The Hard Truth

Journal of Political News & Constitutionalism

Archive for the ‘constitutional rights’ Category

Former U.S. DOJ Attorney: Inside the Black Panther Case

leave a comment »

July 5, 2010 from http://www.ten8.wordpress.com

Obama Administration Refuses to Prosecute ”Non-Whites” for Civil Rights Violations

From The Washington Times

Friday, June 25, 2010

By J. Christian Adams  

On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.

The federal voter-intimidation statutes we used against the New Black Panthers were enacted because America never realized genuine racial equality in elections. Threats of violence characterized elections from the end of the Civil War until the passage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965. Before the Voting Rights Act, blacks seeking the right to vote, and those aiding them, were victims of violence and intimidation. But unlike the Southern legal system, Southern violence did not discriminate. Black voters were slain, as were the white champions of their cause. Some of the bodies were tossed into bogs and in one case in Philadelphia, Miss., they were buried together in an earthen dam.

Based on my firsthand experiences, I believe the dismissal of the Black Panther case was motivated by a lawless hostility toward equal enforcement of the law. Others still within the department share my assessment. The department abetted wrongdoers and abandoned law-abiding citizens victimized by the New Black Panthers. The dismissal raises serious questions about the department‘s enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation into the dismissal and the DOJ‘s skewed enforcement priorities. Attorneys who brought the case are under subpoena to testify, but the department ordered us to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptable legal limbo.

The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the “facts and law” did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let’s all hope this administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt dismissal.

Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal – Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum – did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation. Just as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. admitted that he did not read the Arizona immigration law before he condemned it, Mr. Rosenbaum admitted that he had not bothered to read the most important department documents detailing the investigative facts and applicable law in the New Black Panther case. Christopher Coates, the former Voting Section chief, was so outraged at this dereliction of responsibility that he actually threw the memos at Mr. Rosenbaum in the meeting where they were discussing the dismissal of the case. The department subsequently removed all of Mr. Coates’ responsibilities and sent him to South Carolina.

Mr. Perez also inaccurately testified to the House Judiciary Committee that federal “Rule 11″ required the dismissal of the lawsuit. Lawyers know that Rule 11 is an ethical obligation to bring only meritorious claims, and such a charge by Mr. Perez effectively challenges the ethics and professionalism of the five attorneys who commenced the case. Yet the attorneys who brought the case were voting rights experts and would never pursue a frivolous matter. Their experience in election law far surpassed the experience of the officials who ordered the dismissal.

Some have called the actions in Philadelphia an isolated incident, not worthy of federal attention. To the contrary, the Black Panthers in October 2008 announced a nationwide deployment for the election. We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere, not only in November 2008, but also during the Democratic primaries, where they targeted white Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters. In any event, the law clearly prohibits even isolated incidents of voter intimidation.

Others have falsely claimed that no voters were affected. Not only did the evidence rebut this claim, but the law does not require a successful effort to intimidate; it punishes even the attempt.

Most disturbing, the dismissal is part of a creeping lawlessness infusing our government institutions. Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.

Some of my co-workers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. Less charitable individuals called it “payback time.” Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the Voting Section.

Refusing to enforce the law equally means some citizens are protected by the law while others are left to be victimized, depending on their race. Core American principles of equality before the law and freedom from racial discrimination are at risk. Hopefully, equal enforcement of the law is still a point of bipartisan, if not universal, agreement. However, after my experience with the New Black Panther dismissal and the attitudes held by officials in the Civil Rights Division, I am beginning to fear the era of agreement over these core American principles has passed.

J. Christian Adams is a lawyer based in Virginia who served as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department until this month. He blogs at electionlawcenter.com.

Advertisements

Written by bkl1

July 5, 2010 at 12:29 pm

NUGENT: Black-Robers Need to Read the Constitution

leave a comment »

July 5, 2010 from http://www.ten8.wordpress.com

The Words Are So Simple This Rocker Knows What They Mean

From The Washington Times, Thursday, July 1, 2010

By Ted Nugent

With the beautiful Atlantic Ocean whitecapping out my hotel window on Fort Lauderdale Beach this fine American rock ‘n ‘roll summer morning, the only thing more beautiful is my handsome, oh-so-utilitarian Glock Model 20, 10 mm semi-auto pistol and 12 loaded high-capacity magazines sitting on the little table next to me. I am such a man for all seasons. Can you say cocked, locked and ready to rock, doc?

I’m on my 47th annual blitzkrieg rock ‘n’ roll tour across America. I have many guitars, oversized amplifiers and plenty of guns and ammo. The American Boy Scout lives. Prepared is good. Unprepared is for losers. Know it.

By all intellectually honest considerations, my gift of life qualifies as supreme, and not only worthy of defending, but clearly demanding to be defended by all moral beings.

And speaking of losers, sadly and frighteningly, some weasels made their way onto the Supreme Court who apparently do not agree with me. Fortunately, I am a self-made man, have a firm grasp of logic, self-evident truth and its history, and I wait for no one to authorize my pure instinct to defend myself and loved ones. When in doubt, I whip it out.

Like many real Americans across this great country, while we are relieved and pleased with the McDonald v. Chicago ruling of five Supreme Court justices, I am appalled that any clear-thinking human being, much less an American sitting on the Supreme Court of the United States, could possibly believe that individual Americans have no right to self-defense. That four of the nine justices believe this is a monumental indictment against the very precepts of the American experiment, the premise of God-given individual rights and a cruel bastardization of our sacred U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

If anyone thinks for one minute that I am waiting for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg or anyone else to give me the green light to practice the religion of my choice or to speak my individual mind or to write what I damn well please in song or on the pages of newspapers, magazines or websites, he has another painful thing coming.

Heads up, black-robers. I am in charge of my life, survival, thoughts, statements, writings, religious practices and, without a shadow of a doubt, my God-given individual right to keep and bear arms to defend myself from evil in any shape or form. With all due respect, I see and know clear and present evil in tyranny, dictatorships, emperors, kings, despots, slave drivers and the history of abuse of power. And I defy it out of hand.

If ever there was an abuse of power, it would be most egregious when people are voted into public office by “we the people” of America and those elected people have the audacity to attempt to deny me the right to self-defense, then have the unmitigated pomposity to steal more of my hard-earned tax dollars to hire their own armed security detail with my money while forcing me into unarmed helplessness. It must stop now. Know it.

With the Mao Zedong fan club in the White House, a clueless, rookie president hellbent on spending like a maniac as unprecedented debt piles up all around him, and every other imaginable indicator of an America turned upside-down, it comes as no surprise that this insane level of madness has metastasized into a Supreme Court where the Bill of Rights is being trashed by clueless, dangerously insulated old people intentionally disconnected from the real world, where the possession of a firearm often means the difference between life and death for good, innocent Americans every day of the year.

Whose side are these “justices” on?

To dismiss this self-evident truth is literally to side with a failed court system and the evil perpetrators of its insidious, engineered recidivism, virtually guaranteeing stacks of dead victims at the hands of released monsters, while the supreme black-robers go about their professionally protected little lives.

Tell me these four Supreme Court justices don’t know this. Tell me they qualify to have any variation of the term “justice” associated with their names in any way, shape or form. Tell me you believe in forced unarmed helplessness of good American families. Tell me you care. Ask me if I do.

We’d better get crackin’, America. The Supreme Court indecision on the Second Amendment (and I don’t want to hear about the close call) is further proof that the American way is being attacked like never before. I hope all Americans are raising hell like I am, letting elected officials know that we are deeply offended by the course America is on. Fedzilla in all its ugly forms is beyond out of control. The Mao Zedong fan club is moving forward at a breakneck pace to disassemble fundamentally the American dream. It must be stopped.

This blatant disregard for the most basic human right and instinct to self-defense is as bad as it gets. It is time to clean house. Time for real hope and change. I hope we change back to the real America as fast as possible. My life is worth protecting, and my American dream is worth fighting to get back.

