Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 15th 07, 11:04 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Lawyer or Law Student at Texas Tech asks relevant questions

The following highly relevant questions by a lawyer or law student at
Texas Tech have appeared on the Blog of the Daily Toreador at
http://www.dailytoreador.com under the article about this case.

Here is what he says:

Law Qs
posted 10/15/07 @ 1:27 PM CST
I, for one, have looked at the log. However, in law, you must go
slowly from A to B to C, etc to convince a judge and jury, otherwise
your pleadings are "conclusionary" and defenses easily found to shoot
you down.


1. You need to first prove to the Court that the IP address with
Truong's name used in the USCF forums is, in fact, legally his. You
must do some legwork and go beyond Brian's report. Serve the ISP
linked with Truong's name in the USCF with a subpoena or court order.
Give them specific times and dates from the USCF forum and from the
FSS in the Usenet groups. Have THEM, not Brian, tell you, "Yes, they
go to the same customer at such-and-such-street-address." **THE COURT
NEEDS THIS AS STEP ONE! YOU MUST ESTABLISH THIS LEGALLY, BEYOND THE
USCF VOLUNTEER***

2. Of key importance is the use of the TT computer, even if used only
one time. In discovery, you can subpoena not only the physical
location of that computer--is it in Truong's office, the library, or
where?--and also Truong's work record. Was the computer in his office
and was he on record at school at that date-time? **YOU NEED TO MAKE
LEGAL CORRELATIONS FOR THE COURT...THE COURT WILL NOT DO IT FOR YOU***

3. Be proactive, not reactive. The defense has stated that malware was
used to turn Paul's computer(s) into proxy servers. IF both Paul and
FSS posted from TT, then prepare for this in your discovery. Depose TT
tech staff and ask them if it is possible that such malware is on
their server and what measures they take to insure it is off. After
the specific computer is identified, ask for an inspection of it and
the server to double quarantee the absence of malware, rootkits, key-
loggers, etc. **THE COURT LOVES THIS TYPE OF GROUND BEING LAID** How
many IPs were used? How many computers?

IT IS UP TO NOONE AT TEXAS TECH TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU. YOU MUST
GET ON THE STICK AND PUT TOGETHER A DISCOVERY PLAN **BEFORE** YOU FILE
SUIT!

4. You must correlate date-times from both user IDS to absolutely show
the impossibility of it being two separate persons. I asked what time
Truong posted in Mexico City and what time the FSS posted. Are the
posts 5 minutes apart, 5 hours, or 5 days? Do you care? You should.
The court and the defense certainly will.

5. You must subpoena all USCF logs, especially those NOT accessible to
Brian. The defense may well assert Brian, "disgrunted", altered the
one set of logs--phpbbs forum log--but if you have ALL of them and
they ALL match, then that is impossible. However, the COURT IS NOT
GOING TO DO THIS FOR YOU.

Your allegations against Truong "look" good on the surface, but you
are a long, long way from proving your case. Let's see you do some
homework and stop with this conclusionary crap that a first year law
student could shoot down while snoring.

6. I'm still waiting to hear what caselaw you have to support, in a
Memorandum of Law, your Cause(s) of Action against Texas Tech. As I
said before, last I researched, ISPs cannot be treated any longer as
publishers and are immune. Have you something new? If so, I'd like to
know what it is.

Are you possibly thinking of going after TT in a Respondeant Superior
action; to wit, that Truong was acting as an employee of the
University when he allegedly wrote these false posts?

7. There were rumors of a criminal action. Can you give us the US Code
for that and an update on what's happening?

==============================

Law Qs
posted 10/15/07 @ 1:56 PM CST
Several other things should be of interest to you in the way of
defenses to shoot down:

A. IT WAS SATIRE. You need to have a copy of Truong's recent message
stating that "somehow, someone broke into his computer...he doesn't
know the technical how-tos, but he does know it's easy enough for a
child to do it."

-- This was his opportunity to admit that it was him posting as FSS
and it was obviously satircal. He didn't do that. Instead he points
his finger to a web fathom.

-- His logic in the statement is absolutely absurd and shows an
amazing amount of ignorance and arrogance. Finding a reason to read
this during a trial would not be a bad thing to do at all.

B. NO ONE WAS INJURED SINCE EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS FSS. You must show
that people believed the FSS was you and, BUT FOR THESE POSTINGS, they
would have voted for you. Do you have people that will go on record
and say this?

  #2   Report Post  
Old October 15th 07, 11:19 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,576
Default Lawyer or Law Student at Texas Tech asks relevant questions

On Oct 15, 5:04 pm, samsloan wrote:
The following highly relevant questions by a lawyer or law student at
Texas Tech have appeared on the Blog of the Daily Toreador athttp://www.dailytoreador.comunder the article about this case.

