Showing posts with label News and Observer article. Show all posts
Showing posts with label News and Observer article. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
Monday, September 17, 2012
As far as the media’s concerned, when it comes to Crystal Mangum domestic violence is acceptable
Word count: 927
Print and broadcast media have been carrying the tragic story about Kathleen Bertrand, the 41 year-old mother of three who fell victim to domestic violence. She was murdered outside of her workplace in Cameron Village Shopping Center by her ex-husband who traveled from his residence outside of the state in order to end her life. And after accomplishing this deed, he went on to take his own life just miles away.
The News & Observer, which heavily covered the story, published an editorial about the tragedy titled, “Everyone’s Duty: Domestic violence is a community problem, too often a deadly serious one.” “Shops go purple for slain employee” read another newspaper article the following day which covered the successful fundraiser for the three orphaned children.
I have no problem with the coverage of this horrific incident by the mainstream media, and, in fact, I applaud it. However, I believe the media is doing a great injustice to the public by covering up the fact that Crystal Magnum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser, was a victim of domestic violence on April 3, 2011. She fought to defend herself against her intoxicated assailant Reginald Daye, and the stab wound she inflicted did not even have anything to do with his demise. That Daye was the provocateur is without doubt as a reasonable person would easily surmise that Mr. Daye had punched Mangum, pulled out her hair, kicked in the bathroom door prior to being stabbed once by Ms. Mangum… her final act before grabbing her purse and fleeing.
The media, from the git-go, has been successfully misleading the masses into believing that Crystal Mangum got into an argument with Daye, and due to this verbal disagreement became enraged enough to stab him with a kitchen knife… stealing money before leaving. This fantasy, which the majority of people buy into, is far from the truth. True, they were arguing, however not over money, rent, or cashier’s checks. That early Sunday morning in April 2011, Daye, with a stuporous level of alcohol coursing through his vessels, was jealously upset because Crystal had been talking with another man. The argument had absolutely nothing to do with monetary issues as the media has continuously suggested.
One thing the media consistently excludes in covering this story, is that Reginald Daye became physical with Mangum out of anger… punching her in the face and head approximately ten times. He dragged her by the hair, with clumps of hair being noted and recorded by police, and when Ms. Mangum sought refuge in the bathroom by locking the door behind her, Daye kicked it in… off its hinges according to reports. It was only after Daye spit on her, brought in steak knives from the kitchen to throw at her, and was in the process of strangling her that she grabbed a knife lying within reach and stabbed him once. The media conveniently and purposely omits this narrative, not wanting the public to realize that Reginald Daye was stabbed in self-defense. Even with its extensive investigative resources, the mainstream media was unable to unearth Daye’s lengthy criminal record that includes “assault on a female.”
Despite the fact that the injury Mangum inflicted to Daye was not related to his death, the mainstream media allows the public to believe that the wound itself was fatal. Little is mentioned of how the emergency surgery was successful and that his prognosis was excellent. There is an humungous media void regarding the botched intubation, cardiac arrest, and resultant brain death that occurred within he walls of Duke University Hospital, and which led to Daye’s elective removal from life support and death.
The message this biased media reporting is sending to future victims of domestic violence is that if you fight back against your abuser and he/she dies, the possibility exists that you could be charged with murder. Crystal Mangum is not being provided protection under the law as she was turned from victim into assailant in 2010 after she was repeatedly punched in the face by her ex-boyfriend. The media was careful not to mention that the repeated punches to the face initiated the cascade of events that led to Mangum’s unjust arrest. Instead, the media focused on the extremely outrageous charges brought against her, and the alleged statements she made to him after he returned to the house during the police presence. And, of course, the media did not question why the police decided to do nothing and call the fire department for a small blaze in a bathtub that could have easily been extinguished by turning on bathwater.
It is obvious that the authorities as well as the media are after Crystal Mangum, seeking to do the work of the Carpetbaggers by carrying out their vengeful agenda. Both incidents involving Mangum that occurred in 2010 and 2011 are ones in which Mangum was the victim, her assailants were neither arrested nor charged, and she spent, and is spending, significant time in jail away from her three children who need her and love her.
The treatment of Ms. Mangum by the justice system makes it ever apparent that when it comes to the Duke Lacrosse case and its actors and those associated with it, when it comes to the fair application of justice, all bets are off… and those deemed by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case, will undoubtedly be getting the short end of the stick.
Note: Coming soon, an all important interactive flog!!
Print and broadcast media have been carrying the tragic story about Kathleen Bertrand, the 41 year-old mother of three who fell victim to domestic violence. She was murdered outside of her workplace in Cameron Village Shopping Center by her ex-husband who traveled from his residence outside of the state in order to end her life. And after accomplishing this deed, he went on to take his own life just miles away.
The News & Observer, which heavily covered the story, published an editorial about the tragedy titled, “Everyone’s Duty: Domestic violence is a community problem, too often a deadly serious one.” “Shops go purple for slain employee” read another newspaper article the following day which covered the successful fundraiser for the three orphaned children.
I have no problem with the coverage of this horrific incident by the mainstream media, and, in fact, I applaud it. However, I believe the media is doing a great injustice to the public by covering up the fact that Crystal Magnum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser, was a victim of domestic violence on April 3, 2011. She fought to defend herself against her intoxicated assailant Reginald Daye, and the stab wound she inflicted did not even have anything to do with his demise. That Daye was the provocateur is without doubt as a reasonable person would easily surmise that Mr. Daye had punched Mangum, pulled out her hair, kicked in the bathroom door prior to being stabbed once by Ms. Mangum… her final act before grabbing her purse and fleeing.
The media, from the git-go, has been successfully misleading the masses into believing that Crystal Mangum got into an argument with Daye, and due to this verbal disagreement became enraged enough to stab him with a kitchen knife… stealing money before leaving. This fantasy, which the majority of people buy into, is far from the truth. True, they were arguing, however not over money, rent, or cashier’s checks. That early Sunday morning in April 2011, Daye, with a stuporous level of alcohol coursing through his vessels, was jealously upset because Crystal had been talking with another man. The argument had absolutely nothing to do with monetary issues as the media has continuously suggested.
One thing the media consistently excludes in covering this story, is that Reginald Daye became physical with Mangum out of anger… punching her in the face and head approximately ten times. He dragged her by the hair, with clumps of hair being noted and recorded by police, and when Ms. Mangum sought refuge in the bathroom by locking the door behind her, Daye kicked it in… off its hinges according to reports. It was only after Daye spit on her, brought in steak knives from the kitchen to throw at her, and was in the process of strangling her that she grabbed a knife lying within reach and stabbed him once. The media conveniently and purposely omits this narrative, not wanting the public to realize that Reginald Daye was stabbed in self-defense. Even with its extensive investigative resources, the mainstream media was unable to unearth Daye’s lengthy criminal record that includes “assault on a female.”
Despite the fact that the injury Mangum inflicted to Daye was not related to his death, the mainstream media allows the public to believe that the wound itself was fatal. Little is mentioned of how the emergency surgery was successful and that his prognosis was excellent. There is an humungous media void regarding the botched intubation, cardiac arrest, and resultant brain death that occurred within he walls of Duke University Hospital, and which led to Daye’s elective removal from life support and death.
The message this biased media reporting is sending to future victims of domestic violence is that if you fight back against your abuser and he/she dies, the possibility exists that you could be charged with murder. Crystal Mangum is not being provided protection under the law as she was turned from victim into assailant in 2010 after she was repeatedly punched in the face by her ex-boyfriend. The media was careful not to mention that the repeated punches to the face initiated the cascade of events that led to Mangum’s unjust arrest. Instead, the media focused on the extremely outrageous charges brought against her, and the alleged statements she made to him after he returned to the house during the police presence. And, of course, the media did not question why the police decided to do nothing and call the fire department for a small blaze in a bathtub that could have easily been extinguished by turning on bathwater.
It is obvious that the authorities as well as the media are after Crystal Mangum, seeking to do the work of the Carpetbaggers by carrying out their vengeful agenda. Both incidents involving Mangum that occurred in 2010 and 2011 are ones in which Mangum was the victim, her assailants were neither arrested nor charged, and she spent, and is spending, significant time in jail away from her three children who need her and love her.
The treatment of Ms. Mangum by the justice system makes it ever apparent that when it comes to the Duke Lacrosse case and its actors and those associated with it, when it comes to the fair application of justice, all bets are off… and those deemed by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case, will undoubtedly be getting the short end of the stick.
Note: Coming soon, an all important interactive flog!!
Monday, July 2, 2012
Media continues to Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong
As the one year anniversary of the self-defense stabbing of Reginald Daye by Duke Lacrosse case victim/accuser Crystal Mangum rolled around, Ms. Mangum was concerned about the lack of movement on her case. She had been incarcerated since the incident and asked Sidney B. Harr, a layperson, for assistance. After sending Harr some of the prosecution discovery, the Lay Advocate for the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong drafted three Pro Se motions on behalf of Mangum which she signed. Harr physically took these motions to the court where they were filed, and he then notified the media. More than one journalist, in turn, contacted the North Carolina State Bar and asked what action it might take in response to the motions. With the State Bar named as the complainant, the Authorized Practice Committee launched an investigation into Harr’s actions.
On Thursday, April 5, 2012, Harr filed the motions he drafted for Mangum, and by the following Tuesday, April 10th, the State Bar had sent to Harr a Letter of Notice, which informed him of its investigation into his actions and the fifteen day deadline by which an answer to the complaint was to be filed. On April 19, 2012, Harr mailed to the State Bar his answer to the action taken against him. The case against Harr will be heard by the Authorized Practice Committee on July 17, 2012 at its quarterly meeting in Pinehurst.
In the June 30, 2012 issue of The News & Observer there is an article by the Associated Press titled “Murder convict free after 17 years.” It tells about a Greensboro man, LaMonte Armstrong, who was given a life sentence in 1995 for the 1988 killing of Ernestine Compton, one of Armstrong’s former college professors. He was freed on June 29, 2012 by Superior Court Judge Joe Turner after another man was linked to the crime and it was learned that the police and prosecutors hid important evidence from defense attorneys. One of the keys to LaMonte Armstrong’s conviction was the perjured testimony from a convicted felon who later admitted that police pressured him to accuse Armstrong. It should be of note that although fingerprints at the crime scene could be traced to others, there were no fingerprints or other forensic evidence to tie Mr. Armstrong to the murder.
Prosecutors’ star witnesses against Armstrong included three convicted felons who claimed that Armstrong made jailhouse confessions to them, and a fourth convicted felon who claimed to have witnessed the crime. This witness later stated that he was told by police officers that he would be charged with the killing of Ms. Compton unless he fingered Armstrong.
Theresa Newman, co-director of the Duke Law School’s Wrongful Convictions Clinic, stated, “I really hope that nobody was intentionally framing (Armstrong), but this is so close to the line, it raises questions.
Greensboro prosecutors, without any credible evidence and who withheld vital evidence from defense attorneys, using perjured testimony of their star witnesses who are all convicted felons, won a life sentence against LaMonte Armstrong. This most definitely was a frame by prosecutors, but again, the media protects them by adhering to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy and refusing to list the names of any of these so-called “ministers of justice.” Did the journalists go to the NC State Bar with the Armstrong story and ask if it will seek any action against these prosecutors who effectively stole 17 years from the life of an innocent man? No! Instead the media is more concerned about the State Bar focusing its efforts on a non-attorney civilian whose crime was that he helped to draft three motions on behalf of Crystal Mangum.
There is no doubt that when the Authorized Practice Committee of the North Carolina State Bar convenes on July 17, 2012 it will dispense the most lenient option at its disposal and give Harr a warning to cease and desist from such activity in the future. It is just unfortunate that the State Bar will have been forced to expend time, money, and effort to investigate such a trivial matter involving a non-attorney. I believe that the State Bar’s resources could have been much better spent on investigating the activities of the prosecutors who framed an innocent man for a murder he did not commit.
Link to companion documents: http://www.justice4nifong.com/legal/genl/blinkdirec.htm
Monday, March 12, 2012
It’s a crime to steal from yourself!
“Drats!” I can almost hear one of the executives of the Prison Industrial Complex now muttering as on February 22, 2012 a felon slipped through its greedy grasp to gain his freedom. Anxious to build its prison population to expand its bottom line the correctional facility failed to reel in the potential boarder in large measure because he was not a person of color. The fact that he was a retired Cary police officer most assuredly helped him wiggle off the hook. The News & Observer article of February 23, 2012 by Amanda James titled “Artist off the hook for theft charges” detailed the story of one, Keith Adams… artist turned felon. His crime – collecting his artwork from a restaurant that had closed.
According to the article, the Angier artist loaned 26 of his paintings to Bistro 155, an Apex restaurant that was shuttered in January 2012. Keith Adams, who valued his paintings at more than $5,000, was advised by the building owner’s lawyer to wait until inventory was taken before collecting his pieces. However, concerned that some or all of his paintings might be stolen, he entered the restaurant, gathered his paintings, took them home, and then alerted police authorities. He didn’t want the police to think that they had been stolen. With that information, or confession, in hand, the Apex police promptly placed Mr. Adams under arrest and charged him with larceny… for stealing his own property.
At a hearing in the Wake County Courthouse on February 22, 2012, Assistant District Attorney Jeff Cruden informed the court that charges against Adams, larceny and breaking and entering, were being dismissed. It was a rare act of sanity in the Tar Heelian justice system that deprived the Prison Industrial Complex of some income for its insatiable fiduciary appetite.
Unfortunately the Assistant District Attorney of Durham County, Kelly Gauger, lacks the wisdom, sense of justice and courage to do the same in the case against Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser. In essence she is charged with two counts of larceny, one for each of the two money orders that she purchased and took with her after she stabbed Reginald Daye in self defense. (Note that it was not mentioned that Keith Adams was charged with 26 counts of larceny… one for each of his works of art.) Instead, Ms. Gauger is moving forward with the prosecution, along with a first degree murder charge which totally lacks merit. Gauger is doing her part to appease the Prison Industrial Complex which is after taxpayer money and to sate the Carpetbagger Jihadists’ call for vengeance against anything and anyone considered to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.
The larceny charge against Mangum is unwarranted because she paid for the two money orders, which were made out to Daye’s landlord, with her money even though Daye was listed as the remitter. Reginald Daye was placed on the money orders because he held the lease to the apartment which they shared. Because of the notoriety surrounding the bogus and trumped up arson charge against Ms. Mangum, she was unable to find anyone to allow her to rent an apartment.
Daye wanted the money orders for use to purchase alcohol, which was the basis of the hours long argument that preceded the stabbing. If Reginald Daye had the money, he simply would not have paid for the money orders and instead would’ve wasted the money on booze sans input from Crystal Mangum. Daye did not pay for the money orders and he was not entitled to them.
Now the biased mainstream media wants the public to believe that Crystal Mangum stabbed Reginald Daye with a knife in order to steal two money orders that Daye purchase which were made out to the landlord and ones which she could not convert to cash as her name was not even listed as the remitter.
But, then, the prosecution is desperate for a motive in the stabbing and a reason for keeping Crystal Mangum behind bars. Prosecutor Gauger is focused on punishing Crystal Mangum by doing the dirty work for the Carpetbaggers. Justice… that’s not in the prosecutor’s purview.
And, like in the James Arthur Johnson case, and many others like it, prosecutor Kelly Gauger will drag out the proceedings as long as possible to assure that Crystal Mangum serves a term in jail without even being convicted. That’s the way North Carolina’s selective justice based on Class and Color works.
An action such as prosecuting a person for “stealing his/her own property” is what makes North Carolina’s justice system the laughing stock of the country and brings it into disrepute. The larceny charge against Ms. Mangum makes no more sense than the larceny charge against artist Keith Adams. At least the Wake County assistant D.A. had the common sense to drop the larceny charge against Mr. Adams.
Unfortunately, even though the charges against Mr. Adams have been dropped, he is still recorded as a felon. However with a little effort and money, he should be able to have those charges expunged. One lesson he could take away from this is to undervalue his works that he loans out so that if it becomes necessary for him to retrieve them in the future he will only be charged with a misdemeanor.
Coming soon: Currently work is being done on an interactive flog that should be uploaded in about two weeks and is focused on the marked disparity in the application of laws in the Tar Heel state. Don’t miss it!
According to the article, the Angier artist loaned 26 of his paintings to Bistro 155, an Apex restaurant that was shuttered in January 2012. Keith Adams, who valued his paintings at more than $5,000, was advised by the building owner’s lawyer to wait until inventory was taken before collecting his pieces. However, concerned that some or all of his paintings might be stolen, he entered the restaurant, gathered his paintings, took them home, and then alerted police authorities. He didn’t want the police to think that they had been stolen. With that information, or confession, in hand, the Apex police promptly placed Mr. Adams under arrest and charged him with larceny… for stealing his own property.
At a hearing in the Wake County Courthouse on February 22, 2012, Assistant District Attorney Jeff Cruden informed the court that charges against Adams, larceny and breaking and entering, were being dismissed. It was a rare act of sanity in the Tar Heelian justice system that deprived the Prison Industrial Complex of some income for its insatiable fiduciary appetite.
Unfortunately the Assistant District Attorney of Durham County, Kelly Gauger, lacks the wisdom, sense of justice and courage to do the same in the case against Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser. In essence she is charged with two counts of larceny, one for each of the two money orders that she purchased and took with her after she stabbed Reginald Daye in self defense. (Note that it was not mentioned that Keith Adams was charged with 26 counts of larceny… one for each of his works of art.) Instead, Ms. Gauger is moving forward with the prosecution, along with a first degree murder charge which totally lacks merit. Gauger is doing her part to appease the Prison Industrial Complex which is after taxpayer money and to sate the Carpetbagger Jihadists’ call for vengeance against anything and anyone considered to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case.
The larceny charge against Mangum is unwarranted because she paid for the two money orders, which were made out to Daye’s landlord, with her money even though Daye was listed as the remitter. Reginald Daye was placed on the money orders because he held the lease to the apartment which they shared. Because of the notoriety surrounding the bogus and trumped up arson charge against Ms. Mangum, she was unable to find anyone to allow her to rent an apartment.
Daye wanted the money orders for use to purchase alcohol, which was the basis of the hours long argument that preceded the stabbing. If Reginald Daye had the money, he simply would not have paid for the money orders and instead would’ve wasted the money on booze sans input from Crystal Mangum. Daye did not pay for the money orders and he was not entitled to them.
Now the biased mainstream media wants the public to believe that Crystal Mangum stabbed Reginald Daye with a knife in order to steal two money orders that Daye purchase which were made out to the landlord and ones which she could not convert to cash as her name was not even listed as the remitter.
But, then, the prosecution is desperate for a motive in the stabbing and a reason for keeping Crystal Mangum behind bars. Prosecutor Gauger is focused on punishing Crystal Mangum by doing the dirty work for the Carpetbaggers. Justice… that’s not in the prosecutor’s purview.
And, like in the James Arthur Johnson case, and many others like it, prosecutor Kelly Gauger will drag out the proceedings as long as possible to assure that Crystal Mangum serves a term in jail without even being convicted. That’s the way North Carolina’s selective justice based on Class and Color works.
An action such as prosecuting a person for “stealing his/her own property” is what makes North Carolina’s justice system the laughing stock of the country and brings it into disrepute. The larceny charge against Ms. Mangum makes no more sense than the larceny charge against artist Keith Adams. At least the Wake County assistant D.A. had the common sense to drop the larceny charge against Mr. Adams.
Unfortunately, even though the charges against Mr. Adams have been dropped, he is still recorded as a felon. However with a little effort and money, he should be able to have those charges expunged. One lesson he could take away from this is to undervalue his works that he loans out so that if it becomes necessary for him to retrieve them in the future he will only be charged with a misdemeanor.
Coming soon: Currently work is being done on an interactive flog that should be uploaded in about two weeks and is focused on the marked disparity in the application of laws in the Tar Heel state. Don’t miss it!
Sunday, March 4, 2012
A justice system that is already in disrepute?
On February 24, 2012, one week prior to Franklin County Superior Court Judge Robert Hobgood handing down his decision to permanently remove Tracey Cline from her position as Durham County district attorney, I gave my observations about Cline’s challenges and her hearing to Barry Saunders, the humorously sarcastic columnist for The News & Observer. Specifically, I told him that a single snowflake had a better chance of remaining intact for a year within the bowels of Hades than Tracey Cline had of being reinstated by Judge Hobgood as the district attorney for Durham County. Mr. Saunders had contacted me days prior to get my take; in particular wanting to know if I felt the attempt to remove Cline had any connection to former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. I expressed to him that I definitely not only felt that the media, especially The News & Observer, had targeted Ms. Cline because of her congenial relationship with Mr. Nifong, but also because she is an African American.
Then I proceeded to enlighten Mr. Saunders by explaining to him about the Duke Lacrosse/mainstream media connection. Mr. Saunders, like so many others, was unaware that Ms. Rae Evans, the mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans, had worked as an executive for CBS News for more than a decade, that she then founded and is CEO of a highly successful PR firm in Washington, DC, and that her husband is an attorney in a prominent DC law firm. Even CBS, in violation of acceptable journalistic standards, did not disclose this vital relationship when it interviewed Ms. Evans during its numerous and skewed “60 Minutes” news magazine stories devoted to the Duke Lacrosse case. Possibly this unexpected revelation contributed to his decision to omit any of my comments from his column in the March 3, 2012 edition of the newspaper… a revelation that is supported by an article in today’s newspaper of March 4, 2012.
The News & Observer isn’t through with Tracey Cline… not by a long shot. Now that the N&O has succeeded in dethroning Cline of her position as the top Durham prosecutor, it is moving forward with stage two… having Tracey Cline disbarred. The full court press has begun with an article in today’s March 4th paper by pit bull investigative reporter J. Andrew Curliss titled “Lacrosse case had Cline input.” This is the first admission by the media that I am aware of to confess that it has been targeting Cline because of her relationship with the Duke Lacrosse case and Mike Nifong… it reinforces my long held contention that the Nifong connection was the seed that sowed Cline’s media-instigated downfall. The appearance of the Curliss article helps explain why columnist Barry Saunders chose not to ridicule me in his column for my contention that Cline’s removal was related to her association with Mike Nifong. Not only that, but Barry, who I believe does possess some journalistic ethics, would’ve felt compelled to mention Rae Evans’ connection with CBS News had he made mention of me in his column.
The complaint filed by Durham defense attorney Kerry Sutton, which cited a little known, rarely used elastic law, alleged that District Attorney Cline engaged in “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brought her office into disrepute.” In quoting that famed philosopher Yogi Berra, “This is deja vu all over again.” Not unlike 2007 when the North Carolina State Bar heaped all of the woes in the state’s justice system upon Mike Nifong’s handling of the Duke Lacrosse case, Judge Hobgood and the media are scapegoating Ms. Cline by accusing her of bringing the justice system into disrepute. The fact is that the present-day condition of the justice system preceded her, and will continue long after her removal. In Durham itself, for example, Crystal Mangum is being held on a charge of first degree murder for stabbing a man in self-defense… a man well on his way to recovery from the wound, but who mysteriously on the third postoperative day went into a coma which led to his elective removal from life support and his death. This prosecution of Ms. Mangum is vendetta motivated, as was the trumped up 2010 arson-related charges she faced. Crystal Mangum is not a criminal; she committed no crimes in 2010 and 2011; and she should not have served a day of jail time. This is the type of biased and vindictive justice that is responsible for Durham’s ill-repute.
That Durhamian Erick Daniels and Shawn Massey, two African Americans who were wrongly convicted of crimes for which they served more than seven and twelve years respectively, were denied pardons by the Governor’s Executive Clemency Board – pardons which are required before they can receive compensation for their wrongful incarcerations – itself brings the North Carolina justice system into disrepute. In denying the petition of Erick Daniels, Governor Bev Perdue’s General Counsel Mark A. Davis refuted my claim that the determination refusing his pardon was because of racial bias. Instead, Mr. Davis claimed that the Governor’s Office had conducted its own investigation which questioned Daniels’ true innocence… but then added that he was unable to back it up by sharing investigative findings with me due to “confidentiality concerns.” Everyone knows that explanation is nothing more than hogwash. Unless the Governor’s Office is willing to publicly prove otherwise, the impetus for rebuking Daniels’ and Massey’s calls for the pardons is due to the color of their skins.
However, one of the most egregious attempts to infringe upon the judicial rights of the people is playing out now in the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina, involving the Dukegate Discrimination Scandal of April 2010. Succinctly, Duke University maliciously harassed, humiliated, and intimidated Sidney B. Harr because he was a Nifong supporter, and then attempted to arrest him because he is an African American. When Harr’s attempts to reasonably resolve the incident in good faith were rebuffed by Duke University, he filed a Pro Se lawsuit against the powerful institution alleging discrimination.
What makes this matter so outrageous is that Duke University would choose to fight rather than amicably settle... especially when one realizes the defense Duke’s legal team has chosen to use. First they claim that the wrong individuals (Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead, Duke Law School Dean David F. Levi, and Duke University General Counsel Pamela Bernard) were named as defendants in Harr’s complaint. However, this is through no fault of plaintiff Harr, as he tried at the scene of the incident and for months following to learn the name of the individual(s) responsible for his mistreatment. Other than “the building manager” as quoted by the security guard, and “the Duke Police,” Harr could not learn the identity of the ringleader or other conspirators in the plot against him. Had the actions against Harr been proper, appropriate and above board, then surely someone would have accepted responsibility for them. Harr has the conviction to stand by all actions and statements he makes and take full responsibility for them. Because the intrigue against Harr was so malicious, despicable, and corrupt, no one at Duke University wants to accept responsibility for it. The fact that Harr sent letters to Brodhead and Levi initially, and then included Bernard in all of the subsequent communications definitely affixes legal liability to them.
The second defense used by Duke is that it is immune from discrimination complaints because it is a private institution and not a state one. F. W. Woolworths was not a state agency when it refused lunch counter service to African Americans back in the day when the civil rights wars in the Jim Crow south were at their zenith. This is what Duke University attorneys want the people to believe… that Duke is protected when it discriminates based on race, color, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. Without a legitimate defense, Duke is trying its best to stave off an inevitable defeat in court by not allowing the case to go to trial. In other words, Duke is trying to get the Courts to do its dirty work for it. Currently, the case hinges on a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Duke defense.
