some won't forget
On Aug 18, 4:26 am, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>
> *http://tinyurl.com/3plperq*
>
> * *
>
> *Racism at Holder Justice? New Court Ruling in Black Panther Scandal·
> <http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011081214281/us/politics-and-economics/...>
> *
>
> Friday, 12 August 2011 16:34 Tom Fitton ****
>
> [image: E-mail]<http://www.rightsidenews.com/component/option,com_mailto/link,23622b6...>[image:
> Print]<http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011081214281/us/politics-and-economics/...>
> ****
>
> Judicial Watch earned a victory in court on August 4 in its pursuit of
> documents related to the Obama administration's Black Panther scandal. (This
> gets a bit technical, so hang with me.)
>
> In short, a federal court rejected a claim of the "attorney work-product
> doctrine" by the Department of Justice (DOJ) for documents prepared after
> the government dismissed its case against the New Black Panther Party for
> Self Defense on May 15, 2009. (The work-product doctrine shields materials
> prepared in anticipation of litigation from release. The Obama
> administration was using it to try to protect documents sought by JW through
> the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and a related
> lawsuit<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>
> .)****
>
> [image: New_Black_Panthers]Several members of the New Black Panther Party
> were accused of engaging in voter
> intimidation<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>during
> the 2008 presidential campaign.
> ****
>
> *Related:*****
>
> Explosive New Justice Department Black Panther
> Emails<http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010111312101/us/politics-and-economics/...>
> ****
>
> Obama Gang's Black Panther Misinformation -
> Scandal<http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010092511741/us/politics-and-economics/...>
> ****
>
> The MSM Blackout of the Black Panther Scandal vs. Children with Fingers in
> their Ears
> <http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010070510889/us/politics-and-economics/...>
> ****
>
> Black Panthers case: A travesty of justice, says former DOJ chief
> <http://www.rightsidenews.com/2010092511742/editorial/us-opinion-and-e...>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> In his August 4, 2011,
> decision<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>,
> U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton rejected the Obama DOJ's arguments that
> documents prepared after the government dismissed its case (against the
> Black Panthers on May 15, 2009) could be withheld under the "attorney
> work-product privilege" exemption. Judge Walton explained:****
>
> Although an injunction remains in place in the New Black Panther Party
> case…the filing of the motion for voluntary dismissal largely marked the end
> of the litigation. As such, the documents prepared subsequent to that event
> were not prepared in contemplation of litigation and are thus outside the
> scope of the work-product privilege.****
>
> Because the case had essentially ended on May 15, 2009, Judge Walton found
> that "it is difficult to see how" the 24 documents created after May 15,
> 2009, "were prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation,
> which is the testing question the Court must answer in evaluating the DOJ's
> work-product claim."****
>
> Although Judge Walton found that the DOJ improperly withheld the 24
> documents under the attorney work product doctrine, he concluded that the
> documents were properly withheld under the deliberative process privilege.
> (This is the exemption that intends to protect the internal processes of the
> executive branch. The idea is that by guaranteeing confidentiality, the
> government is in a better position to receive candid advice and
> recommendations. In our experience, the government often uses this privilege
> broadly and inappropriately to stonewall the release of information to the
> public.)****
>
> Judge Walton also found that the DOJ failed to satisfy its burden of showing
> that the 24 documents may be withheld in their entirety. Under the
> deliberative process privilege, the DOJ may only withhold information that
> is "predecisional and deliberative." Judge Walton explained:****
>
> As it stands now, the description of the DOJ's segregation efforts is too
> general for the Court, and the plaintiff, to evaluate whether any factual
> material in these documents is 'inextricably intertwined' with the
> deliberative material and would thus permit the DOJ to withhold the
> documents in their entirety.****
>
> Judge Walton provided the DOJ a second chance to satisfy its burden by
> submitting "a renewed motion for summary judgment accompanied by a
> declaration or other documentation that solely addresses the segregability
> issue."****
>
> (The DOJ's renewed motion for summary judgment is due September 30, 2011.
