Poor Liarry Parr. Here he comes to this forum trying to paint Sloan as the
victim by our excessive government and smear campaigns by his politcal enemies.

And then comes along the likes of The Historian, among others, who
present actual, irrefutable evidence demonstrating that Liarry wasn't telling
the whole truth. The guy just can't catch a break.

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

wrote:
Instead, one links a securities case that Sam
WON in the U.S. Supreme Court ...

It's a little more complicated than that. Sloan won ONCE, on a
procedural matter; but there were several violations that lead to his
ban from the securities industry.

More on Sam Sloan's career as a broker:

http://www.ishipress.com/sec1991.htm

Beginning in May 1970, Sloan was the sole proprietor and manager of
Samuel H. Sloan & Co. ("Sloan & Co."), a broker-dealer registered with
the SEC pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. ??
78o(b). In [*2] 1971, the SEC filed a complaint against Sloan and Sloan
& Co. seeking injunctive and other relief for alleged violations of
Sections 15(b)1, 15(c)(3) and 17(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 78o(b)(1), 78o(c)(3), and 78q(a), and Rules 17 C.F.R.
240.15b1-2, 15c3-1, 17a-3 and 17a-4 promulgated thereunder. On June 24,
1971, an order was entered on consent which preliminarily enjoined
Sloan and Sloan & Co. from further violations of the net capital and
bookkeeping requirements of the federal securities laws.

Thereafter, at trial, this Court found that Sloan & Co., under the
direction of Sloan, had violated provisions of the Exchange Act by
failing to properly maintain, keep current and preserve certain of its
books and records, and by effecting transactions in securities
otherwise than on a national securities exchange. The Court also found
that defendants, while engaged in unlawful acts, practices and courses
of business, had made use of the mails and means and instrumentalities
of interstate commerce, and effected the transactions otherwise than on
a national securities exchange. A number of the above mentioned
violations occurred after the Court's entry of the preliminary
injunction [*3] enjoining defendants from further violations. The Court
found that unless permanently enjoined, there was a likelihood that the
defendants would continue to engage in violations of the federal
securities laws. Accordingly, on January 14, 1974, a permanent
injunction was entered against defendants.

Sloan's appeal of the permanent injunction was dismissed because Sloan
was a fugitive when the appeal was scheduled to be heard. The Court of
Appeals in Sloan v. Sec, 535 F.2d 676, 677 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 429
U.S. 885 (1976), found that Sloan "apparently fled the jurisdiction to
escape sentencing for contempt of a preliminary injunction restraining
still further violations of SEC rules and requiring Sloan to permit SEC
examination of his books and records."

http://www.scripophily.net/canjavlimited.html

"This company [Canadian Javelin] was involved with distributing
misleading information, which ultimately led to a stock trading
suspension. This case was taken to the U.S. Supreme Court to decide on
the SECs authority in halting trading. This was a landmark securities
case, which has been continually referenced in subsequent security
cases. On November 29, 1973, apparently because Canadian Javelin
Limited had disseminated allegedly false and misleading press releases
concerning certain of its business activities, the Commission issued
the first of what was to become a series of summary 10-day suspension
orders continuously suspending trading in CJL common stock from that
date until January 26, 1975. App. 109. During this series of
suspensions respondent Sloan, who owned 13 shares of CJL stock and had
engaged in substantial purchases and short sales of shares of that
stock, filed a petition in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit challenging the orders on a variety of grounds."

SAM'S '"FELONY"

Mr. John J:

You were lied to. Sam did not go to jail for
securities or licensing matters. He took his own
daughter against a court order. Period.

Randy Bauer tried the old ploy of stating that Sam
went to jail and was involved in a securities case.

THE TWO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

Sam Sloan went to jail because he took his own
daughter against a court order. A political hack like
Randy Bauer calls that kidnapping. I call it an
affair of the heart. That is Sam's "criminality": an
act that would not have been under the purview of the
state a couple of generations back.

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

Sam can fill us in on the taxi license affair.

wrote:
SAM'S '"FELONY"

Mr. John J:

You were lied to. Sam did not go to jail for
securities or licensing matters. He took his own
daughter against a court order. Period.

Liarry, since you are an expert in this area, explain the "lie." Sam
Sloan is a convicted felon who served prison time and had his
securities license yanked.

In SloanParr land, every parent is allowed to take their children,
regardless of court order. It is called "an affair of the heart." I
wonder if every child taken by a parent, a parent, say, who has lived
in a homeless shelter and spent time in prison would feel the same as
our Liarry.


Randy Bauer tried the old ploy of stating that Sam
went to jail and was involved in a securities case.

Yes, those "old ploys" of stating facts are hard to accept in SloanParr
land.

THE TWO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

THE TWO BOTH ARE FACTS.

Sam Sloan went to jail because he took his own
daughter against a court order. A political hack like
Randy Bauer calls that kidnapping. I call it an
affair of the heart. That is Sam's "criminality": an
act that would not have been under the purview of the
state a couple of generations back.

Parr has to resort to ploys, like claiming others are "hacks" because
he has no real answer to the fact that Sloan is a convicted felon who
served prison time. Mind you, lots of convicted felons escape prison
time. Sloan's "affiar of the heart" must have made a great impression
on a judge and/or jury.

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

As the Historian has already shown, the WIN had little impact on his
life and was really just a technicality. Bottom line, he lost his
securities license because of misconduct.

I ask again -- Liarry, how much money have you entrusted to your
securities whiz Sloan?

Randy Bauer

Sam and I happen to have a mutual friend whom I respect. He recently told me
that regarding the felony, Sam got a bum rap.

I am actually more concerned with what I read about the Securities
violations. Sam seemed to lack any good judgement back then and apparently
flaunted the law and continued violating a Federal Court order. That
concerns me.

I'm also disturbed that Sam still has a picture of 2 naked and apparently
underage girls on his web site. Poor judgement, once again.

We shall see.
wrote in message
oups.com...
SAM'S '"FELONY"

Mr. John J:

You were lied to. Sam did not go to jail for
securities or licensing matters. He took his own
daughter against a court order. Period.

Randy Bauer tried the old ploy of stating that Sam
went to jail and was involved in a securities case.

THE TWO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH EACH OTHER.

Sam Sloan went to jail because he took his own
daughter against a court order. A political hack like
Randy Bauer calls that kidnapping. I call it an
affair of the heart. That is Sam's "criminality": an
act that would not have been under the purview of the
state a couple of generations back.

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

Sam can fill us in on the taxi license affair.

Uzytkownik "Randy Bauer" napisal w wiadomosci
oups.com...

wrote:
SAM'S '"FELONY"

Mr. John J:

You were lied to. Sam did not go to jail for
securities or licensing matters. He took his own
daughter against a court order. Period.

Liarry, since you are an expert in this area, explain the "lie." Sam
Sloan is a convicted felon who served prison time and had his
securities license yanked.



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

I wonder how such an impertinent person like you could have been elected in
a civilized country to the EB ?

And I ask again--where's Parr's stirring defense of Sloan's stirring
defense of the child molester (and Sloan's co-author) Jefferson Poland?


Poland founded the Sexual Freedom League, Sloan was its past president;
by the testimony of its own members, it morphed into an organization
that encouraged sexual relations between adults and children.

If Sloan is so wonderful, why is Parr silent WRT Sloan's Wikipedia
writings on Jefferson Poland?

2000 words on topic, on the topic you're avoiding, Larry, chop chop.

Folks, if you think the question is tiresome, so do I. It's also
tiresome not to get an answer....

;-)

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

wrote:
SAM'S '"FELONY"

Mr. John J:

You were lied to. Sam did not go to jail for
securities or licensing matters. He took his own
daughter against a court order. Period.

Liarry, since you are an expert in this area, explain the "lie." Sam
Sloan is a convicted felon who served prison time and had his
securities license yanked.



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?

Randy Bauer

Just to be clear who Sloan defends: go to http://www.nsopr.gov/ and
search John Jefferson Poland: you'll find under "Offense Code": "288(a)
LEWD OR LASCIVIOUS ACTS WITH CHILD UNDER 14 YEARS."

Also examine's Poland's known aliases....

John J. wrote:
Sam and I happen to have a mutual friend whom I respect. He recently told me
that regarding the felony, Sam got a bum rap.

I am actually more concerned with what I read about the Securities
violations. Sam seemed to lack any good judgement back then and apparently
flaunted the law and continued violating a Federal Court order. That
concerns me.

I'm also disturbed that Sam still has a picture of 2 naked and apparently
underage girls on his web site. Poor judgement, once again.

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?

Randy Bauer

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.

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.