TO STORY & VIDEO
TO THE DECISION
July 21, 2009
Federal charges dismissed against neo-Nazi leader Bill White
Bill White was charged with using his website to encourage violence.
According to authorities, White posted the name, address and phone number of the foreman of a Chicago jury that convicted a fellow a white supremacist in 2004.
Federal charges were dismissed against a neo-Nazi leader from Roanoke.
A U.S. District judge in Chicago says Bill White's actions were protected by the first amendment. But White's legal troubles are not over yet. He is still in custody and faces charges in Virginia.
Bill White was charged with using his website to encourage violence. According to authorities, White posted the name, address and phone number of the foreman of a Chicago jury that convicted a fellow a white supremacist in 2004.
The judge in the case ruled Tuesday that the First Amendment protects White's actions. His attorney applauds the decision.
"It's not about William White. It's about the first amendment. Sure he engaged in unpopular speech, but he, as I've said before, if the first amendment is at its best when it protects unpopular speech. If the first amendment only protected us from expressing opinions that everyone agrees with, it would become pointless," said Chris Shepherd.
Shepherd says the government filed a motion to stay Tuesday's decision.
The U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago tells News7, "We are reviewing the opinion and we will consider our options."
White's attorney says there will probably be a hearing in the next week or so that would determine whether White will be transferred to Roanoke to face charges of making threats through his website here.
Perhaps the Constitution isn't dead after all. I am reading the judge's 36 page opinion...
ReplyDeleteThe precedent this sets will help Hal Turner.
This probably will also lead the dismissal of the case against Hal Turner, oh, in about six months time.
ReplyDeleteDamn that ol' pesky Constitution!
ReplyDeleteIt is refreshing to see a judge acknowledge rule of law. Will be posting a few gems from the 36 page decision:
ReplyDelete"...Knowledge or belief that one’s speech, even
speech advocating law breaking, may cause others to act does not remove the speech from
the protection of the First Amendment, unless the speech is directed to inciting imminent
lawless action and is likely to produce such action. See id. (holding that the First Amendment
protected an incendiary speech by a Ku Klux Klan leader to a Klan gathering); see also
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234, 245 (2002)"--Judge Adelman
Ping Nikki:
ReplyDelete"...The posting of personal information about an individual involved in a judicial
proceeding, even under circumstances that are intimidating or unsettling, cannot, absent a true
threat or an incitement to imminent lawless action, be criminalized consistent with the First
Amendment."
While I'm not a lawyer it appears that there may be a case for malicious prosecution.
ReplyDeleteHe was specifically targeted for his opinion, and for the alleged opinion of his readers.
ReplyDeleteNo, there isn't a case for malicious prosecution or false arrest.
ReplyDeleteJust because someone gets arrested and the charges dropped doesn't mean "false arrest" or "malicious prosecution".
Learn your law.
And don't you love how these racist embrace the 1st amendment when it's convenient for them to do so.
Anyhow, the 7 felonies Bill is facing in Roanoke including calling someone on the phone just might stick. Those were always the more serious.
I hope Turner's attornies read this opinion on PDF:
ReplyDelete"U.S. 397, 414 (1989) (“If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that
the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the
idea itself offensive or disagreeable”). Sixty years ago, the Supreme Court explained that:
[A] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute.
It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest,
creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger.
Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and
preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance
of an idea. That is why freedom of speech, though not absolute, is nevertheless
protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a
clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public
inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest. There is no room under our Constitution
for a more restrictive view."
Nikki and crew was crowing the whole damn time that the 1st Amendment didn't protect Bill's speech?
ReplyDelete"And don't you love how these racist embrace the 1st amendment when it's convenient for them to do so. "--Schwartz
Yes, Schwartz, that damned Constitution again...
This ain't East Germany and the DOJ isn't the goddamn STASI...It's time you, Nikki and others get that through your thick fucking skulls.
Turner will get dismissed also as he did less than White. But both are going to suffer some debilitating fines from this.
ReplyDeleteOh, by the way, this does not mean an acquittal, if the judge grants the government a STAY in the case. The government would have to present new evidence to support the stay or show another court decision.
ReplyDeleteThis might not be over yet although I bet they just yield to the Virginia charges, which are a lot more serious.
I bet you Schwartz can't even list what the charges bill is facing in roanoke.
ReplyDeleteYou have that right. All Schwartzo can do is spew his hated toward good men.
