As I was reading a War Room blog post about accused Holocaust Museum shooter James von Brunn's 1981 attempt to place members of the Federal Reserve Board under citizen's arrest, the following passage about his trial caught my eye:
Judge, Harriet Rosen Taylor, JEW; Prosecuting Attorney, Elliot Warren, JEW (Warren, later strategically replaced by Ron Dixon, Negro), remained in court throughout the trial as acting consultant to Dixon); Prosecuting Attorney, Ron Dixon, Negro; Probation Officer, Marvin Davids, JEW (Rabbi); Recorder & Bailiff, Negroes. 53 potential jurors attended voir dire, six were white. Dixon, using his peremptory challenges, dismissed all but one white woman juror seating 11 Negro jurors, and 3 Negro Alternates, Court Appointed Defense Attorney, Elizabeth Kent, JEW, was dismissed by me when she did no work on the case for several months. Her court-appointed replacement, Gerard Lewis proved to be a Trojan Horse. I would have had a fairer trial in Iowa!
The obvious question that arises from this passage is, of course, what does James von Brunn have against Iowa? One would think that your average white supremacist would be pleased to be tried in Iowa; the state as a whole is 91% non-Hispanic white and more than 99% non-Jewish, which would seem to make it pretty attractive to someone who is both racist and anti-Semitic. Even the biggest city in the state is only 9% black, making it pretty unlikely that a jury pool of 54 people would have only six whites. Yet von Brunn seems to think that being tried by Iowans would be nearly as unfair being tried by a cabal of blacks and Jews. What's up with that?