Posted on 08/11/2006 1:18:59 PM PDT by abb
Thursday, August 10, 2006 Dear Friends and Neighbors,
The Committee to Recall Nifong - Vote Cheek was formed on August 9, 2006 as a political action committee to campaign for Lewis Cheek in the upcoming election for District Attorney. While Mr. Cheek has declined to campaign for this office, and has stated that he will not accept the position if elected, we believe that this election, and the referendum on Mr. Nifong that it has become, is not about politics but rather about Durham and what Durham stands for.
The Committee to Recall Nifong - Vote Cheek (RNVC) is not comprised of politicians in any way, shape or form. The people who have organized and will direct this campaign over the next few months have no personal political ambitions and no affiliation with any of the parties involved in the drama that has shed such a bad light on the community of Durham. RNVC is not a movement born of political ambition, nor is it only about the Duke drama. RNVC does not campaign on its own behalf, nor on behalf of any person with ambitions to be the District Attorney of Durham County. RNVC will campaign on behalf of the entire Durham community, save one.
Our movement was born in Durham homes by Durham citizens and for the Durham community. This Durham community, to which the participants in RNVC proudly belong, has become the target of nationwide ridicule and scorn. Durham County has been manipulated, deceived and divided by inflammatory, ambition-serving words uttered by the man entrusted to protect it. RNVC believes that the role of the District Attorney should be that of a protector, and not that of a divider. RNVC believes that the community deserves a District Attorney that inspires trust and not fear. It is the fear of Mr. Nifong and distrust of his words, motives and competency for office that has inspired this movement.
If one of our daughters were the victim of a violent crime, we do not want the person pursuing justice on her behalf to be one who compromises the pursuit of justice either by serving his own self interests, or by his own failure and unwillingness to follow procedure. If one of our sons were to be accused falsely, we do not want a District Attorney who would see those false accusations as an opportunity to defeat a bitter rival in a primary election. We believe that our justice system must not be compromised by misdeed or willful mistakes.
We believe that our district attorney must be one who allows a thorough investigation to precede his public proclamation of guilt or innocence. We believe that indictments should be brought based on evidence at hand, and not evidence hoped for. We believe our District Attorney must value procedure, due process, the rulings of our state’s Supreme Court and the constitution this nation was built on. We believe that our District Attorney must not be allowed to interject himself into a Police investigation in such away that he instructs them to disregard the recommendations of the North Carolina Actual Innocence Commission, as approved by the NC Supreme Court. We believe that our District Attorney must not be a man who manipulates our law enforcement investigators into violating the Department’s own written policies simply to secure indictment before election.
We have heard Mr. Nifong ask Durham to consider the entirety of his career in the District Attorney’s office. We fail to see the relevancy of his performance in lesser roles within the office as an indicator of how he will perform when holding the power of the Office of District Attorney. We ask all of Durham to instead inspect his actions, his words and his motives while he has briefly served as District Attorney. We believe it is far more relevant to this referendum to inspect his conduct, questionable ethics and lack of performance in the short time that he has held the extensive powers and responsibilities of District Attorney.
Of all that we believe in, and of all that we ask of our community, with regard to this referendum on Mr. Nifong, what we hold most dearly is the notion that we all must speak. We believe this election is what the Durham that we love is about and, as such, requires a true and full measure of consideration by each of its citizens. We ask that Durham show, not only to Mr. Nifong, but also to Governor Easley and to the nation that watches, that Durham cares, that Durham has pride and, most importantly, that Durham has a voice.
We ask that you add your voice to ours.
I understand there are some redevelopment contracts, some deals made to builder/devlopers. See also post #190.
Could this be a pre-emptive strike to shield the FA from criminal prosecution? Could he be throwing the DA office under the bus?...It will be Durham and Duke who will pay in the end. I'm not sure Cash has his "commuinity's" interest at heart. I'm baffled.
Interesting that the headline of the story is "DURHAM CHIEF BACKS DUKE PROBE." And that is the lead of the article too.
Basically this is a story to keep the masses who read the headline and maybe the lead stirred up. Yet later if he wants Michaels can point to this article the he tried to prepare the black community and get the truth out.
I wonder who decided on the headline? I wonder if the editor can change the order of a column or if Michaels wrote the comments of the chief as his lead and burried the truth later in the column?
I don't think anyone will be anxious to press criminal or civil action against a mentally unstable substance abuser. Nifong is the prize here, not CGM.
Could he be throwing the DA office under the bus?
As Bugs Bunny would say - "Ehhhhhhhhhhh... could be."
It will be Durham and Duke who will pay in the end.
Agree.
I'm not sure Cash has his "commuinity's" interest at heart. I'm baffled.
Perhaps he sees who's got the winning hand, and it's not Nifong. He may be trying to shield his community from the fallout.
