Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Blog and Media Roundup - Friday, March 21, 2014; News Roundup
Topic Started: Mar 21 2014, 04:24 AM (231 Views)
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.wilsontimes.com/MostPopular/Story/30534359---Leader-fails-to-grasp-athletics-dilemma

Friday, March 21, 2014 12:31 AM

Leader fails to grasp athletics dilemma


RALEIGH — After four years of athletics-related scandal at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, UNC system president Tom Ross ought to have a firm grasp on the problems faced by academic institutions navigating the treacherous waters of big-time college athletics.

Listening to some of his recent comments, that doesn’t appear to be the case.

Ross recently participated in talks with the Knight Commission, a group formed in 1989 to try to stem some of the excesses in college athletics, as it met in Miami.

Upon his return, Ross told WRAL-TV in Raleigh that an idea he put forward is to reduce the academic course load of entering athletes during their freshman year.

It’s a proposal that appears to contradict the commission’s own statement of principles, which includes language that colleges offer academic experiences to athletes that are “as close as possible to the academic experiences of their classmates.”

The idea would also turn on its head one of the key college athletics reforms of the 20th century, the restrictions on athletics eligibility for freshmen to try to allow athletes to acclimate themselves to college before they began competing.

That reform was tossed out in the early 1970s. Ever since, universities have been on a head-long rush to turn their athletes in quasi-professionals, minus the professional compensation.

Ross’ idea would accelerate that push.

It would also put universities on some pretty shaky legal ground.

What Ross fails to acknowledge is that college athletics, in its current form, can only be justified if athletes are being provided real degrees and legitimate educations.

In his comments, he discussed existing reforms that have resulted in more athletes graduating from college.

What Ross didn’t discuss is how college athletics alleged governing body, the NCAA, dropped eligibility standards for entering freshmen in 2003, including eliminating a requirement that they have a composite SAT score of 820 or ACT of 17.

Meanwhile, the Knight Commission’s own reform, to tie post-season athletics participation to graduation rates, may be inadvertently leading to grade inflation or outright academic fraud like that seen at UNC-Chapel Hill.

The implication of criticism like that coming from UNC-Chapel Hill learning specialist Mary Willingham -- that some athletes are being admitted who can barely read, who are incapable of college work, who have sub-800 SATs -- is that these athletes are nothing more than uncompensated professionals.

The bargain of college athletics only works if the education being provided to revenue-sport athletes is real and actually worth something to them.

Otherwise, universities, as nonprofits without anti-trust exemptions, are doing nothing more than illegally operating professional sports franchises.

That is exactly the charge in pending lawsuits brought by former athletes.

To advocate a supposed remedy that makes further distinctions between athletes and non-athletes on campus, and would delay those athletes’ education, shows a profound lack of understanding of the quaking ground on which college athletics stands.

A UNC system president can and should do better.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/durham-police-bonus-payments-to-informants-could-violate-defendants-rights/Content?oid=3927386


Durham Police bonus payments to informants could violate defendants’ rights
Civil rights group questions legality of offering financial incentives to drug informants without disclosure
by John H. Tucker

A long-standing financial bonus program for criminal informants operated by the Durham Police Department could violate defendants' right to a fair trial and possibly taints their plea agreements.

For 10 years, DPD has offered extra money to undercover informants willing to testify in court and cooperate in drug cases. However, those incentives were offered without the knowledge of prosecutors or defendants. This new revelation could prompt the review of more than two-dozen closed cases. Many of the defendants involved in those cases were imprisoned or scheduled for deportation.

The bonuses were discovered through public records requests made by the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, a Durham-based civil rights nonprofit.

Police payouts to informants are commonly disclosed. But several Durham attorneys say they were unaware of pre-arranged bonuses.

"[T]he D.A.'s office was not aware of any agreement to pay confidential informants at the completion of cases," said Assistant District Attorney Roger Echols in an email last month to Ian Mance, a lawyer for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. "We were also not aware of, if there were any, payments to confidential informants for bonuses. If we had that information or known it existed we would have provided it to the defendant in discovery."

The Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland, entitles defendants to all evidence the government plans to enter against them during the discovery, or pre-trial phase, of a case. This includes evidence showing state witnesses have a financial stake in their cooperation.

"Clearly this is a Brady violation," said Donald H. Beskind, a Duke University law professor and defense attorney.

Jurors can perceive testimony of criminal informants as unreliable, if it is known that the informants receive incentives. If a defendant knows that a witness for the prosecution was promised bonus money to testify, he or she could negotiate a more favorable plea deal or be persuaded to go to trial.

