Main
Date: 30 Oct 2008 15:46:31
From: samsloan
Subject: Ten Replies Filed today by USCF in Polgar vs USCF
At 4:57 PM today, counsel for the USCF filed replies for each of the
USCF Defendants in the case of Polgar vs. USCF in the Northern
District of Texas, Lubbock Division. Individual replies were filed by
Randy Bauer, Bill Goichberg, Jim Berry and so on.

Naturally, I received them all because I am the only defendant on the
service list.

However, I cannot provide links to those replies because they include
addresses and telephone numbers which are, of course, prohibited by
the rules of the USCF Issues Forum.

Sam Sloan




 
Date: 06 Nov 2008 11:57:44
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ten Replies Filed today by USCF in Polgar vs USCF
Since everybody is asking, here are links to three of the documents in
question:

There were several more:

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-motion-to-dismiss.pdf

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-notice-of-motion.pdf

http://www.anusha.com/polgar-response-to-uscf-motion.pdf

You are welcome to try to post these links, but watch out. The
Moderator might try to ban you for one year. Since he has already
banned me for one year, I have nothing more to lose.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 06 Nov 2008 01:00:18
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Ten Replies Filed today by USCF in Polgar vs USCF
[quote="tsawmiller"]Lost in all of this discussion is a nagging little
fact about the original post in question. You know, the one that had
a link to purported legal documents containing the home addresses of
some USCF members? That link did not lead to a legal document at some
official judicial court site. The link lead to a site controlled by
the poster, with a scanned in reproduction of what looks like legal
documents.

Tim Sawmiller [/quote]

Not true. The link was to the actual document exactly as filed in
court. It was a PDF Document which cannot be modified. It was exactly
the same document that was emailed to me by the USCF's attorney. I
receive all court filings in the Polgar vs. USCF case because I am on
the service list.

There were ten court filings. This is because the USCF's lawyer
represents ten USCF defendants. These are the USCF itself, the four
board members, the Executive Director, Jerry Hanken, The Continental
Chess Association and the two attorneys. (Which name does not belong
on this list?)

Each of these ten court filings was 37 pages long. Thus, I received
370 pages of court filings. Since they were virtually identical, I
only wanted to include a link to one of them.

The federal courts will not provide a direct link to these documents.
To get them you have to apply to PACER and get approved. Then, after
being approved, you have to pay 8 cents per page. Thus, I had to pay
$28.80 to download all ten documents. You should be thankful that I am
willing to provide them to you for free.

Once again, Moderator Tim Sawmiller seeks to impose requirements that
are not included in the AUG, in order to make it difficult for USCF
Forum Members to find out about the status of litigation involving the
USCF.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 02 Nov 2008 09:36:01
From: thumbody
Subject: Re: Ten Replies Filed today by USCF in Polgar vs USCF
samsloan wrote:
.
> However, I cannot provide links to those replies because they include
> addresses and telephone numbers which are, of course, prohibited by
> the rules of the USCF Issues Forum.

Thank heavens for small mercies..


 
Date: 31 Oct 2008 15:28:09
From: Javert
Subject: Re: Ten Replies Filed today by USCF in Polgar vs USCF
On Oct 31, 12:29=A0pm, Kenneth Sloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > =A0 =A0 =A0 One lawsuit missing is Schultz v Evans, which
> > is, like the Rose Bowl, the granddaddy of 'em all.
>
> Who vs. Whom?
>
> You old guard types just keep banging the same drum. =A0Move over GrandPa
> - your day is done.
>
Charles Schultz vs. Bob Evans. It was u-g-l-y!!

The Charlie Brown Bacon and Ham Breakfast was litigated over for
years!!!



 
Date: 30 Oct 2008 23:49:40
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Ten Replies Filed today by USCF in Polgar vs USCF
WAR OF ALL AGAINST ALL

The Hobbesian war of all against all has long
been an attractive vision, especially among 19th
century Russian nihilist intellectuals. If Nechaev or
Bakunin were reincarnated as chess men, they would
plop down their devalued, fiat, paper American
currency for a membership in the USCF.

Perhaps we can build on nihilist foundations to
create a genuine consensus that more lawsuits need to
be filed.

Has that long-time figure of government, Mr.
Randy Bauer, launched his own legal action? If not,
why not? Surely he has little excuse for not suing
someone, especially when insurance premiums are being
footed by USCF members.

Is there any truth to the rumor that Mike Nolan
will seek legal redress against Daniel Lucas and Jo
Anne Fatherly? Is Tim Redman preparing a lengthy
brief so as to sue the bejeezus out of Joel Channing?

And then there is Mr. Channing: he boasts the
financial resources to hire his own lawyers. Channing
vs. Hall is long overdue in my estimation, and Donaldson
vs. Dubois has the ring of euphonious alliteration. It
is a suit that ought to be brought to provide an
aesthetic summing up as in Somerset Maugham's
eponymous autobiography. Misner v Marinello also
sounds swell -- the battle of the two M's as Maris and
Mantle were celebrated. It is already 46 years since
the 1962 Yankees, the greatest team in the history of
baseball, captured the World Series. M v M would be a
fine reminder.

One lawsuit missing is Schultz v Evans, which
is, like the Rose Bowl, the granddaddy of 'em all.
(See THIS CRAZY WORLD OF CHESS, chapter 31.)

For its time, this $21 million lawsuit was the biggest and best
of its kind. It deserves a more substantial memorial
than being overshadowed by current Bleak Federation
legal strife in chancery. Perhaps the two parties
involved in that legal action can mutually and
amicably agree to refile. I think I can speak for
everyone: we would all like to see these two splendid
ancient warriors reenter the arena for a last hurrah.

Seeking resolution of disputes is always
difficult, but current USCF litigants might consider
the example of old Tom Jarndyce and repair to a
coffee-house in Chancery Lane. Thence and thither,
the parties, individually or in freely agreed concert,
can reach final settlement.

Yours, Larry Parr



Offramp wrote:
> On Oct 30, 10:46 pm, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > At 4:57 PM today, counsel for the USCF filed replies for each of the
> > USCF Defendants in the case of Polgar vs. USCF in the Northern
> > District of Texas, Lubbock Division. Individual replies were filed by
> > Randy Bauer, Bill Goichberg, Jim Berry and so on.
> >
> > Naturally, I received them all because I am the only defendant on the
> > service list.
>
> It is a kafkaesque simultaneous display.


  
Date: 31 Oct 2008 11:29:04
From: Kenneth Sloan
Subject: Re: Ten Replies Filed today by USCF in Polgar vs USCF
[email protected] wrote:
>
> One lawsuit missing is Schultz v Evans, which
> is, like the Rose Bowl, the granddaddy of 'em all.

Who vs. Whom?

You old guard types just keep banging the same drum. Move over GrandPa
- your day is done.

--
Kenneth Sloan [email protected]
Computer and Information Sciences +1-205-932-2213
University of Alabama at Birmingham FAX +1-205-934-5473
Birmingham, AL 35294-1170 http://KennethRSloan.com/


 
Date: 30 Oct 2008 23:20:19
From: Offramp
Subject: Re: Ten Replies Filed today by USCF in Polgar vs USCF
On Oct 30, 10:46 pm, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:

> At 4:57 PM today, counsel for the USCF filed replies for each of the
> USCF Defendants in the case of Polgar vs. USCF in the Northern
> District of Texas, Lubbock Division. Individual replies were filed by
> Randy Bauer, Bill Goichberg, Jim Berry and so on.
>
> Naturally, I received them all because I am the only defendant on the
> service list.

It is a kafkaesque simultaneous display.