Main
Date: 25 Nov 2008 13:59:07
From: samsloan
Subject: Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment
The Attorneys for Susan Polgar have just now belatedly filed a
response to the motion by Sam Sloan for summary judgment.

Sam Sloan filed his motion on October 6, 2008. Her response was due in
20 days. Since she is just responding today, she is nearly one month
late.

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-reasponds-to-motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf
http://www.anusha.com/polgar-brief-in-response.pdf

Her response is vacuous and I doubt that the judge will agree. She
claims that the court must decide her motion to dismiss my complaint
before she can be required to respond to my motion for summary
judgment.

However, this is just not true. A motion for summary judgment can be
filed at any time. It can even be filed simultaneously with the filing
of the initial complaint.

Thus, I think that Polgar is taking a big risk by this non-answer
answer.

On the other hand, those of us who are familiar with her case realize
that, on the merits, she has no defense, so perhaps this non-answer
answer is her only chance.

Sam Sloan





 
Date: 28 Nov 2008 11:14:07
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment
On Nov 26, 12:27=A0pm, "[email protected]"
<[email protected] > wrote:

> Sam,
>
> I believe that an outcome you would like to see would that Truong
> would be forced to admit to having made the FSS postings; this would
> establish that he had lied to his supporters and doom him politically.


How so? The argument has already been
made that Mr. Truong-F.Sloan was merely
attempting to lash out at the psycho who is
obsessed with his wife. Clearly, those who
support the dynamic duo will just do what
they've always done-- dismiss or rationalize
their dishonest behavior, and transfer the
blame onto others.


> Instead of your grandiose suits, why not try to simply target Truong
> for harassment? I think that with a competent lawyer handling the
> case, you would have a clear case that could come to trial quickly.
> You would not need to go into any reasons of motivation on this one,
> simply submit the reports as evidence you were being harassed.


And mocked, and ridiculed. How so much
tragedy could befall someone like Mr. Sloan
is a deep, dark mystery.


-- help bot




 
Date: 28 Nov 2008 14:39:23
From: thumbody..
Subject: Re: Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment
samsloan wrote:
>
> On Nov 26, 7:47 am, "foad" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > it was little more than a rehashing of the Polgar fantasies
>
> By "Polgar Fantasies", I assume you mean the fantasies that appear
> regularly on her website, such as her claim to be "The World
> Champion", her claim that "she has won the Woman's World Championship
> four times", her claim to hold the "Triple Crown" in chess when there
> is no such thing, and the numerous other amazing, fantastic and
> completely untrue things about herself that she keeps claiming.
>
> One thing this Olympiad proves is that she no longer has any claim to
> being called the strongest woman chess player in the USA. If she were
> to start playing again, she would be lucky to finish fourth. The top
> three American women, Irina Krush, Anna Zatonskih, and Rusudan
> Goletiani have all produced results equal to those produced by Polgar
> at her peak and, due to being out of practice plus the ravages of old
> age, Polgar would not have much chance against these much younger
> women if she were to start playing again.

Would yo wolf down a bar-b-que sausage fro' this yo lady - uh?!..

:http://www.1liga.siwik.pl/images/joanna_majdan_czapka.jpg..


>
> Instead, Polgar keeps writing about her accomplishments of 20 years
> ago as though they took place last week.
>
> So, not only is Susan Polgar "The Fake Sam Sloan", but she is also
> "The Fake World Champion".
>
> Sam Sloan


 
Date: 26 Nov 2008 09:27:53
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment
Sam,

I believe that an outcome you would like to see would that Truong
would be forced to admit to having made the FSS postings; this would
establish that he had lied to his supporters and doom him politically.
Instead of your grandiose suits, why not try to simply target Truong
for harassment? I think that with a competent lawyer handling the
case, you would have a clear case that could come to trial quickly.
You would not need to go into any reasons of motivation on this one,
simply submit the reports as evidence you were being harassed.

Jerry Spinrad


On Nov 26, 10:51=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Nov 26, 11:05=A0am, "foad" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > No, I'm not referring to the lies you tell about her website, previousl=
y
> > debunked:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/2504811e0...
>
> > I'm referring to your fantasies about her whereabouts, the whereabouts =
of
> > her children, her immigration status, her publishing history, her photo=
ops,
> > and your various other obsessions.
>
> > <remaining pointless irrelevant drivel hosed>
>
> That was not debunked. Her claims and your claims were so ridiculous
> that I did not bother to respond.
>
> For example, when asked about her claim to have won the "Woman's World
> Championship" four times, she cited:
> "1981 World Champion, girls < 16"
>
> Actually, there is no published record of that event. It is not
> mentioned in any chess publication of that time. The first official
> World Championship for Girls Under 16 was in Dresden, Germany in 1982
> and Polgar did not play because she was banned by the Hungarian Chess
> Federation from playing there, due to her bad behavior.
>
> However, assuming for the sake of argument that there really was a
> World Championship for Girls Under 16 held in England in 1981 and
> assuming that Polgar really did win it, and there is no doubt that she
> was capable of winning such an event if it existed, that still did not
> make her the "Woman's World Champion". Winning the World Championship
> for Girls Under 16 is not the same as winning the Woman's World
> Championship.
>
> Also, the rapid and blitz events she won in Budapest in 1992 were not
> official world championships recognized by FIDE. These events were
> organized by her father and her primary competition in those two
> events were her own sisters, Sophia and Judit. The top rated women
> players in the world did not participate.
>
> Also, she claims to have a college degree from Minsk, USSR. Someone
> who knows her well says that her father purchased that degree, with
> money. She never attended even one day of classes.
>
> Also, with regard to the "New York Mayor's Cup" which she organized,
> one of the players in that event informs me that the players were made
> to understand that, as she was providing the prize money, they were
> not supposed to beat her.
>
> When one of the players reneged on his promise and did in fact beat
> her, she became extremely angry and is still angry at that player.
> This anger has been manifested in a recent exchange.
>
> Sam Sloan



  
Date: 26 Nov 2008 17:46:47
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment
[email protected] wrote:
> Sam,
>
> I believe that an outcome you would like to see wo. that Truong
> would be forced to admit to having made the FSS postings; this would
> establish that he had lied to his supporters and doom him politically.
> Instead of your grandiose suits, why not try to simply target Truong
> for harassment? I think that with a competent lawyer handling the
> case, you would have a clear case that could come to trial quickly.
> You would not need to go into any reasons of motivation on this one,
> simply submit the reports as evidence you were being harassed.
>
> Jerry Spinrad

This is good advice for all the FSS victims. Truong committed most of
his acts from Queens County, NY. That's where he should and probably
will be sued in the future. Mr. Truong is headed down a very, very long
road unless he finds a way to settle and disappear with Susie into the
woodwork for a few years.
>
>
> On Nov 26, 10:51 am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On Nov 26, 11:05 am, "foad" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> No, I'm not referring to the lies you tell about her website, previously
>>> debunked:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/2504811e0...
>>> I'm referring to your fantasies about her whereabouts, the whereabouts of
>>> her children, her immigration status, her publishing history, her photo ops,
>>> and your various other obsessions.
>>> <remaining pointless irrelevant drivel hosed>
>> That was not debunked. Her claims and your claims were so ridiculous
>> that I did not bother to respond.
>>
>> For example, when asked about her claim to have won the "Woman's World
>> Championship" four times, she cited:
>> "1981 World Champion, girls < 16"
>>
>> Actually, there is no published record of that event. It is not
>> mentioned in any chess publication of that time. The first official
>> World Championship for Girls Under 16 was in Dresden, Germany in 1982
>> and Polgar did not play because she was banned by the Hungarian Chess
>> Federation from playing there, due to her bad behavior.
>>
>> However, assuming for the sake of argument that there really was a
>> World Championship for Girls Under 16 held in England in 1981 and
>> assuming that Polgar really did win it, and there is no doubt that she
>> was capable of winning such an event if it existed, that still did not
>> make her the "Woman's World Champion". Winning the World Championship
>> for Girls Under 16 is not the same as winning the Woman's World
>> Championship.
>>
>> Also, the rapid and blitz events she won in Budapest in 1992 were not
>> official world championships recognized by FIDE. These events were
>> organized by her father and her primary competition in those two
>> events were her own sisters, Sophia and Judit. The top rated women
>> players in the world did not participate.
>>
>> Also, she claims to have a college degree from Minsk, USSR. Someone
>> who knows her well says that her father purchased that degree, with
>> money. She never attended even one day of classes.
>>
>> Also, with regard to the "New York Mayor's Cup" which she organized,
>> one of the players in that event informs me that the players were made
>> to understand that, as she was providing the prize money, they were
>> not supposed to beat her.
>>
>> When one of the players reneged on his promise and did in fact beat
>> her, she became extremely angry and is still angry at that player.
>> This anger has been manifested in a recent exchange.
>>
>> Sam Sloan
>


