The best way to lose an election… Court the black vote!

If given a little thought, it would come as no surprise that the best, sure fire way to lose an election would be to court the African American vote. Even in cities, counties and districts where they represent a fairly large percentage of the population, the per cent of those who are eligible and registered voters is more likely than not disproportionately small. Of those African Americans who are registered to vote, the likelihood that they will avail themselves of the opportunity is not as great as other blocks of voters. The reasons are many, and include the fact that many blacks feel disenfranchised and have no faith in elected politicians to seriously address their concerns. Others may feel intimidated about voting due to possible outstanding warrants, fines, or other legal snares awaiting them. A larger per cent of African Americans are usually unemployed, with many of voting age being single parents, and many do not have a high school diploma. Statistics have shown that populations that are not highly educated are less likely to vote. African Americans struggling to support their families are less likely to take time to vote, as well. Finally, a disproportionately large number of African Americans are incarcerated, or have been labeled by the courts as being felons. Therefore, a large per cent of African Americans making up a population does not automatically guarantee that a large number of them will be registered to vote, and that of those who are registered, that they will turn out. Therefore, it is a reasonable premise that the best way to lose an election is for a candidate to court the black vote.

This premise is applicable to the city of Durham, and any reasonable person would know that former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong lessened his chances for re-election when he prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case. He did not try to use the case for political leverage one way or the other. Mr. Nifong prosecuted the case because of the particulars of the alleged attack: 1) gang-like sexual assault; and 2) use of racial epithets by the partygoers against the alleged victim. Mr. Nifong prosecuted the case because it was in his job description as a district attorney to do so. Had Mr. Nifong wanted to play it safe as far as re-election went, he would not have sought an indictment of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. He proceeded with the prosecution with the full knowledge that doing so would actually put his re-election campaign in jeopardy, which it did. In May 2006, he barely won the primary. There is no doubt in my mind that had Mr. Nifong not prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case, that his margin of victory in the primary race would have been comfortably much larger.

The accusations by the attorneys of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, the State Bar, and the Attorney General’s Office that Mr. Nifong was motivated to pursue criminal charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants for political gain, is totally unsubstantiated, without merit, and lacks logic when one considers the aforementioned issues. The State Bar, in particular, has nothing on which to base their claims that Mr. Nifong’s actions in the Duke Lacrosse case were politically motivated.

Like so much else associated with actions and attacks against Mr. Nifong in this case, this claim is not only reckless but illogical. It behooves the public to think long and hard about statements made by Mr. Nifong’s detractors. Unfortunately, the biased media is in cahoots with the state and defendants, and it cannot be relied upon to report fairly and objectively about Mr. Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case.

Media nurtures seeds of Nifong-hate sown by the LAX defendants, State and carpetbagger families

Because of the media's unprecedented departure from objective and balanced journalism in covering the Duke Lacrosse case and former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, it must accept responsibility for the public's unwarranted and misguided hatred of Mr. Nifong. Because of the media's agenda (which I have strong reason to believe was to skew coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case in favor of the wealthy and privileged defendants, and against their prosecutor), many, if not the majority, of people exposed to the media's take on the topic have a visceral hatred towards a man with a good 27 year professional reputation who was merely doing his job in prosecuting the Lacrosse case using the principle of "equal justice for all." Of these individuals with hatred and scorn for Mr. Nifong that is on a level usually reserved for Hitler, Atilla the Hun, and O. J. Simpson, most have formed their opinions solely through media accounts... accounts which echo the lies and misleading statements from the Duke Lacrosse defense camp, the N. C. Attorney General's Office, and the North Carolina State Bar. Furthermore, the media's editorial arm fails to present relevant dialog that would kindle within its consumer objective and discerning thought. For example, is it reasonable for the public to believe that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor worthy of disbarment by the State Bar during its 76 years in existence... especially in light of the fact that North Carolina follows only the states of Illinois and Louisiana in the number of death row inmates to be exonerated? ... also, when one considers the puny reprimand meted out by the Bar to Prosecutor David Hoke who withheld exculpatory evidence from defendant Alan Gell, which resulted in his death penalty conviction and serving an unjust nine years in prison?

A recent example of the media inspired animus against Mr. Nifong follows, and it comes from a blog commenter using the identity of "Kenneth":

"Personally, I hope Mike Nifong never works a day in law again, and dies as a poor man. He ruined several people's lives. Maybe, he'll drink his life away and die young? One can only hope. When I hear of his death in the future, I will raise a glass since it'll be a good day." ~posted November 4, 2009 1:05 PM

To begin with, Kenneth's statement contains the falsehood that Mr. Nifong ruind several people's lives. I would like to know about whom he is referring... certainly not the three Duke Lacrosse defendants. First, they never spent a day in jail. Second, they each received $7 million in settlement from Duke University for reasons unbeknownst to me. Third, they were proclaimed "innocent" by Attorney General Roy Cooper, although he has no authority to make such a proclamation... which went unchallenged by the media. Fourth, they all quickly picked up with their lives, being offered reinstatement at Duke, but either graduating and landing a job or transferring to another prestigious university with a lacrosse team. Fifth, they were treated with celebrity, as books and a movie glorifying them have been published and/or are in production. Sixth, individually, Collin Finnerty's newfound celebrity resulted in an assault charge (against an individual who he believed to be gay) being expunged from his record. Seventh, their avaricious families are seeking an additional $10 million each from the cash-strapped city of Durham.

However, most troubling is Kenneth's unChristian-like statements. To wish and hope that Mike Nifong dies young and poor, and for Kenneth to state that he will celebrate when he hears of the passing of the former Durham district attorney, is at 180 degree variance to the mind-set and sentiments of Jesus of Nazareth, who prayed, as he carried the cross upon which he was to be crucified, "Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do."

Kenneth is not alone in his feelings towards Mike Nifong. Many people have told me that they dislike Mike Nifong personally. Invariably, they have never even met him, and when I ask why, some state that they dislike him because he tried to put innocent defendants in prison. For the record, just because A.G. Cooper proclaimed that they were innocent does not make them innocent. Also, as a prosecutor, it is his job description to take away the freedom of defendants... he was merely doing his duty in prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case. And these very people who give such reasons, have no ill will towards other prosecutors who have engaged in misconduct that resulted in truly innocent individuals wrongfully languishing in prison for many months and years. The names of these prosecutors are not even known by the public because the media goes out of its way to shield them... which is what it does when the defendants are disenfranchised, poor, and people of color. Then, there are a number of people who admit to me that they don't know why they dislike Mike Nifong. The answer is: because of what the media has spewed forth... which is its biased portrait of a man who acted for politically selfish motives in bringing a case in which he knew was without merit, and in doing so, withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense, lied to the court, and made pre-trial statements that were grossly prejudicial and inflammatory. However, the truth is, that nothing could be further from the truth.

Unfortunately, it is those individuals who are quick to hate whose minds are weakest and most vulnerable to the propagandistic product delivered my the media. The biased media's use of the Jedi mind-trick is very effective in disseminating hatred among the populous, as is evidenced by what has tragically transpired as a result of its coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case and Mike Nifong.

WRAL… Prime example of the Media molding minds of the public

“Walt in Durham,” the pseudonym of a frequent commenter in this blog site, www.justice4nifong.blogspot.com, is an intelligent individual, but even he has been duped and bamboozled by the media… WRAL, in particular. If the media is capable of feeding misinformation to Walt, and having him accept it as truthful, then it is obvious why the vast majority of media subscribers, like Walt, have negative attitudes towards former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong which are unwarranted.

This observation stems from a recent blog (around October 18, 2009) in which I made the following statement, “Just because Attorney General Roy Cooper said nothing happened at the party does not make it so.” Walt replied with a comment on October 21, 2009 which stated as follows: “But, Nifong himself said so twice” (insinuating that Mr. Nifong admitted that nothing happened at the Duke lacrosse party). When I requested the source upon which he based his comment, he told me it was from WRAL. And sure enough, I went to the WRAL website and upon searching, I found the following article posted on July 26, 2007, with the headline, “Nifong Apologizes, Admits Nothing Happened.”

That headline is an outright blatantly false and purposely misleading statement, and it was extremely effective in playing a Jedi-mind trick on Walt, and many others. The first part of the statement, “Nifong Apologizes,” is true, but the second part, “Admits Nothing Happened,” is offensively false on its face and baseless. There is absolutely nothing in the web article to substantiate such a claim.

Mr. Nifong does make the following statement, as published in the article: “I agree with the Attorney General’s statement that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty, and Mr. Evans committed any crimes for which they were indicted – or any any other crimes against Ms. Mangum – during the party.” Yes, he states that “there is no credible evidence” that the three defendants committed any crimes for which they were indicted, but that does not mean that he does not believe that they are not guilty of committing crimes against Ms. Mangum. Definitely it does not mean that Mr. Nifong believed that “nothing happened.” For the media to state that Mr. Nifong admitted that nothing happened is wrong and grossly irresponsible.

That said, there are many cases that move forward without credible evidence. In the Brittany Willis murder/rape/kidnapping/armed robbery case, there was no credible evidence against defendant James Arthur Johnson. Although Johnson heroically solved the crime for the Wilson police, he ended up spending 39 months in jail on charges which lacked credible evidence; charges that were later dropped. Notice that the media did not go after Prosecutor Bill Wolfe. In the case against 14 year old Erick Daniels, who was identified by a robbery victim due to the shape of his eyebrows in a school yearbook, there was no credible evidence that existed against him. Yet he wrongfully served seven years in jail and the media is not critical of his prosecutor, Freda Black. There was no credible evidence against Alan Gell for the murder with which he was convicted and unjustly served nine years in prison (half of it on death row). However, there was exculpatory evidence favoring Mr. Gell which the prosecutors withheld from defense attorneys in order to win a conviction. Even at that, the media went out of its way to protect and shield his prosecutor (David Hoke) from criticism. I could go on.

Bottom line is that there are many charges that are brought by prosecutors without credible evidence… but just circumstantial evidence. The admission by Mr. Nifong that no credible evidence existed does not necessarily exclude the possibility that a credible case could be built against the defendants.

Finally, the nexus between credible evidence and the occurrence of a sexual assault is non-existent, but WRAL and the media in general would like the public to believe that in this particular Duke Lacrosse case they are linked; one and the same. The folly of this argument is obvious when you consider, for example, the rape case against Ronald Cotton. Mr. Cotton was picked up off the street and placed in a lineup where he was positively identified as the rapist by a rape victim. There was no credible evidence linking him to the crime, nonetheless he was convicted and served many years in prison before being cleared by DNA. Because no credible evidence against him existed does not mean that the rape for which he was charged did not happen. In the Duke Lacrosse case, Attorney General Cooper has reached far beyond his bounds by declaring that no criminal activity took place against Ms. Mangum, based on the fact that there was no “credible” evidence against those accused by Ms. Mangum. And this is the line that the media, including WRAL, pursued and propagated.

Furthermore, the media, instead of questioning the legitimacy and propriety of the attorney general’s “innocent” proclamation of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants, accepted it as being legitimate and binding. This declaration is an example of overreaching and irresponsibility by the attorney general at its greatest, and the media has been content to completely ignore its lack of legal substance. This is an outrage that WRAL reported without question and as factual with its online statement: “Following North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper’s declaration this April that the three men were innocent, …”

A final disgracefully misleading passage in the WRAL article is: “The defense’s request to drop the motion for criminal sanctions means that Nifong will no longer be required to reimburse the defendants thousands of dollars for costs incurred in the defense’s uncovering of exculpatory DNA evidence that could have cleared the players had the case gone to trial.” First of all, the defense probably decided to drop the motion for criminal sanctions because of the absurdity of the charge, which would become apparent in a courtroom. To expect a prosecutor to pay for work performed by the defense team is absolutely ludicrous, yet the media’s take on it is matter-of-fact. But the most egregious and disingenuous part of the statement is the use of the adjective “exculpatory” when describing DNA evidence. There is absolutely no way in which the referenced DNA evidence could be exculpatory (that is, clear the players of sexual assault), and to suggest so is a monumental disservice to the public. WRAL, along with almost all other media sources, has consistently erred on this specific issue of great importance.

In reporting on the same event, John Stevenson, of The Herald Sun, makes statements similar to WRAL such as: “All remaining charges against the defendants were dismissed in April by Attorney General Roy Cooper, who declared the three innocent,…”

