Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Duke needs its image fixed more than Vick

I found a humorous article in The News & Observer of December 4, 2010, titled “Agency will help Vick fix image: French/West/Vaughan signs NFL star/ex-con.” First and foremost, NFL quarterback Michael Vick would not need to address image problems if it were not for the media. Prime example is that the subtitle calls him an “ex-con.” The media, without regard to the influence it welds over the mindless public, has incited hatred against Michael Vick for his role in a dog-fighting venture since his involvement first became known. As a result of public backlash against the talented quarterback, the judicial system handed him a sentence which is undoubtedly more harsh than those routinely given. Despite the fact that he maintained himself in good condition and served his sentence with dignity, NFL team owners avoided him like the plague because of the venom still evident at the release of his confinement. All of the owners were intent on blacklisting Vick, even the Carolina Panthers who lacked an experience and tested player at this most critical position. At the urging of the then Philadelphia Eagle QB Donovan McNabb, the Eagles eventually signed Vick as a third string backup, behind McNabb and the second stringer Kevin Kolb. Kolb, like the Carolina QBs, had very little playing time under his belt.

When given a chance to play due to an injury to Kolb and McNabb’s earlier departure for the rival Washington Redskins, Michael Vick performed spectacularly in winning games and the starting nod. But as soon as Vick suffered an injury to his ribcage when sandwiched between two defenders on the opponent’s goal line, he was unable to perform in several subsequent games, and the sports media started declaring that a quarterback controversy existed in the City of Brotherly Love. That was so ridiculous, especially after it was evident that, if anything, Vick played smarter and better than he had prior to his incarceration. There was no doubt in my mind that he would be on the field as soon as his injuries healed enough to allow him to do so. Because of Vick’s contributions, the Eagles sit atop of it’s division, a sure bet to make the playoffs, while the Panthers, whose owners got hoodwinked by the media into passing on the chance of a lifetime to acquire one of the best quarterbacks in NFL history, languish in the cellar with their shot at making the playoffs shot.

His exciting play, community service in bringing to the fore the immorality of dog fighting, and dignified composure have drowned out his harshest critics, and the media has suspended its assaults on him, at least for the time being. It was the same sort of demonization that the media used against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, however, in Nifong’s case the criticism has been excessive, pervasive, unrelenting, and downright cruel. This is no doubt due to the influence of Rae Evans, the mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans. Ms. Evans was employed with CBS News as an executive for more than a decade, a fact that CBS has refused to disclose on shows such as “60 Minutes” which featured interviews with her. The media tries to keep the public ignorant of this relationship in an effort to allow the broadcasts about Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case to appear to be objective and unbiased… which they most certainly aren’t. Mike Nifong, unlike former governor Mike Easley, has never been saddled with a conviction on a felony charge, so the media can’t label Nifong an ex-con like it did with Michael Vick. Instead, the deplorable action taken by the media was to brand Nifong as the “disgraced” former district attorney. The “disgraced” title conferred upon Nifong by the media, especially The News & Observer was a biased bit of editorializing which steered many of the mindless to conclude in their "minds" that Nifong conducted himself in a manner that was disgraceful… and nothing could be further from the truth.

When it comes to reporting on individuals involved in intrigue or controversy, the approach taken by the media lacks conformity. For example, the newspaper article referred to Michael Vick as an “ex-con,” but I doubt that you will ever see that reference in conjunction with an article or broadcast about former governor Mike Easley. And although the deals he made as governor enriched himself and his wife, and would be considered by the reasonable person to be more disgraceful than the criticism leveled at Mike Nifong, it is unlikely that Mike Easley will be referred to in the media as the “disgraced” former NC governor.

The N & O article by staff writer David Ranii begins by describing the contract that the Raleigh communications agency has with Vick as being high-profile and controversial, however he omits stating that it’s lucrative… to the point financial terms were not disclosed. What I find most unbelievable about the article is the contention that Rick French, founder and CEO of French/West/Vaughan had to do some serious soul searching before agreeing accept Vick as a client. I’m sure that the deliberations in his mind could not have lasted more than a fraction of a nanosecond. Why should French be wrestling with whether or not to accept Vick’s money? Believe me, he didn’t. Then the article goes on about how his employees and clients would feel about his representing Vick. Are you kidding? Of course the employees would be thrilled, if for no other reason than that lucrative contracts help ensure employment and keep layoffs at bay.

