Monday, June 18, 2007

Easley: Nifong Should Go Now

The N&O reports that in a press conference this afternoon, Governor Mike Easley indicated his displeasure with Mike Nifong's delayed resignation. "I think he should have left and not gone back," except to clean out his office, said the governor.

Under North Carolina law, Easley doesn't have the power to remove Nifong. Durham Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson, who does have such power, has said that he will allow Nifong to remain in office for another four weeks. Hudson did not supply a credible explanation for his reasoning.

46 comments:

Anonymous said...

Only in the cesspool of Durham can a disbarred DA tell the Governor when it's convenient for him to vacate his office......Absolutely crazy.

Nifong should be escorted to his desk and out of the building...TODAY.

Nifong is making complete fools of the AG, Governor ,the state bar and his office.

The man has a mental condition and is not in touch with reality.

Anonymous said...

I hope Judge Smith will find Nifong in contempt of court and put him in jail until his disbarment.

Anonymous said...

Doesn't the article with Gov. Easley refer to a new law making its way through the NC House and Senate that would allow the Governor to remove a disbarred District Attorney. Could such a law be passed sooner than the 30 additional days that Nifong seeks to feed at the public trough?

The citizens of Durham should march on the DA's office and demand that he immediately remove himself from that respected office, which he has proven he no longer deserves.

Anonymous said...

Like all the other Nifong enablers, Hudson is just fed up with people messing with the "system."

After all, it's worked in North Carolina for a hundred-plus years, so why in the world would anyone want to mess with it now.

Next.

Delta said...

If they can't MAKE him leave, maybe they could at least put him on mandatory vacation until then? I can't even begin to imagine the working conditions for the assistants for the next 4 weeks.

And btw, you've done an incredible job with the blog for all these months. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has appreciated the work you've done on it.

Anonymous said...

"I hope Judge Smith will..."

Hope doth spring eternal.

But keep in mind, Smith is member of the same system.

Anonymous said...

The people in Durham march on the office and remove DA Nifong. These are the people that put him in office in the first place. Nifong is making Durham look like the home to a bunch of jack asses.

Anonymous said...

Easley said the new law could be on his desk by the end of the week. Let's hope so and be prepared to see the "Jaws of Life" prying Nifong from his desk.

I guess you can do a lot of shredding in just one week.

Anonymous said...

Easley said he'd kick him out today if he could. The bill that would allow Easley to boot Fong could be on his desk by the end of the week.

At this point you have to wonder if there are any circumstances possible in this universe that would cause Hudson to act against Nifong.

Anonymous said...

Can't Easley ask the NC supreme court to overrule Hudson. It's not like they haven't done that before.

Anonymous said...

"...I can't even begin to imagine the working conditions for the assistants for the next 4 weeks."

Kindly note they're all part of the same system.

Of course, I could be wrong, in which case they have all walked out in protest.

Anonymous said...

The judge did not want to act on the removal till he had the cover of a disbarrment.

Anonymous said...

After Saturday, I thought things would calm down a bit on DIW. Boy was I wrong. Three major stories today and the sun won't set for another 2 hours.

Anonymous said...

"Can't Easley ask the NC supreme court to overrule Hudson."

Are you out of your cotton-pickin' mind!?

Look at this way; what Nifong did was not so bad, and if not for the unprecedented publicity, would himself be earmarked to sit on the very same supreme court.

Let me quote North Carolina's current Chief Justice: "Uh, get back to us after lunch."

Anonymous said...

Regarding the Settlement:
Has anyone considered that it is inappropriate for an institution of higher learning to be concealing the details of the settlement in a case of historic proportion and which will have far reaching consequences.

Seems like hypocrisy of the first order.

Anonymous said...

5:58, i'm with you.

Anonymous said...

ok so the bill will pass and they can pull him out as disbarred...

but they didnt say when the offical disbarrment order would come..that could take a while also

Anonymous said...

He should have cleaned out his office before the trial and never gone back.

Gary Packwood said...

Delta 5:51 said...
...If they can't MAKE him leave, maybe they could at least put him on mandatory vacation until then?
::
Of Course.

But you see Delta, that is the simple clean and ethical thing to do.

Keep suggesting Delta. Someone over there in Durham will wake up eventually.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

(saracasm) everyone should go commit crime in durham..theres noone to file information or draft warrents agfainst you...or noone whos designated by any competant authority...

yeah anarchy (sarcsasm)

disclaimer..sont commit crime..its bad

Bella said...

Anonymous said...

Regarding the Settlement:
Has anyone considered that it is inappropriate for an institution of higher learning to be concealing the details of the settlement in a case of historic proportion and which will have far reaching consequences.

Seems like hypocrisy of the first order.

Jun 18, 2007 6:05:00 PM

Inappropriate, maybe. But if the families are content (and something tells me if they weren't there would be no settlement deal), I'm content. They are the victims here. Although it is quite a shame that the 88 have been able to come through this without repercussion or harm. However, as Reade said this morning, they are ready to move on.

Anonymous said...

Freda for DA.

Anonymous said...

Funny, I don't hear any potbangers outside of the DA's office. I wonder where they all went?

Anonymous said...

Is Hudson some sort of potentate who doesn't have to follow the relevant statutes?

I never understood how he could just wait for the state bar trial to rule on the request to have Nifong removed, even though the statute makes no provision for any such wait.

Anonymous said...

Hudson has never supplied a credible explanation for any of the dumb things he has done in this case, including allowing Nifong to be sworn in as D.A. in a closed-to-the-public ceremony (in Hudson's courtroom), and failing to act on Beth Brewer's removal petition (despite the mandatory "shall" language in the statute).

Hudson, like Nifong, continues to "moon the system" (with apologies to Prof. Coleman for borrowing his memorable phrase).

Anonymous said...

If Easley cannot prevent the Minister of Injustice from entering the office, I bet Easley does have authority to hire someone for the task of hovering at Nifong's elbow every single moment he's in the office, or in any court or government facility, until July 13.

Watch him like a hawk, until he can't stand it anymore. It is necessary to preserve the integrity of files and of the judicial processes. Nifuck cannot claim, after official proclamations that he is dishonest and deceitful, that security measures are uncalled for.

I have actually seen this done, twice, in a lawfirm, when members went off the deep end.

The person shadowing Nifong might have to be an attorney, made part of the DA office, to comply with confidentiality rules. And he should be at least twice the size of Linwood Wison, and armed. But, it's worth it.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

re: bella and anon 6:05

What anon 6:05 is pointing out is that Universities are suppose to be about DISCOVERING information not HIDING information. Duke is missing a teaching opportunity. Other universities could learn from the Duke management of this affair. Risk management classes all over the country could use this case to help future risk managers make better decisions. Of course Duke is not about to let its dirty laundry out and is settling with everyone even midly associated with this case. [As I have said before, I am thinking about suing them for all the damages due to me wasting over a year on the internet. My counsulting rate is $150/hour and I have clearly spent how many hours on this site and others? Should I ask for $10,000? /sarcasm]

As for Duke having a contingency fund for liability, I work for a University with a medical school and hospital. One of the problematic things about a university having a medical school and hospital is that it will usually, if not always, have a contingency fund to settle medical law suits. They amount to serious money when you day in and day out operate and run other medical tests on people. Thus bad administrators at places with medical schools and hospitals can settle their misbehavior and hide it in the large pool of funds set aside to settle suits against the university.

Anonymous said...

I really don't see anything hypocritical in not disclosing the terms of the settlement. First off, this is standard procedure for a lot of settlements, especially ones that occur before litigation is even filed.

Second, what would be Duke's incentive to settle if it had to disclose the terms? The actual legal case against the university here is far from a slam dunk, so the strongest reason to settle would be to avoid bad publicity.

No matter what the terms of the settlement are, someone would no doubt yap about them--too high, too low, proves Duke was a wrongdoer, proves Duke still isn't taking resonsibility, proves Duke wasn't fair, proves Duke was terrified--and on and on, ad infinitum. People can yap all they want about the fact of a settlement, but it's all pretty much speculation if the terms aren't disclosed, so the damage is less.

Anonymous said...

The settlement was described by a blogger as a Negro tax.

I agree.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

re: anon 6:48

I bet Easley does have authority to hire someone for the task of hovering at Nifong's elbow every single moment he's in the office, or in any court or government facility, until July 13.

I bet he does NOT have that authority. The system in most states is specifically set up to prevent Governors and other nominally higher political figures from second guessing individual decisions of DAs. The idea is to keep politics out of our criminal justice system as much as we can. This generally works ok and we need to preserve that, but we MUST in my view find a way to keep politics out of the DAs office but at the same time hold both federal and state prosecutors liable for their actions.

Anonymous said...

"Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson in Durham has a petition pending before him asking that he remove Nifong from office. Hudson said today that he does not plan to act on the petition. He said Nifong would be gone from office before he had all the necessary paperwork to remove him."

From the N&O article.

Anonymous said...

JLS
I am the 6 05 poster. You have argued my point well. I am not terribly interested in the amount of the settlement but, rather, the terms etc.

Sweeping this under the rug is antithetical to what a university is supposed to be about.

Settlement terms are often secret, but should not be in this case. It is an injustice to alums and supporters of the school and players.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Freda should get back into the office in the next few days.

"Every dog has his/her day".....Nifong fired her.....now wouldn't Freda turning up one morning this week to show him the door piss him off?????

jamil hussein said...

Governor could order police officer (state trooper) to sit next to Nifong for the next 30 days (official reason stated publicly: "in order to prevent Mr. Nifong from stealing office supplies").

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: anon 7:03

Thanks. I had not really thought about your point before but you are clearly theoretically correct. Of course with medical issues a patient may want privacy and I can see why a university would respect that.

In addition in the real world is that university bureaucrats, aka Brodhead, will want to keep a settlement secret. I understand that. It does not mean we should give them a pass on something that as you pointed out that is the antithesis of what a university is about.

Anonymous said...

The governor gets it, the superior court judge does not.
Touch nifong and you're gonna look dirty.

Anonymous said...

I think Jamil makes a good point, if the governor can not remove the Fong, Put somebody in place to watch his every move to prevent another crime being commited by this criminal.

Tom E.

Ted said...

Judge Hudson cannot act alone. As stated in the N&O article, he must act in response to a petition, which he does have. The relevant statute is NCGS § 7A‑66. Removal of district attorneys. (see: http://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_7a/gs_7a-66.html) At best, he would have to review the paperwork, then suspend Nifong (with pay), then hold a hearing in 10 days to remove him from office. Why should the judge start this process when the legislature is on the verge of giving the governor the authority to remove Nifong outright anyway?

Anonymous said...

he should start the process because that would be appropriate rather than the current unseemly attitude.

Anonymous said...

Look at it this way: it may be the first month in Durham's history when false charges won't be brought by a prosecutor.

Who knows, the trend may even spill over into other jurisdictions, maybe even establish an annual "No Framing" month.

It'll be like fish-less Lent.

"Honey, why such a long face this morning?" wife asks her prosecutor husband.

"Today is the beginning of 'No-Nifong' month, THAT'S WHY!... you dum..." he added under his breath.

No justice, no peace said...

One would think there some risk of evidence being destroyed.

Anonymous said...

At 8:42 the N & O put on website that Judge Hudson will suspend Nifong tomorrow and appoint a special prosecutor to pursue charges against Nifong.

gs said...

“I am concerned at this particular time about the length,” Hudson said. “I think it is something we are going to have to look into.”

Hudson now saying, after the Gov announcement that Nifong may be gone sooner.

Guess Hudson realizes what a jerk he looks like.

TaterCon said...

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/nifong/story/608629.html


Yup, 8:49, there's the link, if I've figured out how to do it correctly....

Your tech challenged NC lawyer, TaterCon

Anonymous said...

Probably a shredding party going on> Lots of non-existent notes to "disappear"

Anonymous said...

“I am concerned at this particular time about the length,” Hudson said. “I think it is something we are going to have to look into.”

Hudson now saying, after the Gov announcement that Nifong may be gone sooner.

Guess Hudson realizes what a jerk he looks like.


I wonder if the judge got a call from state party HQ, discussing his reelection prospects?