April 3, 2012 will mark the one year anniversary of yet another Durham tragedy… one that surely calls for no celebration. It will be a year since Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser has been in jail on bogus charges related to the stabbing of Reginald Daye. What this day will invoke, in people of enlightenment and good will, is a feeling of shame for yet another injustice based on the vendetta prosecution of Ms. Mangum. Like a pit-bull that won’t turn loose a leg of lamb, the Durham police and prosecutors continue to pursue to seek vengeance against the person, an African American female, who was responsible for what has been known as the Duke Lacrosse case.
The Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants are not just satisfied with the $20 million payout that they each received in a shakedown of Duke University… they thirst for blood of all involved in the case. Rae Evans, mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans, made clear her vindictive streak by publicly stating that she wanted Mike Nifong to “pay every day for the rest of his life.” With her strong connections to the media, which includes more than a decade of working as an executive with CBS News, she has managed to direct the mainstream media into an all-out crusade to crush former Durham district attorney and Duke Lacrosse prosecutor Nifong, Crystal Mangum, Nifong supporters, and anyone considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.
This Carpetbagger Jihad agenda has been highly successful in manipulating the mainstream media to destroy the honorable careers of Mike Nifong, lab director Brian Meehan, and the then Durham Assistant District Attorney Tracey Cline… although, removed from her elected position as Durham district attorney using a little known-rarely used elastic law, the Jihadists’ work on Cline will not be completed until she is at least disbarred. Police detectives and officers who worked on the Duke Lacrosse case have also been put through the wringer by the media and courts, however, with the possible exception of Mike Nifong himself, no one has been exposed to as much media-spurred venom and wrath as Crystal Mangum.
It wasn’t enough that she was abused and exploited at the March 13, 2006 Duke Lacrosse beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling, under-aged drinking debauchery, the city of Durham pounced on its first opportunity to destroy her when she was in need of the services of Durham’s finest. On that February 17, 2010 night, being a victim of a domestic assault in which police were called to her apartment by her children who feared for her life, she ended up in jail on a multitude of trumped up charges. Among them was a felony arson charge for clothes set on fire in the bathtub, with Durham police being the only ones with the means, motive, and opportunity to commit the crime. Her three months of incarceration were interrupted only by the benevolence and generosity of a bail bondsman who had the courage to assist her by satisfying her $100,000 bail. With a mistrial on the most serious arson felony charge, Mangum was convicted on three frivolous and merit-less misdemeanors and sentenced to time served.
Having lost everything after her lengthy time in detention, Crystal Mangum had to virtually start from scratch. With her media-driven notorious past and arson charge, she was unable to find a landlord willing to rent to her, so she entered into a symbiotic relationship with Reginald Daye, a recently laid-off painter who was in arrears with his rent and facing eviction. Their arrangement was for her to help with paying the rent in exchange for her and her children to be allowed to secretly cohabitate in his apartment.
Unfortunately, Mr. Daye had a problem with alcohol and on the evening of April 2, 2011 he had been heavily drinking. An argument between Daye and Mangum ensued and proceeded into the early morning hours of April 3, 2011. It eventually became physical with him dragging her around by her hair and punching her in the face. In self-defense she stabbed him with a paring knife… once in the left torso, and then left the premises.
Daye was awake and walking around his apartment by the time first responders arrived. EMT noted no injuries other than the stab wound to the left torso that had minimal bleeding. They accessed his left upper extremity and found not lesions, contrary to the autopsy report of April 14, 2011… no “defensive wounds.” He was transported to Duke University Medical Center where, in addition to the stab wound, a blood alcohol lab test revealed a level of 296 mg/dL… enough to cause stupor in a normal individual.
When EMT later picked up Crystal Mangum, they noted a cut under her left eye and a swollen lower lip. In addition, at the scene, police recorded finding tufts of brown hair.
Mangum was arrested immediately for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, despite her claims of self-defense, and forensic evidence to backup her claim.
Meanwhile, Reginald Daye, having successful emergency surgery to repair a lesion to the splenic flexure of his colon and a mild lesion to his spleen, required treatment for severe alcohol withdrawal… and was treated with benzodiazepine sedatives to control his symptoms of delirium tremens.
On the evening of the third postoperative day, April 6, 2011, Daye was having respiratory problems and a diagnostic procedure was ordered. However, while being prepped for the procedure, Daye sustained a severe and lengthy anoxic episode that induced a cardiac arrest and brain damage. These events were responsible for Daye lapsing into a deep coma which eventually brought about his elective removal from life support one week later. His brain death had absolutely nothing to do with the stab wound inflicted by Mangum, but rather the lack of oxygenated blood circulating to his brain which was directly responsible for the death of brain cells.
One year later, Mangum remains in jail for acting against Daye in self-defense. Compare this with the case in Sanford, Florida, where George Zimmerman shot and killed an unarmed seventeen year old boy because he “looked suspicious”… evidently defined as being a young black boy wearing a hoodie. In this case Zimmerman was obviously the aggressor and was in pursuit of the young black teen who was walking with iced tea and a bag of Skittles while talking on the cell phone with his girlfriend. There was no photographs released of Zimmerman, who alleges to have sustained a broken nose and a bloody wound to the back of his head. There was no indication of facial trauma on the recently released video of his visit to the police station immediately following the incident. There was no indication of any blood from Trayvon Martin on Zimmerman’s clothing; Martin who Zimmerman claims was on top of him when he shot Martin in the chest. Zimmerman’s story of self-defense doesn’t stand up, and yet he has remained free for more than a month since the incident happened.
Why is it then that Crystal Mangum has already served a one year sentence in jail for acting in self-defense in a state which has its own version of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law? The answer is simple… it is because of race. Had the roles in Sanford, Florida been reversed and Zimmerman was an African American and Martin was white, then an arrest would have been made at the scene and the shooter would be in jail today and not awaiting for a grand jury to convene on April 10, 2012 to make a determination.
The problem is in large respect due to mainstream media and its inherent bias. The incident involving Trayvon Martin was of no interest to the mainstream media. It was the social media that brought national and worldwide attention to this outrage, and forced the mainstream media to get involved.
With the circumstances involving Crystal Mangum, she has been so vilified and demonized by the mainstream media that it is nearly impossible for her to get any sympathy from anyone. This is compounded by the NAACP, both locally and nationally, ignoring her plight. Also the African American politicians, especially in Durham, are turning a blind eye and deaf ear to this grave injustice. Senator Floyd McKissick, and Representatives Mickey Michaux and Larry Hall, as well as the entire North Carolina Legislative Black Caucus should be up in arms about the injustices that have plagued Crystal Mangum since February 2010. But they aren’t, and she continues to languish in jail… for a year now.
This is a truly tragic anniversary of incarceration of an innocent person, Crystal Mangum… and it is one that will not be repeated if the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong has anything to say about it.
Showing posts with label Tracey Cline. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tracey Cline. Show all posts
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Sunday, March 4, 2012
A justice system that is already in disrepute?
On February 24, 2012, one week prior to Franklin County Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood handing down his decision to permanently remove Tracey Cline from her position as Durham County district attorney, I gave my observations about Cline’s challenges and her hearing to Barry Saunders, the humorously sarcastic columnist for The News & Observer. Specifically, I told him that a single snowflake had a better chance of remaining intact for a year within the bowels of Hades than Tracey Cline had of being reinstated by Judge Hobgood as the district attorney for Durham County. Mr. Saunders had contacted me days prior to get my take; in particular wanting to know if I felt the attempt to remove Cline had any connection to former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. I expressed to him that I definitely not only felt that the media, especially The News & Observer, had targeted Ms. Cline because of her congenial relationship with Mr. Nifong, but also because she is an African American.
Then I proceeded to enlighten Mr. Saunders by explaining to him about the Duke Lacrosse/mainstream media connection. Mr. Saunders, like so many others, was unaware that Ms. Rae Evans, the mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans, had worked as an executive for CBS News for more than a decade, that she then founded and is CEO of a highly successful PR firm in Washington, DC, and that her husband is an attorney in a prominent DC law firm. Even CBS, in violation of acceptable journalistic standards, did not disclose this vital relationship when it interviewed Ms. Evans during its numerous and skewed “60 Minutes” news magazine stories devoted to the Duke Lacrosse case. Possibly this unexpected revelation contributed to his decision to omit any of my comments from his column in the March 3, 2012 edition of the newspaper… a revelation that is supported by an article in today’s newspaper of March 4, 2012.
The News & Observer isn’t through with Tracey Cline… not by a long shot. Now that the N&O has succeeded in dethroning Cline of her position as the top Durham prosecutor, it is moving forward with stage two… having Tracey Cline disbarred. The full court press has begun with an article in today’s March 4th paper by pit bull investigative reporter J. Andrew Curliss titled “Lacrosse case had Cline input.” This is the first admission by the media that I am aware of to confess that it has been targeting Cline because of her relationship with the Duke Lacrosse case and Mike Nifong… it reinforces my long held contention that the Nifong connection was the seed that sowed Cline’s media-instigated downfall. The appearance of the Curliss article helps explain why columnist Barry Saunders chose not to ridicule me in his column for my contention that Cline’s removal was related to her association with Mike Nifong. Not only that, but Barry, who I believe does possess some journalistic ethics, would’ve felt compelled to mention Rae Evans’ connection with CBS News had he made mention of me in his column.
