Saturday, July 24, 2010

Lies about Sherrod… lies about Mangum... and lies about Nifong

Recently, right-wing conservative Tea-bagger and blogger Andrew Breitbart unleashed a torrent of statements and activities which brought awareness to the nation as a whole the person holding a midlevel position in the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture… Shirley Sherrod. This African American woman, first vilified as a racial hate-monger by those on the right, as well as some leaders in the federal government and the head of the national organization – NAACP, was shortly thereafter transformed into near sainthood, as lies about Breitbart’s blog and its edited video were exposed to the light of day.

The misleading video, from a source the unapologetic Mr. Breitbart has refused to identify, takes comments made by Ms. Sherrod totally out of context and suggests that she denied assistance to a white farmer solely based on his race. Department of Agriculture Secretary Thomas Vilsack was quick to force Ms. Sherrod to resign, based on the perception of Ms. Sherrod that was presented by Mr. Breitbart. NAACP President Benjamin Jealous quickly denounced Ms. Sherrod, as well. This happened before the truth about Ms. Sherrod’s statements became known.

When the truth became known, retractions and apologies were issued by the USDA Secretary Vilsack, the White House, and the NAACP president.

Now, what is of importance in this event is that Mr. Vilsack, the man directly responsible for Ms. Sherrod’s ouster, then followed the principles of “Restorative Justice” (as is taught at Campbell University’s School of Law) in dealing with Ms. Sherrod. Those principles include: 1) Acknowledging a mistake (he admitted he made a mistake by acting without having all of the facts); 2) Apologizing (he apologized profusely and publicly to Ms. Sherrod); 3) Restoring her to her pre-incident status (he offered her another job in the agency); and 4) Preventing such an incident from occurring in the future (he stated that he would take time to fully investigate complaints in the future before taking any action). For his response to his mistake, I applaud Mr. Vilsack.

At the other end of the spectrum is Andrew Breitbart, who refused to apologize to Ms. Sherrod, but even denies any problem with his blog that was responsible for the furor that followed. Even Fox’s Bill O’Reilly offered a half-hearted apology to Ms. Sherrod for calling for firing early on in this story’s cycle. By and large, most individuals connected to this story and who acted prematurely based on the misleading Breitbart blog, did exhibit conscientiousness and common sense by issuing an appropriate mea culpa to victim Sherrod.

As unfortunate and despicable as the actions that were taken against Ms. Sherrod because of lies disseminated by Breitbart’s blog, the consequences she suffered pale in comparison to those suffered by the falsely accused Duke Lacrosse victim Crystal Mangum, and former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. First and foremost, the snippet of video featuring Ms. Sherrod, was taken out of context, whereas the lies about Ms. Mangum and Mr. Nifong were total fabrications. Many lies have been presented by the media and the state against Ms. Mangum, including the unsubstantiated claim that she attempted to murder her ex-boyfriend. This lie was the basis for justifying the extremely high bail of $1 million, set by Magistrate B. Wakil. Although she was charged with the attempted first degree murder charge at arrest, the charge was never sought before the grand jury because Prosecutor Angela Garcia-Lamarca knew that the charge was bogus beyond belief. What is so insidious is that the Durham Police Department trumped up the charge of first-degree arson and used it for the purpose of forcing Ms. Mangum to serve a lengthy prison sentence. To add icing to the cake, the prosecution also trumped up vandalism charges against Ms. Mangum, accusing her of damaging the windshield and tires of her ex-boyfriend’s car. The media, for the most part, has ignored this accusation, more likely than not because they doubt its credibility. The state and media should follow the lead of USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack in the Sherrod affair, and immediately act in accordance with the principles of Restorative Justice in its dealings with Ms. Mangum.

With respect to Mike Nifong, many lies have been fabricated and disseminated by the state and media, but I will focus on one of the most blatant examples – the statement by MSNBC Senior Legal Analyst Susan F. Filan in an online article titled “Nifong punishment extreme, appropriate.” In that article, Ms. Filan stated that Mr. Nifong asked his son to attend his disciplinary hearing before the State Bar in order to garner sympathy. She then berates Mr. Nifong for using his son, and being an insensitive and selfish parent. The only problem with this scenario is that it is totally fabricated… a figment of Ms. Filan’s imagination.

What is even more disturbing is that the head honchos at NBC-Universal refuse to acknowledge the falsity of Ms. Filan’s statement… thereby supporting the false and misleading statements that impugn Mr. Nifong’s character and expose him to unwarranted public scorn. Rick Cotton, Executive Vice president and General Counsel, and Jeff Zucker, President and CEO, have both refused to accept certified correspondence questioning the accuracy of Ms. Filan’s article.

Ms. Filan and MSNBC need to take up Restorative Justice principles with respect to Mr. Nifong. He is not the only one to whom they owe such a response, as they purposely duped their subscribers and viewers. Furthermore, it is advisable for them to rectify the erroneous article by Ms. Filan in order to help re-establish their own credibility. For them not to take such steps only reinforces their position as being biased against Mike Nifong.

An extensive report is now available on our official website. A link will be provided to the directory of the newly established “Investigative Reports” page. Click on the only button currently with a report, and it will bring up the story. The report shows all documents in my possession that are related to the false statement made by Ms. Filan and the refusal be NBC-Universal big-wigs to take responsible and corrective actions.

LINK:
http://justice4nifong.com/profiles/irDirec.htm

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sidney - The only problem with this scenario is that it is totally fabricated

What was fabricated, Sidney? That Nifong asked his son to attend (how embarrassed his son must be, has he changed his name yet?), or that Nifong did it for sympathy?

You're always so weak with the details, Sid.

Anonymous said...

You are priceless, Sidney. You wrote a >2page letter to NBC complaining about an article from (at that time) >1.5 year-old article?

LOL, and you wonder why NBC is ignoring you?

With all thy getting, get a grip. Please.

Anonymous said...

Bryan Nifong (or does he go by Gurney?).

Is he the kid who was conceived as a love child while Nifong was married to his prior wife?

Anonymous said...

Sid, I thought that you said that ad hominem attacks reflected on the commenter.

Why do you use a sexual slur to refer to Breitbart?

Anonymous said...

At one time Bryan Nifong posted on Facebook that he "despised his father". Have you asked him about it yet Sidney? If I were him, I would certainly change my name - but I sure as hell wouldn't go with Gurney. I would choose Pressler, or Seligmann, or Evans, or Finnerty to show a little bit of class.

Regarding your fatuous ravings about Sherrod. Whyashouldamnd rE Breitbart apologise to her? After all, even if she didn't do it,[discriminate against White American farmers] whatever she did was bad enough. She deserves to get her fired to make up for the countless White Americans that have been discriminated against by her type.

**Sidney, in case you are stupid enough not to get the link - all parts in Bold in my comments on Sherrod are quotes from luminaries in the Nifong Lacrosse Frame***

Anonymous said...

Mr. Harr

Why do you think Mr. Nifong acted with regard for the truth when he indicted Reade Seligman, Colin Finnerty and David Evans for rape?

What evidence was there for a rape?

Are you going to cop out again and say Mr. Nifong charged them with sexual assault and not rape and did not need evidence of a rape? That happened months after the case started and Ms. Mangum admitted she could not remember being raped.

In the history taken from her at DUMC she described a rape. In the so called lineup in which she identified her alleged assailants she claimed to have been raped.

Doesn't her subsequent admission that she could not recall being raped indicate she was lying? Should that not have caused Mr. Nifong to have questioned his whole case against the defendants?

Why did he proceed when he had no evidence and his complaining witness was not a credible witness?

Wake up Siney. No one who reads your blog believes you tell the truth, except for your trolls, who just spew out venom and propose more illogic.

Brod Dickhead said...

LOL!!! A tweet from the Web:

They tore down the infamous Duke lacrosse house today. Probably going to build the Mike Nifong School of Ethics on the site.

Gotta love Twitter :-) :-) :-)

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney - The only problem with this scenario is that it is totally fabricated

What was fabricated, Sidney? That Nifong asked his son to attend (how embarrassed his son must be, has he changed his name yet?), or that Nifong did it for sympathy?"


