Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 28th 08, 06:45 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

In a major development in the USCF vs Polgar case pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of California,
in San Francisco, and in the related case of Polgar vs USCF in the
Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division, Susan Polgar is moving
to quash the subpoenas first served on her last July. She is also
seeking to transfer the California case to the Texas court.

Here is her letter motion sent two days ago and the response by the
USCF's attorney filed later the same day:

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-tries-to-quash.pdf

http://www.anusha.com/karl-responds-to-quash.pdf

This motion is likely to be the decisive moment in this case. If
Polgar can succeed in quashing the subpoenas, she can postpone
testifying for years, giving herself enough time to win the coming
USCF election in July and complete her takeover of the USCF.

On the other hand, if she loses, she may have to flee the country.
Indeed, this may explain why she returned to the United States from
Germany on November 26, 2008, the same day as the date of her letter.

Personally, I think she will lose. San Francisco is uniquely suitable
as a venue, since the allegation is that she broke into Randy Hough's
Yahoo Internet account 111 times, and Yahoo is headquartered in the
San Francisco Bay Area. Also, I do not believe that Judge Patel will
agree to the indefinite postponement of her deposition that she is
seeking.

In addition, the California case was filed before the Texas case so if
anything the Texas case should be transferred to California.

By now, everybody knows that Susan Polgar is guilty as Hell.
Otherwise, why does she so adamantly refuse to testify? As the
attorneys for the USCF have pointed out, if she were not guilty and
were a victim of impersonation, she would be aggressively willing to
testify and she would be actively be seeking to find out her imposter.

When these cases first started, Jim Killion, Susan Polgar's attorney,
called me and said that he wanted to schedule a deposition. I told him
that I am willing to testify under oath any time, any where, and I
will even come to Texas to testify if he pays my airfare.

I have never heard from Mr. Killion since.

Why does not Susan Polgar give a similar answer?

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old November 28th 08, 08:33 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Eric Schiller wrote:

Nonsense. This a routine, predictable move that any lawyer would make. Nothing major here. Polgar returned from Germany because the Olympiad had ended. No deep maneuvers.



Did you read the two letters, Eric ?

I disagree. I think this motion is not routine. Note that Polgar has
not even answered the complaint yet and instead has asked for an
extension of time.

I doubt that many lawyers would make this motion in federal court and
I expect it to be denied summarily.

What do you think she will do then? Do you think she will ever
testify? I do not believe that she ever will. She might take the Fifth
or else just not show up.

Sam
  #3   Report Post  
Old November 28th 08, 10:34 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas



samsloan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Eric Schiller wrote:

Nonsense. This a routine, predictable move that any lawyer would make. Nothing major here. Polgar returned from Germany because the Olympiad had ended. No deep maneuvers.



Did you read the two letters, Eric ?

I disagree. I think this motion is not routine. Note that Polgar has
not even answered the complaint yet and instead has asked for an
extension of time.

I doubt that many lawyers would make this motion in federal court and
I expect it to be denied summarily.

What do you think she will do then? Do you think she will ever
testify? I do not believe that she ever will. She might take the Fifth
or else just not show up.

Sam



You can't "take the fifth" in a civil proceeding. The privilege
against self-incrimination applies only to criminal prosecution. In a
civil action, if you refuse to testify you lose the case. If the DOJ
files a criminal action that's another matter, but that hasn't
happened yet.
  #4   Report Post  
Old November 28th 08, 10:57 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 67
Default Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas


wrote in message
...


samsloan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Eric Schiller wrote:

Nonsense. This a routine, predictable move that any lawyer would make.
Nothing major here. Polgar returned from Germany because the Olympiad
had ended. No deep maneuvers.



Did you read the two letters, Eric ?

I disagree. I think this motion is not routine. Note that Polgar has
not even answered the complaint yet and instead has asked for an
extension of time.

I doubt that many lawyers would make this motion in federal court and
I expect it to be denied summarily.

What do you think she will do then? Do you think she will ever
testify? I do not believe that she ever will. She might take the Fifth
or else just not show up.

Sam



You can't "take the fifth" in a civil proceeding. The privilege
against self-incrimination applies only to criminal prosecution. In a
civil action, if you refuse to testify you lose the case. If the DOJ
files a criminal action that's another matter, but that hasn't
happened yet.


The Self-Incrimination Clause applies to every type of legal proceeding,
whether it is civil, criminal, or administrative in nature. Traditionally,
the privilege against self-incrimination was most frequently asserted during
the trial phase of legal proceedings, where individuals are placed under
oath and asked questions on the witness stand. However, in the twentieth
century application of the privilege was extended to the pretrial stages of
legal proceedings as well. In civil cases, for example, the right against
self-incrimination may be asserted when potentially incriminating questions
are posed in depositions and interrogatories.

http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-e...ifth-amendment

  #5   Report Post  
Old November 28th 08, 11:02 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 67
Default Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas


"samsloan" wrote in message
...

if she loses, she may have to flee the country.
Indeed, this may explain why she returned to the United States


Well yes, it'd be difficult for her to flee the country if she were already
abroad.



  #6   Report Post  
Old November 29th 08, 01:00 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

wrote:

samsloan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Eric Schiller wrote:

Nonsense. This a routine, predictable move that any lawyer would make. Nothing major here. Polgar returned from Germany because the Olympiad had ended. No deep maneuvers.


Did you read the two letters, Eric ?

I disagree. I think this motion is not routine. Note that Polgar has
not even answered the complaint yet and instead has asked for an
extension of time.

I doubt that many lawyers would make this motion in federal court and
I expect it to be denied summarily.

What do you think she will do then? Do you think she will ever
testify? I do not believe that she ever will. She might take the Fifth
or else just not show up.

Sam



You can't "take the fifth" in a civil proceeding. The privilege
against self-incrimination applies only to criminal prosecution. In a
civil action, if you refuse to testify you lose the case. If the DOJ
files a criminal action that's another matter, but that hasn't
happened yet.


Not correct. The privilege against self-incrimination can be invokded
in any proceeding. Think of the people at the McCarthy hearing who
asserted it. Of course, a grant of immunity can compel
testimony--requested or simply given.
  #7   Report Post  
Old November 29th 08, 01:37 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

Please note that by this motion, counsel for Susan Polgar seeks to
quash subpoenas served on America Online, American Express, Comcast
Cable Company and CrystalTech Web Hosting.

It is obvious that, through these subpoenas, the USCF seeks to prove
that Susan Polgar is "The Fake Sam Sloan" and also that it was Susan
Polgar who broke in to Randy'Hough's Yahoo Internet Account 111 times.

I think that the USCF will win on this. The governing case is Global
Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath, CV 06-3669 (DRH) decided in the
Eastern District of New York on November 30, 2006. That case involves
an issue
in this case, because that case turned on the right to obtain IP
addresses. The Mottershead Report which found that Paul Truong had
made the 2,464 Usenet postings under the name of Sam Sloan tracked the
IP addresses of the various computers used by Truong and matched them
with the computers used by the "Fake Sam Sloan".

However, in the instant case, counsel for the USCF seems to be saying
that it was Susan Polgar, not Paul Truong, who was the Fake Sam Sloan.

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-tries-to-quash.pdf

http://www.anusha.com/karl-responds-to-quash.pdf

This will be a remarkable development, if it proves to be true.

Those who know Susan well say that she is entirely capable of making
the short and obscene comments that are so characteristic of postings
by The Fake Sam Sloan.

The Real Sam Sloan

On Nov 28, 3:33*pm, samsloan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Eric Schiller wrote:
Nonsense. This a routine, predictable move that any lawyer would make. Nothing major here. Polgar returned from Germany because the Olympiad had ended. No deep maneuvers.


Did you read the two letters, Eric ?

I disagree. I think this motion is not routine. Note that Polgar has
not even answered the complaint yet and instead has asked for an
extension of time.

I doubt that many lawyers would make this motion in federal court and
I expect it to be denied summarily.

What do you think she will do then? Do you think she will ever
testify? I do not believe that she ever will. She might take the Fifth
or else just not show up.

Sam


  #8   Report Post  
Old November 29th 08, 02:32 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

Please note that by this motion, counsel for Susan Polgar seeks to
quash subpoenas served on America Online, American Express, Comcast
Cable Company and CrystalTech Web Hosting.

It is obvious that, through these subpoenas, the USCF seeks to prove
that Susan Polgar is "The Fake Sam Sloan" and also that it was Susan
Polgar who broke in to Randy'Hough's Yahoo Internet Account 111 times.

I think that the USCF will win on this. The governing case is Global
Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath, CV 06-3669 (DRH) decided in the
Eastern District of New York on November 30, 2006. That case involves
an issue in this case, because that case turned on the right to obtain
IP addresses. The Mottershead Report which found that Paul Truong had
made the 2,464 Usenet postings under the name of Sam Sloan tracked the
IP addresses of the various computers used by Truong and matched them
with the computers used by the "Fake Sam Sloan".

However, in the instant case, counsel for the USCF seems to be saying
that it was Susan Polgar, not Paul Truong, who was the Fake Sam Sloan.


http://www.anusha.com/polgar-tries-to-quash.pdf

http://www.anusha.com/karl-responds-to-quash.pdf

This will be a remarkable development, if it proves to be true.

Those who know Susan well say that she is entirely capable of making
the short and obscene comments that are so characteristic of postings
by The Fake Sam Sloan.

The Real Sam Sloan
  #9   Report Post  
Old November 29th 08, 06:59 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,170
Default Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas

On Nov 28, 6:45 pm, samsloan wrote:

Why does not Susan Polgar give a similar answer?


Susan Polgar stars in The Quash of Subpoenas (rated XXX Contains
prolonged and very prolonged boredom).
  #10   Report Post  
Old November 30th 08, 05:10 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,misc.legal,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,194
Default Major Development: Polgar Moves to Quash Subpoenas



foad wrote:
wrote in message
...


samsloan wrote:
On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 3:11 PM, Eric Schiller wrote:

Nonsense. This a routine, predictable move that any lawyer would make.
Nothing major here. Polgar returned from Germany because the Olympiad
had ended. No deep maneuvers.


Did you read the two letters, Eric ?

I disagree. I think this motion is not routine. Note that Polgar has
not even answered the complaint yet and instead has asked for an
extension of time.

I doubt that many lawyers would make this motion in federal court and
I expect it to be denied summarily.

What do you think she will do then? Do you think she will ever
testify? I do not believe that she ever will. She might take the Fifth
or else just not show up.

Sam



You can't "take the fifth" in a civil proceeding. The privilege
against self-incrimination applies only to criminal prosecution. In a
civil action, if you refuse to testify you lose the case. If the DOJ
files a criminal action that's another matter, but that hasn't
happened yet.


The Self-Incrimination Clause applies to every type of legal proceeding,
whether it is civil, criminal, or administrative in nature. Traditionally,
the privilege against self-incrimination was most frequently asserted during
the trial phase of legal proceedings, where individuals are placed under
oath and asked questions on the witness stand. However, in the twentieth
century application of the privilege was extended to the pretrial stages of
legal proceedings as well. In civil cases, for example, the right against
self-incrimination may be asserted when potentially incriminating questions
are posed in depositions and interrogatories.

http://www.enotes.com/everyday-law-e...ifth-amendment



Not quite.

"...(T)he testimony given in a civil action may subsequently may
subsequently be used in a criminal prosecution of the party or
witness. If the right against self-incrimination is invoked by a
party, however, the invocation may not only be commented upon by an
opponent in civil litigation, it may give rise to an adverse inference
and bar the invoking party from later introducing documents or
testimony that were shielded by the invocation."
The Right Against Self-incrimination in Civil Litigation, published
by American Bar Association, 2001

In other words, you can testify and potentially incriminate yourself,
or you can refuse to testify and lose the civil case.



Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 2 October 6th 08 02:49 PM
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 alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 October 5th 08 09:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:29 PM.

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