A rare deal in Sparta, Mississippi

Word count: 1,432

It was my intention to post only sharlogs (definition: pl. for a flog by Sidney Harr) on this site, however the production of one is time consuming and very energy-intensive. It takes several weeks to write, narrate, and put images together to make a sharlog… and I’ve been averaging one a month recently. There are many topics of interest and importance which I haven’t been able to address because I’ve been working exclusively with sharlogs. As they say, “a brilliant mind is a terrible thing to waste,” ergo I have decided to change policy and to once again resume posting blogs… that have to be read. I’ll post blogs once or twice weekly while posting sharlogs once or twice a month. Although it was my intention to have a sharlog posted this weekend, despite my frantic efforts, it looks like it will be ready to be posted closer to next weekend.

This afternoon the regular CBS programming was rearranged for airing of the NCAA basketball tournament, so I turned to WRAL-2 (I don’t have cable) to await my soap opera, “The Bold and the Beautiful”… anxious to see if Wyatt’s evil mother would toss crazy Allie from the overpass railing onto traffic below and whether Brooke would succeed in wresting her former husband and fiancée Ridge from her little sister Katie’s newly formed relationship with him. While waiting for the show to come on, I had to sit through an episode of “In the Heat of the Night,” a Carroll O’Connor police drama set in the deep South… fictional Sparta, Mississippi.

This episode featured Kevin (or Keith, I don’t remember which) a friend of the police captain nicknamed “Bubba.” Kevin, considered a good guy, was deeply in love with his wife, and they had nearly completed work on adopting a one year old boy. Turns out, the boy’s father Dalton Jones is a real creep and shows up at the last moment and tells Kevin that he won’t contest the adoption if he’s paid a little moolah. Kevin, not wanting to stress his wife, keeps this from her and pays the boy’s father thousands of dollars. Naturally, Dalton keeps upping the ante, to where Kevin can’t shell out any more dough. At that point Dalton tells him that he will go to Court to get his boy. Kevin is very concerned because he knows that his wife’s heart would be broken if she were to lose the child.

Dalton makes Kevin one final option… promising to refrain from going to court after his son if Kevin would give him the code to the alarm system at the shop where he’s employed. After hours of vacillating, Kevin agrees and gives the shady character the numbers to enable him to burglarize the place.

That night, Dalton using the codes given him by Kevin, gains entry into the shop and begins using a torch to break through the safe containing cash revenue. Unfortunately, the owner of the store just happens to walk by, notices the burglary in progress and proceeds to go to his office and grab his revolver to confront the thief. End result, the burglar pulls out a concealed gun of his own and shoots the owner in the chest, killing him.

The next morning when Kevin goes to work he finds police mulling around and the ambulance taking a body from the building. It was then he learns that his boss had been killed. Bubba, who had been watching his friend closely, began questioning Kevin about his whereabouts the previous evening. Bubba had also been looking into the boy Kevin and his wife were going to adopt and learned that Dalton with his criminal record was the birth father of the boy.

Distraught, Kevin goes over to the shack where Dalton lives and tells him to high-tail it… that the police are going to figure that he was responsible for the fatal burglary. Dalton doesn’t need to be told twice.

Meanwhile Kevin goes to his wife and tells her that he’s in big trouble. She comforts him and later on he goes into town to the Sheriff’s Office. After giving him a well-deserved tongue lashing, Bubba takes Kevin to Chief O’Connor’s office, and Kevin confesses to his role in giving Dalton the codes to the alarm system. The Chief then tells one of his officers to arrest Kevin for a slew of charges… conspiracy to commit a crime, aiding and abetting, interfering with a police investigation, blah-blah-blah. (I can’t really remember all of the charges against him.)

Now I’m thinking: “this guy’s in big trouble… by being an accomplice in a burglary gone wrong and involving the death of a store owner, he’s facing some serious jail time.”

Eventually Dalton is captured after a long car chase and gun battle from the barn of a small country farm… with Bubba supplying the heroics in subduing the villain.

The final scene takes place in the County Courthouse where Kevin is before a female judge… getting ready to pronounce sentence. Chief O’Connor is sitting in a pew near the back when Bubba comes in and announces to the judge that an agreement has been reached with the district attorney which calls for Kevin to have five years of supervised probation… no jail time! The judge then looks over to the Chief, as if awaiting his response. He subtly nods his head, after which the judge then announces that she will accept the deal worked out with the district attorney. Then, fade to black.

The takeaway

Prior to my enlightenment regarding the way the justice system works, I would’ve thought that the good guy had a happy ending, the bad guy got caught… a warm and fuzzy ending to the story. Because I am enlightened, what has leapt out from that episode is: rare deal! Kevin got a rare deal because he was a friend of police officer Bubba. No doubt the district attorney worked out the sweetheart plea deal as a favor to Bubba.

The second thing that jumped out at me was the awkward relationship between the judge (judicial branch) and the Police Chief (executive branch). It was obvious that the Chief held significant sway over the judge’s actions, and I found this to be quite disturbing.

Rare deals have no doubt been meted out by adjudicators since a legal system was first used by man. Discretion given to sentencing has usually favored the privileged and powerful, whereas “raw deals” (those that are disproportionally harsh and severe) have been handed down to the poor, disenfranchised, and people of color. Unfortunately, the discretionary power has been the province of the district attorney. Therein lies the problem as most, if not all, district attorneys in North Carolina lack Nifongian courage, and are nothing more than marionettes dancing to the strings of the Powers-That-Be.

Because former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was a man of uncompromising integrity and independence, he did not fit into the takeover scheme of the big boys, and he had to go. So, like Crystal Mangum, charges were trumped up against him to force his resignation and disbarment. To prevent other idealistic prosecutors from following his lead, Mr. Nifong was severely persecuted by the State and crucified in the media.

