Monday, April 16, 2007

Jason Trumpbour's earlier posts

This page contains the earlier (August 2006 to April 2007) comments of our spokesperson Jason Trumpbour on various aspects of the Duke Lacrosse case. His newer comments are found individually listed on the sidebar of this site under the heading Current Topics. To read the older comments captured here, please scroll down to the Comments section below.

Links to Jason Trumpbour's lacrosse case related comments published elsewhere:
Some Legal Insights on the Lax Situation #5 May 15, 2006 DBR
When The Law Is An Ass June 7, 2006 DBR
Duke president offers reply to criticism July 29, 2006 Newsobserver
Duke Official: "Considerable Support" Offered to LAX Players October 25, 2006 TalkLeft
Vote! November 2, 2006 Duke Chronicle
Nifong Rejects Threats of Charges in Duke Case December 18, 2006 ABC11TV
Group to Duke: Join bid for DA inquiry December 19, 2006 Herald Sun
Criticism directed at Nifong and Duke December 20, 2006 Newsobserver
Duke mobilizes to shield its image December 22, 2006 Newsobserver
Nifong dismisses rape charges December 22, 2006 Herald Sun
Some sure, others question whether justice can be served December 23, 2006 Herald Sun
Rape decision turns up the heat December 23, 2006 Herald Sun
Most Duke alumni support lacrosse players January 5, 2007 News14 Carolina
Duke urged to 'look to future' January 9, 2007 Herald Sun
Brodhead responds, calls for Nifong to step down January 10, 2007 Duke Chronicle
Duke President Takes Fire over Lacrosse Case February 2, 2007 NPR
Walk to support former players February 3, 2007 Herald Sun
'Friends of Duke' go after professors Feb 9, 2007 Herald Sun
Ad questions 'Concerned Duke Faculty' Feb 12, 2007 Duke Chronicle
The Clarifiers: "No Comment" Feb 12, 2007 KC Johnson
As lax legal fees rise, groups pitch in Feb 20, 2007 Duke Chronicle
Duke’s Devil of A Mess Feb 26, 2007 Diverse
Nifong Targets FODU! March 1, 2007 KC Johnson
Nifong: Grassroots Groups Trying to Run Him out of Office March 2, 2007 WRAL
WRAL Interview With Friends of Duke University Founder Jason Trumpbour (video)" March 2, 2007 WRAL
Report divides Duke's campus March 4, 2007 Newsobserver
Jason Trumpbour: Impact of blogs (audio) April 5, 2007 Inside Digital Media
A Pulitzer Prize for Dave Winer? April 8, 2007 ZDNet


At 12:06 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Originally posted on August 2, 2006

Yesterday, the Durham Herald-Sun published about “previously undisclosed” dna matches in the lacrosse case: Lawyers Haggle over dna Matches. The article is disturbing on many levels. First, the dna matches were disclosed to the media months ago by defense counsel. Second, the article quotes an expert who stated that this evidence was helpful to the prosecution. However, the article failed to mention that this expert has an obvious source of bias. He has been retained by the NAACP to “monitor” the case for them.

Blogger John in Carolina, who has been incisively critiquing the media coverage of the case, has a new article up that gives the full story: Duke Lacrosse: A fake Herald Sun story? I encourage all of you to read it.

An obvious question this article raises is, if this “previously undisclosed” information is just now being disclosed, who is disclosing it? Given the use to which this information has been applied by the Herald-Sun reporter, it is unlikely that it came from a defense source. It is more likely that it came from Nifong and that the story was a plant. If so, Nifong has violated the recently imposed gag order that, among other things, prohibits counsel in the case from distributing information about the case to the media, either directly or through agents.

Jason Trumpbour

At 12:08 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This letter was originally published in Durham Herald Sun "Letters" section, on August 4, 2006.

Nifong Courageous?

In an August 1 editorial, you found District Attorney Mike Nifong "courageous" and "contrite" in his discussion of the Duke lacrosse case at a recent press conference. Unfortunately, there is little courage to be found in a desperate appeal to sympathy by an embattled politician. And Nifong was hardly contrite as he continued to obfuscate the relevant legal standards for his conduct.

You also stated that Nifong "still believes he has a good case" and find that significant for some reason. Yet, Nifong apparently lacks the courage of those convictions. After ramrodding evidence through a hopelessly backlogged SBI crime lab and racing to get indictments before the election, Nifong is now trying to postpone the day of reckoning until next spring.

Nifong refused to even look at any of the exculpatory evidence proffered to him by the defense. This action violated North Carolina Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8 which prohibits a prosecutor from avoiding "pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor's case."

In hiding his eyes from that evidence, Nifong abdicated the responsibilities of the office to which he was appointed and should have no further claim to it.

While, ideally, the voters of Durham County should elect the person who will be their district attorney, at least they have the opportunity to choose who they do not want for that office. The writer is a member of Friends of Duke University.

Parkton, Md.
August 4, 2006

At 12:15 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This letter is written to the editor of the Durham News and Observer in response to a Dennis Rogers article: Lacrosse is just not my game:

To the Editor:

Dennis Rogers, in his recent column, certainly disavows any aspiration to become the next Emile Zola in connection with the Duke lacrosse case. “I don't have a clue, much less a theory,” he states. As a professional journalist, one might think that Rogers would have an interest, if not have a duty, to learn the facts of any public controversy. However, despite the fact that a corrupt district attorney has tried to game the system at every turn, Roger’s strategy is to let a jury sort everything out and tell him what to think. That’s the spirit!

He will, therefore, no doubt, be surprised to learn that his statement, “The lacrosse players say, nope, they don’t remember a thing,” is wrong as is his assertion that they have been equivocal in their statements.

Rogers expresses disdain for blogs. However, almost all of the information contained in the News & Observer’s recent article about Mike Nifong’s misconduct has been known to readers of the blogs for months. Meanwhile, all Rogers can offer is, “Duh, I dunno.” Perhaps that is why newspaper readership is plummeting while increasing numbers of people turn to blogs for news. Maybe ignorance is not bliss after all.

Jason Trumpbour
Parkton, Maryland
August 18, 2006

At 12:30 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In response to John Schwade's August 5th dated article in News and Observer: By staying on the sidelines, Cheek shows no bravado .

