Destruction of Reputation

“I got ya covered, Tree. Although I appreciate standup routines, I often ignore them when discussing serious subjects. Racism is a serious, and dangerous, subject. People die over this issue. Please understand that I give a rat’s ass over issues where people die.

Should I go with standup? You know, “If you have to ask, you wouldn’t understand”? Let’s try not to.

Hate crime legislation specifically mandates punishment based on how someone feels about race. The fact of hate crime legislation is that a black man, who murders a white woman, can receive harsher punishment if it is subjectively deemed that he hates whites. Why should race be a factor in the determination of punishment for murder? Not only is it subjective, it is racist to increase punishment based on a person’s perceived feelings about another race. It is racist because there is discrimination (in the form of harsher punishment) with race being the sole determinant.

You’re having trouble understanding minority business loans? Government loans are given to people based on their race. The government discriminates, when using public money, based on race.


Well, Tree it looks as if we agree on a lot. Of course this case has nothing to do with racism from a legal perspective. Well…maybe. A case might be made for slander or libel if the legal eagles really wanted to aggressively pursue a case against Jesse, Al, or those professors. If nothing else, those people interfered with the legal process by trying to prejudice public opinion.


How about this one? This article was in today’s paper. It's closely related to what we're discussing. Good timing, huh?


The Court Returns To Brown
By George F. Will
Thursday, July 5, 2007; Page A17

For most of the 53 years since the Supreme Court's school desegregation decision, the court, in collaboration with people who fancy themselves "progressive," has been instructing Americans to unlearn the lesson of those decisions -- the lesson that race must not be a source of government-conferred advantage or disadvantage. Last week the court began rectifying its abandonment of that premise in the name of "diversity."

The court ruled 5 to 4 that Seattle, which never had school segregation, and Louisville, which did but seven years ago completed judicially mandated remedial measures, must stop using race in assigning children to schools to produce particular racial ratios in enrollments. How did we get from this: "Distinctions by race are so evil, so arbitrary and invidious that a state bound to defend the equal protection of the laws must not invoke them in any public sphere" (the NAACP's brief, written by Thurgood Marshall, in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education desegregation case), to this: local public education establishments routinely taking cognizance of race in assigning children to schools?

In 1978, in the Bakke case concerning racial preferences in a medical school's admissions, Justice Lewis Powell wrote that institutions of higher education have a First Amendment right -- academic freedom -- to use race as one"plus" factor when shaping their student bodies to achieve viewpoint diversity. Thus was born the "educational benefits" exception to the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection of the laws. But that hardly justifies assigning 6-year-olds to this or that school solely because of their races.

Twenty-five years after Bakke, in 2003, the court approved the University of Michigan law school's use of race in admissions, because that use supposedly involves a "highly individualized, holistic review" of applicants. The court simultaneously disallowed Michigan's undergraduate admissions plan that automatically granted preferences based solely on race -- as Seattle has done in high schools and Louisville has done in kindergarten through grade 12.

Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Chief Justice John Roberts's opinion for the court, in which Roberts said: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." Anthony Kennedy, although agreeing that Seattle and Louisville's practices are unconstitutional, chastised Roberts for an "all-too-unyielding" opposition to race-based programs. Yet, when dissenting in the law school case, Kennedy said: "Preferment by race, when resorted to by the state, can be the most divisive of all policies, containing within it the potential to destroy confidence in the Constitution and in the idea of equality."

Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the majority's opinion in that 2003 case, breezily asserted that in 25 years racial preferences would not be "necessary" to further diversity. But diversity preferences appeal to race-obsessed social engineers -- a cohort particularly prevalent among today's educators -- precisely because the diversity rationale never expires. The diversity project is forever a work in progress.

Seattle's "race-conscious" policies were devised by the sort of people who proclaimed on the school district's Web site that "having a future time orientation" (planning ahead), "emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology" and "defining one form of English as standard" constitute "cultural racism" and "institutional racism" and arise from "unsuccessful concepts such as a melting pot or colorblind mentality." Stephen Breyer, in a dissent joined by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens, said the court should be deferential to such people when they shuffle pupils on the basis of race.

Why race? Although progressive people would never stoop to racial stereotyping, they evidently believe that any black or other minority child, however young or from whatever social background, makes a predictable and distinctive -- you might say stereotypical -- contribution to "diversity."

