I'm not an international or immigration lawyer, but I may play one on
TV... with that disclaimer, here is my take on the Fischer story.

(http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapc...pan/index.html)

From what I understand, the following is all true:

1) You can violate a UN sanction and not violate US law

2) You violate a US law and not a UN sanction

3) You can be in compliance with US law and violate a UN sanction

4) You can be in compliance with a UN sanction and violate US law

5) A NON-US citizen can be held guilty of violating US law, even if
he or she resides OUTSIDE the US (I mention this because Fischer may
have renounced his US citizenship, but that would not prevent the US
from legally arresting him)

6) A non-US citizen may be arrested outside the US and brought back
into the US for violating US law while he or she was OUTSIDE the US
(this was a US Supreme Court decision in the 90s, involving a Mexican
accused drug lord --he was released--also a drug dealer in Lebanon was
arrested off of Cyprus (international waters) and brought back to the
US)

7) A non-US citizen may be arrested outside the US and brought back
into the US for violating US law while he or she was inside the US
(the CIA shooter in Pakistan case)

Putting all of these rules together, one can conclude that:

The US has targeted Fischer for violating a UN sanction only because
the US ratified it, and for whatever reason, the US government wants
to show the power of the state over an individual. Note if the US had
not ratified the UN sanction, it would not count against Fischer. The
interesting legal issue for me is whether Fischer had renounced his US
citizenship. If so, then the legal precident would be that
technically the US could arrest any non-US citizen for disagreeing
with the US and then bring them to the US for trial. This sounds
outrageous, but in fact a US Supreme Court case from the 90s
(Reinquist decision) held just that: but the accused was a drug lord,
and the crime was tortue of a DEA agent (the accused was actually
arrested in Mexico by the DEA, brought into the US, and tried
there--but he was released for lack of evidence).


Personally, I feel they should leave Fischer alone (true, he's a nut);
each individual has a right to live and speak freely whereever he or
she wants. But it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Any lawyers in the house? Is there a LAWYER in the house? We need an
international lawyer to explain this!

"raylopez99" skrev i melding
om...
I'm not an international or immigration lawyer, but I may play one on
TV... with that disclaimer, here is my take on the Fischer story.

(http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapc...pan/index.html)

From what I understand, the following is all true:

1) You can violate a UN sanction and not violate US law

2) You violate a US law and not a UN sanction

3) You can be in compliance with US law and violate a UN sanction

4) You can be in compliance with a UN sanction and violate US law

5) A NON-US citizen can be held guilty of violating US law, even if
he or she resides OUTSIDE the US (I mention this because Fischer may
have renounced his US citizenship, but that would not prevent the US
from legally arresting him)

6) A non-US citizen may be arrested outside the US and brought back
into the US for violating US law while he or she was OUTSIDE the US
(this was a US Supreme Court decision in the 90s, involving a Mexican
accused drug lord --he was released--also a drug dealer in Lebanon was
arrested off of Cyprus (international waters) and brought back to the
US)

7) A non-US citizen may be arrested outside the US and brought back
into the US for violating US law while he or she was inside the US
(the CIA shooter in Pakistan case)

Putting all of these rules together, one can conclude that:

The US has targeted Fischer for violating a UN sanction only because
the US ratified it, and for whatever reason, the US government wants
to show the power of the state over an individual. Note if the US had
not ratified the UN sanction, it would not count against Fischer. The
interesting legal issue for me is whether Fischer had renounced his US
citizenship. If so, then the legal precident would be that
technically the US could arrest any non-US citizen for disagreeing
with the US and then bring them to the US for trial. This sounds
outrageous, but in fact a US Supreme Court case from the 90s
(Reinquist decision) held just that: but the accused was a drug lord,
and the crime was tortue of a DEA agent (the accused was actually
arrested in Mexico by the DEA, brought into the US, and tried
there--but he was released for lack of evidence).


Personally, I feel they should leave Fischer alone (true, he's a nut);
each individual has a right to live and speak freely whereever he or
she wants. But it will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Any lawyers in the house? Is there a LAWYER in the house? We need an
international lawyer to explain this!
I'am just a ordinary man,but i wonder:Was playing chess in the former
Yugoslavia violating the UN sanction? Playing chess is not the same as
trading.

..
I'am just a ordinary man,but i wonder:Was playing chess in the former
Yugoslavia violating the UN sanction? Playing chess is not the same as
trading.


No, playing chess was not Fischer's "crime."

His "crime" was playing chess (in violation of a UN embargo) for a purse of
five million dollars. This temporarily created an "attraction" not unlike
Disneyland, where the organisers of the match, local hotels and restaurants,
etc., could potentially make a lot of money -- AKA commerce and trade.

As I understand it, the "Executive Order" which Bobby spat upon in front of
TV cameras, was issued by Dubya's daddy, and it doesn't look good for Fischer
if he is brought back just now. Perhaps a better time would be when a Democrat
takes over the White House, and a pardon would be in order.

Unfortunately for Fischer, his other "crime" is not pardonable. Failure to
file, and failure to pay income taxes on his 3.35 million dollar winnings in
1992. Basically, Fischer decided to keep all his eanings by not returning to
the USA after he got paid. The problem is, he likes to travel, and in order to
travel legally, you need a passport. And his passport was issued by the same
country he "cheated" out of its fair share of his winnings.

Put another way -- what goes around, comes around. :-)

[...]
Unfortunately for Fischer, his other "crime" is not pardonable. Failure to
file, and failure to pay income taxes on his 3.35 million dollar winnings in
1992. Basically, Fischer decided to keep all his eanings by not returning to
the USA after he got paid. The problem is, he likes to travel, and in order to
travel legally, you need a passport. And his passport was issued by the same
country he "cheated" out of its fair share of his winnings.

This is far from the universal view. Most countries tax income based
on residence, not based on nationality. The U.S. tax laws are unusual
in this respect.

Passports need to be renewed every 10 years and Fischer has been on
the lam longer than that. Disputes with the IRS don't seem to have
interfered with renewal in the past - but don't count on this. There
is a federal indictment against Fischer, however, and this will cause
trouble.

Currently, as part of the war against foreigners, the U.S. is
increasingly setting up surveillance at foreign airports in
cooperation with local border police.

Jürgen

"Jürgen R." wrote in message ...
[...]
Unfortunately for Fischer, his other "crime" is not pardonable.
Failure to
file, and failure to pay income taxes on his 3.35 million dollar winnings
in
1992. Basically, Fischer decided to keep all his eanings by not
returning to
the USA after he got paid. The problem is, he likes to travel, and in
order to
travel legally, you need a passport. And his passport was issued by the
same
country he "cheated" out of its fair share of his winnings.

This is far from the universal view. Most countries tax income based
on residence, not based on nationality. The U.S. tax laws are unusual
in this respect.

Fischer`s case can be compared to Al Capone`s case. Al Capone was sentenced
for tax crimes too.

Regards,
Jerzy

..
This is far from the universal view. Most countries tax income based
on residence, not based on nationality.


I think you may have forgotten that Fischer *was* a resident of the U.S., and
only ceased to be so when he decided not to return -- undoubtedly because of
the taxes he would have to pay on his 1992 winnings. You have to remember that
Fischer was so tight with money that he virtually "squeaked" when he walked!
No way was he going to fork-over a huge chunk of his 3.35 million dollar purse
to an institution he despised -- the U.S. government. No way, nohow.

But if he is extradited back to the USA on charges of violating an Executive
Order, he will also have to face-off against the evil IRS in a "match" he
simply cannot win. (Ask Al Capone)

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:12:31 -0700, raylopez99 aptly spake:

I'm not an international or immigration lawyer, but I may play one on
TV...

I am a criminal defense attorney and I can tell you the following:
Fischer is toast.

A non-USA citizen can't be arrested and prosecuted by the US federal gov't
for violating US trade laws (e.g. buying Cuban Cigars), but a USA citizen
certainly can.

