Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old December 27th 08, 04:57 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,re.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default Lafferty Motion to Strike

EFENDANT BRIAN LAFFERTY’S MOTION TO STRIKE
PLAINTIFF’S IMPROPER EVIDENCE
AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
Case 5:08-cv-00169-C Document 70 Filed 12/24/2008 Page 1 of 13
20080491.20080491/477140.3
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Automatic Radio Mfg. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 339 U.S. 827, 831, 3
70 S.Ct. 894, 896 (1950), overruled on other grounds,
Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 89 S.Ct. 1920 (1993)
Barthelemy v. Air Lines Pilots Ass’n, 897 F.2d 999, 1018 (9th Cir. 1990) 3
Cadle Co. v. Hayes, 116 F.3d 957, 961 (1st Cir. 1997) 4
Columbia Pictures Indus. v. Professional Real Estate Inves., 944 F.2d 1525
(9th Cir. 1991), aff’d, 508 U.S. 49, 113 S.Ct. 1920 (1993) 9
Cooper-Schut v. Visteon Auto. Sys., 361 F.3d 421, 429 (7th Cir. 2004) 2, 3, 9
Credentials Plus, LLC v. Calderone, 230 F. Supp. 2d 890, 904 (N.D. Ind. 2002) 3
Dolcefino v. Randolph, 19 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.]
2000, no pet.) 4
Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv., 80 F.3d 954, 962 (4th Cir. 1996) 3
Ho v. University of Texas at Arlington, 984 S.W.2d 672, 680 (Tex. App.— 4
Amarillo 1998, pet. denied)
Hou-Tex Printers, Inc. v. Marbach, 862 S.W.2d 188, 191 (Tex. App.—Houston 4
[14th Dist.] 1993, no writ)
Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 888, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 3188 (1990) 3, 9
Maietta v. UPS, Inc., 749 F. Supp. 1344, 1369 (D.N.J. 1990) 2
Marshall v. East Carroll Parish Hosp. Serv. Dist., 134 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 1998) 9
O’Donnell v. Bullivant of Texas, Inc., 940 S.W.2d 411, 416 (Tex. App.—
Fort Worth 1997, writ denied)
Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 772 (7th Cir. 2003) 4
Pfeil v. Rogers, 757 F.2d 850 (7th Cir. 1985) 3
Quanaim v. Fransco Rest. & Catering, 17 S.W.3d 30 (Tex. App.— 8
Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied)
Reddy v. Good Samaritan Hosp. & Health Ctr., 137 F. Supp. 2d 948, 956 (S.D. Ohio 2000) 3
Requipco, Inc. v. AM-Tex Tank and Equipment, 738 S.W.2d 299 7
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.)
RRR Farms, Ltd. v. American Horse Protection, 957 S.W.2d 121 (Tex. App. – 7, 8
Houston [14th Dist.] 1997, writ denied)
Ruffin v. Shaw Indus., 149 F.3d 294, 302 (4th Cir. 1988) 2
Sellers v. M.C. Floor Crafters, Inc., 842 F.2d 639, 643 (2d Cir. 1988) 3
Veláquez-Garcia v. Horizon Lines, 473 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2007) 4
Velazquez-Garcia v. Horizon Lines, 473 F.3d 11, 18 (1st Cir. 2007) 3
Visser v. Packer Eng’g, 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991) 2
Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib. Corp., 265 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir. 1982) 9
Case 5:08-cv-00169-C Document 70 Filed 12/24/2008 Page 2 of 13
20080491.20080491/477140.3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
SUSAN POLGAR §
§
VS. §
§
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §
CHESS FEDERATION, INC., §
and §
BILL GOICHBERG, JIM BERRY, §
RANDY BAUER, and §
RANDALL HOUGH, all Individually and §
in their Representative Capacities as § C.A. NO. 5-08CV0169-C
Members of the Executive Board of the §
United States of America Chess Federation; §
BILL LAFFERTY, Individually and in his §
Representative Capacity as Executive §
Director of the United States of America §
Chess Federation; BRIAN MOTTERSHEAD; §
HAL BOGNER; CHESS MAGNET, L.L.C.; §
CONTINENTAL CHESS INCORPORATED; §
JEROME HANKEN; BRIAN LAFERTY; §
SAM SLOAN; KARL S. KRONENBERGER; §
and KRONENBERGER BURGOYNE, LLP §
DEFENDANT BRIAN LAFFERTY’S MOTION TO STRIKE
PLAINTIFF’S IMPROPER EVIDENCE
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE SAM R. CUMMINGS:
Defendant, Brian Lafferty (“Lafferty” or “Defendant”), files this Motion to Strike
