| |
Main
Date: 15 Oct 2007 15:04:08
From: samsloan
Subject: Lawyer or Law Student at Texas Tech asks relevant questions
|
The following highly relevant questions by a lawyer or law student at
Texas Tech have appeared on the Blog of the Daily Toreador at
http://www.dailytoreador.com under the article about this case.
Here is what he says:
Law Qs
posted 10/15/07 @ 1:27 PM CST
I, for one, have looked at the log. However, in law, you must go
slowly from A to B to C, etc to convince a judge and jury, otherwise
your pleadings are "conclusionary" and defenses easily found to shoot
you down.
1. You need to first prove to the Court that the IP address with
Truong's name used in the USCF forums is, in fact, legally his. You
must do some legwork and go beyond Brian's report. Serve the ISP
linked with Truong's name in the USCF with a subpoena or court order.
Give them specific times and dates from the USCF forum and from the
FSS in the Usenet groups. Have THEM, not Brian, tell you, "Yes, they
go to the same customer at such-and-such-street-address." **THE COURT
NEEDS THIS AS STEP ONE! YOU MUST ESTABLISH THIS LEGALLY, BEYOND THE
USCF VOLUNTEER***
2. Of key importance is the use of the TT computer, even if used only
one time. In discovery, you can subpoena not only the physical
location of that computer--is it in Truong's office, the library, or
where?--and also Truong's work record. Was the computer in his office
and was he on record at school at that date-time? **YOU NEED TO MAKE
LEGAL CORRELATIONS FOR THE COURT...THE COURT WILL NOT DO IT FOR YOU***
3. Be proactive, not reactive. The defense has stated that malware was
used to turn Paul's computer(s) into proxy servers. IF both Paul and
FSS posted from TT, then prepare for this in your discovery. Depose TT
tech staff and ask them if it is possible that such malware is on
their server and what measures they take to insure it is off. After
the specific computer is identified, ask for an inspection of it and
the server to double quarantee the absence of malware, rootkits, key-
loggers, etc. **THE COURT LOVES THIS TYPE OF GROUND BEING LAID** How
many IPs were used? How many computers?
IT IS UP TO NOONE AT TEXAS TECH TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU. YOU MUST
GET ON THE STICK AND PUT TOGETHER A DISCOVERY PLAN **BEFORE** YOU FILE
SUIT!
4. You must correlate date-times from both user IDS to absolutely show
the impossibility of it being two separate persons. I asked what time
Truong posted in Mexico City and what time the FSS posted. Are the
posts 5 minutes apart, 5 hours, or 5 days? Do you care? You should.
The court and the defense certainly will.
5. You must subpoena all USCF logs, especially those NOT accessible to
Brian. The defense may well assert Brian, "disgrunted", altered the
one set of logs--phpbbs forum log--but if you have ALL of them and
they ALL match, then that is impossible. However, the COURT IS NOT
GOING TO DO THIS FOR YOU.
Your allegations against Truong "look" good on the surface, but you
are a long, long way from proving your case. Let's see you do some
homework and stop with this conclusionary crap that a first year law
student could shoot down while snoring.
6. I'm still waiting to hear what caselaw you have to support, in a
Memorandum of Law, your Cause(s) of Action against Texas Tech. As I
said before, last I researched, ISPs cannot be treated any longer as
publishers and are immune. Have you something new? If so, I'd like to
know what it is.
Are you possibly thinking of going after TT in a Respondeant Superior
action; to wit, that Truong was acting as an employee of the
University when he allegedly wrote these false posts?
7. There were rumors of a criminal action. Can you give us the US Code
for that and an update on what's happening?
==============================
Law Qs
posted 10/15/07 @ 1:56 PM CST
Several other things should be of interest to you in the way of
defenses to shoot down:
A. IT WAS SATIRE. You need to have a copy of Truong's recent message
stating that "somehow, someone broke into his computer...he doesn't
know the technical how-tos, but he does know it's easy enough for a
child to do it."
-- This was his opportunity to admit that it was him posting as FSS
and it was obviously satircal. He didn't do that. Instead he points
his finger to a web fathom.
-- His logic in the statement is absolutely absurd and shows an
amazing amount of ignorance and arrogance. Finding a reason to read
this during a trial would not be a bad thing to do at all.
