| |
Main
Date: 25 Nov 2007 04:22:33
From: samsloan
Subject: Letter to the Court in Sloan vs. Truong
|
Sam Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453-7877
Tel. 917-507-7226
[email protected]
November 25, 2007
The Honorable Denny Chin
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1020
New York, New York 10007
Re: Sloan v. Truong, et al., No. 07 CV 8537 (DC)
Dear Honorable Sir:
This is in response to the letter from Jeremy Brown of Proskauer Rose
LLP, counsel for the USCF and other defendants, dated November 19,
2007 and a similar prior letter from Patrick O'Brien, counsel for
William Brock.
Both letters seek the scheduling of a pre-motion conference before
you.
I believe that these letters are premature and inappropriate. The
defendants had twenty days to file responsive pleadings, which would
usually be an answer or a motion. No responsive pleading has been
filed. In addition, your court previously granted a 20 day extension
of time, to which I consented. I called Mr. Brown on the telephone on
Wednesday and asked him whether he was planning to file anything else
other than his letter in the immediate future, pointing out that the
time to answer had expired. Mr. Brown responded that pursuant to Rule
2A of your Individual Practice Rules, he is not to file a motion at
this time and will be doing nothing further until he has heard from
you.
I do not believe that under the circumstances of this case Mr. Brown
is entitled to any further delays or to keep secret any defenses he
might have. Most of his contentions are patently ridiculous. For
example, he states that New York does not have jurisdiction over this
case. However, as the complaint alleges, the United States Chess
Federation has had its national headquarters in New York from the
early 1940s until 2006. Specifically, from 1967 until 2006 the
headquarters of the United States Chess Federation was in Orange
County, first in Newburgh and then in New Windsor, and Orange County
is in the Southern District of New York. So, there is clearly both
jurisdiction in New York and venue in this court. Many if not most of
the bad acts complained of took place while the USCF was headquartered
in New Windsor, New York. Thus, this is a classic case for diversity,
where bad acts were committed in New York, but then the defendants all
moved out of state pulling them beyond the normal reach of the New
York State Courts.
My complaint alleges that the sale of the building in Orange County
and the move to Crossville Tennessee was illegal, a violation of
corporate law and a violation of the by-laws of the USCF. It should be
noted that a total of about 40 employees in the New Windsor office
were fired in connection with the move. 17 were fired in 2003. Another
approximately 17 were fired in 2005 and the last six in New Windsor
were fired in 2006. Many of these former employees are now demanding
compensation under the USCF's pension/profit sharing plan.
Unfortunately, most of the documents have been lost or destroyed,
apparently at the time of the move to Tennessee. It is obvious that
New York has jurisdiction over this issue.
Next, the Defendants claim that under Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker,
490 F.3d 239, 250-51 (2d Cir. 2007) there is no jurisdiction in New
York. I wonder if opposing counsel have even read the complaint.
Perhaps they are hoping that the court will not do so.
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 five articles about this case, one in
the paper print version of the newspaper and the other four 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
http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/the-lawsuit-against-polgar-and-truong-et-al-a-forum/
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 pornographer. Clearly
Mr. Brock cannot now claim that New York has no jurisdiction over
this.
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.
Defendants also claim that defendant William Goichberg resides in
Salisbury New York and therefore diversity is defeated. I am aware
that Mr. Goichberg maintains a post office box there. The reason for
this was that it was near to the USCF headquarters in New Windsor NY,
which was important to the chess business operated by Mr. Goichberg.
However, I have never seen a published street address for Mr.
Goichberg at least not for the last 20 or 30 years. His previous
address was well known to be 450 Prospect Avenue, Mt. Vernon New York.
That was his parent's house. He moved out in the 1970s. His mother
died recently and he has been back there to clean up her estate but I
do not believe that he resides or intends to reside permanently there.
He moves about so frequently that I am not sure that he really has a
permanent residence. He presently resides at the Santa Anita Inn
located at 130 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007. This is near
to the Santa Anita Race Track, where Mr. Goichberg plays the horses. I
am told that Mr. Goichberg does not like the cold weather and spends
his winters at Santa Anita for that reason. Mr. Goichberg is also
involved in sports betting and he has, in the past, been involved in
multi-level keting schemes, but I believe that he has given that
up. He is also involved in Internet cyber squatting, registering
domain names he feels that others will be required to buy. Mr.
Goichberg moves around so frequently and is involved in such a diverse
plethora of small business enterprises that I am wondering how
opposing counsel intends to prove that Mr. Goichberg is a citizen of
only New York.
The most important issue in this case is the issue of Internet
identity theft and impersonation. None of the three letters by
opposing counsel mention this issue, even though it is set forth in
the opening paragraphs of the complaint. This is a hot issue because
identity theft has become common. Almost everybody seems to have had
their identity stolen nowadays.
What has happened here far exceeds any other known case. The Report by
Brian Mottershead, which has become known as "The Mottershead Report",
established a grand total of 2463 Internet postings by Paul Truong
under various names, the majority of which were under the name Sam
Sloan. Thus, they became known as "The Fake Sam Sloan Postings". Mr.
