 |
|
 |
|
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 17:57:20 -0700 (PDT), ChessFire <...@comcast.net
And the fees these people would receive would be the same as now,
nothing.
For members, they would be $600,000 better off in saved legal costs.
In terms of chess promotion, who would doubt another $600,000 in terms
of income?
That is, if not for the Sloan's lawsuit.
But the Sloan and I can write the same thing, and what distinguishes
us is irony - and fact rather than [his monumental] ego.
To go with the current Polgar slate would provide US Chess, at no cost
to itself, the most powerful board ever.
Very strong business savvy, education savvy even unto engaging
mainstream interest, and another strong IM player capable of saying
what's what from a player's point of view rather than collection of
failed buro-rat's.
This is completely incomprehensible to the Sloan and his 17 or maybe
just 7 supporters who thinks that people can somehow steal 'his'
federation and make it popular again
;)
Phil Innes
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:43:27 -0700 (PDT), samsloan <...@gmail.com
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Eric Schi...@gmail.comwrote:
Eric, you missed the point. There are several issues here.
First, the immediate question is whether the house in Harold Stenzel's
posting is Bill Goichberg's house. Goichberg says that his house is a
small one story building with two bedrooms, basically a tiny house.
The house in the picture that Harold Stenzel posted is a complex multi-
storied facility. As far as I know, Goichberg is not claiming that is
his house. Goichberg's house must be in that grove of trees on the
North Side of Route 94 and too small to been seen through the foliage.
However, none of this is really before the court. The issues in court
are number one that the affidavit Goichberg's attorney filed in court
was not served on me and did not have an affidavit of service
attached. I never saw it or knew about it until after the court's
decision dismissing my complaint. I am astounded that any attorney
would pull a dirty trick like that by filing a document without
serving it in his adversary. I am even more astounded that the court
let him get away with it.
Secondly, Goichbderg presented no evidence that he lives in the house.
All he presented was a deed showing that he purchased the house in
1991. The zillow website and the other issues being discussed here
were not mentioned in the papers before the court. In short, the court
made a one-sided decision without notice to me and without giving me
the opportunity to respond. That was clearly improper and for that
reason alone the decision of the district court should be reversed and
the case should be sent back to the lower court.
However, this question about Goichberg's house is minor compared to
the big issue. The big issue was that Judge Chin ruled that internet
identity theft and impersonation does not constitute a federal cause
of action. If upheld this means that people are free to impersonate
each other and to transmit child pornography across international
borders and nothing can be done about it because it does not
constitute grounds for a federal suit. In my view, this ruling is
outrageously wrong and requires reversal of the district court
decision.
Please note that we only reach the question of whether Goichberg has
his primary residence in New York if the district court is correct in
its decision that Internet identity theft and child pornography does
not constitute grounds for a federal lawsuit.
--
Sincerely,
Sam Sloan
917-507-7226
http://www.SamsOwnBooks.com/shop.aspx
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 02:32:23 -0700 (PDT), samsloan <...@gmail.com
There are two types of grounds for a federal lawsuit. (1) diversity
and (2) federal question. Either one of them gets the case into
federal court. The judge ruled that Internet identity theft is not a
federal question. However, I can still get into federal court if there
is diversity.
After researching federal case law in the federal reporter and other
sources, I have been unable to find any case like mine. Moreover, no
case has been cited on either point by any of my opponents or by the
district court judge who dismissed my case or by the court of appeals
that is re-considering the matter right now.
Thus, it seems that this is a new area of law reflecting in part the
fact that the Internet itself is new and traditional areas of law have
not caught up with it yet.
Sam Sloan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:05:31 GMT, "foad" <...@ndsm.org
"samsloan" <...@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
There are a couple of on point cases that are quite similar to your own.
