Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on June 27, 2010, 04:04:45 PM
-
ADAMS: Inside the Black Panther case Anger, ignorance and lies
By ByJ. Christian Adams
6:58 p.m., Friday, June 25, 2010
Illustration: Black Panther justice by Alexander Hunter for The Washington Times
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ___________
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 federal voter-intimidation statutes we used against the New Black Panthers were enacted because America never realized genuine racial equality in elections. Threats of violence characterized elections from the end of the Civil War until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Before the Voting Rights Act, blacks seeking the right to vote, and those aiding them, were victims of violence and intimidation. But unlike the Southern legal system, Southern violence did not discriminate. Black voters were slain, as were the white champions of their cause. Some of the bodies were tossed into bogs and in one case in Philadelphia, Miss., they were buried together in an earthen dam.
Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department's enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation into the dismissal and the DOJ's skewed enforcement priorities. Attorneys who brought the case are under subpoena to testify, but the department ordered us to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptable legal limbo.
The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the "facts and law" did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let's all hope this administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt dismissal.
Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal - Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum - did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation. Just as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. admitted that he did not read the Arizona immigration law before he condemned it, Mr. Rosenbaum admitted that he had not bothered to read the most important department documents detailing the investigative facts and applicable law in the New Black Panther case. Christopher Coates, the former Voting Section chief, was so outraged at this dereliction of responsibility that he actually threw the memos at Mr. Rosenbaum in the meeting where they were discussing the dismissal of the case. The department subsequently removed all of Mr. Coates' responsibilities and sent him to South Carolina.
Mr. Perez also inaccurately testified to the House Judiciary Committee that federal "Rule 11" required the dismissal of the lawsuit. Lawyers know that Rule 11 is an ethical obligation to bring only meritorious claims, and such a charge by Mr. Perez effectively challenges the ethics and professionalism of the five attorneys who commenced the case. Yet the attorneys who brought the case were voting rights experts and would never pursue a frivolous matter. Their experience in election law far surpassed the experience of the officials who ordered the dismissal.
Some have called the actions in Philadelphia an isolated incident, not worthy of federal attention. To the contrary, the Black Panthers in October 2008 announced a nationwide deployment for the election. We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere, not only in November 2008, but also during the Democratic primaries, where they targeted white Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters. In any event, the law clearly prohibits even isolated incidents of voter intimidation.
Others have falsely claimed that no voters were affected. Not only did the evidence rebut this claim, but the law does not require a successful effort to intimidate; it punishes even the attempt.
Most disturbing, the dismissal is part of a creeping lawlessness infusing our government institutions. Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.
Some of my co-workers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. Less charitable individuals called it "payback time." Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the Voting Section.
Refusing to enforce the law equally means some citizens are protected by the law while others are left to be victimized, depending on their race. Core American principles of equality before the law and freedom from racial discrimination are at risk. Hopefully, equal enforcement of the law is still a point of bipartisan, if not universal, agreement. However, after my experience with the New Black Panther dismissal and the attitudes held by officials in the Civil Rights Division, I am beginning to fear the era of agreement over these core American principles has passed.
J. Christian Adams is a lawyer based in Virginia who served as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department until this month. He blogs at electionlawcenter.com.
________________________ ________________________ ______
WWWTTTFFF????
-
And justice for all...
I still remember how no one seemed to pay much attention to this event when it happened. Would things be different if they were wearing white robes?
-
I was in Pittsburgh PA the day of the election doing vote fraud and remember when this happened and it set off a panic within the voter fraud office where I was.
I volunteered for McCain knowing he sucked and knowing Obama would win just so I could say i tried and was sent to PA to do voter fraud.
-
if that was a white supremacy group standing in front of the voter booths shit would have hit the fan, worse than the l.a. riots and there would still be racial charges being filed!!
-
if that was a white supremacy group standing in front of the voter booths shit would have hit the fan, worse than the l.a. riots and there would still be racial charges being filed!!
I can't wait for Jag, Mal, Blacken, Benny, Mons, 240, Lurker, Straw, and the rest of the gang to appear on this thread.
-
they will just say that this group was just hanging out, and not intimidating anyone, or say that( well eric holder cleared them of any wrong doing) infact, that has been said on here before!! well no shit eric holder cleared them!! no surprise there ???
-
The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the "facts and law" did not support this case.
Just so I have it straight, ...this guy says "the facts and the law do not support this case"
...and you say the Obama administration is racist? ::)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Perez_photo2.jpg)
-
Wait a minute...Those dark skinned brothers aren';t the security guards for the Bildergroup group? Are they?
________________________ ________________________ ______
WWWTTTFFF????
[/quote]
-
Just so I have it straight, ...this guy says "the facts and the law do not support this case"
...and you say the Obama administration is racist? ::)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2d/Perez_photo2.jpg)
The video speaks for itself Jag.
-
If it were tea party people out there they would have had police in riot gear trying to beat them down.You know Pelosi says thay carry SWAS-STIKAS!!!!.Obama is a racist,all his pals are racists and his wife is a racist.Is this news?Tenn. has the worst flood in years down there killing people and destroying property and Obama NEVER says a word.Why?The victims were white.He did make a big deal of the Gates case though because that was important.
-
Jag do you agree that people should not be standing outside of polling booths with billy clubs?
-
If it were tea party people out there they would have had police in riot gear trying to beat them down.You know Pelosi says thay carry SWAS-STIKAS!!!!.Obama is a racist,all his pals are racists and his wife is a racist.Is this news?Tenn. has the worst flood in years down there killing people and destroying property and Obama NEVER says a word.Why?The victims were white.He did make a big deal of the Gates case though because that was important.
The best part is that thte ydropped the case and its all on video!
I do election fraud monitoring every 4 years and this is as clear a case as it gets.
-
FNC Exclusive: Former DOJ Attorney Discusses New Black Panther Party Voter Intimidation Case
Fox News ^ | 30 June 2010 | MEGYN KELLY
J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS, FORMER JUSTIC DEPARTMENT LAWYER: Well, people were standing in front of the polls with weapons in Philadelphia on the day that President Obama was elected in 2008. The Justice Department brought a case in January under the voter intimidation statutes against the New Black Panther Party, the individuals who organized the deployment and the folks with the weapons in Philadelphia at the polls.
MEGYN KELLY, "AMERICA LIVE" HOST: Ok, and so the guy we see banging the baton, he was one defendant. The guy next to him who was said to have been saying intimidating things, he was a defendant. The New Black Panther Party was a defendant and the head of it was a defendant.
ADAMS: That’s right, all four.
KELLY: Ok, and what was basically the heart of the case against them.
ADAMS: Yeah, this 1965 Voting Rights Act protects voters from voter intimidation. You’re supposed to be able to go vote without somebody with a weapon shouting racial slurs at you like these folks were doing in Philadelphia.
KELLY: What were they saying?
ADAMS: Well, they said, “You’re about to be ruled by the black man, Cracker”. They called people “white devils”. They menaced, they tapped their baton. They tried to stop people from entering the polls.
KELLY: Is there any question in your mind that that violates the law.
ADAMS: No, nor anybody that worked on the case. It’s the easiest case I ever had at the Justice Department. It doesn’t get any easier than this. If this doesn’t constitute voter intimidation, nothing will.
KELLY: And you had, you had not just that video tape, which we’ve all now seen, but you had witness testimony from some credible witnesses who were there.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
-
ADAMS: Well, they said, “You’re about to be ruled by the black man, Cracker”. They called people “white devils”. They menaced, they tapped their baton. They tried to stop people from entering the polls.
No racism, no intimidation, all propaganda by "the man"..
Just imagine if it wasn't the Black Panthers but the KKK or something similar.
-
Wait a minute...Those dark skinned brothers aren';t the security guards for the Bildergroup group? Are they?
________________________ ________________________ ______
WWWTTTFFF????
Why do you call them "brothers"? Don't you recognize a silverback when you see one?
-
Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case
Published July 06, 2010
| FoxNews.com
Print Email Share Comments (196) Text Size
Shown here is former Justice official J. Christian Adams. (FNC)
________________________ ________________________ ________________________
In emotional and personal testimony, an ex-Justice official who quit over the handling of a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party accused his former employer of instructing attorneys in the civil rights division to ignore cases that involve black defendants and white victims.
J. Christian Adams, testifying Tuesday before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, said that "over and over and over again," the department showed "hostility" toward those cases. He described the Black Panther case as one example of that -- he defended the legitimacy of the suit and said his "blood boiled" when he heard a Justice official claim the case wasn't solid.
"It is false," Adams said of the claim.
"We abetted wrongdoing and abandoned law-abiding citizens," he later testified.
