I see Resistance still sells Prussian Blue CD's. I was curious why? Are they under contract with Resistance? How much money are The Duesbrother's making off of the CD's? Why hasn't April pulled them from Resistance and just sell them on the Prussian Blue site? That way she could stop the Duesbrothers from profiting off her kids CD? I wonder why she hasn't? Please advise.

Erich paid my kids $1 per CD that he had printed and gave them 100 cds for every 1000 that he printed......The girls got $1000 but I dont know really how many Cds Erich had printed. Especially since he was having them shipped to his house in Cleaveland and not to the warehouse in Hillsboro. ...back in January he told me they were going to print a second thousand but the girls never got paid for those additional CDs though we did get an additional 25 Cds. Basically if you buy the Cd from Resistance Erich and Erika get the money.

If you buy the CD from my kids website Lynx and Lamb get 100% of the money. We are selling the CDs the girls recieved as their part of the deal.

So buy from www.prussianblue.net to make sure my kids get the money or buy the CD directly from them at the conference where we will be selling them for a special price of $10 each.

There is no Prussianblue/Resistance contract only a verbal agreement that Erich would pay the girls $1 per CD printed. This is actually good news because the girls are working on their second Cd and it is going to be alot better than the first and since we are financing it ourselves the girls will make all the profit.

thanks for the concern Ray,
April

I am no attorney, but I know there is something called the "Statute of Fraud" that sets a dollar threshold for when a contract must be in writing for it to be valid and enforcable.

In my state it is $3,000.00, and it is about that in most others.

Verbal agreements on amounts over that threshold are no agreements at all.

At $14.88 each times one thousand, it seems to me you have a deal worth $14,880 - well over the monetary threshold in any state I am sure.

Without a written contract, they are "pirating" your property !!!!

You just might have them "by the balls", pardon my language.

You need to consult an Attorney A.S.A.P. , and get him to at least write the pirates in Hillsboro a Registered "cease and desist" letter regarding their stealing of your daughters intellectual and artistic property.

The Attorney might just demand to know sales figures, and you just might have a right to 100% of all sales revenues - as they were selling your material
without a contract.

At the time that we made the deal I actually did it with the idea that helping out Resistance was helping the NA and hence our Cause. I didnt realize that it was just an easy money venture for Gliebe. I thought that it was kindof a donation in a sense.....I know that was naive but oh well I had good intentions.

Since he did pay me for some of the CDs and since I have no way of proving how many he actually printed the best thing for me to do I think is to figure that I have learned a lesson and look toward the future.

That is why the girls next Cd will be something to look forward to.

Does Prussian Blue plan to play live anytime soon?

In NEw Orleans next week and in June at the Summer solstice celebration in Tamp Florida.

It does not matter what the "idea" was.

It only matters what the law says.

In a piracy case like this, the burdon of proof as to what and how many just might be with Glee-Bee and company.

A standard of "professional and ethical conduct" normally lies with the "professional" - in this case the recording company.

I do not know, because I am not an Attorney.

But an Attorney would know, and there is only one way to find out.

Consultation.

And there is normally no fee for the first consultation.

April, we have ALL heard you among many others ( justifiably ) howl long and loud about the great wrong that has been committed by the current "owners" of the National Alliance - and the lack of recourse or remedy.

So because they are "owners", there is little to be done except lament, and walk away to start something new.

But your situation just might be the legal basis to really get some justice through "remedy".

For yourself, your daughters, and everyone they have swindled.

But you will never know if you don't at least conduct an initial cosultation.

You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

At least give it a try !

[QUOTE=Truthseeker]It does not matter what the "idea" was.

It only matters what the law says.

In a piracy case like this, the burdon of proof as to what and how many just might be with Glee-Bee and company.

A standard of "professional and ethical conduct" normally lies with the "professional" - in this case the recording company.

I do not know, because I am not an Attorney.

But an Attorney would know, and there is only one way to find out.

Consultation.

And there is normally no fee for the first consultation.

April, we have ALL heard you among many others ( justifiably ) howl long and loud about the great wrong that has been committed by the current "owners" of the National Alliance - and the lack of recourse or remedy.

So because they are "owners", there is little to be done except lament, and walk away to start something new.

But your situation just might be the legal basis to really get some justice through "remedy".

For yourself, your daughters, and everyone they have swindled.

But you will never know if you don't at least conduct an initial cosultation.

You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

At least give it a try ![/QUOTE]
Truthseeker,

Lamb and Lynx are nearly 14. I think at that age they are aware of things like agreements, and possibly the difference between what is just, and what is law, at least in a vague sense.