According to the article, French would not have been willing to represent Michael Vick if he was only interested in hiring a PR firm simply to “window-dress what had transpired.” Well, that is precisely the reason that he hired French’s company. It seems to me that Rick French is more concerned about his image than his client’s. That is undoubtedly the reason he waited until now to announce that Michael Vick was his client. Because Vick’s stock was rising in boardrooms, as was stated in the article, French felt it was safe and timely to reveal that he had signed Vick as a client back in July 2010. Because of Vick’s spectacular play on the gridiron and acceptance by the public in general, French can now use Vick to help promote his PR business, which is the purpose of the article in The News & Observer and his planned public announcement. Now had Vick’s return to the football field been a bust and his detractors vocal and unforgivable, you can bet that French’s relationship with Michael Vick would be, and remain, under wraps.

Bottom line, Michael Vick is doing more in the realm of PR for French/West/Vaughan than is vice-versa.

If French wants to do some significant public relations work, then I would suggest that he approaches Duke University. The university certainly has the funds to be able to afford to retain French’s PR firm. One thing Duke has going for it is the media, which suppresses newsworthy stories that put the institution in a bad light. It’s blatant discrimination against me on April 14, 2010 because I held beliefs that did not conform to their institutional anti-Nifong sentiment was not reported although the media was alerted about it. And the media was instrumental in assisting Duke University in shoveling the appearance of all wrongdoing associated with the Duke Lacrosse case onto its prosecutor, Mike Nifong. The media kept the public in the dark about the surprise blitzkrieg-style razing of the Duke Lacrosse party house until after bulldozers had made considerable progress in bringing it down. So, if Rick French is able to secure a PR position for his firm with Duke University, he can count on unyielding assistance from the media.

Although I give The News & Observer some credit for writing an article about the inherent financial abuse at Duke University recently, it certainly did not go far enough. A December 3, 2010 article by staff writer Eric Ferreri titled “Buddy, can you spare $729,749?,” is misleading and minimizes the extent of legalized corruption at the university. To begin with, the headline, which is below the fold on the front page of the local news section, is vague and gives no hint about the story’s subject matter. The subtitle of the article, “Duke students protest bonuses,” is not quite as ambiguous as the headline but is still without direction. The article gives two examples of executives receiving bonuses… Neal Triplett, president of a management company who received $729,749 and Victor Dzau, chancellor of the Duke health system who received $983,654. Yet, the headline includes the bonus with the smaller dollar amount… minimizing the runaway avarice at Duke by the media. The other option would have been to combine the two bonuses for an amount of $1,713,403.

As is, no doubt the case, the bonuses referenced in the article, are probably on the lower spectrum of bonuses received by executives, bigwigs, and head honchos at Duke University… and there are also many in the upper echelons of the university who have contracts with bonuses that equal to or exceed the bloated salaries that the executives set for themselves to begin with. Duke’s operations are not unlike that of the failed financial institutions, such as AIG, which led the way into the recession in which we are now mired. With Bush-era tax cuts, deregulation of agencies and policies in place to protect against financial abuse, and other measures undertaken to enrich the wealthiest at the expense of the masses, individuals at Duke have made a killing… and continue to do so. The media paid a little lip service to the problem with its article, but it is not committed to helping make a positive change.

Now, I do not know what a chancellor of the Duke health system does, but I do not believe that it is deserving of an annual compensation package worth more than $2.2 million. Even a healthy financial environment does not justify unsightly salaries and bonuses that the head honchos give themselves. However, with the bad economy dropping the value of Duke’s endowment a whopping 24 percent, and as pay for the people who actually do the work at Duke is frozen and jobs are eliminated in order to meet the annual operating budgets, the bonuses of the head honchos at Duke continues to rise at a fevered pitch. People who were forced to accept buyouts or were let go while their positions were then eliminated, not only are more likely to result in a lessening of the quality of services provided, but also contribute to the swelling in the ranks of the unemployed. In addition, generating revenue to help sate the boundless greed of the Duke hierarchy has forced increases in intuition for the school’s students. As Amy Laura Hall, a professor of Christian ethics stated with regards to the bonuses given to top execs when the economy is bad and everyone else is asked to tighten their belts and make sacrifices, “I think that’s obscene.”

