The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEric Striker Archive
Federal Appeals Court Upholds Riot Act Conviction of Nationalists While Simultaneously Declaring Law Mostly Unconstitutional to Protect "Antifa"
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia has ruled that the 1968 Anti-Riot Act is partially unconstitutional, yet upheld the convictions of nationalist appellants Michael Miselis and Benjamin Daley.

Miselis and Daley pled guilty to “conspiracy to riot” charges in 2019 after engaging in self-defense against “antifa” attackers at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville on August 12th, 2017. Miselis and Daley were prosecuted using the questionable and rarely used law by former US Attorney Thomas Cullen after a far-left group released a propaganda movie portraying their martial arts club, the Rise Above Movement, as a terrorist organization. Cullen’s case against the men relied heavily on “evidence” he obtained from “antifa” anarchist blogs and heavily editorialized media.

Miselis and Daley pled due to their lack of ability to obtain a fair trial in the court of Judge Norman Moon. The Anti-Riot Act was also used to prosecute Rise Above Movement members in California, but was thrown out as unconstitutional by Judge Carmac Carney and defendants were released.

In the Virginia case, a 46 page opinion authored by Obama appointee Albert Diaz attempts to rewrite the Riot Act by declaring that its “incitement” clause, and elements criminalizing advocacy of violence without imminent threat of lawlessness, are unconstitutional viz-a-viz Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Evidence used to prosecute Miselis and Daley relied on text messages talking about smashing “antifa” in the abstract for example, and this appears to be declared protected speech in Diaz’s view.

Yet in spite of all this, Diaz affirmed the conviction of the two men due to the fact that they pled to the charges. Lawyers who have reviewed the opinion have told National Justice that this looks like little more than a legal innovation for the Appeals Judges to apply the law in a politically selective fashion.

Even more unusual is Diaz’s reliance on polemical articles from the New York Times describing what happened at Charlottesville in his ruling. The New York Times was cited three times in the ruling while the state-commissioned legal investigation into the incident, The Heaphy Report, was not consulted once.

Legal scholars National Justice consulted with have said that its rare for judges to cite anything but legal precedents, and when they do, it’s usually neutral work like the Heaphy Report. The appellate court’s reliance on opinion pieces in the New York Times for fact-finding on Charlottesville makes this decision a farce.

Courts are usually informed by politics and instituting protections for the ongoing riots by anarchists and Black Lives Matter members undoubtedly weighed in on the court’s decision. Attorney General Bill Barr and the Trump administration have been relying heavily on the Anti-Riot Act to prosecute violent “antifa” criminals. Diaz’s decision is deliberately designed to enable anarchist criminals who are actually organizing riots while maliciously neglecting to protect the Constitutional right to peaceful advocacy and self-defense of nationalists.

Diaz’s personal racial prejudices were made obvious in his own description of the race riots in the summer of 1967 that killed 85 people and spurred Congress to pass the Riot Act, which he describes as “…being stirred by issues such as racial injustice…” (pg 8). as well as using quotation marks around the term “white advocate.” (pg 5) Diaz himself is involved in racial advocacy as a founding member of the Mecklenburg County Hispanic Latino Lawyers Bar.

Lawyers for Miselis and Daley plan to appeal this decision all the way up to the Supreme Court.

If SCOTUS chooses to hear the case, this will be an interesting development. Liberal justices will be pressured to protect the left-wing rioters yet at the same time have to juggle with the need to punish “racists” for what they think. The Conservatives on the court, who are traditionally seen as allies of free speech, will be pressured by the Republican Party to uphold the dubious law in order to enable the Trump administration to try and restore order in an election year.

All in all, this decision is a sad day for legal impartiality and the rule of law.

(Republished from National Justice by permission of author or representative)
Of Related Interest
The extreme left and politicized elements of the government are using Charlottesville to crush your rights and solidify...
Hide 10 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Ragno says:

    Yet another case of rule by kritarchy reminding us all for maybe the thousandth time that white men are never going to vote their way back to justice and sanity. Donald Trump will never undo this, and co-President Jared will ensure the subject will be changed – and stay changed.

    Bullets, not ballots.

    • Replies: @Exile
    , @brabantian
  2. Exile says:

    Voting with our feet is still effective. If a determined core of the 200 million or so Whites declare the system illegitimate and simply refuse to participate, America can’t function.

    We’re not at the point where war is necessary – for all that every White should be planning how to defend themselves against state-sanctioned violence.

    A White Strike would be sufficient. Until we reach the level of determination and organization to make that happen, anything more belligerent isn’t realistic anyway.

    I understand the anger and frustration but too many people are using loose talk of “war” and “bullets” as catharsis and fantasy What we need is determined, realistic and responsible action, not lone wolves and small groups buying into a violence narrative the Other Side would love to see us engage in. Don’t reify their memes for them.

    Look to the older European traditions of civil unrest for examples and inspiration. General strikes have been a very effective weapon historically in Europe. If you want to step outside the system, think in terms of getting your White co-workers to simply walk out en masse.

    Every past “Day Without Minority X” just meant better customer service for that day.

    But a Day Without Whites means nothing useful gets done.

    White solidarity and determination is all it takes. We don’t need to be thinking in terms of nihilistic last stands.

    • Replies: @Chris Moore
  3. fnn says:

    From the opinion:

    For their part, the defendants engaged in several skirmishes both during and after the rally, including a clash near the 2nd Street NE entrance to the park in which they “collectively pushed, punched, kicked, choked, head-butted, and otherwise assaulted” a group of counter-protestors, and
    “not in self-defense.” J.A. 231, 236.

    Is this where the “counter-protestors” were blocking the entrance to the park? If so, they were entitled to use force against persons blocking the entrance to the venue where they had a permit to assemble as guaranteed by a federal court. The police refused to get involved. I can’t think of what other “entrance to the park” this might be.

  4. Realist says:

    Federal Appeals Court Upholds Riot Act Conviction of Nationalists While Simultaneously Declaring Law Mostly Unconstitutional to Protect “Antifa”

    Where is Trump’s DOJ???

  5. fnn says:

    Was Gen. Flynn also coerced into coming up with one of these Statements of Offense?

    Before accepting the defendants’ guilty pleas, the district court was required to
    “determine that there [was] a factual basis” for them, Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(3), which it
    did by accepting the defendants’ respective Statements of Offense. In those Statements,
    the defendants stipulated that the substantive offense conduct underlying their respective
    conspiracy convictions consists (beyond such overt acts as traveling to rallies through
    interstate commerce, conducting combat training, and buying supplies) of engaging “in
    violent confrontations,” J.A. 227, which is to say “physical conflict,” J.A. 232, with
    counter-protestors at each of the three rallies discussed above. Specifically, the defendants
    admitted to having each (as part of an assemblage of three or more) “personally committed
    multiple violent acts”—including but not limited to pushing, punching, kicking, choking,
    head-butting, and otherwise assaulting numerous individuals, and none of which “were in
    self-defense”—in Huntington Beach, Berkeley, and Charlottesville. J.A. 231, 236.

    Of course the answer is “yes”:

  6. Chris Moore says: • Website

    White solidarity and determination is all it takes. We don’t need to be thinking in terms of nihilistic last stands.

    ZOG is thinking in terms of last stands, including ZOG Whites.

    Americans should be thinking in terms of standing united against ZOG and its identity politic lickspittle. The world is already standing up to ZOG, which is why it is so desperate to continue carving out a safe space in the U.S.

    ZOG is on the ropes, not White people. It’s trying to put White people on the ropes to save itself. Golem like “judge” Diaz are merely ZOG’s willing executioners.

    • Agree: Exile
  7. @Ragno

    Maybe the ultimate case that exposed US federal and Supreme Court judges as devious satanic gangsters, was the 1992-93 case of US Navy and Vietnam veteran Leonel Torres Herrera, where the Supreme Court actually declared that being innocent of the crime, does not give you any right to not be put to death under the US Constitution!

    So these black-robed judicial liars, pretend that they are finding in the Constitution all these alleged ‘rights’ to LGBT advancement, abortion and all sorts of other stuff … but they can’t find any right not to be killed when you are innocent

    Herrera was convicted in Texas of cop murder, but after the trial witnesses came forward with testimony that another man had actually confessed to the killing. However, Texas law said any grounds for appeal – even proof that you are innocent – are inadmissible if presented more than 30 days after the trial.

    The Supreme Court agreed, said to go ahead and kill an innocent man, and Texas’ satanic death-loving female governor, Ann Richards, went ahead and ordered Herrera’s lethal injection. Even one of the dissenting Supreme Court justices, said in effect that the judiciary had degenerated into being a gang of murderers.

    One of the consulting sages to the European Commission staff members these days, is a Polish-USA dual citizen who once worked for the US Justice Department, and became an exile in Europe after US federal judges apparently joined in threatening to murder him. They even sent harassing e-mails to him from USA courthouses. He wrote a ‘FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) on USA Judicial and Legal Corruption‘ outlining the whole corrupt way the US legal system abuses its victims:

    A Guide for the Perplexed victims of US legal corruption, particularly common working people, minorities, and the vulnerable, when mauled by sadistic lying judges and gangster lawyers. Legal injustice victims are often in agony, mystified by how no one seems willing to help, after betrayal and abuse by courts, counsel, prosecutors, politicians, media, and bent ‘bar ethics’ and ‘civil liberties’ groups. Victims here find truth on what is happening, and the comfort of knowing they are not alone.

  8. anon[211] • Disclaimer says:

    But the government needs antifa to justify killer pigs beating the shit out out of white guys and legal observers. They have to keep antifa out of trouble.

    AUSA counted 125 atrocities by killer pigs. Pigs are the only ones rioting here. These pig riots are a way of distracting attention from CIA crime. Suitably distorted by CIA media moles, the riots are a threat to Republican voters and a unifying outrage for the Democratic voters, increasing polarization, exactly the same as CIA did the last time they were busted for grave crimes by the outside world.

  9. lysias says:

    If the Supreme Court chooses to hear the case, any decision will be issued well after the 2020 election.

  10. R.C. says:

    Rule of law? Not any more. Rather, this is rule by compromised scum / ‘men’.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Striker Comments via RSS
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
Analyzing the History of a Controversial Movement
Becker update V1.3.2
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?