konane's Blog

-

"Rocking the Vote: Did DOJ Try to Whitewash Black Panther Intimidation Case?

Eric Holder’s Justice Department is lying about the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. Why?

June 29, 2010 - by Joe Hicks Source Pajamas Media 

"Last August, the Hicks File reported on a very strange federal legal case. Let me refresh your memory.

On Election Day 2008, two men — identified as members of the New Black Panther Party — stationed themselves outside a polling place in Philadelphia dressed in military clothing. Videotape captured these two strolling back and forth in front of the polling place, with one clearly brandishing a nightstick.

A white poll watcher testified that he was called a “white devil” and a “cracker.” This poll watcher was told by one of the Panthers that he would be “ruled by the black man.”

This is classic voter intimidation as defined by the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The Justice Department investigated the charges, affidavits were gathered, and a trial team — all seasoned Justice attorneys — filed a case against the two thugs as well as against their organization, the New Black Panther Party.

It was thought to be a “slam-dunk” case.

A default judgment was quickly granted, because the New Black Panther Party simply failed to mount a defense.

Justice prevails, right? Wrong! Last May, Obama Justice Department lawyers ordered the case against the New Black Panther party dismissed.

It was truly a WTF moment.

But hold on … there have been some new and unexpected developments. Two prominent members of the trial team at the Justice Department have now resigned. And they’re in a talking mood!

After resigning, J. Christian Adams — a veteran lawyer in the Justice Department’s voting section — wrote a letter to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights which spelled out the reason for his resignation: the appalling decision by his superiors to pull the plug on a guaranteed court victory.

(Adams has since written an article for PJM on this topic as well.)

Earlier, the Civil Rights Commission had subpoenaed Adams and another career Justice attorney, Chris Coates. But in violation of federal law, their superiors at Justice had ordered them not to testify.

Both Adams and Coates are now free to talk.

I should again re-state my connections to this case. I am a California Advisory Board member to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, so I so have a dog in this fight.

What has now emerged in the wake of these resignations is the possible cause of the Justice Department’s abandonment of the case and a subsequent cover-up of its actions.

The trail is hard to trace, but here’s what appears to have happened:

After senior Bush administration Justice officials signed off on prosecuting the New Black Panther Party, a decision was made to file the case. It was assessed as a serious case of voter intimidation and an easy case to win.

After the Panthers were unable to mount a defense, the trial team was set to enter a default judgment, when acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven Rosenbaum sent a message to the trial team that he had doubts about the case.

Rosenbaum — an Obama appointee — argued that the case raised “serious First Amendment issues.”

Oh really?

The trial team fired back a response, which in essence pointed out that dressing in military garb did not raise First Amendment concerns when “used with the brandishing of a weapon to intimidate people going to the polling station.”

In other words, are you nuts?

After angry exchanges between Obama’s assistant attorney general and the trial team, the order finally came down to scuttle the case.

In an attempt to cover up what appears to be politically motivated intervention by officials at the highest level of Obama’s Justice Department, the Department denies that Obama appointees were involved in the decision to end the case.

This appears to be a flat-out lie.

Eric Holder, as well as Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli, were briefed on the case, and the conclusion by insiders is that a decision as extraordinary as this — to dismiss a blatant case of voter intimidation — had to come from the highest ranks of government.

But more mischief has been uncovered.

It now turns out that the NAACP had vigorously lobbied the attorney general’s office to dismiss the case against the Panthers. Kristen Clarke, an NAACP attorney, admitted that she spoke with Justice Department lawyers about the case, as well as a voting section attorney, and even pressed them for a dismissal date for the case.

But still, why would the Obama Justice department dismiss such a clear violation of voting rights?

The answer appears to be that a belief exists among the liberal core of government civil rights attorneys that civil rights laws exist only to protect minorities from discrimination, and in the case of voting rights, from the intimidation of whites.

Those familiar with the inner workings of the Justice Department say this belief dominates the approach to civil rights cases, with liberal-oriented government attorneys objecting to cases filed against black defendants.

These taxpayer-supported lawyers point to the history of official discrimination against “people of color” that, in their view, trumps everything else. Meaning that they will often refuse to work on cases brought against blacks.

This sentiment is similar to the oddball view among liberals and leftists that only whites can actually be racists.

Now, I’m willing to bet that you’ve come to another conclusion: that bigots can come in all skin colors, and that civil rights laws exist for the protection of all Americans, regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion.

But this is the era of Obama, which means that another form of logic — well, actually illogic — prevails.

Meanwhile, the thugs at the New Black Panther Party thumb their noses at us, having so far escaped punishment for doing precisely what white bigots used to do prior to the passing of civil rights laws and the enforcement of those laws.

How do we change this?

Come November, vote to change the balance of power in the Senate and perhaps even the House. Only this will allow the kind of oversight that might put the Panthers back where they belong — in the crosshairs of an aggressive government civil rights prosecution."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/rocking-the-vote/?singlepage=true

Oil Spill Timeline  ~  VIDEO ~

http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=12933322&server=vimeo.com&show_title=1&show_byline=1&show_portrait=0&color=&fullscreen=1

Source The Weekly Standard 

"A federal lawsuit is never a laughing matter – especially when the U.S. Department of Justice signs the complaint.  But the Obama administration's complaint against Arizona faces serious obstacles in the federal courts.

