Wednesday, March 25, 2009

North Carolina Poll: Cooper Ahead

The second consecutive poll on the 2010 North Carolina Senate race shows one of the heroes of the lacrosse case, Roy Cooper, with a narrow lead over incumbent Senator Richard Burr--who joined his former colleague, Elizabeth Dole, in refusing to endorse Cooper's request for a Dept. of Justice inquiry into ex-DA Mike Nifong's alleged criminal conduct.

41 comments:

One Spook said...

Once again, DIW puts its big toe in the fetid waters of politics.

By any measure, the value of a poll today for a Senate race 20 months in advance of the election, is about as useful as reading tealeaves or Tarot cards. Although I fully agree with the idea of an investigation, to imply that a candidate’s position on having a federal investigation into the lacrosse hoax could have a bearing on his reelection seems like mere conjecture at best.

And, as much as I respect your incredible work on this case, KC, it seems quite misleading to write that “Richard Burr--who joined his former colleague, Elizabeth Dole, in refusing to endorse Cooper's request for a Dept. of Justice inquiry into ex-DA Mike Nifong's alleged criminal conduct.” (my emphasis)

There is nothing whatsoever in the record to indicate that Burr “refuse[d] to endorse Cooper’s request.” He simply did not endorse it. The candidate who defeated Dole, Kay Hagan, didn't endorse Cooper's call either. While I may be dwelling in semantics, I believe it is accurate to say that Burr, like Hagan, did not endorse it. Had Cooper publicly asked Burr to endorse it and Burr had responded that he would not do so, then it could be said that he refused to endorse Cooper’s request.

And, as long as we’re reading tealeaves and Tarot cards, I’d suggest that Obama's budget plan that multiplies the federal deficit far beyond what it has ever been, in any prior administration, will have a greater impact on the 2010 elections in North Carolina and everywhere else.

The People are angry. Higher taxes and record-breaking deficits are not the "changes" they sought.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

I do not think that the Cooper proclamations in the Duke LAX case and Burr's refusal to push for prosecution can be linked. North Carolinians are smarter than that wishful thinking. (AHHHH, if it was only that easy to favor one candidate over another). IMO, the reason polled people of NC are not as in love with Burr is he seems to be aloof to State matters. Exactly the same response to Dole's campaign.

Anonymous said...

One Spook:

"Higher taxes and record-breaking deficits are not the "changes" they sought."

Ditto.

As I have mentioned previously to Prof Johnson, the downside to political discussion is that it often forces people to defend the indefensible.

Ken
Dallas

Debrah said...

As I have experienced so often on other fora, there's a kind of identity crisis which surfaces when politics, or the subject of Obama, specifically, emerges.

Since 9/11, the Left has been warned that they must be careful to distinguish between supporting the idea of treating Muslim prisoners with kid gloves and humanity and supporting Hamas and the terrorists.

Similarly, a zealous need to play politics and slam Obama have often appeared as support for Duke's Gang of 88 on key internet fora.

Strange bedfellows....and all that.

Sidney B. Harr said...

I do not understand the logic in trying to get the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate Mike Nifong for allegedly withholding innocuous, extraneous information about unidentified DNA when the Attorney General defends prosecutors who destroy material exculpatory evidence in a trumped up case against a man who filed a complaint against an Anson County district attorney (Theodore Jerry Williams case). It is not familiar to the public because the biased media has done its best to keep it under wraps. Some information about the case can be found on the web site
www.justice4nifong.com.

A Duke Dad said...

Sidney B. Harr said,
"I do not understand the logic in trying to get the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate Mike Nifong for allegedly withholding innocuous, extraneous information"
For sure....

The issue is Nifong
(1) witholding relevant exculpatory evidence (2) fraudulently creating evidence (3) conducting photo line ups that violated NC standards of fairness and justice and resulted in indictment of three innocent young men on charges of an event that never occurred.

Reviewing the history of the case will provide dozens more points of which Nifong was a disgrace to the legal profession.

