Tyler O'Neil

@Tyler2ONeil

·

2h

Yet the field sources used the SPLC's $ to:

1⃣Attend extremist rallies

2⃣Host rallies

3⃣Grow existing chapters

4⃣Create new chapters

5⃣Recruit individuals

6⃣Donate to extremist leaders

7⃣Purchase cross-burning material

8⃣Create racist paraphernalia

9⃣Pay living expenses

===

and lots more

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5870834&forum_id=2.#49913132)

i read how banking law works and it seems that there is a nearly 100% chance that the SPLC intentionally filled out lots of banking forms falsely, knowing the forms get fed into the federal legal system. those violations routinely send people to jail. what will a Georgia jury do with the case?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5870834&forum_id=2.#49913154)

so like i said, we'll have to see what an Alabama jury thinks. but if i were defending SPLC i'd be doing a lot of workshopping with blacks in that district about how they feel about SPLC sponsoring racists. it's a huge issue.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5870834&forum_id=2.#49913580)

https://x.com/Tyler2ONeil/status/2062196063558091092

after seeing this level of detail you have to wonder about J6.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5870834&forum_id=2.#49914677)

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/6017806-splc-vindictive-prosecution-trump-administration/

=====

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

This dispute concerns the Government’s—specifically, the United States Attorney

for the Middle District of Alabama’s—decision to indict the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The parties present diametrically opposed accounts of that decision. The SPLC contends

that it is being vindictively prosecuted at the behest of various political actors—including

the President of the United States—for engaging in speech protected under the First

Amendment. (See doc. 49-1 at 6, 26–38). To remedy this alleged constitutional wrong, the

SPLC moves for dismissal of the indictment or, in the alternative, discovery into the

Government’s prosecutorial motives. (Id. at 38–44). The Government opposes the SPLC’s

motion in its entirety, asserting that “this indictment was secured based on the law and the

facts uncovered during a federal investigation.” (Doc. 68 at 2). The parties’ briefing is, like

much of our modern political discourse, heavy on heated rhetoric, better suited for cable

news, or a podcast. It emphasizes noise over substance.

After filtering out the noise, the Court is left to decide only whether the

Government’s decision to prosecute the SPLC was constitutionally impermissible. On this

record, the SPLC is not entitled to discovery or dismissal of the indictment. The SPLC has

2

failed to offer some evidence tending to show animus on the part of the prosecutors

involved in bringing this case and that such animus resulted in the prosecution, the showing

required for discovery. Because it cannot satisfy that standard, it necessarily fails to satisfy

the higher standard that would entitle it to dismissal of the indictment. Accordingly, the

SPLC’s motion is due to be denied.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5870834&forum_id=2.#50053269)

there is no doubt that SPLC knowingly made false filings to banks. lots of them.

we'll see.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5870834&forum_id=2.#50053434)