Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old February 9th 10, 03:51 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: Dec 2009
Posts: 57
Default Response to Polgar's Rule 41 Motion

On Feb 8, 8:00*pm, samsloan wrote:
In text format, this pleading is confusing because it is difficult to
tell the difference between the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan and the
real postings by me.

So, here is the real pleading in PDF Format.

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-rule41a-motion.pdf

Sam Sloan


Sam, You'd really do yourself a huge favor if you'd stick to the
relevant issues. You make a good point about the expense and time
you've already spent on the litigation; so why should the plaintiffs
be allowed to dismiss the case with the option of refiling it? And
why should your claims, which you consider valid, be dismissed?

After such a good start, it's all downhill very. very rapidly.

Sanctions for a motion to dismiss? The bar to prove that a motion was
made in bad faith is extremely high, so you must offer far, far more
than pure assertion to convince the court that sanctions should be
entertained. The fact that you neither trust nor like the plaintiffs
does not start to prove anything.

Plaintiffs are continuing their behavior? Until you can do an
analysis of the IP addresses of the recent FSS posts, and tie them to
Polgar/Truong, all you have is 100% unadulterated speculation.

Bill Brock? What does Brock have to do with the lawsuit? What on
earth do Brock's recent posts in the USCF Issues forum have to do with
this lawsuit? So why mention them?

Vaughn? What does he have to do with the lawsuit?

Other USCF figures such as Goichberg? They've been dismissed from the
suit.

Honestly, this whole filing looks like the work of a riled up man who
couldn't stop spewing his complaints once he got started. And I
suspect that the court will view it as such.

Which is a shame...you've got a legitimate point or two in there. If
you'd stop hiding them amidst all the other ranting, you'd
dramatically increase your chances of success.
  #2   Report Post  
Old February 9th 10, 06:11 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: Jun 2009
Posts: 37
Default Response to Polgar's Rule 41 Motion

On Feb 9, 8:51*pm, Chris Falter wrote:
On Feb 8, 8:00*pm, samsloan wrote:

In text format, this pleading is confusing because it is difficult to
tell the difference between the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan and the
real postings by me.


So, here is the real pleading in PDF Format.


http://www.anusha.com/polgar-rule41a-motion.pdf


Sam Sloan


Sam, You'd really do yourself a huge favor if you'd stick to the
relevant issues. *You make a good point about the expense and time
you've already spent on the litigation; so why should the plaintiffs
be allowed to dismiss the case with the option of refiling it? *And
why should your claims, which you consider valid, be dismissed?

After such a good start, it's all downhill very. very rapidly.

Sanctions for a motion to dismiss? *The bar to prove that a motion was
made in bad faith is extremely high, so you must offer far, far more
than pure assertion to convince the court that sanctions should be
entertained. *The fact that you neither trust nor like the plaintiffs
does not start to prove anything.

Plaintiffs are continuing their behavior? *Until you can do an
analysis of the IP addresses of the recent FSS posts, and tie them to
Polgar/Truong, all you have is 100% unadulterated speculation.

Bill Brock? *What does Brock have to do with the lawsuit? *What on
earth do Brock's recent posts in the USCF Issues forum have to do with
this lawsuit? *So why mention them?

Vaughn? *What does he have to do with the lawsuit?

Other USCF figures such as Goichberg? *They've been dismissed from the
suit.

Honestly, this whole filing looks like the work of a riled up man who
couldn't stop spewing his complaints once he got started. *And I
suspect that the court will view it as such.

Which is a shame...you've got a legitimate point or two in there. *If
you'd stop hiding them amidst all the other ranting, you'd
dramatically increase your chances of success.


Good points, Chris. Sam made a similar mess of the FSS lawsuit where
he had a strong case and he hasn't learnt his lessons and continues to
be stupid without any focus and arguments all over the place. Even
Parker did a better job than him and remains the only hope that the
Trollgars will be punished for their alleged misdeeds as Sam has
clearly let them escape again.
  #3   Report Post  
Old February 9th 10, 06:38 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: 3,390
Default Response to Polgar's Rule 41 Motion

On Tue, 9 Feb 2010 10:11:59 -0800 (PST), Kalyan
wrote:


Good points, Chris. Sam made a similar mess of the FSS lawsuit where
he had a strong case and he hasn't learnt his lessons and continues to
be stupid without any focus and arguments all over the place. Even
Parker did a better job than him and remains the only hope that the
Trollgars will be punished for their alleged misdeeds as Sam has
clearly let them escape again.


Sam sees to have acquired a working knowledge of the mechanics of
filing stuff pro se, but lacks the discipline to restrict himself to
pertinent issues. The stream of consciousness style seems more
appropriate to a blog.
  #4   Report Post  
Old February 10th 10, 07:21 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 2009
Posts: 360
Default Response to Polgar's Rule 41 Motion


Good points, Chris. Sam made a similar mess of the FSS lawsuit where
he had a strong case and he hasn't learnt his lessons and continues to
be stupid without any focus and arguments all over the place.

[snip]
Sam sees to have acquired a working knowledge of the mechanics of
filing stuff pro se, but lacks the discipline to restrict himself to
pertinent issues. *The stream of consciousness style seems more
appropriate to a blog.


I suspect this was the #1 Reason that the Judge in Sam's N.Y. Case
[which started this whole mess] pitched the whole case and stated that
the case was "frivolous". Add to that that Sam is a "Serial-
litigant"... People like Sam, Parker, and Marcus Roberts tend to clog
up the legal system with trivial matters that could better resolved in
some format like Judge Judy's Court TV -- Hell in that format Sam
would become a genuine TV Star, given that he would be appearing in
front of Judge Judy so many times. Then again Marcus Roberts [insert
title de jour] might give Sam a run for his money as the "Serial
Litigant of the Year Award".
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
Defendants' Motion Crystal Tech DVD MrVidmar rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 June 19th 09 11:32 AM
Defendants' Motion Crystal Tech DVD MrVidmar rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 June 19th 09 11:32 AM
Defendants' Motion Crystal Tech DVD MrVidmar alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 June 19th 09 11:32 AM
The End Draws Near Mr.Vidmar[_2_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 March 25th 09 01:10 AM
The End Draws Near Mr.Vidmar[_2_] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 March 25th 09 01:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:31 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