Skip to main content

Norman LeBoon was sentenced to 24 months in prison, to be followed by three years’ supervised release, for threatening United States Congressman Eric Cantor

PHILADELPHIA—Today, Norman LeBoon, 38, of Philadelphia, was sentenced to 24 months in prison, to be followed by three years’ supervised release, for threatening United States Congressman Eric Cantor (7th District Virginia) and a member of his family, announced United States Attorney Zane David Memeger. LeBoon pleaded guilty in November 16, 2010 to threatening Congressman Cantor and transmitting in interstate commerce a threatening communication. These charges arise from LeBoon’s production and transmission of a YouTube video over the Internet on March 26, 2010 containing a threat to injure and kill.

According to an affidavit in support of the warrant for LeBoon’s arrest issued on March 28, 2010, LeBoon transmitted a video over the Internet on YouTube, in which he stated:

"My Congressman Eric Cantor, and you and your cupcake evil wife...” “Remember Eric...our judgment time, the final Yom Kippur has been given. You are a liar, you're a Lucifer, you're a pig, a greedy f------ pig, you're an abomination, you receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads. You and your children are Lucifer's abominations.”

Following his arrest, LeBoon told federal agents that Eric Cantor is “pure evil”; “will be dead”; and that “Cantor’s family is suffering because of his father’s wrath.”

In addition to the prison term, U.S. District Court Judge John R.Padova ordered LeBoon to serve a period of three years’ supervised release with the following conditions: for the first 60 days of supervised release, the defendant will be on home detention with electronic monitoring; the defendant is prohibited from accessing the Internet during the period of supervised relase; the defendant will be required to participate in mental health treatment and reports of such treatment shall be forwarded to the quarter on a quarterly basis; the defendant will be tested for the presence of illegal drugs; travel is restricted to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and the defendant shall have no direct or indirect contact with Congressman Cantor or any member of his family.

This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Robert K. Reed.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.
Post a Comment
Read more

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...
3 comments
Read more

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...
Post a Comment
Read more