PDA

View Full Version : Voter intimidation charges against Panthers dropped



Bob Gutermuth
05-29-2009, 09:20 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/29/charges-black-panthers-dropped-obama/

Franco
05-29-2009, 09:25 AM
Surprise, surprise.

Not!

I wonder how much of our tax payer money going to ACORN gets funnelled to the Black Panthers?

Franco
05-29-2009, 08:25 PM
Just wanted to add that OUR U S Attorney General Eric Holder promise to prosecute racism with every opportunity. I guess what he meant was as long as he didn't have to prosecute "His" people.

Bob Gutermuth
05-29-2009, 08:49 PM
Wanna bet they would have dropped it if it had been 3 sheetheads in robes and hoods? I doubt it.

Franco
05-29-2009, 08:54 PM
Wanna bet they would have dropped it if it had been 3 sheetheads in robes and hoods? I doubt it.

Had it been three Klansmen doing the exact same thing, Attorney General Eric Holder would have built his fame on prosecuting this case. And, Obomo would erect a monument of him in front of Justice Dept building.

Yes Martha, reverse-discrimination is alive and well in our Dept. Of Justice and the Obomonites are getting ready to sit a Supreme Court Judge from the same mold.

K.Bullock
05-31-2009, 07:46 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/05/29/charges-black-panthers-dropped-obama/

They are not a threat to National security like say ....someone such as yourself Bob. Why the surprise?

Bob Gutermuth
05-31-2009, 08:16 AM
I would have expected them to at least keep up the pretense of being impartial despite the fact that they won't practice it.

YardleyLabs
05-31-2009, 08:35 AM
I guess my question is why would this be a federal case? Pennsylvania has pretty strong laws prohibiting such activities. In this case, one of the men lived in the building where the polling place was located and the other did not. Police were called and the man with the night stick was taken away. The other man who was not armed and lived in the building remained but not near the door. (See http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/04/fox-black-panther-poll-intimidation-in-pennsylvania/)

My own experience in Pennsylvania is that entering a polling station routinely involves navigating through a gauntlet of people (typically 5-10 people in my small town) offering voting "suggestions" with varying degrees of aggressiveness and handing out "sample" ballots. Local election boards are known to switch the locations of voting stations to make it easier or harder for different classes of voters to get to the polls.

Uncle Bill
05-31-2009, 06:54 PM
I guess my question is why would this be a federal case? Pennsylvania has pretty strong laws prohibiting such activities. In this case, one of the men lived in the building where the polling place was located and the other did not. Police were called and the man with the night stick was taken away. The other man who was not armed and lived in the building remained but not near the door. (See http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/04/fox-black-panther-poll-intimidation-in-pennsylvania/)

My own experience in Pennsylvania is that entering a polling station routinely involves navigating through a gauntlet of people (typically 5-10 people in my small town) offering voting "suggestions" with varying degrees of aggressiveness and handing out "sample" ballots. Local election boards are known to switch the locations of voting stations to make it easier or harder for different classes of voters to get to the polls.


You must be proud of such a fine system eh? I question the truthfulness of that entire statement. I've served on local election boards and they are run with extreme legalistic jargon, that was kept to the exact second of opening and closing.

There was a time when the radios couldn't even run any adds on election day, and when that law was changed, no radios were allowed within 100 feet of the polling place. There was zero handouts within that same distance, and NO personal polliticking allowed.

Since you seem to have a dogmatic abecedarian knowledge of the Pennsylvania political system, please tell me how this form of bullying is allowed by you and your fellow voters...or is it what your crowd is just continuing to advance, supporting, and promoting?

UB

YardleyLabs
05-31-2009, 07:27 PM
You must be proud of such a fine system eh? I question the truthfulness of that entire statement. I've served on local election boards and they are run with extreme legalistic jargon, that was kept to the exact second of opening and closing.

There was a time when the radios couldn't even run any adds on election day, and when that law was changed, no radios were allowed within 100 feet of the polling place. There was zero handouts within that same distance, and NO personal polliticking allowed.

Since you seem to have a dogmatic abecedarian knowledge of the Pennsylvania political system, please tell me how this form of bullying is allowed by you and your fellow voters...or is it what your crowd is just continuing to advance, supporting, and promoting?

UB

The bullying was not permitted, although it was apparently an hour between the time the situation first started and the time the police removed the person responsible.

If you are talking about my description of running the gauntlet to get into my polling place, my description is very accurate. Under PA law they are not allowed to "electioneer" within either 50 or 100 feet of the polling station (not sure which) but they are permitted to hand out literature including sample ballots. Some will hand out coffee as well. The people doing it are committee men and women, candidates, and office holders along with regular volunteers. They want to shake your hand, say good morning, and make sure you have a sample ballot in hand before you go to vote.

If you are talking about switching the location of polling stations, the most recent case involves a polling place that is located in a housing project that is also home to the majority of (low income) voters in the district. The polling place was relocated by the Republican majority on the county election board in response to a complaint that the polling place was dangerous. The new location was a lodge house two miles away. The complaint that was being investigated was from a Republican committee woman who did not even reside in the district. When questioned on the stand about the situation, the director of the board of elections (a Republican appointee) began crying and said that it was made clear to her by the majority board members that she would lose her job if she didn't move the polling location.

Hew
06-01-2009, 06:43 AM
I guess my question is why would this be a federal case? Pennsylvania has pretty strong laws prohibiting such activities.
Using your logic then no case of voter intimidation is ever worthy of federal prosecution since every state has laws against voter intimidation. That's fine and dandy and I might even agree with you, but I've got a hunch you wouldn't feel the same way if two klansmen were blocking the polls in Kennesaw, Georgia. Also, other problems with your logic include: 1) an attorney general who says we're a nation of cowards about race and that he would give civil rights cases top priority (apparently only for blacks), 2) a president who has promised to "reinvigorate federal civil rights enforcement" (again, apparently only for blacks), and 3) the Black Pantha brutha was telling McCain volunteers, "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracka!" McCain was running for a federal office.

