Two additional items worth noting from the recent civil suit filings.
First, the changing views of disgraced ex-DA Mike Nifong on the merits of the case that cost him his career:
April 12, 2007:
To the extent that I made judgments that ultimately proved to be incorrect, I apologize to the three students that were wrongly accused. I also understand that whenever someone has been wrongly accused, the harm caused by the accusations might not be immediately undone merely by dismissing them. It is my sincere desire that the actions of Attorney General Cooper [which, it’s worth remembering, included a public declaration of actual innocence] will serve to remedy any remaining injury that has resulted from these cases.
June 15, 2007:
I think something happened in that bathroom, but it was not a sexual assault. It could have been a non-sexual assault or intimidation. Something happened to make everybody leave that scene very quickly.
July 26, 2007:
I have read the report released by the attorney general, including his recitation of evidence that I did not have, obtained from his own investigation. I agree with the attorney general’s statement that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Evans committed any of the crimes for which they were indicted or any other crimes during the party that occurred on March 13 and 14 of 2006 at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd.
Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Evans were entitled to the presumption of innocence when they were under indictment. Surely, they are entitled to more than that now as they go forward with the rest of their lives. And that is what the attorney general tried to give them in his declaration that they are innocent.
June 29, 2009 (with footnote text inserted):
It is alleged that Nifong and others, aware of occurrences they may or may not have been aware of, willfully ignored and/or were deliberately indifferent to this evidence demonstrating Plaintiffs’ innocence [Does it?] in their rush to charge the three innocent [Were they?] Duke lacrosse players.
These are the words of a person who would not know the truth if it hit him in the face.
----------------
The civil suit filings also contained some . . . innovative . . . arguments, such as Brian Meehan’s insinuation that there’s no evidence he knew what occurred at a meeting that he chaired to present DNA evidence that he himself had analyzed.
But Meehan’s line of argument almost looks elegant compared to what he could be termed the “stupidity defense” offered in the brief defending the actions of Sgt. Mark Gottlieb.
Attorney Reginald Gillespie apparently guessed that the “ignore-the-record defense” wouldn't work. (He had made the preposterous assertion that “given the secret nature of grand jury proceedings, Plaintiffs could not know what was said during those proceedings, [emphasis added] so they cannot make specific factual allegations about Gottlieb’s and Himan’s testimony at all,”
And so Gillespie offered an even stranger claim in his brief. No evidence exists, reasoned he, “that either of the City investigators [Gottlieb or Ben Himan] knew anything at all about DNA testing, let alone the customs and industry standards regarding the proper reporting format of such results.”
Gottlieb, of course, spent almost two decades in law enforcement. And yet, his attorney almost proudly proclaims, there’s no reason to believe he “knew anything at all about DNA testing.”
So, the Durham argument now appears to be that the average viewer of CSI was more familiar with a key investigative technique than a recently promoted officer who had served more than a decade on the DPD.
Remarkable.
-------------------------
In June, the blog used the CCI’s own archives to present a three-part narrative of the initiative dominated by the Group of 88 and its allies. The series also brought to light some of the contemporaneous extremist voices; and featured two posts that contained documents from the archive itself.
The other major development in the case were the defendants’ filings regarding Iqbal’s relevance to the lacrosse case, profiled in posts analyzing the filings in the case of the unindicted players and that of the falsely accused players.
And I summarized Selena Roberts’ national mendacity tour here.
[A reminder: My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment, either in tone or in substance. My opinion is expressed in the 1354 posts on the blog alone. The comments policy is explained in greater detail on the sidebar.]
55 comments:
Nifong April 12, 2007:
It is my sincere desire that the actions of Attorney General Cooper will serve to remedy any remaining injury that has resulted from these cases."
Translation: "Please don't sue me!!!"
One Spook
In Gottlieb's case, we are dealing with perjury. One cannot lie under oath to a grand jury, and that is what Gottlieb did.
That he got away with it is yet more proof of the double standard that exists in the law. If you wear a badge or are a prosecutor, you are free to lie, break the law, and generally do whatever you want, with no fear of facing legal consequences.
To the legal experts out there, how would a person be charged and tried for lying to a grand jury? Is this offense something the police or the DA's office would investigate? Thanks in advance.
"To the legal experts out there, how would a person be charged and tried for lying to a grand jury? Is this offense something the police or the DA's office would investigate? Thanks in advance."
The whole grand jury issue is a prickly one.
It's almost criminal, IMO, that grand jury proceedings are not recorded and made public.
Attorneys with whom I've spoken want this.
That process is one in which the prosecutors have carte blanche.
If only a recording of the grand jury proceedings were available to the public regarding this case, I'm sure a number of people would be in big trouble right now.
Nifong and the DPD essentially were allowed to do and say anything in order to obtain the indictments.
And the way the process works, no one is there to provide the other side.
Found at Minding The Campus
This link,
http://busmovie.typepad.com/ideoblog/2009/07/a-response-to-the-tribune.html
is to a blog called ideablog, the owner of which (one Ribstein, chaired professor at U of Illinois law school) posts an open letter to the Chicago Tribune. Ribstein thinks the Tribune has targeted and "demonized" the U of Ill. and various of its functionaries in articles about the "Clout" admissions scandal at U of Ill.
There's nothing new in this letter - a defense brief for an obviously guilty client - but a connoisseur might find something to her taste in Ribstein's casual deconstruction of ethics and reason.
Professor Johnson: Thank you for publishing the dramatically conflicting statements of Mikey Nifong. In Durham courts, few remember and fewer research previous statements by District Attornys. It is more than apparent than ever that Nifong is a lier and is far out of touch with reality which is a dangerous combination.
It is doubtful that either of these character flaws are new.It is , also, doubtful that Nifong was/is the only DA who lies or is out of touch with reality.
It is most unfortunate that legislatures appear unwilling to establish checks and balances on these officers of the court.
7:03 PM
I am not in argument with your premise that Nifong was out of touch except to say his behavior reflected the almost absolute power of a district attorney to shape a case and to bring that case to trial. I would hear attorneys comment that a ham sandwich could be indicted or words to that effect (Johnny Cochran comes to mind). Nifong knew this power and understood it. He manipulated the power of his office ruthlessly. It would seem that Nifong used the grand jury system as his own court of star chamber. Fortunately, outside of the cloaked secrecy of the grand jury room the rules were different. With his indictment, had Nifong but gotten the lie of his supposed case to court, he would have been home free. This man knew what he wanted to do, and would have done it. He would have put innocent people in prison and sat down to supper with a smile on his face as would have those members of the Duke faculty who called for blood.
Is Gillespie a Communist?
Anonymous 7/6/09 9:42 said...
...With his indictment, had Nifong but gotten the lie of his supposed case to court, he would have been home free. This man knew what he wanted to do, and would have done it. He would have put innocent people in prison and sat down to supper with a smile on his face as would have those members of the Duke faculty who called for blood.
::
Yes, he was and apparently is a True Believer as described by Eric Hoffer in his early 1950's book by the same name.
A fanatic.
I would also tend to place Mr. Nifong in what M. Lamar Keene called The Psychic Mafia (1976). Those who continue to believe in a paranormal event or phenomenon even after it had been proven to have been staged.
A True Believer and member of the Psychic Mafia.
And there is an entire generation of African American people in Durham who are marching with him like Lemmings to the Sea.
Durham needs the discovery process to begin.
::
GP
KC, I've been a supporter of yours for a long time. So I have to ask... what's been up with you lately? Why are you losing your edge?
You used to be the best because unlike Nifong and Gottlieb and the Group of 88 and Roberts and Crowther and all the slimeballs, you stood straight on the truth and shot straight from the shoulder. You were the one who took a razor-sharp blade to their fallacies, not the one who fell into fallacies himself. You were the one who, however acidly you may have expressed yourself, stayed with the issues and let the others look like fools giving in to emotional outbursts.
So it was alarming to see the loss of control exhibited in this post. And it's even more alarming to see you commit a glaring lapse of logic, by attributing the paragraph beginning "It is alleged that Nifong and others" to Nifong, even though elsewhere you admit that only your own surmise identifies it as the work of Nifong, and not of its actual signer, James Craven. Yes, I know that an argument can be made that you technically didn't deviate from the truth, since you claimed you were presenting "the changing views of ... Nifong" and it can be argued that a view put forth by Craven acting as Nifong's lawyer is therefore "Nifong's view" at least for certain purposes. But the KC we knew in the middle of the Duke case wouldn't put himself in a position where he needed such technicalities to be pleaded. What's going on?
Found at Minding the Campus
is a link,
http://www.nas.org/polArticles.cfm?Doc_Id=931
to a new essay (59 page .pdf) "Selling Merit Down the River", by Russell K Nieli, who discusses the sociology of affirmative action. Basic conclusion seems to be that affirmative action doesn't even come close to justifying itself considering that it is a racial discrimination system which would need to be very strongly justified in order to be at all tolerable.
Blurb quote:
The National Association of Scholars is pleased to present a major review essay by Russell K. Nieli, lecturer in the Department of Politics at Princeton University.
Scuttlebutt is Nieli is an evidence-obsessed retro who has somehow got a lecturership at PRINCETON (isn't anyone screening these applications?!!?). Can you imagine the peals of laughter ringing through those leafy precints if Nieli ever sought tenure?
I nearly fell out of my lawnchair this weekend when I heard my daughter and a neighbor girl doing a pattycake song. One of the verses was this
Nifong is a liar
he really should retire
his tongue is made of
greasy eel and rusty barbed wire
The rest of the verses dealt with boys, teachers, cooties and there was some Mylie Cyrus (sp?) and Johnas Brothers (sp?). Apparently all the girls at the school know the Nifong stanza.......