The complaint filed by Durham defense attorney Kerry Sutton, which cited a little known, rarely used elastic law, alleged that District Attorney Cline engaged in “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brought her office into disrepute.” In quoting that famed philosopher Yogi Berra, “This is deja vu all over again.” Not unlike 2007 when the North Carolina State Bar heaped all of the woes in the state’s justice system upon Mike Nifong’s handling of the Duke Lacrosse case, Judge Hobgood and the media are scapegoating Ms. Cline by accusing her of bringing the justice system into disrepute. The fact is that the present-day condition of the justice system preceded her, and will continue long after her removal. In Durham itself, for example, Crystal Mangum is being held on a charge of first degree murder for stabbing a man in self-defense… a man well on his way to recovery from the wound, but who mysteriously on the third postoperative day went into a coma which led to his elective removal from life support and his death. This prosecution of Ms. Mangum is vendetta motivated, as was the trumped up 2010 arson-related charges she faced. Crystal Mangum is not a criminal; she committed no crimes in 2010 and 2011; and she should not have served a day of jail time. This is the type of biased and vindictive justice that is responsible for Durham’s ill-repute.
That Durhamian Erick Daniels and Shawn Massey, two African Americans who were wrongly convicted of crimes for which they served more than seven and twelve years respectively, were denied pardons by the Governor’s Executive Clemency Board – pardons which are required before they can receive compensation for their wrongful incarcerations – itself brings the North Carolina justice system into disrepute. In denying the petition of Erick Daniels, Governor Bev Perdue’s General Counsel Mark A. Davis refuted my claim that the determination refusing his pardon was because of racial bias. Instead, Mr. Davis claimed that the Governor’s Office had conducted its own investigation which questioned Daniels’ true innocence… but then added that he was unable to back it up by sharing investigative findings with me due to “confidentiality concerns.” Everyone knows that explanation is nothing more than hogwash. Unless the Governor’s Office is willing to publicly prove otherwise, the impetus for rebuking Daniels’ and Massey’s calls for the pardons is due to the color of their skins.
However, one of the most egregious attempts to infringe upon the judicial rights of the people is playing out now in the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina, involving the Dukegate Discrimination Scandal of April 2010. Succinctly, Duke University maliciously harassed, humiliated, and intimidated Sidney B. Harr because he was a Nifong supporter, and then attempted to arrest him because he is an African American. When Harr’s attempts to reasonably resolve the incident in good faith were rebuffed by Duke University, he filed a Pro Se lawsuit against the powerful institution alleging discrimination.
What makes this matter so outrageous is that Duke University would choose to fight rather than amicably settle... especially when one realizes the defense Duke’s legal team has chosen to use. First they claim that the wrong individuals (Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead, Duke Law School Dean David F. Levi, and Duke University General Counsel Pamela Bernard) were named as defendants in Harr’s complaint. However, this is through no fault of plaintiff Harr, as he tried at the scene of the incident and for months following to learn the name of the individual(s) responsible for his mistreatment. Other than “the building manager” as quoted by the security guard, and “the Duke Police,” Harr could not learn the identity of the ringleader or other conspirators in the plot against him. Had the actions against Harr been proper, appropriate and above board, then surely someone would have accepted responsibility for them. Harr has the conviction to stand by all actions and statements he makes and take full responsibility for them. Because the intrigue against Harr was so malicious, despicable, and corrupt, no one at Duke University wants to accept responsibility for it. The fact that Harr sent letters to Brodhead and Levi initially, and then included Bernard in all of the subsequent communications definitely affixes legal liability to them.
The second defense used by Duke is that it is immune from discrimination complaints because it is a private institution and not a state one. F. W. Woolworths was not a state agency when it refused lunch counter service to African Americans back in the day when the civil rights wars in the Jim Crow south were at their zenith. This is what Duke University attorneys want the people to believe… that Duke is protected when it discriminates based on race, color, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. Without a legitimate defense, Duke is trying its best to stave off an inevitable defeat in court by not allowing the case to go to trial. In other words, Duke is trying to get the Courts to do its dirty work for it. Currently, the case hinges on a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Duke defense.
Because Harr filed as a Pro Se plaintiff, Duke University is unable to undermine his legal representation, a tact which would have been first used if Harr had retained an attorney. Also, since Harr is Pro Se, the Duke defendants cannot rely on any legal consultation to bleed him dry financially. Duke defendants’ only hopes to prevail, with their non-existent defense, against Harr is to prevent the case from going to court. Everything is riding on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. And Duke University is doing everything in its power to replicate the courtroom course that took place when former lab director Brian Meehan filed a lawsuit against the company which fired him. Meehan, whose lab was used by Prosecutor Mike Nifong in the Duke Lacrosse case, was denied the opportunity to have his wrongful dismissal case heard in court when a judge found in favor of a defense motion to dismiss.
This is the strategy that is being used by Dixie T. Wells, of the Greensboro law firm of Ellis & Winters, LLP. I do not fault the firm for using the “Motion to Dismiss” tactic, as it is available to the defendants and is the only realistic chance for them to prevail. Ellis & Winters, LLP is a business and its priority is its bottom line. Unlike the ideal of a prosecutor in a criminal case whose ultimate goal is to seek justice, the attitude in the realm of civil lawsuits is “justice be damned.” If Ellis & Winters, LLP gives Lady Justice a black eye and defiles Christian morals, it is no big deal as long as the outcome results in a win for its clients.
That Duke University retained a Greensboro law firm to represent it, gives it an upper hand as its legal staff has undoubtedly had dealings with the U.S. magistrate judges. What brings this legal matter into disrepute is the fact that Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp would purposely make false statements (lies) about facts of the case in a manner that is willfully prejudicial in favor of the Duke defendants. Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp’s recommendation to the U.S. District Court to accept the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is now under consideration despite the fact that it contains serious false and misleading statements that Judge Sharp has refused to correct. In an attempt to clarify the facts of the case, Harr filed a motion that the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be heard in court… a motion which defense attorney Dixie Wells vehemently opposed. The Duke University defendants want the U.S. District Court judge to make a ruling based upon a recommendation that contains blatantly false and misleading statements that go directly to the core of the case. Duke defendants do not want the Court to rule on the Motion to Dismiss based upon the truths of the case.
If the Duke defendants prevail in its Motion to Dismiss, it would set a detrimental precedent of allowing the big and powerful corporations and individuals to keep meritorious complaints against them by ordinary individuals from being heard in court. Individuals with legitimate grievances should not be deprived of the opportunity to have their cases heard in court. Justice should be available to everyone regardless of their class, color, or financial standing.
One thing that the Duke University defendants have been able to rely upon thus far has been the prejudicial silence of the mainstream media. Despite awareness of the Dukegate Discrimination Scandal of April 2010, the media has, in concert, remained silent about it… keeping it hidden from the public. The mainstream media was informed about the discrimination lawsuit against Duke that was filed in April 2011, and keeping true to form, has purposely ignored it, as well. That the media has chosen to collude with Duke University to keep the Dukegate Scandal under wraps puts the mainstream media in violation of important journalism ethics.
Unfortunately, with the engineering of her successful removal from office, the media is now pushing for Tracey Cline’s disbarment; this after finally admitting that its vendetta motive against her was related to her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. Instead of generating news stories and taking sides, the media should focus on objectively reporting about them… all important and relevant stories, even the ones that might cause embarrassment to the big and powerful. Actions by the mainstream media threaten to embed it, alongside the justice system, in disrepute with the public. All Tar Heelians expect and deserve better from the justice system and the mainstream media.
Then I proceeded to enlighten Mr. Saunders by explaining to him about the Duke Lacrosse/mainstream media connection. Mr. Saunders, like so many others, was unaware that Ms. Rae Evans, the mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans, had worked as an executive for CBS News for more than a decade, that she then founded and is CEO of a highly successful PR firm in Washington, DC, and that her husband is an attorney in a prominent DC law firm. Even CBS, in violation of acceptable journalistic standards, did not disclose this vital relationship when it interviewed Ms. Evans during its numerous and skewed “60 Minutes” news magazine stories devoted to the Duke Lacrosse case. Possibly this unexpected revelation contributed to his decision to omit any of my comments from his column in the March 3, 2012 edition of the newspaper… a revelation that is supported by an article in today’s newspaper of March 4, 2012.
The News & Observer isn’t through with Tracey Cline… not by a long shot. Now that the N&O has succeeded in dethroning Cline of her position as the top Durham prosecutor, it is moving forward with stage two… having Tracey Cline disbarred. The full court press has begun with an article in today’s March 4th paper by pit bull investigative reporter J. Andrew Curliss titled “Lacrosse case had Cline input.” This is the first admission by the media that I am aware of to confess that it has been targeting Cline because of her relationship with the Duke Lacrosse case and Mike Nifong… it reinforces my long held contention that the Nifong connection was the seed that sowed Cline’s media-instigated downfall. The appearance of the Curliss article helps explain why columnist Barry Saunders chose not to ridicule me in his column for my contention that Cline’s removal was related to her association with Mike Nifong. Not only that, but Barry, who I believe does possess some journalistic ethics, would’ve felt compelled to mention Rae Evans’ connection with CBS News had he made mention of me in his column.
