1,535 words
A blogger associated with the antifa bragged at the beginning of this week that arrests were imminent against demonstrators who had participated in the August 11, 2017 tiki torch march in Charlottesville, Virginia. Three people have been arrested so far, but this may be only the beginning.
The law which is being abused is Virginia Code Section 18.2-423.01, which in Subsection B states:
Any person who, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, burns an object on a highway or other public place in a manner having a direct tendency to place another person in reasonable fear or apprehension of death or bodily injury is guilty of a Class 6 felony. (emphasis added)
Subsection A deals with burning objects on private property, and thus is not applicable.
The emphasis above is important. To prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution must prove each and every element of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. It is rare for actions in themselves to constitute a crime. There is usually a requirement of a mens rea, or a subjective guilty state of mind that accompanies the act. This state of mind ranges on a spectrum from mere criminal negligence through recklessness all the way to specific intent, depending on the statute.
The following is how the above statute could be simplified and rewritten to show each element:
- a defendant burns an object in public;
- a defendant subjectively intends to intimidate others; or
- the burning objectively has a direct tendency to place another person in a reasonable fear or apprehension of death or bodily injury.
It is noteworthy that this statute has an objective element. When laws say “reasonable,” they tend to mean a reasonable, ordinary person — although in 2023, what is reasonable can wildly vary based on political persuasion and so on.
The subjective, and more importantly objective, elements are designed to prevent the statute from running off into the realm of absurdity and unconstitutionality. Otherwise, it would be a felony to smoke a cigarette on the sidewalk if it causes an overly sensitive snowflake to fuss about cancer.
In an objective American court of law, no prosecutor could hope to successfully charge any of the Charlottesville marchers with this statute. The facts simply don’t fit. What type of idiot thinks that a tiki torch could be an effective tool of intimidation? It’s not even a medieval-style torch, has a small flame, and is really more of a Hawaiian-themed flashlight. And who before post-Charlottesville hysterics associated tiki torches with nationalism, let alone intimidation?
Statutes should not be read in a vacuum. Section 18.2-423.01 is under Article 5, “Activities Tending to Cause Violence,” the first statute of which is Section 18.2-420, “Clandestine Organization defined,” which uses many words to describe the Ku Klux Klan or a similar organization without explicitly naming the Klan. Section 18.2-423 deals with burning crosses in public (more on that later), 18.2-423.1 with placing swastikas on property, and 18.2-423.2 with displaying nooses in public with intent to intimidate.
We don’t need tarot cards to divine the legislative intent of this statute. It was obviously passed during the civil rights era, which gave new and novel rights everyone except whites while undermining historical rights enjoyed by whites such as freedom of association. As explained in The America Regime, the civil rights era was tantamount to a new foundation myth, state religion, and Constitution.[1] Even most conservatives have embraced this new paradigm, despite how white Americans initially vehemently opposed it.
Applying this statute to the tiki torch marchers is ludicrous even under the civil rights-era paradigm, however. Ambiguous terms can be clarified by other words they are associated with. Section 18.2-423.01 appears to have been a catch-all for instances when people might burn objects other than crosses to evade the statute, such as perhaps effigies. A tiki torch is not in the same category of intimidation as a noose, swastika, or burning cross, especially when tiki torches were yet to be slandered in the media.
The civil rights-era paradigm at least had a veneer of justice and objectivity in order to lure gullible whites into thinking that wildly disparate — and oftentimes hostile — races could co-exist under a system of neutral rules. But we are currently living through another foundation myth: the all-out culture war which began in 2016, culminating in the race riots and Democrat coup of 2020, and that is still ongoing. Under this paradigm, we have undeniably passed from what Carl Schmitt would deem “neutrality” and mere “policymaking” into the realm of true politics directed against objective enemies — not that the previous pretention to neutrality was anything but a façade.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s The Year America Died here.
Truth was the first casualty in this conflict. The mask has finally slipped. We are no longer dealing with the slow erosion of traditional rights and jurisprudence, but open lawfare. The response to Charlottesville is ultimately about power and politics. “The law,” as that term is commonly understood, is entirely irrelevant beyond being the context in which this conflict is being fought.
