Silence = Acceptance. We must never be silent when it comes to racism, bigotry, discrimination, or the right-wing agenda.
Haven't heard from Floyd lately, the worthless race traitor must be off on an extended drunk.
Good to hear it Nikki.
I have it on good word that mentally ill Bill White's lawyer had a good talking to him today. He took down a lot of stuff today. But it's too late, it was all faxed to the bankruptcy judge... whom then probably contacted White's lawyer (although I don't know this for sure). Wouldn't surprise me if the judge doesn't remove the mentally ill Bill White as his own trustee very soon. Anyhow, I'm sure Harry Brown charged another $1,000 in lawyer fees to Bill White for all of this.:-)I keep telling you guys... Harry Brown is taking Bill & his parents to the cleaners in lawyer fees. Easy money baby.
Hey Nikki, niggermania.com was shut down over the holiday, the owner of the site (Jamie)happens to be canadian, here he is arguing with the person who hosted the site on his server:http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.email/msg/23f0e0e6b4f65c51?dmode=sourceHis moms address (he lives there) is listed on this thread:http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.email/browse_thread/thread/68dd401cca2a3a3b?hl=en&tvc=2What he was doing is illegal in canada, time to make his life a misery
sorry here is the correct urlhttp://groups.google.com/group/news.admin.net-abuse.email/browse_thread/thread/25d43f7f997c59a7
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIAROANOKE DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., ))Plaintiffs,))v.)Civil Action No. 7:08mc003)JOHN CROCKETT HENRY et al.,)) By: Michael F. Urbanski)United States Magistrate JudgeDefendants.)MEMORANDUM OPINIONThis matter stems from intervening plaintiffs’ motion, filed on June 10, 2008, forsanctions and petition for issuance of a rule to show cause why William A. White (“White”)should not be held in contempt of court. This motion concerns subpoenas served on or aboutJanuary 30, 2008 to White and four of his corporations: White Homes & Land, LLC; WhitePolitics, LLC; American National Socialist Workers’ Party, LLC; and National SocialistMovement of Roanoke, LLC. The subpoenas sought production of electronic information andcomputers used by White in conjunction with White’s alleged interference with a fair housinglawsuit pending in the Eastern District of Virginia.1On February 11, 2008, White filed twomotions to quash these subpoenas in the Eastern District of Virginia. These motions werewithdrawn, as the subpoenas were issued out of the Western District of Virginia, making thisdistrict the appropriate venue to entertain the motions to quash. White subsequently refiled thesemotions in this district on March 3, 2008. By order entered March 6, 2008, the court deniedPage 22The string of email communications between Dr. Dardick and all counsel of recordregarding the issue of deletion of data from White’s computers is attached as Exhibit A.Pursuant to Standing Order No. 04-1 of the court, regarding redaction of personal data identifiersfrom all pleadings, the user names or local part of all email addresses, phone numbers, and faxnumbers have all been redacted for public viewing. The domain name for the email addresses,however, have not been redacted. Unredacted copies of these materials shall be filed under sealin accordance with Standing Order No. 04-1.2White’s motions to quash and ordered that the subpoenaed computers be produced to a courtappointed computer forensic expert, Dr. Glenn Dardick (“Dardick”) of Longwood University,for imaging and analysis. Order Denying Motion to Quash, Dkt. #7. By agreed order datedMarch 12, 2008, Dr. Dardick was asked to perform various computer searches for relevant dataand to “examine and search the electronically-stored information produced to him for evidenceof any destruction, deletion, erasing, overwriting or other compromising of data.” AgreedProtective Order of March 12, 2008, Dkt. #9. After investigation, Dr. Dardick, by email datedApril 11, 2008, reported an “unusual number of files deleted.”2Email from Dr. Dardick to allcounsel of record dated April 11, 2008. Specifically, Dr. Dardick reported that his analysis ofWhite’s computers revealed that 53,199 files located in White’s Recycler folder were emptied onFebruary 24, 2008. Id. This emptying of 59% of the Recycler folder was done three weeks afterthe subpoenas were served and eight days before the March 3, 2008 hearing. Id. In an emaildated April 18, 2008, Dr. Dardick was posed the following question by counsel for the UnitedStates Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and made the following response:[Question:]Is your finding that 53,199 files were “emptied” on 2/24/2008consistent with an effort by the user of the computer tointentionally delete or destroy certain data files on that date?Page 33[Answer:]Although, I cannot give an opinion on why the files were emptied,I can say that the deletion of the files, given the quantity andcontent would be consistent with an effort by the user of thecomputer to intentionally delete or destroy certain data files on thatdate.Email from Dr. Dardick to all counsel of record dated April 18, 2008. Dr. Dardick performedadditional analysis and investigation concerning the deleted data pursuant to an order dated April22, 2008. After further inquiry and email communication with counsel for the parties, Dr.Dardick was asked by counsel for the United States on May 1, 2008 whether his furtherinvestigation provided him “any reason as yet to change your earlier conclusion that thecondition of the PC drive is consistent with an intentional effort by the user to destroy files?Could you explain?” Email from Daniel Yi of DOJ to Dr. Dardick and all counsel of recorddated May 1, 2008. Dr. Dardick responded a little over two hours later as follows:I have no reason to change my earlier conclusion that the deletionof the files was consistent with an intentional effort by the user todestroy files. However, the additional information that is nowavailable, such as the file listings could assist the parties insupporting their arguments whether the evidence is not just“consistent,” but whether or not the evidence supports or does notsupport the hypothesis that the deletion of the files were in fact anintentional effort by the user to destroy specific files.Email from Dr. Dardick to all counsel of record dated May 1, 2008. In communications with Dr.Dardick, White’s counsel questioned whether the large number of deleted files could be due tofile compression or to free up disk space. By emails dated April 11 and April 18, 2008, Dr.Dardick rejected the suggestion that the large number of deleted files were due to filecompression. On May 2, 2008, Dr. Dardick provided a lengthy explanation to Harry Brown,counsel for White, that it “seems unlikely” that the deletions were done to free up disk space asPage 44White’s computer already had free disk space of “more than a third of the drive’s capacity.”Email from Dr. Dardick to all counsel of record dated May 2, 2008.In their motion for sanctions and contempt filed on June 10, 2008, intervening plaintiffsallege that White intentionally deleted these files “at a time when he had actual knowledge thatthe information was being sought in discovery and that it might contain relevant information.”Show Cause Motion at ¶ 7, Dkt. #26. Intervening plaintiffs assert further that “Dardick reportedon May 22, 2008 that approximately 4,581 possibly relevant files containing user-created text(emails, Microsoft Word documents, Microsoft Excel files, etc) were irretrievable because of thelarge number of electronic files White had deleted at one time.” Show Cause Motion at ¶ 8.Because of White’s alleged mass file deletion in the face of the subpoenas for his computers,intervening plaintiffs move for sanctions and for White to show cause why he should not be heldin contempt of court. Intervening plaintiffs also allege they are entitled to attorney’s feesincurred as a result of the alleged destruction of documents in violation of the subpoenas and thatDr. Dardick be compensated for the time incurred by him in researching and analyzing theinformation destroyed by White. Show Cause Motion at ¶ 16.Shortly after the Show Cause Motion was filed with the court, White filed for Chapter 11bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia. Thecourt received notice of White’s personal bankruptcy filing on June 16, 2008. The issuepresently before the court is whether the automatic stay issued upon White’s filing forPage 53Although the subpoenas were issued to White and his four corporations, interveningplaintiffs’ motion seeks sanctions and a motion to show cause only against White. The courtnotes that the four subpoenaed corporations would not be affected by an automatic stay resultingfrom White’s personal bankruptcy filing. See A.H. Robins Co. v. Piccinin, 788 F.2d 994, 999(4th Cir. 1986) (holding that, absent “unusual circumstances,” an automatic stay is generally notapplicable to third party defendants or co-defendants); see also Kreisler v. Goldberg, 478 F.3d209, 213 (4th Cir. 2007). However, as