Louis Farrakhan files $5B defamation suit against ADL over ‘false’ antisemitism claims

[JohnUbele]

The complaint is 76 pages long and can be found here:

COMPLAINT against Anti-Defamation League
https://noi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023 ... PLAINT.pdf

[White_Vengeance]

I remember Dr. Pierce stating in an ADV broadcast he had brought a lawsuit against the American government to prevent them from sending missiles to Israel, but the lawsuit was unsuccessful because he was unable to get a reputable lawyer to help him press the case.

I think I remember hearing this one. It might have been during the '73 war.

When discussing issues in print—and especially issues that deal specifically with metrics, a date, a time, a location, and people—it is imperative that the person writing the script—in this case, you, Mr. Ubele—write concisely, clearly, and with the average reader in mind. In college we called it, "writing to the lowest common denominator." This is even more imperative when communication is not bi-directional, but, rather, unidirectional. Failing to write concisely, clearly, and with the average reader in mind will dissuade the average reader from reading your post, essay, article, document, treatise, etcetera.

You plainly stated, "during the '73 war." Now, it is true that I know what you meant, since I was already into the earliest stages of adulthood in calendar year 1973. However, we have some National Alliance members who were not yet even born in calendar year 1973. Furthermore, we have National Alliance members, visitors, guests, and others who frequent and who write regularly on the White Biocentrism Site who perhaps do not have the faintest idea of what you mean when you state: "during the '73 war." Not everyone who uses the White Biocentrism Site is steeped in world history; factually, very few are.

So, as I previously mentioned, when one is composing prose—be it an Internet post, an article, an essay, a document, a treatise, etcetera—it is imperative that the writer and author—in this case, you, Mr. Ubele—take great pains while writing and composing to all-but-guarantee that the reader of your document, essay, post, article, etcetera knows as much detail about your composition as possible. Taking this strategic measure avoids what we in college were accustomed to calling, "lapsing into a trance due to reader hypnosis." And how does "reader hypnosis" occur? Reader hypnosis occurs when the reader(s) stumble over vague facts, meaningless numbers (i.e., your statement about, "during the '73 war," which to many is absolutely meaningless), incomplete statements, and rambling incoherence.

So, in an effort to avoid "reader hypnosis," my recommendation—and I believe it is a good one—is that instead of merely saying, "during the '73 war," which, to many non-historically-educated readers is meaningless, that you should have spent the time going into some moderate level of detail to explain this confusing and meaningless statement: "during the '73 war."

If I were the one who wrote your short post, instead of simply stating, "during the '73 war," I would have taken the time to explain to my readers what, exactly, IS this thing called the "'73 war."

Here is how I would have avoided the causal problem of "reader hypnosis." Instead of saying, "it might have happened during the '73 war," I would have typed this short, concise explanation:

The Yom Kippur War, also known as the Ramadan War, the October War, the 1973 Arab–Israeli War, or the Fourth Arab–Israeli War, was an armed conflict fought from October 06, 1973 to October 25, 1973, between Israel and a coalition of Arab states led by Egypt and Syria. The majority of combat between the two sides took place in the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights—both of which had been occupied by Israel in 1967—with some fighting in African Egypt and northern Israel. Egypt's initial objective in the war was to seize a foothold on the eastern bank of the Suez Canal and subsequently leverage these gains to negotiate the return of the rest of the Israel-occupied Sanai Peninsula.

Typing those five lines of historical prose allows the reader to gain a bit of insight into the actual facts about what I call the "1973 Arab-Israeli War." It is then incumbent upon the reader, should he/she have the desire, interest, and inclination, to do more research into the 1973 Arab-Israeli War. You have removed doubt and confusion from the mind of the reader, and, in all but the rarest cases, the reader will respect the writer and author for providing ample detail to explain the purpose for writing his/her post, essay, article, treatise, document, etcetera.

[Will Williams]

[...]
It's good to learn of this big defamation lawsuit brought by Mr. Farrakhan and his NOI against arguably the biggest defamers in history. The misnamed Anti-Defamation League once named Dr. William Pierce "the most dangerous man in America" for merely doing what Louis Farrakhan has also been doing for 40 years: exposing the truth about Jews.

Pierce and his National Alliance did not have the means or the inclination to take his Jew accusers to court, but I'm pretty sure he would be pleased today to learn Black nationalist Farrakhan and his racial separatist NOI have taken on the challenge to call the ADL and the other Jew co-defendants accountable for their hateful, damaging defamations.

For background on the anti-Gentile ADL simply put "adl" in the search block at nationalvanguard.org and dozens of articles will appear, mostly dealing with Jew defamation of Whites.

Update on Farrakhan and NOI's actions against Jewish hate groups, found at Counter-Currents.com: https://counter-currents.com/2023/11/th ... 2-18-2023/

...In October, Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam filed lawsuits for First Amendment Violations and Defamation against the ADL, Jonathan Greenblatt, and the Simon Wiesenthal Center. In November 14th’s “The criminal effect of being labeled ‘anti-Semitic’,” Farrakhan meticulously outlines the process by which Jewish self-interest groups isolate, ridicule, and destroy those who question their tactics and honesty:

We want to look at how these private Jewish organizations who do the labeling, like the Anti-Defamation League and The Southern Poverty Law Center, manipulate the government law enforcement agencies like the FBI and the IRS to target and harass those who are so labeled.…

[P]rivate interest groups start with “the labeling”: “He’s a hate teacher, with a hateful message.” And then the group he belongs to: If they don’t repudiate the spokesperson fast enough, they also get called “a hate group that promotes intolerance.”

They don’t have to “prove it,” they just have to “say it over and over again”—and then “the drumbeats” get amplified by their brethren who control the media. And if that person does not apologize “quick enough” after that, they start to pick away at his supporters….

And then the word “violence” gets thrown in, and then “hate crimes” are mentioned; and ultimately, you hear the words “domestic terrorism.”…

And this is why I say to my great brothers and sisters in “The Twitter Army”: No matter what vile speech comes at you, no matter what threats are made against my life by those who hate The Truth that we are speaking, never ever “get down in the gutter,” or threaten anyone with violence, because they are building a record of what we are saying!

Farrakhan’s prose seems downright elegant and delicate compared to the angry oral warblings of Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, 2024 presidential candidate and self-described “Inventor of Email.” In a recent video, he makes the following startlingly vulgar statements:

Truly. It's remarkable that truths the National Alliance have been telling for decades to the sound of crickets about the ADL and its ilk is now publicized widely by the non-White who has also been defamed, thanks to these lawsuits. Great! But who is this other non-White who is apparently running for President in 2024 as an Independent candidate? I've never heard the first word about him in mainstream media. I can see why, judging from what he allegedly says about Jews and the other presidential candidates. How can we not like this fellow?

Vellayappa Ayyadurai Shiva

Every Presidential candidate except me sucks ZIONIST COCK. That may not sound very ‘Presidential,’ but it’s VERY Presidential because I represent the American WORKER who does NOT want us to be ‘cockZuckers’ of ZIONISM.

Every presidential candidate except me sucks Zionist cock. That may not sound presidential, but in fact it’s very presidential. Because I represent the American worker who does not want us to be cock suckers of Zionism. Donald Trump sucks Zionist cock, Nikki Haley sucks Zionist cock, Vivek The Snake sucks Zionist cock, Chris Christie, Boobie fucking Kennedy, Joe Biden, all of these people. The only people that don’t suck Zionist cock are the American workers who are being screwed. I’m an American worker, I’m one of us. But Donald Trump is no different than any one of them. They all serve Israel. Bernie Sanders, for example, is an Israeli citizen.

Anthony Blinken is an Israeli citizen. The head of the CDC is an Israeli citizen. All of these people are Israeli citizens. All of these people work together against the American working people. There’s a lot of liberal Zionists who are out there saying cease fire, peace now. I’ve seen that for 40 years. It doesn’t get us anywhere. All that cease fire does is let Israel pull back, then go bomb the shit out of the Palestinians again. The only way to end this is we must end the occupation. Ending the occupation means beginning with ending the occupation of America by Zionism. Zionists have taken over every seat of power of the United States. If we’re going to free Palestine, we must end the occupation of America by Zionism.
If there’s anyone who should get military aid, it should be the Palestinian people. I’m not talking about Hamas, by the way, all those morons who think Hamas represents the Palestinian people. Hamas was created by Israel. So when you see Hamas, replace it with Israel. We need to build a bottoms up movement. Go to shiva4president.com and volunteer.

Although it’s been suggested that the video is an AI deepfake, it was posted on what appears to be Ayyadurai’s actual Twitter account, which has 338K followers. His YouTube account (246K subscribers) verifies the Twitter account as his, as does a link on the bottom of the home page to the Shiva4President campaign website. If it’s all merely one big attempt at trolling, it’s an impressively elaborate one.

[JohnUbele]

Judge Dismisses Farrakhan’s $4.8 Billion Lawsuit Against the ADL Regarding Claims of Antisemitism
https://vinnews.com/2024/04/07/judge-di ... isemitism/

[Will Williams]

Judge Dismisses Farrakhan’s $4.8 Billion Lawsuit Against the ADL Regarding Claims of Antisemitism
https://vinnews.com/2024/04/07/judge-di ... isemitism/

Should anyone expect that the Clinton appointee would not toss this case?

Judge Dismis Farrakhan’s $4.8 Billion
Lawsuit Against the ADL Regarding
Claims of Antisemitism
April 7, 2024
By Joseph Feldman

[img]https://m.openjurist.org/sites/default/ ... 384293[img]
Judge Denise Cote

(VINnews)- The dismissal of Louis Farrakhan’s $4.8 billion lawsuit against the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) marks a significant legal decision. Farrakhan, the leader of the Nation of Islam, had accused the ADL of falsely labeling him as an antisemite, but Manhattan federal court Judge Denise Cote ruled otherwise.

In her decision, Judge Cote stated that Farrakhan failed to provide evidence linking the actions of the ADL and the Simon Wiesenthal Center to any injuries sustained by him or his organization. She also pointed out that Farrakhan did not prove that his alleged exclusion from speaking at Morgan State University in 2023 was directly caused by pressure from the ADL.

Additionally, Judge Cote noted that the ADL’s writings on Farrakhan and his statements about Jewish people were considered non-actionable opinions and did not constitute defamation. She mentioned that Farrakhan did not demonstrate “actual malice” on the part of the ADL.

The ADL welcomed the judge’s decision, emphasizing their commitment to combating antisemitism and stating that truth serves as their defense. They also shared a blog post highlighting Farrakhan’s controversial statements to support their stance.

This ruling underscores the complexities of defamation claims and the importance of evidence in legal proceedings concerning allegations of hate speech and discrimination.

[JohnUbele]

I wish I had been able to follow their lawsuit more closely.

I don't know all the details, but I would imagine from the Jewish perspective that the Jews would not want that case to actually have a trial because I'm sure that at least some information about the massive Jewish role in the Black Slave Trade would have been discussed in a trial.

I'm hoping the NOI will be able to somehow file another lawsuit. We'll have to wait and see what happens with it.

[JohnUbele]

It seems that this might be an appeal, according to page A-17 in the following PDF:

APPENDIX VOLUME 1 of 2
https://noi.org/wp-content/uploads/2024 ... 1-of-2.pdf

If it was appealed, I don't have information about the current status of it.

[Will Williams]

It seems that this might be an appeal, according to page A-17 in the following PDF:

APPENDIX VOLUME 1 of 2
https://noi.org/wp-content/uploads/2024 ... 1-of-2.pdf

If it was appealed, I don't have information about the current status of it.

Interesting legal document, John, but way too voluminous for me to read through. Getting to the truth in a matter should be simpler, but courts are in the hands of the Jewish defendants in this matter, as can be seen by the obfuscation here. Regardless, this from pages 43-44 from ADL co-defendant Greenblatt about anti-Semitism is notable for the ADL's version of truth.

See also for background: https://nationalvanguard.org/2024/03/th ... -of-truth/

ADL Chief, Jonathan Greenblatt

ADL / Jonathan Greenblatt
193.AtADL.org, Defendant ADL states;
a.
b.
“The Nation of Islam (NOI), the largest Black nationalist organization in the U.S.,
has maintained a consistent record of antisemitism and bigotry since its founding
in the 1930s.”
“Some mainstream figures, including elected officials and celebrities, have publicly
supported the NOI, focusing on the group’s efforts to bolster Black self-reliance
while minimizing or not acknowledging the NOI’s well-established record of
bigotry and antisemitism, giving this hateful rhetoric a measure of legitimacy.”
194. The issue becomes what Defendant ADL defines as “anti-Semitic,” or “antisemitism.”
195. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the leading dictionary in America, defines the word
“Semite” as, “a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia
including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.” (Exhibit V)
196. Based upon this definition of the word “Semite,” from the nearly 200-year-old Merriam
Webster Dictionary ***, multiple groups of people are historically and legitimately described
under the title, “Semite.”
197. By definition, anyone who is labeled “anti-Semite” would be a person who dislikes, hates,
and/or attacks a person, or persons, of one of the multiple groups of people who have
historically and legitimately been defined as a “Semite.”
198. Defendant ADL, however, has crafted its own definition of the word “Semite” and
“Semitic” to mean only those people who identify as Jewish.
199. No one group of people own the word “Semite” because, for thousands of years, it has
belonged, and still belongs, to multiple groups of people.
43
Case: 24-1237, 07/30/2024, DktEntry: 41.1, Page 70 of 216
A-64
Case l:23-cv-09110-DLC Document 71 Filed 01/05/24 Page 47 of 150
200. In fact, any one group of people who seek to ascribe solely to itself the label of “Semite”
to the exclusion and denial of the other multiple groups of Semitic people, is, in fact, being
“anti-Semitic.”
201. Nevertheless, Defendant ADL has ascribed to itself the ability to make up a new definition
for the words “anti-Semite,” “anti-Semitic,” and “antisemitism,” and has sought to impose
its arbitrary definition on the public and the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches
of government, including their respective governmental agencies.
202. For instance, to be labeled an “anti-Semite,” or as “anti-Semitic,” by Defendant ADL, and
others, includes, but does not require a person to say or do something harmful or hateful
to Jewish people.
203. The false use of those labels, that fit into its own arbitrary definition of those words,
includes anyone who would dare to say anything that is contrary to its interests or against
what is called the state of Israel.
204. Moreover, irrespective of the truth of any statement made that it does not like, on its
website. Defendant ADL lists the following “tropes” that, from its perspective, would
warrant the label of “anti-Semite,” or “anti-Semitic” if someone used any one of them:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Jews have too much power,
Jews are disloyal,
Jews are greedy,
Jews killed Jesus,
Jews use Christian blood for religious rituals,
The Holocaust didn’t happen, and
Anti-Zionism or delegitimization of Israel. (Exhibit W)

*** Merriam-Webster, along with Wikipedia and Britannica are now in Jewish hands. https://nationalvanguard.org/2022/06/wi ... ritannica/

[JohnUbele]

It seems that this might be an appeal, according to page A-17 in the following PDF:

APPENDIX VOLUME 1 of 2
https://noi.org/wp-content/uploads/2024 ... 1-of-2.pdf

If it was appealed, I don't have information about the current status of it.

Interesting legal document, John, but way too voluminous for me to read through. Getting to the truth in a matter should be simpler, but courts are in the hands of the Jewish defendants in this matter, as can be seen by the obfuscation here. Regardless, this from pages 43-44 from ADL co-defendant Greenblatt about anti-Semitism is notable for the ADL's version of truth.

