- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Blog and Media Roundup - Tuesday, June 30, 2009; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jun 30 2009, 04:43 AM (364 Views) | |
| abb | Jun 30 2009, 04:43 AM Post #1 |
|
http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/durham/4-1176730.cfm Legislator questions diversity provision By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun gronberg@heraldsun.com Jun 30, 2009 Bookmark and Share DURHAM -- One of the General Assembly's top Republicans has questioned the constitutionality of a city charter provision that allows Durham officials to prod contractors to work in minority- and women-owned businesses. House Minority Leader Paul Stam, R-Wake, joined other GOP members earlier this month in voting against a bill that codified the City Council's right to delegate matters of contract administration to the city staff. The bill's wording tinkered with a 26-year-old charter provision that says the council, to "ensure equal employment opportunities" or "redress past discrimination," may establish minimums for the participation of minority- and women-owned businesses whenever it sends projects financed by public money out to bid. In a brief House floor debate, Stam said that the state constitution bars legislators from giving specific cities, towns and counties expanded authority to regulate "labor, trade, mining or manufacturing." Any rules affecting those things are supposed to be uniform across the state. The charter provision "obviously [affects] either labor or trade and it's just flat-out unconstitutional," Stam said in a later interview. "Whether or not anybody will do anything about it, who knows. People aren't picky about the constitution." The minority leader's complaint drew an immediate rebuttal on the House floor from Durham's senior legislator, Democratic state Rep. Mickey Michaux. The bill, he said, "does not have anything to do with trade," Michaux said, defending the bill. "It's simply a policy matter, Mr. Stam, where authority is given to the city manager." Sought by city officials, the bill passed its final tests last week by votes of 84-32 in the House and 46-0 in the state Senate. The modification was one of a couple city leaders asked Michaux and other members of the Durham legislative delegation to push through in this session to enable the City Council to give City Manager Tom Bonfield and his successors more decision-making authority over contract issues. Another bill wiped away a charter-dictated limit that dictated that the manager send all purchase contracts worth more $100,000 to go to the City Council for approval. The council can now set whatever limit on the manager's signing authority it wants. Stam said he hadn't heard any complaints, legal or otherwise, about Durham's efforts to encourage the use of minority- and women-owned contractors. But "just because somebody doesn't challenge something doesn't mean it's legal," he said, predicting that anyone who sued to overturn the program would win. "It just means it hasn't been challenged." Other GOP-linked observers, however, said a challenge appeared unlikely. "Who's the plaintiff?" said John Hood, president of the Raleigh-based John Locke Foundation. "I don't think anybody's going to step forward or sue on the principle of the thing." He added that the most likely way for a court case to develop is out of a dispute between program administrators and a contractor. City Attorney Patrick Baker couldn't be reached for comment on Monday. An expert at UNC's School of Government, David Lawrence, referred questions to a colleague, Joe Ferrell, who also couldn't be reached for comment. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina several years ago invoked the same provision of the state constitution Stam referred to to convince the N.C. Supreme Court to wipe out local efforts in Durham, Orange County and the Wilmington area to act on job-discrimination claims. |
 |
 
|
| abb | Jun 30 2009, 04:45 AM Post #2 |
|
http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/durham/4-1176719.cfm Slaying shocks those who knew victim, suspect BY KEITH UPCHURCH : The Herald-Sun kupchurch@heraldsun.com Jun 30, 2009 Bookmark and Share DURHAM -- A 56-year-old man will be charged with murder in the shooting death of his half-brother following an apparent argument between the men at their mother's house in the Crest Street neighborhood, police said on Monday. The Saturday evening shooting at 18 Zelko Court, a few blocks behind the VA Medical Center on Erwin Road, took the life of Joseph Best, 40, of the same address. His half-brother, Lewis Scarlette, who also lived there, was arrested at the scene after officers were called at 5:11 p.m. Saturday. They found Best lying on the steps when they arrived. Best was taken to Duke University Hospital, where he died Sunday. Scarlette was initially charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury, and placed in the Durham County Jail under a $500,000 bond. But the charge will be changed to murder, police said on Monday. Jail records indicated Scarlette was in jail under the $500,000 bond Monday evening. In interviews Monday afternoon, the victim's cousin and next-door neighbor described Best as likeable and hard-working. They said they were shocked by his death. "I was out of town at the beach and my brother called and told me," said Dewayne Scarlette, who grew up with Best in the Crest Street neighborhood. "I couldn't believe it. I didn't think it had happened, because he was a very giving person. He was well-known and well-liked." Scarlette said Best had worked at the Searle Center at Duke University for years and later worked "in research." He said the two had spent a lot of time together through the years. "We used to hang around together all the time," he said. "I've been here [at his home] a lot of times. Spent the night here a lot of times. I ain't never seen no feud going on or anything like that. I just don't know what happened." He said Best called him on the phone hours before he died. "He called me Saturday around 11 a.m. and I told him I was out of town, and I wouldn't be back until Monday. And may five or six o'clock, my brother called me and told me: 'Joseph Best got shot in the back.' " Best's next-door neighbor, Timothy Goodwin, said he wasn't home when the shooting took place. But he said the death was a shock. "He was a very likeable person,' Goodwin said. "A popular guy. A working man. Both of them were hard-working guys. Somebody just lost it. It's very sad." "The person who shot him -- he's a good guy, been working his whole life," Goodwin said. "Don't bother anybody. So, it's just sad that both of her sons who were living with her -- one of them has gone to heaven, and the other one is facing a murder charge. It's like she lost two boys in one day." |
|
|
|
| abb | Jun 30 2009, 04:46 AM Post #3 |
|
http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/durham/4-1176722.cfm CRIME LOG BY KEITH UPCHURCH : The Herald-Sun kupchurch@heraldsun.com Jun 30, 2009 Bookmark and Share Police seeking slaying suspect DURHAM -- Police on Monday continued looking for a man charged with fatally shooting a woman on Newsom Street on June 13. Jessica Ellis, 28, was killed at her home at 414 Newsom St. Police have obtained warrants for the arrest of Joseph Demetrius Muller, 40. They believe that a little bit after 5 p.m. that Saturday, he fatally fired at Ellis. There were multiple gunshots. Police consider Muller armed and dangerous. Police are working on the premise that Ellis' murder was not random. Anyone with information is asked to call Investigator Antonio Gill at (919) 560-4440 ext. 29322, or CrimeStoppers at (919) 683-1200. |
|
|
|
| abb | Jun 30 2009, 04:47 AM Post #4 |
|
http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/durham/4-1176714.cfm Man to appeal statutory rape, indecent liberties convictions BY JOHN MCCANN : The Herald-Sun jmccann@heraldsun.com Jun 30, 2009 Bookmark and Share DURHAM -- A jury recently found Adrain Lee Bullock, 30, guilty of both statutory rape of a person 15 years of age and taking indecent liberties with a child. The offenses occurred July 18, 2007. Bullock was sentenced to roughly 26 to 32 years behind bars for the statutory rape. He got 2 to 2½ years for the indecent liberties, but that time is to run concurrently with the rape sentence. An appeal has been filed, Bullock's lawyer, Steve Monks, said. Monks said the appeal will have to do with whether race played a role in the case, and whether some of the evidence admitted should not have been. Bullock is black, and the victim is not. That the jury acquitted Bullock of a second-degree kidnapping charge raises questions about the victim's version of the facts, Monks said. Before the case went to trial, Bullock could have accepted a plea deal that would have put him behind bars 7 to 10 years, Monks said. But Bullock believed his case was strong, that thought bolstered by the lack of physical evidence against him, which would make the matter hinge on the victim's credibility, the lawyer said. Assistant District Attorney Jan Paul said the victim was solid on the witness stand. Monks recounted a previous client of his who was in a similar position as Bullock. But the witness in that case was shaky, and the jury not only acquitted that man but actually hugged the guy and apologized to him. "I've never seen anything like it," Monks said. "It was the most amazing thing I've ever seen." |
|
|
|
| abb | Jun 30 2009, 04:47 AM Post #5 |
|
http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/durham/4-1176716.cfm Man charged in home invasion BY KEITH UPCHURCH : The Herald-Sun kupchurch@heraldsun.com Jun 30, 2009 Bookmark and Share DURHAM -- A sheriff's detective has filed charges against a man in connection with an armed home invasion in which a woman and her infant son were held at gunpoint and robbed. The man, Jose Javier Reyes Marquez, 36, of Weather Hill Circle was charged in warrants obtained Monday by Investigator Tom Mellown of the Durham County Sheriff's Office. Those charges follow his arrest Friday by police, who charged him with committing four armed home invasions within four days in the city last week. In Monday's warrants, Marquez is accused of breaking down a door with another male accomplice at the home off Stoney Creek Circle in Durham County outside the city limits, and taking the mother's purse, its contents and a debit-credit card, Mellown said. He said the stolen credit card was used shortly after the robbery at a nearby convenience store. Mellown said a tire iron was used to force open the door about 10:40 a.m. June 4. He said no one was injured. "We feel confident they have committed other crimes in the area and we are trying to link them to other home invasions,' Mellown said. Mellown's warrants charge Marquez with two counts of first-degree kidnapping, one count of breaking and entering, one count of robbery with a dangerous weapon, financial identity fraud and obtaining property by false pretenses in connection with the June 4 invasion. More arrests are expected and additional charges may be brought against Marquez, Mellown said. |
