *Was this not previously discussed by the parties/the court?


Polgar's position on this appears to be that "If I don't want to talk
about it, then it isn't relevant." *To put it kindly, this is a
position of dubious merit. *For discovery purposes, Federal Courts
define relevancy very broadly. *Any request reasonably calculated to
lead to admissible evidence is appropriate. *Frankly, I am amazed that
Polgar's attorneys have made some of the arguments submitted with a
straight face.



As to the FSS stuff, did not Susan testify that the accusations were
part of the defendants' allegedly malicious conduct designed to harm
her? *


Yes.

If so, questioning Paul about FSS should be in bounds.


Absolutely.

Moreover, could not the defendants assert that the FSS issue is
germane to the public's perception of Polgar? *(I.e., everyone thinks
her husband/business manager has done terrible things, why would they
give her an endorsement deal?)


Don't recall that argument being made in the filings, but it is a
legitimate point.

In this post, I make no assertions regarding the facts of Paul's
education or alleged FSS activities. *I'm interested in the legal
questions.


Me too.


I would appreciate any links you could provide to a Polgar deposition
in which she contends that defendants' statements Paul/FSS are
relevant to the case. It is hard to reconcile her attorney's filing
with such testimony. If she and her attorney have made such utterly
conflicting claims, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that her
attorney is either grossly negligent or is willfully obstructing the
course of justice. Of course, my perspective is a layman's, so maybe
I'm just ill-informed.
  #4   Report Post  
Old December 10th 09, 11:13 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Truong Response to Motion to Compel

Chris Falter wrote:
On Dec 9, 7:10 pm, Wick wrote:
On Dec 8, 4:31 pm, Chris Falter wrote:

I have no reason to doubt the applicability of Rule 45. However,
Estrella made another point: Truong's testimony is irrelevant and
therefore he need not answer the request.
This strikes me as odd; why would the court have permitted any
subpoena/testimony at all if this were the case?

The court does not approve depositions or subpoenas before they are
issued. The system is designed so that the parties take care of this
privately, and the court only gets involved if there is a dispute.
Further, Courts absolutely despise this sort of dispute, and make the
parties attempt an informal resolution before even filing a motion.

Why did Killion, et
al. not raise these issues when the subpoena was first processed? Or
perhaps they did, and the court ruled on the issue??

Generally such objections are raised when the subpoena is responded
to.

Also, Paul's qualifications as business mgr would seem to affect
Susan's ability to gain income (and therefore the extent of possible
damages). Was this not previously discussed by the parties/the court?

Polgar's position on this appears to be that "If I don't want to talk
about it, then it isn't relevant." To put it kindly, this is a
position of dubious merit. For discovery purposes, Federal Courts
define relevancy very broadly. Any request reasonably calculated to
lead to admissible evidence is appropriate. Frankly, I am amazed that
Polgar's attorneys have made some of the arguments submitted with a
straight face.



As to the FSS stuff, did not Susan testify that the accusations were
part of the defendants' allegedly malicious conduct designed to harm
her?

Yes.

If so, questioning Paul about FSS should be in bounds.

Absolutely.

Moreover, could not the defendants assert that the FSS issue is
germane to the public's perception of Polgar? (I.e., everyone thinks
her husband/business manager has done terrible things, why would they
give her an endorsement deal?)

Don't recall that argument being made in the filings, but it is a
legitimate point.

In this post, I make no assertions regarding the facts of Paul's
education or alleged FSS activities. I'm interested in the legal
questions.

Me too.


I would appreciate any links you could provide to a Polgar deposition
in which she contends that defendants' statements Paul/FSS are
relevant to the case. It is hard to reconcile her attorney's filing
with such testimony. If she and her attorney have made such utterly
conflicting claims, it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that her
attorney is either grossly negligent or is willfully obstructing the
course of justice. Of course, my perspective is a layman's, so maybe
I'm just ill-informed.

I will give you the page references later today, after work. There are
several that make it very clear she has made this matters legitimate
issues for inquiry of Truong.
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 October 6th 08 02:49 PM
Motion for Summary Judgment in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 0 October 5th 08 09:15 PM
Motion for Summary Judgment in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 October 5th 08 09:15 PM
Motion for Summary Judgment in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 October 5th 08 09:15 PM
Motion for Summary Judgment in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 October 5th 08 09:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017