Category Archives: Civil rights

Judge Susan Bolton may enjoin Arizona Law in part, SB 1070, Section by section, Citizen Wells open thread, July 24, 2010

Judge Susan Bolton may enjoin Arizona Law in part, SB 1070, Section by section

From The Phoenix New Times July 23, 2010.

“In a day filled with protests, arrests, legal arguments, an appearance by the governor, and at least one certified neo-Nazi, the most significant developments in the SB 1070 saga happened within the Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix, not without.

There, Judge Susan R. Bolton oversaw two hearings Thursday where the plaintiffs sought to have her enjoin SB 1070, Arizona’s new “papers, please” legislation. But Bolton, without indicating when she would make a decision, signaled that if she enjoins SB 1070, she will do so in part, perhaps gutting significant portions of the law while leaving the remainder ready to go into effect July 29.

Whatever her decision, legal experts anticipate that her ruling will be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which would likely put the law on hold.

Although lawyers for the ACLU, MALDEF, and finally the U.S. Department of Justice argued in separate hearings that the law must be taken as a whole, Bolton kept directing them to the specifics of certain provisions.

“You’re not asking me to do that?” Bolton asked ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat at one point in the morning hearing on the ACLU/MALDEF suit about his request that she enjoin 1070 in its entirety.

“Shouldn’t we be talking about it section by section?” she continued. “And talk about what you want me to enjoin?”

She cited the severability clause in the statute, which would allow her to partially enjoin, while leaving the rest of the statute in force.

Jadwat contended that the law’s stated intent, to make “attrition through enforcement” the policy of Arizona, indicated that all parts of SB 1070 were meant to work together toward this goal.

However, Bolton declared that, “I cannot enjoin the [law’s] intent.””

“”Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to [illegal immigrants]?” wondered Bolton at one point.”
“Playing devil’s advocate, Bolton observed that not a day goes by without the news reporting on a drop house being busted by authorities. Didn’t Arizona have a legitimate concern with “public safety” and the “dangerous situation” that harboring illegal aliens causes?”

“Bolton does not have to issue a decision on an injunction before July 29, the date 1070 is scheduled to go into effect, but most observers believed she will.

It’s worth remembering that an injunction would not overturn the law, just place all or part of it on hold until the various lawsuits play themselves out. The question remaining seems to be how much of the law Bolton will allow to go into effect come the 29th.”

Read more:

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2010/07/sb_1070_field_day_will_judge_s.php

Justice Department corruption in Black Panther case, Washington Post, July 18, 2010, Andrew Alexander Post Ombudsman, National Editor Kevin Merida, Wished The Post had written about it sooner

Justice Department corruption in Black Panther case, Washington Post

From The Washington Post July 18, 2010.

“Why the silence from The Post on Black Panther Party story?”

“Thursday’s Post reported about a growing controversy over the Justice Department’s decision to scale down a voter-intimidation case against members of the New Black Panther Party. The story succinctly summarized the issues but left many readers with a question: What took you so long?

For months, readers have contacted the ombudsman wondering why The Post hasn’t been covering the case. The calls increased recently after competitors such as the New York Times and the Associated Press wrote stories. Fox News and right-wing bloggers have been pumping the story. Liberal bloggers have countered, accusing them of trying to manufacture a scandal.

But The Post has been virtually silent.

The story has its origins on Election Day in 2008, when two members of the New Black Panther Party stood in front of a Philadelphia polling place. YouTube video of the men, now viewed nearly 1.5 million times, shows both wearing paramilitary clothing. One carried a nightstick.”

“The controversy was elevated last month when J. Christian Adams, a former Justice Department lawyer who had helped develop the case, wrote in the Washington Times that his superiors’ decision to reduce its scope was “motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law.” Some in the department believe “the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation,” he wrote. Adams recently repeated these charges in public testimony before the commission.