Refuckingtard vs Imbefuckingcile, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 938; 21 L. Ed. 570
In re Severe Head Injury, 780 So. 2d 805; 2000 Ala. Crim. App. LEXIS 153
Thalidomide vs Chromosomes, 158 P.2d 86; 1998 Alas. LEXIS 89
Moreover, no
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:50:38 -0700 (PDT), samsloan <...@gmail.com
[quote="Harold S."]The court gave the claim that Bill resides in an
inn, the respect it deserves: none. With exactly one Google search, I
was able to find a street address (not Mount Vernon) in NYS that Bill
Goichberg claims as his own.
Harold Stenzel [/quote]
I am still waiting for you to provide a street address which you state
above you were easily able to find with one Goggle search.
What is that address?
If what you think you found is 2084 Route 94, that is not a street
address. That is a real estate lot number. The US Postal Service does
not recognize it. You can verify that at http://www.usps.gov
I do not think that you will be able to provide a street address for
the property because Goichberg says that it has none. It is a rural
property that has never had a street address, Goichberg says.
However, showing that there is a house there and that Goichberg owns
it is not sufficient. You would have to show that that is his primary
residence, that Goichberg stays there most of the time, and that he
intends to make it his permanent home. In other words, that he is
domiciled there.
For example, it could be just an investment property that Goichberg is
holding, it could be rented out, or it could be a doghouse.
I personally do not believe that Goichberg intends to reside there
permanently when and if he ever retires as a tournament organizer.
The main question concerns the fact that the brief summary affidavit
filed in court, the one that was never served on me, makes no mention
of this. It merely consists of a deed showing that Goichberg purchased
the property in 1991. That was clearly insufficient to justify the
dismissal of my complaint.
Also, this is really a minor point in the litigation. The major point
is the thousands of obscene Internet postings by Truong impersonating
me, plus Bill Brock calling me a "child molester" thousands of times,
including today. The issue of Goichberg's property came to the fore
only because his attorney filed it as an affidavit without serving me
with a copy. It was apparently filed electronically and I never got
it.
Sam Sloan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:58:46 -0700 (PDT), billbrock <...@gmail.com
On Jun 22, 11:50 am, samsloan <...@gmail.com
[snip]
So, in your most recent NYS litigation, did the court find you were
something other than a child molester? The decision is available
online: provide us with the link.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 12:31:50 -0700 (PDT), billbrock <...@gmail.com
On Jun 22, 1:58 pm, billbrock <...@gmail.com
Where are your defenders?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:15:58 -0700 (PDT), billbrock <...@gmail.com
On Jun 22, 2:31 pm, billbrock <...@gmail.com
Question on the floor for Sloan: in your most recent NYS litigation,
did the court find you were
something other than a child molester?
The decision is available online: provide us with the link.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:59:15 -0700 (PDT), Just A Patzer <...@gmail.com
On Jun 22, 4:15 pm, billbrock <...@gmail.com
Are you saying that Sam Sloan was found by a court to be a child
molester, or are you only making an unfound accusation? If you have
proof, post a link yourself. With so many Sloan haters on here, I have
trouble believing that if some court did find him guilty of child
molestation, and such documention was available, his wikipedia page
wouldn't already be updated with this info, which as of 5 minutes ago,
it was not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:24:03 -0700 (PDT), jkh001 <...@aim.com
You're kidding, right? Sloan used to edit his own Wikipedia page until
he was blocked. Nowadays the most frequent contributor is some nutcase
who keeps adding "folk hero" to the Sloon's list of accomplishments.
As for the other business -- you really don't want to go there. The
kid deserves some privacy, but if you keep this up someone is going to
post the court document. (Yes, I've seen it, and no, I'm not going to
link to it. Anyone who needs /more/ evidence that Sloan is pond scum
is obviously hopeless.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:06:04 -0700 (PDT), samsloan <...@gmail.com
On Jun 22, 7:24 pm, jkh001 <...@aim.com
This is absolutely not true. I have never edited my own Wikipedia
page.