 
Date: 26 Nov 2008 08:51:55
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment
On Nov 26, 11:05=A0am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:

> No, I'm not referring to the lies you tell about her website, previously
> debunked:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/2504811e03f9c=
263?hl=3Den
>
> I'm referring to your fantasies about her whereabouts, the whereabouts of
> her children, her immigration status, her publishing history, her photo o=
ps,
> and your various other obsessions.
>
> <remaining pointless irrelevant drivel hosed>

That was not debunked. Her claims and your claims were so ridiculous
that I did not bother to respond.

For example, when asked about her claim to have won the "Woman's World
Championship" four times, she cited:
"1981 World Champion, girls < 16"

Actually, there is no published record of that event. It is not
mentioned in any chess publication of that time. The first official
World Championship for Girls Under 16 was in Dresden, Germany in 1982
and Polgar did not play because she was banned by the Hungarian Chess
Federation from playing there, due to her bad behavior.

However, assuming for the sake of argument that there really was a
World Championship for Girls Under 16 held in England in 1981 and
assuming that Polgar really did win it, and there is no doubt that she
was capable of winning such an event if it existed, that still did not
make her the "Woman's World Champion". Winning the World Championship
for Girls Under 16 is not the same as winning the Woman's World
Championship.

Also, the rapid and blitz events she won in Budapest in 1992 were not
official world championships recognized by FIDE. These events were
organized by her father and her primary competition in those two
events were her own sisters, Sophia and Judit. The top rated women
players in the world did not participate.

Also, she claims to have a college degree from Minsk, USSR. Someone
who knows her well says that her father purchased that degree, with
money. She never attended even one day of classes.

Also, with regard to the "New York Mayor's Cup" which she organized,
one of the players in that event informs me that the players were made
to understand that, as she was providing the prize money, they were
not supposed to beat her.

When one of the players reneged on his promise and did in fact beat
her, she became extremely angry and is still angry at that player.
This anger has been manifested in a recent exchange.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 26 Nov 2008 21:00:12
From: foad
Subject: Re: Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Nov 26, 11:05 am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:

> No, I'm not referring to the lies you tell about her website, previously
> debunked:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/2504811e03f9c263?hl=en
>
> I'm referring to your fantasies about her whereabouts, the whereabouts of
> her children, her immigration status, her publishing history, her photo
> ops,
> and your various other obsessions.
>
> <remaining pointless irrelevant drivel hosed>

That was not debunked. Her claims and your claims were so ridiculous
that I did not bother to respond.
=========

Your lies and calumny were utterly debunked. That will be apparent to anyone
who reads the cited post and that's why you didn't answer: because you were
exposed as a blatant liar as well as a gibbering idiot. As for the remainder
of your ridiculous three months later second bite at the apple, I CBA to
even read it.

<obsessive nonsense hosed >






 
Date: 26 Nov 2008 07:34:30
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment
On Nov 26, 7:47=A0am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:

> it was little more than a rehashing of the Polgar fantasies

By "Polgar Fantasies", I assume you mean the fantasies that appear
regularly on her website, such as her claim to be "The World
Champion", her claim that "she has won the Woman's World Championship
four times", her claim to hold the "Triple Crown" in chess when there
is no such thing, and the numerous other amazing, fantastic and
completely untrue things about herself that she keeps claiming.

One thing this Olympiad proves is that she no longer has any claim to
being called the strongest woman chess player in the USA. If she were
to start playing again, she would be lucky to finish fourth. The top
three American women, Irina Krush, Anna Zatonskih, and Rusudan
Goletiani have all produced results equal to those produced by Polgar
at her peak and, due to being out of practice plus the ravages of old
age, Polgar would not have much chance against these much younger
women if she were to start playing again.

Instead, Polgar keeps writing about her accomplishments of 20 years
ago as though they took place last week.

