Obama Withdraws Lawsuits Against Blacks?

[Pangloss]

Late in the Bush administration the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the New Black Panther organization over accusations of voter intimidation at the polls. This video made the rounds at the time and may help jog memories:

 

neGbKHyGuHU

 

Eyewitness testimony was more severe:

 

Witnesses described an ugly scene: Two members of the New Black Panther Party threatening white voters the day Barack Obama was elected president, flinging insults like "white devil" and "you're about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

 

The federal government actually WON the case, but it was pending a sentencing recommendation from the government. Then the Obama administration took office -- and withdrew the case.

 

The basis for this action stated by the NEW Justice Department was as follows:

 

Department of Justice spokesman Tracy Schmaler said the law is enforced equally for everyone and that the charges against the New Black Panthers were dropped because they were not supported by the facts or the law.

 

Odd that a judge didn't find that to be the case. But now a whistleblower has come forth with the allegation that in fact the reason why the case was withdrawn was because the defendants were black.

 

Now a former Justice Department lawyer is accusing his ex-superiors of ignoring white voters' rights and creating a systematic "one-way" approach in which only minorities are protected.

 

The claims by J. Christian Adams are the latest installment of a long-running dispute over Justice Department enforcement of the nation's civil rights laws. It's a political fight over such volatile accusations as black-on-white racism, double standards and payback — issues that are magnified with black men serving as president and attorney general.

 

"To some, the civil rights laws are not meant to protect all Americans, they are meant to protect certain Americans," Adams, a conservative who helped prosecute the case against the New Black Panthers, wrote in a June 28 essay on pajamasmedia.com. He quit the Justice Department on May 14.

 

To me this seems rather incredible, and I would imagine that it's more likely that Justice officials simply don't believe in the case anymore. But that could very well be fueled by ideological beliefs, and it seems to underscore the underlying problem of having a federal Justice Department that operates within political boundaries. I don't know that there's a great solution to that problem, but I do think that it suggests very strongly that the problem of ideological manipulation of the Justice Department was not limited to the Bush administration.

 

What do you all think?

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i6PlcZeiW_Nucd6_I72lQV6BEi4QD9GMHAS82

[ParanoiA]

I did not know about this part:

 

The federal government actually WON the case, but it was pending a sentencing recommendation from the government. Then the Obama administration took office -- and withdrew the case[/i'].

 

Geez, I thought the court battle hadn't begun yet. Definitely an affront to civil rights. It's sad, as it would have been a great opportunity to demonstrate balance and principle, and justice.

 

Now a former Justice Department lawyer is accusing his ex-superiors of ignoring white voters' rights and creating a systematic "one-way" approach in which only minorities are protected.

 

But you know, white people have it so good and all, we just need to shut up and take it. We deserve it, after all. Rights are for minorities. Majorities are oppressive, by design, and get what's coming to them. I know I'm always kicking black people around, denying them jobs, taking their money. Unfair? Well sure, but I get away with it because I'm white - I get the ole wink and nod from "the man".

 

We whities enjoy the good-ole-boy network. You know how many good jobs I've gotten because I'm white? Can't count them with all my fingers and toes. All employers look for is the "magic" question on the application, race. Once they see I'm white, it's done. My home loan? Same thing. In fact, the whole application process for credit is merely a ruse - if you're white, you get the loan. Otherwise, you have to prove you can pay it. Being white is so much a privilege, and so advantageous...

 

The black panthers are just equalizing, that's all. You know...because it's about "impact" and all.

 

 

"To some, the civil rights laws are not meant to protect all Americans, they are meant to protect certain Americans," Adams, a conservative who helped prosecute the case against the New Black Panthers, wrote in a June 28 essay on pajamasmedia.com. He quit the Justice Department on May 14.

 

Look for the "disgruntled worker" excuse to shut him down.

 

I'd like an elaborated version of the DOJ's excuse not to allow these racist cauc-o-phobes not to get bent over in prison like they deserve.

