Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 25th 08, 09:59 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment

The Attorneys for Susan Polgar have just now belatedly filed a
response to the motion by Sam Sloan for summary judgment.

Sam Sloan filed his motion on October 6, 2008. Her response was due in
20 days. Since she is just responding today, she is nearly one month
late.

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-reaspon...y-judgment.pdf
http://www.anusha.com/polgar-brief-in-response.pdf

Her response is vacuous and I doubt that the judge will agree. She
claims that the court must decide her motion to dismiss my complaint
before she can be required to respond to my motion for summary
judgment.

However, this is just not true. A motion for summary judgment can be
filed at any time. It can even be filed simultaneously with the filing
of the initial complaint.

Thus, I think that Polgar is taking a big risk by this non-answer
answer.

On the other hand, those of us who are familiar with her case realize
that, on the merits, she has no defense, so perhaps this non-answer
answer is her only chance.

Sam Sloan

  #2   Report Post  
Old November 25th 08, 10:02 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment

Sorry for the typographical error:

The Attorneys for Susan Polgar have just now belatedly filed a
response to the motion by Sam Sloan for summary judgment.

Sam Sloan filed his motion on October 6, 2008. Her response was due in
20 days. Since she is just responding today, she is nearly one month
late.

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-respond...y-judgment.pdf
http://www.anusha.com/polgar-brief-in-response.pdf

Her response is vacuous and I doubt that the judge will agree. She
claims that the court must decide her motion to dismiss my complaint
before she can be required to respond to my motion for summary
judgment.

However, this is just not true. A motion for summary judgment can be
filed at any time. It can even be filed simultaneously with the filing
of the initial complaint.

Thus, I think that Polgar is taking a big risk by this non-answer
answer.

On the other hand, those of us who are familiar with her case realize
that, on the merits, she has no defense, so perhaps this non-answer
answer is her only chance.

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old November 26th 08, 12:47 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 67
Default Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment


"samsloan" wrote in message
...
Sorry for the typographical error:

The Attorneys for Susan Polgar have just now belatedly filed a
response to the motion by Sam Sloan for summary judgment.

Sam Sloan filed his motion on October 6, 2008. Her response was due in
20 days. Since she is just responding today, she is nearly one month
late.

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-respond...y-judgment.pdf
http://www.anusha.com/polgar-brief-in-response.pdf

Her response is vacuous and I doubt that the judge will agree. She
claims that the court must decide her motion to dismiss my complaint
before she can be required to respond to my motion for summary
judgment.

However, this is just not true. A motion for summary judgment can be
filed at any time. It can even be filed simultaneously with the filing
of the initial complaint.

Thus, I think that Polgar is taking a big risk by this non-answer
answer.

On the other hand, those of us who are familiar with her case realize
that, on the merits, she has no defense, so perhaps this non-answer
answer is her only chance.

Sam Sloan



Yes and no. Defense counsel's reliance on arguments of form -- that the
motion does not contain a summary and so on -- are likely to fail. Since
you're a pro se and so obviously ignorant of the law and all things legal,
the court might allow you to cure those defects. Ironically, your long
history of legal incompetence might in this case persuade the court that
you're too stupid to file a meaningful legal pleading. For example, you
might cite as legal precedent District Judge Denny Chin, who described one
of your motions as "simply personal, vindictive, and nonsensical attacks
that do not belong in a pleading filed in a judicial proceeding." Or you
might cite Judge Bauman, who called your legal arguments a "waste of
judicial time." It seems to me likely that pleading your own stupidity,
backed up by the words of various judges before whom you have appeared
before might persuade the court to take pity on you.

Substantively OTOH, counsel makes a good point. Counsel argues that "Most if
not all of Defendant Sloan's affidavits are comprised of allegations and
conclusions based on beliefs, hearsay, and speculation" and that the
allegations are "conclusory, irrelevant, or suspect." That certainly is true
of the motion you posted here, as it was little more than a rehashing of the
Polgar fantasies you regularly post to usenet, minus the repulsive sexual
overtones.

