TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › DOJ drops charges against New Black Panthers/Investigation Pending
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DOJ drops charges against New Black Panthers/Investigation Pending

post #1 of 98
6/30/10 at 12:02pm
Thread Starter 
Seems like Holder or his underlings decided to drop the charges against the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case. Former DOJ attorney is accusing Holder of racism in dropping what Adams says was a slam dunk case of voter intimidation. Look at the second link for video.

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/...1287079901.txt

Quote:
Dept. Of Justice Drops New Black Panthers Case
Obama Administration Abandons Voter Intimidation Lawsuit
By MICHAEL P. TREMOGLIE, The Bulletin

Friday, May 29, 2009
Comments (0)
Sources told The Bulletin that there is internal dissension in the Department of Justice (DOJ) about a voter intimidation case from last year’s presidential election. Obama appointees did not want to proceed with the case, while the career prosecutors did. The incident occurred in Philadelphia and involved the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBPPSD).

The DOJ filed a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act against the NBPPSD and three of its members alleging the defendants intimidated Philadelphia voters during the Nov. 4, 2008 general election. The action was filed in January before President George W. Bush left office.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court in Philadelphia, alleged that on Election Day, Nov. 4, 2008 in Philadelphia, NBPPSD members Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were stationed at the entrance to a polling location at 1221 Fairmount Avenue, wearing the uniform of the organization. It also states Mr. Shabazz repeatedly brandished a “police-style baton weapon.â€
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...cube_position1

Quote:
Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2542828/posts

Quote:
DOJ Official Resigns After Being Ordered to Dismiss Case Against Black Panther Gangsters
David Horowitz's NewsReal Blog ^ | Michael van der Galien

Posted on Monday, June 28, 2010 1:13:17 AM by Michael van der Galien

J. Christian Adams was proud to be a Department of Justice attorney. He believed he was serving his country by prosecuting those who wished harm on others. He strongly believed in what he did. To this DoJ official, his profession wasn’t a job but a calling.

Until earlier this month when he suddenly resigned. The reason? His superiors told him to drop a case against the New Black Panther Party, even though the “case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career.â€

Reading Adams’ account of what happened, I can only conclude that little has changed since the days in which our own Editor-in-Chief David Horowitz became disgusted with the Left because it actively covered up the many (horrendous) crimes committed by the racist gangsters of the Black Panther Party.

Back to Adams’ case against the Panthers. Here’s what happened back in 2008:

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.

It goes without saying that such behavior is illegal. That’s why the Department of Justice brought a case against the Black Panthers and those armed thugs after the election. Adams explains that he “and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges.†As said, all seemed to be going well, until their superiors suddenly ordered them to dismiss the case.
This is an absolute outrage! Eric Holder needs to be impeached!
Reply
post #2 of 98
7/1/10 at 2:49am
I totally agree! For the life of me I don't understand his problem with this clear case of VI.

Holder needs to go like yesterday. It will be very interesting how this plays out.
Reply
post #3 of 98
7/1/10 at 11:31am
There may actually be a real problem in this for Eric Holder. There are allegations that he has instructed the DOJ that they cannot litigate on any voting rights cases in which the perpetrators are minorities, and it is alleged he was ultimately behind dropping this case. It might be all an "interpretation" case, if it weren't for a witness.

The witness is Bartle Bull, a long-time civil rights lawyer, who worked on Robert and Ted Kennedy's campaigns, as well as working in civil rights litigation during the 60's in Mississippi and elsewhere.

He says that what he saw was a clear violation of the Voting Rights Act, and that the Department of Justice was clearly in the wrong on this case.

All this may go nowhere, but allegations of anti-white discrimination in federal law enforcement could clearly be a major problem in very short order.
Reply
post #4 of 98
7/1/10 at 1:21pm
Thread Starter 
It continues to amaze me that anti-white discrimination can exist with little, if any protest, and the rationale falls under the "two wrongs can make a right" argument.
Reply
post #5 of 98
7/1/10 at 1:27pm
It would have probably helped their case a great deal if they could have actually found a voter who was intimidated.
Reply
post #6 of 98
7/1/10 at 1:35pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
It would have probably helped their case a great deal if they could have actually found a voter who was intimidated.
You're making assumptions. Helps if you read the material available. There was a solid case. Clearly a case of reverse racism. I hope heads roll.
Reply
post #7 of 98
7/1/10 at 1:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
You're making assumptions. Helps if you read the material available. There was a solid case. Clearly a case of reverse racism. I hope heads roll.
No, you're wrong. The complainant was not a voter in that district, he wasn't even from that district, he was an observer. His complaint was seeing activity that he perceived to be intimidating to voters. Yet, none of the voters made any claims of intimidation.

