Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old December 7th, 2009 #21
zoomcopter
Senior Member
 
zoomcopter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The goyim reservation
Posts: 5,944
Blog Entries: 4
Default

"That agent recorded himself saying he didn't care if babies died because he was going to "get" me."

And these are the "good guys"?
__________________
Vladimir Putin's Russia is being attacked by the very same forces that attacked Hitler's Germany, namely the Jews. The fate of the world hangs on Putin defeating the Jews.
 
Old December 7th, 2009 #22
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The feds are going to attack, attempt to infiltrate and by all means undermine any organization that works for Whites. That doesn't mean the feds can't be thwarted, and the way to do it is what I have advocated - a white activist group oriented toward publicizing hush crimes. A handful of professionals with a a skeleton secretarial staff - and all the rest simply donate money and show up at rallies. Boom - basically nothing to infiltrate.
What you are saying is, orient an organization exclusively toward legal and peaceful activities and you won't have to worry greatly about the consequences of infiltration. As a matter of fact, since infiltration relies heavily on people who have been caught committing crimes, an organizational prohibition against that kind of activity will reduce the possibility of infiltration.

Somebody mentioned Shaun Walker. Walker beat up somebody in a bar. As far as I know other members of the NA were never dragged into the prosecution. There is no basis for turning Walker's case into an argument against organizing. It's an argument against getting into bar fights.

I think it can be argued that Bill White was largely the architect of his own misfortune as well. What's the point of publishing a juror's home address? Granted that it's perfectly legal, still there is no point except to be menacing. What's the point of making empty threats? It doesn't do any credit to the cause. But again, White's actions got only him into trouble. So what does it have to do with organizing? White went out of his way to be outrageous even when he wasn't in an organization.

I have some sympathy for Matt Hale. It's outrageous that a private, Jew-ridden organization is the gatekeeper for entry into the legal profession. Hale could have avoided that problem, not so much by avoiding organizations as by avoiding nationwide publicity so early in life. Regarding his incarceration, there is a lesson to be learned, which is, don't tolerate people advocating criminal activity within an ostensibly law-abiding organization.

Tom Metzger's opposition on principle to formal organizations makes sense for him, since he has been trying to encourage illegal activity. My understanding of Metzger's "leaderless resistance" is, Break the law but don't tell me. I doubt that this approach has had any significant success, because people left entirely to themselves tend to become self-indulgent. Man is, as Aristotle observed, a political animal; i.e. he needs to be part of a community. It is in an organization that each individual's full potential has the best chance to be realized. Realization of a potential for pro-White violence backed by an organization is probably going to have to wait until the government has lost all competence to maintain order. This was one aspect of what Dr. Pierce had in mind for the National Alliance, as I understand: strict legality for the present, with the option of organized violence in that future time when general chaos will reign.

Last edited by Hadding; December 7th, 2009 at 07:13 PM.
 
Old December 7th, 2009 #23
J Roberts
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 53
Default

Wow! I met that Michael Burks character at a Council of Conservitive Citizens meeting in Louisville several years ago. A real dorky looking guy. He looked like a small gust of wind could blow him over. He kept talking to Tom Robb about not being able to find a girlfriend. He also used to post on stormfront under the name Kentucky Kludd and Michael Burks. Personally I took him for a loser with no friends who followed WN orginizations looking for acceptance. I also thought he was borderline insane and my gut feeling told me something just wasnt right about him. I never would of thought he was some kind of informer or agent! It makes me sick to think about it. I think I even gave him my phone number and address at the CCC meeting because we both live in the Louisville area. I guess the feds know all about me now LOL.

The lesson here is if someone doesnt seem quite right they probably arent.

Also, anyone in the Louisville area watch out for two skinheads named Josh Cowles and Matt Roberts. Two ex IKA members turned, or were the entire time, informants. Josh Cowles is a fat ugly fuck covered in tatoos. You cant miss him.
 
Old December 9th, 2009 #24
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
What you are saying is, orient an organization exclusively toward legal and peaceful activities and you won't have to worry greatly about the consequences of infiltration.
The legal/illegal divide only interests those who follow the law, and the feds often do not. Pierce's org was legal. That didn't stop the FBI from running covers at the POB, and obtaining its list, and infiltrating it, and attempting to mess up its activities. Just as they did with the precursor, GL Rockwell's org, which also pursued purely legal activities.

