The Government and Boxing

[billeau2]

When some of us regard Alphabet soup as bad for boxing, it truly tells half the story. Jack Johnson and Ali tell a story about a government that will aggressively punish those who are perceived as a threat to the status quo. Johnson and Ali were both victims of this government intrusion. It was not their acts, per se that caused actions from the government, it was their openly defiant stance, their willingness to oppose policies that were perceived as unjust.

People often talk about the government in Black and White terms. They do likewise with a legal conviction. These are the people that would call Ali a convicted Felon with no understanding of how that conviction was upheld. Likewise for Johnson. I say this because the minute it is understood how the conviction of both men was upheld, it is obvious it is a frame up.

My question to my fellow posters, and the topic of this thread is: What does the willingness of a government that would do such a thing say about the organizations that come out of government authority? Yes, we need state intrusion into issues of health, safety, and financial protection... something the government managed to avoid regarding King fleecing so many fighters... But how much government intrusion is too much?

Personally I am not a Libertarian here... an unregulated Wall street? Really? Obviously we need some intrusion. But again, how much is too much?

[Marchegiano]

Oh man, I wish every goddamn day it wasn't my generation that totally sold out to the man, but we are. Look at politics! Where are my punks at? Where's the anti establishment? The anti authority? Nah dog, we got anti-****

There be absolutely no ****ing shelter here! Red or blue, arms of Sam, all can eat my sausage. No I don't vote, yes I use open source software to avoid big corp, and my version of social media is an obscure boxing forum or two.

What I am saying is I struggle outside of boxing to accept everyone's complacency with government. Just looking to one side to slap the other all the time. So much so the voice that says **** you both is no longer in the conversation.


I don't think I could give the government a fair shake in this. I do try to offer something clever and opposing most times but **** me, I can't even bring myself to agree with the bits you've taken for granted one should!

Health and Safety? Debatable, wasn't a full six months ago I posted about how featherweight deaths were the major deaths in boxing in the beginning and how they are still the major deaths in boxing today. Feather is the most dangerous weight division naturally speaking and in the full 300 years since 1722 it remains the deadliest division. Despite the state goals of weight divisions. Did they make them safe or more profitable?

Financial safety for the fighters, possibly, but here we have Turki injecting money into boxing while making no attempt to hide the fact it is a soft war platform for him. Did they protect the fighters or themselves?


See what I mean. I waited a while but it doesn't seem like the boys are hungry to offer opinions. Best I can do is explain why I am hesitating myself. I am super bias against government. All of them. I do not agree.






Ain't never once been a war born of the people by the people for the people. Just rich ****s sending our children to die. What you call lineal in boxing does not exist in government. Without them to manipulate, there is never any home grown grass roots movement for mass murder. Arriba la raza and all that ****. Impossible dream and what not.

[billeau2]

Oh man, I wish every goddamn day it wasn't my generation that totally sold out to the man, but we are. Look at politics! Where are my punks at? Where's the anti establishment? The anti authority? Nah dog, we got anti-****

There be absolutely no ****ing shelter here! Red or blue, arms of Sam, all can eat my sausage. No I don't vote, yes I use open source software to avoid big corp, and my version of social media is an obscure boxing forum or two.

What I am saying is I struggle outside of boxing to accept everyone's complacency with government. Just looking to one side to slap the other all the time. So much so the voice that says **** you both is no longer in the conversation.


I don't think I could give the government a fair shake in this. I do try to offer something clever and opposing most times but **** me, I can't even bring myself to agree with the bits you've taken for granted one should!

Health and Safety? Debatable, wasn't a full six months ago I posted about how featherweight deaths were the major deaths in boxing in the beginning and how they are still the major deaths in boxing today. Feather is the most dangerous weight division naturally speaking and in the full 300 years since 1722 it remains the deadliest division. Despite the state goals of weight divisions. Did they make them safe or more profitable?

Financial safety for the fighters, possibly, but here we have Turki injecting money into boxing while making no attempt to hide the fact it is a soft war platform for him. Did they protect the fighters or themselves?


See what I mean. I waited a while but it doesn't seem like the boys are hungry to offer opinions. Best I can do is explain why I am hesitating myself. I am super bias against government. All of them. I do not agree.






Ain't never once been a war born of the people by the people for the people. Just rich ****s sending our children to die. What you call lineal in boxing does not exist in government. Without them to manipulate, there is never any home grown grass roots movement for mass murder. Arriba la raza and all that ****. Impossible dream and what not.

So where do we disagree here? Your damn right the lineal does not exist in gubbermint! Heredity titles exist in Japan, there are 3 corporations that run the country from one corner while the Empror, given permission to cancel the Samurai runs it from the other corner... Is that a good thing? Rhetorical question.

[QueensburyRules]

When some of us regard Alphabet soup as bad for boxing, it truly tells half the story. Jack Johnson and Ali tell a story about a government that will aggressively punish those who are perceived as a threat to the status quo. Johnson and Ali were both victims of this government intrusion. It was not their acts, per se that caused actions from the government, it was their openly defiant stance, their willingness to oppose policies that were perceived as unjust.

