Breaking: Black Panthers Headed Back To Poll Stations to Monitor Them

Pathetic on a multiple of levels.

Well, it was your strawman. It's no surprise that it's pathetic. I have been right on every point of law in the thread. Trouble is, you don't care about the actual law. You want to do what you are trained to do, scream reverse racism.

::sigh::

Your training is what it is.
 
So there is a witness.

A witness who is possibly this guy and possibly not? A witness who may be an eyewitness or may be recounting nothing but hearsay?

Sorry, you need to be able to produce this witness.

We dont need to produce anything. They failed to show up for court and received a default judgement before liberal low life decided they were not the right color for prosecution. Then proceeded to drop the issue after it had been won.
Wanna try, again, Skippy?? :rolleyes:

"According to an April 23, 2010 press release from the New Black Panther Party, the Philadelphia member involved in the nightstick incident was suspended until January 2010. "The New Black Panther Party made it clear then and now we don't support voter intimidation...Correctly the charges against the entire organization and the chairman were dropped. The actions of one individual cannot be attributed to an entire organization any more than every act of any member of the Catholic Church be charged to the Vatican."
 
Pathetic on a multiple of levels.

Well, it was your strawman. It's no surprise that it's pathetic. I have been right on every point of law in the thread. Trouble is, you don't care about the actual law. You want to do what you are trained to do, scream reverse racism.

::sigh::

Your training is what it is.

The only one searching for any excuse has been you. I guess you havent yet figured out when you do not show up, It remains the same as pleading guilty.

Dont worry the school year is underway, in a few short months you to will be elevated to the third grade.
 
Then the Obama administration decided to stop using the DoJ voting rights section to argue cases that have nothing to do with the voting rights act, which was written to protect minorities, predominantly in the South, from systematic voter suppression. They decided this case was a loser on the merits, which it is.
Are you saying there is no law prohibiting northern minorities from engaging in voter intimidation?
 
I guess you havent yet figured out when you do not show up, It remains the same as pleading guilty.

Nope,this is just fucking wrong. It does not mean the same thing. Summary judgement is not a guilty plea. Ex parte judgements are not guilty pleas. What happens in the real world is that when you don't show on a crimminal charge, a bench warrant is put out. You get nabbed presumably and the first thing your lawyer does is submit a motion to put aside the summary judgement. 99.9% of the time, that motion is granted.

But when have you ever let the real world intude on your ideology?
 
The Black Panthers are just one of many Democratic "Community Organizer" groups that will be out there intimidating and trying to rig Elections. These "Community Organizer" groups are more powerful than ever. They have one of their own in the White House for God's sake. Things are going to be ugly on Election Day. Just vote but stay vigilant. Report anything suspicious at your polling place. Don't let em steal this one.
 
They have one of their own in the White House for God's sake.

Yup, no racism going on here. Move along.
 
seem to be meaningless to some of you unless applied in the way YOU want. WHERE pray tell does any law state that I cannot carry a bat or nightstick with me?
 
They have one of their own in the White House for God's sake.

Yup, no racism going on here. Move along.

"One of their own" refers to "Community Organizers." But feel free to Race-Bait. That's all you guys have left anyway. Oh and BOOOOOOOOOSH!! too. Come on Nov. 2nd!!
 
So there is a witness.

A witness who is possibly this guy and possibly not? A witness who may be an eyewitness or may be recounting nothing but hearsay?

Sorry, you need to be able to produce this witness.

The proceedings need to continue in order to produce the witness. Otherwise, it is kind of difficult to legally produce a witness for a proceeding that is not taking place.

We dont need to produce anything.

Let me restate. If you are attempting to win the case on the merits...

That's just the point numbnuts, the case had ALREADY BEEN WON, but it was subsequently thrown out by the racist, POS, OWEbama lap dog, eric holder, and to go one step further, his racist justice department was instructed NOT to bring anymore cases against BLACKS. Evidently only whitey can be prosecuted by this racist pack of *******.

And whether you acknowledge these facts or not, doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference. It's obvious you will argue against the facts, ignore, distort and lie through your teeth, all because you are a fully programmed obamabot.
 
Last edited:
So there is a witness.

A witness who is possibly this guy and possibly not? A witness who may be an eyewitness or may be recounting nothing but hearsay?

Sorry, you need to be able to produce this witness.

The proceedings need to continue in order to produce the witness. Otherwise, it is kind of difficult to legally produce a witness for a proceeding that is not taking place.

We dont need to produce anything.

Let me restate. If you are attempting to win the case on the merits...