That white citizens could be hauled hundreds of miles to another state’s court to face a hostile judge, prosecutor, jury, and highly questionable public defenders for an incident that happened over six years ago — Virginia has no statute of limitations for felonies — is reminiscent of American patriots being hauled before hostile British courts. This unjust farce prompted the Founders to explicitly enumerate the Anglo-Saxon right to a fair and speedy trial in the Seventh Amendment. That courts in liberal areas now resemble hostile kangaroo courts in totalitarian states is a strong argument for why we need a national divorce.
But let us turn to predictions and practical advice. As of the morning of April 19, there have only been reports of three arrests. The defendants’ names and details are not publicly known at this time, but it is likely that Jim Hingeley, Albemarle County’s Soros-backed Commonwealth Attorney, will continue to target the marchers unless there is stiff resistance. As demonstrated by January 6, the Left is viciously vengeful and is unlikely to cease their reign of anarcho-tyranny if the broader Right continues to behave as pushovers. There is every incentive for them to use the law in the pursuit of vengeance, with few downsides.
We must therefore be prepared to circle the wagons and unconditionally back anyone and everyone who is targeted. Yes, this may include less-than-perfect people who may have made what in retrospect were poor decisions on that day. Too often those on the Right, especially on the Alt Right, have been quick to disparage those targeted by anarcho-tyranny as deserving of their fate.
I confess I have caught myself doing this a few times. It is a coping mechanism, because it is psychologically hard to accept that we, too, could be targeted. And it plays right into the Saul Alinsky tactic of isolating a target so that he can be destroyed. Unless there is unified pushback, it is likely that Jim Hingeley will expand his prosecution to anyone who was there who his comrades in antifa have doxed, regardless of their individual conduct.
There is reason for hope, however. As noted by RedState, the Virginia statute which specifically deals with burning crosses did not fare well before the Supreme Court in Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003). The statute states that cross-burning in itself implicitly indicates an intent to intimidate regardless of the context, and thus the prosecution does not need to prove intent. In Virginia v. Black, a plurality of the SCOTUS ruled that cross-burning with proven intent to intimidate could be banned, but that cross-burning in itself does not constitute prima facie intent to intimidate. It is therefore unlikely that applying this statute to the burning of generic objects would pass a Supreme Court review unscathed, if at all. Additionally, an appellate court, even if it is liberal, could rule in favor of the defendants in order to head off a landmark SCOTUS decision that would in turn create binding case law for the whole country.
It will be difficult in the short term for anyone targeted, as undergoing the legal process itself is often as bad as or even worse than the substantive outcome. But this particular act of persecution may prove to be an overextension that pays massive dividends in the long run.
Prosecuting the Charlottesville marchers is an outrageous injustice. The first instinct of anyone closer to the mainstream is to throw these victims to the wolves. But that is foolish. There are wolves in every jurisdiction, and they aren’t just coming for the Alt Right. You might have thought it prudent to toss the January 6 victims to the wolves as well. But now that they have indicted Donald Trump himself, it should finally sink in: these wolves are coming for all of us. So it is unite or die.
If, however, we can defeat them in Charlottesville, it might slow or stop such lawfare before it gets out of hand. But to do that, we need to protest with one voice. Let’s make them regret this. Let’s make Charlottesville the place we finally Unite the Right.
* * *
Counter-Currents has extended special privileges to those who donate $120 or more per year.
- First, donor comments will appear immediately instead of waiting in a moderation queue. (People who abuse this privilege will lose it.)
- Second, donors will have immediate access to all Counter-Currents posts. Non-donors will find that one post a day, five posts a week will be behind a “Paywall” and will be available to the general public after 30 days.
- Third, Paywall members have the ability to edit their comments.
- Fourth, Paywall members can “commission” a yearly article from Counter-Currents. Just send a question that you’d like to have discussed to [email protected]. (Obviously, the topics must be suitable to Counter-Currents and its broader project, as well as the interests and expertise of our writers.)
To get full access to all content behind the paywall, sign up here:
Paywall Gift Subscriptions
If you are already behind the paywall and want to share the benefits, Counter-Currents also offers paywall gift subscriptions. We need just five things from you:
- your payment
- the recipient’s name
- the recipient’s email address
- your name
- your email address
To register, just fill out this form and we will walk you through the payment and registration process. There are a number of different payment options.
Note
[1] An Anonymous January 6 Prisoner, The American Regime (Quakertown, Pa.: Antelope Hill Publishing, 2023), pp. 20-26.
