More about the Addison Motion clanger comments: my responses

I’m continuing here responses to parts of some comments on the thread of More about the Addison Motion clanger.

It will help you understand the content of this post if you're familiar not only with More about the Addison Motion clanger and its thread but also with A clanger in the Addison Motion to Dismiss and its thread.

With that said, the commenters are in italics; I’m in plain

The precedent set here could be huge, and this is larger than just who wins or loses this case. Ronald Stephens shot a huge hole in civil liberties with his race-based NTO, and I do hope that the court says something about it.

By “[t]he precedent here could be huge, and this is larger than just who wins or loses this case” I’m assuming the commenter means the following:

A state court order (NTO) treated 46 citizens as suspects in a multiple felony case based solely on their race. Therefore the state court ordered the 46 to submit to police DNA testing and face and torso photographing.

The federal court system, at least at the district level (and likely at the appellate level as well), will review and rule on matters concerning the constitutionality of the state court's order.

The effects of any federal court rulings for individual rights, for the circumstances under which courts can issue NTOs, etc., would certainly be, as the commenter says, “huge.”

That no doubt is one of the reasons why the nation’s most highly regarded attorney in the areas of uses and abuses of court-ordered DNA testing, Barry Scheck, is a lead attorney in the suit brought by the three innocent young men against Durham City, Durham Police, DNA Security and individuals associated with each of those organizations.

The attorneys in several briefs charge that the Plaintiffs allege they have a right not to be investigated when there is a possible crime.

But the Plaintiffs have never alleged that; only that any investigation must be conducted with respect for the constitutional rights of suspects.

This is a blatant distortion of the pleadings; and the Court should (but probably won't) take notice of it.

You’re right on your main and very important point: it “is a blatant distortion.”

As to what the court will do about it, I won’t offer an opinion now other than to say what attorneys have often told me: briefs containing distortions in the form of ridicule and/or denigration of the other side’s case are almost always counterproductive.

Ronald Stephens shot a huge hole in civil liberties with his race-based NTO, and I do hope that the court says something about it.

I'm confident the court will have plenty to say.

I've not spoken to any attorney who doesn't think the NTO was unconstitutional or doubts a federal court will so find.

Where was the ACLU to complain about this?

It was MIA. If the suits gain public attention, as I think they will, the ACLU at the state and national level may “come out from under the rock.” It's past time they did.

Where was the Duke Law School to complain about this?

The silence of the Duke Law School faculty as the hoax and frame-up attempt played out on their campus and within a few miles of their classroom podiums is shocking.

I’ve posted on the Law faculty’s silence when Reade Seligmann was threatened by racists on May 18, 2006 outside and within the Durham County Courthouse.

I’ll continue bringing up that matter and other aspects of the perplexing and shameful silence of almost all Law faculty in response to the hoax and frame-up attempt.

Why hasn't the NC Judicial Standards Commission started investigating the judges who made such outrageous rulings in the lax case?

I’m sorry, but I don’t know enough to attempt an answer to your question.

Why hasn't the NC Board of Nursing started investigating the actions of Levicy?

I offer the same answer as above.

Why hasn't the NC [State] Bar started investigating[s into] the actions of many of the attorneys involved?

One reason is the actions which may yet call for State Bar action are still not “settled” in the sense that there’s even agreement they happened.

For example, there is yet no public acknowledgment by Duke or its dean of students, Sue Wasiolek, an attorney and State Bar member, that she advised the lacrosse players not to tell their parents and not to seek legal counsel other than to involve themselves with an attorney, Wes Covington, who knew Durham Police and its court system, and would "take care of things," so to speak.

Should discovery proceedings reveal Wasiolek did so advise the players, attorneys tell me that’s something they believe the State Bar would consider looking at although a number of factors would influence when the Bar would do that.

As a matter of fairness I want to point out Wasiolek has never been the subject of State Bar disciplinary proceedings of any kind.

The actions and inactions of a number of other attorneys involved in the hoax, frame-up attempt and its ongoing cover-up could also be subject to State Bar review, especially if what defense attorney Joe Cheshire said last year – that a thorough investigation of the Duke lacrosse case will very likely uncover criminal conduct – proves true.

Keep something else in mind: A federal judge can refer an attorney to a state bar association for review of the attorney's conduct in matters that have come before the court. Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright made a referral to the Arkansas state bar following then President Bill Clinton’s testimony in a civil proceeding involving Paula Jones. Among the consequences of Wright's referral was Clinton's eventual disbarment by the U. S. Supreme Court in response to a request from an Arkansas State Bar committee.

The other question that I have concerns Linwood Wilson acting as his own attorney. Does he have a legal background? If not, who is advising him in his responses to motions? Is he preparing the way for any judgment that might go against him to be thrown out based on inadequate representation ("only a fool hires himself ...")?

You no doubt know Wilson’s not an attorney.

As a former private investigator and subsequently an investigator in the Durham DA’s office, he’s surely more familiar with some aspects of the law and investigative and prosecutorial procedures than the average citizen. However, it's a very safe bet that there are “big holes” in his knowledge in those areas.

I don’t know who, if anyone, is advising him.

I don’t know whether Wilson is “preparing the way for any judgment that might go against him to be thrown out based on inadequate representation.”

In criminal cases a defendant is entitled to be represented by counsel, with the court appointing one or more when the defendant can’t afford to hire an attorney. In some instances, courts in criminal cases have even overruled a defendant’s wish to represent himself and appointed a defense counsel.

But right now Wilson’s involved in a civil proceeding. I don’t know what defendants’ rights are as regards a right to counsel in civil cases; or what the court’s responsibilities are as regards defendants in civil actions and a right to counsel.

I hope attorneys will comment on those questions.

It would seem that the defendants in this case are still hoping that all of this will somehow be swept under the rug and will go away.

We can all understand why they’d hold such a hope. But I’m confident they’re going to be disappointed.

Except for what one reads here, on liestoppers, and DIW, there is no national coverage of what is occurring. I cannot understand the lack of concern that seems to permeate the reading public on this issue of political correctness that seemingly has permeated all levels of society in this country - the case of the IUPUI student is just another example of this. We have administrators, police, and prosecutors who are more than willing to insist that their version of things must be correct and even when the evidence contradicts their positions, they insist then that the evidence is faulty or dead out wrong because nothing should be able to get in the way of the politically correct narrative that they have spun.

You say some very important things I want to comment on, but not now at the end of a long post.

But I didn’t want to overlook your comments; and they provide an appropriate note on which to end this post. So there they are.

Thanks go to the commenters cited here and to all of you who provide such commentary.

You all add to the blog.

John