Originally Posted by Edgar J. Steele
Rarely do I speak out against individuals who support our cause and then, always, it has been in self defense after first having been maligned by them. Today, I must break that rule and add my voice to those in condemnation of Joe Fields and his scheduled March conference.
FIRST, Joe Fields is a self-confessed child molester.
In 1996, Fields pled "nolo contendre" to four counts of violating California's Penal Code Section 647.6, in exchange for the prosecution dropping another five counts under the same statute.
Pleading [nolo[/I] to a charge (literally, "no contest," or "you got me dead to rights and I ain't got no defense") is a fiction created by the courts to allow guys like Fields to claim, somehow, that they didn't really plead guilty. Courts do this because it saves time by getting cases closed that, otherwise, would have to be tried in order to obtain the inevitable guilty verdict. People pleading "nolo" get marked down as "guilty" and are sentenced accordingly.
The most recent extended descriptions by Bill White, posted at his site, Overthrow.com, and in this thread are accurate in all respects, so I will not recount the details. The statute, which makes it illegal to "molest or annoy any child under the age of 18," is not used lightly or frivolously. Not in LA, where the cops and the DAs have far more real work to do than they can handle. The next step up from this charge requires actual sexual intercourse with children.
Both Bill White and Tom Metzger provided me partial copies of Fields' court file, at my request and without much of any comment. I saw the rest for myself in the LA County records. The file speaks for itself. Joe pled, did some hard time and then served extended probation.
SECOND, Joe Fields is a liar.
When the allegations first were brought to my attention via postings to VNN, I called Fields and spoke to him. Fields absolutely swore to me that, while he "mistakenly" had been charged with six counts under the statute above, eventually all those charges were dropped and he was not convicted, nor did he pay any penalties. At the time, it seemed unlikely to me that he would so baldly lie to me about something so easily verified. I was wrong. As the court file was to show, He lied to me.
Fields also wrote an extended letter to the WN community at the time which attempted to explain away the charges and his admissions thereto. He lied extensively in it about the charges, the meaning of his pleas, his lawyer and about appealing the result. Fields tried to blame copping the pleas on his lawyer's pressure and lying, then made some truly remarkable claims about the lawyer, to boot.
I found no evidence of Fields appealing squat. He lied about that.
Quite recently, I spoke at length with Fields' lawyer at the time, Encino lawyer David Currie. Though Currie was unable to discuss much about the case, due to attorney-client privilege, California Attorney Disciplinary rules do allow an attorney to speak out enough to rebut charges made by an ex-client. Currie unequivocally called Fields' written charges (he never even had heard about Fields' letter prior to my call) "absolutely false." I believe him. Fields lied about his lawyer.
Fields issued his conference announcement stating that I would be present before I confirmed that I would attend. Despite that, I did confirm, because of the others who already (according to Fields) had confirmed. I have spoken to a couple of them. At least some of them did NOT confirm. "He shouldn't be saying that about me, since I don't even intend to be there, let alone speak," said one to me. Fields lied about that.
I invited Fields to respond to some of the above material. He declined to do so...apparently more "nolo contendre." Silence in the face of accusation is acquiescence.
Yes, one should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Once the primary evidence of guilt is produced, however, the presumption then shifts to the accused. At that point, silence is an admission (save only in a formal court of law, though juries pretty much see things that way, too).
There is more, but that is more than enough for me. I will NOT be attending Fields' conference. I encourage you not to attend. If the listed speakers who have not yet returned my calls or answered my emails will do either, I personally will attempt to dissuade them from attending, either.
Some may think my attitude about this matter to be too harsh. To those, I say: You have a problem, not I, and perhaps you should seek treatment for it.
Admittedly, child molestation is something of a "third rail" for me, since I believe that child molesters should receive the death penalty for a first offense. Solicitation of children for sexual purposes, which is all to which Fields pled guilty, is enough for me to want to see someone locked up for a long time. Had I been the judge, Fields would not have gotten off so lightly, despite no apparent evidence of his having actually touched any of the children who identified him.
Should someone actually touch my child, I hope the authorities never hear about it .... do the math.
Lying is another matter, albeit lesser. Honesty and forthrightness are key with me in life. When someone lies repeatedly, I thereafter refuse to believe anything he has to say. Henceforth, just as will I, you are entitled to disregard anything Joe Fields has to say about anything.
We do not need this sort of role model in the WN movement. Just now, Kevin Strom's lengthening silence makes clear that he, too, is some sort of pervert. Terrific. Just terrific.
It is our responsibility to clean up our own act and condemn those among us who break the law, particularly when violations so thoroughly trash the fundamental principles upon which we stand.
Make no mistake: Joe Fields was not a political prisoner. Obviously, neither is Kevin Strom. These men do not deserve our support. They have not earned our indulgence for this sort of thing. If we do not step up and condemn their actions, then we are hypocrites and worse.
I am not the first to cast a stone in the direction of either Fields or Strom, but now I do just that. What you do is between your conscience and yourself, but I will not sit silently while men such as these posture and presume to speak for us.
Because of the extensive censorship that exists over at Stormfront, particularly concerning Strom, I will not be posting this there myself, but I encourage those of you who think it might survive to do so.
If anybody knows of Fields' conference having been advertised elsewhere, please let me know so that I might set the record straight there, as well.
Edgar J. Steele