Rick, I think that Michael Vick can take care of himself. Now for all of the executives who are receiving obscene bonuses at Duke University amid layoffs, job eliminations, frozen salaries for the actual workers, and increased tuition paid by the students, the same cannot be said. I think that you could probably do a better job of window dressing for the university than its current spokesperson Michael Schoenfeld, who defined handing out a business card as “solicitation” in order to try and defend the premeditated, malicious, and unwarranted discrimination against me earlier this year. And with the media working with you, there should be no concerns about any negative publicity for your company.

26 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sid, you're continuing comparisons of the Nifong and Vick situations brings up an interesting question. How could Mike Nifong be more like Mike Vick?

You say that Mike Nifong is not an ex-convict, yet he actually was convicted and served prison time, just as Michael Vick. At various times, both Nifong and Vick admitted that they had done wrong and their respective convictions (and in Nifong's case, bar dismissal) were just. So far so good.

However, Mike Vick (as you rightly mention) continues to this day to admit his wrongdoing and speaks often about the evils of dogfighting. Mike Nifong could adopt a similar approach. He could be a forceful, cautionary voice on the evils of prosecutorial misconduct. He could tell the truth of his story - on which he's backtracked some since his admissions at his bar hearing - and lecture other prosecutors. In a sense, help his former colleagues avoid falling into the traps he fell into.

I'm an Eagles fan and I fully supported the team when it gave Mike Vick a second chance. I'm not a Nifong fan, but I am a Christian, and my faith is all about second chances. I'd be willing to give Nifong a second chance too, if he did the necessary things that Mike Vick has done.

Jesus didn't forgive sinners; he forgave repentant sinners.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sid, you're continuing comparisons of the Nifong and Vick situations brings up an interesting question. How could Mike Nifong be more like Mike Vick?

You say that Mike Nifong is not an ex-convict, yet he actually was convicted and served prison time, just as Michael Vick. At various times, both Nifong and Vick admitted that they had done wrong and their respective convictions (and in Nifong's case, bar dismissal) were just. So far so good.

However, Mike Vick (as you rightly mention) continues to this day to admit his wrongdoing and speaks often about the evils of dogfighting. Mike Nifong could adopt a similar approach. He could be a forceful, cautionary voice on the evils of prosecutorial misconduct. He could tell the truth of his story - on which he's backtracked some since his admissions at his bar hearing - and lecture other prosecutors. In a sense, help his former colleagues avoid falling into the traps he fell into.

I'm an Eagles fan and I fully supported the team when it gave Mike Vick a second chance. I'm not a Nifong fan, but I am a Christian, and my faith is all about second chances. I'd be willing to give Nifong a second chance too, if he did the necessary things that Mike Vick has done.

Jesus didn't forgive sinners; he forgave repentant sinners."


First of all, let me make it perfectly clear. I never compared Michael Vick or his situation to Mike Nifong. What I compared was the shameful way they were both manipulated by the media and mistreated by the masses. Mike Nifong is not a sinner when it comes to the Duke Lacrosse case. He prosecuted it well within acceptable standards. If you're looking for a prosecutor worthy of being labeled a sinner for his professional behavior, then I would recommend Tom Ford, to top the list, followed by Bill Wolfe, David Hoke, and Michael D. Parker. It is unfortunate that the media has such an overwhelming influence over the mindless people it serves.

Furthermore, you're trying to tell me that Mike Nifong was convicted of a crime and served time in prison? Well, I'm not one of the mindless masses. Tell me what crime Mike Nifong was convicted of and in what prison he served his time.

Anonymous said...

Mike Nifong was found guilty of criminal contempt and served time in the Durham County Jail.

Anonymous said...

N.C.G.S. Sections 5A-12 through 5A-34

Smith said Nifong "willfully made false statements" to the court in September when he insisted he had given defense attorneys all results from a critical DNA test.

Smith found Nifong had provided the defense with a report on the DNA testing that he knew was incomplete. The excluded data contained test results showing that DNA of multiple men, none of whom were lacrosse players, was found on the accuser.

Smith said his decision was aimed at "protecting and preserving the integrity of the court and its processes."