As far as the executive branch overstepping on the toes of the judicial, as it did in the television drama, the same thing happened in real life on April 11, 2007 with Attorney General Roy Cooper’s famous “Innocence Promulgation.” Although it was within his professional rights to dismiss the criminal charges against the three Lacrosse defendants, it was totally inappropriate and unprecedented for him to make a declaration of “innocent.” That is not in his purview. Legally acceptable judgments of innocence or guilt can come only from a jury or a judge in lieu of a jury. In other words, it must emanate from the judicial branch. Officials in the executive branch cannot hand down judgments.

The mainstream media is aware that the innocence proclamation by the attorney general is bogus, but it wants to mislead the public into believing that it’s true. In almost all of the media releases, either press or broadcast, the Duke Lacrosse defendants are mentioned to have been found innocent (or exonerated) of the sexual abuse allegations.

Viewers of this blog site who elect to become enlightened have the privilege of being able to dissect the relevance and discern the nuances of issues covered in the news… stories both factually occurring in real life and those fictionally generated in Hollywood. 

In response to the Unbelievers: the "Innocent Promulgation"

On July 31, 2011, a blog commenter with the moniker of Sid Owes Another Apology said...
“Sid,

I don't believe your claim about having received correspondence from wral.com. Post it.

Your claim that ALL the media rely on Cooper's statement is almost certainly false. Many observers reached the conclusion that the defendants were innocent through a review of the evidence. As you know, much is publicly available.

Stop it with the straw man arguments. No one has claimed Cooper's statement had legal weight. Your use of straw man arguments is misleading. You owe yet another apology to your readers.”

This comment was in response to the previous blog in which I railed against the media for constantly misleading the public by stating that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were proclaimed “innocent.” This claim was obviously based on the infamous April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation of Roy Cooper.” The A.G. made the unprecedented move of proclaiming the defendants innocent at the strong, arm-twisting urgings of Joseph B. Cheshire’s underling Brad Bannon. The clever defense attorney needed this admission in order to utilize Rae Evans’ decade-long past history as CBS News executive to its fullest.

Once Cooper publicly stated that the Duke defendants were innocent, the biased mainstream media took hold of it and ran with it. Everywhere you looked the media presented as fact that the Duke Lacrosse defendants had been proclaimed “innocent.” To many of the naïve, but trusting public, they took this to mean that they were “legally” found to be innocent. I repeatedly challenged the media about this purposely false misrepresentation, pointing to a statement made by former Campbell Law School professor Anthony Baker. He stated that only a jury or judge, in lieu of a jury, can make determinations of innocence or guilt. The opposition has failed to provide a legal source to support that an attorney general can do so.

Due to the hullabaloo I continued to raise about this subject, the media’s statements about the Duke boys’ alleged “innocence” has morphed. As I pointed out in my previous blog, WRAL, in one of their online articles attribute to reporter Erin Hartness, wrote that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were declared innocent by “state officials”… plural. In other words, it was trying to disguise the fact that the attorney general, from the executive branch of government made the proclamation. By using the plural, and suggesting that more than one person proclaimed them innocent, WRAL was trying to increase the credibility of the statement.

After confronting the station, I received a response from the news director. WRAL deserves kudus for replying to my e-mail and blog on the subject. The response I received supported my assertion in my previous blog that their statement of “innocence” was based on Cooper’s promulgation, and not upon declarations by “state officials” as stated in the article.

Blog commenter Sid Owes Another Apology doubted that I received any communication from WRAL and challenged me to post it. So, I will paste below the statement I received via e-mail on the matter:

“Gall, Rick to me, Aysu
show details Jul 17

Sid,

Thank you for contacting WRAL and sharing your thoughts. When Attorney General Roy Cooper announced in a news conference that charges against the three lacrosse players were being dropped, he specifically said they were "innocent". That's the source of our reporting.

Rick Gall
NewsDirector WRAL News”

So, as the above e-mail clearly affirms, only one state official, who was from the executive branch of government, made the proclamation of “innocence”… a proclamation that carries no legal weight and is false and misleading.

Finally, in regards to statements I make, you can count on them being truthful. For me to present falsehoods in my blog would only take away from its credibility… and that is what this blog site is all about. 

Media kowtows to Carpetbagger families

Note: This Flog is approximately eight minutes in length, and requires audio.

LINK: http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog5.html

It is shameful the power that the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants continue to hold over the mainstream media. The most recent disgraceful example can be found in the July 12, 2011 online article posted on wral.com titled “Father gains custody of Duke Lacrosse accuser’s children.”

One wonders how such a topic could once again focus on expressing the innocence of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants… but it does. WRAL follows the lead of many recent Duke lacrosse related stories in misleading the public with regards to the source of the defendants’ innocence. Initially, wral.com, and other media outlets stated that North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, in his April 11, 2007 promulgation, found the three partygoing defendants “innocent” of sexual abuse charges related to the March 2006 beer-guzzling, stripper ogling bacchanal.

It wasn’t until this blog site repeatedly pummeled the media with the fact that the attorney general belongs to the executive branch of government, has no judiciary powers, and is incapable of the legal pronouncement of “innocent” or “guilt,” for that matter, that media types stopped naming the attorney general as the source of the boys’ exoneration.

Time and time again this blog enlightened readers, and e-mails informed media-types that, as former Campbell University law school professor Tony Baker stated, “Only a jury, or judge in lieu of a jury” can decide innocence or guilt.

So the media continues to morph its statement regarding the innocence of the Duke Lacrosse triad by stating, quote: “state officials (plural) later declared the players innocent,” unquote. This is a flagrant, bald-faced, in-your-face, two-faced lie. Fabrication. Prevarication. A blatant misrepresentation meant to deceive the public… or at least the vast majority who do not bother to engage their gray matter and are easily susceptible to Jedi mind-tricks.

