Law Lawsuit Claims SPLC Abetted Theft, Spread Lies to Destroy Lawyer for ‘Thought Crime’ - Leftist Hate Group In Legal Trouble... Again

Who will win?

  • Glen Keith Allen

    Votes: 21 15.7%
  • The (((SPLC)))

    Votes: 24 17.9%
  • OY VEY SHUT IT ALL DOWN!!!

    Votes: 89 66.4%

  • Total voters
    134

thismanlies

The Funnest Part of Gaming is Looting Corpses.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The SPLC definitely needs to be raked over the coals for this as well as the other shit they've done. But one thing about the article stood out for me.

Allen also argues that the SPLC violated the IRS's requirement that 501c3 tax-exempt organizations refrain from participating in "any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office."
What are the chances, if they do indeed lose their tax exempt status, that they'll just shutter their doors, declare bankruptcy, and reform under a new name? Businesses do this all the time to avoid paying out lawsuits.
 

NeoGAF Lurker

An Niggo
kiwifarms.net
The SPLC definitely needs to be raked over the coals for this as well as the other shit they've done. But one thing about the article stood out for me.



What are the chances, if they do indeed lose their tax exempt status, that they'll just shutter their doors, declare bankruptcy, and reform under a new name? Businesses do this all the time to avoid paying out lawsuits.
The SPLC has about half a billion cash on hand. They’ll probably settle with this guy for a few million and fend off any attempt at losing their tax status.
 

JohnDoe

Did Santa finally bring me some good posts?!
kiwifarms.net
This is a group that specializes in litigation that boasted of what amounts to using false accusations to destroy someone's life. He won't have any problem proving damages, as they've literally publicly boasted about them.
I've mentioned this in the Mark Waid thread, and it proves to be true here as well. SJW and woke types have a serious problem with committing crimes and getting away with it because they are driven to brag about it for woke points. You can't have virtue signal without the signal after all! So after they do something like beat up a dude, or interfere with a contract, or slander and extort someone they decided is an unperson they run to Twitter and the media to confess all the juicy details and beg for asspats.

Forgetting, of course, that the legal system does not run like Twitter. Which sets up the delicious irony of having the very laws they campaign for strengthening, like anti-discrimination laws, being used against them.
 
Last edited:

Marvin

Christorical Figure
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
No, he's not. Pay the fuck attention.

Allen explicitly regretted ever going to the National Alliance, a group he was more than likely a member of out of pure curiosity, and the SPLC claimed that he was and is a "well-known neo-Nazi", in a successful bid to get him fired, which is textbook libel.
Don't be oblivious. He explicitly regretted going to the National Alliance not because he's not racist, but because of some other, unnamed reason. I cannot find a single example of him disavowing racism without following it up with "it's great to be proud of your race, even if you're white". Hell, I can't even find him disavowing racism at all. He just points out all the good he's done for black people, which says nothing about his personal views.

There's the NY Daily News article about him, which has some somewhat damning quotes from him. But I can believe those were taken out of context. But even on his own website, he doesn't address the issue.

When you're being accused of racism and you need to make a statement, there is zero reason to make that specific moment the stage where you defend pride in one's race. Not that being proud is wrong, it's just the wrong time to do it. It's like choosing the zoosadist thread the time to go on a five page argument about how "not all furries are zoophiles". It's just fucking dumb.

Honestly, every other political internet figure I can think of is capable of successfully dodging claims of racism (or sexism or homophobia or whatever) while proceeding to discuss controversial topics. Ben Shapiro can do it, James Damore did it, Dave Rubin does it, Bret Weinstein did it, hell even Milo did it better than this guy. (Until he was sunk by asspatting NAMBLA.)

Or maybe he's not racist, maybe he's just autistic?

Look, I don't care if this guy is racist or not. (Honestly, I don't think he's racist, I think he's probably just got boring old white guy opinions.) And it really didn't / couldn't have affected his work if the courts were doing their job.