|
|
|
| abb | Jun 30 2009, 04:55 AM Post #6 |
|
http://www.johnincarolina.com/ Sunday, June 28, 2009 DPD Deputy Chief Hodge On Mar. 14, 2006 & Thereafter Readers Note: If you're not familiar with the contents of: Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14 http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-nifong-knew-on-mar-14.html Sceptical’s Response To "Why Nifong Knew On Mar. 14" http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/scepticals-response-to-why-nifong-knew.html Sceptical Says Nifong Knew Before Mar. 23 http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/sceptical-says-nifong-knew-before-mar.html Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/06/nifong-copier-discovery-story-fantastic.html I encourage you to read those posts before reading the one which follows below the star line because that post presumes you’re very familiar with the contents of the four posts I’ve just cited and linked to. John ****************************************************** The entire thread of Nifong Copier “Discovery” Story: A Fantastic Lie is well worth reading. In the coming days I’ll respond to part or all of each of the 15 comments presently there. I’ll begin here with an interlinear response to part of one of sceptical’s thread comments. Sceptical’s in italics; I’m in plain. Sceptical said in part - - - … I do not think to start with that there was an overall conspiracy (that happened later). I agree although I think we should allow that one or more officials who were on the case very early (Mar. 14, 15 & 16) already had, at least in his/her or their minds, the idea/wish to “get something on these guys no matter.” That said, in those first days it was right for officials to respond to Mangum’s charges with a full, fair investigation. There’s no doubt that by Mar. 23 when Nifong’s chief ADA David Saacks agreed to “walk” the “mammothly unconstitutional” NTO “through the court” conspirators were already involved in a frame-up attempt. But there's a great deal we don't know about the actions between Mar. 14 and 23 of power figures connected to the DL frame. We'll have a much better understanding of how and why the frame was attempted when we know, for example, what DPD Deputy Chief Ron Hodge and some of the other key figures did between Mar. 14 and 23 as well as what they did after that timeframe. I believe there was a convergence of interests, the combination of which was quite unlucky for the team. You’re right about that. 1) A mentally-ill prostitute who did not want to be incarcerated, for whom a rape claim was the way out; And whom, as she rested all snug in her bed, Saw visions of $ $ $ $ dance in her head. 2) A Duke-hating cop who wanted revenge for being transferred; Gottlieb’s a very complex guy whose role in the frame attempt and the ongoing cover-up has been largely misconstrued because of all the “Duke-hating cop” talk. It’s a given Gottlieb’s a “Dukie hater;” and he certainly had a central and odious role in the frame-up attempt; and there’s no doubt he produced bogus “notes” to support both the frame-up attempt and the ongoing cover-up; but with all of that, if we want to understand how the frame developed we must acknowledge the truth of what a very wise person told me as the frame-up began to unravel: “Gottlieb wouldn’t have been in there for a heartbeat unless the top commend wanted him there; the city, too.” Gottlieb no doubt had his own internal motives for much of what he did. But during Mar. 2006 Gottlieb wasn't some kind of off-the-range freelancer; he was the dutiful agent of DPD's top command. 3) A wannabe SANE rookie whose feminist ideology outweighed professional ethics; Sceptical, the concision and truth in that sentence made me want to cheer. It’s a sentence Churchill would’ve loved; and one Strunk and White would score “A” for its omitting “needless words” and making “every word tell.” 4) A cowardly university administration who wanted to teach the athletes a lesson and wanted to curry favor with the city; Faced with the obvious lies of Crystal Mangum and Mike Nifong, Duke was indeed “cowardly.” Dishonest, too. 5) A politically desperate prosecutor who needed a big case to ensure his salary and pension; It’s not important to the injustices of the case; or to the struggle to discover as much of the truth as we can; or to hold to some account those responsible for the wrongs; or to acknowledge those who in tough circumstances did right; but just for the record I’d like to say: I’ve never bought in to the “ensure his