Law IT IS FINISHED”—NYAG Letitia James Crucifies VDARE.com - Abuse of the Legal system for political gain

my comment: "This is extremely concerning and I worry about this tactic into the future."





IT IS FINISHED”—NYAG Letitia James Crucifies VDARE.com

VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow writes:

I launched VDARE.com on Christmas Eve 1999. So it is perhaps appropriate that, on Good Friday 2024, the anniversary of Christ’s death, I must announce VDARE.com’s crucifixion by New York State’s communist Attorney General Letitia James.

On March 27 2024, in another of her lightning-fast NYAG James-compliant rulings, New York State Supreme Court Judge Sabrina Kraus held us in Contempt Of Court because we have not yet complied (because we were fighting it) with her January 23 2023 order that we meet NYAG James’ massive and crippling subpoena demands.

Judge Kraus did modify her earlier order to reflect the
intervention (much appreciated) of the Institute for Free Speech. So now we no longer have to reveal, explicitly, the names of our pseudonymous writers, some of whom would certainly be fired from their jobs if their identities leaked.

But we are still required to produce 40 gigabytes of emails, an enormous amount. And of course these would in fact reveal the names of those pseudonymous writers, as well as our donors, privileged communications with lawyers etc.
Judge Kraus has also now allowed us to redact these emails. But this is a huge task, which our lawyers estimate could cost as much as $150,000.

An observer tells us this order is more typical of major corporate litigation, not a tiny charity.
And, perversely, although Judge Kraus has now modified her January 23 2023 order, she is nevertheless now fining us $250 a day for not complying with it.

We have fought NYAG Letitia James, at a cost of up to $1 million, for nearly three years. But now we are literally hanging on the cross.
REMEMBER, VDARE.com HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING—BECAUSE IT IS NOT GUILTY OF ANYTHING.
There is no legitimate explanation for NYAG’ James enormous fishing expedition—other than a desire to nail us to the cross with compliance costs. The process is the punishment.

NYAG James has claimed to be interested in our
purchase of the Berkeley Springs Castle as a conference venue. But this transaction was expensively lawyered and is bullet-proof. Significantly, NYAG James has refused to meet with our expensive lawyers to discuss it.
The victims of crucifixion
typically took a long time to die. (Christ was an exception).

All our resources are now focused on our death struggle. VDARE.com will continue publishing on a reduced schedule as long as it can, at least until after our April 26-28 conference.

But , as Christ said on the cross, “
it is finished.”

The suppression of VDARE.com’s voice, at a time when the immigration debate is moving to a climax, is of course a political scandal.
But, on a personal level, I might also observe that VDARE.com was an entirely viable 24/7 opinion convenience store. I had hoped to leave it to my young wife and our children after I am gone. Now it appears, thanks to Letitia James, that this will not be possible. They will need some other means of support.

Nevertheless, I’m immensely grateful for VDARE.com’s much loved readers and supporters over these many years.
We hope to see you on the other side.
 
as well as our donors,
gulag me.jpg
I guess this is it.
 
"crucifixion", Mr. Brimelow?
Maybe a bit overdramatic? Victimizing yourself?
Seething about "communists" too? Ahhh that sweet, sweet boomer age is showing.
I see that judge's a Jew. Why not mention that?
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered January 25, 2023, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted petitioner's motion to compel compliance with the subpoena duces tecum dated June 23, 2022, subject to certain agreed-to redactions, and to produce a redaction log, and denied respondent's motion to dismiss, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court providently exercised its discretion in granting petitioner's motion to compel compliance with its subpoena (see Suresh v Krishnamani, 212 AD3d 514, 514 [1st Dept 2023]). The Office of the Attorney General (OAG) only had to make a preliminary showing that the information it sought was "reasonably related to a proper subject of inquiry" (Matter of Roemer v Cuomo, 67 AD3d 1169, 1171 [3d Dept 2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v Abrams, 71 NY2d 327, 332 [1988]; Matter of Libre by Nexus, Inc. v Underwood, 181 AD3d 488 [1st Dept 2020]). The information sought was highly relevant to the investigation undertaken by the OAG into respondent's potential violations of the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law.

