Durham-in-Wonderland: Hood on Easley

Monday, February 05, 2007

Hood on Easley

An important column in today’s Carolina Journal from Locke Foundation president John Hood, arguing that Governor Easley “has a significant public-relations problem on his hands,” though he might not “fully comprehend its magnitude.”

Hood took note of Easley’s comments at NYU Law School, revealed on Saturday in a Neff/Niolet N&O article: that Nifong had promised not to run if appointed (an assertion reinforced by the language used in Nifong’s appointment announcement); that Nifong’s pre-primary publicity barrage was improper; that Nifong’s behavior “looks bad for North Carolina. It looks bad for the DA’s office. It looks bad for the criminal justice system in general.”

The problem, Hood correctly points out:

As far as we know, the governor didn’t attempt to rein Nifong in. A former prosecutor himself, Easley seems never to have intervened to encourage the Durham office to do its job properly. When the case took a turn for the outrageous, he didn’t ask for Nifong’s resignation.

What’s worse, when Nifong filed to run for DA last year and drew a strong challenge from Freda Black, Easley didn’t bother to mention that Nifong had lied to him about his political intentions. Democratic primary voters might well have valued that piece of information. By the fall, when Nifong’s malfeasance was clearly evident, Easley made no move to set the record straight. He did nothing.

Not an impressive performance, to put it mildly.

145 comments:

Anonymous said...: At least he can pile on Nifong now with a lecture in New York. :-/; 2/5/07, 12:26 PM
Anonymous said...: It is amazing how the initial lie of the false accuser has spread like wildfire to so many willing to partake in deceit.; 2/5/07, 12:31 PM
Anonymous said...: N&O:
'The governor talked about the state's open file discovery law, which the lacrosse defense attorneys have used to pry favorable evidence, such as the DNA test results, from Nifong's files.

"I do know that when you're in a case like this you disclose everything," Easley said. "We passed a law when I was attorney general that you disclose all the evidence in the file in these cases prior to trial."

The law was passed in 2004, when Easley was governor. As attorney general, Easley opposed a 1996 law opening files for death row inmates, the first step toward the current law. His office fought the law at the legislature and then challenged it in court, until the state Supreme Court upheld the law in 1998.'

He coulda been Nifong, also a big champion of disclosure.

Is Brady material consisting of all exculpatory including impeaching information that is material to the guilt or punishment of the defendant still wihtholdable by the prosecution in NC today?; 2/5/07, 12:41 PM
Anonymous said...: Since this post has nothing to do with any of the good ol' Southern racism alleged in this case, perhaps the title "Hood on Easley" is inappropriately- and inadvertently- suggestive.; 2/5/07, 12:51 PM
Anonymous said...: Geez, this is starting to feel like Watergate. If Bush were a Democrat, I think he would be implicated!

On a serious note, North Carolina has to take a long, hard look at its system of justice and how it dovetails with state politics. The state, the elected officials, and legal system looks totally incompetent.; 2/5/07, 12:53 PM
Anonymous said...: It's all about the votes, whether it's Nifong or Easley, or anyone else (John Edwards, etc.). With the NC NAACP still breathing down their necks they are not going to do anything to alienate the black voters. That's why Easley never spoke out until he was in New York, and only after it was made obvious by the NC Bar ethics charges against Nifong. Most of the Democrats have continued to stay silent about this case--are they still waiting to see which way the wind will blow from the AG's office??
duke2009mom; 2/5/07, 12:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Easley needs to take action immediately to get himself onto the right side of this matter... before it consumes his career.

Gov. Easley... take action NOW... be the first to sponsor "anti-Nifong" protection laws in the NC legislature.

And then DEMAND that Nifong be tried for his criminal actions in the courts of North Carolina.

No persons in North Carolina, including students of Duke University, should ever again be at risk of being "Nifonged".; 2/5/07, 12:55 PM
james conrad said...: i am sorry, i am just not buying the " interim" argument. in a sense, all 3 appointed DAs were interim as none had yet been validated by an election.; 2/5/07, 12:56 PM
Anonymous said...: Good points, Duke2009mom. I think that is one reason that the state wants to keep this thing quiet for a while. Also, my sense is that since the statute of limitations for defamation runs out within a year, Duke and the State of North Carolina are going to hope for a nice long stall so Duke's liability disappears.

And I agree that the governor was silent when Nifong seemed to be able to bulldoze this thing along, even though it was obvious that the case was built on a lie. Again, politicians -- Easley included -- do not like to be caught on the losing side.; 2/5/07, 1:03 PM
GPrestonian said...: 12:56pm James Conrad:

"i am sorry, i am just not buying the "interim" argument. in a sense, all 3 appointed DAs were interim as none had yet been validated by an election."

That's true, JC, however - I've read ~10 Easley press releases re: appointing DAs (he's appointed ~17 in his tenure as guv).

The announcement re: Nifong's appointment is the only such press release wherein he uses the word 'interim'.

Easley used the word 'interim' to describe Nifong who would have ~1.75 years before the end of his term, but did not use that term when appointing 2 others who were appointed 9 & 10 months after Nifong.

The wording might just be a curiosity, as you suggest, but I find Easley's singular use of the word in Nifong's announcement to be a stong indication that he meant what he said.

BTW. all three were elected to a full 4 years in November.; 2/5/07, 1:11 PM
Anonymous said...: No way is it a curiousity. It definitely supports the idea that Nifong and Easley had an agreement that Nifong would not run.

IF Easley had made this public before the election he would have been accused of trying to influence outcome. Of course nothing says a Democrat can't campaign for a particular Democrat in the primary, but it is pretty unusual.

Those who think Easley should have spoken out sooner are not being realistic. Governors don't get involved in rape cases unless there are extraordinary circumstances. Attorneys General do not get involved in rape cases unless there are extraordinary circumstances. The circunstances are extraordinary, the AG is involved.

Easley has now gone public about his agreement wtih Mike Nifong...and I haven't heard any denials from Mike's camp that Easley is lying.

Certainly he's saying it now because its politically expediant to do and because he's also sending a very clear message to Mike Nifong that the North Carolina Democratic Party has washed its hands of him.; 2/5/07, 1:25 PM
james conrad said...: gprestonian...ok, then if thats the case, why appoint him at all? its obvious that these jobs are controlled by the party machine ( in this case, dems ), who was the gov holding the seat for? surely not freda black. somethings just not right here.; 2/5/07, 1:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Seems like the most reasonable conclusion was that the governor and/or the democratic party did NOT want Freda Black as DA and that's why she was passed over. Why they didn't want her is an interesting question.; 2/5/07, 1:33 PM
james conrad said...: the only thing that would make sense is if the gov apointed nifong as a reward for many yrs service, a little something extra for his retirement package. but if its true that one needs 3 yrs in a pay grade for retirement purposes,and the interim appoint. was for only 1.75 yrs, then that doesnt wash either; 2/5/07, 1:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Governors make appointments for political reasons, I very much doubt that Mike Nifong's retirement package factored into the decision. He might have appointed him so he could go out on a high note, to cap his career as a district attorney.

Still seems to me the simplest reason was that the governor did not want to appoint Freda Black who on the face of it looks more qualified than Mike Nifong.; 2/5/07, 1:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Easley is a lame duck - he cannot run for governor again, but I guess he may want to run for the senate. Hadn't thought about that.

Also, since I see John Hood on television every week I didn't even think of the play on words in the name of this post. But hey, Easley is a Democrat, so if the hood fits...; 2/5/07, 1:42 PM
Anonymous said...: John Hood states the obvious. All points that have been made on this board.

Yet it's great to have Hood's column in print. He holds a lot of clout with the various powers-that-be.

Hood is a brillaint man....if a bit too conservative for me.

Thanks John! But I doubt anyone in the Democratic Party gives a damn. They, after all, are too dependent on the black vote to dispense justice.

Justice must be forced upon them. And it will be.

Debrah; 2/5/07, 1:43 PM
Anonymous said...: TO 1:33PM--

Freda doesn't come across as very smart....although she is, no doubt.

If one of her Democrat buddies is Rufus Edmisten, then she also might suffer from some ethical issues herself.

With all of Nifong's faults, he did graduate from a good law school and his manner of speaking is professional.

Too bad he's also a certified criminal.

Debrah; 2/5/07, 1:49 PM
Anonymous said...: Maybe. But she won the Peterson case, which gave her some national recognition...seems weird to me that he picked Nifong over her, but I don't know anything about her or how she comes off in public. I would think the ADA that won a highly controversial very public nationally discussed murder trial would be the choice over some guy whose been in traffic court for 10 years.; 2/5/07, 1:51 PM
Anonymous said...: TO 1:51PM---

Yes, it would seem so, but no one has the answer as to why she was not appointed instead of Nifong.

Could be that she supported another Democrat instead of Easley when he was running for governor. In politics, it's like walking through a sewer to find reality.

Debrah; 2/5/07, 1:56 PM
Anonymous said...: I wonder if the year anniversary in March will be a "line in the sand" for this case?

If the new DAs do not finish their review of the case, March 14 will make 1 year of the hoax. I don't think the state wants the stigma of over A year to dismiss a hoax.

Over a year will also make a jury think 3 people's lives put on hold for over a year, with no evidence against them, give them more money in a lawsuit.

We also know all the cable shows and news magizines will have 1 year anniversary shows. I do not believe that the powers that be want to hit that 1 year mark.; 2/5/07, 1:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Polanski ays

To Creative Lawyers:

Any chance the governor can be sued?

For not introducing legislation for protecting men from female sociopaths?

Not acting to remove Nifong sooner?

Would a suit against the gov (regardless of its merits) help put pressure on the legislature to introduce a Precious pesticide statute?

Counsel, need some creative suggestions. A lawsuit against the Governor as qua governor would speak volumes about the absurdity of this case.; 2/5/07, 1:59 PM
Anonymous said...: The case has been continued so that there isn't even another hearing until May, so the one year anniverary will come and go with no significance, other than to calendar watchers. And the innocent. Crystal Gail Mangum's latest child will be 4 months old by then. And proud Papa Nifong will be by her side, beaming at what they have wrought.; 2/5/07, 2:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Good point about March 14th, they may dismiss prior to that so there aren't 500 news stories marking the one year of the hoax.

I would have thought folks would be happy that Easley is making public another examples of Mike Nifong's nefarious character. He appears to have gotten appointed to the DA position by lying to the governor about his intentions. Maybe rather than criticize Easley for failing to make this public sooner, we might be happy that he made it public at all and happy that he's obviously not going to protect or help Mike Nifong in any way from here on out.; 2/5/07, 2:05 PM
Anonymous said...: ***Polanski ays

To Creative Lawyers:

Any chance the governor can be sued?

For not introducing legislation for protecting men from female sociopaths?

Not acting to remove Nifong sooner?***

There isn't even the smallest chance in hell of any of these scenarios taking place. Quite ridiculous... were you being serious? "For not introducing legislation to protect men from female sociopaths"? That is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.; 2/5/07, 2:07 PM
Anonymous said...: We all should think of something to do as a collective effort.....drawing all the cable kibitzers.....as the 1 year anniversary arrives.

That would be the most dramatic. To show that justice in NC has been denied for an entire year.

Put lots of pressure on Easley and the Democrats in this state who have sat back and done nothing.

Maybe upset the apple cart and make some friction for their current campaigns.

Debrah; 2/5/07, 2:10 PM
Anonymous said...: "For not introducing legislation to protect men from female sociopaths"? That is the worst idea I've ever heard in my life.

Perhaps you could explain why it is the worst idea you have ever heard in your life ...; 2/5/07, 2:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Easley is full of s***. On Sept. 1, 2006, I sent him the following letter pointing out a way he could have pressured Nifong. This letter was printed on the FODU website and was quoted extensively in an AP article that appeared in over 100 MSM outlets. Easley never even responded to the letter. When questioned by the AP said Easley pointedly did not criticize Nifong to the AP. Easley recent comments are just revisionist history.

September 1, 2006

The Honorable Michael F. Easley
Office of the Governor
20301 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-0301

Re: Duke Case, Pardon for Defendants

Dear Governor Easley,

As a graduate of UNC Law School, a former Maryland Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division and lifelong Democrat, I am writing to request that you conduct an independent investigation of State of North Carolina v. Finnerty, Evans and Seligmann (the Duke case) in order to determine if pardons should be granted to the defendants prior to trial. This investigation would be an alternative to the appointment of a special prosecutor since the North Carolina attorney general has opinioned that a special prosecutor can only be appointed upon Mr. Nifong’s request.

The Duke case is a travesty of justice and an egregious example of prosecutorial misconduct. It defies credulity and the laws of physiology to believe that a brutal gang rape including anal, vaginal and oral penetration occurred without any traces of the defendants’ DNA on Ms. Magnum. As is widely publicized, the only DNA found on Ms. Magnum came from consensual encounter with her boyfriend.

The ultimate resolution of the case of State of Maryland v. Bloodsworth is very relevant to the Duke case and suggests that a pardon is an appropriate disposition. In Bloodsworth the presence of DNA from someone other than the defendant was taken as absolute proof that the defendant was innocent of the rape and murder despite two jury convictions. Mr. Bloodsworth was pardoned by the governor of Maryland because the DNA conclusively established his innocence.
In the Duke case, Mr. Nifong originally took a position as to DNA evidence that was consistent with the conclusion in Bloodsworth – DNA would exonerate the innocent. He abruptly reversed his position the day after defense attorney announced that the DNA did not match any of the lacrosse players by dismissing the significance of DNA results and proceeding with the indictments. Mr. Nifong’s position is contrary to all reason, common sense and equity. At least the wrongful convictions in Bloodsworth were understandable in that the DNA testing did not exist at the time of the convictions and there was other evidence as to Bloodsworth’s culpability, but Mr. Nifong has no such excuses.

Bloodsworth and the Duke case are further distinguishable in that in Bloodsworth there was absolute certainty that the rape and murder were committed since there was a dead mutilated body. In the Duke case there is nothing to cooberate the multiple and conflicting accounts of Ms. Magnum. The prosecution of this case in the absence of the corpus delicti is an abomination.

What should be of particular concern to you as the Governor of North Carolina who appointed Mr. Nifong, is that Mr. Nifong has lost his moral compass despite his claim that he is a “committed advocate for the truth” (Statement to the Press – July 28, 2006). One small example of Mr. Nifong’s over identification with the Duke case and his loss of judgment is his recent petulant e-mail sent to members of the animal control panel who had signed a petition in support of the candidacy of Lewis Cheek. (The News & Observer, “Durham DA may quit animal control panel” August 1, 2006). The fact that Mr. Nifong’s obsession with retaining his job has progressed to such a point that he is reviewing the 10,000 signatures on the Cheek petition and contacting the individuals reflects very poorly on his character.

Although there are many disturbing aspects to this case, there are three things that are especially troublesome and merit some further discussion.

First, is that Mr. Nifong’s used the Duke case to inflame racial tension in order to secure his personal political objectives. It is not a coincidence that Mr. Nifong emphasized the racial aspects of the purported crime during a contested election in which he needed support from the black electorate in order to win. As a lifelong Democrat, I find pandering to racial tension an anathema usually associated with the GOP. It is very ugly tactic regardless of which party employs it. Moreover, it is insulting to the black electorate in that it treats them like a cheap, stupid date that can be manipulated and discarded after the election. This case is damaging the Democratic Party on a state and national level.

Second, Judge Titus’ gag order is repugnant to the First Amendment. A sua sponte order imposing a prior restraint on free speech is unconstitutional and it is particularly suspect in that it did not preclude Mr. Nifong from giving approximately 70 interviews before his primary election but was issued only after the defense was hammering the prosecution in the court of public opinion. The order contributes to the perception that the judiciary is biased in favor of the prosecution.

Third, the arrest of Mr. Elmostafa on a stale, baseless charge by the investigators in the Duke case was nothing other than a blatant attempt at witness intimidation. ADA Cannon’s statement to the court that this case had nothing to do with the rape case was an obvious misrepresentation contrary to the ethical obligation mandating candor toward a tribunal. The fact that the police notes in the Duke case reflect that Mr. Nifong wanted to be personally informed of the arrest belies Ms. Cannon’s assertion. There is plenty of prosecutorial and police misconduct in this case but this is beyond indefensible.

