New Black Panther Party Leader - ... you want freedom ... kill some crackers

[Ravi]

You dont charge people when the evidence is not there.

Then why did they?

You seem to be forgetting the fact the DoJ did, in fact, charge the offenders, it went to trial, the defendants didn't show up to defend themselves against what you claim didn't happen, so DoJ had won the trial already.

Then, after they'd won the case, Eric Holder's DoJ decides there was insufficient evidence. Normal people everywhere call bullshit.

Actually, they filed a civil suit against this dude and his compatriots. Not quite the same thing as charging them.

But if you think filing a civil suit is the same as a judgment of guilt...how droll.

 

[Annie]

You dont charge people when the evidence is not there.

Then why did they?

You seem to be forgetting the fact the DoJ did, in fact, charge the offenders, it went to trial, the defendants didn't show up to defend themselves against what you claim didn't happen, so DoJ had won the trial already.

Then, after they'd won the case, Eric Holder's DoJ decides there was insufficient evidence. Normal people everywhere call bullshit.

Actually, they filed a civil suit against this dude and his compatriots. Not quite the same thing as charging them.

But if you think filing a civil suit is the same as a judgment of guilt...how droll.

DOJ brought a civil suit? Based upon what in the Voter's Protection? What damages were they seeking?

 

[Mini 14]

Actually, they filed a civil suit against this dude and his compatriots. Not quite the same thing as charging them.

But if you think filing a civil suit is the same as a judgment of guilt...how droll.

Let that soak in, people.

Then thank the Creator, for letting us all be witness to the dumbest thing EVER posted on the Internet.

Wow!

 

[daveman]

You dont charge people when the evidence is not there.

Then why did they?

You seem to be forgetting the fact the DoJ did, in fact, charge the offenders, it went to trial, the defendants didn't show up to defend themselves against what you claim didn't happen, so DoJ had won the trial already.

Then, after they'd won the case, Eric Holder's DoJ decides there was insufficient evidence. Normal people everywhere call bullshit.

Actually, they filed a civil suit against this dude and his compatriots. Not quite the same thing as charging them.

But if you think filing a civil suit is the same as a judgment of guilt...how droll.

You miss the point. They felt they had sufficient evidence when they filed suit. Suddenly, the evidence evaporated?

 

[Ravi]

Then why did they?

You seem to be forgetting the fact the DoJ did, in fact, charge the offenders, it went to trial, the defendants didn't show up to defend themselves against what you claim didn't happen, so DoJ had won the trial already.

Then, after they'd won the case, Eric Holder's DoJ decides there was insufficient evidence. Normal people everywhere call bullshit.

Actually, they filed a civil suit against this dude and his compatriots. Not quite the same thing as charging them.

But if you think filing a civil suit is the same as a judgment of guilt...how droll.

You miss the point. They felt they had sufficient evidence when they filed suit. Suddenly, the evidence evaporated?

It's possible they reviewed the evidence and saw that they were wasting their time. I would certainly reach that conclusion if the evidence were merely the tape made by the Republican poll watcher.

But they did put an injunction on the guy in question...not exactly dropping the case.

 

[daveman]

Actually, they filed a civil suit against this dude and his compatriots. Not quite the same thing as charging them.

But if you think filing a civil suit is the same as a judgment of guilt...how droll.

You miss the point. They felt they had sufficient evidence when they filed suit. Suddenly, the evidence evaporated?

It's possible they reviewed the evidence and saw that they were wasting their time. I would certainly reach that conclusion if the evidence were merely the tape made by the Republican poll watcher.

You would reach that conclusion no matter what the tape showed.

But they did put an injunction on the guy in question...not exactly dropping the case.

Yeah...and he'll be back to his ol' paramilitary-gear-and-waving-a-weapon tricks in time for the next Presidential election.

Ooooh. Punished him real bad, didn't they?

 

[Ravi]

There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.

 

[Mini 14]

There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.

Ravi,

I have some black neighbors.

If I go out in the yard tonight, put on a white robe and hood, and light a 7 foot cross in my own front yard, would that be intimidating?

 

[Tech_Esq]

There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.

The court disagreed with you on summary judgment and found that the government had proved its case of voter intimidation. The case was withdrawn in the sentencing phase.

So, you would be wrong on that point. If there were no voter intimidation, the court would not have found the was.

 

[KissMy]

truthmatters seems to be a racist when it comes to voter intimidation:

The bitch says:

It seems the republican masses dont care what the republican party does to win elections.

I wonder why the "liberal" media refuses to report on these repeted criminal acts against American voters?

So, to truthmatters, men in uniforms outside a polling booth, making threatening comments and holding a weapon aren't intimidating....

... but GOP asking that peope identify themselves before voting is intimidating.

Racist much Truth?

The racist black bitch calls the TEA party members intimidating terrorist but condones this action.

 

[Ravi]

There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.

Ravi,

I have some black neighbors.

If I go out in the yard tonight, put on a white robe and hood, and light a 7 foot cross in my own front yard, would that be intimidating?

To me? No...but if you did it on one of your black neighbor's lawns more than likely.

 

[daveman]

There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.

You seem to think that the video is all the testimony there is.

It isn't.

 

[Ravi]

There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.

The court disagreed with you on summary judgment and found that the government had proved its case of voter intimidation. The case was withdrawn in the sentencing phase.

So, you would be wrong on that point. If there were no voter intimidation, the court would not have found the was.

