On 2007-08-25 12:41 help bot wrote:
On Aug 24, 7:06 pm, Eustace wrote:

IMO, the interviewer's point was not how "substantial" (!) a political
movement Fischer might lead (or even if he would find any followers),
BUT WHETHER HE WOULD EVER BE ABLE TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHTS AS A FREE
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which of course implied that he
would be able to return without being arrested and put to jail. And to
this question the answer was that he should be pardoned, be given an
apology, and hence be welcome home and, if he decided to do so, be able
to reclaim his U.S. citizenship and all the rights contained in it,
including the right to found his own party.


There appears to be a complete disconnect from
reality here. Fact: even if Bobby Fischer were to be
pardoned, he would still never come back to the
USA on account of the back taxes, plus penalties
and interest owed to the IRS. All this moaning and
groaning about "rights" makes me want to vomit; a
U.S. citizen has obligations as well as rights, and
one of the most annoying of these is our obligation
to pay taxes; in fact, it is so annoying that it is
difficult to imagine even the die-hard Fischerites
trying to stomach a "pardon" from the IRS, so the
rest of us taxpayers can bear Mr. Fischer's fair
share on his behalf. It's obvious that reality has
been thrown out the window, right along with the
bathwater and the now-busted Damiano's Defense.


-- help bot

On this issue you are clearly irrational if not prejudiced (I hope at
least not of the Zionist kind), and I generally avoid wasting my time
arguing in such cases - I have more constructive things to do - I will,
however, attempt to reason with you on a minor point: For Fischer
himself the main importance of a pardon would be that he would be free
to travel to countries other than the US. Do you disagree with this? I
suppose that you may disagree in this too, but in this case at least I
will have to admit that there is a small possibility that you are right.

Peace and Justice,

Eustace

--
It ain't THAT, babe! - A radical reinterpretation
http://www.geocities.com/itaintme_babe/itaintme.html

On Aug 26, 1:57 am, Eustace wrote:
On 2007-08-25 12:41 help bot wrote:





On Aug 24, 7:06 pm, Eustace wrote:

IMO, the interviewer's point was not how "substantial" (!) a political
movement Fischer might lead (or even if he would find any followers),
BUT WHETHER HE WOULD EVER BE ABLE TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHTS AS A FREE
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which of course implied that he
would be able to return without being arrested and put to jail. And to
this question the answer was that he should be pardoned, be given an
apology, and hence be welcome home and, if he decided to do so, be able
to reclaim his U.S. citizenship and all the rights contained in it,
including the right to found his own party.

There appears to be a complete disconnect from
reality here. Fact: even if Bobby Fischer were to be
pardoned, he would still never come back to the
USA on account of the back taxes, plus penalties
and interest owed to the IRS. All this moaning and
groaning about "rights" makes me want to vomit; a
U.S. citizen has obligations as well as rights, and
one of the most annoying of these is our obligation
to pay taxes; in fact, it is so annoying that it is
difficult to imagine even the die-hard Fischerites
trying to stomach a "pardon" from the IRS, so the
rest of us taxpayers can bear Mr. Fischer's fair
share on his behalf. It's obvious that reality has
been thrown out the window, right along with the
bathwater and the now-busted Damiano's Defense.

-- help bot

On this issue you are clearly irrational if not prejudiced (I hope at
least not of the Zionist kind), and I generally avoid wasting my time
arguing in such cases - I have more constructive things to do - I will,
however, attempt to reason with you on a minor point: For Fischer
himself the main importance of a pardon would be that he would be free
to travel to countries other than the US. Do you disagree with this? I
suppose that you may disagree in this too, but in this case at least I
will have to admit that there is a small possibility that you are right.

Peace and Justice,

Eustace

--
It ain't THAT, babe! - A radical reinterpretationhttp://www.geocities.com/itaintme_babe/itaintme.html- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Any constitutional test would involve a challenge to an executive
order carrying the weight of federal law since there was no act of
Congress and Congress is specifically given the powers to make laws.

It's been since 1992 so I'm having trouble remembering if Congress
ever enacted restrictions on commerce with Serbia at the time? If so
then Fischer would not have a leg to stand on, but if it was merely
the executive branch trying to enforce a law of its own he might have
a worthwhile argument.

