Throughout his campaign, and in his recent inaugural address, President Barack Obama had asked the United States citizens to make sacrifices, take responsibility, and turn from greed, all for the good of the country. During this economic downturn, with the record numbers of jobs being lost, and the skyrocketing number of home foreclosures, people from all walks of life are suffering. President Obama, to his credit, did not just talk the talk, but he walked the walk by freezing the pay of those on his staff who earned more than $100,000 in yearly salary.
Cities, including Durham, are struggling to provide basic sanitary, social, and law enforcement services to its residents due to its tremendous budget deficit. The cash-strapped city of Durham is even being asked to make cuts by the governor of the state, because the state’s financial health is itself in critical condition.
However these times of severe economic hardship to those in Durham and the state of North Carolina, do not seem to faze the families of the three exonerated Duke Lacrosse defendants, as they plow ahead, full steam, with their lawsuits against the city of Durham, Duke University, and the individuals with any link (no matter how trivial) to the Duke Lacrosse case. To keep from handing over thirty million dollars to three party-going student athletes and their families, the city has already spent more than one million dollars in preparing for its defense. This is taxpayer money that could be going for social programs, education, infrastructure projects, and to pay decent salaries for police, firefighters, and probation officers. And the meter is still running.
If the carpetbagger families of the ex-Duke lacrosse players had an ounce of decency, they would do the Christian thing and immediately drop their law suits. But these wealthy families, from northern states, are driven by two powerful forces: greed and malice. And their greed is surpassed only by their malice. Even if they are not awarded a dime by the courts, they will take pleasure in all of the pain that they inflict on Durham and Duke University by diverting precious taxpayer dollars from needed programs and projects in order to legally defend against the merit-less carpetbagger lawsuits.
Yes, the president challenged all Americans to take responsibility and make sacrifices that will be in the future best interests of us all. Unfortunately, like the families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, there are some shortsighted, self-centered individuals among us who place who place their own self interests, regardless of how contemptible, above all else.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
aBlog January 25, 2009
aBlog January 25, 2009
Presidential appeal for sacrifice and to forsake greed falls upon deaf ears of the carpetbaggers
Throughout his campaign, and in his recent inaugural address, President Barack Obama had asked the United States citizens to make sacrifices, take responsibility, and turn from greed, all for the good of the country. During this economic downturn, with the record numbers of jobs being lost, and the skyrocketing number of home foreclosures, people from all walks of life are suffering. President Obama, to his credit, did not just talk the talk, but he walked the walk by freezing the pay of those on his staff who earned more than $100,000 in yearly salary.
Cities, including Durham, are struggling to provide basic sanitary, social, and law enforcement services to its residents due to its tremendous budget deficit. The cash-strapped city of Durham is even being asked to make cuts by the governor of the state, because the state’s financial health is itself in critical condition.
However these times of severe economic hardship to those in Durham and the state of North Carolina, do not seem to faze the families of the three exonerated Duke Lacrosse defendants, as they plow ahead, full steam, with their lawsuits against the city of Durham, Duke University, and the individuals with any link (no matter how trivial) to the Duke Lacrosse case. To keep from handing over thirty million dollars to three party-going student athletes and their families, the city has already spent more than one million dollars in preparing for its defense. This is taxpayer money that could be going for social programs, education, infrastructure projects, and to pay decent salaries for police, firefighters, and probation officers. And the meter is still running.
If the carpetbagger families of the ex-Duke lacrosse players had an ounce of decency, they would do the Christian thing and immediately drop their law suits. But these wealthy families, from northern states, are driven by two powerful forces: greed and malice. And their greed is surpassed only by their malice. Even if they are not awarded a dime by the courts, they will take pleasure in all of the pain that they inflict on Durham and Duke University by diverting precious taxpayer dollars from needed programs and projects in order to legally defend against the merit-less carpetbagger lawsuits.
Yes, the president challenged all Americans to take responsibility and make sacrifices that will be in the future best interests of us all. Unfortunately, like the families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, there are some shortsighted, self-centered individuals among us who place who place their own self interests, regardless of how contemptible, above all else.
Presidential appeal for sacrifice and to forsake greed falls upon deaf ears of the carpetbaggers
Throughout his campaign, and in his recent inaugural address, President Barack Obama had asked the United States citizens to make sacrifices, take responsibility, and turn from greed, all for the good of the country. During this economic downturn, with the record numbers of jobs being lost, and the skyrocketing number of home foreclosures, people from all walks of life are suffering. President Obama, to his credit, did not just talk the talk, but he walked the walk by freezing the pay of those on his staff who earned more than $100,000 in yearly salary.
Cities, including Durham, are struggling to provide basic sanitary, social, and law enforcement services to its residents due to its tremendous budget deficit. The cash-strapped city of Durham is even being asked to make cuts by the governor of the state, because the state’s financial health is itself in critical condition.
However these times of severe economic hardship to those in Durham and the state of North Carolina, do not seem to faze the families of the three exonerated Duke Lacrosse defendants, as they plow ahead, full steam, with their lawsuits against the city of Durham, Duke University, and the individuals with any link (no matter how trivial) to the Duke Lacrosse case. To keep from handing over thirty million dollars to three party-going student athletes and their families, the city has already spent more than one million dollars in preparing for its defense. This is taxpayer money that could be going for social programs, education, infrastructure projects, and to pay decent salaries for police, firefighters, and probation officers. And the meter is still running.
If the carpetbagger families of the ex-Duke lacrosse players had an ounce of decency, they would do the Christian thing and immediately drop their law suits. But these wealthy families, from northern states, are driven by two powerful forces: greed and malice. And their greed is surpassed only by their malice. Even if they are not awarded a dime by the courts, they will take pleasure in all of the pain that they inflict on Durham and Duke University by diverting precious taxpayer dollars from needed programs and projects in order to legally defend against the merit-less carpetbagger lawsuits.
Yes, the president challenged all Americans to take responsibility and make sacrifices that will be in the future best interests of us all. Unfortunately, like the families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, there are some shortsighted, self-centered individuals among us who place who place their own self interests, regardless of how contemptible, above all else.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Duke’s secret settlement results in forfeiture of reimbursement by insurer
“Don’t make us pay, says Duke insurer” is the title of an article in the January 21, 2009 News & Observer. According to the article, the National Union Fire Insurance Company was not told about the settlement Duke University reached with the families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants’ families until after the fact. The university’s excuse for not letting the insurance company know beforehand is because of a confidentiality clause in the settlement. The university should never have agreed to any confidentiality when negotiating the settlement with the Lacrosse defendants’ families, and made its big blunder when it, instead, violated its contract with its insurer. For Duke University to enter into a settlement agreement without first consulting with its insurance company doesn’t make sense and is unheard of (especially if planning on seeking financial relief from that company).
The fact that the conditions of the Duke-defendants’ families settlement (including the payout made by the university) are confidential, is troubling. Why not disclose the amount of the settlement? There are two reasons that come to mind. (1) The Lacrosse defendants’ families demanded such an outrageously high amount of money from the university that it did not want the public to realize the enormity of its greed. (2) The university did not want the public to realize the amount of money that it turned over to the Lacrosse defendants’ families without a fight. I still have no idea what Duke University did to incur substantial liability that would even consider agreeing to an out-of-court settlement.
It had been well documented that the Duke lacrosse team had a history of throwing raucous parties prior to the March 2006 incident. Furthermore, Duke administrators had previously warned the lacrosse coach to rein in his players’ off-field shenanigans.
Although I do not know for a fact, I have reason to believe that each of the three Duke lacrosse defendants received in settlement from the university the amount of seven million dollars ($7,000,000.00). A total of twenty-one million dollars ($21,000,000.00). That is enough incentive for 41 un-indicted Duke lacrosse players to file suit against the university, and for the former Duke lacrosse coach, Mike Pressler, to want a “do-over” (he is attempting to discard the settlement agreement that he had reached with the university and seek a more lucrative award through the court system).
The News & Observer article included this statement which it reported as fact, “The families of the Duke players racked up millions of dollars in legal fees.” I would like to know, for what? And you can bet that the families did not expend millions of dollars in legal fees. The avaricious law firms representing the families may have billed millions of dollars in an effort to demand more money from Duke University, but one thing is certain – they didn’t earn it. The media wants its consumers to believe that the families of the three lacrosse defendants endured financial hardships in order to free their boys. I don’t believe it.
Because of the irrational legal actions of Duke University (including withholding information from its insurer), suicidal actions by the state in destroying its own case and prosecutor, and the media’s pro-biased slant favoring the three lacrosse defendants, it’s no wonder that “the university also faces suits from most of the other players on the 2006 team and from former lacrosse coach Mike Pressler (last statement in the N&O article).”
The fact that the conditions of the Duke-defendants’ families settlement (including the payout made by the university) are confidential, is troubling. Why not disclose the amount of the settlement? There are two reasons that come to mind. (1) The Lacrosse defendants’ families demanded such an outrageously high amount of money from the university that it did not want the public to realize the enormity of its greed. (2) The university did not want the public to realize the amount of money that it turned over to the Lacrosse defendants’ families without a fight. I still have no idea what Duke University did to incur substantial liability that would even consider agreeing to an out-of-court settlement.
It had been well documented that the Duke lacrosse team had a history of throwing raucous parties prior to the March 2006 incident. Furthermore, Duke administrators had previously warned the lacrosse coach to rein in his players’ off-field shenanigans.
Although I do not know for a fact, I have reason to believe that each of the three Duke lacrosse defendants received in settlement from the university the amount of seven million dollars ($7,000,000.00). A total of twenty-one million dollars ($21,000,000.00). That is enough incentive for 41 un-indicted Duke lacrosse players to file suit against the university, and for the former Duke lacrosse coach, Mike Pressler, to want a “do-over” (he is attempting to discard the settlement agreement that he had reached with the university and seek a more lucrative award through the court system).
The News & Observer article included this statement which it reported as fact, “The families of the Duke players racked up millions of dollars in legal fees.” I would like to know, for what? And you can bet that the families did not expend millions of dollars in legal fees. The avaricious law firms representing the families may have billed millions of dollars in an effort to demand more money from Duke University, but one thing is certain – they didn’t earn it. The media wants its consumers to believe that the families of the three lacrosse defendants endured financial hardships in order to free their boys. I don’t believe it.
Because of the irrational legal actions of Duke University (including withholding information from its insurer), suicidal actions by the state in destroying its own case and prosecutor, and the media’s pro-biased slant favoring the three lacrosse defendants, it’s no wonder that “the university also faces suits from most of the other players on the 2006 team and from former lacrosse coach Mike Pressler (last statement in the N&O article).”
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Ex-Duke Coach Pressler aims for a big score against his former team
According to the character played by actor Michael Douglas in the movie “Wall Street,” “Greed is good.” Well, our country and nations worldwide are now experiencing the downside of greed. Companies are imploding, jobs evaporating, and the lifestyles of most Americans are in freefall.
In the midst of this economic downturn, there are still those who are placing their greed before everything else. A case in point is that of former Duke lacrosse coach Mike Pressler. According to news sources, Mr. Pressler had been warned to rein in the partying practices of his lacrosse players long before that night in March 2006 that spawned the Duke Lacrosse case. The hiring of strippers, under-aged drinking (and, more likely than not, drug use—although the media stayed away from reporting it), and other misdemeanors and mayhem at that party seemed to give credence to the opinion that Mr. Pressler did not convey the administration's warning to his lacrosse players effectively. Whether or not Mr. Pressler should have been given the boot by Duke is debatable, but an argument can be made to support it.
Mr. Pressler, although he displayed that he lacked a modicum of control over his players off the field, agreed to a settlement in 2007 with Duke University after being cut loose as lacrosse coach. The agreement (of which I believe the monetary amount was not disclosed) included a statement that neither side would make disparaging remarks about the other.
Because Duke was so generous and willing to give each of the three Duke lacrosse defendants seven million dollars (for reasons about which I am still unaware), Mike Pressler, in hindsight, now wants a bigger part of the pie. Pressler and his equally avaricious attorneys have shown total disregard for the financial state of the country and its institutions. In order to get the big bucks, he wants to take Duke University to court with the bogus complaint of being “slandered.”
The supposed slanderous statement made by a Duke University representative to a New York newspaper was, to paraphrase, as follows, “.. the difference between Pressler and the current coach was night and day.” I fail to find anything in that statement that is disparaging. Just because one person is drastically different from another does not mean that one person is good and the other bad. A second statement to the Associated Press which spurred Pressler to conclude that Duke broke its settlement agreement by making a disparaging remark goes as follows, “It was essential for the team to have a change of leadership in order to move forward.” Where’s the disparagement and slander? Mr. Pressler is grasping at straws to find an excuse to get a "do-over" and try and get more money from Duke University by taking it to court. A man of integrity, in Mr. Pressler’s position, would stick to the agreement that he made initially, and go on with his life (coaching a Rhode Island lacrosse team).
Duke University has no one to blame but itself. Had it put up a fight when the three Duke lacrosse defendants first came around trying to extort money from them, they probably would have prevailed, and all of the subsequent lawsuits that it now faces (along with those faced by the city of Durham) would not have followed. For example, the 38 un-indicted Duke lacrosse players suing the school and city is the epitome of avarice, and makes a mockery of the North Carolina system of justice. A justice system that has been profusely bleeding from a self-inflicted wound because of the destruction of an honorable Durham district attorney, Mike Nifong, and the ridiculous appeasement by the state and university of the three party-going student athletes.
In the midst of this economic downturn, there are still those who are placing their greed before everything else. A case in point is that of former Duke lacrosse coach Mike Pressler. According to news sources, Mr. Pressler had been warned to rein in the partying practices of his lacrosse players long before that night in March 2006 that spawned the Duke Lacrosse case. The hiring of strippers, under-aged drinking (and, more likely than not, drug use—although the media stayed away from reporting it), and other misdemeanors and mayhem at that party seemed to give credence to the opinion that Mr. Pressler did not convey the administration's warning to his lacrosse players effectively. Whether or not Mr. Pressler should have been given the boot by Duke is debatable, but an argument can be made to support it.
Mr. Pressler, although he displayed that he lacked a modicum of control over his players off the field, agreed to a settlement in 2007 with Duke University after being cut loose as lacrosse coach. The agreement (of which I believe the monetary amount was not disclosed) included a statement that neither side would make disparaging remarks about the other.
