Main
Date: 28 Oct 2008 03:53:10
From: samsloan
Subject: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
Several people have asked us to bring about a settlement of the thus
far six lawsuits involving Susan Polgar, Paul Truong and the Fake Sam
Sloan. However, those who suggest this seem to be overlooking that
Susan herself has ruled out any possibility of a compromise or
settlement. In a posting on her own website, chessdiscussion.com,
Polgar wrote, "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is
enough."

Here is the full posting at
http://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1396

"This is a very serious issue. Multiple people have warned the ED
about this individual. Unfortunately, not only that the USCF chose to
do business with him anyway, he was protected by the ED and President.
This is after numerous additional incidents in the past year.

"I do not want to harm the USCF. I do not want to put anyone out of
business. I asked to have my family and my job left alone. Not only
they did not leave me alone, threats were made against me through a
third party before I went to Dallas for the delegates meeting. Now new
threats have been made against me through a third party after I left
Dallas. Some of these threats are also on the Internet.

"One of the board members even went on the record and spoke out
against this individual in closed session yesterday. More are willing
to speak on the record against this individual. Unless my family and I
have full apologies by the USCF and many parties involved, this
lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough. This has gone on
long enough.

"Best wishes,

"Susan Polgar
http://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.com
http://www.SusanPolgar.com




 
Date: 29 Oct 2008 12:07:58
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
On Oct 29, 1:13=A0pm, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:zx%[email protected]
>
> > Read the complaint.
>
> To what end.

The complaint is here:

http://www.westernchess.com/hold/amendedcomplaint.pdf

Read it and then tell us if you still think that this is all a lot of
nonsense.

After reading it, tell us what you think that the odds are that Susan
Polgar will not be prosecuted, convicted and deported.


  
Date: 29 Oct 2008 23:21:27
From: foad
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan Polgar

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
On Oct 29, 1:13 pm, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:zx%[email protected]
>
> > Read the complaint.
>
> To what end.

The complaint is here:

http://www.westernchess.com/hold/amendedcomplaint.pdf

Read it and then tell us if you still think that this is all a lot of
nonsense.
============

I don't recall expressing an opinion on the merits and if I did I should not
have, not having read the complaint or answer, and no facts having been
developed in support of either. I do recall expressing the opinion that you
are obsessive and petty and the least knowledgable pro se litigant since Ray
Parker, whom incidentally you should sue, as then at least one of you won
then have a chance of winning a lawsuit. All of which is hardly the same
thing saying that your infighting over a dopey board game is "a lot of
nonsense" even though it is. But then the truth is not your strong suit.



After reading it, tell us what you think that the odds are that Susan
Polgar will not be prosecuted, convicted and deported.
============

On the basis of the complaint she will not be prosecuted, convicted, or
deported, because th complaint seeks money damages; it's not an indictment
or information. This simple distinction still seems to elude you. Re the
other bits I don't care whether she is prosecuted and have no idea what the
odds are of some loopy DA wasting time and effort pursuing the matter.
However, there's zero chance she'll be convicted on the basis of nearly
anything that comes of the civil trial - it's a burden of proof issue that
you've demonstrated yourself incable of understanding - but if I were
representing her I'd settle, just in case. If prosecuorial discretion
results in her being charged she'll plead to something else. everyone does.
Lastly I'd hope DHS wasn't wasting resources deporting a chess GM affliated
with a prestigious university like Texas Tech, pace Bobby Fisher, there
being many more deserving candidates.

Now that that's settled you can get back to me about the distinction between
a felony and misdemeanor, which you promised to research. I look forward to
your efforts.



 
Date: 29 Oct 2008 09:51:52
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
On Oct 29, 11:46=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:
> The question begs. =A0What is Polgar's INS status. =A0Respond only if you=
really know.

I want to point out that the USCF Executive Board meeting of March 16,
2003 in New Windsor, New York was what started our present troubles.

On March 16, 2003, the USCF Executive Board passed a motion allowing
for non-US citizens to play on the USA Olympiad team as long as they
had been green-card holders for more than one year.

I was present at the meeting when this motion was passed, although I
was not a member of the board at that time.

The principal beneficiary of this motion was Susan Polgar. She showed
her passport, which was a Hungarian Passport with her name as
Zsuzsanna Polgar. She also showed her green card, with her name as
Zsuzsanna Polgar. The board members were surprised at this, not
knowing that her real name was Zsuzsanna, not Susan.

(I knew this of course, having been her closest friend in previous
years.)

Later that same day, probably after the board meeting has disbursed,
Frank Niro signed a secret contract giving her the authority to
"train" the US Woman's Olympiad Team.

All sorts of problems have arisen from the events of that day.

Susan had obtained a green card by being married to a US citizen. That
would have made her eligible to become a US Citizen in three years,
provided that she had stayed married and her husband had been willing
to sponsor her.

However, she decided not to become a citizen because, she said, she
did not want to pay taxes. Thereafter, she got divorced.

I know that as of recently she was not a US citizen. Also, the INS
waiting list, even after she becomes eligible, is several years long.

Assuming that she is still not a citizen, she could be summarily
deported if convicted. On the other hand, Mr. Truong has been here
since at least 1980 when I defeated him in a chess tournament at the
House of Spain and he almost certainly is a citizen.

Sam Sloan


 
Date: 29 Oct 2008 06:53:12
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
On Oct 29, 8:33=A0am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Section 212 (8 usc 1182) would apply if SP were convicted of a crime - a
> crime with which she has not even been charged; if that crime constituted
> moral turpitude, which it does not; if she were then subsequently removed
> after a hearing before an immigration judge,which she has not been; and i=
f
> she applied for reinstatement within 5 years of her removal, which she ha=
s
> not, having never been removed. To that extent that any of these things h=
ave
> occured, which is zero percent, you are correct. To the extent that none =
of
> these things have occurred, which is the 100 percent, you are FOFS, as
> usual.

Thank you for pointing out the exact section of the US Code that
applies, because I had been having a hard time finding it.

You have overlooked the fact that the attorney bringing these charges
is a former federal prosecutor.