B. NO ONE WAS INJURED SINCE EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS FSS. You must show
that people believed the FSS was you and, BUT FOR THESE POSTINGS, they
would have voted for you. Do you have people that will go on record
and say this?
|
|
| |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 20:11:34
From:
Subject: Re: Lawyer or Law Student at Texas Tech asks relevant questions
|
On Oct 16, 1:20 am, [email protected] wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > SUBPOENA
>
> > I would say ask them under oath first, and if they admit it, you might not
> > need discovery to prove it. If they don't admit it, and discovery proves
> > them wrong, then it's perjury.
>
> The attorney from Texas Tech said that in Truong's public post, Truong
> denied making the fake posts, insisting someone else was using his
> computer although he didn't understand the technicalities of how it
> was being done. Do you expect him to change from that position and,
> if he did, what would happen to his credibility with the court? Could
> someone repost that Truong post here on that thread? Thanks.
>
> Discovery comes before trial, not after or during. With decent
> discovery, the courts may be spared the time and expense of trials
> with out-of-court settlements. No way will a federal court pause a
> trail so you can spend two months during it to then prove a defendant
> is lying. Imagine the work for the court to do that.
>
> > > Is it a defamation action where the above is typically an element or
> > > some other tort? Sloan, could you post just the 'graphs of the
> > > complaint that relate to this and tell us what tort or torts you're
> > > pleading? Thanks.
>
> > Knowing that it was a fake Sam Sloan doesn't remove the injury, since people
> > also use search engines, and those people don't "know" it.
>
> Do I understand correctly that your point is that for every poster on
> a usenet group, there are, say, 1000 people who read but do not post?
> What is the typical ratio in your usenet groups where the fake posts
> were? Also, are any of those fake posts still around or were they all
> deleted shortly after Brian's report?
>
> > The other "injury" can be constructed out of the benefits to the attacker as
> > much as the price to the victim.
>
> Good point. Then perhaps Sloan is pleading something other than
> defamation. We'll have to wait to hear what he says.
>
> > I speak as an aggrieved party here, not an attorney, for I am not one.
>
> Will you be joining Sloan in this suit or taking any action on your
> own? Also, I'm unclear as to why these posts continued for 18
> months. Did you contact usenet admins and ask for the IP addresses to
> be blocked from the newgroups and, if so, what were you told?
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guruhttp://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
> > Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
>
> > Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
>
> > This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
> > creator of the PIVOT!
>
> > Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
> > have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
> > is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
> > stole their ideas from others!
>
> >http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
> > The Official Ray Gordon Blog- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Texas Tech Law Student:
This is not a place to learn how people invest their money. You are
playing with Sloan, a 30 year litigant in the Federal Court. That's
right, LAW STUDENT,
Sam has spent 30 years in the Federal Courts.
Sloan has no case in New York. We all know that. This case is set to
be filed in Chicago, ILLNOIS.
cus Roberts
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 23:20:21
From:
Subject: Re: Lawyer or Law Student at Texas Tech asks relevant questions
|
<[email protected] > wrote:
> > SUBPOENA
>
> I would say ask them under oath first, and if they admit it, you might not
> need discovery to prove it. If they don't admit it, and discovery proves
> them wrong, then it's perjury.
The attorney from Texas Tech said that in Truong's public post, Truong
denied making the fake posts, insisting someone else was using his
computer although he didn't understand the technicalities of how it
was being done. Do you expect him to change from that position and,
if he did, what would happen to his credibility with the court? Could
someone repost that Truong post here on that thread? Thanks.
Discovery comes before trial, not after or during. With decent
discovery, the courts may be spared the time and expense of trials
with out-of-court settlements. No way will a federal court pause a
trail so you can spend two months during it to then prove a defendant
is lying. Imagine the work for the court to do that.
> > Is it a defamation action where the above is typically an element or
> > some other tort? Sloan, could you post just the 'graphs of the
> > complaint that relate to this and tell us what tort or torts you're
> > pleading? Thanks.
>
> Knowing that it was a fake Sam Sloan doesn't remove the injury, since people
> also use search engines, and those people don't "know" it.
Do I understand correctly that your point is that for every poster on
a usenet group, there are, say, 1000 people who read but do not post?
What is the typical ratio in your usenet groups where the fake posts
were? Also, are any of those fake posts still around or were they all
deleted shortly after Brian's report?
> The other "injury" can be constructed out of the benefits to the attacker as
> much as the price to the victim.
Good point. Then perhaps Sloan is pleading something other than
defamation. We'll have to wait to hear what he says.
> I speak as an aggrieved party here, not an attorney, for I am not one.
Will you be joining Sloan in this suit or taking any action on your
own? Also, I'm unclear as to why these posts continued for 18
months. Did you contact usenet admins and ask for the IP addresses to
be blocked from the newgroups and, if so, what were you told?
>
> --
> Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guruhttp://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
> Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
>
> Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
>
> This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
> creator of the PIVOT!
>
> Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
> have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
> is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
> stole their ideas from others!
>
> http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
> The Official Ray Gordon Blog
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 22:14:08
From:
Subject: Re: Lawyer or Law Student at Texas Tech asks relevant questions
|
On Oct 15, 6:19 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> Sloan will never see discovery in New York. If Sloan sees discovery, I
> will be utterly amazed the court
> would allow him PRO SE to even try.
Isn't the suit filed in Federal court? What jurisdictional problem do
you envison? Pro se plaintiffs have the same rights as represented
plaintiffs. The court would encourage, not discourage, discovery in
this case.
>The court will find a lawyer, or
> stall for time...
Federal courts tend to move quickly but fairly. This isn't a criminal
suit, so what do you mean the court will "find a lawyer" for Sloan?
>To allow Sloan
> to depose Polgar would not be a poltical reality. The court will find
> an excuse.
Polgar is a defendant, yes? If she refuses to be deposed, she'll get
sanctioned by the courts.
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 21:54:51
From:
Subject: Re: Lawyer or Law Student at Texas Tech asks relevant questions
|
i saw the NYT article on this suit and was surprised to hear about the
state of America's premier chess organization. In looking at their
usenet groups recently, seems like the USCF has had ongoing smear
campaigns and poor management going back for quite some time. Sorry
to hear that.
I managed to find some of the background docs for this suit in their
rec.games.chess.politics. The suit is interesting from an online law
perspective, and I suggest others with the same legal focus to take a
look at it. Here's my comments.
On Oct 15, 6:04 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
>You
> must do some legwork and go beyond Brian's report. Serve the ISP
> linked with Truong's name in the USCF with a subpoena or court order...Have THEM, not Brian, tell you, "Yes, they
> go to the same customer at such-and-such-street-address."
Agreed. Brian's report only says that Truong, who needed a private
code to register at the USCF private Issues forum, used certain IP
addresses over approx 18 months, as he moved residences and
travelled. It does not state where these IPs are located. They could
be in commercial, educational, foundational spaces as easily as in a
private home where many people may have accessed the computer.
>In discovery, you can subpoena not only the physical
> location of that computer--is it in Truong's office, the library, or
> where?--and also Truong's work record. Was the computer in his office
> and was he on record at school at that date-time?
Obviously. The more exclusive usage and "computer under sole control
of defendant" the better.
> B. NO ONE WAS INJURED SINCE EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS FSS. You must show
> that people believed the FSS was you and, BUT FOR THESE POSTINGS, they
> would have voted for you. Do you have people that will go on record
> and say this?
Is it a defamation action where the above is typically an element or
some other tort? Sloan, could you post just the 'graphs of the
complaint that relate to this and tell us what tort or torts you're
pleading? Thanks.
|
| | |
Date: 16 Oct 2007 01:59:55
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Lawyer or Law Student at Texas Tech asks relevant questions
|
> SUBPOENA
I would say ask them under oath first, and if they admit it, you might not
need discovery to prove it. If they don't admit it, and discovery proves
them wrong, then it's perjury.
> > B. NO ONE WAS INJURED SINCE EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS FSS. You must show
>> that people believed the FSS was you and, BUT FOR THESE POSTINGS, they
>> would have voted for you. Do you have people that will go on record
>> and say this?
>
> Is it a defamation action where the above is typically an element or
> some other tort? Sloan, could you post just the 'graphs of the
> complaint that relate to this and tell us what tort or torts you're
> pleading? Thanks.
Knowing that it was a fake Sam Sloan doesn't remove the injury, since people
also use search engines, and those people don't "know" it.
The other "injury" can be constructed out of the benefits to the attacker as
much as the price to the victim.
I speak as an aggrieved party here, not an attorney, for I am not one.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
creator of the PIVOT!
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
stole their ideas from others!
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 18:01:42
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Lawyer or Law Student at Texas Tech asks relevant questions
|
On Oct 15, 6:33 pm, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> >> 5. You must subpoena all USCF logs, especially those NOT accessible to
> >> Brian. The defense may well assert Brian, "disgrunted",
Is this akin to grunting, and then taking the move back?
> >> -- This was his opportunity to admit that it was him posting as FSS
> >> and it was obviously satircal. He didn't do that. Instead he points
> >> his finger to a web fathom.
Twenty Thousand Phantoms Under the Sea... .
> >> B. NO ONE WAS INJURED SINCE EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS FSS.
Not true; out of all the six million readers of rgc, I alone
knew that it was really just Skip Repa all along. (Notice
how he has stopped plaguing us with his thousand-faces
-of-Repa postings?)
> >> You must show
> >> that people believed the FSS was you and, BUT FOR THESE POSTINGS, they
> >> would have voted for you. Do you have people that will go on record
> >> and say this?
That would only prove that a few people are willing
to say anything. What is needed is proof that the
election process was materially affected (like the
one where Mr. Bush was elected President).
> Reads like a second year law student with enough knowledge to be dangerous
> but not enough to know his ass from his elbow.
No self-respecting fourth year law student is going
to waste his time analyzing a Sam Sloan lawsuit
for free.
I now say it was possibly PT, Skip Repa, and maybe
somebody else who posted the fake Sloan messages.
If only LP would do another of his famous syntax
analyses... .
-- help bot
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 18:59:43
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Lawyer or Law Student at Texas Tech asks relevant questions
|
Shortcut:
Ask the defendants under oath if they posted the messages.
Let them answer.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
creator of the PIVOT!
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
stole their ideas from others!
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 18:58:47
From: Ray Gordon, creator of the \pivot\
Subject: Re: Lawyer or Law Student at Texas Tech asks relevant questions
|
> Are you possibly thinking of going after TT in a Respondeant Superior
> action; to wit, that Truong was acting as an employee of the
> University when he allegedly wrote these false posts?
I'm gonna guess that's what he's thinking.
--
Ray Gordon, The ORIGINAL Lifestyle Seduction Guru
http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
Includes 29 Reasons Not To Be A Nice Guy
Ray's new "Project 5000" is here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/project-5000
This group will be restricted to 5,000 members. All new theory from the
creator of the PIVOT!
Don't rely on overexposed, mass-keted commercial seduction methods which
have been rendered worthless through mainstream media exposure. It really
is game over for community material. Beware of Milli Vanilli gurus who
stole their ideas from others!
http://moderncaveman.typepad.com
The Official Ray Gordon Blog
|
| |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 22:19:05
From:
Subject: Re: Lawyer or Law Student at Texas Tech asks relevant questions
|
On Oct 15, 5:04 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> The following highly relevant questions by a lawyer or law student at
> Texas Tech have appeared on the Blog of the Daily Toreador athttp://www.dailytoreador.comunder the article about this case.
>
> Here is what he says:
>
> Law Qs
> posted 10/15/07 @ 1:27 PM CST
> I, for one, have looked at the log. However, in law, you must go
> slowly from A to B to C, etc to convince a judge and jury, otherwise
> your pleadings are "conclusionary" and defenses easily found to shoot
> you down.
>
> 1. You need to first prove to the Court that the IP address with
> Truong's name used in the USCF forums is, in fact, legally his. You
> must do some legwork and go beyond Brian's report. Serve the ISP
> linked with Truong's name in the USCF with a subpoena or court order.
> Give them specific times and dates from the USCF forum and from the
> FSS in the Usenet groups. Have THEM, not Brian, tell you, "Yes, they
> go to the same customer at such-and-such-street-address." **THE COURT
> NEEDS THIS AS STEP ONE! YOU MUST ESTABLISH THIS LEGALLY, BEYOND THE
> USCF VOLUNTEER***
>
> 2. Of key importance is the use of the TT computer, even if used only
> one time. In discovery, you can subpoena not only the physical
> location of that computer--is it in Truong's office, the library, or
> where?--and also Truong's work record. Was the computer in his office
> and was he on record at school at that date-time? **YOU NEED TO MAKE
> LEGAL CORRELATIONS FOR THE COURT...THE COURT WILL NOT DO IT FOR YOU***
>
> 3. Be proactive, not reactive. The defense has stated that malware was
> used to turn Paul's computer(s) into proxy servers. IF both Paul and
> FSS posted from TT, then prepare for this in your discovery. Depose TT
> tech staff and ask them if it is possible that such malware is on
> their server and what measures they take to insure it is off. After
> the specific computer is identified, ask for an inspection of it and
> the server to double quarantee the absence of malware, rootkits, key-
> loggers, etc. **THE COURT LOVES THIS TYPE OF GROUND BEING LAID** How
> many IPs were used? How many computers?
>
> IT IS UP TO NOONE AT TEXAS TECH TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU. YOU MUST
> GET ON THE STICK AND PUT TOGETHER A DISCOVERY PLAN **BEFORE** YOU FILE
> SUIT!
>
> 4. You must correlate date-times from both user IDS to absolutely show
> the impossibility of it being two separate persons. I asked what time
> Truong posted in Mexico City and what time the FSS posted. Are the
> posts 5 minutes apart, 5 hours, or 5 days? Do you care? You should.
> The court and the defense certainly will.
>
> 5. You must subpoena all USCF logs, especially those NOT accessible to
> Brian. The defense may well assert Brian, "disgrunted", altered the
> one set of logs--phpbbs forum log--but if you have ALL of them and
> they ALL match, then that is impossible. However, the COURT IS NOT
> GOING TO DO THIS FOR YOU.
>
> Your allegations against Truong "look" good on the surface, but you
> are a long, long way from proving your case. Let's see you do some
> homework and stop with this conclusionary crap that a first year law
> student could shoot down while snoring.
>
> 6. I'm still waiting to hear what caselaw you have to support, in a
> Memorandum of Law, your Cause(s) of Action against Texas Tech. As I
> said before, last I researched, ISPs cannot be treated any longer as
> publishers and are immune. Have you something new? If so, I'd like to
> know what it is.
>
> Are you possibly thinking of going after TT in a Respondeant Superior
> action; to wit, that Truong was acting as an employee of the
> University when he allegedly wrote these false posts?
>
> 7. There were rumors of a criminal action. Can you give us the US Code
> for that and an update on what's happening?
>
> ==============================
>
> Law Qs
> posted 10/15/07 @ 1:56 PM CST
> Several other things should be of interest to you in the way of
> defenses to shoot down:
>
> A. IT WAS SATIRE. You need to have a copy of Truong's recent message
> stating that "somehow, someone broke into his computer...he doesn't
> know the technical how-tos, but he does know it's easy enough for a
> child to do it."
>
> -- This was his opportunity to admit that it was him posting as FSS
> and it was obviously satircal. He didn't do that. Instead he points
> his finger to a web fathom.
>
> -- His logic in the statement is absolutely absurd and shows an
> amazing amount of ignorance and arrogance. Finding a reason to read
> this during a trial would not be a bad thing to do at all.
>
> B. NO ONE WAS INJURED SINCE EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS FSS. You must show
> that people believed the FSS was you and, BUT FOR THESE POSTINGS, they
> would have voted for you. Do you have people that will go on record
> and say this?
Sloan will never see discovery in New York. If Sloan sees discovery, I
will be utterly amazed the court
would allow him PRO SE to even try. The court will find a lawyer, or
stall for time... To allow Sloan
to depose Polgar would not be a poltical reality. The court will find
an excuse. Sounds like a law
student to me...
cus Roberts
|
| | |
Date: 15 Oct 2007 23:33:47
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Lawyer or Law Student at Texas Tech asks relevant questions
|
<[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Oct 15, 5:04 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> The following highly relevant questions by a lawyer or law student at
>> Texas Tech have appeared on the Blog of the Daily Toreador
>> athttp://www.dailytoreador.comunder the article about this case.
>>
>> Here is what he says:
>>
>> Law Qs
>> posted 10/15/07 @ 1:27 PM CST
>> I, for one, have looked at the log. However, in law, you must go
>> slowly from A to B to C, etc to convince a judge and jury, otherwise
>> your pleadings are "conclusionary" and defenses easily found to shoot
>> you down.
>>
>> 1. You need to first prove to the Court that the IP address with
>> Truong's name used in the USCF forums is, in fact, legally his. You
>> must do some legwork and go beyond Brian's report. Serve the ISP
>> linked with Truong's name in the USCF with a subpoena or court order.
>> Give them specific times and dates from the USCF forum and from the
>> FSS in the Usenet groups. Have THEM, not Brian, tell you, "Yes, they
>> go to the same customer at such-and-such-street-address." **THE COURT
>> NEEDS THIS AS STEP ONE! YOU MUST ESTABLISH THIS LEGALLY, BEYOND THE
>> USCF VOLUNTEER***
>>
>> 2. Of key importance is the use of the TT computer, even if used only
>> one time. In discovery, you can subpoena not only the physical
>> location of that computer--is it in Truong's office, the library, or
>> where?--and also Truong's work record. Was the computer in his office
>> and was he on record at school at that date-time? **YOU NEED TO MAKE
>> LEGAL CORRELATIONS FOR THE COURT...THE COURT WILL NOT DO IT FOR YOU***
>>
>> 3. Be proactive, not reactive. The defense has stated that malware was
>> used to turn Paul's computer(s) into proxy servers. IF both Paul and
>> FSS posted from TT, then prepare for this in your discovery. Depose TT
>> tech staff and ask them if it is possible that such malware is on
>> their server and what measures they take to insure it is off. After
>> the specific computer is identified, ask for an inspection of it and
>> the server to double quarantee the absence of malware, rootkits, key-
>> loggers, etc. **THE COURT LOVES THIS TYPE OF GROUND BEING LAID** How
>> many IPs were used? How many computers?
>>
>> IT IS UP TO NOONE AT TEXAS TECH TO DO YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU. YOU MUST
>> GET ON THE STICK AND PUT TOGETHER A DISCOVERY PLAN **BEFORE** YOU FILE
>> SUIT!
>>
>> 4. You must correlate date-times from both user IDS to absolutely show
>> the impossibility of it being two separate persons. I asked what time
>> Truong posted in Mexico City and what time the FSS posted. Are the
>> posts 5 minutes apart, 5 hours, or 5 days? Do you care? You should.
>> The court and the defense certainly will.
>>
>> 5. You must subpoena all USCF logs, especially those NOT accessible to
>> Brian. The defense may well assert Brian, "disgrunted", altered the
>> one set of logs--phpbbs forum log--but if you have ALL of them and
>> they ALL match, then that is impossible. However, the COURT IS NOT
>> GOING TO DO THIS FOR YOU.
>>
>> Your allegations against Truong "look" good on the surface, but you
>> are a long, long way from proving your case. Let's see you do some
>> homework and stop with this conclusionary crap that a first year law
>> student could shoot down while snoring.
>>
>> 6. I'm still waiting to hear what caselaw you have to support, in a
>> Memorandum of Law, your Cause(s) of Action against Texas Tech. As I
>> said before, last I researched, ISPs cannot be treated any longer as
>> publishers and are immune. Have you something new? If so, I'd like to
>> know what it is.
>>
>> Are you possibly thinking of going after TT in a Respondeant Superior
>> action; to wit, that Truong was acting as an employee of the
>> University when he allegedly wrote these false posts?
>>
>> 7. There were rumors of a criminal action. Can you give us the US Code
>> for that and an update on what's happening?
>>
>> ==============================
>>
>> Law Qs
>> posted 10/15/07 @ 1:56 PM CST
>> Several other things should be of interest to you in the way of
>> defenses to shoot down:
>>
>> A. IT WAS SATIRE. You need to have a copy of Truong's recent message
>> stating that "somehow, someone broke into his computer...he doesn't
>> know the technical how-tos, but he does know it's easy enough for a
>> child to do it."
>>
>> -- This was his opportunity to admit that it was him posting as FSS
>> and it was obviously satircal. He didn't do that. Instead he points
>> his finger to a web fathom.
>>
>> -- His logic in the statement is absolutely absurd and shows an
>> amazing amount of ignorance and arrogance. Finding a reason to read
>> this during a trial would not be a bad thing to do at all.
>>
>> B. NO ONE WAS INJURED SINCE EVERYONE KNEW IT WAS FSS. You must show
>> that people believed the FSS was you and, BUT FOR THESE POSTINGS, they
>> would have voted for you. Do you have people that will go on record
>> and say this?
>
>
> Sloan will never see discovery in New York. If Sloan sees discovery, I
> will be utterly amazed the court
> would allow him PRO SE to even try. The court will find a lawyer, or
> stall for time... To allow Sloan
> to depose Polgar would not be a poltical reality. The court will find
> an excuse. Sounds like a law
> student to me...
>
> cus Roberts
>
Reads like a second year law student with enough knowledge to be dangerous
but not enough to know his ass from his elbow.
|
|