salary and pension” explanation. and 6) News media looking for a hot story with "Sex, lies and Duke." That’s true as regards much of media that came on “the story” after Mar. 25, 2006 when the Raleigh N&O sent across the nation and the world a story its headlines told readers without any qualification suggesting doubt was about “a night” which ended in “sexual violence.” You take away any of these 6 factors and there might not have been a "Duke Lacrosse Scandal." Later on, there was a more organized conspiracy between Duke, the Durham police, and the Durham administration. See Ekstrand's civil suit. But at the beginning it appears there was an unfortunate combination of circumstances leading to a disaster. Sceptical, you’re doing here what few people following the DL case do: you’re looking forward from “the beginning” (Mar 13/14) and asking questions. Let’s imagine we’re in Durham early on the morning of Mar.14, 2006. We’ve just heard about Mangum’s false charges made at Duke’s ER. At that moment we know nothing else about what would become the DL case. But we are safe in assuming that however flimsy the woman's charges, they’ll be some kind of police investigation which, when any rape charges are made, is the proper police response. Given the explosive nature of the most serious crimes alleged - - a black woman accusing white Duke students of gang-raping and beating her - - we would reasonably think that police command will make sure the investigation is headed by a top investigator known for empathy, investigative skill and fairness. But on Mar. 16 we learn Gottlieb’s been put in charge of the investigation. Gotttlieb’s record suggested he wasn’t likely to lead a fair investigation; yet he was put in charge of it. Looking forward from Mar. 14 we can say with certainty the decision to put Gottlieb in charge, made in the first days of the case, was made with knowing disregard of the need for an empathic, skilled and fair investigator leading such a sensitive and potentially explosive investigation. What we knew by Mar. 16 gave us strong reason to doubt DPD top command wanted a fair and full investigation of Mangum's charges Who put Gottlieb in charge of the investigation? And why? I'd like to ask DPD Deputy Chief Ron Hodge those questions. Recall that Hodge was in day-to-day charge of the department during most of the “investigation” while the since retired Chief, Steve Chalmers, was, we were told, taking care of his mother who was ill and residing in Durham. In this post I provided a link to an April 12, 2006 MSNBC story which included this from Hodge: "I don't think we would be here if it wasn't (a strong case)," Maj. Ron Hodge, the assistant (sic) chief of the Durham Police Department, said after the forum. (Hodge is deputy chief. The parenthetical "a strong case" is in the MSNBC story. – JinC )(bold added). Nine months later in January 2007 when Nifong stepped aside and turned the case over to the NC Attorney General’s office, Hodge assured the Raleigh News & Observer DPD had collected evidence and that the case would go forward. I posted on the story here. The post contains a link to the N&O story which included: Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge said Nifong's stepping aside won't change the substance of the evidence collected by the department's detectives that a sexual assault occurred. (bold added) Hodge said he thinks that the case will still go forward and that the remaining charges will be prosecuted. "I don't think it changes anything that we've done," Hodge said. "It just means that we'll have to deal with a different attorney." Why did Hodge say in April, 2006 DPD had a strong case when, as we now know, it never had any credible evidence? Hodge must have known that then. Why did Hodge claim in January, 2007 that DPD had collected evidence which would enable a prosecutor to go forward with the case when, as the Attorney General said just three months later, there was no credible evidence any crime had been committed? What was Hodge doing? What has Hodge done in connection with the DL case starting on Mar. 14, 2006 and going forward from there? The Duke lacrosse victims and their families deserve to know. So does the public. |
|
|
|
| abb | Jun 30 2009, 04:58 AM Post #7 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/executive_privilege/story/1589069.html Published: Jun 30, 2009 05:44 AM Modified: Jun 30, 2009 05:45 AM Mary Easley to fight termination The former first lady says in a letter to NCSU that she will appeal her firing. BY ERIC FERRERI, Staff Writer Former first lady Mary Easley's hiring left a trail of dethroned N.C. State officials, but she has notified the university that she doesn't plan to join them. Easley indicated in a letter delivered to the university Monday that she will appeal her firing earlier this month. Her attorney, Marvin Schiller, declined to comment further. In the letter, he wrote that Easley plans to file a formal grievance through NCSU related both to her termination and "with respect to any severance, notice or hearing which she may be due under NCSU's policies, regulations and rules." NCSU did not offer Easley a severance package. "Programs that Mrs. Easley was hired to administer or participate in