Obama, Holder and the D O J at work ( 2 examples) [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Obama, Holder and the D O J at work ( 2 examples)


ronduke
07-30-2009, 04:54
Revenge of the ‘Shoe Bomber’
The terrorist sues to resume his jihad from prison. The Obama administration caves in. By DEBRA BURLINGAME
Last May at the National Archives, President Barack Obama warned that “more mistakes would occur” if Congress continued to politicize terrorist detention policy and the closure of Guantanamo Bay. “[I]f we refuse to deal with those issues today,” he predicted, “then I guarantee you, they will be an albatross around our efforts to combat terrorism in the future.”

On June 17, at the Administrative Maximum (ADX) penitentiary in Florence, Colo., one of those albatrosses, inmate number 24079-038, began his day with a whole new range of possibilities. Eight days earlier, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Denver filed notice in federal court that the Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) which applied to that prisoner—Richard C. Reid, a.k.a. the “Shoe Bomber”—were being allowed to expire. SAMs are security directives, renewable yearly, issued by the attorney general when “there is a substantial risk that a prisoner’s communications, correspondence or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury” to others.

Reid was arrested in 2001 for attempting to blow up American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami with 197 passengers and crew on board. Why had Attorney General Eric Holder decided not to renew his security measures, kept in place since 2002?

According to court documents filed in a 2007 civil lawsuit against the government, Reid claimed that SAMs violated his First Amendment right of free speech and free exercise of religion. In a hand-written complaint, he asserted that he was being illegally prevented from performing daily “group prayers in a manner prescribed by my religion.” Yet the list of Reid’s potential fellow congregants at ADX Florence reads like a Who’s Who of al Qaeda’s most dangerous members: Ramzi Yousef and his three co-conspirators in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing; 9/11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui; “Millennium bomber” Ahmed Ressam; “Dirty bomber” Jose Padilla; Wadih el-Hage, Osama Bin Laden’s personal secretary, convicted in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombing that killed 247 people.

In December 2008, the Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss Reid’s lawsuit. It cited the example of ADX inmate Ahmed Ajaj as an illustration of “the dangers inherent in permitting a group of inmates, of like mind in their opposition to the United States, to congregate for a prayer service conducted in a language not understood by most correctional officers.”

While imprisoned for passport fraud in 1992, Ajaj assisted in the plans to destroy the World Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993, making phone calls to Ramzi Yousef and speaking in code to elude law enforcement monitoring. Ajaj tried to get his “training kit” to Yousef, which included videotapes and notes he had taken on bomb-making while attending a terrorist camp on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border.

Reid’s own SAMs on correspondence had been tightened in 2006 after the shocking discovery that three of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers at ADX, not subject to security directives, had sent 90 letters to overseas terrorist networks, including those associated with the Madrid train bombing. The letters, exhorting jihad and praising Osama bin Laden as “my hero of this generation,” were printed in Arabic newspapers and brandished like trophies to recruit new members.

When setting restrictions on inmate religious practice, the Bureau of Prisons need only meet a reasonableness standard, a very low bar in the case of Muslim terrorists. Justice would easily have prevailed against Reid’s lawsuit; nevertheless it dropped the security measures on Reid after he missed 58 meals in a hunger strike that required medical intervention and forced feeding in April.

On July 6, Justice Department lawyers informed the court that Reid will be given a “new placement” in a “post-SAMs setting.” Whether that entails stepped down security in a different unit or transfer to a less secure facility, the Bureau of Prisons won’t say, and Justice refuses to comment.

Mr. Obama likes to observe that “no one has escaped from supermax,” but if Reid is moved from ADX Florence, he will be the first convicted terrorist to use the First Amendment to sue his way out.

What drove the Obama administration’s decision to cave in to Reid’s demands? The president after all has repeatedly pitched supermax and the federal prison system as a secure alternative to Guantanamo, citing the fact that it handles “all manner of violent and dangerous criminals.” Yet the last thing he needs, as his administration engages in its hasty effort to shut Gitmo down by a fast-approaching deadline, is for lawyers and human-rights activists to use a hunger-striking, near-death prisoner to launch a propaganda campaign fashioned right out of the Gitmo detainees’ playbook. Lawyers who shamelessly compared Gitmo to Nazi concentration camps would think nothing of casting supermax as the next “symbol of America’s shame” and a “rallying cry for our enemies.”

From the outset of his administration, Mr. Obama has been trying to thread the needle between national security policy and his ideological affinity with civil liberties lawyers and human-rights activists, meeting with and consulting them prior to making detainee-related decisions. Though his executive order shutting Guantanamo closely followed the blueprint provided by Human Rights First, leaders of key organizations were stunned when he revealed in an awkward, off-the-record meeting the day before his public announcement at the National Archives that he planned to continue President George W. Bush’s policy of preventive detention.


Michael Ratner, whose human rights organization, the Center for Constitutional Rights, filed the first successful detainee lawsuit in 2002, called Mr. Obama’s proposed U.S. detention scheme a “road to perdition” and nothing more than a plan to “repackage Guantanamo.” Leaders of the so-called Gitmo bar appear poised to launch a flurry of legal challenges the moment the last departing detainee’s feet touch U.S. soil.

In January, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Colorado issued a statement saying that conditions at supermax are “simply another form of torture” worse than Gitmo which “make a mockery of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’” Last month, the ACLU filed a civil lawsuit mirroring Reid’s religious rights claim on behalf of two terrorism inmates held at the Communications Management Unit inside a medium security prison in Terre Haute, Ind.

One of those inmates is Enaam Arnaout, a Syrian-born U.S. citizen serving a 10-year sentence for diverting Muslim charity money to militant Islamic groups in Bosnia and Chechnya. The other, Randall Royer, is serving 20 years for his role recruiting young Muslims in the “Virginia Jihad Network,” a group that used paintball games in 2000-2001 to train for holy war.

Mr. Obama has repeatedly suggested that the security challenge of bringing more than 100 trained and dangerous terrorists onto U.S. soil can be solved by simply installing them in an impenetrable fortress. This view is either disingenuous or naïve. The militant Islamists at Guantanamo too dangerous to release believe that their resistance behind the wire is a continuation of holy war. There is every reason to believe they will continue their jihad once they have been transported to U.S. soil where certain federal judges have signaled a willingness to confer upon them even more rights.

The position of civil rights activists with regard to these prisoners is plain. “If they cannot be convicted,” says ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer, “then you release them.”

Meanwhile, in order to appease political constituencies both here and abroad, the Obama administration is moving full steam ahead, operating on the false premise that giving more civil liberties to religious fanatics bent on destroying Western civilization will make a difference in the Muslim world. In a letter sent to his father as he began his hunger strike, Reid provided a preview of how he will exercise his newly enlarged free speech rights, calling Mr. Obama a “hypocrite” who is “no better than George Bush.” His lawsuit remains active while the Department of Justice works out a settlement that satisfies the man who declared, “I am at war with America.”



DOJ Civil Rights: Black Panther Voter Fraud Absolved
Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli is responsible for reversing voter fraud charge against the New Black Panthers, but many had a hand in it after the interested "political" and "racial" factions put their heads together.

After intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling precinct, decked out like a military thugs from a third world country, wielding at least one 2-ft. long nightstick, a civil lawsuit was filed. The three men charged refused to show up for their court cases for five months - that's 5 months - and they did show! The government won a default judgement in federal court against the New Black Panthers and three of their men. In April, however, department lawyers were told to drop the case - after already procuring the default judgment. Unbelievable.

Why would the case be dropped? Wouldn't you know it is always about politics?

Front-line lawyers were in the final stages of completing that work when they were unexpectedly told by their superiors in late April to seek a delay after a meeting between political appointees and career supervisors, according to federal records and interviews.
If that doesn't make your blood boil...this will:

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler told The Washington Times that the department has an "ongoing obligation" to be sure the claims it makes are supported by the facts and the law. She said that after a "thorough review" of the complaint, top career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division determined the "facts and the law did not support pursuing the claims against three of the defendants.
Schmaler is certainly a Liberal. She had the audacity to says "we [DOJ] are committed to vigorous enforcement of the laws protecting anyone exercising his or her right to vote." Only Liberals have that special kind of audacity. What about the people of Philadelphia? What about the people inside and outside the polling place? What about Mr. Bull - a man who signed an affidavit tell what he saw that day?

