What Ever Happened to the Missing $1,591,120 in cash and securities?


S

samsloan

Yet, $1,591,120 in cash and securities disappeared.

What happened to all the money?[/quote]
The short answer is that is that the money was transferred, one piece
at a time, from the LMA to Operations, to pay current obligations. The
key point is that the claim you make in an earlier post:

samsloan said:
In 1999 there was $2 million in the LMA. However, it
was discovered during the 2003 delegates meeting in Los Angeles, that
the entire $2 million had disappeared.
is nonsense. All of these "loans" and transfers were fully documented
in handouts given to the Delegates each year. You can track the
decline in the overall value of the LMA from these records, year by
year. In no way was there some kind of surprise vanishment of
$2,000,000.00 in 2003.

I think I'm going to prepare a longer post detailing the whole thing,
from the original documents which I still have from those years.

-- Hal Terrie[/quote]

Since I have been asking this exact question for at least 8 years and
nobody yet has answered it, I will be surprised if you can back up the
answer you have given above.

So, I am waiting for the posting promised above detailing what ever
happened to the missing $1,591,120 in cash and securities.

You will also need to explain why these losses have never appeared in
the annual certified financial statements.

Sam Sloan
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

samsloan

Hal Terrie said:
Sam Sloan began this thread with a post in which
this claim appears:

samsloan said:
In 1999 there was $2 million in the LMA. However, it
was discovered during the 2003 delegates meeting in Los Angeles, that
the entire $2 million had disappeared.
Later, in response to an explanation offered by Mike Nolan, he again
claims to be baffled about what happened to the money:

samsloan said:
SysAdmin said:
Much of it was 'loaned' to
operations to cover operational deficits in that time period, a
practice that had started by 1998 (possibly earlier) to meet the
requirement that the bank line of credit be paid down once a year.

They'd pay off the credit line, then borrow it back after the end of
the month and repay the loan from LMA. Eventually those loans, which
don't show up on the financial statements since they are intra-company
transactions, were made permanent, because operations was losing money
and had no way to repay it. They used to show up on the trial
balance, and may still be there. Don't you have a copy of that from
around 2006?

There were also market losses in the portfolio, in part because some
investments had to be liquidated below cost after the market peaked in
March of 2000 in order to keep loaning money to operations, but those
losses aren't easily determined from the audited financials.
Thank you for this explanation.

My point is that if you take each of the certified financial
statements from 1998 through 2004, you will see a small loss for every
year. However, when you add up all these losses, it comes to less than
$200,000.

Yet, $1,591,120 in cash and securities disappeared.

What happened to all the money?
In a previous post, I gave the short answer: that the money was
transferred to Operations bit by bit until most of it was gone but
that this process was fully documented. Now, here is the long answer,
including direct quotes from documents provided to the Delegates.

We begin in FY 2000. For whatever reason, in this fiscal year USCF
began a string of years with severe financial problems. The causes of
those problems are NOT the subject of this post; if anyone wants to
discuss that and assign blame, that's a topic for a different thread.
Here, I am only going to track the results of those losses on the
balance in the LMA, as reported to the Delegates in documents handed
out each year.

At the Delegates Meeting of August 2000, held in St. Paul, MN, one of
the documents handed out was the most detailed report on the LMA ever
distributed. This report ran to over 100 pages and included copies of
the actual statements from the LMA investments (Vanguard, Charles
Schwab etc.). Every single transaction for the entire year was listed.
The introduction to this report notes the beginning of the financial
problems. It reports that LMA made the normal payments to Operations
(totalling about $104,000) but goes on to report:

"Two draws against the LMA were approved and effected in FY2000,
one for $100,000 on September 1, 1999 and a second one for $200,000 on
September 29, 1999."


On the following pages, the cash and securities are analyzed with the
conclusion that the value of those items alone (building not included)
as of June 1, 2000 was $1,313,982.00.

The next Delegates Meeting was in Framingham, MA in August 2001.The
minutes of that meeting (which have been available for years) reveal
that in his report, VP for Finance Pechac revealed that,

"The USCF line of credit was closed by the bank in December 2000.
USCF Operations was forced to borrow from the LMA fund to pay the
bank. This action increased the indebtedness of Operations to the LMA
to $665K..."


