New Black Panther Case Spurs Civil Rights Commission to Challenge DOJ

Ratcheting up a growing controversy over how the Obama Administration enforces civil rights and voting rights laws, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said today it has evidence of "possible unequal administration of justice" within the Justice Department, citing testimony that revealed widespread, "pervasive hostility" against discrimination and voter intimidation claims by whites.

In a sharply worded letter to senior Justice Department official Thomas Perez, who heads the Civil Rights Division, the commission said it had evidence raising "serious concerns" about whether the department's policies "are being pursued in a race-neutral fashion."

The controversy erupted after the Obama Administration dropped most of a federal lawsuit against members of the New Black Panther Party, who were videotaped allegedly intimidating voters at a Philadelphia polling place on Election Day in November 2008.

The Bush Administration in January 2009 filed suit against three of the members and the New Black Panther Party, but the Obama Administration changed course four months later and dropped the complaint against all but one member, who was wielding a nightstick at the polling place. And it only sought a narrow injunction against him, banning him from Philadelphia polling places until 2012.

A Justice Department spokeswoman said the top career attorney in the Civil Rights Division conducted a "thorough review" and determined the facts only supported claims against the man known to have a weapon.

The commission began investigating the incident last year, but it has taken on greater urgency after J. Christian Adams, one of the lawyers who helped file the suit, resigned from the Justice Department amid the controversy. He testified last week before the Commission that senior officials in DOJ are flatly refusing to apply voting laws in a race-neutral way.

Adams' testimony has sparked outrage in the blogosphere and is now becoming a topic of conversation in the political arena. California Rep. Brad Sherman, for example, was booed and shouted down in a town hall meeting this week after he said he was unfamiliar with the New Black Panther case.

In today's letter, by Chairman Gerald Reynolds, the commission said the "extraordinary" testimony by Adams "raises grave questions" about whether the lawyers and managers in the Department believe in "color-blind" enforcement of civil rights laws--"specifically, whether they should be enforced against all Americans equally and whether those protections apply with equal force to citizens of all races."

Reynolds cited testimony by Adams that a senior political deputy told staff that the Voting Section is "in the business of doing traditional civil rights work," that "cases are not going to be brought against black defendants (for) the benefit of white victims" and that the "Civil Rights Division wasn't going to be bringing them."

"The alleged unequal administration of justice by the Division on the basis of race," Reynolds wrote, "falls squarely within this commission's mandate to investigate."

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said the department "makes enforcement decisions based on the merits, not the race, gender or ethnicity of any party involved."

The Commission also renewed its demands that a former top lawyer in the voting rights section be allowed to testify. The Department thus far has denied that request.

[richardmoore323]

King orders the trial team, with Perrelli?s approval, to seek an extension of time to file the motion with the court.

[babooph]

The fools who love the Patriot act,ending the Bill of rights,should open their eyes at this. When the good old boys are in the minority,some years from now,it will not be Arabs & Mexicans trashed by this Nazi act!

[jimmyc1955]

Ughh - your not too bright. Obama and Holder have retained almost every aspect of the Patriot act - completely intact. SO maybe, just maybe, it serves a useful purpose - subverts no freedoms and only acted to make the ill informed like you react in a rabid Pavlovian fashion.

[jschmidt27]

Liberals protect their own and aren't interested in equal justice.

[quillerm]

The Bush Administration in January 2009 filed suit against three of the members and the New Black Panther Party, but the Obama Administration changed course four months later and dropped the complaint against all but one member, who was wielding a nightstick at the polling place. And it only sought a narrow injunction against him, banning him from Philadelphia polling places until 2012.

[graveswr]

Qui Pro Domina Inhonesto Sequitur

[jimbom121]

If you go back and read the facts of the case, the charges were dropped prior to Holder becoming AG. The case was dropped by Bush appointees. Never went up to the President.

[RedReason]

False. May 15, 2009.

[grcac]

It's funny how the Democrats believe they can make this go away by saying Bush dropped the charges. He didn't and thats the whole point of the Article. May 15, 2009 the Obama adminstration dropped charges.

Tuesday, Nov. 4, 2008
The New Black Panther Party, which is recognized as a violent, racial hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, announces on its website that more than 350 of its members will be ?deployed? in 15 cities across the country to ?ensure that people of color ? are ensured their right to vote?.
Friday, Jan. 7, 2009
The Department of Justice files a lawsuit in Philadelphia against the NBPP, and conspirators Malik Zulu Shabazz, Jackson and King Samir Shabazz.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Thomas J. Perrelli is confirmed by the Senate to be Associate Attorney General of the United States on a vote of 72 to 20.
Monday, March 23, 2009
The DOJ trial team on the case?Christopher Coates, Robert Popper, J. Christian Adams and Spencer R. Fisher?present its draft motion for ?Request for Entry of Default? to the acting division chiefs?Loretta King and/or Steven H. Rosenbaum.

Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Perrelli meets with White House Associate Counsel Susan Davies in the White House. Perrelli will meet with White House officials nine times between this date and the final dismissal of the case.

Late March
Kristen Clarke, director of political participation at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, reportedly asks Justice Department officials to drop the case.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Because the defendants missed the deadline to file an answer, the trial team files notice of default with the court.

Friday, April 17, 2009
U.S. District Judge Stewart R. Dalzell issues an order recognizing that the Black Panthers are in default. The order gives the DOJ until May 1 to file an official Motion for Default Judgment.

Friday, May 1, 2009
King orders the trial team, with Perrelli?s approval, to seek an extension of time to file the motion with the court.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Department of Justice Appellate Division lawyers Diana K. Flynn and Marie K. McElderry weigh in on the case at the unusual request of Justice Department officials. Their memos express support for the trial team?s contention that the case should be fully pursued.

Friday, May 15, 2009
The trial team is ordered to dismiss case against the NBPP, chairman Malik Zulu Shabazz, and Jackson.

Monday, May 18, 2009
Court enters default judgment against defendant King Samir Shabazz. The injunction is extraordinarily narrow compared with the original drafted by the trial team. He is enjoined only from carrying a weapon near polling places within the city limits of Philadelphia, and the injunction lasts only until Nov. 15, 2012. The injunction does not cover other acts of intimidation or other racial threats at any Philadelphia polling place, and he is not prohibited from doing anything at any polling place outside of Philadelphia.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Now-cleared defendant Jackson is allowed to again serve as an official Democratic poll watcher at any polling place nationwide. The NBPP is free to provide ?security? at any polling place in the country.

[we-b-had]

CBS would inprove its ratings if would try reporting the news like Fox instead of covering for a failed president like NBC.

[wfw3536]

I am surpriesed CBS even ran this story. Too bad it has been on Fox for weeks. The story shows that this administration does not believe in following the law evenly for all groups of people. How sad.

[jimbom121]

Just like their stories on Acorn? BTW, did they ever run a story that said that Acorn was cleared of any wrong doing?

[legallyhere]

I believe most are afraid of the outcome from the truth. After all, it's not words that are the truth, but a video of comments and even those made after the fact that make this such a serious situation. No matter what race says these kind of things, they must be taken seriously instead of brushed under the rug. If a "white" party were to picket or stand in front of a voting place like that, who knows what would have happened. With the emotion spawned by the election, it probably would have been a dangerous situation.
Why allow anyone to say you can't vote a certain way, especially with the threat of violence? And to look at the video and say it was not intimidating would be a lie!
All news stations should play the video and get the message to ALL people that this is not allowed in the USA, unless of course Mel Gibson yelling at his wife make a bigger dent in the future of this country!

[endurorob_5]

O.K. Holden, here comes the bus. Get ready to dive under.

[endurorob_5]

Sorry, meant Holder. Holden already kicked the bucket so won't be able to dive under a bus.

[Porkov]

The individuals who keep saying that Bush dropped the charges will continue to confronted about their confusion. As much as it may seem to you that Obama is Bush, this is not actually the case. Obama is SO much more facile as a liar than Bush was. He even has you fooled. Which was probably not all that hard.

[rockcutr]

First off, good luck with any group intimidating me to vote one way or another. Secondly, the largest group of intimidators do not have a group name. These are angry white men in suits telling lies. Then there is the southern practice of Churches dictating to their congregations on how to vote. This voting thing has never been a balanced thing. But, the largest case of voter intimidation came with the Supreme Court in its least exersise of juris prudence, in the hanging chad ballots of florida. The future presidents brother being gubinor of camp swampy, the wishy washy lt gubinor lady, as co conspiritors. Alfonso Gore being made the looser by a republican leaning team of SC justices.
Votes are bought by politicians and always have been. Vote for me and i will make your life good if elected.
Put the IRS in charge of voting. Place all elections for area specific on tax forms....silent, sweet, and a third party to do the counting. We may have to wait 6 months to hear the results, as the IRS is notoriously slow. Somehow always understaffed and never ready for the annual fleecing of citizens money to be poorly spent by untrusting bribe takers and pork producers.

[endurorob_5]

Of course if the tables were turned and these guys were white you would want their heads on a platter.

[legallyhere]

I agree that I myself would not have been intimidated and would have proceeded into the building. But ANY intimidation causing the loss of votes is what they were striving for. They succeeded and then said they don't care what the government holds against them. Oh, it was a massive stay away from polling places until the 2012 elections. Such arrogance needs a needs a legal response that hits them in the pocket book. Any group that has members who say they want to kill "cracker babies" and hate all crackers, needs to be focused on as a terrorist organization. I can understand a person not feeling trusting of a certain group or race. That is our right of freedom, but leave the kids out of it!