Indictment of Southern Policy Law Center

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It’s almost surreal how the media and Democrats are whitewashing the allegations against the SPLC, casting them as the good guys who just happened to pay informants. Here’s a quick sample of what’s actually in the indictment:

• “active promotion of racist groups”
• “made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC”
• “coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees”
• “directly paying leaders” (because nothing says “informant” like paying the guy in charge)
• “high-level SPLC employee who had knowledge the documents had been stolen”
• “donated funds would be used in the commission of state and federal crimes”
• “SPLC opened bank accounts connected to a series of fictitious entities”

All of that will have to be proven in court, but these are nonetheless extremely serious allegations. The indictment describes a sprawling scheme involving money laundering through fictitious front companies, multi-million dollar fraud against donors, conspiracy, the commissioning of burglary and theft, as well as tax and 501(c)(3) violations tied to funding the activities which the SPLC publicly claims to oppose.

Yeah, like Letitia's "thousands of dollars" of mortgage fraud.

So what if a field agent working under cover made racist postings in conversations with the people they were spying on? It's not legal, you'd have to demonstrate that their activities directly caused the groups to become more dangerous or powerful or commit crimes.

Money laundering is only applicable to illicitly obtained funds. You have to prove actual deception. If the donors provided funds under specific conditions as to how they could be used, there could be deception if used in other ways but I think you need very tight evidence here.

Let's say you are an organization working in the area of reproductive health and you take money from a particular donor under the condition it can only be used to assist women to obtain non-emergency conception and non-emergency prenatal care. Then you use the money to pay for elective abortions and you hide the transactions. Maybe you even coerce some women, maybe you outright lie and falsify fetal age or pregnancy risks to induce them to get an abortion they might not want otherwise.That would be a problem. But if you take money for the general purpose of reproductive health and describe your mission to include family planning, abortion care, and reproductive rights, you should be fine. And the use of multiple deceptively-named accounts is intended to protect your clients from spies like anti-abortion activists who might have jobs in banking or elsewhere that would allow them access to account information.

There's plenty of room to engage in discussion about ethics in political activism, but that's not necessarily a legal discussion.

I'm waiting with bated breath for the Leagal Eagle youtube take.

[Anonymous]

The Southern Povvity Research Legal Council,
They're researching povvity, if you can believe it.
They're researching povvity.
The rattical left.

That's what the rattical left does.
They hate Eh-mare-rih-cah.

[Anonymous]

And the use of multiple deceptively-named accounts is intended to protect your clients from spies like anti-abortion activists who might have jobs in banking or elsewhere that would allow them access to account information.

This, plus I will add that information in the indictment and more that will come out at trial will be enough to identify the informants which puts them in danger. I’m not convinced that this wasn’t part of the point of this witch hunt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So there were fine people on both sides.

State the entire context of that sentence. It's on film all over the internet. Don't just state a part of a sentence. You're being dishonest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

It’s almost surreal how the media and Democrats are whitewashing the allegations against the SPLC, casting them as the good guys who just happened to pay informants. Here’s a quick sample of what’s actually in the indictment:

• “active promotion of racist groups”
• “made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC”
• “coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees”
• “directly paying leaders” (because nothing says “informant” like paying the guy in charge)
• “high-level SPLC employee who had knowledge the documents had been stolen”
• “donated funds would be used in the commission of state and federal crimes”
• “SPLC opened bank accounts connected to a series of fictitious entities”

All of that will have to be proven in court, but these are nonetheless extremely serious allegations. The indictment describes a sprawling scheme involving money laundering through fictitious front companies, multi-million dollar fraud against donors, conspiracy, the commissioning of burglary and theft, as well as tax and 501(c)(3) violations tied to funding the activities which the SPLC publicly claims to oppose.

Putting something in an indictment doesn’t make it true. I find it hard to believe that at this point anyone is dumb enough to believe this administration after they have been embarrassed in court time and time again.

Are you admitting that you are one of them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

And the use of multiple deceptively-named accounts is intended to protect your clients from spies like anti-abortion activists who might have jobs in banking or elsewhere that would allow them access to account information.

This, plus I will add that information in the indictment and more that will come out at trial will be enough to identify the informants which puts them in danger. I’m not convinced that this wasn’t part of the point of this witch hunt.

Yep, this administration will stop at nothing to punish decent people doing the right thing, but what would we expect from a bunch of corrupt pedophiles?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And the use of multiple deceptively-named accounts is intended to protect your clients from spies like anti-abortion activists who might have jobs in banking or elsewhere that would allow them access to account information.

+1 Speculation that the investigation of the SPLC under the Biden administration began because of Suspicious Activity Reports filed by the banks because there were false claims SPLC made to the bank. However, they were not an attempt to hide information from the bank, but instead from the Nazis and Klansmen, so the investigation was closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It’s almost surreal how the media and Democrats are whitewashing the allegations against the SPLC, casting them as the good guys who just happened to pay informants. Here’s a quick sample of what’s actually in the indictment:

• “active promotion of racist groups”
• “made racist postings under the supervision of the SPLC”
• “coordinate transportation to the event for several attendees”
• “directly paying leaders” (because nothing says “informant” like paying the guy in charge)
• “high-level SPLC employee who had knowledge the documents had been stolen”
• “donated funds would be used in the commission of state and federal crimes”
• “SPLC opened bank accounts connected to a series of fictitious entities”

All of that will have to be proven in court, but these are nonetheless extremely serious allegations. The indictment describes a sprawling scheme involving money laundering through fictitious front companies, multi-million dollar fraud against donors, conspiracy, the commissioning of burglary and theft, as well as tax and 501(c)(3) violations tied to funding the activities which the SPLC publicly claims to oppose.

Yeah, like Letitia's "thousands of dollars" of mortgage fraud.

So what if a field agent working under cover made racist postings in conversations with the people they were spying on? It's not legal, you'd have to demonstrate that their activities directly caused the groups to become more dangerous or powerful or commit crimes.

Money laundering is only applicable to illicitly obtained funds. You have to prove actual deception. If the donors provided funds under specific conditions as to how they could be used, there could be deception if used in other ways but I think you need very tight evidence here.

Let's say you are an organization working in the area of reproductive health and you take money from a particular donor under the condition it can only be used to assist women to obtain non-emergency conception and non-emergency prenatal care. Then you use the money to pay for elective abortions and you hide the transactions. Maybe you even coerce some women, maybe you outright lie and falsify fetal age or pregnancy risks to induce them to get an abortion they might not want otherwise.That would be a problem. But if you take money for the general purpose of reproductive health and describe your mission to include family planning, abortion care, and reproductive rights, you should be fine. And the use of multiple deceptively-named accounts is intended to protect your clients from spies like anti-abortion activists who might have jobs in banking or elsewhere that would allow them access to account information.

There's plenty of room to engage in discussion about ethics in political activism, but that's not necessarily a legal discussion.

I'm waiting with bated breath for the Leagal Eagle youtube take.

I'm the former AUSA poster. That isn't exactly right.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "actual deception" but it sounds like you're under the impression that wire fraud requires proof that the defendant made a statement that was literally untrue. That's wrong. Omissions, half-truths, and statements that are technically true but intended to mislead can all support a wire fraud conviction. Here, the problem is that the SPLC specifically identified on its website certain groups that it was committed to fighting and then turned around and gave those same people/groups money. Under most circumstances, that would undeniably be fraud. I understand that the SPLC's position is that it made the payments to fight those groups, and therefore the representations on their website that they were committed to fighting those groups were not deceptive. At the end of the day, I hope the SPLC prevails, but the legal analysis is more complicated than you're suggesting.

[Anonymous]

Here, the problem is that the SPLC specifically identified on its website certain groups that it was committed to fighting and then turned around and gave those same people/groups money. Under most circumstances, that would undeniably be fraud.

IANAL )and thank you for your service as a prosecutor!), but I think what DOJ is saying (in press conferences, on social media, via Karoline Leavitt etc.) that SPLC was “funding the extremist groups” while in reality the evidence they have indicates they were paying informants who were either members of those groups who the SPLC had flipped, or SPLC plants within those groups. And I didn’t see any evidence in the indictment that they had lied to donors (unlike say, how Steve Bannon and others lied to the donors to the Build the Wall project.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Here, the problem is that the SPLC specifically identified on its website certain groups that it was committed to fighting and then turned around and gave those same people/groups money. Under most circumstances, that would undeniably be fraud.

IANAL (and thank you for your service as a prosecutor!), but I think what DOJ is saying (in press conferences, on social media, via Karoline Leavitt etc.) that SPLC was “funding the extremist groups” while in reality the evidence they have indicates they were paying informants who were either members of those groups who the SPLC had flipped, or SPLC plants within those groups. And I didn’t see any evidence in the indictment that they had lied to donors (unlike say, how Steve Bannon and others lied to the donors to the Build the Wall project.)

Me again, saw this just after I posted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Here, the problem is that the SPLC specifically identified on its website certain groups that it was committed to fighting and then turned around and gave those same people/groups money. Under most circumstances, that would undeniably be fraud.

IANAL )and thank you for your service as a prosecutor!), but I think what DOJ is saying (in press conferences, on social media, via Karoline Leavitt etc.) that SPLC was “funding the extremist groups” while in reality the evidence they have indicates they were paying informants who were either members of those groups who the SPLC had flipped, or SPLC plants within those groups. And I didn’t see any evidence in the indictment that they had lied to donors (unlike say, how Steve Bannon and others lied to the donors to the Build the Wall project.)

There's an enormous gap between the allegations in the indictment and what members of the administration are saying about the indictment. The crux of the wire fraud allegation as described in the indictment is that the SPLC solicited donations by stating that it combatted specific hate groups and hid information about using donor funds to pay informants with these groups, and that SPLC intentionally hid this information because they understood that, if known, donors would be disinclined to donate. The idea is the SPLC told a half-truth knowing that donors would be less likely to donate if they knew the whole truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Here, the problem is that the SPLC specifically identified on its website certain groups that it was committed to fighting and then turned around and gave those same people/groups money. Under most circumstances, that would undeniably be fraud.

IANAL (and thank you for your service as a prosecutor!), but I think what DOJ is saying (in press conferences, on social media, via Karoline Leavitt etc.) that SPLC was “funding the extremist groups” while in reality the evidence they have indicates they were paying informants who were either members of those groups who the SPLC had flipped, or SPLC plants within those groups. And I didn’t see any evidence in the indictment that they had lied to donors (unlike say, how Steve Bannon and others lied to the donors to the Build the Wall project.)

Me again, saw this just after I posted

I agree that’s the key problem with this case. DOJ needs to prove that by not telling donors about how it paid informants, the SPLC was trying to induce donors to donate when, if they’d known the whole truth, would not have. That seems tough to me.

[Anonymous]

Then why does it appear they were laundering the funds?

How effective were they in dismantling these organizations? Paying someone who was arranging transportation to events does not seem like a good policy to dismantle the organization.

What did they do to help get rid of hate organizations?
Name Turning Point as a hate group? Seems to me that could be construed as making themselves a hate group.
Moms for Liberty?

Anyone they disagreed with was on that list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then why does it appear they were laundering the funds?

How effective were they in dismantling these organizations? Paying someone who was arranging transportation to events does not seem like a good policy to dismantle the organization.

What did they do to help get rid of hate organizations?
Name Turning Point as a hate group? Seems to me that could be construed as making themselves a hate group.
Moms for Liberty?

Anyone they disagreed with was on that list.

But isn't it unclear what this means? For instance, if they paid for the majority of the buses to bring Nazis to some demonstration -- and the demonstration would not have occurred, or would have been largely a flop, without them doing so -- that seems bad. If they paid the uber fare or van rental for their informants to go to the demonstration, that seems very normal for the work they were doing. I suspect it's more like the latter than the former.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then why does it appear they were laundering the funds?

How effective were they in dismantling these organizations? Paying someone who was arranging transportation to events does not seem like a good policy to dismantle the organization.

What did they do to help get rid of hate organizations?
Name Turning Point as a hate group? Seems to me that could be construed as making themselves a hate group.
Moms for Liberty?

Anyone they disagreed with was on that list.

This is a somewhat atypical money laundering case. Normally, criminals launder money to disguise that the funds were the proceeds of a crime. A typical example: your friendly neighborhood drug dealer launders his money through a restaurant so he can actually make use of the proceeds of his drug dealing business.

In this case, DOJ is alleging that the SPLC laundered money to facilitate the fraud. The government's theory appears to be that the SPLC laundered donor funds by disguising the payments it made to the extremists and it did this because it couldn't let the donors know where the funds were really going.

The obvious counterargument is that SPLC has to conceal the payments to informants because the whole point of an informant is that...you know, the informant's status as an informant is not known to the organization that they're informing on. If everyone knows that the SPLC is paying Mr. Neo Nazi, he's going to end up face down in a body of water somewhere and won't have much value as an informant.