I have been doing some research on "aggravated felonies". It use to be
major crimes such as murder. However, nowadays it includes almost any
felony and even some misdemeanors such as petty larceny and
shoplifting. Clearly what she is charged with would be an aggravated
felony. Sending thousands of fraudulent postings impersonating others
for the purpose of being elected and taking control of a $3.2 million
corporation, breaking into email accounts in order to get confidential
communications from opposing counsel and then posting those
confidential communications on her own website (an act of amazing
stupidity for a chess grandmaster) would all easily qualify as
Aggravated Felonies.

Also, she does not even have to be convicted. She would just have to
admit to it. Since 9/11, the INS has deported 153,000 persons under
this section and I doubt it would take much time under this section.

The relevant provisions of the US Code are at:
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001182----000-.htm=
l

(2) Criminal and related grounds
(A) Conviction of certain crimes
(i) In general Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted
of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts
which constitute the essential elements of=97
(I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political
offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or
(II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or
regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country
relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title
21),
is inadmissible.
(ii) Exception Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed
only one crime if=97
(I) the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age,
and the crime was committed (and the alien released from any
confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for the
crime) more than 5 years before the date of application for a visa or
other documentation and the date of application for admission to the
United States, or
(II) the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was
convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which the
acts that the alien admits having committed constituted the essential
elements) did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the alien
was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to a term of
imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent to which
the sentence was ultimately executed).


  
Date: 29 Oct 2008 15:46:15
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
The question begs. What is Polgar's INS status. Respond only if you
really know.

samsloan wrote:
> On Oct 29, 8:33 am, "foad" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Section 212 (8 usc 1182) would apply if SP were convicted of a crime - a
>> crime with which she has not even been charged; if that crime constituted
>> moral turpitude, which it does not; if she were then subsequently removed
>> after a hearing before an immigration judge,which she has not been; and if
>> she applied for reinstatement within 5 years of her removal, which she has
>> not, having never been removed. To that extent that any of these things have
>> occured, which is zero percent, you are correct. To the extent that none of
>> these things have occurred, which is the 100 percent, you are FOFS, as
>> usual.
>
> Thank you for pointing out the exact section of the US Code that
> applies, because I had been having a hard time finding it.
>
> You have overlooked the fact that the attorney bringing these charges
> is a former federal prosecutor.
>
> I have been doing some research on "aggravated felonies". It use to be
> major crimes such as murder. However, nowadays it includes almost any
> felony and even some misdemeanors such as petty larceny and
> shoplifting. Clearly what she is charged with would be an aggravated
> felony. Sending thousands of fraudulent postings impersonating others
> for the purpose of being elected and taking control of a $3.2 million
> corporation, breaking into email accounts in order to get confidential
> communications from opposing counsel and then posting those
> confidential communications on her own website (an act of amazing
> stupidity for a chess grandmaster) would all easily qualify as
> Aggravated Felonies.
>
> Also, she does not even have to be convicted. She would just have to
> admit to it. Since 9/11, the INS has deported 153,000 persons under
> this section and I doubt it would take much time under this section.
>
> The relevant provisions of the US Code are at:
> http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001182----000-.html
>
> (2) Criminal and related grounds
> (A) Conviction of certain crimes
> (i) In general Except as provided in clause (ii), any alien convicted
> of, or who admits having committed, or who admits committing acts
> which constitute the essential elements of—
> (I) a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political
> offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime, or
> (II) a violation of (or a conspiracy or attempt to violate) any law or
> regulation of a State, the United States, or a foreign country
> relating to a controlled substance (as defined in section 802 of title
> 21),
> is inadmissible.
> (ii) Exception Clause (i)(I) shall not apply to an alien who committed
> only one crime if—
> (I) the crime was committed when the alien was under 18 years of age,
> and the crime was committed (and the alien released from any
> confinement to a prison or correctional institution imposed for the
> crime) more than 5 years before the date of application for a visa or
> other documentation and the date of application for admission to the
> United States, or
> (II) the maximum penalty possible for the crime of which the alien was
> convicted (or which the alien admits having committed or of which the
> acts that the alien admits having committed constituted the essential
> elements) did not exceed imprisonment for one year and, if the alien
> was convicted of such crime, the alien was not sentenced to a term of
> imprisonment in excess of 6 months (regardless of the extent to which
> the sentence was ultimately executed).


  
Date: 29 Oct 2008 15:18:53
From: foad
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan Polgar

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


Thank you for pointing out the exact section of the US Code that
applies, because I had been having a hard time finding it.
===
No surprise there. I'm willing to believe that you have a hard time tying
your shoes.




You have overlooked the fact that the attorney bringing these charges
is a former federal prosecutor.
===============
You've overlooked the fact that there are no "charges," numbskull. It's a
civil complaint.




I have been doing some research on "aggravated felonies". It use to be
major crimes such as murder. However, nowadays it includes almost any
felony and even some misdemeanors such as petty larceny and
shoplifting.
==========
Really. So according to your research, the term **felony** includes
**misdemeanors**. And here I was thinking that felonies and misdemeanors
were two different things.

Perhaps you'll provide a cite to buttress the assertion that a misdemeanor
such as shoplifting is also an aggravated felony.




Clearly
======
What I've noticed about you is that every time you say "clearly" or
"obviously" or summat it is immediately followed by a lie or supposition.



what she is charged with would be an aggravated
felony. Sending thousands of fraudulent postings impersonating others
for the purpose of being elected and taking control of a $3.2 million
corporation, breaking into email accounts in order to get confidential
communications from opposing counsel and then posting those
confidential communications on her own website (an act of amazing
stupidity for a chess grandmaster) would all easily qualify as
Aggravated Felonies.
============
How in your extensive and obsessive "research" you failed to notice that the
term "aggravated felony" is defined by 1101(43) of the immigration code
would be beyond me if I did not already know you to be a complete and utter
shitbrain. Hint: there's nothing in 1101 about email or posting things to
the internets, so stop talking out your ass. Hint: a criminal conviction
based upon charges based upon these civil allegations might fall under under
section 43(m), an offense that (i) involves fraud or deceit in which the
loss > $ 10 K. That would depend on the development of further facts. I know
you have a problem with facts, being somewhat divorced from reality. Not to
worry, that's why they have juries, to sort thru the lies told by litigants
such as yourself.