So, that accounts for another $350K+ removed from the LMA. At that
point in time it was still planned to repay these "loans" (over a
seven year period), by discontinuing regularly scheduled transfers
from LMA to Operations. The line of credit with the bank was
subsequently reestablished but there was more bad news to come.

The next fiscal year was another bad one. The LMA Committee report,
which was printed in the 2002 Delegates Call, showed that the liquid
assets of the LMA declined from $1,210,781.00 as of May 31, 2001 to
$516,368 as of May 31, 2002:

"...a reduction of nearly $700,000 for the year. The changes can be
summarized into three major components:

Pay down of Line of Credit (June 2001) $375,000
Transfers to Operations $250,000
Unrealized losses in Investments $ 80,000"


The minutes of the Delegates Meeting for 2002 reveal some interesting
facts. The USCF auditor, Mark Levy, addressed the Delegates and took
questions about the enormous loss USCF had taken for the recently
completed fiscal year, including some substantial one-time
adjustments. Among those listed as participating in this discussion
was Sam Sloan (Del., NY).
Yes, that's right Sam. YOU were in that
room, holding in your hand the Delegates Call which reported the
$700,000 reduction in LMA assets.

That bring us to FY 2003. There were more severe financial problems
that year. In the minutes to the 2003 Delegates Meeting (another
easily obtained document), VP for Finance Camaratta reports that the
LMA reserves were down to about $300,000.

So, there you have it. Not a pretty picture but not a mysterious (or
undocumented) one. Let's see that Sam Sloan quote one more time:

samsloan said:
In 1999 there was $2 million in the LMA. However, it
was discovered during the 2003 delegates meeting in Los Angeles, that
the entire $2 million had disappeared.
Another wild claim by Sam Sloan refuted.

-- Hal Terrie
Thank you. It is true that I missed this posting. It is also true that
I was at the 2002 delegates meeting in Cherry Hill NJ. However, I do
not believe that it was ever said that the USCF had just lost another
$700,000. Perhaps that fact was buried in the footnotes somewhere. I
do clearly recall that the 2002 meeting was disrupted by an out-of-
order motion by a former USCF President that we sell the building and
move to Miami Florida. Frank Niro, who was still highly regarded at
the time (this was before it was discovered a year later that Niro was
a big crook), spoke at length about the wisdom of moving to Miami. The
result was the close vote to move somewhere which resulted in the
disaster known as Crossville Tennessee today.

I really do not think that even the board noticed the $700,000 loss. I
know that Brady was on the board and is astute financially. He was
complaining that USCF President John McCrary was not telling him or
the other board members what was going on. I wonder if even McCrary
knew about the $700,000 loss. Sitting up there on the dais, he seemed
to be pretty confident that everything was going fine. McCrary was
surprised when he was not re-elected president the following year. Do
you think that he knew?

Sam Sloan
 
S

samsloan

However, the following year when Frank Niro abruptly disappeared
supposedly on his way to the 2003 delegates meeting in Los Angeles,
and then about ten days later his laptop disappeared too, we suddenly
realized that our sole source for the information that a lot of money
had been lost before Frank Niro became Executive Director was none
other than Frank Niro himself.

In other words, Frank Niro was claiming that his predecessor George De
Feis had lost the money, but it was equally possible that Niro had
lost the money and just blamed it on DeFeis. A third possibility is
that Cavallo who came before DeFeis had lost some of the money.

I continue to believe that it was mostly DeFeis who lost the money. I
base this on the fact that sale of books and equipment in 1999 were
$3.5 million but dropped to $1.7 million under DeFeis. This was
because of the idiotic policy under DeFeis of not answering the
telephone. Under DeFeis, all calls to the USCF went into Voicemail. No
matter how many buttons you pressed you still got voicemail. You could
never get a human on the phone, no matter what.

How could the USCF possibly sign up new members or sell books and
equipment if nobody ever answered the telephone?

Under Niro, the USCF staff started answering the telephone again and
sales went back up. I believe than Niro reported books and equipment
sales of $3 million and total sales of $5 million. However, with the
disappearance of Niro and his laptop we do not know if these figures
were valid.

Sam Sloan
 
B

Bobcat

However, the following year when Frank Niro abruptly disappeared
supposedly on his way to the 2003 delegates meeting in Los Angeles,
and then about ten days later his laptop disappeared too, we suddenly
realized that our sole source for the information that a lot of money
had been lost before Frank Niro became Executive Director was none
other than Frank Niro himself.
Sam Sloan

Wait!!! This story told by the mighty Scam Sloon gets better and
better: Sam I thought you said that that Susan and Paul absconded with
the said laptop in 2007-2008, NOW you say it was -- pointing finger --
none other than FRANK NIRO!! and he did in the bedroom in 2003, 4
years BEFORE Susan and Paul were members of the BoD. Where will your
pointing finger point next?!?

Maybe at this point I should use that stock phrase of your partner-in-
crime Brian Whats-his-name: "Stay Tuned"
 
S

samsloan

Wait!!! This story told by the mighty Scam Sloon  gets better and
better: Sam I thought you said that that Susan and Paul absconded with
the said laptop in 2007-2008, NOW you say it was -- pointing finger --
none other than FRANK NIRO!! and he did in the bedroom in 2003, 4
years BEFORE Susan and Paul were members  of the BoD.  Where will your
pointing finger point next?!?

Maybe at this point I should use that stock phrase of your partner-in-
crime Brian Whats-his-name: "Stay Tuned"
Polgar and Truong stole the laptop from the USCF Office in New Windsor
in August 2003. However, we did not know it at the time. We just knew
that the laptop had disappeared.

It was not until 2006 when Frank Niro publicly thanked them for
bringing him the laptop that we found out that Polgar and Truong had
taken it. At the same time Frank Niro was writing about playing in
high stakes poker games in Foxwoods Casino.

Sam Sloan
 
B

Bobcat

Polgar and Truong stole the laptop from the USCF Office in New Windsor
in August 2003. However, we did not know it at the time. We just knew
that the laptop had disappeared.

It was not until 2006 when Frank Niro publicly thanked them for
bringing him the laptop that we found out that Polgar and Truong had
taken it. At the same time Frank Niro was writing about playing in
high stakes poker games in Foxwoods Casino.

Sam Sloan
Oh Sam this *story* gets better and better -- a true whodoneit. NOW
the story line takes a sharp 90 degree turn and Frank Niro and Susan
and Paul are somehow in cahoots. If the *story* is correct Susan and
Paul *stole* said laptop 4 years BEFORE they were ELECTED to the USCF
BoD. So pray tell us all WHY Susan and Paul *"stole"* said laptop??
Since they were NOT part of the USCF BoD at that time and given that
at the very least all the information on said laptop at the very
minimum was password protected if not encrypted, and even even if not
would not be able to use the information contained on it, tell us what
was the motive for "stealing" it in the first place?? It it not a more
reasonable hypothesis that Frank Niro mis-laid the laptop while at
some meeting, and Susan and Paul chanced upon it, opened it up, and
discovered it belonged to Frank Niro, and simply returned it to him
as any honest citizen might do?!? That is by far and away a more
logical explanation than Susan and Paul skulking around trying to
"steal" the laptop in the first place, and IF your phony-baloney were
TRUE ie they "stole" the laptop, then WHY did they return the laptop
to Frank Niro in the first place ie WHY did they not keep it??

To quote ol' Brian Whathisname: STAY TUNED!!!

Next time we will learn from Scam Sloon, how Gregory Alexander fit
into picture. We will hear Scam Sloon say, " No it was REALLY _______
and they did it in the Boardroom, using the _________ and their
motive was _________!!! STAY TUNED!!! Same Bat Time; same Bat
Station!!!!
 