The Post didn’t cover it. Indeed, until Thursday’s story, The Post had written no news stories about the controversy this year. In 2009, there were passing references to it in only three stories.”

“National Editor Kevin Merida, who termed the controversy “significant,” said he wished The Post had written about it sooner. The delay was a result of limited staffing and a heavy volume of other news on the Justice Department beat, he said.”

Read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071604081_pf.html

Obama deception illegally removed from YouTube, 1984, Big Brother, Citizen Wells open thread, July 19, 2010

Obama deception illegally removed from YouTube, 1984, Big Brother

“The past, he reflected, had not merely been altered, it had
actually been destroyed. For how could you establish, even
the most obvious fact when there existed no record outside
your own memory?”…George Orwell, “1984″

Obama Deception ILLEGALLY removed from YouTube. Alex Jones reports.

http://www.t-room.us/2010/07/alex-jones-censorship-alert-obama-deception-illegally-removed-from-youtube/

Thanks JJ

US Justice Department corruption, Obama eligibility, Blagojevich trial, Citizen Wells open thread, July 18, 2010

US Justice Department corruption, Obama eligibility, Blagojevich trial

This was sent to me in an email. It ties in to the articles on US Justice Department corruption .

” The mountain of evidence that is emerging that Barack Hussein Obama is not who and what he portrayed himself to be to the American electorate, the deception goes beyond using forged douments and a farbricated past to swindle the American public into believing that he was Constitutionally  eligible as per the United States Constitution. That same evidence is exposing the corruption in the United States Congress and the Judicial Branch and those that were complicit in the crime of treason against the United States Constitution, which they swore to uphold and protect and the citizens of this nation.
After repeated attempts to have their concerns redressed and investigated and properly handled, they have willingly and with malice and forethought forfeited their obligation, no different the the United States government deciding what laws to enforce when it comes to immigration or cases involving voter intimidation.  Willingly neglecting their oath and obligation is mocking civil government, it’s rules and laws, and the United States Constitution. May God have mercy on their souls, as he will be their final judge.”

http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2010/07/16/the-preponderance-of-the-evidence-or-the-seriousness-of-the-charge/

US Justice Department corruption, MN voter fraud, Al Franken stole election?, November 2008 Justice Dept letter

US Justice Department corruption, MN voter fraud, Al Franken stole election?

As I sit here writing this, Megyn Kelly on Fox America is about to cover voter fraud in the the MN election that allowed Al Franken to steal the election. I have been monitoring this for some time and have a collection of facts and information on this story.

“Chief Christopher Coates
United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20530

November 17, 2008

Dear Mr. Coates,
I represent Minnesota Majority, a non-profit public policy watchdog group. I am contacting you to request a
formal investigation into apparent voter registration irregularities in Minnesota. We believe that the
Minnesota Secretary of State may be in violation of requirements for voter registration practices as defined
by the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). I will begin by providing some background on the situation, which
prompted this letter. I will then provide my specific complaint and our request of your office.
BACKGROUND
As part of Minnesota Majority’s issue advocacy activities, we make use of Minnesota’s voter file, as
provided under Minnesota law. It was in the course of utilizing this list that we began to notice a number of
unusual anomalies in the data, which prompted us to conduct additional research. Our cursory review of the
data revealed a number of potential issues, including:

• POTENTIAL DUPLICATE VOTER REGISTRATION RECORDS: We discovered thousands of voter
registration records that have an exact match on the criteria of first name, middle name, last name and
birth year.

• VACANT AND NON-DELIVERABLE ADDRESSES: The United States Postal Service has flagged
nearly 100,000 voter registration records as being either “vacant” or “undeliverable”. We visited
approximately two-dozen of these addresses to verify the USPS results and discovered approximately
50% of the addresses to be correctly flagged, in that the addresses did not exist. We have taken
photographs of empty lots and non-existent addresses where our investigation revealed invalid addresses.

