Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 29th 09, 09:35 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Whitney Tries for a Second Bite At the Disqualification Apple

NOTICE OF EX PARTE MOTION AND MOTION BY SUSAN POLGAR TO STAY DECISION ON HER
MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PENDING TRANSFER TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
OR DECISION ON MOTION TO COMPEL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 29, 2009, or as soon thereafter as
the matter can be heard in Courtroom 15 of this Court, located at 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Defendant Susan
Polgar will move this Court for an order staying any decision on Ms.
Polgar's motion to disqualify pending the Court's transfer of this
litigation to the Northern District of Texas or, in the alternative,
stay it pending consideration Ms. Polgar's motion to compel.

This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, Motion and Memorandum
of Points and Authorities, the Declaration of G. Whitney Leigh in
support of this motion filed herewith, the pleadings and papers on file
in this action, and upon such other and further matters as the Court may
consider at the hearing of this motion.

Dated: September 29, 2009

Respectfully submitted, GONZALEZ & LEIGH, LLP

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

During yesterday's hearing on Ms. Polgar's motion to disqualify
plaintiffs' counsel, the Court issued a sua sponte order transferring
the instant litigation to Texas. The Court confirmed that ruling in
today's minute order. Docket No. 242. Ms. Polgar respectfully requests
that in light, of the sua sponte transfer, the Court decline to rule on
any of Ms. Polgar's or plaintiffs' motions pending before the Court,
including the pending motion to disqualify Mr. Kronenberger. Ms. Polgar
makes this request for the following reasons.

First, as Ms. Polgar detailed in her papers in support of her motion to
disqualify, plaintiffs have repeatedly refused to produce numerous
emails and documents which are directly relevant to Ms. Polgar's motion
disqualify, as well as her other pending motions. In her Opposition to
Plaintiffs' Motion to File Sur-Reply, Ms. Polgar specifically requested
that if the Court were inclined to consider plaintiffs' self-serving,
conclusory statements about their purported "ratification" during the
August 2009 Delegates' meeting, that the Court: (i) allow M • Polgar
additional time to conduct discovery into plaintiffs' purported
ratification of the actions of the Executive Board and the revocation of
the memberships of Paul Truong and Susan Polgar (i.e., permit Ms. Polgar
time to obtain the relevant recordings, transcripts, and documents), and
address that additional discovery before the Court rules on Ms. Polgar's
motion to disqualify; (ii) withhold a ruling on Ms. Polgar's motion to
disqualify until the Court hears Ms. Polgar's
Motion to Compel—a motion that if granted would likely provide Ms.
Polgar an opportunity to present important additional evidence to the
Court; or (iii) find an adverse inference against plaintiffs for their
blatant refusal to provide the actual underlying evidence to Ms. Polgar
that they purport to "summarize" in their Sur-Reply. See Docket No. 216
at 17-18 & 25.

Since Ms. Polgar filed her opposition to the plaintiffs' sur-reply, she
is informed and believes that at least three meetings took place at the
August 2009 meeting for which plaintiffs' have provided no record. See
Leigh Decl. Ex. A-D. If the Court has decided that this case should be
transferred to Texas, then Ms. Polgar respectfully submits that these
issues should be addressed by the Texas court, and that any ruling on
Ms. Polgar's motion to disqualify should be considered by that Court
after these issues have been decided.

Second, as a more general matter, Ms. Polgar has extensively briefed the
factual basis and the extensive authorities that support Mr.
Kronenberger's disqualification in this litigation. See, e.g., Opp. To
Mot. To File Sur-Reply (Doc. No. 216). Ms. Polgar has cited, for
example, numerous authorities which address conflicts of interest
between an organization such as the USCF and the individual plaintiffs /
counter-defendants in this action; numerous authorities addressing
whether consent can be given to such conflicts and how such consent is
measured; and numerous authorities addressing actual attempts at consent
by organizations. See id. at 19¬24. The Court in Texas has a very strong
and valid basis to look at these authorities and itself decide Ms.
Polgar's motion, given that Mr. Kronenberger will be litigating before
it. If the Court has decided to transfer this case to Texas, then Ms.
Polgar respectfully submits that the numerous reasons, cases and
authorities Ms. Polgar has cited in her papers should be considered by
the Court in Texas.'

All Ms. Polgar desires is that a Court closely examine the actual facts
and the actual law that underlie plaintiffs' claims and accusations
against her (as well as her counsel!). This is a case in which, as the
Court noted, there is a dispute as to the veracity of the statements of
the parties and their counsel both in their papers and before the Court.
A detailed, extensive analysis of every one of plaintiffs' claims –
especially the sham self-ratification alleged in the plaintiffs'
sur-reply—is what is required. 2 Ms. Polgar has been requesting such an
analysis for months. Such an analysis is required under the law and has
been made all the more necessary by plaintiffs' broad claims of
"complete ratification" (see plaintiffs' request to file sur-reply), not
to mention their repeated accusations against Ms. Polgar (see
plaintiffs' opposition to motion to compel) which turn out—upon an
actual look at the evidence—to have no factual basis (see Ms. Polgar's
Proposed Reply To Opposition To Motion To Compel). If this Court has in
fact decided that this detailed analysis should take place in Texas,
then that is where it will be. But Ms. Polgar begs the Court to not do
anything to prevent that detailed, hard analysis by that court.

