I was cleaning out my Harddrive and found this old outline that was mailed many years ago. From the Stalinist Communist International to the George Soros-funded Criminals Lobby: Disrupting the Courts and Frustrating Justice Under the Cover ofAdvancing Human RightsReport prepared for America’s Survival, Inc. October 27, 2011, “Soros Files” Confe Angela Davis was acquitted on all charges of aiding murder and kidnapping in a notorious 1972 case that illustrated a glaring weakness in the American judicial system: justice can be subverted by the activities of communists committed to making the defendant into a “political prisoner” who deserved to be free. Davis has since co-founded the Soros-funded “Critical Resistance” organization to establish a “world without prisons.” 2 Summary In 1932, at Stalin’s behest, the International Labor Defense (ILD), legal arm of the Comintern-backed American Communist Party, hijacked the defense of the Scottsboro Trials in the hope of sparking race-and-class riots that would lead to the overthrow of the U.S. government “from below.” The Comintern was the Communist International. During World War II and the Cold War, the Soviet-front National Lawyers Guild, itself a spin-off from the ILD, defended Communist spies and would-be revolutionaries from censure and investigation while claiming to be motivated only by the prerogatives of free speech and free association. In the 1960s, at William Kunstler’s behest, attorneys at the Center for Constitutional Rights lurched leftward, shifting from defending principled civil rights protestors to representing murderous political revolutionaries, Communist terrorists, Islamic radicals, and violent street criminals, all in the name of “fighting injustice.” And in 2011, a new level of sophistication in efforts to interference in American legal sovereignty came to light when a group of radical law professors, Soros-funded advocacy groups, United Nations officials, and even President Obama and the U.S. State Department campaigned to impose international human rights law on the Texas-jurisdiction death penalty case of rapist-murderer Humberto Leal.i In each of these instances, activists attempted to use U.S. courts to advance anti-capitalist and Anti-American causes that would likely fail if brought before the American public for legislative consideration. While the names and allegiances of these revolutionary movements have changed over time, their strategies remain surprisingly consistent: • Declare human rights as one’s motive • Deny the legitimacy of U.S. jurisprudence while demanding access to the courts • Disrupt the orderly functioning of the courts, through protest orcourtroom exploits 3 • Defund the justice system by placing excessive demands on it orexploiting its rules and procedures For a period during the Cold War, the American Bar Association (ABA) took the lead in exposing the infiltration of anti-American groups in the legal profession and detailed the tactics these groups used. But the ABA’s efforts, and reasonable, early inquiries by the House Un-American Activities Commission during this era have largely been forgotten or discredited in the generalized backlash against Senator Joseph McCarthy. Meanwhile, by the late-1960s, both crime and civil disorder soared out of control, just as the justice system grappled with demands for civil rights. Activists viewed the human tragedy of unsafe city life as an opportunity. Coinciding with unprecedented crime rates was the invention of the “root causes” theory of crime, which posits that social and income inequality, not individual free will, is to be blamed for people’s decisions to commit criminal acts. Soon root causes thinking predominated in courtrooms and academia and throughout the institutions created by the War on Poverty, where it was used to justify lenience for “underprivileged” criminals. The implications of rising violent crime and lowered resistance to it were devastating to poor Americans. The threat of communist infiltration from outside, it might be said, was supplanted in this era by a far more effective form of collectivism: inaction on crime due to the “collective guilt” of society for the actions of criminals. Consequently, many millions of families, not just whites, fled cities for suburbs where they could lead safer lives. By 1971, the head of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Milton S. Eisenhower, observed that, of the 10 million serious crimes committed in the United States in 1970, only 11⁄2% resulted in even temporary incarceration for anyone. “It would be hard to argue that crime does not pay,” observed Lloyd Cutler, another Commission member: “[t]he sad fact is that our criminal justice system . . . does not deter, does not detect, does not convict, and does not correct.”ii It would seem that the mandate to “deny, disrupt, and defund” the justice system in the name of human rights for criminals had succeeded even before the revolutions of the