Perceiving an affront can make a case in civil court. In criminal court, it won't hold up. He can find the voters he felt were intimidated and have them summoned to court, and if they say "no" or just "meh"...then there's no case.
Reply
post #8 of 98
7/1/10 at 1:44pm
Thread Starter 
I prefer to believe J. Christian Adams. You can believe whomever you want. Black Panthers dressed in uniform in front of a polling place waving night sticks is pretty powerful intimidation. Add that with their comments about "their" rule and anti-white comments is pretty powerful evidence. There was a case. Eric Holder ordered it dropped.
Reply
post #9 of 98
7/1/10 at 1:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
I prefer to believe J. Christian Adams. You can believe whomever you want. Black Panthers dressed in uniform in front of a polling place waving night sticks is pretty powerful intimidation. Add that with their comments about "their" rule and anti-white comments is pretty powerful evidence. There was a case. Eric Holder ordered it dropped.
You can't have a case of intimidation without an injured party. Case in point...how many domestic violence cases are thrown out of court, even with the police documenting injuries, bruises, etc, because one or the other refuses to press charges?

And, as an aside...in some inner city areas, the Black Panther uniforms are trusted far more than Police uniforms.

None of this means he is wrong...it simply means he has no injured party.
Reply
post #10 of 98
7/1/10 at 3:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
It would have probably helped their case a great deal if they could have actually found a voter who was intimidated.
As I pointed out...they didn't have to, they had a credible witness. Bartle Bull, a long-time civil rights lawyer who described it as the clearest case of voter intimidation he had ever seen. And they DID have others who said they were threatened.

Face it: In this case, the DOJ is on very shaky ground.
Reply
post #11 of 98
7/1/10 at 3:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
As I pointed out...they didn't have to, they had a credible witness. And the DID have others who said they were threatened.

Face it: In this case, the DOJ is on very shaky ground.
According to Federal Rules of Evidence, yes, they do. They cannot claim voter intimidation because they don't have any intimidated voters. They have the observer, plus some students (also not voting in that district) taking video. You can't be the victim of voter intimidation unless you're a voter.

According to Federal Rules of Evidence, the witnesses CAN testify to what they actually saw...two men, uniformed, with weapons...and to what they heard them say.

However, for them to claim intimidation on other people's behalf falls under the Hearsay rule, and isn't admissible.

It would be exactly the same thing if I were to say that NYC's Naked Cowboy offends women. If I can't present an offended woman, then it didn't happen.
Reply
post #12 of 98
7/4/10 at 8:23pm
Thread Starter 
How then do you explain that they won the case, and it was only after then that the DOJ ordered the case dropped?
Reply
post #13 of 98
7/4/10 at 8:46pm
Why were they even there dressed like they were and swinging a weapon. Were they arrested that day. If not, they should have been. They had no business doing what they were doing, even if none of the voters filed a complaint. There very presence and actions were intidimation.
Reply
post #14 of 98
7/5/10 at 12:12am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dusty's Mom View Post
How then do you explain that they won the case, and it was only after then that the DOJ ordered the case dropped?
It's called a "default judgment". I could sue you tomorrow for digging holes in my lawn, and if you don't show up, I could win by "default judgment".
Reply
post #15 of 98
7/5/10 at 12:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueyedgirl5946 View Post
Why were they even there dressed like they were and swinging a weapon. Were they arrested that day. If not, they should have been. They had no business doing what they were doing, even if none of the voters filed a complaint. There very presence and actions were intidimation.
I see people every day in fatigues. Some of our temporary workers even wear them to work. I don't find it at all intimidating.

As for the weapon...the 2nd Amendment says they can.

And, very good question. If they were doing something illegal, why weren't they arrested?

And finally, intimidation to who? How can it be voter intimidation if not one voter testifies to having been intimidated? An observer telling the court that "those voters are intimidated" is just like me telling someone "those people think he's dressed funny".
Reply
post #16 of 98
7/5/10 at 1:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
You can't have a case of intimidation without an injured party. Case in point...how many domestic violence cases are thrown out of court, even with the police documenting injuries, bruises, etc, because one or the other refuses to press charges?

And, as an aside...in some inner city areas, the Black Panther uniforms are trusted far more than Police uniforms.

None of this means he is wrong...it simply means he has no injured party.
Maybe folks fear escalation and they fear for their lives?
Reply
post #17 of 98
7/5/10 at 2:33am
Quote:
Originally Posted by c1atsite View Post
Maybe folks fear escalation and they fear for their lives?
I was thinking the exact thing. I don't know if I would come forward either. There are ways, even if my identity is protected, for them to find me.

I feel like the world has gone mad.
Reply
post #18 of 98
7/5/10 at 8:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
And, very good question. If they were doing something illegal, why weren't they arrested?

And finally, intimidation to who? How can it be voter intimidation if not one voter testifies to having been intimidated? An observer telling the court that "those voters are intimidated" is just like me telling someone "those people think he's dressed funny".
They WERE arrested, and removed from the scene. Or didn't you know that?

As to the intimidation, if a witness says people were being intimidated, that is sufficient evidence for a trial, at least.

And let's be upfront; there WAS a trial, and there WAS a conviction. Then, at the sentencing, the DOJ, at the apparent instruction of the White House, dropped it all.
Reply
post #19 of 98
7/5/10 at 8:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
They WERE arrested, and removed from the scene. Or didn't you know that?

As to the intimidation, if a witness says people were being intimidated, that is sufficient evidence for a trial, at least.

And let's be upfront; there WAS a trial, and there WAS a conviction. Then, at the sentencing, the DOJ, at the apparent instruction of the White House, dropped it all.
Thanks for sharing that. So they were turned loose by the White House, not the court system.
Reply
post #20 of 98
7/5/10 at 8:48am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
They WERE arrested, and removed from the scene. Or didn't you know that?

As to the intimidation, if a witness says people were being intimidated, that is sufficient evidence for a trial, at least.

And let's be upfront; there WAS a trial, and there WAS a conviction. Then, at the sentencing, the DOJ, at the apparent instruction of the White House, dropped it all.
Really? Funny, the police don't remember arresting anyone. In fact, the one that was a registered poll watcher was allowed to stay. All of the republican site videos seem to stop at the precise moment they step off the sidewalk, and then you have a claim of their arrest in the comments. Weird.

Oh, you can have a trial, but without victims, you'd be wasting a whole lot of taxpayer's money. Isn't that a bad thing?

Uh, no, there was a hearing over a lawsuit, not a trial. They're very different. And that would make it a finding, not a conviction. And there being a finding and injunction issued, what's the problem?
Reply
post #21 of 98
7/5/10 at 8:52am
Quote:
Originally Posted by c1atsite View Post
Maybe folks fear escalation and they fear for their lives?
Or maybe it didn't intimidate any voters. Maybe it only "intimidated" the dozens of Republican activists that rushed there in order to be "intimidated". But, in order for it to be voter intimidation, voters have to be intimidated. It's pretty simple, actually.
Reply
post #22 of 98
7/5/10 at 8:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Or maybe it didn't intimidate any voters. Maybe it only "intimidated" the dozens of Republican activists that rushed there in order to be "intimidated". But, in order for it to be voter intimidation, voters have to be intimidated. It's pretty simple, actually.
Yes. And, as I said, the court said it was voter intimidation.
Reply
post #23 of 98
7/5/10 at 9:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Yes. And, as I said, the court said it was voter intimidation.
Actually, they said he was in possession of a weapon at a polling place. "Intimidation" wasn't addressed in finding. And he's not allowed to carry weapons to polling places for 3 years.

The "intimidation" was investigated for the possible criminal case, which has been dropped, most likely because they never found any intimidated voters.
Reply
post #24 of 98
7/5/10 at 10:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
And he's not allowed to carry weapons to polling places for 3 years.
Only to polling places in Philadelphia, actually.

And that was by an injunction, not by the finding of the court. His actual sentencing was interrupted by the DOJ, so we don't know what he would have gotten.
Reply
post #25 of 98
7/5/10 at 10:24am
Yep, he may show up in New Jersey next time.
Reply
post #26 of 98
7/5/10 at 12:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Only to polling places in Philadelphia, actually.

And that was by an injunction, not by the finding of the court. His actual sentencing was interrupted by the DOJ, so we don't know what he would have gotten.
There IS no sentencing in civil court. There is a finding, and a levy of damages, if appropriate. Now, if the judge wanted to hold them in contempt for not showing up for civil proceedings, that would have been a criminal charge for sentencing, but he didn't. He simply ruled by default.
Reply
post #27 of 98
7/5/10 at 1:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by farleyv View Post
I was thinking the exact thing. I don't know if I would come forward either. There are ways, even if my identity is protected, for them to find me.

I feel like the world has gone mad.
Yes, and the way things are today, we don't know what people are capable of
Reply
post #28 of 98
7/5/10 at 1:33pm
Voting Rights Act violations are criminal, not civil cases.
Reply
post #29 of 98
7/5/10 at 6:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrblanche View Post
Voting Rights Act violations are criminal, not civil cases.
Exactly.

He was sued in civil court, he was NOT criminally charged, which is what would have happened if they had a victim of voter intimidation.

There is no such thing as "default judgment" in criminal cases.
Reply
post #30 of 98
7/9/10 at 8:36pm
Thread Starter 
Just imagine if the Black Panthers had been the Ku Klux Klan. Do you honestly think the outcome would be the same?

And now this same whistle blower has said what I've maintained here in other threads, that dead people, duplicate people, convicted felons and illegal immigrants are NOT being removed from the voter registration rolls even though there is a federal law mandating that the rolls be routinely updated. This is an outrage and is specifically intended to increase Democratic voter turnout.

I heard that there are precincts in Missouri where the total voter registration EXCEEDS the total number of residents over the age of 18! It's FRAUD clear and simple. Carolina argued with me when I cited cases here in CA that it happens. Now there is proof that it is widespread voter fraud and our administration not only condones it, but encourages it! Amazing.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › DOJ drops charges against New Black Panthers/Investigation Pending