Linda Carty, the Reprieve lie machine, and the bleeding heart of Clive Stafford Smith by Alexander Baron An obscure if somewhat bizarre murder case from the State of Texas is back in the news, and the bleeding heart liberals are banging the drum again, this time for a convicted murderess who is facing execution by lethal injection. Surprisingly, though Linda Carty is black, her principal supporters haven’t quite played the race card; they have though overplayed their hand with an endless stream of half-truths and bland acceptance of demonstrable lies. Carty’s case has garnered a great deal of unwarranted publicity in the UK and has been endorsed uncritically by the mass media because she is said to be a British citizen, a claim that is true only in a purely technical sense. Her supporters have played a tape of her begging for her life, and a cardboard cut out of her was erected on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square during the recent innovative living artwork exhibition. Those like the current writer who have longer memories, suspicious minds and a reluctance to take the top fifty Google listings at face value, will be less than impressed. According to an article on Reprieve’s website, to which its director, campaigning lawyer Clive Stafford Smith contributed, it’s all down to her incompetent lawyer, a flawed trial and a frame-up, if not by the authorities then by the actual perpetrators. Carty was convicted of the murder of a young mother who was bound, gagged, and stuffed in the boot of a car (that’s the trunk to US readers). The evidence shows clearly that the death of Joana Rodriguez was not an unfortunate accident – which might just have reduced it to second degree murder or even manslaughter - it was an intentional and cruel act. Unlike her, Carty’s co-defendants – whom she had tricked into the kidnapping – were interested only in stealing drugs and money from the apartment the victim shared with her common law husband and his cousin. Sally Rowan of Reprieve wrote:
Yes, that bad lawyer again, but why should the State of Texas allow the British Government to dictate to it how it should run its criminal justice system - even if the British Government were so minded? So what exactly are Carty and her supporters claiming? Carty claims she didn’t do it. Period. She was framed by the bad guys because of her work as an undercover agent for the Drug Enforcement Agency. That phrase sounds impressive, doesn’t it? Working undercover, but according to Reprieve, what it actually entailed was “befriending suspected traffickers in order to get information and sometimes to make test purchases of drugs”. In other words, she was a snitch, offering makeshift friendship to perhaps lonely men – maybe offering them sex – and on occasion acting as agent provocateur to deprive them of their freedom. This is what making test purchases actually entails. In Britain, this sort of entrapment is perfectly legal, typically, trading standards officers will send an under-age boy or girl into a newsagent to purchase cigarettes from an unsuspecting shopkeeper, and next thing, a hapless Mr Patel finds himself in court charged with corrupting the young. In 1997, during a sojourn in Brixton Prison I met a rather pathetic victim of this sort of entrapment. He was a not young but youngish black man who bore a slight facial resemblance to heavyweight champion Evander Holyfield, but that was where his good luck ended. He was a typical petty criminal, at the time living in a hostel, but expecting to be rehoused. One day someone walked up to him in the street – obviously knowing the sort of man he was – and asked him if he could supply some weed. When he offered to oblige, he was promptly arrested and charged with intent to supply. Even though he had no actual drugs on him. What was left of his life was in ruins. Carty sounds like she was frying bigger fish – ie, setting up unfortunates for prison sentences which in the USA can be quite Draconian. Why should anyone sympathise with her for that? In any case, according to the minutely detailed judgement of the United States Court of Appeals (Fifth Circuit) filed October 15, 2009, Carty became a snitch for anything but idealistic reasons – but more of that anon! Reprieve carp on:
Firstly, Carty murdered Joana Rodriguez on May 16, 2001, so even if the rape story is true, it remains to be seen just how and why it is relevant as far as mitigation is concerned, although it may provide a motive, because the State’s case was that Carty wanted the victim’s baby, and had faked a pregnancy – presumably to cover for the sudden appearance of a little stranger. Carty had planned to cut the baby out of the victim – which necessitates murder – and would quite likely have killed the baby too – but by the time she was able to dupe her ad hoc gang into the actual kidnap, the child had been born. Stafford Smith calls this a “rather implausible theory”. Bizarre, sick, twisted, yes, but in view of the damning evidence, not implausible at all. The claim about her finding herself in an abusive relationship is probably bunk; certainly she was not abused by the man she was living with at the time this sick idea entered her head, because he walked out on her, and in fact testified against her. One of the gripes fermented by Reprieve and Carty’s other supporters is that Juan Corona was not advised that he did not have to testify against her because of their relationship. That may be true, but why would she not want him to testify if she really is such a wonderful person and as innocent as her supporters claim? At any rate, by the time of her arrest he’d had enough of her lies, and had moved out. Coming back to all the guff about rape and abuse, it might be argued that this should make her empathise with the likes of her victim. Returning to the incompetent lawyer, one of the things he should have done, according to Reprieve, was visit St Kitts where Carty was born to ferret out information about what a wonderful person she was. Again, this sounds suspiciously like mitigation, and innocent people don’t need mitigation. In the second place, Carty had been domiciled in the United States for some two decades, so any such testimony was hardly relevant, and if she had presented evidence that she had been such a wonderful person, a dedicated schoolteacher and community spirit, might not the State present evidence to the contrary? Writing in The Guardian of March 29, 2009, Duncan Campbell explains how Carty became a DEA informant:
This sounds like excellent mitigation too, unfortunately, the Fifth Circuit has a slightly different – and undoubtedly more accurate - explanation for the genesis of her undercover work:
This is Saint Linda? At the end of the aforementioned Guardian article, Stafford Smith is quoted “...her lawyer presented virtually no defence, and no court has since taken her case seriously.” Which begs the question, why does Reprieve? Well, one reason could be that at the time of writing it is trying to raise fifteen grand for her defence, and maybe to pay for a working holiday or two. Because the reader is told:
Nice work if you can get it, fly out to an island in the sun, interview the locals, and write a report while sipping a pina colada by the pool. Carty has garnered a great deal of unwarranted support on Facebook too, where liberal morons with more humanity than common sense have actually been raising funds for her. The really annoying thing about this worthless crusade though is that this and similar cases detract from the genuinely worthwhile work Reprieve does. At the time of writing they claim to be representing no less than thirty-three of the Guantánamo Bay detainees. Unlike Carty, whose guilt has been established in a properly legally constituted court, and affirmed, these men have now been held for nearly a decade without trial or even charge, denied all legal process as though Magna Carta had never been thought of. By peddling propaganda and outright lies in order to save the neck of a lowlife who kidnaps a young woman and murders her to get her hands on her baby – and would have murdered two other people but for her co-accused – Reprieve undermines the credibility of all the cases it handles. Comments:2
