|
Main
Date: 19 Nov 2007 11:29:59
From: samsloan
Subject: Texas Tech University files Motion to Dismiss
|
http://www.samsloan.com/ttu-answer-filed.pdf UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------- SAM SLOAN, Plaintiff, -against- HOAINHAN "PAUL" TRUONG, ZSUZSANNA "SUSAN" POLGAR, JOEL CHANNING, WILLIAM GOICHBERG, THE UNITED STATES CHESS FEDERATION, BILL HALL, HERBERT RODNEY VAUGHN, GREGORY ALEXANDER, FRANK NIRO, GRANT PERKS, WILLIAM BROCK, RANDALL HOUGH, RANDY BAUER, JERRY BERRY, TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY AND UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. ------------------------------------------------------- - TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITYS MOTION TO DISMISS 1:07-CV-08537-DC (FM) TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE DENNY CHIN: NOW COMES Defendant, Texas Tech University, by and through Greg Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas, and the undersigned Assistant Attorney General, and files its Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), FED. R. Civ. P., and respectfully show the Court as follows: I INTRODUCTION Sloan filed a lengthy complaint naming Texas Tech University ("TTU") as Defendant regarding matters of defamation. Sloan identifies federal questions as the basis for his jurisdiction. See Verified Complaint, Paragraph 2. Sloan seeks to vindicated his Constitutional rights to due process, liberty, and detainment. The vehicle for vindication of constitutional guarantees is 42 U.S.C. =A7 1983. Under =A7 1983, Plaintiffs case must be dismissed for the following reasons: 1. Plaintiff alleges no specific cause of action against Texas Tech University. 2. Texas Tech University has 11th Amendment immunity from Plaintiffs =A7 1983 claim. 3. Texas Tech University is not a person within the meaning of =A7 1983. 4. Texas Tech University is immune from suit under 47 U.S.C. =A7 230. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW A complaint must be dismissed if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claim, FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), or if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) is analyzed under the same standard as a motion to dismiss under rule 12(b)(6)." August Trading Inc. v. United States Agency For Int'1 Dev., 67 F.Supp.2d 964 (S.D. Tx. 2001) at page 2; citing Home Builders Assoc. of Mississippi, Inc. v. City of Madison, 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). A dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6) is only proper when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his or her claims that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160 (5th Cir.1994). III. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES A. Plaintiff makes alleges no causes of action against Texas Tech University Plaintiff specifies five (5) causes of action in his Verified Complaint. In none of these does Plaintiff allege a legally recognizable cause of action against TTU. Plaintiff describes two Defendants as faculty members of TTU. See Verified Complaint, Paragraphs 16-17. Plaintiffs only other reference to Texas Tech again mentions that TTU recently hired two Defendants and that TTU allowed those Defendants to use TTU computers. See Verified Complaint, Paragraphs 40-41. TTU y denies that any alleged defamatory messages in this case were sent from any TTU omputer. TTU is not identified as committing any action identified in Counts I-V. Because of this, Plaintiff does not demonstrate to the court that it has subject matter jurisdiction with respect to TTU, nor does Plaintiff state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Defendant is therefor entitled to dismissal from all aspects of this lawsuit. B. Eleventh Amendment Immunity bars Plaintiffs =A7 1983 Claim against Texas Tech University If Plaintiff makes any possible claim against TTU, it is the vindication of his Constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. =A7 1983. While Plaintiff has not asserted such claims against TTU, such claims would be barred in the event that they were made. It is well-settled that the Eleventh Amendment deprives a federal court of jurisdiction to hear a suit against the State of Texas, regardless of the relief sought, unless sovereign immunity is expressly waived. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 100-02,104 S.Ct 900, 908-09 (1984); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. 651,662-63,94 S.Ct. 1347,1355-56 (1974). Congress may, however, abrogate a State's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Kimel v. Florida Bd. Of Regents, 528 U.S.62,120 S.Ct. 631, 644 (2000); Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55, 116 S.Ct. 1114, 1123-24 (1996). Likewise, a State may waive its immunity to suit in federal court. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, 305, 110 S.Ct. 1868, 1873 (1990); Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 105 S.Ct. 3142 (1985). In order to waive its immunity to suit in federal court, however, a State "must specify [its] intention to subject itself in federal court."' Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 S.Ct. at 1873 (quoting Atascadero, 473 U.S. 241. 105 S.Ct. at 3146) (emphasis in original). State universities are afforded Eleventh Amendment immunity as a matter of law. See Dube v. State University of New York, 900 F.2d 587, X9-1 (2d Cir.1990), (The Second Circuit held that "[f)or Eleventh Amendment purposes, SUNY is an integral part of the government of the State of New York and when it is sued the State is the real party." (citing State Univ. of New York v. Syracuse Univ., 285 A.D. 59, 61, 135 N.Y.S.2d 539, 542 (3d Dept.1954); see also State University of New York v. Syracuse, 206 Misc. 1003, 137 N.Y.S.2d 916 (Sup.Ct. Albany Cty.1954), affd, 285 A.D. 59, 135 N.Y.S.2d 539 (3d Dept.1954); People v. Branham, 53 Misc.2d 346, 347-48, 278 N.Y.S.2d 494, 496 (Sup.Ct. Albany Cty.1967) ("the State University is an integral part of the government of the State and when it is sued the State is the real party"). TTU as a Defendant is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity unless such immunity has been waived by a valid exercise of Congressional or State legislative action. See United States v. Texas Tech Univ., 171 F. 3d 279, 289 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that Eleventh Amendment protects Texas Tech University and its medical branch). Section 1983 does not abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity and there has been no waiver for section 1983 claims on the part of the State. See Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979). Absent waiver or abrogation, sovereign immunity extends to all state agencies because the State is the real party in interest. See F. D.1. C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-86 (1994); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985). Nor has Texas waived its immunity to suit in federal court under constitutional tort statutes such as =A7=A7 1981, 1983, 1985 I A particularly strict standard applies: immunity to suit in federal court is waived only by "the most express language or by such overwhelming implication from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction." Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. at 1873. and 1986. See e.g., Aguilar v. Texas Dept. of Crim. Justice, Inst. Div., 160 F.3d 1052, 1054 (5th Cir. ). cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 130 (1999). Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction over any uses of action alleged by Plaintiff against Texas Tech University, and the case against TTU should be dismissed as a matter of law. C. Texas Tech University is not a person within the meaning of =A7 1983 Likewise, Plaintiff would be unable to obtain relief because TTU is not a "person" in the =A7 1983 context. See, e.g., Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21, 22-23, 112 S.Ct. 358, 360 (1991); Will v. Michigan Dept. Of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71,109 S.Ct. 2304, 2312 (1989); Pennhurst, 465 U.S. at 101, 104 S.Ct. at 908-09. In Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 731, 109 S.Ct. 2702, 2721 (1989), the court said the legislative history of Section 1983 (the Civil Rights Act of 1871) indicates that "Congress intended that the explicit remedial provisions of =A7 1983 be controlling in the context of damages actions brought against state actors alleging violation of the rights declared in =A71981." D. Plaintiff's Claim Against Texas Tech University is Barred by the 42 U.S.C. =A7 230. TTU specifically denies that any alleged defamatory messages in this case were sent from any TTU computer. Even if such messages were sent from a TTU computer, any potential claim by Plaintiff against TTU in this case is barred by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ("CDA"), 47 U.S.C. =A7 230, et seq. Section 230 provides that "[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another footnote 2 In 1991 Congress amended =A7 1981 to add 1981(c) which provided in part that the "rights protected" are protected against "impairment under color of State law," but these provisions did not overrule Jett, by allowing a direct cause of action under =A7 1981 against state actors. Oden v. Oktibbeha County, Mississippi, 246 F.3d 458, 463 (5th Cir. 200 1)("We are persuaded that the conclusion in Jett remains the same after Congress enacted the 1991 amendments.") information content provider," id . =A7 230(c)(1), and that "[n]o cause of action may be brought and liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section," id. 230(e)(3). Section 230(c) thus immunizes internet service providers from defamation and other, on-intellectual property, state law claims arising from third-party content. See Gucci Am., Inc. v. Hall & Assocs., 135 F.Supp. 2d 409, 417 (S.D. N.Y.2001). By its plain language, =A7 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third party user of the service. See Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir.1997). Specifically, =A7 230 precludes courts from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a publisher's role. Zeran at 330. The Zeran quotation, in context, refers to defamation and other forms of tort liability. Gucci Am., Inc. at 415. In the instant case, TTU operates only in the role of an interactive computer service. =A7 230 (f)(2) defines "Interactive computer service" as: The term "interactive computer service" means any information service, system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational institutions. Clearly in this case, the allegation that TTU allowed other Defendants to use TTU computers puts TTU in the role of an interactive computer service. Consequently, under Zeran and the other authority cited supra, TTU is immune from the claims of this suit, and is entitled to dismissal. IV. CONCLUSION This Court should dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Texas tech University as described hereinabove. WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that Plaintiff take nothing by his suit, and that Defendant recovers all such other and further relief, special or general, at law or in equity, to which it is justly entitled, including but not limited to its costs incurred herein. Respectfully Submitted, GREG ABBOTT Attorney General of Texas KENT C. SULLIVAN First Assistant Attorney General DAVID S. MORALES Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation ROBERT B. O'KEEFE Chief Litigation Division SCOT M. GRAYDON Texas Bar N. 24002175 Assistant Attorney General General Litigation Division P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 463-2120 (512) 320-0667 FAX ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
|
|
|
Date: 26 Dec 2007 05:31:55
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: Howling Mad Marcus
|
On Dec 24, 2:22 am, "J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote: > Fifth, as to my sincerity... I can not claim to be a paragon of > sincerity, yet I am trying to present honest thoughts in a respectful > and civil manner. (I admit to some failings when it comes to Mr. Innes. > Indeed, we all run into people we regard as deranged. But I am trying...) Indeed you are respectful and civil. It's a welcome change around here. As for the P Innes, you are not alone in disrespecting that chucklehead.
|
|
Date: 23 Dec 2007 22:15:42
From:
Subject: Re: Howling Mad Marcus
|
J.D. Walker wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > > > J.D. Walker wrote: > >> [email protected] wrote: > >>> J.D. Walker wrote: > >>>> [email protected] wrote: > >>>>> At first I thought another Fake had arisen, but now I see that Phil > >>>>> Innes just didn't use the "quote" function properly. The rather silly > >>>>> comment attributed to me was actually written by J.D. Walker. > >>>>> > >>>>> As for ridiculing Mad cus -- it's just too easy. > >>>> Dear Mr. Hilary, > >>>> > >>>> I had gained the impression you were the sort that found it too easy to > >>>> ridicule others. Thanks for the confirmation. > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> Cordially, > >>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > >>>> > >>>> "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead > >>>> Report?" > >>> > >>> On the contrary, I ridicule only the ridiculous. Are you really > >>> anxious to defend an ambulatory schizophrenic with coprophiliac > >>> delusions? And weren't you the one who made that fairly tasteless > >>> crack about Truong? > >> Dear Mr. Hilary, > >> > >> I am not defending anyone. I see you have set yourself up as > >> diagnostician, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Thus you have > >> branded cus. I wonder what psychiatric and legal credentials you have. > >> > >> cus may have problems, but I am not in a position to aid him, or to > >> ameliorate the consequences of those problems. But, I am certainly not > >> going to kick him when he is down. > >> > >> Mr. Truong, on the other hand, might deserve more respect if he had > >> stepped down from the executive board when the Mottershead report came > >> to light. > >> -- > >> > >> Cordially, > >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > >> > >> "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead > >> Report?" > > > > > > You comparing apples and oranges. Since you are a relative newcomer > > here, perhaps you are not familiar with the long list of scatological > > posts by cus Roberts, or of his past history in the USCF as a > > general nuisance. Of course you are under no obligation to research > > the matter (reading the stuff is pretty unpleasant), but until you > > know what you are talking about, silence is the wisest course. I have > > no interest in defending (or even discussing) Paul Truong. The only > > reason I posted on this thread was that Phil Innes's poor excerpting > > made it appear that I was responsible for a (somewhat unpleasant) > > piece of snark written by you. Case closed. > > Dear Mr. Hilary, > > I commented on your behavior, not Mr. Roberts. Now you wish to close > the case and move on. Fine, I understand how the carelessness of Mr. > Innes can cause confusion. I ask you to consider, when in the future > you encounter a similar circumstance, if your ridicule helps in anyway, > or is it just throwing oil on a fire. Have a fine holiday. > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead > Report?" I think you're probably sincere, albeit misguided, so I'm trying to take it easy on you. What you seem to be arguing is that it's acceptable for nutcases like Roberts (and, to a lesser extent, Sloan) to engage in offensive and insulting speech or behavior, but for the sane people to call them on it would be mean. That's affirmative action for the crazy and stupid, and I'll have no truck with it. And, BTW, if you intend to use my name (which I did not invite you to do), please learn to spell it first.
|
| |
Date: 23 Dec 2007 23:22:55
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Howling Mad Marcus
|
[email protected] wrote: > > J.D. Walker wrote: >> [email protected] wrote: >>> J.D. Walker wrote: >>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>> J.D. Walker wrote: >>>>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>>>> At first I thought another Fake had arisen, but now I see that Phil >>>>>>> Innes just didn't use the "quote" function properly. The rather silly >>>>>>> comment attributed to me was actually written by J.D. Walker. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As for ridiculing Mad cus -- it's just too easy. >>>>>> Dear Mr. Hilary, >>>>>> >>>>>> I had gained the impression you were the sort that found it too easy to >>>>>> ridicule others. Thanks for the confirmation. >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> Cordially, >>>>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >>>>>> >>>>>> "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead >>>>>> Report?" >>>>> On the contrary, I ridicule only the ridiculous. Are you really >>>>> anxious to defend an ambulatory schizophrenic with coprophiliac >>>>> delusions? And weren't you the one who made that fairly tasteless >>>>> crack about Truong? >>>> Dear Mr. Hilary, >>>> >>>> I am not defending anyone. I see you have set yourself up as >>>> diagnostician, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Thus you have >>>> branded cus. I wonder what psychiatric and legal credentials you have. >>>> >>>> cus may have problems, but I am not in a position to aid him, or to >>>> ameliorate the consequences of those problems. But, I am certainly not >>>> going to kick him when he is down. >>>> >>>> Mr. Truong, on the other hand, might deserve more respect if he had >>>> stepped down from the executive board when the Mottershead report came >>>> to light. >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Cordially, >>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >>>> >>>> "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead >>>> Report?" >>> >>> You comparing apples and oranges. Since you are a relative newcomer >>> here, perhaps you are not familiar with the long list of scatological >>> posts by cus Roberts, or of his past history in the USCF as a >>> general nuisance. Of course you are under no obligation to research >>> the matter (reading the stuff is pretty unpleasant), but until you >>> know what you are talking about, silence is the wisest course. I have >>> no interest in defending (or even discussing) Paul Truong. The only >>> reason I posted on this thread was that Phil Innes's poor excerpting >>> made it appear that I was responsible for a (somewhat unpleasant) >>> piece of snark written by you. Case closed. >> Dear Mr. Hilary, >> >> I commented on your behavior, not Mr. Roberts. Now you wish to close >> the case and move on. Fine, I understand how the carelessness of Mr. >> Innes can cause confusion. I ask you to consider, when in the future >> you encounter a similar circumstance, if your ridicule helps in anyway, >> or is it just throwing oil on a fire. Have a fine holiday. >> -- >> >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >> >> "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead >> Report?" > > > I think you're probably sincere, albeit misguided, so I'm trying to > take it easy on you. What you seem to be arguing is that it's > acceptable for nutcases like Roberts (and, to a lesser extent, Sloan) > to engage in offensive and insulting speech or behavior, but for the > sane people to call them on it would be mean. That's affirmative > action for the crazy and stupid, and I'll have no truck with it. > > And, BTW, if you intend to use my name (which I did not invite you to > do), please learn to spell it first. Dear Mr. Unsigned, Ah, so the case is not closed then... First, I would like to spell your name correctly, but you do not sign it to your messages. If you do not want to be known as Mr. Hilary, or Mr. Hillery, or whatever, you might offer some alternative that is better than jkh001. Second, My argument has nothing to do with condoning behavior by anyone else. We all have to live with the consequences of our actions -- including all the people you mentioned. I do believe in the rule of law, and the desirability of courtesy. Third, your argument seems to be that if you spot someone that you feel justified to brand as a nut case, that you suddenly gain license to ridicule them. Unfortunately, many other people feel the same way. In fact the argument gets stretched in various ways, e.g. "Anyone that disagrees with me is a nutcase, therefore..." or, "Anyone that looks differently than me is a nutcase, therefore..." and so on. Any sane, rational person can see this sort of thing everyday in many of these newgroups. Thus, our world fills up to the moon with ridicule, insults, venom and ill feelings. How should a sane, rational person respond? Fourth, consider this aspect of the logic of your argument. If indeed you have located and targeted a nut case to ridicule, are you behaving as a sane, rational person by doing so? I submit not. A superior person would find constructive ways to deal with others. Fifth, as to my sincerity... I can not claim to be a paragon of sincerity, yet I am trying to present honest thoughts in a respectful and civil manner. (I admit to some failings when it comes to Mr. Innes. Indeed, we all run into people we regard as deranged. But I am trying...) Enough.... Is the case open or closed now? -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead Report?"
|
|
Date: 23 Dec 2007 18:48:53
From:
Subject: Re: Howling Mad Marcus
|
J.D. Walker wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > > > J.D. Walker wrote: > >> [email protected] wrote: > >>> At first I thought another Fake had arisen, but now I see that Phil > >>> Innes just didn't use the "quote" function properly. The rather silly > >>> comment attributed to me was actually written by J.D. Walker. > >>> > >>> As for ridiculing Mad cus -- it's just too easy. > >> Dear Mr. Hilary, > >> > >> I had gained the impression you were the sort that found it too easy to > >> ridicule others. Thanks for the confirmation. > >> -- > >> > >> Cordially, > >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > >> > >> "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead > >> Report?" > > > > > > On the contrary, I ridicule only the ridiculous. Are you really > > anxious to defend an ambulatory schizophrenic with coprophiliac > > delusions? And weren't you the one who made that fairly tasteless > > crack about Truong? > > Dear Mr. Hilary, > > I am not defending anyone. I see you have set yourself up as > diagnostician, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Thus you have > branded cus. I wonder what psychiatric and legal credentials you have. > > cus may have problems, but I am not in a position to aid him, or to > ameliorate the consequences of those problems. But, I am certainly not > going to kick him when he is down. > > Mr. Truong, on the other hand, might deserve more respect if he had > stepped down from the executive board when the Mottershead report came > to light. > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead > Report?" You comparing apples and oranges. Since you are a relative newcomer here, perhaps you are not familiar with the long list of scatological posts by cus Roberts, or of his past history in the USCF as a general nuisance. Of course you are under no obligation to research the matter (reading the stuff is pretty unpleasant), but until you know what you are talking about, silence is the wisest course. I have no interest in defending (or even discussing) Paul Truong. The only reason I posted on this thread was that Phil Innes's poor excerpting made it appear that I was responsible for a (somewhat unpleasant) piece of snark written by you. Case closed.
|
| |
Date: 23 Dec 2007 19:36:19
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Howling Mad Marcus
|
[email protected] wrote: > > J.D. Walker wrote: >> [email protected] wrote: >>> J.D. Walker wrote: >>>> [email protected] wrote: >>>>> At first I thought another Fake had arisen, but now I see that Phil >>>>> Innes just didn't use the "quote" function properly. The rather silly >>>>> comment attributed to me was actually written by J.D. Walker. >>>>> >>>>> As for ridiculing Mad cus -- it's just too easy. >>>> Dear Mr. Hilary, >>>> >>>> I had gained the impression you were the sort that found it too easy to >>>> ridicule others. Thanks for the confirmation. >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Cordially, >>>> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >>>> >>>> "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead >>>> Report?" >>> >>> On the contrary, I ridicule only the ridiculous. Are you really >>> anxious to defend an ambulatory schizophrenic with coprophiliac >>> delusions? And weren't you the one who made that fairly tasteless >>> crack about Truong? >> Dear Mr. Hilary, >> >> I am not defending anyone. I see you have set yourself up as >> diagnostician, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Thus you have >> branded cus. I wonder what psychiatric and legal credentials you have. >> >> cus may have problems, but I am not in a position to aid him, or to >> ameliorate the consequences of those problems. But, I am certainly not >> going to kick him when he is down. >> >> Mr. Truong, on the other hand, might deserve more respect if he had >> stepped down from the executive board when the Mottershead report came >> to light. >> -- >> >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >> >> "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead >> Report?" > > > You comparing apples and oranges. Since you are a relative newcomer > here, perhaps you are not familiar with the long list of scatological > posts by cus Roberts, or of his past history in the USCF as a > general nuisance. Of course you are under no obligation to research > the matter (reading the stuff is pretty unpleasant), but until you > know what you are talking about, silence is the wisest course. I have > no interest in defending (or even discussing) Paul Truong. The only > reason I posted on this thread was that Phil Innes's poor excerpting > made it appear that I was responsible for a (somewhat unpleasant) > piece of snark written by you. Case closed. Dear Mr. Hilary, I commented on your behavior, not Mr. Roberts. Now you wish to close the case and move on. Fine, I understand how the carelessness of Mr. Innes can cause confusion. I ask you to consider, when in the future you encounter a similar circumstance, if your ridicule helps in anyway, or is it just throwing oil on a fire. Have a fine holiday. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead Report?"
|
|
Date: 23 Dec 2007 16:33:33
From:
Subject: Re: Howling Mad Marcus
|
J.D. Walker wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > > > At first I thought another Fake had arisen, but now I see that Phil > > Innes just didn't use the "quote" function properly. The rather silly > > comment attributed to me was actually written by J.D. Walker. > > > > As for ridiculing Mad cus -- it's just too easy. > > Dear Mr. Hilary, > > I had gained the impression you were the sort that found it too easy to > ridicule others. Thanks for the confirmation. > -- > > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead > Report?" On the contrary, I ridicule only the ridiculous. Are you really anxious to defend an ambulatory schizophrenic with coprophiliac delusions? And weren't you the one who made that fairly tasteless crack about Truong?
|
| |
Date: 23 Dec 2007 17:13:30
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Howling Mad Marcus
|
[email protected] wrote: > > J.D. Walker wrote: >> [email protected] wrote: >>> At first I thought another Fake had arisen, but now I see that Phil >>> Innes just didn't use the "quote" function properly. The rather silly >>> comment attributed to me was actually written by J.D. Walker. >>> >>> As for ridiculing Mad cus -- it's just too easy. >> Dear Mr. Hilary, >> >> I had gained the impression you were the sort that found it too easy to >> ridicule others. Thanks for the confirmation. >> -- >> >> Cordially, >> Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. >> >> "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead >> Report?" > > > On the contrary, I ridicule only the ridiculous. Are you really > anxious to defend an ambulatory schizophrenic with coprophiliac > delusions? And weren't you the one who made that fairly tasteless > crack about Truong? Dear Mr. Hilary, I am not defending anyone. I see you have set yourself up as diagnostician, prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. Thus you have branded cus. I wonder what psychiatric and legal credentials you have. cus may have problems, but I am not in a position to aid him, or to ameliorate the consequences of those problems. But, I am certainly not going to kick him when he is down. Mr. Truong, on the other hand, might deserve more respect if he had stepped down from the executive board when the Mottershead report came to light. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead Report?"
