| Blog and Media Roundup - Friday, November 12, 2010; News Roundup | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Nov 12 2010, 07:02 AM (346 Views) | |
| abb | Nov 12 2010, 07:02 AM Post #1 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/10275954/article-UNC-releases-letter-severing-ties-with-tutor?instance=homefirstleft UNC releases letter severing ties with tutor The Herald Sun 11.11.10 - 10:45 pm By Briana Gorman bgorman@heraldsun.com; 419-6668 CHAPEL HILL -- UNC Chapel Hill in a response to a public records request lawsuit, released a letter it sent to the tutor involved in the ongoing academic investigation involving members of the football team, ordering her to end her association with the athletics department and the players. The letter also named five individuals, including three former Tar Heels, who provided impermissible benefits to players Thursday. Jennifer Wiley of Chapel Hill, a May 2009 UNC graduate, received a disassociation letter similar to the ones issued to Chris Hawkins, a former Tar Heel who was deemed an agent by the NCAA, and A.J. Machado, a Miami-based jeweler. The letter, which is dated Nov. 5, states that in 2010 Wiley provided "impermissible financial assistance in excess of $2,000 in connection with travel and transportation issues." She also gave "impermissible academic assistance" in 2009 and 2010. Like Hawkins and Machado, Wiley, who is now an elementary school teacher in Durham, is banned from having contact with any current or future student-athletes and is prohibited from campus athletic facilities for the next five years. The school also named former Tar Heels Mahlon Carey, Hakeem Nicks and Omar Brown as individuals who provided impermissible gifts of cash and jewelry and impermissible assistance with lodging, travel, transportation and entertainment expenses in reinstatement requests sent to the NCAA. Vernon Davis, a tight end for the San Francisco 49ers, and a person from Miami whose full name is not known were also identified. The total value of the benefits provided by the five individuals was less than $6,000 and includes the estimated value of lodging in their homes, some of which was repaid by the players before they or their hosts knew it violated NCAA rules. It was determined Carey ($140), Nicks ($3,300) and Brown ($1,865) thought they were helping out friends and there has been no evidence linking them to inappropriate relationships with agents or runners. UNC safety Deunta Williams, who was suspended four games for violating the agent benefits and preferential treatment rules, had said earlier he and cornerback Kendric Burney, who was suspended six games for violating the same rule, had visited Brown at his home in California. Williams said that he had known Brown, who played safety at UNC in the mid-1990s, for four years and that they had a little brother-big brother relationship. Davis provided $20 worth of benefits, while the person from Miami had given $323 in benefits. Fourteen Tar Heels have missed at least one game this season because of the ongoing investigations into agents and academics. Williams served a four-game suspension for violating the agent benefits and preferential treatment rules, while Burney was suspended six games for violating the agent benefits and preferential treatment rules and then missed a seventh game for academic reasons. Running back Shaun Draughn, running back Ryan Houston, safety Da'Norris Searcy and defensive end Linwan Euwell have all been cleared to play after missing time, while cornerback Charles Brown, safety Jonathan Smith and safety Brian Gupton were all declared ineligible for the season due to unspecified reasons related to the investigations. Two players are still being withheld -- Michael McAdoo and Devon Ramsay -- while Marvin Austin was dismissed from the program and the NCAA ruled Greg Little and Robert Quinn permanently ineligible. Durham school board member Natalie Beyer said Wednesday night that she had not received any information concerning Wiley and the UNC football academic cheating scandal. Beyer declined to say whether she felt a teacher's apparent involvement in cheating outside of work activities should affect the educator's employment in DPS, pointing to the need to review applicable district policy. She also said that it would be inappropriate to act solely on the basis of allegations. "You want to make sure you're always cognizant of employee rights," the board member said. When asked whether she expected Wiley's situation to be discussed in a closed session when the board next meets, on Thursday, Beyer replied: "It would not surprise me." Schools spokeswoman Tahira Stalberte said she didn't have any information on Wiley's status with DPS because of Thursday's Veterans Day holiday. She said she had sent "a request to the human relations department" on the matter and hopes "to have an answer [this] morning." Staff writers Matthew E. Milliken and Mark Donovan contributed to this report. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Nov 12 2010, 07:03 AM Post #2 |
|