The Herald Sun goes out of its way to generate sympathy for the Duke defendants by quoting one of their attorneys, Joseph Cheshire: “…a long journey of suffering for innocent people.” Mr. Cheshire takes advantage of Attorney General Cooper’s “innocent” declaration, and then the public is supposed to believe that the Duke Lacrosse players suffered? First, they spent no time in jail (their prosecutor – Mike Nifong – spent more time in jail than they did combined). Second, they each received $7 million from Duke University in an out of court settlement (don’t ask me why). Third, their avaricious carpetbagger families are currently trying to gouge another $10 million for each of their defendant sons from the cash-strapped city of Durham. Fourth, they were represented by high-powered attorney, not public defenders. And fifth, they were certainly not oblivious to the biased media attacks being lodged against Mike Nifong, the accuser, and the city of Durham. With consideration of the aforementioned, I doubt very seriously that the boys endured a “long journey of suffering.” James Arthur Johnson, Erick Daniels, Floyd Brown, Charles Wayne Munsey, Theodore Jerry Williams, and other innocent people who were wrongfully incarcerated for long periods of time without compensation know what it is to suffer. On the other hand, the Duke Lacrosse defendants have mainly experienced pampering and coddling by the courts, the media, and the public… privileged treatment for which they have been accustomed and to which they feel is their birthright.

As outrageous and unfair as the coverage by WRAL and The Herald Sun was, it pales in comparison to the ranting of MSNBC Senior legal analyst Susan F. Filan. In an online article posted June 17, 2007, titled “Nifong’s punishment is extreme, appropriate,” Ms. Filan claims that Mr. Nifong damaged the sport of lacrosse. Now, I am not making this up. She actually wrote that! I would like to know how. First of all, I doubt that he even knows anything about the sport. Another unsubstantiated claim by Ms. Filan is that Mr. Nifong damaged the reputation of Duke University. Again, I would like to know how. Her article failed to explain. Ms. Filan claims Mr. Nifong damaged three innocent men. Like the rest of the media, she gives credence to Attorney General Roy Cooper’s “innocent” declaration. Now I have never attended law school, and I am certainly not the senior legal analyst of a major media network, but from my high school civics class I learned that the attorney general, or anyone else in the executive branch, does not have the authority to render judicial decisions. That authority lies clearly with the judicial branch of government, as in judges.

Finally, Ms. Filan blames Mr. Nifong for damaging the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Nifong, in prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case on behalf of a victim who was poor, disenfranchised, and of color, against three young college men from families of wealth and privilege, was following the principle of “equal justice for all.” North Carolina justice, in practice, follows the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” That is what prevailed in the Duke Lacrosse case. The powers that be, and the media (including Ms. Filan) which was in cahoots with those powers, are responsible for destroying the public’s faith in the criminal justice system of North Carolina. All one has to do is look at the cases of James Arthur Johnson, Erick Daniels, Floyd Brown, Theodore Jerry Williams, Wayne Charles Munsey, Darryl Hunt, and many others who are poor and disenfranchised, and then compare them with the Duke Lacrosse case.

I take umbrage at Ms. Filan’s baseless speculations, especially her following statement: “He used the Duke case to get re-elected, and he resigned to try to save his law license.” What proof does she have for making these claims? They are reckless, inflammatory comments that are unsubstantiated… definitely statements which I doubt that she can back up with fact.

Ms. Filan did note in her article the rarity of the disbarment of an attorney, stating that it is the legal equivalent of a unicorn sighting. I would disagree when it comes to attorneys in private practice, but the statement is valid when it comes to state prosecutors. She failed to mention that Mike Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933. During a 76 year period, hundreds, if not thousands of North Carolina attorneys have lost their law license, but only one prosecutor has been disbarred… Mike Nifong. This is a fact that the media has kept hidden from the public, especially in light of North Carolina cases in which there has been egregious prosecutorial misconduct… in particular the Alan Gell case. Furthermore, North Carolina follows only the states of Illinois and Louisiana in the number of death row inmates who have been exonerated.

This type of Journalism engaged in by WRAL, The Herald Sun, MSNBC and other media outlets is detrimental to the public which relies on the media for fair and objective reporting. The false, fraudulent, unsubstantiated statements and claims put forth by the media about Mr. Nifong are not the result of sloppiness or inattention, but they are carefully calculated statements made as propaganda intended to direct public sentiment against Mr. Nifong who has attempted to take class and color out of the equation when it comes to justice in North Carolina.

Mr. Nifong has always maintained that he felt that something criminal did happen to the accuser at the March 13, 2006 party hosted by the Duke Lacrosse team. Unlike Attorney General Roy Cooper, Mr. Nifong never said “nothing happened” at the party. So, the media took it upon itself to do it for him… even though there was no truth to it. And as a result, intelligent people, like Walt in Durham, believed the lie… proving that the media has become quite adroit at using the Jedi-mind trick on the public. That is what the media did in its coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case and its prosecutor, Mike Nifong – instead of informing the people, it was busy molding their minds.