On the other hand, Bill Brock has repeatedly posted his allegations
that I am a "child molester" to my Wikipedia profile. In spite of
warnings from Wikipedia administrators, Bill Brock continues to do
this.
Sam Sloan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:22:32 -0700 (PDT), billbrock <...@gmail.com
On Jun 22, 8:06 pm, samsloan <...@gmail.com
Enough about me. What did the court find in the following case?
Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department
D23302
G/nl
AD3d Submitted - April 20, 2009
STEVEN W. FISHER, J.P.
JOSEPH COVELLO
DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.
2008-07111 DECISION & ORDER
In the Matter of Samuel S. (Anonymous), appellant,
v D********* R. (Anonymous), respondent.
(Docket Nos. V-05631-06, V-056232-06, V-11657-05)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:35:46 -0700 (PDT), billbrock <...@gmail.com
On Jun 22, 8:22 pm, billbrock <...@gmail.com
Perhaps Sloan could provide an executive summary?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:44:13 -0700 (PDT), billbrock <...@gmail.com
On Jun 22, 8:35 pm, billbrock <...@gmail.com
Sloan has had eloquent defenders in the past: perhaps one of them will
step forward now?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:51:22 +0200, Jürgen R. <...@web.de
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/calendar/webcal/decisions/2009/D23302. pdf
Here, the Family Court's determination that there should be no change of
custody has
a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed. The
evidence demonstrated that
it was in the best interests of the 17-year-old child to remain in the
custody of the mother, who has
continuously cared for the child since birth and is a fit parent (see Matter
of Fallarino v Ayala, 41
AD3d at 715). The court properly took into consideration the child's wishes,
given her age and
maturity (see Matter of O'Connor v Dyer, 18 AD3d at 757-758). Moreover, the
testimony and
recommendations of the forensic examiner that a change in custody would be
detrimental to the wellbeing
of the child were uncontradicted by the record and properly credited by the
Family Court (see
Matter of Guerra v Balistreri, 49 AD3d 646, 647; Matter of Muller v Muller,
221 AD2d 635, 636).
Similarly, we find no basis to disturb the Family Court's determination that
denial of
visitation was in the best interests of the child. The evidence established
that the child's fear of the
father was valid, as it was based upon the father's abusive and criminal
behavior. The father had
committed family offenses, emotionally and sexually abused the mother,
abducted the child's older
siblings, and intentionally exposed the child to graphic, sexually-explicit
materials. The order
precluding all contact was consistent with the child's wishes, the testimony
and report of the courtappointed
forensic psychologist, and the father's denial of responsibility for the
emotional and
psychological injury his behavior had caused. Accordingly, the Family Court's
determination was
properly "based on substantial evidence that visitation would be detrimental
to the welfare of the
child" (Matter of Grossman v Grossman, 5 AD3d 486, 487; see Matter of Thomas
v Thomas, 35
AD3d 868, 869; Matter of Morales v Bruno, 29 AD3d 1001).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 04:26:17 -0700 (PDT), Rob <...@gmail.com
On Jun 28, 6:20 am, Nomen Nescio <...@dizum.com
how did you get copies of the court order? can you also get
transcripts of the hearing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 09:30:02 -0400, richard <...@newsguy.com
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:20:02 +0200 (CEST), Nomen Nescio
<...@dizum.com
Well I am assuming that "labial" is a derivative of "labia" which is a
part of the female genitalia. "non severe" would probably be defined
as something not life threatening. However, the word labia also simply
means "lips".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:29:31 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston <...@comcast.net
On Jun 28, 9:30 am, richard <...@newsguy.com
Sounds like a punch in the mouth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:47:40 -0400, richard <...@newsguy.com
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 07:29:31 -0700 (PDT), Taylor Kingston
<...@comcast.net
Yeah but you know that the government can't possibly come right out
and say that directly. They always have to use some language that
makes things seem worse than it actually is or more dramatic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:06:14 -0700 (PDT), billbrock <...@gmail.com
Even Nazis can make an occasional good observation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrownness
Thrownness starts when we're born / untimely ripped. One feature
(that's feature, as in "not a bug") of being-in-the-world: none of us
get to pick our parents.