The complaint filed by Durham defense attorney Kerry Sutton, which cited a little known, rarely used elastic law, alleged that District Attorney Cline engaged in “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brought her office into disrepute.” In quoting that famed philosopher Yogi Berra, “This is deja vu all over again.” Not unlike 2007 when the North Carolina State Bar heaped all of the woes in the state’s justice system upon Mike Nifong’s handling of the Duke Lacrosse case, Judge Hobgood and the media are scapegoating Ms. Cline by accusing her of bringing the justice system into disrepute. The fact is that the present-day condition of the justice system preceded her, and will continue long after her removal. In Durham itself, for example, Crystal Mangum is being held on a charge of first degree murder for stabbing a man in self-defense… a man well on his way to recovery from the wound, but who mysteriously on the third postoperative day went into a coma which led to his elective removal from life support and his death. This prosecution of Ms. Mangum is vendetta motivated, as was the trumped up 2010 arson-related charges she faced. Crystal Mangum is not a criminal; she committed no crimes in 2010 and 2011; and she should not have served a day of jail time. This is the type of biased and vindictive justice that is responsible for Durham’s ill-repute.
That Durhamian Erick Daniels and Shawn Massey, two African Americans who were wrongly convicted of crimes for which they served more than seven and twelve years respectively, were denied pardons by the Governor’s Executive Clemency Board – pardons which are required before they can receive compensation for their wrongful incarcerations – itself brings the North Carolina justice system into disrepute. In denying the petition of Erick Daniels, Governor Bev Perdue’s General Counsel Mark A. Davis refuted my claim that the determination refusing his pardon was because of racial bias. Instead, Mr. Davis claimed that the Governor’s Office had conducted its own investigation which questioned Daniels’ true innocence… but then added that he was unable to back it up by sharing investigative findings with me due to “confidentiality concerns.” Everyone knows that explanation is nothing more than hogwash. Unless the Governor’s Office is willing to publicly prove otherwise, the impetus for rebuking Daniels’ and Massey’s calls for the pardons is due to the color of their skins.
However, one of the most egregious attempts to infringe upon the judicial rights of the people is playing out now in the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina, involving the Dukegate Discrimination Scandal of April 2010. Succinctly, Duke University maliciously harassed, humiliated, and intimidated Sidney B. Harr because he was a Nifong supporter, and then attempted to arrest him because he is an African American. When Harr’s attempts to reasonably resolve the incident in good faith were rebuffed by Duke University, he filed a Pro Se lawsuit against the powerful institution alleging discrimination.
What makes this matter so outrageous is that Duke University would choose to fight rather than amicably settle... especially when one realizes the defense Duke’s legal team has chosen to use. First they claim that the wrong individuals (Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead, Duke Law School Dean David F. Levi, and Duke University General Counsel Pamela Bernard) were named as defendants in Harr’s complaint. However, this is through no fault of plaintiff Harr, as he tried at the scene of the incident and for months following to learn the name of the individual(s) responsible for his mistreatment. Other than “the building manager” as quoted by the security guard, and “the Duke Police,” Harr could not learn the identity of the ringleader or other conspirators in the plot against him. Had the actions against Harr been proper, appropriate and above board, then surely someone would have accepted responsibility for them. Harr has the conviction to stand by all actions and statements he makes and take full responsibility for them. Because the intrigue against Harr was so malicious, despicable, and corrupt, no one at Duke University wants to accept responsibility for it. The fact that Harr sent letters to Brodhead and Levi initially, and then included Bernard in all of the subsequent communications definitely affixes legal liability to them.
The second defense used by Duke is that it is immune from discrimination complaints because it is a private institution and not a state one. F. W. Woolworths was not a state agency when it refused lunch counter service to African Americans back in the day when the civil rights wars in the Jim Crow south were at their zenith. This is what Duke University attorneys want the people to believe… that Duke is protected when it discriminates based on race, color, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. Without a legitimate defense, Duke is trying its best to stave off an inevitable defeat in court by not allowing the case to go to trial. In other words, Duke is trying to get the Courts to do its dirty work for it. Currently, the case hinges on a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Duke defense.
Because Harr filed as a Pro Se plaintiff, Duke University is unable to undermine his legal representation, a tact which would have been first used if Harr had retained an attorney. Also, since Harr is Pro Se, the Duke defendants cannot rely on any legal consultation to bleed him dry financially. Duke defendants’ only hopes to prevail, with their non-existent defense, against Harr is to prevent the case from going to court. Everything is riding on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. And Duke University is doing everything in its power to replicate the courtroom course that took place when former lab director Brian Meehan filed a lawsuit against the company which fired him. Meehan, whose lab was used by Prosecutor Mike Nifong in the Duke Lacrosse case, was denied the opportunity to have his wrongful dismissal case heard in court when a judge found in favor of a defense motion to dismiss.
This is the strategy that is being used by Dixie T. Wells, of the Greensboro law firm of Ellis & Winters, LLP. I do not fault the firm for using the “Motion to Dismiss” tactic, as it is available to the defendants and is the only realistic chance for them to prevail. Ellis & Winters, LLP is a business and its priority is its bottom line. Unlike the ideal of a prosecutor in a criminal case whose ultimate goal is to seek justice, the attitude in the realm of civil lawsuits is “justice be damned.” If Ellis & Winters, LLP gives Lady Justice a black eye and defiles Christian morals, it is no big deal as long as the outcome results in a win for its clients.
That Duke University retained a Greensboro law firm to represent it, gives it an upper hand as its legal staff has undoubtedly had dealings with the U.S. magistrate judges. What brings this legal matter into disrepute is the fact that Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp would purposely make false statements (lies) about facts of the case in a manner that is willfully prejudicial in favor of the Duke defendants. Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp’s recommendation to the U.S. District Court to accept the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is now under consideration despite the fact that it contains serious false and misleading statements that Judge Sharp has refused to correct. In an attempt to clarify the facts of the case, Harr filed a motion that the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be heard in court… a motion which defense attorney Dixie Wells vehemently opposed. The Duke University defendants want the U.S. District Court judge to make a ruling based upon a recommendation that contains blatantly false and misleading statements that go directly to the core of the case. Duke defendants do not want the Court to rule on the Motion to Dismiss based upon the truths of the case.
If the Duke defendants prevail in its Motion to Dismiss, it would set a detrimental precedent of allowing the big and powerful corporations and individuals to keep meritorious complaints against them by ordinary individuals from being heard in court. Individuals with legitimate grievances should not be deprived of the opportunity to have their cases heard in court. Justice should be available to everyone regardless of their class, color, or financial standing.
One thing that the Duke University defendants have been able to rely upon thus far has been the prejudicial silence of the mainstream media. Despite awareness of the Dukegate Discrimination Scandal of April 2010, the media has, in concert, remained silent about it… keeping it hidden from the public. The mainstream media was informed about the discrimination lawsuit against Duke that was filed in April 2011, and keeping true to form, has purposely ignored it, as well. That the media has chosen to collude with Duke University to keep the Dukegate Scandal under wraps puts the mainstream media in violation of important journalism ethics.
Unfortunately, with the engineering of her successful removal from office, the media is now pushing for Tracey Cline’s disbarment; this after finally admitting that its vendetta motive against her was related to her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. Instead of generating news stories and taking sides, the media should focus on objectively reporting about them… all important and relevant stories, even the ones that might cause embarrassment to the big and powerful. Actions by the mainstream media threaten to embed it, alongside the justice system, in disrepute with the public. All Tar Heelians expect and deserve better from the justice system and the mainstream media.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
It’s a done deal… Cline is out!
To Access the flog, click on the LINK below.
http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog15.html
Tracey Cline, the Durham County district attorney, will shortly be relieved of her position. The handwriting has been spray-painted on the wall like sickening graffiti for many months. In September 2011, when The News & Observer came out with its three-part series titled “Twisted Truth,” it heralded the official beginning of its smear campaign against Ms. Cline; and anyone with any familiarity with North Carolina politics and law, especially as practiced in Durham, knew back then that her days in office were numbered. I was aware from what I read in the newspaper that Ms. Cline was in the media’s crosshairs long before the publication of their “Twisted Truth” series.
As staff investigative reporter Mandy Locke stated in her article in the Sunday, February 19, 2012 edition of the newspaper, Tracey Cline has uncommon zeal in prosecuting those charged with crimes… and for that reason, she will lose her publicly elected position by virtue of the decision of one man… a superior court judge from Franklin County, Robert H. Hobgood.
According to the Saturday, February 18, 2012 edition of The News & Observer, the hearing that is to hold court, on what I believe to be a pre-determined outcome, will begin on Monday, February 20, 2012… Presidents’ Day… a national holiday.
The removal affidavit process was initiated in mid-January 2012 by Durham Defense Attorney Kerry Sutton. She was critical of Cline because of Cline’s repeated attempts to keep Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson from hearing any of her criminal cases. Cline believes her attacks against Judge Hudson are a justified reflection of her passion for prosecuting the bad guys whereas her detractors, such as Attorney Sutton, feels Cline’s attacks against a sitting judge are detrimental to the judicial process and puts it in “disrepute.” In specific, Attorney Sutton has referred to some of Cline’s more colorful passages as “venom.”
Three actions by Judge Robert Hobgood since taking control of the proceeding which finds Cline in the hot seat do much to peel away veneers of objectivity and fairness. The alternatives to the decisions taken by the judge would have been preferable, I feel, and made it more likely that a fair and unbiased ruling could be reached. These important decisions are as follows:
One – Judge Hobgood’s decision to immediately suspend Tracey Cline was extremely prejudicial, and uncalled for. There was no impending threat to justice, life, or liberty had Ms. Cline been allowed to remain in her elected position until a determination could have been reached at the culmination of the hearing. Instead the only dividend reaped from this action was to force taxpayers’ monies to go towards paying the salary of an interim D.A. while Ms. Cline is suspended with pay. That is reason enough for allowing Ms. Cline to remain as the district attorney pending a final disposition.
Not only that, but issuing a suspension greatly prejudices the case against Ms. Cline, giving the impression that her conduct was so potentially hazardous that it required her immediate removal. Were I sitting in judgment of Ms. Cline in this matter, I would not have called for her suspension… as a matter of fairness.
Two – Judge Hobgood’s decision to deny Ms. Cline’s attorneys adequate time to prepare is a major disadvantage and handicap to the defendant. It is obvious that her attorneys, who were recently hired out of Pinehurst law firm, have not had time to get up to speed and prepare an adequate and effective defense. Delaying the hearing for several weeks is the reasonable approach in this instance. Denying Cline’s attorneys time to investigate, strategize, and build a case is not justifiable. It is like scheduling a boxing match and not giving one opponent the opportunity to train for the bout.
This is perhaps the main point of the three that bodes ill regarding the chance that Ms. Cline might hang on to her job. My understanding is that Attorney Sutton, who launched the removal process against Ms. Cline, argued against a delay because it would be inconvenient to some people involved. The initial delay of only one week that Judge Hobgood gave Ms. Cline, was stingy; and she required most of that time just to recover from a serious bout of pneumonia. Sutton also chided Cline for not being prepared when in Ms. Cline’s position to find legal representation without any conflict of interest is next to impossible.
I submit that the process of attaining true justice should be placed ahead of expediency and convenience. For Ms. Cline to receive justice in this hearing, it is imperative that she be given ample time to prepare her defense.
Three – Judge Hobgood’s decision to limit the scope of the hearing to statements Tracey Cline made against Judge Hudson. In other words, Judge Hobgood wants to take questionable actions by the media, mainly The News & Observer, and possible mistakes or misconduct by Judge Hudson out of the equation. By not allowing in questions put before journalists, how can she uphold a position that the media acted conspiratorially and with malice? By not being permitted to question the judge’s behavior and rulings in cases which she prosecuted, how can she prove bias on Judge Hudson’s part? Apparently, the only issue Judge Hobgood is willing to consider is Ms. Cline’s harsh diatribe against Hudson… period.
One of the commenters to my blog recently enlightened me with information that North Carolina is one of twelve states without a process for the general public to recall elected officials. The reason for that is because North Carolina is a backward state that has a little know rarely used law to allow a single individual to remove an official who was elected by the people. The more progressive states give the people the power, instead of a single individual, to remove the officials who the masses are responsible for putting into office. When Judge Hobgood removes Tracey Cline as Durham district attorney, he will be defying the will of the people who voted for her.
I believe in treating everyone with respect, be they judge, preacher, pauper, scoundrel, or Republican. Likewise we are all human beings with imperfections and frailties. There are no deities walking amongst us, and that includes those sitting on benches in our courtrooms. I believe in treating them with respect, but I do not feel they should be immune from vigorous criticism.
From what I can ascertain from Attorney Sutton’s complaint, she is appalled at the viciousness of the dialogue Ms. Cline directs at Judge Hudson… but from what I can tell about the judge, his skin is as thick as a rhinoceros, and he can take anything that Tracey Cline can dish out… or anything that I can dish out, although my basic comments about him have been in a lighthearted vein. For an example, I used humor in my comic strip – “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper” – to criticize his decision to deny Michael Peterson’s defense a new trial when it became known that his prosecutors withheld the existence of a tire iron that could have possibly been a murder weapon. Personally, I felt that that prosecutorial transgression demanded that the murder charge against him be dismissed.
I am not at conflict with Judge Hudson on all of his rulings. He was right on target when he dismissed the charge against African American Erick Daniels and freed him. Although he is deserving of a pardon so that he can receive compensation for the seven years of wrongful incarceration he served after his arrest at age fourteen, the racial-based policies in the governor’s office have denied his petition. The governor refuses to correct this injustice because Durham’s African American political leaders, such as Senator Floyd McKissick, and Representatives Larry Hall and Mickey Michaux, as well as Congressman David Price are enabling this discriminatory behavior by remaining silent.
I can appreciate the passion of Ms. Cline’s rebukes of Judge Hudson, but I cannot speak to the wisdom of them. My verbiage in complaints against U.S. Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp tended to be a little spicy, but most importantly, it was accurate. My encounter with this magistrate judge stems from a lawsuit that I filed against Duke University in April 2011. The media has kept the public in the dark about the discrimination incident the previous year in which Duke University attempted to arrest me for being a Mike Nifong supporter. I complained about Magistrate Judge Sharp because, in making a recommendation adverse to me, he lied about the facts of my case in an attempt to boost the position of Duke University. As things now stand, I await hearing from the U.S. District Court judge about a decision regarding the defendants’ motion to dismiss; one which takes into consideration a recommendation that contains lies and misleading statements from the magistrate judge.
Finally, for anyone to believe that Tracey Cline’s ravings against Judge Hudson are capable of pulling the Durham D.A. Office or the justice system into disrepute is unrealistic. There is reason enough without that to draw such conclusions… specifically the 2010 and 2011 vendetta prosecutions against Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser.
Like the referee says prior to a coin toss, there are two sides to every coin. The fact that the suspended Durham district attorney has an unbridled zeal when it comes to prosecuting those charged with crimes, could very well be comforting to crime victims, their advocates, and those ensconced in crime-ridden neighborhoods. On the other hand, many defense attorneys may very well prefer going up against a district attorney who is more docile, passive, and compliant than Ms. Cline.
At all costs, justice should be strived for in any court and in every case. However, the outcome of this case is plainly evident. Judge Robert Hobgood is going to remove Tracey Cline as Durham district attorney. It’s a done deal. What is scheduled to proceed in court on Monday, Presidents’ Day, is nothing more than window dressing… a charade to give the appearances of justice being served. It is a deception for the unenlightened.
I would recommend that as soon as the court next convenes, the judge proceeds directly to issuing an order removing Tracey Cline as the elected Durham district attorney without any testimony, witnesses, or evidence. Since the outcome is foreordained and justice irreparable compromised, there’s no sense in inconveniencing anyone by going through the motions of holding a hearing. I am sure that Attorney Sutton would have no objections.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Why Tracey Cline should be reinstated as Durham D.A.
Readers of my blog and viewers of my flog know that I am no fan of suspended Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline. As the county’s head prosecutor, I believe that she should have stepped in and dismissed her Assistant D. A. Angela Garcia-Lamarca’s 2010 vendetta prosecution of Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser. Likewise, I feel she should have moved to force prosecutor Kelly Gauger to drop the murder and larceny charges against Ms. Mangum related to the April 13, 2011 death of Reginald Daye. Despite the fact that D.A. Cline is a friend of former Durham D.A. Mike Nifong and has treated him with civility and respect, I am nonetheless not an ardent backer of her.
You may then query, why do I advocate for her to be reinstated as Durham district attorney? The answer is surprisingly simple and devoid of political prejudices. Tracey Cline should be reinstated as the district attorney because she was overwhelmingly elected to that position by the people of Durham County. In other words, the people had spoken… people who Ms. Cline represented. Her job, and that of any other elected official, be it municipal, county, or state, should not be threatened because of a single individual’s discontent.
Durham defense attorney Kerry Sutton is certainly not an objective bystander when it comes to D.A. Cline. Attorney Sutton had sparred with Cline numerous times within the confines of the courtrooms housed in the Bull City’s justice building. The News & Observer even intimated that Ms. Sutton may have political aspirations and be considering a run for the state senate. Wherever the truth lies, her motives for launching the attack against Ms. Cline can be brought into question.
I am also bothered by the fact that a “little known law” that is on the books and one that is rarely used is the basis for the removal of Ms. Cline from elected office. Not only that, but the law is ambiguous, vague, and subject to a wide range of interpretation. Yes, I am concerned that a “little known law” is being used in an attempt to oust from office the county’s highest ranking prosecutor.
Ms. Sutton seems to be especially offended by the language Tracey Cline used in going after Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson. She refers to it as “venom.” However, Cline supporters may construe this same language as a yardstick to measure her passion for vigorously prosecuting those charged with crimes. Her supporters may attribute her defiant and unyielding stance against Judge Hudson to be an indication of her dedication and determination in the conviction of her beliefs.
In a way, and to an extent, I can appreciate Ms. Cline’s actions in going against the superior court judge… although I would never advise it. I agree that, as human beings, judges make mistakes and that none are infallible. For example, in my civil rights discrimination lawsuit against Duke University, Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp, in a Recommendation, misstated facts about the case; inaccurate and prejudicial “facts” which he attributed to me. He stated that I represented that “after an interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer concluded, I began passing out my business cards.” This was totally incorrect, false and misleading. Specifically, in my Complaint, I mentioned that “while waiting for the interview to begin I passed out a few cards to some individuals I had engaged in conversation.” Kerry Sutton and others may consider my use of the accusatory term that he “lied” to be venom. I would say that it is possibly a “politically incorrect” term… but it is nevertheless the truth. Should I have used a less inflammatory term to describe the magistrate judge’s misstatements? Possibly. But like Ms. Cline, I am extremely passionate about the anti-Nifong discrimination to which I was subjected by Duke University and I do not feel that I should be sanctioned because of it.
The fact that Judge Robert Hobgood, who is charged with overseeing Sutton’s complaint against Cline, decided to immediately suspend Ms. Cline as Durham district attorney does not bode well for her. Doing so automatically prejudices the case against her by implying that the action taken was a safeguard to prevent Ms. Cline from pursuing a course that would result in an imminent threat or peril. Without an explanation from Judge Hobgood about his decision for immediate suspension, it is not unreasonable to believe that he caved to The News & Observer-led media vendetta against Ms. Cline.
It has been evident for months that the Triangle area newspaper had Tracy Cline in its crosshairs… just like it did her predecessor, Mike Nifong. The three part series by the N & O, titled “Twisted Truth” was a pathetic bid to stir the public into an anti-Cline frenzy, just like it had successfully accomplished against Mr. Nifong. In its rare exception to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy, the newspaper was at the vanguard of the media offensive against Cline. It highlighted a few instances in which it alleged the prosecutor had withheld evidence and misled the court… dramatizing them as if they were singular events throughout the state’s history of juris prudence. Had the media been conscientiously objective, then it would have produced three-part series about the following legal luminaries: Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe for his mishandling of the case against James Arthur Johnson; Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford and his misconduct in Gregory Taylor and Carletta Alston cases; prosecutor David Hoke’s withheld exculpatory evidence in the Alan Gell case, and many others. Note, that although The News & Observer did extensively cover the Alan Gell case and its associated prosecutorial misconduct, it went out of its way to shield the prosecutors and take the focus away from their misdeeds.
Without doubt the media’s attacks against Tracey Cline are rooted in the Duke Lacrosse case and are a part of the seemingly endless and ubiquitous vindictive web cast by the Carpetbagger Jihadists in an attempt to ensnare those considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of that case. For example, the discrimination against me by Duke University had its origins from that case, as well. That the repetitive onslaught to remove Ms. Cline as Durham district attorney is vindictive and politically motivated is clearly evident.
Do I agree with Ms. Cline’s repeated attacks against Judge Hudson? No.
Do I believe her disparaging confrontations against the judge are productive? No.
Do I agree with the way her assistant prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca handled the 2010 case against Crystal Mangum? No.
Do I agree with the ongoing prosecution of Mangum by her assistant Kelly Gauger? No.
The most important question is, however, do I think Tracey Cline should be removed from office because of my disagreements with the way she has conducted herself as Durham district attorney? No. Because the people of Durham elected her to the office of Durham district attorney, the people should be the ones to remove her, if so inclined… not a single individual who may or may not have an ax to grind against Ms. Cline.
I submit that instead of using a “little known law” that is rarely used to remove Tracey Cline as Durham district attorney, Kerry Sutton should have taken the more appropriate and responsible track of initiating and circulating a recall petition amongst the Durham County electorate… allowing the people to determine the destiny of their elected officials instead of a single person.
You may then query, why do I advocate for her to be reinstated as Durham district attorney? The answer is surprisingly simple and devoid of political prejudices. Tracey Cline should be reinstated as the district attorney because she was overwhelmingly elected to that position by the people of Durham County. In other words, the people had spoken… people who Ms. Cline represented. Her job, and that of any other elected official, be it municipal, county, or state, should not be threatened because of a single individual’s discontent.
Durham defense attorney Kerry Sutton is certainly not an objective bystander when it comes to D.A. Cline. Attorney Sutton had sparred with Cline numerous times within the confines of the courtrooms housed in the Bull City’s justice building. The News & Observer even intimated that Ms. Sutton may have political aspirations and be considering a run for the state senate. Wherever the truth lies, her motives for launching the attack against Ms. Cline can be brought into question.
I am also bothered by the fact that a “little known law” that is on the books and one that is rarely used is the basis for the removal of Ms. Cline from elected office. Not only that, but the law is ambiguous, vague, and subject to a wide range of interpretation. Yes, I am concerned that a “little known law” is being used in an attempt to oust from office the county’s highest ranking prosecutor.
Ms. Sutton seems to be especially offended by the language Tracey Cline used in going after Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson. She refers to it as “venom.” However, Cline supporters may construe this same language as a yardstick to measure her passion for vigorously prosecuting those charged with crimes. Her supporters may attribute her defiant and unyielding stance against Judge Hudson to be an indication of her dedication and determination in the conviction of her beliefs.
In a way, and to an extent, I can appreciate Ms. Cline’s actions in going against the superior court judge… although I would never advise it. I agree that, as human beings, judges make mistakes and that none are infallible. For example, in my civil rights discrimination lawsuit against Duke University, Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp, in a Recommendation, misstated facts about the case; inaccurate and prejudicial “facts” which he attributed to me. He stated that I represented that “after an interview with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer concluded, I began passing out my business cards.” This was totally incorrect, false and misleading. Specifically, in my Complaint, I mentioned that “while waiting for the interview to begin I passed out a few cards to some individuals I had engaged in conversation.” Kerry Sutton and others may consider my use of the accusatory term that he “lied” to be venom. I would say that it is possibly a “politically incorrect” term… but it is nevertheless the truth. Should I have used a less inflammatory term to describe the magistrate judge’s misstatements? Possibly. But like Ms. Cline, I am extremely passionate about the anti-Nifong discrimination to which I was subjected by Duke University and I do not feel that I should be sanctioned because of it.
The fact that Judge Robert Hobgood, who is charged with overseeing Sutton’s complaint against Cline, decided to immediately suspend Ms. Cline as Durham district attorney does not bode well for her. Doing so automatically prejudices the case against her by implying that the action taken was a safeguard to prevent Ms. Cline from pursuing a course that would result in an imminent threat or peril. Without an explanation from Judge Hobgood about his decision for immediate suspension, it is not unreasonable to believe that he caved to The News & Observer-led media vendetta against Ms. Cline.
It has been evident for months that the Triangle area newspaper had Tracy Cline in its crosshairs… just like it did her predecessor, Mike Nifong. The three part series by the N & O, titled “Twisted Truth” was a pathetic bid to stir the public into an anti-Cline frenzy, just like it had successfully accomplished against Mr. Nifong. In its rare exception to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy, the newspaper was at the vanguard of the media offensive against Cline. It highlighted a few instances in which it alleged the prosecutor had withheld evidence and misled the court… dramatizing them as if they were singular events throughout the state’s history of juris prudence. Had the media been conscientiously objective, then it would have produced three-part series about the following legal luminaries: Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe for his mishandling of the case against James Arthur Johnson; Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford and his misconduct in Gregory Taylor and Carletta Alston cases; prosecutor David Hoke’s withheld exculpatory evidence in the Alan Gell case, and many others. Note, that although The News & Observer did extensively cover the Alan Gell case and its associated prosecutorial misconduct, it went out of its way to shield the prosecutors and take the focus away from their misdeeds.
Without doubt the media’s attacks against Tracey Cline are rooted in the Duke Lacrosse case and are a part of the seemingly endless and ubiquitous vindictive web cast by the Carpetbagger Jihadists in an attempt to ensnare those considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of that case. For example, the discrimination against me by Duke University had its origins from that case, as well. That the repetitive onslaught to remove Ms. Cline as Durham district attorney is vindictive and politically motivated is clearly evident.
Do I agree with Ms. Cline’s repeated attacks against Judge Hudson? No.
Do I believe her disparaging confrontations against the judge are productive? No.
Do I agree with the way her assistant prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca handled the 2010 case against Crystal Mangum? No.
Do I agree with the ongoing prosecution of Mangum by her assistant Kelly Gauger? No.
The most important question is, however, do I think Tracey Cline should be removed from office because of my disagreements with the way she has conducted herself as Durham district attorney? No. Because the people of Durham elected her to the office of Durham district attorney, the people should be the ones to remove her, if so inclined… not a single individual who may or may not have an ax to grind against Ms. Cline.
I submit that instead of using a “little known law” that is rarely used to remove Tracey Cline as Durham district attorney, Kerry Sutton should have taken the more appropriate and responsible track of initiating and circulating a recall petition amongst the Durham County electorate… allowing the people to determine the destiny of their elected officials instead of a single person.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Trend towards mean-spirited media reporting
Since the inglorious days of the Duke Lacrosse party of March 2006 and its aftermath, it seems to me that the media has adopted and honed to perfection the art of cruel, inhumane, and malicious reporting. Without doubt, the Duke case provided plenty of fodder for the media-types upon which to cut its teeth, especially by going after former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. In kowtowing to the Carpetbagger Jihadist agenda to seek-destroy-annihilate anyone on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case, the media, with bloodlust relish, crucified Mike Nifong at every turn. No stone was left unturned when it came to Mr. Nifong, and truth, relevance, and objectivity presented no limitations. The worst example of a libelous attack against Mr. Nifong was by MSNBC senior legal analyst Susan F. Filan, who lied in an article by stating that Mr. Nifong asked his son to attend his hearing in an attempt to garner pity and sympathy. Then, based upon the falsehood that she had manufactured, she went to task attacking Mr. Nifong’s character. The truth of the matter is the opposite of the media-reality created by the Nifong detractor. Mr. Nifong specifically asked his son not to attend his hearing, but his son insisted upon showing support for his unjustly targeted father and was present at the North Carolina State Bar hearing; which was more a resemblance of a kangaroo court.
As stated earlier, everyone on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case was fair game for the media headhunters. Brian Meehan, the lab director whose company provided DNA results for the prosecution, was ridiculed by the media after he was unjustly axed from the company he helped establish. Duke Lacrosse case investigator Linwood Wilson’s personal bickering with his wife was dredged across the headlines… a perfect example of mountain making out of molehills. Vying for the cruelest coverage of all, was the way the news portrayed incidents involving the Duke Lacrosse victim and accuser Crystal Mangum. A litany of examples are on hand, with the most recent being the Reginald Daye autopsy report. Although the media has been alerted to the criminally fraudulent and bogus April 14, 2011 Examination of Autopsy Report, it has shown no curiosity as to how or why it differed from the Investigative Report of Death from April 13th. The media was quick to announce that the autopsy report showed injury to “six major organs”… the only problem is that the media relied upon the muscle called the diaphragm to be re-classified as an organ, which it is not. Furthermore, the report of the 13th , which is the far more reliable and accurate of the two, acknowledged only the splenic flexure of the colon as sustaining any stab related injury and receiving any attention during emergency surgery on Daye. ABC-11 television news was also quick to announce that Ms. Mangum stabbed Daye multiple times (seven) which was disproved by both reports. The media is at the ready to help the state keep concealed the truth behind Reginald Daye’s death from a stab wound… trauma from he most assuredly should have fully recovered.
Another gold mine source for the media has been provided by the NCAA’s investigation of the University of North Carolina’s football program. The self anointed organization headquartered in Indiana has as its objective to create athletic-academic crises in order to justify its relevance and the seven figure annual incomes of its top tiered executives. It pretends to place a premium on academic excellence while policing collegiate sports. Using a heavy hand it smashes the opportunities of many athletes to showcase their talents by arbitrarily handing out suspensions, fines, and banishments… usually for the alleged offense of accepting “gifts.” One UNC football player was deemed to have received a fifty dollar gift and the NCAA slapped him with a one game suspension. It is so ironic that the avaricious NCAA organization with it overstaffed and overpaid workforce is so bent on depriving a few athletes from underprivileged and disenfranchised origins from making a few bucks… this, while the NCAA is raking in the dinero hand over fist. Marvin Austin and Michael McAdoo were but a few of the students athletes caught up in the media storm, with McAdoo being cited for receiving “improper academic help” from a tutor. Although he received an F grade in the class, the NCAA tacked on an additional penalty… permanent ineligibility to play college football. The NCAA actions in this case, as in many others too numerous to recount, are examples of excesses in authority with draconian rulings that are arbitrary and capricious.
The media has been especially hard on the fired coach Butch Davis and one of his assistants John Blake. It seems that Blake had a relationship with a football agent of which the NCAA did not approve. Talk about piling on… Blake was unmercifully hammered in media. The News & Observer led the media charge against McAdoo’s professor, Julius Nyang’oro, who was forced to step down from his post as the chair of the Department of African and Afro-American Studies. His alleged culpability was not informing the Dean about a hiring decision he made of a qualified instructor who happened to work as a sports agent.
The main problem at UNC is that its chancellor, Holden Thorp, is shell-shocked. The NCAA really did a number on him, as every miniscule perceived infraction that is connected with UNC college sports is immediately reported to the NCAA. It is pitiful the amount of power the NCAA has over Mr. Thorp and college sports in general. The universities and colleges should unite and force the abolishment of the NCAA which is nothing more than a parasite that is drunk with power and is running rough-shod over student athletes and college administrators.
The News & Observer sports columnist Luke DeCock wrote a truly bizarre article in the September 6, 2011 paper titled, “Withers made bad call with game ball.” Evidently, it’s not enough to just win the football game… now what you do with the game ball is what really counts? DeCock accused UNC football coach Everett Withers of “calling attention to the Tar Heels’ sullied past instead of their new future.” What does he think his article did? First, I, although not an avid sports follower, was unaware that the game ball was given to former coach Butch Davis… until I read DeCock’s column. Second, so what? Big Deal. It is evident that former coach Davis was largely responsible for recruiting many of the team’s members and helping them to develop into a force capable of defeating James Madison by the score of 42-10. The players naturally had affection towards the former coach and Davis was a friend of current coach Withers. So why not give him a game ball that the coach and players felt he deserved? Certainly such an action was not meant to embarrass an overly sensitive chancellor or serve as a detraction. More ink was given to the story about a game ball given by Withers to Davis than to the ponzi scheme which snared North Carolina State University Debbie Yow’s new basketball coach. Somehow, I do not think The News & Observer has its priorities straight.
Finally, there’s The News & Observer’s three part investigative series by J. Andrew Curliss which does a hatchet job on Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline. To summarize my assessment of the series, it was a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing. I am not the only one to be of that opinion. It is obvious that she is coming under fire because she is a friend of her predecessor Mike Nifong, and because she has treated him with civility… and the Carpetbagger Jihadist position strictly forbids that, as they follow the dictum that “the friend of my enemy is my enemy.” Claiming that Ms. Cline is under fire is a ruse to get the public to believe that there is widespread disapproval in her work. From what I see, the only disapproval of her job performance is from The News & Observer. Alas, a review of the media treatment of Ms. Cline is worthy of a blog itself.
Instead of hyping sensational stories with the intent of ruining careers, tarnishing reputations and destroying lives, all media-types should make a conscientious effort to report the news fairly and objectively. That would be the best service they could provide for its consumers.
Coming soon: A flog about Governor Bev Perdue and her race-based pardon policy
As stated earlier, everyone on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case was fair game for the media headhunters. Brian Meehan, the lab director whose company provided DNA results for the prosecution, was ridiculed by the media after he was unjustly axed from the company he helped establish. Duke Lacrosse case investigator Linwood Wilson’s personal bickering with his wife was dredged across the headlines… a perfect example of mountain making out of molehills. Vying for the cruelest coverage of all, was the way the news portrayed incidents involving the Duke Lacrosse victim and accuser Crystal Mangum. A litany of examples are on hand, with the most recent being the Reginald Daye autopsy report. Although the media has been alerted to the criminally fraudulent and bogus April 14, 2011 Examination of Autopsy Report, it has shown no curiosity as to how or why it differed from the Investigative Report of Death from April 13th. The media was quick to announce that the autopsy report showed injury to “six major organs”… the only problem is that the media relied upon the muscle called the diaphragm to be re-classified as an organ, which it is not. Furthermore, the report of the 13th , which is the far more reliable and accurate of the two, acknowledged only the splenic flexure of the colon as sustaining any stab related injury and receiving any attention during emergency surgery on Daye. ABC-11 television news was also quick to announce that Ms. Mangum stabbed Daye multiple times (seven) which was disproved by both reports. The media is at the ready to help the state keep concealed the truth behind Reginald Daye’s death from a stab wound… trauma from he most assuredly should have fully recovered.
Another gold mine source for the media has been provided by the NCAA’s investigation of the University of North Carolina’s football program. The self anointed organization headquartered in Indiana has as its objective to create athletic-academic crises in order to justify its relevance and the seven figure annual incomes of its top tiered executives. It pretends to place a premium on academic excellence while policing collegiate sports. Using a heavy hand it smashes the opportunities of many athletes to showcase their talents by arbitrarily handing out suspensions, fines, and banishments… usually for the alleged offense of accepting “gifts.” One UNC football player was deemed to have received a fifty dollar gift and the NCAA slapped him with a one game suspension. It is so ironic that the avaricious NCAA organization with it overstaffed and overpaid workforce is so bent on depriving a few athletes from underprivileged and disenfranchised origins from making a few bucks… this, while the NCAA is raking in the dinero hand over fist. Marvin Austin and Michael McAdoo were but a few of the students athletes caught up in the media storm, with McAdoo being cited for receiving “improper academic help” from a tutor. Although he received an F grade in the class, the NCAA tacked on an additional penalty… permanent ineligibility to play college football. The NCAA actions in this case, as in many others too numerous to recount, are examples of excesses in authority with draconian rulings that are arbitrary and capricious.
The media has been especially hard on the fired coach Butch Davis and one of his assistants John Blake. It seems that Blake had a relationship with a football agent of which the NCAA did not approve. Talk about piling on… Blake was unmercifully hammered in media. The News & Observer led the media charge against McAdoo’s professor, Julius Nyang’oro, who was forced to step down from his post as the chair of the Department of African and Afro-American Studies. His alleged culpability was not informing the Dean about a hiring decision he made of a qualified instructor who happened to work as a sports agent.
The main problem at UNC is that its chancellor, Holden Thorp, is shell-shocked. The NCAA really did a number on him, as every miniscule perceived infraction that is connected with UNC college sports is immediately reported to the NCAA. It is pitiful the amount of power the NCAA has over Mr. Thorp and college sports in general. The universities and colleges should unite and force the abolishment of the NCAA which is nothing more than a parasite that is drunk with power and is running rough-shod over student athletes and college administrators.
