Harr v. WRAL-5 News: in Federal Court

NC State Bar: A Force from the Dark Side

The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, January 14, 2016

The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, January 5, 2016

The correspondence above was posted on Friday, January 1, 2016

The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, December 29, 2015

The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, December 19, 2015

The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, December 17, 2015

The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, December 15, 2015

The correspondence above was posted on Friday, December 11, 2015

The correspondence above was posted on Wednesday, December 9, 2015

The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, December 3, 2015

The correspondence above was posted on Friday, November 27, 2015

The correspondence above was posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2015

The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, November 21, 2015

The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2015

The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, November 12, 2015

The correspondence above was posted on Monday, November 9, 2015

The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, November 7, 2015

The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, November 5, 2015

The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2015

The correspondence above was posted on Monday, October 26, 2015

In a David v. Goliath legal battle, Duke University takes unfair advantage

Click on following link to view the flog.
LINK: http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog14.html



Part One – An accurate retelling of events leading to Harr’s legal action against Duke

Honesty and fairness are the two most important characteristics for any judge to possess. In his November 16, 2011 recommendation to the Court, United States Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp demonstrated his lack of both by flat out lying to the Court with the intention of misleading the Court for the purpose of achieving a ruling in favor of the defendants from Duke University. That the Duke defendants’ defense against the discrimination complaint made by the Plaintiff Sidney B. Harr was extremely weak was evidenced by the magistrate judge’s unethical conduct in propping up defendants’ position with lies.

Because of the well-known prejudice of the mainstream media against Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum, Nifong supporters and others considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case, the public at large is unfamiliar with the discriminatory and malicious acts of Duke University on April 14, 2010. A concise review of this important case will ensue.

Prior to that date of April 14, 2010, Sidney Harr, the Lay Advocate for the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, had visited Duke University on numerous occasions… as an invited guest to public conferences, a book-signing, and other public forums. Harr also at times ventured onto the grounds to say “hello” to a few of his friends, including Law Professor James Coleman and Political Science Chair Mike Munger. In addition Harr had taken in cultural events offered at the Nasher Museum, which is situated on Duke University property, as well as having sat in attendance at Easter mass in the Duke Cathedral.

Harr enjoyed and valued his visits to the Duke campus – whether for enjoyment, enlightenment, or both – and even stated as much. After attending a three day John Hope Franklin conference at Duke Law School on Law, Politics, and Race, Harr took the time to write letters to the university President Richard Brodhead and law school dean David Levi, expressing his appreciation for the wonderful programs that Duke produced for the public’s benefit. Because Harr had previously placed President Brodhead in his educational comic strip, “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper,” he wanted to assure that President Brodhead harbored no ill will, so he was sure to show other comic strip examples in which Harr utilized self-deprecating humor.

Harr also went to great lengths to express his view that even though he was a supporter of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, that that had nothing to do with his attitude towards Duke University… which at the time was full of nothing but admiration.

And finally, to show his support for the programs Duke put on for the public, Harr wrote in his letters that he planned on attending the interview of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer… which was scheduled two days later, on April 14, 2010. What is so diabolical about this is that the information that Harr gave of his intention to be in attendance at the April 14th event was used to set a trap in which to arrest Harr for trespassing. The apparent animosity which led the Duke University officials to plot to place Harr behind bars was the fact that he was a well known and outspoken supporter of Mike Nifong. That Harr is an African American also entered into their designs to have him incarcerated, as the criminal justice system in the Tar Heel state is quick to place innocent black people in jail with impunity… even without justification or cause. The arrest of Knightdale resident Carletta Alston, who was held in jail for twelve months by Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford, is a prime example.

Because Harr sent the complimentary letters on Monday, April 12, 2010, he assumed that they would have reached Duke University the morning of Wednesday, April 14th, the day of the event. Harr believed that on that particular morning, both defendants Brodhead and Levi would have been busy with preparations for their distinguished guest, and would not have had the luxury of engaging in a plot against him. He surmised that one of their assistants, probably that of Dean Levi, cooked up the scheme and ordered the security guard to initially confront Harr and then call in the Duke campus police to make the arrest.

Now, had the letter reached Duke University a day earlier, on Tuesday, April 13, 2010, then that would have given defendants Brodhead and Levi ample time to become involved in the skullduggery. Make no mistake that the security guard had been summoned for this mission by someone in the office of the recipients of Harr’s letters because Harr enclosed a “j4n” business card in both letters… and the security officer acknowledged having a “j4n” business card in his possession when he confronted Harr.

At the conclusion of the event, Harr exited the large room and was heading for the exit when he was approached by Tom Breen of the Associated Press. Mr. Breen proceeded to ask Harr of his impressions of interview with the justice. Was Mr. Breen in collusion… part of the conspiracy against Harr? Possibly, as of all the people in attendance, Harr was the only one he saw Mr. Breen interview… and Harr who sat near the front of the large standing room only crowd, was one of the final people to emerge from the room’s rear exit.

Per his custom, Harr always exchanged his business card with media-types when the opportunity arose, and so he and Mr. Breen traded business cards during their brief encounter, and Harr continued to walk towards the building’s exit for the purpose of catching a bus to return home to Raleigh. Before he could reach the exit door, Harr was intercepted by a uniformed security guard, K. Harris.

The security guard informed Harr that he would have to immediately leave the campus, but could not give a reason, stating only that the “building manager” ordered him to remove Harr from university property. Harr was moving with the guard towards the door while he tried to get an audience with the building manager or obtain an understanding from the guard for his being thrown off campus. Throughout the conversation, the guard kept threatening to arrest Harr… again without provocation. Because Harr’s behavior was no different from others similarly situated, he came to the immediate realization that he was being discriminated against because of his support for Mike Nifong. He also realized that his future visits to Duke University property and venues were in jeopardy… pending a satisfactory resolution… which at the moment seemed extremely remote.

As the security guard ushered Harr to the exit, Harr saw his friend, Duke Law Professor James Coleman, and flagged him down. With his audio recorder running Harr explained his predicament and Professor Coleman vigorously interceded with the guard on Harr’s behalf. Coleman also attempted to calm down Harr who was visibly upset at being asked to leave the campus. In a hurry to catch a plane, Professor Coleman brokered a settlement of sorts with the security guard before leaving. The brief intervention by Professor Coleman saved Harr from being arrested, as the Duke police had already been summoned by the security guard and he arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car.

As if the incident within the building wasn’t embarrassing and humiliating enough, the uniformed guard and police officer closely followed Harr, despite his protestations, to the bus stop whereupon he caught a bus that would take him off Duke University property and to the downtown bus terminal… thus ending his campus nightmare.

It was obvious to Harr that any future return to Duke property would be dependent upon one of two things occurring. First, if Duke University was able to give a logical explanation for its treatment of Harr on April 14th, which was, in essence, exceedingly improbable. Secondly, if Duke University would accept responsibility for its misconduct and take other measures of restorative justice to see that mistreatment of Nifong supporters did not recur in the future. Harr was banking on the latter when he wrote individual letters in April and May of 2010 to President Brodhead, Dean Levi, and Pamela Bernard, the general counsel of Duke University.

