Are the Polgar vs. USCF Cases about to settle?
samsloan
and Polgar vs. the USCF have been agreed to be settled with all
parties exchanging mutual releases.
In my view, this settlement, while it might have been reasonable back
in July, is not acceptable now. Polgar has lost every motion since
then and summary judgment is pending.
A settlement under these terms would leave Polgar with a free hand to
start the whole thing again and knowing her history she will do so.
The USCF should settle for nothing less than a judgment for the more
than $600,000 in legal fees these cases have cost plus an order
barring Polgar and Truong from ever running for or holding USCF office
again.
Sam Sloan
Just A Patzer
But aren't you party to one of these suits? You aren't going to sign a
mutual release are you? Can't you press for a summary judgement even
if Polgar drops her suit against you?
samsloan
fees for continuing the case? I thought not. BTW, a settlement would
not "leave Polgar with a free hand to start the whole thing again"
unless the USCF's attorneys are idiots. The settlement would preclude
relitigating the same issues.
John Hillery [/quote]
At this point the USCF would have to pay little or no additional legal
fees. Whitney Leigh lost all his motions in San Francisco and the
cases were transferred out of that court.
The USCF has filed motions for summary judgment in Texas and the
responses have been essentially two paragraph non-responses. The
motions are now pending.
Basically, Polgar has a lost position, a queen and a rook down with
only a few pawns left on her side.
A settlement now essentially declaring the entire litigation a draw
would be a victory for Polgar. She would be getting what she said she
wanted at the beginning of the cases when she wanted an apology and a
dollar, except that she would no longer get the dollar.
Sam Sloan
jkh001
Nonsense. Lawyers charge by the hour. If the USCF refused a
settlement, they would have to pay the attorneys for every minute they
spent drafting motions, researching cases, and attending court. Coming
from someone who spent his term on the Board whining about fiscal
responsibility, this willingness to spend the USCF's money pursuing
your personal enemies is amusing. My suggestion: Refuse to settle and
have your case severed. Then you and Polgar can harass esch other with
frivolous lawsuits until one of you dies of old age. Not at the USCF's
expense.
Vidmar2008
It's clear that you either don't know all the settlement details or
you are not being forthcomming. about them. How did you learn of
this?
Brian Lafferty
Wick
Brian, are you authorized to confirm that a settlement is in place as
to some of the issues?
Vidmar2008
>
> - Show quoted text -
I will not comment because to do so would violate the court ordered
confidentiality of the mediation process. IMO, Mr. Sloan has violated
that confidentiality and should be sanctioned for it. He should also
be excluded from any further involvement in discussions with the
mediators.
Teddybear
"Wick" <wick...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:925fd2b8-eeb9-43a4...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
What about Mr. Toosmarttofail.com? Or is everyone just going to laugh at
him....LOL
He was so counting on you guys doing all his work for him...awwwww
None
Up pops the weasel.
samsloan
The two mediators filed last month in San Francisco federal court that
the mediation is over and terminated.
The case has been transferred out of San Francisco and as far as I
know there is nothing further pending there. So, as far as I can tell,
mediation is no longer involved.
I fail to understand what you could possibly be referring to.
The USCF has filed numerous motions for Summary Judgment in the Texas
case which are now pending. Polgar seems to have no defense. A motion
was recently granted in favor of the USCF against Polgar and Truong in
the Illinois case.
If mediation is being restarted there should be a new court order to
that effect. I do not think that the USCF should agree to a new and
further wasteful mediation until the plethora of motions now sub
judice are decided.
Sam Sloan
Vidmar2008
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are deemed to have received a copy of the Mediator's filing with
the court on 10/2/09 advising that court ordered mediation had
recommenced and was ongoing. There is no need for another order from
the judge. You are in deep shit and I intend to ask that you be
sanctioned. God, you are such a putz.
samsloan
I am aware of no such filing.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
motions were stayed. These included motions to remove Karl
Kronenberger as the USCF's counsel and Polgar's motion to dismiss the
USCF's case on the grounds of ultra virus in that it was not
authorized.