The subpoena does not impermissibly infringe on respondent's or its vendors' and contractors' First Amendment rights. Asserting a First Amendment privilege does not presumptively shield a charitable organization from OAG scrutiny (see Abrams v New York Found. for the Homeless, 190 AD2d 578 [1st Dept 1993], lv dismissed 81 NY2d 954 [1993]). Respondent is required to make some showing that producing the information would impermissibly infringe on its First Amendment rights (see Matter of Evergreen Assn., Inc. v Schneiderman, 153 AD3d 87, 100 [2d Dept 2017]), such as by showing that the enforcement of the discovery requests will result in "harassment, membership withdrawal, or discouragement of new members" or other consequences that "suggest an impact on, or chilling of, [its] members' associational rights" (Perry v Schwarzenegger, 591 F3d 1147, 1160-1161 [9th Cir 2010] [internal quotation marks omitted], cert dismissed 559 US 1118 [2010]).

Respondent has not made a prima facie showing that producing the information would have an impact on or chill its members' associational rights (see Matter of Evergreen Assn., Inc. v Schneiderman, 153 AD3d at 100). Contrary to respondent's claim, anonymity of its vendors and contributors would not be sacrificed, as both the OAG and the court have agreed to a so-ordered confidentiality agreement. Moreover, while respondent has acknowledged having detractors which has resulted in certain adverse consequences, it does not follow that identifying names of vendors subject to a confidentiality agreement would result in harassment, membership withdrawal, or discouragement of new members, or other consequences that would impact its members' associational rights (see Perry v Schwarzenegger, 591 F3d at 1160).

We find no support for respondent's contention that the OAG conceded any retaliatory [*2]animus or was targeting it for its protected speech.

We have considered respondent's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: February 15, 2024
We could use some of our law spergs to clarify what exactly is going on here I think
 
I had hoped to leave it to my young wife and our children after I am gone. Now it appears, thanks to Letitia James, that this will not be possible. They will need some other means of support.

From Wikipedia, I learned that Peter Beimelow is 76. He has five children, two are from his first marriage and are adults. The other three are from his second wife:

In 2007, Brimelow married Lydia Sullivan; at the time, Lydia was 22 and Peter was 59. While Lydia officially claims to have started working for VDARE in 2014, the Southern Poverty Law Center found that Lydia had likely published numerous articles on the VDARE website between 2005 (while she was in college) and June 2014 under the pseudonym "Athena Kerry", and tax documents associated with the VDARE Foundation listed her as a business partner as early as 2008. As of 2020, she is the president of the VDARE Foundation and the publisher of VDARE.com.[53

So she is now in her late 30s.

I don’t understand older people who feel good about marrying people (women) this much younger. Brimelow will fuck off from this mortal coil soon and he will be dead and not giving a shit about his uktra fascist murder website going dark. But he will leave behind a wife with three young children, no means of support, and a name tarnished by “white supremacy” in an era where people would like to see her die in a ditch for this sin. Think of how people refuse to let Rachel Dolezal move on and magnify it. How can this woman find normal professional work if the website dies under a legal cloud?

I find the specter of lawfare against right wing outlets very grim, but fucking hell, this is bleak. I hope he has some investments.
 
We could use some of our law spergs to clarify what exactly is going on here I think
I'm far from a law sperg but after some cursory digging, VDARE is supposed to be a non-profit formed to educate on "the unsustainability of current US immigration policy and second, the “National Question,” which is the viability of the US as a nation-state." They have been identified as a "white nationalist hate group" due to some of their beliefs on their website. Screenshot from their Race Relations page (Archive Link)

vdare.png

So this couple, Lydia and Peter Brimelow (the VDARE Foundation Board), apparently bought a castle and Southern Poverty Law Center reported that VDARE could lose its nonprofit status because of real estate agreements surrounding the castle they bought. More details in that SPLC link.

Quote from the SPLC article:
In June 2022, after VDARE’s “own public filings, statements and published media reports revealed a possible pattern of self-dealing, misleading donor solicitation, misuse of charitable assets, and false reporting,” James’ special counsel for hate crimes subpoenaed Facebook’s records related to VDARE. The AG’s office later subpoenaed donors, employees, possible conflicts of interest, financial interactions between VDARE and the BCF and BBB, the purchase of the castle and numerous other issues. VDARE brought the suit rather than comply with the AG’s subpoena, which the hate group claimed violated itsFirst Amendment rights.
 
So, ah, what is stopping something obscene like this being done to Null, precisely?
well for one thing null did not keep anyone's info on hand so there wouldn't be a lot to gain by trying to get all our names. But technically nothing is preventing it, I guess? NYC has made it clear that they will fuck with whoever they want regardless of the consequences.

The alex jones/sandy hook lawsuit type of persecution looks a lot more probable than an attorney general sullying their hands with a website like this, but I don't claim to know the future.
 
