| |
Main
Date: 30 Sep 2008 17:23:02
From: samsloan
Subject: Polgar Files Motion to Dismiss Texas Counterclaim
|
Susan Polgar has filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim filed by
Sam Sloan in the case of Polgar vs. USCF filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas Lubbock Division, 08-
CV-00169
http://www.anusha.com/polgar-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
http://www.anusha.com/polgar-notice-of-motion.pdf
Note that she acknowledges the existence of "a questionable DVD
related to Polgar's divorce proceedings in New York".
I would be interested in hearing your opinion as to how I should
respond to this motion. My inclination is to file a cross-motion for
Summary Judgment based on the Mottershead Report and the two other
reports plus my own affidavit and other evidence. I think I could win
this motion especially since neither Truong nor Polgar are willing to
deny in writing that they are "The Fake Sam Sloan". Thus, there is no
triable issue of fact.
The Real Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2008 19:51:56
From: Matt Nemmers
Subject: Re: Polgar Files Motion to Dismiss Texas Counterclaim
|
On Oct 1, 7:15=A0am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> ITSP, you have to prove they did whatever stupid thing you petty
> obssessive retards are suing each other over;
LMFAO!!
> they don't have to prove they
> didn't do it.
Don't confuse Sloan with facts and reason, please. It distracts him
from his frivolities.
Regards,
Matt
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2008 07:06:41
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Polgar Files Motion to Dismiss Texas Counterclaim
|
On Oct 1, 8:58=A0am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:740b5125-98ee-4c46-8490-211c1bf4f845@v15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 1, 7:15 am, "foad" <[email protected]> wrote:> "samsloan" <samhsl..=
[email protected] > wrote in message
>
> =A0For purposes of the sj motion their sworn denials will be taken as
>
> > true and the other evidence (affidavit from expert controverting the
> > Mottershead report)
>
> If such a thing exists, of course.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Yeah golly, it'd be hard to get one of those. It'd be nearly impossible t=
o
> find an expert witless who's willing to say whatever you tell him to in
> exchange for a sizeable fee. Really, you chess guys are a fucking hoot.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you "speaketh without knowledge." My
apologies.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Oct 2008 14:33:14
From: foad
Subject: Re: Polgar Files Motion to Dismiss Texas Counterclaim
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:e671e58b-fb18-4502-a79c-301f45539a35@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 1, 8:58 am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "The Historian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:740b5125-98ee-4c46-8490-211c1bf4f845@v15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 1, 7:15 am, "foad" <[email protected]> wrote:> "samsloan"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> For purposes of the sj motion their sworn denials will be taken as
>
> > true and the other evidence (affidavit from expert controverting the
> > Mottershead report)
>
> If such a thing exists, of course.
>
> ====
>
> Yeah golly, it'd be hard to get one of those. It'd be nearly impossible to
> find an expert witless who's willing to say whatever you tell him to in
> exchange for a sizeable fee. Really, you chess guys are a fucking hoot.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize you "speaketh without knowledge."
==========
Said the amateur chess player, in usenet, discussing the law, a subject
about which he knows fuck all.
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2008 05:28:41
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Polgar Files Motion to Dismiss Texas Counterclaim
|
On Oct 1, 7:15=A0am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
For purposes of the sj motion their sworn denials will be taken as
> true and the other evidence (affidavit from expert controverting the
> Mottershead report)
If such a thing exists, of course.
|
| | |
Date: 01 Oct 2008 13:58:12
From: foad
Subject: Re: Polgar Files Motion to Dismiss Texas Counterclaim
|
"The Historian" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:740b5125-98ee-4c46-8490-211c1bf4f845@v15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 1, 7:15 am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
For purposes of the sj motion their sworn denials will be taken as
> true and the other evidence (affidavit from expert controverting the
> Mottershead report)
If such a thing exists, of course.
====
Yeah golly, it'd be hard to get one of those. It'd be nearly impossible to
find an expert witless who's willing to say whatever you tell him to in
exchange for a sizeable fee. Really, you chess guys are a fucking hoot.
|
| |
Date: 01 Oct 2008 12:15:11
From: foad
Subject: Re: Polgar Files Motion to Dismiss Texas Counterclaim
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:33b11254-e7d8-4d42-9a5e-bf5bae955558@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> Susan Polgar has filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim filed by
> Sam Sloan in the case of Polgar vs. USCF filed in the United States
> District Court for the Northern District of Texas Lubbock Division, 08-
> CV-00169
>
> http://www.anusha.com/polgar-motion-to-dismiss.pdf
> http://www.anusha.com/polgar-notice-of-motion.pdf
>
> Note that she acknowledges the existence of "a questionable DVD
> related to Polgar's divorce proceedings in New York".
>
> I would be interested in hearing your opinion as to how I should
> respond to this motion. My inclination is to file a cross-motion for
> Summary Judgment based on the Mottershead Report and the two other
> reports plus my own affidavit and other evidence. I think I could win
> this motion especially since neither Truong nor Polgar are willing to
> deny in writing that they are "The Fake Sam Sloan". Thus, there is no
> triable issue of fact.
No. ITFP, unless their lawyer is braindead they have denied or will deny
every allegation you make except their names and addresses and maybe even
those. For purposes of the sj motion their sworn denials will be taken as
true and the other evidence (affidavit from expert controverting the
Mottershead report) will be taken "in the light most favorable" to them.
Thus you will not meet your burden of proving that no zero zilch nil none
controverted facts exist and that no jury could possibly find in their
favor. ITSP, you have to prove they did whatever stupid thing you petty
obssessive retards are suing each other over; they don't have to prove they
didn't do it. Their failure to deny that they did what you allege does not
without more constitute proof that they did what you allege
|
|