The administration needs to show that S.B. 1070, Arizona's law authorizing state officials to enforce federal immigration law, is "preempted" – that it runs afoul of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which confirms that federal law supersedes state law.  To that end, the complaint's opening paragraphs stake an uncontroversial claim: "[i]n our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters."  

Certainly no one would dispute that the federal government is the "preeminent" architect of the nation's immigration policy.  But it is quite another thing to say that federal law, through the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, preempts S.B. 1070.  In U.S. v. Arizona, the administration will have to prove the latter point – and that will be no small task.

Arizona drafted its laws with De Canas firmly in mind, as S.B. 1070's architect, law professor Kris Kobach, explained in a recent interview. In fact, Arizona's recent brief in a separate lawsuit makes this very point. Last month, Arizona moved to dismiss Friendly House v. Whiting, a class action lawsuit brought against S.B. 1070 by the ACLU and other groups. Responding in its motion to dismiss the lawsuit that was based on arguments that S.B. 1070 improperly regulates immigration, Arizona drew De Canas's crucial distinction: The ACLU is "confusing enforcement of federal immigration regulations (which S.B. 1070 seeks to accomplish) with enactment of Arizona-specific 'regulation of immigration' (which federal law would preempt)."

Arizona's brief lays out in straightforward detail the absence of any of the traditional bases for federal preemption of state law. As De Canas explained, the federal immigration statutes lack an express statement that federal law prohibits states from enforcing federal immigration law. Similarly, federal law does not so thoroughly "occupy the field" of immigration regulation that it leaves no room for state involvement in the federal statutes' enforcement.  Finally, S.B. 1070 does not "conflict" with federal law: It neither interferes with the accomplishment of federal immigration statutes nor creates legal standards that contradict the federal statutes.

While the Obama administration phrased its complaint in broad terms, it appears to be framing this case primarily as one of "conflict" or "field" preemption. Namely, in administering the federal immigration laws, "the federal agencies balance the complex – and often competing – objectives that animate federal immigration law and policy," and that the "nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."  In fact, the Obama administration goes so far as to assert that S.B. 1070 prevents it from getting tough on truly nasty illegal immigrants: "S.B. 1070 disrupts federal enforcement priorities and resources that focus on aliens who pose a threat to national security or public safety ... undermin[ing] the federal government's careful balance of immigration enforcement policies and objectives."

But that line of argument wholly misses the point.  When courts decide whether federal law preempts state law, the question is not whether the state law conflicts with the president's selective enforcement of federal statutes.  The question is whether the state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment ... of the full purposes and objectives of Congress," as embodied by the federal statutes.  S.B. 1070 satisfies that test – it does nothing more than allow state officials to enforce Congress's purposes and objectives as expressed in current federal statutes.

As it happens, the Supreme Court may weigh in on these types of questions long before the lower federal courts resolve the Obama administration's case.  In the upcoming term, the Court will hear Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria, which presents a similar constitutional challenge to another Arizona immigration-related statute – one that was signed into law, ironically enough, by then-Governor Janet Napolitano.  In that case, the traditionally liberal Ninth Circuit ruled in Arizona's favor, holding that federal law does not preempt Arizona's law punishing employers that hire illegal aliens.

No one gets rich betting big against the U.S Department of Justice.  Its lawyers are among this nation's very finest.  But the Obama administration's decision to commence this controversial lawsuit will require them to put their formidable talents to the test."

Adam J. White is a lawyer in Washington, D.C.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-administration-files-lawsuit-against-arizona-over-immigration-law

Entirely new video in this very short article.

_________________

"The Beneficiaries of Holder's Favoritism

Source Powerlineblog.com

"..........I wonder how many people who watch this video will say, Yeah, good idea, let's suspend law enforcement in favor of these guys."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026721.php

"$500K donated to Ariz. to defend law
 
(photo) AP – Hispanic community members, some from Phoenix, hold hands in prayer to protest against SB1070, Arizona's …

By PAUL DAVENPORT, Associated Press Writer Paul Davenport, Associated Press Writer – Thu Jul 8, 7:47 pm ET

"PHOENIX – Retirees and other residents from all over the country were among those who donated nearly $500,000 to help Arizona defend its immigration enforcement law, with most chipping in $100 or less, according to an analysis of documents obtained Thursday by The Associated Press.

The donations, 88 percent of which came from through the Arizona defense fund's website, surged this week after the federal government sued Tuesday to challenge the law. A document from Gov. Jan Brewer's office showed that 7,008 of the 9,057 online contributions submitted by Thursday morning were made in the days following the government's filing.

Website contributions came from all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including nearly 2,000 from Arizona. Donations ranged from $5 to $2,000, with the vast majority between $10 and $100........."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100708/ap_on_re_us/us_immigration_donations

http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/judge_declares_3.html

Excellent speaker, easy listen.  Gives his opinion of the origins of American government corruption. 

You decide.

______________

BBC5tv — November 14, 2009 — Filmed at the 3rd Lawful Rebellion Conference, London, 31st October 2009 by BBC5.tv. http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer

-

Latest info below from World Net Daily which seems to be the most up well informed.  Excerpted ... click the link at the bottom of the article to read in full.  BTW am not holding my breath on this passing.

Links to other North American Unions I've previously posted.

