Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 19th 09, 06:50 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 Polgar vs. USCF, Motions to Dismiss Granted in Part, Denied in Part

Today, the Federal judge in Lubbock, Texas granted in part and denied
in part the motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants in Polgar vs.
USCF.

The full 18 page decision is available at:
http://www.anusha.com/polgar-motions-granted-denied.pdf

Although it appeared through the middle of the decision that the court
was on the verge of ruling in favor of the defendants, the court did
not go that far. However, the court ordered Polgar to replead her case
by March 16, 2009 against defendants Bogner, Lafferty, Mottershead,
and Chess Magnet School. It seems that these defendants have a good
chance to get those complaints dismissed the next time around.

In addition, the court dismissed several counts of Polgar's complaint,
including her counts alleging "intentional infliction of emotional
distress", "negligence", and "gross negligence".

Sam Sloan
  #2   Report Post  
Old February 20th 09, 05:18 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 Polgar vs. USCF, Motions to Dismiss Granted in Part, Denied inPart

I just noticed that the decision by Judge Cummings states that
the decision in Sloan vs. Truong is published in the Federal
Supplement, which is big time. The last time I made the Federal
Supplement was thirty years ago. (They used to write me up often).

Sloan vs. Truong, 573 F. Supp. 2d 823 (S.D.N.Y. August 28, 2008)


On Feb 19, 1:50*pm, samsloan wrote:
Today, the Federal judge in Lubbock, Texas granted in part and denied
in part the motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants in Polgar vs.
USCF.

The full 18 page decision is available at:http://www.anusha.com/polgar-motions-granted-denied.pdf

Although it appeared through the middle of the decision that the court
was on the verge of ruling in favor of the defendants, the court did
not go that far. However, the court ordered Polgar to replead her case
by March 16, 2009 against defendants Bogner, Lafferty, Mottershead,
and Chess Magnet School. It seems that these defendants have a good
chance to get those complaints dismissed the next time around.

In addition, the court dismissed several counts of Polgar's complaint,
including her counts alleging "intentional infliction of emotional
distress", "negligence", and "gross negligence".

Sam Sloan


  #3   Report Post  
Old February 20th 09, 11:57 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 Polgar vs. USCF, Motions to Dismiss Granted in Part, Denied inPart

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Ames
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bauer
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Ames
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Bauer

Thanks for the analysis. I'm curious - do you have an opinion as to
why an attorney based in Texas would make claims that are not
recognized or are not permitted in Texas?

Randy Bauer
Do you have any idea why an attractive woman would want to enhance her
appearance?

David Ames
I guess I don't see how that is a good analogy, as making claims that
aren't recognized or permitted can hardly enhance one's appearance.
In fact, I would argue (admittedly, as a layperson) that it might
detract.

Randy Bauer
Vanity. Feeling good about oneself. Self-importance. That's how the
attorney serves his client.

David Ames
Good point. I have many times seen lawyers make arguments that they
knew would lose, just to impress their clients and to convince their
clients that they were doing a good job, for which they had been
highly paid. The client is convinced that he is going to win. Then,
when the judge rules against them, the lawyer "just cannot understand"
why the judge ruled that way.

This happens all the time, probably most of the time.

What is more disturbing is when a judge makes a decision that he
obviously must know is wrong but he realizes that the losing side will
not be able to appeal. This, I think, is also a frequent occuernce.

I would say that Judge Cummings was actually quite nice to Susan
Polgar, giving her a second chance and ordering to re-file her
pleadings. Another judge would have thrown her out completely.

Sam Sloan
  #4   Report Post  
Old February 20th 09, 12:35 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: Jan 2009
Posts: 57
Default Polgar vs. USCF, Motions to Dismiss Granted in Part, Denied in Part


"samsloan" wrote in message
...
Today, the Federal judge in Lubbock, Texas granted in part and denied
in part the motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants in Polgar vs.
USCF.

The full 18 page decision is available at:
http://www.anusha.com/polgar-motions-granted-denied.pdf



"The Court finds Sloan's Counterclaim to be unclear as to exactly what claim
or claims he
is intending to advance."

Congratulations, you seem to have stupified yet another distinguished jurist
with your abject ****ing stupidity.


  #5   Report Post  
Old February 20th 09, 05:07 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 Polgar vs. USCF, Motions to Dismiss Granted in Part, Denied inPart

On Feb 20, 12:18*am, samsloan wrote:
I just noticed that the decision by Judge Cummings states that
the decision in Sloan vs. Truong is published in the Federal
Supplement, which is big time. The last time I made the Federal
Supplement was thirty years ago. (They used to write me up often).

Sloan vs. Truong, 573 F. Supp. 2d 823 (S.D.N.Y. August 28, 2008)


On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Artichoke wrote:

Do all Federal decisions get published in the Supplement?

Will the Supplement note that the case lives again!?

Sloan vs. Truong, 573 F. Supp. 2d 823 (S.D.N.Y. August 28, 2008)


No. Only very few decisions are reported in the Federal Supplement.
However, nowadays, all decisions are reported on Lexus-Nexus.

The federal judges are usually those who get their decisions published
in the Federal Supplement. They inform West Law Publishing that they
have made an important or precedent setting decision and West Law
publishes it.

Judge Chin's decision does not seem to me to be either important or
precedent setting and therefore I am surprised that it is published by
West Law.

Sam Sloan


  #6   Report Post  
Old February 20th 09, 06:04 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: Jan 2009
Posts: 57
Default Polgar vs. USCF, Motions to Dismiss Granted in Part, Denied in Part


"samsloan" wrote in message
news:19359ebf-8021-41be-92e5-

No. Only very few decisions are reported in the Federal Supplement.

However, nowadays, all decisions are reported on Lexus-Nexus.

The federal judges are usually those who get their decisions published
in the Federal Supplement. They inform West Law Publishing that they
have made an important or precedent setting decision and West Law
publishes it.

Judge Chin's decision does not seem to me to be either important or
precedent setting and therefore I am surprised that it is published by
West Law.

========

In order: Wrong, no, incorrect, hence "federal," utterly ****ing stupid,
predictable.



  #7   Report Post  
Old February 20th 09, 06:34 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: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Polgar vs. USCF, Motions to Dismiss Granted in Part, Denied inPart

On Feb 20, 1:04*pm, "foad" wrote:
"samsloan" wrote in message

news:19359ebf-8021-41be-92e5-

No. Only very few decisions are reported in the Federal Supplement.

However, nowadays, all decisions are reported on Lexus-Nexus.

The federal judges are usually those who get their decisions published
in the Federal Supplement. They inform West Law Publishing that they
have made an important or precedent setting decision and West Law
publishes it.

Judge Chin's decision does not seem to me to be either important or
precedent setting and therefore I am surprised that it is published by
West Law.

========

In order: Wrong, no, incorrect, hence "federal," utterly ****ing stupid,
predictable.


Sam reminds me of this kid in our dorm that people used to do things
like collect dog **** and put it in his underwear drawer or the toe of
his shoes or his soap dish.
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
Text of Complaint in USCF v. Polgar, Springfield IL, Case No.2008MR000751 samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 1 December 31st 08 10:03 AM
Text of Complaint in USCF v. Polgar, Springfield IL, Case No.2008MR000751 samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 1 December 31st 08 10:03 AM
Motion for Summary Judgment in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 October 5th 08 09:15 PM
Motion for Summary Judgment in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 October 5th 08 09:15 PM
Goichberg's List samsloan rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 1 March 19th 07 09:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:58 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