ReplyDeleteI hope someone gets the good news about Bill's case to Bro Hal.
The problem is, Turner is part of the welfare crowd. You can't go after someone who lives off a woman and the government. Turner will do a lot of time, rest assured. White, temporarily financially broken, will be released soon. Through hard work, an unknown concept to Turner, White can rebuild.
ReplyDeleteTurner will probably just do time served to be honest by the time his case comes to court, or gets dismissed. But remember, Turner's threat was a against a judge, not a juror..... but I suspect his might get dropped also unless they have more information.
ReplyDeleteWith White's case, they can present more evidence for a judge to grant the stay. Which basically keeps him in jail longer. That is, if they have more evidence.
I also think since this is a dismissal and not an acquittal, they can appeal the judges decision and it's not double jeopardy.
Steevo is off his meds again.
This was not a victory for Bill White but for the rule of law and our Constitution.
ReplyDeleteToday I am very proud to be an American.
Freedom of speech--use it or lose it!
The Feds got exactly what they wanted from this case and that is to chill free speech. Because of this and other cases like it there will be fewer and fewer less willing to take a stand publicly and voice their opinions.
ReplyDeleteIt was a small victory for our freedoms but it was still a victory.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous is right about this having a "chill" on free speech, and those fears are well founded.
ReplyDeleteWith Obama, Hillary, Rahm Emmanuel and Eric Holder now in charge, there's no need to shake a Magic 8-Ball to figure out if there'll be many more of these type of malicious prosecutions in the near future: "signs point to yes".
I personally hope that there are more of these prosecutions in the near future. I hope they locked up all those bastards. With any luck Virgina will get White and throw away the key. Hell yes!
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, the "good guys" won a partial victory today, and one person who should be celebrating the most is Hal Turner, railroaded on similar charges. Turner's lawyer should try to get the case placed before Judge Adelman, if possible. In any event, Judge Adelman's decision could be cited as a precedent to get the Federal charges against Turner dismissed outright.
ReplyDeleteI don't think BW will have trouble getting bond when he returns to Roanoke.
ReplyDeleteI don't think this judge will grant a stay.
OPP seems to be having a meltdown on their site about it. lol
ReplyDeleteGod hates fags!
ReplyDeleteGod hates Israel!
God hates jews!
just "read" it!
As soon as I read the story of the charges being dropped against Commander White I could see in my mind Schwartz and Nikki screaming on the floor and banging their fists against the ground.
ReplyDeleteThis tragedy of justice against the Commander will cost the nation dearly. Firstly, the Commander is now well positioned to file a lawsuit for MILLIONS of dollars in compensation. The state would be best off to settle out of court. Secondly, it has given the ANSWP more publicity then it ever could have paid for.
Somebody was right. The One People's Prick is shitting bricks over Bill's charges being dismissed. He he!!!
ReplyDeleteYou can't sue Federal Prosecutors for doing their jobs. They are protected under the law. Bill will get nothing.
ReplyDeleteThat fucking snitch got everything that was coming to him. I hope he was repeatedly ass fucked. Serves him right, he not only snitched me off but he lied as well.
You have to remember that the dismissal of charges against Bill do not mean the dismissal of charges against Hal. Plus both have to face state charges. Hal will have charges in two states. New Jersey has him for illegal ammo. Connecticut for threatening communications, I believe. Hal doesn't have the resources that Bill's parents do.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see what Virginia will do. Oh and Kraus is right as far as suing Judges, Prosecutors, and Law Enforcement. They are protected under the law and even if Bill manages to find a loop hole to sue, there is not a jury in the world that is going to give him a dime.
Man, I barely got the last post posted and I started getting hate email saying I was, well basically full of it. Okay now, where 42 U.S.C. 1983, states that "…[e]very person" who acts under color of state law to deprive another of a constitutional rights shall be answerable to that person in a suit for damages," and provides a means for those wronged by government officials to file suit in federal court.
ReplyDeleteBut there are exceptions to Section 1983 suits. In the 1976 case Imbler v. Pachtman, the U.S. Supreme Court carved out a wide exception to the law to exempt prosecutors. The Court said common law tradition grants prosecutors have what's known as "absolute immunity" from civil rights suits, meaning that they can't be sued, provided they're acting in their capacity as prosecutors. Few people enjoy such protections in their own line of work (judges have absolute immunity as well).
So tell me, just who is Bill going to sue? It won't be the Prosecutors, Judges, or Law Enforcement officials. If White wants to sue, he should sue himself for being so stupid.
Schwartz you are soo full of shit, the charges have been dismissed:
ReplyDelete"Defendant now moves to dismiss the indictment, to strike
surplusage, and to vacate the orders of the judge, since recused, who was originally assigned
to the case. I conclude that I must dismiss the indictment. I will, therefore, not address
defendant’s other motions."
What part of "I conclude that I must dismiss the indictment" do you not understand?
This ruling will embolden Nazis all across the country to call for war: you haven't seen shit yet.
Where is pedophile Michael Burks and his butt-buddy Anderson? These two traitors are busily crying in their beer!!!!!!!!
"""Raoul Xemblinosky says...The Court said common law tradition grants prosecutors have what's known as "absolute immunity" from civil rights suits, meaning that they can't be sued, provided they're acting in their capacity as prosecutors..... Few people enjoy such protections in their own line of work (judges have absolute immunity as well).""""
ReplyDeleteThey can't be personally sued you dipshit. But the city can. You people are so incredibly ignorant of the law, it blows my mind.
"""Schwartz says
Just because someone gets arrested and the charges dropped doesn't mean "false arrest" or "malicious prosecution".
Learn your law."""
I love it when these radical leftists tell US to learn OUR law when it is them who said that freedom of speech does not apply when someone posts a jurors address and phone number and says that they should be killed. Schwartz, it is you who needs to learn his law!
Isn't it funny how remarkably quite it is in here with the radical leftists as they lick their wounds? All of this time telling us that freedom of speech does not protect someone of unpopular speech or threats that did not lead to any form of violence.
You leftists were wrong, weren't you? Just as usual. And I remember when you people were saying that his "worst" charges were in Chicago. Now his "worst" charges are in Roanoke. LOL
You're like little rats running around biting at the back of the legs while the American Constitution stomps on you.
Hooch who isn't real smart mouths:
ReplyDeleteThey can't be personally sued you dipshit. But the city can. You people are so incredibly ignorant of the law, it blows my mind.
It was not the city that brought charges against Bill but the federal government (at least in this case). Bill might be able to sue but he will not get very far.
I notice that Hooch/Von is whining again. What a cry baby. LOL
You can sue the federal government too dipshit number 2
ReplyDeleteIt's called the "Federal Tort Claims Act"
28 U.S.C. S 2680(h) provides that the government is not liable when any of its agents commits the torts of assault, battery
, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights. However, it also provides an exception. The government is liable if a law enforcement officer commits assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution. The government is not liable if the claim against law enforcement officers is for libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract. Congress has not waived the government's sovereign immunity against all law enforcement
acts or omissions.
Hoochie is full of shit and whine as usual. Self would note that the Judicial system itself is almost impossible to sue and collect. If White was falsely convicted then maybe he would have a case. The elements of a malicious prosecution case are: (1) that the defendant filed and/or prosecuted the underlying criminal complaint with the knowledge it was a false complaint; (2) a favorable termination of the prior case, in which the innocence of the former defendant was established; (3) the absence of probable cause, meaning that no reasonable attorney would have considered it to be tenable; (4) malice, which can be implied from a conscious disregard for the consequences, from a lack of probable cause, and from inadequate investigation and research, and (5) that the defendant had malicious intent.
ReplyDeleteDo a little legal research Hoochie, you'll find that 99.9 percent of these case are thrown out of court.
It is refreshing to see a judge acknowledge rule of law.
ReplyDeleteMore legal advice from those who said that Bill did not have the RIGHT to free speech. As if anyone would take any single legal related statement out of you libs with the slightest credibility.
ReplyDeleteFreedom of speech is a RIGHT, not a PRIVILEGE.
Soooo, what do you have to say now, all of you radicals who said that he does not have the right to publish a jurors address and phone while saying he should be killed?
He was going to be locked up with the key thrown away according to you.
It's also interesting that the judge sited a case of a negroid that entered a shopping center and threatened to kill all of the people in it.
If you don't like the supreme constitutional laws of this country get the fuck out. The founding fathers were right about protecting us against tyrannical government and those pro establishment freaks such as yourself who will support it. While in the mean time committing "real" crimes of your own by actively attempting murder and rape plots.
