Showing posts with label Duke University. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Duke University. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
Monday, April 14, 2014
Friday, January 13, 2012
North Carolina ACLU will protect the rights of Nazis and Klansmen, but not Nifong supporters
I didn’t have much faith that the North Carolina American Civil Liberties Union would come to my aid and protect my civil rights, and the organization proved me right. Years ago when I first met Katy Parker, the director of the North Carolina ACLU, I handed her a questionnaire about former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong’s disbarment. I asked her if she would fill out the questionnaire and return it in the self-addressed/stamped envelope I provided. She told me that it would depend on the questions. Well, she evidently did not like the questions as I never received the questionnaire back.
In the summer of 2010, several months after the Duke University discrimination incident against me, and in a time during which I was trying to resolve the situation, I wrote the North Carolina ACLU and asked them to provide legal assistance for Crystal Mangum, as I, along with the Friends of Crystal Mangum and others were not at all pleased with her legal representation by the public defender for the February 2010 arson charge. I was informed that because of their high volume of requests it might take some time before I received an answer from the NC ACLU, but that all inquiries for help would eventually be given a response. No reply was ever made to my letter.
Around October 2010, approximately six months after Duke discriminated against me (with the plan of arresting me), lesbian Caitlin Breedlove and her partner were asked by a security guard at the Cameron Village Shopping Mall to leave the property because they briefly showed public affection. When they took it to the media, the media-types ran with the story… publishing in the newspaper, broadcasting it on the television news… the story went viral (unlike the media response to the discrimination I suffered at the hands of Duke University… which the media collectively chose to ignore). Even though the security guard company responded expeditiously and fully acquiesced to the demands of the lesbians and other gay rights individuals and organizations which supported the discriminated same-sex couple, the story got national attention on cable news networks, and the local news coverage followed developments daily for a couple of weeks. Needless to say, the NC ACLU’s director, Ms. Parker, threw the weight of the organization behind the discriminated pair by giving newspaper interviews in which she blasted the security guard’s actions while defending their rights while on private property.
Even though the NC ACLU interceded on behalf of the discriminated lesbian couple, because of my previous interaction with Ms. Parker and the failure of the organization to respond to my plea months earlier for assistance for Crystal Mangum, I held no hope that the NC ACLU would give me any support. So, although I reluctantly filed a discrimination lawsuit against Duke University in April 2011, I never seriously considered contacting the NC ACLU as I figured it would be a waste of time. Then just prior to Christmas 2011, I ran into a young lady in an ACLU tee shirt who was signing up people to join the ACLU. With foot traffic being slow at that time, we had a short conversation during which I mentioned my 2010 discrimination incident at Duke University. She recommended that I contact the ACLU, and although I thought it would be for naught, I rationalized that there was possibly a remote chance that the NC ACLU might give me some support… at least, there was nothing to lose.
After the holidays I phoned the organization and somehow managed to get Ms. Parker on the line. I began to fill her in on the happenings that took place on the Duke campus in April 2010, when she interrupted me halfway through my presentation and told me that she would not be able to do anything about my plight because the discrimination took place on Duke University grounds, which is a private institution on private property. In other words, I suggested, are all private institutes on private property who serve the public permitted to discriminate? I then reminded her that the lesbian couple, upon whose behalf she so vociferously supported, was discriminated against while on private property… the Cameron Village Shopping Mall. Ms. Parker countered by stating that it was possible that the young ladies were standing on a public sidewalk that intersected the private property when they were asked to leave the Mall grounds. But Ms. Parker was not defending the lesbians’ right to be on the sidewalk, rather their civil rights when on the Mall’s private property.
Duke University may be a private institution situated on private property, but it goes out of its way to bring the public to events held at numerous venues on its grounds. For example, the Nasher Museum, which is open to the public, is located on Duke private property. The Duke Cathedral, which hosts religious masses with the public invited, is in the center of its campus. Other Duke property venues to which the public is invited to attend by the university’s aggressive marketing campaign includes Reynolds Theater, the Duke Chapel, the school’s main library, Bryan Center, the Duke Law School, and its athletic centers. Duke is a university that embraces the public sector and thrives on their attendance and participation in campus events. Whether a workshop on fracking, a concert by world renown artists, a conference on political/environmental/economic issues, an exhibit featuring art and/or artifacts, or a speech given by a dignitary or person of celebrity the private institution that is Duke reaches out to draw in the people from the community and whom are representative of the public.
Now, am I to believe that if the same discrimination had occurred to me on the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill or North Carolina State University campus that the NC ACLU would’ve jumped into action on my behalf? Are only state universities and institutions prohibited from discriminating? It would seem after my conversation with Ms. Parker that Duke, being a private university, has the right to discriminate against anyone on its campus with impunity… and that the ACLU will remain muzzled. If my memory serves me correctly, F. W. Woolworth’s in Greensboro, North Carolina, was not a state entity in the 50’s when it refused to serve African Americans at its lunch counter. Have civil rights regressed to the point where privately owned businesses on private property which serve the public can overtly discriminate anyone or any group of people with the ACLU’s blessing?
Needless to say, I was quite emotional during my conversation with Ms. Parker, as being deprived of my civil rights tends to cause me much aggravation. And with a modicum of shame, I admit that I sorta lost my composure to an extent, and our conversation, which concluded rather abruptly, did not end on the lofty note as I had planned. As a result, Ms. Parker, please consider this a heartfelt apology from me for losing my cool.
Unfortunately, to me it seems that the ACLU of North Carolina, which is charged with the duty of protecting the civil rights of all Tar Heelians, is ironically guilty of discrimination itself… discriminating against Nifong supporters. The organization has defended, with gusto, the rights of Nazis, Klansmen, Gays and Lesbians, and others who are disenfranchised. I have no problem with this, and applaud their efforts to see that the rights are protected of those who are in the minority in thought or characteristics, or who are publicly despised. In all fairness, I believe that umbrella of shielded rights should be extended to people who believe that Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly disbarred and that he deserves to be unilaterally and unconditionally reinstated by the North Carolina State Bar.
This past week I would have enjoyed attending the daylong workshop on fracking that was held on Duke University campus and advertised as open to the public. According to the newspaper, more than 500 people attended from as far away as Massachusetts, Ohio, and Florida. But because it was held on the private property of Duke University, I could not attend, lest I risk being harassed, humiliated, and/or arrested… especially since there was no guarantee that a Duke professor friend would happen by at the opportune moment to again rescue me from such a fate. For these very reasons which threaten me every time I set foot on Duke University property, I have kept away from the December 2011 concert featuring pianist Andre Watts in an all Liszt program… I did not attend the September 2011 concert of Mozart’s Requiem… and I have avoided all other programs, exhibits and offerings held on Duke University property since April 15, 2010.
That my rights as a law-abiding public citizen are being trampled upon by the powerful and financially endowed institution that is Duke University with its selective discrimination against me because of my beliefs, thought, opinions, and allegiances is a disgrace. However, what is even more disgraceful, disturbing, and deplorable is that the North Carolina ACLU, which has a mandate to protect the civil rights of all North Carolinians, allows this abusive behavior against Nifong supporters by Duke University to take place unchallenged.
Discrimination of any kind is wrong whether it occurs on public property or private property… and, unlike the NC ACLU members who are sitting on their haunches in reaction to this form of prejudicial action, those people of courage and good conscience should actively and unwaveringly oppose it.
In the summer of 2010, several months after the Duke University discrimination incident against me, and in a time during which I was trying to resolve the situation, I wrote the North Carolina ACLU and asked them to provide legal assistance for Crystal Mangum, as I, along with the Friends of Crystal Mangum and others were not at all pleased with her legal representation by the public defender for the February 2010 arson charge. I was informed that because of their high volume of requests it might take some time before I received an answer from the NC ACLU, but that all inquiries for help would eventually be given a response. No reply was ever made to my letter.
Around October 2010, approximately six months after Duke discriminated against me (with the plan of arresting me), lesbian Caitlin Breedlove and her partner were asked by a security guard at the Cameron Village Shopping Mall to leave the property because they briefly showed public affection. When they took it to the media, the media-types ran with the story… publishing in the newspaper, broadcasting it on the television news… the story went viral (unlike the media response to the discrimination I suffered at the hands of Duke University… which the media collectively chose to ignore). Even though the security guard company responded expeditiously and fully acquiesced to the demands of the lesbians and other gay rights individuals and organizations which supported the discriminated same-sex couple, the story got national attention on cable news networks, and the local news coverage followed developments daily for a couple of weeks. Needless to say, the NC ACLU’s director, Ms. Parker, threw the weight of the organization behind the discriminated pair by giving newspaper interviews in which she blasted the security guard’s actions while defending their rights while on private property.
Even though the NC ACLU interceded on behalf of the discriminated lesbian couple, because of my previous interaction with Ms. Parker and the failure of the organization to respond to my plea months earlier for assistance for Crystal Mangum, I held no hope that the NC ACLU would give me any support. So, although I reluctantly filed a discrimination lawsuit against Duke University in April 2011, I never seriously considered contacting the NC ACLU as I figured it would be a waste of time. Then just prior to Christmas 2011, I ran into a young lady in an ACLU tee shirt who was signing up people to join the ACLU. With foot traffic being slow at that time, we had a short conversation during which I mentioned my 2010 discrimination incident at Duke University. She recommended that I contact the ACLU, and although I thought it would be for naught, I rationalized that there was possibly a remote chance that the NC ACLU might give me some support… at least, there was nothing to lose.
After the holidays I phoned the organization and somehow managed to get Ms. Parker on the line. I began to fill her in on the happenings that took place on the Duke campus in April 2010, when she interrupted me halfway through my presentation and told me that she would not be able to do anything about my plight because the discrimination took place on Duke University grounds, which is a private institution on private property. In other words, I suggested, are all private institutes on private property who serve the public permitted to discriminate? I then reminded her that the lesbian couple, upon whose behalf she so vociferously supported, was discriminated against while on private property… the Cameron Village Shopping Mall. Ms. Parker countered by stating that it was possible that the young ladies were standing on a public sidewalk that intersected the private property when they were asked to leave the Mall grounds. But Ms. Parker was not defending the lesbians’ right to be on the sidewalk, rather their civil rights when on the Mall’s private property.
Duke University may be a private institution situated on private property, but it goes out of its way to bring the public to events held at numerous venues on its grounds. For example, the Nasher Museum, which is open to the public, is located on Duke private property. The Duke Cathedral, which hosts religious masses with the public invited, is in the center of its campus. Other Duke property venues to which the public is invited to attend by the university’s aggressive marketing campaign includes Reynolds Theater, the Duke Chapel, the school’s main library, Bryan Center, the Duke Law School, and its athletic centers. Duke is a university that embraces the public sector and thrives on their attendance and participation in campus events. Whether a workshop on fracking, a concert by world renown artists, a conference on political/environmental/economic issues, an exhibit featuring art and/or artifacts, or a speech given by a dignitary or person of celebrity the private institution that is Duke reaches out to draw in the people from the community and whom are representative of the public.
Now, am I to believe that if the same discrimination had occurred to me on the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill or North Carolina State University campus that the NC ACLU would’ve jumped into action on my behalf? Are only state universities and institutions prohibited from discriminating? It would seem after my conversation with Ms. Parker that Duke, being a private university, has the right to discriminate against anyone on its campus with impunity… and that the ACLU will remain muzzled. If my memory serves me correctly, F. W. Woolworth’s in Greensboro, North Carolina, was not a state entity in the 50’s when it refused to serve African Americans at its lunch counter. Have civil rights regressed to the point where privately owned businesses on private property which serve the public can overtly discriminate anyone or any group of people with the ACLU’s blessing?
Needless to say, I was quite emotional during my conversation with Ms. Parker, as being deprived of my civil rights tends to cause me much aggravation. And with a modicum of shame, I admit that I sorta lost my composure to an extent, and our conversation, which concluded rather abruptly, did not end on the lofty note as I had planned. As a result, Ms. Parker, please consider this a heartfelt apology from me for losing my cool.
Unfortunately, to me it seems that the ACLU of North Carolina, which is charged with the duty of protecting the civil rights of all Tar Heelians, is ironically guilty of discrimination itself… discriminating against Nifong supporters. The organization has defended, with gusto, the rights of Nazis, Klansmen, Gays and Lesbians, and others who are disenfranchised. I have no problem with this, and applaud their efforts to see that the rights are protected of those who are in the minority in thought or characteristics, or who are publicly despised. In all fairness, I believe that umbrella of shielded rights should be extended to people who believe that Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly disbarred and that he deserves to be unilaterally and unconditionally reinstated by the North Carolina State Bar.
This past week I would have enjoyed attending the daylong workshop on fracking that was held on Duke University campus and advertised as open to the public. According to the newspaper, more than 500 people attended from as far away as Massachusetts, Ohio, and Florida. But because it was held on the private property of Duke University, I could not attend, lest I risk being harassed, humiliated, and/or arrested… especially since there was no guarantee that a Duke professor friend would happen by at the opportune moment to again rescue me from such a fate. For these very reasons which threaten me every time I set foot on Duke University property, I have kept away from the December 2011 concert featuring pianist Andre Watts in an all Liszt program… I did not attend the September 2011 concert of Mozart’s Requiem… and I have avoided all other programs, exhibits and offerings held on Duke University property since April 15, 2010.
That my rights as a law-abiding public citizen are being trampled upon by the powerful and financially endowed institution that is Duke University with its selective discrimination against me because of my beliefs, thought, opinions, and allegiances is a disgrace. However, what is even more disgraceful, disturbing, and deplorable is that the North Carolina ACLU, which has a mandate to protect the civil rights of all North Carolinians, allows this abusive behavior against Nifong supporters by Duke University to take place unchallenged.
Discrimination of any kind is wrong whether it occurs on public property or private property… and, unlike the NC ACLU members who are sitting on their haunches in reaction to this form of prejudicial action, those people of courage and good conscience should actively and unwaveringly oppose it.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Harr v. Duke - a directory of legal documents
Notice UPDATE 12-15-11: All of the buttons work appropriately, however, I have not been able to solve the problem with returning straight to the directory. I will continue working to try and resolve that problem. Sorry about the inconvenience.
Click on the link below to access. All narrative is on the flog, so get ready to read fast. At the end of the three minute flog is a directory for documents.
http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/harrvduke.html
Enjoy and become enlightened!
Sunday, November 20, 2011
On April 14, 2010, Duke University kicked Sidney Harr off campus
Click link below to access the flog:
http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/fl13.html
Read the transcript of the flog below:
Today, in the early morning hours of November 20, 2011, I retrieved from my post office box the following correspondence… a first class letter from the Office of the Clerk of the United States District Court in Greensboro. The one page letter from the Clerk of Court appears to have been drafted on Wednesday, November 16, 2011, and the envelope has a postmarked date of Friday, November 18, 2011.
Most likely the letter was delivered on Saturday, November 19, 2011, however I had spent all that day inside my apartment trying to complete a flog and did not visit my mailbox that day.
The envelope contained two sheets of paper, with one page consisting of the aforementioned letter of November 16th from John S. Brubaker, the Clerk. Evidently, the letter was submitted by Deputy Clerk Trina Law.
This document made mention of an accompanying recommendation made by the Magistrate Judge, and it included a time limit of Monday, December 5, 2011 by which to respond to the recommendation.
The second enclosed page consisted only of the heading with my name and address, which I have redacted for this flog, and which was visible in the window of the envelope. Otherwise, the page was blank without any body or text.
Therefore I have no idea as to the identity of the Magistrate Judge or his/her recommendation. I know not whether he/she sided on my behalf or that of the defendants regarding their motion to dismiss.
On Monday, October 3, 2011, I purchased round-trip airline tickets for a Thanksgiving trip to the west coast. My departure from Raleigh is scheduled for early tomorrow morning, Monday, November 21, 2011, with a return date of Sunday, November 27, 2011.