I believe that whether a case is brought should be on the basis of what is just, and not merely whether or not it _can_ be done or not. Legal rights under JOG is one thing. Morality is something else. I would hate to see a bad example set for the kids.

Consider this: the reason that Erich Gliebe's case against Dr. Bob was an immoral thing was because from any reasonable point of view, Erich's lawsuit is not just. It has nothing to do with whether or not Erich _can_ get away with it or not. Erich was lying when he claimed that Dr. Bob tricked him. Anyone who knows Dr. Bob knows for sure that Dr. Bob has neither the inclination nor the ability really, to "trick" Erich.

War is one thing. They say "all is fair in love and war". And if a lawsuit was done on that basis, I suppose that you might have a point to make. Erich has long established himself as someone who isn't really even a worthy part of white society. He is a race traitor, pure and simple who is actively engaged in knowledgable and willful racial destructiveness. But because of the complexity in viewing such an action in that light, I'd still be reluctant to suggest that April and the kids get involved in that. Obviously it's April's decision, but it is important not to teach kids that immorality is passe.

But apart from a warfare tactic, it really wouldn't matter if April _could_ win a lawsuit against Erich. What matters is what April understood and agreed to. Of course, it would be completely proper to sue Erich if, for example, evidence says that he is cheating them, and considering the "Cut Throat" affair, I'd say that's a probability.

There probably is a moral basis to do as you suggest. But the idea "merely because you can" isn't one of them. Erich would do well to learn that lesson.

I was just curious as to why Prussian Blue CD's were still on resistance since April is a very , very, very bad person according to The Hijackers. Hey, I say get the Prussian Blue CD's pulled from Resistance to choke off The Hijackers a little more since it is a good selling CD. But it isn't my call, just my advice.

[QUOTE=Ray_Air]I was just curious as to why Prussian Blue CD's were still on resistance since April is a very , very, very bad person according to The Hijackers. Hey, I say get the Prussian Blue CD's pulled from Resistance to choke off The Hijackers a little more since it is a good selling CD. But it isn't my call, just my advice.[/QUOTE]
You are highlighting an important, albeit subtle point.

It basically proves that "The Three Prostiteers" have no overriding ideology. Making a profit is the only real concern to them.

You are highlighting an important, albeit subtle point.

It basically proves that "The Three Prostiteers" have no overriding ideology. Making a profit is the only real concern to them.
1 Hour Ago 11:48 PM



Ah, you are now understanding my ways Mr.Stevens.

There does exist strong moral reasons why governments enact "statutes of fraud".

It is particularly in cases like this, where the professionals take the commoners to the cleaners because they "SAID" we could, that the commoners need protection.

The "statute of fraud" has nothing to do with JOG/ZOG laws, but in fact is rooted in some of the oldest English Common Law in existence. It goes back to the Middle Ages.

I never suggested or used the word "lawsuit", because I know it would never come to that, as I doubt any credable Attorney would suggest it. Nor do I doubt Glee-Bee's Attorney would suggest anything less than "Ceasing and desisting".

Law and morality can be two seperate things, and they can also in some cases be exactly the same thing.

April Gaede made the "agreement" under the UNDERSTANDING it was to help a cause she supported.

That UNDERSTANDING was clearly IMPLIED and thus part of the "agreement".

It is clearly now not helping a cause she supports.

As a party to the agreement, I would think it legal AND moral that she at least has the right to revoke her consent to the "agreement".

As an example:
If I agree to let you use my lawn mower because I think you are my friend, and your lawn mowing is making the neighborhood look better, and then change my mind about you, and decide long grass looks better, I have a right to tell you not to use my lawn mower any more even if you were keeping it gassed up for my use also - or even cutting my lawn.
That may not be an exact anology, but it's close enough for my point.

What if you were using MY lawn mower to cut the grass of the Negro who moved into the neighborhood, and everyone knew I was a racist and it was MY lawn mower cutting the Negroe's grass ?

My REPUTATION would be harmed by your behavior.

I would look like a hypocrite and a fool, and would lose all credability with my fellow whites in my efforts to influence them towards a more enlightened exitence.

What would it do to the reputation of any business with a sizable Christian following if their products started appearing in and being associated with, say Hustler ?

Loss of reputation is very important, and the continued appearance of Prussian Blue in what Resistance has become appears to be "Loss of Reputation" to me.

Some folks on this more aware than average forum have already asked about the "Link".