“To keep” means it’s mine – you can’t have it. “Bear arms” can only mean one thing: I’ve got some on me right here, right now. “Shall not be infringed” also needs no interpretation, unless you just don’t get it. Get it. And get it right.

Ted Nugent is an unstoppable American rock ‘n’ roll, sporting and political activist icon. He is author of “Ted, White & Blue: The Nugent Manifesto” and “God, Guns and Rock ‘N’ Roll” (Regnery Publishing).

Written by bkl1

July 5, 2010 at 12:26 pm

SAF Sues To Stop Illegal North Carolina “Emergency Powers Gun Law”

leave a comment »

NorthCarolina Confiscates and Bans Firearms

The state of North Carolina crushed the Second Amendment putting law abiding citizens in danger during times of need. The unconstitutional “Emergency Powers Gun law” prohibits individuals from carrying firearms and blocks the sale of guns and ammunitions when the state chooses to declare an “emergency.” Firearms are our only means of self-defense in times of chaos, crime and the endangerment of our families. SAF is suing the state of North Carolina for destroying our Second Amendment rights and putting our lives and our families lives in danger.

During an emergency is when citizens need the Second Amendment most. We all saw what happened during hurricane Katrina. The government confiscated guns from law abiding Americans who only wanted to defend their homes and loved ones. Rampant crime and chaos erupted. Innocent people were murdered, raped and left for dead. Criminals grabbed guns, looted homes and terrorized families. Without guns regular Americans were left defenseless on the bayou. Ironically, our government told the residents of New Orleans they would be safer without guns. That is like telling them to carry a knife to a gun fight.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the case brought by The Second Amendment Foundation known as McDonald vs. Chicago and determined that citizens have a right to bear arms and defend themselves. In a historic ruling, the court affirmed that the Second Amendment could be incorporated into states. The Second Amendment not only gives citizens the ability to defend themselves, it also protects Americans from OVERREACHING governments that think they can adequately protect their citizens. Like any other task the government thinks it can handle, its outcome is always a GIGANTIC failure. Historically, the government has done a disastrous job at ensuring the safety of Americans. You should NOT trust the government to protect you.

The “Emergency Powers Gun Law” is ILLEGAL. The Supreme Court just ruled that the Second Amendment MUST BE APPLIED AND UPHELD BY ALL STATES. “The Emergency Powers Gun Law” does not uphold the recent Supreme Court ruling; it has destroyed a hard earned victory for gun owners across America. “Through this lawsuit in North Carolina,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb,” we intend to show that state emergency powers statutes that allow government officials to suspend fundamental civil rights, including the right to bear arms, are unconstitutional and therefore should be nullified. Citizens do not surrender their civil rights just because of a natural or man-made disaster.”

We WON but protecting our gun rights is expensive and it’s impossible to put a price tag on. This time freedom will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to defend your Second Amendment rights in this challenge by North Carolina’s “Emergency Powers Gun Ban.” SAF stands firmly committed to defend these rights and we are asking you to stand with us and we need your help to stop the anti-freedom extremists now!

Written by bkl1

July 5, 2010 at 12:21 pm

He’s heard it before

leave a comment »

Opinion

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Having grown up in Soviet-controlled Poland, I remember the Communist Party bosses branding the Solidarity-led protests in the 1980s as “unpatriotic.”

Over the years, I have heard similar statements from regimes in other Communist-ruled countries in Europe (as well as from China, North Korea and Myanmar, the former Burma) that used such statements to disparage anyone who dared to disobey the party’s rule.

Hearing the same ploy used by the speaker of the U.S. House comes as some surprise.

 Pawel Kalinski

Pine

A Pandora’s box on speech

leave a comment »

By George F. Will Thursday, August 20, 2009
From the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review August 21, 2009

WASHINGTON

It began with the proliferation of campus “speech codes” ostensibly designed to promote civility but frequently used to enforce political conformity. The new censorship accelerated with the McCain-Feingold legislation that licenses government regulation of the quantity, timing and content of speech in political campaigns.

