Black panthers blocking intimidating voters the most credible adult dating site
He describes the Panthers’ conduct as “The new Thernstrom gives Adams the back of her hand: He is, she says, “disgruntled,” as though her attempts to divine his motives were dispositive.
Such mind-reading doesn’t have to meet the same “very high” standards as civil-rights law.
Unlike Thernstrom, he relied on his eyes and ears, not his intuition about “prime spots” for intimidating white voters.
As former Justice Department attorney Hans von Spakovsky — a longtime veteran of the Civil Divison — put it: “I have never, ever heard of the Division refusing to take a default judgment, especially in a situation where the defendants are basically admitting they violated the law.” I would go further.
In my nearly 20 years as a federal prosecutor, there were innumerable times when the Justice Department opted not to bring charges, despite convincing evidence of guilt.
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.
In , a book she published last year (just after writing her condemnatory letter to the Justice Department), she made a point in the acknowledgments of thanking “J.
Christian Adams,” one of the handful of people who “generously” provided “painstaking reviews” of her manuscript, and “caught errors and made valuable suggestions.” Plainly, her NRO op-ed could also have benefited from a once-over by Adams.
In fact, you apparently don’t even have to be in the room.
Readers will be surprised to learn that Thernstrom didn’t bother to attend the Commission proceeding in which Adams testified.
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.
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.Tags: Adult Dating, affair dating, sex dating