When I fly out of Raleigh first thing in the morning, I will not even be able to visit a post office until I reach my final destination late in the afternoon on Monday. After landing at the airport, I must take a bus and a train to complete my trip. Most likely, the earliest I will be able to mail a letter to the Clerk of Court will be on Tuesday morning, November 22, 2011… and it will be mailed from California.
In the letter I plan on drafting shortly, I will request that another letter be sent out with the inclusion of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. Furthermore, I will seek to have the time allotted for my response to be reasonably and fairly extended beyond the date of December 5, 2011.
Until I am aware of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and the basis for his/her recommendation, then I am unable to begin work on a response.
I will keep you posted.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
What the media doesn’t want you to know: I filed a lawsuit against Duke
Being within a week of the one year anniversary of that most despicable incident that I experienced on the Duke, I was forced to preserve my legal rights by filing a lawsuit against Duke University. I made the trip to Greensboro on April 5th to file the civil papers with clerks in the Federal Court, and the summons and complaints were mailed out that same day.
It was my hope to reasonably settle things with Duke University, and I provided every opportunity to reach a resolution based on the principles of “restorative justice.” Duke’s rebuff, combined with the reluctance of the U.S. Department of Justice to intervene and my so-called political representatives lacking the will and courage to get involved, I was left with no alternative than to take action by filing the complaint.
It is evident in retrospect that Duke utilized information in my pleasant and complimentary letter of April 12, 2010 to ambush me two days later on the 14th of April. The guard was sent to remove me from the campus, and without reason kept threatening to arrest me. I was upset and being kicked off the campus, but compliant, and did not warrant Duke police backup being called in as I was not belligerent, hostile, or threatening. The reason the police was called in was to arrest me, however the security guard and police did not anticipate that I would run into a friend of mine, James Coleman – a Duke law professor, who would intercede on my behalf. Had Professor Coleman not come along when he did, I might still be languishing in a Durham County jail cell.
Duke’s actions against me were outrageous and unwarranted and they should be held accountable. Politicians and the U.S. Department of Justice are not going to do that, which leaves it solely up to me… and that’s a shame.
The media, which gets its marching orders from the powerful and well heeled, will no doubt keep its distance from this story. Therefore, to keep abreast of this ongoing drama, stay tuned to this blog. I will keep you informed.
A link below will take you to the fifteen page complaint. LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoB1/cvDuke040511.htm For additional information about the case, including audio recording and transcript LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoB/irepoBopen.htmThursday, March 3, 2011
Challenge to the N&O’s Barry Saunders
In today’s The News & Observer of March 3, 2011, columnist Barry Saunders opined about Dr. Raymond Cook’s DWI case. Saunders pretty much jumps into any topic, no matter how controversial, with gusto, and usually produces a scathing, satirical, stinging, and sarcastic masterpiece. I am in awe of his literary talents, and only wish that on occasion he would lend them to this blog site.
However, the one topic that he has steered clear of is the shakedown of Duke University by the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their attorneys for $20 million each… a total of $60 million. In addition, the university squandered another huge undisclosed amount of money for attorneys to try and get the school’s insurance company to reimburse them after Duke had flagrantly breached the contract. Mercifully, they finally agreed to drop their suit and lick their wounds.
Actually, there are three related stories that the media has recently decided to keep isolated and hush-hush with minimalist coverage. And they all began with an IRS lien filed around February 17, 2011 against Duke Lacrosse defendant Reade Seligmann. Local media pretended not to notice that the lien even existed, and it took the Detroit News, a newspaper in the Motor City in the state of Michigan, to bring it to the attention of the world. Now, in all fairness, local media did report about it on television and newsprint, however, if you blinked, you would’ve missed it. Keep in mind coverage of this volatile story pales in comparison with the massive media overload given to a rinky-dink piece of gossip about Duke Lacrosse detective Linwood Wilson. That story about a private and personal marital squabble consumed the local media spotlight for months.
Anyway, the disclosure of the Seligmann tax lien and resultant accurate estimates of the amount Duke doled out to the three defendants began when the university announced that it was going to settle the lawsuit it brought against National Union Fire Insurance Company. Basically, Duke would drop its suit, National Union would drop its countersuit, and both parties would pay for their own attorneys’ fees. On Duke’s part, it is a classic case of throwing good money after bad. Duke University was probably motivated to settle when it learned that a lien against Seligmann had been applied by the IRS.
The Detroit News article was published about a week after that, and reported in The News & Observer shortly thereafter, a day after its article on Duke’s settlement.
Then, low and behold, three days later, Duke University raised its tuition a whopping 4.3% … to total as much as $53,905 with room and board included. Well, it is no wonder after its ill-advised and generous gift to the three Duke Lacrosse defendants… the university is trying to make up for its $60 million plus loss on the backpacks of its students.
What Duke University needs to do is address the compensation paid to the administrators instead of shifting attention to the students in the form of tuition and other fees. Administrators with their high salaries, bonuses, pensions, and benefits are financially sapping the budget of funds that should be used to pay instructors and professors and help defray costs to its student body. At least that’s my opinion, and I would really be interested in what Barry Saunders has to say about this and other topics touched upon in this blog.
Barry, I know that you must answer to you superiors, so I recommend that before you take my challenge that you obtain an okay first. I would hate for you to be axed on my account. Anyway, the gauntlet has been thrown. Barry, it’s your move.
NOTE: Due to unavoidable and unforeseen scheduling conflicts, Part 10 of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper” will be uploaded today, three days earlier than planned. Be sure to check out the commentary which follows. At the end of the commentary feature, there is a page with an e-mail link. I appreciate all feedback.
A link to Part 10 is below:
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc151.htm
Enjoy.
However, the one topic that he has steered clear of is the shakedown of Duke University by the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their attorneys for $20 million each… a total of $60 million. In addition, the university squandered another huge undisclosed amount of money for attorneys to try and get the school’s insurance company to reimburse them after Duke had flagrantly breached the contract. Mercifully, they finally agreed to drop their suit and lick their wounds.
Actually, there are three related stories that the media has recently decided to keep isolated and hush-hush with minimalist coverage. And they all began with an IRS lien filed around February 17, 2011 against Duke Lacrosse defendant Reade Seligmann. Local media pretended not to notice that the lien even existed, and it took the Detroit News, a newspaper in the Motor City in the state of Michigan, to bring it to the attention of the world. Now, in all fairness, local media did report about it on television and newsprint, however, if you blinked, you would’ve missed it. Keep in mind coverage of this volatile story pales in comparison with the massive media overload given to a rinky-dink piece of gossip about Duke Lacrosse detective Linwood Wilson. That story about a private and personal marital squabble consumed the local media spotlight for months.
Anyway, the disclosure of the Seligmann tax lien and resultant accurate estimates of the amount Duke doled out to the three defendants began when the university announced that it was going to settle the lawsuit it brought against National Union Fire Insurance Company. Basically, Duke would drop its suit, National Union would drop its countersuit, and both parties would pay for their own attorneys’ fees. On Duke’s part, it is a classic case of throwing good money after bad. Duke University was probably motivated to settle when it learned that a lien against Seligmann had been applied by the IRS.
The Detroit News article was published about a week after that, and reported in The News & Observer shortly thereafter, a day after its article on Duke’s settlement.
Then, low and behold, three days later, Duke University raised its tuition a whopping 4.3% … to total as much as $53,905 with room and board included. Well, it is no wonder after its ill-advised and generous gift to the three Duke Lacrosse defendants… the university is trying to make up for its $60 million plus loss on the backpacks of its students.
What Duke University needs to do is address the compensation paid to the administrators instead of shifting attention to the students in the form of tuition and other fees. Administrators with their high salaries, bonuses, pensions, and benefits are financially sapping the budget of funds that should be used to pay instructors and professors and help defray costs to its student body. At least that’s my opinion, and I would really be interested in what Barry Saunders has to say about this and other topics touched upon in this blog.
Barry, I know that you must answer to you superiors, so I recommend that before you take my challenge that you obtain an okay first. I would hate for you to be axed on my account. Anyway, the gauntlet has been thrown. Barry, it’s your move.
NOTE: Due to unavoidable and unforeseen scheduling conflicts, Part 10 of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper” will be uploaded today, three days earlier than planned. Be sure to check out the commentary which follows. At the end of the commentary feature, there is a page with an e-mail link. I appreciate all feedback.
A link to Part 10 is below:
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc151.htm
Enjoy.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Gluttonous Carpetbaggers’ shakedown of Duke greater than believed
Recent revelations about a 2007 IRS tax lien against Duke Lacrosse defendant Reade Seligmann just goes to confirm the obvious, as I stated long ago… the reason for keeping the financial arrangement of Duke University’s settlement with the party-going Duke Lacrosse defendants secret was because it was so outrageous. Duke University was too embarrassed for rolling over without a fight and submitting to the demands of the avaricious attorneys, and the Carpetbagger families didn’t want people to think that they threatened Duke with a law suit just for the money. It seems that the amount Duke University forked over to each of the Duke Lacrosse defendants was far greater than the figure my sources gave me of $7 million. That amount actually is closer to the amount of tax due the IRS, which the agency puts at $6.5 million. According to Raleigh tax lawyer Jack Cummings, a tax of that amount would be indicative of an income of $18 million. Another tax attorney has the estimate as $20 million… which is probably the most accurate and the figure with which I will refer.
And it was in 2007 that Duke University settled out of court with the Duke Lacrosse defendants, and it is where the vast majority of their income would be of account. That is $13.5 million after tax per Lacrosse player, and that’s not bad especially when you consider what they went through to get it. First, they attended a beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling party with under-aged drinking, shouting of racial epithets (and probably other crimes taking place), then after being charged with a sexual assault they did not spend one day in jail. They became media darlings with all the media types coddling over them and misleading the public by proclaiming that they had been “exonerated” (as was reported by Deborah Morgan of WRAL-TV-5 as recently as the night of February 24, 2011, when the story broke here.) Then books are written about the Duke Lacrosse party incident which is revisionist propaganda history at its best. And HBO has been wracking its brains trying to somehow produce a movie about the Duke Lacrosse case without showing the true colors of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Two objective screenplays have already been written, but the head honchos discarded them and fired their authors… HBO is essentially requiring that the Duke boys be put in a positive light which is itself an impossibility if a story about the Duke Lacrosse case is to contain an iota of truth. The plan which seems to be adopted by HBO movie executives is to demand a script that does not mention the Duke Lacrosse boys and instead focuses on former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. (I would suggest that they consider hiring MSNBC Senior Legal Analyst Susan F. Filan. She has shown the capacity to fabricate libelous statements about Mr. Nifong and then to use those very false statements to attack his character.) Finally, universities and Wall Street bigwigs have been clamoring to bring the boys into the fold to study and work.
Now it’s not enough that each of the defendants was rewarded with $20 million for their bad behavior, but even after that, they want an additional $10 million each from the city of Durham. It is very apparent that the Carpetbaggers and their counsel thought that when the mighty Duke University toppled, that the city of Durham would follow suit and turn over the money. Somehow the cash-strapped city managed to summon up the nerve to stand and fight against the Carpetbagger juggernaut, not unlike Winston Churchill stood up against Nazi aggression. Now action on that front has been at a standstill for years, more or less. Nonetheless, Durham is still wasting taxpayer dollars to pay lawyers to go through the motions of defending the city.
The Carpetbaggers want the public to believe that they are so much in legal debt in fighting Duke University and the aftereffects of the Duke Lacrosse case, but surely they can use some of their net gain of $13.5 mil to pay their attorneys. Their stated excuse for suing the Bull City (to effect changes in the criminal justice system to the benefit of all Durhamians) is nothing more than a bunch of bull. They are suing the city because they are GREEDY.
Although Duke shelled out $60 million in an ill-advised settlement with the Carpetbaggers, they compounded that mistake by trying to force the National Union Fire Insurance Company, the university’s insurance company, to reimburse them… this, after making such an outlandish settlement without even discussing it with them. Duke is the one that breached its agreement with the insurance company, yet it filed suit in an attempt to recover the money it handed over on a platter. Just recently, Duke reached an agreement with the company, an affiliate of AIG, and per protocol terms were not disclosed. However, both parties agreed to drop claims and counterclaims against each other, and pay their own legal costs.
The Carpetbaggers need to emulate Duke University with regards to its squabble with National Union Fire Insurance Company. Instead of continuing to throw good money after bad, they need to rein in their attorneys and drop their suit against the city of Durham. They need to accept the fact that the city refused to take their bluff, as did the mighty university, unless it is the underlying goal of the Carpetbaggers to deplete the city’s coffers as a final vindictive act. But I don’t believe that is their goal… they’re in it for the money.
According to a news report last night, Duke University has approved a substantial increase in tuition… no doubt to help cover its giveaway to the Duke Lacrosse defendants and its ill-advised lawsuit against their insurance company.
Note: Click on the link below to access the latest installment (Part 9) of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper.”
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc145.htm
And it was in 2007 that Duke University settled out of court with the Duke Lacrosse defendants, and it is where the vast majority of their income would be of account. That is $13.5 million after tax per Lacrosse player, and that’s not bad especially when you consider what they went through to get it. First, they attended a beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling party with under-aged drinking, shouting of racial epithets (and probably other crimes taking place), then after being charged with a sexual assault they did not spend one day in jail. They became media darlings with all the media types coddling over them and misleading the public by proclaiming that they had been “exonerated” (as was reported by Deborah Morgan of WRAL-TV-5 as recently as the night of February 24, 2011, when the story broke here.) Then books are written about the Duke Lacrosse party incident which is revisionist propaganda history at its best. And HBO has been wracking its brains trying to somehow produce a movie about the Duke Lacrosse case without showing the true colors of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Two objective screenplays have already been written, but the head honchos discarded them and fired their authors… HBO is essentially requiring that the Duke boys be put in a positive light which is itself an impossibility if a story about the Duke Lacrosse case is to contain an iota of truth. The plan which seems to be adopted by HBO movie executives is to demand a script that does not mention the Duke Lacrosse boys and instead focuses on former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. (I would suggest that they consider hiring MSNBC Senior Legal Analyst Susan F. Filan. She has shown the capacity to fabricate libelous statements about Mr. Nifong and then to use those very false statements to attack his character.) Finally, universities and Wall Street bigwigs have been clamoring to bring the boys into the fold to study and work.
Now it’s not enough that each of the defendants was rewarded with $20 million for their bad behavior, but even after that, they want an additional $10 million each from the city of Durham. It is very apparent that the Carpetbaggers and their counsel thought that when the mighty Duke University toppled, that the city of Durham would follow suit and turn over the money. Somehow the cash-strapped city managed to summon up the nerve to stand and fight against the Carpetbagger juggernaut, not unlike Winston Churchill stood up against Nazi aggression. Now action on that front has been at a standstill for years, more or less. Nonetheless, Durham is still wasting taxpayer dollars to pay lawyers to go through the motions of defending the city.
The Carpetbaggers want the public to believe that they are so much in legal debt in fighting Duke University and the aftereffects of the Duke Lacrosse case, but surely they can use some of their net gain of $13.5 mil to pay their attorneys. Their stated excuse for suing the Bull City (to effect changes in the criminal justice system to the benefit of all Durhamians) is nothing more than a bunch of bull. They are suing the city because they are GREEDY.
Although Duke shelled out $60 million in an ill-advised settlement with the Carpetbaggers, they compounded that mistake by trying to force the National Union Fire Insurance Company, the university’s insurance company, to reimburse them… this, after making such an outlandish settlement without even discussing it with them. Duke is the one that breached its agreement with the insurance company, yet it filed suit in an attempt to recover the money it handed over on a platter. Just recently, Duke reached an agreement with the company, an affiliate of AIG, and per protocol terms were not disclosed. However, both parties agreed to drop claims and counterclaims against each other, and pay their own legal costs.