Your power to conduct an investigation pursuant to the pardon power is not dependent on Mr. Nifong’s assent. Since I understand it would be politically unpalatable (think Gerald Ford) I suggest that prior to starting the investigation, you give Mr. Nifong an ultimatum. Either Mr. Nifong agrees to request a special prosecutor or you, as governor, will exercise your pardon powers to conduct an investigation that might result in pardons for the defendants prior to trial. If Mr. Nifong declines to request a special prosecutor, you should publicize that refusal.

Mr. Nifong has repeatedly demonstrated a profound stubbornness, a sanctimonious attitude, a refusal to examine exculpatory evidence, an inability to tolerate criticism and a personal animus to rich Duke students whose “daddies could buy them expensive lawyers” (USA Today, March 30, 2006). The combination of these traits coupled the utter lack of evidence that a crime even occurred, compels your intervention. Three young men’s lives are at stake. The prosecution of this case is unconscionable. You must intervene in order to ensure that someone actually, objectively advocates for the truth the case before further harm is done to the involved individuals, the body politic and the judicial system.

Sincerely yours,

Patricia E. McDonald, Esquire
UNC JD-MRP 1979; 2/5/07, 2:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Go Rudy!

He's filing a statement of candidacy today. The gloves are off.

Debrah; 2/5/07, 2:13 PM
Anonymous said...: The North Carolina Democratic Party has already washed their hands of him. You don't think the bar complaint happened in a vaccuum do you? Or that nobody put pressure on Mike Nifong to recuse himself, do you? Or that Easely didn't absolutely and with a purpose make public the fact that he never intended Nifong to be more than an interum appointment, do you?
Or that both Easley and the AG were fully aware of the bar complaint, what was in it and what the timing would be before it was ever filed, do you?; 2/5/07, 2:13 PM
Anonymous said...: ***Perhaps you could explain why it is the worst idea you have ever heard in your life ... ***

Well, previously a friend of mine had developed a design for a "Jump To Conclusions" mat, with a bunch of different conclusions written on it. You'd ask yourself a question and then jump on the mat.

Before this person's plan to sue an elected official "for failing to draft legislation to protect men from female sociopaths", the Jump to Conclusions mat was the worst idea I've ever heard.

This would never happen and I hope you were kidding.; 2/5/07, 2:14 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, previously a friend of mine had developed a design for a "Jump To Conclusions" mat, with a bunch of different conclusions written on it. You'd ask yourself a question and then jump on the mat.

Before this person's plan to sue an elected official "for failing to draft legislation to protect men from female sociopaths", the Jump to Conclusions mat was the worst idea I've ever heard.

This would never happen and I hope you were kidding.

All you have done is restate your opinion. Are you a moron or what?

I asked for an explanation? You know, point out some unintended consequences, or how babies might die. Something like that.; 2/5/07, 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Maybe because there are already plenty of laws on the books to protect men and women from sociopaths? To wit, Mike Nifong is now charged with breaking several of those laws.; 2/5/07, 2:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Freda's campaign slogan was
"we must not allow the criminals
to run Durham".

Mike has a revolving door policy.

Does this help?; 2/5/07, 2:20 PM
Anonymous said...: ***All you have done is restate your opinion. Are you a moron or what?

I asked for an explanation? You know, point out some unintended consequences, or how babies might die. Something like that.***

My opinion about this is that it cannot, and will not happen. Mike Nifong SHOULD be sued and I think it might actually be possible... but as horrible as a guy as he is, it is extremely, extremely difficult to sue public officials for their actions while serving in public office.

It is about as likely to succeed as a paralyzed person suing George Bush for vetoing that stem cell research bill.; 2/5/07, 2:21 PM
Anonymous said...: 2:18

Corection, Nifong is not charged with any crimes at this point.

He is endanger for losing his law license.

I do agree suing the Gov. is silly. But I would not vote for the Gov.; 2/5/07, 2:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Great letter Patricia MacDonald. Thanks for posting it here. Good to know that Easley had some, um, feedback. ;>)

For not introducing legislation for protecting men from female sociopaths?

Well, a start would be to introduce legislation that protects men from legislators.; 2/5/07, 2:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Hey, I'll take that case... just give me some time to finish my lawsuit agaisnt Donald Rumsfeld by grieving families due to his poor war planning.; 2/5/07, 2:28 PM
Anonymous said...: A dirty little secret of prosecutors and politicians:

It's only corruption if your own guys call you on it and you cannot talk your way out.

These guys are all part of the same cloth. Seriously, given what drives individuals to do either the right or the wrong thing, will any person stand up and be counted? My money is on the status quo being maintained. That is their way of life and people usually go to extremes to protect things like this.; 2/5/07, 2:29 PM
Anonymous said...: Polanski says

2:07 re suing the governor for not protecting men

OK, tough guy, let's have some fun...

Suppose terrorizing black women by accusing them of molesting their children was ONLY punished by society in the form of a "False police report" misdemeanor.

Suppose further that David, Collin, and Reade were black women, and Precious was a white-male false accuser. The truth comes out. The 3 "black women" are innocent and the State of North Carolina's governor watched and waited while the women were prosecuted by a racist, renegade prosecutor. What do you think the NAACP Legal Defense Fund would do? ACLU?
the black community?

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURER GROSS FAILURE TO PROTECT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

That's the argument, tough guy; 2/5/07, 2:30 PM
Anonymous said...: ***CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST THE GOVERNOR AND LEGISLATURER GROSS FAILURE TO PROTECT THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

That's the argument, tough guy***

I think your law books are defective... maybe there was a recall and you can get your money back. Better yet, file the suit on their behalf pro se. You will likely end up being charged with the other side's attorneys' fees, but your case will be dismissed so fast, it will only amount to a few hundred dollars.; 2/5/07, 2:32 PM
Anonymous said...: Suing the governor is not going to happen, what is the point of bringing up this nonsense?

Can't any thread or discussion go on without the need to bring up protecting men from female sociopaths?; 2/5/07, 2:33 PM
Anonymous said...: It's simple.

Easley didn't appoint Freda because she's a woman.; 2/5/07, 2:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Also, your "class action" suit involves only 3 men falsely accused of committing a crime. Granted, I know very little about class action law, but I don't 3 men a "class action" makes.

Any sarcasm in response to these inquiries is well-deserved.; 2/5/07, 2:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Ms. McDonald,

As some of us pointed out on another website, your letter was a thoughtful effort, and it outlined many elements of this case that were known to the public already.

However, as I and some others previously stated, you soil your effort with this little gem:

"As a lifelong Democrat, I find pandering to racial tension an anathema usually associated with the GOP."

Like Mike Nifong, you dear woman, do exactly what you wish to decry.

I too am a lifelong Democrat and I know Liberal Democrats like the back of my hand.....which is why I chose to remove myself from their constant smell of mendacity and incoherent condescension.

Think Joe Biden. LIS!

I prefer not to be capsulized on either side of the aisle.....lest I become a pandering hypocrite as your letter reveals you to be.

Obviously, you have spent little time in places like Atlanta, Washington DC, Detroit, Los Angeles, or even Durham......or you would be given a daily seminar of raw and destructive pandering by the DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

And oh yes.......Mike Easley, John Edwards, and David Price, etc...... keep making this point for me. Amazing that you think your letter plays any better the second time around.

Indeed, pandering is very bad form.

Debrah Correll; 2/5/07, 2:35 PM
Anonymous said...: FDNY Engine Co.

I find it quite humorous that the same people who cry and moan about "ambulance-chasing lawyers" are so gung ho about suing a governor who clearly can't be sued for Nifong's actions, especially on the ridiculous premise that he had a preexisting duty to protect these three young men from crazy women.

Duty, actual harm, actual cause, proximate cause, breach of duty. Not present.; 2/5/07, 2:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Kudos to attorney Patricia McDonald for an exceptionally cogent argument. Anyone who wants to know how to write a letter of appeal that will be a) read, and b) found persuasive, need only use Ms. McDonald's letter as a masterful template of tone, courtesy, and intelligence.

beckett; 2/5/07, 2:48 PM
Anonymous said...: Polanski says

I've never represented myself as a lawyer. Think of this as a Socratic dialogue with possible legal ramifications.