The NC Attorney General called Nifong a "rogue prosecutor". Nifong was disbarred by the NC State Bar Association for misconduct. Nifong was incarcerated for lying to the court about evidence.

Nifong violated ethics and attempted to convict three students on charges which had potential prison sentences of 30 years.

Nifong's actions struck at the core confidence in the judicial system's requirement for fair and impartial justice.

Hope this was helpful in overcoming your "not understand[ing] the logic" of why Nifong was disbarred, served time behind bars, removed from office, and cited by lawyers as a disgrace.

Anonymous said...

To: One Spook

If you walked out of your office every workday for a year to see a mother and her grubby toddler begging on the corner, and during that year, the toddler became dangerously emaciated -- yet you did nothing -- you have effectively refused to render assistance.

Now I know that assuming what's in the mind of a Senator is tricky business, but the rape hoax was national news for half a year and the talk of North Carolina for more than a year. I believe it is safe to say that Burr refused assistance.

Moreover, if you can't indict Burr for his refusal, then how do you explain any recriminatory feelings you may have for the Durham County populace who voted for Nifong in the primary and the November general? As poorly timed as her words once were, Ruth Sheehan would now say that they knew, and we know that they knew.

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

Now to the meat of your objection. I have seen many posters raise a straw semantics issue so that they can segue into their real concern. In this case, you wish to promote your personal economic and political views. That's fine.

My only question is: Who knows what is the right course of action? The leading economic minds and even the blathering ones on television such as Jim Cramer, Neil Cavuto, and yes, even Paul Krugman (who is equally motivated by politics in my estimation) did not see the largest recession since the Great Depression until it was eating our wallets. Tea leaves and tarot cards indeed! I'm not saying you're wrong, just that I don't know, and I don't think you know either.

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

To: Sidney B. Harr

I enjoy the fact that you have set up a parody website to ridicule the few remaining simpletons who believe Mike Nifong. How will your Great Sting end: With Nifong confessing on videotape? With a massive protest of 4 people outside the courthouse being water ballooned from above? I can't wait to know!

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

MOO! Gregory

unbekannte said...

Duke Dad 3/27/09 9:14 AM

In addition to what you have listed, nifong made prejudicial statements about the Lacrosse team before any evidence was in, nifong tried to undermine basic constitutional rights, right to remain silent, right to be represented by counsel.

In my opinion, even if he was never charged, nifong attempted to suborn perjury by attempting to intimidate potential witnesses into giving perjured incriminating testimony against the defendants.

unbekannte said...

Sidney Harr de Harr Harr 3/27/09 8:16 AM

Try to learn something about North Carolina's Open Discovery Law, Try to learn something about the Brady vs. Maryland decision instead of demanding everyone to bury their heads in the sand. Try to learn about people like Darryl Hunt or Timothy Cole. You might understand why Nifong was prosecuted for concealing and lying about the exculpatory DNA evidence.

I ask you again, if the evidence was of no exculpatory value to the defense, why did your hero nifong go to such pains to conceal it? Why did he lie to the court about concealing it.

You are again going to refuse to answer, I bet.

bill anderson said...

Only Nifong and Sydney Harr would want us to believe that three young men could beat a woman for 30 minutes, ejaculate in her mouth, ejaculate upon her, and not leave a trace of DNA.

And, if Harr wants us to believe that they cleverly used chemicals such as bleach to get rid of the DNA (which is how it is done), then why was there no smell of bleach on Crystal? Why did their alleged efforts not eradicate the other DNA?

Of course, Harr already has alleged that the Seligmanns paid off Moez Elmostafa, and other things. This is not just a lie; it is calumny. It is as low as Harr can possibly go, and I cannot imagine that he thought of that himself. No, Nifong is at work here, and I think we need to understand that the guy and his friends have been lying ever since his own dishonest activity was exposed.

Anonymous said...

Moo Gregory:

"The leading economic minds ..........did not see the largest recession since the Great Depression until it was eating our wallets."

Are you sure about that? The collapse was triggered by mortgage defaults, occurring primarily with high credit risk ARM mortgage paper. The resulting decline in value of the mortgage backed bonds completed the collapse.

No one voiced concern?

Ken
Dallas

One Spook said...

MOO Gregory:

Respectfully, there's nothing imlpicit about a person begging. They're asking, as it were.

My point was, unless there was a request of which we are not aware, there's nothing in the record to indicate that Burr refused any request from Cooper.

Similarly, there was no support from then-candidate Hagan. Following your logic, we can then conclude that she refused to support the request also. Can we then also conclude that if her poll numbers go down that there exists a causal relationship with her non support of Cooper's request?

With respect to the election, Nifong knew he had to garner the black vote to win, and that is why he pursued the charges. Thus, Res ipsa loquitur. That he barely won, to me, reveals that some "knew," but most, specifically the black voters, did not care.

And, I intended no segue. It was a "MOO moment" for me. I read my own tea leaves and offered a suggestion of a salient point that might determine the 2010 election notwithstanding any candidate's particular stance on support for Cooper's call for a federal investigation. In doing that, I was not "promoting" any particular political view anymore that the view implicit in the original post.

Anon @ 9:0 AM suggested that there are other reasons entirely that Burr might be losing ground in opinion polls, and I would certainly respect that opinion.

And I would agree that neither you nor I know the "right course of action." I certainly did not mean to imply that I was right.

It was my opinion only; MOO!

One Spook

A Duke Dad said...

Bill Anderson observes that Sidney B Harr's calumny is base

Dictionary definition: calumny -
1) a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone.
2) libel, vilification, calumniation, derogation.
3) defamation, hatchet job, obloquy, traducement, aspersion

But, could it be that Messrs Harr & minions merely feel that
they don't need no steenkin facts.
Their arguments are truly without foundation or logic.

Debrah said...

I would strongly suggest that Harr, Nifong, and friends read this account very carefully.

There are other, more detailed and lawyerly, accounts available for those interested.

Just google.

This is not an aberration and is a scenario which is played out frequently in our society.

Just as Bem Holloway always chose white women victims to rape and murder, this is most assuredly a hate crime.

Why are such horrific crimes never described in the media as such?

As Professor Pettigrew from the Duke conference opined...."Racist views do not exist in a psychological vacuum."

It's people like Pettigrew and the Duke Gang of 88 who push in the year 2009---still---that only one group of people can be held up as "victims".

Yes, at various "mulitcultural" events, other ethnic groups participate; however, it is always the BLACK interests that are held up as omnipotent.

Worthy of Third World-esque rules of justice.

Even as so many make excuses for such squalor and criminality.

Anonymous said...

Bill Anderson is "dead in the red" om Nifong's involvement. The disgraced, disbarred and totally dishonest former District Attorney of Durham County is not sitting idly by strumming his gifted guitar. Nifong has carefully selected his "front ment and women" who have been dropping crumbs of doubt and deceit since his night in jail. For goodness sakes, doin't give Harr credit for his near psychotic meanderings. It all goes back to Mikey.

Anonymous said...

If Nifong violated the North Carolina open discovery law and the principals of Brady, why not disbar all DA's who have wrongly incarcerated people? I know of three former DA's who qualify for our campaign to right judicial wrongs. How about joining me in making sure that Easley, Cooper and Wolfe are the first three to be disbarred. I'm sure we can all agree that a few innocent people have spent time in jail and even on death row because of misconduct. Since we all gather here to discuss how we make sure justice in handed out equitably, I sure I have everyone's support. We have plenty of exonerations in North Carolina that we need to insure those DA's pay.

By the way, what exactly were the rule for open file discovery when the case broke? When did the legislation written by the trial lawyers pass the NC legislature? Was John Edwards the lawyer for the players? I'm just kidding :-) it was Joe Cheshire. Funny how we hate certain lawyer but we overlook others when it fits our views.

Oh, I forgot... the people who post here don't care about justice. They want to go on their constant harangue about PC and how unfair the world is to them because they teach boring classes .Blah, Blah, Blah! Certain folks want to use the Duke case to advance tier campaign against the academic pursuits of some professors that get attention.

All of this crying about 88 professors shows to me that you have entitlement issues. You think only your ideas are entitled to be discussed in the academy. I think some of you are jealous because nobody cares about your tired old rants about why Barry Goldwater would have been a better president than Johnson. You know what, Goldwater lost and the country is better of for it.

If the views of 88 people in Durham determines my world, then I want to change my focus to what 88 Texas oil men. I'm sure that everything they believe would make our lives better. Oh, I forgot we tried that all ready and the only thing I got was 4500 dead soldiers

KC Johnson said...

To the 10.29:

It is very difficult to determine the merits of what you describe as "our campaign" to disbar multiple current and former DA's when you do not identify yourself.

As to your point that "I think some of you are jealous because nobody cares about your tired old rants about why Barry Goldwater would have been a better president than Johnson. You know what, Goldwater lost and the country is better of for it," this Tuesday, Cambridge will publish my latest book, a basically sympathetic portrayal of LBJ and the 1964 campaign. (Goldwater is treated very negatively in the book.) Since you're apparently such an admirer of LBJ, I hope that you'll buy a copy.

I'm not quite sure, in any case, where you got the impression that I believed "Barry Goldwater would have been a better president than Johnson." I also don't recall any commenters making that point over the life of the blog, and certainly not with any regularity. I'd urge you to be more careful in your use of evidence in the future.

Anonymous said...

How about joining me in making sure that Easley, Cooper and Wolfe are the first three to be disbarred. I'm sure we can all agree that a few innocent people have spent time in jail and even on death row because of misconduct. Since we all gather here to discuss how we make sure justice in handed out equitably, I sure I have everyone's support.


KC Johnson,

You avoided answering anon 10:29's offer. What do you say? You are about equal justice, aren't you?

unbekannte said...

Anonymous 3/27/09 10:29 PM

North Carolina's Open Discovery Law was in effect at the time of the cgm hoax. The Brady vs. Maryland decision was made in the 60's.

If you know of 3 DA's who have violated the Open Discovery law, then file a complaint with the NC Bar. That would deal with the situation more effectively than letting "decent"(?) "honorable"(??) "distinguished"(???) "minister of justice"(????) nifong go unpunished for his rather egregious violations

KC Johnson said...

To the 12.21:

Unlike the Group of 88, I prefer to investigate evidence before I take public positions. That's what I did in the case of ex-DA Nifong, and would follow the same procedure regarding other prosecutors.

When the 10.29 commenter files his/her complaint with the Bar, I will certainly look it over, and if it has merit, I will endorse it. But I am disinclined to simply accept the word of an anonymous commenter.

Anonymous said...

When the 10.29 commenter files his/her complaint with the Bar, I will certainly look it over, and if it has merit, I will endorse it. But I am disinclined to simply accept the word of an anonymous commenter.



Point taken. If anon 10:29's complaint does have "merit", I expect you to show the same pit bull viciousness as you did toward Michael Nifong. Its all about equal justice, right?

KC Johnson said...

To the 10.18:

As I said, I'll await the complaint, since I prefer to base my opinions on evidence. Given your apparent confidence, I'm sure the complaint will demonstrate how the three prosecutors, like Nifong: (1) made dozens of unethical statements that were both materially false and heightened public condemnation of the accused, all in pursuit of furthering their electoral well-being; (2) sought indictments without probable cause; (3) ordered the police to run a lineup that violated the department's own procedures; and (4) withheld exculpatory DNA evidence, going so far as to lie (and be convicted of contempt) to the Court.

I'm afraid we have a different definition of "viciousness"; over the course of this blog, I cannot recall one statement that I made about ex-DA Nifong that was factually inaccurate. It may be, of course, that as Nifong did so many "vicious" things, simply recounting them is an act of "viciousness."

By the way, in this hypothetical complaint, I'll also be expecting 88 Duke professors to issue a public statement endorsing the basic premises of the cases brought in these three instances--being sure as they do so to accept the word of the prosecutors at face value; and I'll also be expecting the state NAACP to issue a 246-point "memorandum of law" supporting the prosecutor's version of events in the three cases.

Anonymous said...

KC Johnson,

Just admit-You have no intention of actually seeking equal justice.You're not slick, KC Johnson. You found weasel room.

You went after Michael Nifong like a pit bull because he dared to charge rich white men on the word of a black stripper. You're just another racist with the hood off.

KC Johnson said...

To the 2.26 (Prof. Bonilla-Silva?):

Many thanks for your penetrating insights.

As I said earlier, let's wait for the ethics complaint. It's not my general pattern of practice to accept the word of an anonymous commenter as to whether a prosecutor has committed misconduct that warrants disbarment.

A final point: everything I write in this blog is done in my own name. You seem to be very eager to level personal insults: in the future, I would urge you to have the courage to do so in your own name, rather than under the cloak of anonymity.

Debrah said...

TO (2:26 PM)--

Tell me, do you or any of the Gang of 88 ever approach a subject or an issue from the vantage point of reality?

Does that course ever appeal to you?

Crystal Mangum, who, herself, has a long criminal record, was not raped.

She was never close to being raped.

From what nexus of your melon do such egregiously emotional and illogical ideas come?

Does your ilk ever use a REAL victim when you need to exploit this topic for some attention?

Try using one sometime.

Then get back to me.

KC Johnson said...

A quick note, for informational purposes:

an anonymous commenter purporting to be the 2.26 anonymous commenter (Prof. Bonilla-Silva) has passed along word that he/she will not comment under his/her name.

Somehow, that decision doesn't surprise me.

Anonymous said...

The point is that the zeal you exhibit in going after Mr. Nifong is not balanced by your seeming non-interest you have to giving any thought to whole subject of exonerations in North Carolina period.

You are a historian. You would not start a study of current Middle Eastern history from the most recent Gaza War. To have context, you have to go back at least to rupture of the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the 20th Century and the emergence of Zionism and build forward.

Go ask Joe Cheshire why it was so important to change the legislation in North Carolina over discovery rules. Within days of the dismissal of the charges, a law sponsored by the trial lawyers passed the legislature. Pay attention people. That was so they could get poor black men and red necks you people would not let in your houses out of jail. Talk about irony!

Know your North Carolina history. Know that Governor Easley and AG Roy Cooper have some very suspect convection in their past and the Democratic Party contributors at the bar would never go after them.

Be consistent and call for the legislature to pay all exonerate men an amount proportional to what you are asking for the crybabies and see how much support you get for that. Call for the bar, run by Cheshire, to go after DA's that they have already won against in court. It will never happen. They do not have an interest in that. Guess what, you will never see that because the cat will be out of the bag.

KC, admit you are a shill for the players families to misdirect and to try to influence public opinion. What have you been promised? What do you benefit? How do you have so much inside dope on the case? Does the judge need to slap you on the wrists for helping Bork and his crew try to get around the order for everyone to keep silent? Seems to me that someone needs to look into how close you are to certain people. To be sure this isn’t just your hobby.

From my reading of things, you seem to be a very well respected fellow. Why taint your reputation by getting in bed with people like Howowitz and Gaynor? Even if you are not pals with them, they sure do carry a heavy odor. The stench they carry is hard to wash off. Gaynor even sounds like an anti-Semite to me. Horowitz just hates himself. What about you KC are you feeling unfulfilled or do you covet something the chattering class has? You want to be invited on Hannity or Fox and Friends?

Won’t all of you feel so silly when the cases are dismissed? The few counts that might make it to court will not stand either because somebody will have to try to explain the convoluted story about a conspiracy to harm the choirboys.