__________

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=127641

_______

"Former DOJ employees want to go on record praising Adams' outstanding work record, and — pay attention, DOJ press liaisons — maybe corroborate Adams' charges about DOJ hostility to race-neutral law enforcement. (Check back here for updates in the hours and days ahead, as PJM posts additional statements.) July 6, 2010

"Several former DOJ employees have been in contact with Pajamas Media, interested in publicly supporting J. Christian Adams as he comes forward about the DOJ’s failure to enforce the country’s laws from a race-neutral perspective.

These former DOJ employees have expressed a willingness to go on record regarding Adams’ professionalism, excellent performance, and outstanding record of enforcing the law without racial bias.

Additionally, they would like to corroborate Adams’ statements about the DOJ.

And perhaps — pay attention, DOJ press liaisons — offer their own accounts regarding the DOJ’s hostility to race-neutral law enforcement.

Watch this space today, and over the next few days, for additional statements from former DOJ employees.

First, here is Asheesh Agarwal. From 2006-2008, Asheesh Agarwal served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division. In that position, Agarwal supervised the Division’s Voting Section, which included Adams, and worked directly with Adams on several matters. Agarwal is currently an attorney in private practice.

During his tenure with the Department of Justice’s Voting Section, J. Christian Adams was a model attorney who vigorously enforced federal voting rights laws on behalf of all voters, without respect to race or ideology. Mr. Adams was also one of the most productive and successful voting attorneys in recent memory.

His victories include two cases on behalf of African-American voters under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, two cases on behalf of white voters under Section 2, and six cases on behalf of Hispanic voters under Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. He also brought and won three cases on behalf of military voters. Having worked closely with Mr. Adams for several years, I can attest to the unsurpassed quality of his character, judgment, and commitment to the cause of civil rights on behalf of all Americans.

– Asheesh Agarwal

UPDATE: Mark Corallo, former Department of Justice director of public affairs, submits a statement to Pajamas Media:

As the Department of Justice director of public affairs under Attorney General John Ashcroft, I witnessed the hostility of the “career” Civil Rights Division attorneys firsthand.

Internal disagreements over policy routinely became matters for the press, via leaks to reporters or leaks to Democrat members of Congress. They had no compunction about breaking the ethical requirement of attorneys to keep those internal deliberations confidential.

I am not surprised that the Department is attacking J. Christian Adams. The Civil Rights Division attorneys have no interest in the rule of law as written and passed by Congress — the New Black Panther case is glaring proof that the Division has an agenda. If Congress was truly interested in oversight, there would be hearings on this case and others.

J. Christian Adams did the honorable thing in resigning and speaking out.

Democrats constantly complained about the lack of oversight when Republicans were the majority party in Congress. Can any reasonable person imagine the Democrats ignoring a case of blatant violations of the Voting Rights Act (captured on video) brought by career Civil Rights Division attorneys being dismissed by a Republican attorney general?

Any veteran of the Justice Department should be outraged.

UPDATE: Robert Driscoll was a Deputy Assistant Attorney General from 2001-03. He is now an attorney in private practice:

When I served as chief of staff and deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division under John Ashcroft, I became familiar with the internal politics of the Division, and am therefore not surprised by the accounts of J. Christian Adams describing the New Black Panther voting case.

While I met many excellent lawyers in the Division dedicated to the rule of law, too many of the the career staff (a term never to be confused with “apolitical”) viewed the role of the Civil Rights Division as simply that of a government-funded advocacy group whose responsibility was to work on behalf of favored political and agenda-driven constituencies — and not to neutrally apply the law (as written by Congress, and interpreted by the courts) to the facts.

In contrast, as a private attorney I encountered J. Christian Adams (and other voting section members, including then Chief Christopher Coates and Deputy Chief Tim Mellett) while handling a voting rights matter against the DOJ. Adams and the rest of the team acted professionally and consistent with their understanding of the law and facts. While I disagreed with Mr. Adams and the DOJ team on some matters of interpretation, I could not have told you the political views of Mr. Adams or any of the attorneys I encountered based on my interaction with them.

Moreover, the position taken by Mr. Adams in that case was certainly not pushing any conservative agenda, as the suit sought to increase African-American representation on an elected body (based on ambiguous evidence of vote dilution) and resulted in the adoption of a voting plan designed to enhance the ability of minority voters to influence the outcome of elections.

While it is certainly within the authority of the senior levels of the DOJ Civil Rights Division to make the final litigation decision on any case, including the New Black Panther matter, it would seem to me that dismissal of that case — after default has been entered and where video evidence exists — is a highly unusual decision that is worthy of congressional oversight. While some may cast such oversight in partisan terms, it need not be.

The video of the defendants in the Black Panther matter was seen by millions. While most have not studied civil rights law or the Voting Rights Act in detail, viewers of the video assume that the kind of conduct shown in the video is inappropriate at a polling place. A lawsuit was filed by experienced voting rights lawyers at DOJ to remedy the situation and prevent such future conduct. And yet the case was dismissed voluntarily by the DOJ (after a shift in administration), a result that seems — at a visceral level — strange to anyone who has seen the video.

The detailed testimony of the decision-makers (not the subsequent appointee who was not around at the time of the decision) would be enlightening and educational. If the dismissal of the case against the Black Panthers was a result of political influence (as Mr. Adams alleges — an allegation that does not seem far-fetched, based on my experience), that is important to know. Political decisions can have political consequences and one can imagine there would be consequences if a political appointee “weighed in” on behalf of a fringe group like the New Black Panthers. But even if the DOJ is correct that no political influence played a role, oversight is perhaps even more important.

If this is indeed the view of senior career DOJ staff — that after reviewing the facts of the New Black Panther case and the video, current laws against voter intimidation provide no ability for the DOJ to properly bring an action against the New Black Panther members shown on video and mentioned in the lawsuit — then Congress needs to have a conversation with Attorney General Holder about whether the problem lies with the Voting Rights Act itself, or with those whose job it is to enforce it."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/breaking-former-doj-officials-stepping-forward-to-support-j-christian-adams/?singlepage=true

July 6, 2010 - by J. Christian Adams

"Today I testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights pursuant to a subpoena investigating the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation dismissal. I would rather no such obligation had arisen.

My previous Pajamas Media article comprised much of what I was willing to testify about. In that article, I detailed specific instances of hostility being expressed towards a race-neutral enforcement of civil rights laws, and in particular laws regarding voting and elections.

To the many that have experienced the hostility firsthand, denials of its existence seem preposterous.

To the many who expressed such hostility, often thoughtful but wrong, it would be a help to all of us if they might engage the debate with the respectable tenor which they sometimes did when I was in the Department of Justice. After all, such opponents of race-neutral law enforcement surely weren’t “cowards” about discussing race in those instances, and we might all benefit from a full understanding of their views. So let’s have the opponents of race-neutral enforcement of voting cases come out in the open and tell the American public why they oppose it.

But I’ll start the discussion for now.

I am reminded of a visit to the Voting Section by newly confirmed Attorney General Eric Holder in March of 2009. Attorney General Holder came to the conference room to meet the assembled Voting Section. He was introduced by a political appointee, then-acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King. It was quite exciting. In every federal building, a photograph of the president is displayed with the agency head. So in the Justice Department, President Obama is displayed with General Holder at the entrances.

Loretta King had the honor of introducing Attorney General Holder. She would subsequently participate in the dismissal of the New Black Panther voter intimidation case. And she said something astonishing in her introduction of the attorney general.

She exclaimed to the crowd:

I can’t tell you how exciting it is to go to work every day, and look up at the photos, and see that we now have two black men running the country.

Cheers followed, but not from everyone.

Obviously, I recognize the joy that naturally surrounds the election of the first black president. In 1860, a system of bondage debased the humanity of nearly four million souls in America. Even after hundreds of thousands gave their lives in places like Gettysburg, Stones River, and Battery Wagner, new but still evil ways were devised to oppress a race.

I’ve stood alone in the driveway where Medgar Evers fell in Jackson, Mississippi, and considered the sad heroism that characterizes some of the last martyrs to a cause. How close he came to seeing a sort of Promised Land on Earth, where Mississippi now boasts more minority elected officials per capita than any other state.

I’ve scoured the back streets of Philadelphia, Mississippi, hunting down the half-hidden memorial to James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner, three champions of the right to vote. They were slaughtered after being pulled over by Deputy Sheriff Cecil Price. I wondered why the memorial was not at the jail where they were detained with sinister intent. It would make a more noble witness to what an unrestrained government is capable of doing to humans.

These places moved me to my core. I cannot even imagine how profound the election of Barack Obama would be to me if I experienced the evil injustice of segregation as a target.  I deeply respect the overwhelming joy following the election, even if I cannot understand it in the same way.

But foul history does not excuse foul impropriety.

Electoral euphoria does not justify a racially tinged announcement by a superior, in the presence of the United States attorney general, to her subordinates.

Imagine if in March 2013, the new political leadership of the Civil Rights Division were to introduce Attorney General Jeff Sessions, refer to the portrait of President Mitch Daniels, and say: “What a relief it is to come to work every day and see we once again have two white men running the country.” Not only would the story be blasted on the front pages of the Washington Post, and rightfully so, but the person who made the statement would probably lose their job. At the very least, the attorney general would be sure to take the underling aside afterwards and make it unequivocally clear that such racially tinged comments are completely unacceptable.

Had this occurred at private business, the same Civil Rights Division would probably open an employment discrimination investigation into the conduct.

What are the chances that Attorney General Holder had that discussion with Loretta King?

I’ll bet next to none. But it is certainly something that now-Senator Sessions might ask Attorney General Holder next time an oversight hearing occurs. One thing is for sure — King’s power in the Civil Rights Division did not diminish after her comment. She was held out as the fair, unbiased, and competent civil servant who gave careful consideration to the New Black Panther case.

Despite the defendants waving a baton and yelling “you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker,” Loretta King decided that a dismissal of nearly all of the case was the only available course of action. Alas, the worm has turned.

I stated on Fox News that it was clear to me that no cases against national racial minorities would issue from the Voting Section during this administration. Let’s hope they change their mind. I testified under oath today, because I had no choice, that those instructions were given by Deputy Assistant Attorney General (DAAG) Julie Fernandes.

My understanding of her instructions were that no cases would be brought against national racial minorities by the Voting Section, and if a U.S. Attorney wanted to bring one, it was up to them to do so. Of course, no U.S. attorney will wade into that sort of mess without the help of the experts in the Voting Section, and DAAG Fernandes would know that.

If the Department denies this occurred, then the public and the now-very-interested media should demand that the senior management of the Voting Section in 2009 be made to testify under oath to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. Of course this will never happen, because they know by now what the testimony would be.

This was not the first reckless and lawless instruction Julie Fernandes had given to the Voting Section. I will be writing in the future here at Pajamas Media about other ones that could directly affect the outcome of elections.

The Department has come under widespread criticism for the dismissal of the New Black Panther case, and for the fact that many within the Civil Rights Division are openly hostile to a race-neutral enforcement of civil rights laws. Notice that the Department has never once denied that widespread hostility exists throughout its ranks to bringing cases against national racial minorities. To do so would be futile, because so many people know it is true.

That doesn’t mean the Department of Justice can’t redeem itself.

The best thing that could happen from the ugly New Black Panthers dismissal and public revelation of the truth is for the Department to change course. The outrage I have heard in hundreds of emails and in calls from around the nation tell me Americans value equal enforcement of the law as much as they cherish the right to vote without men with weapons shouting racial slurs at them. Equality and the right to vote are sacred partners.

If these hearings prompt the Department to reconsider the institutional hostility to equal enforcement of voting laws, then it will be a great day for America. We will all be able to exhale and declare: “Thank goodness they finally followed the law.” If it took attention for them to change course, we can all agree the attention was good.

I actually believe Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez is the right man to do it. He inherited the mess of the New Black Panthers case from Steve Rosenbaum and Loretta King, two lifelong civil servants who should be forced by the attorney general to learn what it is like to find paying clients. Similarly, reckless instructions to the voting section by DAAG Julie Fernandes can still be reversed by Perez. Tom Perez, I believe, is a man who wants to do the right thing, even if we might disagree about particulars. And nothing could be more right and just than making it perfectly clear to everyone — through action, not a press release — that the Department is willing to enforce all the voting laws and protect all victims of racial discrimination.

I’ll be watching and reporting at Pajamas Media on a number of matters where perfect opportunities for redemption are within reach for Perez to undo the damage that Rosenbaum, King, and Fernandes have done to Obama’s vision of a Civil Rights Division committed to enforcing all of the laws with integrity.

So I started the conversation. It would be good if the Department of Justice did more than talk about a commitment to enforcing the Voting Rights Act in a race-neutral fashion.  America would prefer some action.

Your turn, General Holder."

J. Christian Adams is an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. His website is www.electionlawcenter.com.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/black-panther-case-who-runs-the-country/?singlepage=true

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-transcript-j-christian-adams-full-testimony-on-the-new-black-panther-case/

June 28, 2010 - by J. Christian Adams J. Christian Adams is an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. His website is www.electionlawcenter.com. "Soon after his confirmation, Attorney General Eric Holder labeled us a nation of cowards, a people supposedly unwilling or afraid to discuss race. Based on my experience as an attorney at the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department, Holder has far more to fear from that discussion than do the rest of us.

If we had that frank, truthful discussion about race, we’d learn that the Obama administration doesn’t believe some civil rights laws protect every American. The Bush Civil Rights Division was willing to protect all Americans from racial discrimination; during the Obama years, the Holder years, only some Americans will be protected. Americans have a right to know and judge the racial policies of the administration they elected in 2008.

The dismissal of the voter intimidation lawsuit against armed New Black Panthers in Philadelphia is the most prominent example of this hostility toward race-neutral enforcement of civil rights laws. But that dismissal is far from the only manifestation of the beliefs infesting the Department. Many other cases and decisions — some of which I will detail below — are in question and deserve scrutiny.

On Election Day 2008, armed men wearing the uniforms and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were posted in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at the entrance to a polling site. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters. After the election, the Civil Rights Division at the U.S. Department of Justice brought a voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and these armed thugs. I, and other Justice lawyers, obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the case against them.

Before a final judgment could be entered, however, our superiors ordered dismissal of the claims.

Congress has sought answers from the Department about why the Black Panther case was dismissed. The Department has repeatedly claimed the “facts and law” did not support the case — which of course is false. Others have speculated about a White House involvement. But I believe the best explanation for the corrupt dismissal of the case is the profound hostility by the Obama Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department towards a race-neutral enforcement of civil rights laws.

This hostility was — and is — on open display within the Department of Justice.

Example after example exists where this dirty little secret manifested itself within the Department and affected Department policy.

Attorney General Holder and his political appointees have traveled the country claiming that they have “reopened” the Civil Rights Division. The Civil Rights Division is “back in business,” they announce, without a sniff of media scrutiny. In time, statistics and other information will present truth to this lie, as the Bush Civil Rights Division had a more robust civil rights agenda than the Obama Civil Rights Division. During the Bush years, the Civil Rights Division brought more cases in many areas of the law, particularly voting rights.

Race-neutral enforcement of civil rights law is a principle nearly all Americans agree with. Equality before the law has been cherished since the founding, and a bloody Civil War sacrificed generations of treasure and life to enshrine race equality into constitutional law.

Two obvious examples of the Obama administration’s hostility toward race-neutral enforcement of the civil rights laws:

The Department recently filed a brief supporting the use of race-based preferences at the University of Texas. Holder’s DOJ wants Texas to be able to give extra admissions credit to the skin color of certain college applicants. Of course some races won’t get the benefit of these racial preferences, while the political allies of the administration will.

In New Haven, Connecticut, the Holder Justice Department took the side of those who wanted to racially discriminate against white and Hispanic firefighters seeking promotion. Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court rejected the position of the Civil Rights Division. (It is no accident, incidentally, that senior Department attorney Steven Rosenbaum was involved in the formation of the Department’s racially biased approach in New Haven, just as he was involved in the dismissal of the New Black Panther case when he was acting deputy assistant attorney general, a political position in the Civil Rights Division.)

