Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Hate Crimes Case Against Marcus Epstein Dismissed – A Cautionary Tale

Hate Crimes Case Against Marcus Epstein Dismissed – A Cautionary Tale

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Marcus Epstein's class 6 felony hate crime case was dismissed by the DC Superior Court on July 8.

Marcus Epstein is a young man with a very bright future.  He has been in the right place at the right time, sailing through the right schools, and to law school at the University of Virginia.  In the ultra-conservative world of the Peter Brimelow, VDare, American Renaissance, and John Tanton anti-immigration movement, he has already made a name for himself as a rising superstar.

Epstein has also made a name for himself as something of a bully, vociferously defending himself when his links to noted racists like Jared Taylor have been exposed, protesting that he is not a racist.  A recent profile in the SPLC Blog proves the young man doth protest too much. 

The Executive Director of Pat and Bay Buchanan's American Cause and Tom Tancredo's Team America PAC had been awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to a 2007 drunken attack on an African American woman. The incident was detailed in this Blogcritics Magazine article on May 29, 2009.

During a drinking binge in 2007, Epstein, who claims he cannot possibly be a racist because he is part Korean and part Jewish, verbally and physically assaulted a woman on a street in Georgetown.  Further complicating things was the fact that Epstein had the misfortune to have the assault witnessed by an off Duty Secret Service officer. 

Bay Buchanan immediately rushed to Epstein's defense.  In Human Events, she wrote that the poor thing was the subject of an "internet lynching" by the left-wing One People's Project.  She simply could not understand why such a nice young man could be treated so badly by those nasty liberals.  After all, he had a speech impediment.  She went on to say he has an exceptional mind and is a very talented writer. 

According to Buchanan, Epstein further should be excused for dropping the "f" bomb and physically assaulting an African American woman because he was suffering from depression, and is possibly suicidal.  She had never seen anyone in such depths of despair.  He had even crashed in her guest rooms for several months, and  The Georgetown incident occurred not long after he moved back on his own, . 

After originally pleading not guilty, he was forced to issue an Alford plea (guilty without admitting guilt).  Conditions for sentencing included therapy for mental illness, substance abuse rehab, a letter of apology to his victim, and a donation of $1000 to the United Negro College Fund.

According to the judge who dismissed the charges, Epstein met those conditions.  He served 14 days in jail (on weekends).  He completed his alcohol treatment, and did minor community service for Mothers Against Drunk Driving ( MADD). 

As do so many young people, Marcus Epstein allowed his personal problems to spiral out of control.  It appears now that he will not be attending UVA Law School this fall, Bay Buchanan laments.  One of the reasons he allegedly was going to attend this specific institution was the "presence of a strong recovery community".  

On a personal note, I ran afoul of Marcus Epstein several years ago, when he threatened a lawsuit over an article I wrote about him on my blog, Pink Flamingo.  Blogcritics Magazine readers who are familiar with the work I've done on the whole anti-immigration movement know that, as a writer, I do not hold back; going for the jugular when necessary.  When you do this, you check your sources—carefully. Epstein retreated.

Most of us have known young people who, dealing with personal demons, self-medicate either with drugs or adult beverages.  The only possible way a person can hope to recover from an addiction and work their way through crippling depression is to face his or her problems and deal with them in an appropriate manner.  Bay Buchanan is simply enabling Marcus Epstein when she writes the following:

"…But the Left doesn’t care about any of this.  They kept moving this little tidbit, watching it ricochet around their shallow world in the blogosphere, until it landed on a popular site for incoming law students.  There individuals who claim they’re interested in carrying-out justice in this world saw to it that Marcus paid again for his offense.  With nothing but a skeleton of a story they initiated a campaign targeted at UVA’s Admissions Office.  And they won — Marcus will not be attending UVA Law School in the fall…."

I agree with Buchanan that Marcus Epstein deserves a second chance.  Where I do not agree is in blaming the loss of his placement at UVA on the Left.  The Left did not cause the young man to assault an innocent woman, Epstein did that himself.  Neither did the Left cause another kid his age to shoot out several dozen street lights along Royal Palm Way in Palm Beach, but this youngster and his family took full responsibility for his problem.  He is now a very successful contractor, living a productive, sober life.

The Left did not cause another young person I know to be arrested for drunk driving, spend eight months in rehab and then do his weekend jail time. This young man lost nearly $100,000 in scholarships and the possibility of going to the Air Force Academy.  He is dealing with the same demons Epstein is, but no one is making excuses for him.  The jury's still out on how he is going to do in life, but I have a feeling he may do better than Marcus Epstein, simply because those who love him are doing so with "tough love". 