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story_news_durham/10275764/article-Police--Wounded-gunmen-shot-each-other?instance=main_article Police: Wounded gunmen shot each other The Herald Sun 11.11.10 - 10:06 pm By KEITH UPCHURCH kupchurch@heraldsun.com; 419-6612 DURHAM -- Police have identified two men who reportedly shot each other Wednesday afternoon outside an East Durham convenience store. One of the men had been released from prison Just last month after serving time on an armed robbery conviction. Police said the men are Christopher Derrick Judd, 22, of Durham and Daniel Terrell Lucas, 25, of Raleigh. Both are being treated for serious injuries at Duke University Hospital, police spokeswoman Kammie Michael said. She said a preliminary investigation shows they shot each other, but no charges have been filed and the case remains under investigation. The exchange of gunfire happened about 5 p.m. outside the Lighthouse Food Mart at 2944 Holloway St. The store manager, Anthony Kamau, said one of the men entered the store holding a gun and bleeding from his stomach. He said the other man was lying on the ground outside the store, bleeding from his head. According to police reports and a N.C. Department of Correction Web site, Judd was arrested in March 2005 and charged with robbing a Kangaroo convenience store at 3793 Guess Road. He allegedly used a shotgun to threaten a clerk and stole merchandise and $100, according to arrest warrants. Police said two officers and a police dog followed his scent to his vehicle. He was convicted on May 18, 2006 of robbery with a dangerous weapon and was sentenced to four years and seven months. He was released last year from the Warren Correctional Institution in Manson. Anyone with information on the shootings is asked to call Investigator Smith at (919) 560-4440 or CrimeStoppers at (919) 683-1200. CrimeStoppers pays cash rewards for information leading to arrests in felony cases. Callers do not have to identify themselves. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Nov 12 2010, 07:23 AM Post #3 |
|
http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/11/12/797923/durham-council-to-vote-on-accepting.html Published Fri, Nov 12, 2010 07:18 AM Modified Fri, Nov 12, 2010 04:07 AM Durham council to vote on accepting Mexican ID RALEIGH, N.C. The Durham City Council is planning a vote on whether police should accepted identification issued by the Mexican government as valid. The council is set to vote on the resolution Monday. Supporters say the ID could be used in traffic stops to prove that people are who they say they are and could help Latinos in Durham trust the police more. The ID cards are issued by the Mexican consulate in Raleigh. City Councilman Mike Woodard says Durham police already treat them as valid. He says the resolution is just a way of recognizing that. But immigration reform group NC Listen says people who are in the country legally don't need the ID and the resolution sends the wrong message. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Nov 12 2010, 07:33 AM Post #4 |
|
http://dukefactchecker.blogspot.com/2010/11/projected-budget-deficit-zooms-brodhead.html Friday, November 12, 2010 Projected budget deficit zooms!!! Brodhead unlikely to make three year goal of a sustainable budget. ✔ Fact Checker here My fellow Dukies, the financial health of this university is not getting better. It is not staying the same. It is getting worse. And any member of the faculty or any administrator who even suggests cuts like those made to the Arts and Sciences Research budget will be restored needs a wake up call. Read, please, the words of Peter the Provost, who was "interviewed" by a Duke PR man for November 2 article in the employee publication Working@Duke: "... we have people who still believe that someday in the not too distant future, things will just go back to the way they were. I don't think that's going to happen. We're now in the new normal. We will need to continue to operate in much the same way as we have the last couple years. There are lots of places where we've made changes, and that will be the new normal." This same article -- little noticed on campus, not picked up by the Chronicle, but luckily a Deputy Fact Checker was alert -- revealed the red ink in the coming fiscal year (starting July 1, 2012) is not the $40 million that President Brodhead has been talking about. Exec VP Trask said that total does not include any money to end the two-year salary freeze nor to pay for soaring fringe benefit costs. (Loyal Readers will recall that the freeze does not affect employees at Duke Health, which has its own revenue stream from patients. But FC can report that at Duke Health, the highest administrators agreed to have their personal contracts recast and their pay frozen, a previously unknown fact) President Brodhead said in an e-mail to staff on September 22 that the new budget most likely would have a "modest" pay hike. FC assumed he meant this was within the boundaries of our income, rather than as it now appears, only adding to the deficit that will have to be covered by another special appropriation from our endowment. The new total projected deficit: $70 million. As bad as this year. More ominously, that red ink number -- coupled with the continuing problems in Arts and Sciences -- mean that the fiscal crisis will extend into a fourth year, and not be resolved by three years of staging to "a smaller Duke." ✔From Trask, some peaks into the future: "We are going to have to have some conversations about benefits. Our benefits package is valued at the high-end among other universities and is well above the