Media kowtows to Carpetbagger families

Note: This Flog is approximately eight minutes in length, and requires audio.

LINK: http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog5.html

It is shameful the power that the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants continue to hold over the mainstream media. The most recent disgraceful example can be found in the July 12, 2011 online article posted on wral.com titled “Father gains custody of Duke Lacrosse accuser’s children.”

One wonders how such a topic could once again focus on expressing the innocence of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants… but it does. WRAL follows the lead of many recent Duke lacrosse related stories in misleading the public with regards to the source of the defendants’ innocence. Initially, wral.com, and other media outlets stated that North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper, in his April 11, 2007 promulgation, found the three partygoing defendants “innocent” of sexual abuse charges related to the March 2006 beer-guzzling, stripper ogling bacchanal.

It wasn’t until this blog site repeatedly pummeled the media with the fact that the attorney general belongs to the executive branch of government, has no judiciary powers, and is incapable of the legal pronouncement of “innocent” or “guilt,” for that matter, that media types stopped naming the attorney general as the source of the boys’ exoneration.

Time and time again this blog enlightened readers, and e-mails informed media-types that, as former Campbell University law school professor Tony Baker stated, “Only a jury, or judge in lieu of a jury” can decide innocence or guilt.

So the media continues to morph its statement regarding the innocence of the Duke Lacrosse triad by stating, quote: “state officials (plural) later declared the players innocent,” unquote. This is a flagrant, bald-faced, in-your-face, two-faced lie. Fabrication. Prevarication. A blatant misrepresentation meant to deceive the public… or at least the vast majority who do not bother to engage their gray matter and are easily susceptible to Jedi mind-tricks.

By using the plural when citing “state official” wral is trying to give credibility to its claim that the boys were found innocent. I have spoken to media-types about this very issue in the past, and the only source given for the proclamation of innocence has been A.G. Roy Cooper.

Now, although the article was attributed to reporter Erin Hartness and Matthew Burns, the web editor, I doubt very seriously that either one of them is responsible for the misinformation about who was responsible for proclaiming the Duke Lacrosse defendants “innocent.” There is probably policy in place at WRAL, as well as in other media outlets, as how to phrase the innocence statement. Just as there most assuredly is a policy in place to bring up the alleged “innocence” of the Duke Lacrosse defendants whenever an article even remotely touches on someone who is somehow related to the Duke Lacrosse case.
Not only that, but you can bet that certain topics related to the Duke Lacrosse case are strictly off limits. For example, the fact that the three defendants and their avaricious attorneys shook down Duke University for $20 million each and are seeking an additional $10 mil from the city of Durham, is never broached.

Likewise, Reade Seligmann’s alleged failure to pay close to $7 million in taxes is kept hush-hush by the media.

The expunged record of Collin Finnerty’s assault charge against two men he mistook for being homosexual in Washington, D.C. is glossed over.

And the fact that Dave Evans’ mother, Rhea Evans, worked for more than a decade as an executive at CBS News, was and is never disclosed… not even during the CBS broadcasts of “60 Minutes” during which the Duke Lacrosse case was featured, and in which Ms. Evans and the Carpetbagger parents of the two other Duke Lacrosse defendants were interviewed.

It is no doubt that Ms. Evans’ connections with the media, and her professional role as a highly successful founder of a Washington D.C. public relations firm have served the Carpetbagger Jihadist’s agenda well. How else can you explain wral.com’s perpetual and false assertion that “state officials later declared the players innocent.”

Instead of continuing to consent to the whims of the Carpetbagger Jihadist agenda, it is high time for wral and all media sources to begin reporting truthfully and objectively when it comes to stories with even the slightest connection to the Duke Lacrosse case.


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.

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. 

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. 

More of Wake County Prosecutor Tom Ford’s handiwork…

To access flog, click on the link below:

http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog4.html


In the Saturday, June 04, 2011 edition of The News & Observer newspaper, an article titled “Accused stepdaughter wants her life back” by staff writer Thomasi McDonald chronicled yet another chapter in the malfeasance and misdeeds of Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford.

The name “Tom Ford” probably does not sound familiar to most but it should, as Ford was the prosecutor in the botched murder investigation of Jacquetta Thomas that unfolded nearly two decades ago. As is it’s PAPEN Policy (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong), The News & Observer article never once mentioned the Gregory Taylor case or linked Tom Ford to it. It was Gregory Flynt Taylor who Prosecutor Ford saddled with that homicide… but he did so only because Taylor, who is white, would not give perjured testimony in order to convict Johnny Beck, the African American designated suspect who was Ford’s primary target.

In 1993, Taylor was convicted by the use of perjured testimony, a specialty of Prosecutor Ford, and with some hocus-pocus forensics which manipulated evidence to favor the prosecution’s scenario. In Taylor’s case, a stain on the bumper of his car was misleadingly determined to be human blood… which, in fact, it was not.

Prosecutor Ford won a life sentence against Greg Taylor because Taylor refused to implicate another innocent man with perjured testimony.

Returning to the story about the accused stepdaughter… Carletta Alston was charged in June 17, 2009 with the death of her stepfather Michael Donnell Smith. Smith, standing in his Knightdale driveway, was shot in the face during the early morning hours as he prepared to drive to work. His wife Phyllis and stepdaughter Carletta were inside the house when they heard the gunfire.

Afraid to venture outside to investigate, they placed a hysterical 9-1-1 call. Police arrived later and conducted an investigation that produced a stack of letters between the murdered victim Smith, who was also a co-pastor at a church and another woman. The correspondence pointed towards a romantic relationship between the two. Michael Smith’s wife Phyllis, denied knowledge of any affair until it was brought to her attention by the police.

Two days following the murder of Michael Donnell Smith, June 6, 2009, Wake deputies first interviewed Carletta Alston. They could not determine a motive for her to commit the murder. According to the newspaper article, police focused on the stepdaughter Carletta because her account of the shooting differed with other witnesses… specifically, police stated that the time Carletta Alston gave for hearing the shot was significantly later than the time given by neighbors.

Police did not state how much different, but surely a record of the 9-1-1 call would narrow down the timeline. Allegedly gunpowder residue was found somewhere on Alston’s nightgown, but not on her hands, or the hands of her mother. And, as Alston’s attorney, Karl Knudsen of Raleigh stated regarding gunpowder residue, “There’s always the possibility of contamination.”

Based upon Alston’s version of the time at which she heard the gunshot differing with the time given by the neighbors and the forensic report that gunpowder residue was found on Alston’s nightgown… exactly where it was never stated… Carletta Alston was charged with the murder of her stepfather Michael Donnell Smith. Police and prosecutors did not even have a motive in arresting Alston.

What is truly absurd is the statement made by Wake County District Attorney Colon Willoughby which fundamentally stated that there was reason enough to arrest Carletta Alston, there was reason enough for a grand jury to indict Carletta Alston for the murder of Michael Donnell Smith, but that they didn’t have a strong enough case to take it to court. Tea Party conservatives and birthers may believe this line spewed by the Wake County D.A., but Jedi mind-tricks have no affect on me and others with strong logical minds and a modicum of common sense.

Put another way, if the prosecutors did not have a strong enough case to take to court, then Alston should not have been indicted. And, if prosecutors did not have a strong enough case to indict Alston, she should have never been arrested. It’s as simple as that. To aver otherwise is what makes North Carolina justice the laughing stock of the country.

So Carletta Alston upon being arrested lost the two jobs that she held at nursing homes, and she languished in jail at costly taxpayer expense for a year. When she was unexpectedly released from custody without explanation, she had in essence served a one year sentence for not committing a crime… courtesy of prosecutor Tom Ford and the state’s selective justice system based on Class and Color.

The North Carolina justice system is one in which the well-heeled, powerful, privileged, and connected are given “rare deals.” Most of these deals substitute a small fine in place of serving jail time. Those who are disenfranchised, indigent, and people of color are dumped onto the scrap heap of despair and injustice, left to fend for themselves after losing years of their lives and their self dignity to an uncaring, inhumane, and unsympathetic system.

What happened to Carletta Alston is not an isolated incident. The following are but a smattering of examples:

James Arthur Johnson was charged with the murder, rape, kidnapping and armed robbery of Brittany Willis by Wilson County prosecutor Bill Wolfe. Despite lacking credible evidence Johnson, who solved the crimes against Willis, served a 39 month sentence before being forced to agree to an Alford plea deal for a misprision of felony. A misprision of felony charge is applied to person who has knowledge of a crime but does not go to authorities with it. Even this charge did not fit the plea deal which Johnson accepted.

Not only that, but friends and family of Brittany Willis offered a $20,000 reward upon which they reneged after Johnson identified the perpetrator of the crimes against Willis. The media has kept quiet about this.


Judge Osmond Smith III sentenced 15 year-old Erick Daniels to confinement for ten to fourteen years after he was convicted of an armed robbery in which prosecutor Freda Black offered not a shred of credible evidence. The victim of the robbery picked out the young boy’s photograph from a middle school year book based solely on the shape of his eyebrows.

Although he has been proclaimed “innocent” by a judge, the governor and her Office of Executive Clemency has refused to issue a pardon to Erick Daniels who is struggling to get a job with a false felony conviction on his record.

Crystal Gail Mangum, who was the victim and accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case, had charges trumped up against her in February 2010 after police were called to her apartment by her children out of fear for their mother’s safety. Crystal had been repeatedly punched in the face by her ex-boyfriend after she made an insulting comment.

When the responding police realized the identity of Crystal, they dropped attention from Crystal’s abuser and focused on her instead. In order to have Mangum convicted of a crime that would carry serious jail time, the Durham Police, the only ones with the motive, means, and opportunity, set fire to clothing in the bathtub, claimed it was arson, and attributed it to Crystal.

With a slew of other bogus charges, initial bail was set at $1 million. Like Carletta Alston, Crystal Mangum lost her job… but in addition lost her apartment, many of her belongings, custody of her children, was dropped from graduate school classes in which she was enrolled, and she lost her independence.

Crystal spent three months in jail before a $100,000 bail was unexpectedly satisfied by a benevolent bail bondsman. Even though her attorney, Mani Dexter, put up an almost non-existent feather-weight defense, Mangum was not convicted of the most serious arson charge, and was sentenced to time served on other frivolous charges for which she was convicted.

The system of selective justice based on Class and Color thrives in North Carolina because civil rights groups, politicians, and community leaders allow it. They remain silent while the vulnerable individuals, who look to and depend upon them for protection, are mashed under the uncaring heel of those in positions of power in the justice system.

The NAACP, under leadership of Dr. Rev. William Barber II, remained silent as a dormouse. Where was his voice, or that of the NAACP, when Carletta Alston was thrown into the slammer because her recollection of events differed from others about the time at which a gun was fired? State senators and representatives in Wake County have also remained silent when their constituent Carletta Alston languished in jail at taxpayer expense despite the fact that prosecutor Tom Ford had not built a case against her.

Clergymen throughout the state may deliver fiery sermons to their flock from within the confines of their houses of worship, but when it comes to speaking out publicly against the injustice against the very people they serve , then it is as though they have suddenly lost their voices.

Because of the deafening silence amongst community and civil rights leaders, prosecutors like Tom Ford are emboldened and have no compunction against tossing the disenfranchised, poor, and people of color in jail in order to close a case. So what if innocent people are serving time behind bars while the real culprits run free? Who cares?

And, Tom Ford can count on the media coddling up to him, in conjunction with the media’s PAPEN Policy. Duke Lacrosse Prosecutor Mike Nifong in doing his job within acceptable standards, was vilified and butchered by the media… but not so with the Greg Taylor Prosecutor Tom Ford.

Even though the Greg Taylor case received plenty of media press, the prosecutor of the case Tom Ford was rarely mentioned. SBI lab agent Duane Deaver was the designated scapegoat for the case. Well known defense attorney Joseph Cheshire, in defending Greg Taylor, was lenient when discussing the prosecutor who snatched seventeen years of his client’s best years from him. No disparaging words about Ford were uttered from Cheshire’s lips… even referring to Ford as a capable opponent. Cheshire saved his criticism for Mike Nifong only.

In fact, that was Cheshire’s strategy in the Duke Lacrosse case. Not to defend the defendants, but to attack Nifong, the prosecutor who was too independent and would not yield to the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” So with the media in tow, the Duke Lacrosse defense set out to destroy Mike Nifong, which was culminated with his disbarment, making him the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933.