The News & Observer sports columnist Luke DeCock wrote a truly bizarre article in the September 6, 2011 paper titled, “Withers made bad call with game ball.” Evidently, it’s not enough to just win the football game… now what you do with the game ball is what really counts? DeCock accused UNC football coach Everett Withers of “calling attention to the Tar Heels’ sullied past instead of their new future.” What does he think his article did? First, I, although not an avid sports follower, was unaware that the game ball was given to former coach Butch Davis… until I read DeCock’s column. Second, so what? Big Deal. It is evident that former coach Davis was largely responsible for recruiting many of the team’s members and helping them to develop into a force capable of defeating James Madison by the score of 42-10. The players naturally had affection towards the former coach and Davis was a friend of current coach Withers. So why not give him a game ball that the coach and players felt he deserved? Certainly such an action was not meant to embarrass an overly sensitive chancellor or serve as a detraction. More ink was given to the story about a game ball given by Withers to Davis than to the ponzi scheme which snared North Carolina State University Debbie Yow’s new basketball coach. Somehow, I do not think The News & Observer has its priorities straight.
Finally, there’s The News & Observer’s three part investigative series by J. Andrew Curliss which does a hatchet job on Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline. To summarize my assessment of the series, it was a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing. I am not the only one to be of that opinion. It is obvious that she is coming under fire because she is a friend of her predecessor Mike Nifong, and because she has treated him with civility… and the Carpetbagger Jihadist position strictly forbids that, as they follow the dictum that “the friend of my enemy is my enemy.” Claiming that Ms. Cline is under fire is a ruse to get the public to believe that there is widespread disapproval in her work. From what I see, the only disapproval of her job performance is from The News & Observer. Alas, a review of the media treatment of Ms. Cline is worthy of a blog itself.
Instead of hyping sensational stories with the intent of ruining careers, tarnishing reputations and destroying lives, all media-types should make a conscientious effort to report the news fairly and objectively. That would be the best service they could provide for its consumers.
Coming soon: A flog about Governor Bev Perdue and her race-based pardon policy
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Postmortem shenanigans and media makeover of Reginald Daye
[Note: Click link provided to access the flog (Flash blog). Be patient to allow time for it to upload as the running time is twenty minutes. Audio is required for the flog. The essence of the flog is basically contained in the script which is printed below in the traditional blog form. Return from the flog to the blog page to post comments.]
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog1.html
Media bias against Crystal Mangum has been evident for some time… made obvious by the unflattering and misleading moniker given to her “the False Accuser.” This title which is almost always affixed to her name is false and misleading. She stands by her story that she was sexually assaulted in March 2006, and a court has not made a ruling in the Duke Lacrosse case, as North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed all charges against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants.
However, the A.G. took an unprecedented step on April 11, 2007 of proclaiming the Duke Lacrosse defendants “innocent,” a proclamation which was overreaching and which carried no legal weight. People in the legal profession and most media-types are aware of that and realize that only a jury, or a judge in lieu of a jury can determine “innocence” or “guilt.” If the Attorney General possessed such power, there would be no need to hold a trial. The A.G. could simply review the evidence presented by the prosecution and render a decision.
The media could barely contain itself, anxious to declare that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent,” “exonerated,” and/or “falsely accused.” Never mind that it was aware that it was misleading the public by declaring the defendants “innocent” and by labeling Ms. Mangum as the “False Accuser.” Its goal was to mold the minds of the gullible flock to believe that the determination of “innocence” had been legally reached and carried legal weight.
During the February 17, 2010 incident involving Crystal Mangum and her ex-boyfriend, the media toned down its coverage after realizing that the charges against her were a bunch of crock. A domestic violence call was placed to 911 by Crystal’s children because she was being beaten up by her ex. When police who responded became aware that Ms. Mangum was the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case, all attention was focused on trumping up charges against her which would result in a lengthy jail sentence. So Durham Police, who were the only ones with motive, means, and opportunity, set clothes in the bathtub on fire, made no attempt to extinguish them, and called the Durham Fire department.
Police were so intent on trumping up charges against her that they purposely did not even address the fact that Crystal’s ex-boyfriend instigated the physical clash between the two by repeatedly punching her in the face.
Charges brought against Crystal by police were excessive and without merit, and she was placed under a million dollar bail. Media-types, aware that the charges against Mangum were bogus, devoted most of their news stories to re-hashing Mangum’s role in the Duke Lacrosse case… which also afforded the opportunity to mention that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent.”
Although the charges against Ms. Mangum were pathetic, the jury sided with the prosecution on the misdemeanor charges. Despite a feather weight defense by Mangum’s counsel, the jury could not bring itself to wrongfully convict her of the arson charge, and Ms. Mangum walked away from court with a sentence of 88 days time served.
The city’s unjust treatment and incarceration of Ms. Mangum was the proximate cause of her losing her job, apartment, being dropped from graduate program at NCCU, losing custody of her children, losing personal property, and losing her independence. Furthermore, the notoriety from that case in combination with media vilification regarding the Duke Lacrosse case, made it impossible for her to just pick up from where she was at the time of her arrest on February 17,, 2010. She had trouble finding employment and someone willing to rent her an apartment. This situation spawned her ill-fated symbiotic relationship with Reginald Daye.
Reginald Daye, at 46 years of age, was 14 years senior to Crystal. From what I had been told, Daye’s reputation was anything but sterling. Sources told me that he had had run-ins with the law, that he was a heavy consumer of alcoholic beverages, that his alcohol induced drunken states had led to clashes with police, and that he had the capacity and a reputation for physically abusing women with whom he had relationships.
The media, however, refused to sully Mr. Daye’s reputation, printing and broadcasting only the positive… of which there was very little, and some fabrication. To my knowledge, there was never any mention of his criminal record, which I have been told is extensive. Yet, the media stresses Mangum’s record, and gives credence to the charges stemming from the February 17, 2010 incident in which she was an assault victim and against whom charges were trumped up.
In an ABC-11 online article, Reginald Daye was said to have been employed at the time of his stabbing, working at Scotts Painting and Decorating, however, my sources have informed me that he was unemployed at the time. It is further my understanding that he was two months behind in his rent payments when he met Ms. Mangum. In addition, it was Ms. Mangum who was employed, doing the only work she could get at the time, dancing. She had been attending a trade school in preparation of seeking another position which would be considered more socially acceptable. I was told that she was anticipating getting a sizeable tax refund, as well.
By moving in with Daye, she prevented his impending eviction and was able to provide shelter for herself and her three children. Whether or not an intimate relationship between the two existed, I do not know.
I was told that early Sunday, April 3, 2011, Crystal and Reginald were involved in an argument about money which she had earned. She wanted the money to go towards rent, and I believe a money order or check had been made out to go towards rent. He wanted the money to go towards something other than rent. Money that he had not generated. However, the media only reported that a search warrant stated that responding Durham police officers said Daye told them that Mangum stabbed him and took his money. This statement by Daye was evidently enough for police to charge Mangum with two counts of larceny, regardless of the fact that they were cohabiting and possibly in a relationship. Again, an example of aggressive over-charging by the Durham police.
According to WRAL 5 news, Daye underwent emergency surgery for his stab wound to the torso and was expected to make a full recovery. However, the wral.com article posted on April 5th, two days after the incident exhibited prime examples of shoddy biased reporting. The headline, for example, blares, “Police seize knives from Duke Lacrosse accuser’s apartment.” The apartment was, in fact, rented by Daye, and not Ms. Mangum… therefore, police seized knives from Daye’s apartment. By conferring apartment rental status to Mangum, it suggests that its contents belonged to her and not Daye. Mention was made of a set of brass knuckles, but reporters made no attempt to determine its ownership. My guess would be that the brass knuckles belonged to Reginald Daye. Ownership of the knives which were confiscated during the execution of the search warrant was not addressed in the article.
WRAL’s article further states that in the February 2010 incident Mangum was accused of assaulting a “different boyfriend” and setting his clothes on fire. This statement is disingenuous and misleading as Ms. Mangum was the victim of the assault, being repeatedly punched in the face in the incident instigated by her ex-boyfriend. WRAL is trying its best, along with other media, to establish a pattern of specific criminal conduct that does not exist.
As is usual media protocol, wral.com misled the public by stating that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were declared innocent. Not only that, but an attempt was made to give credence to the innocence declaration by stating that officials, plural, were responsible for the determination... but, in fact, the media had based its claim of Duke Lacrosse innocence solely on the April 11, 2007 promulgation by Attorney General Roy Cooper.
This article is a prime example of media reporting on a Duke Lacrosse case related story that is false and misleading throughout.
In addition to Reginald Daye’s criminal record which is publicly available to the people and media alike, a source of mine also procured a copy of Reginald Daye’s death certificate which lists the cause of death as “pending.” However, CNN writer Maria White, in her April 14, 2011 piece takes the liberty to mislead by claiming that Daye died “as a result of the stabbing…” Keep in mind, this is well after WRAL reported a couple of days post-op that Daye was “expected to make a full recovery.”
In an article in “The Daily Beast” by David Graham titled “Murder Charge Latest Twist for Duke Lacrosse Accuser,” a friend of Daye’s told the “Beast” on April 5th, two days following surgery, that Daye was recovering. The rumor in the Durham community was that Daye died due to something other than as a result of his stab wound… a rumor which is only logical. Whether Daye’s death was due to complications from another unrelated pre-existing medical condition, due to medical mistakes, or the result of premeditated homicide, it is unknown, but I believe it is safe to say that he did not die due to the stab wound he received on April 3rd.