By using the plural when citing “state official” wral is trying to give credibility to its claim that the boys were found innocent. I have spoken to media-types about this very issue in the past, and the only source given for the proclamation of innocence has been A.G. Roy Cooper.

Now, although the article was attributed to reporter Erin Hartness and Matthew Burns, the web editor, I doubt very seriously that either one of them is responsible for the misinformation about who was responsible for proclaiming the Duke Lacrosse defendants “innocent.” There is probably policy in place at WRAL, as well as in other media outlets, as how to phrase the innocence statement. Just as there most assuredly is a policy in place to bring up the alleged “innocence” of the Duke Lacrosse defendants whenever an article even remotely touches on someone who is somehow related to the Duke Lacrosse case.
Not only that, but you can bet that certain topics related to the Duke Lacrosse case are strictly off limits. For example, the fact that the three defendants and their avaricious attorneys shook down Duke University for $20 million each and are seeking an additional $10 mil from the city of Durham, is never broached.

Likewise, Reade Seligmann’s alleged failure to pay close to $7 million in taxes is kept hush-hush by the media.

The expunged record of Collin Finnerty’s assault charge against two men he mistook for being homosexual in Washington, D.C. is glossed over.

And the fact that Dave Evans’ mother, Rhea Evans, worked for more than a decade as an executive at CBS News, was and is never disclosed… not even during the CBS broadcasts of “60 Minutes” during which the Duke Lacrosse case was featured, and in which Ms. Evans and the Carpetbagger parents of the two other Duke Lacrosse defendants were interviewed.

It is no doubt that Ms. Evans’ connections with the media, and her professional role as a highly successful founder of a Washington D.C. public relations firm have served the Carpetbagger Jihadist’s agenda well. How else can you explain wral.com’s perpetual and false assertion that “state officials later declared the players innocent.”

Instead of continuing to consent to the whims of the Carpetbagger Jihadist agenda, it is high time for wral and all media sources to begin reporting truthfully and objectively when it comes to stories with even the slightest connection to the Duke Lacrosse case.


Defense uses Duke LAX analogy to win acquittal

News & Observer staff writer Anne Blythe continues to mislead the public with an article in the April 23, 2010 paper titled “Man acquitted in 2008 killing.” In it she writes, “Roy Cooper, the state attorney general, exonerated the three lacrosse players…” This statement is blatantly false and has no factual or legal weight. The attorney general is not capable of exonerating defendants, period. Only a judge or jury can pronounce a defendant “innocent” or “not guilty.” Such adjudication can not be made by the attorney general, a member of the executive branch of government. For the media to make such statements, compromises the essence of those who are legitimately exonerated, such as Gregory Flint Taylor (a three judge panel recently found Greg Taylor innocent of a 1991 murder). Anthony Baker, a law professor at Campbell University’s Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law, has made this point clear. The role of the attorney general is that of a “trier of facts” and not an adjudicator. To date, I have not heard an attorney or legal scholar say otherwise.

Ms. Blythe went on to say that the state’s investigation found “no evidence that any assault had occurred at a March 2006 spring break lacrosse party.” Well that is hardly surprising, seeing as how the state investigators found no evidence of an assault against inmate Timothy Helms, who while in solitary confinement sustained two skull fractures with resulting brain damage that left him a quadriplegic… in addition to baton-like welts all over his body. The only thing that A.G. Cooper was authorized to say before the media on April 11, 2007 was whether or not the prosecution was going to proceed or whether it was going to dismiss the case. It did the latter.

In perpetually bringing up Roy Cooper’s “Innocence Promulgation” as fact, the media demonstrates its bias (heavily in favor of the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their attorneys) and grossly misleads the audience it serves. Whenever the opportunity presents… and even when it doesn’t, you can count on The News & Observer and other media outlets to talk about how the three Duke Lacrosse defendants were “exonerated,” “cleared,” or “declared innocent.” Readers should not believe it.

In this particular news article about a man being acquitted of murder, the nexus to the “Innocence Promulgation” and the Duke Lacrosse case originated from the defense attorney Clifton Gray III. According to the newspaper article, Gray likened the case of defendant Khaleel A. Oyeneyin to that “of the Duke lacrosse case in which Crystal Gail Mangum, a stripper, falsely accused three lacrosse team members of a gang-rape.” Now it was important for Ms. Blythe to get Ms. Mangum’s name out in the article in as negative way as possible in order to sustain hostile public opinion against her as she faces flimsy charges in a domestic dispute case in Durham. The fact of the matter is that the Oyeneyin case has very little in common with the Duke Lacrosse case. Oyeneyin was charged with killing his girlfriend, whereas the Duke Lacrosse case was a sexual assault one. That the prosecutors of Oyeneyin relied so much on the testimony of a stripper who said she overheard the defendant admit to the murder, is much closer to the Greg Taylor case in which Prosecutor Tom Ford relied heavily on the testimony of a jail house snitch who stated the defendant made statements that implicated himself.

Because of the intense public animosity generated by the media against Mike Nifong and Crystal Mangum, astute defense attorneys are quick to mention the case in court whenever possible… it’s sure to spur sympathy for the defense lawyer’s client as the public reflects on how those so-called innocent Duke lacrosse boy defendants (who never served one day in jail and walked away from Duke University with a seven million dollar settlement each) were put through so much because of what a dancer said about them at their Spring Break beer-guzzling stripper party. The media, totally in cahoots with Carpetbaggers and on board with their jihadist agenda, takes advantage of any opportunity that presents itself to keep a negative image before the minds of the public. It wants to counter any sympathetic feelings the people may have for a young lady who is being victimized by vendetta justice… payback, plain and simple.

Objective media coverage of Khaleel Oyeneyin’s court case, would not have even mentioned the Duke Lacrosse case, and especially not the name of the accuser Crystal Mangum… but that’s what happens when the media plays favorites. Ultimately, it is up to the media consumer to recognize the prejudicial and flawed statements. Any mention of Cooper’s “Innocent Promulgation” as having legal merit should be a red flag that the media is attempting to play a Jedi mind-trick on you. Don’t let them succeed.

For defense lawyers, invoking the Duke Lacrosse case whenever possible is a clever strategy that will lend itself well to unquestioning jury members (and the public from whom the jury is selected) whose minds have been manipulated to be averse towards Mike Nifong and Crystal Mangum. Gray’s closing statement remarks in reference to the Duke Lacrosse case may have helped win a “not guilty” verdict for his client… it certainly didn’t hurt.

Whereas I do not begrudge the defense for using the lacrosse case to its advantage when possible, I do fault the media for using it in an exploitive manner in order to support the vindictive agenda of the few, well-heeled, privileged, and powerful.

Carpetbagger families of Duke LAXers and their direct link to the mainstream media

Rae Forker Evans, the founder and president of Evans Capitol Group, has an extraordinarily impressive resume. The Evans Capitol Group had its beginning in 1995, and is a public policy firm operating in Washington, D.C. It provides strategic guidance to corporations, non-profits, and trade associations seeking to influence the political process on a broad range of public policy issues. In 1982, Ms. Evans established the National Affairs office and represented Hallmark Cards, Inc. and its 25,000 employees on Capitol Hill, at the Executive Branch, and with national and international communities in Washington. She has received numerous honors and appointments throughout her career, including serving as president and Board Member of the Business-Government Relations Council, recipient of the 1996 National Women’s Economic Alliance Director’s Choice Award, and a 1992 appointment by President George W. Bush to the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships. Ms. Evans is married to a Washington D.C. attorney, David Evans, and they have two children, David and Kristen. Her son, Dave, was a student at Duke University, and was one of three Duke lacrosse players who were indicted by a grand jury on sexual assault charges stemming from the infamous stripper and beer guzzling party on Durham’s Buchanan Street in March 2006.

I would be remiss, if I were not to mention that Ms. Evan’s stellar professional career also included a decade-long stint at CBS News. From 1971 to 1981, she held positions at CBS News, the megacorporation that produces “60 Minutes” on CBS – TV. Later she worked as Director of Government Relations for CBS, Inc. The strong and intimate relationship that Ms. Evans enjoyed with CBS News is information that neither CBS, Inc. nor the mainstream media has wanted to share with the public after the Duke Lacrosse case was brought to the fore by the media. CBS’s “60 Minutes” devoted several television programs to the Duke Lacrosse case, and featured interviews with Ms. Evans, and the parents of the two other Duke Lacrosse defendants. Never once, did CBS, Inc. disclose that Ms. Evans, mother of one of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, had worked for more than a decade with CBS, News. Likewise the biased mainstream media never bothered to bring up this relationship between Evans and CBS.

CBS, like other mainstream media – ABC, Fox News, and NBC – has been markedly prejudicial in its coverage of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case. For example, like the rest of the mainstream media, it embraces the concept that Attorney General Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” carries legal weight and is a matter of fact. It consistently and constantly refers to the Duke Lacrosse players as being “innocent,” “falsely accused,” “cleared,” and “exonerated,” based on the attorney general’s statement. It is my belief that the news media knows that they are misrepresenting the Duke Lacrosse defendants when it refers to them as “exonerated” or “innocent,” but they believe and rely on the belief that the majority of the public will not be aware that these descriptions are misleading, and that those who do, won’t care.

All the same, I wrote to executives at major media outlets to inform them that their use of the “innocent”-like adjectives with relationship to the Duke Lacrosse defendants was incorrect and misleading. To give credence to my position, I told them that Campbell University law school professor Anthony V. Baker agreed that Attorney General Cooper’s proclamation of innocent had no legal substance or standing. Professor Baker stated, “The A.G. presents a case but does not sit as "trier of fact" -- or ultimate adjudicator -- of it. That is the sole province of the jury, or a judge sitting in lieu of a jury.” To date, the media, in general, has chosen to ignore my complaint with this aspect of the Duke Lacrosse coverage.

CBS News is also guilty of another instance of attempting to mislead the public. It arises out of the Carpetbagger Families’ obsessive and intense desire to erase from the minds of people that an attack or criminal action against the exotic dancers could have possibly taken place the night of March 13, 2006. Through attorney Joseph Cheshire’s underling, Brad Bannon, the Attorney General in his April 11, 2007 statement capitulated to Carpetbagger demands by stating that “no attack occurred.” The Carpetbaggers tried to extract a similar statement from Prosecutor Mike Nifong, using the threat of significant jail time (on trumped up contempt charges), however, despite the duress Mr. Nifong constantly maintained that he believed that something (criminal) happened. To get around Mr. Nifong’s persistent stand on this issue, CBS News put words into Mr. Nifong’s mouth with its blaring headline, “Ex-DA admits no crime in Duke case.” The headline is a blatant outright falsehood that is not substantiated within the text of the article.

As with “60 Minutes,” the online CBS News article with the false headline does not disclose the close relationship between the mother of defendant Dave Evans and CBS News. If the public were aware of the close relationship, then questions of bias and fairness would be entertained by those with open and objective minds… and that is something neither the Carpetbaggers nor the media wants. And let there be no doubt about it, that Rae Evans, with all of her relationships with CBS and other media, as well as the contacts she has made throughout the upper echelons of government in the nation’s capital, and her husband who is an attorney in a prestigious Washington law firm, carries humongous clout. And if you have any doubt that she would use this clout, let me refer to her vindictive “60 Minutes” interview in which she promises that “he (Mr. Nifong) is going pay every day for the rest of his life.”

