I didn’t have much faith that the North Carolina American Civil Liberties Union would come to my aid and protect my civil rights, and the organization proved me right. Years ago when I first met Katy Parker, the director of the North Carolina ACLU, I handed her a questionnaire about former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong’s disbarment. I asked her if she would fill out the questionnaire and return it in the self-addressed/stamped envelope I provided. She told me that it would depend on the questions. Well, she evidently did not like the questions as I never received the questionnaire back.
In the summer of 2010, several months after the Duke University discrimination incident against me, and in a time during which I was trying to resolve the situation, I wrote the North Carolina ACLU and asked them to provide legal assistance for Crystal Mangum, as I, along with the Friends of Crystal Mangum and others were not at all pleased with her legal representation by the public defender for the February 2010 arson charge. I was informed that because of their high volume of requests it might take some time before I received an answer from the NC ACLU, but that all inquiries for help would eventually be given a response. No reply was ever made to my letter.
Around October 2010, approximately six months after Duke discriminated against me (with the plan of arresting me), lesbian Caitlin Breedlove and her partner were asked by a security guard at the Cameron Village Shopping Mall to leave the property because they briefly showed public affection. When they took it to the media, the media-types ran with the story… publishing in the newspaper, broadcasting it on the television news… the story went viral (unlike the media response to the discrimination I suffered at the hands of Duke University… which the media collectively chose to ignore). Even though the security guard company responded expeditiously and fully acquiesced to the demands of the lesbians and other gay rights individuals and organizations which supported the discriminated same-sex couple, the story got national attention on cable news networks, and the local news coverage followed developments daily for a couple of weeks. Needless to say, the NC ACLU’s director, Ms. Parker, threw the weight of the organization behind the discriminated pair by giving newspaper interviews in which she blasted the security guard’s actions while defending their rights while on private property.
Even though the NC ACLU interceded on behalf of the discriminated lesbian couple, because of my previous interaction with Ms. Parker and the failure of the organization to respond to my plea months earlier for assistance for Crystal Mangum, I held no hope that the NC ACLU would give me any support. So, although I reluctantly filed a discrimination lawsuit against Duke University in April 2011, I never seriously considered contacting the NC ACLU as I figured it would be a waste of time. Then just prior to Christmas 2011, I ran into a young lady in an ACLU tee shirt who was signing up people to join the ACLU. With foot traffic being slow at that time, we had a short conversation during which I mentioned my 2010 discrimination incident at Duke University. She recommended that I contact the ACLU, and although I thought it would be for naught, I rationalized that there was possibly a remote chance that the NC ACLU might give me some support… at least, there was nothing to lose.
After the holidays I phoned the organization and somehow managed to get Ms. Parker on the line. I began to fill her in on the happenings that took place on the Duke campus in April 2010, when she interrupted me halfway through my presentation and told me that she would not be able to do anything about my plight because the discrimination took place on Duke University grounds, which is a private institution on private property. In other words, I suggested, are all private institutes on private property who serve the public permitted to discriminate? I then reminded her that the lesbian couple, upon whose behalf she so vociferously supported, was discriminated against while on private property… the Cameron Village Shopping Mall. Ms. Parker countered by stating that it was possible that the young ladies were standing on a public sidewalk that intersected the private property when they were asked to leave the Mall grounds. But Ms. Parker was not defending the lesbians’ right to be on the sidewalk, rather their civil rights when on the Mall’s private property.
Duke University may be a private institution situated on private property, but it goes out of its way to bring the public to events held at numerous venues on its grounds. For example, the Nasher Museum, which is open to the public, is located on Duke private property. The Duke Cathedral, which hosts religious masses with the public invited, is in the center of its campus. Other Duke property venues to which the public is invited to attend by the university’s aggressive marketing campaign includes Reynolds Theater, the Duke Chapel, the school’s main library, Bryan Center, the Duke Law School, and its athletic centers. Duke is a university that embraces the public sector and thrives on their attendance and participation in campus events. Whether a workshop on fracking, a concert by world renown artists, a conference on political/environmental/economic issues, an exhibit featuring art and/or artifacts, or a speech given by a dignitary or person of celebrity the private institution that is Duke reaches out to draw in the people from the community and whom are representative of the public.
Now, am I to believe that if the same discrimination had occurred to me on the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill or North Carolina State University campus that the NC ACLU would’ve jumped into action on my behalf? Are only state universities and institutions prohibited from discriminating? It would seem after my conversation with Ms. Parker that Duke, being a private university, has the right to discriminate against anyone on its campus with impunity… and that the ACLU will remain muzzled. If my memory serves me correctly, F. W. Woolworth’s in Greensboro, North Carolina, was not a state entity in the 50’s when it refused to serve African Americans at its lunch counter. Have civil rights regressed to the point where privately owned businesses on private property which serve the public can overtly discriminate anyone or any group of people with the ACLU’s blessing?
Needless to say, I was quite emotional during my conversation with Ms. Parker, as being deprived of my civil rights tends to cause me much aggravation. And with a modicum of shame, I admit that I sorta lost my composure to an extent, and our conversation, which concluded rather abruptly, did not end on the lofty note as I had planned. As a result, Ms. Parker, please consider this a heartfelt apology from me for losing my cool.
Unfortunately, to me it seems that the ACLU of North Carolina, which is charged with the duty of protecting the civil rights of all Tar Heelians, is ironically guilty of discrimination itself… discriminating against Nifong supporters. The organization has defended, with gusto, the rights of Nazis, Klansmen, Gays and Lesbians, and others who are disenfranchised. I have no problem with this, and applaud their efforts to see that the rights are protected of those who are in the minority in thought or characteristics, or who are publicly despised. In all fairness, I believe that umbrella of shielded rights should be extended to people who believe that Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly disbarred and that he deserves to be unilaterally and unconditionally reinstated by the North Carolina State Bar.
This past week I would have enjoyed attending the daylong workshop on fracking that was held on Duke University campus and advertised as open to the public. According to the newspaper, more than 500 people attended from as far away as Massachusetts, Ohio, and Florida. But because it was held on the private property of Duke University, I could not attend, lest I risk being harassed, humiliated, and/or arrested… especially since there was no guarantee that a Duke professor friend would happen by at the opportune moment to again rescue me from such a fate. For these very reasons which threaten me every time I set foot on Duke University property, I have kept away from the December 2011 concert featuring pianist Andre Watts in an all Liszt program… I did not attend the September 2011 concert of Mozart’s Requiem… and I have avoided all other programs, exhibits and offerings held on Duke University property since April 15, 2010.
That my rights as a law-abiding public citizen are being trampled upon by the powerful and financially endowed institution that is Duke University with its selective discrimination against me because of my beliefs, thought, opinions, and allegiances is a disgrace. However, what is even more disgraceful, disturbing, and deplorable is that the North Carolina ACLU, which has a mandate to protect the civil rights of all North Carolinians, allows this abusive behavior against Nifong supporters by Duke University to take place unchallenged.
Discrimination of any kind is wrong whether it occurs on public property or private property… and, unlike the NC ACLU members who are sitting on their haunches in reaction to this form of prejudicial action, those people of courage and good conscience should actively and unwaveringly oppose it.
Friday, January 13, 2012
North Carolina ACLU will protect the rights of Nazis and Klansmen, but not Nifong supporters
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
48 comments:
Sid -- When the ACLU will represent organizations like the Klan or the Westboro Baptist Church, but will not represent you and the J4N gang, that SHOULD tell you something about the viability of your lawsuit.
Sid:
Have you ever considered the possibility that you are wrong, and everyone else is right?
Care for some cheese with that whine,Sid? Oh brother! You are a riot.
Sideny, you are a deluded megalomaniac.
The fact that you believe your lawsuit should have gone viral shows how deluded and megalomaniacal you are.
Sideny, if your suit had merit, if your caim actually was worth $20 million, every contingency fee hungry trial lawyer in the USA would have rushed to your door, trying to get their hands into Duke's deep pockets.
Sideny, if your contention, that a lawyer representing you would have been bought off by Duke, don't you think a lot of lawyers would have jumped at the chance to represent you, so that they could score a big payment from Duke?
How many lawyers have offered to represent you? None, I believe.
"North Carolina ACLU will protect the rights of Nazis and Klansmen, but not Nifong supporters".
It does seem that even the ACLU can recognize a deluded megalomaniac.
Sideny, in your blog you have repeatedly demonstrated that you ARE NOT a person of good conscience. If you were, you would not be carrying out your vendetta against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players.
Why do you put nazis and the Klan in the same sentence with gay and lesbian so often? Are you a homophobic person as well as a racist?
Gee, the aclu even represents gays!!!! Wow, if they represent those perverts and the nazis and the klan, surely they ought to just salivate at the chance to carry your flag. Give me a break. Why dont you just lump gays and lesbians in with rapists pedophiles and necrophiliacs?
Anonymous @ January 13, 2012 7:36 PM:
It should be mentioned that Sid's associate Victoria Peterson is known for her homophobia.
Has it rubbed off on Sid?
Anonymous said...
Sid:
Have you ever considered the possibility that you are wrong, and everyone else is right?
The thought never entered my mind. Did you know that back in the day everyone thought the world was flat?
Lance the Intern said...
Sid -- When the ACLU will represent organizations like the Klan or the Westboro Baptist Church, but will not represent you and the J4N gang, that SHOULD tell you something about the viability of your lawsuit.
The North Carolina ACLU just doesn't have the guts to go up against Duke University.
My lawsuit against Duke has merit, believe it. You can't go by what others may say or do. You need to look at the facts.
(Some enlightenment for you.)
The facts as disclosed in the documents show your case has zero merit.
Get a life.
Victoria ans Sid, together at last.
Sideny:"My lawsuit against Duke has merit, believe it."
Sid, make it believable by getting it to trial and proving its merit.
Sideny: "You can't go by what others may say or do."
You are saying that only you, not the court, should determine whether or not your lawsuit has merit?
Sideny: "You need to look at the facts."
Since when did facts ever matter to you? Facts show that no crime ever happened at 610 North Buchanan, that no Lacrosse player ever had any sexual contact with Crystal Mangum, yet you DO insist the three Lacrosse players are guilty.
From Sideny: "Have you ever considered the possibility that you are wrong, and everyone else is right?
The thought never entered my mind. Did you know that back in the day everyone thought the world was flat?"
This post shows Sid is a deluded megalomaniac.
Sideny, here is a suggestion compatible with your megalomania. Establish your own country with you as the entire government. Sue Duke in your own country and find for yourself, awarding yourself $20 million. Then go to the international court of justice and get them t enforce your judgment.
Sideny: "The North Carolina ACLU just doesn't have the guts to go up against Duke University."
Why would the ACLU fear going up against Duke if, as you say, Duke caved in to the three innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players to the tune of $20 million each even though they could have prevailed in court?
Sid -- Perhaps if you had actually read the ACLU webpage, you would understand why they refused to represent you. Here's the pertinent information:
The ACLU of North Carolina generally does not accept the following types of cases:
Cases against private businesses. The ACLU typically only litigates cases in which there is "state action" -- that is, cases in which government entities, agencies or employees have violated an individual or group's constitutional rights. We do not generally take cases against private businesses or individuals.
(some enlightenment for you).
Clarification
"Why would the ACLU fear going up against Duke if, as you say, Duke caved in to the three innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players to the tune of $20 million each even though they could have prevailed in court?"
What I should have said:
Why would the ACLU fear going up against Duke if, as you say, Duke caved in to the three innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players to the tune of $20 million each even though Duke could have prevailed in court?
Sid wants to pretend that there is a "class" of people who are defined and distinguished by their "support for Nifong", and that, somehow, the world knows who these people are, that there is a subversive plot against them, as a group, and that they are being persecuted for their beliefs. This is the classic definition of paranoia, Sid. You need help, fella.
In fact, the ACLU has a long and, according to some, distinguished history of representing extremely unpopular causes and cases. They have been major players in various Innocence Project cases......doing pro bono work, for years, to help prisoners gain release. The ACLU is under no obligation to represent anybody.....even Sid. Believe me, they have no fear of dealing with Duke either. To think that the ACLU would be reluctant to take Sid's case in fear that they would go up against the mighty Duke is nonsense. an organization that has appeared before the Supreme Court on numerous occasions would hardly find a University (even Duke) a scary adversary.
The fact is that Sid's case has no merit and it falls outside the guidelines for the types of cases that the aCLU handles.
As a gay person, I am so sick and tired of reading comments from people like Sid who persist in putting homosexuality in the same sentence (and implied group) with nazis, klan, perverts, deviates, drug users, pedophiles etc.etc. How sad that a man of color (who should know something about prejudice, bigotry and discriminaiton) would be so blatantly homophobic in his writing. And how shameful that he would allow a photo on his Nifong web site of Victoria Peterson....a Durham disgrace who routinely condemns gays and lesbians as nothing short of walking disease carriers. You are known by the company you keep, Sid. shame on you.
Sid is probably out marching in Raleigh's Martin Luther King Day parade, trying to foce his way nto the TV coverage, just like he did last year.
Maybe he will post a blog entry, how the J4N gangsters are fighting for Reverend King's ideals, just like he did last year.
Sideny: "The thought never entered my mind. Did you know that back in the day everyone thought the world was flat?"
Does that "everyone" include Christopher Columbus?
From historian Jeffrey Burton Russell, The Myth of the Flat Earth
(url http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/history/1997Russell.html):
"It must first be reiterated that with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat."
and:
"A round earth appears at least as early as the sixth century BC with Pythagoras, who was followed by Aristotle, Euclid, and Aristarchus, among others in observing that the earth was a sphere."
and:
"I am still amazed at where it first appears. No one before the 1830s believed that medieval people thought that the earth was flat. The idea was established, almost contemporaneously, by a Frenchman [Antoine-Jean Letronne] and an American[Washington Irving], between whom I have not been able to establish a connection, though they were both in Paris at the same time."
Sideny, get your facts straight.
Sideny:"'Have you ever considered the possibility that you are wrong, and everyone else is right?'
The thought never entered my mind. Did you know that back in the day everyone thought the world was flat?"
Here Sid shows us how enlightened he is.
Rev. King would be appalled at Sid's behavior. Remember the "I have a dream" speech famous line about "the content of character"? What kind of character did Nifong reveal when he LIED in an attempt to sacrifice three innocent men in order to win a lousy Durham election? What kind of character does Victoria Peterson reveal when she spews her homophobic venom? And, what kind of character does Sid show us all when he supports a known liar and a racist bigot.
It's not surprising that Sid lumped LGTB people in with nazis and klansmen.
It's well-known that the J4N co-chair, Victoria Peterson, has participated in events conducted by SPLC-designated hate groups.
She's also been called a "...good representative of our local Af-AmTaliban, serving as president of Christians for Morality in Government. She's an ace homo-bigot..." by local blogger (and gay activist) Pam Spaulding.
As Aesop taught us in The Ass and His Purchaser, a man is known by the company he keeps.
Anonymous said...
Sideny, if your contention, that a lawyer representing you would have been bought off by Duke, don't you think a lot of lawyers would have jumped at the chance to represent you, so that they could score a big payment from Duke?
How many lawyers have offered to represent you? None, I believe.
First of all, only lawyers that read this blogsite are aware of the discrimination or the lawsuit because the biased mainstream media, both local and nationally have kept a tight lid on the story.
Secondly, I have not asked any lawyer to file the suit on my behalf because he/she would only rip me off while working to my disadvantage, then receive a hidden compensation from Duke. I would have to be an idiot to trust my case with an attorney.
Anonymous said...
Why do you put nazis and the Klan in the same sentence with gay and lesbian so often? Are you a homophobic person as well as a racist?
Gee, the aclu even represents gays!!!! Wow, if they represent those perverts and the nazis and the klan, surely they ought to just salivate at the chance to carry your flag. Give me a break. Why dont you just lump gays and lesbians in with rapists pedophiles and necrophiliacs?
I think that you should go into politics cuz you seem to have a natural knack for distortion, obfuscation, and fabrication. With those talents, I'm sure the Republican party would welcome you with open arms and a slobbery kiss.
wow, I think old Sid actually used a big word....did ya'll see it? obfuscation? coooool, sid. I see your Hooked on Phonics training is paying off. Speaking of distortion and obfuscation, how bout 'splaining to us why you have a flaming homophobic bigot on your web site, all kissy faced with you and the other J4N whackos. I guess it's that slobbery kiss thing with Victoria, huh.
Lance the Intern wrote: "Sid -- Perhaps if you had actually read the ACLU webpage, you would understand why they refused to represent you. Here's the pertinent information:
The ACLU of North Carolina generally does not accept the following types of cases:
Cases against private businesses. The ACLU typically only litigates cases in which there is "state action" -- that is, cases in which government entities, agencies or employees have violated an individual or group's constitutional rights. We do not generally take cases against private businesses or individuals.
(some enlightenment for you)."
Sid refuses to sue the one and only person acting with the authority of the state and yet he professes surprise that the ACLU won't take up his case? Sorry Sid, that dog just don't hunt.
Walt-in-Durham
Sideny: "First of all, only lawyers that read this blogsite are aware of the discrimination or the lawsuit because the biased mainstream media, both local and nationally have kept a tight lid on the story.
Secondly, I have not asked any lawyer to file the suit on my behalf because he/she would only rip me off while working to my disadvantage, then receive a hidden compensation from Duke. I would have to be an idiot to trust my case with an attorney."
So explain why Duke University settled with the three innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players rather than buy off their arrorneys
Sideny: "I think that you should go into politics cuz you seem to have a natural knack for distortion, obfuscation, and fabrication. With those talents, I'm sure the Republican party would welcome you with open arms and a slobbery kiss."
Only a deluded megalomaniac would call it distortion when a commenter calls him out.
(continued from an earlier thread)
Ken:
When I allege that the DPD attempted a deliberate frame, I do not require a frame from the outset. A decision to proceed with no credible evidence to cover up a botched investigation becomes a frame.
In order to convince me that the DPD did not deliberately frame the defendants, you must convince me that no one in the DPD realized at any time from the beginning of Gottlieb's investigation in March to Nifong's recusal in January that the DPD had botched the investigation: no one realized Mangum had provided some false and conflicting allegations, the identifications were unreliable because of a flawed procedure and the DPD made no bona fide attempt to uncover other evidence.
You must convince me that the DPD assigned the highest profile sexual assault case in Durham's history--not to the specialized sexual crimes unit--but to 2 grossly incompetent property crimes investigators and then failed to supervise those incompetent investors despite frequent media coverage of the failures of the investigation. It is not enough to claim that Gottlieb and Himan botched the investigation. You must also claim that supervisors, including Lamb, Ripberger and senior officers, either failed to supervise those incompetents or were themselves grossly incompetent.
When I thought you suggested that Nifong was incompetent, I did not mean to imply that he was responsible for the failed DPD investigation. I meant only that a competent prosecutor would have understood the extent to which the DPD had botched the investigation. He would have known that he had no credible evidence, his identifications were unreliable and possibly inadmissible and the DPD had failed to conduct a bona fide investigation. He would have demanded better.
Tell us why you allow a homophobic racist bigot to appear on your web site as one of your supporters? Why do you endorse prejudice and hate by showing Peterson's photo ?
Lance the Intern said...
Sid -- Perhaps if you had actually read the ACLU webpage, you would understand why they refused to represent you. Here's the pertinent information:
The ACLU of North Carolina generally does not accept the following types of cases:
Cases against private businesses. The ACLU typically only litigates cases in which there is "state action" -- that is, cases in which government entities, agencies or employees have violated an individual or group's constitutional rights. We do not generally take cases against private businesses or individuals.
(some enlightenment for you).
Lance, would you call a shopping mall a government agency or a private business?
I rest my case.
"North Carolina ACLU will protect the rights of Nazis and Klansmen, but not Nifong supporters".
Not at all surprising considering the extent to which Mr. Nifong and his supporters violated the civil liberties of the three innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players.
"Lance, would you call a shopping mall a government agency or a private business?
I rest my case."
Sideny, you have made no case.
Sid said "Lance, would you call a shopping mall a government agency or a private business?
I rest my case.
Yes, you've rested your case -- with the same specious logic that you've used in your case against Brodhead et al.
Funny how you've isolated "private business" when you should have focused on "STATE ACTION".
The ACLU will take cases against private businesses (like shopping malls) when someone employed by that private business (like a guard or police officer) is acting as the state.
But you knew that.
@ Harr Supporter 4:42 PM 1-17-12... There is little I can argue with here. At his disbarment hearing, Attorney Nifong was well represented by his Attorneys Freedman and Witt and they, unsuccessfully, argued that, at a reasonable time, the inadvertently left out, potentially exculpatory, DNA evidence, was provided to the defense well before any trial and, also, that his pre-trial statements were not intended to harm the accused. The failure of these arguments, before the State Bar, and his subsequent disbarment opened the way for the lawsuits, now pending, against Durham. Crystal, on the other hand, without misconduct either deliberate or negligent, has suffered because of how this was handled and she has not had the resources to fight back.
Kenhyderal: There is little I can argue with here.
I take it then that you agree that the theory that the DPD attempted a deliberate frame is a reasonable explanation of the facts. I wonder if Sidney agrees?
The remainder of your comment is irrelevant to my comment. As you know, my comment was not focused on Nifong. It was focused on the faux DPD investigation. Please don't change the subject.
Why do you believe that the DPD deliberately attempted a frame?
I go with incompetence, at all levels, as far as DPD goes and with negligence on the part of the DA. Negligence, that he admitted to at his disbarment hearing and not with any delibertate attempt to frame the accused. The punishment he received seemed to indicate the, unproven, belief that his actions were either vindictive or self-serving.
Ken:
You realize that incompetence is not a valid defense for Durham against the lawsuit.
Why do you believe that the DPD assigned the most highly publicized sexual assault case to 2 grossly incompetent property crimes investigators? Why did they not assign the case to the specialized sexual assault unit? Why did Gottlieb's and Himan's supervisors not supervise their investigation? Why did the media coverage of a failed investigation not raise any questions?
I find it difficult to believe that everyone was so incredibly stupid. On what basis do you claim that the DPD is staffed at all levels by a collection of absolute morons?
I am willing to consider your hypothesis that Gottlieb, Himan, Clayton, Soucie, Ripberger, Lamb, Hodge, Chalmers, Council, etc. are all grossly incompetent, but I understandably want to see evidence that they are all completely clueless. I am sure you can understand.
Your posts would be more helpful if they contained more than unsupported conclusions. Facts are helpful things.
From my vantage point, all I can go on is what few hard facts, having been stipulated to, are found on-line. I can, however, raise doubt as to the defence theories which, mostly, rely on a false and derogatory characterization of a person I know.
Kenhyderal, if you really knew anything about the case, you would know Defense actions were motivated by Mr. Nifong's determination to prosecute three members of the Lacrosse team although the evidence indicated no crime had happened.
You have yet to demonstrate that the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players or their attorneys orchestrated a campaign to vilify Crystal Mangum. The best you have done is cite a couple of blog posts, one of them made years after the case imploded, and then declare those posts happened because of the Defense attorneys.
Post a Comment