When I was a child, my mother and father used to say to me: "There's always more than one side to the story." I have remembered that saying a lot in the last few weeks. First there was the UVA rape story that was woefully one sided in its presentation by the Rolling Stone. That story has since collapsed. I won't go into that in detail in this post.
Now, the December 5, "peaceful protest" story in Durham is coming unraveled. Right after the "peaceful protest" several people took to facebook and at least a couple of preacher took to their pulpits to excoriate the Durham Police Department's handling of that so called "peaceful protest." They would have drawn the disdain of my parents. I, frankly, am ashamed that I did not call my own preacher to task for her sermon that blamed police for the violence at the "peaceful protest."
WNCN our local NBC affiliate is reporting that the protest was far from peaceful. According to the WNCN report, DPD was expecting a large protest that might turn violent on Friday December 5. They based that conclusion on social media postings threatening violence. A reasonable conclusion, I might add. According to DPD and the City Manager, the protest began at CCB Plaza and moved toward the Durham County Jail. Once at the jail, fireworks were launched at the jail into the air and paint was thrown on the street. Things went downhill from there. Ultimately, 31 people were arrested by 120 police officers. It seems that those who were claiming a totally peaceful protest were, at the least, uninformed. They failed to get both sides of the story. And in doing so they presented a version that was far - far from the complete truth.
Walt-in-Durham
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
More on rape and false accusations.
Lena Dunham has decided to respond to the criticism of her book: Not that kind of girl. The book makes two allegations about Ms. Dunham being raped. Most of the criticism has been directed at those two sections of the book. They are the most provocative. In her response to critics, Ms. Dunham says: "When I finally decided to share my story, it had ambiguities and gray areas, because that’s what I experienced, because that’s what so many of us have experienced. As indicated in the beginning of the book, I made the choice to keep certain identities private, changing names and some descriptive details. " Unfortunately, Ms. Dunham and her publisher did not make clear when she was using pseudonyms and when she was not. That lack of clarity lead to someone who had never had any contact with Ms. Dunham being identified as her rapist. After all, the real Barry was a well known conservative around Oberlin College when Ms. Dunham was there. She should never have been so sloppy as to not tell us when she was using a pseudonym.
Thankfully, Ms. Dunham has now clarified the situation. She wrote: "To be very clear, “Barry” is a pseudonym, not the name of the man who assaulted me, and any resemblance to a person with this name is an unfortunate and surreal coincidence. I am sorry about all he has experienced." She should be sorry. Her trauma is no excuse for inflicting trauma against an innocent person completely un-involved in her experience. Her conduct was and is unacceptable. Her apology is a good first step. But, now she must atone and more importantly, she must never ever do this again.
Walt-in-Durham
Thankfully, Ms. Dunham has now clarified the situation. She wrote: "To be very clear, “Barry” is a pseudonym, not the name of the man who assaulted me, and any resemblance to a person with this name is an unfortunate and surreal coincidence. I am sorry about all he has experienced." She should be sorry. Her trauma is no excuse for inflicting trauma against an innocent person completely un-involved in her experience. Her conduct was and is unacceptable. Her apology is a good first step. But, now she must atone and more importantly, she must never ever do this again.
Walt-in-Durham
Monday, December 8, 2014
Mangum appeal briefs are filed.
Readers may recall that on the night of April 2-3 2011, Crystal Gail Mangum stabbed the man she was living with. A few days later, Reginald Daye passed from this life as a result of Crystal's stab wound. She was indicted in April 2011 and after many machinations, went to trial in Superior Court on November 12, 2013. Trial lasted several days and a guilty verdict was finally returned on November 22, 2013. Judge Ridgeway sentenced Crystal to a term of not less than 170 months to not more than 216 months in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Corrections. Readers may also recall that it was Crystal Gail Mangum who falsely accused three men of a rape that never took place. Readers may also recall that Crystal Gail Mangum assaulted her previous live in boyfriend and set fire to his clothes and shoes.
After her conviction, Crystal filed the Record and her Brief with the N. C. Court of Appeals. In her brief, Crystal raises only one issue: WHETHER ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT CRYSTAL MANGUM ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTED TO ASSAULT MILTON WALKER IN FEBRUARY 2010 WAS ERROR WHEN IT HAD NO PROBATIVE VALUE TO PROVE ANY
MATERIAL FACT OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT'S BAD CHARACTER?
Much has been made by Sid Harr at the Justice4Nifong blog about defense counsel's date errors. In fact, Sid missed more errors of counsel when it comes to dates. For example, defense counsel alleges Crystal was indicted on March 18, 2011. Three weeks before the stabbing took place on the night of April 2-3 2011. After reading the defense brief, I must conclude that the drafter was none too careful with dates. None of these issues are fatal to the brief, they just go to a lack of careful drafting. All in all, the state's recitation of the facts in its Brief is more accurate.
The defense raised one issue and one only, that is the prior bad acts admitted under rule 404(b). Hereafter, I will refer to this as the 404(b) evidence. Specifically the defense complained about Milton Walker's testimony about Crystal's threat to harm him with a knife on the night she burned some of his clothes and shoes. Walker's testimony is particularly damaging as it shows a violent temper and a eerie similarity to what she did to Daye. There is no doubt this is why the state offered Walker's testimony. Walker, despite Crystal's attitude toward him, considers himself a friend and did not want to testify. None the less, Walker was compelled to do so and he gave some damning testimony. Testimony that was, for the most part, backed up by a couple of Durham police officers.
In her argument, Crystal's lawyer is really at her best. She does a good job of highlighting why 404(b) evidence is so difficult for a defendant. More importantly, Crystal's lawyer does a good job of hitting all the limits to 404(b) admissibility. What she does not do is argue to overturn the precedents that allow so much 404(b) evidence into the record in North Carolina. Frankly, this is not the best set of facts to make that argument. The state, as expected, did a good job of countering the argument. After all, the state has the weight of precedent on its side. The one thing going for Crystal is the Court of Appeals review de novo 404(b) rulings by a trial court. De novo is a latin phrase that literally means from the beginning. In law, we understand it to mean the Court reviews this ruling as if the court below had never ruled at all. However, that does not end the 404(b) analysis.
Once the trail court, and the Court of Appeals determine if 404(b) evidence is admissible, then the court must turn to a Rule 403 analysis. Rule 403, in short, says that a court may not admit evidence even if otherwise admissible, if its probative value is outweighed by the prejudice it is likely to cause. However, Rule 403 review is not de novo, but for abuse of discretion. State v. Beckelheimer, 366 N.C. 127, 130, 726 S.E.2d 156, 159 (2012). As you can see, this rule is from the N.C. Supreme Court. Thus it cannot be overturned by the Court of Appeals, or even disregarded. The COA has to follow the Supreme Court's precedent. In an abuse of discretion analysis, the trial court will be affirmed if it has a reasonable basis for the ruling, any reasonable basis. I doubt the COA is going to overturn Judge Ridgeway on this issue.
Don't pay attention to Sid's effort to misdirect your attention. He claims that somehow Duke University had something to do with Daye's death. Crystal does not make that argument. the only argument she makes regards the 404(b) evidence. Sid is just attempting to keep his tiny band of followers distracted from what is really going on. A band that is both easily distracted and wants the distraction.
Of final note, Crystal does not raise any error regarding self-defense or her demonstrative evidence of the door which goes a long way toward the self-defense angle. It appears that she is pinning her whole hopes on 404(b). That's her strongest argument. Unfortunately, by not challenging the self-defense conviction as being unsupported by sufficient evidence, Crystal openly invites the court to engage in a harmless error analysis. That is exactly the opening the state jumped at in the later stages if their brief. Even if the COA is inclined to give her some relief on the 404(b) issue, they will most likely rule it harmless error.
Walt
After her conviction, Crystal filed the Record and her Brief with the N. C. Court of Appeals. In her brief, Crystal raises only one issue: WHETHER ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE THAT DEFENDANT CRYSTAL MANGUM ALLEGEDLY ATTEMPTED TO ASSAULT MILTON WALKER IN FEBRUARY 2010 WAS ERROR WHEN IT HAD NO PROBATIVE VALUE TO PROVE ANY
MATERIAL FACT OTHER THAN THE DEFENDANT'S BAD CHARACTER?
Much has been made by Sid Harr at the Justice4Nifong blog about defense counsel's date errors. In fact, Sid missed more errors of counsel when it comes to dates. For example, defense counsel alleges Crystal was indicted on March 18, 2011. Three weeks before the stabbing took place on the night of April 2-3 2011. After reading the defense brief, I must conclude that the drafter was none too careful with dates. None of these issues are fatal to the brief, they just go to a lack of careful drafting. All in all, the state's recitation of the facts in its Brief is more accurate.
The defense raised one issue and one only, that is the prior bad acts admitted under rule 404(b). Hereafter, I will refer to this as the 404(b) evidence. Specifically the defense complained about Milton Walker's testimony about Crystal's threat to harm him with a knife on the night she burned some of his clothes and shoes. Walker's testimony is particularly damaging as it shows a violent temper and a eerie similarity to what she did to Daye. There is no doubt this is why the state offered Walker's testimony. Walker, despite Crystal's attitude toward him, considers himself a friend and did not want to testify. None the less, Walker was compelled to do so and he gave some damning testimony. Testimony that was, for the most part, backed up by a couple of Durham police officers.
In her argument, Crystal's lawyer is really at her best. She does a good job of highlighting why 404(b) evidence is so difficult for a defendant. More importantly, Crystal's lawyer does a good job of hitting all the limits to 404(b) admissibility. What she does not do is argue to overturn the precedents that allow so much 404(b) evidence into the record in North Carolina. Frankly, this is not the best set of facts to make that argument. The state, as expected, did a good job of countering the argument. After all, the state has the weight of precedent on its side. The one thing going for Crystal is the Court of Appeals review de novo 404(b) rulings by a trial court. De novo is a latin phrase that literally means from the beginning. In law, we understand it to mean the Court reviews this ruling as if the court below had never ruled at all. However, that does not end the 404(b) analysis.
Once the trail court, and the Court of Appeals determine if 404(b) evidence is admissible, then the court must turn to a Rule 403 analysis. Rule 403, in short, says that a court may not admit evidence even if otherwise admissible, if its probative value is outweighed by the prejudice it is likely to cause. However, Rule 403 review is not de novo, but for abuse of discretion. State v. Beckelheimer, 366 N.C. 127, 130, 726 S.E.2d 156, 159 (2012). As you can see, this rule is from the N.C. Supreme Court. Thus it cannot be overturned by the Court of Appeals, or even disregarded. The COA has to follow the Supreme Court's precedent. In an abuse of discretion analysis, the trial court will be affirmed if it has a reasonable basis for the ruling, any reasonable basis. I doubt the COA is going to overturn Judge Ridgeway on this issue.
Don't pay attention to Sid's effort to misdirect your attention. He claims that somehow Duke University had something to do with Daye's death. Crystal does not make that argument. the only argument she makes regards the 404(b) evidence. Sid is just attempting to keep his tiny band of followers distracted from what is really going on. A band that is both easily distracted and wants the distraction.
Of final note, Crystal does not raise any error regarding self-defense or her demonstrative evidence of the door which goes a long way toward the self-defense angle. It appears that she is pinning her whole hopes on 404(b). That's her strongest argument. Unfortunately, by not challenging the self-defense conviction as being unsupported by sufficient evidence, Crystal openly invites the court to engage in a harmless error analysis. That is exactly the opening the state jumped at in the later stages if their brief. Even if the COA is inclined to give her some relief on the 404(b) issue, they will most likely rule it harmless error.
Walt
Monday, December 1, 2014
Police misconduct.
Food for thought. I spent the weekend with my family and the question of Michael Brown came up. As the only lawyer in the group, several people asked me what I thought. I have posted elsewhere that I thought the Grand Jury did a good job over going over the record and making a decision. I have also posted that I do not think the DA had a conflict of interest as we understand it within the Rules of Professional Conduct.
However, Michael Bell, a retired USAF Lt. Colonel writing in Politico raises a very good point about police and prosecutors investigating themselves. Wisconsin has a law, thanks in part to Michael Bell, that calls for an outside investigation of police shootings. Lance the intern wrote at Justice4Nifong about his concerns about the prosecutor's perceived conflict of interest. While I still think the prosecutor had no conflict as it is recognized by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lance and Michael Bell have very good points. What we really need, not just if Ferguson, but in the country as a whole is a system of holding police accountable. At the very least that means we need an independent review of police involved shootings.
I would go farther though. The Duke lacrosse fiasco shows the need for an effective system of outside review of police actions. In the fiasco, the State Bar of North Carolina provided an outside review of Nifong's disreputable prosecution. But, there was nothing like that for the Durham Police Department. The innocent men wrongly accused filed a civil lawsuit seeking an outside overseer for the DPD. The city fought that notion tooth and nail, ultimately prevailing on procedural grounds. In NC, we have been the victim of too many cases of police and prosecutorial malfeasance. Allen Gell, Darryl Hunt and Eric Daniels come to mind immediately. But, there sadly others. An outside review board in these cases would have saved us a lot of grief. These cases have cost taxpayers around NC millions of dollars that could have been put to productive use. If prosecutors and police knew that they were accountable, we would not have had to put up with these fiascoes. Nor would the innocent men involved had to be charged, and in some cases imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. Yet in no case has any police officer been disciplined. Not one!
I do not think that good police officers would oppose such a board. They want to do a good job. Good police officers do not want to be sullied by false prosecutions. Most of all, they do not want to be associated with unaccountable killers.
I do not know that an independent review of the Brown case would have reached a different outcome. As I wrote earlier, the Grand Jury did a thorough job and it looks like a good "No Bill" was returned. However, if the Ferguson Police knew that every police shooting would be referred to an ouside agency and the department as well as the officer would be subject to accountability, perhaps Officer Wilson would have not shot in the first place.
Walt-in-Durham
However, Michael Bell, a retired USAF Lt. Colonel writing in Politico raises a very good point about police and prosecutors investigating themselves. Wisconsin has a law, thanks in part to Michael Bell, that calls for an outside investigation of police shootings. Lance the intern wrote at Justice4Nifong about his concerns about the prosecutor's perceived conflict of interest. While I still think the prosecutor had no conflict as it is recognized by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lance and Michael Bell have very good points. What we really need, not just if Ferguson, but in the country as a whole is a system of holding police accountable. At the very least that means we need an independent review of police involved shootings.
I would go farther though. The Duke lacrosse fiasco shows the need for an effective system of outside review of police actions. In the fiasco, the State Bar of North Carolina provided an outside review of Nifong's disreputable prosecution. But, there was nothing like that for the Durham Police Department. The innocent men wrongly accused filed a civil lawsuit seeking an outside overseer for the DPD. The city fought that notion tooth and nail, ultimately prevailing on procedural grounds. In NC, we have been the victim of too many cases of police and prosecutorial malfeasance. Allen Gell, Darryl Hunt and Eric Daniels come to mind immediately. But, there sadly others. An outside review board in these cases would have saved us a lot of grief. These cases have cost taxpayers around NC millions of dollars that could have been put to productive use. If prosecutors and police knew that they were accountable, we would not have had to put up with these fiascoes. Nor would the innocent men involved had to be charged, and in some cases imprisoned for crimes they did not commit. Yet in no case has any police officer been disciplined. Not one!
I do not think that good police officers would oppose such a board. They want to do a good job. Good police officers do not want to be sullied by false prosecutions. Most of all, they do not want to be associated with unaccountable killers.
I do not know that an independent review of the Brown case would have reached a different outcome. As I wrote earlier, the Grand Jury did a thorough job and it looks like a good "No Bill" was returned. However, if the Ferguson Police knew that every police shooting would be referred to an ouside agency and the department as well as the officer would be subject to accountability, perhaps Officer Wilson would have not shot in the first place.
Walt-in-Durham
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
UNC vandals at work.
UNC student athletes vandalized the visiting locker room at Wallace Wade Thursday night following UNC's victory over Duke. Apparently, this was an extension of the celebratory painting of the victory bell. Worse, none of the coaching staff saw a thing and did nothing to stop the damage. Nothing? No, not a thing. Saw nothing did nothing. Well friends, where are the adults? I played football in high school. From the moment we left school on the bus to go on a road game, through the whole game and the entire ride home, we were under the constant supervision of our coaches and staff. There was also a school official, usually the Principal or the Assistant Principal along too. I did not play football in college, but I did spend enough time around the athletic department as a tutor to know that football players never were left alone on game day. There was always a coach, a graduate assistant, or a football staffer with the players from the time the bus left until it got back. It simply boggles the mind that no responsible adults were present when this was going on.
Larry Fedora, it's time for you to step up and take responsibility. Find out which coaches were "not present" and find out why. Then dismiss them. Find out which players were the ring leaders. Coaches always know who their leaders are. For good or ill, coaches know. Dismiss the ring leaders from the team for the rest of the season. I know it's just the NCSU game and that's a big game for you. But, it's not as big as the school's reputation. Which is in tatters if you haven't noticed. Third, find the participants and make them run the stairs at the stadium, and run and run and run. Run them until it hurts or they are doing physical damage to their bodies. Teach them that doing stupid things have consequences.
Larry Fedora, it's time for you to step up and take responsibility. Find out which coaches were "not present" and find out why. Then dismiss them. Find out which players were the ring leaders. Coaches always know who their leaders are. For good or ill, coaches know. Dismiss the ring leaders from the team for the rest of the season. I know it's just the NCSU game and that's a big game for you. But, it's not as big as the school's reputation. Which is in tatters if you haven't noticed. Third, find the participants and make them run the stairs at the stadium, and run and run and run. Run them until it hurts or they are doing physical damage to their bodies. Teach them that doing stupid things have consequences.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
Rebuilding UNC
Don Eggleston has an op/ed piece at the Greensboro News & Record today proposing how to rebuild UNC. Don is significant because he is "one of the family." He played and lettered in basketball under Dean Smith. He was a Morehead scholar and he received his law degree from UNC.
Don, a fellow attorney and all around good guy, proposes a scorched earth policy for UNC. Fire or retire everyone who is not clerical staff in any department that touched the scandal. That includes basketball coaches (Roy Williams, Sylvia Hatchell and a hose of coaches you and I have never heard of.) Don would close up the AFAM department along the way. As a side note, two very respected and very liberal college professor friends of mine both questioned how and or why AFAM could survive as a department. Both noted the scarcity of published works as an indication of how little scholarship was really going on. Both said that without scholarship, there is no point in a department because there is no one to teach. Don wants to clean out top administration too. He didn't call for Carol Folt's early departure, but I will add her to the list. Her treatment of Mary Willingham, who was right about everything she wrote, is deplorable. To that list, I would add Tom Ross. He was there for the end of this fiasco. He did nothing. Ross gives empty suits a bad name. It's time for that empty suit to leave the building.
Don's piece is reprinted below:
Don, a fellow attorney and all around good guy, proposes a scorched earth policy for UNC. Fire or retire everyone who is not clerical staff in any department that touched the scandal. That includes basketball coaches (Roy Williams, Sylvia Hatchell and a hose of coaches you and I have never heard of.) Don would close up the AFAM department along the way. As a side note, two very respected and very liberal college professor friends of mine both questioned how and or why AFAM could survive as a department. Both noted the scarcity of published works as an indication of how little scholarship was really going on. Both said that without scholarship, there is no point in a department because there is no one to teach. Don wants to clean out top administration too. He didn't call for Carol Folt's early departure, but I will add her to the list. Her treatment of Mary Willingham, who was right about everything she wrote, is deplorable. To that list, I would add Tom Ross. He was there for the end of this fiasco. He did nothing. Ross gives empty suits a bad name. It's time for that empty suit to leave the building.
Don's piece is reprinted below:
By Donald P. Eggleston
This open letter to the UNC family is both a reaction and response to the recent investigation and report by former Assistant Attorney General for National Security Kenneth Wainstein. I offer it in the hope that the university can apply appropriate remedies to recapture its academic credibility.
My suggestions are drastic, but only drastic remedies offer a reasonable opportunity for recovery of the respect we have lost, both academically and athletically. Those suggestions include the wholesale replacement of coaches, administrators, tutors and faculty who were complicit in the fraud and a re-examination of the appropriate relationship between intercollegiate athletics and academics.
Inherent in this analysis is a reconsideration of the “student-athlete” model. I have concluded that this term, ubiquitous in the National Collegiate Athletics Association’s lexicon, has been so demeaned by the current atmosphere of major-college athletics as to have no realistic application to the current condition. Therefore, I suggest a total reevaluation of its relevance in real world college athletics.
Who knew when?
I hold to the principle that it does not matter if a coach or administrator or faculty member did not have actual knowledge of the “shadow” nature of the classes. All of the parties involved had a responsibility to know.
There is no doubt that signs were sufficiently apparent to put everyone on notice. If I am a coach who has recruited my players, I am aware of their often-limited academic backgrounds and natural proclivities. When I see more than 80 percent of my players are taking the same course, I have enough information to warrant an investigation.
Further, if I elect to delegate that responsibility to someone else, I must answer to the failure of my delegate to effectively investigate. Constructive knowledge equals actual knowledge, and the blame lies with all.
Coach Williams’ role
With all due respect to coach Roy Williams, it is not about whether the “kids tried to do the right thing.” The problem is not what the “kids” did, but rather what the “adults” allowed, helped and even directed the kids to do.
Deflecting the attention to the “kids” is just an escape mechanism to deflect responsibility off the adults. The really sad part is that this deflection has been present for a long time. We have aided and abetted academic fraud.
We now have a unique opportunity to use this situation as a stepping stone to address a quickly evolving major college athletic atmosphere, study it and determine the appropriate means to adjust to it. As Richard M. Southall, Mark S. Nagel and Ellen J. Staurowsky conclude in a blog post for The Chronicle of Higher Education: “While the stated tax-exempt purpose of big-time college sports is education, we all know it is about entertainment and money. ... The academic fraud at UNC was a calculated cost of doing business, one that every institution with a big-time athletic program pays in one way or another. Some get caught breaking the rules, some don’t.”
The academic/athletic paradigm has changed. In the words of Gerald S. Gurney in his fine article, “Stop Lowering the Bar for College Athletes” (The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 10, 2011): “Because of the time demands of athletics and the deficiencies in academic skills that hinder high-risk athletes from competing in more-demanding curricula, they tend to select majors of least resistance with an abundance of elective coursework: general studies, multidisciplinary studies, interdisciplinary studies. They even resort to acts of academic dishonesty to maintain their athletic eligibility.”
My recommendations for further actions:
The athletics department. As I understand the current university model, the athletics department has been tasked with the overall management and supervision of the various individual sports programs. As such, athletics officials have the primary responsibility of overseeing the entire operation of each separate program, including academic performance. They failed in that role. I recommend the replacement of all non-clerical staff of the department who served in any capacity during the time athletes were enrolled in African and Afro-American Studies, or AFAM , classes. This should coincide with a complete review of the role and mission statement of the athletics department.
Sports program staffs. All non-clerical staff of any individual sports program in which any players were enrolled in any classes within AFAM be replaced. That includes all head and assistant coaches. As suggested earlier, they have succumbed to the disease of performance over academics that has led to the loss of all credibility, outside the community of the fanatic boosters of their respective or collective sports. No amount of finger pointing or gnashing of teeth is persuasive. We are all sorry that we were caught, but some of us are sorry that it happened. The issue is the exercise and acceptance of responsibility. Each sports program should be rebuilt upon a more integrity-based model in conjunction with my recommended restatement of academic standards and goals.
Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes. In recounting the involvement of the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes, or ASPSA, in the scandal, the Wainstein Report describes a program that totally and abjectly lost its direction and understanding of its mission. Or, it could be said, when succumbing to the pressures applied by the various athletics programs, ASPSA chose to redefine its mission in line with that pressure. The outcome was that it accepted as its sole mission keeping athletes eligible.
Whether misled by signals, or lack thereof, from the administration and faculty, the program still failed. I am satisfied that all staff knew the difference between what was right and what they were actually doing. The entire staff of this program should be replaced. Further, the university should re-evaluate the viability and context of this program and, if it elects to continue it, redefine its purposes and policies.
If the program is to be continued, supervision and control over its operation, including the hiring of all counselors/tutors in the program, should be assigned to a division of the general administration and faculty. This program should be independent of the athletics department. Staff performance should be judged by students’ academic performance, not eligibility retention.
African and Afro-American Studies Department. I find it particularly troublesome that AFAM, now renamed African, African American and Diaspora Studies, was drawn into this scheme, given the importance of this department to the university’s diversity program. However, it is inconceivable to me, in the current climate created by this scandal, that AFAM will not struggle to retain any credibility in the academic community. Additionally, given the overwhelming breadth of the abuse outlined in the Wainstein Report, the reasonable conclusion is that no one in the department could have failed to know of or suspect the abuses. My conclusion is that the entire program needs a rebuild. All current faculty and non-clerical staff who were there at the time should be replaced.
Faculty Athletic Council. The failure of the Faculty Athletic Council is not just an athletic failure. It is clear that academic politics played a part in the failure of that group to closely supervise both AFAM and athletic performance. Wainstein suggests that the members of this committee were persuaded against close investigation of AFAM because of academic autonomy. Irrespective of the motivations, there is no doubt that it refused to exercise the very purpose of the committee. Quoting Wainstein: “Although the committee noticed that an AFAM class, AFAM 190 (AFAM Independent Studies), was one of two courses that accounted for the majority of student-athlete independent study enrollments, it ‘did not find any cause for concern in this situation.’ ... It would be more accurate to say, however, that the FAC did not try to find any cause for concern.”
Regardless of the primary justification, one must conclude that the council exercised the same “plausible deniability” defense to excuse its lack of oversight. This was once again a failure of mission. To regain credibility, the university must restate and reinforce the purpose of this committee, replace its members and recharge the replacements as to purpose.
Of course, it may not be appropriate or necessary to replace personnel who been brought in since the uncovering of the scandal, e.g. the new chairwoman of AFAM. But I agree with Luke DeCock’s statement in his recent commentary (Raleigh News & Observer): “The challenge now is whether North Carolina can become the national example of how to put athletics in their proper place going forward.”
I choose to believe that this fiasco can serve as an opportunity for UNC to lead by example. And one way to lead is to open a new dialogue as to the appropriate role of “big college sports” in the university community.
I believe we have a responsibility to every student who enrolls at the university; and we have abrogated and abandoned significant portions of that responsibility in the relentless chase for attention, athletic success and money.
If, indeed, “(W)e thought we were doing the right thing, felt very comfortable about it,” as coach Williams contended, we need to re-examine our comfort level and realign our thinking as to what is appropriate. I would like for UNC to be a leader in that much-needed examination and realignment.
Donald P. Eggleston is a member of the UNC-Chapel Hill Class of 1971. He was a John Motley Morehead Scholar, a basketball letterman under Dean Smith (1967-71) and received his law degree from UNC in 1974.
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
I see this on facebook and other places: ""Gas under $3 a gallon – under $3 a gallon. Unemployment under 6%, whoever thought? Stock market breaking records every day. No wonder the guy is so unpopular.” Putting aside whether the White House gets credit for any of the developments, what exactly would a country moving “in the right direction” look like? Shouldn’t current conditions meet that standard?"
I got this latest version from a friend of mine, who is both liberal and reasonably well informed. Assuming she is serious, here is my answer:
1. Median income is down according to the Census Bureau and CNN.
2. Poverty in 2013 showed its first decline in the Obama years, down from 15% to 14.5% according to the same source.
3. At the beginning of the Obama administration gas prices were $1.89. So today's sub-$3.00 price is not an improvement.
4.The fact that the stock market is going well doesn't benefit Americans who are not investors and most investors are going to vote GOP anyway.
If the poster is serious, the reason people think the country is going in the wrong direction is, because it is going in the wrong direction. No amount of selective amnesia or cherry picking statistics will make people will less income feel like they have more.
Walt-in-Durham
I got this latest version from a friend of mine, who is both liberal and reasonably well informed. Assuming she is serious, here is my answer:
1. Median income is down according to the Census Bureau and CNN.
2. Poverty in 2013 showed its first decline in the Obama years, down from 15% to 14.5% according to the same source.
3. At the beginning of the Obama administration gas prices were $1.89. So today's sub-$3.00 price is not an improvement.
4.The fact that the stock market is going well doesn't benefit Americans who are not investors and most investors are going to vote GOP anyway.
If the poster is serious, the reason people think the country is going in the wrong direction is, because it is going in the wrong direction. No amount of selective amnesia or cherry picking statistics will make people will less income feel like they have more.
Walt-in-Durham
Sunday, November 2, 2014
Being liberal.org, seems to be a favorite facebook page of some people still on my friends list. A posting forwarded to me, poses this: "Food Stamp Cuts A country that expects the elderly to eat on $15.00 per month to avoid taxing the wealthy is morally bankrupt and has no future."
This message is obviously aimed at low information voters. But, it really is only persuasive to the truly stupid. First, Social Security has significantly reduced elder poverty. Add in Medicare and you have a situation where the elderly are among America's most well off groups of people. Second, food stamps are "means tested." That means, if an elderly person gets $15 per month in food stamps, that means they can otherwise afford food without specific government assistance.That is good for people who cannot afford food as there is money available for them and not being spent on people with more need. The message takes the lowest dollar amount of assistance, and implies it would be all the assistance available. That is patently false. Food stamp assistance can be quite substantial. If, and I emphasize, the IF, the need is there. Less need, less assistance. Food stamps are not a giveaway. They are meant to help those in need, not to feed everyone who is a certain age. Let me make this final point, FOOD STAMPS ARE NEED BASED ASSISTANCE, NOT AGE BASED ASSISTANCE.
Walt-in-Durham
This message is obviously aimed at low information voters. But, it really is only persuasive to the truly stupid. First, Social Security has significantly reduced elder poverty. Add in Medicare and you have a situation where the elderly are among America's most well off groups of people. Second, food stamps are "means tested." That means, if an elderly person gets $15 per month in food stamps, that means they can otherwise afford food without specific government assistance.That is good for people who cannot afford food as there is money available for them and not being spent on people with more need. The message takes the lowest dollar amount of assistance, and implies it would be all the assistance available. That is patently false. Food stamp assistance can be quite substantial. If, and I emphasize, the IF, the need is there. Less need, less assistance. Food stamps are not a giveaway. They are meant to help those in need, not to feed everyone who is a certain age. Let me make this final point, FOOD STAMPS ARE NEED BASED ASSISTANCE, NOT AGE BASED ASSISTANCE.
Walt-in-Durham
Saturday, October 25, 2014
Republican Optimism
Let me depart from my usual NC centric blogging. I make no apologies for the fact that I am a Republican. (That's a member of the GOP, for those of you who don't understand the difference between a lower case "r" republican and a upper case "R" Republican. Members of the GOP are the upper case variety. Lower case "r" republicans tend to oppose monarchy. In the Commonwealth, they tend to want to cut ties to Queen Elizabeth II. For the record, I take no position on the issue of monarchy. I can see benefits to a constitutional monarchy, and I can see detriments.)
Larry Kudlow over at Real Clear Politics has an interesting article on what he thinks the GOP should be focusing on in the next congress. He wants us to pass, even if Obama vetoes it, legislation that approves Keystone XL, increases domestic oil and gas production and removes oil export limits. He says a bill or bills that do that will improve the economy, create jobs and make America stronger. I agree!
Further, he wants to cut business, especially corporate, taxes and stop the double taxation of corporate earnings. He's not proposing to do away with the dividend tax, just stopping the double taxation of foreign earnings. That happens because an American corporation normally pays a much lower rate on foreign earnings in the foreign country. Then, the American corporation, when it repatriates the earnings, pays the difference between the U.S. rate and the foreign rate. I agree, but would go one step farther.
I would eliminate the dividend tax. The British tried that in the early part of the Thatcher years and it lead to growth in the economy. Needing more revenue, the Blair government re-introduced dividend taxes. I would like to see us end dividend taxes. This would greatly simplify the tax code. It would make dividend paying stocks more attractive to investors and it would increase our savings rate in this country.
Will Obama sign any of those ideas into law? I doubt it. But, that makes those ideas the cornerstone of a campaign for President in 2016 and a reason for swing voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin and New Hampshire reasons to vote for their incumbent GOP Senator. It will give swing voters in Nevada, and Colorado reasons to switch to the GOP and replace incumbent anti-growth, anti-jobs obstructionists in those two states.
But, we're going to have to do more, especially in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Colorado and Nevada. We have to have both a jobs friendly platform like I have outlined above. We have to have a platform that endorses families, young people and immigrants. To that end, I say we propose real border controls coupled with a recognition that we have people here who are not documented and entered illegally. Get those people identified, get them on the tax rolls, get them drivers licenses and auto insurance so they stop harming us. Stop the gay marriage opposition. Gays are people deserving of respect. To quote George W. Bush, don't be so critical until you've walked a mile in his shoes. Obama has moved the Democratic Party well to the left by punishing any moderates who are running this year. Now is the time to capitalize on his mistakes.
Walt-in-Durham
Larry Kudlow over at Real Clear Politics has an interesting article on what he thinks the GOP should be focusing on in the next congress. He wants us to pass, even if Obama vetoes it, legislation that approves Keystone XL, increases domestic oil and gas production and removes oil export limits. He says a bill or bills that do that will improve the economy, create jobs and make America stronger. I agree!
Further, he wants to cut business, especially corporate, taxes and stop the double taxation of corporate earnings. He's not proposing to do away with the dividend tax, just stopping the double taxation of foreign earnings. That happens because an American corporation normally pays a much lower rate on foreign earnings in the foreign country. Then, the American corporation, when it repatriates the earnings, pays the difference between the U.S. rate and the foreign rate. I agree, but would go one step farther.
I would eliminate the dividend tax. The British tried that in the early part of the Thatcher years and it lead to growth in the economy. Needing more revenue, the Blair government re-introduced dividend taxes. I would like to see us end dividend taxes. This would greatly simplify the tax code. It would make dividend paying stocks more attractive to investors and it would increase our savings rate in this country.
Will Obama sign any of those ideas into law? I doubt it. But, that makes those ideas the cornerstone of a campaign for President in 2016 and a reason for swing voters in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin and New Hampshire reasons to vote for their incumbent GOP Senator. It will give swing voters in Nevada, and Colorado reasons to switch to the GOP and replace incumbent anti-growth, anti-jobs obstructionists in those two states.
But, we're going to have to do more, especially in New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Wisconsin, Colorado and Nevada. We have to have both a jobs friendly platform like I have outlined above. We have to have a platform that endorses families, young people and immigrants. To that end, I say we propose real border controls coupled with a recognition that we have people here who are not documented and entered illegally. Get those people identified, get them on the tax rolls, get them drivers licenses and auto insurance so they stop harming us. Stop the gay marriage opposition. Gays are people deserving of respect. To quote George W. Bush, don't be so critical until you've walked a mile in his shoes. Obama has moved the Democratic Party well to the left by punishing any moderates who are running this year. Now is the time to capitalize on his mistakes.
Walt-in-Durham
Thursday, October 23, 2014
If you like your plan, you can keep it.
President Obama and Senator Hagen promised if you like your plan you can keep it. Well, that didn't really work out under Obamacare regulations. So, the President begged insurance carriers to "extend" some existing plans. Those are called "transitional" plans. In NC, Blue Cross is the only insurer offering "transitional" plans. Those plans are going up on average 19% this year, according to BC/BS and Karen Restrepo at the John Lock Foundation.
If you're locked into Obamacare, you do have some lower cost options, you can go into an ACA plan which has increased in cost an average of 13.5%. If you are so fortunate as to have a "grandfathered" plan, the cost increase will be 13.4%. OUCH! For the record, "grandfathered" plans are those few which met the Obamacare regulations but were in existence before 2010.
How's that hope and change working out for you?
Walt
If you're locked into Obamacare, you do have some lower cost options, you can go into an ACA plan which has increased in cost an average of 13.5%. If you are so fortunate as to have a "grandfathered" plan, the cost increase will be 13.4%. OUCH! For the record, "grandfathered" plans are those few which met the Obamacare regulations but were in existence before 2010.
How's that hope and change working out for you?
Walt
Monday, October 20, 2014
Davidson College QB suspended
WSOC is reporting that the Davidson College football quarterback was suspended from the football team over an alleged assault with a deadly weapon. It is important to note that as of the posting of this message, the young man has not been suspended from the college. It is also important to note this is a college in North Carolina where the student handbook does not form the basis of a contract. So, Davidson is much more free to act than it would be elsewhere. There is no due process protection within the context of a private college and its students.
The facts are dribbling out. As this is a criminal case, once charges are formally filed, the police report will be available for all to see. Until then, I think it best to keep an open mind. Innocent until proven guilty is a doctrine that has served us well for centuries.
The facts are dribbling out. As this is a criminal case, once charges are formally filed, the police report will be available for all to see. Until then, I think it best to keep an open mind. Innocent until proven guilty is a doctrine that has served us well for centuries.
Saturday, September 13, 2014
Condoms distributed in error?
According to Lady Liberty some students at Rowan Cabarras Early College High School received some condoms in their welcome bags! Oh the horror! Please, say it isn't so. Let's be serious folks, high school students are sexually active. According to the CDC 46.8% of high school students have had sexual activity and 34% of high school students have had sexual activity within the last three months. Stop distributing condoms in error and start doing so intentionally.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt-in-Durham
Monday, September 8, 2014
Ray Rice and spousal privilege
The NFL has suspended, indefinitely, Ray Rice for spousal abuse. First and foremost, the NFL and the NFL Players Association have bargained punishments and the collective bargaining agreement appears to give the Commissioner the discretion to impose penalties for violations of the good conduct clause. That is not what this post is about.
Further, the Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc. has cut Rice and cancelled his contract. That too, is not the subject of this post.
What I do want to discuss, briefly, is the question raised by a poster to the NY Times story referenced above. The poster asks why did the prosecution end up with such a weak case? Especially when they had video tape evidence. That is a very good question. In this day and age of surveillance everywhere, how did this case go so badly for the prosecution?
The simple answer is Rule 501 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence. Rule 501 says: Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States, the privileges of a witness, person, government, state, or political subdivision thereof shall be determined in accordance with the common law. The United States Supreme Court has recognized two different forms of marital privilege: (1)Testimonial, and (2)Communications.
(1) The testimonial privilege extends to the witness spouse. The spouse may refuse to testify against his/her spouse in a criminal or civil case. The spouse party does not hold the privilege, only the witness. That means the witness can refuse and cannot be compelled, even by a waiver from the non-witness spouse. This is the privilege problem prosecutors ran up against in the Ray Rice case. They could not compel Mrs. Rice to testify as long as she refuses. (Now of course the state has gotten a minor conviction against Ray Rice so jeopardy has attached and no further criminal punishment is possible.)
(2) The communications privilege belongs to the non-witness spouse. That is, as to what one spouse said to the other, the non-witness holds the privilege and can stop the witness spouse from testifying. This part of the privilege is not the subject of the video at least.
The question then becomes, why can't some custodian of the records for the surveillance company authenticate the video? They can. The problem is the custodian of the records cannot positively identify Ray Rice (not HD quality, or not of sufficient resolution) and certainly cannot positively identify Mrs. Rice.
The final question, why can't CSI identify Rice and Mrs. Rice? The simple answer, CSI with their bag of tricks was not called to the scene.
Walt-in-Durham
Further, the Baltimore Ravens Football Club, Inc. has cut Rice and cancelled his contract. That too, is not the subject of this post.
What I do want to discuss, briefly, is the question raised by a poster to the NY Times story referenced above. The poster asks why did the prosecution end up with such a weak case? Especially when they had video tape evidence. That is a very good question. In this day and age of surveillance everywhere, how did this case go so badly for the prosecution?
The simple answer is Rule 501 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence. Rule 501 says: Except as otherwise required by the Constitution of the United States, the privileges of a witness, person, government, state, or political subdivision thereof shall be determined in accordance with the common law. The United States Supreme Court has recognized two different forms of marital privilege: (1)Testimonial, and (2)Communications.
(1) The testimonial privilege extends to the witness spouse. The spouse may refuse to testify against his/her spouse in a criminal or civil case. The spouse party does not hold the privilege, only the witness. That means the witness can refuse and cannot be compelled, even by a waiver from the non-witness spouse. This is the privilege problem prosecutors ran up against in the Ray Rice case. They could not compel Mrs. Rice to testify as long as she refuses. (Now of course the state has gotten a minor conviction against Ray Rice so jeopardy has attached and no further criminal punishment is possible.)
(2) The communications privilege belongs to the non-witness spouse. That is, as to what one spouse said to the other, the non-witness holds the privilege and can stop the witness spouse from testifying. This part of the privilege is not the subject of the video at least.
The question then becomes, why can't some custodian of the records for the surveillance company authenticate the video? They can. The problem is the custodian of the records cannot positively identify Ray Rice (not HD quality, or not of sufficient resolution) and certainly cannot positively identify Mrs. Rice.
The final question, why can't CSI identify Rice and Mrs. Rice? The simple answer, CSI with their bag of tricks was not called to the scene.
Walt-in-Durham
Tuesday, July 29, 2014
Habeas Corpus
Well friends, Sid Harr is at it again. Now he has filed, so he says, a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on behalf of Crystal Gayle Mangum. Readers will recall that Crystal is the infamous false accuser of the lacrosse fiasco and more recently was convicted of killing the man she lived with, Reginal Daye.
North Carolina provides for the remedy of Habeas Corpus in our constitution (Const. art. 1 s. 21) and in statute NCGS §§ 17-1 and 17-2. § 17-3 provides: "Every person imprisoned or restrained of his liberty within this State, for any criminal or supposed criminal matter, or on any pretense whatsoever, except in cases specified in G.S. 17-4, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, according to the provisions of this Chapter, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint, and, if illegal, to be delivered therefrom."
There are a couple of problems for Sid and Crystal, NCGS § 17-4 provides: When application denied. Application to prosecute the writ shall be denied in the following cases:... (2) Where persons are committed or detained by virtue of the final order, judgment or decree of a competent tribunal of civil or criminal jurisdiction, or by virtue of an execution issued upon such final order, judgment or decree."
In other words, the North Carolina Writ of Habeas Corpus does not apply after a person is convicted. Oops. Again, Sid fails to do his legal research before he filed something.
Sid's next problem is, he is subject to an order from the Wake Superior Court to refrain from practicing law. Accroding to NCGS § 17-5, "Application for the writ may be made either by the party for whose relief it is intended or by any person in his behalf." According to the unsigned petition Sid posted at: Sid is making the application on behalf of Crystal. Under our law, that constitutes the practice of law and thus, a violation of the Wake Superior Court's previous order.
Once again, Sid does his best to show us why it pays to have a real lawyer do legal work. But, with friends like Sid, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.
Walt-in-Durham
North Carolina provides for the remedy of Habeas Corpus in our constitution (Const. art. 1 s. 21) and in statute NCGS §§ 17-1 and 17-2. § 17-3 provides: "Every person imprisoned or restrained of his liberty within this State, for any criminal or supposed criminal matter, or on any pretense whatsoever, except in cases specified in G.S. 17-4, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus, according to the provisions of this Chapter, to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint, and, if illegal, to be delivered therefrom."
There are a couple of problems for Sid and Crystal, NCGS § 17-4 provides: When application denied. Application to prosecute the writ shall be denied in the following cases:... (2) Where persons are committed or detained by virtue of the final order, judgment or decree of a competent tribunal of civil or criminal jurisdiction, or by virtue of an execution issued upon such final order, judgment or decree."
In other words, the North Carolina Writ of Habeas Corpus does not apply after a person is convicted. Oops. Again, Sid fails to do his legal research before he filed something.
Sid's next problem is, he is subject to an order from the Wake Superior Court to refrain from practicing law. Accroding to NCGS § 17-5, "Application for the writ may be made either by the party for whose relief it is intended or by any person in his behalf." According to the unsigned petition Sid posted at: Sid is making the application on behalf of Crystal. Under our law, that constitutes the practice of law and thus, a violation of the Wake Superior Court's previous order.
Once again, Sid does his best to show us why it pays to have a real lawyer do legal work. But, with friends like Sid, Crystal doesn't need any enemies.
Walt-in-Durham
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Crystal Mangum gives an interview
WTVD reporter Tamara Gibbs interviewed Crystal Mangum. Crystal reveals that she has bought into Sid Harr's fantasy about the autopsy inconsistencies. That's called grasping at straws. Of course she's blaming her lawyer. We knew she'd do that. Every guilty person in prison blames their lawyer, for a while. Rehabilitation is a long process. Fortunately for Crystal, she has at least 12 years of rehabilitation left. Hopefully along the way she will make some changes in her life and start making better choices.
