Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 16th, 2004 #831
Franco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,391
Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRMC 14
From what I gather from this article Glen Miller was going to do the same thing the Order was and therefore was conducting himself illegally. SO why are all these guys taking pot shots at the Order and supporting Miller if Miller was going to do the same thing??? I need to read the article more throughly as I just scanned it over but it looks like the White Patriot Party that was suppose to be legal was'nt that legal.







http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys3/monitor4.htm [near the top]



-----
[/QUOTE]


"Was" going to do the same thing?? What does that mean? I could say, "well, it looked to me like so-and-so was gonna do such-and-such." That means nothing.

The whole nugget of the matter is this question: "would Miller have talked if not for Pierce?" In other words, would Miller have come forward on his own and said: "hey, Feds, guess what.."? That's the whole nugget.


----
 
Old December 16th, 2004 #832
WRMC 14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't have that answer and neither does Miller. The feds are not going to seriously tell Miller who ratted him out. Assuming anyone ratted him out at all. From that article I just scanned it looks like Miller probably incriminated himself in the whole ordeal. The only way anybody will probably get that answer is if either a. the snitch (not miller) admits it or b. the case files to the entire Order trial get opened. But Miller and everyone else blaming it on the entire Order is wrong.

Chris Quimby


Quote:
Originally Posted by Franco
Point noted.

Now, who told the Feds about Miller? Please answer that.


----
 
Old December 16th, 2004 #833
JB112
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 324
JB112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRMC 14
From what I gather from this article Glen Miller was going to do the same thing the Order was and therefore was conducting himself illegally. SO why are all these guys taking pot shots at the Order and supporting Miller if Miller was going to do the same thing??? I need to read the article more throughly as I just scanned it over but it looks like the White Patriot Party that was suppose to be legal was'nt that legal.

http://www.skepticfiles.org/mys3/monitor4.htm [near the top]

-----
You haven't even read Miller's side. If you don't read Miller's side you're not interested in the truth. Glenn Miller Responds to M. Lindsdet.
 
Old December 16th, 2004 #834
Franco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,391
Franco
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRMC 14
I don't have that answer and neither does Miller. The feds are not going to seriously tell Miller who ratted him out. Assuming anyone ratted him out at all. From that article I just scanned it looks like Miller probably incriminated himself in the whole ordeal. The only way anybody will probably get that answer is if either a. the snitch (not miller) admits it or b. the case files to the entire Order trial get opened. But Miller and everyone else blaming it on the entire Order is wrong.

Chris Quimby

The article says what it says. I read it. I speak English. It says what it says.

If that is true [shouldn't someone find out??, and, why wouldn't it be true -- did they just make that up?? If so, why??], then you owe Miller one hell of an apology, I would say.


----
 
Old December 16th, 2004 #835
WRMC 14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ok so let me get this straight Miller was supposedly facing life for harboring a fugitive and accepting stolen money (sounds like a rather high amount or prison time for the crimes but whatever) and agrees to testify for the prosecution giving general information at best and get 3 years in prison and 3 years parole. I am sorry but you will never get me to believe that a man testifies with general information that was'nt damaging to the defense and gets a plea deal of 3 years when he was looking at life. Sorry there is more to that story that was apparently left out. No apparently Miller was preparing for his own little war in North Carolina according to that newspaper article I just read. I thought you guys said Miller was being legal? How can you condem the Order and in the same paragraph praise Miller when he was playing to do virtually the same thing the Order did.



C'mon Chris... prosecutors parade every single witness they can get their hands on in front of a jury... whether there is “damaging” testimony or not. Glenn Miller's testimony... in the matter regarding the Order ...was general at best. How could it be otherwise? He was not engaged in any “regular or routine” illegal activities with the Order.
[/QUOTE]
 
Old December 16th, 2004 #836
Phantasm
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by WRMC 14
I am still curious as to any proof someone might have that the Order rolled over on Glen Miller. I mean why would they rat on Glen Miller and not Dr. Pierce?
...
Chris... this was an active matter of discussion before you people came in here and ransacked the place. Now that the records are gone you're asking for answers?

UNBELIEVABLE!

 
Old December 16th, 2004 #837
WRMC 14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I mean this right here. You guys claim Miller was legal but this article says otherwise. It looks to me like Miller incriminated himself...



Military Takeover Plotted

During the five-day trial, testimony indicated that Glenn Miller's dream
of a Southern homeland for white Christians had taken shape as a detailed
nightmare: a planned military takeover of carefully selected counties in North
Carolina. [See THE MONITOR, I, 2] Ironically, Miller plotted -- according to
one witness -- to use members of the Christian Knights of the KKK, a rival
group, as shock troops in his revolution.

Throughout the trial, Currin and Dees maintained that the White Patriot
Party (WPP) had disregarded the '85 consent decree and in fact ran a
paramilitary operation with the goal of eventually establishing a white
Christian republic in the South. James Holder, a member of the Confederate
Knights until his conviction for murder of a fellow member in 1983, testified
to the intent and extent of paramilitary training. He also testified to his
recruitment of active duty Marines to the WPP, and to Glenn Miller's plans for
revolution. According to Holder, Miller said privately, "The KKK is to unite
and organize the masses of white people to rise up, train, cache weapons and
overthrow the U.S. government."

The most damning testimony against the Millers came from Robert Norman
Jones, military-trained ordinance expert now in prison for receiving stolen
government property. Jones stated that he obtained an arsenal of arms and
explosives for the Confederate Knights and the WPP, and that he instructed
members in their use.

"Was" going to do the same thing?? What does that mean? I could say, "well, it looked to me like so-and-so was gonna do such-and-such." That means nothing.

The whole nugget of the matter is this question: "would Miller have talked if not for Pierce?" In other words, would Miller have come forward on his own and said: "hey, Feds, guess what.."? That's the whole nugget.


----[/QUOTE]
 
Old December 16th, 2004 #838
Franco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,391
Franco
Default

Quote:
Ok so let me get this straight Miller was supposedly facing life for harboring a fugitive and accepting stolen money (sounds like a rather high amount or prison time for the crimes but whatever) and agrees to testify for the prosecution giving general information at best and get 3 years in prison and 3 years parole. I am sorry but you will never get me to believe that a man testifies with general information that was'nt damaging to the defense and gets a plea deal of 3 years when he was looking at life.

Life in prison? Miller wasn't looking at life in prison. He was facing maybe 20 years tops.

Can you answer my question? Would Miller have come forward on his own and "ratted" if not for B. Pierce? Please answer that before you go any further. It's an honest question.


---
 
Old December 16th, 2004 #839
Franco
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 1,391
Franco
Default

Quote:
I mean this right here. You guys claim Miller was legal but this article says otherwise. It looks to me like Miller incriminated himself...

Did I claim that Miller was "legal?" When did I say that? I never even addressed that issue. And what would that have to do with the nugget of the matter?


----
 
Old December 16th, 2004 #840
WRMC 14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I'm not looking for Miller to answer these question I am looking for hardcore proof. Do you honestly think Miller is going to get on this forum and admit to everyone yes I am lying to all of you about everything. I mean get real I am not going to accpet the accused rat word as gold. I am not as gullible as some people.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantasm
Chris... this was an active matter of discussion before you people came in here and ransacked the place. Now that the records are gone you're asking for answers?

UNBELIEVABLE!

 
Closed Thread

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:39 PM.
Page generated in 0.12999 seconds.