So we have a President and Attorney General saying that they'll be all about voter/civil rights, and two armed black men intimidating voters at a polling place for a federally elected office. Given those conditions it seems to me like this case would SCREAM for "federal prosecution."

txbadger
06-01-2009, 08:07 AM
"..complaint that the polling place was dangerous. The new location was a lodge house two miles away"

My gawd, 2 whole miles away, from a source not in the district?? Is that like buses coming from MN or IL to Milwaukee with people who's only id was someone saying they "know" them on election day?? Like us traders say, for every seller there's a buyer....

YardleyLabs
06-01-2009, 08:35 AM
"..complaint that the polling place was dangerous. The new location was a lodge house two miles away"

My gawd, 2 whole miles away, from a source not in the district?? Is that like buses coming from MN or IL to Milwaukee with people who's only id was someone saying they "know" them on election day?? Like us traders say, for every seller there's a buyer....

As I noted, the only complaint of danger was from a Republican committee woman who did not live or vote in the district. There had never been a reported incident or complaint in connection with an election. The population of the project is primarily elderly and low income. Vehicle ownership approaches zero and there is no public transportation. It was pretty evident throughout the hearings that the relocation had as its primary objective the limitation of voter from the project.

road kill
06-01-2009, 08:37 AM
As I noted, the only complaint of danger was from a Republican committee woman who did not live or vote in the district. There had never been a reported incident or complaint in connection with an election. The population of the project is primarily elderly and low income. Vehicle ownership approaches zero and there is no public transportation. It was pretty evident throughout the hearings that the relocation had as its primary objective the limitation of voter from the project.
HMMMMM, I wonder why??

Maybe because they wern't trying to intimidate blacks, hispanics or socialists??

DUHHHH!

just sayin'

YardleyLabs
06-01-2009, 08:42 AM
Using your logic then no case of voter intimidation is ever worthy of federal prosecution since every state has laws against voter intimidation. That's fine and dandy and I might even agree with you, but I've got a hunch you wouldn't feel the same way if two klansmen were blocking the polls in Kennesaw, Georgia. Also, other problems with your logic include: 1) an attorney general who says we're a nation of cowards about race and that he would give civil rights cases top priority (apparently only for blacks), 2) a president who has promised to "reinvigorate federal civil rights enforcement" (again, apparently only for blacks), and 3) the Black Pantha brutha was telling McCain volunteers, "You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracka!" McCain was running for a federal office.

So we have a President and Attorney General saying that they'll be all about voter/civil rights, and two armed black men intimidating voters at a polling place for a federally elected office. Given those conditions it seems to me like this case would SCREAM for "federal prosecution."

There are many cases that warrant Federal investigation -- primarily those that evidence discriminatory actions that appear to originate with or be tolerated by the local authorities in violation of Federal election statutes. Most election cases, however, are addressed in State courts under State law first. It is the exception rather than the rule for the Feds to become involved. In this case, there was an arrest made almost immediately by the local authorities shortly after the problem was first reported and unimpeded access to the polling station -- which was, by the way, in an almost entirely Democratic district -- was reestablished. It is not clear that anyone was prevented from voting and there is, as far as I know from the local news reports, no suggestion of public complicity in any of the alleged intimidation. Given that, as I understand it, Federal involvement would be highly unusual.

Bob Gutermuth
06-01-2009, 08:55 AM
You can forget about Gun Grabbing Gov Rendell or the mayor of Philly spurring any investigation. Their guy won and its tough cookies for the rest of us.

Goose
06-01-2009, 09:03 AM
Kenyans and democrats are whores for money and wont prosecute anybody who gives.

We live in Cuba now.

txbadger
06-01-2009, 09:24 AM
"As I noted, the only complaint of danger was from a Republican committee woman who did not live or vote in the district. "

So complaints of possible danger can only come from the neighborhood?

"There had never been a reported incident or complaint in connection with an election."

Which makes it safe??

"The population of the project is primarily elderly and low income. Vehicle ownership approaches zero and there is no public transportation."

Must not be Philly/Pittsburg are then, shuttling of the ol folks to rural areas where accessing simple needs like food and healthcare are hard to obtain? Or did We build some special places just for them?

The point of this thread is not what may have been done somewhere else, whither it was addressed or not but in this particular case 2 black men dressed in know anti white garb, one armed with weapon were standing at the entrance to a polling location & were judged guilty, by default, without punishment. Just facts not distraction please.

YardleyLabs
06-01-2009, 01:09 PM
"As I noted, the only complaint of danger was from a Republican committee woman who did not live or vote in the district. "

So complaints of possible danger can only come from the neighborhood?

"There had never been a reported incident or complaint in connection with an election."

Which makes it safe??

"The population of the project is primarily elderly and low income. Vehicle ownership approaches zero and there is no public transportation."

Must not be Philly/Pittsburg are then, shuttling of the ol folks to rural areas where accessing simple needs like food and healthcare are hard to obtain? Or did We build some special places just for them?

The point of this thread is not what may have been done somewhere else, whither it was addressed or not but in this particular case 2 black men dressed in know anti white garb, one armed with weapon were standing at the entrance to a polling location & were judged guilty, by default, without punishment. Just facts not distraction please.

I'm not sure what you are saying. There were two men at a single polling station. One lived in the building where the station is located and was not armed. He was engaged in activities that are legal and mirror those of more traditional party representatives at Pennsylvania polling stations in and out of Philly. The other was carrying a nightstick and was intimidating people entering the polls. He was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct. The Philadelphia Chapter of the New Black Panther Party was censured and suspended by the national organization because of this incident. The threat level was minimal. The individual that was arrested had already commented publicly that he would not vote for Obama, characterizing him as the equivalent of a slave overseer.

The fact is that the Bush administration followed a systematic program to drive career attorneys out of the civil rights division and to replace them with conservatives who dramatically shifted the focus of the division from defending minority rights to a policy of attacking reverse discrimination (see for example http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0723-05.htm). On the face of it I see no reason why the original suit was ever considered to be a priority at all.

road kill
06-01-2009, 01:16 PM
Could someone explain to me then why Black men in uniform bradishing billy clubs were even at the voting site?

C'mon Yardley, this out to be some damned fine bloviating!!:D

YardleyLabs
06-01-2009, 02:50 PM
Could someone explain to me then why Black men in uniform bradishing billy clubs were even at the voting site?

C'mon Yardley, this out to be some damned fine bloviating!!:D

Why are there 5-10 people standing outside the entry to my polling place every time I go wearing silly hats and big buttons proclaiming their political beliefs? Presumably they want to influence how I vote and are exercising their rights under the First Amendment to do so subject to the restrictions of Pennsylvania's electioneering laws.

In this case one man was carrying an illegally displayed weapon (It would have been legal if it had remained concealed and he possessed a valid concealed carry permit, I am not actually sure that a billy club is illegal in PA anyway.). That man was arrested and removed.

The other man, a resident of the building where the polling station was located, was determined by the responding officers to be doing nothing illegal and no action was taken.

There was nothing at all illegal about the "uniforms" they were wearing. If you want to appear at the polling station in a cheerleader outfit or a Gestapo uniform, your right to do so is protected. You may even wear buttons and other political statements on your clothes when you enter the premises to vote if you so choose based on a court case this year.

You may not verbally threaten someone and you may not display a weapon openly. The individual in question was arrested for violating those laws.

Are you suggesting that they should have been arrested because they were black?

Hew
06-01-2009, 02:53 PM
Here's what a civil rights activist who was there has to say about the affair:




CIVIL RIGHTS: WHO ARE THE “COWARDS”?
Bartle Bull
On taking office as Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder stated that America is a nation of “cowards” when it comes to race and that he would commit the Department of Justice to making civil rights cases a top priority. President Obama himself promised to “reinvigorate federal civil rights enforcement,” especially by prosecuting cases of voting discrimination against blacks.
On May 15 Obama’s Department of Justice quashed a civil rights case involving voter intimidation by blacks in Philadelphia on election day, 2008.
As New York chairman of Democrats for McCain, I had gone to Philadelphia on election day to work as a volunteer at polling places. An old hand at election work, I had been Robert Kennedy’s New York campaign manager in 1968, had worked for Charles Evers when he ran for governor of Mississippi in 1971, and had worked in South Carolina against Strom Thurmond in 1978. In Mississippi I had stopped the voting in the towns of Red Lick and Midnight and made them remove nooses that were hanging from tree branches outside the polling places. But never until I went to Philadelphia on November 4 had I seen a man with a weapon blocking the entrance to a polling place.
Two men dressed in black combat boots, black berets and black uniforms blocked the door to the polling place at 1221 Fairmount Street. One was brandishing a large billy-club, intimidating anyone who approached. The two were members of the New Black Panther Party (NBPP). Our campaign called the police and the press. The press filmed the incident. The police ordered the armed man to leave, but did not take away his weapon. As he passed three McCain volunteers, the armed man, Minister King Samir Shabazz, the party’s leader in Philadelphia, yelled: “You are about to be ruled by the black man, Cracker!”
Having been arrested in Hattiesburg, Mississippi in 1966 while working as a civil rights lawyer, and having received a civil rights medal from Senator Edward Kennedy in 2003 for my work with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, I appreciated the racist irony.
In March I received a call from an attorney with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, asking me if I would confirm my experience in an affidavit in support of a suit under the Voting Rights Act to enjoin such activity. He said that if such conduct were not actionable under the Act, then nothing could be. He said my affidavit could involve risk as the NBPP had injured several policeman in an incident in New York. I said I would do it provided that they saw the law suit through to the end. On April 7 I signed the Affidavit.
In early May the Federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a default judgment versus King Shabazz enjoining him from again appearing at a polling place with a weapon. But on May 15, with victory certain because the other defendants (including the national NBPP) had not answered the proceeding, the new leadership at the Department of Justice dropped the case by filing a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The government attorney said to me: “The decision to drop the case against the other defendants came as a surprise to all of us working on it.” He said this failure to enforce the Voting Rights Act, the keystone of American civil rights legislation, would “embolden” other abuses in the future.
What would have been said had the Bush administration quashed civil rights enforcement against voter intimidation by whites? The Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League describe the NBPP as a hate group, and the original Black Panthers have denounced it, but the new administration is protecting it.
Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy did not die to have thugs dressed like storm troopers and carrying weapons block the doors of polling places, nor to have the Attorney General of the United States protect the thugs instead of the voters.
What will our next elections be like? ACORN, the principal instrument of voter fraud in 2008, has now been lavishly funded by the “Stimulus Package”. Intimidation at the polls is designed in part to prevent poll watchers from challenging the fraudulent voters registered by Acorn. The new census is to be overseen by the political office in the White House. Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants have been registered under the “Motor-Voter” Bill, which mandates voter registration at Motor Vehicle Bureaus. The New Black Panthers will be at the door. Who are today’s “cowards” about race?

Bartle Bull Harvard Law School. Civil Rights Lawyer in Mississippi 1966. Robert Kennedy's New York State Campaign Manager 1968. Campaigned for Charles Evers for Governor of Mississippi in 1971. Jimmy Carter's New York State campaign manager. Former publisher of The Village Voice. 2003 received a civil rights medal from Senator Edward Kennedy for his work with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. Author of novels China Star, Shanghai Station, The Devil's Oasis, and A Cafe on the Nile.

txbadger
06-01-2009, 03:01 PM
Jeff, the point is the guy was arrested, found guilty and now receives no punishment for breaking the law. Instead his case is dropped after he's found guilty. What anyone else did isn't the point, just this case. Guilty = goes free doesn't compute in my books.

road kill
06-01-2009, 03:04 PM
Why are there 5-10 people standing outside the entry to my polling place every time I go wearing silly hats and big buttons proclaiming their political beliefs? Presumably they want to influence how I vote and are exercising their rights under the First Amendment to do so subject to the restrictions of Pennsylvania's electioneering laws.

In this case one man was carrying an illegally displayed weapon (It would have been legal if it had remained concealed and he possessed a valid concealed carry permit, I am not actually sure that a billy club is illegal in PA anyway.). That man was arrested and removed.

The other man, a resident of the building where the polling station was located, was determined by the responding officers to be doing nothing illegal and no action was taken.

There was nothing at all illegal about the "uniforms" they were wearing. If you want to appear at the polling station in a cheerleader outfit or a Gestapo uniform, your right to do so is protected. You may even wear buttons and other political statements on your clothes when you enter the premises to vote if you so choose based on a court case this year.

You may not verbally threaten someone and you may not display a weapon openly. The individual in question was arrested for violating those laws.

Are you suggesting that they should have been arrested because they were black?
That's ridiculus, I suggested nothing of the kind.
I asked a question.
And, in typical lefty fashion, you did not answer my question.
I did not ask of the legality of it all.
I asked "what were they doing there?"

Legit question.
You try to twist it into a racist thing.

If words were gas, some people would be humvees!!

YardleyLabs
06-01-2009, 04:01 PM
That's ridiculus, I suggested nothing of the kind.
I asked a question.
And, in typical lefty fashion, you did not answer my question.
I did not ask of the legality of it all.
I asked "what were they doing there?"

Legit question.
You try to twist it into a racist thing.

If words were gas, some people would be humvees!!
My comment about the color of the individuals was based on yours: "...why Black men in uniform bradishing billy clubs were even at the voting site?"

In answer, one of the men was a registered poll watchers and had every right to be standing outside the polling station or inside the polling station. The objective of a poll watcher is to try to observe that voting is being conducted legally and appropriately and to summon the police or or file with the election board in the event that problems are observed. This entire incident came to the attention of the police through the actions of poll watchers. If you watch the videos at the link I provided, http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/04/fox-black-panther-poll-intimidation-in-pennsylvania/, you will see not only the interview with the McCain campaign operative who came to investigate the presence of the two men and who called the police, along with video of the two men taken before the arrival of the police and video of the police when they responded by removing both men and ultimately arresting one of them. The purported reason the men were there was to ensure that no one would interfere with voting in a district that would overwhelmingly vote for Obama. There was nothing wrong with their presence or their purported objectives. The problem was the presence of the stick and their interference with a McCain operative when he entered the polling place (They did not stop him but did harass him.). During the videos you will see people entering and leaving freely.

YardleyLabs
06-01-2009, 04:15 PM
Jeff, the point is the guy was arrested, found guilty and now receives no punishment for breaking the law. Instead his case is dropped after he's found guilty. What anyone else did isn't the point, just this case. Guilty = goes free doesn't compute in my books.

There are two separate legal cases involved, but as I understand it you are wrong on both counts.

The one guy was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct which is a summary offense -- that is, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent much like a traffic ticket. I do not know what punishment was imposed (presumably a fine). He was investigated by the DoJ which requested an injunction to prevent him from ever appearing at another polling station armed. Neither the individuals nor the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), which was named in this action, responded to the complaint leaving the DoJ in a position where it could request a summary judgment without trial which is what the DoJ appears to have decided to not pursue. In fact, the NBPP issued a statement condemning the actions by the Philadelphia chapter at the polling station and it suspended the chapter from membership "until further notice." There was no "punishment" associated with the DoJ actions, whether they were pursued to conclusion or not, and no finding of guilt.

road kill
06-01-2009, 04:24 PM
There are two separate legal cases involved, but as I understand it you are wrong on both counts.

The one guy was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct which is a summary offense -- that is, you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent much like a traffic ticket. I do not know what punishment was imposed (presumably a fine). He was investigated by the DoJ which requested an injunction to prevent him from ever appearing at another polling station armed. Neither the individuals nor the New Black Panther Party (NBPP), which was named in this action, responded to the complaint leaving the DoJ in a position where it could request a summary judgment without trial which is what the DoJ appears to have decided to not pursue. In fact, the NBPP issued a statement condemning the actions by the Philadelphia chapter at the polling station and it suspended the chapter from membership "until further notice." There was no "punishment" associated with the DoJ actions, whether they were pursued to conclusion or not, and no finding of guilt.

Anybody know who funds the "NBPP?"

Anybody??

YardleyLabs
06-01-2009, 04:24 PM
Here's what a civil rights activist who was there has to say about the affair:




I could just as accurately say "Here's what a McCain campaign staffer has to say..." I am assuming that the author is either the person shown in the interview that I posted at the polling station or someone who accompanied him. There are three different videos taken by at least two different groups: a local TV station that only interviewed the McCain staffer, and what I assume was a student reporter from the University of Pennsylvania using his cell phone camera. None of the videos appear to support the description given in the article you quoted. I was not there and cannot testify to the facts beyond the standard practice in PA of having large numbers of people hanging out in front of the doors to polling stations attempting to influence voters. As far as I know, similar electioneering activities would be illegal in NJ and NY where I have also voted, but they are not illegal in PA.

Hew
06-01-2009, 04:48 PM
I could just as accurately say "Here's what a McCain campaign staffer has to say..."
A Democrat and civil rights activist who happened to be a McCain staffer would probably be the most accurate. It is interesting that you chose to cast doubt on his version of events. I was more hoping you'd comment on what the Justice Dept. attorney told him both before and after the case was dropped:


In March I received a call from an attorney with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, asking me if I would confirm my experience in an affidavit in support of a suit under the Voting Rights Act to enjoin such activity. He said that if such conduct were not actionable under the Act, then nothing could be. He said my affidavit could involve risk as the NBPP had injured several policeman in an incident in New York. I said I would do it provided that they saw the law suit through to the end. On April 7 I signed the Affidavit.
In early May the Federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania entered a default judgment versus King Shabazz enjoining him from again appearing at a polling place with a weapon. But on May 15, with victory certain because the other defendants (including the national NBPP) had not answered the proceeding, the new leadership at the Department of Justice dropped the case by filing a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. The government attorney said to me: “The decision to drop the case against the other defendants came as a surprise to all of us working on it.” He said this failure to enforce the Voting Rights Act, the keystone of American civil rights legislation, would “embolden” other abuses in the future.

YardleyLabs
06-01-2009, 05:17 PM
A Democrat and civil rights activist who happened to be a McCain staffer would probably be the most accurate. It is interesting that you chose to cast doubt on his version of events. I was more hoping you'd comment on what the Justice Dept. attorney told him both before and after the case was dropped:


What was the abuse by the NBPP? I have tangled with the DoJ more than once and it is clear that their strategy is generally to bury you in legal costs regardless of the merits of the case to force a settlement (FWIW, my encounters have been under both Republican and Democrat admins and in both civil rights and non-civil rights cases). Failure to answer the complaint is not evidence of guilt. Given the nature of the injunction sought, the NBPP may well have decided not to spend the money needed to present a defense. I have no faith whatsoever in the integrity of the Bush DoJ attorneys (Witness what happened with former Republican Senator Ted Stevens when the Obama AG dropped all charges on a case that had been won because of gross prosecutorial misconduct.). I suspect the case was dropped because of the perception that the prosecution was simply wrong.

Hew
06-01-2009, 09:57 PM
I have no faith whatsoever in the integrity of the Bush DoJ attorneys...
I don't believe Bush was president in March and May of this year (when Bartle Bull had conversations with the Obama DOJ attorney). Do you know the attorney he spoke with or are up just assuming he/she just had to be some holdover, political hack Bush flunky?

As an aside, even though you believe that the DOJ is just ate up with conservative Bush hacks, I assume that you'll want to be totally consistent and insist that they remain in their jobs as long as they want, right? Seeing as you seemed to be so upset when Bush replaced Clinton's liberal DOJ flacks that would have to be your logically consistent position, no?

txbadger
06-02-2009, 07:04 AM
"There are two separate legal cases involved, but as I understand it you are wrong on both counts."

Sorry "learned" one, I'm addressing the 1 person that had a nightclub, was NOT a pollin observer & broke the law. The default judgment is guilty for the offense and the point is NOW the DOJ chooses to drop the case AFTER judgment has been rendered. Simple issue, simple fact with the appearance that the doj is impaired.

Now if you want to address other issues, like how lobbyists are now allowed in the admininstration, how change will occur in DC, how the debt exploded in a wink of an eye or how this administration has expanded the government far beyond the definition, you do realized how limited the powers granted are, right, of the Constitution have occurred. Perhaps how this administration, contrary to claims, is now in the auto business, at the expense of the rightful fixed income folks??

The guy, Edgar, who's never run a thing, refuses to release how his college education was funded, is now trying to run everything. Without a clue. I'm still trying to figure out whom is entering the messages into the teleprompter, to tell him what to say.

Bob Gutermuth
06-02-2009, 09:38 AM
I have far more faith in the holdovers from the Bush admin in the DoJ than I do in the AG Holder. He wants my guns and thats a good enough reason to have no faith in him at all.

Julie R.
06-02-2009, 11:24 AM
Dropping the charges against "King" Samir Shabazz of the New Black Panthers/Nation of Islam or whatever group he claims to belong to is a travesty. So AG Holder, who gleefully calls us a nation of cowards about race relations, is apparently not willing to take a stand against a black person. And Holder obviously thinks poll intimidation is OK as long as it's blacks intimidating whites.

If Holder expects to be taken seriously on race relations then he must not condone this kind of garbage. Shabazz is a whack job, but if what he did was OK then surely it's OK to man Mississippi poll steps with robed white KKK members brandishing burning crosses and numchucks (insert eye rolling sarcasm emoticon here...). We all know that such a stunt would end with the culprits cooling their heels in jail. While Shabazz gets off scott free and is probably living large off "community development" funds from ACORN.

I honestly thought I was listening to a satire news show when I heard this freak got off.

http://media.philly.com/images/20081029_dn_g1blak29c.JPG


Here's some choice excerpts from a Philadelphia Inquirer interview with "King" Shabazz last Nov. a couple days before the elections.



Some people wear their heart on their sleeve.
Minister King Shamir Shabazz wears his on his forehead. Right between the eyes. In black beret atop dreadlocks and a black military uniform, he spends most weekdays near City Hall condemning "crackers" and exhorting black passers-by to rise up against their "slavemasters" - and to give him $2 for the party's semi-annual newspaper.

"If you want to stop the revolution, that's what you got to hit," Shabazz said, pointing to the target tattooed onto his forehead. "I fight my oppressor, and I give him the target."


And here are some quotes from the King hisself on other races:



* On whites: "I'm about the total destruction of white people. I'm about the total liberation of black people."
* On Jews: "I don't care how much they try to promote the Jewish Holocaust. The African people have suffered a hell of a cost. . . .

"The only thing the cracker understands is violence," said Shabazz, whose face also bears the tattoos "Freedom" "BPG" (Black Power Gang) and "NBPP" (New Black Panther Party). "The only thing the cracker understands is gunpowder.

"You got to take violence to violence."

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/33491864.html

Goose
06-02-2009, 12:10 PM
"You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

YardleyLabs
06-02-2009, 02:20 PM
Dropping the charges against "King" Samir Shabazz of the New Black Panthers/Nation of Islam or whatever group he claims to belong to is a travesty. So AG Holder, who gleefully calls us a nation of cowards about race relations, is apparently not willing to take a stand against a black person. And Holder obviously thinks poll intimidation is OK as long as it's blacks intimidating whites.

If Holder expects to be taken seriously on race relations then he must not condone this kind of garbage. Shabazz is a whack job, but if what he did was OK then surely it's OK to man Mississippi poll steps with robed white KKK members brandishing burning crosses and numchucks (insert eye rolling sarcasm emoticon here...). We all know that such a stunt would end with the culprits cooling their heels in jail. While Shabazz gets off scott free and is probably living large off "community development" funds from ACORN.

I honestly thought I was listening to a satire news show when I heard this freak got off.

http://media.philly.com/images/20081029_dn_g1blak29c.JPG


Here's some choice excerpts from a Philadelphia Inquirer interview with "King" Shabazz last Nov. a couple days before the elections.




And here are some quotes from the King hisself on other races:



http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/33491864.html
Julie,

Can you or anyone else explain exactly what punishment was not enforced against King Shabazz?

txbadger
06-03-2009, 09:51 AM
"Can you or anyone else explain exactly what punishment was not enforced against King Shabazz?"

What was, Jeff? Or you suggesting a black dude should stand by the entrance to a polling site with a billyclub? What would happen if a cowboy stood outside a polling site with a rope?

YardleyLabs
06-03-2009, 10:35 AM
"Can you or anyone else explain exactly what punishment was not enforced against King Shabazz?"

What was, Jeff? Or you suggesting a black dude should stand by the entrance to a polling site with a billyclub? What would happen if a cowboy stood outside a polling site with a rope?

My point is that the action dropped by the administration would not have resulted in any punishment. It was designed to result in an injunction which was, in fact issued. The action that was dropped would have resulted in an injunction against the NBPP, not Shabazz. The NBPP as far as I can tell had nothing to do with the activities at the polling station. They condemned the activities and threw Shabazz and the Philadelphia chapter out of the organization. The descriptions that are being thrown about suggest that there was a big crime, a conviction, and then the administration dropped all charges. As far as I can determine, the only criminal charge was the one brought by Philadelphia which arrested Shabazz for disorderly conduct. Based on what I have seen of the actual activities involved, that charge seems appropriate. The Federal action that was dropped was meaningless and probably inappropriate as far as I can tell from the descriptions provided. I asked if anyone knew what punishment was dropped since the commentaries make this seem like the end of the free world and I see nothing but smoke.

Marty Lee
06-03-2009, 10:41 AM
Question for you Jeff. do you think the outcome would have been the same if a KKK member would have done the same acions but slinging racial slurs at the black voters?

Cody Covey
06-03-2009, 11:04 AM
My point is that the action dropped by the administration would not have resulted in any punishment. It was designed to result in an injunction which was, in fact issued. The action that was dropped would have resulted in an injunction against the NBPP, not Shabazz. The NBPP as far as I can tell had nothing to do with the activities at the polling station. They condemned the activities and threw Shabazz and the Philadelphia chapter out of the organization. The descriptions that are being thrown about suggest that there was a big crime, a conviction, and then the administration dropped all charges. As far as I can determine, the only criminal charge was the one brought by Philadelphia which arrested Shabazz for disorderly conduct. Based on what I have seen of the actual activities involved, that charge seems appropriate. The Federal action that was dropped was meaningless and probably inappropriate as far as I can tell from the descriptions provided. I asked if anyone knew what punishment was dropped since the commentaries make this seem like the end of the free world and I see nothing but smoke.Just because nothing would have happened doesn't mean that it should have been dropped. As you say it wasn't a federal case so why did the " race coward" dismiss this.?
Obama also comdemned Reverend White after he was "found out" to be an American hater. And then left his church.

30 years in the pews regards~

YardleyLabs
06-03-2009, 01:52 PM
Question for you Jeff. do you think the outcome would have been the same if a KKK member would have done the same acions but slinging racial slurs at the black voters?
Lets assume, to create a parallel, that you had a white man wearing republican buttons standing in front of a polling station in a white republican area carrying a nightstick and saying that his objective is to prevent any interference with voting. He is a member of the local Republican party and part of a group of people sent out to prevent interference with republican voters going to the polls. A group of three black men carrying cameras approaches him and demands to know what he is doing. They seek to enter the polling station. The man stands in front of the doors and slaps his nightstick in his hands announcing that he will not allow voters to be intimidated. While he is threatening in his demeanor, he allows the blacks into the polling station even though they are not residents of the area. One of the blacks entering the polling station calls the police and reports that he was harassed by the man at the door.

I suspect that the man might or might not be arrested. I would be stunned if he became the subject of a Federal investigation seeking to prohibit him from carrying a weapon in front of a polling station again. I would be even more stunned if the local republican party organization, which denounced the man's activities and threw him out of the party, became the subject of further Federal action seeking to enjoin it from additional poll watching activities.

Once again, by the way, this was the objective of the Federal action that the Obama administration decided not to pursue. I believe this is a pretty accurate parallel based on the videos taken at the time and the reporting at the time of the incident.

YardleyLabs
06-03-2009, 01:56 PM
Just because nothing would have happened doesn't mean that it should have been dropped. As you say it wasn't a federal case so why did the " race coward" dismiss this.?
Obama also comdemned Reverend White after he was "found out" to be an American hater. And then left his church.

30 years in the pews regards~
I'm not sure what you're talking about. If nothing was going to happen, why spend tax payer money pursuing it? The local disorderly conduct charge against the man in question was filed by the Philadelphia police. The Feds were not involved in any way and did not act to dismiss the charge.

Marty Lee
06-03-2009, 02:37 PM
Lets assume, to create a parallel, that you had a white man wearing republican buttons standing in front of a polling station in a white republican area carrying a nightstick and saying that his objective is to prevent any interference with voting. He is a member of the local Republican party and part of a group of people sent out to prevent interference with republican voters going to the polls. A group of three black men carrying cameras approaches him and demands to know what he is doing. They seek to enter the polling station. The man stands in front of the doors and slaps his nightstick in his hands announcing that he will not allow voters to be intimidated. While he is threatening in his demeanor, he allows the blacks into the polling station even though they are not residents of the area. One of the blacks entering the polling station calls the police and reports that he was harassed by the man at the door.

I suspect that the man might or might not be arrested. I would be stunned if he became the subject of a Federal investigation seeking to prohibit him from carrying a weapon in front of a polling station again. I would be even more stunned if the local republican party organization, which denounced the man's activities and threw him out of the party, became the subject of further Federal action seeking to enjoin it from additional poll watching activities.

Once again, by the way, this was the objective of the Federal action that the Obama administration decided not to pursue. I believe this is a pretty accurate parallel based on the videos taken at the time and the reporting at the time of the incident.

Jeff,
honestly i really can not see how this is a parallel. how would you explain the racial slur or do you not see it as such? just askin not stirring

Cody Covey
06-03-2009, 03:17 PM
if the feds didn't drop the charges who did. I could've sworn that it was Eric Holder who dropped the charges but if im mistaken then please enlighten me. And something would have happened. He would've been found guilty and on his record as such but as you stated no jail time. Still a guilty charge on his record which is at least something even though only a slap on the wrist.

YardleyLabs
06-03-2009, 03:52 PM
Jeff,
honestly i really can not see how this is a parallel. how would you explain the racial slur or do you not see it as such? just askin not stirring

So take my example and throw in that the white man says "We're not going to let you (throw in the racial epithet of your choice) stop us from electing a white man as President." That would not change my assessment of the outcome at all. Such statements are not illegal whether they come from blacks or whites or purples.

SMITTYSSGTUSMC
06-03-2009, 04:04 PM
So take my example and throw that the white man says "We're not going to let you (throw in the racial epithet of your choice) stop us from electing a white man as President." That would not change my assessment of the outcome at all. Such statements are not illegal whether they come from blacks or whites or purples.

Jeff,

to say the "N" word is illegal, it is a hate crime correct?

YardleyLabs
06-03-2009, 04:09 PM
if the feds didn't drop the charges who did. I could've sworn that it was Eric Holder who dropped the charges but if im mistaken then please enlighten me. And something would have happened. He would've been found guilty and on his record as such but as you stated no jail time. Still a guilty charge on his record which is at least something even though only a slap on the wrist.
The problem with this entire discussion and the hysterical posts on conservative blogs is that no one seems to be addressing the facts of the situation at all. No "charges" were dropped because, as far as I know, no Federal charges were ever filed or expected to be filed regardless of who won the election. A civil complaint was filed (a very different process seeking to enjoin defendants from displaying weapons at a polling place to intimidate voters. Only one person ever displayed a weapon and he was arrested and charged by the Philadelphia police at the time as well as being disavowed and expelled by the NBPP. The Federal complaint only identified the single incident but sought an injunction against several defendants who were not part of the activity or present at the site in addition to an injunction against the individual who possessed the weapon. None of the defendants filed a response to the complaint allowing the DoJ to request a summary judgment. The DoJ did not request a judgment against the organizations not present. It is not clear to me from the stories but I believe an injunction was issued against the man who displayed the weapon and bizarre behavior as well as one or two other men who were present at the scene.

If anyone has references evidecing a different set of facts, I would certainly reconsider my opinion. For now, however, I still can't see any rationale for Federal action beyond what was already done by the City of Philadelphia. There was no conspiracy. There was no pattern of intimidating behavior. The incident was isolated and short lived with no noticeable impact on voting. It was not supported by any organization. It appears to have been an isolated, minor criminal act classified as disorderly conduct at the scene.

YardleyLabs
06-03-2009, 04:12 PM
Jeff,

to say the "N" word is illegal, it is a hate crime correct?

Since when and under what statute? Many countries in the world, including some European countries (most notably Germany), have laws prohibiting "hate" speech. We have no such laws. Instead we have the First Amendment which says that we may not be punished for our speech unless it creates and real and immediate public danger. (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater). In America, using the "N" word is simply bad manners.

Julie R.
06-03-2009, 05:36 PM
Since when and under what statute? Many countries in the world, including some European countries (most notably Germany), have laws prohibiting "hate" speech. We have no such laws. Instead we have the First Amendment which says that we may not be punished for our speech unless it creates and real and immediate public danger. (e.g. yelling "fire" in a crowded movie theater). In America, using the "N" word is simply bad manners.

Using the N word is only bad manners if you're white; otherwise it's glorified in dance and song (if you can call cRap chants 'songs'). Likewise, intimidating voters is only taken seriously if it's a white person doing the bullying.

You can try to be as disingenuous as you want about this Jeff, but let's face it: no matter how liberal you are, you know as well as anyone else that if this was about a white person at a Mississippi poll wearing a KKK robe and holding a burning cross, the case would NOT have been dropped and it would be prosecuted as a hate crime with headlines on papers and news stories coast to coast whipping the public into a frenzy. Do the names Jena 6 and Tawanna Brawley ring a bell?
http://hotair.cachefly.net/mm/1sharpton.jpg (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/03/where-was-bozo-the-vp-today/)http://s490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/th_AlsRaceCard.gifhttp://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/racist.gif

Personally I think both King Samir Shabazz and the NBPP are freak shows that no one takes seriously. But AG Holder should not have dropped this political hot potato so quickly in light of his recent statement about how cowardly we are about race; this is a shoe that should fit him perfectly. Regardless, it's still not right for the NBPP to send out thugs to man the polls and intimidate little old ladies.
I'd also hazard a guess that one Minister King Samir Shabazz (that name alone makes me http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/abigrofl.gif every time I read it in print) is still very active in the NBPP, the group just made a public statement he's no longer affiliated and they don't condone his actions so they could continue to get their massive recruitment/life support funds from our tax dollars via ACORN.

YardleyLabs
06-03-2009, 06:05 PM
Using the N word is only bad manners if you're white; otherwise it's glorified in dance and song (if you can call cRap chants 'songs'). Likewise, intimidating voters is only taken seriously if it's a white person doing the bullying.

