| Author |
"Sloan was laughed out of court"?
|
|
| Petrel 2005-01-30, 5:45 pm |
|
"StanB" <stanbooz@comXXXcast.net> wrote in message
news:V96dndW_sIM1rGDcRVn-3A@comcast.com...
?
quote:
>
> Sloan was laughed out of court.
This is apparently false. The judge ruled that the case could be decided on
the filings, but has not yet decided it, unless Booz has more recent
information than anyone else.
Stan Booz is rapidly becoming the most prolific poster of disinformation on
this group, even among people whose first name begins with "S". And he has
an official USCF position!!
p>
| |
| Spam Scone 2005-01-30, 5:45 pm |
|
Petrel wrote:
quote:
>
> Stan Booz is rapidly becoming the most prolific poster of
disinformation on
quote:
> this group, even among people whose first name begins with "S". And
he has
quote:
> an official USCF position!!
>
> p>
Petrel is another sorry follower and lickspittle for St. Bill.
| |
|
|
"Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:5xaLd.24752$by5.6008@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
>
> This is apparently false. The judge ruled that the case could be decided
> on the filings, but has not yet decided it, unless Booz has more recent
> information than anyone else.
He does.
quote:
> Stan Booz is rapidly becoming the most prolific poster of disinformation
> on this group, even among people whose first name begins with "S". And he
> has an official USCF position!!
What disinformation would that be? I said Bill had a prearrangement for
compensation. Don said it wasn't true. Don and Bill later admitted that
there was an understanding. All of what I claim is true.
| |
| Louis Blair 2005-01-30, 5:45 pm |
| StanB wrote:
quote:
> All of what I claim is true.
_
Does StanB still claim that the building at
the Liberty site "has not been occupied for
decades"?
"Totally false! It was the Holy Rood
Seminary until 2000, when it was
purchased by the Gerry Foundation."
- Bill Goichberg (2004-10-20 14:10:49
PST)
Does StanB still claim that I supported
Sloan in 2003? StanB's pathetic attempt
to justify this ridiculous assertion:
"Schultz and Brady are sh_oe-ins. That
leaves only one other seat. You work
very hard to discredit _Hanke but say
naught about Samuel H. Sloan. They are
the only regular post_ers here.
Therefore you must be in love with
Sammie." - StanB (Thu, 27 Mar 2003
15:39:17 -0500)
Brady was not even a candidate in 2003.
There were four alternatives to Hanke
and Sloan in 2003. (Schultz, Petersen,
Wagner, and Marinello.) Nevertheless,
StanB pretended to know that one of
my three choices would be Sloan and
posted this claim repeatedly. How can
this be seen as anything other than
disgraceful dishonesty?
| |
| Petrel 2005-01-30, 9:54 pm |
|
"Spam Scone" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107116464.752953.298490@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
quote:
>
>
> Petrel is another sorry follower and lickspittle for St. Bill.
Didn't Brennen use to be better than this? When did he turn into a tired
old USENET troll?
p>
| |
| Petrel 2005-01-30, 9:54 pm |
|
"StanB" <stanbooz@comXXXcast.net> wrote in message
news:aLidnbXFY9l312DcRVn-tg@comcast.com...
quote:
>
> "Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:5xaLd.24752$by5.6008@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
> He does.
All right, and what information would this be, pray tell?
p>
| |
| Spam Scone 2005-01-30, 9:54 pm |
|
Petrel wrote:
quote:
> "Spam Scone" <Spamscone@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1107116464.752953.298490@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Didn't Brennen use to be better than this? When did he turn into a
tired
quote:
> old USENET troll?
>
> p>
When you went off to sulk in your tent. Now that you are back I can
stop filling in for you.
| |
| Duncan Oxley 2005-01-30, 9:54 pm |
|
"Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote
quote:
>
> All right, and what information would this be, pray tell?
