Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old October 2nd 09, 06:48 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 Order In PA Case Against Polgar and Truong

Note the footnote as to defendants Polgar and Truong.
----------------------------------------------------

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2009, upon
consideration of the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint on Behalf of
Defendants Paul Truong and Susan Polgar (Doc. No. 51), Plaintiff's
Response thereto (Doc. No. 53) and Plaintiff's Third Motion to Conduct
Jurisdictional Discovery (Doc. No. 52) and it appearing to the Court
that Plaintiff did effectuate service upon the said defendants via
publication and regular mail within the time prescribed by this Court's
Order of June 8, 2009, it is hereby ORDERED that the Moving Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint on the basis of insufficient service
of process is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Third Motion to Conduct
Jurisdictional Discovery is GRANTED and Moving Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Amended Complaint on the basis that this Court lacks in personam
jurisdiction is STAYED for a final period of forty-five (45) days of the
entry date of this Order to permit Plaintiff to take jurisdictional
discovery' and to supplement the record in this matter with evidence
supporting his contention that this Court has personal jurisdiction over
the moving defendants.

BY THE COURT:


1 Moving Defendants are hereby DIRECTED to cooperate in the taking of
such discovery; failure to do so may result in a finding of contempt of
court with attendant appropriate sanctions.
  #2   Report Post  
Old October 2nd 09, 08:08 PM 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 Order In PA Case Against Polgar and Truong

On Oct 2, 1:48*pm, MrVidmar wrote:
Note the footnote as to defendants Polgar and Truong.
----------------------------------------------------

ORDER

AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2009, upon
consideration of the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint on Behalf of
Defendants Paul Truong and Susan Polgar (Doc. No. 51), Plaintiff's
Response thereto (Doc. No. 53) and Plaintiff's Third Motion to Conduct
Jurisdictional Discovery (Doc. No. 52) and it appearing to the Court
that Plaintiff did effectuate service upon the said defendants via
publication and regular mail within the time prescribed by this Court's
Order of June 8, 2009, it is hereby ORDERED that the Moving Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint on the basis of insufficient service
of process is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Third Motion to Conduct
Jurisdictional Discovery is GRANTED and Moving Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Amended Complaint on the basis that this Court lacks in personam
jurisdiction is STAYED for a final period of forty-five (45) days of the
entry date of this Order to permit Plaintiff to take jurisdictional
discovery' and to supplement the record in this matter with evidence
supporting his contention that this Court has personal jurisdiction over
the moving defendants.

BY THE COURT:

1 Moving Defendants are hereby DIRECTED to cooperate in the taking of
such discovery; failure to do so may result in a finding of contempt of
court with attendant appropriate sanctions.


That's checkmate. Service is valid. The best result they can get is
to move the case.

The win may come here, in New York, or in Lubbock, but it's
checkmate. They can't hide anymore.

  #3   Report Post  
Old October 3rd 09, 12:41 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 319
Default Order In PA Case Against Polgar and Truong

On Oct 2, 12:08*pm, RayGordon wrote:
On Oct 2, 1:48*pm, MrVidmar wrote:



Note the footnote as to defendants Polgar and Truong.
----------------------------------------------------


ORDER


AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2009, upon
consideration of the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint on Behalf of
Defendants Paul Truong and Susan Polgar (Doc. No. 51), Plaintiff's
Response thereto (Doc. No. 53) and Plaintiff's Third Motion to Conduct
Jurisdictional Discovery (Doc. No. 52) and it appearing to the Court
that Plaintiff did effectuate service upon the said defendants via
publication and regular mail within the time prescribed by this Court's
Order of June 8, 2009, it is hereby ORDERED that the Moving Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint on the basis of insufficient service
of process is DENIED.


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Third Motion to Conduct
Jurisdictional Discovery is GRANTED and Moving Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Amended Complaint on the basis that this Court lacks in personam
jurisdiction is STAYED for a final period of forty-five (45) days of the
entry date of this Order to permit Plaintiff to take jurisdictional
discovery' and to supplement the record in this matter with evidence
supporting his contention that this Court has personal jurisdiction over
the moving defendants.


BY THE COURT:


1 Moving Defendants are hereby DIRECTED to cooperate in the taking of
such discovery; failure to do so may result in a finding of contempt of
court with attendant appropriate sanctions.


That's checkmate. *Service is valid. *The best result they can get is
to move the case.

The win may come here, in New York, or in Lubbock, but it's
checkmate. *They can't hide anymore.


