Sunday, June 26, 2011
The cosmetic self-serving bill that the Guv shouldn’t’ve signed into law
In the Saturday, June 25, 2011 issue of The News & Observer is an article by staff writer Craig Jarvis titled, “Perdue vetoes bill on lawsuits.” The article makes mention of some of the other bills that Governor Bev Perdue signed into law on Friday. One bill she signed was to “protect prosecutors if police don’t give them all the material they’re supposed to in criminal cases…” This is truly a joke and it’s the kind of thing that cements into the minds of countrymen and women that North Carolina is the laughing stock of the nation when it comes to criminal justice.
The bill is one without substance, offers no benefits to the majority of Tar Heelians, and at its worst is capable of debilitating court room justice. It is self-serving in that the General Assembly, which is comprised mostly of attorneys and individuals with law degrees, in passing it is merely protecting one of its flock from civil liability. This should not even be an issue because prosecutors enjoy immunity in cases which they are prosecuting… all attorneys except former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. Because Nifong exhibited rare independence and refused to kowtow to the Power-That-Be and dismiss the Duke Lacrosse case charges, he was subjected to the most overbearing and devastating persecution by the state, including disbarment, and crucifixion in the media. The protection he was due as a prosecutor was stripped away to permit the unprecedented filing of civil suits against him. What makes this all the more tragic is that he prosecuted the case well within acceptable standards.
Other prosecutors, such as Tom Ford, who solicit and use perjured testimony, withhold exculpatory evidence from the defense, utilize hocus-pocus forensics, and have no qualms about holding “suspects” in jail for lengthy periods without bringing them to trial, are and have been protected by the laws already in place that provide them with immunity. They are protected under the umbrella of the law so long as they comply with the wishes of those in power… if not the consequences of their actions can be predicted by observing what happened to the independently thinking prosecutor seeking true justice, Mike Nifong.
With the Mike Nifong situation, the state merely bypassed the law that protected Nifong… acted as though it didn’t exist. Because the media had thoroughly poisoned the minds of the masses with its anti-Nifong reporting and opinions there was little reason to believe that the public would object this judicial indiscretion.
But, that is the way things work in the Tar Heel state. When people of privilege, power, status, and connections go afoul of the law, then the laws are bended or broken and they receive “a rare deal for the privileged.” When the disenfranchised, poor, people of color, and those who have incurred the wrath of the state bigwigs are involved in a controversy, then you can bet that the laws will be manipulated and molded in a way that is not to their advantage… a “rare deal for the not-so-privileged.” Bottom line is that this bill is totally useless. The courts and state will continue to use creative means when dealing with the law in order to obtain the results it desires.
The absence of civil lawsuits filed against prosecutors is evidence that this bill to protect them is superfluous. Prosecutor Tom Ford, who vindictively put Gregory Taylor, a man he knew to be innocent, behind bars for a life sentence is not being sued. Even though after serving 17 years wrongfully in prison Greg Taylor was exonerated and proclaimed “innocent” by a three judge panel. Prosecutor David Hoke who put Alan Gell on death row even though he possessed exculpatory evidence of his innocence, is not being sued. This, despite the fact that Alan Gell served ten years wrongfully incarcerated. These are but two of many cases where prosecutors exhibited egregious professional misconduct far worse than anything Mr. Nifong has been accused of and yet are not subjected to civil suits. This bill is unnecessary for protecting those prosecutors who tow the state’s line by following the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.”
What the bill does is divest prosecutors of responsibility for the cases they choose to prosecute. In this way, it is a major impediment for criminal defendants who are seeking justice. It is an out for the prosecutors, allowing them to put the blame of an ill-fated and wrongful prosecution on police and investigators. If crucial evidence, records, lab results, notes, and/or documentation are found to be withheld from the defense, then prosecutors can do as they have done in the past… which is to put the blame on the investigator, police, or lab tech. This bill allows prosecutors to say, loud and clear, “Hey, it’s not my fault,” whenever an innocent person has been found to have languished behind bars for years and decades due to a prosecutorial misdeed. If anything, this bill which was just signed into law, has the propensity to ramp up the number of bad acts by prosecutors. This is an outcome that is obviously not in the best interests of Tar Heelians.
A prime example of what I’ve stated comes from an article which appeared in The News & Observer titled, “Bill critics: Hold DAs accountable.” In the news piece, by AP writer Emery P. Dalesio, it discussed an Iredell County double-murder case in which the judge declared a mistrial and barred prosecutors from pursuing the death penalty against defendant Al Bellamy. This ruling from the bench was the result of prosecutors, who three weeks into the trial and having completed presenting their case, handed defense attorneys about 1,700 pages of interview notes taken by a former narcotics detective. Although the prosecutors’ case may be in slight jeopardy, the prosecutors themselves certainly are at no risk. In accordance with the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong), the names of the prosecutors are not even mentioned. The bill newly signed into law would have absolutely no bearing on this case.
