Re: Those FSS Postings--Samplings From Truong Deposition (3)
Teddybear
"MrVidmar" <vid...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:6MOdnYWuxdNBUZzW...@giganews.com...
> 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.
None
The Historian
(Snip)
I hope this things gets to trial. Truong is going to roast on the
stand.
noauth
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
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.
MrVidmar
> In article <F5qdnboyotB...@giganews.com> Teddybear
> <tedd...@gmx.us> wrote:
>> slippery, isn't he?
>>
I have a limited imagination. Please be specific so that I may decide
how far to run and hide. ;-)
jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu
> Q.
> Under oath, did you have anything to do with
> A.
> Q.
> Sloan postings?
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
ChessFire
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
MrVidmar
jeremy.p...@vanderbilt.edu
> 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
Mike Murray
<onec...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Said Mottershead either discovered or created the Truong links, no?
Heh, heh. Phil phrases it to imply Mottershead might have fabricated
the data. The idiocy of that implication, after all the independent
review of the report (and corroborating ISP data) is worthy of a true
sycophant.
>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.
It's hard to see the tail, Phil. Your nose blocks the view.
stan
> On Nov 18, 5:07�pm, "jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu"
><jeremy.p.spin...@vanderbilt.edu> wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 4:05�pm, MrVidmar <vid...@nowhere.com> wrote:
<repost for nth time of LONG text>
>> 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.
>
> ;)
Who says it was confidential? What are the grounds for
confidentiality? E-mail is neither confidential nor secure.
>> 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?
It's refreshing to find a well read idiot; far too many idiots are
illiterate.
It's a stretch to consider this a thread or a discussion, but I
believe I grasped the gist; apparently I'm not as good of an
idiot as Phil.
As for the point, I have no answer to how lawyers justify silly
behavior. I understand how criminal charges deserve a vigorous defense
although it's often taken to unjustified extremes. I can't understand
civil matters justify such clear nonsense.
As a judge over this matter, I would be very concerned about the use
of scarce court resources and I would put everyone on a short leash. I
will be surprised if there are no comments, reprimands, or possibly
even sanctions before this ends. The deposition is simply one example
of the circus this whole mess has become.
At a minimum, this kind of gaming the system can't possibly help;
forcing a judge to 1) draw a line in the sand saying you can't bend
the system past this point and 2) declare that you children really
have to play well together cant be a good thing. I can't imagine how
anything but an unfavorable impression could result. Annoying the
judge seems a peculiar strategy indeed.
None
Very knowledgeable guy. Sounds like you spent a fair share of time in
the courts.
The Historian
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:56:12 -0800 (PST), ChessFire
>
> >Said Mottershead either discovered or created the Truong links, no?
>
> Heh, heh. Phil phrases it to imply Mottershead might have fabricated
> the data. The idiocy of that implication, after all the independent
> review of the report (and corroborating ISP data) is worthy of a true
> sycophant.
And let's not forget Mr. Innes, who once claimed in a press release to
be enough of a computer expert to testify in front of a US Senate
Committee, hasn't been able to dispute any findings in the Motterhead
report.
ChessFire
wrote:
> On Nov 19, 11:44 am, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:56:12 -0800 (PST), ChessFire
>
> > <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >Said Mottershead either discovered or created the Truong links, no?
>
> > Heh, heh. Phil phrases it to imply Mottershead might have fabricated
> > the data. The idiocy of that implication, after all the independent
> > review of the report (and corroborating ISP data) is worthy of a true
> > sycophant.
>
> And let's not forget Mr. Innes, who once claimed in a press release to
> be enough of a computer expert to testify in front of a US Senate
> Committee, hasn't been able to dispute any findings in the Motterhead
> report.
Let's not forget the comprehension level of Neil Brennan, author of
'Old English is Dead' using only 4 words of Old English to say so
It's true I developed with others a net-property, learning tool in
musical composition which not only got high marks from the Senate
Technology Committee, but also the US Vice-President, Al Gore.
As to Murray's commentary, analysed by whom? Or just 'lots?' Eg: There
are only 2 outcomes, Truong did it, or Truong was framed. If the
second then the /logical/ 2 possibilities are that Motterhead changed
the meta-tags, or that Motterhead simply discovered changed meta-tags.
To understand this requires only that you understand 'search and
replace' in a document or database, except of course if your Neil
Brennan to which this is high science.
As we see below, the circumstances of access are entirely ignored.
>
> > >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.
>
> > It's hard to see the tail, Phil. Your nose blocks the view.
Brennan is very drawn to these subjects -- Didn't some anon-abusenik
follow your and only your posts for awhile? In fact, haven't you
investigated personal circumstances of other posters here, that is as
well as net-stalking them?
WATCHERS: take note.
Phil Innes
Mike Murray
<onec...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 19, 11:44�am, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
>> > Heh, heh. �Phil phrases it to imply Mottershead might have fabricated
>> > the data. �The idiocy of that implication, after all the independent
>> > review of the report (and corroborating ISP data) is worthy of a true
>> > sycophant.
>As to Murray's commentary, analysed by whom? Or just 'lots?'
Robert Jones, of Craic Computing and David Ulevich of OpenDNS. I
think there was at least one other. The qualifications of the experts
who have evaluated the Mottershead report have been discussed ad
nauseam, in the USCF Members Forum, among other places.
To avoid appearing the ignorant jackass, you owe it to yourself to
become informed of stuff like this before posting these inane
questions and observations.
> Eg: There
>are only 2 outcomes, Truong did it, or Truong was framed. If the
>second then the /logical/ 2 possibilities are that Motterhead changed
>the meta-tags, or that Motterhead simply discovered changed meta-tags.
You've made progress, Phil. Congratulations. Evidently, you've
discarded the master-hacker-stalker theory flogged by various
pseudo-anonymice in the last couple years.
>To understand this requires only that you understand 'search and
>replace' in a document or database,
If you add "correlate" and "crosscheck" to your beginner's tool-kit,
you' get a little closer, Phil. Keep trying.
The Historian
> On Nov 21, 12:26 pm, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 19, 11:44 am, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:56:12 -0800 (PST), ChessFire
>
> > > <onech...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > > >Said Mottershead either discovered or created the Truong links, no?
>
> > > Heh, heh. Phil phrases it to imply Mottershead might have fabricated
> > > the data. The idiocy of that implication, after all the independent
> > > review of the report (and corroborating ISP data) is worthy of a true
> > > sycophant.
>
> > And let's not forget Mr. Innes, who once claimed in a press release to
> > be enough of a computer expert to testify in front of a US Senate
> > Committee, hasn't been able to dispute any findings in the Motterhead
> > report.
>
> Let's not forget the comprehension level of Neil Brennan, author of
> 'Old English is Dead' using only 4 words of Old English to say so
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB119491508641690678-lMyQjAxMDE3OTE0NDkxMTQ1Wj.html
"It's not the first time "Beowulf" has undergone a reimagining. The
tongue of the Anglo-Saxons, sometimes called "Old English," is a
positively foreign language. Whenever translators try to tackle it,
they must make choices about how to interpret a dead language for
modern readers."
The Historian
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:49:52 -0800 (PST), ChessFire
>
> >> On Nov 19, 11:44 am, Mike Murray <mikemur...@despammed.com> wrote:
> >> > Heh, heh. Phil phrases it to imply Mottershead might have fabricated
> >> > the data. The idiocy of that implication, after all the independent
> >> > review of the report (and corroborating ISP data) is worthy of a true
> >> > sycophant.
> >As to Murray's commentary, analysed by whom? Or just 'lots?'
>
> Robert Jones, of Craic Computing and David Ulevich of OpenDNS. I
> think there was at least one other.
USCF/Kronenberg also brought in an expert. And Guy Macon, a poster
here, also checked the report. So that's four total, not including
Mottershead.