I agree--except if the escort community is entwined with the DPD. the stakes could be high. This is a hornets' nest in Durham.
http://recallnifong.blogspot.com/
It's under the heading "MR. NIFONG IN THE NEWS" near the bottom of the page. The link is titled "Cash Michaels".
http://www.durhamcountync.gov/departments/elec/Campaign_Finance_Reporting_Archive/2006/Mid-Year_Semi-Annual/William%20V%20Bell.pdf
I wonder if Bell ever thought about disclosing his contributions to Nifong?
3/31/06 ... interesting.
Regrettably, the glaring discrepancy in arrest figures for prostitution and other sexual vice in Durham County suggests such an entwinement.
This is a hornets' nest in Durham.
Yep!
the glaring discrepancy in arrest figures for prostitution and other sexual vice in Durham County - compared to other counties in NC - suggests such an entwinement.
Screen name is Jazz. He is a musician and his wife writes poetry.
Deleted already.... wow... what power...
We better be careful MySpace may sue.... hee hee.. ;)
Some have inquired about our intentions regarding campaign spending. Our intention is that your contributions will be spent almost entirely on advertising. We expect our advertisng efforts to include a combination of local media ads, direct mail, lawn signs, bumper stickers and t-shirts.
[snip]
Further, we anticipate that the majority of our campaign spending will occur in October and November.
For additional information, please submit questions below or contact the campaign directly.
Recall Nifong - Vote Cheek
www.recallnifong.com
PO Box 71235 - Durham, North Carolina 27722-1235 - 919.310.1147 -
info@recallnifong.com
POSTED BY RECALL NIFONG - VOTE CHEEK AT 1:43 PM
Someone pointed this out to me, Is this unusual?
The links to the Blinco's stories in the Durham Herald Sun are dead already - some only 15 days old ??
Is this standard? I'm told the links for the Herald sun are usually good for 45 days?
(Note the HS has been running positive "feel good" stories on the DPD for several days now)
Just a sampling:
Description of DPD involvement
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-755378.html
Link for Lee/Gottlieb retaining lawyers:
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-756371.html
From 7/30 - Police Chief warning Police that used slurs
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsedits/56-756593.html
Op-Ed calling for firing of Police that used Racial slurs
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/hsedits/56-756593.html
HERE'S a LIVE LINK from ABC for anyone that wants to know what allegedly transpired at Blinco's:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/story?id=2227472&page=1
The last week or two, I've been posting the entire Herald Sun artilce here since they don't archive any more...
Check this out...
http://crystalmess.blogspot.com/2006/08/cash-michaels-on-wlib-am-with-gary.html#links
Check this out - seems only selected stuff is missing:
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-757334.html 7/31 Still Good
http://www.heraldsun.com/opinion/columnists/mccann/ 7/30 link still Good
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-755729.html 7/30 DPD coverup? NO good
Cook making statement that he thinks they got the wrong guys 7/28 NO good
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-756371.html
I suggest everyone visit that link, VERY INTERESTING!
Someone educated Cash, he's reciting facts from the case, which is far more impressive than putting together a print article - which can take days, and 3 editors.
Here's abb's original link:
Check this out...
http://crystalmess.blogspot.com/2006/08/cash-michaels-on-wlib-am-with-gary.html#links
Thanks Abb!
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-761191.html
Group urging votes for Cheek
By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
jstevenson@heraldsun.com
Aug 14, 2006 : 7:34 pm ET
DURHAM -- A loosely organized group of voters is attempting to oust District Attorney Mike Nifong by urging people to vote in November for Lewis Cheek, even though Cheek has said he would not serve as Durham's chief prosecutor if elected.
Calling itself the "Committee to Recall Nifong -- Vote Cheek," the group said in a Monday news release it intends to "ensure that the opportunity to restore trust to the office of District Attorney will not be lost."
Beth Brewer, a Verizon accountant, described herself Monday as a leader of the Committee to Recall Nifong. She said the nonpartisan group was small, although she expected its efforts would be supported by most of the 10,000 people who signed Cheek's June petition.
But write-in candidate Steve Monks said he could not support a movement to get rid of Nifong at any cost, particularly a movement that would place the district attorney selection in Gov. Easley's hands.
"I can't embrace that," said Monks, the local Republican Party chairman running an unaffiliated race for the chief prosecutor's chair. "I'm not saying those who embrace it are bad people. I'm just saying I can't get behind an effort to circumvent the voters. ... My own campaign has never been to get rid of Mike [Nifong] at all costs. It's simply to give the voters a choice. That's called democracy."
Nifong had no comment Monday.
According to the committee's news release, the Duke University lacrosse rape case isn't the only reason for the movement to get rid of Nifong, although it is an important factor.
Nifong obtained indictments against three lacrosse players after an exotic dancer claimed she was raped and sodomized during an off-campus party at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in mid-March.
The suspects, Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann and David Evans, are free under $100,000 bonds as they await a trial that is expected to begin during the first half of next year.
Many national television pundits and Nifong critics have complained that the district attorney rushed to judgment, seeking indictments before properly investigating the dancer's allegations.
The Committee to Recall Nifong realizes, according to Monday's news release, that its "unique approach to this election may be seen in some quarters as a response simply to the drama surrounding the much-maligned prosecution of the Duke lacrosse players.
"The Committee and its mission are not, however, only about the Duke case," the news release said.
A vote for Cheek in November would be a vote for someone unknown, since Cheek has said he would not serve even if he won. Gov. Mike Easley would have to appoint someone to serve in his place.
But the Committee to Recall Nifong indicated it was not daunted by that prospect.
"By voting for Mr. Cheek, Durham will effectively be placing trust in Governor Easley to appoint a new District Attorney that would serve this community with honesty, integrity and professionalism," Monday's news release said.
Brewer said she knew there was nothing to prevent Gov. Easley from re-appointing Nifong. She said she believed it was unlikely he would do so, however.
"My personal opinion is that if the voters of Durham spoke loudly enough that they don't want Mike Nifong, I think the governor would listen," she said.
Monks' name does not appear in Brewer's news release or on her committee's Web site.
"I don't know Steve Monks," Brewer said Monday. "I don't know him as a lawyer. I don't know him as a person. I like his energy, but I frankly don't think he has a chance."
Monks must run on a write-in basis because an insufficient number of voters petitioned the Board of Elections to place his name on the November ballot.
Monks reiterated in an interview Monday that he would not be campaigning if Cheek had agreed to serve if elected.
For his part, Cheek said Monday he was totally uninvolved in the district attorney election, even though his name is in the title of the Committee to Recall Nifong -- Vote Cheek.
"Just because it has my name on it, it doesn't carry with it the implication that I am campaigning in any way," said Cheek.
Still, Cheek said he didn't believe a vote for him would be irresponsible or wasted.
"It's a vote for the governor to be able to choose somebody," he added. "Sure, it's an unknown, but you're depending on the governor to seek advice and put a qualified person in that position. I don't think there's anything irresponsible about that."
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-761189.html
Judge wipes out murder conviction, allows manslaughter plea
By John Stevenson : The Herald-Sun
jstevenson@heraldsun.com
Aug 14, 2006 : 7:05 pm ET
DURHAM -- Durham's senior judge wiped out a murder conviction for Jacinto Barr and slashed his punishment, even though a prosecutor contended three years ago that Barr gunned down another man "like a dog in the street."
The ruling by Superior Court Judge Orlando F. Hudson left Barr with a prison sentence of seven to nearly 10 years for the 2002 fatal shooting of Ronald Sherman Johnson, less than half the 23- to 28-year term he had been serving.
The sentence was reduced after Hudson, acting Friday on a request from defense lawyers Jay Ferguson and Dan Shatz, erased a conviction Barr had received for second-degree murder and allowed him to plead guilty instead to the lesser offense of voluntary manslaughter.
In a written motion, Shatz said Barr deserved the concession because prosecutor Tracey Cline reneged on a plea bargain at the last minute in 2003, forcing Barr to go to trial even though his attorney wasn't ready.
Cline could not be reached for comment Monday.
According to Shatz, Judge A. Leon Stanback compounded the problem and violated Barr's constitutional rights by denying the trial lawyer's repeated requests for time to prepare.
As a result, Barr went before a jury with only one day's notice, and at least two witnesses who might have helped him were not subpoenaed, Shatz wrote.
In addition, Shatz argued that Stanback improperly boosted Barr's punishment by finding as a so-called aggravating factor that Barr was free on bond for another alleged crime when the murder occurred.
Shatz noted that, under the current state of the law, juries rather than judges are supposed to decide aggravating factors.
Durham lawyer Jay Ferguson was prepared to argue those and other points on Friday when Hudson, without conducting a full-blown hearing, eliminated Barr's murder conviction and reduced his prison term.
Cline reportedly did not object to Hudson's ruling.
The then-22-year-old Barr had been found guilty of second-degree murder after about three hours of jury deliberations in September 2003.
Jurors also had the option of first-degree murder, but they apparently rejected the prosecution's contention that Barr premeditated the slaying of Johnson. Premeditation is a necessary legal element of most first-degree murder cases.
Johnson, 23, was shot on South Street. He tried to run to his house, then fell to the ground and died of two bullet wounds to the chest, police said at the time.
Barr did not testify in his own defense. In a written statement to police, he admitted being at the crime scene, but blamed the slaying on someone else.
Maybe this is how Nifong feels, LOL!
I basically agree but did notice two incorrect points in Michaels' colum:
1. I do not believe anyone has said that Evans has a alibi. The party was at his place, so it is not surprising he was there the whole time.
2. I do not believe that this case is in the third setting yet either. I believe the hearing next week will still have it in the 2nd setting.
He did good.
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.