EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case

[sfc_darrel]

EXCLUSIVE: Career lawyers overruled on voting case

Jerry Seper



Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.

The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.
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.


The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times.

The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse course, according to interviews and documents. The court had already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20.

RELATED STORIES:
• Panetta tries to remedy language lag in CIA
• Pro-Life Catholic leader roots for Sotomayor
• Obama calling for better digital security

A Justice Department spokesman on Thursday confirmed that the agency had dropped the case, dismissing two of the men from the lawsuit with no penalty and winning an order against the third man that simply prohibits him from bringing a weapon to a polling place in future elections.

The department was "successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again," spokesman Alejandro Miyar said. "Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law."

Mr. Miyar declined to elaborate about any internal dispute between career and political officials, saying only that the department is "committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote."

Court records reviewed by The Times show that career Justice lawyers were seeking a default judgment and penalties against the three men as recently as May 5, before abruptly ending their pursuit 10 days later.

People directly familiar with the case, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because of fear of retribution, said career lawyers in two separate Justice offices had recommended proceeding to default judgment before political superiors overruled them.

Tensions between career lawyers and political appointees inside the Justice Department have been a sensitive matter since allegations surfaced during the Bush administration that higher-ups had ignored or reversed staff lawyers and that some U.S. attorneys had been removed or selected for political reasons.

During his January confirmation hearings, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said that during his lengthy Justice Department tenure, the career lawyers were "my teachers, my colleagues and my friends" and described them as the "backbone" of the department.

"If I am confirmed as attorney general, I will listen to them, respect them and make them proud of the vital goals we will pursue together," he said.
Justice officials declined to say whether Mr. Holder or other senior Justice officials became involved in the case, saying they don't discuss internal deliberations.

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."

To support its evidence, the government had secured an affidavit from Bartle Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Mr. Bull said in a sworn statement dated April 7 that he was serving in November as a credentialed poll watcher in Philadelphia when he saw the three uniformed Panthers confront and intimidate voters with a nightstick.

Inexplicably, the government did not enter the affidavit in the court case, according to the files.

"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."

Mr. Bull said the "clear purpose" of what the Panthers were doing was to "intimidate voters with whom they did not agree." He also said he overheard one of the men tell a white poll watcher: "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

He called their conduct an "outrageous affront to American democracy and the rights of voters to participate in an election without fear." He said it was a "racially motivated effort to limit both poll watchers aiding voters, as well as voters with whom the men did not agree."

The three men named in the complaint - New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson - refused to appear in court to answer the accusations over a near-five month period, court records said.

Justice Department Voting Rights Section Attorney J. Christian Adams complained in one court filing about the defendants' failure to appear or to file any pleadings in the case, arguing that Mr. Jackson was "not an infant, nor is he an incompetent person as he appears capable of managing his own affairs, nor is he in the military service of the United States."

Court records show that as late as May 5, the Justice Department was still considering an order by U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell in Philadelphia to seek judgments, or sanctions, against the three Panthers because of their failure to appear.

But 10 days later, the department reversed itself and filed a notice of voluntary dismissal from the complaint for Malik Zulu Shabazz and Mr. Jackson.

That same day, the department asked for the default judgment against King Samir Shabazz, but limited the penalty to an order that he not display a "weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location on any election day in the city of Philadelphia" until Nov. 15, 2012.

Malik Zulu Shabazz is a Washington, D.C., resident.

Mr. Jackson was an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee, and was credentialed to be at the polling place last Nov. 4 as an official Democratic Party polling observer, according to the Philadelphia City Commissioner's Office.

Efforts to reach the Panthers were unsuccessful. A telephone number listed on the New Black Panthers Web site had been disconnected.

The complaint said that the three men were deployed at the entrance to a Philadelphia polling location wearing the uniform of the New Black Panther Party and that King Samir Shabazz repeatedly brandished a police-style nightstick with a contoured grip and wrist lanyard.

According to the complaint, Malik Zulu Shabazz, a Howard University Law School graduate, said the placement of King Samir Shabazz and Mr. Jackson in Philadelphia was part of a nationwide effort to deploy New Black Panther Party members at polling locations on Election Day.