What I'm saying is that the fewer people involved, the better. If you have, say, two lawyers, and two public speakers (White Jackson, White Sharpton), two or three secretaries, and that is your inner circle - not much to infiltrate. The insiders are few and known. The outsiders are supporters. Of course, the powers that be can and will still come after you, but it will be harder than if you have a membership group with 'local units' filled half with good people and half with Michael Burkses.

The org I describe, a White activist nucleus that accepts donations, is streamlined, making it harder to get a hold on. Its mission is oriented to publicizing hush crimes - thereby giving it an in to the MSM - IF it keeps up the pressure. The media can denounce the speakers/suers as racists, but no matter how bad they want to make the smear the focus, they are also going to have to mention the HUSH CRIME the activists bring attention to.

Quote:
Somebody mentioned Shaun Walker. Walker beat up somebody in a bar. As far as I know other members of the NA were never dragged into the prosecution. There is no basis for turning Walker's case into an argument against organizing. It's an argument against getting into bar fights.
There weren't any charges filed at the time. It was about as pure a railroading as you're ever going to see.

Quote:
I think it can be argued that Bill White was largely the architect of his own misfortune as well. What's the point of publishing a juror's home address? Granted that it's perfectly legal, still there is no point except to be menacing. What's the point of making empty threats? It doesn't do any credit to the cause. But again, White's actions got only him into trouble. So what does it have to do with organizing? White went out of his way to be outrageous even when he wasn't in an organization.
Leaving your opinion aside, what you say in this paragraph directly contradicts what you started with. Bill White did nothing illegal. Yet he faces legal trouble. So, staying legal is no guarantee the authorities won't try to use your actions against you.

Last edited by Alex Linder; December 9th, 2009 at 06:42 PM.
 
Old December 9th, 2009 #25
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Jury seated in Roanoke Neo-Nazi Bill White’s trial

WSLS News Staff
[email protected]
Published: December 9, 2009
6:00 p.m.

By Angela Hatcher
WSLS Reporter
[email protected]

An all-white jury will take up the federal trial of self-proclaimed white supremacist Bill White.

There are twelve jurors and two alternates. Four are women and ten are men.

White is accused of making threats by e-mail, telephone and on the internet. He is also indicted on extortion and intimidation charges.

The court made it clear to jurors that White is not on trial for his beliefs, but only for the crimes he is said to have committed.

Jurors were asked if they had seen White on television or in the newspaper. Have the room was excused when they said the media coverage they’ve seen could keep them from being impartial.

Jurors were also asked if they were so offended by the “N-word”, that hearing it in testimony would influence their decisions. Two people were excused for that reason.

They were also asked if they had strong feelings about Jews or Nazis. One man told the court he has a Nazi tattoo to represent his German heritage.

One potential juror’s father guards white at the Roanoke City Jail. She expressed concern that White now knows what she looks like and could have access to her personal information. Last week the judge denied a request for an anonymous jury.

One man, who is not a potential juror, twice answered questions asked of the jury pool. U.S. Marshal’s escorted him from the building after he tried to talk to potential jurors during a recess. The defense moved for a mistrial because of that man, who they claim is a member of the NAACP. The judge refused the motion, but allowed the defense to ask if anyone was influenced by that man.

The trial is expected to last ten days.


————

5:15 p.m.

10 On Your Side’s Angela Hatcher has spoken with the U.S. Attorney who says a jury has been seated.
He says 12 jurrors and two alternates have been selected.
The jury is made up of four women and 10 men, all who are white.
There are no minorities on the jury.
Angela will have the latest on this story at 6.

——

1:35 p.m.

Jury selection underway.

WSLS’s Angela Hatcher will have live updates on day one of the trial on WSLS at 5:00 and 6:00 p.m.

———

8:04 a.m.

Roanoke Neo-Nazi Bill White is expected in court this morning after a federal judge ruled against him last week.

His trial could last up to three weeks.

White facing seven federal charges, for either threatening or intimidating several people using the internet, the phone, or the mail. His defense lawyers argued all his rantings are protected by the First Amendment, and asked for the charges to be dismissed.

The judge said that will be up to a jury to decide.

