Nov. 11, 2017 - The Political Cesspool - James Edwards
50:12
20171111_Hour_3
|
Time
Text
You're listening to the Liberty News Radio Network, and this is the political cesspool.
The political cesspool going across the South and worldwide as the South's foremost populist conservative radio program.
And here to guide you through the murky waters of the political cesspool is your host, James Edwards.
So we promised you all night a surprise during the third hour, and now here it comes.
The revolutionary conservative, Augustus Invictus.
He has a website, the revolutionaryconservative.com.
Also does his own podcast.
And he took interest in the court case involving me and, of course, the decision handed down by the Michigan Court of Appeals.
He ripped a 38-minute monologue commentary on this.
Very passionate.
Let's see, we've got – and we're going to play it right now.
So here we go.
So basically, it's about 38 minutes long.
We cut some of it out.
And so you just got a little teaser of it.
So we're actually going to go to it right now.
It's going to pretty much fill all of the third hour.
I want to take you in and out of breaks, but I thought it would be important to get a third-party perspective on this.
And here it is.
Let's see.
We've got one I really want to talk about.
Yeah, let's go ahead and do that now.
James Edwards, who I do not know, by the way.
This is not a plug for his show.
I'm not getting paid to talk about this.
I don't know this guy.
I've never met him.
We've never even interacted on the internet machine.
But this is an egregious case.
James, that's where it's the guy behind the political cesspool podcast.
The newspapers, the Detroit News, published an opinion piece.
Well, let me just read from the Court of Appeals opinion itself.
They published an opinion piece calling him a Klan leader, a leader of the KKK.
Edwards sued for defamation, and this court published the most outrageous opinion I've ever seen in my entire life.
I've been to law school, read hundreds of opinions, thousands even.
Practice as a lawyer, never seen anything this outrageous in my life.
He sues them for defamation of character, for calling him a Klan leader, which he clearly is not.
The court says, yeah, okay, you're clearly not, and you've never been a member of the KKK, but you are a leader in the sense that you talk about white people.
So case dismissed.
We're upholding this.
You lose.
Unbelievable.
Just listen to the rhetoric in here because that's what this is.
This is not a legal opinion.
This is 100% political.
And let's call out these judges before we start this.
Let's call these people out.
Brock Swartzel, Elizabeth Gleicher, Karen Fort Hood.
These are the three judges.
These are the three judges on the appellate court who made this monstrosity of an opinion.
They should all be disbarred for this.
Listen to this nonsense.
The restatement second of torts, section 559.
Now, the restatement second of torts, that's like the code for torts.
It's like a model code.
That's where, and torts is, is a wrong, right?
It's the French for wrong.
So you're talking about personal injury law, which is what defamation falls under.
So if you're suing someone for defamation of character, you're going to look to the restatement of tortz if you're a judge to see what's the model on this.
You know, that's when we quote the restatement, that's basically saying this is the established opinion of people.
So the restatement, second of torts, section 559, lists membership in the Ku Klux Klan as the quintessential illustration of a defamatory statement.
In an opinion piece in the Detroit News, columnist Bankhole Thompson asserted that radio show host James Edward is a leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
Those two sentences together sounds pretty clear.
This is an open and shut case.
It's de facto the quintessential illustration of a defamatory statement.
To say this, Detroit News said it.
Open and shut case, right?
Furthermore, there is no record evidence to suggest that Edwards holds a formal leadership position in the Ku Klux Klan, nor is there any record evidence to suggest that he is even a member.
Notwithstanding this lack of formal relationship, Edwards has espoused views consistent with those associated with the Klan, and equally as important, he has repeatedly and publicly embraced several individuals who are strongly associated with the Klan.
In other words, the things Edwards has said they're basically in line with what the Klan would say.
Because the Klan loves white people.
Edwards loves white people.
He's an informal member of the Klan at this point.
And not only that, he's associated with people who are associated with the Klan.
Therefore, guilt by association.
You are literally reading the codification of guilt by association in America.
This is not Anglo-American law.
This is Soviet law in the Michigan appellate court right now.
Mindful of Aesop's lesson, this is the court speaking, mind you.
These are judges saying this nonsense that you're hearing.
Mindful of Aesop's lesson, a man is known by the company he keeps.
Oh, and they cite Aesop, the ass and the purchaser, because this is a legal opinion.
Right?
That makes it so much more professional when they're using footnotes, doesn't it?
