Fix the Court: "Harr accosted Justice Breyer"

Harr v. Duke - a directory of legal documents

Notice UPDATE 12-15-11: All of the buttons work appropriately, however, I have not been able to solve the problem with returning straight to the directory. I will continue working to try and resolve that problem. Sorry about the inconvenience.

Click on the link below to access. All narrative is on the flog, so get ready to read fast. At the end of the three minute flog is a directory for documents.

http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/harrvduke.html

Enjoy and become enlightened!

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.

Legal basis behind attack on Cooper April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation”

When Attorney General Roy Cooper dismissed all the charges against the three Duke Lacrosse defendants on April 11, 2007, he did something outside his scope of legal authority… in an unprecedented move, he pronounced the three Duke Lacrosse defendants “innocent.” The biased mainstream media was quick to jump and embrace this proclamation by the A.G. as being legally binding and valid. The defendants were often referred to in the media as “innocent,” or “exonerated,” or “cleared of the charges.” However, as I have been complaining for some time, the statement of “innocent” made by Attorney General Cooper has no legal weight, and the statements by the media using “innocent” etc, are totally incorrect and misleadingly false.

On February 22, 2010, I sent an e-mail to Professor Anthony Baker of Campbell University School of law, in which I made the following three observations and asked for him to comment on them:

(1) The North Carolina Attorney General does not have the legal authority to determine, declare, or make a pronouncement as to whether or not a criminal defendant is “innocent,” “not guilty,” and/or “guilty.”
(2) The North Carolina Attorney General’s Office, when taking over criminal prosecution in a role as special prosecutor, is charged with either proceeding with the prosecution or dismissing the charges. Conferring “guilt,” “non-guilt,” or “innocence” is not his mandate and is not within his province.
(3) The media is legally and technically incorrect whenever it makes references to the guilt, non-guilt, or innocence of a defendant based upon a determination, statement, or position of an attorney general in the state of North Carolina.

In an e-mail reply to me dated that same day, Professor Baker made the following statement, “As for your three statements, as worded I agree with them all. The A.G. presents a case but does not sit as ‘trier of fact’ -- or ultimate adjudicator -- of it. That is the sole province of the jury, or a judge sitting in lieu of a jury.”

I am sorry for the delay in responding, but I have been recently attending events (John Hope Franklin Conference “From Slavery to Freedom to the White House” held at Duke Law School on April 8th through 10th, and the interview at Duke Law School open to the public featuring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer on April 14th). And after the latter event which had me being expelled from the Duke University campus and nearly arrested, I have been busy dealing with that situation, as well. Plus, I am trying to complete Episode V of the comic strip, which is slowly but surely progressing.

Anyway, those in opposition to my position (which I have backed up with the aforementioned contents of the e-mail from a law school professor and scholar Anthony Baker) have yet to offer a statement from a person with a credible legal background to argue to the contrary. Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895) says nothing about a state’s attorney general being given the legal authority to pronounce a defendant “innocent,” “not guilty,” or “guilty,” and is therefore without relevance.

Good luck in trying to find someone to make such a statement and allow you to quote him/her, because for someone to do so would definitely expose them as being the ones who truly do not understand the law.

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.