Sixties subsided, a success that still failed to deter the appetite of radicals demanding more lenience and less crime control. And in important ways, lenience towards criminals has remained the status quo for the last forty years. Despite the professionalization of police forces and demonstrations of success in fighting crime in parts of New York City and elsewhere, other neighborhoods and cities that were blighted by crime in 1970 have, in the final analysis, failed to recover much semblance of security and normal life. Cities such as Detroit are permanently destroyed. Dozens of others remain viable only because of periodic, massive transfers of federal taxpayer funding for rescue and rebuilding, money that often falls into the hands of groups such as ACORN. If this was a bloody revolution for the public, it was an oddly bloodlessone for the revolutionaries themselves, which may help explain their ever-escalating demands. The very “deniers, disrupters, and de- funders” of law enforcement now run universities, law schools, and bureaucracies, or they are valorized in the echo chambers of these institutions. They hold elected office and even positions of authority within the law enforcement agencies and courts they once picketed – or bombed. Protest itself now frequently comes with a pay scale and a pension, usually paid by the taxpayers who also must pay for things like higher insurance rates and home security systems because of the “sad facts” created by the radical activists of the Sixties. Unsurprisingly, given this reward-loop, from positions of power within the legal profession – including dominance in the increasingly liberal ABA – activists continue chip away at the justice system’s legitimacy and the public’s demand for safety. They oppose every effort to incarcerate repeat and violent offenders for substantial periods of time, achieving both economic and legislative victories against hard-won “three-strikes” laws and recidivism sentencing. They’re winning the fight to enforce death sentences for criminal cop killers and even to enforce sentences of life without parole for the most violent offenders. They oppose national security measures to prevent terrorism, and they advocate for increasingly extreme open borders policies and privileges for illegal immigrants, including voting rights for people in the United States illegally. These were issues the Communists of the thirties saw as 5 “tools” to advance the ultimate cause of revolution and radicals of the sixties (the ones who weren’t also Communists) saw as means to the end that they defined as “justice.” Whereas, eighty years ago, a Communist organizer spent his evenings in endless meetings in grim walk-ups with “fellow travelers,” and forty years ago, a William Kunstler worked the jury box of the courtroom, playing the role of legal gadfly to the hilt, today’s revolutionaries are likely to be situated in posh legal institutions, academia, government agencies, NGOs, or “the new media.” But despite everything that has changed, and despite their essentially bureaucratic roles, the unified message these activist broadcast is as radical as anything Kunstler ever uttered into a reporter’s microphone on the steps of a Manhattan Courthouse. The message itself has not changed in eighty years, no matter how much everything else has changed: America is a police state with fascist law enforcement and a racist criminal justice system. America persecutes immigrants and denies theirrights. Capitalism victimizes everybody. The price of repeating this mantra is evident in the running homicide reportsiii recorded in newspapers like the Los Angeles Times: violent crime is more intra-racial and concentrated among young black and Hispanic males – as victims and offenders -- than it was in 1970, when responsible leaders such as Milton S. Eisenhower and Patrick Moynihan sounded alarms about the high rates of black-on-black violence. However, those in charge today have reacted merely by perfecting their denials of the toll of four decades of accommodating extreme lawlessness. The new radicals have a stranglehold on the message, and none more so than George Soros, who, despite his billions, fits the model of the 1930’s communist infiltrators who tried to exploit America’s racial failings, not to achieve justice, but to destabilize the government and foment revolutionary change. Soros claims to not be a communist, but he talks like one and acts like one and strategizes like one in his focused effort to exploit opposition to crime control and subsume the authority of the American legal system to international human rights treaties, at any cost to ordinary Americans. The purpose of this report is to offer a very brief tour of eighty years of communist’s and radical’s use of crime and the courts for political ends in America, in order to offer some perspective on where George Soros is coming from, and where he might be going, through the disparate legal activism he is currently funding. Soros claims that his master plan is to advance the cause of what he call “Open Society” and what critics David Horowitz and Richard Poe have more accurately named “The Shadow Party”: bureaucratic and political institutions that parasitically sap public resources and democratic power. Some of George Soros’ activism apes the old Comintern/National Lawyers Guild strategy of trying to undermine national sovereignty with international laws in the name of human rights. Some activists replay the nihilistic courtroom and jailhouse performance art perfected by William Kunstler in the Sixties; others do the same under faceless bureaucratic cover. In all, thousands of lawyers, bureaucrats, academicians, and “activists” promote dozens of law-related causes through hundreds of networked and coalitioning organizations, all of them connected by one thing: George Soros’ money. It is time to pay more attention to where he is taking our justice system.7 Outline 1. Communist Infiltration in the Legal Profession in the 1930s: The Scottsboro Example 2. Communist Infiltration in the Legal Profession During the Cold War: Investigating the National Lawyers Guild’s Split Loyalties 3. William Kunstler and the Racial Radicalization of the Center for Constitutional Rights 4. The Bureaucratization of Soros’ “Criminals Lobby” • Communist Infiltration in the Legal Profession in the 1930’s: The Scottsboro Example In 1931, nine black youths were charged with raping two white women on a train outside Scottsboro, Alabama. The plight of several young black men being threatened with lynching or unjust trials drew international attention. Clarence Darrow and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) sought to represent the youths, but the Communist Party’s International Labor Defense(ILD) attorneys convinced the defendants to choose their counsel instead. For most of the 1920’s, the Community Party in Moscow had viewed the American “race problem” as fertile ground for fomenting revolutionary action to overthrow the American capitalist government. In 1928, American Communists were informed by the Soviet Comintern that they were to seek a separate “republic” for blacks in the American South and that rights-seeking black groups such as the NAACP were to be viewed as anathematic to the Party’s revolutionary goals.iv It was against this backdrop that the ILD took on the Scottsboro defense. They organized train-tours and mass protests and made inflammatory speeches against Alabama officials to heighten “revolutionary” fervor, further risking the defendants’ lives. The ILD accused the NAACP and other black leaders of being in cahoots with the Ku Klux Klan, and they used the case for fundraising. The ILD only abandoned their dangerous exploitation of the Scottsboro defendants in 1935 when instructed to do so by Moscow, which was growing anxious about the rise of Hitler and feeling the need to join forces with socialists and progressives they had previously denounced. Overnight, the ILD handed the reins of the Scottsboro defense to the NAACP and other parties.v The Communist ILD was hardly the only group to exploit the Scottsboro defendants. But the spectacle of the ILD pursuing death penalty cases with black defendants in the Jim Crow South in order to advance its revolutionary politics resonates in the anti-death penalty activism of today. • Communist Infiltration in the Legal Profession During the Cold War: Investigating the National Lawyers Guilds Split Loyalties Today it is difficult to even talk about the fact that in the years preceding and following World War II, there actually were groups of Communist- Party affiliated American lawyers plotting the end of democratic American government and taking marching orders from Stalin’s Comintern to “overthrow . . . the international bourgeoisie . . . for the creation of an international Soviet republic.”vi Such historical realities are dismissed out of hand as fictional products of the “Red Scare.” Generations of students have now been carefully schooled to believe that, throughout the first decade of the Cold War, a sort of collective madness struck Washington officials, causing them to persecute ever- widening groups of people for political beliefs that could only – must only – be benign. Playwrights and movie stars, the story goes, and nuclear scientists, and college professors, were subjected to “witch-hunts” no more fact-based than the original Salem Witch Trials. Arthur Miller enshrined this conceit in his play, The Crucible, which frequently stands in as schoolchildren’s main or sole exposure to the subject of Cold War America. But in 1953, the view was different. Herbert Brownell Jr., Attorney General of the United States under President Eisenhower, who issued alarms about Communist infiltration in the ranks of the American legal profession, was also a highly credible defender of social progress and civil rights. Brownell argued against racial segregation in Brown v.