• DEFICIENT VOTER REGISTRATIONS: Minnesota Statute 201.071 requires voter registrations
recorded after August 1, 1983 to include the voter’s name, address, date of birth and signature. We
discovered thousands of voter registrations that would be considered “deficient” under Minnesota law
due to missing or invalid information. Minnesota law requires these deficient registrations to be
corrected before an individual is allowed to vote.

• DECEASED VOTERS: Using a standard deceased matching service commonly utilized by mailing
houses, we discovered thousands of apparently deceased individuals who are still on the voter rolls.
• DOUBLE VOTING: We found nearly 100 cases in which voter registration and voter history records
suggest that a single voter may have voted more than once in a single election. There are thousands of
additional records that merit review.

• OTHER INCONSISTENCIES: We have discovered several thousand voters registered after August 1,
1983 that had birth years suggesting these individuals are 108 years of age or older. We also found
nearly 2,000 individuals who appear to have registered and voted before the age of 18.”

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Portals/0/documents/2008-11-17-DOJ-Letter.pdf

Citizen Wells October 14, 2008

“As I expected, the investigations into ACORN and voter fraud has arrived to our fair state. From KSTP:

The Hennepin County attorney announced Tuesday they’ve launched an investigation into an allegation that an individual with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, did not fully comply with Minnesota voter registration rules.

According to the allegation, a batch of registration forms were turned into the office of elections outside the ten-day period, but were turned in early enough to be registered to vote in the September primary.”

Read more

Fox News November 10, 2008.

“Minnesota is becoming to 2008 politics what Florida was in 2000 or Washington State in 2004 — a real mess. The outcome will determine whether Democrats get 58 members of the U.S. Senate, giving them an effective filibuster-proof vote on many issues.

When voters woke up on Wednesday morning after the election, Senator Norm Coleman led Al Franken by what seemed like a relatively comfortable 725 votes. By Wednesday night, that lead had shrunk to 477. By Thursday night, it was down to 336. By Friday, it was 239. Late Sunday night, the difference had gone down to just 221 — a total change over 4 days of 504 votes.

Amazingly, this all has occurred even though there hasn’t even yet been a recount. Just local election officials correcting claimed typos in how the numbers were reported. Counties will certify their results today, and their final results will be sent to the secretary of state by Friday. The actual recount won’t even start until November 19.

Correcting these typos was claimed to add 435 votes to Franken and take 69 votes from Coleman. Corrections were posted in other races, but they were only a fraction of those for the Senate. The Senate gains for Franken were 2.5 times the gain for Obama in the presidential race count, 2.9 times the total gain that Democrats got across all Minnesota congressional races, and 5 times the net loss that Democrats suffered for all state House races.

Virtually all of Franken’s new votes came from just three out of 4130 precincts, and almost half the gain (246 votes) occurred in one precinct — Two Harbors, a small town north of Duluth along Lake Superior — a heavily Democratic precinct where Obama received 64 percent of the vote. None of the other races had any changes in their vote totals in that precinct.”

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,449334,00.html

Newsmax June 2, 2009

“A public watchdog group is calling for federal authorities to investigate allegations of widespread voter fraud in Minnesota, charging that state election officials have been unable to establish the eligibility of over 30,000 persons whose ballots were included in the November election.

A lawsuit filed by the nonprofit group Minnesota Majority alleges that Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and 25 county election officials failed to reconcile registrations — matching votes cast with actual voter registrations of people who live at valid addresses — thereby casting a shadow over the legitimacy of thousands of ballots cast on Nov. 4.

The lawsuit transcends the issues being debated in the ongoing Senate election contest between Democrat Al Franken and former GOP Sen. Norm Coleman, which is now under review by the state’s supreme court.

“When you’re talking about a major U.S. Senate race that’s being decided by 312 votes, whether you’re for Coleman or Franken, it doesn’t give me a great deal of confidence in the election,” Minnesota Majority founder and CEO Jeff Davis tells Newsmax. “I would guess that both camps would be really interested in knowing what the heck is going on.”