Here is what he says:

Law Qs
posted 10/15/07 @ 1:27 PM CST
I, for one, have looked at the log. However, in law, you must go
slowly from A to B to C, etc to convince a judge and jury, otherwise
your pleadings are "conclusionary" and defenses easily found to shoot
you down.

1. You need to first prove to the Court that the IP address with
Truong's name used in the USCF forums is, in fact, legally his. You
must do some legwork and go beyond Brian's report. Serve the ISP
linked with Truong's name in the USCF with a subpoena or court order.
Give them specific times and dates from the USCF forum and from the
FSS in the Usenet groups. Have THEM, not Brian, tell you, "Yes, they
go to the same customer at such-and-such-street-address." **THE COURT
NEEDS THIS AS STEP ONE! YOU MUST ESTABLISH THIS LEGALLY, BEYOND THE
USCF VOLUNTEER***

2. Of key importance is the use of the TT computer, even if used only
one time. In discovery, you can subpoena not only the physical
location of that computer--is it in Truong's office, the library, or
where?--and also Truong's work record. Was the computer in his office
and was he on record at school at that date-time? **YOU NEED TO MAKE
LEGAL CORRELATIONS FOR THE COURT...THE COURT WILL NOT DO IT FOR YOU***

3. Be proactive, not reactive. The defense has stated that malware was
used to turn Paul's computer(s) into proxy servers. IF both Paul and
FSS posted from TT, then prepare for this in your discovery. Depose TT
tech staff and ask them if it is possible that such malware is on
their server and what measures they take to insure it is off. After
the specific computer is identified, ask for an inspection of it and
the server to double quarantee the absence of malware, rootkits, key-
loggers, etc. **THE COURT LOVES THIS TYPE OF GROUND BEING LAID** How
many IPs were used? How many computers?

IT IS UP TO NOONE AT TEXAS TECH TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU. YOU MUST
GET ON THE STICK AND PUT TOGETHER A DISCOVERY PLAN **BEFORE** YOU FILE
SUIT!

4. You must correlate date-times from both user IDS to absolutely show
the impossibility of it being two separate persons. I asked what time
Truong posted in Mexico City and what time the FSS posted. Are the
posts 5 minutes apart, 5 hours, or 5 days? Do you care? You should.
The court and the defense certainly will.

5. You must subpoena all USCF logs, especially those NOT accessible to
Brian. The defense may well assert Brian, "disgrunted", altered the
one set of logs--phpbbs forum log--but if you have ALL of them and
they ALL match, then that is impossible. However, the COURT IS NOT
GOING TO DO THIS FOR YOU.

Your allegations against Truong "look" good on the surface, but you
are a long, long way from proving your case. Let's see you do some
homework and stop with this conclusionary crap that a first year law
student could shoot down while snoring.

6. I'm still waiting to hear what caselaw you have to support, in a
Memorandum of Law, your Cause(s) of Action against Texas Tech. As I
said before, last I researched, ISPs cannot be treated any longer as
publishers and are immune. Have you something new? If so, I'd like to
know what it is.

Are you possibly thinking of going after TT in a Respondeant Superior
action; to wit, that Truong was acting as an employee of the
University when he allegedly wrote these false posts?

7. There were rumors of a criminal action. Can you give us the US Code
for that and an update on what's happening?

==============================

Law Qs
posted 10/15/07 @ 1:56 PM CST
Several other things should be of interest to you in the way of
defenses to shoot down:

A. IT WAS SATIRE. You need to have a copy of Truong's recent message
stating that "somehow, someone broke into his computer...he doesn't
know the technical how-tos, but he does know it's easy enough for a
child to do it."

-- This was his opportunity to admit that it was him posting as FSS
and it was obviously satircal. He didn't do that. Instead he points
his finger to a web fathom.

-- His logic in the statement is absolutely absurd and shows an
amazing amount of ignorance and arrogance. Finding a reason to read
this during a trial would not be a bad thing to do at all.

B. NO ONE WAS INJURED SINCE EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS FSS. You must show
that people believed the FSS was you and, BUT FOR THESE POSTINGS, they
would have voted for you. Do you have people that will go on record
and say this?



Sloan will never see discovery in New York. If Sloan sees discovery, I
will be utterly amazed the court
would allow him PRO SE to even try. The court will find a lawyer, or
stall for time... To allow Sloan
to depose Polgar would not be a poltical reality. The court will find
an excuse. Sounds like a law
student to me...