The judge did however rule that the jury will not be anonymous.

http://www2.wsls.com/sls/news/local/...n_today/67187/
 
Old December 9th, 2009 #26
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

How the heck will they pick a jury for Bill White's trial? UPDATED

Bill White (far right) salutes Adolf Hitlers birthday in Chicago April 20, 2008. From Whites' former Web site, Overthrow.com

Bill White (far right) salutes Adolf Hitlers birthday in Chicago April 20, 2008. From White's now-defunct Web site, overthrow.com

Roanoke landlord and self-styled Nazi "leader" and blowhard Bill White goes on trial in federal court later this week today on charges he threatened various people around the this country and in Canada through telephone calls and posts on his now-defunct blog, Overthrow.com.

I have previously opined about what a farce this trial is, and about Bill White here and here. Or, read Laurence Hammack's trial advancer, which notes that the U.S. Department of Justice is bringing in hired guns from its Washington headquarters to prosecute White.

Earlier, U.S. District Court judge James Turk wisely rejected those prosecutors' motion for an anonymous jury. Jeez! I am sure that request tickled White's already inflated ego -- it ranked him with truly notoriously criminals such as Mafia don John Gotti.

What I want to know now is this: how the heck are they going to pick a jury?

As most of you probably know, jury selection at the start of a trial is involves many questions to probe potential juror conflicts and biases.

The conflicts are pretty easy -- you don't want the prosecutor's mom on a jury, for example, or a neighbor of the defendant.

But the biases can be trickier, especially when the defendant is a Hitler-saluting jerk who has called President Obama the n-word on a magazine cover and who in the past has referred to blacks as subhuman "mud people" and to Jews with terms that are equally abhorrent.
Bill White / www.splcenter.org

Bill White / www.splcenter.org

The questioning process is called voir dire, and lawyers on both sides of a case use it to select, and reject, potential jurors for the case.

Just imagine some of the questions that could arise in White's case:

"Ms. Smith, do you have any problems with Nazis?"

"Mr. Brown, what do you think of Adolf Hitler?"

"Ms. Gray, could you fairly decide the case of someone who has opined over and over again that races should be separated, and who has called President Obama a nigger?"

"Ms. Jones, got any opinions on Auschwitz?"

As one of my colleagues pointed out Monday, if Ms. Smith answered "I think the Nazis were complete a**holes, she would appear to be biased against White, the "commander" of a follower-less American National Socialist Workers Party.

On the other hand, if Ms. Smith doesn't have a problem with Nazis -- well, that could be even worse.

Because then White would wind up being judged by a jury full of either total dopes who don't know who the Nazis are, or racists who do know what the Nazis are stand for and who are not biased against them.

So, readers, what questions would YOU like to see asked during the jury selection process at White's trial?

Posted at 10:37 by Dan Casey | Category: White power |
58 Comments »

1.

Actually when I served jury duty for Roanoke County I was surprised at the lack of questions they asked. They wanted to know if anyone was in law enforcement or had any friends or relatives in it, if anyone knew anyone invovled in the case or if there were any reasons that you couldn't participate. That was pretty much it. On my most recent stint it seemed like the jury was seated by "picking names out of a hat" to get the first 20, then 8 were dismissed based upon the above questions and "looks." I told my husband if, God forbid, I ever needed a trial, I would opt for a judge instead of a jury if that's the way Virginia always seats a jury. When I served up in NYC it was quite a different experience and the lawyers really questioned each person more thoroughly before picking the jury. Maybe White's case will be different...

Comment by Elena — December 8, 2009 @ 10:56 am

http://blogs.roanoke.com/rtblogs/dan...-whites-trial/
 
Old December 9th, 2009 #27
MikeTodd
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
 
MikeTodd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
Posts: 13,329
Default

Quote:
An all-white jury will take up the federal trial of self-proclaimed white supremacist Bill White.
If they're all kwans he's pretty much screwed.
(Racism illegal. Isn't it?)
__________________
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
 
Old December 9th, 2009 #28
OTPTT
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,896
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Have the room was excused when they said the media coverage they’ve seen could keep them from being impartial.
'Have' dat room be scused.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
They were also asked if they had strong feelings about Jews or Nazis. One man told the court he has a Nazi tattoo to represent his German heritage.
He should have kept his mouth shut about the tattoo. His tattoo is irrelevant to the question or nature of being a juror. But because he couldn't leads me to believe he has a low IQ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
One potential juror’s father guards white at the Roanoke City Jail. She expressed concern that White now knows what she looks like and could have access to her personal information.
I hope White's counsel asked for a mistrial when she made that statement. Clearly she is prejudiced and may have prejudiced other jurors.

