On 03-19-13, BOB KLAHN said to TIM RICHARDSON:   
      
      
   TR> Earls echo was `slow', `not dead'. It was still listed. You   
   TR> tried to hijack it. You claimed you `revived' it! You don't   
   TR> like the same thing you dish out coming back at you, do you?   
      
      
   BK>It was not Earl's echo when I revived it. It was unlisted for   
   BK>years.   
      
      
   BK>So, you either don't know what you are talking about or are   
   BK>lying. Either way, that does not apply to this echo. You are   
   BK>banned.   
      
      
   You are lying to cover up the fact that you posed as moderator in an echo that   
   belonged to someone else for almost a year. You got humiliated by being shown   
   to be a liar.   
      
      
   BK>Leave the echo.   
      
      
   Piss yer pants!   
      
      
   Speaking of the New Black Panther Party swinging billy clubs and intimidating   
   voters at a polling place:   
      
      
   Justice's Black Panther Lies | Judicial Watch   
      
      
   Court Rules DOJ Politicized Black Panther Case, Awards JW Court Fees   
      
      
   Judicial Watch has been confident for some time that the evidence shows that   
   political appointees at the Holder Justice Department were involved in the   
   decision to abandon the DOJ's own voter intimidation lawsuit against the New   
   Black Panther Party. And we've also been concerned that at least one high   
   ranking Justice Department official lied about it under oath.   
      
      
   And in a major victory for Judicial Watch, a federal court seems to agree with   
   our analysis of this continuing scandal.   
      
      
   The ruling came courtesy of Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court   
   for the District of Columbia in response to Judicial Watch's effort to obtain   
   attorney's fees from the Justice Department for stonewalling the release of   
   documents pertaining to the Black Panther scandal. Here's the key quote from   
   Judge Walton's ruling:   
      
      
   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.   
      
      
   So, in short, this ruling is further confirmation that political appointees at   
   Justice did interfere in the Black Panther case. Assistant AG Perez's   
   testimony was false. And the American people have a right to documents related   
   to the scandal. That's pretty much a clear-cut victory.   
      
      
   By way of review, this all started on Election Day 2008, when members of the   
   Black Panther Party stood guard at a polling station in Philadelphia, PA   
   brandishing weapons and threatening voters. A video of the incident was widely   
   distributed on the Internet. The Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit   
   against the Black Panthers, but ultimately overruled members of its own staff   
   and dismissed the majority of the charges.   
      
      
   The Black Panther lawsuit dismissal led to accusations of racism at the   
   Justice Department from within its own ranks. Former Justice Department lawyer   
   J. Christian Adams, who called the actions by Black Panthers, "the simplest   
   and most obvious violation of federal law" he had ever seen during his career   
   at the DOJ, resigned from his position as a result of the case dismissal.   
      
      
   Given the massive media attention earned by the Black Panther case dismissal,   
   people started questioning whether or not the decision was politically   
   motivated - including the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.   
      
      
   The Commission, an independent, bipartisan unit of the federal government   
   charged with investigating and reporting on civil rights issues, initiated a   
   probe of the DOJ's decision to drop its lawsuit. During the hearing, Assistant   
   AG Perez was asked directly regarding the involvement of political leaders in   
   the decision to dismiss the Black Panther case.   
      
      
   And here's what he said in his testimony:   
      
      
   COMMISSIONER KIRSANOW: Was there any political leadership involved in the   
   decision not to pursue this particular case any further than it was?   
      
      
   ASST. ATTY. GEN. PEREZ: No. The decisions were made by Loretta King in   
   consultation with Steve Rosenbaum, who is the Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney   
   General.   
      
      
   Wrong answer.   
      
      
   On September 20, JW released a draft Vaughn index prepared by the DOJ that   
   shows that top political appointees at the DOJ were involved in the decision   
   to dismiss the case. The index, which we acquired pursuant to a Freedom of   
   Information Act lawsuit, describes documents the government is withholding   
   from the public.   
      