Posted by calvin on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 20:23 | # “they claim to be representing no less than thirty-three of the Guantánamo Bay detainees. Unlike Carty, whose guilt has been established in a properly legally constituted court, and affirmed, these men have now been held for nearly a decade without trial or even charge, denied all legal process as though Magna Carta had never been thought of” I too am appalled at the imprisonment of these men in GB. It is a scandal that these ununiformed combatants were not subjected to summary battlefield execution. Disgusting! Magna Carta was won by Christian Englishmen, it does not belong to Muslim outworlders. You now have Baron fellating the Muslims and Hoffmeister fellating the Chosen, on a forum that couldn’t accommodate John Jay Ray? Time for some hose cleaning surely? 3
Posted by Guessedworker on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 21:27 | # Calvin, I hope you are not inferring that a few medieval-minded Islamists and Moslems in general represent a greater danger to Europeans than the Federal Government of the United States of America? They, the Medievals, are a mere tool, and one we could toss aside like a sack of feathers if it were not for the Judeo-liberal political class that spans our living spaces, and draws its energy, ambition and not a few of its ideas from the American model:- http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/congress/3090-mccain-lieberman-bill 4
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:01 | # Alexander Baron’s stricture’s against Reprieve might resonate better if he had chosen a more worthwhile target for his ire, and had not attempted to portray Reprieve’s efforts on behalf of foreigners held by the US military as ‘genuinely worthwhile work’. There are far more worthy cases much closer to home that a taxpayer subsidised charity like Reprieve could usefully focus its efforts upon. The many political and other prisoners who have fallen foul of repressive race relations legislation across Europe being obvious cases in point. Has Mr. Baron called on Reprieve to take up the case of the ‘Heretical Two’, for example? They still languish in custody for simply saying naughty things about Jews and blacks, and none of the organisations which Mr. Baron feels are doing ‘worthwhile work’ on behalf of potential violent Muslim extremists have bothered themselves with cases like theirs, with the obvious implications for the basic rights of the rest of us. 5
Posted by Alexander Baron on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 03:06 | # Reply to all posts: Mr Dare’s rhetoric says it all: “potential violent Muslim extremists”; if and when these men show some kinetic, then they should be dealt with by the law. Until then their only crime is being disliked by people like you; no doubt the sentiment is usual. As for the other garbage about summary execution, words fail me the same way sanity fails you. Re the bit about Christian Englishmen, does that not apply to atheist Englishmen like myself? Just wondered. The law should be colour blind. But not stupid, as evidently you are. Re the Heretical Two, have you actually seen the sort of stuff Sheppard was peddling? How exactly does that further the cause of White Survival, individual liberty or even common sense? I wrote to Sheppard offering him some sound advice on his release, which I hope he takes. 6
Posted by calvin on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 10:50 | # “As for the other garbage about summary execution, words fail me the same way sanity fails you” Barron. Standard approved defensive measure in war. Employed, as well as the indiscriminate immolation of civilians, extensively by the victorious side in our last great moral crusade against Germany’s anti-communist government. I’d suggest you study the activities of Naser Oric’s 28th Mountain Brigade before you pedal your tripe about “potentially violent Muslim extremists”. You might be okay with child rape and civilian decapitation, but, call we queasy, I find it rather uncomfortable, but of course, I’m not an interlektewal. “Show some kinetic”......whooah, sex me up baby! Did you perhaps mean “wait until they have actually murdered people”, if that’s your idea of preventative measures, there’s a job waiting for you at the Met. “Re the bit about Christian Englishmen, does that not apply to atheist Englishmen like myself?” It applies to the people who fully support (as opposed to pay lip service to) the principles it enshrines, that would exclude Islamists. To put it simply, you can only ride the bus if you’re willing to pay for your ticket. “But not stupid, as evidently you are” Even your ad homs are banal. RE The Heretical Two, I have read the stuff they were peddling. Steven Whittle is the best polemical writer in the UK, everything that you are not in fact. http://www.heretical.com/ofarrell/godgould.html The corpus of “hate” that the H2 “peddled” contained two satirical cartoons by hippy cartoonist Robert Crumb. Western Civilisation quakes! 7
Posted by Alexander Baron on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 12:41 | # The men held in Cuba or is it America? - a bit of sophistry to fuzz the issue - these men have not been charged with any crimes much less convicted of any. If you recall, this happened in the wake of September 11; while at the time I agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan, as did many people, it is now clear that 9/11 was totally planned and perpetrated by a coterie of law students and the like mostly from Saudi Arabia. As far as I am aware, none of these men have been accused of child rape or decapitating anyone, you appear to be arguing for their continued detention or even their murder on the grounds that some people who profess to share their religious and/or political affiliation have done it or might do it. Why not argue for the detention of all men on the grounds that some of them have committed rape therefore the rest of us might? Or as the loony left do that anyone who wants to see an end to non-white immigration into Britain is one step away from building homicidal gas chambers? Re habeas corpus, you argue: “It applies to the people who fully support (as opposed to pay lip service to) the principles it enshrines, that would exclude Islamists. To put it simply, you can only ride the bus if you’re willing to pay for your ticket.” ‘Fraid not, it applies to everyone. Your argument is one espoused by Dirty Harry and those people at the Met you mention; the law is above everyone including policemen and even you, and it protects everyone, including you, and including those who you say would rape our children and decapitate us if they had the chance. It even protects Jon Venables, if you hadn’t noticed. If you don’t like that, and want to live somewhere the law protects only people YOU consider worthy of protecting, then I suggest you sod off to Afghanistan or somewhere there is substantially no law at all. And I take if you have seen Sheppard’s kike windchimes? If you want to defend stuff like that you’re welcome to him. I would rather peddle stuff like this: http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/jewish-fingernail-intro.html they tried to drag me into court for this - and failed, unfortunately. It educates as well as entertains. And it shows the enemies of freedom for what they are, rather than portraying us as how they wish to portray us. Incidentally, my view on the Gitmo detainees is shared by none other than Harold Covington, who is also probably not right wing enough for you. Up yours, Calvin 8
Posted by Lurker (Mk II) on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:35 | # Mr Baron- are you absolutely sure you’re an Englishman, atheist or otherwise? 9
Posted by Alexander Baron on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:24 | # I thought lurkers were supposed to lurk? Is Baron an Englishman - born and bred. And this is relevant to what exactly 10