> Judge Walton hopes to rule by February 3, 2012.)****
>
> Importantly, Judge Walton also stated that if the Obama DOJ fails to
> "provide adequate detail regarding why these documents cannot be segregated,
> the DOJ will be required to disclose the non-exempt portions to [Judicial
> Watch]."****
>
> So additional documents could be forthcoming, which would help Judicial
> Watch to complete the public record on this race-tinged scandal.****
>
> Let's review what we know so far…****
>
> According to a DOJ
> document<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>previously
> produced to Judicial Watch, top political appointees at the DOJ
> were involved in the decision to dismiss its voting rights case against the
> New Black Panther Party, including Associate Attorney General Thomas
> Perrelli, the third highest ranking official at the Obama DOJ.****
>
> Attorney General Eric Holder also received "an update on a planned course of
> action in the NBPP" from Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King
> dated May 12, 2009, just three days before the case was dismissed, according
> to a *Vaughn* index uncovered by Judicial Watch. (A
> *Vaughn<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>
> * index describes documents being withheld from disclosure under FOIA and
> the basis for the withholdings.)****
>
> The documents JW uncovered through this *Vaughn*
> index<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>include
> descriptions of internal DOJ email correspondence that directly
> contradict sworn
> testimony<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>by
> Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights
> Division,
> who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political
> leadership was involved in the decision.****
>
> So now you see why it is so important to force the release of as much
> information as possible about this scandal, and to find out why the Obama
> administration is going to such extraordinary lengths to shield this
> information from the public.****
>
> We already know the Obama administration's claim that political appointees
> were not involved in this decision is patently false. And now DOJ officials
> continue to fight tooth-and-nail to stonewall the release of additional
> information. What else do they have to hide? This new court ruling means
> that we may pry loose some additional information on this voter intimidation
> scandal and perhaps get to the truth in the matter.****
>
> Of course, one of the major discoveries emerging from this scandal is the
> Obama DOJ's racist and preferential application of civil rights laws. And if
> you'd like to know more about this problem, then please read on.****
>
> *Obama Justice: Will Not Investigate Radical Hispanic Group That Attacked
> Civil Rights Activist*
>
> If you needed any more evidence of the level of corruption that exists
> inside the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) when it comes to enforcing
> civil rights statutes, here it is.****
>
> As I mentioned in this space several months ago, on March 15, 2011, civil
> rights activist Ted Hayes testified, by invitation before the Judiciary
> Committee of the Maryland House of Delegates, against providing taxpayer
> dollars for in-state tuition benefits for illegal aliens. Shortly after his
> testimony, Mr. Hayes was subjected to vicious retribution by a radical
> Hispanic group known as "The Timmytop," which posted a hate video on a
> YouTube channel that included racist smears and death threats.****
>
> The video begins with the message "[expletive] you 'Mayate,'" which is
> reportedly a racist and derogatory term used to smear African-Americans and
> "dark skinned" people. The video then streams a series of racist images
> including: The silhouette of a man hanging from a noose; photos of Mr. Hayes
> adjacent to photos of monkeys and bananas; and doctored photos of Mr. Hayes
> pictured with a gun next to his head. The video, which runs two minutes and
> nine seconds, concludes with the message "Your [sic] FREE Now Mayate go back
> to Africa."****
>
> The video has since been removed from its original placement on YouTube, but
> it is available on Judicial Watch's website
> here<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>.
