BoxRec

I am sure that I won`t be taking the time to read all of that.

One thing though, does it , in your estimation, take a native of the United states to understand the socio-political nature of those times??? Because if it does then I am fighting a losing argument, true? Does this mean a Black person would understand the times better than you?

FYI - the Mann Act was stricken back in 1986.

By the way, another FACT you overlook is that Johnsons case wasnt in 1912. His trial began May 7, 1913, Caminetti was charged May 6, 1913. Regardless of the minute difference in timing etc. It becomes apparent that Johnson was neither the only person being charged under the laws, a special case under this law (other than the fact that he was a celebrity), nor was he the cause in any way shape or form of the law becoming enacted.

The Mann act was AMENDED in 1986, in the United States there is a distinction between being "stricken" and amended.

Had you read my post you would have seen that fact:

The act has never been repealed--it is still too politically
sensitive--but it has been modified. A 1978 amendment updated
definitions of "transportation" and targeted those who commercially
exploited minors of either sex by involving them in various forms of
specifically defined "prohibited sexual conduct." And in 1986, a
further tightening increased protection for minors and male victims,
and replaced the terms "debauchery" and "immoral purposes" with the
straightforward "any sexual activity for which any person can be
charged with a criminal offense." But the act is still available to
prosecutors in certain limited circumstances and can be an instrument
of harassment. Old and widely forgotten or ignored where private
conduct is involved, it still has a tooth or two.

First off these are all quotes by you:

"I am not a politician or even an American for that matter"

So your presuming to understand better than a citizen of this country the socio-political nature of the times in question and the laws there in? Thats funny.

Are you actually saying that you will not consider any other opinion by non US citizens to have any value. So should you ever comment on an issue relating to a matter outside of the USA we can discard it as being .......

stupid, dim, not wanted, not going to listen, go away, i know best, keep out of our business.

I hope you take back that remark and admit it was a mistake and say you were wrong to state such a foolish and insulting remark.

klompton wrote:By the way, another FACT you overlook is that Johnsons case wasnt in 1912. His trial began May 7, 1913, Caminetti was charged May 6, 1913. Regardless of the minute difference in timing etc. It becomes apparent that Johnson was neither the only person being charged under the laws, a special case under this law (other than the fact that he was a celebrity), nor was he the cause in any way shape or form of the law becoming enacted.

See - I have said it numerous times, nobody is claiming that Johnson was the only one being charged. I may have said it early in the thread but I admitted that I was wrong - why can`t you? The point that I made which you chose to ignore is that you were claiming that these two white guys were the first. How can that when Johnson was in trial just a day before Caminetti was charged according to your so-called facts?

One more time for you - Nobody is claiming that Johnson was the only person being charged. The law was rarely used and they needed something to "get" Johnson with. What the hell is so tough for you to comprehend.

FYI - the law was abolished in other words STRICKEN 1986.

I wont take back my comment about understanding my culture history better than an outsider. I never said I didnt consider any other opinion of value. But in this case I think there is an extreme lack of knowledge on the part of some foreign parties arguing the case of Johnson based on what theyve read in magazines and books which were less than thorough in their research. I live in this country and in this culture and I cant say that I fully understand times removed by nearly 100 years. Can you honestly say that someone from another country, culture, etc and removed by 100 years has a better grasp on such things than someone who was born here and educated in this culture, in its school systems, by people who lived through such things. Not likely. I dont profess to understand canadian history or social context better than canadians nor do I profess to understand chinese history and social context better than the chinese. Anyone who says that they can grasp something like that is either an anthropologist with years of field work under his belt (and even they would probably be the first to admit otherwise) or stupid.

