1. By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies .This website or its third-party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy.Find out more.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Follow Casinomeister on Twitter | Facebook | YouTube | Casinomeister.us US Residents Click here! |  Svenska Svenska | 
Dismiss Notice
REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do diddly squat without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view most discussions: you can't make contact with thousands of fellow players, affiliates, casino reps, and all sorts of other riff-raff.

Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Casinomeister here!

Anyone want to opine?

Discussion in 'Political Rants' started by cynthial, May 29, 2009.

    May 29, 2009
  1. cynthial

    cynthial Boo

    Occupation:
    Fireproofing
    Location:
    Albuquerque
    I just came across this news story and it seems to me it is quite a big deal but it is not garnering much press. I can't imagine why. :rolleyes:

    Career lawyers overruled on voting case
    Black Panthers had wielded weapons, blocked polls


    Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and interviews.

    The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.

    Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century ago.

    The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher, according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times.

    The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse course, according to interviews and documents. The court had already entered a default judgment against the men on April 20.

    A Justice Department spokesman on Thursday confirmed that the agency had dropped the case, dismissing two of the men from the lawsuit with no penalty and winning an order against the third man that simply prohibits him from bringing a weapon to a polling place in future elections.

    The department was "successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from doing so again," spokesman Alejandro Miyar said. "Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law."



    Mr. Miyar declined to elaborate about any internal dispute between career and political officials, saying only that the department is "committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote."

    Court records reviewed by The Times show that career Justice lawyers were seeking a default judgment and penalties against the three men as recently as May 5, before abruptly ending their pursuit 10 days later.

    People directly familiar with the case, who spoke only on the condition of anonymity because of fear of retribution, said career lawyers in two separate Justice offices had recommended proceeding to default judgment before political superiors overruled them.......

    You must register/login in order to see the link.


    Watch the video and tell me if you would have been intimated by this. I sure as hell would have been.

    You must register/login in order to see the link.

    And this bit from an editorial in the Washington Times describes the Justice Departments "legal" argument for dropping the charges.

    The explanation for moving to dismiss the case is shocking. According to the Department of Justice: "These same Defendants have made no appearance and have filed no pleadings with the Court. Nor have they otherwise raised any other defenses to this action. Therefore, the United States has the right ... to dismiss voluntarily this action against the Defendants." In other words, because the defendants haven't tried to defend themselves, the Justice Department won't punish them.

    Consider that the behavior of the defendants was so bad that witness Bartle Bull, a former Robert F. Kennedy organizer who did extensive legal work on behalf of black voters in Mississippi, testified it was "the most blatant form of voter discrimination I have encountered in my life."

    Eric Eversole, a former litigation attorney with the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, told us: "It is truly unprecedented for the Voting Section to voluntarily dismiss a case of such blatant intimidation. The video speaks for itself."

    We couldn't agree more. After the 2000 Presidential election, Democrats complained about voter intimidation in Florida by pointing to a police car that had been two miles away from a polling place. The police didn't do anything to anyone, but their presence was deemed sufficient to vaguely intimidate people en route to the polls. In this case, the New Black Panther Party actually blocked access to a poll.....

    You must register/login in order to see the link.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 12, 2017
    3 people like this.
  2. May 29, 2009
  3. RobWin

    RobWin closed account

    Occupation:
    Who knows?
    Location:
    A Vault!
    Sure, I'll opine and sum it up real brief... "Simple THUGS"

    Where were all the actual law dogs at when this was going on there on election day?
     
    2 people like this.
  4. May 30, 2009
  5. jod5413

    jod5413 Is That Better?

    Occupation:
    having a good time doing anything
    Location:
    somewhere on the planet
    Quote

    Anyone want to opine?

    Unquote


    Me Me Me, I want to opine!!!!

    Not only are they simple thugs, they are stupid thugs. Maybe they got a free pass this time, BUT......

    talk about a F*$%ed society we live in!! I am totally appalled this BS still goes on in this country. It's more like some of those "other countries" we read and hear about.

    sigh.....
     
    2 people like this.
  6. May 30, 2009
  7. cynthial

    cynthial Boo

    Occupation:
    Fireproofing
    Location:
    Albuquerque
    Now just lookie at what I have done. I made Jo swear. :D



    Where are all the Law Dogs now is what I would like to know! For the Justice Department to give these guys a pass is un-freakin-believable. But hey, at least they are demanding that the one guy not do it again until after 2012. :rolleyes:
     
  8. May 30, 2009
  9. jetset

    jetset Ueber Meister CAG

    Occupation:
    Senior Partner, InfoPowa News Service
    Location:
    Earth
    They're probably devoting too many of their resources on taking out those nasty online gambling people :eek2:
     
  10. Jun 1, 2009
  11. swampwitch

    swampwitch ProfessionalUnderachiever CAG MM webmeister

    Occupation:
    Independent craftsperson specializing in chenille
    Location:
    Iowa, dammit.
    I love that one of the sources is the Washington Times. Moon's Washington Times. Ye Gawds.

    The Moonie Times and Faux News...Because Truth has a liberal bias...

    You must register/login in order to see the link.
     
    Last edited: Jun 1, 2009
  12. Jun 1, 2009
  13. cynthial

    cynthial Boo

    Occupation:
    Fireproofing
    Location:
    Albuquerque
    So if it is in the Washington Post or reported at any time on Fox it must be "false" news. OK. :rolleyes: Here is CNN's take on it.

    Justice Department drops charges in voter intimidation case

    WASHINGTON (CNN) The Justice Department is dropping charges against the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and two of its members who were allegedly involved in voter intimidation on Election Day at a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania polling station.

    A Justice spokesman said the department decided to take this action after winning an injunction earlier this month against a third member, Samir Shabazz, that prevents him from ever brandishing a weapon outside a polling place again as he was charged with doing last November.

    Shabazz was one of the three persons, along with the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, charged with voter intimidation last January in a lawsuit filed under the Voting Rights Act. Shabazz will not face any jail time or a fine.


    Claims were dismissed against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and the law, DOJ spokesman Alejandro Miyar said in a statement. The Department is committed to the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone exercising his or her sacred right to vote."

    On Election Day, two men in uniforms stood outside the polling station with one of them holding a police-style baton weapon and saying he was providing security there. Justice has alleged that person was Shabazz.

    In January, Justice said in a criminal complaint that the chairman of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense confirmed its members were stationed at that location as part of a nationwide effort to deploy people at polling stations.

    The Justice Department says The New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense is distinct from the well-known Black Panther Party of the 1960's.

    UPDATE: Malik Shabaaz, chairman of the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, told CNN Friday that Samir Shabaaz is no longer a member of the organization, and that his organization does not support voter intimidation.

    "We want to thank President Obama and his administration for dropping charges against us that were vindictively brought by the Bush administration," Malik Shabaaz told CNN. "We don't condone any type of illegal activity at polling stations."

    Shabaaz said the members in Pennsylvania were not acting under the direction of the national party.

    (Updated at 4:30 p.m. on Friday, May 29 with New Black Panther Party response)
     
  14. Jun 1, 2009
  15. swampwitch

    swampwitch ProfessionalUnderachiever CAG MM webmeister

    Occupation:
    Independent craftsperson specializing in chenille
    Location:
    Iowa, dammit.
    Did I say it was false? No, I inferred the coverage was slanted, so I gave a link to a different take on the matter.

    And I was referring to the Washington Times, not the Post. The Washington Post isn't owned by a cult leader who calls himself the second coming.
     
  16. Jun 1, 2009
  17. cynthial

    cynthial Boo

    Occupation:
    Fireproofing
    Location:
    Albuquerque
    I am not much familiar with either paper so I had to google to see who the hell the owner is of the Washington Post. Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon. Point taken. Ugh! :oops: Then I googled the news story itself and oddly enough the Justice Department dropping the charges against the men who are actually videotaped at the polling station is not much reported on at all. Other than the articles already linked above and the CNN one which quotes the chairman of the Black Panther Party thanking the President for having the charges dropped there is not much more reported at all, anywhere. Mainstream media must find it a non-event. :)
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page