How Leftist Lawyers Beat the System: Joint Defense

The most famous problem of game theory is the Prisoner’s Dilemma. A group of dissidents is picked up by the Feds, and the prisoners know the first man to talk gets off while the rest will get locked up. The dilemma is: how do you get everyone to shut up because, “nobody talks, everybody walks.”

New developments are upending the traditional Prisoner’s Dilemma for Pro-White Dissidents. As the government becomes more vindictive, the benefits of cooperation decrease. As the Alt-Right develops its own legal organizations, namely the American Legal Defense Fund and Testudo Legal Defense, no longer will unsympathetic attorneys cow our men into accepting ridiculous plea deals. The successful matching fundraiser for the Traditionalist Worker Party’s lawsuit against the City of Charlottesville, and the shock-and-awe fundraising totals for the Daily Stormer’s legal defense demonstrate that we have the resources to defend our own institutions in the courts.

As we develop our own legal institutions and seek to tackle the Prisoner’s Dilemma, we should look to the tactics of the Left. The legal tactics that allowed the Left to get away with the criminal rioting that accompanied the Civil Rights Movement will assist us in engaging in First Amendment-protected speech.

Joint Defense Agreements

One tool to beat the Prisoner’s Dilemma is the Joint Defense Agreement (JDA). When a mafia ring is busted or political dissidents are rounded up, the government will charge defendants together to minimize the number of trials, expand the range of admissible evidence, and utilize guilt-by-association. Planning a defense to these changes can be difficult as disclosure to a third party will generally destroy attorney-client privilege. However, with a JDA, a defendant may be protected from government subpoena of documents or testimony shared to build a joint defense.
While your legal needs are solely a question for your attorney, the National Lawyers Guild website provides templates for JDAs. For purely illustrative purposes the templates demonstrate the relative simplicity of the agreements.
The value of such an agreement is illustrated as follows: Four men of an Alt-Right group are arrested on conspiracy charges. Their attorneys instruct them to speak to no other attorney or defendant in the case. The men insist their attorneys pursue a JDA. With the JDA all four men and their attorneys may be present in the same room or conference call to discuss their case strategy. Re-united with their comrades, the men pledge on their honor to adopt a strategy of rejecting any plea deal.
The JDA itself cannot not hold any one defendant to their promise not to plea or create a duty of loyalty from an attorney to a different defendant. See United States v. Stepney, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1069 (N.D. Cal. 2003). Rather, the value of the JDA lies in opening up communications between defendants when lawyers typically advise their clients not to speak to their co-defendants. By breaking the crushing isolation of defendants before trial, JDAs may help our political prisoners beat the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
Depending on the state, clients could go one step further and allow their lawyer or lawyers to negotiate a joint settlement. The American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rules MRPC 1.8(g) allows a lawyer representing multiple clients to make “an aggregated agreement as to guilty or nolo contendere pleas” provided all parties provide informed consent. The California Bar for example has adopted the ABA rule in with California Rule 1.8.7.
If a U.S. Attorney’s prosecution strategy depended on flipping one of the defendants, a united front would force the U.S. Attorney to choose between the humiliation of a defeat at trial or the rage of their ADL paymaster for not punishing the accused through the trial process.

Joint Defenses and the J-20 Riots

Often leftists will forgo a joint defense agreement and just hire the same lawyer. DC Lawyer Mark Goldstone represented “About 50” of those arrested for allegedly rioting during the “Disrupt J20” protest of the Trump inauguration. Additionally, a total of 135 J-20 defendants publicly signed a pledge to refuse plea deals.
The refusal to take plea deals by the J-20 defendants paid off. The DC police made 234 arrests for rioting on Inauguration Day. Those charges resulted in 21 plea deals, jury verdicts of “not guilty” for eight defendants, and dismissal of all other defendants by either the court or the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The 9% plea rate for the Anarchists is certainly far lower than the Charlottesville plea rate. However, the alleged rioters may have taken confidence in the fact that their case was presided over by a judge of Jewish descent, Judge Lynn Leibovitz.
The J-20 rioters also benefitted from friendly DC juries tossing out their conspiracy to riot charges. Once a jury acquitted the first six J-20 defendants in December, 2017 the writing was on the wall. Unlike the recent dismissal of the charges against the Rise Above Movement in California, the government made no attempt to appeal the dismissal of charges by Judge Leibowitz.
In all likelihood, the prosecution of the rioters was the brainchild of Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Kerkhoff who saw cracking down on the Anti-Trump rioters as a way to curry favor with the new regime. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration cares far more about prosecuting White men for buying athletic tape than prosecuting Anarchists who assaulted his supporters. Kerkhoff jumped the gun in the early days of the Trump Administration, and now it is clear that the Trump DOJ is on an Inglorious Bastards-style hunt for “Nahtzee Scalps.
According to her LinkedIn, Kerkhoff, is in her 14th year as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. At 43, Kerkhoff is one year older than U.S. Attorney Tim Cullen. While Kerkoff languishes in her DC office, Trump has nominated Cullen for a lifetime federal judgeship.
An anecdote of three men charged for self-defense:
In October 2017 an attendee of the Richard Spencer speech at the University Florida fired a single warning shot after Antifa struck his vehicle with a baton. The driver of the vehicle, a passenger, and the man who fired the shot were arrested and charged with attempted murder. The driver pled guilty in return for an agreement to testify against the shooter.
But the shooter pled no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon and an aggravated assault charge. The snitch was no longer needed, but the government still held his no-contest plea to a charge of accessory to attempted first-degree murder. The government, surprised they had got the man to plea to such a trumped-up charge, only asked for a 17-month sentence for their witness. The judge had none of it, and all the apologies and disavowals did nothing to prevent the imposition of a 5-year sentence. The passenger who did not plea, had his charges dropped, likely in return for not contesting extradition to Texas where he was already facing charges.
The vindictive nature of the system is ironically reducing the incentives to snitch. The man who refused to plea was sent home. The shooter was given a sentence equivalent to the maximum penalty in Florida for felony possession of a firearm. And the snitch was stuck with accessory to attempted First-Degree Murder. They always say crime does not pay, but it is a hell of a lot more profitable than copping a plea with the Feds.
Gangsters, then and now
Over dinner, a seasoned and well-respected White-Collar criminal defense attorney recently told me how he made sure the other defendants in a conspiracy case did not plead. He informed me that he disliked Joint Defense Agreements. Rather, White Collar defense attorneys quickly gain a reputation within their legal market. If an attorney gains a reputation for having their clients flip, other attorneys will quickly freeze them out of joint settlement negotiations or decline to share evidence.
A similar phenomenon was observed among the local mafia defense attorneys back in the day. Those men ate together at the same Italian restaurants and sent their daughters to the same Catholic schools. Having a client snitch could have severe professional repercussions for their attorneys as it was typical for a mafioso to pay the legal bills for their underlings.
The top local White-Collar defense attorneys are now more likely to attend shul than the Columbus Day Parade. But the same tools of ethnic solidarity and punishing defectors are still applied. What we need are our own cadre of Pro-White lawyers who trust each other and understand the risks of a federal plea deal.
The rules of every state leave the acceptance of plea agreements to the absolute discretion of clients. However, it is a lawyer’s duty to ensure that a client’s decision to plead is an informed decision.

Only our growing circle of pro-White attorneys can ensure that a client appreciates that any ADL-vetted judge will see you as worse than Al Qaeda come sentencing. Why not take the stand and make your case to the jury, when a judge may torch any alleged White Nationalist’s sentencing agreement? Come what may you can expose the kangaroo prosecution in open court and earn the respect of both prisoners and prosecutors as part of that elite 2% of federal defendants who refuse to plead.