She's also irrationally paranoid.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The jury is made up of four women and 10 men, all who are white. There are no minorities on the jury.
Generally speaking, this should be good news but one never knows. Mostly men who will keep the women's emotions in line and no non-Whites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
The judge did however rule that the jury will not be anonymous.
Why not? Star Chambers were all the rage in the 1600s. Anonymous juries would be a novel and perfect fit for 2009 Amerikwa. Juries could convict with impunity.

Last edited by OTPTT; December 9th, 2009 at 09:19 PM.
 
Old December 9th, 2009 #29
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Neo-Nazi White's trial begins today
The trial will include testimony from victims to determine whether William A. White made threats.

By Laurence Hammack
981-3239

* Judge: White trial will proceed
* Trial could have anonymous jury
* Neo-Nazi ordered to remain in city jail
* Neo-Nazi is returned to jail amid bond appeal
* Judge grants bond to jailed Roanoke neo-Nazi
* White supremacist to get psychiatric evaluation
* Neo-Nazi leader White returns home to Roanoke
* White's life on fringe puts him at center of storm
* Dismissed charges in Chicago might not affect Roanoke case
* Charge against Roanoke neo-Nazi leader Bill White dismissed
* Judge in neo-Nazi's trial recuses himself
* Neo-Nazi leader's trial to begin July 27
* Neo-Nazi White asks for new judge
* Roanoke neo-Nazi faces new charges
* Feds: Roanoke neo-Nazi threatened prosecutors, FBI agents
* Ruling clears way for neo-Nazi trial
* Did Neo-Nazi White go too far this time?
* Neo-Nazi fails to persuade judge to release him
* Roanoke white supremacist remains jailed
* White's Web site closed by FBI

For more than a year now, the war of words between William A. White and the government has been one of arcane legal arguments.

Did a racist's online rants amount to "true threats," as defined by federal law? Or did the words of White, a neo-Nazi leader, stop short of "inciting or producing imminent lawless action," and thus fall under the protection of the First Amendment?

When White's trial begins today in U.S. District Court in Roanoke, the debate over esoteric legalities will no doubt continue. But for the first time since White was charged with making online threats, the court will hear from his victims.

A nationally syndicated newspaper columnist from Maryland, a human rights lawyer from Canada, a university administrator from Delaware, a former small-town mayor from New Jersey and others have been subpoenaed to testify.

The witnesses are expected to describe the fear they felt after getting telephone calls, e-mails and online abuse from White. The self-described commander of a Roanoke-based white supremacy group, White often lashed out at those who offended his sense of bigotry.

Defense lawyers maintain White is all talk and no threat.

The trial, which could last two weeks, will test the free speech rights of White -- who has been called "possibly the loudest and most obnoxious neo-Nazi leader in America" by the Southern Poverty Law Center -- against the impact of his words.

Although a similar charge against White was dismissed earlier this year in Chicago, Judge James Turk has ruled the Roanoke case can go forward, giving prosecutors a chance to bolster their legal arguments with raw, human emotion.

In court papers, Justice Department lawyer John Richmond emphasized the importance of viewing White's comments in the context of how they affected his targets.

"Evidence that victims panicked, felt anxious, sought law enforcement protection, or took extra steps to ensure their safety is very significant and militates in favor of a fact-finder concluding that a particular statement was a threat," Richmond wrote.

The best way to consider that evidence, the government contends, is through the jury trial that begins today.

Columnist targeted

After eating out the night of Jan. 6, 2007, Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian were forced from their vehicle and taken by carjackers to a house in Knoxville, Tenn.

There, some of the five suspects repeatedly raped the couple, according to news media outlets. Newsom, 23, was taken to some railroad tracks, shot him in the back of the head, and his body was set on fire. Christian, 21, died a slower death, by suffocation, after her beaten and sexually mutilated body was wrapped in trash bags.

Christian and Newsom were white; their attackers were black.