Go ahead and accuse me of being stupid. You are the patsy on this one. Too bad your legacy will be your obsession with this case. Pathetic and sad is it not when you thought you would be considered a hero and now you are just a dope. Yes, I called you a name. Since most of this has reverted to childish rants, I figured I would beat you to the punch. My skin is thicker than anyone on here so have at it. Call me whatever you want.

Debrah said...

" My skin is thicker than anyone on here so have at it. Call me whatever you want."


What a terrific joke.

If you could back up your bravado, you wouldn't be hiding behind "anonymous".

KC not only uses his own name, but makes his impressive CV available to readers.

KC Johnson said...

To the 12.27:

You observe: "The point is that the zeal you exhibit in going after Mr. Nifong is not balanced by your seeming non-interest you have to giving any thought to whole subject of exonerations in North Carolina period." I would invite you to look at the subtitle of this blog: "Comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case." The blog is quite clear in its subject matter.

I am a professor at an institution with a heavy teaching load; over the course of the blog's existence, I have published two books and an extended research paper. My time is, necessarily, limited. As I have pointed out on myriad occasions (I can only assume you are a newcomer to the blog), my interest in the case came from the fact that 88 members of my profession betrayed the academy's commitment to due process by issuing a public statement implying guilt; and that groups and organizations (the NAACP, most of the mainstream media) that we count on to demand truth from power chose, in this case, to do the opposite. I'm not aware of another North Carolina case where those factors apply, but perhaps I have missed the creation of Groups of 88 at other campuses.

As for the repeated assaults on my integrity, I think I will allow those to pass without comment. It's my sense that those who resort to ad hominem attacks essentially concede that the substance of their argument has no merit.

Anonymous said...

The last bastion of a defeated argumentor.....

"The race card"

How tiring!

DM

Anonymous said...

To 12:27

Your embarrassing screed belies your deep seeded anger toward anyone who prefers facts to simply succumbing to racist rants with overwhelming guilt. Mike Nifong used, yes, used, minority voters in Durham, the easily duped gang of 88, who couldn't find enough material to lecture the dwindling number of students in their "Angry Sciences" courses and small, but loud, node of current self-elected town criers who need a cause to blabber about.

The Nifongesque tactic to attack those who speak the truth, like Professor Johnson, is as old and tired as is Nifong's "something happened" defense.

Yes, "something happened". Nifong lied. Then, he lied again and again to attempt to cover his lies , and, unfortunately, the naive who followed his lies then continue the march behind the pied piper today.

A Duke Dad said...

Prof. Bonilla-Silva comments here under a under the cloak of anonymity ???

Refuses to use his real name ?
Is it possible ??

And such a DistinKKKwished DuKKKKe FaKKKulty KKKlaner !!!

Anonymous said...

Saturday night at 12:30 anonymous hater had this to say:

"From my reading of things, you seem to be a very well respected fellow. Why taint your reputation by getting in bed with people like Howowitz and Gaynor? Even if you are not pals with them, they sure do carry a heavy odor. The stench they carry is hard to wash off. Gaynor even sounds like an anti-Semite to me. Horowitz just hates himself. What about you KC are you feeling unfulfilled or do you covet something the chattering class has? You want to be invited on Hannity or Fox and Friends?"

The ONLY people that bring up Horowitz as a threat are the Group of 88 and their sympathizers. NOBODY else cares. Which group member is this? Your PC club doesn't seem to work here, anonymous Group of 88er, and that must surprise and scare you. Good.

unbekannte said...

Anonymous at 3/29/09 12:27 AM posts on the justice4nifong blog as kilgo. I have referred to him as silly Donald Duck killy. I offer my apologies to Mr. Duck but kilgo's responses to some of my posts on that blog were like a Donald Duck cartoon tantrum.

Kilgo has claimed to have extensive knowledge of the cgm case, at one point claiming to know more than all the Liestoppers put together. When challenged to reveal his knowledge, he responds with name calling and invective. Recently he offered as evidence of his extensive knowledge his ability to know the weather in Durham better than someone in Brooklyn.

He, in my opinion, is one of many examples of why the Lacrosse players would havr never received a fair trial in Durham. He "knew" the LAX players were guilty and no facts or evidence would show otherwise.

Anonymous said...

Be consistent and call for the legislature to pay all exonerate men an amount proportional to what you are asking for the crybabies and see how much support you get for that.

This single sentence is quite revealing of what appears to be the author's true nature. From the socialist solution, to the inaccuracy, and even included a little ad hominem bigotry as well.

I doubt the author's intent was to be so succient and self descriptive, on purpose. I'd say for the most part, this fairly accurately decribes many on the wrong side of the Lacrosse case.

If you're going to start calling people who stand up for their rights, crybabies.... What would you call the beloved MLK and his flock of followers? Of which I'm sure the author is included.

DM

A Duke Dad said...

here is A List Of Fallacious Arguments with examples:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#gibberish

The trolls on this blog seem to be cribbing from the textbook -

Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man)
Affirming The Consequent
Amazing Familiarity
Ambiguous Assertion
Appeal To Anonymous Authority
Appeal To Authority
Appeal To Coincidence
Appeal To Complexity
Appeal To False Authority
Appeal To Force
Appeal To Pity (Appeal to Sympathy, The Galileo Argument)
Appeal To Widespread Belief (Bandwagon Argument, Peer Pressure, Appeal To Common Practice)
Argument By Emotive Language (Appeal To The People)
Argument By Fast Talking
Argument By Generalization
Argument By Gibberish (Bafflement)
Argument By Half Truth (Suppressed Evidence)

etc

Amazing to see how their distortions, personal attacks, tangents, etc, all follow a classic pattern.

If you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullfeathers.

The jawbone of an ass is just as dangerous a weapon today as in Sampson's time.

Anonymous said...

Good - we need more democrats elected to office here - the ones we have are not destroying the state quickly enough.

unbekannte said...

Here is silly killy's latest post on justice4nifong:

" unbekannte said...

Anonymous at 3/29/09 12:27 AM posts on the justice4nifong blog as kilgo. I have referred to him as silly Donald Duck killy. I offer my apologies to Mr. Duck but kilgo's responses to some of my posts on that blog were like a Donald Duck cartoon tantrum.

Kilgo has claimed to have extensive knowledge of the cgm case, at one point claiming to know more than all the Liestoppers put together. When challenged to reveal his knowledge, he responds with name calling and invective. Recently he offered as evidence of his extensive knowledge his ability to know the weather in Durham better than someone in Brooklyn.

He, in my opinion, is one of many examples of why the Lacrosse players would havr never received a fair trial in Durham. He "knew" the LAX players were guilty and no facts or evidence would show otherwise.
3/29/09 5:26 PM

"Doctor Ubes"

QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK

QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK

QUACK QUACK QUACK QUACK

QUACK QUACK

March 29, 2009 7:31 PM"

I think his Donald Duck tantrums are rather amusing. They show how much he actually knows.

unbekannte said...

Anonymous 3/28/09 2:26 PM

"You went after Michael Nifong like a pit bull because he dared to charge rich white men on the word of a black stripper. You're just another racist with the hood off."

nifong, by his own admission, did not personally speak with the "black stripper" until several months into the case. Until several months into the case, he was prosecuting the Lacrosse players with no first hand knowledge either of what the "black stripper['s]" was or that it changed dramatically whenever she spoke it.

scott huminski said...

The U.S. Attorney can file charges sua sponte. See my criminal complaint below.

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

Anonymous said...

Looking forward to Mr. Cooper's victory next year. Burr was a former Democrat who switched parties just so he could run for the Senate. And just like that, he became an advocate for small government and therefore did not vote for the stimulus package. He did as he was told by his "leaders." This is not the kind of representative we want for our state.