Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old November 16th 09, 10:05 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,re.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2009
Posts: 1,132
Default Those FSS Postings--Samplings From Truong Deposition (3)

Q.
Under oath, did you have anything to do with
any of those fake Sam Sloan postings?
A.
Q.
A.
I refuse to answer.
Are you taking a 5th Amendment privilege?
I don't know what you call it, but I refuse to
answer.
Q. Are you scared of possible criminal
repercussions?
MS. ESTRELLO: Objection, argumentative.
Objection, you are badgering the witness.
THE WITNESS: I am not a party to this
lawsuit and that has nothing to do with what I am here
to testify today.
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) I think your attorney and
I already established that the Mottershead report is
front and center in this lawsuit.
MS. ESTRELLO: Pat, I wrote you a letter
the other day about the things we are willing to talk
about today. The Mottershead report exemptions aren't
o n it. We are here to talk about Susan Polgar's claims
against your clients and Susan Polgar's damages. Beyond
that, I am instructing him not to talk.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Well, is he taking a 5th
Amendment privilege?
MS. ESTRELLO: No.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Okay. So there lS some
other legal privilege he is taking?
MS. ESTRELLO: Well, I believe your
clients are under a court order from the Judge in
California not to do deposition discovery about matters
relevant to those claims pending out there. I would say
that the internet postings and Gregory Alexander and
e-mail hacking and fake Sam Sloan and Mottershead all
fall under that umbrella and so, In an effort to
preserve the Court's order from California, I am
instructing him not to violate that court order.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Is it your stipulation
that the Mottershead report has nothing to do with
plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit?
MS. ESTRELLO: Yes.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Okay. So any alleged
defamatory comments concerning the Mottershead report
are not actionable in this lawsuiti correct?
MS. ESTRELLO: I am not going to -- I am
not your witness. I am not going to sit here and - ...
MR. HUTTENBACH: Well, no, I am not .. -
MS. ESTRELLO: -- answer these questlons.
What I am saying is, your clients have defamed Susan,
not Paul. The Mottershead report talks about Pauli
however, in other instances your clients have used the
Mottershead report to defame Susan. And so if you want
to talk about how the Mottershead report defames Susan,
we can talk about that. We are not going to talk about
the things that the Mottershead report refers to in
reference to Paul.
MR. HUTTENBACH: In her deposition, Ms.
Polgar claimed that the Mottershead report, because it
was against her husband, indirectly defamed her.
MS. ESTRELLO: Yes.
MR. HUTTENBACH: And so I am allowed to
ask about that in the Texas case because that is part of
the Texas case. Part of the documents that you
segregated during her deposition contain the Mottershead
report. You produced the Mottershead report. So if it
is not part of the Texas case, hey, I won't ask about
it. And if it is part --
MS. ESTRELLO: Then let's talk about how
the Mottershead report defamed Susan Polgar, but we are
not going to talk about the Mottershead report and how
it defames Paul Truong because Paul is not a party to
this litigation.
MR. HUTTENBACH: I didn't ask if it --
And I didn't ask him if it defamed him. All I said was
did he do it. That's all I asked. Because if he did
it, truth is an absolute defense against defamation.
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) So, did you do -- did you
have anything to do with any of the fake Sam Sloan
postings? And your answer is?
A. On the advice of my attorney, I refuse to
answer.
Q. Okay.
MR. JONES: I want some explanation why
he is not going to answer questions about the
Mottershead report.
MS. ESTRELLa:
Paul Truong is not a party
to a litigation.
MR. JONES: I don't care. He is a
witness in this lawsuit. Are you going to put him on
the stand at trial? And if so, he better answer these
questions or he is never going to see the light of day
at trial. Because the Mottershead report is the
centerpiece of this whole litigation in Texas.
THE WITNESS: I disagree.
MR. JONES: And so if you are not going
to let him testify, I think you better be prepared for
him never to testify at trial.
MS. ESTRELLa: Well, he is going to
testify at trial.
MR. JONES: Then he better be testifying
now about this or I don't believe Judge Cummings is ever
going to let him see the courtroom.
example.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Let me give you an
The only contact that any defendant had with
Texas Tech University with any defendant -- now there's
non-defendants that contact them, but there is an e-mail
from Brian Lafferty that sent the Mottershead report and
you said that defamed plaintiff. So if I can't ask
about the Mottershead report and you are saying that it
doesn't have anything to do with this lawsuit, then
Texas Tech University is out. There lS nothing to do
with Texas Tech University.
But if you are going to come to trial and
ask questions about how we hurt plaintiff's ability to
be at Texas Tech because of one e-mail that sent the
Mottershead report, I have to ask this witness these
questions. And so, hey, I won't ask if you are not
going there, but I agree with Jeff, the whole -- the
centerpiece of the whole defamation is this Mottershead
report.
So, you know, you can instruct your
witness not to answer, but you know what is coming down
the pike is we are going to Judge Cummings and we are
saying, "Look, they won't even talk about the
Mottershead report."
And so, you know, when you get your
responses to all these summary judgment motions, there
better not be anything about the Mottershead report in
there. You know where we are going so.
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) I am going to ask you a
final time and you can take your attorney's advice if
she is still making this advice, but did you have
anything to do --
A.
Q.
I refuse to answer.
Let me finish the question.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Okay.
You knew where I was going.
Yeah.
Did you have anything to do with the fake Sam
Sloan postings?
A. On the advice of my attorney I refuse to
answer.
MR. HUTTENBACH: And you are giving him
that advicej correct?
Q.
MS. ESTRELLO: Yes.
(BY MR. HUTTENBACH) Now when I say fake Sam
Sloan postings! you know what I meant; correct?
A.
Q.
Yes.
Okay.
MS. ESTRELLO: Well! clarify for the
record what you do mean.
confused --
MR. HUTTENBACH: There were hundreds
MR. JONES: Well! if the witness is
MR. HUTTENBACH: Yeah.
MR. JONES: that is okay! but if the
witness lS not confused! then that is fine! then we can
go on. And the witness has stated he knows exactly what
the fake Sam Sloan posts are.
MR. HUTTENBACH: In fact! I am gOlng to
mark as Exhibit --
THE COURT REPORTER: 113.
MR. HUTTENBACH: 113 -- and actually
can you share there, Samanatha?
(Exhibit Depo 113 marked.)
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) If you will look at
Paragraph -- Have you seen this before?
A. Yes, on-line only.
Q. Okay. You gave this interview with Phil Innes
or Innes?
A.
Q.
Innes.
Innes. Paragraph 2 asks you about the fake
Sam Sloan postings?
A.
Q.
Correct.
And you know what he is asking you when he is
asking you that question; correct?
A.
Q.
Yes.
And your answer to his question in an
interview, not litigation, was: "I had nothing to do
with it and I have no idea who did it
ll
;
correct?
A.
Q.
It speaks for itself.
But you are refusing to answer that under oath
today; correct?
A.
Correct.
  #2   Report Post  
Old November 16th 09, 11:18 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Aug 2009
Posts: 122
Default Those FSS Postings--Samplings From Truong Deposition (3)