12 comments
“in a manner having a direct tendency to place another person in reasonable fear or apprehension of death or bodily injury”
The infamous car attack wasn’t until daytime hours the next day, when all the lights in question that could cause harm with ‘direct tendency’ were already extinguished, so it first seems like they’d have to prove an intent for violence that night while the lights were burning; yet the marchers are recorded on video having marched away en masse from the counter-protesters who blocked off access to the university statue of Thomas Jefferson, all without notable instances of battery from either side, let alone assault.
As for the car attack itself, it should be extremely difficult to establish that the entire rally actually caused that act of violence, given that the perpetrator acted of his own accord beyond the recorded activities of the other protestors en masse during the next day. You’d have to assert that the rally inspired the perpetrator to commit murder, and once you can say that inspiration is grounds for criminal intent you can imprison anyone when your neighbour mishears or misconstrues an offhand comment. Otherwise it must be established why the protestors would deliberately sabotage their own reputations and especially the validity of their protest with a public display of open murder.
The last thing I would say that is most troublesome—for the likes of the ADL—is asserting that the protest slogans are such causes of violence, by inspiration or not, essentially by proving in court that no Jewish interests of any sort have ever been involved with the concerted effort, funding, promototion, or idealisation of demographically replacing white Americans, or even whites anywhere, in order to render the implication of a white replacement to be so baseless. The phrase “Jews will not replace us” can still otherwise be consistent with a positive outlook on multiculturalism, it is merely assumed that the slogan bears an intent for direct harm.
Of course, neither the slogans nor the car attack fall under the jurisdiction of the statute which specifies against burning implements.
If there’s a legal defense fund, let’s publicize this, so they don’t have to be at the tender mercies of a public pretender.
Other than that, thank you for this. It really ground my gears when so many on our side were armchair quarterbacking over the outcome of Harlotsville. We should remember that the Kent State shooting was a much bigger disaster for the left, with four of their own people six feet under after the smoke cleared. Even so, their side stood together, seized the high ground after the fact, and pinned it right on the Nixon administration.
Of course, the procedure is the penalty here. Even though the defendants will likely win, who in their right mind, other than professional aclu activists, wants to put in the time and expense to be part of a “landmark SCOTUS ruling?” The point is to intimidate ordinary people from public activism. January 6th is replete with this sort of strategy from the establishment. People not even near the capitol building were “accidentally” swatted and arrested. The message is that, if you attend a political rally and somebody does something somewhere, we can ruin your life just for attending. Now, consider the widely held suspicion that many involved in the capitol riot were agent provacateurs, and that translates to “the government itself might do something in order to wrongfully arrest you!” It has a quelling effect on public activism for more respectable people. I know I would never be caught dead at a trump rally post January 6! The point is to intimidate away any form of public association and activism. Thus, a major limb of political association is denied the right.
The tragic irony of the Charlottesville protest was two-fold. 1, the unite the right rally divided the right. 2, the object of the rally, protect the Robert E. Lee statue, was an unmitigated failure.
Credit where credit is due, the left knows how to protest. That being said, the game is rigged. The media supports leftist protests and the authorities will often turn a blind eye to left wing civil disobedience and sometimes even their violence. When the right goes to protest they run the risk of being victims of violence and if they deign to fight back, especially in a liberal city, then that city’s DA will weaponize the judicial system against them. Case and point, still prosecuting participants over 5 years later and using a very flimsy legal theory to do so. Rest assured, Charlottesville is pretty blue, and all the DA has to do is say the magic words to a jury in a blue city, “the defendant is a hateful racist.”
Again, the game is rigged. The police chief is on record saying, “let them fight.” It’s reasonable to assume this was under the direction of the mayor as well. You could try to wage counter-lawfare against the mayor and police chief but chances are the jury will think, “yeah… but it was against racists.”
I think we do need to organize a robust legal defense for these guys. All they did was exercise their freedom of speech on a college campus.
Going forward, all public demonstrations need to have been vetted by qualified legal experts. These are the kinds of events that people should be allowed to show up to with a Tiki torch and a polo shirt, but the reality is different.
Writing in the 1960s, George Lincoln Rockwell advised that the placards for a protest be mounted on cardboard rolls instead of using wooden poles to carry them. All events should be photographed, especially in live motion, in case it needs to be shown to a jury.
I used to think that this was a bit of overkill, but Rockwell understood that the System and the police have gotten used to allowing unwashed and creepy Leftists to do their noisemaking. So it may not be personal, but it does not go like that for the Right.
Rockwell knew that the enemy would swear up and down with their trademarked crocodile tears that Nazis were beating people with sticks and starting fights.
Another important point is that the signage has to be on message and that all the participants have to look disciplined and as photogenic as possible.
I am not saying they should be in uniforms. Most people don’t even know what the concept of a uniform means anyway. Leave the fashion statements and the plastic Stahlhelms home.
I think khakis and white polos were a pretty good “uniform,” although some have said that it looked too preppy on a college campus like Marse Jefferson’s “public ivy.” Maybe so if it included a blue blazer, but I’ll defer to others on that. I personally don’t think they looked preppy, but then I don’t have any experience like being a former Leftist at the Ivies.
Another important point is that demonstrations should never include “pranks.” Always support your message, and provide press contacts to allow your people with experience handling the press to explain what you are really trying to say.
I’m not sure if “Jews will not replace us” was the best messaging for the circumstances given that the whole point of the event was to rescue the venerable General Lee’s statue from the solder pot, but these are things that need to be cool-headedly planned and decided.
Let me just say that the treatment accorded to the people at Charlottesville convinced my octogenarian Dad that the First Amendment is indeed in grave danger and that perhaps White Nationalism is not so extreme after all.
White Nationalists need to get educations (without getting mired into hopeless debt) and to study the Law so that they can contribute to the LawFare that is coming.
The Tiki Torch Guys were awesome. I would really like to see some flash-mob demonstrations on campuses with “Safe Space White” LEDs or something. Rub their noses in it metaphorically and with full due process. Maybe with a theme of “It’s Okay” (to be White).
However, there is a fine line between hitting it out of the park and being too Beta, so on-point messaging is important. I don’t like references to Genocide or whinging about Inceldom for that reason.
I suppose, at least we know better now how to use the Buddy System and to have an egress plan without getting into traffic accidents, staged scuffles, or other imbroglios.
So far there has been more campus activity over a rumor of Kyle Rittenhouse becoming a student. The Leftists claimed falsely that Killer Kyle had shot Persons of Color. (Kyle actually missed the Jump-Kick Man who wisely ran off like a melanated rabbit instead of pressing home his assault like the other Commies did.)
https://youtu.be/kd4rj_grTww
🙂
unite them in prison?
https://www.fox19.com/2023/04/18/torch-carrying-marchers-indicted-charlottesville-rally/
for up to 5 years. at some point there was not ex post facto law here in the USA
Good luck.
If, however, we can defeat them in Charlottesville, it might slow or stop such lawfare before it gets out of hand. But to do that, we need to protest with one voice
Okay, great, but what form should that protest take? Like, specifically. If you mean some type of street activism, I think if there’s anything Charlottesville (and the other DR protests that happened in 2016 and 2017) proved, it’s that right-wing street activism doesn’t work. Antifa and their ilk can do all sorts of things we will never get away with in the Current Year. Also, keep in mind plenty of folks on our side had cell phones that day and were recording plenty of things. None of that did us a bit of good. Our people are still going to jail basically for exercising their first amendment rights or, at the very worst, defending themselves physically. Our strength is in the realm of ideas–content like this website, podcasts, books, etc.
Lastly, let all this be a lesson to you basic bitch “law and order” type conservatives. All that tough on crime horseshit that you’ve been braying about for the past few decades is going come right back around our way. To use a tired and worn out analogy, you are not part of the Empire, you are part of the rebel alliance. Quite advocating for our enemies to acquire more power, because they are not one bit shy about using it.
Richard Chance wrote:
Except for a few individual screw-ups at events, getting into fights, etc., the black-letter law is firmly on the side of the First Amendment, which is enormously important. This IS the battleground.
It will not be automatic, for sure. It will not be easy. It will not be like they taught you in your civics class. But never surrender fortified solid ground. Almost never is this a good idea.
What is needed is that these guys do get a real defense and not a public attorney fluff job or the usual crappy plea deal.
James Fields was defended by the enemy and the outcome was predictable. Full Stop. Yeah, he should not have been convicted for doing anything more than getting mixed up and hitting the gas to escape instead of the brake pedal while expecting a Reginald Denny. But this does not mean that justice is not possible.
You have to begin with the premise that most of the other political defendants only exercised their First Amendment rights and that they did nothing wrong. In the future, the messaging has to be on target and the IRL activism more on point.
The temptation when Davy stands up to Goliath is to say “oh dear, we can’t win” and then to fold. Wrong! That is exactly what the System wants.
The defense needs to be robust and aggressive. In an ideal world there would be no prosecutions for free-speech no matter who is “offended.” But if White Nationalists cannot do that ─ and yes, most of us are not rich like Trump, nor do we have expensive attorneys on retainer, so this is no small feat ─ then we cannot do anything politically, and not fighting will only make it worse.
So if we can’t wage LawFare, then we might as well quit thinking about White interests altogether and just forget about it entirely.
Again, this is NOT CRIME. It is the First Amendment. It is the black-letter law of the f@kïng land. All governments use black-letter law on some crucial level. Don’t forget that. Robust LawFare is exactly what is needed and what the enemy fears the most.
And cut out the Leftist anarchist nonsense. “Tough on Crime” IS the answer and it has always been the answer. That is why the Right is the Right and the Left is the Left. One day the machinery of the State will be ours. But the state machinery of all regimes is essentially the same, and they are all steered the same, towards their own specific goals.
All police systems in every country work in a similar fashion. It was true in Nazi Germany and was true in 1930s America when both had a robust and comparable rate of capital punishment for criminals.
In the 1960s, George Lincoln Rockwell spent a lot of time analyzing how all policemen think, everywhere, and unfortunately he did not publish a coherent Bible under his leadership course title “Legal Psychological and Political Warfare,” but one of the key takeaways from this was that when you look and act like a basic bitch criminal, by God, the police will treat you like one.
The Left might be able to get away with “pranks” and just being execrable vermin, but that is not so important. We do have to be more careful, and that is important. We are NOT criminals for exercising our First Amendment rights ─ and that should NEVER be forgotten, and especially when the hammer comes down.
Right now the shrieking cat-ladies in the Leftist corporate media are trying to blame “White Supremacy” (and by that they mean Fox News or Conservatards, LOL) for the “Hate” that shot the rambunctious Negro “Teen,” Ralph Yarl ─ who knocked on a White octogenarian’s door well past curfew in Kansas City, Missouri. It is rather like when the media reflexively published that “Hate Killed Kennedy” in Dallas in 1963 until it was revealed that the sniper was a Commie loser instead of the KKK or some Texas Redneck.
Basically the old codger in Kansas City was startled awake and got scared, but this is irrelevant. The Andrew Lester defense needs to show self-defense against an ongoing home invasion. That is the only excuse for shooting anybody unless you are commissioned to enforce the law.
Yes, the establishment threw officer Derek Chauvin under the bus just for being there when St. George Floyd overdosed while resisting arrest in Minneapolis. That is what they did to their own minion to placate the mob. But this does not mean that we should not fight, nor that we should surrender and even get rid of our “useless” personal firearms. Do you think they didn’t have Soros DAs in Weimar Germany?
So far it is not looking good for the elderly White guy, Andrew Lester, who may have panicked and jumped the gun when he fired twice through the door. (Details matter and I don’t know all the details.)
If you own a gun, it is always a good idea to take a refresher course on the legal use of lethal force. Also, getting a home doorbell camera that uploads to the Cloud is helpful because home invasions and home casings by swarthy Yoofs in the dead of night is probably VERY common in Kansas City neighborhoods everywhere, and this kind of prowling video scares the hell out of jury members.
Basically you can’t shoot someone down who you *think* might break into your house with their usual raucous Negroid fanfare. The details do matter. BLM is already starting their Summer hijinks over this case so it will probably not turn out well for the nice White guy, but maybe he can convince a jury.
However, we are not fretting over a vehicular homicide or even a shooting ─ just proposing to defend the First Amendment. And some are already saying that it is time to get on the banana boat and hide in the jungle with the Incel posse.
Hitler always gets raked over the coals by postwar memoirists for oftentimes ordering his units to stand pat against vastly superior forces. The professional Generals usually said that nothing could be done and that Germany should try to “negotiate” with the bourgeois regimes who already said that they would not negotiate (until Stalin won his slice of Europe). Sometimes resistance really is futile and you can’t get blood from a dry stone. But intractable resistance does work miracles more times than imaginable, and even something is gained from a robust defense. Slaves don’t fight. The worst you can do is lose the will to fight and to live. They teach every soldier this in Basic Training.