Subsequent to the filing that the mediation was terminated, all these
motions that had been stayed for months were decided. The result was
that Polgar and Alexander lost every motion. Polgar also had motions
pending in the Texas and Illinois cases. Polgar lost those motions as
well.
In addition, the San Francisco case was transferred to Texas, even
though Polgar did not want that. She had originally asked that the San
Francisco case be transferred to Texas after she won some motions in
Texas. After she started losing in Texas, she no longer wanted the
case transfered there, but the San Francisco judge transferred it
anyway.
The result is that since the mediation in San Francisco was
terminated, Polgar has lost about 8 motions and won zero motions. Her
strongest attorney, Whitney Leigh, is no longer on the case, and her
remaining attorney, James Killion in Texas, has given the case to one
of his subordinates who just files two paragraph summary oppositions
to motions.
What has happened now is that faced with total loss Polgar has come
back and said that she wants to accept the settlement terms that she
rejected previously.
It is not reasonable for the USCF to accept a settlement now which
lets Polgar off scott free when the USCF is so close to total victory.
Sam Sloan
None
I am aware of no such filing.-- Sam Sloan
Don't worry Sam, you can always plead insanity.
Wick
> I wish to point out that during the mediation process all pending
> motions were stayed. These included motions to remove Karl
> Kronenberger as the USCF's counsel and Polgar's motion to dismiss the
> USCF's case on the grounds of ultra virus in that it was not
> authorized.
>
> Subsequent to the filing that the mediation was terminated, all these
> motions that had been stayed for months were decided. The result was
> that Polgar and Alexander lost every motion. Polgar also had motions
> pending in the Texas and Illinois cases. Polgar lost those motions as
> well.
Incorrect. The only pending motion that Judge Patel decided was the
motion to disqualify. All other motions continue to pend.
Matt Nemmers
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sloan's tombstone should be engraved:
"Oh no! I suck again!"
Vidmar2008
Sam needs to shut hi pie hole for a while. I'm amazed he hasn't read
and/or understood the filings with Judge Patel.
B. Lafferty
samsloan
The mediation terminated on 9/18.
The mediation was a total waste of time and money. 13 lawyers met for
2 days at 13 hours each day, for a total of 13 x 2 x 13 or 338 per
hour.
Lawyers now charge a minimum of $300 per hour, so a total of $101,400
in billable legal fees plus of course travel time because many of the
lawyers had to come from Texas.
This mediation was obviously going to be a waste of time from the
beginning, yet we went along with it because the judge in San
Francisco basically had ordered it.
After the mediation was concluded the Judge in San Francisco made
several rulings all of which Polgar lost and then transferred the case
to Texas, which Polgar opposed. This means that Polgar's lawyer
Whitney Leigh and the USCF's San Francisco lawyer Karl Kronenberger
are no longer in the case except to the extent that Karl Kronenberger
has been named as a defendant by Polgar.
Now it is you, Brian Lafferty, who is if anything in contempt by
stating that mediation has been restarted and that there was a
telephone conference call on October 1-2. I was not notified of any
such call and I know nothing about it. I am certainly not bound by the
results if any.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
I certainly have read the filings by Judge Patel. You are wrong as
usual.
The last document in the file is an order by Judge Patel.
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/03516105478
This order states that the mediation has been concluded
unsuccessfully, the motions by Polgar are all denied, the case is
ordered transferred to Texas, and the clerk is directed to close the
file.
I fail to understand why Brian Lafferty thinks that the San Francisco
mediators are back on the case, and if they are back on the case he is
in violation of the confidentiality agreement by disclosing it.
Sam Sloan
samsloan
<blaff...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Sam, you are a total putz. Patel decided only one motion and she denied it. That was Leigh's motion to disqualify Kronenberger. The mediation is on going as noted by the filing of the federal mediators in early October. You need to shut up or you will be facing a request for sanctions.
> B. Lafferty
I certainly have read the filings by Judge Patel. You are wrong as
usual.
The last document in the file is an order by Judge Patel dated October
14, 2009.