Truong was not merely defaming me; he was impersonating me, which is
far more serious.
Most of these 2463 newsgroup postings identified by Mr. Mottershead
were crossposted to one or two other chess newsgroups,
rec.games.chess.misc and alt.chess, so there were a total of more than
five thousand of these postings.
These were not the garden variety of impersonations. These were the
most obscene postings imaginable. More than that, the Mottershead
Report proved conclusively that all these postings were by Paul
Truong, who was assisted by his wife, Susan Polgar.
More than that, the Mottershead Report establishes that Paul Truong
used at least one computer belonging to Texas Tech University. Paul
Truong posted from the following IP addresses in Lubbock, Texas.
129.118.87.222
75.111.194.9
The Mottershead Report shows that on 17 September 2007, Paul Truong
logged in to the USCF Issues Forum from one or the other of these two
computers 192 times. This is not a typo. That is one hundred ninty two
times in one day.
The first is definitely a Texas Tech University computer. The second
is attached to a Suddenlink Cable modem in Lubbock, Texas.
These postings are so vile and obscene that I have been reluctant to
state how bad they are, for fear of offending the sensitivities of the
court. However, I am reminded of the famous quote by Justice Potter
Stewart, who wrote that he did not know how to define pornography,
"but I know it when I see it". JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)
The postings by Paul Truong a/k/a The Fake Sam Sloan are the most
obscene imaginable. I wish I did not have to write it but I guess I
will have to do so to explain what this case is all about. One of them
is still posted on the Internet at:
http://www.gamesreviews.net/message305533.html
Sam Beat Bill Brock's ass!
Congratulations to Sam Sloan for beating Bill Brock like a rented
lesbian mule. Not even Beatriz La Tortillera could lay down like Brock
did.
Sam was all over him, had Brock bent over the rail and then applied
the checkmate like a veteran prison convict raping a young white boy
on his first night in prison. It was SWEET!
Bill Brock took it like a man! All four inches of Sam's Queen!
I object! It is 4 1/4 inches. Maybe the bulldyke inello will want
some of my manhood.
Sam Sloan
Do you want me to post my 4 1/4 inch weapon If I do, will you vote
for me?
Sam Sloan
Vote for me and I'll show you my 4 1/4 inch powershooter.
Sam Sloan
These were all posted on the same day, June 28, 2005. The Fake Sam
Sloan first started posting on June 25, 2005 and this was one of his
first efforts. This was not a rare or exceptional posting. There have
been thousands of postings over the next two years like this one.
Sometimes there were 50 or 100 postings like this on the same day.
These postings continued up until the filing of this complaint on
October 2, 2007 and a few were posted even after that date, although
they have since stopped.
The Mottershead Report proves that it is 100% certain that these
postings were all by one person, Paul Truong, assisted by his wife,
Susan Polgar.
Please note that the above quoted posting attacks two other well-known
chess personalities, Beatriz inello, who was at that time President
of the United States Chess Federation, and William Brock, who was at
that time President of the Illinois Chess Federation, and is now a
defendant here. Also, this posting took place in the context of an
election campaign. There were USCF elections in 2005, 2006, and 2007.
Usually, the ballots were mailed to the members on around the first of
June. The votes were received by mail and the ballots were opened and
counted on or about July 21 of the year.
Mr. Truong has not even denied that he did this. At least, I have
never seen a denial. His only response that I have seen is reported in
the New York Times on October 8, 2007, where he is quoted as saying:
"The charges are absolutely outrageous, and it is based on information
that was obtained 100 percent illegally from the U.S.C.F.," he said in
an interview Friday from his home in Lubbock, Tex.
Note that he seems to be making a Fourth Amendment claim, and not
actually denying that he did it.
In 2005, there were two slates running, the Beatriz inello slate
and the Goichberg slate. I was an independent candidate, not aligned
with either slate. Susan Polgar is long known to hate Beatriz
inello, but nobody suspected that Susan was involved in this
posting at that time. Nobody even thought of it.
The result of the election was that the Beatriz inello Slate was
completely wiped out and defeated and the four members of the
Goichberg Slate were all elected. However, Beatriz inello remained
on the board, but not as president, because her term was not up.
Please note that the above posting was geared towards the election,
especially where is says, "Vote for me".
I was defeated in the 2005 election but in 2006 I was elected. The big
chess politicians had remained inactive during the 2006 campaign,
assuming that I would be defeated. They were shocked when the results
came in and I had been elected. Immediately a tremendous campaign
started with hundreds of daily attacks against me, especially by Bill
Goichberg, Paul Truong, Susan Polgar, Grant Perks and Herbert Rodney
Vaughn, all of whom are defendants here. I had not yet even taken
office and they were trying to overturn the election results to stop
me from taking office.
Because this lawsuit involves some of the most famous personalities in
the world of chess plus it involves an important current issue of
Internet cyber stalking, impersonating and identity theft, this case
has been reported in five articles articles in the New York Times,
including four website articles, in European newspapers such as The
Independent, in two local newspapers in Lubbock Texas, and in at least
twenty different blogs and forums that have been set up to discuss
this case. There have been more than one thousand comments and
postings about this case on a worldwide basis.
