Correspondence for Justice updated 12-27-14

Restatement of purpose

Every now and again it seems as though the readers and commenters of this blog site get derailed about the purpose of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong and its members. Once again, let me put the train back on track to avoid the discourse of distractions and the obstacles of obfuscation… so we can locomotion along the rails to enlightenment.

As we near our four anniversary this coming June, our mission statement and resolve has been steady, uncompromising, and one which follows the light of truth. The fundamental beliefs upon which this organization was founded have been and remain based upon the following principles: (1) former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly persecuted and disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar because of his handing of the Duke Lacrosse case; (2) Mr. Nifong handled the Duke Lacrosse case well within the acceptable standards of a state prosecutor; (3) that Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred due to professional misconduct is an outrage, especially when considering prosecutors Tom Ford (Gregory Taylor and Carletta Alston cases), Bill Wolfe (James Arthur Johnson case), Michael D. Parker (Floyd Brown case), and David Hoke (Alan Gell case), just to name a few. Our group’s focus remains committed to encouraging the NC State Bar to unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mr. Nifong’s license to practice law in the state without restrictions. Although Mr. Nifong has expressed that he never intends to practice law again, it is the contention that his license to practice law was unjustly taken by the Bar, and that it needs to man up and do the right thing by reinstating it.

Members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, I believe, are some of the most courageous people in the state, because they lend their names and their faces to a righteous cause that is widely unpopular with the public because of contamination of the news that is broadcast and published by biased media-types… the big wigs in the upper echelons who determine what stories to follow, which stories to ignore, and what spin to give. Instead of remaining silent in the face of blatant anti-Nifong injustice, like most politicians, media outlets, and many civil rights organizations, members of the Committee speak loudly by their demonstration of courage. There are many ways to put it, but I like the saying attributed to President Abraham Lincoln who stated: “To sin by silence makes cowards of men.” One thing is certain… the members of our group, currently one shy of two dozen, are not cowards.

The Committee is, and always has been an inclusive organization, welcoming brave individuals who coalesce around the principles recited above with respect to former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. No one has been turned down for membership, and dues and/or investment of time or money is not required. All that is required is the heart to seek justice for Mike Nifong, which at its most primal form would be the reinstatement of his law license. Potential members are not vetted or required to provide personal information about themselves, their political leanings, or their ideologies on other topics. Likewise, our group is extremely tolerant of others and we do not discriminate with respect to granting membership.

It is not expected, or even desired that everyone who joins the group hold the same beliefs or opinions on issues other than Mike Nifong’s mistreatment by the state and the media. Gay and lesbians, people of all races and colors, worshippers of all religions as well as atheists, Democrats and even Republicans are all invited to join.

Some commenters are quick to cast some Committee members as homophobes or racists, but I find that these labels are often made without substance. There are people who might not agree with same-sex relationships or who might have a problem with gay and lesbians getting married, but that, at least to my way of thinking, does not categorize them as being homophobes. Personally, I have no problem whatever with gay and lesbian relationships. I have no problem with civil union between couples of the same sex and I do not object to the term “marriage” being used to define such relationships. To my mind marriage is an institution in which two individuals are fully and lovingly committed to one another regardless of their sexes. Not only that, but I believe that the liberal tolerance towards gays and lesbians is growing and gaining greater acceptance.

Hopefully this blog will put issues about homophobia and racism to rest, and the future blogs can be devoted to issues of criminal justice… such as the vendetta prosecutions of Crystal Mangum, the racist pardon policy that the governor’s office has used to deny pardons to Erick Daniels and Shawn Massey, the anti-Nifong discrimination by Duke University against me, and other important issues facing Tar Heelians who believe in the principle of “equal justice for all” instead of those who follow the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” 

Secrecy – the most valued weapon in the ordnance of the Greedy

Secrecy is employed by the greedy to conceal from others their outrageous, insatiable, gluttonous appetite for money and the possessions and power it can purchase. Whenever transactions are made in which pertinent details are omitted or withheld, it is a sure bet that the reason for its concealment is an attempt to shield from view unreasonable and outlandish terms benefiting one or both parties. For any transaction that is legitimate and on the up and up, and void of excessive, over-the-top compensation, there is no need to withhold terms, especially financial, of the agreement.

Transparency in contractual matters is the honorable policy and one which best serves the interests of all. Transparency is the policy by which the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong conducts its business and to which it strictly adheres.

Unlike the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their avaricious attorneys demanded that the terms of their settlement with Duke University be cloaked in secrecy. Carpetbagger attorneys were successful in shaking down Duke University for a total of $60 million for their clients because they imposed upon Duke University a vow of secrecy regarding its financial settlement until the financial transfer had been completed and it was too late. At the crossroads, Duke elected to abide by its agreement with the Carpetbagger attorneys even though adhering to that agreement was in conflict and violation of its agreement with its insurance company and resulted in a breach of contract with its insurers. As a proximate result of withholding terms of its settlement from its insurance company, Duke University forfeited coverage which it might have been entitled had it reached a reasonable agreement.

Due to Duke Lacrosse defendant Reade Seligmann’s attempt to evade paying taxes on his windfall settlement, the Internal Revenue Service slapped a $6.7 million plus tax lien against him, and it was only through this public filing that tax experts were able to accurately calculate the payout that Duke University made to the Duke Lacrosse defendants nearly four years earlier… $20 million per defendant… a $60 million total.

Greed, unfortunately is widespread, and arm in arm is the secrecy that is in place to conceal it. A prime example is the recent dispute between players and owners of the National Football League. The owners of the teams, who are basically nothing more than parasites living off the gridiron gladiators who destroy their bodies and brains in a brutal sport, risk strangling the lucrative enterprise in order to squeeze every last cent they feel that they can. The owners want billions of dollars off the top of $9 billion annual revenue claiming that they need it for “operating expenses.” However, when the players ask to actually “see” the operating expenses, secrecy jumps into the mix and the owners refuse to open their books. The same secrecy employed by attorneys for the Duke Lacrosse defendants (Joseph B. Cheshire V, James Cooney, and Wade Smith).

I would have more respect for the owners of the NFL teams if they just came forward and admitted that they want all of that money because they are greedy. Instead, they expect the football players, the football fans, and the public in general to believe that they are really not greedy… that cost of living expenses, oil problems in Libya, natural disasters, and other expenses which they have no control over, have raised costs of operations to the point that they need all that money in order to barely break even with just a minimal profit. In other words, the NFL owners believe that the American people are idiots. For the most part, Americans aren’t idiots… they’re just apathetic. They know the owners are in it, not for the love of the game or to provide family entertainment… but because they’re greedy. That, greed, is why they do not invest any of their excessive profits in supporting the wounded and injured players after they retire or are forced by injury to retire. The owners care not a whit about the Alzheimer’s or other debilitating brain damage that the players suffer. The owners will continue to demand as much money as they can from the hardworking ticket buying fans. And the owners will continue to extort from cities taxpayer money to build palatial stadiums with luxurious skyboxes and offices which deprives cities of revenue for the services and programs most in need to help the poor and disenfranchised.

Of all of the teams in the NFL, the current world champions, the Green Bay Packers, have the best model… a team that is not owned by one person or one family in the private sector, but by a community. I believe that all sports teams should be owned by municipalities, and that profits should be used to help support its citizens through social programs and help its fans by providing tickets at reasonable prices.

The owners should open their books, but they won’t because they have something to hide… proof of their greed. Just as in the Duke Lacrosse case, when Attorney Jim Cooney refused to divulge the amount of the settlement payment given to the Duke Lacrosse defendants by the university, he wanted to hide from the public proof of the greed of the Carpetbagger families and their attorneys. Shameful.

Transparency is the answer in all issues… whether you’re talking about legal settlements, arbitration in professional sports, or contracts involving the purchase of an automobile through financing by the automaker. 


Below is a link to Part 11 of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper.” Be sure to view the Commentary that follows the strip which can be accessed by clicking the upper left blue button. We welcome comments with an e-mail link that is present at the conclusion of the Flash commentary.

LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc157.htm

Annual Justice System Thanksgiving blessings

During the past twelve months, Tar Heelians have had few successes in the criminal justice system tally, but the few we have had have been profoundly significant. Without doubt, our number one blessing for which we should all be thankful is the release from a life sentence and exoneration from a murder conviction of Gregory Flint Taylor. Taylor, you will recall, was maliciously and willfully convicted for the 1991 murder of Jacquetta Thomas in Raleigh. Prosecutor Tom Ford managed to win a conviction against Taylor despite 1) lack of physical evidence tying Taylor to the crime; 2) the use of perjured testimony from unreliable and compromised witnesses; and 3) hocus-pocus forensics by the SBI lab. With full knowledge that Taylor was innocent of the crime, Prosecutor Ford prosecuted Taylor in a vendetta against Taylor who refused to falsely implicate Johnny Beck, a black man who was the primary target of Ford in this crime. We are all grateful that Taylor, though wrongfully incarcerated for seventeen years, was finally freed through the efforts of advocates for the wrongly convicted.

