Wednesday, May 13, 2015

Breaking News!!! Charges Against Robert Ransdell Dismissed!

A Victory For Our Side, My Trespassing Charge Is Dismissed!!

Wanted to pass on some good news to all WN out there, the criminal charge against me that resulted from my demonstrating against the MLK holiday and Black incivility in general is as of this morning dismissed by the court here.

For those not familiar with the matter here is a SF thread which references the incident.

I have not been updating you all on the case as things have progressed, this was to adhere to the advice of a fellow who I would now consider a very good friend, this person is a well respected and well-liked member of this website and his assistance throughout this process was beyond invaluable and appreciated by yours truly. Hands down it was the most assistance and goodwill that I have been in receipt of since becoming active in this fight 10 years ago and it will never be forgotten by me. That says a lot, I had a lot of help and camaraderie come my way recently from many people in response to my Senate campaign but I must say the hours upon hours put in on my behalf by this gentleman toward my case was really beyond anything I have ever been lucky enough to have received.

I should be on with my good friend that helped me in this matter by way of Internet radio some time in the near future, there the case will be explained in more detail. I will let him announce who he is when he chooses to. For now I will leave this account so you all get an update.

There was a hearing last Friday, May 8th, that had to do with my having made a motion to dismiss, this motion was filed by me back during the February court date in the case, this was before I gained the assistance of my legal friend here on SF. It was stated then that the motion would be heard at the original trial date which was back in March. They postponed that trial date in order to allow more time for the prosecution to respond to it, I was then to be given an opportunity to respond to their response and that would lead up to this Friday's hearing.

The prosecutor basically recognized that I had been arrested where I had the legal right to be present in the city building on the day of the Martin Luther King program, so they proceeded in their response to my motion to dismiss to claim that my speech was not protected by the 1st Amendment because in their opinion it was to be classified as "fighting words".

They actually made mention of the riots and unrest in Ferguson Missouri and other parts of the country in their response, they tried to argue that the police were within their rights because of their supposed belief that one guy there standing peaceably with a sign would cause a similar disruption in public order.

Aside from the obvious double standard and hypocrisy when compared with current events (Blacks demonstrating in dozens of places without any attempt to thwart their expression, even when violent and illegal, even when directly referring to their intention to not be peaceable "no justice, no peace") this legal stance by the prosecutor was, as a matter of law, not applicable to my case, my case did not achieve the legal standard where the "fighting words" exception to the 1st Amendment could be applied. This legal standard had been established in a couple of Supreme Court cases which were cited by me in response to their response, of course with the help of my legal friend.

For one thing, at the time of my arrest there was no one even present besides myself and the police. Their decision to preemptively move to remove me from the venue, due to their making the prediction that some violence would ensue from my being there was expressly rejected in a Supreme Court case that was cited by my lawyer friend who came to my assistance, this was in a 15-page response to the prosecutions response to my motion that he helped me with. 

So comes the decision on the motion this past Friday. At this hearing the judge does in fact concede that I had the legal right to be present in the city building as it was an event that was held as open to the public. However he goes on to claim that since this was a gathering for the public to honor a "civil rights hero" that my sign which read "Marchin Lootin Killin Day" was recognized by him as "fighting words" and not to be granted protection under the 1st Amendment. The motion to dismiss was denied by the judge.

The judge spoke as if there was a law or ordinance that required that all citizens recognize King as a "civil rights hero", as if it was illegal to have a negative view of King. Truly ridiculous!

Funny thing was that the police upon my arrest never mentioned one word about my signs, they ordered me to leave and when I stood on my right to be present at the event they simply stated that it was a "city-owned building" and that I had to leave. My guess is that the prosecutor had to move to save them and in doing so attempted to get this "fighting words" garbage to stick.

At the March hearing it was stated that the jury trial in my case, if the motion to dismiss was denied, would take place May 13th, that being today. Well after denying my motion it is then said that my trial date was subject to being bumped back yet again, for a second time, due to a scheduling conflict. As I was looking forward to going to trial, and was well prepared thanks to my lawyer friend aiding in a number of essential items for the trial, this was probably more disappointing than the motion being denied, I wanted to get on with this thing, we were sure that if we did not win at trial we would have a conviction overturned on appeal as the prosecutions stance that my actions and signs were "fighting words" and were anything beyond political speech really was absurd.

So I get a call on Monday from the court confirming that the court date was once again moved, worse yet they on this occasion did not even provide me with another court date for my trial, they just said they "would get back with me".

Evaluating the situation I decided to contact the prosecutor's office to see if it would be possible to resolve this out of court as I was not wanting to endure what could well have been months more waiting for a trial, perhaps with one or more cancelled trial dates along the way. It was very frustrating to prepare and be ready for trial, twice, and then have them up and decide not to have my trial on the date it was set.

I called the prosecutor and offered, in exchange for a complete dismissal of the charge against me, to forego my ability to sue the city or police involved for arresting me as well as my agreeing to not show up again there at that one event ever again, the King program at the city building in Florence. After consulting with the head attorney there in the office I was a little surprised to hear back with their accepting those terms. Today I made this agreement official with an appearance in court.

Before agreeing to the terms I first checked with my SF lawyer friend to make certain he would agree that it was the best decision to make, after all the work he has put in on the case I was not going to make the decision to go forward without his approval, which he later gave.

Turns out, due to the facts in the case not being in dispute, as far as this not being a case where the basic who, what, when, where, etc had any dispute by either party the case may well not have even went to a jury for a verdict, even though I had requested a jury trial. Since the judge had made this decision to claim my speech was "fighting words", I may not even have had the chance to present a case at trial, where I was pretty certain in the beginning a jury would side with me and free speech. It was possible the prosecutor could have made a motion for directed verdict after presenting their case and I would then have a judge who had already ruled on the "fighting words" exemption to the 1st Amendment more than likely finding me guilty on his own without a jury being involved. 

Now this decision would have likely been overturned on appeal but that process would have been something where more time and effort would have been expended, these sorts of things tend to consume you and I thought it was best to turn my attention forward and get on with my work for this struggle and with my life. I also was acting as my own attorney while in court and no matter how much aid my legal friend helped me with there was still the chance of a misstep by me that would have tanked my efforts to appeal any conviction.

While there was the opportunity should I have prevailed at trial to sue the city and police for violation of my right to peaceable protest, it really is a toss-up as to whether one can win in civil court and how much they can expect to win as a result. Sometimes even when a violation is determined to have occurred there is a relatively small amount of compensation that is awarded to the victim, especially when our side is the party who has their rights violated. The fact that I was not beat up by the police, the fact that I did not spend days or weeks in jail as a result (I was booked and released) would probably have lead to little to no punitive compensation. Then even if I was able to win a sizable judgment, that can then be appealed where a single judge, perhaps one who disagreed with my views, could erase that judgment.

As for the agreement to not show up again at the King program, I wondered afterward if I even needed to make that promise to have received a dismissal, maybe they would have just been willing to dismiss the case had I simply agreed to forego any right to sue. However I saw it as a small and token concession on my part, if I choose to do so in the future there are many other events and such where I can again attempt to exercise my rights on the date of that holiday.

Again the main factor in my decision was the inability and/or unwillingness of the court to get on with it already, lol, these courts seem to have delay and pushing dates back on a default setting or something, really gets on the nerves of someone like me who makes it a point to honor deadlines and keep to a schedule.

I am now able to walk away with the case being dismissed and both myself and my SF lawyer friend see that as just as good as an acquittal really, my friends we have managed to win a victory here, they were not able to attain a conviction and I walk away with no consequence. no fines, no criminal record, we got a dismissal. 

I wanted to thank all my supporters on SF and elsewhere. There was another Stormfront member from the northeast (he should know who he is) who gave me some legal advice in the beginning stages of this ordeal, I thank him very much for that. Also wanted to send a thank you out to Andrew Anglin at DS for publicizing my case on his site.

As I mentioned I will at some time in the future, probably sooner than later, be on a radio program with my lawyer friend where we will discuss the case further. I also will be on with Kyle Hunt on Sunday May 31st on Renegade Broadcasting where we will discuss the case as well as my plans for the future.

I am not planning on slowing down or limiting myself in the future as a result of this entire ordeal having taken place. I have during this case limited my public activity, again at the advice of my legal friend, but I more than ever before see the time to act as now, with everything that is going on in this society at the present the last thing we need to be is timid or on our heels, I know I won't be at least, not one bit. 

I am looking forward to getting on with the work that needs to be done to advance our side in this fight, and the best thing about it is I get to do that coming off a victory in this case.

Tally one in the win column for us, the good guys!

1 comment:

  1. Kudos, congratulations... to White Nationalist Robert Ransdell for his "victory" over the powers of political correctness that for almost half a century have turned logic and reason on their heads and roiled the waters of socio-political discourse. The psychological poison that is political correctness has infected every formerly sound Western society on Earth during this time...America included. The debilitating results of this toxin have manifested themselves in every institution that once made the Western world...especially America...the great nations they once were. Among the various institutions that have been defiled by the pathology of political that of "law" enforcement. The illegal, unconstitutional arrest of Ransdell in Florence, Ky. by Florence Police Chief John McDermond and his minions is a stark...and troubling...example of this fact. In too many municipalities throughout America, once the world renowned bastion of freedom in an unfree world...freedom of speech and of assembly are no longer respected by America's "law" enforcement entities. This, despite the fact that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution explicitly guaranties these " unalienable" rights. The trespass charge against Ransdell by the obviously ignorant Chief of Police of Florence, Ky., John McDermond, was dismissed via a plea bargain that stipulated that the charge against the White Rights activist would be dismissed if Ransdell agreed not to file a federal civil rights law suit against the city that had so egregiously violated his constitutionally protected civil rights. This is a disappointment. In this writer's opinion, Ransdell should have persisted in his original intention, i.e., that of a trial by a jury of his peers, a right codified in the Seventh Amendment contained in the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. Americans, so this amendment says, have a RIGHT to peacefully protest against the government...THEIR government...for a redress of grievances. Average Americans have in recent years become increasingly restive against...increasingly suspicious of...their federal government...a government that, by supposed to serve and protect them, secure their rights...not abuse them and their God-given rights. Yes, the wrongful charge against Ransdell filed by an idiot cop was ultimately dismissed, but the fact will forever remain that the charge should never have been filed in the first place. America's Constitution is, in fact, her constitution, and her Bill of Rights is, in fact, her Bill of Rights. And Ransdell's false arrest was, in fact, a false, unconstitutional arrest, in which case it never had any semblance of legal or moral standing. With all due respect to Ransdell, then, his self-proclaimed victory was not a victory at all but, rather, a loss, a retreat. Ransdell gained nothing from his deal with the devil because he had not done anything wrong via his one-man protest. In essence, Ransdell allowed his illegal arrest to stand and the malefactors go unpunished. Is this a victory??