"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

Sam took a securities case to the U.S. Supreme
Court and WON by 9-0. He is the last non-attorney to
argue successfully before the Court. He would have
had to prevail in a second case to recover his
license, which he had neither the money nor energy to
do.

Larry is 'under-researched', as Philth Innes might say. The Supreme
Court case was in 1978, AFTER Sloan lost his license.

Some people think you go to court to seek redress for things which have
already happened! On the other hand, some people don't think at all!

They seek attention by stalking and name-calling, and making outrageous
commentaries about other people - and we must presume this anxiety is caused
by virtue of them have no life-experience themselves, and they are more than
a little afraid.

Phil Innes

The bureaucrats lost in the courts but they won
out against the individual.

Again, Sloan's 'victory' was only on a procedural matter. The Supreme
Court ruled the SEC could not reissue a ten-day suspension order "based
upon a single set of circumstances." Implying Sloan could ever have
resumed trading shows an ignorance, wilfull or otherwise, of the facts.

http://www.samsloan.com/sec.htm

http://www.samsloan.com/369fs996.htm

Conclusions of Law

1. This Court has jurisdiction under Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15
U.S.C. ?? 78aa.

2. From on or about January 15, 1971 through January 31, 1972, [**13]
as well as from May 1973 to date, Sloan & Co., under the direction of
Sloan wilfully violated Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
?? 78q(a), and Rules 17a-3 and 17a-4 promulgated thereunder, in
that Sloan & Co. failed to properly maintain, keep current and preserve
certain of its books and records, including: Ledgers or other records
reflecting all assets and liabilities, income and expense and capital
accounts; A securities record or ledger; A firm trading account;
Ledgers (or other records) reflecting securities failed to receive and
failed to deliver; Trial balances (or other records of all ledger
accounts); and Computations of aggregate indebtedness and net capital.

3. From on or about January 18, 1971 as well as May and August 1973,
Sloan & Co., under the direction of Sloan wilfully violated Section
15(c)(3) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. ?? 78o(c)(3), and Rule
15c3-1 promulgated thereunder, in that Sloan & Co. effected
transactions in securities (other than exempted securities or
commercial paper, bankers' acceptances or commercial bills) otherwise
than on a national securities exchange while and at a time when its
aggregate indebtedness to all other persons exceeded [**14] 2,000 per
centum of its net capital and, in addition, its net capital was less
than $5,000 or $15,000 as required.

4. While engaged in the above described acts, practices and course of
business, defendants, directly and indirectly, made use of the mails
and means and instruments of transportation and communication in
interstate commerce, and of the means and instrumentalities of
interstate commerce, and effected the transactions otherwise than on a
national securities exchange.

5. The issuance of a permanent injunction is necessary to protect the
public against the continuation or repetition of the above described
violations [*1002] and, unless permanently enjoined, there is a
likelihood that the defendants will continue to engage in violations of
the Exchange Act and the Rules promulgated thereunder.

THE POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION

Notice that in this smear campaign led by Finance Committee
chairman Randy Bauer and his sex-obsessed cohort Bill Brock,
they have not a word to say about chess or Sam Sloan's platform
which he has published on these forums.

The idea is to keep slinging mud until it sticks.

Maybe their smears will backfire. Maybe not. We'll see. My
take is that enough people will see through their tactics and
think for themselves before deciding which two candidates get
elected. With Sam on the board, at least he'll tell us what's
going on behind closed doors.

wrote:
THE POLITICS OF PERSONAL DESTRUCTION

Notice that in this smear campaign led by Finance Committee
chairman Randy Bauer and his sex-obsessed cohort Bill Brock,
they have not a word to say about chess or Sam Sloan's platform
which he has published on these forums.

The idea is to keep slinging mud until it sticks.

Character trumps platform any day.

You have to trust the person enough to believe what they say they will
do. I do not believe anything about Sam Sloan, other than the truths
that (1) he is a convicted felon who served prison time (2) in an
unrelated matter, Sloan had his securities license revoked for improper
conduct, and (3) Sloan also lost his license to drive a cab in New York
City.

There are plenty of other strange characteristics of Sloan, including
his tasteless posts about his past sexual activities, many of them also
chronicled on his personal website, to lead me to conclude he is not
fit to serve on the Executive Board of the USCF.

Randy Bauer

* Character trumps platform any day. * (Randy Bauer)

Randy, perhaps your should examine the mote in your own eye.

I'm now more determined than ever to vote for Sam. I also
believe that you and Bill Brock are not costing him any votes --
just making yourselves look bad.

When insiders want to keep someone on the outside,
that's a good reason to vote for the underdog.

jr wrote:
* Character trumps platform any day. * (Randy Bauer)

Randy, perhaps your should examine the mote in your own eye.

I'm now more determined than ever to vote for Sam. I also
believe that you and Bill Brock are not costing him any votes --
just making yourselves look bad.

You say you were going to vote for him anyway, so no biggie.

I tend to think there aren't a whole lot of votes to be had among those
reading RGCP anyway. I view this more as a discussion about the
viability of a candidacy. If you're happy with convicted felons,
people who have had their professional license revoked for misconduct
so be it. We have different standards, I guess.


When insiders want to keep someone on the outside,
that's a good reason to vote for the underdog.

I have to laugh at this "insider" moniker. Here, you've been reading
Parr too much.