All hopes for a resolution which would enable Harr to return to Duke campus without fear of being abused, harassed, and/or arrested, were dashed by a May 10, 2010 letter from the Duke University spokesman Mike Schoenfeld. Far from being conciliatory, the letter was accusatory… alleging that Harr had repeatedly violated its policy against solicitation by handing out business cards and asking their recipients to visit his website. This was the best excuse that Duke University could concoct for its mistreatment and near arrest of Harr. Correspondence between the parties concluded with May 15, 2010 letters by Harr to Brodhead, Levi, and Bernard in which he expressed his disapproval and dissatisfaction with Schoenfeld’s letter of May 10th.

During the ensuing months, Harr unsuccessfully tried to get civil rights organizations and individuals to intervene with Duke University on his behalf. On April 5, 2011, with the one year anniversary of the incident fast approaching, Harr reluctantly filed his complaint in federal court in order to protect his legal rights from any statute of limitation provisions.


Part 2 – Serious problems with Magistrate Judge Sharp’s recommendation to the Court

The complaint that Harr filed was based upon his civil rights being violated by Duke University for discriminating against him because of his beliefs, thoughts, opinions and allegiances… which were in favor of Mike Nifong. Because of his strongly held position regarding Mr. Nifong, Harr was singularly targeted in a conspiracy intended to culminate in his arrest… presumably on a trespassing charge, and most likely with other charges, such as interfering with a public officer, tacked on.

The defendants through their attorney from the Greensboro law firm of Ellis & Winters LLP, never denied the factual nature of the events stated by the plaintiff Harr, in large measure because Harr audio recorded much of his conversation with the security guard. From what I could ascertain from the confusingly esoteric legalese mumbo-jumbo spewed by Attorney J. Donald Cowan in his motion, the defense proffered by Duke was mainly that the named defendants were not involved in the April 14th incident, and that Duke University was not an agent of the state.

A timeline of events that followed Harr’s filing of his complaint on April 5, 2011 are as follows:
April 15, 2011 – the Defendants file a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint;
May 6, 2011 – Plaintiff Harr files a Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss;
May 16, 2011 – Defendants file a Response in Further Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss;
May 20, 2011 – Harr sends a letter to the Court expressing his displeasure at being denied the opportunity to respond to the Defendants’ May 16, 2011 filing;
November 16, 2011 – Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp files his Recommendation to the Court regarding the motion by the defense; and
December 8, 2011 – Harr files a timely response with the Court about the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.


The problem with Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp’s Recommendation begins with the first sentence in the second paragraph in which he states: “The following factual allegations are made in Plaintiff’s complaint.” By allegedly basing the facts on statements made by the Plaintiff, he sets the stage in which the facts he is about to re-state are not likely to be in dispute by the Plaintiff.

On page two, line eight, the calculated lies begin with the following statement: “After the interview concluded, Plaintiff began handing out business cards of the Committee and was asked by a reporter for the Associated Press for an interview.” This is totally false as neither Harr, nor the Defendants’ stated that Harr began handing out business cards at the conclusion of the Justice Breyer interview. Specifically, Harr stated the following in his complaint:

“14. While waiting for the event, Plaintiff, per his usual custom when on the Duke campus, stopped by the office of Duke Law Professor James Coleman (hereinafter “COLEMAN”) to say “hello.” COLEMAN was not in his office, so Plaintiff returned to the building’s lobby to read his book.
15. While waiting and between stints of reading, Plaintiff struck up conversations with about a half dozen individuals, a few of whom were law students. Plaintiff handed out a few COMMITTEE business cards to some of the people with whom he had conversed, and collected business cards from those who had some.”

The complaint explicitly states that the cards were handed out while Harr was waiting for the interview to begin, and it further states that they were not handed out indiscriminately, but to those individuals with whom Harr was engaged in dialogue.

Magistrate Judge Sharp falsely states that “Plaintiff began handing out business cards of the Committee and was asked by a reporter for the Associated Press for an interview.” This is a fabrication because it suggests that the reporter Tom Breen witnessed Harr distributing cards, and as a result asked him for an interview. There is nothing in Plaintiff Harr’s complaint to suggest such a scenario. In fact, Harr’s complaint reads as follows:

“17. At the event’s conclusion, Plaintiff, who was seated about a third of the way in the front of the packed lecture hall, filed out of the large room en mass with others in attendance.
18. On leaving the room, a gentleman approached the Plaintiff and introduced himself as Tom Breen of the Associated Press. Plaintiff was under the assumption that he was randomly chosen by the reporter from the attendees to give his thoughts about the event. After briefly giving his opinions, the Plaintiff began telling Mr. Breen about his advocacy for NIFONG, and the two exchanged business cards.”

Magistrate Judge Sharp’s reconstruction of the event implied that Harr’s actions induced the reporter Mr. Breen to seek an interview with him. The truth, as stated in Harr’s complaint, is that Harr was leaving the room as others similarly situated when he was approached by Mr. Breen… and that he was not handing out business cards. In fact, per Harr’s complaint, the two were well into their brief conversation when the business cards were exchanged. Furthermore, the card Harr gave to Mr. Breen was the only business card he handed out after the conclusion of the Justice Breyer interview.

Finally, Magistrate Judge Sharp falsely states, “After this interview (with Mr. Breen), Duke campus security approached Plaintiff and advised him he would have to leave the campus. The security officer told Plaintiff that the ‘building manager’ was having him removed. When Plaintiff protested, the security officer called for campus police to meet them.” This, again, is a prevarication which is not substantiated in Harr’s complaint.

In this instance the interpretation of the word “protesting” is of vital importance and Magistrate Judge Sharp uses it to imply that Harr protested being removed from Duke property, as though he were an occupier. To appreciate the essence of the proper interpretation, it should be put into context as is stated in Harr’s complaint which follows:

“21. When Plaintiff asked SECURITY who was responsible for kicking him off campus, SECURITY replied, ‘the building manager.’ Plaintiff asked SECURITY to take him to see the building manager, and SECURITY refused.
22. As an upset and protesting Plaintiff was being escorted to the nearest exit of the building, Plaintiff saw COLEMAN and flagged him down in order to express what Plaintiff considered to be his unwarranted expulsion from the campus…”

That Harr was protesting his “treatment” is further evidenced in paragraph 23 which reads: “COLEMAN tried his best to defuse the issue and calm down Plaintiff who was highly indignant by his treatment.”

Magistrate Judge Sharp failed to mention that in Harr’s complaint, he stated that he was in compliance with the security guard with regards to leaving the campus. The magistrate judge also failed to mention that the security guard repeatedly threatened Harr with arrest. And the magistrate judge failed to mention Harr’s contention that Duke police was summoned without provocation. That paragraph reads as follows:

“26. Plaintiff who was not submissive but more agitated at his mistreatment – not unlike Harvard University’s Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. – was in compliance with SECURITY and walking towards the bus stop while seeking answers to why he was being kicked off the campus. Nonetheless, SECURITY continued to threaten Plaintiff with arrest, and then without provocation called in backup from Duke University campus police.”

That Harr protested his unwarranted and humiliating treatment by security is not at issue, and in itself did not warrant calling in police. The fact is that Harr never refused to leave Duke University property and even stated that he was in compliance with SECURITY.


Part 3 – Reasons behind the magistrate judge’s false and misleading statements

That the recommendation by Magistrate Judge Sharp contains false and misleading statements is indisputable, and directly questions the honesty of the magistrate judge. The reason that the magistrate judge misrepresented the facts of the complaint by Harr, is directly linked to his pronounced prejudice in favor of the defendants from Duke University… as the facts of the incident in question lay the groundwork for the conclusions drawn by the magistrate judge and the impressions developed by the Court upon which to make its rulings.