Posted by calvin on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 15:25 | # “while at the time I agreed with the invasion of Afghanistan, as did many people, it is now clear that 9/11 was totally planned and perpetrated by a coterie of law students and the like mostly from Saudi Arabia” The only thing that is “now clear” about 9/11 is that anyone who professes to possess the ultimate truth about the origin of that massacre is an attention seeking crank, which, if you add ” ludicrous Muslim apologist” , sounds about right in your case. “As far as I am aware, none of these men have been accused of child rape or decapitating anyone” Since I didn’t say that they were, that’s a pathetic strawman. I said that under the proper rules of war, specifically, the ununiformed combatants should rightfully have been executed on the battlefield, as were members of the German Trojan Horse Brigade during WWII. WWII, and the destruction of Nazism, is regarded as the greatest moral victory of Western European civilization. Is their MO not Moral enough for you Baron? 9/11 was an act of war, you would like a response to it that is no different to the offense of shoplifting. Whatever the professed legal principles of any liberal democracy, none of them would ever be foolish enough to apply civil law in response to terrorism or warfare. Even liberal leftists know the actual limitations of their supposedly all encompassing humanitarian egalitarianism. Congratulations on transcending even the stupidity of your average Guardian indoctrinated British liberal. Stupidity has a new high watermark. “Fraid not, it applies to everyone. Your argument is one espoused by Dirty Harry and those people at the Met you mention; the law is above everyone including policemen and even you, and it protects everyone, including you, and including those who you say would rape our children and decapitate us if they had the chance. It even protects Jon Venables, if you hadn’t noticed” LOL! Liberal tosh! Your last sentence sums it up. The law may well protect John Venables, but it’s a bit less successful at protecting innocent people from John Venables, as recent events prove. The law is suppossed to serve the common people. The law of England now serves the liberal elite, regardless of whatever fairytale, la la land fantasy view you have of it. “If you don’t like that, and want to live somewhere the law protects only people YOU consider worthy of protecting, then I suggest you sod off to Afghanistan or somewhere there is substantially no law at all” You are protecting people who attack the common law and are replacing it with Sharia law and you think I should leave the land of my ancestors to live among feudal peasants. With friends like you who does Western European civilization need enemies? “Incidentally, my view on the Gitmo detainees is shared by none other than Harold Covington, who is also probably not right wing enough for you” If an opinion is wrong I, unlike you, don’t give a rat’s arse which luminary crank espouses it. Argumentum ad authoritatum is one thing, but using Covington as your “authoritatum” is just a joke mate. When a challenge of force is being made, the most important thing is that you act in a way that says “don’t fuck with me” and that’s what America did. And sadly it doesn’t really matter that much whether or not that force is displayed on people who really deserve it or not. The failure of Iraq and Afghanistan came about when liberal principles took over atavistic impulses and America began to engage in a farcical pretence that these people had been bombed to fuck for their own good, and involved themselves in a pathetic post combat policing operation. “Up yours” I hear the muezzin calling, or is it your handler from MI5? Either way it’s time for you to piss off Baron! 11
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:08 | # Alexander, You would probably do yourself a favour with the commentariat if you explained that you do not, in fact, support the presence of any non-indigenous populations in our ancestral land, including the Pakistani and other populations who have busied themselves erecting mosques and importing more and more of their delightful kinfolk. Calvin, Bear in mind that there is a substantial percentage of long-time nationalists in this country who find the BNP’s Islamophobic focus either disingenuous or profoundly mistaken, and who recognise that Moslems, dangerous though they are demographically, tend to an anti-Semitism of an openness and rabidity seldom seen among us. 12
Posted by Alexander Baron on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:18 | # This is my final reply to an obvious anti-Islamic bigot: We know a great deal about September 11, and that does not include any of the fanciful nonsense peddled by the self-styled 9/11 Truth Movement or by mainstream Moslems who are reluctant to admit the truth. It was perpetrated by a group of highly intelligent university educated morons, mattoids, the type who had they been born white and middle class would have joined the Socialist Workers Party. We know all the important details about it, including who financed it. We also know why they perpetrated it, or why they professed to - Zionism and the continued occupation of Palestine. That was their rationale but people like that can always find some rationale to commit mass murder; their phoney idealism and self-styled martyrdom fooled no one. You are confusing this so-called Islamism with Islam; Islamism is a nihilist quasi-political ideology whose main objective appears to be to perpetrate murder and mayhem on an unprecedented scale. What we in the West have experienced is the tip of an all too visible iceberg; they’re continuing to murder people left, right and centre throughout the Islamic world, and most of their victims are Moslems. September 11 was not an act of war, no more than the class war, the cold war or a game of chess for that matter. In the modern world, wars are carried out between nation states, this can include civil wars, but a bunch of psychos crashing planes into buildings and bombing people on their streets and ours is not a war. As it is not a war, the so-called unarmed combatants to whom you allude are not combatants at all. The West invaded Afghanistan, and not unnaturally, some of them resisted. Others - misguided and foolish admittedly - came to their aid against us infidels. But that was all 8 or 9 years ago. The fact is that there are still large numbers of men in legal limbo gaoled in appalling conditions, many of whom were simply kidnapped and sold to the Americans. Some of them have been tortured, they have been denied due process, and this is ongoing. Your argument is that we are the good guys. A lot of people throughout the world now think we aren’t, and you can’t blame them for that. Ask Gerry Gable if I’m a liberal, you moron. I’ve heard it all now. Oh, and now I’m working for MI5. You must have been talking to Larry O’Hara. Heck, perhaps you’re on the same ward. 13
Posted by Alexander Baron on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:34 | # As a Libertarian, albeit it one in favour of a limited state rather than a total non-state, I am opposed to all big government, although I suppose you could call me a constitutional monarchist. The idea that Britain would be a wonderful place if it were both all white and Jew-free may be a nice delusion but it is also a dangerous one. I suffered ten years and more of harassment at the hands of mostly white Gentile police officers not because of my politics - although that is what started it - but because they are sadistic cunts who tried to destroy me for making them look stupid. Re the race issue, we have to be realistic. As I told one of your fellow travellers many years ago, you are not fighting for white power, you are fighting for white survival. The past two/three generations of white kids have been brainwashed into a belief that race does not exist and that white skin is evil. Non-whites, especially blacks, have been brainwashed with similar ideas. You ain’t gonna just put them on a boat and ship them all back, in any case, there are whites living all over the place as much as non-whites in our lands. Islam is not the problem, the main problem is where the world is going, being increasingly enslaved by the banks, power centralised, and freedom restricted, all in the name of peace, love, tolerance and the universal brotherhood of man. We have to free Britain and the world from the bankers’ chains, and likewise we have to stop the brainwashing of all peoples everywhere by the race-mixers. Not an easy task. Why should I give a monkeys if there is a church or a mosque at the bottom of my road when the controlled media churns out five hundred non-stories a week about whores like Cheryl Cole? 14