rest of the market. I'm not sure we can sustain that in the future." "We probably need to pull out about 100 more positions by (June 30, 2012). It's unlikely that every person who does leave will be in positions that we will be able to do without. So there will need to be some rearrangement of people and responsibilities to help deal with that." Translation: more layoffs. Duke has never revealed the total number of people who have been laid off so far in the fiscal meltdown. And from Peter the Provost: "The increasing expense for total compensation -- pay and benefits -- is going to run up against some of our programmatic goals." Translation: we cut the grounds keepers, we cut the thermostats, we started using two sides of paper. Programmatic goals -- additional tough decisions about the academic core -- are next. ✔Trask said "the single biggest thing we have left" is to try to save on university purchases, which run $650 million a year. Everything from paper towels to laboratory test tubes to light bulbs and vehicles. Duke has recently contracted with an outside firm that has a program that sounds like Google Shopping; it leads us to the lowest cost supplier of everything we need. It's not known if suppliers will be paying the outside firm -- CyQuest of Cary NC -- to be listed, or for preferential positions. The outside firm will be costing Duke -- not saving -- in the next fiscal year as it gets up to steam. Then Trask is hoping... well praying might be more accurate... for savings. Sheepishly, he mentioned five percent savings, or $30 million a year. Trask may be skeptical though he's going along with buying the program, paying its annual fees, and installing its hardware. In a October 22 story, the Chronicle quoted him: “Don’t count on $30 million yet.” As Trask told Working@Duke "interview," "The big push will be on the procurement side. We know we have too many transactions where we don't get the best pricing we could get." ✔ In this so-called "interview" by a PR man for Working@Duke (Trask and Lange ought to sit down with Fact Checker for a real interview!!) and in other comments, FC can report one area Duke is really gunning for: computer purchases. After discovering you can get a better price if the entire university buys in bulk rather than department by department each buying a couple -- you need a PhD to figure that out -- Duke has now concluded that everyone is ordering with bells and whistles as if they were doing atomic research. The push is on to strip down, with one estimate showing $250,000 savings if new rules had been enforced in the last three months alone. ✔✔ There are some huge unknowns in the new budget: A) Can we sustain the rate of spending from our endowment? We plan on a long-term return of 8.5 percent, but in the past decade it's only been 6.5 percent. If we have to lower our spending, the new crisis will be every bit as tough as the current one. B) How much of federal stimulus funds -- Duke got more than $200 million -- expire this year, and how much next year. C) How much will Republicans succeed in cutting university research in general. There's a short-visioned buffoon named Ralph Hall, congressman from Texas, who will become, in all probability, head of the House science committee with authority over the key budgets for the National Science Foundation and the Energy Dept's Office of Science. He wants to hold spending down to the current level for three years -- wiping out Democratic plans for an increase -- and during the three years figure out how deeper cuts can be made. The federal government is the largest supporter of Duke, providing far more money than tuition, or our own endowment, or lackluster contributions. ✔ Trask's estimate of the amount of money needed to break the two-year-old wage freeze is interesting, in that it points to a very very modest increase. With most of the pot drained by fringe benefits, Fact Checker made this calculation: in some instances, people who earned less than $50,000 and thus got a $1,000 one shot payment in the first year of the freeze, and people who earned less than $80,000 and thus got a one shot payment of $1,000 in the second year, may find their increases smaller than $1,000. Their sole consolation is that the increases will be added to their bases, which are unlikely ever to be restored to pre-meltdown levels. There is no word from the Brodhead Team if lower paid employees will receive a larger slice of the pay hike. As FC has written, their personal budgets were particularly squeezed. They had no where to turn, while members of one of the highest paid faculties in the country had more flexibility. I view this as a very important moral issue. ✔ Lastly I would like to know how come it is on November 12 2010 that we learn the faculty research budget was sliced by 75 percent. All stakeholders deserve to know information like this immediately -- rather than having administrators dribble out what they want, often serving only their own perpetuation. I am also puzzled by Dean Crumbliss saying “The promise was that those funds would be given back when the University’s situation had improved. I hope that’s next year.” This conflicts with my understanding of the Duke budget process, where various Deans are given certain allocations -- but they determine what to cut. This indicates to me the 75 percent cut was made by Crumbliss' predecessor, George McLendon, who has departed for Rice. Have a good weekend@. Go Duke. Email Duke.Fact.Checker@gmail.com Archive http://dukefactchecker.blogspot.com/ Posted by To reach Fact Checker at 12:19 AM |