Mindful of Aesop's lesson, a man is known by the company he keeps, we hold that Edwards cannot make claims of defamation or invasion of privacy and affirm summary disposition in favor of the defendants.
In other words, okay, it's the quintessential illustration of a defamatory statement to say someone is a member of the KKK.
Detroit News said he is a member of the KKK.
No evidence exists that he is a leader of the KKK.
No evidence exists that he is a member of the KKK.
In fact, he is neither of those things.
We admit that on this court.
However, he says pro-white things, and he's associated with people who are associated with the Klan.
He's espoused views consistent with those associated with him, and he's publicly embraced individuals who are associated with the Klan.
So three degrees of separation, and Aesop says, you're known by the company you keep, so we're dismissing this defamation suit.
I've never seen an opinion this insane.
Again, those judges are named Brock Swartzel, Elizabeth Gleicher, and Karen Fort Hood.
They should all be disbarred.
Taken away from the bench?
Being dethroned from their judgeships?
That shouldn't even be a question.
They should not be allowed to practice law after something this insane.
Background.
The context.
The Ku Klux Klan and the political cesspool.
To better understand the underlying dispute, it is helpful to review briefly the history of the Ku Klux Klan as well as James Edwards' radio show, The Political Cesspool.
One.
A history of the Ku Klux Klan in their legal opinion as to a defamation suit.
A little bit of bad audio on the recording again.
We're trying to fluctuate that, ladies and gentlemen, as needed.
Because that's how insane they are in bolstering their ridiculous argument.
They're going to give a history of the Ku Klux Klan?
Unbelievable.
This is how far American law has fallen.
It's not a noble profession anymore.
Like, this is exactly why I retired from the practice of law.
I'm so upset right now.
I've been angry about this for days, but reading it aloud is.
Right there, but we're going to come back.
More commentary on this decision that really affects all people who are right of center of Joseph Stalin with regards to how they may be covered by the press going forward.
This is the president-setting decision.
Augustus Invictus, the reactionary conservative, the reactionaryconservative.com, offers his take on my lawsuit and the decision handed down.
We'll hear more from him right after this.
Attention, Liberty News Radio listeners.
Hard-hitting talk radio has never been and never will be supported by the mainstream in America.
Hard-hitting talk radio is taking on the mainstream press like never before.
News that networks refuse to use is one of the best ways to educate people.
We invite all liberty-loving Americans to join with us to restore the principles of our founding fathers and promote God, family, and country in the media and our lives.
Please help spread the Liberty message with your generous donation.
You can go online at LibertyNewsRadio.com right now and make a donation online.
Or call 801-756-9133 and make a donation over the phone.
That's LibertyNewsRadio.com and 801-756-9133.
Make a donation today.
As the United States boldly stepped forward in the glorious light provided by its new constitution in 1787, the nations of the earth were in awe of the newfound strength and hope of this free land.
Today, the nation stands at a crossroads.
A divergence from the original intent put forth in the United States Constitution has brought grave threats to our beloved nation.
A miracle is needed if the United States is to survive.
That miracle is again the pure application of the United States Constitution.
I'm Scott Bradley.
In my To Preserve the Nation book and lecture series, I bring forth truths that will help raise up a new generation of statesmen like those noble Americans who founded this land.
Vigorous application of these principles will invigorate and restore the nation, and we may become again the freest, most prosperous, most respected, and happiest nation on earth.
Visit topreservethenation.com to begin that restoration.
Okay, girls, about finished with your lesson on money.
Daddy, what is a buy-sell spread for gold coins?
Well, when you sell a gold coin to a coin shop that's worth, say, $1,200, you don't actually get $1,200.
But don't worry, we're members of UPMA now, so we don't have to worry about that.
Daddy, why somebody seals that gold?
We don't have any gold at the house.
It's stored safely in the UPMA vault, securely and insured.
But the SP 500 outperformed gold.
Daddy, gold is a bad investment.
Some people do think of it that way, but actually, gold is money.
And as members of the United Precious Metals Association, we can use our gold at any store, just like a credit card.
Or I can ask them to drop it right into Mommy and Daddy's bank account.
Because we're a UPMA member family.
Find out more at UPMA.org.
That's upma.org.
To get on the show and speak with James and the gang, call us toll-free at 1-866-986-6397.
And now, back to tonight's show.
Quick correction, quick correction.
Augustus Invictus is the revolutionary conservative, the revolutionaryconservative.com, not the reactionary conservative, but the revolutionary conservative.
We want to be accurate, unlike our peers in the media.
