The attorney for Sedgwick County District Court Judge Rebecca Pilshaw said she “will be very careful to conform her conduct” to suit the state’s Commission on Judicial Qualifications, which recently gave her two “cease-and-desist” orders over her handling of two criminal cases. She’d better make some changes. Pilshaw also came in last among 26 Sedgwick County judges in the 2006 survey evaluating the court conducted by The Eagle and the Wichita Bar Association. The only woman on the local bench, she could face trouble should she run for re-election next year. So could Judges Warren Wilbert and Richard Ballinger, who received similar orders from the commission last year related to a sexual harassment complaint by a Courthouse employee.
But that’s how our county’s system of electing judges works. And why it works, some would argue — because judges have to answer to voters.
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/23
22 Comments
Sedgwick County has some of the best Judges in the state.There is even a Democrat on the bench that I like!
Reads like someone got their “thunder” stolen and they wanted their pound of flesh from the Judge.
The fact Pilshaw has only been reprimanded twice is a surprise. Given what she does and says in her courtroom on a routine basis there is plenty of reason to make sure she is not reelected!
what did she do wrong?
ff, read the link to the orders in the initial post to answer your question.
I did not until this moment (April 21)know this blog was here. I think the near future is going to be filled with revelations about Judge Pilshaw,which not even the most feminist supporter of Pilshaw can defend. The people of Sedgwick County Kansas and Americans deserve a better option than this judge.
There is no thunder to be stoled here by this Judge,rather the simple and correct following of Kansas Statute & Federal law is in question. There is evidence that she as a matter of procedure denied poor litigants the right to have their pro se documents recorded at the Clerks office. I know this beyond ANY reasonable doubt.
I know that falsely sworn oaths and affidavits were accepted by this Court. I know that orders from this Court were completed with falsifications.
There are many brilliant women with unmatched ethical integrity,Judge Rebecca Pilshaw IS NOT AMONG THEM.
BE sure to VOTE AGAINST HATE IN ‘08,by bringing in a NEW JUDGE to take her place!
Several entries above ask what did Pilshaw do wrong,maybe this will help define the situation:
“The government officials knew and maintained records ofexculpatory evidence and refused on every occasion to proceed in good faith or an appropriate lawful manner.
The definition of their responsibilities was well known to them as defined by the Brady Act concerning material & exculpatory evidence,and impeaching informationwhich would have negatively impacted government officials.
I would submit the two State of Kansas reprimands and cease and desist orders and reference the legal community poll in Sedgwick County Kansas.
The second reprimand and cease and desist order from the State of Kansas towards Pilshaw concerns recording motions from litigants and defendants on the record by the Clerk of the Court.
I submit that a poor litigant or respondent has no place in the Court room of Rebecca Pilshaw.
This now reprimanded procedure was FIRST used by Pilshaw against me.
Her actions guarantee that the benefits of exculpatory evidence and due process are only available to wealthy litigants. I submitted a motion to be recorded on the Court record by the Clerk of the Court and scheduled for hearing.
I received an email from the Clerk of the Court,Sedgwick County Kansas with the written directions she received from Laura Roberts,Pilshaw’s aide,and Judge Pilshaw.
My motion was never recorded on the Court record,because it detailed information which was not in the interest of Pilshaw & the ADA.
The door of justice was slammed shut on,by unlawful conduct by Court officials.
Pilshaw lived the dream of every official,the ADA was allowed to continue…fraud,conspiracy to commit fraud,and falsely sworn oaths winning the day, the doors to the Court closed to any redress.
I called the Clerk’s office and she said she was sorry and that she could not disobey the Judge’s directions.”
When the Court & the State violate the law and then block any redress how far are we from the following events:
Ref 1: “Canceled citizenship and instituted the restrictions that forbid them to work for thegovernment,to be bankers,teachers and students and the number to work in professions was limited.”
Ref 2: “Took prisoners,confiscated property and imposed heavy financial punishments…and on the rest were cast economic restrictions.”
Ref 3: “The… laws deprived them of their rights of citizenship,giving them the status of subjects.”
Ref 4: The leader “became an official tasked with infiltrating and reporting to his superiors on their activities.”
Ref 5: The leader wrote a book,denouncing the ‘the enemies of the State’ as “parasites and laying the foundation for conquest.”
