Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Νικηφόρος ⩩ (nike@nationalist.social)'s status on Wednesday, 22-Apr-2026 22:08:54 JST Νικηφόρος ⩩

   • Bloodytailspike
   The primary basis of the charge is that poor libtard donors were defrauded because 'there's simply no way that they wanted their donations to be used to fund informants, so they must've been intentionally misled'.
   
   Not that the SPLC conspired to deny the first amendment rights of American citizens for decades, but that donors were bamboozled.
   
   RT: https://poa.st/objects/6eeacc2f-6875-4b5b-821f-628bdf4f8b90
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Wednesday, 22-Apr-2026 22:08:53 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • Bloodytailspike
     Donors aren't looked at as a class. The issue is that EACH donor had a right to know how the money was used, and the SPLC never informed that they often funded activities that resulted in "hateful" conduct, and instead represented the opposite. They only have to have defrauded one donor.
     
     What it really looks like is that that were running a racket to keep the money flowing in by creating or furthering what they were allegedly fighting.
     
     And calling someone an "informant" doesn't make them so. The SPLC, unlike law enforcement, lacks any sovereign immunity whatsoever and has a legal obligation of discolure and honesty to its donors. So attempting to liken them to law enforcement is just stupid.
     
     When I was in law school an alum got disbarred and jailed for a felony for setting up a fake drug by to prove the local pd was crooked. While the PD can do that, a citizen cannot. He learned the hard way. He should have done more research.
   • Embed this notice
     Herman_Hetherington (herman_hetherington@poa.st)'s status on Wednesday, 22-Apr-2026 22:25:09 JST Herman_Hetherington

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • Bloodytailspike
     Is it not also an issue that they were laundering the money through multiple fake shell companies?
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Wednesday, 22-Apr-2026 22:26:30 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • Bloodytailspike
     I doubt it. I mean, fraud can be ratified in theory, but that's civil. A criminal violation is one against the state, even though a citizen may be the effected party, e.g. murder, so I don't see how a private citizen can ratify a criminal violation.
     
     The SPLC's best move would be to offer return of donations at this time. They can do it without admitting fault and it may earn them some leniency should they lose.
     
     They just say...
     
     > We've been accused
     
     > We believe the allegations false
     
     > Nonetheless, we respect donors and understand that some of you may feel ... so we are offering ...
     
     It's also good PR and I assume most people wouldn't ask for their money back, so it's not a huge loss financially.
     
     Calling it a political attack is a bad look. It's smells of a Clintonesque cover even if it's not.
   • Embed this notice
     Νικηφόρος ⩩ (nike@nationalist.social)'s status on Wednesday, 22-Apr-2026 22:26:31 JST Νικηφόρος ⩩

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • Bloodytailspike
     One thing I have been wondering, and it sounds like it would be a good question for you, can the SPLC mount a defense by compiling feedback from individual donors stating that they approve of the org's tactics? Like you said, it need only be one person, so Id presume the DOJ already has a list of donors willing to express their disapproval.
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     ?? Humpleupagus ?? (humpleupagus@eveningzoo.club)'s status on Wednesday, 22-Apr-2026 22:27:36 JST ?? Humpleupagus ??

     in reply to

     • Bloodytailspike
     • Herman_Hetherington
     I think the government will say it establishes intent to hide it from donors, i.e. that they didn't want the expenditures showing up in their Financials.
   • Embed this notice
     dassauerkraut (dassauerkraut@shortstacksran.ch)'s status on Wednesday, 22-Apr-2026 23:47:20 JST dassauerkraut

     in reply to

     • ?? Humpleupagus ??
     • Bloodytailspike
     @Humpleupagus @nike @monsterislandcolonizer
     We all know its just Jew group A being mad because Jew group B was giving money out to White people.