Editor’s Note: All “hate speech” cases are fraudulent and belong in the dustbin. “Hate speech” is not a viable legal concept. If one can love, why can one not hate? Hate speech is an oppressive totalitarian ruse invented by Bolshevik-Marxist Jews to silence white male resistance to their plans of erasing us, nothing more.
By Loki Hulgaard
REASONS FOR OVERTURNING DECISION TO PLEAD GUILTY TO THE CHARGES OF “WILLFULLY PROMOTNG HATRED”
I did not sincerely plead to the charges because of:
DEATH THREATS:
Death threats were made by one known Antifa member, (a known terrorist organization with probable criminal connections) and several other anonymous people who had been making similar comments online, that if I was incarcerated I would ‘commit suicide’ and other veiled threats regarding ‘particle beam weapons’ used on other people such as Alfred Shaefer. Proof of these threats is available in the form of screenshots from various interview videos I have conducted (contained below);
SURROUNDING CONTEXT OF EVENTS (refer to the legal case journal below):
These death threats and ongoing vulgar comments and email harassment added to the mental anguish I have suffered under for the past one and a half years having also been put under curfew the entire time being made to feel like a prisoner or criminal.
This general climate of persecution that had occured in the town made me fear for my life. The general animosity on the part of many of the residents-eg.rude staring; nasty comments; sabotage and spying by government employees also had convinced me that these threats should not be taken lightly. For more details read the journal of events below.
PUBLIC OPINION:
I have decided to have my decision overturned because I do not admit to having publically incited of hatred or having willfully promoted hatred
1) consulted after the decision with others who stated it would harm free speech for me to plead . Also becasue of the fact the media associating the plea of guilty with an admission that I acknowledged what I have been charged with as a legitimate crime or moral transgression which I don’t. The guilty plea being reported on in the context of firearms suggesting a connection and I did not know this could be shown to the public: this defamed my reputation and others who allegedly promote a similar message;
2) living in this climate of persecution by people in town (especially christians) who behaved hostilely towards me because of media defamation of my character. This contributed to my being under constant stress that with the trial coming upon me abruptly (I did not know until the last few days that the trial would only be confined to one or two days at most but assumed I had more time and that the trial would extend even as long as into May and April. This based on the notification of the lawyer) led to my making a hasty decision;
LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING THE CASE: 1)
Having to make a decision on the spur of the moment, the Crown having presented the ‘plea bargain’ within only a day of trial and during the time the trial was to take place presenting a modified version upon my arrival which created confusion;
2) Because of this I did not have sufficient time to properly consult with lawyer or other outside parties to gain critical perspectives which have led to my desire to retract the plea;
3) I was advised by others after the fact that the messages were not ‘hate’ as to qualify as such it had to be more extreme and I was advised by others who have knowledge of the legal system that the punishment was excessively onerous given the alleged crime
4) I didn’t know what the crown was seeking in terms of punishment after the matters related to the firearms was set aside;
5) the judge was jewish and I was sure he would convict given probable bias and his reputation as a hanging judge; the prosecuting attorney was also jewish and was brought in from Calgary;
6) the lawyer represented the local appeal court as typically upholding prior decisions and thus convinced me that an appeal would be vain and on this basis I anticipated not being given a fair trial if the jewish judges’ decision was appealed
READ THE REST OF THE CASE ANALYSIS HERE
