| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Just keeping things in proper perspective.
By JOHN FUND
President Obama's Justice Department continues to stonewall inquiries about why it dropped a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party.
The episode—which Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, calls "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen"—began on Election Day 2008. Mr. Bull and others witnessed two Black Panthers in paramilitary garb at a polling place near downtown Philadelphia. (Some of this behavior is on YouTube.)
One of them, they say, brandished a nightstick at the entrance and pointed it at voters and both made racial threats. Mr. Bull says he heard one yell "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!"
In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In March, Mr. Bull submitted an affidavit at Justice's request to support its lawsuit.
Enlarge Image
CloseAssociated Press
Attorney
General Eric Holder
.When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away. Against the third defendant, Minister King Samir Shabazz, it sought only an injunction barring him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years—action that's already illegal under existing law.
There was outrage over the decision among Congressional Republicans, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division—especially after it was learned one of the defendants who walked was Jerry Jackson, a member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and a credentialed poll watcher for the Democratic Party last Election Day.
Then the Washington Times reported on July 30 that six career lawyers at Justice who had recommended continuing to pursue the case were overruled by Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli—a top administration political appointee. One of the career attorneys, Appellate Chief Diana Flynn, had urged in an internal memo that a judgment be pressed against the defendants to "prevent the paramilitary style intimidation of voters" in the future.
Justice spokesman Alejandro Miyar says the dismissal was "based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law." But Rep. Frank Wolf (R., Va.), has been asking for more information. Assistant Attorney General Ronald Welch, for example, claims in a July 13 letter to Mr. Wolf that charges against the New Black Panther Party itself were dropped because there wasn't "evidentiary support" to prove they "directed" the intimidation. But Mr. Wolf notes in a letter sent to Justice that one defendant, Black Panther Party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, said on Fox News just after the election that his activities at the polling station were part of a nationwide effort. Mr. Shabazz added that the Black Panther activities in Philadelphia were justified due to "an emergency situation."
Mr. Wolf's demands that Justice make the career attorneys on the case available for questions have been rebuffed. He also wants the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings. A spokesman for House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers was noncommittal as to whether any hearing would be held.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights voted on Aug. 7 to send a letter to Justice expanding its own investigation and demanding more complete answers. "We believe the Department's defense of its actions thus far undermines respect for rule of law," its letter stated. It noted "the peculiar logic" of one Justice argument, that defendants' failure to show up in court was a reason for dismissing the case: "Such an argument sends a perverse message to wrongdoers—that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated so long as the persons who engage in them are careful not to appear in court to answer the government's complaint."
The commission noted that it could subpoena witnesses and documents if Justice doesn't better explain its actions.
President Obama needs to clear the air. As a former law professor who specialized in voting rights, he is aware of how important even-handed application of the law is to election integrity. In 2007, then-Sen. Obama introduced a bill to protect Americans from tactics that intimidate voters. It also increased the criminal penalty for voter intimidation to five years in prison from one year.
"There is no place for politics in this debate," he testified before Mr. Conyers's committee in March, 2007. "Both parties at different periods in our history have been guilty in different regions of preventing people from voting for a tactical advantage. We should be beyond that."
One way to get there is for Mr. Obama to insist his Justice Department reinstate the Black Panther case or provide a full explanation for why it was dropped. |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
Sun May 13, 2012 8:46 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
When none of the defendants who were charged appeared in court to answer the charges, the career attorneys pursuing the lawsuit assumed that they would win it by default. However the career attorneys' move to pursue a default judgment against the defendants was overruled by two of their line superiors, Loretta King who was acting Assistant Attorney General and Steve Rosenbaum, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez testified that even though none of the defendants responded to the charges, the Justice Department still had a continuing legal and ethical obligation to ensure that any relief sought was consistent with the law and supported by the evidence. A decision was then made to dismiss the charges against NBPP chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, the NBPP and Jerry Jackson. The charge against Minister King Samir Shabazz, the individual who was seen brandishing a nightstick, was maintained but narrowed
. The original charge against Minister King Samir Shabazz sought an injunction prohibiting acts of intimidation anywhere in the United States, but the charge was narrowed to apply only within the City of Philadelphia.
The Justice Department then sought and obtained a default judgment against King Samir Shabazz. The injunction would prohibit Shabazz from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philadelphia polling place for the next three years
Testimony of Thomas Perez
In his testimony before the Civil Rights Commission, Thomas Perez gave the following justifications for the Department of Justice's decision to narrow the case.
The party and its chairman
The New Black Panther Party stated that they would deploy 300 poll watchers across the United States.
If
the NBPP had conspired to intimidate voters nationwide, the Justice department would have heard of other incidents. However no other incidents involving the New Black Panther Party were reported
.
NBPP and Mr. Zulu Shabazz disavowed what happened in Philadelphia and suspended the city's chapter after the incident
Jerry Jackson
The charges against Mr. Jackson were dropped because the police officer who responded to the incident ordered Mr. Samir Shabazz to leave but allowed Mr. Jackson to stay.
The officer interviewed Samir Shabazz, Jerry Jackson and a number of other people at the scene. The officer concluded that Jerry Jackson was indeed a certified poll watcher and decided that he was entitled to remain. The local authorities took no further action against Mr. Jackson as they concluded that his activities did not rise to the level of intimidation.
Samir Shabazz
The injunction against Mr. Samir Shabazz needed to be narrowly tailored to address the underlying offense.
Since the incident took place in the City of Philadelphia, the injunction was only applied to the City of Philadelphia. |
|
|
|
Sun May 13, 2012 9:18 am |
|
|
untanglingwebs
El Supremo
|
As of July 2010, the Black Panther case has been receiving more coverage from conservative media outlets than liberal ones.[48] Newsweek has claimed that this is because the case is not actually newsworthy, and the conservative media is only attempting to stage "an effective piece of political theater that hurts the Obama administration."
Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that lists the NBPP as a hate group, has described the conservative media's handling of the case as amounting to a "tempest in a teacup".Republican Linda Chavez described the video as damming but relatively minor. She also stated that because the story has pictures, it was the kind of story that you can run over and over again.
The Washington Times, which has covered the case in detail, has accused the media of failing to cover the story because liberal sources are reluctant to criticize the Obama administration.[51] According to a July 2010 article by the Washington Post Ombudsman, the Post received numerous complaints from readers about their lack of coverage of the story, and agreed that the case deserved more coverage than it received and would be given more of it in the future. The Post also stated that the delay in coverage was "a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat."
Megyn Kelly's interview of J. Christian Adams on Fox News has been particularly controversial, receiving both praise for raising important questions and criticism for promoting a "dubious story" in a perceived attempt to hurt the Obama administration. New Black Panther Party chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz has accused Fox News of contributing to racial tensions as part of "a right-wing Republican conspiracy", and other members of the party have made similar accusations, referring to the station as "Fox Jews".
|
|
|
|
Sun May 13, 2012 9:24 am |
|
|
twotap
F L I N T O I D
|
Not newsworthy, black panthers not a hate group,washington post to busy to cover, relatively minor, RIGHT typical lib smoke and mirrors thanks for contributing. Not like asking for an ID to vote now thats a hate crime. LOL
Heres a bit of good news though---B A C K L A S H: POLL: ROMNEY 50% OBAMA 42%... |
_________________
"If you like your current healthcare you can keep it, Period"!!
Barack Hussein Obama--- multiple times. |
|
|
Mon May 14, 2012 7:42 am |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