If you read the first document in the Investigative Reports link (Susan Filan's article), you will notice that the phrase in red lettering is "at his father's request." This is obviously the fabrication. Ms. Filan used this false statement to suggest he did it for sympathy, pity, etc. Her assumption is based on her false statement.

Do you believe Ms. Filan when she stated Mr. Nifong asked his son to attend his hearing, or do you believe Mr. and Mrs. Nifong who said that the exact opposite occurred? I have provided documentation to back up my statement. Can you do the same if your conclusion differs from mine?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sid, I thought that you said that ad hominem attacks reflected on the commenter.

Why do you use a sexual slur to refer to Breitbart?"


I do believe that ad hominem attacks reflect on the commenter's inability to address the issue(s). I did not use any sexual slur to refer to Mr. Breitbart. To what descriptive term that I used are you referring?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"You are priceless, Sidney. You wrote a >2page letter to NBC complaining about an article from (at that time) >1.5 year-old article?

LOL, and you wonder why NBC is ignoring you?

With all thy getting, get a grip. Please."


I wrote to NBC shortly after discovering the article, to which a commenter to this blog gratefully referred me. In the internet age, all articles, such as that by Susan Filan, have an infinite life span, unlike hardcopy publications which after a year or so are hard to access. Therefore, all online articles are relevant to address errors when they are present.

I do not wonder why NBC big-wigs are ignoring me... I know why they are ignoring me. Because they want to protect Ms. Filan and to maintain the false perception which she has made in the article. If they were objective, unbiased, and fair, they would pursue the principles of Restorative Justice, which would include the addition of an editorial note explaining the many errors in the article. As written, the article is false and misleading.

Do you believe that MSNBC, or any news agency, should correct a mistake (in a news article) that is brought to its attention? I do. That's why I wrote the letters. They evidently do not share my belief that the public should not be misled my the media, and that is why they refused my letters.

Brod Dickhead said...

So... Sidney,

Ned Crotty, one of the Duke Lacrosse '06 players who had their season cancelled because of the lies of Crystal Mangum, and the criminal conduct of your buddy Mike Nifong just scored the world - championship winning goal for the US team! Guess who the team coach was Sid? None other than Mike Pressler.

Doesn't it burn your ass Sidney, when those so unjustly treated by you and your racist bigoted Committee and their supporters achieve world class honor and recognition?

Could you tell us what Crystal Mangum has achieved recently?

Wait I forgot - she was arrested on murder and arson and child endangerment charges and is currently out on bail.

And Mike Nifong? No more press releases or appearances on national TV for him - he just sits in his bathrobe wallowing in obscurity, bemoaning his fate and spending his $86,000 pension.

Guess who has the moral high-ground now Sidney?

PS the word verification today for this post is stupedd! Guess even random letter sequence generators are aware of the idiocy of your blog

Anonymous said...

Awwww..... Sydney,

You didn't respond to my 3:14am post regarding Andrew Breitbart and Brian Nifong. Why is that,Syd, even with your hot line to Mike Nifong?

You obviously suffer from selective memory disease like Mikey. Please ask Brian if he still despises his father - enquiring minds have a right to know.

The Louvre of DNA is a nasty-ass hoor said...

Sidney - I did not use any sexual slur to refer to Mr. Breitbart. To what descriptive term that I used are you referring?

Yes, you did, Sidney. You referred to Andrew Breitbart as a 'Tea-bagger', which is a description of a specific sexual act, and used as a perjorative toward gays.

Nifong Supporter said...


The Louvre of DNA is a nasty-ass hoor said...
"Sidney - I did not use any sexual slur to refer to Mr. Breitbart. To what descriptive term that I used are you referring?

Yes, you did, Sidney. You referred to Andrew Breitbart as a 'Tea-bagger', which is a description of a specific sexual act, and used as a perjorative toward gays."


I will conduct some research, and if I find that your statement is accurate, I will cease and desist from using that term immediately. I used the term innocently to refer to members or supporters of the Tea Party.

I just conducted my research, and you are correct. Thank you for informing me. I apologize to anyone I may have insulted. It was definitely not my intention. I will never use that term again.

Notice that when I realized that I made a mistake, I adhered to the principles of Restorative Justice. I acknowledged that I made a mistake. I apologized for it. If there was a way to restore those I offended, I would do so. And I am taking steps to prevent it from happening in the future by refusing to use the term again.

Thank you again for informing me about my statement. Unlike NBC officials, I welcome corrections about errors and misstatements in my writings.

Anonymous said...

Karma Sutra of websites!

Now this is information that I can use.

"Tea-bagging" How educational.

No need to say, "don't try this at home, kids." If you've read in the Harr blog, you know its good.

Thanks, Sidney, you've saved my love life.

By the way, what position will be discussed next week?

Anonymous said...

The lacrosse stick up the ass position.

The Louvre of DNA is a nasty-ass hoor said... said...

Anonymous @ 2:59 PM - The lacrosse stick up the ass position.

An imagination as fertile and fervid as Swamp Woman's.

Anonymous said...

Definitely a Peter Lamade vision.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @ 10:29 - Definitely a Peter Lamade vision.

Apparently not, since he never made the suggestion you proferred. That just seems to be your personal preference.

Anonymous said...

Next post Sydney is going to tell us how he keeps Crystal's Mangum topped up

Anonymous said...

Who is the dumbass who thinks Nifong obtained the NTO?

Anonymous said...

Shall we drag that NTO turd over here
so you morons can clean up after yourselves?

The Louvre of DNA is a nasty-ass hoor said...

Anonymous @ 5:28 AM - Who is the dumbass who thinks Nifong obtained the NTO?

Wow, where did that come from?

The funny thing is that few believe Nifong's story that the 'NTO on the copier' was the first he'd heard of the case. It beggars creduilty that Nifong hadn't heard about the case before then. It seems quite stupid for him to lie about something like that, but lie he probably did.

They used Nifong's facsimile sig for the NTID, but Cline & Saacks are on the hook for that heinously unconstitutional document.

The Louvre of DNA is a nasty-ass hoor said... said...

Sidney - Notice that when I realized that I made a mistake, I adhered to the principles of Restorative Justice. [in re: your sexual slur]

While you're all up in restorificating mode, perhaps you'd like to edit your original post that still contains the slur?

Nifong Supporter said...


The Louvre of DNA is a nasty-ass hoor said...
"Sidney - Notice that when I realized that I made a mistake, I adhered to the principles of Restorative Justice. [in re: your sexual slur]

While you're all up in restorificating mode, perhaps you'd like to edit your original post that still contains the slur?"


I would like nothing more than to remove it and thereby erase any vestige of what might be construed by some as being in poor taste, but that goes against my policies. Likewise, I do not ask that the NBC article be edited to erase evidence of its bias against Mr. Nifong, but I do believe that it is important for an editor's note to point out factual errors.

The Louvre of DNA is a nasty-ass hoor said... said...

Sidney - I would like nothing more than to remove it and thereby erase any vestige of what might be construed by some as being in poor taste, but that goes against my policies.

So you feel strongly about it, but not strongly enough to actually correct the problem, the slur being up-front-and-center as the 4th word or term in the post?

Good for you, Sidney. (/sarc)

Easy enough to edit the slur w/ an asterisk indicating that it had been changed.

Anonymous said...

The Lacrosse NTO Turd from the previous thread:

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr

Before Mr. Nifong made his lawyer statement, he publicly proclaimed that a rape had occurred. He claimed members of the Duke Lacrosse team had been the perpetrators.

He obtained a non testimonial order to force members of the Lacrosse team to give specimens for DNA analysis. He did this because he said the dna results would show who was guilty. Boy did he change his turn when the dna results came back negative.

At the time Mr. Nifong believed someone was guilty. He was objecting to the defendants obtaining legal counsel and following the advice of their counseo.

What about his statement that the guilty ones had rich daddies who would hire expensive lawyers to get them off.


July 24, 2010 3:07 PM

Anonymous said...

All you Lacrosse Jackasses read this and thought it was correct?

Anonymous said...

You Jackasses don't know what the hell
you are talking about anymore.

Never did.

Jackasses.

Anonymous said...

And here we have this freaking Jackass

Louvre.


Wanting a correction?

What a bunch of dishonest

Hypocrites.

Nifong Supporter said...


The following blog, which will be posted momentarily, will present another example of blatant media bias against Mike Nifong.