left right politics showbiz tech invest good life gossip fun hot
Mother Jones Hot Air Huffpo Variety Engadget Seeking Alpha Lifehacker TheSuperficial Daily Beast reddit
Daily Kos Michelle Malkin Politico Billboard Boing Boing TheBigPicture Luxist TMZ.com Fark BuzzFeed
ThinkProgress RightWingNews First Read CNN Showbiz Gizmodo FT Alphaville Joystiq Perez Hilton 4chan memorandum
Crooks+Liars Power Line CNN ticker E! Online Techcrunch Josh Brown Kotaku gamer Bastardly Post Secret Techmeme
TalkngPtsMemo Ameri..Thinker Swampland TV Guide Ars Technica 24/7 Wall St. TreeHugger Egotastic hascheezburgr Drudge
The Raw Story NewsBusters The Caucus Ent. News Mashable bloggingstocks Consumerist PinkIsTheNew dooce digg
Wonkette Wizbang fishbowlDC HlywdWiretap Google blog DealBook lifehack.org CelebrityBaby Someth'nAwful trends
Atrios Taki Magazine WashWhisprs DeadlnHllywd Read/Write Jeff Matthews 43folders GoFugYourself Neatorama PSFK
Firedoglake Big Hollywood The Fix MSN Ent. OReilly Radar PhilsStockWorld Autoblog Page Six Cool Hunter BBC
Young Turks IMAO Capital Gains Rot'nTomatoes GigaOM Daily Rec'ng Deadspin BestWeekEver stereogum Timespop
Americablog AceOfSpades Open Secrets Cinematical ProBlogger Zero Hedge DownloadSqd Dlisted CuteOverload media eye
Politicususa Redstate WikiLeaks law Cool Tools Bespoke MediaZone PopSugar Dilbert blog TVNewser
CounterPunch Jawa Report econ law.alltop Scobleizer BtwTheHedges Deviant ArtHollyw'dTuna gapingvoid BuzzMachine
TalkLeft Patterico EconLog Volokh Consp. Apple Blog Minyanville Gothamist x17online DailyGrail MediaGazer
Feministing Townhall.com Freakonomics Legal Insurrec.. Valleywag Fast Money Curbed DailyBlabber Prof. Hex Steve Rubel
PolitAnimal OutsideBeltwy CrookedTimbr Conglomerate mozillaZine RealClearMkts FabSugar Gawker OvrheardinNY MediaBlgNRO
Truthdig Moonbattery MarginalRevo SportsLawBlog Smashing W$J Mktbeat Gridskipper Radar Last.fm Threat Level
Alternet RealClearPoli crime W$J Law BlogTechdirt AbnormalRtrns Material Defamer kottke.org Seth's blog
Media Matters Instapundit CrimeblogsBalkinizationMAKE RandomRoger Sartorialist Jossip PumpkinChuckin mediamatters
The Nation Hugh Hewitt All Crime Credit Slips SrchEngLand Stock Advisors Drink'nMadeEasy Just Jared Maps Mania Newshounds
Maddow Blog PJ Media Smoking Gun FindLaw VentureBeat Slope of Hope Mark Cuban Celebitchy CollegeHumor FAIR

Friday, February 9, 2007

Duke/Nifong Hoax: Day #297

Updated - today's items:

LieStoppers:
§7A-66 Affidavit FiledDurham resident files affidavit asking the Court to remove District Attorney Mike Nifong from office — Durham resident, Beth Brewer, has filed a civil affidavit with Archie Smith, Clerk of Superior Court in Durham County, charging Durham County District Attorney, Mike Nifong, with willful misconduct and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice that brings the office into disrepute. Mrs. Brewer’s affidavit, filed in accordance with the provisions set forth in NC General Statute §7A-66, requests that the Court remove Mr. Nifong from office...

According NCGS §7A-66, once an affidavit is filed, the clerk of superior court will immediately bring the matter to the attention of the senior resident superior court judge for Durham County, Orlando Hudson. Within 30 days, Judge Hudson should either take action on the charges or refer them for review and action to another Durham County superior court judge.