And sure, technically speaking he wouldn't be a "well known" neo nazi. But the substance of the accusation is that he's racist. And he's way too inarticulate to counter that in the public space. And the facts they cited about him giving to the National Alliance are true. He admitted to that. He admitted to going to the holocaust thing. He said some goofy things about how he had bad experiences with blacks in the army.

What else is there to discuss?

The SPLC is full of mongs and I hope they crash and burn as soon as possible. But once in awhile they don't fuck up (in their shitty crusade). And in this case, they managed to get ahold of someone who's too inarticulate or too inept with being in the public eye to defend himself.
This is a group that specializes in litigation that boasted of what amounts to using false accusations to destroy someone's life. He won't have any problem proving damages, as they've literally publicly boasted about them.
The allegations seem to be factually true, perhaps a bit exaggerated like with "well known neo-nazi", but otherwise true. Would that change things?

Edit:
They could have limited their statements to his admitted past affiliation with a group, the National Alliance, nearly universally recognized as white nationalist or outright Nazi in nature, and that would have been factually true. Claiming he is a current, active neo-Nazi for representing a major city in a court case is ludicrous, though.
I missed this part.

Here's the only article I can find on their site about him.

It's definitely a smear, but they seem to track his association with various racist groups up until as recently as 2015, when he donated to the American Eagle Party.

Heh, including some goofy anti-vaxxer stuff.
 
Last edited:

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
The SPLC definitely needs to be raked over the coals for this as well as the other shit they've done. But one thing about the article stood out for me.



What are the chances, if they do indeed lose their tax exempt status, that they'll just shutter their doors, declare bankruptcy, and reform under a new name? Businesses do this all the time to avoid paying out lawsuits.
If the Church of Scientology hasn't lost tax exempt status after repeatedly getting caught flat out committing crimes and losing multiple lawsuits, SPLC isn't going to.
 

Iwasamwillbe

Pagan Syncretistic Sun God
kiwifarms.net
Don't be oblivious. He explicitly regretted going to the National Alliance not because he's not racist, but because of some other, unnamed reason. I cannot find a single example of him disavowing racism without following it up with "it's great to be proud of your race, even if you're white". Hell, I can't even find him disavowing racism at all. He just points out all the good he's done for black people, which says nothing about his personal views.
Are you legitimately autistic or something?

There is nothing inherently racist, in this context, with saying "it's okay to be proud of your race". And last time I checked, legitimate racists don't go out of their way to help people who aren't their own ethnicity.

There's the NY Daily News article about him, which has some somewhat damning quotes from him. But I can believe those were taken out of context. But even on his own website, he doesn't address the issue.
Because they mean literally nothing. I could say "I had some awful experiences with Indians", but it does not even vaguely mean that I'm necessarily racist against Southern Asians.

When you're being accused of racism and you need to make a statement, there is zero reason to make that specific moment the stage where you defend pride in one's race. Not that being proud is wrong, it's just the wrong time to do it. It's like choosing the zoosadist thread the time to go on a five page argument about how "not all furries are zoophiles". It's just fucking dumb.
How does that justify what the SPLC said about him? You just admitted the statement wasn't even necessarily bigoted, just dumb to say at the time.

Honestly, every other political internet figure I can think of is capable of successfully dodging claims of racism (or sexism or homophobia or whatever) while proceeding to discuss controversial topics. Ben Shapiro can do it, James Damore did it, Dave Rubin does it, Bret Weinstein did it, hell even Milo did it better than this guy. (Until he was sunk by asspatting NAMBLA.)

Or maybe he's not racist, maybe he's just autistic?
But what does that have to do with the claims and actions made against him by the SPLC?

Look, I don't care if this guy is racist or not. (Honestly, I don't think he's racist, I think he's probably just got boring old white guy opinions.)
Then why pretend that what the SPLC is claiming about him is anything except groundless?

And sure, technically speaking he wouldn't be a "well known" neo nazi. But the substance of the accusation is that he's racist. And he's way too inarticulate to counter that in the public space. And the facts they cited about him giving to the National Alliance are true. He admitted to that. He admitted to going to the holocaust thing. He said some goofy things about how he had bad experiences with blacks in the army.
So the SPLC basically libelled some guy to get the business he is employed at into firing him, and your Planck Temperature hot take is that he will lose the case because, despite having been a lawyer, "he can't articulate himself well", he went to some politically unorthodox events, he said "goofy things" about working with blacks in the army, and the supposed substance of the accusation is that he is a wayciss, despite racism and neo-Nazism being two different concepts that only intersect on the most superficial level?

Now you're just being dumb.

Edit:

They didn't explicitly harass his business. Apologies to everyone for that careless mistake.

The SPLC is full of mongs and I hope they crash and burn as soon as possible. But once in awhile they don't fuck up (in their shitty crusade). And in this case, they managed to get ahold of someone who's too inarticulate or too inept with being in the public eye to defend himself
So wait, you're arguing that someone who worked as a lawyer for a living is simultaneously too inarticulate or too inept with being in the public eye to defend himself against what is quite apparently malicious libel, therefore he will lose the case despite the SPLC having admitted to doing literal crimes in the process?

The allegations seem to be factually true, perhaps a bit exaggerated like with "well known neo-nazi", but otherwise true. Would that change things?
Again, racism and neo-Nazism are not the (exact) same thing. Even if he was a racist, it would fail to prove that he is a neo-Nazi.

Going to a certain event does not necessarily mean that you share the beliefs of the hosts or other guests of the event.

Saying that you had negative experiences with a certain group of people in a certain occupation doesn't mean that you are bigoted against said group. That is literal guilt by association.

The SPLC has no case, and they should be properly bent over by the law.
 
Last edited:

Marvin

Christorical Figure
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
How does that justify what the SPLC said about him? You just admitted the statement wasn't even necessarily bigoted, just dumb to say at the time.
The SPLC accused him of being racist and pointed out that he donated to racist groups in the past. And as I later read, much more recently.

Since people can't read minds, the only way to know if he's racist or not is how he addresses his actions. He hasn't done that. He's been evasive about that point.

Before I edited my post, I didn't know he donated to the American Eagle Party recently. I was under the impression that his flirtations with racist groups was a youthful lark, not something he did as recently as 2015. I've kinda changed my mind on him.

Now maybe there's something else about these groups that attracts him, other than racism. Maybe he's just a weird anti-vaxxer? I'm very sympathetic to that. I post on kiwifarms. People could make similar accusations about me. But if they did, I could give them a lengthy explanation about why I like kiwifarms, regardless of people saying "nigger".

But that's the thing, he hasn't given any explanation. I have nothing to go on.

On a personal level, I'd really like you to thoughtfully consider what I've said here. I know the SPLC is dogshit, and I feel bad for this guy for various reasons. But I think there's some legit reasons why he doesn't smell of roses. His behavior and his failure to offer any explanation matters.

I'm glad Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali got the SPLC to backpedal. But I worry that the SPLC only (grudgingly) backed out with them because they're pee oh cees. I'd love for a white man to successfully pull it off. But I'm worried that this isn't our guy.
So the SPLC basically libelled some guy and harassed the business he is employed at into firing him
I don't believe the SPLC libeled him. I don't believe they harassed the business he was employed at either.
despite racism and neo-Nazism being two different concepts that only intersect on the most superficial level?
I'm not familiar with many literal neo-nazis. As in, people seeking a continuation of Germany's nazi party.

So I mostly consider "neo-nazi" to be just more aggressive racism.
 

Iwasamwillbe

Pagan Syncretistic Sun God
kiwifarms.net
The SPLC accused him of being racist and pointed out that he donated to racist groups in the past. And as I later read, much more recently.
>racist groups

Which racist groups?

How is the American Eagle Party a racist group?

Since people can't read minds, the only way to know if he's racist or not is how he addresses his actions. He hasn't done that. He's been evasive about that point.

Before I edited my post, I didn't know he donated to the American Eagle Party recently. I was under the impression that his flirtations with racist groups was a youthful lark, not something he did as recently as 2015. I've kinda changed my mind on him.

Now maybe there's something else about these groups that attracts him, other than racism. Maybe he's just a weird anti-vaxxer? I'm very sympathetic to that. I post on kiwifarms. People could make similar accusations about me. But if they did, I could give them a lengthy explanation about why I like kiwifarms, regardless of people saying "nigger".

But that's the thing, he hasn't given any explanation. I have nothing to go on.
Again, how are any of the groups he donates to racist?

http://archive.vn/56cN3

Looking at what the article itself says, it doesn't show much of anything other than a statement of him holding a high position in the American Eagle Party by Stormfront (which means nothing by itself, Storefront isn't a reliable source), and that the National Alliance and the American Eagle Party, according to the SPLC, are racist (this also means nothing by itself). There is also an attempt at guilt by association using him representing the AEP in some legal case.

On a personal level, I'd really like you to thoughtfully consider what I've said here. I know the SPLC is dogshit, and I feel bad for this guy for various reasons. But I think there's some legit reasons why he doesn't smell of roses. His behavior and his failure to offer any explanation matters.
I don't care what private beliefs he has about black people or what he thinks of vaccines or what events he went to. Nothing about them conclusively prove that he is a neo-Nazi, which the SPLC claimed about him as objective true without real evidence, in an attempt to hurt his livelihood.

And personally, the very fact that Allen has legitimate black associates and a black friend should completely devastate the notion that he is a racist neo-Nazi.

I'm glad Nawaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali got the SPLC to backpedal. But I worry that the SPLC only (grudgingly) backed out with them because they're pee oh cees. I'd love for a white man to successfully pull it off. But I'm worried that this isn't our guy.
Well I think that he is. I'm tired of people getting fired from their jobs for having an opinion that goes against the progressive stack, whether in private or in a public forum.

I don't believe the SPLC libeled him. I don't believe they harassed the business he was employed at either.
Well, they certainly did the former. Your beliefs on the matter don't change that. I was, however, wrong to claim that they harassed his business. I don't know how I got that. Must have misread certain things. However...

The SPLC could not keep its story straight. In Beirich's article, Allen is a "well-known neo-Nazi," but on the 2016 Hate Map, the SPLC and its Intelligence Project featured a photo of Allen with this caption: "When the City of Baltimore recently hired Glen Keith Allen, a neo-Nazi, nobody knew of his involvement with white supremacist groups, except for us. Because of our investigation and exposé, he was swiftly fired" (emphasis added).
And there is this, which you haven't addressed:

According to the lawsuit, the SPLC's receipt of stolen documents and the payment for them violated not only the law but also the canons of legal ethics in Alabama, where both Beirich and the other defendant, Mark Potok, are registered as lawyers. The SPLC is a 501c3 public interest law firm, so its involvement in this activity disqualifies its tax-exempt status.
No matter what you believe Allen said or did, paying for stolen documents is unethical and outright illegal.

I'm not familiar with many literal neo-nazis. As in, people seeking a continuation of Germany's nazi party.

So I mostly consider "neo-nazi" to be just more aggressive racism.
Well that's dumb and you're wrong.

If neo-Nazism is just "more aggressive racism", then the term "neo-Nazism" has only slightly more meaning than the term "racism", which, in the late 2010s, means just above nothing.

The term neo-Nazism has a clear meaning, which is any post-World War II militant, social, or political movement seeking to revive and implement the ideology of Nazism. Therefore, a Neo Nazi is a modern day proponent of Nazism as an ideology.

@AnOminous your thoughts on this?
 

Iwasamwillbe

Pagan Syncretistic Sun God
kiwifarms.net
The National Alliance was William Luther Pierce's group. He was one of the most notorious white supremacists alive and wrote The Turner Diaries.
Oh. Didn't know that. Sorry.

However, if the supposed affiliation between Allen and the National Alliance only goes so far as a couple of meetings, then there still isn't enough to say that the SPLC was right in calling him a racist or neo Nazi.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Koby_Fish

SiccDicc

See you next fall...
kiwifarms.net
If the Church of Scientology hasn't lost tax exempt status after repeatedly getting caught flat out committing crimes and losing multiple lawsuits, SPLC isn't going to.
One's a "religion" and the other a secular organization. I would think the latter is much easier to punish seeing how easy it was to punish several Republican organizations.

That said, all that really matters is who you got in charge of what and where their eyes are.
Looks like someone gets a seven-figure settlement from the SPLC and the case is never heard from again. SPLC bosses still get their six-figure salaries and still get to operate as a legitimate catalog of hate groups to the public and media.
Depends on how autistically pissed off this guy is. If he's a Jeff Anderson the SPLC is in for one hell of a ride.
 

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Oh. Didn't know that. Sorry.

However, if the supposed affiliation between Allen and the National Alliance only goes so far as a couple of meetings, then there still isn't enough to say that the SPLC was right in calling him a racist or neo Nazi.
I think the SPLC has to some degree a higher level of accountability precisely because it is an allegation from what is (deservedly or not) a respected source often considered authoritative on what a "hate group" is, and this is an incredibly damaging allegation. It isn't actually illegal to be a Nazi, so it isn't libel per se in the sense that calling someone, for instance, a rapist would be. However, all libel per se means is you don't have to prove the allegation was damaging to survive a motion to dismiss or on summary judgment.

In this case, they've more or less admitted the damaging nature of the allegation and even publicly crowed about getting the guy fired from his job.

The issue becomes whether it was truthful, and that's probably going to be a factual issue. It would have been entirely factual simply to say he had ties to the National Alliance in the past and had donated money to it, and that this was considered a white supremacist organization (and in fact one of the more notorious in the country).

Then there's a separate issue which really has nothing to do with defamation, which is they apparently got this information by getting a guy to violate a confidentiality agreement, which is separately illegal. It doesn't, however, make the information any more defamatory.

The argument will come down to whether the allegations were actually true (the plaintiff is denying that), and whether the plaintiff is a public figure held to a higher standard of proof, the so-called "actual malice" standard, which doesn't mean they were mean or had evil motives, just that they said something defamatory and untrue that they either knew was untrue or with reckless disregard for whether it was untrue.

He might not be a public figure for the purpose of the suit even though he had figured in some news articles due to his representation of clients like the city of Baltimore, though. Simply having appeared in the news doesn't make you a celebrity or a general purpose public figure who is fair game to allegations on any issue.

I think the case will probably be determined on whether the plaintiff is a public figure for the purposes of the case more than whether the statements were entirely true.

There will be a motion to dismiss and/or summary judgment motion, and if it isn't dismissed and he isn't found to be a public figure, they probably settle at that point. If it's dismissed, the case probably goes away.
 

Wallace

Cram it in me, baby!
kiwifarms.net
I think the SPLC has to some degree a higher level of accountability precisely because it is an allegation from what is (deservedly or not) a respected source often considered authoritative on what a "hate group" is, and this is an incredibly damaging allegation. It isn't actually illegal to be a Nazi, so it isn't libel per se in the sense that calling someone, for instance, a rapist would be. However, all libel per se means is you don't have to prove the allegation was damaging to survive a motion to dismiss or on summary judgment.

In this case, they've more or less admitted the damaging nature of the allegation and even publicly crowed about getting the guy fired from his job.

The issue becomes whether it was truthful, and that's probably going to be a factual issue. It would have been entirely factual simply to say he had ties to the National Alliance in the past and had donated money to it, and that this was considered a white supremacist organization (and in fact one of the more notorious in the country).