It is imperative that the re-stated facts be accurate, as they are the foundation upon which conclusions are made and decisions are reached. For example, in a June 17, 2007 online article titled: “Nifong’s punishment is extreme, appropritate,” by MSNBC Senior Legal Analyst Susan F. Filan, she states as fact that Mr. Nifong asked his son to attend his disciplinary hearing.

When notified of the passage, Mrs. Nifong emphatically stated that Ms. Filan’s statement was totally false. She went so far as to say that Mr. Nifong asked his son not to attend… but that his son insisted in order to show support for his beleaguered father.

Ms. Filan, using this untruthful premise as a basis, then reached the conclusion that he asked his son to come as a ploy in order to gain sympathy, leniency, and pity… and she trounces Mr. Nifong’s character and role as a father with the rhetorical question, “Why put your son through this?”

That the media is biased against Mike Nifong is clearly demonstrated by the fact that letters that pointed out these gross mistakes and mailed to NBC Universal President and CEO Jeff Zucker, MSNBC President Phil Griffin, Vice president and General Counsel Rick Cotton, and the MSNBC Legal Department were returned to the sender Harr unopened.

By misstating that Harr began handing out business cards upon the conclusion of the Justice Breyer interview, Magistrate Judge Sharp is trying to make a trespassing case for the defendants to use against Harr. When Harr was handing out the business cards prior to the interview, he was a guest of the campus waiting for the event, which was open to the public, to begin. However, upon the conclusion of the event, Harr was no longer under the umbrella of being an invited guest. The slack and misleading representation of Harr following the Justice Breyer interview is that of a peddler indiscriminately handing out business cards as though they were flyers being given to passersby.

With respect to reporter Tom Breen, Magistrate Judge Sharp implies that Harr’s alleged actions attracted Mr. Breen… not that the reality that Mr. Breen had targeted Harr and approached Harr as he was leaving the lecture room walking as those around him, and not talking or handing out cards.

Finally, Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp takes the liberty of misinterpreting Harr’s statement that he was protesting his treatment by the security guard, and not refusing to leave the Duke University campus grounds. Harr’s statement goes so far as to state that he was complying with the security guards demands that he leave the campus.

A significant point here is that Harr was upset, agitated, and indignant at the unexpected and unwarranted turn of events following the Justice Breyer interview. It was during his confrontation with the security guard that two realizations were swiftly evident to Harr: (1) the actions taken against him were unleashed because he was a supporter of Mike Nifong; and (2) that unless a satisfactory resolution regarding this incident soon followed, that it was likely that he would never be able to return to any of Duke’s properties or venues. That Harr highly valued the programs and events offered at Duke University, and stated so in his letters of April 12, 2010 to defendants Brodhead and Levi, as well as is documented in his complaint, is confirmed by his reaction when he realized the implications of being asked by the security guard to leave the Duke campus. In other words, the damages sustained by Harr by Duke defendants’ actions are significant.

On the other hand, had Harr acted calmly and taken in stride his forced removal from the university campus, then one could more likely surmise that Duke’s mistreatment of Harr was of no major consequence to him. That Harr’s reaction tended to be more volatile is proportional to his perceived sense of loss and the damages he incurred.

What is extremely chilling and disappointing about the legal process thus far is that a magistrate judge would recommend to the Court that the legitimate complaint filed by Harr be dismissed… especially in lieu of the fact that Duke defendants’ actions were premeditated and filled with malice. The university’s response to the kind and complimentary words of Harr was to use the supportive information contained therein to cobble a scheme in which to place its author in jail… an action beyond cruel.


Part 4 – Why this case is important to everyone

The importance of this case cannot be emphasized enough, as its implications go far beyond actions suffered by Harr. This case has relevance for all citizens who go to private property that is a place of public accommodation. Although Duke University is a prime example, being a private institution on private property which holds many events for which it solicits the public to attend its campus buildings, museum, chapel, library, cathedral and other venues, what happen to Harr would have meaning for any private business catering to the public. For example, could a privately owned establishment on private property discriminate against a patron because of his/her belief regarding the death penalty, abortion, or any other controversial topic? Could a privately owned sports bar have a customer removed because his allegiance as displayed by his apparel is for a ball team other than the one favored by the proprietor? These examples are similar to the incident that happened to Harr on Duke’s campus in April 2010.

Duke University knows that it is on the wrong side of justice in this case, but feels that it can trample on the rights of most individuals because it has the media on its side, and to an extent, as recently revealed by Magistrate Judge Sharp’s recommendation, the courts. The media has had full knowledge of the discriminatory acts by Duke early on, but has refused to cover the story. That the mainstream media is under the control of Duke University in this particular instance, and that it can be unfairly controlled by those in powers, is evident. Duke has heavily relied upon the media to keep its disgraceful and embarrassing misconduct against Harr hidden from the public.

As a point of contrast, when two lesbians were asked by a security guard in 2010 to leave a shopping mall in Raleigh, North Carolina, because they briefly showed affection publicly, the media ran with the story… giving it extensive coverage in print and on air. Both locally, and nationally, and where it was even the topic of a cable news program. As a result, the offenders quickly acquiesced to the grievances of the lesbians, who had the full support of the ACLU, Gay and Lesbian groups, and others.

Harr on the other hand was blindsided by Duke University, wherein a premeditated conspiracy was launched against Harr with the intention of putting him behind bars… his offense, being a supporter of Mike Nifong… because of his beliefs, thoughts, and opinions. And not because of any actions committed by him. Yet, the media, acting in unison, has kept this egregious discriminatory act by Duke University secreted away.

Because the U.S. Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp not only sided with defense attorneys for Duke, but felt the need to reinforce its weak defense with lies about facts of the case and misleading statements, it seems to me that Duke felt it has the courts, as well as the media, in its back pocket.

Ramifications of the Motion to Dismiss are far-reaching if Duke University is allowed to abuse it in court. The motion could be used by mammoth institutions and mega-corporations to fend off legitimate and worthy complaints by individuals they have wronged, by relying on the court to dismiss legal actions against them without the arguments even being heard by a jury. This would be the equivalent of giving Goliath a Kevlar body suit with riot headgear before sending him out to do battle with David. Talk about an uneven playing field…

But Harr is not fighting for any advantage, or even a level playing field. All he wants is the opportunity to engage Duke University and its defense team on the playing field. Despite Duke’s many advantages in its pecuniary coffers and legal expertise over Harr, Harr remains confident that he will prevail because he has justice on his side… and he is fighting for the legal rights of all ordinary individuals who have been trampled upon by the big and powerful.



Governor's racist pardon policy denies compensation to wrongly incarcerated African Americans

Click the link below to view interactive flog:

http://justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog8.html

Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford prosecuted Gregory Taylor for the 1991 murder of Jacquetta Thomas. Although he lacked evidence against Taylor in the death of the black woman, Ford maliciously pursued the case against Taylor because he would not implicate African American Johnny Beck, who Taylor knew to be innocent.

Ford used perjured testimony from compromised individuals, who faced their own criminal charges and jail time, along with hocus-pocus SBI lab work, to win a conviction against Taylor which carried a life sentence.

It was only after Taylor served seventeen years in prison that his case was brought before the Innocence Inquiry Commission by Attorney Christine Mumma and the NC Center on Actual Innocence, and he was unanimously declared innocent by a three judge panel. This ruling was enough to free Greg Taylor from confinement behind bars, but he required a pardon from the governor in order to receive the maximum compensation of $750,000 from the state for which he was entitled.

