Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Monday, May 18, 2009 Court enters default judgment against defendant King Samir Shabazz. The injunction is extraordinarily narrow compared with the original drafted by the trial team. He is enjoined only from carrying a weapon near polling places within the city limits of Philadelphia, and the injunction lasts only until Nov. 15, 2012.
I'm not misinformed. I followed the case quite closely.
Is there an open-and-shut case that the conduct of the Panthers at that Philadelphia polling place in November 2008 constituted “voter intimidation” or “vote suppression” under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act? I argued previously that it was doubtful, because “the legal standards that must be met . . . are very high.” McCarthy claims, to the contrary, “the legal standards are actually quite easy to meet.” Upon reflection, I think neither of us was correct. My oversimplified formulation ignored the fact that this section of the act has been litigated so rarely that there are no clear legal standards at all, no substantial body of precedent to define precisely what is needed to prove a violation.
McCarthy, though, is surely wrong in asserting that the standards are “quite easy to meet.” The Voting Rights Act has governed the conduct of the last eleven presidential elections, 22 congressional elections, and literally thousands of state and local elections. And yet there have been only three successful prosecutions of voter intimidation under Section 11 (b). Is it possible that nothing conceivably intimidating to prospective voters ever occurred in our vast country over such a long span of time? No. Clearly, it is not “quite easy” to prove voter intimidation, or else there surely would be a very different track record to examine.
I'm not misinformed. I followed the case quite closely.
You are indeed misinformed.
Quote:
"In the first week of January, the Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring voters with the weapon, uniforms and racial slurs. In March, Mr. Bull submitted an affidavit at Justice's request to support its lawsuit.
When none of the defendants filed any response to the complaint or appeared in federal district court in Philadelphia to answer the suit, it appeared almost certain Justice would have prevailed by default. Instead, the department in May suddenly allowed the party and two of the three defendants to walk away.
...There was outrage over the decision among Congressional Republicans, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and in the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division—especially after it was learned one of the defendants who walked was Jerry Jackson, a member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee and a credentialed poll watcher for the Democratic Party last Election Day.
...Assistant Attorney General Ronald Welch, for example, claims in a July 13 letter to Mr. Wolf that charges against the New Black Panther Party itself were dropped because there wasn't "evidentiary support" to prove they "directed" the intimidation. But Mr. Wolf notes in a letter sent to Justice that one defendant, Black Panther Party Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, said on Fox News just after the election that his activities at the polling station were part of a nationwide effort.
Obama's DoJ dropped charges against a credentialed poll watcher who had committed voter intimidation, dropped charges against NBPP Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, and dropped charges against the NBPP even after Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz stated that the placement of King Samir Shabazz and Mr. Jackson in Philadelphia waspart of a nationwide effort to deploy New Black Panther Party members at polling locations on Election Day, according to the complaint. EXCLUSIVE: Career DoJ lawyers overruled on voting case
Posting armed, uniformed NBPP members at polling places is most definitely voter intimidation.
Obama's DoJ dropped charges against a credentialed poll watcher who had committed voter intimidation, dropped charges against NBPP Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, and dropped charges against the NBPP even after Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz stated that the placement of King Samir Shabazz and Mr. Jackson in Philadelphia waspart of a nationwide effort to deploy New Black Panther Party members at polling locations on Election Day, according to the complaint. EXCLUSIVE: Career DoJ lawyers overruled on voting case
Posting armed, uniformed NBPP members at polling places is most definitely voter intimidation.
The guy carrying the baton was the one that Judge ruled against and issued the injunction.
There was never any evidence of any actual voter who was intimidated.
The guy carrying the baton was the one that Judge ruled against and issued the injunction.
Why wasn't Jerry Jackson, the credentialed poll watcher, charged with intimidation? As a poll watcher, he shouldn't have been working as a team with the armed NBPP member. Likewise why wasn't NBPP Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz and the NBPP charged, especially after Shabazz specifically stated that the placement of King Samir Shabazz and Mr. Jackson in Philadelphia waspart of a nationwide effort to deploy New Black Panther Party members at polling locations on Election Day?
We already know the answer. Obama's racist DoJ Admin went against the recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and the Justice Department's own Civil Rights Division, and overruled career DoJ lawyers.
No one has yet to describe for me why some of these are not reasonable questions to be answered:
A) Lois Lerner sent letters asking improper questions to groups after she had already claimed that all such targeting and improper questions had stopped and admitted that it was wrong. Why is there an inconsistency?
B) Lois Lerner claimed that the trouble started from line level employees in the Cincinnati office - yet targeting was occurring from offices coast to coast that Cincinnati (especially line level) would have had no directives over. Also the Washington Post reported that a top IRS attorney claimed that the 'troubled policy' was started by the Chief Counsel Office, headed by an Obama appointee in DC. Why is there a discrepancy?
C) Lois Lerner called the “Tea Party matter” “dangerous” and asked whether the FEC would “save the day” in her emails. What does this mean? Why does the IRS still withhold some of her work emails?
D) Several key White House officials knew of the IRS scandal for at least several months before the story broke, yet Obama claims that he found out about it the same time we did through the media. Is this true? Is this standard practice to shield Obama from information?
E) Lois Lerner said to Duke law students in October of 2010 "[E]verybody is screaming at us right now 'Fix it now before the election. Can't you see how much these people are spending?'" This was shortly after Obama made several comments against 501 C 4 spending. Were you aware of the president's feelings on the issue? Who specifically was "screaming" at you?
F) Did letters that Democrat senators sent to the IRS asking you to investigate 501 C 4 organizations play an impact in the improper questions?
G) Of 501 C 4 groups flagged for surveillance 83% were conservative. Of those asked improper questions by the IRS 100% were conservative. Of those audited 100% were conservative. Was this by design to target conservative groups by specifically targeting words that conservatives use...the 17% of groups that were NOT conservative and were investigated all had conservative sounding names and then none were audited or asked improper questions after it was established that they were not conservative.
If we do not have answers to these reasonable questions, how can Obama say with absolute certainty that there isn't even a smidgen of corruption? How can Cummings say that this is a closed case if we have no answers to the above questions?
This scandal scandal was phony - we'd already have had answers to these questions over a year ago...
This scandal is real, and Obama is coming off as if he has something to hide.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