      
   Included in the index was a description of a series of emails between   
   Assistant Deputy Attorney General Steve Rosenbaum and Deputy Associate   
   Attorney General Sam Hirsch. The back-and-forth emails occurred on April 30,   
   2009, the day before the case was dropped. Hirsch has been described by Slate   
   magazine as a "DC election lawyer who represents a lot of Democrats"� prior to   
   joining the Justice Department. Hirsch is also a former Obama donor.   
      
      
   Also among the documents were internal DOJ emails regarding the Black Panther   
   case between former Deputy Attorney General David Ogden and the Associate   
   Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, the second and third ranking officials at   
   the DOJ.   
      
      
   Here's one example: A May 10, 2009, email from Associate Attorney General   
   Perrelli to Deputy Associate Attorney General and former Democratic election   
   lawyer Sam Hirsch. "Where are we on the Black Panther case?"� Perrelli asks in   
   the subject header. The email also includes Deputy Attorney General Ogden's   
   "current thoughts on the case."�   
      
      
   So what about the top ranking official at DOJ, Attorney General Eric Holder?   
      
      
   An email from former Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, dated May   
   12, 2009, was distributed directly to Attorney General Eric Holder through   
   Odgen and Perrelli. Entitled, "Weekly Report for the Week Ending May 8, 2009,"   
   the email "Identifies matters deemed significant and highlights issues for the   
   senior offices, including an update on a planned course of action in the NBPP   
   (New Black Panther Party) litigation."   
      
      
   Evidently Holder was in the loop as well. Okay, next question: What about the   
   Obama White House?   
      
      
   Press reports reported at least nine meetings between Perrelli and White House   
   officials between March 25 and May 27, 2009, regarding the Black Panther case.   
   (JW filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit to get to the truth in   
   the matter but were unable to find evidence of a direct White House link (not   
   that Messrs Perrelli and Hirsch needed to be told what to do).)   
      
      
   So the Black Panther scandal which, we were told, was managed by low level   
   Justice officials might just go all the way to the very top.   
      
      
   As I say, JW's discoveries in this case have earned a massive amount of press   
   coverage. Here's a link to an appearance I made on the Fox News Channel's   
   "O'Reilly Factor" with Bill O'Reilly on Tuesday night. Expect the news   
   regarding this case to continue to reverberate. 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.  And it shows that we can't   
   trust the Obama Justice Department to fairly administer our nation's voting   
   and election laws.   
      
      
   We intend to continue to push for accountability.  Perez, who gave the false   
   testimony, is a leading leftist at Justice who has taken the lead in the   
   attacks on Arizona's immigration enforcement measures, attacks on election   
   integrity measures such as voter ID, and the shakedown of financial   
   institutions over dubious discriminatory lending allegations. (You can go to   
   agency's Internet site to get the full breadth of Perez's hard Left agenda.)   
      
      
   Hans Von Spakovsky, a former DOJ official now with the Heritage Foundation,   
   has been following this issue closely and writes:   
      
      
   Where is the investigation by the Justice Department's Office of Professional   
   Responsibility (OPR) of whether Perez violated his ethical and professional   
   obligations as a DOJ attorney? Will the DOJ inspector general open an   
   investigation of the possible violation by Perez of 18 U.S.C. §1621, which   
   outlaws presenting false statements under oath in official federal   
   proceedings?   
      
      
   Or will they all respectively yawn and ignore this?   
      
      
   Imagine if a conservative political appointee at DOJ had just been cited in a   
   federal court decision as having apparently testified falsely under oath. Not   
   only would it be a top headline at The New York Times and The Washington Post,   
   but the IG and OPR would be rushing to investigate. All of which is a sad   
   commentary on the liberal bias not just of the media, but of too many of the   
   offices and officials within the Justice Department who are supposed to   
   administer justice in an objective, non-political, and impartial manner.   
      
      
   We will follow up, of course.  You should, too.  Contact the Justice   
   Department, call talk radio, write letters to the editor of your local   
   newspaper, call or visit your congressman (they're all back "home"� now for a   
   few weeks).   And, of course, keep up your support of Judicial Watch, so we   
   can achieve more victories and accountability for the rule of law in corrupt   
   DC.   
      
      
      
      
   ---   
   *Durango b301 #PE*    
    * Origin: Fidonet Since 1991 Join Us: www.DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)