are among those that are being eliminated or reduced -- specifically the Center for Public Safety Leadership and the Millennium Seminar Series," said James Woodward, who became NCSU's interim chancellor after James Oblinger resigned over the Easley issue earlier this month. "With this substantial loss of job responsibilities and on the advice of the N.C. State Board of Trustees, I terminated Mrs. Easley's contract. Mrs. Easley may, of course, pursue whatever grievance process or legal action she now deems appropriate." Easley had come under pressure last year when she was given a five-year, $850,000 contract to run a speakers series and create a public safety leadership center. But controversy then erupted amid disclosures about her job in The News & Observer's two-part series, "Executive Privilege." The newspaper's reporting showed that her job was pushed by her husband, former Gov. Mike Easley, and orchestrated at the highest levels of state government. Though complimentary of Easley's abilities, NCSU and UNC system officials had urged her to resign from her post voluntarily, citing the distraction that her salary issue caused. In addition, Mike Easley is now the subject of a probe by federal investigators into several aspects of his time as governor, including a coastal land purchase in which he bought a lot at a favorable price and his family's use of vehicles from car dealers. Hannah Gage, chairwoman of the UNC system's Board of Governors, which oversees all public universities including NCSU, declined to discuss the specifics of Easley's appeal. "We have budget cuts and 215,000 students to educate, and our plate is too full to spend any more time wringing our hands over this story," she said. Monday's appeal letter was Easley's second public indication that she plans to fight for her job. The first came during a late May news conference when Schiller, her attorney, announced that Easley would not voluntarily leave her NCSU post. Easley attended that news conference but did not speak. How it all began Easley was first hired in May 2005 by Larry Nielsen, then the interim NCSU provost who was about to be replaced. Though Nielsen wasn't at first a candidate for the permanent position, he got the job. For months, officials said Nielsen alone hired Easley. But McQueen Campbell, a longtime friend of the Easleys and chairman of the N.C. State Board of Trustees, told Bowles in May that he told Oblinger that Mary Easley would be available. Campbell, a real-estate broker, businessman and private pilot, flew the governor in his plane often while Mike Easley was a candidate and at other times. He also flew two people for the speaker series that Mary Easley ran at NCSU. Campbell got help from the Easley administration about the time the first lady's job was created. The state permits for a real-estate deal that Campbell was involved in were approved in what Campbell said was nearly half the normal time; he credited political contacts he would not reveal. And the Division of Motor Vehicles set aside two investigations involving a vehicle inspection station Campbell owned. Both Nielsen and Campbell have resigned their positions with the university over their roles in Mary Easley's hiring. eric.ferreri@newsobserver.com or 919-932-2008 |
|
|
|
| abb | Jun 30 2009, 05:00 AM Post #8 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1589028.html Saunders: Published: Jun 30, 2009 02:00 AM Modified: Jun 30, 2009 05:57 AM Child's race not the issue BY BARRY SAUNDERS, Staff Writer It's the gays, no doubt about it. No, wait. It's those darned communal-living enclaves. Scratch that. It's Duke University and President Obama. That's who done it. Predictably irrational responses from the usual Internet riffraff. Those braying, brave bloggers -- brave, that is, as long as they're hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet -- would have us believe that those groups and others are responsible for the alleged sexual assault of a 5-year-old boy by the Duke University administrator who adopted him and is accused of trying to pimp him out so that others could abuse him. Frank Lombard, associate director of Duke's Center for Health Policy, has been charged with the crime against nature, against decency, and most important, against a child. If guilty, he alone is responsible for what he did, unless it turns out that someone was derelict in approving his adoption request and overlooked red flags showing Lombard shouldn't be allowed within 72.5 miles of an unchaperoned child. Unencumbered by either facts or sympathy, some mouth-breathers -- seemingly vying with Lombard in the degeneracy sweepstakes -- blame the news media for not focusing on the fact that the adopted child is black. Doing so, in their diseased, hate-filled minds, might fracture some supposed media-backed political coalition between blacks and gays. (It's unlikely gays in California would agree that any such coalition exists, since some feel that blacks helped defeat the gay marriage bill there.) But hey, what are facts when you've got a political agenda to push, stereotypes to reinforce? For any normal person, could the allegations against Lombard be any more heinous regardless of the child's race? One of our reporters on