Breyer said that last week's decision abandons "the promise of Brown." Actually, that promise -- a colorblind society -- has been traduced by the "diversity" exception to the equal protection clause. That exception allows white majorities to feel noble while treating blacks and certain other minorities as seasoning -- a sort of human oregano -- to be sprinkled across a student body to make the majority's educational experience more flavorful.

This repulsive practice merits Clarence Thomas's warning in his opinion concurring with last week's ruling: Beware of elites eager to constitutionalize "faddish social theories." Often, they are only theories. As Roberts said, Seattle and Louisville offered "no evidence" that the diversity they have achieved (by what he has called the "sordid business" of "divvying us up by race") is necessary to achieve the "asserted" educational benefits.

Evidence is beside the point. The point for race-mongering diversity tinkerers is their professional and ideological stake in preventing America from achieving "a colorblind mentality."




COOOOOOOOOOL

last edited: 7/05/07 5:45:27 PM”

“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070726/ap_on_re_us/duke_lacrosse

Finally, an unqualified apology. Nifong admits there was no credible evidence.”

“So I wonder the feelings on this board about a member of the Executive Branch (a Prosecutor) abusing their postion and lying to prevent or defame another person so that they will not get a fair trial...

But then I doubt there will be any good replies.

I always wonder what the people would have said if these had been black kids and a white "enertainer".....”

“What in the hell do a bunch of seaboard hicks have to do with the Xmas shopping season of 2009?”

“XL, your color ? brings to mind a ? for you about Nifongs' politics- would you even be mentioning this now if Nifong were a republican. More hypocrisy, Ah?”

“"Nifong's apology came as a judge began considering whether to hold the former Durham County district attorney in criminal contempt of court for his handling of the case."

Typical Dem.
He's only sorry he got caught.”

“There you have it, 'Cliff.”

“The families have also threaten to sue him in civil court. I imagine the "apology" is an attempt to circumvent that from going forward.”

“unlike you libbies, my position on Nifong is not effected by his party affiliation.”

“See how the 'hick' thing is no different than race or political polarization? We are desensitized to the usual terms , but a new insult always brings out the attack dog nature of this board.”

“I told you it would all work out, XL, regardless of your hand-wringing and gettin' all EEEEmotional about it and using this as yet another excuse to trash "libbies".

And if the guy gets sued, well that's just what's gonna happen.

Perhaps then we will see another round of trashing and thrashing and spaztic EEEEmotional gushing from our favorite busybody on Trail Talk.

Walk on......”

“dang Creek Dancer on a fuego thread...what is the world coming to”

“Yeah, I know. I had to check fuego just for the thread to come up when I did a search! Amazing how many fuego threads there are nowadays. But I have been following this case because of my interest and background in criminal defense.”

“LOL..the libbie hero is dead....

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0815071puppy1.html”

“Nifong complaining of unfairness! Too funny.”

“Pound for pound Ted Kennedy's a way better libby hero. He's mine!”

“The Dog Ate My Law License
LOL”

“Pound for Pound...Teddy Kennedy is yours?

Hey to each his own (LOL)”

“The swimmer?”

“You gotta love a guy that has body parts donor stickers for his passengers on his drivers licince.”

“http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0824072bill1.html

LOL...it only gets better......”

“We have all heard about the little "P^ssy" Admin Law Judge who sued for the lost pants....well

September 19, 2007

Dry Cleaner in Pants Suit Closes
By LUBNA TAKRURI
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The owners of a dry cleaner who were sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants have closed and sold the shop involved in the dispute, their attorney said Wednesday.

The South Korean immigrants are citing a loss of revenue and the emotional strain of defending the lawsuit. They will focus their energy on another dry-cleaning shop they still own, said their attorney, Chris Manning.

"This is a truly tragic example of how devastating frivolous litigation can be to the American people and to small businesses," Manning said in a statement.

Soo Chung and her husband, Jin Nam Chung, faced more than two years of litigation after a former customer at Custom Cleaners alleged they had lost a pair of his pants, then sued for $67 million under the District of Columbia's strict consumer protection act.

Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, a local administrative law judge, later lowered his demand to $54 million. He said the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service" signs that once hung in the shop were misleading and fraudulent.

The case went to trial in June and a D.C. Superior Court judge ruled in favor of the Chungs, awarding Pearson nothing. Pearson is pursuing an appeal.

The Chungs incurred more than $100,000 in legal expenses, which were eventually paid with help from fundraisers and donations.

