http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/04/justice-ig-cant-probe-panther-case-dismissal/print/


February 4, 2010, updated 03:32 p.m., February 4, 2010 Justice inspector
stripped of probe power

Jerry Seper <http://www.washingtontimes.com/staff/jerry-seper/>

In a terse letter to a Republican lawmaker who requested an investigation of
the dismissal of complaints against the New Black Panther Party, Justice
Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine said he should be able to do so,
but was powerless because Congress had stripped him of that authority.

In a four-page response to Rep. Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, who had requested
that the IG's office investigate what he called the complaint's "unfounded
dismissal," Mr. Fine said that unlike all other inspectors general who have
unlimited jurisdiction to investigate all claims of wrongdoing inside their
agencies, his office does not.

Mr. Fine said in the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington
Times, that he understood Mr. Wolf's desire to have his office review the
matter "because of our independence."

But while Mr. Fine had advocated expanding his jurisdiction to allow him to
investigate all suspected wrongdoing within the department, Congress had not
seen fit to do so.

"Unfortunately, unlike all other OIGs which have unlimited jurisdiction to
investigate all allegations of waste, fraud or abuse within their agencies,
the Department of Justice OIG does not," he wrote. "For several years, I
have expressed my position that Congress should change this jurisdiction.

"I have raised various arguments for this change including ... the
independence issues that arise because OPR reports to the attorney general,"
he said.

In requesting that Mr. Fine's office investigate the handling of the New
Black Panther Party case, Mr. Wolf had challenged the independence of the
Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which has
been reviewing the dismissal for the past seven months.

Mr. Wolf noted that OPR reports directly to the attorney general, saying he
did not think the office was "capable of conducting an unbiased and
independent review of this case, given that it reports to a political
appointee."

The OPR probe has focused, in part, on accusations that political appointees
within the Obama administration's Justice Department made the decision to
dismiss the civil complaint, which accused the New Black Panther Party and
three of its members of intimidating voters during the November 2008
elections.

"When Congress most recently considered this issue in its deliberation on
the IG Reform Act, which was enacted in 2008, I again advocated for a change
in the jurisdiction between OPR and OIG, to allow us to investigate all
matters within the department" Mr. Fine said.

"However, Congress did not include this change in the IG Reform Act.
Therefore, the jurisdiction to investigate department attorneys' legal and
litigation decisions, such as the DOJ attorneys' litigation and legal
actions related to the handling of the New Black Panther Party, remains with
OPR," he said.

The letter said that during his congressional testimony in 2008, Mr. Fine
noted that his office "unfortunately" lacked jurisdiction to investigate
Justice Department attorneys in the exercise of their legal duty.

"I hope that Congress will do something about that because I believe the
inspector general's office ought to have unlimited jurisdiction in the
Department of Justice," he told the Senate Judiciary Committee in July 2008.
"We're independent, we're transparent, and there's no conflict of interest.
So I think that ought to be changed."

The letter also noted that he told the House Judiciary Committee in October
2008 that his office "does not have the authority to investigate prosecutive
decisions made by DOJ attorneys: Congress would have to amend this carve out
to our jurisdiction, and I have suggested that it be amended."

Noting his long-standing opposition to his limited jurisdiction, Mr. Fine
said in the letter that he also told the Senate Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee in July 2007 that the current limitation on
his jurisdiction "should be changed because it assigns jurisdiction to OPR,
which is not statutorily independent and reports directly to the attorney
general and the deputy attorney general."

He told the committee at the time that this arrangement created a "conflict
of interest and contravenes the rationale for establishing independent
inspectors general."

The order giving jurisdiction to investigate the actions of attorneys in the
exercise of their legal authority - up to and including the attorney general
- was first issued by Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton
administration. The order was reissued by Attorney General John Ashcroft
during President George W. Bush's administration.

Because the order was later codified by Congress, it would require
congressional action to change.

Mr. Wolf had told Mr. Fine that he was "disappointed" in his "reluctance to
investigate the unfounded dismissal of an important voter intimidation
case," adding that despite repeated requests for information by members of
Congress, the press and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the Justice
Department "continues to stonewall all efforts to obtain information
regarding the case's abrupt dismissal."

"This obstruction should be of great concern to you and merit an immediate
investigation," Mr. Wolf said. "Given that neither the Congress nor the
commission can obtain critical information from the department, your
authority as inspector general is the only way to learn whether the
department has engaged in improper conduct with regard to the dismissal of
this case and its hostility to the commission's statutory authorities and
responsibilities."

Mr. Fine explained, however, that he referred the matter to OPR because, by
statute, it had jurisdiction in the case. He said his office had been
"expressly excluded" by statute.

"The issues you raised regarding the New Black Panther Party case involved
the exercise by department attorneys of their authority to litigate and make
legal decisions, and whether those decisions were based on improper
considerations, such as political influence," he said. "That is why we
referred the matter to OPR for investigation."

Mr. Fine also said that in response to the Wolf letter, he inquired into the
status of the OPR investigation, adding that it was ongoing and that
numerous documents had been collected and several interviews had been
completed or were scheduled.

He also said OPR had included in its investigation accusations of whether
any improper political influence affected the department's handling of the
case and whether department officials were in contact with the White House
concerning the case.

The civil complaint was filed in January accusing the New Black Panther
Party and two of its members of intimidating voters with racial insults,
slurs and a nightstick. A third party member was accused of directing and
endorsing their behavior. The incident was captured on videotape and gained
national attention after it was shown on YouTube.com.

The charges were dismissed against the party, its chairman, Malik Zulu
Shabazz, and Jerry Jackson, a Philadelphia party member. Justice later
sought an injunction against Minister King Samir Shabazz, who carried the
nightstick, barring him from displaying weapons at polling places until
2012.

The New Black Panther Party has not returned e-mails or telephone messages
seeking comment.

-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Reply via email to