Plaintiff’s Improper Evidence, and would respectfully show unto the court as follows:
SUMMARY OF THE MOTION
1. Susan Polgar (“Polgar” or “Plaintiff”) filed a Response in Opposition to
Defendant Brian Lafferty’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3),
and Subject to the Court’s Ruling on the Same, Motion to Dismiss for Plaintiff’s Failure to State
a Claim Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), or in the Alternative, Motion for a More Definite
Case 5:08-cv-00169-C Document 70 Filed 12/24/2008 Page 3 of 13
20080491.20080491/477140.3 2
Statement Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(e) and Brief in Support Thereof, and Plaintiff filed
improper evidence in responding to same. More specifically, Plaintiff filed an affidavit that had
improper conclusory statements and unsubstantiated opinions. Because some or all of the facts
alleged by Polgar in her Response are not supported by admissible evidence, Defendant’s Motion
to Dismiss should be granted.
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
2. In trying to rebut the affidavit filed by Defendant, Plaintiff tries, but fails, to
present proper evidence purporting to establish facts to allow this Court to exercise jurisdiction
over Defendant. Generally speaking, a proper affidavit must (1) show that the affiant is
competent to testify, (2) be based on the affiant’s personal knowledge, and (3) state admissible
facts. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(1). A court must not consider parts of an affidavit that do not meet
the standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) when considering a motion for summary judgment.
Cooper-Schut v. Visteon Auto. Sys., 361 F.3d 421, 429 (7th Cir. 2004). Likewise, a court should
not consider similar improper evidence in reviewing affidavits attacking motions to dismiss or
similar motions.
3. The affidavit must affirmatively show that the affiant is competent to testify on
the matters in the affidavit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(1). Generally, an affiant is competent to testify
when her testimony is grounded in observation or other personal experience and is not based on
speculation, intuition, or rumors about matters remote from that personal experience. Visser v.
Packer Eng’g, 924 F.2d 655, 659 (7th Cir. 1991); see, e.g., Ruffin v. Shaw Indus., 149 F.3d 294,
302 (4th Cir. 1988) (without factual basis for conclusory comments, affiant would not be
competent to testify about defect in carpet); Maietta v. UPS, Inc., 749 F. Supp. 1344, 1369
(D.N.J. 1990) (layman may have been able to testify about elevated nature of his blood pressure,
Case 5:08-cv-00169-C Document 70 Filed 12/24/2008 Page 4 of 13
20080491.20080491/477140.3 3
but he was not competent to testify about medical determination of cause for its rise), aff’d, 932
F.2d 960 (3d Cir. 1991). An affiant is not competent to testify about inadmissible hearsay or
opinion. Evans v. Technologies Applications & Serv., 80 F.3d 954, 962 (4th Cir. 1996); Pfeil,
757 F.2d at 860-61. Plus, trying to generalize alleged statements without actually attaching the
exact statements in dispute compounds the hearsay problem.
4. Moreover, the facts stated in the affidavit must be based on the affiant’s personal
knowledge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(1); Cooper-Schut, 361 F.3d at 429; Evans, 80 F.3d at 962;
Sellers v. M.C. Floor Crafters, Inc., 842 F.2d 639, 643 (2d Cir. 1988); see also Velazquez-Garcia
v. Horizon Lines, 473 F.3d 11, 18 (1st Cir. 2007) (self-serving affidavit may be competent
summary judgment evidence as long as it contains relevant information based on affiant’s
personal knowledge). The affiant should state the basis for her personal knowledge. However,
an affiant’s personal knowledge may be inferred from the contents of the affidavit as a whole;
explicit assertions that the affiant has personal knowledge of each statement in the affidavit are
unnecessary. Barthelemy v. Air Lines Pilots Ass’n, 897 F.2d 999, 1018 (9th Cir. 1990);
Credentials Plus, LLC v. Calderone, 230 F. Supp. 2d 890, 904 (N.D. Ind. 2002); see Reddy v.
