No Proof in New Black Panther Case: Official

[Harshaw]

Yeah, that's what I thought. No clue.

You apparently think the issues are over whether or not the NBPP is racist. They're not. Or whether or not the other members should be prosecuted. Also not. Or whether or not there was intimidation. No surprise, but also not.

 

[The Dane]

Ok what are the issues then?

 

[Harshaw]

Is that what you thought they were?

 

[The Dane]

You don't have an argument, at all.

 

[Harshaw]

I'll take that as a yes, that's what you thought this was all about.

But it wasn't.

The issue is, the Justice Department had already won the case. It was over. Nothing left to do but the punishment phase. But then, for some reason, the Justice Department dismissed the case it had already won and then entered into a voluntary injunction, the equivalent of a plea bargain, which was extremely light considering the charge. This would be like convicting a criminal in a court of law, where sentencing would have been for years in prison, and THEN making a deal with them for probation only. It's inexplicable. Why would they kick a case that they already won?

An explanation was sought. The Justice Department won't provide documentation of its decision-making process, nor who was involved in making that call. Was it done by political appointees? They won't say. They simply won't explain.

That's the issue. It's not about "evidence." That's already been decided. That's over. It's not about "racism." That, too, is over. It's about the Justice Department voluntarily refusing to take a conviction it had already secured.

 

[Crunch]

I'll take that as a yes, that's what you thought this was all about.

But it wasn't.

The issue is, the Justice Department had already won the case. It was over. Nothing left to do but the punishment phase. But then, for some reason, the Justice Department dismissed the case it had already won and then entered into a voluntary injunction, the equivalent of a plea bargain, which was extremely light considering the charge. This would be like convicting a criminal in a court of law, where sentencing would have been for years in prison, and THEN making a deal with them for probation only. It's inexplicable. Why would they kick a case that they already won?

An explanation was sought. The Justice Department won't provide documentation of its decision-making process, nor who was involved in making that call. Was it done by political appointees? They won't say. They simply won't explain.

That's the issue. It's not about "evidence." That's already been decided. That's over. It's not about "racism." That, too, is over. It's about the Justice Department voluntarily refusing to take a conviction it had already secured.

Too many words for a lib (he's not a centrist) to understand.... try this, it's about law and order.

 

[Harshaw]

Almost no one on this board who uses the "Centrist" tag is anything other than a highly-rabid lefty. Not sure why they bother.

 

[Crunch]

Almost no one on this board who uses the "Centrist" tag is anything other than a highly-rabid lefty. Not sure why they bother.

Shame?.....

 

[The Dane]

I'll take that as a yes, that's what you thought this was all about.

But it wasn't.

The issue is, the Justice Department had already won the case. It was over. Nothing left to do but the punishment phase. But then, for some reason, the Justice Department dismissed the case it had already won and then entered into a voluntary injunction, the equivalent of a plea bargain, which was extremely light considering the charge. This would be like convicting a criminal in a court of law, where sentencing would have been for years in prison, and THEN making a deal with them for probation only. It's inexplicable. Why would they kick a case that they already won?

An explanation was sought. The Justice Department won't provide documentation of its decision-making process, nor who was involved in making that call. Was it done by political appointees? They won't say. They simply won't explain.

That's the issue. It's not about "evidence." That's already been decided. That's over. It's not about "racism." That, too, is over. It's about the Justice Department voluntarily refusing to take a conviction it had already secured.

The case arose after two members of the New Black Panther Party stood outside a polling place in a majority-black precinct in Philadelphia on Election Day in 2008. A video of the men, posted online, showed them dressed in paramilitary clothing, and one carried a billy club.

In January 2009, less than two weeks before the Bush administration left office, the civil rights division invoked a rarely used section of the Voting Rights Act to file a civil lawsuit alleging voter intimidation by both men, the party chairman and the party.

In April 2009, the division seemed to win the case by default because the New Black Panthers failed to show up in court. But the following month, a longtime Justice official, Loretta King — who was then the acting head of the division — decided to reduce the scope of the case.

