Durham, North Carolina -- again.
In 2006, three innocent Duke lacrosse players were wrongly charged with rape by Durham's now-disbarred district attorney Mike Nifong.
Now, a successor to Mr. Nifong has been ousted. Superior Court Judge Robert H. Hobgood today ordered that Durham District Attorney Tracey E. Cline, 48, be permanently removed because her blatantly false public statements criticizing Durham Senior Resident Judge Orlando F. Hudson Jr. undermined public confidence in the judicial system. Judge Hobgood terminated Cline's state salary, effective immediately.
Cline's vendetta against Judge Hudson started when Judge Hudson determined the Durham DA's office had withheld or destroyed evidence that could have helped defendants accused of child rape and murder. Thereafter, Cline launched an acrimonious effort last year to remove Hudson from overseeing criminal cases involving her office.
Read more here: http://www.necn.com/03/02/12/Judge-removes-Durham-County-prosecutor-f/landing_nation.html?&apID=d670384ff0be4d61abd98af04ac33d4e
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
"Cline's vendetta against Judge Hudson started when Judge Hudson determined the Durham DA's office had withheld or destroyed evidence..."
I guess she'd never heard of the appellate process? Or, perhaps, she knew she had no grounds for an appeal, and was just pissed at the audacity of a man to officially disagree with her as a woman.
Woman going all "scorched earth" over some minor little issue...can you imagine? (please ignore the mountains of evidence of women doing just exactly that when considering that last question)
But, to be serious (even though it is Friday), do notice how when the laws and the courts are (mis)used by feminists to advance their agenda, they insist that the sanctity of the law be recognized; yet, when almost anything goes against them in those same courts under those same laws, we are now told that we should view said courts and laws as agents of the evil patriarchy exercising misogynistic control and oppress over women.
"By recklessly making blatantly false allegations against Judge Hudson in the public records, totally lacking in factual support, attacking his mortality, honesty and asserting that he is corrupt, Tracey E. Cline has crossed the line of protected free speech under the First Amendment[.]"
She sounds like one of the many false accusers this website exposes daily. Slwerner, horrible prosecutors who hide evidence would never appeal a dismissal in such a case because it would require her to air her dirty laundry and have it discussed in the appellate record.
The parade of scumbags never ceases! The Mafia would probably have better ethics.
Nice to know "justice" reigns supreme when a Judge is the complaitant.
Anonymous @ 5:39 p.m.
I agree that justice reigned supreme, except, I would take off the quotation marks indicating sarcasm.
I wish Judges were as concerned as this Judge with prosecutors who violate the rights of the accused. Don't you think that prosecutors should wear the white hat, so the accused who gets convicted has no excuse as to why he is sitting in jail? Unless, of course, you don't give an ounce of concern to the possibility that an innocent man is imprisoned.
I am here because of an innocent man going to jail. So yes. I give a great big fat damn.
I just find it hard to cheer for the "Good guy" when that guy is a Judge that has no problem convicting innocent people who arent' in the club.
This was self serving. I'll hold my applause for the vindication of innocent private citizens.
Well, they must be puttin' something in the water 'round here.
This is the fourth FRA in about as many months along Colorado's northern front-range region:
Fort Collins police, in a twist, arrest two women who reported they had been crime victims
Two women who reported to police in Fort Collins that they believed they were drugged, had items stolen from them and were possibly raped, have now been arrested and face multiple felony charges.
Lynnea Dawn Graves, 36, and Jada Simone Holloway, 32, both face charges of extortion and attempting to influence a public official, according to a Fort Collins Police Department media release.
The women have not only been arrested and charged, they've been named in the press - just as it should be.
The police also did not rush out and arrest the men identified (by surveillance video, once again key in exposing an FRA), but rather contacted them, and listen to their side of the story - just how it should be done.
So, yet another case with no signs of semantic games, trying to hide an FRA, nor manufacturing of false statistics the - just good police work. It's nice to see more and more PD's "getting it" when it comes to women making rape allegations. Investigate first! It works! And, it works whether the allegation turns out to be a real rape, or turns out to be false. It's just the right way to do things.
And, also in Colorado today:
Former Denver Bronco Perrish Cox not guilty in sex-assault case (link my need to be revised after the article is no longer “breaking news”)
For a quick over-view, the woman alleges that she passed out at his home, but suspected that “something had happened” (as in, sex) while she was unconscious. She further stated that she had asked other people who had been there (Cox’s Bronco teammates) if they knew anything, and both they and Cox denied that anything had happened.
Then, as the allegation continued, when she discovered that she was pregnant, she finally reported that she must have been raped.
Cox continued to deny even having had sex with the women, but then DNA testing revealed that he was the father (news does specifically say so, but it seems that she had an abortion, and the fetal tissue was what was used for the testing).
It looked as if Cox was certainly guilty of having had sex with her (and, if her story was true) without her consent or even knowledge.
Cox was immediately cut from the team, and the local press basically convicted him. The trial was seen as a forgone conclusion to formally convicting him. It was felt that his continued denial of even having had sex would effectively preclude any effective defense of (now) claiming that the sex (which had obviously occurred) had been consensual.
But, lo and behold, that was exactly the defense that attorney Harvey Steineberg present at trial. The so-called experts were yucking it up, suggesting that old Harvey was past his prime, and such an obvious tired old strategy would surely fail him (and his client) in this instance.
But right up there above, you already know how it did actually end – NOT GUILTY was the juries unanimous decision. The press and pundits are stunned, wondering what the Hell happened?
Well, I’ll give you my take: The recent spate of reported false rape claims are now serving to raise doubts about all rape allegations. I saw an example first-hand just over two years ago as my wife took a rather weak case to trial at the alleged (under-aged) victim’s families insistence, only to have it completely undermined in voir dire as the (female) defense attorney got a rather sophisticated appearing women to go on at some length about her belief that false rape claims were not all that rare.
Prosecutors are starting to (more openly) talk about the effect that FRA’s are having on jury pools.
Just this evening, my wife and I made a brief stop at an even and ran into several of her fellow prosecutors there. The talk (predictably) quickly turn to the Perrish Cox verdict of earlier today. It was quite apparent that they all knew that so many FRA were starting to adversely affect the credibility of all rape complainants, but they seemed bewildered as to how it might be addressed.
Well, I was all too happy to give my (by now, probably quite annoying to most of you here) spiel regarding the need for tougher laws by which false accusers could be better punished so as to provide a still badly missing deterrent to many FRA’s.
No words of agreement (at least not publicly expressed to me there), just stunned silence (and, perhaps tellingly, no counter arguments). And, I believe I saw a look of painful recognition that I was right in their eyes.
Hopefully, I’ve got them thinking, and hopefully, they will start spreading the word.
Well, I can hope, anyway.
Cline was one of the strongest influences on the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax, then attempted to remove all evidence of her involvement when the case collapsed.
Then she got asked how the ADA in charge of sexual assault could have had nothing to do with the biggest sexual assault case in recent US history, even though her name STILL was on multiple affidavits and statements.
She had no answer.
slwerner,
I've prosecuted and represented many Servicemembers who have been
charged with Sexual Assault in the military as a former Army Judge Advocate. I learned very early that CID should investigate the veracity of the accuser in order to ensure that it is a valid accusation. If they do fail in their job, then I am stuck preferring a case for court martial where the accused might be innocent.
Over the past 10 years since I was an Army prosecutor, I have noticed a paradigm shift in the investigation policies of CID. They are on this "we do not want to victimize the victim" kick, which translates to a "start by believing" attitude in which CID takes what the accuser says as the truth without venturing into ANY type of investigation that might show otherwise. I've got a case right now where CID did not do what they normally do because I believe they are worried about finding exculpatory information that goes against the accuser's story. I have a hearing on Monday, and I will let you know what happened.
But, suffice it to say that your education of the DA's in Colorado would probably fall on deaf ears for the military which has been infiltrated by the sexual grievance industry, specifically, Roger Canaff who is a "highly qualified expert" who advises and trains the 33 Special Victim's Prosecutors in the Army JAG Corps.
" do notice how when the laws and the courts are (mis)used by feminists to advance their agenda, they insist that the sanctity of the law be recognized; yet, when almost anything goes against them in those same courts under those same laws, we are now told that we should view said courts and laws as agents of the evil patriarchy exercising misogynistic control and oppress over women."
Indeed, feminist ideology is full of contradictions and stupidities. One of the most glaring absurdities is that feminists often rely for the advancement of their agenda on the support of institutions which they simultaneously argue are incorrigibly sexist and hostile to women's interests. For example, they claim that governments, legislatures and the judiciary are male-dominated institutions that ignore women's interests. And yet they rely almost exclusively on favourable public policy and laws to advance their agenda, and argue that attempts to reduce the role of government will inevitably harm women. So the state is simultaneously women's oppressor and liberator.
Not to mention that feminism just plain makes women miserable. Having to pose constantly as a victim is unpleasant, apparently.
The Cox case is not a triumph for FRA cases, unfortunately, but rather a case of The Best Justice Money Can Buy.
Unfortunately, there will be backlash and many innocent falsely accused of the unprotected "priveledged" class will find themselves convicted to make up for it.
Wasn't a DAs election in Colorado being swayed by accusations of "He said it was buyer's remorse" fairly recently?
Anonymous - "Wasn't a DAs election in Colorado being swayed by accusations of "He said it was buyer's remorse" fairly recently?"
I was the one who posted regarding the collapse of DA Ken Buck's campaign for US Senate due to the story of his explaining to a woman that her rape claim (against a former boyfriend who she invited to her home after a chance reconnection at a bar) would not be prosecuted due to the low probability of a conviction.
Buck (well known for his verbal blunders) made the mistake of describing a juries likely view as being that of her having "buyers remorse". He was well ahead in the tracking polling, but quickly dropped behind following news of his ill-chosen words.
Anonymous - ”The Cox case is not a triumph for FRA cases, unfortunately, but rather a case of The Best Justice Money Can Buy.
Unfortunately, there will be backlash and many innocent falsely accused of the unprotected "priveledged" class will find themselves convicted to make up for it.”
The Cox case may not have been a false one at all. Back when it first broke in the news that hew was being accused, I jumped the gun, and suggested on this forum that it might turn out to be another false claim against an athlete.
Then it was revealed that the woman had become pregnant, and that Cox has been determined to be the father (by DNA) – after his repeated insistence that no sex had occurred – and it seemed that he had, in deed, raped her while she was unconscious.
Still, I don’t believe his acquittal will cause a back-lash. In fact, what we are seeing is that accused athletes and celebrities are receiving better treatment recently. The Duke LaCrosse hoax served to illuminate how easily (financially well-off) athletes can be falsely accused, and quite a few people had serious doubts about the accusations against Kobe Bryant. Since the time of those two events, other athletes and celebrities and celebrities have fared better – David Copperfield, Ben Roethlisburger (twice), Rick Patino, and even all-star college Baseball player Garret Whittle (sp?) have benefited from investigations instead of arrest.
Money still buy’s defense, but increased public knowledge of FRA’s also seems now to be coming into play.
In the United States, criminal law is arguably the most complex area of law, since it comprises a wide range of concepts. As a result of this, there are a wide range of available attorneys that specialize in criminal defense. A good criminal attorney will advocate on behalf of their client in court and defend them to the best of their abilities against criminal charges.
Business Attorney Boston
Post a Comment