A simple question that Nifong detractors cannot answer

As I have so frequently stated, the Grievance Commission of the North Carolina State Bar used all of the creative juices it could muster to come up with an excuse for disbarring former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. They are so elaborate and nonsensical that not even Nifong bashers can make sense of them. The problem stems from the fact that no one can explain why Mike Nifong was disbarred… the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933. He certainly did not withhold discovery from defense attorneys of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. He had his staff deliver more than a thousand pages of discovery in three sets to attorneys for the defendants within 24 hours of the defense’s motion. What the media doesn’t want the public to know is that defense attorneys did not reciprocate when prosecutors sought discovery held by defense.

Unlike other prosecutors, Mr. Nifong did not fabricate confessions, arrange for eyewitnesses to appear out of the woodwork, or make plea deals with jail house snitches to provide perjured testimony. Mike Nifong acted honorably and in good faith in prosecuting the complaint of sexual assault in the Duke, and assumed the mantle of “Minister of Justice” by initiating the dismissal of the rape charges when the standards required for a charge were not deemed to be met in his opinion.

Some may say that Mr. Nifong made some statements before the media that were inappropriate, inflammatory, or denied the defendants of a fair trial. The only problem with this argument is that these statements were made early on in the investigation and well before any defendants were indicted. The generalized statements were made in an attempt to flush out any courageous and conscientious partygoers into voluntarily coming forward and cooperating with the police investigation. No way was there anything within the statements made to the media that should warrant any action against Mr. Nifong.

Finally, there is the issue about so-called lies Mr. Nifong made to the court. I have been trying to find out what lies were told. One commenter referred me to a transcript by the State Bar Grievance Commission head, which, no doubt included a lot of legalese mumbo-jumbo which was an attempt to pull the old Jedi mind-trick on the gullible, naïve, and mindless. The explanation is so convoluted that not even blog commenters can recite in a clear and cogent manner what lie(s) Mr. Nifong is alleged to have told which resulted in his disbarment and contempt of court judgment.

One needs to keep in mind that making a statement which may be inaccurate or contain misstatement of facts, does not constitute telling a lie. A lie requires mental consciousness of making a statement that is false. It would appear that F. Lane Williamson, who was the head of the Grievance panel responsible for Mr. Nifong’s disbarment, has mind-reading capabilities as he has determined that Mike Nifong prosecuted the three Duke Lacrosse defendants in order to court that black vote in Durham to enhance his chances of winning election to the D.A. position to which he had been appointed. If you just give it a scintilla’s worth of thought, you could tell that that is the perfect prescription for losing an election… any election. The way for Mike Nifong to assure a victory would have been for him to drop all charges and the investigation immediately… as he was pressured to do by the Powers-That-Be. And because he acted independently in following the principles of “equal justice for all,” the state set out to make sure that he was made an example of. Their campaign was most effective, as Rowan County District Attorney Bill Kenerly, in handling the prosecution of former Governor Mike Easley with kid gloves and giving him a rare deal, stated that he was not going to make a “Mike Nifong mistake.”

You can bet that no other prosecutor will make the “Mike Nifong mistake” because it could definitely cost him/her their law license… even though he/she may do nothing to warrant such action. That is no comfort as the State Bar head honchos are very creative and can come up with a creative reason for disbarment, like they did in the Mike Nifong case.

Creative reasons are commonly used to defend unjust actions. Case in point has to do with my ouster and near arrest on the Duke University campus. Although I was at the campus on an invitation to an event open to the public, I was kicked off the campus for no reason other than being a Nifong supporter. When I pressed the university for a reason for my ouster, the creative response I got was that I was asked to leave because I was “soliciting” which was defined as handing out my business card and asking them to visit my website. (I handed out but a half dozen cards to individuals with whom I had engaged in conversation while awaiting for the event to take place.)

In case you may have missed it before, I will provide a link below to the audio and transcript of the dialogue that I had with the security guard.

LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoB/irB4.htm