Also, she does not even have to be convicted. She would just have to
admit to it.
=============
Which is unlikely, unless she's getting advice from someone who knows even
less about the law than you do. And what are the odds of that.




Since 9/11, the INS has deported 153,000 persons under
this section and I doubt it would take much time under this section.
================
Non sequitur noted.



The relevant provisions of the US Code are at:
http://www2.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001182----000-.html
==============
The relevant provisions that you couldn't find that I told you about you
mean? Thanks for the heads up nitwit.




 
Date: 29 Oct 2008 06:26:53
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
On Oct 29, 7:43=A0am, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote:

> Try reading the complaint. =A0Polgar and Gregory did indeed get caught.
> It's going to be an interesting road ahead for Susie and her acolyte.
> There may be other acolytes in the headlights down that road as well.

I notice a couple of Trolgar defenders who normally post here have
been laying low the past few weeks.



 
Date: 29 Oct 2008 04:11:26
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
On Oct 29, 6:33=A0am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]m...
>
> I think it is quite possible that
> efforts will be made to deport her back to Hungary.
> They might even
> try to send Truong back to Vietnam.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Who are "they" and what about your assinine internecine political squabbl=
es
> do you think constitutes grounds that would allow "them" to deport anyone=
,
> you preposterous nitwit.

Apparently, you have not read the new complaint filed against her in
San Francisco on October 24, 2008. I had nothing to do with the filing
of this new complaint.

Specifically, it charges her with violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC =A7 2510 et seq. and 18 USC =A7 2710 et
seq. and a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 USC =A7
1030. The complaint also charges Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander
with Computer Fraud under the Comprehensive Computer Data and Access
Act, California Penal Code Section 502 (c) and (e).

If convicted of a violation of any of these acts she would be almost
automatically deported back to Hungary.

If Miss Polgar is prosecuted and convicted of these charges, she will
likely be automatically deported back to Hungary and barred from re-
entry to the United States under the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104-208, Div. C, 110
Stat. 3009-546 and INA =A7 212(a)(9)(A)(ii).

Susan is not her real name. It is just a nick-name she uses. She has
never changed her real name legally. That is why I suggest that she
lay low and stop trying to take over the USCF, hoping that people will
forget about her.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 29 Oct 2008 12:33:34
From: foad
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan Polgar

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


Apparently, you have not read the new complaint filed against her in
San Francisco on October 24, 2008. I had nothing to do with the filing
of this new complaint.
=====

Correct, I haven't read it. However, I'm sure that your lack of input will
enhance its chances for success.




Specifically, it charges her with violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC § 2510 et seq. and 18 USC § 2710 et
seq. and a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 USC §
1030. The complaint also charges Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander
with Computer Fraud under the Comprehensive Computer Data and Access
Act, California Penal Code Section 502 (c) and (e).

If convicted of a violation of any of these acts she would be almost
automatically deported back to Hungary.

==========

You are nearly the most completely stupid person I've ever run across, so
I'll go slowly. Use your finger to follow along if necessary.

ITFP, a judgement in a civil case is not the same thing as a conviction in a
criminal case. So even if Polgar were to lose or settle, she will not have
been charged with or convicted of a crime. Even a muttonhead such as
yourself should be able to work that out.

ITSP, nobody is ever "automatically" deported. Even stinky foreigners are
entitled to a hearing before being deported or removed.

ITTP, Polgar would face deportation only if she were convicted of a crime of
the sort listed in 8 USC 1227: moral turpitude, aggravated felonies,
controlled substances, espionage, and so forth. Reading someone else's
email, even if she were charged with such a thing, which she has not been,
is not a crime of moral turpitude or an aggravated felony.




If Miss Polgar is prosecuted and convicted of these charges, she will
likely be automatically deported back to Hungary and barred from re-
entry to the United States under the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104-208, Div. C, 110
Stat. 3009-546 and INA § 212(a)(9)(A)(ii).

==========

Golly, that's really impressive how you cited that statute there with all
the variants and subsections and so on. You must really know what you're
talking about, huh.

Section 212 (8 usc 1182) would apply if SP were convicted of a crime - a
crime with which she has not even been charged; if that crime constituted
moral turpitude, which it does not; if she were then subsequently removed
after a hearing before an immigration judge,which she has not been; and if
she applied for reinstatement within 5 years of her removal, which she has
not, having never been removed. To that extent that any of these things have
occured, which is zero percent, you are correct. To the extent that none of
these things have occurred, which is the 100 percent, you are FOFS, as
usual.


Susan is not her real name. It is just a nick-name she uses. She has never
changed her real name legally.
=========
Well fuck, why didn't you say so. No wonder you spend every waking moment
cataloguing her every little movement.



That is why I suggest that she
lay low and stop trying to take over the USCF, hoping that people will
forget about her.

=========
No. The reason why you suggest these things is that you're an obsessive
nutbag.