Marcus Epstein should be so lucky.

Powered by

About SJ Reidhead

  • Glenn Contrarian

    But SJ – don’t you know that we liberals don’t believe in enforcing the law, that that’s the sole province of God-Fearing Law-Abiding Republicans? That’s pretty much what Selwyn Duke said in his BC article!

    Me, I guess I’m what Sean Penn called a “Commie Homo-loving son-of-a-[bleep]”.

  • Clavos

    Glenn,

    Did you read SJ’s bio? An excerpt:

    While she is highly critical of the influence of far right conservatives on her beloved Republican Party, her first priority is to do everything possible to help stop the far left, Democratic destruction of the United States.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    *chuckle*

    Yeah, it’s a vast left-wing conspiracy, y’know?

  • Dan

    “Epstein, who claims he cannot possibly be a racist because he is part Korean and part Jewish…”—SJ

    It would be interesting to see proof of this allegation, and who’s standard of this often cited pejorative would he have been responding to?

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Dan –

    Here’s the quote: “On July 7, 2007, at approximately 7:15 p.m. at Jefferson and M Street, Northwest, in Washington, D.C., defendant was walking down the street making offensive remarks when he encountered the complainant, Ms. [REDACTED], who is African-American. The defendant uttered, “Nigger,” as he delivered a karate chop to Ms. [REDACTED]’s head.”

    And here’s the link

  • Glenn Contrarian

    On a side note – I Googled

    Republican “Marcus Epstein”

    and the blogcritics site came up as the first entry on Google!

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Part Korean, part Jewish and entirely insane.

    Dave

  • http://insomniacentertainment.com Luigi Bastardo

    “Part Korean, part Jewish and entirely insane.”

    Thus, Soy Vey was invented.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Good article, SJ. What I fail to see is why they seem to be building Epstein as though a rising star?

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Here’s another link, SJ, to the Epstein affair.

  • Cannonshop

    #4 Is it not obvious? The Standard as promulgated by Democrats.

    Of course, he got it wrong. All you need to be labeled a Racist is to be a Republican, and not be an Obama Supporter (or, even easier, to be Labeled Racist, you just need to not support “Hopenchange”._)

  • Glenn Contrarian

    C-shop –

    AFAIK, no one has said that if someone is Republican, they must therefore be a racist.

    Just because the vast majority of those whites who happen to be racist also hold strong conservative beliefs doesn’t mean that all conservatives are racist.

    It’s all a matter of likelihood – and if you can show that white supremacists are more likely to be Democrat than Republican, I heartily invite you to do so!

  • Clavos

    Most racists are apolitical, for the simple reason that their views are so far off the charts that neither party is a good fit for them.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    No, you are wrong. Remember how I posted that for a generation, the most powerful racist in America was a Democrat? Google “James O. Eastland” and you’ll see what I mean.

    But the Democratic party changed as time went on and grew out of racism. The Republican party did so too…but not nearly to the same degree. Why? Because conservatives are by nature ‘conservative’, resistant to change.

  • Cannonshop

    #12 Been missing the fooferaw around the Sotomayor hearings, Glenn? The outcome of said hearings so far has been “All Republcans are Racists” because they aren’t chiffon-creaming the hearings on the express route.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    C-shop –

    One of the most ironic things is seeing Jeff Sessions query Sotomajor about racism.

    How about Googling Sessions and racism and see what you find.

  • Clavos

    @#14:

    Once again, Glenn, you misread my comment: I said “most racists are apolitical.”

    Most means not all, so of course you’re going to be able to come up with anecdotal evidence about any specific individual in either party, but that doesn’t invalidate my statement.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    No, you’re wrong again, because most racists also hold strong political views and are likely support that party that most strongly supports (or is least offensive to) their own beliefs.

    If you’re going to make statements like “most racists are apolitical”, please back it up with something concrete.

  • Baronius

    Most racists are Democrats. Republicans don’t judge people based on race; Democrats do. The only thing that’s changed about the Democratic Party is which race they favor. But even that’s false, because they play races against each other.

    The Republican Party leans anti-government. A Republican can be a racist if he wants to, and he’s not hurting anyone but himself. The Democratic Party leans pro-government. Whether it’s Jim Crow or affirmative action, the combination of racism and governmental involvement can destroy a culture.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    The latest widespread accusations of racism against prominent democrats from Dick Durbin to Obama’s new Healthcare Czar don’t make a pretty picture at all.

    Dave

  • pablo

    comment 19

    That’s pretty funny Baronius :)

    Ya gotta love the chutzpa and sheer hypocrisy of most republicans, I sure do.

  • Clavos

    No, you’re wrong again, because most racists also hold strong political views

    I agree with you there.

    and are likely support that party that most strongly supports (or is least offensive to) their own beliefs.

    But nit there. neither party is institutionally racist, so most racists tend to be Neo Nazis or members of other fringe “parties,” not Democrats or Republicans.

    And please don’t come back at me with more specific names, once again, I said most.

    But I’ll concede that I shouldn’t have said “apolitical” originally. Perhaps “fringe political” might have been better.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    “All you need to be labeled a Racist is to be a Republican”

    So dropping a N-bomb as you karate chop a woman isn’t racist in your view, CS. Good to know where you stand.

    And good luck to Baronius for his “Most racists are Democrats” entry in “The Dumbest Comment of the Day.” It’s the clubhouse leader

  • Baronius

    Thanks, EB. It’s an honor just to be nominated.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    The Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are not exactly being accused of racism. And no one objects to their stretching the hearings to 4 days, per se.

    It’s just that such a large proportion of their bloviations and questions are not about legal issues and Sotomayor’s lengthy career in the law, but instead about a couple of phrases from a couple of her speeches.

    The irony of Jeff Sessions leading the charge implying that the nominee is ‘prejudiced’ is pretty striking. [Rachel Maddow has listed all the embarrassing, quite racist comments attributed to him — some he admits to and some not — during his own failed judicial appointment hearing.] And the Ricky Ricardo allusion from Tom Coburn was both funny and utterly inappropriate.

  • Baronius

    Handy, I think it was Senator Kyl who put it quite well, that most judges keep whatever biases they have in check, but a few don’t. If a judge repeatedly, publicly says that she doesn’t believe that judges can or should keep their biases in check, it’s worth considering the possibility that she meant it.

  • Clavos

    The Rep reps with questionable remarks in their past may seem ironic, but they aren’t being considered for a lifetime job with the power to literally make law.

    Their “racist” comments are therefore less potentially important (or damaging) to the country than Sonia’s “racist” comments.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    The Dems started this whole poisonous road with the Bork hearings. But the GOP has proven this week they can be just as petty and unfair as anyone else.

    Bork should have been criticized and examined fairly, and then confirmed. A president should get to appoint his choices to the court unless they are really unqualified [Harriet Miers? and some of us might argue Clarence Thomas].

    Jeff Sessions was rightly not confirmed for his lifetime judgeship appointment. He is a true ass. The people of Alabama have mystifyingly seen fit to foist him as a senator on the rest of the country.

    Sotomayor, a liberal replacing a liberal on the court, won’t change anything fundamental in the coming year’s decisions. She is utterly and unquestionably qualified for the job.

    Bringing up the ‘wise Latina’ speech once or twice would be perfectly reasonable. For every Republican on the panel to bring it up once, and then for several of them to keep going back to it, over and over, is just a waste of time.

  • Bliffle

    Apparently, John Roberts successfully hid HIS biases in order to get appointed chief justice, according to Jeffrey Toobins report in the New Yorker:

    Toobin on Roberts

    Looks like Umpire John Roberts feels free to define his own strike zone and when he applies it.

    You might want to read the Volokh Conspiracy take on it, which was actually where I found the primary source citation.

  • Bliffle

    Bork shot himself in the foot when he denied article 9 of the constitution and revealed himself as a rightwing functionary determined to take a rightwing activist position to deny civil rights.

    How stupid. How inept. And I thought the guy was a good constitutional authority right up to that point.

    Ptooey.

  • pablo

    28 handguy and 30 bliffle

    handguy says:

    “Bork should have been criticized and examined fairly, and then confirmed. A president should get to appoint his choices to the court unless they are really unqualified [Harriet Miers? and some of us might argue Clarence Thomas].”

    Seeing as how Robert Bork referred to the 9th (amendment handguy) as an “ink blot” on the constitution, and that nobody really knows what it means, at his confirmation hearings, I would have to say that Bork was unqualified to sit on the bench. Not only is the 9th (I have written about this amendment before on this site) amendment part and parcel of the Bill of Rights, it is the one amendment to the constitution that re-affirms that our rights do not come from the enumeration in the constitution of said rights, but that they are innate, as in unalienable, and that it is government itself that has limitations. Unfortunately throughout the Court’s history it has been ignored due to what an honest interpretation of it will yield.

    The people are free and the government is not. Thus by ignoring it, the totalitarians increase their violation of our liberty.

  • Cannonshop

    #23 I’d say “Catastrophically Stupid” and criminal. (not to mention fundamentally dishonourable-it is fundamentally dishonourable for a man to strike a woman, regardless of the crap dripping out of his mouth at the time.)

    HOwever, it’s an individual act,something you Collectivists really can’t fathom-the guy doing the striking and spewing the verbal garbage is an Asshat who needs to be fed his teeth, but that’s it-it’s on HIM, not on everyone who happens to be members of the same political or socioeconomic demographic.

    Collectivists, of course, assume that the behaviour of one, is the behaviour of all, and all too often make the mistake of assuming that a Tattoo and a Piercing make one “Individual” even though every OTHER twenty-somthing is getting one for the same reason.

    Individualism means owning what you do-both the good, and the Bad, and owning the consequences of doing it.

    Sessions is an asshat-one that gets re-elected, so he must be pretty good at bringing the Federal Pork home, or he must face some of the limpest opposition known to man in his district (maybe he’s the Republican equivalent of John Murtha?).

    The bizarre thing is, we finally can see a hispanic Pat Leahy will champion for a Judicial seat… and we finally see a confirmation hearing that didn’t take almost half a year to get INTO committee.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Not only is the 9th (I have written about this amendment before on this site) amendment part and parcel of the Bill of Rights, it is the one amendment to the constitution that re-affirms that our rights do not come from the enumeration in the constitution of said rights, but that they are innate, as in unalienable, and that it is government itself that has limitations. Unfortunately throughout the Court’s history it has been ignored due to what an honest interpretation of it will yield.

    While I agree fundamentally with how you view the 9th Amendment, I have to disagree with your last statement. Usually (not always) the judges writing appeals decisions take large parts of one side’s legal brief or another and just reproduce it, slightly amended, as a large part of the judgment. To make that last assertion with confidence, you would have to have at your fingertips not only case law, but the briefs submitted by the attorneys arguing the appeals. It might be more accurate to say that the attorneys have ignored the 9th Amendment because they themselves did not understand it. Attorneys with the power to adjudicate legal cases (judges) therefore have ignored it as well.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski
  • Glenn Contrarian

    C-shop –

    I think you summed up one of the great differences between Republicans and Democrats – Republicans will not share the blame with others of their party…even when it’s Republicans who keep reelecting the racist in question!

    The Republicans re-elect him…and then say “what he does isn’t MY fault!” They will NOT take responsibility for each other. They are the party of, “I am not my brother’s keeper!”

    We Democrats, OTOH, see things somewhat differently. We know that what ONE Democrat does reflects on ALL Democrats. We accept this. We take responsibility for each other. We ARE our brother’s keeper.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Cannonshop @ #32:

    For the life of me I can’t see, anywhere either in the comments or the article itself, that ‘you Collectivists’ have claimed that Epstein’s idiotic behaviour was anything other than an individual act.

    And if going up to a black woman, karate-chopping her and calling her a nigger isn’t a racist act, I don’t know what is.

    I don’t care how wasted he was at the time. In fact, alcohol does rather unbutton your tongue: it’s the original truth serum. Far from ‘not meaning it’, it’s very likely that he did.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    It’s a Cannonshop I no longer recognize. Radicalization of a conservative.

  • Baronius

    Handy, I just reread your comment #25. You begin by saying that no one’s accusing the Republican senators of racism. You then pass along charges made against Senator Sessions. So you simultaneously (1) say it’s not happening, (2) report on it happening, and (3) do it yourself.

  • Clavos

    Heh.

  • Cannonshop

    36- Duh, Epstein is an asshat. Not only that, but he’s a VIOLENT ass-hat. Where’s the Assault charge, or better yet, AGGRAVATED assault. Proving his bias indicates a high chance of recidivism and motive…this should be a slam-dunk for an attorney…unless one is more interested in making points politically with the label “Hate Crime” rather than acknowledging all violent crime is nested in hatred.

    #35 Why should I “Share Blame” with this guy? He doesn’t represent me, I didn’t pick him, I’m only compelled to pay a miniscule fraction of his salary because I pay taxes. AND I have to endure anything he manages to get passed. Democrats LEGITIMIZE bad behaviour by “Sharing the Blame out” among their own ranks, and use it to mass-tar their opponents by “Sharing the Blame out” among THEM.