These Iredell County prosecutors will not face sanctions, punishment, or disbarment for withholding gobs of evidence from defense attorneys well into the trial, which is an abomination when one considers that the North Carolina State Bar, in large measure, disbarred Mike Nifong for allegedly not giving defense attorneys non-exculpatory lab results fast enough… a trial date having not even been set in the Duke Lacrosse case.
Final analysis: it is the people who need protection from prosecutors, not the prosecutors who need protection from the people. However, through obfuscation, Jedi mind-speak, spin, and fancy rhetoric, the General Assembly has been able to convince many of those who do not adequately exercise their gray matter that this new law to protect prosecutors will lead to fairer criminal justice outcomes. Hah. The laugh’s on us. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
40 comments:
Totally and completely wrong again. As usual. boring boring boring. take your meds, sid.
However twisted your logic in supporting Mike Nifong, I have to agree with your conclusion here. It will simply encourage more Nifong-like behavior.
Anonymous said...
"However twisted your logic in supporting Mike Nifong, I have to agree with your conclusion here. It will simply encourage more Nifong-like behavior."
I'm sure you meant to say that it will encourage more "Tom Ford-like behavior."
On the last thread, Sidney complains that he was in a line up. I suggest that we hold him to him own standard.
Sidney whines: Talk about humiliation.
That is not important. Sidney spent no time in jail. Jail time is the only hardship he recognizes.
... and whines: And what would've happened had this woman identified me as the burglar... I'm sure that I would've been taken to the jail and locked up no questions asked.
As well he should have been. He has repeatedly expressed the opinion that an allegation and an identification from an accusing witness require that the case be taken to trial. No investigation is necessary or appropriate, either to validate the accusation or confirm the identification. Only a court can determine whether the accuser is credible.
Bail would have been low for a burglary charge against an individual with no record. He would have spent no time in jail. He would await trial out on bail as the case slowly moved through the case management system, putting his life on hold and living under uncertainty. The results of the investigation would slowly become available (delays in discovery are permitted because a prosecutor has no obligation to provide evidence as long as no court date had been set). They would have found no physical evidence to tie him to the burglary. The only the inculpatory evidence would be the identification made by the victim. The accusation and identification remain enough to go to trial.
If the prosecutor decided that the identification was flawed and wanted to announce that Sidney was innocent of the burglary charges, we can hear his protest:
I am not innocent of burglary. I have not been exonerated. The failure to find any evidence does not prove that I could not possibly have committed a burglary. Not all burglaries leave fingerprints or other physical evidence. I was arrested and charged, and no judge or jury found me not guilty. A prosecutor did not bring this case to trial, and we will never know what evidence he could have presented. Just because he currently has no credible evidence to support the charges against me does not necessarily exclude the possibility that a credible case could be built against me. Only a court can make the determination that I am not guilty.
All one can say is: 'Charges were dismissed.’ A declaration that I am innocent would be an example of overreaching and irresponsibility at its greatest. That proclamation would be worthless. Except for Cooper, who abused his authority, no prosecutor in the history of the world has ever made such a proclamation.
Stop whining.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz……………………
Defending scumbag Nifong because he persecuted innocent white kids.Your racism is showing.
Blind racism plus weak intellect equal, wow, Sid the self proclaimed ........
By the way, Sid, evil oppressor white people are helping out with sister's kids. What are you doing?
Harr Supporter said...
"On the last thread, Sidney complains that he was in a line up. I suggest that we hold him to him own standard.
Sidney whines: Talk about humiliation.
That is not important. Sidney spent no time in jail. Jail time is the only hardship he recognizes.
... and whines: And what would've happened had this woman identified me as the burglar... I'm sure that I would've been taken to the jail and locked up no questions asked.
As well he should have been. He has repeatedly expressed the opinion that an allegation and an identification from an accusing witness require that the case be taken to trial. No investigation is necessary or appropriate, either to validate the accusation or confirm the identification. Only a court can determine whether the accuser is credible.
Bail would have been low for a burglary charge against an individual with no record. He would have spent no time in jail. He would await trial out on bail as the case slowly moved through the case management system, putting his life on hold and living under uncertainty. The results of the investigation would slowly become available (delays in discovery are permitted because a prosecutor has no obligation to provide evidence as long as no court date had been set). They would have found no physical evidence to tie him to the burglary. The only the inculpatory evidence would be the identification made by the victim. The accusation and identification remain enough to go to trial.