If the Court finds probable cause, believing the charges are true, Mr. Nifong could be suspended, with pay, pending a final decision in the case. If the Court finds that the charges do not constitute grounds for suspension or finds that no probable cause exists the charges could be dismissed. If the Court finds that grounds for removal exist, the Court would issue an order permanently removing Mr. Nifong from office and terminating his salary.

“My overriding concern is that Durham County have a new district attorney as soon as possible and, not to add to the burdens of Mr. Nifong,” said Brewer.

related:
WRAL: Durham Judge Will Issue Stay Regarding Latest Nifong ComplaintDurham County District Attorney Mike Nifong said Friday he is looking forward to defending himself against ethics charges filed by the North Carolina State Bar. "I wish everyone would withhold judgment until they hear the evidence, as well as my response," he told WRAL's Julia Lewis, adding that there is more to the case than what has been reported by the media about the Duke lacrosse case.

Nifong's comment came the same day a Durham resident and political opponent filed an affidavit seeking to remove him as Durham County's district attorney. After reviewing the complaint, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson said early Friday evening he will issue an order on Monday to stay any action regarding a trial by the State Bar trial, because it basically mirrors that complaint...

News & Observer: Political foe seeks Nifong's removal — Beth Brewer, who ran a political campaign seeking to have voters choose a gubernatorial appointment rather than Nifong, filed the affidavit under a state law that spells out a mechanism for forcefully removing district attorneys from office...Brewer, who declined to comment, ran a campaign against Nifong using Durham County Commissioner Lewis Cheek's name...

discussion:
LieStoppers forum: 7A-66 Affidavit filed — This [N&O article] is biased journalism. Brewer is NOT a "political foe." She did not run against Nifong for any office. She headed up a committee running another candidate, but that does not put Brewer, herself, into a political position.

This wording in the first line is deliberately conveying a "payback" card being played for an election loss. Given the Bar charges and what we know to be the TRUTH learned AFTER the election, this is just pathetically unobjective journalism...

KC Johnson (see comments): Removal Motion Filed

FreeRepublic: Political foe seeks Nifong's removal
Press Release, Friends of Duke University:
Our response to the Open Letter posted by “Concerned Faculty” at Duke University — On April 6, 2006, a group of 88 Duke University professors published an advertisement in the University newspaper The Chronicle. This ad, entitled “We are listening to our students,” contained several references to the Duke lacrosse case. It made reference to “what happened to this young woman” ...Friends of Duke University has repeatedly reached out to these faculty members...

We remain sincere in our efforts to reach out to them. We are dismayed that, not only would they chose to ignore our efforts, but that they would instead respond with a defiant refusal to admit mistake either in judgment or expression and that they would insult the motives and/or intelligence of their critics...Below is the full text of our ad which was published today in The Chronicle...
related:
Ray Gronberg, Herald-Sun:
'Friends of Duke' go after professors — Supporters of the three men indicted in connection with the Duke lacrosse scandal have renewed their criticism of the professors who early on branded the incident a "social disaster."

In a full-page advertisement published Thursday in The Chronicle, Duke's student newspaper, the group "Friends of Duke University" challenged the "Group of 88" to back up their claims about the presence of racism and sexism on campus, and explain why they published an ad of their own at the height of the scandal last spring that implied the lacrosse players were guilty. The ad responded to a missive the professors posted on the Internet in January that said their original ad had been "broadly, and often intentionally, misread."

Leaders of the "Friends" group -- which includes Duke alumni and other supporters of the indicted players -- didn't buy that. In a separate news release, issued Thursday, they called the January posting at http://concerneddukefaculty.org "a defiant refusal to admit mistake in either judgment or expression." ...

KC Johnson:
Friends of Duke Confronts the Group of 88 — Why did FODU pursue such a high-profile listing of questions? Unfortunately, previous outreach attempts to the Group of 88 have been, Trumpbour laments, “ignored or rebuffed.”...

LieStoppers blog: FODU Statement

discussion:
LieStoppers forum: FODU rocks!, new open letter
Brandon McGinley, DailyPrincetonian.com:
Faculty should stand by its students — Without considering the potential innocence of their students, the postmodern elite among the faculty at Duke sprung into action, unleashing a torrent of intellectually stylish buzz words such as "race," "class," "gender" and the granddaddy of them all: "white male privilege." It was irrelevant that the case against the students deteriorated daily; it was irrelevant that the accused were members of the Duke community and, as such, might be entitled to respect and support; and it was irrelevant that the young men were innocent until proven guilty. Their status as wealthy Caucasian males was enough to pass judgment on their actions and their character...

I can only hope that if, God forbid, such a controversy were to develop on this campus, the faculty would have the moral courage to support their students rather than assuage their egos.
related:
John in Carolina: Columnist: 88 didn’t consider “innocence” — McGinley’s “on the money” from start to finish. The only thing I disagree with is his referring to the 88 as “elite.” They come across more like pampered, self-indulged preeners...
John in Carolina:
A “big, black man” and faculty duty — The ["Social Disaster] ad was signed by 88 faculty members and endorsed by more than a dozen academic departments and programs. It’s been widely-reported that Professor Wahneema Lubiano, who laid out the ad, knew it would be seen by many as "a stake through the collective heart of the lacrosse team." Lubiano's never denied the reports....

And as far as I know, no member of the 88 or senior Duke administrator has publicly spoken to the question KC asked or those I asked. People who care about Duke students and the University need to keep asking questions. And President Brodhead and the University should begin answering them.

Rosemary Roberts, News-Record (Greensboro, NC):
Roberts: Should media name accuser in Duke case? — Most journalists covering the case know the woman's name but are not allowed to reveal it. That's because most mainstream newspapers, including this one, have a policy of not naming victims of alleged rape or sexual assault...

Protecting the accuser's name, by the way, is not writ in stone. A famous example of disclosure occurred in 1991 when a woman accused William Kennedy Smith, nephew of Sen. Ted Kennedy, of raping her in Palm Beach, Fla. The media did not print the woman's name until The Globe, a tabloid specializing in salacious stories, disclosed it. That opened the floodgate for other newspapers, including the esteemed New York Times, to publish it. The media claimed her name was "now out in print," and that justified their publishing it, too...

in the case of rape or sexual assault, the accuser's name should be withheld for reasons cited by Robinson and Wicker. And, yes, I agree it smacks of a double-standard when the accuser's name is protected but the accused is not. I also have a strong hunch, fair readers, that you think the woman's name, at least in the Duke case, should be disclosed. Am I right?

Forum topics of note:

LieStoppers: Back from the "conversation" with Brodhead — Alumni stands up and says Brodhead ruined the lives of 47 lax player and the coach and has been CYA and shown no leadership and should remember, first that Duke is a family. The crowd was mostly lefty apologist and they were squirming. Brodhead was amazing. He did not get upset and he forcefully answered all the questions.

The latest line is Mikey made me do it. Mikey told us it was a rape, Mikey told us anyone on the team could be the rapist. I had no choice but to cancel season. Coaches get fired all the time, and he may not have been in control, but I did speak up for him when he has interviewed for a new job. I am sure that will be taken in to consideration in the lawsuit...

Next, my attorney, damn him, got right back on him. What about the gang of 88 and why can't Duke elect Trustees like Dartmouth. Brodhead now was in serious fidget mode. BUT, when in doubt? Blame Mikey! The 88 had been told by Mikey it happened. They had a right to believe him. Who'd a thunk he was lying...

LieStoppers: CLAKKI LIVES! Trial Monday! — I was sitting in the courtroom, far left side from the door, next to the two meeting room doors (better to hear any conversation going in or out of the room...) Calendar call is made - no Jackie!!! I sat tight.

20 minutes after 9am who comes and sits next to me? JACKIE!!! Now, considering there are 4 long pews, SHE sat next to me! It was HER! with a wig on, pulled back into a ponytail no less. Plaid pants, t-shirt with some design on it and a god awful ugly suede orangish colored coat with fake fur trim around the collar and cuffs. She asked me, Did I miss first call? Which I of course turned to her and said Yes, they called it 20 minutes ago. All the while I'm biting my lip to keep from smiling...

LieStoppers: Question For The Board - when the AG will throw in the towel? — Longtabber: you guys will just have to trust me on this because the information would reveal the source on this one so here is an abstract but it comes from raleigh with CLOSE ties to the NCAG and this SP unit. Here is the abstract:
The state has already concluded this case is without merit BUT "some" have been instructed to look at the BIG picture to save the state literally MILLIONS and it has to do with culpability of all actions out of the DA's office there as well as NC proper.

Forget the Duke case specifically and broaden the thought process to almost EVERY case tried in NC where a suspect was found guilty with "questionable" evidence. There are only 2 options here:

1) Mike Nifong "had" REASONABLE grounds to bring the charges
2) this was a deliberate FRAME from the beginning
( theres no 3rd answer)

so, this "review" ( and oncoming actions) directly bear on the answer to this scenario. If it is "proven" that this case was without just merit ( violation of civil rights as well as judicial procedure) which is what they will be saying if the charges are dropped- then they just opened the floodgate for EVERY case tried in Durham ( thats questionable) to have a review, appeal, possible new trial etc- that can also spread NC wide....

related: TalkLeft: Longtabber speaks
Robinson O. Everett - Prof. of Law, DukeLieStoppers:
Duke Prof Channels Wendy Murphy — What’s that you say, Mr. Robinson? Have logic and justice left and gone away? This question should be on everyone’s mind after reading Duke Law School Professor Robinson Everett’s defense of DA Nifong in the Herald-Sun yesterday.

Professor Everett endorsed DA Nifong in the primary and general elections. Unlike Citizen’s Committee Co-Chair Kim Brummel, who demanded Nifong apologize for his unethical conduct, Professor Everett apparently sees nothing wrong with DA Nifong’s decision to hide evidence in the Hoax. He apparently believes that Wendy Murphy understands the issues raised by Nifong’s conduct better than his fellow Duke law professor James Coleman. Everett argues that it is unclear whether “Nifong had any duty to provide the defense with evidence about the presence on the accuser’s body of semen from other persons who were not lacrosse players.” Everett cites North Carolina’s rape shield law, rule or evidence 412 and suggests that it allows a District Attorney to hide evidence he doesn’t think will ultimately be admitted at trial...

Judge Orlando F. Hudson, Jr.Michael Gaynor:
Duke case: Judge Hudson, how dare you! — "A judge should abstain from public comment about the merits of a pending proceeding in any state or federal court dealing with a case or controversy arising in North Carolina or addressing North Carolina law....." North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3A(6)...I think what the grand jurors did was clearly against the laws of the state of North Carolina," Judge Orlando F. Hudson, Jr. said. "The grand jury is to discuss nothing about what went on in the grand jury proceedings, nor anything about the grand jury proceedings."

Two former members of the grand jury that indicted three Duke lacrosse players could be charged with contempt for talking about the Duke case on ABC. One admitted that, in hindsight, he would not have voted to indict. The other stuck by his vote, but conceded that he had "new doubts." ...

Was Judge Hudson trying to intimidate other Duke case grand jurors? Is Judge Hudson now being investigated for what he said?...
related:
WRAL — Duke Lacrosse Grand Jurors Could Be Punished for Speaking Out

zero hedge

Calculated Risk

Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis

Paul Krugman - NY Times

The Big Picture - Barry Ritholtz

naked capitalism - Yves Smith

Pragmatic Capitalism

Washington's Blog

Safe Haven

Paper Economy

The Daily Reckoning - Australia