So, not only is Susan Polgar "The Fake Sam Sloan", but she is also
"The Fake World Champion".

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 26 Nov 2008 16:05:23
From: foad
Subject: Re: Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On Nov 26, 7:47 am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:

> it was little more than a rehashing of the Polgar fantasies

By "Polgar Fantasies", I assume you mean the fantasies that appear
regularly on her website, such as her claim to be "The World
Champion", her claim that "she has won the Woman's World Championship
four times", her claim to hold the "Triple Crown" in chess when there
is no such thing, and the numerous other amazing, fantastic and
completely untrue things about herself that she keeps claiming.

=======

No, I'm not referring to the lies you tell about her website, previously
debunked:

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/2504811e03f9c263?hl=en

I'm referring to your fantasies about her whereabouts, the whereabouts of
her children, her immigration status, her publishing history, her photo ops,
and your various other obsessions.

<remaining pointless irrelevant drivel hosed >






   
Date: 26 Nov 2008 16:09:52
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment
foad wrote:
>
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:8806c512-d71f-4934-[email protected]
> On Nov 26, 7:47 am, "foad" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> it was little more than a rehashing of the Polgar fantasies
>
> By "Polgar Fantasies", I assume you mean the fantasies that appear
> regularly on her website, such as her claim to be "The World
> Champion", her claim that "she has won the Woman's World Championship
> four times", her claim to hold the "Triple Crown" in chess when there
> is no such thing, and the numerous other amazing, fantastic and
> completely untrue things about herself that she keeps claiming.
>
> =======
>
> No, I'm not referring to the lies you tell about her website, previously
> debunked:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.chess.politics/msg/2504811e03f9c263?hl=en
>
>
> I'm referring to your fantasies about her whereabouts, the whereabouts
> of her children, her immigration status, her publishing history, her
> photo ops, and your various other obsessions.
>
> <remaining pointless irrelevant drivel hosed>

Toad, you really are amusing.


 
Date: 26 Nov 2008 05:07:06
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment
On Nov 26, 7:47=A0am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]m...
>
>
>
> > Sorry for the typographical error:
>
> > The Attorneys for Susan Polgar have just now belatedly filed a
> > response to the motion by Sam Sloan for summary judgment.
>
> > Sam Sloan filed his motion on October 6, 2008. Her response was due in
> > 20 days. Since she is just responding today, she is nearly one month
> > late.
>
> >http://www.anusha.com/polgar-responds-to-motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf
> >http://www.anusha.com/polgar-brief-in-response.pdf
>
> > Her response is vacuous and I doubt that the judge will agree. She
> > claims that the court must decide her motion to dismiss my complaint
> > before she can be required to respond to my motion for summary
> > judgment.
>
> > However, this is just not true. A motion for summary judgment can be
> > filed at any time. It can even be filed simultaneously with the filing
> > of the initial complaint.
>
> > Thus, I think that Polgar is taking a big risk by this non-answer
> > answer.
>
> > On the other hand, those of us who are familiar with her case realize
> > that, on the merits, she has no defense, so perhaps this non-answer
> > answer is her only chance.
>
> > Sam Sloan
>
> Yes and no. Defense counsel's reliance on arguments of form -- that the
> motion does not contain a summary and so on -- are likely to fail. Since
> you're a pro se and so obviously ignorant of the law and all things legal=
,
> the court might allow you to cure those defects. Ironically, your long
> history of legal incompetence might in this case persuade the court that
> you're too stupid to file a meaningful legal pleading. For example, you
> might cite as legal precedent District Judge Denny Chin, who described on=
e
> of your motions as "simply personal, vindictive, and nonsensical attacks
> that do not belong in a pleading filed in a judicial proceeding." Or you
> might cite Judge Bauman, who called your legal arguments a "waste of
> judicial time." It seems to me likely that pleading your own stupidity,
> backed up by the words of various judges before whom you have appeared
> before might persuade the court to take pity on you.
>
> Substantively OTOH, counsel makes a good point. Counsel argues that "Most=
if
> not all of Defendant Sloan's affidavits are comprised of allegations and
> conclusions based on beliefs, hearsay, and speculation" and that the
> allegations are "conclusory, irrelevant, or suspect." That certainly is t=
rue
> of the motion you posted here, as it was little more than a rehashing of =
the
> Polgar fantasies you regularly post to usenet, minus the repulsive sexual
> overtones.
>
> More worrisome from your POV might be the allegation that "Sloan is not
> competent to testify." If by that counsel means that you're too stupid to
> understand the meaning of the oath required of witnesses, he raises a
> potentially devastating point. The other possibility is that counsel is
> suggesting that you are non compos in hopes of forcing you to undergo
> psychiatric evaluation. I am not in a position to know for a fact whether
> you are legally insane -- and in fact my own opinion is that you are mere=
ly
> a petty and pathetic chowderhead -- =A0but who knows what a trained
> psychiatric professional might conclude.

