Posted on 02/12/2007 10:48:16 AM PST by JLS
"A Durham resident who last week filed court papers seeking the removal of Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong from office on Monday questioned a judge's decision to delay action on the issue."
(Excerpt) Read more at wral.com ...
PING
Because from all press accounts of the law it is ILLEGAL. The press account seem to say that Hudson must within 30 days:
1. Pass this on to another judge.
2. Remove Nifong.
3. Go on record saying he will not remove a DA who has hidden evidence.
There is apparently not a provision for him to issue a stay. BTW, this is the mechanism to remove a DA. The NC Bar technically at least can not do that. The NC bar can disbar, that can not be done by this court. So the two proceedures are different and lead to different sanctions.
There is a systematic problem in getting NC to follow the law in this case. This seems to be one more example.
If there is no authority for a stay, then the party filing will have to seek a writ.
It's the GOB in action. The Good Ol' Boys.
We should all have a personal axe to grind with Nifong.
You read wrong on a another thread. She did run an organization to get people to vote for one particular of the two other candidates.
But the issue is the same. That the Durham public knowingly voted for a corrupt DA does not mean that she should stand down on this. Sadly the corrupt papers of that area want to pound on this rather than that the DA is corrupt and should go.
Maybe the Judge has to check with his mommy first.
The Chronical of Higher Education has an interesting article on the division among Duke Faculty:
"One Ad, 88 Professors, and No Apologies
Nearly a year after the lacrosse scandal broke, Duke professors are still divided over their reactions to it
By THOMAS BARTLETT and SARA LIPKA
Last month Duke University's student newspaper published a letter signed by 17 economics professors. The letter seemed innocent enough. It said that, in the wake of last spring's lacrosse scandal, the professors regretted the perception that Duke faculty members were prejudiced against some students. It also publicly welcomed all students — including lacrosse players — to enroll in the professors' classes.
The letter provoked sharp responses from other professors. Was the economics department implying that other departments did not welcome lacrosse players? ....."
Click below to read the entire article:
http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=pgnsygNsqBnbzXbPKJcrZSxFWTzkmzQz
Professor Weintraub discusses claims of McCarthyism:
"Disagreement is not McCarthyism
By: E. Roy Weintraub
Issue date: 2/14/07 Section: Letters
Last update: 2/14/07 at 7:00 AM EST
I have read the "flyer" for Monday's "Shut Up and Teach" panel discussion, with its reference to Joseph McCarthy, suggesting that dark forces are trying to silence some politically minded Duke faculty.
In the late 1940s, my father, an economist, was attacked in newspaper editorials in The Brooklyn Eagle for teaching communism to nice Catholic boys at St. Johns University. He was, of course, an early Keynesian. In the late 1940s, the man who would become my doctoral adviser had to leave the United States for almost a decade to avoid the agitated involvement of the Regents of the University of Michigan in his tenure case, based on his admitted connection with the Communist Party as a graduate student and young instructor. In those years with the Smith Act in place, one could be jailed for being a Communist Party member. That he was doing the work for which he would later win the Nobel Prize mattered not at all to the Regents."
http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/02/14/Letters/Disagreement.Is.Not.Mccarthyism-2719267.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com
I had hoped that this might possibly be worthy of a new thread, but alas, I guess not...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.