VDARE gives Letitia James too much credit for having agency. SHE didn't decide to punish VDARE. She'd never even heard of it. James, like most of the other underqualified blacks installed in these roles by having the offices purchased for them, takes her orders from organized Jewry. It was on their behalf that she launched unjustifiable lawfare against Trump (back when the leftst Marxist Jews were rabidly against him), and also on VDARE. She neither instigated it, nor had any role in strategizing it or waging it. She's a puppet. In America, ALL negro power is merely a front for Jew power.
You are correct. But she is so easily replaced by some other sock puppet. It's fun to get a win against a stooge but one should also focus on the actual power holders.
"We fought James’ flagrantly excessive subpoena demands because we wanted to protect the identities of our writers (and donors), which we had every reason to believe she would leak. I still find it incredible that no judge has recognized the obvious First Amendment issue. (2) James was able to inflict the $1 million-plus “investigation” costs that forced us to suspend even before actually suing us."
The 1958 SCOTUS decision of NAACP v. Alabama set the precedent that it would be unconstitional for the State of Alabama to force the NAACP to divulge its membership list as threatening the 1st Amendment right to assembly, on the concept that divuling their names would potentially subject them to harassment or worse, discouraging their political associations, and having a chilling effect on political speech. I don't know if VDARE's attorneys cited this precedent but even if they did, it does NOT surprise me that a judge would ignore it, and order VDARE to comply with James's demand for production. Judges ignore the law and even well-known SCOTUS decisions all the time when it's a matter of advancing their own personal political beliefs. Why? BECAUSE THEY CAN. Judges pay no price for such malfeasance. The worst that happens to them is the decision is later overturned on appeal, if the defendant can even afford to pursue an appeal. It costs such judges no money, nothing in reputation, no penalty. And especially in these circumstances, such an overturn would be moot. That judge and James will already have what they wanted, production of the names.
It is a possibility, but the anti weaponization fund may help: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-anti-weaponization-fund
VDARE gives Letitia James too much credit for having agency. SHE didn't decide to punish VDARE. She'd never even heard of it. James, like most of the other underqualified blacks installed in these roles by having the offices purchased for them, takes her orders from organized Jewry. It was on their behalf that she launched unjustifiable lawfare against Trump (back when the leftst Marxist Jews were rabidly against him), and also on VDARE. She neither instigated it, nor had any role in strategizing it or waging it. She's a puppet. In America, ALL negro power is merely a front for Jew power.
That may be so but she had to be willing to front for this atrocity. She is culpable.
You are correct. But she is so easily replaced by some other sock puppet. It's fun to get a win against a stooge but one should also focus on the actual power holders.
"We fought James’ flagrantly excessive subpoena demands because we wanted to protect the identities of our writers (and donors), which we had every reason to believe she would leak. I still find it incredible that no judge has recognized the obvious First Amendment issue. (2) James was able to inflict the $1 million-plus “investigation” costs that forced us to suspend even before actually suing us."
The 1958 SCOTUS decision of NAACP v. Alabama set the precedent that it would be unconstitional for the State of Alabama to force the NAACP to divulge its membership list as threatening the 1st Amendment right to assembly, on the concept that divuling their names would potentially subject them to harassment or worse, discouraging their political associations, and having a chilling effect on political speech. I don't know if VDARE's attorneys cited this precedent but even if they did, it does NOT surprise me that a judge would ignore it, and order VDARE to comply with James's demand for production. Judges ignore the law and even well-known SCOTUS decisions all the time when it's a matter of advancing their own personal political beliefs. Why? BECAUSE THEY CAN. Judges pay no price for such malfeasance. The worst that happens to them is the decision is later overturned on appeal, if the defendant can even afford to pursue an appeal. It costs such judges no money, nothing in reputation, no penalty. And especially in these circumstances, such an overturn would be moot. That judge and James will already have what they wanted, production of the names.
Our attorneys did cite NAACP decision, yes. Judge ignored it.
Sorry to hear that, but as I said in my comment, not the least surprised the judge indulged his personal political whims and ignored that precedent.