The New Black Panther Party reportedly has 27 chapters operating across the United States, Britain, the Caribbean and Africa. Its Web page said it has become "a great witness to the validity of the works of the original Black Panther Party," which was founded in 1966 in Oakland, Calif.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ng-case/print/

[darrels joy]

Whitewashing the Panthers

posted at 6:38 pm on December 29, 2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh


The attempt to stonewall investigation into the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party — the case was dismissed by Attorney General Eric Holder (the first black attorney general!, a fact the NBPP seems to find of great significance) and Barack H. Obama (the first black President!, ditto) even after the Justice Department won it by default — has just taken another stupifying turn: The administration booted Christopher Coates, the voting-rights section chief who signed off on the complaint against the Black Panthers, out of the prestigious D.C. office and down to South Carolina:

The veteran Justice Department voting rights section chief who recommended going forward on a civil complaint against members of the New Black Panther Party after they disrupted a Pennsylvania polling place in last year’s elections has been removed from his post and transferred to the U.S. attorney’s office in South Carolina.

Justice Department officials confirmed Monday that Christopher Coates, who signed off on the complaint’s filing in federal court in Philadelphia in January accusing the party and three of its members of civil rights violations, would begin his new assignment next month.

I suppose there could be an innocent explanation; I understand Coates graduated from the University of North Carolina… mayhap he was just pining for the Carolinas and reckoned either one of ‘em would do. But coming at the end of such a timeline of scandal, it’s a bit thick:

• December 22nd, 2008: Career Justice Department officials decide to proceed against the Panthers for their intimidation of white voters and Republican poll watchers in Philadelphia during the November presidential election.
• January 7th, 2009: Christopher Coates signs off on a civil complaint against the NBPP and three members alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act of 1965:
  “The complaint, filed in the United States District Court in Philadelphia, alleges that, during the election, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were deployed at the entrance to a Philadelphia polling location wearing the uniform of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, and that Samir Shabazz repeatedly brandished a police-style baton weapon.”
• (The third member named was Malik Zulu Shabazz, Chairman of the NBPP.)
  Career prosecutors at Justice pursued the case vigorously, but the Panthers failed to participate, show up, or even respond; they simply ignored the proceedings against them.
• April 7th, 2009: Prosecutors obtained an affidavit from Bartle Bull, “longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F. Kennedy’s 1968 presidential campaign,” who stated that he personally “saw the three uniformed Panthers confront and intimidate voters with a nightstick.”

  Mr. Bull said the “clear purpose” of what the Panthers were doing was to “intimidate voters with whom they did not agree.” He also said he overheard one of the men tell a white poll watcher: “You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”
  

  But this affidavit was never filed with the court; no explanation why not has ever forthcome.
• April 20th, 2009: The court issued a default judgment against the NBPP.
• May 15th, 2009: The Department of Justice filed a “notice of voluntary dismissal,” notwithstanding the default judgment against the Panthers:

  Court records reviewed by The Times show that career Justice lawyers were seeking a default judgment and penalties against the three men as recently as May 5, before abruptly ending their pursuit 10 days later.
  People directly familiar with the case, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because of fear of retribution, said career lawyers in two separate Justice offices had recommended proceeding to default judgment before political superiors overruled them.
  

• The “political superiors” would presumably be Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli (a political appointee and big-time fundraiser for Obama during his campaign — number three at Justice); acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Loretta King; and, one presumes, Attorney General Eric Himpton Holder, Jr. himself.
  New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were dismissed from the case altogether; while Justice sought an injunction against Samir Shabazz that he “not display a ‘weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location on any election day in the city of Philadelphia’ — until November 15th, 2012, when the injunction expires. After that date, he is evidently free to resume his armed vigil outside Philly polling places… as he is free to do immediately anywhere outside the City of Brotherly Love.
• June 16th, 2009: The United States Commission on Civil Rights sent a letter to the DoJ demanding to know why the case was dismissed after it had already been won:

  “Though it had basically won the case, 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.”
  

  The CCR began an investigation of the case and its voluntary dismissal by Perrelli and King, as well as others, such as the number two at Justice, Deputy Attorney General David Ogden. The Commission has the authority to issue subpoenas with which, by law, all federal agencies must comply:

  The commission, by law, has explicit power to issue subpoenas, and the law mandates that “all federal agencies shall cooperate fully with the commission.”
  

  It eventually subpoenaed two career DoJ attorneys, Christopher Coates and J. Christian Adams, to come before the commission and testify about the NBPP case. There are some indications that Deputy Attorney General Ogden was also subpoenaed, but I cannot say for sure.
• December 2nd, 2009: Notwithstanding the law, the Justice Department ordered Coates and Adams not to comply with their subpoenas, neither to testify nor appear before the Commission on Civil Rights. The Department of Justice insisted that their own “internal regulations” dating from 1951 trump the more recent federal law.
  On this same day, Ogden announced his resignation after less than a year on the job.
• December 29th, 2009: And now today, the Washington Times — which seems to be the go-to paper on this alleged violation of the rather important principle of the unbiased rule of law — reports that Coates has just been ousted from the D.C. headquarters and reassigned to South Carolina.
  Sure is a nice career you got going, kid; sure would be a shame if anything was to happen to it…

Two conclusions spring to mind:

First, the administration of Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder seems single-mindedly obsessed with crushing the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party, preventing any outside investigation into said crushing, and punishing those who participated (under the previous administration) in bringing the case in the first place… those who naively believed that the point of the Voting Rights Act was to protect the voting rights of all the people, not just black liberals.

And second, I would recommend to J. Christian Adams that he get his resume in order… just in case.

I think we can find the key to unlock this mystery in the accusation leveled by New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, from today’s Washington Times story:

Party members have not returned numerous telephone messages and e-mails for comment, but told the Associated Press earlier this month in Dallas that the Justice Department was correct in dismissing the complaint. Malik Shabazz described the complaint as a “political witch hunt” aimed at discrediting Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. — the first black man to be named to the post.

I believe the order to kill the case came directly from Holder, if not from Obama himself, for several reasons:

• General sympathy with the leftist, blacktivist cause (perhaps absorbed by the president during his two decades in the pews of Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ);
• Fear that Obama’s victory (hence Holder’s appointment) would be tainted by the whiff of scandal;
• And bitter, relentless, reflexive hatred of George W. Bush from Texas and everyone associated with him, leading to the automatic imputation of vile motives for every policy he enacted… including even his support for the civil-rights acts of the 1960s. If Bush pushed the case, then it must be for some disreputable, white “cracker” racist reason.

Howbeit, since they quashed the case (it seemed like a good idea at the time), Obama and especially Holder are locked into a policy of stonewalling: They’re increasingly worried about the unanticipated consequences of such a blatantly partisan action, particularly after the Left kicked up such a fuss about the putative “politicization” of the Justice Department under President Bush. Thus they have no choice but to implement ever more draconian actions to keep the lid on the mounting scandal.

But Panthergate has become an out of control boiler; as the heat rises, so does the pressure. Eventually it will blow skywards, and there is nothing anyone can do to stop it.

Perhaps Christopher Coates will come to feel grateful for his exile to South Carolina, where he is less likely to be scalded by the superheated steam.

http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...-the-panthers/

[BLUEHAWK]

This entire matter just irritates the crap out of me.

It is, in fact, the prime example of why I did not want Mr. Obama to be elected... not so much because he himself would advocate, but that he appears to be almost unconscious of the degree to which OTHERS will do so.

Instead of softening the last remaining vestiges of racism, his administration is exacerbating them, by neglect or intent.

One shred of hope is that the great majority of the rest of us are simply sick and tired of having to deal with any of it anymore.

[darrels joy]

Jerry Seper

President Obama or Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. should declare publicly whether executive privilege has been invoked in the Justice Department's refusal to release documents showing why voter-intimidation charges against the New Black Panther Party were dismissed, says the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Declaring an impasse in negotiations between the commission and the department, Commission Chairman Gerald A. Reynolds said the Justice Department has "repeatedly refused" to provide any basic information regarding the case, instead asserting "vague and generalized privileges" that do not apply.

"The actual basis for the department's continued refusal to cooperate with the commission remains unclear," Mr. Reynolds said in a letter last week to Mr. Holder. "For example, has the president invoked executive privilege over the materials that the commission is seeking? If that is the case, the president or the attorney general must so state.

"The department's continued refusal to provide the requested information will lead to a conflict of interest, whereby the target of the subpoena — the department — can evade its statutory obligation to the commission by refusing to respond to or enforce the commission's subpoena," he said.

Mr. Reynolds asked Mr. Holder to respond by April 12 on whether he intends to cooperate in the inquiry "as is required by law," whether he would direct his subordinates to do so, and if he intends to allow Justice Department employees to respond to the commission's subpoenas to testify.

He said the department had "rebuffed each offer made by the commission" to meet to discuss and resolve the issues.

Justice Department officials did not respond to e-mails from The Washington Times seeking comment on the commission's letter.

In January, the department refused to turn over documents sought by the commission to explain why a civil complaint was dismissed against members of the New Black Panther Party who disrupted a Philadelphia polling place in the November 2008 elections.

In a 38-page response, the department objected to "each and every" question and document request submitted by the commission, saying the subpoenas violated privacy and privilege concerns, and were burdensome, vague and ambiguous.

The department also said the requested information was protected by the attorney-client privilege or were not subject to disclosure because they included attorney or law-enforcement work products. It also refused to release any information about an investigation of the New Black Panther Party case by its Office of Professional Responsibility, saying the review was privileged information or was covered by the Privacy Act.

In an accompanying letter, Joseph H. Hunt, director of the Justice Department's Federal Programs Branch, which oversees litigation matters, said the department was "constrained by the need to protect against disclosures that would harm its deliberative processes or that otherwise would undermine its ability to carry out its mission."

Also in January, the Justice Department refused to release e-mails and other documents sought under an open-records request by The Times in the New Black Panther Party case, despite acknowledging that 69 documents, totaling 135 pages, were responsive to the request.

The Times had sought copies of e-mails between officials in the Civil Rights Division and the Office of the Associate Attorney General regarding the litigation strategy, drafts of court filings and briefing materials related to the case.

The commission issued subpoenas on Dec. 9 demanding records showing why a civil complaint against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members was dismissed after a federal judge in Philadelphia ordered default judgments in the case. The New Black Panther Party members had refused to respond to the charges or to appear in court.

The Justice Department's Voting Rights Section was in the final stages of seeking the judgments when Loretta King, serving as acting assistant attorney general, ordered a delay. The delay came after she met with Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the department's No. 3 political appointee, who approved the dismissal, according to interviews with department officials who sought anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the case.

A civil complaint was filed by the Voting Rights Section in January 2009 in Philadelphia against the party after two of its members in black berets, black combat boots, black shirts and black jackets purportedly intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick. A third party member was accused of managing, directing and endorsing their behavior. The incident was captured on videotape.

Four months later, the Justice Department dropped the charges, saying "the facts and the law did not support pursuing" them.

Among the documents being sought by the commission are those regarding any communications between Mrs. King, Mr. Perrelli and Mr. Holder about the case.

The civil complaint accused Minister King Samir Shabazz, head of the Philadelphia chapter, and Jerry Jackson, a Philadelphia party member, of intimidating voters at the polling place. A third party member, Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, a lawyer and D.C. resident, was accused of directing and endorsing their behavior.
The party members have not been available for comment. The department obtained an injunction against Mr. Samir Shabazz that prohibits him from brandishing a weapon outside a polling place until 2012.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-stories-today

[BLUEHAWK]

The "New" BPP is the Obama administration's "crazy uncle", a chronic hoarder with an insatiable 200-year chip on its shoulder.

[darrels joy]

Only in Philly: Black Panther on the Ballot!

by Mike Roman
Jerry Jackson, notorious member of the New Black Panther Party, who was seen in the video below intimidating and threatening voters in 2008, is running for re-election as a member of the Democratic Executive Committee in Philadelphia.
Here is the “sample ballot” for the 14th Ward, 4th Division. A sample ballot is posted outside of each polling location. You can see Jackson is listed first in a field of three. The top two vote getters will be elected to a four year term as a member of the Democratic Executive Committee. In 2008, Jackson was issued a certificate by the Democratic Party to be inside of the polling place where he was seen intimidating voters.

Jackson and King Samir Shabazz were originally indicted for intimidating voters, but the Department of Justice spiked the case.

No reports of Jackson or Shabazz at the polls yet.

http://biggovernment.com/mroman/2010...t/#more-121714

[darrels joy]

DOJ Voting Rights attorney resigns over Black Panthers stonewalling

By: J.P. Freire
Associate Commentary Editor
05/18/10 6:40 PM EDT

A trial attorney with the Department of Justice’s Voting Rights Section has resigned, citing concerns about the government’s refusal to prosecute a case involving voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party. A letter of resignation obtained by The Washington Examiner from a former Justice Department employee makes clear DOJ has refused to allow attorneys in the Voting Rights Section to testify before the congressionally-chartered bipartisan U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, despite subpoenas that could result in their being held in contempt.

In his letter of resignation, J. Christian Adams said:

On the other hand, the events surrounding the dismissal of United States v. New Black Panther Party, et al., after the trial team sought and obtained an entry of default, has subjected me, Mr. Christopher Coates, and potentially at some point, all members of the team, to a subpoena from the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The subpoena is based on an explicit federal statute and seeks answers about why the case was dismissed.

I have incurred significant personal expense in retaining a number of separate attorneys and firms regarding this subpoena in order to protect my interests and advise me about my personal legal obligation to comply with the subpoena. Over the last few months, one of my attorneys has had multiple communications with Federal Programs regarding the subpoena. My attorney suggested to them that the Department should file a motion in district court to quash the subpoena and thereby resolve conclusively any question about my obligation to comply.

Months ago, my attorney advised the Department that a motion to quash would be welcome, and that I would assert no objection to the motion. Further, my attorney has explicitly sought to ascertain whether Executive Privilege has been invoked regarding the decisions of individuals not in the Voting Section to order the dismissal of the case. If Executive Privilege has been asserted, or will be, obviously I would not comply with the subpoena. These options would provide some conclusive legal certainly about the extent of my obligation to comply with a subpoena issued pursuant to a federal statute. Instead, we have been ordered not to comply with the subpoena, citing a federal regulation (emphasis mine).

Adams also cites his knowledge of the criminal character and “violent tendencies of” members of the New Black Panther Party, saying:

As you also know, the defendants in the New Black Panther lawsuit have become increasingly belligerent in their rhetoric toward the attorneys who brought the case. (See eg., April 23, 2010 statement of Malik Zulu Shabazz, http://www.newblackpanther.com/usccrphony case statement.pdf, describing the “phony case” brought by “the modern day racist lynch mob seeking to hang what [we] think .are [our] modern slaves.”) Their grievances toward us generally echo the assertions that the facts and law did not support the lawsuit against them, ab initio. Knowing intimately the criminal character and violent tendencies of the members of New Black Panther Party, it is my profound hope that these assertions are tempered.

This follows the departure of another attorney, who before transferring to South Carolina, read a statement to a surprised “goodbye luncheon” about his opposition to the way the case is handled (see here). More updates to follow. The document is below:

J. Christian Adams resignation letter 051910

UPDATE: The New Black Panthers' website appears to be down. You can read Malik Zulu Shabazz's statement over at Main Justice.


Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/doj-voting-rights-attorney-resigns-over-black-panthers-stonewalling-94202249.html#ixzz0oQUZIv2f

[darrels joy]

New Black Panther Party President Admits to Philadelphia Voter Intimidation; Holder’s Justice Department Still Silent

by Larry O'Connor

“You know we don’t carry batons…. PSYCHE! Heh heh heh… I’m just playin’” – Malik Zulu Shabazz, Preident of The New Black Panther Party.

The Justice Department has seen fit to drop voter intimidation charges against Malik Shabazz’ New Black Panther Party’s involvement in the now infamous events at a polling place in Philadelphia on November 4, 2008. In light of the recent testimony by former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, the story is gaining further attention and scrutiny.

Now, Breitbart.tv is featuring a newly discovered video showing Shabazz boasting about his organizations intentions that day in Philadelphia.

YouTube- Malik Shabazz incriminates himself in...

“There were strong intelligence indicators that there was going to be some trouble at the polls and we wanted to make sure the police were not harassing our people so we wanted to go out and do what we could. It’s just that sometimes the New Black Panther Party, sometimes, whatever we do we just tend to do it kinda strong.”

Finally, Shabazz instructs his disciples that as soon as a “Black man” took over the Justice Department the charges were thrown out.


This new video is even more damning to the Obama Justice Department given the astounding testimony by Mr. Adams:

“I was told by Voting Section management that cases are not going to be brought against Black defendants for the benefit of White victims. That if somebody wanted to bring these cases, it was up to the US Attorney but the Civil Rights Division wasn’t going to be bringing it.”

Under these new revelations and the increasing pressure from the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, how long can Attorney General Eric Holder allow the perception to remain that crimes under his watch are only enforced if the victims and the perpetrators fit the correct racial profile?

http://biggovernment.com/sright/2010...t/#more-142918

[reconeil]

We concerned Americans can bitch about many obvious (since proved time & again) Voter Frauds, Voter Deceits & Thuggish Voter Intimidations as much as liked,...and to no avail whatsoever.

The reason Americans now have no recourse whatsoever to obvious Progressive Political Tyranny is spelled out by 5 letters,...O-B-A-M-A. Also, TOTAL CONTROL of U.S. Government, Congress, DOJ & pretty-much overall Mainstream Press/Media easily permits just that.

Obama blaming Republicans/Conservatives for ANYTHING not passed by Congress are FLAT-OUT-LIES!!! Republicans now have about as much Officialdom say-so,...as The Boy or Girl Scouts of America do.

Hell,...Hitler, Stalin, Mao & Marx never had it so good.

Whatever: "His Barackness" wants (or not) WILL BE,...and that's that. Barry or Barack simply will not politically appoint ANYONE not a totally obedient lacky or ring (or whatever) kisser.

Those preferring nailing whites SOLELY to the cross for: "Pay-back" are also main prerequisites for Obama's current political position selections . Preferring Islam over Infidel Faiths is very helpful for being chosen ALSO,...of course.

Neil

[darrels joy]

The Ike Brown Case: Is the DOJ About to Fail Another Race-Based Test?

Posted By J. Christian Adams On July 11, 2010 @ 12:00 am In . Feature 01, Uncategorized | 33 Comments

Coming soon: an unavoidable decision about race-neutral enforcement of voting laws.

Last week, I testified under oath that pervasive and open hostility exists within the Justice Department towards race-neutral enforcement of voting rights laws. This week, we will all learn a great deal more about the Justice Department’s unwillingness to enforce voting laws equally and in a racially fair way.

To the many who know firsthand of the existence of this hostility, the Department’s current denials seem absurd, if not deceitful. I have urged the advocates of these positions — of which there are many inside and outside the DOJ — to come forward and openly engage in this debate so millions of Americans can hear their arguments for why all Americans should not be protected under the Voting Rights Act by the Justice Department. So far, silence.

Even the NAACP registered a “no comment” to a Philadelphia Inquirer columnist last week. We know what that usually means.

But this week we should get some clarity. And I’ll wager that Americans aren’t going to like what they hear.

This story hails from rural east Mississippi: majority black Noxubee County is home to Ike Brown, one of the most lawless purveyors of racial discrimination the nation has seen in decades. (I have written in greater detail ^[1] about the racially motivated lawlessness Brown used to victimize minority white voters in the county.) Brown canceled ballots cast by white voters. He stuffed the ballot box with illegal ballots supporting his preferred black candidates. He deployed teams of notaries to roam the countryside and mark absentee ballots instead of voters. He allowed forced assistance in the voting booth, to the detriment of white voters. He threatened 174 white voters by declaring that if they tried to participate in an election, he might challenge them and not let them vote. He publicized the 174 names.

Brown ran the primary elections because he is the Democratic Party chairman. At the trial, a woman on Brown’s list testified that she was too afraid to vote because she thought she might be arrested.

The federal court found that the publication of the list of 174 names was an illegal form of intentional racial discrimination. The United States district court held:

The question is whether Brown’s action with respect to this list of 174 voters was actuated by these party loyalty concerns or whether this was pretext for a true purpose to discourage white voters from coming to the polls, or some combination of the two. The court has carefully weighed the evidence and finds that while party concerns were a factor in Brown’s actions, race played a role as well. … In sum, the court is of the opinion that Brown had the names of these white voters published in part because of party loyalty concerns, but also as an attempt to discourage white voters from voting in the 2003 Democratic primary.

Brown’s overall behavior was so outrageous that the court stripped him of all authority to run elections until 2012, and gave the power to a former justice of the Mississippi Supreme Court as a special administrator. The remedy was unprecedented, but upheld on appeal because of the brazen lawlessness of Ike Brown.

Fast forward to 2010, to the Eric Holder Justice Department.

Every change in voting in Mississippi must be submitted for approval to the DOJ voting section — where I worked for five years — under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 5 gives the DOJ power to object to any change motivated by a discriminatory racial intent or with a discriminatory racial effect in nine states and portions of seven. Changes to the law in 2006 made it clear that any discrimination would suffice to trigger an objection under the act.

Right now, the Holder Justice Department has a submission from Ike Brown to allow him to do precisely the same thing he tried in 2003 — prevent people from voting based on their party loyalties.

The Department must decide this week if white victims are worth protecting, by imposing an objection to the same behavior a federal court has already ruled was motivated by an illegal racial intent. If the races were reversed in this submission, there is zero doubt the DOJ would object to the proposal.

Alas, the races aren’t reversed, and I predict there is zero chance that the DOJ will object to Brown’s submission.

Why? For the same reasons I testified about to the United States Civil Rights Commission: there is an open and pervasive hostility within the DOJ towards using the voting laws to protect all races. Instead, the laws are viewed by many in the DOJ — particularly by the political leadership, such as Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes — only as tools to protect national racial minorities and increase their voter turnout.

I also have some inside information.

I have spoken with the victims of Brown’s past illegal behavior in Mississippi, and the DOJ hadn’t even bothered to contact any of them. In a Section 5 submission involving an African-American minority, it is standard DOJ practice to make extensive contacts with the minority community. That hasn’t happened since Brown submitted his scheme for approval on May 14, 2010. No calls, no emails, no nothing out of Justice. No concern, most likely.

In fact, the same white voters who were victimized by Brown in 2003 have begged the DOJ in multiple letters to interpose an objection to Brown’s request to bar people from voting.

Even worse for the Department, Brown told one person last month that he explicitly chose a cutoff date (where if you voted for a Republican before a certain date you could still vote in a Democratic primary) because it would preserve the ability for a number of specific black individuals to continue to participate. Does the DOJ know about this nakedly racial motivation? No — because they didn’t even do the analysis under Section 5.

So here are the choices the Department has available by July 13:

They could object to the submission, which is the right thing to do. This would demonstrate they are at last willing to enforce Section 5 with racial fairness regardless of the race of the victim. All this option requires is a letter.

They could officially ask for more information, but this only extends the clock for 60 days and the same decision will need to be made eventually.
They could make a “no determination” ruling. This means that the matter isn’t ripe for a decision because Brown is not running the elections until 2012. Of course this is a cop-out, because Brown will be running elections with this scheme as a party rule once he resumes control. A “no determination” letter would have the same effect as approval, and leave the victims without any protection.

A final option would be to ask the federal court judge under a different part of the law to stop Brown from implementing the scheme to bar voters from voting. But if it isn’t ripe to object, then it isn’t ripe to sue either. Worse — talk about cost! This would require travel, a hearing, witnesses, and many other costs to the Department. What about those oft-cited resource concerns? Worse yet, there is a risk the DOJ will not win. Judge Tom Lee is a cautious jurist, and he may not wade into a mess with so many uncertainties. Add a contentious tangle in other Mississippi courts about challenges to party loyalty oaths, and you can see why a lawsuit or court action seems like a bad idea. It certainly is not designed to help the voters with a high certainty of a favorable outcome.

Bottom line, if this Justice Department was truly interested in enforcing the law in a race neutral fashion, they could stop Brown’s discriminatory scheme for the cost of a postage stamp. A simple objection letter would prevent him from implementing a practice Judge Lee already has found to violate the law. Any other choice by Holder this week, other than an objection letter, will broadcast DOJ’s disdain toward equal enforcement of the voting laws.

Not only has the Department never lodged an objection under Section 5 to a plan which discriminates against a white minority, they don’t even conduct the analysis. The DOJ will not be able to produce a single document over the 45-year history of the Voting Rights Act where the bureaucrats even considered this possibility.

In the now famous going-away speech of former voting section chief Christopher Coates, he demonstrated the danger ^[2] of this policy:

Since many minority officials are now involved in the administration of elections in many jurisdictions, it is imperative that they believe that the anti-discrimination and anti-intimidation provisions of the Voting Rights Act will be enforced against them by the Justice Department, just as it is imperative that white election officials believe that Justice will enforce the provisions of the Voting Rights Act against them. I fear that actions that indicate that the Justice Department is not in the business of suing minority election officials, or not in the business of filing suits to protect white voters from discrimination or intimidation, will only encourage election officials, who are so inclined, to violate the Voting Rights Act.

The third reason for race-neutral enforcement of the Voting Rights Act so that all persons are protected from discrimination or intimidation regardless of their race is that fair enforcement of the VRA is important for its very survival. America is increasingly a multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural society. For such a diverse group of people to be able to live and function together in a democratic society, there have to be certain common standards that we are bound by and that protect us all. In fact, as we become more diverse, it is even more important that our national standards of non-discrimination are enforced by the federal government.

Coates mentions something important that opponents of race-neutral enforcement of the Voting Rights Act should hear loud and clear.

If the DOJ does not start to use Section 5 to protect a victimized white minority, as they can this week in Noxubee County, then the constitutionality of the law is jeopardized. If no objection to Brown’s scheme is interposed, the three separate plaintiffs currently suing Holder to have Section 5 declared unconstitutional in other cases should do extensive discovery against the voting section and their unwillingness to enforce Section 5 to protect all racial minorities, regardless of their race. The plaintiffs should introduce this hostility into the case record as part of their constitutional challenges to Section 5, so that Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and most importantly, Kennedy, can learn firsthand how the voting section does not equally enforce the law to protect all types of racial minorities.

Or, even better, the DOJ voting section can issue an objection this week to Brown’s racially discriminatory scheme. The DOJ lawyers defending the constitutionality of Section 5 from three separate attacks would probably thank you.

Patriots of all races gave their lives to enshrine racial equality in this country, via the 14th and 15th Amendments and then during the Civil Rights movement. The beneficiaries of these sacrifices should not be limited, either. The Department should undergo a searching examination as to why they are unwilling to enforce voting laws in a racially fair fashion and change course.

Let’s get one thing straight: enforcing voting laws in a racially unfair way is not necessarily racist. Just because some are hostile to equal enforcement of the law does not mean that racism lurks in their hearts. Judge Alex Kozinski wrote of this distinction in a voting rights case, Garza v. Los Angeles. Simply, one can take actions which intentionally harm someone because of their race even if the actor does not hold racial animus in their heart towards that race.

The intentional action, such as not equally enforcing the law, is racially discriminatory, even if it is not motivated by racism. Thus, I have never claimed that the unequal enforcement of these voting laws means anyone at the Justice Department is racist, as some have lazily characterized my columns. This is obviously a rhetorical snare laid by the defenders of the Department’s unequal enforcement policies — a snare Judge Kozinski’s thoughtful opinion allows reasonable people to entirely avoid.

Inside and outside the DOJ, some will snicker at the notion that the provisions of Section 5 should be used to protect whites and Asians when they are in the minority in a covered jurisdiction. Please snicker so the rest of America can hear you. It’s time you engage the debate, or else you are about to lose it badly without ever having spoken up.

---

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com
URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ike...ce-based-test/

URLs in this post: [1] I have written in greater detail: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../....pjm-exclusive/
[2] demonstrated the danger: http://corner.nationalreview.com/pos...zhhZTEyMjU5NmY