Friday, April 13, 2007


Williamson: Conferred with the other DHC hearing committee members--denied motion to dismiss.

(1) Requires consideration of matters outside the complaint;

(2) Not convinced that the law requires for a violation of 3.8(d), the Bar has to show a violation of either the Constitution or a statute, though defendant can raise this again if it wants to do so.

Will issue written order shortly.


Anonymous said...

Good. Next!

Chicago said...

Can someone explain that for us non-legal folks? I assume it means the judge is saying "You can prove that point in the trial, but it is not flying here."

GS said...

I liked the use of the word "scary" by the woman bar committee member in describing not turning over evidence if no trial occurs. innocent people might plea bargain not knowing that exculpatory evidence exists.

When they use words like scary, Nifong is dead.

Anonymous said...

Actually, my favorite was 'a noncharitable person' might think if you wanted to hide exculpatory DNA evidence you would do a data dump...

This hearing and the demeanor of the bar lawyers convinces me that he is losing his license for sure.

Anonymous said...

from a non-lawyer /retired professor: Nice to see that Nifong has to spend his own hard cash for his 2 lawyers to argue his motion before the panel today.

Gary Packwood said...

Chicago said 5:46

Can someone explain that for us non-legal folks?
I agree. Help please.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

In dimissal hearing everything the state or in this case the bar alledges is taken as true. The defendant is arguing that even if every thing the bar said is true it does not rise to an ethics violation.

This is a high threshold and naturally failed. In the trial defendant Nifong will get to argue that what the state bar alledged is not true or not true in some of the counts. He will again lose of course, but his burden will be lower.

Anonymous said...

As one of 88 people that signed an advertisement opposing racism, sexism, and sexual violence at Duke, I would like to share with you one of the less inflammatory e-mails that I received:

here was Dreyfus when a whole nation believed a man guilty due to his ethnicity and religion. And now there is you, the 88 who believed three boys guilty due to their race. You profiled them just as Dreyfus was profiled. You used your power to destroy people's lives and careers and whip up hate on your campus.

Then you penned a duplicitous second open letter complaining that your comments were misinterpreted, basically a letter feeling sorry for yourselves after your rash decision to condemn people without a trial in your first advertisement. Imagine the power you have to take out your ads and accuse people, when they have no similar power. That is the power of the state, the power of fascism.

For 395 days you convicted three of your students without any evidence, you convicted them in your minds and you used the crowd, the bullying pulpit of the press to convict them. You obviously never read the constitution of your country, the U.S.A, that says people are innocent until proven guilty.

You accused them of wealth and privilege but you are wealthy and privileged. Your lynching of these players has all the marks of bullying and fascism. When 88 Professors can gang up on three men, and indict them without proof, and call them racist, that is when one knows which side to stand on. You are not the judge and jury but had you been these kids would have been shipped off to the Gulag the way your intellectual ancestors shipped millions of Jews to their deaths without a trial, because that is your mentality. You are all critics of 'mass culture' but it is the mass culture of your hate and intolerance that caused you to write what you pretended to be a 'critical' and 'heroic' letter against the Duke Lacrosse team and these players(Reade Seligman, David Evans and Collin Finnerty). It is you who controlled mass culture and it is you who allied yourselves with the state and its coercive police to go after the weak.

Your hatred was directed only due to your racist view of the world, had the players been black and the stripper white, there would be no outcry, because you are bullies, you are the kind of person who destroys the lives of others using your power as academics and loud-mouths.

I hope to god that you are all one day accused of a crime you did not commit and that you are labeled 'racist' and that you are assaulted in the media and by the state and by the police and judged and convicted by the people with no evidence.

Surely you will call me 'racist' because that is the word you apply to everyone who does not agree with you. Just as in Stalinist Russia those who fought for freedom were called 'terrorists' and those who were dissenters were called 'wreckers', your NewSpeak of 'racist' as an allegation for everything that you disagree with. But it is you who is the racist and the fascist.

Just this week 3 University of Minnesota Football Players were Accused of Sexual Assault. Of course there will be no 'concerned professors' in that case. There will be no protests and no activism and no 88 professors condemning the accused and interviewing students and taking out adds. Why? Because the accused players are 'black' and the victim is a 'white' woman.

You 'professors' should all be ashamed of yourselves. You are no better than Nazi thugs. You are the Mubarek, the Mugabe and the Stalin. You should all be penning letters asking those three students you convicted a year ago for forgiveness. But you will not because throughout history people like you have condemned the weak, people like you were the ones who stood by when the Nazis emptied the Jewish towns of the Ukraine and Poland. You were the ones who stood by when my ancestors were burnt. You were the ones who throughout all human history stood by and did nothing.

Edmund Burke noted that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" but you didn't sit back and 'do nothing' you actively assisted in evil.

