Abandoning The Duke Victim
After the white lacrosse players watched this Black female shake her butt and private parts, in a sexually arousing fashion, did their white phalluses come to attention? Being full-blooded males, what made the phalluses come to â€œat ease?â€? In other words, what happened next? This is the answer that North Carolina is seeking to cover up.
[Column: I Write What I Like]
A recent “editorial” in the Wall Street Journal was titled “The Michael Nifong Scandal.” This description defies logic.
A scandal has a moral connotation. It would apply to the pedophiles in the Catholic Church who masquerade as priests.
This term should have no relationship to a prosecutor seeking justice for a sexually abused woman of African ancestry. To be sure, a prosecutor charging white, privileged males for the sexual abuse of a Black woman is unprecedented. Thus, Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong is a traitor to the history and precepts of white supremacy.
In 400 years, no white man has ever gone to prison for raping a Black woman. Either Black women are not sexually attractive to white males or Black women find white men sexually irresistible. The former is untrue. See Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hennings. The latter is also untrue. See Melton A. McLaurin’s “Celia A Slave.”
On Sunday, “60 Minutes” claimed that the Duke rape case is “unraveling” before our eyes. This is also untrue. Instead, the legal system is destroying Michael Nifong before our very eyes. The North Carolina General Assembly and Congress are holding the hammers.
In only one other case, in American jurisprudence, has an attorney been destroyed amid a criminal proceeding. The New York Legislature and Congress were holding the hammers. This is a breach of the “separation of powers” doctrine.
It was People v. Sharpton wherein a grievance committee gave me the option of doing in my client, Rev. Al Sharpton or else. I chose “or else.” It would have been unethical to do otherwise. The hammer was designed to undermine Sharpton’s rights under the Sixth Amendment.
Only two attorneys in the history of American jurisprudence have ever sought to secure justice for Black females raped by white men. The modus operandi has been the same in both cases. In the Duke case, CBS-TV is leading the charge. In the Tawana Brawley case, CBS-TV also led the charge aided and abetted by the New York Times.
Blacks demonstrated in front of CBS headquarters for weeks while this criminal enterprise was engaging in media defamation against a fifteen-year-old girl, a victim of white terrorism and sexual abuse. It is in CBS’ genes.
Pre-trial publicity is not new to American jurisprudence. It is usually designed to poison the community against the accused before trial. A potential jury, therefore, sits as junior prosecutors. In the Duke case, prejudicial, pre-trial publicity is aimed at the victim. The media took the same approach in the Brawley case. Nifong did not indict those three Duke lacrosse players. A grand jury in Durham County, North Carolina indicted them. CBS should target the grand jury and review the grand jury minutes before recruiting a lynch mob for Nifong.
Since the indictments are still in play, a judge must believe that where there is smoke there must also be fire. Otherwise, the indictments, in the Duke case would have been dismissed months ago. A judge and not a prosecutor has the authority to dismiss an indictment.
Unlike the credibility issues in the Duke rape case, there was no eyewitness testimony and no scientific evidence including DNA to connect six boys to the rape of the Central Park jogger, Patricia Meili. Nonetheless, CBS was organizing a lynch mob against innocent boys. An admission alone is always insufficient to establish any crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yet, five of those six boys were falsely imprisoned for years and the New York Court of Appeals upheld those baseless convictions.
In order for an indictment to be dismissed, there must not only be insufficient evidence of the top count of the indictment but also the lack of evidence of lesser-included offenses. So far, the judicial system must believe that something happened. To be sure, something did happen.
Typically, there is always overcharging in the drafting of accusatory instruments. The mere fact that a count of the indictment is dismissed is not equivalent to pronouncing a suspect either legally or morally innocent. These players are certainly not choirboys and they are, at least, presumptive racists.
These players engaged in identity theft to secure the presence of two Black strippers for a KKK-type rally. They gave false names to the escort service. The escort service was never told that two Black females would have to perform before a white mob of drunken, racist hooligans. This is criminal fraud.
Strip joints employ bodyguards to protect strippers because it is well-known that a mob of drunken and unruly males will, biologically, take matters into their own hands. These females have civil claims in addition to criminal prosecutions. In addition, there is no question that these racist jocks hurled racist epithets at these women. The use of the word “nigger” to degrade a Black person is, in itself, an assault. This lewd atmosphere reeked of white terrorism and gave rise to sundry hate crimes.
The most important question in this case, based on biology, should be answered in a court of law. After the white lacrosse players watched this Black female shake her butt and private parts, in a sexually arousing fashion, did their white phalluses come to attention? Being full-blooded males, what made the phalluses come to “at ease?” In other words, what happened next? This is the answer that North Carolina is seeking to cover up.
The media and the defense lawyers in the Duke case have misled the public. In every lawsuit, there are two methods of proof: direct and circumstantial. Of the two methods of proof, circumstantial evidence is the strongest. No need exists for direct evidence in this case.
The complaining witness’ purportedly inconsistent statements are a reflection of problems of class and race in this society. In 1997, before a national television audience, Eliot Spitzer actually commanded Rev. Al Sharpton to change his story by boycotting his own defamation trial.
He did except when he was ordered to appear by the plaintiff, Steven Pagones. Attorney Johnnie Cochran, an ancestor, was the host of the Court-TV program. Sharpton was behaving the way any Black person is expected to behave in a white supremacist system.
When a Black woman accuses white men of rape, all bets are off. Warfare ensues. Anyone who seeks to protect a Black female victim had better prepare for a life of poverty. Gov. Spitzer and his mentor, Robert Abrams, are of this view in New York and no self-respecting Black female should support them.
Before the Civil War, courts routinely ruled that it was legally impossible for a white man to rape a Black woman. Today, through media and politics, most Blacks still embrace pre-Civil War law. This results from brainwashing. See “The Manchurian Candidate.” The only antidote to propaganda is critical thinking.
An effort is afoot to stop effective advocacy by Black lawyers. I need your support immediately to fight off impending disbarment in a protracted struggle. The federal litigation is on appeal. Please send any expression of support to UAM Legal Defense Fund, c/o Alton H. Maddox, Jr., 16 Court Street, Ste. 1901, Brooklyn, NY 11241. The struggle must continue. Asante sana.
See: Blueprint to End Police Terrorism, the December 14, 2006 Order of the U.S.D.C., E.D.N.Y., and New York Blacks Waving the White Flag at www.reinstatealtonmaddox.com. For further information call UAM at 718-834-9034.
To subscribe to or advertise in New York’s leading Pan African weekly investigative newspaper, please call (212) 481-7745 or send a note to Milton@blackstarnews.com
“Speaking Truth To Empower.”
No Record Exist!!