The department abandoned the New Black Panther case last year. It stemmed from an incident on Election Day in 2008 in Philadelphia, where members of the party were videotaped in front of a polling place, dressed in military-style uniforms and allegedly hurling racial slurs while one brandished a night stick.
The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012.
The Civil Rights Commission, which subpoenaed Adams, has been probing the incident since last year. Adams said he ignored department directives not to testify and eventually quit after he heard Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez testify that there were concerns the Black Panther case was not supported by the facts.
Adams has described the case as open-and-shut and said Tuesday that it was a "very low moment" to hear Perez make that claim.
But he described the department's hostility toward that and other cases involving black defendants as "pervasive." Adams cited hostility in the department toward a 2007 voting rights case against a black official in Mississippi who was accused of trying to intimidate voters. Adams said that when the Black Panther case came up, he heard officials in the department say it was "no big deal" and "media-generated" and point to "Fox News" as the source.
But as the investigation unfolded, he said he discovered "indications" that the Black Panther Party was doing the "same thing" to supporters of former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primary season in early 2008. He urged the commission to pursue testimony from other Justice officials to corroborate his story.
It's unclear how far the commission will get. The commissioners want to hear from Christopher Coates, the former chief of the Justice Department's voting section, but the commission claims the Justice Department is blocking Coates from testifying about why the case was dropped.
The Justice Department claims it enforces voting rights laws equally. In a written statement last week, the department questioned the motives of Adams, now an attorney in Virginia and a blogger for Pajamas Media.
"It is not uncommon for attorneys with the department to have good faith disagreements about the appropriate course of action in a particular case, although it is regrettable when a former department attorney distorts the facts and makes baseless allegations to promote his or her agenda," the statement said.
Adams said Tuesday that his personal views played no part in his handling of the case. He also said he did not fight to testify before the commission but resigned after the department would not take action to quash the subpoena.
-
:-\ Hope and change.
-
More like Rape & Pillage.
-
Question - who is the coward on race if Holder refuses to prosecute minorities?
Sounds like Holder himself is the coward.
-
This is the savage they are protecting while they go after Arizona.
Who is the coward now?
-
how is that not hate speech? think if that were a white talking about islam or mexicans
-
how is that not hate speech? think if that were a white talking about islam or mexicans
Hate speech? The savage is calling for murder of white babies!
This is who Obama/Holder are protecting.
-
-
(http://www.newblackpanther.com/divineforcouncil/ourtimeweb.jpg)
"Bro. Divine Allah"
Who would've thought..
I read some of the "King" Samir Shabazz's rhetoric and it's sickening. Pure hate speech but since he's black it's obviously not considered as such.
-
I don't think these fellas would try that in certain parts of North Cackalacka...... ;D
-
I don't think these fellas would try that in certain parts of North Cackalacka...... ;D
Not one lib has chimed in on this gross perversion of the the "justice system" . Wonder why?
-
Not one lib has chimed in on this gross perversion of the the "justice system" . Wonder why?
Not at all surprised. Big believers in freedom of speech, as long as you don't disagree with them.....thats what I've found about vast majority of libs.
-
Not at all surprised. Big believers in freedom of speech, as long as you don't disagree with them.....thats what I've found about vast majority of libs.
The second clip says it all. This is who obama and holder protect, a savage animal pofs who calls for murder, all while they sue AZ.
Notice Mal, KC, Blacken, mons, even 240, have not appeared in this thread?
-
Skip to comments.
BREAKING: A Third Former DOJ Official Steps Forward to Support J. Christian Adams (Updated)
Pajamas Media ^ | July 6, 2010 | Staff
Posted on Wednesday, July 07, 2010 3:01:38 PM by jazusamo
________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ____________
Former DOJ employees want to go on record praising Adams' outstanding work record, and — pay attention, DOJ press liaisons — maybe corroborate Adams' charges about DOJ hostility to race-neutral law enforcement. (Check back here for updates in the hours and days ahead, as PJM posts additional statements.)
Several former DOJ employees have been in contact with Pajamas Media, interested in publicly supporting J. Christian Adams as he comes forward about the DOJ’s failure to enforce the country’s laws from a race-neutral perspective.
These former DOJ employees have expressed a willingness to go on record regarding Adams’ professionalism, excellent performance, and outstanding record of enforcing the law without racial bias.
Additionally, they would like to corroborate Adams’ statements about the DOJ.
