In today’s The News & Observer of March 3, 2011, columnist Barry Saunders opined about Dr. Raymond Cook’s DWI case. Saunders pretty much jumps into any topic, no matter how controversial, with gusto, and usually produces a scathing, satirical, stinging, and sarcastic masterpiece. I am in awe of his literary talents, and only wish that on occasion he would lend them to this blog site.
However, the one topic that he has steered clear of is the shakedown of Duke University by the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their attorneys for $20 million each… a total of $60 million. In addition, the university squandered another huge undisclosed amount of money for attorneys to try and get the school’s insurance company to reimburse them after Duke had flagrantly breached the contract. Mercifully, they finally agreed to drop their suit and lick their wounds.
Actually, there are three related stories that the media has recently decided to keep isolated and hush-hush with minimalist coverage. And they all began with an IRS lien filed around February 17, 2011 against Duke Lacrosse defendant Reade Seligmann. Local media pretended not to notice that the lien even existed, and it took the Detroit News, a newspaper in the Motor City in the state of Michigan, to bring it to the attention of the world. Now, in all fairness, local media did report about it on television and newsprint, however, if you blinked, you would’ve missed it. Keep in mind coverage of this volatile story pales in comparison with the massive media overload given to a rinky-dink piece of gossip about Duke Lacrosse detective Linwood Wilson. That story about a private and personal marital squabble consumed the local media spotlight for months.
Anyway, the disclosure of the Seligmann tax lien and resultant accurate estimates of the amount Duke doled out to the three defendants began when the university announced that it was going to settle the lawsuit it brought against National Union Fire Insurance Company. Basically, Duke would drop its suit, National Union would drop its countersuit, and both parties would pay for their own attorneys’ fees. On Duke’s part, it is a classic case of throwing good money after bad. Duke University was probably motivated to settle when it learned that a lien against Seligmann had been applied by the IRS.
The Detroit News article was published about a week after that, and reported in The News & Observer shortly thereafter, a day after its article on Duke’s settlement.
Then, low and behold, three days later, Duke University raised its tuition a whopping 4.3% … to total as much as $53,905 with room and board included. Well, it is no wonder after its ill-advised and generous gift to the three Duke Lacrosse defendants… the university is trying to make up for its $60 million plus loss on the backpacks of its students.
What Duke University needs to do is address the compensation paid to the administrators instead of shifting attention to the students in the form of tuition and other fees. Administrators with their high salaries, bonuses, pensions, and benefits are financially sapping the budget of funds that should be used to pay instructors and professors and help defray costs to its student body. At least that’s my opinion, and I would really be interested in what Barry Saunders has to say about this and other topics touched upon in this blog.
Barry, I know that you must answer to you superiors, so I recommend that before you take my challenge that you obtain an okay first. I would hate for you to be axed on my account. Anyway, the gauntlet has been thrown. Barry, it’s your move.
NOTE: Due to unavoidable and unforeseen scheduling conflicts, Part 10 of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper” will be uploaded today, three days earlier than planned. Be sure to check out the commentary which follows. At the end of the commentary feature, there is a page with an e-mail link. I appreciate all feedback.
A link to Part 10 is below:
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc151.htm
Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
"Anyway, the disclosure of the Seligmann tax lien and resultant accurate estimates..."
That is at best an inaccurate statement. At worst, it's a lie. You have no idea whether the tax lien is accurate (the IRS has been known to make mistakes), and you are only ASSUMING that the people who gave the $20 million estimate took all factors (like penalties and interest) into consideration.
"Duke University was probably motivated to settle when it learned that a lien against Seligmann had been applied by the IRS."
And what does one have to do with the other?
"What Duke University needs to do is address the compensation paid to the administrators..."
Now, there's a sentiment on which I agree wholeheartedly! At my school there are new administrators everyday. We've just been told that the school budget (currently about $100 million) will take a cut of 25 to 34 M. The faculty will be cut back terribl7y, but there's no p;lan to cut down on the size of the "mezzanine" (our way of referring to the non-faculty administration).
Just think of all of the millions of dollars wasted because a drunk prostitute lied about being gang raped in bathroom that was too small in a time warp.Sometimes as rational person with a very high IQ I look back at the events of March,2006 and wonder how this case could have happened in the American legal system even with a corrupt and dishonest prosecutor like Mike Nifong.As I said before-the stupidity of the human race never ceases to amaze me.
"Saunders pretty much jumps into any topic, no matter how controversial, with gusto, and usually produces a scathing, satirical, stinging, and sarcastic masterpiece. I am in awe of his literary talents, and only wish that on occasion he would lend them to this blog site."
I hate to be the one to break the news to you Sid, but Barry Saunders is nothing but a hack. He has no literary talents, and the fact that you are in awe of him explains a lot about this sorry blog.
I agree Barry's a hack.
Moreover I remember him saying that the Duke lacrosse player should be given "a fish sandwich, a yoo-hoo, and a bus ticket out of town." I'm not certain what else Sidney expects from him.
Roy Cooper-"She said that she was suspended in mid-air and being assaulted by all three of them in the bathroom and I've been in that bathroom and it was very hard to see how that would have been possible." Lesley Stall-"Because it was a so small?" Roy Cooper-"It was a small bathroom and you would have to have four people in there in different postions that she was describing and it was just very difficult to see how that would have been possible." 60 Minutes,April 15th,2007.
None of the lacrosse players would have wanted to rape Crystal Mangum or even have sex with her.It is dishonest to refer to her as a stripper when she was in fact a prostitute with a criminal record.Crime statistics show that there are very few cases of white men raping black women.
To Anonymous:
Don't feed the troll.
Duke lacrosse beat No.3 Maryland and now they are 2-2.I hope they have the talent to repeat last years national championship.I'm also rooting for the basketball team.
That's really great news!
Kilgo = oglik
Anonymous said...
"'Duke University was probably motivated to settle when it learned that a lien against Seligmann had been applied by the IRS.'
And what does one have to do with the other?"
When Duke University realized that the IRS filed a lien against Seligmann with nearly $7mil in tax owed, it realized that it would soon be public knowledge, and that everyone would realize that Duke doled out $20million to each of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Knowing the exorbitant amount of the money it gave without even notifying its own insurance company, Duke realized how ridiculous it would look to continue its lawsuit against the insurance company when it was Duke which breached the contract.
In other words, most sensible people would realize that Duke messed up by first giving out $60 million and tnen expecting the insurance company to reimburse them. Had Duke settled with the Lacrosse defendants for $20,000 each, then pursuing the insurance company for reimbursement might seem more logical.
Anonymous said...
"Just think of all of the millions of dollars wasted because a drunk prostitute lied about being gang raped in bathroom that was too small in a time warp.Sometimes as rational person with a very high IQ I look back at the events of March,2006 and wonder how this case could have happened in the American legal system even with a corrupt and dishonest prosecutor like Mike Nifong.As I said before-the stupidity of the human race never ceases to amaze me."
First of all, I do not believe that it was ever established scientifically that the Duke Lacrosse victim was "drunk."
Secondly, you seem to want to hold the beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling Duke lacrosse partygoers free of any responsibility for the events that transpired the night of March 13, 2006. Remember that they had a horrendous, but well-earned reputation for over-the-top partying, and their coach had even been warned by the university president to rein them in... which he obviously did not do.
Finally, Mr. Nifong is an honorable prosecutor who acted in good faith in an attempt to apply justice fairly and equally.
Anonymous said...
"'Saunders pretty much jumps into any topic, no matter how controversial, with gusto, and usually produces a scathing, satirical, stinging, and sarcastic masterpiece. I am in awe of his literary talents, and only wish that on occasion he would lend them to this blog site.'
I hate to be the one to break the news to you Sid, but Barry Saunders is nothing but a hack. He has no literary talents, and the fact that you are in awe of him explains a lot about this sorry blog."
True, Barry might not be a Shakespeare, but my reading tastes are far from leaning towards works of Dickens, Melville, or Defoe. Actually, I prefer the dime novels about The Executioner - Mack Bolan.
Now even though I might not agree with Barry's points of view, I do believe that he does write, in general, clever and satirical columns. I even chuckled a little bit on reading his column about the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, published in the July 22, 2008 edition of The News & Observer. And it was definitely nothing more than a hatchet job.
Officer Shelton said that Crystal was passed out drunk and she already had a DUI conviction.I would never hold anyone responsible for being falsely accused of rape as the lacrosse players were.Nobody deserves to be called a rapist if they are innocent.They had no reputation as criminals unlike Crystal Mangum who has since been in trouble with the law.Jim Coleman refuted all of that non-sense in his report.He happens to be African-American,not that should matter.Drinking beer and having parties isn't what a normal person with an IQ above room tempature would consider a crime.
"Finally, Mr. Nifong is an honorable prosecutor who acted in good faith in an attempt to apply justice fairly and equally."
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Nifong gave 60+ interviews where he misrepresented the facts. Nifong lied in court, was tried and convicted for that. Nifong continued prosecution of the case long after it was obvious to all, including him, that there was no physical evidence to corroborate Crystal's story. Not to mention the fact that Crystal told so many different stories. Nifong concealed exculpatory evidence from the defense even after he was ordered to turn it over. In connection with all that, Nifong was tried and disbarred.
The record is abundantly clear that Nifong did not attempt to apply justice fairly or equally. What he did was try to frame three innocent men.
Walt-in-Durham
"Secondly, you seem to want to hold the beer-guzzling, stripper-ogling Duke lacrosse partygoers free of any responsibility for the events that transpired the night of March 13, 2006."
It is abundantly clear that no memeber of the Duke lacrosse team and noone who attended the March 13, 2006 party had anything to do with raping Crystal Mangum, if she was indeed raped.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous said...
"Officer Shelton said that Crystal was passed out drunk and she already had a DUI conviction.I would never hold anyone responsible for being falsely accused of rape as the lacrosse players were.Nobody deserves to be called a rapist if they are innocent.They had no reputation as criminals unlike Crystal Mangum who has since been in trouble with the law.Jim Coleman refuted all of that non-sense in his report.He happens to be African-American,not that should matter.Drinking beer and having parties isn't what a normal person with an IQ above room tempature would consider a crime."
Was Officer Shelton's opinions about Crystal Mangum substantiated by lab results or merely based on his assumptions?
Also, drinking beer and partying is not a crime in and of itself, however, underaged drinking is, if I am not mistaken. And, also, if I am not mistaken, there was under-aged drinking at the Duke Lacrosse beer-guzzling, stripper ogling party.
In addition, the Duke lacrosse team had a reputation that far exceeded merely drinking beer and partying. They had reputations of having raucous and lewd behavior, urinating in public, infractions involving alcohol and driving, and discourteous, inconsiderate and rude treatment of others. Furhtermore they used racial epithets including the "n-word."
Walt said...
"'Finally, Mr. Nifong is an honorable prosecutor who acted in good faith in an attempt to apply justice fairly and equally.'
Nothing could be farther from the truth. Nifong gave 60+ interviews where he misrepresented the facts. Nifong lied in court, was tried and convicted for that. Nifong continued prosecution of the case long after it was obvious to all, including him, that there was no physical evidence to corroborate Crystal's story. Not to mention the fact that Crystal told so many different stories. Nifong concealed exculpatory evidence from the defense even after he was ordered to turn it over. In connection with all that, Nifong was tried and disbarred.
The record is abundantly clear that Nifong did not attempt to apply justice fairly or equally. What he did was try to frame three innocent men.
Walt-in-Durham"
Walt, Mike Nifong never lied to the court. Neither Judge Osmond Smith III, nor the State Bar's F. Lane Williamson are mind-readers and can determine that Nifong lied. If someone makes a statement that may tend to be incorrect, it cannot be determined that the person lied. Someone, such as Mr. Nifong, who made statements in good faith that he believed to be accurate cannnot be accused of lying regardless of the accuracy of the statement.
Mr. Nifong did not attempt to frame three men, no more than the prosecutors of Ronald Cotton. The witness in the Cotton case believed Cotton was her assailant even though no physical evidence linked him to the crime. The prosecution proceeded with the case based solely on the victim's testimony. Likewise, Nifong pursued the prosecution of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants based on the testimony of the victim.
If you are looking for a case where the state is trying to frame someone, then I would refer you to the "arson case" of February 17, 2010 against Crystal Mangum in which Durham Police (the only ones with the motive, means, and opportunity) set clothes on fire in the bathtub, made no attempt to extinguish it, called out the Durham Fire Department in the middle of the night, and charged Ms. Mangum with first degree arson... along with attempted first degree murder.
Everything Nifong Suppoter said about the lacrosse team was refuted by Jim Coleman.None of the three falsely accused players used the n-word or ever urinated in public.They also weren't ogling Crystal Mangum.All of the guys at the party said they weren't attracted to her,even Devin Sherwood who is an African-American.
There was no gang rape.The crimes that happened in this case were a false accusation of rape and a fraudulent prosecution of three innocent young men.Mike Nifong knew all along that the gang rape had never happened and he attempted to use the AA community in Durham for his own selfish purpose.He must have thought that AA's are so dumb they wouldn't be able to figure out that this was a hoax.That's real racism unlike calling a drunk prostitute the N-word which the three young men never did.
"The prosecution proceeded with the case based solely on the victim's testimony. Likewise, Nifong pursued the prosecution of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants based on the testimony of the victim."
Syd, which version of Crystal's testimony? She told so many and some of them were mutually exclusive. When you have no consistent witness testimony and the physical evidence clears the suspects that's called a prosecution without probable cause. A frame. Certainly that's not what you believe is the equal application of the law.
Many times you have said that the only way to get to the truth is to have a trial. Yet, you wrote: "Walt, Mike Nifong never lied to the court. Neither Judge Osmond Smith III, nor the State Bar's F. Lane Williamson are mind-readers and can determine that Nifong lied." In Nifong's case telling that he lied was tried, not once but twice and both times he was convicted. Further, determining he lied wasn't too difficult. He was asked in the May hearing if he had turned over all the exculpatory evidence. He said he had. He was asked again in September. He replied that he had. Then, he turned over more evidence after the September hearing that demonstrated his two in court statements were untrue. Not tough to figure out he was lying both times. For Nifong, the liar, things only got worse. At his contempt trial Judge Morey, his own witness, admitted he lied. She just said it was acceptable conduct for a prosecutor.
Walt-in-Durham
Kilgo you are such a moron.
Don't feed the troll.
Walt said...
"'The prosecution proceeded with the case based solely on the victim's testimony. Likewise, Nifong pursued the prosecution of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants based on the testimony of the victim.'
Syd, which version of Crystal's testimony? She told so many and some of them were mutually exclusive. When you have no consistent witness testimony and the physical evidence clears the suspects that's called a prosecution without probable cause. A frame. Certainly that's not what you believe is the equal application of the law.
Many times you have said that the only way to get to the truth is to have a trial. Yet, you wrote: 'Walt, Mike Nifong never lied to the court. Neither Judge Osmond Smith III, nor the State Bar's F. Lane Williamson are mind-readers and can determine that Nifong lied.' In Nifong's case telling that he lied was tried, not once but twice and both times he was convicted. Further, determining he lied wasn't too difficult. He was asked in the May hearing if he had turned over all the exculpatory evidence. He said he had. He was asked again in September. He replied that he had. Then, he turned over more evidence after the September hearing that demonstrated his two in court statements were untrue. Not tough to figure out he was lying both times. For Nifong, the liar, things only got worse. At his contempt trial Judge Morey, his own witness, admitted he lied. She just said it was acceptable conduct for a prosecutor.
Walt-in-Durham"
Just because someone is convicted of something is not proof of his/her guilt. Many individuals are falsely convicted of crimes in which later they are found to be innocent... Gregory Taylor and Alan Gell just to name a couple.
Mike Nifong, in believing that all of the thousands of pages of documents had been turned over to the defense, did not lie when he told the court that everything had been submitted.
With regards to "his witness, Judge Morey," I am unaware of any admission that he lied. Could you provide a reference?
Sidney,
Did you notice Dr. Obfuscation himself, Brian Meehan, is appealing the summary judgment that closed his wrongful termination suit? There should be lots of interesting documents there.
ogliK,
Get your thumb out of your butt.
Duke lacrosse just beat Loyola.They're moving up in the rankings just like last year when they won the national championship.
Five years and still no explanation about why the DPD tried to frame the defendants.
guiowen said...
"Sidney,
Did you notice Dr. Obfuscation himself, Brian Meehan, is appealing the summary judgment that closed his wrongful termination suit? There should be lots of interesting documents there."
I'm glad that he is appealing and I hope that he is granted an opportunity to pursue his wrongful termination suit. If so, I would look forward to information coming out, which I am sure would be favorable to Mike Nifong.
Anonymous said...
"Five years and still no explanation about why the DPD tried to frame the defendants."
The only person the Durham Police Department framed was Crystal Mangum when they ordered her out of her apartment then set some clothing in the bathtub on fire, and then proceeded to have the prosecution charge her with first degree arson.
What proof do you have that the DPD tried to frame the Duke Lacrosse defendants?
Post a Comment