The civil suit was filed but never carried through. So there was no proof of anything.

 

[Annie]

There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.

The court disagreed with you on summary judgment and found that the government had proved its case of voter intimidation. The case was withdrawn in the sentencing phase.

So, you would be wrong on that point. If there were no voter intimidation, the court would not have found the was.

The civil suit was filed but never carried through. So there was no proof of anything.

DOJ does not bring civil suits. They brought criminal complaints regarding voter intimidation through the civil rights division.

 

[Tech_Esq]

There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.

The court disagreed with you on summary judgment and found that the government had proved its case of voter intimidation. The case was withdrawn in the sentencing phase.

So, you would be wrong on that point. If there were no voter intimidation, the court would not have found the was.

The civil suit was filed but never carried through. So there was no proof of anything.

Wrong. Summary judgment was entered in the case.

 

[daveman]

There is no evidence of voter intimidation on the video. It really is that simple.

The court disagreed with you on summary judgment and found that the government had proved its case of voter intimidation. The case was withdrawn in the sentencing phase.

So, you would be wrong on that point. If there were no voter intimidation, the court would not have found the was.

The civil suit was filed but never carried through. So there was no proof of anything.

Wrong.

April 1:
The day the Black Panthers miss their deadline to contest the charges against them, Mr. Perrelli meets at the White House with Deputy White House Counsel Cassandra Butts, herself a former lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
April 2:
With no objection yet from Ms. King, the clerk for U.S. District Judge Stewart R. Dalzell enters the default judgment against all four original defendants.
April 8:
Mr. Perrelli and fellow Justice Department political appointee Spencer Overton again meet with Ms. Butts at the White House. Mr. Overton is the author of "Stealing Democracy: The New Politics of Voter Suppression," which criticizes Republican efforts at "ballot security." Mr. Overton is a noted critic of requiring voters to show identification at the polls.
April 17:
Judge Dalzell issues an order recognizing that the Black Panthers were in default and giving Justice until May 1 to file their official Motion for Default Judgment.

 

[Immanuel]

He's a liar. I just watched an older video of him.





New Black Panther Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow. Unbelievable that a smart man like Holder would stick his neck out for these creeps. There's got to be more to this. NAACP? Acorn? Project Vote?

I wouldn't mind seeing the video you "just watched"

Kambon appeared to me to be evil as in on the lines of Adolf Hitler kind of evil, but Shabazz appeared well spoken and quite frankly likable.

Immie

Well spoken - yes. I'm sure Hitler was well-spoken too. Likable? He is head of a KKK like organization. Immie, c'mon.

My bad. The video I watched was of "Minister Malik Shabazz" not "Attorney Malik Shabazz". Sheez. This Shabazz family certainly has some racist relatives. lol

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4-RKipPLyE&feature=related]YouTube - Black Panther Minister Malik - The white man is not your friend[/ame]

I have not yet watched the video in this quote but (now that my headache is gone and I have had 14 hours of sleep) I wanted to comment on this:

Well spoken - yes. I'm sure Hitler was well-spoken too. Likable? He is head of a KKK like organization. Immie, c'mon.

My comments about the interview with the Dr. Malik Shabazz are based only upon his appearance in the Fox News Interview and I must say that in that interview, the man seemed very likable. He did not appear to be a racist. There was no ranting of any kind. No hate speech. He simply did a very good job of defending his organization in a respectable manner.

I have three pictures of the NBPP. One is the picture of Dr. Shabazz sitting through an interview with Fox News and presenting his case in a manner deserving respect and the other two are the two individuals standing outside a Philadelphia polling place obviously trying to intimidate voters and the guy (who if I am not mistaken was one of the two standing outside the polling place) shouting that if blacks want freedom they have to kill white people.

Obviously the organization contains racists and I suspect it holds quite a few maybe Dr. Shabazz is also a racist who lied in the interview, but from that interview alone the man did present a good case and he appeared to be reasonable.

Immie

 

[mudwhistle]

Actually, they filed a civil suit against this dude and his compatriots. Not quite the same thing as charging them.

But if you think filing a civil suit is the same as a judgment of guilt...how droll.

You miss the point. They felt they had sufficient evidence when they filed suit. Suddenly, the evidence evaporated?

It's possible they reviewed the evidence and saw that they were wasting their time. I would certainly reach that conclusion if the evidence were merely the tape made by the Republican poll watcher.

But they did put an injunction on the guy in question...not exactly dropping the case.

That's not how it happened.

Bush DOJ filed a civil complaint and won a judgement.....Obama dropped the case afterwards.

 

[Immanuel]

I bet half of you have not heard anything about this....

Sad thing is some liberals on this board won't have a probably with this....

http://politisite.com/2010/07/07/vi...om-youre-going-to-have-to-kill-some-crackers/

This video had nothing to do with the case you fool.

You dont seem to understand the justice system very well.

Coming from someone like you, who doesn't have any idea what the word allegation means, that is absolutely hilarious.

Immie

 

[mudwhistle]

I bet half of you have not heard anything about this....

Sad thing is some liberals on this board won't have a probably with this....

http://politisite.com/2010/07/07/vi...om-youre-going-to-have-to-kill-some-crackers/

This video had nothing to do with the case you fool.

You dont seem to understand the justice system very well.

The video is what is called video evidence...or exhibit number one.

Concrete video evidence is admissible in court.

The guilty parties were positively identified and they were videoed making threats and welding weapons.

Open and shut case.