Today two blogs are reporting on developments in the unfolding Duke hoax case.
First, Liestoppers reports:
Recently, LieStoppers was asked by a North Carolina attorney to assist in the preparation of a NC State Bar Grievance Complaint to be filed against Mr. Nifong by conducting research and providing documentation of Mr. Nifong's ethical transgressions with regard to Ethics Rules 3.6 and 3.8 in terms of his persecution of the Duke hoax.DisBarNifong?
The results of our research were presented in full to the attorney who requested the assistance and in part here in our A Hoax within a Hoax post. Further presentation will follow on these pages shortly.
In the interests of making our research and source material available to others intent on presenting charges of their own against Mr. Nifong prior to the NC State Bar Ethics Committee Grievance Board’s October session, we have created, and will continue to develop, our new Links section consisting of research sources and analysis targeting the issues raised by Mr. Nifong‘s ethical misbehavior.
While we do understand that the Grievance Board will eventually consider the charges lodged against Mr. Nifong, we cannot say with certainty whether the complaints will be considered in October or at the following session in January.
Members of the North Carolina Bar willing to file additional grievances against Mr. Nifong with regard to ethics rules 3.6 and 3.8 are encouraged to contact LieStoppers if in need of research or documentation assistance. Inquiries may be sent to: DisBarNifong@LieStoppers.com.
Maybe dat’s da bar where da fat, bald cop da N&O can’t find is drinkin’ des days. What da ya think, Editor Sill?
Anyway , thanks Liestoppers for some very important reporting. And thanks for developing and making available a fine Legal Ethics section at your blog. When an MSM news organization does something like that, it pats itself on the back for a “public service.”
Liestoppers, pat yourself on the back.
Another fine piece of news reporting is found at KC Johnson’s Durham-in-Wonderland.
KC reports on his email interviewing of Daniel Bowes, the head of Duke’s ACLU chapter. Bowes detailed responses provide information we haven’t had before about his chapter’s activities last Spring as well as some of its plans for the academic year just getting under way. Here’s some of what Bowes said:
As the initial facts concerning the case became clear, it was obvious to the ACLU@DUKE’s members that what D.A. Nifong was doing was unethical, inappropriate, and illegal.I don’t recall any area MSM reporting last Spring that the members of Duke's ACLU chapter had concluded what Nifong was doing “was unethical, inappropriate, and illegal.”
However, for better or worse we made the decision to focus our efforts on increasing the conversation within Duke’s community. While we did not feel qualified to speak on the O’Reilly factor or similar shows—we felt comfortable telling our classmates that the immediate, large-scale presumption of guilt, and the circumstances that Nifong created that allowed such to happen, were reprehensible and not so different from the very same presumptions that had for so long—and still today—plagued minorities.
That’s an important piece of news in its own right. What’s more, it leads to questions the area media should be pursuing.
For example, what do Duke Law School faculty members think of Duke’s ACLU student members’ conclusions regarding Nifong? Do they share them?
Other than Professor James Coleman, I can’t think of a law faculty member who’s expressed an opinion regarding the ethics, appropriateness or legality of Nifong’s conduct.
And have media ever given us an explanation for Duke’s President Richard Brodhead’s refusal to tell the public what he thinks of Nifong’s conduct?
There is much more news and analysis in KC’s post.
Hat tips to Liestoppers and KC at Durham-in-Wonderland.