I do know that 1 individual can file a class-action suit. How many other innocent men have been terrorized by the Preciouses of the world?

I believe the argument can be made that men--as a class--were seriously harmed by the governor's and legislature's failure to enact strong legislation to protect its male citizens from vicious calumny.

The problem with the white men on this board is their failure to view themselves as potential victims of a female predator solely because of their gender.

Mark my words. Something akin to what I'm suggesting will go down.; 2/5/07, 2:53 PM
Anonymous said...: The problem with the white men on this board is their failure to view themselves as potential victims of a female predator solely because of their gender.

Mark my words. Something akin to what I'm suggesting will go down.

Even if it doesn't get passed as a law, it will keep those stupid feminists and fellow travellors frothing at the mouth enough that they won't be able to interfere in other areas that impact me.

Ha ha.; 2/5/07, 2:55 PM
Anonymous said...: ***Mark my words. Something akin to what I'm suggesting will go down.***

LOL, I'll go ahead and alert the press about this totally merited lawsuit you are about to plan on behalf of the white men in America.

We will use the horrible actions of Nifong agaisnt these three men to sue the governor on behalf of ALL white men who are POTENTIALLY "victimized" by black women (or, more appropriately, women in general).; 2/5/07, 2:56 PM
Anonymous said...: 2:37

Polanski says

Are you familiar with negligence lawsuits? What I'm proposing could fall under that banner.

Think creatively.; 2/5/07, 2:56 PM
Anonymous said...: ***I believe the argument can be made that men--as a class--were seriously harmed by the governor's and legislature's failure to enact strong legislation to protect its male citizens from vicious calumny.***

Duty, breach of duty, actual harm, actual cause, proximate cause.

Yes, you could make a very, very poor and broad argument that each element above (for a tort suit) is satisfied. However, you will fail torts and will not receive a law degree.; 2/5/07, 2:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Is this thread really going to get taken over by a discussion of suing the governor for negligence by a theoretical class of white men who might be harmed in future by theoretical sociopathic women???; 2/5/07, 2:59 PM
Anonymous said...: Negligence:

Duty, breach of duty, actual harm, actual cause, proximate cause.

Each element must be met. Your lawsuit idea doesn't fit into any of these categories, each of which must be satisfied for a negligence suit. Despite the fact that you can make tremendous leaps in logic to make your argument fulfill each of these categories, anyone who knows the law knows that your idea fails miserably.; 2/5/07, 3:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Native North Carolinian here and I'm nervous.

No surprise to me that the Governor, or any of the NC Democrat Hierarchy, is not overly concerned with the Duke Lacrosse case, nor the Gell Case, nor the Hunt Case, nor...well, you get the picture.

North Carolina Court House Politics:

In the 45 NC Prosecutorial Districts, there are 33 Democrat DA's - 12 Republican DA's.

Of the 100 NC Counties, there are 63 Democrat Sheriffs - 37 Republican Sheriffs.

Therefore:
73% of the DA's are Democrat
63% of the Sheriffs are Democrat

Think the courthouse is overly influenced by the Democrat Party?

So is the Legislature, the Council of State, and Judgeships.

If the Republicans had this overwhelming influence, I'd be just as nervous.; 2/5/07, 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...: --2:30pm---You are obviously correct.; 2/5/07, 3:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Duty: The governor (and the government in general) owes no such duty to protect anyone from anything, let alone "sociopath women". They don't have to have a police or fire department. They don't have to protect you. They do NOT owe you any duty, whatsoever.

Breach of duty: Cannot beach a duty that is not owed.

Actual Cause: I'm sorry counsellor, the ACTUAL cause of your injury is the sociopath woman/women, NOT the governor failing to enact a law to protect you from them.

Actual Harm: I'm sorry counsellor, your lawsuit alleges SPECULATIVE/POTENTIAL injury/harm, NOT ACTUAL harm.

Proximate cause: I won't even get into how miserably your idea fails the "proximate cause" test. I reccomend reading "Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road".; 2/5/07, 3:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Is this thread really going to get taken over by a discussion of suing the governor for negligence by a theoretical class of white men who might be harmed in future by theoretical sociopathic women???

Is that you Amynda? Are you still arguing that any claims that some women make fales rape claims is the same as claiming that all women are evil?; 2/5/07, 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: 2:58

the essence of a tortious negligence suit is the breach of a duty to act with care. A good lawyer could forcefully argue that the governor and the legislature failed in this regard.

Such attorney could also argue that the "proximate" cause of the boys' injuries was the governor's and the legislature's failure to act as a reasonable and prudent person would under similar circumstances.

Sorry, fellas, there might be a good cause of action here.; 2/5/07, 3:05 PM
Anonymous said...: --3:03pm---Looks bad alright. And as Debrah said, you've got all this denial from Democrats that they aren't racists and panderers.
No wonder the lacrosse 3 have gotten no justice in NC.; 2/5/07, 3:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Filing a false police report is already illegal.

Case closed.; 2/5/07, 3:07 PM
Anonymous said...: There is no way in hell that there is a "good cause of action" here. Again, I recognize that a lay person could look at the very broad definitions of these terms (actual, proximate cause, etc.) and make the argument that it works... but I only give that leeway to a lay person before they learn how the law works. No attorney with a brain could see the governor being sued for this case.

Throw in the argument that what happened to these men could be the grounds for a class action suit on behalf of white men generally... and you have the worst idea ever!; 2/5/07, 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Are you still arguing that any claims that some women make fales rape claims is the same as claiming that all women are evil?
---------------------------

No, what I would argue though is that there are several trolls on this board who turn EVERY thread into a discussion of how to protect men from sociopathic women and false rape accusers.

What started as a reasonable thread about what Easley did, didn't do and why has now been hijacked in favor of the brutally stupiid idea of suing the governor over the actions of the DA, which we've already determined were illegal.; 2/5/07, 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...: 3:05

And a 1st year law student would point out that the sate gov and governor did not have access to the case file. Hence they could not reasonably evaulate the case against the 3 Duke players.; 2/5/07, 3:10 PM
Anonymous said...: re Polanski's arguments

I'm not a lawyer. I'm a public relaions expert, and I specialize in politics. Polanski's arguments, regardless of their legal sufficiency, are a PR nightmare for the Governor.

I'd suggest that Duke Moms take Polanski's arguments to the Governor's mansion.

Can you imagine the coverage by MSM?; 2/5/07, 3:11 PM
Michael said...: re: 3:03

That's what you have in MA too. It has resulted in corruption, high taxes and companies looking elsewhere to expand. And of course the Fells Acre Day Care case. Though there were Republican Govs through that. But a MA Republicans are generally pretty liberal.; 2/5/07, 3:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Any 1st year law student would also have learned that the government does NOT have the duty to protect you.; 2/5/07, 3:12 PM
Anonymous said...: No, Polanski's argument about a class action lawsuit on behalf of white men are a nightmare for intelligent people everywhere, not for the governor.; 2/5/07, 3:13 PM
Anonymous said...: Polanski says

That you lawyers stop thinking exclusively with respect to precedent. The media coverage that has already obtained in this travesty, combined with the obvious emotional and legal undercurrents, spells accountability in the law.

I think I'll email Layrance Tribe. See what he thinks.; 2/5/07, 3:19 PM
Anonymous said...: ***The media coverage that has already obtained in this travesty, combined with the obvious emotional and legal undercurrents, spells accountability in the law.***

I disrespectfully dissent. You are clueless.; 2/5/07, 3:21 PM
Anonymous said...: 3:13

Polanski says

Gotta get back to work. I'm not advocating a class action on behalf of white men, I'm advocating a class against men in North Carolina that have been falsely accused by women.

And I don't subscribe to any antifemale agendas. Crystal Gail Mangum was acting as a female individual.; 2/5/07, 3:22 PM
Anonymous said...: No, Polanski's argument about a class action lawsuit on behalf of white men are a nightmare for intelligent people everywhere, not for the governor.

You keep making assertions, but never back them up with any arguments as to why your assertions are correct.; 2/5/07, 3:23 PM
Anonymous said...: erratum

class by, not against

P; 2/5/07, 3:23 PM
Anonymous said...: I am filing a class action suit against you for wasting all of our time.; 2/5/07, 3:26 PM
Anonymous said...: re 3:11's posting

What do you think of the PR executive's suggestion?

Sounds pretty interesting.; 2/5/07, 3:30 PM
Anonymous said...: It is almost as stupid as the suggestion itself.

Reporters have biases, but they are usually not totally ignorant. A bogus lawsuit is not going to get much coverage and the 'threat' of a bogus lawsuit is not going to get much coverage either.; 2/5/07, 3:33 PM
Anonymous said...: What I find most interesting is the hypocrisy. All of a sudden, lawsuits-gone-wild aren't something we attribute to Democrats, it is something we ourselves advocate.

We conservatives should not allow the vicious actions of this prosecutor to change our stance ENTIRELY and create new, frivolous causes of action against elected officials.; 2/5/07, 3:34 PM
Anonymous said...: Duke Mom says...

You lawyers seem to be arguing for the status quo. Do you really believe that misdemeanor false police reports are sufficient punishment for what damage Crystal Gail Mangum has wreaked on the lives of the boys and their loved ones?

Wake up, y'all are asleep at the wheel!; 2/5/07, 3:34 PM
Anonymous said...: I'd suggest that Duke Moms take Polanski's arguments to the Governor's mansion.
--------------------------------

The governor will say "I agree and am on record at being disturbed by Mike Nifong's handling of the case. As you know, the Attorney General is now reviewing the prosecutor's case file and I am completely confident that he will render a fair judgement on the merits of the case or lack thereof." He would add in some b.s. about the presumption of innoence and the need to stick to the facts, not try cases in the media.

And that would be the end of it. I don't know what anyone wants the governor to do here. The best thing that could happen has happened, Mike Nifong is off the case and its only a matter of time before the AG drops it.; 2/5/07, 3:36 PM
Anonymous said...: ***You lawyers seem to be arguing for the status quo. Do you really believe that misdemeanor false police reports are sufficient punishment for what damage Crystal Gail Mangum has wreaked on the lives of the boys and their loved ones?***

The legislature is where laws are made. The executive is charged with the enforcement thereof. The judiciary's job is to interpret those laws. Even if a law were to be made today proscribing this woman's conduct and punishing worse than a misdemeanor charge, it would not apply to her actions retroactively.

But sure, insofar as you argue that we should support harsher penalties for clearly false police reports, I will sign your Petition to your State legislature!!!; 2/5/07, 3:37 PM
Anonymous said...: 3:34pm

You're right. The parasitic plaintiff's bar is housed squarely inside the Democrat tent.; 2/5/07, 3:38 PM
Anonymous said...: To Duke Mom,

I agree with you. Polanski is a provocative bastard, he knows nothing about the law, but he's brilliant at concocting arguments to advance his cause. In this matter, Polanski wants the Legislature to enact felony sex-crime legislation for false accusers.

I happen to think his suggestion is nothing less than brilliant.; 2/5/07, 3:39 PM
Anonymous said...: ***You're right. The parasitic plaintiff's bar is housed squarely inside the Democrat tent.***

Or so I thought before reading this largely conservative blog, and the widespread support for the judiciary canning precedent and creating an entirely new cause of action against governors and like elected officials for failure to stop ornery women from making false allegations against men or whatever nonsense was being spewed here.; 2/5/07, 3:40 PM
Anonymous said...: ***In this matter, Polanski wants the Legislature to enact felony sex-crime legislation for false accusers.***

Or, you know, to have Judges create/recognize new causes of action against public officials, particularly on behalf of white men. Though I do believe this ridiculous precedent, if it were to come into existence, would be used far more often by racial, religious and ethnic minorities who find themselves in these situations more often than the white men the lawsuit would presumably have been designed to protect.

Ridiculous.; 2/5/07, 3:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Up at Pandagon: Lying and dodging accountability is the Way of Amanda

Ok, OK, I changed it. It actually accuses War Apologists of lying and dodging accountability. How cute.; 2/5/07, 4:20 PM
Anonymous said...: The real solution to this, in the future, would be a law entitling defendents to a probable cause hearing.

Nifong by passed the court by using the grand jury.; 2/5/07, 4:21 PM
Anonymous said...: A lawsuit filed pursuant to 42 USC Section 1983 against Nifong, City of Durham, Himan, Gottlieb, etc., is going to keep everybody busy and provides the best avenue for redress for the LAX players. A class action suit against the gov will not withstand a motion to dismiss b/c it fails to state a recognized cause of action.

Patsy McDonald; 2/5/07, 4:23 PM
Anonymous said...: The sad fact is that Nifong is still the DA! I am in Senator Marc Basnight's district, and I just sent him a letter urging him to take action to change some of the archaic laws in our state. I am especially concerned with grand juries not keeping recorded transcripts of proceedings. For God's sake, that means Nifong probably told the GJ that the "Duke 3" were guilty of every crime in history from the Lindbergh kidnapping to Judge Crater's disappearance! But seriously, that situation has to change; I urge all NC voters to drop a line to Senator Basnight (President Pro Tem) and build a small fire under him.
Outerbanx Phantom; 2/5/07, 4:37 PM
Anonymous said...: Polanski says:

WHAT THE LAW SAYS ABOUT THE NATURE OF FALSE ACCUSATIONS: A PHILOSOPHICAL INQUIRY

And I mean any false accusation that could land an innocent in jail for 40 years--rape, child abuse, elder abuse

The law is supposed to recognize the damage a criminal exacts from a victim. Murderers are severely punished because society recognizes the fact that the worst possible thing has befallen the victim: loss of life. with rarp: being terrorized and physically and psychologically violated.

Yet the people do not speak with respect to rape by accusation--and that's exactly what Crystal Gail Mangum accomplished. Let's assume for a moment that Crystal Gail Mangum was "sucessful" in her little ruse, and Collin, Reade, and David were sent to prison for 40 years. 40 years hence, after each has been abused and raped in prison, the truth is finally revealed. WHAT DO YOU DO TO PRECIOUS THEN?

Any legislation that punishes false accusers must assume, strictly from a punishment standpoint, that the accuser was successful in the INTENT of the false allegation--a long prison sentence for the falsely accused.

4:21--yes, a probable cause hearing is a great suggestion, but it does nothing to dissuade the predator from making the false allegation in the first place

4:23: re "not stating a recognizable cause of action"--I'd have to investigate whether this subject has been "discussed" by the Governor or the Legislature. Still, I'd argue that the negligence of not fully protecting the constitutional rights of the accused is a legitimate cause of action. This is not important--what's important is for the people of North Carolina to adequately punish false accusers.

4:37--yes, by all means, there should be transcripts of all grand jury testimony; 2/5/07, 5:06 PM
Anonymous said...: ***A lawsuit filed pursuant to 42 USC Section 1983 against Nifong, City of Durham, Himan, Gottlieb, etc., is going to keep everybody busy and provides the best avenue for redress for the LAX players. A class action suit against the gov will not withstand a motion to dismiss b/c it fails to state a recognized cause of action.

Patsy McDonald***

Agreed re: 1983 being the best/only route through which the players can sue. And, so far as 1983 claims go, it is very, very difficult to win one of these suckers. Remember, as innocent as these boys appear, in the absense of the woman admitting it was a fabrication (which is already essentially a foregone conclusion), I believe the boys would have to go ahead and prove their innocence to win the 1983 claim... otherwise, the prosecutor was arguable saying factually-correct things about the boys, but just was unable to prosecute them.

Look, for all the smugness I've been emanating... sure it would be great if the boys could sue those who wronged them. In reality, it likely ain't going to succeed. Plus, I do believe blatant hypocrisy is being demonstrated by those who always decry "slip and fall lawyers" and such. Come on, the government is going to have to pay to defend these suits, those costs are going to be passed on to the taxpayers, etc., etc.; 2/5/07, 5:08 PM
Anonymous said...: They can sue the City of Durham and they can sue the complainant in civil court. These two entities are directly responsible for what has happened, the complainant by making a demonstrably false claim and the City of Durham in the person of Mike Nifong by failing to turn over exculpatory evidence.

