Posted on 11/16/2006 1:39:09 AM PST by goldstategop
Sure, I'll tell you that; But I'd be lying.
It's all part of one great big shakedown.
I have no problem with that article. It was an interesting read. The 1898 Race Riots were a black eye on the history of my state. I see no reason to bury them and pretend they didn't happen. And I don't see them attempting in any way to connect it to the Duke lacrosse story.
Great response at :
Posted by: Joel Elliott | Nov 17, 2006 7:34:09 AM
http://archerpelican.typepad.com/tap/2006/11/he_believed_her.html
"Wake up and get over it. Find some backbone and start telling it like it is - a black woman, on drugs and angry about having $400 taken from her purse, lodged a false rape claim against three people. The racial aspect of this disaster is that white guys were deliberately provoked into making racial slurs. By a black. Who had just ripped them off.
Ms. Roberts was free to swindle them and blast them with hate speech. Their job was to stand there and take it. Right?
This is equality?"
"This is equality?"
Apparently so, in this twisted liberal world of the politically correct.
mark
The drumbeat for massive reparations will get louder and louder. We need to flush out all politicians who remotely think that reparations are acceptable and make sure they never serve in elected office. Reparations will not correct past injustices, they will only serve to reinforce and legitimize misperceived current injustices and create further divisions. Current injustices can be and should be dealt with through the law: Historic injustices should be memorialized in our history books. This goes not only for former slaves but also for victims of Nazi death camps. The passing of the survivors should put an end to claims for restitution - though, of course, we should let the memories and the historical record help us to prevent similar atrocities today.
.....and should reparations ever come to pass, perpetuate the "I-am-entitled" attitude.
The story is this:
Four men are suing the Federal Government for a wrongful conviction for murder. The suit alleges, based on recently released documents that the FBI knew who did the murder but because he was an informant, and they wanted to protect him, they allowed four innocent men to be framed for the crime. Three of the four were sentenced to death, and one got life. Two of the men who were sentenced to death died natural deaths in prison and the other two were released after serving 30 years! Now THAT is much closer to what is happening in Durham!
I get this message: "The requested document does not exist on this server."
http://justicedenied.org/issue/issue_27/fbi's_legacy_of_shame.html
You may have to copy and paste all of that URL into your browser.
Thanks - that worked!
What did that Ghosts of 1898 piece look like in the dead tree edition, Howlin?
Yes, it is, and emphasis on ONE GREAT BIG SHAKEDOWN. From one political party. Not Repub.
Yep. Very accurate synopsis, Condor.
Gaynor on why the case CAN be dismissed now (pre-trial), and ought to be, on legal grounds.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/061117
(snip)
"I DO know that there is a North Carolina statute that explicitly provides for pre-trial motions to dismiss indictments:
"§ 15A 954. Motion to dismiss — Grounds applicable to all criminal pleadings; dismissal of proceedings upon death of defendant.
(a) The court on motion of the defendant must dismiss the charges stated in a criminal pleading if it determines that:
(snip)
(3) The defendant has been denied a speedy trial as required by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of North Carolina.
(4) The defendant's constitutional rights have been flagrantly violated and there is such irreparable prejudice to the defendant's preparation of his case that there is no remedy but to dismiss the prosecution.
(c) A motion to dismiss for the reasons set out in subsection (a) may be made at any time. (1973, c. 1286, s. 1.)"
"North Carolina General Statutes 15A-954(a)(4) mandates that, on motion, the court "must dismiss the charges stated in a criminal pleading if it determines that...[t]he defendant's constitutional rights have been flagrantly violated and there is such irreparable prejudice to the defendant's preparation of his case that there is no remedy but to dismiss the prosecution,." and North Carolina General Statutes 15A-954(c) permits such a motion "at any time."
(snip)
"That means Judge Smith (and every other North Carolina trial judge) is obligated to follow the rule in the Duke case (and any other case before him).
"That means, upon motion, Judge Smith should determine that the manner in which each of the Duke Three came to be identified was flagrantly unconstitutional and it cannot be said that they were not irreparably prejudiced under the circumstances, so the indictments against them must be dismissed.
(snip)
"God save the Duke Three from timidity!
"First it was said that Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty better not proclaim their innocence publicly or else they surely would say something that would be used to convict them.
"Then it was said that David Evans' public proclamation of his (and their) innocence was a fluke, and another public statement would be too dangerous.
"Each of the Duke Three proved the naysayers wrong when they spoke with there late Ed Bradley of "60 Minutes" (and the outtakes were as good or better than what was broadcast).
"Now someone is saying better not to move to dismiss because the Judge might not decide the motion quickly and Mr. Nifong would be able to read the motion papers and do his worst.
GOD SAVE THE INNOCENT BEING DEFENDED AS THOUGH THEY ARE GUILTY.
"In order for the truth to prevail, it needs to be made public. . . "
(snip)
"A pre-trial motion to dismiss that will set forth flagrant constitutional violations in the Duke case is the right way to go."
He'd be much better off with a hung jury than with a conviction. If a conviction gets overturned on appeal, Nifong will be forced to admit that he never had a valid case (since the overturning court will basically say the case was not valid). If Nifong gets a hung jury and declines to retry the case, he can claim that at least some jurors thought there was a sound case, and there will be no way the defendants can appeal the hung jury and get a judicial declaration that there should have been a directed verdict.
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.