If the prosecutor decided that the identification was flawed and wanted to announce that Sidney was innocent of the burglary charges, we can hear his protest:
I am not innocent of burglary. I have not been exonerated. The failure to find any evidence does not prove that I could not possibly have committed a burglary. Not all burglaries leave fingerprints or other physical evidence. I was arrested and charged, and no judge or jury found me not guilty. A prosecutor did not bring this case to trial, and we will never know what evidence he could have presented. Just because he currently has no credible evidence to support the charges against me does not necessarily exclude the possibility that a credible case could be built against me. Only a court can make the determination that I am not guilty.
All one can say is: 'Charges were dismissed.’ A declaration that I am innocent would be an example of overreaching and irresponsibility at its greatest. That proclamation would be worthless. Except for Cooper, who abused his authority, no prosecutor in the history of the world has ever made such a proclamation.
Stop whining."
Call it whining if you will, but I have a right to complain about my treatment by the Raleigh Police just as I do about my treatment at Duke University. In both instances I was unnecessarily and unjustly humiliated and intimidated with arrest. In both instances I was doing nothing but minding my own business and walking when approached by authority. I believe in both instances the abuse was triggered because I am a supporter of Mike Nifong. That is unjust, and you, anonymous commenter, should be just as alarmed as I am. The same treatment could befall you if in the future your views on controversial issues should be in variance with the accepted and popular norm. What happened to me is a wake-up call for all Tar Heelians.
Thereby, go ye enlightened.
oh, I get it, Sid.......head-slap. You are just so terribly important and just soooo high profile that the police (duke, raleigh, durham, wherever....) instantly recognize you and persecute YOU because of your support of scumbag Nifong. Wow, amazing. I had no idea you were such a target that you would be profiled. Of course, you are not paranoid, or inconsistent, or afflicted by a double standard worldview, are you, Sid? Hmmmmmm, one does wonder.....
Could it be that you were violating Duke's anti-solicitation policy that is uniformly enforced and THAT was the reason you were "approached"???? Why, no, of course not.
Give us a break, Sid, enlightenment begins at home, bud.
Anonymous said...
"oh, I get it, Sid.......head-slap. You are just so terribly important and just soooo high profile that the police (duke, raleigh, durham, wherever....) instantly recognize you and persecute YOU because of your support of scumbag Nifong. Wow, amazing. I had no idea you were such a target that you would be profiled. Of course, you are not paranoid, or inconsistent, or afflicted by a double standard worldview, are you, Sid? Hmmmmmm, one does wonder.....
Could it be that you were violating Duke's anti-solicitation policy that is uniformly enforced and THAT was the reason you were 'approached'???? Why, no, of course not.
Give us a break, Sid, enlightenment begins at home, bud."
First of all, Duke University does not have an "anti-silicitation policy." It has a policy that defines what is acceptable for corporate sponsors to follow when soliciting on campus. The fact of the matter is that I was not solicitating period. Handing out a business card is not soliciting. Other people hand out business cards all the time on the Duke campus, and they are not harassed and intimidated with arrest. Also, the guard stated that he was instructed by the building manager to remove me from campus, and he was not given a reason for doing so. The "solicitation excuse" was the best reason that Duke could come up with for its discriminatory treatment of me.
Regarding the Raleigh Police, the reason I doubt that there was a burglary that took place and that it was used as a pretense to harass and intimidate me is because when I went to the Raleigh Police Department to find out information about the alleged burglary I was stone-walled. I could not get information about what was taken, where it was taken from, or any other information about the crime. There are other factors which make me doubt the credibility for my detainment as well.
Consider yourself blessed with enlightenment.
Anonymous said...
"Blind racism plus weak intellect equal, wow, Sid the self proclaimed ........
By the way, Sid, evil oppressor white people are helping out with sister's kids. What are you doing?"
I am spreading enlightenment through the internet. Not only am I working on the North Carolina justice system issues of injustice, but I am broadening my horizons by taking on North Carolina politics. My next flog, in fact will introduce the initial political installment. Hope to have it ready by the end of the week.
Of course, YOU would say duke has no anti-solitation policy because it suits YOUR distorted version of facts. Wow, bet we couldn't have figure that one out. In fact, Duke DOES have a very strong, widely publicized policy and I have a creeping suspicion that there might just be another perspective on your behavior and how it violated the policy. I have personally read the policy in question, Sid, and am very familiar with it. Try again. Your excuses are slipping......