slippery, isn't he?


"MrVidmar" wrote in message
...
Q.
Under oath, did you have anything to do with
any of those fake Sam Sloan postings?
A.
Q.
A.
I refuse to answer.
Are you taking a 5th Amendment privilege?
I don't know what you call it, but I refuse to
answer.
Q. Are you scared of possible criminal
repercussions?
MS. ESTRELLO: Objection, argumentative.
Objection, you are badgering the witness.
THE WITNESS: I am not a party to this
lawsuit and that has nothing to do with what I am here
to testify today.
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) I think your attorney and
I already established that the Mottershead report is
front and center in this lawsuit.
MS. ESTRELLO: Pat, I wrote you a letter
the other day about the things we are willing to talk
about today. The Mottershead report exemptions aren't
o n it. We are here to talk about Susan Polgar's claims
against your clients and Susan Polgar's damages. Beyond
that, I am instructing him not to talk.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Well, is he taking a 5th
Amendment privilege?
MS. ESTRELLO: No.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Okay. So there lS some
other legal privilege he is taking?
MS. ESTRELLO: Well, I believe your
clients are under a court order from the Judge in
California not to do deposition discovery about matters
relevant to those claims pending out there. I would say
that the internet postings and Gregory Alexander and
e-mail hacking and fake Sam Sloan and Mottershead all
fall under that umbrella and so, In an effort to
preserve the Court's order from California, I am
instructing him not to violate that court order.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Is it your stipulation
that the Mottershead report has nothing to do with
plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit?
MS. ESTRELLO: Yes.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Okay. So any alleged
defamatory comments concerning the Mottershead report
are not actionable in this lawsuiti correct?
MS. ESTRELLO: I am not going to -- I am
not your witness. I am not going to sit here and - ...
MR. HUTTENBACH: Well, no, I am not .. -
MS. ESTRELLO: -- answer these questlons.
What I am saying is, your clients have defamed Susan,
not Paul. The Mottershead report talks about Pauli
however, in other instances your clients have used the
Mottershead report to defame Susan. And so if you want
to talk about how the Mottershead report defames Susan,
we can talk about that. We are not going to talk about
the things that the Mottershead report refers to in
reference to Paul.
MR. HUTTENBACH: In her deposition, Ms.
Polgar claimed that the Mottershead report, because it
was against her husband, indirectly defamed her.
MS. ESTRELLO: Yes.
MR. HUTTENBACH: And so I am allowed to
ask about that in the Texas case because that is part of
the Texas case. Part of the documents that you
segregated during her deposition contain the Mottershead
report. You produced the Mottershead report. So if it
is not part of the Texas case, hey, I won't ask about
it. And if it is part --
MS. ESTRELLO: Then let's talk about how
the Mottershead report defamed Susan Polgar, but we are
not going to talk about the Mottershead report and how
it defames Paul Truong because Paul is not a party to
this litigation.
MR. HUTTENBACH: I didn't ask if it --
And I didn't ask him if it defamed him. All I said was
did he do it. That's all I asked. Because if he did
it, truth is an absolute defense against defamation.
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) So, did you do -- did you
have anything to do with any of the fake Sam Sloan
postings? And your answer is?
A. On the advice of my attorney, I refuse to
answer.
Q. Okay.
MR. JONES: I want some explanation why
he is not going to answer questions about the
Mottershead report.
MS. ESTRELLa:
Paul Truong is not a party
to a litigation.
MR. JONES: I don't care. He is a
witness in this lawsuit. Are you going to put him on
the stand at trial? And if so, he better answer these
questions or he is never going to see the light of day
at trial. Because the Mottershead report is the
centerpiece of this whole litigation in Texas.
THE WITNESS: I disagree.
MR. JONES: And so if you are not going
to let him testify, I think you better be prepared for
him never to testify at trial.
MS. ESTRELLa: Well, he is going to
testify at trial.
MR. JONES: Then he better be testifying
now about this or I don't believe Judge Cummings is ever
going to let him see the courtroom.
example.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Let me give you an
The only contact that any defendant had with
Texas Tech University with any defendant -- now there's
non-defendants that contact them, but there is an e-mail
from Brian Lafferty that sent the Mottershead report and
you said that defamed plaintiff. So if I can't ask
about the Mottershead report and you are saying that it
doesn't have anything to do with this lawsuit, then
Texas Tech University is out. There lS nothing to do
with Texas Tech University.
But if you are going to come to trial and
ask questions about how we hurt plaintiff's ability to
be at Texas Tech because of one e-mail that sent the
Mottershead report, I have to ask this witness these
questions. And so, hey, I won't ask if you are not
going there, but I agree with Jeff, the whole -- the
centerpiece of the whole defamation is this Mottershead
report.
So, you know, you can instruct your
witness not to answer, but you know what is coming down
the pike is we are going to Judge Cummings and we are
saying, "Look, they won't even talk about the
Mottershead report."
And so, you know, when you get your
responses to all these summary judgment motions, there
better not be anything about the Mottershead report in
there. You know where we are going so.
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) I am going to ask you a
final time and you can take your attorney's advice if
she is still making this advice, but did you have
anything to do --
A.
Q.
I refuse to answer.
Let me finish the question.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Okay.
You knew where I was going.
Yeah.
Did you have anything to do with the fake Sam
Sloan postings?
A. On the advice of my attorney I refuse to
answer.
MR. HUTTENBACH: And you are giving him
that advicej correct?
Q.
MS. ESTRELLO: Yes.
(BY MR. HUTTENBACH) Now when I say fake Sam
Sloan postings! you know what I meant; correct?
A.
Q.
Yes.
Okay.
MS. ESTRELLO: Well! clarify for the
record what you do mean.
confused --
MR. HUTTENBACH: There were hundreds
MR. JONES: Well! if the witness is
MR. HUTTENBACH: Yeah.
MR. JONES: that is okay! but if the
witness lS not confused! then that is fine! then we can
go on. And the witness has stated he knows exactly what
the fake Sam Sloan posts are.
MR. HUTTENBACH: In fact! I am gOlng to
mark as Exhibit --
THE COURT REPORTER: 113.
MR. HUTTENBACH: 113 -- and actually
can you share there, Samanatha?
(Exhibit Depo 113 marked.)
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) If you will look at
Paragraph -- Have you seen this before?
A. Yes, on-line only.
Q. Okay. You gave this interview with Phil Innes
or Innes?
A.
Q.
Innes.
Innes. Paragraph 2 asks you about the fake
Sam Sloan postings?
A.
Q.
Correct.
And you know what he is asking you when he is
asking you that question; correct?
A.
Q.
Yes.
And your answer to his question in an
interview, not litigation, was: "I had nothing to do
with it and I have no idea who did it
ll
;
correct?
A.
Q.
It speaks for itself.
But you are refusing to answer that under oath
today; correct?
A.
Correct.



  #3   Report Post  
Old November 16th 09, 11:27 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 Those FSS Postings--Samplings From Truong Deposition (3)

On Nov 16, 6:18*pm, "Teddybear" wrote:

slippery, isn't he?



Un gusano grande.
  #4   Report Post  
Old November 17th 09, 05:26 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Those FSS Postings--Samplings From Truong Deposition (3)

On Nov 16, 5:05*pm, MrVidmar wrote:

(Snip)

Q. Okay. You gave this interview with Phil Innes
or Innes?
A.
Q.
Innes.
Innes. Paragraph 2 asks you about the fake
Sam Sloan postings?
A.
Q.
Correct.
And you know what he is asking you when he is
asking you that question; correct?
A.
Q.
Yes.
And your answer to his question in an
interview, not litigation, was: "I had nothing to do
with it and I have no idea who did it
ll
;
correct?
A.
Q.
It speaks for itself.
But you are refusing to answer that under oath
today; correct?
A.
Correct.


I hope this things gets to trial. Truong is going to roast on the
stand.

  #5   Report Post  
Old November 18th 09, 01:35 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 Those FSS Postings--Samplings From Truong Deposition (3)

noauth wrote:
In article Teddybear
wrote:
slippery, isn't he?


First, it is 'she', not 'he'.
Second, doing one's work competently isn't the same as being slippery.
Third, Jackass Lafferty's erectile dysfunction was at the heart of these
dumb suits. JL's mistaken belief that he will get relief from the courts
for his nocturnal condition will cost his associates and coconspirators,
and their asshole jokes of attorneys, more than they can imagine.

"MrVidmar" wrote in message



Slippery with the help of grease from a young attorney who should know
better.

Ms. Estrella is an officer of the court as is her boss, Mr. Killion. She
is in federal court with the guidelines laid down by FRCP Rule 11. Her
failure to properly determine whether or not Ms. Polgar had/has a viable
claim(s) and the pressing of frivolous claims has cost the USCF over
$500,000. Judge Patel noted on the record, from the bench, the duty
under Rule 11 that attorneys investigate the validity of client's claims
prior to commencing litigation.

The professional lives of attorneys often require the making of
difficult decisions. I can't imagine doing what Ms. Estrella has done.
Attorney friends with a combined total of 100+ years of practice in
federal court are shocked by her firm's conduct and the fact that it has
been allowed to go on for so long.

In my opinion, she has gone beyond zealous representation of her client
into the realm of bad faith actions on her client's behalf. If she
thinks that a number of us defendants will not seek to hold her
accountable, she should think again. And when that comes to pass, I
think she will find that Mr. Killion will save himself by trying to put
her under the wheels of the bus. Had I been in Ms. Estrella's shoes as
an attorney on this case, I would have refused to do any further work
for Ms. Polgar once it became clear that she has no case. If that
required seeking another position with a different law firm, that is
what I would have done. Risking ones professional career in this manner
is just plain foolishness, IMO.


  #6   Report Post  
Old November 18th 09, 01:42 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 Those FSS Postings--Samplings From Truong Deposition (3)

noauth wrote:
In article Teddybear
wrote:
slippery, isn't he?

more than they can imagine.


I have a limited imagination. Please be specific so that I may decide
how far to run and hide. ;-)
  #7   Report Post  
Old November 18th 09, 10:07 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 782
Default Those FSS Postings--Samplings From Truong Deposition (3)

On Nov 16, 4:05*pm, MrVidmar wrote:
Q.
Under oath, did you have anything to do with
any of those fake Sam Sloan postings?
A.
Q.
A.
I refuse to answer.
Are you taking a 5th Amendment privilege?
I don't know what you call it, but I refuse to
answer.
Q. Are you scared of possible criminal
repercussions?
MS. ESTRELLO: Objection, argumentative.
Objection, you are badgering the witness.
THE WITNESS: I am not a party to this
lawsuit and that has nothing to do with what I am here
to testify today.
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) I think your attorney and
I already established that the Mottershead report is
front and center in this lawsuit.
MS. ESTRELLO: Pat, I wrote you a letter
the other day about the things we are willing to talk
about today. The Mottershead report exemptions aren't
o n it. We are here to talk about Susan Polgar's claims
against your clients and Susan Polgar's damages. Beyond
that, I am instructing him not to talk.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Well, is he taking a 5th
Amendment privilege?
MS. ESTRELLO: No.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Okay. So there lS some
other legal privilege he is taking?
MS. ESTRELLO: Well, I believe your
clients are under a court order from the Judge in
California not to do deposition discovery about matters
relevant to those claims pending out there. I would say
that the internet postings and Gregory Alexander and
e-mail hacking and fake Sam Sloan and Mottershead all
fall under that umbrella and so, In an effort to
preserve the Court's order from California, I am
instructing him not to violate that court order.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Is it your stipulation
that the Mottershead report has nothing to do with
plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit?
MS. ESTRELLO: Yes.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Okay. So any alleged
defamatory comments concerning the Mottershead report
are not actionable in this lawsuiti correct?
MS. ESTRELLO: I am not going to -- I am
not your witness. I am not going to sit here and - ...
MR. HUTTENBACH: Well, no, I am not .. -
MS. ESTRELLO: -- answer these questlons.
What I am saying is, your clients have defamed Susan,
not Paul. The Mottershead report talks about Pauli
however, in other instances your clients have used the
Mottershead report to defame Susan. And so if you want
to talk about how the Mottershead report defames Susan,
we can talk about that. We are not going to talk about
the things that the Mottershead report refers to in
reference to Paul.
MR. HUTTENBACH: In her deposition, Ms.
Polgar claimed that the Mottershead report, because it
was against her husband, indirectly defamed her.
MS. ESTRELLO: Yes.
MR. HUTTENBACH: And so I am allowed to
ask about that in the Texas case because that is part of
the Texas case. Part of the documents that you
segregated during her deposition contain the Mottershead
report. You produced the Mottershead report. So if it
is not part of the Texas case, hey, I won't ask about
it. And if it is part --
MS. ESTRELLO: Then let's talk about how
the Mottershead report defamed Susan Polgar, but we are
not going to talk about the Mottershead report and how
it defames Paul Truong because Paul is not a party to
this litigation.
MR. HUTTENBACH: I didn't ask if it --
And I didn't ask him if it defamed him. All I said was
did he do it. That's all I asked. Because if he did
it, truth is an absolute defense against defamation.
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) So, did you do -- did you
have anything to do with any of the fake Sam Sloan
postings? And your answer is?
A. On the advice of my attorney, I refuse to
answer.
Q. Okay.
MR. JONES: I want some explanation why
he is not going to answer questions about the
Mottershead report.
MS. ESTRELLa:
Paul Truong is not a party
to a litigation.
MR. JONES: I don't care. He is a
witness in this lawsuit. Are you going to put him on
the stand at trial? And if so, he better answer these
questions or he is never going to see the light of day
at trial. Because the Mottershead report is the
centerpiece of this whole litigation in Texas.
THE WITNESS: I disagree.
MR. JONES: And so if you are not going
to let him testify, I think you better be prepared for
him never to testify at trial.
MS. ESTRELLa: Well, he is going to
testify at trial.
MR. JONES: Then he better be testifying
now about this or I don't believe Judge Cummings is ever
going to let him see the courtroom.
example.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Let me give you an
The only contact that any defendant had with
Texas Tech University with any defendant -- now there's
non-defendants that contact them, but there is an e-mail
from Brian Lafferty that sent the Mottershead report and
you said that defamed plaintiff. So if I can't ask
about the Mottershead report and you are saying that it
doesn't have anything to do with this lawsuit, then
Texas Tech University is out. There lS nothing to do
with Texas Tech University.
But if you are going to come to trial and
ask questions about how we hurt plaintiff's ability to
be at Texas Tech because of one e-mail that sent the
Mottershead report, I have to ask this witness these
questions. And so, hey, I won't ask if you are not
going there, but I agree with Jeff, the whole -- the
centerpiece of the whole defamation is this Mottershead
report.
So, you know, you can instruct your
witness not to answer, but you know what is coming down
the pike is we are going to Judge Cummings and we are
saying, "Look, they won't even talk about the
Mottershead report."
And so, you know, when you get your
responses to all these summary judgment motions, there
better not be anything about the Mottershead report in
there. You know where we are going so.
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) I am going to ask you a
final time and you can take your attorney's advice if
she is still making this advice, but did you have
anything to do --
A.
Q.
I refuse to answer.
Let me finish the question.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Okay.
You knew where I was going.
Yeah.
Did you have anything to do with the fake Sam
Sloan postings?
A. On the advice of my attorney I refuse to
answer.
MR. HUTTENBACH: And you are giving him
that advicej correct?
Q.
MS. ESTRELLO: Yes.
(BY MR. HUTTENBACH) Now when I say fake Sam
Sloan postings! you know what I meant; correct?
A.
Q.
Yes.
Okay.
MS. ESTRELLO: Well! clarify for the
record what you do mean.
confused --
MR. HUTTENBACH: There were hundreds
MR. JONES: Well! if the witness is
MR. HUTTENBACH: Yeah.
MR. JONES: that is okay! but if the
witness lS not confused! then that is fine! then we can
go on. And the witness has stated he knows exactly what
the fake Sam Sloan posts are.
MR. HUTTENBACH: In fact! I am gOlng to
mark as Exhibit --
THE COURT REPORTER: 113.
MR. HUTTENBACH: 113 -- and actually
can you share there, Samanatha?
(Exhibit Depo 113 marked.)
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) If you will look at
Paragraph -- Have you seen this before?
A. Yes, on-line only.
Q. Okay. You gave this interview with Phil Innes
or Innes?
A.
Q.
Innes.
Innes. Paragraph 2 asks you about the fake
Sam Sloan postings?
A.
Q.
Correct.
And you know what he is asking you when he is
asking you that question; correct?
A.
Q.
Yes.
And your answer to his question in an
interview, not litigation, was: "I had nothing to do
with it and I have no idea who did it
ll
;
correct?
A.
Q.
It speaks for itself.
But you are refusing to answer that under oath
today; correct?
A.
Correct.