Nikki:
ReplyDeleteI'm a pro-White racialist and its been a BIG RELIEF to see the clown antics of Bill White stopped while he is in jail. He deserves to stay there along with Hal Turner. Both are clowns and do more damage to the pro-White Movement than anyone else (besides whoremonger and race-mixer Jeff Schoep.
No one can deny there was a very strong political incentive to Bill's arrest.
ReplyDeleteJim, you might be racist but you are a far shot from being pro-white. Everybody is catching onto you fast. You're a smart guy. I'm sure you've already figured that out.
ReplyDeleteIt ain't over until it's over Hooch. Even if Bill does walk he'll still have spent the last nine month in a cell (good place for him) spent thousands of his parents money and gotten himself sexually assaulted (way to go Nimbusters).
ReplyDeleteAlso thanks to you (and me for placing a call to the Virginia state police) Bill is going to be looking at a perjury charge because he falsified the info on his concealed weapons permit. Bill has been convicted of stalking in Texas and assault in Virginia (misdemeanor) maybe he will get time but they will take away his permit. Hey you have any more inside info on how Bill broke the law.
Broke and jobless I guess Bill will be moving back in with Mommy and Daddy if he ever gets out. LOL
So tell me, who is getting the last laugh and we haven't even yet started on you Von. You think the shit in your mail box was bad? Hey boy were are going to put the fun back into getting the mail. God I love fucking with Racist trash. No matter how badly you fuck them over, you never feel bad about it.
Mucho Lutz
Wow, Chris Drake sure seems to know a lot about the situation.
ReplyDeleteThe Chris Drake impersonator is actually Delorean the fudgepacker.
ReplyDeleteAnd nothing you attempted to do actually paned out. Your attempted rape and murder plot didn't work. Nice try asshole!
And you can send Von whatever you want. I could care less.
Bill was sexually assaulted and went into protective custody. That much was confirmed.
ReplyDeleteAnd you just know that. Bill White requested to be put in gen-pop.
ReplyDeleteFor those that don't already know it, we are very close to getting Matthew Ramsey locked up. I have personally talk to two Oregon FBI agents. I encourage anyone who Ramm has tried to get to bomb Church's and Synaguages to call homeland security or the FBI.
ReplyDelete"""Bill was sexually assaulted and went into protective custody. That much was confirmed."""
ReplyDeleteAnother lie that is confirmed bullshit.
Yeah Bill was assaulted they would never confirm that it was sexual or not. Hopefully it was. WN deserved to be repeatedly fucked in their assholes by large black men.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like Jim Ratt is trolling this blog now. He's the only one who brings up his name and is obsessed with homosexual sex.
ReplyDeleteIn another epic win Obama gets enough votes for his health care measure to pass. Health Care will pass House
ReplyDeleteThis only confirms:
The truth about the GOP
Fuck off Burks you Pedophile. Why don't you and your buddy Stevo Holswine go molest some children?
ReplyDeleteDrake isn't posting here. More cross-pollenation from Nimbusters I would guess.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of Americans do not want Obamacare. Why the rush to cram this thing through? How come the people don't know what is listed in this bill?
ReplyDeleteWake up America!
To YES WE CAN MFer...
ReplyDeleteYou are nothing but an O'tard.
Anyway, back on the subject of the article: Isn't the 1st Amendment great!
Obamacare Imperils Caucasian Seniors
ReplyDeleteFriday, July 17, 2009 1:30 PM
By: Lowell Ponte
“Disparate impact” is the civil rights legal doctrine that persuaded Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor to dismiss claims by Connecticut firefighters who passed a test for promotion.
That test, passed by several whites and one Hispanic, was failed by every African-American firefighter who took it. This kind of disparate impact has been regarded as de facto evidence that a test was somehow defective and inherently discriminatory.
Let's apply this same controversial doctrine to the extreme scheme for socializing American healthcare now before the U.S. House of Representatives.
Does this radical House healthcare plan treat all Americans equally? If not, then to be intellectually consistent and egalitarian the liberals in Congress should reject it as discriminatory and racist.
This version of President Barack Obama's government plan to nationalize healthcare is called “Medicare for all” by some supporters, a reminder that we already have something akin to socialized medicine for senior citizens.
But Obama's new proposal to extend medical care will drastically shift its benefits. Under this new regime, writes veteran political analyst Dick Morris, “the elderly will go from being the group with the most access to free medical care to the one with the least access. . . .”