And perhaps — pay attention, DOJ press liaisons — offer their own accounts regarding the DOJ’s hostility to race-neutral law enforcement.
Watch this space today, and over the next few days, for additional statements from former DOJ employees.
First, here is Asheesh Agarwal. From 2006-2008, Asheesh Agarwal served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division. In that position, Agarwal supervised the Division’s Voting Section, which included Adams, and worked directly with Adams on several matters. Agarwal is currently an attorney in private practice.
During his tenure with the Department of Justice’s Voting Section, J. Christian Adams was a model attorney who vigorously enforced federal voting rights laws on behalf of all voters, without respect to race or ideology. Mr. Adams was also one of the most productive and successful voting attorneys in recent memory.
His victories include two cases on behalf of African-American voters under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, two cases on behalf of white voters under Section 2, and six cases on behalf of Hispanic voters under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. He also brought and won three cases on behalf of military voters. Having worked closely with Mr. Adams for several years, I can attest to the unsurpassed quality of his character, judgment, and commitment to the cause of civil rights on behalf of all Americans.
– Asheesh Agarwal
UPDATE: Mark Corallo, former Department of Justice director of public affairs, submits a statement to Pajamas Media:
As the Department of Justice director of public affairs under Attorney General John Ashcroft, I witnessed the hostility of the “career” Civil Rights Division attorneys firsthand.
Internal disagreements over policy routinely became matters for the press, via leaks to reporters or leaks to Democrat members of Congress. They had no compunction about breaking the ethical requirement of attorneys to keep those internal deliberations confidential.
I am not surprised that the Department is attacking J. Christian Adams. The Civil Rights Division attorneys have no interest in the rule of law as written and passed by Congress — the New Black Panther case is glaring proof that the Division has an agenda. If Congress was truly interested in oversight, there would be hearings on this case and others.
J. Christian Adams did the honorable thing in resigning and speaking out.
Democrats constantly complained about the lack of oversight when Republicans were the majority party in Congress. Can any reasonable person imagine the Democrats ignoring a case of blatant violations of the Voting Rights Act (captured on video) brought by career Civil Rights Division attorneys being dismissed by a Republican attorney general?
Any veteran of the Justice Department should be outraged.
UPDATE: Robert Driscoll was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General from 2001-03. He is now an attorney in private practice:
When I served as chief of staff and deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division under John Ashcroft, I became familiar with the internal politics of the Division, and am therefore not surprised by the accounts of J. Christian Adams describing the New Black Panther voting case.
While I met many excellent lawyers in the Division dedicated to the rule of law, too many of the the career staff (a term never to be confused with “apolitical”) viewed the role of the Civil Rights Division as simply that of a government-funded advocacy group whose responsibility was to work on behalf of favored political and agenda-driven constituencies — and not to neutrally apply the law (as written by Congress, and interpreted by the courts) to the facts.
In contrast, as a private attorney I encountered J. Christian Adams (and other voting section members, including then Chief Christopher Coates and Deputy Chief Tim Mellett) while handling a voting rights matter against the DOJ. Adams and the rest of the team acted professionally and consistent with their understanding of the law and facts. While I disagreed with Mr. Adams and the DOJ team on some matters of interpretation, I could not have told you the political views of Mr. Adams or any of the attorneys I encountered based on my interaction with them.
Moreover, the position taken by Mr. Adams in that case was certainly not pushing any conservative agenda, as the suit sought to increase African-American representation on an elected body (based on ambiguous evidence of vote dilution) and resulted in the adoption of a voting plan designed to enhance the ability of minority voters to influence the outcome of elections.
While it is certainly within the authority of the senior levels of the DOJ Civil Rights Division to make the final litigation decision on any case, including the New Black Panther matter, it would seem to me that dismissal of that case — after default has been entered and where video evidence exists — is a highly unusual decision that is worthy of congressional oversight. While some may cast such oversight in partisan terms, it need not be.
The video of the defendants in the Black Panther matter was seen by millions. While most have not studied civil rights law or the Voting Rights Act in detail, viewers of the video assume that the kind of conduct shown in the video is inappropriate at a polling place. A lawsuit was filed by experienced voting rights lawyers at DOJ to remedy the situation and prevent such future conduct. And yet the case was dismissed voluntarily by the DOJ (after a shift in administration), a result that seems — at a visceral level — strange to anyone who has seen the video.
The detailed testimony of the decision-makers (not the subsequent appointee who was not around at the time of the decision) would be enlightening and educational. If the dismissal of the case against the Black Panthers was a result of political influence (as Mr. Adams alleges — an allegation that does not seem far-fetched, based on my experience), that is important to know. Political decisions can have political consequences and one can imagine there would be consequences if a political appointee “weighed in” on behalf of a fringe group like the New Black Panthers. But even if the DOJ is correct that no political influence played a role, oversight is perhaps even more important.
If this is indeed the view of senior career DOJ staff — that after reviewing the facts of the New Black Panther case and the video, current laws against voter intimidation provide no ability for the DOJ to properly bring an action against the New Black Panther members shown on video and mentioned in the lawsuit — then Congress needs to have a conversation with Attorney General Holder about whether the problem lies with the Voting Rights Act itself, or with those whose job it is to enforce it.
-
Bump for Mal.
-
yeah i watched something this morning with my breakfast...The voter intimidation stuff right. So is it your claim that obama ::) wont charge blacks with a crime? Or was there not enough evidence to prosecute. Or does the DOJ go to court with every single case put in front of them?
Stop reaching like a little bitch...and yeah..im gonna bust yo ass on every dumb ass thread you start and get to the foundation of why you so mad son. Your posts smell of partisan bullshit as you search for dumb ass articles that support your view. You search for non objective writers who contribute to a outlet that slants heavy to one side...then you repost it as gosepel and base your opinion off that...That = totally retarded...Dude you actually posted pictures that said Palin 2012..and get mad when i post her report card. Do us a favor...Do something that gains you a little bit of cred and then maybe ill think about takin you serious..
But for all of you that suscribe to the "it was all good just a week ago" theory that Obama came in and caused this recession and Obama caused the oil leak and Obama caused Bernie Madoff to rip niggas off and Obama is the reason you got gas after you eat beans...all that bull shit can suck it.
-
yeah i watched something this morning with my breakfast...The voter intimidation stuff right. So is it your claim that obama ::) wont charge blacks with a crime? Or was there not enough evidence to prosecute. Or does the DOJ go to court with every single case put in front of them?
Stop reaching like a little bitch...and yeah..im gonna bust yo ass on every dumb ass thread you start and get to the foundation of why you so mad son. Your posts smell of partisan bullshit as you search for dumb ass articles that support your view. You search for non objective writers who contribute to a outlet that slants heavy to one side...then you repost it as gosepel and base your opinion off that...That = totally retarded...Dude you actually posted pictures that said Palin 2012..and get mad when i post her report card. Do us a favor...Do something that gains you a little bit of cred and then maybe ill think about takin you serious..
But for all of you that suscribe to the "it was all good just a week ago" theory that Obama came in and caused this recession and Obama caused the oil leak and Obama caused Bernie Madoff to rip niggas off and Obama is the reason you got gas after you eat beans...all that bull shit can suck it.
The video speaks for itself. I do voter fraud monitoring every 4 years in my legal capacity and this is an open and shut case. And you have a career lawyer testifying as to what occurred here and that is not enough for you?
-
The video speaks for itself. I do voter fraud monitoring every 4 years in my legal capacity and this is an open and shut case. And you have a career lawyer testifying as to what occurred here and that is not enough for you?
Are there any transcripts that have the evidence and a precedence case to refer..Bro...all im saying is coming from you,....after the "obama calls the swat on grandmothers" thread was blown to bits...its hard taking anything you say serious
-
Are there any transcripts that have the evidence and a precedence case to refer..Bro...all im saying is coming from you,....after the "obama calls the swat on grandmothers" thread was blown to bits...its hard taking anything you say serious
I'm not asking you to take my word for it. I posted the interview with the career DOJ lawyer for this about this case as well as the video of the incident.
Those two leave one with only one conclusion - that political pressure was put from the top down to drop the case, mostl likely from holder, who himself has worked on behalf of terrorists and criminals his whole career like the FALN terrorists and Marc Rich.
-
What was the predominate race of the communities that the NEW ::) black panthers terroized
-
What was the predominate race of the communities that the NEW ::) black panthers terroized
They were not there to scare voters, they were there to make sure that people like myself, election monitors and fraud investigators, were intimidated and scared off from challenging questionable voters and ballots.
I have worked elections for the last 3 elections and know the system far better than most. I was in Pittsburgh in 2008, Jax FL in 2004, and NYC in 2000.
-
Explosive New Evidence of DOJ’s Racial Discrimination, Obstruction and Perjury (Andy McCarthy)
National Review ^ | October 1, 2010 | Andy McCarthy
In my column on Tuesday (see here, with a Corner correction here), I suggested that candidates running for office should pledge to investigate the Obama Justice Department. Today, there is eye-popping new evidence to add to the already disturbing indications that the Department is engaged in racially discriminatory enforcement of the civil rights laws, and that high-ranking Department officials have both obstructed justice and provided intentionally false testimony in the Civil Rights Commission’s investigation of the New Black Panther
Party voter-intimidation case.
At the Standard’s blog, Daniel Halper has a must read post, relying on the tireless investigative work of Jen Rubin. It relates to DOJ attorney Christopher Coates, the whistleblower who recently defied DOJ’s efforts to block him from testifying before the Civil Rights Commission. The Commission sought to question him about, among other things, (a) whether the Obama/Holder Justice Department has followed a policy of racially discriminatory law-enforcement, and (b) whether DOJ Civil Rights Division chief Thomas Perez was truthful in May 2010 when he told the Civil Rights Commission, under oath, that he was unaware of any complaints within the Department that DOJ leadership had imposed a policy of racially discriminatory enforcement of the civil rights laws (see Jen’s Contentions post, here).
You should read all of Dan’s post, but here is the gist:
Jen Rubin previously reported in THE WEEKLY STANDARD that an April 2010 letter documented Coates’s key allegations. THE WEEKLY STANDARD has learned that the letter came from Coates himself and was sent to Jody Hunt, director of federal programs. Hunt participated in the briefing of Civil Rights head Thomas Perez on May 13, 2010, which Coates and other members of the trial team attended. At that briefing, Coates’s concerns were related to Perez. Perez nevertheless testified under oath before the Commission that hostility toward race neutral enforcement of civil rights laws was news to him.
In addition, sources now tell THE WEEKLY STANDARD that after 11 pm on September 23, the night before Coates was to testify before the Commission, the same individual, Jody Hunt, sent Coates a letter advising him again not to testify. Only 6 hours earlier Rep. Frank Wolf had sent [attorney general] Eric Holder a letter warning him that Coates was protected under federal whistleblower laws. Jen Rubin contacted the Justice Department for comment. Spokesman Tracy Schmaler’s only reply: “The letter speaks for itself.” She did not respond to a follow up question as to whether DOJ would take disciplinary action against Coates. Coates could not be reached for comment.
To sum up: Coates puts his explosive allegations about unequal enforcement of civil rights laws in writing. The same official who gets the letter sits in a briefing with Perez when the allegations are repeated. And then at literally the 11th hour before Coates testifies he sends out a letter which makes one last stab at keeping the story under wraps. Jen Rubin’s sources tell us that it’s not remotely possible that all of this would have occurred without the express knowledge and direction of senior DOJ officials.
The vast majority of Americans wants race-neutral law-enforcement, would be profoundly offended by any other kind, and minimally expects the Justice Department to be forthright and forthcoming in legal proceedings — particularly given that Justice demands nothing less of ordinary Americans. It is Congress’s job to hold DOJ to account. The Democratic Congress clearly has no intention of examining the policies and practices of the Obama Justice Department. That’s a huge reason why we need a new Congress. The mainstream media has tried to suffocate this story by inattention, but it hasn’t worked because race-neutral law-enforcement is something people care about. Congressional candidates, take note.
-
Do you see how stupid libs are?They defend this crap and STILL wont say Obama is a racist.Two seperate guys on opposite ends of the political spectrum both testified UNDER OATH that the Obama administration has a policy to not investigate voter intimidation cases if the victim is white and these fool ass idiot libs defend it!!!
See you in Nov. libs!!!
-
Do you see how stupid libs are?They defend this crap and STILL wont say Obama is a racist.Two seperate guys on opposite ends of the political spectrum both testified UNDER OATH that the Obama administration has a policy to not investigate voter intimidation cases if the victim is white and these fool ass idiot libs defend it!!!
See you in Nov. libs!!!
I got my assignment this week for November 2, 2010 to do voter fraud watch. I can't wait. I plan on wearing my combat boots, bdu pants, and have my attorney ID hanging from my neck.
Maybe I will wear a whistle and bring the clip board for more effect. ;D
-
Where is 240 or Mal or Blacken to defend this...oh wait they love racism against whites,nevermind.
