Written 10/25/14 by Brian Wilson- NARRG Legal Liaison
The Second Court hearing of Sanders Pierce et.al. vs. Erich Gliebe et.al. was held on October 24, 2014, with this writer being present. The results of this hearing continued a string of legal successes by the National Alliance Reform and Restoration Group (NARRG) since its initial lawsuit filed on January 2, 2014. NARRG will continue to press on for legal justice to be served, and thus will continue on with the lawsuit until final victory has been obtained.
Attendance of others at this hearing included Erich Gliebe, Jayne Cartwright, and Will Williams. These three, along with an opposition multicultural organization, all sat on the same side of the Courtroom setting similar to a church wedding ceremony where the bride and groom’s families sit on opposite sides of the main aisle. Myself and NARRG’s attorney sat on the opposite side of the Courtroom. It should also be noted that after the hearing was over, the three previous mentioned individuals (Gliebe, Cartwright, Williams) and the opposition group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) engaged in lengthy congenial conversations, and also left the Courthouse in unison as a single group afterwards.
A question was raised at the Court hearing on the purpose and function of the National Alliance (NA). The aforementioned multicultural organization that was present at the hearing also reported on this but with of course an obvious slanted bias. On another matter, Mr. Gliebe at this hearing mentioned a biased interpretation of the original incorporation papers of the NA in protest to the Court’s continued recognition of NARRG’s legal standing in the lawsuit which had been settled at the First Court hearing on April 16, 2014. To set both the opposition group and Mr. Gliebe straight, I will repeat the applicable portion of the Incorporation Papers regarding the purpose of the NA.
The original Incorporation Papers of the National Alliance state:
“Among the purposes for which the corporation is organized are the establishment of lines of communication with Americans of all ages; the development in those with whom communication is established of an understanding of and a pride in their racial and cultural heritage and an awareness of the present dangers to that heritage; and the unification of those with such understanding, pride, and awareness into an effective force for building a new order in American life.”
The picture shown immediately below for this article succinctly describes the NA true purpose, contrary to what many opposition forces and negative detractors may falsely claim about the NA.
At the hearing three motions (two by the defendant Gliebe, and one by the plaintiff NARRG) were heard, with the Court resolving and finalizing a verdict on all three that was favorable to NARRG’s continuing on with the lawsuit.
- The first was a motion by the defendants (Gliebe) for a protection order, which would prevent NARRG from receiving any documents as evidence or requiring the defendants to give oral depositions. This motion was denied by the Court. By this action the plaintiffs (NARRG) can continue to compel discovery both of the defendants AND the Corporation, regardless of whoever may be in charge.
- The second was a motion by the defendants requesting a continuation of the request for documents, which if successful would have continued the delay in the production of documents and continued the ongoing delay in the oral depositions. This motion was also denied by the Court. By this action the plaintiffs can likewise continue to compel discovery of both the defendants and the Corporation.
- The third and final motion was that of the plaintiffs (NARRG) requesting a motion to compel discovery. The need for this was the defendants (and Corporation) continuing delay in complying with the discovery and subpoena of documents request. The Court ruled in NARRG’s favor by ordering the defendants (and Corporation) to comply with both the production of documents and depositions. Failure by the defendants (and Corporation) to comply with this court order will result in the strong arm of the court to be exercised.
Thus ALL discovery avenues (submission of documents, oral depositions, etc.) will be moving to a rapid conclusion in the near future.
The defendants brought up the issue of the legal standing of the plaintiffs again, with the Court reaffirming the original ruling during the First Hearing, thus enabling the lawsuit to continue on towards trial. In addition the Court reminded the defendants of the First Hearing’s Court Injunction against the defendants that they are not to encumber any assets of the NA and NA related entities. It was noted that documents are an asset of the corporation and they are not to be destroyed, and are to remain available, etc..
It was mentioned during the hearing that one of the defendants Ryan Maziarka (who did not appear at the hearing) has officially resigned from all NA positions as of July 27, 2014 except for the corporation registered agent in Virginia. During the hearing Gliebe announced to the Judge that he has resigned from all NA positions, and has appointed a new (unnamed) chairman.
Whether Gliebe has resigned from other affiliated NA entities was not announced and yet remains to be seen. It is further noted that as of October 25, 2014, this purported change in command at the NA has not yet been recorded with the Virginia State Corporation Commission. A further update article may be posted if and once more information is obtained.
One last comment on a recent development also reported in the multicultural organization’s article alluded to earlier in my initial report. This article goes out of its way in declaring the purported end of Gliebe’s reign over the NA and to the verbal announcement after the hearing was over of the NA new chairman, a Mr. Will Williams. Mr. Will Williams resigned from and rejoined the NA twice during Dr. William Pierce’s tenure, and has not been associated with the NA in any sort of matter for over a decade or more. Why Mr. Gliebe would pick someone who left the NA purportedly because of Mr. Gliebe assuming the position of NA Chairman back in 2002 leaves one with wonderment? NARRG has previously covered Mr. Will Williams and his group earlier this year and reserves comment at this time on this development. It should be noted though that Mr. Williams after the hearing made a concentrated effort to reach out to NARRG in an effort to stop NARRG’s lawsuit against both Gliebe et. al. and the NA Corporation. It should be emphatically stated that NARRG will continue to press on for legal justice to be served, and thus will continue on with the lawsuit until final victory has been obtained. Again, this issue may be covered in a future posting.
One brief analysis though will be stated here. By the appearance of unanimity of both Gliebe, Williams, and the SPLC (who was present at the hearing and had discussions with both the defendants and the newly declared NA Chairman afterwards), one wonders what to make of this camaraderie that to an outside observer may have questioned whether this was all pre planned in a cooperative effort? Again, more analysis may be forthcoming on this apparently uniting of supposedly three different opposition forces that previously had the appearance of divergent goals and incongruent objectives.
On a final note, the gentleman from the SPLC gave me his business card (image shown below) when I asked him whether he was Mr. Gliebe’s new attorney after the hearing was over. By his appearance at and separate reporting of this hearing, one may conclude that the SPLC and potentially other opposition forces are now visibly displaying a keen interest in the final outcome of NARRG’s lawsuit.