Incidentally, the only defendant who had not yet appeared here is
Frank Niro, but he is a member of the board The Susan Polgar
Foundation and two days ago he posted the following to the Susan
Polgar forum at
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=379
"A friend sent what he wrote about me in his complaint. It is 5% fact
and 95% nonsense."
So, it seems that Mr. Niro, who has been in hiding since he
disappeared with some USCF money in 2003, has received the complaint.
I started this case with a motion for a temporary restraining order
and a request for an order to show cause. Frankly, I was surprised
when it was not granted and set for a hearing. I request that this
court reconsider this matter and set this case down for an immediate
hearing, because the USCF has 30,000 children who are members and no
similar organization would tolerate the situation here were two
members of the board of directors have been involved in making
thousands of obscene and pornographic newsgroup postings readily
available for public view. It had been hoped that the other board
members would take steps to try to force these two off the board, but
the opposite has occurred. The board has acted to pull the wagons in a
circle. At the board meeting on November 3-4, 2007, with Paul Truong
and Susan Polgar present, which was broadcast over the Internet via
streaming video, there was no mention or discussion of this court case
or of the Fake Sam Sloan Issue, but the board spent one hour
discussing proposed changes in the election rules to make sure that
Sam Sloan could never be elected again. It has become obvious that no
action will be taken from within the USCF to remove Truong and Polgar
from the Executive Board, and therefore action by the court will be
necessary.
Very Truly Yours,
Samuel H. Sloan
cc: Jeremy Brown, Esq.
Patrick M. O'Brien, Esq.
Scot Graydon, Esq.
|
|
| |
Date: 27 Nov 2007 15:03:52
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Letter to the Court in Sloan vs. Truong
|
Sam Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453-7877
Tel. 917-507-7226
[email protected]
November 27, 2007
The Honorable Denny Chin
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1020
New York, New York 10007
Re: Sloan v. Truong, et al., No. 07 CV 8537 (DC)
Dear Judge Chin:
I am utterly astounded by the Internet posting early this morning by
William Brock, a defendant to this lawsuit.
On the Google newsgroups, on rec.games.chess.politics, William Brock
wrote:
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.politics
From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 21:44:13 -0800 (PST)
Local: Tues, Nov 27 2007 12:44 am
Subject: Re: New Documents in Sloan vs. Truong
On Nov 27, 12:12 am, [email protected] wrote:
> On Nov 26, 10:53 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >http://www1.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=judge_info&id=155
> > Perhaps you could request a conference with Judge Chin to discuss your
> > proposed amendments to his individual practice rules.
> Do you still claim Sloan is a child molester?
> cus Roberts
The term of art is "kiddie fucker."
The full posting is at:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/84140fabdb1bcde6
Mr. Brock has a respectable job at a real accounting firm. Yet, he has
been posting things like this every day since 2004. I wonder what his
lawyers, who are trying to defend him, think about this. At least Paul
Truong a/k/a The Fake Sam Sloan has stopped posting in the face of
this federal lawsuit, but Bill Brock continues to do it, even posting
right below the name of the federal judge assigned to the case.
Mr. Brock is clearly a sick, disturbed man. He has been told many
times by many observers that if he has any evidence that I am a child
molester he should take it to the DA. Yet, he continues to post things
like this. Perhaps he should be committed for psychiatric observation.
Sorry to disturb you about this, but I felt that I should bring it to
your attention.
Very Truly Yours,
Samuel H. Sloan
cc: Jeremy Brown, Esq.
Patrick M. O'Brien, Esq.
Scot Graydon, Esq.
Arthur M. Handler, Esq.
June Duffy, Esq.
|
| |
Date: 26 Nov 2007 05:41:20
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Letter to the Court in Sloan vs. Truong
|
[quote="k Morss"]As I have said elsewhere, I cannot agree that
someone's alleged bad conduct on non-USCF bulletin boards is a
remotely important USCF concern. But [i]Sam Sloan's lawsuit[/i] on
this subject, however spurious it may be, [i]is[/i] a concern, and
USCF should do nothing that would facilitate the plaintiff's case or,
still worse, make it for him. A very substantial burden of proof is
upon Mr. Sloan in his suit, let us just leave it at that for now.
However much money USCF has, and I doubt the claim here that it has
plenty to spare, this money would much better be spent on something
besides an investigation into the FSS.
Best to all, k Morss NM.[/quote]
I think you misunderstand the law. While the burden of proof is on me,
all that means is that I have to prove that there is a 51% or greater
chance that Paul Truong is the Fake Sam Sloan.
This is a civil case, not a criminal case. Thus, the standard of proof
is "preponderance of the evidence" not "beyond reasonable doubt".
Although I feel that it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt, I do
not even have to accomplish that.
Also, the jurisdictional issues are not that important. If they win on
those issues all it means is that I will have to refile in the Texas
State Courts, the New York State Courts, the Illinois State Courts and
the Tennessee State Courts. In my opinion, if they have a good defense
on the merits (which has yet to appear) they would be better off in
the long run raising it now then having to defend a multitude of state
court proceedings.
Sam Sloan
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 18:33:20
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Letter to the Court in Sloan vs. Truong
|
Sam Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453-7877
Tel. 917-507-7226
[email protected]
November 25, 2007
The Honorable Denny Chin
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1020
New York, New York 10007
Re: Sloan v. Truong, et al., No. 07 CV 8537 (DC)
Dear Honorable Sir:
This is in response to the letter from Jeremy Brown of Proskauer Rose
LLP, counsel for the USCF and other defendants, dated November 19,
2007 and a similar prior letter from Patrick O'Brien, counsel for
William Brock.
Both letters seek the scheduling of a pre-motion conference before
you.
I believe that these letters are premature and inappropriate. The
defendants had twenty days to file responsive pleadings, which would
usually be an answer or a motion. No responsive pleading has been
filed. In addition, your court previously granted a 20 day extension
of time, to which I consented. I called Mr. Brown on the telephone on
Wednesday and asked him whether he was planning to file anything else
other than his letter in the immediate future, pointing out that the
time to answer had expired. Mr. Brown responded that pursuant to Rule
2A of your Individual Practice Rules, he is not to file a motion at
this time and will be doing nothing further until he has heard from
you.
I do not believe that under the circumstances of this case Mr. Brown
is entitled to any further delays or to keep secret any defenses he
might have. Most of his contentions are patently ridiculous. For
example, he states that New York does not have jurisdiction over this
case. However, as the complaint alleges, the United States Chess
Federation has had its national headquarters in New York from the
early 1940s until 2006. Specifically, from 1967 until 2006 the
headquarters of the United States Chess Federation was in Orange
County, first in Newburgh and then in New Windsor, and Orange County
is in the Southern District of New York. So, there is clearly both
jurisdiction in New York and venue in this court.
Many if not most of the bad acts complained of took place while the
USCF was headquartered in New Windsor, New York. It is important to
note that the USCF Executive Board did all of these bad acts without
the benefit of legal counsel. The USCF never sought nor obtained legal
advice concerning all these decisions that were made. During my one
year on the board, I persistently at every meeting demanded that the
USCF retain legal counsel to determine the legality of its rights to
the Crossville land and building thereon. All of these demands were
rejected by the other board members as too expensive. The recent
appearance by Proskauer Rose, who was hired by the insurance company,
not by the board, is the first time the USCF has had the advice of
counsel in years. This is a classic case for diversity, where bad acts
were committed in New York, but then the defendants all moved out of
state putting them beyond the normal reach of the New York State
Courts.
My complaint alleges that the sale of the building in Orange County
and the move to Crossville Tennessee was illegal, a violation of
corporate law and a violation of the by-laws of the USCF. It should be
noted that a total of about 40 employees in the New Windsor office
were fired in connection with the move. 17 were fired in 2003. Another
approximately 17 were fired in 2005 and the last six in New Windsor
were fired in 2006. Many of these former employees are now demanding
compensation under the USCF's pension/profit sharing plan.
Unfortunately, most of the documents have been lost or destroyed,
apparently at the time of the move to Tennessee. It is obvious that
New York has jurisdiction over this issue.
Next, the Defendants claim that under Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker,
490 F.3d 239, 250-51 (2d Cir. 2007) there is no jurisdiction in New
York. I wonder if opposing counsel have even read the complaint.
Perhaps they are hoping that the court will not do so.
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 five articles about this case, one in
the paper print version of the newspaper and the other four 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
http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/the-lawsuit-against-polgar-and-truong-et-al-a-forum/
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 pornographer. Clearly
Mr. Brock cannot now claim that New York has no jurisdiction over
this.
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.
Defendants also claim that defendant William Goichberg resides in
Salisbury New York and therefore diversity is defeated. I am aware
that Mr. Goichberg maintains a post office box there. The reason for
this was that it was near to the USCF headquarters in New Windsor NY,
which was important to the chess business operated by Mr. Goichberg.
However, I have never seen a published street address for Mr.
Goichberg at least not for the last 20 or 30 years. His previous
address was well known to be 450 Prospect Avenue, Mt. Vernon New York.
That was his parent's house. He moved out in the 1970s. His mother
died recently and he has been back there to clean up her estate but I
do not believe that he resides or intends to reside permanently there.
He moves about so frequently that I am not sure that he really has a
permanent residence. He presently resides at the Santa Anita Inn
located at 130 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007. This is near
to the Santa Anita Race Track, where Mr. Goichberg plays the horses. I
am told that Mr. Goichberg does not like the cold weather and spends
his winters at Santa Anita for that reason. Mr. Goichberg is also
involved in sports betting and he has, in the past, been involved in
multi-level keting schemes, but I believe that he has given that
up. He is also involved in Internet cyber squatting, registering
domain names he feels that others will be required to buy. Mr.
Goichberg moves around so frequently and is involved in such a diverse
plethora of small business enterprises that I am wondering how
opposing counsel intends to prove that Mr. Goichberg is a citizen of
only New York.
The most important issue in this case is the issue of Internet
identity theft and impersonation. None of the three letters by
opposing counsel mention this issue, even though it is set forth in
the opening paragraphs of the complaint. This is a hot issue because
identity theft has become common. Almost everybody seems to have had
their identity stolen nowadays.
What has happened here far exceeds any other known case. The Report by
Brian Mottershead, which has become known as "The Mottershead Report",
established a grand total of 2464 Internet postings by Paul Truong
under various names, the majority of which were under the name "Sam
Sloan". Thus, they became known as "The Fake Sam Sloan Postings". Mr.
Truong was not merely defaming me; he was impersonating me, which is
far more serious.
Most of these 2464 newsgroup postings identified by Mr. Mottershead
were crossposted to one or two other chess newsgroups,
rec.games.chess.misc and alt.chess, so there were a total of more than
five thousand of these postings.
These were not the garden variety of impersonations. These were the
most obscene postings imaginable. More than that, the Mottershead
Report proved conclusively that all these postings were by Paul
Truong, who was assisted by his wife, Susan Polgar.
More than that, the Mottershead Report establishes that Paul Truong
used at least one computer belonging to Texas Tech University. Paul
Truong posted from the following IP addresses in Lubbock, Texas:
129.118.87.222
75.111.194.9
The Mottershead Report shows that on 17 September 2007, Paul Truong
logged in to the USCF Issues Forum from one or the other of these two
computers 192 times. This is not a typo. That is one hundred ninty two
times in one day.
The first is definitely a Texas Tech University computer. The second
is attached to a Suddenlink Cable modem in Lubbock, Texas.
These postings are so vile and obscene that I have been reluctant to
state how bad they are, for fear of offending the sensitivities of the
court. However, I am reminded of the famous quote by Justice Potter
Stewart, who wrote that he did not know how to define pornography,
"but I know it when I see it". JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)
The postings by Paul Truong a/k/a The Fake Sam Sloan are the most
obscene imaginable. I wish I did not have to write it but I guess I
will have to do so to explain what this case is all about. One of them
is still posted on the Internet at:
http://www.gamesreviews.net/message305533.html
Sam Beat Bill Brock's ass!
Congratulations to Sam Sloan for beating Bill Brock like a rented
lesbian mule. Not even Beatriz La Tortillera could lay down like Brock
did.
Sam was all over him, had Brock bent over the rail and then applied
the checkmate like a veteran prison convict raping a young white boy
on his first night in prison. It was SWEET!
Bill Brock took it like a man! All four inches of Sam's Queen!
I object! It is 4 1/4 inches. Maybe the bulldyke inello will want
some of my manhood.
Sam Sloan
Do you want me to post my 4 1/4 inch weapon If I do, will you vote
for me?
Sam Sloan
Vote for me and I'll show you my 4 1/4 inch powershooter.
Sam Sloan
These were all posted on the same day, June 28, 2005. The Fake Sam
Sloan first started posting on June 25, 2005 and this was one of his
first efforts. This was not a rare or exceptional posting. There have
been thousands of postings over the next two years like this one.
Sometimes there were 50 or 100 postings like this on the same day.
These postings continued up until the filing of this complaint on
October 2, 2007 and a few were posted even after that date, although
they have since stopped.
The Mottershead Report proves that it is 100% certain that these
postings were all by one person, Paul Truong, assisted by his wife,
Susan Polgar.
Please note that the above quoted posting attacks two other well-known
chess personalities, Beatriz inello, who was at that time President
of the United States Chess Federation, and William Brock, who was at
that time President of the Illinois Chess Federation, and is now a
defendant here. Also, this posting took place in the context of an
election campaign. There were USCF elections in 2005, 2006, and 2007.
Usually, the ballots were mailed to the members on around the first of
June. The votes were received by mail and the ballots were opened and
counted on or about July 21 of the year.
Mr. Truong has not even denied that he did this. At least, I have
never seen a denial. His only response that I have seen is reported in
the New York Times on October 8, 2007, where he is quoted as saying:
"The charges are absolutely outrageous, and it is based on information
that was obtained 100 percent illegally from the U.S.C.F.," he said in
an interview Friday from his home in Lubbock, Tex.
Note that he seems to be making a Fourth Amendment claim, and not
actually denying that he did it.
In 2005, there were two slates running, the Beatriz inello slate
and the Goichberg slate. I was an independent candidate, not aligned
with either slate. Susan Polgar is long known to hate Beatriz
inello, but nobody suspected that Susan was involved in this
posting at that time. Nobody even thought of it.
The result of the election was that the Beatriz inello Slate was
completely wiped out and defeated and the four members of the
Goichberg Slate were all elected. However, Beatriz inello remained
on the board, but not as president, because her term was not up.
Please note that the above posting was geared towards the election,
especially where is says, "Vote for me".
I was defeated in the 2005 election but in 2006 I was elected. The big
chess politicians had remained inactive during the 2006 campaign,
assuming that I would be defeated. They were shocked when the results
came in and I had been elected. Immediately a tremendous campaign
started with hundreds of daily attacks against me, especially by Bill
Goichberg, Paul Truong, Susan Polgar, Grant Perks and Herbert Rodney
Vaughn, all of whom are defendants here. I had not yet even taken
office and they were trying to overturn the election results to stop
me from taking office.
Because this lawsuit involves some of the most famous personalities in
the world of chess plus it involves an important current issue of
Internet cyber stalking, impersonating and identity theft, this case
has been reported in five articles articles in the New York Times,
including four website articles, in European newspapers such as The
Independent, in two local newspapers in Lubbock Texas, and in at least
twenty different blogs and forums that have been set up to discuss
this case. There have been more than one thousand comments and
postings about this case on a worldwide basis.
Incidentally, the only defendant who had not yet appeared here is
Frank Niro, but he is a member of the board The Susan Polgar
Foundation and two days ago he posted the following to the Susan
Polgar forum at
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=379
"A friend sent what he wrote about me in his complaint. It is 5% fact
and 95% nonsense."
So, it seems that Mr. Niro, who has been in hiding since he
disappeared with some USCF money in 2003, has received the complaint.
I started this case with a motion for a temporary restraining order
and a request for an order to show cause. Frankly, I was surprised
when it was not granted and set for a hearing. I request that this
court reconsider this matter and set this case down for an immediate
hearing, because the USCF has 30,000 children who are members and no
similar organization would tolerate the situation here were two
members of the board of directors have been involved in making
thousands of obscene and pornographic newsgroup postings readily
available for public view. It had been hoped that the other board
members would take steps to try to force these two off the board, but
the opposite has occurred. The board has acted to pull the wagons in a
circle. At the board meeting on November 3-4, 2007, with Paul Truong
and Susan Polgar present, which was broadcast over the Internet via
streaming video, there was no mention or discussion of this court case
or of the Fake Sam Sloan Issue, but the board spent one hour
discussing proposed changes in the election rules to make sure that
Sam Sloan could never be elected again. It has become obvious that no
action will be taken from within the USCF to remove Truong and Polgar
from the Executive Board, and therefore action by the court will be
necessary.
Very Truly Yours,
Samuel H. Sloan
cc: Jeremy Brown, Esq.
Patrick M. O'Brien, Esq.
Scot Graydon, Esq.
Arthur M. Handler, Esq.
June Duffy, Esq.
|
| |
Date: 25 Nov 2007 17:55:28
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Letter to the Court in Sloan vs. Truong
|
Sam Sloan
1664 Davidson Ave., Apt. 1B
Bronx NY 10453-7877
Tel. 917-507-7226
[email protected]
November 25, 2007
The Honorable Denny Chin
United States District Judge
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse
500 Pearl Street, Room 1020
New York, New York 10007
Re: Sloan v. Truong, et al., No. 07 CV 8537 (DC)
Dear Honorable Sir:
This is in response to the letter from Jeremy Brown of Proskauer Rose
LLP, counsel for the USCF and other defendants, dated November 19,
2007 and a similar prior letter from Patrick O'Brien, counsel for
William Brock.
Both letters seek the scheduling of a pre-motion conference before
you.
I believe that these letters are premature and inappropriate. The
defendants had twenty days to file responsive pleadings, which would
usually be an answer or a motion. No responsive pleading has been
filed. In addition, your court previously granted a 20 day extension
of time, to which I consented. I called Mr. Brown on the telephone on
Wednesday and asked him whether he was planning to file anything else
other than his letter in the immediate future, pointing out that the
time to answer had expired. Mr. Brown responded that pursuant to Rule
2A of your Individual Practice Rules, he is not to file a motion at
this time and will be doing nothing further until he has heard from
you.
I do not believe that under the circumstances of this case Mr. Brown
is entitled to any further delays or to keep secret any defenses he
might have. Most of his contentions are patently ridiculous. For
example, he states that New York does not have jurisdiction over this
case. However, as the complaint alleges, the United States Chess
Federation has had its national headquarters in New York from the
early 1940s until 2006. Specifically, from 1967 until 2006 the
headquarters of the United States Chess Federation was in Orange
County, first in Newburgh and then in New Windsor, and Orange County
is in the Southern District of New York. So, there is clearly both
jurisdiction in New York and venue in this court.
Many if not most of the bad acts complained of took place while the
USCF was headquartered in New Windsor, New York. It is important to
note that the USCF Executive Board did all of these bad acts without
the benefit of legal counsel. The USCF never sought nor obtained legal
advice concerning all these decisions that were made. During my one
year on the board, I persistently at every meeting demanded that the
USCF retain legal counsel to determine the legality of its rights to
the Crossville land and building thereon. All of these demands were
rejected by the other board members as too expensive. The recent
appearance by Proskauer Rose, who was hired by the insurance company,
not by the board, is the first time the USCF has had the advice of
counsel in years. This is a classic case for diversity, where bad acts
were committed in New York, but then the defendants all moved out of
state putting them beyond the normal reach of the New York State
Courts.
