wrote (Tue, 13 May 2008
09:51:58 -0700 (PDT)):

7 ...
7 ... [Fischer] figured there was no reason to pay taxes if he
7 never returned to his country after being indicted for violating
7 an executive order in 1992. ...

_
"... '...I have not filed or paid my federal or California
income taxes since ... 1977,' [Fischer] said. ..."
- (7 Sep 92 23:12:27 GMT)

wrote in message
...
SNEAKY AND VINDICTIVE

My reference to Stalin was apposite.

It was completely mangled. The world was standing
up to the communist Milosevic (a mini-Stalin, killing by the
thousands rather than the millions).

The Bush administration avoided a frontal attack on
on Fischer playing in Serbia for fear of a constitutional
issue regarding these presidential orders.

Typical Parr blather, said without a shred of evidence.
John Walker Lindh was charged with violating
an Executive order (trading with the Taliban) and
didn't raise constitutional issues. Many sanctions
violators have been convicted.

The legal issue was simply that
the US extradition treaty with Japan did
not cover the crime Fischer was indicted
for, so he could not be extradited. The
US apparently did try alternate approaches
to convince the Japanese to turn him over,
but they were unsuccessful.



They planned
to get him back to America and then charge him for not
paying taxes to support our assorted wars.

It's likely that tax evasion charges would have been
added - quite appropriately.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 May 2008 05:57:05 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Canadian chess journalist Jonathan Berry observed, "It has been
reported that President Clinton in his memoirs said the embargo was
ignored by all, even the USA government, and it was only enforced to
the extent that arms were not sent to Serbia. Yet arms were sent with
impunity to other factions, and other contacts with Serbia were okay.
If true, the whole incident appears doubly pointless."

A reader replied, "It's even worse than that. Serbia allegedly
received missiles produced in the USA via Israel which makes it
grotesquely hypocritical to punish Fischer for his 30 games against
Spassky."

While the blade hovered menacingly over Fischer's head for many years,
AFAIK, the only overt action against him was taken by the Shrub
administration, and then only by the back door of a passport
violation, using the Japanese as surrogates. It was a sneaky,
vindictive action which appears to have deliberately evaded addressing
the issues Berry mentions in your quote, above.

Both you and Berry miss several imporant facts. First, Fischer was
indicted immediately after completing the match. Whether the embargo
*ultimately* proved effective was really irrelevant. (By the way, I would
not make an assessment based on some offhand comments interpreted
by a Canadian chess journalist!) Second, Fischer
did not set foot in the US while under indictment- what overt actions
*could* the US reasonably have taken? Third, Fischer no doubt
called attention to himself with his pro-9/11 radio broadcast. That likely
increased interest in bringing him to justice, but the US still
could not seek extradition because his crime was not listed in
the extradition treaty. Fischer's expired passport gave the US other
avenues to explore. The US explored them but alternate legal
approaches were unsuccessful.

Once you dismiss the "chessplayers are above the law"
arguments, I really don't see any wrongdoing on the part
of the US government.

[...]

Fischer put the Serbian money in a Swiss bank, UBS, unaware
that the Swiss bank secrecy laws are now essentially
ineffective when U.S. citizens are being pusued by the
U.S. authorities.

UBS, under pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice
and, presumably, the IRS, froze his account.

Bobby didn't pay his taxes either. U.S. citizens and greencarders
must file U.S. tax returns and pay U.S. taxes, no matter where they live.

UBS did not freeze RJF's account; rather, it chose not to do business
with him.

This is so. I drew the wrong conclusion from Fischer's rants re UBS.

The correspondence between UBS, the bank ombudsman, Fischer
and lawyers representing Fischer is utterly absurd, see
http://www.geocities.jp/bobbby_a/list/si/Si_0.htm

It does show clearly one aspect of Fischer's insanity: the morbid
magnification of insignificant details, which was already apparent
in his squabbles about playing conditions. Remember the candy
wrappers?

It is interesting to speculate why UBS decided to close his account,
on which the bank would have made about $50'000 a year.

The Swiss banks have agreed not only to report U.S. Tax information
and file forms such as 1099-misc, they have also agreed to respond to
DOJ warrants, when U.S. citizens are involved. As a result many
banks, and especially finacial consultants, are politely asking
U.S. citizens to take their business elsewhere, since the
reporting burden and potential legal liabilities are
too onerous. - In fact, of course, almost all foreign deposits in
Switzerland and Liechtenstein are in need of 'enhanced discretion'.

Fischer took the closing of his account as a personal affront, but it
is very unlikely that there was anything personal to it.

OUR RESIDENT STATIST

The idea that Fischer's circumstances were the responsibility of
anyone other than Fischer himself is ludicrous. But as we've seen
countless times, Parr is not big on personal responsibility. -- David
Kane

David Kane, our resident statist, now tells us that
only Bobby Fischer was responsible for his own
circumstances -- being arrested in Japan and beaten,
having a valid passport confiscated, being held
without bail for almost a year, etc.

The message: if the state tells you to shut yer
big mouth -- ya better shut it. Or else, you gets
what you gets. You alone are responsible for your
circumstances. Exercise your First Amendment rights
or, in Bobby's case, insist on the autonomous life of
selling the products of your mind, then if the state
decrees otherwise, too bad buster.

Yours, Larry Parr



David Kane wrote:
wrote in message
...
To be honest, I am not a fan of increased executive powers.... --
David Kane

...except when used for selective prosecution of Bobby Fischer.


The idea that Fischer's circumstances were the responsibility of
anyone other than Fischer himself is ludicrous. But as we've seen
countless times, Parr is not big on personal responsibility.

On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:49:52 -0700, "David Kane"
wrote:


While the blade hovered menacingly over Fischer's head for many years,
AFAIK, the only overt action against him was taken by the Shrub
administration, and then only by the back door of a passport
violation, using the Japanese as surrogates. It was a sneaky,
vindictive action which appears to have deliberately evaded addressing
the issues Berry mentions in your quote, above.

Both you and Berry miss several imporant facts. First, Fischer was
indicted immediately after completing the match.

Can you supply a link documenting his indictment?

Whether the embargo
*ultimately* proved effective was really irrelevant. (By the way, I would
not make an assessment based on some offhand comments interpreted
by a Canadian chess journalist!) Second, Fischer
did not set foot in the US while under indictment- what overt actions
*could* the US reasonably have taken? Third, Fischer no doubt
called attention to himself with his pro-9/11 radio broadcast. That likely
increased interest in bringing him to justice, but the US still
could not seek extradition because his crime was not listed in
the extradition treaty. Fischer's expired passport gave the US other
avenues to explore. The US explored them but alternate legal
approaches were unsuccessful.

And the reason we did nothing when Fischer renewed the passport in
Switzerland, but rather waited until he was in Japan ?

Once you dismiss the "chessplayers are above the law"
arguments, I really don't see any wrongdoing on the part
of the US government.

"Wrongdoing" may be too strong to describe the petty vindictiveness of
a bureaucrat. It's the disproportionality that Berry points out,
ignoring vastly more significant violations of the embargo, while
going after a chess player many years later.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 May 2008 01:49:52 -0700, "David Kane"
wrote:


While the blade hovered menacingly over Fischer's head for many years,
AFAIK, the only overt action against him was taken by the Shrub
administration, and then only by the back door of a passport
violation, using the Japanese as surrogates. It was a sneaky,
vindictive action which appears to have deliberately evaded addressing
the issues Berry mentions in your quote, above.

Both you and Berry miss several imporant facts. First, Fischer was
indicted immediately after completing the match.

Can you supply a link documenting his indictment?

One covering the date is
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvall...78/fischer.htm
The text of the EO has appeared on Usenet - not sure about the indictment text
but I've seen it somewhere but don't have the link handy. Jurgen just quoted the
text so it is out there.


Whether the embargo
*ultimately* proved effective was really irrelevant. (By the way, I would
not make an assessment based on some offhand comments interpreted
by a Canadian chess journalist!) Second, Fischer
did not set foot in the US while under indictment- what overt actions
*could* the US reasonably have taken? Third, Fischer no doubt
called attention to himself with his pro-9/11 radio broadcast. That likely
increased interest in bringing him to justice, but the US still
could not seek extradition because his crime was not listed in
the extradition treaty. Fischer's expired passport gave the US other
avenues to explore. The US explored them but alternate legal
approaches were unsuccessful.

And the reason we did nothing when Fischer renewed the passport in
Switzerland, but rather waited until he was in Japan ?

Good question. Likely bureaucratic bungling. I don't see how
it is really relevant, though.


Once you dismiss the "chessplayers are above the law"
arguments, I really don't see any wrongdoing on the part
of the US government.

"Wrongdoing" may be too strong to describe the petty vindictiveness of
a bureaucrat. It's the disproportionality that Berry points out,
ignoring vastly more significant violations of the embargo, while
going after a chess player many years later.

The claim that there were vastly more signficiant violations is
unsupported in my opinion. (Well, Russia was notoriously pro-Serb
and undercut the international efforts to put pressure on FRY, but
those were beyond the US' reach.) And it wasn't years later, see above.
The indictment came immediately after the activity. The delay
of which you speak was a result of Fischer remaining overseas.
I don't believe that fleeing a jurisdiction entitles somebody to
special treatment. What principle would drive such a belief?

On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:58:50 -0700, "David Kane"
wrote:

not sure about the indictment text
but I've seen it somewhere but don't have the link handy. Jurgen just quoted the
text so it is out there.

Yeah, actually, I found several links after I asked my question.
Should have searched first, I guess. Here's one:

http://www.chesscity.com/Features/indictment.html

And the reason we did nothing when Fischer renewed the passport in
Switzerland, but rather waited until he was in Japan ?

Good question. Likely bureaucratic bungling. I don't see how
it is really relevant, though.

I don't think it was bungling. From what I've read, the Swiss
wouldn't have held him, but our government folks knew the Japanese
would.

"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 14 May 2008 09:58:50 -0700, "David Kane"
wrote:

not sure about the indictment text
but I've seen it somewhere but don't have the link handy. Jurgen just quoted
the
text so it is out there.

Yeah, actually, I found several links after I asked my question.
Should have searched first, I guess. Here's one:

http://www.chesscity.com/Features/indictment.html

And the reason we did nothing when Fischer renewed the passport in
Switzerland, but rather waited until he was in Japan ?

Good question. Likely bureaucratic bungling. I don't see how
it is really relevant, though.

I don't think it was bungling. From what I've read, the Swiss
wouldn't have held him, but our government folks knew the Japanese
would.

Do you remember where you read that?

wrote in message
...

David Kane, our resident statist, now tells us that
only Bobby Fischer was responsible for his own
circumstances --

I guess better a "statist" then a "Stalinist" I suppose. Parr's interest
in history is analogous to the creationist's interest in paleontology - driven
by a massive psychological need to misunderstand just about everything.
I'm content to actually understand something and feel that personal
responsibility isn't such a terrible thing. That others feel differently
doesn't surprise me.