It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Federal Court finds Obama appointees interfered with New Black Panther prosecution

page: 1
18

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 08:03 PM
link   
July 30, 2012


A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.

The ruling came as part of a motion by the conservative legal watch dog group Judicial Watch, who had sued the DOJ in federal court to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents pertaining to the the New Black Panthers case. Judicial Watch had secured many previously unavailable documents through their suit against DOJ and were now suing for attorneys’ fees.

Obama’s DOJ had claimed Judicial Watch was not entitled to attorney’s fees since “none of the records produced in this litigation evidenced any political interference whatsoever in” how the DOJ handled the New Black Panther Party case. But United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton disagreed. Citing a “series of emails” between Obama political appointees and career Justice lawyers, Walton writes:


(snip)


Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs...



Very interesting finding against Holder's DOJ on the New Black Panther Party incident at the polling place in Philly.

Judicial Watch obtained additional documents on the case through the FIOA which is what entitled them to the win for the attorneys fees. The article goes on to state that now the Judge will determine the "reasonableness of Judicial Watch's" requested amount.

With the topic of Voter Fraud and voter intimidation coming more to the forefront, it will be interesting to see the outcomes of the upcoming elections.

I would be very interested to see the documents they obtained!

The New Black Panther Party Case: A Timeline
blog.heritage.org...




posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Good find


It seems they attempted to sweep the whole thing under the rug.

Since this was early on into the Obama Administration, we can assume the arrogance was ever-present.

They had the all the Congressional Committees locked up too.

That explains the case being dropped.


They Really Thought nobody would dare question anything



Some older threads here on ATS were very suspicious of this very thing happening.

I wonder if any regular MSM stories will report this and how will they "twist" it ?

I think we have been dealing with par-baked and half-baked "intellectuals" in government.
That explains the ineptitudes and boondoggles.


... Guess the White House missed the boat.

they forgot to declare this stuff "privileged"




posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I agree on the "priveledged" part, that is why I was hoping Judicial Watch might have the documents posted. I know I can probably dig them up online, but can't afford the document fees ATM. ie: I am so broke I cannot pay attention!


You know, and I know, and most of us know, the MSM won't touch this story. I have checked, and even though the story came out last week, this was the only media I found that carried it, and it was just published today.

MSM would consider it off limits due to the political nature, and Romney is still out of the country.


At most, Breitbart may pick it up, but not even Fox last I checked, hadn't touched it.

Oh, did you hear?! Washington Post got a "bailout"!

Remember who's mommy worked for the Ford Foundation?

philanthropy.com...

Ford’s grant will enable The Post to create four newsroom positions focused on covering local, state, and federal governments. The foundation expects to renew the one-year grant for two more years.


So, add one more State Run Media to the list...

edit on 30-7-2012 by Libertygal because: typo



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
I dont think i have ever seen a president with so much distrust from the people,
But, it doesnt seem like the information that is against him adds to anything convicting..
hmmm.. he seems to have an immunity...



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
I dont think i have ever seen a president with so much distrust from the people,
But, it doesnt seem like the information that is against him adds to anything convicting..
hmmm.. he seems to have an immunity...


I know, right!

I have seen him called President Teflon for a reason!

If it wasn't so damn frightening it would be funny.

I just wonder if this will be the straw that broke Holders back, as in, he will wake up soon with tire marks from being thrown under the bus.

And the wheels of the bus go round and round...



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 10:12 PM
link   
Here is a link to the court decision.

A very interesting quote;

1. Public Benefit

In assessing “the public benefit derived from the case,” Tax Analysts v. DOJ, 965 F.2d 1092, 1093 (D.C. Cir. 1992), abrogated on other grounds by Buckhannon, 532 U.S. at 601-02,
the Court must consider “both the effect of the litigation for which fees are requested and the potential public value of the information sought,” Davy, 550 F.3d at 1159. While “the release of any government document benefits the public by increasing its knowledge of its government,”

the Circuit has “held that Congress did not have this broadly defined benefit in mind when it amended FOIA to authorize attorneys’ fees for those who substantially prevailed under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E).” Cotton v. Heyman, 63 F.3d 1115, 1120 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (citation omitted and emphasis added). Instead,

“[t]he public-benefit prong ‘speaks for an award of [attorney’s fees] where the complainant’s victory is likely to add to the fund of information that citizens may use in making vital political choices.’” Id. (citation omitted). “The only way to comport with this directive is to evaluate the specific documents at issue in the case at hand.”

pdf court paper
 


link to Breitbart story

The New Black Panthers case revolves around members of the racist group who were caught on tape intimidating voters at a polling station during the 2008 elections in Philadelphia. The Justice Department initially charged the four New Black Panthers in the case. But after Obama shaped the Justice Department with his appointees, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissing the charges against three of the New Black Panthers while a fourth received a restraining order.

Federal Court: Obama Admin. Interfered in New Black Panthers Case
 


Reminders of the case

"Security" patrols stationed at polling places in Philly


"Racist New Black Panthers - Kill Some Crackers "



posted on Jul, 30 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Oh that is awesome work! Thank you! I didn't check Breitbart, but I figured they would be one to carry the story. Thanks for the link! I downloaded and read the decision.


$1,216.20 in fees and $350 in costs. Accordingly, Judicial Watch’s motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs is granted in part and denied in part.


Huge difference in what they were asking for, but they have some formulas that they follow, even though they state in the decision they are not required to. At least they kept it reasonable, now if they would only do that for lawsuits *not* against the government!

Thanks again for the links! I still want to see the emails. I found it interesting where the DOJ claimed the emails were already Public Domain and had been published, so that is why they refused to release them. Uhm, what?
Seems the Judge felt the same way.

Did some checking too. All the usual suspects, and guess what? No MSNBC, NBC, ABC, or CBS. Whooodathunkit?

Fox Nation
nation.foxnews.com...

The Blaze
www.theblaze.com...

Townhall
townhall.com... er_case

ETA: P.S. The bad thing is, it won't help the public at all if the information is largely kept from them. Especially the part in the decision about keeping information from the public that may be used for voting decisions. I forget the exact wording.

It isn't the political right that needs to hear it, they pretty much already knew, but the political left won't, because the media sanitizes Obama.

edit on 30-7-2012 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-7-2012 by Libertygal because: Hmm inserting URLs not working?



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:04 AM
link   
this might be some of the documents.

not sure.

the pdf is "sideways"


Judicial Watch -- September 24, 2010

But according to evidence uncovered by Judicial Watch this week, this is yet another Obama administration falsehood.

On September 21, we released a Pdf - draft Vaughn index prepared by the DOJ that shows that the two top political appointees at the DOJ were involved in the decision to dismiss the voter intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party for Self Defense (NBPP).

The index, which we acquired pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, describes documents the government is withholding from the public. Among those documents are internal DOJ emails regarding the Black Panther case between the highest political appointees inside the DOJ, including former Deputy Attorney General David Ogden and the Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, the second and third ranking officials at the DOJ.


Judicial Watch Exposes Obama Gang’s Black Panther Misinformation — Scandal “Roars Back to Life”



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


Ok, you can rotate the pdf clockwise by right clicking on the page. Also saved this. It mentions the emails, but it is a breakdown of the emails and their context and the fact they were denied in THE FOIA request. The emails also show chains of contact and some had attachments but the attachments were not supplied. Interesting.

It does show direct contact though, so even without seeing the emails themselves, it details the links between the people in charge all the way up to Holder.

Can you imagine if they managed to get a hold of Fast and Furious docs? OMG.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Can you imagine if they managed to get a hold of Fast and Furious docs? OMG.


Yep !!

NOW we can assume for sure that the "privileged" F&F docs contain damning information on Obama & Co. !!!

Corruption Incorporated at it's best.

They were caught off guard with Black Panther case.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


I agree.

The guilt is obvious in this one, and the Black Panther Case has to be exactly the reason they used the Executive Priveledge on the Fast and Furious docs.

I agree, they were caught off guard with this case, they learned and headed off disaster.

Disgusting though. Truly. But, by the same token, truly revealing!



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
I dont see the usual suspects in here trying to downplay this.

Oh thats right, cause they can not.

Dont think we dont notice =) We know you come in here to read the thread but refuse to speak up about the corruption in your own party. Oh yes- we surely see.

This is just as bad as if the kkk was doing these things, cept its ok since its a black racist organization.

- Another reason why I will not watch those "news channels".

From what I hear- they have to get permission from the candidates to post this story anyways.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Great Thread that belongs at the top of the heap for the week.

This is Breitbart's lead story for the day
www.breitbart.com...

Heads need to roll in regards to this well evidenced case. We had video of these thugs wielding weapons in front of the polling place for God's sake.

The ignorance of the law by the Obama Administration must END!!!



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 


You're Absolutely Correct,,,,,, The question is though,,,,,, Are they Embarrassed enough Yet!



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Great Find, Excellent Reading. S & F.



posted on Jul, 31 2012 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Common Good
 



From what I hear- they have to get permission from the candidates to post this story anyways.


Yep! I just read a story about that very thing yesterday. They call it "sanitizing".

Wow.

That is what journalism has come to.

www.thenewstribune.com...


On Washington journalism

I make this commitment to our readers, and to our citizens: McClatchy journalists will report fairly and independently. We will not make deals with those in power, regardless of party or philosophy.

By James Asher McClatchy Newspapers

Published: July 26, 2012 at 12:39 p.m. PDT — Updated: July 26, 2012 at 4:21 p.m. PDT



WASHINGTON — It’s been an interesting few days in Washington.
On July 15, The New York Times reported that journalists in this town were allowing government sources to alter quotes in exchange for interviews. As Washington Bureau Chief for McClatchy, I banned the practice for our reporters on July 20. National Journal and Bloomberg followed suit. But we’re waiting on The Washington Post and The Times.
Sadly, letting the government sanitize quotes is just one of many dirty secrets of Washington journalism.


So, seeningly, before July 20, they did allow it? That can be taken from just this quote. IMO, hardly any journalism is trustworthy anymore, hence why I attempt to search for multiple links to stories that interest me.

Amazingly, you will find that perhaps only one or two sources write an article, and allow other news centers to buy their articles. Very little "news" is written by independent sources anymore.

I don't think the Washington Post will be following suit, however, as they just got their "bailout" this week.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Great Thread that belongs at the top of the heap for the week.

This is Breitbart's lead story for the day
www.breitbart.com...

Heads need to roll in regards to this well evidenced case. We had video of these thugs wielding weapons in front of the polling place for God's sake.

The ignorance of the law by the Obama Administration must END!!!


Thank you. I doubt it will happen though, because as was pointed out, "the usual suspects" are strangely quiet on this story. There just is no defense on it. It will sink, like any other stories that portray our president and cabinet in a negative light. No one wants to hear anything bad, and have a need to hold candles up to the chosen one.

Yes, we had video, and remember allll the excuses that were made. In fact, those old threads should be resurrected with a bump explicitly to remind people of their words.

The Outlaw in Chief will, however, continue on, unless he is voted out. Otherwise, the next four years will have an outcome of intense and deep ruination. There just is no two ways about it.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 12:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by guohua
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Great Find, Excellent Reading. S & F.



Thanks, glad you found it enlightening.

I know others did, they are just too shy and embarrassed to admit it!



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Yup- sanitizing- thats the perfect word for it.

Sanitation of the truth.

WHY would I even attempt to try to believe these jackals anymore?

They are responsible for the misrepresentation- and as a cause of that- have more than likely changed the outcomes of many elections.
They must be held responsible.

Its sad when the only somewhat trusting news you can get is from a conspiracy website.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by guohua
reply to post by Common Good
 


You're Absolutely Correct,,,,,, The question is though,,,,,, Are they Embarrassed enough Yet!


Nope.

All they care about is the $$$ that they get from printing falsehoods.

They can give a damn about "our" best interests.

Its sleezy.




top topics



 
18

log in

join