And I know we've had a problem with one of our cables tonight.
The audio has been fluctuating a little bit throughout some of the show.
We're on it.
We know what the problem is.
We're working on it.
It's live radio.
It's not always flawless, but we do appreciate y'all who have written in to tell us about it.
But now let's get back to the commentary from Augustus Invictus on my court case, the revolutionary conservative.
Here he is.
I'm so upset right now.
I've been angry about this for days, but reading it aloud just adds fuel to the fire.
So we're going to skip over the history of the Ku Klux Klan completely stupid use of paper here by the judges.
We're going to go to the political cesspool, which is subsection two.
Edwards is the creator and host of the political cesspool radio show and website.
He started the radio show in October 2004.
Based in Memphis, Tennessee, the show went on a brief hiatus in 2008, but otherwise has been on the air continuously to present day.
The radio show is currently carried on the Liberty News Radio Network.
Edwards published his statement of principles on this show's website.
Among other statements, Edwards proclaims the following.
Get ready for some KKK propaganda, everybody.
The political cesspool radio program stands for the dispossessed majority.
We represent a philosophy that is pro-white.
We wish to revive the white birth rate above replacement level fertility and beyond to grow the percentage of whites in the world relative to other races.
America would not be a prosperous land of opportunity if the founding stock were not Europeans.
You can't have a first world nation with a third world population.
Secession is a right of all people and individuals.
It was successful in 1776, and this show honors those who tried to make it successful from 1861 to 1865.
Our motto, no retreat, no surrender, no apologies.
As part of his published principles, Edwards includes an endorsement from a person asserting that there is a genocide against European Americans, subsequently expanded or clarified to mean the genocide of immigration and into marriage.
Immediately below his statement of principles, Edwards is pictured with Duke, that is Dr. David Duke, sitting together at a speaking engagement in Memphis, Tennessee.
That is what associates with him with the Klan, according to the court.
He made all these statements about we represent a philosophy that's pro-white.
We need to revive the white birth rate because you've seen it all over the news.
White birth rate is declining.
That's why we need immigrants, etc.
So he's saying we need to revive the white birth rate.
Founding stock, thank God they were Europeans in this country because if it had been third world immigrants, we would have had a third world country.
Secession is the right of all peoples.
We agree with the founding fathers.
We should have seceded from the crown.
And the secessionists in the Civil War were right too.
Our motto, no retreat, no surrender, no apologies.
That's all they've quoted.
Those are the extent, that's the extent of his KKK leanings.
Not a word about the Klan.
Not quoting the Klan's platform, no association whatsoever with the Klan, except the gotcha moment, because he's in a photograph with Dr. David Duke.
That's it.
Never mind the fact that Duke has not been involved with the Klan in, what, 30 years?
He was a member of the Klan when he was young, but he hasn't been involved with the Klan in God knows how long.
But a picture with Duke, that's enough to make you a member of the Klan according to the Court of Appeals in Michigan.
These traitors should be disbarred, not just removed from their judicial positions.
Also included on the website is a page titled A Short History of the Political Cesspool Radio Program.
As part of the radio show's history, Edwards claims that the show has filled an important gap in the public debate because nobody else was speaking up for our people.
Again, talking about pro-Confederacy, pro-white viewpoint, this automatically puts him in league with the KKK.
This goes on and on, so we'll just go down here.
With that said, Edwards makes clear in his show's statement of principle that he makes no attempt to give listeners both sides.
Why would he?
So because it's not unbiased journalism or not pretending to be unbiased journalism, that means you can lump him in with the Ku Klux Klan?
He has a strong ideological viewpoint.
He voices this viewpoint on the show, and he highlights this through several of the show's frequent guests, including Duke and Sam Dixon Jr.
Duke's association with the Ku Klux Klan is noted earlier.
As for Dixon, he has represented Ku Klux Klan members in court in the past.
Listen, these judges are saying Sam Dixon represented KKK members in court in the past.
That is his association with the Klan.
That's how I got branded a white supremacist originally, because I defended the American front in court.
Lawyers themselves associate other lawyers with Nazis if they defend Nazis.
That's how insane everything is.
John Adams defended the British, the British soldiers involved in the massacre in Boston.
Still a patriot.
Americans did not call him a loyalist to the crown.
They didn't call him a traitor to his own people.
They recognized he was a lawyer.
He was defending enemy soldiers.
As far as the Patriots were concerned, the Redcoats were enemy soldiers.
No smears against his name.
They understood this was his job.