Marcus Roberts

  #3   Report Post  
Old October 16th 07, 12:33 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2007
Posts: 383
Default Lawyer or Law Student at Texas Tech asks relevant questions


wrote in message
ups.com...
On Oct 15, 5:04 pm, samsloan wrote:
The following highly relevant questions by a lawyer or law student at
Texas Tech have appeared on the Blog of the Daily Toreador
athttp://www.dailytoreador.comunder the article about this case.

Here is what he says:

Law Qs
posted 10/15/07 @ 1:27 PM CST
I, for one, have looked at the log. However, in law, you must go
slowly from A to B to C, etc to convince a judge and jury, otherwise
your pleadings are "conclusionary" and defenses easily found to shoot
you down.

1. You need to first prove to the Court that the IP address with
Truong's name used in the USCF forums is, in fact, legally his. You
must do some legwork and go beyond Brian's report. Serve the ISP
linked with Truong's name in the USCF with a subpoena or court order.
Give them specific times and dates from the USCF forum and from the
FSS in the Usenet groups. Have THEM, not Brian, tell you, "Yes, they
go to the same customer at such-and-such-street-address." **THE COURT
NEEDS THIS AS STEP ONE! YOU MUST ESTABLISH THIS LEGALLY, BEYOND THE
USCF VOLUNTEER***

2. Of key importance is the use of the TT computer, even if used only
one time. In discovery, you can subpoena not only the physical
location of that computer--is it in Truong's office, the library, or
where?--and also Truong's work record. Was the computer in his office
and was he on record at school at that date-time? **YOU NEED TO MAKE
LEGAL CORRELATIONS FOR THE COURT...THE COURT WILL NOT DO IT FOR YOU***

3. Be proactive, not reactive. The defense has stated that malware was
used to turn Paul's computer(s) into proxy servers. IF both Paul and
FSS posted from TT, then prepare for this in your discovery. Depose TT
tech staff and ask them if it is possible that such malware is on
their server and what measures they take to insure it is off. After
the specific computer is identified, ask for an inspection of it and
the server to double quarantee the absence of malware, rootkits, key-
loggers, etc. **THE COURT LOVES THIS TYPE OF GROUND BEING LAID** How
many IPs were used? How many computers?

IT IS UP TO NOONE AT TEXAS TECH TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU. YOU MUST
GET ON THE STICK AND PUT TOGETHER A DISCOVERY PLAN **BEFORE** YOU FILE
SUIT!

4. You must correlate date-times from both user IDS to absolutely show
the impossibility of it being two separate persons. I asked what time
Truong posted in Mexico City and what time the FSS posted. Are the
posts 5 minutes apart, 5 hours, or 5 days? Do you care? You should.
The court and the defense certainly will.

5. You must subpoena all USCF logs, especially those NOT accessible to
Brian. The defense may well assert Brian, "disgrunted", altered the
one set of logs--phpbbs forum log--but if you have ALL of them and
they ALL match, then that is impossible. However, the COURT IS NOT
GOING TO DO THIS FOR YOU.

Your allegations against Truong "look" good on the surface, but you
are a long, long way from proving your case. Let's see you do some
homework and stop with this conclusionary crap that a first year law
student could shoot down while snoring.

6. I'm still waiting to hear what caselaw you have to support, in a
Memorandum of Law, your Cause(s) of Action against Texas Tech. As I
said before, last I researched, ISPs cannot be treated any longer as
publishers and are immune. Have you something new? If so, I'd like to
know what it is.

Are you possibly thinking of going after TT in a Respondeant Superior
action; to wit, that Truong was acting as an employee of the
University when he allegedly wrote these false posts?

7. There were rumors of a criminal action. Can you give us the US Code
for that and an update on what's happening?

==============================

Law Qs
posted 10/15/07 @ 1:56 PM CST
Several other things should be of interest to you in the way of
defenses to shoot down:

A. IT WAS SATIRE. You need to have a copy of Truong's recent message
stating that "somehow, someone broke into his computer...he doesn't
know the technical how-tos, but he does know it's easy enough for a
child to do it."

-- This was his opportunity to admit that it was him posting as FSS
and it was obviously satircal. He didn't do that. Instead he points
his finger to a web fathom.

-- His logic in the statement is absolutely absurd and shows an
amazing amount of ignorance and arrogance. Finding a reason to read
this during a trial would not be a bad thing to do at all.

B. NO ONE WAS INJURED SINCE EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS FSS. You must show
that people believed the FSS was you and, BUT FOR THESE POSTINGS, they
would have voted for you. Do you have people that will go on record
and say this?



Sloan will never see discovery in New York. If Sloan sees discovery, I
will be utterly amazed the court
would allow him PRO SE to even try. The court will find a lawyer, or
stall for time... To allow Sloan
to depose Polgar would not be a poltical reality. The court will find
an excuse. Sounds like a law
student to me...