The department dropped the charges against the party, its chairman and the man who was not carrying a club. It pressed forward with the lawsuit against the man with the club, obtaining an injunction that forbids him from carrying a weapon near an open polling place in Philadelphia through 2012.

The case became a cause célèbre in the conservative media world, and the Civil Rights Commission opened an investigation. The eight-member panel, which has the power to issue subpoenas and issue reports, is controlled by a six-member conservative bloc appointed during the Bush administration.

In testimony before the panel in May, Tom Perez, who became the assistant attorney general for the civil rights division in October 2009, said that “reasonable minds can differ” about the case, but that the acting supervisors had concluded that the case had been over-charged.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07rights.html?_r=1

They won the case, BY DEFAULT, because they didn't show up, not because they argued a legal case of voter intimidation. They continued to charge the man who carried the baton, and dropped the case against the other men who were hired AS SECURITY at the polling station because they had no evidence to adequately charge the men and thus the WIN BY DEFAULT was dropped.

The issues are racism, and the issues are EVIDENCE.

 

[Harshaw]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07rights.html?_r=1

They won the case, BY DEFAULT, because they didn't show up, not because they argued a legal case of voter intimidation. They continued to charge the man who carried the baton, and dropped the case against the other men who were hired AS SECURITY at the polling station because they had no evidence to adequately charge the men and thus the WIN BY DEFAULT was dropped.

A conviction by default is still a conviction. It was a win. There was no reason to kick it.

The question was, who made the decision, and why? That's the issue.

By the way, you note that your NYT article confirms that the issues are not what you thought they were.

 

[texmaster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/07/us/07rights.html?_r=1

They won the case, BY DEFAULT, because they didn't show up, not because they argued a legal case of voter intimidation. They continued to charge the man who carried the baton, and dropped the case against the other men who were hired AS SECURITY at the polling station because they had no evidence to adequately charge the men and thus the WIN BY DEFAULT was dropped.

The issues are racism, and the issues are EVIDENCE.

Security? Where did you get that BS from? Source?

 

[The Dane]

A conviction by default is still a conviction. It was a win. There was no reason to kick it.

The question was, who made the decision, and why? That's the issue.

By the way, you note that your NYT article confirms that the issues are not what you thought they were.

Oh really so that's what this is about? The right is furious over dropping a win by default conviction? They drop those all the time, that's my point its a manufactured conflict?

 

[Harshaw]

Oh really so that's what this is about? The right is furious over dropping a win by default conviction? They drop those all the time, that's my point its a manufactured conflict?

"All the time," are they? :roll: Cite a few. Back up what you say. It should be really easy if it happens "all the time."

But yes, that's really what this about -- and the Justice Departments refusal to be forthcoming on its decision-making process. You didn't have the faintest clue, did you?

 

[The Dane]

Security? Where did you get that BS from? Source?

Fox 29 spoke with one man, Jerry Jackson, on Tuesday afternoon who said he was a locally elected committee man and entitled to be at the polling place.

Philly DA: No Complaints About Black Panthers At Polls

 

[Crunch]

This is the funny part of the article that Dane posted.

The department dropped the charges against the party, its chairman and the man who was not carrying a club. It pressed forward with the lawsuit against the man with the club, obtaining an injunction that forbids him from carrying a weapon near an open polling place in Philadelphia through 2012.

Now here is federal law....

SEC. 11. (a) No person acting under color of law shall fail or refuse to permit any person to vote who is entitled to vote under any provision of this Act or is otherwise qualified to vote, or willfully fail or refuse to tabulate, count, and report such person's vote.

(b) No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 3(a), 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12(e).

Our Documents - Transcript of Voting Rights Act (1965)

So in essence they got an injunction that says he has to obey Federal law until 2012 in Philadelphia..... it's what is known as being tough on crime. :roll:

And what is the Federal penalty for violation of the above law? (hint, it ain't an injunction asking you to obey the law)

SEC. 12. (a) Whoever shall deprive or attempt to deprive any person of any right secured by section 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, or 10 or shall violate section 11(a) or (b), shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

Same link

Funny.... I don't see anything about injuctions in there......

 

[The Dane]

"All the time," are they? :roll: Cite a few. Back up what you say. It should be really easy if it happens "all the time."

But yes, that's really what this about -- and the Justice Departments refusal to be forthcoming on its decision-making process. You didn't have the faintest clue, did you?

So you agree that the DOJ did not find any instances of voter intimidation?

 

[The Dane]

This is the funny part of the article that Dane posted.



Now here is federal law....




Our Documents - Transcript of Voting Rights Act (1965)

So in essence they got an injunction that says he has to obey Federal law until 2012 in Philadelphia..... it's what is known as being tough on crime. :roll:

And what is the Federal penalty for violation of the above law? (hint, it ain't an injunction asking you to obey the law)



Same link

He wasn't found guilty of anything you posted. He was found guilty of carrying a weapon. There are differen't penalties for that...

 

[Harshaw]

So you agree that the DOJ did not find any instances of voter intimidation?

I agree that this is not what the issue is about. I'd have thought you'd understand that by now, but I guess it doesn't fit within your preferred narrative.

Still waiting for all those examples of default convictions being dismissed. Like I said, shouldn't be hard if it is as you say.

 

[Crunch]

So you agree that the DOJ did not find any instances of voter intimidation?

Read the law, Our Documents - Transcript of Voting Rights Act (1965)

Watch the evidence



then tell me if the DOJ is blind, racist, or both.

 

[The Dane]

Read the law, Our Documents - Transcript of Voting Rights Act (1965)

Watch the evidence



then tell me if the DOJ is blind, racist, or both.

Ahh yes you are correct you did cite the correct law stature.

No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 3(a), 6, 8, 9, 10, or 12(e).

And the DOJ findings:

In the 45 years since the act was passed, there have been a total of three successful prosecutions. The incident involved only two Panthers at a single majority-black precinct in Philadelphia. So far -- after months of hearings, testimony and investigation -- no one has produced actual evidence that any voters were too scared to cast their ballots. Too much overheated rhetoric filled with insinuations and unsubstantiated charges has been devoted to this case.

Followed by this:

In an April 23 hearing on the DOJ's decision in the case, Civil Rights Commissioner Arlan Melendez noted that "no citizen has even alleged that he or she was intimidated from voting," which "was clear to the Justice Department last spring, which is why they took the course of action that they did." A July 2 article at the legal news website Main Justice further reported that "no voters at all in the Philadelphia precinct have come forward to allege intimidation" adding, "The complaints have come from white Republican poll watchers, who have given no evidence they were registered to vote in the majority black precinct."

 

[texmaster]

Philly DA: No Complaints About Black Panthers At Polls

No where anywhere does it say they were hired by anyone let alone the polling place as security.

that is what you claimed and that is what you need to back up.

 

[Crunch]

Ahh yes you are correct you did cite the correct law stature.



And the DOJ findings:



Followed by this:

Would you point out in the law where it states that the intimidation has to be successful for it to fall under that statute?

Again..... is the DOJ blind, racist, or both? I'll add another choice, incompetent.

 

[The Dane]

You have no proof that they were intimidating, or threatening people from voting. Being black doesn't count as being intimidating.

 

[texmaster]

You have no proof that they were intimidating, or threatening people from voting. Being black doesn't count as being intimidating.

So you can't prove your BS claim that they were hired for security.

Got it.

And yes there is evidence. Direct quotes from people who worked there and people trying to vote not to mention carrying a weapon.

You really need to read more about this.

 

[Crunch]

So you can't prove your BS claim that they were hired for security.

Got it.

And yes there is evidence. Direct quotes from people who worked there and people trying to vote not to mention carrying a weapon.

You really need to read more about this.

Don't hold your breath..... Dane is totally a lib and we all know libs can do no wrong, QED, the DOJ did it's job and The NBP are law abiding citizens and full of love.

Oh…. Never mind that club in the NBP’s hand, he was there to stop anyone from coming in and stealing the vote. :lamo