Monday, June 8, 2015

Montana Government Officials Hate the 1st Amendment

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

A copy of the legal documents can be read at this link:

Editor's note:The so-called Plaintiff is a Stacy Boman,sounds like a possible Jewess.

She also has ties to the anti-white SPLC:

Enemies of the 1st Amendment: Flathead County Attorneys

Guilty of violating U.S.Code Title 18:Sections 241 and 242 which reads as followed:

§ 241. Conspiracy against rights
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
They shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results, they shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

§ 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law
Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results shall be subject to imprisonment for any term of years or for life.

Editor's note: Please send copies of the U.S.Constitution to their address below. Underline the 1st Amendment and kindly ask them what part do they not understand. You may call them at the number below,but keep your inquiries civil and non-threatening!

920 S. Main Street., Suite 201
Kalispell, MT 59901

Ph  (406) 758-5630
Fax (406) 758-5642
Ed Corrigan
County Attorney:Ed Corrigan

Montana Man Being Prosecuted for Saying Mean Things About Jews and Calling Out Holocaust Lie on the Twitters

Lee Rogers and Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer

June 6, 2015

The plan is in place.
The plan is in place.

The fact of the matter is that free speech doesn’t exist in America.  It might on paper but if you make certain comments about race or call out the Jew Holocaust as a hoax you will be treated like a social outcast.  Often times pressure will come upon employers to fire you from your job simply because you have different political views.
Now we have a man in Montana being prosecuted for saying mean things about Jews and calling out the Jew Holocaust hoax as a lie on the Twitters.  This is why it is important for more and more people to speak out on these issues.  In the end they can’t go after everyone. They don’t have the resources to do it.
Via Volokh Conspiracy, a disturbing criminal case out of Montana, where Flathead County resident David Lenio, 28, is being prosecuted for making disparaging remarks about Jews on Twitter and denying that the Holocaust happened.
Say what? While this sort of prosecution is common in parts of Europe, Americans enjoy the protection of the First Amendment, which contains no exception for what’s colloquially known as “hate speech.” The only permitted exceptions to free speech protections—as the Supreme Court recently re-articulated—are for obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and “speech integral to criminal conduct.”
This is the first prosecution of its kind that I am aware of, but it is clearly the first step in a process of removing our free speech.  It is being framed as “well, it’s only in Montana…” but if states are now allowed to prosecute people for speech, it is only a matter of time before the Federal Government starts trying to do it.

Goyim... it must end.
Goyim… it must end.

Here are some of the Tweets the man wrote:
USA needs a Hitler to rise to power and fix our #economy and i’m about ready to give my life to the cause or just shoot a bunch of #kikes …
I hope someone goes on a massive killing spree in kalispell school because I’m so poor I can’t afford housing and don’t care about your kids.
Now that the holocaust has been proven to be a lie beyond a reasonable doubt, it is now time to hunt the Nazi hunters.
#Copenhagen It’s important to note that jews hate free speech & are known bullsh-ters, could be #falseFlag
Obviously, the vague threats of violence could be construed as… a legitimate threat of violence.  But that isn’t all he’s being prosecuted for.  They are saying that he has committed “group defamation” by calling out the Jews on their stupid hoax.
Though I seriously doubt he will be convicted, or that this will reach the Supreme Court, this shows the serious importance of moving quickly to attack the hoax. America is the only place in the White world where we still have full freedom of speech, and the Jews absolutely hate this fact.  They are now putting serious energy into shutting us down.
We have to outflank them and create as much noise as possible about the hoax in the coming weeks, months and years.  Because I have this sick feeling in my spine that Hillary is going to make it her cause to shut down our speech.

Hell awaits.
Hell awaits.

There is no more room on the sidelines.  It is time to join the game.
Get on it, boys.

U.S. Supreme Court

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Brandenburg v. Ohio
No. 492
Argued February 27, 1969
Decided June 9, 1969
395 U.S. 444

Appellant, a Ku Klux Klan leader, was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism statute for
"advocat[ing] . . . the duty, necessity, or propriety of crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform"
and for
"voluntarily assembl[ing] with any society, group or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."
Neither the indictment nor the trial judge's instructions refined the statute's definition of the crime in terms of mere advocacy not distinguished from incitement to imminent lawless action.
Held: Since the statute, by its words and as applied, purports to punish mere advocacy and to forbid, on pain of criminal punishment, assembly with others merely to advocate the described type of action, it falls within the condemnation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, overruled.

Editors note: The DA's office should be sued for violating this man's Constitutional rights. Where is the ACLU? 

No comments:

Post a Comment