Schmaler says claims must be supported by facts and the law. How about the default judgment? But beside that, there was witness with a sworn affidavit. He is a "longtime civil rights activist and a former aide to Senator Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Here is a portion of Bartle Bull's affidavit:

In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a polling location.
Can you believe that the DOJ never did get around to entering Mr. Bull's affidavit! I know it is drama to say that I want to cry for this country and for my children, but that is how I feel. This is not justice.

The guilty are Acting-Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, appointed by Barack Obama, who delayed the case. Then King discussed it with Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli. He accepted the counsel of King:

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 a nightstick at the Philadelphia polling place. Mr. Perrelli approved that plan, officials said.
Rep. Frank R. Wolf (F-VA), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee was prevented from interviewing the "front-line" lawyers who brought the charges. That's transparency for you!

Why am I being prevented from meeting with the trial team on this case? Mr. Wolf asked. "There are many questions that need to be answered. This whole thing just stinks to high heaven.

Yes, it stinks to high heaven, as most everything does connected to this administration. No need to worry, however, Wolf can't get anywhere with it, but Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) has some pull and he is meeting with King next week. Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) is also to be allowed in the door. More from Rep. Wolf:

If showing a weapon, making threatening statements and wearing paramilitary uniforms in front of polling station doors does not constitute voter intimidation, at what threshold of activity would these laws be enforceable? Mr. Wolf asked.
Here's a quote from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights:

...in a June 16 letter to Justice that the decision to drop the case caused it "great confusion, since the NBPP members were "caught on video blocking access to the polls, and physically threatening and verbally harassing voters during the Nov. 4, 2008, general election.

Though it had basically won the case, [through default] the [Civil Rights Division] took the unusual move of voluntarily dismissing the charges , the letter said. "The division's public rationale would send the wrong message entirely -- that attempts at voter suppression will be tolerated and will not be vigorously prosecuted so long as the groups or individuals who engage in them fail to respond to the charges leveled against them.

To date, the Washington Times says their request for records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has yielded nothing.

AG Thomas Perrelli, whose word was the final decision, raised more than $500,000.00 for Obama for the presidential election.

I cannot begin to express my high-volume anger right now.

The New Black Panthers are identified as the party's chairman, Malik Zulu Shabazz, an attorney and a D.C. resident. The nightstick bully is alleged to be Minister King Samir Shabazz, of Philadelphia and head of the Philadelphia NBPP chapter; and Jerry Jackson, Philadelphia. The people of Philadelphia were subject to a thug from Washington, D.C.! The suit against these men alleged:

The civil suit filed Jan. 7 identified the three men as members of the Panthers and said they wore military-style uniforms, black berets, combat boots, battle-dress pants, black jackets with military-style insignias and were armed with "a dangerous weapon"and used racial slurs and insults to scare would-be voters and those there to assist them at the Philadelphia polling location on Nov. 4.


The complaint said the three men engaged in "coercion, threats and intimidation, ... racial threats and insults, ... menacing and intimidating gestures, ... and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote." It said that unless prohibited by court sanctions, they would "continued to violate ... the Voting Rights Act by continuing to direct intimidation, threats and coercion at voters and potential voters, by again deploying uniformed and armed members at the entrance to polling locations in future elections, both in Philadelphia and throughout the country."

In case you are not white with anger...yet, one more reminder: these men never did respond to the charges or appear in court. Could you get away with this? I could not.

The New Black Panthers in Philadelphia want us to know how responsible and credible they are. They've "suspended" their chapter in that city "until further notice." No elections to abuse coming up any time soon. Time to hit the streets and abuse someone there, or meet-up with ACORN for a little fun at the expense of voters everywhere. And what about Malik zulu Shabazz, who called Michelle Malkin a "political prostitute" - all cozy back home in Washington, D.C. where voters need no abuse to do the bidding of the New Black Panthers.
http://maggiesnotebook.blogspot.com/2009/07/doj-civil-rights-division-black-panther.html

Morris
07-30-2009, 06:09
I'm telling you. The current DOJ hates cops and has no respect for law enforcement, security or other related issues.

Just my opinion, of course.

KING-PIN
07-30-2009, 23:34
I'm telling you. The current DOJ hates cops and has no respect for law enforcement, security or other related issues.

Just my opinion, of course.

No, no that's pretty much spot on.

:steamed:

lawman800
07-31-2009, 01:53
That's our top law enforcement official Eric Holder for ya. I hope the people wake up and soon for the sake of this country before we become a full-blown 3rd world banana republic under Dopebama.

ronduke
09-18-2009, 14:17
Voter intimidation case still a mystery

A former member of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) says the Obama Justice Department has still yet to adequately explain its decision to dump a highly publicized voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party.

The Washington Times is reporting that the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has launched an investigation into the dismissal of voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party.

In January, the Justice Department filed a complaint accusing two New Black Panthers of engaging in "coercion, threats, and intimidation, racial threats and insults, menacing and intimidating gestures, and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote" at a Philadelphia polling place in November. A third Black Panther was accused of directing the behavior. The Times has reported that the number-three man at Justice, Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, okayed the dismissal of the case.

Hans van Spakovsky, a visiting legal scholar at The Heritage Foundation and a former member of the FEC, says the OPR investigation is a smoke-and-mirrors play by the Justice Department.

"Given the past performance of that office, I don't believe they can be trusted to do a fair and objective investigation," he contends. "Also, they are simply looking at ethics issues. That doesn't answer the kind of questions that, for example, the Civil Rights Commission asked about what the standards are for filing and pursuing voter intimidation cases."

Von Spakovsky says there was no good reason for the Justice Department to tell the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that it would not cooperate and provide any of the documents and testimony the Commission requested.

lawman800
09-18-2009, 19:14
Voter intimidation case still a mystery

A former member of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) says the Obama Justice Department has still yet to adequately explain its decision to dump a highly publicized voter intimidation case involving the New Black Panther Party.

The Washington Times is reporting that the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has launched an investigation into the dismissal of voter intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party.

In January, the Justice Department filed a complaint accusing two New Black Panthers of engaging in "coercion, threats, and intimidation, racial threats and insults, menacing and intimidating gestures, and movements directed at individuals who were present to vote" at a Philadelphia polling place in November. A third Black Panther was accused of directing the behavior. The Times has reported that the number-three man at Justice, Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, okayed the dismissal of the case.

Hans van Spakovsky, a visiting legal scholar at The Heritage Foundation and a former member of the FEC, says the OPR investigation is a smoke-and-mirrors play by the Justice Department.

"Given the past performance of that office, I don't believe they can be trusted to do a fair and objective investigation," he contends. "Also, they are simply looking at ethics issues. That doesn't answer the kind of questions that, for example, the Civil Rights Commission asked about what the standards are for filing and pursuing voter intimidation cases."

Von Spakovsky says there was no good reason for the Justice Department to tell the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that it would not cooperate and provide any of the documents and testimony the Commission requested.

They are too busy going after Joe Wilson for being a racist and encouraging people to start wearing white sheets again rather than going after real incidents of racially motivated violence.

Hack
09-19-2009, 09:11
As usual it's nutty in the world of the feds right now. I am glad we don't have any real high profile cases like the one mentioned at Florence. But, what they didn't say was that the normal security measures for monitoring communications will remain in place as for all inmates. It will be up to the staff to find anything concerning criminal activity. I pray that they are doing their jobs, and I think there are those there concerned enough to keep trying to do what they can within the limits of current law and practice.

Meanwhile, be doing some research on your conservative candidates for offices of Senator and House of Representatives, as that is where the power lies for keeping the chief exec in check.

metal
09-20-2009, 06:42
I was out with a few buds last night. Of course Obama came up.
He's such a great person all my friends talk about him all the time. (especially after a few pops)
BTW he's real popular here on the north side of 8 mile.
Almost everyone I know (with the exception of one particular woman) really, really likes him.:supergrin:
One bud in particular really would like to "reach out and touch him"
I think he's a little nuts (or maybe just really drunk) for wanting to see the commander in chief up close like that but who am I to judge.:whistling:

lawman800
09-20-2009, 14:43
I was out with a few buds last night. Of course Obama came up.
He's such a great person all my friends talk about him all the time. (especially after a few pops)
BTW he's real popular here on the north side of 8 mile.
Almost everyone I know (with the exception of one particular woman) really, really likes him.:supergrin:
One bud in particular really would like to "reach out and touch him"
I think he's a little nuts (or maybe just really drunk) for wanting to see the commander in chief up close like that but who am I to judge.:whistling:

as the USSS descend upon Sterling Heights, Michigan....

metal
09-20-2009, 16:37
as the USSS descend upon Sterling Heights, Michigan....