Teenagers Google their name. They may even Google their mother's
relatively unusual name. When they do so, they should not have to
read about their father's habit of (euphemistically) hot-saucing other
family members.
Please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:13:26 -0700, Mike Murray <...@despammed.com
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:06:14 -0700 (PDT), billbrock
<...@gmail.com
More on this topic tonite on the "Six O'Clock News"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 08:32:38 -0700 (PDT), billbrock <...@gmail.com
On Jun 28, 10:13 am, Mike Murray <...@despammed.com
If it bleeds, it leads, and after the innocent son is gunned down, the
cameras will be there to record mom's reaction. But there are certain
subjects that even the local news finds distasteful.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uqxo1SKB0z8&feature=channel (happy
Stonewall + 40!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:43:38 GMT, "foad" <...@ndsm.org
"richard" <...@4ax.com...
Hard to think of a life threatenting injury to the labia. A shotgun blast to
the snatch? A love bite that gets really really infected?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:04:16 -0700 (PDT), Marcus Aurelius <...@hotmail.com
Women have two sets of labia, the labia majora and the labia minora.
My best guess as to the meaning of "non-severe labial trauma" would
mean a hematoma (bruise) of a small portion of a labia or a small
partial thickness (does not go all the way through the tissue of one
labia) laceration of a labia.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:35:36 -0700 (PDT), billbrock <...@gmail.com
On Jun 22, 6:24 pm, jkh001 <...@aim.com
"Folk hero to child molesters"?
Well said.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Just A Patzer <...@gmail.com
On Jun 22, 7:35 pm, billbrock <...@gmail.com
That "Well said" is the height of cynicism. You, who have posted
repeatedly on this group about the existence of a mysterious court
case about Sam Sloan being declared a child molester obviously have no
interest in the welfare of the child in question, but only in outing
Sam Sloan as a molester of children.
If there is such a court case, and if it is not just the tempest in a
teacup that the "hotsaucing" incident was, I challenge you to update
Sam Sloan's wikipedia page with a claim that he is a court-declared
child molester with a reference to this mystery case. I doubt your
changes to his wikipedia page would last a day, not because of Sam
Sloan worshippers or Sam Sloan himself, but because I bet your changes
would not survive wikipedia's BLP editing policy. Go ahead. Instead of
posting rumors and innuendos on your thinly veiled direkickfeud page,
I challenge you to take this feud to the next level and update Sam
Sloan's page with properly referenced citations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:00:25 -0700 (PDT), billbrock <...@gmail.com
On Jun 22, 6:52 pm, Just A Patzer <...@gmail.com
Either / or fallacy.
Provide your real-world identity to me (and sufficient proof thereof),
and I'll send you the link via email.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:04:53 -0700 (PDT), billbrock <...@gmail.com
On Jun 22, 7:00 pm, billbrock <...@gmail.com
I would note that I called Sloan a kiddie fucker.
Sloan sued me.
Sloan lost. (Largely because of his incompetence, but also because
he's a kiddie fucker.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:11:18 -0700 (PDT), samsloan <...@gmail.com
It seems that Bill Brock is not aware that the case is still pending
on a petition for rehearing en banc.
Sam Sloan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:26:32 -0700 (PDT), billbrock <...@gmail.com
On Jun 22, 7:11 pm, samsloan <...@gmail.com
.Even child molesters like you deserve access to due process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:36:38 -0700 (PDT), billbrock <...@gmail.com
On Jun 22, 7:00 pm, billbrock <...@gmail.com
I would ask that you not make use of the link in other than a legal
context (preferably under seal). In return, I guarantee nondisclosure
of your identity.