The Carpetbaggers need to emulate Duke University with regards to its squabble with National Union Fire Insurance Company. Instead of continuing to throw good money after bad, they need to rein in their attorneys and drop their suit against the city of Durham. They need to accept the fact that the city refused to take their bluff, as did the mighty university, unless it is the underlying goal of the Carpetbaggers to deplete the city’s coffers as a final vindictive act. But I don’t believe that is their goal… they’re in it for the money.
According to a news report last night, Duke University has approved a substantial increase in tuition… no doubt to help cover its giveaway to the Duke Lacrosse defendants and its ill-advised lawsuit against their insurance company.
Note: Click on the link below to access the latest installment (Part 9) of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper.”
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc145.htm
Friday, December 3, 2010
Deadly 1997 confrontation between Shan Carter and Tyrone Baker
NOTICE OF ERROR in blog of December 3, 2010: The case against Shan Edward Carter defies all logic and rationale, therefore making even the simplest assumptions error-prone. In the December 3rd blog, which introduced a firearms altercation between drug-dealer Keith Richardson and Shan Carter, I attempted to present a situation similar to the Tyrone Baker shooting for comparison. Simply stated, Carter’s actions were defensive in dealing with Baker and Richardson. I stated that the prosecution ignored this, when in fact, they used the Richardson situation in the trials of Brunson’s murder as well as that of the deaths on Tenth and Dawson. However, the prosecution stated Richardson was unarmed. Refer to the blog posted on December 13, 2010 for further details.
- December 13, 2010
The blog of November 28, 2010 which introduced the outrageous legal inequities and injustices, including two capital convictions, against Shan Edward Carter, contained some errors of significance which, in my haste to post the story, did not carefully vet. Unlike Duke University, and most of the media (especially MSNBC) which refuse to man up and accept responsibility for their mistakes and errors, I have religiously followed the principles of “restorative justice” when I have erred. First, I accept full responsibility for the mistakes in that blog, although completely unintentional. I should have been more diligent in fact-checking the complex cases involving Shan Carter. Second, I give my sincerest apologies for misleading my readers. You deserve better, and I am glad that you challenge me when you feel that I got the story wrong. I am grateful for your vigilance. Third, if I have caused injury to anyone because of my misstatements, I would like to make them whole. I definitely have made efforts to correct the errors by posting a notice at the beginning of the November 28th blog alerting readers to the errors therein. The main text of the blog that was initially posted, however remains untouched. Fourth, I will try to see that such errors never recur by doing a better job of researching and never allowing assumptions to take the place of certainty of facts. When at all possible, if not much of a delay is involved, I will send my blog to Shan to review and make sure its contents are completely factual.
Although I had intended to discuss the shooting of Tyrone Baker with Shan during my visit with him at 11:00 am in Central Prison, a couple of hours before, when I went to the post office to mail some letters (see receipt on LINK), there was a letter from Shan in my post office box. In it, he informed me of errors in my November 28th blog even though we had not communicated about it previously. You will find that this letter is indicative of the credibility of the man, Shan Carter (see LINK). Below is the narrative of what transpired the day that drug-dealer Tyrone Baker and 8 year-old Demetrius Green lost their lives.
DECEMBER 6, 1996 – Shan Carter, Kwada Temoney, and Damont White burglarized drug-dealer Tyrone Baker’s apartment and steal $40,000 in cash, which they later split among themselves.
Tyrone Baker was a drug-dealer from New York, who dealt cocaine in the Wilmington, NC area, and a friend of Carter who knew Baker when he was in New York, warned Carter that Baker followed through on his threats. Word on the street was that Baker intended on killing those responsible for stealing $40,000 from his residence. Shan had heard from several sources that Baker was looking for those responsible for the burglary and that he was going to kill them. Carter was somewhat comforted by a gun he purchased on the street for his protection, a .357 Magnum revolver, which held six rounds, and which he kept in holster under is left arm.
FEBRUARY 16, 1997 – Shan Carter was parked on Dawson by the intersection with Tenth Street, and was approaching a store on the corner. Kwada Temoney was with Carter to his right. Before entering the store, Carter caught, out of the corner of his right field of vision, Kwada Temoney being struck in the face with a fist by a man Carter did not know. Kwada related to Carter later that he had been knocked out by the punch. The man then turned and began to approach Carter with a menacing look and without saying a word. Believing the man to be Baker, Carter began to back up. Although the weather was sunny and warm, especially for February, the man carried a heavy Army field coat folded over one of his arms, as if to conceal a weapon. Shan pulled his weapon from his holster, and Baker momentarily froze. Holding the weapon in one hand only and aiming low in an effort to wound and not kill, Shan fired two shots in quick succession as Baker turned to his right. The first bullet Shan believed struck Baker in his thigh, however, as Carter suggests the second shot when higher from the discharge after the first shot. Baker was struck just below the left rib cage as he was turning, and he then began running up Tenth Street. Carter, concerned that Baker might use the corner of the building as cover to in order to return fire, walked to the corner to take it out of the equation. As Baker ran up Tenth Street, Shan fired three more times to shepherd him along… at no time exposing his left side to Carter. Even when Baker crossed Tenth Street, his right side was exposed to Carter. Shan Carter noticed that Baker’s legs seemed wobbly before he fell, and Shan then proceeded to get into his car parked on Dawson, along with Temoney, who had recovered, and they drove off.
Renee Barnes, who admitted to knowing Tyrone Baker and who had braided his corn rows in the past, allegedly sold crack cocaine for Baker, too. She lived on the corner of Tenth and Dawson, across from the store where the incident took place. Accounts state that she allegedly ran from her apartment to the site where Tyrone Baker lay mortally wounded. He was gurgling and made a few statements to Renee before he died. Renee picked up the Army field coat (and possibly a weapon), and ran back to her house before the police arrived… which was not long after the shooting. She used the car keys in the coat to drive Tyrone Baker’s jeep (which may have been a rental) to the residence of Tyrone’s girlfriend. The coat eventually wound up in New York, and it was from New York that the detectives finally got possession of the coat in 1998. According to Renee, it had dried blood on it.
The prosecutions’ case of the premeditated murder of Tyrone Baker by Shan Carter simply does not hold water. It was strictly self-defense, and forensically the case supports the contention that Baker was struck with the first two bullets out of Carter’s gun, and not the three fired as Baker was fleeing. The autopsy medical examiner stated that an examination of the body showed that the bullet entered the front of Baker’s thigh and exited the back. Prosecution tried to debunk this finding by the SBI so-called ballistics expert stating that according to his examination of the pants Baker was wearing, the bullet had an entry wound on the back of the thigh and an exit on the front.
Although the prosecution stated that Shan Carter ran 30 feet up Tenth Street in pursuit of Baker, crime scene reconstruction of the bullet paths etc. determined that the shots came from the corner of Tenth and Dawson, as Shan has maintained.
Approximately two weeks before the Tenth and Dawson shooting, there was a similar incident involving Carter, which prosecution wished to ignore altogether. On February 5, 1997, Carter was walking with Julius Jones when another drug-dealer Keith Richardson approached them. Also a burglary victim of Carter, Richardson pulled a gun and asked Carter if his name is Shawn. Shan grabbed his gun and fired four or five times, striking Richardson in the forearm. Richardson ran one way, and Carter briskly walked away in the other. This, like the case with Baker, was self-defense, and Carter made no attempt to pursue and kill the drug-dealer. But, prosecutors never brought this case up, and never had anyone testify to the incident.
This case against Shan Carter is one of the most flawed I have ever seen and once some more of the evidence is presented, there is no doubt that you will agree that Shan Carter, instead of being on death row, should be released from prison. I believe that he has been rehabilitated and that to hold him on Death Row, or even in prison, is a waste of valuable taxpayer dollars.
LINK letter from Shan Carter:
http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoC/irC1.htm
LINK post office receipt:
http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoC/irC2.htm
- December 13, 2010
The blog of November 28, 2010 which introduced the outrageous legal inequities and injustices, including two capital convictions, against Shan Edward Carter, contained some errors of significance which, in my haste to post the story, did not carefully vet. Unlike Duke University, and most of the media (especially MSNBC) which refuse to man up and accept responsibility for their mistakes and errors, I have religiously followed the principles of “restorative justice” when I have erred. First, I accept full responsibility for the mistakes in that blog, although completely unintentional. I should have been more diligent in fact-checking the complex cases involving Shan Carter. Second, I give my sincerest apologies for misleading my readers. You deserve better, and I am glad that you challenge me when you feel that I got the story wrong. I am grateful for your vigilance. Third, if I have caused injury to anyone because of my misstatements, I would like to make them whole. I definitely have made efforts to correct the errors by posting a notice at the beginning of the November 28th blog alerting readers to the errors therein. The main text of the blog that was initially posted, however remains untouched. Fourth, I will try to see that such errors never recur by doing a better job of researching and never allowing assumptions to take the place of certainty of facts. When at all possible, if not much of a delay is involved, I will send my blog to Shan to review and make sure its contents are completely factual.
Although I had intended to discuss the shooting of Tyrone Baker with Shan during my visit with him at 11:00 am in Central Prison, a couple of hours before, when I went to the post office to mail some letters (see receipt on LINK), there was a letter from Shan in my post office box. In it, he informed me of errors in my November 28th blog even though we had not communicated about it previously. You will find that this letter is indicative of the credibility of the man, Shan Carter (see LINK). Below is the narrative of what transpired the day that drug-dealer Tyrone Baker and 8 year-old Demetrius Green lost their lives.
DECEMBER 6, 1996 – Shan Carter, Kwada Temoney, and Damont White burglarized drug-dealer Tyrone Baker’s apartment and steal $40,000 in cash, which they later split among themselves.
Tyrone Baker was a drug-dealer from New York, who dealt cocaine in the Wilmington, NC area, and a friend of Carter who knew Baker when he was in New York, warned Carter that Baker followed through on his threats. Word on the street was that Baker intended on killing those responsible for stealing $40,000 from his residence. Shan had heard from several sources that Baker was looking for those responsible for the burglary and that he was going to kill them. Carter was somewhat comforted by a gun he purchased on the street for his protection, a .357 Magnum revolver, which held six rounds, and which he kept in holster under is left arm.
FEBRUARY 16, 1997 – Shan Carter was parked on Dawson by the intersection with Tenth Street, and was approaching a store on the corner. Kwada Temoney was with Carter to his right. Before entering the store, Carter caught, out of the corner of his right field of vision, Kwada Temoney being struck in the face with a fist by a man Carter did not know. Kwada related to Carter later that he had been knocked out by the punch. The man then turned and began to approach Carter with a menacing look and without saying a word. Believing the man to be Baker, Carter began to back up. Although the weather was sunny and warm, especially for February, the man carried a heavy Army field coat folded over one of his arms, as if to conceal a weapon. Shan pulled his weapon from his holster, and Baker momentarily froze. Holding the weapon in one hand only and aiming low in an effort to wound and not kill, Shan fired two shots in quick succession as Baker turned to his right. The first bullet Shan believed struck Baker in his thigh, however, as Carter suggests the second shot when higher from the discharge after the first shot. Baker was struck just below the left rib cage as he was turning, and he then began running up Tenth Street. Carter, concerned that Baker might use the corner of the building as cover to in order to return fire, walked to the corner to take it out of the equation. As Baker ran up Tenth Street, Shan fired three more times to shepherd him along… at no time exposing his left side to Carter. Even when Baker crossed Tenth Street, his right side was exposed to Carter. Shan Carter noticed that Baker’s legs seemed wobbly before he fell, and Shan then proceeded to get into his car parked on Dawson, along with Temoney, who had recovered, and they drove off.
Renee Barnes, who admitted to knowing Tyrone Baker and who had braided his corn rows in the past, allegedly sold crack cocaine for Baker, too. She lived on the corner of Tenth and Dawson, across from the store where the incident took place. Accounts state that she allegedly ran from her apartment to the site where Tyrone Baker lay mortally wounded. He was gurgling and made a few statements to Renee before he died. Renee picked up the Army field coat (and possibly a weapon), and ran back to her house before the police arrived… which was not long after the shooting. She used the car keys in the coat to drive Tyrone Baker’s jeep (which may have been a rental) to the residence of Tyrone’s girlfriend. The coat eventually wound up in New York, and it was from New York that the detectives finally got possession of the coat in 1998. According to Renee, it had dried blood on it.
The prosecutions’ case of the premeditated murder of Tyrone Baker by Shan Carter simply does not hold water. It was strictly self-defense, and forensically the case supports the contention that Baker was struck with the first two bullets out of Carter’s gun, and not the three fired as Baker was fleeing. The autopsy medical examiner stated that an examination of the body showed that the bullet entered the front of Baker’s thigh and exited the back. Prosecution tried to debunk this finding by the SBI so-called ballistics expert stating that according to his examination of the pants Baker was wearing, the bullet had an entry wound on the back of the thigh and an exit on the front.
Although the prosecution stated that Shan Carter ran 30 feet up Tenth Street in pursuit of Baker, crime scene reconstruction of the bullet paths etc. determined that the shots came from the corner of Tenth and Dawson, as Shan has maintained.
Approximately two weeks before the Tenth and Dawson shooting, there was a similar incident involving Carter, which prosecution wished to ignore altogether. On February 5, 1997, Carter was walking with Julius Jones when another drug-dealer Keith Richardson approached them. Also a burglary victim of Carter, Richardson pulled a gun and asked Carter if his name is Shawn. Shan grabbed his gun and fired four or five times, striking Richardson in the forearm. Richardson ran one way, and Carter briskly walked away in the other. This, like the case with Baker, was self-defense, and Carter made no attempt to pursue and kill the drug-dealer. But, prosecutors never brought this case up, and never had anyone testify to the incident.
This case against Shan Carter is one of the most flawed I have ever seen and once some more of the evidence is presented, there is no doubt that you will agree that Shan Carter, instead of being on death row, should be released from prison. I believe that he has been rehabilitated and that to hold him on Death Row, or even in prison, is a waste of valuable taxpayer dollars.
LINK letter from Shan Carter:
http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoC/irC1.htm
LINK post office receipt:
http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoC/irC2.htm
Friday, November 19, 2010
Duke… too big to be forced to do the right thing?
After posting the blog which directed viewers to the Investigative Report that detailed the incidents involved in April 14, 2010 discrimination against me by Duke University (which included an audio of part of my conversation with the guard), one of the commenters who goes by the nom de plum of “Anonymous” sarcastically stated “good luck.” It is obvious to commenters possessing intelligence and logic, even those who disagree with me about Mr. Nifong (e.g. Walt-in-Durham and guiowen), that the treatment I received at Duke was outrageous and inappropriate. It is equally apparent to politicians such as those who represent me, that I was discriminated against solely for my thoughts and opinions regarding Mike Nifong. However, because of the emotionally negative media hype against Nifong in the well orchestrated Carpetbagger Jihad agenda, politicians are not willing to get involved in the fray. Unlike former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, who confronted the Duke Lacrosse case head-on despite risks to his election to another term as D.A., politicians, it seems, lack the courage to wade into the morass that was created on the Duke campus on April 14th… a pre-meditated, malicious, and unwarranted attack against a person launched solely because of his beliefs about Nifong which were not consistent with those of the university.
Having recently emerged from a serious mid-term election, the politicians can be given some slack for not immediately responding to the request for their input and involvement in this issue of civil rights importance. But it is an issue that will not disappear, in spite of the media’s best efforts to ignore it. Unlike other instances of discrimination which the media has jumped on whole hog, such as that at Cameron Village, the act of discrimination at Duke University involves Duke… the institution in Durham that is too big to be forced to follow rules, regulations, ethics, and principles that others are constrained to abide by. The Cameron Village incident is a case in point. The security officer at the mall requested two lesbians to leave the property because they showed affection in public… an action which the guard deemed to be objectionable, although it was an action which did not violate any rules or regulations. The York Properties company acted swiftly and appropriately to this act of discrimination by one of its employees, utilizing the principles of “restorative justice.” The head of the company met with the two women who were discriminated against, and he accepted responsibility for the discriminatory actions, apologized to the two women, made it clear that such discrimination would not take place again, and told of steps that would be taken to see that such discrimination would never recur.