Fischer was a USA citizen at the time of the alleged offense back in 1992.
His subsequent "renunciation" of USA citizenship has no effect upon his
status as a citizen at the time of his culpable acts. Thus he is on the
hook for violating the Trading With the Enemy Act.

He is also likely to be convicted of tax evasion as mentioned by an
earlier poster here in this newsgroup. Again, his "renunciation" of USA
citizenship will be but a weak shield to hide behind if the prosecution
can establish that he continued to travel under the protection of a USA
passport during the 12 years since his rematch with Spassky.

I was personally saddened by the recent news of his arrest in Japan,
desapite the fact that I violently disagreee with his views. Fischer is a
tragic figure and I shudder at the prospect of seeing him in leg irons. My
only hope is that this arrest will in some way serve to further embarass
George W and his corrupt and inept administration. Perhaps in this ironic
way, Bobby may find some redemption among the decent peoples of the world.

Regards,
Yeh

--
"What's so funny 'bout peace, love and understanding?"
Nick Lowe
"Why must I lose to this idiot??!!??!!"
Aron Nimzowitsch

On 17 Jul 2004 08:31:20 GMT, illspam
(NoMoreChess) wrote:

.
This is far from the universal view. Most countries tax income based
on residence, not based on nationality.


I think you may have forgotten that Fischer *was* a resident of the U.S., and
only ceased to be so when he decided not to return -- undoubtedly because of
the taxes he would have to pay on his 1992 winnings. You have to remember that
Fischer was so tight with money that he virtually "squeaked" when he walked!
No way was he going to fork-over a huge chunk of his 3.35 million dollar purse
to an institution he despised -- the U.S. government. No way, nohow.

But if he is extradited back to the USA on charges of violating an Executive
Order, he will also have to face-off against the evil IRS in a "match" he
simply cannot win. (Ask Al Capone)

No doubt. I was questioning whether it was "fair" for the Feds to take
their share. Its the law, and in that sense applicable to all except
those hire good tax lawyers, which is as fair as U.S. law gets.

Incidentally, who is and who is not a U.S. resident is a very slippery
issue.

Jürgen

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 04:40:06 -0400, Yeh Right
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 10:12:31 -0700, raylopez99 aptly spake:

I'm not an international or immigration lawyer, but I may play one on
TV...

I am a criminal defense attorney and I can tell you the following:
Fischer is toast.

A non-USA citizen can't be arrested and prosecuted by the US federal gov't
for violating US trade laws (e.g. buying Cuban Cigars), but a USA citizen
certainly can.

Both are right only conditionally.

a) A non-US citizen living and doing business with 'the enemy' in the
U.S. - for example, selling Cuban cigars - will be prosecuted, unless
he buys protection.

b) A U.S. citizen living and doing business with 'the enemy' in a
foreign country can only be arrested (by the Feds) if the country is a
U.S. satellite state (Columbia, Panama, etc); in such countries even
foreigners aren't safe (where is Noriega now?).

c) In countries that aren't U.S. satellites the Feds can't just come
and get you; at the least, if you were disappeared by the CIA, e.g. in
Paris, and it became known, there would be a grandiose scandal. You
might still land in Guantanamo, but you would have the satisfaction
that the French Press had something to write about.

d) International arrest warrants and extradition are an area that is
so murky that only a specialist can make any sense of it. If Fischer
was arrested, as reported, by the Japanese immigration authorities
because his papers weren't in order, he might very well have other
options besides deportation to the U.S., provided that some other
country will allow him to enter. This is why the Japanese Chess people
were asking naively for possible destinations.

In fact, the Japanese are probably obliged to review the case against
Fischer before a deportation decision is made. I don't know about
Japan, but in some countries a competent lawyer can make such
proceedings last nearly forever.

Jürgen

"Åge" wrote in message


I'am just a ordinary man,but i wonder:Was playing chess in the former
Yugoslavia violating the UN sanction? Playing chess is not the same as
trading.

It is if you do it for 3.5 million dollars...

Marco



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG