LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 24th 08, 06:26 PM posted to,,alt.chess,,
external usenet poster
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Motion to Reconsider in Text Format in Sloan vs. Truong


Sam Sloan,

Civil Action No. 07-CV-8537 (DC)

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,





PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned hereby moves this court for an
order granting reconsideration of this courts order and judgment dated
August 29, 2008 which dismissed this complaint and upon
reconsideration reversing the order and judgment and reinstating the

Yours, etc.

Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453-7877


Copy to:

Jeremy Brown
Attorney for USCF, William Goichberg defendants
Proskauer Rose LLP
One Newark Center
Newark NJ 07102-5211

Joseph J. Ortego
Nixon Rose LLP
Attorneys for Hoainhan “Paul” Truong and Zsuzsanna “Susan” Polgar
50 Jericho Quadrangle
Jericho NY 11753-2729

Emily E. Daughtry
US Attorney's Office
86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor
New York NY 10007-2632

Patrick M. O'Brien, Esq.
Attorney for William Brock
309 Elmore Street
Park Ridge, Illinois 60068-3569

Arthur M. Handler
805 Third Avenue, 8th Floor
New York NY 10022

Scot M. Graydon
Attorney for Texas Tech University
Assistant Attorney General, General Litigation Division
Attorney General of Texas
PO Box 12548
Austin Texas 78711-2446

June Duffy
Assistant Attorney General of New York
120 Broadway
New York NY 10271


Sam Sloan,

Civil Action No. 07-CV-8537 (DC)

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,





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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

14. The mail point here is all we have seen is a deed to an empty lot
dated 1991, which is annexed here 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. He has submitted no current
tax records since 1991 or other documents of any kind. I have provided
an actual street residence address in Arcadia, California and he does
not deny living there. Goichberg has submitted nothing more than the
real estate lot number for an empty lot he owns which does not even
have an address. Also, a satellite image from Google maps shows this
to be just an empty piece of land at the corner of Penny Lane, clearly
not a residence address unless Goichberg is living in a tent. Even the
deed he submitted was not submitted to this court until September 8,
2008, after the judgment of this court had already been entered.

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 . 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 it
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 lasted 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:

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

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: 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"
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 have 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

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, age 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 this court, the judge who has been so nice to
them by dismissing my complaint. Here is what Truong and Polgar wrote
on 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.
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 Sloan 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:

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 10453-7877




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.


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
Sam Sloan censured by Executive Board Duncan Oxley (Chess Politics) 30 December 8th 06 12:22 PM

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