Not another noose!

I was asked by a reader to highlight the following:

Noose on Ole Miss integration statue brings federal indictment ~ AP

The arrest raises disturbing implications so I understand the interest as even Mr. Meredith apparently hates his own statue. No doubt the message conveyed by the perpetrators is one of hate, but is it a crime? Apparently AG Holder thinks so as we have a federal indictment.

I am uncomfortable with the constitutional implications. Fire away your thoughts in comments.

10 thoughts on “Not another noose!”

  1. Hard to see any difference between this and burning the American flag or a draft card. However, the thought could be it amounts to a threat of harm. Seems like the resources should be directed at exposing the stupidity and attempting to deter future stupidity.

  2. Me tinks it maybe a JohnnyRebel mascot fan who is sick and tired of looking at the foolish Ole Miss black bear !

    I hope when and where they erect a statue of our beloved First Afro-American president they place a cage around it so no one will be sentenced to life imprisonment for an implied threat to him by desecrating his monument in any way.

    With the rapidity of armed services officers leaving the service due to degradation of morale caused by the White House treating Bowe “Ballerina” Birddog as an Afghan hero , I’m sure his memorial plaque will read he was the first president who almost destroyed our armed services

  3. Well, “NRB” has already “stolen my thunder”. I respectfully submit that, while Mr. Harris’ conduct was INEXCUSABLE, and STUPID (particularly for a “white man”), it was NOT CRIMINAL, This is a clear case of what is known as “vertical criminal overcharging” by our CRIMINAL ATTORNEY GENERAL, Eric Holder, which is itself CRIMINAL – just look up the “Mark Rich” pardon at the tail end of Clinton’s Presidency, and who “ramrodded” the pardon. Bear in mind that I speak from personal experience of being wrongfully charged, criminally, with making “threats” against unidentified and unidentifiable “persons” by a CRIMINALLY CORRUPT prosecutor, former U.S. Attorney James Letten, who was forced to resign from his Government position, but who has not yet been called to account for the CRIMES he committed against me and others during his CORRUPT tenure. I BEAT Letten only after serving 34 days in solitary confinement in “the Windsor Court St. Bernard”, and after fighting the spurious criminal charges which he wrongfully leveled against me for almost two (2) years before securing DISMISSAL, with prejudice. Who, besides Ashton O’Dwyer and Fred Heebe, do you know who can say: “I BEAT Jim Letten”? I am assuming that the Federal statute under which Mr. Harris is being prosecuted is 18 United States Code, Section 241, entitled “Conspiracy Against Rights”, which prohibits conspiring ” … to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any state … in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.” Although I am not aware that they also have been charged, Mr. Harris apparently had at least two (2) accomplices with whom he conspired, and who I assume will be testifying against him, in exchange for some “deal” offered by Holder and his minions, for their testimony against Mr. Harris. Parenthetically, the “offense” took place in February 2014, over one (1) year ago, not recently. I would like to see the charges to identify precisely who Holder claims Mr. Harris had specific intent to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate”. My guess is that, while incredibly STOOPID, Mr. Harris HAD NO SUCH INTENT, and that Holder can identify NO ONE who falls within the four corners of the Federal statute. The James Meridith statue hasn’t made any complaint, to my knowledge. I’m no expert in Mississippi law, but Louisiana, where I practiced civil law before I was disbarred, in retaliation and retribution for my having called a Federal Judge (Stanwood R. Duval, Jr.) and his rich and powerful friends (including Calvin Clifford Fayard, Jr. and others), CROOKED, has an “anti-noose” law, embodied in Title 14, Louisiana Revised Statutes, Section 40.5(A). The Louisiana statute provides that: “It shall be unlawful for any person, with the intent to intimidate any person or group of persons, to etch, paint, draw, or otherwise display, a hangman’s noose on the property of another, a highway, or other public place.” Notice that SPECIFIC INTENT is a pre-requisite to criminal culpability under the Louisiana statute. If Mississippi has a similar statute, I just don’t see how Mr. Harris, in his STOOPIDITY, had intent to intimidate. I also have a few questions for Holder: Why haven’t you brought Federal charges against Michael Brown’s “Step-Father” (really a “live-in boyfriend” for Brown’s Mother) for inciting to riot in Ferguson by extorting, among other things “Burn this bitch down!”? And why no Federal charges against the Nebraska State Senator who very recently likened police to “terrorists” and said that if he had a gun he would KILL them, implying that is constituents should do the same? Thanks, Holder. I’m counting the days for you to be GONE. Ashton O’Dwyer.

  4. This should fuel massive purchases of Johnny Reb initialed slacks, polo and dress shirts, caps, purses, socks, underwear, shades and sweaters in Oxford.

    Me tinks I’ll pick up a few Johnny Reb items there in 2015 when dem LSU Fightin’ Tigers chew on some bear meat fo’ me to done wear fo’ me next visit to Washington and me private tour true da’ White House. He,he,he

  5. To Mr. Handshoe: The Comments thus far really have not addressed your question(s) about the “constitutional implications” of the Federal charges brought against Mr. Harris for hanging a noose on the Meredith statue, and draping the statue with a former Georgia State flag, presumably containing some “Rebel” icon. One could write a “law review article” on this subject, but the “quick and dirty” answer is to be found in the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Virginia versus Black, reported at 538 U.S. 343. There, a clear majority of the Court addressed rights under the First Amendment versus “threats and intimidation” occasioned by three “rocket scientist” white boys who burned a cross in violation of a Virginia statute containing IDENTICAL language to the Louisiana anti-noose statute, ie. “on the property of another, a highway, or other public place”. What is instructive from the Harris case is the fact that the “Virginia versus Black” Court struck down that portion of the Virginia statute which provided that cross-burning was prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate, holding that for cross-burning to be criminal, intent to intimidate must be proven. The Court specifically held, however, that a State could ban cross-burning carried out with an intent to intimidate. Our jurisprudence is to the effect that “true threats” are not constitutionally protected by the First Amendment. The “Virginia versus Black” Court held that “true threats encompass those statements [or ‘expressions’, like cross-burning, or displaying a noose, or a Confederate battle flag] where the speaker communicated a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals … [whether or not] … the speaker … actually intended to carry out the threat.” Accordingly, my advice is to BE POLITE and USE COMMON SENSE, and to apply “the Golden Rule” before doing something that might frighten or intimidate one’s neighbors, or raise the ire of an aggressive prosecutor. Failure to follow that advice may visit unwarranted criminal charges upon one’s head. Parenthetically, there are some “typos” in my prior Comment: Third line, the term is “vertical prosecutorial overcharging”; fourth line from bottom, the word is “exhorting”; and second to last line, the word is “his”. Ashton O’Dwyer.

  6. IMHO I strongly believe that if a similar act were commuted against whites, Irish, or Italians, nothing would be said and it certainly would not be brought to this level.

Comments are closed.