Ms. Evans had the clout with the media, and with her attorneys and others, she did a magnificent job in orchestrating a media propaganda campaign that was so successful in defining Mr. Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case to her liking, that former Bush architect Karl Rove would be green with envy. There’s no doubt about it… the mainstream media is not only in cahoots with Carpetbagger Jihad Movement against Mike Nifong etal., but is at the fore, actively blazing the way amongst the weak-minded populous. The link is undeniable.

There is no doubt that Ms. Evans is a brilliant and highly motivated individual, and a person of whose achievements I am in awe. However, it was her famous and insightful statement in the “60 Minutes” interview with Lesley Stahl: “Mr. Nifong, you picked on the wrong families,” that so succinctly and accurately defined the crux of the problem with the state’s criminal justice system. As I am sure that Ms. Evans would agree, the North Carolina system of justice is one that is based on a tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” For this profoundly truthful admission by Ms. Evans, we, Tar Heelians who ascribe to the principle of “equal justice for all,” are extremely grateful.

HBO picked wrong case for its movie

If you enjoy comedy, especially the kind in which its humor is derived from the contrast of its content with reality, then you won’t want to miss the upcoming TV-cinematic fare offered by HBO about the Duke Lacrosse case. Although I am sure it is going to be marketed as an objective docu-drama about the Duke Lacrosse case, I cannot help but believe that it will be nothing more than just another thinly veiled volley from the carpetbagger jihad against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong.

I admire HBO for accepting the inherent challenge of trying to present the beer guzzling, publicly intoxicated, public urinating, spoiled and privileged Duke student athlete partygoers as decent and respectable innocents who are targeted by a ruthless and conniving district attorney for the sole purpose of wooing the black vote as a surefire means of retaining his D.A. position in the May 2006 primary. The entire premise is total folly itself, and actually lends itself as fodder for a hilarious comedy… the only problem is is that this movie is supposed to be taken seriously.

Now I have not read the screenplay, but I believe that the producer’s intention is to sympathetically portray the members of the Duke Lacrosse team in a favorable light by omitting the fact that nearly a third of the 47 lacrosse team roster had had skirmishes with the law (including an assault charge against Duke Lacrosse defendant Collin Finnerty, and an alcohol related charge against Duke Lacrosse defendant and team captain Dave Evans). I would imagine that the made for HBO-TV movie is supposed to tug at its viewers’ heartstrings because of the travails and trauma suffered by the three defendants and their families (although not one of the defendants spent a day in jail and they each received $7 million in an out-of-court settlement with Duke University). Also, remember to disregard reality as the movie will undoubtedly present North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” as a watershed moment that cements the innocence of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants. (Since that day, the media has knowingly embraced that declaration – which they knew to have no legal weight – as a basis upon which to use descriptive terms such as “innocent,” “falsely accused,” and “exonerated” to describe the Duke defendants.)

It is important for the potential viewer of this future movie to enjoy it for its comedic offerings, and not to try and extract anything deep, significant or meaningful from it. Keep in mind that in a range of artistic offerings it is much closer to a Hardy Boys mystery than a time weathered classic such as Victor Hugo’s “Les Miserables.”

Instead of wasting its money to buy the rights for the pitiful story of the Duke Lacrosse boys attending a stripper party and its aftermath, HBO should have waited for a story with real merit to come along. It would not have had to wait long, as a tragic story with a Hollywood ending recently unfolded when Gregory Flint Taylor was released from jail… a free man. After spending 17 years wrongfully imprisoned for a murder he did not commit, all that remains, at this time, is a pardon from North Carolina Governor Bev Perdue. Odds are highly in Greg Taylor’s favor that it will come sooner rather than later.

What would make the Greg Taylor story such an inspirational tear-jerker, is that it is about a man of convictions and moral fortitude who would rather face a lifetime in prison than falsely implicate an African American man who he knew was innocent of a murder. It is about a kind and good natured man with a kind heart and good soul, but with personal demons tied to an addiction to drugs and alcohol. It is a redemptive story of a man, who during his 17 year incarceration in one of the most highly improbable places, prevails over his addiction to crack and beer, and betters himself by taking advantage of the educational opportunities available inside the correctional facilities. It is a story of a loving family that is unified and galvanized to fight and leave no stone unturned in order to free its innocent kin. It is the story of an innovative program, the brainchild of former Chief Justice I. Beverly Lake, that helps many wrongly accused, who are otherwise without hope, get another chance at a justice denied. It is the story about a state’s selective justice system based on Class and Color, and the attempts by two of its prosecutors to keep a man they knew to be innocent confined for the rest of his life. It is the story of a man who took the horrendous hand fate dealt him, and with the help of his family and friends, and religious faith endured.

It is anyone’s guess as to why HBO would want to glorify accused members of the raucous Duke Lacrosse team with its well-earned and deplorable reputation, and highlight the vindictive carpetbagger jihad call for action against Mike Nifong by Rae Evans (mother of Duke defendant Dave Evans).

Rae Evans, whose son did not spend one day in jail, received $7 million in a settlement with Duke University, and is currently trying to appropriate another $10 million from the cash-strapped city of Durham, stated that Mr. Nifong picked on the “wrong” families… and that “he will pay, every day, for the rest of his life.” Contrast this statement with Gregory Taylor who lost 17 years of his life after being convicted (without credible evidence) for a murder he did not commit, who wisely commented shortly after his release that there were times when he wished he could be more angry, but that “it is not a sustainable emotion.” Anger is not a sustainable emotion in a person with a kind heart and a good soul.

My advice to HBO executives is if they wish to have a feel-good and positive impact on viewers, that they select stories that offer substance, hope, and inspiration. The Gregory Taylor story fits the bill, and is as close to a non-fiction “Les Miserable” as you can get.

State Bar joined Carpetbagger Jihad against Nifong with gusto

When the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants declared jihad against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong because he had the nerve to charge their boys with a crime, the media, judges, state officials all made full commitments to assist in their vindictive cause. As stated in her call to arms which aired on CBS – TV’s “60 Minutes,” defendant mom Rhea Evans made clear their mandate… to see that Mike Nifong and his family “pays” every day for the rest of his life.

The North Carolina State Bar went above and beyond the call of duty, and are deserving of special carpetbagging recognition. First, it trumped up a flimsy ethics complaint that was so weak, that even they had to amend it a second time and re-file. The State Bar’s action was necessary in order to get the dedicated D.A. Nifong off the Duke Lacrosse case, and into friendly hands. Unbeknownst to Mr. Nifong at the time, the Attorney General’s Office was in bed with the carpetbagger crew, following its every directive to the tee… such as later carrying out the dismissal of the Duke Lacrosse case and innocent promulgation of April 11, 2007.

The State Bar’s F. Lane Williamson, who headed up the grievance panel, at the risk of sounding ridiculous, went so far as to claim that Mike Nifong pursued the Duke Lacrosse case for the political purpose of being elected to the district attorney position to which he had been appointed. What makes this widely held motive so laughable is the fact that simple math would point out that the way to assure victory in the May 2006 primary was to dismiss the Duke Lacrosse case, not pursue it. Williamson and Duke Lacrosse defense attorney Kirk Osborn, among others seemed to believe that by wooing the black vote, Mr. Nifong would win the primary. Nothing could be further from the truth, and the voting results confirmed that. Of the African Americans who made up 38.2% of the total registered voters, they accounted for only 34% of those who voted in the primary. Fewer blacks turned out percentage-wise. Of the white voters who comprised 56.3% of the total registered voters, they accounted for a whopping 63% of the voters for the May 2, 2006 primary. A higher turnout of white voters percentage-wise. Yet, Mike Nifong won, proving wrong the WTVD ABC 11 Eyewitness News poll that proclaimed the primary race was a dead heat with Nifong requiring a huge black turnout in order to beat chief rival Freda Black. ABC 11 News deserves a lot of credit for this Jedi Mind-trick, for its poll and coverage convinced many that Nifong would benefit by pursuing the Duke Lacrosse case. The fact is, that pursuing the Duke Lacrosse case presented a tremendous impediment for him to overcome on his way to victory.

Besides disbarring Mr. Nifong, the North Carolina State Bar decided to turn the knife in his back while simultaneously pouring salt in his wounds. They decided to send Mr. Nifong an invoice to cover the costs of holding the five day hearing to disbar him. The bill amounted to eight thousand, eight hundred ninety-seven dollars and 91 cents ($8,897.91), with payment due within ninety days. According to the Bar’s counsel, Katherine E. Jean, the Bar is given this authority under regulation: 27 NCAC 1B .0109(8). She informed me that this regulation was used when it fined David Hoke and Deborah Graves for their disciplinary hearing held years earlier… however they were billed a total of $702.10… an amount which they shared, each paying half. Even though David Hoke’s actions against Alan Gell were far more egregious than anything Mr. Nifong was accused of doing in the Duke Lacrosse case, Hoke got off paying $350.05, whereas Mr. Nifong faced a tab that approached nine thousand dollars. The disparity in the amounts of the fines can be attributed to but one thing…the carpetbagger jihad against Mike Nifong. How many other attorneys have been sent an invoice by the State Bar to pay for the costs to discipline them? Not many, I bet. I was only given the one example other than Mike Nifong.

All I can say is, “How shameful.” Selective persecution against Mike Nifong has sadly been widespread among state agencies, especially the unregulated State Bar.

Responding to blog commenters: justice on a case by case basis

At times the conversation that takes place in the comment section of the blog can be stimulating, relevant, and important. Although I try to respond directly and immediately in the comment section, there are times when I feel the topics covered in the comment section should be addressed in the blog itself.

I find it absolutely amazing that a couple of blog commenters would even suggest that because I champion former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong’s case, that I would blindly support all state prosecutors. They imply that I would begrudge the wrongly incarcerated Erick Daniels compensation for his unjust conviction and incarceration for an armed robbery. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have advocated for Erick Daniels' release long before the charges against him were dismissed, and I have urged that he be declared “innocent” (he is currently seeking a pardon from Governor Bev Perdue) and that the state compensate him. The fact is that I am more likely than not going to lean in favor of justice for defendants than prosecutors. Bottom line is that I define justice based on a case by case basis.

Although I have staunchly supported Mike Nifong, I have been at odds with most prosecutors me when it comes to North Carolina justice. I have even filed complaints with the North Carolina State Bar against several, including Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford for his withholding information from the defense about two plea deals which enabled him to win a conviction against an innocent man (Gregory Taylor), and Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe for his prosecution of an innocent man (James Arthur Johnson) without probable cause. On the other hand, I was vociferously supportive of Johnston County Prosecutor Gregory C. Butler who was brought before the State Bar’s grievance panel on the flimsiest of charges. My schedule allowed me to be present throughout his hearing to lend my moral support to the embattled prosecutor, who was ultimately not charged with misconduct. Although the case against Mr. Butler should never have been brought by the State Bar to begin with, the outcome was just. Yet it is not only prosecutors against whom I have registered complaints with the State Bar. I filed a complaint against Defense Attorney Johnny S. Gaskins for his breach of attorney client privilege against his former client James Arthur Johnson. However, I wrote favorably and in support of Mr. Gaskins when articles in the media discussed that he had tried to evade federal laws when he made bank deposits just under the limit that would trigger scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service. Justice is not the sole province of the prosecutor, defender, defendant, or complaintant. It is determined on a case by case basis.

Another point of contention seems to be the role of the executive branch in matters that are judiciary in nature. Blog commenters have pointed out that the governor of the state has the power to grant a pardon, thereby exercising a power that is usually held by the judiciary branch of government. Somehow, they try to convey the power to apply to the state’s attorney general. First of all, Governor Mike Easley did not grant pardons to the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Attorney General Roy Cooper proclaimed them to be innocent on April 11, 2007 (at the prompting of defense attorney Joseph Cheshire's underling, Brad Bannon). My point is that Attorney General Cooper’s proclamation carried no more legal weight than one made by me or you. What I find disturbing is that the media, which should know better, gave Mr. Cooper’s proclamation credence, instead of challenging it. The media should have known better. The media did know better, but it was working in cahoots with the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, the Duke Lacrosse defendants’ attorneys, and the state of North Carolina to ruin prosecutor Mike Nifong. The Duke Lacrosse defendants, who were indicted by a grand jury, did not go through a judicial process in which their innocence or guilt was determined. As special prosecutor, the Attorney General’s Office had only the option of proceeding with the prosecution, or dismissing the case. To make a proclamation regarding innocence or guilt was not its mandate, was overreaching in the extreme, and was inappropriate. The media, universally, made the situation all the worse by embracing the “innocent” declaration, and misleading media consumers on a broad scale.

Every time the media uses the phrase “falsely accused” and “innocent” when referring to the Duke Lacrosse defendants, it is disseminating misleading and false information… in short, playing a Jedi mind-trick on the public. Every time the media refers to the Duke Lacrosse accuser as being a “false accuser” it is, again, spreading lies.

What makes the “Roy Cooper Innocent Promulgation of April 11, 2007” all the more suspect is that, to my knowledge, such a statement by a state attorney general has never been made in the past in North Carolina or any other state in the Union. If someone is aware of a prior instance, I would certainly appreciate a reference source.

Finally, I want to thank the blog commenters for their insightful and thought-provoking comments. Our democracy is founded on the principle of vigorous and civil debate, and justice is better served when there is healthy discourse from individuals with differing points of view.

Herald-Sun writer Neil Offen misleads public

In a December 30, 2009 Herald-Sun article titled “Top 10 Stories of the Decade,” writer Neil Offen writes about the Duke Lacrosse case, which the newspaper staff evidently selected as the top story of the decade. The article is a minefield of misleading and false statements about the case; not unlike typically biased writings which have characterized the media’s approach to the topic. One line which particularly stands out is: “The lacrosse players were declared innocent.” This is the complete statement. I believe that Mr. Offen was referring to the April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” made by North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper. To my knowledge, he is the only one to make such a statement, and as most people who have taken high school Civics 101 know, such a proclamation made by a member of the executive branch of government carries no legal weight. The reasons Mr. Offen did not mention in his article that Mr. Cooper made the declaration of “innocent” are twofold. First and foremost he wanted to mislead the public into assuming that a judicial body had made the innocent declaration, and secondly, he was too embarrassed to actually make such a silly statement.

Another statement which I find objectionable is: “…the public downfall of District Attorney Mike Nifong, toppled by his attempt to prosecute the lacrosse players on charges for which there was no evidence.” The truth of the matter is that there are many instances in which prosecutors pursue charges in which there is no evidence. Many of those cases, like the Duke Lacrosse case, are eyewitness cases. For example, prosecutors brought rape charges against Dwayne Dail based on eyewitness identification of a twelve year old girl alleged victim. There was no evidence linking him to that crime for which he spent nearly two decades in jail. Then, there’s the case of Ronald Cotton, who was convicted by eyewitness identification only, without evidence tying him to the crime. He served a decade in prison for a crime with which he was innocent. The armed robbery case against 14 year old Erick Daniels was also based on eyewitness testimony (the shape of his eyebrows in a middle school yearbook) in a case where there was no evidence linking him to the crime. He was wrongfully incarcerated for seven years. A fourth case, Alan Gell was incarcerated at the time of the commission a murder for which he was prosecuted, and prosecutors withheld this information from his defense attorneys in order to win a death penalty conviction. He was sentenced to death and served half of his time served on death row before he was granted a new trial. There was no evidence linking Mr. Gell to the crime. His conviction was based on the testimony of a teenage girl who made contradictory statements, and was even recorded on a wiretapped conversation saying that she was forced to make statements that benefited the prosecutor’s case. Finally, there’s the case of Gregory Taylor, who was sentenced to life on a murder charge in which there was no evidence tying him to the crime. He was convicted on the testimony of a prostitute and a jailhouse snitch (both of whom received deals in exchange for their testimony – a fact which was not relayed to the defendant’s attorney). The prosecutors of these five aforementioned cases were not hauled before the North Carolina State Bar and subjected to disciplinary hearings. However, Mr. Offen would like the media consumer to believe that all cases prosecuted by the state are backed up by forensic evidence. This is misleading and far from the truth.

The reason that Mr. Nifong was charged by the North Carolina State Bar with ethics violations was to get him off the case. After the Bar filed the charges against him, Mr. Nifong had no alternative than to recuse himself from the Duke Lacrosse case.

Mr. Offen states that Mr. Nifong was found guilty of criminal contempt (a trumped up charge for which he was sentenced to 24 hours in jail). This is only part of the punishment for which Mr. Nifong was subjected because of his decision to proceed with prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case instead of dropping it initially. Because of his independence from the state in his decision to proceed with prosecution, Mr. Nifong suffered a similar fate as Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett who defied England’s King Henry II. The fact is that Mr. Nifong did not lie to the court as the State Bar and media would like the public to believe.

In his article, Mr. Offen also states that Mr. Nifong was disbarred for misconduct, but I bet that he, like the average person on the street, cannot explain what that alleged misconduct is. Mr. Nifong certainly did not withhold evidence, as all DNA evidence was submitted to the defense team no later than October 27, 2006. There was plenty of time for the Duke Lacrosse defense team to utilize the information in preparing for a defense as a trial date had not even been set at that time. Furthermore, the alleged DNA evidence that Mr. Nifong withheld was not exculpatory, as the media has suggested often in the past. This is in stark contrast to Prosecutor David Hoke who withheld 17 "exculpatory" eyewitness statements from Alan Gell’s defense attorneys (evidence which immediately led to a “not guilty” verdict in a retrial).

As far as criminal cases, Alan Gell’s case is far more important and compelling than the Duke Lacrosse case when viewed through an objective lens. Whereas Mr. Nifong acted within acceptable standards in prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case, Mr. Hoke withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense team in winning a death penalty conviction. The Duke Lacrosse defendants served no jail time, and they each received $7 million from Duke University for reasons which are unknown to me. Alan Gell is now serving jail time on vendetta charges that the Johnston County District Attorney cannot even coherently explain. Meanwhile, the Duke Lacrosse boys have all been allowed to proceed with their lives and are benefiting from their celebrity (books have been published presenting them in a favorable light, a movie for HBO is in production, and Collin Finnerty has had an assault charge expunged from his record). And currently they are seeking an additional $10 million each from the cash-strapped city of Durham. Mr. Gell, on the other hand, has reached an out-of-court settlement against the state of North Carolina in which he was awarded four million dollars.

Even the case of James Arthur Johnson is more compelling because his actions in solving the murder case of Wilson teen Brittany Willis resulted in him being charged in the crime. The charge against Johnson was based solely on the testimony of the murderer, who implicated Johnson only after police told him that Johnson had “snitched” on him. Johnson served 39 months in jail without a trial, and charges of murder, rape, kidnapping and armed robbery were dropped the day the trial was to begin (long after the murder recanted testimony upon which charges were based). Again, no evidence linked Johnson to the crimes against Brittany Willis. Eventually, with the threat of additional wrongful incarceration, Johnson agreed to an Alford plea with a special prosecutor desperate for a face-saving resolution. Although James Arthur Johnson solved the crime and earned the $20,000.00 reward offered by the family and friends of Brittany Willis, it was never forthcoming. And the fact that the reward was not presented was never addressed by the media. It is doubtful whether the crime would have been solved had it not been for Mr. Johnson coming forward to the Wilson Police Department.

On its merits, the Duke Lacrosse case should not have been made the top story of the decade, but that is what happens when the media panders to the well-heeled, and becomes a bully pulpit for them. Instead of spreading propaganda to support the interests and agenda of the wealthy, powerful, and privileged, the media should concentrate on providing the media consumer with objective and unbiased reporting. The article by Mr. Offen left a lot to be desired as far as this is concerned.

I gladly offer Mr. Offen the opportunity to answer this blog, by providing him with a blog page in which I will post, in full and without editing or a direct rebuttal, his response.

Dismissal and “innocent” are not one and the same

A recent blog commenter (who identified itself as "Whatchoo talkin' '
bout Sidney?") was kind enough to share with me the information that North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper filled out form AOC-CR-307 when disposing of the Duke Lacrosse case. The commenter also told me that the form was signed by a judge. I presume this document was tendered and signed on or around April 11, 2007, the date of the A.G.’s “Innocent Promulgation.” I have not seen the form, but I will take the commenter at his/her word.

The form AOC-CR-307 is a form used by the criminal courts in the state of North Carolina, and is officially titled, “Dismissal Notice of Reinstatement CR-307 – North Carolina.” It is a dismissal form. Since Attorney General Cooper decided to dismiss the case, one acceptable possible outcome by a special prosecutor taking over a criminal case, it stands to reason that he did, in fact, fill out the document. The presiding judge, in signing the document, agreed to grant the prosecutor’s request for dismissal, and make it final. This is what most likely transpired, and such actions seem believable.

What the blog commenter would want viewers to believe, however, is that this document is one that justifies a declaration of innocence. That the judge, by signing the document, agrees with any text within the document that may recklessly state that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are “innocent” and that “no attack occurred.” Attorney General Cooper, or one of his deputy assistant attorney generals may write whatever they want within the document, but at the end of the day, it is merely a form to dismiss the case. It is not a form to declare a verdict or to declare “innocence.” Because of the blog commenter’s bias, he wants to interpret the dismissal form as being an innocent verdict by the judge who signed off on the document. Like Cooper’s promulgation of innocent, this reasoning is an example of overreaching by the blog commenter.

I have not seen the dismissal form used in the Duke Lacrosse case by the Attorney General’s Office, and if the blog commenter has an address where I could find the document, I would be very appreciative. And I appreciate the commenter bringing this form to my attention.

Now, I have no problem with Attorney General Cooper dismissing the case against the Duke Lacrosse defendants (although I doubt that such an act was justifiable having not seen the evidence). He acted appropriately as a special prosecutor in determining whether or not to proceed with prosecuting the case, or whether or not to drop the charges and dismiss the case. However, to proclaim “innocence” or “guilt” was not within his mandate as special prosecutor to the case. What I find appalling is that the media gave Mr. Cooper’s “Innocent Promulgation of April 11, 2007” credibility instead of challenging it. Again, by doing so, the media misled the public who believed it, and insulted the intelligence of those who know better. Likewise, the blog commenter, with respect to form AOC-CR-307, is misleading readers who believe him/her, and is insulting the intelligence of those of us who know better. For us, the Jedi mind-tricks do not work.