Because Duke was so generous and willing to give each of the three Duke lacrosse defendants seven million dollars (for reasons about which I am still unaware), Mike Pressler, in hindsight, now wants a bigger part of the pie. Pressler and his equally avaricious attorneys have shown total disregard for the financial state of the country and its institutions. In order to get the big bucks, he wants to take Duke University to court with the bogus complaint of being “slandered.”
The supposed slanderous statement made by a Duke University representative to a New York newspaper was, to paraphrase, as follows, “.. the difference between Pressler and the current coach was night and day.” I fail to find anything in that statement that is disparaging. Just because one person is drastically different from another does not mean that one person is good and the other bad. A second statement to the Associated Press which spurred Pressler to conclude that Duke broke its settlement agreement by making a disparaging remark goes as follows, “It was essential for the team to have a change of leadership in order to move forward.” Where’s the disparagement and slander? Mr. Pressler is grasping at straws to find an excuse to get a "do-over" and try and get more money from Duke University by taking it to court. A man of integrity, in Mr. Pressler’s position, would stick to the agreement that he made initially, and go on with his life (coaching a Rhode Island lacrosse team).
Duke University has no one to blame but itself. Had it put up a fight when the three Duke lacrosse defendants first came around trying to extort money from them, they probably would have prevailed, and all of the subsequent lawsuits that it now faces (along with those faced by the city of Durham) would not have followed. For example, the 38 un-indicted Duke lacrosse players suing the school and city is the epitome of avarice, and makes a mockery of the North Carolina system of justice. A justice system that has been profusely bleeding from a self-inflicted wound because of the destruction of an honorable Durham district attorney, Mike Nifong, and the ridiculous appeasement by the state and university of the three party-going student athletes.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
One case out of 70,000 from another perspective
In Barry Saunders’s column titled “There’s a new DA in town,” in today’s News & Observer, the newly sworn in Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline is quoted as saying, “… one case out of 70, 000 damaged Durham. Not just the DA’s office, but all of the citizens, too.”
She is, no doubt, singling out the Duke Lacrosse case, and I happen to agree with Ms. Cline, however, my perception is entirely different, I am sure. The great tragedy that resulted from the Duke Lacrosse case is that the citizens of Durham lost a prosecutor, with 27 years experience, who was the epitome of what a “minister of justice” should be. Throughout his career, former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong prosecuted cases using the principle of “equal justice for all,” and did not follow the North Carolina justice system tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” Mr. Nifong would not allow pressure from the wealthy and powerful to influence his actions in seeking justice. He would not allow the forces of power and money to dictate how he ran his office.
Because of his independence in pursuing equal justice for all, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper persecuted and prosecuted Mr. Nifong (with the State Bar and State Board of Elections joining in) to make an example of him. What is most outrageous, and what the media keeps from the public, is the fact that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor ever to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception. And that is remarkable, when one considers the numerous cases of injustice and the overwhelming magnitude of the damages suffered by innocent victims of the state’s prosecutors.
So even though my point of view differs from that which is widely held by the media-indoctrinated public, my perceptions are closer to those held by Lady Justice. For example, Lady Justice and I would include at least a couple of more cases in that 70,000 figure mentioned by Ms. Cline. One case would be that of Erick Daniels who was arrested (for armed robbery) while in class at a middle school, was convicted by Durham prosecutor Freda Black (in large part based on the shape of his eyebrows), and sentenced to fourteen years, for which he served seven before being released when an appellate attorney filed on his behalf. The other case is that of novelist Michael Peterson, who was denied a fair trial when Durham Prosecutors James “Jim” E. Hardin and Freda Black withheld exculpatory evidence (the existence and testing of a possible murder weapon) from the defendant’s attorney. In that trial, Mr. Peterson was convicted and has already served many years behind bars.
Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline and the majority of people in Durham may not believe that the cases against Erick Daniels and Mike Peterson have damaged their city. And they may believe that the Duke Lacrosse defendants (who received $7 million each from Duke University, were proclaimed “innocent” by Attorney General Cooper, and are now seeking an additional $10 million each from the cash-strapped city) are victims in the Duke Lacrosse case. But from where Lady Justice and I stand, the perspective is very different.
She is, no doubt, singling out the Duke Lacrosse case, and I happen to agree with Ms. Cline, however, my perception is entirely different, I am sure. The great tragedy that resulted from the Duke Lacrosse case is that the citizens of Durham lost a prosecutor, with 27 years experience, who was the epitome of what a “minister of justice” should be. Throughout his career, former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong prosecuted cases using the principle of “equal justice for all,” and did not follow the North Carolina justice system tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” Mr. Nifong would not allow pressure from the wealthy and powerful to influence his actions in seeking justice. He would not allow the forces of power and money to dictate how he ran his office.
Because of his independence in pursuing equal justice for all, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper persecuted and prosecuted Mr. Nifong (with the State Bar and State Board of Elections joining in) to make an example of him. What is most outrageous, and what the media keeps from the public, is the fact that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor ever to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception. And that is remarkable, when one considers the numerous cases of injustice and the overwhelming magnitude of the damages suffered by innocent victims of the state’s prosecutors.