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/doc1/03516105478
This order states that the mediation has been concluded
unsuccessfully, the motions by Polgar are all denied, the case is
ordered transferred to Texas, and the clerk is directed to close the
file.
I fail to understand why Brian Lafferty thinks that the San Francisco
mediators are back on the case, and if they are back on the case he is
in violation of the confidentiality agreement by disclosing it.
We are now in the endgame. Polgar is a queen and a rook down and has
only a few pawns left on the board. Her lawyers are all quitting, now
that they realize that her case was fraudulent from the beginning.
So, faced with a total defeat, Polgar is offering a draw.
Sam Sloan
--
Sincerely,
Sam Sloan
917-507-7226
http://www.SamsOwnBooks.com/shop.aspx
http://www.sloanteaches.com
Vidmar2008
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Brian Lafferty
>
> mediators are back on the case, and if they are back on the case he is
> in violation of the confidentiality agreement by disclosing it.
Sam, what little that you've learned about this you learned from the
mediator with whom you spoke. When the mediator spoke with you, any
reasonable person would conclude that mediation was going on. But not
our Sam. Regardless of your misinterpretations of court orders and
filings mediation is clearly ongoing. Noting the fact that mediation
is going on again is not a violation of any aspect of
confidentiality. The fact of ongoing mediation is not a secret as
evidenced by the 10/2/09 filing of the mediators with Patels court.
You really need to take a long trip to China, find a new bride and
live there for a few years without computer access. And that's all
because you're a putz.
And that's all I'm going to write on this topic.
samsloan
mediation, here is my last communication with the mediators.
It is dated September 15, 2009 and I sent it while I was in China. It
was sent to the mediators with copies to all counsel in the case.
I received no reply to this letter but three days later, on September
18, it was announced in court that the mediation had concluded
unsuccessfully.
I have no idea why Brian Lafferty has suddenly started saying that
mediation is still going on and that I am violating a non-existent
court order by revealing it.
Sam Sloan
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Sam Sloan <samh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thank you.
>
> Frankly, I see no point in further mediation. All sides have taken
> rock-hard positions and are so far apart with no middle ground that
> mediation just consumes lawyer fees.
>
> May I remind you that last time 13 lawyers participated in the two-day
> mediation session of 13 hours each day and ultimately no progress was
> made.
>
> I am still in Shenyang, China but my return date of September 22 is
> absolutely firm. I cannot afford to stay here longer.
>
> Sam Sloan
madams
>
> I wish to point out that during the mediation process all pending
> motions were stayed. These included motions to remove Karl
> Kronenberger as the USCF's counsel and Polgar's motion to dismiss the
> USCF's case on the grounds of ultra virus in that it was not
> authorized.
-----
I wish, wish, wish (fingers crossed, cob-in-arse..)....
All corsets stayed, krone's bowels, Polgar-turbo-shit..
B-dissed, cawfee-granules, swine-vaccine (bewished.. b)
The pigfat-farted....FRRrtt...NOfrrtt..nOfrrt oinc.k !
_____
madams
.
> The man is a putz. He also acts most often like an idiot. At times he
> almost a dumb as the other Sloan.
=====
O . a.h i hee ? .. potty !
=====
madams
zzzzzzz...
help bot
> I am aware of no such filing.-- Sam Sloan
> Don't worry Sam, you can always plead insanity.
Not if Mr. Vidmar has anything to say about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Eiger_Sanction_(film)
Mr. Vidmar says he intends to ask that Mr. Sloan
be sanctioned for violating the sacred secrecy of our
court system's mediation process. In view of this, I
would suggest *not* going on any mountain climbing
excursions with Mr. Sloan in the near future... .
-- help bot
help bot
> You really need to take a long trip to China, find a new bride and
> live there for a few years without computer access. And that's all
> because you're a putz.
You would curse China with the foul discharge
of America's least-wanted? Fine. Then you,
too, shall be cursed: may you live in interesting
times, my friend... .
-- help bot
jkh001
I think Sloan could make a real contribution to the Chinese economy.
