THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

DUI is a crime that in many instances leads to the
death of otherwise innocent people. -- Randy Bauer

Contrary to Randy Bauer's assertion, there is
nothing criminal about driving a car and being drunk.
It is another of our victimless crimes.

Victims do enter the picture if someone bashes
into another person carelessly or intentionally. That
can be a crime whether drunk or sober.

DUI is not a crime in the natural law, though what
one may do when driving drunk or sober may become
a crime.

We are back to the distinction -- a vital one
for a society that wishes to remain free -- between
illegality and criminality. All kinds of legal acts
may be illegal in various societies and be quite
lawful. Indeed, those imposing and administering such
acts, in contravention of natural law norms, may be
far more criminal than the violators.

And here, I think, is the crux. For a
"legislative process" chap such as our Mr. Bauer,
there is no right and wrong and certainly no legal
norms. Anything becomes possible if the "process"
leads to it. If the process involves it, we censor
the USCF Forum; if, a few years down the road, the
process moves in a certain direction, then we cut out
the tongue of every fifth person. A "moderate," who
might be involved in this kind of "legislative process"
will later spin the issue and argue that it might have
been every third tongue but thanks to our hero's efforts,
only 20 percent of tongues will be excised.

Yours, Larry Parr



wrote:
RANDY BAUER'S SPIN

In a response to one Dylan of the New York Times, Randy Bauer
tries
more spin. He tells us that Sam Sloan finished poorly in an election
in which he underwent the most comprehensive and vicious attacks of
possibly any
candidate in USCF history.

Sam's great crime was not only to out Robert Tanner as a cheat
and to force his resignation not only from the board but from our
execrable FIDE "team," he also revealed one scandal after another.
His reports on the move to Cross-to-Bear proved UNDERESTIMATIONS of
the overall cost to the Federation in financial terms. At the time he
made his claims, they were dismissed as lies.

This writer reported about two months before Randy Bauer and
other Board members saw fit to reveal the truth that the real cost of
the new building would
be at least $650,000, a number that was later published by the Board
itself.

Sam has been right on the big issues, and he revealed one
scumbag deal after another. The powers-that-be can no longer permit
open discussion at the USCF Forum, and through what he calls "the
legislative process" Mr. Bauer has written the first of what will be
several attempts to cut out open discussion within the USCF.

A regulation was passed forcing Sam Sloan to reveal his
conviction for "kidnapping" his own daughter -- and here, I think, is
where Sam made a big
mistake in his candidate's message. Instead of trying to defend
himself at some length, he should have said that he took legal
responsibility in the form of jail
time for trying to be with his daughter. He might note that he was
the opposite of a deadbeat dad trying to dump his children, but he
ought then to have said he nonetheless violated a court order. And so
it has been for several million fathers in the USofA these days.

Randy Bauer tells us that there have been "NO meetings" of the
Board but that there have been "discussions" among the Board members.
That, we should note, is typical stuff. Business is so often
conducted away from the public eye of public meetings. So how many
telephone discussions have there been among MOST or a majority of the
Board members? How many phone hookups have involved NEARLY the full
Board?

One must learn to read a Bauer posting carefully.

Mr. Bauer neglects to mention in his attempt to demean Sam
Sloan's Supreme Court appearance, that Sam argued before the full
Court. It was not a case of winning a portion of a decision by
defense default. The government attempted to maintain its case, and
Sam prevailed in oral arguments -- apparently the last non-lawyer to
do so.

Mr. Bauer represents the current official voice of the Board.
He has been assigned to catch the flak. His partial answers filled
with attempts at evasion will be skilfully done, and we will pick them
part as they appear.

Yours, Larry Parr



Taylor Kingston wrote:
On Oct 8, 5:22 pm, " wrote:
A GOOD CHESS MAXIM

Attack is the best defense!



B. Lafferty wrote:
........but do not address any of the charges made against Truong in the
Mottershead Report.

--------------------------------------------------

NY Times and Lawsuits
Discuss issues that directly relate to the USCF or FIDE. Posts need to be
relevant and stay on topic. Please be respectful to everyone...

Forum rules
Post a reply

6 posts . Page 1 of 1
NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 1:49 pm

The USCF will make a statement shortly about this matter. Once this
statement is made, I can go a little further to explain what happened. Until
then, all I can say is the facts will come out in court and I am eager to
present my information.