Governor Bev Perdue took her time, causing undo stress and anxiety for Taylor and his family, before finally issuing the pardon in May 2010.

Erick Daniels, an African American who spent more than seven years wrongfully incarcerated for an armed robbery he has adamantly and repeatedly said he did not commit, is equally deserving of a pardon so that he can receive compensation from the state as mandated by the General Assembly. In February 2011, the Office of Executive Clemency denied Erick Daniels’ request for a pardon. When I confronted the Governor’s Office about the denial, Mark A. Davis, the general counsel for the governor told me in a letter dated July 26, 2011, that they had conducted their own investigation. According to their findings, they did not definitively establish Mr. Daniels’ actual innocence, and due to “confidentiality concerns,” they could not share details of their investigation.

Mr. Davis lied in that letter, as the Governor’s Office conducted no investigation, and that is why he cannot share any details of it… and not because of “confidentiality concerns.” Furthermore, there was no forensic or scientific evidence to connect Daniels to the crime, he did not even fit the description of the armed masked perpetrator. The robbery victim fingered Erick Daniels based solely on the shape of his eyebrows in a middle school yearbook.

In addition, another man, Samuel Allen Strong, admitted to committing the crime for which Daniels served seven years. Strong not only fit the initial description of the robbery suspect, but had a past criminal record that included armed robbery, and at the time of his confession was in jail on a separate armed robbery incident.

Despite all of the above, and a declaration of innocence from Judge Orlando Hudson, Governor Bev Perdue expects the public to believe that Erick Daniels very likely was involved in the September 2000 crime.

A May 21, 2000 article in The News & Observer titled “Innocent Charlotte man spent 12 years in prison” tells of the wrongful conviction of Shawn Giovanni Massey on charges of a 1999 kidnapping and armed robbery. He served twelve years of a fourteen year sentence, convicted solely on eyewitness testimony. The only problem is that the victim went to the prosecutor with concerns that she had mistakenly identified Massey, because the perpetrator had cornrow braids and Massey did not.

A striking similarity between the cases of Massey and Daniels is that neither man fit the description of the armed robbery perpetrator, who in both instances was described as having cornrow braids. Erick Daniels and Shawn Massey each had closely cropped hair.

Mecklenburg County District Attorney Peter Gilchrist, in rare prosecutorial candor, admitted that his office botched the case by failing to disclose to the defense that the victim expressed doubt about her identification of the defendant… and eyewitness identification was all that the prosecution had with which to charge and convict Shawn Massey on the serious crimes of kidnapping and armed robbery. In other words, there was no forensic evidence tying Shawn Massey to the crime.

Gilchrist did not identify the prosecutor, and The Charlotte Observer writer Gary L. Wright, who was undoubtedly operating under the well-established media PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy, didn’t apparently make the effort to identify the prosecutor responsible for bringing an eyewitness case to trial and obtaining a conviction without disclosing exculpatory evidence to the defense about the victim’s own doubts about the accuracy of her identification. District Attorney Gilchrist also stated that he thought the prosecutor did not intend to withhold the information from the defense attorney, and that it was nothing more than a case of bad judgment.

It is interesting to note that The News & Observer glosses over such egregious missteps and malfeasances by prosecutors such as this that occur routinely throughout the state; yet use the least provocation to go after Tracey Cline, the African American Durham District Attorney, who worked under the former D.A., Mike Nifong, and has treated him with civility and respect. This has made her a target of Carpetbagger Jihadists… but that is another story.

On his release in May 2010, law professor James Coleman, a co-director of Duke’s Wrongful Convictions Clinic and Innocence Project, drove Massey from the state prison in Greenville to Charlotte where he was reunited with his family.

Although Professor Coleman and I are diametrically opposed in our positions regarding the Duke Lacrosse case and Mike Nifong, I consider him a good friend, and I credit him with preventing Duke University from arresting me on a trumped up charge for being a supporter of Mike Nifong… again, that is another story.

Since being freed, Massey has been unable to land a job, and earlier this year, the governor denied him a pardon. Upon learning that his pardon had been denied, Shawn spiraled downward into a deep depression.

Paul Stam, an Apex Republican, is unsympathetic to the plight of those whose lives have been destroyed by the state through wrongful incarceration, stating, “This is not a welfare issue. The last thing we need to do is to set up a new program just for people who’ve been exonerated.” I strongly disagree as money alone will not help the wrongfully imprisoned adjust once released and not help them emotionally heal from scars inflicted by the state.

The state has a duty to make things right for these innocents. Many experience painful flashbacks and some struggle with relationships. Most all have had difficulty finding employment. As a wrongly incarcerated man for 18 years, Darryl Hunt summed it up when he said about the state, “They put you out with no help as to how to adjust.”

A September 4, 2011, article in The News & Observer by Mandy Locke titled, “Freedom is sweet, but new problems set in,” described the extraordinary challenges which face those exonerated and released after many years of incarceration… a sampling of which follows.

Darryl Hunt at 46 is battling health issues including a stroke after he spent 18 years on death row. He referred to a misconception when he stated, “Everyone assumes we are okay because we are free. There is so much more to it.”

Dwayne Dail, now 43, spent nearly two decades in jail and finds life after prison overwhelming. He suffers from panic attacks and flashbacks to abuses he sustained while incarcerated.

Leo Waters is 62 but feels decades older. He served 21 years in prison for robbery and rape. A disabling back injury sustained in prison forced him out of a job after being released because he frequently called in sick. Since his experience he now keeps to himself and feels uncomfortable around people.

Shawn Massey, now 38, said about his life and situation, “I’m just trying to keep my head above water.”

Even the compensation of $50,000 per year of a wrongful incarceration with a $750,000 maximum is inadequate. Duke University, in a shakedown, shelled out $20 million to each of the Duke Lacrosse defendants even though they never spent a day in jail. Surely the state can do better than it has.

To an objective, rational, and reasonable individual it is evident that Gregory Taylor, Erick Daniels, and Shawn Massey were all unjustly convicted and wrongly served lengthy prison sentences. Of the three, only Taylor has received a pardon and the compensation that he is entitled to as mandated by the General Assembly… which is a pittance when one considers that they were deprived of a human’s most valuable possession… freedom.

The reason for the denial of a pardon for Erick Daniels and Shawn Massey is obvious. It is because of the color of their skin… the fact that they are African Americans. Race is the determining factor in the governor’s decision regarding pardons of innocence. The onus is on the governor to prove otherwise, but to date Governor Perdue who publicly advocates for transparency in government is shielding a racist policy behind a claim of “confidentiality concerns.”

The reason Governor Bev Perdue feels at ease denying pardons to deserving African Americans who have been wrongly incarcerated is because the NAACP, black politicians, black community leaders, black religious leaders, black businesses, black organizations, and black media have remained silent about the blatant and egregious mistreatment of these people of color who are being victimized again by a Democratic governor blocking their access to the compensation to which they are entitled. The African Americans throughout the Tar Heel state are enabling the governor to proceed with carrying out her policies based on race by remaining silent.

State NAACP President William Barber, to my knowledge, has not commented on the denial of a pardon for Durham resident Erick Daniels. Neither has Durham politicians Senator Floyd McKissick, Representatives Larry Hall and Mickey Michaux, or Democratic Congressman David Price.

Prospects do not look good for another request for a Pardon of Innocence that is pending before Governor Perdue, as the petitioner is an African American named Glen Edward Chapman.

An article in the April 3, 2008 News & Observer titled “Another innocent inmate leaves state’s death row” is about Glen Chapman who spent fourteen years on death row for two slayings he did not commit. Again, information that a key witness identified someone other than Chapman was withheld from his attorneys. Furthermore, a forensic report showed that one victim most likely died from a drug overdose rather than due to foul play.

According to the article, defense attorneys stated that the only physical evidence tying Chapman to the one homicide victim was the result of consensual sex with the victim. In addition, it was never reported to defense lawyers that eyewitnesses had last seen the murder victim alive with someone with a history of violence against her in the days after prosecutors claimed she had died.

On August 15, 2011, I hand-delivered a letter to the Capitol Building for Governor Perdue requesting that she give Glen Chapman the pardon he deserves, so that he can receive compensation for the state’s injustices against him.

Later, I received a letter dated August 23, 2011, from Pat Hansen, the Governor’s Clemency Administrator who stated that my comments regarding a possible Chapman pardon would be taken into consideration. The Office of Executive Clemency’s response was appreciated; however, what I found to be extremely disturbing is that the office is apparently under the auspices of the North Carolina Department of Corrections. This seems to represent a grave conflict of interest and one that does not bode well for the interests of justice.

Odds for Glen Edward Chapman receiving a pardon of innocence from Governor Perdue are a long shot when one considers past history and the fact that Mr. Chapman is a man of color.

Equal justice for all demands that Erick Daniels, Shawn Massey, and Glen Chapman receive a pardon from Governor Perdue. That will enable them to receive compensation from the state for their wrongful incarcerations in accordance with law set forth by the state’s legislature. Tar Heelians of good conscience rooted in the principle of “equal justice for all” will accept nothing less. 

Postmortem shenanigans and media makeover of Reginald Daye

[Note: Click link provided to access the flog (Flash blog). Be patient to allow time for it to upload as the running time is twenty minutes. Audio is required for the flog. The essence of the flog is basically contained in the script which is printed below in the traditional blog form. Return from the flog to the blog page to post comments.]

LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog1.html

Media bias against Crystal Mangum has been evident for some time… made obvious by the unflattering and misleading moniker given to her “the False Accuser.” This title which is almost always affixed to her name is false and misleading. She stands by her story that she was sexually assaulted in March 2006, and a court has not made a ruling in the Duke Lacrosse case, as North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed all charges against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants.

However, the A.G. took an unprecedented step on April 11, 2007 of proclaiming the Duke Lacrosse defendants “innocent,” a proclamation which was overreaching and which carried no legal weight. People in the legal profession and most media-types are aware of that and realize that only a jury, or a judge in lieu of a jury can determine “innocence” or “guilt.” If the Attorney General possessed such power, there would be no need to hold a trial. The A.G. could simply review the evidence presented by the prosecution and render a decision.

The media could barely contain itself, anxious to declare that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent,” “exonerated,” and/or “falsely accused.” Never mind that it was aware that it was misleading the public by declaring the defendants “innocent” and by labeling Ms. Mangum as the “False Accuser.” Its goal was to mold the minds of the gullible flock to believe that the determination of “innocence” had been legally reached and carried legal weight.

During the February 17, 2010 incident involving Crystal Mangum and her ex-boyfriend, the media toned down its coverage after realizing that the charges against her were a bunch of crock. A domestic violence call was placed to 911 by Crystal’s children because she was being beaten up by her ex. When police who responded became aware that Ms. Mangum was the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case, all attention was focused on trumping up charges against her which would result in a lengthy jail sentence. So Durham Police, who were the only ones with motive, means, and opportunity, set clothes in the bathtub on fire, made no attempt to extinguish them, and called the Durham Fire department.

Police were so intent on trumping up charges against her that they purposely did not even address the fact that Crystal’s ex-boyfriend instigated the physical clash between the two by repeatedly punching her in the face.

Charges brought against Crystal by police were excessive and without merit, and she was placed under a million dollar bail. Media-types, aware that the charges against Mangum were bogus, devoted most of their news stories to re-hashing Mangum’s role in the Duke Lacrosse case… which also afforded the opportunity to mention that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “innocent.”

Although the charges against Ms. Mangum were pathetic, the jury sided with the prosecution on the misdemeanor charges. Despite a feather weight defense by Mangum’s counsel, the jury could not bring itself to wrongfully convict her of the arson charge, and Ms. Mangum walked away from court with a sentence of 88 days time served.

The city’s unjust treatment and incarceration of Ms. Mangum was the proximate cause of her losing her job, apartment, being dropped from graduate program at NCCU, losing custody of her children, losing personal property, and losing her independence. Furthermore, the notoriety from that case in combination with media vilification regarding the Duke Lacrosse case, made it impossible for her to just pick up from where she was at the time of her arrest on February 17,, 2010. She had trouble finding employment and someone willing to rent her an apartment. This situation spawned her ill-fated symbiotic relationship with Reginald Daye.

Reginald Daye, at 46 years of age, was 14 years senior to Crystal. From what I had been told, Daye’s reputation was anything but sterling. Sources told me that he had had run-ins with the law, that he was a heavy consumer of alcoholic beverages, that his alcohol induced drunken states had led to clashes with police, and that he had the capacity and a reputation for physically abusing women with whom he had relationships.

The media, however, refused to sully Mr. Daye’s reputation, printing and broadcasting only the positive… of which there was very little, and some fabrication. To my knowledge, there was never any mention of his criminal record, which I have been told is extensive. Yet, the media stresses Mangum’s record, and gives credence to the charges stemming from the February 17, 2010 incident in which she was an assault victim and against whom charges were trumped up.

In an ABC-11 online article, Reginald Daye was said to have been employed at the time of his stabbing, working at Scotts Painting and Decorating, however, my sources have informed me that he was unemployed at the time. It is further my understanding that he was two months behind in his rent payments when he met Ms. Mangum. In addition, it was Ms. Mangum who was employed, doing the only work she could get at the time, dancing. She had been attending a trade school in preparation of seeking another position which would be considered more socially acceptable. I was told that she was anticipating getting a sizeable tax refund, as well.

By moving in with Daye, she prevented his impending eviction and was able to provide shelter for herself and her three children. Whether or not an intimate relationship between the two existed, I do not know.

I was told that early Sunday, April 3, 2011, Crystal and Reginald were involved in an argument about money which she had earned. She wanted the money to go towards rent, and I believe a money order or check had been made out to go towards rent. He wanted the money to go towards something other than rent. Money that he had not generated. However, the media only reported that a search warrant stated that responding Durham police officers said Daye told them that Mangum stabbed him and took his money. This statement by Daye was evidently enough for police to charge Mangum with two counts of larceny, regardless of the fact that they were cohabiting and possibly in a relationship. Again, an example of aggressive over-charging by the Durham police.

According to WRAL 5 news, Daye underwent emergency surgery for his stab wound to the torso and was expected to make a full recovery. However, the wral.com article posted on April 5th, two days after the incident exhibited prime examples of shoddy biased reporting. The headline, for example, blares, “Police seize knives from Duke Lacrosse accuser’s apartment.” The apartment was, in fact, rented by Daye, and not Ms. Mangum… therefore, police seized knives from Daye’s apartment. By conferring apartment rental status to Mangum, it suggests that its contents belonged to her and not Daye. Mention was made of a set of brass knuckles, but reporters made no attempt to determine its ownership. My guess would be that the brass knuckles belonged to Reginald Daye. Ownership of the knives which were confiscated during the execution of the search warrant was not addressed in the article.