"It's about the candor, accuracy and truthfulness in representations to the court, particularly in important matters where the liberties and rights to a fair trial of those accused of crime may be jeopardized by the absence of such honesty by counsel," Smith said.

Anonymous said...

"Meet Mike Nifong. The disgraced and disbarred former North Carolina prosecutor today walked into a Durham jail to serve a 24-hour sentence stemming from his disastrous handling of the rape case against three Duke University lacrosse players. Nifong, who posed this morning for the below Durham County Sheriff's Office mug shot, was found guilty of lying to a judge about aspects of the Duke probe, which ended with all charges being dismissed against the accused athletes."

Anonymous said...

Sid, I'm sure you have a more "nuanced" view of Nifong's contempt conviction. Judge Smith really wasn't saying that Nifong lied about whether the DNA report was "complete." That the lack of a "complete" report was really meaningless because the DNA wasn't exculpatory. How the Durham County jail wasn't really a "prison."

Come on, give us your best!

Anonymous said...

Never has it been proven in any court, media investigation or State Bar process that Michael Nifong "willfully" made false statements to the court.

The contempt hearing did not judge whether Nifong's inaccurate statement was willful, only that it was inaccurate. Nifong admitted this on December 15th soon after he learned that the reference to the unidentified male DNA was not included in the summary report. And consistently stated that he made an inaccurate statement from that point forward.

His contempt verdict was judged simply on the basis that he made an inaccurate statement. The hearing did not deal with the question of whether it was willful, intentional or meant to conceal any evidence.

But that does not stop people and the media from inaccurately drawing that conclusion.

Anonymous said...

From anonymous:
The contempt hearing did not judge whether Nifong's inaccurate statement was willful, only that it was inaccurate.

From WRAL.com:

Reading his contempt decision from the bench minutes after the conclusion of two days of testimony, Smith said Nifong "willfully made false statements" to the court in September when he insisted he had given defense attorneys all results from a critical DNA test.

So...Apparently, Judge Smith disagrees with you, anonymous (Is that you, Cy?)

Anonymous said...

Simple negligence is not sufficient mens rea for the charge of criminal contempt. Look at the statute.

The general standard under N.C.G.S. Section 5A-11 is willfulness, although gross negligence may apply in some circumstances - not however in matters of false statements to the court.

Judge Smith's finding of "willfulness," quoted above, was necessary to support the conviction.

Anonymous said...

Mens rea?! You're kidding right?! The courts have spent the last 20 years eviscerating that concept in order to make life easier for lazy prosecutors.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sid, I'm sure you have a more 'nuanced' view of Nifong's contempt conviction. Judge Smith really wasn't saying that Nifong lied about whether the DNA report was 'complete.' That the lack of a 'complete' report was really meaningless because the DNA wasn't exculpatory. How the Durham County jail wasn't really a 'prison.'

Come on, give us your best!"


Could you please explain to me exactly what Judge Smith accused Mr. Nifong of lying about? What it was Nifong said that was a lie? Also, do you know of any other prosecutor who has been arrested for lying? If so could you give me the name and the conditions surrounding it.

Also, there is a difference between prison and jail. Also, Mr. Nifong was not convicted of a felony. Mr. Nifong is not an ex-con.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"From anonymous:
The contempt hearing did not judge whether Nifong's inaccurate statement was willful, only that it was inaccurate.

From WRAL.com:

Reading his contempt decision from the bench minutes after the conclusion of two days of testimony, Smith said Nifong 'willfully made false statements' to the court in September when he insisted he had given defense attorneys all results from a critical DNA test.

So...Apparently, Judge Smith disagrees with you, anonymous (Is that you, Cy?)"


Neither Judge Smith nor the State Bar's F. Lane Williamson are mindreaders, and how they can determine that an inaccurate statement made is willful is beyond me. To sentence someone to jail for contempt of court without evidence is wrong and malicious. Judge Smith should be ashamed of himself for that ridiculous trumped up contempt charge.

Anonymous said...

Never has it been proven in any court, media investigation or State Bar process that Michael Nifong "willfully" made false statements to the court.

Period.

Anonymous said...

Judge Smith's statement that Nifong "willfully" made an inaccurate statement was uttered without any evidence within the court procedure itself to assert that opinion.

