Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 24th 08, 03:51 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________

Sam Sloan,

Plaintiff,

-against-

Hoainhan “Paul” Truong, Zsuzsanna “Susan” Polgar, Joel Channing,
William Goichberg, The United States Chess Federation, Bill Hall,
Herbert Rodney Vaughn, Gregory Alexander, Frank Niro, Grant Perks,
William Brock, Randall Hough, Randy Bauer, Jim Berry, Texas Tech
University and United States of America,

Defendants

__________________________________________

MOTION FOR REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURTS ORDER AND
JUDGMENT DISMISSING THIS COMPLAINT

__________________________________________

Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I hereby remove for a rehearing and reconsideration of this courts
order and judgment dated August 29, 2008 dismissing this action.

2. The court, in its decision, made a serious error, in the following
statement.

Goichberg has submitted ample evidence to show that he is a "citizen"
of New York for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, including: the
deed to his house in Orange County, New York; property tax records for
his New York residence; and affidavits attesting that he votes, pays
taxes, and resides exclusively in New York. (See Goichberg Aff. &
Suppl. Aff.).

3. This is not true. Goichberg DID NOT provide to the court “the deed
to his house in Orange County, New York” or “property tax records for
his New York residence”. The only thing he provided was a brief
summary affidavit saying that he votes and pays taxes in New York and
nowhere else.

4. I was quite concerned and alarmed when I saw this statement in the
decision of this court because this might indicate that my adversaries
filed there documents in court without sending a copy to me. However,
I have checked on PACER and no such documents have been filed with
this court.

5. However, subsequent to the decision of this court, one of my
adversaries, Proskauer Rose, submitted a bill of costs and included as
an exhibit a deed to property in New York. However, the document he
submitted shows that he did not make his request to the Orange County
Clerk until February 6 which was after his final submission to this
court which means that he did not receive it until it was too late to
submit it.

6. More than that, the deed he submitted, which is dated 1991, is a
deed to an EMPTY LOT. Unless Bill Goichberg has constructed a building
on that property or lives in a tent, that is not his residence.

7. My affidavit opposition stated:

5. In his moving affidavit he states that his residence is at 2084
Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY 12577. If that is the case, how come I
cannot find this address listed anywhere? Not only it is not listed
anywhere as his address, but it is not listed anywhere at all.

6. In fact, the address of 2084 Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY 12577
DOES NOT EXIST.

7. My investigation confirms that 2084 Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY
12577 is not a residence or a domiciliary address. I have checked
every possible source for the address of 2084 Route 94, Salisbury
Mills NY 12577. For example, I checked the US Postal Service website
which has the full 9-digit zip code for every address in America at
http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/zcl_0_results.jsp

8. The decision of this court implies that I merely stated that
Goichberg does not answer his telephone when I call. That is not what
I wrote. What I wrote was that Goichberg DOES NOT HAVE A HOME
TELEPHONE because GOICHBERG DOES NOT HAVE A HOME.

9. Goichberg is constantly “on the road”. He never stops anywhere long
enough to declare any one place to be his permanent home. He moves
from cheap hotel room to cheap hotel room. That is his live style.

10. Just to make sure that this has not changed while this case has
been going, I went to the US Postal Service Website at
http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/zcl_0_results.jsp and entered the address
Goichberg told this court was his address, which was 2084 Route 94,
Salisbury Mills NY 12577.

11. The answer that came back, which anybody can check, was:

We're sorry! We were unable to process your request.

The address was not found. Please check the address below.
You may want to utilize the Yellow Pages and/or White Pages below.

9. Since Goichberg and I are still talking to each other, I asked him
about this at a recent chess tournament and he replied that he does
not want to reveal his real address because he does not want chess
players to know where he lives. He does not want people to come to his
house and demand their prize money and things like that.

10. Goichberg is not hiding or anything like that. He can be found
almost any time at a chess tournament somewhere around the country or,
if no chess tournament is then talking place he will be at the race
track. However, he does not have an address, other than a PO Box. I
submit that a person who does not have an address or is refusing to
reveal it cannot use that secret address to defeat diversity
jurisdioction.

11. The mail point here is all we have seen is a deed to an empty lot
dated 1991, which is annexed as an exhibit. We do not even know if he
still owns that lot. This is clearly insufficient to establish
citizenship to defeat a diversity claim. Her has submitted no tax
records or other documents of any kind.

12. Next Goichberg says that he pays taxes only in New York State and
nowhere else. This should be cause for concern because he derives
virtually no income in New York State. All of his income comes from
other states. He makes his primary income from four mega-tournaments
held every year. These can be found posted on his website at
http://www.chesstour.com/ . They a

The World Open held every year in Philadelphia over July 4th weekend
with at least $350,000 in prizes.

The Chicago Open held every year over Memorial Day Weekend with
$100,000 in prizes.

The North American Open held at Bally's Las Vegas every December
26-29 with $100,000 in prizes.

The Foxwoods Open held at Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut every
Easter weekend with $100,000 in prizes.

Other than these huge events to which chess players come from all over
the world to play, Goichberg holds smaller events such as the Midwest
Class Championships in Chicago with only $20,000 in prizes.

13. You will notice that none of these tournaments are in New York
State. Goichberg often states that he avoids New York State because it
is “too expensive”.

