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

mindlessobserver

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.
And it doesn't matter anyway. The provenance of the information is an open question and would not stand up to relevant evidence challenges. The SPLC has no way of knowing if the information they bought or stole is accurate and at best it amounts to inadmissible hearsay.

Why do you think Social Justice advocates are so desperate to set up alternative courts to punish their targets rather then use the existing legal system? Its for reasons like this. Their appeals to emotion and mob cries of WITCH are completely ignored, and worse, rebound back on them and put the accusers on trial instead. There are dire consequences in the US legal systems for making unsubstantiated accusations of fact.
 

TowinKarz

Thoroughly Unimpressed
kiwifarms.net
Why do you think Social Justice advocates are so desperate to set up alternative courts to punish their targets rather then use the existing legal system? Its for reasons like this. Their appeals to emotion and mob cries of WITCH are completely ignored, and worse, rebound back on them and put the accusers on trial instead. There are dire consequences in the US legal systems for making unsubstantiated accusations of fact.

It's my solemn hope that someday, sooner rather than later, people will look back on things like the SPLC, the Colorado Human Rights Commission, Campus Student Behavior Tribunals and all the rest of these SJW institutions that seek to sidestep functioning courts because they know the rules of evidence won't let them convict ideological enemies of thought crimes based on raw emotion, and decry them as the kangaroo courts they are, right up there with HUAC and Roland Friesler.
 

Weppers

kiwifarms.net
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.
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/com_splc_annual_report_2017_web_final-1.pdf

$432,000,000 in the rainy day fund. They're immortal at this point.

Fuck.
 

Wallace

Cram it in me, baby!
kiwifarms.net
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/com_splc_annual_report_2017_web_final-1.pdf

$432,000,000 in the rainy day fund. They're immortal at this point.

Fuck.
Not necessarily. After one of the first cases settled for a significant amount, a lot more people lined up to sue. What I want to see is if Allen is savvy and vindictive enough to refuse to settle and get this case in front of a judge to create some legal precedent on this kind of thing.

There's a reason bullies don't pick fights with people who can hit back.
 

NeoGAF Lurker

An Niggo
kiwifarms.net
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/com_splc_annual_report_2017_web_final-1.pdf

$432,000,000 in the rainy day fund. They're immortal at this point.

Fuck.
The death by a thousand paper cuts in the form of settled lawsuits may still be a valid approach. The left only cares about using the SPLC as hired attack dogs and it will be no big deal to dump them and back some other leftist lawfare organization. They got a large war chest because nobody bothered to challenge them. It’s a fight still worth having.
 

Super-Chevy454

kiwifarms.net
One lolcow named James Allsup posted this vlog about the SPLC.

And one other who said then the SPLC finances terrorists.

Btw, any recents news about the case where the SPLC goes after David Horowitz?

Edit: I digged a bit more about Morris Dees, the guy who founded the SPLC and I saw that video.

This video is from the dedication of the Civil Rights Memorial in Montgomery Alabama on Nov. 5, 1989. According to Dees, "The Confederate Flag that's flying over that capital today is just as much a part of my heritage as Dr. King's March down 6th Avenue." Just three years later he sued to take the flag down in Holmes v Hunt http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed... The Southern Poverty Law Center has spent the last 25 years demonizing those who take Dee's 1989 position.
I suggest to save that video and upload it elsewhere.
 

AnOminous

do you see what happens
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
And it doesn't matter anyway. The provenance of the information is an open question and would not stand up to relevant evidence challenges. The SPLC has no way of knowing if the information they bought or stole is accurate and at best it amounts to inadmissible hearsay.
Not if the guy who they bought it from maintained it as part of his employment. He can verify its authenticity. They can subpoena anyone in a position to say.
 

JohnDoe

Bro, you bulging and beach bound, bud?
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.
That can get the SPLC fucked over just as Mark Waid is about to be down in Texas, if a claim of tortious interference is brought.

The elements of a claim are as follows:
The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties. - Glen Keith Allen was employed by the City of Baltimore as a solicitor.
Knowledge of that relationship by a third party. - SPLC knew of this arrangement and claimed to have watched Allen "like a hawk" because he had "the worst ideas ever created."
Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship. - With the aforementioned statements and others intent is easily established
Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach. - SPLC had no privilege to interfere
The contractual relationship is breached. - Glen Allen was fired because of the intereference
Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs. - Obviously now he has been turbo-fucked.

If the claim holds in court Allen would get actual damages (lost wages, etc), legal fees, and punitive damages if malice is established which looks easy enough just from what has been presented. I hope he included such a claim in his suit and I sincerely hope the SPLC gets turbo-hosed on it. Defamation and tortious interference are the SJW go-to for bullying and damaging people, and there are legal consequences for committing these crimes and it is high time they get burned on it.

Having one of their premier organizations fail to defend their only strategy in court would send a clear signal to all the small-time operators, and hopefully help out all the people that don't have the resources to fight a big court battle. I know I'm about to earn a bunch of :optimistic: on this, but I sincerely hope the SPLC losing might convince some SJWs to stop doxxing people and calling their work and friends to ruin their lives for wrongthink.
 

mindlessobserver

kiwifarms.net
That can get the SPLC fucked over just as Mark Waid is about to be down in Texas, if a claim of tortious interference is brought.

The elements of a claim are as follows:
The existence of a contractual relationship or beneficial business relationship between two parties. - Glen Keith Allen was employed by the City of Baltimore as a solicitor.
Knowledge of that relationship by a third party. - SPLC knew of this arrangement and claimed to have watched Allen "like a hawk" because he had "the worst ideas ever created."
Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship. - With the aforementioned statements and others intent is easily established
Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach. - SPLC had no privilege to interfere
The contractual relationship is breached. - Glen Allen was fired because of the intereference
Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs. - Obviously now he has been turbo-fucked.

If the claim holds in court Allen would get actual damages (lost wages, etc), legal fees, and punitive damages if malice is established which looks easy enough just from what has been presented. I hope he included such a claim in his suit and I sincerely hope the SPLC gets turbo-hosed on it. Defamation and tortious interference are the SJW go-to for bullying and damaging people, and there are legal consequences for committing these crimes and it is high time they get burned on it.

Having one of their premier organizations fail to defend their only strategy in court would send a clear signal to all the small-time operators, and hopefully help out all the people that don't have the resources to fight a big court battle. I know I'm about to earn a bunch of :optimistic: on this, but I sincerely hope the SPLC losing might convince some SJWs to stop doxxing people and calling their work and friends to ruin their lives for wrongthink.
The SPLC will just argue that as a public interest advocacy group they do have the right to interfere in contracts when one of the parties is the government using public funds.
 

AnOminous

do you see what happens
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
The SPLC will just argue that as a public interest advocacy group they do have the right to interfere in contracts when one of the parties is the government using public funds.
You generally do. I can expose facts about some government functionary who I don't like and even do it demanding he be fired and replaced with someone else.

I just can't legally defame him.
 

TowinKarz

Thoroughly Unimpressed
kiwifarms.net
https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/com_splc_annual_report_2017_web_final-1.pdf

$432,000,000 in the rainy day fund. They're immortal at this point.

Fuck.
That's why he should go all the way and try to get their status revoked, otherwise no settlement will make a dent big enough to convince them they're doing anything wrong, much less that they should at least pragmatically stop doing it even if they really really think those they defame deserve it.

He already got his millions from the dumbass City who believed the lie and fired him, he's set in that department, so he's got nothing to lose by pushing his case even if he ultimately loses.
 

Alec Benson Leary

Creator of Asperchu
Christorical Figure
kiwifarms.net
That's why he should go all the way and try to get their status revoked, otherwise no settlement will make a dent big enough to convince them they're doing anything wrong, much less that they should at least pragmatically stop doing it even if they really really think those they defame deserve it.
That's probably biting off more than he can chew. Any question of their tax status is better left for bigger contenders.

I'm preferential to the death-of-a-thousand-cuts strategy. After the Ali and Nawaz cases, this is yet one more nail. If you want them to lose their status, in the long run this is the kind of case that will bring that into ultimate contention.
 

AnOminous

do you see what happens
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
The Center for Immigration Studies has now filed a civil complaint under the RICO Act against them. Maybe there's something to this death by a thousand cuts thing.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jan/16/immigration-group-files-rico-lawsuit-splc/
RICO sounds like a Hail Mary to me, but defamation may be a viable argument in some of these cases.

The argument goes something like this.

SPLC has a definition of "hate group" that seems to be somewhat strict:

What is a hate group?

The Southern Poverty Law Center defines a hate group as an organization that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.

The organizations on our hate group list vilify others because of their race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity – prejudices that strike at the heart of our democratic values and fracture society along its most fragile fault lines.
Therefore, when they list an organization as such in their official list, they are essentially saying that it is an organization that by its very nature does these things.

To the extent such a statement is an opinion, it is probably protected, i.e. if they say fact A, fact B, fact C, therefore hate group, that probably passes muster.

To the extent such a statement is a factual assertion, it may not be.

If it is a protected opinion, then it doesn't matter in the least whether it's damaging to the targets of it. The audience of these claims can reach their own opinions, and if they choose not to do business with what they agree is a hate group, what the SPLC is doing is protected.

It isn't if it's a factual assertion that the organization is like or does things like the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazis, unless that's actually the case or they have a solid factual basis for it. Generally a public-facing organization is going to be a public figure for such purposes so if false, the claims must also be made with actual malice.

(This is about the CIS claim, not the claim this thread is about which is possibly not about a public figure at all.)
 
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