tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post9094390837465315254..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Is Nifong Paying by the Line?kcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger31125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-81122948491800634772009-01-26T20:55:00.000-05:002009-01-26T20:55:00.000-05:00Another To Anonymous 1/19/09 12:50 PM:Please tell ...Another To Anonymous 1/19/09 12:50 PM:<BR/><BR/>Please tell anon 9:22 to speak up about what he/she/it knows. I'd like a good scare.unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-69484616573715462632009-01-25T15:36:00.000-05:002009-01-25T15:36:00.000-05:00To Anonymous 1/19/09 12:50 PM:Please tell us what ...To Anonymous 1/19/09 12:50 PM:<BR/><BR/>Please tell us what anon 9:22 knows. <BR/><BR/>Whatever anon 9:22 promises, he/she/it is awfully reluctant to deliver, just like Mike Nifong is awfully reluctant to defend the lawsuit against him.unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-57815305865364269292009-01-22T13:31:00.000-05:002009-01-22T13:31:00.000-05:00Jim Craven happens to be a "real lawyer" and a goo...Jim Craven happens to be a "real lawyer" and a good one (as opposed to some Public Relations puke or business hack or insurance industry reptile who happens to have a law license), and although I have no inside info about his deal with Nifong, it's clear enough that for some perceived courtesy or closeness in the past, Craven is simply doing Nifong a favor by putting in some kind of appearances for him, and if Craven is getting paid at all, I bet anything it's way less than his usual rate. <BR/><BR/>But even if Craven is a nice guy (which he is), there's obviously a limit to how much time he can afford to waste on Mike Nifong.<BR/><BR/>Still, Craven would feel compelled to say more in Nifong's defense, if there was any defense, so I agree with KC that Craven's silence speaks volumes -- about his client.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-5151137136006583662009-01-19T19:43:00.000-05:002009-01-19T19:43:00.000-05:00Trolls are parasitic entities.Please, stop feeding...Trolls are parasitic entities.<BR/><BR/>Please, stop feeding the troll.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-47751405378089180222009-01-19T12:50:00.000-05:002009-01-19T12:50:00.000-05:00Is KC afraid of what anon 9:22 knows? lolIs KC afraid of what anon 9:22 knows? <BR/><BR/>lolAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-41225406024326042802009-01-19T11:17:00.000-05:002009-01-19T11:17:00.000-05:00Why does Anon 1/17/09 9:22 claim to know what the ...Why does Anon 1/17/09 9:22 claim to know what the 'exculpatory evidence' is and yet fails to provide it?<BR/><BR/>Ain't got it, do you?Greg Toombshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08093911019916154110noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-80259606301537769842009-01-19T04:30:00.000-05:002009-01-19T04:30:00.000-05:00Wayne suggests this is a "new tactic" from (I like...Wayne suggests this is a "new tactic" from (I like the way Gregory put it )"the cute little troll." I think it's just the same original tactic, lies, false allegations, attack anyone and everyone. <BR/><BR/>At least when it's done to advance a claim of Nifong's "innocence" (as opposed to advancing a claim of innocent young men's guilt) it is laugh out loud funny.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-59477194018712904182009-01-18T15:48:00.000-05:002009-01-18T15:48:00.000-05:00Anonymous said... "Nifong's 'response' clearly ...<I> Anonymous said...<BR/><BR/> "Nifong's 'response' clearly shows,<BR/> he has no defense. He cites no authority,<BR/> no precedence, nothing."<BR/><BR/> The Truth is the Greatest Defense.<BR/><BR/> Why does KC Johnson continue to hide<BR/> the exculpatory evidence in Nifong's defense,<BR/> evidence sworn under oath, yet concealed<BR/> by Johnson from his readers ?<BR/><BR/> 1/17/09 9:22 PM</I><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>I guess the new tactic is to ask a question of KC while insinuating that KC is with holding some evidence. Why direct that question to KC? Nifong was given the chance to explain his actions at the disbarment hearing. He offered no credible explanation as to why <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTBerNrnoVU&feature=related" REL="nofollow">he ever brought charges</A> against the players. He knew the purpose of the proceedings was to strip his law license. An ideal opportunity to present <I>"the exculpatory evidence in Nifong's defense,<BR/> evidence sworn under oath, yet concealed<BR/> by Johnson from his readers ?".</I><BR/><BR/>Don't you think so Anon 9:22wayne fonteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12082812958420391750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-8387398493016534972009-01-18T15:30:00.000-05:002009-01-18T15:30:00.000-05:00Anonymous 1/17/09 9:22 PM:If there is evidence exo...Anonymous 1/17/09 9:22 PM:<BR/><BR/>If there is evidence exonerating Mike Nifong given under oath, it is part of the public record. Please tell us where we might view the evidence. Why are you so reluctant to reveal the evidence?<BR/><BR/>You sound more and more like Wendy Murphy. If you are Wendy Murphy, if you are aware of exonerating evidence, why are you not down here defending Mike Nifong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-69629891842963961942009-01-17T23:24:00.000-05:002009-01-17T23:24:00.000-05:00Btw, regarding the campaign contributions site cit...Btw, regarding the campaign contributions site cited above, it shows that of the contributors who identified their occupation as "journalist", "reporter", or some variation of those, 650 donated to the Democrats, 62 to the Republicans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-3791393415559963702009-01-17T22:23:00.000-05:002009-01-17T22:23:00.000-05:00Looks to me like a response filed by a lawyer who ...Looks to me like a response filed by a lawyer who got stiffed for his fee.Ex-prosecutorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02452419035924029993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-70128461173912698392009-01-17T21:22:00.000-05:002009-01-17T21:22:00.000-05:00"Nifong's 'response' clearly shows, he has no defe..."Nifong's 'response' clearly shows,<BR/> he has no defense. He cites no authority,<BR/> no precedence, nothing."<BR/><BR/>The Truth is the Greatest Defense.<BR/><BR/>Why does KC Johnson continue to hide<BR/>the exculpatory evidence in Nifong's defense,<BR/>evidence sworn under oath, yet concealed<BR/>by Johnson from his readers ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-29757897906739211562009-01-17T19:39:00.000-05:002009-01-17T19:39:00.000-05:00Nifong's "filing" borders on insult. No self-respe...Nifong's "filing" borders on insult. No self-respecting federal judge will suffer such foolishness. To do so would simply risk demeaning the court. The judge has got to be pissed.<BR/><BR/>Regardless, you can stick a fork into Nifong--he's toast. Game, set, match--over.<BR/><BR/>Tick, tock, tick, tock--Mikey (and Cy).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-76722429496255457262009-01-17T18:48:00.000-05:002009-01-17T18:48:00.000-05:00Could the response be a simple "res ipsa loquitur"...Could the response be a simple "res ipsa loquitur"?<BR/><BR/>There you have it.<BR/><BR/>Nifong's "response" clearly shows, he has no defense. He cites no authority, no precedence, nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-6581777515389521572009-01-17T18:29:00.000-05:002009-01-17T18:29:00.000-05:00OK... 11 lines is nice, but how cool would it be i...OK... 11 lines is nice, but how cool would it be if they did it in Haiku?<BR/><BR/>Fails to state a claim<BR/>No standing for injunction<BR/>D.A. is immune<BR/><BR/><BR/>-RDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-43108818956621084262009-01-17T18:03:00.000-05:002009-01-17T18:03:00.000-05:00is this so surprising ?After all, Nifong is in sev...is this so surprising ?<BR/><BR/>After all, Nifong is in severe financial straits, and no longer has the DA's office to pick up any costs. He cannot afford much for legal expenses.<BR/><BR/>Any lawyer working for Nifong must know that any substantial bill they make cannot be paid by Nifong; that is the crux of the argument that the lawyer is making to other plaintiffs.<BR/><BR/>the targets of this action are duke, and durham; they have deep pockets. Nifong is lawyer-proof, because he doesn't have any money left.<BR/><BR/>perAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-41899129218107997472009-01-17T17:41:00.000-05:002009-01-17T17:41:00.000-05:00Steele's stamina is overshadowed by his arrogance,...Steele's stamina is overshadowed by his arrogance, egotism and nassicism. What a string of failures he has to be proud of: 1) Forced the selection of Dickie Brodhead as President 2)Allowing the growth and protection of pseudo -scienrific departments making Duke the laughing stock of American academia 3) Mishadling of the Lacrosse situation 4)Blatant refusal to direct his university to take a stand against Nifong's dishonesty 4) Failure to lead Duke out of the muck of political correctness 4)Failure to step down as CHair thus allowing the Board at Duke to choose new Board Chair and new President 5)Total mishandling of Wachovia and causing its ultimate demise because he couldn't make up his mind 5) Heading the "crack" team of advisors who helped lose $1 Billion in investments for Duke.<BR/><BR/>I'll bet his family is so very proud of what Bobby has accomplished.<BR/><BR/>He is a real "snake oil" salesman. Very dangerous man.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-15291619582402751722009-01-17T11:47:00.000-05:002009-01-17T11:47:00.000-05:00Inre: Steel - Treasury - tax breaks - Wachovia.It ...Inre: Steel - Treasury - tax breaks - Wachovia.<BR/><BR/>It would be very interesting to know what was conveyed to Ken Lewis at BofA and by whom regarding the Merrill Lynch deal.<BR/><BR/>Did BofA go back to the well for more TARP money because the Merrill deal was much more toxic than expected?<BR/><BR/>Was BofA originally operating on the basis that they would receive a similar tax break to acquire Merrill Lynch?<BR/><BR/>Why else would they agree to the deal with only one weekend of due diligence in an environment of fast declining asset values?<BR/><BR/>Did BofA have the rug pulled out from under them since Merrill was a non-bank institution and NOT eligible for the same tax breaks Wells Fargo received?<BR/><BR/>Did the opening of the discount window to non-bank institution imply a different tax treatment?<BR/><BR/>Who was involved in opening the discount window for non-bank institutions?<BR/><BR/>Why Bob Steel, that's who.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-83401644995114243432009-01-17T10:48:00.000-05:002009-01-17T10:48:00.000-05:00Re: Huff Post - interesting that Bill Chafe donate...Re: Huff Post - interesting that Bill Chafe donated to John Edwards. Seems like secret racism to me.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-66238953997023085872009-01-17T08:19:00.000-05:002009-01-17T08:19:00.000-05:00Off-topic, but I thought this was interesting:The ...Off-topic, but I thought this was interesting:<BR/><BR/>The Huffington Post now has a <A HREF="http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?type=emp&employer=duke+university" REL="nofollow">link that allows you to see political contributions</A>. One of the ways to search is by "Employer" or "Occupation".<BR/><BR/>When I searched for "Duke", "Duke Univ" and "Duke University", it showed that a total of 342 people had donated to Democrats, 23 to Republicans. When I did the search for "Brooklyn College", it showed 40 contributors to Democrats (yes, KC, you're in there!) and one to Republicans. When I searched "Occupation" for "Prof" or "Professor", it showed 17,110 for Democrats, 1,268 for Republicans.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-28019377312092031822009-01-17T07:37:00.000-05:002009-01-17T07:37:00.000-05:00Inre: my prior post regardng the tax deal..."...So...Inre: my prior post regardng the tax deal...<BR/><BR/>"...Some members of Congress felt the Treasury Department overstepped its authority in issuing the notice, which had the practical effect of enacting a new tax break..."<BR/><BR/>"overstepped ...authority"<BR/><BR/>Bob Steel...Treasury...Duke...Wachovia<BR/><BR/>Pattern of behavior...<BR/><BR/>Really, how can anyone be shocked?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-64913841321409955052009-01-17T07:23:00.000-05:002009-01-17T07:23:00.000-05:00One would think that a time would come when one co...One would think that a time would come when one could no longer be shocked. Today is not that day.<BR/><BR/>It appears that Bob Steel who was Under Secretary of the Teasury for Domestic Finance, serving as the principal adviser to the Secretary on "matters of doemstic finance", leading "the Department's activities with respect to the domestic financial system, fiscal policy and operations, governmental assets and liabities, and related economic and financial matters" has out done himself.<BR/><BR/>1. In the fall the Treasury issues a tax rule that benefits banks that acquire other troubled banks.<BR/><BR/>2. Bob Steel leaves the Treasury to go to work for a troubled Wachovia bank.<BR/><BR/>3. Bob Steel cuts a deal with CITI, but changes his mind and does a deal with Wells Fargo to save Wachovia.<BR/><BR/>4. Wells Fargo acquires Wachovia for $14.8 billion.<BR/><BR/>5. Wells Fargo receives a $20 billion tax savings. Of course this means you and I paid Wells Fargo over $5 billion to acquire Wachovia.<BR/><BR/>6. Tax break is repealed.<BR/><BR/>Is it just me or did Bob Steel just leave at least $5 billion on the table?<BR/><BR/>Mr. Steel has more stamina than anyone I know. He's screwed the Lacross team, Duke, Wachovia, and the American taxpayer. At some level, though disgusted, I'm impressed.<BR/><BR/>This should give the Klan of 88 another reason to hate white males.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090116/D95OEC801.html" REL="nofollow">Stimulus Plan Repeals Big Tax Breaks for Banks</A><BR/><BR/>"...To address the financial industry meltdown, the Treasury Department last fall issued a new tax rule to make it more attractive for healthy banks to buy troubled ones hit hard by the mortgage crisis. It allowed healthy banks to avoid billions of dollars in taxes by offsetting their profits with the losses of the banks they acquire.<BR/><BR/>Before, the merged bank could write off only a limited amount of the losses. Removing much of the restrictions enabled the acquiring banks to make huge reductions in their tax liabilities.<BR/><BR/>In some cases, the tax breaks exceeded the cost of acquiring the troubled banks. Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), for example, made a bid to acquire Wachovia Corp. (WB), just days after the change in tax rules was issued Sept. 30. Wells Fargo paid $14.8 billion in a stock deal to buy Wachovia, but stands to reap about $20 billion in additional tax savings from the transaction, according to analyses by private tax experts..."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-42536831865139709112009-01-17T05:32:00.000-05:002009-01-17T05:32:00.000-05:00Is Craven a Communist?Is Craven a Communist?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-87577352319782101372009-01-17T02:05:00.000-05:002009-01-17T02:05:00.000-05:00My bad. It was Jan 15 2008. A year and a day bef...My bad. It was Jan 15 2008. A year and a day before. Hard to believe we are reaching a full year of just the lawsuit responses.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-47339269602876018322009-01-17T01:22:00.000-05:002009-01-17T01:22:00.000-05:00Note that he references Jan 15 2008 as well when h...<I>Note that he references Jan 15 2008 as well when he points to Linwood's brief.<BR/><BR/>1/16/09 9:35 PM</I><BR/><BR/>Correct, that was Linwood's first response in <I>Evans</I>.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com