MioMyo
2009-05-30 12:07:11 UTC
Oh that's right, they wore black shirts and carried big sticks. One has to
wonder how many centuries these guys would have served if they were white
and outside of a precinct in Alabama!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1
Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a
civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for
Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a
Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and
interviews.
The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on
videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue
the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be
voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.
Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit
from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation
and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he
had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century
ago.
The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access
to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher,
according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times.
The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against
the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse
course, according to interviews and documents. The court had already entered
a default judgment against the men on April 20.
Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil
complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for
Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a
Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and
interviews.
The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on
videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue
the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be
voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.
Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit
from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation
and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he
had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century
ago.
The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access
to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher,
according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times.
The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against
the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse
course, according to interviews and documents. The court had already entered
a default judgment against the men on April 20.
A Justice Department spokesman on Thursday confirmed that the agency had
dropped the case, dismissing two of the men from the lawsuit with no penalty
and winning an order against the third man that simply prohibits him from
bringing a weapon to a polling place in future elections.
The department was "successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the
defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from
doing so again," spokesman Alejandro Miyar said. "Claims were dismissed
against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and
the law."
Mr. Miyar declined to elaborate about any internal dispute between career
and political officials, saying only that the department is "committed to
the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone
exercising his or her sacred right to vote."
Court records reviewed by The Times show that career Justice lawyers were
seeking a default judgment and penalties against the three men as recently
as May 5, before abruptly ending their pursuit 10 days later.
People directly familiar with the case, who spoke only on the condition of
anonymity because of fear of retribution, said career lawyers in two
separate Justice offices had recommended proceeding to default judgment
before political superiors overruled them.
Tensions between career lawyers and political appointees inside the Justice
Department have been a sensitive matter since allegations surfaced during
the Bush administration that higher-ups had ignored or reversed staff
lawyers and that some U.S. attorneys had been removed or selected for
political reasons.
During his January confirmation hearings, Attorney General Eric H. Holder
Jr. said that during his lengthy Justice Department tenure, the career
lawyers were "my teachers, my colleagues and my friends" and described them
as the "backbone" of the department.
"If I am confirmed as attorney general, I will listen to them, respect them
and make them proud of the vital goals we will pursue together," he said.
Justice officials declined to say whether Mr. Holder or other senior Justice
officials became involved in the case, saying they don't discuss internal
deliberations.
The civil suit filed Jan. 7 identified the three men as members of the
Panthers and said they wore military-style uniforms, black berets, combat
boots, battle-dress pants, black jackets with military-style insignias and
were armed with "a dangerous weapon"and used racial slurs and insults to
scare would-be voters and those there to assist them at the Philadelphia
polling location on Nov. 4.
The complaint said the three men engaged in "coercion, threats and
intimidation, ... racial threats and insults, ... menacing and intimidating
gestures, ... and movements directed at individuals who were present to
vote." It said that unless prohibited by court sanctions, they would
"continued to violate ... the Voting Rights Act by continuing to direct
intimidation, threats and coercion at voters and potential voters, by again
deploying uniformed and armed members at the entrance to polling locations
in future elections, both in Philadelphia and throughout the country."
To support its evidence, the government had secured an affidavit from Bartle
Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F.
Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Mr. Bull said in a sworn statement
dated April 7 that he was serving in November as a credentialed poll watcher
in Philadelphia when he saw the three uniformed Panthers confront and
intimidate voters with a nightstick.
Inexplicably, the government did not enter the affidavit in the court case,
according to the files.
"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to
a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights
litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in
Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the
United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a
polling location."
Mr. Bull said the "clear purpose" of what the Panthers were doing was to
"intimidate voters with whom they did not agree." He also said he overheard
one of the men tell a white poll watcher: "You are about to be ruled by the
black man, cracker."
He called their conduct an "outrageous affront to American democracy and the
rights of voters to participate in an election without fear." He said it was
a "racially motivated effort to limit both poll watchers aiding voters, as
well as voters with whom the men did not agree."
The three men named in the complaint - New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu
Shabazz, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson - refused to appear
in court to answer the accusations over a near-five month period, court
records said.
Justice Department Voting Rights Section Attorney J. Christian Adams
complained in one court filing about the defendants' failure to appear or to
file any pleadings in the case, arguing that Mr. Jackson was "not an infant,
nor is he an incompetent person as he appears capable of managing his own
affairs, nor is he in the military service of the United States."
