| |
Main
Date: 19 Feb 2009 17:55:48
From: samsloan
Subject: Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
|
Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
I consider the decision by the federal judge in the case Polgar vs.
USCF in the United States District Court in Lubbock, Texas to be a
victory for the Good Guys. It was not the knock out that some had
hoped for, but it was probably the best decision that could reasonably
be expected.
The next thing that will happen is that both Polgar and myself have
until March 16, 2009 to file an amended complaint. I would appreciate
it if some of the hot-shot attorneys around here advise me on how to
do this, because I am not sure exactly what the court wants, but the
fact that my counter-claim has survived Polgar's motion to dismiss is
encouraging. The court's decision also has the effect of reviving my
complaint against Polgar and Truong that was dismissed in New York on
jurisdictional grounds.
The big problem that Polgar and Truong have, because Truong was
brought into the case by my counter claim, is that soon Polgar will be
called upon to give depositions. Polgar does not want to testify for
reasons that are obvious. Up until now, she has not even signed a
pleading or made a statement of any kind under oath. There are now
five active lawsuits involving Susan Polgar. She is the only person
who is either a plaintiff or a defendant in every case. She has
managed to evade giving any sworn testimony, but soon her number will
be up.
What I think will happen in the immediate aftermath of the courts
decision is that her lawyer, Jim Killion, will call her in and ask her
for some money. He probably started this case believing her heartfelt
story about being a poor, unfortunate victim of invidious
discrimination, because of being a woman of foreign descent. Almost
everybody believes her story when they first hear it. She is quite
convincing. I know that I believed her tales of woe when I first got
involved with her and I continued to believe her stories for years
afterwards until relatively recently.
Because of the type of attorney he is, Jim Killion probably thought he
was going to get a quickie settlement. This is because his specialty
is automobile accident cases, which usually end with the insurance
company paying out a settlement and the lawyer taking his cut. Here is
how he describes his legal practice on his website at http://www.killionlaw=
.com
=93Motor Vehicle Collisions =96 including those involving car crashes,
passenger, driver, pedestrian, motorcycle, truck, semi-trailer, 18-
wheeler, heavy equipment, commercial vehicles, ATVs, train, public
transportation, bus, planes, bicycles, drunk drivers, uninsured &
underinsured motorists, and hit & run.=94
Now he can see that he is in for a long legal battle with little hope
for a significant recovery. I expect Jim Killion to jump ship soon.
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2009 16:40:27
From:
Subject: Re: Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
|
Mr.Vidmar wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > None wrote:
> >> On Feb 21, 4:35 am, [email protected] wrote:
> >>> samsloan wrote:
> >>>> On Feb 19, 9:05 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecution
> >>>>> action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
> >>>>> dismissed. I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
> >>>>> action to consider doing the same. Another eight or ten actions around
> >>>>> the country..........priceless.
> >>>> This will not work.
> >>>> The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one is
> >>>> what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.
> >>>> Sam Sloan
> >>> 1) The kind that doesn't care about legal ethics. 2) Mal pros is very
> >>> difficult to win (it's a "disfavored action" in most jurisdictions),
> >>> though it's true Polgar's lawsuit is pretty clearly abusive. If
> >>> Lafferty wants to engage in that kind of vindictiveness, though, it
> >>> might give him an incentive to discourage settlement. Do we really
> >>> want someone like that on the Board?
> >> Someone with balls you mean? Yea I think so.
> >
> > Sure. If you want someone with a loud mouth, a big ego, and no ethics,
> > by all means vote for Brian L. Some of us have higher standards.
>
> No ethics? Substantiate or retract, John.