intervening plaintiffs do not appear to seek sanctions orcontempt against the subpoenaed corporate entities but rather seek to proceed only againstWhite, the court will not address the issue of any sanctions or contempt concerning the fourcorporations.5bankruptcy, as required by 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), stays the intervening plaintiffs’ motion forsanctions and petition to show cause.3Under 11 U.S.C § 362(a), a bankruptcy filing operates as a stay of “the commencementor continuation . . . of a judicial, administrative, or other action . . . against the debtor . . . .”11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(1). The exemptions to the stay are listed in 11 U.S.C. § 362(b), including anexemption of the “commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against thedebtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1). A district court has concurrent jurisdiction with the bankruptcycourt to determine the effect of White’s bankruptcy proceeding on intervening plaintiffs’ motion.See United States Dep’t of Hous. & Urban Dev. v. Cost Control Mktg. & Sales Mgmt. of Va.,Inc., 64 F.3d 920, 927 n.11 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing Brock v. Morysville Body Works, Inc., 829F.2d 383 (3d Cir. 1987)). Because the district court’s jurisdiction “attached first in time,” it isproper for the district court to determine the issue. Id. (citing Kline v. Burke Constr. Co., 260U.S. 226 (1922)).A threshold issue is whether the contempt proceeding is civil or criminal, as theautomatic stay does not apply to criminal contempt proceedings. Whether a contemptproceeding is civil or criminal is determined by examining the “character and purpose of thePage 66sanction involved,” not by the manner in which the contempt proceeding is labeled. Int’l Union,United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 827 (1994) (citing Gompers v. BucksStove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 441 (1911)) (internal quotations omitted); see also In re Dill,300 B.R. 658, 667 (Bankr. E.D.Va. 2003) (quoting In re Maloney, 250 B.R. 671, 674 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. 1996)). A civil contempt proceeding is remedial and either “coerces the defendant intocompliance with the court’s order” or “compensates the complainant for losses sustained.”Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 827 (internal quotations omitted); see also Dill, 300 B.R. at 667. Acriminal contempt proceeding is punitive and seeks to “vindicate the authority of the court.”Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 828 (internal quotations omitted); see also Dill, 300 B.R. at 667. As such,penalties associated with criminal contempt are imposed “retrospectively for a completed act ofdisobedience” and without any provision for purge of the contempt. Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 828(internal quotations omitted); see also Dill, 300 B.R. at 667.To determine whether the stay applies to a contempt proceeding, the United StatesBankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia has adopted an analysis which “examine[s]all aspects surrounding” the contempt proceeding. In re Rook, 102 B.R. 490, 494 (Bankr.E.D.Va. 1989), aff’d 929 F.2d 694 (4th Cir. 1991); see also In re Dunham, 175 B.R. 615 (Bankr.E.D.Va. 1994). In Rook, the debtor, Rook, was held in contempt in 1983 (“1983 contemptorder”) for disobeying a previous state court decree concerning a divorce settlement. Rook, 102B.R. at 491. After many appeals, the state court reaffirmed the 1983 contempt order in 1989(“1989 contempt order”). Id. Sometime before the 1989 contempt order, Rook filed forbankruptcy and moved for the application of the automatic stay to the civil contemptproceedings. Id. The state court did not apply the stay to the contempt proceedings, finding thatPage 77Rook was in contempt of court prior to his bankruptcy filing. Id. The Bankruptcy Court upheldthe decision of the state court because the 1989 contempt order “was issued solely to uphold thedignity of the prior circuit court orders.” Id. at 495. Rook was no longer able to bring himselfinto compliance with the 1983 contempt order, thus “converting a contempt citation, civil andremedial in nature, into a citation criminal and punitive in nature.” Id.Allowing those allegedly in contempt of court to avoid possible penalties by filing forbankruptcy would enable parties to “blatantly violate direct orders of [a] court and then seekshelter from a bankruptcy judge.” Am. Online, Inc. v. CN Prods., Inc., 272 B.R. 879, 881(Bankr. E.D.Va. 2002) (holding that plaintiff’s discovery requests served for the purpose ofdetermining if defendant was in contempt were not stayed by a bankruptcy filing) (quoting U.S.Spring Comm’s Co. v. Buscher, 89 B.R. 154, 156 (Bankr. D.Kan. 1988)) (internal quotationsomitted). “The bankruptcy process cannot be invoked to immunize contumacious behavior.” Id.The motion before the court does not specifically delineate whether it seeks criminal orcivil contempt. There is nothing about the show cause motion which seeks to coerce White to doanything or to provide him an opportunity to mitigate or avoid punishment for the alreadycompleted file deletion. Like Rook, White is no longer able to bring himself into compliancewith the subpoena which the contempt proceedings concern. The files were deleted, some ofwhich cannot be recovered. The thrust of the motion is to punish the underlying alleged deletionof computer files in the face of federal court subpoenas for production of those files. As such,the relief sought in the contempt proceeding is not remedial, but punitive in nature, and would beissued to uphold the dignity of the subpoenas issued under the authority of the court under theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 45(e) (“The issuing court may hold in contemptPage 88a person who, having been served, fails without adequate excuse to obey the subpoena.”); seealso Nilva v. United States, 352 U.S. 385 (1957) (affirming conviction of criminal contempt fordisobeying a subpoena duces tecum). In Nilva, the Supreme Court noted that “it is settled that acriminal contempt is committed by one who, in response to a subpoena calling for corporation orassociation records, refuses to surrender them when they are in existence and within his control.”352 U.S. at 392. Destruction of documents called for by subpoena is likewise punishable ascriminal contempt. Any sanctions issued for the deletion of the files subject to the subpoenas arenot remedial, but rather would issue to vindicate the authority of the court. “[T]he automaticstay was not intended by Congress to be used as a sword,” and White cannot be allowed to usehis bankruptcy filing as such. In re Clowser, 39 B.R. 883, 886 (Bankr. E.D.Va. 1984).Accordingly, intervening plaintiffs’ petition for a motion to show cause is properly considered tobe a criminal contempt proceeding and exempt from the automatic stay under11 U.S.C. § 362(b)(1).The fact that intervening plaintiffs’ motion seeks recovery of attorneys’ fees and expertcosts does not render the contempt civil and subject to the automatic stay. The expense, time,and effort expended by intervening plaintiffs’ counsel and the court appointed expert as a resultof the alleged contempt can be considered by the court as a factor in fashioning a criminalcontempt penalty. Long ago, the Supreme Court upheld a criminal contempt sanction paid to adistrict court, half of which was to be paid to the party moving for criminal contempt for thatparty’s reasonable expenses incurred as a result of the criminal contempt proceeding. UnionTool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U.S. 107, 109 (1922). More recently, the Fourth Circuit characterizedan award of attorneys’ fees which were “proximately caused by defiance” of court orders as aPage 94By order entered June 13, 2008, intervening plaintiffs’ motion was referred to theundersigned magistrate judge for report and recommendation. However, as this matter concernscriminal contempt, the undersigned magistrate judge, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6), must certifythe facts to a district judge who shall hear the evidence and decide the issue.9criminal contempt penalty. Cromer v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 390 F.3d 812, 822 (4th Cir.2004). The Fourth Circuit explained that “putatively civil contempt sanctions will be held to becriminal sanctions in cases when the fines were ‘not conditioned on compliance with a courtorder,’ ‘not tailored to compensate the complaining party,’ but instead ‘initiated to vindicate theauthority of the court and to punish the actions of the alleged contemnor.’” 