Sarah: Maid of Albion
Pan Atlantic Show trials
-
Written by Sarah Albion
Even though the prosecution in the “hate speech” trial of Dutch Politician Geert Wilders have asked for all charges to be dismissed, the judges have not so far conceded to the request and the case is continuing. In addition the Judges have refused to hear evidence from 15 potential defence witnesses effectively whittling Mr. Wilders’ witness list down to three, from the original 18, while at the same time adding to the witness list against him the Muslims groups which initiated the complaints that led to his arrest.
Tellingly a verdict is expected on November the 5th
It is becoming troublingly clear to any honest observer, that, although the expression Kangaroo Court may not exist in Dutch, the reality most certainly appears to.
Meanwhile, a less publicised but rather similar prosecution is taking place in Austria where another critic of Islam -- Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff, is being prosecuted for "inciting hatred against a religious group" and "defamation of religion" in a lecture in 2009 on the "Islamization of Europe."
Details of the Sabaditsch-Wolff case can be read at the Brussels Journal and there is an interview with her at the Gates of Vienna.
On the other side of the Atlantic, where at least free speech is protected another kangaroo court has just completed a somewhat different show trial, the outcome of which could be even more devastating for its victims than the European ones are likely to be for either Wilders or Ms. Sabaditsch-Wolff.
Early last year I wrote an article entitled “Blood Sacrifice Denied”, in which I reported on the outcome of the trial of two white American teenagers charged with the racially motivated killing of a Mexican illegal immigrant. At the time I expressed the view that the verdict, both boys were acquitted of all charges, including murder and “ethnic intimidation” but convicted of simple assault, sat fairly with the evidence given in court, whilst denying a blood sacrifice to satisfy the various race hate groups and anti white media pundits who had laid siege to the court throughout the trial.
In saying this I had underestimated the vindictiveness and racism of the current US Department of Justice which, despite the jury’s verdict proceeded to bring federal civil rights charges against the two young men.
As a result, last week the race hate groups, such as the Hispanic “La Raza” (The Race) who had stood pumping the air with their fists outside the court, got what they wanted when Derrick Donchak and Brandon Piekarsky were convicted of what the media is predictably choosing to call a “hate crime”.
However, as evidence of the lengths to which the US department of Justice were prepared to go in order to obtain a conviction against Donchak and Piekarsky it should be noted that they have, in fact been convicted under a statute of the Federal Fair Housing act.
The particular statute in question makes it a crime to “use a person’s race, national origin or ethnicity as a basis to interfere, with violence or threats of violence, with a person’s right to live where he chooses to live”
One can only assume that this charge was based on the fact that one of the people involved in the two part brawl which led to Luis Ramerez death, not incidentally one of those convicted, told Ramerez to “go back to Mexico. A statement which, given that Ramerez was an illegal immigrant amounts to little more than advising a law breaker to stop breaking the law. How exactly does telling an illegal immigrant to return to his homeland differ from telling a robber to stop robbing?
This was an outrageous act on the part of the US Department of Justice, who, as you may recall recently dropped a case of illegal voter intimidation against the New Black Panther party, after the case had in fact been won. The DOJ under arch Obama crony Eric Holder have reacted in a manner which would be unthinkable had the races been reversed, as is so often the case, merely to placate left wing activists and illegal alien support groups.
Furthermore, for no other reason than pure visceral racial bias, have chosen to disregard the patent fairness of the original jury’s verdict.
The details of the incident during which Ramerez died, strongly mitigate against the original charge of murder and despite one statement, made by a third party, provide no conclusive evidence of racial bias on the part of either defendant, but, hey why let facts get in the way of a good “hate crime” prosecution?
Although there are some differences in the witness statements, they agree on the following:
* The defendants were part of a group, who had been drinking and who came across 25 year old Ramerez alone in a park with his girlfriend’s 13 year old sister.
* The group asked Ramerez what he was doing and this led to a brawl, during which the “Go back to Mexico" comment was made.
* The brawl ceased and the group of white boys began to walk away leaving Luis Ramerez in a sufficiently fit and uninjured state to make a number of cell phone calls.
* Ramerez then pursued the group of white boys and charged at them thus initiating a further brawl. It was during this second brawl that one of the group of white boys (again, not one of the defendants) punched Ramerez causing him to fall and hit his head on the sidewalk (pavement).
Forensic evidence confirmed that Ramerez’s injuries were consistent with a moving head colliding with a stationary object rather than by a moving object colliding with a stationary head as would have been the case had death resulted from kicks to the head as the prosecution alleged. (a more detailed account can be found in this excellent article )
The defendants were correctly convicted of assault during a drunken brawl, albeit they could have claimed that there was a significant degree of provocation on the part of Luis Ramerez.
However, it is inconceivable that a fair trial, as averse to this flagrant travesty of justice, would find that the evidence as produced in court supported either the charges or indeed the conviction.
Also explained in the report I linked to above, there are also questions as to the basis of the Federal Civil Rights charges which were brought, given that civil rights only apply to American citizens and not to illegal aliens, consequently Ramerez had no civil rights to be violated.
However, irrespective of technicalities, this was clearly a show trial leading to a demonstrably unjust outcome. Despite the contrived nature of this prosecution the boys could face life in prison, and that is certainly the sentence which the racists running the US Department of Justice will be pressing for.
Vast swathes of the American public have been bullied and brainwashed to the point where many may no longer be capable of feeling outrage on behalf of white males involved in conflict with non-whites irrespective of the circumstances.
However, in the highly unlikely event that the case were truthfully and fairly reported it should cause all Americans considerable concern at the degree to which the rights of that nations last remaining unprotected group have been eroded by the forces of progressive hatred.
