2016 election, America, brainwashing, Communist infiltration, Criminal Intimidation, Dereliction of duty, fatal liberalism, Freedom, History, Liberty, Marxist exploitation, Obama Administration, Obama Department of Justice, politics, psycho-politics, Public Law 88-277, Rule of Law, Seditious conspiracy, social insanity, subversive activities, Tyranny, voter intimidation
Criminal Intent and Dereliction of Duty in High and Low Places
Criminal intent is a necessary component of a “conventional” crime and involves a conscious decision on the part of one party to injure or deprive another. It is one of three categories of “mens rea,” the basis for the establishment of guilt in a criminal case. There are multiple shades of criminal intent that may be applied in situations ranging from outright premeditation to spontaneous action. [Black’s Law Dictionary Free, Second Edition.]
terrorism. “Act of terrorism” means an activity that involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that is a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and appears to be intended–(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping. 18 U.S.C.A. §3077.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1473]
(Excerpt) Section 11b of the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. §10307) makes it a crime for anyone to “intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote.” While this has been applied in the past to ordinary, everyday voters in federal elections, the language does not limit it only to such voters. Electors who are casting their votes for president and vice president are also protected by Section 11b since the Electoral College is an essential part of the federal voting process.
The U.S. Justice Department, which is charged with protecting all voters, should act to quash this outrage immediately.
Unfortunately, that’s not surprising. After nearly eight years of operation, the Obama administration has yet to file a single Section 11b case. Indeed, shortly after Mr. Obama entered the Oval Office, his Justice Department essentially dismissed almost all of a pending, high-profile Section 11b case concerning voter intimidation by the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia. Under Attorney General Eric Holder, the Civil Rights Division had the open-and-shut case dismissed because its “progressive” new leaders did not believe the Voting Rights Act should be used against black defendants to protect white voters. This radical position ignores the fact that the law is race-neutral and protects all voters.
Making threats and attempting to intimidate electors is as anti-democratic as it gets. The U.S. Justice Department, which is charged with protecting all voters, should act to quash this outrage immediately. Failure to do so will just be further evidence that this Justice Department does not believe in equal protection under the law.
[Byline Hans A. von Spakovsky]
15 December 2016
The Heritage Foundation
Proving Dereliction of Duty in the U.S. Justice Department
A duty is imposed in any one of the following ways:
via a Treaty,
Standard operating procedure, or Custom of the service
That the service member possessed actual knowledge of his/her duties may be proved via:
Training / operating manuals,
Testimony of service members who held similar positions,
Customs of the service
Dereliction of Duty with Criminal Intent is obviously a chronic top/down problem relative to the whole Obama administration.