Ref 6: They used their propaganda machine not only to ‘acquire acquiescence but to convince citizens of their purity” and demonize the targeted group.
Ref 7: “Through a series of show trials,the defendants were sentenced.” Often using extreme tactics to extract confessions and agreeing on lenient sentences for a confession on false charges in the court,the court would turn on their word and exact the most severe level of punishment.
Ref 8: The enemies of the State were “forbidden to operate retail stores,mail order houses,or sales agencies,or to practice a craft.” “They cannot offer for sale goods or services,to advertise these or to accept orders at markets,fairs or exhibitions of all sorts.”
Ref 9: “They were forbidden to ride streetcars,go to the theater,play sports,go to parks,practice medicine,law or farming,and can only walk on certain streets.” They were forbidden to leave their homes except for a few hours each day.
They were forced to deposit all their money in banks,then forbidden to taker the money out. The money was confiscated by the State.” “Telephones were taken away,and eventually,they could not have pets,attend school of any kind,and had to give up extraclothing.”
These measures were indeed tried by governments in the past. The irony is that these are the same procedural tactics used by the ‘State’ and Court against Fathers.
I am sure there are people,especially State officials,who think these things are just fine. I now reveal where the above references originate,you may draw your own conclusion.
REF 1 & 2: Vichy law, Nazi Germany
REF 3: Nuremberg Race Laws,Germany,1935
REF 4-7: Hitler & Stalin in review
REF 8-9: Source: FAQfarm,Life in Nazi Germany
I thought I would list a few Kansas laws and Cases in case any one from the State was reading this blog:
This one is for Judge Fleetwood & the Kansas SRS:
KSA 22-2725:Immunity from service of process in civil actions
Germany v. Vance (1st Cir. 1989)Case worker who intentionally or recklessly withheld potentially exculpatory information from an adjudicated delinquent or from the court itself was not entitled to qualified immunity.
Grossman v. City of Portland (9th Cir. 1994)Individuals aren’t immune for the results of their official conduct simply because they were enforcing policies or orders. Where a statute authorizes official conduct which is patently violative of fundamental constitutional principles, an officer who enforces that statute is not entitled to qualified immunity.
Hafer v. Melo (S. Ct. 1991)Social workers (and other government employees) may be sued for deprivation of civil rights under 42 USC 1983 if they are named in their ‘official and individual capacity.
Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982)If the law was clearly established at the time the action occurred, a police officer is not entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity based on good faith since a reasonably competent public official should know the law governing his or her conduct. 457 U.S. 800, 818
“The plaintiff must make a particularized showing, demonstrating that the contours of the violated right were so established that `a reasonable official would understand that what he [wa]s doing violated that right,’ or that the official did not act in good faith.” Id . at 550-51 (quoting Anderson v. Creighton , 482 U.S. 635, 640 (1987)).
PIERCE V GILCHRIST & MACYNo. 02-6241, 02-6351
The court characterized the “right at issue in this case” as “the right not to be deprived of liberty as a result of the FABRICATION OF EVIDENCE of evidence by a government officer acting in an investigative capacity.” Op. 12. The courtidentified the Fourth Amendment as the source of Mr. Pierce’s right to be freefrom unreasonable seizures (id. at 6-7), the Fourteenth Amendment Due ProcessClause as the source of his right to be free from a deprivation of liberty (id. at12), and the manufacture of false evidence as a due process violation (id.).
The court further found that Mr. Pierce’s allegations most closely resemble common law claims for malicious prosecution.
It took me a really long time to fully understand the way to bring the officials I dealt with to justice. I am very fortunate that the official Court & State records evidences all the acts of the government & officials of Sedgwick County Kansas.
I know I am be a zealot,I may be slow to understand the game these officials play with the law…but I am not stupid and they are both wrong and unlawful in their actions. Truly,GOD DOES ALWAYS HEAR THE VOICE OF THE AFFLICTED.
I do not believe for one minute that things are improving in these matters. The 2 May 07 case against Robinson was highlighted by business as usual from the DA,oops,they forgot about the 19-page exculpatory document.
Robinson probably did not deserve this latitude,but the DA and their years of hiding exculpatory evidence is worse than the defendants they cheat.
No person can draw fresh water from a poisoned well…Jesus said the poor will be with you always,in this Court they are with us in jail with no due process.
