| |
Main
Date: 25 Oct 2008 10:42:04
From: samsloan
Subject: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory Alexander
|
I have just discovered on the website of the San Francisco Superior
Court that a new complaint has been filed. This one is entitled USCF
and Randall Hough vs. Gregory Alexander and Susan Polgar plus Does
1-10.
http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=IJS&PRGNAME=ROA22&ARGUMENTS=-ACGC08476777
The suit was fined yesterday, October 24, 2008, and I understand that
Susan Polgar was served today while she was giving a chess exhibition
in Fresno California. This will make it for her much more difficult to
evade the long arm of the law, as she had been doing thus far in the
proceeding filed in Texas.
From the timing, it seems to me likely that this was done in such a
way as to catch her off guard. It was known that she was going to be
in California today, so that by filing the new complaint yesterday she
would not be aware that she was about to be served.
Even though I am not a party I can just about tell you what the case
is about. It has long been suspected that Susan Polgar with the help
of Gregory Alexander has been hacking into the Internet accounts of
other board members including Randall Hough. What obviously must have
happened is that they have developed the proof that Polgar and
Alexander did this.
It is noteworthy that Paul Truong is not named as a defendant. This
may simply mean that they have no proof that Truong is involved.
The information about this new case is available on the website of the
San Francisco Superior Court.
Case Number Case Number: CGC-08-476777
http://www.sfgov.org/site/courts_index.asp
Sam Sloan
|
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2008 21:22:06
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory Alexander
|
On Oct 28, 7:42=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 3:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:b182eb0f-8271-42a0-9d37-5bf2e2d64a1f@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com.=
..
>
> >>> I have just discovered on the website of the San Francisco Superior
> >>> Court that a new complaint has been filed. This one is entitled USCF
> >>> and Randall Hough vs. Gregory Alexander and Susan Polgar plus Does
> >>> 1-10.
> >>>http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=3DIJS=
&...
> >>> The suit was fined yesterday, October 24, 2008, and I understand that
> >>> Susan Polgar was served today while she was giving a chess exhibition
> >>> in Fresno California. This will make it for her much more difficult t=
o
> >>> evade the long arm of the law, as she had been doing thus far in the
> >>> proceeding filed in Texas.
> >>> From the timing, it seems to me likely that this was done in such a
> >>> way as to catch her off guard. It was known that she was going to be
> >>> in California today, so that by filing the new complaint yesterday sh=
e
> >>> would not be aware that she was about to be served.
> >>> Even though I am not a party I can just about tell you what the case
> >>> is about. It has long been suspected that Susan Polgar with the help
> >>> of Gregory Alexander has been hacking into the Internet accounts of
> >>> other board members including Randall Hough.
> >> Congratulations to Sam Sloan who volunteers to join the suit from his =
'long
> >> suspected' information -
>
> > He seems to be substantially correct. Susan Polgar and Gregory
> > Alexander were named in the amended complaint. The suit is indeed
> > about allegations Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander illegally
> > accessed email accounts, specifically Bill Goichberg's and Randall
> > Hough's. Unlike Sloan's pro se messes, this complaint is focused and
> > on topic.
>
> > Does it hurt, P Innes, that your ego's meal ticket is in trouble?
>
> If push comes to shove, will she deny knowing him?
It might be to P Innes' advantage if she does deny knowing him. Who
knows where discovery might lead?
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2008 20:38:39
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory Alexander
|
On Oct 28, 7:42=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The Historian wrote:
> > On Oct 25, 3:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >>news:b182eb0f-8271-42a0-9d37-5bf2e2d64a1f@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com.=
..
>
> >>> I have just discovered on the website of the San Francisco Superior
> >>> Court that a new complaint has been filed. This one is entitled USCF
> >>> and Randall Hough vs. Gregory Alexander and Susan Polgar plus Does
> >>> 1-10.
> >>>http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=3DIJS=
&...
> >>> The suit was fined yesterday, October 24, 2008, and I understand that
> >>> Susan Polgar was served today while she was giving a chess exhibition
> >>> in Fresno California. This will make it for her much more difficult t=
o
> >>> evade the long arm of the law, as she had been doing thus far in the
> >>> proceeding filed in Texas.
> >>> From the timing, it seems to me likely that this was done in such a
> >>> way as to catch her off guard. It was known that she was going to be
> >>> in California today, so that by filing the new complaint yesterday sh=
e
> >>> would not be aware that she was about to be served.
> >>> Even though I am not a party I can just about tell you what the case
> >>> is about. It has long been suspected that Susan Polgar with the help
> >>> of Gregory Alexander has been hacking into the Internet accounts of
> >>> other board members including Randall Hough.
> >> Congratulations to Sam Sloan who volunteers to join the suit from his =
'long
> >> suspected' information -
>
> > He seems to be substantially correct. Susan Polgar and Gregory
> > Alexander were named in the amended complaint. The suit is indeed
> > about allegations Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander illegally
> > accessed email accounts, specifically Bill Goichberg's and Randall
> > Hough's. Unlike Sloan's pro se messes, this complaint is focused and
> > on topic.
>
> > Does it hurt, P Innes, that your ego's meal ticket is in trouble?
>
> If push comes to shove, will she deny knowing him?
Her admitting to know P Innes now just shows that one can be a GM and
not have any common sense - or taste.
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2008 11:26:31
From: Javert
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory Alexander
|
On Oct 28, 8:39=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 25, 3:27=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:b182eb0f-8271-42a0-9d37-5bf2e2d64a1f@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com..=
.
>
> > >I have just discovered on the website of the San Francisco Superior
> > > Court that a new complaint has been filed. This one is entitled USCF
> > > and Randall Hough vs. Gregory Alexander and Susan Polgar plus Does
> > > 1-10.
>
> > >http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=3DIJS=
&...
>
> > > The suit was fined yesterday, October 24, 2008, and I understand that
> > > Susan Polgar was served today while she was giving a chess exhibition
> > > in Fresno California. This will make it for her much more difficult t=
o
> > > evade the long arm of the law, as she had been doing thus far in the
> > > proceeding filed in Texas.
>
> > > From the timing, it seems to me likely that this was done in such a
> > > way as to catch her off guard. It was known that she was going to be
> > > in California today, so that by filing the new complaint yesterday sh=
e
> > > would not be aware that she was about to be served.
>
> > > Even though I am not a party I can just about tell you what the case
> > > is about. It has long been suspected that Susan Polgar with the help
> > > of Gregory Alexander has been hacking into the Internet accounts of
> > > other board members including Randall Hough.
>
> > Congratulations to Sam Sloan who volunteers to join the suit from his '=
long
> > suspected' information -
>
> He seems to be substantially correct. Susan Polgar and Gregory
> Alexander were named in the amended complaint. The suit is indeed
> about allegations Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander illegally
> accessed email accounts, specifically Bill Goichberg's and Randall
> Hough's. Unlike Sloan's pro se messes, this complaint is focused and
> on topic.
>
> Does it hurt, P Innes, that your ego's meal ticket is in trouble?
Including the law firm in her suit against the USCF and the
individuals on the board and the others will be given a ??? when Rybka
goes over the game after it is done.
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2008 21:17:24
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory Alexander
|
Javert wrote:
> On Oct 28, 8:39 am, The Historian <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Oct 25, 3:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:b182eb0f-8271-42a0-9d37-5bf2e2d64a1f@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> I have just discovered on the website of the San Francisco Superior
>>>> Court that a new complaint has been filed. This one is entitled USCF
>>>> and Randall Hough vs. Gregory Alexander and Susan Polgar plus Does
>>>> 1-10.
>>>> http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=IJS&...
>>>> The suit was fined yesterday, October 24, 2008, and I understand that
>>>> Susan Polgar was served today while she was giving a chess exhibition
>>>> in Fresno California. This will make it for her much more difficult to
>>>> evade the long arm of the law, as she had been doing thus far in the
>>>> proceeding filed in Texas.
>>>> From the timing, it seems to me likely that this was done in such a
>>>> way as to catch her off guard. It was known that she was going to be
>>>> in California today, so that by filing the new complaint yesterday she
>>>> would not be aware that she was about to be served.
>>>> Even though I am not a party I can just about tell you what the case
>>>> is about. It has long been suspected that Susan Polgar with the help
>>>> of Gregory Alexander has been hacking into the Internet accounts of
>>>> other board members including Randall Hough.
>>> Congratulations to Sam Sloan who volunteers to join the suit from his 'long
>>> suspected' information -
>> He seems to be substantially correct. Susan Polgar and Gregory
>> Alexander were named in the amended complaint. The suit is indeed
>> about allegations Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander illegally
>> accessed email accounts, specifically Bill Goichberg's and Randall
>> Hough's. Unlike Sloan's pro se messes, this complaint is focused and
>> on topic.
>>
>> Does it hurt, P Innes, that your ego's meal ticket is in trouble?
>
> Including the law firm in her suit against the USCF and the
> individuals on the board and the others will be given a ??? when Rybka
> goes over the game after it is done.
LOL. Thanks.
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2008 05:39:29
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory Alexander
|
On Oct 25, 3:27=A0pm, "Chess One" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:b182eb0f-8271-42a0-9d37-5bf2e2d64a1f@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> >I have just discovered on the website of the San Francisco Superior
> > Court that a new complaint has been filed. This one is entitled USCF
> > and Randall Hough vs. Gregory Alexander and Susan Polgar plus Does
> > 1-10.
>
> >http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=3DIJS&.=
..
>
> > The suit was fined yesterday, October 24, 2008, and I understand that
> > Susan Polgar was served today while she was giving a chess exhibition
> > in Fresno California. This will make it for her much more difficult to
> > evade the long arm of the law, as she had been doing thus far in the
> > proceeding filed in Texas.
>
> > From the timing, it seems to me likely that this was done in such a
> > way as to catch her off guard. It was known that she was going to be
> > in California today, so that by filing the new complaint yesterday she
> > would not be aware that she was about to be served.
>
> > Even though I am not a party I can just about tell you what the case
> > is about. It has long been suspected that Susan Polgar with the help
> > of Gregory Alexander has been hacking into the Internet accounts of
> > other board members including Randall Hough.
>
> Congratulations to Sam Sloan who volunteers to join the suit from his 'lo=
ng
> suspected' information -
He seems to be substantially correct. Susan Polgar and Gregory
Alexander were named in the amended complaint. The suit is indeed
about allegations Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander illegally
accessed email accounts, specifically Bill Goichberg's and Randall
Hough's. Unlike Sloan's pro se messes, this complaint is focused and
on topic.
Does it hurt, P Innes, that your ego's meal ticket is in trouble?
|
| | |
Date: 28 Oct 2008 12:42:18
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory Alexander
|
The Historian wrote:
> On Oct 25, 3:27 pm, "Chess One" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>> news:b182eb0f-8271-42a0-9d37-5bf2e2d64a1f@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have just discovered on the website of the San Francisco Superior
>>> Court that a new complaint has been filed. This one is entitled USCF
>>> and Randall Hough vs. Gregory Alexander and Susan Polgar plus Does
>>> 1-10.
>>> http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=IJS&...
>>> The suit was fined yesterday, October 24, 2008, and I understand that
>>> Susan Polgar was served today while she was giving a chess exhibition
>>> in Fresno California. This will make it for her much more difficult to
>>> evade the long arm of the law, as she had been doing thus far in the
>>> proceeding filed in Texas.
>>> From the timing, it seems to me likely that this was done in such a
>>> way as to catch her off guard. It was known that she was going to be
>>> in California today, so that by filing the new complaint yesterday she
>>> would not be aware that she was about to be served.
>>> Even though I am not a party I can just about tell you what the case
>>> is about. It has long been suspected that Susan Polgar with the help
>>> of Gregory Alexander has been hacking into the Internet accounts of
>>> other board members including Randall Hough.
>> Congratulations to Sam Sloan who volunteers to join the suit from his 'long
>> suspected' information -
>
> He seems to be substantially correct. Susan Polgar and Gregory
> Alexander were named in the amended complaint. The suit is indeed
> about allegations Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander illegally
> accessed email accounts, specifically Bill Goichberg's and Randall
> Hough's. Unlike Sloan's pro se messes, this complaint is focused and
> on topic.
>
> Does it hurt, P Innes, that your ego's meal ticket is in trouble?
If push comes to shove, will she deny knowing him?
|
| |
Date: 28 Oct 2008 01:49:07
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory Alexander
|
[quote="jacklemoine"]Aw, come on. Stop egging me on.
Or is this going to be like that racism scam some of you folks ran
such a short while ago - and the rest of you stood aside and wouldn't
protest? Let's face it. You folks aren't exactly big on getting your
facts straight. Wouldn't the officers of the USCF review a document
of this magnitude for any factual errors BEFORE the attorney filed
it?
Which brings us back to the basic issues. About those other facts
claimed. How do we know that Mr. Hough's e-mail account was even
tampered with at all? How do we know that Susan and/or Gregory had
anything to do with it, even if it was? How do we know that the
USCF's officials and the attorney wasn't just as sloppy with these
allegations as they were with this partnership allegation - and those
others allegations, too?
--------------
Look, I can't end on that note. I don't want guilty people to get
off, either. If GA and SP really were guilty of what they are accused
of, then it would be a shame that they got off just because of a
sloppy attorney and a USCF EB that failed to review his work
properly. Just like how they screwed up the recall vote at the
Delegates Meeting last August.
But I believe that Paul and Susan and now Gregory are innocent.
That's why I can't help but be amused at the irony of the USCF lawyer
screwing up and the anti-Polgar powers encouraging it by providing all
these excuses. Keep up the good work, folks!
Also, my personal doubts were largely erased by the racism slur and
what it revealed about the animus that exists here. I acknowledge the
private messages about how my campaign for the truth on that matter
damaged my reputation here. The problem is that I don't care. A
group that can't protest that kind of politics is a group whose
opinion I don't value anymore.
So, I came on here to have a little fun - and added this explanatory
note just for the record.[/quote]
Just to explain, when Jack LeMoine states about "the irony of the USCF
lawyer screwing up", he is referring to his claim that the USCF
Executive Board is not the Board of Directors, but rather the
delegates are.
I am not aware of anybody outside of this group that agrees with his
contention.
Next, he says that because of this "screw up" the new lawsuit, USCF
and Randall Hough vs. Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander, should be
dismissed. This is nonsense.
By the way, I have experience with the way the court treats these
"screw ups". Back in 1971 the SEC brought a baseless lawsuit against
me. In their complaint, the SEC alleged "Sloan is not violating the
federal securities laws". Two years later, I moved to dismiss, saying
that since they agreed that I was not violating federal securities
laws, there was no cause of action. The SEC replied that this was just
a typographical error and they meant to say "Sloan is now violating
federal securities laws". I replied that they had had two years to
correct that error and had not done so. Nevertheless, Judge Ward
allowed their case to proceed. I do not know if other judges would
have disagreed with that ruling. This was a civil case, by the way.
The "racism scam" that Jack LeMoine keeps charging again and again is
quite the opposite from what he says. It was Jack LeMoine who made
this charge regarding a US citizen player of Palestinian origin for
choosing to play for the Pelestinian team.
The question I am wondering is: The posting by Jack LeMoine above
contains numerous violations of the AUG, such as for example his
repeated statement that the USCF's lawyer "screwed up" and his racism
charge. Why is he allowed to say these things when I and others are
prohibited from saying almost anything?
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2008 16:27:29
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory Alexander
|
"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:b182eb0f-8271-42a0-9d37-5bf2e2d64a1f@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>I have just discovered on the website of the San Francisco Superior
> Court that a new complaint has been filed. This one is entitled USCF
> and Randall Hough vs. Gregory Alexander and Susan Polgar plus Does
> 1-10.
>
> http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=IJS&PRGNAME=ROA22&ARGUMENTS=-ACGC08476777
>
> The suit was fined yesterday, October 24, 2008, and I understand that
> Susan Polgar was served today while she was giving a chess exhibition
> in Fresno California. This will make it for her much more difficult to
> evade the long arm of the law, as she had been doing thus far in the
> proceeding filed in Texas.
>
> From the timing, it seems to me likely that this was done in such a
> way as to catch her off guard. It was known that she was going to be
> in California today, so that by filing the new complaint yesterday she
> would not be aware that she was about to be served.
>
> Even though I am not a party I can just about tell you what the case
> is about. It has long been suspected that Susan Polgar with the help
> of Gregory Alexander has been hacking into the Internet accounts of
> other board members including Randall Hough.
Congratulations to Sam Sloan who volunteers to join the suit from his 'long
suspected' information - but who can /definitively/ tell us things from his
suspicions. Just apparently from this legal accusation he can identify Susan
Polgar and Gregory Alexander - I say apparently since the Sloan offers
nothing more to support his certainty than an accusation of suspicion, long
suspected... by whom though? How suspected? To what effect? For what motive?
Surely the Sloan has in his own words, no obsession with Susan Polgar,
despite 10,000 negative posts about her, and as surely for some reason
/already/ knows about a /suspected/ hacking to the level of representing in
public the following surety...
> What obviously must have
And there you are. "Obviously." The accusation is rendered as 'obviously
must have'.
"Obvious?" What is presented by the Sloan other than his own mysteriously
arrived at predeliction to believe something negative about Polgar?
Nothing presented. I say again, that's an obvious and apparent nothing.
Nothing with a nOthing to it.
> happened is that they have developed the proof that Polgar and
> Alexander did this.
>
> It is noteworthy that Paul Truong is not named as a defendant. This
> may simply mean that they have no proof that Truong is involved.
That may indeed simply mean that or it may simply mean that no one mentioned
was involved.
I might as well write that Sam Sloan is thought to be an obsessive person
willing to write anything to discredit Polgar [based on ten thousand
instances] and
<cue James Bond Villain Music >
engineered this entire effort on behalf of SMERCH, the Sloan-Merde Executive
for Regressing Chess Here. Would I be more or less likely to be believed for
the [poor] invention of a moment?
> The information about this new case is available on the website of the
> San Francisco Superior Court.
> Case Number Case Number: CGC-08-476777
USCF, death by lawyers - read The Parrot at Chessville this weekend - read
the largest US chess site! shock! horror! inevitable death wish*, and so on.
Phil Innes
*actually, crypto-freezing 'til a future age, that one too ...
> http://www.sfgov.org/site/courts_index.asp
>
> Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2008 21:12:31
From: Nobody
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory Alexander
|
Chess One wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:b182eb0f-8271-42a0-9d37-5bf2e2d64a1f@m32g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> I have just discovered on the website of the San Francisco Superior
>> Court that a new complaint has been filed. This one is entitled USCF
>> and Randall Hough vs. Gregory Alexander and Susan Polgar plus Does
>> 1-10.
>>
>> http://webaccess.sftc.org/Scripts/Magic94/mgrqispi94.dll?APPNAME=IJS&PRGNAME=ROA22&ARGUMENTS=-ACGC08476777
>>
>> The suit was fined yesterday, October 24, 2008, and I understand that
>> Susan Polgar was served today while she was giving a chess exhibition
>> in Fresno California. This will make it for her much more difficult to
>> evade the long arm of the law, as she had been doing thus far in the
>> proceeding filed in Texas.
>>
>> From the timing, it seems to me likely that this was done in such a
>> way as to catch her off guard. It was known that she was going to be
>> in California today, so that by filing the new complaint yesterday she
>> would not be aware that she was about to be served.
>>
>> Even though I am not a party I can just about tell you what the case
>> is about. It has long been suspected that Susan Polgar with the help
>> of Gregory Alexander has been hacking into the Internet accounts of
>> other board members including Randall Hough.
>
> Congratulations to Sam Sloan who volunteers to join the suit from his 'long
> suspected' information - but who can /definitively/ tell us things from his
> suspicions. Just apparently from this legal accusation he can identify Susan
> Polgar and Gregory Alexander - I say apparently since the Sloan offers
> nothing more to support his certainty than an accusation of suspicion, long
> suspected... by whom though? How suspected? To what effect? For what motive?
>
> Surely the Sloan has in his own words, no obsession with Susan Polgar,
> despite 10,000 negative posts about her, and as surely for some reason
> /already/ knows about a /suspected/ hacking to the level of representing in
> public the following surety...
>
>> What obviously must have
>
> And there you are. "Obviously." The accusation is rendered as 'obviously
> must have'.
>
> "Obvious?" What is presented by the Sloan other than his own mysteriously
> arrived at predeliction to believe something negative about Polgar?
>
> Nothing presented. I say again, that's an obvious and apparent nothing.
> Nothing with a nOthing to it.
>
>> happened is that they have developed the proof that Polgar and
>> Alexander did this.
>>
>> It is noteworthy that Paul Truong is not named as a defendant. This
>> may simply mean that they have no proof that Truong is involved.
>
> That may indeed simply mean that or it may simply mean that no one mentioned
> was involved.
>
> I might as well write that Sam Sloan is thought to be an obsessive person
> willing to write anything to discredit Polgar [based on ten thousand
> instances] and
>
> <cue James Bond Villain Music>
>
> engineered this entire effort on behalf of SMERCH, the Sloan-Merde Executive
> for Regressing Chess Here. Would I be more or less likely to be believed for
> the [poor] invention of a moment?
>
>> The information about this new case is available on the website of the
>> San Francisco Superior Court.
>> Case Number Case Number: CGC-08-476777
>
> USCF, death by lawyers - read The Parrot at Chessville this weekend - read
> the largest US chess site! shock! horror! inevitable death wish*, and so on.
>
> Phil Innes
>
> *actually, crypto-freezing 'til a future age, that one too ...
>
>> http://www.sfgov.org/site/courts_index.asp
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>
>
Clueless--Innes that is.
|
| |
Date: 25 Oct 2008 12:29:09
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory
|
Why are there so many law suits in chess ?
|
| | |
Date: 25 Oct 2008 14:59:43
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory
|
Who pays for all the lawyers for these law suits ?
|
|