Davis is calling for a federal investigation into what he sees as systemic voter fraud in Minnesota elections. Minnesota law allows people to show up at the polls on Election Day, fill out a voter registration card based on a pledge that they are eligible, and cast a ballot.”

Read more:

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/minnesota_fraud_lawsuit/2009/06/02/220818.html

Minnesota Majority July 24, 2009.

“Minnesota Supreme Court Passes the Buck

The release of a House oversight committee report alleging the systematic commission of numerous serious crimes by the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN) yesterday deepened Minnesota Majority’s concerns about the integrity of Minnesota’s elections.

Meanwhile, the state’s Supreme Court issued a ruling asserting that it does not have original jurisdiction to Hear Minnesota Majority’s case that was focused on a discrepancy of vote totals. In April, it was found that at least 40,000 more ballots were counted than there were records of voters who cast them in the statewide voter registration system.
 
The facts aren’t in dispute. Secretary Ritchie admitted to the discrepancy and all of the factual evidence in the case was provided by the secretary of state’s office. The court’s order to dismiss the case was without prejudice, meaning the Supreme Court didn’t rule on the merits of the case, only jurisdiction. In fact, the order states Minnesota Majority’s intention is a “laudable goal,” and goes on to suggest submitting the petition to the office of Administrative Hearings, the venue the Supreme Court believes is the appropriate starting point for the complaint.”

Read more:

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Home/tabid/112/BlogDate/2009-07-31/Default.aspx

Minnesota Majority September 18, 2009.

“Yesterday the US House voted 345-75 to cut-off all federal funding for the scandal-plagued Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). This comes on the heels of the Senate’s vote earlier in the week to deny housing funds for ACORN 7 Senators voted to continue the funding, though.
 
All Congressional votes in favor of continuing ACORN funding were by Democrats, including Representatives Keith Ellison (Minneapolis/5th district) and Betty McCollum (St. Paul/4th district).”

Read more:

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Home/tabid/112/EntryID/212/Default.aspx

Minnesota Majority September 30, 2009.

“In the wake of ACORN scandals erupting across the nation, several Minnesota gubernatorial candidates joined Minnesota Majority today in calling on Attorney General Lori Swanson to investigate the embattled organization’s Minnesota activities. 

Jeff Davis, president of Minnesota Majority cited numerous glaring discrepancies in election records, such as evidence suggesting dead people and convicted felons voted in the 2008 general election as well as voters registered with non-deliverable mailing addresses and a high volume of rejected voter registration postal verification post cards.”

Read more:

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/Home/tabid/112/EntryID/215/Default.aspx

Minnesota Majority July 8, 2010.

“Minnesota Majority has been calling for an investigation into violations of federal election law in Minnesota for nearly two years. That call has gone unanswered by the US Department of Justice. Now we are finding out why.

Former Justice Department attorney J. Christian Adams testified before the US Commission on Civil Rights that the current administration of the United States Department of Justice has a policy of not enforcing anti-fraud provisions of federal election law. Because Minnesota allows Election Day registration, we are exempt from certain provisions of the National Voter Rights Act (NVRA), but the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) contains similar provisions. Specifically, Section 303(a) of HAVA requires that the states perform voter registration list maintenance to remove deceased and ineligible voters (including felons and those who’ve moved out of state). This is an anti-voter-fraud measure that, according to Adams, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandes refuses to enforce.

Adams quoted Ferndandes as saying, “We’re not interested in those kind of cases. What do they have to do with helping increase minority access and turnout? We want to increase access to the ballot, not limit it.”

She evidently doesn’t want to limit access to the ballot by ineligible felons, dead people and people who don’t live in the state they are voting in, because the law in question requires such names to be purged from the voter registration rolls to prevent needless errors and abuse.