That's just the point numbnuts, the case had ALREADY BEEN WON, but it was subsequently thrown out by the racist, POS, OWEbama lap dog, eric holder, and to go one step further, his racist justice department was instructed NOT to bring anymore cases against BLACKS. Evidently only whitey can be prosecuted by this racist pack of *******.

And whether you acknowledge these facts or not, doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference. It's obvious you will argue against the facts, ignore, distort and lie through your teeth, all because you are a fully programmed obamabot.




At least we understand that you maintain an open mind!


OMFG! --- weakness always elicits name-calling!
 
The proceedings need to continue in order to produce the witness. Otherwise, it is kind of difficult to legally produce a witness for a proceeding that is not taking place.

We dont need to produce anything.

Let me restate. If you are attempting to win the case on the merits...

That's just the point numbnuts, the case had ALREADY BEEN WON, but it was subsequently thrown out by the racist, POS, OWEbama lap dog, eric holder, and to go one step further, his racist justice department was instructed NOT to bring anymore cases against BLACKS. Evidently only whitey can be prosecuted by this racist pack of *******.

And whether you acknowledge these facts or not, doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference. It's obvious you will argue against the facts, ignore, distort and lie through your teeth, all because you are a fully programmed obamabot.




At least we understand that you maintain an open mind!


OMFG! --- weakness always elicits name-calling!

Well yeah.

Weak in mind and body.
 
The Black Panthers are just one of many Democratic "Community Organizer" groups that will be out there intimidating and trying to rig Elections. These "Community Organizer" groups are more powerful than ever. They have one of their own in the White House for God's sake. Things are going to be ugly on Election Day. Just vote but stay vigilant. Report anything suspicious at your polling place. Don't let em steal this one.

The "FOX" is strong in this one..
 
Witness corroboration combined with the video doesn't count as evidence?

Corroboration of what? Two black men standing there? Video of what? Two black men standing there? You need to tell me, specifically, who was intimidated. If you can't, there's no case.

They crossed the line from simple poll watchers to intimidators when they allegedly spoke what they did as the witnesses reported.

What words were spoken at the polling place, to a voter, that constituted intimidation? Who were these words spoken to?

What I see is a man brandishing a weapon in his hand.

And what specific law is he breaking by holding the stick?

You simply have to have the intent.

And how praytell are you going to prove intent?
Dey got nuttin...

There is no intimidation here. How do I know? Cause you can't produce someone, to the witness stand mind you, who was actually intimidated.

Case closed.

Brandishing it in what I feel can be interpreted to be menacing.

Sorry I missed this one. What you feel is and isn't menacing is immaterial. What matters is if a voter in Philly was intimidated from voting. You have zero evidence that this happened. Indeed, the officer who asked the gentleman with the stick to leave didn't think a crime had been committed. How do I know? He didn't make an arrest.

Case closed.
bupkiss,

Try to be more humble when your ass has been handed to you in debate.
Yep, dey got zilch.

seem to be meaningless to some of you unless applied in the way YOU want. WHERE pray tell does any law state that I cannot carry a bat or nightstick with me?
Nada.

The RW nutjobs got their kookoo asses soundly HANDED to them in this thread.

But, that won't stop them. Facts and truth never stop the dishonest and the hacks.
 
There sure are a lot of people bending over backwards to excuse Democrat voter intimidation.

That wouldn't bother me so much, I mean I expect that from wingnuts, left or right. Their 'guys' can do no wrong. However, when the Department of Justice does the same, I'm upset.
 
The proceedings need to continue in order to produce the witness.

Lawyer I: Motion to dismiss your honor on the grounds that there is no complaintant and no witness to any act of intimidation.

Lawyer II: But your honor, I need the case to move forward to find out who the witness is.

Lawyer I: Is the prosecution seriously saying that this court needs to act as his investigatory arm?

Judge: It would seem so. Motion granted. Case dismissed.

No, the case was dismissed prior to any witness being legally brought forth.

I was not inferring that the case proceed without a witness.

Also, according to the same logic, it was wrong for the DoJ to dismiss the case since the defendants defaulted on their appearance.

You said you had a witness. Now you say there is no witness.
 
they were to freightened

Lawyer I: Objection, assumes facts not in evidence.

Judge: Sustained. Nimwit will refrain from such idiocy, jury will disregard.

They didnt show up to a legal proceeding, Meaning I am free to describe it at my whim.

Then add the DOJ refused to honor lawful FOIA requests and it becomes clearer.

Quit pissing upwind.

You are free to describe it at your whim. You are not free to HONESTLY describe it the way you did.

If wingnuts didn't make stuff up, they'd have nothing to say
 

Forum List

Back
Top