It was his duty as a lawyer to represent these people.
But these traitors, these traitorous judges, Brock Swartzel, Elizabeth Gleicher, and Karen Fort Hood, they're saying Sam Dixon represented members of the KKK.
Therefore, he is associated with the KKK.
And therefore, Edwards, who runs a radio show, who has spoken with the lawyer, is now three degrees of separation from the KKK.
That's enough for the Detroit News to say he is not just a member of the KKK, but a leader of the KKK.
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills right now.
This is a court opinion.
This is not a CNN article.
This is an actual legal opinion from a court of law in Michigan.
Subsection B, Bankle Thompson's opinion piece in the Detroit news.
On March 17th, 2016, the Detroit News published an opinion piece by Bankle Thompson in its Think section.
The piece was titled, Jewish Leaders Fear Trump Presidency.
The piece centered on concerns expressed by Detroit-area Jewish leaders regarding the involvement of white supremacists during the 2016 presidential campaign.
In the piece, Thompson made the following assertion: Quote, of particular note to some of the Jewish community is the unprecedented support the Trump campaign has received among white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and its leaders like James Edwards, David Duke, and Thomas Robb, the national director of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Arkansas.
Pretty clear.
Not even controversial.
The Detroit News in this piece called James Edwards a leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
Not even, there's no ambiguity there.
They just called him a leader of the Ku Klux Klan.
I'll read it again in case you missed that.
Of particular note to some of the Jewish community is the unprecedented support the Trump campaign has received among white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and its leaders like James Edwards.
Not ambiguous at all.
Oh, but they're going to make it ambiguous, these traitorous judges.
Subsection C appears to give a procedural history.
It's called a demand letter, a response letter, and a published clarification.
So apparently Edwards sent in a demand that it be changed.
The Detroit News was supposed to publish something clarifying that.
Of particular note to some of the Jewish community is the unprecedented support the Trump campaign has received among white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan.
All right, we're going to hold right there.
Listening to the revolutionary conservative Augustus Advictus, his take on the case.
We'll be back with more of his commentary right after this.
Informing citizens.
Pursuing liberty.
You're listening to Liberty News Radio.
Each week, the political cesspool, known worldwide as the South's foremost populist conservative radio program, hits the airwaves to bring you the other side of the news and to report on events which are vital to your welfare but are hushed up or distorted by the mainstream media.
However, to continue doing this, we need your support.
Go online at www.thepoliticalcesspool.org and make a safe and secure donation.
If you prefer not to make an online donation, you can send us a check or money order to the address on the website.
No matter which way you choose, the political cesspool needs your support.
Go online to www.thepoliticalcesspool.org and make a donation today.
We fought.
We learned.
We struggled.
Despite Obama's best efforts, the newspaper of the human resistance survives.
We have lived only to face a new nightmare, the war against the machines.
Read about our struggle in the Sovereign, newspaper of the resistance.
The Sovereign is a 24-page monthly tabloid newspaper about the war between man and machinery.
We've tried reason.
We've tried legislation.
We've tried every peaceful means imaginable.
And all it's gotten us is shut out.
So now we fight the machines.
Order online today at thesovenews.com or find the sovereign at select newsstands.
Remember to read the sovereign, newspaper of the resistance.
The human resistance's battle against the machines will be everlasting.
This is mercy.
It was never our destiny to stop the age of Obama.
It was merely to survive it.
Together.
Together.
Each week, the political cesspool, known worldwide as the South's foremost populist conservative radio program, hits the airwaves to bring you the other side of the news and to report on events which are vital to your welfare, but are hushed up or distorted by the mainstream media.
However, to continue doing this, we need your support.
Go online at www.theepoliticalcesspool.org and make a safe and secure donation.
If you prefer not to make an online donation, you can send us a check or money order to the address on the website.
No matter which way you choose, the political cesspool needs your support.
go online to www.thepoliticalcesspool.org and make a donation today.
Welcome back.
To get on the show, call us on James's Dime at 1-866-986-6397.
More commentary from Augustus Invictus.
This is a podcast that he taped.
We have captured it and we're trying to play his recording during our live broadcast and adjusting the audio levels as best as we can.
Here he is, and here's more.
You don't want to miss it.
Of particular note to some in the Jewish community is the unprecedented support the Trump campaign has received among white supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and leaders like James Edwards.
That's how they changed it.
So Edwards sends a demand letter saying, whoa, this is clearly defamation.
I'm not a leader of the KKK, never been a member of the KKK.