   
Date: 29 Oct 2008 12:43:08
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
foad wrote:
>
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]m...
>
>
> Apparently, you have not read the new complaint filed against her in
> San Francisco on October 24, 2008. I had nothing to do with the filing
> of this new complaint.
> =====
>
> Correct, I haven't read it. However, I'm sure that your lack of input
> will enhance its chances for success.
>
>
>
>
> Specifically, it charges her with violations of the Electronic
> Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC § 2510 et seq. and 18 USC § 2710 et
> seq. and a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 USC §
> 1030. The complaint also charges Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander
> with Computer Fraud under the Comprehensive Computer Data and Access
> Act, California Penal Code Section 502 (c) and (e).
>
> If convicted of a violation of any of these acts she would be almost
> automatically deported back to Hungary.
>
> ==========
>
> You are nearly the most completely stupid person I've ever run across,
> so I'll go slowly. Use your finger to follow along if necessary.
>
> ITFP, a judgement in a civil case is not the same thing as a conviction
> in a criminal case. So even if Polgar were to lose or settle, she will
> not have been charged with or convicted of a crime. Even a muttonhead
> such as yourself should be able to work that out.
>
> ITSP, nobody is ever "automatically" deported. Even stinky foreigners
> are entitled to a hearing before being deported or removed.
>
> ITTP, Polgar would face deportation only if she were convicted of a
> crime of the sort listed in 8 USC 1227: moral turpitude, aggravated
> felonies, controlled substances, espionage, and so forth. Reading
> someone else's email, even if she were charged with such a thing, which
> she has not been, is not a crime of moral turpitude or an aggravated
> felony.
>
>
>
>
> If Miss Polgar is prosecuted and convicted of these charges, she will
> likely be automatically deported back to Hungary and barred from re-
> entry to the United States under the Illegal Immigration Reform and
> Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104-208, Div. C, 110
> Stat. 3009-546 and INA § 212(a)(9)(A)(ii).
>
> ==========
>
> Golly, that's really impressive how you cited that statute there with
> all the variants and subsections and so on. You must really know what
> you're talking about, huh.
>
> Section 212 (8 usc 1182) would apply if SP were convicted of a crime - a
> crime with which she has not even been charged; if that crime
> constituted moral turpitude, which it does not; if she were then
> subsequently removed after a hearing before an immigration judge,which
> she has not been; and if she applied for reinstatement within 5 years of
> her removal, which she has not, having never been removed. To that
> extent that any of these things have occured, which is zero percent, you
> are correct. To the extent that none of these things have occurred,
> which is the 100 percent, you are FOFS, as usual.
>
>
> Susan is not her real name. It is just a nick-name she uses. She has
> never changed her real name legally.
> =========
> Well fuck, why didn't you say so. No wonder you spend every waking
> moment cataloguing her every little movement.
>
>
>
> That is why I suggest that she
> lay low and stop trying to take over the USCF, hoping that people will
> forget about her.
>
> =========
> No. The reason why you suggest these things is that you're an obsessive
> nutbag.
>
Try reading the complaint. Polgar and Gregory did indeed get caught.
It's going to be an interesting road ahead for Susie and her acolyte.
There may be other acolytes in the headlights down that road as well.


    
Date: 29 Oct 2008 13:33:06
From: foad
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan Polgar

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> foad wrote:
>>
>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]m...
>>
>>
>> Apparently, you have not read the new complaint filed against her in
>> San Francisco on October 24, 2008. I had nothing to do with the filing
>> of this new complaint.
>> =====
>>
>> Correct, I haven't read it. However, I'm sure that your lack of input
>> will enhance its chances for success.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Specifically, it charges her with violations of the Electronic
>> Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC § 2510 et seq. and 18 USC § 2710 et
>> seq. and a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 USC §
>> 1030. The complaint also charges Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander
>> with Computer Fraud under the Comprehensive Computer Data and Access
>> Act, California Penal Code Section 502 (c) and (e).
>>
>> If convicted of a violation of any of these acts she would be almost
>> automatically deported back to Hungary.
>>
>> ==========
>>
>> You are nearly the most completely stupid person I've ever run across, so
>> I'll go slowly. Use your finger to follow along if necessary.
>>
>> ITFP, a judgement in a civil case is not the same thing as a conviction
>> in a criminal case. So even if Polgar were to lose or settle, she will
>> not have been charged with or convicted of a crime. Even a muttonhead
>> such as yourself should be able to work that out.
>>
>> ITSP, nobody is ever "automatically" deported. Even stinky foreigners are
>> entitled to a hearing before being deported or removed.
>>
>> ITTP, Polgar would face deportation only if she were convicted of a crime
>> of the sort listed in 8 USC 1227: moral turpitude, aggravated felonies,
>> controlled substances, espionage, and so forth. Reading someone else's
>> email, even if she were charged with such a thing, which she has not
>> been, is not a crime of moral turpitude or an aggravated felony.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If Miss Polgar is prosecuted and convicted of these charges, she will
>> likely be automatically deported back to Hungary and barred from re-
>> entry to the United States under the Illegal Immigration Reform and
>> Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104-208, Div. C, 110
>> Stat. 3009-546 and INA § 212(a)(9)(A)(ii).
>>
>> ==========
>>
>> Golly, that's really impressive how you cited that statute there with all
>> the variants and subsections and so on. You must really know what you're
>> talking about, huh.
>>
>> Section 212 (8 usc 1182) would apply if SP were convicted of a crime - a
>> crime with which she has not even been charged; if that crime constituted
>> moral turpitude, which it does not; if she were then subsequently removed
>> after a hearing before an immigration judge,which she has not been; and
>> if she applied for reinstatement within 5 years of her removal, which she
>> has not, having never been removed. To that extent that any of these
>> things have occured, which is zero percent, you are correct. To the
>> extent that none of these things have occurred, which is the 100 percent,
>> you are FOFS, as usual.
>>
>>
>> Susan is not her real name. It is just a nick-name she uses. She has
>> never changed her real name legally.
>> =========
>> Well fuck, why didn't you say so. No wonder you spend every waking moment
>> cataloguing her every little movement.
>>
>>
>>
>> That is why I suggest that she
>> lay low and stop trying to take over the USCF, hoping that people will
>> forget about her.
>>
>> =========
>> No. The reason why you suggest these things is that you're an obsessive
>> nutbag.
>>
> Try reading the complaint. Polgar and Gregory did indeed get caught. It's
> going to be an interesting road ahead for Susie and her acolyte. There may
> be other acolytes in the headlights down that road as well.

I'm not interested in the complaint, in your sad and pathetic collective
efforts to teach the bitch a lesson for being a better chess player than you
are, in whatever psychosexual dramas some of you all are working out, or in
your blatant misogeny, xenophobia, and racism. I addressed what I wanted to
address, ie, the proposterous notion that a judgment in a civil suit will
lead to the oxymoronic "almost automatic" deportation and in general the
nitwit Sloan's complete misunderstanding of the workings of Title 8. If
you'd like to refute any the legal bits, feel free. Elsewise feel free to
FO.