The whole point of the chessic aspect of this discussion is that Fischer
does not WANT to be associated with USCF, who have little business
therefor
making representation to the government, and, AFAIK illegally wishing to
subscribe him to USCF. Phil Innes



Even if Tiger Woods wanted nothing to do with the PGA...they would still
list
him as a past winner and include him (his past) in their history.

That's part of sports.


Of course, this is no analogy at all - unless Tiger Woods also thought the
PGA useless and resented them making money from his name. That's all this is
about, isn't it?

What about any right to privacy? Delegate Johnson is fond of saying USCF is
a mail-order business. If one of those used the name of a famous customer
without permission, and against his known wishes, they would be sued.

Phil Innes


ECJ

I believe in post-WWII Europe that was not exactly the sort of 'crime'
that
concerned those conducting the Nuremberg trials. The wall was going up
around Europe enclosing regions far into the west who were always of the
western tradition, not the eastern one. Meanwhile in England people hoped
there wouldn't be a revolution. That, I think, was a concern about
admission

of dubious aliens at the time.



USCF and Britain's chess groups *actively* worked against Alekhine,
choosing
to deny him invitations.


In late 1945 he could have been viewed as a war-criminal. After all,
race-hatred had slaughtered 10 million people.

While there is doubt of the circumstances under which he wrote the article
[to the degree of coercion], and while as you said before, the material
begins with the usual crude jibes about 'Jewish chess', it does end with
examples of Alekhine's own knowledge of specific Jewish people, exempting
them from the aforesaid 'conditions'.

Nevertheless, we should not actually deny he wrote them, or a copy was found
by his wife under his bed!

In 1946 Max Euwe swayed the international community, successfully to
re-instate him into the chess circuit. I would say that UK and US chess
authorities took very prudent pause before letting the man back into the
game. In terms of society as a whole, he was also liable to the life of the
times, and their judgment.

Players in Europe were not generally ostracized for collaborating with
German chess events. Keres [as well as AA] also played in Munich in 1942. It
was the Zeitinger articles which - if you will excuse we Europeans from
mentioning our own condition - that needed some explanation, otherwise Eric,
civilians who had been bombed for 5 years did not care a damn for some
Russian émigré who played chess - or in fact, anyone who played chess. It
wasn't about chess, you see, if was about still surviving on a wrecked
continent.

So, your argument that it "just wasn't on the radar screen" is a
non-starter.

Since my mother was under those bombs, and you don't even like Arnold
Denker's agreement with the perspective I presented, aren't you getting off
a little bit into hero-worship?

All that happened was that the fate of one person of no particular
consequence to the public, and living in a neutral country was not attended
to for 8 months.

If the USA ad British chess groups had not worked against Alekhine, he
would
have left Portugal and survived past 1946. That's clear.

In essence, their boycott killed him (if the KGB didn't).


Other people got to play even less chess in the preceding 6 years, and, if
the KGB didn't kill him, the booze did.

It /is/ a hate crime to have written that material, even if under coercion.
If Alekhine was depressed by not immediately being returned to center stage
by these people who had endured the war and had to clean up its aftermath -
nor have his own part in it assessed, then we should add that his ego also
killed him.

Phil Innes

ECJ

"The Historian" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 25, 3:13 pm, "Chess One" wrote:
...who has ever cared for your contributions other
than abuseniks?

2007 Chess Journalists of America /
Fred Cramer Awards Committee for Excellence in Chess Journalism
Joint Announcement

Category 16
Best Historical Article

HM Neil Brennen, "Rising from the ashes: Issac Orchard and the Growth
of Atlanta Chess" Georgia Chess, Nov/Dec 2006; Jan/Feb 2007

I'm sure that the famous CJA has a vast circulation, some say as many as 200
composing entirely themselves. When they were all contesting their current
tribulations to Chessville, [hundreds of messages] including refusing to
open their books on demand of another CJA officer; refusing to hear ethics
complaints without payments and which would be audited only by the
president, and refusing to admit materials to the awards committee based on
the president's take... the same 'journalist' who was lampooned at Chess
Life on-line for writing a boost to Monroi, forgetting only to mention he
was a paid consultant to them

Then we all said Stop! And we didn't celebrate that circus.