See also for background: https://nationalvanguard.org/2024/03/th ... -of-truth/

ADL Chief, Jonathan Greenblatt

ADL / Jonathan Greenblatt
193.AtADL.org, Defendant ADL states;
a.
b.
“The Nation of Islam (NOI), the largest Black nationalist organization in the U.S.,
has maintained a consistent record of antisemitism and bigotry since its founding
in the 1930s.”
“Some mainstream figures, including elected officials and celebrities, have publicly
supported the NOI, focusing on the group’s efforts to bolster Black self-reliance
while minimizing or not acknowledging the NOI’s well-established record of
bigotry and antisemitism, giving this hateful rhetoric a measure of legitimacy.”
194. The issue becomes what Defendant ADL defines as “anti-Semitic,” or “antisemitism.”
195. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the leading dictionary in America, defines the word
“Semite” as, “a member of any of a number of peoples of ancient southwestern Asia
including the Akkadians, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.” (Exhibit V)
196. Based upon this definition of the word “Semite,” from the nearly 200-year-old Merriam
Webster Dictionary ***, multiple groups of people are historically and legitimately described
under the title, “Semite.”
197. By definition, anyone who is labeled “anti-Semite” would be a person who dislikes, hates,
and/or attacks a person, or persons, of one of the multiple groups of people who have
historically and legitimately been defined as a “Semite.”
198. Defendant ADL, however, has crafted its own definition of the word “Semite” and
“Semitic” to mean only those people who identify as Jewish.
199. No one group of people own the word “Semite” because, for thousands of years, it has
belonged, and still belongs, to multiple groups of people.
43
Case: 24-1237, 07/30/2024, DktEntry: 41.1, Page 70 of 216
A-64
Case l:23-cv-09110-DLC Document 71 Filed 01/05/24 Page 47 of 150
200. In fact, any one group of people who seek to ascribe solely to itself the label of “Semite”
to the exclusion and denial of the other multiple groups of Semitic people, is, in fact, being
“anti-Semitic.”
201. Nevertheless, Defendant ADL has ascribed to itself the ability to make up a new definition
for the words “anti-Semite,” “anti-Semitic,” and “antisemitism,” and has sought to impose
its arbitrary definition on the public and the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches
of government, including their respective governmental agencies.
202. For instance, to be labeled an “anti-Semite,” or as “anti-Semitic,” by Defendant ADL, and
others, includes, but does not require a person to say or do something harmful or hateful
to Jewish people.
203. The false use of those labels, that fit into its own arbitrary definition of those words,
includes anyone who would dare to say anything that is contrary to its interests or against
what is called the state of Israel.
204. Moreover, irrespective of the truth of any statement made that it does not like, on its
website. Defendant ADL lists the following “tropes” that, from its perspective, would
warrant the label of “anti-Semite,” or “anti-Semitic” if someone used any one of them:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
Jews have too much power,
Jews are disloyal,
Jews are greedy,
Jews killed Jesus,
Jews use Christian blood for religious rituals,
The Holocaust didn’t happen, and
Anti-Zionism or delegitimization of Israel. (Exhibit W)

*** Merriam-Webster, along with Wikipedia and Britannica are now in Jewish hands. https://nationalvanguard.org/2022/06/wi ... ritannica/

Hello Mr. Williams.

I apologize for the delay.

I think that document is listed on this page, under the "Download Court Documents" tab:

https://noi.org/noivadl/

I had come across the document not from that page, but from another page.

I think this might be the first part of the appeal:

https://noi.org/wp-content/uploads/2024 ... -FILED.pdf

[JohnUbele]

This was posted on January 7th:


Farrakhan and Nation of Islam Lose Major Defamation Case

"...There is an interesting defamation case out of New York in which the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of the lawsuit by Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam (NOI) against the Anti-Defamation League ("ADL") and individual defendants Jonathan Greenblatt, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and Rabbi Abraham Cooper. Not only did the court reject the claim that canceled speeches resulted from alleged defamatory statements, but it also noted that the statements about NOI are protected opinions.

In Farrakhan v. Anti-Defamation League, Judges Susan L. Carney, Joseph F. Bianco, and William J. Nardini upheld the lower court's dismissal of what they described as Farrakhan's "sprawling allegations"..."

Source:
https://jonathanturley.org/2025/01/07/f ... tion-case/