     
Date: 29 Oct 2008 15:44:31
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
foad wrote:
>
> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
>> foad wrote:
>>>
>>> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>> news:[email protected]m...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently, you have not read the new complaint filed against her in
>>> San Francisco on October 24, 2008. I had nothing to do with the filing
>>> of this new complaint.
>>> =====
>>>
>>> Correct, I haven't read it. However, I'm sure that your lack of input
>>> will enhance its chances for success.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Specifically, it charges her with violations of the Electronic
>>> Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC § 2510 et seq. and 18 USC § 2710 et
>>> seq. and a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 USC §
>>> 1030. The complaint also charges Susan Polgar and Gregory Alexander
>>> with Computer Fraud under the Comprehensive Computer Data and Access
>>> Act, California Penal Code Section 502 (c) and (e).
>>>
>>> If convicted of a violation of any of these acts she would be almost
>>> automatically deported back to Hungary.
>>>
>>> ==========
>>>
>>> You are nearly the most completely stupid person I've ever run
>>> across, so I'll go slowly. Use your finger to follow along if necessary.
>>>
>>> ITFP, a judgement in a civil case is not the same thing as a
>>> conviction in a criminal case. So even if Polgar were to lose or
>>> settle, she will not have been charged with or convicted of a crime.
>>> Even a muttonhead such as yourself should be able to work that out.
>>>
>>> ITSP, nobody is ever "automatically" deported. Even stinky foreigners
>>> are entitled to a hearing before being deported or removed.
>>>
>>> ITTP, Polgar would face deportation only if she were convicted of a
>>> crime of the sort listed in 8 USC 1227: moral turpitude, aggravated
>>> felonies, controlled substances, espionage, and so forth. Reading
>>> someone else's email, even if she were charged with such a thing,
>>> which she has not been, is not a crime of moral turpitude or an
>>> aggravated felony.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If Miss Polgar is prosecuted and convicted of these charges, she will
>>> likely be automatically deported back to Hungary and barred from re-
>>> entry to the United States under the Illegal Immigration Reform and
>>> Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, Pub.L. 104-208, Div. C, 110
>>> Stat. 3009-546 and INA § 212(a)(9)(A)(ii).
>>>
>>> ==========
>>>
>>> Golly, that's really impressive how you cited that statute there with
>>> all the variants and subsections and so on. You must really know what
>>> you're talking about, huh.
>>>
>>> Section 212 (8 usc 1182) would apply if SP were convicted of a crime
>>> - a crime with which she has not even been charged; if that crime
>>> constituted moral turpitude, which it does not; if she were then
>>> subsequently removed after a hearing before an immigration
>>> judge,which she has not been; and if she applied for reinstatement
>>> within 5 years of her removal, which she has not, having never been
>>> removed. To that extent that any of these things have occured, which
>>> is zero percent, you are correct. To the extent that none of these
>>> things have occurred, which is the 100 percent, you are FOFS, as usual.
>>>
>>>
>>> Susan is not her real name. It is just a nick-name she uses. She has
>>> never changed her real name legally.
>>> =========
>>> Well fuck, why didn't you say so. No wonder you spend every waking
>>> moment cataloguing her every little movement.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That is why I suggest that she
>>> lay low and stop trying to take over the USCF, hoping that people will
>>> forget about her.
>>>
>>> =========
>>> No. The reason why you suggest these things is that you're an
>>> obsessive nutbag.
>>>
>> Try reading the complaint. Polgar and Gregory did indeed get caught.
>> It's going to be an interesting road ahead for Susie and her acolyte.
>> There may be other acolytes in the headlights down that road as well.
>
> I'm not interested in the complaint, in your sad and pathetic collective
> efforts to teach the bitch a lesson for being a better chess player than
> you are, in whatever psychosexual dramas some of you all are working
> out, or in your blatant misogeny, xenophobia, and racism. I addressed
> what I wanted to address, ie, the proposterous notion that a judgment in
> a civil suit will lead to the oxymoronic "almost automatic" deportation
> and in general the nitwit Sloan's complete misunderstanding of the
> workings of Title 8. If you'd like to refute any the legal bits, feel
> free. Elsewise feel free to FO.
>
I never predicted anything about anyone being deported. Read the
complaint.


      
Date: 31 Oct 2008 13:11:07
From: George Orwell
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan P
On Thu 30 Oct 2008 06:07:56 EDT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected] >
wrote:
>Sloan is not, and never has been, my client.

I disagree, Brian, and concur with the O.P.

Sorry, Brian, if we don't just accept your word for things. What your
word is worth has been observed already. You had the burden of proof
-- if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, flaps its wings like
a duck, then legally it is deemed to be a duck, and until you prove
otherwise, a duck it shall remain. You have not met the burden.

Brian Lafferty has been provending legal advice and services to Sam
Sloan. That makes Sam Brian's client. Whether or not any greenbacks
changed hands is irrelevant.

What a legacy you and Donna are leaving to your miscegnies! To be
remembered as being associates, even partners, of Sam Sloan -- a
weighty posterity.

(removes extra newsgroups, shakes head sadly, moves on.)

Il mittente di questo messaggio


      
Date: 30 Oct 2008 08:19:51
From: Dave U. Random
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan P
Jackass ''Judge'' Brian Lafferty wrote:
>foad wrote:
>>
>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>>> Try reading the complaint.

>> I'm not interested in the complaint, in your sad and pathetic collective
>> efforts to teach the bitch a lesson for being a better chess player than
>> you are, in whatever psychosexual dramas some of you all are working
>> out, or in your blatant misogeny, xenophobia, and racism. I addressed
>> what I wanted to address, ie, the proposterous notion that a judgment in
>> a civil suit will lead to the oxymoronic "almost automatic" deportation
>> and in general the nitwit Sloan's complete misunderstanding of the
>> workings of Title 8. If you'd like to refute any the legal bits, feel
>> free. Elsewise feel free to FO.
>>
>I never predicted anything about anyone being deported.