WRAL’s article further states that in the February 2010 incident Mangum was accused of assaulting a “different boyfriend” and setting his clothes on fire. This statement is disingenuous and misleading as Ms. Mangum was the victim of the assault, being repeatedly punched in the face in the incident instigated by her ex-boyfriend. WRAL is trying its best, along with other media, to establish a pattern of specific criminal conduct that does not exist.

As is usual media protocol, wral.com misled the public by stating that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were declared innocent. Not only that, but an attempt was made to give credence to the innocence declaration by stating that officials, plural, were responsible for the determination... but, in fact, the media had based its claim of Duke Lacrosse innocence solely on the April 11, 2007 promulgation by Attorney General Roy Cooper.

This article is a prime example of media reporting on a Duke Lacrosse case related story that is false and misleading throughout.

In addition to Reginald Daye’s criminal record which is publicly available to the people and media alike, a source of mine also procured a copy of Reginald Daye’s death certificate which lists the cause of death as “pending.” However, CNN writer Maria White, in her April 14, 2011 piece takes the liberty to mislead by claiming that Daye died “as a result of the stabbing…” Keep in mind, this is well after WRAL reported a couple of days post-op that Daye was “expected to make a full recovery.”

In an article in “The Daily Beast” by David Graham titled “Murder Charge Latest Twist for Duke Lacrosse Accuser,” a friend of Daye’s told the “Beast” on April 5th, two days following surgery, that Daye was recovering. The rumor in the Durham community was that Daye died due to something other than as a result of his stab wound… a rumor which is only logical. Whether Daye’s death was due to complications from another unrelated pre-existing medical condition, due to medical mistakes, or the result of premeditated homicide, it is unknown, but I believe it is safe to say that he did not die due to the stab wound he received on April 3rd.

For a death which has the potential for being the handiwork of a homicidal fanatic who might have been motivated by a strong desire to see charges against Mangum to be upgraded to murder, the Durham Police department and Durham County District Attorney’s Office seem to approach this incident in a lackadaisical manner. To my knowledge, the potential crime scene was not secured, surveillance cameras were not reviewed, and no steps taken to ascertain whether or not Daye’s care might have been intentionally compromised or sabotaged. Instead, without even having a cause of death, the prosecutors make a dash to the grand jury seeking an indictment on the charge of first degree murder.

According to the article in “The Daily Beast,” the Durham County Medical Examiner stated that an autopsy might not be available for 120 days, or roughly four months. And he stated that there would not be a preliminary autopsy report issued. The postmortem treatment of Daye by the medical examiner is not routine, and there is a reason for that… to conceal, to shield, to coverup, to obfuscate the truth. Rest assured, that had autopsy findings directly linked the Mangum-inflicted stab wound to Daye’s death, a final report would have already been published and eagerly carried by the media to the people.

Some media outlets try to suggest Daye’s April 13th death was a result of the wounds he received ten days earlier on April 3rd. ABC-11 News, which is extremely biased in its reporting stated that “Daye died days later..” suggesting that he succumbed to wounds sustained. This is an example of misleading media spin at its best.

David Graham’s article in “The Daily Beast,” is one of the most balanced accountings of the April 3rd story that I have seen. Unfortunately, like the rest of the mainstream media, it too insisted on referring to Mangum’s rape allegations as false… as though decided by a court of law. Duke law professor James Coleman questions the appropriateness of the first degree murder charge against Mangum that was handed down by the Grand Jury on Monday, April 18th. Taking their domestic relationship into consideration Coleman represented that a more suitable charge would be voluntary manslaughter.

I don’t know what kind of investigation the Durham Police Department undertook with regards to the stabbing incident, but with Daye’s criminal record (which I have been told includes an assault against a female) there is a great likelihood that the April 3rd stabbing was an act of self-defense on Crystal Mangum’s part.

There is no doubt in my mind that the authorities, courts, and media are, and have been, out to get Crystal Mangum because of her accusations in the Duke Lacrosse case. The excessive overcharging, the exceedingly high bail, the secrecy with public reports, and biased, selective, and misleading reporting by the media has been engaged for the purpose of punishing Crystal Mangum because of her claims about being sexually assaulted in 2006.

The success in carrying out their vendetta against Ms. Mangum can be attributed in large measure to the silence of politicians representing Durham. To my knowledge, U.S. Congressman David Price, State Senator Floyd McKissick, and State Representatives Mickey Michaux and Larry Hall have been silent and made no attempt to challenge the gross mistreatment of Ms. Mangum by the authorities and the court. Likewise, civil rights organizations, such as the NAACP under state President Reverend Doctor William Barber has been quiet as dormice. As far as I know, women’s rights organizations and those which profess to protect battered women, stand by while Ms. Mangum is slaughtered by the state and the media. The viciousness of the attacks against Crystal Mangum rivals only those launched against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong.

Although I am not a Durham County resident I have been appalled at the recent treatment of Ms. Mangum by the state, and on the morning of Monday, April 18th, I mailed letters to Durham Police Chief Jose Lopez and Durham District Attorney Tracy Cline advising them against seeking to indict Ms. Mangum in Reginald Daye’s death. I later learned that at the time I was dropping off my letter at the post office, a Grand Jury had been convened and had given the prosecution the murder indictment against Ms. Mangum that it had sought.

An indictment for first degree murder when the victim’s cause of death had not even been determined in a patient who postoperatively had the prognosis of making a full recovery. First degree murder wherein the victim and the offender were in a domestic relationship wherein the possibility of self-defense was not even considered by the authorities. First degree murder in which the victim was well on his way to recovery and close to discharge when he suddenly and without explanation lapsed into a deep and irreversible coma. First degree murder in a man whose death was without doubt not related to a stab wound he had received.

I wrote the letters to Lopez and Cline in hopes of preventing the murder indictment which I felt might come against Mangum, but which I strongly believed was based on irrational Duke Lacrosse case bias instead of the objective and fairly applied rule of law. Durham County, in a swirl of Duke Lacrosse aftermath litigation, is dead set on taking its frustration and hostilities out on Ms. Mangum, Mike Nifong, Mike Nifong supporters, and others with empathy towards Nifong. I have made my voice heard on the Duke Lacrosse-related issues, while the voices of Price, McKissick, Michaux, and Hall have remained silent. They remain hushed because they lack the will and the courage to protect their most vulnerable of constituents from the bullying and vindictive individuals in positions of power in law enforcement and the prosecutors’ office who are motivated to carry out the vitriolic vendetta against those perceived by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.

Towards the unethical goal of unjustly saddling Crystal Mangum with a first degree murder conviction, the media is doing its part by portraying Reginald Daye in the best light possible… amplifying the good, concealing the bad, and giving an ambitious makeover on the ugly.

Politicians’ lack of will and courage hamper justice in Duke Discrimination case

On this blog site I have frequently complained about the gross mistreatment I received when I attended a public event on Duke campus in April 2010. I have also mentioned my attempts to reach out to politicians who represent me in hopes that they would help resolve this issue to everyone’s satisfaction.

The other day, a commenter asked the following: Anonymous said...

Sidney, give us the specific reasons why your US Representative declined to intervene with Duke University on your behalf. Could you quote the reasons word for word. April 7, 2011 7:31 AM

Therefore, I devote this blog in response, with links to the letters in question. I wrote not just one, but three politicians who represented me… U.S. Congressmen David Price and Brad Miller, and State Representative Deborah Ross.

