Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The man with the baton was already found guilty by the DOJ...then the charges were dropped before sentancing at the direction of Eric Holder. Then J Christian Adams, one of the attorneys involved in the case, testified under oath that he was told not to pursue cases where there are white plaintiffs and black defendants in any type of civil rights case.
I know I'm lumping it all together fast but I've been researching this thing so much my patience level is zero.
I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay? For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there. Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.
What actual evidence is there that is not hearsay - that Adams was told that?
Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care. If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem. But would that meet the requirements of the law?
KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".
If your answer in not Yes to both then you and I will not see eye to eye in this discussion.
See my answer....
Yes it is his word, under oath, as the only evidence. YOu are right.
As far as the history of the KKK, which we all know, here is some video of NBPP leaders that you may not have seen.
Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3MbqupVxMY]YouTube - Black Panthers Say That Blacks Have To "Kill Some Crackers And Their Babies!"[/ame] (this is the same guy with that baton beating it off his hand at the polling place...here is that video too )
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]
SOunds pretty violent to me.
immie, did you think all the guns and rifles at the different Obama rallies and speeches were as intimidating as a billy-club?
I don't liker either, but the loaded guns, scares me much more...
Guns at Obama Rallies: Where's the Outrage? - Newsweekimmie, did you think all the guns and rifles at the different Obama rallies and speaches were as intimidating as a billy-club?
I don't liker either, but the loaded guns, scares me much more...
Loaded guns were at 2nd amendment rallies not Obama rallies.
I get the feeling some folks on the left have tried to blur this distinction. I don't think having guns were any president is, is a good idea.
I think guns at a 2nd amendment rally is perfectly appropriate.
Guns at Obama Rallies: Where's the Outrage? - Newsweekimmie, did you think all the guns and rifles at the different Obama rallies and speaches were as intimidating as a billy-club?
I don't liker either, but the loaded guns, scares me much more...
Loaded guns were at 2nd amendment rallies not Obama rallies.
I get the feeling some folks on the left have tried to blur this distinction. I don't think having guns were any president is, is a good idea.
I think guns at a 2nd amendment rally is perfectly appropriate.
Protester defends bringing guns to Obama rally | StarTribune.com
Cenk Uygur: Man with a Gun Near Obama Rally -- Hell No!
azcentral.com blogs - PHXBeat - Man with AR-15 rifle at Obama rally sparks concerns
guns at obama rally - Google Search
True. I'd rather they find me at home, but that's me. I'd have a better shot there.
Do you have kids?
How about kids that go to school in the neighborhood?
As for the argument that they were there to prevent McCain supporters from intimidating voters. That is bullshit. No one showed up and if they were coming in groups, these two thugs would not have been a problem and don't even try to tell me that one or two McCain supporters are going to go into a neighborhood like that to scare people off. That would have been a suicide mission.
Immie
Unless there was a Charles Bronson movie that followed, the issue would end at my doorstep.
If he/she is anything like my kids there was.
However, analysis of the court did not need to proceed to whether stare decisis applied because default judgment was entered as you note further on in your comments. So, I don't think attempting to impune the facts and assuming what the court would or would not have done is appropriate. The facts were sufficient for the court to find that the government made a prima facie case of voter intimidation, you can't get a default judgment with less.
Again, a prima facie case was made by the government. (The facts, in the light most favorable to the government, showed the accused were guilty of voter intimidation).
The judgment was obtained, but the prosecution was dropped in the sentencing phase. An even more difficult to understand decision by the justice department. I could more easily see just not prosecuting.
That's my understanding. I would say, since the government had to make out a prima facie case, then they must have had to show actual intimidation if that is an element of the crime.
Do you really believe, "don't show up at another polling place armed for a couple of years" is enough to send any kind of a message except, "We don't really mind if you do this -- wink, wink, nod, nod" If so, you and Ravi are on an island with TM and I don't envy you that.
Ah but we have sworn testimony from a long time civil rights man as to what types of behavior those 2 individuals exhibited.
Bartle Bull
What are you trying to say...that the case wasn't dropped? It was.Ravi please stop with the lies....
MORE PROOF SHE IS LYING
http://www.usccr.gov/NBPH/04-23-2010_NBPPhearing.pdf
Bartle Bull
The testimony that I just linked for you in the 2nd link..from April 2009 was from this very case. The civil case was not dropped by bush and you have blatantly swallowed and repeated a lie that it was.
@ coyote...read the testimony in the 2nd link, the entire testimony. YOu dont have all the information of the case and the behavior of the 2 individuals that you did not see in the video i just linked for you. (the last of the 3 videos.)
Liar.In case anyone is interested, here is one article on the voter intimidation in Arizona. The case was dropped by the Bush administration.
Anti-immigrant activists accused of voter harassment
You have to scroll down to read the article.
Nowhere is that said in the article.
From your link
Did ya think no one would read your link, and just take your word?Wyn Hornbuckle, spokesman with the Arizona U.S. Attorney's Office, said the office has received some isolated reports of voter intimidation and other issues, such as voter fraud. However, he said, it would be premature to talk about those reports.
"The U.S. Attorney continues to monitor the situation and will prosecute any violation of criminal law if such violation exists," he said.
I didn't say it was in that link...that is just one article discussing the case right after it happened. Subsequently the charges were dropped.
I've been researching it too....is there any evidence beyond hearsay? For example Adams made claims of things said when he wasn't even there. Adams own credabilty is itself strained since he was a part of the DoJ that was found by an independent commission to have been inappropriately politicized in it's hiring practices and it's decisions on what cases to pursue.
What actual evidence is there that is not hearsay - that Adams was told that?
Depends on what they were doing - just standing there, but not blocking people - I wouldn't care. If they were attempting to block me, get information from me, or interact with me - then yes, I would have a problem. But would that meet the requirements of the law?
KKK has a history - a well documented history of racial intimidation, murder, and violence - so yes, I would have a problem but I'm not sure "my problem" would meet the requirements of the law which should be strict because it's a fine line between "free speech" and "intimidation".
See my answer....
Yes it is his word, under oath, as the only evidence. YOu are right.
As far as the history of the KKK, which we all know, here is some video of NBPP leaders that you may not have seen.
Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3MbqupVxMY]YouTube - Black Panthers Say That Blacks Have To "Kill Some Crackers And Their Babies!"[/ame] (this is the same guy with that baton beating it off his hand at the polling place...here is that video too )
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU]YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly[/ame]
SOunds pretty violent to me.
I have to say the camera boy is kind of a pussy. He should have walked straight through, since he had a "Poll watcher cert." and force dude to hit him if he was going to. Then we wouldn't be left with this, "Is he or isn't he," we'd know.
4. I watched the two uniformed men confront voters, and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The wapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters.
5. I watched two uniformed men attempt to intimidate, and interfere with the work of other poll observers whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically.
6. In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll. In all of my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation, and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi through participation with civil rights leaders and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 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. Their clear purpose and intent was to intimidate voters with whom they did not agree.
However, analysis of the court did not need to proceed to whether stare decisis applied because default judgment was entered as you note further on in your comments. So, I don't think attempting to impune the facts and assuming what the court would or would not have done is appropriate. The facts were sufficient for the court to find that the government made a prima facie case of voter intimidation, you can't get a default judgment with less.
Again, a prima facie case was made by the government. (The facts, in the light most favorable to the government, showed the accused were guilty of voter intimidation).
The judgment was obtained, but the prosecution was dropped in the sentencing phase. An even more difficult to understand decision by the justice department. I could more easily see just not prosecuting.
That's my understanding. I would say, since the government had to make out a prima facie case, then they must have had to show actual intimidation if that is an element of the crime.
I am not a lawyer, I can't argue with legal terminology. If the defendent doesn't show, and you get a default judgement as a result - that does not necessarily mean that there is enough evidence to win the case.
I think it's significant that in 45 years, only 3 cases of voter intimidation have been won. I can't imagine that the NBT case, occuring in a predominately black Democratic precinct - where "intimidation" seems limited to appearance - not blocking the polls etc etc could possibly be a strong enough case and conservative lawyers have even concurred.
In addition, I think it's important to note that the case was downgraded to a civil case before any of the current players were in the DoJ or Obama was in office. I think all that indicates a weak case.
Do you really believe, "don't show up at another polling place armed for a couple of years" is enough to send any kind of a message except, "We don't really mind if you do this -- wink, wink, nod, nod" If so, you and Ravi are on an island with TM and I don't envy you that.
Actually, I do. When you considered that they did what they did in a black democratic precinct - who were they "intimidating"? Or were they being self-congratulatory assholes on a power trip?
In addition, I think it's important to note that the case was downgraded to a civil case before any of the current players were in the DoJ or Obama was in office. I think all that indicates a weak case.
Again, a McCain poll watcher suffering from confirmation bias.Hopefully this shows up right. I think this is a fairly huge statement, the affidavit of the "poll observer" this guy is a lawyer that worked for Robert F. Kennedy, he did civil rights voting law in the 1960s in Mississippi trying to ensure blacks had the right to vote without impediment there and here is what he swore to under oath:
Bull's Affidavit4. I watched the two uniformed men confront voters, and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The wapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters.
5. I watched two uniformed men attempt to intimidate, and interfere with the work of other poll observers whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically.
6. In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll. In all of my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation, and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi through participation with civil rights leaders and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 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. Their clear purpose and intent was to intimidate voters with whom they did not agree.
Ms. Thernstrom is perfectly welcomed to her opinion and I respect that she (allegedly (since I do not know anything about her) a conservative expresses a difference of opinion from other conservatives. I have been known to do so as well.
That does not change the fact that despite the rarity "3 cases in 45 years" or the difficulty of successful prosecution "legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation" that these two should have been prosecuted. If you let them get away with it in one precinct in 2008, then in 2010, they will be in five.
Neither does the fact that the NBPP is a small insignificant organization matter. To Ms. Thernstrom they may be small and insignificant, but not to the people living around them.
Edit:
Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow. is this fact or opinion or hearsay?
Coming from me it is hearsay. I heard it on one of the videos I have seen. I think, but cannot swear, that it was the Fox Interview with Dr. Malik Zulu Shabazz. The one where I earlier said that he seemed like a likable man and stand by that.
Immie
Yes it is his word, under oath, as the only evidence. YOu are right.
As far as the history of the KKK, which we all know, here is some video of NBPP leaders that you may not have seen.
Khallid Muhammad's Speech - Kill The White Man - Video
YouTube - Black Panthers Say That Blacks Have To "Kill Some Crackers And Their Babies!" (this is the same guy with that baton beating it off his hand at the polling place...here is that video too )
YouTube - "Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly
SOunds pretty violent to me.
I have to say the camera boy is kind of a pussy. He should have walked straight through, since he had a "Poll watcher cert." and force dude to hit him if he was going to. Then we wouldn't be left with this, "Is he or isn't he," we'd know.
I highly doubt the coward would have hit him at least not with other witnesses around.
But, would you want to take that chance if you were alone?
Immie
[/quote]I am not a lawyer, I can't argue with legal terminology. If the defendent doesn't show, and you get a default judgement as a result - that does not necessarily mean that there is enough evidence to win the case.
I think it's significant that in 45 years, only 3 cases of voter intimidation have been won. I can't imagine that the NBT case, occuring in a predominately black Democratic precinct - where "intimidation" seems limited to appearance - not blocking the polls etc etc could possibly be a strong enough case and conservative lawyers have even concurred.
[/B]
You made a good point a couple of days back about the fact that this was a majority black precinct and there was no need for them to be there to intimidate voters. You are, of course, right in that respect, but need is not a factor either. They were there and they made a very clear statement of intimidation. Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow. is this fact or opinion or hearsay?
They might not have been intimidating to you, but if I were a white man living in their neighborhood and voting at that precinct, I would have been intimidated. I don't know whether or not I would have decided not to vote, but I would have been extremely uncomfortable having a man who probably did not agree with my position, standing outside with a nightstick in his hand while I voted.
Immie
Have the facts been presented or, opinions? I agree with intent when it comes to accusations like "racism" - intent matters. But laws can't be decided on intent alone.
Was any voter intimidated or claim to have been intimidated?
I think this National Review article says it best:
Forget about the New Black Panther Party case; it is very small potatoes. Perhaps the Panthers should have been prosecuted under section 11 (b) of the Voting Rights Act for their actions of November 2008, but the legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation -- the charge -- are very high.
In the 45 years since the act was passed, there have been a total of three successful prosecutions. The incident involved only three 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.
A number of conservatives have charged that the Philadelphia Black Panther decision demonstrates that attorneys in the Civil Rights Division have racial double standards. How many attorneys in what positions? A pervasive culture that affected the handling of this case? No direct quotations or other evidence substantiate the charge.
Thomas Perez, the assistant attorney general for civil rights, makes a perfectly plausible argument: Different lawyers read this barely litigated statutory provision differently. It happens all the time, especially when administrations change in the middle of litigation. Democrats and Republicans seldom agree on how best to enforce civil-rights statutes; this is not the first instance of a war between Left and Right within the Civil Rights Division.
The two Panthers have been described as “armed” — which suggests guns. One of them was carrying a billy club, and it is alleged that his repeated slapping of the club against his palm constituted brandishing it in a menacing way. They have also been described as wearing “jackboots,” but the boots were no different from a pair my husband owns.
A disaffected former Justice Department attorney has written: “We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere.” “Indications”? Again, evidence has yet to be offered.
(entire article in link
Only 3 cases in 45 years! That is a hell of a high bar.
Ms. Thernstrom is perfectly welcomed to her opinion and I respect that she (allegedly (since I do not know anything about her) a conservative expresses a difference of opinion from other conservatives. I have been known to do so as well.
That does not change the fact that despite the rarity "3 cases in 45 years" or the difficulty of successful prosecution "legal standards that must be met to prove voter intimidation" that these two should have been prosecuted. If you let them get away with it in one precinct in 2008, then in 2010, they will be in five.
Neither does the fact that the NBPP is a small insignificant organization matter. To Ms. Thernstrom they may be small and insignificant, but not to the people living around them.
Edit:
Something to the effect that a Black Man would rule "you" tomorrow. is this fact or opinion or hearsay?
Coming from me it is hearsay. I heard it on one of the videos I have seen. I think, but cannot swear, that it was the Fox Interview with Dr. Malik Zulu Shabazz. The one where I earlier said that he seemed like a likable man and stand by that.
Immie
Again, a McCain poll watcher suffering from confirmation bias.Hopefully this shows up right. I think this is a fairly huge statement, the affidavit of the "poll observer" this guy is a lawyer that worked for Robert F. Kennedy, he did civil rights voting law in the 1960s in Mississippi trying to ensure blacks had the right to vote without impediment there and here is what he swore to under oath:
Bull's Affidavit4. I watched the two uniformed men confront voters, and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The wapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters.
5. I watched two uniformed men attempt to intimidate, and interfere with the work of other poll observers whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically.
6. In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll. In all of my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation, and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi through participation with civil rights leaders and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 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. Their clear purpose and intent was to intimidate voters with whom they did not agree.
This evidence is way too flimsy to convict on, especially when the actual video of events shows no intimidation.
Hopefully this shows up right. I think this is a fairly huge statement, the affidavit of the "poll observer" this guy is a lawyer that worked for Robert F. Kennedy, he did civil rights voting law in the 1960s in Mississippi trying to ensure blacks had the right to vote without impediment there and here is what he swore to under oath:
4. I watched the two uniformed men confront voters, and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The wapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters.
5. I watched two uniformed men attempt to intimidate, and interfere with the work of other poll observers whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically.
6. In my opinion, the men created an intimidating presence at the entrance to a poll. In all of my experience in politics, in civil rights litigation, and in my efforts in the 1960s to secure the right to vote in Mississippi through participation with civil rights leaders and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 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. Their clear purpose and intent was to intimidate voters with whom they did not agree.
Bull's Affidavit