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 16:55 | # Alexander, You should care because the ultimate value is our genetic continuity. We are our people and our people are us. Even a life for our people of slavery to power elitism, which we always have the chance to tear down, is preferable to no life for our people at all. The nationalist mind is being re-cast to be truly racist, and that is both right and inevitable because the ultimate threat to us is not cultural or political or even globalist but existential. These disagreements are a kind of banging of the edges together in the process of producing unanimity - or sufficient unanimity to produce the right kind of action. What that action will be we do not yet know. But it will be radical, and your strictures, Alexander, about realism will have no part of it. We are engaged on undoing everything and doing everything, which of course we must. There are no limits on survival. 15
Posted by Alexander Baron on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:06 | # Part of the problem is that you even accept the terms of reference of the enemies of the White Race. The very concept of racism is a delusion. Check out http://www.infotextmanuscripts.org/man_who_invented_racism_1.html Check out too my magnum opus, Freedom Under Socialism? 16
Posted by Guessedworker on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:38 | # Alexander, People associated with this blog are intent on becoming engaged and, in some instances, are already engaged in redefining some quite diverse aspects of the nationalist ouevre. That’s what is radical about us. I wrote “truly racist”, but I could have written of an “authentic racism” with equal justice. In other words, a break is being made with the intellectualism of the failed nationalist past, which did not attend to the existential fact of our Europeanness. We are intent on delimiting our thought so as to create our own foundational thinking using our own terminology. The Jewish definition of European survival as “racism” will, along with the rest of the culture of critique, have no purchase whatsoever on it. 17
Posted by calvin on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:50 | # “an obvious anti-Islamic bigot” You say that like it’s a bad thing? “The West invaded Afghanistan” The West invaded a hostile foreign state that was hosting an anti-western terrorist organization. “Why should I give a monkeys if there is a church or a mosque at the bottom of my road when the controlled media churns out five hundred non-stories a week about whores like Cheryl Cole?” This is the alternative face of Islam in Europe. Leaving aside my mystification at a supposed libertarian describing a faithful married woman as a “whore” on the basis of her African husband’s serial infidelity, if you find Mrs Cole more frightening than these fanatics perhaps it’s you that belongs in the nut ward? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wx-REROXvtg Your game of pretending to support Western Civilization whilst advocating on behalf of the culture which is at the forefront of the struggle to replace it is irredeemably absurd. There’s nothing much of substance in your “last response”. I think you need to sit down and ponder whether you are really a nationalist, or are just a misanthrope looking for a temporary refuge. 18
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:13 | #
Calvin, you do realize that Muslims are in the main a population with an average group IQ in the mid-80s, don’t you? Hardly a formidable adversary, nor a worthy ally as Baron seems to think. They are a nuisance, a thorn in our side, they are simply in the way. It is in our power to literally effect their total extermination (not saying I support that). And, if you think that Muslims are a greater threat to the West than miscegenation per se your head is so far up your ass it may take you days to extract it. Wake the hell up. 19
Posted by Captainchaos on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:34 | #
Baron, I picture you as a guy who started out with a cockney accent, a guy who then trained himself to speak the Queen’s English, so he could make good for himself whilst making bad. Am I wide of the mark, chap? How much of what you say is artifice and how much not is not of much concern to me, the final result is drivel. There will be no securing our survival without the acquisition of power, and obviously the more power one has the more one can do what one wants. Now be a good boy and return Irving’s property to him. 20
Posted by Alexander Baron on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:14 | # You have GOT to be joking. Ask Harold Covington what he thinks of Cheryl Cole. Yes, actually I do find her - and her kind - more frightening than Osama Bin Laden and co. If you don’t understand why, then we have nothing to discuss. I don’t pretend to be anything, most if not all of my important publications are available on-line. What you don’t understand or don’t want to understand is that pro-white does not mean anti-Islamic and vice versa. In any case, Islam is a religion, not a race. 21
Posted by calvin on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:57 | # Ah! So Cheryl Cole invented negrophillia and miscegenation as a cultural norm, or is she just a deluded high profile victim, like Ulrika Johnson whose Black boyfriend punched her in the face and tried to stamp on her, or “father of the year”, the dandyprat Dwight York, an absentee father who has the audacity to criticise a white man for taking parental responsibility for his “love” child? As per average Islamic IQ, and you should keep a civil tongue in your head when you are speaking to fellow European nationalists Captain, Western IQ’s seem to be in free fall at the moment, and the majority of the remaining high IQs are firmly committed to dysgenic socio-political policies that will hasten the process, so I wouldn’t be so cock sure about Europe’s ability to resist the low IQ Islamic juggernaut. Thousands of high IQ Muslims directing Millions of low IQ Muslims seems to me like a fine basis for the conquest of a fragmented and decadent West. Islam menaced Europe for hundreds of years and for hundreds of years was its military superior. 22
