Monday, July 5, 2010

Maybe Now We'll Get The Facts

I've discussed the Holder Justice Department's reprehensible dismissal of the voter intimidation cases against the New Black Panthers previously: Meet Your Political DOJ Leaders and Hold That Tiger--Er, Panther. DOJ has continued to stonewall the Civil Rights Commission concerning the dismissals, but we may get a break this week. Pictured are some of the Panthers "protecting the polls" in Philadelphia.

In short, the career professional lawyers in the Department of Justice had dead-bang winner cases against the New Black Panthers and their thuggish law-breaking at the polls in Philadelphia in November, 2008. In fact, the Department already had two default judgments firmly in hand. By the time the rest of the cases were ready to come before the courts, a strange thing happened. The cases, under the new leadership of Eric Holder, were suddenly and ignominiously dismissed by the Department, including those it had already won.

I'm not going to pretend for a second that anyone with an IQ above room temperature doesn't know the reasons behind that decision. But as all lawyers and most fans of TV lawyer shows understand, knowing something is not the same as proving it. When queried on the reasons by the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights, the Obama-Holder Justice Department went into full defensive mode. Dissent was immediately silenced. Demands from the Commission were ignored. Those few responses to the Commission which were issued by Holder were both patronizing and unethical. Those career lawyers in the Department who had put the legal complaints together were threatened with banishment to the professional equivalent of Siberia if they attempted to justify their successful litigation against the Panthers.

Several of the threatened attorneys caved in, while other continued to speak up privately and were rewarded with their new positions at the DOJ gulags. Much of this, though not particularly noble, is understandable. These were career lawyers who had devoted their professional lives to the Department and didn't wish to see their life's work end so suddenly. But a few refused to follow Holder's orders to remain silent on the issue, and have left the Department.

One of those brave souls, J. Christian Adams, resigned when the DOJ political lawyers, likely under the direct orders of Attorney General Eric Holder, forbade him to testify truthfully before the Civil Rights Commission. Adams, a careerist lawyer in the Voting Rights Division of the DOJ, was one of the attorneys directly involved in the successful litigation against the Panthers. Adams has said recently, among other condemnations of Holder's department, that he could simply no longer tolerate the DOJ's horrendously skewed record of failure to pursue black-on-white crimes and civil rights violations.

Like Obama, Holder loves to speak in grandiose terms about racial relations, but also like Obama, he is entirely lacking in the Founders' concept of equal justice under law or Martin Luther King's belief in character rather than color. Holder seems determined to right wrongs committed more than forty years ago by punishing people who had nothing to do with suppression of the black vote in the South. On the other hand, he seems equally determined to ignore current violations of both Civil Rights and Voting Rights legislation so long as the perpetrators are the alleged descendants of those who actually were victims of discrimination.

So far, Adams has already specifically named two of the leftist political functionaries in DOJ whom I mentioned in my earlier articles. Loretta King and Steve Rosenbaum, says Adams, were instrumental in the suppression of further prosecution and dismissal of the cases already won. We will have to wait for the hearings to find out if he will specifically name Holder himself. I find it almost impossible to believe that they could have done their dirty deeds without the approval of Holder, but Adams is a professional, and he won't accuse Holder himself unless he has evidence. Let's hope he does.

I'm bringing this information to you for three reasons. The first is that the whole rotten mess offends my civil rights activist soul. Is this why we took on redneck Southern sheriffs, high-pressure firehoses and vicious police dogs in the 60s? The second is that after a personal career in law for many years, seeing selective prosecution reappear in a new form offends my entire love of the Constitution and the rule of law.

The third reason is far more mundane. I bring this to you because the MSM won't. They succeeded in ignoring or burying the first round of contention when the legal cases were dismissed. Then they totally ignored the series of major confrontations between Holder's department and the Civil Rights Commission. And as of this writing, I have not seen a single report in the liberal press or on the liberal "news" stations that what could be extremely damaging testimony by a knowledgeable insider is about to take place.

Adams is scheduled to testify tomorrow (Tuesday) before the Commission. He's a quiet, apolitical and thoughtful lawyer who has not sought the glare of public fame. Perhaps he should have. If his testimony comes even close to the blockbuster whistle-blowing expose that I expect it will, the complete lack of public knowledge of the event would mean another victory for the left's race-baiting extra-legal unconstitutional racial discrimination. And even if it doesn't rise to that level, I salute a man who was brave enough to stand up to the high-volume intimidation thrown at him by Holder and his crowd of unprofessional leftist pseudo-lawyers at the department charged with protecting us from lawlessness. Well done, thou good and faithful servant.

20 comments:

AndrewPrice said...

This whole thing makes me very angry. Law should apply to everyone equally or it isn't law -- it's banana republic privilege and abuse of power.

And more than anything, this shows what's wrong with the Democratic party today. If Holder was white and these were white supremacists, then the Democrats would be beside themselves with anger. Instead, their silence is deafening.

Also, let me add that it is unethical for a lawyer to discriminate on the basis of race -- we hear that all the time. Someone needs to file an ethics complaint against Holder for this and get him disbarred.

LL said...

From the outset, the barack hussein obama regime chose to set some above the law -- and in many instances, to circumvent the law and the order of things (witness the creation of two score czars).

Andrew Price feels as though an ethics complaint against the attorney general will get somewhere in this administration. When pigs fly. Sorry Andrew, I'm a fan of yours, but it will be spiked as soon as it is filed.

None of these and many other allegations will see the light of day during the next couple of years unless the balance shifts in the Senate in November and they can hold hearings.

I can't imagine a mainstream media with their at-the-hip attachment to the obama agenda "breaking" the story during this or any administration because it doesn't favor their leanings (which have nothing to do with civil rights or an honest view of the world).

StanH said...

There is two sides to every coin, if this is allowed to stand, where will it end!

AndrewPrice said...

LL, The ethics complaint would go to his state bar(s). . . where it will probably disappear. Yep. The only reason I mention it is the lawyer thing -- bad habit.

Politically, I think Holder should be forced to resign (if not face criminal charges himself), though I know that neither Obama nor the Democrats would do that. Thus, I'd like to see a Republican Congress rake both Holder and Obama over the coals for this.

I'd also like to see whoever has standing bring individual suits on this to keep this thing going and going and going. Find a good conservative judge and start harassing them on this until they do the right (legal) thing.

Heck, maybe even file a complaint against Obama in one of those international court they love so much -- "he violated my human rights."

Tennessee Jed said...

I am willing to go out on a limb and state that I believe the president and his attorney general are racists. Obama "talks the talk" when behind the podium with phrases like "one of these days we have to have this serious conversation about race" or his crazy Uncle Reverend Wright. Obama keeps slipping up whether it be by his racial appointments or the "beer summit." There was no way this administration were going to come down on the thugs, er the brothers.

That said, I am with you on points two and three since I never personally marched against the cracker "Heat of the Night" cops in the 60's (which is not to say they were anything other than equally guilty of bad law."

No this one sticks in my craw since the great Uniter is shown to be such an empty suit bullshitter and divider. He doesn't want equality, he wants payback.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I can't really add anything to what you've said. Ethics is what you do when nobody's looking, and Holder hopes nobody's ever looking.

LawHawkRFD said...

LL: I agree with both you and Andrew about the lack of ethics, and the likely lack of any agency that will do anything about it. But the Arkansas Bar disbarred Clinton without waiting for an impeachment conviction, so who knows? Maybe Holder is a member of a Bar Association that would have the guts to take him on. If we wait to go after him when he and the Obama gang are out of office, we'll look like the vindictive Banana Republic people we've justly accused the Democrats of being.

LawHawkRFD said...

Stan: With a little luck, a lot of hard work, and the Good Lord willing, it will end with Obama, Holder and the whole gang shipped out of town in the next two election cycles.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: Sorry--didn't see your reply. But we've said essentially the same thing.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: There's no question in my mind that they're racist. But remember that we've had two generations of political-correctness that says only whites can be racist--everyone else is a victim group.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Well said, Lawhawk!

Adams is speaking real truth to corrupt power and has shown incredible integrity and courage to shed light on this violation of equal rights under the law.

And I concur with Tennesee Jed, that Obama, Holder, and heck, this Administration is racist to the core (or at least enabling it since it's the "right" racism)!
Looks like Obama learned a lot from the not-so-reverend Wright.

LawHawkRFD said...

USSBen: I truly admire someone who will give up a lengthy and well-earned career to to do the right thing. Adams probably made enough connections over the years that he's not going to be destitute, but he's lost the job he worked so hard to deserve only to get pushed out the door by people who don't deserve their jobs but have earned our utter contempt.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

To borrow a word that Obamao is fond of: This regime has the Audacity to completely ignore our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Yes they can! For now...

But in the end they won't succeed. That is what I hope in because I believe most Americans still love Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness (private property).

That is what I fought for, and that's what all Patriots fight for, God, family, friends and country.

It's past time to make self evident Truth's self evident again.

Tennessee Jed said...

Hawk - off topic, but I would like to impose on you to revisit the Leslie Van Houten situation. I am one who feels she should probably be paroled, but would like you to touch on the legal isues. Her new lawyer is citing a ruling that required the state to use evidence other than just the crime itslef as a reason to deny parole.

My issue is this. She was 19 and has served somewhere around 40 years in prison, apparently as a model prisoner. She has apparently shown genuine remorse and done everything she has supposed to have done. There is apparently no evidence she still poses a threat to society (although one can never be 100% sure, I realize.) It seems to me the state should have to sentence someone to life without parole if that is the way they feel. If you have a program, and an inmate meets it, and you don't grant it, this smacks of unequal treatment under the law.

If you want to cover this in a separate post (or not at all) that is certainly your call.

LawHawkRFD said...

USSBen: Let's face it. We did a terrible job in picking our nominee and nailing Obama for the nonentity he was. We should have done a far better job of looking into his associations. We had a problem to start with, because the administration in power always gets blamed for bad recession, fair or not. But the blinders are off, and the public can see that Obama is worse than worthless, his party is determined to go against the will of the people, and Republicans are more than "the party of no."

We have the momentum, now we just have to be sure we don't blow it in the next two election cycles. If we pick candidates because "it's their turn," that snake oil salesman and his gang of thugs will eat us alive. I have faith in the American people, I'm afraid I have a little less faith in the Republican Party.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tennessee: Let's see what I can come up with. I do see your point, and California law does specifically provide that the heinous nature of the crime cannot be the sole reason to deny parole. I've read a bit about her, and she seems like a genuinely changed person (and I'm pretty good at spotting the phonies). Her crime was terrible, but there were many factors that made her the least culpable of the Family. And frankly, my opinion of the California Parole Board isn't the highest. Let me work on it.

HamiltonsGhost said...

Lawhawk--This raises the old Roman question: "Who will guard the guardians?" Where is the Congress? Where is the Republican leadership? Where is the Inspector General. For that matter, where is the President? The very department that is charged to "make sure the laws are faithfully executed" is itself lawless.

LawHawkRFD said...

HamiltonsGhost: I have tried three times tor reply to your comments, and each time your comments disappeared. In case they don't reappear and Blogger is at it again, here's my basic remembrance of your comment:

"This raises the old Roman question--who will guard the guardians? Where is Congress? Where is the Republican leadership? Where is the Inspector General? And where is the President? The very department that is supposed to see to it that the laws are faithfully executed is itself lawless." I hope that's close to your full comment.

My response is that the guardians who guard the guardians are all asleep at the switch. While the Republicans are busy losing votes by refusing to free up unemployment benefits for those who have worked all their lives and paid into the fund along with their employers, they have completely ignored a VERY big story.

It's a sad comment that the Civil Rights Commission has been all alone in trying to get the Holder Justice Department to do its job, reinstate judgments already won against the Panthers, finish pursuing the remaining cases, or explain why it is clearly and defiantly discriminating in violation of law and the Constitution.

The MSM addresses issues at the Civil Rights Commission only when its pushing things like affirmative action or phony job discrimination cases. But when the Attorney General and his staff protect criminal thugs solely because of their color, there's not a peep out of the MSM.

patti said...

when there are so many stories about corrupt lawyers, i LOVE a story about one doing the right thing and suffering the consequences (it's a saying we have here). thanks for telling the story.

LawHawkRFD said...

Patti: One of the great disappointments in my life has been the deterioration of the legal profession. When I took the bar, the ethics exam had just been imposed for the very first time, but it was a reaction to a few dubious attorneys in the Nixon administration. Today, they'd be running the Department of Justice and daring anybody to do anything about it. When I went into the law, it was a calling, like being a healer or a priest. Today, it's just another business, filled with money-hungry amateurs, and those perfectly willing to cross ethical lines in the pursuit of wealth or a political agenda. I have no regrets about leaving the profession, but am very sad about its ethical demise.

Post a Comment