Uh huh. Except for that little formality of actually winning the case.
Considering your track record, I know which way I'd bet.
  #4   Report Post  
Old October 3rd 09, 02:43 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 Order In PA Case Against Polgar and Truong

On Oct 2, 7:41*pm, jkh001 wrote:
On Oct 2, 12:08*pm, RayGordon wrote:





On Oct 2, 1:48*pm, MrVidmar wrote:


Note the footnote as to defendants Polgar and Truong.
----------------------------------------------------


ORDER


AND NOW, this 28th day of September, 2009, upon
consideration of the Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint on Behalf of
Defendants Paul Truong and Susan Polgar (Doc. No. 51), Plaintiff's
Response thereto (Doc. No. 53) and Plaintiff's Third Motion to Conduct
Jurisdictional Discovery (Doc. No. 52) and it appearing to the Court
that Plaintiff did effectuate service upon the said defendants via
publication and regular mail within the time prescribed by this Court's
Order of June 8, 2009, it is hereby ORDERED that the Moving Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint on the basis of insufficient service
of process is DENIED.


IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Third Motion to Conduct
Jurisdictional Discovery is GRANTED and Moving Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Amended Complaint on the basis that this Court lacks in personam
jurisdiction is STAYED for a final period of forty-five (45) days of the
entry date of this Order to permit Plaintiff to take jurisdictional
discovery' and to supplement the record in this matter with evidence
supporting his contention that this Court has personal jurisdiction over
the moving defendants.


BY THE COURT:


1 Moving Defendants are hereby DIRECTED to cooperate in the taking of
such discovery; failure to do so may result in a finding of contempt of
court with attendant appropriate sanctions.


That's checkmate. *Service is valid. *The best result they can get is
to move the case.


The win may come here, in New York, or in Lubbock, but it's
checkmate. *They can't hide anymore.


Uh huh. Except for that little formality of actually winning the case.
Considering your track record, I know which way I'd bet.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -


Yet that "track record" would indicate I'd not even get THIS far.

Further, if I can win it easily, so can an attorney.

The USCF has done so much discovery here it's going to prove extremely
useful. Mottershead did the initial legwork.




  #5   Report Post  
Old October 4th 09, 06:44 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Sep 2006
Posts: 53
Default Order In PA Case Against Polgar and Truong

On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 10:27:34 -0500, "Teddybear"
wrote:


It does not matter what falls in your lap here, the fact is that you cannot
prove you were damaged. This is the rock upon which your great ship to
riches will founder. Even if you could prove damages, if this case is going
to be tried in Lubbock, you are still screwed because you don't have the
resources or the balls, to go to Lubbock to prosecute your "case". You
think you can just walk in an pick up the pieces, but it's not quite that
simple.


I agree. Having lived in Dallas, FTW, Odessa, Houston and Wichita
Falls, I can say for certain Texans would take a very dim view of a
child stalking, child obsessed, harasser of young children coming into
their state by any form of transportation.

Look, we all know its not just the travel phobia problem with the
jackass, but the first time he gets to an actual courtroom proceeding,
his face is going to broadcast to every PDA, smartphone, XBox, cell
phone, laptop, desktop, discussion forum, blog, newspaper, news
magazine, news web site, child advocacy and anti-stalking site, law
enforcement site, LEA briefing room, states attorneys general
offices, 9/11 commeration group and web site, military veterans
groups, the White House and US Congressional Office. He knows it, we
know it. That, out of everything, after all the crap is cleared away,
is what he is terrified of the most. That is why, even if his case
could survive to an actual day in court, he would find a way to
torpedo his own case just to stay out of the courtroom and away from
the cameras.

Now Gordon Roy Parker, where is the money the US Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit ordered you to pay me?

Thom E. Geiger, Domain Name Owner
Ray-Gordon.com
Ray-Gordon.net
Newsloon.com

Legal exhibit submitted by Gordon Roy Parker into the public record in PAED case #03-cv-6396
http://www.HeavyData.net/exhibit-c-p...PA--rayFAQ.zip
Don't buy anything from any business trying to use SLAPP lawsuits to
stop criticism of the company, owners, officers or products.

Guido Gump Parker blames a baseball bat death threat on his own mother, Penny "Skull Crusher" Parker:
The "baseball bat" remark was made by my mom in response to a gymnastics
groupie who harassed half of the national team, with help from several chat
hosts and gymnastics coaches and hackers.

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
Motion for Summary Judgment in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 0 October 5th 08 09:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:11 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