:laugh: with all the crap we give that guy here I'm surprised they aren't at half of our houses yet:rofl:
Besides my buddy lives in Warren:whistling:

Edit: PS Mr USSS guy the above post was humor...

lawman800
09-20-2009, 18:12
:laugh: with all the crap we give that guy here I'm surprised they aren't at half of our houses yet:rofl:
Besides my buddy lives in Warren:whistling:

Edit: PS Mr USSS guy the above post was humor...

As long as your buddy in Warren doesn't try to NCIC the good president, the USSS might just schedule him for a regular visit instead of an exigent visit.

metal
09-20-2009, 23:00
an exigent visit.
that would be a bad thing huh:supergrin:

A6Gator
09-21-2009, 07:38
That's our top law enforcement official Eric Holder for ya. I hope the people wake up and soon for the sake of this country before we become a full-blown 3rd world banana republic under Dopebama.

Holder was saving all those investigative resources for ACORN...:rofl:

lawman800
09-21-2009, 21:43
Holder was saving all those investigative resources for ACORN...:rofl:

Those RICO investigations sure take a lot of resources when the trail leads back to the Community Organizer In Chief who was their lawyer and who said ACORN's agenda is his own.

ronduke
10-21-2009, 00:13
Justice concludes black voters need Democratic Party


Ben Conery

KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.

The Justice Department's ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters' right to elect the candidates they want.

Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters' election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here.

Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department's decision "racial as well as partisan."

"On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election," he said. "That is un-American."

The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.

In interviews in sleepy downtown Kinston - a place best known as a road sign on the way to the Carolina beaches - residents said partisan voting is largely unimportant because people are personally acquainted with their elected officials and are familiar with their views.

"To begin with, 'nonpartisan elections' is a misconceived and deceiving statement because even though no party affiliation shows up on a ballot form, candidates still adhere to certain ideologies and people understand that, and are going to identify with who they feel has their best interest at heart," said William Cooke, president of the Kinston/Lenoir County branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

Mr. Cooke said his group does not take a position on this issue and would not disclose his personal stance, but expressed skepticism about the Justice Department's involvement.

Others noted the absurdity of partisan elections since Kinston is essentially a one-party city anyway; no one among more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was able to recall a Republican winning office here.

Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on "what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction" and how it affects blacks' ability to elect the candidates they favor.

"The determination of who is a 'candidate of choice' for any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a particular jurisdiction," he said.

Critics on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are not so sure. "The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism," said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. "There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates."

Located about 60 miles from the Atlantic Coast in eastern North Carolina, Kinston has a history of defying governmental authority. During Colonial times, the fledgling city was known as Kingston - named for King George III - but residents dropped the "g" from the city's name after the American Revolution.

In Kinston's heyday of manufacturing and tobacco farming, it was a bustling collection of shops, movie theaters and restaurants. Now, many of those buildings are vacant - a few have been filled by storefront churches - and residents are left hoping for better days.

In November's election - one in which "hope" emerged as a central theme - the city had uncommonly high voter turnout, with more than 11,000 of the city's 15,000 voters casting ballots. Kinston's blacks voted in greater numbers than whites.

Whites typically cast the majority of votes in Kinston's general elections. Kinston residents contributed to Barack Obama's victory as America's first black president and voted by a margin of nearly 2-to-1 to eliminate partisan elections in the city.

The measure appeared to have broad support among both white and black voters, as it won a majority in seven of the city's nine black-majority voting precincts and both of its white-majority precincts.

But before nonpartisan elections could be implemented, the city had to get approval from the Justice Department.

Kinston is one of the areas subject to provisions of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires the city to receive Justice Department approval before making any changes to voting procedures. Kinston is one of 12,000 voting districts in areas of 16 states, almost exclusively in the South, that the Voting Rights Act declared to have had a history of racial discrimination.

In a letter dated Aug. 17, the city received the Justice Department's answer: Elections must remain partisan because the change's "effect will be strictly racial."

"Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office," Loretta King, who at the time was the acting head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, wrote in a letter to the city.

Ms. King wrote that voters in Kinston vote more along racial than party lines and without the potential for voting a straight Democratic ticket, "the limited remaining support from white voters for a black Democratic candidate will diminish even more."

Ms. King is the same official who put a stop to the New Black Panther Party case. In that case, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia after two members of the black revolutionary group dressed in quasi-military garb stood outside a polling place on election last year and purportedly intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick.

After a judge ordered a default judgments against the Panthers, who refused to answer the charges or appear in court, the Justice Department dropped the charges against all but one of the defendants, saying "the facts and the law did not support pursuing" them.

Ms. King's letter in the Kinston case states that because of the low turnout black voters must be "viewed as a minority for analytical purposes," and that "minority turnout is relevant" to determining whether the Justice Department should be allowed a change to election protocol.

Black voters account for 9,702 of the city's 15,402 registered voters but typically don't vote at the rates whites do.

As a result of the low turnout, Ms. King wrote, "black voters have had limited success in electing candidates of choice during recent municipal elections."

"It is the partisan makeup of the general electorate that results in enough white cross-over to allow the black community to elect a candidate of choice," she wrote.

Mrs. Thernstrom of the civil rights commission blasted the department's interpretation of the law.

"The Voting Rights Act is not supposed to be compensating for failure of voters to show up on Election Day," she said. "The Voting Rights Act doesn't guarantee an opportunity to elect a 'candidate of choice.' ... My 'candidate of choice' loses all the time in an election."

When asked whether Justice had ever "either granted or denied" requests either "to stop partisan elections or implement partisan elections," Mr. Miyar, the department spokesman, said it was impossible to retrieve past decisions on that basis.

But he did provide, based on the recollection of a department lawyer, a single precedent - a decision during the Clinton administration denying a bid from a South Carolina school district to drop partisan elections.

That decision employs similar reasoning and language as the Kinston ruling: "Implementation of nonpartisan elections ... appears likely to deprive black supported candidates of meaningful partisan based support and to exacerbate racial polarization between black and white voters."

But the 1994 decision doesn't mention the necessity of the Democratic Party and doesn't mention low turnout among black voters in that school district as a factor affecting their ability to elect candidates they prefer.

Kinston City Council member Joseph Tyson, a Democrat who favors partisan elections, said nothing is stopping black voters in Kinston from going to the polls.

"Unfortunately, I'm very disappointed with the apathy that we have in Kinston among the Afro-American voters," he said.

Mr. Tyson, who is one of two black members of the six-member City Council, said the best way to help black voters in Kinston is to change the council's structure from citywide voting to representation by district. Kinston voters currently cast as many votes in the at-large races as there are council seats up for election - typically three, or two and the mayor.

"Whether it's partisan or nonpartisan is not a big issue to me, whether or not the city is totally represented is what the issue is to me," he said. "If you have wards and districts, then I feel the total city will be represented."

Partisan local elections are a rarity in North Carolina. According to statistics kept by the University of North Carolina School of Government in Chapel Hill, only nine of the state's 551 cities and towns hold partisan elections.

The City Council could take the Justice Department to court to fight decision regarding nonpartisan elections, but such a move seems unlikely. The council voted 4-1 to drop the issue after meeting privately with Justice Department officials in August.

"What do I plan to do? Absolutely, nothing," Mr. Tyson said. "And I will fight, within Robert's Rules of Order, wherever necessary to make sure that decision stands."

The Justice ruling and Kinston's decision not to fight it comes in the wake of a key Voting Rights Act case last year. In that decision, the Supreme Court let a small utility district in Texas seek an exemption from the law's requirements to receive Justice Department approval before making any changes to voting procedures. But the court declined to address whether the law itself is constitutional.

Critics of the law argue it has changed little since its 1965 inception and that the same places the law covered then no longer need Justice Department approval to make changes to voting procedures.

Proponents, including Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., said the law is still necessary to ensure equal voting rights for all Americans.

In Kinston, William Barker is the only City Council member who voted to continue discussing whether to challenge the Justice Department's ruling.