Why should I? That's a statement about your subjective mental state,
inherently nondisprovable, hence outside the scope of libel law. (We
won't even mention Times v Sullivan.) I think your behavior supports
my opinion (though many of the relevant posts are in the "USCF Issues"
forum, hence unavailable to the general public), but that's up to each
voter to decide individually.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2009 20:40:53
From: Mr.Vidmar
Subject: Re: Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Mr.Vidmar wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> None wrote:
>>>> On Feb 21, 4:35 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> samsloan wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 19, 9:05 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecution
>>>>>>> action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
>>>>>>> dismissed. I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
>>>>>>> action to consider doing the same. Another eight or ten actions around
>>>>>>> the country..........priceless.
>>>>>> This will not work.
>>>>>> The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one is
>>>>>> what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.
>>>>>> Sam Sloan
>>>>> 1) The kind that doesn't care about legal ethics. 2) Mal pros is very
>>>>> difficult to win (it's a "disfavored action" in most jurisdictions),
>>>>> though it's true Polgar's lawsuit is pretty clearly abusive. If
>>>>> Lafferty wants to engage in that kind of vindictiveness, though, it
>>>>> might give him an incentive to discourage settlement. Do we really
>>>>> want someone like that on the Board?
>>>> Someone with balls you mean? Yea I think so.
>>> Sure. If you want someone with a loud mouth, a big ego, and no ethics,
>>> by all means vote for Brian L. Some of us have higher standards.
>> No ethics? Substantiate or retract, John.
>
> Why should I? That's a statement about your subjective mental state,
> inherently nondisprovable, hence outside the scope of libel law. (We
> won't even mention Times v Sullivan.) I think your behavior supports
> my opinion (though many of the relevant posts are in the "USCF Issues"
> forum, hence unavailable to the general public), but that's up to each
> voter to decide individually.
When you question a person's ethics, one would hope you could back up
your statement with a reasoned, factual argument.
What you're admitting, John is that you are a bullsh***ing blowhard.
That makes you no more than an Internet Troll. But we've known that for
quite some time. Enjoy your evening.
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Feb 2009 02:01:29
From: foad
Subject: Re: Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
|
"Mr.Vidmar" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Mr.Vidmar wrote:
>>> [email protected] wrote:
>>>> None wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 21, 4:35 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> samsloan wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 19, 9:05 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious
>>>>>>>> prosecution
>>>>>>>> action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
>>>>>>>> dismissed. I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
>>>>>>>> action to consider doing the same. Another eight or ten actions
>>>>>>>> around
>>>>>>>> the country..........priceless.
>>>>>>> This will not work.
>>>>>>> The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.
>>>>>>> Sam Sloan
>>>>>> 1) The kind that doesn't care about legal ethics. 2) Mal pros is very
>>>>>> difficult to win (it's a "disfavored action" in most jurisdictions),
>>>>>> though it's true Polgar's lawsuit is pretty clearly abusive. If
>>>>>> Lafferty wants to engage in that kind of vindictiveness, though, it
>>>>>> might give him an incentive to discourage settlement. Do we really
>>>>>> want someone like that on the Board?
>>>>> Someone with balls you mean? Yea I think so.
>>>> Sure. If you want someone with a loud mouth, a big ego, and no ethics,
>>>> by all means vote for Brian L. Some of us have higher standards.
>>> No ethics? Substantiate or retract, John.
>>
>> Why should I? That's a statement about your subjective mental state,
>> inherently nondisprovable, hence outside the scope of libel law. (We
>> won't even mention Times v Sullivan.) I think your behavior supports
>> my opinion (though many of the relevant posts are in the "USCF Issues"
>> forum, hence unavailable to the general public), but that's up to each
>> voter to decide individually.
>
> When you question a person's ethics, one would hope you could back up your
> statement with a reasoned, factual argument.
> What you're admitting, John is that you are a bullsh***ing blowhard. That
> makes you no more than an Internet Troll. But we've known that for quite
> some time. Enjoy your evening.