People often talk about the government in Black and White terms. They do likewise with a legal conviction. These are the people that would call Ali a convicted Felon with no understanding of how that conviction was upheld. Likewise for Johnson. I say this because the minute it is understood how the conviction of both men was upheld, it is obvious it is a frame up.

My question to my fellow posters, and the topic of this thread is: What does the willingness of a government that would do such a thing say about the organizations that come out of government authority? Yes, we need state intrusion into issues of health, safety, and financial protection... something the government managed to avoid regarding King fleecing so many fighters... But how much government intrusion is too much?

Personally I am not a Libertarian here... an unregulated Wall street? Really? Obviously we need some intrusion. But again, how much is too much?

- - JJohnson married a succession of wh ores, the first one being set up by him financially to run a wh orehouse across state lines, a clear felony. .

Quite boring schooling the unrepentantly unschooled. The Mann act is still the law on current books, but of course we live in largely lawless times as The People revert to feral forms of anthropoids.

https://www.archives.gov/chicago/hig...20to%20Chicago.

[Willie Pep 229]

- - JJohnson married a succession of wh ores, the first one being set up by him financially to run a wh orehouse across state lines, a clear felony. .

Quite boring schooling the unrepentantly unschooled. The Mann act is still the law on current books, but of course we live in largely lawless times as The People revert to feral forms of anthropoids.

https://www.archives.gov/chicago/hig...20to%20Chicago.

Unless he moved white women across state lines to work in his whorehouse, (which he did not), he was not guilty of the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910.

JJ was arrested on the Mann Act for traveling across a state line with Lucille Cameron, once convicted of prostitution, soon to be his wife. She married Johnson and refused to testify against him.

The Fed's than aressted Johnson for his relationship with a white woman in Chicago, Belle Schreiber. (She had been busted for pimping [procurement] by the State of Illinois. She copped a deal for a reduced sentence, [leniency]).

There are three problems with the conviction.

1. Johnson only knew the woman while she was in Chicago and did not 'traffic' her there.

2. The Mann Act was made law in 1910. Johnson's relationship with Belle Schreiber, both physical and financial occured before 1910. (ex post facto)

3. Because JJ's relationship with Belle Schreiber occured within the State of Illinois (Chicago) any illegal dealing with prostitution (financing a whorehouse) was a state matter. The Federal Government had no authority.

This is why Belle Schreiber lied and claimed she traveled with Johnson across state lines. But even so, her testimony all claimed a relationship before 1910. So it was still all void by the ex post facto doctrine.

The conviction by a racist jury is one thing, the refusal on appeal was criminal.

P.S. Schreiber is sometimes spelt Schribner.

[billeau2]

- - JJohnson married a succession of wh ores, the first one being set up by him financially to run a wh orehouse across state lines, a clear felony. .

Quite boring schooling the unrepentantly unschooled. The Mann act is still the law on current books, but of course we live in largely lawless times as The People revert to feral forms of anthropoids.

https://www.archives.gov/chicago/hig...20to%20Chicago.

Yeah? Tell me how many pimps were convicted of trafficking adult women. This is before RICO. Pimps were pinched on solicitation charges, not on running whore houses.

[billeau2]

Unless he moved white women across state lines to work in his whorehouse, (which he did not), he was not guilty of the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910.

JJ was arrested on the Mann Act for traveling across a state line with Lucille Cameron, once convicted of prostitution, soon to be his wife. She married Johnson and refused to testify against him.

The Fed's than aressted Johnson for his relationship with a white woman in Chicago, Belle Schreiber. (She had been busted for pimping [procurement] by the State of Illinois. She copped a deal for a reduced sentence, [leniency]).

There are three legal problems with the conviction.

1. Johnson only knew the woman while she was in Chicago and did not 'traffic' her there.

2. The Mann Act was made law in 1910. Johnson's relationship with Belle Schreiber, both physical and financial occured before 1910. (expost facto)

3. Because JJ's relationship with Belle Schreiber occured within the State of Illinois (Chicago) any illegal dealing with prostitution (financing a whorehouse) was a state matter. The Federal Government had no authority.

This is why Belle Schreiber lied and claimed she traveled with Johnson across state lines. But even so, her testimony all claimed a relationship before 1910.

The conviction by a racist jury is one thing, the refusal on appeal was criminal.

P.S. Schreiber is sometimes spelt Schribner.

The problem is also one of context. Presumably this law was enacted to prevent trafficking. Like you point out there was no trafficking. Johnson was primae facia being convicted of being a pimp, a charge based on solicitation, not trafficking. And... as you say these charges were State matters which makes sense. When pimps get pinched, they get pinched locally. Only recently with RICO and other such laws does trafficking, primarily those who are taken OUT of the country, or who are young, does trafficking come into play legally.