There is really no need to add the governor or the state legislature into the mix, unless of course one has an agenda beyond this case.; 2/5/07, 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...: OBX Phantom - good Judge Crater reference.

I don't think anyone has posted any useful information on why Freda Black was not appointed. Her sex is probably not the reason - democrats love to appoint women and then brag about it.

The rumors about her private life are not anything I have heard outside of this blog. There must be someone here in Durham who understands what went on, but given the thin skinned nature of people like Easley it could have been a slight years ago that was not forgotten. As someone here wrote, it's all local politics when it comes to appointments like this. The ol' boy network is making sure that we get the best possible DAs that money can buy.

Dukemom - good spelling of "y'all" - most folks get that wrong. But if you truly are the parent of a Duke student, I have to ask why? I would no more support that school than I would contribute to any other Marxist organization. Be it the N&O, the democrat party, the UAW, or NYU. Think about what that school under the so-called leadership of Brodhead is doing to this town. And what this town is doing to that school.; 2/5/07, 5:23 PM
Anonymous said...: A section 1983 would not work. Nifong and the other players, while perhaps without absolute immunity, still have qualified immunity. To pierce that level of immunity, one would have to show that a reasonable person in their position should have known that they were violating the victims' constitutional rights.
To which the defendents have an ironclad defense:" Your Honor, based on precedent, how the hell were we supposed to know that in North Carolina it is a crime to violate someone's constitutional rights?"; 2/5/07, 5:31 PM
Anonymous said...: To 5:08 p.m. - You would be surprised at how often Section 1983 are successful. Granted individual prisoner's suits usually do not do well, but for "clean" (i.e. innocent people) plaintiffs an award of damages is not uncommon. Here in MD, students that were arrested and held improperly in Ocean City won substantial damages. In NYC, in a case of false rape, the plaintiff successfully prevailed on won large damages based on prosecutorial misconduct (extra judicial statements ) etc. The plaintiff has to prevail in the underlying criminal case (in the NY case all charges were dismissed) but that resolution establishes an element of the Section 1983.

I used to defend Section 1983 prisoner suits and let me assure you, they seriously worry government officials.

Patsy McDonald, Esquire; 2/5/07, 5:39 PM
Gary Packwood said...: 5:23 PM

I think we support Duke University first of all because ...we can. This is not a Marxist state so we can support whoever we choose.

I support Duke because I can remember all the way back to graduate school the first time when we were told that if we truly want to understand applied economics or the development of children... we should read the work that comes out of the Duke medical and business schools.

And, I was going to schol in OHIO!

Duke is truly a world class university.; 2/5/07, 5:39 PM
james conrad said...: cedarford....... i am not twisting anything, what i am saying here is the gov is not being straight about the interim agreement, if there was one. he's not answered any questions from reporters on this matter. the thing is, the gov. has dropped the ball here and trying to divert attention away by this "interim" thing is just pathetic, in my view; 2/5/07, 5:42 PM
Anonymous said...: How can the governor drop a ball that he injected into the debate? He could have kept his mouth shut and said nothing about the circumstances of appointing Nifong. He could have said he's disappointed in how Mike Nifong has handled the case. I cannot see any reason why the gov. would say something so specific unless it was true.; 2/5/07, 5:49 PM
Anonymous said...: It seems to me that that the "rogue" District Attorney has been replaced by the "rogue" State of North Carolina in persecuting
3 young men with no corroborating evidence and the ever changing story of a solitary accusation.; 2/5/07, 5:50 PM
Anonymous said...: What makes you think the AG is going to continue with the case and not dismiss it?; 2/5/07, 5:53 PM
james conrad said...: re 5.49 ...well, the first thing i question is, the venue, a lecture in new york? gee wiz, doesnt he owe the citizens of nc an explanation in a press conference for instance where local reporters can question him?; 2/5/07, 5:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Polanski says

Cedarford, my definitive post on this matter is the philosophical inquiry post, and I don't think Duke Mom was arguing for retroactive justice. She was writing about how to protect future Collins, etc; 2/5/07, 5:56 PM
Anonymous said...: I agree it was a strange situation for him to make this revelation, that I can't account for. He might have done it for a strategic reason, so he wouldn't be criticized for publicly calling him out...in an off the cuff comment to an out of state audience it's more informal, less confrontational but it still gets the word out there publicly. It is different than calling a press conference, though. It's weird no doubt, but I think he deserves credit for saying it no matter where he said it or even why he said it. The fact that he said it all speaks volumes as to Mike Nifong's arrogance and character, I have no reason to doubt the governor's word and I know for a fact that Mike Nifong is a liar and a disassembler. I now know Mike Nifong is such an arrogant, liar and disassembler that he misled the man who appointed him to his position, which he did not deserve on merit and would never have won in an election without the help of the interim appointment and his false rape case to enrage the black community.; 2/5/07, 5:58 PM
Anonymous said...: Durham courthouse gossip
would shock you. If that
is possible after all this-

Let's just say Freda would
be a little more aggressive
in keeping Durham's crooks
in jail. Mike's constituency
is the crooks and their
families; 2/5/07, 6:00 PM
Anonymous said...: I don't know what the relationship is between the governor and the attorney general, sometimes they are close and sometimes they are competitive. But Mike Nifong now has NO cover from any source other than the black community.

The governor, all the NC district attorneys, the NC bar and to a lesser extent Duke have publicly criticized him, thrown him under the proverbial bus.

He's got Cash Michaels, a few black ministers and officials in Durham and Wendy Murphy. That is not a team that is going to win any games.; 2/5/07, 6:02 PM
Anonymous said...: 6:00

That doesn't make much sense to me. My understanding of Durham crime is that it's mostly street crime and gangs, not some kind of mobbed up hierarchy that is able to bribe public officials for protection.

I don't believe even the Durham black community, no matter how much they despise white people, wants to live in fear of murder, rape and robbery by gangs of young thugs. Although its true that black on white crime is higher than the reverse, blacks still kill, rape and rob each other at very high numbers. Normal people, even racists, don't want to live among violent criminals.

Unless I miss your point, which seems to be that Mike Nifong was soft on Durham crime and Freda wasn't so that's why he got elected.; 2/5/07, 6:05 PM
Anonymous said...: To Patsy McDonald, Esquire

5:39 PM

I am glad to see you contributing on this blog and am heartened by your comments regarding a Section 1983. It seems to me that not only do we have misconduct by Nifong, but also the police and City of Durham.

I'm interested in your viewpoint about something else. A few years ago, a graduate student accused Duke English Prof. Houston Baker -- yes, that Houston Baker -- of sexual assault while the two of them were at a conference in New York. From what I understand, Karla Holloway, who at that time was a dean -- yes, that Karla Holloway -- flew to NYC to investigate.

There were no hearings, no meetings, nothing public. The incident quickly was hushed up and Duke went very quiet about it.

Given the very out-front role that both Baker and Holloway have had in the Duke affair, with both of them openly calling the lacrosse players rapists and the like, does their action in the Baker sexual assault case place Duke in any special jeopardy? If you were a lawyer representing the players, would this incident have any bearing on how you would approach the case?

I'd be interested to know what others thought, too.; 2/5/07, 6:07 PM
Anonymous said...: I will be interested to know what others think as well...will their hatred of the Group of 88 trump their belief in the false rape epidemic. What is more convenient to believe, that Houston Baker might be a rapist who got away with it because he's a well known professor at an elite school, or was then, and that universities have a vested interest in keeping scandals, especially rape related scandals to a minimum. Or, will they rather believe that Baker was the victim of a false allegation by a lying accuser, and that he and Holloway, knowing that these false accusers are everywhere should have come forward and told of his terrible false allegation situation and come out hard on the side of presumption of innocence.; 2/5/07, 6:12 PM
Anonymous said...: 5:06 PM
"Any legislation that punishes false accusers must assume, strictly from a punishment standpoint, that the accuser was successful in the INTENT of the false allegation--a long prison sentence for the falsely accused."

OK Polanksi, yer starting to make real good sense here.; 2/5/07, 6:19 PM
Anonymous said...: And for something completely different, a thread about Easley's statement on Mike Nifong's appointment becomes a thread about punishing false rape accusers.; 2/5/07, 6:24 PM
Anonymous said...: 6:05

Until you have been here and lived here and know the people, don't assume that the locals don't want to live amongst murder and mayhem. They do. The locals take pride in producing future thugs. It is a badge of honor and having a child get into the criminal justice system is just another rite of passage. In a society that has no structure and no rituals, you make them from what you have at hand.

Also note that the police force is corrupt and mismanaged, and it sells drugs and guns to the perps, and it becomes obvious that they have nothing to gain from getting the criminals off the street. Officers are charged with gun and drug sales regularly here.

Overlay that with a DAs office that will not fight crime, a democrat power structure that benefits from an ever growing underclass, and you can see why this town is as it is. Money and power flow from the criminal underclass. It is not in their best interest to resolve these problems.; 2/5/07, 6:24 PM
Anonymous said...: I hate to burst your bubble, guys, but if juries won't now convict men on rape charges when the alleged victim gets on the stand and tearfully recounts her rape...do you really believe any jury is going to listen to the woman get on the stand and tearfully recall her alleged rape and then put her in prison if there is ANY CHANCE that she might be telling the truth about her rape?

You are living in a fantasy world if you think what you desire will ever come to pass.; 2/5/07, 6:29 PM
Anonymous said...: It amazes me that thoughtful people of different points of view encourage RP/Polanski/Jim Clyne's daily trolling and flaming the threads of this site by responding to him. Immediately following this post, he will post as an anonymous poster saying how much he enjoys his own posts.; 2/5/07, 6:30 PM
Anonymous said...: 6:24 called it.

Mix in an aspiring population of professional victims and a society unwilling to see what is going on, with overall trends in demographics and the future is disconcerting. And, there's a whole infrastructure of enablers working to bring about "positive" change...; 2/5/07, 6:36 PM
Anonymous said...: 6:24

You make Durham sound like a third world banana republic, it's hard to believe it could be that corrupt.

I guess if the underclass keeps voting for you then it can help you stay in power, but blacks don't get out the vote like they used to...unless they have a white on black gang rape to get them charged up....

There are police on the take probably in almost every city in the country, vice cops stealing and selling guns and drugs and the like, but I just have a hard time visualizing a community that with purpose would elect the DA that they know will be soft on crime or that even a poor black community could be so dysfunctional as you describe that virtually no one wishes anything but for a life of crime.; 2/5/07, 6:37 PM
Anonymous said...: JLS says....

I think I have figured out what Easley might have been up to. This is kind of complicated but here goes:

1. The odds were that Durham would soon elect a black DA maybe at the 2006 primary.

2. Easley could have been under pressure from various black and white factions to appoint a DA of their choice.

3. Easley did not want to pick sides and pick the next Durham DA.

4. So he sounded out Hardin and Stephens on who would make a good placeholder. They naturally responded that dumb ole Mike Nifong would be prefect to keep the seat warm.

This explains why Easley was at pains to call Nifong interim. He was saying to all concerned, the DA's office is open. It is up to you and your candidate to win it. Let the people of Durham decide. He was also saying I am not deciding that the next and into the future DA will be a white guy. He was saying let the people of Durham decide whether or not the next Durham DA is black or white and who it would be.; 2/5/07, 6:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Patsy, technically one of the boys was on an ACOD when these allegations arose. He was part of the criminal justice system already. Not using the kid's name because I think he's innocent of this crime he is charged with, and I'm sick of seeing his name everywhere because I think its horrible.; 2/5/07, 6:44 PM
Anonymous said...: It's a good theory, but is it based on any evidence that Durham was agitating for a black DA?; 2/5/07, 6:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Polanski, that idea about making it easier to sue accusers is ridiculous. The fact that a defendant is found not guilty in the criminal trial CANNOT be used collaterally in a civil trial based upon the same facts, because the standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, in a civil case "a preponderance of the evidence". A criminal case where a defendant is found "not guilty" might mean innocence, or it might mean the prosecution failed in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

And 1983 claims are much more difficult than Patsy is making them out to be, even if they "scare" some politicians.

Bottom line is that you don't go and dramatically rewrite laws because the system failed in one case. This system failed these boys miserably because the person was defective, not necessarily the system. Remember the whole "guns don't kill people, people kill people" thing?

Plus, for all the race-baiters out here, imagine a situation in which YOU are the victim of a crime and someone else is found not guilty (like OJ). OJ goes ahead and sues the Goldmans under your new theory where someone found not guilty can turn around and sue at will.

Y'all are knee-jerk, reactionary folks who are entitled to their opinion, but who those who understand the law are thankful aren't making policy based on the way the wind is blowing today.; 2/5/07, 6:54 PM
Anonymous said...: 6:37

As I say, I live here, teach here, and experience the depravity that is Durham on a daily basis. Most 3rd world countries are not as corrupt as this town is. Some people overseas aspire to living a decent life. People here don't - they want to steal from those who do, rob, rape, shoot, burn and otherwise destroy, without contributing anything positive or constructive to the society in which they find themselves.

I could tell stories, but won't - this is not the place. Let me just say that Crystal Gail Mangum, professional prostitute, is not an isolated case. She is abetted by the "system", supported by the men who pay to have sex with her, and by and large, is a microcosm of the economy here in Durham.

A bleeding heart is a noble thing, but spend time here in Durham and it's what you'll get along with a sucking chest wound.; 2/5/07, 6:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, I guess that at least answers the question of why Duke students don't leave the campus.; 2/5/07, 6:58 PM
Anonymous said...: JLS 6:40 -

A DA doesn't get elected at a primary.; 2/5/07, 7:01 PM
Anonymous said...: A DA doesn't get elected at a primary.
He does if he's a democrat in Durham.; 2/5/07, 7:07 PM
Anonymous said...: TO 6:55PM---

ROTFLM-T's-O !!!

Debrah; 2/5/07, 7:11 PM
Anonymous said...: In Durham the primary
is the ELECTION !!!

Thanks for the back-up
fellow Durhamites--
we may now be getting
through to Brooklyn.; 2/5/07, 7:17 PM
Anonymous said...: Here's an interesting little ditty from Wikipedia about Durham politics. Since we haven't gotten anything like this anecdotal evidence from posters on this board, I thought it might be helpful to those who don't experience Durham day-to-day:

"In 2005, racial tensions flared over the school board for the Durham Public School.[2] When a black principal at a local middle school was accused of unfairly targeting black students for punishments, local parents and leaders in the black community approached the school board to request the principal be punished. When the school board initially voted not to punish the principal, the group of petitioners and others began to become vocal about the issue of the racial divide of the school board which had a one seat white majority. When one member of the school board visited the school with one of the concerned parents, they were removed from the school by the police for interrupting the school day and ordered not to return. Over the next several months, the school board meetings were marred by shouted insults, including racial epithets, from the public forum as well as between members. In an attempt to control the presentation of issues, the Superintendent attempted to institute new rules for discussions at school board meetings, but this only caused more strife. Tied into this was a proposal to change the way the Durham County School Board is elected, from a district-based system to at-large elections, resulted in an adversarial relationship between board members and primarily black parents.[3] The proposal was seen as potentially reducing African-American representation, although Durham frequently elects African-Americans in at-large races such as mayor and County Commissioner."

Yeeeeehaaaahhhhh! Poke that bull!; 2/5/07, 7:35 PM
Anonymous said...: This is no exaggeration. Durham really is like a third world banana republic. Just look at the mayor's response to this case.
He's an idiot.; 2/5/07, 7:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Patsy McDonald, I cannot believe that you said this:

Here in MD, students that were arrested and held improperly in Ocean City won substantial damages. In NYC, in a case of false rape, the plaintiff successfully prevailed on won large damages based on prosecutorial misconduct (extra judicial statements ) etc.

Women do not lie about rape!; 2/5/07, 7:47 PM
Anonymous said...: As I have said before, to classify the Honorable Bill Bell as an idiot is to slander others.

Other who, I will not say - don't want this post to go the way of previous Freda Black posts - into the bit bucket.