14. However, he does hold one tournament per year which is the New
York State Championship which is always held in Upstate New York,
never in New York City. However, unlike the other tournaments listed,
he does not direct that one. He always hires somebody else to direct
it. This means that his profits from that event are little or nothing.
The reason he holds that tournament but does not direct is is that
keeps him in control of the New York State Chess Federation.
Otherwise, he risks being voted out of office.

15. There are certainly a lot of people who would like to vote
Goichberg out of office. There are many complaints about “conflict of
interest” in that he is by far the biggest chess tournament organizer
in America while he is also the USCF President. However, I am not part
of the anti-Goichberg crowd. I have been supporting and defending
Goichberg from these attacks for more than 40 years, which makes it so
strange that he started attacking me from the day that I got elected
to the USCF Executive Board in July 2006.

16. The question here is: How can Goichberg claim that he only pays
taxes in New York State and not in any other state when he derived
virtually zero income from New York State and all of his income comes
from other states? I believe that he should submit his income tax
statement to this court. If he refuses, as he probably will, then his
non-diversity defense should be denied.

17. I provided to this court the address where Goichberg was living
when this case was filed. I wrote, “He presently resides at the Santa
Anita Inn located at 130 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007.
This is near to the Santa Anita Race Track, where Mr. Goichberg plays
the horses.”

18. Mr. Goichberg did not deny this or even respond to this point.
Therefore, I do not see how he can win on the diversity issue.

19. In addition, I stated that I would be willing to eliminate
Goichberg as a defendant it necessary to preserve diversity. None of
the other defendants are claiming New York Citizenship. Thus, I fail
to understand why the court made such a Draconian Remedy as to dismiss
my claim “with prejudice”.

20. At a minimum there should be a fact hearing where Goichberg can
present his evidence and I can present my contrary evidence. This will
give Goichberg a change to produce his “ concrete evidence” that he
claims to have but has not thus far produced.

21. Next, this court makes the shocking ruling that Internet Identity
theft fails to state a federal cause of action. This, only a few days
after the New York Times reported that the United States Secret
Service is investigating this and a closely related case, also
involving some of the same defendants.

22. This court stated:

a criminal statute that prohibits the making of "obscene or harassing"
telecommunications, but creates no private right of action. See
Ghartey v. Chrysler Credit Corp., No. CV-92-1782 (CPS), 1992 WL
373479, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 1992).

23. This is an unreported district court decision that has no
presidential value. More than that, it does not concern Internet
identity theft. Indeed, back in 1992 Internet identity theft did not
yet exist. Nowadays, there are millions of victims of Internet
identity theft of which I am just one. For obvious reasons, the state
courts are ill equipped to deal with Internet identity theft. One of
the reasons is obvious from the facts of this case. Since this case
was filed on October 2, 2007, Susan Polgar and Paul Truong have
traveled the world, to such diverse places as Germany, Argentina,
Sardenia, Scotland, India, Hungary and many other countries. She has
posted photos of herself on her website standing in front of the Taj
Mahal in India, overlooking the Grand Canyon in Arizona and many other
places. She is living a “If this is Tuesday, This Must be Belgium”
existence. Yet, during all these travels, she and Truong are never far
from their laptop computers where they post vile, vicious personal
attacks on various chess personalities almost every day.

24. What can a New York State Court judge do about this? Only the
federal courts can handle this.

25. An ancient Roman legal maxim states: ubi ius, ibi remedium. “Where
there is a right, there is a remedy.” Generally, the law will not
countenance a situation where a person has a legal right but no means
of enforcing it. The law will provide a means. Or, in the English
common-law tradition, where the law does not provide a means of
enforcing a right, equity will.

26. The Mottershead Report has documented 2464 “Fake Sam Sloan”
postings along with proof that all of these 2464 postings were by Paul
Truong and Susan Polgar. Many are too obscene to quote here but, if
you have a strong stomach, they can be found at:
http://www.mottershead.info/uscfdocs/fake-sam-sloan.txt This is a 5mb
file thousands of pages long and therefore is not included here. Each
of these 2464 Internet postings were cross-posted to two and sometimes
three Internet newsgroups and thus there were more than 5,000 postings
altogether. These postings have been the subject of 12 articles in the
New York Times plus articles in the Lubbock Avalanche Journal and
other newspapers around the world. There have been dozens of blogs and
websites devoted to this issue and thousands of emails and newsgroup
postings devoted to this.

27. Here is one of these postings. Susan Polgar, posting as the “Fake
Sam Sloan”, stated the following from the email address
which is an email address that the Real Sam
Sloan never uses and is used exclusively by the Fake Sam Sloan:

Article: 302304
From: "Sam Sloan"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: My chess goal
Date: 7 Oct 2006 17:08:49 -0700
I had sexual relationships with Rusudan Goletiani, Jennifer Shahade,
Anna Zatonskih, Tatev Abrahamyan, Chimi Batchimeg and Laura Ross. My
goal is to [explicative deleted] every female player rated over 2200.
Sam Sloan

48. All of the players listed above are top female chess masters and
rivals of Susan Polgar. I have never had relations (other than normal,
friendly non-sexual relations) with any of them. Of the above, Laura
Ross was only 17 years old at the time of this posting and Tatev
Abrahamyan was only 18. The others were all in their early 20s. None
of them had ever been married at that time. (Several had gotten
married since.) Had I posted this, I would have been guilty of libel
per se. But, I did not post this. It was posted by Susan Polgar and
Paul Truong, who signed my name to it. This was clearly a crime, yet
this court has ruled that I cannot sue them in federal court for this.

49. Now, because of the ruling of this court which in effect immunized
Susan Polgar and Paul Truong from any civil liability for doing this.
Therefore, they are back. Only three days ago, on September 21, 2008,
the following was posted on rec.games.chess.politics:

I am too much of a gentleman to reveal the locations of Krush's two
distinctive birthmarks.
To find out more, you will have to wait until I publish my book "What
Irina Krush Could Teach You". It will be available from Amazon later
in 2008.
Sam Sloan

50. Although we do not have the proof that Polgar and Truong posted
this, it is so typical of the kinds of things that they post that it
is almost certain that they did this. Irina Krush, 25, is the top
rated woman chess player in the United States. Up until now, Truong
and Polgar have left her alone, rarely attacking her. Susan must be
mad at her about something.

51. Then, only a few minutes later, Polgar and Truong had the audacity
to attack the judge of the court, the judge who had been so nice to
them by dismissing my complaint. Here is what they wrote:

Judge Denny Chin must be very stupid. A paternal great-grandfather of
mine, John Hale Sloan II, who worked as an immigration agent in 1904,
may have been the person who did not permit Chin's slit-eyed forebear
Rong-pha Chin to enter the country.
http://www.samsloan.com/dennychin-illegal.htm
So, Denny Chin should have recused himself in my case. All this will
be very useful when I re-file the suit. I doubt that, after rendering
such an erroneous judgement, any further important cases will ever be
given to Chin.
Further, given the evidence I expect to find soon, Chin's own INS
status may be reviewed and his citizenship revoked. I expect that Ishi
Press will publish a book about the scandal.
The Real Sam Sloan

52. Again, they signed my name, but everybody who has been following
their history will realize that Polgar and Truong posted this as they
have been posting things exactly like this for years.

53. I am providing the quote above in the hope that it will galvanize
this court into trying to find out who is doing this, since it seems
to have no interest in finding out who is doing this to me.

54. Right now, the USCF is on the verge of total collapse because of
this issue. Efforts were made to resolve this issue at the USCF
delegates meeting in Dallas August 9-10, 2008. These efforts failed in
part because both sides stacked the meeting with unqualified
alternated. Here is a video showing Bill Hall reading especially
obscene postings by the “Fake Sam Sloan” in which the Fake Sam
attacked former US Woman's Champion Jennifer Shahade. If you play this
video, be prepared to be deeply offended. It is posted on Google
videos, but is not searchible:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...37752772&hl=en

55. There have been thus far four lawsuits filed over these “Fake Sam
Sloan” issues. More are expected. The second, filed in Philadelphia,
was Parker vs. Sloan et al, which was dismissed only a few days after
this one was. The third is United States of America Chess Federation
vs. John Does 1-10 filed in San Francisco Superior Court. The 4th is
Susan Polgar vs. United States Chess Federation et all pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Lubbock Division. As you will observe, I am a party to all of these
cases except for the third one, but I only filed the first one.

56. I filed my answer and counterclaim in the Lubbock, Texas case last
week. The remaining defendants have been given until Friday, September
26, 2008 to answer. I am attaching my answer and counterclaim here as
an exhibit. This courts decision puts me in a quandary. Since this
court dismissed my complaint “with prejudice” am I foreclosed from
raising these same issues as a defense in the Lubbock Texas case. I am
afraid that I know what the answer it and this again is another reason
why this motion for a rehearing should be granted and this courts
decision should be reversed.

WHEREFORE, this motion for reconsideration should be granted and the
decision and judgment of this court should be vacated and set aside.


_______________________
Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453

1-917-507-7226
1-917-659-3397


STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss:
COUNTY OF BRONX )

VERIFICATION

1, the undersigned, the petitioner named in the foregoing petition,
being duly sworn, says:
I have read the foregoing petition subscribed by me and know the
contents thereof and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as
to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and
belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true.


__________________________________
Signature of Plaintiff

On the 23rd Day of September, 2007 before me personally came Samuel
H. Sloan to me known to be the person described herein and who
executed the foregoing instrument. Such person duly swore to such
instrument before me and duly acknowledged that he executed the same.


_____________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC

  #2   Report Post  
Old September 24th 08, 07:46 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY


If this is the best Sloon, er, Sloan can do, his victims have little
to worry about. A number of people have visited Goichberg's home, but
perhaps the elves who taught Sloan law disassembled it after they
left. Doofus.


22. This court stated:

a criminal statute that prohibits the making of "obscene or harassing"
telecommunications, but creates no private right of action. See
Ghartey v. Chrysler Credit Corp., No. CV-92-1782 (CPS), 1992 WL
373479, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 1992).

23. This is an unreported district court decision that has no
presidential value. More than that, it does not concern Internet
identity theft.



Apparently Sloan really does not understand that a criminal statute
does not, in general, create a private right of action. Doofus
(squared).

We really need some kind of tort reform to keep pro se imbeciles like
Sloan from wasting the taxpayers' money.



  #3   Report Post  
Old September 24th 08, 08:21 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 235
Default Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY


We really need some kind of tort reform to keep pro se imbeciles like
Sloan from wasting the taxpayers' money.


I'ev prepared pleadings for attorneys through my work for years, and
none of them ever had problems, even when the attorney just reviewed
my work and signed off on it.