Edited July 2, 2010 by ParanoiA

[Dudde]

Wait..so what's the case? There were some black dudes hanging around outside the polls, one had a nightstick, and apparently were hurling insults:

 

"Witnesses described an ugly scene: Two members of the New Black Panther Party threatening white voters the day Barack Obama was elected president, flinging insults like "white devil" and "you're about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

 

What were they threatening? Did they coerce voters into voting, or just stand there saying stuff? The Wiki page says there was a guy with a night stick, but was escorted away by police - and I didn't see any physical actions taken by those guys? Seems to me they were just pushing voters to voting against Obama by intimidation

 

EDIT:

and after getting to hear the video... I mean yeah intimidating presence is one thing, but did they do anything? Can someone find something I'm not? I saw two white people walk out of the booth at the end of the video, were they preventing people from entering?

Edited July 3, 2010 by Dudde
Got to watch the video with sound

[Pangloss]

Well, that is doing something. As I understand it the act is assumed to have impact whether it's actually quantified or not. This makes sense -- you don't know how many people may have seen them at a distance and decided not to vote, so you just ban the activity altogether (exception to free speech within X distance of the poll, etc).

 

Obviously all of that's debatable but I really think it's pretty clear that it's a bad idea. The Ku Klux Klan used to do the same thing in the South during segregation, often not even saying anything, just standing there, sending a very clear message. Can't have that sort of thing.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Seeing that the federal government won the case, it appears there was enough done to warrant conviction, no matter what it was.

[Genecks]

I think if they were standing near or around the voting area, then it should be illegal. If they were maybe three blocks away, I wouldn't mind. But within a block radius, I would mind. Maybe even 40 feet within the area is a problem. I don't think voters should have to deal with this kind of situation at the polling places.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The problem's whether not it should be illegal -- whatever they did is illegal. But for some reason the case was dropped after the government had won. You don't do that when you just think it's not worth prosecuting.

[Genecks]

Well, then it looks like someone is looking for the black vote.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Shortly before President George W. Bush left office' date=' the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the two men, the New Black Panther Party and its leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz. The defendants never responded to the government's lawsuit, which had the same effect as a guilty plea.

 

Before any penalties could be handed down — and after Obama appointed Eric Holder to run the Justice Department — charges were dropped against everyone but Samir Shabazz. The court prohibited him from displaying a weapon within 100 feet of any Philadelphia polling place through 2012.[/quote']

 

Hmm... they weren't actually properly convicted.

 

How could this be a publicity stunt to get the black vote if the government's trying not to publicize it and it was only brought up by a disgruntled ex-Justice-Department lawyer? I'd think that if you were fishing for the vote, you'd get the word out.

[DJBruce]

blicity stunt to get the black vote if the government's trying not to publicize it and it was only brought up by a disgruntled ex-Justice-Department lawyer? I'd think that if you were fishing for the vote, you'd get the word out.

 

I've actually seen this publicized a few times on Fox News, more specifically The O'Reilly Factor, but they were basically bashing the Obama Administration over it. So I would think you might be right that they are not fishing for votes. Although I do not see any real reason for the case to be dismissed, and I definelty makes me slightly nervous about Obama's position on discrimination and reverse racism.

 

Just as a little hypothetical. Do you guys think the case would have been dismissed had the person standing out front been a neo-nazi yelling slurs at African America's. I would put money that they would be punished the full extent of the law, just as they should. In my mind Lady Justice is blind.

[Pangloss]

Do you guys think the case would have been dismissed had the person standing out front been a neo-nazi yelling slurs at African America's. I would put money that they would be punished the full extent of the law, just as they should. In my mind Lady Justice is blind.

 

Exactly. I don't think it's a "publicity stunt" -- I don't think they dropped the suit because they want to show the black community they care (etc). I think their ideology simply lead them to the conclusion that these individuals didn't mean any harm. They might even suggest that observers wouldn't have been intimidated by them were they not black and tough-looking, suggesting racism on the part of the complainers. They wouldn't even be wrong, but they'd be missing the point of the law.