Hizzoner does drive a nice Jaguar, which, I am sure, was obtained legally. With clean money. Money so clean that even Hussein Obama wouldn't blanch at the sight of it.; 2/5/07, 7:47 PM
Anonymous said...: Well, let me ask a racist question then. If Durham is as bad as it's made out to be, why would any non African Americans live in Durham at all? Why not move to Chapel Hill or Raleigh?; 2/5/07, 7:47 PM
Anonymous said...: me thinks Debrah is proud of her T's; 2/5/07, 8:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Polanski says

6:30--How many times must you accuse me of being a self-serving troll? I type and talk on the phone. Have no time for the nonsense you accuse me of. What's your problem, bud?

Cedarford's 6:22 post should be published. Brilliant.

6:54--I want false accusers criminally investigted, and I believe, eg, that if CGM were so investigated, she's be indicted and convicted by a non-Durham jury.

thanks, 3:37 about signing a petition

3:43 you did not make your point re the reasons we don't need new legislation for false accusers

Bill Anderson--good point re the G88 not pursuing H Baker, 1 of their own. This is devastating re the G88's credibility, and if the 3 families are able to sue the G88, I think it will be damning; 2/5/07, 8:19 PM
Anonymous said...: 8:11 -

Nah,

She's always laughin' them off!; 2/5/07, 8:28 PM
Anonymous said...: 6:22PM (2) A misdemeanor if the accusation was made then retracted as false before charges are filed.

IMHO, it should not be possible for prosecutors to get an indictment without an affidavit (or other sworn testimony) relating personal knowledge of the affiant sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

Applied to the extant case, nobody the prosecutor has put forth other than Precious has alluded to any personal knowledge sufficient to establish even a prima facie case of any criminal act by the defendants. So if Precious hasn't gone under oath, there's no way the requirement's been met.

I would also require that search warrants likewise be backed by affidavits relating personal knowledge of the affiant sufficient to establish probable cause. I know that many judges don't seem to require that, but it isn't required the Fourth Amendment's "oath or affirmation" clause would seem pretty meaningless.

If a prosecutor's witness isn't willing to file an affidavit, how can there even be a case?; 2/5/07, 8:36 PM
Anonymous said...: 8:36

Well said. Can't respond because I know less than nothing about the law.

Polanski; 2/5/07, 8:54 PM
Gary Packwood said...: Poor Durham

The next time I am sitting in a 90 minute traffic jam here in Houston in 95o+ temperatures with 75% humidity...I will take the time to thank the Lord that at least... I am not living in Durham.; 2/5/07, 9:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Has anyone noticed that every American city whose elected officials and politicos are mostly black have extremely high taxes, lots of poverty and rundown housing, shoddy infrastructure and municipal services, and corruption that is accepted as the norm?
Just check out American cities. Then check out the demographics.; 2/5/07, 9:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Carolyn says:

Bill Anderson brought up the question as to whether Professor Houston Baker's sexual assault a few years ago of a female student in New York - and Professor Holloway's instant flight to NYC to hush things up - could place Duke in special jeopardy when they're sued in court for the Duke rape slander?

Hell, yes! By their actions in NYC years earlier, Baker and Holloway have just cut the ground from under Duke's feet. As any lawyer will inform, the basis of proving defamation in court rests on proving 'reasonable knowledge' - i.e., that the guilty person committing the crime HAD to have reasonably known beforehand the seriousness of what he/she was accusing the Duke team of.

Baker and Holloway's actions in NYC against that young woman prove prior 'knowledge' of the seriousness of sexual assault. Thus, neither can now claim ignorance of the seriousness of what they both did to the Duke lacrosse players.

Indeed, Baker and Holloway's prior knowledge satisfies another legal requirement of proving defamation - 'malice aforethought'.

That's bad jeopardy, my friends. And we're not talking the TV show.

My two cents.; 2/5/07, 9:25 PM
Anonymous said...: "Has anyone noticed that . . . "
9:09 PM

What I have noticed is that stupidity and dirtbag-itude are equally opportunity afflictions. I've got people in my family that are too close to the CGMs of our species.

But, I only have to answer for myself. Making sweeping generalizations is rude, not to mention impertinent. Please leave that narrow-mindedness to the 88.

SAVANT; 2/5/07, 9:32 PM
The partisan moderate said...: I am not sure why you did not post this sooner. I was at the event and I had commented on the day of the remarks on this blog and one other (you can google partisan moderate, Duke or go here durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/01/coleman-neff-panel.html) to note these remarks. The Governor went far further than the remarks that have so far become public and called Nifong his worst appointment ever.

Hopefully the whole audio will come out at some point.; 2/5/07, 9:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Why do white people live
in Durham? Go to North-
gate Mall and see whose
left. The smart ones with
resources have been getting
out of the county for the
last 20 years. Person
County to the north is
a good move. There are
always new suckers lured
by the cheaper housing,
but they regret it after they
find out how bad the schools
are. The Latinos are nearly
20% of the city now. Its
will be South Central LA
in a decade, already is in
some sections. No, you
really have to love Duke
to stick around- or love
the joys of multi-culturalism.
Mayor Bell, his sidekick
Baker and the crew are
sending the place down
the toilet. There own private
fiefdom- or thiefdom.
Send in the FEDS, please!; 2/5/07, 9:53 PM
Anonymous said...: Why do white people live
in Durham? Go to North-
gate Mall and see whose
left. The smart ones with
resources have been getting
out of the county for the
last 20 years. Person
County to the north is
a good move. There are
always new suckers lured
by the cheaper housing,
but they regret it after they
find out how bad the schools
are. The Latinos are nearly
20% of the city now. It
will be South Central LA
in a decade, already is in
some sections. No, you
really have to love Duke
to stick around- or love
the joys of multi-culturalism.
Mayor Bell, his sidekick
Baker and the crew are
sending the place down
the toilet. Their own private
fiefdom- or thiefdom.
Send in the FEDS, please!; 2/5/07, 9:55 PM
Anonymous said...: "Has anyone noticed that . . . "
9:09 PM

What I have noticed is that stupidity and dirtbag-itude are equally opportunity afflictions. I've got people in my family that are too close to the CGMs of our species.

But, I only have to answer for myself. Making sweeping generalizations is rude, not to mention impertinent. Please leave that narrow-mindedness to the 88.

SAVANT
-------------------------

You're probably right about pre-judging and all the like ... still, I can be a bit mad about what my family went through over the decades in Detroit, until we finally moved out some 30+ years ago now. Something wasn't right about what happened to our old neighborhood and our very house there. I guess I'll leave it at that.; 2/5/07, 10:07 PM
Anonymous said...: Baker is the king of Duncetown - it is shocking to watch him lie about why he cheated on the federal water testing standards.

For those of you not from here, one of the methods this city uses to control its population is to reduce the IQ (for those reader who believe in such things) of the populace by allowing illegal levels of lead to remain in the drinking water. The city flat out lies about the lead levels, and the consequences? None - the citizens have truly been dumbed down so far that they don't even know what is going on.

South Central without Palm Trees.; 2/5/07, 10:20 PM
Anonymous said...: ****** "I've got people in my family that are too close to the CGMs of our species." ******

Well I wouldn't broadcast it if I were you. They don't call relatives relations for nothing.
Shut the f*** up!; 2/5/07, 11:18 PM
Anonymous said...: Isn't Easley opening himself up for a charge of violating the public trust? It seems clear he appointed Nifong to the DA post in Durham despite not believing his qualifications merited the position, hence his "agreement not to run" which Easley did not request from the other DA appointments he made. Given Nifong's approaching retirement, it sounds to me like the Governor appointed an unfit individual to be DA in Durham county for a short period of time so that this person could collect a higher pension in retirement. I am a North Carolina taxpayer. I feel like Easley violated my trust with the state - he was sending some of my tax dollars out the window to pay a retired incompetent lawyer a higher benefit, and that decision led to a monumental violation of civil rights and due process for three individuals.

So basically Easley took my money and PAID - and was setting me up to continue paying for many years - for Nifong to make a mockery of Duke, Durham, North Carolina and the system of justice.

Looks and feels like a breach of trust to me. Thanks, Gov.; 2/6/07, 1:52 AM

Durham-in-Wonderland

Monday, February 05, 2007

Hood on Easley

145 comments:

Blog Awards

About Me

DIW in the News

Blog Archive

Book

Comments Policy

Links

Motions and Documents

Source Notes