I am trying to imagine how Ms Estrello justifies Truong's refusal to
testify on FSS, since at least one of the accused (Mottershead) is
charged with nothing other than producing and discussing evidence of
Truong being the FSS. Is the charge of conspiracy to defame so broad
that it can cover even statements which are true but but the person in
a bad light?

I know that accusations as in the Mottershead report would not be
intended to be included as criminal, but I can imagine someone
constantly bringing up decades-old true accusations of a public
figure's past drug use, extra-marital affairs, etc as being a form of
harassment. Just can't quite figure out where the lawyer is going with
this one.

Jerry Spinrad
  #8   Report Post  
Old November 18th 09, 11:56 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,381
Default Those FSS Postings--Samplings From Truong Deposition (3)

On Nov 18, 5:07*pm, "
wrote:
On Nov 16, 4:05*pm, MrVidmar wrote:





Q.
Under oath, did you have anything to do with
any of those fake Sam Sloan postings?
A.
Q.
A.
I refuse to answer.
Are you taking a 5th Amendment privilege?
I don't know what you call it, but I refuse to
answer.
Q. Are you scared of possible criminal
repercussions?
MS. ESTRELLO: Objection, argumentative.
Objection, you are badgering the witness.
THE WITNESS: I am not a party to this
lawsuit and that has nothing to do with what I am here
to testify today.
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) I think your attorney and
I already established that the Mottershead report is
front and center in this lawsuit.
MS. ESTRELLO: Pat, I wrote you a letter
the other day about the things we are willing to talk
about today. The Mottershead report exemptions aren't
o n it. We are here to talk about Susan Polgar's claims
against your clients and Susan Polgar's damages. Beyond
that, I am instructing him not to talk.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Well, is he taking a 5th
Amendment privilege?
MS. ESTRELLO: No.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Okay. So there lS some
other legal privilege he is taking?
MS. ESTRELLO: Well, I believe your
clients are under a court order from the Judge in
California not to do deposition discovery about matters
relevant to those claims pending out there. I would say
that the internet postings and Gregory Alexander and
e-mail hacking and fake Sam Sloan and Mottershead all
fall under that umbrella and so, In an effort to
preserve the Court's order from California, I am
instructing him not to violate that court order.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Is it your stipulation
that the Mottershead report has nothing to do with
plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit?
MS. ESTRELLO: Yes.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Okay. So any alleged
defamatory comments concerning the Mottershead report
are not actionable in this lawsuiti correct?
MS. ESTRELLO: I am not going to -- I am
not your witness. I am not going to sit here and - ...
MR. HUTTENBACH: Well, no, I am not .. -
MS. ESTRELLO: -- answer these questlons.
What I am saying is, your clients have defamed Susan,
not Paul. The Mottershead report talks about Pauli
however, in other instances your clients have used the
Mottershead report to defame Susan. And so if you want
to talk about how the Mottershead report defames Susan,
we can talk about that. We are not going to talk about
the things that the Mottershead report refers to in
reference to Paul.
MR. HUTTENBACH: In her deposition, Ms.
Polgar claimed that the Mottershead report, because it
was against her husband, indirectly defamed her.
MS. ESTRELLO: Yes.
MR. HUTTENBACH: And so I am allowed to
ask about that in the Texas case because that is part of
the Texas case. Part of the documents that you
segregated during her deposition contain the Mottershead
report. You produced the Mottershead report. So if it
is not part of the Texas case, hey, I won't ask about
it. And if it is part --
MS. ESTRELLO: Then let's talk about how
the Mottershead report defamed Susan Polgar, but we are
not going to talk about the Mottershead report and how
it defames Paul Truong because Paul is not a party to
this litigation.
MR. HUTTENBACH: I didn't ask if it --
And I didn't ask him if it defamed him. All I said was
did he do it. That's all I asked. Because if he did
it, truth is an absolute defense against defamation.
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) So, did you do -- did you
have anything to do with any of the fake Sam Sloan
postings? And your answer is?
A. On the advice of my attorney, I refuse to
answer.
Q. Okay.
MR. JONES: I want some explanation why
he is not going to answer questions about the
Mottershead report.
MS. ESTRELLa:
Paul Truong is not a party
to a litigation.
MR. JONES: I don't care. He is a
witness in this lawsuit. Are you going to put him on
the stand at trial? And if so, he better answer these
questions or he is never going to see the light of day
at trial. Because the Mottershead report is the
centerpiece of this whole litigation in Texas.
THE WITNESS: I disagree.
MR. JONES: And so if you are not going
to let him testify, I think you better be prepared for
him never to testify at trial.
MS. ESTRELLa: Well, he is going to
testify at trial.
MR. JONES: Then he better be testifying
now about this or I don't believe Judge Cummings is ever
going to let him see the courtroom.
example.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Let me give you an
The only contact that any defendant had with
Texas Tech University with any defendant -- now there's
non-defendants that contact them, but there is an e-mail
from Brian Lafferty that sent the Mottershead report and
you said that defamed plaintiff. So if I can't ask
about the Mottershead report and you are saying that it
doesn't have anything to do with this lawsuit, then
Texas Tech University is out. There lS nothing to do
with Texas Tech University.
But if you are going to come to trial and
ask questions about how we hurt plaintiff's ability to
be at Texas Tech because of one e-mail that sent the
Mottershead report, I have to ask this witness these
questions. And so, hey, I won't ask if you are not
going there, but I agree with Jeff, the whole -- the
centerpiece of the whole defamation is this Mottershead
report.
So, you know, you can instruct your
witness not to answer, but you know what is coming down
the pike is we are going to Judge Cummings and we are
saying, "Look, they won't even talk about the
Mottershead report."
And so, you know, when you get your
responses to all these summary judgment motions, there
better not be anything about the Mottershead report in
there. You know where we are going so.
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) I am going to ask you a
final time and you can take your attorney's advice if
she is still making this advice, but did you have
anything to do --
A.
Q.
I refuse to answer.
Let me finish the question.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Okay.
You knew where I was going.
Yeah.
Did you have anything to do with the fake Sam
Sloan postings?
A. On the advice of my attorney I refuse to
answer.
MR. HUTTENBACH: And you are giving him
that advicej correct?
Q.
MS. ESTRELLO: Yes.
(BY MR. HUTTENBACH) Now when I say fake Sam
Sloan postings! you know what I meant; correct?
A.
Q.
Yes.
Okay.
MS. ESTRELLO: Well! clarify for the
record what you do mean.
confused --
MR. HUTTENBACH: There were hundreds
MR. JONES: Well! if the witness is
MR. HUTTENBACH: Yeah.
MR. JONES: that is okay! but if the
witness lS not confused! then that is fine! then we can
go on. And the witness has stated he knows exactly what
the fake Sam Sloan posts are.
MR. HUTTENBACH: In fact! I am gOlng to
mark as Exhibit --
THE COURT REPORTER: 113.
MR. HUTTENBACH: 113 -- and actually
can you share there, Samanatha?
(Exhibit Depo 113 marked.)
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) If you will look at
Paragraph -- Have you seen this before?
A. Yes, on-line only.
Q. Okay. You gave this interview with Phil Innes
or Innes?
A.
Q.
Innes.
Innes. Paragraph 2 asks you about the fake
Sam Sloan postings?
A.
Q.
Correct.
And you know what he is asking you when he is
asking you that question; correct?
A.
Q.
Yes.
And your answer to his question in an
interview, not litigation, was: "I had nothing to do
with it and I have no idea who did it
ll
;
correct?
A.
Q.
It speaks for itself.
But you are refusing to answer that under oath
today; correct?
A.
Correct.


I am trying to imagine how Ms Estrello justifies Truong's refusal to
testify on FSS, since at least one of the accused (Mottershead) is
charged with nothing other than producing and discussing evidence of
Truong being the FSS.


Said Mottershead either discovered or created the Truong links, no?

The justice is not assured of either possibility - thereby is your
'justification'.

Do you know how come Mottershead was permitted to access this
confidential info? Who said he could do that? Who said he could not?
Thereby hangs the tail.



Is the charge of conspiracy to defame so broad
that it can cover even statements which are true but but the person in
a bad light?


If you should have named your nouns you may have received better
receipt to your message, but who is conspiring against whom?

I know that accusations as in the Mottershead report would not be
intended to be included as criminal, but I can imagine someone
constantly bringing up decades-old true accusations of a public
figure's past drug use, extra-marital affairs, etc as being a form of
harassment. Just can't quite figure out where the lawyer is going with
this one.