“The principal impact of the Obama healthcare program,” Morris continues, “will be to reduce sharply the medical services the elderly can use. No longer will their every medical need be met, their every medication prescribed, their every need to improve their quality of life answered.”
In other socialized medical systems, care has been rationed, allocated based on social calculations, especially for senior citizens.
In Canada and Great Britain, this has meant delay or denial of life-saving drugs, organ transplants, heart surgery, and other procedures to those who have retired as worker-taxpayers and now are seen by bean-counting socialist bureaucrats merely as a drain on limited welfare state resources.
Current liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg a week ago told The New York Times Magazine that the abortion-permitting ruling Roe v. Wade she supports came at a time when “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid [i.e., Medicare for the poor] funding for abortion.”
One could infer that Ginsberg appears, from her own chilling words, to have seen Roe as eugenics, as a way to weed people of color out of the gene pool by reducing their numbers.
And, indeed, America's African-American population would by one estimate be as much as 23 percent larger today had liberals never imposed Roe v. Wade nor provided government-funded abortion.
This new liberal “health” scheme would give us more eugenics, more selective killing-off of what many on the left regard as a population “we don't want to have too many of” — today's predominantly conservative Caucasian senior citizens.
In 1940, at the dawn of a decade that began the baby boom, the U.S. Census found America a country 89.8 percent white. By 2000 the proportion of Caucasians in America's population had fallen to 75.1 percent.
Last August the U.S. Census Bureau projected that American Caucasians will become a minority in the United States by 2042, a mere 33 years from now. This has already happened in California and Hawaii.
These Euro-Americans are aging as well as shrinking in percentage relative to other Americans. The average Caucasian American is older than the average African-American or Hispanic-American.
Part 2 (Obamacare death warrant for elderly and sick whites):
ReplyDeleteWe know that Obama's propaganda in support of socialized medicine has been Orwellian — using deception to declare his healthcare takeover urgently important and would save money. (This latter claim was slapped down hard on Thursday by the Congressional Budget Office, whose research clearly suggests that Obamacare will be a money pit, a black hole devouring at least $1.5 trillion year after year with scant evidence it will improve medicine for most Americans.)
But Obama's healthcare scheme is also Darwinian, throwing America into a survival-of-the-fittest struggle for politically-allotted health resources that will pit seniors against younger Americans.
Obama will suck away medical resources in Medicare that now go mostly to Caucasian senior citizens and reallocate healthcare to younger, largely minority people — including more than 10 million illegal aliens — expected to pay taxes (and disproportionately vote Democratic) for decades to come.
Darwinian eugenicists can safely project that this reallocation of healthcare will increase and accelerate the die-off rate of elderly, disproportionately white conservative Americans who vote Republican and worship God.
By rationing healthcare for this population group that needs it most — senior citizens — Obamacare will hasten their deaths. He will also increase the tax burden on private pensions they earned.
And because those seniors are mostly white, Obamacare will speed the day when Caucasians become a minority group (albeit without special rights and preferences granted to more politically correct minorities) here.
Medicare survives today only because it typically pays only 80 percent or so of medical treatment costs, forcing doctors and hospitals to make up the loss by overcharging those with private insurance.
Can Obamacare survive economically after it drives private insurance out of business? Page 16 of the current House healthcare bill makes clear its intention to choke out private competitors so that government quickly acquires monopoly control over all healthcare.
Surely it is mere coincidence that America's first African-American president is promoting a policy to redistribute healthcare from one racial group to others, and that this will disproportionately cause the premature deaths of potentially millions of conservative elderly Caucasian voters.
But whether intended or not, Obamacare will have a “disparate impact,” harming white Americans more than Americans of color. It is de facto discrimination against Caucasian Americans.
As Sotomayor should tell Obama, racism that kills its victims is the most unacceptable racism of all.
A relative of mine works in senior health care. Yes, Obama is more or less saying to just let old people die. If the money isn't there and an old person has, for example, heart failure, he is urging the system to not help them. It doesn't matter if their grandkids are standing right there. Isn't that the sort of thing Hitler was charged with? The "man" is turning out to be a complete monster. But as long as he's black, this crowd will blindly support him.
ReplyDeleteGlenn Beck says that Obamacare as well as his other schemes is nothing more than a backdoor reparations plan.
ReplyDeleteI agree.