Judge Lynn Adelman’s father was a Zionist Jew

Figures… name Adelman, occupation, Judge. But the Judge looks more American than jewy and the poor, persecuted Jews at Wikipedia did not claim Lynn Adelman as member of the tribe at the time… (though they knew).

Well, now, we all know. And don’t give me the Mark Potok baloney, just because Dad was a jew doesn’t mean I’m a jew. That’s not the American way of looking at it. If zionist jew Mark Potok was a white American, he would know that.

Note: Judge Lynn Adelman overturned the guilty verdict, in April 2011, in ZOG’s trumped up case against Bill White.

Link:

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=in%20fco%2020100628129.xml&docbase=cslwar3-2007-curr

---

If your Dad bought a house from Frank Lloyd Wright…
you’re probably a Jew!

---

Milwaukee County

Businessman Adelman spent life in Wright house
By Crocker Stephenson of the Journal Sentinel
Jan. 14, 2012

Albert “Ollie” Adelman was in his early 30s, living in a Shorewood duplex with his wife and three young sons, when he took it upon himself to knock on the door at Taliesin, the Spring Green home of Frank Lloyd Wright, and ask the famed architect to design a house for him on a woodsy piece of land in Fox Point.

Wright did. [THE SHORTEST PARAGRAPH I HAVE EVER SEEN]

It was there, in a buff-colored house of concrete and cypress, that Adelman raised his family and it was there, on Friday, that Adelman died. He was 96.

A successful businessman, Adelman might have had an equally successful career as an athlete.

He snagged 15 varsity letters at Shorewood High School, then went on to Northwestern University, where he excelled at football and tennis. He was an All-American halfback, and in 1936, he scored three touchdowns against rival University of Wisconsin.

A member of the Northwestern’s Athletic Hall of Fame, Adelman turned down a contract with the old Chicago Cardinals of the National Football League.

He planned, instead, to become an assistant football coach and graduate student at Harvard.

His father, however, asked Adelman to come back to Milwaukee and help him with the cleaning business he had founded.

Adelman became president of Adelman Laundry and Dry Cleaners. His son, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, said the laundry and cleaners had 40 or more locations in the Milwaukee area.

Adelman had a flair for promotion.

When the New York Yankees came to Milwaukee for the 1958 World Series, Adelman took out an ad, telling the visiting team members: “We will do the laundry and dry cleaning for you and your family during your stay in Milwaukee, without charge. As long as you are going to be taken to the cleaners, you may as well be taken by the very best.”

The Adelman family sold the laundry business in the late 1960s and Adelman worked with his son, Craig, at Adelman Travel Group.

Active in the Jewish community, Adelman served as the Wisconsin chairman of State of Israel Bonds. He was national chairman of the United Jewish Appeal and president of the Milwaukee Jewish Federation. He was also one of 12 original members of the Board of Governors of the Global Jewish Agency in Israel.

Devoted to his wife, Edie, Adelman is survived by three sons: Lynn, Craig and Gary Adelman, who is a teacher in Brookfield, as well as three grandchildren and eight great-grandchildren.

Services will be held Sunday at 1 p.m. at Congregation Sinai, 8223 N. Port Washington Road, followed by burial at Greenwood Cemetery, 2615 W. Cleveland Ave.

Appellate Court overturns Judge Adelman’s dismissal of charge

Court document – “Although First Amendment speech protections are far-reaching, there are limits… …So, whether or not the First Amendment protects White’s right to post personal information about Juror A first turns on his intent in posting that information. If White’s intent in posting Juror A’s personal information was to request that one of his readers harm Juror A, then the crime of solicitation would be complete. No act needed to follow, and no harm needed to befall Juror A. If, on the other hand, White’s intent was to make a political point about sexual orientation or to facilitate opportunities for other people to make such views known to Juror A, then he would not be guilty of solicitation because he did not have the requisite intent required for the crime. White argues that NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886 (1982), stands for the proposition that the only permissible view of his posting is to see it as a constitutionally protected expression and subject to the Brandenburg test. In Claiborne, black citizens of Claiborne County, Mississippi, sent a letter to white merchants with a list of particularized demands for racial equality and integration. After receiving an unsatisfactory response, they began a boycott that lasted years. Several of the white merchants sued members of the boycott to recover losses and enjoin further boycott activity, and won. The Mississippi Supreme Court upheld liability as to 92 participants by finding that members had agreed to use force, violence and threats to ensure compliance with the boycott, but the Supreme Court reversed, holding that an individual could not be held liable for his mere association with an organization whose members engage in illegal acts. Id. at 920. Claiborne primarily focused on the constitutionality of group-based liability, but it also concluded that Charles Evers, the field secretary of the NAACP and chief proponent of the boycott at the time, could not be held liable based on his “emotionally charged rhetoric.” Id. at 928. In speeches given before and during the boycott, Evers stated that there would be “discipline” coming to those who did not participate in the boycott, and that any “uncle toms” would “have their necks broken.” Id. at 900 n.28. …White’s argument boils down to this: his posting was not a solicitation and because it is not a solicitation, it is speech deserving of First Amendment protection. The government sees the posting in the opposite light: the posting and website constitute a solicitation and as such, fall outside the parameters of First Amendment protection…”

http://www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100628129

---

From the SPLC blog, July 23, 2009 [Bill White] had been scheduled for trial in Chicago next month, but U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman this week dismissed the indictment charging White with soliciting harm against the juror… “The posting of personal information about an individual involved in a judicial proceeding, even under circumstances that are intimidating or unsettling, cannot, absent a true threat or an incitement to imminent lawless action, be criminalized consistent with the First Amendment,” wrote Adelman in the 35-page decision.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/07/23/3281/