    I know it’s difficult to both accept responsibility for yourself, and hold others to that standard, but it’s fundamental to freedom to accept that there are asshats in the world, that sometimes idiots elect them, and that in some places, there are lots of idiots.

    Lady hits me in the parking lot, I don’t assume all women are bad drivers. (Or, in this case, all Christians-she had a jesus-fish on her car.)

    Epstein’s a racist, there’s not much doubt of that-but his crime was assault, not what weird, convoluted, twisted logic is tumbling through his diseased little mind. His defense that he couldn’t be one because he belongs to TWO minority groups-that’s purely from your side of the fence, Glenn, and the contention broadcast by the radical left that, essentially, only white men can be racists.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Jeff Sessions is a special case. Read up on him and tell me if you think he is wholly innocent on racial matters.

    But the main objections against the Republicans on the committee are that they overemphasized barely relevant material [lines from old speeches, out of context], and avoided addressing Sotomayor’s record as a judge. Few of the accusations against her had to do with this record — which is many years long.

    When they did ask about cases, it was mostly hypotheticals about hot-button issues. What does this prove? Nothing at all. And the overemphasis on the New Haven firefighters suit just showed how little real ammunition the senators could come up with.

    But the real bottom line is that smart, qualified nominees like Roberts and Sotomayor have to mute their own intelligence before the committee. They have to avoid saying anything meaningful, because it might be blown out of proportion and torpedo their nomination.

    Thus these hearings are always a travesty and a sham. They shouldn’t really be about how liberal or how conservative a judge is, but just about how qualified they are. Having your appeals court’s opinion overruled by the Supremes is not a disqualifier. Happens several dozen times a year.

    Nonetheless, an embarrassment like Jeff Sessions grilling Sotomayor and trying to prove that she is ‘prejudiced’ is grotesque and offensive.

  • Baronius

    Handy, I’ll grant you this much, that Senate confirmation hearings don’t serve any real purpose any more. Although if memory serves, they were originally cooked up as a plan for Democrats to implement race policy. (God, what is wrong with those people?)

  • zingzing

    baronius: “(God, what is wrong with those people?)”

    i dunno, but you guys do a pretty good impersonation. but it wasn’t funny the first time around…

  • Baronius

    Zing, please explain.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Senate confirmation hearings don’t serve any real purpose any more. Although if memory serves, they were originally cooked up as a plan for Democrats to implement race policy.

    I don’t have the slightest idea what you mean my this.

  • Baronius

    Handy, I double-checked this. The Supreme Court confirmation hearing came out of the 1950’s. The Democrats used them to try to block anyone sympathetic to civil rights.

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    Dixiecrats, you mean. I imagine Hubert Humphrey and others would not have been in agreement with that motivation, and some Republicans conversely were just fine with blocking civil-rights-minded judges from appointment.

    The direct relevance of your comment to the current hearings is tenuous at best. But thank you for sharing.

  • Baronius

    Handy, I think it’s great that your party counts minorities as whole people now, but why do you have to keep counting them at all?

  • Clavos

    The direct relevance of your comment to the current hearings is tenuous at best. But thank you for sharing.

    The “direct relevance,” it seems to me, lies in the fact that we’re still holding these “exercises in futility” which you characterize as a “travesty and a sham.”

    So, at least in this admittedly tiny cohort, we seem to be in agreement as to the uselessness of the Senate (in this exercise, though I would generalize that to its very existence).

  • http://handyfilm.blogspot.com handyguy

    The hearings as they are currently conducted are fairly useless. That doesn’t mean the Senate shouldn’t perform its constitutionally required advise-and-consent role.

    Politicians will always do political things. We live in a democracy and we elect officials who are by definition politicians.

    So expecting the Senate to do its duty without acting like bloviating politicians is a pipe dream. But some senators do the job a bit better than others, so maybe, just maybe, by encouraging the good and criticizing the awful, we can collectively and eventually have some effect.

    You’ve probably seen Mr. Smith Goes To Washington [1939] and Advise and Consent [1962]. Parts of the two movies are Hollywood nonsense, but the amusing caricatures of preening, blowhard senators still ring true, 70 years and 47 years later.

  • Cannonshop

    #50 Don’t forget Eddie Murphy’s movie, “The Distinguished Gentleman”, which, in a way, is like “Mister Smith”, but also includes some rather pointed (and sadly, accurate) commentary about HOW these bozos get into office.