Cases involving the Fake Sam Sloan have been pending in the federal
court for more than one year. During all that time, Susan Polgar has
never either admitted or denied that she and her husband, Paul Truong,
were The Fake Sam Sloan. All of her her and her husband's "denials"
have been non-denial denials, if read carefully.

In my motion for summary judgment, I submitted the three reports, The
Jones Report, the Mottershead Report and the Ulevitch Report, all of
which conclude that there is overwhelming evidence that Paul Truong,
husband of Susan Polgar, is the Fake Sam Sloan.

By this resoponse to the motion for summary judgment, Susan Polgar is
contending that these reports are hearsay and that Mr. Jones, Mr.
Mottershead and Mr. Ulevitch must all fly to Texas and testify under
oath that they wrote these reports.

That might be true in a contested case, but the case here is not
contested. Since Susan Polgar does not deny that he and her husband
were the Fake Sam Sloan, these is no contested issue and my motion for
summary judgment should be granted.

Please note that Susan Polgar's defense to my lawsuit before Judge
Chin was entirely on jurisdictional grounds. However, Susan Polgar has
no such defense in the Texas case because she filed the case and
therefore she cannot object on jurisdictional grounds.

Regarding Judge Bauman, you are citing Sloan vs. Richard M. Nixon, 60
FRD 228 (1973). My opponents used to cite that case, but stopped
citing it after President Nixon was impeached on the very same grounds
that I cited my lawsuit, as you may have heard.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 26 Nov 2008 14:03:42
From: foad
Subject: Re: Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]...


Cases involving the Fake Sam Sloan have been pending in the federal
court for more than one year. During all that time, Susan Polgar has
never either admitted or denied that she and her husband, Paul Truong,
were The Fake Sam Sloan. All of her her and her husband's "denials"
have been non-denial denials, if read carefully.
=======
Stupid, pointless, irrelevant drivel.




In my motion for summary judgment, I submitted the three reports, The
Jones Report, the Mottershead Report and the Ulevitch Report, all of
which conclude that there is overwhelming evidence that Paul Truong,
husband of Susan Polgar, is the Fake Sam Sloan.
============
More stupid, pointless, irrelevant drivel.




By this resoponse to the motion for summary judgment, Susan Polgar is
contending that these reports are hearsay and that Mr. Jones, Mr.
Mottershead and Mr. Ulevitch must all fly to Texas and testify under
oath that they wrote these reports.
=============
No. By the response to the motion for SJ Susan Polgar is contending that you
are an incompetent buffoon. "Sloan filed a long and rambling, nonsensical
pleading . . . [that] fails to satisfy every Local Rule and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure"; the motion is "premature, unsupported factually and
legally, and vague and ambiguous"; and that even if its not a bunch of lies
and fantasies cobbled together by an utter nitfuckingwit, that "Sloan has
still failed to provide . . . legal theory showing that the right to relief
against Polgar." There's nothing about anyone flying to Texas.





That might be true in a contested case, but the case here is not
contested. Since Susan Polgar does not deny that he and her husband
were the Fake Sam Sloan, these is no contested issue and my motion for
summary judgment should be granted.
========================
This is so egregiously wrong and stupid that I CBA to reply.




Please note that Susan Polgar's defense to my lawsuit before Judge
Chin was entirely on jurisdictional grounds. However, Susan Polgar has
no such defense in the Texas case because she filed the case and
therefore she cannot object on jurisdictional grounds.
=================
No. In Truong you claimed that the US government must be made a party to
your lawsuit because it was the responsibility of DOJ to appoint you to the
board of your stupid chess club. The court described your pleadings as
"rantings" and "nonsensical." That's not jurisidctional. It's rare for a
court to come out and say "I'm dismissing this case because the plaintiff is
a retard," but that seems to have been the case here.