The problem is the way courts treat pro ses, dismissing cases on
technical grounds, without prejudice, often with defendants who are
just trying to avoid filing an answer or trial on the merits.
Instead, they get refilings, and then new causes of action when the
"winning" side thinks it has a license to keep acting out. Then they
go to court again, the process is repeated, etc.

Why did Sloan wait 23 days to file the motion when the normal limit is
10 days anyway?

The real problem in the courts are when big corporations sue each
other, the lawyers drag it out, and the shareholders and customers
foot the bill.

In my lawsuit against Yahoo, the judge took the liberty to hold
extensive oral arguments on the main issues, noted that she could have
just copied the google ruling, but didn't, and because she gave the
issues a fair hearing, there is likely to be some type of law set down
that people can easily follow. More important, she also let Yahoo and
Microsoft know that my being a pro se, or even having lost a somewhat
simialr case before a judge who never really litigated it, wasn't
going to make it a slam dunk for them.

Tell me, what do you think would hve happened had the motion to
dismiss been denied? Think the other side would have been so eager to
continue into discovery?

Anyone who moves to dismiss a case on technical grounds should not
complain about their legal expenses being run up, because THEY are the
ones doing it, by delaying a trial they hope does not become
inevitable, and by hoping for a technicality to go their way, rather
than something that would dismiss it with prejudice.



  #4   Report Post  
Old September 24th 08, 12:12 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY

wrote:


We really need some kind of tort reform to keep pro se imbeciles like
Sloan from wasting the taxpayers' money.


Be careful what you wish for.
  #5   Report Post  
Old September 24th 08, 01:12 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________

Sam Sloan,

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 07-CV-8537 (DC)
-against-

Hoainhan “Paul” Truong, Zsuzsanna “Susan” Polgar, Joel Channing,
William Goichberg, The United States Chess Federation, Bill Hall,
Herbert Rodney Vaughn, Gregory Alexander, Frank Niro, Grant Perks,
William Brock, Randall Hough, Randy Bauer, Jim Berry, Texas Tech
University and United States of America,

Defendants

__________________________________________

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURTS
ORDER AND JUDGMENT DISMISSING THIS COMPLAINT

__________________________________________

Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I hereby move for a reconsideration of this courts order and
judgment dated August 29, 2008 dismissing this action.

2. The court, in its decision, made a serious error, in the following
statement.

Goichberg has submitted ample evidence to show that he is a "citizen"
of New York for the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, including: the
deed to his house in Orange County, New York; property tax records for
his New York residence; and affidavits attesting that he votes, pays
taxes, and resides exclusively in New York. (See Goichberg Aff. &
Suppl. Aff.).

3. This is not true. Goichberg DID NOT provide to the court “the deed
to his house in Orange County, New York” or “property tax records for
his New York residence”. The only thing he provided was a brief
summary affidavit saying that he votes and pays taxes in New York and
nowhere else.

4. I was quite concerned and alarmed when I saw this statement in the
decision of this court because this might indicate that my adversaries
filed these documents in court without sending a copy to me. However,
I have checked on PACER and no such documents have been filed with
this court.

5. However, subsequent to the decision of this court, one of my
adversaries, Proskauer Rose, submitted a bill of costs and included as
an exhibit a deed to property in New York. However, the document he
submitted shows that he did not make his request to the Orange County
Clerk until February 6 which was after his final submission to this
court, which means that he did not receive it until it was too late to
submit it.

6. More than that, the deed he submitted, which is dated 1991, is a
deed to an EMPTY LOT. Unless Bill Goichberg has constructed a building
on that property or lives in a tent, that is not his residence.

7. My affidavit opposition stated:

5. In his moving affidavit he states that his residence is at 2084
Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY 12577. If that is the case, how come I
cannot find this address listed anywhere? Not only it is not listed
anywhere as his address, but it is not listed anywhere at all.

6. In fact, the address of 2084 Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY 12577
DOES NOT EXIST.

7. My investigation confirms that 2084 Route 94, Salisbury Mills NY
12577 is not a residence or a domiciliary address. I have checked
every possible source for the address of 2084 Route 94, Salisbury
Mills NY 12577. For example, I checked the US Postal Service website
which has the full 9-digit zip code for every address in America at
http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/zcl_0_results.jsp

8. The decision of this court implies that I merely stated that
Goichberg does not answer his telephone when I call. That is not what
I wrote. What I wrote was that Goichberg DOES NOT HAVE A HOME
TELEPHONE because GOICHBERG DOES NOT HAVE A HOME.

9. Goichberg is constantly “on the road”. He never stops anywhere long
enough to declare any one place to be his permanent home. He moves
from cheap hotel room to cheap hotel room. That is his life style. He
is not permanently a citizen of any state.

10. Just to make sure that this has not changed while this case has
been going, I just went again to the US Postal Service Website at
http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/zcl_0_results.jsp and entered the address
Goichberg told this court was his address, which was 2084 Route 94,
Salisbury Mills NY 12577.

11. The answer that came back, which anybody can check, was:

We're sorry! We were unable to process your request.

The address was not found. Please check the address below.
You may want to utilize the Yellow Pages and/or White Pages below.

12. Since Goichberg and I are still talking to each other, I asked him
about this at a recent chess tournament and he replied that he does
not want to reveal his real address because he does not want chess
players to know where he lives. He does not want people to come to his
house and demand their prize money and things like that.

