DoJ Voting Rights attorney resigns over Black Panther stonewall

When I read about Assistant Secretary of State Michael Posner's apology to the Communist Chinese "human rights" representatives for Arizona's new immigration law, it occurred to me that one of the most egregious human rights violations in this country in recent memory was summarily dismissed by the Obama Justice Department.  You remember this, don't you?



I wrote about the Justice Department's scandalous handling of this 2008 voter intimidation case in Philadelphia here and here.  Basically the Justice Department decided to drop the case after winning a default summary judgment.  It also ordered two Justice attorneys not to comply with federal subpoenas from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights regarding the case.  Well it looks like we're about to learn the rest of the story.  From The Washington Examiner (via Rick Moran at American Thinker):

A trial attorney with the Department of Justice’s Voting Rights Section has resigned, citing concerns about the government’s refusal to prosecute a case involving voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party. A letter of resignation obtained by The Washington Examiner from a former Justice Department employee makes clear DOJ has refused to allow attorneys in the Voting Rights Section to testify before the congressionally-chartered bipartisan U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, despite subpoenas that could result in their being held in contempt.

In his letter of resignation, J. Christian Adams said:

On the other hand, the events surrounding the dismissal of United States v. New Black Panther Party, et al., after the trial team sought and obtained an entry of default, has subjected me, Mr. Christopher Coates, and potentially at some point, all members of the team, to a subpoena from the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The subpoena is based on an explicit federal statute and seeks answers about why the case was dismissed.

I have incurred significant personal expense in retaining a number of separate attorneys and firms regarding this subpoena in order to protect my interests and advise me about my personal legal obligation to comply with the subpoena. Over the last few months, one of my attorneys has had multiple communications with Federal Programs regarding the subpoena. My attorney suggested to them that the Department should file a motion in district court to quash the subpoena and thereby resolve conclusively any question about my obligation to comply.

Months ago, my attorney advised the Department that a motion to quash would be welcome, and that I would assert no objection to the motion. Further, my attorney has explicitly sought to ascertain whether Executive Privilege has been invoked regarding the decisions of individuals not in the Voting Section to order the dismissal of the case. If Executive Privilege has been asserted, or will be, obviously I would not comply with the subpoena. These options would provide some conclusive legal certainly about the extent of my obligation to comply with a subpoena issued pursuant to a federal statute. Instead, we have been ordered not to comply with the subpoena, citing a federal regulation (emphasis mine).

Adams also cites his knowledge of the criminal character and “violent tendencies of” members of the New Black Panther Party, saying:

As you also know, the defendants in the New Black Panther lawsuit have become increasingly belligerent in their rhetoric toward the attorneys who brought the case. (See eg., April 23, 2010 statement of Malik Zulu Shabazz,http://www.newblackpanther.com/usccrphony case statement.pdf, describing the “phony case” brought by “the modern day racist lynch mob seeking to hang what [we] think .are [our] modern slaves.”) Their grievances toward us generally echo the assertions that the facts and law did not support the lawsuit against them, ab initio. Knowing intimately the criminal character and violent tendencies of the members of New Black Panther Party, it is my profound hope that these assertions are tempered.

Jennifer Rubin concludes that things are about to get really interesting:

All this suggests that once he is free from the constraints of his superiors, Adams intends to tell his story. When he does, I expect we will hear that attorneys placed in political positions came up with fraudulent reasons for dismissing the case. I also think we’ll hear more about the role of the NAACP. Stay tuned. Fireworks coming forthwith.

Here's the full text of Mr. Adams resignation letter:

J. Christian Adams resignation letter 051910

Bush administration lawyers vindicated in Holder witchhunt

On Friday, the senior ethicist in the Obama/Holder Justice Department concluded that Bush administration lawyers did not commit professional misconduct in their advisement to the President in the chaotic days after 9/11.  From the Wall Street Journal:

So after five years of investigation, partisan accusations and unethical media leaks, the Justice Department's senior ethicist has concluded that Bush Administration lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee committed no professional misconduct. The issue now is whether the protégés of Attorney General Eric Holder who led this exercise at Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) should themselves be in the dock.

That's our reading of the analysis by Associate Deputy Attorney General David Margolis, a career official who reviewed both the Bush-era legal memos on interrogating terror suspects and their review by the lawyers at OPR. Remarkably, his report is far more scathing about OPR than it is about Messrs. Yoo and Bybee, who he says made legal errors but did so in good faith, out of honest legal analysis, and in the ethical service of their clients in the executive branch at a time of war.

Mr. Margolis's review overrules both a draft OPR report whose contents were leaked to the media last year and a final OPR report that was released along with the Margolis review late Friday. Those OPR reports recommended disciplinary action and potential disbarment for Messrs. Bybee and Yoo for their advice while working in the Office of Legal Counsel in the frantic months after September 11. The leaks were themselves an unethical attempt to smear the reputations of the lawyers while they were under a gag order and unable to reply.

Read the whole article if you want a complete picture of the incompetence of the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility (and specifically its head, Mary Patrice Brown).

In a somewhat ironic opinion, Mr. Yoo explains in the Wall Street Journal why his fight to clear his name was really a fight for President Obama:

Why bother fighting off an administration hell-bent on finding scapegoats for its policy disagreements with the last president? I could have easily decided to hide out, as others have. Instead, I wrote numerous articles (several published in this newspaper) and three books explaining and defending presidential control of national security policy. I gave dozens of speeches and media appearances, where I confronted critics of the administration's terrorism policies. And, most importantly, I was lucky to receive the outstanding legal counsel of Miguel Estrada, one of the nation's finest defense attorneys, to attack head-on and without reservation, each and every one of OPR's mistakes, misdeeds and acts of malfeasance.

I did not do this to win any popularity contests, least of all those held in the faculty lounge. I did it to help our president—President Obama, not Bush. Mr. Obama is fighting three wars simultaneously in Iraq, Afghanistan, and against al Qaeda. He will call upon the men and women serving under his command to make choices as hard as the ones we faced. They cannot meet those challenges with clear minds if they believe that a bevy of prosecutors, congressional committees and media critics await them when they return from the battlefield.

Who will serve our President and our Nation in the future with uncensored, considered legal advice; unafraid devotion to mission; and unwavering bravery in defense of our country with the ever-looming threat of personal legal prosecution?

I applaud Deputy A.G. David Margolis for what may have been a career-ending act of patriotism.

Justice Department Voter chief fired while under subpoena

Main Justice is reporting that Christopher Coates, chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice has been fired.

Veteran Civil Rights Division attorney Christopher Coates is no longer chief of the Voting Section, according to the division’s Web site.



There was no official announcement of the personnel change in the long-troubled section, which most recently has been embroiled in the controversy over the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. Main Justice noticed the change on the Voting Section Web site.


Taking over for Coates in an acting role is Chris Herren, a deputy chief of the section, according to the Web site.


Alejandro Miyar, a spokesman for the Civil Rights Division, wasn’t available for comment Sunday. Coates did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. It could not be learned whether Coates left the department entirely or transferred to another post.


Coates signed off on the controversial voter intimidation complaint against the New Black Panther Party and three of its members, filed in the waning days of the George W. Bush administration. The Obama DOJ’s decision to dismiss most of the charges in May has become a political controversy for the administration.

Last month after repeated requests for information from the Justice Department on the disposition of the Black Panther voter intimidation case, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued subpoenas to Coates and another Voting Section attorney, J. Christian Adams.  The Justice Department ordered them not to cooperate, citing "well-established" and "lawful" Justice Department guidelines.  David P. Blackwell, general counsel for the Commission clearly disagrees:

In your letter, you seem to contend that there is a question of the Commission’s authority to issue subpoenas to the Department or its employees. In this regard, your attention is directed to 42 U.S.C. §1975a(e)(2). This provision grants the Commission the authority to issue subpoenas forthe attendance of witnesses and the production of written documents or other materials. Thisprovision in no way prohibits or excludes requests directed to federal agencies or theiremployees.1 Indeed, you should be aware that, as recently as 2004, the Commission issued a subpoena, signed by then-Chair Mary Frances Berry, directed to R. Alex Acosta of the Civil Rights Division.2 In that instance, the Department met with staff from the Commission and fully cooperated in producing the requested information.


In the present case, beginning in June 2009, the Commission has consistently requested the voluntary production of information from the Department, without any success. It was only after the Department, by letter dated September 9, 2009, formally indicated that no information would be forthcoming (pending completion of an investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility), and subsequently ignored the Commission’s letter of September 30, 2009, that subpoenas were issued by the Commission. While your letter refers to an ongoing “dialogue” between the Department and the Commission, it is the dearth of cooperation on the part of the Department that has resulted in the Commission’s need to issue subpoenas.

There is particularly no justification for the ongoing delay in producing documents relating to past voter intimidation investigations. Despite DOJ's contention that there are few reported cases, the Commission has repeatedly explained its need for documents relating to all past investigations, filings, settlements, consent decrees, etc. in order to assess whether the DOJ's actions in the NBPP case constitute a change of policy.


In making the attached interrogatory and document requests, we are both mindful of the sensitivity of the subject matter involved and aware that, in response to similar requests, the Department has raised various concerns and matters of privilege. While such considerations carry weight, cooperation with Commission investigations is a mandatory statutory obligation. See 42 U.S.C. § 1975b(e) (“All federal agencies shall cooperate fully with the Commission to the end that it may effectively carry out its functions and duties.”). Moreover, due to the unique investigative role of the Commission – akin to that of a congressional committee3 – disclosure to the Commission of the information sought is both proper and required.

It is not known if Coates was terminated outright or reassigned within the Justice Department.  Either way, Eric Holder is standing firm on behalf of the Black Panthers.