You have just called me a leader of the KKK.
You need to fix this.
So how does the Detroit News fix this?
They take out the word its and they put in nothing.
So all they do is remove the word its.
White supremacist groups like the Ku Klux Klan and leaders like James Edwards, David Duke, and Thomas Robb, the national director of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan in Arkansas.
That's their solution.
So the court then notes, notwithstanding the clarification, because that's clarification, Edwards sued Defendance, claiming that the original sentence was defamatory and that the clarification did not cure the injury or otherwise make him whole.
I think it's pretty clear just reading the two statements.
Obviously, it doesn't clarify anything.
And it doesn't correct anything either.
Edwards asserted claims of defamation, libel per se, defamation by implication, libel per se, and invasion of privacy, false lie.
Defendants moved for summary disposition on all claims under this statute.
The trial court granted Defendant's motion, holding that the term leader was inherently ambiguous and the statements in the piece were subjective opinions rather than statements of fact.
So Edwards appealed.
So now they're going to give a standard of review.
This is common fair in opinions by the court.
I'm going to give the standard of review, like how they're going to review the lower court's opinion.
Now they're going to go into defamation in the First Amendment, explaining Their legalese, you know, trying to dress up what they're about to say.
Because here's the fact of the matter, ladies and gentlemen.
Judges don't judge based on the law.
It's a dirty secret in the legal profession.
Judges don't give one whit about the law.
You know why the law is there, all of these cases, all of the statutes.
The law is there because the judges make their opinion.
They have already decided the case, and they tell their clerks, go find out what laws support this decision that I'm about to make.
The law only exists, this black letter law, all the precedents, they exist so that the judges can bolster their own opinion.
So James Woods, I'm sorry, James Woods, awesome guy, by the way, but James Edwards walks into a court of appeals, says, the lower court was wrong.
I was defamed.
I need you to fix this.
Appellate court looks at this and says, hmm, I hate the KKK.
I hate David Duke.
I hate all these other people.
Why should we give James Edwards this time of day?
So they've already decided in their mind, I'm not fixing this.
It's going to chill free speech.
Then none of the news can call people Ku Klux Klan leaders willy-nilly.
Then none of these mainstream media outlets can call people what they want.
So they've already made up their minds as to this.
All judges are prejudiced in their own minds.
They are using the law to bolster what they have already decided.
So that's what's going on in this section.
And then they go into subsection C titled, Who is a Leader?
This might be the most outrageous section yet.
Somebody calls you a leader of the KKK.
Pretty clear meaning, right?
You are a member of the KKK.
You are a leader of those people who are also members of the KKK.
Seems pretty cut and dry.
So if the Detroit News calls you a leader of the KKK, that's probably what they're getting at, right?
Oh no.
No, no, no.
Not when these three traitor judges have to make up as to how you are a leader of the KKK.
Let's watch an amazing gymnastics routine, ladies and gentlemen.
Who is a leader?
Turning to the statement at issue.
White supremacist groups like the KKK and its leaders, like James Edwards, David Duke, and Thomas Robb, etc., defendants do not dispute that the possessive pronoun its refers to the Ku Klux Klan and not white supremacist groups.
If in fact it's had referred to white supremacist groups, then even Edwards admits he would not have a viable claim as he has conceded on appeal that calling him a white supremacist would not be defamatory.
Moral of the story there?
Never concede a point to a leftist judge.
If you haven't been trained in law, you might not realize just how dishonest that sentence is right there.
Well, he's conceded on appeal that calling him a white supremacist would not be defamatory.
That doesn't mean that James Edwards is saying, yeah, I'm a white supremacist, which is what they're trying to say here.
Oh, well, he admitted that he's a white supremacist.
That's not at all what they're saying.
Saying that it wouldn't be defamatory because he doesn't think white supremacist is a defamatory statement doesn't mean, yeah, I'm a white supremacist, so call me a white supremacist leader, but that's how they're spinning this.
Again, this is a court of law.
This is not CNN.
That's what's so egregious here.
Defendants' position makes sense for two reasons.
First, its is singular, and therefore grammatically it is consistent with the singular Ku Klux Klan and not with the plural white supremacist groups.
Otherwise, there would have been the more appropriate possessive pronoun.
How they could do this with a straight face is astounding.
Second, when Defendants published the clarification, And we've already seen what the clarification is, they just removed the word its.
Second, when Defendants published the clarification, they also edited the opinion piece by deleting its and thereby making leaders stand out on its own without grammatical relation to either white supremacist groups or the Ku Klux Klan.