> (If you choose to watch it, please be warned that it is extremely offensive
> and unfit for young eyes.)****
>
> You might think that this type of vile behavior would earn the interest of
> the DOJ's Civil Rights Division. (That's what we thought, too.) After all,
> this is the division at the DOJ that is responsible for investigating and
> prosecuting violations of civil rights, including, and perhaps especially,
> those that could have a chilling effect on the First Amendment. In this
> case, you have the intimidation of a witness through death threats and
> humiliation.****
>
> Judicial Watch filed a complaint with the DOJ regarding the matter on April
> 28, 2011, calling for a full investigation. And recently we received a
> response<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>directly
> from the office of Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez (of
> Black Panther scandal fame). It was short and sweet:****
>
> The Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted an investigation into the
> matter referenced in your letter. We and the United States Attorney's Office
> for the Central District of California reviewed the results of that
> investigation and concluded that this incident does not constitute a
> prosecutable violation of the federal criminal civil rights statutes.
> Accordingly we cannot authorize a criminal prosecution of this matter.****
>
> That's it. No further explanation. No review of the evidence "reviewed" by
> the DOJ. Not even a concession that the treatment of Mr. Hayes was
> reprehensible and wrong. Just a flat out rejection and a lame reference to
> the DOJ's general commitment to "combating violations of federal law that
> are motivated by racial or ethnic bias."****
>
> So here we have another in a long line of examples of corruption at the
> Obama DOJ concerning the enforcement of civil rights laws. Apparently the
> enforcement of civil rights at the DOJ no longer has anything to do with
> violations of the law. It's all about racial preferences and partisan
> politics.****
>
> Put another way, had Ted Hayes been a left-wing activist testifying on
> behalf of illegal alien tuition and attacked by white "conservatives," Perez
> would have sprung into action. Trust me on that.****
>
> How do I know? Just look at the record!****
>
> First, consider the Black Panther scandal discussed in the first Weekly
> Update story. The DOJ dismissed it's own voter intimidation lawsuit filed
> against members of Black Panthers, who hurled racial epithets and threatened
> white voters at a polling station in 2008. The Obama adminstration said no
> political appointees were involved in this decision. In fact, Perez himself
> testified to this effect. This testimony was false. JW uncovered evidence
> that indeed political appointees at the highest levels inside the Obama DOJ
> were involved. And why is this important?****
>
> According to *The Washington
> Post<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>
> *, "[DOJ attorney J. Christian] Adams and a Justice Department colleague
> have said the [Black Panther] case was dismissed because the department is
> reluctant to pursue cases against minorities accused of violating the voting
> rights of whites."****
>
> Describing the environment over at the Obama DOJ, Christopher
> Coates<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>,
> a DOJ attorney, testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that
> there exists at the DOJ "…a deep-seated opposition to the equal enforcement
> of the Voting Rights Act against racial minorities and for the protection of
> whites who have been discriminated against."****
>
> So, we know that the DOJ is involved in the race-based
> *selective*enforcement of civil rights laws. (Our friends (and client)
> over at Pajamas
> Media<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>have
> also exposed the radical leftists being planted in the career ranks at
> DOJ, which further explains why a conservative seeking protection can get no
> justice at Justice.)****
>
> Now, Mr. Hayes is black. But he's not in left-wing lock-step with the Obama
> administration on the issue of illegal alien tuition. And his attackers just
> happen to be part of a key voter block for the Obama 2012 re-election
> campign. So Mr. Hayes evidently is not entitled to any protection under law.
> ****
>
> Remember, too, the immigration issue addressed by Mr. Hayes in the testimony
> that led to threats on his life. The Obama DOJ has taken a "La Raza"
> approach to the issue, allowing illegal alien sanctuary
> cities<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>to
> thrive, while attacking states that want to crack down on illegal
> aliens.
> The Obama administration has also begun dismissing deportation
> cases<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>against
> a wide range of illegal aliens, including those convicted of violent
> crimes.****
>
> Mr. Hayes is on the opposite side of the fence of Obama on these issues. And
> it is his politics that seem to define how the DOJ responded to his case.
