User talk:SissyMendelstein

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I would like to write a page about the Leo Frank case and debunk the pseudo academic claims that he was wrongfully convicted because of anti-Semitism and no evidence. SissyMendelstein (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The best way to go about this is to start a page off at User:SissyMendelstein/Leo_Frank and transfer it to mainspace when it's got some polish. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Queex, I got the part about writing a reasonable rough draft on my user space, but dhat do you think would be the best approach to building a fair and balanced article about Leo Frank on RationalWiki presenting both sides of the case that won't be deleted for erroneous or frivolous claims?
On May 8th, 1913, a Coroner's jury of 6 men voted unanimously (7 to 0, Coroner + 6 jurymen) to bind over Leo Frank for murder to a grandjury. On May 24, 1913, a grand jury voted unanimously 21 to 0 (including several Jewish jurymen) to indict Leo Frank for murder, even though only 12 votes were needed. Leo Frank was convicted of murder on August 25, 1913, after the longest and most expensive trial in Southern history at the time. The jury made the recommendation to the presiding judge Leonard Roan that Leo Frank should be executed, the trial judge sentenced Frank to capital punishment (even though he had the power to simply send him to jail for a life term). On appeal, every level of the United States legal system (state and federal) upheld his murder conviction and ruled in their majority decisions that Leo Frank had a fair trial. Governor Slaton on June 21, 1915, in his 29-page commutation order giving Leo Frank life in prison, on the last page, said that he was sustaining the judge, jury and appellate tribunals. The Jewish community and individual activists believe he was falsely accused, framed, innocent and wrongfully convicted. In 1986 after 4 years of attempts to get him exonerated failed, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles finally acquiesced and gave him a posthumous pardon, but they did not officially absolve him of the murder. Leo Frank is still officially guilty of murder, even thought he was posthumously "pardoned" and this has led to the continued fight to have him fully exonerated, led by Rabbi Steven Lebow and other leading retirees.
Some other important points
1. Governor John Slaton who commuted the death sentence of Leo Frank to life in prison was the part-owner of the law firm *Rosser*, Brandon, *Slaton* and Phillips. Luther Rosser was Leo Frank's lead trial and State appeals attorney. Basically Governor John Slaton commuted the death sentence of his own lawfirm's client, an obvious conflict of interest. In May of 1913 the lawfirm of Rosser, Brandon merged with the lawfirm of Slaton and Phillips. The Atlanta city phone directory of 1913 shows their separate law firms and physical addresses, and then their single address and united lawfirm in 1914, 1915 and 1916.
2. Leo Frank was posthumously pardoned, but he was not officially absolved of his guilt for murdering Mary Phagan. Leo Frank is still officially guilty. But how is that possible that someone could be pardoned, but not officially absolved of their crime and their verdict of guilt left undisturbed?
3. Rabbi Steven Lebow and other leaders in the Jewish community have petitioned the Governor of Georgia, Nathan Deal, and Georgia state congress to exonerate Leo Frank of the murder, and were refused. The fight to exonerate Leo Frank goes on.
4. The claim that Leo Frank was wrongfully convicted is false, I can present evidence from the trial transcript showing that Leo Frank changed his murder alibi on the witness stand and placed himself in the men's toilet at the very time that the prosecution built the case that Leo Frank murdered Mary Phagan there. See page 186 of the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence, state exhibit a, defendant exhibit 61, state exhibit b, monteen stover testimony, leo frank testimony.

SissyMendelstein (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


we are going to have that article, and you wanna make it, maybe try harder?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

What do think is the best approach? SissyMendelstein (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Learn to write more than one sentence ed stubs?--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I wrote the following at the Leo Frank talk page - Can we keep this discussion civil without making person attacks, ad hominem, and red herrings? This is a review of the book 'Murder of Little Mary Phagan' by Mary Phagan Kean and this is the 14 hour audiobook of 'The Murder of Little Mary Phagan' orated by Margi H, I am asking everyone to review the case with an open mind and no vitriolic terms or accusations. Every level of the United States legal system upheld his murder conviction, including Governor John Slaton (1915) and the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles (1986) -- which did not officially absolve him of the murder. Leo Frank is still officially guilty of the murder, but many members of the Jewish community have for more than 100 years claimed he was wrongfully convicted. The Government of Georgia recently released the 1,800 page Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Records, which contain the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence, 1913. I would like us to present both sides of the case, and give both an equal hearing. SissyMendelstein (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Attacking your bad writing style is not a personal attack.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 19:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
"I would like us to present both sides of the case, and give both an equal hearing." If that was true, you wouldn't make such a point of 'HE WAS FOUND GUILTY BY EVERY LEVEL OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM!!!!!'. I mean, it's a case regarded as an infamous miscarriage of justice. Of course the legal system reached that conclusion. Queexchthonic murmurings 19:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Paravant and QueeX,

