Skip to comments.Eric Holder Vs. Black Panthers
Posted on 05/19/2010 5:21:52 PM PDT by Kaslin
Civil Rights: The Justice Department explains that it dropped a Black Panther voter-intimidation case because of lack of evidence. Pay no attention to the thugs outside the polling place. Yet another reason Eric Holder must go.
On Election Day 2008, New Black Panther Party members King Samir Shabazz, Malik Zulu Sha-bazz and Jerry Jackson were charged in a civil complaint with civil violations by "allegedly" violating the Voting Rights Act through intimidation, threats and coercion as they stood outside a Philadelphia polling place.
It was what Bartle Bull, a former civil rights lawyer and publisher of the left-wing Village Voice, called "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen" Black Panthers dressed in paramilitary garb, one brandishing a nightstick and saying things like, "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker!"
In January 2009, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit charging violations of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. When none of the defendants filed a response or showed up at a subsequent hearing, we'd have thought DOJ would have won its suit by default.
Instead, in May 2009, it let two of the three walk and issued a weak injunction against Shabazz forbidding him from showing up at another Philadelphia polling place with another nightstick and intimidating other voters for the next three years, an action that was already illegal. He is presumably free to do the same thing in, say, New Jersey in 2012.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...
Make sure you go and log in as your alter-ego “stumpy”...So that you feel important...You’ll prove my point, fool...
Only you would try to do that. I don’t need another adult name for when I put my daddy pants on like “whittle Stevie”......fool!
Wow, you are good, what happened though??? Did you forget how to make a “D” when you tried to log back in???
Took you all of about 56 minutes...Be careful, yer fruitloops are getting soggy...
Stumpy needs to come back and play now...
“DOJs Civil Rights Division, Which Did Not Prosecute New Black Panthers, Is Conscience of Nation, Holder Says”
Monday, June 07, 2010
By Christopher Neefus
“ADAMS: Inside the Black Panther case Anger, ignorance and lies”
By J. Christian Adams 6:58 p.m., Friday, June 25, 2010
SNIPPET: “On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.
The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.”
“The Obama Administration Protected Black Panther Who Advocates Killing White Babies”
Video description - quote:
NakedEmperorNews1 | July 06, 2010
The Obama Administration Protected Black Panther Who Advocates Killing White Babies
News & Politics
naked emperor news new black panthers obama
“J. Christian Adams: DOJ Opponents of Race-Neutral Law Should Explain Themselves”
SNIPPET: “Today, I testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights about the Department of Justice’s hostility to race-neutral law enforcement. I hope these hearings spur those responsible to explain their actions to Americans.”
July 6, 2010 - by J. Christian Adams Page 1 of 3
“PJM Exclusive: Unequal Law Enforcement Reigns at Obamas DOJ (UPDATED: Adams Discusses this Article on Fox News)”
SNIPPET: “Earlier this month, I resigned from the DOJ after bringing the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. Longstanding biases within the Civil Rights Division are hostile to a race-neutral enforcement of some civil rights laws. (Click here for Adams on PJTV.) (Update: PJM will continue to update this story.)”
June 28, 2010 - by J. Christian Adams Page 1 of 4
Eric must go with the rest of the commies.
“Former DOJ Colleagues Confirm Whistleblower Adams Accusations”
SNIPPET: “Sworn affidavits from Hans A. von Spakovsky and Karl Bowers, who worked with J. Christian Adams in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, offer broad confirmation of the whistleblower’s accusations of bias in enforcing voting rights.”
July 15, 2010
“Smearing J. Christian Adams”
By Michelle Malkin July 26, 2010 11:50 AM
EDITORIAL: No black hole for Black Panthers—Attorney General Holder can’t hide testimony forever
The Washington Times ^ | October 11, 2010 | Editorial
Posted on October 11, 2010 5:14:33 PM PDT by jazusamo
The Obama Justice Department can put an end to the scandal surrounding the New Black Panther voter-intimidation case. All Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. would have to do is allow members of his Voting Rights Section to answer a few simple questions under oath, without waiving a single legal privilege.
On Friday, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights approved two letters to Mr. Holder. Both ask, again, for more cooperation than the Justice Department has provided for 16 months. The commission is seeking information about an alleged “broad culture of hostility to race-neutral enforcement of the civil rights laws; a pattern of harassment and intimidation against those who work on suits in which the defendants are racial minorities; and instructions from a political appointee that basic voting rights laws will not be enforced against racial minorities during this administration.”
On the Black Panther case, the department has made stunningly expansive claims that a “deliberative process” privilege obviates the need for a transparent administration, but “instructions from a political appointee” carry no such privilege. They don’t involve discussions about how and whether to prosecute specific cases but instead pertain to broad policy pronouncements. No valid legal argument could claim such policy choices are exempt from disclosure to an independent commission, Congress or the public.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...