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

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
On 19 Sep 2003 09:29:35 PST, (Randy Bauer)
wrote:


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:

Sam, is there any way we can get your position on issue this published in
Chess Life where it could be read by the full voting membership? Please?

snip Bauer Quote


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.

You apparently didn't follow the case. He was not charged with cybersex.
He was charged with attempting to actually have sex with that 15 year old.
The girl did exist. He did have conversations with her, of such a nature
that concerned her parent and the police. It does appear that the more
explicit elements of the conversation were between him and the undercover
agent.


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

Which part is the quasi-crime, Sam? That it was cybersex (this was not the
crime)? That he intended to follow through with his plan? That the girl
was not involved in the latter part of the conversation? That no sex act
actually took place?

He was not found innocent, Sam. He was found non-guilty via the affirmative
defense of entrapment. In other words, "Yes, I did it, but I'm not
CRIMINALLY responsible for it." This does not relieve him of being MORALLY
responsible.


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

Sure. We could call ourselves the One-Eyed Knights. I guess we would need
leather jackets or something though, were we to be a real gang.

snip Bobby

David

--
without the block

Heil Dubya!

As one of those who feel Alex Sherzer was framed by vile bacilli, including the
mother of the purported "victim", who, after all, had consigned her own
daughter to a very real "prison" -- and as, perhaps, the most vociferous
defender of GM Sherzer on this bbs -- I condemn Scam Spam's attempt to bring up
this matter in opposition to Randy Bauer's candidacy for the USCF Executive
Board. But what can one expect of Scam Spam, this most vile of creatures?

Randy Bauer is running for the USCF's Executive Board. He is not running for
either District Attorney or Public Defender. He has a history of acting in
favor of the interests of chess players in the world of chess. His mistaken
opinions concerning Alex Sherzer and the persecution of Alex Sherzer have
nothing at all to do with the USCF election. Scam Spam knows this, but will do
whatever he can to gain the seat he seeks. Among other things, he represents
the philosophy of every iron filled, redblooded, he Uhmurikkkan boychick:
WINNING ISN'T EVERYTHING; IT'S THE ONLY THING.

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

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

Uhmuhrikkka, Uhmuhrikkka über Alles!

(The more information that comes out about the attacks on the Twin Towers and
the Pentagon of 11 September 2001 the more it appears that those attacks were
organized by the rulers of the United States and were intended to have the same
effect on the people of the United States that the Reichstag fire had on the
people of Germany in 1933.)

Fight terrorism! Dissolve the CIA and disarm the Pentagon! (I have been
watching the hearings of the Commission to investigate the attacks on the Twin
Towers and the Pentagon of 11 September 2001. As a result, I have become
convinced that every one of the witnesses and their four Presidents - and every
one of the Commissioners - should be tried for:
(1. Conspiracy to commit terrorism; and/or
(2. Commission of terrorist acts; and/or
(3. Conspiracy to commit murder; and/or
(4. Commission of murder; and/or
(5. Treason; and/or
(6. Suborning one or more of the above acts.)

Fraternally,

Jerome Bibuld
gens una sumus

On 21 Apr 2004 16:10:06 GMT, ospam (Jerome Bibuld)
wrote:

the philosophy of every iron filled, redblooded, he Uhmurikkkan boychick:
WINNING ISN'T EVERYTHING; IT'S THE ONLY THING.

I've always thought Lombardi did a Stengel when he said this.
Everything versus "only thing"? IMO, "winning isn't the most
important thing; it's the only thing" would have been more pithy.

"David" wrote in message
...

He was not found innocent, Sam. He was found non-guilty via the
affirmative
defense of entrapment. In other words, "Yes, I did it, but I'm not
CRIMINALLY responsible for it." This does not relieve him of being
MORALLY
responsible.

David, I thought of writing almost those exact words.

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

Mr. Sherzer is not being 'attacked' as a chessplayer but as a paeodphile.
According to what I have read in reports he is being diverted from commiting
a crime against a girl that he fully intended to accomplish.

I can't think that inserting R.J. Fischer into the middle of the Sherzer
affair is doing RJF any favors. There are much better negotiating grounds,
strategies and precedents for doing so.

Phil Innes

David

--
without the block

"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"

Sam and I have very different standards for what is and isn't acceptable
conduct. Anybody who doubts that need only surf Sam's Internet homepage.
What can I say? I'm the father of two grade school daughters, and their
welfare and safety -- and those of children their age -- is something I
believe in protecting.

(snip)

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

That is not an opinion I share. I gather that would be Sam's position if he
were elected to the Board and another Board member (one of your own, right?)
committed an act he found objectionable. I prefer Bacon's admonition that
all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for otherwise good men to
do nothing.

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.

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 has a stunningly bad grasp of nuance. Fischer and Sherzer's
situations are about as far removed from each other as one could find. How
he could deduce my feelings about Fischer's situation with the federal
government is beyond me.

On that fateful September 11th, I was preparing for a flight to New York,
because the next day I was scheduled to make credit presentations to
Standard and Poor's and Moodys regarding some moral obligation bonds the
State of Iowa was issuing. Interestingly, I was also planning on meeting
with our investment bankers for the deal, at their offices located in the
World Trade Center. But for 24 hours, I could have been in the World Trade
Center when it was attacked. That said, I don't hate Bobby Fischer or want
him imprisoned for his statements or actions. I personally think he is
mentally ill and more to be pitied than censured.

Randy Bauer
I am a candidate for the USCF Executive Board

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


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

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

That is not an opinion I share. I gather that would be Sam's position if he
were elected to the Board and another Board member (one of your own, right?)
committed an act he found objectionable. I prefer Bacon's admonition that
all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for otherwise good men to
do nothing.

This is a straw man argument. The question in the Sherzer case was not
whether I, Sam Sloan, considered an act to be objectionable. It was a
case of the government against Alez Sherzer, one man with limited
resources and a court appointed lawyer trying to defend himself
against 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.

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.

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 has a stunningly bad grasp of nuance. Fischer and Sherzer's
situations are about as far removed from each other as one could find. How
he could deduce my feelings about Fischer's situation with the federal
government is beyond me.

On that fateful September 11th, I was preparing for a flight to New York,
because the next day I was scheduled to make credit presentations to
Standard and Poor's and Moodys regarding some moral obligation bonds the
State of Iowa was issuing. Interestingly, I was also planning on meeting
with our investment bankers for the deal, at their offices located in the
World Trade Center. But for 24 hours, I could have been in the World Trade
Center when it was attacked. That said, I don't hate Bobby Fischer or want
him imprisoned for his statements or actions. I personally think he is
mentally ill and more to be pitied than censured.

Randy Bauer
I am a candidate for the USCF Executive Board

Randy Bauer apparently blames Fischer for the attack on the World
Trade Center but it is apparent that Fischer made his remarks on
Philippines Radio before the World Trade Center had fallen.

Those radio remarks had nothing to do with the federal indictment
except to the extent that the unwarranted indictment of Fischer made
him justifiably angry with the federal government. Fischer was
indicted in 1992. The attack on the World Trade Center took place nine
years later in 2001.

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 00:17:58 GMT, "Randy Bauer"
wrote:


"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

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

That is not an opinion I share. I gather that would be Sam's position if
he
were elected to the Board and another Board member (one of your own,
right?)
committed an act he found objectionable. I prefer Bacon's admonition
that
all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for otherwise good men
to
do nothing.

This is a straw man argument. The question in the Sherzer case was not
whether I, Sam Sloan, considered an act to be objectionable. It was a
case of the government against Alez Sherzer, one man with limited
resources and a court appointed lawyer trying to defend himself
against 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.

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.

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 has a stunningly bad grasp of nuance. Fischer and Sherzer's
situations are about as far removed from each other as one could find.
How
he could deduce my feelings about Fischer's situation with the federal
government is beyond me.

On that fateful September 11th, I was preparing for a flight to New York,
because the next day I was scheduled to make credit presentations to
Standard and Poor's and Moodys regarding some moral obligation bonds the
State of Iowa was issuing. Interestingly, I was also planning on meeting
with our investment bankers for the deal, at their offices located in the
World Trade Center. But for 24 hours, I could have been in the World
Trade
Center when it was attacked. That said, I don't hate Bobby Fischer or
want
him imprisoned for his statements or actions. I personally think he is
mentally ill and more to be pitied than censured.

Randy Bauer
I am a candidate for the USCF Executive Board

Randy Bauer apparently blames Fischer for the attack on the World
Trade Center but it is apparent that Fischer made his remarks on
Philippines Radio before the World Trade Center had fallen.

Those radio remarks had nothing to do with the federal indictment
except to the extent that the unwarranted indictment of Fischer made
him justifiably angry with the federal government. Fischer was
indicted in 1992. The attack on the World Trade Center took place nine
years later in 2001.

Sam Sloan

"Better to keep your mouth shut and have people *think* you're an idiot than
to open it and remove all doubt."

I think this maxim is appropriate here for some reason.....

Regards,

Matt

On 22 Apr 2004 04:13:59 GMT, illspam
(NoMoreChess) wrote:

.
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.


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?

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
On 22 Apr 2004 04:13:59 GMT, illspam
(NoMoreChess) wrote:

.
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.


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?

Sam Sloan

Yeah. That's the same.

MN