Dave Gahary got to speak with William A. “Bill” White from prison, twice, the former commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, and regular contributor to THE BARNES REVIEW and AMERICAN FREE PRESS newspaper.
The first interview was conducted from the Metropolitan Correctional Center, Chicago, while the second transmitted from the Federal Transfer Center, Oklahoma City.
Bill explains his predicament and shines the light on a system that exists not to dispense justice but to punish any and all effective critics of it, in this shocking interview (13:51).
Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, is the host of AFP’s ‘Underground Interview’ series.
Be sure to check out all of AFP’s free podcasts. You’ll find them on the HOME PAGE, in the ARCHIVES & in the PODCAST section.
Bill White Case Reveals Horrors of Federal Prison Complex
• Pro-American author brutalized by United States justice system
William A. “Bill” White, the former commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, and regular contributor to THE BARNES REVIEW and AMERICAN FREE PRESS newspaper, contacted this reporter from prison for a series of interviews in April. The first interview was conducted from the Metropolitan Correctional Center, Chicago, while the second transmitted from the Federal Transfer Center, Oklahoma City. After prison authorities had uncovered that White had interviewed with the national media, he was thrown into solitary confinement as punishment.
The first interview was conducted on March 31, 2013 and the second on April 4, 2013. In between the interviews a court ruling occurred, which has ominous rumblings for many Americans.
Bill explained his current predicament.
“I’ve been prosecuted seven times by the federal government in the last five years. The case I’m up here on was a case that has been dismissed twice. It’s now at the Supreme Court. It’s kind of an interesting issue. I used to publish a website called overthrow.com and we had about 150,000 unique readers every month and we published some material that was critical of a juror in the Matthew Hale case. And the government charged me criminally with soliciting a violent felony for the fact that I criticized them in front of an audience that the government argued was inherently violent. And while the judge threw the case out twice, the Seventh Circuit, a Jewish fellow named [Richard A.] Posner, writing the opinion for them, ruled that the government was correct and that people who share my point of view are so inherently criminal that to merely criticize somebody in front such an audience is in fact a solicitation of a violent felony.”
Bill touched on his other case which starkly revealed the inherent inequities of the U.S. justice system.
“I was supposed to travel to Virginia for…another…very similar issue, but what happened there was that it was on appeal at the Fourth Circuit, a Jewish fellow named [Paul V.] Niemeyer wrote an opinion upholding a similar case. But there were two dissents on the opinion. And the case was going to go en banc (“a legal term used to refer to a case heard or to be heard before all judges of a court – in other words, before the entire bench – rather than by a panel selected from them”) when suddenly my attorney, a woman named Melissa Scoggins, just simply didn’t file the appeal. And she later admitted that she had been advised by somebody that it was no longer in her interest to represent me and so she had deliberately sabotaged my appeal, so that gave rise to yet another appeal. The government has admitted that my attorney was tampered with but has argued that I did not have a right to not have my attorney tampered with, if you can understand that. They’re claiming that because appeals beyond the panel level do not carry a right to counsel, there is no right to what’s called ‘ineffective assistance of counsel,’ (“a claim raised by a convicted criminal defendant that their attorney’s performance was so ineffective that it deprived them of the constitutional right guaranteed by the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution”) which means as my friend Mike Piper said, that if I pay an attorney $50,000, the government can give her $100,000, and win the case without it ever been heard at a higher court.”
Now, you’ve never really did anything, asked AFP, except they’re going after you because of your words?
“Well that’s exactly right. Both the cases where they’ve achieved convictions have involved just simply criticizing people.”
You’re in jail, asked AFP, did you hit somebody, did you kill somebody?
“No, there’s absolutely been no violence. But the judge pointed out that if I’d actually attacked the juror in this case with a weapon, I would’ve received a lower sentence than if I had simply criticized him.”
AFP asked him to discuss prison conditions.