Then there's a separate issue which really has nothing to do with defamation, which is they apparently got this information by getting a guy to violate a confidentiality agreement, which is separately illegal. It doesn't, however, make the information any more defamatory.

The argument will come down to whether the allegations were actually true (the plaintiff is denying that), and whether the plaintiff is a public figure held to a higher standard of proof, the so-called "actual malice" standard, which doesn't mean they were mean or had evil motives, just that they said something defamatory and untrue that they either knew was untrue or with reckless disregard for whether it was untrue.

He might not be a public figure for the purpose of the suit even though he had figured in some news articles due to his representation of clients like the city of Baltimore, though. Simply having appeared in the news doesn't make you a celebrity or a general purpose public figure who is fair game to allegations on any issue.

I think the case will probably be determined on whether the plaintiff is a public figure for the purposes of the case more than whether the statements were entirely true.

There will be a motion to dismiss and/or summary judgment motion, and if it isn't dismissed and he isn't found to be a public figure, they probably settle at that point. If it's dismissed, the case probably goes away.
So, how do you establish in a court of law whether some is--or is not--racist?

I think the definition of "racist"is also going to be an issue too.
 

Ruin

#respectskeltins
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
To be perfectly honest I couldn't give less of a shit if this guy wanks to the Turner Diaries and wears sheets in his spare time. I do however find it extremely disturbing that powerful billion dollar organizations are dedicating themselves to harassing and ruining private citizens and our media overlords are cheering them on.

This is incredibly disturbing and anyone who values liberty and individual rights should be concerned.
 

AnOminous

Really?
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
So, how do you establish in a court of law whether some is--or is not--racist?

I think the definition of "racist"is also going to be an issue too.
They called him a "neo-Nazi lawyer" and a "well-known neo-Nazi." That's a lot more specific than "racist," but even for racist, you'd need some evidence like they actually said racist things.

It would be a lot easier to claim calling someone just a "racist" was an expression of an opinion rather than a fact.
 

mindlessobserver

kiwifarms.net
WORDS YOU SAID
The problem the woke crowd has, and the problem you are overlooking here, is that there is a huge difference between opinion and fact. I might THINK you are a racist. I might BELIEVE you are racist. You may have even done things, intentionally or not, to make me have these opinions and hold that belief. But these are things I personally think about you, and it is not illegal for me to think these things. Or even say to my friends and family that I think these things about you.

But that is far cry from then going to someones employer and complaining about it. Or for organizing a political brigading campaign to cause actual real life monetary, social and political damage to someone. When you do that, you cross the rubicon. You are no longer holding opinions. You are attempting to apply force to exact punishment against someone for actual and provable fact. And as it is force, you have to be able to prove that your opinions are true in a way that is manifestly believable by everyone, and the courts in particular.

And this is where the SPLC is running into trouble. They view their opinions as authoritative. When they brand someone with the scarlet letter R, they do so with the full religious authority invested in them by the cult of progressive social justice. What they have failed to realize is that "its just their opinion man", and that when the inevitable demand to "prove it" comes up, they have nothing to fall back on. Truth is the ultimate defense to a suit of defamation, but how can you prove that someone is truly a racist, bigot, sexist, islamaphobe? Even the SPLC does not really know what these terms mean. Why should the courts bother with trying to define them? They won't.

I hope the SPLC has plenty of money, since at this rate this will not be the last of the lawsuits aimed at their exceptional asses. And I hope all the idiots donating to them are content with their money being used to pay off multimillion dollar defamation lawsuits.
 
Last edited:

millais

The Yellow Rose of Victoria, Texas
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The secret information that the SPLC bought from the guy who broke the contractually obligated NDA seems like an obviously easy point to sidestep. They can just add a correction to their article to the effect that they didn't know the information was stolen by the informant.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino