Immigration Group Files RICO Lawsuit, Wire Fraud Claims Against SPLC
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
On Wednesday, the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) filed a RICO lawsuit against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), accusing the SPLC of engaging in wire fraud to prop up a conspiracy designed to destroy CIS. The lawsuit seeks a judgment that would prevent the SPLC from falsely labeling CIS a "hate group." President Trump has hired CIS analysts for important roles in his administration.
Howard Foster, CIS's attorney in the case, told PJ Media that the plan to hit SPLC with a racketeering charge went back months, before Baltimore attorney Glen Allen filed his lawsuit for $6.5 million also under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and other statutes.
"We actually sent a copy of this complaint to the SPLC before we filed it, a couple of months ago," Foster, a RICO lawyer, told PJ Media in an interview on Wednesday. "We told them that we were going to file it unless they removed us from their 'hate group' list."
"They essentially told us to go pound sand," Foster recalled.
The lawyer admitted that bringing RICO charges in a civil suit is "difficult," but he insisted "I think here there is a good RICO case."
Federal law "defines racketeering activities as a whole big group of federal and state statutes," Foster explained. "To falsely call CIS a 'hate group' is to commit wire fraud over the internet. And it’s a false statement meant to cause financial harm."
In addition to the SPLC, the lawsuit names Intelligence Project Director Heidi Beirich and SPLC President Richard Cohen. The two defendants "decided to designate CIS as a hate group knowing CIS did not meet SPLC's definition of a hate group," the lawsuit alleges .
The suit also quotes the former editor in chief of the SPLC's Intelligence Report, who said the organization's aim in marking "hate groups" was "not trying to change anybody's mind" but "trying to wreck the groups ... and destroy them." Former SPLC spokesman Mark Potok made similar statements in 2009.
CIS claimed the false label did their organization concrete damage. In 2018, Amazon.com's charity program AmazonSmile removed the Center for Immigration Studies, citing the SPLC label, an action the group claims cost them at least $10,000. Also according to the lawsuit, the charity navigation website GuideStar put the "hate group" marking on CIS's profile on its website in 2018. I reported that GuideStar marked out SPLC-labeled "hate groups" in 2017, removing the labels later that year.
The lawsuit hinges on the claim that CIS does not fit the "hate group" definition. The SPLC defines a "hate group" as "an organization that — based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities — has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics."
"As the Supreme Court has recognized, being an illegal, unauthorized, or undocumented immigrant is not an 'immutable characteristic' since 'it is the product of a conscious, indeed, unlawful, action,'" the lawsuit explains, citing the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe . "Thus, SPLC has not even articulated a basis for designating CIS or any organization a hate group based upon its views on immigration policy."
"Even if being an immigrant were an 'immutable characteristic' the 'official statement of principles' of CIS does not indicate 'beliefs or practices' that 'attack or malign' immigrants as a 'class.' As posted on the CIS website, the mission of CIS is 'providing immigration policy makers, the academic community, news media, and concerned citizens with reliable information about the social, economic, environmental, security and fiscal consequences of legal and illegal immigration into the United States,'" the lawsuit explains.
Even CIS's motto, "Pro immigrant, low immigration," reflects the organization's commitment to immigration as a good thing in limited amounts.
"The SPLC has produced no evidence that the 'statements' of CIS 'leaders' or 'activities' of CIS reveal 'beliefs or practices' that 'malign or attack' immigrants as a class," the lawsuit continues. "The information that is provided by CIS on the consequences of immigration is ordinarily based on official federal government statistics."
Foster, the lawyer, noted that without the fundamental claim that being an illegal immigrant is an "immutable characteristic," the SPLC would have to "show that CIS makes official statements that malign or attack all immigrants. I just don’t know how they can show that."
CIS alleges that 13 separate articles on the SPLC's Hatewatch blog constitute wire fraud, since they name CIS as a "hate group" and were disseminated over the internet.
The lawsuit does not argue that the SPLC enriched itself by attacking the Center for Immigration Studies. "It doesn't have to obtain any money for itself to violate the wire fraud statute," Foster explained.
In order to prove wire fraud, CIS must show that the SPLC engaged in "false representation as part of a scheme to harm the plaintiff financially and that the plaintiff is damaged."
Foster told PJ Media that the next step is for CIS to formally "serve" the SPLC. Then the far-Left smear group would "have to answer the complaint or file a motion to dismiss it or something else."
While the lawsuit did not name a specific total in damages, it did ask for an injunction. "They would have to put on their website that CIS is not a hate group," Foster explained.
Unlike many lawsuits involving the SPLC, this RICO case only extends to 9 pages.
