Big Ol’ Main Scream Fails To Report Again
avatar

Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary

Dismissed U.S. attorneys summary (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A federal court has ruled the lawyers in one government department can’t hit their rear with  a boxcar full bass fiddles when it comes to recognizing wrong-doing on the part of criminals within and without the US Department of Justice. And when it comes to being impartial

We all remember the voter intimidation suffered at the batons and tongues of the New Black Panthers and if we kept up on our reading, listening and viewing, we know AG Eric Holder and his band of inept imbeciles ultimately refused to prosecute the cases.

Some real lawyers for the people have just been awarded attorney fees after the court determined there was interference by some of Obama’s political appointees.

A federal court in Washington, DC, held last week that political appointees appointed by President Obama did interfere with the Department of Justice’s prosecution of the New Black Panther Party.

The ruling came as part of a motion by the conservative legal watch dog group Judicial Watch, who had sued the DOJ in federal court to enforce a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for documents pertaining to the the New Black Panthers case. Judicial Watch had secured many previously unavailable documents through their suit against DOJ and were now suing for attorneys’ fees.

The judge seemed to have little problem in separating truth from fiction and had this to say in part:

The documents reveal that political appointees within DOJ were conferring about the status and resolution of the New Black Panther Party case in the days preceding the DOJ’s dismissal of claims in that case, which would appear to contradict Assistant Attorney General Perez’s testimony that political leadership was not involved in that decision. Surely the public has an interest in documents that cast doubt on the accuracy of government officials’ representations regarding the possible politicization of agency decision-making.

In sum, the Court concludes that three of the four fee entitlement factors weigh in favor of awarding fees to Judicial Watch. Therefore, Judicial Watch is both eligible and entitled to fees and costs, and the Court must now consider the reasonableness of Judicial Watch’s requested award.

The rest of this article harkens back to the beginning of the problems in 2008:

The New Black Panthers case stems from a Election Day 2008 incident where two members of the New Black Panther Party were filmed outside a polling place intimidating voters and poll watchers by brandishing a billy club. Justice Department lawyers investigated the case, filed charges, and when the Panthers failed to respond, a federal court in Philadelphia entered a “default” against all the Panthers defendants. But after Obama was sworn in, the Justice Department reversed course, dismissed charges against three of the defendants, and let the fourth off with a narrowly tailored restraining order.

“The Court’s decision is another piece of evidence showing the Obama Justice Department is run by individuals who have a problem telling the truth,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The decision shows that we can’t trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation’s voting and election laws.”

UPDATE: An earlier version of this post reported that the decision was released today. It was released last week.

Thanks to The Washington Examiner and their reporter Conn Carroll.

Don’t look for this in any of the major media outlets (print or otherwise).

Enhanced by Zemanta
Bookmark the permalink.