-
Bump for bezerkfury
-
Progressives, Islamists huddle at Justice Department -(crimalize criticism of Islam)
Daily Caller ^ | October 21, 2011 | Neil Munro
Posted on October 24, 2011 6:20:41 PM EDT by opentalk
Top Justice Department officials convened a meeting Wednesday where invited Islamist advocates lobbied them for cutbacks in anti-terror funding, changes in agents’ training manuals, additional curbs on investigators and a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’ criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination.
The department’s “civil rights lawyers are top of the line — I say this with utter honesty — I know they can come up with a way” to redefine criticism as discrimination, said Sahar Aziz, a female, Egyptian-American lawyer.
“I’d be willing to give a shot at it,” said Aziz, who is a fellow at the Michigan-based Muslim advocacy group, the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding.
The audience of Islamist advocates and department officials included Tom Perez, who heads the department’s division of civil rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
-
Progressives, Islamists huddle at Justice Department -(crimalize criticism of Islam)
Daily Caller ^ | October 21, 2011 | Neil Munro
Posted on October 24, 2011 6:20:41 PM EDT by opentalk
Top Justice Department officials convened a meeting Wednesday where invited Islamist advocates lobbied them for cutbacks in anti-terror funding, changes in agents’ training manuals, additional curbs on investigators and a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’ criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination.
The department’s “civil rights lawyers are top of the line — I say this with utter honesty — I know they can come up with a way” to redefine criticism as discrimination, said Sahar Aziz, a female, Egyptian-American lawyer.
“I’d be willing to give a shot at it,” said Aziz, who is a fellow at the Michigan-based Muslim advocacy group, the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding.
The audience of Islamist advocates and department officials included Tom Perez, who heads the department’s division of civil rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
WTF
-
that Tom Perez at DOJ is BAD NEWS.
-
Progressives, Islamists huddle at Justice Department -(crimalize criticism of Islam)
Daily Caller ^ | October 21, 2011 | Neil Munro
Posted on October 24, 2011 6:20:41 PM EDT by opentalk
Top Justice Department officials convened a meeting Wednesday where invited Islamist advocates lobbied them for cutbacks in anti-terror funding, changes in agents’ training manuals, additional curbs on investigators and a legal declaration that U.S. citizens’ criticism of Islam constitutes racial discrimination.
The department’s “civil rights lawyers are top of the line — I say this with utter honesty — I know they can come up with a way” to redefine criticism as discrimination, said Sahar Aziz, a female, Egyptian-American lawyer.
“I’d be willing to give a shot at it,” said Aziz, who is a fellow at the Michigan-based Muslim advocacy group, the Institute for Social Policy & Understanding.
The audience of Islamist advocates and department officials included Tom Perez, who heads the department’s division of civil rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Muslims bashing Christians, Jews and Hindus will be OK, though. Nothing discriminatory about that. How dare you embrace the first amendment! ::)
Islam = incompatible with free speech.
-
I have been keeping tabs on this Tom Perez figure. He is at the heart of nearly every outrage along w holder.
-
U.S. Justice Department to investigate shootings by Miami police
By CHARLES RABIN AND JAY WEAVER
crabin@miamiherald.com
MARICE COHN BAND / MIAMI HERALD STAFF
The 3rd Ave. Supermarket & Restaurant, 1649 NW 3rd Ave., in Miami, was where Decarlos Moore was shot by a City of Miami Police officer on Monday, July 5, 2010. The U.S. Justice Department will investigate whether Miami police violated the constitutional rights of seven black men who were shot to death by officers over an eight-month span, raising tensions in the inner city and sparking demands for an independent review.
The civil investigation — known as a “pattern and practice’’ probe — will examine Miami police policies and training involving deadly force. The goal: to determine if systemic flaws made shootings of black men more likely, rather than unfortunate, last-choice actions, as the officers’ supporters maintain.
A source close to the investigation confirmed Wednesday night that Thomas E. Perez, head of Justice’s civil rights division, and Miami U.S. Attorney Wifredo Ferrer will announce the investigation during a press conference in downtown Miami Thursday morning.
Family members of the deceased, church leaders and activists have been invited to meet with Ferrer Wednesday afternoon, but they were not told why. They reacted with relief when told the news.
“Oh, that’s great, great, really good,” said Sheila McNeil, whose unarmed son Travis McNeil, 28, was shot to death in his car in Little Haiti Feb. 10 by Officer Reinaldo Goyo. The officer said McNeil was driving erratically. No weapon was ever found.
