Is New Black Panther cover-up cracking?

Eric Holder

The alleged cover-up of the Obama administration's decision to  abandon a prosecution of voter intimidation against the New Black Panther Party following the 2008 election may be starting to crack, according to Judicial Watch, which investigates and prosecutes government misbehavior.

The organization announced today that a federal judge is demanding the government explain why some documents should be withheld from the public.

The order from U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton rejected the Obama Justice Department's argument that paperwork processed after the government dismissed the case against the New Black Panther Party and several members could be withheld under the description of "attorney work product privilege."

The judge wrote, "Although an injunction remains in place in the New Black Panther Party case … the filing of the motion for voluntary dismissal largely marked the end of the litigation. As such, the documents prepared subsequent to that event were not prepared in contemplation of litigation and are thus outside the scope of the work-product privilege."

TRENDING: North Korea deports runaway U.S. soldier after he broke the law there

WND previously reported on the Philadelphia case, which was documented on video.

The Justice Department originally brought the case against the organization and several individuals who witnesses say derided voters with catcalls of "white devil" and "cracker" and told them they should prepare to be "ruled by the black man."

One poll watcher called police after he reportedly saw one of the men brandishing a nightstick to threaten voters.

"As I walked up, they closed ranks, next to each other," the witness told Fox News at the time. "So I walked directly in between them, went inside and found the poll watchers. They said they'd been here for about an hour. And they told us not to come outside because a black man is going to win this election no matter what."

He said the man with a nightstick told him, "'We're tired of white supremacy,' and he starts tapping the nightstick in his hand. At which point I said, 'OK, we're not going to get in a fistfight right here,' and I called the police."

Subsequently, former DOJ attorney J. Christian Adams testified before the U.S. Civil Rights Commission that the Voting Section of Holder's organization is dominated by a "culture of hostility" toward bringing cases against blacks and other minorities who violate voting-rights laws.

Further, two other former U.S. Department of Justice attorneys later corroborated key elements of the explosive allegations by Adams.

RELATED: Court case determines church must shut down

One of Adams' DOJ colleagues, former Voting Section trial attorney Hans A. von Spakovsky, told WND he saw Adams was being attacked in the media for lack of corroboration. He said he knew Adams was telling the truth, so he decided on his own to step forward.

Adams had been ordered by his superiors to drop a case prosecutors already had won against the New Black Panthers. When they were ordered to stop prosecution, Adams and the team of DOJ lawyers had already won the case by default because the New Black Panthers declined to defend themselves in court. At that point in the proceedings, the DOJ team was simply waiting for the judge to assign penalties against the New Black Panthers.

Judicial Watch's comprehensive investigation of the New Black Panther Party scandal previously found information that top political appointees played key roles in the decision to dismiss the case.

That information "directly contradict[s] sworn testimony by Thomas Perez, assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division, who testified before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights that no political leadership was involved in the decision," Judicial Watch said.

The latest judicial decision moves the case forward, Judicial Watch said.

"Because the case had essentially ended on May 15, 2009, Judge Walton found that 'it is difficult to see how' the 24 documents created after May 15, 2009, 'were prepared or obtained because of the prospect of litigation, which is the testing question the court must answer in evaluating the DOJ's work-product claim,'" Judicial Watch explained.

While Walton said the documents could be withheld under the deliberative process privilege, an entirely discretionary claim of exemption, he also found the DOJ failed to satisfy its burden of showing that the 24 documents may be withheld in their entirety.

Rules allow only information that is "predecisional and deliberative" to be withheld.

The judge said, "As it stands now, the description of the DOJ's segregation efforts is too general for the court, and the plaintiff, to evaluate whether any factual material in these documents is 'inextricably intertwined' with the deliberative material and would thus permit the DOJ to withhold the documents in their entirety."

"The Obama Justice Department is going to extraordinary lengths to make sure no more details emerge regarding the Black Panther scandal," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

"We already know the Obama administration's claim that political appointees were not involved in this decision is patently false. And now Justice Department officials continue to fight tooth and nail to stonewall the release of additional information. What else do they have to hide? This new court ruling means we may pry loose some additional information on this voter intimidation scandal."

The judge gave Obama's team another chance to make the process good, if DOJ officials would submit "a renewed motion for summary judgment accompanied by a declaration or other documentation that solely addresses the segregability issue."

Failing that, the judge said, some disclosure would be required.

Judicial Watch explained that government documents it previously received show top political appointees at the DOJ were involved in the decision to dismiss the New Black Panther Party case, including Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, the third highest ranking official at the Obama Justice Department.

Attorney General Eric Holder also received "an update on a planned course of action in the NBPP" from Acting Assistant Attorney General Loretta King, dated May 12, 2009, just three days before the case was dismissed, according to a Vaughn index uncovered by Judicial Watch.

A Vaughn index describes documents being withheld from disclosure under FOIA and the basis for the withholdings.

However, Perez' testimony before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights explained no political leadership was involved.