New black panther party intimidating voters updating software in linux

You’re supposed to be able to go vote without somebody with a weapon shouting racial slurs at you like these folks were doing in Philadelphia. ADAMS: Well, they said, “You’re about to be ruled by the black man, Cracker”. ADAMS: That’s right Bartle Bull; he’s a long time Robert F. He’s literally one of the greatest voting rights attorneys in the history of the country. KELLY: And there was no doubt in his mind this case needed to be pursued? They didn’t show up for court, they didn’t file any papers, they didn’t do anything. ADAMS: Well, you know the Department has said that the facts and the law don’t support going forward on the case. Anyone with eyes can see that the facts and the law would support this case. Take for example Jerry Jackson; he’s the tall Black Panther. There is sworn testimony in front of the Civil Rights Commission that Jackson tried to stop people from going into the polls. You, the trial attorneys, the career lawyers at DOJ said we have a victory. You say there is evidence that they did not review the facts of this case and even the briefs of this case. It’s obviously false that they knew all the evidence.

Kennedy civil rights activist, worked in Mississippi in the '60s. So the case gets filed, you become the lead attorney on this case. ADAMS: There was no doubt in anybody’s mind, at least not the people who were working hard on the case there was no doubt. KELLY: So you get something that’s called a default judgment, meaning a judgment because they didn’t bother to defend it and the judge says to you at the Department of Justice, OK, write up an order and tell me whether you want to make this final essentially. He’s also a Democratic elected official from the city of Philadelphia. Witnesses testified that he tried to block them from entering the polls, yet they dismissed the case against him. They, uh, Steve Rosenbaum hadn’t even read the memos which detailed all of the facts and the law.

CHRISTIAN ADAMS, FORMER JUSTIC DEPARTMENT LAWYER: Well, people were standing in front of the polls with weapons in Philadelphia on the day that President Obama was elected in 2008.

The Justice Department brought a case in January under the voter intimidation statutes against the New Black Panther Party, the individuals who organized the deployment and the folks with the weapons in Philadelphia at the polls. ADAMS: Well, I mean, there is a pervasive hostility to bringing these sorts of civil rights cases. Under the vacancy reform act they were serving a political capacity.

The guy next to him who was said to have been saying intimidating things, he was a defendant. There is a pervasive hostility within the civil rights division at the Justice Department toward these sorts of cases. KELLY: You have said that after the dismissal of the New Black Panther’s case that a mandate was issued that no more of these cases brought against black defendants would be brought. They campaigned on restoring integrity to the Justice Department and they also claim they’re going to be post-racial. You said these were political appointees who made the decision basically. It’s one of other examples in this case where the truth simply is becoming another victim of the process.The New Black Panther Party was a defendant and the head of it was a defendant. KELLY: Ok, and what was basically the heart of the case against them. KELLY: Is there any question in your mind that that violates the law. It’s the easiest case I ever had at the Justice Department. If this doesn’t constitute voter intimidation, nothing will. KELLY: Do you believe that the DOJ has a policy now of not pursuing cases if the defendant is black and the victim is white? In voting that will be the case over the next few years, there’s no doubt about it. ADAM: None, I mean, instructions were, if you had all the attorneys that worked on this case I am quite sure that they would say the exact same thing. attorney wants to do it, that’s up to them, but it’s not going to happen out of the civil rights division. Is it somebody or is it several people in positions of power? On all three of those they flunked the test on the Black Panther dismissal. Loretta King and Rosen- this guy Steve Rosenbaum, right? KELLY: Now, I want to get to what was said to Congress. KELLY: So what — do you know the explanation from Rosenbaum from this other woman Loretta King as to why they hadn’t bothered to read the briefs at the DOJ on this case and why it should go forward?ADAMS: Yeah, this 1965 Voting Rights Act protects voters from voter intimidation. KELLY: And you had, you had not just that video tape, which we’ve all now seen, but you had witness testimony from some credible witnesses who were there. And what was your understanding based on those discussions about their reasons. And that other attorneys gave instructions that the voting section would not be pursuing these sorts of cases. ADAMS: Well, you know, there’s some things I’m not going to reveal as far as who they are. They’ve said that if somebody wants to bring these kind of cases that’s not going to be done out of the civil rights division. And what was said to the US Commission on Civil Rights in a minute, but I want to ask you: when you were arguing, when the career, when the trial attorneys were trying to convince these two political attorneys to let the case go forward, you’d already won, saying don’t reverse our victory essentially. And these lawyers would later testify, the political lawyers would later come out and say that they reviewed all the evidence, the Department of Justice has said they looked at all the evidence and they made a decision based on that evidence the case couldn’t go forward. ADAMS: Uh, they will probably deny that they didn’t read it, but you can’t explain something like that.Why did the Department of Justice dismiss most of the claims of voter intimidation in the New Black Panther Party voter-intimidation lawsuit after there had been an entry of default in the matter?Christian Adams, a former attorney in the Voting Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division, shows that a high-ranking political appointee in the Department of Justice gave instructions that the Voting Rights Section was not going to bring cases “against black defendants on the benefit of white victims.” 3.

Search for new black panther party intimidating voters:

new black panther party intimidating voters-12new black panther party intimidating voters-60new black panther party intimidating voters-79new black panther party intimidating voters-15

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “new black panther party intimidating voters”