Best wishes,
Susan Polgar

NY Times and Lawsuits
by bioniclime on Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:46 pm

Susan (or others),

Do you know when and how this statement will be released? On the USCF
Forums, website, press release?

Thank you...
bioniclime

NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:16 pm

This was an email by board member Randy Bauer, former Budget Director for
the State of Iowa, to the NY Times Journalist:

Dylan,

You may recall that we spoke by phone at least once earlier this year
regarding the USCF election and executive board. You may know that I was one
of the four candidates elected and am also named as one of the defendents in
Sam Sloan's lawsuit.

I'd like to call your attention to at least two important factual errors and
add a couple of other comments.

The article writes that "Since Mr. Mottershead published his report, the
chess federation's executive board, including Mr. Truong and Ms. Polgar,
have met several times to discuss what to do." That is not correct. There
have been NO meetings of the Executive Board since the report was published.
While there have been email discussions among Board members, they have been
sporadic and in many instances have not involved the entire Board.

The article also leads with the claim that "Susan Polgar and Paul Truong . .
. posted thousands of remarks . . . " yet there is no suggestion in
Mottershead's report that Susan was responsible for the postings. Allowing
this claim to stand without mention of that fact is unfair to Susan and
demonstrates a lack of balance not usually found in a New York Times
article.

I'm also surprised that you would accept at face value Sam Sloan's claim
that "If I ever want to apply for a job, nobody's going to hire me because
there are thousands of obscene messages supposedly from me on the Internet."
As I'm sure you know (or should have known) Sam Sloan was a very
controversial member of the Executive Board who was soundly defeated for
re-election - coming in 10th of 11 candidates. Much of the controversy
arises from content on Sam Sloan's website, which is surely as obscene (I
would argue more so) than any of the posts by "the fake Sam Sloan." Should
you doubt this, I would suggest you follow the links below to Sam Sloan's
website (and these are just a representative sample of the tasteless, vulgar
and obscene crap you will find there):

(Deleted as it is inappropriate to younger readers)

Finally, Sam Sloan's long standing claim to have won a case in front of the
U.S. Supreme Court is, as typical with Sam, more hat than cattle. In fact,
as has been detailed many times in discussions on the chess newsgroups,
Sloan's "victory" was on a technicality that had little bearing on the end
result - Sam lost his license to sell securities. As noted in the opinion,
"During this series of suspensions respondent Sloan ...filed a petition in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit challenging the
orders on a variety of grounds. On October 15, 1975, the court dismissed as
frivolous all respondent's claims, except his allegation that the "tacking"
of 10-day summary suspension orders for an indefinite period was an abuse of
the agency's authority and a deprivation of due process." Justice Rehnquist
on SEC v Sloan.

Quite frankly, I would have expected a bit more balance and background.
Sloan is a "serial suer" which you can also detail on his website. As far as
I can tell, Sloan has lost in nearly every instance. Again, this history
would paint a more balanced picture of the viability of the lawsuit.

I would, of course, be happy to discuss any of these issues with you. Feel
free to write or call me.

Randy Bauer
USCF Executive Board
Susan Polgar

NY Times and Lawsuits
by Tennessee Vols on Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:40 pm

I'm a little confused Chairman Susan Polgar with your statement (?) above;
when it turned from your voice into the voice of Randy Bauer (USCF Executive
Board). The tone of the statement does not reflect your standard rule within
your blogs to use personal feelings one way or the other with Sam Sloan. If
it was a statement from Randy Bauer, it would help to clarify; because it
starts out with Dylan (and not sure if the poster before you is or is not
Dylan) and it ends with the name of Randy Bauer.

Where all is but dream, reasoning and arguments are of no use, truth and
knowledge nothing.
John Locke (1632-1704)

Tennessee Vols

NY Times and Lawsuits
by SusanPolgar on Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:58 pm

Sorry, I clarified it. It is a letter from Mr. Bauer to Mr. McClain of the
NY Times.
Susan Polgar- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Larry, this is news of the "Dog Bites Man" variety. Now, if someone
_other_ than you were to *_defend_* Sloan's character, that might be
considered news.