Even after the trial ended favorably, Manning said, the Chungs lost customers and revenue. They have now closed two of their three businesses since the lawsuit began, he said.

Pearson did not respond to an e-mail from The Associated Press seeking comment.


Now more than ever we need a LOSER pays system. The ALJ (now back to being a stool pushing clerk) should pay, if he can't his attorney can pay with liability insurance.”

“I am surprised that the judge did not order the plaintiff to pay the defendants' attorneys fees. What a shame.”

“Come on CD...this is the BELTWAY you think that would happen?”

“Yes. I worked in DC for a long time for a law firm. I know for a fact it happens.”

“that guy is a piece of sht. theres a special circle in hell for him.

hey, ive got 40 million south koreans with me. i should bring them over and kick this guys ass”

“LOL.....”

“Having had a shirt lost by the dry cleaners, and knowing their attitude towards it, and how they tried to cover it up and lie about it - I think they both should pay $54 million dollars. The dry cleaners for being pricks about it, and the customer judge for being an idiot for suing for so much money.

It's a wash.

Get it? A "wash". LOL! I crack myself up! Now I've gotta go - got something more "pressing" to do. LOL! Oh man!

Oh come on people. Don't be such a stiff-shirt! Let the court iron out the details, we can sit back and laugh about it.

Oh man, I'm on a roll...





last edited: 9/20/07 8:02:03 AM”

“NC Won't Help Nifong Fight Duke Lawsuits

Oct 18 01:01 PM US/Eastern



RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) - The North Carolina Attorney General's office has refused former prosecutor Mike Nifong's request that the state represent him or pay his legal bills from a civil lawsuit against him filed by three Duke lacrosse players exonerated of rape.
Nifong, who left his Durham County job in disgrace after the disastrous prosecution, had cited his role as a constitutional officer of the state in asking for the assistance.

He also was disbarred for numerous ethics violation in the case, and the letter sent to him by chief deputy Attorney General Grayson Kelley on Tuesday cited his conduct as disqualifying him from the assistance, under state law.

The former players were falsely accused of raping a stripper at a March 2006 party and the state attorney general ultimately declared the players were innocent victims of a "tragic rush to accuse."

The players' federal civil rights lawsuit names Nifong, the city of Durham, several police officials, a private DNA laboratory and others as defendants. They are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

The city plans to fight the lawsuit, which also demands numerous reforms to the way the Durham Police Department handles investigations and trains its officers.

Nifong resigned from office in July. He served one day in jail in September after a judge held him in criminal contempt of court for lying about having turned over critical DNA test results to defense attorneys.

The attorney general's office took over the lacrosse case after Nifong recused himself amid ethics charges that would later lead to his disbarment. State prosecutors went on to declare former players Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and Dave Evans innocent of all charges in April.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SBP3T80&show_article=1
last edited: 10/18/07 2:58:41 PM”

“Whatever happened to the couch that was fired?
last edited: 10/18/07 4:26:49 PM”

“LOL...ROTFLMAO. now here is a guy I would certainly step over in the gutter....

Mike Nifong Bankrupt
Disgraced Duke prosecutor lists $180M in liabilities
JANUARY 15--Disgraced and disbarred, Mike Nifong is now bankrupt. The former North Carolina prosecutor, whose career imploded with his botched handling of the Duke University rape case, today filed for bankruptcy, listing liabilities in excess of $180 million. A summary schedule from Nifong's Chapter 7 petition can be found below. Almost all of that sum represents legal claims filed against the former Durham County district attorney by members of Duke's 2006 lacrosse team, including the three players who were accused of raping a stripper at a team party. Included among Nifong's assets are a 2003 Honda Accord, about $9000 in personal property, and his $235,000 home. He lists nearly $5000 monthly in pension or retirement income and describes himself, charitably, as retired.”

“He's counting the 30 mil he figures he'll have to pay each of the three boys he tried to railroad. He's hopeing by fileing bankruptcy, he can wiggle out of his fines.”

“LOL....we use the term "Nifong" now for witch hunt”

“Ex-lacrosse players can pursue lawsuit against Nifong

... Former District Attorney Mike Nifong will not be able to hide from a lawsuit in bankruptcy court, a federal judge ruled today.
The three exonerated lacrosse players who filed suit against the fallen prosecutor in October will be able to pursue their claims in federal civil court, Judge William L. Stocks ruled......

http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/1086986.html
*************************
Another lying Democrap going to get what's coming to him. LOL”