A R C H I V E D
R
C
H
I
V
E
D
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2009 14:09:43
From:
Subject: Re: Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
|
None wrote:
> On Feb 21, 4:35=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> > samsloan wrote:
> > > On Feb 19, 9:05=A0pm, "Mr.Vidmar" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > > I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecu=
tion
> > > > action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
> > > > dismissed. =A0I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubboc=
k
> > > > action to consider doing the same. =A0Another eight or ten actions =
around
> > > > the country..........priceless.
> >
> > > This will not work.
> >
> > > The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one is
> > > what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.
> >
> > > Sam Sloan
> >
> > 1) The kind that doesn't care about legal ethics. 2) Mal pros is very
> > difficult to win (it's a "disfavored action" in most jurisdictions),
> > though it's true Polgar's lawsuit is pretty clearly abusive. If
> > Lafferty wants to engage in that kind of vindictiveness, though, it
> > might give him an incentive to discourage settlement. Do we really
> > want someone like that on the Board?
>
> Someone with balls you mean? Yea I think so.
Sure. If you want someone with a loud mouth, a big ego, and no ethics,
by all means vote for Brian L. Some of us have higher standards.
|
| | |
Date: 21 Feb 2009 17:41:39
From: Mr.Vidmar
Subject: Re: Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> None wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 4:35 am, [email protected] wrote:
>>> samsloan wrote:
>>>> On Feb 19, 9:05 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecution
>>>>> action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
>>>>> dismissed. I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
>>>>> action to consider doing the same. Another eight or ten actions around
>>>>> the country..........priceless.
>>>> This will not work.
>>>> The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one is
>>>> what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.
>>>> Sam Sloan
>>> 1) The kind that doesn't care about legal ethics. 2) Mal pros is very
>>> difficult to win (it's a "disfavored action" in most jurisdictions),
>>> though it's true Polgar's lawsuit is pretty clearly abusive. If
>>> Lafferty wants to engage in that kind of vindictiveness, though, it
>>> might give him an incentive to discourage settlement. Do we really
>>> want someone like that on the Board?
>> Someone with balls you mean? Yea I think so.
>
> Sure. If you want someone with a loud mouth, a big ego, and no ethics,
> by all means vote for Brian L. Some of us have higher standards.
No ethics? Substantiate or retract, John.
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2009 07:22:06
From: None
Subject: Re: Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
|
On Feb 21, 4:35=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> samsloan wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 9:05=A0pm, "Mr.Vidmar" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecuti=
on
> > > action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
> > > dismissed. =A0I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
> > > action to consider doing the same. =A0Another eight or ten actions ar=
ound
> > > the country..........priceless.
>
> > This will not work.
>
> > The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one is
> > what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> 1) The kind that doesn't care about legal ethics. 2) Mal pros is very
> difficult to win (it's a "disfavored action" in most jurisdictions),
> though it's true Polgar's lawsuit is pretty clearly abusive. If
> Lafferty wants to engage in that kind of vindictiveness, though, it
> might give him an incentive to discourage settlement. Do we really
> want someone like that on the Board?
Someone with balls you mean? Yea I think so.
|
| |
Date: 21 Feb 2009 01:35:49
From:
Subject: Re: Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:05=A0pm, "Mr.Vidmar" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecution
> > action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
> > dismissed. =A0I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
> > action to consider doing the same. =A0Another eight or ten actions arou=
nd
> > the country..........priceless.
>
> This will not work.
>
> The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one is
> what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.
>
> Sam Sloan
1) The kind that doesn't care about legal ethics. 2) Mal pros is very
difficult to win (it's a "disfavored action" in most jurisdictions),
though it's true Polgar's lawsuit is pretty clearly abusive. If
Lafferty wants to engage in that kind of vindictiveness, though, it
might give him an incentive to discourage settlement. Do we really
want someone like that on the Board?
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2009 17:01:31
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
|
On Feb 19, 9:05=A0pm, "Mr.Vidmar" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecution
> action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
> dismissed. =A0I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
> action to consider doing the same. =A0Another eight or ten actions around
> the country..........priceless.
This will not work.
The fact that you keep making ridiculous suggestions like this one is
what makes me wonder what kind of lawyer you are.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2009 11:39:21
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
|
On Feb 20, 9:51=A0am, "Mr.Vidmar" <[email protected] > wrote:
> BTW, getting yourself into the F.Supp as a loser is no big deal.
Have you ever had a single one of your decisions reported in the
Federal Supplement.
I have had about 20, mostly involving securities and corporate law.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2009 09:51:22
From: Mr.Vidmar
Subject: Re: Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
|
samsloan wrote:
> Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
>
> I consider the decision by the federal judge in the case Polgar vs.
> USCF in the United States District Court in Lubbock, Texas to be a
> victory for the Good Guys. It was not the knock out that some had
> hoped for, but it was probably the best decision that could reasonably
> be expected.
>
> The next thing that will happen is that both Polgar and myself have
> until March 16, 2009 to file an amended complaint. I would appreciate
> it if some of the hot-shot attorneys around here advise me on how to
> do this, because I am not sure exactly what the court wants,
Sam, you don't need a lawyer. You need to take the appropriate
medication to calm and focus what's left of your mind. I'm amazed that
someone with your intelligence can write such rambling garbage--and it
is garbage. Not that you don't have a cognizable claim--you may very
well. You just can't seem to communicate it at all.
BTW, getting yourself into the F.Supp as a loser is no big deal.
but the
> fact that my counter-claim has survived Polgar's motion to dismiss is
> encouraging. The court's decision also has the effect of reviving my
> complaint against Polgar and Truong that was dismissed in New York on
> jurisdictional grounds.
>
> The big problem that Polgar and Truong have, because Truong was
> brought into the case by my counter claim, is that soon Polgar will be
> called upon to give depositions. Polgar does not want to testify for
> reasons that are obvious. Up until now, she has not even signed a
> pleading or made a statement of any kind under oath. There are now
> five active lawsuits involving Susan Polgar. She is the only person
> who is either a plaintiff or a defendant in every case. She has
> managed to evade giving any sworn testimony, but soon her number will
> be up.
>
> What I think will happen in the immediate aftermath of the courts
> decision is that her lawyer, Jim Killion, will call her in and ask her
> for some money. He probably started this case believing her heartfelt
> story about being a poor, unfortunate victim of invidious
> discrimination, because of being a woman of foreign descent. Almost
> everybody believes her story when they first hear it. She is quite
> convincing. I know that I believed her tales of woe when I first got
> involved with her and I continued to believe her stories for years
> afterwards until relatively recently.
>
> Because of the type of attorney he is, Jim Killion probably thought he
> was going to get a quickie settlement. This is because his specialty
> is automobile accident cases, which usually end with the insurance
> company paying out a settlement and the lawyer taking his cut. Here is
> how he describes his legal practice on his website at http://www.killionlaw.com
>
> �Motor Vehicle Collisions � including those involving car crashes,
> passenger, driver, pedestrian, motorcycle, truck, semi-trailer, 18-
> wheeler, heavy equipment, commercial vehicles, ATVs, train, public
> transportation, bus, planes, bicycles, drunk drivers, uninsured &
> underinsured motorists, and hit & run.�
>
> Now he can see that he is in for a long legal battle with little hope
> for a significant recovery. I expect Jim Killion to jump ship soon.
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2009 05:44:24
From: None
Subject: Re: Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
|
On Feb 20, 8:17=A0am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:d85d3334-0c3b-4d61-bba5-9c629c39d799@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> The next thing that will happen is that both Polgar and myself have
> until March 16, 2009 to file an amended complaint. I would appreciate
> it if some of the hot-shot attorneys around here advise me on how to
> do this, because I am not sure exactly what the court wants, but the
> fact that my counter-claim has survived Polgar's motion to dismiss is
> encouraging.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> You find it encouraging only because you are too stupid to understand the
> meaning of the words used by the court. I'll go slow and you try and foll=
ow
> along, using your finger if necessary.
>
> 1. You filed a completely stupid rambling and incomprehensible pleading, =
of
> the sort that has gotten you laughed out of various courts all over the
> country by such distinguished jurists as judges Chin ("simply personal,
> vindictive, and nonsensical attacks that do not belong in a pleading file=
d
> in a judicial proceeding" and Bauman, who called your legal arguments a
> "waste of judicial time."
>
> 2. Polgar filed two papers in response, a motion to dismiss and a motion =
for
> a more definite statement.
>
> 3. The judge stated that he found your pleading to be completely fucking
> retarded -- and in the federal digest no less, which is "big time": "The
> Court finds Sloan's Counterclaim to be unclear as to exactly what claim o=
r
> claims he is intending to advance."
>
> 4. The judge therefore granted the motion for a more definite statement,
> because your pleadings are too completely fucking ludicrous to be dismiss=
ed
> in their present form. By way of analogy, say you took a giant shit in th=
e
> middle of the living room in your Bronx apartment. Certainly you would no=
t
> expect the sanitation department to take it in that form to the landfill.
> First you must collect the shit and put it in a garbage bag and then take
> the bag down to the curb, where it would be collected and processed. The
> same reasoning applies here. You have had a giant juridical bowel movemen=
t
> which has sprayed random legal feces all over the court room. Because the
> court has no fucking idea what you're on about -- "The Court finds Sloan'=
s
> Counterclaim to be unclear as to exactly what claim or claims he is
> intending to advance." -- it cannot yet take your pleading to the landfil=
l
> because it's too sloppy even to be considered garbage. The court is in
> effect asking you to clear up your mental processes to the extent that th=
ey
> can be considered trash, at which point presumably they will be dismissed=
.
>
> HTH.
Great analogy. Maybe he could wrap it in his flyers. Plastic bags are
not good for landfills.
|
| |
Date: 20 Feb 2009 13:17:56
From: foad
Subject: Re: Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:d85d3334-0c3b-4d61-bba5-9c629c39d799@v19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
The next thing that will happen is that both Polgar and myself have
until March 16, 2009 to file an amended complaint. I would appreciate
it if some of the hot-shot attorneys around here advise me on how to
do this, because I am not sure exactly what the court wants, but the
fact that my counter-claim has survived Polgar's motion to dismiss is
encouraging.
=========
You find it encouraging only because you are too stupid to understand the
meaning of the words used by the court. I'll go slow and you try and follow
along, using your finger if necessary.
1. You filed a completely stupid rambling and incomprehensible pleading, of
the sort that has gotten you laughed out of various courts all over the
country by such distinguished jurists as judges Chin ("simply personal,
vindictive, and nonsensical attacks that do not belong in a pleading filed
in a judicial proceeding" and Bauman, who called your legal arguments a
"waste of judicial time."
2. Polgar filed two papers in response, a motion to dismiss and a motion for
a more definite statement.
3. The judge stated that he found your pleading to be completely fucking
retarded -- and in the federal digest no less, which is "big time": "The
Court finds Sloan's Counterclaim to be unclear as to exactly what claim or
claims he is intending to advance."
4. The judge therefore granted the motion for a more definite statement,
because your pleadings are too completely fucking ludicrous to be dismissed
in their present form. By way of analogy, say you took a giant shit in the
middle of the living room in your Bronx apartment. Certainly you would not
expect the sanitation department to take it in that form to the landfill.
First you must collect the shit and put it in a garbage bag and then take
the bag down to the curb, where it would be collected and processed. The
same reasoning applies here. You have had a giant juridical bowel movement
which has sprayed random legal feces all over the court room. Because the
court has no fucking idea what you're on about -- "The Court finds Sloan's
Counterclaim to be unclear as to exactly what claim or claims he is
intending to advance." -- it cannot yet take your pleading to the landfill
because it's too sloppy even to be considered garbage. The court is in
effect asking you to clear up your mental processes to the extent that they
can be considered trash, at which point presumably they will be dismissed.
