tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7152963.post7893743036041126103..comments2023-10-20T05:03:10.942-04:00Comments on Indefensible: I get mail....Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7152963.post-10367524058900594322007-07-13T23:34:00.000-04:002007-07-13T23:34:00.000-04:00I came to US as political refugee on human rights ...I came to US as political refugee on human rights violations in former USSR<BR/>I am russian jew, and I got a lot of discrimination in USSR<BR/>My parents are Holocaust survivors<BR/>But I got the worst thing in USA, never possible in communist country.<BR/>I was set up with my computer, convicted as a s..x offender for computer p..rn.<BR/>Now I do not have job and can hardly survive under police database<BR/>supervision, named s..x offender registration. Nobody want to hire me,<BR/>I think because of police database.<BR/>And I have family. Who cares? Dirty polititians are playing their<BR/>dirty games for more power.<BR/>I would like to send you some links to publications about my criminal<BR/>case. I was forced to confess to the<BR/>possession of internet digital pictures of p..rn in deleted clusters of<BR/>my computer hard drive. My browser was hijacked while I was browsing<BR/>the web. I was redirected to illegal sites against my will. Some<BR/>illegal pictures were found on my hard drive, recovering in<BR/>unallocated clusters, without dates of file creation/download.<BR/><BR/>I do not know how courts can widely press these charges on people to<BR/>convict them, while the whole Internet is a mess.<BR/>You can find all links to publications about my case here<BR/><BR/>http://estrinyefim.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/23/798199-internet-porn-hysteriafimafimovichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18188253182461605420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7152963.post-61729072238039871102007-06-25T11:21:00.000-04:002007-06-25T11:21:00.000-04:00FROM KC JOHNSON:A depressing—and ultimately unpers...FROM KC JOHNSON:<BR/><BR/>A depressing—and ultimately unpersuasive—take on the Nifong disbarment by David Feige in Slate. Feige makes some good points. For instance, he notes,<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mike Nifong did what prosecutors almost always do when a complainant comes to them alleging a sexual assault: He took his complainant at her word and went full speed ahead with a prosecution. The fact is that few if any prosecutors wait for corroborating evidence or insist on more than one person’s say so before initiating a sexual assault prosecution. Indeed, they’d be vilified if they did. The cardinal rule of sexual assault complaints is “believe the victim,” and since anyone who complains is deemed a victim, even a semi-credible complainant can generate an arrest and prosecution in the absence of physical evidence, additional witnesses, or even a prompt accusation. This isn’t just the case in Durham; it’s true almost everywhere. The widespread support for this questionable practice is such that if the Duke case had gone to a jury and the defendants had been convicted, Nifong would not only still have his law license—he’d have been lionized for his dogged pursuit of rich white kids.<BR/><BR/>Yet Feige’s attempts to equate Nifong’s massive misconduct with the general behavior of prosecutors ultimately falls flat. He cites Josh Marquis of the National District Attorney’s Association and Wendy Murphy as two people who initially backed Nifong, only to turn upon him, from “a simple calculus . . . : If Mike Nifong’s conduct is commonplace, then the whole system is corrupt. If other DAs do what he did, then we have to face up to how widespread and corrosive prosecutorial misconduct really is—a discussion Marquis and Murphy and other prosecutors would strongly prefer to avoid.”<BR/><BR/>Marquis, however, never endorsed Nifong’s conduct: the quote from early in the case supplied by Feige is innocuous, and Marquis publicly and repeatedly criticized Nifong’s behavior in December and January, at a time when many prosecutors were still loath to speak out. And any portrayal of Wendy Murphy—who’s still busy spinning conspiracy theories about non-existent bribes to Crystal Mangum—as a Nifong critic is absurd.<BR/><BR/>As Judge Tjoflat pointed out in his recent address, this case has exposed the excessive power possessed by North Carolina prosecutors in general—especially the power to control court dockets (and effectively judge-shop) and to abuse the grand jury proceedings as a tool for bypassing probable cause hearings. But the claim that Nifong’s conduct in this case—where, after all, he not only withheld exculpatory evidence and made myriad prejudicial pre-trial statements but also engineered a rigged lineup, obtained indictments without probable cause, and orchestrated an ill-concealed frame with the December 21 “interview”—is routine among prosecutors both minimizes the degree of Nifong’s misconduct and trivializes the legitimate debate about prosecutorial power.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com