|
|
Date: 23 Dec 2007 15:07:00
From:
Subject: Re: Howling Mad Marcus
|
Chess One wrote: > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... > > [email protected] wrote: > > > I have been wondering about another possible nickname. How does "Hot > > Sauce" Hoainhan sound for another of our notables? It is not as catchy as > > "Howlin' Mad." Maybe "Tabasco" Truong is better... > > -- > > Alternatively, the Reverend could suggest to others here that they indulge > in some good old American rascism, and see who shows up to contribute their > own jealousy, spite and merry-misanthropy? > > There is nothing heart-felt about our Reverend's proposals, no matter how he > signs himself, his words betray his true orientation. I wonder if everyone > could simply shut up for a few days, as if, you know, there was something in > their own lives they might attend to at this time of year, if indeed they > have a life, and which was sufficiently potent to power the rest of it - > even to try it as an experiment? > > Christianity is a great idea, though, I find, not much explored. > > Phil Innes > > > Cordially, > > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > > > "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead > > Report?" At first I thought another Fake had arisen, but now I see that Phil Innes just didn't use the "quote" function properly. The rather silly comment attributed to me was actually written by J.D. Walker. As for ridiculing Mad cus -- it's just too easy.
|
| |
Date: 23 Dec 2007 15:44:06
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Howling Mad Marcus
|
[email protected] wrote: > > At first I thought another Fake had arisen, but now I see that Phil > Innes just didn't use the "quote" function properly. The rather silly > comment attributed to me was actually written by J.D. Walker. > > As for ridiculing Mad cus -- it's just too easy. Dear Mr. Hilary, I had gained the impression you were the sort that found it too easy to ridicule others. Thanks for the confirmation. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead Report?"
|
|
Date: 22 Dec 2007 18:25:59
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Texas Tech University files Motion to Dismiss
|
On Nov 22, 11:44 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Get a real job, perhaps hauling shit, instead of shoveling shit, in > Indiana. > Sam is back on the board. Speaking of real jobs... you could get one as a know-it-all, working for The Inquisitor in Metropolis. Why don't you stop yammering about SS being "back on the board", and do something for a change? I mean, /besides/ bragging about how much money you want us to believe you have. (Real people, with *real money* don't waste their time seeking fame on chess newsgroups, you know.) Another idea would be to /grok/ that one man (i.e. Sam Sloan) cannot do squat on the board, because he has but one vote against the eviil minions who have half-a-dozen. So get yourself elected to the USCF board, why don'cha? Then the loonies will have two votes, instead of only one. Stop starting wars you can't finish; we will fight you in the trenches; we will fight you in the sea; we will send in our (two) ines, and drive you back to Tripoli. Heck, even if you somehow got Florida to fight alongside Nevis and St. Kitts, we would still defeat you, just by calling up the Indiana National Guard. -- help bot
|
| |
Date: 23 Dec 2007 05:07:13
From: Paul
Subject: Re: Texas Tech University files Motion to Dismiss
|
On Dec 22, 9:25 pm, [email protected] (help bot) wrote: > On Nov 22, 11:44 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > Get a real job, perhaps hauling shit, instead of shoveling shit, in > > Indiana. > > Sam is back on the board. > > Speaking of real jobs... you could get one as > a know-it-all, working for The Inquisitor in > Metropolis. Why don't you stop yammering > about SS being "back on the board", and do > something for a change? I mean, /besides/ > bragging about how much money you want > us to believe you have. (Real people, with > *real money* don't waste their time seeking > fame on chess newsgroups, you know.) > > Another idea would be to /grok/ that one man > (i.e. Sam Sloan) cannot do squat on the board, > because he has but one vote against the eviil > minions who have half-a-dozen. So get yourself > elected to the USCF board, why don'cha? Then > the loonies will have two votes, instead of only > one. > > Stop starting wars you can't finish; we will > fight you in the trenches; we will fight you in the > sea; we will send in our (two) ines Two? There's Booz Innes Nemmers which is three, and now there is ine Sergeant Adolphus H. Kiddie-Tabasco Junior (retired) which takes the total to... three, irrespective of whether Adolphus was or is a ine. :) I decided it was wiser to send this message via a re-mailer.
|
|
Date: 22 Nov 2007 20:44:01
From:
Subject: Re: Texas Tech University files Motion to Dismiss
|
On Nov 21, 4:05 am, help bot <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 20, 11:09 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > I am the only officer that will support putting > > Sloan back on the board, and I will pay for it, because Paul is > > threatening to kill me on the usenet. > > Then just stay away from the usenet. Take the side > roads, or get a bullet-proof Hummer. > > -- helpful bot Get a real job, perhaps hauling shit, instead of shoveling shit, in Indiana. Sam is back on the board.
|
|
Date: 22 Nov 2007 20:42:46
From:
Subject: Re: Texas Tech University files Motion to Dismiss
|
On Nov 21, 6:02 am, Rob <[email protected] > wrote: > On Nov 20, 10:09 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > > On Nov 20, 5:22 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Nov 20, 4:55 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit > > > > > > I am hoping that this will all end with Sloan being convicted of > > > > > being a serial abuser of the legal system and barred from filing > > > > > any further lawsuits without getting the court's permission first. > > > > > Not a chance in hell the above scenario will happen. > > > > > I will save Sloan by filing a lawsuit in Chicago, IL and petition the > > > > court to reinstate Sloan to the Executive Board of the USCF! > > > > This legal struggle won't end with Sloan being barred from pro se > > > > filings, I can tell you that. > > > > I can't allow these death threats by USCF Vice President Paul Troung > > > > against me. So, when Sloan gets haw lawsuit dismissed, > > > > I'll just file my own lawsuit in Chicago. > > > > > This is a director / former director pissing contest. I'll piss on > > > > everyone. Sloan is > > > > getting back on the Executive Board. I am currently moving around the > > > > cash to file such a suit. > > > > I see little point in filing until Sloan gets a dismissal or > > > > discovery. You people deserve Sam, that is, > > > > you chess politicans. > > > > > When corporate officers threaten to kill former officers, as Paul > > > > Troung threatened to kill > > > > me, then we are going to have real attorneys talk about this in real > > > > courts. Sloan > > > > Is just part of the circus. > > > > > cus Roberts > > > > former USCF Vice President > > > > Is there a full moon out tonight? BTW, cus was never USCF Vice > > > President. At one time he was a "Regional Vice-President," a trivial > > > and vestigial office (there were 36 of them at the time).- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > But I was a officer of the company, which is actually a very important > > fact in this coming > > Litigation. I also witnessed the company cover up child molesters who > > were directors, and > > I seriously doubt that the court will allow Vice President Troung to > > continue in his role. I am the only officer that will support putting > > Sloan back on the board, and I will pay for it, because Paul is > > threatening to kill me on the usenet. > > > But, Paul, you are going to lose your job soon, so what do you care of > > your chess position? > > > cus Roberts > > former USCF corporate officer > > cus, > If you had actual knowledge of chils abuse and did not report it then > you have comitted a crime.Federal law and every State law concerning > child abuse requires reporting. If the USCF also knew the they are > legally liable as well.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Rob Go fuck yourself. Call the FBI. cus Roberts
|
|
Date: 22 Nov 2007 20:41:34
From:
Subject: Re: Howling Mad Marcus
|
On Nov 20, 11:47 pm, [email protected] wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > On Nov 20, 5:22 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Nov 20, 4:55 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit > > > > > > I am hoping that this will all end with Sloan being convicted of > > > > > being a serial abuser of the legal system and barred from filing > > > > > any further lawsuits without getting the court's permission first. > > > > > Not a chance in hell the above scenario will happen. > > > > > I will save Sloan by filing a lawsuit in Chicago, IL and petition the > > > > court to reinstate Sloan to the Executive Board of the USCF! > > > > This legal struggle won't end with Sloan being barred from pro se > > > > filings, I can tell you that. > > > > I can't allow these death threats by USCF Vice President Paul Troung > > > > against me. So, when Sloan gets haw lawsuit dismissed, > > > > I'll just file my own lawsuit in Chicago. > > > > > This is a director / former director pissing contest. I'll piss on > > > > everyone. Sloan is > > > > getting back on the Executive Board. I am currently moving around the > > > > cash to file such a suit. > > > > I see little point in filing until Sloan gets a dismissal or > > > > discovery. You people deserve Sam, that is, > > > > you chess politicans. > > > > > When corporate officers threaten to kill former officers, as Paul > > > > Troung threatened to kill > > > > me, then we are going to have real attorneys talk about this in real > > > > courts. Sloan > > > > Is just part of the circus. > > > > > cus Roberts > > > > former USCF Vice President > > > > Is there a full moon out tonight? BTW, cus was never USCF Vice > > > President. At one time he was a "Regional Vice-President," a trivial > > > and vestigial office (there were 36 of them at the time).- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > But I was a officer of the company, which is actually a very important > > fact in this coming > > Litigation. I also witnessed the company cover up child molesters who > > were directors, and > > I seriously doubt that the court will allow Vice President Troung to > > continue in his role. I am the only officer that will support putting > > Sloan back on the board, and I will pay for it, because Paul is > > threatening to kill me on the usenet. > > > But, Paul, you are going to lose your job soon, so what do you care of > > your chess position? > > > cus Roberts > > former USCF corporate officer > > Do you really believe that nonsense? RVPs were not "officers of the > corporation." They were arguably "directors," since they got t vote at > the Delegates Meeting, but you haven't been one for about 20 years. > Neither Truong nor anyone else has threatened to kill you, attractive > though the idea may be. > > Take some advice, cus. Get yourself examined and treated. At the > rate your mental state is decaying, sooner or later you're going to be > a danger to yourself or others, rather than just a figure of fun.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - You can ask Harold Winston, chairman of the bylaws committee, you idiot. Regional officers were officers of the company. Take some advice, pull out your wallet.