I served one term (and not even a full term) on the Executive Board. I
was defeated by an insider (Bill Goichberg) and the slate of he and
another insider (Don Shultz). Prior to my Board service, I had served
on a couple of committees and as a delegate, as I recall, once. Hardly
the resume of an insider.

Randy Bauer

"jr" wrote in message
ups.com...
* Character trumps platform any day. * (Randy Bauer)

Randy, perhaps your should examine the mote in your own eye.

I'm now more determined than ever to vote for Sam. I also
believe that you and Bill Brock are not costing him any votes --
just making yourselves look bad.

Bauer is a master at making himself look bad. At least he's a "real" master
at something.

Jerzy wrote:
Uzytkownik "Randy Bauer" napisal w wiadomosci
ups.com...


Name-calling : another specialty of a member of the EB of the USCF.

Try and keep up with the times. I am not on the EB. I am just stating
facts.

Now that you've lost your argument that this is all politics, why don't
you try and defend the convicted felon who has served jail time Sloan?


Herr Bauer claims that he has had nth common with the EB of the USCF. That`s
an outright lie.

Exactly what I lied about is not clear from your statement that I claim
I have had "nth common with the EB of the USCF." Gibberish.

And his specialty is name-calling. I wonder how such a bad-mannered and
ill-willed guy could have been elected to the EB of the USCF ?

This reminds me of the Mark Twain quote that he would promise to
stopping telling the truth about a person if they promised to stop
lying about him. I have simply quoted plain facts about Sloan -- he is
a convicted felon who served time in prison; he had his securities
license revoked for misconduct; he also lost his license to drive a
cab. I also quoted a lengthy post of his dealing with some of his past
sexual experience. I fail to see how any of these is bad-mannered.

Randy Bauer

Chess One wrote:
"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
oups.com...
All reasonable concerns. Let me pose another concern:

Do you really think that if, for example, the USCF were seeking a major
sponsor, say, a major corporation, and they did due diligence on the
USCF -- such as running basic searches on its Executive Board members
-- they would still want to work with the USCF after finding Sloan's
website, criminal record, and securities history?

What do you think of an article about Whoring in Budapest printed as a
feature in ChessLife?

More to the point, Phil, would be directing that question at Sloan.

I have already posted on this forum on numerous occasions my dislike of
that article nad its appearance in Chess Life.

Do you think Sloan feels the same?

Randy Bauer

"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
ups.com...

Chess One wrote:
"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
oups.com...
All reasonable concerns. Let me pose another concern:

Do you really think that if, for example, the USCF were seeking a major
sponsor, say, a major corporation, and they did due diligence on the
USCF -- such as running basic searches on its Executive Board members
-- they would still want to work with the USCF after finding Sloan's
website, criminal record, and securities history?

What do you think of an article about Whoring in Budapest printed as a
feature in ChessLife?

More to the point, Phil, would be directing that question at Sloan.

Look, 'Randy'. You are writing to someone with a strong interest in
non-clinical psychology, especially group-behaviors and role playing, and
even particularly to creativity and social accpetance thereof.

If I think you and Brock have more in the closet, by virtue of mentioning
your obsessions non-stop in such a scandalising way, I figure you have more
in the closet than Sloan has out of it.

I'll maintain my own opinion, than you, not on what you purport to be your
attitude, but on observing your behavior.

AFAIK Sam Sloan had nothing to do with Whoring in Budapest - and one look at
commissioning editor Pehme's web site, which has a certain encouragement of
the topic by features young ladies in a specifric light, and only young
ladies [half his age], is an alternate comparison of quite the same type, to
which no one deems to notice.

I read some time ago of 'confusion' about publishing the Whoring in Budapest
material, and while everyone regretted it, no one at USCF regretted it
enough to actually take responsibility - certainly not enough to stop it
appearing in Chess Life.

In this message you 'father' the article onto Sam Sloan by another
remarkable association.

I have challenged all your previous ones - and you have now reduced them to
the felony itself - but you have not said why this unhappy personal
circumstance would prevent the person you protest so much about from being
on the board. In fact, as Larry Parr points out, you have not mentioned
chess at all.

I will not vote for Sam Sloan, since I am not a member of USCF. I am merely
interested in what, if anything, USCF has to do with promoting the game of
chess.

I have already posted on this forum on numerous occasions my dislike of
that article nad its appearance in Chess Life.

Do you think Sloan feels the same?

Do you mean - do I speculate if he does?

If you had a sincere question I am sure you could figure out how to ask him
directly. While you may have regretted Pehme's article, it was entirely
predictable that such a person would 'out' his interests publically in as
wide a scope as possible. LONG... before he did so, a board member noted to
me that it was going to be a problem... yet after all this concern, it was
still published midst these current crocodile tears.

You have the entirely quaint idea that you have time to mind other people's
business. When this issue of decency came up LONG before the article was
published - it was predicated! - no standards or guidelines, checks nor
balances, were put in place.

The mote is not just in your individual eye, but in your corporate one too.
Fix it or get off it. Exteriorising the issue by scapegoating is an absolute
guarantee, in my estimation that your, and Brock's, concerns are insincere.

Phil Innes



Randy Bauer

"Randy Bauer" wrote in message
news:sx06g.132522$oL.16596@attbi_s71...

"John J." wrote in message
. ..
Very strange. I guess he thinks he's The Catcher in the Rye.

"Very strange" sums it up nicely. This is far from the only "very
strange" post you can find with Sam discussing in tasteless detail his
sexual escapades.

What about your whore wife Debbie's sexual escapades? I hear she took on
three NBA players at once!