| NDLax puts Judge Smith under a microscope; November, 2006 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 8 2010, 08:17 PM (174 Views) | |
| Quasimodo | Mar 8 2010, 08:17 PM Post #1 |
|
November 15, 2006 Dear Judge Smith: In his application seeking Chief Justice Parker's approval of your appointment to preside over this "exceptional" Hoax, Judge Orlando Hudson noted that having one person (that would be you) at the helm "would make it easier to have motions and hearings." That was three months ago. As then reported in the Herald-Sun, attorneys and judicial colleagues described you as a "soft-spoken, highly competent, no-nonsense man without any apparent trace of arrogance or flamboyance in his demeanor." Officials were then predicting that your appointment would improve consistency and efficiency. In the time since, however, judicial efficiency appears to have been consistently thwarted by your seeming indifference to Nifongian hijacking of proceedings. We've seen a lot of that genteel, soft-spoken nature. We've seen little, however, indicative of a high degree of competence and nothing of the "no nonsense" trait that you allegedly possess. We've seen a potted plant. And that's bad. On two occasions, now, you have allowed Mr. Nifong to commandeer your courtroom. You have tacitly countenanced his unprofessional decorum, ad hominem taunts, trademark smirks, arrogant dismissal of your own Order setting forth the end date for evidentiary disclosure, and the making of blatant falsehoods on the record in open court. You have twice permitted open-cage-day at the zoo. The inmate is running your asylum. You let him speak Nifongese to tap dance out of the "fifty, or was it 15, press interviews" gaffe. You withheld bench cross upon his assertion that the April 11 meeting with Mangum did not include discussion of case specifics, despite Gottlieb's written recollection to the contrary and his own sworn motion memorializing discussion regarding her ingestion, or not, of contraband drugs at the time in question. You now know, of course, that well before the date on which Nifong claims, incredibly, not to have spoken to Crystal about the case because she was still "too traumatized" to do so (as evidenced by, he says, her "difficulty maintaining eye contact"), she'd been on a pole, or several, same as it ever was, good old Precious. You raised nary an eyebrow when Nifong informed that audio recordings previously ordered to be preserved had been, oops, destroyed. You denied defense counsel's demand for a Bill of Particulars in the very face of Nifong substituting his particular fiction for that of the false accuser, despite his claim of having never spoken to her about events upon which the indictments were returned. You forebore rebuke when he turned the Constitutional presumption of innocence on its ear by smugly asserting that Reade Seligmann need only account for an hour and a half out of his whole life so as to have nothing to worry about. Enough nonsense. It's time. Time to put on your big boy pants, take control of your courtroom and the administration of justice, and bitch slap that smirk to the back wall. Kirk Osborn's photo identification suppression motion, officially on behalf of defendant, Reade Seligmann, but for practical purposes dispositive of the Hoax pled against the three indictees, has been pending since May 1, 2006. Amendment thereto was filed on or about June 8, 2006. While you are not subject to criticism for the delinquencies of your sycophantic predecessors, you are subject to criticism for perpetuating their dereliction of duty. It is time. Time to define your place in history. The North Carolina Criminal Procedure Act [NCGS 15A-954 (a)(4)] mandates that, on motion, the court "must dismiss the charges stated in a criminal pleading if it determines that...the defendant's constitutional rights have been flagrantly violated and there is such irreparable prejudice to the defendant's preparation of his case that there is no remedy but to dismiss the prosecution." (snip) Inasmuch as criminal statutes are to be strictly construed, movants must, to be entitled to dismissal under NCGS 15A-954 (a)(4), show both flagrant violation of their constitutional rights [check] and that "there is such irreparable prejudice to the defendant's preparation of his case that there is no remedy but to dismiss the prosecution." This second requisite is what will make the Wannabelievers bang their pots and shout, "But they have the best defense team money can buy! Even if their constitutional rights were flagrantly violated, surely they have not been irreparably prejudiced in the preparation of their case." Stand up to the Wannabelievers, Oz. Tell them to sit down and shut up. (snip) Yours, etc., |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |






7:14 PM Jul 10