We have to develop a very different mindset to this battle than we have had so far. Remember, there was no CRIME and WE are not criminals.
If we don’t believe that, then no one else will. And we’re done.
🙂
Try to learn the difference between “rule of law” and “law and order”. Both are necessary to a free republic. You don’t sacrifice the latter because the Left is attacking and undermining the former.
I do, however, tend to agree with you wrt the War on Drugs, although the issue is complex, especially from a prowhite perspective. Also, most Federal law enforcement agencies (esp. FBI) should simply be defunded and abolished. They serve genuine public interests only rarely. But in America’s increasingly out of control, crime-ridden ‘blue’ cities, of course we need a strong dose of law and order, and we need it now.
The Left has a slogan: “An attack on one is an attack on all.”
Leftists understand the value of solidarity. They defend just about anyone associated with them, whether hardcore cadres or fellow travelers. Look at how they made a hero of Mumia abu Jamal (ex-Black Panther convicted of killing a police officer).
In a rational world, the Dissident Right could form a united front with MAGA Conservatives for mutual defense of all political prisoners, from Charlottesville ’17 to the January 6th 2021 “insurrectionists” and even DJT himself. Alas, we do not quite live in that rational world, though perhaps some citizens might be enlightened by recent events.
If there is a legal defense fund for the Charlottesville accused, then it needs to be publicized on Dissident Right websites.
Another useful thing would be for the Dissident Right to put together a website giving a detailed account of those two fateful days at Charlottesville. Back it up with videos and podcasts. A lot of people out there have yet to get the actual story.
Perhaps Dissident Right podcast hosts can interview people involved with the defense of the January 6th folks alongside the Charlottesville team. A comparison might be made with the events of January 6th to show how the Regime railroads dissidents.
The line might be: “You see how the January 6th people were railroaded? Well, the same for the Charlottesville people. So let’s act together to defend mutual interests!”
Any person who, with the intent of intimidating any person or group of persons, burns an object on a highway or other public place…
Does this apply to mostly peaceful protesters ™ who toss molotov cocktails at police cars, set fire to businesses, and commit arson against churches and federal buildings?
This is another contradiction which can be attacked.
Mr. Steuben: Prosecuting the Charlottesville marchers is an outrageous injustice.
—
There is no doubt about that.
—
Let’s make Charlottesville the place we finally Unite the Right…
—
Let’s not. Uniting the Right is an alt-right pipedream. As a strict racial separatist I’ll never “unite” with the racially mixed Proud Boys or Oath Keepers, thanks. As Mr. Hitler said, “The strong man is mightiest alone.” There’s wisdom in the proverb, “Eight cripples arm in arm do not make a warrior.”
—
Francis XB: If there is a legal defense fund for the Charlottesville accused, then it needs to be publicized…
—
The Spring 2023 issue of The Occidental Quarterly just arrived in the mail. In it is a relevant article by attorney Glen Allen who has had success defending some of the Charlottesville accused and is now working on defending those charged in the outrageous 6 January injustice. Glen founded the 501(c)(3) Free Expression Foundation, dedicated to the defense of citizens denied their Constitutional right to free expression. Support his FEF. See more here: FreeExpressionFoundation.org
Excerpt from Glen’s bio at FEF site:
Following his retirement from DLA Piper, Glen went to work for the City of Baltimore’s Legal Department. While working there quietly and competently, in August 2016 the Southern Poverty Law Center orchestrated his firing. He later brought a lawsuit – unfortunately unsuccessful – against the SPLC, in which he made his case that the SPLC is a fraudulent hard-left fundraising operation masquerading as civil rights organization. His account of his litigation against the SPLC can be found at Breathing-Space-for-Dissent.Com.
There is an elephant in this room. These cities are less white as are these liberal states. The whole Soros-backed DAs strategy is based on that premise. We like to think our legal system is so great with it’s checks and balances. It is based on halfway descent white people sorting out what is fair. These people I blue areas don’t want fair. Alan Dershowitz-types give all this systemic explanation of law. The other side is not the least bit worried about being exposed as hypocrites.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.