"It makes a credible witness look less credible," Beskind said. "This should be concerning to everyone, including the public. There are fundamental guarantees we give to criminal defendants."

Assistant Chief of Police Jon Peter, who oversees investigations, acknowledged to the INDY that undisclosed bonuses are paid to informants willing to take the witness stand. Peter confirmed that the payouts are made upon the completion of cases, but denied any breach of ethics.

"If we thought an informant was saying something just for money, we'd never accept that," said Peter, noting that an informant's testimony often supplements more damning evidence.

Among the six cases Peter reviewed that were cited by the Southern Coalition, there was already incriminating video evidence of drug trafficking in several, if not all of them, he said. Each resulted in a plea deal.

There is no written departmental policy on the bonuses, because every case is different, Peter said. Financial arrangements made during active cases are limited, and many bonuses are paid spontaneously following the completion of a case.

"There's an art to it. Sometimes you pay [the informant] because he's a standup guy. You tell your sarge, 'I told him to make himself available, and he was there. I'd like to pay him two-hundred bucks because he kept his word, and there's another house where he says he can make a buy from.' That's not unethical."

But local attorneys are skeptical. "I would never have guessed that the police are paying additional, undisclosed payments to informants who agree to testify," said defense lawyer Daniel Meier. "Law enforcement's failure to disclose information is a felony. Any claim they didn't know it was improper or illegal—that's scary in-and-of itself. It makes you wonder what else is out there that we just don't know about."

In response to its public records request, the Southern Coalition obtained hundreds of forms labeled "Request and Expenditure Fund Reports" dating from 2007 to the present. In 36 of those reports, which the Southern Coalition shared with the INDY, the requesting officer cites bonus money as the reason for the request.

Among those requests, six were linked specifically to "convictions," and one was pegged to a "case-completion."

Examples include "Bonus for 3 convictions," "Bonus for conviction/testimony" and "Bonus 15 oz cocaine/conviction." In addition, 10 requests were tagged to bonuses for "testimony." The remaining 19 requests simply included the word "bonus," or were linked to arrests or information.

The bonuses ranged from $25 to $700, with the bulk of the payouts amounting to $300—more than three times the typical fee paid to an undercover informant for a drug buy. The payments totaled $8,569.83. The names of the defendants were redacted in the majority of the forms.

Assistant District Attorney Echols, who is running for D.A. this year, declined to comment beyond his email to the Southern Coalition.

The Coalition takes particular issue with the six documents that include the word "conviction." Mance, of the Southern Coalition, plans to distribute a letter on Wednesday to Mayor Bill Bell, Durham City Council members and Durham Police Chief Jose Lopez, questioning the bonus protocol. Mance provided a draft of the letter to the INDY.

"[The expenditure fund reports] suggested DPD has repeatedly paid secret 'conviction bonuses' to informants whose testimony or promise of testimony helped obtain a criminal conviction," the letter states.

The police department denies that bonuses are triggered directly by convictions. Of the six forms including the term "conviction," five were written by DPD officer Carl Husketh, who was investigating drug trafficking crimes at the time. According to Peter, Husketh mistakenly used the wrong term and will refrain from doing so in the future.

"To him [the term 'conviction'] meant 'case disposed of,'" Peter said. "We've never paid for a conviction. I think that's unethical."

Peter said he is open to discussing the disclosure of bonus practices with prosecutors. "I'm definitely willing to listen to the D.A.s to see if there is a remedy ... It might be that we don't promise to pay anything."

But Peter worries that paying informants during discovery, rather than at the completion of cases, would allow an informant to skip out on a trial. "If I paid you a bonus before going to court, I probably won't see you again. You'll say, 'I already got your money, sucker.' "

In a 2002 opinion issued by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which governs North Carolina's federal courts, the judges ruled that an informant's payout may be deferred until after a trial, provided the arrangement is disclosed in advance.

But if a federal case doesn't go to trial, the issue is more nuanced, said Richard E. Myers II, a former federal prosecutor and current UNC-Chapel Hill law professor.

Myers said he does not see ethical problems with undisclosed bonuses when a case results in a plea deal. They are sometimes justified when a prosecutor doesn't want to put an informant's life at risk unnecessarily, he said.

Myers understands defense attorneys' concerns. "The prosecutor is holding either ace or joker and you don't know which," he said. "But that's how these things work."

In its letter to City Council, the Southern Coalition calls for DPD to explain why the bonus program was never revealed to prosecutors or defense attorneys. It also asks the department to release in unredacted form all records pertaining to conviction bonuses.

"At minimum, these 36 cases will have to be reviewed, and it's possible that motions for appropriate relief will be filed, which will tie up the court system," said Meier, the defense attorney. "This should happen even for people who received probation or completed their sentences, because of our habitual felon laws and record levels."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

March 20, 2014

He Said, She Said--This Time Professor and Student
By Cathy Young

A philosophy professor and a journalism student are involved in an unusual he-said she-said sex case at Northwestern. The student filed a federal Title IX lawsuit last month, alleging that professor Peter Ludlow sexually assaulted her two years ago and that the school took no disciplinary action, despite finding that he had engaged in "unwelcome and inappropriate sexual advances" (but not rape). Later, the young woman sued Ludlow himself.) In fact, according to the university, Ludlow was denied a raise and an endowed chair, and was warned against one-on-one social contact with undergraduates and prohibited to drink alcohol with them--but was permitted to continue teaching with full privileges. Brenda Slavin, the head of Northwestern's Office of Sexual Harassment Prevention who investigated the case, has said that, contrary to the plaintiff's claim, his dismissal was never considered or recommended. Ludlow is currently scheduled to take a new job at New Jersey's Rutgers University, where officials were apparently unaware of the harassment charges when they made him the offer.

Media Involvement

The conflict escalated when the student's complaint was picked up by the local media, galvanizing feminist outrage. (Adding fuel to the fire, several news outlets wrongly reported that Ludlow had been accused of rape; in fact, the charge of sexual assault referred to allegations that he had groped the young woman's breasts and buttocks.) Some Northwestern students mobilized against Ludlow, planning a sit-in and walk-out during his March 4 class; after Ludlow canceled the class, the activists held a protest in front of a dean's office, and three of them met with university officials. On March 5, the announcement was made that Ludlow would not teach for the rest of the academic year. Even Brian Leiter, a strongly liberal philosophy professor at the University of Chicago, who emphasizes his belief that sexual harassment in the field is a shamefully neglected "scourge," has expressed concern over this triumph of "vigilante justice."

'Furiously Making Out'

As often in such cases, the facts are not easy to sort out. (The student's complaint and the university's response can be found here; Ludlow's response to her lawsuit against him is here.) What's not in dispute is that on February 10, 2012, the professor and the young woman--then a 19-year-old freshman who had been in Ludlow's class the previous semester--spent an evening in Chicago where they went to three art shows, had dinner at a restaurant, drank at several bars, and ended up spending the night at Ludlow's condo apartment in Chicago on the same bed.

Not surprisingly, their accounts differ considerably on the specifics. The student claims that she emailed Ludlow to tell him about an art exhibition that she thought he would find interesting, and he invited her to accompany him; Ludlow claims (via his attorney) that she invited him to the exhibition and he suggested going to the other two art shows afterward. According to the student, Ludlow plied her with alcohol even though she tried to refuse and repeatedly told him she was underage; according to Ludlow, she drank of her own volition, and he believed her to be 22 years old based on an online profile. The young woman claims that she asked Ludlow to take her home but he insisted on taking her to his place instead; Ludlow insists that they stopped by his condo so that she could pick up a video camera she had dropped off earlier, and he let her stay the night after she told him it was too late for her to take a cab back to her place. The young woman claims that over the course of the evening, Ludlow repeatedly propositioned her, kissed her and groped her--even "furiously making out with her" on the elevator ride to his apartment--and that she begged him to stop but was too intoxicated to stop him or get away. She also claims that she passed out and woke up in bed with Ludlow, with his arms around her. Ludlow responds that she was the one who repeatedly made advances and propositioned him, and that they "fell asleep on his bed fully clothed and on top of the sheets."

Later Contact

Ludlow's attorney, Kristin Case, has released a statement saying that she is "in possession of communications" which show that, in the days after the alleged assault, the plaintiff repeatedly made friendly contact with Ludlow by text message and the social media and even asked him to meet with her. According to Case, the young woman came to a conference Ludlow was attending, spoke to him again and made another attempt to initiate a relationship, which Ludlow turned down.

Regardless of who is telling the truth, it seems fairly obvious that Ludlow, at the very least, behaved recklessly and unprofessionally--and that even the actions to which he admitted merited a reprimand. What's less clear is how the university came to the conclusion that he had engaged in unwelcome advances but not (as the young woman claimed) sexual assault.

According to the documents, Slavin reviewed the allegations and found that Ludlow had indeed kissed the student, rubbed her back, put his arms around her while they lay on his bed, and told her he wanted to have a sexual and romantic relationship--but did not find that he had groped her or "made out with her" against her will. In his response, Ludlow claims (via his attorney) that there was no investigation at all, and that Slavin declined to interview witnesses at the bar who could corroborate his account or to review security camera footage from the elevator where the "making out" allegedly occurred. Did Slavin simply split the difference between "he said" and "she said," arbitrarily finding the less serious charges to be true and dismissing the more serious ones? (It should be noted that, according to Northwestern, Ludlow appealed the sanctions and a four-person faculty committee upheld them, without recommending further penalties.)

A report from NBC's Chicago affiliate, NBC5, asserts that the plaintiff's account was backed by another professor, Jacqueline Stevens. But that's a somewhat misleading claim, since Stevens's knowledge of the events comes solely from the plaintiff herself--and, if one reads the article carefully, it becomes clear that Stevens did not talk to the student until a year after the incident, when the young woman was enrolled in her class. (Stevens, as a list of her articles indicates, is strongly connected to academic feminist politics.)

Confidentiality Concerns

Stevens's involvement relates to another murky aspect of the story: the involvement, or non-involvement, of the police. The NBC5 report says, citing an unidentified "source," that the student originally went to the Northwestern campus police in Evanston, Ill., but was told she would have to make the report in Chicago, where the assault allegedly took place; however, she decided not to go to the Chicago police "because of confidentiality concerns" and went to a local counseling service instead. In the spring of 2013, after she shared her story with Stevens, Stevens encouraged her to file a police report and accompanied her to a police station in Chicago. What happened after that is unclear; the student's attorney, Kevin O'Connor, told the campus newspaper, The Northwestern Daily, that "there is not a simple answer to the question of whether or not the student tried to press criminal charges against Ludlow." There does not appear to be a pending criminal case.

Meanwhile, Ludlow has filed a lawsuit of his own, accusing Sun Times Media, Fox Television Stations, and Cumulus Broadcasting of defamation for reporting that he had been accused of raping the student. His new position at Rutgers, where he was slated to head the university's Center for Cognitive Science, may be in jeopardy, with a Rutgers spokesman saying that the school is further evaluating his candidacy.

Further developments in the various lawsuits may shed more light on the case. Either way, the story is a stark illustration not only of the complexities of sexual misconduct allegations, but of the dangers of relying on campus star chambers to decide such charges. If the young woman is telling the truth, Ludlow got a slap on the wrist for a sexual assault. If Ludlow is telling the truth, his career may be ruined over a fairly minor instance of poor judgment, thanks to an academic kangaroo court and student zealots acting in the absolute conviction that a sexual assault accusation equals the truth.

_______________

Cathy Young, a columnist for Newsday, is a regular contributor to Real Clear Politics and Reason.
- See more at: http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/03/he_said_she_said--this_time_pr.html#sthash.Z34tcudX.dpuf
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

This much can be said - the professor was stupid for going out with a student that was once in his class while she was still a registered university student.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

So far, not a peep out of the Durham area "journalism" community about Darryl Howard. They're gonna have to be MADE to do their jobs...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Durham Police bonus payments to informants could violate defendants’ rights


Since when did the Indy care about defendants' rights and Brady material?

After they shilled for Nifong (and Cline); and hired Samiha Khanna, they showed themselves
to be part of the Durham establishment.



(moo)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Wade

Victoria Peterson appears to have come very close yesterday to getting banged-up, as our British cousins would say, on a contempt-of-court charge.

http://www.heraldsun.com/news/x2025289663/Interference-intimidation-cited-in-attempted-murder-case

Interference, intimidation cited in attempted-murder case
Mar. 20, 2014 @ 07:23 PM
Keith Upchurch

The Herald-Sun
DURHAM — An attorney for a man accused of shooting two teen brothers at a vacant house withdrew from the case Thursday after saying the defendant’s supporters had threatened and investigated her and interfered in the case.

The hearing in Durham County Superior Court included a tense exchange between community activist Victoria Peterson, who supports defendant Christopher Taylor Johnson, and Judge Howard Manning.

After defense attorney Lisa Williams laid out her reasons for withdrawing as Johnson’s lawyer – citing interference from Peterson and family members – Peterson raised her hand from the courtroom gallery, drawing a reaction from the judge.

“I don’t know who you are,” Manning said.

“I’m Mrs. Peterson,” she said.

“I don’t care who you are,” Manning said. “You’re not a lawyer. You’re not an officer of the court, and you’re not a party in the case.”

“But she [Williams] mentioned my name,” Peterson said. “I’m Mrs. Peterson.”

“You’re welcome to be here,” Manning said. “But you’re not a lawyer and you have no standing in this criminal case.”

The exchange continued with Peterson asking why she couldn’t respond.

“Ma’am, this is not the forum to discuss your relationship with Mrs. Williams,” Manning said. “I’ve allowed her to withdraw, and I would caution you and anyone who’s involved in this case not to interfere with any witnesses or anybody else. People do not intimidate witnesses. They do not intimidate members of the family. We’re not going to run our system by outside interference.”

Also at the hearing, Assistant District Attorney Stormy Ellis said Peterson and others had interfered in the case, and she issued a warning.

“I’m going to speak with my officers about the possibility of having witness intimidation charges looked at,” Ellis said. “There has been untoward contact with the victims. They have been approached by numerous members of the family.”

Ellis said she understood that Williams needed to withdraw from the case. But she said her departure will further complicate the case.

“We were trying to work toward a resolution in this case, but this will make it even more difficult,” she said. “It appears that any attorney assigned to this case may come up against the same witness intimidation, and let’s just put it out there – attorney intimidation.”

Police arrested Johnson, 25, in December and charged him with two counts of attempted murder in the non-fatal shooting of two boys, ages 14 and 16, at a vacant house on Grace Lane, off Liberty Street in East Durham. Johnson remains in the Durham County Jail under a $1.5 million bond. Also charged in the shootings is Thomas Deangelo Griffin, 19, who is in jail under a $1 million bond.

Members of Johnson’s family left the courtroom Thursday in tears, saying police arrested the wrong man.

Alonzo Williams, Johnson’s stepfather, said the family asked for Peterson’s help “because [Johnson] is just sitting in jail for nothing.”

“He didn’t do this,” Williams said. “We’ve got proof that he didn’t do this.”

Johnson’s wife, Chelsea Johnson, sobbed as she insisted her husband has been in jail four months for something he didn’t do. “My husband just needs to come home,” she said.

Tierra Murray, Johnson’s cousin, said the family was unhappy they didn’t get a chance to speak in court.

“We thought this would be a bond hearing,” Murray said. “We had some idea that Mrs. Williams was withdrawing, but we thought we’d get to respond to what she had to say about the situation.”

Murray denied that family members had made threats.

“The family here today has stuck by Chris since this happened,” she said. “We’re not going around threatening anybody. Chris is not someone who would do something like this. We wasn’t trying to cause a ruckus or trouble.”

Peterson also denied interfering in the case, saying the family requested her help.

“I’m a political activist,” she said. “I know the law, but I was not giving any legal advice. I was just telling [family members] who the persons are they need to see to put in complaints.”

“This man has been sitting in jail for months,” Peterson said. “He says that he is innocent. He did not shoot those young boys. And to keep holding him in jail for something he has not done is ridiculous.”

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

An applicable quote from one of my all-time favorite movies - Deadline USA. Humphrey Bogart is the editor of a soon to be defunct crusading newspaper.
Quote:
 

Like His Girl Friday, politics and corruption plays a huge role in Deadline – U.S.A.; the Rienzi storyline gives the movie sort of a noir feel but there’s also a suggestion that both elected officials and the police aren’t entirely on the up-and-up—Ed Begley’s character Frank Allen is asked by a plainclothes detective investigating Herman Schmidt’s death: “Can’t you tell the difference between a hoodlum and a cop?” Replies Allen, “In this town?”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Walt-in-Durham

abb
Mar 21 2014, 04:24 AM
http://www.wilsontimes.com/MostPopular/Story/30534359---Leader-fails-to-grasp-athletics-dilemma

Friday, March 21, 2014 12:31 AM

Leader fails to grasp athletics dilemma


RALEIGH — After four years of athletics-related scandal at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, UNC system president Tom Ross ought to have a firm grasp on the problems faced by academic institutions navigating the treacherous waters of big-time college athletics.

Listening to some of his recent comments, that doesn’t appear to be the case....
Ross has been an empty suit for a long time.

Walt-in-Durham
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Wade

Walt-in-Durham
Mar 21 2014, 12:16 PM
abb
Mar 21 2014, 04:24 AM
http://www.wilsontimes.com/MostPopular/Story/30534359---Leader-fails-to-grasp-athletics-dilemma

Friday, March 21, 2014 12:31 AM

Leader fails to grasp athletics dilemma


RALEIGH — After four years of athletics-related scandal at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, UNC system president Tom Ross ought to have a firm grasp on the problems faced by academic institutions navigating the treacherous waters of big-time college athletics.

Listening to some of his recent comments, that doesn’t appear to be the case....
Ross has been an empty suit for a long time.

Walt-in-Durham
Wouldn't go that far, but Davidson isn't a place to get training on the pitfalls of college athletics.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://dailyhaymaker.com/?p=7457

#NCSEN: Complaint filed against judge in Brannon civil suit
by Brant Clifton • March 20, 2014 • 11 Comments

Boy, have the political winds shifted. Last month, obituaries were being drafted for the campaign of Republican US Senate candidate Greg Brannon in the wake of an unfavorable court decision. Then, we heard from Brannon’s co-defendant in the civil suit, who told us all about some strange goings-on in the courtroom — including some rather bizarre interactions between the judge and the jury. THAT gets followed up with a revelation that the judge was a 2008 campaign donor to Kay Hagan — who Brannon just happens to be running to unseat this year.

Now, it appears a formal complaint has been filed with the state Judicial Standards Commission against the Brannon case judge, Bryan Collins of the Wake County Superior Court, by Jodi Riddleberger, a leader with the Tea Party-affiliated Conservatives For Guilford County.

We’ve obtained the text of the March 19 complaint submitted by Ms. Riddleberger:

To: The Judicial Standards Commission

This matter needs immediate attention:

According to the North Carolina Code of Judicial Conduct judges should “uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.”

Canon 2

A. A judge should respect and comply with the law and should conduct himself/herself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
B. A judge should not allow the judge’s family, social or other relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment. The judge should not lend the prestige of the judge’s office to advance the private interest of others;

Canon 3
Disqualification.

On motion of any party, a judge should disqualify himself/herself in a proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances where: (a) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, (c) The judge knows that he/she, individually or as a fiduciary, or the judge’s spouse or minor child residing in the judge’s household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding,

Cannon 5

C. Financial activities.
(1) A judge should refrain from financial and business dealings that reflect adversely on the judge’s impartiality, interfere with the proper performance of the judge’s judicial duties….

~~~~~~~~~~~

I am writing to make a formal complaint against Superior Court Judge Bryan Collins – there is a clear violation of this code of conduct in his presiding over the Greg Brannon civil case, if this information is true:

“A jury verdict on February 18, 2014 found US Senate Candidate Greg Brannon liable for giving “misleading or false information in 2010 to investors regarding a mobile application being developed by Neogence Enterprises, a now-defunct tech company he helped start.”
As a result, Superior Court Judge Bryan Collins, who presided over the case, found Brannon must reimburse the two investors who were plaintiffs in the case over $450,000. There is controversy sounding the merits of the case, and Brannon is appealing the ruling.
But who is Judge Bryan Collins? According to Judgepedia.com, “Collins is a superior court judge for the 10th Judicial District of the Third Division of the Superior Court, serving Wake County in North Carolina. Collins began his legal career as an attorney in private practice from 1985 to 2005. In 2005, he became the Public Defender for Wake County. He was then elected a superior court judge in 2012 and his current term expires in 2020.”
According to a November 6, 2012 article in the Raleigh News and Observer, “Collins, 52, said he was approached last year by Don Stephens, Wake County’s senior resident Superior Court judge, about running for judge. So, late last year, he moved from his condominium in downtown Raleigh to an apartment in North Raleigh just so he could run in the newly created District 10E.”
Collins is a registered Democrat.
By conducting an FEC search for political campaign contributions, we see that a Bryan Collins in Raleigh who listed his occupation as Public Defender contributed the sum of $500 to the Hagan Senate Committee in 2008.
I’m no lawyer, and I can’t possibly pretend to understand all the technicalities of impartiality. That said, does anyone think it smells a little funny that a Judge known to support one candidate for office would be allowed to try a case involving that candidate’s potential future opposition?”

This article was posted on the Pundit House (http://pundithouse.com/2014/03/conflict-of-interest-in-brannon-case/#.UyipN85M9ws.facebook) on March 18th 2014.

Obviously if Judge Collins is a financial contributor to Kay Hagan, then he should not have presided Dr. Greg Brannon’s court case — as he was clearly not able to be unbiased towards her fore-running Republican opponent in the US Senate race. Please work to remedy this situation and help build confidence in the justice of the NC courts system.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply