I read E&J again. I think they pretty clearly include the current case. Certainly it is against the rules to lie to the committee in this case and he broke that rule. Certainly he has been indifferent to making restitution.
As for H, you make a good case for it not applying. On the other hand were these poor black kids or poor elderly victims who scraped together bail money, but were only well represented because the ACLU of my youth took there case or some good lawyer took their case pro bono, would H not apply here either? These guys are young and POOR. They are depending on the generousity of others to pay for their representation. Sure it is their parent, BUT THEY ARE STILL POOR. Because others who happened to be related to them stepped forward to help them, everyone forgets that in this case [unless one has a trust fund we have not heard about] the defendants essentially have nothing.
Link to new thread
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1773908/posts
Lying to the committee is covered under F.
Nifong hasn't been ordered to make restitution yet.
Regardless of who stepped forward to help them, they still have competent representation. The resources affording that representation don't have to be their resources. The question is did/do they have it? Yes, they do.