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 20:00 | # It’s probably a sign that it’s time for a nice lie down but I can’t help agreeing for once with the Cap’n and his remarks on the nature of the Islamic threat. It is certainly the case that the ragtag band of hairy-arsed Pakis who consitutute its Praetorian Guard could be blown away in a wekend if the squaddies who have done time in the Middle East were given their heads. That they are still here and permitted to make such a flaming nuisance of themselves is a symptom of a much greater malaise, one that libertards like Mr. Baron seemingly have no prescription for. What drew my attention originally to Mr. Baron’s otherwise soporific piece was not the fact that he went after a bunch of bleeding-heart busybodies – a soft target by any measure – but that he did so for all the wrong reasons. Wasting time and resources on a convicted murderer when they could be devoting their efforts to the cause of the gallant freedom-fighters banged-up in Guantanamo - what a travesty thunders Mr. B! Is that what the FCO funds them for? Might it not, however, be the case that neither the fate of a foreign murderer (Carty is not a British citizen no matter what lies Reprieve propagates, aided and abetted by HMG) nor that of dusky foreigners caught ‘wandering around’ on the battlefield is of the remotest concern for us? Mr. Baron invokes Magna Carta as part of the rationale for his hand-wringing over the Gitmo detainees. Why not go the whole hog and demand that Harriet Harman fly out purposely to threaten all concerned with prosecution under the Human Rights Act (1998, as amended) for depriving the poor wretches of their right to family life? Then perhaps we could also redeem ourselves by offering these unfortunates safe haven in Merrie Olde since it appears that one of the reasons most of them are still stuck there is that their own homelands don’t want them back. In the meantime, Mr. B holds forth on the law. It should be colour-blind he cries. As indeed it was until not so very long ago, until 18th November 1965 in fact, the day on which the Race Relations Act came into force. That’s the Act which introduced group rights and colour prejudice into English law, and became the progenitor of the plethora of progressively more repressive Equalities and Discrimination legislation which rests at the disposal of the managerial elite to stifle unapproved words and thoughts. Mr. B appears to be completely sanguine that such laws exist and that they have been and no doubt will continue to be rigourously enforced by the traditional enemies of free speech. It serves them right for getting banged up says he, when they’re not even decent writers (like me). 23
Posted by Alexander Baron on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:57 | # What is it that is so difficult to understand about the concept that everyone should be both subject to and protected by the rule of law? You’ve allowed yourselves to be conned by the people you think you are opposing. Here is what I wrote in THE MAN WHO INVENTED “RACISM” (minus the footnotes): In his 1947 book TAKE YOUR CHOICE: SEPARATION OR MONGRELIZATION, the United States Senator Theodore G. Bilbo reported that at the then present rate of miscegenation, the white race would disappear in America within nine generations. (65) Forty years later, a woman doctor writing on an entirely different subject painted an even more pessimistic picture of demographic trends in Sweden, the spiritual homeland of Adolf Hitler’s idealised Nordic race: “It has been estimated that unless the women in Sweden have a higher birth rate soon, there will be no more Swedes after four generations.” (66) Another, and even more recent source reports that in the USA, a staggering 25% of Hispanics marry out; 5% of blacks marry whites, while one in ten American black men between the ages of 15 and 34 are married to white women. (67) Similar alarming figures are reported in the United Kingdom. This alone refutes the lying propaganda of the “anti-racist” lobby that racism has reached alarming proportions, but the propaganda continues, as does the brainwashing. Contrary to “anti-racist” propaganda, it is not necessary either to share or in any way to endorse Nazi ideals in order to take issue with the genocidal pronouncements of Paul Kurtz and Andrew Marr. Senator Bilbo, who was widely attacked as a bigot, wrote that “the real and true white man is willing to accept the Negro as his brother in Christ. However, he does not prefer to take him as a son-in-law in his family, and this decision comes under the head of an honest and true white man’s business.” (68) This statement is both admirable and honorable, and echoes the words of Sir Harry Johnston, the English colonial administrator, explorer, author and naturalist, who remarked that “The white people in the United States…will have to get used to the presence of the Negro in their midst as a brother, but not as a brother-in-law.” (69) The title of Bilbo’s book identifies both the problem, and the solution…. In view of the young ages of the defendants, the severity of the sentences and the paucity of actual evidence of rape, the case rapidly became a cause celébrè. Death sentences on seven of the nine defendants were affirmed by the Supreme Court of Alabama on March 24, 1932, but thanks to a nationwide campaign, justice was eventually done, although the case dragged on for years. One encyclopaedia reports that “The Scottsboro case was widely exploited by Communists for propaganda purposes. But the eventual freeing of most of the defendants was due chiefly to the efforts of the Scottsboro defense committee, a predominantly liberal, non-Communist body.” (77) But it wasn’t only liberals, it was also hard line racists who rallied to the cause of The Scottsboro Boys. In his book on the case, Dan Carter wrote “Interracial leaders of the Deep South had two goals, segregation and justice, and it seldom occurred to most of them that the two might be incompatible.” This was certainly the view of the white members of the Alabama Interracial Commission. One white Southerner put it like this: “The average white man, he said, is ‘superior to the black man because he is black. My quarrel is not with superiority but with the method of asserting it at the expense of justice…” (78) ********************* What is so terrible about that? 24
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:36 | #
Nothing really terrible, but it is contradictory. Bilbo’s intention was to repatriate blacks not live with them in segregation.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,761200,00.html#ixzz0hoO3WGhW Separate but equal serves the interest of the cheap labor crowd and does not ultimately solve the problem. The liberals at the Scottsboro trial were disproportionately Jewish. The Communists were disproportionately Jewish. And the directors of the NAACP and the Urban League who lobbied the Fed to take down Garvey on trumped up mail fraud charges were also disproportionately Jewish. The Scottsboro defendants were guilty of rape. Forensic evidence was suppressed. 25
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:41 | # Some also suggest that the disproportionate Jewish involvement in the Scottsboro case (and in fact the whole civil rights movement) was part of a pay-back for the lynching of Leo Frank. 26
Posted by ben tillman on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:48 | # I too am appalled at the imprisonment of these men in GB. It is a scandal that these ununiformed combatants were not subjected to summary battlefield execution. How did they qualify as combatants? In what war? I know nothing of the origins of the GB detainess, but I presume that since there was and is no war, they can’t have been combatants, uniformed or otherwise. And if you’re fighting a war of aggression, the non-uniformed are generally known as victims. 27
Posted by Alexander Baron on Wed, 10 Mar 2010 23:57 | # Leo Frank, interesting case: This was Frank’s lawyer at the time railing at the principal prosecution witness: “Who is Conley? Who was Conley as he used to be and as you have seen him? He was a dirty, filthy, black drunken, lying nigger…Who was it that made this dirty nigger come up here looking so slick? Why didn’t they let you see him as he was?” Then when Frank is convicted, Organised Jewry turn around and accuse the jury of being racial bigots. Talk about unreal. 28
Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:01 | #
You most certainly do not and cannot know that. How is your pruportedly true belief justified? The “chain of custody” of virtually every bit of “evidence” passed through people (especially the liars in government and mass media) whose personal knowledge and credibility remained unchallenged and therefore unverified. It’s a question of epistemology. Your alleged knowledge rests on an insufficient foundation. 29
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:44 | # Garvey’s application for Executive Clemency is also interesting.