![]() |
|
| abb | Nov 12 2010, 07:35 AM Post #5 |
|
http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/out-blue-zone-tailgaters-search-gameday-alternatives Out of the Blue Zone: Tailgaters search for gameday alternatives Chris Dall/The Chronicle By Joanna Lichter November 12, 2010 Updated Nov. 11, 2010 at 9:31 p.m. Although Tailgate as students know it was canceled Monday, some Dukies may take their celebrations outside of the Blue Zone. Some students are considering showing in force on the Main Quadrangle—donning their final Halloween costumes of the year, beers in hand. But administrators warn they will take any necessary action to “protect the integrity of the quad.” “Our hope is that students will cooperate with us and understand what we’re trying to do,” said Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek. “A wedding is scheduled in the Chapel, the Blue Devil Walk takes place Saturday morning.... We’re prepared to do what we need to do to keep the Main Quad clear of large gatherings.” Chief John Dailey of the Duke University Police Department wrote in an e-mail that DUPD is not taking any special action outside normal home football game security procedures. Dailey declined to say whether officers would be stationed on the Main Quad. “While we do not discuss specific security plans, we are working closely with Athletics and Student Affairs with the shared, overall goal of safety for our students, employees and visitors,” he said. Other students may celebrate at off-campus venues. Kim Cates, manager of the popular bar Shooters II, said the venue is hosting a Tailgate party Saturday morning at 9 a.m. Cates said she decided to open the venue to “watch over” students and provide them with a safe space to celebrate. “If you have [students] in one establishment where people are able to watch out over them.... I think that’s very important. It’s a safety issue in my opinion,” she said. “I’d hate to see the seniors go out this year and not get a chance to have their last Tailgate.” Cates said the bar will be open only to Duke students, adding that she hired off-duty officers to monitor the event. She also dispelled the idea that the bar would be “Tailgate-proofed,” adding that she expects her guests to behave as they would any other night—refraining from throwing beer into the air or shotgunning. Fraternities, sororities and selective living groups are not involved in the planning of the Shooters event, Cates said. Several fraternity presidents declined to disclose their groups’ Saturday plans. The decision to cancel Tailgate came after a minor was found unconscious in a Porta Potty at the end of the Nov. 6 Tailgate. A security officer found the teenager, who was the guest of a student, after the majority of revelers had left Tailgate. Emergency Medical Services then transported the minor to the Duke Emergency Department, Dailey said. Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta notified the student body via e-mail about the decision to cancel Tailgate around 10 p.m. Nov. 8. Moneta confirmed that the teenager is OK, adding that he was the sibling of a Duke student. Moneta said the incident served as the primary motivator for the decision to end Tailgate, adding that tailgates in the future will likely be very different. Many students were prompted to gather on the Main Quad after a Facebook event titled “Main Quad Throwdown” invited the student body to express their dissatisfaction with the administration’s decision. Although the Facebook event was later canceled, more than 1,000 students were listed as attending Monday night. Moneta, however, said he does not believe many students will gather on the quad. “I have full faith and confidence in the vast majority of the student body who are far more interested in more important things than Tailgate,” he said. “To the extent that there are some folks who have some excessive exuberance in mind, we’ll be prepared to welcome them and turn them back.” After this weekend, administrators and students will look to implement a new model for future gameday celebrations. Duke Student Government President Mike Lefevre, a senior, said he and other DSG members will tour various university tailgates to explore alternatives. Lefevre will travel to Wake Forest University in Winston Salem, N.C., to observe the school’s tailgate next weekend. “The student body was eager to rally around restoring the former Tailgate, but given that the administration is clearly not going to allow that, I’d be very surprised if anyone actually starts trouble on Saturday,” he said. “They’ll see families walking on the quad, they’ll see football teams go by [a few hours] before game time.” Senior Lauren Haigler said she was extremely disappointed by Tailgate’s cancellation, adding that she hoped to spend her last one among her friends in various groups. She noted, however, that she does not think many people will go to Shooters because it is off campus. “I know that being a senior, I wanted to spend the last Tailgate on campus with all my friends,” she said. “It could be fun, but I don’t know many people that want to go to Shooters at 9 a.m. on a Saturday.” |
![]() |
|
| abb | Nov 12 2010, 07:44 AM Post #6 |
|
http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/advocating-advocates Advocating for the advocates By Samantha Lachman [3] November 11, 2010 Subtitle: my favourite things The media coverage of Duke this semester has gone beyond the pages of The Chronicle. Gawker, Jezebel, Deadspin, The Huffington Post, The View, Forbes Magazine, Bro Bible and even the New York Times have chimed in on PowerPoint-gate and Fraternity E-mail-gate. Partly in response, women at Duke in multiple organizations are gaining traction in their quest to highlight gender disparities on campus. If you were to pick the average Duke student off the plaza, he or she probably wouldn’t know about the proliferation of new groups just in the past two years. For the University that’s as polarizing as the Yankees or Sarah Palin, the progressive initiatives on campus get little exposure. It’s a shame, because there are campus groups which are putting forth original goals not just associated with what’s already happened, but what we need going forward. The question that then has to be asked is: what is newsworthy? Do these groups deserve more exposure than the typical blast e-mail or fliering campaign? Or do we need to wait on tangible impacts before championing their efforts? The first area of recent change is advocacy. The Greek Women’s Initiative, started this Fall, aims to “empower greek women, initiate dialogue and propose solutions to the dilemmas men and women face at Duke.” I initially wondered why Panhel isn’t already doing these things. Sophomore Kelsey Woodford explains that as “Panhel represents traditionally white sororities, just doing it through Panhel wouldn’t be intercouncil.” The GWI has representatives, both men and women, from almost every chapter on campus going through facilitator training with the Center for Race Relations. After that, they will go back and promote discussions within their chapters on what issues they see as being important. Indeed, Woodford added that facilitation is the first step because “[the GWI] don’t want it just to be just 10 people deciding what the gender issues are right now—that would be unfair.” To me, there are obvious issues that must be addressed, but it makes sense to field feedback from within the community before coming up with a plan of action. GWI leaders characterized the infamous fraternity e-mails as “a symptom of a greater problem… with campus culture.” It’s important to acknowledge that these problems affect independents, too, but the GWI limits itself to matters within greek life. And that’s where non-affiliated groups come in. The Women’s Collective is, as senior Taylor Damiani said via e-mail, “a place where women can discuss frustrations with gender inequity they encounter on campus AND take action on those problems.” Damiani adds that their goal is to “affect deep structural change regarding gender inequity on Duke’s campus.” I think that a positive for the WC is recognizing that any isolated example of inequity has deeper roots. There’s even an all-male group, Men Acting for Change, which adds the other gender to the equation. There have also been housing changes in response to student demands. The Women’s Housing Option on West Campus and Panhel housing on Central Campus both are new living communities instituted this year. Yet both serve a limited number of women and are more band-aid solutions than long-term ones. Furthermore, Campus Council approved gender-neutral and co-ed housing options for 2011. These all got coverage when they were being discussed as possibilities, but we haven’t seen follow-up as to what their impact has been. There are yet more new initiatives, as two publications launched this past week. Womyn Magazine, a publication about queer women at Duke, and The Develle Dish, which “aims to connect women from all over campus, whether they identify as feminists or not.” Both provide a forum for student voices. We can still make more tangible progress. First, our campus and leadership organizations need to foster a culture of encouraging women to run for positions. It’s simply easier for fraternities to support their members who are up for election. As a member of a sorority, I haven’t experienced a similar culture or thought that I would have the same campaign base if I were to run. It’s imperative that more women, either affiliated or independent, are represented in student government (there are nine women in the DSG Senate, which has 40 spaces). Housing changes need to be made to address disparities in our current model. The independent sophomore woman with the bottom-of-the-barrel lottery number who’s pushed to Central because she would otherwise be living alone in Edens... just shouldn’t be in that situation. We need to realize the full implications of quirks like this in the system. Every one of the above groups is part of a broader movement toward gender equity at Duke. I hope they get more exposure and members because we all have a stake in their success and momentum. Samantha Lachman is a Trinity sophomore. Her column runs every other Thursday. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Nov 12 2010, 07:46 AM Post #7 |
|
http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/senior-faces-child-porn-allegations Senior faces child porn allegations Satell will likely appear in court in December By Taylor Doherty [4] November 11, 2010 A Duke student charged with obtaining and possessing child pornography is expected to appear in court next month. Cliff Satell, a senior, was arrested in April 2009 on five counts of second-degree exploitation of a minor and five counts of third-degree exploitation of a minor. Satell obtained and possessed digital videos of preteen and teen boys engaging in sexual acts, according to the warrants for his arrest. The second-degree charges are for obtaining the pornographic material and the third-degree charges are for possessing it, Durham County Assistant District Attorney Mark McCullough said Wednesday. “As the legal process is unresolved, it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this time,” Satell wrote in an e-mail Sunday. “I will alert you that Duke has concluded its disciplinary process regarding this matter and I am still scheduled to graduate on time in May and the school will be taking no further action.” Satell is former vice chair of Duke College Republicans and a vocal supporter of senior Justin Robinette, the former DCR chair who alleged that he was impeached because he is gay. Satell also accused the club of improperly removing him from its listserv, but the Duke Student Government Judiciary rejected that claim. Satell has not yet entered a plea, but McCullough said he will likely be called to court during the first week of December. McCullough said that since the case was turned over to him six months ago, he has been in the process of negotiating a plea offer with Satell’s lawyer, William Cotter. Cotter did not respond to repeated requests for comment. Satell allegedly committed the crimes between Feb. 20, 2007 and March 24, 2009, according to the arrest warrants. He was arrested by Lt. Greg Stotsenberg of the Duke University Police Department April 21, 2009. The magistrate originally set Satell’s bond at $175,000, but it was later reduced to $50,000. He was released from prison the day of his arrest after posting bail, according to court documents. Since Satell was arrested about a year and a half ago, the case has been transferred to North Carolina Superior Court, but Satell has not yet appeared in court. McCullough declined to comment on the length of time of the proceedings and referred questions on that subject to Satell’s lawyer. “I will say that court dates normally occur every 30 to 60 days, but once [a case] is in superior court, that can vary,” McCullough said. DUPD concluded its investigation and has turned the case over to the district attorney’s office, Duke Police Chief John Dailey said. He declined to discuss details of the case, saying it would be inappropriate to do so prior to a trial. If the case goes to trial, McCullough said he would also seek information from computer forensics experts in the Durham Police Department or the State Bureau of Investigation. Duke administrators declined to comment on Satell’s case or his status at the University, citing student privacy laws. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act requires that universities have written permission to disclose student information or records. In reference to student conduct cases in general, Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta said students accused of crimes are sometimes issued an interim suspension, but that such suspensions are “based exclusively on a threat to the community.” Dean of Students Sue Wasiolek said such suspensions are typically reserved for violent crimes. Editor's Note: The Chronicle has disabled the comments on this story due to the sensitive nature of the article. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Nov 12 2010, 07:52 AM Post #8 |
|
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-15/128954701165300.xml&coll=1 Porteous' lawyers call ouster trial unfair They want time to make their case to full Senate Friday, November 12, 2010 By Bruce Alpert Washington bureau WASHINGTON -- Attorneys for New Orleans federal Judge Thomas Porteous are asking the Senate to give them sufficient time before a decisive vote in the next few weeks to present arguments on why the judge's removal from office "could substantially alter" more than two centuries of legal precedent. The brief from Porteous' attorneys filed recently makes the case that while a Senate Impeachment Trial Committee heard more than 30 hours of testimony from 27 witnesses, the full Senate should allow sufficient time for final arguments on a case they say raises substantial legal issues. The five House impeachment managers used their "post-trial" brief filed Thursday to argue that Porteous' conduct, including his acceptance of gifts from lawyers and others with business before him, was so egregious as to warrant that he become the eighth judge in history to be removed by a Senate vote. The Senate is likely to vote on the four articles of impeachment, approved unanimously last March by the House, during a lame-duck session after the Thanksgiving holiday. If two-thirds of the senators voting approve any of the four impeachment articles, Porteous, 63, will be removed from his $174,000-a-year job. As they did during the September trial by the 12-member Senate Impeachment Trial Committee, Porteous' attorneys, led by George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, raised