Duke ranks high as an employer
By Neil Offen : The Herald-Sun
Jul 7, 2009
DURHAM -- Despite tough economic times and some belt-tightening, Duke University remains a good place to work.
In fact, it remains one of the best colleges to work at in the nation, according to a new survey released Monday.
The Chronicle of Higher Education surveyed 41,000 employees -- administrators, faculty and staff members -- on 247 campuses across the country and ranked Duke as one of the top 10 large universities in the nation.
UNC Chapel Hill also was recognized in the Chronicle's second annual Great Colleges to Work for survey, receiving note in four categories: teaching environment, facilities and security, connection to institution and pride, and respect and appreciation.
Duke was cited for special recognition in 14 of the 26 categories evaluated, including
* Job satisfaction
* Healthy faculty-administration relationships
* Overall satisfaction with benefits
* Compensation and benefits
* Vacation or paid time off
* Work-life balance
* Confidence in senior leadership
* Internal communications
Last year, in the first survey done by the Chronicle, Duke was cited in only five categories.
"We're certainly thrilled with the recognition," said Kyle Cavanaugh, Duke's vice president of human resources. "Having an outside organization assess how we are doing on so many dimensions and finding out that we are one of the top places in America to work is gratifying. It reinforces the fundamental belief in the values Duke supports."
The Chronicle singled out the university particularly for the benefits it offers its employees. Maintaining those benefits during a recession has not been easy, Cavanaugh acknowledged.
"It's been incredibly challenging given the current economic environment," he said. "But compared to our peer institutions, Duke has been doing incredibly well these last six to eight months."
Unlike many other employers, including universities, Duke has not made significant changes to its benefits program during the economic downturn, and expects to continue most of its benefits through at least next year.
And while Duke had to suspend its pay-for-performance policy, under which employees and their supervisors set goals and evaluate their progress annually, the university this year did give a one-time raise of $1,000 to employees making under $50,000 while freezing the salaries of all other employees.
Cleo Proctor said she understands how fortunate she is to be working at Duke.
A histologic technician in the pathology department, Proctor has worked at Duke for eight years. Standing outside the medical school building on a muggy afternoon, she talked about how Duke is a good place to work -- "particularly given the present economy."
"Despite all the problems, they've kept things pretty much the same here," Proctor said. "When you consider what's happening in other places, that's good. And I also like the flexibility in my department."
While there's been belt-tightening, said Stephen Nowicki, the university's dean of undergraduate education, it's been gradual, not abrupt.
"It's far less than at Stanford and Harvard, where they've had to lay people off," said Nowicki, strolling across the quad in front of Duke Chapel. "Nobody has been laid off here. I think that's kept the morale up."
While pleased with the recognition, Cavanaugh said Duke still has much work to do.
"We want to be the premier employer in this area and in the nation," he said. "And that's incredibly challenging given the balancing act of trying to maintain morale and make the changes that need to be made. So far, though, we've hit a very good balance."
This is such a garbled mess.
I had to delete about seven paragraphs......just as was necessary with the "Thug Intellectual's" self-massaging column.
These people blabber on and on and on....and the local papers print this stilted and barren crap.
*************************
H-S:
Cathy N. Davidson: Saving scholarly publishing from crisis
New Tools for Men of Letters
Jul 5, 2009
In one of the best articles I've read in a long time on the possibilities for new technologies to enhance and save scholarly publishing from its crisis, Robert C. Binkley, in the Yale Review, remembers all the elements that are essential if we really are going to make a difference in our Digital Futures.
His piece remembers historical examples that did or did not prove revolutionary. Rather than techno-determinism, he understands technology as part of vast social changes and underscores the relationship between economics, opportunity, interest, possibility and social dynamics. He remembers aesthetics, and the sheer beauty of an object and its reduction when mechanically reproduced or its potential for enhancement through new technologies.
"Open access" doesn't matter if there is no one who wants to "access" what is "open." In other words, our demand for information that is free has to be accompanied by a responsibility to teach/support/develop a readership vitally interested in that information. If learning and curiosity are impoverished, who cares if our archives are lock-box or open? Why pour millions and millions into digital projects if there is no public excited to take advantage of such archives? Technology and information cannot be divorced from learning and the imperative to teach far and wide, beyond a handful of specialized scholars. We need "Citizen Scholars." And we need "Citizen Educators" for the new information technologies or why bother?
You don't write to archive. You write to be read. That doesn't mean you always write for the same audience. The point is that with variable modes of accessing scholarship, you can address a widespread but still niche audience. But not if that audience doesn't exist, isn't supported by networks and communities. Content does not exist in a vacuum any more than does technology. The production of knowledge and the production of readers is a continuous process with technological development; knowledge is not some fly preserved in amber, all of its features intact and utterly untouchable.
Binkley calls for a distribution of teaching that works informally, outside of any professionalized, specialized school or educational or professional school credentialing. A community of readers suitable to the new and revolutionary technologies of communication. He calls this a "pilot of democracy." Where "science and scholarship and the intellectual ideal are not a doctrinaire respect for a participant's interest" but a de-centralized and expansive collaborative model where every home is a "library," every dining room a school room, and every person a "man of letters." [sic]
As he concludes, "Towards this end technology offers new devices and points the way."
Oh, one catch: the new technologies he is talking about in his brave new world of scholarly publishing may not be available to all. His focus is "near print" and micro-photography and photo-offset, mimeography and hectographing. Binkley's article was published in 1935.
Wikipedia, anyone?
Cathy N. Davidson is the Ruth F. DeVarney Professor of English and John Hope Franklin Humanities Institute Professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at Duke University.
To the 12.42:
Many thanks for your kind words regarding my earlier work.
9:42 Perhaps semantics, but your description of Nifong's behavior, his disregard for truth, his complete failure to abide by his oath of office , not to mention the constitutions of NC and USA and his belief that no matter what he did, these acts were justified because of his office is , in my opinion, a clear demonstration of a person who is out of touch with reality. But whether he was out of touch or in touch with reality,I do not believe that his behaviors were cleverly thought as as a stategy , but , rather, these behaviors are a psychiatrist's playground of character pathology.
Regardless of the genesis of Nifong's deeds, there is a pressing need for some form of checks and balances on people who are elected to such a powerful position in society.
To Anon 12:42:
I strongly suggest you learn to properly use words in a sentence before employing them. For example- I SURMISE your comments are not intended as an honest critique, but rather a feeble, immature, and insignificant attempt to get under KC's skin.
Unfortunately the phrase, "you admit that only your own SURMISE identifies it as the work of Nifong," is an improper use of the word.
Perhaps you should dedicate your time to learning how to properly read and write as opposed to engaging in a debate you have no hope of winning.
The grand jury system is even worse then described. Not only is it virtually impossible to challenge a prosecutor, in many locales years go by without a no-bill, but it is further tipped by conduct that is not even recorded. For example, in the introductory training session, the prosecutor, ostensibly present only to describe the process, will "explain" that the office only brings cases that are winners, thereby testifying to the validity of all the charges without that information ever being recorded. Further, if a grand jury member ever challenges a prosecutor, they are punished in ways both subtle and unsublte. First, the prosecutor may actually go talk to the grand jury member on a break and lecture him or her. Second, the prosecutor may explain that by slowing up the system, the grand jury member is actually punishing the accused because the sooner the case is heard the sooner they can get out on bail.
Its just a huge joke.
K.C. was ahead of the curve regarding the importance of on-line influencers...
Unveiling the New Influencers
While the article is long, it is most interesting when viewed through the lens of Durham-in-Wonderland, Liestoppers, John-in-Carlina and other Duke hoax blogs.
When one contrasts trusted influencers like K.C. to the the faux academics, dishonest media, and malicious administrators who have abdicated the limited trust they had, one begins to understand the sea-change that is upon us. While the medium is important, it remains the content and the associated trust that will influence the masses.
"...Identifying influencers is one thing. Engaging people and enticing not only attention, but ultimately establishing an association and striving to earn allegiance takes far more than interpersonal adeptness. Our aspirations and benchmark must rise higher than the basic ability to “communicate, communicate, communicate.
We need to be acutely informed, open, and enlightened individuals who can engage at both an empathetic and genuine position."
To Anon 12:42: What are you smoking?
The comparison of Nifong's quotes are as "razor" sharp as it gets. Prior to Professor Johnson's well documented analysis of the LAX case, it was standard practice in Durham to change not only words , but, also, facts in order to obtain indictments and convictions.
I happen to believe that this post is at least as "dead in the red" as Professor Johnson's many other posts, and it points out the inabilitry of Nifong to tell the truth or even remember which "story" he has previously told..
OMG!!!
Could it be?
Music does heal wounds and bring people together.
Especially when a treble clef is playing musical chairs with a bass clef inside the Harmony Zone.
The rest of the verses dealt with boys, teachers, cooties and there was some Mylie Cyrus (sp?) and Johnas Brothers (sp?). Apparently all the girls at the school know the Nifong stanza.......
In my view, this really does violence to cooties, as they really don't deserve to be put in the same category as Mike Nifong. Give me head lice over Nifong any day!
No job, no money for Churchill
To Anon at 10:39:
I strongly suggest you learn to properly use words in a sentence before employing them. For example- I SURMISE your comments are not intended as an honest critique, but rather a feeble, immature, and insignificant attempt to get under KC's skin.
You would be entirely incorrect in that surmise. I have no interest in "getting under KC's skin", and my comments reflect exactly what I believe: that KC used to admirably adhere to very high and strict standards of evidence and decorum, and to see him deviating from both causes those who respect him and who would like to see his fine work continue unabated to wonder and worry what might be affecting him.
