Thursday, January 08, 2009

Cline: Was Nifong Right?

Durham County's new "minister of justice," Tracey Cline, continues to display an utter indifference to pursuit of truth or ethical responsibility in office. In an interview with ABC-11's Tamara Gibbs, Cline boasted of her decision to invite to her inauguration a figure disbarred by the State Bar and deemed a "rogue prosecutor" by the state Attorney General. Said she, "I invited everybody and I know the focus is going to be on Mr. Nifong." [emphasis added]

Cline's promised approach almost directly echoed the reasoning offered by Nifong in going forward with an evidence-free case against the falsely accused lacrosse players: "Whether people like it or not, you do what's right and then you don't have to explain what you've done because it's the right thing and that's the bottom line as a prosecutor."

And, incredibly, Cline refused to endorse the Attorney General's report on the lacrosse case. According to Gibbs, "We also asked Cline about the Duke Lacrosse case. We wanted to know if she believed the woman who accused the Duke players of raping her and her thoughts on how her former boss handled the case. Cline declined to comment."

[update, 1-9, 12.05pm]: Liestoppers posts this photo of a proud Nifong, looking on as his protégé took the oath of office, while John in Carolina explains why Cline invited Nifong but not former DPD officers Mark Gottlieb and Ben Himan to her swearing-in ceremony:

44 comments:

Anonymous said...

So "she declined to comment" on the AG's report?

Hardly an "incredible" thing. Isn't she a named defendant in at least one of the pending civil suits? Even if she is not named personally as a defendant, her own conduct is obviously a part of the claims against the public entities that were sued.

Cline would have to be an idiot -- instead of just a crook and liar -- to say on television that she tried to imprison innocent people.

DANinZA said...

Tracey Kline is a joke. Were I in the Durham jury pool, I would make it known that should I be selected to sit on a jury, I would automatically find the defendant "not guilty". My reason would be that I could never be certain that the Durham DA, or DA's staff were conducting the trail in an ethical manner ( witholding exculpatory evidence; intimidating defence witnesses; fabricating evidence etc etc).

Perhaps this approach would spread amongst the wider pool, and make jury selection an impossibility.

That would make the judicial system take note - nothing else seems to!

Anonymous said...

I concur. The case is presently in litigation. It would irresponsible and improper for Cline to comment on it. She did the right thing by declining to comment on the case in general and the conduct of her predecessor in particular. KC is reading way too much into the "no comment." There was no other response she could possibly give under the circumstances.

I will be much more interested to see what Cline has to say on the stand (or under deposition) and what she says once the civil litigation is concluded.

Debrah said...

It's been mentioned over and over by many who live in the Triangle, but once more:

Durham is the jumping off place. It's ridiculed and ostracized and made fun of for good reason.

Tracy Cline is an abomination and typifies the so-called "strong black woman" who, in reality, is ill-qualified to do much of anything involving decisions about other people's lives. All the strutting and profiling and fantasizing about how she "worked so hard to get to her position" are instead the result of the race and gender ticket she's been given.

She's rather like the dim-bulb nightmare, Georgia Goslee---only less verbal and less attractive.

This whole thing is revolting to the max, but Cline is EXACTLY like the loud "activists" in Durham.

At first you think they have something on the ball because of the position they hold.

Then you meet them.

UGH!


Lastly, I wish there was something to be done about Nifong for his subsequent behavior after disbarment. This criminal should not be allowed to attend any type of ceremony related to matters of justice.

But that should also apply to Cline, shouldn't it?

Durham is just sleazy. That's all that can be said.

Anonymous said...

Cline could have easily stated that the Attorney General of North Carolina had determined following a thorough review of the evidence that RCD were innocent because the charges were false. End of story. This she chose not to do - and it was a choice on her part. There is no doubt that she is as ethically challenged as her predecessor, Mr. Nifong. Her invitation to and hug of Mr. Nifong is the first step in the road to his rehabilitation by the denizens of Durham who feel that 1) Mangum was violently raped and that 2)Nifong was the victim of the media who were manipulated by the defense of RCD to "turn " on Nifong. Mark my words, we will see him practicing as a lawyer once again in the state before all is said and done unless someone in the justice system of North Carolina has the willingness to let the lax defendants' civil cases to go forward and those who perpetrated the frame are made to pay and pay big.
cks

bill anderson said...