[swansont]

I'd like an elaborated version of the DOJ's excuse not to allow these racist cauc-o-phobes not to get bent over in prison like they deserve.

 

It was a civil suit. Nobody was going to go to jail as a result, no matter what had happened.

 

 

I was under the impression that suits like this are brought by voters, or someone representing voters. Searching for voter intimidation lawsuits gives a lot of hits, but they are invariably by the voters. When I Googled for this particular case, I found a DoJ press release which stated

 

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department today filed a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act against the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and three of its members alleging that the defendants intimidated voters and those aiding them during the Nov. 4, 2008, general election.

 

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/January/09-crt-014.html

 

When I Googled on the introductory phrase, "The Justice Department today filed a lawsuit under the Voting Rights Act," I got 771 results. When I excluded "panther" from the search, I got zero. Nada. Zip. Now that's not conclusive — they could change their wording for press releases, but it seems to be a standard boilerplate phrase. I searched the DoJ for press releases about voter intimidation, and this was the only case that popped up. So it raises the question of how many voter intimidation lawsuits the DoJ typically initiates. Why were these individuals singled out by the administration, when (according to the Wikipedia page summary link provided by Dudde) "the DA's office stated that they had not been contacted by any voters"

 

The government actually got the injunction against the individual carrying a weapon. The case was dropped against the certified poll-watcher and others within the organization. So, are we to believe this was the only case of voter intimidation that took place in the election? Maybe, just maybe, someone in the DoJ thought the dismissed part of the case was a reach.

[ParanoiA]

I've actually seen this publicized a few times on Fox News, more specifically The O'Reilly Factor, but they were basically bashing the Obama Administration over it. So I would think you might be right that they are not fishing for votes. Although I do not see any real reason for the case to be dismissed, and I definelty makes me slightly nervous about Obama's position on discrimination and reverse racism.

 

I don't think there was any vote fishing, rather vote salvaging. I'm not convinced, but I do suspect that it could have had the perception of damaging the black vote if they had followed through with sentencing and not dropped the charges.

 

Also, there's no such thing as "reverse" racism - it's just racism. That phrase is used because white guilt requires that white folks always acknowledge and take responsibility for the actions of people they never met and never agreed with in the first place, due to the resemblence of skin color.

 

Skin color being the same worthless metric supremacists use to elevate themselves and step on others. That's the lesson we learned from history. That's how far we've come. Aren't you proud?

 

Just as a little hypothetical. Do you guys think the case would have been dismissed had the person standing out front been a neo-nazi yelling slurs at African America's. I would put money that they would be punished the full extent of the law, just as they should. In my mind Lady Justice is blind.

 

Nothing would have been dropped. White folks would be coming out of the woodwork, clamoring to be the first in front of a press microphone to voice their displeasure and condemnation of such behavior - even before a single fact or video was substantiated.

 

And that's how it should be actually. Only it should be that way for all racism, no matter what racial grouping is involved. And, the Huey P. Newton foundation, which includes former members of the original Black Panther party, seems to agree:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Black_Panther_Party

 

“ As guardian of the true history of the Black Panther Party' date=' the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation, which includes former leading members of the Party, denounces this group's exploitation of the Party's name and history. Failing to find its own legitimacy in the black community, this band would graft the Party's name upon itself, which we condemn... [T']hey denigrate the Party's name by promoting concepts absolutely counter to the revolutionary principles on which the Party was founded... The Black Panthers were never a group of angry young militants full of fury toward the "white establishment." The Party operated on love for black people, not hatred of white people.

 

Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation: "There Is No New Black Panther Party" [29]

 

That's how to respond to racism. The behavior is unacceptable, no matter who you are.

 

There are lots of ways and features to group and label humans with, and thus far race seems to be the most popular and the least interesting.

 

Hmm... they weren't actually properly convicted.

 

Actually, that's quite a proper conviction. They thumbed their nose at the judicial branch of our government. That's the setting for resolving such disputes in our nation of laws. No one on our soil has a right to ignore them. No one is that special, I don't care how much they romanticize their victim status.

 

If I had to guess, based on the twisted, childish logic I've witnessed by other kinds of racial supremacists, I would imagine they probably see that lawsuit as the work of the white devil, or some appeal to illegitimate government, something along those lines and so should not be given the respect of recognition.

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?page=3&feat=home_cube_position1

 

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.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I was under the impression that suits like this are brought by voters' date=' or someone representing voters. Searching for voter intimidation lawsuits gives a lot of hits, but they are invariably by the voters.

.......

 

Why were these individuals singled out by the administration, when (according to the Wikipedia page summary link provided by Dudde) "the DA's office stated that they had not been contacted by any voters"

[/quote']

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?page=2&feat=home_cube_position1

 

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."

 

 

So they had Mr. Bull, a civil rights activist in his own right, and video evidence to corroborate his affidavit. Maybe they weren't contacted by voters, although I find it hard to believe, but at the very least they were contacted by the credentialed poll watcher.

Edited July 3, 2010 by ParanoiA

[swansont]

So they had Mr. Bull, a civil rights activist in his own right, and video evidence to corroborate his affidavit. Maybe they weren't contacted by voters, although I find it hard to believe, but at the very least they were contacted by the credentialed poll watcher.

 

The video shows two, not three, and they did not confront or threaten anyone on the video. What, exactly, does the video corroborate, other than the presence of a nightstick? (Which was dealt with in the inunction) That they were black and wore leather jackets? Neither of those "actions" are illegal.

[Pangloss]

Aren't they? If someone feels intimidated then I think that's reason enough to push the activity outside of the immediate area, and I believe that was the purpose of the law, was it not? It's not an ideological statement that we just swap back and forth between administrations. The point is to avoid even the thought that something MIGHT be intimidating. It's a direct exception to free speech.

 

But I admit I don't know the full history and applicable laws here, so by all means feel free to look further into it and let us know.

[ParanoiA]

The video shows two, not three, and they did not confront or threaten anyone on the video. What, exactly, does the video corroborate, other than the presence of a nightstick? (Which was dealt with in the inunction) That they were black and wore leather jackets? Neither of those "actions" are illegal.

 

Oh I see, so if I brandish a gun and scare people with it, the only thing that says is that I shouldn't have guns? There's no "intimidation" present?

 

I won't say the video tells the whole story, but like any credibility evidence it verifies enough of Mr Bull's affidavit to lend strong support for the parts that video didn't capture.

 

In short, I believe Mr Bull. Not the dude with the stick and the white hate issues.

 

By the way, what does their being black have to do with anything? People keep throwing that out there, obsessing over it. Can we look past their skin color please?

[swansont]

Aren't they? If someone feels intimidated then I think that's reason enough to push the activity outside of the immediate area, and I believe that was the purpose of the law, was it not? It's not an ideological statement that we just swap back and forth between administrations. The point is to avoid even the thought that something MIGHT be intimidating. It's a direct exception to free speech.

 

Whoah.

 

If I am intimidated by anyone over 6' tall, then anyone over 6' tall should not have the right to be there? And ladies with blue hair. What about carnies? They scare me!

[Pangloss]

 

Hey now, watch what you say about granny, she can be pretty intimidating too!!

 

But seriously, there's a rather obvious difference between blue-haired old ladies walking into election places and street toughs with weapons in their hands, standing in front of the polling place facing outward and making pointed comments about the candidates to people walking up (according to witnesses).

 

But hey, if you want to advocate making the law more clear and specific, I'd be fine with that.

[ParanoiA]

Whoah.

 

If I am intimidated by anyone over 6' tall, then anyone over 6' tall should not have the right to be there? And ladies with blue hair. What about carnies? They scare me!

 

So I take it you were in support of the tea partiers that were wandering about with guns and assault rifles? Just another example of people being intimidated by inferred, internal fears right?

 

This is a voting poll, not a street corner. It doesn't become a street corner again until after the election. Then I will absolutely take up for their right to carry sticks, and even to talk smack to people. Nothing illegal about any of that, unless you're doing it at a voting poll during election operations.

 

Are you going to be consistent with this line of reasoning and jump to the defense of a Ku Klux Klan presence, adorned in the typical bed sheet fabric? I guess you were against those laws that stopped them from merely standing there, as Pangloss mentioned earlier? That's more mild than standing there with a stick.

[swansont]

I see uses of the plural of weapon in the previous two posts, and yet I saw only one person with a nightstick, and there was an injunction against him, i.e. that part of the lawsuit was not dropped, so you have to be arguing about the two individuals who were not armed.

 

So, care to try again without mentioning weapons?

[jackson33]

Eyewitness testimony was more severe:

 

Witnesses described an ugly scene: Two members of the New Black Panther Party threatening white voters the day Barack Obama was elected president, flinging insults like "white devil" and "you're about to be ruled by the black man, cracker." [/Quote]

 

swansont; Call me whatever you wish, a weak kneed old man or unpatriotic, but if a saw two guy's in Black Panther Uniforms standing on the steps of a voting site (weapons or not), I'm not going anywhere near them.

[ParanoiA]

swansont; Call me whatever you wish, a weak kneed old man or unpatriotic, but if a saw two guy's in Black Panther Uniforms standing on the steps of a voting site (weapons or not), I'm not going anywhere near them.

 

I would. Their intimidation is based on fabric coordination for their pajama outfits, and doing the "I'm pissed off" look-thing (sunglasses help with this) while carrying something dangerous. The racial epithets are aimed at feeble people that they know won't or can't beat the shit out of them for it, which means usually older folks and women.

 

Bullies are bullies. They can find themselves a cute little cause, dress up in funny clothes that make them feel like ninjas and externalize all of their problems like the rest of the teenage population, but they're still just bullies.

[jryan]

The so-sad-it's-funny punchline to all of this is that the sites like DailyKOS and Media Matters are claiming that the case was NOT closed because the DoJ issued a "penalty" to Shabazz stating that he can not conduct any political activity or carry a weapon to a polling place. This will be enforced until 2012.

 

So yeah, the penalty for Shabazz threatening voters at a polling place during a presidential election will be enforced... until the next presidential election.

 

Also, there is a video surfacing of Shabazz on a street corner declaring that blacks will not be free until the kill white and kill whitey's babies. (link)

 

Maybe if they investigated a little more they would have realized he was a dangerous man that deserved more than a slap on the wrist?

[ParanoiA]

So yeah, the penalty for Shabazz threatening voters at a polling place during a presidential election will be enforced... until the next presidential election.

 

Priceless. I'm trying to determine whether I'd rather dress up in a white pajama outfit and call myself the white kittens love of whitey group and protest them, or dress up in a black pajama outfit with a porn robe adorned with 'kill whitey' signage and try to out-hate white people with them.

 

I think I would get a kick out of any white person dressing up as a black panther - reminds me of the Dave Chappelle skit where he played a blind black man that lead a KKK rally. Funny as hell.

[swansont]

The so-sad-it's-funny punchline to all of this is that the sites like DailyKOS and Media Matters are claiming that the case was NOT closed because the DoJ issued a "penalty" to Shabazz stating that he can not conduct any political activity or carry a weapon to a polling place. This will be enforced until 2012.

 

So yeah, the penalty for Shabazz threatening voters at a polling place during a presidential election will be enforced... until the next presidential election.

 

Pangloss's link says through 2012, i.e. after the next presidential election.

 

Also, there is a video surfacing of Shabazz on a street corner declaring that blacks will not be free until the kill white and kill whitey's babies. (link)

 

Maybe if they investigated a little more they would have realized he was a dangerous man that deserved more than a slap on the wrist?

 

Why should what he said in an interview , i.e. not part of the intimidation complaint, come into play? All sorts of reprehensible speech is protected by the first amendment; there is no caveat that it be "nice" or "agree with any particular ideology." Punishing someone for it is a violation of their civil rights.

 

And, what more could you do as the result of a civil lawsuit?