On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black
berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at
the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a
weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election,
the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the
New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs.

I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained
an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a
final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us
to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation
of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the
corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the
case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys
not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this
month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ)
attorney.

The federal voter-intimidation statutes we used against the New Black
Panthers were enacted because America never realized genuine racial
equality in elections. Threats of violence characterized elections
from the end of the Civil War until the passage of the Voting Rights
Act in 1965.

Before the Voting Rights Act, blacks seeking the right to vote, and
those aiding them, were victims of violence and intimidation. But
unlike the Southern legal system, Southern violence did not
discriminate. Black voters were slain, as were the white champions of
their cause. Some of the bodies were tossed into bogs and in one case
in Philadelphia, Miss., they were buried together in an earthen dam.

Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the
Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal
enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my
assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-
abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers.

The dismissal raises serious questions about the department's
enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the
subsequent 2012 presidential election.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation into
the dismissal and the DOJ's skewed enforcement priorities. Attorneys
who brought the case are under subpoena to testify, but the department
ordered us to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an
unacceptable legal limbo.

The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has
testified repeatedly that the "facts and law" did not support this
case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not
constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short
of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let's all hope this
administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt
dismissal.

Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal - Loretta
King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division,
and Steve Rosenbaum - did not even read the internal Justice
Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation.

Just as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. admitted that he did not
read the Arizona immigration law before he condemned it, Mr. Rosenbaum
admitted that he had not bothered to read the most important
department documents detailing the investigative facts and applicable
law in the New Black Panther case.

Christopher Coates, the former Voting Section chief, was so outraged
at this dereliction of responsibility that he actually threw the memos
at Mr. Rosenbaum in the meeting where they were discussing the
dismissal of the case. The department subsequently removed all of Mr.
Coates' responsibilities and sent him to South Carolina.

Mr. Perez also inaccurately testified to the House Judiciary Committee
that federal "Rule 11" required the dismissal of the lawsuit. Lawyers
know that Rule 11 is an ethical obligation to bring only meritorious
claims, and such a charge by Mr. Perez effectively challenges the
ethics and professionalism of the five attorneys who commenced the
case. Yet the attorneys who brought the case were voting rights
experts and would never pursue a frivolous matter. Their experience in
election law far surpassed the experience of the officials who ordered
the dismissal.

Some have called the actions in Philadelphia an isolated incident, not
worthy of federal attention. To the contrary, the Black Panthers in
October 2008 announced a nationwide deployment for the election.

We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere,
not only in November 2008, but also during the Democratic primaries,
where they targeted white Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters. In any
event, the law clearly prohibits even isolated incidents of voter
intimidation.

Others have falsely claimed that no voters were affected. Not only did
the evidence rebut this claim, but the law does not require a
successful effort to intimidate; it punishes even the attempt.

Most disturbing, the dismissal is part of a creeping lawlessness
infusing our government institutions. Citizens would be shocked to
learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice
Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants
on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a
priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these
types of cases.

Some of my co-workers argued that the law should not be used against
black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and
segregation. Less charitable individuals called it "payback time."
Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that
no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case
would be brought by the Voting Section.

Refusing to enforce the law equally means some citizens are protected
by the law while others are left to be victimized, depending on their
race. Core American principles of equality before the law and freedom
from racial discrimination are at risk. Hopefully, equal enforcement
of the law is still a point of bipartisan, if not universal,
agreement.

However, after my experience with the New Black Panther dismissal and
the attitudes held by officials in the Civil Rights Division, I am
beginning to fear the era of agreement over these core American
principles has passed.

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/b...6/27/id/363203

The Obama Justice Department went to bat for the New Black Panther
party—and then covered it up.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articl...ds-high-places

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=7375
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=7556