Thursday, January 20, 2011

A simple question that Nifong detractors cannot answer

As I have so frequently stated, the Grievance Commission of the North Carolina State Bar used all of the creative juices it could muster to come up with an excuse for disbarring former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. They are so elaborate and nonsensical that not even Nifong bashers can make sense of them. The problem stems from the fact that no one can explain why Mike Nifong was disbarred… the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933. He certainly did not withhold discovery from defense attorneys of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. He had his staff deliver more than a thousand pages of discovery in three sets to attorneys for the defendants within 24 hours of the defense’s motion. What the media doesn’t want the public to know is that defense attorneys did not reciprocate when prosecutors sought discovery held by defense.

Unlike other prosecutors, Mr. Nifong did not fabricate confessions, arrange for eyewitnesses to appear out of the woodwork, or make plea deals with jail house snitches to provide perjured testimony. Mike Nifong acted honorably and in good faith in prosecuting the complaint of sexual assault in the Duke, and assumed the mantle of “Minister of Justice” by initiating the dismissal of the rape charges when the standards required for a charge were not deemed to be met in his opinion.

Some may say that Mr. Nifong made some statements before the media that were inappropriate, inflammatory, or denied the defendants of a fair trial. The only problem with this argument is that these statements were made early on in the investigation and well before any defendants were indicted. The generalized statements were made in an attempt to flush out any courageous and conscientious partygoers into voluntarily coming forward and cooperating with the police investigation. No way was there anything within the statements made to the media that should warrant any action against Mr. Nifong.

Finally, there is the issue about so-called lies Mr. Nifong made to the court. I have been trying to find out what lies were told. One commenter referred me to a transcript by the State Bar Grievance Commission head, which, no doubt included a lot of legalese mumbo-jumbo which was an attempt to pull the old Jedi mind-trick on the gullible, naïve, and mindless. The explanation is so convoluted that not even blog commenters can recite in a clear and cogent manner what lie(s) Mr. Nifong is alleged to have told which resulted in his disbarment and contempt of court judgment.

One needs to keep in mind that making a statement which may be inaccurate or contain misstatement of facts, does not constitute telling a lie. A lie requires mental consciousness of making a statement that is false. It would appear that F. Lane Williamson, who was the head of the Grievance panel responsible for Mr. Nifong’s disbarment, has mind-reading capabilities as he has determined that Mike Nifong prosecuted the three Duke Lacrosse defendants in order to court that black vote in Durham to enhance his chances of winning election to the D.A. position to which he had been appointed. If you just give it a scintilla’s worth of thought, you could tell that that is the perfect prescription for losing an election… any election. The way for Mike Nifong to assure a victory would have been for him to drop all charges and the investigation immediately… as he was pressured to do by the Powers-That-Be. And because he acted independently in following the principles of “equal justice for all,” the state set out to make sure that he was made an example of. Their campaign was most effective, as Rowan County District Attorney Bill Kenerly, in handling the prosecution of former Governor Mike Easley with kid gloves and giving him a rare deal, stated that he was not going to make a “Mike Nifong mistake.”

You can bet that no other prosecutor will make the “Mike Nifong mistake” because it could definitely cost him/her their law license… even though he/she may do nothing to warrant such action. That is no comfort as the State Bar head honchos are very creative and can come up with a creative reason for disbarment, like they did in the Mike Nifong case.

Creative reasons are commonly used to defend unjust actions. Case in point has to do with my ouster and near arrest on the Duke University campus. Although I was at the campus on an invitation to an event open to the public, I was kicked off the campus for no reason other than being a Nifong supporter. When I pressed the university for a reason for my ouster, the creative response I got was that I was asked to leave because I was “soliciting” which was defined as handing out my business card and asking them to visit my website. (I handed out but a half dozen cards to individuals with whom I had engaged in conversation while awaiting for the event to take place.)

In case you may have missed it before, I will provide a link below to the audio and transcript of the dialogue that I had with the security guard.

LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoB/irB4.htm

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

" One commenter referred me to a transcript by the State Bar Grievance Commission head, which, no doubt included a lot of legalese mumbo-jumbo"

In other words, you did't read the ethics complaint.