More worrisome from your POV might be the allegation that "Sloan is not
competent to testify." If by that counsel means that you're too stupid to
understand the meaning of the oath required of witnesses, he raises a
potentially devastating point. The other possibility is that counsel is
suggesting that you are non compos in hopes of forcing you to undergo
psychiatric evaluation. I am not in a position to know for a fact whether
you are legally insane -- and in fact my own opinion is that you are merely
a petty and pathetic chowderhead -- but who knows what a trained
psychiatric professional might conclude.

  #4   Report Post  
Old November 26th 08, 01:07 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment

On Nov 26, 7:47*am, "foad" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

...



Sorry for the typographical error:


The Attorneys for Susan Polgar have just now belatedly filed a
response to the motion by Sam Sloan for summary judgment.


Sam Sloan filed his motion on October 6, 2008. Her response was due in
20 days. Since she is just responding today, she is nearly one month
late.


http://www.anusha.com/polgar-respond...y-judgment.pdf
http://www.anusha.com/polgar-brief-in-response.pdf


Her response is vacuous and I doubt that the judge will agree. She
claims that the court must decide her motion to dismiss my complaint
before she can be required to respond to my motion for summary
judgment.


However, this is just not true. A motion for summary judgment can be
filed at any time. It can even be filed simultaneously with the filing
of the initial complaint.


Thus, I think that Polgar is taking a big risk by this non-answer
answer.


On the other hand, those of us who are familiar with her case realize
that, on the merits, she has no defense, so perhaps this non-answer
answer is her only chance.


Sam Sloan


Yes and no. Defense counsel's reliance on arguments of form -- that the
motion does not contain a summary and so on -- are likely to fail. Since
you're a pro se and so obviously ignorant of the law and all things legal,
the court might allow you to cure those defects. Ironically, your long
history of legal incompetence might in this case persuade the court that
you're too stupid to file a meaningful legal pleading. For example, you
might cite as legal precedent District Judge Denny Chin, who described one
of your motions as "simply personal, vindictive, and nonsensical attacks
that do not belong in a pleading filed in a judicial proceeding." Or you
might cite Judge Bauman, who called your legal arguments a "waste of
judicial time." It seems to me likely that pleading your own stupidity,
backed up by the words of various judges before whom you have appeared
before might persuade the court to take pity on you.

Substantively OTOH, counsel makes a good point. Counsel argues that "Most if
not all of Defendant Sloan's affidavits are comprised of allegations and
conclusions based on beliefs, hearsay, and speculation" and that the
allegations are "conclusory, irrelevant, or suspect." That certainly is true
of the motion you posted here, as it was little more than a rehashing of the
Polgar fantasies you regularly post to usenet, minus the repulsive sexual
overtones.

More worrisome from your POV might be the allegation that "Sloan is not
competent to testify." If by that counsel means that you're too stupid to
understand the meaning of the oath required of witnesses, he raises a
potentially devastating point. The other possibility is that counsel is
suggesting that you are non compos in hopes of forcing you to undergo
psychiatric evaluation. I am not in a position to know for a fact whether
you are legally insane -- and in fact my own opinion is that you are merely
a petty and pathetic chowderhead -- *but who knows what a trained
psychiatric professional might conclude.


Cases involving the Fake Sam Sloan have been pending in the federal
court for more than one year. During all that time, Susan Polgar has
never either admitted or denied that she and her husband, Paul Truong,
were The Fake Sam Sloan. All of her her and her husband's "denials"
have been non-denial denials, if read carefully.

In my motion for summary judgment, I submitted the three reports, The
Jones Report, the Mottershead Report and the Ulevitch Report, all of
which conclude that there is overwhelming evidence that Paul Truong,
husband of Susan Polgar, is the Fake Sam Sloan.