York Properties acted in a timely and responsible way, and it no doubt was motivated to do so by the intensive and extensive media coverage. Local and national newspapers and television stations covered every single step, beginning with the incident itself, the apology, the meeting with the head of York Properties, the acceptance of the demands made by the women who were offended, and the rally which emphasized the anti-discrimination concessions they had won. CNN was one of the national news stations which heavily covered the event.
When it comes to Duke University, on the other hand, the media cowers in the shadow of the institution’s might. The media dare not publish or air an article that might stoke the anger of Durham’s giant, and to do a story on discrimination by Duke, especially against a pro-Nifong supporter carries only risks and no benefits for them. The media would much rather keep the public ignorant of Duke’s unethical act of discrimination and its ludicrous response. Unlike York Properties, which took the high road to resolving the situation, Duke took the low one, because it felt that it was powerful enough to do so and get away with it. So when I asked Duke University for an official response as to why I was kicked off campus and by whom, I was told that it was because I handed out business cards to its students and employees and asked them to visit my website. As ridiculous as it sounds, it is the best excuse that the university could concoct. To make matters worse, its spokesman, Michael Schoenfeld lied by trying to shift blame from someone in administration and place it on Duke Police. There is no doubt that Duke police have more important things to do that escort people off campus for handing out business cards and monitoring visitors’ conversations to see whether or not they are "soliciting."
So, not only does Duke not accept responsibility for its premeditated and malicious action, but it lays the blame for the incident on me, a guest invited to their campus for an event. Duke does not apologize to me, which I would not expect and would not seek because it has no remorse for its despicable actions towards me. And it makes plain that it will continue to act against me in the future if I hand out business cards on its campus. But as anyone with reason knows, the act of discrimination against me was purely due to the fact that I am an openly known supporter of Mike Nifong.
Duke could learn a lot from York Properties about how to handle issues that arise wherein the conduct of one of its employees is egregious and unacceptable. Duke, like York Properties, and each and every one of us should be held accountable for its actions. Duke is not and should not be treated as privileged and exempt from following the basic rules of civility and decency to which we all are expected to adhere.
Having recently emerged from a serious mid-term election, the politicians can be given some slack for not immediately responding to the request for their input and involvement in this issue of civil rights importance. But it is an issue that will not disappear, in spite of the media’s best efforts to ignore it. Unlike other instances of discrimination which the media has jumped on whole hog, such as that at Cameron Village, the act of discrimination at Duke University involves Duke… the institution in Durham that is too big to be forced to follow rules, regulations, ethics, and principles that others are constrained to abide by. The Cameron Village incident is a case in point. The security officer at the mall requested two lesbians to leave the property because they showed affection in public… an action which the guard deemed to be objectionable, although it was an action which did not violate any rules or regulations. The York Properties company acted swiftly and appropriately to this act of discrimination by one of its employees, utilizing the principles of “restorative justice.” The head of the company met with the two women who were discriminated against, and he accepted responsibility for the discriminatory actions, apologized to the two women, made it clear that such discrimination would not take place again, and told of steps that would be taken to see that such discrimination would never recur.
York Properties acted in a timely and responsible way, and it no doubt was motivated to do so by the intensive and extensive media coverage. Local and national newspapers and television stations covered every single step, beginning with the incident itself, the apology, the meeting with the head of York Properties, the acceptance of the demands made by the women who were offended, and the rally which emphasized the anti-discrimination concessions they had won. CNN was one of the national news stations which heavily covered the event.
When it comes to Duke University, on the other hand, the media cowers in the shadow of the institution’s might. The media dare not publish or air an article that might stoke the anger of Durham’s giant, and to do a story on discrimination by Duke, especially against a pro-Nifong supporter carries only risks and no benefits for them. The media would much rather keep the public ignorant of Duke’s unethical act of discrimination and its ludicrous response. Unlike York Properties, which took the high road to resolving the situation, Duke took the low one, because it felt that it was powerful enough to do so and get away with it. So when I asked Duke University for an official response as to why I was kicked off campus and by whom, I was told that it was because I handed out business cards to its students and employees and asked them to visit my website. As ridiculous as it sounds, it is the best excuse that the university could concoct. To make matters worse, its spokesman, Michael Schoenfeld lied by trying to shift blame from someone in administration and place it on Duke Police. There is no doubt that Duke police have more important things to do that escort people off campus for handing out business cards and monitoring visitors’ conversations to see whether or not they are "soliciting."
So, not only does Duke not accept responsibility for its premeditated and malicious action, but it lays the blame for the incident on me, a guest invited to their campus for an event. Duke does not apologize to me, which I would not expect and would not seek because it has no remorse for its despicable actions towards me. And it makes plain that it will continue to act against me in the future if I hand out business cards on its campus. But as anyone with reason knows, the act of discrimination against me was purely due to the fact that I am an openly known supporter of Mike Nifong.
Duke could learn a lot from York Properties about how to handle issues that arise wherein the conduct of one of its employees is egregious and unacceptable. Duke, like York Properties, and each and every one of us should be held accountable for its actions. Duke is not and should not be treated as privileged and exempt from following the basic rules of civility and decency to which we all are expected to adhere.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Protection against the consequences of free speech and opinion are not guaranteed
One of the tenets upon which our country was founded, and upon which we most highly cherish, is the freedom of speech… the right to express one’s opinion. We, Americans, may surely speak our minds on any number of issues without fear of incarceration or persecution by the government, but we must deal with the consequences of our expression. Neither the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution protects citizens from any retaliation that may be lodged against someone for speaking their mind, expressing their beliefs, or, unfortunately, even having an opinion. Because potential retribution looms for whoever possesses or subscribes to an unpopular position on a controversial topic, it tends to mute contrary expression and/or public dialog on that particular subject. Bottom line is that the potential for suffering consequences for certain thoughts and opinions are routinely kept in check out of fear of being subjected to backlash.
This matter came to the nation’s awareness recently when NPR (National Public Radio) commentator Juan Williams stated during an interview with Fox News that he was uncomfortable whenever he saw Muslims dressed in their traditional garb on airplanes. NPR executives viewed this comment as being unethical and undermining his credibility. Personally, I do not share the same phobia as Mr. Williams regarding Muslims traveling by air, and I did not find his remarks to be offensive. He was merely stating an opinion of his, which I felt had no relevance to his credibility. NPR should not have focused on this benign, but candid expression of Mr. Williams. Certainly, he should not have been fired… at least in my opinion.
Fear of retaliation for taking a position is very real in this country and can be best exemplified by the Nifong-phobia. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of intelligent and sensible people in North Carolina are of the opinion that Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly disbarred (especially in consideration that he is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933). However, the play given to the topic by the mainstream media and the punitive, draconian, and irrational treatment of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong by the Attorney General’s Office and other state agencies, makes it clear to the well-informed that to take a side with Mr. Nifong is to possibly invite serious and catastrophic results… the most feared being loss of employment. There are many attorneys who are of the opinion that Mr. Nifong was unjustly disbarred, but they are not going to publicly say so because they realize to do so would put their license to practice law in serious jeopardy by the unregulated and out of control State Bar. Civil rights leaders and religious leaders in their pulpits avoid taking on the injustice to Mr. Nifong out of fear of losing financing and donations, support, and/or tithe.
What sets aside the Mike Nifong issue from many others in the arena of public discourse is the fact that the media has defined the debate by taking a position and pushing it on the public. This drive to destroy Mr. Nifong was spearheaded by Rae Evans, mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans. She held an executive position with CBS News for more than a decade, but this has never been disclosed during her appearances on CBS’s “60 Minutes” program, and the media has been hush-hush on the topic, as well. The PR and media blitz by the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse families have produced a jihad against Mr. Nifong that is complete and without comparison. So successful has the media been in defining what opinions and expressions about Mr. Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case are acceptable, and what positions carry untold risks, that the state’s director of the American Civil Liberties Union is afraid to express her opinion on the topic. A couple of years ago at a public debate on freedom of speech at NCSU, I asked the ACLU’s Katy Parker, to opine in writing about Mr. Nifong’s disbarment, specifically asking if his actions were as egregious as other prosecutors who had not been disbarred. She was aware that I was a supporter of Mr. Nifong, and when I handed her the questionnaire, I asked her if she was going to fill it out. She responded, “It depends on the questions.” Evidently, she did not like the questions as she did not respond (I even enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope). But neither did the three other law school professors at event to whom I personally gave the questionnaire.
This is very telling, because an agency like the ACLU which is willing to protect the civil and constitutional rights of Nazis and Ku Klux Klanners is afraid to go up against the powerful Carpetbaggers by expressing its opinions about Mr. Nifong’s disbarment. Mr. Nifong’s unjust disbarment is a topic that is even off-limits at law schools. Law professors, even with tenure, are unwilling to breach the topic in a public forum. It is evident why the subject of Mr. Nifong is institutionally and universally taboo… because Mike Nifong’s disbarment was selective and unjust. This is a conclusion that anyone using a modicum of rational thought and knowledge of the issue would reach.
Elected public officials, who are compromised by their lust for public approval, display absolutely no courage when it comes to taking a public stand on the issue of Mike Nifong’s disbarment. Although the First Amendment protects their right to express an opinion on the subject, they undoubtedly act like politicians by cloaking their unwillingness to discuss the issue by pleading that the protocol in place restricts their ability to comment.
The heat surrounding the topic of Mike Nifong’s disbarment is so high that even having a view that is supportive of Mr. Nifong can lead to mistreatment. It happened to me at Duke University School of Law in April 14, 2010, when I attended an event which was open to the public. I was kicked off the campus, for no reason other than being a supporter of justice for Mr. Nifong. The attack against me by Duke was premeditated, malicious, and unwarranted, and illustrates the depth of contempt that has been generated by the media and the state against Mr. Nifong and his supporters. A university, especially one of Duke’s stature - not to mention that it is law school, should be a beacon for independent thought, opinion, and ideas. Debate on differing views should be welcome in such an academic environment. I’m sure that, generally speaking, it is on the Duke campus. But, again, when it comes to the topic of Mr. Nifong, open expression or even privately held opinion supportive of Mr. Nifong is squelched. Because I believe that Mr. Nifong was selectively and unjustly disbarred I was nearly arrested.
Tar Heelians, especially in Durham, know the score and are timid when it comes to speaking out on behalf of Mike Nifong. They realize that doing so could cost them a promotion, opportunity, or even their jobs and livelihood. The vindictive reach of the Carpetbagger Jihad is long, strong, and venomous. That is what makes members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong special. Each individual member has the conviction, and courage to back it up, to lend his/her name and face to the cause of obtaining justice for Mr. Nifong. Justice for Mike Nifong can be defined by action on part of the North Carolina State Bar to unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mike Nifong’s license to practice law in the state without restrictions. And that is the goal of our committee, which has been in existence since June 2008.
Like Juan Williams, I have experienced backlash because of my position in support of Mr. Nifong… discrimination against me and my near-arrest on the Duke University campus in April 2010, being one of the more recent. Because of the fear of retaliation, the Powers-That-Be, especially with the assistance of the media, will continue to determine what opinions the citizens of this state are considered acceptable to harbor and/or express. For those who elect to give an opinion that is not held in the mainstream, brace yourself and prepare to suffer retribution. Keep in mind that expression of opinion is free, but you oft times will end up paying the consequences for doing so.
This matter came to the nation’s awareness recently when NPR (National Public Radio) commentator Juan Williams stated during an interview with Fox News that he was uncomfortable whenever he saw Muslims dressed in their traditional garb on airplanes. NPR executives viewed this comment as being unethical and undermining his credibility. Personally, I do not share the same phobia as Mr. Williams regarding Muslims traveling by air, and I did not find his remarks to be offensive. He was merely stating an opinion of his, which I felt had no relevance to his credibility. NPR should not have focused on this benign, but candid expression of Mr. Williams. Certainly, he should not have been fired… at least in my opinion.
Fear of retaliation for taking a position is very real in this country and can be best exemplified by the Nifong-phobia. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of intelligent and sensible people in North Carolina are of the opinion that Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly disbarred (especially in consideration that he is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933). However, the play given to the topic by the mainstream media and the punitive, draconian, and irrational treatment of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong by the Attorney General’s Office and other state agencies, makes it clear to the well-informed that to take a side with Mr. Nifong is to possibly invite serious and catastrophic results… the most feared being loss of employment. There are many attorneys who are of the opinion that Mr. Nifong was unjustly disbarred, but they are not going to publicly say so because they realize to do so would put their license to practice law in serious jeopardy by the unregulated and out of control State Bar. Civil rights leaders and religious leaders in their pulpits avoid taking on the injustice to Mr. Nifong out of fear of losing financing and donations, support, and/or tithe.
What sets aside the Mike Nifong issue from many others in the arena of public discourse is the fact that the media has defined the debate by taking a position and pushing it on the public. This drive to destroy Mr. Nifong was spearheaded by Rae Evans, mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans. She held an executive position with CBS News for more than a decade, but this has never been disclosed during her appearances on CBS’s “60 Minutes” program, and the media has been hush-hush on the topic, as well. The PR and media blitz by the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse families have produced a jihad against Mr. Nifong that is complete and without comparison. So successful has the media been in defining what opinions and expressions about Mr. Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case are acceptable, and what positions carry untold risks, that the state’s director of the American Civil Liberties Union is afraid to express her opinion on the topic. A couple of years ago at a public debate on freedom of speech at NCSU, I asked the ACLU’s Katy Parker, to opine in writing about Mr. Nifong’s disbarment, specifically asking if his actions were as egregious as other prosecutors who had not been disbarred. She was aware that I was a supporter of Mr. Nifong, and when I handed her the questionnaire, I asked her if she was going to fill it out. She responded, “It depends on the questions.” Evidently, she did not like the questions as she did not respond (I even enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope). But neither did the three other law school professors at event to whom I personally gave the questionnaire.
This is very telling, because an agency like the ACLU which is willing to protect the civil and constitutional rights of Nazis and Ku Klux Klanners is afraid to go up against the powerful Carpetbaggers by expressing its opinions about Mr. Nifong’s disbarment. Mr. Nifong’s unjust disbarment is a topic that is even off-limits at law schools. Law professors, even with tenure, are unwilling to breach the topic in a public forum. It is evident why the subject of Mr. Nifong is institutionally and universally taboo… because Mike Nifong’s disbarment was selective and unjust. This is a conclusion that anyone using a modicum of rational thought and knowledge of the issue would reach.
Elected public officials, who are compromised by their lust for public approval, display absolutely no courage when it comes to taking a public stand on the issue of Mike Nifong’s disbarment. Although the First Amendment protects their right to express an opinion on the subject, they undoubtedly act like politicians by cloaking their unwillingness to discuss the issue by pleading that the protocol in place restricts their ability to comment.
The heat surrounding the topic of Mike Nifong’s disbarment is so high that even having a view that is supportive of Mr. Nifong can lead to mistreatment. It happened to me at Duke University School of Law in April 14, 2010, when I attended an event which was open to the public. I was kicked off the campus, for no reason other than being a supporter of justice for Mr. Nifong. The attack against me by Duke was premeditated, malicious, and unwarranted, and illustrates the depth of contempt that has been generated by the media and the state against Mr. Nifong and his supporters. A university, especially one of Duke’s stature - not to mention that it is law school, should be a beacon for independent thought, opinion, and ideas. Debate on differing views should be welcome in such an academic environment. I’m sure that, generally speaking, it is on the Duke campus. But, again, when it comes to the topic of Mr. Nifong, open expression or even privately held opinion supportive of Mr. Nifong is squelched. Because I believe that Mr. Nifong was selectively and unjustly disbarred I was nearly arrested.