"Other people hand out business cards all the time on the Duke campus, and they are not harassed and intimidated with arrest."
How do you know this? In what context were those (alleged) business cards handed out. Face it Sid -- you didn't get a sponsor and handed out business cards (and pimped your website) on Duke Campus. It's been explained to you numerous times that these are violations of the Duke solicitation policy. Just because you refuse to believe it does not make it so.
WHERE
IS
THE
GREAT
KILGO?
You're the man, Sid, You're the man.
"It has a policy that defines what is acceptable for corporate sponsors to follow when soliciting on campus. The fact of the matter is that I was not solicitating period. Handing out a business card is not soliciting."
The Justice 4 Nifong committee IS an organization. Handing out business cards and/or information regarding the website without sponsorship on Duke Campus IS a violation of the OSAF Solicitation policy. Specifically, conditions 2 -4 were violated.
How's the ol' lawsuit going?
Anonymous said...
"Of course, YOU would say duke has no anti-solitation policy because it suits YOUR distorted version of facts. Wow, bet we couldn't have figure that one out. In fact, Duke DOES have a very strong, widely publicized policy and I have a creeping suspicion that there might just be another perspective on your behavior and how it violated the policy. I have personally read the policy in question, Sid, and am very familiar with it. Try again. Your excuses are slipping......"
I am not in violation of any solicitation policy for Duke University that I have seen. If you are aware of a solicitation policy I have violated, would you be so kind as to copy and paste a copy of it to me or send me a link to it? Thank you.
Anonymous said...
"'Other people hand out business cards all the time on the Duke campus, and they are not harassed and intimidated with arrest.'
How do you know this? In what context were those (alleged) business cards handed out. Face it Sid -- you didn't get a sponsor and handed out business cards (and pimped your website) on Duke Campus. It's been explained to you numerous times that these are violations of the Duke solicitation policy. Just because you refuse to believe it does not make it so."
As I was leaving the Duke event, Tom Breen, a writer for AP stopped me and asked my opinion about the Breyer interview... I presume for an article that he was writing about the event. I told him basically that I enjoyed the event and thought it was interesting and worthwhile. Then, since I had his attention I discussed the Committee and handed him a business card and he reciprocated by handing me his business card. This was done in view of the security guard who was standing about 20 feet away. And as I was leaving Mr. Breen, the security guard approached me and commenced to kick me off campus. He didn't kick Mr. Breen off campus. He was not in earshot of our conversation. And as he admitted later, he was instructed to "remove me from the grounds" and he was just doing his job... although I believe the plan included my arrest.
I repeat, the Solicitation excuse was the best excuse the university could come up with. The real reason I was mistreated was because I was a Nifong supporter.
Anonymous said...
"You're the man, Sid, You're the man."
Ye Enlightened One,
Thank you for the kind words.
Anonymous said...
"'It has a policy that defines what is acceptable for corporate sponsors to follow when soliciting on campus. The fact of the matter is that I was not solicitating period. Handing out a business card is not soliciting.'
The Justice 4 Nifong committee IS an organization. Handing out business cards and/or information regarding the website without sponsorship on Duke Campus IS a violation of the OSAF Solicitation policy. Specifically, conditions 2 -4 were violated.
How's the ol' lawsuit going?"
Okay, for the purposes of argument, let's consider that the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong is an organization. Would you not therefore consider the Associated Press an organization? Mr. Breen, the AP writer who approached me handed me his business card, so are you of the opinion that he should have been booted off campus too?
Oops, forgot to reply about the lawsuit.
Things are still in limbo. Am awaiting the recommendation of the magistrate to the judge with regards to the defendants' Motion to Dismiss. I will let you know as soon as I get word.
Thanks for your interest.
With regards to Mr. Breen, since he was at the event as a reporter representing a true news organization (as opposed to a blog, no offense), I'm sure that he met the Duke University press requirements, while you did not. His activities as a reporter would fall under different guidelines than yours as a private citizen or member of an organization you're representing.
Of course, old reliable absolutely truthful Sidney is telling us HIS version of what transpired, folks. Perhaps, just perhaps, there may, dare I say it, a slightly different version of what happened....and perhaps, deep breath, perhaps THAT version was more akin to the truth.....
Sid, you're a big boy.....go to any public computer, google Duke, look for policies regarding Visitors and, Voila, there it is, pal. (the antisolititation polcy). You were engaging in behavior that violated that policy. Period. If you disagree, PROVE it in Court. We can't wait...
As I'm sure he will.
kenhyderal said...
As I'm sure he will.
Sid, the fact that this clown thinks your suit has merit confirms you have no chance of prevailing. Good luck.
