Main
Date: 05 Feb 2008 04:55:02
From: Sam Sloan
Subject: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
__________________________________________

Sam Sloan,

Plaintiff,
Civil
Action No. 07-CV-8537 (DC)
-against-

Hoainhan "Paul" Truong, Zsuzsanna "Susan" Polgar,
Joel Channing, William Goichberg, The United States
Chess Federation, Bill Hall, Herbert Rodney Vaughn,
Gregory Alexander, Frank Niro, Grant Perks, William
Brock, Randall Hough, Randy Bauer, Jim Berry,
Texas Tech University and United States of America,

Defendants
__________________________________________

AFFIDAVIT IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION
TO DISMISS ON FEDERAL QUESTIONS ISSUE

__________________________________________

Samuel H. Sloan, the plaintiff herein, being duly sworn, deposes and
says:

1. I make this affidavit in opposition to the motion by various
defendants to dismiss this action on the grounds of lack of a federal
question.

2. Frankly, I consider the issues raised by the moving defendants to
be frivolous. There are a great abundance of federal questions here. I
think the defendants are just trying to buy time and to convince their
clients that they are doing the best they can.

3. The United States Chess Federation ("USCF") has 86,000 members.
Every state of the 50 states have members, with the least being
Wyoming with more than 50 members. The USCF represents the United
States of America internationally. We are the equivalent to the United
States Olympic Committee, except that instead of representing the USA
in hundreds of sports, we only represent the USA in one activity,
chess.

4. It is obvious that if the United States Olympic Committee or any
other comparable organization such as the National Football League or
the National Basket ball Association had experienced the massive
election fraud, identity theft, online forgery, impersonations,
misappropriations of funds and so on as have characterized the USCF in
the past two years, the FBI would have moved in already and started
making arrests. There would be people in jail now. This has not
happened because there is not that much interest in chess.

5. There have been three forensic reports produced thus far. There are
the Mottershead Report, the Jones Report and the Ulevitch Report.
These three reports all reach the same conclusion. The Mottershead
Report has proved absolutely, conclusively that Hoainhan "Paul" Truong
sent 2464 fake or forged Internet postings over a two year period from
June 25, 2005 until October, 2007. That is two thousand four hundred
sixty four postings, most of which impersonated me, Sam Sloan,
although some of them impersonated Ray Gordon, Andrew Zito and other
real or fake personalities.

6. As to why I in particular would be the target of most of these
impersonations, the best way to explain it is that I am the equivalent
of the "Jack Anderson" of chess. Jack Anderson as you will recall was
a newspaper columnists reporting on J. Edgar Hoover's apparent ties to
the Mafia, Watergate, the John F. Kennedy assassination, the Nixon
Administration, the Savings and Loan scandal, the CIA plans to
assassinate Fidel Castro, the Iran-Contra affair and so on. He was a
crusader against corruption. Henry Kissinger called Jack Anderson "the
most dangerous man in America". The USCF Insiders such as Bill
Goichberg have the same view of me as Richard Nixon had of Jack
Anderson.

7. Because I have a wide readership, anybody wanting to bring down the
USCF leadership might decide to impersonate me. Paul Truong is a
complete nobody in the world of chess. When he started impersonating
me, nobody would have bothered to read anything written by him.
Therefore, when he wanted to attack somebody he would sign my name
rather than his own name to his postings. Over the period of two and a
half years, Truong, whom we now know to have been "The Fake Sam Sloan"
as he was called, attacked virtually every significant chess
personality except for Paul Truong, Susan Polgar and Joel Channing.
The fact that he never attacked Joel Channing is one of the reasons
that I believe that Joel Channing was in on this from the beginning.

8. I wish to emphasize that it is 100% proven that Paul Truong did
this. Not merely 99% sure, not merely "beyond reasonable doubt", but
absolutely 100% certain, no doubt at all.

9. Next, the motivation. The motivation is clear: He did it to attack
the rivals of his wife, Susan Polgar, and ultimately to seize control
of the financial assets of the United States Chess Federation, which
has $3.2 million in annual revenues.

10. One of the most frequent targets of attack by "The Fake Sam Sloan"
is Beatriz inello, a woman chess grandmaster and President of the
United States Chess Federation from 2003 to 2005. The Fake Sam Sloan
has called her a "bulldyke" one hundred times in Internet postings
over a period of two years. Paul Truong, this time not in disguise,
went to the Scholastic Counsel and other scholastic groups and told
them that inello was a lesbian. Truong also called me, Sam Sloan,
on the phone in 2004 and told me that inello was a lesbian.

11. Most of the postings by the Fake Sam Sloan, whom we now know to be
Truong, contained sexual references, usually making claims about the
sexual preferences of the targets. For example, Grandmaster Alexandria
Kosteniuk, a Russian girl who lives in Florida, is called "a Lolita".
Truong also conducted a campaign to kick Kosteniuk's name off the USCF
Rating lists, since Kostenuik was rated higher than Susan Polgar (who
falsely claims to be a "world champion") and to kick the picture of
Kosteniuk out of Chess Life magazine to be replaced by pictures of
Polgar. (In 2004-2005 most issues of Chess Life magazine had pictures
of Kosteniuk. In 2006-2007 almost every issue of Chess Life had
pictures of Polgar.)

12. Among the most frequent other targets of attack by The Fake Sam
Sloan were US Woman's Champion Jennifer Shahade, former USCF President
Don Schultz, and Chairman of the Seattle Chess Foundation Erik
Anderson.

13. Please remember that most of these thousands of attacks were
signed "Sam Sloan". It thus appeared that I, the Real Sam Sloan, was
attacking all of these people. Also, the 2464 "Fake Sam Sloan"
postings found by the Mottershead Report to have been made by Paul
Truong were crossposted to two and sometimes three usenet groups,
rec.games.chess.politics , rec.games.chess.misc and alt.chess. Thus,
counting the crosspostings, there were more than five thousand
postings. These postings were not made on just one website located in
just one state. They were made on Usenet and broadcast all over the
entire world and picked up and preserved in every country of the
world. The total readership of these postings was at least in the
hundreds of thousands and probably in the millions.

14. In challenging the jurisdiction of this court to consider this
issue, the defendants have cited exactly one case. Best Van Lines,
Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007). However, that case does
not lead to the conclusion they seek, for several reasons.

15. Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2007)
involved a website in Iowa that posts reviews of moving companies. I
have looked at this website and it contains statements such as "this
moving company scratched my furniture", "that moving company lost my
suitcase" and so on. I have yet to find a favorable review of any
moving company on that website.

16. Best Van Lines is a moving company located in New York that was
subjected to allegedly defamatory reks by the Walker website in
Iowa. As a result, suit was filed in the Southern District of New
York.

17. The District Court ruled and the Second Circuit affirmed that Best
Van Lines must sue in Iowa, where the Walker website is located. By
analogy, this is similar to a case of a small-town in newspaper in
Iowa that has a few readers in New York.

18. However, the case presented here is different for a number of
reasons. One is that the defamatory postings were not made on a simple
website. They were broadcast and propagated all around the world in
every country of the world. In the Best Van Lines case, if the
computer hosting the Walker website were to crash, nobody in the
entire world would be able to see it any more. However, in the case
presented here, if one computer or even one hundred computers crash,
the Truong postings will still be visible in many other places.
Indeed, when Truong was apprehended, he stayed up all night in Mexico
City where he was at the time trying to delete as many of these
postings as he possibly could. He was able to delete many of them from
Google Newsgroups, because that is where he had first posted them, but
he still has not been able to delete them from Forte Inc. Agent, from
Giganews.com or from the many other services that carry these
newsgroups.

19. William Brock in his motion to dismiss states that his postings
which in general stated that I am a child molester were all posted
from his CPA Office in the Chicago Loop. However, the location of his
personal computer is of little moment. What is important is where he
posted them. Not only did he post them on the Usenet groups around the
world, but he posted them on such places as the New York Times website
which is obviously located in New York State.

20. An example of Brock's postings on the New York Times website is
at:

http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/the-lawsuit-against-polgar-and-truong-et-al-a-forum/

21. There, you will see numerous postings by William Brock on the New
York Times website where he provides links to places where, he claims,
one can find proof that I am a child molester and a child
pornographer. Mr. Brock is obviously a sick, disturbed man. Clearly,
Mr. Brock cannot now claim that the New York courts have no
jurisdiction over this.

22. Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker, 490 F.3d 239, 250-51 (2d Cir.
2007) involved a moving company in New York complaining about a
website in Iowa. However, in the case before this court, defendants
have made a point of posting on forums read by the widest possible
readership which are broadcast Worldwide. Even after the filing and
service of this lawsuit, Defendant William Brock has made defamatory
postings to the New York Times website which is, of course, located in
New York. The New York Times has published ten articles about this
case, three in the paper print version of the newspaper and the other
seven on the online or "Gambit Blog" of the Newspaper. William Brock
has continued posting his defamatory material accusing me of being a
pornographer to these New York Times Gambit Blogs even while this case
has been pending before this court. The first of these articles in the
New York Times was "Chess Group Officials Accused of Using Internet to
Hurt Rivals" by DYLAN LOEB McCLAIN Published: October 8, 2007 Kindly
take a look at it.