My complaint alleges that the sale of the building in Orange County
and the move to Crossville Tennessee was illegal, a violation of
corporate law and a violation of the by-laws of the USCF. It should be
noted that a total of about 40 employees in the New Windsor office
were fired in connection with the move. 17 were fired in 2003. Another
approximately 17 were fired in 2005 and the last six in New Windsor
were fired in 2006. Many of these former employees are now demanding
compensation under the USCF's pension/profit sharing plan.
Unfortunately, most of the documents have been lost or destroyed,
apparently at the time of the move to Tennessee. It is obvious that
New York has jurisdiction over this issue.
Next, the Defendants claim that under Best Van Lines, Inc. v. Walker,
490 F.3d 239, 250-51 (2d Cir. 2007) there is no jurisdiction in New
York. I wonder if opposing counsel have even read the complaint.
Perhaps they are hoping that the court will not do so.
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 five articles about this case, one in
the paper print version of the newspaper and the other four 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
http://gambit.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/08/the-lawsuit-against-polgar-and-truong-et-al-a-forum/
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 pornographer. Clearly
Mr. Brock cannot now claim that New York has no jurisdiction over
this.
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.
Defendants also claim that defendant William Goichberg resides in
Salisbury New York and therefore diversity is defeated. I am aware
that Mr. Goichberg maintains a post office box there. The reason for
this was that it was near to the USCF headquarters in New Windsor NY,
which was important to the chess business operated by Mr. Goichberg.
However, I have never seen a published street address for Mr.
Goichberg at least not for the last 20 or 30 years. His previous
address was well known to be 450 Prospect Avenue, Mt. Vernon New York.
That was his parent's house. He moved out in the 1970s. His mother
died recently and he has been back there to clean up her estate but I
do not believe that he resides or intends to reside permanently there.
He moves about so frequently that I am not sure that he really has a
permanent residence. He presently resides at the Santa Anita Inn
located at 130 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA 91007. This is near
to the Santa Anita Race Track, where Mr. Goichberg plays the horses. I
am told that Mr. Goichberg does not like the cold weather and spends
his winters at Santa Anita for that reason. Mr. Goichberg is also
involved in sports betting and he has, in the past, been involved in
multi-level keting schemes, but I believe that he has given that
up. He is also involved in Internet cyber squatting, registering
domain names he feels that others will be required to buy. Mr.
Goichberg moves around so frequently and is involved in such a diverse
plethora of small business enterprises that I am wondering how
opposing counsel intends to prove that Mr. Goichberg is a citizen of
only New York.
The most important issue in this case is the issue of Internet
identity theft and impersonation. None of the three letters by
opposing counsel mention this issue, even though it is set forth in
the opening paragraphs of the complaint. This is a hot issue because
identity theft has become common. Almost everybody seems to have had
their identity stolen nowadays.
What has happened here far exceeds any other known case. The Report by
Brian Mottershead, which has become known as "The Mottershead Report",
established a grand total of 246 Internet postings by Paul Truong
under various names, the majority of which were under the name "Sam
Sloan". Thus, they became known as "The Fake Sam Sloan Postings". Mr.
Truong was not merely defaming me; he was impersonating me, which is
far more serious.
Most of these newsgroup postings identified by Mr. Mottershead were
crossposted to one or two other chess newsgroups, rec.games.chess.misc
and alt.chess, so there were a total of more than five thousand of
these postings.
These were not the garden variety of impersonations. These were the
most obscene postings imaginable. More than that, the Mottershead
Report proved conclusively that all these postings were by Paul
Truong, who was assisted by his wife, Susan Polgar.
More than that, the Mottershead Report establishes that Paul Truong
used at least one computer belonging to Texas Tech University. Paul
Truong posted from the following IP addresses in Lubbock, Texas:
129.118.87.222
75.111.194.9
The Mottershead Report shows that on 17 September 2007, Paul Truong
logged in to the USCF Issues Forum from one or the other of these two
computers 192 times. This is not a typo. That is one hundred ninty two
times in one day.
The first is definitely a Texas Tech University computer. The second
is attached to a Suddenlink Cable modem in Lubbock, Texas.
These postings are so vile and obscene that I have been reluctant to
state how bad they are, for fear of offending the sensitivities of the
court. However, I am reminded of the famous quote by Justice Potter
Stewart, who wrote that he did not know how to define pornography,
"but I know it when I see it". JACOBELLIS v. OHIO, 378 U.S. 184 (1964)
The postings by Paul Truong a/k/a The Fake Sam Sloan are the most
obscene imaginable. I wish I did not have to write it but I guess I
will have to do so to explain what this case is all about. One of them
is still posted on the Internet at:
http://www.gamesreviews.net/message305533.html
Sam Beat Bill Brock's ass!
Congratulations to Sam Sloan for beating Bill Brock like a rented
lesbian mule. Not even Beatriz La Tortillera could lay down like Brock
did.
Sam was all over him, had Brock bent over the rail and then applied
the checkmate like a veteran prison convict raping a young white boy
on his first night in prison. It was SWEET!
Bill Brock took it like a man! All four inches of Sam's Queen!
I object! It is 4 1/4 inches. Maybe the bulldyke inello will want
some of my manhood.
Sam Sloan
Do you want me to post my 4 1/4 inch weapon If I do, will you vote
for me?
Sam Sloan
Vote for me and I'll show you my 4 1/4 inch powershooter.
Sam Sloan
These were all posted on the same day, June 28, 2005. The Fake Sam
Sloan first started posting on June 25, 2005 and this was one of his
first efforts. This was not a rare or exceptional posting. There have
been thousands of postings over the next two years like this one.
Sometimes there were 50 or 100 postings like this on the same day.
These postings continued up until the filing of this complaint on
October 2, 2007 and a few were posted even after that date, although
they have since stopped.
The Mottershead Report proves that it is 100% certain that these
postings were all by one person, Paul Truong, assisted by his wife,
Susan Polgar.
Please note that the above quoted posting attacks two other well-known
chess personalities, Beatriz inello, who was at that time President
of the United States Chess Federation, and William Brock, who was at
that time President of the Illinois Chess Federation, and is now a
defendant here. Also, this posting took place in the context of an
election campaign. There were USCF elections in 2005, 2006, and 2007.
Usually, the ballots were mailed to the members on around the first of
June. The votes were received by mail and the ballots were opened and
counted on or about July 21 of the year.
Mr. Truong has not even denied that he did this. At least, I have
never seen a denial. His only response that I have seen is reported in
the New York Times on October 8, 2007, where he is quoted as saying:
"The charges are absolutely outrageous, and it is based on information
that was obtained 100 percent illegally from the U.S.C.F.," he said in
an interview Friday from his home in Lubbock, Tex.
Note that he seems to be making a Fourth Amendment claim, and not
actually denying that he did it.
In 2005, there were two slates running, the Beatriz inello slate
and the Goichberg slate. I was an independent candidate, not aligned
with either slate. Susan Polgar is long known to hate Beatriz
inello, but nobody suspected that Susan was involved in this
posting at that time. Nobody even thought of it.
The result of the election was that the Beatriz inello Slate was
completely wiped out and defeated and the four members of the
Goichberg Slate were all elected. However, Beatriz inello remained
on the board, but not as president, because her term was not up.
Please note that the above posting was geared towards the election,
especially where is says, "Vote for me".
I was defeated in the 2005 election but in 2006 I was elected. The big
chess politicians had remained inactive during the 2006 campaign,
assuming that I would be defeated. They were shocked when the results
came in and I had been elected. Immediately a tremendous campaign
started with hundreds of daily attacks against me, especially by Bill
Goichberg, Paul Truong, Susan Polgar, Grant Perks and Herbert Rodney
Vaughn, all of whom are defendants here. I had not yet even taken
office and they were trying to overturn the election results to stop
me from taking office.
Because this lawsuit involves some of the most famous personalities in
the world of chess plus it involves an important current issue of
Internet cyber stalking, impersonating and identity theft, this case
has been reported in five articles articles in the New York Times,
including four website articles, in European newspapers such as The
Independent, in two local newspapers in Lubbock Texas, and in at least
twenty different blogs and forums that have been set up to discuss
this case. There have been more than one thousand comments and
postings about this case on a worldwide basis.
Incidentally, the only defendant who had not yet appeared here is
Frank Niro, but he is a member of the board The Susan Polgar
Foundation and two days ago he posted the following to the Susan
Polgar forum at
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=379
"A friend sent what he wrote about me in his complaint. It is 5% fact
and 95% nonsense."
So, it seems that Mr. Niro, who has been in hiding since he
disappeared with some USCF money in 2003, has received the complaint.
I started this case with a motion for a temporary restraining order
and a request for an order to show cause. Frankly, I was surprised
when it was not granted and set for a hearing. I request that this
court reconsider this matter and set this case down for an immediate
hearing, because the USCF has 30,000 children who are members and no
similar organization would tolerate the situation here were two
members of the board of directors have been involved in making
thousands of obscene and pornographic newsgroup postings readily
available for public view. It had been hoped that the other board
members would take steps to try to force these two off the board, but
the opposite has occurred. The board has acted to pull the wagons in a
circle. At the board meeting on November 3-4, 2007, with Paul Truong
and Susan Polgar present, which was broadcast over the Internet via
streaming video, there was no mention or discussion of this court case
or of the Fake Sam Sloan Issue, but the board spent one hour
discussing proposed changes in the election rules to make sure that
Sam Sloan could never be elected again. It has become obvious that no
action will be taken from within the USCF to remove Truong and Polgar
from the Executive Board, and therefore action by the court will be
necessary.
Very Truly Yours,
Samuel H. Sloan
cc: Jeremy Brown, Esq.
Patrick M. O'Brien, Esq.
Scot Graydon, Esq.
Arthur M. Handler, Esq.
June Duffy, Esq.
http://www.samsloan.com/2chin.pdf
|
|