Secondly, all Tar Heelians should be thankful for the work of the NC Center for Actual Innocence for its significant contributions in winning the freedom of Greg Taylor. We are fortunate to have Christine Mumma, its director and co-founder, along with co-founder retired Judge I. Beverly Lake, heading this august group.

Third, we can also be thankful for work done by Duke law professor James Coleman on behalf of the wrongly convicted and incarcerated. Heading a program at Duke University School of Law, it has met with successes during the past year, as well.

Fourth, we can all be thankful for the exposure of the unfair and unethical practices employed by NC prosecutors who manipulated the shoddy SBI lab results that were instrumental in obtaining hocus-pocus “win-at-all-cost” convictions. Hopefully, revelations about these unfair practices which have been in play for decades will present currently imprisoned innocents with keys to freedom from their unjust confinement.

Fifth, we should be thankful for the courageous members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, who lend their names and faces to the worthy cause of seeking justice for Mike Nifong… justice being the unilateral and unconditional reinstatement of his license to practice law in North Carolina without restrictions.

Finally, all North Carolinians can be thankful for Mike Nifong who represents the ideals of a prosecutorial “Minister of Justice.” In the Duke Lacrosse case, Nifong placed his dedication and determination to pursue justice above the real and imminent threat of losing his incumbency bid to be elected as Durham district attorney. He eschewed the warnings and pressures of prosecuting the case by acting independently to pursue justice against three defendants deemed by many – including media-types – to be of Class and Color too powerful, prestigious, privileged, and prominent to be convicted. And because Mike Nifong adhered to the principle of “equal justice for all,” he, like Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett (who defied England’s King Henry II) suffered the consequences by being subjected to singular and draconian retribution by the state of North Carolina, and crucifixion in the biased mainstream media.

We should all give thanks fo the above. Hopefully by the time next Thanksgiving rolls around, we will have more criminal justice victories under our belt to celebrate.

I would like to thank all of those who have contributed comments to this blog regardless of their positions, all who read this blog, and all who are advocates for justice in North Carolina. Your participation is what makes this blog the success it is and contributes to making justice in the state a reality and not just a mirage. I am hoping that you all enjoy the presence of family and friends during this special holiday, and that after a hearty meal of turkey, stuffing, cranberries and all of the trimmings you are able to push away from the dinner table without being uncomfortably stuffed.

Important announcements and information – a wild ride is ahead

There are important and exciting changes and events coming soon on the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong’s website: www.justice4nifong.com. First of all, you will notice that there will be much more in the way of audio available. It will be present on various web pages, and not limited to the Multi-media section. Audio will also be presented on videos, especially animated ones such as the second preview trailer for the upcoming educational comic strip, “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper. A link to it will be provided in this blog.

There will also be more animations and videos added to the website, as time permits. A series of previews with variations announcing the upcoming Episode V of “Super-Duper” are in the works and will be added as well. A complete collection of them will be found on You Tube.

To celebrate the upcoming New Year, Episode V will have its first installment posted online on our website on 2011’s first Sunday, January 2nd. Successive episodes will be posted each following Sunday. This comic strip episode is much larger than previous episodes… larger than the previous four combined. Not only that, but it will be more educational, and, of course, hilarious. Many familiar North Carolina celebs will be featured in cameo guest spots, especially those in the media. The strip will also feature one of this blog’s commenters in an extended role.

Since switching formats for the websites many links are not properly established, and I apologize for that. I will try to get them up and running as soon as possible.

A section of which I am extremely proud is Investigative Reports. Currently, the report about MSNBC’s Senior Legal Analyst Susan Filan’s blatantly libelous online statement is featured. These reports contain documents and other forms of evidence to support premises presented. There are two upcoming reports that are in the pipeline that you will not want to miss. One is an extended report about the discrimination against me by Duke University in April 2010. Discrimination was based solely on the fact that Duke did not approve of my beliefs and thoughts… specifically, after attending an event open to the public, I was kicked off campus because I am a supporter of justice for Mike Nifong. Instead of complying with principles of decency and restorative justice, the university tried to defend its deplorable actions. This Investigative Report will include an audio recording of between the security guard and myself (along with a transcript) that is the crux of this horrendous incident. And there are plenty of supporting documents as well that are creatively displayed on the site.

Another upcoming topic for the Investigative Report, and a case about which much of this website and blog will be devoted to is about the injustice of a man serving time in jail who was wrongly convicted of murder. He was also convicted and received the death penalty for the deaths of two other individuals… deaths which should have never been considered as premeditated or worthy of the death penalty. Deaths in those cases should have been considered as self-defense and manslaughter. It will be very apparent after viewing that Investigative Report why the Tar Heel state has earned its reputation for meting out “selective justice based on Class and Color.”

So, hang on to you i-Pad, laptop, or desktop, because we’re in for a wild ride beginning in the next couple of days.

LINK: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0VEljQPwSI

Protection against the consequences of free speech and opinion are not guaranteed

One of the tenets upon which our country was founded, and upon which we most highly cherish, is the freedom of speech… the right to express one’s opinion. We, Americans, may surely speak our minds on any number of issues without fear of incarceration or persecution by the government, but we must deal with the consequences of our expression. Neither the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution protects citizens from any retaliation that may be lodged against someone for speaking their mind, expressing their beliefs, or, unfortunately, even having an opinion. Because potential retribution looms for whoever possesses or subscribes to an unpopular position on a controversial topic, it tends to mute contrary expression and/or public dialog on that particular subject. Bottom line is that the potential for suffering consequences for certain thoughts and opinions are routinely kept in check out of fear of being subjected to backlash.

This matter came to the nation’s awareness recently when NPR (National Public Radio) commentator Juan Williams stated during an interview with Fox News that he was uncomfortable whenever he saw Muslims dressed in their traditional garb on airplanes. NPR executives viewed this comment as being unethical and undermining his credibility. Personally, I do not share the same phobia as Mr. Williams regarding Muslims traveling by air, and I did not find his remarks to be offensive. He was merely stating an opinion of his, which I felt had no relevance to his credibility. NPR should not have focused on this benign, but candid expression of Mr. Williams. Certainly, he should not have been fired… at least in my opinion.

Fear of retaliation for taking a position is very real in this country and can be best exemplified by the Nifong-phobia. There is no doubt in my mind that the majority of intelligent and sensible people in North Carolina are of the opinion that Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly disbarred (especially in consideration that he is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933). However, the play given to the topic by the mainstream media and the punitive, draconian, and irrational treatment of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong by the Attorney General’s Office and other state agencies, makes it clear to the well-informed that to take a side with Mr. Nifong is to possibly invite serious and catastrophic results… the most feared being loss of employment. There are many attorneys who are of the opinion that Mr. Nifong was unjustly disbarred, but they are not going to publicly say so because they realize to do so would put their license to practice law in serious jeopardy by the unregulated and out of control State Bar. Civil rights leaders and religious leaders in their pulpits avoid taking on the injustice to Mr. Nifong out of fear of losing financing and donations, support, and/or tithe.

What sets aside the Mike Nifong issue from many others in the arena of public discourse is the fact that the media has defined the debate by taking a position and pushing it on the public. This drive to destroy Mr. Nifong was spearheaded by Rae Evans, mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans. She held an executive position with CBS News for more than a decade, but this has never been disclosed during her appearances on CBS’s “60 Minutes” program, and the media has been hush-hush on the topic, as well. The PR and media blitz by the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse families have produced a jihad against Mr. Nifong that is complete and without comparison. So successful has the media been in defining what opinions and expressions about Mr. Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case are acceptable, and what positions carry untold risks, that the state’s director of the American Civil Liberties Union is afraid to express her opinion on the topic. A couple of years ago at a public debate on freedom of speech at NCSU, I asked the ACLU’s Katy Parker, to opine in writing about Mr. Nifong’s disbarment, specifically asking if his actions were as egregious as other prosecutors who had not been disbarred. She was aware that I was a supporter of Mr. Nifong, and when I handed her the questionnaire, I asked her if she was going to fill it out. She responded, “It depends on the questions.” Evidently, she did not like the questions as she did not respond (I even enclosed a self-addressed stamped envelope). But neither did the three other law school professors at event to whom I personally gave the questionnaire.

This is very telling, because an agency like the ACLU which is willing to protect the civil and constitutional rights of Nazis and Ku Klux Klanners is afraid to go up against the powerful Carpetbaggers by expressing its opinions about Mr. Nifong’s disbarment. Mr. Nifong’s unjust disbarment is a topic that is even off-limits at law schools. Law professors, even with tenure, are unwilling to breach the topic in a public forum. It is evident why the subject of Mr. Nifong is institutionally and universally taboo… because Mike Nifong’s disbarment was selective and unjust. This is a conclusion that anyone using a modicum of rational thought and knowledge of the issue would reach.

Elected public officials, who are compromised by their lust for public approval, display absolutely no courage when it comes to taking a public stand on the issue of Mike Nifong’s disbarment. Although the First Amendment protects their right to express an opinion on the subject, they undoubtedly act like politicians by cloaking their unwillingness to discuss the issue by pleading that the protocol in place restricts their ability to comment.

The heat surrounding the topic of Mike Nifong’s disbarment is so high that even having a view that is supportive of Mr. Nifong can lead to mistreatment. It happened to me at Duke University School of Law in April 14, 2010, when I attended an event which was open to the public. I was kicked off the campus, for no reason other than being a supporter of justice for Mr. Nifong. The attack against me by Duke was premeditated, malicious, and unwarranted, and illustrates the depth of contempt that has been generated by the media and the state against Mr. Nifong and his supporters. A university, especially one of Duke’s stature - not to mention that it is law school, should be a beacon for independent thought, opinion, and ideas. Debate on differing views should be welcome in such an academic environment. I’m sure that, generally speaking, it is on the Duke campus. But, again, when it comes to the topic of Mr. Nifong, open expression or even privately held opinion supportive of Mr. Nifong is squelched. Because I believe that Mr. Nifong was selectively and unjustly disbarred I was nearly arrested.

Tar Heelians, especially in Durham, know the score and are timid when it comes to speaking out on behalf of Mike Nifong. They realize that doing so could cost them a promotion, opportunity, or even their jobs and livelihood. The vindictive reach of the Carpetbagger Jihad is long, strong, and venomous. That is what makes members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong special. Each individual member has the conviction, and courage to back it up, to lend his/her name and face to the cause of obtaining justice for Mr. Nifong. Justice for Mike Nifong can be defined by action on part of the North Carolina State Bar to unilaterally and unconditionally reinstate Mike Nifong’s license to practice law in the state without restrictions. And that is the goal of our committee, which has been in existence since June 2008.

Like Juan Williams, I have experienced backlash because of my position in support of Mr. Nifong… discrimination against me and my near-arrest on the Duke University campus in April 2010, being one of the more recent. Because of the fear of retaliation, the Powers-That-Be, especially with the assistance of the media, will continue to determine what opinions the citizens of this state are considered acceptable to harbor and/or express. For those who elect to give an opinion that is not held in the mainstream, brace yourself and prepare to suffer retribution. Keep in mind that expression of opinion is free, but you oft times will end up paying the consequences for doing so.

Duke could learn a thing or two from York Properties

The blog that was posted on October 16, 2010, has been removed because it has caused grief to someone who I love very much. She asked me not to post the blog on the subject, but I thought that I could successfully navigate through the topic without causing distress for her, but that was not the case. I took much caution in writing the article not to cause offense, but I did, and for that I am truly sorry, and I offer her my deepest apology.

Finally, I would like to mention that I believe that the discrimination against the lesbian couple at Cameron Village was despicable, and in no way did I intend to minimize its egregious nature when writing the blog.

Going along with public opinion can lead to disastrous results… just ask the Carolina Panthers

The National Football League team Carolina Panthers have gotten off to a dismal 0-3 start this year, in large measure due to significant deficiencies in a key player position, quarterback. Earlier in the year, it jettisoned the seasoned veteran QB starter of previous seasons Jake Delhomme, where an injury currently prevents him from competing. Matt Moore was anointed as starter at quarterback at the beginning of the season. Stepping in as a backup during last season, Moore showed flashes of competence, and at times even played extremely well. The franchise decision makers settled on Jimmy Clausen, a rookie fresh from Notre Dame University as Moore’s backup. After the first two games ended in the L column, Moore was pulled and his backup Clausen was given the starting nod for game number three. Unfortunately, the outcome was no different than before.

Meanwhile, in Philadelphia, the Eagles are riding a 2-1 record, in large measure due to the arm and legs of its QB Michael Vick. After a forced 18 month hiatus, imposed by the justice system because of his role in a dog-fighting enterprise, Michael Vick was slated as a backup quarterback to the less experienced starter Kevin Kolb (only two previous pro starts). When Kolb was knocked out of the game in the second quarter, Vick nearly brought the Eagles a come from behind victory. Vick’s play in the second game of the season (while Kolb sat out due to a concussion), not only garnered a victory for the Eagles, but earned him the starting position. In game three, the Eagles handily prevailed with Vick posting a three touchdown passing game.

What makes Michael Vick so valuable is his ability to escape from the pocket and eat up big chunks of yardage. This particular talent opens up passing opportunities which would not be available to pure pocket passers and QBs slow of foot. Vick is also gifted with a powerful and accurate throwing arm. However one of his greatest assets might just be his many years of league experience in which he as faced many defenses, game situations, and pressures.

Now, I do not profess to be a sports fanatic, or even an aficionado. So, how, you may wonder, does this discussion relate to the usual topics of discussion on this blog? Simple. It explains how going along with public opinion does not always result in a positive outcome. In this case specifically, Michael Vick could easily have been on the Carolina Panther roster. He could have been designated as the starter which he deserved to be, or brought in off the bench to dig the Panthers out of a hole in trying to secure a come from behind victory. And after his release from prison, Vick was available to any NFL team for a song. But they all passed on him… even the Oakland Raiders. Teams that desperately were in need of a quarterback, did not even give Vick an opportunity. None, that is, except the Philadelphia Eagles. Let’s face it, Vick is no slouch at the position, and is, in fact, a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame in Canton.

Why did Carolina, Oakland, and other teams in dire need of talent in the most important position in the game, willing to overlook Michael Vick? It was certainly not because he lacked talent. There was a generalized view that because of his dog-fighting past Vick was a pariah intended to be ostracized. Owners of football teams were wary of P.E.T.A. and the public outcry against Vick’s past involvement with the promotion and involvement in dog-fighting, and they silently decided amongst themselves to basically blacklist Vick from the game and to penalize him by preventing him from making a living by playing the game he loved. Everyone, including the Carolina Panthers, was on board… except for the Philadelphia Eagles. Now the bigwigs and owners of the Carolina Panthers are probably kicking themselves in the rear end for letting the golden opportunity of having a talented, quality, exciting quarterback like Michael Vick end up with the Eagles when it was well within their grasp. And if they are not kicking themselves, they should be as they languish in their division’s cellar.

Believe it or not, I do like dogs… although I am more of a cat person. Also, I detest dog-fighting for sport… and other sports which pit animals against one another in brutal battles to the death. I also believe that Michael Vick’s punishment was excessive because of his celebrity, however, to his credit, he handled it with much dignity. He served the time for the crime with which he was convicted, and he should have been free to pursue his career without the animosity and hostility to which he was subjected. And, yes, the Carolina Panthers, with its quarterback uncertainties, should have leapt at the chance to acquire him when he first hit the market. But bowing to media and public opinion and sentiment, Carolina decided to go along with the other teams and freeze Vick out of the league… which was where his career was headed when Vick finally received a chance with the Eagles.

Had Carolina Panther owners had the courage to do the right thing and bring Vick on board early on, it would have been to their benefit. Instead, they folded to pressures of public opinion and passed on him, despite knowledge that he could have undoubtedly been a great addition to the team. Now the Panthers are hurting at the quarterback position and they have no one to blame but themselves. Other teams, like the Oakland Raiders, are in the same boat. But going along with public opinion is safe, and does not require courage.

That is why the vast majority of individuals, who have been spoon-fed gobs of Carpetbagger Jihad anti-Nifong propaganda succumb to the Jedi mind-tricks of the media and espouse vitriolic sentiment against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. They feel the security in being among the vast majority of people in their beliefs. Plus, it requires no courage to side with the majority and those perceived to be in power.

Members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong are vastly outnumbered in their support of justice for Mike Nifong… and to acknowledge their position which is markedly in the minority, takes a tremendous amount of courage. And courage has been tested, as I was nearly arrested on the Duke University campus earlier this year solely because of my support for Mike Nifong. And no one represents courage like Mike Nifong, who weathered the public sentiment whipped up against him by the biased media storm, as he carried forth with his prosecution in the Duke Lacrosse case. (The North Carolina State Bar had to intervene with its trumped up ethics charges in order to get Nifong off the case, the first step in getting charges dropped against the three Duke lacrosse lads from families of wealth, status, and privilege.)

Mike Nifong mustered up the courage to go against prevailing wishes of the state and media-generated sentiment of the public when he pursued the charges against the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong mustered up courage to support justice for Mike Nifong against overwhelming anti-Nifong public opinion. Taking an unpopular stand did not, and probably will not, accrue to the benefit of Mr. Nifong or his supporters in the near term. However, the same cannot be said for the Carolina Panthers. Had the Panther owners shown some guts to go against the flow of the opinions held by the public and NFL, they would undoubtedly have a better record and be in contention for making the playoffs.

In life, people are often presented with opportunities to go with the flow or swim upstream against the tide. Which direction you go is not the issue of importance. Choosing to take the right path, even when it is in the face of a hurricane, is the right thing to do. Just keep in mind that the greater the headwinds, the more courage will be required.