Ad

Advertisements

S

samsloan

Oh Sam this *story* gets better and better -- a true whodoneit. NOW
the story line takes a sharp 90 degree turn and Frank Niro and Susan
and Paul are somehow in cahoots. If the *story* is correct Susan and
Paul *stole*  said laptop 4 years BEFORE they were ELECTED to the USCF
BoD. So  pray tell us all WHY Susan and Paul *"stole"* said laptop??
Since they  were NOT part of the  USCF BoD at that time and given that
at the very least all the information on said laptop at the very
minimum was password protected if not encrypted, and even even if not
would not be able to use the information contained on it, tell us what
was the motive for "stealing" it in the first place?? It it not a more
reasonable hypothesis that Frank Niro mis-laid the laptop while at
some meeting, and Susan and Paul chanced upon it,  opened it up, and
discovered it belonged to Frank  Niro, and simply returned it to him
as any honest citizen might do?!? That is by far and away a more
logical explanation than Susan and Paul skulking around trying to
"steal" the laptop in the first place, and IF your phony-baloney were
TRUE ie they "stole" the laptop, then WHY did they return the  laptop
to Frank Niro  in the first place ie WHY did they not keep  it??

To quote ol' Brian Whathisname: STAY TUNED!!!

Next time we will learn from Scam Sloon, how Gregory Alexander fit
into picture. We will hear Scam Sloon say, " No it was REALLY _______
and  they did it in the Boardroom, using the _________ and their
motive was _________!!! STAY TUNED!!! Same Bat Time; same Bat
Station!!!!
If you will do a search of this forum you will see it all discussed
back at the time of the events in question.

Back in 2003, Frank Niro, Susan Polgar and Paul Truing were close
allies. Niro had given a lot of USCF money to Polgar and Truong. For
example. Frank Niro Would order boxes of Polgar's book "Queen of the
King's Game" from Polgar paying the full retail price of $24.95 for
each book. He would then sell the books at a deep discount, such as
$18.95 per book. There were a lot of these orders involving thousands
of dollars. I saw them when I was on the board.

At the time when Frank Niro had disappeared and everybody was
searching for him, I was on good terms with Polgar and Truong. Truong
called me and told me that Frank Niro was in a hospital in Connecticut
and had had a heart attack. He was seriously ill and fighting for his
life, said Truong.

However, Frank Niro later wrote that in reality he had been in
Connecticut in Foxwoods Casino playing in a very high stakes poker
game. In this game, a player had lost $30,000 in one hand. This may
explain where the USCF's LMA money went.

When Frank Niro left the USCF's office in New Windsor supposedly
supposedly on his way to the USCF meeting in Los Angeles, and then
disappeared, he had left the laptop sitting on his desk in New
Windsor. When the newly elected board arrived in New Windsor about two
weeks later, they saw the laptop sitting there on the desk. They then
went out to lunch, planning to study the laptop when they got back
from lunch.

However, when they got back an hour later, the laptop was gone,
missing, and has not been seen since.

Polgar and Truong have since stated that during the break of one hour
when the board was out to lunch, they arrived, saw the laptop on the
desk and took it. Indeed, when they were leaving they passed the
newly elected board arriving and they passed each other in the
doorway. The newly elected board did not realize that Truong had the
laptop in the bag he was carrying.

Truong and Polgar are stating that the laptop belonged to Niro and
they were just picking it up for him. However, this was clearly the
USCF's computer. It was not Frank Niro's personal computer and
therefore taking this laptop was theft.

Again, all this has been recounted many times on this forum.

Sam Sloan
 
B

Bobcat

If you will do a search of this forum you will see it all discussed
back at the time of the events in question.

Back in 2003, Frank Niro, Susan Polgar and Paul Truing were close
allies. Niro had given a lot of USCF money to Polgar and Truong. For
example. Frank Niro Would order boxes of Polgar's book "Queen of the
King's Game" from Polgar paying the full retail price of $24.95 for
each book. He would then sell the books at a deep discount, such as
$18.95 per book. There were a lot of these orders involving thousands
of dollars. I saw them when I was on the board.

At the time when Frank Niro had disappeared and everybody was
searching for him, I was on good terms with Polgar and Truong. Truong
called me and told me that Frank Niro was in a hospital in Connecticut
and had had a heart attack. He was seriously ill and fighting for his
life, said Truong.

However, Frank Niro later wrote that in reality he had been in
Connecticut in Foxwoods Casino playing in a very high stakes poker
game. In this game, a player had lost $30,000 in one hand. This may
explain where the USCF's LMA money went.

When Frank Niro left the USCF's office in New Windsor supposedly
supposedly on his way to the USCF meeting in Los Angeles, and then
disappeared, he had left the laptop sitting on his desk in New
Windsor. When the newly elected board arrived in New Windsor about two
weeks later, they saw the laptop sitting there on the desk. They then
went out to lunch, planning to study the laptop when they got back
from lunch.

However, when they got back an hour later, the laptop was gone,
missing, and has not been seen since.

Polgar and Truong have since stated that during the break of one hour
when the board was out to lunch, they arrived, saw the laptop on the
desk and took it.  Indeed, when they were leaving they passed the
newly elected board arriving and they passed each other in the
doorway. The newly elected board did not realize that Truong had the
laptop in the bag he was carrying.

Truong and Polgar are stating that the laptop belonged to Niro and
they were just picking it up for him. However, this was clearly the
USCF's computer. It was not Frank Niro's personal computer and
therefore taking this laptop was theft.

Again, all this has been recounted many times on this forum.

Sam Sloan
San you still fail to state WHY Susan and Paul "stole" the laptop.
Ockham's Razor suggests the the simplest explanation is usually the
the correct one: Even you just wrote that Niro, Susan and Paul were
friends. The likely scenario is just what happened: Niro puts the
laptop down in New York, and is in a rush to catch a plane to the LA
USCF meeting with the intent of taking it with him, maybe it not,
regardless time goes by and it sits on HIS desk, for whatever reason
he needs it and he calls either Susan and / or Paul to go to his
office and pick it up for him, so they do!! Even if the computer is
USCF property, if Niro was still in charge HE is still responsible
for securing it. Asking a friend to pick up a computer and bring it
to them is a natural request. In not way did either Susan or Paul
profit from "stealing" the computer since a) they were not on the
BoD b) Niro probably Password or Encrypted all sensitive files to
start with (which even IF the new BoD wanted to look at the files
would have done them no good since they would have had to either get
the Password/s used and / or the Encryption Key which only Niro knew.
c) IF Susan and / or Paul *stole* the computer as you would like us
to believe, do you REALLY believe they would admit to it?? I don't
think so!! Ockham's Razor suggests that that Niro called Susan and /
or Paul and asked them to fetch the laptop on his desk and bring to
him, they didn't stop to ask, "Gee is this Frank's or the USCF's
computer". Given that neither had a thing called MOTIVE for *stealing*
it, and they confessed they picked it up without prompting, seems to
suggest they were telling the TRUTH.

To quote your friend Brian Whatshisface, STAY TUNED!! Next time we'll
hear Scam Sloon say: It was REALLY ______ and _____ and ______ and
_____ and _____ they did it in in the Boardroom, in the Hallway, and
sundry other locations, and they did with ________ and their MOTIVE
was_____________. Same Bat Time; Same Bat Station
 
S

samsloan

San you still fail to state WHY Susan and Paul "stole" the laptop.
Ockham's Razor  suggests the the simplest explanation is usually the
the correct one: Even you just wrote that Niro, Susan and Paul were
friends. The likely scenario is just what happened: Niro puts the
laptop down in New York, and is in a rush to catch a plane to the LA
USCF meeting with the intent of taking it with him, maybe it not,
regardless time goes by and it sits on HIS desk, for whatever reason
he needs it and he calls either Susan and / or Paul to go to his
office and pick it up for him, so they do!! Even if the computer is
USCF property, if Niro was still in charge HE is  still responsible
for securing it. Asking a friend to pick up  a computer and bring it
to them is a natural request. In not way did either Susan or Paul
profit from "stealing" the computer since a)  they  were not on the
BoD  b) Niro probably Password or Encrypted all sensitive files to
start with  (which even IF the new BoD wanted to look at the files
would have done them no good since they would have had to either get
the Password/s used and / or the Encryption Key which only Niro knew.
c) IF Susan and / or Paul *stole* the computer as you  would like us
to believe, do  you  REALLY believe they  would admit to it?? I  don't
think so!! Ockham's Razor suggests that that Niro  called Susan and /
or Paul and asked them to fetch the  laptop on his  desk and bring to
him, they didn't stop to ask, "Gee is this Frank's or the USCF's
computer". Given that neither had a thing called MOTIVE for *stealing*
it, and they confessed they  picked it up without prompting, seems to
suggest they were  telling the TRUTH.

To quote your friend Brian Whatshisface, STAY TUNED!! Next time we'll
hear Scam Sloon say: It was REALLY  ______ and _____ and ______ and
_____ and _____ they did it in in the Boardroom, in the Hallway, and
sundry other locations, and they did with ________ and their MOTIVE
was_____________. Same Bat Time; Same Bat Station
The Reason is Frank Niro had done a lot of under the table deals with
Polgar and Truong. He had given them a lot of money and apparently he
had agreed to pay them $50,000 (fifty thousand dollars) to train the
Woman's Olympiad Team, a ridiculous amount of money. He had also
agreed to pay her $500 a column to write articles for Chess Life.

We were very interested in learning what was going on between Niro,
Polgar and Truong. Now, we will never find out.

If they had been honest, they would have told the office staff on duty
that they were taking the laptop. The person in charge of the office
that day has stated that she would never have allowed Polgar and
Truong to walk away with that laptop had she known about it.

Back then, laptops did not routinely require passwords as they do
today.

Sam Sloan
 
B

Bobcat

The Reason is Frank Niro had done a lot of under the table deals with
Polgar and Truong. He had given them a lot of money and apparently he
had agreed to pay them $50,000 (fifty thousand dollars) to train the
Woman's Olympiad Team, a ridiculous amount of money. He had also
agreed to pay her $500 a column to write articles for Chess Life.

We were very interested in learning what was going on between Niro,
Polgar and Truong. Now, we will never find out.

If they had been honest, they would have told the office staff on duty
that they were taking the laptop. The person in charge of the office
that day has stated that she would never have allowed Polgar and
Truong to walk away with that laptop had she known about it.

Back then, laptops did not routinely require passwords as they do
today.

Sam Sloan
We once again return to our heroes. They stand accused by that Master
Criminal Scam Sloon of "stealing" a USCF laptop right from under the
noses of the new incoming BoD of the USCF. Is this the end of our
daring duo?!?

Well Sam, ,I assume you can PROVE that Frank Niro was paying Susan
and Paul "under the table". I mean you must have had spy cameras
watching them, Yes?!? NO!!! then you are making a baseless accusation
without -- a typical Sam Sloan method -- a shred of EVIDENCE. [POW!!]
And to quote you: "...It was not until 2006 when Frank Niro publicly
thanked them for bringing him the laptop." [BAM!!!] Which PROVES
neither Susan or Paul "stole" the laptop, since they bought Frank the
laptop [ZAP!!!] (in case you are a bit slow on the uptake Sam, Frank
Niro was the last person to have the laptop in their possession, NOT
Susan or Paul [CRASH!!!] ).

Once again our daring duo have emerged victorious from the fight armed
only with Ockham's Razor. But that arc-villain Scam Sloon has escaped
back into his underground sewer, where he is setting out yet another
dastardly plot for our heroes Susan and Paul. We hear Sloon shouting
-- at anyone who cares enough to listen to raging lunatic -- "This
fight is not yet over Polgar and Truong. I shall get you next time my
little pretty!!!!" Ending in Sloon's trademark cackle. Once more the
citizens of Usachessville can sleep soundly at least for the time
being, the evil Scam Sloon has been defeated, tripped up by his own
words.

Quoting Brian Whathisname, "Stay Tuned". Same Bat Time, Same Bat
Station.
 
S

samsloan

This reminds me of a subject about which I have been thinking.

Perhaps the most memorable words ever uttered in the history of the
movies was, "I'll get you my pretty and your little dog too! "

Yet, the actress who uttered those words is completely forgotten. All
of the other actors who appeared in that movie are well remembered and
highly regarded for their work, which consisted largely of just
reading lines, but by far the greatest acting performance by the only
one who did any real acting receives no honors, even though the
character she played is remembered by everybody.