Finally, if this Court does rule on the motion to disqualify before
transferring this case to Texas, Ms. Polgar respectfully requests that
this Court stay this ruling pending a decision on Ms. Polgar's motion to
compel, which this Court also took off-calendar prior to the hearing
today. These include allegedly "privileged" documents listed in
plaintiffs' "privilege log," as well as numerous documents including at
least three additional recordings of the Delegates' August 2009 meeting
which are also obviously relevant to Ms. Polgar's motion to disqualify
which plaintiffs have acknowledged exist but which they have refused to
produce. See, inter alia, Leigh Decl. Exs. C-D; Opp. to Mot. To File
Sur-Reply (Doe. No. 216); Proposed Sur-Reply In Support of Mot. to
Compel (Doc. No. 231). Ms. Polgar has repeatedly noted that if the Court
actually believes that a review of these documents to be necessary (Ms.
Polgar does not believe they are, given the extensive authorities that
run against plaintiffs), that Ms. Polgar be allowed to see them before
the Court denies her motion to disqualify. Ms. Polgar respectfully
requests that if this Court has deemed that transfer is appropriate and
that the court in Texas must hear the other pending motions, that the
Court in Texas also consider Ms. Polgar's Motion to Disqualify.

Dated: September 29, 2009
Respectfully submitted,
GONZALEZ & LEIGH, LLP
  #2   Report Post  
Old September 30th 09, 08:16 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 Whitney Tries for a Second Bite At the Disqualification Apple

I think that Whitney Leigh could get in trouble for this,.

Judge Patel told him in a court hearing on Monday September 28 not to
file any more papers in this case.

Then Whitney Leigh turned around and, on the very next day, filed more
papers repeating the same arguments that had been rejected by the
judge.

It will not surprise me if Whitney Leigh is sanctioned for doing this.
Federal judges usually do not like being trifled with.

Sam Sloan
  #3   Report Post  
Old September 30th 09, 08:23 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Whitney Tries for a Second Bite At the Disqualification Apple

On Sep 30, 3:16*pm, samsloan wrote:
I think that Whitney Leigh could get in trouble for this,.

Judge Patel told him in a court hearing on Monday September 28 not to
file any more papers in this case.

Then Whitney Leigh turned around and, on the very next day, filed more
papers repeating the same arguments that had been rejected by the
judge.

It will not surprise me if Whitney Leigh is sanctioned for doing this.
Federal judges usually do not like being trifled with.

Sam Sloan


Why would anyone give two ****s for what you think?
  #4   Report Post  
Old September 30th 09, 08:33 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 Whitney Tries for a Second Bite At the Disqualification Apple

On Sep 30, 3:23*pm, None wrote:
On Sep 30, 3:16*pm, samsloan wrote:

I think that Whitney Leigh could get in trouble for this,.


Judge Patel told him in a court hearing on Monday September 28 not to
file any more papers in this case.


Then Whitney Leigh turned around and, on the very next day, filed more
papers repeating the same arguments that had been rejected by the
judge.


It will not surprise me if Whitney Leigh is sanctioned for doing this.
Federal judges usually do not like being trifled with.


Sam Sloan


Why would anyone give two ****s for what you think?


Are you, or are you not, Brian Lafferty?
  #5   Report Post  
Old September 30th 09, 09:17 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Whitney Tries for a Second Bite At the Disqualification Apple

samsloan wrote:
On Sep 30, 3:23 pm, None wrote:
On Sep 30, 3:16 pm, samsloan wrote:

I think that Whitney Leigh could get in trouble for this,.
Judge Patel told him in a court hearing on Monday September 28 not to
file any more papers in this case.
Then Whitney Leigh turned around and, on the very next day, filed more
papers repeating the same arguments that had been rejected by the
judge.
It will not surprise me if Whitney Leigh is sanctioned for doing this.
Federal judges usually do not like being trifled with.
Sam Sloan

Why would anyone give two ****s for what you think?


Are you, or are you not, Brian Lafferty?


Joe isn't me. Give me a call when you have a few minutes.


  #6   Report Post  
Old September 30th 09, 09:53 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Oct 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Whitney Tries for a Second Bite At the Disqualification Apple

On Sep 30, 4:17*pm, MrVidmar wrote:


Are you, or are you not, Brian Lafferty?--SS

Joe isn't me. *Give me a call when you have a few minutes.--MV

Don't listen to him Sam...I am BL..you're the first one to guess this.
BTW don't call collect.

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
Whitney Leigh Declaration MrVidmar rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 2 September 7th 09 07:35 PM
Mt. Leigh Says, "Oops." MrVidmar alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 1 August 6th 09 12:04 PM
Buy Brand New Phones Apple iphone Tv Games Laptops Ipod And Go With Free Ipod 80gb‏ sellcomms alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 June 12th 08 08:01 AM
For Sale Brand New HTC Touch Cruise For $220 alobo200 rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 May 6th 08 12:47 PM
Brand new HTC Cruise & 8GB Nokia N95 & Pioneer CDJ MK3 For sale online22 rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 0 March 1st 08 06:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:31 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