Kudos to Mark Krikorian and the Center for Immigration Studies for doing this. I wish them all success. If I can ever find a lawyer willing to do it, which has proven so far to be harder than I thought it would be, I will sue the SPLC myself. Their “hate group” designation for me and Jihad Watch is as defamatory as it is for the CIS, and has resulted in donations to Jihad Watch not being accepted by MasterCard and Visa, and in my being dropped from Patreon and GoFundMe. It has also resulted in my being shadowbanned on Twitter and Facebook, and routinely vilified in the establishment media. The idea that opposing jihad mass murder and Sharia oppression of women, non-Muslims and others is “hate” is absurd, and the fact that so many people take it for granted is testimony to the deep pockets of the SPLC and the power of propaganda. I’ll challenge them on it legally as soon as I possibly can, although of course the SPLC and I are in a race: will they get me completely deplatformed and completely silenced before I am able to challenge their smears in court? We shall see.
“Southern Poverty Law Center Slapped with Racketeering Suit Over ‘False Hate Group Designation,’” by Matt Naham, Law & Crime, January 16, 2019:
The Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has filed a lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), claiming that SPLC operators Richard Cohen and Heidi Beirich have violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) by “falsely designating CIS as a hate group.”
CIS describes itself as “an independent, non-partisan, non-profit, research organization” that “pursue[s[ a single mission – providing immigration policymakers, the academic community, news media, and concerned citizens with reliable information about the social, economic, environmental, security, and fiscal consequences of legal and illegal immigration into the United States.”
The SPLC, on the other hand, describes itself on its website as “dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy, the SPLC works toward the day when the ideals of equal justice and equal opportunity will be a reality.”
If you go to the SPLC website, the CIS mission is presented as being the “go-to think tank for the anti-immigrant movement” and racism:
The Center for Immigration Studies, like the rest of the organized anti-immigrant movement we see in America today, was founded by John Tanton, a Michigan ophthalmologist turned population control alarmist whose racist beliefs stirred him to create a network of organizations with a simple agenda: heavily restricting the immigration levels to the United States in order to maintain a white majority. As Tanton himself wrote in 1993, “I’ve come to the point of view that for European-American society and culture to persist requires a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.”
“CIS’s much-touted tagline is ‘low immigration, pro-immigrant,’ but the organization has a decades-long history of circulating racist writers, while also associating with white nationalists,” SPLC continues.
Now CIS has responded to SPLC’s statements by filing a lawsuit.
CIS executive director Mark Krikorian said that SPLC has no right to “label us a hate group.”
“SPLC and its leaders have every right to oppose our work on immigration, but they do not have the right to label us a hate group and suggest we are racists,” Krikorian said. “The Center for Immigration Studies is fighting back against the SPLC smear campaign and its attempt to stifle debate through intimidation and name-calling.”
Krikorian et al. allege that SPLC damaged CIS by a “conspiracy to falsely call it a hate group.” The damages listed included termination from the AmazonSmile Program, which CIS said occurred because of SPLC’s “hate group designation.” CIS says that has cost the organization “at least $10,000 in donations to date and damages are ongoing.”
CIS argued that “Hatewatch” blog posts violated the wire fraud statute.…
somehistory says
Mr. David Horowiitz at FrontPage Mag also says it is time to fight back against the lies that the splc is daily spreading to the detriment of those who speak truth, and those who wish to know the truth.
Hopefully, the splc will find out that RICO laws apply to them and be stopped from continuing to lie.
Barbara says
How about suing SPLC for defamation?
mortimer says
Gratuitous, unfounded slander and innuendo are no replacement for proven facts. The whole trend of basing law on ‘HURT FEELINGS’ is entirely SUJECTIVE and impossible to prove.
Maybe I am only PRETENDING to have ‘HURT FEELINGS’. Maybe I just wish to SILENCE PEOPLE with opinions that I don’t share.
I believe this is EXACTLY what SPLC is doing… their REAL MOTIVE is to silence others.