“During my time in federal prison I have been subject to very extreme brutality. Particularly at the beginning, I was subjected to sleep deprivation; I was thrown in cells that were freezing cold. I at one point was held overnight in a cell that was flooded with human feces. All in order to get me to confess to something that just never happened. And the first 30 months that I spent in prison, I can tell you I spent 21 of those in solitary confinement.”
“This kind of brutality towards people, particularly in political cases, is extremely routine in the federal prisons. Until very recently, they’ve been allowed to hold people indefinitely, often in subhuman conditions; in solitary confinement. And this is been a routine procedure the Bureau of Prisons uses to extort false confessions from people. And really these distorted, false confessions are the bread-and-butter of the federal legal system.”
AFP asked Bill if his experiences in prison have changed his views of America.
“I was always a critic of the U.S. government, but I was once somebody who fundamentally believed in the possibility of democratic change. And what I’ve really come to realize being in prison, is that the U.S. government is fundamentally illegitimate. This is a group of extremely violent, essentially criminal people, not just in the United States towards their own citizens but internationally. And they claim to be promoting democracy or the empowerment of people, but what they’re really promoting is their own power over people in the name of democracy. Democracy for them has really become, the world democratic revolution I should say, has really become for them what the world worker’s revolution was for the Soviet Union. And they really don’t scruple against using the same tactics here domestically that the Soviets used to control their own citizenry and I’ve unfortunately sort of been trapped in the middle of this.”
AFP spoke with Bill the second time in Oklahoma and began by discussing a legal ruling that had occurred after our first interview.
“The United States Supreme Court has refused to hear my appeal, which means that the government’s decision that they can label the audiences of publications to be inherently violent and thus to interpret any speech towards that audience as a solicitation of violence, stands. So, this sort of unprecedented power that the United States has granted itself to attack the entire audience of a publication without identifying a single individual member of that publication to have ever been involved in any sort of violence but to simply say because of a political view that audience is inherently violent, that has now been affirmed, for all purposes, by the United States Supreme Court.”
By them refusing to hear your case, asked AFP?
“That’s correct. They’ve refused to hear it which means that they uphold the decision of the Seventh Circuit.
Is that what that means, asked AFP, or does that mean they just don’t want to get involved in it?
“It means that they uphold it. They don’t want to get involved in it, but that is a law now. The Seventh Circuit makes the law, and there’s never been a solicitation case that has been decided in this manner in the past. So this new law that this Jewish federal judge Posner created with his opinion…that the Supreme Court said that that’s okay.”
So that’s the law in the land now, asked AFP?
“It is in the Seventh Circuit.”
AFP asked what exactly would someone have to do in order to violate this law.
“Speak to an audience that the United States government feels is inherently violent. Criticize someone before an audience. What I did was criticize a federal juror on a website and the judge determined that the audience of the website, all 150,000 unique monthly readers, was inherently violent and therefore my criticism could be interpreted as a solicitation of violence. So all you have to do is get in front of an audience that the government for political reasons has labeled inherently violent and say that I dislike this person and that could be interpreted as a solicitation for that audience to commit violent acts.”
AFP asked what this says about this country.
“There is no way for people who are outside the political system to participate in American democracy. The goal of participating in the American system is not a correct one. What has to happen is that the American system has to be removed if good people are going to govern this country again.”
“There’s plenty to be done in this country but again the goal of trying to participate in the system through speaking about issues is really an unattainable goal. The government has absolutely forbidden anyone to speak out in a meaningful way are outside of the sort of false political dichotomy they’ve created. So I do what I can do and one of the things I think’s very important is that the deconstruction of the progressive myth of history. The United States of America is dependent on this sort of false neo-Marxist narrative that it and its system is the culmination of all historical processes. And that this narrative is really the sole justification for American power. There is no pretense in this country that what the government does is based on right or wrong or that it’s engaged in service to some particular people but merely that what it is doing is the inevitable result of history and therefore everyone should simply get behind it, ‘cause that’s what’s going to be. And to destroy this myth and to undermine the moral basis of the philosophical basis of American power, involves a reevaluation of all values of history. And that is what I try to do my books.”