Hillarysworld

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info
TOPIC: Panther Politicization at Obama DoJ (7-31-09 The Foundry)


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 135
Date:
Panther Politicization at Obama DoJ (7-31-09 The Foundry)
Permalink  
 


Panther Politicization at Obama DoJ
by Hans Von Spakovsky

Quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Times has published more follow-up stories today and yesterday about the Justice Department’s dismissal of a voter intimidation lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party (a racist hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center) – despite the fact that the defendants defaulted and failed to answer the complaint. The new revelation is that Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli approved the dismissal. He is the No. 3 official at Justice and is a political appointee who raised $500,000 for President Obama’s campaign.

There is no doubt that this was one of the worst cases of voter intimidation the Department has seen in decades, but it was against militant black defendants, not white defendants. This is exactly the kind of situation that upsets the traditional civil rights community, which does not believe that federal voting rights laws should be used to protect white voters. The Department’s weak and belated explanation for the dismissal of this suit is frankly absurd.
The Department’s spokeswoman says that “the facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims.” Really? Then why is the Department refusing to allow the trial team who actually investigated the “facts and the law” or the chief of the Voting Section who supervised the investigation to brief members of Congress? We all know why – because those lawyers would dispute the spurious claim being made by their political superiors.

Justice even sent a letter to Cong. Lamar Smith claiming that one of the defendants was dismissed because he was a resident of the building in which the polling place was located, a “fact” that is completely false. The Department’s own pleadings publicly filed in court in Philadelphia, as well as a poll watcher certificate issued to the defendant by the Democratic Party, show that that this defendant did not live at the polling place (a senior living center). This basic factual error shows just how unimportant the real facts were to those dismissing the case. And that defendant, whose MySpace page lists one of his general interests as “Killing Crakkkas,” was dismissed just in time to be reappointed as a poll watcher for the May 19 primary in Philadelphia!

To try to bolster this political decision, the acting head of the Civil Rights Division even ordered the Appellate Section in the Division to review the Voting Section’s work, something totally unprecedented. She must have been sorely disappointed when, in direct conflict to what the Department is now claiming, the Appellate Section provided an opinion that the case was completely justified. The acting head, by the way, although a career lawyer, is in a political position under the Vacancy Reform Act and was appointed by President Obama. I worked with her for four years when I was in the Civil Rights Division. She talked about resigning when I was there to run as a Democratic candidate in Maryland and is as political as any political appointee at Justice.

The message from the Justice Department with this dismissal is that if you are a member of a black hate group, you can intimidate, threaten, and hurl racial epithets at white voters and poll watchers and the Justice Department will give you a pass. We all know that if it had been the Ku Klux Klan or the Aryan Brotherhood at the polls in Philadelphia acting in this manner towards black voters, Associate Attorney General Perelli and Attorney General Holder would never have even considered dismissing the case. They would be bragging in the press about their pursuit of a civil injunction against all of these defendants, and would be pressing the Criminal Division at Justice to indict them on criminal charges.



__________________


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 135
Date:
Permalink  
 

But We Made Him Promise: Absolutely No More Nightsticks at the Polling Place . . . at Least Until 2012
by Andy McCarthy
National Review Online
7-31-09

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alas, the latest from our Holder Watch.

Republicans in the House, in particular Frank Wolf and Lamar Smith, remain up in arms over the Justice Department's inexplicable dismissal — after the government had already won the case — of a civil-rights/voter-intimidation complaint against three members of the New Black Panther Party who threatened voters at a Philadephia polling station on election day. Jerry Seper has another report today in the Washington Times. Representative Wolf wants the charges refiled (it's a civil case so there's no constitutional double-jeopardy bar, though I imagine there will be contractual complications — the government is expected to honor its agreements, even if it has made a moronic settlement against the public interest).

Republicans meanwhile are pressing for details about internal DOJ deliberations on the case, particularly the role played by Obama political appointees in the dismissal. Holder, Mr. Transparency, is naturally stonewalling. Obviously, the enforcement of the civil rights laws is not as important as the discretionary firing of U.S. attorneys (regarding which congressional Democrats demanded, and got, reams of DOJ documents and testimony). Nor is transparent law-enforcement as critical as the top-secret prisoner photos that Holder wanted disclosed to the world despite warnings from military and intel officials that disclosure would endanger our troops.

Seper recaps the sordid facts:

Two NBPP members, wearing black berets, black combat boots, black dress shirts and black jackets with military-style markings, were charged with intimidating voters, including brandishing a nightstick and issuing racial threats and racial insults. A third was accused of managing, directing and endorsing their behavior. The incident was captured on videotape.... Witnesses said [Minister King] Samir Shabazz, armed with the nightstick, and [Jerry] Jackson used racial slurs and made threats as they stood at the door of the polling place.

I'm sure you'll be stunned to learn that the sweetheart settlement Holder's Department gave these defendants does not require them to refrain from election activities. So of course Jackson, the alleged menacing racist who is also — surprise! — a Democratic party operative, is right back in business again:

Mr. Jackson was an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was credentialed to be at the polling place Nov. 4 as an official Democratic Party polling watcher, according to the Philadelphia city commissioner's office. A check of his MySpace Web page shows similar taunts. It also shows him in numerous poses with a variety of weapons. Records show Mr. Jackson obtained new credentials as a poll watcher "at any ward/division in Philadelphia" just days after the charges against him were dismissed.

(Emphasis added.) But Holder wants you to know his DOJ means business. The settlement includes an injunction against the nightstick-wielding Samir Shabazz: He is prohibited him from displaying a weapon at a polling place . . . until 2012. And the Department bravely warns that it "will fully enforce the terms of that injunction."