In a recent opinion piece in this newspaper, John Schwade weakly defends Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong’s handling of the Duke lacrosse case. Schwade can find little positive to say about Nifong. Instead, he devotes most of his efforts to personally attacking Nifong’s critics, among them Lewis Cheek and the organization I represent, the Friends of Duke University. Cheek he dismisses with ridicule. As for FODU, Schwade borrows a page from Nifong and attempts to exploit or create prejudice within the community by using unfair caricatures. He compares us to the mafia and darkly suggests we are using “money”, “influence,” and “friends in the national media” to disrupt Nifong’s prosecution. Our sinister agenda that he finds so threatening: “to ensure that these three Duke students receive justice through a fair process.”

Far from some criminal underworld and hardly rich or influential, we are a group of alumni and parents who are deeply concerned about what is happening to three members of the Duke Community. We want to see justice served, not frustrated. I myself am a former attorney in the Criminal Appeals Division of the Maryland Attorney General’s office. I now teach law, jurisprudence and legal practice to law students and students in a graduate program in legal and ethical studies. In fact, I am supposed to be spending this summer working on a project to promote the rule of law in Nepal, not Durham County, North Carolina.

The source of our concern is Nifong’s egregious and systematic misconduct. Nifong has made false and prejudicial extrajudicial statements in violation of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct. He has invited the public to disregard the civil rights of the accused and made appeals to prejudice. He has a continuing conflict of interest due to his political alliance with another attorney who hopes to profit from the Duke case. He has manipulated witnesses. Worst of all is his violation of NCRPC Rule 3.8 which prohibits a prosecutor from avoiding “pursuit of evidence merely because he or she believes it will damage the prosecutor’s case.” As recently documented by the News and Observer, Nifong ordered police to try to find evidence that supported the indictments he wanted to bring. He later pitied himself when it was not forthcoming. He also refused to even look at the exculpatory evidence offered to him by defense counsel. In making personal attacks on Nifong’s critics rather than squarely confronting their message about Nifong’s conduct, Schwade and others like him effectively concede these issues.

Corruption is defined as the conversion of what belongs to the public to private use. From the very beginning, Nifong has treated this case as a personal opportunity for himself. What even his most ardent supporters fail to notice is that many of the choices Nifong has made—assigning the case to himself, co-opting the police investigation, racing to obtain indictments before the primary election and conducting an unconstitutionally suggestive lineup that is likely to be suppressed—all undermine the case he insists is a personal mission for him.

The United States is the only western nation where local prosecutors are popularly elected and select their own assistants. In every other nation, prosecutors are selected by merit. They are centrally trained, supervised and evaluated according to exacting professional standards. Our system of elected district attorneys can work, but only if legal professionals do their part to educate the public about the proper standards for evaluating their conduct and citizens do their part to educate themselves about the issues rather than adopt the hear no evil, see no evil approach that Nifong’s defenders have done.

It was, therefore, appropriate for Cheek and the petitioners who supported him to challenge Nifong based on his conduct. Cheek showed a great deal of integrity and courage in putting aside his ties of friendship to Nifong and taking a politically risky position by first confronting Nifong about his misconduct and then working to defeat him. Cheek has made it painfully clear that he will not serve as District Attorney. He simply does not want Nifong to be District Attorney. If Nifong is defeated at election time, Cheek will have fought the good fight and won. If the people of Durham County are willing to look past the diversionary issues Nifong and his supporters are throwing up and critically examine Nifong’s conduct in light of all of the relevant legal, ethical and professional standards, then they can effectively exercise the unique power given to them and ensure their community’s well being.

by Jason Trumpbour
Friends of Duke University
August 26, 2006

At 12:43 PM, September 19, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Comments on Stuart Taylor's Slate Article

I want to call everyone’s attention to an important article published today. Stuart Taylor, writing for Slate magazine (Witness for prosecution?), provides a devastating critique of the recent New York Times article that purported to show that “while there are big weaknesses in [District Attorney Mike] Nifong's case, there is a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury.” Taylor looks at all of the arguments offered by the times and shows that they are either specious or disingenuous when compared to all of the actual facts. Worse he documents the extent to which those arguments rely on hearsay contained in a police report that was inexplicably written and produced four months after the alleged incident and which conveniently seems to fill in many of the gaps in the evidence that were identified prior to that time. Moreover, this report materially contradicts information contained in several of the other reports that were written more or less contemporaneously with the alleged incident. In the end, the credulity of the Times appears rather strained.

This article is significant to me for two reasons. First, as a lawyer, Taylor provides an important voice that has been lost in this whole debate. My personal frustration has been the lack of interest by the media in Nifong’s conduct and the legal, ethical and professional standards he has systematically disregarded. It is that conduct which drew me to FODU. At this point, the public has a vague understanding that Nifong has cut some corners and, perhaps violated some sort of guidelines. From the treatment of these issues, to the extent they are treated at all, by the media, one would be left with the impression that Nifong faces nothing more than the deduction of style points at the end of the case. Having a legal expert such as Taylor, who has covered legal issues, first for the Times and now for Newsweek, analyze both the evidence in the case and the conduct of Nifong and the Durham Police is invaluable. It ought to finally convince people that the emperor has no clothes. I am currently working on a short article about the ethical duty of lawyers to educate the public on legal issues that become the source of public debate so this is an issue of great importance to me.

Second, Taylor’s article raises the questions what are the ethical standards maintained by journalists and how can this article be reconciled with them. I was unhappy a few weeks ago when the Herald-Sun essentially let Nifong plant the story about dna evidence being found on a towel in exchange for the exclusive. The facts leaked by Nifong, which actually turned out to be old news, came bundled with Nifong’s spin, which was dutifully included in the story. I wondered, at the time, whether it was ethical for a paper to trade access to those facts, a ripoff as it turns out, for space for the source to make his own arguments. A newspaper can certainly give space to anyone it wants. However, that space should be on the editorial page and signed by the person actually doing the talking.

However, all of that is small potatoes compared to what the Times did. The Times actively attempted to mislead its readers. Its article was not only one sided, but did not even constitute fair argument.

As a lawyer and journalist, Taylor can speak to both these issues and does so eloquently and effectively.

I will add my own critique of the Times article. It is truly telling that Nifong, who began this odyssey assuring the public “that a rape occurred”, is now reduced to trying to convince the public that there was even probable cause for him to pursue the case in the first place. While I certainly cringed at the Times trying to help Nifong in this regard, I had laugh at how he and the Times have greatly lowered the standard for what constitutes success. As Taylor demonstrates, Nifong’s conduct of the case is found wanting even when measured by this low standard. Also, it is significant that Nifong has to look as far as New York City to find support. Evidently, his act is no longer playing in the local papers. Wasn’t Nifong complaining as little as a month ago that most of the criticism against him was coming from outside Durham? I am not so sure about that, but it does look like that is where most of his limited support is now located.

Mr. Taylor does have one bombshell. It is at the end and I will not spoil it for you, but it involves the date rape drug allegations floated by Nifong.

I also want to call attention to initial reactions to Taylor’s article by two of our best friends. First, John in Carolina offers his thoughts on both the substance and significance of Taylor’s article.

Taylor leaves Times no place to hide

Also, KC Johnson throws out the welcome mat for Slate readers who want to know more about the case through his extensive archive. In addition, he calls attention to the real human toll produced by Nifong’s misconduct, a consideration apparently of no consequence to the Times.

Welcome to Slate readers

by Jason Trumpbour
Spokesperson, FODU
August 30, 2006

At 2:47 PM, September 28, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Originally posted on September 5

By Jason Trumpbour
Spokesperson, FODU
September 5, 2006

As a new feature on this site, I will be writing a regular update once a week or so or as needed. After hearing from some of our blogger friends, it became clear that an additional source of purely legal insight into the case would be useful and would fill a small gap in the otherwise comprehensive and insightful coverage that is already there.

For my first update, however, I will be giving the stage to another lawyer, Patsy McDonald. Patsy has been a friend of ours from the very beginning. She is a former Criminal Appeals Division member at the Maryland Attorney General’s Office like myself and she has also done federal public defender work. She is a UNC grad and, in fact, was a classmate of Mike Nifong’s!

As you know, Nifong has refused several public demands that he ask the Attorney General of North Carolina to appoint a special prosecutor to handle the Duke lacrosse case. Under North Carolina law, the Attorney General cannot appoint a special prosecutor in a criminal matter without such a request by Nifong. Patsy wrote a letter to Governor Easley asking him to give Nifong an ultimatum: accept a prosecutor or the Governor will initiate a clemency proceeding that will most likely result in pardons for the accused. The goal is not to actually obtain pardons, but to force Nifong to accept a special prosecutor.

I want to feature Patsy’s letter for two reasons. First, it represents a potentially fruitful avenue to pursue justice in this case. We at FODU hope to have a similar project up and running soon. Patsy has shown us the way with her ingenious idea of using the Governor’s pardon power to force Nifong to accept a special prosecutor.

Second, as a lawyer, Patsy, is an example of the voice that I said in a recent update has not been heard enough in the public debate over this case: the legal expert. Patsy told me that she agrees, that she wants to stand up and be counted and is looking for others to do so as well. So here is another name for the enemies list Nifong is keeping.

Here is Patsy’s letter: Letter to Governor Easley.

Thank you Patsy!

At 9:59 PM, October 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Originally posted on September 13, 2006
Comments on Yektan Turkyilmaz case

By Jason Trumpbour
Spokesperson, FODU
September 13, 2006

I want to call attention to a recent article by KC Johnson Sounds of (Selective) Silence about the case of a Duke graduate student, Yektan Turkyilmaz, who was arrested last year and put on trial in Armenia on rather dubious and selectively applied charges relating to exporting cultural items without permission. In that case, President Brodhead wrote a letter to the President of Armenia in which he stated:

“As the leader of a great country, you have the ability to intervene in this matter and to determine the appropriateness of the actions of your government and the Armenian prosecutors and police. You also have the ability to release Mr. Turkyilmaz. With respect, I urge you to do so.”

Brodhead Makes Appeal for Duke Student Imprisoned in Armenia

In our open letter, we asked President Brodhead to speak up for Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and David Evans, students under indictment whose rights have been systematically violated by a corrupt prosecutor and corrupt police officers. We did not ask him to proclaim their innocence, although by that time it had become apparent. All we asked him to do was to call attention to the numerous procedural irregularities and prosecutorial misconduct that had characterized the case and to demand that these Duke students receive a fair trial. He wrote back and indicated that this was too much to ask of him. He actually mischaracterized what we asked of him, responding as if we had asked him to proclaim their innocence. However, our meaning was plain.

As documented by KC Johnson, Brodhead was evidently willing and able to speak up in the case of Yektan Turkyilmaz and express concern about the irregular circumstances of his arrest as well he should have. Moreover, President Brodhead was also willing to go further and actually express an opinion as to the proper resolution of the case.

It is truly sad to learn that President Brodhead’s willingness to intervene on behalf of his students when they are faced with injustice is selective and not based on any sort of principle, whether right headed or wrong headed, whatsoever. Thus, in addition to injuring Reade, Collin and David with his silence, President Brodhead insults them as well.

In other news, different standards of justice for Duke students in Durham appears to be the rule rather than the exception. John in Carolina has the details as well as links to the recent Chronicle and News and Observer articles: More Gottlieb info; Brodhead still silent; and the “94% question.”

At 7:30 PM, October 23, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Originally posted on September 14, 2006
Comments on DPD’s treatment of Duke students
(by Jason Trumpbour -Spokesperson, FODU)

Over the last few days, we have had articles in the News & Observer and Chronicle describing how Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, the lead investigator on the lacrosse case, has made a habit of arresting Duke students and taking them to jail for minor infractions that are usually handled with a simple citation. In a Herald-Sun article yesterday, Capt. Ed Sarvis of the Durham Police Department comes to Sgt. Gottlieb’s defense with an important clarification. He states that it was not Sgt. Gottlieb’s personal initiative to discriminate against Duke students. It is actually Durham Police Department policy to discriminate against Duke students. Okay, thanks for making that clear! As for Sgt. Gottlieb, well, he can now use that great defense: “I vas just following orders.”

This revelation actually makes things worse for the Durham Police Department. If they indeed have a policy encouraging officers to arrest Duke students on minor charges for which they usually give citations, this policy raises serious constitutional issues. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits selective enforcement of laws based on arbitrary classifications.

The Herald-Sun article did not mention or attempt to justify any of the other allegations against Sgt. Gottlieb such as:

--use of unnecessary force.
--threatening with deportation non-U.S. citizens he arrests or people who simply have foreign sounding names.
--forcing students to make involuntary confessions.