P.S. The direkickfeud page is indirect, but it's anything but thinly
veiled. The first sentence of the most recent blog entry reads, "IMO,
child molesters such as Sam Sloan should not serve on the board of a
national nonprofit organization with more than 40,000 junior
members." Where's the veil?
I don't like adults who sexually exploit children, and Sloan is such a
person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:52:02 +0200, Jürgen R. <...@web.de
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/courts/ad2/calendar/webcal/decisions/2009/D23302. pdf
Here, the Family Court's determination that there should be no change of
custody has
a sound and substantial basis in the record and will not be disturbed. The
evidence demonstrated that
it was in the best interests of the 17-year-old child to remain in the
custody of the mother, who has
continuously cared for the child since birth and is a fit parent (see Matter
of Fallarino v Ayala, 41
AD3d at 715). The court properly took into consideration the child's wishes,
given her age and
maturity (see Matter of O'Connor v Dyer, 18 AD3d at 757-758). Moreover, the
testimony and
recommendations of the forensic examiner that a change in custody would be
detrimental to the wellbeing
of the child were uncontradicted by the record and properly credited by the
Family Court (see
Matter of Guerra v Balistreri, 49 AD3d 646, 647; Matter of Muller v Muller,
221 AD2d 635, 636).
Similarly, we find no basis to disturb the Family Court's determination that
denial of
visitation was in the best interests of the child. The evidence established
that the child's fear of the
father was valid, as it was based upon the father's abusive and criminal
behavior. The father had
committed family offenses, emotionally and sexually abused the mother,
abducted the child's older
siblings, and intentionally exposed the child to graphic, sexually-explicit
materials. The order
precluding all contact was consistent with the child's wishes, the testimony
and report of the courtappointed
forensic psychologist, and the father's denial of responsibility for the
emotional and
psychological injury his behavior had caused. Accordingly, the Family Court's
determination was
properly "based on substantial evidence that visitation would be detrimental
to the welfare of the
child" (Matter of Grossman v Grossman, 5 AD3d 486, 487; see Matter of Thomas
v Thomas, 35
AD3d 868, 869; Matter of Morales v Bruno, 29 AD3d 1001).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:41:41 -0700 (PDT), Just A Patzer <...@gmail.com
On Jun 22, 8:00 pm, billbrock <...@gmail.com
If what Jurgen R. posted is the case you are referring to, this case
says Sam Sloan:
1) Acted abusively and criminally (since the court does not further
specify what those are, we can not infer they involve child
molestation)
2) Committed family offenses (since the court does not further specify
what those are, we can not infer they involve child molestation)
3) Emotionally and sexually abused the mother (could be criminal
behavior but unless the mother was under 18, this is not child
molestation)
4) Abducted the child's older siblings (this is not child molestation)
5) Intentionally exposed the child to graphic, sexually-explicit
materials (this may be child abuse, but by NYS Statute is not child
molestation or sexual abuse, see: Article 130 of
http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/menugetf.cgi?COMMONQUERY=LAWS)
I could reasonably conclude Sam Sloan is not a nice person, and even
behaves in a criminal manner towards women and children, but I could
not conclude from this that he is a child molester.
Where are the facts? Do you know even KNOW the difference between
child abuse and child molestation?
Bill, why don't you give us some legal definitions here and show that
you aren't just blowing smoke on this one? Taking this one case and
claiming any more than Sam Sloan is a bad guy who shouldn't have
contact with children is just more of unsubstantiated innuendoes and
rumors that you put on your direkickfeud page.
With regard to "thinly veiled", I was referring only to "direkickfeud"
being an anagram for "kiddie fucker". You have decided to have your
own personal crusade against Sam Sloan using on rumors, innuendos, and
nothing frankly that I see that could ever hold up in a court of law.
You have convicted Sam Sloan, an admittedly unsavory character, of the
crime of child sexual abuse, through heresay evidence. Where is your
real evidence? Spell it out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 05:40:50 -0700 (PDT), billbrock <...@gmail.com
On Jun 23, 6:41 am, Just A Patzer <...@gmail.com
[snip]
Wrong venue: try court of equity.
Convicted? Crime?
Sloan is a candidate for election to the board of a national nonprofit
organization, a position he has previoiusly held.
***
Re certain material cited upthread: it's hard enough to be a
teenager. Minors deserve privacy, even if their parents don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 06:53:50 -0700 (PDT), Just A Patzer <...@gmail.com
On Jun 23, 8:40 am, billbrock <...@gmail.com
DAY 1:
You ignored my question. Bill, show us you even know what the
difference is between "child abuse" and "child molestation" by giving
us a legal definition of each.
Because obviously you don't care. In this case, why don't you go ahead
and call Sam Sloan a "mass murderer" too? Because if he can abuse a
woman and a child, what is the difference between that and mass murder?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:07:34 -0700 (PDT), billbrock <...@gmail.com
On Jun 23, 8:53 am, Just A Patzer <...@gmail.com
Where's Larry Parr when I need him?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:10:34 -0700 (PDT), Just A Patzer <...@gmail.com
On Jun 23, 10:07 am, billbrock <...@gmail.com
DAY 1, Part 2:
You ignored my question. Bill, show us you even know what the
difference is between "child abuse" and "child molestation" by giving
us a legal definition of each.
Because obviously you don't care. In this case, why don't you go
ahead
and call Sam Sloan a "mass murderer" too? Because if he can abuse a
woman and a child, what is the difference between that and mass
murder?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 07:51:06 -0700 (PDT), Just A Patzer <...@gmail.com
On Jun 23, 10:12 am, billbrock <...@gmail.com
DAY 1, Part 3:
You ignored my question. Bill, show us you even know what the
difference is between "child abuse" and "child molestation" by giving
us a legal definition of each.
Because obviously you don't care. In this case, why don't you go ahead
and call Sam Sloan a "mass murderer" too? Because if he can abuse a
woman and a child, what is the difference between that and mass
murder?
What Slothrop cited was hearsay evidence. He was trying Sam Sloan
using his own words. But the most that we can really say about that is
that Sam Sloan has the mind of a child molester! This doesn't provide
a shred of evidence that he actually did anything, because people
sometimes say all sorts of untrue things about themselves for all
sorts of reasons. (Consider for example the case of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mark_Karr) And as Larry Parr said in
that earlier discussion, one could even argue there was ambiguity in
what Sam Sloan said he did on his webpage, an ambiguity he no doubt
intended. And what have we learned? Not a thing.
What you are implying in this thread also has little to do with what
Slothrop had said. You are implying that this recent court decision
provides incontrovertible proof that Sam Sloan is a child molester. It
does no such thing. It may provide evidence he is a great many bad
things, and it may show he's not safe to have around your children,
but it definitely does not prove he is a child molester.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:24:23 -0700 (PDT), billbrock <...@gmail.com
On Jun 23, 9:51 am, Just A Patzer <...@gmail.com
"Incontrovertible" would indeed be a bit strong. One could plausibly
argue that Sloan has been living la vida Andy Kaufman, successfully
impersonating a child molester for decades.
How much would you advise me to set aside for a settlement with Sloan,
counsel?
;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:33:16 -0700 (PDT), Brennan Price <...@gmail.com
SS and BB are party opponents in a federal case. SS's statements,
therefore, are not hearsay. F.R.E. 801(d)(2)(A).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:09:04 -0700 (PDT), jemptymethod <...@gmail.com
On Jun 23, 7:41 am, Just A Patzer <...@gmail.com
Ok you want some legal definitions, how about this one? Criminal/
felony proceedings call for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, but
civil proceedings typically only require a "preponderance" of
evidence. I've read case law breaking this all the way down to merely
51% out of 100. Shaved that thin, I'd have to say the preponderance
is in favor of somebody who has successfully defending a libel case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|