Texas Judge Cummings Denies Motion to Stay Susan Polgar Lawsuit pending Settlement
samsloan
Northern District of Texas
Notice of Electronic Filing
The following transaction was entered on 1/4/2010 at 10:06 AM CST and
filed on 1/4/2010
Case Name: Polgar v. United States of America Chess Federation Inc et
al
Case Number: 5:08-cv-169
Filer:
Document Number: 223
Docket Text:
ORDER: On December 31, 2009, the parties (except Sam Sloan and Gregory
Alexander) filed a Notice to the Court of Tentative, Possible, Partial
Settlement and stated in paragraph 3 that "the parties have agreed to
postpone the discovery deadline as seen by the attached Exhibit A1 to
allow the parties to have additional time to try to finalize the
possible settlement." The parties are reminded that they cannot modify
scheduling deadlines without seeking leave of court. Further, the
parties request in paragraph 4 that the Court "not make any rulings
[on any pending motions] at this time and/or formally or informally
abate the case to see if the settlement can be finalized." Such
requests are DENIED. (Ordered by Judge Sam R Cummings on 1/4/2010)
(ebc)
MrVidmar
You are such an idiot. There was no motion made to "stay" the case in
Lubbock. There was a request that the judge not make any rulings on
pending motions so as to give the parties time to conclude a settlement.
That's quite different.
samsloan
What is the difference?
None
>
> - Show quoted text -
85 IQ points...above you're intelligent, below you're an idiot
The Masked Bishop
own inability to post anything but name-calling. Back to the
playground with you, "None," although even today's kids comport
themselves with more dignity.
None
I disagree. The idiots are the ones that don't understand an idiot
like Sam. Keep kissing his ass and maybe he'll cut you in on his
publishing empire.
Chris Falter
What is the practical effect of this ruling and the consolidation
ruling? The way I see it, Polgar has more to lose the longer this
goes on (probably untenable legal position + further damage to
reputation + legal fees) than the USCF (legal fees). To what extent
are USCF's legal fees reimbursable (probably not the legal term) by
insurance? I would think that if the USCF insurer were on the hook
for legal fees, and thought that continuation of the case might yield
an order for Polgar to pay USCF legal fees (bad faith filing), the
insurer would welcome this ruling. But I could be completely wrong.
Could anyone who has light to shine on the situation please speak up?
Thanks!
Chris Falter
Can't the parties go ahead and settle anyway? Perhaps the judge's
ruling is designed to light a fire under the settlement negotiations,
so to speak, by emphasizing that the parties have much at risk and
should get down to brass tacks?
ChessFire
Actually, the man of many names, and the man without any names, have
bored the shit out of all of us here for 2 years. They are sort of
legal, sort of anti-gay, and sort of boring about their predictions of
chess, from a perspective outside of chess.
Do any of these characters care for the game? I would say that their
metaphysical review as expressed here over considerable time indicates
not. Let the right judges of the result hear this.
Sam Sloan is the most obvious lightning pole to the most common
sentiments - not chess sentiments, but common in 2 senses of that word
- and he expressed psychological sentiments. Quote evidently he wanted
the girl Truong got, and he failed. Is his sad saga other than this?
Meanwhile the man with many aliases but with no chip in the game
continues to speculate in scary legal terms about what he appreciates
of the recent legal goings on, but I note he himself is a defendant in
these instances, but is too faint to admit his own part in affairs.
Then there is 'none', some character who cannot admit his own name and
has the usual attitude of tearing down others who can admit theirs. If
that is what the marine corps does for you, what did they think they
were fighting for?
Another Vet. Phil Innes
None
>
> Actually, the man of many names, and the man without any names, have
> bored the shit out of all of us here for 2 years. They are sort of
> legal, sort of anti-gay, and sort of boring about their predictions of
> chess, from a perspective outside of chess.
>
> Do any of these characters care for the game? I would say that their
> metaphysical review as expressed here over considerable time indicates
> not. Let the right judges of the result hear this.
>
> Sam Sloan is the most obvious lightning pole to the most common
> sentiments - not chess sentiments, but common in 2 senses of that word
> - and he expressed psychological sentiments. Quote evidently he wanted
> the girl Truong got, and he failed. Is his sad saga other than this?
>
> Meanwhile the man with many aliases but with no chip in the game
> continues to speculate in scary legal terms about what he appreciates
> of the recent legal goings on, but I note he himself is a defendant in
> these instances, but is too faint to admit his own part in affairs.
>
> Then there is 'none', some character who cannot admit his own name and
> has the usual attitude of tearing down others who can admit theirs. If
> that is what the marine corps does for you, what did they think they
> were fighting for?
>
> Another Vet. Phil Innes
I have no dog in the legal proceedings. Not now, not ever. Meanwhile
you continue to expose yourself herewithin. Surely a fart smeller like
you can generate a better basket of bitches.
micky
A crock of hogshit !
Both of them are full on idiots - the "difference" = Lafferty is a
jackass-idiot...
Note: Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble
their food, and tyrannize their teachers. - Socrates (469 BC - 399 BC)..
m.
micky
.
>If that is what the marine corps does for you, what did they think they
> were fighting for?
Why... rum, buggery & the lash - dear boy !
I thought _you_ of all people would have conned that ineluctable
factoid...
A favoured piccie... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063585/ ...mayhaps ?
m.
>
> Another Vet. Phil Innes
Bobcat
Actually a settlement might be the best things for all parties
concerned... except Sam Sloan who seems to intent on scuttling any
settlement offer. I am truly surprised that Sam has NOT been
sanctioned by the court so far. Judge Cummings is a far more tolerant
man than I would have been with Sam's little hissy fit. Had it been me
I'd have sanctioned him so hard and made him an example that it would
be the shot heard round the world. Sam's life long ambition seems to
be to cause trouble, yet he wants to be elected to the USCF EB
against. If he runs the odds are very GOOD he will LOSE, BIG!!! And
then he will sue the USCF -- again -- and accuse whoever beat him out,
of some misconduct, and that is why he lost -- not that he lost
because he might be viewed -- if you read his website -- as morally of
at least questionable character. ...and we will be right back to the
same problem we have today. Me?!? If I had a dream come true Sam
Sloan's membership in the USCF would be REVOKED for LIFE!!! Why the
membership of the USCF has to put up with the likes of Sam Sloan is
beyond me. He is ONE of the reasons I left the USCF, but the #1 reason
was the CORRUPT leadership of the USCF. There is simply too much
politics in the USCF. Removing Bill Goichberg and replacing him with
Sam Sloan is NOT the solution.
micky
;)
...