13. Goichberg is not hiding or anything like that. He can be found
almost any time at a chess tournament somewhere around the country or,
if no chess tournament is then talking place he will be at the race
track. However, he does not have an address, other than a PO Box. I
submit that a person who does not have an address or is refusing to
reveal it cannot use that secret address to defeat diversity
jurisdiction.

14. The mail point here is all we have seen is a deed to an empty lot
dated 1991, which is annexed as an exhibit. We do not even know if he
still owns that lot. This is clearly insufficient to establish
citizenship to defeat a diversity claim. Her has submitted no tax
records or other documents of any kind.

15. Next Goichberg says that he pays taxes only in New York State and
nowhere else. This should be cause for concern because he derives
virtually no income in New York State. All of his income comes from
other states. He makes his primary income from four mega-tournaments
held every year. These can be found posted on his website at
http://www.chesstour.com/ . They a

The World Open held every year in Philadelphia over July 4th weekend
with at least $350,000 in prizes.

The Chicago Open held every year over Memorial Day Weekend with
$100,000 in prizes.

The North American Open held at Bally's Las Vegas every December
26-29 with $100,000 in prizes.

The Foxwoods Open held at Foxwoods Casino in Connecticut every
Easter weekend with $100,000 in prizes.

Other than these huge events to which chess players come from all over
the world to play, Goichberg holds smaller events such as the Midwest
Class Championships in Chicago with only $20,000 in prizes.

16. You will notice that none of these tournaments are in New York
State. Goichberg often states that he avoids New York State because it
is “too expensive”.

17. However, he does hold one tournament per year, which is the New
York State Championship which is always held in Upstate New York,
never in New York City. However, unlike the other tournaments listed,
he does not direct that one. He always hires somebody else to direct
it. This means that his profits from that event are little or nothing.
The reason he holds that tournament but does not direct it is that
keeps him in control of the New York State Chess Federation.
Otherwise, he risks being voted out of office.

18. There are certainly a lot of people who would like to vote
Goichberg out of office. There are many complaints about “conflict of
interest” in that he is by far the biggest chess tournament organizer
in America while he is also the USCF President. However, I am not part
of the anti-Goichberg crowd. I have been supporting and defending
Goichberg from these attacks for more than 40 years, which makes it so
strange that he started attacking me from the day that I got elected
to the USCF Executive Board in July 2006.

19. The question here is: How can Goichberg claim that he only pays
taxes in New York State and not in any other state when he derives
virtually zero income from New York State and all of his income comes
from other states? I believe that he should submit his income tax
statement to this court. If he refuses, as he probably will, then his
non-diversity defense should be denied.

20. I provided to this court the address where Goichberg was living
when this case was filed. I wrote, “He presently resides at the Santa
Anita Inn located at 130 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007.
This is near to the Santa Anita Race Track, where Mr. Goichberg plays
the horses.” There is proof of this because at the meeting the USCF
Executive Board meeting held in Crossville Tennessee on November 3,
2007, Goichberg stated that he was insisting that the February 2008
board meeting be held in Los Angeles California because he would not
be leaving California until Spring and he was not willing to travel to
any other state. Those of us who know Goichberg know the reason. The
horses are running at the Santa Anita Race Track at that time and
Goichberg cannot travel to any other state because then he would miss
one of the races. The video tape of this meeting was broadcast,
available for public viewing. The debate on this topic laster for over
a half hour. Truong demanded that the meeting be held in any one of
the other 49 states, saying that he is willing to travel to anywhere
else except for California. Goichberg stated that he was not willing
to be anywhere else but California. The eventual result was that the
February 2008 meeting was held online. On this same tape, one can see
my process server, Robert Collester, serving the summons and complaint
in this case. That is how I was able to get all the USCF defendants
served at one time. The audio tape is available at:
http://evansvillescholasticchess.org/webcast/

21. Mr. Goichberg did not deny this or even respond to this point that
he was residing at the Santa Anita Inn located at 130 West Huntington
Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007. Therefore, I do not see how he can win on
the diversity issue.

22. In addition, I stated that I would be willing to eliminate
Goichberg as a defendant if necessary to preserve diversity. None of
the other defendants are claiming New York Citizenship. Thus, I fail
to understand why the court made such a Draconian Remedy as to dismiss
my claim “with prejudice”.

23. At a minimum, there should be a fact hearing where Goichberg can
present his evidence and I can present my contrary evidence. This will
give Goichberg a chance to produce his “concrete evidence” that he
claims to have but has not thus far produced.

24. Next, this court makes the shocking ruling that Internet Identity
theft fails to state a federal cause of action. This, only a few days
after the New York Times reported that the United States Secret
Service is investigating this and a closely related case, also
involving the USCF and some of the same defendants.

25. This court stated:

a criminal statute that prohibits the making of "obscene or harassing"
telecommunications, but creates no private right of action. See
Ghartey v. Chrysler Credit Corp., No. CV-92-1782 (CPS), 1992 WL
373479, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 1992).