Sam Sloan
 
Ad

Advertisements

B

Bill Graham

samsloan said:
This reminds me of a subject about which I have been thinking.

Perhaps the most memorable words ever uttered in the history of the
movies was, "I'll get you my pretty and your little dog too! "

Yet, the actress who uttered those words is completely forgotten. All
of the other actors who appeared in that movie are well remembered and
highly regarded for their work, which consisted largely of just
reading lines, but by far the greatest acting performance by the only
one who did any real acting receives no honors, even though the
character she played is remembered by everybody.

Sam Sloan
I am 76. My mom spoke of Margaret Hamilton frequently when I was young, and
knew her to be a fine actress and one of the highlights of the 1939 version
of "The Wizard of Oz".
 
T

Taylor Kingston

This reminds me of a subject about which I have been thinking.

Perhaps the most memorable words ever uttered in the history of the
movies was, "I'll get you my pretty and your little dog too! "

Yet, the actress who uttered those words is completely forgotten. All
of the other actors who appeared in that movie are well remembered and
highly regarded for their work, which consisted largely of just
reading lines, but by far the greatest acting performance by the only
one who did any real acting receives no honors, even though the
character she played is remembered by everybody.

Sam Sloan
As can be seen here:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0002121/

Margaret Hamilton had roles in a total of 117 movies and TV shows,
most of them post-Wizard of Oz, the last in 1982, three years before
her death. Hardly the resumé of someone who was forgotten after 1939.
And while I would agree that she gave the best acting performance in
Wizard, she was hardly "the only one who did any real acting."
 
S

samsloan

I see. So it was Margaret Hamilton who took the missing $1,591,120 in
cash and securities!

Susan Polgar and Paul Truong are just getting a bad rap.
 
K

Kent Wills

This reminds me of a subject about which I have been thinking.

Perhaps the most memorable words ever uttered in the history of the
movies was, "I'll get you my pretty and your little dog too! "

Yet, the actress who uttered those words is completely forgotten.
Margaret Hamilton.
All
of the other actors who appeared in that movie are well remembered and
highly regarded for their work, which consisted largely of just
reading lines,
They had to memorize them and follow direction.
but by far the greatest acting performance by the only
one who did any real acting receives no honors, even though the
character she played is remembered by everybody.
I would argue all of the major characters are remembered by
everyone who has seen the film.
 
G

Greegor

This reminds me of a subject about which I have been
thinking. Perhaps the most memorable words ever
uttered in the history of the movies was, "I'll
get you my pretty and your little dog too! "
Yet, the actress who uttered those words is
completely forgotten. All of the other actors who
appeared in that movie are well remembered and
highly regarded for their work, which consisted
largely of just reading lines, but by far the
greatest acting performance by the only one who
did any real acting receives no honors, even
though the character she played is remembered
by everybody.

Sam Sloan
Sloan really seems smarter than this, so I
suspect this was some effort to smear him.

Or could this be an example of his savant
side being unable to control his idiot side?

Aspergers must be rough.

How do Chess organizations view the hoards
of people with Aspergers?

Do they place ANY restrictions on people
with Aspergers?

Focus on the 1.5 Million dollars, Sam!
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

micky

samsloan said:
I see. So it was Margaret Hamilton who took the missing $1,591,120 in
cash and securities!

Susan Polgar and Paul Truong are just getting a bad rap.
Recently me & my big Sis attended the Sydney production of "Wicked".. it
was way too loud, but apart from that it was overrun with nubile 12yr.
olds.. taking tips on the proper way to mount a broomstick.. it was
pretty cool, sucking on my illuminated vodka slurpee, you'd have enjoyed
it Sam!..

..
 
B

Bill Graham

There have been quite a few, "Memorable words" to come out of Hollywood".
How about, "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn." Or, "Badges? We don't got
to have any stinking badges...We're banditos!" Or, (my favorite) "It is not
the right, but the responsibiliity for good men to break bad laws." Or,
"Here's looking at you, sweetheart." Or, "Truth? You couldn't handle the
truth!"
 
T

Taylor Kingston

There have been quite a few, "Memorable words" to come out of Hollywood".
How about ... "Badges? We don't got
to have any stinking badges...We're banditos!"
Close, but not quite right. Here's the clip:

 Or,
"Here's looking at you, sweetheart."
The last word is "kid," not "sweetheart."


My own favorites from Margaret Hamilton in "Wizard of Oz" are "These
things must be done delicately," and "Wanna play ball, Scarecrow?"
 
Ad

Advertisements

G

Greegor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stinking_badges

Stinking badges From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to:
navigation, search "Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges!" is a
well-known and widely (mis)quoted line from cinematic history.[1] In
2005, it was chosen as #36 on the American Film Institute list, AFI's
100 Years...100 Movie Quotes.[2] It comes from a line of dialog from a
1927 novel, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, and first appeared in
film 21 years later in a movie of the same name; the line was parodied
in the Mel Brooks film Blazing Saddles in 1974 and was cited in many
movies after that.

Contents [hide]
1 History
1.1 First occurrences
1.2 Later citations
2 References

[edit] History[edit] First occurrencesThe original version of the line
appeared in B. Traven's 1927 novel The Treasure of the Sierra Madre:

"All right," Curtin shouted back. "If you are the police, where are
your badges? Let's see them."
"Badges, to god-damned hell with badges! We have no badges. In fact,
we don't need badges. I don't have to show you any stinking badges,
you god-damned cabrón and chinga tu madre! Come out from that shit-
hole of yours. I have to speak to you."
The line was popularized by the 1948 film adaptation of the novel.[3]
In one scene, a Mexican bandit leader named "Gold Hat"[4] (portrayed
by Alfonso Bedoya) tries to convince Fred C. Dobbs (Humphrey Bogart)
[2] that he and his company are Federales:

Dobbs: "If you're the police where are your badges?"
Gold Hat: "Badges? We ain't got no badges. We don't need no badges! I
don't have to show you any stinkin' badges!"
[edit] Later citationsIn the TV show The Monkees episode 33 "A Nice
Place To Visit" (1967), Micky Dolenz copied the line as "Badges? We
don't need no stinking badges".

In Mel Brooks' 1974 Western Blazing Saddles, the line was delivered as
"Badges? We don't need no stinking badges". This condensed version has
become one of the most popular variations of the quotation.[citation
needed]

The 1985 film Gotcha! likewise features the line as comic dialogue
during a Mexican standoff between two CIA officers and a Mexican-
American college student (Nick Corri), who is immediately backed up by
a group of armed Mexican-American gang members.

In the 1985 Robert Altman movie O.C. and Stiggs, the line is said by a
Mexican souvenir salesman, upon the arrival of the titular characters
in Mexico, after improbably floating downstream from Phoenix, Arizona,
on car tires stolen from a rich and much hated local insurance
salesmen (Schwab), en route to seeing King Sunny Ade - a musician one
of the characters (Stiggs) holds in very high regard.

In the 1989 film Troop Beverly Hills, the character Rosa (played by
Shelley Morrison) states, "Patches? We don't need no stinkin'
patches!" when Velda (the villainous character played by Betty Thomas)
revokes their Girl Scout patches.

In the 1989 Weird Al Yankovic film UHF, the line occurs in a spoof of
Raul's Wild Kingdom, during the scene where Raul (Trinidad Silva)
receives his animal delivery. When he is asked to take a consignment
of badgers, he says "Badgers? We don't need no stinking badgers!".

[edit] References1.^ Hal Erickson (2010). "Alfonso Bedoya Movies".
Blockbuster. http://www.blockbuster.com/browse/catalog/personDetails/4404.
Retrieved 2010-04-27.
2.^ a b "AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes". USA Today. 2010.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2005-06-21-top-movie-quotes_x.htm.
Retrieved 2010-04-27.
3.^ "Treasure of the Sierra Madre, The (1948)". www.classicfilmguide.com.
2010. http://www.classicfilmguide.com/indexa620.html. Retrieved
2010-04-21.
4.^ Hal Erickson (2010). "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)".
Blockbuster. http://www.blockbuster.com/browse/catalog/movieDetails/35991.
Retrieved 2010-04-21.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top