They're always in the market for organs to harvest.
madams
.
>
> I think Sloan could make a real contribution to the Chinese economy.
> They're always in the market for organs to harvest.
------
Penis envy - John ?
______
jkh001
Since the Sloon's useful organs withered away long ago, hardly. Of
course, his brain went first.
The Masked Bishop
well. <
Oh no, I would never suggest that you all get along! That's too
boring. The idea was that there's no debating someone whose notion of
a riposte is to call you a funny and then run back behind a tree.
With that said, at this point Sam Sloan is easily the most skilled
debater on this board, because he sticks to (his version) of the
issues.
Just a thought...and thanks Matt, good to be back.
TMB
jkh001
Not everyone is worthy of rational debate. Those with an impaired
reality test must simply be ignored or ridiculed. Sloan proved himself
to be in that category years ago. If you are really suggesting that
the rest of us should coddle his delusions, where exactly do you want
to draw the line? Marcus Roberts? David Ickes? Lyndon LaRouche? You
can debate people like that if you wish, but don't expect the rest of
us to go along.
The Masked Bishop
the rest of us should coddle his delusions,<
That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that acting like name-
calling ten-year olds is even worse that posting delusions. If the
notions aren't worth debating, ignore them.
I know, it's a reach.
jkh001
I have some sympathy with that view. The problem is that a
loggorhoetic narcissist like Sloan is going to flood all available
channels with his lunacies. Often, he sounds superficially rational if
you don't know the facts, If he's not debunked, he'll end up being
quoted later as an "authority." Stomp him like a cockroach, /then/
ignore him.
samsloan
that a settlement in the Polgar vs. USCF was imminent was simply a
canard, a falsification. A lie.
This is established by the plethora of motions filed by USCF counsel
on Friday and Monday. The USCF and the USCF parties are nowhere near
to agreeing to a settlement on terms favorable to Polgar and Truong.
Rather, they have enough evidence not only for a civil judgment but to
put them in jail.
The attempt to badger and threaten the defendants in a $10 million
lawsuit in order to cram down a settlement favorable to Polgar and
Truong was unethical. Lies were told that a settlement had been agreed
upon, when no such thing had occurred.
I intend at the appropriate time to complain to whatever regulatory
bodies are involved.
Sam Sloan
jkh001
Um, Sam, _you_ were the one who started the rumor. If you plan to ask
for sanctions against yourself, go for it.
MrVidmar
> It is now apparent that the rumor and report that surfaced last week
> that a settlement in the Polgar vs. USCF was imminent was simply a
> canard, a falsification. A lie.
Are you alleging that Mr. Bowling lied to you?
RayGordon
> > calling ten-year olds is even worse that posting delusions. If the
> > notions aren't worth debating, ignore them.
>
> > I know, it's a reach.
>
> I have some sympathy with that view.
Only when others use the tactic against HIM. A little Boolean logic
unravels the darker motive.
>The problem is that a
> loggorhoetic narcissist like Sloan
With “narcissist” defined at someone better at drawing crowds than
he. How DARE people pay attention to Sloan!!
The underlying premise is that “John” should be the one to determine
Sloan’s level of self-esteem, an attempt at social dominance which is
actually rather predatory.
>is going to flood all available
> channels with his lunacies.
The term “lunacy” is what they call SLANTED language, used to
establish false premise for discrediting it, or a false “need” to
counteract it, which, of course, could be done LOGICALLY, without the
insults, most of which are thought by actual debaters to be a sign
that one is LOSING an argument, and is just making noise to disguise
that.
>Often, he sounds superficially rational if
> you don't know the facts,
He SOUNDS that way at times, because he IS that way, at times. That’s
the point of DEBATING. “John” is actually insulting the AUDIENCE, by
claiming that it doesn’t know how to think for itself, and needs him
to “inform” it.
This is also the guy who felt the need to post a DEATH THREAT against
me (people DO go to prisons for that stuff), with similar
justification (in his mind), literally at risk to his freedom. As a
rule, men don’t risk prison or lawsuits unless something BIG is at
stake.
This raises the question: what IS his stake here that would cause him
to take such risks?
>If he's not debunked, he'll end up being
> quoted later as an "authority." Stomp him like a cockroach, /then/
> ignore him.
“John” has some seriously violent ideations here, and it’s not the
first time. His basic premise – that his words carry more weight than
any other voice on this group – is flawed, and used only to justify
his abusive, if not illegal, behavior.
I do know that a pattern is emerging where several individuals with
current or former ties to USCF are harassing me on this group, to the
point where another round of litigation (if not outright criminal
complaints) may be in order.
Maybe “John” has been so isolated for so long, he doesn’t understand
that what might sound innocuous when spoken among equally impotent
chess geeks can lead to some serious legal consequences in regular
company. Saw his type lots of time in the chess world: one got
verbally aggressive with me at a tournament skittles room until I took
two steps in his direction, only to find a sheepish offer of a
handshake.
This thread has definitely strengthened my resolve NOT to settle this
case, something I was open to until “Teddybear,” JKH, and Double-D
started their shit again. I hope USCF and the Polgars are aware of
why this case will be continuing. They have no one but these three to
thank.
Matt Nemmers
He's ba-aaaaack.....!
Please stay tuned for your daily dose of sarcasm.
> The term “lunacy” is what they call SLANTED language, used to
> establish false premise for discrediting it, or a false “need” to
> counteract it, which, of course, could be done LOGICALLY, without the
> insults, most of which are thought by actual debaters to be a sign
> that one is LOSING an argument, and is just making noise to disguise
> that.
Yes!
The "man" who spams this NG and others with such riveting and thought-
provoking posts like, "SUSAN POLGAR IS A CUNT" is clearly the person
by which all our moral posting barometers should be governed.
> >Often, he sounds superficially rational if
> > you don't know the facts,
>
> He SOUNDS that way at times, because he IS that way, at times. That’s
> the point of DEBATING. “John” is actually insulting the AUDIENCE, by
> claiming that it doesn’t know how to think for itself, and needs him
> to “inform” it.
Yes!
The "man" who has consistently and exasperatingly taken pains to try
and PROVE why everyone on this forum is wrong and HIS point of view is
the only rational one -- despite HARD evidence indicating otherwise --
is most certainly the person people here should listen to about what
constitutes rational debate.
> This is also the guy who felt the need to post a DEATH THREAT against
> me (people DO go to prisons for that stuff), with similar
> justification (in his mind), literally at risk to his freedom. As a
> rule, men don’t risk prison or lawsuits unless something BIG is at
> stake.
Yes!
The "man" who has threatened civil and criminal litigation against
nearly every one of his detractors here yet has never once even
properly served any of them and never actually won a SINGLE case he's
actually gotten before a judge should be taken VERY seriously when he
interprets the law and defines what constitutes an actionable offense.
> >If he's not debunked, he'll end up being
> > quoted later as an "authority." Stomp him like a cockroach, /then/
> > ignore him.
>
> “John” has some seriously violent ideations here, and it’s not the
> first time. His basic premise – that his words carry more weight than
> any other voice on this group – is flawed, and used only to justify
> his abusive, if not illegal, behavior.
Yes!
The "man" who has threatened the lives of teenage gymnasts, wished the
death of children under the age of ten, and justified the attacks of
September 11, 2001 is the one we all should look to to gague what is
"abusive" and "illegal" behavior.
> I do know that a pattern is emerging where several individuals with
> current or former ties to USCF are harassing me on this group, to the
> point where another round of litigation (if not outright criminal
> complaints) may be in order.
Yes!
The "man" who has yet to even show damages for alleged libel and not
yet filed a coherent complaint should be absolutely taken at his word
when he says he means business.
> Maybe “John” has been so isolated for so long, he doesn’t understand
> that what might sound innocuous when spoken among equally impotent
> chess geeks can lead to some serious legal consequences in regular
> company. Saw his type lots of time in the chess world: one got
> verbally aggressive with me at a tournament skittles room until I took
> two steps in his direction, only to find a sheepish offer of a
> handshake.
Yes!
The "man" who hasn't played a real game of chess in almost two decades
-- so this alleged confrontation had to have taken place when he was
half the age he is now -- should frighten everybody here because he is
VERY strong and tough and imposing and scary and HE MEANS BUSINESS!
> This thread has definitely strengthened my resolve NOT to settle this
> case, something I was open to until “Teddybear,” JKH, and Double-D
> started their shit again. I hope USCF and the Polgars are aware of
> why this case will be continuing. They have no one but these three to
> thank.
Yes!
The "man" who got involved in this "high profile litigation" simply
because his pseudonym was brought up in court filings should expect to
see a WINDFALL of money on the coat-tails of those *actually* involved
in the case (despite the fact that he can't prove damages) because
he's GORDON ROY PARKER: PRO-SE LITIGANT EXTRAORDINAIRE!
.....
<sigh>
Despite the fact nobody -- NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON HERE OR ANYWHERE --
believes him, supports him, or thinks he can back up all the
outrageous claims he purports on here, he's never going to stop
talking out his ass, is he?
Attention whores: Gotta love 'em.
jkh001
That's right, I have an axe to grind. An old-fashioned fondness for
truth and sanity. Since Raygor's only contact with chess in the last
13 years has been exchanging insults with other rgcp trolls, I doubt
he's in any position to opine on either Sam Sloan's credibility, or
the conduct those of us who actually run tournaments would tolerate in
a skittles room. Of course, unlike Sloan, there's no particular need
to debunk the Gorgon. His references to "DEATH THREATS" (tm, be sure
to capitalize) are enough to put him in the Official Monster Raving
Loony category. (Paranoids of the world unite! You have nothing to
lose but your sanity!)
Teddybear
"RayGordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:b5512c78-035e-4cc2...@g23g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> > That's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting that acting like name-
> > calling ten-year olds is even worse that posting delusions. If the
> > notions aren't worth debating, ignore them.
>
> > I know, it's a reach.
>
> I have some sympathy with that view.
> Only when others use the tactic against HIM. A little Boolean logic
> unravels the darker motive.
OH please tell us what that darker motive might be oh wise one......
>The problem is that a
> loggorhoetic narcissist like Sloan
> With �narcissist� defined at someone better at drawing crowds than
> he. How DARE people pay attention to Sloan!!
? The underlying premise is that �John� should be the one to determine
> Sloan�s level of self-esteem, an attempt at social dominance which is
> actually rather predatory.
Look who's talking! Pot, meet Kettle..
>is going to flood all available
> channels with his lunacies.
> The term �lunacy� is what they call SLANTED language, used to
> establish false premise for discrediting it, or a false �need� to
> counteract it, which, of course, could be done LOGICALLY, without the
> insults, most of which are thought by actual debaters to be a sign
> that one is LOSING an argument, and is just making noise to disguise
> that.
One cannot use logic, with the illogical. Sloan feels it's necessary to
post everything in his life on every group that he has the remotest interest
in. Who cares what is going on in some lawsuit over who knows what in
California? it has nothing to do with the purpose of this group. Sort of
like the garbage you post and cross post all over the internet when you want
attention. One does not have to have a degree in psychology to know an
attention whore when it manefests itself.
>Often, he sounds superficially rational if
> you don't know the facts,
> He SOUNDS that way at times, because he IS that way, at times. That�s
> the point of DEBATING. �John� is actually insulting the AUDIENCE, by
> claiming that it doesn�t know how to think for itself, and needs him
> to �inform� it.
> This is also the guy who felt the need to post a DEATH THREAT against
> me (people DO go to prisons for that stuff), with similar
> justification (in his mind), literally at risk to his freedom. As a
> rule, men don�t risk prison or lawsuits unless something BIG is at
> stake.