26. This is an unreported district court decision that has no
precedential value. More than that, it does not concern Internet
identity theft. Indeed, back in 1992 Internet identity theft did not
yet exist. Nowadays, there are millions of victims of Internet
identity theft of which I am just one. For obvious reasons, the state
courts are ill equipped to deal with Internet identity theft. One of
the reasons is obvious from the facts of this case. Since the date
this case was filed on October 2, 2007, Susan Polgar and Paul Truong
have traveled the world, to such diverse places as Germany, Argentina,
Sardenia, Scotland, India, Hungary and many other countries. Susan has
posted photos of herself on her website standing in front of the Taj
Mahal in India, overlooking the Grand Canyon in Arizona and many other
places in between. She is living a “If this is Tuesday, This Must be
Belgium” existence. Yet, during all these travels, Polgar and Truong
are never far from their laptop computers where they post vile,
vicious, personal attacks on various chess personalities almost every
day.

27. What can a New York State Court judge do about this? Only the
federal courts can handle this.

28. An ancient Roman legal maxim states: ubi ius, ibi remedium. “Where
there is a right, there is a remedy.” Generally, the law will not
countenance a situation where a person has a legal right but no means
of enforcing it. The law will provide a means. Or, in the English
common-law tradition, where the law does not provide a means of
enforcing a right, equity will.

29. Where is my remedy here? The Mottershead Report has documented
2464 “Fake Sam Sloan” postings along with proof that all of these 2464
postings were by Paul Truong and Susan Polgar. Many are too obscene to
be quoted here but, if you have a strong stomach, they can be found
at:
http://www.mottershead.info/uscfdocs/fake-sam-sloan.txt This is a 5mb
file thousands of pages long and therefore is not included here. Each
of these 2464 Internet postings were cross-posted to two and sometimes
three Internet newsgroups and thus there were more than 5,000 postings
altogether. These postings have been the subject of 12 articles in the
New York Times plus articles in the Lubbock Avalanche Journal and
other newspapers around the world. There have been dozens of blogs and
websites devoted to this issue and thousands of emails and newsgroup
postings devoted to this.

30. Here is one of these postings. Susan Polgar, posting as the “Fake
Sam Sloan”, stated the following from the email address
which is an email address that the Real Sam
Sloan never uses and is used exclusively by the Fake Sam Sloan:

Article: 302304
From: "Sam Sloan"
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
Subject: My chess goal
Date: 7 Oct 2006 17:08:49 -0700
I had sexual relationships with Rusudan Goletiani, Jennifer Shahade,
Anna Zatonskih, Tatev Abrahamyan, Chimi Batchimeg and Laura Ross. My
goal is to [explicative deleted] every female player rated over 2200.
Sam Sloan

31. All of the players listed above are top female chess masters and
rivals of Susan Polgar. I have never had relations (other than normal,
friendly non-sexual relations) with any of them. Of the above, Laura
Ross was only 17 years old at the time of this posting and Tatev
Abrahamyan was only 18. The others were all in their early 20s. None
of them had ever been married at that time. (Several had gotten
married since.) Had I posted this, I would have been guilty of libel
per se. But, I did not post this. It was posted by Susan Polgar and
Paul Truong, who signed my name to it. This was clearly a crime, yet
this court has ruled that I cannot sue them in federal court for this.

32. Now, because of the ruling of this court which in effect immunized
Susan Polgar and Paul Truong from any civil liability for doing this,
they are back. Only three days ago, on September 21, 2008, the
following was posted on rec.games.chess.politics:

I am too much of a gentleman to reveal the locations of Krush's two
distinctive birthmarks.
To find out more, you will have to wait until I publish my book "What
Irina Krush Could Teach You". It will be available from Amazon later
in 2008.
Sam Sloan

33. Although we do not have the proof yet that Polgar and Truong
posted this, it is so typical of the kinds of things that they post
and nobody else does that it is almost certain that they did this.
Irina Krush, 25, is the top rated woman chess player in the United
States. Up until now, Truong and Polgar have left her alone, rarely
attacking her. Susan must be mad at her about something now.

34. Then, only a few minutes later, Polgar and Truong had the audacity
to attack the judge of the court, the judge who has been so nice to
them by dismissing my complaint. Here is what Truong and Polgar wrote
on rec.games.chess.politics on September 21, 2008:

Judge Denny Chin must be very stupid. A paternal great-grandfather of
mine, John Hale Sloan II, who worked as an immigration agent in 1904,
may have been the person who did not permit Chin's slit-eyed forebear
Rong-pha Chin to enter the country.
http://www.samsloan.com/dennychin-illegal.htm
So, Denny Chin should have recused himself in my case. All this will
be very useful when I re-file the suit. I doubt that, after rendering
such an erroneous judgement, any further important cases will ever be
given to Chin.
Further, given the evidence I expect to find soon, Chin's own INS
status may be reviewed and his citizenship revoked. I expect that Ishi
Press will publish a book about the scandal.
The Real Sam Sloan

35. Here again, they signed my name, but everybody who has been
following their history will realize that Polgar and Truong posted
this, as they have been posting things exactly like this for years.
The URL cited above is fake. No such website exists.

36. I am providing the quote above in the hope that it will galvanize
this court into trying to find out who is doing this, since the court
seems to have no interest in finding out who is doing this to me.

37. Right now, the USCF is on the verge of total collapse because of
this and financial issues. Efforts were made to resolve this issue at
the USCF delegates meeting in Dallas on August 9-10, 2008. These
efforts failed in part because both sides stacked the meeting with
unqualified alternates. For example, a non-chess player named “Hero
Smith” (not his real name) had his USCF membership dues paid to join
the USCF so that he could instantly be made a delegate just so that he
could vote against Polgar and Truong. Instead, he defected and voted
for Truong because, he said, he was Asian and Truong is Asian too, so
he had to show solidarity. This incident gave rise to a “bribery”
claim that has been appearing on Susan Polgar's websites. Here is a
video showing Bill Hall reading especially obscene postings by the
“Fake Sam Sloan” in which the Fake Sam attacked former US Woman's
Champion Jennifer Shahade. If you play this video, be prepared to be
deeply offended. It is posted on Google videos, but is not searchable
in the index:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...37752772&hl=en

38. There have been thus far four lawsuits filed over these “Fake Sam
Sloan” issues. More are expected. The second, filed in Philadelphia,
was Parker vs. Sloan et al, which was dismissed only a few days after
this one was. The third is United States of America Chess Federation
vs. John Does 1-10 filed in San Francisco Superior Court. The 4th is
Susan Polgar vs. United States Chess Federation et al, 08-cv-00169,
pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas Lubbock Division. As you will observe, I am a party to all of
these cases except for the third one, but I only filed the first one.
All of these cases, except for the third one, have approximately the
same list of defendants but different plaintiffs.

39. I filed my answer and counterclaim in the Lubbock, Texas case last
week. The remaining defendants have been given until Friday, September
26, 2008 to answer. I am attaching my answer and counterclaim here as
an exhibit. This court's decision puts me in a quandary. Since this
court dismissed my complaint “with prejudice” am I foreclosed from
raising these same issues as a defense in the Lubbock Texas case? I am
afraid that I know what the answer is and this again is another reason
why this motion for reconsideration should be granted and this courts
decision should be reversed.

WHEREFORE, this motion for reconsideration should be granted and the
decision and judgment of this court should be vacated and set aside.


_______________________
Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453

1-917-507-7226
1-917-659-3397


STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss:
COUNTY OF BRONX )

VERIFICATION

1, the undersigned, the petitioner named in the foregoing petition,
being duly sworn, says:
I have read the foregoing petition subscribed by me and know the
contents thereof and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as
to those matters herein stated to be alleged upon information and
belief and as to those matters I believe it to be true.


__________________________________
Signature of Plaintiff

On the 23rd Day of September, 2007 before me personally came Samuel
H. Sloan to me known to be the person described herein and who
executed the foregoing instrument. Such person duly swore to such
instrument before me and duly acknowledged that he executed the same.


_____________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC



  #6   Report Post  
Old September 24th 08, 01:34 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 15
Default Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY

Nomen,

I typed this address into Google maps then requested a satellite image. I
see an empty piece of land at the corner of Penny Lane.. This satellite
image might be old, Google might not be correctly locating the address but
this quick check does back up Sloan's claim.
Why do you believe that Sloan is wrong?

Good luck,
Dave M.


  #7   Report Post  
Old September 24th 08, 02:31 PM posted to alt.chess,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,224
Default Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY

wrote:
On 24-Sep-2008, RayGordon wrote:

We really need some kind of tort reform to keep pro se imbeciles like
Sloan from wasting the taxpayers' money.

I'ev prepared pleadings for attorneys through my work for years, and
none of them ever had problems, even when the attorney just reviewed
my work and signed off on it.


Nobody ever said that there were not complete idiots amongst the ranks of
attorneys. Bi Polar disorder is degenerative, presumably you were in better
mental health in those days, years ago.
The problem is the way courts treat pro ses, dismissing cases on
technical grounds, without prejudice, often with defendants who are
just trying to avoid filing an answer or trial on the merits.
Instead, they get refilings, and then new causes of action when the
"winning" side thinks it has a license to keep acting out. Then they
go to court again, the process is repeated, etc.

Jurisdictional rules are there to keep idiot pro ses from dragging people
into court thousands of miles from home.


Actually, jurisdiction has nothing to do with pro se parties. It has to
do with things like federalism, types of claims, monetary limits to
certain courts as a reflection of public policy......


If you don't have sense enough to
follow the rules, why should the courts grant you a special license to
ignore them? If you don't know what you are doing, hire a lawyer to assist
you.....

Why did Sloan wait 23 days to file the motion when the normal limit is
10 days anyway?

The real problem in the courts are when big corporations sue each
other, the lawyers drag it out, and the shareholders and customers
foot the bill.

Welcome to the American Court System.

In my lawsuit against Yahoo, the judge took the liberty to hold
extensive oral arguments on the main issues, noted that she could have
just copied the google ruling, but didn't, and because she gave the
issues a fair hearing, there is likely to be some type of law set down
that people can easily follow. More important, she also let Yahoo and
Microsoft know that my being a pro se, or even having lost a somewhat
simialr case before a judge who never really litigated it, wasn't
going to make it a slam dunk for them.

Tell me, what do you think would hve happened had the motion to
dismiss been denied? Think the other side would have been so eager to
continue into discovery?


We will never know, you have never survived the MTD stage. That's because
you don't know what you are doing, and won't accept help.
Anyone who moves to dismiss a case on technical grounds should not
complain about their legal expenses being run up, because THEY are the
ones doing it, by delaying a trial they hope does not become
inevitable, and by hoping for a technicality to go their way, rather
than something that would dismiss it with prejudice.


Yeah, everyone should bow down to you and litigate all your bizarre lawsuits
in the ED of Pa for your convienence huh? Idiot Savant...hmmm

  #8   Report Post  
Old September 25th 08, 04:33 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 53
Default Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 00:21:13 -0700 (PDT), RayGordon
wrote:

Anyone who moves to dismiss a case on technical grounds should not
complain about their legal expenses being run up, because THEY are the
ones doing it, by delaying a trial they hope does not become
inevitable, and by hoping for a technicality to go their way, rather
than something that would dismiss it with prejudice.



You're a child obsessed liar, Gordon Roy Parker. If you wanted to get
me or anyone else into a courtroom, all you have to do is file in the
district that has jurisdiction over the person you're filing against.
But then again, you've never intended to show up in any courtroom, in
any case, even your Yahoo or M$ or any other case. Who doesn't know
you're terrified of the media exposing you on a front page or
television, not to mention Youtube, myspace, etc., etc., etc. I have
my own theory that you fear that happening because of the women and
small children who would identify you for one reason or another, but
whatever the reason is, you're too scared ****less to appear in any
court and you know it.

So you're still shovelling bull**** as usual, you child stalking
dumbass. Jurisdiction is no small technicality. Its YOU, pedo****,
that chooses where you file and you're a coward and a litigation
junkie. You never want your **** against private citizen defendants to
ever get into any courtroom. You'd have to put yourself at the mercy
of the court in MY jurisdiction and with your history of harassing the
single mothers of small children and threatening the lives of young
kids, your ass would be grass. But drag your festered a-hole down
here, porker. Go for it. What's stopping you but fear?

Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
Newsloon.com

Legal exhibit submitted by Gordon Roy Parker into the public record in PAED case #03-cv-6396
http://www.HeavyData.net/exhibit-c-p...PA--rayFAQ.zip
Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.

Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker:
The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics
groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.

  #9   Report Post  
Old September 25th 08, 04:40 AM posted to alt.chess,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 53
Default Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:31:16 GMT, Brian Lafferty
wrote:

Actually, jurisdiction has nothing to do with pro se parties. It has to
do with things like federalism, types of claims, monetary limits to
certain courts as a reflection of public policy......


Hhmm, ah yes, a lawyer's answer, but states are territorial when it
comes to who it is that removes property/money from its citizens (i.e.
divorce, etc.), reducing the state's wealth.

Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
Newsloon.com

Legal exhibit submitted by Gordon Roy Parker into the public record in PAED case #03-cv-6396
http://www.HeavyData.net/exhibit-c-p...PA--rayFAQ.zip
Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.

Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker:
The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics
groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.

  #10   Report Post  
Old September 25th 08, 06:27 AM posted to alt.chess,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.computer,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.politics
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 235
Default Motion for Reconsideration in Sloan vs. Truong, SDNY

The previous poster ("Teddybear") has a long history of cyberstalking
me, following me around from group to group, and giving bogus legal
advcie to my adversaries, that often nicludes things which might get
them sued. Like any internet cockroach, he finds bravery only in
anonymity.

He warps the record, noting those parts of it which suit him, and
endorses rulings with which he agrees, while pretending that other
rulings either were never made, or did not say what they said. For
example, it quotes a pleading of mine where I took the other party to
task for saying something, and quotes it as if the COURT said it,
which it never did. He lies like that because he believes the public
is too stupid to know the difference.

In my case, the judge dismissed "with leave to amend," which is not a
true dismissal at all, and the rule under which it was dismissed
allows for refiling anyway. Rule 8(a) is vague, as is Rule 12(b)(6),
and these rules are rarely invoked against attorneys the way they are
routinely used to dispose of pro-se litigants. To "follow the rules"
is easy when those rules are not vague or inconsitently enforced.
Rule 8(a) has no page limits; indeed, the defendants who moved under
that rule went over the page limits for motions when doing so.

"Teddybear" almost never posts on topic to either of these groups, a
clear disrespect for USENET protocol, yet wants that ignored as well.
The only thing that will change him is either enforcement of the new
cyberstalking laws, or having to defend his actionable statements in a
court of law. Whenever that happens, the cockroaches disappear, never
to be hear from on these groups again. As it is, if he were the
person he's trying to pretend to be, he wouldn't be hiding behind
pseudonyms.

The imposter was just as overconfident when it was running rampant
here, as were many others online, like the men in the Autoadmit case,
who changed their tune fast when they were identified, and they were
supposedly 'anonymous" too (there are tricks to uncovering their
identity which are perfectly legal and which were used in that case).

My point about sloan is that his case hasn't been dismissed with
prejudice, he riled a counterclaim in Texas, and could refile in state
court in NY or Illinois if he wanted to, though "wrong forum estoppel"
likely won't protect him in NY that much longer.

Before anyone goes blaming pro ses for tying up the courts, they
should review the pleadings from lawsuits involving wealthy
individuals or big corporations. Long comlaints are commonplace, and
are given far more leeway than those submitted by pro-ses. Most every
attorney freely admits that the system is biased, yet those with an
axe to grind (often who are paid to flame a target) ignore that,
because doing so is profitable for them.

What is amusing is that when these folks focus so much on
technicalities, it shows that they are quite aware that they'd ****
bricks if an attorney suddenly showed up, or if lawenforcement started
investigating. If they continue to act out in an actionable manner,
the odds of this occurring become greater over time.

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
Introduction to The Model Architect by Sam Sloan samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 3 May 18th 07 01:41 AM
Paul Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 13 August 3rd 06 04:50 AM
Paul Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan Sam Sloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 3 August 1st 06 07:59 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:44 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