The case soon caught the attention of Leonard Pitts, a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for The Miami Herald whose work is carried by newspapers across the country, including The Roanoke Times.

In a June 2007 column, Pitts derided claims from some critics that the national media -- always eager to report on cases in which whites are accused of victimizing blacks -- ignored this black-on-white crime out of political correctness.

Pitts, who is black, cited the Central Park jogger case as just one example of why he was "unkindly disposed toward the crackpots, incendiaries and flat-out racists who have chosen this tragedy upon which to take an obscene and ludicrous stand. I have four words for them and any other white Americans who feel themselves similarly victimized.

"Cry me a river."

It didn't take long for White to notice the column.

As he is prone to do, White quickly inserted himself into a controversy in which he had no prior involvement. At 11 p.m. the night of June 3, White called Pitts' home and told his wife, who answered the phone, that he was the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, the government alleges in an indictment.

Fifteen minutes later, the indictment continues, White e-mailed Pitts. After reciting the lyrics of a song filled with racial slurs, White wrote: "You and your fellow black filth are quickly losing ground, and I look forward to the rapidly approaching day when whites once again rise up and slaughter and enslave your ugly race to the last man, woman and child.

"Itz coming."

Later, the government alleges, White published Pitts' home address and telephone number on his now-defunct Web site, overthrow.com, and encouraged readers to call the columnist.

When officials at the newspaper asked White to delete Pitts' contact information from the Web site, he allegedly replied: "We have no intention of removing Mr. Pitts' personal information.

"Frankly, if some loony took the information and killed him, I wouldn't shed a tear. That also goes for your whole newsroom."

The right to be rude?

Even White's lawyers acknowledge that he comes across as a rude and loudmouthed racist.

But his actions don't amount to threats, defense attorney David Damico said last week in asking Turk to dismiss the charges. "There's nothing here that says, 'I'm going to come to your home to do this,' " Damico said of the charge involving Pitts.

However crude White's approach was, the defense contends, his intent was to engage in "political discourse," thus his words should be shielded by the U.S. Constitution.

Most of White's alleged threats were related to items in the news. A diversity program at the University of Delaware led him to target an administrator at the school, the government alleges. And a mayor in New Jersey drew White's ire after his yard was vandalized by racists.

Defense lawyers say White's comments should be viewed in the context of today's no-holds-barred attitude among commentators on cable television and on the Internet. That especially applies to Pitts and Richard Warman, a human rights lawyer White is accused of threatening, they say.

"These are people who are lightning rods," defense co-counsel Ray Ferris said in court arguments. "They're out there mixing it up."

In July, a Chicago judge used a different standard in dismissing the first charge filed against White, which accused him of posting the name and address of the foreman of a jury that convicted a fellow white supremacist. Prosecutors argued that White meant the man harm, knowing his readers included racists who might be incited to violence.

Citing a U.S. Supreme Court case that dealt with comments at a cross burning, the judge ruled that because White's actions did not provoke "imminent lawless action," they fell under the First Amendment's protection.

Although Turk denied a motion last week by Damico and Ferris to dismiss the seven charges against White, the judge indicated that he might reconsider after the government rests its case.

It is unclear whether White, who seems to have a hard time keeping his thoughts to himself, will share them with the jury. In one of his last public comments before his arrest in October 2008, the 32-year-old was full of his usual bravado.

White said at the time that the government had been investigating him for months, but had filed no charges because prosecutors knew they had no case against him.

"They just know they're going to lose on this," he told The Roanoke Times.

White will soon learn if his prediction comes true.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/229084
 
Old December 9th, 2009 #30
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder
Leaving your opinion aside, what you say in this paragraph directly contradicts what you started with. Bill White did nothing illegal. Yet he faces legal trouble. So, staying legal is no guarantee the authorities won't try to use your actions against you.
No. I didn't say that staying marginally legal was sufficient to avoid legal trouble. I also made the point that White's activities were provocative in ways that as far as I can tell were not useful.

As I said, what is the point of publishing a juror's home address? The obvious purpose is to be menacing. Either nothing will happen to the juror, in which case White and the people that he represents are found to be a paper tiger, or something happens to the juror, in which case White will very likely find himself convicted on a conspiracy charge. Either way, we lose.