It was your judgement-proof client Sloan who made the libelous claim that
GM
Polgar would be subject to deportation. You and the preposterous Sloan are
in cahoots, right? You are giving him legal advice on these issues, or not?
Wouldn't it be changing the habits of a lifetime, Lafferti, if you were to
try to be a man, to own up to your own actions, to face the consequences of
your encouragement of frivolous, recreational, meritless litigation by such
lowlife wastes of perfectly good carbon as Sloan. Shame on you, Brain.
But there may well be consequences heading your way for your misconduct.
You
sure that Polgar is a "public figure" in a case like this? Told your wife
as yet about your endangering your joint possessions through your
adventures
with Sloan et al and their campaign to defame / ruin GM Polgar and FM
Truong?
Stupid old fool who can't even stay on a bike, who may well have made his
money from suing small outfits (like the USCF) and threatening or extorting
them before settling out of court, can't get no satisfaction from anything
worth while so he gadflies about doing this shit. Spineless jackass.



       
Date: 31 Oct 2008 05:41:06
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
On Oct 31, 7:11=A0am, George Orwell <[email protected] > wrote:

>
> Brian Lafferty has been provending legal advice and services to Sam
> Sloan. That makes Sam Brian's client. Whether or not any greenbacks
> changed hands is irrelevant.

Example?


       
Date: 31 Oct 2008 05:27:12
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
Would you please tell me what legal advice Brian has provided to me
because I am not aware of any?

Sam Sloan


       
Date: 30 Oct 2008 07:37:39
From: Javert
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
On Oct 30, 10:01=A0am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]m...
> On Oct 30, 9:36 am, "foad" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > We need to start looking at the circumstances under which she and Mr.
> > Truong came to this country in the first place. It should not come as
> > a tremendous surprise if they are picked up by the INS at some future
> > date.
>
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> > Libel per se.
>
> > Hopefully for you and your jointly liable co defendants no one forwards
> > this
> > calumny to Polgar's attorney.
>
> It was not "forwarded" to her attorney. It was sent directly to all 13
> attorneys involved in these Polgar cases.
>
> Note that Susan Polgar is a plaintiff or a defendant in every one of
> the six cases, the only person about whom that is true.
>
> =3D=3D=3D
>
> No, chucklefuckinghead. Your statement about Polgar and Truong and the IN=
S
> in this thread is libel per se in that it alleges some sort of immigratio=
n
> hijinks on their part. See? So what I meant was that hopefully for you an=
d
> yours no one forwards it to the Polgars, it being the libel in this threa=
d,
> because as I understand it you and your jointly liable co defendants, who
> should be shaking in the their boots at the thought of you running around
> unmuzzled, are being sued for defamation, which is what you =A0just commi=
tted
> here in this thread.

You seem very invested in this for someone from Sweden. You are from
Sweden right? I hope I'm remembering correctly.

Must be your hobby or something.


        
Date: 30 Oct 2008 15:04:16
From: foad
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan P

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


You seem very invested in this for someone from Sweden. You are from
Sweden right? I hope I'm remembering correctly.
=====
You're not remembering it correctly, no.



Must be your hobby or something.
===========
I'm always amused when people who post to usenet find something telling in
the fact that other people post to usenet. As they say, irony is wasted on
the stupid.





       
Date: 30 Oct 2008 07:23:50
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
On Oct 30, 10:01=A0am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]m...
> On Oct 30, 9:36 am, "foad" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >news:[email protected]...
>
> > We need to start looking at the circumstances under which she and Mr.
> > Truong came to this country in the first place. It should not come as
> > a tremendous surprise if they are picked up by the INS at some future
> > date.
>
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> > Libel per se.
>
> > Hopefully for you and your jointly liable co defendants no one forwards
> > this
> > calumny to Polgar's attorney.
>
> It was not "forwarded" to her attorney. It was sent directly to all 13
> attorneys involved in these Polgar cases.
>
> Note that Susan Polgar is a plaintiff or a defendant in every one of
> the six cases, the only person about whom that is true.
>
> =3D=3D=3D
>
> No, chucklefuckinghead. Your statement about Polgar and Truong and the IN=
S
> in this thread is libel per se in that it alleges some sort of immigratio=
n
> hijinks on their part. See? So what I meant was that hopefully for you an=
d
> yours no one forwards it to the Polgars, it being the libel in this threa=
d,
> because as I understand it you and your jointly liable co defendants, who
> should be shaking in the their boots at the thought of you running around
> unmuzzled, are being sued for defamation, which is what you =A0just commi=
tted
> here in this thread.

You can be sure that Miss Polgar is on my email list, although she
bounces my emails.

Sam Sloan


       
Date: 30 Oct 2008 06:47:06
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
On Oct 30, 9:36=A0am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> We need to start looking at the circumstances under which she and Mr.
> Truong came to this country in the first place. It should not come as
> a tremendous surprise if they are picked up by the INS at some future
> date.
>
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>
> Libel per se.
>
> Hopefully for you and your jointly liable co defendants no one forwards t=
his
> calumny to Polgar's attorney.

It was not "forwarded" to her attorney. It was sent directly to all 13
attorneys involved in these Polgar cases.

Note that Susan Polgar is a plaintiff or a defendant in every one of
the six cases, the only person about whom that is true.

Sam Sloan


        
Date: 30 Oct 2008 14:01:03
From: foad
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan P

"samsloan" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:[email protected]m...
On Oct 30, 9:36 am, "foad" <[email protected] > wrote:
> "samsloan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:[email protected]...
>
> We need to start looking at the circumstances under which she and Mr.
> Truong came to this country in the first place. It should not come as
> a tremendous surprise if they are picked up by the INS at some future
> date.
>
> ===========
>
> Libel per se.
>
> Hopefully for you and your jointly liable co defendants no one forwards
> this
> calumny to Polgar's attorney.

It was not "forwarded" to her attorney. It was sent directly to all 13
attorneys involved in these Polgar cases.

Note that Susan Polgar is a plaintiff or a defendant in every one of
the six cases, the only person about whom that is true.

===

No, chucklefuckinghead. Your statement about Polgar and Truong and the INS
in this thread is libel per se in that it alleges some sort of immigration
hijinks on their part. See? So what I meant was that hopefully for you and
yours no one forwards it to the Polgars, it being the libel in this thread,
because as I understand it you and your jointly liable co defendants, who
should be shaking in the their boots at the thought of you running around
unmuzzled, are being sued for defamation, which is what you just committed
here in this thread.



       
Date: 30 Oct 2008 06:31:17
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
On Oct 30, 3:19=A0am, Dave U. Random <[email protected]
inter.net > wrote:

> It was your judgement-proof client Sloan who made the libelous claim that
> GM Polgar would be subject to deportation.

Regardless of whether I am judgment proof or not, it makes no
difference any more because Susan Polgar has sued us all for $25
million.

I admit that I will have a hard time paying off the $25 million if I
lose the case.

Susan has sued the chess federation, the entire board other than
herself and her husband, plus several contractors for $25 million.
Naturally, when faced with such a lawsuit, it becomes time to look out
for Number One. As much sympathy as we have for the unfortunate
circumstances of her life, with her being forced by her parents to
play and study chess for 12 hours every day from the age of 4 until
adulthood, never going to school so she never learned the basic skills
of reading, writing and rithmetic, and then faced with this massive
wide-ranging conspiracy against her that has been going on for the
past 25 years, it is time for us to stop trying to think of ways to
help her.

Susan has turned against her benefactors, even suing Jim Berry who
provided the money and organized several chess events especially for
her.

We need to start looking at the circumstances under which she and Mr.
Truong came to this country in the first place. It should not come as
a tremendous surprise if they are picked up by the INS at some future
date.

Sam Sloan


        
Date: 30 Oct 2008 13:36:37
From: foad
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan P

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

We need to start looking at the circumstances under which she and Mr.
Truong came to this country in the first place. It should not come as
a tremendous surprise if they are picked up by the INS at some future
date.

===========

Libel per se.

Hopefully for you and your jointly liable co defendants no one forwards this
calumny to Polgar's attorney.





       
Date: 30 Oct 2008 10:07:52
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
Dave U. Random wrote:
> Jackass ''Judge'' Brian Lafferty wrote:
>> foad wrote:
>>> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>>> Try reading the complaint.
>
>>> I'm not interested in the complaint, in your sad and pathetic collective
>>> efforts to teach the bitch a lesson for being a better chess player than
>>> you are, in whatever psychosexual dramas some of you all are working
>>> out, or in your blatant misogeny, xenophobia, and racism. I addressed
>>> what I wanted to address, ie, the proposterous notion that a judgment in
>>> a civil suit will lead to the oxymoronic "almost automatic" deportation
>>> and in general the nitwit Sloan's complete misunderstanding of the
>>> workings of Title 8. If you'd like to refute any the legal bits, feel
>>> free. Elsewise feel free to FO.
>>>
>> I never predicted anything about anyone being deported.
>
> It was your judgement-proof client Sloan who made the libelous claim that
> GM
> Polgar would be subject to deportation. You and the preposterous Sloan are
> in cahoots, right?

Sloan is not, and never has been, my client. We are definitly not in
"cahhoots." LOL.


>You are giving him legal advice on these issues, or not?

Tell Mr. Killion he's barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest.

> Wouldn't it be changing the habits of a lifetime, Lafferti, if you were to
> try to be a man, to own up to your own actions, to face the consequences of
> your encouragement of frivolous, recreational, meritless litigation by such
> lowlife wastes of perfectly good carbon as Sloan. Shame on you, Brain.
> But there may well be consequences heading your way for your misconduct.
> You
> sure that Polgar is a "public figure" in a case like this? Told your wife
> as yet about your endangering your joint possessions through your
> adventures
> with Sloan et al and their campaign to defame / ruin GM Polgar and FM
> Truong?
> Stupid old fool who can't even stay on a bike, who may well have made his
> money from suing small outfits (like the USCF) and threatening or extorting
> them before settling out of court, can't get no satisfaction from anything
> worth while so he gadflies about doing this shit. Spineless jackass.

archived
>


       
Date: 30 Oct 2008 02:40:17
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
On Oct 30, 3:19=A0am, Dave U. Random <[email protected]
inter.net > wrote:
> Jackass ''Judge'' Brian Lafferty wrote:
>
> >foad wrote:
>
> >> "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >>> Try reading the complaint.
> >> I'm not interested in the complaint, in your sad and pathetic collecti=
ve
> >> efforts to teach the bitch a lesson for being a better chess player th=
an
> >> you are, in whatever psychosexual dramas some of you all are working
> >> out, or in your blatant misogeny, xenophobia, and racism. I addressed
> >> what I wanted to address, ie, the proposterous notion that a judgment =
in
> >> a civil suit will lead to the oxymoronic "almost automatic" deportatio=
n
> >> and in general the nitwit Sloan's complete misunderstanding of the
> >> workings of Title 8. If you'd like to refute any the legal bits, feel
> >> free. Elsewise feel free to FO.
>
> >I never predicted anything about anyone being deported.
>
> It was your judgement-proof client Sloan who made the libelous claim that
> GM
> Polgar would be subject to deportation. You and the preposterous Sloan ar=
e
> in cahoots, right? You are giving him legal advice on these issues, or no=
t?
> Wouldn't it be changing the habits of a lifetime, Lafferti, if you were t=
o
> try to be a man, to own up to your own actions, to face the consequences =
of
> your encouragement of frivolous, recreational, meritless litigation by su=
ch
> lowlife wastes of perfectly good carbon as Sloan. Shame on you, Brain.
> But there may well be consequences heading your way for your misconduct.
> You
> sure that Polgar is a "public figure" in a case like this? Told your wife
> as yet about your endangering your joint possessions through your
> adventures
> with Sloan et al and their campaign to defame / ruin GM Polgar and FM
> Truong?
> Stupid old fool who can't even stay on a bike, who may well have made his
> money from suing small outfits (like the USCF) and threatening or extorti=
ng
> them before settling out of court, can't get no satisfaction from anythin=
g
> worth while so he gadflies about doing this shit. Spineless jackass.

Brave words from an anonymous poster using an anonymous remailer.


      
Date: 29 Oct 2008 17:13:47
From: foad
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan Polgar

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected] > wrote in message
news:zx%[email protected]

> Read the complaint.

To what end.



