The default judgment was because they refused to respond to the subpoena. They don't need the victim since they have a witness that was there as an official observer and one of the accused was there in official capacity, also as an observer.
Another point is the reason they gave for dropping the default judgment: "...cases are not going to be brought against black defendants [for] the benefit of white victims" Which is also a crime. On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > > Actually, having just read that article now, it is a pretty well > written piece I think. > > From what I read in the Washington Times article and elsewhere, it > looks as if the facts were roughly thus: > > Bush DOJ brought a criminal complaint but then downgraded it to a > civil complaint. That civil complaint was handed off to the Obama DOJ. > There were not any voters who complained about intimidation, however, > a poll worker seems to have complained. The Washington Times claims > that there was an affidavit from the poll worker that was never > entered into evidence for some reason. I haven't seen that detail > anywhere else, so I don't know if it is true or not. > The 3 defendants did not fight the complaints so the DOJ was pursuing > a default judgement. > The higher ups in the DOJ dropped charges against the two defendants > who did not have any weapons, one of which was there as an elected > precinct captain. > The one defendant that did have a weapon, a stick/club in this case, > did have a default judgement entered in against him. > > So it seems like the issue is why did the DOJ drop the default > judgement against the two defendants who did not have weapons. I think > that it is rather difficult to have a case when there weren't any > voters who actually complained about intimidation, but if the > defendants refuse to involve themselves it certainly seems like they > could have gotten the default judgement against the other two > defendants. > > Sounds like something worth inquiring about. Looks like Rep. Wolf from > Virginia has asked Holder further about the matter. The DOJ > spokesperson has responded. I suspect that we'll see a more personal > response from Holder to Wolf soon. > > http://thehill.com/homenews/house/50009-gop-holder-battle-over-new-black-panthers ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:323135 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