Just as the State Bar's declaration of Nifong's lying to the court followed five days of hearings that never offered any convincing evidence of Nifong "willfully" making inaccurate statements to any court.

These "opinions" by these court representatives, if nothing else, can be used as supporting evidence that these statements were politically motivated since they do not follow logically or objectively from what was presented before the judge and hearing committee.

The transcript of these procedures are available to the public. This is why it is important for the public to have access to actual hearings and not to rely solely on the pronouncements of politically-appointed representatives or media interpretation.

Anonymous said...

Nifong served a custodial sentence. That makes him a former convict as that term is defined. Felony conviction is not required. Jail is different than prison, in that jail can be for both detention and custodial sentence, whereas prison is almost always for custodial sentence.

Nifong was incarcerated for a crime of which he was convicted. He is an ex con.

You are welcome to second guess the judge's verdict. You cannot argue that it was never proven in court that he lied. It was proven to the fact-finder, and a legitimate verdict was rendered. You simply have a different opinion than the judge.

Anonymous said...

It was not proven. It is not a matter of opinion.

There is no evidence that Nifong willfully made an inaccurate statement to a court of law.

He did make an inaccurate statement. But there remains to this day, as was evidenced in the contempt trial, no proof that this inaccurate statement was knowingly inaccurate at the time the statement was made.

When a judge's opinion does not follow from what was evidenced in court, we have a right to ask why the opinion varies from the evidence presented.

Nifong was cited for contempt because he made an inaccurate statement to a court. If a judge pronounced this as "willful", this judge offers an unsupported opinion.

Quoting this judge's opinion as evidence is as unsubstantiated as quoting a media source or any other third party interpretation.

The only proof is evidence itself. Not interpretation. There remains no evidence ever presented to any court or hearing that Nifong willfully lied to any court of law.

Anonymous said...

Not proven?

Fine. Provide a link to the transcript. After 3 1/2 years, I don't remember the specifics.

Anonymous said...

As a reminder, Mr. Nifong's criminal contempt hearing was related to remarks Mr. Nifong made in court on September 22, 2006.

Those remarks are repeated below:


Judge Smith: So his report [Meehan’s May 12 report] encompasses it all?

Mr. Nifong: His report encompasses ever -- because we didn’t -- they apparently think that everybody I speak to about, I talk about the facts of the case. And that’s just, that would be counterproductive. It did not happen here.

Judge Smith: So you represent there are no other statements from Dr. Meehan?

Mr. Nifong: No other statements. No other statements made to me.

Mr. Bannon: Just so I’m clear, Mr. Nifong is representing that the facts of the case weren’t discussed in those meetings.

Mr. Nifong: That is correct. The facts of the case, other than the fact that we were seeking a, the male fraction DNA.



I look forward to the transcript of the criminal contempt hearing. We can see whether any evidence was introduced that showed any of Mr. Nifong's statements to be willfully inaccurate.

Anonymous said...

"Judge Smith: So you represent there are no other statements from Dr. Meehan?

Mr. Nifong: No other statements. No other statements made to me."

Correct. The contempt statement under question was Nifong saying (above) that there were no other statements made to him.

Nifong has testified that at that time, Sept. 22nd, he had assumed that the unidentified male DNA was referenced in the DNA summary report. It wasn't. He realized it was not referenced specifically in the summary report until just before the Dec 15th hearing. Though the first sentence on the summary report states that other material not specifically referenced in the report was available upon request.

So when Nifong made that statement on Sept. 22nd that there was no other statements made to him (other than was referenced in the summary report), he was making a statement he believed to be true on Sept. 22nd.

There's no evidence presented in any court , hearing or media that disproves this.

Anonymous said...

There's no evidence presented in any court , hearing or media that disproves this.

I look forward to a link to the transcript that confirms your assertion.

As I recall, Nifong adopted the defense that he was lazy and incompetent.

He did not read the report when he received it had not not read it in the subsequent four months. As a result, he was unaware what was included in the report. He thought he knew, but he was wrong.

I believe that he conceded that he met with Dr. Meehan on three separate occasions (although he insisted that he only remembered two of the meetings). I recall that Nifong then claimed that he wasn't listening to what was being said in the meetings, so he was completely unaware of what Meehan apparently said about unmatched DNA.