Because Harr filed as a Pro Se plaintiff, Duke University is unable to undermine his legal representation, a tact which would have been first used if Harr had retained an attorney. Also, since Harr is Pro Se, the Duke defendants cannot rely on any legal consultation to bleed him dry financially. Duke defendants’ only hopes to prevail, with their non-existent defense, against Harr is to prevent the case from going to court. Everything is riding on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. And Duke University is doing everything in its power to replicate the courtroom course that took place when former lab director Brian Meehan filed a lawsuit against the company which fired him. Meehan, whose lab was used by Prosecutor Mike Nifong in the Duke Lacrosse case, was denied the opportunity to have his wrongful dismissal case heard in court when a judge found in favor of a defense motion to dismiss.
This is the strategy that is being used by Dixie T. Wells, of the Greensboro law firm of Ellis & Winters, LLP. I do not fault the firm for using the “Motion to Dismiss” tactic, as it is available to the defendants and is the only realistic chance for them to prevail. Ellis & Winters, LLP is a business and its priority is its bottom line. Unlike the ideal of a prosecutor in a criminal case whose ultimate goal is to seek justice, the attitude in the realm of civil lawsuits is “justice be damned.” If Ellis & Winters, LLP gives Lady Justice a black eye and defiles Christian morals, it is no big deal as long as the outcome results in a win for its clients.
That Duke University retained a Greensboro law firm to represent it, gives it an upper hand as its legal staff has undoubtedly had dealings with the U.S. magistrate judges. What brings this legal matter into disrepute is the fact that Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp would purposely make false statements (lies) about facts of the case in a manner that is willfully prejudicial in favor of the Duke defendants. Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp’s recommendation to the U.S. District Court to accept the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is now under consideration despite the fact that it contains serious false and misleading statements that Judge Sharp has refused to correct. In an attempt to clarify the facts of the case, Harr filed a motion that the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be heard in court… a motion which defense attorney Dixie Wells vehemently opposed. The Duke University defendants want the U.S. District Court judge to make a ruling based upon a recommendation that contains blatantly false and misleading statements that go directly to the core of the case. Duke defendants do not want the Court to rule on the Motion to Dismiss based upon the truths of the case.
If the Duke defendants prevail in its Motion to Dismiss, it would set a detrimental precedent of allowing the big and powerful corporations and individuals to keep meritorious complaints against them by ordinary individuals from being heard in court. Individuals with legitimate grievances should not be deprived of the opportunity to have their cases heard in court. Justice should be available to everyone regardless of their class, color, or financial standing.
One thing that the Duke University defendants have been able to rely upon thus far has been the prejudicial silence of the mainstream media. Despite awareness of the Dukegate Discrimination Scandal of April 2010, the media has, in concert, remained silent about it… keeping it hidden from the public. The mainstream media was informed about the discrimination lawsuit against Duke that was filed in April 2011, and keeping true to form, has purposely ignored it, as well. That the media has chosen to collude with Duke University to keep the Dukegate Scandal under wraps puts the mainstream media in violation of important journalism ethics.
Unfortunately, with the engineering of her successful removal from office, the media is now pushing for Tracey Cline’s disbarment; this after finally admitting that its vendetta motive against her was related to her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. Instead of generating news stories and taking sides, the media should focus on objectively reporting about them… all important and relevant stories, even the ones that might cause embarrassment to the big and powerful. Actions by the mainstream media threaten to embed it, alongside the justice system, in disrepute with the public. All Tar Heelians expect and deserve better from the justice system and the mainstream media.
Then I proceeded to enlighten Mr. Saunders by explaining to him about the Duke Lacrosse/mainstream media connection. Mr. Saunders, like so many others, was unaware that Ms. Rae Evans, the mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans, had worked as an executive for CBS News for more than a decade, that she then founded and is CEO of a highly successful PR firm in Washington, DC, and that her husband is an attorney in a prominent DC law firm. Even CBS, in violation of acceptable journalistic standards, did not disclose this vital relationship when it interviewed Ms. Evans during its numerous and skewed “60 Minutes” news magazine stories devoted to the Duke Lacrosse case. Possibly this unexpected revelation contributed to his decision to omit any of my comments from his column in the March 3, 2012 edition of the newspaper… a revelation that is supported by an article in today’s newspaper of March 4, 2012.
The News & Observer isn’t through with Tracey Cline… not by a long shot. Now that the N&O has succeeded in dethroning Cline of her position as the top Durham prosecutor, it is moving forward with stage two… having Tracey Cline disbarred. The full court press has begun with an article in today’s March 4th paper by pit bull investigative reporter J. Andrew Curliss titled “Lacrosse case had Cline input.” This is the first admission by the media that I am aware of to confess that it has been targeting Cline because of her relationship with the Duke Lacrosse case and Mike Nifong… it reinforces my long held contention that the Nifong connection was the seed that sowed Cline’s media-instigated downfall. The appearance of the Curliss article helps explain why columnist Barry Saunders chose not to ridicule me in his column for my contention that Cline’s removal was related to her association with Mike Nifong. Not only that, but Barry, who I believe does possess some journalistic ethics, would’ve felt compelled to mention Rae Evans’ connection with CBS News had he made mention of me in his column.
The complaint filed by Durham defense attorney Kerry Sutton, which cited a little known, rarely used elastic law, alleged that District Attorney Cline engaged in “conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice which brought her office into disrepute.” In quoting that famed philosopher Yogi Berra, “This is deja vu all over again.” Not unlike 2007 when the North Carolina State Bar heaped all of the woes in the state’s justice system upon Mike Nifong’s handling of the Duke Lacrosse case, Judge Hobgood and the media are scapegoating Ms. Cline by accusing her of bringing the justice system into disrepute. The fact is that the present-day condition of the justice system preceded her, and will continue long after her removal. In Durham itself, for example, Crystal Mangum is being held on a charge of first degree murder for stabbing a man in self-defense… a man well on his way to recovery from the wound, but who mysteriously on the third postoperative day went into a coma which led to his elective removal from life support and his death. This prosecution of Ms. Mangum is vendetta motivated, as was the trumped up 2010 arson-related charges she faced. Crystal Mangum is not a criminal; she committed no crimes in 2010 and 2011; and she should not have served a day of jail time. This is the type of biased and vindictive justice that is responsible for Durham’s ill-repute.
That Durhamian Erick Daniels and Shawn Massey, two African Americans who were wrongly convicted of crimes for which they served more than seven and twelve years respectively, were denied pardons by the Governor’s Executive Clemency Board – pardons which are required before they can receive compensation for their wrongful incarcerations – itself brings the North Carolina justice system into disrepute. In denying the petition of Erick Daniels, Governor Bev Perdue’s General Counsel Mark A. Davis refuted my claim that the determination refusing his pardon was because of racial bias. Instead, Mr. Davis claimed that the Governor’s Office had conducted its own investigation which questioned Daniels’ true innocence… but then added that he was unable to back it up by sharing investigative findings with me due to “confidentiality concerns.” Everyone knows that explanation is nothing more than hogwash. Unless the Governor’s Office is willing to publicly prove otherwise, the impetus for rebuking Daniels’ and Massey’s calls for the pardons is due to the color of their skins.
However, one of the most egregious attempts to infringe upon the judicial rights of the people is playing out now in the U.S. District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina, involving the Dukegate Discrimination Scandal of April 2010. Succinctly, Duke University maliciously harassed, humiliated, and intimidated Sidney B. Harr because he was a Nifong supporter, and then attempted to arrest him because he is an African American. When Harr’s attempts to reasonably resolve the incident in good faith were rebuffed by Duke University, he filed a Pro Se lawsuit against the powerful institution alleging discrimination.
What makes this matter so outrageous is that Duke University would choose to fight rather than amicably settle... especially when one realizes the defense Duke’s legal team has chosen to use. First they claim that the wrong individuals (Duke University President Richard H. Brodhead, Duke Law School Dean David F. Levi, and Duke University General Counsel Pamela Bernard) were named as defendants in Harr’s complaint. However, this is through no fault of plaintiff Harr, as he tried at the scene of the incident and for months following to learn the name of the individual(s) responsible for his mistreatment. Other than “the building manager” as quoted by the security guard, and “the Duke Police,” Harr could not learn the identity of the ringleader or other conspirators in the plot against him. Had the actions against Harr been proper, appropriate and above board, then surely someone would have accepted responsibility for them. Harr has the conviction to stand by all actions and statements he makes and take full responsibility for them. Because the intrigue against Harr was so malicious, despicable, and corrupt, no one at Duke University wants to accept responsibility for it. The fact that Harr sent letters to Brodhead and Levi initially, and then included Bernard in all of the subsequent communications definitely affixes legal liability to them.
The second defense used by Duke is that it is immune from discrimination complaints because it is a private institution and not a state one. F. W. Woolworths was not a state agency when it refused lunch counter service to African Americans back in the day when the civil rights wars in the Jim Crow south were at their zenith. This is what Duke University attorneys want the people to believe… that Duke is protected when it discriminates based on race, color, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc. Without a legitimate defense, Duke is trying its best to stave off an inevitable defeat in court by not allowing the case to go to trial. In other words, Duke is trying to get the Courts to do its dirty work for it. Currently, the case hinges on a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Duke defense.
Because Harr filed as a Pro Se plaintiff, Duke University is unable to undermine his legal representation, a tact which would have been first used if Harr had retained an attorney. Also, since Harr is Pro Se, the Duke defendants cannot rely on any legal consultation to bleed him dry financially. Duke defendants’ only hopes to prevail, with their non-existent defense, against Harr is to prevent the case from going to court. Everything is riding on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. And Duke University is doing everything in its power to replicate the courtroom course that took place when former lab director Brian Meehan filed a lawsuit against the company which fired him. Meehan, whose lab was used by Prosecutor Mike Nifong in the Duke Lacrosse case, was denied the opportunity to have his wrongful dismissal case heard in court when a judge found in favor of a defense motion to dismiss.
This is the strategy that is being used by Dixie T. Wells, of the Greensboro law firm of Ellis & Winters, LLP. I do not fault the firm for using the “Motion to Dismiss” tactic, as it is available to the defendants and is the only realistic chance for them to prevail. Ellis & Winters, LLP is a business and its priority is its bottom line. Unlike the ideal of a prosecutor in a criminal case whose ultimate goal is to seek justice, the attitude in the realm of civil lawsuits is “justice be damned.” If Ellis & Winters, LLP gives Lady Justice a black eye and defiles Christian morals, it is no big deal as long as the outcome results in a win for its clients.
That Duke University retained a Greensboro law firm to represent it, gives it an upper hand as its legal staff has undoubtedly had dealings with the U.S. magistrate judges. What brings this legal matter into disrepute is the fact that Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp would purposely make false statements (lies) about facts of the case in a manner that is willfully prejudicial in favor of the Duke defendants. Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp’s recommendation to the U.S. District Court to accept the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is now under consideration despite the fact that it contains serious false and misleading statements that Judge Sharp has refused to correct. In an attempt to clarify the facts of the case, Harr filed a motion that the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be heard in court… a motion which defense attorney Dixie Wells vehemently opposed. The Duke University defendants want the U.S. District Court judge to make a ruling based upon a recommendation that contains blatantly false and misleading statements that go directly to the core of the case. Duke defendants do not want the Court to rule on the Motion to Dismiss based upon the truths of the case.
If the Duke defendants prevail in its Motion to Dismiss, it would set a detrimental precedent of allowing the big and powerful corporations and individuals to keep meritorious complaints against them by ordinary individuals from being heard in court. Individuals with legitimate grievances should not be deprived of the opportunity to have their cases heard in court. Justice should be available to everyone regardless of their class, color, or financial standing.
One thing that the Duke University defendants have been able to rely upon thus far has been the prejudicial silence of the mainstream media. Despite awareness of the Dukegate Discrimination Scandal of April 2010, the media has, in concert, remained silent about it… keeping it hidden from the public. The mainstream media was informed about the discrimination lawsuit against Duke that was filed in April 2011, and keeping true to form, has purposely ignored it, as well. That the media has chosen to collude with Duke University to keep the Dukegate Scandal under wraps puts the mainstream media in violation of important journalism ethics.
Unfortunately, with the engineering of her successful removal from office, the media is now pushing for Tracey Cline’s disbarment; this after finally admitting that its vendetta motive against her was related to her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. Instead of generating news stories and taking sides, the media should focus on objectively reporting about them… all important and relevant stories, even the ones that might cause embarrassment to the big and powerful. Actions by the mainstream media threaten to embed it, alongside the justice system, in disrepute with the public. All Tar Heelians expect and deserve better from the justice system and the mainstream media.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
It’s a done deal… Cline is out!
To Access the flog, click on the LINK below.
http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog15.html
Tracey Cline, the Durham County district attorney, will shortly be relieved of her position. The handwriting has been spray-painted on the wall like sickening graffiti for many months. In September 2011, when The News & Observer came out with its three-part series titled “Twisted Truth,” it heralded the official beginning of its smear campaign against Ms. Cline; and anyone with any familiarity with North Carolina politics and law, especially as practiced in Durham, knew back then that her days in office were numbered. I was aware from what I read in the newspaper that Ms. Cline was in the media’s crosshairs long before the publication of their “Twisted Truth” series.
