A couple of years ago, a friend of mine (we'll call him Earl) was shopping in a major department store near his home in Atlanta, Georgia, for a heater. The store had on its shelves only one unit of the item that he wished to purchase. But someone had already opened the box. And whoever did it had scattered the heater's parts among other items on the store shelf. (For some reason, this is a relatively common sight in department stores located in areas having a high Negro population density.)

Earl had bought this kind of heater on previous occasions, and he knew which parts belonged to it. Each time, an igniter (a two-dollar spark-maker) had been provided in the box with the heater. Earl began putting the product back together, rebuilding it inside the box that had originally contained it. Noticing that the igniter wasn't nearby, Earl searched for it and found it lying, unpackaged, under a hanging rack of packaged igniters of the same type. Most likely, a store clerk had erroneously taken it there. He put the igniter in the box with the heater.

Had he asked a store clerk to do this for him, he'd not have gotten into trouble. But there were no store clerks around.

With the completed heater in hand, Earl went to the checkout counter and made the purchase. But he was apprehended near the store exit by a Black store security chief, dressed in plain clothes with his shirt tail hanging out. The Negro ordered Earl to open the box. He pawed through the box's contents, evidently looking for something. After a bit, his hand came up with the igniter. "We saw you on the security camera," the Black store security chief said. "You'd better come into the back room with us."

What probably had happened was that the Black security chief had at first believed that he had caught someone shoplifting and that this was his chance to inflict some trouble on a White person while doing his job at the same time. While watching the department store's security monitors, he might have thought that the igniter that Earl had placed inside the box was some other item. But when he examined the box and discovered that it contained nothing stolen, the "nigger" aspect of his character came into play. The White man was not to be given an apology. The White man was not to escape. Having begun an action against a White man, the Negro was not to retreat or to admit error.

The "backroom" was a place where an accused shoplifter is treated to verbal abuse and snide measures of sarcasm prior to the arrival of the police. Earl was made to empty his pockets, and each item was questioned as to how he'd gotten it. "And where did you steal this from?" Etc. Such backrooms are usually full of niggers who love treating Whites to verbal abuse and wild accusations. While this was going on, the Black security chief made Poloroid photographs of items that Earl had not even touched while he was in the store. One of these items was a $14 lantern. Earl was a bit dazed, as it was the first time he'd ever been accused of theft and could scarcely believe what was going on.

The police came and apologetically arrested Earl. They were White officers who probably figured that something racial going on here, but they couldn't do other than follow regulations. Earl was allowed to recover his money and valuables from his car, so that the niggers, of which Atlanta has more than plenty, wouldn't steal it while he was in jail. Out on bail, Earl eagerly anticipated his day in court in hopes that the trial would clear him of any criminal intent.

Having had some experience, myself, with lawyers, I think that I can guess what probably happened. I think that Earl's lawyer and the district attorney must have gotten together and decided, before the "circus trial" that followed, that Earl was going to lose, and what kind of general strategy would be followed by the prosecution and by the defense in order to get Earl convicted of shoplifting. Whether the major department store in question had given these lawyers some sort of inducement to this end, I couldn't say. It is possible that a positive inducement (such as a bribe) was unnecessary; the prospect of repercussions in the event that Earl should win his case would have been sufficient.

If you are a White male defendant in a trial that has any sort of racial or gender aspect, or if the prosecution is a large corporation with money to throw around, you should be aware that your own lawyer might betray you in order to curry favor with someone who can advance or retard his career or his prestige as an attorney. You will be treated to a show of legal solicitude, but your lawyer will at the same time be thinking of how he can best use your conviction as a stepping stone toward political success.

[Something like this happened to me during a civil action in Huntsville, Alabama, around 1989 or 1990. I figured out the charade a couple of minutes before getting figuratively stabbed in the back, when my lawyer, with an air of (feigned) frustration, pretended to consult a law book to clarify a legal fine point that, up to then, he had pretended not to know. There wasn't anything that I could have done to save my case, nor was there any way to prove that my attorney had betrayed me—that he had, in fact, defrauded me in order to induce me to pay him money. My only possible defense against my lawyer's crookedness would have been not to hire him, but I needed a lawyer and, of course, I didn't know in advance that he was a crook. The days when a lawyer's paramount concern is to get justice for his client are gone, if, indeed, such was ever a characteristic of lawyers. But let's get back to Earl.]

At Earl's trial, the Black security chief tripped himself up with lies. He also produced a fraudulent exhibit, a $30 lantern—a different lantern from the one he'd photographed in the backroom on the day of the arrest. The Negro falsely testified that Earl had attempted to steal an lantern like the one he was showing to the jury. Earl had kept his receipt, and a check of the UPC codes proved that the lantern was a phony exhibit. When the Black security chief, on the witness stand, was made aware of this, he became afraid that he might be charged with perjury, and he quickly stated that he had brought the lantern in for "demonstration purposes" only. Surrre. He might as validly have alleged that Earl had attempted the theft of a Barbie doll or a wheelbarrow, as neither of those items is a heater igniter, either.

One interesting point that came out in the trial—the department store was unwilling to introduce, as evidence against Earl, any of their security videotapes. Normally, this is the evidence used to clinch the case against an actual shoplifter, and the failure to provide it should have been a strong indication of Earl's innocence. When the defense tried to subpoena the videotapes, the prosecution said that they didn't exist because the security camera recorders weren't running at the time of the alleged theft. I doubt it. I think that the videotapes did exist, and that they tended to exonerate Earl, and that the reason they were not available at the trial was that the dishonest (and Negroid) department store representatives knew that they were evidence against their case.

Niggers and truth just don't go together.

