Letter from Bill White + Ongoing Trial Coverage (12/09 forward)

[ernst blofeld]

Very sobering posts Hugh, well said!

[andy]

Originally Posted by Ron Doggett

Hugh, the problem with all this as stated before this doesn't happen to those marxist scum who do the same thing. When was the last time the ara, jdl, jdo, etc. had this happen to them and they attack people with tire irons and have planning meetings about how to violate our civil right to protest. Everyone here knows I could give a million examples.

As you mentioned twenty years for a snakeskin, maybe 35 years for all this, the average murderer and rapist can expect less.

So you see it is about what he believes and thinks not just about what he did.

Would it be better if they were prosecuted ? If as you allege this type of thing is widespread among the opposition a few links demonstrating this would be useful.
Whether they prosecute the opposition or not is irrelevant did White ever state that he would desist if the enemy were prosecuted ? Did White claim his actions were retaliation for activities carried out by opposition ?
Are you suggesting that Whites organisation was some sort of retaliation for the activities of the opposition ?
This is not the way any sane lucid person creates and promotes a serious political organisation.It is juvenile pathetic nonesense and a waste of meagre resources pissed away on some sort of personal ego trip.

Of course the lesson of Whites experience can be and probably will be ignored by "the movement" just as the experiences of previous "movement Leaders" were ignored.Still you can always blame the kikes,niggers,reds,feds and of course zog and of course bitch about it online.You will never defeat your enemies by conforming to your enemies stereotypes.

[Ron Doggett]

Originally Posted by andy

Would it be better if they were prosecuted ? If as you allege this type of thing is widespread among the opposition a few links demonstrating this would be useful

Would it be better? It would demonstrate equal justice but as we know when it comes to Whites there is none, this is case number one million of that.

Links? Do I really need to spend time doing that? How long have you been observing this struggle and what our opposition does, you can spend time doing that yourself.

Look Bill's style isn't mine, but I simply can't believe there are intelligent people here who can't understand that the level of punishment that will be dealt him and the verdict of guilt is connected to his beliefs.

Andy, I'm off to work in snow bound Virginia, I'll let someone else try to explain this to you, or I'll have to pick it up later.

[Rounder]

Originally Posted by Ron Doggett

Hugh, the problem with all this as stated before this doesn't happen to those marxist scum who do the same thing. When was the last time the ara, jdl, jdo, etc. had this happen to them and they attack people with tire irons and have planning meetings about how to violate our civil right to protest. Everyone here knows I could give a million examples.

As you mentioned twenty years for a snakeskin, maybe 35 years for all this, the average murderer and rapist can expect less.

So you see it is about what he believes and thinks not just about what he did.

Well said, Ron. The BW-haters on here are delighted BW was convicted and facing decades in nigger cages. Not because they don't think his actions were effective against our racial enemies, but because BW bashed them personally on this or other forum. Selfish turds who place their own egos above what's good for The Cause. FACT !!!

Back when BW was generating phone calls to the Jena-6, for just one example, nobody on here posted any laws that made what BW was doing, illegal. And BW and all other prominent WNs thought it, and all his other similar effective actions, were perfectly legal. In fact, nobody in the media or anybody in law enforcement said, at the time, that any of it was illegal. They all said BW hadn't yet "crossed the line". Even the SPLC was saying that.

And as Alex said, BW is innocent. He broke no law. He simply exercised freedom of speech highly effectively, as the GD kikes and coons have been doing for over 50 freakin years.

[Rounder]

Originally Posted by Randy Webster

I could be wrong, but believe this used to not be true. It became true when the laws were revised to include what is now commonly called "cyber-bullying."

You may be right, Randy. I'm no freakin lawyer. We need an attorney on here to explain it.

The judge sure as hell didn't mention "cyber-bullying" in his instructions to the jury.

Again, here's what he said, and what I still think is a GD lie:

"To be a true threat the communication does not need to be directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action." (unquote)

[Rounder]

Here's another outrageous piece of BS the judge told the jury:

" Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat, is determined in accordance with the interpretation of a reasonable recipient familiar with the context of the communication." (unquote)


NOTE: Ha. Can you believe he said that ?? He said that if any reasonable nigger, wetback, jew, or faggot who interprets any communication he or she receives as being a threat, then the threat meets the legal definition of "true threat".

In other words, according to the judge, the jury doesn't determine guilt or innocence, the GD nigger and jew plaintiffs do.

[Hadding]

Originally Posted by Hugh

He is in jail because he broke the law repeatedly, knowingly, deliberately, bragged about it, and actually published the evidence needed to convict him, repeatedly.

Bill was found guilty by a court, and is going to jail, for threatening and insulting individuals.
Anyone else who had done and said what he did and said would have too.

I think this is an overstatement.

In the first place, insulting people is not illegal in the USA. We are all free to call the President a nigger or to wear shirts that portray him as a monkey.

When did Bill White brag that he "broke the law"? I think he believed that making threats by implication only would keep him within the law. It's like some mafioso saying, Nice little business you have here; shame if something should happen to it.

I think Bill White could have said something like that once and gotten away with it. A vaguely menacing statement uttered to one person could be taken as just an unusually abrasive expression of political opinion. But he did it over and over, with some targets that were not even political, so that it became clear that he was deliberately menacing people. I think he believed that he was technically within the law, and he probably would have been if he hadn't set up such a strong pattern of behavior.

He may also have run afoul of shifting standards regarding what constitutes a true threat.

Where I think Bill White is more reproachable is on the question of his motives. What was he trying to accomplish? Was he trying to accomplish anything greater than forcing public attention onto himself?

I think you are probably right that anybody who did what Bill White did -- assuming the same kinds of victim -- would have provoked some kind of punitive response. If there had been no applicable statute, he probably would have been hit with a civil suit, wherein the standards of proof are lower. Unquestionably Bill White was cruising for a bruising from the System, and he is smart enough to have understood that. Therefore I think he was delusional and his behavior was compulsive.

The people who say that similar behavior goes unpunished or is treated leniently when it is directed toward people who have strongly disfavored opinions, like racists, are correct, but unfortunately the law does not become null and void just because it has been enforced selectively. All we can do is insist on equal enforcement, and at the same time, we need to avoid alienating our own people so that when we need public support there will be some people who think we deserve it.

[Randy Webster]

Originally Posted by Rounder

Here's another outrageous piece of BS the judge told the jury:

" Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat, is determined in accordance with the interpretation of a reasonable recipient familiar with the context of the communication." (unquote)


NOTE: Ha. Can you believe he said that ?? He said that if any reasonable nigger, wetback, jew, or faggot who interprets any communication he or she receives as being a threat, then the threat meets the legal definition of "true threat".

True. The law now looks like it boils down to whether or not the jury believes they would have perceived the communication as a threat at the time. Again, I'm pretty sure it's not the judge but rather the law itself that was changed not too long ago (a couple of years ago, maybe).

[AntonF]

I'm curious what the jury instructions were in the recent Hal Turner case?
His charge is the same as some of the BW charges were.

As much as I would love to see Hal do 10 years hard time, I hope he beats the charge because the Feds just legislated the Cyber Bullying Act in this BW case.

These Bogus convictions cannot stand in the BW case. They need to be appealed and struck down or were all screwed.

[Hadding]

Originally Posted by AntonF

These Bogus convictions cannot stand in the BW case. They need to be appealed and struck down or were all screwed.

How do you figure that we're all screwed because of Bill White's convictions?

I hope that he wins his appeals or that Turk lets him out based on time served, and I especially hope that he beats the civil rights charges after that, but I can't see that these convictions are devastating for our cause when nobody that I know does what Bill White was doing, and when the net effect of his actions, at least in terms of public image, is negative anyway.

[AntonF]

Originally Posted by Hadding

How do you figure that we're all screwed because of Bill White's convictions?

I hope that he wins his appeals (or that Turk lets him out based on time served) and I especially hope that he beats the civil rights charges after that, but I can't see that it is crucial for our cause when nobody that I know does what Bill White was doing, and when the net effect of his actions, at least in terms of public image, is negative anyway.

We're all screwed because through BW's case, the Jews just chipped away at the First Amendment and in my opinion RE-DEFINED what a threat is.

The Feds just put into case law the ADL definition of what a threat is and basically enacted the Cyber Bullying Act. The specifics of this have already been layed out and discussed on this thread.

I know one thing and that is the Feds are definitely going to re-try Hal's case after the BW verdict. I hope Hal eventually beats the rap but he'll definitely be going through 2 1/2 months of well deserved mental torture waiting around for March 1st. or whenever his new trial happens.

What your not considering here, is how all the Supreme Court case law pertaining to threats got started in the first place. It started with cases like BW's.

[OTPTT]

Originally Posted by AntonF

The Feds just put into case law the ADL definition of what a threat is and basically enacted the Cyber Bullying Act

'Case law' is made in the appeals courts, not at trial court level. I'd like to see Hal Turner get the Bill White treatment. If anyone deserves to be in prison it's Hal Turner.

[AntonF]

Originally Posted by OTPTT

'Case law' is made in the appeals courts, not at trial court level. I'd like to see Hal Turner get the Bill White treatment. If anyone deserves to be in prison it's Hal Turner.

I can't disagree with you on what Hal deserves but I don't want to see another bogus conviction going to the Appeals Court which could affect our speech rights.

As much as you may hate the guy, Hal didn't break the law.

[Hugh]

Ron, not one of them was imprisoned for their beliefs.