I must say this is a new one on me. Is Holder saying that if Samir Shabazz wants to swing his nightstick at, say, the 2014 mid-terms, that's cool? When I was a federal prosecutor, DOJ sort of assumed that people were already forbidden from doing things that were illegal — we didn't tell bank robbers (after they were actually prosecuted rather than having charges dismissed), "And hey, no more robbing banks for the next three years, 'kay?" That was understood — for three years and forever. 

But I suppose the Shabazz nightstick injunction is better than what happened with Binyam Mohammed, the terrorist the Obama administration released outright to Britain. There was no waiting-period in that no-prosecution deal: Binyam gets to plan blowing up infidels again straightaway.



-- Edited by buffaloboy on Friday 31st of July 2009 01:40:42 PM

__________________


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 135
Date:
Permalink  
 

Lawmakers seek refiling in Panther case
By Jerry Seper
Washington Times
7-31-09

Quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congressional Republicans on Thursday escalated their criticism of the Justice Department for dismissing a controversial voter-intimidation case, demanding that civil charges against the New Black Panther Party be restored. They also renewed their request to interview career attorneys who disagreed with the administration's decision to dismiss the charges.

Rep. Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, a senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, obtained an opinion Thursday from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) affirming that charges could legally be refiled without violating the double-jeopardy clause of the U.S. Constitution and said he thought Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was obligated to refile the case.

"In all fairness, he has a duty to protect those seeking to vote and I remain deeply troubled by this questionable dismissal of an important voter-intimidation case in Philadelphia," Mr. Wolf told The Washington Times.

The Times on Thursday reported that Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the department's No. 3 political appointee, approved the decision to drop the case against the NBPP and its members even after the government had won judgments against them for their actions in November at a Philadelphia polling location.

Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the department has an "ongoing obligation" to be sure that claims it makes are supported by the facts and the law and a review of the NBPP complaint by "the top career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division" found that they did not.

She said Justice did obtain an injunction against the defendant who brandished a weapon at the polling place from doing so again and "will fully enforce the terms of that injunction."

Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, also Thursday renewed his request that Mr. Holder make available the head of the department's Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division for a closed-door briefing on its decision to seek the complaint's dismissal.

Mr. Smith, unsuccessful since May in getting answers to questions on whether political appointees were involved in the complaint's dismissal, wants to know why the department has refused to respond to congressional inquiries requesting specific information on the investigation.

"Time and again, I have sought information from the Justice Department regarding the sudden dismissal of a case against members of the New Black Panther Party," Mr. Smith said. "Time and again, the Justice Department has claimed there was no wrongful political interference in the dismissal of the case.

"Now, according to news reports, it appears the Justice Department's political appointees did in fact play a role in the dismissal of this case," he said.

In January, Justice filed a civil complaint in federal court in Philadelphia against the NBPP and three of its members. Two NBPP members, wearing black berets, black combat boots, black dress shirts and black jackets with military-style markings, were charged with intimidating voters, including brandishing a nightstick and issuing racial threats and racial insults. A third was accused of managing, directing and endorsing their behavior. The incident was captured on videotape.

A Justice memo shows that the front-line lawyers who brought the case decided as early as Dec. 22 to seek a complaint against the NBPP; its chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, a lawyer and D.C. resident; Minister King Samir Shabazz, a resident of Philadelphia and head of the Philadelphia NBPP chapter who was accused of wielding the nightstick; and Jerry Jackson, a resident of Philadelphia and a NBPP member.

Witnesses said Mr. Samir Shabazz, armed with the nightstick, and Mr. Jackson used racial slurs and made threats as they stood at the door of the polling place. The department's injunction against Mr. Samir Shabazz prohibits him from displaying a weapon at a polling place until 2012.

Mr. Jackson was an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and was credentialed to be at the polling place Nov. 4 as an official Democratic Party polling watcher, according to the Philadelphia city commissioner's office. A check of his MySpace Web page shows similar taunts. It also shows him in numerous poses with a variety of weapons.

Records show Mr. Jackson obtained new credentials as a poll watcher "at any ward/division in Philadelphia" just days after the charges against him were dismissed.

None of the NBPP members responded to the charges or made any appearance in court.

Four months after the complaint was filed, at a time career lawyers who brought the charges were in the final stages of seeking actual sanctions, they were told by their superiors to seek a delay after a meeting between political appointees and career supervisors, according to federal records and interviews.

The delay was ordered by Loretta King, who was acting assistant attorney general, after she discussed concerns about the case with Mr. Perrelli. Ms. King, a career senior executive service official, had been named by President Obama in January to temporarily fill the vacant political position of assistant attorney general for civil rights while a permanent choice could be made.

She and other career supervisors ultimately recommended dropping the case against two of the men and the party and seeking a restraining order against the one man who wielded the nightstick. Mr. Perrelli approved that plan, officials said.

None of the front-line lawyers has been made available for comment, and the department has yet to provide any records sought by The Times under a Freedom of Information Act request filed in May seeking documents detailing the decision process.

In an opinion sought by Mr. Wolf, the CRS said it "appears likely that the Double Jeopardy Clause would not prohibit the Justice Department from bringing a similar suit on the same or similar grounds against at least the Party and the individual members for whom the previous suit was dismissed."

Mr. Smith said if Mr. Perrelli knew about discussions to dismiss the complaint, the Justice Department's responses to Congress "make no mention of his involvement. Instead, he said, the department offered "vague justifications" for the dismissal, none of which included a legitimate explanation.

Ms. King and Steve Rosenbaum, chief of the department's special litigation section, were scheduled to brief Mr. Smith and committee Chairman John Conyers Jr., Michigan Democrat, on Thursday, but conflicting schedules have forced that meeting into next month.



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard