Dear Paul,

Heil Dubya!

How DARE your confuse the issue for these brilliant minds, with something you
call "facts"!?! Whose facts are they? Probably bought and paid for by Sherzer
and his friends, with the millions he made as a GM.

For shame! For shame! (AND I THOUGHT YOU HAD A HEAD ON YOUR SHOULDERS. Oh,
well, I've been in error more than once before.)

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)

Fraternally,

Jerry Bibuld
gens una sumus

Didn't he say it is between him and Alex? So what business is it of
yours? I met Alex once a long time ago and he seemed like a nice guy.
Does that mean anything? No. When it is all said and done then we'll
all know after the trial.

EZoto

From: ospam (Jerome Bibuld)

Sherzer is innocent of any such crime and his persecution should be ended.

And WHY does Jerry say that Sherzer is innocent, rather than that there is not
enough evidence to prosecute, as the pro Sherzer camp is saying? Because he is
a GM. In Jerry's twisted little psychotic world, Grandmasters and black people
can do no wrong. Everyone else is scum.

Didn't he say it is between him and Alex? So what business is it of
yours? I met Alex once a long time ago and he seemed like a nice guy.
Does that mean anything? No. When it is all said and done then we'll
all know after the trial.


And AGAIN, as soon as the so called federal agent led the email discussion to a
sexual nature, why didn't Sherzer just not reply any more? How come he
continued correspondance with what he THOUGHT was a 15 year old girl?

Heil Dubya!

Normally, I don't respond directly to the ad hominem attacks of assholes like
"drahmiel", but I can't resist a "Chuck you, too, Farley" in response to its
last post. Therefore -- and, PEOPLE, please forgive me -- a limited number of
the posters are scum, including "drahmiel", itself. I can't think of a GM as
slimy as it is, except for a former U. S. champion, whom I dont choose to name,
out of respect for another poster on this forum.

From: ospam (Jerome Bibuld)

Sherzer is innocent of any such crime and his persecution should be ended.

And WHY does Jerry say that Sherzer is innocent, rather than that there is
not
enough evidence to prosecute, as the pro Sherzer camp is saying? Because he
is
a GM. In Jerry's twisted little psychotic world, Grandmasters and black
people
can do no wrong. Everyone else is scum.

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und Irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus

"Jerome Bibuld" wrote in message
...

Fraternally,

You're the least fraternal sack of **** I've run into in some time. What's
the matter with you, anyway?

LUDICROUS CRITICISM

By Larry Parr

Jerry Bibuld certainly has friends among grandmasters, and perhaps
they can do no wrong in his eyes. But to suggest he does not criticize GMs is
ludicrous criticism that rewrites history.

By last count, he has posted 10 to the 47th power messages here hitting
Kasparov, Evans, Keene and many other GMs, especially those who criticize his
beloved Soviet-dominated FIDE. For chrisssakes!

Although we disagree on many issues, I think Mr. Bibuld holds the same
position as I do: even were every single word by the prosecution accurate,
Alex Sherzer committed no crime. None.

GM Sherzer may have broken a law that is far from lawfully normative.
That is another matter.

Laws that aren't lawful?

Yeah, like the numerous clausus in Wilhelminian Germany, the Jim Crow
laws in Washington, DC (introduced, by the way, by Woodrow Wilson),the
Nuremberg Laws, and the famous Article 58 of the old Soviet legal code that
permitted arrest of anyone for anything. In Old America, juries in the North
routinely found defendants innocent if the law in question offended natural or
common law.

The American legal code is such that today anyone may be construed a
criminal, and this development is far from accidental. It is in accord with
the idea that one's freedom of movement is a gift from the state rather than a
right.

Dear Larry,

Heil Dubya!

Thanks for pointing out our almost complete agreement on the Sherzer case.

Incidentally, I think you may enjoy an account of my last stint of jury duty.
(It realio trulio may be my last stint of jury duty, because our fascist rulers
don't want independent and objective jurors.)

I had been called for civil jury duty once before, but never reached a trial,
because the (poor, benighted) attorneys who were suing thought that this
insurance company "executive" would not rule in favor of their clients. As
soon as they found out I worked for a health insurance company, they "excused"
me. Some may see that as a sad happenstance, because their poor clients lost
an ally, perhaps, more helpful than the attorneys themselves.

Be that as it may, I was called for criminal jury duty in February 2001 and,
figuratively, my mouth watered at the prospect of voting NOT GUILTY in all
cases where another citizen was not truly harmed by the defendant. Sadly, in
my opinion, I was put on a grand jury - where only a three quarters vote was
necessary for indictment.

We were allowed to listen to the assistant district attorney and his
(apparently, there were no HERS among the assistant DAs, although the
Westchester DA, herself, was female) witness(es) and could ask questions, but
were cautioned against voicing opinions. (Can you imagine ME not voicing my
opinion about anything?) I considered this illegal - even in the U. S. A. --
and said so. The answer was that we were "free" to voice our opinions, but
that they should be considered and to the point. After all, wasn't our vote an
expression of our opinion? Our job was to determine whether there was reason
to prosecute; NOT whether the defendant was innocent or guilty.

I soon learned that the overwhelming majority of the cases involved entrapment
of drug pushers. It was during my "service" on this jury that I recognized
that the Armies of Occupation could be reduced enormously by getting rid of the
anti-drug laws. At the same time, we could save money on the offices of the
district attorneys and the court system as a whole, to say nothing of the
institutions of imprisonment. So I asked my pointed questions and voted "no
indictment", but with very little effect. Occasionally, one other juror -
usually a different one each time - would vote "no indictment" with me, but,
since only a three-quarters vote was necessary and the grand jury consisted of
23 members, I "lost" every case. It wasn't even close; usually 21 or 22 to 1.
(Sometimes a juror wasn't present.)

Then, we came to the case of a "free enterprise entrepreneur". He provided "
little black boxes" to private citizens who did not want to be fleeced by the
"official" cable company in Westchester Company. (I'm sorry I don't remember
the name of the "official" company any longer - I don't use their "service".)
The cable company had an employee, who located this entrepreneur and bought a
few boxes from him. The cable company employee then enlisted the DA's office
who detailed a member of the Army of Occupation to buy a few more of these
little black boxes - and to arrest the entrepreneur. Of course, I objected to
the aiding and abetting of this cable monopoly and (perhaps, I take too much
credit) convinced three other jurors that this was an entrapment we should not
countenance. Thus, the vote, instead of being the usual 21 or 22 to 1 was ONLY
18-4. Holy cow! We almost beat them.

Before the next case, the "chief" Assistant District Attorney asked me to visit
with the chief judge. (I don't know his formal title.) The jurist noted that I
seemed usually to vote against indictment. (There were two assault cases and
one case of defrauding an old woman - I don't know whether she was a little old
lady in sneakers - where I had voted for indictment during the first week, but
I had voted NO in every other case.) He asked me why. I did not tell him to
"Chuck you, Farley," because I didn't think of it. After all, as a grand
juror, I could vote however I wanted on every case and my reasons were none of
his damned business. Even if I had thought of such an appropriate response, I
might not have had the courage to stand up for THAT right. Instead, I told him
that I considered the anti-drug laws a way of controlling the colonials by the
imperials and I was opposed to imperialism. I didn't even comment of the
persecution of the "free enterprise entrepreneur". The judge asked me if I
would be happy not to have to sit in on drug cases. I told him I would be more
than happy to be relieved of the tedium, where I could do nothing constructive.
From then on, I was excused from ALL drug cases. This was rather nice,
because I left early every day the next week. In addition, although grand jury
duty in Westchester County New York is supposed to last for the entire month, I
was discharged after the second week. It was, in my mind, no great loss of my
liberty, because I realized it would have been impossible for me to help a
single individual out of his persecution.

That's the story, Larry and I hope you enjoyed it.


LUDICROUS CRITICISM

By Larry Parr

Jerry Bibuld certainly has friends among grandmasters, and perhaps
they can do no wrong in his eyes. But to suggest he does not criticize GMs
is
ludicrous criticism that rewrites history.

By last count, he has posted 10 to the 47th power messages here
hitting
Kasparov, Evans, Keene and many other GMs, especially those who criticize his
beloved Soviet-dominated FIDE. For chrisssakes!

Although we disagree on many issues, I think Mr. Bibuld holds the same
position as I do: even were every single word by the prosecution accurate,
Alex Sherzer committed no crime. None.

GM Sherzer may have broken a law that is far from lawfully normative.
That is another matter.

Laws that aren't lawful?

Yeah, like the numerous clausus in Wilhelminian Germany, the Jim Crow
laws in Washington, DC (introduced, by the way, by Woodrow Wilson),the
Nuremberg Laws, and the famous Article 58 of the old Soviet legal code that
permitted arrest of anyone for anything. In Old America, juries in the North
routinely found defendants innocent if the law in question offended natural
or
common law.

The American legal code is such that today anyone may be construed a
criminal, and this development is far from accidental. It is in accord with
the idea that one's freedom of movement is a gift from the state rather than
a
right.

Heute Uhmuhrikkka, Afghanistan und irak. Morgen die ganze Welt!

Uhmuhrikka, Uhmuhrikkka uber Alles!

(Was 11 September 2001 Kristalnacht or the date of the Reichstag fire?)

Fraternally

Jerry Bibuld

gens una sumus

On 23 Sep 2003 05:12:13 GMT, ospam (Jerome Bibuld)
wrote:

Incidentally, I think you may enjoy an account of my last stint of jury duty.
(It realio trulio may be my last stint of jury duty, because our fascist rulers
don't want independent and objective jurors.)

I had been called for civil jury duty once before, but never reached a trial,
because the (poor, benighted) attorneys who were suing thought that this
insurance company "executive" would not rule in favor of their clients. As
soon as they found out I worked for a health insurance company, they "excused"
me. Some may see that as a sad happenstance, because their poor clients lost
an ally, perhaps, more helpful than the attorneys themselves.

Your desire to ally yourself with the plaintiff, it appears, preceded
your hearing any testimony or reviewing any evidence. Interesting
contrast with your first paragraph, where you whine that you'll be
rejected because of your *objectivity*.

Heil Dubya!

Normally, I don't respond directly to the ad hominem attacks of assholes like
"drahmiel",

reminder of psychotic drooling invective snipped

I suspect that the reason Jerry is so peeved at my "anonymouse" status (despite
the fact that I have been "outed" by Sam Sloan and others on a number of
occasions), is because he might discover that I am black or a GM, which would
create such dissonance that his head would probably explode. Now I'm sure he
sleeps well under the assumption that no one as "slimy" as I am could possibly
be worthy of the title GM or of dark skin. As to the proposition that Jerry
has criticized GMs, I suspect he has only done so when their actions or
comments have come into conflict with other GMs, members of the black
community, or his own hopelessly extremist views.