What I basically sought from them was a letter seeking an explanation from Duke University about its alleged treatment of me, or if they were satisfied with the extensive amount of evidence presented on my website, a letter to admonish Duke for its excessive and barbaric treatment of me. In other words, I wanted Duke University to know that my political representatives, if not concerned about my treatment, were at least giving it their attention.

Not to my surprise, all three of the politicians who represent me refused to get involved. To do so would require the will to seek justice for me, and the courage to go up against Duke University – attributes which, with regards to this instance, were regrettably lacking among Price, Miller, and Ross. The media, employing its Jedi mind-tricks on the public, has made support of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong political poison… regardless of issues of fairness, ethics, and justice. In addition, Duke University is a powerful conglomeration with deep pockets which are capable of filling coffers of candidates.

Requesting assistance from my representatives in the form of a letter was both appropriate and doable. Congressmen Price and Miller both tried to convince me that their First Amendment Right to Free Speech was somehow impinged by their roles in the U.S. Capitol. They should know better than anyone that their right to express concern, support, disappointment, or any other emotion on a constituent of theirs who has been mistreated, is protected by the Bill of Right and by common decency.

I do take offense from Mr. Price making the reference about “self-imposed exile from the (Duke) campus,” which is meant to absolve Duke from any responsibility for me not feeling comfortable to return to Duke. There is no doubt in my mind that Duke University would have arrested me had I not had the fortune of running into Duke law professor James Coleman. Professor Coleman is a friend of mine, and his intercession on my behalf is the only thing that kept me from being tossed into the clinker. By its actions, Duke did, in effect, exile me.

Mr. Price also attempts to give credence to Duke’s flimsy excuse of solicitation, which I find insulting. No reasonable adult would believe that handing out a business card to a selected number of individuals and inviting them, in a private conversation, to visit a website should be construed as soliciting.

Bottom line regarding Mr. Price is that he had two of his constituents who were at odds with one another. He choose to side with the constituent with deep pockets rather than the one with justice on his side.

At the time that Congressman Miller and Representative Ross responded to my appeal, they redefined my problem as being a legal matter, which it wasn’t. I had hoped for their intervention on my behalf for the explicit purpose of preventing it from becoming one. Unfortunately, that was not the case and I was left with no option but to take it to the next level. Had a politician aggressively become involved in seeing that justice was served, I believe there would have been a decent chance that the issue could have been amicably and expeditiously settled.

Below is the link to the letters.

LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoB2/ltr5reps.htm

Also, below is a link to Part 15 of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper.”

LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc181.htm

Right conclusion, but wrong hypothesis

On March 13, 2011, The News & Observer published an op-ed piece titled “An Anniversary Duke will try to overlook.” It was authored by Bob Wilson, a Durhamian who reached the correct conclusion, but by using faulty reasoning. Yes, Duke University would like to forget March 13, 2006, and the events that transpired subsequently. However, the overriding reason they would like to forget the incident is because it was bamboozled out of sixty million dollars ($60,000,000.00) by three avaricious and crafty attorneys who represented the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Those attorneys (Joseph Cheshire, Wade Smith, and James Cooney) probably convinced Duke that it would have no problem being reimbursed by their insurance carrier after paying the Duke threesome. Duke realized, only too late that it had been snookered when their insurance company refused to simply fork over to them the sixty mil. Then, Duke threw good money after bad when it fought to force the insurance company to pay, ignoring the fact that it was Duke that breached its contract with the insurance company and not the other way around. After substantially wasting money on this ill-fated endeavor, Duke University eventually dropped its complaint with both parties agreeing to pay their own costs.

The misguided columnist, however, seems to feel, for some unexplained reason, that the Duke Lacrosse defendants are entitled to an apology from Duke University. My question is: Why? The Duke Lacrosse defendants, with their well-earned reputation for revelry and debauchery, held the beer-guzzling, stripper ogling party with under-aged drinking (and most likely illicit drug use) despite warnings by the university president to their coach to rein in the boys. Not only did the Duke Lacrosse player who arranged the night’s entertainment use a false name to procure it, but a false pretense as well… stating two exotic dancers were wanted for a small bachelor party of four or five, instead of a rowdy kegger sponsored by the Duke Lacrosse team. Now, add to the mix that the partygoers shouted out racial epithets using the “n-word” to the two African American female performers.

The Duke Lacrosse team members had a shady background when it came to legal matters to begin with, as nearly a third of the team had run-ins with the law for offenses ranging from public intoxication, driving with open beer containers, urinating in public, and other transgressions. Specifically Collin Finnerty was convicted of assault and battery against two men who he erroneously assumed to be gay… a hate crime. Dave Evans was cited for driving with an open alcoholic beverage in his car. And Reade Seligmann had a lien slapped against him for attempting to evade paying taxes of $6.7 million on his $20 mil windfall. Mr. Wilson obviously believes these are the types of citizens who are entitled to a payday of $20 million… while Duke University hikes tuition and cuts services and classes for its entire student body in order to make up for the loss of more than $60 million. Rest assured, that none of the make-up for the debt is coming from the hefty compensation packages that the Duke University bigwigs enjoy.

The columnist seems to feel that the Duke Lacrosse defendants suffered greatly because a protester against their reckless party-going ways held up a sign that read “Castrate.” Face it, the boys never spent one day in jail, and the media played them as victims from the git-go. The biased media, following the Carpetbagger Jihadist doctrine to destroy Mike Nifong and anyone deemed to be against the Duke Lacrosse defendants, crucified Mr. Nifong and the victim of the incident, Crystal Mangum. Every article written and broadcast aired spoke about how the Duke Lacrosse defendants were wrongly accused, that Mike Nifong was disbarred, and that the defendants had been declared “innocent.” The media types knew that they were misleading the public and that the Attorney General Roy Cooper had no legal right to make such an unprecedented innocent proclamation. (This promulgation of April 11, 2007, was engineered by Joseph Cheshire’s underling Brad Bannon). Books have been written in defense of the Duke Lacrosse boys, and HBO has been trying to make a movie about the incident… but they had to keep firing scriptwriters for creating a story that was uncomfortably too close to the truth. (Trying to make the Duke Lacrosse defendants appear like choirboys is a monumentally impossible task, if an attempt is made to retain any semblance of the truth.)

The fact is that the Duke defendants prospered, and not just financially, because of their involvement in the case. An admiring judge in Washington, DC, expunged all legal trace of Collin Finnerty’s assault and battery conviction, and they were all highly sought after and recruited by universities and Wall Street-type companies. Doors were open to them for all types of opportunities and ventures. The ones who truly suffered as a result of the aftermath of March 13, 2006, are Mr. Nifong and his family, Crystal Mangum, Nifong supporters, and others considered to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.

The treatment I received by Duke University was far worse than what the institution doled out to the Duke Lacrosse defendants, as I was kicked off campus and nearly arrested at a public event I attended in April 2010. Because I was a known supporter of Mike Nifong, holding thoughts, beliefs, and opinions favorable to him, I was humiliated, intimidated, and nearly arrested by a security guard who was unable to give an explanation as to why I was being kicked off campus. As he stated, he was merely doing his job, which was to get rid of me. Fortunately for me, I ran into James Coleman, a Duke law professor and friend, who interceded on my behalf. Had he not, I believe the Duke police officer who was called in for backup, without cause, would have arrested me.

Duke University does have hostility and animus as a result of the Duke Lacrosse case, but I submit that it is directed at the wrong targets. Mike Nifong was conscientiously performing his duties when he prosecuted the Duke Lacrosse case, Crystal Mangum was the victim of the Duke Lacrosse case, and Mike Nifong supporters are merely seeking justice… equal justice for all, which begins with justice for Mike Nifong. And, none of the above attempted to shakedown Duke for $20 million.

If Duke University wishes to vent its hostility, it should direct it towards the true culprits, the Duke Lacrosse defendants. Yes, Duke University, Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum, and most everyone else involved in the case would like to forget the anniversary… everyone except the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, the defendants themselves, their avaricious attorneys, and the Duke Lacrosse defendant worshippers (which probably includes Mr. Wilson) who want to brag about and laud before the masses their financial rip-off of Duke University. 


Below is a link to the documents and audio of Nifong supporter Sidney B. Harr’s encounter with Duke University on April 14, 2010.

LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoB/irepoBopen.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.

When in the wrong… lie and scapegoat

During a robust Wake County school board meeting on July 20, 2010, Keith Sutton, an African American board member, waded into an unruly crowd attending the meeting in an attempt to calm emotions. One of the officers from the Raleigh Police Department, which presented a strong show of force, grabbed the arms of the business-suited Sutton and brought them behind his back in the process of handcuffing him. The officer involved was halted when school staff members came to Sutton's defense, explaining to the officer that he was a member of the school board.

Although unharmed, this humiliating and unwarranted near-arrest experience was deserving of an apology from the Raleigh police chief Harry Dolan and/or the officer responsible for the laying on of hands, according to Mr. Sutton. Needless to say, that apology was not forthcoming. Instead, Chief Dolan blamed Sutton for getting between police and demonstrators… never mind Sutton's intent or actions as they were evidently irrelevant. It all has to do with positioning. Now I am not aware of there being a crime on the books for being placed between alleged demonstrators and police, but in the North Carolina justice system, anything goes. To save face, Sutton said that Captain Stacy Deans apologized to him on July 20th, which goes to show that Sutton should have left well enough alone and not sought an official apology from the chief. Also, it shows that there are some decent and responsible people among Raleigh’s Finest.

Some people, such as myself, may believe that race played a role in the actions of the near-arrest officer and the resulting situation. Just ask yourself this, if school board Chairman Ron Margiotta or member John Tedesco had positioned themselves between demonstrators and police would they have had their arms yanked behind their backs? I don’t think so.

This unfortunate incident brings to mind my near-arrest experience on the campus of Duke University on April 14, 2010. I was at the Duke University Law School to hear Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, at an event which was open to the public and advertised to be on a "first come, first served" basis. So I arrived a couple of hours early wearing my Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong tee shirt, and being a gregarious person by nature, I struck up conversations with a few individuals, and gave some of them my Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong business card. After the hour presentation, I was leaving the room en masse with other attendees, with the intent of catching the bus and heading back to Raleigh. I was intercepted by a uniformed guard (whether security or campus police I do not know). He informed me that I had to leave the campus, which I was in the process of doing before his interference. He accused me of trespassing, and when I asked him why, he told me that he did not know… that Duke was a private institution and had the right to trespass anyone it wanted. As he explained it, he was only doing his job. He told me that the building manager had asked me to leave, but would not take me to see her, so I expressed my displeasure to him. Fortuitously for me, law professor James Coleman happened by and after I flagged him down, he interceded on my behalf. Had it not been for his input, I believe that I would have been arrested that day. I explained to the guard that I was leaving the campus and that he did not need to follow me, but he responded that he was going to see to it that I left the campus because I was causing a “disturbance.” (When questioned he couldn’t tell me what disturbance I had allegedly caused. I explained to him that he was the one causing the disturbance by interrupting me as I was leaving the campus.) Even though I was walking from the building to the bus stop, the guard took it upon himself to call in reinforcements. Within seconds, a patrol car pulled up and an officer joined him. There were now two men in uniform shadowing me. Before boarding the bus, the guard told me that I was nearly arrested on three occasions during our brief period of contact which could not have been more than fifteen to twenty minutes.

What this goes to show is that, like in the Sutton situation, one does not need to do anything illegal or wrong in order to wind up in jail… especially if you are disenfranchised or a person of color. Surely, my behavior did not warrant the harassing and humiliating treatment of Duke University’s security. The guard did not even know why he was asking me to leave the campus… he was only following orders, as he explained. At least Mr. Sutton and I did not get arrested, unlike Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. As you may remember, Gates was arrested for becoming upset about the humiliating and harassing treatment he received when police investigated him for a possible “forced entry” onto his own property.

Unlike Sutton, however, I did not seek an apology from Duke University, I sought an explanation about my abusive treatment from Pamela Bernard, the general counsel for the school. Instead of an admission to me of wrong-doing by Duke, she did the next best thing for herself… delegate the problem to someone else. Michael J. Schoenfeld, the Vice President for Public Affairs and Government Relations, replied with a letter dated May 10, 2010, in which he conjured up a cockamamie excuse and laid blame for the triggering of actions against me on the Duke police. He stated that I was asked to leave the campus for repeatedly violating the Duke policy against solicitation, which, according to Mr. Schoenfeld, constituted passing out my business cards and asking people to visit the website. It was unclear from Schoenfeld's letter whether it was okay to pass out business cards as long as I did not ask people to visit my website, or whether it was okay to ask people to visit my website as long as I did not give them my business card. Mr. Schoenfeld then expects me to believe that a person who accepted a business card would then take the time to report it to the Durham police. Surely, the Durham Police have more important issues with which to contend than the handing out of business cards.

I don’t know who ordered me kicked off campus that day in April (although I seriously doubt that Durham Police had anything to do with it) and that is not something upon which I dwell. What I find disheartening and alarming is that when guilty of wrongdoing, Duke elected to lie and scapegoat. Instead Duke chose the low road of blaming me and laying the decision to have me ousted from campus on its police. The appropriate steps to take would have been to admit its missteps and take steps to see that it doesn’t occur in the future (… also, an apology would have been appreciated).

In Keith Sutton’s case, as in that of Professor Gates, I believe skin color played a major role. Although I believe that skin color may have been a contributing factor in my situation, my allegiance to the principles of seeking justice for selectively and unjustly disbarred prosecutor Mike Nifong was the overriding issue. As the media has made perfectly clear, and is in large measure responsible for forging it, there has been for some time a new class against which to discriminate… Nifong supporters. Duke University has no problem with doing just that.

It is important for people (especially the poor, disenfranchised, and those of color) to realize that they can be arrested without reason or provocation. Know too, that when it happens, you are less likely to get an apology and more likely to be given a serving of lies and a scapegoat.


NOTICE: Update on “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper – Episode V: Clash of the Super-Hero Titans – Initial Encounter.” This ambitious project is more than halfway completed. It contains 17 parts and is larger than the previous four episodes put together. There are a plethora of local celebs and dignitaries in this episode, including a cameo appearance by Durham Mayor Bill Bell… and even a blog commenter has a major role. I am hopeful to have it completed and posted by year’s end. (Unlike the previous three episodes, Roy Cooper dons his cape, cowl, and buccaneer boots and returns to super-hero action.)

Also, the website is being revamped to give better exposure of our members, as the original opening page is getting cramped as membership grows. Also, the navigation will be much easier with the new format. Expect to see the change in the next week or two.

Finally, you may be aware of the subscription option for the blog that was recently installed for your convenience. You can, of course, continue to access the blog through the website, or blogsite directly.