It wasn’t always this way.

The Bush Justice Department never filed briefs advocating racial discrimination. In fact, the Bush Justice Department was willing to protect all citizens under the civil rights laws, and brought a handful of cases protecting non-traditional racial minorities. Some pejoratively call these cases “reverse discrimination” lawsuits. Of course “reverse” discrimination does not exist: every species of racial discrimination is just that — racial discrimination. Implying a condition precedent, reversing something else, makes “reverse” discrimination at best a subset of some more legitimate wrong. At worst, the term is a historic reminder of whose ox got gored first.

It lessens the evil of the discrimination, an evil the Constitution bans without equivocation.

I worked closely with the former chief of the Voting Section, Christopher Coates, during my time at the Justice Department. He was a voting rights giant. He brought cases to stop racial discrimination as far back as 1976, just a decade after passage of the Voting Rights Act. Coates was a former attorney with the ACLU, and while at Justice, he was instrumental in bringing the case against the New Black Panther Party.

Because he believed in race-neutral enforcement of the civil rights laws, his powers as voting section chief were slowly sucked away by the Holder Justice Department.

Eventually made an intentionally powerless figurehead, Coates was transferred to South Carolina to work in the U.S. Attorney’s Office. His courageous going-away speech to the entire Voting Section and to the deputy assistant attorney general left little doubt about the “change” at Justice:

I have never assumed that I was entitled to ignore that clear language in federal law and therefore ignore incidents where evidence showed white voters were discriminated against or where the wrongdoers were themselves members of a minority group. … I have had many discussions concerning these cases. In one of my discussions concerning the Ike Brown case, I had a lawyer say he was opposed to our filing such suits. When I asked why, he said that only when he could go to Mississippi and find no disparities between the socioeconomic levels of black and white residents, might he support such a suit. But until that day, he did not think that we should be filing voting rights cases against blacks or on behalf of white voters.

I believe that one of the most detrimental ways to politicize the enforcement process in the Voting Section is to enforce the provisions of the Voting Rights Act only for the protection of certain racial or ethnic minorities; or to take the position that the Voting Section is not going to enforce certain provision of any of the voting statutes the Voting Section has the responsibility to enforce. Such decisions carry with them obvious, enormous implications for partisan political struggles.

Coates was not issuing a hypothetical warning for some future dereliction of the Department’s duty. The danger had already arrived.

United States v. Ike Brown

Coates and I learned about the hostility towards equal enforcement of the civil rights laws long before United States v. New Black Panther Party. Coates brought, and we won, the case of United States v. Ike Brown arising out of Mississippi.

Brown was the head of the Democratic Party in Noxubee County, a majority black county. The party ran the Democratic primaries, which served as de facto general elections, and Brown made no secret about his desire to see every government office in the county held by a black officeholder. Brown ran a Tammany Hall-style political operation. During one election, he literally stuffed illegal ballots he knew were marked for black candidates through an optical scanner in front of a crowd of angry citizens shouting provisions of Mississippi law at him.

“You ain’t dealing with Mississippi law, this is Ike Brown’s law,” he replied.

Brown organized teams of notary publics to roam the county collecting absentee ballots. In many cases, the notaries cast the ballots themselves instead of the voters.

Brown took absentee ballots to his home the night before the election, and put yellow sticky notes on them instructing compliant poll workers — whom he chose — why the ballots of white voters should be rejected. The poll workers complied, and canceled their votes.

Brown imported ineligible black candidates from outside the county to run against white incumbents.

He allowed squads of “assistors” to pollute the voting sites and impose “assistance,” telling black voters how to vote inside the booth — in many cases marking the ballots for the voters. During one election, teams of federal observers counted hundreds of verified examples of illegal assistance. Brown lawlessly disqualified white candidates from running for office. He published the names of 174 white citizens in the newspaper, and said they would be subject to challenge if they tried to vote.

Ike Brown institutionalized racial lawlessness, and brazenly victimized white voters during the 2003 and 2007 elections. And yet, many in the Voting Section never wanted the Department even to investigate the matter.

They voiced explicit opposition to Coates about investigating the discrimination. Superiors were reluctant to recommend to political appointees approval of a lawsuit. After the case was filed, the hostility continued. Most attorneys — except one brave woman — refused to work on the matter with Coates. Hostility pervaded the Voting Section, directed at Coates personally and also towards the theory of the case.

I also encountered open skepticism about the Ike Brown case after I was assigned to work on it in 2005. All manner of reasoning was offered to me regarding why the case should not have been brought.

Some said that unless whites were victims of historic discrimination, they shouldn’t be protected. Voting Rights lawyers will recognize this as an argument grounded in Senate Factor One of the Supreme Court’s Gingles v. Thornburg jurisprudence. Other lawyers grounded their objections in Senate Factor Five, which speaks generally of educational and economic differences between races. Because whites were better off than blacks in Mississippi, no lawsuit should be allowed to protect whites, they argued.

Of course, all of these lawyers knew that the settled law was directly contrary to their reliance on the Senate Factors. No Senate Factor can serve as a veto on any case. But they sought mightily to ground their hostility in some sort of legal theory.

There were more sinister explanations for the hostility. During a deposition I did of a black elected official in Noxubee, he agreed that racially discriminatory behavior against whites occurred:

“But you got to understand,” he admitted saying, “now it’s payback time.”

Before the trial, article after article appeared in the New York Times and other newspapers critical of the decision to bring the Ike Brown case. ABC News presented it as a classic man-bites-dog story. Even National Public Radio traveled to Noxubee to do a story suspicious of the Bush administration’s decision to sue Ike Brown. The benefit of hindsight makes the national media effort to demean the case, and the hostility from the civil rights community, look laughable and petty. We won the case, and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision in two historic opinions.

Not surprisingly, Ari Shapiro at NPR never did a follow-up story. ABC News fell silent, too.

Election rigging … the good kind

Ike Brown was the worst example, though surely not the only one.

Down along the Big Muddy south of Natchez is Wilkinson County, Mississippi. All sorts of electoral mischief took place there throughout 2007, ultimately resulting in the home of a white candidate for county supervisor being doused with gasoline and burned to the ground. Others who complained about election misconduct were promptly arrested by the sheriff. Even though some of the accused wrongdoers were black, the Bush Civil Rights Division flooded the county with observers and brought calm to the election process.

Over in Alabama, Perry County had the Yellowhammer State’s answer to Ike Brown. This majority black county also had pervasive forced “assistance” occurring at the polls. Of course, the effect of racially motivated stuffing of the ballot box via forced “assistance” is the dilution of the votes of white voters, and the denial of votes of black voters who were improperly assisted. The Bush Justice Department was willing to investigate the claims and monitor elections there. But many within the Department were opposed to closely monitoring this forced assistance.

They reasoned that higher rates of illiteracy in the black community merited assistors entering the polling booth and casting ballots for voters — one after another, hundreds of them. Of course, when the volume of assistance bears no relation to illiteracy rates, reasonable people understand what is going on. Worse, when assistance is imposed, it isn’t assistance; it’s a tool for a partisan cause.

Some in the Department acknowledged that the end result was the likelihood of more black elected officials (at the expense of electing white officials), and on this basis were willing to turn a blind eye to the violations.

Perry wasn’t the only place in Alabama this racially motivated rigging of elections occurred. Hale County was also victimized. The Department’s opponents of race-neutral enforcement of the civil rights laws were particularly obstructionist in Hale. But some courageous lawyers persisted, and sought to ensure federal election observers memorialized all of the racially motivated illegal assistance and vote denial.

It will be interesting to see how much attention the Obama Justice Department devotes to Perry County, Hale County, and Noxubee County given the long history of vote dilution and denial through forced assistance of minority voters. Given the attitudes of some career lawyers expressed during the Bush administration, I suspect very little. Any attention they do give to these places will likely be to assure the wrongdoers that new management has arrived in Washington, that the Civil Rights Division is back in business, indeed.

Most remain rightfully disgusted by America’s long history of slavery and segregation. The idea that the civil rights law would be used against the original beneficiaries extremely agitates them. These employees of the Department oppose race-neutral enforcement of the law on these grounds. While the “original beneficiary” argument against a race-neutral application of the civil rights laws may have emotional appeal, it is legally and ethically bankrupt.

“You are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker.”

The day after the Black Panthers intimidated voters in Philadelphia, I heard Department of Justice employees speaking in the hallways making light of the intimidation: “No big deal,” one said. “Just a media generated event,” said another, echoing the familiar excuses of the southern segregationists in the 1960s when a New York Times reporter was sniffing about town.

I never dreamed that these amateur and uninformed assessments would evolve into official policy.

Other employees voiced opinions that the case should not be brought against the New Black Panthers. The Panthers did good work in the 1960s, right? Wrong, the New Black Panthers are a different, more dangerous, anti-Semitic separatist group. But it was an isolated incident, right? Wrong, but even if that were true, the behavior was still illegal.

In hindsight, it was not an accident that these early informal arguments echoed the eventual justifications used to dismiss the case, and then ultimately the spin given to the public, leaked to sycophantic amateur blogs such as Main Justice. The liberal echo chamber within the Civil Rights Division was talking about the case, mostly to each other. But attorneys who were working hard to investigate and prove the case weren’t part of the discussion. We were part of the problem. And we didn’t realize how extensive the hostility toward the New Black Panther case had already become.

Contrary to the views of some conservatives, racial discrimination still exists. A black motorist pulled over by the police is likely to have a different experience than a similarly situated white motorist. Without question, some apartment complexes and dining establishments still treat blacks differently from whites. The Department of Justice’s undercover housing testing program demonstrates this fact over and over again.

Some leading conservatives also are wrong when they argue that voting has become post-racial in America, that race no longer is an important factor in electoral outcomes. It is possible to calculate voting behavior and ascertain who black voters chose and who white voters chose in any given election. The statistical methods which allow us to peer into private choices inside the voting booth are beyond the scope of this discussion, but it is without doubt that racially polarized voting still determines election outcomes in America. Race continues to negatively affect traditional minorities, whether during traffic stops or a statewide campaign for office.

Yet after the proliferation of race-based preferences in college admission or hiring, minorities may in fact now enjoy an advantage in some places. This is particularly true in large institutions with aggressive “affirmative action” policies. Abundant data show that Asians, in particular, are victimized in university admissions by a race-based thumb on the scales. Our nation has struggled to find the right balance to remedy past discrimination. In some areas we do better than others, but the correct approach is never simply to leverage the outcome reflexively as much as possible in only one direction.

The massive engine of federal government should not be used to leverage outcomes as far as possible for only national racial minorities, but that is exactly what is happening. Indeed, many of the advocates of limitless leveraging of government power for the benefit of traditional national minorities view this as a backdoor way to achieve reparations for slavery and discrimination. If the American public won’t tolerate monetary reparations, which they won’t, then a one-way approach to civil rights laws is seen as the next best alternative for their unpopular agenda. Best of all, hardly anybody notices.

Because few Americans understand the hyper-technical components of civil rights law, such as disparate impact theory, regression analysis, and redlining cases, this litigation-based substitute for reparations has been largely successful and almost entirely free from broad public scrutiny. To the extent the public is aware of the activities of civil rights litigation, it is packaged to them as part of the noble and seemingly endless effort to escape the nation’s unjust past.

This aggressive one-way approach toward the civil rights laws is central to understanding why the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party was dismissed by the Obama Justice Department. To some, the civil rights laws are not meant to protect all Americans, they are meant to protect certain Americans. Naturally the universal protections that apply to all Americans in the 14th and 15th Amendments are no barrier to one-way enforcement when you control the mechanics of the federal bureaucracy. After all, few will ever know about the civil rights cases this administration refuses to bring. A perk of being in charge is deciding what is the best use of government resources, and what is the best exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

Americans have the right to know, however, whether or not this administration harbors hostility towards a race-neutral enforcement of the civil rights laws. The firsthand experience of many within the Justice Department leaves no doubt about this insidious attitude.

Some activists may claim this is much ado about nothing. This view is shortsighted: it is hard to imagine what would erode support for the civil rights laws more than the idea that many of us aren’t protected. Equal enforcement of the law vests all of us in the mission of equality. Protecting everyone seems a small price to pay for civil rights organizations to preserve the popularity of their agenda. Failing to protect everyone only fuels hostility to their agenda.

Refusing to enforce the law in a race-neutral manner is a curable malaise. The Department of Justice can still redeem itself — it might start by refiling the lawsuit against the dismissed defendants in the New Black Panther Party case. It ought to abandon its advocacy of race-based preferences in future cases. And it should be willing to diligently pursue investigations and cases no matter the race of the victim or the perpetrator, especially in voting rights cases.

If they don’t, Americans have the right to know and judge this administration’s neglect of our civil rights."

J. Christian Adams is an election lawyer who served in the Voting Rights Section at the U.S. Department of Justice. His website is www.electionlawcenter.com.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/j-christian-adams-you-deserve-to-know-%e2%80%94-unequal-law-enforcement-reigns-at-obamas-doj-pjm-exclusive/?singlepage=true

Powerline commentary about the Justice Department dropping the Black Panther voter intimidation case.  Looks like it isn't going away.

___________

"Investigate this

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026637.php

"Shadow of the Panther

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026661.php

"Shadow of the Panther, cont'd

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026690.php

"Former DOJ Lawyers Support Chris Adams

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026694.php

July 7, 2010 Posted by Paul at 10:12 PM

"The Obama Justice Department has filed suit against the State of Arizona, asserting that Arizona's new immigration law is preempted by federal law. At least one expert on preemption believes that the case is a close one. And I doubt that even the Obama Justice Department would bring a frivolous action.

I'm not an expert in this area. But for what it's worth, my initial take is that Arizona has a better case than the Justice Department.

As I understand it, this is not a situation where Arizona has enacted immigration legislation that's inconsistent with federal immigration law. Nor, to my knowledge, has Arizona authorized any enforcement mechanisms that violate other federal law.

The Justice Department's theory is, instead, that the Arizona law is unconstitutional because the government has preempted the field of immigration. Under the "field preemption" theory, a state law can, under certain circumstances, be preempted even if it is not inconsistent with federal law.

The power to regulate immigration has been held to be exclusively federal power. But the Supreme Court has also made it clear that not every state enactment that deals with aliens is a regulation of immigration and thus per se pre-empted. In De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976), the Court upheld an attempt by California "to strengthen its economy by adopting federal standards in imposing criminal sanctions against state employers who knowingly employ aliens who have no federal right to employment within the country." Here, as I understand it, Arizona similarly attempts to vindicate important state interests - including protecting the safety of Arizona residents - by adopting and enforcing federal standards.

To be sure, a state cannot enact legislation that "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941). However, it's difficult to see how the Arizona law stands as such an obstacle.

The government argues that the Arizona will hurt the federal enforcement effort because it will unduly burden federal enforcement agencies. The lawsuit alleges, for example, that the flood of illegal immigrants detained for deportation as a result of the Arizona law will cause authorities to lose focus on top-priority targets, such as terrorists.

This argument seems highly speculative. It pertains, moreover, to the alleged purposes and objectives of the executive branch, not those of Congress. I suspect the legislative history will show that the purposes and objectives of Congress with respect to aliens without visas was, to the extent possible, to keep all such persons out of the country and to provide the basis for deporting those who enter illegally. The Arizona law is not an obstacle to these purposes. I also suspect that the legislative history will be devoid of any indication of congressional intent to oust the state from enforcing immigration laws that track federal requirements.

So I'm cautiously optimistic that the Arizona law will be upheld and I believe that it should be. It would be quite a federal power grab to bar states from protecting their residents from widespread violations of federal immigration law that the federal government is unwilling vigorously to enforce.

However, I recognize that the issue may be less straightforward than my analysis suggests. I'll try to update this analysis as the issue comes into focus and to link to more in-depth and expert analyses as they appear."

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026705.php