“I’m just glad to know it’s not forgotten,’’ McNeil told The Miami Herald. “Right now I don’t know more than I did the night he died, so I’m just waiting to hear what they have to say.”
But Nathaniel Wilcox, executive director of People United to Lead the Struggle for Equality, or PULSE, who has stood with many of the dead men’s families during a series of emotional public meetings, criticized federal authorities for not opening a criminal investigation into the shooting deaths. They spanned July 2010 to February 2011.
“We think they really took too long and we feel abandoned,’’ Wilcox said. “We expected the Obama administration to do a lot more and a lot quicker than they did.”
The Justice Department will not conduct criminal investigations into the seven shootings, which are under review by the Miami-Dade State Attorney’s Office. But Justice will look into the Miami Police Department’s training methods, leadership and practices. Any adverse findings could lead to court-enforced reforms, but more frequently, Justice works with a police department to iron out any problems.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami declined comment Wednesday.
Acting Miami Police Chief Manuel Orosa did not respond to interview requests. But spokesman Delrish Moss said the department is being revamped under the new chief, who assumed the post in September and is conducting a “top to bottom review of everything, from training to hiring.”
Miami Mayor Tomás Regalado did not return calls.
The impending investigation marks the second time in a decade that federal authorities have conducted an investigation into alleged systemic violations of constitutional rights by Miami police officers.
In 2002, Justice conducted a much broader civil probe, concluding in 2003 that the department had serious flaws in the way it conducted searches and seizures, used firearms, defined use of force and worked with police dogs. The inquiry began at the city’s request after several controversial police shootings.
However, the report did “not reach any conclusion” about whether the police department’s policies caused civil rights violations.
Since the latest spate of shootings began in July 2010, the public and families of the slain men have clamored for answers, repeatedly seeking transparency from police and the Miami-Dade state attorney’s office.
The police, under the leadership of then-Chief Miguel Exposito, who was terminated in September for insubordination, took heat for keeping quiet. Exposito even refused to turn over information to a civilian oversight panel when it sought details on the first shooting, of DeCarlos Moore in Overtown in July 2010.
Exposito blamed the shootings on a turf war created after his officers took guns off the streets. He also criticized State Attorney Katherine Fernandez Rundle for taking too long to close out her investigations, ham-stringing his ability to speak about the shootings.
Friction over the shootings intensified as the number of incidents grew. The NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union called for a federal investigation. In late February, U.S. Rep. Frederica Wilson asked U.S. Attorney Eric Holder, the nation’s top law enforcement officer, to look into Miami police policies involving deadly force.
Regalado also requested an investigation, in August.
On Tuesday, Wilson called the investigation “a step in the right direction.” “I think it’s important because of the injustice that happened,” Wilson told The Herald. “I want [Miami police] to respect each other, and drop the racist tactics in training.”
The ACLU praised the development. “We have a crisis in this community where the police department is too quick to use deadly force, especially aimed at young black men, and it doesn’t have the mechanism to control itself,” said Howard Simon, executive director of the ACLU of Florida.
Locally, the state attorney’s office has closed only one criminal review, clearing the officer in the Moore shooting. Police said Moore disobeyed an order to stay put, and returned to his car where officers thought they saw him holding a shiny object, possibly a weapon. No weapon was found at the scene.
The other men killed by police were Joell Lee Johnson, Tarnorris Tyrell Gaye, Gibson Junior Belizaire, Brandon Foster, Lynn Weatherspoon, and McNeil, who was followed by police from a lounge on Northwest 79th Street. McNeil’s friend, Kareem Williams, was shot too, but survived.
The Justice investigation into Miami police will be the 18th being conducted by the Obama administration, which has stepped up civil rights investigations across the country. The federal effort has won praise from advocacy groups and experts on police brutality.
Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, said recently that the investigations into local police are “really a cornerstone of our work.” He was speaking to reporters about a Justice report on Puerto Rico, which accused officers of widespread brutality, unconstitutional arrests and targeting people of Dominican descent. That followed a Justice Department report in March that said the New Orleans Police Department repeatedly violated constitutional rights by using excessive force, illegally arresting people and targeting black and gay residents.
Read more: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/11/16/v-print/2505941/us-justice-department-to-investigate.html#ixzz1dzWxSwxe
Figures.