For a death which has the potential for being the handiwork of a homicidal fanatic who might have been motivated by a strong desire to see charges against Mangum to be upgraded to murder, the Durham Police department and Durham County District Attorney’s Office seem to approach this incident in a lackadaisical manner. To my knowledge, the potential crime scene was not secured, surveillance cameras were not reviewed, and no steps taken to ascertain whether or not Daye’s care might have been intentionally compromised or sabotaged. Instead, without even having a cause of death, the prosecutors make a dash to the grand jury seeking an indictment on the charge of first degree murder.
According to the article in “The Daily Beast,” the Durham County Medical Examiner stated that an autopsy might not be available for 120 days, or roughly four months. And he stated that there would not be a preliminary autopsy report issued. The postmortem treatment of Daye by the medical examiner is not routine, and there is a reason for that… to conceal, to shield, to coverup, to obfuscate the truth. Rest assured, that had autopsy findings directly linked the Mangum-inflicted stab wound to Daye’s death, a final report would have already been published and eagerly carried by the media to the people.
Some media outlets try to suggest Daye’s April 13th death was a result of the wounds he received ten days earlier on April 3rd. ABC-11 News, which is extremely biased in its reporting stated that “Daye died days later..” suggesting that he succumbed to wounds sustained. This is an example of misleading media spin at its best.
David Graham’s article in “The Daily Beast,” is one of the most balanced accountings of the April 3rd story that I have seen. Unfortunately, like the rest of the mainstream media, it too insisted on referring to Mangum’s rape allegations as false… as though decided by a court of law. Duke law professor James Coleman questions the appropriateness of the first degree murder charge against Mangum that was handed down by the Grand Jury on Monday, April 18th. Taking their domestic relationship into consideration Coleman represented that a more suitable charge would be voluntary manslaughter.
I don’t know what kind of investigation the Durham Police Department undertook with regards to the stabbing incident, but with Daye’s criminal record (which I have been told includes an assault against a female) there is a great likelihood that the April 3rd stabbing was an act of self-defense on Crystal Mangum’s part.
There is no doubt in my mind that the authorities, courts, and media are, and have been, out to get Crystal Mangum because of her accusations in the Duke Lacrosse case. The excessive overcharging, the exceedingly high bail, the secrecy with public reports, and biased, selective, and misleading reporting by the media has been engaged for the purpose of punishing Crystal Mangum because of her claims about being sexually assaulted in 2006.
The success in carrying out their vendetta against Ms. Mangum can be attributed in large measure to the silence of politicians representing Durham. To my knowledge, U.S. Congressman David Price, State Senator Floyd McKissick, and State Representatives Mickey Michaux and Larry Hall have been silent and made no attempt to challenge the gross mistreatment of Ms. Mangum by the authorities and the court. Likewise, civil rights organizations, such as the NAACP under state President Reverend Doctor William Barber has been quiet as dormice. As far as I know, women’s rights organizations and those which profess to protect battered women, stand by while Ms. Mangum is slaughtered by the state and the media. The viciousness of the attacks against Crystal Mangum rivals only those launched against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong.
Although I am not a Durham County resident I have been appalled at the recent treatment of Ms. Mangum by the state, and on the morning of Monday, April 18th, I mailed letters to Durham Police Chief Jose Lopez and Durham District Attorney Tracy Cline advising them against seeking to indict Ms. Mangum in Reginald Daye’s death. I later learned that at the time I was dropping off my letter at the post office, a Grand Jury had been convened and had given the prosecution the murder indictment against Ms. Mangum that it had sought.
An indictment for first degree murder when the victim’s cause of death had not even been determined in a patient who postoperatively had the prognosis of making a full recovery. First degree murder wherein the victim and the offender were in a domestic relationship wherein the possibility of self-defense was not even considered by the authorities. First degree murder in which the victim was well on his way to recovery and close to discharge when he suddenly and without explanation lapsed into a deep and irreversible coma. First degree murder in a man whose death was without doubt not related to a stab wound he had received.
I wrote the letters to Lopez and Cline in hopes of preventing the murder indictment which I felt might come against Mangum, but which I strongly believed was based on irrational Duke Lacrosse case bias instead of the objective and fairly applied rule of law. Durham County, in a swirl of Duke Lacrosse aftermath litigation, is dead set on taking its frustration and hostilities out on Ms. Mangum, Mike Nifong, Mike Nifong supporters, and others with empathy towards Nifong. I have made my voice heard on the Duke Lacrosse-related issues, while the voices of Price, McKissick, Michaux, and Hall have remained silent. They remain hushed because they lack the will and the courage to protect their most vulnerable of constituents from the bullying and vindictive individuals in positions of power in law enforcement and the prosecutors’ office who are motivated to carry out the vitriolic vendetta against those perceived by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.
Towards the unethical goal of unjustly saddling Crystal Mangum with a first degree murder conviction, the media is doing its part by portraying Reginald Daye in the best light possible… amplifying the good, concealing the bad, and giving an ambitious makeover on the ugly.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
One case out of 70,000 from another perspective
In Barry Saunders’s column titled “There’s a new DA in town,” in today’s News & Observer, the newly sworn in Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline is quoted as saying, “… one case out of 70, 000 damaged Durham. Not just the DA’s office, but all of the citizens, too.”
She is, no doubt, singling out the Duke Lacrosse case, and I happen to agree with Ms. Cline, however, my perception is entirely different, I am sure. The great tragedy that resulted from the Duke Lacrosse case is that the citizens of Durham lost a prosecutor, with 27 years experience, who was the epitome of what a “minister of justice” should be. Throughout his career, former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong prosecuted cases using the principle of “equal justice for all,” and did not follow the North Carolina justice system tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” Mr. Nifong would not allow pressure from the wealthy and powerful to influence his actions in seeking justice. He would not allow the forces of power and money to dictate how he ran his office.
Because of his independence in pursuing equal justice for all, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper persecuted and prosecuted Mr. Nifong (with the State Bar and State Board of Elections joining in) to make an example of him. What is most outrageous, and what the media keeps from the public, is the fact that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor ever to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception. And that is remarkable, when one considers the numerous cases of injustice and the overwhelming magnitude of the damages suffered by innocent victims of the state’s prosecutors.
So even though my point of view differs from that which is widely held by the media-indoctrinated public, my perceptions are closer to those held by Lady Justice. For example, Lady Justice and I would include at least a couple of more cases in that 70,000 figure mentioned by Ms. Cline. One case would be that of Erick Daniels who was arrested (for armed robbery) while in class at a middle school, was convicted by Durham prosecutor Freda Black (in large part based on the shape of his eyebrows), and sentenced to fourteen years, for which he served seven before being released when an appellate attorney filed on his behalf. The other case is that of novelist Michael Peterson, who was denied a fair trial when Durham Prosecutors James “Jim” E. Hardin and Freda Black withheld exculpatory evidence (the existence and testing of a possible murder weapon) from the defendant’s attorney. In that trial, Mr. Peterson was convicted and has already served many years behind bars.
Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline and the majority of people in Durham may not believe that the cases against Erick Daniels and Mike Peterson have damaged their city. And they may believe that the Duke Lacrosse defendants (who received $7 million each from Duke University, were proclaimed “innocent” by Attorney General Cooper, and are now seeking an additional $10 million each from the cash-strapped city) are victims in the Duke Lacrosse case. But from where Lady Justice and I stand, the perspective is very different.
She is, no doubt, singling out the Duke Lacrosse case, and I happen to agree with Ms. Cline, however, my perception is entirely different, I am sure. The great tragedy that resulted from the Duke Lacrosse case is that the citizens of Durham lost a prosecutor, with 27 years experience, who was the epitome of what a “minister of justice” should be. Throughout his career, former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong prosecuted cases using the principle of “equal justice for all,” and did not follow the North Carolina justice system tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” Mr. Nifong would not allow pressure from the wealthy and powerful to influence his actions in seeking justice. He would not allow the forces of power and money to dictate how he ran his office.
Because of his independence in pursuing equal justice for all, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper persecuted and prosecuted Mr. Nifong (with the State Bar and State Board of Elections joining in) to make an example of him. What is most outrageous, and what the media keeps from the public, is the fact that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor ever to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception. And that is remarkable, when one considers the numerous cases of injustice and the overwhelming magnitude of the damages suffered by innocent victims of the state’s prosecutors.
So even though my point of view differs from that which is widely held by the media-indoctrinated public, my perceptions are closer to those held by Lady Justice. For example, Lady Justice and I would include at least a couple of more cases in that 70,000 figure mentioned by Ms. Cline. One case would be that of Erick Daniels who was arrested (for armed robbery) while in class at a middle school, was convicted by Durham prosecutor Freda Black (in large part based on the shape of his eyebrows), and sentenced to fourteen years, for which he served seven before being released when an appellate attorney filed on his behalf. The other case is that of novelist Michael Peterson, who was denied a fair trial when Durham Prosecutors James “Jim” E. Hardin and Freda Black withheld exculpatory evidence (the existence and testing of a possible murder weapon) from the defendant’s attorney. In that trial, Mr. Peterson was convicted and has already served many years behind bars.
Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline and the majority of people in Durham may not believe that the cases against Erick Daniels and Mike Peterson have damaged their city. And they may believe that the Duke Lacrosse defendants (who received $7 million each from Duke University, were proclaimed “innocent” by Attorney General Cooper, and are now seeking an additional $10 million each from the cash-strapped city) are victims in the Duke Lacrosse case. But from where Lady Justice and I stand, the perspective is very different.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
