Main
Date: 19 Feb 2009 10:50:52
From: samsloan
Subject: Polgar vs. USCF, Motions to Dismiss Granted in Part, Denied in Part
Today, the Federal judge in Lubbock, Texas granted in part and denied
in part the motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants in Polgar vs.
USCF.

The full 18 page decision is available at:
http://www.anusha.com/polgar-motions-granted-denied.pdf

Although it appeared through the middle of the decision that the court
was on the verge of ruling in favor of the defendants, the court did
not go that far. However, the court ordered Polgar to replead her case
by March 16, 2009 against defendants Bogner, Lafferty, Mottershead,
and Chess Magnet School. It seems that these defendants have a good
chance to get those complaints dismissed the next time around.

In addition, the court dismissed several counts of Polgar's complaint,
including her counts alleging "intentional infliction of emotional
distress", "negligence", and "gross negligence".

Sam Sloan




 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 10:34:14
From: None
Subject: Re: Polgar vs. USCF, Motions to Dismiss Granted in Part, Denied in
On Feb 20, 1:04=A0pm, "foad" <jkl...@sdhfk.com > wrote:
> "samsloan" <samhsl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:19359ebf-8021-41be-92e5-
>
> No. Only very few decisions are reported in the Federal Supplement.
>
> However, nowadays, all decisions are reported on Lexus-Nexus.
>
> The federal judges are usually those who get their decisions published
> in the Federal Supplement. They inform West Law Publishing that they
> have made an important or precedent setting decision and West Law
> publishes it.
>
> Judge Chin's decision does not seem to me to be either important or
> precedent setting and therefore I am surprised that it is published by
> West Law.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> In order: Wrong, no, incorrect, hence "federal," utterly fucking stupid,
> predictable.

Sam reminds me of this kid in our dorm that people used to do things
like collect dog shit and put it in his underwear drawer or the toe of
his shoes or his soap dish.


 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 09:07:53
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar vs. USCF, Motions to Dismiss Granted in Part, Denied in
On Feb 20, 12:18=A0am, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> I just noticed that the decision by Judge Cummings states that
> the decision in Sloan vs. Truong is published in the Federal
> Supplement, which is big time. The last time I made the Federal
> Supplement was thirty years ago. (They used to write me up often).
>
> Sloan vs. Truong, 573 F. Supp. 2d 823 (S.D.N.Y. August 28, 2008)

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 10:27 AM, Artichoke wrote:
>
> Do all Federal decisions get published in the Supplement?
>
> Will the Supplement note that the case lives again!?
>
> Sloan vs. Truong, 573 F. Supp. 2d 823 (S.D.N.Y. August 28, 2008)

No. Only very few decisions are reported in the Federal Supplement.
However, nowadays, all decisions are reported on Lexus-Nexus.

The federal judges are usually those who get their decisions published
in the Federal Supplement. They inform West Law Publishing that they
have made an important or precedent setting decision and West Law
publishes it.

Judge Chin's decision does not seem to me to be either important or
precedent setting and therefore I am surprised that it is published by
West Law.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 20 Feb 2009 18:04:05
From: foad
Subject: Re: Polgar vs. USCF, Motions to Dismiss Granted in Part, Denied in Part

"samsloan" <samhsloan@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:19359ebf-8021-41be-92e5-

No. Only very few decisions are reported in the Federal Supplement.

However, nowadays, all decisions are reported on Lexus-Nexus.

The federal judges are usually those who get their decisions published
in the Federal Supplement. They inform West Law Publishing that they
have made an important or precedent setting decision and West Law
publishes it.

Judge Chin's decision does not seem to me to be either important or
precedent setting and therefore I am surprised that it is published by
West Law.

========

In order: Wrong, no, incorrect, hence "federal," utterly fucking stupid,
predictable.





 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 12:35:06
From: foad
Subject: Re: Polgar vs. USCF, Motions to Dismiss Granted in Part, Denied in Part

"samsloan" <samhsloan@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:99a56f5e-b99a-4b2e-9829-273d6db372db@o36g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Today, the Federal judge in Lubbock, Texas granted in part and denied
> in part the motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants in Polgar vs.
> USCF.
>
> The full 18 page decision is available at:
> http://www.anusha.com/polgar-motions-granted-denied.pdf


"The Court finds Sloan's Counterclaim to be unclear as to exactly what claim
or claims he
is intending to advance."

Congratulations, you seem to have stupified yet another distinguished jurist
with your abject fucking stupidity.




 
Date: 20 Feb 2009 03:57:34
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar vs. USCF, Motions to Dismiss Granted in Part, Denied in
[quote="David Ames"][quote="Randy Bauer"][quote="David Ames"]
[quote="Randy Bauer"]

Thanks for the analysis. I'm curious - do you have an opinion as to
why an attorney based in Texas would make claims that are not
recognized or are not permitted in Texas?

Randy Bauer [/quote]

Do you have any idea why an attractive woman would want to enhance her
appearance?

David Ames [/quote]

I guess I don't see how that is a good analogy, as making claims that
aren't recognized or permitted can hardly enhance one's appearance.
In fact, I would argue (admittedly, as a layperson) that it might
detract.

Randy Bauer [/quote]

Vanity. Feeling good about oneself. Self-importance. That's how the
attorney serves his client.

David Ames [/quote]

Good point. I have many times seen lawyers make arguments that they
knew would lose, just to impress their clients and to convince their
clients that they were doing a good job, for which they had been
highly paid. The client is convinced that he is going to win. Then,
when the judge rules against them, the lawyer "just cannot understand"
why the judge ruled that way.

This happens all the time, probably most of the time.

What is more disturbing is when a judge makes a decision that he
obviously must know is wrong but he realizes that the losing side will
not be able to appeal. This, I think, is also a frequent occuernce.

I would say that Judge Cummings was actually quite nice to Susan
Polgar, giving her a second chance and ordering to re-file her
pleadings. Another judge would have thrown her out completely.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 19 Feb 2009 21:18:59
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar vs. USCF, Motions to Dismiss Granted in Part, Denied in
I just noticed that the decision by Judge Cummings states that
the decision in Sloan vs. Truong is published in the Federal
Supplement, which is big time. The last time I made the Federal
Supplement was thirty years ago. (They used to write me up often).

Sloan vs. Truong, 573 F. Supp. 2d 823 (S.D.N.Y. August 28, 2008)


On Feb 19, 1:50=A0pm, samsloan <samhsl...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Today, the Federal judge in Lubbock, Texas granted in part and denied
> in part the motions to dismiss filed by the Defendants in Polgar vs.
> USCF.
>
> The full 18 page decision is available at:http://www.anusha.com/polgar-mo=
tions-granted-denied.pdf
>
> Although it appeared through the middle of the decision that the court
> was on the verge of ruling in favor of the defendants, the court did
> not go that far. However, the court ordered Polgar to replead her case
> by March 16, 2009 against defendants Bogner, Lafferty, Mottershead,
> and Chess Magnet School. It seems that these defendants have a good
> chance to get those complaints dismissed the next time around.
>
> In addition, the court dismissed several counts of Polgar's complaint,
> including her counts alleging "intentional infliction of emotional
> distress", "negligence", and "gross negligence".
>
> Sam Sloan