Angela Garcia-Lamarca wastes taxpayer dollars by monitoring Crystal Mangum

Durham Assistant District Attorney Angela Garcia-Lamarca is plundering the cash-strapped coffers of Durham County, wasting taxpayer money by electronically monitoring Crystal Mangum, the victim in the Duke Lacrosse case. Ms. Garcia-Lamarca is clinging onto the house arrest of Ms. Mangum as it represents her last pitiful bargaining chip in an effort to eek out a plea deal. However, with members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong’s support, it is highly unlikely that Ms. Mangum will plead guilty to trumped up charges when she is, in fact, not guilty. The travesty that befell James Arthur Johnson is not likely to be repeated in this case.

As has been pointed out previously, the trumped up charges against Ms. Mangum (attempted first degree murder, first degree arson, injury to personal property, identity theft, communicating threats, assault and battery, etc.) were the first part of the Carpetbagger Jihad’s agenda to have Ms. Mangum serve a sentence without being convicted of a crime. This bogus case brought by Garcia-Lamarca against Ms. Mangum was intended to be a plea-bargain case from the get-go, and was never intended to see the light of a courtroom with a seated jury.

The angelic bail bondsmen responsible for her release from the Durham County Detention Center, enabled members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong to have access to Ms. Mangum, which allowed the truth to be known… specifically, that she had no prior knowledge or involvement in the clothes set afire in the bathtub. Another truth revealed publicly at her press conference on June 30, 2010, is that Ms. Mangum had no prior knowledge or involvement in the vandalism to a car owned by her ex-boyfriend. In other words, someone other than Ms. Mangum and her children put clothes in the bathtub and set them on fire. The only other possible suspects would be either Ms. Mangum’s ex-boyfriend or member(s) of the Durham Police Department.

It is quite curious that the police reports state an officer allegedly saw Ms. Mangum putting clothes in the bathtub, but that no officer actually witnessed Ms. Mangum setting fire to the clothing items. The case regarding the alleged vandalism to the car is just as murky, if not more so. These are bogus, trumped up charges without credible evidence to support them. And is the assistant district attorney going to force Durham’s finest to commit perjury in order to exact some vendetta on behalf of Carpetbaggers who are presently pursuing a $30 million lawsuit against the cash-strapped Bull city? All rationale and logic cry out for this charade of charges against Ms. Mangum to be dropped immediately and for the city to proceed to work towards restorative justice in an attempt to make Ms. Mangum restored to her position prior to her February 17th arrest.

Since the mid-May release of Ms. Mangum from the detention center, Ms. Mangum has been under house arrest and electronically monitored. This is not a free service, but costs the county twelve dollars ($12.00) per day to maintain. That amounts to $360.00 per month of taxpayer money going down the drain… and for what? Ms. Mangum is not a flight risk and is not a threat to society. In addition, the diversion of attention towards Ms. Mangum deprives those who are really in need of the service.

Now Angela Garcia-Lamarca is willing to stretch out the period of the electronic monitoring of Ms. Mangum over years, if necessary. James Arthur Johnson, for example, was incarcerated 39 months before his trial could no longer be delayed by Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe (at which time he called in a special prosecutor, because, like Garcia-Lamarca, he had no case). What makes this such an outrage is that individuals convicted of DWI are limited by law to 60 days of electronic monitoring. I would like to know who is more deserving of long-term electronic monitoring, Ms. Mangum (a victim of domestic violence), or a person convicted of multiple DWIs?

If there was a reason for monitoring Ms. Mangum, I would not object to the anklet. But Ms. Mangum is definitely no flight risk. She was born in Durham and lived most of her life in Durham, the exception being the years she served in the U.S. Navy. She has no transportation, she does not have the financial wherewithal to leave the area or establish herself elsewhere. And, she is a mother with three children which would make flight impossible.

Now, this is just my opinion, and it is possible that someone might have a reasonable explanation in support of Ms. Mangum being electronically monitored 24/7. If someone is able to provide me with what I consider to be a logical reason for Durham County monitoring Crystal Mangum, then I will award that person with one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) in cold hard cash. This offer is opened to anyone, including Angela Garcia-Lamarca and Judge Claude Allen. However, in the unlikely event I determine that someone is deserving of the monetary award, its payment will be made only after James Arthur Johnson receives his $20,000.00 reward for solving the murder of Brittany Willis.

I believe that electronic monitoring has its place in society, but like most everything, it can be subjected to abuse. Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca’s use of it against Ms. Mangum is an example of that abuse at its worst… using it when it is not warranted and for punitive and malicious purposes. And not only that, but it is a prime example of wasting taxpayer money.

A bit of relief for Crystal Mangum in court

On Monday, July 12, 2010, Ms. Mangum attended court for a hearing in which she had the condition for house arrest removed, yet she remained under electronic surveillance. She is now free to leave the small confines of her residence and its porch, but is limited with respect to the time she is free, as she is under curfew from 5:00 pm until 8:00 am. These limits, which are supposed to currently in place, were set by individuals from the Pre-trial Jail Diversion program, specifically Ms. Christie Long. Attempts to reach her for an explanation have been unsuccessful. Wake County Superior Court Judge Michael Morgan gave the Pre-trial staff the discretion of parameters of her monitoring, including hours of curfew.

Judge Morgan was brought into the hearing when Judge Kenneth Titus, for reasons unknown, did not make an appearance. He seemed to be relatively unfamiliar with the case, which is to be expected, and was not specific about the monitoring. On both occasions when Ms. Mangum attempted to address the court, Judge Morgan inexplicably denied her the opportunity, telling her instead to confer with her counsel, who would then communicate with him.

Prosecutor Angela Garcia-Lamarca argued that Crystal Mangum’s three children were victim’s of Ms. Mangum because she set clothes on fire in the bathtub while they were in the house… a charge that Ms. Mangum has steadily denied. The judge appeared to side with Ms. Garcia-Lamarca by conceding to her request that the children’s visits with their mother are supervised.

At the trial’s end, Public Defender Clayton Jones requested that he be removed as attorney of record for Crystal Mangum. He cited meddling by members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong as the reason, stating that it interfered with his ability to adequately represent his client. Judge Morgan granted this request, and the high ranking officer in the Public Defender’s Office is believed to be seeking other counsel for Ms. Mangum.

Well attended by the media, the hearing got off to a rather auspicious start when the location of the hearing was shifted from court to court, and it was learned that the judge who had scheduled the hearing a week earlier would not be sitting on the bench.

All in all, Ms. Mangum landed on the positive side of the ledger, having been removed from the stringent conditions of house arrest, and being to enjoy periods of unsupervised freedom. The process of obtaining justice for Ms. Mangum has been like peeling an onion… removing one layer at a time. Next on the agenda for Ms. Mangum’s justice is working to do away with all monitoring of Ms. Mangum. This monitoring is solely punitive, of no beneficial value to Ms. Mangum or the state, and is an unnecessary financial burden to the taxpayers. Social services or Child Protective Services should restore unbridled visitation rights of Ms. Mangum with her children without much ado.

Little by little the prosecution in this flawed and trumped up case is being pushed to the brink. Any leverage it had to force Ms. Mangum to accept a plea deal has been drastically whittled to the size of a toothpick. One thing is certain, and that is that what happened to James Arthur Johnson under the watch of the NAACP, will not happen to Ms. Mangum. The only question is whether the prosecutor will use common sense and take the initiative to drop all charges, or proceed naked into the blades of a whirlwind, fueled by the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong. Pursuing the later course will put many of Durham’s Finest on the line and in the spotlight… facing the possibility of committing perjury in order to keep in lockstep with the Carpetbagger Jihad’s Plan of Retribution. The question… is it worth it? I don’t think so.

A link is provided below to take you to our website’s news directory. Click on the button that reads, “Posted: July 14, 2010” to see detailed examples of how the prosecution’s case falls apart.

LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/btnnews/btnnews.htm

Radio Host Tara Servatius discusses Crystal Mangum, Mike Nifong, and the Committee

On Thursday, July 8, 2010, Tara Servatius, host of the Charlotte, North Carolina’s conservative talk show bearing her name, was gracious enough to interview the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong’s Lay Advocate Sidney B. Harr. The interview, which lasted nearly eight minutes, covered a range of topics from the Duke Lacrosse case to the current criminal charges that Crystal Mangum faces. Although I am unfamiliar with the show’s format, I believe that a longer interview session, with questions from callers, would have made for an extremely interesting and informative program.

This is not the first time Harr has given an interview on a radio talk show. Nearly a year ago he, as well as Committee member and co-founder Victoria Peterson each gave interviews on Raleigh’s conservative equivalent, WPTF. Although the appearances lasted about an hour, actual air time sans commercials, news, weather, and traffic more closely approximated 25 minutes. Although Ms. Peterson’s interview was outstanding, Harr’s performance on WPTF was less than stellar. He had been chomping at the bit to return to discuss other aspects of the Duke Lacrosse case and Mike Nifong’s disbarment, but was told that the only interview the station would consider giving in the future would be to Mr. Nifong, himself.

The interviews with WPTF’s Bill LuMaye Show covered a lot of ground, however there are so many facets to the Duke Lacrosse case that an entire show on the topic could be fit into a weekly schedule. Certainly, the unfair accusations against Ms. Mangum that occurred during an incident the night of February 17, 2010, should be extensively explored. However, this seems to be a topic that the media is not anxious to dissect, which is understandable in light of the fact that she is once again a victim. The Carpetbagger-driven media was extremely successful in transforming Ms. Mangum from a victim to a villain in the Duke Lacrosse case. It has a much more challenging row to hoe in demonizing Ms. Mangum, who is obviously a victim in this situation in which charges were lodged against her as payback for her accusations in the Duke Lacrosse case.

I would ask WPTF news director Rick Martinez to reconsider having me or other members of our Committee discuss Duke Lacrosse related topics on the Bill LuMaye Show. One thing about our organization is that it is made up of a diverse group of individuals with differing viewpoints, various political philosophies, temperaments which cover the gamut, and different methods to approach solving an issue. Each member speaks for himself/herself only, and not for the group as a whole, as reaching consensus on most issues is not realistic. Some commenters to this blog are quick to point out that “there’s dissention in the ranks.” Well there is dissention in all groups to some extent, but we feel that differences of opinion help make our group stronger. The one point in which we all find common ground, however, is that former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar. Furthermore, our group’s common goal is to see that Mr. Nifong’s license to practice law in North Carolina is unilaterally and unconditionally reinstated.

We welcome a seat at any media table, radio or television, liberal or conservative, to discuss the important issues related to the criminal justice system in North Carolina, and the Duke Lacrosse case. Hopefully the July 8th phone interview with Ms. Servatius will not be the last with members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong.

A link is provided below to our website’s Multi-media page. Click on the button marked “The Tara Servatius Show” to access the most recent interview.
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/mmedia/mmedia.htm

Lessons learned from James Arthur Johnson

James Arthur Johnson served a sentence of 39 months in jail. Because Special Prosecutor W. David McFadyen, Judge Milton Fitch and others applied sufficient pressure, Johnson accepted an Alford plea to a “misprision of felony” charge. Despite pleading guilty to the charge, Johnson was not technically or legally guilty of the charge. The misprision charge is rarely employed by the prosecution for a person who withholds his/her knowledge of a crime. James Arthur Johnson did not withhold knowledge of a crime because he was the one who told police the true identity of the person he believed to be responsible. The prosecutors were quick to point out that Mr. Johnson waited three days before going to the police with the evidence, but the charge of misprision of felony does not specify a time limit. Johnson didn’t wait three years, three months, or even three weeks before going to the police with his knowledge of the crime, yet he spent more than three years in jail because he did not go to the police within three hours or so of learning about the crime.

The plea deal in Johnson’s case is very chilling, because the misprision of felony can be leveled against anyone who does not report knowledge of a crime immediately. Most people want to at least think about the consequences to themselves and their families if they go to the police with information of a crime. As things stand with the James Arthur Johnson plea deal, as the clock ticks, people will be less inclined to come forward to help solve a crime out of fear of being incarcerated for misprision of felony… especially people of color and in the lower socio-economic strata.

Wilson Prosecutor Bill Wolfe had full knowledge that James Arthur Johnson was not involved in the crimes against Brittany Willis, but because the confessed killer was an African American male, Wolfe transferred his hostility of the killer to all African American men. Wolfe wanted to punish Johnson because he was an African American, not because he felt he had any involvement in the crime. And, Wolfe, along with Wilson District Attorney Howard S. Boney Jr. were able to obtain an unreachable bail and drag out pre-trial proceedings for 39 months before a trial could no longer be delayed. Wolfe never had a case against Johnson, as the only witness, the confessed killer, later admitted he implicated Johnson out of anger because he had “snitched” on him. That didn’t deter Wolfe, as he lined up two other “eyewitnesses,” both with connections with the Wilson Police Department. However, when Reverend William Barber of the NAACP took interest in the case, the increased scrutiny forced Wolfe to silently jettison his witnesses.

Up until the day of the trial, Wolfe tried to wrangle a plea deal out of Johnson, who had languished in jail more than three years. Johnson refused, and in calling the prosecution’s bluff, the Wolfe and Boney folded like an accordion and announced they were turning the case over to a special prosecutor so there would be no doubt about the fairness of the proceedings.

The truth is that Wolfe, after releasing his two phony witnesses, had no plan of taking his case to trial because he had no case. All his marbles were on Johnson agreeing to a plea deal, which, fortunately, did not happen. However, because Johnson had stated during his initial interview with police investigators that he had helped wipe fingerprints off the victim's car (an event that had no bearing on the confession of the admitted killer), Forsyth Prosecutor Belinda Foster was forced to charge Johnson with “accessory after the fact” while dropping charges of murder, rape, kidnapping, and armed robbery against him. It was the threat of being convicted on the “accessory” charge (though remote) and the possibility of being sentenced to more jail time, along with unbearable pressure from others that made Johnson accept the Alford plea. The Alford plea allows the defendant to maintain his/her innocence while forcing him/her to admit that the prosecution has enough evidence to prevail in obtaining a conviction.

Like James Arthur Johnson unjustly served a sentence of 39 months without being convicted of a crime, it was the intent of the Durham prosecution, under Assistant District Attorney Angela Garcia-Lamarca, to have Crystal Gail Mangum serve a two year sentence… minimum. That was the first plea deal the prosecution made after Ms. Mangum’s arrest on charges which included felony attempted first degree murder, and felony first degree arson. The prosecution never had any intention of taking the case against Ms. Mangum to trial. Their intent was to follow the pattern of Bill Wolfe, which is: 1) levy a serious charge (felony attempted first degree murder); 2) use the charge to bolster a high bail ($ 1 million); 3) have the prosecution (which controls the pace of court proceedings) move at a snail’s pace; and 4) after sufficient time has been deemed to have been served, offer a plea deal in exchange for “time served.” This was the way things were supposed to go.

Unexpectedly, after Mangum had served 90 days behind bars, angelic bail bondsmen with courage, kindness, and generosity, satisfied the bond needed to release her from the Durham Detention Center, although a condition of her release was that she be placed under house arrest. The house arrest is the last vestige of leverage the prosecutors have on forcing Ms. Mangum to accept a plea deal, and so they offered it to Ms. Mangum in order to extricate themselves from the sticky mess that they had gotten into. The prosecution is not now, and has never been preparing to take this case to trial. It was a plea deal from the beginning, and the District Attorney’s office was counting on the other state employees from the Public Defender’s office, to encourage Ms. Mangum to accept a plea deal.

Again, unexpectedly, members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong enveloped Ms. Mangum in their protective arms, and encouraged her not to plead guilty for a crime that she did not commit. Ms. Mangum needs to be restored, as best as possible, to the same condition that she was on the day of her arrest: living independently and supporting her three children in an apartment, employed full-time, and taking a full load in a graduate program at NCCU where she is pursuing a Master’s Degree in psychology. The Durham Police Department and Durham District Attorney’s office have a duty to restore in Crystal and her children faith in law enforcement, so that when the need arises they can feel comfort in calling 9-1-1 instead of consternation.

James Arthur Johnson pleaded guilty to a crime he did not commit. We, members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, do not want history to repeat in Crystal Mangum’s case.

Link follows to News & Observer article about Ms. Mangum and her attorney:
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/07/08/570257/crystal-mangums-attorney-quits.html

Durham Community idle and silent when it comes to Crystal Mangum

As a result of the events the night of February 17, 2010, Crystal Mangum had been charged with attempted first degree murder, without credible evidence to back it up. Of course, the prosecution under Assistant District Attorney Angela Garcia-Lamarca never planned on bringing that charge to trial. Ms. Mangum was given that serious charge at the time of her arrest for the purpose of allowing the media to “bad-mouth” the so-called Duke Lacrosse accuser, but more importantly to justify a high bail.

Also as a result of the February 17th incident, Crystal Mangum had been charged with felony first degree arson, again without any credible evidence. The prosecution-media’s story has been that Crystal set clothes on fire in the bathtub in the presence of the police, and was arrested at that time. Also, it is maintained by the police that as soon as the fire was discovered, a call was placed to the fire department. However, the time of arrest preceded the call from the police to the Durham Fire Department by fourteen minutes. Another report has a police officer seeing Crystal Mangum carrying clothes into the bathroom. The prosecution-media story never really specified the number of clothes burned… one report stated a “bathtub full” and another stated a “pile of clothes.” Furthermore, the definition of arson requires that a structure or building be burned, yet in reports and media articles there is no mention of any flame damage to Crystal Mangum’s apartment. Even information about the smoke detector is muddled.

The February 17th incident resulted in Crystal being accused of vandalizing her ex-boyfriend’s car, but there is no credible evidence to support this accusation. When, for example did the damage take place? And what could be the motive for Ms. Mangum to shatter the windshield and deflate the tires? Was there a witness to the destruction of the car, which had been used earlier in the day to transport Crystal home from the hospital’s emergency room where she was treated for a headache?

