Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 6th 09, 10:31 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default Process Servers in Lubbock, Texas for Parker


Malone Process Service?
3415 37th Street, Lubbock, TX? - (877) 997-3783
?
?
Kurlander Legal Support Services?
PO Box 5681, Lubbock, TX? - (806) 777-3601
?
?
US Legal Support?
1717 Avenue K, Lubbock, TX? - (806) 747-8500
?
?
Professional Civil Process?
1112 Texas Ave, Lubbock, TX? - (806) 749-2727?
Directions?
  #2   Report Post  
Old January 6th 09, 10:47 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Process Servers in Lubbock, Texas for Parker

On Jan 6, 5:31*pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
Malone Process Service?
3415 37th Street, Lubbock, TX? - (877) 997-3783
?
?
Kurlander Legal Support Services?
PO Box 5681, Lubbock, TX? - (806) 777-3601
?
?
US Legal Support?
1717 Avenue K, Lubbock, TX? - (806) 747-8500
?
?
Professional Civil Process?
1112 Texas Ave, Lubbock, TX? - (806) 749-2727?
Directions?


Is is actually possible for an interested party such as Mr. Lafferty,
to hire a process server in Lubbock, have the defendants served, and
file the proof of service in court.

I recommend that you do this, because Mr. Parker has a long history of
filing lawsuits without bothering to serve the summons and complaint
and I doubt that he has learned his lesson.

It also seems that he does not have much money, as his business as a
"seduction guru" is not going well.

I just finished reading the lengthy decision by the Philadelphia
federal judge, who sustained Parkers complaint against Polgar and
Truong while dismissing it as to Goichberg, Channing and the USCF.

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old January 6th 09, 10:58 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default Process Servers in Lubbock, Texas for Parker

samsloan wrote:
On Jan 6, 5:31 pm, "B. Lafferty" wrote:
Malone Process Service?
3415 37th Street, Lubbock, TX? - (877) 997-3783
?
?
Kurlander Legal Support Services?
PO Box 5681, Lubbock, TX? - (806) 777-3601
?
?
US Legal Support?
1717 Avenue K, Lubbock, TX? - (806) 747-8500
?
?
Professional Civil Process?
1112 Texas Ave, Lubbock, TX? - (806) 749-2727?
Directions?


Is is actually possible for an interested party such as Mr. Lafferty,
to hire a process server in Lubbock, have the defendants served, and
file the proof of service in court.

I recommend that you do this, because Mr. Parker has a long history of
filing lawsuits without bothering to serve the summons and complaint
and I doubt that he has learned his lesson.

It also seems that he does not have much money, as his business as a
"seduction guru" is not going well.

I just finished reading the lengthy decision by the Philadelphia
federal judge, who sustained Parkers complaint against Polgar and
Truong while dismissing it as to Goichberg, Channing and the USCF.

Sam Sloan


I am certainly NOT going to do this. Mr. Parker is a big boy. If he
wants to make service, he can do it easily enough by himself. Service
must be done at the request of a party--the Plaintiff. Only a party can
authorize service of process for his or her complaint.
  #4   Report Post  
Old January 7th 09, 02:47 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 235
Default Process Servers in Lubbock, Texas for Parker

Wow, an idiot lawyer (as evidenced by his idiot advice) wants to
"help" me, despite my not having asked for help, and despite his
being an attorney who should know the difference between officious
help to a chess federation and officious help to a LITIGANT. The
former requires a political refutation; the latter, however, does not.

Mr. Lafferty lost his toll sticker on the high road the day he
announced his candidacy for the board of directors, for even with the
best intentions, the APPEARANCE of a power-grab injects self-interest
into the mix, though this does not mean he would be BAD on theboard,
but I'd rather hvae a number of other ex-players who were serious back
in the day before going on to real life.

I'm particularly suspicious of his use of vague adjectives in his
campaigning ("ethical" or "transparent" mean nothing until applied to
specific issues), but when he starts accusing me to commit litigation
suicide (which is what his advice would potentially cause) tells me
the man either does not know which lines he is crossing, or, worse,
does. Unfortunately, if I were to complain about what he is trying to
do to the Bar Association, I would be more likely to be sanctioned as
a paralegal for actually thinking that an attorney might know what he
is talking about when it comes to service of process or other
"parlegal stuff."

Lafferty is playing the "reluctant hero" for all it is worth. This is
a "stock internet marketing character" that has proven very effective
and profitable for those who use it, but with mixed results on those
the hero is supposed to defend.

I have ONE question for Brian: "Who protects us from our protectors?"

I do find the assumption that I will not or could not get an attorney
for the legal equivalent of two queens against none, especiaqlly in
this economy, amusing.

As I said before, I actively oppose Mr. Lafferty's candidacy for the
board of the United States Chess Federation. Now I must also
recommend that he attend paralegal school if he wishes to continue to
posting on topics such as this, because it is obvious his knowledge is
lacking.

  #5   Report Post  
Old January 7th 09, 02:56 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2008
Posts: 235
Default Process Servers in Lubbock, Texas for Parker

In ONE case, I didn't serve John Doe defendants because the court
would not let me amend in order to get the summonses I needed, and the
primary discovery led to Penn saying it could not identify one of its
own students.

KNow what though? Any argument requiring more than a junior high
education is too complex to be presenting on USENET.

Did it ever occur to your pea legal brain that I served these people
the way I did INTENTIONALLY? Despite what people have said here,
there is NO precedent on any meaningful level regarding this type of
service, and at the cost of service per defendant, I needed to take a
risk that most attorneys would never, and coult never for a third-
party client.

At least now the court was forced to address this issue. At worst, I
can still refile in Illinois (the parts not dismissed), so the case
will be heard sooner or later, and now with some favorable rulings
behind me.





  #6   Report Post  
Old January 7th 09, 03:24 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 14,870
Default Process Servers in Lubbock, Texas for Parker

The question is:

Are you going to serve them, now that the judge has given you a third
chance?

Answer yes or no.

Sam Sloan
  #7   Report Post  
Old January 8th 09, 11:48 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Nov 2008
Posts: 570
Default Process Servers in Lubbock, Texas for Parker

Ray, possible point of interest. I'm told that Polgar gave a simul in
Philadelphia not too long ago.

"RayGordon" wrote in message
...
In ONE case, I didn't serve John Doe defendants because the court
would not let me amend in order to get the summonses I needed, and the
primary discovery led to Penn saying it could not identify one of its
own students.

KNow what though? Any argument requiring more than a junior high
education is too complex to be presenting on USENET.

Did it ever occur to your pea legal brain that I served these people
the way I did INTENTIONALLY? Despite what people have said here,
there is NO precedent on any meaningful level regarding this type of
service, and at the cost of service per defendant, I needed to take a
risk that most attorneys would never, and coult never for a third-
party client.

At least now the court was forced to address this issue. At worst, I
can still refile in Illinois (the parts not dismissed), so the case
will be heard sooner or later, and now with some favorable rulings
behind me.




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
Bogner Response B. Lafferty[_6_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 December 27th 08 04:52 PM
Bogner Response B. Lafferty[_6_] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 December 27th 08 04:52 PM
Texas Tech University files Motion to Dismiss samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 26 December 26th 07 01:31 PM
Texas Tech University files Motion to Dismiss samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 26 December 26th 07 01:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:43 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