Anonymous at 11:24 has it right, this bill will encourage more Nifong-like behavior.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous said...
"With regards to Mr. Breen, since he was at the event as a reporter representing a true news organization (as opposed to a blog, no offense), I'm sure that he met the Duke University press requirements, while you did not. His activities as a reporter would fall under different guidelines than yours as a private citizen or member of an organization you're representing."
If you will listen to the audio, you will hear the guard say that he was told to "remove me" from campus and that he was just doing his job. I repeatedly tried to find out why I was being kicked off campus and the security guard didn't know why. Never once did he say, "Because you're soliciting."
I'll provide the link to the audio that you can copy and paste for the url address:
http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoB/irB4.htm
Anonymous said...
"Of course, old reliable absolutely truthful Sidney is telling us HIS version of what transpired, folks. Perhaps, just perhaps, there may, dare I say it, a slightly different version of what happened....and perhaps, deep breath, perhaps THAT version was more akin to the truth.....
Sid, you're a big boy.....go to any public computer, google Duke, look for policies regarding Visitors and, Voila, there it is, pal. (the antisolititation polcy). You were engaging in behavior that violated that policy. Period. If you disagree, PROVE it in Court. We can't wait..."
My version is the truth and is documented by the audio that was taken at the moment. I took the recorder to record the interview, then shortly after I was approached by the security guard I decided to document what was going on. Listen to the audio and you will note that the security guard stated that he was instructed to "remove me" from campus. He did not know why. When I asked him directly why he was removing me from campus, he never gave me an answer other than because I was causing a disturbance (which I wasn't) and because I was trespassing (again, which I wasn't, as I was invited as a public person to attend).
This is far from just being a he said/he said. This is a he said/with audio recording to back it up.
If the case goes to trial, I shall prevail. The only hope that Duke has is for the case to be dismissed.
Anonymous said...
"kenhyderal said...
As I'm sure he will.
Sid, the fact that this clown thinks your suit has merit confirms you have no chance of prevailing. Good luck."
You are mistaken as kenhyderal is one of the Enlightened Ones. I am comforted by his support.
In another case, Corey Maye is expected to be released from prison shortly.
Maye had been on death row, having been found guilty of murder when he shot a policeman who broke into his home in a botched no-knock SWAT raid on the wrong house. Maye testified that he initially thought he was shooting an intruder.
Anonymous said...
"In another case, Corey Maye is expected to be released from prison shortly.
Maye had been on death row, having been found guilty of murder when he shot a policeman who broke into his home in a botched no-knock SWAT raid on the wrong house. Maye testified that he initially thought he was shooting an intruder."
Thank you for information about Cory Maye. I had not heard of his case, but looked it up. Another instance of injustice... which is not just limited to North Carolina. Seems like he was incarcerated for some time, and also on death row.
I will present another case of a young man wrongfully on death row here in North Carolina.
Thanks again for informing me and other readers of this blog about that case of injustice.
Have a nice holiday weekend.
Sidney Harr, you're my hero.
Yo Sid, you the man.
It's time for some justice4nifong.
WHERE
IS
THE
GREAT
KILGO?
WHERE
IS
MOTOR
MOUTH?
Commenters,
Have a wonderful Fourth. As it is a national holiday, the library will be closed tomorrow, so I will not be online. However, the first political flog will be posted on Tuesday, July 5th. You'll find it very enlightening.
Bruce Springsteen, Born In The U.S.A.:
"Born down in a dead man's town
The first kick I took was when I hit the ground
You end up like a dog that's been beat too much
'Til you spend half your life just covering up
[chorus]
Born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
I got in a little hometown jam
And so they put a rifle in my hands
Sent me off to Vietnam
To go and kill the yellow man
[chorus]
Come back home to the refinery
Hiring man says "Son if it was up to me"
I go down to see the V.A. man
He said "Son don't you understand"
[chorus]
I had a buddy at Khe Sahn
Fighting off the Viet Cong
They're still there, he's all gone
He had a little girl in Saigon
I got a picture of him in her arms
Down in the shadow of the penitentiary
Out by the gas fires of the refinery
I'm ten years down the road
Nowhere to run, ain't got nowhere to go
I'm a long gone Daddy in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A.
I'm a cool rocking Daddy in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A. "
As is not to be completely unexpected, I have been having problems recently posting blogs. However, now I am having problems uploading the flog on GoDaddy.com. I do not know why, but I will try to get it up and running. Whether my difficulties are due to sabotage, hackers, or problems with the GoDaddy site, I am unaware.
You may try to revisit the link to the flog later, or read the blog below.
Post a Comment