Court records show that as late as May 5, the Justice Department was still
considering an order by U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell in Philadelphia
to seek judgments, or sanctions, against the three Panthers because of their
failure to appear.
But 10 days later, the department reversed itself and filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal from the complaint for Malik Zulu Shabazz and Mr.
Jackson.
That same day, the department asked for the default judgment against King
Samir Shabazz, but limited the penalty to an order that he not display a
"weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location on any election day in
the city of Philadelphia" until Nov. 15, 2012.
Malik Zulu Shabazz is a Washington, D.C., resident.
Mr. Jackson was an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic
Committee, and was credentialed to be at the polling place last Nov. 4 as an
official Democratic Party polling observer, according to the Philadelphia
City Commissioner's Office.
Efforts to reach the Panthers were unsuccessful. A telephone number listed
on the New Black Panthers Web site had been disconnected.
The complaint said that the three men were deployed at the entrance to a
Philadelphia polling location wearing the uniform of the New Black Panther
Party and that King Samir Shabazz repeatedly brandished a police-style
nightstick with a contoured grip and wrist lanyard.
According to the complaint, Malik Zulu Shabazz, a Howard University Law
School graduate, said the placement of King Samir Shabazz and Mr. Jackson in
Philadelphia was part of a nationwide effort to deploy New Black Panther
Party members at polling locations on Election Day.
The New Black Panther Party reportedly has 27 chapters operating across the
United States, Britain, the Caribbean and Africa. Its Web page said it has
become "a great witness to the validity of the works of the original Black
Panther Party," which was founded in 1966 in Oakland, Calif.
wonder how many centuries these guys would have served if they were white
and outside of a precinct in Alabama!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/29/career-lawyers-overruled-on-voting-case/?feat=home_cube_position1
Justice Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a
civil complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for
Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a
Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and
interviews.
The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on
videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue
the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be
voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.
Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit
from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation
and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he
had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century
ago.
The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access
to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher,
according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times.
The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against
the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse
course, according to interviews and documents. The court had already entered
a default judgment against the men on April 20.
Department political appointees overruled career lawyers and ended a civil
complaint accusing three members of the New Black Panther Party for
Self-Defense of wielding a nightstick and intimidating voters at a
Philadelphia polling place last Election Day, according to documents and
interviews.
The incident - which gained national attention when it was captured on
videotape and distributed on YouTube - had prompted the government to sue
the men, saying they violated the 1965 Voting Rights Act by scaring would-be
voters with the weapon, racial slurs and military-style uniforms.
Career lawyers pursued the case for months, including obtaining an affidavit
from a prominent 1960s civil rights activist who witnessed the confrontation
and described it as "the most blatant form of voter intimidation" that he
had seen, even during the voting rights crisis in Mississippi a half-century
ago.
The lawyers also had ascertained that one of the three men had gained access
to the polling place by securing a credential as a Democratic poll watcher,
according to interviews and documents reviewed by The Washington Times.
The career Justice lawyers were on the verge of securing sanctions against
the men earlier this month when their superiors ordered them to reverse
course, according to interviews and documents. The court had already entered
a default judgment against the men on April 20.
A Justice Department spokesman on Thursday confirmed that the agency had
dropped the case, dismissing two of the men from the lawsuit with no penalty
and winning an order against the third man that simply prohibits him from
bringing a weapon to a polling place in future elections.
The department was "successful in obtaining an injunction that prohibits the
defendant who brandished a weapon outside a Philadelphia polling place from
doing so again," spokesman Alejandro Miyar said. "Claims were dismissed
against the other defendants based on a careful assessment of the facts and
the law."
Mr. Miyar declined to elaborate about any internal dispute between career
and political officials, saying only that the department is "committed to
the vigorous prosecution of those who intimidate, threaten or coerce anyone
exercising his or her sacred right to vote."
Court records reviewed by The Times show that career Justice lawyers were
seeking a default judgment and penalties against the three men as recently
as May 5, before abruptly ending their pursuit 10 days later.
People directly familiar with the case, who spoke only on the condition of
anonymity because of fear of retribution, said career lawyers in two
separate Justice offices had recommended proceeding to default judgment
before political superiors overruled them.
Tensions between career lawyers and political appointees inside the Justice
Department have been a sensitive matter since allegations surfaced during
the Bush administration that higher-ups had ignored or reversed staff
lawyers and that some U.S. attorneys had been removed or selected for
political reasons.
During his January confirmation hearings, Attorney General Eric H. Holder
Jr. said that during his lengthy Justice Department tenure, the career
lawyers were "my teachers, my colleagues and my friends" and described them
as the "backbone" of the department.
"If I am confirmed as attorney general, I will listen to them, respect them
and make them proud of the vital goals we will pursue together," he said.
Justice officials declined to say whether Mr. Holder or other senior Justice
officials became involved in the case, saying they don't discuss internal
deliberations.
The civil suit filed Jan. 7 identified the three men as members of the
Panthers and said they wore military-style uniforms, black berets, combat
boots, battle-dress pants, black jackets with military-style insignias and
were armed with "a dangerous weapon"and used racial slurs and insults to
scare would-be voters and those there to assist them at the Philadelphia
polling location on Nov. 4.
The complaint said the three men engaged in "coercion, threats and
intimidation, ... racial threats and insults, ... menacing and intimidating
gestures, ... and movements directed at individuals who were present to
vote." It said that unless prohibited by court sanctions, they would
"continued to violate ... the Voting Rights Act by continuing to direct
intimidation, threats and coercion at voters and potential voters, by again
deploying uniformed and armed members at the entrance to polling locations
in future elections, both in Philadelphia and throughout the country."
To support its evidence, the government had secured an affidavit from Bartle
Bull, a longtime civil rights activist and former aide to Sen. Robert F.
Kennedy's 1968 presidential campaign. Mr. Bull said in a sworn statement
dated April 7 that he was serving in November as a credentialed poll watcher
in Philadelphia when he saw the three uniformed Panthers confront and
intimidate voters with a nightstick.
Inexplicably, the government did not enter the affidavit in the court case,
according to the files.
"In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to
a poll," he declared. "In all my experience in politics, in civil rights
litigation and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in
Mississippi ... I have never encountered or heard of another instance in the
United States where armed and uniformed men blocked the entrance to a
polling location."
Mr. Bull said the "clear purpose" of what the Panthers were doing was to
"intimidate voters with whom they did not agree." He also said he overheard
one of the men tell a white poll watcher: "You are about to be ruled by the
black man, cracker."
He called their conduct an "outrageous affront to American democracy and the
rights of voters to participate in an election without fear." He said it was
a "racially motivated effort to limit both poll watchers aiding voters, as
well as voters with whom the men did not agree."
The three men named in the complaint - New Black Panther Chairman Malik Zulu
Shabazz, Minister King Samir Shabazz and Jerry Jackson - refused to appear
in court to answer the accusations over a near-five month period, court
records said.
Justice Department Voting Rights Section Attorney J. Christian Adams
complained in one court filing about the defendants' failure to appear or to
file any pleadings in the case, arguing that Mr. Jackson was "not an infant,
nor is he an incompetent person as he appears capable of managing his own
affairs, nor is he in the military service of the United States."
Court records show that as late as May 5, the Justice Department was still
considering an order by U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell in Philadelphia
to seek judgments, or sanctions, against the three Panthers because of their
failure to appear.
But 10 days later, the department reversed itself and filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal from the complaint for Malik Zulu Shabazz and Mr.
Jackson.
That same day, the department asked for the default judgment against King
Samir Shabazz, but limited the penalty to an order that he not display a
"weapon within 100 feet of any open polling location on any election day in
the city of Philadelphia" until Nov. 15, 2012.
Malik Zulu Shabazz is a Washington, D.C., resident.
Mr. Jackson was an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic
Committee, and was credentialed to be at the polling place last Nov. 4 as an
official Democratic Party polling observer, according to the Philadelphia
City Commissioner's Office.
Efforts to reach the Panthers were unsuccessful. A telephone number listed
on the New Black Panthers Web site had been disconnected.
The complaint said that the three men were deployed at the entrance to a
Philadelphia polling location wearing the uniform of the New Black Panther
Party and that King Samir Shabazz repeatedly brandished a police-style
nightstick with a contoured grip and wrist lanyard.
According to the complaint, Malik Zulu Shabazz, a Howard University Law
School graduate, said the placement of King Samir Shabazz and Mr. Jackson in
Philadelphia was part of a nationwide effort to deploy New Black Panther
Party members at polling locations on Election Day.
The New Black Panther Party reportedly has 27 chapters operating across the
United States, Britain, the Caribbean and Africa. Its Web page said it has
become "a great witness to the validity of the works of the original Black
Panther Party," which was founded in 1966 in Oakland, Calif.