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.
What was she arrested for on July 7?
Exactly. Duke didn't stop her from making false allegations and she will sue Duke for that? That is totally loony.
With all due respect you need read more and post less...
If you would take the time to read the whole discussion you will find that I never referred to the three false accusers as ones she would go after. My interest in this was because of the setup by Cash Michaels and his writing. He has self appointed himself spokesman for the "black community" and it has all the markings of the approach for the FA to get money. I never said I thought she would win but appearances from all Cash Michaels statements are that they want money.
"three false accusers"
should have read....three falsely accused
Thanks for the pings!
My computer was "fried" in a lightning storm on July 22nd, and I have to catch up on everything! I ordered a new one today. Can't wait to get it! In the meantime, trips to the library are getting tedious. Thanks again!
One little change to previous post. I think in a civil case they might only need 9 out of 12 jurors to agree. Makes it even easier in Durham.
Jezebelle,
(This is MY read ):
She was let our early on Parole. Part of that Parole is to submit to warrantless searches.
Somehow DPD came to search and find a Stolen Item on 6-30-06.
On 07-21-06, a Judge apparently ruled. She was convicted of Possession of Stolen Goods - BUT, she (even with her extensive record) only got two months and she was allowed to serve it concurrently with they rest of the time she faced on the earlier charge (that she violated probation on).
Looks Extra Sweet. 60 days served concurrently with an attrocious record like hers. She truly is a career criminal.
My take anyway.
Let out early on parole for what? The shoplifting three years ago? People don't get state prison time for shoplifting, and you have to have been sentenced to state prison in order to be on parole. Something isn't adding up. If she violated parole by being in possession of stolen goods, and a parole violation was charged, she would have been sent back to prison where terms are at least one year, not 60 days. This information isn't making sense. Or are you talking about probation? Or was she originally charged and convicted of a felony (sometimes shoplift can be charged as burglary, which is a felony)?
Concurrent sentences aren't uncommon, especially if there are young children at home and/or it's a non-violent crime.
More info is needed in order to evaluate what's going on and what really happened.
I don't think it is just a NC tactic.
Oh, I'm sure it is done anywhere when allowed. It is abused here in NC.
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.