Tar Heelians, especially in Durham, know the score and are timid when it comes to speaking out on behalf of Mike Nifong. They realize that doing so could cost them a promotion, opportunity, or even their jobs and livelihood. The vindictive reach of the Carpetbagger Jihad is long, strong, and venomous. That is what makes members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong special. Each individual member has the conviction, and courage to back it up, to lend his/her name and face to the cause of obtaining justice for Mr. Nifong. Justice for Mike Nifong can be defined by action on part of the North Carolina State Bar to unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mike Nifong’s license to practice law in the state without restrictions. And that is the goal of our committee, which has been in existence since June 2008.
Like Juan Williams, I have experienced backlash because of my position in support of Mr. Nifong… discrimination against me and my near-arrest on the Duke University campus in April 2010, being one of the more recent. Because of the fear of retaliation, the Powers-That-Be, especially with the assistance of the media, will continue to determine what opinions the citizens of this state are considered acceptable to harbor and/or express. For those who elect to give an opinion that is not held in the mainstream, brace yourself and prepare to suffer retribution. Keep in mind that expression of opinion is free, but you oft times will end up paying the consequences for doing so.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Duke could learn a thing or two from York Properties
The blog that was posted on October 16, 2010, has been removed because it has caused grief to someone who I love very much. She asked me not to post the blog on the subject, but I thought that I could successfully navigate through the topic without causing distress for her, but that was not the case. I took much caution in writing the article not to cause offense, but I did, and for that I am truly sorry, and I offer her my deepest apology.
Finally, I would like to mention that I believe that the discrimination against the lesbian couple at Cameron Village was despicable, and in no way did I intend to minimize its egregious nature when writing the blog.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
N&O editorial: “naïve wanderers” or just plain dumb
The editorial staff in the September 16, 2010 edition of The News & Observer published an interesting editorial titled “Free all three.” It is a call for the Iranians to free the two remaining Americans being held on spy charges. Thankfully, Sarah Shourd, the third American was freed by the Iranian government on humanitarian reasons because of alleged health problems.
Although I give credit to the N&O editorial staff for admitting that anything is possible, I strongly disagree with its claim that charges of espionage against the three Americans are laughable. First, a lot of assumptions are tossed around, such as the three are left-leaning in their political philosophy, even though they are alums of the University of California-Berkeley. Not all alums from Berkeley are left-leaning or liberals. But the spy agency in the United States (almost all nations have them) is smart enough not to send men in trench coats and wearing sunglasses to the Iranian border to snoop around. They’re going to send someone who seems most unlikely to fit the mold of a spy… say, for example, a hiker with left-leaning tendencies.
Now, I’m not saying that the trio of hikers is spies, because I do not know. However, I would not call them naïve… a more appropriate adjective would be stupid. Why in the world would three Americans, without knowledge of the local language, go hiking around the border of a country openly hostile to the United States, and a country listed as a terrorist country by the United States? Not only that, but they were on Iran’s border with Iraq, a volatile country which doesn’t embrace Americans or the Christian religion. Sarah Shourd did not clarify why they were hiking around the Iranian border during snippets of interviews given following her release. The only comment she could say on that issue was, “It’s a misunderstanding.”
I have nothing against hiking, but with all of the beautiful national parks, open country, and nicely designed cities in the United States, why would one even leave the States to get in some hiking? And if one just had to get out of the States, there are plenty of countries with much more hospitality towards Americans than Iran. For me, if I felt the need to hike abroad, my first choice would be Ireland. Nice and green, and I can sorta understand the language. My second choice would be Scotland, for the same reasons, except the language is a little bit more difficult to understand. My third choice would be England… you get the picture. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and all the other “stans,” North Korea, Darfur, would not even garner consideration. Although Cuba and Venezuela have some bad blood between them and the U.S., I would feel relatively safe going to those countries, but they would not be on the top tier of my list of foreign countries to go hiking in.
Another sticking point for the N&O editorial staff writer appears to be the “$500,000 bail.” Well, all I can say is that it is a lot less than the bail set for Heather Holley on a charge of identity theft – which was $6 milllion. Of the two charges, I would consider espionage much more serious than identity theft. Bail for some defendants charged with murder is less than six mil. Still, I have yet to see an editorial in The News & Observer about the excessive bail amount set for Ms. Holley.
According to recent media accounts, the Iranian leader has made subtle overtures suggesting a willingness to exchange the two American hikers for eight Iranian citizens being held in U.S. jails. I don’t know the charges against the eight Iranians, but such a prisoner exchange would be ideal. First we would be able to free the two remaining hikers. Secondly, we could free the American taxpayers of the burden of providing room, board, and health care for eight individuals which our country doesn’t want to begin with. It’s a win-win situation, and we should jump at the opportunity.
What all Americans should learn from this sad and unfortunate series of events is not to do dumb things. For an American to be hiking around Iran, or Iraq… or Afghanistan… or Pakistan is dumb. Just like it would be dumb for me, or any outspoken Mike Nifong supporter, to set foot on Duke University campus. After I was humiliated, embarrassed, and nearly arrested for no reason by campus police, it makes absolutely no sense for me to venture onto Duke property again.
For those of you unfamiliar with events leading up to my Henry Louis Gates Jr.-like near arrest, here’s a condensed version. I went to the Duke University Law School (wearing my Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong tee shirt… no big deal – right?) to attend an event open to the public on a first come, first served basis. Arriving early, I struck up conversations with about a half dozen or so people, and gave some of them my business card (which had information about the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong). Upon leaving the large classroom where the event was held, en masse with others in attendance, I was singled out by a uniformed security guard. He asked me what I was doing there, and I told that I had just attended the event. (Duh..) He then proceeded to tell me that I was trespassing and needed to leave the campus (which I was in the process of doing before he intercepted me). I asked why I was being kicked off campus, and he stated that he did not know… that he was just following orders of the building manager. He refused to take me to the building manager and so as I left, he followed me like I was an imminent threat. I told him that he did not need to follow me, and he responded that he was going to make sure that I left the campus grounds. As I was walking, he called backup, and an extremely menacing officer drove up in a patrol car seconds later, and got out. Now I had two uniformed officers following behind me. As I boarded the city bus to leave campus, the guard told me that I was nearly arrested three times.
I pressed Duke University for an answer regarding my inhospitable treatment, and was told by Michael Schoenfeld, a vice president, that the university employees did not mistreat me, and that I was kicked off campus for repeatedly violating their rules against solicitation. Schoenfeld described solicitation as me handing my business card to someone and asking him/her to visit my website. (Absurd… right?) Then he deflected responsibility for actions ordering me off campus from the administration to the campus police. Evidently, according to Schoenfeld, some people complained to police about the business card I gave them. This is nothing more than a lie. Mr. Schoenfeld expects me to believe that someone who accepted a business card from me went to the police to complain. He then expects me to believe that the campus police is going to waste its time, manpower, and resources to escort a person who handed out a couple of business cards off campus. The excuse Mr. Schoenfeld came up with, besides being full of falsehoods, is laughable, but it was the best excuse the university could come up with for humiliating me, embarrassing me, and nearly arresting me. To end his correspondence, Mr. Schoenfeld stated that I am welcome to return to the campus as long as I don’t engage in solicitation.
So without a logical explanation for my mistreatment and near-arrest on the Duke University campus, much less acknowledgement of guilt or an apology, does Mr. Schoenfeld actually think I would even consider returning to Duke University? Well, I’m no glutton for punishment, I’m not a masochist, and I’m not dumb.
Although I give credit to the N&O editorial staff for admitting that anything is possible, I strongly disagree with its claim that charges of espionage against the three Americans are laughable. First, a lot of assumptions are tossed around, such as the three are left-leaning in their political philosophy, even though they are alums of the University of California-Berkeley. Not all alums from Berkeley are left-leaning or liberals. But the spy agency in the United States (almost all nations have them) is smart enough not to send men in trench coats and wearing sunglasses to the Iranian border to snoop around. They’re going to send someone who seems most unlikely to fit the mold of a spy… say, for example, a hiker with left-leaning tendencies.
Now, I’m not saying that the trio of hikers is spies, because I do not know. However, I would not call them naïve… a more appropriate adjective would be stupid. Why in the world would three Americans, without knowledge of the local language, go hiking around the border of a country openly hostile to the United States, and a country listed as a terrorist country by the United States? Not only that, but they were on Iran’s border with Iraq, a volatile country which doesn’t embrace Americans or the Christian religion. Sarah Shourd did not clarify why they were hiking around the Iranian border during snippets of interviews given following her release. The only comment she could say on that issue was, “It’s a misunderstanding.”
I have nothing against hiking, but with all of the beautiful national parks, open country, and nicely designed cities in the United States, why would one even leave the States to get in some hiking? And if one just had to get out of the States, there are plenty of countries with much more hospitality towards Americans than Iran. For me, if I felt the need to hike abroad, my first choice would be Ireland. Nice and green, and I can sorta understand the language. My second choice would be Scotland, for the same reasons, except the language is a little bit more difficult to understand. My third choice would be England… you get the picture. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and all the other “stans,” North Korea, Darfur, would not even garner consideration. Although Cuba and Venezuela have some bad blood between them and the U.S., I would feel relatively safe going to those countries, but they would not be on the top tier of my list of foreign countries to go hiking in.
Another sticking point for the N&O editorial staff writer appears to be the “$500,000 bail.” Well, all I can say is that it is a lot less than the bail set for Heather Holley on a charge of identity theft – which was $6 milllion. Of the two charges, I would consider espionage much more serious than identity theft. Bail for some defendants charged with murder is less than six mil. Still, I have yet to see an editorial in The News & Observer about the excessive bail amount set for Ms. Holley.
According to recent media accounts, the Iranian leader has made subtle overtures suggesting a willingness to exchange the two American hikers for eight Iranian citizens being held in U.S. jails. I don’t know the charges against the eight Iranians, but such a prisoner exchange would be ideal. First we would be able to free the two remaining hikers. Secondly, we could free the American taxpayers of the burden of providing room, board, and health care for eight individuals which our country doesn’t want to begin with. It’s a win-win situation, and we should jump at the opportunity.
What all Americans should learn from this sad and unfortunate series of events is not to do dumb things. For an American to be hiking around Iran, or Iraq… or Afghanistan… or Pakistan is dumb. Just like it would be dumb for me, or any outspoken Mike Nifong supporter, to set foot on Duke University campus. After I was humiliated, embarrassed, and nearly arrested for no reason by campus police, it makes absolutely no sense for me to venture onto Duke property again.
For those of you unfamiliar with events leading up to my Henry Louis Gates Jr.-like near arrest, here’s a condensed version. I went to the Duke University Law School (wearing my Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong tee shirt… no big deal – right?) to attend an event open to the public on a first come, first served basis. Arriving early, I struck up conversations with about a half dozen or so people, and gave some of them my business card (which had information about the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong). Upon leaving the large classroom where the event was held, en masse with others in attendance, I was singled out by a uniformed security guard. He asked me what I was doing there, and I told that I had just attended the event. (Duh..) He then proceeded to tell me that I was trespassing and needed to leave the campus (which I was in the process of doing before he intercepted me). I asked why I was being kicked off campus, and he stated that he did not know… that he was just following orders of the building manager. He refused to take me to the building manager and so as I left, he followed me like I was an imminent threat. I told him that he did not need to follow me, and he responded that he was going to make sure that I left the campus grounds. As I was walking, he called backup, and an extremely menacing officer drove up in a patrol car seconds later, and got out. Now I had two uniformed officers following behind me. As I boarded the city bus to leave campus, the guard told me that I was nearly arrested three times.
I pressed Duke University for an answer regarding my inhospitable treatment, and was told by Michael Schoenfeld, a vice president, that the university employees did not mistreat me, and that I was kicked off campus for repeatedly violating their rules against solicitation. Schoenfeld described solicitation as me handing my business card to someone and asking him/her to visit my website. (Absurd… right?) Then he deflected responsibility for actions ordering me off campus from the administration to the campus police. Evidently, according to Schoenfeld, some people complained to police about the business card I gave them. This is nothing more than a lie. Mr. Schoenfeld expects me to believe that someone who accepted a business card from me went to the police to complain. He then expects me to believe that the campus police is going to waste its time, manpower, and resources to escort a person who handed out a couple of business cards off campus. The excuse Mr. Schoenfeld came up with, besides being full of falsehoods, is laughable, but it was the best excuse the university could come up with for humiliating me, embarrassing me, and nearly arresting me. To end his correspondence, Mr. Schoenfeld stated that I am welcome to return to the campus as long as I don’t engage in solicitation.
So without a logical explanation for my mistreatment and near-arrest on the Duke University campus, much less acknowledgement of guilt or an apology, does Mr. Schoenfeld actually think I would even consider returning to Duke University? Well, I’m no glutton for punishment, I’m not a masochist, and I’m not dumb.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Duke University destroys Lacrosse evidence
Like cat burglars in the dead of night, Duke University, on the morning of Monday, July 12, 2010, stealthily moved its backhoe with its huge claw into position on property located at 610 North Buchanan Boulevard in Durham, and commenced razing the historic bungalow. Purchased by the university just months prior to the infamous Duke lacrosse spring break beer-guzzling stripper party of March 2006, the house, which sat vacant since the incident, fell into disrepair, according to Duke official Michael Schoenfeld. He told WRAL that it was an eyesore, and that it was not torn down for any symbolic reason.
The reason the property became an eyesore is because its owner, Duke University, did not maintain the property and had every intention of letting it become an eyesore for the purpose of justifying its destruction. Duke certainly maintains its other properties in excellent condition. The house on Buchanan Boulevard had become a symbol of Duke’s shameful past, and Duke officials had every intention of seeing it removed. To prevent any interference in their plans, they initiated a blitzkrieg strategy that had the structure leveled before any objections could be made, or even awareness known of their battering intention. By the time the media heard about activity on the property, the house was half demolished.
The house at 610 North Buchanan Boulevard, being a historical landmark, should have been preserved and, if nothing else, possibly used as a center for counseling or treatment. Its shameful past history should not have forced it to face the wrecking ball. There are other structures, such as the palaces along the Ivory Coast of Africa which served as a holding cell for Africans who were captured and destined to go to the New World to toil as slaves, which have a much more horrendous past and they were not destroyed. In fact, they are now treasured for their historical value… a true life museum that affords its visitors an up-close and personal experience of the horrors of the sixteenth and seventeenth century African slave trade. The Nazi death camp of Auschwitz is another example of property with a despicable and inhumane past which was not torn asunder and buried. It was preserved; if for no other reason than to serve as an ugly reminder of the brutal extent of man’s inhumanity to man. In a like vein, the Duke Lacrosse Party House should have been preserved for its historical and social value.
However, with recent revelations about the trumped up charges of February 17, 2010 against the falsely accused Crystal Mangum (the victim in the Duke Lacrosse case), the possibility, though remote, of renewed interest in conducting an objective investigation into the Duke Lacrosse case, undoubtedly gave impetus to plans for the house’s quick demise. As Ms. Mangum’s credibility grows, even in light of the biased representations in the mainstream media, people are beginning to question Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” and his assertion that “nothing (criminal) happened” that night in 2006. With the party house now nothing more than a memory, the dimensions of the bathroom and the alleged discrepancies in the photographs taken inside the house which some construed to be “doctored,” these issues can no longer be adequately explored. Further, the collection of evidence, DNA and otherwise is lost forever. The crime scene is no more. Duke has successfully covered its tracks.
Crystal Mangum was silenced from presenting, in court, her story about the Duke Lacrosse case. Now being the falsely accused, and out from under the thumb of a public defender who was working in the best interests of the state, Ms. Mangum has been putting her story before the public, even though the media negatively skews it as much as possible. Yet the trumped up charges against her are becoming more exposed, and they are not even a house of cards; they are nothing more than smoke, mirrors, and hot air.
How much do you know about the incident involving Ms. Mangum that occurred the night of February 17, 2010 and the trumped up charges against her? Click on the link below to get access to our ten question quiz, and find out what your SJ.Q. (Subjective Justice Quotient) is on the subject.
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/quiz/quiz.htm
The reason the property became an eyesore is because its owner, Duke University, did not maintain the property and had every intention of letting it become an eyesore for the purpose of justifying its destruction. Duke certainly maintains its other properties in excellent condition. The house on Buchanan Boulevard had become a symbol of Duke’s shameful past, and Duke officials had every intention of seeing it removed. To prevent any interference in their plans, they initiated a blitzkrieg strategy that had the structure leveled before any objections could be made, or even awareness known of their battering intention. By the time the media heard about activity on the property, the house was half demolished.
The house at 610 North Buchanan Boulevard, being a historical landmark, should have been preserved and, if nothing else, possibly used as a center for counseling or treatment. Its shameful past history should not have forced it to face the wrecking ball. There are other structures, such as the palaces along the Ivory Coast of Africa which served as a holding cell for Africans who were captured and destined to go to the New World to toil as slaves, which have a much more horrendous past and they were not destroyed. In fact, they are now treasured for their historical value… a true life museum that affords its visitors an up-close and personal experience of the horrors of the sixteenth and seventeenth century African slave trade. The Nazi death camp of Auschwitz is another example of property with a despicable and inhumane past which was not torn asunder and buried. It was preserved; if for no other reason than to serve as an ugly reminder of the brutal extent of man’s inhumanity to man. In a like vein, the Duke Lacrosse Party House should have been preserved for its historical and social value.
However, with recent revelations about the trumped up charges of February 17, 2010 against the falsely accused Crystal Mangum (the victim in the Duke Lacrosse case), the possibility, though remote, of renewed interest in conducting an objective investigation into the Duke Lacrosse case, undoubtedly gave impetus to plans for the house’s quick demise. As Ms. Mangum’s credibility grows, even in light of the biased representations in the mainstream media, people are beginning to question Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” and his assertion that “nothing (criminal) happened” that night in 2006. With the party house now nothing more than a memory, the dimensions of the bathroom and the alleged discrepancies in the photographs taken inside the house which some construed to be “doctored,” these issues can no longer be adequately explored. Further, the collection of evidence, DNA and otherwise is lost forever. The crime scene is no more. Duke has successfully covered its tracks.
Crystal Mangum was silenced from presenting, in court, her story about the Duke Lacrosse case. Now being the falsely accused, and out from under the thumb of a public defender who was working in the best interests of the state, Ms. Mangum has been putting her story before the public, even though the media negatively skews it as much as possible. Yet the trumped up charges against her are becoming more exposed, and they are not even a house of cards; they are nothing more than smoke, mirrors, and hot air.
How much do you know about the incident involving Ms. Mangum that occurred the night of February 17, 2010 and the trumped up charges against her? Click on the link below to get access to our ten question quiz, and find out what your SJ.Q. (Subjective Justice Quotient) is on the subject.
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/quiz/quiz.htm
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Legal basis behind attack on Cooper April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation”
When Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed all the charges against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants on April 11, 2007, he did something outside his scope of legal authority… in an unprecedented move, he pronounced the three Duke Lacrosse defendants “innocent.” The biased mainstream media was quick to jump and embrace this proclamation by the A.G. as being legally binding and valid. The defendants were often referred to in the media as “innocent,” or “exonerated,” or “cleared of the charges.” However, as I have been complaining for some time, the statement of “innocent” made by Attorney General Cooper has no legal weight, and the statements by the media using “innocent” etc, are totally incorrect and misleadingly false.
On February 22, 2010, I sent an e-mail to Professor Anthony Baker of Campbell University School of law, in which I made the following three observations and asked for him to comment on them:
(1) The North Carolina Attorney General does not have the legal authority to determine, declare, or make a pronouncement as to whether or not a criminal defendant is “innocent,” “not guilty,” and/or “guilty.”
(2) The North Carolina Attorney General’s Office, when taking over criminal prosecution in a role as special prosecutor, is charged with either proceeding with the prosecution or dismissing the charges. Conferring “guilt,” “non-guilt,” or “innocence” is not his mandate and is not within his province.
(3) The media is legally and technically incorrect whenever it makes references to the guilt, non-guilt, or innocence of a defendant based upon a determination, statement, or position of an attorney general in the state of North Carolina.
In an e-mail reply to me dated that same day, Professor Baker made the following statement, “As for your three statements, as worded I agree with them all. 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.”
I am sorry for the delay in responding, but I have been recently attending events (John Hope Franklin Conference “From Slavery to Freedom to the White House” held at Duke Law School on April 8th through 10th, and the interview at Duke Law School open to the public featuring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer on April 14th). And after the latter event which had me being expelled from the Duke University campus and nearly arrested, I have been busy dealing with that situation, as well. Plus, I am trying to complete Episode V of the comic strip, which is slowly but surely progressing.
Anyway, those in opposition to my position (which I have backed up with the aforementioned contents of the e-mail from a law school professor and scholar Anthony Baker) have yet to offer a statement from a person with a credible legal background to argue to the contrary. Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) says nothing about a state’s attorney general being given the legal authority to pronounce a defendant “innocent,” “not guilty,” or “guilty,” and is therefore without relevance.
Good luck in trying to find someone to make such a statement and allow you to quote him/her, because for someone to do so would definitely expose them as being the ones who truly do not understand the law.
On February 22, 2010, I sent an e-mail to Professor Anthony Baker of Campbell University School of law, in which I made the following three observations and asked for him to comment on them:
(1) The North Carolina Attorney General does not have the legal authority to determine, declare, or make a pronouncement as to whether or not a criminal defendant is “innocent,” “not guilty,” and/or “guilty.”
(2) The North Carolina Attorney General’s Office, when taking over criminal prosecution in a role as special prosecutor, is charged with either proceeding with the prosecution or dismissing the charges. Conferring “guilt,” “non-guilt,” or “innocence” is not his mandate and is not within his province.
(3) The media is legally and technically incorrect whenever it makes references to the guilt, non-guilt, or innocence of a defendant based upon a determination, statement, or position of an attorney general in the state of North Carolina.
In an e-mail reply to me dated that same day, Professor Baker made the following statement, “As for your three statements, as worded I agree with them all. 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.”
I am sorry for the delay in responding, but I have been recently attending events (John Hope Franklin Conference “From Slavery to Freedom to the White House” held at Duke Law School on April 8th through 10th, and the interview at Duke Law School open to the public featuring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer on April 14th). And after the latter event which had me being expelled from the Duke University campus and nearly arrested, I have been busy dealing with that situation, as well. Plus, I am trying to complete Episode V of the comic strip, which is slowly but surely progressing.
Anyway, those in opposition to my position (which I have backed up with the aforementioned contents of the e-mail from a law school professor and scholar Anthony Baker) have yet to offer a statement from a person with a credible legal background to argue to the contrary. Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) says nothing about a state’s attorney general being given the legal authority to pronounce a defendant “innocent,” “not guilty,” or “guilty,” and is therefore without relevance.
Good luck in trying to find someone to make such a statement and allow you to quote him/her, because for someone to do so would definitely expose them as being the ones who truly do not understand the law.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
What I learned at Duke University School of Law
On Wednesday, April 14, 2010, I attended an event at Duke University School of Law, on the Duke University campus in Durham. The event featured U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in a sit-down interview with David Levi, Dean of the law school, and Walter H. Dellinger, an attorney with vast Supreme Court experience. Open to the public on a first come first served basis, the interview was a very informative, in that it provided the audience with insight as to how the Supreme Court works and how the justices interact. Observations of Justice Breyer gave glimpses into the man who presented a relaxed manner, approachable demeanor, thoughtful speech, and effusive sense of humor. Fifty minutes later, at the conclusion of the three person public conversation, I began my exit from the large classroom, which was populated mostly with law students. My plan was to catch a bus to downtown Durham, then transfer to a bus that would take me to my residence in Raleigh.
Little did I know, as I made my egress from the room, that my real education would come after Justice Breyer had spoken. Upon leaving, a uniformed security guard honed in on me and asked me what I was doing there. To me, that seemed like a rather dumb question, but I answered anyway, telling him that I had come to see and hear Justice Breyer. I offered to give him one of my Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong business cards that had my contact information, but he refused, pointing to his pants pocket and saying, “I already have one.” He then informed me that I was trespassing on private property and that he was there to see that I left the grounds. I asked him why I was being forced off the property, and he told me that he did not know why… that he was just following orders. When I requested the name of the person who wanted me off Duke property, he told me “the building manager”… and he may have given me the last name of an individual. However, that was as far as I got, as he refused my request to speak with the person responsible for my ouster… repeatedly saying that Duke University is private property, that it has the right to have me removed no questions asked, and that he was merely doing his job.
As former Duke Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. would readily understand, I was incensed by the security guard telling me to leave the grounds for no reason and then trailing me like a shadow when I complied, as though I were a common criminal. Not unlike Professor Gates, I, too, had a few choice words to say to the guard, to express my displeasure at the unforeseen (at least to me) turn of events. Now, evidently some of my colorful words, though neither profane nor wisely chosen, seemed to cause the guard some displeasure as he responded by calling in backup with his walkie-talkie. A Duke security patrol car materialized in seconds, with an officer exiting it who looked ten times more menacing than the first security guard. So as I walked toward the bus stop, now with two guards in tow, I overheard one of them mention something to the other about getting my identification. Again, my indignation blinded my better judgment and I scowled, “…and don’t even think about asking to see my identification!” I was then corrected by one of them who said that they would see it if they wanted to see it. Shortly thereafter, the city bus came lumbering up the street, and the guard flagged it down for me. I don’t recall whether or not I thanked him for hailing the bus, but I do remember him telling me as I boarded that since our initial encounter approximately fifteen minutes ago I was on the verge of being arrested three times.
In reflecting back on the day’s adventure, I tried to figure out when I had come close to the brink of arrest. One time that stands out is when the guard gently tugged on my sleeve in the direction of the door exiting the building and I vigorously withdrew my arm and said in an elevated tone, “Don’t touch me!” Another time might have been when I was asked about where my car was parked, and I flashed my all-day transit bus pass in his face… close enough so that he could read the fine print. I’m not sure about a possible third time, although early on he did remark to me that I was encroaching on his personal space. Anyway, fortunately for me, my encounter with the enforcement agents ended differently than Professor Gates, and I spent the night in my own bed and without bail.
Now I do not think the discriminatory treatment I received at Duke University was racially motivated, as I was the only African American targeted. Neither do I believe that I was discriminated against for being an arrogant African American man (politically correct phrase for “uppity Negro”) because I was not exhibiting such behavior prior to meeting the security guard. The reason I believe that I was being discriminated against was because I am a Mike Nifong supporter. This was most likely apparent because of the official Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong tee shirt that I was wearing… which had the logo, the web address, and the words “Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong” on it.
I guess the reason I was surprised by the trespassing charge being lodged is because I was invited to the event on the Duke campus, which was advertised as being open to the public. Also, I had worn the very same tee shirt on the Duke campus and in its law school building many times in the past without any problem, at least of which I was aware. My behavior was unremarkable, as I spoke briefly with fewer than a dozen people while awaiting the start of the event and did nothing to provoke anyone.
I came away from Duke University that day with life lessons that are invaluable, and worth sharing as following:
1) It is incredibly easy for a black man to get arrested. Even though I was abiding by the laws of the land, not in the active commission of a crime, behaving myself, and minding my own business, I was subjected to discrimination based on my being a Nifong supporter that could have easily resulted in me being jailed. Even though my presence on the campus in the first place was due to a poster which invited the public to the on-campus event, one of the charges against me would undoubtedly have been trespassing on private property. And you can rest assured that "resisting arrest" would be tagged on to the trespassing charge automatically.
2) It is not wise to sass a security guard or police officer. As Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and I can now attest, vigorous verbal expression to authority about unjust discriminatory treatment usually results in no positive outcome, and in the case of a black male protester, the likely call for additional backup by said authority... which does not bode well.
3) The campus of Duke University is a First Amendment Free environment. In other words check your First Amendment Rights of free speech and expression at the property line. Any expression of support of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, such as wearing a tee shirt in his honor, is likely to result in expulsion from the grounds as it did in my case.
4) Openly showing support for Mike Nifong on the Duke University campus may be hazardous to one’s health. In general, Duke University staff and personnel seem to have a deep seeded antipathy towards Mike Nifong, most likely engendered by the prejudicial statements made against him by the biased mainstream media. An aversion to Mr. Nifong might also spring from a wariness of the university or individual being sued by the litigation-happy attorneys of the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants.
An observation that strikes me most is that Duke University School of Law is a large, powerful institution with a prestigious reputation. My visits to the campus have been extremely rare and almost always of short duration. I find it astounding that a member of its staff or faculty would feel so threatened by a tee shirt that expresses an opinion that might not be in sync with the overall position of the university, that he/she would evict that individual solely on that basis. Since the days of Aristotle, scholars and students would come together in institutes of higher learning to engage in civil debate over differences of opinion and controversial issues. From my presence on the Duke campus, it is also an observation that Duke Law School faculty and staff are not willing or ready to discuss the history of the Duke Lacrosse case and the selective and unjust disbarment of Mike Nifong. The reason for this is obvious, especially among the law school professors and staff… that reason being that they know that the North Carolina State Bar’s treatment of Mike Nifong was selective and unjust, as was the excessive and draconian persecution of him by the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office, other state agencies, and the courts. It may take a generation or so before the faculty and staff will feel free to discuss the disgraceful treatment of Mr. Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case. Presently, as my eviction from the Duke University campus yesterday emphatically proves, that day of open and free expression and debate at that institution, about the Duke Lacrosse case and Mike Nifong’s selective and unjust disbarment, is a long ways off.
No glutton for punishment and not wishing to be jailed on unprovoked trumped up trifle, I do not foresee a return visit in the near future to these particular environs that are hostile and prejudicial to Nifong supporters. And that’s what I learned at Duke University School of Law yesterday.
Little did I know, as I made my egress from the room, that my real education would come after Justice Breyer had spoken. Upon leaving, a uniformed security guard honed in on me and asked me what I was doing there. To me, that seemed like a rather dumb question, but I answered anyway, telling him that I had come to see and hear Justice Breyer. I offered to give him one of my Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong business cards that had my contact information, but he refused, pointing to his pants pocket and saying, “I already have one.” He then informed me that I was trespassing on private property and that he was there to see that I left the grounds. I asked him why I was being forced off the property, and he told me that he did not know why… that he was just following orders. When I requested the name of the person who wanted me off Duke property, he told me “the building manager”… and he may have given me the last name of an individual. However, that was as far as I got, as he refused my request to speak with the person responsible for my ouster… repeatedly saying that Duke University is private property, that it has the right to have me removed no questions asked, and that he was merely doing his job.
As former Duke Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. would readily understand, I was incensed by the security guard telling me to leave the grounds for no reason and then trailing me like a shadow when I complied, as though I were a common criminal. Not unlike Professor Gates, I, too, had a few choice words to say to the guard, to express my displeasure at the unforeseen (at least to me) turn of events. Now, evidently some of my colorful words, though neither profane nor wisely chosen, seemed to cause the guard some displeasure as he responded by calling in backup with his walkie-talkie. A Duke security patrol car materialized in seconds, with an officer exiting it who looked ten times more menacing than the first security guard. So as I walked toward the bus stop, now with two guards in tow, I overheard one of them mention something to the other about getting my identification. Again, my indignation blinded my better judgment and I scowled, “…and don’t even think about asking to see my identification!” I was then corrected by one of them who said that they would see it if they wanted to see it. Shortly thereafter, the city bus came lumbering up the street, and the guard flagged it down for me. I don’t recall whether or not I thanked him for hailing the bus, but I do remember him telling me as I boarded that since our initial encounter approximately fifteen minutes ago I was on the verge of being arrested three times.
In reflecting back on the day’s adventure, I tried to figure out when I had come close to the brink of arrest. One time that stands out is when the guard gently tugged on my sleeve in the direction of the door exiting the building and I vigorously withdrew my arm and said in an elevated tone, “Don’t touch me!” Another time might have been when I was asked about where my car was parked, and I flashed my all-day transit bus pass in his face… close enough so that he could read the fine print. I’m not sure about a possible third time, although early on he did remark to me that I was encroaching on his personal space. Anyway, fortunately for me, my encounter with the enforcement agents ended differently than Professor Gates, and I spent the night in my own bed and without bail.
Now I do not think the discriminatory treatment I received at Duke University was racially motivated, as I was the only African American targeted. Neither do I believe that I was discriminated against for being an arrogant African American man (politically correct phrase for “uppity Negro”) because I was not exhibiting such behavior prior to meeting the security guard. The reason I believe that I was being discriminated against was because I am a Mike Nifong supporter. This was most likely apparent because of the official Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong tee shirt that I was wearing… which had the logo, the web address, and the words “Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong” on it.
I guess the reason I was surprised by the trespassing charge being lodged is because I was invited to the event on the Duke campus, which was advertised as being open to the public. Also, I had worn the very same tee shirt on the Duke campus and in its law school building many times in the past without any problem, at least of which I was aware. My behavior was unremarkable, as I spoke briefly with fewer than a dozen people while awaiting the start of the event and did nothing to provoke anyone.
I came away from Duke University that day with life lessons that are invaluable, and worth sharing as following:
1) It is incredibly easy for a black man to get arrested. Even though I was abiding by the laws of the land, not in the active commission of a crime, behaving myself, and minding my own business, I was subjected to discrimination based on my being a Nifong supporter that could have easily resulted in me being jailed. Even though my presence on the campus in the first place was due to a poster which invited the public to the on-campus event, one of the charges against me would undoubtedly have been trespassing on private property. And you can rest assured that "resisting arrest" would be tagged on to the trespassing charge automatically.
2) It is not wise to sass a security guard or police officer. As Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and I can now attest, vigorous verbal expression to authority about unjust discriminatory treatment usually results in no positive outcome, and in the case of a black male protester, the likely call for additional backup by said authority... which does not bode well.
3) The campus of Duke University is a First Amendment Free environment. In other words check your First Amendment Rights of free speech and expression at the property line. Any expression of support of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, such as wearing a tee shirt in his honor, is likely to result in expulsion from the grounds as it did in my case.
4) Openly showing support for Mike Nifong on the Duke University campus may be hazardous to one’s health. In general, Duke University staff and personnel seem to have a deep seeded antipathy towards Mike Nifong, most likely engendered by the prejudicial statements made against him by the biased mainstream media. An aversion to Mr. Nifong might also spring from a wariness of the university or individual being sued by the litigation-happy attorneys of the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants.
An observation that strikes me most is that Duke University School of Law is a large, powerful institution with a prestigious reputation. My visits to the campus have been extremely rare and almost always of short duration. I find it astounding that a member of its staff or faculty would feel so threatened by a tee shirt that expresses an opinion that might not be in sync with the overall position of the university, that he/she would evict that individual solely on that basis. Since the days of Aristotle, scholars and students would come together in institutes of higher learning to engage in civil debate over differences of opinion and controversial issues. From my presence on the Duke campus, it is also an observation that Duke Law School faculty and staff are not willing or ready to discuss the history of the Duke Lacrosse case and the selective and unjust disbarment of Mike Nifong. The reason for this is obvious, especially among the law school professors and staff… that reason being that they know that the North Carolina State Bar’s treatment of Mike Nifong was selective and unjust, as was the excessive and draconian persecution of him by the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office, other state agencies, and the courts. It may take a generation or so before the faculty and staff will feel free to discuss the disgraceful treatment of Mr. Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case. Presently, as my eviction from the Duke University campus yesterday emphatically proves, that day of open and free expression and debate at that institution, about the Duke Lacrosse case and Mike Nifong’s selective and unjust disbarment, is a long ways off.
No glutton for punishment and not wishing to be jailed on unprovoked trumped up trifle, I do not foresee a return visit in the near future to these particular environs that are hostile and prejudicial to Nifong supporters. And that’s what I learned at Duke University School of Law yesterday.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Duke LAXer bluff against Durham fails
There is a saying that goes something as follows: “Be careful what you wish for.” Buoyed by their unimaginable success in shaking down Duke University in the amount of seven mil for each of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants, greedy attorneys representing their greedier clients, went after the cash-strapped city of Durham seeking more dinero. Their reasoning being that if a school is willing to shell out a total of $21,000,000.00 in an out of court settlement to make the notoriety of a vague complaint against it by the “alleged aggrieved” Duke student athlete party-goers go away, then surely a big city, like Durham, would have no problem turning over $30 million for a similar deal. Call it hush money, or nuisance money, if you will, but the plaintiffs obviously considered it to be easy money.
Having believed too much of the biased media’s take on the Duke Lacrosse case, they launched their civil case aggressively and with the assistance of the favorable media. However, when the attorneys realized that the city was not going to rollover, as they had expected, reality began to set in, and they had to take an objective look at their case. Their conclusion, I would bet, is that they had none. First of all, nearly a third of the lacrosse team members had run-ins with the law. They, of course, were smoothed over by an unwritten protocol the university had in place with prosecutors in the city. (The problem of the Duke Lacrosse case occurred when then Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong refused to play by those slanted unwritten rules… a major reason he was persecuted and made an example of.) Duke lacrosse team captain Dave Evans, one of the Duke Lacrosse defendants even pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. Another defendant, Collin Finnerty, had assault charges on his record for his part in the beating of a person presumed to be gay. Then, the lacrosse player who phoned the escort service seeking the services of two exotic dancers (strippers) used a false name and stated the event was a bachelor party of four or five. The pretenses under which the dancers were hired were false, especially when they knew that the event was a spring break beer party for nearly fifty young men with raging hormones. As if that is not enough, factor in the fact that the lacrosse player who made the arrangement requested two “white” dancers, and two African American dancers were showed up (the lacrosse team had only one African American player who did not attend the party). Under these circumstances, it is not hard to believe testimony from neighbors that the partygoers were hurling racial epithets at the dancers as they left.
The media did its best to downplay the negative aspects of the actions of the partygoers, but if the trial were to go to court, other negativity would surely be exposed. For example, I have it from a secondhand source that there was drug use at the party (I cannot personally vouch for the accuracy); therefore, if he case was to go to trial, this would most definitely be brought up, if it is true. Also, the evidence collected by the Attorney General’s Office would be made available; evidence of which it refuses to release copies to the accuser and her representative. Evidence presented to the media by defense attorneys, such as the time stamped photographs would come under scrutiny for signs of possible tampering, etc. And once the police were called, the partygoers scattered like cockroaches deserting a sinking ship, so the place was essentially emptied by the time authorities arrived.
In seeking damages, attorneys for the three defendants take aim at police, doctors, nurses, and practically everyone who may have spoken out against the Duke lacrosse team or its actions. But these attorneys also know, about the reputation of the Duke lacrosse team when it comes to partying. They have such a raucous history in the Duke neighborhood when it comes to hosting parties, that the president of the university had warned its team coach to rein in its players… something he was incapable of doing. Yes, the possibility of hitting the jackpot when taking the case to trial seems bleak. Especially if one is looking for a big payout. The most likely outcome of such a trial would be exposing the Duke Lacrosse partygoers for what they were… and that is not too flattering.
So, now, after so much bluster and bravado, it seems as though the attorneys for the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants have decided to just allow things to die down. Yes, they succeeded against Duke University, but they bluffed once to often when they took on the cash-strapped city of Durham. The city is eagerly awaiting the confrontation, conversely. Stay tuned.
Having believed too much of the biased media’s take on the Duke Lacrosse case, they launched their civil case aggressively and with the assistance of the favorable media. However, when the attorneys realized that the city was not going to rollover, as they had expected, reality began to set in, and they had to take an objective look at their case. Their conclusion, I would bet, is that they had none. First of all, nearly a third of the lacrosse team members had run-ins with the law. They, of course, were smoothed over by an unwritten protocol the university had in place with prosecutors in the city. (The problem of the Duke Lacrosse case occurred when then Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong refused to play by those slanted unwritten rules… a major reason he was persecuted and made an example of.) Duke lacrosse team captain Dave Evans, one of the Duke Lacrosse defendants even pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. Another defendant, Collin Finnerty, had assault charges on his record for his part in the beating of a person presumed to be gay. Then, the lacrosse player who phoned the escort service seeking the services of two exotic dancers (strippers) used a false name and stated the event was a bachelor party of four or five. The pretenses under which the dancers were hired were false, especially when they knew that the event was a spring break beer party for nearly fifty young men with raging hormones. As if that is not enough, factor in the fact that the lacrosse player who made the arrangement requested two “white” dancers, and two African American dancers were showed up (the lacrosse team had only one African American player who did not attend the party). Under these circumstances, it is not hard to believe testimony from neighbors that the partygoers were hurling racial epithets at the dancers as they left.
The media did its best to downplay the negative aspects of the actions of the partygoers, but if the trial were to go to court, other negativity would surely be exposed. For example, I have it from a secondhand source that there was drug use at the party (I cannot personally vouch for the accuracy); therefore, if he case was to go to trial, this would most definitely be brought up, if it is true. Also, the evidence collected by the Attorney General’s Office would be made available; evidence of which it refuses to release copies to the accuser and her representative. Evidence presented to the media by defense attorneys, such as the time stamped photographs would come under scrutiny for signs of possible tampering, etc. And once the police were called, the partygoers scattered like cockroaches deserting a sinking ship, so the place was essentially emptied by the time authorities arrived.
In seeking damages, attorneys for the three defendants take aim at police, doctors, nurses, and practically everyone who may have spoken out against the Duke lacrosse team or its actions. But these attorneys also know, about the reputation of the Duke lacrosse team when it comes to partying. They have such a raucous history in the Duke neighborhood when it comes to hosting parties, that the president of the university had warned its team coach to rein in its players… something he was incapable of doing. Yes, the possibility of hitting the jackpot when taking the case to trial seems bleak. Especially if one is looking for a big payout. The most likely outcome of such a trial would be exposing the Duke Lacrosse partygoers for what they were… and that is not too flattering.
So, now, after so much bluster and bravado, it seems as though the attorneys for the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants have decided to just allow things to die down. Yes, they succeeded against Duke University, but they bluffed once to often when they took on the cash-strapped city of Durham. The city is eagerly awaiting the confrontation, conversely. Stay tuned.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Duke law professors fear the State Bar... as well they should
It is without doubt that the law professors at the Duke University School of Law fear the North Carolina State Bar. This fear is not borne due to a lack of courage on part of the legal faculty of this prestigious institution of learning, but rather due to an abundance of common sense. They realize that speaking out in behalf of justice on the taboo topic of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong's selective and unjust disbarment could net them an outcome similar to his at the hands of the unregulated agency. In disbarring Mr. Nifong, the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933, the State Bar sent a strong message to all attorneys licensed to practice in the Tar Heel state: "We have the capacity and the will to take away your legal livelihood on a whim, at our discretion, arbitrarily, and selectively without regard to the merits and justification, or lack thereof, of bogus charges we choose to bring against you." Attorneys throughout the state of North Carolina realized that Mike Nifong was prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case with professional conduct well within acceptable established standards, and that his actions in that case did not warrant his disbarment (or any disciplinary action). Lawyers were also aware that former prosecutor David Hoke, in prosecuting Alan Gell, withheld exculpatory evidence from the defendant's attorney which enabled Hoke to win a conviction and death sentence against the innocent defendant. Justice was definitely denied in this case as Mr. Gell spent more than nine years wrongfully incarcerated because of a prosecutor acting as an antithesis of a "Minister of Justice." Although Mr. Hoke's actions in the Gell case were flagrantly and egregiously afoul of acceptable standards, attorneys witnessed the arbitrariness of the Bar disciplinary arm when it meted out to Hoke a mild reprimand, the weakest action possible. North Carolina attorneys, especially Duke law professors, are able to put two and two together, and they realize that if they cherish their law license, their employment, and their opportunity for advancement in their field, that they must avoid the minefield which is the taboo topic of Mike Nifong's disbarment.
On Wednesday, November 18, 2009, I trolled the halls of the Duke University School of Law seeking professors to take my "Snapshot Survey" (a survey consisting of one question). Using two hypothetical scenarios (A and B), which were thinly veiled cases representing the Alan Gell case and the Duke Lacrosse case respectively, it asked which Prosecutor (A or B) was more deserving of disbarment. Approximately two dozen professors were gracious enough to give me a few minutes of their time and consider the question. However, without exception, they all refused to answer it. The majority gave no specific reason, whereas a few did acknowledge that they were concerned about possible fallout resulting from any participation in the survey. One professor refused to select one prosecutor over the other as being more "deserving of disbarment" using the irrational logic that to do so would suggest the other prosecutor did not deserve to be disciplined. I was surprised at the number of law professors who told me they believed Mr. Nifong should have been disbarred (three or four). When I asked them to specifically tell me what Mr. Nifong did to deserve disbarment, they all responded that they were busy and had to prepare for class. That response is definitely not unreasonable, especially since I dropped in on them unannounced and without an appointment. One professor, who is an outspoken critic of Mr. Nifong, has been challenged on numerous occasions in the past to explain in writing why he feels Mr. Nifong deserved to be disbarred over his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case. Although he has repeatedly assured me that he would provide me with a written answer (which I told him I would post on our website, unedited and without direct comment), he as yet to do so, and I doubt that he will find time in the future to get around to doing it.
What I find particularly disturbing is that in an institution for legal learning, like the Duke University School of Law, such a topic of significant importance would be suppressed, and that its professors, out of justifiable fear of retribution (whether academically, professionally, legally, and/or financially) would avoid talking about the selective and unjust disbarment of Mike Nifong. Currently, I am unaware of any other topic which would garner such a response, but I would imagine that any subject matter that casts an unfavorable light on the North Carolina State Bar would be applicable. For example, law professors have no problem tackling controversial topics such as the First Amendment Right of racists writing inciteful hate-speech on university campus walls, but they are mum when it comes to discussing issues that threaten the sanctity of the almighty State Bar with its absolute power. Often overlooked is the fact that the issue of Mike Nifong's disbarment is not limited to the man alone, but has wide reaching ramifications about the state's social justice system, the issue of whether justice is a commodity that can be bought by the affluent, and the absolute power of the North Carolina State Bar and the influence it welds with the General Assembly and in the courtrooms.
On Tuesday evening, April 21, 2009, at the North Carolina State University campus, the ACLU of Wake County and the North Carolina State University Pre-Law Services presented the Annual Slater Newman Debate, with the topic: "A Debate Exploring First Amendment Rights, Hate Speech and the Free Expression Tunnel." Panelists for this debate included Professor Michael Curtis of Wake Forest Law School, Professor Shannon Gilreath of Wake Forest Law School, Professor Gregory Wallace of Campbell University Law School, and Legal Director Katy Parker of the ACLU of North Carolina. After the discussion/debate which was open to the public, I handed each of the panelists a survey which covered the subject of Mike Nifong's disbarment and the Duke Lacrosse case. I asked Ms. Parker directly if she would participate by filling out the questionnaire and returning it to me. She responded, "It depends on the questions." Well, she must not have liked the questions because I never heard from her. Neither did I hear from the other three law school professors, despite the fact that I enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope for each recipient. I followed up with all of the "Free Speech" panelists, sending them letters dated May 8, 2009. These letters sought a response from the panelist, however, again my attempts to engage them in dialog was ignored. This made it very apparent to me that although the First Amendment may guarantee one's right to freedom of expression, it does not protect one from the consequences that may follow. Being intelligent and rational individuals, I have no doubt that the panelists had opinions that were favorable to Mr. Nifong and contrary to the NC State Bar's actions. However, fearing the repercussions that vocalizing their pro-Nifong opinions might generate, they elected to remain silent. As is so often the case, especially when logic flows against the powers that be, freedom of expression is suppressed by freedom of retaliation. There is no doubt in my mind that had the State Bar's position against Mr. Nifong been legitimate, the law professors, legal pundits, ACLU members and others would freely let their opinions on Mr. Nifong's disbarment be known.
Attorneys and law school professors are not the only ones who avoid, like the plague, the taboo topic of Mike Nifong's disbarment. Lieutenant Governor Walter Dalton's staff will not even allow me an appointment to meet with him. And although his staff has acknowledged receiving and reviewing contents of a package that I left for the lieutenant governor, they would not affirm that they had forwarded it to him. Most of the politicians, including outspoken ones, such as Representative Paul Stam, refuse to discuss Mr. Nifong's disbarment with me. I have not, as yet, approached Governor Bev Perdue on the topic, but plan on doing so in the future.
I can appreciate the conundrum in which law professors at Duke find themselves when it comes to discussing the selective and unjust disbarment of Mike Nifong. In the spirit of fairness, I will offer this blog site as a forum for an unedited response by the Dean of the Duke University School of Law. Although the First Amendment guarantees his right to take advantage of this platform, I hope that the prospect of any retaliatory consequences to his statements does not impede it.
On Wednesday, November 18, 2009, I trolled the halls of the Duke University School of Law seeking professors to take my "Snapshot Survey" (a survey consisting of one question). Using two hypothetical scenarios (A and B), which were thinly veiled cases representing the Alan Gell case and the Duke Lacrosse case respectively, it asked which Prosecutor (A or B) was more deserving of disbarment. Approximately two dozen professors were gracious enough to give me a few minutes of their time and consider the question. However, without exception, they all refused to answer it. The majority gave no specific reason, whereas a few did acknowledge that they were concerned about possible fallout resulting from any participation in the survey. One professor refused to select one prosecutor over the other as being more "deserving of disbarment" using the irrational logic that to do so would suggest the other prosecutor did not deserve to be disciplined. I was surprised at the number of law professors who told me they believed Mr. Nifong should have been disbarred (three or four). When I asked them to specifically tell me what Mr. Nifong did to deserve disbarment, they all responded that they were busy and had to prepare for class. That response is definitely not unreasonable, especially since I dropped in on them unannounced and without an appointment. One professor, who is an outspoken critic of Mr. Nifong, has been challenged on numerous occasions in the past to explain in writing why he feels Mr. Nifong deserved to be disbarred over his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case. Although he has repeatedly assured me that he would provide me with a written answer (which I told him I would post on our website, unedited and without direct comment), he as yet to do so, and I doubt that he will find time in the future to get around to doing it.
What I find particularly disturbing is that in an institution for legal learning, like the Duke University School of Law, such a topic of significant importance would be suppressed, and that its professors, out of justifiable fear of retribution (whether academically, professionally, legally, and/or financially) would avoid talking about the selective and unjust disbarment of Mike Nifong. Currently, I am unaware of any other topic which would garner such a response, but I would imagine that any subject matter that casts an unfavorable light on the North Carolina State Bar would be applicable. For example, law professors have no problem tackling controversial topics such as the First Amendment Right of racists writing inciteful hate-speech on university campus walls, but they are mum when it comes to discussing issues that threaten the sanctity of the almighty State Bar with its absolute power. Often overlooked is the fact that the issue of Mike Nifong's disbarment is not limited to the man alone, but has wide reaching ramifications about the state's social justice system, the issue of whether justice is a commodity that can be bought by the affluent, and the absolute power of the North Carolina State Bar and the influence it welds with the General Assembly and in the courtrooms.
On Tuesday evening, April 21, 2009, at the North Carolina State University campus, the ACLU of Wake County and the North Carolina State University Pre-Law Services presented the Annual Slater Newman Debate, with the topic: "A Debate Exploring First Amendment Rights, Hate Speech and the Free Expression Tunnel." Panelists for this debate included Professor Michael Curtis of Wake Forest Law School, Professor Shannon Gilreath of Wake Forest Law School, Professor Gregory Wallace of Campbell University Law School, and Legal Director Katy Parker of the ACLU of North Carolina. After the discussion/debate which was open to the public, I handed each of the panelists a survey which covered the subject of Mike Nifong's disbarment and the Duke Lacrosse case. I asked Ms. Parker directly if she would participate by filling out the questionnaire and returning it to me. She responded, "It depends on the questions." Well, she must not have liked the questions because I never heard from her. Neither did I hear from the other three law school professors, despite the fact that I enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope for each recipient. I followed up with all of the "Free Speech" panelists, sending them letters dated May 8, 2009. These letters sought a response from the panelist, however, again my attempts to engage them in dialog was ignored. This made it very apparent to me that although the First Amendment may guarantee one's right to freedom of expression, it does not protect one from the consequences that may follow. Being intelligent and rational individuals, I have no doubt that the panelists had opinions that were favorable to Mr. Nifong and contrary to the NC State Bar's actions. However, fearing the repercussions that vocalizing their pro-Nifong opinions might generate, they elected to remain silent. As is so often the case, especially when logic flows against the powers that be, freedom of expression is suppressed by freedom of retaliation. There is no doubt in my mind that had the State Bar's position against Mr. Nifong been legitimate, the law professors, legal pundits, ACLU members and others would freely let their opinions on Mr. Nifong's disbarment be known.
Attorneys and law school professors are not the only ones who avoid, like the plague, the taboo topic of Mike Nifong's disbarment. Lieutenant Governor Walter Dalton's staff will not even allow me an appointment to meet with him. And although his staff has acknowledged receiving and reviewing contents of a package that I left for the lieutenant governor, they would not affirm that they had forwarded it to him. Most of the politicians, including outspoken ones, such as Representative Paul Stam, refuse to discuss Mr. Nifong's disbarment with me. I have not, as yet, approached Governor Bev Perdue on the topic, but plan on doing so in the future.
I can appreciate the conundrum in which law professors at Duke find themselves when it comes to discussing the selective and unjust disbarment of Mike Nifong. In the spirit of fairness, I will offer this blog site as a forum for an unedited response by the Dean of the Duke University School of Law. Although the First Amendment guarantees his right to take advantage of this platform, I hope that the prospect of any retaliatory consequences to his statements does not impede it.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Duke’s secret settlement results in forfeiture of reimbursement by insurer
“Don’t make us pay, says Duke insurer” is the title of an article in the January 21, 2009 News & Observer. According to the article, the National Union Fire Insurance Company was not told about the settlement Duke University reached with the families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants’ families until after the fact. The university’s excuse for not letting the insurance company know beforehand is because of a confidentiality clause in the settlement. The university should never have agreed to any confidentiality when negotiating the settlement with the Lacrosse defendants’ families, and made its big blunder when it, instead, violated its contract with its insurer. For Duke University to enter into a settlement agreement without first consulting with its insurance company doesn’t make sense and is unheard of (especially if planning on seeking financial relief from that company).
The fact that the conditions of the Duke-defendants’ families settlement (including the payout made by the university) are confidential, is troubling. Why not disclose the amount of the settlement? There are two reasons that come to mind. (1) The Lacrosse defendants’ families demanded such an outrageously high amount of money from the university that it did not want the public to realize the enormity of its greed. (2) The university did not want the public to realize the amount of money that it turned over to the Lacrosse defendants’ families without a fight. I still have no idea what Duke University did to incur substantial liability that would even consider agreeing to an out-of-court settlement.
It had been well documented that the Duke lacrosse team had a history of throwing raucous parties prior to the March 2006 incident. Furthermore, Duke administrators had previously warned the lacrosse coach to rein in his players’ off-field shenanigans.
Although I do not know for a fact, I have reason to believe that each of the three Duke lacrosse defendants received in settlement from the university the amount of seven million dollars ($7,000,000.00). A total of twenty-one million dollars ($21,000,000.00). That is enough incentive for 41 un-indicted Duke lacrosse players to file suit against the university, and for the former Duke lacrosse coach, Mike Pressler, to want a “do-over” (he is attempting to discard the settlement agreement that he had reached with the university and seek a more lucrative award through the court system).
The News & Observer article included this statement which it reported as fact, “The families of the Duke players racked up millions of dollars in legal fees.” I would like to know, for what? And you can bet that the families did not expend millions of dollars in legal fees. The avaricious law firms representing the families may have billed millions of dollars in an effort to demand more money from Duke University, but one thing is certain – they didn’t earn it. The media wants its consumers to believe that the families of the three lacrosse defendants endured financial hardships in order to free their boys. I don’t believe it.
Because of the irrational legal actions of Duke University (including withholding information from its insurer), suicidal actions by the state in destroying its own case and prosecutor, and the media’s pro-biased slant favoring the three lacrosse defendants, it’s no wonder that “the university also faces suits from most of the other players on the 2006 team and from former lacrosse coach Mike Pressler (last statement in the N&O article).”
The fact that the conditions of the Duke-defendants’ families settlement (including the payout made by the university) are confidential, is troubling. Why not disclose the amount of the settlement? There are two reasons that come to mind. (1) The Lacrosse defendants’ families demanded such an outrageously high amount of money from the university that it did not want the public to realize the enormity of its greed. (2) The university did not want the public to realize the amount of money that it turned over to the Lacrosse defendants’ families without a fight. I still have no idea what Duke University did to incur substantial liability that would even consider agreeing to an out-of-court settlement.
It had been well documented that the Duke lacrosse team had a history of throwing raucous parties prior to the March 2006 incident. Furthermore, Duke administrators had previously warned the lacrosse coach to rein in his players’ off-field shenanigans.
Although I do not know for a fact, I have reason to believe that each of the three Duke lacrosse defendants received in settlement from the university the amount of seven million dollars ($7,000,000.00). A total of twenty-one million dollars ($21,000,000.00). That is enough incentive for 41 un-indicted Duke lacrosse players to file suit against the university, and for the former Duke lacrosse coach, Mike Pressler, to want a “do-over” (he is attempting to discard the settlement agreement that he had reached with the university and seek a more lucrative award through the court system).
The News & Observer article included this statement which it reported as fact, “The families of the Duke players racked up millions of dollars in legal fees.” I would like to know, for what? And you can bet that the families did not expend millions of dollars in legal fees. The avaricious law firms representing the families may have billed millions of dollars in an effort to demand more money from Duke University, but one thing is certain – they didn’t earn it. The media wants its consumers to believe that the families of the three lacrosse defendants endured financial hardships in order to free their boys. I don’t believe it.
Because of the irrational legal actions of Duke University (including withholding information from its insurer), suicidal actions by the state in destroying its own case and prosecutor, and the media’s pro-biased slant favoring the three lacrosse defendants, it’s no wonder that “the university also faces suits from most of the other players on the 2006 team and from former lacrosse coach Mike Pressler (last statement in the N&O article).”
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Ex-Duke Coach Pressler aims for a big score against his former team
According to the character played by actor Michael Douglas in the movie “Wall Street,” “Greed is good.” Well, our country and nations worldwide are now experiencing the downside of greed. Companies are imploding, jobs evaporating, and the lifestyles of most Americans are in freefall.
In the midst of this economic downturn, there are still those who are placing their greed before everything else. A case in point is that of former Duke lacrosse coach Mike Pressler. According to news sources, Mr. Pressler had been warned to rein in the partying practices of his lacrosse players long before that night in March 2006 that spawned the Duke Lacrosse case. The hiring of strippers, under-aged drinking (and, more likely than not, drug use—although the media stayed away from reporting it), and other misdemeanors and mayhem at that party seemed to give credence to the opinion that Mr. Pressler did not convey the administration's warning to his lacrosse players effectively. Whether or not Mr. Pressler should have been given the boot by Duke is debatable, but an argument can be made to support it.
Mr. Pressler, although he displayed that he lacked a modicum of control over his players off the field, agreed to a settlement in 2007 with Duke University after being cut loose as lacrosse coach. The agreement (of which I believe the monetary amount was not disclosed) included a statement that neither side would make disparaging remarks about the other.
Because Duke was so generous and willing to give each of the three Duke lacrosse defendants seven million dollars (for reasons about which I am still unaware), Mike Pressler, in hindsight, now wants a bigger part of the pie. Pressler and his equally avaricious attorneys have shown total disregard for the financial state of the country and its institutions. In order to get the big bucks, he wants to take Duke University to court with the bogus complaint of being “slandered.”
The supposed slanderous statement made by a Duke University representative to a New York newspaper was, to paraphrase, as follows, “.. the difference between Pressler and the current coach was night and day.” I fail to find anything in that statement that is disparaging. Just because one person is drastically different from another does not mean that one person is good and the other bad. A second statement to the Associated Press which spurred Pressler to conclude that Duke broke its settlement agreement by making a disparaging remark goes as follows, “It was essential for the team to have a change of leadership in order to move forward.” Where’s the disparagement and slander? Mr. Pressler is grasping at straws to find an excuse to get a "do-over" and try and get more money from Duke University by taking it to court. A man of integrity, in Mr. Pressler’s position, would stick to the agreement that he made initially, and go on with his life (coaching a Rhode Island lacrosse team).
Duke University has no one to blame but itself. Had it put up a fight when the three Duke lacrosse defendants first came around trying to extort money from them, they probably would have prevailed, and all of the subsequent lawsuits that it now faces (along with those faced by the city of Durham) would not have followed. For example, the 38 un-indicted Duke lacrosse players suing the school and city is the epitome of avarice, and makes a mockery of the North Carolina system of justice. A justice system that has been profusely bleeding from a self-inflicted wound because of the destruction of an honorable Durham district attorney, Mike Nifong, and the ridiculous appeasement by the state and university of the three party-going student athletes.
In the midst of this economic downturn, there are still those who are placing their greed before everything else. A case in point is that of former Duke lacrosse coach Mike Pressler. According to news sources, Mr. Pressler had been warned to rein in the partying practices of his lacrosse players long before that night in March 2006 that spawned the Duke Lacrosse case. The hiring of strippers, under-aged drinking (and, more likely than not, drug use—although the media stayed away from reporting it), and other misdemeanors and mayhem at that party seemed to give credence to the opinion that Mr. Pressler did not convey the administration's warning to his lacrosse players effectively. Whether or not Mr. Pressler should have been given the boot by Duke is debatable, but an argument can be made to support it.
Mr. Pressler, although he displayed that he lacked a modicum of control over his players off the field, agreed to a settlement in 2007 with Duke University after being cut loose as lacrosse coach. The agreement (of which I believe the monetary amount was not disclosed) included a statement that neither side would make disparaging remarks about the other.
Because Duke was so generous and willing to give each of the three Duke lacrosse defendants seven million dollars (for reasons about which I am still unaware), Mike Pressler, in hindsight, now wants a bigger part of the pie. Pressler and his equally avaricious attorneys have shown total disregard for the financial state of the country and its institutions. In order to get the big bucks, he wants to take Duke University to court with the bogus complaint of being “slandered.”
The supposed slanderous statement made by a Duke University representative to a New York newspaper was, to paraphrase, as follows, “.. the difference between Pressler and the current coach was night and day.” I fail to find anything in that statement that is disparaging. Just because one person is drastically different from another does not mean that one person is good and the other bad. A second statement to the Associated Press which spurred Pressler to conclude that Duke broke its settlement agreement by making a disparaging remark goes as follows, “It was essential for the team to have a change of leadership in order to move forward.” Where’s the disparagement and slander? Mr. Pressler is grasping at straws to find an excuse to get a "do-over" and try and get more money from Duke University by taking it to court. A man of integrity, in Mr. Pressler’s position, would stick to the agreement that he made initially, and go on with his life (coaching a Rhode Island lacrosse team).
Duke University has no one to blame but itself. Had it put up a fight when the three Duke lacrosse defendants first came around trying to extort money from them, they probably would have prevailed, and all of the subsequent lawsuits that it now faces (along with those faced by the city of Durham) would not have followed. For example, the 38 un-indicted Duke lacrosse players suing the school and city is the epitome of avarice, and makes a mockery of the North Carolina system of justice. A justice system that has been profusely bleeding from a self-inflicted wound because of the destruction of an honorable Durham district attorney, Mike Nifong, and the ridiculous appeasement by the state and university of the three party-going student athletes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