By this resoponse to the motion for summary judgment, Susan Polgar is
contending that these reports are hearsay and that Mr. Jones, Mr.
Mottershead and Mr. Ulevitch must all fly to Texas and testify under
oath that they wrote these reports.

That might be true in a contested case, but the case here is not
contested. Since Susan Polgar does not deny that he and her husband
were the Fake Sam Sloan, these is no contested issue and my motion for
summary judgment should be granted.

Please note that Susan Polgar's defense to my lawsuit before Judge
Chin was entirely on jurisdictional grounds. However, Susan Polgar has
no such defense in the Texas case because she filed the case and
therefore she cannot object on jurisdictional grounds.

Regarding Judge Bauman, you are citing Sloan vs. Richard M. Nixon, 60
FRD 228 (1973). My opponents used to cite that case, but stopped
citing it after President Nixon was impeached on the very same grounds
that I cited my lawsuit, as you may have heard.

Sam Sloan
  #5   Report Post  
Old November 26th 08, 02:03 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 67
Default Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment


"samsloan" wrote in message
...


Cases involving the Fake Sam Sloan have been pending in the federal
court for more than one year. During all that time, Susan Polgar has
never either admitted or denied that she and her husband, Paul Truong,
were The Fake Sam Sloan. All of her her and her husband's "denials"
have been non-denial denials, if read carefully.
=======
Stupid, pointless, irrelevant drivel.




In my motion for summary judgment, I submitted the three reports, The
Jones Report, the Mottershead Report and the Ulevitch Report, all of
which conclude that there is overwhelming evidence that Paul Truong,
husband of Susan Polgar, is the Fake Sam Sloan.
============
More stupid, pointless, irrelevant drivel.




By this resoponse to the motion for summary judgment, Susan Polgar is
contending that these reports are hearsay and that Mr. Jones, Mr.
Mottershead and Mr. Ulevitch must all fly to Texas and testify under
oath that they wrote these reports.
=============
No. By the response to the motion for SJ Susan Polgar is contending that you
are an incompetent buffoon. "Sloan filed a long and rambling, nonsensical
pleading . . . [that] fails to satisfy every Local Rule and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure"; the motion is "premature, unsupported factually and
legally, and vague and ambiguous"; and that even if its not a bunch of lies
and fantasies cobbled together by an utter nit****ingwit, that "Sloan has
still failed to provide . . . legal theory showing that the right to relief
against Polgar." There's nothing about anyone flying to Texas.





That might be true in a contested case, but the case here is not
contested. Since Susan Polgar does not deny that he and her husband
were the Fake Sam Sloan, these is no contested issue and my motion for
summary judgment should be granted.
========================
This is so egregiously wrong and stupid that I CBA to reply.




Please note that Susan Polgar's defense to my lawsuit before Judge
Chin was entirely on jurisdictional grounds. However, Susan Polgar has
no such defense in the Texas case because she filed the case and
therefore she cannot object on jurisdictional grounds.
=================
No. In Truong you claimed that the US government must be made a party to
your lawsuit because it was the responsibility of DOJ to appoint you to the
board of your stupid chess club. The court described your pleadings as
"rantings" and "nonsensical." That's not jurisidctional. It's rare for a
court to come out and say "I'm dismissing this case because the plaintiff is
a retard," but that seems to have been the case here.



Regarding Judge Bauman, you are citing Sloan vs. Richard M. Nixon, 60
FRD 228 (1973). My opponents used to cite that case, but stopped
citing it after President Nixon was impeached on the very same grounds
that I cited my lawsuit, as you may have heard.
===================

No. According the judge, you alleged that four justices of the US Supreme
Court "participated in a scheme to secure the Democratic nomination of
Senator George McGovern" and having this conspired they should be removed
from the bench and Nixon and Agnew removed from office. The court described
your pleading as "utterly lacking in merit" and "utterly without legal
basis" and said that over his long career, having seen "many misguided
lawsuits" that "this must be the nadir." Perhaps with your track record for
ineptitude and futility you're forced to consider being immortalized in
lawbooks as the greatest and most worst utter and complete waste of time
laughingstock in juridical history a great victory. I doubt that others see
it so, Nixon's fate notwithstanding.





  #6   Report Post  
Old November 26th 08, 03:34 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment

On Nov 26, 7:47*am, "foad" wrote:

it was little more than a rehashing of the Polgar fantasies


By "Polgar Fantasies", I assume you mean the fantasies that appear
regularly on her website, such as her claim to be "The World
Champion", her claim that "she has won the Woman's World Championship
four times", her claim to hold the "Triple Crown" in chess when there
is no such thing, and the numerous other amazing, fantastic and
completely untrue things about herself that she keeps claiming.

One thing this Olympiad proves is that she no longer has any claim to
being called the strongest woman chess player in the USA. If she were
to start playing again, she would be lucky to finish fourth. The top
three American women, Irina Krush, Anna Zatonskih, and Rusudan
Goletiani have all produced results equal to those produced by Polgar
at her peak and, due to being out of practice plus the ravages of old
age, Polgar would not have much chance against these much younger
women if she were to start playing again.

Instead, Polgar keeps writing about her accomplishments of 20 years
ago as though they took place last week.

So, not only is Susan Polgar "The Fake Sam Sloan", but she is also
"The Fake World Champion".

Sam Sloan
  #7   Report Post  
Old November 26th 08, 04:05 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 67
Default Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment


"samsloan" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 7:47 am, "foad" wrote:

it was little more than a rehashing of the Polgar fantasies


By "Polgar Fantasies", I assume you mean the fantasies that appear
regularly on her website, such as her claim to be "The World
Champion", her claim that "she has won the Woman's World Championship
four times", her claim to hold the "Triple Crown" in chess when there
is no such thing, and the numerous other amazing, fantastic and
completely untrue things about herself that she keeps claiming.

=======

No, I'm not referring to the lies you tell about her website, previously
debunked:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...03f9c263?hl=en

I'm referring to your fantasies about her whereabouts, the whereabouts of
her children, her immigration status, her publishing history, her photo ops,
and your various other obsessions.

remaining pointless irrelevant drivel hosed




  #8   Report Post  
Old November 26th 08, 04:09 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment

foad wrote:

"samsloan" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 7:47 am, "foad" wrote:

it was little more than a rehashing of the Polgar fantasies


By "Polgar Fantasies", I assume you mean the fantasies that appear
regularly on her website, such as her claim to be "The World
Champion", her claim that "she has won the Woman's World Championship
four times", her claim to hold the "Triple Crown" in chess when there
is no such thing, and the numerous other amazing, fantastic and
completely untrue things about herself that she keeps claiming.

=======

No, I'm not referring to the lies you tell about her website, previously
debunked:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...03f9c263?hl=en


I'm referring to your fantasies about her whereabouts, the whereabouts
of her children, her immigration status, her publishing history, her
photo ops, and your various other obsessions.

remaining pointless irrelevant drivel hosed


Toad, you really are amusing.
  #9   Report Post  
Old November 26th 08, 04:51 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment

On Nov 26, 11:05*am, "foad" wrote:

No, I'm not referring to the lies you tell about her website, previously
debunked:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g...03f9c263?hl=en

I'm referring to your fantasies about her whereabouts, the whereabouts of
her children, her immigration status, her publishing history, her photo ops,
and your various other obsessions.

remaining pointless irrelevant drivel hosed


That was not debunked. Her claims and your claims were so ridiculous
that I did not bother to respond.

For example, when asked about her claim to have won the "Woman's World
Championship" four times, she cited:
"1981 World Champion, girls 16"

Actually, there is no published record of that event. It is not
mentioned in any chess publication of that time. The first official
World Championship for Girls Under 16 was in Dresden, Germany in 1982
and Polgar did not play because she was banned by the Hungarian Chess
Federation from playing there, due to her bad behavior.

However, assuming for the sake of argument that there really was a
World Championship for Girls Under 16 held in England in 1981 and
assuming that Polgar really did win it, and there is no doubt that she
was capable of winning such an event if it existed, that still did not
make her the "Woman's World Champion". Winning the World Championship
for Girls Under 16 is not the same as winning the Woman's World
Championship.

Also, the rapid and blitz events she won in Budapest in 1992 were not
official world championships recognized by FIDE. These events were
organized by her father and her primary competition in those two
events were her own sisters, Sophia and Judit. The top rated women
players in the world did not participate.

Also, she claims to have a college degree from Minsk, USSR. Someone
who knows her well says that her father purchased that degree, with
money. She never attended even one day of classes.

Also, with regard to the "New York Mayor's Cup" which she organized,
one of the players in that event informs me that the players were made
to understand that, as she was providing the prize money, they were
not supposed to beat her.

When one of the players reneged on his promise and did in fact beat
her, she became extremely angry and is still angry at that player.
This anger has been manifested in a recent exchange.

Sam Sloan
  #10   Report Post  
Old November 26th 08, 05:27 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,misc.legal,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 782
Default Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment

Sam,

I believe that an outcome you would like to see would that Truong
would be forced to admit to having made the FSS postings; this would
establish that he had lied to his supporters and doom him politically.
Instead of your grandiose suits, why not try to simply target Truong
for harassment? I think that with a competent lawyer handling the
case, you would have a clear case that could come to trial quickly.
You would not need to go into any reasons of motivation on this one,
simply submit the reports as evidence you were being harassed.

Jerry Spinrad


On Nov 26, 10:51*am, samsloan wrote:
On Nov 26, 11:05*am, "foad" wrote:

No, I'm not referring to the lies you tell about her website, previously
debunked:


http://groups.google.com/group/rec.g.../msg/2504811e0...


I'm referring to your fantasies about her whereabouts, the whereabouts of
her children, her immigration status, her publishing history, her photo ops,
and your various other obsessions.


remaining pointless irrelevant drivel hosed


That was not debunked. Her claims and your claims were so ridiculous
that I did not bother to respond.

For example, when asked about her claim to have won the "Woman's World
Championship" four times, she cited:
"1981 World Champion, girls 16"

Actually, there is no published record of that event. It is not
mentioned in any chess publication of that time. The first official
World Championship for Girls Under 16 was in Dresden, Germany in 1982
and Polgar did not play because she was banned by the Hungarian Chess
Federation from playing there, due to her bad behavior.

However, assuming for the sake of argument that there really was a
World Championship for Girls Under 16 held in England in 1981 and
assuming that Polgar really did win it, and there is no doubt that she
was capable of winning such an event if it existed, that still did not
make her the "Woman's World Champion". Winning the World Championship
for Girls Under 16 is not the same as winning the Woman's World
Championship.

Also, the rapid and blitz events she won in Budapest in 1992 were not
official world championships recognized by FIDE. These events were
organized by her father and her primary competition in those two
events were her own sisters, Sophia and Judit. The top rated women
players in the world did not participate.

Also, she claims to have a college degree from Minsk, USSR. Someone
who knows her well says that her father purchased that degree, with
money. She never attended even one day of classes.

Also, with regard to the "New York Mayor's Cup" which she organized,
one of the players in that event informs me that the players were made
to understand that, as she was providing the prize money, they were
not supposed to beat her.

When one of the players reneged on his promise and did in fact beat
her, she became extremely angry and is still angry at that player.
This anger has been manifested in a recent exchange.

Sam Sloan


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 in Polgar vs. USCF - First Draft samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 3 October 6th 08 03:55 AM
Motion for Summary Judgment in Polgar vs. USCF - First Draft samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 3 October 6th 08 03:55 AM
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.misc (Chess General) 0 October 5th 08 09:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:12 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