Dissenting with Paul Mirengoff: New Black Panther Case Should Not Have Been Dismissed
The ongoing investigation of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is no longer primarily about the dismissal of the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party. It’s about a much more important matter — namely, the sworn testimony that an Obama political appointee instructed Voting Section lawyers that no cases would be brought against any black or other minority defendants no matter how egregious their violations of the law.
Moreover, that appointee, Julie Fernandes of the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, is alleged to have instructed the lawyers not to enforce part of the National Voter Registration Act. So even if Paul Mirengoff’s conclusions about the merits of the case are correct, the Civil Rights Commission investigation is very important.
But I also, very reluctantly, have to challenge most of what Paul writes about the NBPP case.
I say “reluctantly” because I have the greatest respect for Paul Mirengoff. But his July 19 post about the NBPP, in which he says that the decision to dismiss the voter-intimidation case under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act against all of the defendants except for the one who carried the weapon is “defensible,” is wrong for several reasons.
Paul is a good lawyer (you don’t get to be a partner at Akins Gump otherwise) but he suffers from three handicaps: (1) unlike me, he has never worked in the Civil Rights Division at Justice and is unfamiliar with the culture there and its method of doing business; (2) he doesn’t know the lawyers in the case (I know them all personally); and (3) he is not intimately familiar, as I am, with the evidence in both the NBPP case as well as the Ike Brown case. The Brown case that he discusses was filed by the Bush administration when I was still at Justice against black defendants in Mississippi for engaging in blatant racial discrimination against white voters. DOJ won that case in district court, and it was affirmed by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Paul says it was reasonable for the Obama/Holder Justice Department to conclude that the case against the second NBPP member, Jerry Jackson, lacked sufficient evidentiary support because 1) Jackson didn’t have a weapon; 2) he was a certified poll watcher; and 3) the local police officer who arrived at the scene and investigated the matter concluded that, unlike Shabazz, Jackson’s actions didn’t warrant removal from the polling station. With all due respect to Paul, who is an employment discrimination lawyer, none of those factors are relevant to this voting-rights case, as I explain below.
It is also wrong to say that reasonable lawyers could differ in their opinions on this case after reviewing the facts for one very big reason: the lawyers who ordered the case dismissed — Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King and Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steve Rosenbaum — did not review the facts before they ordered the dismissal.
Paul says that he read the internal DOJ memorandum on the case prepared by the Voting Section lawyers, including Christopher Coates and J. Christian Adams. But that is more than King and Rosenbaum did — there is testimony in the record of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (confirmed by sources inside DOJ) that Rosenbaum admitted to Coates that he had not bothered to read that memorandum before ordering Coates to dismiss the case.
Coates got so angry that he actually threw the memorandum at Rosenbaum.
King and Rosenbaum’s lack of basic knowledge of the facts of the case has been evident from the outset. When the two of them went to Capitol Hill last summer to brief some Republican House members who had demanded a meeting on the case, they claimed that Jackson was dismissed because he lived in the building where the polling place was located and therefore had a right to be there. DOJ even made that same allegation in a letter dated July 13, 2009, to Rep. Lamar Smith.
It was untrue; Rosenbaum and King would have known as much if they had simply looked at even a single pleading in the case. The certificate of service on all of the pleadings showed Jackson’s home address.
In other words, King and Rosenbaum were unaware of the most basic facts about the case before they made the supposedly “reasonable” decision to dismiss it. The day before Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Thomas Perez testified before the Commission on Civil Rights that the Division’s dismissal merely reflected reasonable lawyers coming to a different opinion after reviewing the facts and the law, he had been specifically told by Coates and Adams about Rosenbaum’s admission. That certainly raised a serious question about the accuracy of Perez’s testimony under oath on this issue.
“New Black Panther Case Should Not Have Been Dismissed”
No kidding!
Two things should have happened.
1.) An injunction should have been issued against the NBPP, prohibiting them from showing up at polling places, except for the purposes of voting.
2.) The Democrat Party should have been told that we have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to their using groups like the KKK or the NBPP to rig elections through intimidation, violence or murder (all of which the quasi-human Democrats have done in the past), and that if the Democrat Party ever again employs the NBPP, or it’s members, for ANY purpose whatsoever, there will be severe legal consequences (like gigantic fines, jail time, and whatnot).
At least, that’s what I’d do.
Thanks again, Hans, for your incisive analysis.
BBB
Abby Thernstrom has tainted a long distinguished career with her innacurate nonsense on this matter. I read the McCarthy link and he destroys her. It makes me wonder how reckless she was with other facts in her scholarship – a great deal of which I am now sad to say I purchased. It’s hard to know who looks more foolish, Malik Zulu Shabazz in his fascist leader uniform, or, Abby Thernstrom on television relentlessly pushing a lie we all know is a lie. Poor Abby, the twilight of your great career has not been your finest hour. Maybe the left was right about you all along.
I agree, Andy McCarthy does make Thernstrom look the fool, and he does so without using what I think is the most damning evidence against her dismissal of the NBP affair:
“Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson has called Eric Holder “the most destructive member of Barack Obama’s Cabinet.” The description is apt. The attorney general’s questionable judgment extends far beyond the high-profile decisions involving the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the dismissal of charges against members of the New Black Panther Party who engaged in BLATANT VOTER INTIMIDATION at a Philadelphia polling place.”
Abigail Thernstrom makes the above statement in this 12/21/09 piece on NRO:
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=MDJhZTg2ODU0NmQ2ZmE1ZjJjZDk5YmQ2OGRlMGEyZmU=
Ah, good ol’ Paul Mirengoff. He has spent way too much time inside the beltway and even more time championing the Everton English Soccer team. Both have twisted his mind to the point where he writes pointless dialog.
Come on, Paul, time to move on and try a new profession!
Clear Mind There is nothing whatsoever wrong with supporting EVERTON the most interesting and on its budget most successful team in the whole Premier League and I treat anyone who cast aspersions on them with the contempt they deserve. COYB if you know football at all you will know what that means.
Your card is marked (football term)’clear mind’
Clear Mind There is nothing whatsoever wrong with supporting EVERTON the most interesting and on its budget most successful team in the whole Premier League and I treat anyone who cast aspersions on them with the contempt they deserve. COYB if you know football at all you will know what that means.
Your card is marked (football term)’clear mind’
Hey guys, didn’t say there was anything wrong with supporting Everton or the Premier League (funny how both of your posts read the same). If you ever bother to read Powerlineblog, Paul spends way to many posts lamenting on their record and play. For that, he needs to get a life. His other posts on Powerline demonstrate a disconnect from reality as is the case with many who have spent most of their professional lives inside the Beltway.
Thank you for a well written article. It empowered me because I read Paul’s brief and was so frustrated that he no longer offers any response. If his take on the civil rights laws prevail we are indeed in serious trouble. In my lifetime the NBPP case of voter intimidation is one of the worst I can recall. Not in physical violence but in the arrogant way these two operated. They were not afraid of the law and knew that the Biggies in the Obama administration would save them if he were elected. I remember a case in Fl. during the Bush voting episode where Barbara Jordan claimed voter intimidation because a Fl. highway patrol car was within one block of a voting station.
Once again thank you.
Great article, thank you very much.
Well, how is Oilbama going to keep stoking the identity politics machine if he doesn’t allow the New Black Panthers, ACORN, SEIU, the NEA, … to continue to work to separate us into various groups and pick favored ones to support their fascist agenda? The other two legs on which the Regime stands are eugenics (Obamacare) and the ever growing welfare state.
Lenin: Class-based International Socialism
Hitler: Race-based National Socialism
Obama: Class- and Race-based Post-National Socialism
The most compelling detail of this case is that no citizen has even alleged that he or she was intimidated from voting. The lack of an actual victim seems like an extremely good reason for the DOJ not to pursue a case against Jackson. He and the other NBPP members sound like complete idiots, but I just don’t see what the big deal is.
Why, oh why do people like you keep missing the point that the case had already been pursued and won. Holder’s DOJ made their move to dismiss afterward. Get it? And if you don’t understand why it’s such a big deal, ask yourself would we be having this conversation if it had been two white skinheads dressed in paramilitary uniforms, one holding a club, standing outside a voting station and hurling racist epithets in a “mostly” white (meaning some blacks or other minorities would have to vote there) precinct?
You are wrong because several people witnessed at least two people turning around and leaving the polling place. Is the other part of your absurd point that even if you are intimidated you must persevere and run the gantlet and vote? Is this how you would like to vote at your local polling place? Can you be sure that bonzo with the baton won’t hit you? Is this worse than showing a picture ID? God, how people like you even bother to write on forums amazes me. You wouldn’t know a civil right if it bit you in the ass.
The lack of an actual victim seems like an extremely good reason
Maybe the “lack” is because a voter who was intimidated by the sight of those two at the entrance is also still intimidated enough not to come forward and publicly manifest their identity?
I think the other commenters here are confusing two issues — what punishment should Shabazz and Jackson, and what could happen to them within the constraints of the legal system.
Honestly, I think they were intimidating people, and at the very least they should be banned from polling places for the rest of their lives. Let them vote absentee. If they did jail time I wouldn’t shed a tear.
Unfortunately in the real world there’s a limit to what can be done. The Bush DOJ decided not to pursue a criminal case against them, so jail is out of the question. The Obama DOJ did pursue a case against Shabazz, and although they won, the punishment was barely a slap on the wrist. Shabazz is prohibited from carrying weapons near Philadelphia polling places until after the 2012 general election. That punishment was given by the court, not the DOJ.
Jackson did not have a weapon, and according to the cop on duty, was not behaving badly enough to warrant being ejected from the polling place. Based on the minimal punishment the Obama DOJ was able to get for Shabazz, is it realistic to think that they would be able to get a worse punishment against Jackson? Without anyone coming forward to say that they were intimidated, I doubt anything would have happened to him if the DOJ had pursued the case. So was this a case of the Obama DOJ giving preferential treatment to a black person? Or did they prudently decide not to waste taxpayer dollars on a hopeless case? I think the evidence points to the latter.
Voter intimidation cases are a big deal, and I wish it weren’t so hard to find the perpetrators guilty. If you’re upset about this case, write your congressperson and push for tougher voter intimidation laws. That will be much more productive than concocting conspiracy theories.
I don’t disagree with most of your points here Aaron, but do you think we would be having this discussion if they had been two white skinheads in the scenario I outlined above?
“If you’re upset about this case, write your congressperson and push for tougher voter intimidation laws.”
You’re kidding, right? What is the new law going to say? “You must enforce the old laws.” “And this time we’re serious.”
“Jackson did not have a weapon, and according to the cop on duty, was not behaving badly enough to warrant being ejected from the polling place.”
You must have skimmed over the part of the article where it explicity states that local law enforcement “opinion” doesn’t matter. And you still haven’t answered the question posed by RickC. If this were exactly the same set of circumstances except that the race of those involved were switched, would you be so inclined to dismiss it? Although that may be an unfair question; as you seem to not have all the facts straight.
The law (as was explained to me) does not require a victim, only a perpetrator. The act of being at a polling place for the purpose of intimidation is a crime.
I have seen the video with audio. How any reasonable person could agree with the case being dismissed is incomprehensible.
Thanks again Hans for your expert analysis legally clearing the air about this Black Panther case. I read John, Scott and Paul on Power Line daily. Paul now and then needs a challenge such as you skillfully explained to bring him back to center right.
So what happens when the justice department ignores the investigation. Do we whites riot and take over the justice department until they give in
Thank you for an excellent anaylsis of this case. What a dispicable display on the part of the Holder Justice Department. Just one question. Why would a partner at a prestigous law firm risk his credibility with clients wading into legal matters he doesn’t know. Pretty arrogant of him.
“The lack of an actual victim seems like an extremely good reason for the DOJ not to pursue a case against Jackson.”
Baloney.
The fact that Jerry Jackson is both a member of the Democrat Party and the ultra-racist New Black Panther Party is why the case wasn’t pursued.
Same reason why Democrat scumbags wouldn’t pursue cases against the Klan and similar groups back in the good old days. Overlapping membership.
The Dem controlled DOJ is not likely to carry out a purge against their own thugs (unless it becomes politically expedient to do so).
So now it has come down to where blacks are just as guilty of the white marauders of yesteryear. MALKIK ZULU SHABAZZ, or whatever the hell his real name is, should have been hauled out of that voting precinct, read the riot act, and then placed in an unoccupied cell.
After all, royalty deserves privacy. A trial should have been held on this monstrosity who would pull all of us back to the early 20th century. Now that the office of the POTUS is occupied by a black man, an AFRICAN AMERICAN, how is it that there is so much racial tension in the air. And the answer i am sad to say is that most of the AFRICAN AMERICAN population do not seek peace and prosperity, education and a good job, but rather that they are on the road for vengeance for wrongs that they endured in the past. What they want is to be top dog for a change in charge of the white population.
Isn’t that the real truth behind this whole mess that everybody else is afraid of saying.
Let me add that while many African-Americans were being taught “Don’t trust Whitey”, “Black Pride”, and “Fight the Power” my father was probably slapping me upside the head for saying anything remotely racist. So while I was being taught, “We’re all the same” many African-Americans(and minorities in general) were being taught, “No we’re not.”
I find it very interesting that the tall guy is a “poll watcher”. I’m not exactly sure what a “poll watcher” does, but I am pretty sure it does not include dressing in pseudo-military garb and standing in front of the polls like this guy was doing. Not to mention he doesn’t seem concerned that the other guy has a weapon… isn’t he supposed to be watching the polls? Now, imagine going to vote and seeing these guys out there. Now, imagine your mom, grandmother, or wife and kids going to vote with these guys yelling racial slurs… very intimidating. Now imagine it was two caucasians doing the same thing. I rest my case.
I’ve been a poll watcher, and it’s not anything like an official position. You hang out outside the polling place, and if you see anyone intimidating voters, you call the cops or alert the poll workers inside. You might wear a t-shirt that says “Poll Watcher,” but you don’t have any authority beyond being a concerned citizen.
“So what happens when the justice department ignores the investigation.”
Maybe Mr. von Spakovsky could give us a legal opionion.
I think we should take a leaf out of the environmentalists book and sue them for not enforcing the law.