30
Posted by calvin on Thu, 11 Mar 2010 10:29 | # All of the information about the Scotsboro “boys”, comes down to use triple distilled through the liberal reality still. All of the Blacks in the photo of the Scotsboro gang are fully mature, strong looking men. Have a look at the photograph, do you recognize the lazy slit eyed sullen, confrontational look on their faces? Looks like a modern trash rap band. A gang of rampant Black males robbing and assaulting whites and gang raping white women…yeah, like that would never happen would it? Isn’t it funny how they explained their movements by reference to a “rumour” about work? Pretty hard to check out a rumour ain’t it. It’s possible that this gang of men were all Church going, paragons of moral rectitude who were naturally destined to become astronauts and lawyers, but only an idiot would bet donuts against gold that they were. My belief is that, despite liberal Kill A Mockingbird fiction, 99% of the people executed in the South were as guilty as hell. Baron further disgraces himself with his “low class” white girls, quip. Poor white people are now “low class”, just a small step from declaring, “they were asking for it your honour”. 31
Posted by Alexander Baron on Thu, 11 Mar 2010 12:48 | # Do your research Calvin, the white women in this case - one of them - was most definitely low class. There is a fairly objective book on the case which does not contain this media bias. The point you are missing though is that these kids were sentenced to death for rape. There was no rape and almost certainly no sex either, certainly there was no physical evidence of it. One man - a lawyer - stressed that he was not a “nigger-lover” or a Communist but deplored the “barbarous penalty…to be applied to these children. The point I was making - the point you appear to miss - is that White Survival, ie so-called racism - is not incompatible with justice. As Abraham Lincoln said, just because I don’t want a Negress for a slave doesn’t mean I want her for my wife. By the same token there is no Western conflict with Islam. The Arabs in particular have had a raw deal, incredibly this is blamed by the loony left on racism et al, when you, presumably, are inteligent enough to realise it is due to no such thing. As to Mr Tillman and his epistomology issue re September 11, I, we, know enough about 9/11 to lay the blame fairly and squarely where it belongs. I leave you to the 9/11 Truth Movement and its loony revealed truth about its being an inside job. Now if you’ll excuse me, I have better things to do than waste my time arguing with bigots. Racial or otherwise. 32
Posted by calvin on Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:01 | # Yeah right Baron, you’ve got so little time to spare taht you’ve posted about five times after your declared final post. Point 1. These Blacks are not “boys” or “children” , try looking at the photograph. Point 2. This gang was accused of committing exactley the type of crime that Larry Auster described happening 3,000 times a year now that the boots been removed from the neck. Point 3. I don’t care about this event anymore than the average Pakistani or Black cares about the Kriss Donald murder. It’s part of the liberal cuckoo in the nest strategy to force us to care about outgroup rivals. Point 4. The fact that the liar Washington was a stripper and a druggie didn’t seem to be a cause for doubting that a gang of white children raped her Point 5. “there is no Western conflict with Islam” What planet are you on? Did you watch the video of the mujahideen in Bosnia, are you unaware of the conquest of Spain and the siege of Vienna? The Muslims want Europe more than they want Israel, they call this “the great land”, this is Islam’s greatest prize and most fervent desire, and useful idiots like you are handing it to them on a plate. 33
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:36 | #
Yes, Victoria Price was “low” class, however, there was definitely evidence of sex. The issue was not whether sex occurred but when it occurred and that fell to non-motility of the semen which the examining doctor stated did not indicate that sex had not happened in the time frame Victoria Price alleged.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/FTrials/scottsboro/SB_33Brid.html 34
Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 11 Mar 2010 21:47 | # The death penalty for rape, if memory serves, fell to the states and even in the Coker decision, that abolished death for rape as cruel and unusual punishment, “Burger and Rehnquist dissented, saying that Georgia had the power to impose the death penalty for rape if it wanted to.”