After the prosecution and the defense had finished, the jury retired to contemplate their verdict. The jury was all White, five women and one man. Earl believes that a desire on their part to demonstrate that they were "not racists" contributed to his conviction. The judge reminded the jury of their duty to presume the defendant innocent and that Earl must be acquitted if they had any reasonable doubt as to his guilt. The jury disregarded this instruction. The jurors evidently did have doubts, since they transmitted to the judge a number of questions about the law and about the facts of the case that the judge was technically bound not to answer once the trial was over. Despite these doubts, the jury came back with a unanimous verdict of "guilty."

The jurors certainly had doubts about the truth of the charge, and at least one of them might have wanted to acquit Earl. And it would have been the duty of any jurors with reasonable doubt to dig in their heels and to argue their reasons to the other jurors for hours or even days...however long might be necessary for justice to be served and for an innocent man to be set free. But jurors are seldom so dutiful as this. Like Pontius Pilate, they usually just want to wash their hands of the matter: to get finished so that they can go home. Their convenience and their desire to avoid confrontation and argument with other jurors induces them to "go with the flow," and they usually prefer to send an innocent man to prison for years rather than give up a weekend for justice.

Each of these jurors might be accused, in their turn, as Earl was accused. Anybody can fall into the snare of unscrupulous accusers, and Whites are especially susceptible because Blacks have been entrusted with powers of which they are unworthy, which they will use as a weapon in their racial war against us. And each of Earl's jurors would expect their own jury to weigh the evidence carefully and to argue for acquittal if it leaves any reasonable doubt about their guilt. And that's a hoot because, when it came their chance to try someone else, they didn't take their responsibilities seriously.

Also, Earl's lawyer used "arguments" that were weaker than others that were available to him, and he didn't hammer to the jury on the fact that the prosecution's star nigger witness was a liar who had been caught in his lies, and he didn't bring home the fact that the prosecution had introduced fraudulent evidence in court. Earl was convicted and sentenced to 40 hours of community service as a first-time offender. You can indeed be damned with faint praise, or, in this case, by a lawyer who for whatever reason has chosen to defend you with weak defenses. And you can be damned by a jury who just can't be bothered to administer justice for someone else in the way they would have wanted it done for themselves.

Beware of the courtroom, my fellow Whites.

I have another example of Blacks abusing official power from my own experience. While I was living in Fairborn, Ohio, driving a motorcycle to work at Wright-Patterson AFB, I was pulled over by a Black deputy sheriff who didn't like the look on my face. I'm not joking. After passing me (going the other way) at a speed of maybe sixty miles an hour, he whipped his car around and chased me down. Getting out of his car with great ominosity, he gave me some verbal harrassment for a while and then said that I had better be more careful in the future not to show him any disrespect.

I should tell my readers, at this point, that this was during the 1980s, many years before I became a racist.

I complained about the Black deputy's behavior to the Greene County sheriff, who promised that he would look into the matter. He must have said something to his deputy, because in resentment the deputy took to following me every time I went anywhere in my car. He pulled me over on the first day of the last month that my license plate was valid—I think that he had the mistaken idea that it was the first day after the license's expiration.

The wisdom expressed by Abraham Lincoln in the quote below could not have been better illustrated than by the behavior of that Negroid deputy sheriff of Greene County, Ohio.

"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. . . I am not, nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, or intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the races living together on terms of social and political equality."

—Abraham Lincoln

There are countless other examples of our system of justice and law-enforcement going askew in favor of Blacks and to the disadvantage of Whites. In Seattle, during a race riot in which Blacks were kicking and beating Whites right in front of police, the police dared not to intervene by arresting the Blacks because they were afraid of being charged with "racial profiling."

Similar police cowardice during a Black riot in Cincinnati in April 2001 led to the destruction of a fair bit of the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood, along with the beating of innocent White people who had paid their taxes for police to protect them from that kind of harm. Indeed, the first person charged after the riot for "hate crimes" was a White man who, angry about the riot, threw a brick through a car window after cursing at the Black rioters. Talk about malfeasance!

What all of this means is that White people are always, everywhere, presumed to be criminals—officially—and the presumption has been propagandized to the point where most White people, who never can be bothered with politics until it's too late, now think that it's only natural. You can imagine what effect this has on trials where brainwashed White jurors try an accused White. White jurors commonly feel themselves under an onus to prove themselves "good people" who don't favor accused Whites, going so far as to find them guilty even when there is more than a reasonable doubt of such guilt.

And then there was the malicious arrest of Lonny Rae in Idaho. Lonny's wife Kimberly was attacked by a Black referee after a football game. The Black referee was trying to steal her camera because he was afraid that it contained evidence of "bad calls" during the game. The Black referee's name was withheld by the same media who divulged the names of both Lonny and Kimberly Rae. The Black referee put friction burn marks on Kimberly's neck by violently tugging on the camera strap. Lonny was arrested by the local sheriff for calling the assailant a nigger during his outrage over his wife's injuries. The local prosecutor, Myron Gabbert, seems to be the culprit behind the malicious charges against Lonny Rae. Lonny's "crime" was, after his arrest, elevated to the status of a felony. Using the word nigger to describe a large Black man who has molested your wife is, at least in Idaho, now a crime in the same league as murder, arson, rape, and is evidently more serious than assault-and-battery. (The nigger referee was not charged with any crime as far as I know. Hey you—Myron Gabbert—are you evil or just incompetent?)

Really, I could go on like this for days and not even scratch the surface. But you readers may get some idea of the extent to which our court system has been corrupted. The courtroom is not a safe place for innocent White people to be. You're in the position of first-century Christians in the Roman arena, with the lions about to be let loose.

Jerry's Posts Index Page
Jerry's Aryan Battle Page