Of course, you have already made it plain that, based on my expressing concern for KC, you think I am a concern troll. Is it your claim that I must be a concern troll because no one could possibly feel sincerely concerned for KC? If you acknowledge that in fact it is possible for people who admire KC to be concerned about him then on what do you base your surmise? What is your test for distinguishing between concern trolls and those who do, in fact, have reasonable concerns?
Unfortunately the phrase, "you admit that only your own SURMISE identifies it as the work of Nifong," is an improper use of the word.
What is your basis for that conclusion? Merriam-Webster's Online defines "surmise" in noun form as "a thought or idea based on scanty evidence". It is KC's thought or idea that the paragraph beginning "It is alleged that Nifong and others" was actually authored by Nifong, despite the official signatory of the brief being Nifong's lawyer James Craven. This theory might well be correct, but it's still an unproven speculation, and the only support KC has offered for this theory is that "[the brief's] tone and content suggests that much of the drafting came from ... Nifong". Perhaps KC observed some concrete indicators of tone and content that he simply hasn't shared with us, indicators which we could expect to find in the writing of Michael Nifong but not in the writing of James Craven acting as counsel to Michael Nifong. If there are no such concrete indicators, however, then the highly subject measures of "tone" and "content" do indeed constitute scanty evidence for the assumption that the paragraph is Nifong's.
To Anon at 4:40:
The comparison of Nifong's quotes are as "razor" sharp as it gets.
No, I think that's already disproven. It would definitely be "sharper" to compare only "Nifong[...] quotes" that are actually known, not merely guessed, to be Nifong quotes. Thus, comparing three quotes that are known to be from Nifong with one that we only suspect might really be from Nifong is not, in fact, 'as "razor" sharp as it gets.'
Prior to Professor Johnson's well documented analysis of the LAX case, it was standard practice in Durham to change not only words , but, also, facts in order to obtain indictments and convictions.
Are you claiming then that KC's excellent reputation is based not on his upholding of high standards of evidence and decorum, but simply on the forces seeking unjust convictions in Durham doing even worse than whatever his behavior was? Talk about damning with faint praise!
I happen to believe that this post is at least as "dead in the red" as Professor Johnson's many other posts, and it points out the inabilitry of Nifong to tell the truth or even remember which "story" he has previously told.
I believe that the central point, that Michael Nifong is a mendacious and untrustworthy jerk who will tailor his claims about what he supposedly believes to suit his purposes of the moment, is entirely true. I also believe that for KC to present a paragraph for which we only have subjective suspicions that it is Nifong's work in a list of "the changing views of ... Nifong" is a lapse, and considered in combination with KC's early uncharacteristic outburst from last week, a cause for worry.
To KC at 9:42:
You're quite welcome. The praise is sincerely meant, and so is the concern. If there's something we can do, please let us know.
“These are the words of a person who would not know the truth if it hit him in the face.”
I take it our host is referring to himself, because Dr. Brian Meehan did not insinuate the following:
“The civil suit filings also contained some . . . innovative . . . arguments, such as Brian Meehan’s insinuation that there’s no evidence he knew what occurred at a meeting that he chaired to present DNA evidence that he himself had analyzed.”
But then again, our host drew equally fanciful interpretations from Salina Roberts’ three columns on the Hoax.
To the 9.11:
Many thanks for your kind offer ("If there's something we can do, please let us know"). I believe you all have provided a first in the blog's history--an anonymous single comment written by multiple people.
If you all want to leave your email addresses in your next anonymous comment, I'll drop you all a line to let you all know what you all can do.
Selena Roberts is a scheming manipulator and uninformed agendanista.
Her latest untruth is that she claims her columns were about the culture at Duke, not about the culture of the lacrosse team.
Just to make it clear - I am the Anon at 9:11 to whom KC replied, not the Anon at 9:11 who started by quoting "These are the words ..."
Yes, KC, you can rip me apart for technicalities if you want. Having followed your blog for years now, I had a feeling that I was a member of a community (albeit a member who avoids individual identification) and I dared to speak of "we", meaning by that plural noun "the people who have been reading your blogs for years and who have become accustomed to your high standards and are now worried that something might be wrong." So yes, I did not consult with anyone else to see if they shared my willingness to support you, and technically that makes me wrong to have spoken of a "we" that I could not guarantee.
It's a funny thing, though. When you devoted a whole blog post to reprinting one of my comments which I had left in Claire Potter's journal, which she had deleted contrary to her declared comment policy, I can't remember you nitpicking at my wording then, let alone at something as small as a choice of pronouns.
Obviously you do not trust me. Although I have been reading and commenting on your blog since shortly after Cooper declared the players innocent it was my choice not to maintain a pseudonymous identity after the first few months. Obviously one of the effects of that choice is that you cannot recognize me as a long-time contributor, and this keeps you from trusting me. So, don't trust me. But if there's something bothering you, turn to one of the long-term contributors whom you do trust. Despite the probability that you will again descend to mocking me for thinking I understand the feelings of others, I will state as fact: many of your readers do care about KC the person, and not just KC the blogger. Don't feel you have to go it alone.
The current troll-like excresence is pretty good with that needle it uses.
Is everyone taking their trolliphen?
Don't leave troll-scraps laying around.
To the Concern Trolls --
After dealing with all of the anonymous concern trolls at the CourtTV and TalkLeft websites, it is almost impossible not to spot you. Like Nifong, you need to try some honesty for a change, and like Nifong, you need to be much more subtle.
*********************
Specifically to the concern troll @ 9:11 --
Any federal court filing by an attorney on behalf of a client can be taken as an "admission against interest" and introduced into evidence against that attorney's client. See, e.g., Wrighten v. United States, 550 F.2d 990 (4th Cir. 1977).
So, even if the pleading wasn't written by Nifong, but by his agent in court -- and that's a big if since the disgraced former attorney has a pattern of schizoid behavior and cruel taunting based on no evidence -- it can still be marked as evidence and introduced at trial or in a future brief of the Plaintiffs and then used against Nifong.
*********************
To Mike Nifong (who, as a narcissist, I surmise reads this blog) --
You vainglorious rube! Look around you, you're in federal court now. Instead of facing some schmoe eeking out an existence pleading down traffic citations, you're facing a team of some of the best lawyers in the country. If you continue putting your foot in your mouth, it will hurt, and it will prove my theory that that is the highest use for both.
*********************
This is an outstanding post, Professor Johnson, because it, again, shows exactly how Mike Nifong is treasonous to the concepts of truth and justice, is a traitor to fair play and has betrayed common sense. MOO! Gregory
to KC Johnson @ 10:23 -
cute response to the troll at 9:11
Please be counseled by:
Illigitimus non Carborundum
. . . . Don't let the Bastards Grind You Down
What is interesting about the "Unveiling the New Influencers" article I linked above is that emerging tools will enable us to assess opinion and correlate them to other language/text examples.
In the near future anonymous posters could be tied to actual people publishing work elsewhere.
Politicians who publish books written by others without attributing that work to others will be easily found out.
More overt cases of plagiarism of student papers or academic journal articles will be easier to discover.
And, in this case, the ability to demonstrate if Nifong's effort within Craven's response did occur would be much easier to ascertain.
Overlay those capabilities with rapidly improved search and the world will change again. All in near real-time.
When I practiced civil law in federal court I always maintained an ongoing and updated database with subcategories that included, "Uncontested Facts," "Contested Facts," "Witness List," "Evidence List" and "Statement of the Case." I imagine the Plaintiffs in the Duke hoax case have the same, which means they likely have an entry in the "Evidence List" that looks similar to this:
"1,243. Memorandum Brief of Nifong, footnotes 1 & 2, Document #97 (Admission against interest, intent, impeachment, prior inconsistent statement under F.R.Evid 801, damages)."
*******************
Do the concern trolls really think we'd believe that Craven would include footnotes in a brief filed in federal court that made him look like an *** without the express, written consent of Nifong or because Nifong wrote it himself? Concern trolls give themselves away with their stupid arguments.
Concern trolls also give themselves away by taking the argument too far. For example, Professor Johnson made a perfectly logical deduction based on prior history and that means "something's wrong with him." What it means to me is that Professor Johnson has hit his mark again. Otherwise, the trolls wouldn't be hanging around.
********************
I bet an attorney representing at least one other defendant called up Craven and said something like this: "WTF do you think you're doing? These boys were on the cover of "Newsweek," and you think you can scare them off with 2 smarmy footnotes in a throw-away brief? Don't you think the Judge is going to laugh at you? Thanks for the additional punitive damages argument, idiot!" MOO! Gregory
To the 7/7 9:11am:
I also believe that for KC to present a paragraph for which we only have subjective suspicions that it is Nifong's work in a list of "the changing views of ... Nifong" is a lapse...
You ignore the fact that, in the court's eyes, those are Nifong's words.
To anonymous 9:11 PM: Thanks so very much for your semantic parsing of my "opinions". You must be tons of fun to talk with in person.
I respect your opinion that you believe Professor Johnson erred in a singular moment after two years of award winning accuracy in this blog. I happen to respectfully disagree with that opinion, but let's just declare you "right" which it appears is an important need you have.
I can't wait for Nifong's deposition. He's gonna be flipping and flopping like a fish in a boat!!
While checking on Mikey info, I came across this article from Slate citing KC's expertise for this report.
We already knew that Moyers is a bit loose with the truth.
11:02 PM
Your style is unmistakable and I decline to believe that you are a regular contributor since Cooper's innocense declaration.
Further, let's venture to name you. A contest, perhaps? I'll kick it off with the nominating suggestion: 'Tres passif'
Oh, my.
Such a peculiar group using by-gone celebrity photos as avatars and lifting the glorious work of the Diva to fill their cave walls.
And lo and behold, the ever-vigilant Wayne Fontes has put down roots inside the Bat Cave, I see.
Hmmmm........seems the man who has worked tirelessly to set some "standards", albeit tendentious doily-laden fare, feels no uneasiness inside such confines.
Astonishing!
Anonymous @10:28 said...
Selena Roberts is a scheming manipulator and uninformed agendanista.
Her latest untruth is that she claims her columns were about the culture at Duke, not about the culture of the lacrosse team.
---------- ----------
Kindly be aware
Paragraph 1 is unfair and unkind ... to scheming manipulators and uninformed agendanistas.
Paragraph 2 is also unfair and unkind ... to yougurt.
And lo and behold, the ever-vigilant Wayne Fontes has put down roots inside the Bat Cave, I see.
Hmmmm........seems the man who has worked tirelessly to set some "standards", albeit tendentious doily-laden fare, feels no uneasiness inside such confines.
Astonishing!
I think your right Debra(h). To show up out of the blue and dump a couple of boat loads of snark on someone was wrong own it's own merits. It's clearly hypocritical considering the fact I've bitched about others lack of civility. I wish I could have those comments back. Since I can't, I'll simply apologize for making them in the first place.
A superb analysis by Chris.
He destroys the credibility of those two by reminding everyone of the facts.
Spot on, Professor. It is always good to remind ourselves what a snake this Nifong character is.
So glad that Collin, Reade and Dave got to burn him but good.
To Gregory at 6:55 AM:
To the Concern Trolls -
After dealing with all of the anonymous concern trolls at the CourtTV and TalkLeft websites, it is almost impossible not to spot you.
Wow. Just ... wow. To think that when I composed a reply last night, I almost suggested Gregory (or "MOO! Gregory", as I always think of him) as a trustworthy long-term contributor in whom KC could confide if need be. (The reason I ended up not suggesting any contributor by name is that anyone I suggested would automatically end up under suspicion, in the eyes of those who still have not grasped that there are indeed people other than concern trolls who voice concerns.)
I will ask the same thing of you that I asked of 10:39: What is your test for distinguishing between concern trolls and those who do, in fact, have reasonable concerns? If you have none - if, in your mind, 'suspected of being a concern troll' is 'convicted of being a concern troll' - then in fact you are "spotting" concern trolls the way that the Group of 88 "spotted" racist sexist predators lurking inside every lacrosse player (including those who had never been accused of any association with racism or sexism prior to the party.)
***
Specifically to the concern troll @ 9:11
There is no "concern troll @ 9:11". There is only one troll at 9:11, the one who accused KC of misrepresenting Brian Meehan and of drawing "fanciful interpretations" from Roberts, who makes no secret of his/her hostility to KC.
Any federal court filing by an attorney on behalf of a client can be taken as an "admission against interest" and introduced into evidence against that attorney's client. [...] So, even if the pleading wasn't written by Nifong, but by his agent in court [...] it can still be marked as evidence [...] and then used against Nifong.
I would love to see it get used against him. One of two things is true: Nifong let his lawyer sign a brief of which Nifong himself had drafted the relevant paragraph, OR, when Nifong went out to find himself a lawyer, he found one as prone to sleazy innuendo as himself. (What other kind of lawyer would get within ten yards of Nifong these days?) Either way, Nifong remains a scumbag.
But just because your opponent is a scumbag doesn't make bad evidence against him good evidence. We weren't discussing the matter of "is Nifong legally responsible for any admissions against interest contained within that paragraph?" but "is it good scholarship to say 'these are Nifong's views we're comparing' and include as one of those views a piece that we are only guessing is actually of Nifong's authorship?"
If you insist that the answer must be yes, then let me remind you of a certain incident involving a Group of 88 member. Peter Wood received an anonymous class evaluation form in one of his classes that said "I wish all the Indians had died; then we wouldn’t have to study them." Even though the evaluation was anonymous, Wood assumed - because of the tone and content of it - that it was written by one of the lacrosse players in the class. Wood then wrote to an undergraduate dean about the "bad attitude" of some athletes, using (or so this New Yorker article certainly implies) his unverified assumption that the author of the words in question was an athlete as "evidence" for his complaint.
Do you think that was that good scholarship on Wood's part? I certainly don't. I think that even if Wood happened to be correct - even if the author really was a lacrosse player - his logic was circular and fallacious. By the same reasoning, even if KC happens to be correct about the paragraph being Nifong's work, for him to treat it as truth and build on it when he has no way of knowing if it's correct is a mistake.
To RighteousThug at 8:35:
"I also believe that for KC to present a paragraph for which we only have subjective suspicions that it is Nifong's work in a list of "the changing views of ... Nifong" is a lapse..."
You ignore the fact that, in the court's eyes, those are Nifong's words.
Honestly, I'm not a lawyer, so I really have no idea whether the court views anything in a brief prepared for a client as the views of, or the words of, that client. It would not surprise me terribly for that to be the case, since I am aware of a quite a bit of legal theory that holds principals responsible for the acts of their agents even when it is clear that the principal had no knowledge of the acts of the agents.
However, when KC presented that paragraph from the brief and called it "Nifong's view", I saw no indicators that his basis for calling it such was how it would look to "the court's eyes". I don't think that's a particularly good standard to use, since unavoidable arbitrary distinctions and legal fictions make the view through the court's eyes quite a bit different from what the rest of us are looking at.
Thank you for not engaging in ad hominem attacks, as so many others here have done and are doing.
To Anonymous at 11:02 PM:
Your style is unmistakable and I decline to believe that you are a regular contributor since Cooper's innocense declaration.
Thank you for the compliment but I'm afraid you've just proven yourself wrong; if my style was truly that unmistakable, you would have already recognized me from my previous posts, including the one that I've already identified which KC chose to reproduce in its entirety on November 29, 2007.
Oh, look,
---
Spot on, Professor. It is always good to remind ourselves what a snake this Nifong character is.
So glad that Collin, Reade and Dave got to burn him but good.
7/8/09 7:04 PM
---
le troll tres passif is back.
To me, the troll's style is unmistakeable: sarcasm, pseudo-satire and personal sliming. (By the way, it's not Colin, Reade and Dave, you ninny; its Reade, Colin and Dave.) This style is covered in a layer of subtlety which is anything but inpenetrable. Superficially the troll is discussing, arguing, explaining. In actuality, this is never true. At root, the troll offers but one thing - gratuitous personal abuse. To this or that person or just to all on this "side" of the Duke lacrosse case.
Complementarily, the troll's argument, to the extent that it can be said to have an argument, is a reductio, by ex- or implication, of the whole "defense". Pity the poor troll, it has little to work with.
Does anyone else find the troll easily recognizable? It may not have a name, but we know it when we see it. The "anonymous" button won't hide that style.
If the troll never engages, but only slimes; And, if the troll wields its needle with a certain creepy effectiveness; Then let us strategize to the end that the troll be quelled and honest disputation be raised up.
As for me, I'll speak of the troll, but not to the troll. (Please, Don't feed the troll!) There's nothing there to speak to anyway and that's not my doing.
In a discussion of a person, it is not ad hominem to discuss that person. To be ad hominem, a statment about a person must be irrelevant to the discussion.
Right, troll?
To Anon at 5:29 PM:
In a discussion of a person, it is not ad hominem to discuss that person. To be ad hominem, a statment about a person must be irrelevant to the discussion.
To have switched the subject of the conversation from discussion of an issue to discussion of one of the participants (which you think you have successfully done) is the ad hominem. For you to say "there's no ad hominem against you because the subject is what a troll you are" is similar to Gottlieb saying "There was nothing wrong with our rigged lineup. We set out to manufacture evidence against the lacrosse players and when you set out to manufacture evidence, it's entirely proper to show a witness photos of only the people you want to manufacture the evidence against."
7/9/09 7:12 PM said:
----
For you to say "there's no ad hominem against you because the subject is what a troll you are"
----
I didn't say that, but I wish I had.
And then it said:
----
is similar to Gottlieb saying "There was nothing wrong with our rigged lineup. We set out to manufacture evidence against the lacrosse players and when you set out to manufacture evidence, it's entirely proper to show a witness photos of only the people you want to manufacture the evidence against."
---
You're kidding, right?
Fellow DiW commenters:
This thread contains a series of comments designed to divert, dismay and, ultimately, wrongfoot the troll.
As you can see by troll comments 7/9/09 12:43 AM and 7/9/09 7:12 PM, this appears to be working.
One observes, further, that the troll is pretty totally humorless. This won't help it at all - especially on this board.
Finally, the troll uses a kind of "heavy battalions" rhetorical style. It prefers and understands heavy contact at the front and is prepared to slug it out all day along those lines. Well, the troll also has two flanks and, having spent some time the last two days along those flanks, I much prefer it as the area of maneuver. And, the troll doesn't like it much.
Cool!
Right, troll?
I suppose in retrospect it was inevitable that real trolls would move in to capitalize on the witch-hunt unleashed by those board members who have forgotten that, yes, sometimes people who support a cause nevertheless have concerns about how that cause is being furthered. If you have any doubt that real trolls have arrived to capitalize on the confusion, examine these two consecutive sentences from Anon at 4:38 AM:
"To me, the troll's style is unmistakeable: sarcasm, pseudo-satire and personal sliming. (By the way, it's not Colin, Reade and Dave, you ninny; its Reade, Colin and Dave.)"
If "Jim in San Diego" will provide me with some means to e-mail him, I will disclose my identity to him. He can then verify that I posted under a pseudonymous identity on this blog for quite some time before deciding, for reasons of my own, to post anonymously only. That will hopefully resolve this issue.
普通のプレイじゃ絶対味わえない快感、それは野外露出プレイ。最初は嫌がっていた女も次第にハマっていって、その内それが快感に変わってきます。野外露出プレイで興奮度アップ間違い無し
Post a Comment