the story said it never entered his mind to mention the child's race. The story wasn't about race, he said, but about a child. Paul Colford of The Associated Press in New York, responding to criticism I relayed to him that the news service omitted the child's race, said, "We've only had one story. ... Without reading anybody's mind, I can only speculate that the issue of the child's race could very easily have come down to privacy issues." Neither of those explanations, although common-sensical, is likely to appease the black-helicopter crowd that sees a liberal conspiracy behind every event. A black caller posited the unprovable theory that Lombard adopted and abused a black child precisely because the child was black and thus, he knew, no one would care. They all ought to be ashamed, but of course they won't be. "Please, please, please," one person wrote on the N&O's Web site, let the accused administrator be a member of President Obama's inner circle. Oy. On Sunday, my cousin told me of taking his 5-year-old daughter to one of those McDonald's Playlands filled with plastic balls of all colors. It was also filled, he said, with children of all colors and ethnicities. He marveled that the race of their newfound playmates was the last thing on their minds. It's unfortunate that by the time they're old enough to crawl behind a computer keyboard, race may be the only thing on their minds. That's especially true if their parents are the type who view the race -- no, make that the withholding of the race -- of a 5-year-old possible rape victim as more important than the crime itself. barry.saunders@newsobserver.com or 919-836-2811 |
|
|
|
| abb | Jun 30 2009, 05:21 AM Post #9 |
|
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/zoe-ortiz/2009/06/29/gay-duke-u-official-attempts-sell-black-5-year-old-son-sex-msm-out-lunch Gay Duke U. Official Attempts to Sell Black 5-Year-Old Son for Sex: MSM Out to Lunch. By Zoe Ortiz Created 2009-06-29 15:57 Frank Lombard is an associate director at Duke University's Global Health Institute and a homosexual who was charged last week with the molestation of his adopted 5-year-old black son and actively trying to sell him for sex on the internet. The 40 words above are 40 more than the Main Stream Media has said on this horrible story. In nearly a week since Lombard was arrested, not one national broadcast or cable television news show has picked up the story. Compare this to the weeks on end of sensational coverage of the white male lacrosse players of the same university charged with rape several years ago. At the time of this post not one television show has reported the story and only 17 newspapers in the United States featured it - a majority of which are only small local newspapers. And most of these articles cited the American Press' report on the events,hich was as follows: AP) WASHINGTON - A Duke University official has been arrested and charged with offering his adopted 5-year-old son for sex. Frank Lombard, the school's associate director of the Center for Health Policy, was arrested after an Internet sting, according to the FBI's Washington field office and the city's police department. According to an affidavit by District of Columbia Police Det. Timothy Palchak, an unnamed informant facing charges in his own child sex case led authorities to Lombard. Authorities said that Lombard tried to persuade a person -who he did not know was a police officer -to travel to North Carolina to have sex with Lombard's child. The detective's affidavit charges Lombard identified himself online as "perv dad for fun," and says that in an online chat with the detective, Lombard said he had sexually molested his son, whom he adopted as an infant. The court papers say Lombard also invited the undercover detective to North Carolina to have sex with the young boy, and even suggested which hotel he should use." In response to the AP report, which most of the newspapers used almost verbatim, Mike Adams of Townhall made the observation that "The Associate Press (AP) did not mention the fact that the five-year old offered up for molestation was black. Bringing that fact to light might be damaging to the political coalition that exists between blacks and gays. Nor did the AP mention that the adopted child is being raised by a homosexual couple. Bringing that fact to light might harm the gay adoption movement." With this shocking lack of coverage of an even more shocking story, many are asking why this did not make the front pages and top headlines like the Duke lacrosse team scandal did. Thomas Lifson of American Thinker posited that "identity politics ... apparently trumps all sense of outrage." |
|
|
|
| abb | Jun 30 2009, 05:23 AM Post #10 |
|
http://rightinaleftworld.blogspot.com/2009/06/media-mum-on-latest-duke-university.html Monday, June 29, 2009 Media Mum on Latest Duke University Rape Case Who can forget the media frenzy when the Duke University Lacrosse team was accused of raping a Black woman they hired to dance at a party. The media had those boys convicted long before any investigation was completed. The team was even cancelled for the season as public outrage fueled by a vociferous media tried and convicted the team members in the court of public opinion. An embarrassment to the state media was that they were innocent and eventually all charges was dropped and the District Attorney forced to resign. No such measure was placed on the irresponsible media who abused their freedom of press in biased coverage against the White team members. Enter 2009 and the revelation of another person at Duke University offering a 5 year-old boy up for sex and other than he has been arrested, key factors of this crime are left unreported. Information unreported in this latest case is that the child is Black adopted son being raised by a Gay Couple. The accused, Frank Lombard, is the associate director of Duke's Center for Health Policy who offered the child up online under the screen name, “perv dad for fun.” Lombard is said to have admitted to molesting the child himself. Lombard, White, was asked online how he gained easy access to such a young child and reportedly replied, “Adopted, not so hard ... especially for a black boy.” While this incident shouldn’t be used to condemn all gays, need I remind you how 88 professors signed a statement accusing the players of both racism and rape based off of erroneous coverage and accusations leveled against the team? Apparently, our state media spares no effort at condemning White Heterosexuals, but can’t bring themselves to be truthful with the public when the accused is a Gay Pedophile. For Frank Lombard, he deserves prosecution to the fullest extent of the law and then some. You bring shame not only to Gays, but to Whites as well in your seeking pleasure at the expense of a child. Neither the gay community nor the straight community is served by hiding such facts from the public in reporting crimes as this. Any wonder so many ignore the state media today? |
|
|
|
| abb | Jun 30 2009, 05:26 AM Post #11 |
|
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=81627 Another Duke Rape Case The Media Distorts Remember 2006 when the media was gung-ho to tell you about a black stripper raped by the Duke Lacrosse team? They characterized it as some poor, black single mother brutalized by rich Southern whites (no matter that the accused were from Southern states like New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Maryland). Yes, it was the liberal media's wet dream fitting all their favorite stereotypes: white vs. black, rich vs. poor, male vs. female. They couldn't wait to string these men up by their genitals. Only the local media was interested in poking holes through the woman's story, finding out that she had a past history of drug abuse, prostitution and was, shall we say, veracity-challenged? Even her father told reporters that the story was bad *if* it were true. IF?? Her own dad doubts her?? Well, we all know what happened. The DNA didn't match, even as the DA announced that it did. The DA was eventually disbarred and tossed out of office and the media, for all their lying and mischaracterization, offered no apology for their own role in the witch hunt. So now comes word of another arrest at Duke, this time by a faculty member and, this time, the rape involves an African-American by a homosexual. Oops. The media failed to give you those last two details. Here's the AP report: Quote: A Duke University official has been arrested and charged with offering a 5-year-old boy for sex. Frank Lombard, the school's associate director of the Center for Health Policy, was arrested after an Internet sting, according to the FBI's Washington field office and the city's police department. According to an affidavit by District of Columbia Police Detective Timothy Palchak, an unidentified informant facing charges in a separate child sex case led authorities to Lombard. Authorities said that Lombard tried to persuade a person — who he did not know was a police officer — to travel to North Carolina to have sex with a child. The detective's affidavit charges Lombard said in an online chat that he had sexually molested the boy. The court papers say Lombard also invited the undercover detective to North Carolina to have sex with the young boy and even suggested which hotel he should use. But it isn't until you piece together some local reporting that you find out that Lombard is a gay man living with his "partner" (whose role in this whole deed has yet to be established) and that there were two children living in the house that were both African-American. Lombard's role at Duke was to study health care disparities among HIV/AIDS sufferers in the rural South. So, here you have a case of a rich, white Duke man abusing a poor young black child and this time we have the word of the federal government, not a stripper/prostitute but will there be nightly reports by the mainstream media or candlelight vigils at Duke? Hell, no. That's because the liberals will not have gay adoption placed in a bad light nor create friction between the gay movement and civil rights crowd. Much like the rape and murder of Jesse Dirkhising in 1999 by two gay men, the media will be largely silent about this because it doesn't fit their prejudices and stereotypes. Like most things touched by the mainstream media, ask yourself what facts are they distorting and what facts are they hiding. |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Jun 30 2009, 08:20 AM Post #12 |