And as Jerry Spinrad [PhD Harvard] likes to spin, who is whom in his
above message.

I note that said Spinrad also speculated heavily on hot-sausing of the
Polgar children, and when challenged to if he knew there was no basis
to that, as admitted by a court, said something to the effect that he
only spoke as if... using a real case as an example

Unless I misunderstood Spinrad, he continued to speak about the hot-
saucing incident until he knew those speculations were independently
refuted.

What he does here is similarly vague. And we must ask, what is his
current point, if any?

Phil Innes

Jerry Spinrad


  #9   Report Post  
Old November 19th 09, 12:36 AM 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 Those FSS Postings--Samplings From Truong Deposition (3)

ChessFire wrote:
On Nov 18, 5:07 pm, "
wrote:
On Nov 16, 4:05 pm, MrVidmar wrote:





Q.
Under oath, did you have anything to do with
any of those fake Sam Sloan postings?
A.
Q.
A.
I refuse to answer.
Are you taking a 5th Amendment privilege?
I don't know what you call it, but I refuse to
answer.
Q. Are you scared of possible criminal
repercussions?
MS. ESTRELLO: Objection, argumentative.
Objection, you are badgering the witness.
THE WITNESS: I am not a party to this
lawsuit and that has nothing to do with what I am here
to testify today.
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) I think your attorney and
I already established that the Mottershead report is
front and center in this lawsuit.
MS. ESTRELLO: Pat, I wrote you a letter
the other day about the things we are willing to talk
about today. The Mottershead report exemptions aren't
o n it. We are here to talk about Susan Polgar's claims
against your clients and Susan Polgar's damages. Beyond
that, I am instructing him not to talk.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Well, is he taking a 5th
Amendment privilege?
MS. ESTRELLO: No.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Okay. So there lS some
other legal privilege he is taking?
MS. ESTRELLO: Well, I believe your
clients are under a court order from the Judge in
California not to do deposition discovery about matters
relevant to those claims pending out there. I would say
that the internet postings and Gregory Alexander and
e-mail hacking and fake Sam Sloan and Mottershead all
fall under that umbrella and so, In an effort to
preserve the Court's order from California, I am
instructing him not to violate that court order.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Is it your stipulation
that the Mottershead report has nothing to do with
plaintiff's claims in this lawsuit?
MS. ESTRELLO: Yes.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Okay. So any alleged
defamatory comments concerning the Mottershead report
are not actionable in this lawsuiti correct?
MS. ESTRELLO: I am not going to -- I am
not your witness. I am not going to sit here and - ...
MR. HUTTENBACH: Well, no, I am not .. -
MS. ESTRELLO: -- answer these questlons.
What I am saying is, your clients have defamed Susan,
not Paul. The Mottershead report talks about Pauli
however, in other instances your clients have used the
Mottershead report to defame Susan. And so if you want
to talk about how the Mottershead report defames Susan,
we can talk about that. We are not going to talk about
the things that the Mottershead report refers to in
reference to Paul.
MR. HUTTENBACH: In her deposition, Ms.
Polgar claimed that the Mottershead report, because it
was against her husband, indirectly defamed her.
MS. ESTRELLO: Yes.
MR. HUTTENBACH: And so I am allowed to
ask about that in the Texas case because that is part of
the Texas case. Part of the documents that you
segregated during her deposition contain the Mottershead
report. You produced the Mottershead report. So if it
is not part of the Texas case, hey, I won't ask about
it. And if it is part --
MS. ESTRELLO: Then let's talk about how
the Mottershead report defamed Susan Polgar, but we are
not going to talk about the Mottershead report and how
it defames Paul Truong because Paul is not a party to
this litigation.
MR. HUTTENBACH: I didn't ask if it --
And I didn't ask him if it defamed him. All I said was
did he do it. That's all I asked. Because if he did
it, truth is an absolute defense against defamation.
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) So, did you do -- did you
have anything to do with any of the fake Sam Sloan
postings? And your answer is?
A. On the advice of my attorney, I refuse to
answer.
Q. Okay.
MR. JONES: I want some explanation why
he is not going to answer questions about the
Mottershead report.
MS. ESTRELLa:
Paul Truong is not a party
to a litigation.
MR. JONES: I don't care. He is a
witness in this lawsuit. Are you going to put him on
the stand at trial? And if so, he better answer these
questions or he is never going to see the light of day
at trial. Because the Mottershead report is the
centerpiece of this whole litigation in Texas.
THE WITNESS: I disagree.
MR. JONES: And so if you are not going
to let him testify, I think you better be prepared for
him never to testify at trial.
MS. ESTRELLa: Well, he is going to
testify at trial.
MR. JONES: Then he better be testifying
now about this or I don't believe Judge Cummings is ever
going to let him see the courtroom.
example.
MR. HUTTENBACH: Let me give you an
The only contact that any defendant had with
Texas Tech University with any defendant -- now there's
non-defendants that contact them, but there is an e-mail
from Brian Lafferty that sent the Mottershead report and
you said that defamed plaintiff. So if I can't ask
about the Mottershead report and you are saying that it
doesn't have anything to do with this lawsuit, then
Texas Tech University is out. There lS nothing to do
with Texas Tech University.
But if you are going to come to trial and
ask questions about how we hurt plaintiff's ability to
be at Texas Tech because of one e-mail that sent the
Mottershead report, I have to ask this witness these
questions. And so, hey, I won't ask if you are not
going there, but I agree with Jeff, the whole -- the
centerpiece of the whole defamation is this Mottershead
report.
So, you know, you can instruct your
witness not to answer, but you know what is coming down
the pike is we are going to Judge Cummings and we are
saying, "Look, they won't even talk about the
Mottershead report."
And so, you know, when you get your
responses to all these summary judgment motions, there
better not be anything about the Mottershead report in
there. You know where we are going so.
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) I am going to ask you a
final time and you can take your attorney's advice if
she is still making this advice, but did you have
anything to do --
A.
Q.
I refuse to answer.
Let me finish the question.
A.
Q.
A.
Q.
Okay.
You knew where I was going.
Yeah.
Did you have anything to do with the fake Sam
Sloan postings?
A. On the advice of my attorney I refuse to
answer.
MR. HUTTENBACH: And you are giving him
that advicej correct?
Q.
MS. ESTRELLO: Yes.
(BY MR. HUTTENBACH) Now when I say fake Sam
Sloan postings! you know what I meant; correct?
A.
Q.
Yes.
Okay.
MS. ESTRELLO: Well! clarify for the
record what you do mean.
confused --
MR. HUTTENBACH: There were hundreds
MR. JONES: Well! if the witness is
MR. HUTTENBACH: Yeah.
MR. JONES: that is okay! but if the
witness lS not confused! then that is fine! then we can
go on. And the witness has stated he knows exactly what
the fake Sam Sloan posts are.
MR. HUTTENBACH: In fact! I am gOlng to
mark as Exhibit --
THE COURT REPORTER: 113.
MR. HUTTENBACH: 113 -- and actually
can you share there, Samanatha?
(Exhibit Depo 113 marked.)
Q. (BY MR. HUTTENBACH) If you will look at
Paragraph -- Have you seen this before?
A. Yes, on-line only.
Q. Okay. You gave this interview with Phil Innes
or Innes?
A.
Q.
Innes.
Innes. Paragraph 2 asks you about the fake
Sam Sloan postings?
A.
Q.
Correct.
And you know what he is asking you when he is
asking you that question; correct?
A.
Q.
Yes.
And your answer to his question in an
interview, not litigation, was: "I had nothing to do
with it and I have no idea who did it
ll
;
correct?
A.
Q.
It speaks for itself.
But you are refusing to answer that under oath
today; correct?
A.
Correct.