> Which is just shameless and unlawful. This is yet another scandal in the
> Obama/Holder DOJ that ought to result in a new attorney general.****
>
> *Appeals Court Rules Fannie/Freddie Docs Can be Kept Secret by Obama
> Administration*
>
> So far the U.S. government has bailed out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the
> tune of at least $130
> billion<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>,
> and perhaps as much as $1
> trillion<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>.
> And yet, the Obama adminsitration continues to stonewall the release of
> documents that could shed light on why Fannie and Freddie failed, thereby
> sending the economy into a tailspin from which we have yet to recover.
> (Those records are housed at the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) now
> that Fannie and Freddie are owned and operated by the federal government.)**
> **
>
> Judicial Watch is especially interested in documents related to the
> political contributions of Fannie and Freddie. And we've gone to court to
> get our hands on them. Unfortunately, our efforts sustained another setback
> when an appellate court sided with the
> government<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>and
> ruled that Fannie and Freddie's records are not subject to Freedom of
> Information Act (FOIA) law and may continue to be kept secret:****
>
> The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) has been the conservator of Fannie
> Mae and Freddie Mac since 2008. Judicial Watch filed a request under the
> Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) asking the FHFA to disclose records of
> Fannie and Freddie that show how much money they gave to political
> campaigns. But it is uncontested that no one at the FHFA has ever read or
> relied upon any such documents. The district court held that the documents
> are not agency records subject to FOIA, and we agree.****
>
> So, in other words, because no one at the FHFA, the agency in charge of
> Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, has "read or relied upon" the documents, they
> are not considered agency records under FOIA, and cannot be released.
> (Here's an idea. Maybe someone at FHFA *should* read the documents so
> someone in the government might have a clue as to why these two institutions
> failed so miserably.)****
>
> ** **
>
> We obviously, strenuously disagree with that Alice-in-Wonderland logic, as
> explained in our appellate
> brief<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>:
> "In every meaningful way, the FHFA is lawfully in control of these records.
> There is nothing contingent, hypothetical, indefinite, or limiting about
> this plain statutory language vesting the FHFA with both legal custody and
> lawful control over the records." Our lawyers are considering what the next
> step should be in this important legal battle.****
>
> But even though the record is incomplete with regard to Fannie and Freddie,
> we do know of one major factor in their demise: the corrupt relationship
> between the two mortgage giants and their congressional conspirators, who
> looked the other way while Fannie and Freddie continued their reckless
> lending policies. That's why we're after these records.****
>
> Members of Congress received more than $4.8 million in political
> contributions from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over a ten-year period.****
>
> According to OpenSecrets.org<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>from
> 1998 through 2008, the top ten recipients of Fannie Mae and Freddie
> Mac's political largesse are as follows: Senator Dodd (D-CT), then-Senator
> Obama (D-IL), Senator Kerry (D-MA), Senator Bennett (R-UT), Rep. Bachus
> (R-AL), Rep. Blunt (R-MO), Rep. Kanjorski (D-PA), Senator Bond (R-MO),
> Senator Shelby (R-AL), Senator Reed (D-RI). Senator Dodd, the top recipient
> of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions, is Chairman of the
> Senate Banking Committee responsible for regulating the mortgage industry.
> Notably, President Obama was a top recipient of campaign monies despite
> being in the Senate for only three years.****
>
> Still, this is just the tip of the iceberg. The documents currently being
> withheld by FHFA likely contain a treasure trove of information related to
> the inner workings of these two government-controlled agencies. That's why
> Judicial Watch is fighting so aggressively to get hold of them.****
>
> But just because the Obama administration thinks the details of the collapse
> of Fannie and Freddie are none of your business, that doesn't mean they're
> going to stop taking your money.****
>
> According to *The Washington
> Post<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>
> *:****
>
> Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance house, said Monday that it will ask for an
> additional $1.5 billion of taxpayer money to make up for losses stemming
> from weak housing markets.****
>
> The request falls on the heels of an announcement last week by Freddie Mac's
> sister organization, Fannie Mae, that it will need $5.1 billion to make up
> its shortfall. The two coincide with Standard & Poor's downgrade of the U.S.
> government's credit rating from AAA status to AA+, which has the potential
> to affect the institutions' lending and collecting abilities.****
>
> (*The Associated
> Press<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>
> * is also reporting that in an act of abject desperation the Obama
> administration plans to be the world's largest landlord: "The Obama
> administration may turn thousands of government-owned foreclosures into
> rental properties to help boost falling home prices. The Federal Housing
> Finance Agency said Wednesday it is seeking input from investors on how to
> rent homes owned by government-controlled mortgage companies Fannie Mae and
> Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.")****
>
> The story of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is the story of the entire bailout
> scheme. The government continues to "invest" trillions of taxpayer dollars
> to prop up failing private institutions with no end in sight. And the Obama
> administration continues to stonewall and obfuscate even as it asserts
> government control of 90% of the housing market.****
>
> I don't know about you but it seems that we're in the same sorry spot three
> years after the bailouts/government takeovers that "rescued" our economy.
> Our credit has been downgraded, the stock market is on a rollercoaster, our
> government continues its gangster ways in attempting to run the private
> sector, the government-controlled housing market continues to be a mess, and
> our banks stand on a precipice. Unless our nation reckons with the
> government corruption behind the ongoing financial crisis, I suspect our
> economy (and our republic) will continue to flounder.****
>
> That is why Judicial Watch has been in tireless pursuit of these records,
> and indeed any records, related to Fannie and Freddie and the bailouts. If
> you want to read more about our bailout investigations and lawsuits, please
> click here<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/relay.php?r=7800202&msgid=228901&act=7R...>
> .****
>
> Let me close with a note of praise to our investigative and legal teams. The
> legal and administrative shennanigans we face from this Obama administration
> (and, frankly, any administration) require patient, persistent, and smart
> litigators and investigators who are not put off by Big Government games and
> intensive court iitigation. And, of course, I am grateful for your support
> of Judicial Watch that provides our team with the resources necessary for
> our "David versus Golaith" battles with government lawyers and their
> well-funded allies on the Left.****
>
> Until next week…****
>
> ****
>
> Tom Fitton****
>
> ** **
>
> __._,_.___
> Reply to sender<beow...@westerndefense.net?subject=Re%3A%20Racism%20at%20Holder%20Justice%3F%20New%20Court%20Ruling%20in%20Black%20Panther%20Scandal%2E%20>|
> Reply
> to group<Individual-Sovereig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Re%3A%20Racism%20at%20Holder%20Justice%3F%20New%20Court%20Ruling%20in%20Black%20Panther%20Scandal%2E%20>|
> Reply
> via web post<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/post;_ylc=X3oDMT...>|
> Start
> a New Topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/post;_ylc=X3oDMT...>
> Messages in this
> topic<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/message/244611;_...>(
> 1)
> Recent Activity:
>
> - New Members<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty/members;_ylc=X3o...>
> 1
>
> Visit Your Group<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Individual-Sovereignty;_ylc=X3oDMTJlN3R...>
> Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to
> Individual-Sovereignty-ow...@yahoogroups.com
>
> MARKETPLACE
> A better credit score can save you thousands. See yours at
> freecreditscore.com.<http://global.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=15o1pmud3/M=791726.14818010.14570270....>
> [image: Yahoo!
> Groups]<http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbjhrMTdrBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycEl...>
> Switch to: Text-Only<Individual-Sovereignty-traditio...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>,
> Daily Digest<Individual-Sovereignty-dig...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>•
> Unsubscribe<Individual-Sovereignty-unsubscr...@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>•
> Terms
> of Use <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> .
>
> __,_._,___
>
> image003.jpg
> 10KViewDownload
>
> image002.png
> < 1KViewDownload
>
> image001.png
> < 1KViewDownload
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment