Posted on 09/06/2009 1:48:58 PM PDT by Scanian
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights sent a letter in August to Attorney General Eric Holder, issuing a stinging rebuke to the Obama administration's Department of Justice (DOJ).
A footnote in the letter criticized the DOJ's dismissal of a Philadelphia voter intimidation case against a group called the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense (NBP). The footnote called the DOJ's voluntary dismissal of the case “even more corrosive to the rule of law than the dismissal without comment.”
The DOJ filed a lawsuit in January under the Voting Rights Act against the NBP and three of its members alleging the defendants intimidated voters last election day. The complaint, filed in federal court in Philadelphia, alleged that NBP members Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson were standing at a polling location wearing a military-style NBP uniform while Mr. Shabazz repeatedly brandished a “police-style baton weapon.”
The complaint said NBP Chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz confirmed that the placement of Mr. Shabazz and Mr. Jackson was part of a nationwide effort to deploy members at polling locations. The Justice Department initially sought an injunction to prevent any similar future actions.
None of the defendants responded to the lawsuit. However, instead of immediately filing for a routine default judgment, the DOJ voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit for two of the defendants – including Mr. Jackson, who was a Democratic Party poll watcher.
The DOJ only obtained an injunction against Samir Shabazz, which was granted on May 18. However, this has been criticized because it contained none of the usual conditions for such a case.
As noted in the letter from the Commission on Civil Rights, the injunction prevents Mr. Shabazz from brandishing a weapon at a polling place in Philadelphia. The Commission thought it unusual that such an injunction in a voting rights case only would prohibit something so specific, and limit it to a specific area.
The Commission’s six-page letter was sent following two inquiries sent in June to Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division (CRD). These letters wanted more information about what they said was the “unusual dismissal of the government’s case against most of the defendants in United States v. New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense.” Commission chair Gerald A. Reynolds and Vice-Chair Abigail Thernstrom signed the letter.
The Commission also noted that an earlier reply from Portia Robertson, director of the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison was “non-responsive to our questions,” adding that “to the extent it is responsive, it paints the [DOJ] in a poor light.”
The Commission said that the letter from Ms. Robertson contained some of the “vague conclusions sent to members of Congress.”
“These conclusions are more than weak,” stated a footnote in the letter. “We believe the public rationale offered thus far is even more corrosive to the rule of law than the dismissal without comment.”
The letter also notes that media reports have questioned Ms. King’s involvement in the dismissal of the case and the role of political appointees – specifically naming Associate Attorney General Thomas Perelli. Because of this the Commission wants Mr. Holder personally to direct responses to inquiries or appoint someone from the DOJ who does not have a potential conflict of interest.
The Commission believes that since it is obliged to investigate enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, it is entitled to know the justification for the dismissal. It is seeking the “evidentiary and legal standards” for the CRD’s actions.
It also wants to compare the actions in this case with other voter intimidation investigations to determine if there was anything unusual about the treatment of this investigation by the CRD.
According to Mrs. Thernstrom’s office, the Commission has considered making this incident part of its annual statutory report. This report focuses on a selected area of civil rights enforcement. Last year’s addressed civil rights issues raised by the mortgage crisis.
Other government officials are also demanding answers about this case and speculating that the DOJ has been politicized.
Rep. Frank Wolf, R–Virginia, said in a July 31 letter to Holder that he could only conclude that the decision to overrule the career attorneys in the CRD and DOJ who argued in favor of continuing the case was “politically motivated.”
The House of cards is falling down.
I think we should press them to re-open the investigation and do what needs to be done.
bttt
They are fighting the good fight within the system. Let’s pray that bears sweet fruit.
Well, good for the Civil Rights Office. If they didn’t notice this and take some action then they would confirm forever more that they are completely useless. They appear to be stung into action. Good. Let them earn their government checks.
ping
Is hell freezing over? WOW!
True and the more rocks turned over the more spiders, slugs, scorpians, and worms will be found.
It is a waste of breath on persons who do not understand the concept of "politics", which implies that there is more than one interest in a situation, versus "dictatorship."
Instead of “politically motivated”, I believe that “racially motivated” is probably more correct.
If Eric were smart, which he’s not, he’d be on a plane now going to an airport where he could transfer to a flight to North Korea.
“Alinsky” ‘em. Tit for Tat.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment
Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”
Good...I was wondering if anyone or organization would stand up to the thug administration...’bout time.
Any way to bring Eric down?
Our AG needs to be investigated to see if he is in bed with the Black Panthers and why his people failed to properly vet Van Jones among other criminals,tax cheats and America Haters selected by Obozo to be cabinet members, czarsor whatever.
FALN, Holder, and Obama: The Price Paid by One ‘Ordinary American’
by Joseph F. Connor
08/20/2008
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=28096
Many might miss the meaning of this above quote from the thread article.
What this means is that the Obama thug network,which took over the Dem party at the Rat's convention, appointed these POS militants all across the nation. The ones in Philly were caught on camera. No one else dared to confront them at all other poll stations where they were present, and there were likely hundreds of polls where they were present.
This is what Acorn means for America, and I can tell you that no thugs will show up and stand outside a polling station in fly over country.But in the cities they will establish an air of coercion and eye contact, nodding, as if to say, "vote in solidarity with us, which has a certain appeal to mindless voters who do not educate themselves on the issues as informed voters. Thus the unthinking will allow fascists to control our nation, which is exactly what happened in November 2008.
If the DOJ refuses to prosecute such cases , and roll up the Dem Network that brings us these thugs, then what will happen is that Americans , we ourselves will be forced to deal with them. Is that what Obama wants, confrontations and violence? Looks like it.
No, the Deputy Director and Holder should not get off lightly on this issue, and their feet need to be held to the fires of freedom. Holder needs to resign and we should be demanding that NOW, because of all the other issues he has with performing his official duties fairly and according to the constitution.
Good news! It is time to reign in Obama and the democrats blatant disregard for the rule of law. ABUSE OF POWER is rampant in the Zero Administration and it starting to look like serious grounds for impeachment.
Any way to bring Eric down?
~~
Maybe a detective to ferret out the
under the table compensation he
received from Marc Rich and the FALN.
Think any govt officials are worried
about the Swiss banks being forced
to reveal their account holders?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.