Good Samaritan Hosp. & Health Ctr., 137 F. Supp. 2d 948, 956 (S.D. Ohio 2000). An affidavit
made on “information and belief” does not meet the Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) requirement of
personal knowledge. Automatic Radio Mfg. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 339 U.S. 827, 831, 70
S.Ct. 894, 896 (1950), overruled on other grounds, Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653, 89 S.Ct.
1920 (1993); Reddy, 137 F. Supp. 2d at 956.
5. In Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 888, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 3188
(1990), the court explained that the object of [Fed. R. Civ. P. 56] is not to replace conclusory
allegations of the complaint or answer with conclusory allegations of an affidavit. In Veláquez,
Case 5:08-cv-00169-C Document 70 Filed 12/24/2008 Page 5 of 13
20080491.20080491/477140.3 4
the court explained that the distinction in [Fed. R. Civ. P. 56] between “specific facts” and “mere
allegations” is important. Veláquez-Garcia v. Horizon Lines, 473 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2007). The
court also stated that whether a nonmovant’s deposition testimony or affidavits might be selfserving
is not dispositive. It is true that testimony and affidavits that ‘merely reiterate allegations
made in the complaint, without providing specific factual information made on the basis of
personal knowledge’ are insufficient. Although personal knowledge may include reasonable
inferences, those inferences must be grounded in observation or other first-hand personal
experience. Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767, 772 (7th Cir. 2003). Plus, the court held that such
statements must not be flights of fancy, speculations, hunches, intuitions, or rumors about
matters remote from that experience. See also Cadle Co. v. Hayes, 116 F.3d 957, 961 (1st Cir.
1997) (statements must be based on personal knowledge, not on information and belief).1
6. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement offered in evidence to prove the truth of the
matter asserted. See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c). Federal courts must make decisions on motions based
only upon proper evidence that is placed before them. Even under Texas law, evidentiary proof
must be presented in a form that would be admissible in a conventional trial. See Hou-Tex Printers,
Inc. v. Marbach, 862 S.W.2d 188, 191 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, no writ). A trial
court may not consider hearsay evidence in ruling on a motion based on purported evidence. See
Dolcefino v. Randolph, 19 S.W.3d 806 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.). See also
Ho v. University of Texas at Arlington, 984 S.W.2d 672, 680 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 1998, pet.
denied).
7. There are numerous conclusions and unsubstantiated opinions in Plaintiff’s
purported rebuttal evidence. In responding to the Lafferty Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff attached an
1 In this case, not only did Marnell not specifically describe alleged statements Lafferty allegedly made about
Plaintiff abusing her kids (what exactly was said, to whom, when, etc.), Marnell completely fails to explain how
he has any personal knowledge to support or deny such a statement, i.e., how Plaintiff treats her kids.
Case 5:08-cv-00169-C Document 70 Filed 12/24/2008 Page 6 of 13
20080491.20080491/477140.3 5
affidavit of J. W. Marnell (“Marnell”). Although Marnell states that he has personal knowledge
of various facts, Marnell wholly fails to specifically explain how he obtained such personal
knowledge.2 For example, Marnell quotes in paragraph 5 of his affidavit, “Mr. Lafferty
continued to spread these vicious lies to try to cause Grandmaster Polgar to lose her job at Texas
Tech University.” Marnell wholly fails to explain exactly what “vicious lies” to which he is
referring. Marnell fails to explain how he has personal knowledge that alleged statements made
by Lafferty were “vicious lies.” Such a statement is nothing more than a conclusory assumption
being made by Marnell in his affidavit.
8. Also in Marnell’s affidavit, he states that he has read a number of “insulting,
demeaning, defamatory, and libelous public postings.” However, Marnell fails to attach specific
copies of these “postings.” Consequently, Marnell is trying to introduce impermissible hearsay
testimony. Marnell also makes a conclusory statement and/or an unsubstantiated opinion that
Lafferty was “harming the reputation of Grandmaster Polgar” and others. However, he fails to
provide any specific facts to support such a conclusory statement.3
9. In the second paragraph 3 (Marnell’s affidavit has two paragraphs no. 3), Marnell
states that he has read “specific, public postings by Mr. Lafferty.” However, Marnell again fails
to attach any of these “postings.” Moreover, Marnell completely fails to explain how he knows
that the information in the postings was “completely false.” Moreover, Marnell states that
Lafferty accused Grandmaster Polgar of “physically abusing her two young children, a charge
which is completely false.” Marnell fails to state what allegedly was said in these alleged
postings. Plus, Marnell fails to explain how he has personal knowledge as to whether or not
2 If anyone could simply say, “I have personal knowledge” in an affidavit, under Plaintiff’s analysis, apparently
anyone can testify about anything.
3 Marnell does nothing to demonstrate what exactly was allegedly said and/or how Marnell specifically had
knowledge that such yet undetermined statements were allegedly harming Plaintiff’s reputation (and were false,
etc.).
Case 5:08-cv-00169-C Document 70 Filed 12/24/2008 Page 7 of 13
20080491.20080491/477140.3 6
Polgar abused her two young children. Marnell does not say how long he has known Polgar. He
fails to explain whether or not he lived with Polgar to know how she interacts with her children.
Simply put, such statements are completely conclusory statements and/or unsubstantiated
opinions and should be stricken from the record.
10. It is interesting to note that Polgar fails to swear under oath that she did not
physically abuse her two young children. Consequently, how can Marnell know whether or not
Polgar apparently was abusing her children or not? At most, Marnell is apparently relying on
hearsay told by Polgar to “verify” whether the facts are true. Regardless, Marnell cannot and has
not provided proper evidence to support the conclusory statement that Lafferty made such
postings, that such postings were defamatory, etc.
11. Marnell also states, “I have witnessed Mr. Lafferty bragging online how he
contacted officials at Texas Tech University in an effort to cause Susan Polgar to lose her job at
Texas Tech University.” Again, without attaching specific examples, all such testimony is
hearsay, unsubstantiated opinions and/or conclusory statements. Plus, such statements constitute
hearsay in hearsay. Plaintiff should have gotten statements from Texas Tech officials to support
her claim that such officials were allegedly contacted by a specific Defendant. Having a third
party claim that it might have possibly occurred is not providing proper evidence.
12. Marnell also states, “I also witnessed Mr. Lafferty bragging online how he
contacted” newspaper reporters in an effort to “generate negative and false media reports about
Susan Polgar.” However, Mr. Marnell wholly fails to state exactly what “reports” were done
regarding Susan Polgar.4 Susan Polgar did not even provide any information to show that such
4 Again, Polgar should have gotten sworn statements from such reporters to allege what a specific Defendant
purportedly said. Plus, if such reports generated “negative and false media reports about Susan Polgar,” where
are copies of these reports? Moreover, why did Polgar not sue the reporters themselves if they were the ones that
allegedly did these alleged defamatory reports?
Case 5:08-cv-00169-C Document 70 Filed 12/24/2008 Page 8 of 13
20080491.20080491/477140.3 7
reports were negative and/or false media reports. Plus, Polgar consistently and routinely does
interviews with the media and should be held to a higher standard when it comes to defamation
claims. Polgar and/or Marnell wholly fail to explain how and why Polgar should not be treated
as a public figure.
13. Simply put, this Court should not allow Plaintiff to file and rely on the Affidavit
attached to the Response, as the Affidavit is filled with conclusions, hearsay, speculation,
unsubstantiated opinion, testimony from interested witnesses and the affidavit has all of the other
problems referenced throughout this motion.
14. Affidavits must contain facts that support legal arguments. As this is a diversity
case, even under Texas law, conclusions in an affidavit have no probative value, and they are not
competent summary judgment evidence. See Requipco, Inc. v. AM-Tex Tank and Equipment, 738
S.W.2d 299 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, writ ref’d n.r.e.). Unsubstantiated opinions or
unilateral and subjective determinations of fact are also incompetent summary judgment
evidence. See O’Donnell v. Bullivant of Texas, Inc., 940 S.W.2d 411, 416 (Tex. App.--Fort Worth
1997, writ denied). Conclusory statements and legal conclusions are incompetent summary
judgment evidence. See Id.
15. Moreover, the affidavits should also be stricken because the affidavits constitute
improper testimony from an interested witness. Testimony of an interested witness may be used
only if: (1) it is uncontroverted; (2) it is clear, positive, and direct; (3) it is otherwise credible
and free from contradictions and inconsistencies; and (4) it could have been readily controverted.
See RRR Farms, Ltd. v. American Horse Protection, 957 S.W.2d 121 (Tex. App. – Houston [14th
Dist.] 1997, writ denied). In RRR Farms, the court concluded that the affidavit did not meet this
standard. See Id. at 132. The RRR Farms court reasoned that the testimony was not grounded in
Case 5:08-cv-00169-C Document 70 Filed 12/24/2008 Page 9 of 13
20080491.20080491/477140.3 8
any sound evidence that could be effectively countered by opposing evidence; rather the
testimony simply concluded “the Association never acted with the intent to prohibit the Plaintiff
from entering into any contract or business relationship.” See Id. The RRR Farms court stated
that such testimony could not be readily controverted; indeed, the determination of whether the
party intended to interfere with the business relations rested upon the affiant’s credibility.
16. Here, affiant’s testimony is not specific and the affiant does not subject himself to
perjury and should not be considered as proper summary judgment evidence. Moreover, because
the affidavit is so replete with conclusions and unsubstantiated opinions, the affidavit is not clear
or direct and cannot be readily controverted. Thus, the entire affidavit should be stricken. Plus,
the affidavit should be stricken in its entirety for other reasons mentioned herein.
17. Plaintiff also appears to have attempted to have portions of her Response be
proper summary judgment evidence. Plaintiff does not present an affidavit from Plaintiff to
support such facts. However, a response, even if verified, does not provide evidence to the court
as a party must provide an affidavit. See Quanaim v. Fransco Rest. & Catering, 17 S.W.3d 30
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, pet. denied).
18. If requested at a hearing, Defendant will be prepared to go through all of the
affidavit testimony and demonstrate how statements are taken out of context and/or how the
affidavit testimony is nothing more than unsubstantiated opinions and/or conclusions.
19. Polgar is apparently unwilling to apply rules she raises with Sam Sloan to her own
court filings. Polgar already attacked a party in this lawsuit for filing improper evidence. More
specifically, Polgar filed a Response to Plaintiff Sam Sloan’s Motion for Summary Judgment and
Brief in Support of Her Response to Defendant Sam Sloan’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Consequently, Polgar should already know what constitutes proper evidence and should not be
Case 5:08-cv-00169-C Document 70 Filed 12/24/2008 Page 10 of 13
20080491.20080491/477140.3 9
filing improper evidence with this Court. Lafferty incorporates by reference Polgar’s Brief in
Support of Her Response to Defendant Sam Sloan’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Polgar
argued as follows:
5. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e)(1) requires that an affidavit in support of a
motion for summary judgment must (1) show that the affiant is competent to
testify, (2) be based on personal knowledge, and (3) state admissible facts.
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 56(e)(1). A court must not consider parts of an affidavit
that do not meet the standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) when considering a
motion for summary judgment. Cooper-Schut v. Visteon Auto. Sys., 361 F.3d
421, 429 (7th Cir. 2004).
6. The Federal Rules and case law also require that an affidavit
must affirmatively show that the affiant is competent to testify on matters in
the affidavit, and that an affiant is not competent to testify about
inadmissible hearsay or opinion. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 56(e)(1); Pfeil v. Rogers,
757 F.2d 850, 860-61. An affidavit made on “information and belief” does not
meet the Federal Rules requirement of personal knowledge. Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule
56(e)(1); and Columbia Pictures Indus. v. Professional Real Estate Inves., 944
F.2d 1525, 1529 (9th Cir. 1991), aff’d, 508 U.S. 49, 113 S.Ct. 1920 (1993).
7. The facts stated in an affidavit must be specific and must
constitute admissible evidence. Lujan v. National Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871,
888, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 3188 (1990). Bare allegations of fact, ultimate or
conclusory facts, and legal conclusions are not sufficient. Marshall v. East
Carroll Parish Hosp. Serv. Dist., 134 F.3d 319, 324 (5th Cir. 1998).
8. Documents, other than discovery products, must be properly
authenticated and otherwise admissible to be used as summary-judgment proof; in
order to authenticate such documents, an affidavit authenticating the document
should be made by a person through whom the document would be introduced at
trial and should prove the document is a true copy of the original. Zoslaw v. MCA
Distrib. Corp., 265 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir. 1982).
See Exhibit A (emphasis added). This Court should hold Polgar to the same standard she has
already argued in this matter.
20. Also in her Motion attacking Sloan’s evidence, Polgar argued, “First, Sloan is not
competent to testify. Sloan’s affidavit never affirmatively shows that he is competent to testify,
and [documents] are based in part or in whole on inadmissible hearsay or opinion. Second,
Case 5:08-cv-00169-C Document 70 Filed 12/24/2008 Page 11 of 13
20080491.20080491/477140.3 10
Sloan’s Affidavits are not based on personal knowledge.” Plaintiff also argued, “Most if not all
of Plaintiff Sloan’s affidavits are comprised of allegations and conclusions based on beliefs,
hearsay, and speculation.” Thus, Plaintiff knows what should and should not be contained in
purported affidavits to provide proper proof, but Plaintiff is trying to provide this Court with an
affidavit of Marnell that has all of these same problems that Polgar raised and complained about
in attacking Sloan’s purported evidence. Thus, for this additional reason, all of Plaintiff’s
evidence should be stricken from the Court’s record and not relied on by this Court.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant respectfully requests that this
Court strike all of Plaintiffs’ improper evidence and grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
Respectfully submitted,
By: s/ William P. Huttenbach
William P. Huttenbach
Federal I.D. No. 21742
State Bar No. 24002330
ATTORNEY-IN-CHARGE FOR
DEFENDANT BRIAN LAFFERTY
OF COUNSEL:
HIRSCH & WESTHEIMER, P.C.
Bank of America Center
700 Louisiana, 25th Floor
Houston, Texas 77002-2772
Telephone: (713) 223-5181
Telecopier: (713) 223-9319
Case 5:08-cv-00169-C Document 70 Filed 12/24/2008 Page 12 of 13
20080491.20080491/477140.3 11
LOCAL COUNSEL:
LaFONT, TUNNELL, FORMBY, LaFONT
& HAMILTON, L.L.P.
Bill LaFont
State Bar No. 11791000
Brent Hamilton
State Bar No. 00796696
PO Box 1510
Plainview, Texas, 79073-1510
Telephone: (806) 293-5361
Telecopier: (806) 293-5366
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that at true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by electronic mail by
the Clerk of the Court via the ECF system, to all parties of record on December 24, 2008.
James L. Killion
Samantha P. Estrello
Killion Law Firm
PO Box 64670
Lubbock, Texas 79424-4670
Samuel H. Sloan
1664 Davidson Avenue
Apt. 1B
Bronx, NY 10453
s/ William P. Huttenbach
William P. Huttenbach
Case 5:08-cv-00169-C Document 70 Filed 12/24/2008 Page 13 of 13

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
Reply to Polgar B. Lafferty[_6_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 2 December 27th 08 05:58 PM
Sam Sloan censured by Executive Board Duncan Oxley rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 30 December 8th 06 12:22 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:45 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