Whether through ignorance or purposefully calculated, many individuals have labeled the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong as a “political organization.” The latest incident occurred during the Martin Luther King march that was held in Raleigh on Monday, January 18, 2010. While marching with our large 4’ by 10’ Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong banner, I asked a media photographer to snap a picture of it. He refused, saying that he couldn’t because we represented a political organization. First of all, I doubt that a media photographer is restricted from photographing anything political. However, most significantly, our organization is far from political. No member of our group is running for political office. Mr. Nifong, to my knowledge, is not running for political office. Our group is not associated with a political party. And we do not promote political issues.
The Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong is an organization, not unlike the Four H Club, however, instead of raising corn, we raise cane when individuals are savagely mistreated by the criminal justice system. The primary focus of our advocacy, though, is the grave injustice meted out to former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. I was told by another Committee member who was carrying the other end of the banner, that he was approached by a person who told him that because ours was a “political” organization that we could not participate in the MLK march. Talk about a bunch of nonsense. First of all, this was a blantant attempt by a Nifong antagonist to get us to drop out of the march by, again, falsely labeling us as a political group. The irony of it all is that our group, which is dedicated to the issue of social justice, is the very group that Reverend Martin Luther King would champion and encourage. There is no doubt in my mind, that had Dr. King survived today, he would be a member of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, and would be a leading advocate for the cause.
At the end of the march, we were fortunate enough to get a little live coverage during a report by ABC-11 News reporter Ed Crump. The coverage can be viewed by going to www.abc11.com, and going to video. Then, select the video that covers the MLK march in Raleigh. We are shown near the end of the clip, which lasts less than three minutes.
The link is (copy and paste): http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/video?id=7224991
Anyway, for all future reference, it should be noted that the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong is a social justice organization, and not a political one. Anyone attempting to adhere such a label to our organization is doing so due to ignorance or to comply with some sinister agenda.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-answer sidney harr de harr harr:
You defend nifong for prosecuting three innocent men without having any evidence they committed a crime. You say you raise cane whenever anyone is mistreated by the justice system.
Are you for real?
Can we say hypocrisy, boys and girls
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
You are really deluded if you think your gang espouses the ideals of Martin Luther King. Reverend King would have never endorsed cgm's lies or nifong's attempts to prosecute innocent men because of them.
You are really deluded if you think the ABC 11 cameraman wanted to give you coverage. It likes you pushed your way into a spot where you were not wanted.
I am sure that MLK; the greatest advocate of social justice in the USA, is turning over in his grave. The thought of scum like you, Nifong and VP perverting something as important and emotive as the MLK march in such a cynical manner is totally sickening!
You should be ashamed - very ashamed.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
Do not even for an instant believe that any rational person believes you are out for justice. You wanted the Lacrosse players convicted simply because they were caucasian. You are pathologically angry because they are innocent.
Can we say lynch mob, boys and girls.
Of course a gang of 4 is hardly a mob.
In my last post I should have said wannabe lynch mob. I say again, a gang of 4 is hardly a mob.
In the 3:24 post I should have said, it looks like you pushed your way into a spot where you were not wanted.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
Martin Luther King would not be associated with a group that advocates prosecution of innocent men, whatever their ethnicity, because of race.
You say Reverend King would join your wannabe lynch mob gang of 4. You really believe that? I own a bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan I can sell you cheap. I also have some desirable land in the Everglades.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
How many of today's civil rights leaders have publicly endorsed your group? I say again, neither Jesse Jackson nor Al Sharpton are supporting cgm now. Only sheer irrational delusion would lead you to believe Martin Luther King would support you, a group which defends a prosecutor who tried to put three innocent men into prison just to advance his own interests.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
The correct label for your gang of 4 would be wannabe lynch mob. I say again, a gang of 4 is hardly a mob, you pathetic publicity deficient bozos.
To the commenters:
I appreciate your thoughts. I am pleased to see that you agree with me that ours is not a political organization... the point which I wanted to make. We are only labeled such as an excuse to ignore our group by the media. We are truly a social justice group, with an emphasis on justice for Mike Nifong.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
You have not really read the comments, have you.
"We are truly a social justice group, with an emphasis on justice for Mike Nifong."
Then mission accomplished. He got justice. Not as much as he deserved because his one day in jail apparently did not rehabilitate him.
He was disbarred. In my view that was the minimum sentence that fits his multitude of violations of the code of professional conduct.
Walt-in-Durham
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
You are not working for justice for nifong. Let me amplify what Walt said. Justice for nifong would not only be a criminal conviction but also a stiff prison term and a large fine.
Who, besides yourself, calls it justice that a DA would prosecute suspects when 1) the forensic evidence did not reveal a crime, 2) the DNA evidence did not incriminate the suspects and 3) the complaining witness was unable to id the suspects with any reasonable certainty (the claim that cgm id'd the accused with 90% to 100% certainty is a LIE!).
In any event, there is no way a wannabe lynch mob classifies as a social justice organization.
To Walt:
The justice we seek for Mike Nifong is the unilateral and unconditional reinstatement of his license to practice law in the State of North Carolina without restrictions. He has suffered much greater injustice at the hands of the state and the media that can never be restored. However, we will settle for his law license to be reinstated.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
AG Cooper, who was asked by nifong to take over the Duke Lacrosse case, blocked the wrongful prosecution of three innocent caucasian men. Those innocent men were falsely accused of raping a black woman.
You are spiteful and bitter because the three exonerated men were caucasian. If not for your racially motivated spite and bitterness, you would not care about nifong or any other DA in North Carolina.
A wannabe lynch mob which tries to justify the prosecution of innocent men because of their race is not an organization which promotes social justice.
Syd, you wrote:"The justice we seek for Mike Nifong is the unilateral and unconditional reinstatement of his license to practice law in the State of North Carolina without restrictions."
There we part ways. You are seeking an injustice. Not only has Nifong committed a multitude of violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct, but he admitted that he did. (See his statement to the DHC.) To allow an admitted violator who prosecuted innocent men without probable cause to resume the practice of law would be a grave injustice.
"He has suffered much greater injustice at the hands of the state and the media that can never be restored."
We find ourselves in agreement. Nifong has suffered an injustice, he was not given the full rehabilitative efforts available to the state. A long incarceration at the Department of Corrections would have been most beneficial to Nifong in his quest for rehabilitation. Unfortunately, he was denied the rehabilitative services that only the DOC can offer to long term inmates in their care.
"However, we will settle for his law license to be reinstated."
That would compound the injustice by encouraging other prosecutors to do the same thing.
Walt-in-Durham
Sidney,
I don’t believe that people ignore you out of ignorance or some anti-Nifong conspiracy. People ignore you because you have done nothing to earn their respect. They don’t take you seriously.
You have a difficult task. In large part because of Mr. Nifong’s dozens of interviews, this case became an international media circus. This case is viewed as one of the most egregious examples of prosecutorial misconduct ever to surface prior to trial.
(I concede that there are many cases of even more egregious misconduct, generally discovered after conviction during appeal. Most prosecutors who engage in misconduct realize—unlike Mr. Nifong—that publicity increases their risk. They also realize—again, unlike Mr. Nifong—that it is easier to frame poor defendants who lack the resources to fight back, and they choose their victims accordingly.)
More information is known publicly about the evidence in this case than virtually any other case where charges were dropped prior to trial. Despite this wealth of information, you admit that you are uninformed.
Incredibly you seem to take pride in this ignorance. You admit that you have not “seen” the available evidence, yet demonstrate little interest in reviewing it. You dismiss unfavorable media coverage as “biased” despite its consistency with the evidence. You feign interest when readers provide links to case documents, but fail to follow up when those links provide adverse evidence. You rarely acknowledge discussions of adverse evidence.
You pretend that unfavorable evidence does not exist and continue merely to parrot the same discredited talking points long after they have been refuted. I can conclude only that you are dishonest.
In addition, you consistently demonstrate a shameless double standard in your “case by case” analysis.
You criticize other prosecutors for erroneous identifications, even when they adhered to accepted procedures with credible witnesses. Yet you accept without question Mr. Nifong’s design of a fatally flawed identification procedure to be used with a tainted witness. You accept DNA results as proving innocence in other cases, but you dismiss it in this case. You accept confessions from “serial confessors” as proof of innocence with no skepticism. You criticize witness intimidation in other cases, but you accept it from Mr. Nifong. You criticize other prosecutors’ use of testimony from prostitutes and witnesses seeking to cut deals, but not Mr. Nifong’s. You harp on underage drinking, noise and open container violations of some of the lacrosse players, but you ignore the more serious criminal records of defendants in other cases.
Many readers have provided specific examples of this double standard. You ignore this criticism and repeat your earlier comments unchanged. Your hypocrisy is truly stunning.
I attempted to give you the benefit of the doubt, acting as though you were uninformed but willing to learn. I provided answers to many of your questions. I provided links to case documents. I discussed other cases and provided links. I tried to give you information necessary to make a more informed judgment. You ignored this information.
You have made yourself a laughingstock. That is why you are ignored.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
The media does not believe the lying venom you spew. You did not receive any coverage at the MLK event. You tried to force your way on camera at a sight where the ABC11 correspondent happened to be reporting.
To JSwift:
The media goes out of its way to avoid our group because it does not want injustice and disparity regarding the Duke Lacrosse case and Mike Nifong's treatment to be brought before the public. Prosecutor Tom Ford tried to force false testimony from Greg Taylor in order to convict an innocent man of murder. When Greg refused to lie, he was unjustly persecuted. When reporting about that case, the media refuses to even mention the prosecutor's name. Yes the media is biased against Mr. Nifong, and will not give our group the opportunity to voice its support for Mr. Nifong.
As far as evidence in the Duke Lacrosse case goes, I talk about seeing the physical evidence in person.
As far as evidence in the Duke Lacrosse case goes, I talk about seeing the physical evidence in person.
Have you ever seen "the physical evidence in person" for any criminal case? Gell? Johnson? Taylor? Daniels?
Does that [failure to see physical evidence in person] give you the right to ignore the reports and other evidence that is public?
Does that give you the right to make false and misleading statements?
Does that give you the right to apply a double standard?
Does that give you the right to misrepresent legal concepts?
Does that give you the right simply to parrot over and over and over and over again the same worn-out cliches long after they have been completely refuted?
Sidney, you have shown yourself to be brazenly dishonest, stunningly hypocritical and utterly moronic.
You have earned the media neglect you so deplore. The media ignores you not because of an anti-Nifong bias, but because you have nothing meaningful to say.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
If you want the media to pay attention to you, why don't you try launching yourself in an untethered balloon. If that doesn't work, try crashing a white house party.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
After Moez Elmostafa supported Reade Seligman, nifong and crew tried to intimidate him to change his story.
nifong threatened Kim Roberts with probation violation unless she changed her story that cgm's rape claim was a crock.
nifong threatened to file charges of aiding and abetting against Lacrosse players who would not give incriminating testimony. Since there was no crime for which anyone could be charged, he was trying to elicit perjured testimony from Lacrosse team members.
The refusal of the Lacrosse team members to turn on each other, the refusal to give perjured testimony against each other, that seems to be what you think as an athletic no snitch code.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
You did admit that you are not familiar with the evidence upon which AG Roy Cooper based his opinion that the three accused Lacrosse players were innocent.
Now you say, what you meant that you haven't seen the evidence in person.
cgm, if you recall, changed her story just about every time she gave it. You are pulling a cgm, and it is so obvious it is funny.
You are really deluded if you think the public buys your cgm change of story.
To JSwift:
In the Gell, Johnson, Daniels, and Taylor cases, the prosecutors made their evidence during the trial (except Johnson's whose case never went to trial). Because the Duke Lacrosse case never went to trial, and the evidence (I believe) has been sealed by the attorney general, I cannot give an adequate evaluation of the innocence or guilt of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, as has been requested.
There is definitely no double standard here. If I had access to the same evidence as the prosecutors for the Attorney General's Office, then I could render an opinion about the innocence or guilt of the defendants in the Duke Lacrosse case. For example, I don't need to read evidence of each of the 17 statements from independent witnesses to conclude that such evidence was exculpatory in the Gell case and was withheld by Prosecutor David Hoke. A similar case can be made for the prosecution of Daniels, Taylor, and others.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
A number of times in your blog you have said the DNA evidence was not exculpatory. You have said the finding of male dna not matching any of the Lacrosse players. You have claimed, contrary to the public record, the Lacrosse team would not cooperate with the police. You have claimed that nifong did not withhold evidence. Then you claim that the evidence nifong withheld was not exculpatory. You have gone so far as to define why the evidence was not exculpatory, i.e. it did not exonerate the defendants, that it did not rule out a crime. You have always acted like you are an authority on the case, in spite of the fact that you have admitted you are not familiar with the evidence.
Whether or not you admit it, via your blog you do declare the defendants guilty.
Maybe this is a mark gottlieb moment. You remember gottlieb. When nifong's case started to fall apart he suddenly remembered a number of items which patched up the holes. You are trying to justify your proclamation of guilt even though know nothing about the evidence.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
You do have a double standard. From the public record and from the nifong ethics trial it is obvious that there was no crime committed against cgm, that nifong's evidence showed there was no crime, that he concealed the evidence, that he lied to the court about the evidence, that he deliberately prosecuted three innocent men. Yet, about nifong, you say it was his job to prosecute, and that the ethics charges were unfair, that his disbarment was motivated by racist factors.
I again dare you to explain how nifong could have proven the defendants guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
You have yet, in all your blog ravings, to present anything that hasn't already been presented and discredited. You haven't said anything the media haven't already heard. Maybe that is why they ignore you.
Crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
Your statement, that you seek justice for those savaged by the judicial system, shows your blatant double standard. Indicting and charging three innocent men when you have no probable cause to believe a crime happened, when you have no hard evidence to incriminate them, that would be the judicial system savaging people. You defend the DA who caused that incident.
@ Lord Harr Harr,
I am sure you and your parther in crime, Disgraced and Disbarred Former Durham District Attorney Michael B Nifong, are ecstatic that the hunt for the Robber/Rapist that struck the Duke University campus a mere two months ago has been cancelled due to lack of interest on the part of the DUPD!
After all, the victim was a mere Duke Student, probably White and as such a person really not worth worrying about.
Now if it had involved the merest whiff that the alleged victim was an AA citizen of Durham - named Crystal Mangum perhaps...
And if the possible perpetrator(s) were priveleged white boys; from out of state and played a helmet sport...
And if said white boys had further indulged in underaged alcohol or porch pi$$ing....
Then there is no doubt, the entire DA's Office, the entire CoJfMN, the
Klan of 88 and all the Durham Press...
Would have choked on their fried Chicken (thanks VP)and made sure that someone, anyone was arrested, charged and jailed.
iou and Mikey really should focus on what is important Sydney, and start pot banging.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
It is obvious you would not give a d__n about justice for anyone save for the fact that AG Roy Cooper revealed that nifong's case against the innocent, falsely charges Lacrosse players had no merit. You and your gang of 4 wanted the innocent, falsely charged Lacrosse players convicted and imprisoned.
What heartburn you all must be feeling that they were not lynched!
To Brod Dickhead:
Could you send me information about the alleged rape/robbery on the Duke University campus that you state was canceled due to lack of interest? I will respond with a comment or blog. Thank you.
crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
You have talked about how cgm has always maintained that she was raped. Please explain why, then, your hero nifong dropped rape charges after he interviewed her in December of 2006? The reports are that, at that interview, she could not recall being penetrated.
Anyway, the Lacrosse players have always maintained they were innocent. Why should cgm's word mean more than the defendants' word? The evidence, of which by your own admission you are not knowledgeable supported their claims of innocence. What evidence can you present, what evidence have you presented, that supports cgm's allegations.
And you claim you do not operate on a double standard.
Crazy deluded deceitful spiteful liar afraid-to-respond sidney harr de harr harr:
Calling your gang of 4 a social justice organization IS a false labeling of your organization. You are a bigoted racist organization which attempts to justify gross prosecutorial misconduct for racist motives.
"In the Gell, Johnson, Daniels, and Taylor cases, the prosecutors made their evidence during the trial (except Johnson's whose case never went to trial)."
Made their evidence? Surely you jest. A NC prosecutor who would manufacture evidence?
In all seriousness, what difference does it matter if the evidence was introduced into evidence or not? You, like all of us can read the SAE report, you, like all of us can read the DNASI report, you like all of us can read the Hyman and Gottlieb depositions, you, like all of us can read a bevy of Crystal's statements. Why is it that you won't do so? Afraid of the contradictions?
"Because the Duke Lacrosse case never went to trial, and the evidence (I believe) has been sealed by the attorney general,"
Prove it.
"...I cannot give an adequate evaluation of the innocence or guilt of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, as has been requested.
That's an excuse. There is ample evidence available in the open and none of it points to the guilt of the innocent lacrosse players, or any lacrosse player.
Walt-in-Durham
Dr Harr -- Here's a link to an article about the DUPD ending it's inquiry into a reported robbery/sexual assault.
http://dukechronicle.com/article/dupd
-ends-inquiry-assault-case
Post a Comment