Saleem Smith says
Hello Frank Anderson, I am intentionally skipping the Q here at Jihad Watch to say my piece. I do not know Robert Spencer personally. That being said, in my opinion, your lawyer/Masons comment below is filled with a lot of legal “Mumbo jumbo” and grandstanding.
If you are a real lawyer who understands the magnitude of “the Islamic issue” before us, you should put all monetary concerns aside and contact Spencer immediately to offer your services.
Now to speak in my own words: How can Muslims successfully reform a religion so rotten to the core? Islam is Mohammedanism. The whole religion of Islam is based entirely upon the word of one man. Yes, the whole religion of Islam is based on the word of one depraved, psychotic individual.
If you want some insight from a real ex-Muslim, I would say that the majority of Muslims consider the Quran to be the perfect words of God and Muhammad to be the example to follow and that this amounts to many, many bad things…
Qur’an: 033:021: ‘Ye have indeed in the Messenger of Allah a beautiful pattern (of conduct) for any one whose hope is in Allah and the Final Day, and who engages much in the Praise of Allah’
Here is a recent statement from a group of Bangladeshi apostates living in the UK explaining the reasons why they have abandoned Islam:
“One who claims to be a messenger of God is expected to live a saintly life. He must not be given to lust, he must not be a sexual pervert, and he must not be a rapist, a highway robber, a war criminal, a mass murderer or an assassin. One who claims to be a messenger of God must have a superior character. He must stand above the vices of the people of his time. Yet Muhammad’s life is that of a gangster godfather. He raided merchant caravans, looted innocent people, massacred entire male populations and enslaved the women and children. He raped the women captured in war after killing their husbands and told his followers that it is okay to have sex with their captives (Qur’an 33:50). He assassinated those who criticized him and executed them when he came to power and became de facto despot of Arabia. Muhammad was bereft of human compassion. He was an obsessed man with his dreams of grandiosity and could not forgive those who stood in his way…
The statement continues,
Muhammad was a narcissist, like Hitler, Saddam or Stalin. He was astute and knew how to manipulate people, but his emotional intelligence was less evolved than that of a 6-year-old child. He simply could not feel the pain of others. He brutally massacred thousands of innocent people and pillaged their wealth. His ambitions were big and as a narcissist he honestly believed he is entitled to do as he pleased and commit all sorts of crimes and his evil deeds are justified.”
Frank Anderson says
Mr. Smith, I AM, not was, were or used to be, a licensed attorney in 2 states. In order to earn and keep those licenses, I had to first obtain a Bachelor’s degree, which took 5 years because it was in engineering with 3 quarters spent in the co-op program. Then I worked 5 years to pay off college and save about a third of what was needed to go to law school for 3 years, graduating in the middle of my class. I passed the “character and fitness” examination and was allowed to take the bar examination which is a closed book 3 day test in each of the states where I am licensed. I passed both on the first try.
At this time, after 38 years of being licensed, I am retired. I was forced to retire because of health limitations. Before any lawyer takes a case he must “self certify” that he is competent to handle the issues and in condition to finish the case. There are many more fit lawyers than I to handle a case that would be extremely stressful against a totally unscrupulous opponent for a decade or more.
Charging into a legal war where every dirty trick will be used to defeat a client’s case, claim and interest without full analysis and appreciation of the many obstacles to success is a betrayal of the lawyer’s duties to his client. Not only must those obstacles be known, preparations MUST be made to deal with ALL of them or the lawyer is defrauding his client. I have fought and beaten many lawyers who screwed their clients by such idiotic betrayals of duty.
What you dismiss as legal mumbo-jumbo, I have learned the hard way in my own war and other wars I have fought for clients. Law school, at the Doctoral level, bar examinations and intense practice teach things that are just barely touched on television.
THE BEST WAY TO END THE PROBLEM IS TO FINANCIALLY SUPPORT THE PLAINTIFF WHO IS ALREADY IN THE FIGHT. ADDING MORE NAMES GIVES THE DEFENDANTS MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO DELAY, WEAR OUT AND BANKRUPT THE PLAINTIFF(S).
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
Rufolino says
+1
gravenimage says
Saleem, Frank Anderson is a respected poster here–as are you.
Saleem Smith says
Hello again Frank, thanks for all of your valuable comments and your clarification. I regret that I did not read your comments more thoroughly and make a better comment myself. Cheers and have a great weekend
Frank Anderson says
Mr. Smith, I am at peace with one bar and war with the other. I write every comment with the assumption it will be reviewed by every lawyer who reads here and reported if I go beyond the rules.
There are, in my opinion, SIX kinds/varieties/classes of lawyers. Groups 1, 2 and 3 are lawyers who are in active practice, inactive or retired. Those lawyers have a duty to alert non-lawyers to their rights and duties. When inactive or retired lawyers perform that duty, they must immediately refer the person being counselled to a currently licensed and practicing attorney. In view of the dangerous legal advice flowing on this topic, someone is needed to temper the conversation with reality and experience.
Groups 4 and 5 are lawyers who are suspended or disbarred from practice, who are prohibited from any action involving giving advice or practicing law in any form whatever.
Group 6 are people who have never had a license to practice in any jurisdiction and whose sole claim to fame may be what they see on television or learn in some abbreviated class like “business law” that leads them to think they are qualified to give legal advice. They are in fact practicing law without a license which is a crime in many US jurisdictions.
I worked hard to earn my licenses, and fought with every resource I had to keep them after one bar tried to take them away for OBEYING its rules. I WON at the cost of the total destruction of my life in every detail except life itself and my licenses. I have PAID dearly to learn what I write. There is no sense in others paying to learn what I have already found out.
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
Dave says
A British Muslim, Maajid Nawaz sued SPLC for slander/defamation of character, and got over £1 million.
gravenimage says
Also true, Dave.
Brian hoff says
The UK have different laws than we do.
J D S says
The SPLC is antiquated and just needs to gather its baggage and fade away….Maybe they served a purpose way back when but today they just seem to be getting in the way.
Mark Swan says
If America could be brought-up-to-speed on what these professional panhandlers
are doing—how much their scam has raked-in on fabricated malicious nonsense—
then let this SPLC try to find a sympathetic ear—donor or juror.
It is a political ploy—applying conjecture and innuendo, with callousness—
purposed to affect emotional opinion on the general public, with malice and intent,
to commit a knowingly unjustifiable act, that will result in cause of harm to another.
Here is just one example of the SPLC carelessly besmirching a good Man’s Name.
https://onenewsnow.com/features/2015/02/13/splc-on-ben-carson-we-hated-him-before-we-didnt
Martin says
Good News! Hopefully the lawyers at CIS will put the fear of consequences into the SPLC. It’ll be tough because the SPLC has hundreds of millions of dollars in which to hire the best law talent that money can buy. But when truth is on your side your case should be a whole lot easier to win. Justice is supposed to be blind and supposedly unable to be bought – but we all know what happened with OJ Simpson.
Barbara says
TRUTH always prevails
freedom says
Unfortunately Barbara
That once true dictum is becoming increasingly irrelevant in this Post Truth World.
A World where opinions take precedent over any form of truth in many forums.
gravenimage says
Grimly, this is often the case, freedom.
Barbara says
Hi Robert, could you join with CIS and any others who’ve been affected by SPLC? Thanks soooo much for bringing us TRUTH and fighting the good fight.
There is Petition your readers might be interested in: “Sharia Law is Incompatible with Human Rights” here is the link:
https://eclj.org/religious-autonomy/coe/la-charia-est-incompatible-avec-les-droits-de-lhomme?lng=en
It finishes on 22nd January 2019
gravenimage says
Yes, Barbara–I was wondering if several groups–including Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch–could get together and bring a class-action suit against defamation by the SPLC.
mortimer says
A joint lawsuit is the way to go. All of those slandered by SPLC has a common enemy. They must not get away with slandering those with other opinions than their own.
Frank Anderson says
GI and Mortimer, I am being quiet for the most part for personal reasons. I interject on this subject to share what I heard in 1983 at a meeting of corporate defense lawyers that still explains why you are in error hoping for a mob suit. The only time a large number of supporters is a good idea is when they combine their money and resources not their names in a suit. The probability that the money and resources could be employed more beneficially should not be ignored. How much money are we willing to commit for the next 10 years or so to see what can be done, whether or not victory is obtained?
Imagine the defense taking the deposition of each plaintiff, every one of them, for several days each. If you have a hundred plaintiffs, the depositions would kill a year, and hundreds of thousands of dollars for the transcripts, and millions for legal fees. Then image a barrage of interrogatories and requests for admissions to each plaintiff, and the time and cost of responding. The simple defense goal in that situation is to bankrupt the plaintiffs before they ever get started. The defense usually gets to go first on discovery, particularly on deposing the plaintiffs.
Immediately following obtaining my licenses (2 states) I represented as a junior participant 12 corporate entities in 2 mass law suits, with each side having over a thousand entities listed. As both sides were more or less evenly exposed to this tactic, it did not happen. But when many plaintiffs sue 1 or a few defendants, with a complete concert of defense interest in bankrupting the plaintiffs and denying the plaintiffs their day in court, this tactic will work, and has worked in the past. It is a standing plan to defend certain corporate entities from actions by their owners to remove those managers and directors who act for personal interest instead of performing their fiduciary duty to the corporations.
I have also conducted a personal litigation war (because no other choice was available) that lasted about 15 years. It exposed corruption and incompetence, and consumed every resource I could muster. Unlike this campaign, I had no other option. “Let’s You and Him fight while I sit by and cheer” is still a pitiful suggestion to ruin, not success. It was only after nearly 10 years that some other lawyers finally came to my aid and supported the successes such as they were in my war.
In any suit for damages, the plaintiff must be able to prove damages in numbers, not just outrage. How much MONEY has Robert Spencer and JW lost because of the actions of any defendant? The lawyers who have been mentioned in previous articles are among the best and most reputable lawyers in the United States. Their reputations for excellence are earned, and their advice worthy of highest respect. If they recommend against suits, the advice should be considered carefully before being rejected.
Our host has better and more productive things to do than to be mired in a lawsuit which will consume every resource and all the time he can give for an uncertain result. I certainly support Robert Spencer, David Horowitz, and all the contributors and commenters who make JW the unique source of information that it is.
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
gravenimage says
Frank, thanks for sharing your expertise here.
And I have missed your posts–hope you are well.
A belated Happy New Year to you!
Frank Anderson says
GI, thank you. This is not the time or subject for me to blow smoke. If you know any Masons, ask them about the lessons of the square and compasses. They are not secret, and have great application to this discussion. You always have my highest regard and best wishes.
christianblood says
Frank Anderson
+1
Brian hoff says
The might not apply in this case other people try useing in nonorginize crime case the court dismiss it ourright.
Dave says
A British Muslim, Maajid Nawaz sued SPLC for slander/defamation of character, and got over £1 million.
Frank Anderson says
Dave, SPLC almost certainly has insurance to cover the claim it lost and all expenses of its defense. If you read the articles published at the time, the award in US Dollars appears to be the limits of the malpractice and general liability policies covering the law firm.
There might be a deductible or co-insurance. But it almost certainly gained financially by the free publicity of the law suit by massively increased contributions.
Remember the Uncle Remus story about the Tar Baby. SPLC has the support of many people with access to BILLIONS they can contribute to continue its activities.
How much can be raised by its opponents? The millions of dollars that would be required to fund a lawsuit, which may or may not even obtain a favorable verdict, would also probably be better spent doing what infuriates SPLC and its supporters.
All the money in the world cannot buy, for example, our honored host Robert Spencer, an additional minute of time to do the work he could not do while embroiled in a life-or-death law suit. The possibility of a “nominal” (ONE DOLLAR) award for all the work and time required for the war must not be ignored. I have had that happen in one of my cases.