He said he voted against eliminating partisan elections because the proposed new system would declare a winner simply on who received a plurality of votes instead requiring candidates to reach certain threshold of votes based on turnout.

"Based on the fact that the voters voted overwhelmingly for it, I would like to see us challenge it based on that fact. My fight is solely based on fighting what the voters voted on," he said. "It bothers me, even though I'm on the winning side now, that you have a small group, an outside group coming in and saying, 'Your vote doesn't matter.' "
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/justice-dept-blocks-ncs-nonpartisan-vote/?source=newsletter_must-read-stories-today_photo_feature

lawman800
10-21-2009, 08:09
I couldn't read more than halfway due to the gagging and the reflexive instinct to throw my laptop off a cliff.

Is this what our country has come to after 200+ years of freedom? Loretta King saying that Blacks have to vote Democrat or else they are deprived?

Do they realize they are just saying Blacks have no free will and only know the party vote? It's them, the DOJ, who are the ones who are racist here. Low voter turnout is a voluntary action of the voter, not party affiliation.

Ack... forget it, I don't want to be banned or put on a DOJ watchlist. Those bastages....

Hack
10-21-2009, 08:14
I couldn't read more than halfway due to the gagging and the reflexive instinct to throw my laptop off a cliff.

Is this what our country has come to after 200+ years of freedom? Loretta King saying that Blacks have to vote Democrat or else they are deprived?

Do they realize they are just saying Blacks have no free will and only know the party vote? It's them, the DOJ, who are the ones who are racist here. Low voter turnout is a voluntary action of the voter, not party affiliation.

Ack... forget it, I don't want to be banned or put on a DOJ watchlist. Those bastages....

Loretta King has fallen far from what her father represented, IMO.

lawman800
10-22-2009, 22:07
Loretta King has fallen far from what her father represented, IMO.

IMHO, nobody in his family carried on his legacy and did honor to his name. They were too busy fighting over his estate and what money they can get out of the King legacy.

ronduke
11-13-2009, 18:54
Next week, Attorney General Eric Holder will speak at a banquet featuring the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism financing case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.

50 Cent
11-14-2009, 10:11
What I'd Like to know is how come the DOJ investigation into Gov Bill Richards (Gov D-NM) being on the take/influence peddling locally in NM suddenly vanished? Some higher up just canned that investigation.

If Holder ordered that investigation to cease (either alone or from orders on high) thats pretty explosive. Makes the Black Panther circus look minor league.

use2b6L32
11-15-2009, 12:52
Most ethical administration EVAH!

lawman800
11-17-2009, 00:25
Next week, Attorney General Eric Holder will speak at a banquet featuring the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism financing case against the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.

Just because CAIR is a subsidiary of the Muslim Brotherhood which is bent on world domination is no cause for us to worry that our president and top LE official is buddy buddy with them!

ronduke
12-21-2009, 03:18
Civil Rights Panel Subpoenas Justice Department in New Black Panthers Case
By Stephen Clark
- FOXNews.com

The United States Civil Rights Commission, an eight-member agency that investigates accusations of discrimination, has launched its latest offensive against a most unusual target: the Justice Department.


The United States Civil Rights Commission, an eight-member agency that investigates accusations of discrimination, has launched a new offensive against a most unusual target: the Justice Department.

The commission is investigating why the Justice Department dropped charges in May against three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense in a voter intimidation case that the government won.

The Justice Department has defended its actions, saying it obtained an injunction against one member while dismissing charges against the others "based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law."

But that explanation hasn't satisfied the commission or Republican lawmakers, who say the dismissal could lead to an escalation of voter intimidation.

Three members of the radical group were accused of trying to threaten voters and block poll and campaign workers by the threat of force in November 2008 -- one even brandishing what prosecutors call a deadly weapon.

The three black panthers, Minister King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint in the final days of the Bush administration with violating the voter rights act by using coercion, threats and intimidation. Shabazz allegedly held a nightstick or baton that prosecutors said he pointed at people and menacingly tapped it. Prosecutors also say he "supports racially motivated violence against non-blacks and Jews."

The Obama administration won the case in April but moved to dismiss the charges in May without explanation.

After Republican lawmakers pushed in the summer for an internal investigation, the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility obliged, starting a probe that the department has said should conclude before it cooperates with the commission's investigation.

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., announced Thursday that he had inserted language into the annual Justice funding bill that requires the OPR to provide results of its investigation -- a resolution that has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee and must be voted on within 14 legislative days.

"I regret that Congress must resort to oversight resolutions as a means to receive information about the dismissal of this case, but the Congress and the American people have a right to know why this case was not prosecuted," Wolf said in a written statement.

"Time and again over the last year, the department has stonewalled any effort to learn about the decision to dismiss the case," he continued. "I have written Attorney General (Eric) Holder on six occasions asking for an explanation for the dismissal of this case. To date, I have received no response from him."

The commission feels it is being stonewalled, too, and has filed subpoenas with the department for the information as well as to interview career attorneys that handled the case.

"They've never given a satisfactory answer," said Todd Gaziano, a member of the commission and director of the conservative Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies. "There is a heavy burden on the Justice Department to explain why those facts in the complaint do not constitute voter intimidation."

When asked about the commission's repeated requests for information, Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said, "We're reviewing the commission's request."

She told FoxNews.com that the civil division at the department reviews "these types of requests in accordance with longstanding guidelines governing the disclosure of internal department information."

The commission is likely to hold a public hearing on the case early next year and could have a report out by September, Gaziano said.

The commissions sent two inquiries into the Justice Department's dismissal of the case in June and received what it called a "largely non-responsive letter" from the Justice Department in July and none of the documents requested. The commission sent another inquiry in August and September when it said it received notification from the Justice Department that it would not provide any information until its internal investigation was complete.

That prompted the commission to issue subpoenas and send its latest missive this month, a response to a Justice Department letter in November that that the commission said challenged its authority to subpoena the department or its employees.

"While your letter refers to an ongoing 'dialogue' between the Department and the Commission, it is the dearth of cooperation on the part of the Department that has resulted in the Commission's need to issue subpoenas," David Blackwood, general counsel for the commission, wrote.

"We are both mindful of the sensitivity of the subject matter involved and aware that, in response to similar requests, the department has raised various concerns and matters of privilege," Blackwood wrote. "While such considerations carry weight, cooperation with commission investigations is a mandatory statutory obligation."

"Moreoever, due to the unique investigative role of the commission -- akin to that of a congressional committee - -disclosure to the commission of the information sought it is both proper and required,' he added.

Wolf said in his written statement that the attorney general has instructed his department to ignore the subpoenas.

"The nation's chief law enforcement officer is forcing these career attorneys to choose between complying with the law and complying with the attorney general's obstruction," he said, adding that one of the attorneys has been compelled to obtain private counsel.

"The House must not turn a blind eye to the attorney general's obstruction," he said. "He has an obligation to answer the legitimate questions of the House and the Civil Rights Commission."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/20/civil-rights-panel-subpoenas-justice-department-new-black-panthers-case/

lawman800
12-21-2009, 03:23
Bets on how fast Dopebama will disband the commission?:whistling:

pgg00
12-21-2009, 03:26
the plot thickens

Hack
12-21-2009, 04:26
This ought to get interesting. I am glad I am not in that part of the department.

ronduke
01-14-2010, 03:03
New Black Panther Party Case: Justice Department Stonewall
Jennifer Rubin - 01.12.2010 - 11:39 AM
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights last month propounded interrogatories and document requests to the Justice Department seeking answers as to why the New Black Panther Party case of voter intimidation was dismissed, who was involved, what outside groups participated in the decision, and what this portends for the enforcement of federal civil rights laws. The Justice Department has responded, I have learned.

In a letter to the commission’s chairman, Joseph Hunt, director of the Federal Programs Branch, contends that the department is limited in what it can provide out of concern for its “deliberative processes” and so as not to “undermine its mission.” He doesn’t invoke “executive privilege” per se, but he does assert attorney-client privilege (which some legal gurus tell me doesn’t really “work” between government entities and agencies as a valid objection).

