The Supreme Court and guns

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

A poor imitation is not the real thing. Brother Huey P. Newton said it best:

While its not the real thing the hate they spew is real and the Obama administration found nothing wrong with them blocking voting booths while welding a club.

John Fund: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dropped - WSJ.com

I guess they only care about racist when they are white.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

While its not the real thing the hate they spew is real and the Obama administration found nothing wrong with them blocking voting booths while welding a club.

John Fund: Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case Dropped - WSJ.com

I guess they only care about racist when they are white.

LOL...the question is would the justice department be able to get a conviction if they prosecute them? I don't think so, especially when it's just two guys.

I suppose the whole story makes for good tv and good read in consevative circles.

[Trample the Elderly]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL...the question is would the justice department be able to get a conviction if they prosecute them? I don't think so, especially when it's just two guys.

I suppose the whole story makes for good tv and good read in consevative circles.

Advocating racially motivated murder of children is right in your mind? I always knew you were effed up! In VA that's called fighting words. It is in our law. It's the same as going into a movie theatre and yelling fire. That isn't free speech, it's incitment. That's why those agent provacateurs were there, to stir up violence.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Trample the Elderly

Advocating racially motivated murder of children is right in your mind? I always knew you were effed up! In VA that's called fighting words. It is in our law. It's the same as going into a movie theatre and yelling fire. That isn't free speech, it's incitment. That's why those agent provacateurs were there, to stir up violence.

You're ranting and you don't make sense. Relax and tells what you're talking about in a cool and calm manner.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL...the question is would the justice department be able to get a conviction if they prosecute them? I don't think so, especially when it's just two guys.

I suppose the whole story makes for good tv and good read in consevative circles.

Just two guys dressed in military outfits welding night sticks with tons of video of this is really a tough case. I forgot we are talking Obama and every thing is tough for them.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

LOL...the question is would the justice department be able to get a conviction if they prosecute them? I don't think so, especially when it's just two guys.

I suppose the whole story makes for good tv and good read in consevative circles.

DoJ had a conviction.

FOXNews.com - Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

From the article: "The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012."

A Very Obama Scandal - WSJ.com

Bartle Bull (lifelong Democrat and former civil rights lawyer) saw this first-hand and described the incident as: "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen."

The Obama Admin. was absolutely wrong to drop this case.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

DoJ had a conviction.

FOXNews.com - Ex-Official Accuses Justice Department of Racial Bias in Black Panther Case

From the article: "The Bush Justice Department brought the first case against three members of the group, accusing them in a civil complaint of violating the Voter Rights Act. The Obama administration initially pursued the case, winning a default judgment in federal court in April 2009 when the Black Panther members did not appear in court. But then the administration moved to dismiss the charges the following month after getting one of the New Black Panther members to agree to not carry a "deadly weapon" near a polling place until 2012."

A Very Obama Scandal - WSJ.com

Bartle Bull (lifelong Democrat and former civil rights lawyer) saw this first-hand and described the incident as: "the most blatant form of voter intimidation I've ever seen."

The Obama Admin. was absolutely wrong to drop this case.

Default Judgment sounds nice but means nothing and it certainly isn't a "conviction"...it can be easily vacated in criminal matters. I know all about Adams and is cohorts. Do you?

Read the Schlozman Report released by the DOJ in 2008.

[saden1]

Section 11(b) of the 1965 Voting Rights Act:

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).

The only time this section was used to prosecute was to prosecute Jesse Helms campaign staffers:

In a combative 1990 reelection campaign, Helms nearly lost to African American Harvey Gantt. The former Democratic mayor of Charlotte was ahead of Helms until the last weeks of the campaign, when Helms's forces mailed 125,000 postcards to voters warning them that they could be prosecuted for Fraud if they voted improperly. At least 44,000 cards were sent to black voters, according to the U.S. Department of Justice, which sent observers to the state to ensure fair elections. Helms edged out Gantt by just over 100,000 votes. In 1992, the Justice Department ruled that the Helms campaign had violated federal Civil Rights and voting laws by intimidating, threatening, and discouraging African Americans from voting. Helms's office denied that he was involved in the mailings.

Now, the situation with the Black Panthers is that they are standing there with batons...are they intimidating? Sure. Can their lawyer make the case that they were there to protect black voters and therefor had no intent to intimidate white voters? You bet your ass any half-decent lawyer can. I've seen the video and I didn't see any of them having a conversation voters going and out. Did I miss something?

The justice department has a good track record of suing only when it is fairly certain it has a great chance of winning. It only takes one juror to say not guilty and I can assure you they would have gone free. Plus you have to think about saving taxpayers the cost...won't anybody think of the deficits and the children?

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by saden1

The justice department has a good track record of suing only when it is fairly certain it has a great chance of winning. It only takes one juror to say not guilty and I can assure you they would have gone free. Plus you have to think about saving taxpayers the cost...won't anybody think of the deficits and the children?

This.

Feds only prosecute when they have you dead to rights. It's why they have high conviction rates and get tougher penalties. They don't screw around. If you get in the sights of a Federal Prosecutor go ahead and get ready for a pound-you-in-the-ass prison. Just ask all the athletes that have gotten nailed over juicing and the shenanigans that go on around it. Ever heard of one beating the charges? Fed prosecutors are the real deal.

[saden1]

SS33, per your link:

COMMISSIONER YAKI: Point of information on the voting rights.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Yes?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I just have a question about a statement made in the Chairman's opening remarks. You talked about the --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki, we are under tight time constraints.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I know. I understand. But I think this is important because --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: It may be important
COMMISSIONER YAKI: -- it goes to the rules of the game here, which is you talked about the so-called terrified poll worker at the facility --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Mr. Yaki? Commissioner Yaki?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: -- when there has been direct evidence --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki, we will not be doing this now. Vice Chair Thernstrom, please continue.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I am asking for clarification, Mr. Chair. You made a statement.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Vice Chair Thernstrom?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: It was not based on any direct evidence --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: 1 Please proceed.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: -- by anyone here. It is hearsay testimony. The only thing --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki, now is not the time to try to run out the clock.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I am not trying to run out the clock. I am simply saying that there has been no direct testimony --
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki? Commissioner Yaki, you are wasting valuable time. And you know it.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: And I think that your ten-minute statement when we only get one minute is a way to put facts into evidence which do not exist.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: I just want to make that point.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki?
COMMISSIONER YAKI: That's all I have to say.
CHAIRPERSON REYNOLDS: Commissioner Yaki, if this happens again, it will come out of your time.
COMMISSIONER YAKI: Oh, you can do whatever you want, Mr. Chair.

Testimoney of Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Mr. Thomas Perez:

As noted in the written responses to the Commission's inquiry, we have endeavored to be responsive to the Commission's request while at the same time protecting against disclosures which would undermine well-established and longstanding confidentiality interests that are integral to the discharge of our law enforcement responsibilities, particularly those relating to litigation decisions.

At the outset, let me emphasize with respect to Section 11(b) decisions that these are hard cases. Very few such cases have been brought. In fact, we can find records of only three cases filed by the government under Section 11(b) since its inception.

The standards for proof are high. And, as in every case, the question to be addressed is whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the burden of proof. And on that question, reasonable minds can differ and can look at the same set of facts but draw different conclusions regarding whether the burden of proof has been met. Let me give you a few examples to illustrate that point.

In the most recent case under 11(b) to go to trial, United States versus Brown, the court found that the publication in the newspaper by a county political party chairman of a list of voters to be challenged if they attempted to vote in the party primary did not amount to intimidation, threat, or coercion under 11(b).

In another case, in Arizona, the complaint was received by a national civil rights organization regarding events in Pima, Arizona in the 2006 election when three well-known anti-immigrant advocates affiliated with the Minutemen, one of whom was carrying a gun, allegedly intimidated Latino voters at a polling place by approaching several persons, filming them, and advocating and printing voting materials in Spanish.

In that instance, the Department declined to bring any action for alleged voter intimidation, notwithstanding the requests of the complaining parties.

In 2005, the Division 1 received allegations that armed Mississippi State investigators intimidated elderly minority voters during an investigation of possible voter fraud in municipal elections by visiting them in their home, asking them who they voted for, in spite of state law protections that explicitly forbid such inquiries.

Here again, the Division front office leadership declined to bring a voter intimidation case in this matter. This is the matter referenced in a recent GAO report that examined a number of cases brought by certain sections of the Civil Rights Division during the Bush administration.

Bang!

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Bang!

Spin away, that's no surprise. Of the items you highlighted none have video evidence or impartial testimony attached to them. I'll take video evidience, a sworn affidavit from a life long Democrat, and eyewitness statements as impartial facts. However you want to spin this, what happened was flat out wrong and should've been prosecuted.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Slingin Sammy 33

Spin away, that's no surprise. Of the items you highlighted none have video evidence or impartial testimony attached to them. I'll take video evidience, a sworn affidavit from a life long Democrat, and eyewitness statements as impartial facts. However you want to spin this, what happened was flat out wrong and should've been prosecuted.

Check yourself, you done got robbed of the glory you were hoping for. Your sauce is weak...I know it, I know you know it...everyone knows it. Your narrative is weak and infertile man. You've lost this battle but the war isn't over...keep hope alive, Obama is bound to f'up some more.

LOL....let me stop before I laugh myself to death.

[saden1]

Maybe you guys need to check on the facts of the case before taking a position? I mean, how can a commission scream "bloody murder" about the action of NBPP and expect to have the DOJ prosecute without they themselves having a single voter claiming to have been intimidated in front of them and under oath?

Or maybe you should wait to have a disenfranchised voter file an actual complaint with the DOJ before pounding your chest? Or just maybe if they protested against the Bush administration's DOJ when they dropped the case against all but one NBPP defendants you would be justified in working yourself into a frenzy.


You guys make it too easy...I don't even have to try hard.

[Trample the Elderly]

Back to the original topic. I found it interesting that the very same liberals who are "supposedly" for minority rights, don't allow those same people to defend themselves, even in their own home.

It's like when Ruth Ginsburg said abortion was about getting rid of the lower classes. Their true agenda is different than what they tell you.

You know what they say, "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy".

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by saden1

Maybe you guys need to check on the facts of the case before taking a position? I mean, how can a commission scream "bloody murder" about the action of NBPP and expect to have the DOJ prosecute without they themselves having a single voter claiming to have been intimidated in front of them and under oath?

Or maybe you should wait to have a disenfranchised voter file an actual complaint with the DOJ before pounding your chest? Or just maybe if they protested against the Bush administration's DOJ when they dropped the case against all but one NBPP defendants you would be justified in working yourself into a frenzy.


You guys make it too easy...I don't even have to try hard.

Sorry for hijacking the thread again TTE.

Mentions of "sauce" and levels of "fertility" for arguments (while quite odd) are simply a diversion from facts and are your standard MO when there's nothing but spin and distortion to support your position.

It won't make a difference to you, but for those interested in truth and facts, you should read this:
‘Downgrading’ Voter Intimidation - Hans A. von Spakovsky - The Corner on National Review Online=

1) The Bush Admin. only dropped the criminal case, not the civil case (link explains why in detail).
2) Although it was under the Bush Admin. The career chief of the section responsible for filing of criminal charges was a prior ACLU attorney and liberal contributor/loyalist.
3) The same career chief is the one that decided not to pursue charges against the Minuteman in 2006 because there was no evidence, only allegations.

An eyewitness sworn affidavit is basically the same thing as testimony under oath. This case was investigated in detail by a team of DoJ attorneys and DoJ was awarded a default judgement. The court does not award judgements just because a defendant doesn't show. The case has to have merit.

Another link with great detail:
Friends in High Places | The Weekly Standard

And to those who just want to post "those are biased sources." Read the articles, see if you find any discrepancies of fact, and then let me know.