HTH.
|
| |
Date: 19 Feb 2009 21:17:49
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
|
On Feb 19, 9:05=A0pm, "Mr.Vidmar" <[email protected] > wrote:
> I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecution
> action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
> dismissed. =A0I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
> action to consider doing the same. =A0Another eight or ten actions around
> the country..........priceless.
I take it this means that you are one of the defendants.
Which one are you?
|
| | |
Date: 20 Feb 2009 01:46:24
From: Mr.Vidmar
Subject: Re: Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
|
samsloan wrote:
> On Feb 19, 9:05 pm, "Mr.Vidmar" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecution
>> action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
>> dismissed. I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
>> action to consider doing the same. Another eight or ten actions around
>> the country..........priceless.
>
> I take it this means that you are one of the defendants.
>
> Which one are you?
You need to read more on Usenet. If you don't know who I am, you're
more lost than I thought.
|
| |
Date: 19 Feb 2009 21:05:37
From: Mr.Vidmar
Subject: Re: Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
|
samsloan wrote:
> Decision in Polgar vs. USCF a Victory for the Good Guys
>
> I consider the decision by the federal judge in the case Polgar vs.
> USCF in the United States District Court in Lubbock, Texas to be a
> victory for the Good Guys. It was not the knock out that some had
> hoped for, but it was probably the best decision that could reasonably
> be expected.
>
> The next thing that will happen is that both Polgar and myself have
> until March 16, 2009 to file an amended complaint. I would appreciate
> it if some of the hot-shot attorneys around here advise me on how to
> do this, because I am not sure exactly what the court wants, but the
> fact that my counter-claim has survived Polgar's motion to dismiss is
> encouraging. The court's decision also has the effect of reviving my
> complaint against Polgar and Truong that was dismissed in New York on
> jurisdictional grounds.
>
> The big problem that Polgar and Truong have, because Truong was
> brought into the case by my counter claim, is that soon Polgar will be
> called upon to give depositions. Polgar does not want to testify for
> reasons that are obvious. Up until now, she has not even signed a
> pleading or made a statement of any kind under oath. There are now
> five active lawsuits involving Susan Polgar. She is the only person
> who is either a plaintiff or a defendant in every case. She has
> managed to evade giving any sworn testimony, but soon her number will
> be up.
>
> What I think will happen in the immediate aftermath of the courts
> decision is that her lawyer, Jim Killion, will call her in and ask her
> for some money. He probably started this case believing her heartfelt
> story about being a poor, unfortunate victim of invidious
> discrimination, because of being a woman of foreign descent. Almost
> everybody believes her story when they first hear it. She is quite
> convincing. I know that I believed her tales of woe when I first got
> involved with her and I continued to believe her stories for years
> afterwards until relatively recently.
>
> Because of the type of attorney he is, Jim Killion probably thought he
> was going to get a quickie settlement. This is because his specialty
> is automobile accident cases, which usually end with the insurance
> company paying out a settlement and the lawyer taking his cut. Here is
> how he describes his legal practice on his website at http://www.killionlaw.com
>
> �Motor Vehicle Collisions � including those involving car crashes,
> passenger, driver, pedestrian, motorcycle, truck, semi-trailer, 18-
> wheeler, heavy equipment, commercial vehicles, ATVs, train, public
> transportation, bus, planes, bicycles, drunk drivers, uninsured &
> underinsured motorists, and hit & run.�
>
> Now he can see that he is in for a long legal battle with little hope
> for a significant recovery. I expect Jim Killion to jump ship soon.
>
> Sam Sloan
I am looking into the possibility of commencing a malicious prosecution
action against Polgar relative to her causes of action that were
dismissed. I am urging all of the other defendants in the Lubbock
action to consider doing the same. Another eight or ten actions around
the country..........priceless.
|
|
