At 01:41 AM 4/22/2004 EDT, wrote:

There is a world of difference between someone who is within a year or so
of consent...and one who is many years from consent.

Just to let you know, the young lady in question was two weeks away
from the age of consent. She was two weeks away from her 16th
birthday, which is the age of consent in Alabama, New Jersey and many
other states.

Knowing that the case would essentially expire in two weeks, the
undercover agent pretending to be a girl accelerated the case and
insisted that Sherzer come to see "her" right away, plus insisted that
he bring dildos and other sexual toys and alcohol and that he rent a
motel room etc.

I agree that Sherzer was mighty stupid for not realizing that a trap
was being set, but many men would have fallen into the same trap that
Sherzer fell into.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:

Randy Bauer apparently blames Fischer for the attack
on the World Trade Center

_
I see nothing that makes this apparent.


Sam Sloan wrote:

but it is apparent that Fischer made his remarks on
Philippines Radio before the World Trade Center had
fallen.

_
From the introduction: "We have on the line one of our, uh,
friends, of, of, we used to interview every now and then for
the past, uh, several years, I think, I think for the past two
years already. We have, uh, uh, chess, uh, grandmaster, the
chess world, world chess champion Bobby Fischer. Uh, he's
on the line right now and would like to give, uh, some thoughts
of his own opinion - commentary on, uh, what happened at the
world trade center just, uh, ABOUT A FEW HOURS AGO."
(Emphasis added.)

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:10:49 GMT, Louis Blair
wrote:

Sam Sloan wrote:

Randy Bauer apparently blames Fischer for the attack
on the World Trade Center

_
I see nothing that makes this apparent.


Sam Sloan wrote:

but it is apparent that Fischer made his remarks on
Philippines Radio before the World Trade Center had
fallen.

_
From the introduction: "We have on the line one of our, uh,
friends, of, of, we used to interview every now and then for
the past, uh, several years, I think, I think for the past two
years already. We have, uh, uh, chess, uh, grandmaster, the
chess world, world chess champion Bobby Fischer. Uh, he's
on the line right now and would like to give, uh, some thoughts
of his own opinion - commentary on, uh, what happened at the
world trade center just, uh, ABOUT A FEW HOURS AGO."
(Emphasis added.)

We have had this debate before. Please note that there is no
indication that Fischer was actually able to hear these words. He was
on hold at the moment these words were spoken. Also, as he was in
Japan and this was broadcast in the Philippines, it was unlikely
(although of course not impossible) that he could hear this on his own
radio.

Fischer never used the words "World Trade Center" in his recorded
comments. He spent almost the entire broadcast talking about the
Palestinian issue. Since this was broadcast in Philippines which is 13
hours ahead of the US and Fischer was in Japan which is 14 hours ahead
of the US and since the World Trade Center did not fall down until
after 10:00 AM by which time it was 9-12 in Japan plus the fact that
this was broadcast on 9-11 Japan or Philippines time plus the fact
that the interviewer made no mention of the collapse of the World
Trade Center all points to the conclusion that the World Trade Center
had not fallen at the time that Fischer spoke these words, so he could
not have known about the tremendous loss of life that subsequently
resulted.

Sam Sloan

Sam Sloan wrote:
but it is apparent that Fischer made his remarks on
Philippines Radio before the World Trade Center had
fallen.

I wrote:
From the introduction: "We have on the line one of our, uh,
friends, of, of, we used to interview every now and then for
the past, uh, several years, I think, I think for the past two
years already. We have, uh, uh, chess, uh, grandmaster, the
chess world, world chess champion Bobby Fischer. Uh, he's
on the line right now and would like to give, uh, some thoughts
of his own opinion - commentary on, uh, what happened at the
world trade center just, uh, ABOUT A FEW HOURS AGO."
(Emphasis added.)


Sam Sloan now writes:

We have had this debate before. Please note that there is no
indication that Fischer was actually able to hear these words.

_
Nevertheless, we can read them and come to our own conclusions
about whether or not the interview (with Fischer's remarks)
took place "before the World Trade Center had fallen".


Sam Sloan now writes:

Fischer never used the words "World Trade Center" in his
recorded comments.

_
Fischer did make such comments as:

"... They hijacked all these planes. ..."

"... This is a major operation ..."

"... I expect soon there's going to be a new
president after the white house is blown up. ..."


Sam Sloan now writes:

this was broadcast on 9-11 Japan or Philippines time

_
I see no documentation from Sam Sloan about the time
of the broadcast.

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 15:10:49 GMT, Louis Blair

Fischer never used the words "World Trade Center" in his recorded
comments. He spent almost the entire broadcast talking about the
Palestinian issue. Since this was broadcast in Philippines which is 13
hours ahead of the US and Fischer was in Japan which is 14 hours ahead
of the US and since the World Trade Center did not fall down until
after 10:00 AM by which time it was 9-12 in Japan plus the fact that
this was broadcast on 9-11 Japan or Philippines time plus the fact
that the interviewer made no mention of the collapse of the World
Trade Center all points to the conclusion that the World Trade Center
had not fallen at the time that Fischer spoke these words, so he could
not have known about the tremendous loss of life that subsequently
resulted.

It is from the context that Bobby knew that the buildings had been attacked.
For the sake of arguement, let's assume that the interview took place
between the time of the attack, but before the buildings fell. After all, a
radio announcer, caught up in the moment, may have used the phrase "..a few
hours ago.." when it was only an hour ago; the announcer could have been
wrong. Is your position that Bobby's statements have any less weight were
they only to have referred to the initial impact, damage, and loss of life
incurred prior to the collapse? And additionally, that the reduced
negativity from such a context is such that relieves him of censure?

David


--
without the block

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 01:47:25 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 00:17:58 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
wrote:


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

SNIP

One of the reasons I am running for election is that I want the USCF
to defend Bobby Fischer from the federal indictment for disobeying an
executive order that he not play a match for the World Chess
Championship with Boris Spassky. I believe that the US President had
no legal right to order Fischer not to play the match and that the
federal officials involved in issuing this order should themselves be
indicted.

I'm running on a platform of taking necessary measures to restore USCF's
financial health. I fail to see how the organization defending Fischer from
a federal indictment is going to further that cause. It sounds like an
expensive proposition to me.

Just to make it clear, when I write above that "I want the USCF to
defend Bobby Fischer from the federal indictment" I am not saying that
I want the USCF to hire a lawyer and go to court. I agree that this
would be an expensive proposition and the USCF would not have the
money to do this.

However, we could at no cost write letters to the Department of
Justice and to Congressmen, Senators and the President pointing out to
them that we are an organization of 90,000 members and some of us are
old enough to vote and we will not vote for you next time around
unless you drop your meritless case against Fischer.

That should do it, as they fear nothing more than the wrath of the
voters.

I am also thinking of running for US Congress and in the unlikely
event that I am elected I will call a Congressional committee to
investigate why Fischer was indicted when it is obvious that he
committed no crime.

SNIP

Sam Sloan

I am focusing my reply in this thread to just the issue of indcting
Fischer for "conducting business" in Belgrade, Serbia.

The US Department of Justice could frankly care less that Fischer
played chess with Spassky. What they cared about was the a US citizen
violated a directive to not do business with a particluar country as
part of sanctions against that country. And that he was told that
doing such business was a crime and Fischer whent ahead and did ti
anyway.

If Fischer has played Spassky outside of Serbia, he wouldn't have been
indicted. If Fischer had done some other business in Serbia, say
being paid to give a series of lectures, then he would have been
similarly indicted.

WRT Congress having any say in what the Department of Justice does:
I think that it could investigate why the indictment was made, but it
could not really undo the indictment - that is the perogative of the
executive branch.

Mike Ogush

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 17:04:18 GMT, (Mike Ogush)
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 01:47:25 GMT, (Sam Sloan)
wrote:

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 00:17:58 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
wrote:


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

SNIP

One of the reasons I am running for election is that I want the USCF
to defend Bobby Fischer from the federal indictment for disobeying an
executive order that he not play a match for the World Chess
Championship with Boris Spassky. I believe that the US President had
no legal right to order Fischer not to play the match and that the
federal officials involved in issuing this order should themselves be
indicted.

I'm running on a platform of taking necessary measures to restore USCF's
financial health. I fail to see how the organization defending Fischer from
a federal indictment is going to further that cause. It sounds like an
expensive proposition to me.

Just to make it clear, when I write above that "I want the USCF to
defend Bobby Fischer from the federal indictment" I am not saying that
I want the USCF to hire a lawyer and go to court. I agree that this
would be an expensive proposition and the USCF would not have the
money to do this.

However, we could at no cost write letters to the Department of
Justice and to Congressmen, Senators and the President pointing out to
them that we are an organization of 90,000 members and some of us are
old enough to vote and we will not vote for you next time around
unless you drop your meritless case against Fischer.

That should do it, as they fear nothing more than the wrath of the
voters.

I am also thinking of running for US Congress and in the unlikely
event that I am elected I will call a Congressional committee to
investigate why Fischer was indicted when it is obvious that he
committed no crime.

SNIP

Sam Sloan

I am focusing my reply in this thread to just the issue of indcting
Fischer for "conducting business" in Belgrade, Serbia.

The US Department of Justice could frankly care less that Fischer
played chess with Spassky. What they cared about was the a US citizen
violated a directive to not do business with a particluar country as
part of sanctions against that country. And that he was told that
doing such business was a crime and Fischer whent ahead and did ti
anyway.

If Fischer has played Spassky outside of Serbia, he wouldn't have been
indicted. If Fischer had done some other business in Serbia, say
being paid to give a series of lectures, then he would have been
similarly indicted.

WRT Congress having any say in what the Department of Justice does:
I think that it could investigate why the indictment was made, but it
could not really undo the indictment - that is the perogative of the
executive branch.

Mike Ogush

One organization that did violate UN Sanctions by doing business with
Serbia was the United States Chess Federation. The USCF bought more
than $200,000 worth of Chess Informants from Serbia during the period
of UN Sanctions. This was a clear violation.

On the other hand, sporting events were not consided to be a violation
of UN Sanctions. Football teams travelled to and from Serbia during
the period of UN Sanctions. A famous chess player, Charles Weldon,
travelled to Serbia during the period of UN Sanctions and
unfortunately got sick and died there because of the inadequacy of
medical treatment there because of the war.

The chess match between Boris Spassky and Bobby Fischer clearly was
not a commercial contact of the type prohibited by UN Sanctions. Thus,
the Executive Order directing Fischer not to play the match was
entirely bogus and Fischer had every right to ignore it, just as he
would have had the right to ignore a presidential order that he play
1.d4 instead of 1.e4.

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

The chess match between Boris Spassky and Bobby Fischer clearly was
not a commercial contact of the type prohibited by UN Sanctions. Thus,
the Executive Order directing Fischer not to play the match was
entirely bogus and Fischer had every right to ignore it, just as he
would have had the right to ignore a presidential order that he play
1.d4 instead of 1.e4.

Sam Sloan

Yeah. That's the same.

MN

Hmm....you know this "idea" that chess players constitute some kind of
untouchable "club" is getting to wear a bit thin. I don't give a damm if it
is Fisher or Santa Claus...some things are just not right. Either going
against one's government or society's mores, the violation of either merits
condemnation. Of late there have been a lot of posts by some on here that
are nothing short of irresponsible far left thinking. Maybe those kind would
do better posting thier crap on a different newsgroup.
"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
On 19 Sep 2003 09:29:35 PST, (Randy Bauer)
wrote:

I'm sure there are overzealous police officers and prosecutors just as
I am sure there are 30-something professionals who desire to have sex
with 15-year olds and actually put into action a plan to accomplish
this. Having seen no evidence of purported prosecutoral lies, I'll
form my judgement on what seems credible.

If, as the girl's mother attests, it is true that she became alarmed
when reading printouts of the conversations between Sherzer and her
daughter, do you really think they were all platonic, fatherly sorts
of notes? Whey the elaborate plan to get her a cell phone? If the
handwritten note with the to-do list including sexing a 15-year old is
true, isn't that kind of damning too?

Perhaps the entrapment defense will lead to a legal conclusion that he
is not guilty. If that is how he gets off, and the other evidence
still stands, I for one will not consider him innocent.

Randy Bauer

I must say that I am concerned by the numerous statements of this
nature made by Randy Bauer during the Sherzer trial. Even after
Sherzer was found not guilty by the jury, Randy Bauer said:

"I continue to be shocked that you do not consider sex between
a 30 year old and a 15 year old to be a crime. Larry, when would it
be a crime? At what age? Is it NEVER a crime? Can a 30 year old
have fun with a 10 year old? a five year old? What is the standard and
what do you base it upon? Are no children safe absent intervention
from parents (which happened in the Sherzer case) in your world?

"Randy Bauer"

Alex Sherzer was on trial for his life, facing a minimum of 15 years
in prison on a charge of cyber-sex with a girl he had never met, who
turned out not to be a girl at all but an undercover male police
agent.

Randy Bauer was one of a small group led by John Fernandez who wanted
to roast Sherzer for this quasi-crime.

As chess players we should defend one of our own especially when
attacked by the enormous power of the state.

One of the reasons I am running for election is that I want the USCF
to defend Bobby Fischer from the federal indictment for disobeying an
executive order that he not play a match for the World Chess
Championship with Boris Spassky. I believe that the US President had
no legal right to order Fischer not to play the match and that the
federal officials involved in issuing this order should themselves be
indicted.

It seems obvious from his statements during the Sherzer trial that
Randy Bauer would probably like to see Fischer spend ten years in
prison for playing the match, and I am concerned about this.

Sam Sloan
I am a candidate for the USCF Executive Board

..
Can Sam Sloan explain how it is "obvious" that Fischer committed no crime,
when he was warned in advance that his planned actions would be a violation
of
some "executive order"? It is in no way "obvious" to me that willful
violation of an "executive order" is not a crime, unless and until it is
shown
that such "order" was invalid or unconstitutional.

OK. Suppose that the President had ordered that Fischer was not
allowed to play 1.e4 in any of his games against Spassky but that he
must either play 1.d4 or 1.g4 as White in all of his games.

Then, suppose that Fischer contumaceously and in wanton disrespect of
the President's order had played 1.e4 anyway.

Under these circumstances, do you feel that Fischer should be
subjected to a criminal indictment for disobeying the President's
order and, if so, how many years to you feel that Fischer should be
required to serve in federal prison for this crime?


Red Herring stew? Okay, I'll bite.

In this particular case, it is clear that the issuing President *must* have
been "Slick Willy" Clinton, and I would suggest that the legality of such an
"order" (to play 1d4 = [but not 1.g4? -- +]) be challenged in a court of law.
There is no better way to do this than to spit on the "order" at a press
conference, right before the match begins!

And yes, it is only logical that Fischer would then be subject to a criminal
indictment for daring to defy Slick Willy's senseless command to not play 1.e4!
[best by test], and the number of years would, in my opinion, amount to zero,
due to the obvious fact that such an order would be found invalid, null, and
void by the Supreme Court.

Are there any other legal questions?