You might do some searching on the malpractice insurance plan that covers many Alabama attorneys, Attorneys Insurance Mutual.
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing lawyer in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
mortimer says
Leftists and globalists have officially become closed-minded, morally supremacist, and smugly satisfied that they are INFALLIBLE in all their opinions.
The right has meekly born with it for years, but it is now time for the right to push back and challenge the SELF-DECLARED INFALLIBILTY of LEFTIST who are acting more like CENSORING FASCISTS every day.
Westman says
The central problem and error of the SPLC and the MSM media is they have forgotten the role of informing and have moved on to influence and prescribing action. They cannot be trusted for their concerns are now, after the destruction of print media by the Web, political power and the money that flows with it – that is, to be one of the survivors. Eventually, there may be little difference between the NYT, WaPo, and the National Enquirer.
Raja says
The idea that opposing jihad mas murder and Sharia oppression of women, non-Muslims and others is “hate” is absurd,..
These words of Robert Spencer needs to reach out to everyone especially those in power.
This deliberately coined absurd idea/propaganda must be fought tooth and nail.
gravenimage says
+1
Max Serrano says
Southern poverty law defines hate as any attempt to prevent open borders. Their ultimate intention is to transform the US into a lawless third world country, which is the dream of every socialist.
Max Serrano says
The ultimate purpose of the splc is to obliterate all free speech that doesn’t agree with the socialist dogma.
gravenimage says
Center for Immigration Studies sues Southern Poverty Law Center over false “hate group” designation
……………………..
*Good for them*.
eduardo odraude says
New film coming on January 25: Jihadists. Censored in France. But has received rave reviews from many quarters. Here’s a trailer:
http://cinemalibrestudio.com/jihadists/
My guess is you’ll probably be able to rent or buy this film online soon. But it will be showing at venues in NYC and LA on Jan 25.
gravenimage says
Thank you, Eduardo.
eduardo odraude says
Brilliant free film documentary about the attempt to kill freedom of speech in the US:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2604&v=qT8-HkS0B88
GROO the Wonderer says
thanks for the link eduardo odraude…
Frederick King says
SPLC seems to be an anti white hate group in many ways. Everything is ” You’re racist!!” Sick of it. Facts speak loudly.
christianblood says
Frederick King
+1
David Grisez says
One of the big problems with the Southern Poverty Law Center is that they are seen in the United States as the authoritative source on Hate Groups. Who in the world gave this group such authority and power in the United States to declare groups and individuals as hate groups? The United States government and various organizations need to stop giving the SPLC such authority and stop following its recommendations and designations. This SPLC is just another very biased organization that is trying to push its own agenda.
gamalpha says
Mr. Spencer, maybe you can join the law suit. Then you don’t have to hire a lawyer.
Andrew Clarke says
I’ve been told that for quite a time before World War 2 the Nazis had a lot of control over influential people, or at least the backing of the influential people, and opposition Hitler’s expansion and conquests was restricted by that. It took a lot of time and damage, but eventually National Socialism was thrown down. Communism had many people fooled and had powerful advocates, but the Soviet Union collapsed eventually. Nations once under communist control have now become free, such as Poland. I sincerely hope that the international racket trying to stigmatize Israel, spread antisemitism and undermine Western freedom, will meet its Waterloo soon.
gravenimage says
+1
Frank Anderson says
What is the objective? To collect damages for one’s own pocket or to stop SPLC? If stopping SPLC is the goal it doesn’t matter whose name is on the suit as plaintiff. It only matters that the plaintiff wins. In order for the plaintiff to win, money, large sums of money, is required to fund the suit as long as it lasts. With a single plaintiff, the opportunities for discovery abuse and endless games are reduced.
I hope more legal theories are being claimed in addition to civil RICO. After I did my research proposing civil RICO to attack corrupt employers for destroying witness/informants, “whistleblowers”. a case was decided that private civil RICO was not available on those facts, and to the “private” non-governmental plaintiff. It could happen that the RICO claim could be dismissed before an answer is filed to the complaint by using a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim for which Relief can be Granted. Reversing the previous decision that limits civil RICO complicates the suit, which plays into the hands of the defendants. Take a look at the case decided before my research allowing private civil RICO, Sedima v. Imrex, decided by the US Supreme Court, and follow it through cites in later cases to find the limitations of civil RICO remedies to private plaintiffs.
ALL who support the plaintiffs would do far better to open their checkbooks, make a pledge and send as much as possible on a monthly basis instead of making the suit much harder and less likely to achieve the desired result. “Too many cooks will spoil the soup”; and will most likely give the defendant another reason to crow and collect more money to continue its lies.
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
gravenimage says
Thanks again, Frank.
WPM says
The trouble is the “new communist” and one world elite have linked up to try to use Jihadists to achieve their goal. Instead of using violent Jihad their put their money ,people, support behind MSM print , TV on line , to get people like Rep. Ilan Omar to get elected to places of power , to label people like Robert Spencer as a “racist blogger” by SPLC. They can do more damage undermine freedom ,by legal Jihad, press propaganda ,Jihad cheer leading ,using political muscle to cower people, make them lose their jobs, hurt them financially ,harass them publicly, shout them down in debate ,remove the availability to have a platform to inform the general public. Trashing tradition western culture ,holding Islamic behavior to no standard ,because magical it is non-white even though Islam is not a race, or even define to a signal cultural, country ,region , language or race of people. Islam is a lot like communism a failed political system that bring about mass murder, local cultural death , all power to the few people on top running government when it gains power .
christianblood says
WPM
(…The trouble is the “new communist” and one world elite have linked up to try to use Jihadists to achieve their goal. Instead of using violent Jihad their put their money ,people, support behind MSM print , TV on line , to get people like Rep. Ilan Omar to get elected to places of power , to label people like Robert Spencer as a “racist blogger” by SPLC…)
Well-said! Like the neocons, SPLC is on the soft side of Trotskyite resurgence that is gripping America!
gravenimage says
christianblood has no actual problem with Communism, though. He has lauded the Soviet Union for considering the free West their enemy.
obbop says
The SPLC is evil, in my opinion. Patriots desiring a sovereign USA not constantly invaded by foreign nationals are labeled as “haters” by the non-profit SPLC that does pay its operatives excellent wages with assuredly the finest benefit and retirement packages imaginable.
A Web search reveals a multitude of people, many of high repute, lambasting the SPLC. Some day, hopefully, the scam will be fully revealed and an accounting be made.
Jay says
SPLC is a low-grade “hatchet job” outfit, a batch of profiteering opportunists scamming the bleeding-heart know-nothings of the Left.
Lydia Church says
“Logic” according to the SPLC (slander, propaganda, & lies center)
hate…. good
hating hate…. bad
loving hate… good
love…. bad
loving love… bad
hating love…. good
(where love is defined according to God’s standard, watching out for the safety of your neighbor, etc.)
Ashley says
If I can ever find a lawyer willing to do it, which has proven so far to be harder than I thought it would be, I will sue the SPLC myself.
______________________
I have a hard time believing that you can not retain an attorney, Robert. You have been demeaned, slandered, maligned, belittled, and falsely accused as a monster by the SPLC. You have the proof, the evidence. I’m no Frank Anderson but I have to believe there is an attorney on this human plane willing to champion for the character assassination bestowed upon you by the SPLC.
There’s more than one way to skin a rabbit, my friend. You are a prolific, gifted and engaging writer, Robert. How about penning a piece about this very matter…
I’ll say it again…if I thought you were inciting “hate” I wouldn’t be on this forum.
You have been wronged, Robert.
FIGHT BACK!
gravenimage says
Robert Spencer does indeed have an attorney, and a very good one–but it sounds as though he understandably does not want to become embroiled in an extended fight against the SPLC.
Of course, the SPLC is counting on this.
MJP says
SPLC & CAIR need to be designated as domestic Terrorist Groups & dealt with accordingly