'Fred O'Malley' is a convicted rapist

[M.N. Dalvez]

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=2691,5051327

and

http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfr...2818.FL.htm/qx

This is the appeal record. Note that the charge of sexual battery wasn't overturned because of the material facts of the case, it was overturned on a technicality; that the prosecution referred to an earlier charge of assault (on his ex-wife, no less) was dismissed due to the charges being dropped. That is not uncommon in cases of domestic violence, due to the close proximity of defendant to the victim and the ease with which further threats of violence can be made against the victim.

and for the full docket details of his case, go to http://app01.clerk.org/cr_inq/, then put his real name into the name search, click the submit button, click on the top record listed, click on the case number, then click on the tab marked 'Docket'. It gives a full chronological record of his case.

So, 'Fred O'Malley' is a convicted rapist, a degenerate piece of shit. Anyone who throws their lot in with him? They're no better than he is.

The only thing to do with him is to do what was done to the child-rapist Lindstedt - exclude him from all respectable Movement discourse, make our disapproval of rapists VERY clear to anyone and everyone. That's all.

For anyone who's still a member of his site: why do you associate with a known rapist? Why do you give legitimacy to pieces of shit like 'O'Malley'?

If you're a member of his site, post your questions about his past sexual battery conviction. See what his reaction is - or whether he just flushes your legitimate questions about his sexual battery conviction down the toilet, in direct contrast to his constant bullshit about 'open-ness' and honesty. My guess is, he won't allow even the slightest mention of his past degeneracy to surface.

(PS: Hey, 'Passing Wind', did you even read the links here?

Or are you just thumbing it down and scurrying off back to the Stanley Diggs Rape Dungeon Forum to have a chuckle about it all? Rape isn't funny. You associating with Stanley Diggs the rapist, aka 'Fred O'Malley', or more commonly, 'Ferd', isn't funny.

Stop playing games.)

[M.N. Dalvez]

Note to Alex, varg, Bev, Leonard, whoever : Is it okay to include his real name here so people can see the real person, and his conviction for sexual battery and burglary, that 'Fred O'Malley' is hiding behind?

Given that he is no longer a member here, and given that he IS hiding his sexual battery and burglary conviction behind a pseudonym - and furthermore, is hiding behind the Movement in order to conceal his convictions for sexual battery and burglary?

Is there any reason to allow 'Fred O'Malley' to hide behind a pseudonym, to in effect be protected in doing so, by the rules here? Do the rules apply to convicted rapists?

[M.N. Dalvez]

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2013/08/28/white-supremacist-craig-cobb-defends-plans-for-north-dakota-town-on-new-hate-forum/comment-page-1/

Following the lead of another poster here, who originally posted this link in another thread (and who hasn't been censured for doing so): that is 'Fred O'Malley'. His real name is posted there, so put it into the name search function of http://app01.clerk.org/cr_inq/ as I already mentioned, and you will find the full details of his conviction for sexual battery and burglary.

Yes - 'Fred O'Malley' is no better than the most degenerate negro rapist - he is a rapist, and someone who carries out violence against women. Don't give him the legitimacy of continuing to associate with him, his website, or have anything to do with him.

Unless you're okay with him being a convicted rapist and burglar. In which case, you're no better than he is. In which case, you can only make things even worse for us, bring the Movement into (legitimate) disrepute by having anything to do with this scum.

[Donnie in Ohio]

Puts his "dodge the weenie" insults in a whole new light, dunnit?

Wow. Just wow.

[M.N. Dalvez]

Silence from 'Fred' and silence from his forum.

Come on, 'Fred'.

If you're being unjustly accused here, why not address this issue - on your own forum (you're banned here for your continual lying and your continually allowing people to lie, even known lying degenerate pieces of shit like Akins)?

Why, when you're usually on-line most of the time, posting away, has your forum gone completely mute?
Why no statement from you about this?
What have you got to hide?

The only reason I can think for your silence on this issue is that it's true, all true. Of course it's true - it's all there in black and white in the official court records.

You lying, degenerate, rapist piece of shit.

[M.N. Dalvez]

I've known of you for about 10 years now, since your days of posting as 'No 1965 Chain Migrants' on SF. I respect your activism, and I respect your informative writings.

Craig - do you really feel comfortable about associating with a convicted rapist like 'O'Malley'?

Don't you see that his past misdeeds also reflect on you?

Do you not see that he is using you to bury his conviction for sexual battery, to try to portray himself as a respectable and upstanding person to others within the Movement?

Don't pretend that what he did was alright because he's your associate. You know as well as I do that in any sane society, he'd be dangling at the end of a rope for what he did.

So why allow him to use you to hide his misdeeds? You don't need the friendship of a convicted rapist - he needs you to pass himself off as a respectable person.

For all his lip-flapping about free speech and open-ness, does anyone here imagine for a second that 'Fred' will allow discussion of his conviction for sexual battery, and burglary, on his own forum?

[M.N. Dalvez]

Fred has already had female members leaving his forum due to his cyber-stalking and his relentless harassment of them.

Which just goes to show: he's still the same degenerate piece of shit he was then, nearly 30 years ago.

He wormed his way out of his just punishment by a legal technicality, a procedural fuck-up on the part of the prosecution. Which he never paid for: he was insolvent, so the public purse picked up all the costs of his defence. Which he was guilty of.

And he never learned his lesson. He's not reformed. And he's using the Movement to hide what a degenerate piece of shit he is.

[Donnie in Ohio]

Originally Posted by M.N. Dalvez

Silence from 'Fred' and silence from his forum.

It's quiet because there's a storm coming.

[Ian]

No he isn't. He was convicted of sexual battery, then won an appeal and was released from the charge.

[Andy Bauer]

Any of you remember this gem?

May 1st, 2013, 08:18 PM
Shit, there goes that neg thumb crap again. I guess one shitstorm wasn't enough for the assholes.

True story:
I got pulled over an hour ago.

Cop: License, registration & insurance.

Me: You're not going to give me a ticket, are you?

Cop: Yes sir, you were doing 65 in a 50.

Me: But you should give me a medal! I stopped a rape just 20 minutes ago!

Cop: No shit?!? How'd you do that?

Me: I changed my mind.

Cop: LOLing. Ok Mr. O'Malley, I'm letting you off with a warning this time, but you be safe out there. (walks away laughing)



Creepy

[Gibson]

I'm no fan of Fred O'Malley, quite the opposite in fact, but I can't condemn him over this case. We all know how the legal system can be abused, particularly in "he said / she said" cases, and without knowing the details, we can't judge the validity or seriousness of these charges. Maybe it was simply rape, or maybe the truth was more complex than that - we don't know. It was not serious enough for a retrial, I guess. And it was nearly 30 years ago!

I judge a man based on what he is and what he does now, not what the cops (and an alleged victim) said he did a few decades ago. As I said, I'm not impressed by what he is and what he does now, but that's another matter.

[Gibson]

And another thing IMO, this is not a valid reason for outing someone. In one person's opinion, an overturned sexual battery case is a valid reason for outing. Another person might say drunk driving is a valid reason for outing, another might say jay walking, or a parking ticket. Where do you draw the line? Discuss...

[Marcus]

In case you didn't know, I joined Fred's site a little while back and I've more or less unofficially been on "his side" since.

Now I simply don't know what to think.

Regardless, between his recent outing by the yids at the SPLC and..... and this, I just can't help but feel for the guy. This is bad, and I could easily imagine it getting worse.

Gods help us.

[Donnie in Ohio]

Originally Posted by Marcus

In case you didn't know, I joined Fred's site a little while back and I've more or less unofficially been on "his side" since.

Gen. Custer? The natives would like a word with you.

[Donnie in Ohio]

Originally Posted by Gibson

And another thing IMO, this is not a valid reason for outing someone. In one person's opinion, an overturned sexual battery case is a valid reason for outing. Another person might say drunk driving is a valid reason for outing, another might say jay walking, or a parking ticket. Where do you draw the line? Discuss...

No one on VNN outed Ferd. The SPLC did that.

[Marcus]

The asswipes at VNNF are taking someone with a name like mine and accusing me of crimes against women, on a vacated charge no less.

Your move, Dalvez?

[Donnie in Ohio]

Originally Posted by Marcus

Your move, Dalvez?

Why would he include this statement:

"on a vacated charge no less"

If it wasn't him, why would he care enough to point out the charges were vacated? Why not a simple "that isn't me, fuckers"?

And I believe the individual has the same date of birth as well.

[Cale Sparks]

Originally Posted by M.N. Dalvez

even known lying degenerate pieces of shit like Akins)?

Fakins is not a Scottish Clan chief or a pedophile nor does he actually believe Linder is a Jew. But Fakins will use these and other attention-whoring devices to derail whole threads (and even entire forums, by ingratiating himself to his forum audience) to further his neocon agenda.

Fakins is a devisive, and defeatest anti-White troll. And he's found a comfortable place to post at Fred's forum.

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Gibson

I'm no fan of Fred O'Malley, quite the opposite in fact, but I can't condemn him over this case. We all know how the legal system can be abused, particularly in "he said / she said" cases, and without knowing the details, we can't judge the validity or seriousness of these charges. Maybe it was simply rape, or maybe the truth was more complex than that - we don't know. It was not serious enough for a retrial, I guess. And it was nearly 30 years ago!

I judge a man based on what he is and what he does now, not what the cops (and an alleged victim) said he did a few decades ago. As I said, I'm not impressed by what he is and what he does now, but that's another matter.

Come on. Give me a break. This is not in any way a 'he said she said' case.

[Leonard Rouse]

Originally Posted by Ian

No he isn't. He was convicted of sexual battery, then won an appeal and was released from the charge.

['No' on your second assertion. The appellate court granted re-sentencing, due to a rule violation in the original sentencing. No release is indicated by the appellate ruling, just the opposite.]

[The question for us is whether or not the individual in this case is the same as a former forum poster (self) nicknamed Fred O'Malley. I don't know for sure yet, and I'd rather not claim one a rapist without being certain, damning though the evidence may seem.

You don't hang a man on a hunch.]

==================

STANLEY EDWARD DIGGS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee

No. 85-1299

Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

489 So. 2d 1228; 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1324

June 12, 1986

[Case summary skipped]

OPINION

This is an appeal from a conviction and sentence for sexual battery. As to the conviction appellant says it was error for the court to have instructed the jury regarding a necessarily lesser included offense because he had requested that that instruction not be given. Appellant was charged with sexual battery with force likely to cause serious injury in violation of section 794.011(3), Florida Statutes (1985). He was convicted of the lesser sexual battery without force likely to cause serious injury in violation of section 794.011(5), Florida Statutes (1985). Since there was evidence the victim was injured and the jury could have found the force was not likely to cause serious injury, we conclude that the court did not err in giving the instruction, even over appellant's objection. The state, like the defendant, is entitled to all applicable jury instructions. It is the court's sole province to instruct the jury on the law. Stark v. Smith, 310 So.2d 334 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

As to the sentence, the court departed from the recommended guideline sentence because:

Originally Posted by Trial Court

The victim presently lives in fear because of the defendant's threats to do her bodily harm. His past history demonstrates his ability of carrying out the threats.

The second sentence is clearly an improper reason because it violates Rule 3.701(d)(11), which disallows using past conduct for which no conviction was obtained. Pursell v. State, 483 So.2d 94 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Fowler v. State, 482 So.2d 602 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986).

Although psychological damage may be an aggravating factor for which a departure can be sustained, such is not the case here. The trauma suffered by a crime victim must be different from that suffered in instances involving the same crime. Tompkins v. State, 483 So.2d 115 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Sexual battery necessarily includes threats, psychological injury, fear and the like, so these factors should not be used to depart from the guidelines. Of course, if the psychological injury is severe due to extraordinary circumstances then a departure may be warranted. Tompkins; Davis v. State, 458 So.2d 42 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Such is not the case here. Parenthetically, we note the judge considered, as evidence of the victim's continuing fears, a letter from the victim. In this particular instance we question the court's use of that letter for departure purposes where the appellant had no right of confrontation and cross-examination regarding the contents of the letter.

CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED and REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.

COWART, J., and CAMPBELL, M., Associate Judge, concur.

====================

[The appellant, Mr. Diggs, won a partial appeal on a technicality, the Court of Appeals having found a rule of criminal procedure had been violated in his sentencing. 'Winning an appeal' need not, and usually doesn't, mean that you walk out of the pokey scot free. In Mr. Diggs' situation, his conviction was upheld (meaning he was still adjudged guilty), but his case was remanded (ie, sent back to the trial court) for re-sentencing (almost certainly for a shorter duration of time).

I suppose one would have to go to the Clerk in Volusia County to find the sentencing records.]