Glen Keith Allen “claims that the SPLC, Beirich, and Potok caused intentional harm to his career and profited from his loss, defamed him, and aided and abetted Dilloway’s breach of contract.”
The SPLC, Beirich and Potok have certainly caused intentional harm to my career, profited from my loss, defamed me, and caused Patreon, GoFundMe and others to drop me. I am still hoping to find a lawyer who will help me sue the SPLC myself. Their “hate group” designation for me and Jihad Watch is as defamatory as it is for Glen Keith Allen and other SPLC targets. It 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 altogether silenced before I am able to challenge their smears in court? We shall see.
“SPLC Hires High-Powered Defamation Lawyer to Defend Tax-Exempt Status in RICO Lawsuit,” by Tyler O’Neil, PJ Media, February 1, 2019:
On Thursday evening, Baltimore attorney Glen Keith Allen, who is suing the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) for racketeering, wire fraud, defamation, and other claims, told PJ Media that the SPLC has hired a high-powered attorney to defend them in the case. Among other things, Allen’s suit demands a court judgment against the SPLC’s 501c3 tax-exempt status, which could seriously cripple the organization.
“The SPLC Defendants have engaged Chad Bowman of Ballard Spahr, a large and well-regarded D.C. law firm, as their counsel,” Allen told PJ Media in an email statement. He also said that he has formally “served” the SPLC, Heidi Beirich, and Mark Potok and that they have acknowledged and received the service. In other words, it’s on.
Ballard Spahr is a Philadelphia-based law firm with more than 650 lawyers nationwide. It was founded in 1885 and is highly respected in the legal field.
Chad R. Bowman is a Washington, D.C. counselor and litigator who focuses on working with new media and legacy media organizations, as well as other nonprofit and for-profits engaged in speech and public advocacy. Before joining Ballard Spahr, Bowman worked as a reporter at The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. (BNA). He has represented media clients in cases involving defamation, privacy, copyright, subpoena, access, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and other First Amendment issues.
Bowman defended the Associated Press against a libel claim from Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska, defended Gawker against a defamation claim from former Major League Baseball pitcher Mitch “Wild Thing” Williams, defended The New Yorker against a defamation claim from Canadian art authenticator Paul Biro, and defended CBS Interactive against a defamation claim from Hall of Fame basketball player Scottie Pippen.
The SPLC’s decision to hire an attorney with such a high profile, rather than looking to their own internal counsel, suggests a real fear that Allen’s lawsuit has teeth and may prevail….
Glen Keith Allen’s lawsuit (which can be found on his website) brings no fewer than 9 counts against the SPLC, mostly involving an article that branded the Baltimore lawyer as a “Neo-Nazi lawyer.” The article referenced documents that were allegedly stolen from the white nationalist group the National Alliance (NA) and for which the SPLC allegedly paid.
According to the lawsuit, the SPLC’s receipt of stolen documents and the payment for them violated not only the law but also the canons of legal ethics in Alabama, where both Beirich and Potok are registered as lawyers. The SPLC is a 501c3 public interest law firm, so its involvement in this activity disqualifies its tax-exempt status.
The SPLC should also lose its tax-exempt status for mail and wire fraud, false statements on its tax forms, and campaigns of destruction and defamation against its perceived enemies, the lawsuit claims.
Allen notes that the SPLC and its Intelligence Project publish “hate maps” and “hate groups,” artificially inflating the tallies by listing multiple chapters of an organization as separate “hate groups” and by using a malleable definition of “hate group” in order to “completely destroy these groups.”
The SPLC defines “hate group” expansively, listing mainstream conservative and Christian groups like Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and the Family Research Council (FRC) along with the Ku Klux Klan. Yet it constantly emphasizes the link between “hate groups” and violence. On the top of its 2016 “hate map,” it states, “Hate and antigovernment extremist groups continue to operate at alarming levels in the U.S. — fomenting racist violence, seeking to poison our democracy, and, in some instances, plotting domestic terrorist attacks.”
“It is, accordingly, false — and outrageous — for the SPLC to smear as ‘hate groups’ conservative Christian groups that on no fair and objective interpretation could so properly be stigmatized,” Allen writes in the lawsuit.
He references falsely attacked groups like the Ruth Institute, D. James Kennedy Ministries, and Maajid Nawaz. The SPLC paid $3.375 million to settle a defamation lawsuit involving Nawaz, a Muslim reformer the SPLC branded an “anti-Islamic extremist.” This settlement encouraged about 60 organizations to consider separate defamation lawsuits.
Allen also argues that the SPLC violated the IRS’s requirement that 501c3 tax-exempt organizations refrain from participating in “any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office.” Between October 2015 and November 2016, the smear group slammed Republican (and only Republican) candidates for president. Yet in its 2017 Form 990, the SPLC claimed under penalties of perjury that it did not engage in political campaign activities.
For these and other reasons, the SPLC should lose its tax-exempt status, the suit claims. Allen’s suit also demands $1.5 million from the group under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. The SPLC and its Intelligence Project allegedly collaborated to engage in illegal activity affecting interstate commerce and damaging Allen specifically.
Allen also claims that the SPLC, Beirich, and Potok caused intentional harm to his career and profited from his loss, defamed him, and aided and abetted Dilloway’s breach of contract. In yet another count against the defendants, the lawsuit claims the SPLC negligently trained and supervised Beirich and Potok. In addition to the compensatory damages of $1.5 million, the suit demands punitive damages of $5 million.
While defamation cases are notoriously hard to win, the SPLC is uniquely vulnerable to them, thanks to public statements revealing the group’s motive in smearing mainstream organizations as “hate groups” — to “completely destroy them.”…
Read the rest here.
gravenimage says
SPLC feeling the heat, hires top defamation lawyer to defend its tax-exempt status in RICO lawsuit
……………..
Glad to see the SPLC is finally being held accountable. Even if the lawsuit does not succeed, the SPLC will hopefully be less apt to slander good people in the future.
Frank Anderson says
GI, if the lawsuit DOES NOT succeed, the plaintiff and plaintiff’s attorneys could be forced to pay not only their own expenses, fees, and court costs, but also the defendants’. This is where a highly skilled and reputable representation, supported by significant funding might make a difference. If you can’t afford to lose, the case should not be filed. This is where supporting the existing case(s) makes more sense than trying to start a new one.
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
Captain says
Not likely as long as the filing is in good faith. In most States and the American Rule loser does not pay other party’s attorney fees unless a statute provided fees or the suit itself is without any factual or legal substance.
Frank Anderson says
Captain, your lack of knowledge of the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, which are adapted closely from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is obvious. The “general” rule in the US that everyone pays their own fees is (like most rules) loaded with exceptions. particularly when a statute overrides the general rule, but also when a timely filed Motion for Security for Costs is granted, or when an Offer of Judgment is presented.
If you have been to law school and passed at least ONE bar exam, you should have some acquaintance with these maneuvers. As I wrote earlier, one of my law school professors, who in particular taught the law school course I attended on Alabama Civil Procedure, is considered a major participant in the adaptation.
Lawyers, particularly successful ones, play as absolutely ruthless and dirty as they can get away with. All the bar pontifications about courtesy and civility are for show. Until you have tried at least ONE defamation case in Alabama, you might consider consulting an attorney who has. I have tried several in the company of some distinguished and qualified lawyers any of us could ask for.. The cases are generally both dry and black holes as far as monetary results are concerned..
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
J D S says
The SPLC Has long outlived its usefulness..They don’t need lawyers they just need to vanish into oblivion.
Bill says
Finding a lawyer to take on SPLC will not be easy. First, you need a lawyer and a firm with the legal and support resources to take on litigation against any deep pocket opponent. The cost of the litigation is staggering, especially given the about of specialized expertise it takes to understand and effectively conduct discovery in the digital age.
Sure there are a lot firms with the right resources, but the trick is to find one that is not already conflicted. When one recognizes that the drivers of the Islamic invasion of the west are mostly global businesses, financial institutions, nations, and NGOs controlled or sponsored by them (and their affiliates and subsidiaries), all with a significant presence in the USA, finding a firm that does not already represent at least one client who has ties to the SPLC or supports its work, is very difficult.
While the lawsuit may be against SPLC, it will drag along through discovery or through additional malefactors, the very institutions that are working with, providing financial or other support, or are influenced by SPLC and are damaging conservative writers, researchers and media. It takes only one conflict with even the tiniest subsidiary of one to block the new representation.
If you can even get past the conflicts barrier, the law firm has to consider its own risk, and the risk to its personnel, of being defamed or physically threatened. Just look at what happened to the lawyer representing the Covington students.
mortimer says
Bill, surely there are a number of counterjihad lawyers who can figure out how to sue and win. The stakes for Western civilization are so significant.
Frank Anderson says
Mortimer, I spent about 2 years on a defamation suit and won ONE dollar. I had a witness who attended a meeting where the defendant slandered the plaintiff on a tape recording which was produced and authenticated at trial: No factual or legal question existed. My client was slandered and reputation damaged by the defendant, Major life altering opportunities were lost directly because of the defendant’s defamatory actions. The specific slander was so egregious that under Alabama law, damages are presumed, and punitive damages allowed. But the court awarded the plaintiff ONE DOLLAR. My suit supported THREE others against the same person for similar abuses. None of them won enough to pay the court costs. That is what happens when several lawyers have motivation and money to fight regardless of profit. Lessons were learned on both sides.
Winning a suit can be a hollow victory. Losing a suit can lead to devastating cost and fee bills upon the plaintiff to pay for the defendant. Look at the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure for Motions for Security for Costs, and Offers of Judgment. Generally, unless some provision in the plaintiff’s home state “long-arm” statute is unbelievably generous, any suit is likely to wind up in SPLC’s home state and county, Montgomery, Montgomery County, Alabama. Out of state, even out-of-town, lawyers will expect and receive “home cooking” where most of the well-known plaintiff lawyers, and many of the judges, are DEMOCRATS and most likely active supporters of SPLC. Why do you think SPLC is there?
Try to find an Alabama plaintiff’s lawyer, usually members of the Alabama Trial Lawyers’ Association, that is a Republican. It’s not easy. I’ve been asking and looking around for weeks with no luck whatever. Like my reference of Uncle Remus and the Tar Baby, SPLC loves the publicity and donations that would flow like the Amazon River from it being sued.
There are completely lawful ways to fight without suing and stopping the work that needs to be done. What could be done other than suing with the money (tens of millions of dollars) and time (decades) that would be consumed with a suit? How much more could be accomplished within the law by focusing on the real work of the supporters of JW and our hosts? “Living WELL is the BEST REVENGE!”
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
gravenimage says
I know that slander cases are some of the most difficult to win, even where there is ample proof. And–as you note–even when you do win the case it can be impossible to collect on.
Frank Anderson says
Honored GI,
The potential civil claims against defendants in this matter include (but, lawyer gibberish, are not limited to):
1. Defamation-Libel (written) and Slander (spoken)
2. Conspiracy-An agreement of two or more persons for an unlawful purpose or to use unlawful means for a lawful purpose and any overt act by any of the defendants in furtherance of the goals.
3. Conversion-Refusing to deliver money or property belonging to another as ordered by the true owner.
4. Tortious Interference with Contractual Relations-Impeding the flow of contributions to a lawful activity.
5. Civil RICO-Two or more violations of “predicate acts” listed in the statute causing actual, measurable, provable injury, such as mail fraud (18 USC 1341), wire fraud (18 USC 1343), Hobbs Act Conspiracy to interfere with Interstate Commerce (18 USC 1951).
Think of the months of research, briefs and arguments that could lead to weeks of depositions of a single plaintiff and supporting witnesses, and the reams and reams of paper for the interrogatories, requests for production of documents and requests for admissions. Think how that burden would explode exponentially with multiple plaintiffs. Even if multiple plaintiffs file individual suits, they could likely be consolidated into one by the courts for “judicial economy and consistency of results” without regard to magnifying the cost of litigation for the plaintiffs.
Think of the devastating question on damages that would certainly be asked, and answer demanded, by the defendants: So what if ???? refuses to pass contributions to you? You still have other avenues, such as the United States Post Office to issue and transmit contributions as money orders without these private companies being involved. All you are losing is the convenience of their business service. How much is that convenience worth? How much have you lost because of the defendants’ actions? Are not the defendants losing money by refusing to handle your contributions?
The first week in law school, Obviously in Alabama, we were taught to sue everybody in sight for every claim that could be supported by arguments that would not give rise to sanctions. That is where the WORK STARTS. SPLC has been doing this for more or less 60 years. They are good at it which is why they have practically unlimited resources.
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
gravenimage says
Thanks for that additional information, Frank. And yes–the SPLC has been at this for decades now.
Bill says
There probably are, but it just isn’t as easy as it looks to secure one is my only point.
You’d think for that sure some hungry litigator would leap at the chance to take a bite out of some big player. A litigator’s ego is as big as all outdoors.
These layers upon layers of interests driving the intentionally created global chaos we are witnessing, much of it being so well documented, observed and discussed here, is hard to penetrate. The interests causing the chaos are well financed, driven, and are used to buying up lawyers like so many sacks of potatoes. Heck, they will hire great law firms, to sit them on the bench for all practical purposes, just so that the other side can’t hire them.
The defamation, damage, and even physical danger suffered by Mr. Spencer, Pamela Geller and others would test the patience of Job.
Frank Anderson says
Bill, Respected Robert Spencer’s lack of finding counsel speaks for itself. Lawyers who work for a living, have office rent, staff salaries, alimony and child support, bar dues, taxes, and all the other expenses of practicing law cannot take a massive case for a decade or more of intense litigation like this on a contingent fee where the recovery is doubtful and almost certainly less that required to be spent in the course of fighting the case. I have known “hungry” lawyers who say “All cases, all courts” who have taken clients’ money and done just enough to keep from getting sued for malpractice or disbarred, but never produced a beneficial result for the client.
Job prevailed because he never lost faith. During one of the Biblical periods where many Jews were taken prisoner and held for decades, some fought and died while others bided their time to return to Israel. Unlike ALL the other nations conquered by Rome, Israel FOUGHT Three Wars, and lost in the order of 2 Million Jews without beating the Romans. See, Jews God and History by Rabbi Max Dimont.
Any idiot can take money and fight. It takes someone smarter and more talented to assemble all the necessary resources and skill, select the time and place, and WIN. Futile gestures waste irreplaceable resources and concede strength to the enemy.
Please consult a currently licensed and practicing attorney in your jurisdiction for any legal advice.
lisalles says
I think it is so important to go after these non profits tax exempt statuses when they break even the smallest laws….How do they get away with it? How do these American non profits get away with sponsoring illegal caravans to the United States and not have their non profits taken down? https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/la-familia-latina-unida/
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/pueblo-sin-fronteras/
And how does George Soros open a non profit, put his family in there to direct it and fund criminal activities thru a chain of non profits and not get caught? https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/open-society-foundations/ I dont understand how these non profits are keeping their status when they are breaking federal laws with their activities.
mortimer says
I challenge anyone to find one ‘hateful’ thing that Robert Spencer has said or written. The only time Mr. Spencer has had rough words for someone is when he has caught MONUMENTAL LIARS and TAQIYYA ARTISTS make things up about Islam or making things up about himself (about Robert Spencer).
SLANDERERS are a slippery sort of bully and we need our lawyers to be our champions when bullies try to destroy people because they have views that are different from those of the bully.
We should not need to continually defend the freedom of expression, but GLOBALIST and MUSLIM BILLIONAIRES have teamed up to crush our freedoms and enslave the people of the earth.
Only the law can stop these groundless slanders.
mortimer says
Chad Bowman will be remembered by history as a defender of censorship. Is that how you want to be remembered, Bowman?
Bill says
How anyone is remembered depends on who gets to write the history. That is the fight we are in and as you well said earlier in this thread, the stakes to Western civilization are high.
Westman says
The Southern Poverty Law Center – busily doing absolutely nothing to alleviate southern poverty. Necromancers reading entrails for leftists in exchange for golden eggs.
Shirley says
splc is a sham; what goes around eventually comes around. splc is phony, supports all hate groups against the USA. Jihad Watch is an honorable, truthful publication that tells the TRUTH of what is really going on in our country and the splc supporters do not want that to be known. SHAME ON YOU SPLC. you stink, to put it mildly. you are not honorable in any sense of the imagination. Robert Spencer is a man of truth and honor and splc would not know that since they are not truthful or honorable and never will be. Their motto should be “if you hate America come and see us”. I am very grateful for Robert Spencer and his ability to keep on giving us the truth of the matter which is islam is dead set on destroying our country one way or another and many (democrats especially) support the destruction of our country. Europe is quickly being outperformed by muslims on making babies; very soon EU will not be recognizable if it isn’t already. The same crap will happen here if we do not make known what is really happening. The deep state is full of muslims who hate our country, ie, obama, brennan, and many others. So wake up folks, make yourselves and your determination to not let these sharia minded have any say in anything.
Peter says
SPLC = Socialist Propaganda and Libel Commissariat
Andrew Jackson says
Hey Glen, try calling on the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) for support in suing the ACLU.