You keep arguing in circles but you have never answered my question as to why Johnsons case is in need of a pardon so much more than anyone else who was charged under that law. Ive given you ample background and examples of why this law was misused in almost every case and yet you persist in parroting this sad claim that Johnson was unjustly convicted even outside of the twisted logic behind the law. He wasnt and as most historians who know jack shit about Johnson can tell you the man owned a whore house, spent much of his time traveling with whores that he was either pimping or patronizing, and did so across state lines. Now if this law was enacted to curb prostitution then why is a man like Johnson under those circumstances in such a better position to be pardoned than the many who were simply because they took a vacation with their girlfriend? Is it because he was black? Is it because he was a celebrity? Is it because he was so far out of tune with the "norm" that he was punished by "society" or the "man", or the "government?" If so are these even valid reasons for a pardon, especially one which excludes anyone else? This is the basic question which you fail to address even under the weight of overwhelming evidence against your argument. Your sole reply being "Im certain I wont be reading all of that". Hey, if your not going to educate yourself on the laws, history, culture, and customs, of this nation during the time in question then you might as well forget even arguing with me, and please dont even use the word obtuse to describe anyones worldview but your own, because thats a shoddy method of debate at best.

As for the Mann act being "rarely used" and simply a means to "get" Johnson: Thats like saying our Patriot Act is rarely used. Of course its rarely used. It was only two years old when the Johnson, Caminetti, and Diggs cases were being investigated. There was very little prior case law to draw upon. You would have noticed, had you read my posts, that it wasnt until 1917 that the supreme court, the highest court in our land, found in its hands the appeal to Caminettis case (Caminetti actually stayed in the country and fought his case the way law abiding citizens do, and as a result he suffered far more greatly than Jack Johnson ever did). Again by making such a statement you entirely misinterpret the situations sorrounding these cases. You act as if they simply arrested Johnson, charged him, tried him, convicted him, and sentenced him all in one day. It doesnt work like that. It doesnt work like that for anyone. I suggest you go back and read the information I posted before you make your next comment out of ignorance.

And I say again to robot that the Mann act was not stricken in 1986. I posted an example but as usual you read nothing but your own post. I suggest that you now go into a small dark, quiet room and mumble to yourself, Im sure youll have a blast...

The Raging B(_)LL

>>>>All Klompton is saying is that if you are going to pardon someone who was convicted on a morally unjust and intrusive law to begin with then why not pardon all the other people who were also convicted of it?<<<<

Where do you see that in his argument?


>>>The Mann act wasn't made just to take down Jack Johnson,it was a law that was selectively enforced but to say that it was created with the sole intent and purpose of putting Jack Johnson behind bars is nonsense.<<<

I don’t believe anyone was saying that. It was created for reasons that I mentioned in an earlier post.


>>>>but if you are gonna pardon Jack who did everything he could to get negative attention in his day then you should also pardon the poor saps who drove over state lines with nothing more sinister in mind then having a good time with a ladyfriend.<<<<


I agree in that the two percent of one hundred should all be pardoned because that two percent were wrongly convicted of the Mann Act. That two percent are the ones who just wanted a wham, bam, thank you mam and nothing more, and Johnson was one of that crowd, the other 98% were convicted properly, or at least that is what I have read. Even more ridiculous about the conviction is the fact that the two primary witnesses who testified that they had crossed state lines with Johnson he ended up legally calling his wife. True, he was hated by just about everyone and he was an asshole of the highest degree, but asshole, or not, he still shouldn’t have been convicted of something that he did not do, and he did do a lot of things, but break the Mann Act he did not!




Klompton:

>>>>You conveniently ignore that and continue to harp on my one question by stating that Im KKK or something.<<<<

You’re a very paranoid person. The Raging B(_)ll that is why everyone is on klomptons case, I never said he, or anyone else was a kkk advocate, wait a minute, excuse me klompton will translate my sentence into, he is the super-extraordinary-without peer-razzle dazzle-Grand Wizard pubah of the aryian neo-nazi brotherhood who hates all minorities.


>>>>When my book on Greb comes out you can check the sources yourself but seeing as how you cant admit your wrong and show all of the signs of a last word hog then I assume you simply brush that aside as well.<<<<

Now you’re just acting juvenile. Wait till this comes out, I’ll show you that I know something, but you probably won’t admit it! That’s funny! I really and honestly hope that your book on Greb is good. I hope that it is accurate and unbiased because a great fighter like Greb deserves no less, but I just don’t see that happening considering how biased you are toward any fighter that you do not like, and the fact that you are somewhat naïve in what you say is fact. You stated that Greb refrained from transporting women in that manner, that is pretty naïve to think because Greb was probably more of a womanizer than Johnson was and someone who likes women as much as Greb did are not going to let a stipulation like the Mann Act stop them, especially when those of Greb’s race, who were famous, never had to worry that they would be convicted, unless they were actually transporting the women with intentions of pimping them to every Joe with a hard-on!


>>>nor was he the cause in any way shape or form of the law becoming enacted.<<<<

I don’t know if someone else was making that argument, but I never did!


>>>>Bert Sugar, Ken Burns and anyone else who thinks Jack Johnson was the only man convicted of the intrusive Mann act.<<<<


You see, you make up shit and you go off on some ridiculous rant that literally doesn’t even pertain to anything that I am talking about. I know it’s difficult when you have the whole village coming after you with torches and rakes, but try to focus! I don’t think anyone said that Johnson was the only one, as a matter of fact, I stated that 3600 people had been charged, but it was more like 2600. Humanrobot sumned things up pretty nicely. I am glad that you posted the other cases of the Mann Act, but it’s irrelevant to my argument! Like you stated in an earlier post, this is the get in the last word from me

All Klompton is saying is that if you are going to pardon someone who was convicted on a morally unjust and intrusive law to begin with then why not pardon all the other people who were also convicted of it?

"Where do you see that in his argument?"

Actually Ive said it about twenty times. Have you been reading my posts or simply harping them as they pop up.

"The Mann act wasn't made just to take down Jack Johnson,it was a law that was selectively enforced but to say that it was created with the sole intent and purpose of putting Jack Johnson behind bars is nonsense.

I don’t believe anyone was saying that. It was created for reasons that I mentioned in an earlier post."

Actually Human Robot said exactly that and it was he that I was responding to. Dont every post to mean it was aimed directly at you.


"but if you are gonna pardon Jack who did everything he could to get negative attention in his day then you should also pardon the poor saps who drove over state lines with nothing more sinister in mind then having a good time with a ladyfriend.


I agree in that the two percent of one hundred should all be pardoned because that two percent were wrongly convicted of the Mann Act. That two percent are the ones who just wanted a wham, bam, thank you mam and nothing more, and Johnson was one of that crowd, the other 98% were convicted properly, or at least that is what I have read. Even more ridiculous about the conviction is the fact that the two primary witnesses who testified that they had crossed state lines with Johnson he ended up legally calling his wife. True, he was hated by just about everyone and he was an asshole of the highest degree, but asshole, or not, he still shouldn’t have been convicted of something that he did not do, and he did do a lot of things, but break the Mann Act he did not!"

Again, I think Ive shown in several posts that Johnson was not singled out or abused in any way more than many many if not most of the other people convicted under the law, which brings me back to the point never answered.


Klompton:

"You conveniently ignore that and continue to harp on my one question by stating that Im KKK or something.

You’re a very paranoid person. The Raging B(_)ll that is why everyone is on klomptons case, I never said he, or anyone else was a kkk advocate, wait a minute, excuse me klompton will translate my sentence into, he is the super-extraordinary-without peer-razzle dazzle-Grand Wizard pubah of the aryian neo-nazi brotherhood who hates all minorities. "

Actually someone did make a KKK reference and I wasnt the only one to respond to this as you with Raging Bull


"When my book on Greb comes out you can check the sources yourself but seeing as how you cant admit your wrong and show all of the signs of a last word hog then I assume you simply brush that aside as well.

Now you’re just acting juvenile. Wait till this comes out, I’ll show you that I know something, but you probably won’t admit it! That’s funny! I really and honestly hope that your book on Greb is good. I hope that it is accurate and unbiased because a great fighter like Greb deserves no less, but I just don’t see that happening considering how biased you are toward any fighter that you do not like, and the fact that you are somewhat naïve in what you say is fact. You stated that Greb refrained from transporting women in that manner, that is pretty naïve to think because Greb was probably more of a womanizer than Johnson was and someone who likes women as much as Greb did are not going to let a stipulation like the Mann Act stop them, especially when those of Greb’s race, who were famous, never had to worry that they would be convicted, unless they were actually transporting the women with intentions of pimping them to every Joe with a hard-on!"

Two points: 1. you misconstrue my unwillingness to reveal things in my book before it goes on SALE with me withholding some guarded knowledge that I feel is special to myself. On the contrary you can do the work I did and find the information I found. The difference here is in the long run I expected to get paid something for the effort I put out. Were I writing a book about Jack Johnson I would be posting this much on him. Simple as that. Point 2. You can believe what you want regarding Grebs race etc. But its fact that he and many others were concious about interstate (remember that is the key here) travel with women they were not married to. The fact that Johnson wasnt illustrates two things: his desregard for anything and anyone who tried to tell him what to do be they white, black, or green. And the fact that the law was in its infancy.


"nor was he the cause in any way shape or form of the law becoming enacted.

I don’t know if someone else was making that argument, but I never did!"

You didnt, someone else did, again, dont assume that every post is directly aimed at you.


"Bert Sugar, Ken Burns and anyone else who thinks Jack Johnson was the only man convicted of the intrusive Mann act.


You see, you make up shit and you go off on some ridiculous rant that literally doesn’t even pertain to anything that I am talking about. I know it’s difficult when you have the whole village coming after you with torches and rakes, but try to focus! I don’t think anyone said that Johnson was the only one, as a matter of fact, I stated that 3600 people had been charged, but it was more like 2600. Humanrobot sumned things up pretty nicely. I am glad that you posted the other cases of the Mann Act, but it’s irrelevant to my argument! Like you stated in an earlier post, this is the get in the last word from me"


You took that statement completely out of context but just let me say, if knowing the details and circumstances of the Mann Act, how it was applied etc. is irrelevant then that is where we differ. You obviously feel Johnson should given a pardon without any prior research into the matter what so ever. Hes a boxer, give him a pardon. I dont think that way. As Ive said before and will say again for the umpteenth time without answer: IF JACK JOHNSON DESERVES A PARDON BASED ON THE ABUSE OF THIS LAW, ITS INTRUSIVE NATURE, AND CONSERVATIVE MORAL AGENDA THEN WHY SHOULDNT EVERYONE CONVICTED OF THIS LAW GET THE SAME CONSIDERATION??? The simple fact is that Johnson is a black celebrity who has retroactively had the guise of a hero thrust upon himself. He is now the subject of a documentary by one of the nations most respected documentarians. What the liberal people who are pushing for this pardon dont understand (and yes Im a liberal) is that by supporting it they are probably supporting what amounts to nothing more than free press for Ken Burns, Geoffry Ward, and Bert Suger (self styled greatest boxing writer of his generation). Not only that but they are giving this corrupt and immoral administration the perfect political football to please people like yourselves. By pardoning Johnson they lose nothing. People like them were dancing in the streets 100 years ago when he was convicted and 60 years ago when he died in a car crash. This would just give them the chance to claim a little bit of "compassionate conservativism" while laughing behind your backs for pushing through a pardon on a long dead black man who was guilty of this crime and brought as much trouble on himself as white racists brought upon him. But gon, keep supporting such a measure your doing a great job with your arguments for it so far

>>>Actually Human Robot said exactly that and it was he that I was responding to. Dont every post to mean it was aimed directly at you.<<<

I apologize for harping on you when it was not forthcoming of me to do so!



>>>Actually someone did make a KKK reference and I wasnt the only one to respond to this as you with Raging Bull<<<

It was I who used kkk, but it was not directed toward anyone!



>>>>Two points: 1. you misconstrue my unwillingness to reveal things in my book before it goes on SALE with me withholding some guarded knowledge that I feel is special to myself. On the contrary you can do the work I did and find the information I found.<<<<


Hey, that’s exactly what I love to do, research for myself, but I never care to share any of my “guarded “ findings that no one else has discovered, in fact, I usually post it so someone can use it. It’s like I hear you talking yap about Greb’s record here on boxrec…well, why don’t you fix it so that it is correct, instead of complaining why not lend a hand, besides, I don’t think the record is off by much because the fellow who researched did a hell of a job!


>>>>The difference here is in the long run I expected to get paid something for the effort I put out.<<<<

That is the big difference between you and I. I do it because I love it and I am passionate about it. You do it for some kind of financial gain, and someone who is passionate always covers things more thoroughly. I also hate to burst your bubble, but no one has ever gotten rich from writing a book pertaining to boxing because there is only a small group of hardcore fans who are interested, unless you can get a big percentage of public libraries to pick it up, there, you get that little marketing tip about the libraries free of charge.


>>>You didnt, someone else did, again, dont assume that every post is directly aimed at you.<<<

Again, I apologize for jumping the gun!


>>>You obviously feel Johnson should given a pardon without any prior research into the matter what so ever. Hes a boxer, give him a pardon. I dont think that way. As Ive said before and will say again for the umpteenth time without answer: IF JACK JOHNSON DESERVES A PARDON BASED ON THE ABUSE OF THIS LAW, ITS INTRUSIVE NATURE, AND CONSERVATIVE MORAL AGENDA THEN WHY SHOULDNT EVERYONE CONVICTED OF THIS LAW GET THE SAME CONSIDERATION???<<<

I’m tired of repeating the same thing over and over!


>>>Bert Suger (self styled greatest boxing writer of his generation)<<<

Maybe so, but has certainly contributed more to the boxing community than most people, but if you like I can probably find a load of other respected boxing historians who feel the exact same way, or pretty close to the same as I do about Johnson’s conviction over the Mann Act!

Looks like kkklompton has got to much time on his hands with some of these posts. Talk about a dog not letting go of a bone.

Wouldn't your time be better spent on this Greb book which seems to have been in the works for best part of this century.

"That is the big difference between you and I. I do it because I love it and I am passionate about it. You do it for some kind of financial gain, and someone who is passionate always covers things more thoroughly. I also hate to burst your bubble, but no one has ever gotten rich from writing a book pertaining to boxing because there is only a small group of hardcore fans who are interested, unless you can get a big percentage of public libraries to pick it up, there, you get that little marketing tip about the libraries free of charge. "

I never said I expect to get rich and I certainly dont. That being said I think its prudent to clam up on the subject Im publishing about before my book comes out. You and everyone else will have access to all of my information and all of sources soon enough. On any other subject I post on I havent been as quiet and dont intend to.

As for covering things more thoroughly, I wouldnt make that statement and then trumpet your record of Greb. I have all the respect in the world for Luckett Davis but his primary and generally ONLY source for that record comes from the Pittsburgh Post. Considering there were seven Pittsburgh papers, eight if you include the Courrier (which was a black paper and didnt give much press to white fighters, except to say negative things about them), it seems to be that he could have done a bit more work. Not to mention the simple fact that for many if not most of Greb's "away" fights he doesnt cite a source from the town in which the bout happened. Before long I will correct the mistakes I see, which in my mind are big ones. But yes, for a 300 bout record there is a lot of good information there, I simply wish it were better.

As to Bladder: Your right I have been working on this book for a long time. Would you want it any other way? Ive devoted this time to it because I am passionate about it (as barry says). Im doing the entire book from writing, photo layouts, cover design, EVERYTHING myself. Im even publishing myself. This way I can have as much control over the book as possible and make it a boxing book for boxing fans as well as an interesting story. I could have easily published my story long ago with the information I have but whats the point in that. I want to get the story right and give people the facts, which are much more interesting than the tired myths about Greb that have been churned out for the last 50 years.

P.S. I already knew about getting on the "lucrative" library list but thanks for the tip, keep em coming, Im always open for more.

i am sorry that you don't feel you should change you view and to be fair i can in some way agree with what you stated in your reply. However ending the reply with the word stupid was a poor choice mate. the end of the matter

With regard to the book on Greb I am quite certain that there will be a considerale number of people wanting to see what it contains. You are a very outspoken person - that is not me having a go at you - and I do wish you well with it as I am certain it will be quite precise in its detail

i would like to suggest to you that we start a new thread/topic on greb
in which you may provide some material which will not impinge on what you have in the publication.