|
http://www.rpvnetwork.org/profiles/blogs/something-amiss-in-indigo Something Amiss in Indigo Creek Trail North Carolina: Echoes of Deliverance in a Southern Gay Commune? * Posted by F.R Newbrough on June 30, 2009 at 5:30am It all began on a hot southern summer day on Indigo Creek Trail much like an episode of one of those to catch a predator shows that are so popular these days and leave honest folk with their mouths slack from incredulity and disgust with the only difference being that instead of a perp coming to a decoy house stocked with fresh made lemonade or sweet tea, cameras, and an moralizing media finger wagger the authorities were instead coming to the house of one Frank Lombard and his male house mate. Frank was a successful gay man so much so that he was promoted to Associate Director of the Center for Health Policy for the Health Inequalities Program at Duke University dealing with health-disparities research studying HIV/AIDS in the rural South. (snip) The same media and Duke staff that rushed to condemn and protest the Duke LaCross players can not be found. The black preachers and black outrage can not be found either or maybe rather it is being managed carefully by a media that “Controls all you see and hear” and seem deathly afraid of this story. It would be different if the precedent had not already been set but child molestation by public figures especially priests, evangelicals, or even the foot tapping of politicians in bathroom stalls is fair game and of course I still recall Nancy Grace calling down fire from heaven on the Mormon Commune when based on one anonymous phone call hundreds of children were removed from a Mormon fundamentalist ranch in Eldorado, Texas with the only concern that they might have been molested. We don’t hear any such admonitions to officials concerning the Eno Commons commune on Indigo Creek Trail North Carolina. (snip) There is one more thing we can be certain of and that is if Frank Lombard had been the deacon of a Traditional Baptist Church living in a backwoods commune and the head of a conservative Health Studies program on abstinence in the rural south at a well known college the world would know his name and his poor victimized adopted son’s also and all kinds of grand open ended questions would be asked. We'd be lucky if the very foundations of religion were not put on trial. We’d also hear about how individuals like him were all secretly sexual perverts because they were so up tight about sex and religion. Let us listen closely; cup your hand to your ear. The silence is deafening but if you listen close enough you just might be able to hear the screams of that little African American boy who ended up in the hands of a monster with no mother to protect him simply because he was black. |
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Jun 30 2009, 08:24 AM Post #13 |
|
Still waiting for the "Sex, Lies, and Duke" NEWSWEEK COVER about this story, replete with mug shots of the accused ...? Letters to the Editor for the U.S. print edition: Letters@newsweek.com Edited by Quasimodo, Jun 30 2009, 08:28 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Quasimodo | Jun 30 2009, 10:04 AM Post #14 |
|
(Does anyone think this applies to civil trials, too?) Jun 30, 5:13 AM EDT MONAHANS, Texas -- More than two years ago, a pair of former administrators at a remote West Texas juvenile prison were indicted on charges accusing them of sexually preying on teenage boys at the facility - a development hailed by the state's attorney general as a first step toward justice in a statewide scandal. But the cases have languished in court. And the delay could spell trouble for the prosecution, say attorneys and legal scholars. "Memories fade and peoples' commitment to seeing justice done sometimes seems less urgent," said Michele Deitch, a lawyer who teaches juvenile justice policy at the University of Texas in Austin. "There are many good reasons why trials are supposed to be held in a timely fashion," she said, "and one is that memories are better; two is that more evidence is available and three is that more people are focused on seeing justice done." (snip) "After nearly two years of unnecessary delays, these cases need to proceed to trial," said Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for Abbott, who took over the high-profile cases in 2007 after the allegations were made public. ("Justice delayed is justice denied"?) |
|
|
|
| ~J~ is in Wonderland | Jun 30 2009, 11:24 AM Post #15 |
~J~ is in Wonderland
|
http://www.reportpubliccorruption.org/ Report Public Corruption Mission Statement The Foundation for Ethics in Public Service, Inc. seeks to bring a new level of transparency, accountability and integrity to all levels of American government. The Foundation will accomplish its mission by receiving and independently investigating allegations of corruption in government, providing reports of corruption to investigative journalists, and pro-actively educating government leaders and the general public on the true nature of ethics in government as well as the causes and remedies of public corruption. snip |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
5:21 PM Dec 5