Marcus Roberts


Reads like a second year law student with enough knowledge to be dangerous
but not enough to know his ass from his elbow.


  #4   Report Post  
Old October 16th 07, 02:01 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 9,302
Default Lawyer or Law Student at Texas Tech asks relevant questions

On Oct 15, 6:33 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:

5. You must subpoena all USCF logs, especially those NOT accessible to
Brian. The defense may well assert Brian, "disgrunted",


Is this akin to grunting, and then taking the move back?



-- This was his opportunity to admit that it was him posting as FSS
and it was obviously satircal. He didn't do that. Instead he points
his finger to a web fathom.


Twenty Thousand Phantoms Under the Sea... .



B. NO ONE WAS INJURED SINCE EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS FSS.


Not true; out of all the six million readers of rgc, I alone
knew that it was really just Skip Repa all along. (Notice
how he has stopped plaguing us with his thousand-faces
-of-Repa postings?)


You must show
that people believed the FSS was you and, BUT FOR THESE POSTINGS, they
would have voted for you. Do you have people that will go on record
and say this?


That would only prove that a few people are willing
to say anything. What is needed is proof that the
election process was materially affected (like the
one where Mr. Bush was elected President).


Reads like a second year law student with enough knowledge to be dangerous
but not enough to know his ass from his elbow.


No self-respecting fourth year law student is going
to waste his time analyzing a Sam Sloan lawsuit
for free.

I now say it was possibly PT, Skip Repa, and maybe
somebody else who posted the fake Sloan messages.
If only LP would do another of his famous syntax
analyses... .


-- help bot







  #5   Report Post  
Old October 16th 07, 05:54 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 6
Default Lawyer or Law Student at Texas Tech asks relevant questions

i saw the NYT article on this suit and was surprised to hear about the
state of America's premier chess organization. In looking at their
usenet groups recently, seems like the USCF has had ongoing smear
campaigns and poor management going back for quite some time. Sorry
to hear that.

I managed to find some of the background docs for this suit in their
rec.games.chess.politics. The suit is interesting from an online law
perspective, and I suggest others with the same legal focus to take a
look at it. Here's my comments.

On Oct 15, 6:04 pm, samsloan wrote:

You
must do some legwork and go beyond Brian's report. Serve the ISP
linked with Truong's name in the USCF with a subpoena or court order...Have THEM, not Brian, tell you, "Yes, they
go to the same customer at such-and-such-street-address."


Agreed. Brian's report only says that Truong, who needed a private
code to register at the USCF private Issues forum, used certain IP
addresses over approx 18 months, as he moved residences and
travelled. It does not state where these IPs are located. They could
be in commercial, educational, foundational spaces as easily as in a
private home where many people may have accessed the computer.

In discovery, you can subpoena not only the physical
location of that computer--is it in Truong's office, the library, or
where?--and also Truong's work record. Was the computer in his office
and was he on record at school at that date-time?


Obviously. The more exclusive usage and "computer under sole control
of defendant" the better.

B. NO ONE WAS INJURED SINCE EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS FSS. You must show
that people believed the FSS was you and, BUT FOR THESE POSTINGS, they
would have voted for you. Do you have people that will go on record
and say this?


Is it a defamation action where the above is typically an element or
some other tort? Sloan, could you post just the 'graphs of the
complaint that relate to this and tell us what tort or torts you're
pleading? Thanks.



  #6   Report Post  
Old October 16th 07, 06:14 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess,misc.legal
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 6
Default Lawyer or Law Student at Texas Tech asks relevant questions

On Oct 15, 6:19 pm, wrote:
Sloan will never see discovery in New York. If Sloan sees discovery, I
will be utterly amazed the court
would allow him PRO SE to even try.


Isn't the suit filed in Federal court? What jurisdictional problem do
you envison? Pro se plaintiffs have the same rights as represented
plaintiffs. The court would encourage, not discourage, discovery in
this case.

The court will find a lawyer, or
stall for time...


Federal courts tend to move quickly but fairly. This isn't a criminal
suit, so what do you mean the court will "find a lawyer" for Sloan?

To allow Sloan
to depose Polgar would not be a poltical reality. The court will find
an excuse.


Polgar is a defendant, yes? If she refuses to be deposed, she'll get
sanctioned by the courts.


Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Texas Tech Student Paper Covers Sloan Action B. Lafferty[_2_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 15 October 9th 07 03:17 AM
Texas Tech Student Paper Covers Sloan Action samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 October 9th 07 03:17 AM
Texas Tech Student Paper Covers Sloan Action samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 2 October 9th 07 03:17 AM
Texas Tech Student Paper Covers Sloan Action [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 October 8th 07 12:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:51 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