Because this is RationalWiki, the Leo Frank case requires a calm and dispassionate analytical inquiry of *both* the defense and prosecution sides of the case, not just the defense or prosecution version. The Leo Frank case is a very contentious Jewish-Gentile conflict smoldering for more than 102 years, which is why both sides of the case require an equal hearing with rational analysis. For the last 100 years - according to Jewish scholars - the Leo Frank case has been a cause celebre for the Jewish community who believe Leo Frank was "wrongly accused", "falsely convicted" and "wantonly murdered" because of anti-Semitism and sectarian frictions. Where as many Southerners believe Leo Frank was given a fair trial and that every level of the United States legal system that upheld his conviction were correct in their legal assessment. When Governor John Slaton commuted the death sentence of his lawfirm's client, Leo Frank, to life in prison, he stated in the last paragraph of his 29-page commutation order that he was sustaining the judge, jury and appellate courts, "In my judgment, by granting a commutation in this case, I am sustaining the jury, the judge and the [Georgia Supreme Court & United States Supreme Court] appelate tribunals, and at the same time am discharging that duty which is placed on my by the Constitution of the State [of Georgia]." Please refer to the last page of Governor John Slaton's clemency decision

Leo Frank is understandably seen as a martyr of anti-Semitism by Jewish social, political and cultural activist groups like ADL, SPLC, and numerous other Jewish alphabet acronym organizations who make up the leadership of the Jewish Community. Understandably so, because even though Governor Slaton was the law partner of Leo Frank's lead trial and State appeals attorney and it was a gross conflict of interest, technically his death sentence was commuted to life in prison. Therefore Leo Frank's hanging by the leading men of Georgia (former Governor or Georgia, Georgia Senators, Superior Court Judge, former Cobb County Sheriff etc..), was technically an extrajudicial murder - or in proper parlance a bona fide lynching; an assassination.

I think it's also curious, that the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles did not exonerate Leo Frank, even though Leo Frank was extra judicially murdered, the Board stating that there was no sufficient evidence to exonerate Leo Frank presented by the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, Atlanta Jewish Federation, and American Jewish Committee, Dale Schwartz, and Charles Wittenstein. This is fascinating that even though Leo Frank was obviously murdered and not legally executed, that the State of Georgia in 1986 maintained Leo Frank's guilt and sustained the trial jury that in 1913 convicted him, and sustained the Georgia supreme court and united states supreme court that left his verdict of guilt undisturbed.

This case provides us with a fascinating opportunity to explore why modern historians believe Leo Frank didn't have a fair trial, even though every level of the United States legal system believed he did have a fair trial. Lots of opportunities to explore the anti-Semitism of this case by Christians, and perhaps even some of the anti-Gentilism by Jews. There are also Two forensic hoaxes in this case that have been uncovered, one being that Mary Phagan allegedly had bite marks all over her body, and the other that mobs of racist anti-Semites were screaming death threat chants at the jury through the windows during open court.SissyMendelstein (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

" the State of Georgia in 1986 maintained Leo Frank's guilt" Apparently not. What it held was, per that other wiki: "It denied the pardon in 1983, hindered in its investigation by the lack of available records. It concluded that, 'After exhaustive review and many hours of deliberation, it is impossible to decide conclusively the guilt or innocence of Leo M. Frank. For the board to grant a pardon, the innocence of the subject must be shown conclusively.'" Anyway, you have to write more than a stub and can expect other editors to be checking both your fact claims and reasoning.---Mona- (talk) 01:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Mona, Leo Frank changed his alibi on the witness stand and placed himself at the very place and time the prosecution theorized Leo Frank strangled to death Mary Phagan, so it was an easy conviction - only took 2 hours for the jury to deliberate after the trial. You're the greatest for bringing up the point about Leo Frank's pardon, thanks for pointing out the falsehood the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles made to the public about there being a lack of available of records. The Leo Frank trial brief of evidence was never lost, nor was the Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Records, they still exist 102 years later! You are mistaken about Leo Frank being exonerated for the crime, he was only pardoned, but he is still recognized as legally guilty. This is why Rabbi Steven Lebow of Marietta Georgia is pressing the government of Georgia to exonerate Leo Frank, because Leo Frank is still officially guilty, despite all people claiming he was wrongfully convicted. The GA board did not address his of his guilt. "Without attempting to address the question of guilt or innocence, and in recognition of the State's failure to protect the person of Leo M. Frank and thereby preserve his opportunity for continued legal appeal of his conviction, and in recognition of the State's failure to bring his killers to justice, and as an effort to heal old wounds, the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, in compliance with its Constitutional and statutory authority, hereby grants to Leo M. Frank a Pardon."
Leo M. Frank, Plaintiff in Error, vs. State of Georgia, Defendant in Error. In Error from Fulton Superior Court at the July Term 1913. Brief of Evidence 1913.
A better source for the Leo Frank trial brief of evidence is the 1,800 page Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Records
This will be a great opportunity to debunk all the hoaxes and publicity stunts that were used to try and trick the public into thinking Leo Frank was wrongfully convicted. SissyMendelstein (talk) 07:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Do not add text to articles touching on Jews[edit]

Many reasonable people have pegged you for an antisemite. Do not add descriptions and links to Holocaust denial videos to the "Holocaust denial" article. We are not promoting that material here. You'll be blocked if you do that again. Do not add material on any pages pertaining to Jews unless you've received consensus first on the article's talk page. Failure to follow this protocol will also result in your being blocked.

Thank you.---Mona- (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I have in fact brought the topic up for discussion, and there were no follow-up responses against the request in a reasonable amount of time after I posted a response. There was name calling in the exchange and I think it's counter productive to use ad hominem. The videos presented are representative of some of the best Holocaust Denial videos explaining their positions and relevant to the article subject. SissyMendelstein (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If you can't get anyone interested, then you have not achieved consensus. This time, you are blocked for nine hours. Don't do it again. ---Mona- (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
-Mona- Which specific article did I violate the rule? SissyMendelstein (talk) 21:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Multiple. See my reverts in recent changes.---Mona- (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
These were in articles where the links had been relevant to the articles and were not about Holocaust denial. For instance 2 links which I added to the Francis Parker Yockey page were to the book/audiobook Imperium on The Internet Archive. On Kevin Alfred Strom, I added a link to his personal page and the newspaper he manages and are very precisely his personal web sites that he manages. On William Luther Pierce I added links to collections of articles, radio programs that were specifically produced by him, including a link to his Cosmotheism Trilogy book at Internet Archive. I posted these items in the discussion page and there was no one stating anything against their inclusion. Any other items? Turner Diaries I fixed a broken link there to the book on Internet Archive. SissyMendelstein (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Francis Parker Yockey[edit]

I added the two following links (below) about Imperium to the Francis Parker Yockey page, and they keep getting deleted by user Dendlai. And he doesn't discuss the issue in the talk page.

Let me know if the formatting is OK. SissyMendelstein (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I love this free speech quote[edit]

I found this quote from the following article that I believe would be most helpful for the intolerant bureaucratic editors here who call people racial epithets when they disagree with them.

The open letter states that “while the university stands for many values, none is more central than the value of free expression of ideas.” The letter goes on to cite Yale’s famous 1975 Woodward Report, which promises students and faculty members the right to “think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.”

Truly beautiful: “think the unthinkable, discuss the unmentionable, and challenge the unchallengeable.” Consider meditating on that Mona, SkepticWombat, DDendlai, Queex, Paravant and others who through self-imposed myopia and by creating a culture of ad hominem, can't comprehend why RationalWiki scares away new editors and creates a climate of fear for new, fresh blood to come to this wiki to develop it. SissyMendelstein (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are topics / subjects about Jews so sensitive?[edit]

I tried posing this question to Mona, but she deleted it from her talk page.

Why do we have to walk on egg shells at articles within this wiki about Jews? It's a serious question. Why is it that anytime someone has different views from the orthodox narrative, there seems to be foaming at the mouth and the anti-Semitism / anti-Semite canard is thrown around so easily? There seems to be an obsession at this wiki with people calling other people names if they disagree with them (see: Leo Frank talk page and elsewhere I have posted). I'm new here, so maybe you could give me insights into the political biases here. I get the feeling that the place is filled with hypersensitive neo-liberals and people with fragile egos. Could you provide some clarity why people try to argue facts and evidence with ad hominem / name calling <insert your politically correct epithet>. SissyMendelstein (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Why are links on controversial articles being removed[edit]

Mona, why are you trolling around RationalWiki removing links to "controversial" articles that specifically pertain to those articles? Examples include William Luther Pierce, Kevin Alfred Strom, Rense, Francis Parker Yockey, and many others. Why are you trying to stop there being links that pertain to those articles? Can you please link me to where it is the policy to censor politically incorrect websites? SissyMendelstein (talk) 02:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

You WIN Mona, You WIN Dendlai, and All the other P.C. S.J.Ws. on RationalWiki are Wining like HIV+ Charlie Sheen![edit]

All you have to do is go to the Leo Frank talk page to see the kind of PC cockamamie troglodytes who infest RationalWiki, some of these Cockalurum also happen to have XX chromosomes and vaj-ah-knee-uz too. Next step, go to all the talk pages about controversial topics to see a small snap shot of the larger gang of malformed runts who jounce, juke and undulate like hyenas behind the naughty pejorative code-words anti-Semite, Nazi, Hater, KKK, Racist, and Anti-Semitism (what other politically correct and SJW code words did I leave out??). Basically when someone disagrees with the orthodox narrative the strategy is employed by intellectual cowards who use the standard red-herrings of insecure social justice warriors who are angry at society that doesn't accept them for their fragile egos and laughs at their need for PC (politically correct) safe spaces (No links to naughty websites even when it's relevant). I can play the same petulant infantilized word semantic / games too: PC, SJW, etc... check out my ambrosia of pejorative code-words too.

To the SJW infestation and gangs of mollycoddle runts at RW, congratulations, you have proved yourselves to be insecure Social Justice Warrior (SJW) weasels and frustrated neurotic weenies who amounts to nothing more than Grand poobah hall monitors that most people would delight in pressing a foamy whip cream pie in your Petrushka the clown faces (Go ahead and look up Petrushka). Mona and Dendlai (sp) you are the kind of petty and trifling entrenched bureaucrat mired in the bureaucracy who love to bicker and sodomize each other with microscopes over the intricacies of your pathetic neo-liberal ideologies.

Just repress it and pretend its not the truth that RationalWiki is a dinosaur, it can't attract a flow of fresh blood, creativity and ideas, because of people like you. Go ahead Mona and Dendlai, Stew behind your computer like tin foil royalty, who are so insecure they need to go around and delete precisely relevant links in controversial pages, because you know deep down inside youre intellectually bankrupt.

Our purpose here at RationalWiki includes:

   Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
   Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
   Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
   Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media. 

Bullshit, your purpose here is to attract the kids who were picked on in high school and never got over it as adults, so they can coo and bicker amongst each other. Enjoy, Bye.

PS. glad I was able to spark a discussion about whether or not to link relevant websites on controversial pages. It should help everyone at RW to see the SJW who are against it flushed out into the open like turds in a clogged toilet that overflows.

"Good Riddens" and "one less nazi!" enjoy using each other feces as playdo.

Peace the fuck out. SissyMendelstein (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

William Luther Pierce[edit]

Mona and Dendlai (and all the other Politically Correct Social Justice Warrior and neo-liberals), right now I'm reveling with tingling joy and ecstasy at your expenses (can you feel my giggly joy Mona? Dendlai?). Mona, you may have blocked me (matters nothing to me), but I got the last laugh on you PC SJW suckers! Delighted to see that the relevant external links I originally added to William Luther Pierce page are there with good explanations for each link. Now Mona and Dendlai, go wallow in your own PC SJW puss! Not only that but I got RW to recognize that relevant links to controversial websites on controversial articles should be allowed under some circumstances. Victory! So long PC social justice warrior suckers! SissyMendelstein (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)