Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old January 28th 10, 10:39 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 Polgar vs. Sloan

Two predictions.
1. Judge Cummings will dismiss the whole thing.
2. Judge Cummings will transfer the administratively stayed case against
Alexander back to California where it belongs.

ORDER

The time for responding to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Her Claims
Against Sam Sloan
Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) and Motion to Dismiss Sloan’s Counterclaims
Against Polgar and
Third Party Claims Against Paul Truong Pursuant to Rule 41(b), filed
January 27, 2010, is
hereby shortened to on or before February 8, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. No reply
will be considered.

SO ORDERED.
Dated January 28, 2010.
_________________________________
SAM R. CUMMINGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
  #2   Report Post  
Old January 29th 10, 03:50 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Order In Polgar vs. Sloan

On Jan 28, 5:39*pm, MrVidmar wrote:
Two predictions.
1. Judge Cummings will dismiss the whole thing.
2. Judge Cummings will transfer the administratively stayed case against
Alexander back to California where it belongs.

ORDER

The time for responding to Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Her Claims
Against Sam Sloan
Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(2) and Motion to Dismiss Sloan’s Counterclaims
Against Polgar and
Third Party Claims Against Paul Truong Pursuant to Rule 41(b), filed
January 27, 2010, is
hereby shortened to on or before February 8, 2010, at 9:00 a.m. No reply
will be considered.

SO ORDERED.
Dated January 28, 2010.
_________________________________
SAM R. CUMMINGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


Polgar is dismissing her lawsuit against Sloan?!? She's that unwilling
to turn over her tax returns and have her hubby answer questions under
oath?
  #3   Report Post  
Old January 29th 10, 08:40 PM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: May 2006
Posts: 3,390
Default Order In Polgar vs. Sloan

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:50:32 -0800 (PST), The Historian
wrote:


Polgar is dismissing her lawsuit against Sloan?!? She's that unwilling
to turn over her tax returns and have her hubby answer questions under
oath?


Why, I'd almost expect Phil to weigh in with claims that this
development must signal Polgar's lack of confidence in her case. That
is, if Phil were (a) consistent, (b) honest, (c) perceptive or some
combination of the above. Heh, heh, heh.

C'mon, Phil, you can do it!
  #4   Report Post  
Old January 29th 10, 09:35 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 Order In Polgar vs. Sloan

On Jan 29, 3:40*pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:50:32 -0800 (PST), The Historian

wrote:
Polgar is dismissing her lawsuit against Sloan?!? She's that unwilling
to turn over her tax returns and have her hubby answer questions under
oath?


Why, I'd almost expect Phil to weigh in with claims that this
development must signal Polgar's lack of confidence in her case. *That
is, if Phil were (a) consistent, (b) honest, (c) perceptive or some
combination of the above. *Heh, heh, heh.

C'mon, Phil, you can do it!


By all means.

Perhaps she considers Sloan of not any moment whatever, legally,
chessically, ethically, or of any another sort? In other words, the
Sloan has been dismissed to any point of interest whatever.

Put plainer, the Sloan is below consideration of what has now to do
with chess in the C21st. He becomes irrelevant.

Even plainer, so that such as a Murray and a Brennan can get it, Sloan
is nowhere at all on any spectra. And for sure, both these
respondents, Murray and Brennan, hot after their [own] egos, are
people who have never been 'anywhere' themselves, never-mind be able
to talk about that, which neither of them can, given even years to say
anything at all ; (

We have said so this past dozen years to those who suppose of
themselves on usenet rather more insight than even grandmasters essay
- it doesn't mean that they are wrong, but it always means that such
delivery suggests that they are not right, and don't care to converse.

Phil Innes
  #5   Report Post  
Old January 29th 10, 10:01 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 Polgar vs. Sloan

ChessFire wrote:
On Jan 29, 3:40 pm, Mike Murray wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:50:32 -0800 (PST), The Historian

wrote:
Polgar is dismissing her lawsuit against Sloan?!? She's that unwilling
to turn over her tax returns and have her hubby answer questions under
oath?

Why, I'd almost expect Phil to weigh in with claims that this
development must signal Polgar's lack of confidence in her case. That
is, if Phil were (a) consistent, (b) honest, (c) perceptive or some
combination of the above. Heh, heh, heh.

C'mon, Phil, you can do it!


By all means.

Perhaps she considers Sloan of not any moment whatever, legally,
chessically, ethically, or of any another sort?


Perhaps the moon is made of green cheese. Thank you for sharing your
thoughts, Philsey.



In other words, the
Sloan has been dismissed to any point of interest whatever.

Put plainer, the Sloan is below consideration of what has now to do
with chess in the C21st. He becomes irrelevant.

Even plainer, so that such as a Murray and a Brennan can get it, Sloan
is nowhere at all on any spectra. And for sure, both these
respondents, Murray and Brennan, hot after their [own] egos, are
people who have never been 'anywhere' themselves, never-mind be able
to talk about that, which neither of them can, given even years to say
anything at all ; (

We have said so this past dozen years to those who suppose of
themselves on usenet rather more insight than even grandmasters essay
- it doesn't mean that they are wrong, but it always means that such
delivery suggests that they are not right, and don't care to converse.

Phil Innes



  #6   Report Post  
Old January 30th 10, 01:07 AM 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 Order In Polgar vs. Sloan

On Jan 29, 5:01*pm, MrVidmar wrote:

Perhaps the moon is made of green cheese. Thank you for sharing your
thoughts, Philsey.

--Blue cheese otherwise we'd have the occasional green moon


  #7   Report Post  
Old January 30th 10, 01:25 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 Order In Polgar vs. Sloan

None wrote:
On Jan 29, 5:01 pm, MrVidmar wrote:

Perhaps the moon is made of green cheese. Thank you for sharing your
thoughts, Philsey.

--Blue cheese otherwise we'd have the occasional green moon


Green. Mold. Like Philsey.
  #8   Report Post  
Old January 30th 10, 04:50 AM posted to rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,alt.chess
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by ChessBanter: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,073
Default Order In Polgar vs. Sloan

On Jan 29, 4:35*pm, ChessFire wrote:
On Jan 29, 3:40*pm, Mike Murray wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 07:50:32 -0800 (PST), The Historian


wrote:
Polgar is dismissing her lawsuit against Sloan?!? She's that unwilling
to turn over her tax returns and have her hubby answer questions under
oath?


Why, I'd almost expect Phil to weigh in with claims that this
development must signal Polgar's lack of confidence in her case. *That
is, if Phil were (a) consistent, (b) honest, (c) perceptive or some
combination of the above. *Heh, heh, heh.


C'mon, Phil, you can do it!


By all means.

Perhaps she considers Sloan of not any moment whatever, legally,
chessically, ethically, or of any another sort? In other words, the
Sloan has been dismissed to any point of interest whatever.


Sort of like Polgar herself. You do realize she's performed what was
once considered impossible; lowered herself to the level of Sam Sloan.
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
USCF Makes Anti-SLAPP Motion to Dismiss In CA MrVidmar rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 0 August 25th 09 03:08 AM
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 in Polgar vs. USCF - First Draft samsloan rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 3 October 6th 08 03:55 AM
Motion for Summary Judgment in Polgar vs. USCF - First Draft samsloan rec.games.chess.politics (Chess Politics) 3 October 6th 08 03:55 AM
Motion for Summary Judgment in Polgar vs. USCF - First Draft samsloan rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 3 October 6th 08 03:55 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:29 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