I am trying to imagine how Ms Estrello justifies Truong's refusal to
testify on FSS, since at least one of the accused (Mottershead) is
charged with nothing other than producing and discussing evidence of
Truong being the FSS.


Said Mottershead either discovered or created the Truong links, no?

The justice is not assured of either possibility - thereby is your
'justification'.

Do you know how come Mottershead was permitted to access this
confidential info? Who said he could do that? Who said he could not?
Thereby hangs the tail.



Is the charge of conspiracy to defame so broad
that it can cover even statements which are true but but the person in
a bad light?


If you should have named your nouns you may have received better
receipt to your message, but who is conspiring against whom?

I know that accusations as in the Mottershead report would not be
intended to be included as criminal, but I can imagine someone
constantly bringing up decades-old true accusations of a public
figure's past drug use, extra-marital affairs, etc as being a form of
harassment. Just can't quite figure out where the lawyer is going with
this one.


And as Jerry Spinrad [PhD Harvard] likes to spin, who is whom in his
above message.

I note that said Spinrad also speculated heavily on hot-sausing of the
Polgar children, and when challenged to if he knew there was no basis
to that, as admitted by a court, said something to the effect that he
only spoke as if... using a real case as an example

Unless I misunderstood Spinrad, he continued to speak about the hot-
saucing incident until he knew those speculations were independently
refuted.

What he does here is similarly vague. And we must ask, what is his
current point, if any?

Phil Innes

Jerry Spinrad


Stick a fork in him and turn him over. Phil's done.
  #10   Report Post  
Old November 19th 09, 06:15 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 782
Default Those FSS Postings--Samplings From Truong Deposition (3)

On Nov 18, 5:56*pm, ChessFire wrote:
above message.

I note that said Spinrad also speculated heavily on hot-sausing of the
Polgar children, and when challenged to if he knew there was no basis
to that, as admitted by a court, said something to the effect that he
only spoke as if... using a real case as an example


What on earth are you talking about? Would you care to produce a quote
on my speculating heavily on hot-saucing, and then saying that I spoke
only as if.. using a real case as an example?

Unless I misunderstood Spinrad, he continued to speak about the hot-
saucing incident until he knew those speculations were independently
refuted.


You did not misunderstand anything I actually wrote; you either are
making it up entirely or remembering something somebody else said
about hot-saucing. But then, I corrected you on this before, and you
simply changed what you accused me of doing. If you want to accuse me
of something, give me a quote; your memory seems to be completely and
totally unreliable.

Of course, you like bringing up this spurious issue, and want the
thread to deal with your rant on it, rather than try to explain why
Truong refused to answer the question as to whether he posted FSS
messages.


Jerry Spinrad



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
Third-Party Complaint Against Truong Mr.Vidmar[_2_] rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 March 6th 09 09:41 PM
Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 2 October 6th 08 02:49 PM
Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 October 6th 08 02:49 PM
Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 3 October 6th 08 02:49 PM
Motion for Summary Judgment has been filed in Polgar vs. USCF samsloan alt.chess (Alternative Chess Group) 2 October 6th 08 02:49 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:26 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