You can try to be as disingenuous as you want about this Jeff, but let's face it: no matter how liberal you are, you know as well as anyone else that if this was about a white person at a Mississippi poll wearing a KKK robe and holding a burning cross, the case would NOT have been dropped and it would be prosecuted as a hate crime with headlines on papers and news stories coast to coast whipping the public into a frenzy. Do the names Jena 6 and Tawanna Brawley ring a bell?
http://hotair.cachefly.net/mm/1sharpton.jpg (http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/03/where-was-bozo-the-vp-today/)http://s490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/th_AlsRaceCard.gifhttp://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/racist.gif

Personally I think both King Samir Shabazz and the NBPP are freak shows that no one takes seriously. But AG Holder should not have dropped this political hot potato so quickly in light of his recent statement about how cowardly we are about race; this is a shoe that should fit him perfectly. Regardless, it's still not right for the NBPP to send out thugs to man the polls and intimidate little old ladies.
I'd also hazard a guess that one Minister King Samir Shabazz (that name alone makes me http://i490.photobucket.com/albums/rr266/MouseOnAFeedsack/abigrofl.gif every time I read it in print) is still very active in the NBPP, the group just made a public statement he's no longer affiliated and they don't condone his actions so they could continue to get their massive recruitment/life support funds from our tax dollars via ACORN.
An individual wearing a KKK robe and holding a burning cross would be about 100 times more outrageous than anything I'm seeing in the video tapes of this situation. A man dressed in black pants, a black jacket, a black beret, with military style boots is about on par with someone in hunting attire, and a nightstick is not a burning cross.

I agree that Shabazz and the NBPP organization are "out there". but no more so than many other organizations including a number that may count members of this forum among their sympathizers.

When did the NBPP get funding from ACORN, or is that simply another spurious charge beng thrown out as part of this overall dance of smoke and mirrors. I am still waiting to hear anything based on the actual facts of the situation.

The issue of motive is even more interesting. The implication of most of the comments made is that these men were in some manner trying to prevent whites from voting. In fact, the area of the city being discussed is almost entirely black and democratic. Whether justified in their fears or not, the statements made by the individuals that they were trying to make sure no one tried to interfere with voting at the polling station makes a certain amount of sense.

By the way, Shabazz has been around for a long time. He was previously expelled from the Nation of Islam.

Cody Covey
06-03-2009, 06:30 PM
To me, and most people I converse with, would totally agree that a black panther in black panther attire would be JUST AS outrageous as a white man in a KKK outfit with a burning cross. Are black panthers less intimidating because of what reason exactly? Sounds a little biased and as Julie said very disingenuous. They are both on extreme fringes of their respective cultures. If someone in a KKK outfit was standing outside "intimidating voters" I can almost certainly say that no one on this board would come defending them yet here you sit saying that its okay because they were in a black neighborhood and didn't actually hit anyone....ridiculous.

YardleyLabs
06-03-2009, 08:49 PM
To me, and most people I converse with, would totally agree that a black panther in black panther attire would be JUST AS outrageous as a white man in a KKK outfit with a burning cross. Are black panthers less intimidating because of what reason exactly? Sounds a little biased and as Julie said very disingenuous. They are both on extreme fringes of their respective cultures. If someone in a KKK outfit was standing outside "intimidating voters" I can almost certainly say that no one on this board would come defending them yet here you sit saying that its okay because they were in a black neighborhood and didn't actually hit anyone....ridiculous.

I guess I just don't see it. The outfit would attract little attention in Philly.

http://jeffgoodwin.com/nbpp.jpg

Notice that the door to the polling station is wide open. A young woman is talking on her cell phone completely unconcerned, and a man in an Eagles Jersey is just emerging from the polls behind him. This is at the height of the "confrontation". In the audio I hear no cursing and no threats. The only evidence of "political" affiliation are two small patches: one of the jacket and one one the hat. A boy scout wears a more military outfit.

Cody Covey
06-03-2009, 09:38 PM
I guess I just don't see it. The outfit would attract little attention in Philly.

http://jeffgoodwin.com/nbpp.jpg

Notice that the door to the polling station is wide open. A young woman is talking on her cell phone completely unconcerned, and a man in an Eagles Jersey is just emerging from the polls behind him. This is at the height of the "confrontation". In the audio I hear no cursing and no threats. The only evidence of "political" affiliation are two small patches: one of the jacket and one one the hat. A boy scout wears a more military outfit.
http://separate-equal.net/main/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/kkk.jpg
And a man from the KKK wears none at all look how is that picture at all intimidating. I mean they are just standing there. Just because you may agree with the black panthers cause (please correct me if I'm wrong but they are a militant hate group just like the KKK so don't know why you defend them) doesn't mean they are any better or different at all than the KKK

Henry V
06-03-2009, 09:49 PM
The problem with this entire discussion and the hysterical posts on conservative blogs is that no one seems to be addressing the facts of the situation at all. No "charges" were dropped because, as far as I know, no Federal charges were ever filed or expected to be filed regardless of who won the election. A civil complaint was filed (a very different process seeking to enjoin defendants from displaying weapons at a polling place to intimidate voters. Only one person ever displayed a weapon and he was arrested and charged by the Philadelphia police at the time as well as being disavowed and expelled by the NBPP. The Federal complaint only identified the single incident but sought an injunction against several defendants who were not part of the activity or present at the site in addition to an injunction against the individual who possessed the weapon. None of the defendants filed a response to the complaint allowing the DoJ to request a summary judgment. The DoJ did not request a judgment against the organizations not present. It is not clear to me from the stories but I believe an injunction was issued against the man who displayed the weapon and bizarre behavior as well as one or two other men who were present at the scene.

If anyone has references evidecing a different set of facts, I would certainly reconsider my opinion. For now, however, I still can't see any rationale for Federal action beyond what was already done by the City of Philadelphia. There was no conspiracy. There was no pattern of intimidating behavior. The incident was isolated and short lived with no noticeable impact on voting. It was not supported by any organization. It appears to have been an isolated, minor criminal act classified as disorderly conduct at the scene.
So, can anyone provide different facts than those presented here?

Cody Covey
06-03-2009, 09:56 PM
no thats exactly how it went down they went to the DOJ and filed a complaint against the NBPP. So now that that has happened why did AG decide he needed to dismiss this case. It was long settled and yet here we are 8 months later after the incident and all of a sudden he decides he needed to drop the case. What am I missing that makes this not a federal case (as it was filed under the voter intimidation act to the DOJ) and why did the AG drop the charges.