It is doubtful that Defendants would have made this change had its referred to something other than the Ku Klux Klan.
Thus, it appears clear that in his original opinion piece, Thompson described Edwards as a leader of the Klan, and we must determine whether this assertion is actionable under the circumstances.
So the court is saying, after all of those hoops they've just jumped through, okay, well, let's say in the original statement, Thompson was saying that Edwards was a leader of the Klan.
Let's talk about that now.
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the Detroit News did call him a leader of the Klan.
Let's find out.
What should we do about that?
As noted earlier, defendants do not argue, and there is no record evidence to suggest that Edwards holds or has held an official leadership role with the Klan or that he was ever a member of the organization.
So no one is arguing that he's actually a leader of the Klan.
In Edwards' view, these uncontested facts are dispositive, as he contends that the meaning of the term leader when referring to a formal group necessarily implies membership in that group.
Now, dispositive is legalese for if that's the case, then this case is over.
If it's true that no one's saying I was ever a leader or a member of the KKK, then this case should be thrown out.
That's what dispositive means.
That one simple fact means this case is over.
It's decided.
That's it.
There's no discussion here.
He takes support from the fact that both Duke and Rob have held official leadership roles with Klan groups in the past.
Under something akin to the canon of construction that a court should interpret a general term and lie to the more specific ones in a series, Edwards argues that a reader would necessarily presume that he had an official affiliation with the KKK because both Duke and Rob did.
Not only that, by the way, but if you read that sentence as an ordinary person just reading a sentence, clearly they called him a leader of the clan.
But we're going to go through some mental gymnastics right now to discover how that's not actually the case according to this court of law.
We find this argument unconvincing for several reasons.
Initially, we note that in newspaper editorials and opinion pieces, a reasonable reader expects to find the opinions and biases of the individual writers.
Whereas in statutes or contracts, such opinions and biases are not similarly expected.
Given this, and for a myriad of other reasons, a court should not hold an opinion piece in a newspaper to the same grammatical rigor as a statute or contract.
So this is an opinion piece.
It's not the news section.
So calling someone a leader of the KKK is now an opinion.
Because the court has just said, clearly, this guy did call Edwards leader of the KKK.
But it's an opinion piece, and this is somebody's opinion that he's a leader of the clan.
How do you construe that from reality?
And this leads to a second crucial point.
It is undeniable that there are multiple accepted definitions.
Hey, folks, I gotta tell you, I didn't, I had never spoken with this fella before until after he had done this when he recorded this, as he mentioned he had never talked to me either.
We have talked since then.
Gotta say, I kind of like this guy.
Kind of like this guy.
We'll play the end of his commentary on our case as he presented it on his podcast earlier in the week with the Political Success Bowl wraps up right after this.
Dear Christine, I wanted to write and tell you some exciting news.
What, um, what are you doing?
Oh, hi.
I'm writing Christine a letter to tell her about Emily's first tooth.
At 2 o'clock in the morning, it's a mom thing.
I'll get her.
I don't have the words to thank you for having the courage to give us our most precious gift.
We can only thank you by raising her the way you'd always hoped.
How'd you get her to sleep so fast?
It's a dad thing.
Honey, will you tell her thanks from me?
Of course I will.
Adoption.
It's about love.
A message from LDS Family Services.
Many of you have heard me talk about my vigor score.
You say, Sam, what on earth is all this vigor stuff about?
Well, vigor is defined as zest for life.
Your strength in body and mind, your energy levels.
It's kind of all wrapped into a term called vigor.
Would you like to improve your vigor score?
Well, you got to first take the free test.
Get a hold of Kurt, C-U-R-T, at libertyroundtable.com or call Kurt Cosby at 801-669-2211.
I took the test on a 13 out of 32 horrible, huh?
But I worked on it with Kurt with some natural help and healing.
And before you know it, now I've got an astounding 29 out of 32 on the vigor score.
Can you tell by the way I talk?
Oh, yes, my zest for life has never been better.
Get a hold of Kurt Cosby.
That's 801-669-2211 and take your free vigor test today and you can learn where you stand.
And then you can work on improving it and take the test again.
And oh, compare the results.
You will be delighted.
Get a hold of Kurt Crosby.
Kurt, C-U-R-T, at LibertyRoundtable.com or 801-669-2211 for your free vigor score test today.
As a parent, is receiving a faith-based, character-focused education for your children difficult to find?
Do you believe that godly principles should be a central component in your child's education?
Imagine a school where faith and integrity are at its center, where heritage and responsibility instill character.
For over 40 years, American Heritage School has been educating both hearts and minds, bringing out academic excellence.
This is the school where character and embracing the providence of a living God are fundamental, where students' national test scores average near the 90th percentile.
With American Heritage School's advanced distance education program, distance is no longer an issue.
With an accredited LDS-oriented curriculum from kindergarten through 12th grade, your children can attend from anywhere in the world.
American Heritage School will prepare your child for more than a job.
It will prepare them for life.
To learn more, visit American-Heritage.org.
That's American-Heritage.org.
Welcome back.
To get on the show, call us on James's Dime at 1-866-986-6397.
Okay, folks, all hour.
We've been playing Augustus Invictus's commentary on the court case involving me and the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Here's its conclusion right now.
Hope you've enjoyed it.
And this leads to a second crucial point.
It is undeniable that there are multiple accepted definitions of the term leader.
This is where we go into Neverland.
We go into Alice in Wonderland right now.
So put your seatbelts on.
It is undeniable there are multiple accepted definitions of the term leader.
And they are not nearly as constrained as Edwards would have us believe.
The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1989, well, thank God we're quoting authority, lists in relevant part the following definitions of the term.
One who conducts, precedes as a guide, leads a person by the hand, one who leads a body of armed men, a commander, a captain, one who guides others in action or opinion, one who takes the lead in any business enterprise or movement, one who is followed by disciples or adherents, the chief or sect or part, the chief of a sect or party, the foremost or most eminent member of a profession, also in a wider sense, a person of eminent position and influence.
For its part, the term member is defined as each of the individuals belonging to or forming a society or assembly.
So they've just listed all of the different ways you could construe the term leader in the Oxford dictionary because apparently what the guy said in the Detroit news was just ambiguous.
He could have meant any of these things when he called Edwards a leader of the clan.
Could have meant any of these things.
No way he was calling him an actual clan leader like the other two guys that he listed.
Edwards is correct in the narrow sense that one meaning of leader includes being the foremost or most eminent member of a group.
Thus, one plausible inference could be that Edwards, like Duke and Rob, had an official role with the Ku Klux Klan.
Yet, Edwards is incorrect in a more fundamental sense because the term can be used and understood more broadly.
Exempli gratia.
A leader may be someone who guides others in an action or opinion, one who takes the lead in any movement, one who is followed by disciples or adherents, or in a wider sense, a person of eminent position or influence.
None of these latter meanings necessarily imply official affiliation with a particular group.
This is like going to high school, giving the debate team something to argue about, and the high schoolers on the losing side, because there's always a losing side, have just come up with the most asinine, outrageous defense of their position imaginable.
If you ever been part of a debate team or ever coached a debate team, and I've been on both sides of that, you know that sometimes you're just plain set up.
Sometimes you just got the losing side of the thing.
Now, the creators of the debate questions, they generally, I'm talking like, you know, 90, 95% of the time, they're making a case where you could easily argue either side of it and there are strong arguments for both sides.
But every now and then, you've got this one where there is no other side to it.
It's clear that you are being set up and your job is to see how well you can argue a losing position.
That's what we're seeing here.
These three judges, whose names we should probably read again, Brock Swartzel, Elizabeth Gleicher, and Karen Fort Hood, these three judges are that losing side of the high school debate team.
And like entrepreneurial high schoolers, they have made the most outrageous claim imaginable in this situation.
Well, clearly they did call him a clan leader.
And clearly, he is not a clan leader.
So how can we fix this?
I know.
Let's go to the dictionary and see how many different definitions of leader we can dig up.
And we'll say it was ambiguous.
Egregious.
These are lawyers.
You know, the legal profession has regulated itself for hundreds and hundreds of years because we actually have standards and we hold each other to those standards.
That's what a profession is.
You have peers who hold you to a standard.
That's why courts don't generally come in and try lawyers for anything because lawyers hold each other to those standards.
That's what the bar is for.
These three judges.
All the reason that's a trend going out of style.
Eventually, there's going to be no more bar.
Lawyers will be held accountable just like anyone else because clearly lawyers can't hold to integrity whatsoever.
Egregious.
They call him a clan leader.
Clear he's not a clan leader.
So let's go to the Oxford Dictionary and see how many definitions we can drag up.
And we'll say it was ambiguous so that we can dismiss this suit because like I said, they've already made their decision.
Now they have to go through the mental gymnastics to justify that egregious decision.
Considering the multiple meanings that leader can have, we do not read the sentence to imply necessarily that Edwards must have held some official designated leadership role in the Ku Klux Klan.
Certainly Edwards is correct that this could be one plausible interpretation.
Yet the sentence was part of a newspaper opinion piece, not a statue or contract.
And just because the other two sided individuals once held office in the Klan, it does not logically follow that a reasonable reader would necessarily have to infer that the third listed individual also held office in the Klan.
First of all, just reading it as a reasonable reader, of course you would say they called him a Klan member.
Second of all, they're not listing him as the third person in this list.
He was the foremost Klan leader in their list at the Detroit News.
Another interpretation could be that Edwards was an opinion leader.
An opinion leader of the clan.
An opinion leader.
That counts.
So it's not defamation.
Even though they started off this entire legal opinion with the restatement, second, of tortz, says it is the quintessential definition of defamation to call someone a clan member.
But now you can be an opinion leader.
One with position and influence over those who have sympathies for the clan or who are actual members of the clan.
Edwards' own words and deeds lend plausibility to this latter interpretation.
As recounted earlier, his radio show and website are replete with references to pro-white sentiments.
Can you believe that?
And he's against miscegenation and integration and intermarriage.
He's talking about white genocide against Europeans.
And then they're just reciting all the said earlier.
Anti-Semitism, oh, Dr. Duke and Dixon again, and just everything they've said earlier, they're bringing it out now.
Our reading that defendant's statement is necessarily subjective gains further support from the only other judicial decisions cited by the parties or found in our research involving the meaning of leader in the context of a defamation claim.
In Egyzaryan vs. Zalmayev, which is in New York, that's too complicated to explain, the plaintiff sued the defendant for defamation based on several communications, including the assertion that he was a leader of a Russian political party that had strong anti-Semitic and xenophobic strands.
The federal district court noted that the assertion was an expression of opinion, not fact.
This case, by the way, was from 2012.
The court also focused on the context of the statement.
When used in political discourse, terms of relation and association often have meanings that are debatable, loose, and varying, rendering the relationships they describe insusceptible to proof of truth or falsity.
The word leader has a debatable, loose, and varying meaning when used to describe the relationship of a prominent politician to the political party he overtly represents.
Egy Azarian is an admittedly prominent former banker who assumed managerial roles in the Duma while occupying an LDPR seat there for over a decade.
Given the vagueness of the word leader in this context, and given Egyzarian's admitted prominence and overt association with the LDPR, the assertion that he is a leader of the LDPR is a non-provable opinion.
So you have prominence inside of a party.
You have this guy who has been in this thing, a member of this thing for a decade.
Prominent position.
Clearly a leader there, not a political leader, not an elected leader, but he's certainly in the organization and is a part of it.
This court is relying on that former opinion.
Saying, well, let's just play Lucy-Goosey then.
You can call anybody a leader then under that definition.
Federal District Court concluded that the assertion was a non-provable opinion.
Let me ask you, reasonable reader, dear listener, person without a training in law, if you read a sentence that says the Ku Klux Klan and its leaders like James Edwards, how do you take that sentence?
Do you take it as, well, clearly he's an opinion leader who's not associated with the Ku Klux Klan at all, but you know, he espouses the same views.
Or do you take it as this guy's a leader of the Klan?
I mean, you don't need a three in rocket science to figure that one out.
You don't need a law degree.
You don't need to be a judge.
You don't need to be a lawyer.
Clearly, you say the Ku Klux Klan and its leaders like James Edwards means James Edwards is a leader of the Klan.
Yet we just went through all those mental gymnastics and allegedly basing it off of court precedent, which had nothing to do with what we're talking about right now, to justify these judges' opinion that the Detroit News can do whatever the hell it wants.
Conclusion.
As a radio show host, the First Amendment protects Edwards' right of free speech.
But similarly, the First Amendment also protects Defendant's right of free speech.
As explained here, Defendants made a statement in a newspaper opinion piece that, given Edwards' expressed views and his close associates, necessarily could be interpreted in different ways by different readers.
In other words, the statement is inherently imprecise and indefinite, and that's open to several plausible interpretations rather than provably true or false.
The statement is therefore protected opinion speech.
All right, folks, that's all we got time for.
I agree with a lot of what he said.
I don't know if the judges are necessarily traitors because they got the decision wrong, but it is an interesting case, and it will continue to have fallout for many, many, many years to come.