Joe Neff reports that Mike Nifong sent a letter to accompany his turning in his law license.
The ex-DA contended that the Bar had treated him with "fundamental unfairness." DHC chairman Lane Williamson had issued a modified order after a clerical error in the initial order listed only 10 of the 11 counts the panel found Nifong guilty of violating.
The ex-DA's response: Williamson's action was "preposterous beyond belief, and is further evidence of the fundamental unfairness with which this entire procedure has been conducted."
Some people might consider such a complaint "preposterous beyond belief" coming from a figure whose very name has become synonymous with prosecutorial misconduct. But throughout this case, Nifong demonstrated a toxic combination of self-pity and arrogance. In this respect, in his response to the Bar, he stayed true to form to the end.
When all is said and done, I can only believe this is a man with serious mental health issues
ReplyDeleteDoes he want the clerical error to stand uncorrected as a gesture of "fairness"?
ReplyDeleteThis man needs professional help.
You'd think he'd have enough grace left to know when to shut up....guess not!
ReplyDeleteObviously this pretty much negates his recent "apologies" for his actions--he still doesn't "get it."
Slime.
Precious!
ReplyDeleteTrue to form to the end? I am unconvinced that we are looking at the end.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing to stop Nifong from writing his book or even starting his own G88.
No, we will hear more from Mike.
::
GP
Perhaps he'd like $3 million in fundmantal unfairness. Or 30 years of fundamental unfairness.
ReplyDeleteHe's received basically a slap on the wrist so far. And he's whining about that?
Nifong's latest comment doesn't quite square with Nifong's lawyer's comment back in June: "[Nifong] has told me that he believes this has been a fair and full hearing of the facts, that he believes disbarment is the appropriate punishment in this case."
ReplyDeletePoor wittle mikey. Everybody's pickin on him. Wahhhhhh!
ReplyDelete"Off the topic at hand...I went to Amazon this morning to pre-order KC's book and was delighted to see the cover of Until Proven Innocent. I can't wait to read the book! However, I was curious, and a little annoyed, as to why KC's name was not listed on the cover along side of Stuart Taylor. Didn't the majority of the material for the book come from DIW?"
ReplyDeleteThe more I think about the above comment from another poster the more puzzling it becomes. Publishers don't simply forget to put an author's name on a book cover. What's more, authors are named in the order of strength of contributions, with primary author or investigator first. This suggests that Taylor must have done most of the book--and at least from the publisher's point of view, all of the book. This all seems very muddled. What exactly did you do for this book? Did you do background research and he did the writing?
I burst out laughing when I read the headline - the content was even funnier! This is almost certainly a serious NPD sufferer. Maybe he can avoid commitment if he fabricates a story that he was raped.
ReplyDeleteIt appears the Diversity drum beat doesn't work out so well. Imagine that!
ReplyDeleteE Pluribus Unum
: Diversity and
Community in the Twenty-first Century
The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture
This is presented by Robert Putnam.
Note how well the East Bay and San Francisco areas rated in terms of trust of other races. It turns out the "Summer of Love" was a fraud and everyone hates each other.
Of special note is that those within their own race don't trust each other. Now that is deliciously perfect; they do eat their own...
"In areas of greater diversity, our respondents demonstrate: Lower confidence in government, local leaders and the local news media..." - page 149 (or 13/38 .pdf)
No kidding, I'm shocked, where are my nitro glycerin tablets. Who could imagine?
One can only guess where the diversity frauds in Durham and at Duke rate, but based on their writings, they hate everything.
Would one ever guess that this paper has more citations and references than the combined output of the entire Duke AAAs and Gender Studies frauds...
If you read Neff's article, Nifong seems especially incensed that it was a Duke law professor who contacted the State Bar and pointed out the discrepancy.
ReplyDeleteIn this respect, in his response to the Bar, he stayed true to form to the end.
ReplyDeleteDr. Johnson,
Just curious, from a fan.
What constitutes "the end" for Until Proven Innocent?
How much flexibility, if any, do you and Mr. Taylor have to modify the book's content before it's released on September 4th?
The Case of Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison, (age - 13)
ReplyDeleteI'm noticing a trend. Has Mike Nifong moved?