Don’t worry it is all just so Pilshaw can fake like justice exists in her Court until after the 2008 election,then it is back to business as usual with her ultra feminist friends with the DA!
POSTED 20 MAY 2007
Now on to more pressing matters,my friend I told you I would place this info on the blog to publicize what transpired,the record should indeed speak for itself here is the email I rec’ddated 12 August 2005 concerning the NOW PUBLICLY REPRIMANDED PROCEDURE BY THE JUDGE,I have only replaced my name with “AmerDAD” concerning this matter:
(AmerDAD):
I received this e mail from Judge Pilshaw’s aide just moments after we spoke (see note below). I apologize that I misspoke regarding our pro se motion policy. Apparently, Judge has changed her policy.
Consequently, your motion has not been filed with the court as of yet. Judge will review your motion and send it back to us to be set up for hearing, or it will be returned to you if it has not been filed properly. Again, I am sorry for the misunderstanding. Thank you.
Crystal
TCC IV
(316) 660-5720
I’m not sure who I should send this to, so if you could, please make sure it gets passed on to the necessary people.
Any Pro Se Motions (whether they have a Notice of Hearing attached or not) that are being filed by defendant’s or litigants that require a hearing date from Judge Pilshaw, please do not accept filing immediately.
Please place the Pro Se Motion into our 11th floor box. Judge Pilshaw will review the paperwork to see if it complies with statutory requirements and local court rules.
If it does comply, it will be returned to the Clerk’s Office by me for filing along with a hearing date. If it does not meet requirements, I will prepare a letter returning the paperwork to the person who submitted it telling them it does not comply with requirements and that it will be reviewed again should they desire to submit further paperwork. Only paperwork that meets requirements will be allowed to be filed.
Judge Pilshaw believes in the long run it will save a lot of time for your office, the DA’s office and our office.
Thanks, Laura
Division 14
Judge Pilshaw’s Court———————–State twice reprimands judgeOne order says Rebecca Pilshaw mishandled a probation case; the other involves the filing of motions.BY RON SYLVESTERThe Wichita Eagle
The other order involved the judge not allowing a motion by a man convicted of kidnapping to be filed in the public court file.Pilshaw, “in this instance, followed an alternative procedure in which she apparently received the merits of motions in order to determine whether the motions should be filed with the clerk of the district court,” the commission wrote.
Motions are usually filed with the clerk before a judge hears them. “These are both procedural violations that judges are sensitive to,” Joseph said on the judge’s behalf.
Pilshaw is the third Sedgwick County District Court judge to receive the rare public orders during the past year, and the first to receive two.
I have done a little research and have now discovered that I am eligible for the award of three additional military honors:
1) Korean Defense Service Medal
2) National Defense Service Medal
3) Cold War Certificate and/or Medal
Maybe anti-military,anti-disabled,anti-veteran,and anti-male officials like Pilshaw,Fleetwood,& Foulston could show up at the awards ceremony and have some jack booted thugs point weapons at me during the ceremony.
It was certainly what happened in my own driveway,I am sure they would be “proud” to show their “true colors” during this future ceremony!
Well,it looks like another case for Judge Pilshaw where she went off the deep end. This Judge is so arrogant she not only is abusive towards the defendants and lawyers,she now strikes out at jurors!
I would remind the entire populus of Sedgwick County not to vote for hate in ‘08,remove this Judge from the bench before it is too late!
EXCERPT RECENT TRIAL:
Judicial Misconduct
Gaither asserts that the district judge committed misconduct during voir dire when she harshly questioned prospective jurors, lost her temper, and yelled at members of the jury venire. Gaither’s complaint stems from the judge’s questioning of a prospective juror who indicated that she would not believe anything the police said. The following colloquy is the basis for Gaither’s complaint:
“THE COURT: No one’s asking the life history and the things that bring you to this place, but that’s not what you started out saying, ma’am. What you started saying is, because someone has a uniform on, you will dislike them automatically, and you’re going to discount their testimony; is that what you’re saying?
“PROSPECTIVE JUROR [L]: When I got my driver’s license –
“THE COURT: Answer me yes or no.
“PROSPECTIVE JUROR [L]: Yes. I have to really go and think about that a whole lot. I can’t just take their word.
“THE COURT: I’m going to excuse you from your jury service, ma’am, but I’m going to require you to sit through this entire trial, so you can get an objective view of how people – of how people do testify. I think that you have – I think there is perhaps some validity to what you have to say, but I think that you – you need an opportunity to be exposed more to our law enforcement personnel, and I think that because this trial will have so many that will be testifying, I want you to – I’m ordering you to sit through this entire trial. It will be considered part of your jury service, and you will be paid at the rate of a jury member. You’ll need to take your card back down.. . . .
“PROSPECTIVE JUROR [L]: Okay.
“THE COURT: If you fail to appear on any day of the trial, that will be considered contempt of court, because this is a direct order.”
After dismissing Prospective Juror L from serving on the jury and ordering her to attend the trial, the judge called Prospective Juror D from the jury pool. Then, the judge stated:
“ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO MESS WITH ME?
Just thought I would ask. If anybody doubts how much I value you as jurors and how much – how important I think your service is, I think you get the right idea now. Not one person here is more important than anybody else as far as their time. I really mean it. Thank you.”
After this comment, the prosecutor began questioning Prospective Juror D, who stated that her religious beliefs made it uncomfortable for her to judge anyone. Prospective Juror D further advised the court that she believed anyone on trial must be guilty of something. In response to Prospective Juror D’s statements, the judge made the following comments:
“I think what you’re saying – you’re contradicting yourself about what you’re saying, and we have had Jehovah’s witnesses that do sit on juries. I believe it’s your personal feelings that you simply don’t want to do it, not because it’s a long trial, but I believe you don’t want to do it. I’ve got quite a few people that don’t want to do it either. But you have said the magic words, so you are released from your jury service. And I feel sorry for the next person that ends up going, because I AM GOING TO HIT THE ROOF, I think.. . . .”[Prospective Juror D] made a comment which is completely wrong. Just because Mr. Gaither is here does not mean he must be guilty of something. That is the antithesis, the opposite of what our judicial system is about.
“Mr. Gaither sits before each and every one of you right now, and he is innocent until there has been evidence sufficient to what I will instruct the jury on to prove him guilty, and that’s beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . Nobody here has heard one piece of evidence about anything, and despite what [Prospective Juror D] said in her misguided beliefs about not judging people, that was absolutely wrong. He sits here an innocent man until evidence has been presented – until and if evidence has been presented sufficient to prove that he’s guilty. Does everyone here understand that? If you do not understand that, raise your hand right now. I am vehemently serious about that.”After Prospective Juror D was dismissed for cause, the voir dire continued and the prosecutor addressed Prospective Juror M, who had raised his hand in response to a question about contact with law enforcement officers. Prospective Juror M stated that he had changed his mind about responding to the prosecutor’s question. At that point, Gaither’s counsel asked to approach the bench. Following an off-the-record bench conference, the judge made the following comments to the jury:
“THE COURT: No one should be compelled – feel compelled to say anything that’s not true, because they’re afraid I’m going to yell at them. I haven’t refused to let anybody off this jury who had a legitimate reason for being off this jury. I became angry with one juror who is going to come back and sit, because I believed that she had an agenda from the minute she walked in here to begin her jury service, based on things that I have observed about her sitting here.
“I was not happy with Prospective Juror D. I will tell you that, because I was not happy that she sat here and announced to a room full of people that she would not judge people, and yet, she turned around and said she believed Mr. Gaither was guilty of something just because he was sitting here. I didn’t think that was right either.
“If you have a legitimate reason for not serving on this jury, if you have qualms about anything, I really – you know, I hope that I have not done anything to make you think I’m going to make the rest of you sit through the entire jury trial just because I don’t like your answers. I can understand your concerns, and I’ll tell you what: The next two people that have things negative to say, I give them amnesty right here ahead of time, all right? I’m really not that bad. I am really not that bad at all, and I want – and you all took an oath, and you must be honest in your answers. I presume that if you have something that’s kind of not good, that I’m not going to like that you have the guts to say it because you’re under oath. I’ve let everybody go except for one person who will be coming back, and I’m quite sure her circumstances were completely unique.”The prosecutor resumed his voir dire without further incident. At the end of the day, the judge recessed voir dire with the following comments:”Don’t talk about this case. Don’t think about it. If I have been rude and mean today, I apologize very, very, very much so. I just believe that each one of you is as important as the others, and your time and everything else is as important, and I get a little bit abrupt at times, and I will be good tomorrow, if you all come in and you’re nice tomorrow, too, okay?”After the jury venire left, Gaither’s counsel requested a mistrial, stating that the judge’s comments had caused a chilling effect on the jury, preventing them from speaking honestly about their feelings and making them fear upsetting the court. The State agreed with Gaither’s concern that the judge’s comments may have prevented the jury from responding honestly but acknowledged that the jurors appeared to be giving honest responses to his questions. The judge admitted being angry and yelling at two of the prospective jurors and thanked counsel for reining her in. Nevertheless, the judge denied Gaither’s request for a mistrial.The next morning, the judge greeted the jury venire with the following comments:”Well, I want to talk to you for a few minutes before we get started back on voir dire. I was pretty upset yesterday afternoon with two particular jurors, and it was obvious, and this morning I brought [Prospective Juror L] in, and we had a nice talk this morning, and I understand a little bit more about her position. I probably misunderstood it to some degree. I’m anything but perfect, and I did feel she came in with an agenda, and after talking with her this morning, I’m convinced that she did not have an agenda. And I have decided to let her go, and you all saw that this morning, and that’s why I brought her in here.”I also was not happy with [Prospective Juror D], and I want to make it very clear to all of the jurors here that I do not in any way, shape or fashion presume to judge anyone based on their religion, and my comments had nothing to do with her religion. We have had many Jehovah’s witnesses in the over 200 trials that I’ve had that I have released, quite frankly, without any problem at all. We’ve had Jehovah’s witnesses that have served on juries. That’s why I inquired into her beliefs to see where it came from. The reason I released her actually had nothing to do with her religious beliefs, but because of the fact she clearly had a bias sitting here and had prejudged the case or had prejudged Mr. Gaither based on nothing she had heard in this courtroom, and that’s one of the things that I try to make very clear to people, is that I try to make very clear to people, is that you only learn – you can only make decisions on the facts and the law. I was probably too cranky yesterday afternoon, I’m not sure why, but I was probably too cranky.”My guess is that the reason I was a little cranky yesterday is that I’m looking at a room full of about 60 people who don’t want to be here any more than anybody else does, and I see you’re basically trying very hard to be pleasant about the prospect of spending two weeks in trial here. I also – I believe that other than military service, and we have a number of people who have done military service, jury duty is one of the most pure forms of service in your community that you can do. You know, especially in this time in our country, we’re seeing people who don’t just miss out on their job for a week or two because of jury duty. They’re missing out on their jobs and families so they can serve their country through their military service, and I think about the sacrifices that people make in order to make this a better place for us to live, and I’m just supremely grateful for that, and I know that it might seem silly to some of you that jury service is like that as well, but that is what jury service is. We’re making this community better. We’re making this a place where we can have people that will come in, listen to facts and decide a case based on the law and the facts.”I hope that none of you ever need to appear as a party in court, but if you do, I hope that you have the benefit or you realize the great benefit you have that people are willing to come in and perform their service as jurors. So if I have misled any of you into thinking that I am some angry shrew up here, I am not. I really and truly am not, and if any of you believe for one single minute that you are not free to say what is true in answer to the lawyer’s questions, please raise your hand right now, and I will let you go. That is a promise to you. If you feel too intimidated to answer the lawyers’ questions honestly, raise your hand right now, and you’ve just got a free pass out of here, and I won’t berate you. I won’t be mad. I will be mad only at myself for having caused this environment that you would feel that way, so this is your opportunity. Anybody want to leave?”Two venire members accepted the judge’s offer to leave without questions. Afterwards, the voir dire continued without further incident until the jury was selected.Gaither characterizes the judge’s comments regarding Prospective Juror L as a “diatribe” against a prospective juror in defense of police officers. Gaither argues that he was prejudiced by the judge’s conduct because the judge’s comments bolstered the credibility of police officers.An appellate court reviews a claim of judicial misconduct using an unlimited standard. An appellate court must determine the merits of an allegation of judicial misconduct by considering the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the allegation. Judicial misconduct warrants a new trial if it affirmatively appears that the conduct prejudiced the substantial rights of the complaining party. The party asserting judicial misconduct bears the burden of showing prejudice. State v. Hayden, 281 Kan. 112, 116, 130 P.3d 24 (2006). If the judge’s comments can be construed properly and reasonably, rendering them unobjectionable, the remarks will not be regarded as prejudicial. State v. Patton, 280 Kan. 146, 182, 120 P.3d 760 (2005).The judicial canons require a judge to perform the duties of the judicial office with impartiality. Canon 3 (2006 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 572). The expectations for judicial conduct stated in Canon 3 have been summarized as follows in State v. Miller, 274 Kan. 113, 128, 49 P.3d 458 (2002):”The judge should be the exemplar of dignity and impartiality, should exercise restraint over judicial conduct and utterances, should suppress personal predilections, and should control his or her temper and emotions. The judge should not permit any person in the courtroom to embroil him or her in conflict and should avoid conduct which tends to demean the proceedings or to undermine the judge’s authority in the courtroom.”
PILSHAW HAS NO RIGHT TO SPEAK ABOUT MILITARY SERVICE,SHE NEVER SERVED ONE DAY…SHE IS CRACKING UNDER PRESSURE OF HER WRONGFUL ACTS AND SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE BENCH ASAP!
Jury duty is nothing like serving in the military or being shot at in Iraq.
THE GOOD BOOK SAYS AN UNJUST BALANCE IS AN ABOMINATION BEFORE GOD & MAN…I look forward to the bright light of day when the wrongful acts of Judge Pilshaw are examined by an appellate where falsely sworn oaths of malice are NOT ACCEPTED.
She will learn that the poor,the veteran,the child,the pro se litigant,the disabled,are not the whipping post for her Court.
She had to be reprimanded and ordered to cease and desist unlawful practices in her Court room which she relished as her “power” over the citizenry…the power to break the law because of position,not Statute.
I am glad on the day of judgement I will not be standing next to this person,her fate is sealed by her continuing knowingly wrongful acts!
This is a posting to all Sedgwick County Kansas residents to inform you that Timothy Givan,Attorney,who worked for the Kansas SRS is no longer employed with the Kansas SRS…perhaps some of his conduct and actions were found to be “spurious & groundless!”
Main Entry: spu·ri·ousPronunciation: ’spyur-E-&sFunction: adjectiveEtymology: Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin spurius false, from Latin, of illegitimate birth, from spurius, noun, bastard
1 : of illegitimate birth : BASTARD
2 : outwardly similar or corresponding to something without having its genuine qualities : FALSE
3 a : of falsified or erroneously attributed origin : FORGED b : of a deceitful nature or quality- spu·ri·ous·ly adverb- spu·ri·ous·ness noun
I guess there are many people who have to worry about being “spurious & groundless.”
Sedgwick County officials should take due notice of what happened to Nifong,there are stark similarities.
Many SG officials from both the bench,the DAs office and local attorneys simply believe they are above the law- which they are not.
Falsifications,falsely sworn oaths,and the exclusion of exculpatory evidence may seem attractive to win at all costs,but eventually the slow wheels of justice reveal those who forsake their sworn oath to uphold the law and they are vanquished.
EXCERPT FROM N.C. NEWS REPORT:
Duke University has reached an undisclosed financial settlement with three former lacrosse players falsely accused of rape, while a judge said late Monday he would order the disbarred prosecutor to leave office immediately.
ADVERTISEMENTDuke had suspended Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and Dave Evans after they were charged last year with raping a stripper at an off-campus party. The university also canceled the team’s season and forced their coach to resign.
“We welcomed their exoneration and deeply regret the difficult year they and their families have had to endure,” the school said Monday in a statement. “These young men and their families have been the subject of intense scrutiny that has taken a heavy toll.”
The allegations were debunked in April by state prosecutors, who said the players were the innocent victims of a “tragic rush to accuse” by Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong. He was disbarred Saturday for breaking more than two dozen rules of professional conduct in his handling of the case.
The players’ families racked up millions of dollars of legal bills in their defense, and appear likely to file a lawsuit against Nifong.
The players said in a joint statement that they hoped the agreement would “begin to bring the Duke family back together again.”
“The events of the last year tore the Duke community apart, and forcibly separated us from the university we love,” they said. “We were the victims of a rogue prosecutor concerned only with winning an election, and others determined to railroad three Duke lacrosse players and to diminish the reputation of Duke University.”
Earlier Monday, Nifong said he planned to leave office next month in a resignation letter to Gov. Mike Easley and to Superior Court Judge Orlando Hudson, who is overseeing a pending request to remove Nifong from office.
“It is my fervent hope that this action will spare this community the further anguish a removal hearing would entail and will allow the healing process to move forward,” Nifong wrote.
But Nifong’s July 13 departure date wasn’t soon enough for Hudson, who decided late Monday to suspend Nifong from office.
As part of the suspension, Hudson said he would order the sheriff on Tuesday to prevent Nifong from carrying out any duties of the district attorney.
“I have thought about the situation, and this is the way I wish to proceed,” said Hudson, who initially agreed to allow Nifong work until next month.
A disciplinary committee of the North Carolina State Bar concluded Saturday that Nifong had lied to the court, made inflammatory statements about the three indicted players and their teammates, and withheld critical DNA evidence from defense attorneys. After some administrative steps, Nifong will have 30 days to turn in his law license.
Dick Ellis, a spokesman for the state Administrative Office of the Courts, said Nifong will still be eligible for his full retirement benefits — a pension and health care — that he accrued while working a state employee for nearly 30 years. But because he served fewer than five years as district attorney, he is not vested in a more lucrative retirement system for judges, prosecutors and the director of the courts office.
There was no word on whom Easley will chose to replace Nifong, who was appointed in 2005. The governor said Monday he would immediately remove Nifong — who has worked in the district attorney’s office since 1978 — if he could.
“You are given a lot of power and you can destroy a reputation in moments with just a few words,” said Easley, a former prosecutor. “This was much more than a mistake.”
___
This question has nothing to do with your good state…it’s another…when a trial judge makes a ruling/finding that there is no evidence of other crimes/offenses to be instructed to jury…but public officials by-pass the judge and present instruction anyway…isn’t that tampering with evidence/obstructing justice ? Defrauding a jury ? Planting fraudulent evidence instructing jury ? Double jeopardy ? Corruption ? Whattha ??????
I’m not from N.C.,just posted on how Nifong broke the law & oath he gave. Sedgwick County Kansas is a cesspool of crooked lawyers,State & Court officials.
No wrongful act is beyond the scope of their willingness & wrongful conduct,but every once in awhile the corrupt are defeated and that will be their collective outcome in the days to come!
There is NO need to fear the worry or outcome of the CURRENT case against this judge. The evidence soon to be submitted will not be “explained” away by clever attorneys.
The Bible speaks of Lazarus starving at the gate of the rich person who hated the soul of Lazarus because he was poor. The day of atonement came and it was the rich person who worried,NOT Lazarus.
I rejoice because when Daniel was thrown into the lion’s den (all night) because of persons like Pilshaw the outcome was not as “Sedgwick” as expected…it seems the lions devoured all the corrupt in that case,Daniel lived a long and prosperous life…GOD ALWAYS HEARS THE VOICE OF THOSE ENSLAVED BY THE CORRUPT IN EVERY GENERATION.
MENE
I have been reading with some amusement how differing persons “excuse” the conduct of Pilshaw towards jurors in the Gaither case.
So how many public reprimands is it this year,two,three,no I think FOUR total will come to the forefront before the end of the year.
The wrongful actions of this person go well beyond the scope of any discretion her role would afford her.
We ALL have no rights in her courtroom,we are simply the sheep to be slaughtered without lawful due process or observance.
Unfortunately this very unique “Sedgwick” view (held by the SG bench clan)does not play well outside the crooked confines of SG county borders!
How ’bout that pesky Constitution and Bill of Rights,the damnable State & Federal laws that prohibit wrongful conduct under the color law by government & Court officials.
Pilshaw should make sure her victims are completely killed off in true SG County fashion,lest they rise from the depths to testify against the stench & corruption that emanates from this corrupt judicial district and d.a.!
The thousand criminals of the Sedgwick County Empire descended upon us saying our arrows will blot out the sun.
The corrupt woman who fancied herself a god now feels a very human chill crawl up her spine
Now as before,the Beast approaches,confident & savoring the meal to come-
READY TO SNUFF OUT,THAT THERE IS HOPE FOR REASON & JUSTICE…
AND THEY,KANSAS & CORRUPT SEDGWICK COUNTY WILL KNOW THAT FREE MEN STOOD AGAINST A TYRANT,
AND THAT THE GOD OF ABRAHAM,ISSAC & JACOB ALWAYS HEARS THE VOICE OF THE AFFLICTED.