Although the answers largely consist of boilerplate objections, the department does argue that “career attorneys” with more than 60 years of experience made the call to dump the case and that an injunction was obtained against one individual defendant who actually brandished a weapon. Despite the work of the trial team (which sources inform me had ample factual and legal grounds for bringing the case against additional defendants), the Justice Department now says that unnamed career attorneys determined that it should drop the case against those additional defendants. And, of course, the response says politics played no role in the decision. Asked whether the No. 3 man in the Justice Department, Thomas Perrelli, was involved in the decision, as the Washington Times reported, the Justice Department provided no answer, only series of objections. Likewise, the most transparent administration in history — or so we are told — declines to provide the names of those career attorneys who were the decision makers. And at least for now, the Justice Department is not coughing up the names of civil rights groups that may have encouraged them to drop the case against the additional defendants.

In short, the commission is being stiffed. The Obama administration isn’t explaining anything to anyone, but the commission, not to be deterred, is nevertheless plunging forward. A public hearing at which witnesses are to be called has now been noticed for February 12. At the commission’s next meeting, this Friday, witnesses may be selected. Meanwhile, tomorrow the House Judiciary Committee will take up Rep. Frank Wolf’s Resolution No. 894, seeking to direct ”the Attorney General to transmit to the House of Representatives all information in the Attorney General’s possession relating to the decision to dismiss United States v. New Black Panther Party.” Well, that’s going nowhere, but it will be interesting to hear liberals – who fancy themselves defenders of civil rights – explain why they don’t want to find out what the Justice Department was up to when it declined to prosecute all the defendants who participated in an egregious case of voter intimidation.

For now the Obama team continues its favorite modus operandi — not telling anyone anything about what it does. After all, they won the election, right? And this is what “de-politicizing” the administration of justice looks like. Who knew

lawman800
01-14-2010, 08:13
+1 to Ms. Jennifer Rubin... whom I suspect will be audited for the last 7 years by the IRS within the next few weeks.

Morris
01-14-2010, 17:54
Wouldn't be the first time Democrats in power have used the IRS as their bully boys . . .

lawman800
01-14-2010, 22:48
Of course not, stick the IRS on other people so they don't have time to chase all the Dems for not paying their own taxes.

NEOH212
01-15-2010, 03:35
I'm telling you. The current DOJ hates cops and has no respect for law enforcement, security or other related issues.

Just my opinion, of course.

I agree. Just look at the kind of crap that comes from them. Things here in 2010 in the USA almost seem like early twentieth century Russian history happening all over again. What a shame. Lenin hated Law enforcement and so does this administration. The thing that both have in common is Communism. :steamed:

lawman800
01-15-2010, 08:43
I agree. Just look at the kind of crap that comes from them. Things here in 2010 in the USA almost seem like early twentieth century Russian history happening all over again. What a shame. Lenin hated Law enforcement and so does this administration. The thing that both have in common is Communism. :steamed:

Of course the Socialists and Communists hate real law enforcement. We are everything that is anathema to their core beliefs. We stand for:

Justice
Integrity
Responsibility
Pride
Honor
Trust

Or... simply put... everything they cannot stand and they do not possess in themselves. Our existence shines a light upon the empty void in their souls and reminds them of how ugly they are.

Want proof? Just look at the apparatus they set up once they're in power that's supposed to be their version of law enforcement, i.e. the secret police and the assassination squads. They call their KGB or SS or Obama Youth Service Corps their police, but look at their function versus real law enforcement.

A6Gator
01-15-2010, 09:11
Of course not, stick the IRS on other people so they don't have time to chase all the Dems for not paying their own taxes.

You mean like Geithner, Rangel, Daschle and the 50 White House staffers who owe a measly $800G? Naw, they're too busy going through the returns of the guy who made the Black Panther voter intimidation video...

lawman800
01-15-2010, 23:16
You mean like Geithner, Rangel, Daschle and the 50 White House staffers who owe a measly $800G? Naw, they're too busy going through the returns of the guy who made the Black Panther voter intimidation video...

What are you talking about? That guy disappeared under mysterious circumstances. I mean, has anyone heard from him since? Has he given any interviews? Sorta coincidental, don'tcha think?:upeyes:

The IRS can't audit a guy who doesn't exist... I mean, NEVER existed... there are no records that this guy ever existed. Birth records, property records, tax records, work records, school records... nothing.

(Hmmm... sounds like our president... but unfortunately for us, Dopebama reminds us daily about his existence with his inane communist laws)

janice6
01-15-2010, 23:28
I'm telling you. The current DOJ hates cops and has no respect for law enforcement, security or other related issues.

Just my opinion, of course.

ADD: The whole administration to that.

Hack
01-16-2010, 08:15
ADD: The whole administration to that.

Well, let's start with a new congress, when elections come up.

lawman800
01-16-2010, 09:10
I wonder if a new Congress can undo some of the damage that this last one wreaked upon us.

ronduke
01-27-2010, 22:47
Justice Dept. ends probe of Rep. Mollohan

By Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 26, 2010; 3:25 PM



The Justice Department has shuttered its nearly four-year investigation into the personal finances of Rep. Alan Mollohan (D-W.Va.), freeing the 14-term lawmaker to pursue what could be a tough bid for reelection without the lingering cloud of a federal criminal probe.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia had been overseeing an investigation of Mollohan, a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, for steering roughly $250 million in line-item expenditures to several nonprofit organizations run by close friends, who also were real estate partners with him.
Mollohan's office was notified this month that the investigation had been closed without criminal charges filed. Federal prosecutors declined to elaborate on what the investigation had found.

"We're not going to get into any details, but I can confirm we've closed the investigation into Alan Mollohan," Ben Friedman, spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office, said Monday evening.

Mollohan, 66, is expected to notify House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), chairman of the Appropriations Committee, of the development in a letter Tuesday. That would clear the way for him to resume full control of a subcommittee that oversees the roughly $28 billion budget for the Justice Department and the nearly $8 billion budget for the FBI.

In a statement, Mollohan said the investigation was sparked by a conservative watchdog group's partisan actions. The probe was launched when he was serving as the top Democrat on the House ethics committee.

"For nearly four years, in the face of a politically-motivated assault on my character, I have continued to fight for jobs and the working families of West Virginia. With this behind me, I am more determined than ever to stand up for the people of the First Congressional District and fight for what matters," Mollohan said.

He recently filed to run for reelection, squelching whispers that he might join several other longtime incumbents who decided to retire rather than face a tough political environment in November.

In recent weeks, the independent political handicappers Cook Political Report and the Rothenberg Political Report have downgraded Mollohan's seat to "lean Democratic" status. The Republican Party did not field a challenger to Mollohan in 2008, but national party leaders have recruited several potential candidates while seeking to maintain a drumbeat of criticism related to the criminal investigation. They pivoted away from the ethics matter Tuesday and sought to focus on the state's economy.

"Alan Mollohan's support for Obama's war on Mountaineer State jobs proves that it doesn't matter whether he's in Congress or behind bars -- he stopped representing West Virginians a long time ago," said Andy Seré, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee.

A federal grand jury issued a flurry of subpoenas to West Virginia-based nonprofits in 2006 and 2007, after a 500-page criminal complaint regarding Mollohan's finances in February 2006.

The complaint came from the National Legal and Policy Center, a conservative group that discovered discrepancies in Mollohan's personal financial disclosure forms. It raised questions about how his personal wealth rose -- according to congressional disclosure reports he filed -- from a minimum of $180,000 in 2000 to a minimum of $6.3 million in 2004.

Mollohan attributed much of that increase to a family inheritance and to the soaring property values of a condominium building he owns in the District's West End. After a self-imposed audit, Mollohan filed amended reports that corrected roughly 20 mistakes in his disclosure forms. He contended they were minimal in nature.

However, federal investigators continued to focus on multimillion-dollar earmarks that Mollohan steered to entities such as Vandalia Heritage Foundation, a historic-preservation group that was run by Laura Kuhns, a former Mollohan staff member.

The lawmaker's family also invested with Kuhns's family in North Carolina beach property, including a lot in Bald Head that went to foreclosure late last year.

Pete Flaherty, who co-founded the NLPC, questioned whether the Justice Department backed off the investigation because Mollohan is a loyal vote for the Obama administration. "Has Attorney General Eric Holder now made it legal for members of Congress to earmark money to their business partners? This is a horrible precedent," Flaherty said.

The Mollohan investigation came at the height of Democratic attacks on what Pelosi, then the minority leader, called the Republican "culture of corruption." Mollohan served as ranking Democrat on the ethics panel when it admonished House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) in 2004 over fundraising activities. Mollohan also fought rules changes that GOP leaders imposed in 2005, leading to a virtual shutdown of the committee's work for several months.

