"Mogath3" wrote in message
...
Man, I can sympathize with him as a chess player.
But I don`t sympathize with his lusts for young girls.
Obviously the court agreed that it was an entrapment and there was no sex
with that underaged girl. What`s more Sherzer was seduced by the "clever"
and adult agent not by 15-year-old-innocent-virgin.
So you missed the main point of the whole case. Fortunately you weren`t
the
judge.

No, AGAIN you miss the point. The point is he, a 32 year old man, wanted
to
have sex with a 15 year old girl. He INTENDED to do just that. The fact
that
someone was posing as this 15 year old girl is really moot. He THOUGHT he
was
corresponding with a 15 year old and wanted to have sex with WHAT HE
THOUGHT
was a 15 year old girl. You find that a 32 year old man wanting to have
sex
with a 15 year old girl NORMAL??? I don't care whether it was entrapment
or
not. He STILL THOUGHT it was a 15 year old girl. Thats the only REAL
point. Any
NORMAL 32 year old man that *I* know doesn't want to have sex with 15 year
old
kids. Justify your arguement or twist this around any way you like. He's a
pervert that has a taste for teenage girls, but that means nothing I
guess.

ROTFLMAO
Man, can you read his and our thoughts ??
Better read more carefully what I and others have written so far.
So by now I finish my discussion with you until you grow up a little and
show reasonable arguments but not your clairvoyance.

Regards,
Jerzy

At 11:06 PM 9/26/2003 -0400, Joel Benjamin wrote:

I would have to say that Rich Jackson is the biggest loser in the whole
affair. He appeared in Mobile as a potential rebuttal witness for the
prosecution (I don't think he was called to testify in the end). Sherzer
brought down fifteen friends as potential character witnesses, most of whom
were not permitted to testify. The only person the Feds could find who had
a bad word for Sherzer was Rich Jackson, who actually barely knows Alex
personally.

Joel


Very interesting. Is this Rich Jackson the scholastic tournament
organizer by that name?

If he is the same person, and it seems likely that he is, I feel that
he should be blacklisted by the USCF. A chess player who tries to put
a fellow chess player in prison by testifying as a "character witness"
should not be allowed to be part of the chess community.

Remember that a character witness must appear voluntarily. He cannot
be made subject to a subpoena.

Sam Sloan

(Sam Sloan) wrote in message ...
At 11:06 PM 9/26/2003 -0400, Joel Benjamin wrote:

I would have to say that Rich Jackson is the biggest loser in the whole
affair. He appeared in Mobile as a potential rebuttal witness for the
prosecution (I don't think he was called to testify in the end). Sherzer
brought down fifteen friends as potential character witnesses, most of whom
were not permitted to testify. The only person the Feds could find who had
a bad word for Sherzer was Rich Jackson, who actually barely knows Alex
personally.

Joel


Very interesting. Is this Rich Jackson the scholastic tournament
organizer by that name?

If he is the same person, and it seems likely that he is, I feel that
he should be blacklisted by the USCF. A chess player who tries to put
a fellow chess player in prison by testifying as a "character witness"
should not be allowed to be part of the chess community.

Remember that a character witness must appear voluntarily. He cannot
be made subject to a subpoena.

Sam Sloan

Sam,

I am disappointed to see you come out in favor of official
blacklisting for any reason whatsoever. Of course general opprobrium
is another matter.

Larry

"Paul Rubin" wrote in message
...
"Child" writes:
some mothers go through your things. Some mothers read your
diaries. Some of this snooping is granted.

I don't know what you mean about granted. I do know that if a teenager
has a private diary and their mother reads it, they're going to have a
fight on their hands, and if the invasion continues, they may end up
with a runaway child who becomes a drug addict and insert your favorite
hysteria. It's better to treat the teenager with some respect and leave
their diary alone.

if I was concerned about my child, their privacy is less important to me
than their safety.

In article ,
wrote:

A chess player who tries to put
a fellow chess player in prison by testifying as a "character witness"
should not be allowed to be part of the chess community.

Well, if those are your standards, how about adult chess players who go
to great lengths to gleefully seduce 15-year-olds, whatever the outcome
of their trials? (And it's the right outcome, based on what happened,
I'm not arguing against it.)

--Robert

--
Do not sit next to Dennis

On 27 Sep 2003 11:15:11 -0700, (Larry Tapper)
wrote:

(Sam Sloan) wrote in message ...
At 11:06 PM 9/26/2003 -0400, Joel Benjamin wrote:

I would have to say that Rich Jackson is the biggest loser in the whole
affair. He appeared in Mobile as a potential rebuttal witness for the
prosecution (I don't think he was called to testify in the end). Sherzer
brought down fifteen friends as potential character witnesses, most of whom
were not permitted to testify. The only person the Feds could find who had
a bad word for Sherzer was Rich Jackson, who actually barely knows Alex
personally.

Joel


Very interesting. Is this Rich Jackson the scholastic tournament
organizer by that name?

If he is the same person, and it seems likely that he is, I feel that
he should be blacklisted by the USCF. A chess player who tries to put
a fellow chess player in prison by testifying as a "character witness"
should not be allowed to be part of the chess community.

Remember that a character witness must appear voluntarily. He cannot
be made subject to a subpoena.

Sam Sloan

Sam,

I am disappointed to see you come out in favor of official
blacklisting for any reason whatsoever. Of course general opprobrium
is another matter.

Larry

OK. When I said "blacklisting" I meant general opprobrium.

Obviously, there is no such thing as an official blacklist, nor should
there be one.

I maintain that anyone who tries to mess up a person's life by trying
to put him in prison who is not a victim or a public prosecutor should
be treated with general opprobrium.

Sam Sloan

"Jerzy" wrote in message
...
"Mogath3" wrote in message
...
No SIR YOU OBVIOUSLY missed the point. The POINT is why would one sympathize
with a 32 year old man who wanted and INTENDED to have sex with a 15 year
old girl? And anyone that would sympathize with a man like that IS pathetic.

Man, I can sympathize with him as a chess player.
But I don`t sympathize with his lusts for young girls.
Obviously the court agreed that it was an entrapment and there was no sex
with that underaged girl. What`s more Sherzer was seduced by the "clever"
and adult agent not by 15-year-old-innocent-virgin.
So you missed the main point of the whole case.
Fortunately you weren`t the judge.

Dear Jerzy,

In the thread, "Guantanamo detainees called 'very good' at chess"
(20 September 2003), Mogath3 wrote to me about the "Guantanamo detainees":

"What to do with them? Extract what you can from them and then SHOOT them
because thats exactly what they'd do to us....I see NOTHING wrong with flying
them home, ALL of them and during the flight randomly picking a few and just
picthing them out the cargo door...."

'When one idea has got possession of the soul, it is scarcely possible to keep
it from finding its way to the lips.'
--William Godwin (Caleb Williams)

--Nick

do you think the girl in the sherzer case is gonna mary the judge now or her
cousin? 15 is legal in alabama.

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
One thing for sure, Alex Sherzer now knows who his friends really are.

For example, John Fernandez, who has repeatedly proclaimed himself to
be a friend of Sherzer, is difinately not his friend. Fernandez was
the first to blast the news of Sherzer's arrest all over the internet
and has been proclaiming since day-1 that Sherzer was guilty.

So, Fernandez is definitely one on the losing end of the Sherzer
verdict.

Other losers are Bruce Draney, who repeatedly declared that Sherzer
was guilty, and Tim Hanke who wrote that there was an 80% likelihood
that Sherzer would go to prison. Also on the list of losers is
drahmiel and several others.

On the other side of the isle are those who always said that Sherzer
was not guilty and would prevail. These include myself, Alan Fifield,
Paul Rubin, Larry Parr, Jerome Bibuld, Paul Truong, plus
"LeModernCaveman".

This is just a short list. Somebody should compile a complete list of
those who expressed an opinion for or against Alex Sherzer.

Sam Sloan

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 05:59:19 GMT, "marc margolies"
wrote:

do you think the girl in the sherzer case is gonna mary the judge now or her
cousin? 15 is legal in alabama.


She is 16 now. She turned 16 just a few weeks after Sherzer was
arrested.

That is the reason the FBI Agent was anxious to have Sherzer come pick
her up when he did. He needed to have Sherzer arrested NOW, because as
soon as the girl turned 16, they would have no case.

So, he sent Sherzer e-mails expressing urgency that Sherzer should
come right away, and told him to be sure to bring a dildo.

It was his/her repeated requests for a dildo that should have alerted
Sherzer that this was a sting operation.

Sam Sloan

"marc margolies" wrote in message ...
do you think the girl in the sherzer case is gonna mary the judge now or her
cousin? 15 is legal in alabama.

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
One thing for sure, Alex Sherzer now knows who his friends really are.

For example, John Fernandez, who has repeatedly proclaimed himself to
be a friend of Sherzer, is difinately not his friend. Fernandez was
the first to blast the news of Sherzer's arrest all over the internet
and has been proclaiming since day-1 that Sherzer was guilty.

So, Fernandez is definitely one on the losing end of the Sherzer
verdict.

Other losers are Bruce Draney, who repeatedly declared that Sherzer
was guilty, and Tim Hanke who wrote that there was an 80% likelihood
that Sherzer would go to prison. Also on the list of losers is
drahmiel and several others.

On the other side of the isle are those who always said that Sherzer
was not guilty and would prevail. These include myself, Alan Fifield,
Paul Rubin, Larry Parr, Jerome Bibuld, Paul Truong, plus
"LeModernCaveman".

This is just a short list. Somebody should compile a complete list of
those who expressed an opinion for or against Alex Sherzer.

Sam Sloan
_______________________________
My only "prediction" was that a hung jury was a real possibility. I
never make solid predictions of outcomes in criminal cases where I do
not hear all of the evidence the jury hears or all of the legal
arguments the judge hears. I'm not willing to rely on media accounts
which only report what they believe makes a good story. I'm not sure
there are any winners or losers in this sad case.

KidDon