So even though my point of view differs from that which is widely held by the media-indoctrinated public, my perceptions are closer to those held by Lady Justice. For example, Lady Justice and I would include at least a couple of more cases in that 70,000 figure mentioned by Ms. Cline. One case would be that of Erick Daniels who was arrested (for armed robbery) while in class at a middle school, was convicted by Durham prosecutor Freda Black (in large part based on the shape of his eyebrows), and sentenced to fourteen years, for which he served seven before being released when an appellate attorney filed on his behalf. The other case is that of novelist Michael Peterson, who was denied a fair trial when Durham Prosecutors James “Jim” E. Hardin and Freda Black withheld exculpatory evidence (the existence and testing of a possible murder weapon) from the defendant’s attorney. In that trial, Mr. Peterson was convicted and has already served many years behind bars.
Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline and the majority of people in Durham may not believe that the cases against Erick Daniels and Mike Peterson have damaged their city. And they may believe that the Duke Lacrosse defendants (who received $7 million each from Duke University, were proclaimed “innocent” by Attorney General Cooper, and are now seeking an additional $10 million each from the cash-strapped city) are victims in the Duke Lacrosse case. But from where Lady Justice and I stand, the perspective is very different.
Friday, January 9, 2009
The Media determines who we vilify
Most Americans, especially those whose opinions are easily molded by the media, have an immense dislike towards Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. Yet when asked why, they are unable to give a cogent reason. Many people believe that Mr. Chavez is anti-American. That is not the case, for if he were, he most definitely would not be providing free heating oil to low income Americans to help keep them warm during the winter. According to an article that appeared in the News & Observer in January 8, 2009 edition, Hugo Chavez directly intervened with the Venezuelan government’s U.S. based oil subsidiary (Citgo) to assure the continued uninterrupted flow of this free oil to poor Americans (providing heating oil to 200,000 household in 23 states and 65 Native American tribes). The program to provide oil was threatened with the recent decline in oil prices.
Now an argument can be made that the administration of oilmen Bush-Cheney coveted Venezuelan oil fields, that Venezuela was next on the Bush administration’s to do list, and that Chavez was vilified in order to justify the need for a regime change (which would be to the advantage of the greedy oil companies in the United States). However, the U.S. government never got around to it after the might of the US military got bogged down in Iraq. As a result of the aggressive nature of the Bush administration towards Mr. Chavez, a case can be made that he retaliated with his colorful rhetoric about our chief executive. However these arguments are not published or aired by our media, and as a result, Mr. Chavez is still considered a pariah by the American public and treated like one by US government officials. It was sad, for example, that when RFK’s son, former U.S. Representative Joseph Kennedy, was asked if he personally spoke with Mr. Chavez, he danced around the question, stating, “I did what was necessary to keep this program (a Boston based non-profit to provide heating oil to American poor) going.” Mr. Kennedy was intimidated about any association with Mr. Chavez (regardless of how beneficial it is to the American people) and refused to answer the question directly.
Again, the case can be made that Venezuelan President Chavez has done more for the poor people in the United States than US President Bush. The Bush administration has, however, done a lot to bail out (with taxpayer dollars) greedy corporate CEO fat cats who have run their companies and the economy, of this nation and the world, into the ground. Yet, it is Mr. Chavez who is demonized by the American media and hated by the American people, many of whom benefit from his largess. The reason for this paradox is because the US media propagandizes in such a way that it molds the opinions of Americans who do not take the time or initiative to analyze or question what is spoon-fed to them by the media.
An example of vilification that is closer to home is best represented by the media-prosecution of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. The media both locally and nationally, including the the News & Observer, demonized Mr. Nifong to the extent that most people (who do not know him personally or who do not have a mind of their own) despise him, just like they hate Hugo Chavez. The media references Mr. Nifong unflatteringly and it secrets stories that are sympathetic toward or shed a positive light on Mr. Nifong. While doing so, the media downplays the egregious acts of misconduct, some of which are criminal, that are perpetrated by other North Carolina prosecutors. The majority of times, when articles about prosecutorial misconduct are made public, the names of those prosecutors guilty of malfeasance are not even mentioned.
There is the case of Theodore Jerry Williams, an inmate who filed a law suit against the District Attorney’s Office in Stanly County. For retaliation, he was transferred to Union County where he was maced and beaten up by sheriff deputies and then falsely charged with assaulting one of the officers (which they claim resulted in Mr. Williams’ injuries, which included a broken arm). Mr. Williams was facing fifteen years in prison as an habitual offender, if convicted of the “assault”charge against the officer. For a laugh, the District Attorney’s office then put up a poster showing two booking photographs of inmate Theodore Williams, one before the beating and one shortly thereafter. The caption read to the effect, “before and after he decided to sue the district attorney.” When Mr. Williams heard about the poster, he requested it in order to help with his defense. The prosecutors then removed all of the posters he had requested and destroyed them (critical and material evidence for Mr. Williams's defense). The trial court, upon hearing about the destruction of evidence by the prosecutors, dropped the assault charges against Mr. Williams.
Now, even though the Stanly prosecutors conspired with Union County officials to carry out their vendetta against Mr. Williams, assaulted Mr. Williams (including a broken arm), trumped up false charges against Mr. Williams which could net him fifteen years or more in jail, and destroyed material and crucial evidence needed for Mr. Williams’s defense, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper tried to appeal the trial court’s decision.
This is but another example of selective justice by Attorney General Roy Cooper and the North Carolina State Bar. It is a selective justice system that ignores the unjust actions and defends the criminal behavior of its prosecutors who follow the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.”
The media minimizes exposure to the public of stories about Mr. Williams, James Arthur Johnson, and other victims of the criminal justice system who are poor, disenfranchised, and of color. In the Duke Lacrosse case, the media portrayed the party-going lacrosse players (from families of wealth, status, and privilege) as saints, and demonized Mr. Nifong (a prosecutor with an exemplary record over 27 years who was diligently carrying out his professional duties in the Lacrosse case).
The media is, in large measure, responsible for the unjust persecution and prosecution of Mr. Nifong (including disbarment [the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception], loss of his job as district attorney, 24 hour jail sentence, and an attempt by NC Attorney General Roy Cooper to have the US Department of Justice investigate Mr. Nifong for depriving the Duke lads of their civil rights). The media is also partially responsible for the three Duke Lacrosse defendants, 38 un-indicted Duke Lacrosse teammates, three separate un-indicted Duke lacrosse players, and the Duke lacrosse coach for filing lawsuits against the university and the cash-strapped city of Durham. And, the media is responsible for the overwhelming and unjust animus by the public against Mr. Nifong, one of the best public servants Durham will ever have.
It is time for people to start using their common sense in building opinions about individuals and events, rather than relying on the media to tell them what to think. This can be difficult, especially when the media elects to keep the public ignorant about stories or facets of certain stories that might enlighten the people and lead them to conclusions that are at variance with those championed by the media.
Now an argument can be made that the administration of oilmen Bush-Cheney coveted Venezuelan oil fields, that Venezuela was next on the Bush administration’s to do list, and that Chavez was vilified in order to justify the need for a regime change (which would be to the advantage of the greedy oil companies in the United States). However, the U.S. government never got around to it after the might of the US military got bogged down in Iraq. As a result of the aggressive nature of the Bush administration towards Mr. Chavez, a case can be made that he retaliated with his colorful rhetoric about our chief executive. However these arguments are not published or aired by our media, and as a result, Mr. Chavez is still considered a pariah by the American public and treated like one by US government officials. It was sad, for example, that when RFK’s son, former U.S. Representative Joseph Kennedy, was asked if he personally spoke with Mr. Chavez, he danced around the question, stating, “I did what was necessary to keep this program (a Boston based non-profit to provide heating oil to American poor) going.” Mr. Kennedy was intimidated about any association with Mr. Chavez (regardless of how beneficial it is to the American people) and refused to answer the question directly.
Again, the case can be made that Venezuelan President Chavez has done more for the poor people in the United States than US President Bush. The Bush administration has, however, done a lot to bail out (with taxpayer dollars) greedy corporate CEO fat cats who have run their companies and the economy, of this nation and the world, into the ground. Yet, it is Mr. Chavez who is demonized by the American media and hated by the American people, many of whom benefit from his largess. The reason for this paradox is because the US media propagandizes in such a way that it molds the opinions of Americans who do not take the time or initiative to analyze or question what is spoon-fed to them by the media.
An example of vilification that is closer to home is best represented by the media-prosecution of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. The media both locally and nationally, including the the News & Observer, demonized Mr. Nifong to the extent that most people (who do not know him personally or who do not have a mind of their own) despise him, just like they hate Hugo Chavez. The media references Mr. Nifong unflatteringly and it secrets stories that are sympathetic toward or shed a positive light on Mr. Nifong. While doing so, the media downplays the egregious acts of misconduct, some of which are criminal, that are perpetrated by other North Carolina prosecutors. The majority of times, when articles about prosecutorial misconduct are made public, the names of those prosecutors guilty of malfeasance are not even mentioned.
There is the case of Theodore Jerry Williams, an inmate who filed a law suit against the District Attorney’s Office in Stanly County. For retaliation, he was transferred to Union County where he was maced and beaten up by sheriff deputies and then falsely charged with assaulting one of the officers (which they claim resulted in Mr. Williams’ injuries, which included a broken arm). Mr. Williams was facing fifteen years in prison as an habitual offender, if convicted of the “assault”charge against the officer. For a laugh, the District Attorney’s office then put up a poster showing two booking photographs of inmate Theodore Williams, one before the beating and one shortly thereafter. The caption read to the effect, “before and after he decided to sue the district attorney.” When Mr. Williams heard about the poster, he requested it in order to help with his defense. The prosecutors then removed all of the posters he had requested and destroyed them (critical and material evidence for Mr. Williams's defense). The trial court, upon hearing about the destruction of evidence by the prosecutors, dropped the assault charges against Mr. Williams.
Now, even though the Stanly prosecutors conspired with Union County officials to carry out their vendetta against Mr. Williams, assaulted Mr. Williams (including a broken arm), trumped up false charges against Mr. Williams which could net him fifteen years or more in jail, and destroyed material and crucial evidence needed for Mr. Williams’s defense, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper tried to appeal the trial court’s decision.
This is but another example of selective justice by Attorney General Roy Cooper and the North Carolina State Bar. It is a selective justice system that ignores the unjust actions and defends the criminal behavior of its prosecutors who follow the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.”
The media minimizes exposure to the public of stories about Mr. Williams, James Arthur Johnson, and other victims of the criminal justice system who are poor, disenfranchised, and of color. In the Duke Lacrosse case, the media portrayed the party-going lacrosse players (from families of wealth, status, and privilege) as saints, and demonized Mr. Nifong (a prosecutor with an exemplary record over 27 years who was diligently carrying out his professional duties in the Lacrosse case).
The media is, in large measure, responsible for the unjust persecution and prosecution of Mr. Nifong (including disbarment [the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception], loss of his job as district attorney, 24 hour jail sentence, and an attempt by NC Attorney General Roy Cooper to have the US Department of Justice investigate Mr. Nifong for depriving the Duke lads of their civil rights). The media is also partially responsible for the three Duke Lacrosse defendants, 38 un-indicted Duke Lacrosse teammates, three separate un-indicted Duke lacrosse players, and the Duke lacrosse coach for filing lawsuits against the university and the cash-strapped city of Durham. And, the media is responsible for the overwhelming and unjust animus by the public against Mr. Nifong, one of the best public servants Durham will ever have.
It is time for people to start using their common sense in building opinions about individuals and events, rather than relying on the media to tell them what to think. This can be difficult, especially when the media elects to keep the public ignorant about stories or facets of certain stories that might enlighten the people and lead them to conclusions that are at variance with those championed by the media.
Monday, January 5, 2009
“Stormy Nifong era”?
The anti-Nifong biased media is at it again, with an entry in the “Up-and-comers in ’09” article in today’s News & Observer newspaper. Authored by staff writer Anne Blythe, it alludes to former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong’s tenure at that position as “the stormy days of the Mike Nifong era,” and she infers that as district attorney, Mr. Nifong’s approach was not “even-keeled.”
What constituted the “stormy days” of his era other than the media-propelled Duke Lacrosse case? The media, working with State Attorney General Roy Cooper, the North Carolina State Bar, Duke University, and families of the Duke Lacrosse case defendants, whipped up the furor that turned a zephyr into a hurricane. And it is not only to the detriment of Lady Justice, but to Duke University and the city of Durham itself. Duke, the State Bar, and the media try to blame Mr. Nifong for the slew of lawsuits currently pending against the city and the university, but they are at fault for undermining the work of a rare prosecutor with integrity who would not follow the directives of the powerful university or other state officials.
Duke University, by caving into the outrageous demands of the Lacrosse defendants and settling with them for multiple millions of dollars without putting up a fight, and the persecutorial and prosecutorial onslaught against Mr. Nifong by the state, itself, as well as the sympathetic media coverage of the three defendants, laid the groundwork for the legal turmoil that will envelop the Raleigh-Durham area for some time to come.
The carpetbagger families of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants have already cost the cash-strapped city of Durham more than a million dollars of taxpayer money in preparing a legal defense and the avaricious litigants are seeking to extract at least thirty million. Money that is desperately needed for Durham’s programs (including funds needed to improve the probation system).
According to staff writer Blythe, public scrutiny is on for the new Durham district attorney, Tracey Cline, presumably due to the Duke Lacrosse case. Well, how about some scrutiny for Wilson District Attorney Howard S. Boney, Jr. who’s prosecutorial missteps racially divided a city; held a hero in jail for 39 months; attempted to introduce two bogus eyewitnesses (both with connections to the Wilson police department) against an innocent man (James Arthur Johnson); worked with the family and friends of Brittany Willis to renege on the $20,000.00 reward with Mr. Johnson earned; conspired with Forsyth County District Attorney Thomas Keith to have Assistant District Attorney Belinda Foster (as a special prosecutor) drop charges of murder, kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery against Johnson (which they knew that they could not prove) and instead bring the charge of “accessory after the fact” against Johnson (for wiping fingerprints [which played no role in the conviction of the murderer] from the victim’s car); and is working with current private sector special prosecutor W. David McFadyen (at extra taxpayer expense) and Superior Court Judge Milton F. Fitch (who refused a defense motion for a change of venue and has expressed his wish to hear the case) to win a conviction against a young man who, is by all accounts, a person who had never been in trouble with the law, had no prior criminal record, and who was planning to attend college on a soccer scholarship. The label of being a convicted felon will follow Johnson (if convicted) the rest of his life, but the Wilson district attorney has no qualms about ruining the life of a young African American lad in order to protect his prosecutor from being disciplined by the State Bar for prosecutorial misconduct (something that will never happen).
The media, including the News & Observer, is doing its part to protect Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe, by keeping the public ignorant about crucial events taking place in Wilson regarding the case against Johnson. Instead, the media wants the public to place its attention on Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline, who I believe is the only African American district attorney in the state of North Carolina.
It looks like in 2009 the News & Observer will continue its course of supporting the current tenet of North Carolina’s justice system – “selective justice based on Class and Color,” by refusing to report on stories that are favorable to the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the NC State Bar, Mr. Nifong. Like most of the media, it wants to keep the public ignorant about misdeeds and malfeasants of other district attorneys by refusing to publish articles, such as the complaint filed against James “Jim” Hardin and Freda Black for withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense attorneys of novelist Michael Peterson, and activities occurring in Stanly County by District Attorney Michael Parker against defendant Theodore Jerry Williams.
Unfortunately, public scrutiny is, in large measure, determined by the media. The stories upon which the media chooses to focus are, very often, to the detriment of the public which it serves.
What constituted the “stormy days” of his era other than the media-propelled Duke Lacrosse case? The media, working with State Attorney General Roy Cooper, the North Carolina State Bar, Duke University, and families of the Duke Lacrosse case defendants, whipped up the furor that turned a zephyr into a hurricane. And it is not only to the detriment of Lady Justice, but to Duke University and the city of Durham itself. Duke, the State Bar, and the media try to blame Mr. Nifong for the slew of lawsuits currently pending against the city and the university, but they are at fault for undermining the work of a rare prosecutor with integrity who would not follow the directives of the powerful university or other state officials.
Duke University, by caving into the outrageous demands of the Lacrosse defendants and settling with them for multiple millions of dollars without putting up a fight, and the persecutorial and prosecutorial onslaught against Mr. Nifong by the state, itself, as well as the sympathetic media coverage of the three defendants, laid the groundwork for the legal turmoil that will envelop the Raleigh-Durham area for some time to come.
The carpetbagger families of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants have already cost the cash-strapped city of Durham more than a million dollars of taxpayer money in preparing a legal defense and the avaricious litigants are seeking to extract at least thirty million. Money that is desperately needed for Durham’s programs (including funds needed to improve the probation system).
According to staff writer Blythe, public scrutiny is on for the new Durham district attorney, Tracey Cline, presumably due to the Duke Lacrosse case. Well, how about some scrutiny for Wilson District Attorney Howard S. Boney, Jr. who’s prosecutorial missteps racially divided a city; held a hero in jail for 39 months; attempted to introduce two bogus eyewitnesses (both with connections to the Wilson police department) against an innocent man (James Arthur Johnson); worked with the family and friends of Brittany Willis to renege on the $20,000.00 reward with Mr. Johnson earned; conspired with Forsyth County District Attorney Thomas Keith to have Assistant District Attorney Belinda Foster (as a special prosecutor) drop charges of murder, kidnapping, rape, and armed robbery against Johnson (which they knew that they could not prove) and instead bring the charge of “accessory after the fact” against Johnson (for wiping fingerprints [which played no role in the conviction of the murderer] from the victim’s car); and is working with current private sector special prosecutor W. David McFadyen (at extra taxpayer expense) and Superior Court Judge Milton F. Fitch (who refused a defense motion for a change of venue and has expressed his wish to hear the case) to win a conviction against a young man who, is by all accounts, a person who had never been in trouble with the law, had no prior criminal record, and who was planning to attend college on a soccer scholarship. The label of being a convicted felon will follow Johnson (if convicted) the rest of his life, but the Wilson district attorney has no qualms about ruining the life of a young African American lad in order to protect his prosecutor from being disciplined by the State Bar for prosecutorial misconduct (something that will never happen).
The media, including the News & Observer, is doing its part to protect Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe, by keeping the public ignorant about crucial events taking place in Wilson regarding the case against Johnson. Instead, the media wants the public to place its attention on Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline, who I believe is the only African American district attorney in the state of North Carolina.
It looks like in 2009 the News & Observer will continue its course of supporting the current tenet of North Carolina’s justice system – “selective justice based on Class and Color,” by refusing to report on stories that are favorable to the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the NC State Bar, Mr. Nifong. Like most of the media, it wants to keep the public ignorant about misdeeds and malfeasants of other district attorneys by refusing to publish articles, such as the complaint filed against James “Jim” Hardin and Freda Black for withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense attorneys of novelist Michael Peterson, and activities occurring in Stanly County by District Attorney Michael Parker against defendant Theodore Jerry Williams.
Unfortunately, public scrutiny is, in large measure, determined by the media. The stories upon which the media chooses to focus are, very often, to the detriment of the public which it serves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
