Patterico's Pontifications


TPM on McClatchy Story about DOJ Attorneys and the Republican National Lawyers Association

Filed under: Current Events,Government,Law,Media Bias,Politics — WLS @ 4:47 pm

[Posted by WLS]

This story seems to have run out of steam as events of the day involving Imus and the controversy over WH/RNC emails have taken over.

But, TPM has a link to a McClatchy story exploring the fact that approx. 25 DOJ attorneys are listed as members of the Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA).

The McClatchy story begins with a somewhat ominous tone, but eventually gets around to pointing out that most DOJ attorneys are not restricted from belonging to organizations like this, or for working on behalf of partisan political organizations on their own time, though the author includes a variety of “I’m concerned about the appearances blah blah blah” from various and sundry “former DOJ officials”. One guy who they did quote was Stanley Hunterton, a former federal prosecutor of 12 years before he left the department in 1985. I guess no one at McClatchy bothered to look into the fact that the Hatch Act was substantially revised by Congress in 1993 to allow/encourage more overt partisan political activity by government workers, including DOJ attorneys. So, the law wasn’t the same during Mr. Hunterton’s time with DOJ as it is now.

But, the TPMmuckraker post really gets silly when it begins sniffing out some nefarious goings-on involving two members of RNLA who happen to work in the Voting Rights Section of the Civil Rights Division of DOJ.

Take two of those listed names in particular: Christian Adams and Joshua Rogers, both lawyers in the voting section. The section, which is charged with protecting minority voters from discrimination, has filed only two cases on behalf of African American voters during the Bush administration (and one of those cases they inherited from the Clinton administration).

But the section has, remarkably, pursued the first case to allege discrimination against white voters ever filed under the Voting Rights Act.

That case is United States v. Ike Brown and Noxubee County. It’s a case essentially against the Noxubee County Democratic Party — it’s one of the named defendants in the complaint. And Ike Brown is chairman of the county Democratic committee. The complaint alleges that Brown has been trying to limit whites’ participation in local elections.

And who are the two lawyers in the section handling the case? Christian Adams and Joshua Rogers.

Do you think there’s an appearance of conflict there?

Now it’s obvious that no one at TPMmuckraker bothered to look too closely at the Noxubee case, because had they done so, they would have found that DOJ attorneys Adams and Rogers filed suit on behalf of white DEMOCRAT voters who were being racially excluded from running for office and voting by the African-American Democrat majority in the county (62% of voting age population) which ran the County Elections Commission, and is alleged to have recruited non-resident African-American candidates to run in the Dem. primary in county races for which they were not eligible; to have applied different rules for accepting and counting of absentee ballots depending on whether the ballot came from a white voter or an African American voter; to have allowed African American residents of surrounding counties to vote in Noxubee County primary contests while putting up barriers to voting by white voters who lived in Noxubee County.

The complaint is 18 pages long. You can read the details for yourself here.

You just can’t trust those RNLA members — off filing complaints on behalf of oppressed Democrat voters.


Pushback Against The Coming Legal Superstorm Against Bloggers

Filed under: Blogging Matters,Buffoons — Justin Levine @ 1:15 am

[posted by Justin Levine] 

I’m late to the game here, but I wanted to join the growing numbers in the blogging community who officially declare JL Kirk Associates, Alan E. Korpady and the Nashville legal firm of King & Ballow to be complete asshats. No self respecting person who supports free speech rights should ever utilize the services of these people.

In my experience, the bigger the law firm, the less likely they are to understand how blogging culture has changed the landscape. These people don’t understand that a legal threat is far more likely to damage their client’s reputation, rather than repair it.

For the record, here is a copy of the post that some asshats feel is worthy of a libel suit [originally written and posted by Kat Coble]:


My Letter to the Readers’ Rep About the L.A. Times Misinformation Re Special Order 40

Filed under: Dog Trainer,General,Immigration — Patterico @ 12:00 am

I sent this e-mail to the L.A. Times Readers’ Representative yesterday:


An article today states:

The Los Angeles Police Department’s landmark Special Order 40, which prohibits officers from inquiring about the immigration status of suspects, has come under an aggressive assault by anti-illegal immigrant activists who argue that it ties the hands of police.

“L.A. police immigrant policy faces another test,” April 11, 2007.

It is incorrect to assert that Special Order 40 “prohibits officers from inquiring about the immigration status of suspects.” You can read Special Order 40 here:

It doesn’t say what today’s article claims. The Rampart Independent Review Panel explained in 2001, in a report on Special Order 40:

On November 27, 1979, Chief of Police Darryl Gates issued Special Order 40, which is now codified in the LAPD Manual. . . [N]othing in the [LAPD] Manual actually bars an officer who is investigating an individual for criminal activity other than an immigration violation from asking that person about his or her immigration status and then advising INS.

Special Order 40 primarily prevents LAPD officers from initiating contact with a suspect for the purpose of enforcing immigration laws. Once a person is lawfully in custody for a non-immigration related offense, however, nothing in Special Order 40 prevents an officer from inquiring into the suspect’s immigration status.

The Panel explained that LAPD practice has become more restrictive than the language of Special Order 40. So your paper’s article may have properly described LAPD practices. But those practices are not compelled by Special Order 40, and Special Order 40 does not “prohibit[] officers from inquiring about the immigration status of suspects,” as today’s article claims.

Yours truly,

Patrick Frey

I know you all like to keep up with my correspondence with the Readers’ Rep, so there you go. I’ll let you know what I hear back.

PREVIOUS: L.A. Times Misstates Requirements of Special Order 40

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0661 secs.