The felony identity theft charge was based on what? Ms. Mangum, aware of the notoriety garnered by her involvement in the Duke Lacrosse case, admitted she did not want her true identity to be known due to prejudicial and adverse treatment that might follow… which prophetically is exactly what transpired. The identity theft charge is a serious one and is not applicable when a person merely gives authorities the wrong first name.

As Ms. Mangum stated in her press conference of Wednesday, June 30, 2010, she did nothing wrong. She committed no crime. She was the victim of domestic violence when her ex-boyfriend started punching her in the face. Her attack against him was in self defense only. Yet Ms. Mangum is the one who was arrested and placed under a one million dollar bail; her ex-boyfriend was not charged, and released.

The information given above is a matter of record, and it substantiates the premise that the actions taken against Ms. Mangum by the authorities and prosecution are nothing more than payback because of her role in the Duke Lacrosse case.

Members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong have long been supportive of Ms. Mangum during her plight with this issue. They have written to her, written to others on her behalf, sent her money while she was in jail, and held a prayer vigil for her release from the Durham Detention Center. That prayer was answered by the generosity and benevolence of Mr. and Mrs. Lonnie Hammond, who satisfied her bond pro bono. Aside from the Hammonds and members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, no one has made a move towards acting on Ms. Mangum’s behalf against the gross injustice she has suffered. Elected officials, such as the state representatives and senator of Durham County, have turned down requests from Committee members to write letters to the judge and prosecution asking for the electronic house arrest to be dropped. Likewise, the NAACP, on both a state and federal level have remained idle and silent during this legal nightmare. Editorial columnists and op-ed writers have avoided, like the plague, penning on the topic of Crystal’s selective and unjust treatment by the police, prosecutors, and judges. And the investigative reporters want no parts of delving into the mysteries of why the police did not turn on the shower to douse clothes on fire in a bathtub… or info about the specifics about the alleged vandalism to the ex-boyfriend’s car… or why the charge of attempted first degree murder was lodged against Ms. Mangum.

For politicians, community leaders, civil rights organizations, columnists and op-ed writers, and the mass media to allow an injustice of the magnitude that Ms. Mangum has been hammered with to persist without taking action or speaking out is an injustice itself. Their silence and inactions make them all complicit in the unjust treatment to which Ms. Mangum has been subjected. Until they man up and join the fray for justice for Crystal, Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong members will carry the fight on her behalf alone.

The tandem bails of Crystal Mangum should be illegal

The lunacy of events which mark the travesty of justice against Duke Lacrosse accuser Crystal Mangum is highlighted by the unique tandem bail scenario which engulfs her. Bail is supposed to be a fiduciary means to insure that a suspect attends future court hearings on charges against him/her while being temporarily free pending a final verdict. In Ms. Mangum’s case, Judge Claude Allen ruled, as a condition of being released from the Durham County Detention Center on bond, that Ms. Mangum be placed under house arrest. This is unheard of! In other words, Judge Allen, when he reduced Ms. Mangum’s bail from one million dollars to $250,000, stated that in the event Ms. Mangum was to satisfy the bail, she would be released from jail, but still be placed under house arrest… she would still be in custody. This begs the question, should her attorney seek a bail hearing for her custody under house arrest, or is a second bail automatically denied? These are undoubtedly untested and troubling waters as nothing this ridiculous has ever been tried before. In the attempt to comply with the Carpetbagger Jihad agenda of inflicting as much suffering as possible on Ms. Mangum, Judge Allen stepped beyond the bounds of legality, decency, objectivity, and reason when he made the singular ruling pertaining to Ms. Mangum’s ability to satisfy her initial bail. Subsequent Judge Paul Ridgeway did not deem it necessary to correct this judicial blunder by his colleague, Allen.

The reason Judge Allen imposed the tandem bail condition against Ms. Mangum was to assure that she would remain in custody after the bail was lowered to $250,000. With the prosecutor’s inability to pursue the attempted first degree murder charge and other heaped-on charges against Ms. Mangum with a straight face, the million dollar bail had to be reduced, but the courts kept it high, with the intention that she would be unable to afford bond. Totally unsuspected by the prosecutors and courts was the thought that bail bondsmen would emerge like angels from the heavens and satisfy Ms. Mangum’s $100,000 bail pro bono… but that’s exactly what happened. The benevolent and generous owners of Hammond & Hammond Bailbondsmen, Inc., Mr. and Mrs. Lonnie Hammond made bond for Ms. Mangum, free of charge, after they became aware of Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong member Ed Clark’s attempt to raise funds to pay a bail bondsmen. Thanks to their humanitarian efforts, Crystal Mangum is no longer holed up in the detention center, but she is far from being free… she remains in custody at home under electronic monitoring. One hurdle has been cleared with her release from jail, but another has materialized in the form of house arrest… a second obstacle to her freedom and something which should not exist.

Judge Allen’s imposition of the backup house arrest scheme, gives credence to the premise that Ms. Mangum’s high bail, coupled with the molasses-like movement of the prosecution, is nothing more than a way to skirt the law by forcing Mangum to serve a sentence without being convicted of a crime. And the crime for which she is serving her current sentence has nothing to do with the charges for which she has been arrested… she is serving time for having the gall to accuse three Duke lacrosse boys (from families of wealth, status, and privilege) of sexually assaulting her.

The charges against Ms. Mangum are as flimsy and flaky as those conjured up by the North Carolina State Bar against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong in his disbarment hearing. In pursuing these unjustified charges in order to make Ms. Mangum serve an indeterminate sentence without being first convicted of a crime, the state’s police department, fire department, prosecutors and courts make themselves a laughing stock in the following ways: (1) the Durham Police Department for excessively charging and overcharging Ms. Mangum; (2) the Durham Police for allowing the burning clothes in the bathtub to cause smoke damage to the apartment, and calling the fire department instead of just turning on the faucet to put out the fire; (3) the Durham Fire Department for lugging a fire hose to the bathroom to extinguish the fire instead of turning on the faucet; (4) the questionable validity of vandalism charges to an automobile which was used by prosecutors to help secure a grand jury indictment for an injury to personal property charge; (5) the excessive bail set by Magistrate B. Wakil of $1 million; and (6) the attempt to make a case for first degree arson out of carefully executed controlled burn of clothing articles in a bathtub with running water readily available.

The charges currently pending against Mangum are so ridiculous that Prosecutor Angela Garcia-Lamarca has no intention of going to court to prosecute them. Her plan is to work with the public defender representing Ms. Mangum to accept a plea deal to a “lesser charge” in exchange for time served… and it is anybody’s guess how long the amount of time served by Ms. Mangum will be. Since the prosecution controls the docket, it may last for years. That is what happened in the James Arthur Johnson case, where Johnson was held for 39 months without a trial. In that case, prosecutor Bill Wolfe repeatedly and unsuccessfully tried to get Johnson to accept a plea deal, and when it came time for the trial to take place, Wilson District Attorney Howard S. Boney Jr. called for a special prosecutor (using the pretext of wanting Johnson to have a fair trial… the fact being that he had no case against Johnson).

The best course for prosecutors to follow in the fiasco surrounding Ms. Mangum’s arrest is to immediately dismiss all charges against Crystal Mangum, and close the file. Not to do so is a slap in the face of Lady Justice at taxpayer expense. Police, prosecutors and the courts should treat all suspects fairly and equally in order to serve all the people in North Carolina… they should not apply justice disparately to suspects and defendants in order to satisfy the demands of a few well-heeled privileged. To do so these public servants, prosecutors, and judges make a mockery of the state’s system of justice, and make the state’s justice system the laughing stock of the nation.

Vendetta justice makes a mockery of the NC courts at taxpayer expense

A 59 year old man went into an online chat room and became the acquaintance of a fourteen year old girl. Later, he traveled from Raleigh to Burlington, North Carolina where he met the young teenager in person. An attentive Burlington police officer noted suspicious activity by a car driven by the man (it had no license plate), and upon pulling it over noted that the 59 year old male driver was accompanied by the 14 year old girl as a passenger. Also in the vehicle were drugs and drug paraphernalia. The man, Bryant Harrison Dennis, was arrested and charged with statutory sex offense, indecent liberties, contributing to delinquency of a minor, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia… and his bail was set at $10,000.
During a domestic dispute which her boyfriend described as a “misunderstanding,” Crystal Mangum allegedly scratched her boyfriend, and executed a controlled burn of some of her boyfriend’s clothes. As a result, she was charged with attempted first degree murder, assault and battery, five counts of felony arson, three counts of contributing to the delinquency of juvenile, communicating threats, identity theft, injury to personal property, and resisting arrest… bail for her was set at one million dollars.