They were charged for things which would have been crimes irrespective of their beliefs, under laws written and on the books for years before they were convicted.

Were they railroaded? Yes.
Was being railroaded unexpected? No.

Many thousands of people have been imprisoned and/or fined for doing similar things, who did not express any beliefs at all.

The opponent does not have the resources to follow up on all those who break their laws, but they always follow up on high profile cases, or cases involving their known opponents.

My point is that we are to say the least targets.

Does it help our movement to have members literally hand themselves over to our opponents, and provide our opponents with the means to destroy them?
What is more effective, gaining real power, in real organisations, or being in jail?

VNN has 4000 members, and who knows how many readers.

If ten percent of VNNs members, let alone readers, say 400, go on to achieve real power, in real organisations, VNN can literally be the network that saved our race.

400 members each going on to chair a mainstream political branch, directing national NGOs, becoming judges, sheriffs or police commissioners, county commissioners, governors, legislators, MPs/Congressmen and senators, could achieve something of value.

Even if they make sure they just spend as much time on jury duty as possible, or spend time educating future jurors, where there still are juries, they can have immense impact, and save many lives.

Wikipedia (Links)

Fully_Informed_Jury_Association

They can be a national power in their respective countries, be able to totally dominate several state governments and become a major power collectively internationally.

That power and support could catapult nationalist movements worldwide into power.

Compare this to wearing stupid uniforms and marching up and down waving cloths.
Spending one's time shouting, screaming, insulting people, knowing that they will go to the LEA, daring the LEA to prosecute, then being astounded when one is prosecuted.

Whites are a century away from extinction.

Don't throw away this one chance, and maybe the last chance, our race will have.

Our ancestors have faced far greater threats than we currently face, and fought and overcome opponents and dangers far worse than the ones we currently face.

If they saw Whites today, our ancestors would disown us.

If our race goes extinct, it will be because we who know the problem were too egotistical, too lazy and too stupid to save it.

On the gravestone of our race will stand inscribed "We did it to ourselves".

[Hugh]

The BW-haters on here are delighted BW was convicted and facing decades in nigger cages. Not because they don't think his actions were effective against our racial enemies, but because BW bashed them personally on this or other forum. Selfish turds who place their own egos above what's good for The Cause. FACT !!!

Who are the real haters of Bill White, Rounder?

Those who tried to keep him out of prison, and wanted his formidable intelligence working for the cause, in real organisations achieving solid goals that mattered?

Or was it those who urged him to do frivolous things, with no impact, in fact the very things that got him put into prison?

What did Bill do that was effective?
He has an incredibly high IQ, superb skills as a writer and publisher.
What was done with that?

He was a slumlord, who provided housing, not to poor Whites, but to Blacks.
He pretended to be a member of a non-existent organisation from another country, wrote insults, and marched up and down, usually alone, waving cloths.

What people think is the law is totally irrelevant.
What matters is what the law actually is.
Whether they agree with it or not is also totally irrelevant.

If the judge lied, then how is it Bills lawyers have not laid charges against the judge for lying?

Just because the law itself is unjust, that does not mean one can break the law, or that the law in invalid.
Laws are there to keep those in power, in power.

Did Bill and his lawyers make sure that at the very least the jurors were advised of their actual role, rights, duties and power?
If not, why not?

http://openlibrary.org/b/OL3389608M/...y_instructions.
http://w3.nexis.com/sources/scripts/info.pl?235134

Most of the 80 million people killed in China and the 60 million killed in the Soviet Union died according to the law.

140 million were killed.
Legally.

80 million white babies have been aborted.
Legally.

The law is no defence.
The truth is no defence.

We are engaged in a real struggle with people who want to kill us.
Our opponents are the most degenerate, perverted and evil creatures in human history.
Do people really think bits of paper our opponents wrote will prevent them?

Do people really think shouting, screaming, waving cloths, and walking up and down the road will stop them?

Sanctions, boycotts, relocation of taxpayers, secession, these are things that have historically always brought about change, and the only things to bring down empires, and lead to the creation of nationalist states.

[Hugh]

Thanks Ernest, Andy.

Hadding, the whole point of Bill's case was to determine his motives for doing what he did.
It was about civil lawsuits that I focused upon when looking at his actions.
They are just as damaging as criminal lawsuits.

The judge said so, the charges said so, the jury said that they decided the case on that basis.

Bill was convicted and imprisoned, for his motives.

The length and type of people's sentences does not revolve so much around their actual deed, as it does around their motives, whether it was planned, what they expected as a result, whether they benefitted etc.

One simply has to sit in court rooms to learn these most basic things.

Instead of spending their time drinking and eating, activists should spend time in the courts, in prison outreach and prisoner rehabilitation programmes, learning, observing and acting accordingly.

Talk to most prisoners about justice, and if they had a fair trial.

They will look at you incredulously, then fall about laughing, weeping or just beat one up for stupidity.

Thousands of Whites are imprisoned or fined or ruined unjustly every year.
It's the main reason we are involved in the struggle.

Bill could never understand this.
Based upon what he wrote from prison, he still doesn't.
Many on this forum, despite the details of the case right in front of them, also don't understand this.

In due course, they are thus likely to join him.

My main focus is to keep our people out of jail.

If cops don't like a person, they lock them overnight in a cell with infected gangbangers, then cheerfully drop charges and set them free the next day.

What remains of the person, crawls home, beaten, gangraped, bleeding, usually infected with fatal disease and if they survive, they live in terror for the rest of their lives.

Bill is getting light treatment, so far.
Serious opponents don't get charged.
They die as unfortunate crime victims in "carjackings" or home invasions, or simply get disappeared.

His best bet, is to avoid any gang relationships whatsoever, and qualify for and work in the sick bay, but stay out of the pharmacy, and reduce his ability to access drugs.
People rarely if ever mess with medics in such environments.

Alternatively he should very quickly discover Jesus, convert to Catholicism or some other very serious religion, and work with the prison chaplain, or become a priest/chaplain in prison.

Wardens encourage religion, and discourage attacks on believers, as these hold as much authority in prison as many wardens and can if smart have more influence than gangleaders. This is simply because gangleaders fear the attention they receive, and loss of support from their gangmembers, if they attack believers.

Bill should also study unceasingly.
With his brains, he could very easily hold several doctorates when he walks out.

Bill is now in Hell.
He needs to get out as soon as possible.

Parole and appeals are more likely to be positive if they perceive, correctly or incorrectly, that there is no threat.

A person studying to be a priest, nurse or medic, working the sickbay, going to church, and helping his fellow prisoners is not a threat, and if he avoids messing with the gangs, is not likely to be gangbanged, or get stabbed.

[Hadding]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Thanks Ernest, Andy.

Hadding, the whole point of Bill's case was to determine his motives for doing what he did.
It was about civil lawsuits that I focused upon when looking at his actions.
They are just as damaging as criminal lawsuits.

The judge said so, the charges said so, the jury said that they decided the case on that basis.

Bill was convicted and imprisoned, for his motives.

Bullshit.

Anyway, you totally missed my point, which is that I don't think he was entirely motivated by consideration of what is good for our cause. Some of it looks like attention-getting theatrics, which he labeled "satire" when the FBI talked to him last October.

This was not a civil suit. This was a criminal case. There are civil rights charges coming, which as I understand are also criminal matters.

[Hadding]

Originally Posted by AntonF

We're all screwed because through BW's case, the Jews just chipped away at the First Amendment and in my opinion RE-DEFINED what a threat is.

You totally ignore the fact that the right to menace people individually is not an aspect of free speech that most of us use or want to use anyway.

Is that one of your hobbies? Threatening people?

Again, I don't see why "we" are "screwed" because of this.

If you want to post Richard Warman's personal information and tell the world that he is a really bad man, you can still do that. Judge Turk said so! Just don't go too far beyond that.

[Hugh]

Hadding, read the judgement, read the charges.
Focus upon what was actually said.

Their primary focus is upon his motivation, his intention and the ensuing results of his actions.
His actions themselves are secondary.

I don't think Bill was motivated by our cause at all, I think he thought to use it to help him deal with his own issues.
He denied being serious.
Serious people don't wear silly costumes, and pretend they hold military rank in non-existent armies.

In any event, even if he was serious, nazis advocate socialism, totalitarianism, and support absolute, permanent rule by unelected people.

They by definition want to install a government under which there would be no free speech.
Anyone care to name any actual real life socialist governments that support free speech?

Civil suits of such a nature as those he faces can get you put in prison, or fined, but will always ruin your life.

[Alex Linder]

Lots of blather from Hugh, per usual. Incapable of summing anything up, as befits the stupid career bureaucrat he undoubtedly is.

Here's the bottom line, people.

What the law says is only one consideration when you're deciding what you do. You must take into account the willingness of the feds to take your prospective action, bundle it with anything else you've said or done in your life, and sell it to a jury brainwashed by ZOG-tv for the last fifty years. White's case shows that even if you do as little as send a nasty letter to some niggers, you can be jailed, tried, and convicted of intimidation, and possibly go to jail for 20 years. White quite literally might as well have murdered those niggers as written them a letter. He wouldn't be facing much more time than he is. The fact that the feds don't even investigate real intimidation (niggers trying to drive whites out of Toledo) doesn't change anything. The System truly is irretrievably biased against whites, but particularly those who stand up to it.

The lesson I would draw from the White affair is don't contact muds or antis at all. Stick to general analysis, limit your circle to people you trust, don't give the Systemics any handles to grab you.