Shortly after the investigation became public, Mollohan stepped down from the ethics committee. When Democrats claimed the majority in January 2007, Mollohan took over as chairman of the Appropriations justice subcommittee, but recused himself from voting on matters specifically related to the FBI and the attorney general's office.

In his statement Tuesday, Mollohan defended helping to fund the nonprofit groups: "These nonprofits are all about building West Virginia's economy and making our state a better place to live. I am very happy that they will be able to put this behind them and refocus on their core missions to create good jobs and improve the lives of West Virginians."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012601156_pf.html

lawman800
01-27-2010, 22:55
Wonder if we can impanel a grand jury to investigate Eric Holder and the DOJ. I know the Constitution allows for citizen grand juries to investigate government misconduct, no?

Newcop761
01-27-2010, 23:13
You and I will probably be among the first sent for "re-education" when the round ups begin.

lawman800
01-27-2010, 23:17
You and I will probably be among the first sent for "re-education" when the round ups begin.

You work for them. You'll just be sent for something one day and never be heard from again. They'll have to come chase me down... I'm local and I got tons of tinfoil for my hats and other buried artifacts. TEEHEE!

Newcop761
01-27-2010, 23:26
My passport did show up rather quickly....

lawman800
01-28-2010, 01:09
My passport did show up rather quickly....

I didn't even apply for a passport but yours showed up anyway in my mailbox.:whistling:

hyperstyx
01-28-2010, 09:43
Anyone have information on Philly PD response to citizen complaints, if any, in the Black Panther incident?

lawman800
01-28-2010, 21:07
Anyone have information on Philly PD response to citizen complaints, if any, in the Black Panther incident?

Word was FBI took it over as a federal investigation since it involved voter intimidation and then swept it all under the rug. It's true! I heard it from a rumor that I just made up on the spot!

The-Fly
01-28-2010, 23:03
I'm telling you. The current DOJ hates cops and has no respect for law enforcement, security or other related issues.

Just my opinion, of course.

You almost had it right.....

"The current DOJ hates anyone who doesn't worship the Obama Fuhrer and has no respect for law enforcement, security or other related issues that doesn't advance the Obama Fuhrer's agenda."

lawman800
01-29-2010, 02:37
You almost had it right.....

"The current DOJ hates anyone who doesn't worship the Obama Fuhrer and has no respect for law enforcement, security or other related issues that doesn't advance the Obama Fuhrer's agenda."

It's Reichsfuhrer Obama. If you're going to evoke his holy reverred name, get it right, or face the wrath of the almighty SS, aka Obama Civilian Defense Corps.

hyperstyx
01-29-2010, 08:05
Word was FBI took it over as a federal investigation since it involved voter intimidation and then swept it all under the rug. It's true! I heard it from a rumor that I just made up on the spot!

I searched for more detail to explain the locals showing up "later" and the "monitors" leaving. Did the locals on-view it, respond to a complainant/victim willing to pursue, write a report? Intent, though obvious to me, might have been difficult to prove. Had the Feds pursued they may have lost appeal.

The questions are important to get a line on what prompted the Feds to drop. Prejudice, racism, some sort of affirmative action, publicity-shy, weak case, what? I do have my own unflattering opinion of Holder and his dwarfs, but I'd prefer to know the reasoning. Clear now?

lawman800
01-29-2010, 23:07
The "intent" is not too hard to prove with the guy pointing a stick at voters while yelling "You crackahs are gonna be ruled by a black man!"

Imagine if the situation was reversed, with a skinhead yelling the reverse, how fast do you think the feds would be all over it?

hyperstyx
01-30-2010, 07:52
I agree with all except proof to the necessary standard, bringing us back to the complainants/victims and the local PD involvement and reports.

The only thing I feel confident of is the drop decision being based on avoidance of publicity. Holder and the homies were in a lose/lose and the can of maggots that should have been opened was not...and the incident went into fade out mode...as anticipated.

lawman800
01-30-2010, 11:10
The convoluted reasoning the DOJ gave for dropping the case was all the proof you need as to why it was done.

They summoned them, the Black Panthers didn't bother to show to court, DOJ said oh well... they didn't show so we can't do anything so we'll drop the case, besides, they already promised us they wouldn't do it again... IN THE PHILADELPHIA area.

So they can do it again anywhere else but Philly and I guess from now on, DOJ will not request the court to issue warrants or enforce the FTA when the court summons you and you don't show up.

Here's a discussion in a blog regarding the allegations of Republicans doing it in 2004 where it was found that following someone to their car and taking down their plate is considered voter intimidation but checking their name against a registry of registered voters is not.

Courts consistently rule that physical violence or threats constitute voter intimidation, but . . . . there is no judicial consensus on which nonviolent acts are legally considered intimidating. State and federal laws that ban intimidation don't offer much guidance on how courts should define it. The Ohio law, for instance, says that "no person shall … attempt by intimidation, coercion, or other unlawful means" to keep someone from voting. The most significant federal law banning intimidation is the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which states in Section 11(b) that "No person … shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce … any person for voting or attempting to vote."

So it seems the key question is if the statement, "You crackahs gonna be ruled by a black man" along with the pointed night stick made to white voters can be reasonably construed to be intimidating, threatening or coercive to a white voter who was walking into the polling place.

Or is it the federal government's position that white voters cannot be intimidated just like how white people cannot be discriminated against or be victims or racism?

ronduke
02-11-2010, 04:50
Caged Panther investigation


THE WASHINGTON TIMES

In their bid to protect President Obama's liberal political appointees at the Justice Department, congressional Democrats are surrendering their responsibility to keep a presidential administration honest.

A Feb. 2 letter from Glenn A. Fine, inspector general for the Justice Department, to Rep. Frank R. Wolf, Virginia Republican, ought to give pause to lawmakers of any party. In effect, the letter says there is no independent authority that can investigate any decision by the department to stonewall congressional inquiries. If the department refuses to answer congressional questions by asserting legal privileges that have never been recognized in U.S. history, the IG is powerless to assess allegations of certain sorts of departmental misconduct.

The letter from Mr. Fine explained why the IG says he is prohibited by law from reviewing whether the Justice Department or the White House allowed or instigated political interference in a decision to drop or reduce voter-intimidation charges against members of the New Black Panther Party. This means nearly a dozen separate requests from Mr. Wolf, Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, and other legislators for Black Panther-related information can be stonewalled by the Justice Department, as can inquiries and even subpoenas from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In short, the department is saying that it can ignore Congress with impunity.

The House Judiciary Committee's Democrats, led by Chairman John Conyers of Michigan, voted on Jan. 13 to roll over like whipped puppies when presented with a resolution demanding answers from the Justice Department. On a 15-14 party-line vote, committee Democrats voted to look the other way rather than hold the department accountable to Congress. Seven other committee Democrats did not even have the courage to vote on the resolution.

In assessing claims of legal privileges from the Justice Department and its White House overseers, Mr. Conyers should heed the wisdom of a contrary authority on the subject: himself.

"The Committee clearly has authority under the Constitution to investigate and expose possible violations of law and abuses of executive power," Mr. Conyers wrote in a 22-page memorandum less than two years ago. "The Committee also needs more complete information on the issue of the politicization of the Department of Justice." Even more to the point, the Detroit congressman wrote: "The proper course is to recognize claims of privilege only when properly asserted in response to specific questions during a particular hearing. The courts have stated that a personal assertion of Executive Privilege by the President is legally required for the privilege claim to be valid."

In the case of the Black Panther investigation, the Justice Department is claiming privileges that are legally far weaker (if existent at all) than executive privilege, without any personal assertion by the president and on behalf of people who are technically career employees without any presidential access. Mr. Conyers' own past reasoning eviscerates these claims of privilege.

On Feb. 3, Mr. Smith wrote to Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli to ask - based on reports in The Washington Times - if he had had any discussions with White House staff in the course of deciding to drop the Black Panther case. This gets at the heart of political interference with the administration of justice that so concerned Mr. Conyers in 2008. The Judiciary chairman needs to remember why accountability matters and back Mr. Smith's right to have answers.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/09/caged-panther-investigation/

lawman800
02-11-2010, 08:44
Glad someone in Washington is covering this. You will never hear this story in any of the MSM Obama Puppet Channels.

