Last year, the DOJ, led by Obama appointee Attorney General Eric Holder, dropped a voter intimidation case<http://www.justice.gov/crt/voting/misc/philadelphia_bpp_comp.php>against Samir Shabazz, head of the Philadelphia chapter of the New Black Panther Party, and party member Jerry Jackson. There is a video<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU>of these two standing outside of a Philadelphia voting site with clubs.
Before the dismal, the case was moving along towards a conviction. Especially after, Shabazz and Jackson failed to show for their court date. The only consequence of the case was Shabazz being ordered not to take weapons to polling places in Philadelphia through 2012. Recently, J. Christian Adams resigned his job at the DOJ in order to protest what he called political interference in the case. He claimed that Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, another Obama appointee, overruled a unanimous recommendation by six career Justice attorneys to continue the case. Due to increasing interest in the case, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez said the case had been re-review and that there was insufficient evidence to proceed. "That claim is false," Adams wrote in the Washington Times last month. "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." Adams also wrote that the dismissal of the case "was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law." As for the re-review Adams wrote, "the lawyers who ordered the dismissal ... did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation." Adams also wrote what's "most disturbing," is "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 coworkers," Adams continued, "argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. ... 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 [Justice Department's] Voting Section." Aside from the video above, Adams said they have sworn witness testimonies stating that the two tried to block people from entering polls, There is also video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBhzJnJIilI> of Shabazz going on a racist rampage about killing crackers and their children. Here is the transcript: I hate white people, all of them. Every last iota of a cracker, I hate him. We didn't come out here to play this game. There's too much serious business going on in the black community to be out here sliding through South Street with white dirty cracker whore [ BLEEP ] on our arms. And we call ourselves black men with African garb on. What the hell is wrong with you, black man? You had a (unintelligible) with a white girl on your damn arm. You want freedom? You are going to have to kill some crackers. You might have to kill some of their babies. While not specifically germane to the case, it certainly helps reflect Shabazz's character. Some former DOJ employees have come forward to support Adams. Asheesh Agarwal (2006-2008, deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division): During his tenure with the Department of Justices 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. Mark Corallo, (former Department of Justice director of public affairs) 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. Robert Driscoll (2001-03, Deputy Assistant Attorney General) 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. Besides the case against the Black Panthers, Adams also pointed out another case of interest. For three years, the DOJ pursued a case against Missouri. The DOJ wanted Missouri to clean up its voter registration records since more than 1/3 of the counties in that state had more registered voters than they had in voting age residents. Adams said that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes made an announcement that she would not support any enforcement of a key section of the federal "Motor Voter" law -- Section 8, which requires states to periodically purge their voter rolls of dead people, felons, illegal voters and those who have moved out of state. He quoted her as saying: "We're not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it.". After no significant progress by Missouri, the DOJ dropped the case last year I don't know if Shabazz and Jackson are guilty. It certainly looks like there is enough evidence to support a trial so that a jury or judge could decide. There is no reason to allow Missouri to keep voter registration records that are grossly inaccurate. It's time for the DOJ to be investigated, else it may look like it is practicing selective justice. J - "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. ... For the Department of Justice to enforce the Voting Rights Act only to protect members of certain minority groups breaches the fundamental guarantee of equal protection. ..." - Christopher Coates (former ACLU lawyer and current employ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:322688 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