 
Date: 28 Oct 2008 22:06:09
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
On Oct 29, 12:14=A0am, The Historian <[email protected] >
wrote:
> On Oct 28, 5:53=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Several people have asked us to bring about a settlement of the thus
> > far six lawsuits involving Susan Polgar, Paul Truong and the Fake Sam
> > Sloan. However, those who suggest this seem to be overlooking that
> > Susan herself has ruled out any possibility of a compromise or
> > settlement. In a posting on her own website, chessdiscussion.com,
> > Polgar wrote, "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is
> > enough."
>
> > Here is the full posting athttp://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewto=
pic.php?f=3D4&t=3D1396
>
> > "This is a very serious issue. Multiple people have warned the ED
> > about this individual. Unfortunately, not only that the USCF chose to
> > do business with him anyway, he was protected by the ED and President.
> > This is after numerous additional incidents in the past year.
>
> > "I do not want to harm the USCF. I do not want to put anyone out of
> > business. I asked to have my family and my job left alone. Not only
> > they did not leave me alone, threats were made against me through a
> > third party before I went to Dallas for the delegates meeting. Now new
> > threats have been made against me through a third party after I left
> > Dallas. Some of these threats are also on the Internet.
>
> > "One of the board members even went on the record and spoke out
> > against this individual in closed session yesterday. More are willing
> > to speak on the record against this individual. Unless my family and I
> > have full apologies by the USCF and many parties involved, this
> > lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough. This has gone on
> > long enough.
>
> > "Best wishes,
>
> > "Susan Polgarhttp://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.comhttp://www.SusanPolgar.=
com
>
> That was three months ago, before Susie Chesspiece and Gregory
> Alexblunder got caught with their hand in the email box. I think they
> might settle at this point.

Her offering to settle now would be like her offering a draw at chess
when she is a piece down.

I think this guy that she sued in San Francisco means business. Randy
Bauer is none too pleased either. I think it is quite possible that
efforts will be made to deport her back to Hungary. They might even
try to send Truong back to Vietnam.

My best advice to her would be to resign from the board, drop her
lawsuit, lay low and hope that everybody forgets about her.

Once she is no longer a threat, people will lose interest in going
after her.

However, as long as she keeps trying to take over the USCF, there will
be no settlement.

Sam Sloan


  
Date: 29 Oct 2008 10:33:29
From: foad
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan Polgar

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


I think it is quite possible that
efforts will be made to deport her back to Hungary.
They might even
try to send Truong back to Vietnam.

====

Who are "they" and what about your assinine internecine political squabbles
do you think constitutes grounds that would allow "them" to deport anyone,
you preposterous nitwit.





My best advice to her would be to resign from the board, drop her
lawsuit, lay low and hope that everybody forgets about her.

===

A beggar advises the queen. No doubt he has her best interests at heart.




 
Date: 28 Oct 2008 21:16:06
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
On Oct 28, 1:37=A0pm, raylopez99 <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Oct 28, 3:53=A0am, samsloan <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Several people have asked us to bring about a settlement of the thus
> > far six lawsuits involving Susan Polgar, Paul Truong and the Fake Sam
> > Sloan
> > "Susan Polgarhttp://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.comhttp://www.SusanPolgar.=
com
>
> Who is the 'royal' us?
>
> And are you taking steps to make yourself judgment proof? =A0Stuff like
> developing a drug habit (so that later, when large amounts of cash are
> withdrawn from your bank account prior to the judgment, you can claim,
> rightfully, you had an expensive drug habit to support and were not
> just hiding the cash)?
>
> Do you have assets of any sort? =A0Or are you already de facto 'judgment
> proof'?
>
> RL

Do the First Couple have any assets? After all, they just filed for
bankruptcy.


 
Date: 28 Oct 2008 21:14:50
From: The Historian
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
On Oct 28, 5:53=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Several people have asked us to bring about a settlement of the thus
> far six lawsuits involving Susan Polgar, Paul Truong and the Fake Sam
> Sloan. However, those who suggest this seem to be overlooking that
> Susan herself has ruled out any possibility of a compromise or
> settlement. In a posting on her own website, chessdiscussion.com,
> Polgar wrote, "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is
> enough."
>
> Here is the full posting athttp://www.chessdiscussion.com/phpBB3/viewtopi=
c.php?f=3D4&t=3D1396
>
> "This is a very serious issue. Multiple people have warned the ED
> about this individual. Unfortunately, not only that the USCF chose to
> do business with him anyway, he was protected by the ED and President.
> This is after numerous additional incidents in the past year.
>
> "I do not want to harm the USCF. I do not want to put anyone out of
> business. I asked to have my family and my job left alone. Not only
> they did not leave me alone, threats were made against me through a
> third party before I went to Dallas for the delegates meeting. Now new
> threats have been made against me through a third party after I left
> Dallas. Some of these threats are also on the Internet.
>
> "One of the board members even went on the record and spoke out
> against this individual in closed session yesterday. More are willing
> to speak on the record against this individual. Unless my family and I
> have full apologies by the USCF and many parties involved, this
> lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough. This has gone on
> long enough.
>
> "Best wishes,
>
> "Susan Polgarhttp://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.comhttp://www.SusanPolgar.co=
m

That was three months ago, before Susie Chesspiece and Gregory
Alexblunder got caught with their hand in the email box. I think they
might settle at this point.


 
Date: 28 Oct 2008 11:37:54
From: raylopez99
Subject: Re: "this lawsuit will proceed all the way. Enough is enough." Susan
On Oct 28, 3:53=A0am, samsloan <[email protected] > wrote:
> Several people have asked us to bring about a settlement of the thus
> far six lawsuits involving Susan Polgar, Paul Truong and the Fake Sam
> Sloan

> "Susan Polgarhttp://www.SusanPolgar.blogspot.comhttp://www.SusanPolgar.co=
m

Who is the 'royal' us?

And are you taking steps to make yourself judgment proof? Stuff like
developing a drug habit (so that later, when large amounts of cash are
withdrawn from your bank account prior to the judgment, you can claim,
rightfully, you had an expensive drug habit to support and were not
just hiding the cash)?

Do you have assets of any sort? Or are you already de facto 'judgment
proof'?

RL