390 F.3d at 822(quoting Buffington v. Baltimore County, 913 F.2d 113, 133-35 (4th Cir. 1990), and Bradley v.Am. Household, Inc., 378 F.3d 373, 377-79 (4th Cir. 2004). Because the petition seeks to punishWhite for deletion of documents subject to a subpoena, actions which cannot now be remedied, itis essentially criminal in nature and not subject to the automatic stay. In connection with thiscriminal contempt proceeding, the amount of fees incurred by the parties may be considered bythe court in fashioning an appropriate criminal contempt sanction.Because the motion to show cause is a criminal contempt proceeding, the court must,under Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, appoint a prosecutor to pursue thismatter.4Accordingly, Julia C. Dudley, Acting United States Attorney for the Western District ofVirginia, is appointed to prosecute this contempt allegation. Such prosecution is to include twoaspects of criminal contempt: (1) the alleged destruction of computer files subject to subpoena asdetailed herein and in Exhibit A; and (2) White’s emailing of a derogatory and inflammatoryemail to the court’s law clerk on June 18, 2008. The email, attached as Exhibit B, is vile,contumacious and laced with expletives. While the invective in the email is not directed at thePage 1010court, it was communicated directly to the court’s law clerk. Plainly, such statements would becontemptuous if uttered in open court. The court sees no difference in making such statements inan email sent to the court’s law clerk as they are plainly disrespectful and constitute an insult tothe dignity of the court and an affront to our system of justice.Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6), the undersigned certifies to the district court thefollowing facts which occurred outside the presence of the undersigned magistrate judge:(1) Intervening plaintiffs have filed a motion for sanctions and contempt, which the courtconstrues as criminal in nature, based on Dr. Dardick’s forensic computer analysis, asserting thatWhite deleted thousands of files from his computers at a time when said computers were subjectto a subpoena issued by counsel for the intervening plaintiffs under the authority of the FederalRules of Civil Procedure and the United States District Court for the Western District ofVirginia; and (2) White sent the profane email attached as Exhibit B to the undersigned’s lawclerk, the court-appointed expert and counsel of record in this proceeding on June 18, 2008.White is ORDERED to appear before The Honorable James C. Turk, Senior UnitedStates District Judge, on Friday, July 18, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. to show cause why he should not beheld in contempt by reason of the facts so certified.The Clerk of the Court hereby is directed to send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion toall counsel of record and to Julia C. Dudley, Acting United States Attorney for the WesternDistrict of Virginia.Enter this 30thday of June, 2008./s/Michael F. UrbanskiUnited States Magistrate JudgePage 11IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIAROANOKE DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al., ))Plaintiffs,))v.)Civil Action No. 7:08mc003)JOHN CROCKETT HENRY et al.,)) By: Michael F. Urbanski)United States Magistrate JudgeDefendants.)ORDERIn accordance with the memorandum opinion entered this day, it is herebyORDERED:1.That Julia C. Dudley, Acting United States Attorney for the Western District ofVirginia, is APPOINTED to prosecute the allegations of criminal contempt set forth in thememorandum opinion. Such prosecution is to include two aspects of criminal contempt whichoccurred outside the presence of the undersigned magistrate judge:(a)the alleged deletion of a large number of computer files subject tosubpoena; and(b)White’s emailing of a profane email to the court’s law clerk on June 18,2008.2.White is ORDERED to appear before The Honorable James C. Turk, SeniorUnited States District Judge, on Friday, July 18, 2008 at 10:00 a.m. to show cause why he shouldnot be held in criminal contempt.3.The unredacted versions of Exhibits A and B attached to the memorandumopinion entered this day SHALL be filed under seal.Page 122The Clerk of the Court hereby is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel ofrecord and to Julia C. Dudley, Acting United States Attorney for the Western District ofVirginia.Enter this 30thday of June, 2008./s/Michael F. UrbanskiUnited States Magistrate Judge
Hey pal, Niggermania is not owned by Jamie. Niggermania.com and Niggermania.net are the only official sites of Niggermania. They are being restored now and will be back up within a few days. Updates on the status of Niggermania is posted at http://tom-shelly.pisem.net/on a daily basis.
All comments must remain civil. No threats, racist epithets, or personal attacks will be tolerated. Rational debate, discourse, and even disagreement are all acceptable as long as they remain on point and within the realm of civility.