Threatening or intimidating

Taylor TX., January 30, 2017 - Taylor City Councilwoman Christine Lopez’s lawyer sent a threatening and intimidating letter to citizens who dared to speak out against Taylor City Charter violations.At least five, but, an unknown number of Taylor citizens received the letter by email and certified delivery in the past week. The letter transmits the threatening and intimidating message that any citizen who believes Lopez is in violation of the Taylor City Charter will be risking an expensive lawsuit if they say anything to their friends, associates, or their elected representative about that public matter of concern.After an altercation with his neighbor, Plaintiff Travis Seals alleges that he was arrested at his home by deputies from the Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff’s Office.During the arrest, Seals objected to the deputies’ conduct, including the use of pepper spray, and threatened to make a lawful complaint regarding their conduct. Seals then sued in federal court, challenging the relevant provision of the statute, which makes it a felony to use “threats upon [a public officer or public employee], with the intent to influence his conduct in relation to his position, employment, or duty.” The federal district court agreed, holding that the statute was content-based and unconstitutionally overly broad.Electors across the country report receiving not only a flood of emails and phone calls to change their vote to Hillary Clinton but death threats as well. This radical position ignores the fact that the law is race-neutral and protects all voters.Alex Kim, a Texas Republican elector, reported that he and other electors had “receiv[ed] thousands of emails a day” urging them to vote for Clinton, including threats of harm and death. §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. Seriously, if Hillary Clinton had won and Donald Trump supporters were threatening Clinton electors with bodily injury, does anyone doubt that the Justice Department would have acted immediately to enforce Section 11b? Justice Department, which is charged with protecting all voters, should act to quash this outrage immediately.As part of that effort, #Not My President distributed personal contact information — including telephone numbers and addresses — of electors in states that voted Republican. Moreover, we can be pretty certain that if investigators had actually contacted any of the threatened electors, it would have been reported in the press by now. Justice Department, which is charged with protecting all voters, should act to quash this outrage immediately. After nearly eight years of operation, the Obama administration has yet to file a single Section 11b case. 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.According to Buzzfeed, Maddie Deming, a strategist for the group, said they wanted to put electors in the spotlight and “to hold them accountable for their decision.” Whatever the intent, the initiative has produced a deluge of threats. 6, 2017 in joint session to count the Electoral College votes (3 U. The obvious conclusion is that the Justice Department has done nothing to enforce Section 11b against those who have tried to intimidate and who have threatened electors with bodily harm if they vote for Donald Trump. 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.

A matter which has been publicly addressed by the Taylor Press.

The Attorney General argues, however, that the statute should be read to include a requirement of corrupt intent.

It contends that the public intimidation statute should be interpreted identically to the public bribery statute because, as the comments suggest, “the public intimidation section includes the same parties and requires the same purpose as [the public bribery] section.

Some of these threats may violate federal law, yet the Justice Department acts strangely uninterested in investigating. 19 deadline for the electors to cast their votes is less than three weeks away, which makes it essential that the Justice Department act immediately — and very publicly — to deter and stop these threats and this intimidation.

Following the election, a coalition of liberal activist groups launched #Not My President Alliance, an organization dedicated to fighting the inauguration of President-elect Trump. Yet the website of the Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs contains no announcement of an investigation into these threats.

Leave a Reply