Coker was white. 35
Posted by ben tillman on Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:54 | #
As hard as it is for us to know anything about 9/11, you’ve gone and rejected one of the few things we do know for certain. It was an inside job. We know this because the government’s own story tells us so. (It’s called an admission against interest, which is a generally reliable foundation for knowledge.) The alleged perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks were, by the government’s own admission, foreigners whom the national government had invited inside our gates. If a bank employee leaves the vault open to allow unauthorized parties to enter, that is an inside job. The same goes for 9/11. 36
Posted by Alexander Baron on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 00:43 | # This is my final - and I stress final - response to this thread. Re the Scottsboro Boys, based on what I have seen of “roasting” and some of the appalling brutality meted out to victims of black gang rape - black and white - I find it inconceivable that either of these women were raped. If a group of young blacks had gone through them as claimed they would have been hospitalised, if not murdered. Re the idiot and his claim about an inside job, because the government left the doors open. By the same logic, an old lady who lets a phony council worker into her house who then rapes her is in on an inside job. Get real, muppet. 37
Posted by Captainchaos on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:28 | #
At least criminal negligence then, but not necessarily criminal intent. 38
Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:24 | #
Alex, you can’t seem to think straight. The old lady doesn’t resemble our government at all. She was duped; she didn’t know of the phony council worker’s evil intent. The US government, however, invited the alleged 9/11 perpetrators into the country precisely because they were hostile to the American people. As a matter of logic, my point stands. But you don’t do logic. You just do tantrums. 39
Posted by Wandrin on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:48 | #
1) If you’re living in a town in Europe where muslims are the majority and a war broke out then that war will be fought with machetes and will be over in a few days and nights. You don’t need a high IQ to use a machete. muslims wouldn’t be any kind of threat if they were in their own lands and tried to attack us. They are an existential threat to us because jews opened the gates and let them inside the defences. 2) muslim arabs, north africans, pakistanis etc are the primary miscegenation threat in Europe because of numbers.
40
Posted by Desmond Jones on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 08:41 | #
And yet there is evidence they were raped.
“Normally, the pelvic area becomes congested with blood when a person becomes sexually aroused. This congestion goes away quickly after orgasm. If there is no orgasm, the congestion takes much longer to resolve.” Sexual arousal and orgasm in subjects who experience forced or non-consensual sexual stimulation – a review
41
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:12 | # nder the proper rules of war, specifically, the ununiformed combatants should rightfully have been executed on the battlefield, as were members of the German Trojan Horse Brigade during WWII. WWII, and the destruction of Nazism, is regarded as the greatest moral victory of Western European civilization. Is their MO not Moral enough for you Baron? Indeed, while like most of us I abhor the Patriot Acts and the bulk of what’s been done in the name of the War on Terra (God forbid they secure the borders?), I don’t get all weepy about Gitmo or how non-citizen Terra suspects are being handled. Being shot in the field and kicked into a shallow grave is what partisans, insurgents, Terrists and the like expect, and it’s what they’ve often gotten during wartime, all perfectly legal. Want to be treated like a citizen? Don’t fight wars. Want to be treated like a soldier? Join an army and wear a uniform. Sure, that’s harsh, but non-conventional forces have up sides all their own, too. 42
Posted by Svigor on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:22 | #
The death penalty for rape is way out of whack, IMO. Rape is not rape is not rape, yet people who argue for the death penalty for rape seem to argue just that. You know, a he said she said story where she got buyer’s remorse and doesn’t have a bruise on her is the same as a woman beaten and raped by a gang of thugs, all are deserving of the death penalty. But if you get right down to it, the damage done by rape per se is, pregnancy aside, entirely psychological. If someone cuts off my arm, if I forget about it, I’m still less an arm. Rape, per se, leaves no damage if one cannot remember the act. For this, someone deserves to die? Personally I think rape is somewhere below (serious) assault and battery in terms of severity. A man left in traction for months after a beating deserves more restitution than a woman who has been the victim of (simple) rape. Brutal rapes are different, obviously, but is a woman lying in a hospital bed after a brutal rape really all that much more a victim than a man lying in a hospital bed after a brutal beating? 43
Posted by Desmond Jones on Mon, 29 Mar 2010 04:47 | #
“Patrick O. Kennedy, a man from suburban New Orleans, Louisiana, was sentenced to death after being convicted of raping his eight-year-old stepdaughter. The rape was uncommonly brutal: it tore the victim’s perineum “from her vaginal opening [ ] to her anal opening. [It] tore her vagina on the interior such that it separated partially from her cervix and allowed her rectum to protrude into her vagina. Invasive emergency surgery was required to repair these injuries.”[1]. “ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Louisiana#cite_note-0 44
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 31 Mar 2010 22:42 | # http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/per+se Or is the physical damage done to the girl in your example, or the incest, immaterial (which is your implied argument)? 45
Posted by Desmond Jones on Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:08 | # The argument is, rightly or wrongly, that the Coker decision removes the potential to use the death penalty in this instance. The majority opinion in Coker, apparently, was “Although it may be accompanied by another crime, rape by definition does not include the death of or even the serious injury to another person” and therefore the death penalty cannot be applied. A century ago, if the court had made this decision in Louisiana, this bastard would’ve been lynched. 46
Posted by CAH on Tue, 04 May 2010 11:41 | # How fortunate for the people of The State of Texas that we could not care less about the opinions of foreigners when it comes to applying our laws to crimes committed on our soil. Rest assured that justice will be served when the murderer is executed. Now that the US Supreme Court has refused to hear the case, the execution cannot be stopped. The governer can only grant clemency if it is recommended by a majority of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, and they have not given that recommendation. So she will die, and far more cleanly than her victim did, which is more than she deserves. If you don’t believe in the Death Penalty, don’t murder in a Death Penalty state. Murder people in your own spineless, girly country. Your idea of punishment probably means not being allowed “biscuits” with your tea. No wonder the aliens are taking over your country. Enjoy sharia when they impose it on you, ladies. 47