The Media determines who we vilify

Most Americans, especially those whose opinions are easily molded by the media, have an immense dislike towards Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. Yet when asked why, they are unable to give a cogent reason. Many people believe that Mr. Chavez is anti-American. That is not the case, for if he were, he most definitely would not be providing free heating oil to low income Americans to help keep them warm during the winter. According to an article that appeared in the News & Observer in January 8, 2009 edition, Hugo Chavez directly intervened with the Venezuelan government’s U.S. based oil subsidiary (Citgo) to assure the continued uninterrupted flow of this free oil to poor Americans (providing heating oil to 200,000 household in 23 states and 65 Native American tribes). The program to provide oil was threatened with the recent decline in oil prices.

Now an argument can be made that the administration of oilmen Bush-Cheney coveted Venezuelan oil fields, that Venezuela was next on the Bush administration’s to do list, and that Chavez was vilified in order to justify the need for a regime change (which would be to the advantage of the greedy oil companies in the United States). However, the U.S. government never got around to it after the might of the US military got bogged down in Iraq. As a result of the aggressive nature of the Bush administration towards Mr. Chavez, a case can be made that he retaliated with his colorful rhetoric about our chief executive. However these arguments are not published or aired by our media, and as a result, Mr. Chavez is still considered a pariah by the American public and treated like one by US government officials. It was sad, for example, that when RFK’s son, former U.S. Representative Joseph Kennedy, was asked if he personally spoke with Mr. Chavez, he danced around the question, stating, “I did what was necessary to keep this program (a Boston based non-profit to provide heating oil to American poor) going.” Mr. Kennedy was intimidated about any association with Mr. Chavez (regardless of how beneficial it is to the American people) and refused to answer the question directly.

Again, the case can be made that Venezuelan President Chavez has done more for the poor people in the United States than US President Bush. The Bush administration has, however, done a lot to bail out (with taxpayer dollars) greedy corporate CEO fat cats who have run their companies and the economy, of this nation and the world, into the ground. Yet, it is Mr. Chavez who is demonized by the American media and hated by the American people, many of whom benefit from his largess. The reason for this paradox is because the US media propagandizes in such a way that it molds the opinions of Americans who do not take the time or initiative to analyze or question what is spoon-fed to them by the media.

An example of vilification that is closer to home is best represented by the media-prosecution of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. The media both locally and nationally, including the the News & Observer, demonized Mr. Nifong to the extent that most people (who do not know him personally or who do not have a mind of their own) despise him, just like they hate Hugo Chavez. The media references Mr. Nifong unflatteringly and it secrets stories that are sympathetic toward or shed a positive light on Mr. Nifong. While doing so, the media downplays the egregious acts of misconduct, some of which are criminal, that are perpetrated by other North Carolina prosecutors. The majority of times, when articles about prosecutorial misconduct are made public, the names of those prosecutors guilty of malfeasance are not even mentioned.

There is the case of Theodore Jerry Williams, an inmate who filed a law suit against the District Attorney’s Office in Stanly County. For retaliation, he was transferred to Union County where he was maced and beaten up by sheriff deputies and then falsely charged with assaulting one of the officers (which they claim resulted in Mr. Williams’ injuries, which included a broken arm). Mr. Williams was facing fifteen years in prison as an habitual offender, if convicted of the “assault”charge against the officer. For a laugh, the District Attorney’s office then put up a poster showing two booking photographs of inmate Theodore Williams, one before the beating and one shortly thereafter. The caption read to the effect, “before and after he decided to sue the district attorney.” When Mr. Williams heard about the poster, he requested it in order to help with his defense. The prosecutors then removed all of the posters he had requested and destroyed them (critical and material evidence for Mr. Williams's defense). The trial court, upon hearing about the destruction of evidence by the prosecutors, dropped the assault charges against Mr. Williams.

Now, even though the Stanly prosecutors conspired with Union County officials to carry out their vendetta against Mr. Williams, assaulted Mr. Williams (including a broken arm), trumped up false charges against Mr. Williams which could net him fifteen years or more in jail, and destroyed material and crucial evidence needed for Mr. Williams’s defense, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper tried to appeal the trial court’s decision.

This is but another example of selective justice by Attorney General Roy Cooper and the North Carolina State Bar. It is a selective justice system that ignores the unjust actions and defends the criminal behavior of its prosecutors who follow the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.”

The media minimizes exposure to the public of stories about Mr. Williams, James Arthur Johnson, and other victims of the criminal justice system who are poor, disenfranchised, and of color. In the Duke Lacrosse case, the media portrayed the party-going lacrosse players (from families of wealth, status, and privilege) as saints, and demonized Mr. Nifong (a prosecutor with an exemplary record over 27 years who was diligently carrying out his professional duties in the Lacrosse case).

The media is, in large measure, responsible for the unjust persecution and prosecution of Mr. Nifong (including disbarment [the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception], loss of his job as district attorney, 24 hour jail sentence, and an attempt by NC Attorney General Roy Cooper to have the US Department of Justice investigate Mr. Nifong for depriving the Duke lads of their civil rights). The media is also partially responsible for the three Duke Lacrosse defendants, 38 un-indicted Duke Lacrosse teammates, three separate un-indicted Duke lacrosse players, and the Duke lacrosse coach for filing lawsuits against the university and the cash-strapped city of Durham. And, the media is responsible for the overwhelming and unjust animus by the public against Mr. Nifong, one of the best public servants Durham will ever have.

It is time for people to start using their common sense in building opinions about individuals and events, rather than relying on the media to tell them what to think. This can be difficult, especially when the media elects to keep the public ignorant about stories or facets of certain stories that might enlighten the people and lead them to conclusions that are at variance with those championed by the media.

Governor Easley and the state are backed by the press and the media

In the December 30, 2008 News & Observer article titled, “Governor rakes the press: Easley accuses N&O of ‘hatchet job,’” Governor Easley bemoans what he feels is unfair treatment towards him by the press. In the large scheme of things, the media (including the press) is very favorable towards North Carolina state agencies and works with them, especially when it comes to the criminal justice system.

The media has reined in any positive news stories that might put former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong in a positive light. For example it refuses to inform the public that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor ever to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception. It also refuses in large measure to acknowledge that a committee member of a group which supports Mr. Nifong filed a complaint with the State Bar against prosecutors James “Jim” E. Hardin and Freda Black for withholding exculpatory evidence (possibly a murder weapon) from the defense attorneys whose client was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life. The newpapers (News & Observer and Herald Sun) also refuse to run the comic strip “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper,” which would afford its readers another point of view and insight into the disbarment of Mr. Nifong and other injustices and disparities within the state’s criminal justice system.

The media is working closely with the state to see that Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe is protected from the complaint of prosecutorial misconduct due to the 39 month incarceration of James Arthur Johnson without probable cause. Furthermore, it is keeping the public ignorant about major events that are taking place in the “accessory after the fact” charge against Mr. Johnson. The News & Observer refused to even acknowledge that in November 2008, private sector special prosecutor (paid at extra expense by North Carolina taxpayers because no salaried state prosecutor was willing to prosecute such a frivolous case) W. David McFadyen decided to bring the case to court (again, wasting taxpayer money). McFadyen’s not prosecuting this case because Johnson (who solved the Brittany Willis murder) wiped his fingerprints off the victim’s car. He is vilifying Johnson and prosecuting him in order to protect prosecutor Bill Wolfe.

Additionally, the media is in cahoots with the Wilson prosecutors (the Attorney General’s Office, and the state) to prevent Johnson from having the appearance of being an actor who did the community service (and receive a reward) by having the friends and family of Brittany Willis renege on the $20,000.00 reward which Johnson clearly earned. The state, with the help of the media, has gone out of its way to destroy the reputation and life of this young African American boy (who had no prior criminal record, was a popular student, and, like Brittany Willis, loved soccer), in order to protect a prosecutor who had no ethical compass. The Wilson prosecutor had no physical evidence linking Johnson to the crime, and when their only witness (the vengeful confessed killer Kenneth Meeks) stated that he implicated Johnson only because Johnson had snitched on him. Lacking their star (albeit murderous) witness, Prosecutor Wolfe then arranged for two eyewitnesses (both with connections to the Wilson Police Department) to make his case. However, when Rev. Dr. William Barber, II, from the NAACP brought media attention to the case, the prosecutors thought better of using their phony witnesses, knowing they could not stand up under scrutiny outside of the Wilson city limits.

The Wilson prosecutors, with their ineptitude and malice, divided the city of Wilson largely along racial lines, and now the judge hearing the Johnson case, denied a change of venue motion from the defense last month. Instead, Judge Milton Fitch, Jr., to give the appearance of presiding over a fair trial, proposed busing in jurors from a neighboring county. All of these shenanigans are taking place and the News & Observer and other media are doing their part for the state by keeping quiet and keeping the public ignorant.

There is no doubt that the justice system is headed toward convicting a young man who helped authorities solve a heinous crime, in the interests of protecting a prosecutor who follows the tenet of "selective justice based on Class and Color," and at the wasteful expense of the Tar Heel taxpayers. The media will allow this travesty to take place. A travesty in magnitude that is second only to the prosecution, persecution and disbarment of Mr. Mike Nifong, an incorruptible prosecutor who gave 27 years of exemplary service to the state of North Carolina, a Christian, and a decent, honorable family man.

Governor Easley should put things in perspective. When it comes to the press and the media, he really has no grounds for complaining.

Media in cahoots with the State when it comes to Mike Nifong and justice

There is no doubt that the media, both locally and nationwide, is in cahoots with the state of North Carolina, its attorney general, and its State Bar when it comes to former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and other issues of justice.

The media, charged with keeping the public informed of newsworthy articles related to, among other things, the justice system, has used its position to keep the people of North Carolina ignorant of important issues that would expose the state justice system to be one following the tenet of selective justice based on Class and Color. The most recent evidence is a story that was buried on the sixth page of the “News & Observer” Triangle & State section of the Sunday, December 14, 2008 issue. The article, titled “Poster was evidence, high court says,” is about Stanly County prosecutors who violated a man’s rights by destroying evidence needed for his defense, according to the NC Supreme Court. Although the defendant is named in the article, the Stanly County prosecutors are not. Another example of the “News & Observer” withholding the names of the prosecutors alleged of wrongdoing comes from an article, again buried on the fourth page of the Triangle & State section of the December 4, 2008 issue titled “Hearing slated in Peterson case.” In this article about a hearing to determine whether a convicted murderer should have a re-trial because the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense team, staff writer Anne Blythe fails to mention the names of the prosecutors of the alleged misconduct. The prosecutors were James “Jim” E. Hardin, Jr. (now a Superior Court judge) and Durham prosecutor Freda Black. When I filed a complaint with the State Bar against Hardin and Black, and notified the newspaper, it refused to make note of it and remained silent.

Remaining silent is something the “News & Observer” has been doing recently with the James Arthur Johnson case. There has been much movement in the case during the month of November 2008, but the paper has not mentioned any of the developments, which include the decision by the judge to hold the trial in the racially divided city of Wilson, despite a motion by the defense attorney for a change of venue. The “accessory after the fact” charge, which special prosecutor Belinda Foster of Forsyth County was forced to file by her boss (Forsyth District Attorney Thomas Keith), is without merit and was filed only to protect Wilson prosecutor Bill Wolfe from a complaint filed with the State Bar by the NAACP.

The principle basis for my outrage at the disbarment of Mike Nifong is the fact that he is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception. Yet, this is an issue that I have never heard addressed or even mentioned by the media, either locally or nationally. The reason the media remains silent about this fact is that it does not want the public to think for itself. If the people knew that Mr. Nifong is the only NC prosecutor ever to be disbarred, they might come to the conclusion that he was selectively singled out for prosecution by the State Bar and excessively disciplined. Mr. Nifong is alleged to have withheld, from the defense, incidental, non-exculpatory, irrelevant information that was of absolutely no value to the defense, and he is disbarred. Compare that with prosecutors who withhold exculpatory (murder-weapon) evidence from the defense team, and prosecutors who destroy evidence that the defense needs to support its case. Nothing is going to happen to those prosecutors, and a good indication of that is because the media will go out of its way to conceal the name of the prosecutors, or withhold doing a story about it altogether.

Yes, there is no doubt that the media is in cahoots with the state in efforts to uphold its tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” Ted Vaden, Public Editor for the “News & Observer” titled his December 14, 2008 editorial column “The watchdog still barks – and bites.” The truth is that when it comes to the justice system in the state of North Carolina, this newspaper is not a watchdog, but a lap dog… a dog that does the bidding of its masters, the state attorney general, State Bar, and other state officials and agencies.