Regarding Judge Bauman, you are citing Sloan vs. Richard M. Nixon, 60
FRD 228 (1973). My opponents used to cite that case, but stopped
citing it after President Nixon was impeached on the very same grounds
that I cited my lawsuit, as you may have heard.
===================

No. According the judge, you alleged that four justices of the US Supreme
Court "participated in a scheme to secure the Democratic nomination of
Senator George McGovern" and having this conspired they should be removed
from the bench and Nixon and Agnew removed from office. The court described
your pleading as "utterly lacking in merit" and "utterly without legal
basis" and said that over his long career, having seen "many misguided
lawsuits" that "this must be the nadir." Perhaps with your track record for
ineptitude and futility you're forced to consider being immortalized in
lawbooks as the greatest and most worst utter and complete waste of time
laughingstock in juridical history a great victory. I doubt that others see
it so, Nixon's fate notwithstanding.





   
Date: 28 Nov 2008 14:19:05
From: thumbody..
Subject: Re: Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment
foad wrote:
>
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Cases involving the Fake Sam Sloan have been pending in the federal
> court for more than one year. During all that time, Susan Polgar has
> never either admitted or denied that she and her husband, Paul Truong,
> were The Fake Sam Sloan. All of her her and her husband's "denials"
> have been non-denial denials, if read carefully.
> =======
> Stupid, pointless, irrelevant drivel.
>
> In my motion for summary judgment, I submitted the three reports, The
> Jones Report, the Mottershead Report and the Ulevitch Report, all of
> which conclude that there is overwhelming evidence that Paul Truong,
> husband of Susan Polgar, is the Fake Sam Sloan.
> ============
> More stupid, pointless, irrelevant drivel.
>
> By this resoponse to the motion for summary judgment, Susan Polgar is
> contending that these reports are hearsay and that Mr. Jones, Mr.
> Mottershead and Mr. Ulevitch must all fly to Texas and testify under
> oath that they wrote these reports.
> =============
> No. By the response to the motion for SJ Susan Polgar is contending that you
> are an incompetent buffoon. "Sloan filed a long and rambling, nonsensical
> pleading . . . [that] fails to satisfy every Local Rule and Federal Rule of
> Civil Procedure"; the motion is "premature, unsupported factually and
> legally, and vague and ambiguous"; and that even if its not a bunch of lies
> and fantasies cobbled together by an utter nitfuckingwit,

This _is_ a nice new word for my dictionary foad - "nitfuckingwit"..

It's inspired me to consider some sort of legal strand to my career as I
grow up & announce my presence to the World..






> that "Sloan has
> still failed to provide . . . legal theory showing that the right to relief
> against Polgar." There's nothing about anyone flying to Texas.
>
> That might be true in a contested case, but the case here is not
> contested. Since Susan Polgar does not deny that he and her husband
> were the Fake Sam Sloan, these is no contested issue and my motion for
> summary judgment should be granted.
> ========================
> This is so egregiously wrong and stupid that I CBA to reply.
>
> Please note that Susan Polgar's defense to my lawsuit before Judge
> Chin was entirely on jurisdictional grounds. However, Susan Polgar has
> no such defense in the Texas case because she filed the case and
> therefore she cannot object on jurisdictional grounds.
> =================
> No. In Truong you claimed that the US government must be made a party to
> your lawsuit because it was the responsibility of DOJ to appoint you to the
> board of your stupid chess club. The court described your pleadings as
> "rantings" and "nonsensical." That's not jurisidctional. It's rare for a
> court to come out and say "I'm dismissing this case because the plaintiff is
> a retard," but that seems to have been the case here.
>
> Regarding Judge Bauman, you are citing Sloan vs. Richard M. Nixon, 60
> FRD 228 (1973). My opponents used to cite that case, but stopped
> citing it after President Nixon was impeached on the very same grounds
> that I cited my lawsuit, as you may have heard.
> ===================
>
> No. According the judge, you alleged that four justices of the US Supreme
> Court "participated in a scheme to secure the Democratic nomination of
> Senator George McGovern" and having this conspired they should be removed
> from the bench and Nixon and Agnew removed from office. The court described
> your pleading as "utterly lacking in merit" and "utterly without legal
> basis" and said that over his long career, having seen "many misguided
> lawsuits" that "this must be the nadir." Perhaps with your track record for
> ineptitude and futility you're forced to consider being immortalized in
> lawbooks as the greatest and most worst utter and complete waste of time
> laughingstock in juridical history a great victory. I doubt that others see
> it so, Nixon's fate notwithstanding.
>
>