23. Similarly, William Brock has posted these claims that I am a child
molester to the "Daily Dirt" column of the chessninja.com website
which is based in New York and operated by Mig Greengard in Greenwich
Village, New York City and he has posted to the Susan Polgar Blogspot
at susanpolgar.blogspot.com during which time and until approximately
May, 2007 Susan Polgar resided in Rego Park, Queens, New York. Mr.
Brock has posted 97 times to my biography on the Wikipedia
Encyclopedia. Most importantly, William Brock has posted thousands of
times since 2004 to the Internet Usenet groups
rec.games.chess.politics and rec.games.chess.misc . These Usenet
postings are not maintained at any one location. They are propagated
and broadcast all over the world. If one computer crashes there will
be plenty of others to back it up. That is the reason why the Internet
is called "the World Wide Web". Although Google Newsgroups is the most
popular place to post to and view these newsgroups, there are many
others including Forte Agent and Giganews.

24. There is a big difference between the Bill Brock postings and the
Paul Truong postings. Bill Brock signs his own name. He openly states
that he is the poster and has many times challenged and dared me to
sue him.

25. Paul Truong, however, signs MY NAME to his postings. He says that
he is me. This is a much more serious case of Internet Identity Theft,
Forgery and Impersonation.

26. Paul Truong does post under his own name on the USCF Issues Forum
on the uschess.org website, because Fake-Name postings are not allowed
there (This rule was enacted to stop Herbert Rodney Vaughn who posts
as tanstaafl from posting his anonymous attacks on me.) Here is a
posting by Truong on Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:32 am #16962

Well, as a life member of the USCF and someone who devote a lot of
time, energy and money to promote scholastic chess, and someone with
children playing chess, the background of a board member is vital to
me, especially when someone has a horrific sexual history with minors.

You are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. Sam Sloan
is a danger to my children, the young members of the USCF and a
serious legal liability to the USCF. Frankly, it appalls me the there
are people who are willing to close their eyes and accept this
monster.

27. As we now know, the real danger to Truong's children is Paul
Truong himself because two judges of the Queens Family Court, Judge
Rhea Friedman and Referee Mildred T. Negron, have issued orders of
protection prohibiting Paul Truong and Susan Polgar from inflicting
corporal punishment on their children for refusing to play chess. I
have never received any such order of this nature from any judge.

28. Not only has Bill Brock stated that I am a child molester thousand
of times on the public newgroups, but he was also allowed to post that
on the USCF website:

by billbrock on Fri Jul 21, 2006 11:19 am #16303
For the record: Sam Sloan is a convicted felon. His two felony
convictions directly impacted the safety and well-being of his
children, but were not sexual in nature AFAIK.

For the record: I maintain that Sloan is a child molester by his
self-admitted conduct. He has never been convicted of such.

29. On this last point, I ask this court to search Lexus-Nexus and
find the 6-3 decision by the Virginia Court of Appeals which affirmed
my conviction. Please read carefully the opinion by the three
dissenting judges. That dissenting opinion makes it clear that I was
not remotely guilty of anything and could not possibly have been
convicted in a properly conducted trial with a proper defense.

30. All this pertains to just one count of the complaint, namely the
thousands of Internet postings by Truong and Brock impersonating me or
calling me a "child molester" and other names.

31. There are four other counts to the complaint, numerous sub-counts
and numerous causes of action.

32. One of these concerns the criminal theft by Truong and Polgar on
August 20, 2003 of the USCF laptop computer which would have contained
information about the missing two million dollars of USCF funds.

33. In 1999 the USCF had approximately two million dollars on deposit
with the Oberweis Fund, a mutual fund listed on the New York Stock
Exchange.

24. By 2003 that two million dollars had been reduced to five dollars.
Since there was no point in having an account with only five dollars
in it, the Oberweis account was closed. When the account was closed,
Frank Niro, who was the Executive Director at the time, changed the
accounting system to hide the horrific losses. The real question is:
Who lost the money and what happened to it? The two Executive
Directors during the relevant period were George DeFeis and Frank
Niro. Both probably padded their resumes to get hired. DeFeis probably
did not really have a Masters Degree in Business administration from
Bernard Baruch School of Finance. Frank Niro claimed that he had
received an award of "Hospital Administrator of the Year" but we have
not been able to find out what hospital and what organization gave
this award. (On this point, Bill Hall is a vast improvement on his
predecessors. Unlike DeFeis and Niro who probably padded their
resumes, Bill Hall honestly admits that he has no qualifications
whatever for the job of Executive Director.) In either case, nearly
two million dollars is missing and the laptop is missing too that
would tell us what happened to the money. Polgar and Truong have
admitted to taking the laptop, which was obviously criminal theft, and
they have refused to return it. Bill Goichberg has made no effort to
recover the laptop. Frank Niro is named as a defendant to this lawsuit
but his own attorney, Proskauer Rose, has been unable to locate him.
Truong and Polgar know where Frank Niro is. They have even visited him
in Washington State fairly recently and posed for pictures with him
there which are on the www.susanpolgar.com website, but refuse to
reveal where he can be contacted. Frank Niro has also posted about
this case on Paul Truong's www.chessdiscussion.com website so he
certainly knows about it.

25. I personally believe that George DeFeis lost most of the money but
that Frank Niro ripped of a fair piece of change for himself and is
hiding, waiting for the statute of limitations to expire.

26. Meanwhile, Jeff Loomis, who was the Chief Financial Officer under
DeFeis has suddenly reappeared TODAY !!! and has just posted on Susan
Polgar's Chess Discussion group. Perhaps we can bring him in since the
rest of them have absconded.

27. In short, there are more than enough grounds for federal
jurisdiction here. Also, if not here, then where? If this sort of case
does not raise a federal question, it then becomes possible for
someone in Timbuktu, Mali, or in Russia, China or Nigeria to blanket
the Internet with fraudulent postings. We already have millions of
"Nigerian Scam" letters being received in people's email boxes every
day. Undoubtedly, there are people who fall for these scams because
the emails keep coming. Would this court rule that a victim would have
to go to Nigeria to sue them? We also have a United States
Presidential Election coming up and already there have been reports
and complaints of similar Internet scams involving the presidential
candidates. Those cases are much smaller than the instant case in that
here we have 2,464 fake Usenet postings impersonating me and others,
whereas most comparable cases involve just one or two emails.

28. A comparable and relevant case is Global Ministries vs.
Cablevision Lightpath, CV 06-3669 (DRH) decided in the Eastern
District of New York on November 30, 2006. This case involves an issue
in this case, because that case turned on the right to obtain IP
addresses. The Mottershead Report which found that Paul Truong had
made the 2,464 Usenet postings under the name of Sam Sloan tracked the
IP addresses of the various computers used by Truong and matched them
with the computers used by the "Fake Sam Sloan". This showed a
rekable coincidence in that where ever Paul Truong was the Fake Sam
Sloan was there too. When Paul Truong posted from Rego Park, Queens,
the Fake Sam Sloan posted from Rego Park Queens too. When Paul Truong
moved to Lubbock, Texas to work for Texas Tech University the Fake Sam
Sloan moved there. When Paul Truong and Susan Polgar went to Mexico
City in September 2007 to visit the World Chess Championship, the Fake
Sam Sloan posted from there too. Not only that, but they used the same
computers, the same IP address and the same User Agent String.

29. With this happened consistently over and over again it became
obvious that the Fake Sam Sloan and Paul Truong were one and the same.

30. This is why Paul Truong's priy defense as reported by the New
York Times is that the evidence against him was "illegally" obtained.

31. However, in Global Ministries vs. Cablevision Lightpath, CV
06-3669 (DRH) decided November 30, 2006, the court ruled:

III.Ms. Brown's Constitutional Rights

The court must consider whether granting the petition will violate Ms.
Brown's constitutional rights. The unknown defendant is alleged to
have used Cablevision's services to access the stored electronic
communications of petitioner, without authorization. In addition, the
unknown defendant logged into the e-mail account of an employee of
petitioner and used that person's e-mail to send fictitious messages
of termination to other employees. Such a person has a "minimal
expectation of privacy," if any, in using an Internet service provider
to engage in such tortious conduct. See Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.
V. Does 1-40, 326 F.Supp. 2d 556 (S.AN.Y.2004) ("defendants have
little expectation of privacy in downloading and distributing
copyrighted songs without permission.)

32. In the case presented here, we already know Mr. Truong's IP
addresses. Brian Mottershead found them in the course of his duties as
Administrator of the uschess.org website. Here is where Paul Truong
made his big mistake. As "the Fake Sam Sloan", he personally attacked
Brian Mottershead, thereby giving Mr. Mottershead the incentive to
research and find out who was writing these nasty things about him.