I am not opposed to pressing the limits of the law, except that it ought to be done in areas where it helps us, not just as a way for somebody to force the attention of the mass-media on himself.

Last edited by Hadding; December 9th, 2009 at 07:31 PM.
 
Old December 9th, 2009 #31
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Potential Jurors Being Interviewed for the Bill White Trial

by Sonia Scherr on December 9, 2009

ROANOKE, VA. — After sitting through his own threat trial in Brooklyn, hate blogger Hal Turner may find himself back in a federal courtroom sooner than expected — this time as a witness in a similar case. Turner was on the list of dozens of potential witnesses that a government prosecutor read during the opening day of the trial for Bill White, another notorious white supremacist. White, who led a neo-Nazi group before his arrest, is charged with threatening various people with whom he disagreed.

The government’s witness list included several of White’s alleged victims, including nationally syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts, Canadian civil rights lawyer Richard Warman and University of Delaware professor Kathleen Kerr. The government prosecutor didn’t say why Turner might be called to testify; Turner’s case ended in a mistrial Monday when a jury couldn’t agree on whether he was guilty of threatening to assault and murder three federal judges. He’s scheduled for retrial in March.

A jury will likely be empanelled today in White’s trial, which is expected to last about 10 days. Lawyers for both sides have been interviewing jurors for hours, focusing on whether they’d be able to give White a fair hearing when confronted with highly offensive testimony, including references to Nazism, swastikas, anti-Semitism, the word “nigger,” and the belief that blacks are sub-human. Lawyers questioned several jurors individually who’d said on a jury questionnaire that Hitler was one of the people they least admired. Given that White has the opposite view, the lawyers wanted to know whether the potential jurors’ distaste for Hitler would prevent them from being impartial.

Many potential jurors have been dismissed because they said they’d heard so much about the case that they couldn’t be fair. One jury pool member was dismissed after saying she didn’t feel comfortable in the same room with other races; another potential juror, who hadn’t been dismissed as of mid-afternoon, said he had a swastika tattooed on his leg, but did not participate in any organized groups that used the Nazi symbol. One potential juror was allowed to leave after saying she was so offended by White’s racism that she wouldn’t feel comfortable serving.

Dressed in a dark suit, the 32-year-old White sat quietly at the defense table during jury selection, occasionally taking notes or whispering to one of his lawyers. White lives in Roanoke but remains in custody after an appeals court overturned the decision of a judge who had released him on bond. As the self-described commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, White ran the white supremacist website Otherthrow.com on which he published many of the alleged threats. We will post updates as White’s trial progresses.

http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/1...l-white-trial/
 
Old December 9th, 2009 #32
Alex Linder
Administrator
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 45,756
Blog Entries: 34
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadding View Post
No. I didn't say that staying marginally legal was sufficient to stay of legal trouble. I also made the point that White's activities were provocative in ways that as far as I can tell were not useful.

As I said, what is the point of publishing a juror's home address? The obvious purpose is to be menacing. Either nothing will happen, in which case White and the people that he represents are found to be a paper tiger, or something happens, in which case White might find himself convicted on a conspiracy charge.

I am not opposed to pressing the limits of the law, except that it ought to be done in areas where it helps us, not just as a way for somebody to force the attention of the mass-media on himself.
Don't post your lawyerball in this thread. Never admiitting you're wrong is not the same as never being wrong. Me 2 - you 0.
 
Old December 9th, 2009 #33
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Default

[This thread is for discussing the trial. If you want to discuss other stuff, start another thread.-A.L.]

Last edited by Alex Linder; December 9th, 2009 at 08:06 PM.
 
Old December 9th, 2009 #34
H.T.R.
Lover of Plumpynut
 
H.T.R.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Harare, Zimbabwe
Posts: 936
Default

Quote:
Fifteen minutes later, the indictment continues, White e-mailed Pitts. After reciting the lyrics of a song filled with racial slurs, White wrote: "You and your fellow black filth are quickly losing ground, and I look forward to the rapidly approaching day when whites once again rise up and slaughter and enslave your ugly race to the last man, woman and child.
Great line!
__________________
"Is there a moron factory working double shift to produce you stream of idiots?"--The Almighty Master Supreme Mayo Alex Linder
 