Maybe the Panthers sent those guys to each of the Representative's houses to provide "security" for those crackahs. The billy club guy, Shabbazz Shamalamadingdong, seems to be quite persuasive in his arguments on why they are doing the public a service.

lawman800
02-11-2010, 08:44
Then again, maybe the committee should investigate Rep. Conyers.

A6Gator
02-12-2010, 11:07
The letter from Mr. Fine explained why the IG says he is prohibited by law from reviewing whether the Justice Department or the White House allowed or instigated political interference in a decision to drop or reduce voter-intimidation charges against members of the New Black Panther Party. This means nearly a dozen separate requests from Mr. Wolf, Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican, and other legislators for Black Panther-related information can be stonewalled by the Justice Department, as can inquiries and even subpoenas from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In short, the department is saying that it can ignore Congress with impunity.

If the committee chairman says no hearings, then the avenue of subpoenas to testify is pretty much flushed. Apparently at DOJ, the law is actually more of a flexible guideline depending upon who you are...if it had been pro-lifers or Tea Party folks in front of the voting booth, they'd still be braced up.

lawman800
02-14-2010, 09:25
I wonder how Conyers would act when three KKK members stand in front of his house with billy clubs as "security".

A6Gator
02-14-2010, 12:48
What are you talking about? That guy disappeared under mysterious circumstances. I mean, has anyone heard from him since? Has he given any interviews? Sorta coincidental, don'tcha think?:upeyes:

The IRS can't audit a guy who doesn't exist... I mean, NEVER existed... there are no records that this guy ever existed. Birth records, property records, tax records, work records, school records... nothing.

(Hmmm... sounds like our president... but unfortunately for us, Dopebama reminds us daily about his existence with his inane communist laws)

I was thinking about this... you mean, like his Columbia transcripts or like how nobody remembers him being there or no pics in any of the poly sci or school yearbooks? :supergrin:

lawman800
02-14-2010, 13:13
I was thinking about this... you mean, like his Columbia transcripts or like how nobody remembers him being there or no pics in any of the poly sci or school yearbooks? :supergrin:

Did he ever release his transcripts or school papers where he espoused his radical views or medical records or heck... any records?

ronduke
07-01-2010, 19:17
Holding Holder accountable on civil rights case

Attorney General Eric Holder is under fire from a former Justice Department attorney who resigned his position to protest the government's refusal to prosecute the New Black Panther Party intimidation case from the 2008 general election.

They wore paramilitary garb, brandished a nightstick, and yelled racial slurs at would-be voters. On Election Day 2008, as Barack Obama was being elected president, three members of the New Black Panther Party stood outside a polling place near downtown Philadelphia, allegedly attempting to intimidate voters.

In January 2009, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the group, claiming the three men violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Shortly after Obama took office, however, superiors within the DOJ ordered the attorneys involved to dismiss the claims.

J. Christian Adams, one of the Justice Department attorneys who brought the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, says he resigned from that agency last month as a result of that decision. Adams, who now is a conservative blogger and practices law in Virginia, believes the decision was racially motivated.

Rev. Jesse Peterson of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND) offers a similar sentiment on the issue.

"President Obama [and] this administration -- Eric Holder and others -- have clearly demonstrated that they are racist," states Peterson. "And I just think it's time that Americans wake up and start dealing with this, in all honesty."

The Justice Department claims that it did not prosecute case because of lack of evidence. But Adams, discussing the case previously, has told Fox News: "It doesn't get any easier than this. If this doesn't constitute voter intimidation, nothing will."

He also says while with the Department of Justice, he witnessed a "profound hostility" in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division towards race-neutral enforcement of civil rights laws.

lawman800
07-01-2010, 20:33
Holding Holder accountable on civil rights case

Attorney General Eric Holder is under fire from a former Justice Department attorney who resigned his position to protest the government's refusal to prosecute the New Black Panther Party intimidation case from the 2008 general election.

They wore paramilitary garb, brandished a nightstick, and yelled racial slurs at would-be voters. On Election Day 2008, as Barack Obama was being elected president, three members of the New Black Panther Party stood outside a polling place near downtown Philadelphia, allegedly attempting to intimidate voters.

In January 2009, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the group, claiming the three men violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Shortly after Obama took office, however, superiors within the DOJ ordered the attorneys involved to dismiss the claims.

J. Christian Adams, one of the Justice Department attorneys who brought the New Black Panther voter intimidation case, says he resigned from that agency last month as a result of that decision. Adams, who now is a conservative blogger and practices law in Virginia, believes the decision was racially motivated.

Rev. Jesse Peterson of the Brotherhood Organization of a New Destiny (BOND) offers a similar sentiment on the issue.

"President Obama [and] this administration -- Eric Holder and others -- have clearly demonstrated that they are racist," states Peterson. "And I just think it's time that Americans wake up and start dealing with this, in all honesty."

The Justice Department claims that it did not prosecute case because of lack of evidence. But Adams, discussing the case previously, has told Fox News: "It doesn't get any easier than this. If this doesn't constitute voter intimidation, nothing will."

He also says while with the Department of Justice, he witnessed a "profound hostility" in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division towards race-neutral enforcement of civil rights laws.

Well, don't expect much traction on this story in the MSM... I wish this guy the best, he's got more integrity and balls than the whole entire administration at this point.

ronduke
07-12-2010, 23:49
Who Will Investigate the Investigators?
Another voter fraud scandal involving the Justice Department.
By JOHN FUND
J. Christian Adams,, a former career Justice Department lawyer who resigned recently to protest political interference in cases he worked on, made some news yesterday in testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

As expected, he claimed that Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, an Obama appointee, overruled a unanimous recommendation by six career Justice attorneys for continued prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party on charges of voter intimidation in an incident I detailed here yesterday. But Mr. Adams leveled an even more explosive charge beyond the Panther case. He testified that last year Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes made a jaw-dropping announcement to attorneys in Justice's Voting Rights section. She said she would not support any enforcement of a key section of the federal "Motor Voter" law -- Section 8, which requires states to periodically purge their voter rolls of dead people, felons, illegal voters and those who have moved out of state.

According to Mr. Adams, Justice lawyers were told by Ms. Fernandes: "We're not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it."

If true, Ms. Fernandes was endorsing a policy of ignoring federal law and encouraging potential voter fraud. Ms. Fernandes was unavailable for comment yesterday, but the Justice Department has issued a statement accusing Mr. Adams of "distorting facts" in general and having a political agenda.

But there is some evidence backing up Mr. Adams. Last year, Justice abandoned a case it had pursued for three years against Missouri for failing to clean up its rolls. When filed in 2005, one-third of Missouri counties had more registered voters than voting-age residents. What's more, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, a Democrat who this year is her party's candidate for a vacant U.S. Senate seat, contended that her office had no obligation to ensure individual counties were complying with the federal law mandating a cleanup of their voter rolls.

The case made slow but steady progress through the courts for more than three years, amid little or no evidence of progress in cleaning up Missouri's voter rolls. Despite this, Obama Justice saw fit to dismiss the case in March 2009. Curiously, only a month earlier, Ms. Carnahan had announced her Senate candidacy. Missouri has a long and documented history of voter fraud in Democratic-leaning cities such as St. Louis and Kansas City. Ms. Carnahan may now stand to benefit from voter fraud facilitated by the improperly kept voter rolls that she herself allowed to continue.

Mr. Adams' allegations would seem to call for the senior management of Justice to be compelled to testify under oath to U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. But Justice is making none of its officials available and is refusing to enforce subpoenas issued by the commission. The more this story develops, the more it appears Justice is engaged in a massive coverup of its politicization of voting rights cases.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703636404575353052562578046.html

lawman800
07-13-2010, 01:07
Wow... Wall Street Journal is covering this, huh?

When is the Obaminator coming to destroy that old bastion of journalism while shoring up its competitors with the newspaper bailout promised to the lib rags New York Slime and Washington Compost?

25pd
07-14-2010, 19:58
me thinks that at the next election- wherever, maybe someone will stick that billy club where the sun don't shine as an example against voter discrimination. boy, then we will see how quick the doj will be on that citizens a--........

SGT45
07-14-2010, 21:18
All I have to say is "I didn't vote for them" and "I warned you this would happen". I'm done.

lawman800
07-15-2010, 08:06
me thinks that at the next election- wherever, maybe someone will stick that billy club where the sun don't shine as an example against voter discrimination. boy, then we will see how quick the doj will be on that citizens a--........

The KKK and NBPP need to just find an abandoned industrial area and just get it over with. Whoever wins... is still a loser.:whistling:

Oh, Eric Holder can kiss my ass.

ronduke
09-26-2010, 23:24
Who would have thought that the DOJ, under Holder has deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities and for the protection of white voters who have been discriminated against? I guess that is just more of the change that we got.

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/really_bad_week_for_obama_justice_u8qGwnAnpPYYm7sWhkIcoL

Hack
09-27-2010, 01:52
Who would have thought that the DOJ, under Holder has deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities and for the protection of white voters who have been discriminated against? I guess that is just more of the change that we got.

http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/capitol/really_bad_week_for_obama_justice_u8qGwnAnpPYYm7sWhkIcoL

Could it happen? A different boss? Somehow I doubt anything better would come along under the present administration. My own opinion of course.

And, please vote for a conservative US Congress this November.

lawman800
09-27-2010, 08:11
Nope, no different under any man appointed by this Pretender-In-Chief. He will not appoint anyone competent. I think it's not in his best interest to have competent people. Hillary is mounting a serious challenge and has already fired salvos through her people. Wait for a lib on lib bloodbath this November. I love it.

ronduke
12-23-2011, 13:54
The Obama Administration's re-election mobilization continues: Witness Eric Holder's attempt to play the race card and perhaps twist the law in a campaign against voter identification laws.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203893404577100313135266898.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

hyperstyx
12-24-2011, 14:29
More narrative is now available, including some info on local PD action. DOJ stonewalling/lying continues and their MO has expanded to cover other malfeasance.

The 3 year wrist-slap injunction against the club-wielding Shabazz prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philly polling place appears to have expired. Presumably he can now resume his entrance "monitoring" in '12.

lawman800
12-25-2011, 04:22
The Obama Administration's re-election mobilization continues: Witness Eric Holder's attempt to play the race card and perhaps twist the law in a campaign against voter identification laws.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203893404577100313135266898.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

That's nothing new. Everytime there is some hotly contested election where there might be minorities involved, they always try to pull the same card out of the Voter Rights Protection Act which only applies to 10 states and then they make it applicable everywhere else.

Essentially, you are giving away extra votes to people who otherwise shouldn't be voting or having the disproportionate influence they get after the application of this stupidity, all in the name of equality.

The stupidest concept is that an elected body like a city council is supposed to reflect the racial makeup of the area. That is just retarded. Just because a city is made up of a lot of minorities does not necessarily mean those minorities that live there are interested in politics, or are qualified for office.

That in itself is more racist than anyone else. The Dems are assuming that just because you are of one race, you have to vote for those of your own race. They don't figure that minorities can decide who represents them and vote for those outside of their race? They can't see outside of color?

The danger is shrinking the pool of qualified people. For example... if you have 5 seats and the area is 60% minority... and there are only 3 people of minority descent running and 5 white people, does that mean you automatically elect all 3 minorities regardless of qualifications or background while discounting 3 of 5 whites because you have to reflect the area? That is a true disservice to any community. Elect who is best qualified and best represents you, in views and thoughts, not represent your race.

True story... last special election, there were door to door community organizers in my area trying to get votes for a Congressional seat. The hawker came to my door and literally said don't vote for the other candidate because she was Hispanic and not the same as me. I still voted for the Hispanic lady because she represented my views best. That really pissed me off that they would be that blatant in the door to door campaign.

/rant off

lawman800
12-25-2011, 04:25
The 3 year wrist-slap injunction against the club-wielding Shabazz prohibiting him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of a Philly polling place appears to have expired. Presumably he can now resume his entrance "monitoring" in '12.

That cracks me up... 3 years injunction when the election cycle is 4 years... and 100 feet? Okay... how about letting KKK members stand 100 yards from a polling place yelling the same thing but with white people instead? Bet you they don't get the same lenient treatment.

That is the hallmark of a 3rd world banana republic. Thugs who follow your agenda get special political treatment. There is no rule of law other than what is decided by the ones in charge.

ronduke
01-22-2012, 00:41
D O J official in Arizona to plead the fifth and not answer questions on 'fast and furious'.
Last week, Cunningham, the second highest ranking U.S. Attorney in Arizona, was scheduled to appear before Issa‘s committee voluntarily. Then, he declined and Issa issued a subpoena.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/20/federal-official-in-arizona-to-plead-fifth-and-not-answer-questions-on-furious/#ixzz1kANm7Qt0

lawman800
01-22-2012, 00:56
Sounds about right. This is going to be messy but worth it.

A6Gator
01-22-2012, 18:37
I hope Issa has enough sack to take them to the mat and doesn't get pulled back by the progressives like the Speaker.

ronduke
01-30-2012, 01:37
When Eric Holder testified about his knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious on May 3, 2011, he told the House Judiciary Committee that he had only been informed of the operation “a few weeks ago.” Later, Holder amended that to say that it would have been more accurate to call the time period “a couple of months.”
Does five months qualify as “a couple” or “a few weeks”?
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/29/holder-informed-of-fast-furious-five-months-before-testimony/

id1otbox
01-30-2012, 02:31
tagged

Thank you to all the posters on this thread

lawman800
01-30-2012, 09:20
When Eric Holder testified about his knowledge of Operation Fast and Furious on May 3, 2011, he told the House Judiciary Committee that he had only been informed of the operation “a few weeks ago.” Later, Holder amended that to say that it would have been more accurate to call the time period “a couple of months.”
Does five months qualify as “a couple” or “a few weeks”?
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/29/holder-informed-of-fast-furious-five-months-before-testimony/

What's a few weeks or months between friends?

merlynusn
01-30-2012, 09:30
Looks like in the new document dump he found out the weapon was involved in F&F the day it happened.

txleapd
01-31-2012, 07:57
That's our top law enforcement official Eric Holder for ya.

I fail to acknowledge him as "our TOP law enforcement official." He's never been a cop, or actually been in law enforcement. He started his career as a federal prosecutor, and then became a judge, before going back to the DOJ. He's never enforced anything.

I see him more as a "political lackey" and "federal bully." At the most he's just a lawyer. He's never been a cop. We would never accept someone like that as a police chief, for good reason.

lawman800
01-31-2012, 09:27
I fail to acknowledge him as "our TOP law enforcement official." He's never been a cop, or actually been in law enforcement. He started his career as a federal prosecutor, and then became a judge, before going back to the DOJ. He's never enforced anything.

I see him more as a "political lackey" and "federal bully." At the most he's just a lawyer. He's never been a cop. We would never accept someone like that as a police chief, for good reason.

I know... but big cities would embrace the guy... as usual.

ronduke
02-02-2012, 00:02
Bribery, compromised officials leave indicted financial-crime suspects free from prosecution under Holder’s DOJ



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/01/bribery-compromised-officials-leave-indicted-financial-crime-suspects-free-from-prosecution-under-holders-doj/#ixzz1lCYkZOAY

ronduke
02-12-2012, 01:29
“This is a larger scandal than anything like Watergate,” he explained. “Nobody died there. People lied and there was a cover-up. Here, there’s lies and cover-ups and we still don’t have the answers, but people have been killed.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/11/sheriff-paul-babeau-fast-and-furious-scandal-is-far-from-over/

ronduke
03-19-2012, 13:20
Attorney General Eric Holder supported using Hollywood, the media and government officials in order to “really brainwash people” into opposing firearm ownership, according to a 1995 C-SPAN video that emerged Sunday.
"Some have charged that Obama administration officials, including Holder, implemented Fast and Furious as part of a strategy to generate anti-gun outrage among the U.S. population."


http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/18/holder-in-1995-really-brainwash-people-to-be-anti-gun/#

blueiron
03-19-2012, 18:04
There is nothing really new in this. The Left has tried 'hearts and minds' to win converts and when that doesn't work, it is nothing more than political bullying and changing the language to suit their agendas.

To them, Operation Fast and Furious is a success, as was the previous operation under the Bush regime. The Left has ingratiated themselves into education, government, the media and elsewhere to rid this nation of an 'obsolete' and failed political system - Classical Liberalism.

The ends always justify the means and if a few Federal cops die, along with American and Mexican nationals, they don't care. As long as they get what they want - utopian socialism, they are all for it.

lawman800
03-20-2012, 08:44
Whoever is surprised, yawn.