I believe the term "willful ignorance" applies here.

Finally, there are lies of COMMISSION and lies of OMISSION. Read the ethics complaint with this in mind, and I'm sure you'll understand the "legalese mumbo-jumbo". If all else fails, post your questions regarding the "legalese mumbo-jumbo" here. I'm sure there are some educated readers who can help you decipher their meaning.

guiowen said...

Remember Kim Roberts Pittman? She had originally called Crystal's complaint "a crock". Then, when she was given favorable treatment (related to a previous case) she "suddenly realized" that maybe she could take back her words.
Remember Elmostafa? He was asked whether he stood by his original statement (a clear alibi for Evans) and, when he refused to change it, he was arrested on some charges so stupid that even Nifong's crony on the bench dismissed the charges.
If that's not witness tampering, then I don't know what is.

Nifong Supporter said...


guiowen said...
"Remember Kim Roberts Pittman? She had originally called Crystal's complaint 'a crock'. Then, when she was given favorable treatment (related to a previous case) she 'suddenly realized' that maybe she could take back her words.
Remember Elmostafa? He was asked whether he stood by his original statement (a clear alibi for Evans) and, when he refused to change it, he was arrested on some charges so stupid that even Nifong's crony on the bench dismissed the charges.
If that's not witness tampering, then I don't know what is."


I do not know anything about any statements Kim Pittman may have made, but it is my understanding that an arrest warrant was out for Elmostafa long before the Duke Lacrosse beer-guzzling, stripper ogling party in March 2006 ever took place. Am I wrong? Were charges against Elmostafa brought after the Duke Lacrosse case? If not, then the police were obligated to arrest him. That occurs when people cross the media's path... reporters and police alike delve into their backgrounds, and if a background check comes up with an arrest warrant, what do you recommend the police do?

If you want an example of witness tampering, coersion, and intimidation by authorities, then just wait for an upcoming blog about the injustices regarding Shan Edward Carter. You won't believe it.

Finally, the post-comic strip commentary is going to be an increasingly important part of my presentations, taking on a bigger part than the blogs. These comments will essentially be interactive documentaries. The one to be uploaded on January 23, 2011 will be an example of future work. Attention to these animated audio-visual works is time consuming and will result in fewer traditional in-depth blogs being posted here. What I will do is provide links to them at the conclusion of the blogs.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
" 'One commenter referred me to a transcript by the State Bar Grievance Commission head, which, no doubt included a lot of legalese mumbo-jumbo'

In other words, you did't read the ethics complaint.

I believe the term 'willful ignorance' applies here.

Finally, there are lies of COMMISSION and lies of OMISSION. Read the ethics complaint with this in mind, and I'm sure you'll understand the 'legalese mumbo-jumbo'. If all else fails, post your questions regarding the 'legalese mumbo-jumbo' here. I'm sure there are some educated readers who can help you decipher their meaning."



It is obvious to me that the legalese mumbo-jumbo in the ethics complaint has sufficiently stymied you to the point where you cannot even give me one example of a lie that Mr. Nifong allegedly told the court. If you knew of any, then you would have no problem telling me what they were.

Anonymous said...

Ah, but I've READ the ethics complaint. I'm sure that you could have completed it in the time it took you to read my post and compose a response. Your ignorance is showing, Sid.

Anonymous said...

I'm no legal scholar, but I went to the Final Order transcript from the NC Bar and read it. Twice. It's filled with what I consider to be pretty plain language. In my reading I was struck by many blatent lies. The first and easiest to see was, after meeting with Dr. Meehan 3 times and knowing 100% for sure that no player's DNA was present on the rape kit, AND that there was DNA on the rape kit from 4 other non-identified men (POTENTIALLY EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE) Nifong had Meehan prepare a report EXCLUDING THIS INFORMATION. That in and of itself is a breach of a previous court order to turn over ALL discovery to the Duke defendants, but this is something that prosecutors do every day (sadly). The lie comes when Mike Nifong "Minister of Justice" went before Judge Stephens and was asked point blank by the Judge if he had turned over ALL discovery materials to the defendants. Nifong responds, "I've turned over everything I have." At that moment Nifong had just made a misrepresntation and false statement of material fact...in short a LIE to Judge Stephens. The only way to say that this is not a lie is to invoke what you like to call 'legalese mumbo-jumbo' something like "thats all he had on him 'physically' in court that day or something else akin to Bill Clinton's famous statement that it depends on what the definition of "is" is! There are more lies from Nifong in this report, but the premise of your question too restrictive, in that Nifong disbared not only for lying, but for also running afoul of the rules of professional ethics governing prosecutors in the state of North Carolina. So there's your 1 lie-of many-found by a non-legally educated, mid-level medical professional. Hope you didn't spend too much on your education Mr. Harr, if you did you got ripped off.