Ohhhh, another claim of a DEATH THREAT (note the capitals) which is
unspecified and if history serves us, probably not a threat at all. Like
the "death threats" that were supposed to be in that letter that was sent to
his mother, and later turned out to contain only the truth of what he has
been doing for years. Are we supposed to pity poor gordie now, because he's
scared of the big bad wolf?
> This raises the question: what IS his stake here that would cause him
> to take such risks?
Maybe he just doesn't like you, and your bombast. Did you ever think about
that gordie?
>If he's not debunked, he'll end up being
> quoted later as an "authority." Stomp him like a cockroach, /then/
> ignore him.
> �John� has some seriously violent ideations here, and it�s not the
> first time. His basic premise � that his words carry more weight than
> any other voice on this group � is flawed, and used only to justify
> his abusive, if not illegal, behavior.
Abusive, hmmm, like all that stuff you posted on the gymnastics group? you
mean abusive like that?
> I do know that a pattern is emerging where several individuals with
> current or former ties to USCF are harassing me on this group, to the
> point where another round of litigation (if not outright criminal
> complaints) may be in order.
Ok, he's almost finished with his list of whines, and threats that are
typical of his posts, so here it comes.........
> Maybe �John� has been so isolated for so long, he doesn�t understand
> that what might sound innocuous when spoken among equally impotent
> chess geeks can lead to some serious legal consequences in regular
> company. Saw his type lots of time in the chess world: one got
> verbally aggressive with me at a tournament skittles room until I took
> two steps in his direction, only to find a sheepish offer of a
> handshake.
I cannot imagine gordie in a social setting, and why would anyone at a
tournament say such things to him anyway, unless he was displaying his
typical abrasive pattern?
> This thread has definitely strengthened my resolve NOT to settle this
> case, something I was open to until �Teddybear,� JKH, and Double-D
> started their shit again. I hope USCF and the Polgars are aware of
> why this case will be continuing. They have no one but these three to
> thank.
BINGO, he has now exhausted his list of typical threats, this time he's
going to carry on a lawsuit because uninvolved parties laugh at his threats.
Uh huh....LOL
Who is Double D? Or is that someone from another group? I see he's cross
posted to 5 groups including alt.morons. How appropriate!
RayGordon
> I have met Killion.
Yet "Teddybear" is too much of a COWARD to even sign his name to
posting, just as he bellows about wanting to "meet," even if he could
send ANYONE claiming to be him, and would fight any subpoena for his
identity (move my case to Lubbock and he gets one).
Have others do my work for me? They already did. Tons of
depositions, Polgar and Truong dodging questions about the Mottershead
Report, USCF's discovery team was kind enough to authenticate all that
IP stuff, etc.
Guess they're still hoping for a miracle against me in this case.
Motion to dismiss already failed, jurisdiction is established (not
venue, which is up in the air), defendants have been served. Under
the rules -- and "Teddybear" KNOWS this -- what I have to do to win
the case is prove that Truong/Polgar were the internet imposter. I've
also asked each to answer under oath if they were. Truong's dodge in
the Polgar lawsuit won't fly in mine, since he's a party, and the
conduct is directly at issue.
Knowing just how much it BURNS up these folks to see me win a case
like this is actually very soothing, particularly as they get louder
and louder, cross more and more lines, and as the realization that
they can't do a fucking THING to stop me from winning sets in, even as
they front for the public, while hiding behind their monitors.
Don't know if the other cases involving them are solved, but mine will
not be. Up to a month ago, I offered to chuck the case for next to
nothing, just to clear it from my desk, but "Teddybear," Double-D, and
"Noauth" have shown me this can't be done. It is those three, and
ONLY those three that Polgar and Truong have to thank for this case
going the distance. Double-D is the only reason the lawsuit was filed
in the first place, since he's what got the ball rolling with his
posts from a few years back.
Ray Gordon
Teddybear
know it.
"RayGordon" <r...@cybersheet.com> wrote in message
news:d6d93c0f-5986-4034...@k9g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
alpo gent
this is jaytastic! wormtown is going away. so many socks
jkh001
Parker, Roberts ... maybe we should be inoculating against Mad Cow
instead of Swine Flu.