Instead I offered the entire shebang a challenge: I asked both sides to
continue ONLY IF what they had to say directly addressed the chess public or
had some consequence on playing chess. After much consternation [ROFL] One
member wrote that CJA had never had the slightest influence on anyone other
than its own members. Indeed, the only reason they are termed journalists at
all is because they write to their own newsletter.

Meanwhile, this thread is about Fischer, including some suggested precedents
for his condition, notably Alekhine.

So the test is if you can address that topic. If you can't, by all means
join the CJA!

Phil Innes

On Aug 26, 1:57 am, Eustace wrote:

There appears to be a complete disconnect from
reality here. Fact: even if Bobby Fischer were to be
pardoned, he would still never come back to the
USA on account of the back taxes, plus penalties
and interest owed to the IRS. All this moaning and
groaning about "rights" makes me want to vomit; a
U.S. citizen has obligations as well as rights, and
one of the most annoying of these is our obligation
to pay taxes; in fact, it is so annoying that it is
difficult to imagine even the die-hard Fischerites
trying to stomach a "pardon" from the IRS, so the
rest of us taxpayers can bear Mr. Fischer's fair
share on his behalf. It's obvious that reality has
been thrown out the window, right along with the
bathwater and the now-busted Damiano's Defense.

-- help bot

On this issue you are clearly irrational if not prejudiced

Nonsense. You obviously have not yet read NIC
or ECO where the bust is shown quite convincingly.


(I hope at
least not of the Zionist kind),

The pictures I have seen of the Middle East make it
look desolate, barren except along rivers, and far too
rocky for my tastes; I would hardly adopt a Zionist
attitude with regard to such an area as that; look at
New Zealand, Panama, or Tuscany -- those are places
worth "zionizing" over.


and I generally avoid wasting my time
arguing in such cases - I have more constructive things to do - I will,
however, attempt to reason with you on a minor point: For Fischer
himself the main importance of a pardon would be that he would be free
to travel to countries other than the US.

You sound convinced that Iceland has not given
BF an Icelandic passport; that is odd.


Do you disagree with this?

Certainly. Look, the USA may control the air, the
seas, and what's left of the ground militarily, but by
no means are we the only country which can print
a passport. But still, he would not dare travel to any
country where he is wanted for past crimes -- that's
the price you pay for evading taxes and so forth. As
Bobby Fischer once put it: "to get squares, to gotta
give squares".


I suppose that you may disagree in this too, but in this case at least I
will have to admit that there is a small possibility that you are right.

You don't "have to admit" anything. If you wish, you
may consider the Damiano's to be perfectly playable,
Bobby Fischer to be an innocent victim of tyrants,
the King's Gambit to be busted, and so forth. Just
understand this one thing: the IRS is not a fantasy!
It is very real, and as Alphonse Capone discovered,
there is no easy escape from its evil grasp. If you
must try to deny something inevitable, try death --
at least then you might have a fighting chance.


-- help bot

"Bruce" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Aug 26, 1:57 am, Eustace wrote:
On 2007-08-25 12:41 help bot wrote:





On Aug 24, 7:06 pm, Eustace wrote:

IMO, the interviewer's point was not how "substantial" (!) a political
movement Fischer might lead (or even if he would find any followers),
BUT WHETHER HE WOULD EVER BE ABLE TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHTS AS A FREE
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which of course implied that he
would be able to return without being arrested and put to jail. And to
this question the answer was that he should be pardoned, be given an
apology, and hence be welcome home and, if he decided to do so, be able
to reclaim his U.S. citizenship and all the rights contained in it,
including the right to found his own party.

There appears to be a complete disconnect from
reality here. Fact: even if Bobby Fischer were to be
pardoned, he would still never come back to the
USA on account of the back taxes, plus penalties
and interest owed to the IRS. All this moaning and
groaning about "rights" makes me want to vomit; a
U.S. citizen has obligations as well as rights, and
one of the most annoying of these is our obligation
to pay taxes; in fact, it is so annoying that it is
difficult to imagine even the die-hard Fischerites
trying to stomach a "pardon" from the IRS, so the
rest of us taxpayers can bear Mr. Fischer's fair
share on his behalf. It's obvious that reality has
been thrown out the window, right along with the
bathwater and the now-busted Damiano's Defense.

