Main
Date: 25 Oct 2008 22:53:29
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 the same day 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 Friday, 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: 04 Nov 2008 10:11:44
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory Alexander
On Nov 4, 11:52=A0am, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:36:06 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >On Oct 26, 2:15=A0am, [email protected] (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>
> >> They *FINE* lawsuits now? =A0Does this have anything to do with
> >> the Larry Craig Defense?
>
> >Sorry to change the subject, but I am a supporter of Larry Craig, in
> >that I think he should stay in the United States Senate.
>
> >Sam Sloan
>
> He's still there? =A0Must be .... stalling ?

Unfortunately, Larry Craig's term is up and he is not running for re-
election.

If he were running for re-election I would get out and actively
campaign for him. I do not think that somebody should be drummed out
of office just because of tapping his toe in a restroom stall.

Sam


  
Date: 04 Nov 2008 10:52:02
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory Alexander
On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 10:11:44 -0800 (PST), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:


>I do not think that somebody should be drummed out
>of office just because of tapping his toe in a restroom stall.

>Sam


But you must admit, it was a boner for him to do so.


   
Date: 04 Nov 2008 16:57:55
From: Bob Campbell
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory Alexander
"Mike Murray" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Tue, 4 Nov 2008 10:11:44 -0800 (PST), samsloan
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>I do not think that somebody should be drummed out
>>of office just because of tapping his toe in a restroom stall.
>
>>Sam
>
>
> But you must admit, it was a boner for him to do so.


No, the problem was he HAD a boner!



 
Date: 28 Oct 2008 12:09:38
From: Steve
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory Alexander
On Oct 27, 6:19=A0pm, [email protected] wrote:
2) There's no need for Sloan's rambling speculations, as
> the filing has been posted in several places (e.g. chessusa.com). I

That should be chessusa.net (http://www.chessusa.net/2008/10/susan-
polgar-gregory-alexander-named-as.html). The .com site is a
commercial venture with no connection to us. I checked and didn't
find the amended complaint there, anyway. :D

> suggest reading it before commenting. Of course, in the Sloon's case
> that wouldn't help.

Miracles have happened, but that would be a doozy.


 
Date: 27 Oct 2008 16:19:35
From:
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory Alexander


samsloan wrote:
> 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 the same day 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 Friday, 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


1) It's not a "new case," it's an amended complaint naming two of the
John Does. 2) There's no need for Sloan's rambling speculations, as
the filing has been posted in several places (e.g. chessusa.com). I
suggest reading it before commenting. Of course, in the Sloon's case
that wouldn't help.


 
Date: 27 Oct 2008 15:36:06
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory Alexander
On Oct 26, 2:15=A0am, [email protected] (Gordon Burditt) wrote:

> They *FINE* lawsuits now? =A0Does this have anything to do with
> the Larry Craig Defense?

Sorry to change the subject, but I am a supporter of Larry Craig, in
that I think he should stay in the United States Senate.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 04 Nov 2008 08:52:49
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: New Lawsuit Filed: USCF & Hough vs. Polgar and Gregory Alexander
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:36:06 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:

>On Oct 26, 2:15 am, [email protected] (Gordon Burditt) wrote:
>
>> They *FINE* lawsuits now?  Does this have anything to do with
>> the Larry Craig Defense?
>
>Sorry to change the subject, but I am a supporter of Larry Craig, in
>that I think he should stay in the United States Senate.
>
>Sam Sloan

He's still there? Must be .... stalling ?


 
Date: 26 Oct 2008 01:15:41
From: Gordon Burditt
Subject: Re: 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

They *FINE* lawsuits now? Does this have anything to do with
the Larry Craig Defense?

>Susan Polgar was served the same day while she was giving a chess
>exhibition in Fresno California.

I'd like to propose an amendment to the rules of chess: If either
or both players, or a sponsor of a tournament or exhibition is
involved in a lawsuit, neither player can complete a chess move
until this is no longer the case. If the USCF is involved in the
lawsuit, doesn't that pretty much halt chess in the USA?

>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.