Well, Cline endorses the case I have been making against her. If she still remains a "True Believer" even after what has transpired, then she is a prosecutor who will bring false cases time and time again.

The arrogance of Durham is matched only by the arrogance of Scottsboro. There really is no difference between those two places.

Gary Packwood said...

But the question for this blog entry is...

Cline: Was Nifong Right?

Sure. By inviting Nifong she is moving the hoax into the court of public opinion in Durham and all other university towns who think they have a dog in this fight.

She is moving the 'narrative' along just as she is expected to do.

Then, as time moves on, the 'narrative' will become a 'super-narrative' and little children in Durham will study ancient history way back in 2006 when victims stood their ground against oppression.

And of course, Magnum's book will be featured and held high by the teacher for all the little children to see.

The narrative goes on, the narrative goes on
Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain
La de da de de. la de da de da
(Hat Tip to Sonny and Cher)
::
GP

af said...

Did anyone ever stop to think that maybe she just isn't smart enough to know any better? Letting Mikey D rain on her parade sort of makes me think of Blago. Mikey wasn't quite as smart but he was certainly every bit as brazen. Does that make Tray-C Mikey's Roland Burris?????

Anonymous said...

So why wasn't Leon Brown invited too (he was prosecuted by Cline but found innocent by DNA testing)?

And why wasn't Frankie Washington there (he was convicted by Cline but proven innocent by DNA testing)?

No wonder she wouldn't say anything about the lax case (where three students were proven innocent by DNA testing even before they were arrested; but yet still had to go through a year's prosecution by Durham...)

Bella said...

"Whether people like it or not, you do what's right and then you don't have to explain what you've done because it's the right thing and that's the bottom line as a prosecutor."

Um, what??? I believe the state bar, the AG, and anyone else with half a brain has made it quite clear that Nifong did the opposite of the right thing. How terrifying that this woman believes pursuing demonstrably innocent men is doing the right thing. This strengthens my resolve to never step foot in NC. Ever.

I'm dumbfounded. I shouldn't be...but I am.

Anonymous said...

This is what Cline told IndyWeek.com in response to campaign questions they posed:

"1. What do you believe are the most important issues facing the District Attorney’s Office? What are your top three priorities in addressing these issues?

The first issue deals with the perceptions of the District Attorney’s Office. It appears that the public has lost the trust that it once had in the prosecutor’s office. There needs to be a restoration of integrity to the Office of District Attorney. In my life I have learned that people believe in what they see and not what [sic] hear...."

In answer to other questions, she wrote:

"Politically, I am liberal in that I believe I am my bother’s keeper."

and

"My campaign slogan is equal justice for all people."

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A256392


Must. vomit. now.

Kilgore said...

Debrah - I agree with your assessment of Durham being "ridiculed and ostracized and made fun of for good reason." I just don't see Durham as an aberration, I see it as anytown USA. Sadly this same crap is happening throughout the land and we simply don't see it in the news.

Anonymous said...

The amazing thing is that the people of Durham elected Cline in an election, knowing full well her sleazy past. I guess people get what they deserve.

(Just like the people of Illinois re-elected Blagojevich as their governor).

Anonymous said...

Cline had no choice. If she commented that she agreed with the NC AG then she would be saying that Durham is guilty. If she did the opposite then she would be lying. IMO inviting nifong was a winning decision for her own protectiont. Nifong knows how she participated in the frame. Treat nifong bad and he will squeal louder and faster than a mouse in heat. Invite him and one will have a chance to survive the lies he will be telling in the civil trials. Yup, these people in durham are so smart they forget that there are excellent lawyers on the other side that will get the entire truth out into the public domain.

Anonymous said...

This constant bashing of Durham is not helpful to your cause. I lived there more than a decade and the people of Durham are good, hard-working, honest, and friendly people. People that refer to Durham as sleazy or suggest a problem with Durham's zoo-like population as did one comment in the previous 'News' post should be aware that a potential jury pool is reading about how the Duke LAX supporters really feel about Durham. Talk about arrogance all you want. It is you people that continue to come off that way. Most folk in Durham feel Nifong and the DPD overplayed this case and should have dropped it when it became clear the evidence was flimsy and the accuser not credible. Most even believe that the 3 players that were charged deserved the big settlement they got from Duke University. As far as the rest of the players (and some family members) that are suing, most believe that they should be reimbursed for any legal fees they had to fork out during the criminal investigation. I understand they refused this offer. The additional civil lawsuits are viewed as the players being greedy. I am not saying that such is the case, but the perception is there and this continuing assault on Durham's reputation with such outrageous comments will continue not to play well with the citizens of Durham and the surrounding area.

Anonymous said...

Business as usual in Wonderland. Steve in New Mexico

Anonymous said...

Hey, 10:11. If people in Durham are so good and decent, then why did they overwhelmingly elect Tracey Cline? Why did they elect Nifong?

I have seen no indication at all that people in Durham believe that it was a wrongful prosecution of the Duke players. Instead, I saw the Herald-Sun trying to play to the community by continuing the outlandish accusations. I also see Durham supporting Crystal and her lying book.

If Durham's citizens really do believe this was a wrongful prosecution, then why do we see such support for Nifong even now?

Anonymous said...

So, 10:11, you believe that people in Durham should be able to slander the lacrosse players, make false accusations, and also try to railroad innocent people into prison. And don't forget that most people in Durham supported this wrongful prosecution.

Yet, when someone fights back, then that is slander. The players are not being greedy; they are seeking justice, which is more than what Durham has to offer.

Debrah said...

OMG, Nifong looks so strange.

Almost ashen.

Take a look at him. Few want to admit it, but the type of character he has exhibited throughout exists in almost all prosecutors' personalities.

He and his low-class buddies are still trying to push the idea that what he did wasn't illegal and repulsive.....and that he was "standing for justice for a black woman".

This tool used ad nauseum by many---especially inside the academy---really gets me hot.

I disagree with some comments on earlier threads that this will never change. It can change if enough people begin fighting relentlessly.

A good example is that column written by the UNC-CH sociology guy. Everything he wrote was hyperbolic and outdated.

You have to fight these people by talking them down. We all remember how Timothy Tyson ran for his life off the Zane blog when KC and others showed up to expose him.

Yet none of this kind of truth goes into the print editions of newspapers.

However.....now that newspapers seem to be going out of style except for those people who still do not use the internet, everyone will soon be getting ALL SIDES of an issue. Just as you see now online.

If people fight and stay involved, they can prevail over this kind of deliberate evil.

Anonymous said...

Is Nifong a Communist?

If so, perhaps, he could apply for Linwood Wilson's old job as Chief Investigator.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 1/9/09 10:11 AM said...

...This constant bashing of Durham is not helpful to your cause.
...
...This continuing assault on Durham's reputation with such outrageous comments will continue not to play well with the citizens of Durham and the surrounding area.
::
I absolutely agree with you and vacillate between pity and anger for those old school folks who believe bashing will cause good things to happen in Durham. It won't.

Also, the Durham bashing extends to the Office of the District Attorney. I thought the DA and her staff were employees of the State of North Carolina and thus...not employed by the City or County of Durham! Yes? No?

If the State of North Carolina is responsible for the Durham County DA, how do we hold the State of North Carolina responsible for the action of their agent(s)?

And the answer will not involve 'bashing' the
State of North Carolina.
::
GP

Anonymous said...

Ahhhh, I see: Greedy for money -- bad, greedy for blood -- good.

Is 10:11 a Communist?

(Not that there's anything wrong with that, other than the bloodshed and anti-Capitalism). Actually, I think the boys and their families are greedy for Justice. I share that same "character flaw."

**************

Also, don't they teach paragraph breaks anywhere within a 50-mile radius of Durham?

**************

Luckily, the federal court will draw jurors from a number of counties. For example, in my last federal jury trial, there was one juror from the same county in which the courthouse was situated. Additionally, the boys' attorneys will be able to use peremptory challenges to get rid of biased people like 10:11. I suggest they look for the absence of paragraph breaks in the jurors' questionaires.

***************

MOO! Gregory

SULax88 said...

10:11 also makes an egregious error in assuming that the trial, if one should take place, will be within Durham. The bias inherent in the fact that key parties to the suit were elected/re-elected by the voters in the locale is an excellent argument for a change of venue, where the jury pool would not be so tainted.

MOO!!!

(with apologies to Gregory, but I couldn't resist...I just needed to get out a MOO of my own!)

Yankenstein said...

There's no guarantee that any of the civil trials will be in Durham, anyway. The MDNC is based in Winston-Salem, tho there is a Fed courthouse in Durham.

Anonymous said...

To Gregory,
I am not sure what bias there is in pointing out how these negative comments and unfair stereotypes of Durham by Duke LAX supporters could hurt your cause. Nor do I see a bias in pointing out what I feel is the prevailing opinion at this time of the people of Durham regarding this case. Regarding the absence of paragraph breaks, perhaps the defense team should look closely at getting rid of potential jurors that end their statements with animal sounds.

Anonymous said...

To 10:11,

It is very interesting to hear how you believe most Durham residents view the case. You express a Durham viewpoint that is considerably short of the outrage many believe this case should evoke...which perhaps explains Ms. Cline's relatively unchallenged bid for DA and her own obvious lack of concern about the myriad astonishing abuses the case represents. (I do not believe current legal cases excuse her from taking a strong public stance on the principles of justice thrust into the public eye by this case). Implicitly, she has made her views clear.

When a population of "good people" responds as you have described to the injustices perpetrated in Durham by people representing all walks of life and breaching innumerable ethical, professional, and moral standards, we have a widespread and systemic problem.

History is replete with far more extreme examples of this problem. Gunter Grass did a rather magnificent job exploring the underlying impulses that deaden one's sensitivity to injustice in "The Tin Drum." Prejudice, scapegoating, and the exploitation of an unpopular group for political gain are nothing new, but it is important to everyone that "ministers of justice" recognize it when they see it. Plus, it is imperative that the electorate makes sure the people they entrust with powerful positions, ESPECIALLY those of DA and judge, do not actually condone acts of injustice...as it currently appears Ms. Cline does.

Observer

Anonymous said...

To the 10:11 am > This constant bashing of Durham is not helpful to your cause.

Probably not. But people who criticize others for bad tactics generally mean to criticize the other's goal, which in this case is justice.

I am not a general believer in punitive or exemplary damages, but there is little other recourse against gross malfeasance by government. Unless you start with the demonstrated fact that the police department and DA's office jointly conspired to jail innocent people of the "wrong" skin color because such racism served their political interests (or, in the case of the slime molds "of conscience" who infest Duke, because they believe justice should apply only to those academically favored in race, gender, or class), you will never understand why this may indeed be the exception. I can think of no case where justice would be better served by punitive and exemplary damages than in this case where the palace of justice was itself venally devoted to injustice.

> I lived there more than a decade and the people of Durham are good, hard-working, honest, and friendly people.

I am sure most of them are, but not enough of them are so good and honest as to bother ensuring that their institutions are also. Instead, they sit on their friendly asses and tolerate, indeed condone, a corrupt police department and an even more corrupt DA's office. At best they are accomplices after the fact in a criminal conspiracy.

> People ... [who] suggest a problem with Durham's zoo-like population ... [are] arrogant.

No. They are outraged at others who knowingly tolerate and condone injustice. Personally, I think the comments are unfair to those innocents imprisoned in zoos.

> Most folk in Durham feel Nifong and the DPD overplayed this case and should have dropped it when it became clear the evidence was flimsy and the accuser not credible. Most even believe that the 3 players that were charged deserved the big settlement they got from Duke University.

Unfortunately, it was not the university that rigged lineups, intimidated witnesses, suborned perjury, and suppressed evidence. I find it amusing that the honest people of Durham take comfort that someone ELSE may have paid something in compensation for the misdeeds of Durham and the DA's office, but heaven forfend that the government elected by the good "folk" of Durham pay a penny in compensation for its own misdeeds.

> As far as the rest of the players (and some family members) that are suing, most believe that they should be reimbursed for any legal fees they had to fork out during the criminal investigation. I understand they refused this offer.

In general, damages to individuals are not considered compensated if they merely have their legal bills paid. For example, let's say you were injured in a car wreck so that you could never walk again. Would payment of your medical and legal bills fully compensate you for the damages that you have suffered and will suffer? Furthermore, I wonder what would have happened to prosecution of the suits if the representatives of the good, friendly, honest people of Durham had agreed to the non-monetary remedies asked for in some of the suits, or have you forgotten that aspect of the suits?

JeffM

W. R. Chambers said...

Ms. Cline: "Whether people like it or not, you do what's right and then you don't have to explain what you've done because it's the right thing and that's the bottom line as a prosecutor."

Where to begin? One wishes to be fair. Perhaps her comment was taken out of context. Perhaps she has been misquoted. Allowing for those possibilities and others, one offers one's observations on a contingent, respectful basis.

The surprising word is "is prosecutor." If, for example, one read the same quote but with "religious zealot" substituted for prosecutor one could shake one's head and move on. One could even imagine "terrorist" as a better fit than prosecutor. Right is right. No need to explain. Those are hallmarks of fundamentalists who admit of no possibility for error - on their part.

Do the people of Durham really want a prosecutor who talks like a fundamentalist? Prosecutors, as ought to be clear by now, have extraordinary power. They ought to have extraordinary judgment including an acute awareness that neither they nor the police are infallible and that many defendants end up being, in essence, defenseless unable to effectively test the prosecutor's judgment.

Ms. Cline is surely right in saying that " ... you do what's right....." And, especially given that she holds elective office, one could find reason to praise her for saying "Whether the people like it or not, you do what's right ..." The chilling phrase is " ...and then you don't have to explain what you've done because it's the right thing and that's the bottom line as a prosecutor."

It is not unreasonable to claim that the prosecutor's most fundamental obligation is to explain, first to herself, then to the court, to the defense and to the public the reasons she has exercised her power in the way that she has. Explaining is a form of accountability. Prosecutors who do not hold themselves accountable for the exercise of their power risk doing the wrong thing and causing terrible injustice. For irrefutable proof of that claim one need look no further than, well, to Ms. Cline's mentor, Mr. Nifong.

How can it be that Ms. Cline so readily expresses the very approach to the exercise of prosecutorial power that brought career ending disgrace to Mr. Nifong and has landed the City of Durham in expensive, embarrassing litigation? An explanation is that Ms. Cline has learned her lessons well from Mr. Nifong. Has she learned nothing else? Has she not learned, for example, that Mr. Nifong was out of his league and got everything wrong?

Surely Ms. Cline has issued a clarification, an explanation of what she really meant. Then again, maybe she hasn't. Maybe her statement was not taken out of context or misquoted. Maybe her statement itself was an example of "doing what's right," in which case, of course, no explanation is necessary. One can only hope that the defense bar, the press and the judiciary in Durham make sure that as she exercises her vast prosecutorial powers Ms. Cline is required to explain ... every step of the way.

Chris said...

Ms. Cline contradicts herself. Inviting Mr. Nifong to the ceremony does not promote the healing of which she speaks. Quite the contrary: it is an affront to the lacrosse players and especially to RCD.

Chris

Debrah said...

One must wonder if Catotti teaches her son to have deep respect for her friend and disbarred criminal, Mike Nifong.......whom she supported after everyone knew he had concocted the Lacrosse Hoax.

Wonder how the pop-eyed wonder Catotti would feel if a corrupt DA and an entire town....along with ethically-challenged town officials and council members had gone after HER son?



H-S:

Alex Catotti earns Eagle Scout rank

The Herald-Sun
Jan 11, 2009

DURHAM -- Alex Catotti of Durham has achieved the rank of Eagle Scout, the highest rank in Scouting. Catotti is a member of Troop 451 of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Durham. He has served the troop as a patrol leader and senior patrol leader, and is a member of the Order of the Arrow.

Catotti has traveled extensively with Troop 451, including traveling to the Netherlands, Ireland and England in 2008, Philmont in 2007, and Alaska in 2006, as well as caving, biking, and skiing trips.

For his Eagle project, he designed and built a nature trail in Holt School Road Park in collaboration with the neighborhood and Durham's Keep Durham Beautiful Program.