-- help bot

On this issue you are clearly irrational if not prejudiced (I hope at
least not of the Zionist kind), and I generally avoid wasting my time
arguing in such cases - I have more constructive things to do - I will,
however, attempt to reason with you on a minor point: For Fischer
himself the main importance of a pardon would be that he would be free
to travel to countries other than the US. Do you disagree with this? I
suppose that you may disagree in this too, but in this case at least I
will have to admit that there is a small possibility that you are right.

Peace and Justice,

Eustace

--
It ain't THAT, babe! - A radical
reinterpretationhttp://www.geocities.com/itaintme_babe/itaintme.html- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Any constitutional test would involve a challenge to an executive
order carrying the weight of federal law since there was no act of
Congress and Congress is specifically given the powers to make laws.

Congress *has* authorized the President to issue
Executive Orders. It's a perfectly common and routine practice
in cases like this one. In this case, the Executive Order was
issued in order to put the US in compliance with UN
resolutions directed against Serbia.


It's been since 1992 so I'm having trouble remembering if Congress
ever enacted restrictions on commerce with Serbia at the time? If so
then Fischer would not have a leg to stand on, but if it was merely
the executive branch trying to enforce a law of its own he might have
a worthwhile argument.


You can always try to argue anything but it's noteworthy
that nobody of substance has tried to make this argument.
Neither the sanctions, nor the method in which
they were imposed, were the least bit controversial. This is just
a phony argument dreamt up by the Fischer apologists.

On Aug 26, 9:29 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message

ups.com...



On Aug 26, 1:57 am, Eustace wrote:
On 2007-08-25 12:41 help bot wrote:

On Aug 24, 7:06 pm, Eustace wrote:

IMO, the interviewer's point was not how "substantial" (!) a political
movement Fischer might lead (or even if he would find any followers),
BUT WHETHER HE WOULD EVER BE ABLE TO EXERCISE HIS RIGHTS AS A FREE
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, which of course implied that he
would be able to return without being arrested and put to jail. And to
this question the answer was that he should be pardoned, be given an
apology, and hence be welcome home and, if he decided to do so, be able
to reclaim his U.S. citizenship and all the rights contained in it,
including the right to found his own party.

There appears to be a complete disconnect from
reality here. Fact: even if Bobby Fischer were to be
pardoned, he would still never come back to the
USA on account of the back taxes, plus penalties
and interest owed to the IRS. All this moaning and
groaning about "rights" makes me want to vomit; a
U.S. citizen has obligations as well as rights, and
one of the most annoying of these is our obligation
to pay taxes; in fact, it is so annoying that it is
difficult to imagine even the die-hard Fischerites
trying to stomach a "pardon" from the IRS, so the
rest of us taxpayers can bear Mr. Fischer's fair
share on his behalf. It's obvious that reality has
been thrown out the window, right along with the
bathwater and the now-busted Damiano's Defense.

-- help bot

On this issue you are clearly irrational if not prejudiced (I hope at
least not of the Zionist kind), and I generally avoid wasting my time
arguing in such cases - I have more constructive things to do - I will,
however, attempt to reason with you on a minor point: For Fischer
himself the main importance of a pardon would be that he would be free
to travel to countries other than the US. Do you disagree with this? I
suppose that you may disagree in this too, but in this case at least I
will have to admit that there is a small possibility that you are right.

Peace and Justice,

Eustace

--
It ain't THAT, babe! - A radical
reinterpretationhttp://www.geocities.com/itaintme_babe/itaintme.html-Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Any constitutional test would involve a challenge to an executive
order carrying the weight of federal law since there was no act of
Congress and Congress is specifically given the powers to make laws.

Congress *has* authorized the President to issue
Executive Orders. It's a perfectly common and routine practice
in cases like this one. In this case, the Executive Order was
issued in order to put the US in compliance with UN
resolutions directed against Serbia.



It's been since 1992 so I'm having trouble remembering if Congress
ever enacted restrictions on commerce with Serbia at the time? If so
then Fischer would not have a leg to stand on, but if it was merely
the executive branch trying to enforce a law of its own he might have
a worthwhile argument.

You can always try to argue anything but it's noteworthy
that nobody of substance has tried to make this argument.
Neither the sanctions, nor the method in which
they were imposed, were the least bit controversial. This is just
a phony argument dreamt up by the Fischer apologists.

Can you name one other person who has ever been prosecuted for
violating such an executive order?

Sam Sloan

"samsloan" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Aug 26, 9:29 pm, "David Kane" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote in message

- Show quoted text -

Any constitutional test would involve a challenge to an executive
order carrying the weight of federal law since there was no act of
Congress and Congress is specifically given the powers to make laws.

Congress *has* authorized the President to issue
Executive Orders. It's a perfectly common and routine practice
in cases like this one. In this case, the Executive Order was
issued in order to put the US in compliance with UN
resolutions directed against Serbia.



It's been since 1992 so I'm having trouble remembering if Congress
ever enacted restrictions on commerce with Serbia at the time? If so
then Fischer would not have a leg to stand on, but if it was merely
the executive branch trying to enforce a law of its own he might have
a worthwhile argument.

You can always try to argue anything but it's noteworthy
that nobody of substance has tried to make this argument.
Neither the sanctions, nor the method in which
they were imposed, were the least bit controversial. This is just
a phony argument dreamt up by the Fischer apologists.

Can you name one other person who has ever been prosecuted for
violating such an executive order?

Sam Sloan

John Walker Lindh is one well-known individual.

More generally, the US (as do many countries as well as the international
community itself) applies economic sanctions to achieve foreign policy
objectives, and these are often implemented via Executive Order. Consider the
case of Libya, sanctioned in the Reagan administration.

Here is an excerpt of President Clinton's report to Congress on July 22, 1996
concerning those sanctions (a random example)

"5. Since my last report, OFAC collected eight civil monetary penalties totaling
more than $51,000 for violations of the U.S. sanctions against Libya. Two of the
violations involved the failure of banks to block funds transfers to
Libyan-owned or Libyan-controlled banks. Two other penalties were received from
corporations for export violations, including one received as part of a plea
agreement before a U.S. district judge. Four additional penalties were paid by
U.S. citizens engaging in Libyan oilfield-related transactions while another 30
cases involving similar violations are in active penalty processing.

On February 6, 1996, a jury sitting in the District of Connecticut found two
Connecticut businessmen guilty on charges of false statements, conspiracy, and
illegally diverting U.S.-origin technology to Libya between 1987 and 1993 in
violation of U.S. sanctions. On May 22, 1996, a major manufacturer of farm and
construction equipment entered a guilty plea in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for Libyan sanctions violations. A
three-count information charged the company with aiding and abetting the sale of
construction equipment and parts from a foreign affiliate to Libya. The company
paid $1,810,000 in criminal fines and $190,000 in civil penalties. Numerous
investigations carried over from prior reporting periods are continuing and new
reports of violations are being pursued."

Your theories (1) that Executive Orders in general (all 30,000 of them) are
toothless, and (2) that the US does not enforce its trade sanctions are
completely false.

Of course, this is no analogy at all - unless Tiger Woods also thought
the PGA useless and resented them making money from his name. That's all
this is about, isn't it?

What about any right to privacy? Delegate Johnson is fond of saying USCF
is a mail-order business. If one of those used the name of a famous
customer without permission, and against his known wishes, they would be
sued.

Phil Innes



There is no way Tiger Woods could keep his photo off the PGA website...if
they list him as a winner of a prior event.

That's the point.


Your point. I mean someone must deliberately do something in reference to
Woods - and presumably you would? Yes, its in your power to do so, but
deliberately against the person's will. You also change your analogy so
often its hard to keep track if you, Delegate Johnson, would deliberately
advertise a celebrity to your 'mail-order business' against that person's
will.

Yet you skip that this is Woods is no analogy to Fischer, since what choice
did Fischer have in terms of ratings? You skip the point that he does not
/wish/ to be associated with USCF.

You merely state that you would exploit his 'membership' against his wishes
because you can.

Phil Innes

Now I must admit that many of USCF's retrospective articles are cloying
and annoying...but that's another matter.

ECJ