Paul Truong sued again, this time in Lubbock, Texas
samsloan
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:12 PM, <Pault...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Please kindly remove me from your private discussion. I am not interested in
>> receiving any email regarding this or any issue involving Mr. Sloan.
>>
>> Thank you.
>
> This Paul Truong is a very funny guy, a barrel of laughs.
>
> Why don't you sue me. That will solve the problem.
>
> Sam Sloan
By the way, Paul old buddy, you might be interested to know that you
have just been sued again. This time you have been sued in Federal
Court in Lubbock Texas, so it will be a bit harder for you to hide
under that desk.
Better make a run for it. Looks like these guys mean business.
You were sued today by the USCF at 7:25 PM Texas Time, which is only
about one hour ago.
Do not say that I was not the first one to tell you.
Your Buddy the Real Sam Sloan
samsloan
was filed today, March 5, 2009 at 6:28 PM, in United States District
Court in Lubbock Texas.
This will make it much harder for Truong to evade service of process.
Apparently the process servers have not been able to catch him with
respect to the suit the USCF filed in Illinois State Court in
Springfield, Illinois in January.
The new suit alleges that Paul Truong has cost the USCF "hundreds of
thousands of dollars" in damages. A jury trial is demanded.
A copy of the new complaint against Truong is posted at
http://www.anusha.com/truong-third-party-complaint.pdf
Sam Sloan
samsloan
Polgar and Paul Truong on the USCF Issues Forum and who helped them
get elected by pulling as moderator a very large number of anti-Polgar
and Truong posts, points out that Polgar and Truong hid their marriage
throughout most of their election campaign and whenever they were
asked about it they demanded that the post be pulled. Tanstaafl, a/k/a
Herbert Rodney Vaughn, writes:
by tanstaafl on Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:14 am #131065
Why the request for a jury trial?
It seems to me that a jury would be more likely confused by some of
the rhetoric. I would think we'd prefer a judge to handle things.
Just curious.
Paul had a resume with a claim for a PhD on a site he controlled -- it
was seen there before he removed it. It would have been nice if he had
explained it (maybe he just wanted to see what it looked like?) but I
never saw it used as part of his campaign. I agree that there was no
point in bringing that up unless he actively used it. Is there any
evidence of such use?
Jack, however, is way off about the marraige stuff. When asked point-
blank about their marraige, they stone-walled and complained to the
moderators. It was certainly a legitimate cause for concern and they
avoided the issue. They kept the matter as quiet as they could,
deceptively so, until it was too late to inform the bulk of the voting
membership.
samsloan
Truong and Polgar made a big deal about their close relationship until
the final weeks of the campaign. To claim otherwise would be
rewriting history. It wasn't really a surprise to anyone, was it?
Married or not, they lived and traveled together for years.
Michael Aigner[/quote]
Not true. Whenever they were asked about their relationship, they said
that it was "strictly business" and there was no romance involved at
all.
They even rented separate hotel rooms at chess events so they could
claim that they were not sleeping together.
You may recall that on this group the strongest supporter they had
during the election campaign was Chris Falter from South Carolina.
After Falter, a deeply religious person who was the only one who
recognized when I quoted from the Bible on this forum, learned that
they had been secretly married, he turned from being their biggest
supporter to being their worst enemy.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
above, can we all agree that the USCF's Phd. issue is bogus?
[/quote]I take this to mean that you agree that Truong's claim to have
a Ph.D. degree was bogus, in that he had no such degree. I am glad to
see that at least we agree on that point.[quote]
As for the marriage issue, how is a full month and more before an
election "too late"? In Britain, Canada, and many democracies around
the world, a month is the ENTIRE election - from the day the Prime
Minister announces it to the day of voting.
[/quote]
The candidates were each allowed to have three statements published in
Chess Life, one of 150 words and two of 500 words each. In none of
these campaign statements was it revealed that Truong and Polgar were
married to each other. It was only after a newspaper reporter in
Lubbock Texas reported it that they were forced to admit that it was
true. The only people who saw that admission were the relatively small
number who read the forums. I do not think that, even today, it has
been published in Chess Life that they are married to each other.
[quote]
Which brings us back to my main point: leaving Paul's guilt or
innocence aside for the moment, are all of you guys really confortable
with the things the USCF's lawyer has been saying in these legal
briefs?[/quote]
I certainly am. What specific statement by the lawyers do you object
to?
Sam Sloan
None
I don't understand why this marriage issue is such an issue. So they
wanted to keep their marriage secret. So what?
world...@juno.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
So it concealed that they were not exercising INDEPENDENT judgment for
the benefit of USCF. It concealed that they were exercising COMBINED
judgment to favor their their own agenda.
David Ames
world...@juno.com
> a Ph.D. degree was bogus, in that he had no such degree. I am glad to
> see that at least we agree on that point.[quote]
Oh, come now. Surely we have heard of bogus degrees -- bought, not
earned. Maybe he had one of those.
David Ames