Catotti is in the 10th grade at Jordan High School, where he is a member of the cross country and indoor and outdoor track teams. He is the son of Diane and Chuck Catotti of Durham.

KC Johnson said...

A quick note on the statements of the anonymous 10.11 commenter.

He/she writes, "Most folk in Durham feel Nifong and the DPD overplayed this case and should have dropped it when it became clear the evidence was flimsy and the accuser not credible."

There is, alas, no empirical evidence for this claim about the attitudes of Durham "folk"; indeed, coming in a comment thread about the inauguration of Tracey Cline--the person who authored the (pretty clearly unconstitutional) NTO that first involved the DA's office in the case, and who was going to be Nifong's second chair if the case had gone to trial--the assertion is almost laughable.

It would be as if in 2008 Dick Cheney had been elected President, and an analyst had then interpreted the outcome as showing that "most folk in the United States feel Bush and the CIA overplayed their hand on the Iraq war." A Cheney victory could never have been interpreted as a repudiation of Bush's policies, just as a Cline victory can't be interpreted as a repudiation of Nifong's policies.

But we don't even need to look at Cline's election to dismiss the assertion that "most folk in Durham feel Nifong and the DPD overplayed this case and should have dropped it when it became clear the evidence was flimsy and the accuser not credible."

It was crystal clear long before the November 2006 election that "the evidence was flimsy and the accuser not credible"--any reader of the N&O or viewer of 60 Minutes would have known as much. And Nifong's mishandling of the lacrosse case was essentially the only issue in the election.

Yet Nifong won.

Perhaps the 10.11 interprets Nifong's 2006 victory and Cline's 2008 victory as showing how "most folk in Durham feel Nifong and the DPD overplayed this case and should have dropped it when it became clear the evidence was flimsy and the accuser not credible."

I suspect that most in the reality-based community, however, would disagree.

No justice, no peace said...

The Eagle Scout award ceremony can be quite moving. I congratulate Alex Catotti and hope there was a big audience to watch the ceremony.

Durham needs more Eagle Scouts.

One of the first awards a Scout receives is from his mother. The pin in placed upside down and he cannot right the pin until he performs a good deed.

Maybe Alex can return the favor and place an upside down pin on his mother and not right it until she has doen a good deed.

Anonymous said...

I thought Cattoti was a devout progressive/liberal. Surely she can't be happy about any aspect of her son's involvement in Scouting, that hate group (homosexuals - remember?) And, in a church, no less.

Speaking of Scouting. Remember those ads in the seventies or eighties which promoted Scouting by showing full-page black and white photos of prominent Eagle Scouts (James Stewart, the actor and Gerald Ford) in Eagle Scout uniform.

Wonder if President Ford wore his Eagle Scout uniform when he signed the pardon for Richard Nixon.

Anonymous said...

6:53 PM

Even though I voted against Gerald Ford because of his pardon of Richard Nixon, Ford was right,and I was wrong. The country was wrong to reject Ford in the presidential election of 1980. He was truly and Eagle Scout when the country needed him . . . he was that his entire life.

SULax88 said...

From one Eagle Scout to another,I send my best regards and heartiest congratulations to Alex. I hope he will take the lessons learned about hard work, integrity, and achieving goals into his adult life with him. I have never met a fellow Eagle who did this who was not a happy, well adjusted person. Their politics, faith, and world views vary greatly, but the constant is that they all have the capacity to embrace the truth and to live in harmony with fellow humans.

Anonymous said...

From KC:
"There is, alas, no empirical evidence for this claim about the attitudes of Durham "folk"; indeed, coming in a comment thread about the inauguration of Tracey Cline--the person who authored the (pretty clearly unconstitutional) NTO that first involved the DA's office in the case, and who was going to be Nifong's second chair if the case had gone to trial--the assertion is almost laughable."

Laugh all you want, the evidence comes from talking to Durham residents. That is the prevailing opinion in Durham based on talking to people in Durham. You present a great argument but it is not based on reality. The public perception is what matters here. You may be able to change some perceptions with your posts but it will not be those of Durham residents when the whole point of your website is what a "Wonderland" Durham is and many posts and comments seem to take great joy in painting Durham residents in as much of a negative way as possible.
I understand the criticism of some of the individuals involved with this case but my point was when it comes to Durham as a whole, perhaps it would be helpful to tone down the rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

@ 7:40am

Let's accept, only for purposes of argument, your hypothesis that "what matters here" is only the "public perception" of the lax case by only the inhabitants of Durham. Let's see what that public perception is by more objective evidence than your personal survey.

The government of Durham refused to accept the reforms to the management of its police department proposed in the civil law suits.

It shut down its independent committee to examine its own conduct.

The people of Durham have done nothing to change their government or its actions.

They have instead elected as DA someone who even yet honors Nifong and who participated (to what degree is yet unknown) in a gross violation of the civil rights of 46 people based on their race.

According to their actions and inactions, the public perception of a majority of those resident in Durham is that no one in Durham should be held accountable for the illegal use of the instruments of justice against those of the wrong skin color. Their actions show at least a majority of them to be racists through and through, and THEIR actions speak far louder than YOUR words.

Of course, you may merely mean that the people of Durham do not like to be reminded of their racism. I am sure that that is so. Racism is considered old fashioned these days, and no one enjoys being perceived as backward.

JeffM

Anonymous said...

Cline: Was Nifong Right?

Yes, Nifong was so very right.

Anonymous said...

To the 7:40 AM -

It may be time for you to compare your thoughts with those of Pauline Kael.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
6:53 PM

Even though I voted against Gerald Ford because of his pardon of Richard Nixon, Ford was right,and I was wrong. The country was wrong to reject Ford in the presidential election of 1980. He was truly and Eagle Scout when the country needed him . . . he was that his entire life.

1/11/09 9:10 PM


You meant to say, "the presidential election of 1976."

fmfnavydoc said...

10:11...

The LAX players went through hell - that the DA's office, DPD, "activist groups" and even Duke and the Group of 88 put them through, and all you say is that they are being greedy...their civil rights were violated, they were intimidated by Nifong and the clowns that worked for him (read KC's book, for goodness sakes to see what really happened). This could have stopped, except for Nifong's mindset of "there was a crime committed", even when the DNA evidence came back and proved all of the players innocent...

Are there "good people" in Durham...Yes, just like in any town/city in America. But when did they stand up and tell all of the smear merchants to stop the charade, and back off before it was too late? The community had a right to stand up and stop this, and for the most part they did nothing...

Question - How many more cases like this one have to happen before the people of Durham say "enough is enough"? Whose son needs to be put into jail for 20, 30, 40 years or even life for a crime they did not commit? Until the peole of Durham stop looking at Duke students as an outlet for their "social injustice" anger this will happen again...

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 10:19 AM:

Are you Tracy Cline who was reprimanded by the jury foreman for your prosecution of Leon Brown?

Anonymous said...

In a word, Durham. As a taxpayer in North Carolina who does not have a vote in Durham County, I would like to expel Durham from our State's tax base. As a taxpayer, I am going to have my tax dollars siphoned off to indemnify (and subsidize) the foolishness of Durham County voters electing the second chair AFTER the first chair was disbarred, without the ability to stop it.

I am sympathetic to the plight of the less fortunate. At the same time, the race hustlers who run Durham, D.C., New Orleans and Detroit are ruining those once-great cities, one by one. Why don't the people that live in those places demand results of their governments?

scott huminski said...

Letter to NC US Attorney (excuse formatting): Scott Huminski
111-2c Killam Court
Cary, NC 27513

George E. B. Holding, USA*
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 800
Terry Sanford Federal Building & US Courthouse
Raleigh, NC 27601-1461 13 February 2009

RE: Michael Nifong criminal complaint

VIA FACSIMILE: (919)856-4487

Dear Mr. Holding;

Please consider the criminal prosecution of Micheal Nifong for civil rights violations in the Duke Lacrosse case. At the minimum it appears that Due Process and Equal Protection violations certainly may have occurred to the three victims/defendants in the case.

You have authority to prosecute Mr. Nifong and other government actors under the federal criminal statutes. (18 USC § 241,242). Thank you.


Very Truly Yours,




_____________________________
Scott Huminski
(202) 239-1252
s_huminski@live.com