 
Date: 25 Nov 2008 14:02:50
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment
Sorry for the typographical error:

The Attorneys for Susan Polgar have just now belatedly filed a
response to the motion by Sam Sloan for summary judgment.

Sam Sloan filed his motion on October 6, 2008. Her response was due in
20 days. Since she is just responding today, she is nearly one month
late.

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-responds-to-motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf
http://www.anusha.com/polgar-brief-in-response.pdf

Her response is vacuous and I doubt that the judge will agree. She
claims that the court must decide her motion to dismiss my complaint
before she can be required to respond to my motion for summary
judgment.

However, this is just not true. A motion for summary judgment can be
filed at any time. It can even be filed simultaneously with the filing
of the initial complaint.

Thus, I think that Polgar is taking a big risk by this non-answer
answer.

On the other hand, those of us who are familiar with her case realize
that, on the merits, she has no defense, so perhaps this non-answer
answer is her only chance.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 26 Nov 2008 12:47:56
From: foad
Subject: Re: Polgar has Responded to Sloan's Motion for Summary Judgment

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
> Sorry for the typographical error:
>
> The Attorneys for Susan Polgar have just now belatedly filed a
> response to the motion by Sam Sloan for summary judgment.
>
> Sam Sloan filed his motion on October 6, 2008. Her response was due in
> 20 days. Since she is just responding today, she is nearly one month
> late.
>
> http://www.anusha.com/polgar-responds-to-motion-for-summary-judgment.pdf
> http://www.anusha.com/polgar-brief-in-response.pdf
>
> Her response is vacuous and I doubt that the judge will agree. She
> claims that the court must decide her motion to dismiss my complaint
> before she can be required to respond to my motion for summary
> judgment.
>
> However, this is just not true. A motion for summary judgment can be
> filed at any time. It can even be filed simultaneously with the filing
> of the initial complaint.
>
> Thus, I think that Polgar is taking a big risk by this non-answer
> answer.
>
> On the other hand, those of us who are familiar with her case realize
> that, on the merits, she has no defense, so perhaps this non-answer
> answer is her only chance.
>
> Sam Sloan


Yes and no. Defense counsel's reliance on arguments of form -- that the
motion does not contain a summary and so on -- are likely to fail. Since
you're a pro se and so obviously ignorant of the law and all things legal,
the court might allow you to cure those defects. Ironically, your long
history of legal incompetence might in this case persuade the court that
you're too stupid to file a meaningful legal pleading. For example, you
might cite as legal precedent District Judge Denny Chin, who described one
of your motions as "simply personal, vindictive, and nonsensical attacks
that do not belong in a pleading filed in a judicial proceeding." Or you
might cite Judge Bauman, who called your legal arguments a "waste of
judicial time." It seems to me likely that pleading your own stupidity,
backed up by the words of various judges before whom you have appeared
before might persuade the court to take pity on you.

Substantively OTOH, counsel makes a good point. Counsel argues that "Most if
not all of Defendant Sloan's affidavits are comprised of allegations and
conclusions based on beliefs, hearsay, and speculation" and that the
allegations are "conclusory, irrelevant, or suspect." That certainly is true
of the motion you posted here, as it was little more than a rehashing of the
Polgar fantasies you regularly post to usenet, minus the repulsive sexual
overtones.

More worrisome from your POV might be the allegation that "Sloan is not
competent to testify." If by that counsel means that you're too stupid to
understand the meaning of the oath required of witnesses, he raises a
potentially devastating point. The other possibility is that counsel is
suggesting that you are non compos in hopes of forcing you to undergo
psychiatric evaluation. I am not in a position to know for a fact whether
you are legally insane -- and in fact my own opinion is that you are merely
a petty and pathetic chowderhead -- but who knows what a trained
psychiatric professional might conclude.