Those FSS Postings--Samplings From Truong Deposition (3)
MrVidmar
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.
Teddybear
"MrVidmar" <vid...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:6MOdnYWuxdNBUZzW...@giganews.com...
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
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.
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.
Fritz Wuehler
> noauth wrote:
> > In article <F5qdnboyotB...@giganews.com> Teddybear
> > <tedd...@gmx.us> 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
> Slippery with the help of grease from a young attorney who should know
> better.
( Snip of archived libelous reference to deter further propagation of it )
> The professional lives of attorneys often require the making of
> difficult decisions. I can't imagine doing what Ms. _______ has done.
I have an excellent imagination. Among other things, it was your lack of
imagination, Brian, that kept you in the humble judicial position where
you
stagnated for so many years.
Please be specific so that I may decide what you believe that she has done
that falls without that which you are conceivably capable of imagining.
> 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.
If true, what a surprise that a fool has fools for friends.
Not.
> In my opinion, she has gone beyond zealous representation of her client
> far into the realm of bad faith actions on her client's behalf.
Oh yeah. Archived for further suit against you. Is that "opinion" shared
by
your friend OdessaChess and chesster...@gmail.com? Care to contact
him
and talk it through?
> If she thinks that a number of us defendants will not seek to hold her
> accountable, she should think again.
Fuck you, in the most cordial sense, Lafferty.
> And when that comes to pass, I think she will find that Mr. _______ will
> save himself by trying to put her under the wheels of the bus.
I seem to recall reading a similar prediction from the same source, that
a world champion chess player would throw a certain native of WA under the
wheels of a bus. Guess this prediction will be just as accurate.
> Had I been in Ms. ______'s shoes as an attorney on this case,
A perfectly impossible hypothetical. Champion chess players do not choose
nincompoop retired/fired Parking Ticket Judges as their attorneys.
> I would have refused to do any further work for Ms. Polgar once it became
> clear that she has no case.
To a fool, most everything may be "clear".
> If that required seeking another position with a different law firm, that
> is what I would have done. Risking ones
one's, Brain.
> professional career in this manner is just plain foolishness, IMO.
You would know, right?
> > , more than they can imagine.
> >
> be specific so that I may decide how far to run and hide.
No hole deep enough, no depository (JFK, Dallas) far enough, Brian? ;-)
I once had a room-mate as stupid as you. He ended up in a hole.
For the watchers- I don't actually believe it is Sloan abusing a sitting
Federal judge, while pretending to be someone else impersonating Sloan.
I think it is YOU, Lafferti.
So does DA already. And others. Maybe eventually a DA will believe.
After GA is exonerated (RH will not be influenced by your hate spewing)
you'll have one more out to nail your sorry tail to the door.
None
<fr...@spamexpire-201001.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> wrote:
> MrVidmar wrote in news:alt.chess...
>
> > noauth wrote:
Thx for sharing Charlie