>
> p>
>
>
It seems to have been dismissed
http://tinyurl.com/5m7hz
| |
| Petrel 2005-01-30, 9:54 pm |
|
"Duncan Oxley" <no@thanks> wrote in message
news:10vqsnkgv55e59b@corp.supernews.com...
quote:
>
> It seems to have been dismissed
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5m7hz
Hmm. It does look like that. BTW that tinyurl thing didn't work for me, I
had to look up the case by plaintiff name.. but it does seem to have been
dismissed on January 10. In that case I would owe Stan an apology for
suggesting that his post was disinformation. Sam, any comments??
p>
| |
| Tom Martinak 2005-01-30, 9:54 pm |
| Not being a lawyer does the following mean that the USCF's request for
a Dismissal was accepted on 1/10/05. Maybe Sam would be so good as to
post the judge's ruling on his website.
- Tom Martinak
Orange
7739/2004
SLOAN, SAM
vs.
MARINELLO, BEATRIZ, UNITED
2 Dismissal
Filed By(D):02-DEC-04
Submitted: 10-DEC-04
Decided: 10-JAN-05
CASE DISPOSED
1 Misc. Special Proceedings
Filed By(P):15-NOV-04
Submitted: 10-DEC-04
Decided: 10-JAN-05
MOTION DENIED
| |
|
|
"Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:bbeLd.4548$wA5.3572@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
>
> All right, and what information would this be, pray tell?
That which I reported.
| |
|
|
"Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JafLd.4573$wA5.4189@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
quote:
>
> Hmm. It does look like that. BTW that tinyurl thing didn't work for me,
> I had to look up the case by plaintiff name.. but it does seem to have
> been dismissed on January 10. In that case I would owe Stan an apology
> for suggesting that his post was disinformation. Sam, any comments??
Graciously accepted.
| |
| David Ames 2005-01-31, 3:46 am |
|
Duncan Oxley wrote:
quote:
> "Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>
>
> It seems to have been dismissed
>
> http://tinyurl.com/5m7hz
It seems to have been dismissed after a conference with [out-of-state?]
counsel. I wonder if Sam was represented at that conference.
| |
| Raneva Noalas 2005-01-31, 3:46 am |
| David Ames <worldrecord@juno.com> wrote in article
<1107137982.226103.122050@c13g2000cwb.googlegroupcas.com>
quote:
> Duncan Oxley wrote:
>
> It seems to have been dismissed after a conference with [out-of-state?]
> counsel. I wonder if Sam was represented at that conference.
You are talking about the disposal of SLOAN, SAM vs. MARINELLO, BEATRIZ,
UNITED, yep? The smart judge may have written Sammy boy off as a nutcase as
soon as Sammy started on about famous chess players or writers named
Harrwitz, Horowitz, Horwitz etc. No persuasion by counsel was needed to see
Sammy is bats and has no case. One just has to go through the motions.
At least one judge, presumably fearing for what substance might be in a
packet sent to him by Sammy, showed great wisdom by flatly refusing to open
it, in or out of court. Judges or their staff now routinely read up about
litigants using msn or google. In the case of Sammy boy, even the most
hardened judicial hacks must do a doubletake at what they find.
Sammy had only one fan, the ugly fat throwback with the I.Q. of 65, but now
we got a joyous bundle of papers to Mme. Kimura, (Kayo's desperate mom),
the status quo won't last. To be honest, I've lost count of how many of
Sammy's unfortunate bastards have had to be rescued by kin or wellwishers.
Sammy, just because you are paranoid doesn't mean there isn't a determined
cabal of us resolved that you don't get away with your shit any more. And
you still haven't repaid the money, which with 50 years' compound interest
comes to more than you've been worth this last decade.
| |
| Don C. Aldrich 2005-01-31, 3:46 am |
| But was it dismissed with prejudice?
==Dondo
On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 20:11:33 -0500, "StanB" <stanbooz@comXXXcast.net>
wrote:
quote:
>
>"Petrel" <petrelet@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
>news:bbeLd.4548$wA5.3572@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
>That which I reported.
>
| |
| StanB 2005-01-31, 12:03 pm |
|
"Don C. Aldrich" <dondo@mn.rr.com> wrote in message
news:e0grv0d857uorbt81cc2app48501g75tvj@4ax.com...
quote:
> But was it dismissed with prejudice?
I don't know. I do know that Sam prejudged the case here on this newsgroup.
Inaccurately it seems.
|
|
|
|