One other point from the interview, Crystal is amazed that the jury didn't believe her. Since at least the spring of 2006 she has had a credibility problem. Mostly brought on by her own words not matching actions that were recorded. Dear readers will recall that her initial story about the lacrosse hoax was less than fully believed by Kim Roberts Pittman who called it a "crock." Crystal herself had an impossible time telling the same story to police twice. To the point that police had to use four different lineups to try and get an identification of some suspects. But, those suspects turned out to have alibis or no match with the DNA. At her murder trial, Crystal is amazed the jury didn't believe her. In her interview, she does not recognize that she contradicted all the other witnesses. Now, it is possible that she told the truth and nine other people lied. But, with no physical evidence to back up her story and a definite interest on her part in telling a story different from what everyone else was saying, it is perfectly reasonable for a jury not to believe her.
One other point from the interview, Crystal is amazed that the jury didn't believe her. Since at least the spring of 2006 she has had a credibility problem. Mostly brought on by her own words not matching actions that were recorded. Dear readers will recall that her initial story about the lacrosse hoax was less than fully believed by Kim Roberts Pittman who called it a "crock." Crystal herself had an impossible time telling the same story to police twice. To the point that police had to use four different lineups to try and get an identification of some suspects. But, those suspects turned out to have alibis or no match with the DNA. At her murder trial, Crystal is amazed the jury didn't believe her. In her interview, she does not recognize that she contradicted all the other witnesses. Now, it is possible that she told the truth and nine other people lied. But, with no physical evidence to back up her story and a definite interest on her part in telling a story different from what everyone else was saying, it is perfectly reasonable for a jury not to believe her.
Friday, February 14, 2014
The plot thickens!
Over at the NC Democratic Party, chairman Randy Voller is trying to move Ben Chavis in as Executive Director. The question has been why. Well, Thomas Mills at PoliticsNC has the inside information. Turns out Chavis is a partner in a political consulting firm with Michael Carmichael whom Voller brought in to the great objection of Dem insiders. Voller backed down and cut Carmichael's contract. But now, he's trying to bring in the other half of the duo. The Dems are a lot of fun.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt-in-Durham
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Thoughts from two very smart Democrats
I recently made fun of the Democrats Randy Voller theater. But, just as soon as I did, two very smart and very thoughtful Democrats chimed in. These guys are a big part of the reason the Democrats ran this state and did it relatively well for so long. They are smart and have the best interests of NC at heart. Even when I disagree with them on policy, there is no doubting their patriotism or their commitment to making NC government work. One thing though guys, Thomas Mills is not right about Randy Voller being a GOP plant, he's yours, all yours.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt-in-Durham
Voller tries to reorganize the NC Democrats
http://www.wral.com/democrats-back-off-plan-to-hire-chavis-as-director/13382323/
What can I say about this fiasco except to quote Will Rogers: "I'm the member of no organized political party, I'm a Democrat."
What can I say about this fiasco except to quote Will Rogers: "I'm the member of no organized political party, I'm a Democrat."
Monday, February 10, 2014
Hey, hey, ho, ho Obamacare's got to go!
I don't comment enough on national politics. That needs to change. The Obamacare debacle has been afflicting our nation for too long. Obama is a failed law professor who never got onto tenure track, never published, never rose above entry level instructor. As such, he never had responsibility to lead. We've seen that play out on the national stage. The failed roll out of the Obamacare website. But worse, Obama has done nothing to make sure the next government website roll out works any better. That's the mark of a bad leader.
The GOP gets a lot of criticism for opposing Obamacare reflexively. I think that is unfair. The GOP has suggested reforms for a long time. In the period where the congress was considering Obamacare, the GOP was shut out completely from the process. No amendments from the GOP were permitted. Now, we have a situation where the flawed law is in operation and even organized labor is feeling the sting as the law's provisions are raising the cost of union sponsored health care plans and forcing lower paid and minimum wage workers off company and union sponsored health plans into high cost, high deductible Obamacare plans. So to quote an editorial in the Las Vegas Review Journal "Hey, hey, ho, ho, Obamacare has got to go."
Walt-in-Durham
The GOP gets a lot of criticism for opposing Obamacare reflexively. I think that is unfair. The GOP has suggested reforms for a long time. In the period where the congress was considering Obamacare, the GOP was shut out completely from the process. No amendments from the GOP were permitted. Now, we have a situation where the flawed law is in operation and even organized labor is feeling the sting as the law's provisions are raising the cost of union sponsored health care plans and forcing lower paid and minimum wage workers off company and union sponsored health plans into high cost, high deductible Obamacare plans. So to quote an editorial in the Las Vegas Review Journal "Hey, hey, ho, ho, Obamacare has got to go."
Walt-in-Durham
Sunday, February 9, 2014
Thousands of marchers?
Bill Barber and the NAACP claim 80,000 to 100,000 folks showed up to protest on Saturday February 8 in downtown Raleigh. The left leaning Politics NC website uses commonly accepted crowd estimating formulas and says 20,000. I wasn't there, but I saw photos and talked to two people who were there. The people who were there spouted the Barber line, so I am not too certain of its validity. They were enthusiastic though. I tend to go with smaller numbers than event organizers use. The organizers have a vested interest in giving bigger numbers to promote their success/importance.
Walt-in-Durham
Wednesday, February 5, 2014
Crystal Mangum legal research.
I was doing a bit of research on murder in the second degree and came across this from the general statutes: NCGS § 14-17(b)(1)The malice necessary to prove second degree murder is based on an inherently dangerous act or omission, done in such a reckless and wanton manner as to manifest a mind utterly without regard for human life and social duty and deliberately bent on mischief.
Specifically: "... a mind utterly without regard for human life and social duty and deliberately bent on mischief." I think that phrase well describes Crystal's life up to this point. From stealing taxi cabs, to escorting, to telling lies about the lacrosse team, to setting Milton's clothes alight, to stabbing Reginald Daye, to flirting with the cops after she stabbed him, that is a mind utterly without regard for human life and social duty and deliberately bent on mischief.
Walt-in-Durham
Sunday, February 2, 2014
UNC academic mess.
WNCT has a story about a NCCU professor who wants to "flip the script" on college athletics.
I am not a "fan" of UNC, nor am I a "fan" of Virginia Tech. However, Va Tech graduates 77% of its football athletes. UNC-CH about 58%. I am not a "fan" of Penn State, but PSU graduates almost 70% of its football athletes. Without question, Penn State and VA Tech have much better football than UNC. So what is the difference? Penn State and VA Tech have hired coaches over the years (Joe Paterno, Bill O'Brien and Frank Beemer) who lived up to the college's expectation that good football could be played and the college's obligation to the players to provide a sound education could be met. It comes down to a set of expectations from the top. The Chancellor, the University President and the Board of Governors have to set an expectation that football will be successful on the field but more importantly, the university must fulfill its promise to the athletes. UNC does not do that. Until they start setting the standard that Penn State and Va Tech do, we will still see the lousy graduation rates of football players at UNC-CH. We will still see the situation improve.
Walt-in-Durham
I am not a "fan" of UNC, nor am I a "fan" of Virginia Tech. However, Va Tech graduates 77% of its football athletes. UNC-CH about 58%. I am not a "fan" of Penn State, but PSU graduates almost 70% of its football athletes. Without question, Penn State and VA Tech have much better football than UNC. So what is the difference? Penn State and VA Tech have hired coaches over the years (Joe Paterno, Bill O'Brien and Frank Beemer) who lived up to the college's expectation that good football could be played and the college's obligation to the players to provide a sound education could be met. It comes down to a set of expectations from the top. The Chancellor, the University President and the Board of Governors have to set an expectation that football will be successful on the field but more importantly, the university must fulfill its promise to the athletes. UNC does not do that. Until they start setting the standard that Penn State and Va Tech do, we will still see the lousy graduation rates of football players at UNC-CH. We will still see the situation improve.
Walt-in-Durham
Obama says government can create more middle class jobs.
According to WTVD, our local ABC affiliate, the President says that government can create more middle class jobs that offer good wages, health care and a retirement plan. Ignoring the economic contradictions of that claim, WRAL, our local CBS affiliate, is reporting that the State Department has raised no environmental objections to the Keystone XL pipeline. The question I have to ask the President is, if you support the idea of more good jobs that pay well and offer retirement and healthcare benefits, why even think about opposing the Keystone XL pipeline? The construction jobs it creates will meet the President's definition of good jobs. The refining and chemical industry jobs it creates and preserves will meet the President's definition of good jobs. Yet Mr. Obama seems to be delaying the approval of this good job creation project, why?
Well, the answer my friends is, environmentalists oppose this pipeline. Why? Well, they say it will create more greenhouse gasses thus warming the earth. JP Morgan says for every proposal there is a good reason and the real reason. First, I don't think environmentalists good reason is all that good. The State Department report debunks that. According to the State Department, the mining that Keystone XL is intended to support will go on with or without the pipeline. Without it, the oil will just be transported by different means to a different refining area. Probably off shore. Thus the harm, if any there may be, will take place and the refining will happen somewhere with fewer environmental protections than we have in the U.S.A. That leaves us to answer the question, what is the real reason to oppose Keystone XL?
All I can figure is the environmentalists just don't want any sort of further development of the U.S. petro-chemical industry. For them, any development here is the worst thing they can imagine. They still use petro-chemicals, of course. They just don't want the industry in this country. The President's decision will tell us a lot about him and little else. The oil will get mined, it will get transported and it will get refined. The real question is, will that benefit the U.S. or will it harm the U.S. With Obama making the decision, I expect him to harm us rather than help us.
Walt-in-Durham
Well, the answer my friends is, environmentalists oppose this pipeline. Why? Well, they say it will create more greenhouse gasses thus warming the earth. JP Morgan says for every proposal there is a good reason and the real reason. First, I don't think environmentalists good reason is all that good. The State Department report debunks that. According to the State Department, the mining that Keystone XL is intended to support will go on with or without the pipeline. Without it, the oil will just be transported by different means to a different refining area. Probably off shore. Thus the harm, if any there may be, will take place and the refining will happen somewhere with fewer environmental protections than we have in the U.S.A. That leaves us to answer the question, what is the real reason to oppose Keystone XL?
All I can figure is the environmentalists just don't want any sort of further development of the U.S. petro-chemical industry. For them, any development here is the worst thing they can imagine. They still use petro-chemicals, of course. They just don't want the industry in this country. The President's decision will tell us a lot about him and little else. The oil will get mined, it will get transported and it will get refined. The real question is, will that benefit the U.S. or will it harm the U.S. With Obama making the decision, I expect him to harm us rather than help us.
Walt-in-Durham
Friday, January 31, 2014
More filings and counter filings in Sid's frivolous lawsuit against Duke
Well Sid has been at it again. He filed his response to Duke's response. In many ways, these two litigants deserve each other. It's sort of pot calling the kettle black sort of litigation. However, Duke does have the law and equity on its side. Sid did file this case once, he lost on the merits. Now he wants to do it again, just exactly the same way. What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and expecting a different result. That's Sid. For the good of all litigants, we cannot allow endless re-litigation of the same claims over and over again.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt-in-Durham
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Durham Police under a microscope.
According to WTVD the DPD has some explaining to do. All I have to say is the innocent lacrosse players have been suing for an independent monitor for years. Now you see why it's a good idea. Had the city accepted the players' suggestion, an independent monitor would be in place today. No matter what side you are on, the monitor could give a fair report and suggest changes. Then we would know if something is wrong.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt-in-Durham
Friday, January 17, 2014
Chancellor Folt responds to reading scandal.
Chancellor Carol Folt has responded with an open letter to the UNC community. Some background, UNC has been embroiled in athletic and academic scandal since the infamous tweet by Marvin Austin about a party he attended in Miami while he was still an undergrad. The problem with that party was, Austin was in college and there were questions about impermissible benefits to student athletes raised. It's been all down hill from there.
Of late, a reading specialist at UNC Mary Willingham has alleged that a number of UNC student athletes don't read at a college level. Michael Mcadoo has characterized academics for athletes at UNC as "a scam." in a WTVD report. In the same report, UNC has disputed Willingham's claims.
Chancellor Folt in her response, has asked for time to investigate. Yet another investigation, after seven. The picture the investigations paint is one where the institution is circling the wagons and there seems to be a lack of institutional control of its athletic processes. Because she is new, although hopefully hired with full disclosure, I am inclined to give Folt some time to investigate again. Otherwise, it's time for UNC System to step in and show some leadership.
Walt-in-Durham
Of late, a reading specialist at UNC Mary Willingham has alleged that a number of UNC student athletes don't read at a college level. Michael Mcadoo has characterized academics for athletes at UNC as "a scam." in a WTVD report. In the same report, UNC has disputed Willingham's claims.
Chancellor Folt in her response, has asked for time to investigate. Yet another investigation, after seven. The picture the investigations paint is one where the institution is circling the wagons and there seems to be a lack of institutional control of its athletic processes. Because she is new, although hopefully hired with full disclosure, I am inclined to give Folt some time to investigate again. Otherwise, it's time for UNC System to step in and show some leadership.
Walt-in-Durham
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Why wait so long?
WTVD is reporting on the Huerta protests. The most important part of the report though comes well down the page. WTVD and other news outlets got a look at text messages from city leaders. On the morning of the Huerta death, this is the exchange between Chief Jose Lopez and City Manager Tom Bonfield. At 3:32 AM Lopez texted: "17 yr old male was arrested, but not searched well and had a gun concealed, shot himself in back of police car while at the rear of police headquarters. He has died."
Folks, that is the gist of the report issued by DPD's professional responsibility and training officer six weeks after Huerta's death. The report that Lopez himself told the Mayor and City Council was not yet ready. So what was going on in those six weeks? Was the DPD looking for evidence to support what they had told the Chief in the wee hours after Huerta's death? Contrast this reticence with the DPD's conduct during the lacrosse hoax. The DPD was spewing out information, most of it erroneous, but still they had no reluctance to disclose where they were in the so called "investigation."
Walt-in-Durham
Folks, that is the gist of the report issued by DPD's professional responsibility and training officer six weeks after Huerta's death. The report that Lopez himself told the Mayor and City Council was not yet ready. So what was going on in those six weeks? Was the DPD looking for evidence to support what they had told the Chief in the wee hours after Huerta's death? Contrast this reticence with the DPD's conduct during the lacrosse hoax. The DPD was spewing out information, most of it erroneous, but still they had no reluctance to disclose where they were in the so called "investigation."
Walt-in-Durham
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Huerta Police Report released.
WTVD reports the DPD has released the report from Professional Standards. Here is the report.
Professional Standards makes clear that Officer Samuel Duncan did not search Huerta fully. Duncan was a new officer and had to be told by another officer before transporting Huerta that Huerta was trying to get out of the handcuffs. Duncan did not activate the in car video system when he was transporting Huerta. The Professional Standards report also says that Duncan was not advised that Huerta had threatened suicide. What we had was a new officer who did not get all the information the DPD had. Duncan failed to use the tools he had, the in car video and good police practices. That is he did not do a very good search. The DPD failed to communicate all the information they had to Duncan. A shared failure.
Walt-in-Durham
Professional Standards makes clear that Officer Samuel Duncan did not search Huerta fully. Duncan was a new officer and had to be told by another officer before transporting Huerta that Huerta was trying to get out of the handcuffs. Duncan did not activate the in car video system when he was transporting Huerta. The Professional Standards report also says that Duncan was not advised that Huerta had threatened suicide. What we had was a new officer who did not get all the information the DPD had. Duncan failed to use the tools he had, the in car video and good police practices. That is he did not do a very good search. The DPD failed to communicate all the information they had to Duncan. A shared failure.
Walt-in-Durham
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Huerta warrant released.
The police finally released the warrant return on Jesus Huerta, according to WTVD. The return discloses that police found electronics reported stolen from homes in Huerta's neighborhood. That does not excuse the DPD of course.
The DPD is behaving true to form. They are now releasing information that puts them in the best light and slanted against Huerta. This is the way the DPD acted in the lacrosse hoax and in too many other cases. This does not answer the key questions in the case: (1) did Officer Duncan adequately search Huerta when he arrested him and (2) did Officer Duncan adequately search his patrol car before taking it out? I suspect the timing of these latest revelations about Huerta is intentional. There is some damning evidence about to come out about either Duncan or the DPD.
Walt-in-Durham
The DPD is behaving true to form. They are now releasing information that puts them in the best light and slanted against Huerta. This is the way the DPD acted in the lacrosse hoax and in too many other cases. This does not answer the key questions in the case: (1) did Officer Duncan adequately search Huerta when he arrested him and (2) did Officer Duncan adequately search his patrol car before taking it out? I suspect the timing of these latest revelations about Huerta is intentional. There is some damning evidence about to come out about either Duncan or the DPD.
Walt-in-Durham
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Unemployment Benefits
Unemployment benefits have been in the news lately , especially UI for the long term unemployed. NC has taken a lot of heat from liberals and outsiders who really don't like Republicans very much. Senator Berger and House Speaker Tillis have gone on record blaming Senator Kay Hagan for much of the problem. I think I should explain a bit.
When the Democratic Party controlled the NC legislature, they made a number of changes to the unemployment law that kept state UI rates low. Those changes, coupled with the federal UI law that keeps rates low when there are few people unemployed, helped make NC more attractive to employers. That in turn kept employment figures high and rates low. A virtuous cycle, if you will.
Employers have two taxes that individual taxpayers never encounter on their 1040s. Employers have FUTA and SUTA taxes. Federal Unemployment Tax Act and State Unemployment Tax Act. Those rates are set fairly low and generally apply to only the first $8000 of each employee's wages. Most states adjust the SUTA tax by employer based on the employer's track record of laying off people. The more people an employer puts on UI, the higher its rate. Simple enough. But, in the good years, NC stopped adjusting employers individually. In stead, and this is where Kay Hagan comes in, the NC legislature changed the law. Hagen was the chairperson of the Senate Finance Committee that wrote the changes in the SUTA for North Carolina. She and the other Democrats who voted for the changes (in those days the Dems simply ignored the GOP as the Dems had a super majority) did so in the belief that keeping taxes lower even for employers who laid off workers would make it easier to attract new employers to NC. That worked well enough for a while.
But, the Great Recession was too much for the NC UI system. Too many people lost their jobs through no fault of their own. They turned to UI for assistance. But, NC was unprepared for the massive influx of newly unemployed high wage earners. Very quickly, NC had to borrow $2.0 billion from the federal government to keep making UI payments Our debt exploded from nothing to $2.0 billion in just three years.
Then, the GOP was swept into power in state government. One of the many problems facing the newly in power Republicans was what to do with $2.0 billion in debt to the federal government. The federal government had a mechanism to collect the debt, the FUTA. The federal law called for a roughly 810% increase in FUTA taxes across the board for NC employers. That would cripple North Carolina's efforts to attract new jobs and expand existing companies. The GOP looked for and found a different way. Cut benefits to levels consistent with surrounding states, and cut the length of time an unemployed person can receive UI benefits.
Finally, the GOP leadership thought there would be a compromise on the fiscal cliff in Washington. They had worked with the federal government in crafting the new NC law that would avoid a massive FUTA tax increase, so they were not working in isolation. (Here comes Hagan again.) The GOP asked Kay Hagan, now in the U.S. Senate to "grandfather in" the NC law so that if there was a federal extension of UI benefits, NC would participate without the massive FUTA tax increase. She didn't get that done. Thus NC's unemployed lost out. Berger and Tillis are working to get the NC law grandfathered into any upcoming compromise to extend UI benefits in congress. Read about Berger's take on the mess at his website.
Walt-in-Durham
When the Democratic Party controlled the NC legislature, they made a number of changes to the unemployment law that kept state UI rates low. Those changes, coupled with the federal UI law that keeps rates low when there are few people unemployed, helped make NC more attractive to employers. That in turn kept employment figures high and rates low. A virtuous cycle, if you will.
Employers have two taxes that individual taxpayers never encounter on their 1040s. Employers have FUTA and SUTA taxes. Federal Unemployment Tax Act and State Unemployment Tax Act. Those rates are set fairly low and generally apply to only the first $8000 of each employee's wages. Most states adjust the SUTA tax by employer based on the employer's track record of laying off people. The more people an employer puts on UI, the higher its rate. Simple enough. But, in the good years, NC stopped adjusting employers individually. In stead, and this is where Kay Hagan comes in, the NC legislature changed the law. Hagen was the chairperson of the Senate Finance Committee that wrote the changes in the SUTA for North Carolina. She and the other Democrats who voted for the changes (in those days the Dems simply ignored the GOP as the Dems had a super majority) did so in the belief that keeping taxes lower even for employers who laid off workers would make it easier to attract new employers to NC. That worked well enough for a while.
But, the Great Recession was too much for the NC UI system. Too many people lost their jobs through no fault of their own. They turned to UI for assistance. But, NC was unprepared for the massive influx of newly unemployed high wage earners. Very quickly, NC had to borrow $2.0 billion from the federal government to keep making UI payments Our debt exploded from nothing to $2.0 billion in just three years.
Then, the GOP was swept into power in state government. One of the many problems facing the newly in power Republicans was what to do with $2.0 billion in debt to the federal government. The federal government had a mechanism to collect the debt, the FUTA. The federal law called for a roughly 810% increase in FUTA taxes across the board for NC employers. That would cripple North Carolina's efforts to attract new jobs and expand existing companies. The GOP looked for and found a different way. Cut benefits to levels consistent with surrounding states, and cut the length of time an unemployed person can receive UI benefits.
Finally, the GOP leadership thought there would be a compromise on the fiscal cliff in Washington. They had worked with the federal government in crafting the new NC law that would avoid a massive FUTA tax increase, so they were not working in isolation. (Here comes Hagan again.) The GOP asked Kay Hagan, now in the U.S. Senate to "grandfather in" the NC law so that if there was a federal extension of UI benefits, NC would participate without the massive FUTA tax increase. She didn't get that done. Thus NC's unemployed lost out. Berger and Tillis are working to get the NC law grandfathered into any upcoming compromise to extend UI benefits in congress. Read about Berger's take on the mess at his website.
Walt-in-Durham
Saturday, January 4, 2014
Memo to Carol Folt and Bubba Cunningham - CLEAN UP THE MESS!
Bloomberg's Business Week is out this week with a national rendition of the academic fraud scandal at UNC-CH. This is not good news for Carol Folt and the UNC-CH crowd. I take no pleasure in this misfortune at my adopted home state's major liberal arts university. As an employer I depend on the UNC system to educate the people I hire. I depend on the UNC system to provide education that is meaningful. As a parent, I expect I will depend on the UNC system to educate my children. That's my stake in this mess. Oh, and I'm a North Carolina taxpayer, that's a big stake in this mess.
Is Julius Nyang'oro the first and only jock sniffing prof to be employed at UNC? No. He's not the last either. But, there's a difference between trading an easy grade for sideline tickets (bad enough) and teaching no-show classes. The vast majority of college athletes will not go professional. Most will get a job coaching at a high school or middle school level. A very few will get jobs in college coaching and fewer yet coaching at the professional level. Thus, it is vitally important that our college athletes get the education that is supposed to be the basis for the bargain. Deny them the education and we have denied them the sole compensation promised by the onerous contract they sign when they agree to play college sports.
If you are wondering how I think this might play out. Let an athlete who took one of Nyang'oro's no show courses file suit against the University of North Carolina for breech of contract. He alleges that UNC promised to give him an education in return for playing football. He alleges UNC failed to uphold its end of the contract, thus voiding contract all together. That entitles the football playing athlete to damages. What kind of damages? How about the value of his athletic efforts? Let's be conservative, say half the NFL minimum contract. About $1,000,000 for four years of academic fraud! The contract also calls for attorney fees. Under NC law, if one side of a contract is entitled to attorney fees, then the other side can get them if they prevail. OOPS! Athlete gets to play with house money.
Is Julius Nyang'oro the first and only jock sniffing prof to be employed at UNC? No. He's not the last either. But, there's a difference between trading an easy grade for sideline tickets (bad enough) and teaching no-show classes. The vast majority of college athletes will not go professional. Most will get a job coaching at a high school or middle school level. A very few will get jobs in college coaching and fewer yet coaching at the professional level. Thus, it is vitally important that our college athletes get the education that is supposed to be the basis for the bargain. Deny them the education and we have denied them the sole compensation promised by the onerous contract they sign when they agree to play college sports.
If you are wondering how I think this might play out. Let an athlete who took one of Nyang'oro's no show courses file suit against the University of North Carolina for breech of contract. He alleges that UNC promised to give him an education in return for playing football. He alleges UNC failed to uphold its end of the contract, thus voiding contract all together. That entitles the football playing athlete to damages. What kind of damages? How about the value of his athletic efforts? Let's be conservative, say half the NFL minimum contract. About $1,000,000 for four years of academic fraud! The contract also calls for attorney fees. Under NC law, if one side of a contract is entitled to attorney fees, then the other side can get them if they prevail. OOPS! Athlete gets to play with house money.
Friday, January 3, 2014
City Council to discuss Huerta case on Monday
The Herald-Sun is reporting that the City Council will discuss the Huerta case with City Manager Tom Bonfield on Monday in a closed session. Personnel matters are appropriate for an executive session. The notice that went out said "attorney-client" discussion. That too is appropriate for an executive session, but as no litigation has been threatened, that seems a flimsy excuse. The City Manager clarified saying the executive session was about Huerta. The truth is, they will be covering probationary officer Samuel Duncan's performance and Chief Jose Lopez performance as well. The meeting is not until 5:30 PM. I don't know if there will be a presser after, or not. But, it wouldn't surprise me if there was.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt-in-Durham
Police report finally due on Huerta.
According to WRAL a police report is due today, Friday January 3, 2014.
We shall see what it says. Supposedly the SBI investigation is done but for the autopsy. I will be looking to see if the two major questions I have posed are answered:
(1) Did officer Duncan do an adequate search of his patrol car before he went on shift or last transported someone, and
(2) Did Officer Duncan do an adequate frisk of Huerta when Duncan arrested Huerta?
It has to be one way or the other. Either the gun was left behind by another person arrested or Duncan missed the gun on Huerta's person. Neither is good for Duncan. The other question, which I don't expect the report to answer is why the DPD was so reticent with information. In the lacrosse hoax, the DPD was a veritable sieve of leaks and official releases of information.
Walt-in-Durham
We shall see what it says. Supposedly the SBI investigation is done but for the autopsy. I will be looking to see if the two major questions I have posed are answered:
(1) Did officer Duncan do an adequate search of his patrol car before he went on shift or last transported someone, and
(2) Did Officer Duncan do an adequate frisk of Huerta when Duncan arrested Huerta?
It has to be one way or the other. Either the gun was left behind by another person arrested or Duncan missed the gun on Huerta's person. Neither is good for Duncan. The other question, which I don't expect the report to answer is why the DPD was so reticent with information. In the lacrosse hoax, the DPD was a veritable sieve of leaks and official releases of information.
Walt-in-Durham
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)