|
|
Date: 21 Nov 2007 04:02:43
From: Rob
Subject: Re: Texas Tech University files Motion to Dismiss
|
On Nov 20, 10:09 pm, [email protected] wrote: > On Nov 20, 5:22 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > [email protected] wrote: > > > On Nov 20, 4:55 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit > > > > > I am hoping that this will all end with Sloan being convicted of > > > > being a serial abuser of the legal system and barred from filing > > > > any further lawsuits without getting the court's permission first. > > > > Not a chance in hell the above scenario will happen. > > > > I will save Sloan by filing a lawsuit in Chicago, IL and petition the > > > court to reinstate Sloan to the Executive Board of the USCF! > > > This legal struggle won't end with Sloan being barred from pro se > > > filings, I can tell you that. > > > I can't allow these death threats by USCF Vice President Paul Troung > > > against me. So, when Sloan gets haw lawsuit dismissed, > > > I'll just file my own lawsuit in Chicago. > > > > This is a director / former director pissing contest. I'll piss on > > > everyone. Sloan is > > > getting back on the Executive Board. I am currently moving around the > > > cash to file such a suit. > > > I see little point in filing until Sloan gets a dismissal or > > > discovery. You people deserve Sam, that is, > > > you chess politicans. > > > > When corporate officers threaten to kill former officers, as Paul > > > Troung threatened to kill > > > me, then we are going to have real attorneys talk about this in real > > > courts. Sloan > > > Is just part of the circus. > > > > cus Roberts > > > former USCF Vice President > > > Is there a full moon out tonight? BTW, cus was never USCF Vice > > President. At one time he was a "Regional Vice-President," a trivial > > and vestigial office (there were 36 of them at the time).- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > But I was a officer of the company, which is actually a very important > fact in this coming > Litigation. I also witnessed the company cover up child molesters who > were directors, and > I seriously doubt that the court will allow Vice President Troung to > continue in his role. I am the only officer that will support putting > Sloan back on the board, and I will pay for it, because Paul is > threatening to kill me on the usenet. > > But, Paul, you are going to lose your job soon, so what do you care of > your chess position? > > cus Roberts > former USCF corporate officer cus, If you had actual knowledge of chils abuse and did not report it then you have comitted a crime.Federal law and every State law concerning child abuse requires reporting. If the USCF also knew the they are legally liable as well.
|
|
Date: 21 Nov 2007 02:05:07
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Texas Tech University files Motion to Dismiss
|
On Nov 20, 11:09 pm, [email protected] wrote: > I am the only officer that will support putting > Sloan back on the board, and I will pay for it, because Paul is > threatening to kill me on the usenet. Then just stay away from the usenet. Take the side roads, or get a bullet-proof Hummer. -- helpful bot
|
|
Date: 21 Nov 2007 02:02:12
From: help bot
Subject: Re: Texas Tech University files Motion to Dismiss
|
On Nov 20, 6:22 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Is there a full moon out tonight? BTW, cus was never USCF Vice > President. At one time he was a "Regional Vice-President," a trivial > and vestigial office (there were 36 of them at the time). That shows how little you know; this isn't about who held what specific office; it is about bragging! The howls always seem to center around the idea of "I'm more important than everyone else, because I have lots and lots of money". Mr. Roberts is already switching from his king-size bed in the East wing so he can begin to unload the mattresses (it is three layers high, you know) and get to the bank. He was getting tired of the same old view of original Picasso paintings on the walls anyhow, and in the West wing he can sleep soundly, knowing that the imported ble walls and floors are decorated with modern art pieces -- a solid gold sculpture of "Rocky Balboa", a few pieces from the Bobby Fischer ebay auctions, and so forth. Why can't the little people understand just how much more important Mr. Roberts is because of his money? After all, money can buy happiness, politicians, and many other things. The only thing is can't seem to buy is respect... he still gets none of that around here. -- help bot
|
|
Date: 20 Nov 2007 21:47:44
From:
Subject: Howling Mad Marcus
|
[email protected] wrote: > On Nov 20, 5:22 pm, [email protected] wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: > > > On Nov 20, 4:55 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit > > > > > > I am hoping that this will all end with Sloan being convicted of > > > > being a serial abuser of the legal system and barred from filing > > > > any further lawsuits without getting the court's permission first. > > > > > Not a chance in hell the above scenario will happen. > > > > > I will save Sloan by filing a lawsuit in Chicago, IL and petition the > > > court to reinstate Sloan to the Executive Board of the USCF! > > > This legal struggle won't end with Sloan being barred from pro se > > > filings, I can tell you that. > > > I can't allow these death threats by USCF Vice President Paul Troung > > > against me. So, when Sloan gets haw lawsuit dismissed, > > > I'll just file my own lawsuit in Chicago. > > > > > This is a director / former director pissing contest. I'll piss on > > > everyone. Sloan is > > > getting back on the Executive Board. I am currently moving around the > > > cash to file such a suit. > > > I see little point in filing until Sloan gets a dismissal or > > > discovery. You people deserve Sam, that is, > > > you chess politicans. > > > > > When corporate officers threaten to kill former officers, as Paul > > > Troung threatened to kill > > > me, then we are going to have real attorneys talk about this in real > > > courts. Sloan > > > Is just part of the circus. > > > > > cus Roberts > > > former USCF Vice President > > > > Is there a full moon out tonight? BTW, cus was never USCF Vice > > President. At one time he was a "Regional Vice-President," a trivial > > and vestigial office (there were 36 of them at the time).- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > But I was a officer of the company, which is actually a very important > fact in this coming > Litigation. I also witnessed the company cover up child molesters who > were directors, and > I seriously doubt that the court will allow Vice President Troung to > continue in his role. I am the only officer that will support putting > Sloan back on the board, and I will pay for it, because Paul is > threatening to kill me on the usenet. > > But, Paul, you are going to lose your job soon, so what do you care of > your chess position? > > cus Roberts > former USCF corporate officer Do you really believe that nonsense? RVPs were not "officers of the corporation." They were arguably "directors," since they got t vote at the Delegates Meeting, but you haven't been one for about 20 years. Neither Truong nor anyone else has threatened to kill you, attractive though the idea may be. Take some advice, cus. Get yourself examined and treated. At the rate your mental state is decaying, sooner or later you're going to be a danger to yourself or others, rather than just a figure of fun.
|
| |
Date: 22 Dec 2007 05:36:51
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Howling Mad Marcus
|
[email protected] wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: >> On Nov 20, 5:22 pm, [email protected] wrote: <snip > > Take some advice, cus. Get yourself examined and treated. At the > rate your mental state is decaying, sooner or later you're going to be > a danger to yourself or others, rather than just a figure of fun. It is interesting that in an attempt to ridicule cus, his enemies have inadvertently given him the nickname of a notable WWII hero. General "Howlin' Mad" Smith played a significant role in amphibious operations in both the Pacific and Atlantic. More can be learned about him at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holland_M._Smith I have been wondering about another possible nickname. How does "Hot Sauce" Hoainhan sound for another of our notables? It is not as catchy as "Howlin' Mad." Maybe "Tabasco" Truong is better... -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead Report?"
|
| | |
Date: 22 Dec 2007 10:01:17
From: Chess One
Subject: Re: Howling Mad Marcus
|
"J.D. Walker" <[email protected] > wrote in message news:[email protected]... > [email protected] wrote: > I have been wondering about another possible nickname. How does "Hot > Sauce" Hoainhan sound for another of our notables? It is not as catchy as > "Howlin' Mad." Maybe "Tabasco" Truong is better... > -- Alternatively, the Reverend could suggest to others here that they indulge in some good old American rascism, and see who shows up to contribute their own jealousy, spite and merry-misanthropy? There is nothing heart-felt about our Reverend's proposals, no matter how he signs himself, his words betray his true orientation. I wonder if everyone could simply shut up for a few days, as if, you know, there was something in their own lives they might attend to at this time of year, if indeed they have a life, and which was sufficiently potent to power the rest of it - even to try it as an experiment? Christianity is a great idea, though, I find, not much explored. Phil Innes > Cordially, > Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. > > "By the way, where is the Promised Analysis of the Mottershead > Report?"
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Dec 2007 07:14:44
From: J.D. Walker
Subject: Re: Howling Mad Marcus
|
Chess One wrote: > "J.D. Walker" <[email protected]> wrote in message > news:[email protected]... >> [email protected] wrote: > >> I have been wondering about another possible nickname. How does "Hot >> Sauce" Hoainhan sound for another of our notables? It is not as catchy as >> "Howlin' Mad." Maybe "Tabasco" Truong is better... >> -- > > Alternatively, the Reverend could suggest to others here that they indulge > in some good old American rascism, and see who shows up to contribute their > own jealousy, spite and merry-misanthropy? > Dear "Huge" P Innes, I will leave "rascism" (sic) to you since it seems to be your interest. > > Christianity is a great idea, though, I find, not much explored. > You can begin to set your soul straight anytime you wish in our great country. You even have the freedom to choose among many paths. -- Cordially, Rev. J.D. Walker, MsD, U.C. " If only Phil [Innes] would apologize to the group, admit he's substituted bombast for reasoned discourse, promise to conduct rationally these discussions in the future, eschew exhibitionist use of foreign phrases, and, last but not least, commit to a spell-checker, we'd welcome him back into the communion of chess fans." -- Mike Murray
|
|
Date: 20 Nov 2007 20:09:46
From:
Subject: Re: Texas Tech University files Motion to Dismiss
|
On Nov 20, 5:22 pm, [email protected] wrote: > [email protected] wrote: > > On Nov 20, 4:55 am, [email protected] wrote: > > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit > > > > I am hoping that this will all end with Sloan being convicted of > > > being a serial abuser of the legal system and barred from filing > > > any further lawsuits without getting the court's permission first. > > > Not a chance in hell the above scenario will happen. > > > I will save Sloan by filing a lawsuit in Chicago, IL and petition the > > court to reinstate Sloan to the Executive Board of the USCF! > > This legal struggle won't end with Sloan being barred from pro se > > filings, I can tell you that. > > I can't allow these death threats by USCF Vice President Paul Troung > > against me. So, when Sloan gets haw lawsuit dismissed, > > I'll just file my own lawsuit in Chicago. > > > This is a director / former director pissing contest. I'll piss on > > everyone. Sloan is > > getting back on the Executive Board. I am currently moving around the > > cash to file such a suit. > > I see little point in filing until Sloan gets a dismissal or > > discovery. You people deserve Sam, that is, > > you chess politicans. > > > When corporate officers threaten to kill former officers, as Paul > > Troung threatened to kill > > me, then we are going to have real attorneys talk about this in real > > courts. Sloan > > Is just part of the circus. > > > cus Roberts > > former USCF Vice President > > Is there a full moon out tonight? BTW, cus was never USCF Vice > President. At one time he was a "Regional Vice-President," a trivial > and vestigial office (there were 36 of them at the time).- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - But I was a officer of the company, which is actually a very important fact in this coming Litigation. I also witnessed the company cover up child molesters who were directors, and I seriously doubt that the court will allow Vice President Troung to continue in his role. I am the only officer that will support putting Sloan back on the board, and I will pay for it, because Paul is threatening to kill me on the usenet. But, Paul, you are going to lose your job soon, so what do you care of your chess position? cus Roberts former USCF corporate officer
|
|
Date: 20 Nov 2007 15:22:54
From:
Subject: Re: Texas Tech University files Motion to Dismiss
|
[email protected] wrote: > On Nov 20, 4:55 am, [email protected] wrote: > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit > > > I am hoping that this will all end with Sloan being convicted of > > being a serial abuser of the legal system and barred from filing > > any further lawsuits without getting the court's permission first. > > Not a chance in hell the above scenario will happen. > > I will save Sloan by filing a lawsuit in Chicago, IL and petition the > court to reinstate Sloan to the Executive Board of the USCF! > This legal struggle won't end with Sloan being barred from pro se > filings, I can tell you that. > I can't allow these death threats by USCF Vice President Paul Troung > against me. So, when Sloan gets haw lawsuit dismissed, > I'll just file my own lawsuit in Chicago. > > This is a director / former director pissing contest. I'll piss on > everyone. Sloan is > getting back on the Executive Board. I am currently moving around the > cash to file such a suit. > I see little point in filing until Sloan gets a dismissal or > discovery. You people deserve Sam, that is, > you chess politicans. > > When corporate officers threaten to kill former officers, as Paul > Troung threatened to kill > me, then we are going to have real attorneys talk about this in real > courts. Sloan > Is just part of the circus. > > cus Roberts > former USCF Vice President Is there a full moon out tonight? BTW, cus was never USCF Vice President. At one time he was a "Regional Vice-President," a trivial and vestigial office (there were 36 of them at the time).
|
|
Date: 20 Nov 2007 14:30:42
From:
Subject: Re: Texas Tech University files Motion to Dismiss
|
On Nov 20, 4:55 am, [email protected] wrote: > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit > I am hoping that this will all end with Sloan being convicted of > being a serial abuser of the legal system and barred from filing > any further lawsuits without getting the court's permission first. Not a chance in hell the above scenario will happen. I will save Sloan by filing a lawsuit in Chicago, IL and petition the court to reinstate Sloan to the Executive Board of the USCF! This legal struggle won't end with Sloan being barred from pro se filings, I can tell you that. I can't allow these death threats by USCF Vice President Paul Troung against me. So, when Sloan gets haw lawsuit dismissed, I'll just file my own lawsuit in Chicago. This is a director / former director pissing contest. I'll piss on everyone. Sloan is getting back on the Executive Board. I am currently moving around the cash to file such a suit. I see little point in filing until Sloan gets a dismissal or discovery. You people deserve Sam, that is, you chess politicans. When corporate officers threaten to kill former officers, as Paul Troung threatened to kill me, then we are going to have real attorneys talk about this in real courts. Sloan Is just part of the circus. cus Roberts former USCF Vice President
|
|
Date: 19 Nov 2007 19:50:45
From:
Subject: Re: Texas Tech University files Motion to Dismiss
|
artichoke wrote: > Here's my reaction to TTU's four points: > > A. "TTU y denies that any alleged defamatory messages in this case > were sent from any TTU computer. " sounds like an assertion to be > debated at trial, not granted at this point to dismiss the case. > > B. I don't know anything about this legal point. > > C. If TTU isn't a "person" nobody could ever sue them. Maybe there's > more to it than this, but this doesn't seem very likely to hold up. > > D. Again, I don't know enough to have an opinion about this. > > So I think they're relying on the 11th amendment (B) and the CDA > (D). I believe what they're saying is that Texas Tech is not a "person" as the term is used in 42 USC 1983. This is a civil rights law about "persons" acting "under color of law." It is generally used for things like cops beating people up for trying to run voter-registration drives. I don't know if they're right, but the Texas AG probably knows more about this than either of us. I agree that the 11th Amendment and Section 230 arguments are the important ones. The rest seems to be there in case Sloan tries to amend his complaint somehow.
|
|
Date: 19 Nov 2007 18:33:19
From: artichoke
Subject: Re: Texas Tech University files Motion to Dismiss
|
Here's my reaction to TTU's four points: A. "TTU y denies that any alleged defamatory messages in this case were sent from any TTU omputer. " sounds like an assertion to be debated at trial, not granted at this point to dismiss the case. B. I don't know anything about this legal point. C. If TTU isn't a "person" nobody could ever sue them. Maybe there's more to it than this, but this doesn't seem very likely to hold up. D. Again, I don't know enough to have an opinion about this. So I think they're relying on the 11th amendment (B) and the CDA (D). samsloan wrote: > http://www.samsloan.com/ttu-answer-filed.pdf > > UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT > FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK > ------------------------------------------------------- > SAM SLOAN, > > Plaintiff, > > > -against- > > HOAINHAN "PAUL" TRUONG, ZSUZSANNA "SUSAN" POLGAR, > JOEL CHANNING, WILLIAM GOICHBERG, THE UNITED STATES > CHESS FEDERATION, BILL HALL, HERBERT RODNEY VAUGHN, > GREGORY ALEXANDER, FRANK NIRO, GRANT PERKS, > WILLIAM BROCK, RANDALL HOUGH, RANDY BAUER, > JERRY BERRY, TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY AND > UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, > > Defendants. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > - > TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITYS MOTION TO DISMISS > > 1:07-CV-08537-DC (FM) > TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE DENNY CHIN: > > NOW COMES Defendant, Texas Tech University, by and through Greg > Abbott, Attorney General of the State of Texas, and the undersigned > Assistant Attorney General, and files its Motion to Dismiss pursuant > to Rule 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), FED. R. Civ. P., and respectfully show > the Court as follows: > > I > > INTRODUCTION > > > Sloan filed a lengthy complaint naming Texas Tech University ("TTU") > as Defendant regarding matters of defamation. Sloan identifies federal > questions as the basis for his jurisdiction. See Verified Complaint, > Paragraph 2. Sloan seeks to vindicated his Constitutional rights to > due process, liberty, and detainment. The vehicle for vindication of > constitutional guarantees is 42 U.S.C. =EF=BF=BD 1983. Under =EF=BF=BD 198= 3, > Plaintiffs case must be dismissed for the following reasons: > > 1. Plaintiff alleges no specific cause of action against Texas Tech > University. > 2. Texas Tech University has 11th Amendment immunity from Plaintiffs =EF= =BF=BD > 1983 claim. > 3. Texas Tech University is not a person within the meaning of =EF=BF=BD 1= 983. > 4. Texas Tech University is immune from suit under 47 U.S.C. =EF=BF=BD 230= . > > II. > > STANDARD OF REVIEW > > A complaint must be dismissed if the court lacks subject matter > jurisdiction over the plaintiffs claim, FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), or > if the plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be > granted, FED. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). "A motion to dismiss pursuant to > Rule 12(b)(1) is analyzed under the same standard as a motion to > dismiss under rule 12(b)(6)." August Trading Inc. v. United States > Agency For Int'1 Dev., 67 F.Supp.2d 964 (S.D. Tx. 2001) at page 2; > citing Home Builders Assoc. of Mississippi, Inc. v. City of Madison, > 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998). A dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b) > (6) is only proper when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff > can prove no set of facts in support of his or her claims that would > entitle the plaintiff to relief. Rubinstein v. Collins, 20 F.3d 160 > (5th Cir.1994). > > III. > > ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES > > A. Plaintiff makes alleges no causes of action against Texas Tech > University > > > Plaintiff specifies five (5) causes of action in his Verified > Complaint. In none of these does Plaintiff allege a legally > recognizable cause of action against TTU. Plaintiff describes two > Defendants as faculty members of TTU. See Verified Complaint, > Paragraphs 16-17. Plaintiffs only other reference to Texas Tech again > mentions that TTU recently hired two Defendants and that TTU allowed > those Defendants to use TTU computers. See Verified Complaint, > Paragraphs 40-41. TTU y denies that any alleged defamatory messages in > this case were sent from any TTU omputer. TTU is not identified as > committing any action identified in Counts I-V. Because of this, > Plaintiff does not demonstrate to the court that it has subject matter > jurisdiction with respect to TTU, nor does Plaintiff state a claim > upon which relief can be granted. Defendant is therefor entitled to > dismissal from all aspects of this lawsuit. > > B. Eleventh Amendment Immunity bars Plaintiffs =EF=BF=BD 1983 Claim again= st > Texas Tech University > > If Plaintiff makes any possible claim against TTU, it is the > vindication of his Constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. =EF=BF=BD 1983. W= hile > Plaintiff has not asserted such claims against TTU, such claims would > be barred in the event that they were made. > > It is well-settled that the Eleventh Amendment deprives a federal > court of jurisdiction to hear a suit against the State of Texas, > regardless of the relief sought, unless sovereign immunity is > expressly waived. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. > 89, 100-02,104 S.Ct 900, 908-09 (1984); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U.S. > 651,662-63,94 S.Ct. 1347,1355-56 (1974). Congress may, however, > abrogate a State's sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. > Kimel v. Florida Bd. Of Regents, 528 U.S.62,120 S.Ct. 631, 644 (2000); > Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 55, 116 S.Ct. 1114, > 1123-24 (1996). Likewise, a State may waive its immunity to suit in > federal court. Port Auth. Trans-Hudson Corp. v. Feeney, 495 U.S. 299, > 305, 110 S.Ct. 1868, 1873 (1990); Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, > 473 U.S. 234, 105 S.Ct. 3142 (1985). In order to waive its immunity to > suit in federal court, however, a State "must specify [its] intention > to subject itself in federal court."' Feeney, 495 U.S. at 306, 110 > S.Ct. at 1873 (quoting Atascadero, 473 U.S. 241. 105 S.Ct. at 3146) > (emphasis in original). State universities are afforded Eleventh > Amendment immunity as a matter of law. See Dube v. State University of > New York, 900 F.2d 587, X9-1 (2d Cir.1990), (The Second Circuit held > that "[f)or Eleventh Amendment purposes, SUNY is an integral part of > the government of the State of New York and when it is sued the State > is the real party." (citing State Univ. of New York v. Syracuse Univ., > 285 A.D. 59, 61, 135 N.Y.S.2d 539, 542 (3d Dept.1954); see also State > University of New York v. Syracuse, 206 Misc. 1003, 137 N.Y.S.2d 916 > (Sup.Ct. Albany Cty.1954), affd, 285 A.D. 59, 135 N.Y.S.2d 539 (3d > Dept.1954); People v. Branham, 53 Misc.2d 346, 347-48, 278 N.Y.S.2d > 494, 496 (Sup.Ct. Albany Cty.1967) ("the State University is an > integral part of the government of the State and when it is sued the > State is the real party"). > > TTU as a Defendant is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity unless > such immunity has been waived by a valid exercise of Congressional or > State legislative action. See United States v. Texas Tech Univ., 171 F. > 3d 279, 289 (5th Cir.1999) (holding that Eleventh Amendment protects > Texas Tech University and its medical branch). Section 1983 does not > abrogate a state's Eleventh Amendment immunity and there has been no > waiver for section 1983 claims on the part of the State. See Quern v. > Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (1979). Absent waiver or abrogation, sovereign > immunity extends to all state agencies because the State is the real > party in interest. See F. D.1. C. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 484-86 > (1994); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985). Nor has Texas > waived its immunity to suit in federal court under constitutional tort > statutes such as =EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD 1981, 1983, 1985 > I A particularly strict standard applies: immunity to suit in federal > court is waived only by "the most express language or by such > overwhelming implication from the text as [will] leave no room for any > other reasonable construction." Feeney, 495 U.S. at 305-06, 110 S.Ct. > at 1873. > > and 1986. See e.g., Aguilar v. Texas Dept. of Crim. Justice, Inst. > Div., 160 F.3d 1052, 1054 (5th Cir. ). cert. denied, 120 S.Ct. 130 > (1999). Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction over any uses of > action alleged by Plaintiff against Texas Tech University, and the > case against TTU should be dismissed as a matter of law. > > C. Texas Tech University is not a person within the meaning of =EF=BF=BD 1= 983 > > Likewise, Plaintiff would be unable to obtain relief because TTU is > not a "person" in the =EF=BF=BD 1983 context. See, e.g., Hafer v. Melo, 50= 2 > U.S. 21, 22-23, 112 S.Ct. 358, 360 (1991); Will v. Michigan Dept. Of > State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 71,109 S.Ct. 2304, 2312 (1989); Pennhurst, > 465 U.S. at 101, 104 S.Ct. at 908-09. In Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. > Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 731, 109 S.Ct. 2702, 2721 (1989), the court said > the legislative history of Section 1983 (the Civil Rights Act of 1871) > indicates that "Congress intended that the explicit remedial > provisions of =EF=BF=BD 1983 be controlling in the context of damages acti= ons > brought against state actors alleging violation of the rights declared > in =EF=BF=BD1981." > > D. Plaintiff's Claim Against Texas Tech University is Barred by the 42 > U.S.C. =EF=BF=BD 230. > > > TTU specifically denies that any alleged defamatory messages in this > case were sent from any TTU computer. Even if such messages were sent > from a TTU computer, any potential claim by Plaintiff against TTU in > this case is barred by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ("CDA"), > 47 U.S.C. =EF=BF=BD 230, et seq. Section 230 provides that "[n]o provider = or > user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the > publisher or speaker of any information provided by another > > > > footnote 2 In 1991 Congress amended =EF=BF=BD 1981 to add 1981(c) which > provided in part that the "rights protected" are protected against > "impairment under color of State law," but these provisions did not > overrule Jett, by allowing a direct cause of action under =EF=BF=BD 1981 > against state actors. Oden v. Oktibbeha County, Mississippi, 246 F.3d > 458, 463 (5th Cir. 200 1)("We are persuaded that the conclusion in > Jett remains the same after Congress enacted the 1991 amendments.") > > > information content provider," id . =EF=BF=BD 230(c)(1), and that "[n]o ca= use > of action may be brought and liability may be imposed under any State > or local law that is inconsistent with this section," id. > 230(e)(3). Section 230(c) thus immunizes internet service providers > from defamation and other, on-intellectual property, state law claims > arising from third-party content. See Gucci Am., Inc. v. Hall & > Assocs., 135 F.Supp. 2d 409, 417 (S.D. N.Y.2001). By its plain > language, =EF=BF=BD 230 creates a federal immunity to any cause of action = that > would make service providers liable for information originating with a > third party user of the service. See Zeran v. America Online, Inc., > 129 F.3d 327, 330 (4th Cir.1997). Specifically, =EF=BF=BD 230 precludes co= urts > from entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider > in a publisher's role. Zeran at 330. The Zeran quotation, in context, > refers to defamation and other forms of tort liability. Gucci Am., > Inc. at 415. > > In the instant case, TTU operates only in the role of an interactive > computer service. =EF=BF=BD 230 (f)(2) defines "Interactive computer servi= ce" > as: > > The term "interactive computer service" means any information service, > system, or access software provider that provides or enables computer > access by multiple users to a computer server, including specifically > a service or system that provides access to the Internet and such > systems operated or services offered by libraries or educational > institutions. > > Clearly in this case, the allegation that TTU allowed other Defendants > to use TTU computers puts TTU in the role of an interactive computer > service. Consequently, under Zeran and the other authority cited > supra, TTU is immune from the claims of this suit, and is entitled to > dismissal. > > IV. > CONCLUSION > > This Court should dismiss Plaintiff's claims against Texas tech > University as described hereinabove. > > WHEREFORE, Defendant prays that Plaintiff take nothing by his suit, > and that Defendant recovers all such other and further relief, special > or general, at law or in equity, to which it is justly entitled, > including but not limited to its costs incurred herein. > > Respectfully Submitted, > > GREG ABBOTT Attorney General of Texas > > KENT C. SULLIVAN > First Assistant Attorney General > > DAVID S. MORALES > Deputy Attorney General for Civil Litigation > > ROBERT B. O'KEEFE > Chief Litigation Division > > SCOT M. GRAYDON > Texas Bar N. 24002175 > Assistant Attorney General > General Litigation Division > P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station > Austin, Texas 78711-2548 > (512) 463-2120 > (512) 320-0667 FAX > > ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY
|
| |
Date: 20 Nov 2007 10:55:08
From:
Subject: Re: Texas Tech University files Motion to Dismiss
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8Bit >> TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITYS MOTION TO DISMISS >> Plaintiff specifies five (5) causes of action in his Verified >> Complaint. In none of these does Plaintiff allege a legally >> recognizable cause of action against TTU. Plaintiff describes two >> Defendants as faculty members of TTU. See Verified Complaint, >> Paragraphs 16-17. Plaintiffs only other reference to Texas Tech again >> mentions that TTU recently hired two Defendants and that TTU allowed >> those Defendants to use TTU computers. See Verified Complaint, >> Paragraphs 40-41. TTU y denies that any alleged defamatory messages in >> this case were sent from any TTU omputer. TTU is not identified as >> committing any action identified in Counts I-V. In other words, Sloan never claimed that TTU did anything wrong. There is nothing illegal about hiring someone who Sloan is suing, and there is nothing illegal about letting them use a TTU computer for purposes unrelated to Sloan -- and that's all Sloan claimed. Sloan did not claim that the alleged defamatory messages were sent from any TTU omputer -- he only claimed that TTU allowed the defendants to use TTU computers without specifying what that use was. >> It is well-settled that the Eleventh Amendment deprives a federal >> court of jurisdiction to hear a suit against the State of Texas, >> regardless of the relief sought, unless sovereign immunity is >> expressly waived. Sovereign immunity: you cannot sue the government witout the governmen's permission. Texas gives you permission to sue TTU in a Texas court, but denies you permission to sue TTU in a federal court. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity#State_sovereign_immunity http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s103.htm >> TTU specifically denies that any alleged defamatory messages in this >> case were sent from any TTU computer. Even if such messages were sent >> from a TTU computer, any potential claim by Plaintiff against TTU in >> this case is barred by the Communications Decency Act of 1996 ("CDA"), >> 47 U.S.C. � 230, et seq. Section 230 provides that "[n]o provider or >> user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the >> publisher or speaker of any information provided by another You can't sue the telephone company for allowing someone to use a telephone while slandering you. You can't arrest the president of Ford because he sold a car to someone who used it to rob a bank. And you can't sue TTU for for allowing someone to use a TTU computer while slandering you (assuming that such a thing actually happened, which TTU denies). This is an important protection. Look at all the stuff that gets posted to this newsgroup; do we really want people to be able to sue the owners of every computer that propagates those messages? No. Any lawsuits must be limited to those who posted the messages. Otherwise the Internet and the telephone system would both be shut down to avoid lawsuits. I am hoping that this will all end with Sloan being convicted of being a serial abuser of the legal system and barred from filing any further lawsuits without getting the court's permission first.
|
|