Seth J. Frantzman

Anonymous said...

For nonlawyers:

This hearing on Nifong's motion was like a Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure 12 B 6 hearing. Nifong moved to dismiss. The issue was limited to allegations in the pleadings. IOW, this was not an evidentiary hearing. Nifong was arguing that what the bar alleged in its pleadings was insufficient to constitute an ethical violation.

It didn't fly.

Anonymous said...


Other than the paragraph wishing you to be falsely accused of a crime, I agree with everything that was in that email. I ESPECIALLY agree with the part about the Minn. football rape case and it not getting coverage because its black football players accused of raping a white woman, the only way this case gets a lot of coverage is if the black players play the race card themselves and cast themselves as victims of the evil white woman.

Anonymous said...

JLS is right if that is clear. If I understood it right, one of Nifong's defenses is that there is no clear guideline or decided law to say when (the "timing" issue) exculpatory material must be turned over. I think the hearing commissioner was saying that it must be turned over before the next critical stage. Nifong wants to present evidence that there was no critical stage approaching before October when the discovery dump occurred. But since that information is outside the pleadings, it would have to be presented in evidence to be considered. Denial "without prejudice" means he can present evidence and argue the same point again at the final hearing stage.

Anonymous said...

Mr Frantzman
Great letter. Says it all.

Anonymous said...

"As one of 88 people that signed an advertisement opposing racism, sexism, and sexual violence at Duke ...."

Surely you are not talking about the infamous "Listening Statement", since that statment was much more than what you describe above.

Besides being wildly off topic for this string, the email is angry, overblown a bit, but hardly vicious. What is your point?

The internet is like hosting a radio show with open lines to the public, sometime wacky or upset people call in. Nothing to do about it except to set up filters to screen out correspondents you don't want to hear from or filters to let in only those you give approval to. It's the nature of the beast.

If you get threats of violence, that might be something to take to the police. Actually, the university IT department ought to try to do something about tracking down the source of violent threats.

JohnAnnArbor said...

Prof. Frantzman,

Have you learned anything in the last year and a half about not pre-judging people based on "narratives"?

Anonymous said...

Hey Seth: What's the matter? Can't handle reality? Your correspondent has you bracketted; you and the rest of the ivory tower residents. Those who can, do; those who can't, teach....

Anonymous said...

My fantasy about this case for some time has been that the LAX defendants would have the opportunity to exonerate themselves (not so important now that Mr. Coopor already did that, but still) in a court of law, not at their own trial but at the trial of Mr. Nifong. I think we are getting closer and closer to that fantasy becoming a reality every day. After watching today's Live Feed, it seems to me criminal charges are likely to be filed at the conclusion of the State Bar proceeding, a proceeding which is likely to be extremely unpleasant for Mr. Nifong.


Anonymous said...

I think Frantzman is the sender of the email, not the poster. There is no Frantzman on the list of signers of the letter.

Anonymous said...

To Seth Frantzman:

I am a Duke graduate. I certainly think the email to you is overblown and the rhetoric inappropriate and not something I endorse. But, as hard as it may be for you to accept, tens of thousands of Duke alums view the letter you signed as offensive debased. What the purported listening statement did not do, and was not subsequently done, was to stand up for basic concepts of fairness and due process. If all you were doing was fighting racism, where were you when "Professor" Baker was ranting about rich white people. Where were you when racists were threatning Reade Seligman's life?

In fact, as an attorney who has volunteered to represent falsely accused African-Americans and other minorities, where were you standing up for principles--such as line-up protections and fourth amendment rights, that are necessary for the rights of all, but even more so for the less privileged.

Why are people upset with you and others? Not because you claim to fight racism, but because your outrage is selective and hypocritical. You stood up for something that did not happen and then stood down again.

Are tens of thousands of Duke alums and others wrong, or do you need to reconsider.

Anonymous said...

Seth - That pretty much says it all. I don't like wishing others ill will, as I think its bad karma. "Forgive that you will be forgiven". I pray for the persecuators everyday - I don't want a resentment to hurt my own life.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

Yeah that is a very good letter to an 88 gangster. It accurately describe them as the racists they are.

Anonymous said...

Dear group of 88 member,
Get over it. I am sure you got lots of regular emails from people simply asking you to reconsider based on the lack of evidence. By the way, watch 60 Minutes on Sunday and you will hear about the person you hitched your metanarrative, or whatever you call it, to.
I don't care if you are tenured, or what. You put your name "out there" and suddenly became a public figure with all the slings and arrows that accompany it. I wish you no ill will, but will say that your closedmindedness is somewhat disconcerting. In the future, don't hitch your wagon to fantasies that you WANT to be true. And in all seriousness, best to you.

Anonymous said...

You are right about Seth sending the letter - He signed his name - The 88 are not into dissent.

Anonymous said...

I'm assuming that Frantzman is the well-written author and the G88'er is the anonymous whiner.


Anonymous said...

In the interests of intellectual honesty, it would be useful to know your purpose in posting this email which you received (if your stated identity is true).

More useful would be your your reaction to it. Which of its premises would you challenge? Or will you continue to hide with the herd of academics without conscience or intelligence?

The letter has more truth in it than all of you have spoken throughout this travesty. May God or whatever secular power you fear have mercy on you.

Anonymous said...

G88 member:

I am glad you read this blog. Is this all you have to say, presumably having some idea of how deeply these students have been wronged and how hurtful this baseless/needless prosecution/persecution has been?

Have you seen how they have conducted themselves? Can you objectively compare this to how others have behaved?

Do you have any idea how hypocritical you seem and how much you have set back the very causes you purported to hold so dear?

Does anything in this e-mail seem to you as though it should engender sympathy? Do you not see that the author has several valid points?

Anonymous said...

Frantzman signed the forwarded e-mail -- this was not the signature of the G88 prof.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that someone who gave explicit approval to a pot-banging group of vigilantes carrying banners that said CASTRATE should be able to take a little heat himself. If you're looking for sympathy, you're on the wrong forum. Try Terry Moran's blog or Feministing.

Anonymous said...

Although, as pointed out, it is off topic, it must be addressed...


Where is the outcry over the female Duke student who was allegedly raped just recently? Whether the allegations are true or not, where is the listening statement, or any statement at all, demanding that the accused be brought to justice? Why are you and your "colleagues" willing to wait now when you thanked people for not waiting before? Why are you not coming to her aid and defense? Why are you not reaching out to her? And if you are, why is it now out of the public eye? Shouldn't this type of crime receive as much attention as it has in the recent past??

The alleged crime is the same, is it not? Does she not deserve your support because she might be wealthy and privileged (characteristics which are somehow thought to protect whites from pain and suffering)?

I do not expect an answer for reasons that are obvious to anyone who has followed this case and the actions of the 88. I do not feel sorry for you. The lack of response to the rape of a DUKE STUDENT shows that the Lacrosse case was merely a platform, a way for those with an agenda to get on their soap boxes and further their own beliefs. You may or may not be a racist, may or may not be the kind of person described in the letter you posted here. But you must realize that your actions have spoken for you. I DO NOT feel sorry for you.

Anonymous said...


Great post, well said.

I would go so far as to say I could accept the advertisement having come so early in the case as a reasonable, though somewhat hysterical response. But the mealy mouthed non apology apology was truly pathetic.

Where is your outrage over the Duke student allegedly raped by a black from Durham? There IS NO OUTRAGE because that idea doesn't fit your preconceived notion of white racism and sexism as the only kind of racism and sexism that exists. You don't know or care that the truth about rape and race is that many, many more whites are raped by nonwhites than vice versa. That reality doesn't fit your narrative so you ignored in favor of a case that any rational person knew was bogus within 2-3 months at most.

You are no better than George Bush, picking and choosing what supports your preconceived ideas.

Anonymous said...

As one of 88 people that signed an advertisement opposing racism, sexism, and sexual violence at Duke, I would like to share with you one of the less inflammatory e-mails that I received:

You see, the Chronicle ad had nothing to do with the LAX players. Right. You know something, the rest of us oppose racism, sexism, and sexual violence, but that was NOT the purpose of the ad.

As a Duke professor, surely you are better at arguing than this. Your arguments are something akin to what Michael B. Nifong tried to present today -- unsuccessfully, of course.

And while some of the emails were inflammatory, NONE were as inflammatory as the Chronicle ad. Furthermore, none of the emails was as inflammatory as the "Castrate!" signs and the vigilante posters that you were de facto supporting in that dreck of an ad.

So, Mr. Professor, please stop feeling sorry for yourself. You were part of a lynch mob in which three young men and their families were robbed of their lives for a full year. You had your precious ego bruised by some nasty emails.

Well, that is nothing compared to what the Seligmanns, the Finnertys, and the Evanses suffered this past year. You are no victim, pal. You are a victimizer.

Oh, and I will identify myself, unlike you.

S.G. said...

Dr. Frantzman,

After Nifong dropped the rape charges, why did you not speak out and call for an end to the case?

You and the others of the "hate 88" didn't even have to declare you thought Seligman, Finnerty, & Evans were innocent.

You just had to state the obvious; there could never be a good case made worthy of a court appearance. Therefore, call it off.

Why didn't you do that Seth?

Anonymous said...

G88 prof
Perhaps you could be good enough to explain what you found objectionable in the Frantzman email. I think that might help elucidate your position to the rest of us.

Anonymous said...


Be thankful you don't have an agitated mob outside your home, trying to draw you into a face-to-face confrontation, threatening to burn down your house, and making threats of mutilation, torture, and death.

Be thankful your peers have not been incited by the powerful in their communities to gang up on you for the express purpose of causing harm, intimidating, shaming, and condemning you and that they have not put up wanted posters, circulated your (physical) address on the internet, or contributed to framing you for horrible acts that existed only in the fervent wishes of multitudes of hate-blinded radicals and opportunists.

Anonymous said...

5:56 anon (G88 member)

The point is well made. Frantzman is largely spot on. It is good for you to finally see your role in an accurate social context: the railroading, the trainwreck and the larger social disaster. Good for you, please share more emails with us.

Others, please note that Frantzman is the author of the original email sent to 5:56 anon, a G88 member. This anonymous G88 member is simply sharing with this list the email he/she received from Frantzman, the original email author.

Anonymous said...

Do you suppose any of the LAX players received nasty e-mails?

Anonymous said...

The Hate 88 commenter is a pussy.

Anonymous said...

The New Black Panthers you were thanking are a certified hate group, too radical even for Louis Farrakhan. Death threats from such a group are not to be taken lightly.

Anonymous said...

"Be thankful you don't have an agitated mob outside your home, trying to draw you into a face-to-face confrontation, threatening to burn down your house, and making threats of mutilation, torture, and death."

I forgot. Didn't Dave or one of the other tenants sleep in his car a night or two, or did I dream that?

Anonymous said...

6:00 "evil white woman"

I almost laughed, but since the "slave masters lusting after black women" meme was trotted out with nauseating predictability, perhaps it is not unreasonable to expect the "Mandingo" defense to be used in the case mentioned: "White women have always secretly lusted after black males."

Anonymous said...

How about the Duke student assaulted at Cook-Out? Do you know members of your group conspired to discredit this report? How would you feel if you learned the young couple recently tourtured to death in a racially-motivated hate crime died at the hands of a group set off by anger over the reported rape? How would you feel if innocent students had been killed simply for being white Duke students?

Anonymous said...

Any idea how much harm this whole affair has done to race relations? Are you listening?

Anonymous said...

Let's stay out of fantasy land here, no Duke students were killed by black mobs.

If the G88 poster is still reading I will say something else to you, I don't believe ANY of you give a damn about rape victims. You didn't get excited about this case because an alleged rape occured, if you cared about sexual asault you would have a track record of fighting for Duke students who are sexually victimized, you don't.

The ONLY reason you got involved in this case is because it played to stereotypes of race. Racist, rich white men abusing a black woman. If this had been black Duke athletes accused by a black or white women, you would NEVER have taken out the advertisement.

That makes you racist hypocrites.

Anonymous said...

I wonder who will be the first G88'er to cut a deal and bail on the rest.

Anonymous said...

Anything to say about CGM? Nifong? Want to present a defense for the G88 ad?

Anonymous said...

Let's stay out of fantasy land here, no Duke students were killed by black mobs.

Were you in Durham at the time? I never said anyone was killed, but it certainly might have happened. It cannot be denied that the lads felt sufficiently threatened that they were unable to stay on campus.

Re-read the foregoing comments -- no one is in fantasy land but there are evidently at least some in denial.

Anonymous said... get back on topic for a moment.

No surprise here, of course. My favorite part was when the chairman, clearly a studious and mild-mannered gentleman, cut off one of the Nifong lawyer's arguments as "PREPOSTEROUS!"


I suspect the bar business is pretty near the end, that there will be no trial. I know, Liefong is too arrogant to admit any fault, and would probably want to go down in blazes at a full trial, scraping and grasping for whatever is left of his shredded reputation -- and his pension.

But his lawyer, if he's competent, will prevail upon Nifong to settle for any deal he can get -- even if the Bar insists on permanent disbarment and resignation as DA.

Because a full trial would utterly destroy Nifong -- legally, professionally and personally. Even if the Bar drives such a hard bargain that Nifong has "nothing to lose" by fighting it...don't forget, all evidence (especially his own statements) in this hearing can be used against Liefong in subsequent Civil actions for damages. And Nifong still fears that -- because deep down, he knows that he is dog shit, and that the jury will say so.

Anonymous said...

I always thought one of an academic's main responsibilities is to issue a correction when something he or she publishes turns out to be wrong or unfounded.

Is it really that hard for these 88 professors to say "I'm sorry"?

Anonymous said...

I keep waiting for the anonymous politician to pull Nifong aside and say; "Hey 'fong, you really need to resign - like yesterday.

Do the Democratic Party a favor and take a hike will ya!

The next person to hold this discussion wid you won't be as friendly as me. Capishe?

Anonymous said...

To the Professor,

First of all, nobody knows if you're Seth Frantzman, or if you received the e-mail from Seth Frantzman. You'd think a college professor would do better job of constructing an e-mail and making his/her point.

Second of all, there are a lot better ways to oppose "racism, sexism, and sexual violence at Duke." Next time, try doing it without using anybody.

Have a nice day.


Anonymous said...

H doesn't seem the type to admit he was wrong. It may be that Cooper's stinging, virtually unprecedented public rebuke of him finally opened his eyes to the fact that his career is over, he cannot bluff his way or bully his way through the bar hearing. I'm not sure he will cut a deal though, he may be too delusional and the bar MAY NOT want to give him a deal. It appears the NC legal community has decided to make an example of Mr. Nifong. I'm no longer sure now that he can escape criminal prosecution, given what Cooper said.

Every time I want to feel sorry for him, I remember that reasonable people knew the case was a loser in May 2006, and Mike Nifong was still full steam ahead in January 2007, right up until he turned it over to the AG's office. He knew she was lying, there can be no doubt of it. That makes him a POS.

Anonymous said...

Rape vs. Theft: a leftist argument

Femi-lefties love to argue that
sexual commerce (i.e. prositution)
is the right of the woman.
The value of her service is
whatever she is being paid.

In reality - (actual reality,
not theirs, not virtual reality...)

If a woman is raped, the cost
to her is far greater than
the cost of commercial sexual

If you compare the two ideas,
they are NOT interchangeable,
except in the eyes and minds of
some feminists who argue that
sex is a commercial venture:
they seem to be arguing
(therefore) that a rape is
really more like grand larceny.
(Or in some cases, petit larceny.)

As horrible as is
that postulation
I'm making, it's one that
they are using, and that's
not too different from a lying,
delusional "victim" of a faux
crime who tells 20 stories
about the same event, none of
them matching each other!

Can't have it both ways.


Anonymous said...

Sometimes I feel bad for him and then I remember he (Nifong) is a sociopath who was willing to trade his comfort for the lives of 3 innocent players.

Anonymous said...

In other words:

$ dollars for a night with CGM,
escort inc.

30 years for "rape."


Anonymous said...


Prostitution and rape are not comparable, at all.

The prostitute, however damaged, victimized and destitute is still a WILLING seller. I agree she should have the right to sell her body if she wants to.

The rape victim does not consent to sex, period. Her right to determine who she has sex with is taken away without her permission.

WTF are you talking about here?

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Anonymous at 7:06 pm:

"Is it really that hard for these 88 professors to say "I'm sorry"?"


Anonymous said...

I'm not saying rape is
comparable to prostitution:
I'm saying that putting a
dollar figure on it degrades
sex to a level where the
theft of it is nothing more
than a property crime.

Which class of people do you
think actually is subjected to
rape most often? (Unreported
rape, at that.)

People shouldn't be made into
beasts of burden.
Feminists, of all people, should
know that.


Anonymous said...

you'd have to be as dense as nifong if you failed to see where the bar is heading. his law license is as good as gone!

and that raises another funny point. isn't it funny that he's spending money on lawyers in the hopeless cause of saving his law license when he'll need those funds during his unemployment??? maybe good ol' cy gurney can hook up with crystal and they can do the routine together. good god ol mikey won't be bringin' home the bacon any more.



Anonymous said...

Actually there was an article in a paper last week to the effect that at least one was trying to reach the families' attorneys.

Anonymous said...

Mac, mac, mac

Rape has historically been a property crime. A property crime against the woman's father and husband. Compensation either monetarily or by marriage was made to the family of the victim, who was and still is in many countries considered 'damaged goods' and no longer marriageable.

WHY do you think rape victims are still shamed by the crime, why do you think they don't want their names and pictures in the paper?

Sex is like anything else, it can be given, sold or stolen. Prostitution doesn't put a dollar value on rape that is foolish. Some people wouldn't pay a dime for a Mark Rothko, others would pay millions. Paying for art doesn't deprive it of its intrinsic value. Just like women selling sex and men paying for it doesn't diminish the horror of the crime of rape.

I think you just want an excuse to bash feminists, but this isn't a very good one.

Anonymous said...

The rats are jumping ship. This weasel post was not from some Duke Professor, but a TROLL, too mad that his/her fantasy of the event was not true.

KC has the IP addresses of his posts, I'll bet good money that the "professor's email" was NOT sent from a Duke IP.

So sad, you people are such SICK LOSERS!!


Anonymous said...

No, I just wanted an excuse to
rap the 88s, who think apparently
that a lying ho's false testimony
about a non-existant crime is
worth 30 years.

A young woman from my hometown
went to a 3rd world country
where men routinely "obtain"
their wives by kidnapping them
and keeping them overnight,
making them "worthless" to
anyone else.

Kind of like the Pakistani
(Indian?) father who raped
his son's wife, and the Sharia
court decided that the father-in-
law got to keep his new "bride!"

Women who sell themselves make
themselves worth less than
they have to be. We ought not
to be living in a world like the
previous examples where women
are only - and I mean ONLY -

Forgive me for sounding like
one of the 88s.

By the way, I was a victim
of rape once. I don't think
it's at all funny.


Gary Packwood said...

The Celebrated Jumping Lacrosse Frog of Durham County

Re: (1) Requires consideration of matters outside the complaint;

Does 'requires consideration' more or less say that the case is now The Celebrated Jumping Lacrosse Frog of Durham County?

It can jump where it needs to jump in order to get at the truth?


Anonymous said...

Will KC edit me if i suggest that wahneema lubiano and karla holloway are nappy headed hos? and that mark anthony neal (thugniggaintellectual) is a nappy headed race pimp?

Anonymous said...

Yes thats true. But prostitution has been around forever, just like rape. I don't see the relationship. Arguable, our society is less tolerant of rape than it has ever been. But on the flip side, there is more opportunity for rapes to be committed than there ever has been, due to the hook up culture, alcohol, but most fundamentally because women have achieved the freedom to have sex before marriage, meaning they are in a lot more risky situations than back in the day when everyone had a chaperone.

Anonymous said...

For all of those awaiting a retraction from any member of the G88....don't hold your breath. When they signed off on these publications, they carved thier names in stone. Thier reasoning it would seem is that regardles of guilt or innocence, priveleged white people must pay for atrocities comitted against blacks throughout history. In thier eyes, this is justice.

In sympathy with thier cause, I hereby appologize for past atrocities of white on black agression. To fully demonstrate American dedication to this appology, I offer the facts that we ended slavery and implemented the Civil Rights act.

Can the G88 offer any actions that the new Black Panthers Party or The Reverend Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or Other black special interest groups, have offered to rectify black on white agressions since the passing of the Civil Rights Act?

I thought not!!! My appology stands anyway. Can't we all just get along?

Anonymous said...

Roy Cooper interview on 60 minutes this Sunday...cannot wait to hear what else he says! The preview was crazy enough...apparently CGM at one point claimed she was suspended in mid-air as the three INNOCENT boys assaulted her. This girl has some talent!

Anonymous said...

If you're gonna have prostitution
- (I'm not in favor of that) -
at least make it more expensive
than what one might pay around


Anonymous said...

747 should be deleted. It is offensive.

Anonymous said...

The fact that her story was changing a YEAR later, with different and contradictory details still being added is all that needs to be said. You have to wish you could have seen a videotape of the SP's hearing the new details of her being suspected in mid-air and raped by the boys simultaneously. Gotta wonder how they kept a straight face.

Anonymous said...

Suspended in mid-air?
I'd read that in another
post. Details?


Anonymous said...

7:47 is just fine, The truth is these people are not worthy of being called ho's, ho's work for their money.

Tell me what day any of these "professors" worked?

I'll sign my name, TROLL.


Anonymous said...

8:07 should be shot. he/she is too stupid to understand its white against black.

wahneema & karla are nappy headed hos.

8:07 is a blind to the truth

Anonymous said...

How did prostitution come into this topic. I guess if C.G.M. Had in fact been raped, and had in fact been a prostitute, there might be an issue here. And I further assume that if a prostitute had been raped, then maybe the argument that it is a property crime, could be valid. If she were offering to sell it, and it was taken without payment.....maybe? As far as I know, C.G.M. was at the time employed as a stripper which is much different. The parties who employed the stripper had specifically requested a white and a hispanic stripper. They apparently didn't desire a black one. It apears they got not one but two black strippers (not prostitutes). According to Kim Roberts report, C.G.M. wanted to go back into the house, (she wouldn't have done that if she had just been raped) because there was more money to be made. I will also repeat my assertion that C.G.M. was a student at N.C.C.U. with a 3.0 g.p.a. in police pshychology. I don't see her as a prostitute....I see her as a scam artist who got caught early in the game.

Unknown said...

@ 5:56 pm

You were one of the ones who thanked people for not waiting, who claimed that you knew "something" had happened, who presented yourselves, in the inimitably self-satisfied words of Ms. Davidson, as "people of conscience," and now, even now, when everything you asserted has been demonstrated to be as false as are your hearts, you fail to apologize and play instead the pitiful victim.

No, no. You have all proven yourselves to be racists, totalitarians, propagandists, quite ready to sacrifice others to gratify your own self-righteous vanity and to promote your own self-serving politics.

I doubt that you will get sued (though you deserve that pain.) I doubt that you will ever have the sense to express regret or even self-doubt (though your students deserve that honesty.) But please spare decent folk your self-pitying whining that you have received a deservedly hostile, but quite PRIVATE, comment. What was the comment that you signed but a hostile one uttered in PUBLIC at a time when emotions were inflamed and backed by all the prestige that you bien pensants could muster? Each of you (with the possible exception of Mr. Petters) is not worthy of the contempt of a slug.


Anonymous said...

Escort service worker+stripper+DNA from 5 or more men on you and in your panties=prostitute or ho.

I believe she was a prostitute.

Anonymous said...

"Will KC edit me if i suggest that wahneema lubiano and karla holloway are nappy headed hos? and that mark anthony neal (thugniggaintellectual) is a nappy headed race pimp?"

I hope so. Or install a bigoted moron filter.

Anonymous said...

A cheap prostitute.
One who got rides to her


Anonymous said...


How PC is having "political correctness" in the title of your book?

Hey, KC and Stuart, what does politicial correctness mean? Are you referring to the failure of integration, or warning us not to fart in movie theaters?

Just curious.


Anonymous said...


I can't stand wahneema or holloway, but they are certainly not nappy-headed hos.

Where the fuck do you get off using that term about them?


Anonymous said...

G88 5:56PM

Your benign description of the "Listening Statement" as an advertisement opposing racism, sexism, and sexual violence at Duke ...." doesn't pass the smell test. The "Listening Statement" wasn't published in a vacuum and it is just dishonest to try and assert that you and your colleagues were simply addressing broader social issues. Do you really expect intelligent people to believe that the ad just happened to appear a few days after the very ugly demonstrations in front of the lacrosse house and that there was no connection?

Your ad said that you "were listening" but you must've stuffed your fingers in your ears after the ad went to print because you obviously haven't heard a single word since then.

Published at a time when campus tensions were at a flashpoint and the voice of reason needed to be heard your ad did absolutely nothing but heighten public condemnation of the lacrosse players. You should be ashamed.

Well, now I'm listening. When will Duke hear an apology?

Anonymous said...


Let's be just a little more objective than that. Though I believe the accuser is playing the system, Let's leave a little room for doubt.

It is conceivable that the accuser was in fact assaulted and/ or raped...just not the way she said she recalled.

The fact of multiple semen deposits were left, could possibly indicate that such an occurance had happened. The D.A. should really have been looking for other suspects as a result.

Victims of violent crime are often dis-oriented and confused, and this argument could have been used early on. Its kind of late now.

Still, let's not be guilty of Nifoning ourselves. We really don't know how 5 different semen deposits landed themselves in her panties. It could be that she was artificially inseminating herself so that our welfare rolls could tend to one more bastard child.

Anonymous said...


Great point. That fat pig will probably be sued, along with the other 87 hogs.


Mad Hatter said...

Re: bill anderson, 6:32 p.m.

Right on dude!

Oh yeah, Polanski, go back to France.

Thank you.

Anonymous said...

5:56 Frantzman--Go fuck yourself.

Anonymous said...

JEFFM--Right on!

Anonymous said...

6:10pm duke parent--Time and time again you prove yourself to be a spineless nut.
You are actually attempting to legitimize the complaint of Frantzman? Are you a gigantic pussy, or just a moron?
This creep Frantzman signed his name advocating vigilante justice against students at his own school where the creep gets his money to feed himself.
He's a piece of shit. And you are only a level above that for even believing him to be worthy of understanding.

Anonymous said...


My god, what a great post.

Anonymous said...

I certainly thought it was clear that the "Professor" was posting a letter he/she received from Seth. No mystery there. No evidence of hate mail either,
Williamson sure shot down Everett's essai on the evidence being covered by rape shield laws. Hope someone has emailed him.
Prof Tom at Purdue - what do you think about the charges being dropped? Miss your posts. AG had no mention of the current events at his site.

Anonymous said...

Cursing is the sign of a limited vocabulary and low class.

Anonymous said...


Thank you.
You got it right, all the way.

CGM made "rape" look like
a property crime, just by
the number of lies she told.

She's hurt real rape victims,
epsecially those with the
deepest wounds.


Seth J. Frantzman said...

I am the one who wrote the letter to all 88 professors that has been described by 'anonymous' as inflammatory. I thought it was interesting that the same professors who whipped up racial hatred at Duke and immediatly convicted these young men call me 'inflammatory'. It is the professors at Duke who inflammed public opinion. They could have waited and learned the facts. Instead they lynched three men, and they called those men 'racists'. But no one ever asked Seligman and Evans if they were 'racist'. Maybe they were just athletes who had bad taste(hiring strippers). If anyone wants to email me regarding my email to the 88, they can reach me at I am proud that I stood up to 88 professors who acted in concert with the government to destroy the lives and reputations of three young men. As intellectuals it was the professors' job to critique the state, not march in lock-step.

Seth J. Frantzman said...

Seth J. Frantzman is not a professor at Duke, I am Seth Frantzman, I am the writer of an email to the Duke professors condemning them for their duplicity and their racism and their hypocrisy. I am a student at a different University(luckily not at Duke because they would probably call me 'racist' and I would be thrown out). Please do not confuse me with these Duke professors who signed this hateful 'listening statement'. As noted, there will be no 'listening' about 'sexism and sexual violence' at Minnesota where three men are accused of raping a woman. The only difference, suprise, suprise, the race of the accused. This shows 100% that it was racism that motivated the professors, not the three young men who were cleared yesterday. It may in fact have been racism that motivated the accuser, for she may have picked these young men knowing they were easier targets then whoever really raped her and left their DNA inside her. The 88 professors are evidence of the shallowness that our intellectual establishment has sunk to. That 88 professors at a prestigious university can convict three students without a trial, just shows the intellectual bankruptcy of Duke. I would be ashamed to have my name associated with such a school. Only the alumni can challenge the school to make amends for the treatment of these three young men and their coach.

AMac said...

A big shout-out to Cedarford (11:23pm) for gruffly pointing out what should be--but apparently isn't--obvious.

The proper response to the Group of 88's rush to judgement and subsequent irresponsibility and arrogance isn't hate speech. It is "more and better speech."

Craven behavior by faculty isn't a reason to anonymously urge fellow villagers to grab pitchforks and storm Frankenstein's castle. (Can I question the motives of some of the Anons who gleefully try to turn the comments of this blog into a B-movie screenplay?)

The issue is accountability.

Personal and institutional accountability.

Seth Frantzman/'Nixon' made that point pretty well in his email to Anon 88.

Anonymous said...

Hey there 88 gangsta'!

If you love Crystal so much, why don't you marry her and take care of her kids?

Anonymous said...

"It doesn't speak well for the IQs of so many anonymous posters here that they fail to check of Franzman was a member of the Group of 88 and stupidly assume he made the G88 5:56 post."

Nice sentence. What does "fail to check of Frantzman" mean? Maybe Frantzman is a hockey player.

It "doesn't speak well" for you when you call other people bad names like "stupid" or "ass hole," especially when you can't even write clearly yourself.

Anonymous said...

OK, folks.

It's nice that things have been cleared up. Seth Frantzman wrote the e-mail to the Gang of 88--good one, btw. Then one of the disgruntled 88 losers posted it here as a way of saying....

Wow is me....someone done did me wrong. They be so bad, but I be vewee, vewee good.

My senses tell me that the Gang of 88 received almost no "hate mail". They just need to invent a way to be victims again since the Crystal Gail Mangum piece of filth didn't pan out for them.


Anonymous said...

I think its now obvious that Frantzman himself posed as the G88 member in the 5:56 post.

He wanted to show off his letter, so he made a phony post, pretending to be from an anonymous G88 member, that showed his letter.

You could have just posted under your own name and showed us the letter you sent, Seth. Thats the kind of thing this board is for.

Seth J. Frantzman said...

I thought I would share with you hate mail I have received from people at Duke, who got my email from the professors that received my email to the 88.

The email was from:
Jack Latern
and it was titled "You Dumb $hit"[explitive altered by me]

It continued: "You are an ignorant stupid fool. I feel sorry for you because many are laughing at your expense."

That was on April 12th, the day after I sent the email, then on April 17th I received from the same person another email: "Seth,

I'm sorry that you have Duke envy. You have a degree from U of Arizona, a 4th tier institution, so I understand. What a stupid a$$ you have made of your self. It seems that you are too stupid to recognize it. Stay tuned for a public expose of your ignorant $hit.[expitives altered by me]"

I guess this is the level that academics have fallen to at Duke. Some professors obviously gave my email to this student(Mr. Latern doesnt appear to be a professor at Duke). The people at Duke should just be ahsmaed of themselves, or at least the ones who lynched these lacrosse players. They are a hateful bunch.

Seth J. Frantzman said...

By the way someone insinuated that I was the one who posted the original of my letter here. I never even knew this blog existed until someone saw my letter here and asked me if they could reprint it on April 13th. If the 'anonymous' wants I can forward the email to them informing me that my letter had been reprinted here. Why on earth would I have printed my letter under a fake name to gain popularity, when I could just have posted it using this profile? Does that really make sense? I didn't want any popularity, that is why I left a note on this site in the first place explaining what had happaned. As I've said if you want you can email me personally at I'm not the one posting anonymously. Check the grammer of the original person who posted my letter, its not the way I write, it was obviously a professor at Duke.

Seth J. Frantzman said...

So, rod allison, detroit, please give me your email or email me and I will forward you the original letter from a Mr. Mackay, informing me that some professor had reprinted my letter here.