Posted by Anti- Capital Punishment on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 23:44 | # I read with dismay the huge catalogue of inuendoes by Alexander Baron who depicted Linda Carty, currently being held in Texas jail on Death Row since 2002, as a calculated, cold blooded murder. Has he not taken note of the facts in this hurrendous case? Apparently this has been overlooked. It has been proved time and time again that Linda is innocent of this crime and has only been convicted by third party statements, which are clearly not credible and the incompetence of the lawyer who was hired to defend her in the first place. I have been following this case in detail and have made up my own mind about it. In my opinion, Alexander does not have the right to discredit the supporters of Linda Carty. Who is he to tell people how to think or feel? He needs to “walk a mile in Linda’s shoes” and I am sure he would soon change his tune. If there were not organisations like Reprieve and Amnesty International, the plights of innocent people held against their will would not be highlighted and beamed all around the world, to educate people on cases of miscarriages of justice and how inhuman Capital Punishment is. I am not a supporter of Capital Punishment. I do not believe that man has the right to deal out these types of punishments only God has the right to make judgements. It is evident throughout his summing up , Alexander is a avid supporter of Capital Punishment by whatever means necessary. I am praying that Linda Carty is aquitted and her innocence is proved before it is too late. Not only will Texas have the blood of an innocent woman on their hands and those who doubted her testimony, but it will also be on Alexander Baron’s hands too. 48
Posted by Anti-Capital Punishments on Mon, 07 Jun 2010 23:57 | # To CAH, ( Re: Your comments). I find the last sentence of your statement in particular, both sexist and offensive. What gives you the right to condemn Linda Carty because she is a woman and you are clearly a man with a biased opinion? There should be equality in this world and then perhaps it would be a better place. The comments made by you causes division within the human race. It is also mindless opinions like yours which causes hatred and condemns innocent people to face intolerable heartache and being accused of crimes that they clearly did not commit. Get off your high horse and live in the real world! 49
Posted by Tom on Wed, 09 Jun 2010 15:12 | # Carty is a calculated cold blooded murderer. She has never been found innocent. She’s guilty as hell. She should be getting an execution date soon and she will be executed - probably this fall. And no you haven’t followed this case in detail. You’ve only read what the abolish movement fed you. Call me less than unimpressed. It’s sickening how you moo over this evil woman. 50
Posted by Hilary on Sat, 12 Jun 2010 23:56 | # CAH - I am from a “spineless, girly” country which does not have the death penalty. It was abolished in the UK following a series of proven miscarriages of justice. In one instance a 19-year old mentally handicapped youth was hanged for a murder which was carried out while he was under arrest. The actual perpetrator was 16 and, as such, was too young to receive the death penalty. The jury recommended mercy but the 19-year-old, Derek Bentley, was executed anyway. 51
Posted by Alexander Baron on Tue, 15 Jun 2010 21:42 | # This is a response to Anti-Capital Punishment who accuses me of using innuendo against Linda Carty. Fact: Carty was convicted by a jury of her peers. This means something. In fact, the appeal judgments are extremely detailed. Carty was convicted primarily on the testimony of three of her co-defendants; this sort of testimony is often regarded as unreliable, so safeguards are built into it. But there were plenty of other witnesses besides. Much of her appeal concerns trying to score technical points. She failed, and ias stated there were plenty of other witnesses in this case. And the little matter of her car being used for the crime, and the victim being a close neighbour. And the baby!!!! There is clear evidence that if Carty’s associates had been as ruthless as her, three people would have been dead rather than one. For that reason they deserve mercy, she does not. They were interested only in financial gain, and ruthless though they were, they were not prepared to kill for it. You claim I should walk a mile in Carty’s shoes then I would soon change my tune. That ain’t ever gonna happen, because notorious person that I am, I have never and will never kidnap a four day old baby and stuff its mother in the boot of a car with a plastic bag over her head. I am NOT an avid supporter of capital punishment, but you and people like you are a menace spreading wanton lies as you do. One, possibly two of Carty’s supporters got me kicked off Facebook because I was exposing their lies, and it took me over a month to get my account restored. The best thing Reprieve can do is dump this perfidious, lying, murderous bitch and concentrate on people who deserve their support, like the Gitmo detainees. And the best thing you can do is read the appeal judgments rather than the pap Carty and Reprieve have been serving up to you. 52
Posted by Alexander Baron on Wed, 16 Jun 2010 01:38 | # A few questions for all honest supporters of convicted murderess Linda Carty: In a 2009 interview with David Rose, Carty claimed to have become a DEA snitch because a man she was dating was - unknown to her knowledge - a drug dealer. The appeal judgment gives a very different explanation. In 1992, posing as an FBI agent, Carty stole a car - she hired it in a false name and didn’t return it - theft. Which of the above do you suppose is correct? Carty claims to have given birth after being raped in a Houston car park in 1989; the baby was adopted. Is there any evidence that Carty reported an allegation of rape? Do you not think that given the guilt Carty felt about giving up her baby for adoption - something that affects many women who give up their babies for adoption - this may provide a credible motive for the sick, twisted crime she incited and planned? Usually, young women who become besotted with murderers choose male serial killers such as Ted Bundy - who actually had groupies attend his trial. The Yorkshire Ripper still receives fan mail to this day, and one sick bitch actually married serial killer Richard Ramirez. What do you think is the fascination of some young women with Carty? Is it her cuddly granny image that has been manufactured by Reprieve, or could there be a totally different reason? To see what a real injustice looks like, visit http://www.ismichaelstoneguilty.info/ Post a comment:
Next entry: My latest teleology
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) Patriotic Alternative given the black spot by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:14. (View) On Spengler and the inevitable by Guessedworker on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 17:33. (View) Twilight for the gods of complacency? by Guessedworker on Tuesday, 02 January 2024 10:22. (View) — NEWS — Moscow’s Bataclan by Guessedworker on Friday, 22 March 2024 22:22. (View) Soren Renner Is Dead by James Bowery on Thursday, 21 March 2024 13:50. (View) Collett sets the record straight by Guessedworker on Thursday, 14 March 2024 17:41. (View) CommentsThorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 15:19. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:53. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 22:36. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Wed, 24 Apr 2024 14:20. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Tue, 23 Apr 2024 04:24. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 22:54. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:12. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 14:44. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 12:34. (View) weremight commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Mon, 22 Apr 2024 06:42. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:27. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 23:01. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:52. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 22:23. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 20:07. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 19:39. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 17:38. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:20. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 15:01. (View) Anon commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 13:31. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 12:52. (View) James Marr commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 09:21. (View) Al Ross commented in entry 'Soren Renner Is Dead' on Sun, 21 Apr 2024 05:25. (View) |
Posted by ben tillman on Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:52 | #
It’s pretty clear that her lawyer did not do her job, but that doesn’t make her innocent. I wish I had the time to read the Fifth Circuit’s opinion. Thanks for posting this; I had not heard about it.