OK, maybe I don’t understand the law in the US.

On January 7, 2009, the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division filed a civil complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that defendants Minister King Samir Shabazz, Jerry Jackson, Malik Zulu Shabazz, and the NBPP violated the Voting Rights Act by directing or engaging in, or attempting to direct or engage in,coercion, threats, and intimidation toward poll workers and voters at a polling place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania during the November 4, 2008 federal general election.

Now, in my mind in order to prove “directing or engaging in, or attempting to direct or engage in, coercion, threats, and intimidation toward poll workers and voters” does need to have a victim to come forward.

Now, after the defendants failed to answer the complaint, the clerk of
court duly entered defaults against all four defendants.

Default what? I guess I don’t understand. However it seems to me that 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, the DOJ dismissed the case.

So there was already a case, and it was already pursued. In fact the investigation says that “the decision to initiate the NBPP case was based upon a good faith assessment of the facts and the law.”

It is not second hand that we see that just before the final judgement the DOJ dismissed the case for two defendants, and reduces the sentencing for the other two. This is the record. They had defaults, and they dismissed them.

I don’t know what I am missing. I am getting that from the DOJ investigation. Roll in the testimony of J Christian Adams AND Bartle Bull and you have evidence that the DOJ did not fullfill their duties as it relates to the Civil Right act and section 11 specifically.

Evidence mind you. However this DOJ investigation of itself says there is not evidence.

Seems weird.