33. On a related subject, Gregory Alexander, who is also a defendant
here, has been contacting the authors of the three reports that prove
that Paul Truong did it and has been making threatening and
intimidating reks. Gregory Alexander has repeatedly contended that
Brian Mottershead committed a crime by revealing the IP address of
Paul Truong. I suspect that Gregory Alexander may have committed some
offenses related to threatening or intimidating a federal witness.

34. Robert Jones, author of the "Jones Report", wrote the following:

"Just wanted to let you know that I had an odd phone call from someone
purporting to be from the USCF but I'm not sure if that is really the
case. I answered the phone and this guy said he was Gregory Alexander
from the USCF and immediately launched into a series of questions
about my expertise in internet forensics, had I ever given evidence in
court, etc. I was a bit taken aback but figured he was a USCF staffer
or lawyer or something. I was happy to give him that information but
then he asked me if I was aware that Brian Mottershead had hacked into
his account, and was I aware the Paul Truong had criticized him two
weeks before he prepared his report and would that knowledge change my
conclusions on the data analysis.

I explained to him exactly what I say in the report that I performed a
technical analysis of the data associated with the Mottershead report
and that I stand by the conclusions in my report. I said that I don't
know Truong, Mottershead or any of the other players in this dispute.
He then went on to say that Truong is a friend of his and that he has
evidence that Truong is not involved in any of this - something about
a friend of his has seen plane tickets (?) - and that making a defense
against the claims out there against Truong is very difficult. I
reiterated that my analysis was a straight technical analysis, done in
response to your request, as an independent review of Mottershead's
report.

35. Gregory Alexander is not "from the USCF". He is a close associate
of Polgar and Truong. He is also the webmaster of their website. The
"plane tickets" defense we already know about. It is one of the
standard defenses Truong uses. Another is the "somebody is following
me" defense. The "plane tickets" defense was used in the "Voice of
Reason" case where Mig Greendard who had previously been one of their
strongest supporters realized that his Daily Dirt website was being
bombarded with postings by all sorts of different people all saying
the same thing and all posting from the same IP address. This is one
of Paul Truong's modus operandi. Truong creates dozens of fake
personalities and posts under their names. When Mig Greengard realized
that all these different identities were the same person, Truong and
Polgar claimed that it could not have been them since they were
traveling at the time and were on an airplane in mid-flight. This is
probably the sort of "rock solid" evidence they claim to have recently
provided to the board proving that it was not them. An Internet gadfly
has posted what he calls "The List of the Blind Monkey" listing so far
41 ridiculous defenses presented by Truong allies which supposedly
prove that they could not possibly be responsible for the 2,464
postings by the Fake Sam Sloan. The "somebody is following me" defense
we know about too. It was also used by Paul Truong when in 2003 it was
proven through IP addresses that he was the same person as "Bob
Bennett".

36. In the last month or so, new fake posters have appeared. Their
postings are "remailed automatically by anonymizing remailer
software". They sometimes sign as "Sam Sloan" but usually do not give
a name at all. Top suspects are Gregory Alexander and Paul Truong but
it could be anybody. These anonymous fakes are posting every day
lately, so please take a look.

37. Another issue in this case concerns the sale of the USCF building
in New Windsor. In November, 2004, the USCF owned a fully paid for
office building in New Windsor, New York. Bill Goichberg took it upon
himself to sell it. He never consulted the board. There was no debate
nor vote on this issue. At least two board members, Frank Brady and
Don Schultz, were adamantly opposed to this sale and would have voted
against had it come up for a vote. Unfortunately, Bill Goichberg who
was Executive Director at the time, seems to treat the USCF as if he
owns it and makes decisions without consulting the delegates or the
board. The complete USCF minutes for every meeting for that period are
available online. One can check the minutes and see that nowhere in
the minutes does it show that the board ever debated, voted on and
passed a resolution to sell the building. In short, the sale of the
building was illegal, without corporate authority.

38. It is important to note that New Windsor is in Orange County which
is in the Southern District of New York. Since most of the bad acts
that are the subject of this lawsuit took place in New Windsor, this
establishes the jurisdiction and venue of this court.

39. Finally, the USCF election itself was rife with fraud. Three times
during the election campaign period I was suspended from posting for
ten days each. Goichberg and Co. appointed the most hostile moderators
they could find to moderate my postings and the postings of anybody
who supported me including as moderators Gregory Alexander, Herbert
Rodney Vaughn and Louis Blair. Not only was I suspended from posting
but anybody who supported me was suspended from posting as well.
Anybody who asked an embarrassing question of Polgar and Truong had
their postings pulled and was suspended from posting. Questions asking
Polgar and Truong whether they were ried to each other or not were
not allowed. Questions were not allowed asking about the eleven
national chess championships Truong falsely claims to have won or
about the fake PhD degree Truong claimed to have had or about the
billion dollar corporations Truong claims to have rescued and saved.
More than one thousand postings were pulled by the pro-Truong and
pro-Polgar moderators. Dozens of individual USCF members were
suspended from posting. I protested vehemently at the appointments by
Goichberg of these anti-Sloan and pro-Polgarite moderators. Goichberg
supported Polgar and Truong for election until just before the ballots
were mailed out. Sometimes, Goichberg would appoint a moderator who
failed to understand that his mandate was to stop me and my supporters
from posting. Although vehemently hostile to me at the time they were
appointed, a few of the moderators suddenly saw the light and reversed
course. Examples of this are Ron Suarez and Steve Owens ("Steve of
Tennessee"). When Goichberg and Channing realized that these
moderators were not carrying out their mandate to muzzle me, they
would contact these moderators, telling them to crack down on me and
my supporters. At least two moderators resigned, protesting
interference by the board, and one of the moderators committed
suicide.

40. At a hearing, I will demonstrate and prove that Bill Goichberg and
Joel Channing knew all along that Paul Truong was the "Fake Sam
Sloan". They took no steps to stop him from doing this because it
served their purposes to have someone impersonating me. Because of
these and numerous other irregularities, I will be asking this court
to declare the election null and void and to schedule a new election.
I will also request that this court enjoin Polgar, Truong, Goichberg
and Channing from running for office again or from ever holding office
in the United States Chess Federation again, due to their numerous bad
acts committed by these four defendants.

41. I am attaching as exhibits the three forensic reports that prove
that Paul Truong did it. These are The Mottershead Report, the Jones
Report and the Ulevitch Report. These reports are supported by more
than one thousand pages of data that are available online.

42. In addition, I am attaching two orders of protection of the Queens
Family Court prohibiting Susan Polgar and Paul Truong from abusing
their children (by forcing them to play chess) plus several newspaper
articles about this case. These have been three articles in the print
edition of the New York Times about this case, plus seven additional
articles in the online version of the New York Times, plus articles in
the Boston Globe for December 24, 2007, the New York Post, the Lubbock
Texas Avalanche Journal, the Daily Toreador campus newspaper of Texas
Tech University, plus articles in "The Independent" newspaper in
England. There are at least twenty online blogs and websites devoted
to this case and there have been at least one thousand Internet
postings about this case. (If this court or any of the attorneys have
received any "nutty" or "screwball" letters about this case, I hope
that the court recognizes that I have nothing to do with them. There
are some seriously disturbed people out there who also happen to play
chess.)

43. Also, be prepared to hear the "I am a victim" defense. If you look
at Susan Polgar's blogs and websites you would believe that there is
this massive conspiracy against her involving now the majority of the
Executive Board of the United States Chess Federation (who finally
stripped her of her fake titles on Saturday, February 2, 2008 (two
days ago)). She has recently accused the USCF Executive Majority of
"threatening" her children. According to her, the USCF Board now joins
a vast conspiracy. Co-conspirators include the World Chess Federation
("FIDE"), newspaper reporters in the New York Times and other
publications, the Hungarian Chess Federation and others. This probably
explains why Polgar and Truong switched attorneys two weeks ago. She
has been playing the "Everybody is Against me Because I am a Poor
Jewish Girl" role for the past 25 years. If you look at her
performance on the BBC Broadcast "My Brilliant Brain - Make Me a
Genius", now available on YouTube, you would never imagine that she
never went to school and never learned the basic skills of reading,
writing and arithmetic. Her two children complain that she cannot help
with them with their homework in the second grade because she never
learned that stuff. The only thing she can do is play chess (very
well). She communicates with the outside world by emails and Internet
postings that are undoubtedly written by Paul Truong and others, that
she will no doubt disavow when the time comes. She already claims that
she did not write her book "Queen of the King's Game" which attacks
numerous of her past sponsors and benefactors.

WHEREFORE, the motions to dismiss this case must be denied.




_____________________
Samuel H.
Sloan
1664 Davidson
Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453

917-507-7226
1-347-869-2465

samsloan@samsloan.com

STATE OF NEW YORK )
ss:
COUNTY OF BRONX )

VERIFICATION



_________________________
Signature of
Petitioner

On the 4th Day of February, 2008 before me personally came Samuel H.
Sloan to me known to be the person described herein and who executed
the foregoing instrument. Such person duly swore to such instrument
before me and duly acknowledged that he executed the same.


_____________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC



Affidavit of Service

Samuel H. Sloan, being duly sworn, deposes and says that on February
4, 2008 he mailed the within affidavit in opposition to motion to
dismiss this action for lack of diversity to the following addresses:

Jeremy Brown
Attorney for USCF, William Goichberg defendants
Proskauer Rose LLP
One Newark Center
Newark NJ 07102-5211

Joseph J. Ortego
Nixon Rose LLP
Attorneys for Hoainhan "Paul" Truong and Zsuzsanna "Susan" Polgar
50 Jericho Quadrangle
Jericho NY 11753-2729

Emily E. Daughtry
Attorney for United States of America
US Attorney's Office
86 Chambers Street, 3rd Floor
New York NY 10007-2632

Patrick M. O'Brien, Esq.
Attorney for William Brock
309 Elmore Street
Park Ridge, Illinois 60068-3569

Arthur M. Handler
Attorney for William Brock
Handler & Goodman LLP
805 Third Avenue, 8th Floor
New York NY 10022

Scot M. Graydon
Attorney for Texas Tech University
Assistant Attorney General, General Litigation Division
Attorney General of Texas
PO Box 12548
Austin Texas 78711-2446

June Duffy
Assistant Attorney General of New York
120 Broadway
New York NY 10271

__________________________
Samuel H.
Sloan
Sworn to before me this 4th
Day of February, 2008

______________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC




 
Date: 07 Feb 2008 00:08:24
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue
Sam, you have a strong case, which I would like
to be won by you. I'd like to see criminals who
impersonate and damage Internet to spent some
time behind bars. You have a very good reason to
take them to court since they caused you considerable
harm. Actually, to all of us, but especially to you.

Your affidavit has 32Kb at this time. Reduce it to 8Kb
and it will be a superb document, it will radiate power.
Go for it, you can do it.

Good luck,

Wlod


 
Date: 06 Feb 2008 08:52:49
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue

"Sam Sloan" <sloan@ishipress.com > wrote in message
news:47a7e981.957130687@ca.news.verio.net...

SAM TAKES ON

> 6. As to why I in particular would be the target of most of these
> impersonations, the best way to explain it is that I am the equivalent
> of the "Jack Anderson" of chess. Jack Anderson as you will recall was
> a newspaper columnists reporting on J. Edgar Hoover's apparent ties to
> the Mafia, Watergate, the John F. Kennedy assassination, the Nixon
> Administration, the Savings and Loan scandal, the CIA plans to
> assassinate Fidel Castro, the Iran-Contra affair and so on.

AIRS

> He was a
> crusader against corruption. Henry Kissinger called Jack Anderson "the
> most dangerous man in America". The USCF Insiders such as Bill
> Goichberg have the same view of me as Richard Nixon had of Jack
> Anderson.

UNDER-WEIGHT CHESS SETS?

I am sure Sam Sloan is in the right of it - that a certain petty corruption
exists, as among any burocratic class of people who maybe even perforce
wheel and deal with each other. But citing the mob, Watergate and Hoover
seems a tad extravagant in terms of the national importance of USCF, and one
wonders if Sam doesn't have the same sort of inflated opinion of himself as
Our Bill?

The real crime of USCF is that it is so small. With adjustments for
population growth it is hardly incremented since the 72 Fischer boom
membership. And it is small because it is petty, personality based rather
than systemicly managed, and it is small because all its activities are
essentially clerical ones to do with maintenance of a system serving the
current fold.

Whereas its mission statement, in its first substantive clause declares that
its function as 501 non-profit is to popularise chess to a general public.

> 7. Because I have a wide readership,

When I left Sam Sloan's Fide-Yahoo group a few months ago, the main
correspondent was Sam Sloan himself, who made proclamations rather than
interactions - then Eric J and I would then disagree on them. We 2 seemed to
be actually the readership. Of course, now and again someone would pop out
of the woodwork to make a point or to say goodbye.

Sam Sloan may indeed have a wide readership, though not by any evidence a
readership on chess topics.

> anybody wanting to bring down the
> USCF leadership might decide to impersonate me.

I rather wonder if the wide readership think so? Or in fact, who at all
thinks that? I would say that from everything I read Sam Sloan did not have
much of any chance of re-election.

> Paul Truong is a
> complete nobody in the world of chess. When he started impersonating
> me, nobody would have bothered to read anything written by him.

Interesting comment. There certainly are other opinions on that - the last
time I counted the quantity of articles in 2006 the 'complete nobody'
managed to get Susan Polgar about 50 mentions in mainstream press in the
same year that USCF managed 2.

Okay - I think that's enough. I am aware that this is a massive
cross-posting, but rather than it being counter agit-prop, I suggest to all
readers that what I have written seems more evidently true to me, and the
chess public about the relative importance of chess, Sam Sloan and Paul
Troung - and suggest it is another view - and a view based on what I do,
which is chess journalism.

In the event, I am now interviewing Mr. Truong, which I am sure will elicit
further excitements!

To those of you who thought chess was boring - I hope I now confirm your
opinion :)

I also hope I faithfully reflect the general opinion on these matters of
65,000 chess readers every month.

Phil Innes


> Therefore, when he wanted to attack somebody he would sign my name
> rather than his own name to his postings. Over the period of two and a
> half years, Truong, whom we now know to have been "The Fake Sam Sloan"
> as he was called, attacked virtually every significant chess
> personality except for Paul Truong, Susan Polgar and Joel Channing.
> The fact that he never attacked Joel Channing is one of the reasons
> that I believe that Joel Channing was in on this from the beginning.




  
Date: 08 Feb 2008 07:32:00
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue



Rob wrote:

>In defense of Phil, I believe he simply hit "reply" to something
>already posted by Sloan and that resulted in the posting. It's
>something that I fear many of us are guilty of doing, not through
>malice or purpose, but simply in a quick and expediant attempt to
>respond to an online provocation.

I find it difficult to reconcile the above theory with Phil Innes
clearly stating "I am aware that this is a massive cross-posting"
in the post in question.

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >



  
Date: 07 Feb 2008 19:45:25
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue
On Feb 7, 5:34 pm, help bot <nomorech...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 6, 9:32 am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Careful, Guy. I killfiled Innes once and he began to send me email.
> > Even though he never has anything to say worth listening to, he's
> > determined to be heard.
>
> After careful consideration by the board, your
> 5-year contract for "annoying Phil Innes" has
> been renewed. Payment is in the mail; it's the
> same amount as last time-- two boxes of used
> chess trophies, and some "Trends" books from
> the 1980s. (Hey, we run a tight ship here.)
>
> -- the bored

It's a non-exclusive contract. Anyone who disagrees with P Innes can
enjoy the 'benefits' the Brattleboro Bedlam offers.


  
Date: 07 Feb 2008 14:34:08
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue
On Feb 6, 9:32 am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com > wrote:

> Careful, Guy. I killfiled Innes once and he began to send me email.
> Even though he never has anything to say worth listening to, he's
> determined to be heard.

After careful consideration by the board, your
5-year contract for "annoying Phil Innes" has
been renewed. Payment is in the mail; it's the
same amount as last time-- two boxes of used
chess trophies, and some "Trends" books from
the 1980s. (Hey, we run a tight ship here.)


-- the bored



   
Date: 07 Feb 2008 18:07:23
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue

"help bot" <nomorechess@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:9a388675-bba5-4e8e-baae-9a465eea5063@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 6, 9:32 am, The Historian <neil.thehistor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Careful, Guy. I killfiled Innes once and he began to send me email.
>> Even though he never has anything to say worth listening to, he's
>> determined to be heard.
>
> After careful consideration by the board, your
> 5-year contract for "annoying Phil Innes" has
> been renewed. Payment is in the mail; it's the
> same amount as last time-- two boxes of used
> chess trophies, and some "Trends" books from
> the 1980s. (Hey, we run a tight ship here.)
>
>
> -- the bored

the "I cudda bin a C player" lashes out!
----

And the issue was? [since it was from the Histyrian, what does it matter,
lashing is the all of it]

I don't suppose it can be resentment for those who know things because
people explain about it, or those who are better players at chess like that
commonly cited patzer Fischer, or those who think public issues of chess
management should we public, as another patzer, Lincoln, proposed for the
basis of the nation, and not Pentagon-level Secrets about the idiotic clown
Sloan, invoking Hoover, and maybe even the Hoover Dam... in his law suit

10,000 posts can't be wrong - and they all complain the same. Doesn't matter
if Sloan wrote them, or Cornfed, they are so obviously resentful of those
who actually push the gins of things, in chess or its management, that
comment is /almost /superfluous. They both devolve to Brennan's level, which
is to rubbish everyone who does anything.

The comment that is necessary is that such clowns make so much noise, on
chess topics or its managent, as to drown out any real signal. USCF seems
unable to distinguish noise from single, so sucks noise.

Sam Sloan cudda bin a useful board member in exposing all the in-dealing.
Cornfed cudda been a contendah!

Both need to apply less attention to self than and to proclamations to do
either. Both are cloth-eared. Both failed.

Phil Innes, February 2008.




  
Date: 07 Feb 2008 13:13:57
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue
On Feb 7, 1:45=A0pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
>
> >Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote...
>
> >> >>Careful, Guy. I killfiled Innes once and he began to send me email.
> >> >>Even though he never has anything to say worth listening to, he's
> >> >>determined to be heard.
>
> >> > He will get one polite request to not email me, and from then
> >> > on any emails will result in complaints to his email provider.
> >> > Repeated infractions will get his email provider listed on at
> >> > least one DNS Blacklist (which won't happen; they will nuke his
> >> > account rather than risk being blacklisted.
>
> >> Good grief! If Macon wants to believe Brennan that's up to him - welcom=
e to
> >> the liars club of malicious public speculators and stalkers.
>
> >> There is little need to ever refute Brennan since I might as well say
> >> everything he offers is twisted and malicious, and seeks to cause
> >> contention - as a default to his utterances.
>
> >> PI
>
> >Please note P Innes doesn't deny sending me email after I killfiled
> >his newsgroup posts.
>
> Also, please note that I (Guy Macon) have not written anything even
> hinting that I believe or disbelieve Brennan. (Or Innes, Truong,
> Sloan, Polger, or anyone else; I rely on evidence, not on belief.)
> The above is a red herring to draw attention away from my criticism
> of Phil Innes, which is that he purposely posted off-topic material
> to innapropriate newsgroups.
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Guy,
In defense of Phil, I believe he simply hit "reply" to something
already posted by Sloan and that resulted in the posting. It's
something that I fear many of us are guilty of doing, not through
malice or purpose, but simply in a quick and expediant attempt to
respond to an online provocation.
Best Wishes,
Rob


   
Date: 07 Feb 2008 16:34:09
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue

"Rob" <robmtchl@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:5ec0858a-5fc2-4d0d-992b-1ca60371648d@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 7, 1:45 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
>
> >Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote...
>
> >> >>Careful, Guy. I killfiled Innes once and he began to send me email.
> >> >>Even though he never has anything to say worth listening to, he's
> >> >>determined to be heard.
>
> >> > He will get one polite request to not email me, and from then
> >> > on any emails will result in complaints to his email provider.
> >> > Repeated infractions will get his email provider listed on at
> >> > least one DNS Blacklist (which won't happen; they will nuke his
> >> > account rather than risk being blacklisted.
>
> >> Good grief! If Macon wants to believe Brennan that's up to him -
> >> welcome to
> >> the liars club of malicious public speculators and stalkers.
>
> >> There is little need to ever refute Brennan since I might as well say
> >> everything he offers is twisted and malicious, and seeks to cause
> >> contention - as a default to his utterances.
>
> >> PI
>
> >Please note P Innes doesn't deny sending me email after I killfiled
> >his newsgroup posts.
>
> Also, please note that I (Guy Macon) have not written anything even
> hinting that I believe or disbelieve Brennan. (Or Innes, Truong,
> Sloan, Polger, or anyone else; I rely on evidence, not on belief.)
> The above is a red herring to draw attention away from my criticism
> of Phil Innes, which is that he purposely posted off-topic material
> to innapropriate newsgroups.
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Guy,
In defense of Phil, I believe he simply hit "reply" to something
already posted by Sloan and that resulted in the posting. It's
something that I fear many of us are guilty of doing, not through
malice or purpose, but simply in a quick and expediant attempt to
respond to an online provocation.
Best Wishes,
Rob

Actually I usually even make a point of noticing the newsgroups I trim.
No-one else does that. In this instance, since legal issues /did/ seem to be
the topic, I /consciously/ copied the whole group.

What exactly Macon's problem is, I don't know. I rather doubt its this one
;)

Perhaps there should be a newsgroup for chess virgins?

Phil Innes




  
Date: 07 Feb 2008 19:45:04
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue



The Historian wrote:
>
>Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote...
>>
>> >>Careful, Guy. I killfiled Innes once and he began to send me email.
>> >>Even though he never has anything to say worth listening to, he's
>> >>determined to be heard.
>>
>> > He will get one polite request to not email me, and from then
>> > on any emails will result in complaints to his email provider.
>> > Repeated infractions will get his email provider listed on at
>> > least one DNS Blacklist (which won't happen; they will nuke his
>> > account rather than risk being blacklisted.
>>
>> Good grief! If Macon wants to believe Brennan that's up to him - welcome to
>> the liars club of malicious public speculators and stalkers.
>>
>> There is little need to ever refute Brennan since I might as well say
>> everything he offers is twisted and malicious, and seeks to cause
>> contention - as a default to his utterances.
>>
>> PI
>
>Please note P Innes doesn't deny sending me email after I killfiled
>his newsgroup posts.

Also, please note that I (Guy Macon) have not written anything even
hinting that I believe or disbelieve Brennan. (Or Innes, Truong,
Sloan, Polger, or anyone else; I rely on evidence, not on belief.)
The above is a red herring to draw attention away from my criticism
of Phil Innes, which is that he purposely posted off-topic material
to innapropriate newsgroups.

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >



   
Date: 07 Feb 2008 16:29:52
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:BrGdncLTPrtcwjba4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
>
>
>
> The Historian wrote:
>>
>>Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote...
>>>
>>> >>Careful, Guy. I killfiled Innes once and he began to send me email.
>>> >>Even though he never has anything to say worth listening to, he's
>>> >>determined to be heard.
>>>
>>> > He will get one polite request to not email me, and from then
>>> > on any emails will result in complaints to his email provider.
>>> > Repeated infractions will get his email provider listed on at
>>> > least one DNS Blacklist (which won't happen; they will nuke his
>>> > account rather than risk being blacklisted.
>>>
>>> Good grief! If Macon wants to believe Brennan that's up to him - welcome
>>> to
>>> the liars club of malicious public speculators and stalkers.
>>>
>>> There is little need to ever refute Brennan since I might as well say
>>> everything he offers is twisted and malicious, and seeks to cause
>>> contention - as a default to his utterances.
>>>
>>> PI
>>
>>Please note P Innes doesn't deny sending me email after I killfiled
>>his newsgroup posts.
>
> Also, please note that I (Guy Macon) have not written anything even
> hinting that I believe or disbelieve Brennan. (Or Innes, Truong,
> Sloan, Polger, or anyone else; I rely on evidence, not on belief.)
> The above is a red herring to draw attention away from my criticism
> of Phil Innes, which is that he purposely posted off-topic material
> to innapropriate newsgroups.

To Legal groups on legal matters to do with chess?

If you are going to plonk someone Macon, don't make such a hero of
yourself - just buzz off! Of course, your current bravery will only be
reported to you by other people since you are so emotional - and can't ask
anyone anything about why - especially why Sam Sloan broadcast to all these
groups in the first place.

Its a big game played here, by petty people. What is big about it is that to
actual people there are consequences, and if dopes don't like it, don't tune
it. But protest it 7 times?

Just take whatever the hysterical liar Brennan says as truth, and flip out -
but PLEEEEZE - flip off.

Chess.computer is nicely eunuched, no?

Phil Innes



> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/>
>




  
Date: 07 Feb 2008 19:37:41
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue



A Google Groups user claiming to be samsloan wrote:

>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>
>> The Historian wrote:
>>
>> >Guy Macon wrote:
>>
>> >> Chess One / Phil Innes wrote:
>>
>> >> >I am aware that this is a massive cross-posting, but rather
>> >> >than it being counter agit-prop, I suggest to all readers that
>> >> >what I have written seems more evidently true to me,
>>
>> >> Phil, this is the last straw for me. You posted this to:
>>
>> >> rec.games.chess.politics
>> >> misc.legal
>> >> rec.games.chess.misc
>> >> tx.politics
>> >> rec.games.chess.computer
>> >> alt.chess
>> >> soc.culture.usa
>> >> nyc.politics
>>
>> >> Knowing full well that it has *NOTHING* to do with computer
>> >> chess, Texas politics, etc. Shame on you!
>>
>> >> Welcome to my killfile.
>>
>> >> *PLONK*
>>
>> >> --
>> >> Guy Macon
>> >> <http://www.guymacon.com/>
>>
>> >Careful, Guy. I killfiled Innes once and he began to send me email.
>> >Even though he never has anything to say worth listening to, he's
>> >determined to be heard.
>>
>> He will get one polite request to not email me, and from then
>> on any emails will result in complaints to his email provider.
>> Repeated infractions will get his email provider listed on at
>> least one DNS Blacklist (which won't happen; they will nuke his
>> account rather than risk being blacklisted.
>
>I am utterly terrified that you will complain to my ISP,
>ishipress.com

First, ishipress is not an ISP. It is a domain. The ISP associated
with your domain (which may not be the same as the ISP you use to
send email) is NTT America.

Your Usenet post came from an Optimum Online / Cablevision Systems)
server (OOL-CPE-NYX4NY-69-120-148-0-22), via Google Groups, but
again, that doesn't mean that your email is sent through that path.

Second, "The Historian" and I were discussin Phil Innes / Chess
One, not Sam Sloan.

>I notice that you are using a "remailed automatically by anonymizing
>remailer software".

You appear to be able to notice things that do not exist. The post
you replied to was through the Giganews NNTP server. Please provide
a message-ID where you think you saw "remailed automatically by
anonymizing remailer software" in a post withy my name on it.

>Are you one of these fakes who have been posting here recently?

I have better things to do, and if I was in the habit of doing such
things, there are far more worthy targets in certain other newsgroups.

>Or, is somebody pretending to be you?

Not so far. The fact that I have chosen to not express an opinion
as to guilt or innocence in this case may have removed any motive
that happening, depending on who you assume is doing it. In
addition, I know of no anonymizing remailer that will allow someone
to post with a From line of "Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >".
Only a limited number of Usenet servers will allow a from line that
has no "@" in the email address field.


--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >



   
Date: 07 Feb 2008 14:44:58
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue
Guy Macon wrote:
>A Google Groups user claiming to be samsloan wrote:
>
>>Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote:
>>
>>> The Historian wrote:
>>>
>>> >Guy Macon wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Chess One / Phil Innes wrote:
>>>
>>> >> >I am aware that this is a massive cross-posting, but rather
>>> >> >than it being counter agit-prop, I suggest to all readers that
>>> >> >what I have written seems more evidently true to me,
>>>
>>> >> Phil, this is the last straw for me. You posted this to:
>>>
>>> >> rec.games.chess.politics
>>> >> misc.legal
>>> >> rec.games.chess.misc
>>> >> tx.politics
>>> >> rec.games.chess.computer
>>> >> alt.chess
>>> >> soc.culture.usa
>>> >> nyc.politics
>>>
>>> >> Knowing full well that it has *NOTHING* to do with computer
>>> >> chess, Texas politics, etc. Shame on you!
>>>
>>> >> Welcome to my killfile.
>>>
>>> >> *PLONK*
>>>
>>> >> --
>>> >> Guy Macon
>>> >> <http://www.guymacon.com/>
>>>
>>> >Careful, Guy. I killfiled Innes once and he began to send me email.
>>> >Even though he never has anything to say worth listening to, he's
>>> >determined to be heard.
>>>
>>> He will get one polite request to not email me, and from then
>>> on any emails will result in complaints to his email provider.
>>> Repeated infractions will get his email provider listed on at
>>> least one DNS Blacklist (which won't happen; they will nuke his
>>> account rather than risk being blacklisted.
>>
>>I am utterly terrified that you will complain to my ISP,
>>ishipress.com
>
>First, ishipress is not an ISP. It is a domain. The ISP associated
>with your domain (which may not be the same as the ISP you use to
>send email) is NTT America.
>
>Your Usenet post came from an Optimum Online / Cablevision Systems)
>server (OOL-CPE-NYX4NY-69-120-148-0-22), via Google Groups, but
>again, that doesn't mean that your email is sent through that path.
>
>Second, "The Historian" and I were discussin Phil Innes / Chess
>One, not Sam Sloan.
>
>>I notice that you are using a "remailed automatically by anonymizing
>>remailer software".
>
>You appear to be able to notice things that do not exist. The post
>you replied to was through the Giganews NNTP server. Please provide
>a message-ID where you think you saw "remailed automatically by
>anonymizing remailer software" in a post withy my name on it.
>
>>Are you one of these fakes who have been posting here recently?
>
>I have better things to do, and if I was in the habit of doing such
>things, there are far more worthy targets in certain other newsgroups.
>
>>Or, is somebody pretending to be you?
>
>Not so far. The fact that I have chosen to not express an opinion
>as to guilt or innocence in this case may have removed any motive
>that happening, depending on who you assume is doing it. In
>addition, I know of no anonymizing remailer that will allow someone
>to post with a From line of "Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>".
>Only a limited number of Usenet servers will allow a from line that
>has no "@" in the email address field.
>
>
>--
>Guy Macon
><http://www.guymacon.com/>

OK, now I found one that does.


--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >















































































    
Date: 08 Feb 2008 07:29:05
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue



Fake Guy Macon wrote:

>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>>I know of no anonymizing remailer that will allow someone
>>to post with a From line of "Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/>".
>>Only a limited number of Usenet servers will allow a from line that
>>has no "@" in the email address field.
>
>OK, now I found one that does.

No you didn't. From your headers:

From: Guy Macon <"http://www.guymacon.com/"@mail.nymkey.com >

...which, of course, has a "@" in the email address field and
is a valid RFC 2822 email address.

I am a strong supporter of anonomous remailers, and I would be
most interesed if any of them accepts an email address without
a "@" in the From field so I can send in a bug report.

BTW, your Message-ID ended in ...@nymkey.com instead of ...@giganews.com.

References:
http://www.ilovejackdaniels.com/php/email-address-validation/
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2822.txt
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2822.html
http://haacked.com/archive/2007/08/21/i-knew-how-to-validate-an-email-address-until-i.aspx
http://haacked.com/archive/2007/08/26/dont-be-a-validation-nazi.aspx

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >



  
Date: 07 Feb 2008 09:38:37
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue
On Feb 7, 9:07 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote:
> "Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/> wrote in message
>
> news:ZfqdnQ4QGLuTQzfaRVn_vwA@giganews.com...
>
> >>Careful, Guy. I killfiled Innes once and he began to send me email.
> >>Even though he never has anything to say worth listening to, he's
> >>determined to be heard.
>
> > He will get one polite request to not email me, and from then
> > on any emails will result in complaints to his email provider.
> > Repeated infractions will get his email provider listed on at
> > least one DNS Blacklist (which won't happen; they will nuke his
> > account rather than risk being blacklisted.
>
> Good grief! If Macon wants to believe Brennan that's up to him - welcome to
> the liars club of malicious public speculators and stalkers.
>
> There is little need to ever refute Brennan since I might as well say
> everything he offers is twisted and malicious, and seeks to cause
> contention - as a default to his utterances.
>
> PI

Please note P Innes doesn't deny sending me email after I killfiled
his newsgroup posts.


  
Date: 07 Feb 2008 04:34:45
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue
Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!
local02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 04:31:41 -0600
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue
From: Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >
Organization: < >
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 10:31:02 +0000
References: <47a7e981.957130687@ca.news.verio.net >
<0KCdnfQNCvwuJjTanZ2dnUVZ_uidnZ2d@comcast.com >
<qrCdnVOs2Ih2XzTaRVn_vwA@giganews.com > <68fe9547-11e4-4f5e-
bf12-41f79da736df@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com >
X-No-Archive: yes
Message-ID: <ZfqdnQ4QGLuTQzfaRVn_vwA@giganews.com >
Lines: 45
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-
lQW5u9lquwaRSoX99Dp5AheLj59UU2LC7sYNSX6c2fvGBZXIpENIVY2M7rjFTBaTeZi222aXQzbBW/
4!OrPFfNdA+s6+DqJQ/DX9o4CqZADawmjNYW+FSx2Anr1eTDVfRVZWuwyfykddxg==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.37

On Feb 7, 5:31 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
>
> >Guy Macon wrote:
>
> >> Chess One / Phil Innes wrote:
>
> >> >I am aware that this is a massive cross-posting, but rather
> >> >than it being counter agit-prop, I suggest to all readers that
> >> >what I have written seems more evidently true to me,
>
> >> Phil, this is the last straw for me. You posted this to:
>
> >> rec.games.chess.politics
> >> misc.legal
> >> rec.games.chess.misc
> >> tx.politics
> >> rec.games.chess.computer
> >> alt.chess
> >> soc.culture.usa
> >> nyc.politics
>
> >> Knowing full well that it has *NOTHING* to do with computer
> >> chess, Texas politics, etc. Shame on you!
>
> >> Welcome to my killfile.
>
> >> *PLONK*
>
> >> --
> >> Guy Macon
> >> <http://www.guymacon.com/>
>
> >Careful, Guy. I killfiled Innes once and he began to send me email.
> >Even though he never has anything to say worth listening to, he's
> >determined to be heard.
>
> He will get one polite request to not email me, and from then
> on any emails will result in complaints to his email provider.
> Repeated infractions will get his email provider listed on at
> least one DNS Blacklist (which won't happen; they will nuke his
> account rather than risk being blacklisted.

I am utterly terrified that you will complain to my ISP,
ishipress.com

I notice that you are using a "remailed automatically by anonymizing
remailer
software". Are you one of these fakes who have been posting here
recently? Or, is somebody pretending to be you?

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 06 Feb 2008 06:32:47
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue
On Feb 6, 9:23 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Chess One / Phil Innes wrote:
>
> >I am aware that this is a massive cross-posting, but rather
> >than it being counter agit-prop, I suggest to all readers that
> >what I have written seems more evidently true to me,
>
> Phil, this is the last straw for me. You posted this to:
>
> rec.games.chess.politics
> misc.legal
> rec.games.chess.misc
> tx.politics
> rec.games.chess.computer
> alt.chess
> soc.culture.usa
> nyc.politics
>
> Knowing full well that it has *NOTHING* to do with computer
> chess, Texas politics, etc. Shame on you!
>
> Welcome to my killfile.
>
> *PLONK*
>
> --
> Guy Macon
> <http://www.guymacon.com/>

Careful, Guy. I killfiled Innes once and he began to send me email.
Even though he never has anything to say worth listening to, he's
determined to be heard.


   
Date: 07 Feb 2008 10:31:02
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue



The Historian wrote:
>
>Guy Macon wrote:
>
>> Chess One / Phil Innes wrote:
>>
>> >I am aware that this is a massive cross-posting, but rather
>> >than it being counter agit-prop, I suggest to all readers that
>> >what I have written seems more evidently true to me,
>>
>> Phil, this is the last straw for me. You posted this to:
>>
>> rec.games.chess.politics
>> misc.legal
>> rec.games.chess.misc
>> tx.politics
>> rec.games.chess.computer
>> alt.chess
>> soc.culture.usa
>> nyc.politics
>>
>> Knowing full well that it has *NOTHING* to do with computer
>> chess, Texas politics, etc. Shame on you!
>>
>> Welcome to my killfile.
>>
>> *PLONK*
>>
>> --
>> Guy Macon
>> <http://www.guymacon.com/>
>
>Careful, Guy. I killfiled Innes once and he began to send me email.
>Even though he never has anything to say worth listening to, he's
>determined to be heard.

He will get one polite request to not email me, and from then
on any emails will result in complaints to his email provider.
Repeated infractions will get his email provider listed on at
least one DNS Blacklist (which won't happen; they will nuke his
account rather than risk being blacklisted.



    
Date: 07 Feb 2008 09:07:18
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue

"Guy Macon" <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote in message
news:ZfqdnQ4QGLuTQzfaRVn_vwA@giganews.com...

>>Careful, Guy. I killfiled Innes once and he began to send me email.
>>Even though he never has anything to say worth listening to, he's
>>determined to be heard.
>
> He will get one polite request to not email me, and from then
> on any emails will result in complaints to his email provider.
> Repeated infractions will get his email provider listed on at
> least one DNS Blacklist (which won't happen; they will nuke his
> account rather than risk being blacklisted.

Good grief! If Macon wants to believe Brennan that's up to him - welcome to
the liars club of malicious public speculators and stalkers.

There is little need to ever refute Brennan since I might as well say
everything he offers is twisted and malicious, and seeks to cause
contention - as a default to his utterances.

PI





  
Date: 06 Feb 2008 14:23:38
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue



Chess One / Phil Innes wrote:

>I am aware that this is a massive cross-posting, but rather
>than it being counter agit-prop, I suggest to all readers that
>what I have written seems more evidently true to me,

Phil, this is the last straw for me. You posted this to:

rec.games.chess.politics
misc.legal
rec.games.chess.misc
tx.politics
rec.games.chess.computer
alt.chess
soc.culture.usa
nyc.politics

Knowing full well that it has *NOTHING* to do with computer
chess, Texas politics, etc. Shame on you!

Welcome to my killfile.

*PLONK*

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >



  
Date: 06 Feb 2008 06:10:43
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue
On Feb 6, 8:52 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net > wrote:
> "Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
>
> news:47a7e981.957130687@ca.news.verio.net...
>
> SAM TAKES ON
>
> > 6. As to why I in particular would be the target of most of these
> > impersonations, the best way to explain it is that I am the equivalent
> > of the "Jack Anderson" of chess. Jack Anderson as you will recall was
> > a newspaper columnists reporting on J. Edgar Hoover's apparent ties to
> > the Mafia, Watergate, the John F. Kennedy assassination, the Nixon
> > Administration, the Savings and Loan scandal, the CIA plans to
> > assassinate Fidel Castro, the Iran-Contra affair and so on.
>
> AIRS
>
> > He was a
> > crusader against corruption. Henry Kissinger called Jack Anderson "the
> > most dangerous man in America". The USCF Insiders such as Bill
> > Goichberg have the same view of me as Richard Nixon had of Jack
> > Anderson.
>
> UNDER-WEIGHT CHESS SETS?
>
> I am sure Sam Sloan is in the right of it - that a certain petty corruption
> exists, as among any burocratic class of people who maybe even perforce
> wheel and deal with each other. But citing the mob, Watergate and Hoover
> seems a tad extravagant in terms of the national importance of USCF, and one
> wonders if Sam doesn't have the same sort of inflated opinion of himself as
> Our Bill?
>
> The real crime of USCF is that it is so small. With adjustments for
> population growth it is hardly incremented since the 72 Fischer boom
> membership. And it is small because it is petty, personality based rather
> than systemicly managed, and it is small because all its activities are
> essentially clerical ones to do with maintenance of a system serving the
> current fold.
>
> Whereas its mission statement, in its first substantive clause declares that
> its function as 501 non-profit is to popularise chess to a general public.
>
> > 7. Because I have a wide readership,
>
> When I left Sam Sloan's Fide-Yahoo group a few months ago, the main
> correspondent was Sam Sloan himself, who made proclamations rather than
> interactions - then Eric J and I would then disagree on them. We 2 seemed to
> be actually the readership. Of course, now and again someone would pop out
> of the woodwork to make a point or to say goodbye.

Does P Innes understand that a readership isn't the same thing as
participating in a discussion? I guess not.

> Sam Sloan may indeed have a wide readership, though not by any evidence a
> readership on chess topics.
>
> > anybody wanting to bring down the
> > USCF leadership might decide to impersonate me.
>
> I rather wonder if the wide readership think so? Or in fact, who at all
> thinks that? I would say that from everything I read Sam Sloan did not have
> much of any chance of re-election.
>
> > Paul Truong is a
> > complete nobody in the world of chess. When he started impersonating
> > me, nobody would have bothered to read anything written by him.
>
> Interesting comment. There certainly are other opinions on that - the last
> time I counted the quantity of articles in 2006 the 'complete nobody'
> managed to get Susan Polgar about 50 mentions in mainstream press in the
> same year that USCF managed 2.
>
> Okay - I think that's enough. I am aware that this is a massive
> cross-posting,

Then remove some groups.

but rather than it being counter agit-prop, I suggest to all
> readers that what I have written seems more evidently true to me, and the
> chess public about the relative importance of chess, Sam Sloan and Paul
> Troung - and suggest it is another view - and a view based on what I do,
> which is chess journalism.

This is today's giggle. P Innes is about as much of a journalist as my
pet turtle.

> In the event, I am now interviewing Mr. Truong, which I am sure will elicit
> further excitements!

Slow pitch softball....

> To those of you who thought chess was boring - I hope I now confirm your
> opinion :)
>
> I also hope I faithfully reflect the general opinion on these matters of
> 65,000 chess readers every month.

You have 65K people post in reply to your self-described 'journalism?'


   
Date: 06 Feb 2008 12:33:16
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue

"The Historian" <neil.thehistorian@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:6ce101eb-e925-4096-aef9-19dc9d939fd7@q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 6, 8:52 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> "Sam Sloan" <sl...@ishipress.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:47a7e981.957130687@ca.news.verio.net...
>>
>> SAM TAKES ON
>>
>> > 6. As to why I in particular would be the target of most of these
>> > impersonations, the best way to explain it is that I am the equivalent
>> > of the "Jack Anderson" of chess. Jack Anderson as you will recall was
>> > a newspaper columnists reporting on J. Edgar Hoover's apparent ties to
>> > the Mafia, Watergate, the John F. Kennedy assassination, the Nixon
>> > Administration, the Savings and Loan scandal, the CIA plans to
>> > assassinate Fidel Castro, the Iran-Contra affair and so on.
>>
>> AIRS
>>
>> > He was a
>> > crusader against corruption. Henry Kissinger called Jack Anderson "the
>> > most dangerous man in America". The USCF Insiders such as Bill
>> > Goichberg have the same view of me as Richard Nixon had of Jack
>> > Anderson.
>>
>> UNDER-WEIGHT CHESS SETS?
>>
>> I am sure Sam Sloan is in the right of it - that a certain petty
>> corruption
>> exists, as among any burocratic class of people who maybe even perforce
>> wheel and deal with each other. But citing the mob, Watergate and Hoover
>> seems a tad extravagant in terms of the national importance of USCF, and
>> one
>> wonders if Sam doesn't have the same sort of inflated opinion of himself
>> as
>> Our Bill?
>>
>> The real crime of USCF is that it is so small. With adjustments for
>> population growth it is hardly incremented since the 72 Fischer boom
>> membership. And it is small because it is petty, personality based rather
>> than systemicly managed, and it is small because all its activities are
>> essentially clerical ones to do with maintenance of a system serving the
>> current fold.
>>
>> Whereas its mission statement, in its first substantive clause declares
>> that
>> its function as 501 non-profit is to popularise chess to a general
>> public.
>>
>> > 7. Because I have a wide readership,
>>
>> When I left Sam Sloan's Fide-Yahoo group a few months ago, the main
>> correspondent was Sam Sloan himself, who made proclamations rather than
>> interactions - then Eric J and I would then disagree on them. We 2 seemed
>> to
>> be actually the readership. Of course, now and again someone would pop
>> out
>> of the woodwork to make a point or to say goodbye.
>
> Does P Innes understand that a readership isn't the same thing as
> participating in a discussion? I guess not.

Why would anyone guess? Because they know not!

If there are fewer than half a dozen active writers then conceivably there
could be several hundred readers - but Sloan presents himself above as if he
forever giving the Gettysburg Address to the fascianted [Chess] Nation on
matters of great importance.

He is a psycopomp, whereas, Brennan is merely a twit, a lying twit, even a
net-twit - but a malicious one having that tendency to have very limited
comprehension of any subject, a love of none, and like Slaon a...

but wait a minute - am I not addressing the longest Sloan and Truong and
Polgar basher here? What do they all have in common? Ain't it curious how
incurious some people are!

I think Brennan should get back to discussing other men's bottoms with the
Reverend and the Laughing Line Judge. Kane has gone off in a huff after
broadcasting his stuff here, and sometimes other peoples opinions which he
invents, and doesn't like others broadcasting their stuff anywhere.

Rentier-historian Jerry Spinrad is shy of saying he wants to hear all - one
side is enough for him! no wonder Chesscafe give the guy some air! - and the
Hysterian Himself with annual readership of 174 people, wants to tell
everyone what a journalist is.

What a rag-bag of inconsequential opinion by people content to rubbish
others in public and constantly drown out the faint chess signal in this
country by those who try to actually promote it, by their constant noise - I
hope that is plain enough for all to read.

If I missed you, dear reader, and you too are a son of a bitch, please take
it personally.

Phil Innes

>
>> Sam Sloan may indeed have a wide readership, though not by any evidence a
>> readership on chess topics.
>>
>> > anybody wanting to bring down the
>> > USCF leadership might decide to impersonate me.
>>
>> I rather wonder if the wide readership think so? Or in fact, who at all
>> thinks that? I would say that from everything I read Sam Sloan did not
>> have
>> much of any chance of re-election.
>>
>> > Paul Truong is a
>> > complete nobody in the world of chess. When he started impersonating
>> > me, nobody would have bothered to read anything written by him.
>>
>> Interesting comment. There certainly are other opinions on that - the
>> last
>> time I counted the quantity of articles in 2006 the 'complete nobody'
>> managed to get Susan Polgar about 50 mentions in mainstream press in the
>> same year that USCF managed 2.
>>
>> Okay - I think that's enough. I am aware that this is a massive
>> cross-posting,
>
> Then remove some groups.
>
> but rather than it being counter agit-prop, I suggest to all
>> readers that what I have written seems more evidently true to me, and the
>> chess public about the relative importance of chess, Sam Sloan and Paul
>> Troung - and suggest it is another view - and a view based on what I do,
>> which is chess journalism.
>
> This is today's giggle. P Innes is about as much of a journalist as my
> pet turtle.
>
>> In the event, I am now interviewing Mr. Truong, which I am sure will
>> elicit
>> further excitements!
>
> Slow pitch softball....
>
>> To those of you who thought chess was boring - I hope I now confirm your
>> opinion :)
>>
>> I also hope I faithfully reflect the general opinion on these matters of
>> 65,000 chess readers every month.
>
> You have 65K people post in reply to your self-described 'journalism?'




    
Date: 06 Feb 2008 09:56:57
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: "we the chess public"
Chess One wrote:
>
> What a rag-bag of inconsequential opinion by people content to rubbish
> others in public and constantly drown out the faint chess signal in this
> country by those who try to actually promote it, by their constant noise - I
> hope that is plain enough for all to read.
>
> If I missed you, dear reader, and you too are a son of a bitch, please take
> it personally.
>
> Phil Innes
>

And so it goes with the many minds of one P Innes, self described as "we
the chess public..."
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


     
Date: 06 Feb 2008 16:25:01
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: "we the chess public"
J.D. Walker wrote:
> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> What a rag-bag of inconsequential opinion by people content to rubbish
>> others in public and constantly drown out the faint chess signal in
>> this country by those who try to actually promote it, by their
>> constant noise - I hope that is plain enough for all to read.
>>
>> If I missed you, dear reader, and you too are a son of a bitch, please
>> take it personally.
>>
>> Phil Innes
>>
>
> And so it goes with the many minds of one P Innes, self described as "we
> the chess public..."

HOT OFF THE PRESS!

"Warrants for the arrests of President Bush and Vice President
Cheney..." in Brattleboro, Vermont.

(http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/New_tone_set_in_e_mails_on_Bush_war_02062008.html)

A small excerpt,

"Brattleboro's town offices have been flooded with 7,000 e-mails since
its selectboard voted Jan. 25 to include the item on its Town Meeting
Day agenda.

Some of the earliest messages received were so full of vitriol that town
officials said they were worried for their safety. Some writers called
Brattleboro a bastion of "liberal appeaser wimps" and "wackjobs" for
even considering the warrants."

Is our own P Innes, AKA "we the chess public," involved in this? Could
he have sent an email that said, "If I missed you, dear reader, and you
too are a son of a bitch, please take it personally...."

Openness requires an answer!
--

Cordially,
Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C.


 
Date: 05 Feb 2008 04:52:49
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue
I wonder why Rob ("The Robust Internet Front-Money Swindler") feels
that he gets some satisfaction by over-writing other people's threads.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 05 Feb 2008 13:28:32
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Sloan v. Truong - Affidavit on Federal Question Issue



samsloan wrote:

>I wonder why Rob ("The Robust Internet Front-Money Swindler") feels
>that he gets some satisfaction by over-writing other people's threads.

What you are seeing is an artifact of you using the Google groups
website instead of accessing Usenet directly with a newsreader on
a NNTP server. Blame Google, not users using Usenet as it was
indended to be used.

--
Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com/ >



 
Date: 04 Feb 2008 21:02:09
From: Rob
Subject: Musical Sloan Soup
The day he was elected
The chess world did frown
And they gapsed in such horror
At the B.S. that went down
Then Goichberg spoke up
And he said "leave Sam Sloan alone"
He could tell right away
That SLoan was easy to own

Easy to own
A dog with a bone
E-E-E-E-Easy to own
E-E-E-E-Easy
E-E-E-E-Easy
Easy to own

Sloan attacked without mercy
Who the board told him to
While his puppet masters
Cop an attitude
So he sues Paul and Susan
Everyone else to
He's just so easy to own
Dog with a bone

E-E-E-Easy
E-E-E-Easy
E-E-E-Easy
Easy to own


Makes a fool of himself
Makes fools outta his friends
Makes his family hate him
Make em wish he was dead
But he needs attention
So he will go on
Just whining and moaning
Cause he's east to own


E-E-E-Easy
E-E-E-Easy
E-E-E-Easy
Easy to own

Sung to the tune of "Bad to the bone"
> Assistant Attorney General, General Litigation Division
> Attorney General of Texas
> PO Box 12548
> Austin Texas 78711-2446
>
> June Duffy
> Assistant Attorney General of New York
> 120 Broadway
> New York NY 10271
>
> __________________________
> Samuel H.
> Sloan
> Sworn to before me this 4th
> Day of February, 2008
>
> ______________________________
> NOTARY PUBLIC



  
Date: 05 Feb 2008 13:14:09
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Musical Sloan Soup
On Feb 4, 11:02=A0pm, Rob <robmt...@gmail.com > wrote:
> The day he was elected
> The chess world did frown
> And they gapsed in such horror
> At the B.S. that went down
> Then Goichberg spoke up
> And he said "leave Sam Sloan alone"
> He could tell right away
> That SLoan was easy to own
>
> Easy to own
> A dog with a bone
> E-E-E-E-Easy to own
> E-E-E-E-Easy
> E-E-E-E-Easy
> Easy to own
>
> Sloan attacked without mercy
> Who the board told him to
> While his puppet masters
> Cop an attitude
> So he sues Paul and Susan
> Everyone else to
> He's just so easy to own
> Dog with a =A0bone
>
> E-E-E-Easy
> E-E-E-Easy
> E-E-E-Easy
> Easy to own
>
> Makes a fool of himself
> Makes fools outta his friends
> Makes his family hate him
> Make em wish he was dead
> But he needs attention
> So he will go on
> Just whining and moaning
> Cause he's east to own
>
> E-E-E-Easy
> E-E-E-Easy
> E-E-E-Easy
> Easy to own
>
> Sung to the tune of "Bad to the bone"
>
>
>
Sing it Soupy Sam