Connect with us

Culture

The Dayton Ohio Terrorist was ANTIFA Supporter

Published

on

In August 2019, Connor Betts opened fire on a crowded street in downtown Dayton, Ohio. Armed with a .223-caliber high-capacity rifle with a 100-round drum magazine, the Antifa supporter fired into the crowd killing 9 including his own sister and wounding 27 others.

The Dayton Ohio terrorist was a pro-ANTIFA far left wing activist who regularly followed far left wing media and activist accounts. One of the last Tweets Connor Betts engaged with was one from far left wing activist Jared Holt spreading disinformation about me. To know that a terrorist was reading about me hours before he went on his attack is chilling, and shows why the far left targets me. They are sending signals to their terrorist fan base.

Some would say that Connor Betts’ likes and retweets aren’t relevant.  We can dismiss that argument because all of the people cited above have said that content creators are responsible for their fans behaviors. For example, the Canada mosque shooting was blamed on Ben Shapiro because the attacker read Shapiro on Twitter. Read, The Washington Post, “Canadian Mosque Shooter Scoured Twitter Before the Attack.”

There have been also calls by Media Matters and others to deplatform conservatives under the theory that conservative “rhetoric” is radicalizing people.

Watch: Why does the far left wing media want civil war?

Here are some far left wing media and activist accounts Dayton Ohio terrorist would read and retweet.

Connor Betts was a fan of Media Matters.

Connor Betts was a fan of NBC “reporter” Ben Collins.

Ben Collins went on to television to falsely claim that Betts wasn’t “either side” politically.

This is false, as even a cursory review of Betts’ social media reveals. Betts’ was far left wing, he hated Trump and conservatives, and he loved the left.

Aaron Rupar writes at Vox, and the Dayton Ohio terrorist was a fan of his.

One of the last Tweets Betts’ like was one spreading disinformation by me.

Far left wing activist Jared Holt falsely claimed I had advance knowledge of the El Paso shooting, due to a Tweet I imprecisely worded. (Holt did not contact me for comment before attempting to tie me to a major act of terrorism.)

Connor Betts was a huge fan of Jared Holt’s, and Holt himself panicked once this connection was discovered.

Connor Betts would like and Retweet Jared Holt regularly. Once Holt’s connection to the shooter was discovered, Holt went into damage control mode, deleting old Tweets and also blocked Betts. (Blocking Betts would cause all Retweets by Betts to disappear from Betts’ timeline.)

Connor Betts also enjoyed Will Sommer of the Daily Beast.

Connor Betts was hardcore far left, and he was reading Twitter hours or maybe even minutes before the attack.

Betts also said that he would vote for Elizabeth Warren and was an AOC supporter as well as an avowed socialist.

Connor Betts agreed with an amplified a death threat against Jack Posobiec 4 hours before the attack.

Posobiec is regularly the target of smear pieces by Ben Collins and Jared Holt, who the Dayton Ohio terrorist read and enjoyed.

While journalism matters, one is left wondering if those who obsessively write articles about Posobiec and other conservatives are sending signals to their readers, a target list if you will.

Watch: The Dayton Ohio shooter left a paper trail. Why did the media ignore it?

Comments

Culture

The Patreon Lawsuit Involving Owen Benjamin Explained by a Lawyer

Published

on

Patreon, a platform popular with podcasts, journalists, and comedian faces significant legal peril due a fascinating quirk of California law that no one seemed to have noticed.

  • Summary: Patreon banned Owen Benjamin. Owen Benjamin’s backers moved for arbitration, alleging various causes of action. Under the arbitration procedures spelled out in Patreon’s Terms of Service, Patreon must pay the filing fees, which could total millions of dollars. Patreon cannot collect those fees back, even if Patreon wins the arbitrations.

Tech companies face almost total protection from lawsuits due to a law created by Congress to encourage freedom of speech on the web. Because of this, companies have gotten sloppy with the Terms of Service.

Patreon’s Terms of Service, like nearly every other tech companies, provide that anyone who wants to use Patreon must do so in arbitration. Patreon’s TOS also ban class actions or any joint actions.

Patreon’s TOS mandate arbitration and ban class actions because individual consumers who suffer small harms aren’t able to find a lawyer to take their case. Again, all tech companies do this. Let’s not single out Patreon. Here is Amazon:

  • Any dispute or claim relating in any way to your use of any Amazon Service, or to any products or services sold or distributed by Amazon or through Amazon.com will be resolved by binding arbitration, rather than in court, except that you may assert claims in small claims court if your claims qualify.

Here is PayPal:

  • By opening and using a PayPal account, you agree to comply with all of the terms and conditions in this user agreement. The terms include an agreement to resolve disputes by arbitration on an individual basis.

Owen Benjamin Gets Banned. Dozens of his backers individual claims for arbitration.

Patreon, by banning a Creator, disrupts the economic relationship between Creator and Backer. In legal terms this is called tortious interference with a business relationship.

Patreon, under California law, must pay the arbitration fees in advance. These fees can be upward of $10,000 per case.

If dozens of backers move for individual arbitration against Patreon, you can start doing the math.

Benjamins’ Backers Put Patreon on Notice; Patreon Unilaterally Amends its TOS to Bar the Claims the Parties were Going to Bring.

In early December, numerous defendants told Patreon that they intended to move for individual arbitration.

Patreon’s TOS suggest that contacting them before seeking arbitration is required, although this provision could be read as a request rather than a demand.

  • We encourage you to contact us if you have an issue. If a dispute does arise out of these terms or related to your use of Patreon, and it cannot be resolved after you talk with us, then it must be resolved by arbitration.

Because Patreon wrote the TOS, the terms will be resolved against Patreon. In law this is known as contra proferentem. Any ambiguous language will be read in favor of the party who did not draft it.

The TOS, to me and many others, looks like a pre-filing demand. Others may claim the terms read otherwise. Contra proferentem applies.

Two or three weeks later, Patreon unilaterally altered the Terms of Service by adding this clause:

  • You may not bring a claim against us for suspending or terminating another person’s account, and you agree you will not bring such a claim. If you try to bring such a claim, you are responsible for the damages caused, including attorneys fees and costs. These terms remain in effect even if you no longer have an account.

Patreon claimed that its unilateral change to the TOS “remain in effect even if you no longer have an account.”

Yes, Patreon literally changed its TOS after it was contacted by arbitration claimants, who were required to contact Patreon before moving for arbitration.

Patreon filed a Mass Action against the Arbitration Claimants.

Patreon lost several procedural motions before arbitrations. After losing these motions, they sued the arbitration claimants in California State Court.

Realizing that the arbitration fees would be in the millions of dollars range, Patreon filed a group action against all 72 arbitration claimants. Patreon sought an injunction, that is, they want the Court to order the arbitrations to be stopped.

Here is what Patreon’s TOS says about group actions:

  • Arbitrations may only take place on an individual basis. No class arbitrations or other grouping of parties is allowed. By agreeing to these terms you are waiving your right to trial by jury or to participate in a class action or representative proceeding; we are also waiving these rights.

To drop my lawyer’s latin again, contra proferentem. Patreon can’t claim that when they said that “other groupings of parties is allowed,” applies only to arbitrations. That provision is subject to an ambiguous reading at best.

How can Patreon file a group action against 72 defendants when Patreon barred group actions? They can’t.

The Patreon Hearing.

The 72 defendants were represented by well-known First Amendment lawyer Marc Randazza.

The Court issued a tentative (not final) order denying the injunctions.

During the hearing, Patreon’s counsel brought up additional cases that it claimed applied to the lawsuit.

The Court suggested that Randazza file a supplemental motion addressing those new cases Patreon’s counsel cited.

Patreon will probably lose, and should lose, its State Court action.

Patreon’s TOS required parties to use arbitration. Group actions were banned. The parties complied with the TOS, first by putting Patreon on notice as to their claims.

Once the parties put Patreon on notice of their claim, Patreon was barred by well-established law from amending the TOS in a way that would foreclose those claims.

The Implications?

If a popular creator were banned from PayPal, could he or she have her backers move for arbitration as well?

That’s a specific question that many lawyers are looking at now.

Patreon, like Door Dash before it, banned class actions before decision that group actions are in fact an inefficient way of resolving cases.

Here is what a federal judge told one tech company who complained about a “loophole” being used by the parties:

DoorDash Ordered to Pay $9.5M to Arbitrate 5,000 Labor Disputes:

SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Rejecting claims that the legal process it forced on workers is unfair, a federal judge Monday ordered food-delivery service DoorDash to pay $9.5 million in arbitration fees for 5,010 delivery drivers’ labor demands against the company.

“You’re going to pay that money,” U.S. District Judge William Alsup said in court. “You don’t want to pay millions of dollars, but that’s what you bargained to do and you’re going to do it.”

Of course anything can happen in a court of law, and the judge will be issuing a final ruling in a few weeks from now.

Read my prior coverage here:

Patreon Faces New Legal Peril Under California Law

Continue Reading

Culture

CNN’s Brian Stelter Apologizes for Mistake (Good Man)

Published

on

UPDATE:

CNN’s Brian Stelter falsely accused a woman of spreading disinformation tonight, in a Tweet Stelte deleted without apology after it was revealed that Stelter lying.

The lie concerned a fire started by rioters in Washington D.C. Katrina B. Haydon reported that St. John’s church near the White House was on fire.

 

 

 

Stelter attacked the woman, baselessly accusing her of lying.

 

Brian Stelter has yet to apologize to spreading disinformation.

Did Brian Stelter lie to protect violent protesters?

Why did Stelter lie?

Is he trying to provide propaganda for violent protesters and domestic terrorists?

Continue Reading

Culture

“Burn It Down,” ESPN Writer Encourages Arson of Low Income Housing

Published

on

ESPN sportswriter Chris Palmer Martin Tweeted, “Burn that shit down. Burn it all down.” The burning building was a low-income housing area in Minneapolis. (Minneapolis vandalism targets include 189-unit affordable housing development.)

When rioters neared Martin’s home, he called them “animals.”

 

The media has a history of supporting ANTIFA.

 

 

Hoaxed Movie Uncovers the Media’s Relationship with ANTIFA

Watch the Hoaxed Movie Trailer

Where to Watch Hoaxed Movie

iTunes here

Vimeo here

YouTube here

VuDu here

DVDs here

Continue Reading

Trending

shares
Read previous post:
How Veterans Are Using Ibogaine and DMT to treat PTSD and TBI

An Army Ranger (tab and scroll) shares his experiences with Ibogaine and other entheogens like DMT, 5-Meo-DMT, and ayahuasca. Listen...

Close