>>>>As for covering things more thoroughly, I wouldnt make that statement and then trumpet your record of Greb. I have all the respect in the world for Luckett Davis but his primary and generally ONLY source for that record comes from the Pittsburgh Post. Considering there were seven Pittsburgh papers, eight if you include the Courrier (which was a black paper and didnt give much press to white fighters, except to say negative things about them), it seems to be that he could have done a bit more work. Not to mention the simple fact that for many if not most of Greb's "away" fights he doesnt cite a source from the town in which the bout happened. Before long I will correct the mistakes I see, which in my mind are big ones. But yes, for a 300 bout record there is a lot of good information there, I simply wish it were better.<<<<

Well, the boxrec record of Greb isn’t mine, I just entered a lot of the bouts and it isn't Luckett’s record for Greb either, although he may have assisted the fellow. I don’t recall the fellow’s name, but he was also supposed to be writing a book on Greb. The record was published in Boxing Illustrated several years ago and if I remember correctly, the fellow who compiled the record used several sources and not just the Pittsburgh Post and he listed just about every venue for each bout, I’m not positive though as I don’t have that issue anymore, but I believe it was something like January, or February 1994, or 1995 and I think Roberto Duran was on the cover…anyone have that issue? Not being sarcastic, or harping, I really would like to see you become an editor!

I almost hate to admit it, but I have to agree with Klompton on this one. Jack Johnson was an arrogant, loud-mouthed abuser of women. It was Belle Schreiber's testimony against Johnson that won the conviction under the Mann Act. Belle was a whore. Most of Johnson's lady friends were whores, usually of the white variety, and some very ugly. He did own a cathouse and did a lot of things that would be considered illegal even if a white man had done them. He treated his fellow black fighters poorly, and got the fate he deserved in the end. Bad karma all around.

Cap

Decagon wrote:So, was Johnson legitimately guilty of violating the Mann Act? Was the woman he transported indeed a prostitute, or his wife? Or both?!?! Is there any proof that Johnson transported this woman for the purpose of debauchery that is not circumstantial?

oh god i think this will go on into years to come mate.the legal side has been debated so much its like the Nixon and watergate farce.i have not had the chance to see that documentry made so it would be interesting to hear from people on that.my view is he was a good boxer but a grade one twit...if the govt did'nt get him the KKK would

robert.snell1 wrote:my view is he was a good boxer but a grade one twit...if the govt did'nt get him the KKK would

Very true.

Talking of the KKK I heard talk on a documentary I saw on Johnson many, many years ago that in later life Johnson actually gave some 'lectures' to the KKK. As anuone else heard of this?

KOJOE90 wrote:

robert.snell1 wrote:my view is he was a good boxer but a grade one twit...if the govt did'nt get him the KKK would

Very true.

Talking of the KKK I heard talk on a documentary I saw on Johnson many, many years ago that in later life Johnson actually gave some 'lectures' to the KKK. As anuone else heard of this?

how to lynch properly ?

pick a tree contest ?

life style therapist

IQ is not an issue ?

I have read that after Johnson lost the title that he tried vainly to get fights with Jack Dempsey and even Joe Louis. Johnson reportedly sparred with Luis Angel Firpo and beat him so bad that an actual match between the two men was scrapped---when Louis became champion Johnson was furious because he wanted to be the only black HW champion. From what I heard Jack Blackburn was quoted as saying, after Johnson was denied admittance into Louis' training camp:

'That big cat never gave anyone credit, believe me, he'd want no bit of Chappy.'

Johnson would always publicly dismiss Louis, to the point where virtually anyone Louis fought, he said would knock Louis out. The only prediction he got right was the first Schmeling fight and was almost right when Braddock dropped Louis in the 1st round only to get kayoed himself in the 8th.

I'm not saying that Johnson was a bad fighter and that in his prime he would lose to a Dempsey or a Louis, but Johnson, as a person, was right up there for nomination for ASSHOLE OF THE MILLENIUM.

Johnson was a pimp. He'd be convicted now by evolved modern day laws. He was convicted of/for this, but not because of it. We have to be clear on this. Many other men from this era were not prosecuted for the social crimes he committed, or worse. Johnson's held status in defiance (on much more than this issue) and he needed to be reigned in by the establishment.

With regards Johnson being expelled from other countries; a precedent had already been set with Joe Jeanette fighting in France, after being refused a licence from the UK. The US would do everything they could to avoid further political embarrassment of this kind.