objections to removing a judge, based, in large part, on allegations of misconduct that occurred before his 1994 appointment to the federal bench by President Bill Clinton. "This case represents a dramatic turning point in federal impeachment precedent, the impact of which will shape and determine future cases, whether they involve another district court judge, a Supreme Court justice, or perhaps even the president of the United States," his attorneys wrote. The lawyers said such a precedent could allow members of Congress, upset by a judge's decisions, to delve deeply into past conduct in search of behavior that might embarrass the president who made the appointment, and use it as a pretext to remove the judge from office. His attorneys go through a long list of federal nominees, including for the Supreme Court, who didn't disclose information that senators said was relevant to their confirmation, but who were either confirmed or allowed to remain on the bench. To accept the argument by Porteous' attorneys, the House impeachment mangers write, one would have to conclude a federal judge who committed a murder or lied about his or her record prior to confirmation, would be untouchable. "To conclude otherwise is to make the position of a federal judge a lifetime safe harbor for someone who is able to hide his misdeeds and defraud the Senate into confirming him," the House managers wrote in a brief overseen by the lead House counsel Alan Baron. In their brief, Porteous' attorneys said that limitations on their defense, including time restraints on their presentation to the Senate Impeachment Trial Committee, limits on depositions, far fewer than conducted by House impeachment managers, and a refusal to reimburse them for trips to interview witnesses in Louisiana, put them at a disadvantage. The attorneys said they are working without compensation. "The defense appreciates and thanks the (Impeachment) committee and its staff for their professionalism and assistance during the process," the Porteous brief said. "But the defense would be remiss, however, for purposes of the historical record, not to point out various procedural issues and pre-trail rulings that the defense believes prevented Judge Porteous from receiving a full and fair trial." Their brief even questions the need for a Senate vote. "Judge Porteous has made serious errors in judgment, for which he has already been severely sanctioned by the Fifth Circuit," the Porteous brief said. "He has promised that he will not return to active service on the federal bench. Judge Porteous simply wants to retire in the coming months without the indignity that would accompany a resignation or conviction -- neither of which is warranted." But if he were to be removed from office or resign before the Senate vote, he would be denied the ability to retire at full pay, something not available for judges until they reach the age of 65. Porteous turns 64 in December. Most of the allegations against Porteous were uncovered during "Operation Wrinkled Robe," an FBI probe on the influence of a bail bonds company on judges and jailers in Gretna. Porteous was questioned during the probe, but wasn't charged with a crime. Instead, the FBI referred the case to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for possible sanctions. Porteous was barred from hearing cases, though he has continued to receive his full judicial salary, and the allegations against him were referred by the Judicial Conference of the United States, which in 2008 referred the matter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., for possible impeachment action. . . . . . . . Bruce Alpert can be reached at balpert@timespicayune.com or 202.383.7861. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Nov 12 2010, 08:19 AM Post #9 |
|
Where are the stories about Richard Brodhead in India? Why isn't Duke touting this?
|
![]() |
|
| chatham | Nov 12 2010, 08:30 AM Post #10 |
|
cause Duke does not have the money to pay for brodheads trip?? |
![]() |
|
| abb | Nov 12 2010, 11:46 AM Post #11 |
|
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/11/rookie_cop_who_asked_about_bur.html Rookie cop who asked about burned car told by supervisor 'police need to stick together' Published: Friday, November 12, 2010, 10:30 AM Updated: Friday, November 12, 2010, 10:30 AM Laura Maggi, The Times-Picayune Laura Maggi, The Times-Picayune A former New Orleans police officer testified this morning that Lt. Travis McCabe told him "police need to stick together" when he asked whether a report should be written about a burned out car on the Algiers levee with a body inside it. Henry Glover trial defendants Greg McRae, left, and Dwayne Scheuermann, center, enter federal court Friday with defense attorney Frank DeSalvo, right, during their Hurricane Katrina-related murder trial. That car, containing the body of Henry Glover, was located just behind the 4th District police station. Glover had been shot in the days after Hurricane Katrina by former NOPD officer David Warren. Alec Brown, a rookie cop who was on vacation in Florida when the storm hit, came back to New Orleans about a week later. He testified this morning, on the second day of testimony, that he was driving along the Mississippi River levee behind the station when he saw a burned out car with a charred body in the back seat. Brown ran the car's license and VIN numbers and went back to the station, where he ran into McCabe. The officer asked his supervisor whether he should write a report about this vehicle. But McCabe responded that police already knew about it and he shouldn't "worry about it," Brown said. McCabe followed that with the statement that "police need to stick together," he said. But Brown said that sentence actually piqued his interest in the car, so he quietly asked other officers about the vehicle. At some point, McCabe joined one of those conversations and said, "I told you we already know about it, just leave it alone," Brown said. McCabe is accused of writing a false police report about the incident, while Warren is charged with civil rights violations for the shooting. Three other officers are also accused in the alleged cover-up of Glover's death. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Nov 12 2010, 02:15 PM Post #12 |
|
BUT DID HE PLAY LACROSSE? http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/11/12/798444/naked-student-found-at-nc-state.html Published Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:24 AM Modified Fri, Nov 12, 2010 10:42 AM Naked student found at N.C. State library A North Carolina State University freshman was cited for simple assault and indecent exposure after knocking hundreds of books off the shelves of the library while naked, campus officials said Friday. Seth Pace, a freshman with an undeclared major, was found unclothed about 11 p.m. Wednesday on the ninth floor of D.H. Hill Library, N.C. State spokesman Mick Kulikowski said. More than 1,000 books were knocked off the shelves, Kulikowski said. Pace threatened onlookers but did not harm anyone, authorities said. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Nov 12 2010, 07:24 PM Post #13 |
|
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2010/11/good_samaritan_in_henry_glover.html Good Samaritan in Henry Glover case testifies about beating by NOPD officers Published: Friday, November 12, 2010, 5:05 PM Updated: Friday, November 12, 2010, 5:06 PM Laura Maggi, The Times-Picayune Laura Maggi, The Times-Picayune The good Samaritan who helped the wounded Henry Glover after he was shot by a New Orleans police officer several days after Hurricane Katrina identified two NOPD officers as the men who beat him and Glover's brother later in the day. Henry Glover trial defendants Greg McRae, left, and Dwayne Scheuermann, center, enter federal court with defense attorney Frank DeSalvo. Lt. Dwayne Scheuermann and officer Greg McRae are charged with violating the civil rights of William Tanner and Edward King after they sought help for Glover at a makeshift compound at Paul B. Habans Elementary school in Algiers. King, Glover's brother, had stopped Tanner, who had a car, and asked him to help find medical care. On the stand for the second day of testimony in the federal trial of five New Orleans police officers, Tanner said Scheuermann and McRae beat him and King on Sept. 2, 2005. Tanner's version of what happened that day is perhaps the most well-known aspect of the incident. He told the story to a reporter for The Nation and ProPublica, which published an article at the end of 2008, sparking FBI and NOPD investigations. Since then, he has repeated the story to many media outlets. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Magner this morning showed Tanner a photograph of Tanner, King and another man sitting handcuffed at the Habans compound, surrounded by officers. Looking at this picture, Tanner identified McRae, who is carrying flares in the picture, as the man who hit him with the butt of a rifle in his jaw while he was handcuffed. Another officer in the photograph, who was wearing sandals, hit King, he said. Tanner identified this officer as Scheuermann. Frank DeSalvo, an attorney for McRae, has already acknowledged that his client drove Tanner's car from the Habans scene to the levee behind the 4th District's station. At that point, the officer tossed lit flares into the car, which went up in flames, DeSalvo said earlier this week in opening statements. That action was "a very bad decision," DeSalvo said, while adding that his client didn't intend to commit a crime. But DeSalvo pressed Tanner about a statement he made earlier to the FBI agent on the case, identifying a different officer as the man who hit him. DeSalvo said Tanner previously had said an officer with tattoos on his arm was the one who struck him with a rifle butt. An officer fitting that description is portrayed in the photograph. DeSalvo had McRae take off his dress shirt to show the jury that his arms were bare of any tattoos. Jeffrey Kearney, an attorney for Scheuermann, also questioned Tanner about previous statements. Tanner never picked Scheuermann out of line-ups shown to him by FBI Agent Ashley Johnson, Kearney said. Tanner also never mentioned in FBI interviews that the officer who hit King was wearing sandals, Kearney said. But Magner later followed up with Tanner, noting that only a month after the incident, Tanner had told a different federal agent about being beaten by a "heavyset man with flares." "Did anyone have to suggest to you that this man beat you?" Magner asked. "No, no one put words in my mouth," Tanner responded. "I remember him." |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







9:14 AM Jul 11