Independent Women's Forum - Research Areas > Crime, Justice and the Law

The New Duke Lawsuit

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 16:46:00 EST

If you're interested in the new Duke lacrosse lawsuit that I reported on last week, you should check out this website dedicated to the case. Among other things, the website has the text of the complaint and a video of the news conference where the complaint was announced.

Duke's response to the lawsuit is available here.

Eminent Domain and Economic Growth

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 11:54:00 EST

Since the controversial Kelo v. New Londoncase in 2004, 42 states have passed some restriction on the practice of eminent domain on the behalf of private developers. Critics argue that such restrictions harm the economy. A new study from the Institute for Justice finds that such claims have no grounding in reality. The Wall Street Journal reports:

First, the report assigns each state to one of three categories according to the level of reform implemented after Kelo: "strong," "moderate" or "none." Then it compares the data for construction jobs, building permits and property-tax revenue before and after the effective dates of the reforms for each state. The verdict: So far, there has been no discernable hit to economic activity from the restriction of eminent domain, even in those states with the broadest reforms.
This result isn't surprising. Developers love eminent domain because it's easier to snap up land when government forces owners to sell -- no unpleasant dickering over price, etc. Local politicians likewise believe they are best positioned to pick winners and losers and to shape the future of their cities.
But private development went along very nicely for two centuries before politicians began seizing one person's property for the benefit of another private citizen. Sometimes the marketplace adapted in amusing ways, as when major building projects were forced to go up around, or even on top of, older buildings. But in the absence of the coercive state, buildings still got built.

The full report is available here.

Virginia Enacts Meaningful Eminent Domain Reform

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:40:00 EDT

From the Institute for Justice:

"Arlington, Va.-Yesterday, the Virginia General Assembly approved Gov. Tim Kaine's amendments to H.B. 2954, commonsense eminent domain reform that provides Virginians with much-needed protection from tax-hungry governments and land-hungry developers. Virginia is now the 36th state to pass legislation aimed at protecting home and small business owners in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which allows government to forcibly take property for private gain. It joins Wyoming in passing eminent domain reform this year.

"'This is a proud day for Virginians,' said Steven Anderson, director of the Castle Coalition, the Institute for Justice's grassroots eminent domain advocacy project. The Institute for Justice litigated the Kelo case. 'After failing to pass reform last session, the General Assembly responded to the popular outcry against eminent domain abuse and returned this year committed to protecting the Commonwealth's home and small business owners.'

"H.B. 2954, sponsored by Delegate Rob Bell, requires that private property be seized for only traditional 'public uses,' like roads, schools and post offices. It also tightens the Housing Authorities Law's definition of 'blight,' which was so broad that almost any property could be designated 'blighted.' Local governments can still acquire properties that pose a real threat to public health or safety, but perfectly fine homes and businesses can no longer be seized using vague and subjective criteria like 'deteriorated' and 'dilapidated,' nor can they be seized because they happen to sit within 'blighted' areas.

"H.B. 2954 received overwhelming support in both chambers and Gov. Kaine offered mostly nominal amendments to the legislation, leaving intact the bill's strong protections, though one amendment does exempt the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority from the provisions of the bill until July 1, 2010, as the city builds a new public recreational facility.

"'Many people worked on this bill-from activists to legislators-and they all should be applauded for finally getting protection for Virginians,’ said Anderson. 'Nationwide, homes and small businesses are seized for big-box stores and luxury condominiums. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison would surely be proud that this is no longer the case in their home state.'"

Duke Lacrosse Update

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 14:28:00 EST

The latest in the Duke lacrosse case, courtesy of Fox News:

"Former Duke lacrosse rape prosecutor Mike Nifong has been slapped with additional ethics charges by the state bar association, which has accused him of withholding DNA evidence and making misleading statements to the court.