As staff investigative reporter Mandy Locke stated in her article in the Sunday, February 19, 2012 edition of the newspaper, Tracey Cline has uncommon zeal in prosecuting those charged with crimes… and for that reason, she will lose her publicly elected position by virtue of the decision of one man… a superior court judge from Franklin County, Robert H. Hobgood.
According to the Saturday, February 18, 2012 edition of The News & Observer, the hearing that is to hold court, on what I believe to be a pre-determined outcome, will begin on Monday, February 20, 2012… Presidents’ Day… a national holiday.
The removal affidavit process was initiated in mid-January 2012 by Durham Defense Attorney Kerry Sutton. She was critical of Cline because of Cline’s repeated attempts to keep Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson from hearing any of her criminal cases. Cline believes her attacks against Judge Hudson are a justified reflection of her passion for prosecuting the bad guys whereas her detractors, such as Attorney Sutton, feels Cline’s attacks against a sitting judge are detrimental to the judicial process and puts it in “disrepute.” In specific, Attorney Sutton has referred to some of Cline’s more colorful passages as “venom.”
Three actions by Judge Robert Hobgood since taking control of the proceeding which finds Cline in the hot seat do much to peel away veneers of objectivity and fairness. The alternatives to the decisions taken by the judge would have been preferable, I feel, and made it more likely that a fair and unbiased ruling could be reached. These important decisions are as follows:
One – Judge Hobgood’s decision to immediately suspend Tracey Cline was extremely prejudicial, and uncalled for. There was no impending threat to justice, life, or liberty had Ms. Cline been allowed to remain in her elected position until a determination could have been reached at the culmination of the hearing. Instead the only dividend reaped from this action was to force taxpayers’ monies to go towards paying the salary of an interim D.A. while Ms. Cline is suspended with pay. That is reason enough for allowing Ms. Cline to remain as the district attorney pending a final disposition.
Not only that, but issuing a suspension greatly prejudices the case against Ms. Cline, giving the impression that her conduct was so potentially hazardous that it required her immediate removal. Were I sitting in judgment of Ms. Cline in this matter, I would not have called for her suspension… as a matter of fairness.
Two – Judge Hobgood’s decision to deny Ms. Cline’s attorneys adequate time to prepare is a major disadvantage and handicap to the defendant. It is obvious that her attorneys, who were recently hired out of Pinehurst law firm, have not had time to get up to speed and prepare an adequate and effective defense. Delaying the hearing for several weeks is the reasonable approach in this instance. Denying Cline’s attorneys time to investigate, strategize, and build a case is not justifiable. It is like scheduling a boxing match and not giving one opponent the opportunity to train for the bout.
This is perhaps the main point of the three that bodes ill regarding the chance that Ms. Cline might hang on to her job. My understanding is that Attorney Sutton, who launched the removal process against Ms. Cline, argued against a delay because it would be inconvenient to some people involved. The initial delay of only one week that Judge Hobgood gave Ms. Cline, was stingy; and she required most of that time just to recover from a serious bout of pneumonia. Sutton also chided Cline for not being prepared when in Ms. Cline’s position to find legal representation without any conflict of interest is next to impossible.
I submit that the process of attaining true justice should be placed ahead of expediency and convenience. For Ms. Cline to receive justice in this hearing, it is imperative that she be given ample time to prepare her defense.
Three – Judge Hobgood’s decision to limit the scope of the hearing to statements Tracey Cline made against Judge Hudson. In other words, Judge Hobgood wants to take questionable actions by the media, mainly The News & Observer, and possible mistakes or misconduct by Judge Hudson out of the equation. By not allowing in questions put before journalists, how can she uphold a position that the media acted conspiratorially and with malice? By not being permitted to question the judge’s behavior and rulings in cases which she prosecuted, how can she prove bias on Judge Hudson’s part? Apparently, the only issue Judge Hobgood is willing to consider is Ms. Cline’s harsh diatribe against Hudson… period.
One of the commenters to my blog recently enlightened me with information that North Carolina is one of twelve states without a process for the general public to recall elected officials. The reason for that is because North Carolina is a backward state that has a little know rarely used law to allow a single individual to remove an official who was elected by the people. The more progressive states give the people the power, instead of a single individual, to remove the officials who the masses are responsible for putting into office. When Judge Hobgood removes Tracey Cline as Durham district attorney, he will be defying the will of the people who voted for her.
I believe in treating everyone with respect, be they judge, preacher, pauper, scoundrel, or Republican. Likewise we are all human beings with imperfections and frailties. There are no deities walking amongst us, and that includes those sitting on benches in our courtrooms. I believe in treating them with respect, but I do not feel they should be immune from vigorous criticism.
From what I can ascertain from Attorney Sutton’s complaint, she is appalled at the viciousness of the dialogue Ms. Cline directs at Judge Hudson… but from what I can tell about the judge, his skin is as thick as a rhinoceros, and he can take anything that Tracey Cline can dish out… or anything that I can dish out, although my basic comments about him have been in a lighthearted vein. For an example, I used humor in my comic strip – “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper” – to criticize his decision to deny Michael Peterson’s defense a new trial when it became known that his prosecutors withheld the existence of a tire iron that could have possibly been a murder weapon. Personally, I felt that that prosecutorial transgression demanded that the murder charge against him be dismissed.
I am not at conflict with Judge Hudson on all of his rulings. He was right on target when he dismissed the charge against African American Erick Daniels and freed him. Although he is deserving of a pardon so that he can receive compensation for the seven years of wrongful incarceration he served after his arrest at age fourteen, the racial-based policies in the governor’s office have denied his petition. The governor refuses to correct this injustice because Durham’s African American political leaders, such as Senator Floyd McKissick, and Representatives Larry Hall and Mickey Michaux, as well as Congressman David Price are enabling this discriminatory behavior by remaining silent.
I can appreciate the passion of Ms. Cline’s rebukes of Judge Hudson, but I cannot speak to the wisdom of them. My verbiage in complaints against U.S. Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp tended to be a little spicy, but most importantly, it was accurate. My encounter with this magistrate judge stems from a lawsuit that I filed against Duke University in April 2011. The media has kept the public in the dark about the discrimination incident the previous year in which Duke University attempted to arrest me for being a Mike Nifong supporter. I complained about Magistrate Judge Sharp because, in making a recommendation adverse to me, he lied about the facts of my case in an attempt to boost the position of Duke University. As things now stand, I await hearing from the U.S. District Court judge about a decision regarding the defendants’ motion to dismiss; one which takes into consideration a recommendation that contains lies and misleading statements from the magistrate judge.
Finally, for anyone to believe that Tracey Cline’s ravings against Judge Hudson are capable of pulling the Durham D.A. Office or the justice system into disrepute is unrealistic. There is reason enough without that to draw such conclusions… specifically the 2010 and 2011 vendetta prosecutions against Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser.
Like the referee says prior to a coin toss, there are two sides to every coin. The fact that the suspended Durham district attorney has an unbridled zeal when it comes to prosecuting those charged with crimes, could very well be comforting to crime victims, their advocates, and those ensconced in crime-ridden neighborhoods. On the other hand, many defense attorneys may very well prefer going up against a district attorney who is more docile, passive, and compliant than Ms. Cline.
At all costs, justice should be strived for in any court and in every case. However, the outcome of this case is plainly evident. Judge Robert Hobgood is going to remove Tracey Cline as Durham district attorney. It’s a done deal. What is scheduled to proceed in court on Monday, Presidents’ Day, is nothing more than window dressing… a charade to give the appearances of justice being served. It is a deception for the unenlightened.
I would recommend that as soon as the court next convenes, the judge proceeds directly to issuing an order removing Tracey Cline as the elected Durham district attorney without any testimony, witnesses, or evidence. Since the outcome is foreordained and justice irreparable compromised, there’s no sense in inconveniencing anyone by going through the motions of holding a hearing. I am sure that Attorney Sutton would have no objections.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
2010 Mangum prosecutor scolded… a warning to Kelly Gauger
In a January 14, 2012, News & Observer article by J. Andrew Curliss titled “Chiding prosecutor, judge resets sex-offender case,” the former Durham prosecutor in the 2010 case against Crystal Mangum, Angela Garcia-Lamarca, was rebuked for vindictive and improper actions against a fifty year-old man accused of child molestation decades ago. Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson stated that he would enter a written order that Ms. Garca-Lamarca, who resigned from the Durham District Attorney’s Office last month, violated ethics rules for lawyers while dealing with a heavy-handed plea deal. Durham defense attorney Kerry Sutton claimed that the assistant district attorney acted vindictively in seeking harsh charges against her client because he (the defendant in a sex abuse case) refused to accept a plea deal for time served. Although he denied the defense’s motion to have the case dismissed entirely, Judge Hudson refused to allow the defendant to face the more serious vindictive charges that Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca had subsequently filed.
It was this same prosecutor who, in February 2010, prosecuted Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser on a series of trumped up charges. The prosecution against Mangum was “payback” for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. Among the initial charges leveled against Ms. Mangum was attempted first degree murder (with the weapons used being listed as her hands and feet), assault (although it was her ex-boyfriend who initiated physical interaction by repeatedly punching her in the face), communication of threats, identity theft (a charge abused by the prosecution as Ms. Mangum made no attempt to fraudulently misrepresent her identity in order to gain property unlawfully), child abuse, and a slew of other charges.
During that February 2010 incident, in which it was crystal clear that Ms. Mangum was innocent of committing any crime, the Durham Police vindictively wanted to saddle her with a serious charge that carried a lengthy prison sentence, so under the pretense of smelling smoke, the apartment was emptied by the officers which presented them with the opportunity, to go along with the means and motive, to set fire to clothes in the bathtub. The police then closed the door without making any attempt to extinguish the blaze they had ignited, and allowed smoke to damage the apartment while waiting for several fire trucks and two dozen firemen to come to the scene in the middle of the night to douse some flames that had scorched some articles of clothing. Keep in mind that the police did not set the building on fire, so the charge at best should have been nothing more than vandalism… not arson. And since everyone but the arsonist officers had vacated the building, it was not even a first degree felony as charged against Mangum.
In addition to first degree felony arson, Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca also charged Mangum with three counts of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor,” asserting that the potential of destroying the apartment would make it more likely that her three children would run afoul of the law. As tenuous as the charge was, it was indisputably linked to the arson charge. This was borne out by a statement by the presiding judge, Superior Court Judge Abe Jones who ruled that the three charges of contributing to the abuse or neglect of her children would rise and fall on how the jury handled the arson charge. He promised to dismiss the abuse charge if the jury doesn't find Mangum guilty of arson. Judge Jones’ statement makes perfect sense. It’s crystal clear.
Yet, the jury, after a mistrial on the arson charge of nine to three in favor of acquittal, went on to unanimously convict Mangum on the charge related to the child abuse/endangerment/neglect. What was this jury thinking? Did the jurors not understand what Judge Abe Jones said prior to their reaching a verdict? As a result, the only true bogus charges for which Crystal Mangum was convicted was (1) injury to personal property for allegedly slashing the tires of her ex-boyfriend’s car and breaking its windshield; and (2) resisting a public officer (for allegedly struggling during her arrest and giving officers her sister's name and birth date). As most people are aware, the resisting a public officer charge is one that is used most commonly to tack onto other charges to make an offender’s offenses seem worse, or to make an arrest of an innocent person who has not committed a crime.
At the time of the prosecution, Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca was far along in her pregnancy, and could take solace in knowing that she would be on maternity leave well before the case went to trial… leaving the unscrupulous dirty prosecutorial work to fellow Durham prosecutor Mark McCullough. Because of Garcia-Lamarca’s vindictive misconduct, Ms. Mangum served three months in jail, during which time she suffered the following: (1) lost her job; (2) lost her apartment; (3) lost custody of her children; (4) was kicked out of the Masters program at NCCU; (5) lost much of her personal property; (6) her father passed away; and (7) she lost her independence as a productive citizen moving positively towards turning her life around following the Duke Lacrosse incident. Quite a legacy, that Angela Garcia-Lamarca built for herself, and one in which Mangum’s current prosecutor is currently following.
Prosecutor Kelly Gauger has charged Ms. Mangum with first degree murder in the death of Reginald Daye, a man who was electively removed from life support by the medical staff at Duke University Hospital. Mr. Daye was taken off support after being declared to be “brain-dead”… the cause of which is either unknown, undisclosed, or both. What is clear is that Daye’s comatose state had no nexus to the stab wound inflicted by Ms. Mangum… and therefore, she is not responsible for Daye’s death. The comatose state could be explained by medical malpractice or possibly even a hospital homicide, but the Durham Police Department is loathed to even take such a possibility into consideration.
According to my reliable sources, Daye admitted to police that prior to the stabbing that he had “dragged Crystal by her hair and slapped her around.” So, after an involvement in a lengthy argument, it is very likely that the stabbing by Mangum was the result of self defense. The murder charge by Gauger is ludicrous and is not even supported by a motive.
Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca has already been called out by Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson for her vindictive prosecutorial approach, similar to the one she used against Ms. Mangum in 2010. Prosecutor Kelly Gauger is following the same disgraceful path as her recently resigned colleague. And even though Ms. Mangum is getting what I believe to be, once again, less than adequate legal representation, prosecutor Gauger should heed the actions taken by Judge Hudson against Garcia-Lamarca. Gauger needs to consider that the biased mainstream media and the misguided anti-Nifong public sentiment cannot indefinitely hold back the march of Lady Justice in meting out “equal justice for all.” The day of reckoning for anti-Nifong legal eagles is close at hand. That much is crystal clear.
It was this same prosecutor who, in February 2010, prosecuted Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser on a series of trumped up charges. The prosecution against Mangum was “payback” for her role in the Duke Lacrosse case. Among the initial charges leveled against Ms. Mangum was attempted first degree murder (with the weapons used being listed as her hands and feet), assault (although it was her ex-boyfriend who initiated physical interaction by repeatedly punching her in the face), communication of threats, identity theft (a charge abused by the prosecution as Ms. Mangum made no attempt to fraudulently misrepresent her identity in order to gain property unlawfully), child abuse, and a slew of other charges.
During that February 2010 incident, in which it was crystal clear that Ms. Mangum was innocent of committing any crime, the Durham Police vindictively wanted to saddle her with a serious charge that carried a lengthy prison sentence, so under the pretense of smelling smoke, the apartment was emptied by the officers which presented them with the opportunity, to go along with the means and motive, to set fire to clothes in the bathtub. The police then closed the door without making any attempt to extinguish the blaze they had ignited, and allowed smoke to damage the apartment while waiting for several fire trucks and two dozen firemen to come to the scene in the middle of the night to douse some flames that had scorched some articles of clothing. Keep in mind that the police did not set the building on fire, so the charge at best should have been nothing more than vandalism… not arson. And since everyone but the arsonist officers had vacated the building, it was not even a first degree felony as charged against Mangum.
In addition to first degree felony arson, Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca also charged Mangum with three counts of “contributing to the delinquency of a minor,” asserting that the potential of destroying the apartment would make it more likely that her three children would run afoul of the law. As tenuous as the charge was, it was indisputably linked to the arson charge. This was borne out by a statement by the presiding judge, Superior Court Judge Abe Jones who ruled that the three charges of contributing to the abuse or neglect of her children would rise and fall on how the jury handled the arson charge. He promised to dismiss the abuse charge if the jury doesn't find Mangum guilty of arson. Judge Jones’ statement makes perfect sense. It’s crystal clear.
Yet, the jury, after a mistrial on the arson charge of nine to three in favor of acquittal, went on to unanimously convict Mangum on the charge related to the child abuse/endangerment/neglect. What was this jury thinking? Did the jurors not understand what Judge Abe Jones said prior to their reaching a verdict? As a result, the only true bogus charges for which Crystal Mangum was convicted was (1) injury to personal property for allegedly slashing the tires of her ex-boyfriend’s car and breaking its windshield; and (2) resisting a public officer (for allegedly struggling during her arrest and giving officers her sister's name and birth date). As most people are aware, the resisting a public officer charge is one that is used most commonly to tack onto other charges to make an offender’s offenses seem worse, or to make an arrest of an innocent person who has not committed a crime.
At the time of the prosecution, Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca was far along in her pregnancy, and could take solace in knowing that she would be on maternity leave well before the case went to trial… leaving the unscrupulous dirty prosecutorial work to fellow Durham prosecutor Mark McCullough. Because of Garcia-Lamarca’s vindictive misconduct, Ms. Mangum served three months in jail, during which time she suffered the following: (1) lost her job; (2) lost her apartment; (3) lost custody of her children; (4) was kicked out of the Masters program at NCCU; (5) lost much of her personal property; (6) her father passed away; and (7) she lost her independence as a productive citizen moving positively towards turning her life around following the Duke Lacrosse incident. Quite a legacy, that Angela Garcia-Lamarca built for herself, and one in which Mangum’s current prosecutor is currently following.
Prosecutor Kelly Gauger has charged Ms. Mangum with first degree murder in the death of Reginald Daye, a man who was electively removed from life support by the medical staff at Duke University Hospital. Mr. Daye was taken off support after being declared to be “brain-dead”… the cause of which is either unknown, undisclosed, or both. What is clear is that Daye’s comatose state had no nexus to the stab wound inflicted by Ms. Mangum… and therefore, she is not responsible for Daye’s death. The comatose state could be explained by medical malpractice or possibly even a hospital homicide, but the Durham Police Department is loathed to even take such a possibility into consideration.
According to my reliable sources, Daye admitted to police that prior to the stabbing that he had “dragged Crystal by her hair and slapped her around.” So, after an involvement in a lengthy argument, it is very likely that the stabbing by Mangum was the result of self defense. The murder charge by Gauger is ludicrous and is not even supported by a motive.
Prosecutor Garcia-Lamarca has already been called out by Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson for her vindictive prosecutorial approach, similar to the one she used against Ms. Mangum in 2010. Prosecutor Kelly Gauger is following the same disgraceful path as her recently resigned colleague. And even though Ms. Mangum is getting what I believe to be, once again, less than adequate legal representation, prosecutor Gauger should heed the actions taken by Judge Hudson against Garcia-Lamarca. Gauger needs to consider that the biased mainstream media and the misguided anti-Nifong public sentiment cannot indefinitely hold back the march of Lady Justice in meting out “equal justice for all.” The day of reckoning for anti-Nifong legal eagles is close at hand. That much is crystal clear.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
In Raleigh being poor is a crime
In a December 28, 2011 article in The News & Observer by Thomasi McDonald titled “Raleigh charges 8 beggars,” it was divulged that eight people were arrested in Raleigh for begging without a permit. According to the article, the arrests show the city’s growing intolerance of panhandling. Well, in today’s economic climate where the unemployment rate is at an all time high, banks are foreclosing on homes like there’s no tomorrow, and most of those people with jobs are overworked at slave wages, it is no surprise that the number of people panhandling is expected to increase.
According to the Raleigh ordinance, those individuals seeking to beg must obtain a permit… which is issued free of charge. It is not a revenue generator and the city is not being cheated out of any income, so why is it a crime for the poor and needy obtain a permit? If it is so important to regulate panhandling, why not have the police register the beggars on site… like they do for voting, rather than handing out citations and arresting the people.
The panhandling permit is one of the most ridiculous and inhumane laws on the books. If during hard times people are forced to beg, surely their financial status will not enable them to pay a bail of $1,000.00, or even $75.00. Instead of jailing them at taxpayer expense, one solution would be for them to be given a permit. And yet, even then it’s all madness. It’s absurd.
What Raleigh is doing, according to Raleigh police spokeswoman Laura Hourigan is merely enforcing an ordinance that is on the books. Its net effect is to turn law-abiding, poor, disenfranchised people who are desperate down on their luck into jail inmates… fodder for the all powerful Prison Industrial Complex. Surely these people are not being locked up for no reason. Head honchos who control the unethical corporations that feast on those who suffer from famine, are bringing in big bucks… hand over fist at the unjust misery of these unfortunates. And what is a boon to the Prison Industrial Complex is a bust to the taxpayers.
Now, if Raleigh’s obtuse panhandling permit wasn’t bad enough, it has evidently inspired other government agencies to follow its heartless lead. In fact, Wake County is in essence double dipping by forcing its Raleigh residents to obtain a panhandler permit that requires renewal every week. As if in an attempt to outdo Wake County, Johnson County is considering a panhandler permit that will require its applicants to undergo a criminal background check.
Those people who are panhandling need employment and not incarceration. Unfortunately, the news article did not state how long these violators who did not have a begging permit would be held in jail. Only one of the eight was able to post bond. The remaining seven are still being held in jail… their crime, panhandling without a permit.
What makes this panhandling permit nonsensical is that police state that panhandling is a “public safety concern” by blocking rights of way… whatever that is. But what I would like to know is how does a permit to panhandle improve public safety over panhandling without a permit?
Like most people, I don’t enjoy being approached by panhandlers, but more likely than not I will usually make an attempt to help them out financially and treat them with dignity. I would prefer that desperate people panhandle rather than mug others in order to survive. Making it a crime to panhandle merely makes it more difficult for those asking for money to distinguish between the legal consequences of begging and mugging.
Seven of the eight arrested on December 27, 2011 were in their 40’s and 50’s age-wise, and one fifty year old woman told the court that she was begging for her dying sister. So the magistrate hearing her case told her that she would only have to pay a bail bondsman $75.00 to get out of jail. As she so eloquently put it as she was being led away to jail sobbing, “I don’t have the money. That’s the problem.” Why can’t the city of Raleigh figure that out?
What’s next on the city of Raleigh’s agenda..? Forcing people who are living on the streets to have a homeless permit?
No doubt, the Man from Nazareth is not happy at what is going on in Raleigh.
According to the Raleigh ordinance, those individuals seeking to beg must obtain a permit… which is issued free of charge. It is not a revenue generator and the city is not being cheated out of any income, so why is it a crime for the poor and needy obtain a permit? If it is so important to regulate panhandling, why not have the police register the beggars on site… like they do for voting, rather than handing out citations and arresting the people.
The panhandling permit is one of the most ridiculous and inhumane laws on the books. If during hard times people are forced to beg, surely their financial status will not enable them to pay a bail of $1,000.00, or even $75.00. Instead of jailing them at taxpayer expense, one solution would be for them to be given a permit. And yet, even then it’s all madness. It’s absurd.
What Raleigh is doing, according to Raleigh police spokeswoman Laura Hourigan is merely enforcing an ordinance that is on the books. Its net effect is to turn law-abiding, poor, disenfranchised people who are desperate down on their luck into jail inmates… fodder for the all powerful Prison Industrial Complex. Surely these people are not being locked up for no reason. Head honchos who control the unethical corporations that feast on those who suffer from famine, are bringing in big bucks… hand over fist at the unjust misery of these unfortunates. And what is a boon to the Prison Industrial Complex is a bust to the taxpayers.
Now, if Raleigh’s obtuse panhandling permit wasn’t bad enough, it has evidently inspired other government agencies to follow its heartless lead. In fact, Wake County is in essence double dipping by forcing its Raleigh residents to obtain a panhandler permit that requires renewal every week. As if in an attempt to outdo Wake County, Johnson County is considering a panhandler permit that will require its applicants to undergo a criminal background check.
Those people who are panhandling need employment and not incarceration. Unfortunately, the news article did not state how long these violators who did not have a begging permit would be held in jail. Only one of the eight was able to post bond. The remaining seven are still being held in jail… their crime, panhandling without a permit.
What makes this panhandling permit nonsensical is that police state that panhandling is a “public safety concern” by blocking rights of way… whatever that is. But what I would like to know is how does a permit to panhandle improve public safety over panhandling without a permit?
Like most people, I don’t enjoy being approached by panhandlers, but more likely than not I will usually make an attempt to help them out financially and treat them with dignity. I would prefer that desperate people panhandle rather than mug others in order to survive. Making it a crime to panhandle merely makes it more difficult for those asking for money to distinguish between the legal consequences of begging and mugging.
Seven of the eight arrested on December 27, 2011 were in their 40’s and 50’s age-wise, and one fifty year old woman told the court that she was begging for her dying sister. So the magistrate hearing her case told her that she would only have to pay a bail bondsman $75.00 to get out of jail. As she so eloquently put it as she was being led away to jail sobbing, “I don’t have the money. That’s the problem.” Why can’t the city of Raleigh figure that out?
What’s next on the city of Raleigh’s agenda..? Forcing people who are living on the streets to have a homeless permit?
No doubt, the Man from Nazareth is not happy at what is going on in Raleigh.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
Trend towards mean-spirited media reporting
Since the inglorious days of the Duke Lacrosse party of March 2006 and its aftermath, it seems to me that the media has adopted and honed to perfection the art of cruel, inhumane, and malicious reporting. Without doubt, the Duke case provided plenty of fodder for the media-types upon which to cut its teeth, especially by going after former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. In kowtowing to the Carpetbagger Jihadist agenda to seek-destroy-annihilate anyone on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case, the media, with bloodlust relish, crucified Mike Nifong at every turn. No stone was left unturned when it came to Mr. Nifong, and truth, relevance, and objectivity presented no limitations. The worst example of a libelous attack against Mr. Nifong was by MSNBC senior legal analyst Susan F. Filan, who lied in an article by stating that Mr. Nifong asked his son to attend his hearing in an attempt to garner pity and sympathy. Then, based upon the falsehood that she had manufactured, she went to task attacking Mr. Nifong’s character. The truth of the matter is the opposite of the media-reality created by the Nifong detractor. Mr. Nifong specifically asked his son not to attend his hearing, but his son insisted upon showing support for his unjustly targeted father and was present at the North Carolina State Bar hearing; which was more a resemblance of a kangaroo court.
As stated earlier, everyone on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case was fair game for the media headhunters. Brian Meehan, the lab director whose company provided DNA results for the prosecution, was ridiculed by the media after he was unjustly axed from the company he helped establish. Duke Lacrosse case investigator Linwood Wilson’s personal bickering with his wife was dredged across the headlines… a perfect example of mountain making out of molehills. Vying for the cruelest coverage of all, was the way the news portrayed incidents involving the Duke Lacrosse victim and accuser Crystal Mangum. A litany of examples are on hand, with the most recent being the Reginald Daye autopsy report. Although the media has been alerted to the criminally fraudulent and bogus April 14, 2011 Examination of Autopsy Report, it has shown no curiosity as to how or why it differed from the Investigative Report of Death from April 13th. The media was quick to announce that the autopsy report showed injury to “six major organs”… the only problem is that the media relied upon the muscle called the diaphragm to be re-classified as an organ, which it is not. Furthermore, the report of the 13th , which is the far more reliable and accurate of the two, acknowledged only the splenic flexure of the colon as sustaining any stab related injury and receiving any attention during emergency surgery on Daye. ABC-11 television news was also quick to announce that Ms. Mangum stabbed Daye multiple times (seven) which was disproved by both reports. The media is at the ready to help the state keep concealed the truth behind Reginald Daye’s death from a stab wound… trauma from he most assuredly should have fully recovered.
Another gold mine source for the media has been provided by the NCAA’s investigation of the University of North Carolina’s football program. The self anointed organization headquartered in Indiana has as its objective to create athletic-academic crises in order to justify its relevance and the seven figure annual incomes of its top tiered executives. It pretends to place a premium on academic excellence while policing collegiate sports. Using a heavy hand it smashes the opportunities of many athletes to showcase their talents by arbitrarily handing out suspensions, fines, and banishments… usually for the alleged offense of accepting “gifts.” One UNC football player was deemed to have received a fifty dollar gift and the NCAA slapped him with a one game suspension. It is so ironic that the avaricious NCAA organization with it overstaffed and overpaid workforce is so bent on depriving a few athletes from underprivileged and disenfranchised origins from making a few bucks… this, while the NCAA is raking in the dinero hand over fist. Marvin Austin and Michael McAdoo were but a few of the students athletes caught up in the media storm, with McAdoo being cited for receiving “improper academic help” from a tutor. Although he received an F grade in the class, the NCAA tacked on an additional penalty… permanent ineligibility to play college football. The NCAA actions in this case, as in many others too numerous to recount, are examples of excesses in authority with draconian rulings that are arbitrary and capricious.
The media has been especially hard on the fired coach Butch Davis and one of his assistants John Blake. It seems that Blake had a relationship with a football agent of which the NCAA did not approve. Talk about piling on… Blake was unmercifully hammered in media. The News & Observer led the media charge against McAdoo’s professor, Julius Nyang’oro, who was forced to step down from his post as the chair of the Department of African and Afro-American Studies. His alleged culpability was not informing the Dean about a hiring decision he made of a qualified instructor who happened to work as a sports agent.
The main problem at UNC is that its chancellor, Holden Thorp, is shell-shocked. The NCAA really did a number on him, as every miniscule perceived infraction that is connected with UNC college sports is immediately reported to the NCAA. It is pitiful the amount of power the NCAA has over Mr. Thorp and college sports in general. The universities and colleges should unite and force the abolishment of the NCAA which is nothing more than a parasite that is drunk with power and is running rough-shod over student athletes and college administrators.
The News & Observer sports columnist Luke DeCock wrote a truly bizarre article in the September 6, 2011 paper titled, “Withers made bad call with game ball.” Evidently, it’s not enough to just win the football game… now what you do with the game ball is what really counts? DeCock accused UNC football coach Everett Withers of “calling attention to the Tar Heels’ sullied past instead of their new future.” What does he think his article did? First, I, although not an avid sports follower, was unaware that the game ball was given to former coach Butch Davis… until I read DeCock’s column. Second, so what? Big Deal. It is evident that former coach Davis was largely responsible for recruiting many of the team’s members and helping them to develop into a force capable of defeating James Madison by the score of 42-10. The players naturally had affection towards the former coach and Davis was a friend of current coach Withers. So why not give him a game ball that the coach and players felt he deserved? Certainly such an action was not meant to embarrass an overly sensitive chancellor or serve as a detraction. More ink was given to the story about a game ball given by Withers to Davis than to the ponzi scheme which snared North Carolina State University Debbie Yow’s new basketball coach. Somehow, I do not think The News & Observer has its priorities straight.
Finally, there’s The News & Observer’s three part investigative series by J. Andrew Curliss which does a hatchet job on Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline. To summarize my assessment of the series, it was a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing. I am not the only one to be of that opinion. It is obvious that she is coming under fire because she is a friend of her predecessor Mike Nifong, and because she has treated him with civility… and the Carpetbagger Jihadist position strictly forbids that, as they follow the dictum that “the friend of my enemy is my enemy.” Claiming that Ms. Cline is under fire is a ruse to get the public to believe that there is widespread disapproval in her work. From what I see, the only disapproval of her job performance is from The News & Observer. Alas, a review of the media treatment of Ms. Cline is worthy of a blog itself.
Instead of hyping sensational stories with the intent of ruining careers, tarnishing reputations and destroying lives, all media-types should make a conscientious effort to report the news fairly and objectively. That would be the best service they could provide for its consumers.
Coming soon: A flog about Governor Bev Perdue and her race-based pardon policy
As stated earlier, everyone on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case was fair game for the media headhunters. Brian Meehan, the lab director whose company provided DNA results for the prosecution, was ridiculed by the media after he was unjustly axed from the company he helped establish. Duke Lacrosse case investigator Linwood Wilson’s personal bickering with his wife was dredged across the headlines… a perfect example of mountain making out of molehills. Vying for the cruelest coverage of all, was the way the news portrayed incidents involving the Duke Lacrosse victim and accuser Crystal Mangum. A litany of examples are on hand, with the most recent being the Reginald Daye autopsy report. Although the media has been alerted to the criminally fraudulent and bogus April 14, 2011 Examination of Autopsy Report, it has shown no curiosity as to how or why it differed from the Investigative Report of Death from April 13th. The media was quick to announce that the autopsy report showed injury to “six major organs”… the only problem is that the media relied upon the muscle called the diaphragm to be re-classified as an organ, which it is not. Furthermore, the report of the 13th , which is the far more reliable and accurate of the two, acknowledged only the splenic flexure of the colon as sustaining any stab related injury and receiving any attention during emergency surgery on Daye. ABC-11 television news was also quick to announce that Ms. Mangum stabbed Daye multiple times (seven) which was disproved by both reports. The media is at the ready to help the state keep concealed the truth behind Reginald Daye’s death from a stab wound… trauma from he most assuredly should have fully recovered.
Another gold mine source for the media has been provided by the NCAA’s investigation of the University of North Carolina’s football program. The self anointed organization headquartered in Indiana has as its objective to create athletic-academic crises in order to justify its relevance and the seven figure annual incomes of its top tiered executives. It pretends to place a premium on academic excellence while policing collegiate sports. Using a heavy hand it smashes the opportunities of many athletes to showcase their talents by arbitrarily handing out suspensions, fines, and banishments… usually for the alleged offense of accepting “gifts.” One UNC football player was deemed to have received a fifty dollar gift and the NCAA slapped him with a one game suspension. It is so ironic that the avaricious NCAA organization with it overstaffed and overpaid workforce is so bent on depriving a few athletes from underprivileged and disenfranchised origins from making a few bucks… this, while the NCAA is raking in the dinero hand over fist. Marvin Austin and Michael McAdoo were but a few of the students athletes caught up in the media storm, with McAdoo being cited for receiving “improper academic help” from a tutor. Although he received an F grade in the class, the NCAA tacked on an additional penalty… permanent ineligibility to play college football. The NCAA actions in this case, as in many others too numerous to recount, are examples of excesses in authority with draconian rulings that are arbitrary and capricious.
The media has been especially hard on the fired coach Butch Davis and one of his assistants John Blake. It seems that Blake had a relationship with a football agent of which the NCAA did not approve. Talk about piling on… Blake was unmercifully hammered in media. The News & Observer led the media charge against McAdoo’s professor, Julius Nyang’oro, who was forced to step down from his post as the chair of the Department of African and Afro-American Studies. His alleged culpability was not informing the Dean about a hiring decision he made of a qualified instructor who happened to work as a sports agent.
The main problem at UNC is that its chancellor, Holden Thorp, is shell-shocked. The NCAA really did a number on him, as every miniscule perceived infraction that is connected with UNC college sports is immediately reported to the NCAA. It is pitiful the amount of power the NCAA has over Mr. Thorp and college sports in general. The universities and colleges should unite and force the abolishment of the NCAA which is nothing more than a parasite that is drunk with power and is running rough-shod over student athletes and college administrators.
The News & Observer sports columnist Luke DeCock wrote a truly bizarre article in the September 6, 2011 paper titled, “Withers made bad call with game ball.” Evidently, it’s not enough to just win the football game… now what you do with the game ball is what really counts? DeCock accused UNC football coach Everett Withers of “calling attention to the Tar Heels’ sullied past instead of their new future.” What does he think his article did? First, I, although not an avid sports follower, was unaware that the game ball was given to former coach Butch Davis… until I read DeCock’s column. Second, so what? Big Deal. It is evident that former coach Davis was largely responsible for recruiting many of the team’s members and helping them to develop into a force capable of defeating James Madison by the score of 42-10. The players naturally had affection towards the former coach and Davis was a friend of current coach Withers. So why not give him a game ball that the coach and players felt he deserved? Certainly such an action was not meant to embarrass an overly sensitive chancellor or serve as a detraction. More ink was given to the story about a game ball given by Withers to Davis than to the ponzi scheme which snared North Carolina State University Debbie Yow’s new basketball coach. Somehow, I do not think The News & Observer has its priorities straight.
Finally, there’s The News & Observer’s three part investigative series by J. Andrew Curliss which does a hatchet job on Durham District Attorney Tracey Cline. To summarize my assessment of the series, it was a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing. I am not the only one to be of that opinion. It is obvious that she is coming under fire because she is a friend of her predecessor Mike Nifong, and because she has treated him with civility… and the Carpetbagger Jihadist position strictly forbids that, as they follow the dictum that “the friend of my enemy is my enemy.” Claiming that Ms. Cline is under fire is a ruse to get the public to believe that there is widespread disapproval in her work. From what I see, the only disapproval of her job performance is from The News & Observer. Alas, a review of the media treatment of Ms. Cline is worthy of a blog itself.
Instead of hyping sensational stories with the intent of ruining careers, tarnishing reputations and destroying lives, all media-types should make a conscientious effort to report the news fairly and objectively. That would be the best service they could provide for its consumers.
Coming soon: A flog about Governor Bev Perdue and her race-based pardon policy
Saturday, July 9, 2011
Judge Gessner takes charge by tossing out charge
In an Anne Blythe article in Friday’s July 8, 2011 The News & Observer titled “Judge throws out murder charge,” Wake County Superior Court Judge Paul Gessner dismissed murder charges against 31 year-old Mario Antonio Smith. Prosecutors accused Smith of killing Dwight Lee Dean at a night club after a disturbance there. According to prosecutors, their witnesses gave statements after the incident that significantly differed from testimony given on the witness stand in court. (This is similar to a case involving the conviction of Shan Carter, which I will be highlighting in the future.) Furthermore, the prosecution’s one witness who linked Smith to the crime, described a perpetrator -who did not match the defendant in stature or hair style. (Not unlike the Erick Daniels case.)
Since the incident took place in July 2010, it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Smith was incarcerated for a year prior to his weak case being dismissed by Judge Gessner. The fact that the prosecution even brought such a merit-less case to trial was not surprising to defense attorney Jeff Cutler. Cutler stated about prosecutors, “That’s what they do. They don’t want to take heat for not trying the case. They’d rather let a judge or jury make the decision. I’m not surprised the judge dismissed it.” The prosecutor lacked credible evidence! Without forensics tying Mario Antonio Smith to the crime or a consistent and credible eyewitness, prosecutors plodded forward in preparing a flawed and flimsy case while the defendant cooled his heels in the cooler. (Similar to the Carletta Alston case, Smith essentially served a year sentence on a charge so weak that a judge threw it out before it could be brought before a jury… in Alston’s case the prosecutor avoided that humiliation by dropping charges against her himself.)
In their zeal, the Wake County prosecutors also charged Gregory Mecos Lee Watkins with accessory after the fact because he allegedly drove Smith from the nightclub stabbing scene. The article made no mention of whether or not he endured a lengthy pre-trial incarceration, or was released on bond. Regardless, due to actions from the bench on Smith’s case, the “accessory” charge against Watkins was dropped, as well.
I applaud Judge Gessner for his actions in this case, as it supports justice that is much too often denied the poor, disenfranchised, and people of color. Because prosecutors in the Tar Heel state have a propensity to charge people from the disadvantaged and “not-so-privileged” classes with crimes despite the paucity of evidence against them, they can usually count on a jury, with a mindset to please the prosecution, to deliver a verdict against the defendant. It happens time and time again, when defendants are convicted without a shred of credible evidence. Most of the time these cases pass public attention because the media does not cover them… it is only when the advantaged and privileged are snagged in the cogs of the criminal justice system that the media-types jump on criminal cases.
Unfortunately, it is only in high profile cases involving defendants from the upper echelons of society that jurors take their oaths seriously. In the Jason Young case, for example, the jurors fought to a standoff in a murder trial that was declared a mistrial after several days of deliberation. Holdouts against conviction in that group of twelve, did not feel that the prosecution presented a case without reasonable doubt. In most trials, however, with defendants lacking status or media appeal, jurors tend to reach verdicts not by analyzing the facts, evidence, and presentations of the barristers but instead rely on their visceral emotions… ready to convict when a crime victim is young and innocent or to assuage the grief of victims’ friends and relatives.
Jurors in the Erick Daniels case were not presented with a compelling case for his guilt, yet those dozen who sat in judgment reached a unanimous decision against him. The same can be said for the jurors in the Gregory Taylor case. Indifferent juries are responsible for many innocent people being convicted and given lengthy sentences in this state… the majority of wrongly incarcerated being the poor, disenfranchised, and people of color.
The second to the last paragraph in the article revealed the identity of Smith’s prosecutor as being Melanie Shekita… only to say that efforts to reach her were unsuccessful. I am glad to see the staff of the newspaper taking baby steps away from its ensconced PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy. Although prosecutors may feel pressure to convict someone of an especially heinous crime such as murder, it behooves them to take pains to see that their priority is to convict the guilty party. All too often they bring charges and prosecute knowing that the defendant is innocent (such as the Gregory Taylor case and the Erick Daniels case).
Until North Carolina prosecutors become true “Ministers of Justice,” prosecuting only those cases which have merit, it is incumbent upon judges to assure that the rights and liberty of the innocents are protected by dismissing those cases brought by prosecutors in which there is not enough evidence to convict… as did Judge Paul Gessner in the Mario Antonio Smith case. Unfortunately juries cannot be relied upon to use sound reasoning and impartial objectivity instead of sympathy and raw emotions in reaching a fair verdict… especially when it comes to the lives and futures of defendants who are poor, disenfranchised, and people of color.
I believe I speak on behalf of all Tar Heelians when I state that we are all in Judge Paul Gessner’s debt.
Since the incident took place in July 2010, it is reasonable to assume that Mr. Smith was incarcerated for a year prior to his weak case being dismissed by Judge Gessner. The fact that the prosecution even brought such a merit-less case to trial was not surprising to defense attorney Jeff Cutler. Cutler stated about prosecutors, “That’s what they do. They don’t want to take heat for not trying the case. They’d rather let a judge or jury make the decision. I’m not surprised the judge dismissed it.” The prosecutor lacked credible evidence! Without forensics tying Mario Antonio Smith to the crime or a consistent and credible eyewitness, prosecutors plodded forward in preparing a flawed and flimsy case while the defendant cooled his heels in the cooler. (Similar to the Carletta Alston case, Smith essentially served a year sentence on a charge so weak that a judge threw it out before it could be brought before a jury… in Alston’s case the prosecutor avoided that humiliation by dropping charges against her himself.)
In their zeal, the Wake County prosecutors also charged Gregory Mecos Lee Watkins with accessory after the fact because he allegedly drove Smith from the nightclub stabbing scene. The article made no mention of whether or not he endured a lengthy pre-trial incarceration, or was released on bond. Regardless, due to actions from the bench on Smith’s case, the “accessory” charge against Watkins was dropped, as well.
I applaud Judge Gessner for his actions in this case, as it supports justice that is much too often denied the poor, disenfranchised, and people of color. Because prosecutors in the Tar Heel state have a propensity to charge people from the disadvantaged and “not-so-privileged” classes with crimes despite the paucity of evidence against them, they can usually count on a jury, with a mindset to please the prosecution, to deliver a verdict against the defendant. It happens time and time again, when defendants are convicted without a shred of credible evidence. Most of the time these cases pass public attention because the media does not cover them… it is only when the advantaged and privileged are snagged in the cogs of the criminal justice system that the media-types jump on criminal cases.
Unfortunately, it is only in high profile cases involving defendants from the upper echelons of society that jurors take their oaths seriously. In the Jason Young case, for example, the jurors fought to a standoff in a murder trial that was declared a mistrial after several days of deliberation. Holdouts against conviction in that group of twelve, did not feel that the prosecution presented a case without reasonable doubt. In most trials, however, with defendants lacking status or media appeal, jurors tend to reach verdicts not by analyzing the facts, evidence, and presentations of the barristers but instead rely on their visceral emotions… ready to convict when a crime victim is young and innocent or to assuage the grief of victims’ friends and relatives.
Jurors in the Erick Daniels case were not presented with a compelling case for his guilt, yet those dozen who sat in judgment reached a unanimous decision against him. The same can be said for the jurors in the Gregory Taylor case. Indifferent juries are responsible for many innocent people being convicted and given lengthy sentences in this state… the majority of wrongly incarcerated being the poor, disenfranchised, and people of color.
The second to the last paragraph in the article revealed the identity of Smith’s prosecutor as being Melanie Shekita… only to say that efforts to reach her were unsuccessful. I am glad to see the staff of the newspaper taking baby steps away from its ensconced PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy. Although prosecutors may feel pressure to convict someone of an especially heinous crime such as murder, it behooves them to take pains to see that their priority is to convict the guilty party. All too often they bring charges and prosecute knowing that the defendant is innocent (such as the Gregory Taylor case and the Erick Daniels case).
Until North Carolina prosecutors become true “Ministers of Justice,” prosecuting only those cases which have merit, it is incumbent upon judges to assure that the rights and liberty of the innocents are protected by dismissing those cases brought by prosecutors in which there is not enough evidence to convict… as did Judge Paul Gessner in the Mario Antonio Smith case. Unfortunately juries cannot be relied upon to use sound reasoning and impartial objectivity instead of sympathy and raw emotions in reaching a fair verdict… especially when it comes to the lives and futures of defendants who are poor, disenfranchised, and people of color.
I believe I speak on behalf of all Tar Heelians when I state that we are all in Judge Paul Gessner’s debt.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
GOP Speaker Thom Tillis caught with finger in hypocrisy cookie jar
NOTE: Be patient as the time to upload this flog may be more lengthy than usual. Click on the link below to access the flog which has a running time of approximately twenty minutes. Audio is required.
LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/thp/thp1.html
Despite my criticism of The News & Observer’s blatant and well established anti-Nifong bias, it deserves a few kudus every now and then for doing what a good media outlet should do… which is to inform the public about misdeeds and malfeasance amongst public officials. On its Saturday, June 11, 2011 front page, it boldly called out the North Carolina Republican Speaker of the House Thom Tillis for giving outrageous pay hikes to half of his staff, some as high as 27%. This comes at a time when the budget is being slashed with draconian relish by the power-mongering Republican party. It is also at the expense of many Tar Heelians who are unemployed and living on the fringes barely able to survive and who are dependent on the services and programs that are being downsized or eliminated.
According to the article, Tillis’ general counsel Jason Kay received the 27% pay raise bringing his annual salary from $110,000 to $140,000. That’s a $30,000 raise during an economic downturn in which the state’s unemployment rate is at its highest… in large measure thanks to the recently Republican veto-overridden budget which counted many of its victims as state employees whose jobs were shelved. Not only that, but according to Dana Cope of the State Employees Association of North Carolina, the last time most state workers received a raise was three years ago due to the recession, and any raises that were authorized never even approached 27%.
Another benefactor of Speaker Tillis’ largess was Chief of Staff Charles Thomas whose annual pay was bumped by $30,000, too… from $120,000 to $150,000. Two other noticeable pay hikes mentioned in the article went to Christopher Hayes and Amy Hobbs, both of whom were hired in January 2011 as policy advisers at a salary of $70,000, and within six months saw their yearly income balloon to $82,000.
Thom Tillis, who is quite talented when it comes to obfuscation, stated that the initial $70,000 salary the new hires received was probationary and that they would get more money if they performed well. In other words, according to Speaker Tillis, if the new hires did not perform well, they would not get a raise. That just doesn’t make sense. In most business models if new employees do not perform well during the probationary period, they’re fired. This is the typical type of Republican double-speak that I find insulting. But the speaker believes that most Tar Heelians are stupid.
Prior to April 2011, Tillis had a fourteen person staff, and in all, seven of them, including the aforementioned, received raises. Information about the other three who received raises was not presented in the article. Then, in May 2011, amid firings, layoffs, Thom Tillis hired another person to join his staff at a salary of $70,000. The position title was not mentioned, nor was there any clarification as to whether or not the $70,000 amount was probationary.
Not long ago, in January, Tillis boasted that his office payroll would be 17% lower than his predecessor Joe Hackney by hiring fewer people and lowering salaries. However, actions speak louder than words, and as it turns out, Tillis’ payroll is ten percent higher and his staff is larger than Hackney. This hypocrisy when it comes to pay for the staff of the legislative leader is not restricted to a single party. According to Cope, Tillis and others “always find a way to give their staff members higher salaries and pay raises than the rest of state government.”
I do not stand alone in my indignation at the pay raises doled out by Speaker Tillis. Arlene Pulley-Morris of Leland, North Carolina, wrote an insightful letter to The News & Observer that appeared in its People’s Forum on June 16, 2011. In 1975 the Speaker of the House had one full-time employee and three part-time employees; Ms. Pulley-Morris was that full-time employee. She states that the staff for the speaker’s office has swollen to eighteen. Her credible assessment is that payment of these abundant salaries and the inexplicable increase in staff size is a waste of Tar Heelian taxpayer dollars. I fully agree. Furthermore, I applaud her for having the courage to enlighten us about what is going on at the General Assembly. As she also stated, she is of the opinion that “everyone is afraid to speak up because they will be punished by the speaker.”
In the paper’s People’s Forum of June 14, 2011, Valorie Jones of Raleigh, Karen Padgett of Garner, and Martha Hayes of Raleigh also voiced their displeasure at Speaker Tillis’ wasteful actions. Ms. Jones asked Tillis to explain why his staff is given raises when the state is forced to lay off teachers and teaching assistants; cuts are made to child care which allows poor single mothers to hold down jobs; medical and dental health for the uninsured poor is diminishing; and other sacrifices are made due to dire financial straits. Like Ms. Jones, I would very much like an explanation as well.
Ms. Padgett, a veteran teacher, expressed her outrage at Tillis’ raises for his staff, stating that she hadn’t received a raise in years while those in the General Assembly are asking her to do more in the classroom with less.
Ms. Hayes stated that Speaker Tillis should be ashamed for the raises given while Wake County teacher assistant positions are being cut to 90%. Again, I wholeheartedly agree.
In the June 17th People’s Forum, David Lea, of Raleigh, and Connie Schafer, of Apex, opine about their unhappiness over Tillis’ pay raises. Mr. Lea, who admits to being a Republican, noted that the June 11th headline “Tillis gives his staff fat raises,” was clearly understated. Unconscionable, indefensible, egregious, insensitive, and tone-deaf are adjectives Mr. Lea believes are far more worthy.
Ms. Schafer pointed out that many state employees put Tillis and other state Republicans in office and now they are being laid off in droves while not seeing a pay raise in nearly four years. That really is not surprising, as the GOP is a party which puts the privileged, the powerful, and profits ahead of the needs of the masses of people who struggle to buy food, put gas in their cars, and pay for the mortgage on their homes that is most likely underwater. She got it right, and it bears repeating. “It is a slap in the face of each one of them for Tillis to pass a budget that will lay off workers, add a fourth year of no raises, and increase health care costs while handing out raises to a privileged few.” Unfortunately, Republicans, who are masters of obfuscation, will continue to use Jedi mind-tricks and false and misleading rhetoric to skillfully persuade state employees and others to elect to office Republicans who will work against the best interests of those who are vulnerable, downtrodden, disenfranchised, and hardworking Americans who are trying to get by.
Without doubt, the Republican Party works for the interests of corporations, big business, and the well healed, seeking tax breaks and doing whatever else it can, including outsourcing American jobs and manufacturing overseas, to increase its bottom line.
Three letters appeared in the Sunday Forum section of The News & Observer of June 19th, written by Robert I. Bruck, Ph.D., Ken Andrews, and Evelyn Holland, all from Cary. Dr. Bruck wrote that at first he thought the 12 to 27% pay raises to Tillis’ staff was a joke. He read the proposed budget which specifically stated “no pay raises to state employees” for a third consecutive year. Then, for Tillis to reward his state employees with huge raises is like rubbing salt in the wounds.
Mr. Andrews questioned the raises handed out after a probationary period was completed. As Mr. Andrews stated, it makes no sense to give a probationary raise. The incentive for working hard and doing an outstanding job during a probationary period is to hold on to the job… not get a raise. That is unheard of, and it is what makes Tillis’ excuse for the raises lack credibility. Put another way, according to Tillis, if a worker performs poorly or unsatisfactorily during a probationary period, he/she remains employed at the initial salary and is not given a raise. It makes no sense, but Mr. Tillis expects the people to believe him.
Ms. Holland expressed how disappointed she was in Tillis’ pay raises to his staff, and suggested that it wasn’t just Democrats who were disgusted, but some Republicans, too. Those disgusted Republicans, I would venture to guess, are not from the privileged class, but have bought into the Republicans’ lofty words and rhetoric which belie their true motives and actions.
I have been reading the People’s Forum section of The News & Observer since the story about Tillis’ raises appeared. I have found nine opinions fiercely against Tillis’ actions, but have found none in praise of the raises he meted out using taxpayer dollars. The reason is most likely due to the fact that no such letters were submitted… otherwise, at least one or more would have been published to give the subject matter an alternative view or more balance.
I believe the speaker should be accountable to the people to explain how taxpayer money is being spent. I have serious reservations about the large staff at the speaker’s disposal and the salaries they enjoy. Furthermore, I question the need for the May 2011 hire, especially during this debilitating recession. We do not even know the new hire’s job title or description.
Unless the speaker can give reasonable and compelling reasons for the number of his staff and the compensation that they receive, then I would recommend that Thom Tillis rescind the ill-advised fat raises that half of his staff received. In addition, I believe that he should trim not only the number of his staff but compensation packages they receive, as I have no doubt that they are excessive.
Consider, for example, the two policy advisers. What exactly is their job description, and how many are on his staff? How many hours a week do they put in on the job? When the legislature is not in session, what work is being done by the speaker’s staff and how is it audited? Regarding Tillis’ general counsel, why is there a need for his services as a staff member? What hours does he devote to serving the speaker? Does the general counsel receive other income? What work is being conducted by the general counsel when the legislation is not in session? The same questions could be applied to the Chief of Staff for the Speaker of the House, as well as the other staff members whose titles, job descriptions, and incomes are unknown.
Unfortunately I believe that many of the people in power have a tendency to lavish themselves, their cronies, and sycophants with exorbitant compensation and benefits while transferring the burden of making up their avaricious excesses by cutting jobs, salaries, benefits, services and programs for others who are scraping hard just to survive.
Government employees such as firefighters and police put their lives on the line daily to protect lives and property, often working in harsh and unpredictable situations. Maintenance and sewer workers, trash collectors, and those employed to keep the roads cleared and paved and the infrastructure safe and sound makes everyday life comfortable and tranquil. Teachers, teacher assistants, and those who work as janitors and cooks in our public school system help to assure that children will get an education that will help prepare them to meet future challenges and take advantages of opportunities. These individuals all have a job that most people can comprehend the effort exerted by them and their value to society.
The same cannot be said for the staff of Speaker Tillis. What does a policy adviser do? How many hours a week does he/she work? Does a policy adviser work when legislature is not in session?... which is most of the year. Why does Tillis need two policy advisers? Does he have more than two? I do not know the salaries of all of the speaker’s staff members, but I do not believe they deserve to be paid double and triple that of teachers, policemen, firemen, maintenance people, and others who work full-time and year round and make solid and meaningful contributions. The speaker’s staff’s hours and job description are vague, ambiguous, and murky, which makes it difficult, if not impossible to appreciate their positions.
Because we taxpayers are providing money to pay for salaries and benefits of Thom Tillis’s staff, we have right to know what we’re getting in return for investing in their salaries. I am inclined to believe that the money set aside for the outrageous raises and the new position on Tillis’ staff, is nothing more than an extravagant waste of taxpayer money. If Mr. Tillis cannot give a satisfactory explanation for graciously handing out pay raises during the presence of our local and national recession, then I would recommend that he invalidate the raises given to his staff and dissolve the unidentified position for which he hired someone in May 2011.
In other words, we should all demand that Thom Tillis be held accountable for the January 2011 promise he made to Tar Heelians to set an example for others in state government by cutting his office payroll. As Mr. Lea stated, the example that Mr. Tillis has set thus far is unconscionable, indefensible, egregious, insensitive, and tone-deaf.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
The cosmetic self-serving bill that the Guv shouldn’t’ve signed into law
In the Saturday, June 25, 2011 issue of The News & Observer is an article by staff writer Craig Jarvis titled, “Perdue vetoes bill on lawsuits.” The article makes mention of some of the other bills that Governor Bev Perdue signed into law on Friday. One bill she signed was to “protect prosecutors if police don’t give them all the material they’re supposed to in criminal cases…” This is truly a joke and it’s the kind of thing that cements into the minds of countrymen and women that North Carolina is the laughing stock of the nation when it comes to criminal justice.
The bill is one without substance, offers no benefits to the majority of Tar Heelians, and at its worst is capable of debilitating court room justice. It is self-serving in that the General Assembly, which is comprised mostly of attorneys and individuals with law degrees, in passing it is merely protecting one of its flock from civil liability. This should not even be an issue because prosecutors enjoy immunity in cases which they are prosecuting… all attorneys except former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong. Because Nifong exhibited rare independence and refused to kowtow to the Power-That-Be and dismiss the Duke Lacrosse case charges, he was subjected to the most overbearing and devastating persecution by the state, including disbarment, and crucifixion in the media. The protection he was due as a prosecutor was stripped away to permit the unprecedented filing of civil suits against him. What makes this all the more tragic is that he prosecuted the case well within acceptable standards.
Other prosecutors, such as Tom Ford, who solicit and use perjured testimony, withhold exculpatory evidence from the defense, utilize hocus-pocus forensics, and have no qualms about holding “suspects” in jail for lengthy periods without bringing them to trial, are and have been protected by the laws already in place that provide them with immunity. They are protected under the umbrella of the law so long as they comply with the wishes of those in power… if not the consequences of their actions can be predicted by observing what happened to the independently thinking prosecutor seeking true justice, Mike Nifong.
With the Mike Nifong situation, the state merely bypassed the law that protected Nifong… acted as though it didn’t exist. Because the media had thoroughly poisoned the minds of the masses with its anti-Nifong reporting and opinions there was little reason to believe that the public would object this judicial indiscretion.
But, that is the way things work in the Tar Heel state. When people of privilege, power, status, and connections go afoul of the law, then the laws are bended or broken and they receive “a rare deal for the privileged.” When the disenfranchised, poor, people of color, and those who have incurred the wrath of the state bigwigs are involved in a controversy, then you can bet that the laws will be manipulated and molded in a way that is not to their advantage… a “rare deal for the not-so-privileged.” Bottom line is that this bill is totally useless. The courts and state will continue to use creative means when dealing with the law in order to obtain the results it desires.
The absence of civil lawsuits filed against prosecutors is evidence that this bill to protect them is superfluous. Prosecutor Tom Ford, who vindictively put Gregory Taylor, a man he knew to be innocent, behind bars for a life sentence is not being sued. Even though after serving 17 years wrongfully in prison Greg Taylor was exonerated and proclaimed “innocent” by a three judge panel. Prosecutor David Hoke who put Alan Gell on death row even though he possessed exculpatory evidence of his innocence, is not being sued. This, despite the fact that Alan Gell served ten years wrongfully incarcerated. These are but two of many cases where prosecutors exhibited egregious professional misconduct far worse than anything Mr. Nifong has been accused of and yet are not subjected to civil suits. This bill is unnecessary for protecting those prosecutors who tow the state’s line by following the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.”
What the bill does is divest prosecutors of responsibility for the cases they choose to prosecute. In this way, it is a major impediment for criminal defendants who are seeking justice. It is an out for the prosecutors, allowing them to put the blame of an ill-fated and wrongful prosecution on police and investigators. If crucial evidence, records, lab results, notes, and/or documentation are found to be withheld from the defense, then prosecutors can do as they have done in the past… which is to put the blame on the investigator, police, or lab tech. This bill allows prosecutors to say, loud and clear, “Hey, it’s not my fault,” whenever an innocent person has been found to have languished behind bars for years and decades due to a prosecutorial misdeed. If anything, this bill which was just signed into law, has the propensity to ramp up the number of bad acts by prosecutors. This is an outcome that is obviously not in the best interests of Tar Heelians.
A prime example of what I’ve stated comes from an article which appeared in The News & Observer titled, “Bill critics: Hold DAs accountable.” In the news piece, by AP writer Emery P. Dalesio, it discussed an Iredell County double-murder case in which the judge declared a mistrial and barred prosecutors from pursuing the death penalty against defendant Al Bellamy. This ruling from the bench was the result of prosecutors, who three weeks into the trial and having completed presenting their case, handed defense attorneys about 1,700 pages of interview notes taken by a former narcotics detective. Although the prosecutors’ case may be in slight jeopardy, the prosecutors themselves certainly are at no risk. In accordance with the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong), the names of the prosecutors are not even mentioned. The bill newly signed into law would have absolutely no bearing on this case.
These Iredell County prosecutors will not face sanctions, punishment, or disbarment for withholding gobs of evidence from defense attorneys well into the trial, which is an abomination when one considers that the North Carolina State Bar, in large measure, disbarred Mike Nifong for allegedly not giving defense attorneys non-exculpatory lab results fast enough… a trial date having not even been set in the Duke Lacrosse case.
Final analysis: it is the people who need protection from prosecutors, not the prosecutors who need protection from the people. However, through obfuscation, Jedi mind-speak, spin, and fancy rhetoric, the General Assembly has been able to convince many of those who do not adequately exercise their gray matter that this new law to protect prosecutors will lead to fairer criminal justice outcomes. Hah. The laugh’s on us. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Lock ‘em all up, and sort out the facts later… Durham Police Department Policy regarding the Not-So-Privileged?
A recent article in The News & Observer, titled “Accused stepdaughter wants her life back,” recounts how Carletta Alston, was arrested and charged with the murder of Michael Donnell Smith in June 2009. Although Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford (who also wrongly prosecuted Gregory Taylor in the 1991 death of Jacquetta Thomas) had no credible evidence or even a motive against Ms. Alston, he held her in jail for a year before finally releasing her. It seems that in North Carolina’s justice system this practice of arresting an individual first and then working up a case against the person is not all that rare… especially amongst the poor, disenfranchised, people of color and those considered Not-So-Privileged.This kind of arrest first, investigate later policy would not be tolerated if it was applied to the privileged, or those who were deemed to be professionals or educated. For example, Jason Young, who is currently on trial for the murder of his wife Michelle Young, was not scooped up and dumped in the slammer as soon as suspicions about him arose. Heck, no. The police and their investigators conducted a thorough investigation before making the arrest and bringing charges against him.
That is the way the justice system should work when it comes to making an arrest and bringing charges. Justice definitely was not served in the Carletta Alston case… more of which will be presented in the flog which is soon to follow.
In the past few days evidence has been unearthed, literally, which has brought media attention to yet another sad chapter of crime in the cash-strapped city of Durham. Specifically, the case of the so-called “Black Hebrews” religious cult with its leader Pete Moses Jr., who along with a half dozen others, has been charged with the murder of 28 year-old Antoinette McKoy and a five year-old boy, Jadon Higginbothan. According to media sources, a witness stated that cult leader Moses killed the little boy and ordered a follower, Vania Sisk, mother of the murdered boy, to shoot McKoy. It is believed that the deaths occurred sometime in December 2010.
Let me preface my following remarks by stating that neither Durham Police Chief Jose Lopez nor any of his investigators have shared any information about the case with me. All that I have gleaned about the case has come from the mainstream media… which is not the most reliable source. But it is the only source available to me.
I do not question the arrest and murder charges leveled against Pete Moses Jr. and Vania Sisk. From what I have read and viewed on television news, those charges seem to be warranted. Charges against five other individuals seems to be somewhat more suspect. Although Moses’s mother Sheilda Evelyn Harris rented the house nearly a year ago on Ashe Street where the bodies were found, I have seen no evidence that she was involved or had knowledge of the murders. On the television news broadcasts however, relatives of Ms. Harris claimed that she had no involvement in Moses’s religious cult or his crimes. Others arrested included Sheila Falisha Moses, 20; P. Leonard Moses, 20; Larhonda Renee Smith,40; and Lavada Quinzetta Harris, 40. Sheila and Leonard Moses are children of Ms. Harris, and siblings of cult leader Pete Moses Jr. Other than living in the house on Ashe Street, there was no information linking Sheila and Leonard in the crimes.
A newspaper article in today’s The News & Observer titled, “Site of woman’s body yields remains of child,” conveyed that Durham Police Chief Lopez stated that prior to discovery of the bodies on the Ashe Street property, Ms. Harris was not a suspect. The mere discovery of the bodies on the property does not in-and-of itself implicate Ms. Harris in the murder.
Although the five charged with murder (outside of Pete Moses and Vania Sisk), are being held without bail, the real possibility exists that they may be totally innocent… that they could have had no knowledge of the crime. It is possible that one or more may have aided or abetted Pete Moses, and possibly deserved a lesser charge of “accessory after the fact.” And, although I believe that it is highly unlikely, the five could have all taken part in the murders and be guilty as charged.
It just seems to me that when it comes to making arrests amid those who are of the Not-So-Privileged class, police and prosecutors in Durham and Wake Counties, as well as other counties within the state, have no qualms about making arrests first and investigating second. I believe that it should be the other way around.
If I were a bettin’ man, I would be inclined to believe that before the dust settles, of the five presently in custody and facing murder charges (excluding Pete Moses Jr. and Vania Sisk), most, if not all of them will have the murder charges against them reduced or dropped. Although arresting the Not-So-Privileged may be popular with conservative law and order Republicans, arresting and charging people without credible evidence is an unjust policy that results in unnecessary misery and hardship, and drains the county coffers that are maintained with taxpayer dollars.
Arrest first and investigate second policies in Durham, Wake County and throughout North Carolina should be abandoned immediately, and in its place there should be a principle that requires an investigation that yields credible evidence before an arrest takes place… in other words, the same policy that is currently in place for the Privileged class should be applied to the Not-So-Privileged.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