Now the attack on First Amendment speech protections has taken an audacious new turn, illustrated by a case being pondered by a Texas judge. He is being asked to collaborate in the suppression of a book, and even of expressions of approval of the book.

The book arises from an abuse of the power of eminent domain by the city of Freeport, Texas, but the story really begins in Connecticut. There, in 2000, New London’s city government condemned the property of middle-class homeowners in an unblighted neighborhood for the purpose of getting the property into the hands of commercial interests that would pay more taxes. In 2005, in the Kelo case, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld, 5-4, New London’s rapaciousness as a constitutional taking of property for what the Fifth Amendment calls a “public use.”

When Kelo was decided, H. Walker Royall, a Dallas developer, already had designs on some property that for more than a decade has belonged to the Gore family shrimping business in coastal Freeport. In 2003, Royall signed an agreement with that city’s government to build a yacht marina, hotel and condominiums using property the city would seize by eminent domain.

The day after the Supreme Court made its Kelo mistake, Freeport intensified its pressure against the Gores, whose stout resistance caught the gimlet eye of Carla Main. An experienced journalist, Main has recounted the case in her book “Bulldozed: ‘Kelo,’ Eminent Domain and the American Lust for Land.” Her thesis is that many “takings” of property for economic development are taking a terrible toll on the rights of everyday Americans.

In October 2008, Royall sued Main and her publisher (Encounter Books), seeking monetary damages and a ban on further production and distribution of the book. He also sued the Galveston newspaper that reviewed the book and the reviewer. A judge dismissed, on jurisdictional grounds, Royall’s suit against Richard Epstein, professor of law at the University of Chicago and New York University, whose offense was a dust-jacket endorsement of the book as a report on an “unholy alliance” between government and a private interest.

Royall’s suit charging Main with defamation is, her lawyers document, riddled with mischaracterizations of what Main writes and about whom she writes it, and ignores long-established criteria of defamation law, which holds that a statement is not actionable as defamatory if the speaker obviously is expressing a subjective view or an interpretation, theory, conjecture or surmise.

Indeed, so slapdash are Royall’s accusations against Main that his suit seems to reflect nothing more substantial than his dislike of her opinions and those of people she accurately quotes. It seems intended to chill commentary on eminent domain abuse by exposing commentators to the steep costs of deflecting even frivolous litigation.

The Supreme Court is blameworthy for two entangled abuses. It diluted property rights in the Kelo case and it weakened freedom of speech by not overturning McCain-Feingold. Fortunately, in an unusual Sept. 9 session, the court will hear, for a second time, oral arguments in a case arising from that law’s speech restrictions.

The court should be cognizant of the attacks on property rights that its Kelo decision incited. And on Sept. 9 it should remember the increasing resort to restrictions of speech. McCain-Feingold is both a symptom and an encouragement of such restrictions.

Written by bkl1

August 21, 2009 at 11:59 am

Hostile bloggers facing fines, jail?

leave a comment »

Posted: May 06, 2009
10:39 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

1ST AMENDMENT ON TRIAL

Proposal ‘comes close to making it federal offense to log onto Internet’



Jail cell

A new proposal in Congress is threatening fines and jail time for what it calls “cyberbullying” – communications that include e-mails and text messages that “cause substantial emotional distress.”

The vague generalities are included in H.R. 1966 by California Democrat Linda Sanchez and about a dozen co-sponsors.

But it already is being condemned as unconstitutional, unrealistic and probably ineffectual.

At Wired.com, in a report labeled “Threat Level,” writer David Kravets criticized the plan to demand “up to two years in prison for those whose electronic speech is meant to ‘coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress.'”

“Instead of prison, perhaps we should say gulag,” he wrote.

(Story continues below)

Such limits never would pass First Amendment muster, “unless the U.S. Constitution was altered without us knowing,” he wrote. “So Sanchez, and the 14 other lawmakers who signed on to the proposal are grandstanding to show the public they care about children and are opposed to cyberbullying.”

The plan is labeled the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, after the 13-year-old Meier, whose suicide last year reportedly was prompted by a woman who utilized the MySpace social networking site to send the teen critical messages.

Speak out now against limits on your speech!

The defendant in the case, Lori Drew, was accused under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

“Sanchez’s bill goes way beyond cyberbullying and comes close to making it a federal offense to log onto the Internet or use the telephone,” Kravets wrote. “The methods of communication where hostile speech is banned include e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones and text messages.”

“We can’t say what we think of Sanchez’s proposal,” he said. “Doing so would clearly get us two years in solitary confinement.”

Wrote a contributor to the Wired forum page, “If passed, this legislation could be easily abused with the effect of criminalizing all criticism. You probably [couldn’t] even criticize the legislation itself because it would cause Sen. Sanchez emotional distress or possibly be considered a form of intimidation.”

The bill, which has been referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, states, “Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.”

It states: “Cyberbullying can cause psychological harm, including depression; negatively impact academic performance, safety, and the well-being of children in school; force children to change schools; and in some cases lead to extreme violent behavior, including murder and suicide.”

Teen homeschooler jailed under Patriot Act

leave a comment »

Posted: May 04, 2009
8:31 pm Eastern

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

HOMELAND INSECURITY

FBI holds 10th-grader for months with little contact from family


Ashton Lundeby

A 16-year-old homeschooled boy from North Carolina was taken away from his home in handcuffs two months ago and has been held by the FBI in Indiana ever since, a victim, his mother claims, of the Patriot Act spun out of control.

According to Annette Lundeby of Oxford, N.C., armed FBI agents and local police stormed her home around 10 p.m. on March 5, looking for her son, Ashton. The officers presented a federal search warrant and seized the tenth-grader’s computer, cell phone and bank statements.

Ashton was then taken to a juvenile facility in South Bend, Ind., charged with making a bomb threat in Indiana from his home computer.

His mother, however, told Raleigh’s WRAL-TV that she argued with the authorities, claiming someone must have hacked into her son’s IP address and used it to make crank calls. The agents’ search, she claims, also failed to uncover any trace of bomb-making materials.

“Undoubtedly, they were given false information,” Lundeby told the station, “or they would not have had 12 agents in my house with a widow and two children and three cats.”

Allowed little access to see her son over the last two months, facing a court date that keeps being pushed back and given no information by FBI agents sitting behind a gag order on the case, Lundeby now says the USA Patriot Act has unjustly imprisoned an innocent boy and stripped her son of due process.

“We have no rights under the Patriot Act to even defend them, because the Patriot Act basically supersedes the Constitution,” she told WRAL-TV. “It wasn’t intended to drag your barely 16-year-old, 120-pound son out in the middle of the night on a charge that we can’t even defend.”

Passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center, the USA Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism – or P.A.T.R.I.O.T. – Act armed law enforcement with new tools to detect and prevent terrorism. Among other measures, it better enables interagency cooperation and allows law enforcement a wider array of technological and surveillance tools to more quickly and stealthily investigate terrorist threats.

Dan Boyse, a former U.S attorney not connected to the case, explained to WRAL-TV how Ashton Lundeby could have been swept up by the Patriot Act.

“They’re saying that ‘we feel this individual is a terrorist or an enemy combatant against the United States, and we’re going to suspend all of those due process rights because this person is an enemy of the United States,'” Boyce told the station.

Boyce theorized that if an FBI agent came to the conclusion that Lundeby was a serious terrorist threat, the usual rules of law enforcement don’t apply.

“There’s nothing a matter of public record,” Boyce said. “All those normal rights are just suspended in the air.”

Ashton’s mother told the television station, “Never in my worst nightmare did I ever think that it would be my own government that I would have to protect my children from. This is the United States, and I feel like I live in a third world country now.”

The WRAL-TV news report, including Annette Lundeby’s comments, can be seen below:

According to the WRAL-TV report, because a federal judge has issued a gag order in the case, the U.S. attorney in Indiana cannot comment on Lundeby, nor can the FBI.