"The new charges by the North Carolina State Bar against Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong were announced Wednesday and could lead to his removal from the state bar, according to a copy of the updated complaint. Nifong last year indicted three men from the Duke lacrosse team on charges that they raped a stripper at an off-campus party in March of 2006."

Read the whole story here.

Bauerlein Weighs in on Duke

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 09:29:00 EST

Mark Bauerlein has this excellent commentary over at NRO's Phi Beta Cons on the open letter from Duke faculty that I posted here on Inkwell (and at PBC) yesterday:

"The letter from the Duke faculty posted by Allison has the tone of a measured and judicious response to the lacrosse case, but several times the tendentious heat seeps through. Consider this sentence: 'We appreciate the efforts of those who used the attention the incident generated to raise issues of discrimination and violence.' Now, just think of what it means to 'use' a controversial incident in which people’s lives are at stake in order to 'raise issues of discrimination and violence.' The slide into irresponsibility, the temptation to attach age-old grievances to every present circumstance, the assumption that the 'users' have a privileged hold on 'discrimination and violence' -- all of these are precisely what due process is designed to forestall. The faculty praise people who exploited a tense situation. Don’t they see that this is one reason they took so much criticism?"

A perverted sense of justice at CJR?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:08:00 EST

Did you see any of the endless Dateline series where sexual predators show up to meet their teen Internet love interests only to be surprised to find themselves on way too candid camera?

Did you lie awake at night worrying about...the rights of the predators? Or whether it was fair to have cops waiting outside to arrest the scumbags after the TV confrontation?

That's the sort of thing a writer for Columbia Journalism Review worries about:

"The police busts are the emotional capper to the encounter, one that highlights the show's uncomfortably close affiliation with law enforcement. On the first two 'Predator' stings, the show didn't involve arrests, an omission that garnered complaints from viewers and cops alike. Though certain individuals from the initial episodes were subsequently prosecuted, the lack of police involvement from the outset made it hard to make cases that would stick. 'The number one complaint from viewers was that we let them walk out,' says Keller. Starting with the third show and in the five subsequent stings, police were waiting to take down the suspects. In our interview and in his congressional testimony, [on-air reporter Chris] Hansen is careful to refer to those arrests as 'parallel' police investigations, as if they just happened to be running down the same track as Dateline, but the close cooperation is always evident. At a time when reporters are struggling to keep law enforcement from encroaching on newsgathering, Dateline, which is part of NBC's news division, is inviting them in the front door -- literally. Hansen tried to deflect this criticism of the show by saying that the volunteers from Perverted Justice serve as a 'Chinese wall' between the news people at Dateline and the police.

"But as we've learned from recent corporate scandals, such Chinese walls are often made of pretty thin tissue. In the case of 'To Catch a Predator,' Perverted Justice does most of the groundwork preparing the shows and roping in the men. Initially, Dateline's responsibility was to cover the group's expenses, procure the house and outfit it with hidden cameras and, of course, supply Chris Hansen and airtime. However, after the third successful 'Predator' show, Perverted Justice hired an agent and auctioned its services to several networks. NBC ended up retaining the group for a fee reported in The Washington Post and elsewhere to be between $100,000 and $150,000."

Just as long as they put them away, I say.

An Interview Not to be Missed

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 14:00:00 EST

The Jan. 15th issue of Newsweek features an interview with Reade Seligmann, one of the three players standing trial in the circus that is the Duke Lacrosse "rape" case. The interview focuses on some of the biggest victims throughout this ordeal: the families of the players.

Give it a read here.

Heather has two mommies? So yesterday.

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 10:51:00 EST

David Warren makes some trenchant remarks about the Canadian court's ruling that one child can have three parents:

"'D.D.' is the poor innocent child who is the first person in the world to be thus over-endowed with parentage. One is the mother who bore him; one is the father who 'donated' the sperm; and one is his mother's lesbian partner, who becomes co-equally a parent in the hallucination of this fresh-written Canadian law.

"How do you argue against a decision that attempts to strike down a basic reality of human life? And which has huge implications, to the future of children and all social relations -- not only in this perverse, court-governed country, but as a dramatic legal precedent far beyond our shores. Implications which the court, in its written judgment, could not be bothered to consider."

While we're on the subject of family relations, Dick Morris and Eileen McGann note that of the leading candidates for the Republican presidential nomination that the only one who hasn't had more that one wife is a Mormon.

Drop All Charges in the so-called Duke Rape Case

Mon, 01 Jan 2007 11:12:00 EST

The Washington Post today has an important, though overdue editorial calling for the prosecutor to drop all charges in the so-called Duke rape case. The Post details the feeble case and conduct of the prosecutor:

"It’s been clear for months that Mr. Nifong’s case -- to the extent he has a case -- is riddled with flaws that raise serious questions about his motives and ethics. The accuser’s story has been inconsistent and unreliable -- and that was even before the latest interview with the prosecutor’s office, in which, according to his filing, she said she could no longer be certain she had been penetrated with a penis. The physical evidence was scant at best; the identification procedure -- the woman was shown photographs of only Duke lacrosse players -- was shockingly shoddy; one defendant seems to have an alibi.

"In recent weeks, Mr. Nifong has admitted that he failed, as required, to turn potentially exculpatory information over to the defense: test results that showed the presence of semen from several other men, but not the Duke players, in swabs taken from the woman’s body and clothing. Mr. Nifong says it was an accidental oversight. Yet the director of the DNA laboratory says that he and the prosecutor agreed to leave that information out of his report because it was so 'explosive.' If so, Mr. Nifong has a bigger problem than a botched prosecution. He should be subject to further ethics proceedings by state bar authorities, who filed charges Thursday against him for making inflammatory and misleading comments about the case in its early days."

Let’s hope that justice is done, at least in the case of Mr. Nifong. He should be subject to all available disciplinary actions. Unfortunately, nothing can be done to bring justice to the true victims of this case: the defendants. Their names have been dragged through the mud; they have incurred substantial legal costs; and their lives have been forever changed not just by the accusations, but by the actions of this taxpayer-provided prosecutor who should have known better than to proceed with such a weak case.

The Rape of Justice

info@iwf.org (Allison Kasic) — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 09:32:00 EST

Lost in the shuffle of election analysis was this fabulous article on the Duke rape scandal by Thomas Sowell over at National Review Online. It's worth going back and giving it a read. Sowell questions the motives of many parties involved in the case, including District Attorney Mike Nifong:

"Rape is a felony with serious consequences for all concerned. You might think that the district attorney would have some interest in determining whose story is credible and whose story is full of holes.

"But that is only if he is interested in seeing justice done. I predicted, months ago, that Nifong would let this case drag on until the public loses interest in it and then let it quietly fizzle out after the media spotlight is gone.

"After all, the case has already served his purpose in getting him his party's nomination for district attorney. It has also served the purposes of local racial activists by giving them an occasion to march, shout, denounce, and threaten.

"It has served the purposes of the Duke University faculty by allowing them to come out on the politically correct side of the issue by condemning the upscale white guys and showing solidarity with the black accuser.

"Why ruin all this by getting bogged down in facts?"

You can read the whole article here.

In other Duke news, another co-worker of the alleged victim is getting involved in the debate. See what he has to say here.

Is the Saddam trial headed for an innocent verdict?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 10:52:00 EDT

From the AP:

"Questioning a Kurdish witness Thursday, Saddam said, ‘I wonder why this man wanted to meet with me, if I am a dictator?'

The judge interrupted: ‘You were not a dictator. People around you made you (look like) a dictator.'

"‘Thank you,' Saddam responded, bowing his head in respect."

Yikes.

I've said all along that trying Saddam in court is a farce (here and here, with a sympathetic riposte from Other Charlotte, who is a lawyer)-Nuremberg (see previous links) was the first time victors tried to use the court system to validate a military victory. Churchill was agin' it. Like me, Churchill belonged to the shoot ‘em school of thought. The judge in the Saddam trial has once again demonstrated that the legal system was not designed to resolve many (most?) military or diplomatic conflicts on the international stage.

I realize that, if Saddam is not convicted this time, other "charges" have been "filed." But isn't this all a travesty?

And what happens if he is ultimately turned loose?

An F for Judge Taylor?

info@iwf.org (Charlotte Hays) — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 10:41:00 EDT

What happens when the empress doesn't even pretend to wear clothes? In a way, that's what happened when Judge Anna Diggs Taylor wrote her decision that NSA surveillance is unconstitutional.

Law professor Anne Althouse characterizes the ruling:

So often, we've heard complaints about 'activist' judges. They're suspected of deciding what outcome they want, based on their own personal or ideological preferences, and then writing a legalistic, neutral-sounding opinion to cover up what they've done. That carefully composed legal opinion makes it somewhat hard for a judge's critics to convince people -- especially anyone who likes the outcome -- that the judge did not decide the case according to an unbiased legal method of analysis.
So perhaps the oddest thing about Judge Taylor's opinion in the eavesdropping case is that she didn't bother to come up with the verbiage that normally cushions us from these suspicions. Although the first half of the opinion, dealing with the state secrets doctrine and the first part of the standing doctrine, has the usual detail and structure one expects in a judicial opinion, the remainder of her text dispenses with the formalities.

One of the reasons the ACLU filed the lawsuit was that reporters supposedly feared it would prevent conversations with their sources. In addition to the constitutional issues, here's a question: Would you prefer a reporter missed talking to a source or that the proper authorities missed tracking a terrorist plot?

Supreme Court Ruling a Shocking Rejection of Private Property Rights

Fri, 24 Jun 2005 00:00:00 EDT

Contact: Christie Hobbs
Phone: (202) 419-1820

WASHINGTON, DC -- Yesterday's eminent domain ruling by the Supreme Court was a shocking rejection of the rights of private property owners who could be held powerless if local governments decide to seize their land for economic development.

"This ruling gives free reign for the government to seize what everyday citizens have worked their entire lives for," said Michelle D. Bernard, senior vice president at the Independent Women's Forum. "You don't need a math degree to realize that a new shopping center or office complex could generate more tax revenue than a single family home, a small business or a church. Every tax paying citizen in this country is vulnerable to losing their property under this new ruling."

The Court's decision in Kelo v. New London concerned whether local governments can take private property without consent under the guise that such takings serve a "public purpose." The case was decided 5-4 in favor of the city of New London, Conn., giving this local government the green light to seize private homes for commercial development.

"Time and time again, plans touted as 'urban renewal projects' end up hurting the communities they claim to be helping.Namely, women, minorities, the elderly, and the poor," said Bernard.

IWF Says Michael Schiavo Has No Business Being Terri's Guardian

Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:00:00 EST

Contact: Louise Filkins
Phone: (202) 419-1820

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Independent Women's Forum is shocked and bewildered that the Florida court system continues to allow Michael Schiavo, husband of Terri, to remain her guardian.

"We are appalled that the Florida courts have not removed Mr. Schiavo as Terri's guardian," says Nancy Pfotenhauer, president of the Independent Women's Forum. "There is an inherent conflict between the interests of Mr. Schiavo, his live-in girlfriend, his children with this woman, and the needs of his wife. Given this conflict of interest, it shocks the conscience that Mr. Schiavo still controls whether Terri lives or dies."

"All organizations that claim to speak for women should be outraged at this injustice. Effectively, Terri is being sentenced to an early grave because her husband would prefer her death to a divorce," Pfotenhauer continued.

"Why is there no outcry from so-called women's organizations about Terri's rights? Where are N.O.W, the Feminist Majority, the National Council of Women's Organizations and the National Women's Law Center in defending her?" Pfotenhauer added.