Old December 9th, 2009 #35
Walter E. Kurtz
Senior Member
 
Walter E. Kurtz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex Linder View Post
Neo-Nazi White's trial begins today
The trial will include testimony from victims to determine whether William A. White made threats.
By Laurence Hammack

Did a racist's online rants amount to "true threats," as defined by federal law? Or did the words of White, a neo-Nazi leader, stop short of "inciting or producing imminent lawless action," and thus fall under the protection of the First Amendment?

http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/229084
This is the crux of the case against Bill White. Judge Turk made it a point to tell the courtroom that this trial is not about White's First Amendment rights. Rather, the trial is to determine whether White actually made "threats to injure" several people, which, Judge Turk said, are not protected speech covered by the First Amendment.


Apparently, "true threats" are defined as threats which incite or produce imminent lawless action. I believe the prosecutors will have a difficult time proving that White's online words amount to "true threats" beyond a reasonable doubt.


BTW, Bill looks well and fit and up to this court challenge. Almost looks like another lawyer in his crisp, three-piece suit. His defense team of two lawyers and an investigator appear to be top-notch. White's wife Megan was also there to support her husband and appears to be doing OK.
__________________
I'm so depressed about outsourcing I called the suicide hotline and got a call center in Pakistan. They got all excited and asked me if I could drive a truck.

Last edited by Walter E. Kurtz; December 9th, 2009 at 09:50 PM.
 
Old December 10th, 2009 #36
Rounder
Senior Member
 
Rounder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Missouri
Posts: 12,684
Default Bill White's Ongoing Trial

This from today's (10 Dec 09) Roanoke Times. Bill's trial began yesterday, will have an all-white jury, and is expected to last 10 days. Let's dig up and post all WN pertinent information as we can, since lots of the JOG's COINTELPRO racial treasons and anti-white outrages will be exposed during the trial.

All-white jury to hear case against neo-Nazi
The judge ruled that two black potential jurors were eliminated for valid reasons.

By Laurence Hammack
981-3239
ERIC BRADY The Roanoke Times
Elizabeth Brown (from left), John Richmond and Cindy Chung are part of the prosecution team in the case against Bill White at the Poff Federal Building on day one of his trial.
ERIC BRADY The Roanoke Times
Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Hogeboom is a prosecution attorney in the case against Bill White at the Poff Federal Building in Roanoke.


Race became an issue right from the start in the trial for neo-Nazi William A. White, with prosecutors objecting Wednesday to an all-white jury selected to hear the case.

Of 38 people found qualified to serve on the jury during a daylong selection process, only two were blacks. Both were struck by lawyers for White, an avowed white supremacist charged with making online threats.
In contesting the strikes, Justice Department attorney John Richmond relied on a U.S. Supreme Court case that prohibits the exclusion of jurors based solely on the color of their skin.

But after hearing an explanation from defense attorneys, Judge James Turk ruled they had valid, race-neutral reasons for removing the two potential jurors.

Still, the dispute made it clear just how sensitive each step could be in a trial where the defendant makes no secret of his view that blacks are a subhuman race.

"I just cannot fathom how they ended up with an all-white jury," said Brenda Hale, president of Roanoke's NAACP chapter. "How can you have equal justice in the courtroom when you don't have a representation of the overall community?"

When jury selection began Wednesday morning in U.S. District Court in Roanoke, there were about a half-dozen blacks among the 66 people called as potential jurors.

Unlike cases tried in Roanoke's state court, the panelists came from a wide swath of Southwest Virginia that is predominantly white, rather than just from the city.

Once it became clear who was on trial, several blacks -- and even more whites -- indicated that they disapproved so strongly of White's political views that they could not give him a fair trial.

Those jurors and others were struck for cause. That left a panel of 38 from which both the prosecution and defense were allowed to make peremptory strikes, meaning they did not have to state a reason for excluding a juror.

But after Richmond challenged the defense strikes of the only two remaining blacks, defense attorney Ray Ferris was called upon to explain his reasons.

Ferris said that he and co-counsel David Damico had decided their best strategy for seating a jury in White's case would be to select conservatives over liberals.

In a detailed questionnaire, one of the black panelists had listed President Obama as one of the people she admired most. Ferris said that factored into their decision, not because Obama is black, but because he is liberal.
Another reason for striking the juror, Ferris said, was because she had previously served on a jury that convicted a defendant, calling it a positive experience.

As for the second black juror excluded by the defense, Ferris noted that the man, an employee of a cable television station, reported that he often dealt with dissatisfied customers. That was a concern for the defense because one of the charges against White alleges that he threatened and tried to extort a bank employee whose service he was unhappy with.
Ferris also cited the man's equivocating responses to questions about whether he would be influenced by the word n----- in testimony. White frequently used the racial slur in online posts that will be a key part of the prosecution's case.

"I had a very strong feeling that he couldn't put race aside in this case," Ferris said of the juror.

After finding that the reasons for striking both prospective jurors were acceptable, Turk denied a motion from Richmond to have them returned to the panel.

When the 14 jurors -- two alternates were selected for a trial expected to last 10 days -- return to court today, they will hear opening statements from both sides.

White, the commander of a neo-Nazi group based in Roanoke, is charged with using e-mail, the telephone and his now-defunct Web site to threaten, intimidate or extort about a half-dozen people across the country, usually because of something they said or did that ran counter to his racist views.

In warning potential jurors of the racially charged testimony they would hear, the attorneys asked them about their views on everything from white supremacy groups to Adolf Hitler to swastikas.
One man said he had a swastika tattooed on his left leg. He was not selected.
__________________
“To learn who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize” —–Voltaire




 
Old December 10th, 2009 #37
Hadding
Senior Member
 
Hadding's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 3,247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter E. Kurtz View Post
This is the crux of the case against Bill White. Judge Turk made it a point to tell the courtroom that this trial is not about White's First Amendment rights. Rather, the trial is to determine whether White actually made "threats to injure" several people, which, Judge Turk said, are not protected speech covered by the First Amendment.


Apparently, "true threats" are defined as threats which incite or produce imminent lawless action.
White's defense will be that he is full of shit.

Last edited by Hadding; December 10th, 2009 at 05:53 AM.
 
Old December 10th, 2009 #38
TommyJ
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,187
Default

" ...tried by a jury of his peers..."

Niggers are not peers to Bill White. Hell, most Whites aren't peers to Bill White. If I were on trial, I wouldn't want spics, niggers and chinks to sit in judgement over me.
 
Old December 10th, 2009 #39
Walter E. Kurtz
Senior Member
 
Walter E. Kurtz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,919
Default

Could someone please merge the two Bill White threads? I thought that Alex wanted the "Letter from Bill White" thread as the Bill White trial thread, but Rounder opened a new thread.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounder View Post
By Laurence Hammack
981-3239
ERIC BRADY The Roanoke Times
Elizabeth Brown (from left), John Richmond and Cindy Chung are part of the prosecution team in the case against Bill White at the Poff Federal Building on day one of his trial.
Elizabeth Brown is a paralegal for Roanoke FBI Agent David Church.
Cindy Chung is from Nebraska.
Prosecution attorney John Richmond did all the juror questioning on Wednesday, the first day of proceedings. I'd guess he's the lead government lawyer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounder View Post
By Laurence Hammack
"White frequently used the racial slur in online posts that will be a key part of the prosecution's case."
Umm, yes. My guess is that the prosecution will be using quote(s) from online posts on this forum, among others as evidence. I wouldn't put it past the government to alter some posts.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rounder View Post
By Laurence Hammack
"One man said he had a swastika tattooed on his left leg. He was not selected."
After this White man revealed to the court that he had a swastika tattoo on his leg, he was asked exactly what it meant to him and if he thought he could still be a fair and impartial juror. He responded that the swastika signified his support for the German nation.

BTW, Alex Linder's name appears on the government witness list. This is probably due to his administration of the VNN forum, where some of the posts may be used as government evidence.
__________________
I'm so depressed about outsourcing I called the suicide hotline and got a call center in Pakistan. They got all excited and asked me if I could drive a truck.

Last edited by Walter E. Kurtz; December 10th, 2009 at 10:56 AM.
 
Old December 10th, 2009 #40
OTPTT
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,896
Default

Is the jury sequestered? Will they browse to VNN when the site comes up in testimony? Maybe they'll see these threads.
 
Reply

Tags
bill white, white nationalist

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 AM.
Page generated in 0.61417 seconds.