The two-case comparative illustrated above represents but a small sampling of disparity in treatment afforded to the majority of criminal suspects versus someone on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case. It is the vastness of the difference in treatment between the two which requires the public to suspend logic and sense of fair play that enables the North Carolina justice system to even dare to implement such draconian and excessive charges and outrageously high bail. Strip away the veneer of anti-Nifong public fervor created by the media, and the charges against Ms. Mangum and the million dollar bail are laughable. It is payback… vendetta justice… courtesy of the Carpetbagger Jihadists. What is really ironic is that the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their attorneys are able to foment anti-Nifong and anti-accuser sentiment among Durhamians and get unyielding support from them while at the same time costing those same Durhamians millions of tax dollars to defend the city of Durham against the carpetbagger lawsuits. The media has been an effective and willing accomplice of the Jihadists in achieving this outcome which boggles the logical mind.

Probably one of the best known examples of vendetta justice nationally is that which Orenthal James Simpson received in Las Vegas, Nevada, after he succumbed to what I believe to be an elaborately executed sting operation. The judge in that case before handing down an extremely harsh sentence against Simpson, told the courtroom and the media that her ruling was not in the least bit influenced by Simpson’s prior criminal court battle in which he was found not guilty. Although the judge gave those assurances with a straight face, anyone and everyone with any knowledge about the Nicole Brown Simpson/Ron Goldman murders and the subsequent trial of O. J. Simpson, knew otherwise. And the judge knew they knew, but because the public animus and anger towards Simpson, the judge felt comfortable issuing an unprecedented lengthy prison sentence for him… and the judge may have even felt compelled to do so by the people.

There are many instances of vendetta justice in the Tar Heel state, and they include the following cases: Gregory Taylor (charged and convicted by prosecutor Tom Ford because Taylor would not implicate an innocent black man in a murder… after his exoneration by a three judge panel, the state continues its harassment of him, including the withholding of a pardon by the governor); Floyd Brown (a profoundly retarded man who was charged with murder based solely on a confession which experts state he could not have made… held for fourteen years without a trial, and when finally released Prosecutor Michael D. Parker willfully disrupted and interfered with assisted living arrangements that had been set up by his family and state agencies); Theodore Jerry Williams (who complained about the district attorney’s office, and later while in custody, was brutally beaten up – including a broken arm – and then charged with attacking a correctional guard).

One of the most shameful examples of vendetta justice is that of Alan Gell. He was sentenced to death, even though the prosecutors had exculpatory evidence (which they withheld from the defense team) proving that he could not possibly have committed the murder for which he was charged. He served ten years before the evidence came to light and he prevailed at a re-trial. Gell incurred the wrath of the state when he filed civil law suits about his unfair and tragic ordeal (however, unlike Mike Nifong, Prosecutor David Hoke was granted immunity as a state employee). Subsequently, when it came to the attention of the Johnston County prosecutor’s office that Gell impregnated his girlfriend just prior to her being of legal age, he was charged, and given a five year sentence. Under usual circumstances probation would be more likely, but nothing as severe as the sentence he received. This sentence was enforced without consideration given to the fact that Alan Gell had already wrongfully served ten years for a murder he did not commit. The convoluted and tortuous reasoning for the charges against Gell and his sentence defy common sense and mathematics. According to my arithmetic, ten years wrongly served minus five years of a bogus sentence equals freedom with five years credit… and it shouldn’t have taken a Joe Cheshire to get Gell a better deal. Alan Gell remains incarcerated today. He should be immediately released.

Almost everyone associated with the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case has been a victim of vendetta justice… no one more so than Mike Nifong. He has been so vilified and demonized by the Carpetbagger Jihadist Machine with its media and public relations connections, that he, his supporters, Crystal Mangum, and others connected with the Duke Lacrosse case are treated by the police, prosecutors, and courts with the same disregard for the rule of law and fair play that O. J. Simpson was subjected to during his Las Vegas interaction with the criminal justice system.

The public turned a blind eye as unprecedented injustice upon unprecedented injustice was heaped upon former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong… including disbarment, a jail sentence, and a request for the U.S. Department of Justice to proceed with criminal charges against him for depriving the three Duke lacrosse beer-guzzling, stripper partygoers of their civil rights. The public’s blind eye is a powerful enabler that allows those dispensing criminal justice in the state to veer from or even totally disregard the legal statutes in place to assure impartiality and fairness in the system.

Mike Nifong supporters are likewise being targeted with unjust treatment. At a recent event on the campus of Duke University, a known Nifong supporter and member of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong who was wearing a Committee tee shirt, was accused of trespassing on Duke’s private property despite the fact that he was on campus at the institution’s public invitation to attend a three-way interview featuring U. S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. He was not told prior to attending the event that Mike Nifong supporters were not invited, and he was not warned prior to attending that his presence on the campus was not wanted. Instead, upon leaving the event, a security guard honed in him, telling him that he was trespassing. Despite the Nifong supporter’s protestations, the guard escorted him off the property in a manner to ensure the infliction of emotional pain, humiliation, public scorn, and embarrassment… and there was the continuous threat of imminent arrest, as the guard called in backup. It is evident that Duke University has no qualms with suspending civil rights and First Amendment Rights when it comes to Mike Nifong supporters.

But it is the malicious and cruel treatment of Ms. Mangum that truly puts North Carolina to shame when it comes to vendetta justice. The media is responsible for getting the public to forget that Ms. Mangum was the victim at the Duke Lacrosse beer-guzzling stripper party. She was the one who was scheduled by the escort service (under false pretenses by a Duke lacrosse party host) to perform at the bacchanalian festivity. She was the one who was dehumanized and humiliated by the mostly Duke lacrosse team members… one of whom made obscene gestures with a broom. She was the one with whom the partygoers vented anger after she stopped dancing minutes into the performance due to the audience’s lewd and crude behavior. Finally, she was the one upon whom some of the partygoer’s heaped racial epithets, including the n-word. Yet Crystal Mangum is the one who is targeted for vendetta justice by the courts and the state… and the court and justice system, under the Jedi mind-trick spell of the carpetbaggers, are quick to impose it.

The vendetta justice plan for Ms. Mangum is to punish her by keeping her incarcerated for as long a period as possible. So far she has remained imprisoned since February 18, 2010, and even if she was able to post bond, the judge in the case determined that she would be released to house arrest. No such contingency was made for the aforementioned child predator with the $10,000 bail… when he posts bond, he’s free. A mean-spirited and punitive backbone supports the North Carolina justice system, one in which the principles of fairness, compassion, morality, and rehabilitation are defiled.

Finally, vendetta justice comes at a cost to taxpayers in the state. Using the police, prosecutors and courts to exact private party (i.e. Carpetbagger) revenge results in taxpayer dollars going towards unjustified prosecution, diverts police and court resources that could otherwise be focused on legitimate crime, and pays for expenses needed to incarcerate many individuals who are neither a threat to society nor a flight risk. Especially in this period of economic hardship with the state and municipalities scrapping by financially, the concept of vendetta justice should be immediately jettisoned. It is time to, among other things, release those wrongfully incarcerated by vendetta justice (Alan Gell, Crystal Mangum, George Goode, Rayford Burke, etal.). Money used to pay for their incarceration could be much better spent defending the cash-strapped city of Durham from the lawsuits of the avaricious Carpetbaggers and their money-hungry attorneys.

What I learned at Duke University School of Law

On Wednesday, April 14, 2010, I attended an event at Duke University School of Law, on the Duke University campus in Durham. The event featured U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer in a sit-down interview with David Levi, Dean of the law school, and Walter H. Dellinger, an attorney with vast Supreme Court experience. Open to the public on a first come first served basis, the interview was a very informative, in that it provided the audience with insight as to how the Supreme Court works and how the justices interact. Observations of Justice Breyer gave glimpses into the man who presented a relaxed manner, approachable demeanor, thoughtful speech, and effusive sense of humor. Fifty minutes later, at the conclusion of the three person public conversation, I began my exit from the large classroom, which was populated mostly with law students. My plan was to catch a bus to downtown Durham, then transfer to a bus that would take me to my residence in Raleigh.

Little did I know, as I made my egress from the room, that my real education would come after Justice Breyer had spoken. Upon leaving, a uniformed security guard honed in on me and asked me what I was doing there. To me, that seemed like a rather dumb question, but I answered anyway, telling him that I had come to see and hear Justice Breyer. I offered to give him one of my Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong business cards that had my contact information, but he refused, pointing to his pants pocket and saying, “I already have one.” He then informed me that I was trespassing on private property and that he was there to see that I left the grounds. I asked him why I was being forced off the property, and he told me that he did not know why… that he was just following orders. When I requested the name of the person who wanted me off Duke property, he told me “the building manager”… and he may have given me the last name of an individual. However, that was as far as I got, as he refused my request to speak with the person responsible for my ouster… repeatedly saying that Duke University is private property, that it has the right to have me removed no questions asked, and that he was merely doing his job.

As former Duke Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. would readily understand, I was incensed by the security guard telling me to leave the grounds for no reason and then trailing me like a shadow when I complied, as though I were a common criminal. Not unlike Professor Gates, I, too, had a few choice words to say to the guard, to express my displeasure at the unforeseen (at least to me) turn of events. Now, evidently some of my colorful words, though neither profane nor wisely chosen, seemed to cause the guard some displeasure as he responded by calling in backup with his walkie-talkie. A Duke security patrol car materialized in seconds, with an officer exiting it who looked ten times more menacing than the first security guard. So as I walked toward the bus stop, now with two guards in tow, I overheard one of them mention something to the other about getting my identification. Again, my indignation blinded my better judgment and I scowled, “…and don’t even think about asking to see my identification!” I was then corrected by one of them who said that they would see it if they wanted to see it. Shortly thereafter, the city bus came lumbering up the street, and the guard flagged it down for me. I don’t recall whether or not I thanked him for hailing the bus, but I do remember him telling me as I boarded that since our initial encounter approximately fifteen minutes ago I was on the verge of being arrested three times.

In reflecting back on the day’s adventure, I tried to figure out when I had come close to the brink of arrest. One time that stands out is when the guard gently tugged on my sleeve in the direction of the door exiting the building and I vigorously withdrew my arm and said in an elevated tone, “Don’t touch me!” Another time might have been when I was asked about where my car was parked, and I flashed my all-day transit bus pass in his face… close enough so that he could read the fine print. I’m not sure about a possible third time, although early on he did remark to me that I was encroaching on his personal space. Anyway, fortunately for me, my encounter with the enforcement agents ended differently than Professor Gates, and I spent the night in my own bed and without bail.

Now I do not think the discriminatory treatment I received at Duke University was racially motivated, as I was the only African American targeted. Neither do I believe that I was discriminated against for being an arrogant African American man (politically correct phrase for “uppity Negro”) because I was not exhibiting such behavior prior to meeting the security guard. The reason I believe that I was being discriminated against was because I am a Mike Nifong supporter. This was most likely apparent because of the official Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong tee shirt that I was wearing… which had the logo, the web address, and the words “Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong” on it.

I guess the reason I was surprised by the trespassing charge being lodged is because I was invited to the event on the Duke campus, which was advertised as being open to the public. Also, I had worn the very same tee shirt on the Duke campus and in its law school building many times in the past without any problem, at least of which I was aware. My behavior was unremarkable, as I spoke briefly with fewer than a dozen people while awaiting the start of the event and did nothing to provoke anyone.

I came away from Duke University that day with life lessons that are invaluable, and worth sharing as following:
1) It is incredibly easy for a black man to get arrested. Even though I was abiding by the laws of the land, not in the active commission of a crime, behaving myself, and minding my own business, I was subjected to discrimination based on my being a Nifong supporter that could have easily resulted in me being jailed. Even though my presence on the campus in the first place was due to a poster which invited the public to the on-campus event, one of the charges against me would undoubtedly have been trespassing on private property. And you can rest assured that "resisting arrest" would be tagged on to the trespassing charge automatically.
2) It is not wise to sass a security guard or police officer. As Henry Louis Gates, Jr. and I can now attest, vigorous verbal expression to authority about unjust discriminatory treatment usually results in no positive outcome, and in the case of a black male protester, the likely call for additional backup by said authority... which does not bode well.
3) The campus of Duke University is a First Amendment Free environment. In other words check your First Amendment Rights of free speech and expression at the property line. Any expression of support of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, such as wearing a tee shirt in his honor, is likely to result in expulsion from the grounds as it did in my case.
4) Openly showing support for Mike Nifong on the Duke University campus may be hazardous to one’s health. In general, Duke University staff and personnel seem to have a deep seeded antipathy towards Mike Nifong, most likely engendered by the prejudicial statements made against him by the biased mainstream media. An aversion to Mr. Nifong might also spring from a wariness of the university or individual being sued by the litigation-happy attorneys of the carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants.

An observation that strikes me most is that Duke University School of Law is a large, powerful institution with a prestigious reputation. My visits to the campus have been extremely rare and almost always of short duration. I find it astounding that a member of its staff or faculty would feel so threatened by a tee shirt that expresses an opinion that might not be in sync with the overall position of the university, that he/she would evict that individual solely on that basis. Since the days of Aristotle, scholars and students would come together in institutes of higher learning to engage in civil debate over differences of opinion and controversial issues. From my presence on the Duke campus, it is also an observation that Duke Law School faculty and staff are not willing or ready to discuss the history of the Duke Lacrosse case and the selective and unjust disbarment of Mike Nifong. The reason for this is obvious, especially among the law school professors and staff… that reason being that they know that the North Carolina State Bar’s treatment of Mike Nifong was selective and unjust, as was the excessive and draconian persecution of him by the North Carolina Attorney General’s Office, other state agencies, and the courts. It may take a generation or so before the faculty and staff will feel free to discuss the disgraceful treatment of Mr. Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case. Presently, as my eviction from the Duke University campus yesterday emphatically proves, that day of open and free expression and debate at that institution, about the Duke Lacrosse case and Mike Nifong’s selective and unjust disbarment, is a long ways off.

No glutton for punishment and not wishing to be jailed on unprovoked trumped up trifle, I do not foresee a return visit in the near future to these particular environs that are hostile and prejudicial to Nifong supporters. And that’s what I learned at Duke University School of Law yesterday.

Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong members – Justice Crusaders

I think that it is imperative that I explain in greater detail about the brave individuals who make up the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong. The organization, which was formed in June 2008 with just two people, has recently seen a steady increase in its membership. Those who join the Committee come from all walks of life, varying backgrounds, and a diversity of cultures. They have different social-justice interests, however what they all have in common is the belief that former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong was selectively and unjustly disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar because of his handling of the Duke Lacrosse case. He is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933. This is an outrage when one considers that other prosecutors have conducted themselves far more egregiously than Mr. Nifong’s alleged misconduct. The Committee members are united in their goal of seeing that the State Bar unilaterally and unconditionally reinstates Mr. Nifong’s license to practice law in the state of North Carolina without restrictions.


What makes members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong special is that they backup the conviction of their commitment by courageously lending their names and faces to a cause that is at odds with the State of North Carolina, at odds with the biased media, and at odds with the misguided public which has succumbed to the Jedi mind tricks of the media. Members have the freedom to contribute what legal and moral efforts they wish in pursuing the Committee’s goal of Mr. Nifong’s reinstatement. This may be in the form of letter writing, participating in peaceful demonstrations, or engaging in debates.

As the Lay Advocate of the Committee, I am actively involved in writing letters, posting and maintaining the Committee’s website and blog site, and interacting with media types and politicians. It must be kept in mind that everything that I write represents my opinion solely, and that I am solely responsible for my comments and actions. That does not preclude the fact that others wholeheartedly agree with what I say or do. However, I believe that it is important for this distinction to be clear, especially as membership in the Committee grows.

Falsely labeling the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong

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.

2009 Wish List for the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong

With each new year comes new promise, and I am hopeful that the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong's dreams for significant and positive changes come true during 2009. Our 2009 wish list for the North Carolina criminal justice system would include the following:
· The state comes to its senses and, without condition, re-instates the law license, without restrictions, of Mike Nifong. This is the only fair and just option when one considers that: (1) Mr. Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the State Bar since its inception, (2)that his hearing before the bar was marred by conflict of interest and pre-hearing statements, and (3) that the charges for which he was disbarred (withholding non-exculpatory, extraneous, irrelevant DNA evidence from the defense team) was far less egregious than actions committed by other prosecutors (including withholding exculpatory evidence, fabricating crucial evidence, and destroying material evidence).
· Fair and just resolution of the state’s fiasco of a case against James Arthur Johnson, the hero in solving the murder of Wilson teen Brittany Willis. Such a resolution would include: (1) the immediate dismissal of the bogus “accessory after the fact” charge, (2) payment of the $20,000.00 reward which he earned for solving the crime, (3) a proclamation of “innocent” by the governor, and (4) the payment of the measly compensation of $20,000.00/year of wrongful incarceration.
· The proclamation of “innocent” and the compensatory payment for the wrongful incarceration of Erick Daniels, who, as a middle school student was unjustly convicted of armed robbery based solely on the shape of his eyebrows by the victim/witness.
· The release from jail of Alan Gell, who was incarcerated by a vindictive justice system on a cockamamie and convoluted charge (cooked up by a district attorney) that defies all logic.
· That novelist Michael Peterson be given a new trial (or that murder charges against him be dropped), based on the recent revelation that exculpatory evidence (the existence and test results of a possible murder weapon) was withheld by state prosecutors from Mr. Peterson’s defense team.
· That state-wide media frees itself from the tethers of the NC Attorney General’s Office and all state prosecutors, and begins to report fairly and without bias. Giving coverage to criminal justice stories that merit the attention of the public would be a refreshing and welcomed change, indeed.

There are many other justice issues we would like to see become a reality in North Carolina, but the six referenced above are those to which we give the highest priority.

We, the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, are not going to just wish for the aforementioned changes, but we are going to work for them throughout 2009, and beyond.

Here’s wishing all readers of this blog the very best in 2009. May it be one of good health and happiness for you and your family.

- Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong