December 11, 2009 - Day 3
UPDATE: 5:00 EST
Leonard Pitts concluded his afternoon of testimony denying that he had been trying to "stir things up" with is article.
"My job is not to worry about getting people to read my column," Pitts testified. "My job is to write the best column that I can ... and after that it’s out of my hands."
He was followed to the stand by his 19 year old daughter who testified about the fear she experienced after her father had become the victim of White's threats.
Court was dismissed for the weekend with the prosecution resuming its' case at 9:00 on Monday morning.
UPDATE: 2:45 EST
ALEX LINDER SAYS HE'S TESTIFYING VIA TELECONFERENCE TODAY AT 1:30 EST
So...why does Linder not have to appear?
"Consider this," White wrote. "As I'm sure, being in the collection business and having the attitude about it that you do, that you often make people upset. Lord knows that drawing too much publicity and making people upset is what did in Joan Lefkow."
UPDATE THREAD
UPDATE: 5:00 EST
Leonard Pitts concluded his afternoon of testimony denying that he had been trying to "stir things up" with is article.
"My job is not to worry about getting people to read my column," Pitts testified. "My job is to write the best column that I can ... and after that it’s out of my hands."
He was followed to the stand by his 19 year old daughter who testified about the fear she experienced after her father had become the victim of White's threats.
Court was dismissed for the weekend with the prosecution resuming its' case at 9:00 on Monday morning.
UPDATE: 2:45 EST
"You and your fellow black filth are quickly loosing 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," White wrote.
"Itz coming."
Pulitzer Prize winning columnist, Leonard Pitts, took the stand in the Roanoke courtroom today to testify about the threats he received from the self-appointed leader of the American National Socialist Worker's Party. During his testimony, Pitts said that he "felt violated" when Bill White threatened him and posted his personal address and phone number on his website. ""He is essentially inviting them and daring them to commit violence," Pitts testified.
UPDATE: 2:10 EST
According to Alex Linder who testified via teleconference:Back from testifying via videoconference. It was no more than 15 minutes, pro-forma questions verifying I own the forum and keep the records, Bill's user names, that kind of thing. White's lawyer Damico cross-examined. He basically asked whether admins/mods could go in and change posts, which of course they technically can. Nothing really in dispute as far as I could see.
I should say also that the subpoena demanded I produce IPs for Bill's user names, which I did.
ALEX LINDER SAYS HE'S TESTIFYING VIA TELECONFERENCE TODAY AT 1:30 EST
So...why does Linder not have to appear?
"Consider this," White wrote. "As I'm sure, being in the collection business and having the attitude about it that you do, that you often make people upset. Lord knows that drawing too much publicity and making people upset is what did in Joan Lefkow."
Dave Wilson of the Miami Herald took the stand this morning and recounted his contact with Bill White after White posted the personal contact information of Leonard Pitts, the Pulitzer Prize winning columnist. When Wilson asked White to remove the information his respose was:
"We have no intention of removing Mr. Pitts' personal information. Frankly, if some loony took the info and killed him, I wouldn't shed a tear."
"That also goes for your whole newsroom."
There is a good possibility that Leonard Pitts will take the stand today.
UPDATE THREAD
WORD OF CAUTION...
ONLY DISCUSSION CONCERNING BILL WHITE AND THE TRIAL WILL BE ACCEPTED IN THIS THREAD. ALL OFF-TOPIC MEANDERINGS WILL BE DELETED.
By Scott Leamon
WSLS10 Reporter
Published: December 10, 2009
Updated: December 10, 2009
The departmental manager of Citi Group’s collection wing in Kansas City, Kansas told a federal jury this morning an e-mail from Roanoke Neo Nazi Bill White to one of her employees was “downright scary.“
Rachel Dixon said White had written one of her employees in March 2007 during a dispute about a line of credit.
The government is alleging White threatened the employee and extorted Citi Group using the email, which linked to a series of newspaper and other articles on the 2005 slayings of two family members of Chicago judge Joan Lefkow.
Dixon described the employee as “very emotional” after receiving White’s email and a voice message left on her home phone number.
A phone number, along with several addresses, White published on his former website, overthrow.com.
Dixon said the employee’s productivity fell significantly after the email.
A Citi internal investigator took the stand next, explaining to the jury how he investigated the email and turned his findings over to the Kansas City, Kansas branch office of the FBI.
The investigator said White called Citi’s Kansas City, Kansas location 46 times during a three hour period on March 21, 2007.
The investigator also told the jury he was familiar with the white supremacist movement after getting into a shoot-out with an avowed Neo Nazi while he was a cop in Wisconsin.
UPDATE: 11:15 EST - "Bill White did some ugly things," Ray Ferris told the jury. "Bill White did some obnoxious things. Bill White did some things that would really upset me. But that's not the test."
The test, Ferris said, is whether White's nasty comments and racial slurs -- made to people across the country in e-mails and online -- were actually threats. If not, they were covered by the First Amendment.
"Rude? Yes. Obnoxious? Yes. Bad taste? Yes. Illegal? I would suggest not," Ferris told the jury.
After opening statements this morning, the jury began to hear testimony.
Prosecutors said their witnesses will describe how terrified they became afer discovering the e-mails they received from White were actually from the so-called commander of a Roanoke-based white supremacy group.
Opening arguments in the Bill White trial began this morning in front of an all white jury. Laurence Hammack of Roanoke.com reports:
Yesterday it became evident just how sensitive the entire race issue promises to be in this proceeding as an all-white jury was seated. In what took all day, the selection process narrowed the field first from 66 to 38 qualified jurors, only two of which were African-American. Those two were eventually stricken by the defense.A newspaper columnist, a university administrator. A small-town mayor, a bank employee, a human rights lawyer, a group of apartment tenants.
"What do these people have in common?" federal prosecutor Cindy Chung asked a jury this morning.
"Absolutely nothing. They were not related to each other ... except for the defendant, Bill White. Bill White sought out these complete strangers and targeted them with a series of threats and intimidation," she said.
Justice Department Attorney, John Richmond, objected and Judge James Turk asked for an explanation from defense attorney, Ray Ferris:
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.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry you have such a comprehension problem "Hastas Primus" - but it really is YOUR problem.
ReplyDeleteLet me reiterate...this thread is for discussion of the trial only. Please try to stay on topic and thank you in advance.
If the governement doesn't punish Bill White, then god will get him for telling lies.
ReplyDeleteI am getting somewhat of a good laugh reading some of the comments over at VNN. Walter Kurtz says that the prosecution will be citing some quotes from Bill White's website and that he wouldn't put it past them to alter some of those.
ReplyDeleteUmmm...I don't think that would even be necessary. Believe me...there is enough genuine hate there to make almost any point they may have to make.
And OTPTT seems excited about the prospect that the jurors might browse VNN. Bill White had better hope that they don't.
Also...Laurence Hammack of Roanoke.com is doing a brilliant job on updates. He has a blog devoted to this with all the players listed, a timeline, and an archive of articles. You can see it HERE
Nikki, I can not give them to you now but Bill White sent me 4 hate filled letters that I sent to the proscutors before he started publishing sending out those lies about me on VNN and elsewhere. I will send the letters to you after the trial. Bill White is going to hell regardless of what happens in court.
ReplyDeleteOh...his day is definitely on the horizon and his fate is sealed regardless. It's too bad he will never admit that he brought this all on himself.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of where all of this ends up...I would like to see those letters.
I have to agree with the defense that none of these "hateful" statements represent a true threat.
ReplyDeleteOf course there are other standards they have to prove,(what about the imminent danger standard) but this is the main one.
Well, since Nikki mentioed it VNN is discussing the case here.
ReplyDelete"Michael Burks", the real Mike Burks has been notified of your impostering. So you know what that means, right? I'd give my lawyer a buzz---today.
ReplyDelete"Oh...his day is definitely on the horizon and his fate is sealed regardless. It's too bad he will never admit that he brought this all on himself."--Nikki
ReplyDeleteI agree he is a hateful and nasty man, who doesn't give a rat's ass about anyone, but the man didn't break the law.
Did he break God's law? Probably, but I ain't gonna judge. Is he goin' to Hell? I don't want to speculate, becuase the Bible and my faith prohibits from speculatin' on who will ascend and descend...but I wouldn't want to be in his shoes on judgement day.
Burks talks about lies being told on him, but how do any of us know that Burks himself isn't lying?
ReplyDeleteIMHO, this so-called movement is rife with liars and rats, and IMHO, Burks is no exception.
Just my opinion.
another link discussing this case
ReplyDelete"Neo-Nazi White's trial begins today
ReplyDeleteThe 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."
To those persons addressing Michael Burks...please keep this thread to the topic at hand - Bill White and the trial.
ReplyDeleteQuestion for the legal experts:
ReplyDeleteWhy would the courts and the media publish the witness list for the prosecution?
Nikki, isn't Michael Burks part of this unfolding cluster-fuck? Why would anyone be prohibited from expressing opinions about his opinions on this case?
ReplyDeleteJust sayin'.
I am not going to say no more in this thread.
ReplyDeleteThis case is simple. It boils down to wether what he said and written constitutes a "true threat".
Everything else is superfluous.
Anoymous - I have no problem with you or anyone else telling him what you think of his opinion or how he relates to the case at hand. I just don't want this to deteriorate into another "he's a pedo" kind of thread.
ReplyDeleteAs to a "true threat..." are you speaking of the belief that he had the means to carry it out and that the target was in imminent danger - or the perceived threat?
ReplyDeletequote: The investigator said White called Citi’s Kansas City, Kansas location 46 times during a three hour period on March 21, 2007.
ReplyDelete"Perceived threat" has nothing to do with it.
ReplyDeleteThere is ample case law/precedent, and if you review the judge's opinion that threw out the government's first case in Chicago,you should gain an understanding of what I ment by it.
Google “incitement to imminent lawless action” standard or "true-threats" standard. There are at least 4 precedents.
Someone on VNN did get it right.
ReplyDeleteQuote: White's defense is that he is full of shit.
Anonymous, 46 phone calls within a 3 hour time period might be considered a legitimate threat. Also remember, Bill threatened to go on a killing spree in Roanoke. It will all be tied in together. The question is, will the jury believe it?
ReplyDeleteWe'll see.
Here is what I found in Supreme Court case law (I will probably have to break this up in several posts:
ReplyDelete***Watts v. United States (1969). Robert Watts, a young African-American man, allegedly stated during a protest in Washington D.C.:
“They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification as 1-A and I have got to report for my physical this Monday morning. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J. They are not going to make me kill my black brothers.”
Prosecutors charged Watts with violating a federal law that prohibits threats against the president. Watts countered that his statement was a form of crude political opposition. A federal jury convicted Watts of a felony for violating the law and a federal appeals court affirmed his conviction. On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Watts’ statement was political hyperbole rather than a true threat.
Courts Opinion: “We agree with [Watts] that his only offense here was ‘a kind of very crude offensive method of stating a political opposition to the President,’” the Court wrote in a per curiam opinion. “Taken in context, and regarding the expressly conditional nature of the statement and the reaction of the listeners, we do not see how it could be interpreted otherwise.”
NAACP. v. Claiborne Hardware (1982),
ReplyDeletethe Court unanimously reversed a finding that Charles Evers and the NAACP could be found civilly liable for speech advocating the boycott of certain white-owned businesses. Evers, field secretary for the NAACP in Mississippi, had given impassioned speeches encouraging fellow African-Americans to participate in the boycott. He made some highly charged statements, such as “If we catch any of you going in any of them racist stores, we're gonna break your damn neck.”
The Court found that Evers’ comments did not constitute fighting words, incitement to imminent lawless action or a true threat. It concluded that “Evers’ addresses did not exceed the bounds of protected speech.” Yet another case in the "true threat" hurdle.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
ReplyDeleteRequirement of imminency must be applied. That is, a threat must be explicit and likely to cause “imminent lawless action.”
I have posted three precednets...and there are tons more...much of which has been pooh-poohed by many here.
ReplyDeleteIt is apparent to me the reason the cases of Turner and White were even brought was in (they may be successful yet)an attempt to set new precedent and do away with the protections of the Constitution and legal precedent protecting speech.
Yes, these two cases are important TO EVERYONE.
"Anonymous, 46 phone calls within a 3 hour time period might be considered a legitimate threat."
ReplyDeleteThe law doesn't put stipulations on the number of times a statement can be made to be considered legal or illegal.
Either the statement has Constitutional protections or it does not. It's like a woman saying, " I am kinda pregnant".
The number of times expressed means nothing...at least to me and most rational people.
Anonymouse is right,Whites's rants amount to "true threats," as defined by federal law? Or did the words stop short of "inciting or producing imminent lawless action," and thus fall under the protection of the First Amendment?
ReplyDeleteThat is the question, and hopefully his defense will not be stymied in presenting the case.
I admit that I've been following this case with interest.
ReplyDeleteI'd love to hear what a civil liberties attorney thinks.
ollie
Wow why do we need a civil liberties attorney? We've got dipshit right winged racist interupting the law for us. Of course it goes without saying he is a dumb fuck. Bill needs to do time. So does Hal. End of dicussion.
ReplyDeleteActually, the precedents you have cited are certainly classic and have stood the test of time. However, given the widespread use of the internet and new technological advances, the courts might have to rethink precisely what "imminent danger" means and what constitutes a victim.
ReplyDeleteAngry over the way a bank employee handled his account, William A. White dug up the woman's home telephone number and address.
ReplyDeleteHe then sent the information to her in an e-mail, along with the contact information for her family members, a jury was told this afternoon.
"Consider this," the e-mail stated. "As I'm sure, being in the collection business and having the attitude about it that you do, that you often make people upset. Lord knows that drawing too much publicity and making people upset is what did in Joan Lefkow."
The e-mail included a link explaining that Joan Lefkow is a federal judge in Chicago whose husband and mother were murdered. At the time, the killings were believed to be linked to the white supremacy movement -- of which White is associated.
The bank employee "went to pieces, for lack of a better term," her supervisor testified today.
The incident was the first of six cases in which federal prosecutors say White used his computer and telephone to strike fear in the people who he believed had crossed him. The bank employee is expected to testify later this afternoon.
Yeah Bill was out of control, if you think he was just exercising his rights of free speech then you need your head examined. Since I am a pornographer, that is very hard for me to say. I do not like to see free speech limited or restricted.
ReplyDeleteWilliam White has over stepped those bounds. He needs a felony on his record if for nothing else so he can't legally carry a fire arm.
"Actually, the precedents you have cited are certainly classic and have stood the test of time. However, given the widespread use of the internet and new technological advances, the courts might have to rethink precisely what "imminent danger" means and what constitutes a victim."
ReplyDeleteWether communicated via pen and paper, telephone, radio, the printing press, carrier pidgeon, opening up the window and yelling accross an apartment building and yes the internet...IT'S ALL THE SAME!!!!
What is speech? I seem to recall a judge having to clarify that to one of the idiotic jurors in the HT case just last week.
Means of transmission doesn't seem to me to meet or exceed the imminent danger test.
That being said I would like to see anonymity dissapear altogether from the net...of course that would put an end to a lot of the bullshit we see on the net. That would go a LONG WAY towards eliminating bullying of people on the internet.
Nikki,
ReplyDeleteMany have been convicted of sending out threats from prison to officials who are serving life sentences.
Remember, White was a "leader" of a white supremacist gang, although only a few in number, but still.
The defense will be interesting to see in this case, if they even put up a defense. Turner didn't put up one.
But wouldn't you love it if Bill White took the stand? His lawyers would have to get their heads examined if they did, but it sure would be entertaining.
This one is going the full 12 rounds. We'll see what happens. My prediction still stands, White won't serve any more jail time once the trail is over unless it's a hung jury. He might be found guilty, but with time served, I'd be surprised if he gets jail time.
But in this day of whacko courts, who knows.
That being said I would like to see anonymity dissapear altogether from the net...of course that would put an end to a lot of the bullshit we see on the net. That would go a LONG WAY towards eliminating bullying of people on the internet
ReplyDeletespoken like a true, fckn ZOG-bot...boo hoo bloody hoo!...ain't it just so fckn SAD that the dirty, filthy JEWz can't totally control the 'net...here's a FLASH for you, cunt-brain..."anonymity" will NEVER dis-apear from the internet because the internet, by its very nature, is impervious to such kike crap!
if you were a (TRUE!) xtian, you would hafta say that the internet has been put in place by Providence to first expose and then destroy the greatest threat to humanity since the Black Plague...the god-damn jewz!
either way, it spells the DEATH KNELL for the kike...and, that's good for white people...because: what is bad for jews is GOOD for Aryans!
this prosecuting Bill White is an act of utter & complete desperation!...they're trying to close "the barn door" after the horse has bolted A COUNTRY MILE down the road!
This is from Laurence Hammack...
ReplyDeleteA black newspaper columnist and a white supremacist have one thing in common – they both use the written word in an effort to catch the public’s attention.
That was one of the themes that emerged this morning in the trial of William A. White, a neo-Nazi leader and Internet commentator charged with threatening Leonard Pitts, a nationally syndicated columnist for The Miami Herald.
Dave Wilson, an editor at the Herald, testified this morning that the newspaper was so concerned about a threatening e-mail from White to Pitts that it had armed security guards placed outside the columnist’s Maryland home around the clock.
But in their questions to the editor, White’s attorneys suggested that Pitts’ column about black-on-white crime was intended to stir things up.
“Is it safe to say that Mr. Pitts is no shrinking violet in the rough-and-tumble world of political discourse?” attorney David Damico asked Wilson on cross examination.
“I would agree with that,” Wilson responded.
With Wilson still on the stand, court was recessed at 10:45 for a mid-morning break.
Some of the locals are starting to weigh in over on Hammack's blog. This is one example:
ReplyDelete"Bill White comes into the Starbuck's I used to work in. He made everysingle one of us feel very incomfortable, but then again I can only speak for myself. I was talking about Haunukkah one morning while he was in there, and demanded that his coffee be made by someone that "was no a God D*mn Jew". When he would come in after that, he would stare at me in a way that I felt very scared. I dared not take a break while he was in the store because I didn't know what this man was capeable of. I will tell you this: I am not afraid of this man, I am afraid of him reproducing...and keeping that hate alive for more generations."
Nikki,
ReplyDeleteThe government would have to pay to fly FBI informant Alex Linder in to testify in person. Much cheaper to do it this way.
And Linder has an option on his message board not to record IP addresses. But he chooses to.
Linder claims that he didn't go because of his illness. You can bet Linder gave up more than Bill's IP.
ReplyDeleteLinder is a skinny sickly fellow for only being in his 30s isn't he?
ReplyDeleteHis uncle wrote a long book on the history of the Linder family and it's interbred marriages during the 1800's, which is probably why Linder looks the way he does and his illnesses. I think it's on google books.
What's wrong with keeping it in de family? Bill is going down, do not pass go, stay away from those guys in daisey dukes Billy! Oh no, Bill's been converted, he gonna be ruined fer life.
ReplyDeletewell, the prosecution put on the stand a 19 year old girl, the daughter of Leonard Pitts. A brilliant move considering if the defense was harsh with her, it would backfire against them and having a young girl invokes emotion on a jury.
ReplyDeleteunlike Hal Turner, looks like they are going full brunt after Bill White.
Bill is a fool in that he has pissed off just about everyone in the justice system. Do not be surprised if they find him guilty if he doesn't get the top end of the sentencing guidelines.
ReplyDeleteNikki, if liars could be thrown in jail for lies then Jeff Schoep and his webmaster John Schaffer would have been doing life by now.
ReplyDelete"The essence of what is going on here is that the left is angry and fearful that some of its own tactics are being used against it. If it's not illegal for the left to publish innocent people's addresses, and pay for busloads of its activists to stand outside Whites' properties and scream about "burning them out," then it's hard to see how BW can be convicted of whatever he did. And that is why, even given a 100% biased media and court system, the charges against White have consistently been dismissed." --Alex Linder
ReplyDeleteI hate to admit it, but Linder is exactly right on that point.
There is definitely a double standard in that regard. It isn't solely the perview of ARA types either...I remember the Roanoke Times publishing complete addresses of conceiled carry permit holders.
I find it interesting as Hell that Bill White has been charged in the past for the very same things Nikki herself use to do here...namely, the publishing of names and home addresses (even phone numbers).
ReplyDeleteI applaud her for not doing it anymore, but I think she needs to keep that in mind from time to time.
Some valid points being made here
ReplyDelete