Minnesota Majority has experienced the DOJ’s refusal to investigate these kind of cases first-hand. On November 17th of 2008 (immediately following the 2008 General Election and while the Coleman-Franken recount battle was getting underway), Minnesota Majority president Jeff Davis sent a certified letter to then Voting Section chief of the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ, Christopher Coates, requesting an investigation into apparent failures to comply with HAVA by Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. No response was forthcoming.
 
Since the DOJ in Washington DC failed to follow up on Davis’ complaint, Minnesota Majority contacted the local FBI office and lodged the same complaint. Special Agent Brian Kinney responded and visited the Minnesota Majority office to examine Minnesota Majority’s findings. At that time, he said, “based on what I see here there is more than enough evidence to initiate an internal complaint.” He gave his assurances that he would bring the matter to the attention of his supervisors. There was no further follow-up.”

Read more:

http://www.minnesotamajority.org/

I have just begun to write about US Justice Department corruption. I, and I hope you, will demand a congressional investigation.

Educate congressmen, Gear up for 2010 elections, Are they paying attention?, Do they care?, Citizen Wells open thread, July 12, 2010

Educate congressmen, Gear up for 2010 elections, Are they paying attention?

Back in 2008 there was an effort to educate members of Congress on Obama’s eligibility issues and on the definition of natural born citizen. We are just a few months away from the 2010 elections. How educated are current members now as well as those running for office? Are they serious about adhering to the US Constitution? Are they aware of Obama’s use of many private and government attorneys to avoid presenting a birth certificate and college records? Are they going to listen now? Are they aware of such important issues as corruption and racial bias in the US Justice Dept.? We need to find out. This is an opportunity to educate then and find out where they stand. Most of them get their news from the MSM.

US Justice Department corrupt, Blagojevich trial, Patrick Fitzgerald, J Christian Adams, Citizen Wells open thread, July 8, 2010

US Justice Department corrupt, Blagojevich trial, Patrick Fitzgerald, J Christian Adams

We now have multiple confirmations that the US Justice Department is corrupt and racially biased. J Christian Adams and others are speaking out. For well over a year Citizen Wells has been questioning the Justice Dept. and their actions.

Who in the US Justice Dept. made these decisions?

Wait until December 2008, after the elections, to arrest Rod Blagojevich.

Omit the following from the Indictment. The following statement was in the Criminal Complaint. “The Planning Board was a commission of the State of Illinois, established by statute, whose members were appointed by the Governor of the State of Illinois. At the relevant time period, the Planning Board consisted of nine individuals.”

Focus the prosecution of Blagojevich on the selling of the senate seat.

Indicate the trial will end much earlier than expected (month and a half vs three to four months).

And

Why did Judge James Zagel speak out and say that Tony Rezko would be a bad witness?

Was he laying the groundwork for prosecutors not calling Rezko?

Stuart Levine was the main witness in the Rezko trial. Not only was Levine heavily enmeshed in crime and corruption, he was a long time drug user. Criminals and corruption figures are routinely used as witnesses.

J Christian Adams testimony, US Commission on Civil Rights, Julie Fernandez, Fox News interview, US Justice Dept corruption, Voter registration not enforced, Megyn Kelly interview, Part 2

J Christian Adams testimony, US Commission on Civil Rights, Julie Fernandez

J Christian Adams, a former attorney in the Civil Rights Division of the US Justice Department, testified Tuesday, July 6, 2010, before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Adams is interviewed afterwards on FOX News by Megyn Kelly.
Adams alleges that the Justice Dept ignores voter fraud and states that a mandate came from Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie Fernandez.

Part 2

 

Julie Fernandez Deputy Assistant Attorney General

From the National Review January 12, 2010.
“Politicizing the Law”

“Eric Holder’s Justice Department has exiled Christopher Coates to South Carolina.

Coates, you may recall, is a career attorney at Justice, the chief of the Civil Rights Division’s (CRD) Voting Section. More to the point, Coates recommended that the CRD file a lawsuit for voter intimidation against the New Black Panther party and several of its members, who were in paramilitary uniforms (one of them waving a nightstick) threatening elderly white voters at a polling station in Philadelphia during last year’s elections.

Political appointees at the Justice Department overrode Coates’s recommendation. They ordered him to dismiss the lawsuit against all but one of the defendants, even though they were in default because they did not defend themselves. The eventual injunction against the defendant with the weapon was laughably weak.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation of the unexplained dismissal. It has subpoenaed Coates, but Justice has ordered Coates not to appear before the panel. Indeed, the partisan Democrats running the Civil Rights Division have barred Coates and another career lawyer, Christian Adams, from providing any assistance to the commission or the Republican congressmen investigating the matter. What are they so afraid will be revealed?”
“Washington today is infested with advocacy groups run by radicals who view the law — particularly federal civil-rights statutes like the Voting Rights Act — as a weapon to be used to further ideological goals, cement political control, and demonize political opponents. By contrast, fair-minded liberals and conservatives — at least those with whom I worked in the Civil Rights Division during the Bush administration — saw their duty as one of enforcing the law in a neutral manner within the narrow and objective strictures of federal statutes and case law. They did not assume the federal government had a monopoly on civil-rights virtue. They insisted that career attorneys recognize the proper role of the judiciary in what they asked courts to do. They recognized the need for restraint in certain investigatory activity lest the threat of federal power produce results that the law would not command.

Despite this conscious, principled adherence to “blind justice” and the constitutional role of the judiciary, some in the Bush Department of Justice found themselves accused of “politicization” when they tried to hire lawyers who would respect and carry out these principles. The radical Left simply could not tolerate a system in which the liberal ideologues who already predominated the career ranks in the CRD were not replicated in all hiring decisions.

The recent personnel action against Coates exposes the injustice (and hypocrisy) of the Left’s demagoguery. For all intents and purposes, the transfer was a demotion. A demotion for doing the right thing.”
“I would trace it to his mistake of enforcing civil-rights laws even-handedly. In 2003, while I was still at the CRD, we received complaints that black officials in Noxubee County, Miss., were discriminating against white voters. Coates went down and investigated. He found blatant racial discrimination occurring in the polls. The discrimination was organized, led, and orchestrated by the black head of the local Democratic party’s executive committee, a two-time felon. A federal district court found “improper, and in some instances fraudulent conduct . . . for the purpose of diluting white voting strength.” The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, when it upheld the judgment against the defendants, found there was intentional discrimination against white voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Coates’s audacity, first in investigating this case and then in recommending that a lawsuit be filed, made him many enemies. Previously, he had spent his entire career filing lawsuits on behalf of minority voters who had suffered discrimination. But in Noxubee, the white voters being discriminated against were the minority, representing only about 30 percent of voters. Their race made no difference to Coates, but based on what I observed, it made a big difference to ultra-liberal lawyers inside and outside the Justice Department.

When Coates first went to Noxubee to investigate the complaints, a number of the Voting Section’s career lawyers expressed disgust that we would bother to protect white voters. Coates was astonished by the blatantly illegal behavior he saw going on in the polls, but many of his colleagues wanted to ignore it. Several career lawyers in the section flatly refused to work on the case.”
“That brings us to the real bone of contention, the final reason Coates has been transferred: the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther party. NBPP members were hurling racial epithets and threatening voters at a polling place in Philadelphia. It was among the most blatant cases of voter intimidation the CRD had seen in decades. Adams was one of three lawyers assigned to the case by Coates, no doubt because, unlike the other career lawyers in the Voting Section, Adams would not refuse to sue non-white perpetrators of voter intimidation. The other two lawyers on the New Black Panther party case were Robert Popper and Spencer Fisher, both highly dedicated voting-rights attorneys as well.”
“One former Voting Section career lawyer who had left the Justice Department to go to work for the NAACP, Kristen Clarke, admitted to the Washington Times that she talked to the new political leadership after Obama was inaugurated, berating them for not dismissing the case. Sources at Justice tell me Clarke made an identical pitch to her former colleagues in the Voting Section once Obama and Eric Holder came to power.

The entreaties proved productive. According to the Washington Times, Loretta King, whom Obama named the acting assistant attorney general of the CRD, ordered Coates to dismiss the case against three of the defendants despite their default. King apparently received approval from Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli to do so. Who else Perrelli spoke with in the Justice Department and the White House is the subject of continued stonewalling in response to the subpoenas served on Justice by the U.S. Civil Rights Commission

Meanwhile, the forced dismissal of the New Black Panther case turned out to be just the beginning of the misery heaped on Coates. According to multiple sources at Justice, King and the political appointees who came in soon after Obama’s inauguration — particularly Julie Fernandez, an ideological firebrand and former lawyer for the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights — put severe restrictions on Coates almost as soon as they arrived and began micromanaging all of his work. The new political apparatchiks stripped Coates of virtually all discretionary authority, delegated responsibility for most decisions to more “results-oriented” underlings in the Voting Section, and rendered him a virtual figurehead.”

 
“Like Coates, Adams and the entire New Black Panther party trial team are consummate professionals who seek to enforce the laws without political or ideological considerations. Unfortunately, such lawyers are a rarity within the Civil Rights Division, which is without doubt one of the most insidiously partisan places I have ever worked, inside or outside of government.

Over the past year, all hiring within the CRD has been done on a purely partisan, ideological basis. Doubtless that will continue to happen over the next three years.”

 
“Hans A. von Spakovsky is a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former counsel to the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department.”

Make certain that you read the entire article!!:

http://article.nationalreview.com/420577/politicizing-the-law/hans-a-von-spakovsky

Hustler in chief, Unemployment rate, Illegal aliens, Economy, Citizen Wells open thread, July 3, 2010

Hustler in chief, Unemployment rate, Illegal aliens, Economy

I suppose you all heard the Hustler in chief speak of the 9.5 % unemployment rate in somewhat glowing terms as improvement. When I heard life long Democrat, civil rights attorney, Bartle Bull refer to Obama as a hustler it resonated with me. I had been refering to Obama for many months as being “street smart.”

Wiretap from Rod Blagojevich trial.
DATE: 11/10/2008
 
TIME:  9:07 A.M.
 
ACTIVITY: Rod Blagojevich home line conference call
 
SESSION:  451

BLAGOJEVICH “Now Patti works. She’s very good at what she does. She’s as qualified as Michelle Obama, if not more qualified. Michelle Obama is getting sixty five grand a year for you know, what was it, Tree House Foods, Patti?”
 
 
QUINLAN “Tree House Foods is what she was on.”
 
P. BLAGOJEVICH “Tree House.”
 
BLAGOJEVICH “Yeah and she’s making 0 grand over at the University of Chicago.”
 
 
BLAGOJEVICH “…where her fath-, her husband’s federal months, federal funds are going there? What?”
 
P. BLAGOJEVICH “Yeah, which of course went up as soon as he got elected to Senate and he was able to get federal funding to University of Chicago. Get this, I think the most…”

US Justice Department corruption, Voter intimidation, New Black Panther case dismissal, Blagojevich trial, Citizen Wells open thread, July 2, 2010

US Justice Department corruption, Voter intimidation, New Black Panther case dismissal

I am watching the Rod Blagojevich trial unfold. I have been monitoring this since before the Tony Rezko trial ended. There were many disturbing signs well before the Blagojevich trial began. Many of us questioned Patrick Fitzgerald and the US Justice Department. Now we have J. Christian Adams and Bartle Bull speaking out, lending credence to our concerns. I have more thoughts on the Blagojevich trial that I will commit to words soon. 

Remain vigilant and keep reporting.

Wells.