Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

;)

WASHINGTON —12:39 p.m. CST, January 5, 2009

President-elect Barack Obama has named four former Clinton administration officials as part of his new team at the Justice Department, including David Ogden as deputy attorney general and Harvard Law School Dean Elena Kagan as solicitor general, the administration's lawyer before the Supreme Court.

``The need to have the new leadership team at the department up and running without delay could not be greater in light of the department's vital missions and the unprecedented politicization that has weakened morale throughout the department and dealt a blow to the country's confidence in the nation's top law-enforcement agency." Leahy said.
Click to expand...
 
Politicizing the Law

Eric Holder’s Justice Department has exiled Christopher Coates to South Carolina.

Coates, you may recall, is a career attorney at Justice, the chief of the Civil Rights Division’s (CRD) Voting Section. More to the point, Coates recommended that the CRD file a lawsuit for voter intimidation against the New Black Panther party and several of its members.....

That brings us to the real bone of contention, the final reason Coates has been transferred: the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther party.

Political appointees at the Justice Department overrode Coates’s recommendation. They ordered him to dismiss the lawsuit against all but one of the defendants, even though they were in default because they did not defend themselves. The eventual injunction against the defendant with the weapon was laughably weak.

According to the Washington Times, Loretta King, whom Obama named the acting assistant attorney general of the CRD, ordered Coates to dismiss the case against three of the defendants despite their default. King apparently received approval from Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli to do so. Who else Perrelli spoke with in the Justice Department and the White House is the subject of continued stonewalling in response to the subpoenas served on Justice by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission.

Meanwhile, the forced dismissal of the New Black Panther case turned out to be just the beginning of the misery heaped on Coates. According to multiple sources at Justice, King and the political appointees who came in soon after Obama’s inauguration — particularly Julie Fernandez, an ideological firebrand and former lawyer for the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights — put severe restrictions on Coates almost as soon as they arrived and began micromanaging all of his work.

The new political apparatchiks stripped Coates of virtually all discretionary authority, delegated responsibility for most decisions to more “results-oriented” underlings in the Voting Section, and rendered him a virtual figurehead.
Click to expand...
 
no, cato, THAT was never dropped. they got a judgment against him. the obama DOJ. they didn't drop anything.

it was bush DOJ people who let the other part of the case go, that concerned the voter intimidation.

cerise you'll have to do more than you have done to prove that it was obama's transitional team and not bush's existing team that made the decision to drop the voter intimidation part in january of '09. i'll race you...
 
Cerise said:
Politicizing the Law
Click to expand...


1. "That brings us to the real bone of contention, the final reason Coates has been transferred: the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther party."

2. "According to multiple sources at Justice, King and the political appointees who came in soon after Obama’s inauguration — particularly Julie Fernandez, an ideological firebrand and former lawyer for the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights — put severe restrictions on Coates almost as soon as they arrived and began micromanaging all of his work."

3. court records show the voter intimidation part of the case was dropped jan 9, 2008, before obama's inauguration.

well, cerise, something can't be right....
 
Political appointees at the Justice Department overrode Coates’s recommendation. They ordered him to dismiss the lawsuit against all but one of the defendants, even though they were in default because they did not defend themselves. The eventual injunction against the defendant with the weapon was laughably weak.
Click to expand...

0bama's appointees ordered the case dropped.
 
no, obama's appointees dropped other charges against other people who were there at the time but who were unlikely to be prosecuted successfully, but GOT A JUDGMENT against the "cracker baby" guy who was brandishing the nightstick on other charges but not on VOTER INTIMIDATION which was dropped on. Jan. 9 by the bush DOJ because they couldn't make a good case of it. they could not make a good case of two previous instances of voter intimidation, either. for that reason, both obama AND MCCAIN sponsored a previous voter intimidation law while they were both senators.

... but foxnews and the dipship brigade march on, because, hey, facts don't matter, it's all about being on the right team.
 
2minkey said:
no, cato, THAT was never dropped. they got a judgment against him. the obama DOJ. they didn't drop anything.

it was bush DOJ people who let the other part of the case go, that concerned the voter intimidation.

cerise you'll have to do more than you have done to prove that it was obama's transitional team and not bush's existing team that made the decision to drop the voter intimidation part in january of '09. i'll race you...
Click to expand...

so you agree, or disagree with what you are saying the Bush admin did?
 
there's nothing to disagree with. i think it's too bad that they could not bring a viable case. but i'm not about to argue with a bunch of lawyers that practice at that level about what you really need to successfully prosecute a case like that, just like i'm not about to argue with a neurologist about the role of the vagus nerve.
 
2minkey said:
AFTER the bush DOJ decided in early JANUARY of 2009 that they would not pursue a voter intimidation case.
Click to expand...

There was evidence for a civil rights violation (not a criminal matter).

From the original story
Court records show that as late as May 5, the Justice Department was still considering an order by U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell in Philadelphia to seek judgments, or sanctions, against the three Panthers because of their failure to appear.

But 10 days later, the department reversed itself and filed a notice of voluntary dismissal from the complaint for Malik Zulu Shabazz and Mr. Jackson.

That same day, the department asked for the default judgment against King Samir Shabazz, but limited the penalty to an order that he not display a "weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location on any election day in the city of Philadelphia" until Nov. 15, 2012.
Click to expand...

May 29, 2009

The facts are correct. The Obama DoJ had the civil charges dropped against 2/3 of the defendents & asked for limited penalty on the third (because he had a stick).

The story is skewed but essentially correct.
 
So Boo's wielding nightsticks, spouting racial slurs
wearing Militia Racist uniforms in front of voting places
is what this Obamanation is all about?

OK I'm coo wid dat homey
 
Gonz said:
There was evidence for a civil rights violation (not a criminal matter).

From the original story


May 29, 2009

The facts are correct. The Obama DoJ had the civil charges dropped against 2/3 of the defendents & asked for limited penalty on the third (because he had a stick).

The story is skewed but essentially correct.
Click to expand...

seeking judgments for failure to appear? do you have any idea how meaningless that is compared to the voter intimidation case that was dropped by the bush DOJ?
 
why aren't you acknowledging that the case of substance - voter intimidation - was dropped by the bush DOJ, when the facts are obvious?
 
Sure, if you consider the "Bush DOJ" the one that was coerced by the 0bama appointees.....
 
Cerise said:
Sure, if you consider the "Bush DOJ" the one that was coerced by the 0bama appointees.....
Click to expand...

oh, those poor little bush appointees couldn't stand up for themselves? please...

they dropped the voter intimidation case because they understood they would not win, just as they did not win the two previous voter intimidation cases they had taken on. do some background reading. get educated on these types of cases. and stop being deliberately obtuse.
 
If you have read the article I posted entitled "Politicizing the Law" it indicates that any decisions made by established members of the DoJ with regards to the voter intimidation case against the NBBP were OVERRIDDEN by the incoming admin's appointees.
 
overriden before obama took office? right. keep grasping.

'politicizing the law' mentions no dates, nothing substantial, but simply repeats the same foxnews bullshit charges that seem to originate largely with one guy - adams - who later admitted he wasn't really even in a position to witness or know the things he'd earlier asserted.

sorry, charlie, but i'll rely on the court record, not a well-known right wing agitator. (talk about politicizing the law... adam's appointment is at least as much of a joke as any of obama's "buddy" appointments.)

but don't worry, you're still on the right team.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top