What conclusions will the less informed make about the relationship ?

Is this not now also a legitimate MORAL concern ?

In search of a new low to hit, NAHQ resorts to ripping off little girls. Are they going for some kind of record here?!

[QUOTE=Truthseeker]There does exist strong moral reasons why governments enact "statutes of fraud".

It is particularly in cases like this, where the professionals take the commoners to the cleaners because they "SAID" we could, that the commoners need protection.

The "statute of fraud" has nothing to do with JOG/ZOG laws, but in fact is rooted in some of the oldest English Common Law in existence. It goes back to the Middle Ages.

I never suggested or used the word "lawsuit", because I know it would never come to that, as I doubt any credable Attorney would suggest it. Nor do I doubt Glee-Bee's Attorney would suggest anything less than "Ceasing and desisting".

Law and morality can be two seperate things, and they can also in some cases be exactly the same thing.

April Gaede made the "agreement" under the UNDERSTANDING it was to help a cause she supported.

That UNDERSTANDING was clearly IMPLIED and thus part of the "agreement".

It is clearly now not helping a cause she supports.

As a party to the agreement, I would think it legal AND moral that she at least has the right to revoke her consent to the "agreement".

As an example:
If I agree to let you use my lawn mower because I think you are my friend, and your lawn mowing is making the neighborhood look better, and then change my mind about you, and decide long grass looks better, I have a right to tell you not to use my lawn mower any more even if you were keeping it gassed up for my use also - or even cutting my lawn.
That may not be an exact anology, but it's close enough for my point.

What if you were using MY lawn mower to cut the grass of the Negro who moved into the neighborhood, and everyone knew I was a racist and it was MY lawn mower cutting the Negroe's grass ?

My REPUTATION would be harmed by your behavior.

I would look like a hypocrite and a fool, and would lose all credability with my fellow whites in my efforts to influence them towards a more enlightened exitence.

What would it do to the reputation of any business with a sizable Christian following if their products started appearing in and being associated with, say Hustler ?

Loss of reputation is very important, and the continued appearance of Prussian Blue in what Resistance has become appears to be "Loss of Reputation" to me.

Some folks on this more aware than average forum have already asked about the "Link".

What conclusions will the less informed make about the relationship ?

Is this not now also a legitimate MORAL concern ?[/QUOTE]
And you said you weren't a lawyer. I'll bet you would be better at law than you think.

Please don't forget, I'm on your same side. In general, what you said about understandings is a valid basis. Of course, Gliebe would content 1) that he had no such understanding bound to the contract of their word, or that 2) he was, in fact, in keeping with such an understanding, or both. How would one differentiate objectively? Do I get to create my own way out of an agreement by insisting that my opinion be the one to decide whether or not you violated our understanding? That seems awfully contrived. I state what the unspoken understanding was, and I state whether or not you were in keeping with the unspoken understanding. Don't tell me: you're a woman who has just gotten out of a bad love affair?

It's a pretty hard sell, to say that when you made contractual obligations it was with the intention that I live a good life in other areas, (which idea would seem reasonable to anyone) and I was found fault with, and therefore no party to whom I have contract with is bound to their terms.

Such a contention could be arisen at almost any time on almost any contract.

In general, its best to keep one's agreements simpler than the one with the implications you chose. But, at least you're thinking.

I think April would be better off just doing what she suggested in the beginning. Letting this agreement stand just as she stated her understanding to be. (So long as Gliebe keeps his obligations to her.) There will be other CD's to be made.

Thank you for the compliment.

I wanted at one time to be an Attorney, but other thing came up.

I'm not forgetting we are on the same side.

I hope I did not sound like that.

Perhaps I was getting a bit passionate with my ideas.

We just have some different ideas on a few details.

Everything you say makes sense.

My main point is to encourage the collection of as much information as possable before rashly arriving at any conclusions.

And consulting with a professional is sometimes part of that process.

In this case, it is a necessity.

All I really want is for April ( the victim ) to consult an Attorney to review her options - and only then come to a conclusion as to what is best for her and her's.

There is nothing to lose, and no harm done, in that.

[QUOTE=Truthseeker]I am no attorney, but I know there is something called the "Statute of Fraud" that sets a dollar threshold for when a contract must be in writing for it to be valid and enforcable. In my state it is $3,000.00, and it is about that in most others. Verbal agreements on amounts over that threshold are no agreements at all. At $14.88 each times one thousand, it seems to me you have a deal worth $14,880 - well over the monetary threshold in any state I am sure. Without a written contract, they are "pirating" your property !!!! You just might have them "by the balls", pardon my language. You need to consult an Attorney A.S.A.P. , and get him to at least write the pirates in Hillsboro a Registered "cease and desist" letter regarding their stealing of your daughters intellectual and artistic property. The Attorney might just demand to know sales figures, and you just might have a right to 100% of all sales revenues - as they were selling your material without a contract.[/QUOTE]
This sounds like another DuesBrothers' swindle similar to the one with the bootlegged 1000 Cut-Throat CDs. Those fellows have gotten to be regular scofflaws where paying due royalties and honoring copyrights are concerned. Nobody's ever set them straight on those moral issues before, so maybe they figure that nobody ever will.

Jerry Abbott

[QUOTE=Jenab]This sounds like another DuesBrothers' swindle similar to the one with the bootlegged 1000 Cut-Throat CDs. Those fellows have gotten to be regular scofflaws where paying due royalties and honoring copyrights are concerned. Nobody's ever set them straight on those moral issues before, so maybe they figure that nobody ever will.

Jerry Abbott[/QUOTE]

I can't speak to the other 50 alleged federal investigations that Gliebe and Walker are under (according to the Jew-owned ABC News' unsubstantiated "story"), but they will certainly have to eventually answer to the USPS mail fraud claim that I and a couple of other former NA members filed against them. It would help our case if more of you who purchased memorial bricks stepped forward to join in the claim, but there seems to be a bright yellow streak that runs down the backs of the swindled in place of the righteous indignation one would expect from those who were scammed by these obvious criminals. What do Gliebe and Walker care about your tapping away about their misdeeds on the internet? What these lying thieves fear is appearing before a jury, forced to explain their actions under rules of evidence and under oath to tell the truth. Or, in the alternative, we may just establish that JOG is quite pleased with the way G&W have run Dr. Pierce's tall ship aground -- win/win!

statute of frauds does not make a contract governing certain subjects invalid, only unenforceable.

its strongest when it concerns land. it's probably weakest where it concerns sale of goods. art II UCC says it covers sale of goods in excess of $500.

but there are so many ways around that, it's more of a footnote than anything. here for example, one might say that the contract was not for the sale of goods in the first place, but some kind of service contract for the pressing and distribution of the cds. so the statute of frauds would not apply.

as for cease and desist letters, they are mere requests. experienced businessmen who take risks view them like any other risk. ie, it's a mere possibility of a problem, until a lawsuit is filed. so I think Gleebe would just ignore the threat until it was followed through upon. "talk is cheap" and if April wants to sue him, she should stop talking about it here and hire a lawyer in her own backyard to get it done.

[QUOTE=Antiochus Epiphanes]
"talk is cheap" and if April wants to sue him, she should stop talking about it here and hire a lawyer in her own backyard to get it done.[/QUOTE]

AE,

Excuse me but I did not start this thread OR talk about starting a law suit against Erich here either.All I did was answer a question posed by Ray Air.....

I think that the mail fraud/brick fund scam is actually something that would be more likely to land results and I encourage anyone who had bought bricks to join Will in this effort.

April

[QUOTE=White Will]who purchased memorial bricks stepped forward to join in the claim, [/QUOTE]

PTL CLUB deja vu!
They studied Jim Bakker and Tammy Faye?
They could be televangelists!

[QUOTE=April Gaede]AE,

Excuse me but I did not start this thread OR talk about starting a law suit against Erich here either.All I did was answer a question posed by Ray Air.....

I think that the mail fraud/brick fund scam is actually something that would be more likely to land results and I encourage anyone who had bought bricks to join Will in this effort.

April[/QUOTE]

Well thanks for your initial comment anyhow, I confess that I had wondered that myself once or twice, so your reply was appreciated.

I did not start this either.

But since I stirred it up as much if not more than any, perhaps I should clarify a few points.

I did very strongly make the case for, and suggest that April should consult an Attorney to get a professional opinion of her options.

In that regard, I never suggested "lawsuit" or "sue".

I did qualify that I was not an Attorney.

I do not doubt Antiochus Epiphanes may have a more accurate explanation of the "statute of fraud" as it applies here.

As for Glee-Bees reaction, it is overly speculative to predict how he would react.

Twenty years ago I might have ( you know what ! ) in my pants if I got a registered letter from an Attorney.

Now that I am a'lot older, a little wiser, but plenty more experienceed, I am not so easily flummoxed.

I would grant Antiochus that Glee-Bee PROBABLY would ignore a "cease and desist" letter.
But then again he might not !

But an experienced Attorney might suggest other remedies from his bag of tricks that us mere mortals would never come up with.

April will never know for certain if she does not at least give it a try - and that means consulting an Attorney and getting a professional opinion on her options.

But one thing is certain.
If nothing is attempted by April, nothing will be achieved.
That is a certainty !

April MIGHT be right when she asserts "the brick fund scam....would more likely land results."

She might be wrong.

ONLY an Attorney can give a "qualified" answer to that question begging to be answered.

That is why I still say........APRIL NEEDS TO CONSULT A QUALIFIED LEGAL OPINION !

That wll make the difference between "believing" and "knowing" in this matter.

It's not uncommon for honest everyday people to be reluctant to talk to a lawyer. When someone is wronged, and it is by a stranger (theft, vandalism) we're on the warpath and pull out all the stops in a quest for compensation or simple justice. However, when we are wronged by someone we at one time considered an ally of friend, the tendency is to pick up the peices and move on because of the emotional "weight" of the whole thing.

What advice did the lawyer give her? If this thread has concluded because the advice is now confidential due to possible future actions, I understand. I'm just curious.

[QUOTE=April Gaede]At the time that we made the deal I actually did it with the idea that helping out Resistance was helping the NA and hence our Cause. I didnt realize that it was just an easy money venture for Gliebe. I thought that it was kindof a donation in a sense.....I know that was naive but oh well I had good intentions.

Since he did pay me for some of the CDs and since I have no way of proving how many he actually printed the best thing for me to do I think is to figure that I have learned a lesson and look toward the future.

That is why the girls next Cd will be something to look forward to.[/QUOTE]
.
April,

Here's some ideas:

1) Write a siece and disist order to resistance and demand they stop selling your CDs. Erich may just ignore it but you will have a date to refer to in future litigation that you can bring with all the money your about to make withe the second CD. Smile

2) Print your own Cds in the future, or have them printed( I purchased a CD Duplicater with a built in printer that does 100 at a time for 2k) there are many good duplicaters and printers out there for cheep.

3) whole sale the new Cds to all the pro White music labels you can find for maximum exporuse, and sell them your self.

Earl Turner

[QUOTE=Earl Turner].
April,

Here's some ideas:

1) Write a siece and disist order to resistance and demand they stop selling your CDs. Erich may just ignore it but you will have a date to refer to in future litigation that you can bring with all the money your about to make withe the second CD. Smile

2) Print your own Cds in the future, or have them printed( I purchased a CD Duplicater with a built in printer that does 100 at a time for 2k) there are many good duplicaters and printers out there for cheep.

3) whole sale the new Cds to all the pro White music labels you can find for maximum exporuse, and sell them your self.

Earl Turner[/QUOTE]

A new version of the Fragment of the Future will be available this next week. It includes bonus material that Erich banned from the origional that they are selling. It is available on the Prussianblue.net site only right now. It will also be available in New Orleans at a special price. Also a DVD of the girl's music videos will hopefully be done sometime this year.

I cannot tell him to stop selling the CDs that he has paid me for and there is no way to prove how many he had printed at this time. I would just suggest that anyone who wants to support my kids band buy directly from thier website and not Resistance.

The girl's second CD that I hope to have done by the fall will be produced and released by the girls themselves so that they get all the profit.

April

Until such time as April consults a professional qualified legal opinion, there is no way of knowing for sure anything regarding her rights in this matter, what can and cannot be proven, and what legal remedy may exist.

Until April makes that telephone call, in which case they will most likely tell her over the phone some answers to the above questions, everything is mere speculation.

[QUOTE=Truthseeker]Until such time as April consults a professional qualified legal opinion, there is no way of knowing for sure anything regarding her rights in this matter, what can and cannot be proven, and what legal remedy may exist.

Until April makes that telephone call, in which case they will most likely tell her over the phone some answers to the above questions, everything is mere speculation.[/QUOTE]

I'm sure a good jew lawyer (or even a bad one) would like to jump all over it. ;)

And please don't take that as me advocating jumping in bed with kikes...only a joke!

-Yankee Jim

[QUOTE=Truthseeker]Until such time as April consults a professional qualified legal opinion, there is no way of knowing for sure anything regarding her rights in this matter, what can and cannot be proven, and what legal remedy may exist.

Until April makes that telephone call, in which case they will most likely tell her over the phone some answers to the above questions, everything is mere speculation.[/QUOTE]

true enough and I think that's as good a place as any to end this particular thread.