While Glen Allen's lawsuit seems a volley of legal claims, hoping that one or two well-reasoned arrows will hit home, the Center for Immigration Studies lawsuit is a scalpel, specifically crafted to deliver one irrefutable claim.
The SPLC has faced many other lawsuits over its "hate group" labeling. In June 2017, the Christian legal nonprofit Liberty Counsel sued GuideStar for falsely labeling them a "hate group" using the SPLC label. In August 2017, the Christian ministry D. James Kennedy Ministries sued the SPLC for defamation after AmazonSmile kicked the ministry off of its charity program.
Last June, the SPLC paid $3.375 million in a settlement after Muslim reformer Maajid Nawaz filed a defamation suit. The group had branded Nawaz an "anti-Islamic extremist." The settlement encouraged about 60 other organizations to consider their own defamation lawsuits against the SPLC.
The Center for Immigration Studies is particularly important in this fight, as many of its analysts have joined the Trump administration. In 2017, CIS analyst Jonn Feere joined the division of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). In May 2018, Trump nominated Ronald Mortensen, a CIS fellow, as assistant secretary of state for the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Immigration at the State Department.
Tags
Who is online
176 visitors
Usually the best way to determine 'a group's motives or agendas' and to determine whether ( the group ) is a ---------not a genuine non-profit---------is to publicly release ( the group's ) financial underpinnings and it's benefactors.
The CIC may fall into a category of the 'Isolationist Wing' of the political spectrum. Would that make it a hate group? Probably not. That can only be determined by it's agendas and it's proposals to conclude those agendas.
Follow the money.
What offshore friends?
I've donated to the SPLC in the past. The more bigots that they piss off by exposing them the happier that I am.
I guess lying is just fine with some "Christians."
[deleted]
How embarrasing for you!
As an actual civil rights and anti-death penalty attorney who works for clients wrote:
" He (Dees) has taken advantage of naive, well-meaning people –some of moderate or low incomes–who believe his pitches and give to his $175-million operation. He has spent most of what they have sent him to raise still more millions, pay high salaries, and promote himself. Because he spends so much on fund raising, his operation spends $30 million a year to accomplish less than what many other organizations accomplish on shoestring budgets."
Charity Navigator disagrees with you about his fiscal accountability,
My irony meter exploded.
Wire fraud? Good luck with that.
Usually crap content like this comes from Stormfront or Gatestone Institute.
The SPLC is equivalent of the Jimmy and Tammy Faye Baker church for liberals. It's not about social justice, it's essentially about fundraising from gullible donors and padding the bank account of it's founder and his family.
It's made millions for it's founder through direct mail marketing (which is designed to appeal to the ignorant) and his family while spewing hate against it's perceived enemies. It's founder once promised he would stop fundraising when it's endowment hit 55 million. Then he promised he'd have enough money at 100 million. It's now 319 million.
Congratulations, that applies to the CIS and ADF and essentially all non profits.
SPLC does rank pretty high on Charity Navigator, net assets of $450 million
CIS? Not as good, but certainly not bad.... net assets of $3 mill, but not as transparent.
Thanks for proving Sean's point
Really?
Take a look at the net assets and the leaders involved.
SPLC assets of $450 million, 2 salaries of $354,000 seems reasonable. .059% of expenses something like .00157111 of the assets - very reasonable
ADF assets of 28 million, one salary of #389.598.00 - maybe that's reasonable to you. .067% of expenses / .0139% of the assets - unreasonable, I would hesitate to contribute to line Alan Sears pockets, he sells enough hate oriented books on the side - anti LBGQT, anti liberal, anti Dem.
AFA assets of $28mill this guy needs some advice if he's only earning $179,000 but it is .094% of expenses, only .00639% of assets - not very reasonable
Nice try.
Makes me sad I never applied to run a "non-profit".
How can they defend what isn't under attack?
The ADF and the AFA are religious fringe groups who are far from enjoying the support of even all Protestant Christians in the US.
When was the last time that a Christian was jailed or fined by the federal government because of their belief in the Abrahamic god or they were praying?
When did your religious views entitle you to a tax deduction?
I was wondering that myself...what 20% deduction?
I have proof of my donations top the UU church as well as the Quakers(Society of Friends), so I want in on this deduction.
Which secular progressive bogeyman do you believe is chasing you now?
She is rightly being criticized for being a homophobic bigot. Do you think that she and VP Q-tip should be given a pass for their beliefs that LGBT people should be stigmatized and treated as less than equal?
Do you think that free speech should be limited when it comes into conflict with conservative religious beliefs?
Is it bigoted to support equal treatment for LGBT people?
Why shouldn't she be criticized for her homophobic beliefs? The Bible also defends slavery so should that be immune from criticism?