Anonymous said...

Deafening silence

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Deafening silence"


Please keep in mind that I am extremely busy, having yet to complete the comic strip that is currently on display. Also, it is time-consuming creating the post-strip Flash commentary that now accompanies each of the parts. In addition to advocating on behalf of yet another person wrongly incarcerated and writing blogs, that leaves precious little time to spend responding immediately to every comment made. Also, keep in mind that I use the library's internet, where it's free, so replying is not always a convenience for me.

Let me be clear that I do appreciate your comment and will consider devoting a blog especially to it.

I've just posted Part 4 of Episode V of the "Super-Duper" comic strip, and will also post another blog, which will have a link directly to the comic strip.

Again, thank you for your comment, but please be patient.

Anonymous said...

Since this has been answered, do you plan to rename this blog entry? Might I suggest "a response to a simple question that a Nifong supporter cannot answer"?

Let me be clear that I do not expect you to counter this response in any meaningful way.

Walt said...

Did Mike Nifong construct false confessions? Of course not. No one confessed because there was nothing to confess to. Did Nifong proceed with probable cause? No. Once the SBI came back with no DNA match to any of the defendants, Nifong's probable cause to proceed evaporated.

So, what did he do? He went to an outside lab to try and get some evidence. When they got no match, Nifong burried that in hundreds of pages of documents which he did not produce in a timely manner and still proceeded, without probable cause.

Did Nifong use false identifications? Yes, he did. Time after time Crystal failed to identify her alleged attackers in photo lineups. Finally, the DPD with Nifong's assent constructed a lineup so phoney as to fail the DPD's own General Orders where Crystal picked three apparently random party attendees. Yet there was no evidence that she was attacked in any way that confirmed her various stories. Still Nifong proceeded.

If Crystal was raped, and I doubt that she was, Nifong took off after three people who did not do it. For that, he not only deserves to be disbarred but also deserves to be held up to ridicule for the rest of time.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

So are you ever going to answer the responses to this blog Mr. Harr? It seems you have been exposed here... There have been 2 excellent responses that negate your premise. You've obviously had time as there have been subsequent blog posts on other topics and a new comic strip. I think you will not comment in any meaningful manner, because you know that Nifong misrepresented the truth (lied).

Anonymous said...

Who is this dunce who calls himself "Nifong Supporter?"

Beverly Boykin said...

Mike Nifong was disbarred because his attackers viewed him as breaking one of the "codes of the south" - actually it is a "code of racism maintained". He dared to charge white males with a charge of crimes against a Black Person - particularly sexual violations against a Black woman. The code of the south is that any white man can have his way with a Black woman, and Black people in general have no rights that a White man is bound to respect - a supreme court justice - Roger B. Taney code of the south imprinted in perpetuity.

So Mike Nifong's hapless error was that he dared to be fair and view Black people and white people equally, believe this Black woman, and appear to be - in the southern racists' minds who went after him - derailing the future of white guys for a Black woman's complaint.
I pray that Mike gets justice and his license to practice law back. But for the time, Satan is the Prince of this world, so, that is why Mike Nifong is suffering for the time being.

gak said...

Nifong lost his license to practice law because his greed created such a public display that when it blew up in his face, the bar had no other choice. The premise of this blog, that all these others got away with it, why not Mikey? is sad. I noticed that you have been noticeably silent about Tracy Clines antics. Nifong was as guilty as they come and deserved what he got. You should be going after all the others they way you are going after Bev Perdue.