Posted on 01/12/2007 2:06:42 PM PST by abner
Just heard at the top of the hour. Nifong is recusing himself from the Duke Case as prosecutor.
It's what I was doing. I don't think anything uber significant will happen while you are away. But IF it does... you'll be caught up in no time.
Nifong indicted Seligmann on April 17, after he'd been told by Dr. Meehan a week earlier about the multiple unknown men's DNA found in/on the accuser, and after they agreed to hide that info from the defense. On May 18, as he finally turned over discovery to the defense, Nifong presented the court a signed statement swearing he knew of no additional exculpatory info regarding Reade Seligmann. He lied to the court.
Wicked grin....indeed! LOL!
Why doesn't he come forward and explain it all to us and answer questions? Why does he need an attorney if he's innocent?
:> :> :> :>
The people who voted for Nifong in November may have votes but I doubt they have money. Blacks are notoriously poor campaign donaters; I expect they would be even less likely to give a dime to his defense if they wouldn't give him a dime for his campaign when he was essentially promising to railroad three white boys for their gratification.
Nifong doesn't have $80k a month for lawyers. He doesn't have $80k a year for lawyers. He probably has $20k a year for lawyers. He will have to get some local lawyer buddy to do it pro bono, LOLOLOL!!!!!!
I'm seeing visions of Wile E. Coyote when I think of Nifong now.
You're right. His endeavors have been quite hapless. :>
Thanks.
Do you know if NC has a homestead exemption on a judgment debtor's primary residence? If so, how much?
It may be sufficient, but I doubt the AG's office will see it that way. They will be loathe to act too quickly or to bungle it, so I think they will ask for a continuance, and probably be permitted a brief one - like thirty days, maybe.
On the other hand, it may be pretty cut-and-dried and they may view the 2/5 hearing as an opportunity to drive a stake through the heart of this case.
It's hard to know what they're thinking. We now know that Nifong did indeed contact one of their special prosecutors in adavance, as I suspected he would and said so. I don't know what his relationship with Coman (sp?) is or anything about him or the other presecutor, Mary Winstead (sp?) are all about and if they view this politically or not. If they're flaming lefties like Nifong, the Vietnam War conscientious Objector that he is, they may decide to torture these boys some more or take it trial to give credence to Nifong's position about the case to help him in his state bar and other liability troubles.
If Nifong has a buddy who will do this for him pro bono then he has a friend sent from God himself. There are going to be endless depositions which have to be paid for, endless filings and fees, all of which drive up costs for a defendant. Even if someone wants to donate time to Nifong, there is a personal limit to how much money they will put out for him out of pocket. After all, it is still a lawyer we're talking about.
One would wonder. :)
February 5 isn't a trial--it's merely a hearing for the discussion of a few motions, including one to decide whether Precious' identifications are reliable. I would not expect an ethical prosecutor to ask for a continuance without some clue of what he might be able to do in the extra time that he would be unable to do in two weeks.
If certified copies of the interview and ID-session transcripts match the copies that have been posted on the net, I would find it hard to even imagine anything that the prosecution might find that would show Precious was reliable. In particular, I find it hard to imagine anything that would open up a scenario in which none of the following applied:
I see nothing that one could possibly discover that would show that Precious was telling the truth in the rigged ID session and--despite the fact that she's lied about things since then--would tell the truth on the stand. Can anyone think of anything that could salvage her credibility?
They'll ask for a continuance because they're lawyers. They need no other reason.
Only one thing. A supernatural miraculous intervention that causes the whole world amnesia..
Yep. Maybe Nifong can swing the expenses, but not the representation time, or not much of it.
"Can anyone think of anything that could salvage her credibility?"
Short of a confession from the boys or a video of the alleged attack, the answer is a resounding "no."
The reason the new prosecution will need a full review is because there are other matters to be heard on 2/5 besides the ID issue. Beyond that, Mangum may say something that opens doors to other evidence, or lack thereof, when she's on the stand, and they need to be prepared for that. So, they really do have a right to review the entire case and if that takes longer than the next three weeks, they should be given the time, as long as it isn't ridiculous. They may ask the court sooner than 2/5 for another thirty to forty-five days, perhaps even this coming week, so it may not end up being a full month continuance from 2/5. It depends on the calendar.
mark
I've put up a new thread with all of today's (Sun 1/14) newspaper stories in it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1767367/posts
It is my understanding that they do have a homestead exemption - not sure if there is a limit or if so what it is. If you are a landlord, you cannot even evict a tenant for non-payment of rent or breaking a lease without a difficult legal battle.
Landlord? Maybe we're not talking about the same thing. By homestead exemption, I'm talking about an ownership equity dollar amount exemption from enforcement of a judgment through levying the real property of the judgment debtor. In CA, last time I looked, which was some years ago, it was $75,000. So, a judgment creditor would be entitled to receive anything left from the sale proceeds up to his/her judgment amount, after the superior liens, such as the mortgages, the cost of the levy (usually a few hundred $), and the $75,000 which would go to the owner/judgment debtor, were paid.
I understodd what you meant - the point I was making was that not only is the residence protected for homeowners, but for tenants as well. In NC, at least you are protected from being sued out of house and home.
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.