I have to hand it to The News & Observer for even having the gumption to mention Tom Ford’s name in the article. However, even in doing so, it attempted to mislead. Take the passage “Knudsen also noted that the prosecutor handling the case, Tom Ford, has a reputation for being very thorough and willing to do everything he can with the available evidence.” Ford exhibited his talents with evidence in the Greg Taylor case when he turned a bumper stain into human blood, and when he took a negative scent from a tracking hound and with a little abracadabra turned it into a positive one.

Then the article tried to define Tom Ford as a dedicated prosecutor by stating, “But he backed away from taking Alston to trial.”

“He came to the conclusion that it was not a case they wanted to move forward with,” Knudsen said.

I have not a problem with that decision, but why did it take twelve months for Tom Ford to come to the conclusion that he did not, and never did have a case against Carletta Alston? Twelve months while Ms. Alston served time without being convicted of a crime. The fact of the matter is, as was previously stated, that Carletta Alston should never have been arrested and charged with the crime.

Thanks to Tom Ford’s handiwork, the state of North Carolina owes Carletta Alston. As Ms. Alston struggles to find work and deal with other problems related to her unjust incarceration, the state needs to step in and help make her whole… as much as is humanly possible. That is what true justice demands and that is what we, as Tar Heelians, should demand. 

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.



North Carolina’s disgraceful treatment of Erick Daniels continues…

Click the link below to access the flog.

http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog3redo.html


The Independent Weekly, a Triangle area arts and entertainment tabloid out of Durham, has made it clear to me, for reasons which are not, that it doesn't want anything to do with me. I believe its hostility towards me is due to the fact that I am a supporter of Mike Nifong. Despite that, however, I would be remiss to miss an opportunity to look at the publication every chance I get because it does tackle important criminal and social justice issues that other mainstream media avoid like the plague. In fact, I credit its articles about the unjust incarceration of Erick Daniels to be instrumental in public awareness about his plight, and to be responsible for his subsequent release from prison after serving seven of a ten to fourteen year sentence for an armed robbery conviction... a crime he did not commit.

What is particularly tragic about the Daniels case is that he never should have been arrested for the September 21, 2000 armed robbery, let alone convicted and allowed to serve time. Compounding the tragedy is that Erick Daniels was taken into custody at the age of fourteen... hand-cuffed and led away from his middle school class room like a hardened criminal. That the case against him was flawed was evident from the very beginning, but his defense attorney seriously compromised his case by putting the young boy on the witness stand.

Licking her chops, the Durham Prosecutor Freda Black tore into her prey, convincing a pliable jury that Daniels was a threat to society... that he had gang affiliations, etc. She was unable to present credible evidence linking Daniels to the armed robbery, as he differed from the victim's initial description of the perpetrator in hair style and complexion.

The victim’s description of the armed robber was an African American male of light complexion with his hair braided in cornrows. Erick Daniels has a dark complexion and his hair is short cropped.

Fingerprints at the crime scene did not match Daniels's and there was no other forensic evidence to implicate him either. Discrepancies in the lead investigator's records and missing police reports further raised doubts about the legitimacy of the state's case against Daniels. The prosecuting attorney even failed to interview a young man who was later incarcerated who fit the suspect's profile and admitted to committing the robbery.

Perhaps what is most disturbing is that the reason Erick Daniels was deemed to be the most likely suspect was due to the fact that he was picked out of a middle school yearbook based upon the shape of his eyebrows. Daniels appeared before Judge Osmond Smith III, the same judge who sentenced Mike Nifong to 24 hours in jail on a trumped up contempt of court charge. The honorable Judge Smith sentenced Daniels to a sentence of ten to fourteen years. So Daniels languished in jail, year after year, with the state having stolen his youth.


While incarcerated, appeals were filed on his behalf, but all were for naught.
In 2003, after spending several years in jail, Erick Daniels passed a polygraph test which supported his contention that he was not involved in the crime for which he was convicted. It wasn't until the following year that Attorney Carlos Mahoney took over Daniels's case and filed an appeal with Durham Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson which eventually led to Daniels’s release from prison. In releasing Daniels, the judge dismissed all of the charges against him, and as he is legally empowered to do, declared that Erick Daniels was "innocent."