Are all of these things Durham Police Department policy as well?

The Herald-Sun seems to have cemented its reputation as the place to which Nifong and the police turn when they need to plant a story or present their own spin. Avid local media watcher John in Carolina has some thoughts on the Herald-Sun story as well: H-S OK's Gottlieb as Duke "assumes" and questions swirl .

At 11:35 AM, December 14, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Published on December 14, 2006.

Now we are seeing some action!

The past 24 hours have brought significant developments.

Yesterday, Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina’s Third Congressional District released a copy of a letter he wrote to United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asking for an investigation into civil rights violations by Mike Nifong against Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and David Evans. His letter is here: Letter to A.G. Gonzales.

Today, the defense teams filed a motion to compel discovery which reveals even more evidence of the prosecutorial misconduct that moved Representative Jones to write his letter: Motion to Compel Discovery. Story: click here. Contained in that motion is evidence that Nifong tried to cheat on discovery. The private lab hired by Nifong never reported that it had found dna from numerous males in the rape kit samples taken from the vaginal area, anus and undergarments of the alleged victim. Nifong never turned this information over to the defense, opposed an earlier motion to compel discovery of the records containing this information and has yet to fully comply with that earlier motion. The information is particularly relevant as evidence because it contradicts statements made by the alleged victim and also provides an explanation for the “edema” inside her vagina. Of course it would also fundamentally undermine any argument that Nifong was planning to make that the accused could have committed a gang rape, ejaculated and not left any dna on the alleged victim. The motion also suggests that the private lab was complicit with Nifong in attempting to cheat on discovery. The lab’s owner is listed among the prosecution witnesses. If it is true that the lab owner aided Nifong in attempting to obstruct justice, Nifong would now have to decide if he still wants to call a key expert witness who might have to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights on the stand in response to cross examination. How much more screwed up can a prosecution case get?!

These developments are on top of major articles within the last ten days by KC Johnson, Liestoppers and the News and Observer on the subject of Nifong’s ethical and criminal violations, all occasioned by the news that the state bar has apparently taken up the numerous complaints against Nifong.

For me, the most frustrating thing about this case has been the lack of focus on Nifong’s misconduct. Yes, the subject has come up from time to time. However, the merits of Nifong’s conduct are almost inevitably collapsed back into the larger discussion of the merits of Nifong’s case against the accused. Nifong’s supporters do this deliberately. It allows them to deploy their dilatory tactic of arguing that we must wait for the trial before we can draw any conclusions. Yet, even if they were true that no conclusions can be drawn about the merits of the legal case, Nifong’s misconduct has been apparent for all to see. Indeed, much of it was televised. Live. There are objective standards for evaluating Nifong’s conduct. All one has to do is look at the relevant portions of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct and compare the standards set forth there to what Nifong has done.

The ethical issue is the one that first motivated me to get involved with the case. From the very beginning, when I watched Nifong call the players “hooligans” and state that he was certain a rape occurred, I knew that the lacrosse players, whether guilty or innocent (it was not clear at the time), were not getting due process of law and I started speaking out. That is how my FODU colleagues and I found each other.

Now, finally, eight months later, people are starting to face the fact that these ethical violations are serious and that there is the real prospect that Nifong could actually loose his law license or worse for them. The past few days have been good ones for me as they should be for all of those who care about justice.

Similarly, Jones’s letter must be gratifying for all of the friends who, from earliest days, have been writing letters of their own to the U.S. Department of Justice and elected officials around the state. Many thought that we were wasting our time and others simply stopped by the site to mock us. Now, finally, one elected official has chosen to take action and we can be sure that, whatever the Department of Justice does, it will not take his request lightly.

All this took eight months to happen. However, better late than never!

by Jason Trumpbour
FODU spokesperson
December 14, 2006

At 10:41 AM, January 10, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Posted on FODU, January 10, 2007

Treading water
by Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson

President Brodhead published a long letter to the Duke community on Monday that explained in greater detail his actions over the last few weeks in calling for Nifong to be replaced and in allowing Reade and Collin to return to campus. We are happy that he continues to speak out against Nifong’s conduct. We also join his sentiments about restoring the fabric mutual respect and working together to make Duke as great as it can be.

However, we are a little concerned about certain aspects of the letter. First, President Brodhead provides an account of the administrations handling of the case that is long on rationalization and justification, but short on facts. We have been inclined to avoid dwelling on the past, but we do want to be sure that the administration is learning and committed to learning from its mistakes. President Brodhead’s letter really does not show us that it is.

Second, and more troubling is President Brodhead’s defense of the Group of 88. In the past, we have called for him to speak out against the prejudiced and prejudicial assertions made in the “Listening” ad. Instead, President Brodhead used the occasion of his letter to assert that the Group of 88 are victims of unfair public attacks and vicious e-mails and points his finger at the blogs. This is a grossly unfair and inaccurate description of the situation and it serves only to try to obfuscate the fact that there are legitimate concerns with the position taken by the Group of 88.

Anyone who has taken a position one way or the other on the case has been the subject of vilification by extremists and has received hate mail. We have received our share. Why does President Brodhead feel the need to comment on incivility only as it applies to the Group of 88 and their particular viewpoint? As for the blogs, none of the ones that have been primarily following this case have been anything other than civil in condemning the rush to judgment and bigotry represented by the “Listening” ad. Indeed, a few days ago, we reached out to the Group of 88, asking supporters to politely write them and see if they would not join the administration in calling for due process for Reade Collin and David. Our thought was that finding something on which we could all agree would be a step toward the process of reconciliation that we want and that President Brodhead is now advocating as well. The response was underwhelming. Indeed, Houston Baker responded with the sort of e-mail that President Brodhead now condemns.

Worse is President Brodhead’s attempt to equate the Group of 88’s situation with that of Reade, Collin, David and the rest of the lacrosse players. Please! The Group of 88 cannot possibly be characterized as victims for being asked to defend a position they have voluntarily chosen to take publicly. Nor can nasty e-mails be equated to the unfathomable anguish, hardships and vilification endured by the lacrosse players, especially when the Group of 88 itself contributed to that vilification.

I believe that President Brodhead’s actions are speaking louder than his words at the moment and it is not time to panic. His condemnation of Nifong in the letter is receiving nationwide press coverage as we always knew it would. However, his words yesterday are a source of concern. They do not inspire a lot of confidence going forward because they do not demonstrate that the administration has learned much from the last ten months. One of the lessons it should have learned by now is that you cannot please everyone. Indeed, trying to please everyone usually results in pleasing no one. True leadership requires doing what is right regardless of the consequences.

KC Johnson parses Brodhead’s letter in greater detail:
Brodhead's Apologia .

John in Carolina has his own take:
Brodhead reveals himself .


The 17 members of the Economics department who sent that remarkable letter to the Chronicle have shown us the way forward in terms of “making a fresh start,” promoting a “more constructive dialogue and a more charitable atmosphere” and all the other goals President Brodhead described in his letter. We liked it so much we have turned it into a petition. If you agree with the sentiments expressed in their letter go here and add your name: Petition.

This petition also serves another purpose. We want to generate a list of supporters in the event we need to mobilize support for future projects. This is something we have avoided doing up until this point because we have been hoping that the need for our existence is only temporary. We still hope that that is still the case, but this is a good time to show the administration that we intend to see the lacrosse matter and all the issues it has generated through to their proper resolution and are not going anywhere until we do.

The cause that should be uniting us right now

This is a good time to remind everyone, the administration included, that while we quibble amongst ourselves, Nifong is still maliciously prosecuting Reade, Collin and David and has demonstrated that he will continue on his present course until someone intervenes to stop him.

Bill Anderson has not forgotten. He informs me that with his latest article, The gloves are coming off. That’s the spirit! KC Johnson gets most of the attention as the foremost blogger on the case and rightly so. However, Bill has been writing extensively about the case from the very beginning and providing very thoughtful analysis of his own. In fact, back before FODU was created when I was a lone voice in the wilderness, he was the first person to contact me and talk about the case. His articles are necessary reading. A link to his archives is in Section B of our “Links to Media” page.

At 1:21 PM, January 24, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Originally posted on January 24, 2007.

Walk of Support
by Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson

I want to call (more) attention to a very special event. It is the Walk of Support which is being organized by our friends Concerned Mothers for Duke Students. The event is on Sunday, February 4. Details can be found here: Walk of Support.

The purpose of the walk is to show support publicly for Reade, Collin and David, their families, the men’s and women’s lacrosse teams and Mike Pressler and his family. The march will start at the courthouse downtown and end at Koskinen Stadium. The event was originally intended to coincide with the next round of hearings, which are scheduled to start the next day. Now that the case has been taken over by the Attorney General’s Office, it is possible that those hearings may be postponed. However, the walk will proceed as scheduled.

The walk is not meant to attack Duke, but rather to show support for all those who have suffered and are still suffering because of Mike Nifong’s malicious prosecution, especially Reade, Collin and David.

The event is open to everyone. It is not just for concerned mothers. Concerned Mothers is hoping for a big turnout. Please plan on attending and bring a friend. The Attorney General’s Office taking over the case was indeed very good news, but Reade, Collin and David are not out of the woods yet and this is not the time for complacency. Certain groups are trying to pressure the Attorney General’s Office to take the case to trial regardless of its merits. For that reason, it would be great if local residents could join us as well. A show of support for due process by local voters would be invaluable.

At 11:36 PM, January 30, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think this is a bad idea. This could turn into a riot. I don't think the folk in Durham would take kindly to this event. If they must do it, keep it on the Duke campus.

At 9:38 PM, February 01, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There has been no media press or ads run in the Herald Sun or N&O on the Walk for Sunday.
How are the residents in Durham
suppose to know about the walk?
There are many people who would come ...if they knew about it.

At 6:20 AM, February 03, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Posted on February 3, 2007.

Where we stand with the legal case
By Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson

I thought I would finally post some thoughts where we are in the case. I have not had anything to say about Mike Nifong’s decision to request a special prosecutor, not because it was not a momentous event, but because I was not sure what to make of it. Now that the case has been continued for three months, I am not sure what to make of that development either.

Having the case out of Nifong’s hands is certainly very good news. For the first time in the case, there is the prospect of someone taking an honest look at the case file.

However, we are no where near the end of the road. Keep in mind that Nifong did not give up the case because he wanted to finally put an end to this farce. If he did want to put an end to it, he could have simply found some pretext to dismiss the case as he did with the rape charges. He can evidently get the alleged victim to say whatever he needs her to say at any given moment. No, Nifong wants this case to continue for the same personal and partial reasons that have always motivated him. And he has a lot of local politicians and activists egging him on behind the scenes. In a rare moment of self awareness, he simply realized that he was no longer capable of doing the job himself. He knew that he was going to be recused from the case by the judge had he stayed on. The same conflicts of interest created by his bar troubles would probably prevent him from turning the case over to anyone else in his office so long as he remains there. Nifong left the case on Roy Cooper’s doorstep in hopes that Cooper would adopt it as his own. Pinned to the blanket was the alleged victim’s pronouncement that she wanted to continue with the case.

The challenge ahead is to make sure that politics does not creep back into the picture. The alleged victim’s supporters have been trying to create support for the position that, despite the fact that the case has no merit, it must or should be taken to trial and given to a jury. And not just any jury. It has to be a Durham jury. There is no legal or moral principle that supports this position. Indeed, there is some very cynical reasoning behind it, the same cynical reasoning that Nifong employed. Nifong’s strategy from early on was to simply get in front of a Durham jury where he seemed to think he could get a conviction regardless of the evidence. From what attorneys in the area have told me, Nifong’s confidence, given his demagoguery, was not misplaced.

My biggest worry is that attorney generals’ offices are not removed from political pressure themselves, far from it. When I worked in the Attorney General’s Office in my own state, there was often a lot of pressure on us to pursue lost causes through the appellate courts as a face saving measure for the local state’s attorneys’ offices when they made fatal mistakes. It looks like something similar may have happened in the Gell case. Jim Coman, who is one of the new prosecutors, took over that case as a special prosecutor after the original prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence in a death penalty case. He decided to retry Gell despite the evidence of his innocence and later defended the conduct of the original prosecutors.

Roy Cooper and his attorneys have a real opportunity to restore confidence in North Carolina’s legal system. Furthermore, in doing so, they have a real opportunity to educate the public about the proper role of prosecutors in our legal system and how the legal system is supposed to resolve criminal matters. They can do these things by scrupulously executing their duties and exercising their discretion according to the requirements of law. Where Nifong allowed political considerations to influence his actions, they can embrace the rule of law. Where Nifong, abdicated his duties, they can embrace them. Where Nifong mislead the public as to the appropriate legal standards and his proper role, they can be honest. The public there and all over the world will be following their every move. Let us hope that they seize this opportunity and make the most of it.

I believe the best thing we can do now is let the new prosecutors have the space they need to do their job. Despite Nifong’s example, I still believe that public prosecutors are entitled to our confidence and should have it until there is reason to doubt them. However, we must make them aware that we are not going to go away and neither is the public scrutiny of the case until it is justly resolved.

If you are going to the rally on Sunday, be positive. Support Reade, Collin and David. Show the world we are still concerned about justice and intend to see it done. Support the other lacrosse team members and Mike Presler. Encourage the Duke administration to continue all the way down the new path it chose in early January. Direct your frustration and anger where it truly belongs: at Nifong. Keep speaking out against him. He is off the lacrosse case, but still in office.

However, reserve judgment on the new prosecutors and give them the chance to reach the right conclusion on their own. Have faith in the defense team to work with them and give them the proper input. Remember, the law and facts are on our side. The new prosecutors are not our enemies. Those people who would apply pressure to them to resolve the case in a partial manner in order to achieve some personal or political gain for themselves are. Those are the people we must be confronting and speaking out against in the weeks ahead whenever and wherever they appear.

At 10:34 AM, February 03, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am not convinced that Nifong had the complete control over what the accuser will say that we have been told he has. My guess is that Nifong may have been trying to orchestrate the dismissal of the case when he talked with the accuser in December, not out of altruism, but because he realized that there was no way out for him and to minimize the chance of his disbarment. I suspect the accuser was smart enough to realize that she could not agree to drop all of the charges without exposing her self to liability and to realize that Nifong was trying to shift the focus from his misconduct to her false charges. What she was not smart enough to realize is that she has almost totally destoyed her credibility, if not before a jury, certainly before an appellate court.

At 10:41 AM, February 03, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Although I agree with Mr. Trumbour that now is not the time to be confronting the Duke administration and faculty about their part in the Lacrosse fiasco, they must be confronted at some time. With few exceptions (and many of those only belatedly), the administration and faculty by act and omission, word and silence, fanned the flames of the attacks on the accused. The recent actions of the Duke administration, while laudable in theory, reflect more political expediency than they do moral courage. Indeed, with charges for first degree sexual assault still pending, the decision to invite Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty to return to the university was an empty gesture, and the persons involved in the gesture had to know that.

At 11:42 AM, February 03, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jason--Wonderfully written article. Thanks for the update. Enjoyed speaking to you the other night about the donated Duke -UNC tickets. Best regards---BlueProfessor

At 6:09 PM, February 03, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent post Jason! You are a beacon of wisdom and common sense. We are grateful for all that you are doing.

At 8:25 AM, March 01, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Congratulations Jason Trumpbour for making poor Nifong lose so much sleep! You must be real proud.

At 5:29 PM, March 02, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Posted March 2, 2007

Comments on Mike Nifong's Response to the NC State Bar
by Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson

In case you missed it, Mike Nifong named me specifically as his chief tormenter and provided the URL for our site in a letter he sent to the State Bar. Click here for the Response letter. It is on the last page in the third paragraph. He states,

“A well-connected and well-financed (but not, I would suggest, well-intentioned) group of individuals—most of whom are neither in nor from North Carolina—have taken it upon themselves to ensure that this case never reaches trial. (And if this seems like paranoid delusion to you, perhaps you should check out websites such as former Duke Law School graduate and current Maryland attorney Jason Trumpbour’s, which has not only called for me to be investigated, removed from this case, and disbarred, but has also provided instructions on how to request such actions and to whom those requests should be sent.)”

First, this is not my site. I am one of six people who run FODU and my colleagues have contributed as much or more to our efforts as I have. Indeed, site really belongs to all of the many people who participate in our activities by writing letters, getting the word out and posting ideas on the discussion board. Second, I am truly flattered and surprised that Nifong singled us out as his principle critics, even ahead of the efforts of KC Johnson, LieStoppers and Ethical Durham. I have to say that I think LieStoppers was the first to post step by step instructions on how to file a grievance with the State Bar and we merely linked to them. It is truly rewarding, however, to know I, personally, am inside Nifong’s head.

It is typical of Nifong's narcissism and grandiosity that he imagines himself confronted by giants. The reality is that we are a bunch of ordinary folks who had to shoulder the burden of speaking out against him ourselves because we got tossed out on our ear at Duke. Our group’s original purpose was to get Duke to speak out in defense of its students and they did not start doing that until late December. We are mostly funded out of our own pockets. We have no experience doing this sort of thing and we are figuring it out as we go along. If Nifong were to recognize these realities, it would be a bitter blow to him. He would then have to finally confront the reality that he is responsible for his own misfortunes. All we have done is shine a light on his actions and invite others to see for themselves the nature and extent of his misconduct.

If you found this link thanks to the free publicity provided for us by Nifong, take a look around and decide for yourself our intentions. I hope the State Bar does as well. Also, look through some of the extensive resources we provide for understanding the lacrosse case. Finally, consider making a donation to the defense fund. The accused and their families have incurred ruinous expenses, $3 million and counting, in defending themselves against these false charges.

At 5:47 PM, March 02, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jason, this is another great post.

I am guessing that Nifong will be reading your words right here. He may actually be reading it right now, as I am typing this comment. At least, we now know how he was spending his time all these months instead of doing his job. Shame on Nifong!

Thank you for everything you have done and will continue to do on this tragic case. Thank you FODU, and all the other supportive sites.

Duke friend

At 5:54 PM, March 02, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jason, When Nifong goes after you by name in his Dec 28 letter, he is violating the spirit of the last phrase of the 1st Amendment, "right of the people to petition government for a redress of grievances". Shame on him!

At 10:25 AM, March 03, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a Duke grad ('80), I am ashamed of the University. Why the President has not resigned in shame, from his cowardly lack of action in protecting Duke students is beyond me.

As for Nifong. The man is mentally ill, or evil. One can't rationalize his actions any other way. Any man who states, 'if they're not guilty, why do they need a lawyer?' (I'm paraphrasing, but Nifong did say this!), then as soon as he is accused of wrongdoing, he himself retains an attorney, has serious issues. The above opposing pair of actions, by itself, and his inability to look in the mirror and see what most of us Americans see, which is a mean, intractible and corrupt human being, makes us all shake our heads in awe of his audacity and moral blindness.

The reality is that Nifong is just one part of many ills in the city of Durham. And unfortunately, the President and Duke administration displayed their lack of moral fiber during this fiasco.

How many parents would seriously consider Duke as a destination for their children? I won't. Duke's PR department tried to twist the fact that applications for admission decreased by almost 10%, by stating how many did apply.

Unfortunately, I foresee more of this decline in the future. What Nifong, a significant number of citizens of Durham and the Duke administration have done caused irreparable damage to the Duke name. Shame on all of them for this. The city of Durham, without Duke would be a very sad place indeed, but not as sad as it is with the current city and university administration.

It's too bad Nifong cannot be sued by Duke alumni. He's done his best to destroy the hard work of the many Duke graduates who studied and attained a degree from the university.

At 10:47 AM, March 03, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you want to hear more from Jason or hear him speak, his WRAL interview is available right here:

Jason Trumpbour on WRAL

Duke alum

At 12:31 PM, March 05, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

i am delighted to see that "a few poeple" would have the capacity to hold governing thugs accoubtable for justice
i wish i was an attorney
i will do all i can

At 12:33 PM, March 05, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh,i forgot to say that in his many years of job as a district attorney/thug ,Mike nifong got used to railroading folks and working his network,because internet and blogs werent there and the media,the second in command of thuggery had free rain.
welcome to the new world Mr Nifong
a more just world
sorry you cant rearrange this one

At 12:35 PM, March 05, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I felt compelled to write FODU after reading the March 2 posting by Jason Trumpbour. (Are you the esq. Maryland who comments at Durham in Wonderland?)

Be proud of the fact that Nifong has taken notice of all of you and your efforts to keep the kleiglights shining on Durham and the Duke Hoax.

I'm from the West Coast and this case caught my attention from the very beginning. To put it bluntly, something "smelled", and the more I read, the more appalled I became at the antics of the DA and his cronies. You've done an excellent job exposing the legal shenanigans of The Fong, as well as the university's lack of support for its own students. Shameful indeed!

Thanks to your diligent blogging, many of us who are incensed by this miscarriage of justice are able to show our support for the LAX players and their families by donating to the ATAF. Keep up the good fight!

At 6:27 PM, April 05, 2007, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Odds and Ends
by Jason Trumpbour, FODU spokesperson

Indoctrinate U

I want to call everyone’s attention to a new documentary that is particularly relevant to the academic freedom issues we are pursuing. It is called Indoctrinate U and it looks at how students and faculty are censored or sanctioned by universities for expressing their views or for their group affiliations. A few weeks ago, I ran into one of the producers, Thor Halvorssen who is the former executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). He is excited about the film and believes it has the potential to shine a great deal of light on these issues. However, he needs your help. Commercial film distributors are reluctant to give it wide release because, given its unique subject matter, they are unsure of potential audience for it. The producers are asking people who would like to see the film in their area to go to the film’s website to show their interest by signing up on a list they have created. Go here to see the trailer and then go here (scroll down the page) to register your interest in seeing the film.

The film does not seek to advance any particular viewpoint or agenda. Rather, it seeks to ensure that all members of university communities regardless of their background or affiliation have the freedom to express their views whatever they may be. That is exactly what we are trying to do at Duke University.

John in Carolina’s Original Reporting

I hope that everyone has been following our friend John in Carolina’s reports of his investigations into the misinformation spread by spokespersons for the Durham Police Department and the origins of the defamatory wanted poster issued by department. This is an important aspect of the case because it serves to remind us that Nifong could not have perpetrated his hoax without the support and cooperation of others, including certain elements within the police department. I am thinking also of the Elmostafa case, Mark Gottlieb’s suspicious police report and Patrick Baker’s aggressive and false denials that the alleged victim had ever changed her story. Mike Nifong also seems to have been egged on by some members of Durham’s political elite. Right now, the response of all these different actors seems to be to portray Nifong as solely responsible for the entire hoax. The only person who does not yet seem to have figured this out is Mike Nifong. However, there were others who were complicit with him and who should be held accountable as well.

The Attorney General’s Dilemma

When the Special Prosecutors took over the case, I preached patience. I expressed the hope that by doing an honest, thorough and diligent review of the case, they could demonstrate to the public how criminal cases are supposed to be handled. That was a long time ago. I knew it would not take them that long to review the file. Even though it is 6000+ pages, only a few are particularly relevant. Still, due diligence required that they verify much of the information and satisfy themselves of any questions they had.

I must say I am getting a little worried by the present delay. I know that there remains a political dimension to the case and there are still certain groups attempting to influence the process. Having worked in a state attorney general’s office, I know the extent to which politics intrudes into what should be purely legal decisions. Nevertheless, the political challenges presented by the case are obvious and are not going to get any easier to resolve with time. My worry is that there is political pressure being applied from directions that we cannot see and that the Attorney General’s office is wrestling with that at the moment. Let us hope there is a better reason for the delay.

How should Attorney General Roy Cooper confront the political difficulties presented by the case? Another friend, William Anderson has the answer: Tell the truth. His most recent article is an open letter to Cooper encouraging him to do just that: Tell the truth. Bill argues that telling the truth is not only the right thing to do, but good politics as well. I could not agree more.

Mike Nifong offers the negative example. At the beginning of the lacrosse case, he could have been honest. He could have urged patience while he gathered the facts and then told the truth: that not only did the evidence not support the alleged victim’s numerous contradictory claims, it actually demonstrated the innocence of the lacrosse players. He could have presented the public with a thorough and professional review of the evidence and shown the public not only that justice was done, but also educated it about how justice is supposed to be done. He could have thus made an effort to defuse whatever tensions existed within the community rather than enflame them and satisfy the concerns of all.

Make no mistake, Nifong might have lost the primary election had he told the truth. He was thus presented with a genuine temptation. Some people might still not have been satisfied with his decision. Also, he was the weaker candidate at least as far as polling was concerned. However, he might still have attracted the support he needed by demonstrating character, competence and professionalism. In any event, no one can argue that Nifong is in a better position now for having lied. His career will end in ignominy. He is the object of derision and hostility. The works of a lifetime have been obviated. Everything he purported to stand for has been revealed to be false. Roy Cooper will fare no better if he is less than 100% honest in his resolution of the case. Let us hope Roy Cooper chooses the truth. I have no reason to doubt he will.

The Truth by Patricia Dowd

Speaking of the truth, Patricia Dowd was kind enough to send me her thoughts on the one year anniversary of the hoax a few weeks ago. I intended to post it then, but it got lost in a shuffle of things I was scrambling around to do before I went on vacation. As we wait on the Special Prosecutors’ decision, and, especially in light of William Anderson’s article, her essay called “The Truth” is still quite apropos. Better late than never, here it is:


“Three things cannot long be hidden the sun, the moon and the TRUTH.” -Confucius

As the one year anniversary of the Durham/Duke Hoax approaches, I reflect on the past year with the hope of finding the answer to one question that plagues me daily; When did the truth cease to matter?

For anyone who has followed the evidence, the truth is that there was no rape, no sexual assault and no kidnapping on the night/morning of March 13/14. The truth has become, at best, secondary to:

1. Those who want these three innocent young men punished for sins of the past.
2. Some of the gang of 88, who want to promote their own personal and political agendas.
3. Pres. Brodhead and Chairman Steele who are more concerned wit Duke's image than the truth.

Twelve months ago, Nifong, with the help of his enablers, may have been able to try and hide the truth. However, through the Herculean effort of the defense team and numerous bloggers, the truth has been painstakingly unearthed. Then why are Collin, Reade and Dave still indicted for crimes they did not commit? Why has the Gang of 88 not admitted that their judgment may have been clouded by the emotionally charged atmosphere ofthe time? Why have Pres. Brodhead and Chairman Steele maintained the position that canceling the lacrosse season, firing Coach Pressler and not supporting their students from day one of this travesty, was not a mistake?

It seems the facts and thus the truth has fallen on deaf ears to these groups.

All three groups cling to the ideal, “something terrible happened in that house.” Yes, that is the truth. The something terrible that happened was that Crystal Gail Magnum perpetrated a hoax, damaged the lives of forty seven young men, their coaches and the city of Durham with the support of her enablers. Nifong, the Gang of 88, President Brodhead, and Chairman Steel continue to propagate this travesty of justice.

Many of Crystal's enablers will contend that the “something terrible” was racism and sexism. Yet, they are unable to substantiate these claims with any facts. The truth is that the Coleman report and the word of past and present African American teammates state this team was not racist. The truth is that one racial epithet was stated by one team member after being provoked with a racial comment by the second dancer. The truth is that even one racial slur is not acceptable, but a racist team it does not make.

The truth is the team hired strippers, just like many other Duke athletic teams, sororities, fraternities and Duke employees. The group of enablers may find this morally inappropriate, but morals are personal values, they do not speak to the truth.

The TRUTH is that Collin, Reade and Dave are innocent.

The TRUTH is that many wanted to believe the “Fantastic Lies” of Crystal Gail Magnum and Nifong.

The TRUTH is that the only constant over the past twelve months is that Pres. Brodhead and Chairman Steele have continued to disappoint the lacrosse families for their failure to admit they made a mistake.

It is difficult for many to admit they were wrong, but an apology when you have treated others unkindly or unfairly goes along way to begin the healing process. (The truth is I know first hand how difficult it is to apologize, for after sending Prof. Holloway an e-mail, which I believe had many relevant points on the Durham/Duke hoax, I sent Prof. Holloway an apology for attacking her personally). The TRUTH is that these three young men should have been afforded their constitutional right of due process, and all citizens should have been appalled when these rights were denied.

Sir Winston Churchill stated, “Truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.” In the end, when others begin to fall, as they have, Duke lacrosse will stand tall because we have truth on our side.

At 8:06 AM, April 06, 2007, Blogger gak said...

The Truth by Patricia Dowd

Well written, well stated

At 10:32 AM, April 06, 2007, Blogger JWM said...

First, a "thank you" to Jason for his nice words about my Addison work.

Much more, a "thank you" for everything he and FODU have done to knock down the Hoax and to encourage Duke to correct some very serious mistakes.

And "thank you," Ms Dowd, for a fine article. I hope we find the truth. You article points the way and will encourage those who are seeking it.

John in Carolina

At 11:07 AM, April 06, 2007, Blogger S.G. said...

In the "PoMo" era, truth simply does not matter. It's been trumped by:

"I feel"
"I believe"
"My thoughts"
and "tolerance" of that which is not truthful.

At 4:29 PM, April 07, 2007, Blogger Gary Packwood said...


I am concerned with the 'Tell the Truth' message that you are sending out.

Whose Truth?

People in Durham who dislike Duke University have a truth they are expecting.

Duke University administrators have a truth they are expecting.

The anti privileged white male athlete group has a truth they are expecting.

The indoctrinate Duke University professor groups have a truth they are expecting.

Whose Truth?

It would seem to me that the charges need to be dropped; confidential settlements made and press releases issued before intense investigations from Blog Investigators and others ... find the truth about all of these groups.

It is real easy to set up an Blog Investigation these days.

At 9:27 AM, June 14, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good Job! :)

At 11:59 AM, January 25, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

globalsummit directorof stripes yesterdays stabilise ettie prophet provide unwilling csmanvendra oakland
servimundos melifermuly

At 11:50 PM, January 26, 2010, Anonymous Anonymous said...

andin therefore gurukul statutorily rent shweta backstage dheeraj danube seer inkpen
servimundos melifermuly

At 9:43 AM, January 30, 2013, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am only writing to make you be aware of of the brilliant [url=]cheap oakley sunglasses[/url] encounter my daughter

found reading your blog. She picked up numerous details,[url=]fake oakleys wholesale[/url]

fake oakleys ,which included how it is

like to have a wonderful giving style to have folks

without hassle completely grasp specific

tortuous things. You truly did more than our own desires. Thank you for offering these interesting, trusted, edifying and [url=]cheap oakleys[/url]

fake oakleys fun cheap oakleys tips on your topic to Tanya.

At 6:23 AM, July 22, 2019, Blogger noor said...

افضل شركة تنظيف بالاحساء شركة تنظيف بالاحساء
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالخبر شركة رش مبيدات بالخبر
شركة مكافحة حشرات بالجبيل افضل شركة مكافحة حشرات بالجبيل


Post a Comment

<< Home