So, ah, what is stopping something obscene like this being done to Null, precisely?
Precisely why I posted this article. Leftists courts have realized they can ignore the law.
I guess this is it.
The good thing is that Null made sure that the thing people donated to was a Lawyer trust meaning it would be extremely difficult to touch legally speaking. So I don't think you have to worry.
So it’s an anti-immigrant group basically being litigated out of existence by an AG doing death by a thousand cuts and activist judges who basically comply with whatever order?
That is the gist of it.
The alex jones/sandy hook lawsuit type of persecution looks a lot more probable than an attorney general sullying their hands with a website like this, but I don't claim to know the future.
I'd agree but this website is the bane of all trannies. My paranoia is activated by this happening to a site like VDARE which isn't that big. VDARE suffers from being explicitly politically motivated, which the Farms does not suffer from. That being said the Farms is still quite a large target.

I hope you are right.
 
So, ah, what is stopping something obscene like this being done to Null, precisely?
Null does everything he can to not keep records; while at the same time reminding us to use proxies/VPN, not link us to other profiles, and a number of other things to keep us anonymous.

But when people do dumb shit and the feds send a notice, he has to comply, otherwise they'll rip his shit out from under him.
 
I see that judge's a Jew. Why not mention that?
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. They clearly said she was a judge in New York City.
So, ah, what is stopping something obscene like this being done to Null, precisely?
Users having the sense to use VPNs or onion, DMs having a data retention policy involving deleting them, and people actually listening to those giant warnings when you sign up and on the top of damn near every page.

Also it's something being done to YOU as much as to Null and with rules in place, remember, they're not there because he's a control freak, they're there because if you follow them, they protect YOU. You are to some extent responsible for your own protection when you sign up for and use a site like this.
We could use some of our law spergs to clarify what exactly is going on here I think
The other side, and perhaps even the judge, is attempting to bury this relatively small and obscure website under the kind of onerous and extremely expensive discovery that is usually reserved for discovery between megacorporations like international banks. Because they are allowed to redact personally identifying information now, it has a certain fig leaf of legitimacy, but in reality, this will require them to hire a room full of doc review lawyers. While these are often recent law school graduates, or really desperate people, it requires a licensed lawyer to go through gigabytes upon gigabytes of text, redacting whatever falls outside the scope of discovery or is privileged.

The cost of this is likely to go into the low six figures at a bare minimum. And even when they do this, it's going to be done by people who aren't really intimately familiar with the case so enough is going to leak to identify a bunch of these people anyway whether their actual names show up.

This is actually the point. This is a real fuck you greasebag order. I have no idea about the underlying merits of the lawsuit, but this is guaranteed to ensure the defendant (and anyone associated with the defendant) gets punished regardless of their participation in any illegal conduct, whether or not all they did was engage in lawfully protected conduct by stating opinions the State of New York (and apparently this judge as well) dislikes.

The process is the punishment.
 
Last edited:
I'm far from a law sperg but after some cursory digging, VDARE is supposed to be a non-profit formed to educate on "the unsustainability of current US immigration policy and second, the “National Question,” which is the viability of the US as a nation-state." They have been identified as a "white nationalist hate group" due to some of their beliefs on their website. Screenshot from their Race Relations page (Archive Link)

View attachment 5864445

So this couple, Lydia and Peter Brimelow (the VDARE Foundation Board), apparently bought a castle and Southern Poverty Law Center reported that VDARE could lose its nonprofit status because of real estate agreements surrounding the castle they bought. More details in that SPLC link.

Quote from the SPLC article:
picard.gif
I mean, I'm not saying there is a conflict there, but in different circumstances, we know they'd be working with them to solve the problem. Instead, they're scratching everywhere trying to find anything to get rid of them.
 
But we are still required to produce 40 gigabytes of emails, an enormous amount. And of course these would in fact reveal the names of those pseudonymous writers, as well as our donors, privileged communications with lawyers etc.
Judge Kraus has also now allowed us to redact these emails. But this is a huge task, which our lawyers estimate could cost as much as $150,000.
Seems kinda retarded. Parsing 40Gb of emails and stripping a set list of addresses and names from them is not going to cost anything like this, unless you are technologically challenged. If you're asking your lawyers and clerical workers to manually do this, instead of seeking a digital solution to a digital problem, your own retardedness is the problem, not the order.
So, ah, what is stopping something obscene like this being done to Null, precisely?
Null will comply with US law enforcement and the US judicial system. If one makes a lawful order to supply the information on everyone on this site, he would likely do so. That is why certain information is not retained, and certain behaviors to protect your own identity are strongly encouraged.
 
If you're asking your lawyers and clerical workers to manually do this, instead of seeking a digital solution to a digital problem, your own retardedness is the problem, not the order.
Clerical workers do not do this. That would be illegal. It has to be lawyers. However many that takes to get it in by the deadline, because that's tens or even hundreds of thousands of pages, you're paying the company that hires them as much as $200 an hour, for lawyers practicing in New York City, possibly more.

You cannot do this automatically. That too would be illegal. And you'd inadvertently reveal a lot of privileged information by doing this even if it were legal. There is an entire industry of doc review which is how many recent law school graduates earn a living as their first intro to real legal practice. Discovery is one of the most expensive parts of complex litigation.
 
Because they are allowed to redact personally identifying information now, it has a certain fig leaf of legitimacy, but in reality, this will require them to hire a room full of doc review lawyers. While these are often recent law school graduates, or really desperate people, it requires a licensed lawyer to go through gigabytes upon gigabytes of text, redacting whatever falls outside the scope of discovery or is privileged.

The cost of this is likely to go into the low six figures at a bare minimum. And even when they do this, it's going to be done by people who aren't really intimately familiar with the case so enough is going to leak to identify a bunch of these people anyway whether their actual names show up.

This is actually the point. This is a real fuck you greasebag order. I have no idea about the underlying merits of the lawsuit, but this is guaranteed to ensure the defendant (and anyone associated with the defendant) gets punished regardless of their participation in any illegal conduct, whether or not all they did was engage in lawfully protected conduct by stating opinions the State of New York (and apparently this judge as well) dislikes.
That is really interesting and I would not have caught that some things would slip through the cracks and they would still manage to identify a lot of people.

It makes it seem like this is not only an effort to destroy VDARE but anyone who ever used it as a platform.

This really does not bode well. The one ray of light for this case, and I'm not sure it even is a case yet as the Article says VDARE has not even been charged and they are just being subpoenaed, is that Free speech orgs are intervening.
You cannot do this automatically. That too would be illegal. And you'd inadvertently reveal a lot of privileged information by doing this even if it were legal. There is an entire industry of doc review which is how many recent law school graduates earn a living as their first intro to real legal practice. Discovery is one of the most expensive parts of complex litigation.
This is incredibly informative.
Seems kinda retarded. Parsing 40Gb of emails and stripping a set list of addresses and names from them is not going to cost anything like this, unless you are technologically challenged. If you're asking your lawyers and clerical workers to manually do this, instead of seeking a digital solution to a digital problem, your own retardedness is the problem, not the order.
I don't this is a case of not knowing about the existence of String Parsers. They need to not only remove names and Addresses but they also need to remove all identifying or even privileged information. They don't know what they need to remove before they read it sadly.
 
I don't this is a case of not knowing about the existence of String Parsers. They need to not only remove names and Addresses but they also need to remove all identifying or even privileged information. They don't know what they need to remove before they read it sadly.
This is why in massive discovery requests like this, it requires actual licensed lawyers to do even the most menial level of it. It's not like drafting a legal pleading where it's 20 pages and the lead lawyer just has to go through it for obvious errors. It's tens of thousands of pages, and the lawyer "reviewing" it would basically have to do what 20 other lawyers did over again.

It's a giant bottleneck in the litigation process, and an incredibly expensive one. In cases like ones between international banks just the discovery costs alone go into the millions. Inflicting that kind of nonsense for discovery of dubious relevance to anything in the case is generally a punitive action, intended to bankrupt the other side. That's the point of it.

In this case, they basically hope to use the legal system to dox the identities of people they can't figure out who they are just so they can take legal and illegal revenge on them, because that is the type of people these are.
 
Clerical workers do not do this. That would be illegal. It has to be lawyers. However many that takes to get it in by the deadline, because that's tens or even hundreds of thousands of pages, you're paying the company that hires them as much as $200 an hour, for lawyers practicing in New York City, possibly more.

You cannot do this automatically. That too would be illegal. And you'd inadvertently reveal a lot of privileged information by doing this even if it were legal. There is an entire industry of doc review which is how many recent law school graduates earn a living as their first intro to real legal practice. Discovery is one of the most expensive parts of complex litigation.
Interesting. Where does this put a pro-se defendent? Would they be compelled to engage a lawyer to perform redaction for subpoenaed information? I guess even if not, that point is still moot here since the defendent has representation.
 
Back