I believe further that Nifong's recollection was somewhat different than the recollections of Meehan and Himan. I don't remember specifically what each of them said.

The transcript will be able to answer these questions. When do you think you will be able to provide a link? I look forward to resolving this issue.

Anonymous said...

Sid comments: Neither Judge Smith nor the State Bar's F. Lane Williamson are mindreaders, and how they can determine that an inaccurate statement made is willful is beyond me.

Sid, how did you determine that Hoke was lying when he claimed that he did not read the Gell file? Are you a mindreader?

Walt said...

The differences between Michael Vick and Mike Nifong are greater than any similarities. Vick admitted his wrongdoing, paid his just debt to society and by all appearances has been rehabilitated. Nifong, has admitted he did wrong, but more or less retracted that admission. Nifong has defiantly not shown any indications of rehabilitation and last, but not least, Vick was and is an excellent practitioner of his profession. Nifong was most certainly not.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Nifong never adopted the defense that he was lazy and incompetent.

Nifong states that he did not read every page of the thousands of documents he delivered to the defense. There is no legal requirement to read every page of discovery material. Especially material that was not inculpatory.

If you have any evidence that proves Nifong definitely read the DNA summary report in its entirety before December 15th, please provide that proof.

Nifong's statement stands under oath. The burden of proof rests on those who say that he made a willingly false statement. Not on those who accept his sworn statement.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sid comments: Neither Judge Smith nor the State Bar's F. Lane Williamson are mindreaders, and how they can determine that an inaccurate statement made is willful is beyond me.

Sid, how did you determine that Hoke was lying when he claimed that he did not read the Gell file? Are you a mindreader?"


I am no mindreader, nor do I pretend to be. However, I do have common sense. It is beyond belief that David Hoke would not read the report of his SBI agent regarding eyewitness statements. Furthermore, despite the fact that after the existence of the eyewitness statements was made public, the NC Attorney General's office continued to fight the appeal of Alan Gell. Of course, the jury immediately found him not guilty at his second trial with exculpatory withheld evidence on record.

Anonymous said...

The burden of proof rests on those who say that he made a willingly false statement.

Actually, the burden of proof now rests on those who assert that Judge Smith, as the finder of fact, reached a conclusion that was not supported by the evidence.

You have made the same assertion in numerous comments, but have provided no evidence for your assertion. I agree that the transcript will be invaluable in determining what evidence was presented and whether that evidence supported the conclusion that Nifong "willingly" made an inaccurate statement. I look forward to you providing a link. If you are not able to do so, you should explain how you know that there was no evidence presented that supported that conclusion.

I believe that you should at a minimum provide a list of exhibits filed with the court and a transcript of the testimony by Nifong, Meehan and Himan, particularly that testimony that relates to what was discussed during the three meetings. I submit that Mr. Nifong's testimony cannot be properly evaluated without consideration of the testimony of other participants and other evidence.

As you know, Nifong made statements that go beyond your apparent claim that the court ruled that "Nifong definitely read the DNA summary report in its entirety before December 15th." For example, Mr. Nifong confirmed that he was "representing that the facts of the case weren’t discussed in those meetings." One need not read the report in its entirety to determine whether or not the facts of the case had been discussed.

Anonymous said...

I apologize for my facetious claim that Mr. Nifong's defense was that he was "lazy and incompetent." I know that he never said that.

He prosecuted a case that depended almost entirely on the credibility of the accuser without discussing the case with her. He apparently failed to read any significant portion of the discovery file. He had no interest in interviewing any of the defendants (or ensuring that the DPD did so). He apparently had no objection to the DPD's failure to conduct a bona fide investigation in a case with little evidence beyond the testimony of a potentially unreliable accuser. He made three trips to another county to meet with a DNA lab, but did not find it important either to listen to the discussion and or to read the report. His view of a felony prosecution apparently is to take one of a number of inconsistent accusations and ignore the remainder, contrive an identification process to select defendants and see whether he can make it stick.

Furthermore, he stated that he regularly failed to read reports until the night before trial. He would not read them at all if the defendant agreed to a plea. "Efficient" clearly is a more accurate description.

Please accept my humble apology. My characterization clearly was unfair.