"...Three girls from the school dispute the accounts, one of them originally testifying that the “assault” happened. Something smells familiar here. You have one girl who originally claimed the “assault” happened, now saying it didn’t, and you have two other girls flatly saying it didn’t happen. The one now claims she felt pressured during questioning. Hmm..."
"...The case in question is that of two boys, Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison, both 13-years-old living in Oregon. Prosecutors allege that the boys committed sexual harassment, and have charged them with multiple counts of felony sexual abuse. They’ve been banned from school and aren’t allowed near their friends. Their crime? Allegedly swatting the behinds of fellow classmates..."
If they taught more Gay Mayan Flying Penis Theory in our Middle Schools, we wouldn't have these problems.
If you have not read, "The War on Boys" by Christina Hoff Sommers, you should. It is an excellent read that speaks to this type of feminist fraud.
To the 10.27:
ReplyDeleteThe cover posted at Amazon is not the correct cover. (As other people have noted, it also contains the improper subtitle.)
To the 10.38:
We have no flexibility at this point--the book has been printed and is on its way out of the warehouse, headed for bookstores by 9-4.
The absolute last day we had for additions to the text was June 24--two days after Nifong's ethics trial ended.
Oh! - Boo bloody hoo!
ReplyDeletekc @ 1051 writes:
ReplyDeleteThe cover posted at Amazon is not the correct cover. (As other people have noted, it also contains the improper subtitle.)
KC: What is the proper subtitle?
Spook
KC will there be a book tour? Radio interviews?
ReplyDeleteI suppose the former would be with Stuart Taylor since you're off to Israel.
The subtitle is Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.
ReplyDeleteAmazon, from what I was told, was sent a mock-up version of the cover. It was supposed to have been changed yesterday.
There will be radio interviews and probably a few talks, yes. I'll give notice of them as they become available.
ReplyDeletewhat about tV?
ReplyDeleteSo Taylor is the first author?
ReplyDeleteTo the 11.27/11.34:
ReplyDeleteThere is no "first author"; we are co-authors. First author structures generally use "with" in the title page--"Author X, with Author Y."
There probably will be TV appearances, but much will depend on other news in the period after it comes out. If there are any, I'll let people know.
If Mikey writes a book, then KC will have to be right there to write another one to counter Mikey's.
ReplyDeleteThis could take up the rest of KC's life. And knowing how thorough he is regarding his work, this could very well happen.
On KC's tombstone: "The man who Nifonged Nifong."
But hey, he'll get rich doing it!
If anyone has specific questions about the technical nature of the book, you're welcome to e-mail me.
ReplyDeleteWill Don Imus interview you? He has often interviewed authors.
ReplyDeleteNappyng but Headed toward the House.
In a clear racist moment, one of the Rutgers basketball players has sued Imus for slander and defamation of character.
A news report stated that the suit included the following: "The ... false, defamatory, sexually denigrating and slanderous statements and comments against the women athletes of said basketball team were heard, believed and understood by millions of listeners ... as factual pronouncements concerning the character, chastity and reputation of the plaintiff," the lawsuit says.
Which millions? The reparations-are-due-us millions? The Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton coalition-to-assure-equality-of-results millions?
This is an extension of the Gang of '88 and its influence on modern society. I in no way heard Imus's statement in the context suggested by the suit. It was in no way worse than anything I have heard from gosh-almighty -- too many black rap artist or black comedians pandering to a black audience. If a black man had uttered the phrase, noone would have blanched. But when a white man imitates the black cultural avante guarde, has he gone over the line?
Please. This strains credulity and is the basest of mercenary charades.
And race is written all over it. Reparations in the form of rewards from litigation is now the sine qua non of black/white relations.
And finally -- wouldn't a contender for a national basketball title with the attendant week-to-week newspaper coverage and national ESPN reports and coverage, in fact, be a public figure.
Give me a break --- Imus did not make the statement about a virgin attending a nunnery.
Oh. And I think that Lee Baker's work could, in fact, be submitted as evidence to defend Imus. What perfect irony.
As Imus has no show, I don't foresee an interview with him.
ReplyDeletePerhaps he and Nifong can chat instead . . .
re coauthors
ReplyDeletethe prefix "co" means jointly. In scientific writing, oftentimes there is a lead coauthor, whose name appears first, regardless of how many coauthors there are. In AMA style, if there are more than 6 coauthors of a medical article, you write the 1st 3 names, and add "et al." If the writers are writing jointly for a group, you write the names, followed by "for [e.g.] the National Institutes of Health."
Aren't you glad you asked?
If Imus can be sued, then Houston Baker should be sued for his comments--written comments!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThe fabulous Rutgers Basketball team do not live in a nunnery. Only they know their sexual status. Which,of course, is none of our business. It was a stupid remark against private figures. He has paid with his show.
ReplyDeleteKC - We are not counting our chickens before they hatch, but if you win the blogger of the year award - sure would love to see you in Los Vegas.
ReplyDeleteI don't know how the Disciplinary Committee prepares its Orders, but, in ordinary legal practice, it is common for one of the lawyers to draft an Order, and submit it for signature, on notice to all parties. The other side has an opportunity to request changes (or to submit a different form of Order), or the Court itself may make some changes.
ReplyDeleteWhich makes me wonder about the source of the initial form of Order here, the one that omitted the Committee's specific findings about Nifong telling Meehan to prepare a report covering-up exculpatory evidence. This, we all know, was the "big" charge, the one Nifong would most like to eliminate from the final record.
Did Nifong's own lawyers draft the Order? If so, the omission was likely deliberate and fraudulent, in the sleazy spirit of "Hey, you can't blame me for trying, eh?"
If the Order was drafted by the Committee or by the Prosecution, clearly it was a clerical omission -- one that needed correction, in order to reflect all of the official findings at the conclusion of the Hearing.
Nifong may not like it, and may prefer to toss it down the memory hole, but the fact is, Nifong was found guilty of suppressing exculpatory DNA evidence.
Guilty, guilty, guilty!
And, by whining and complaining because the Order correctly states those findings, he is just showing what he is -- a crybaby, and a damned liar.
Is Nifong a Communist?
ReplyDeleteNifong is delusional beyond belief.
ReplyDeleteis anonymous 8:58am a communist?
ReplyDelete... an amusing hack?
Hey, if the Rutgers basketball chick wins her lawsuit, what do think the chances are that the members of the '06 Duke LAX team, especially Finnerty, Selgiman, and Evans, could win a case against the NYT, Wendy Murphy, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Huston Baker, Kim Curtis, et al.? After all, I would think that being labeled a rapist and kidnapper would be at least as bad as being labeled a "nappy-headed ho." But maybe that's just me...
ReplyDeleteA bit off topic at first glance, but I am reading a book about Adolf Hitler - the chapter where he marries Eva Braun and they both commit suicide before the Russians closed in.
ReplyDeleteI found it "preposterous beyond belief" that in his delusional final days, Hitler showed not one scintilla of remorse for causing the deaths of millions. At one point in that time period, he and Goerring chastised each other for being too nice (i.e. not butchering nearly enough people)in their rise to the top.
Not saying Nifong is another Hitler, but their common self-delusioned lack of appreciation for the depths of their self-serving evil conduct, and corresponding lack of remorse, are quite chilling. In both failed cases, none of it was their fault.
Nifong's mindset is certainly not new!
No, anon 8:58 is not a Communist, just one who has never had an original thought in his entire life. Like the annoying mosquito in your tent, you know he's going to bite you, you just don't know when.
ReplyDeleteIt is impossible for the severly mentally ill to monitor their own behavior - reality is not their friend.
ReplyDelete8:58
ReplyDeleteI don't know, but in the Soviet Union he would have been considered an excellent prosecutor.
I was married to narcissistic personality just like Nifong. The very characteristics which allow them to ascend to success levels they consider their due, are the same charactersitics which inevitably ensure their downfall. There is no hope of him ever feeling any remorse --- ever. Like any sociopath he was able to pretend real feelings such as sorrow --- when it benefitted him. But like any illness, you can't hide it forever. It pops out like a maggot out of rotten fruit.
ReplyDeleteanon 1:32 is a Communist.
ReplyDeletelighten up.
From the In-Case-You've-Been-Wondering Department:
ReplyDelete"It is...clear that under G.S. 1A-1, Rule 60, 'Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders, or other parts of the record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the judge anytime on his own initiative.'"
Arnold v. Varnum, 1977, 237 S.E.2d 272, 275-76, 34 N.C.App. 22.