The News & Observer, a Johnny-come-lately in the travails of Erick Daniels, published a front page article in its Sunday, February 1, 2009, issue titled "After injustice, Durham man's eyes are on the future." However, the article by Anne Blythe was quick to turn its attention and sympathies to the three Duke Lacrosse defendants. Defendants who served no time in jail, who through their avaricious lawyers shook down Duke University for $20 million each, and who are attempting to pry another $10 mil each from the cash-strapped city of Durham. Per mainstream media custom, the Duke three are described as "exonerated” and “declared innocent..." However, writer Blythe failed to mention in the article that they were declared "innocent" by an attorney general... a proclamation which she very well knew carried no legal weight and which was meant to mislead the public.

Comparing the Duke Lacrosse defendants to Erick Daniels is like comparing apples and eggplant... as Daniels was declared "innocent" by a judge, not an attorney general. In addition, the Duke Lacrosse defendants were never convicted of a felony, as was Daniels. Daniels’s record is stained by the unjust felony charge and conviction, whereas the Duke Lacrosse defendants’ record is spotless.

Despite a case in which Daniels did not have a forensic print, had ineffective legal representation, had a confession from another man with a criminal past who fit the description, and had been declared "innocent" by a judge, he has been unsuccessful in receiving a pardon. Under state law, without the pardon he is not eligible to receive compensation that the state legislature has designated to go to the wrongfully incarcerated.

With his current attorney Gladys Harris, Daniels had been in the pursuit of a pardon for years through the North Carolina Office of Executive Clemency, which is charged with granting pardons and commuting sentences. A Pardon of Innocence is granted when an individual has been convicted and criminal charges are subsequently dismissed, as has occurred in Daniels's case. Although, like Gregory Taylor, Erick Daniels has been legally determined to be "innocent," a petition to the Governor for a declaration of innocence to enable him to seek compensation from the State for being erroneously convicted and imprisoned by it has not been granted.

There is no doubt among fair-minded people of good conscientious that Erick Daniels is innocent of the charge of armed robbery for which he was convicted, sentenced, and suffered seven years of incarceration. Neither is their doubt that Daniels deserves to be made whole by all measures at the State's disposal, such as expungement of the crime from his record and financial compensation to which he is rightfully entitled by state law.

In the Gregory Taylor case, Governor Bev Perdue had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to do the right thing in giving Taylor a pardon for his seventeen years of wrongful incarceration and enabling him to receive the compensation to which he was entitled. For reasons which have no logical answer, the Governor and her Executive Office of Clemency are bracing themselves to deny justice for Erick Daniels.

According to the Independent Weekly, the Clemency Office denied Daniels's pardon in February 2011, and Daniels's attorney Harris stated that she had not received notification from the state office. Harris went on to state that the office informed her that the denial was issued because "those granting pardons from the state do not disturb jury verdicts." Whoever the mysterious people are in the Clemency Office must believe that Attorney Harris is an idiot. If I am not mistaken, practically all innocent people are wrongfully convicted by a jury. Gregory Taylor was convicted by a jury... yet he was pardoned by the Governor's office. Their explanation for refusing to pardon Daniels makes no sense and they know it. That is why the Governor's office and the secretive Office of Clemency rebuffed the Independent Weekly's efforts to contact them. This is the kind of insanity that makes North Carolina the laughing stock of the country.

One reason that the governor and her Executive Office of Clemency believe that they can get away with this egregious and amoral mistreatment of Erick Daniels is because Daniels’s political representatives U.S. Congressman David Price, State Senator Floyd McKissick, and State Representatives Mickey Michaux and Larry Hall keep at arms length when it comes to defending their constituents caught in a system that dispenses selective justice based on Class and Color.

The injustice suffered by Daniels is not a problem restricted to the Durham area, rather it is an issue which plagues the entire state of North Carolina. Representatives, senators, and all politicians who value the concept of “equal justice for all” should not just feel shock and abhorrence at the mistreatment of Erick Daniels, but they should do something about it.

The NAACP’s state organization under its president, Reverend Doctor William Barber, as well as the Durham chapter of the NAACP, has remained silent as dormice. By so doing, this civil rights organization is nothing more than an enabler to the unacceptable and discriminatory status quo and it does a disservice to all people of color who’s civil and constitutional rights it professes to protect.

It is time for Governor Bev Perdue, her administration, and other state officials to start assuring that “equal justice for all” is being dispensed by the state’s criminal justice system instead of bad jokes. Erick Daniels certainly deserves better... and so do all Tar Heelians.