Years ago, Michael Richards attained fame playing the Kramer character on "Seinfeld." Recently, he attained notoriety for spewing vile language, including the N word, during a heckled comedy routine. The silver lining in the sorry spectacle is that it led North Carolina journalist and television commentator Cash Michaels to reveal his personal view of the Duke case on a message board while trolling for white racists and using Mr. Richards' meltdown as bait.
I am not aware that Mr. Richard was supporting the Duke Three. I find it hard to believe that such a self-obsessed, foul-mouthed and foul-minded fool would take the time to do so. To be sure, there are some white racists who have found it useful to express support for the Duke Three, but their support is part of the price of a free society and neither solicited nor savored.
Mr. Michaels is not only well known in Durham County, North Carolina, but the person covering the Duke case. As such, much is expected of him. Provoking racists, white or black, is something he should be far above.
But, Mr. Richards' monumental meltdown inspired Mr. Michaels to post this comment at the abc11tv.com message board under the title "'Kramer,' The Patron Saint of Duke Three supporters" (a word choice to which observant Christians may take strong exception):
"Go to TMZ.com to view the 'Kramer' Laugh Factory video. This is what your cause is turning into. And I bet many of you will make excuses for this just because two Black guys were heckling him from the audience.
You LOSE that bet, Mr. Michaels.
There's no dispute beyond the lunatic fringe that Mr. Richards wildly overreacted to some heckling. His diatribe was disgusting even without the N word, and he probably would have said just about the same thing without the N word if the hecklers had been white. (If the hecklers were of Irish ancestry, he might have used a favorite racial epithet of Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Michael D. Nifong and called them "hooligans.")
"2BJust" posted a deft dismissal of Mr. Nifong:
"Kramer was not at the Duke party --has nothing to do with Duke and you are blatantly race baiting.
"Get back to us when you have some evidence of a crime--preferably DNA. Thanks for your time."
Mr. Michaels responded:
"Oh, I see. When it doesn't suit your purpose, you divorce yourselves from this embarrassing crap. OK to bring in Al, Jesse, Juan Williams when it suits your purpose, but let some off-the-wall has-been comedian pull the curtain back on your kind of intellect, and all of a sudden, 'it has nothing to do with Duke.'
"What a bunch of jokes!
"You want to discuss 'the case' but not the issues surrounding it, like your racism.
"Pathetic, as in all of you.
"The case is going forward. Unless GOD or Judge Smith says otherwise, there will be a trial, and a fair jury will be impaneled to hear it.
"And the best part about this is,, there is absolutely nothing any of you can do about it except sit there at your second-hand keyboards and sulk about DNA, gravel and pole dancing.
"Like I said, 'Kramer' speaks for all of you who have racially castigated Durham.
"He speaks for you, indeed!"
As my late father used to say, "If a fool stands in front of the White House calling the President of the United States a goat, the President of the United States is still the President and the fool is still a fool."
"bigtoes1" wasn't sure it was the real Cash Michaels:
"I'm Curious...Is this really Cash Michaels? If so, why do you waste your time with these people. I have periodically checked in here, I admit that, but the posters here are nothing short of obsessed with Duke/Rape case. Some actually must sit and do nothing but wait for the next new message. I feel sorry for the 'accuser' but I am not going into my reasons here. Nifong is the one that needs some correction in my humble opinion.
"But I do think these folks are simply goading you into a fight that is meaningless. You will never make most, not all the poster here, admit the racism they possess.
"Middle Aged White Guy Raised In The South."
To that, Mr. Michaels replied, pleading guilty to goading AND VIRTUALLY ADMITTING THAT THE DUKE THREE ARE NOT GUILTY OF THE FELONIES WITH WHICH THEY ARE CHARGED!
"Actually, they DO admit their racism every time I goad them. They can't help themselves they're so backward. They believe themselves to be so superior in their defense of a bunch of drunken, perverted, dishonest athletes who went behind their coaches back to commit a minor crime, only to be accused of a major crime, just because they thought they were men enough to hire lost women to debase themselves for their pleasure.
"The fools on this board are great entertainment because they believe they are America. They are disrespectful and uninformed.They are no different than 'Kramer,' and I have all of their past posts on this board to prove it.
"They just don't like someone calling them on their disease. They let PJ goad them every chance he gets, and they fall for it every time.
"They fall for it because of their false sense of sickening superiority. We can only hope that their numbers are few, and their seed is as weak as their intellect, so that we can finally realize the last and least of their breed.
"The Duke 3 case isn't about justice to these folks, for if it was, they would act justly. For example, I may have a different opinion about the case from Dr. James Coleman over at Duke, but I never have, and never will castigate him publicly. Same for Prof. K.C. Johnson, Phillip Woods over at Liestopper, and others (except that bottomfeeder Johnsville News, the dumbest blogger known to man).
"But let Prof. Irv Joyner or someone else say something they don't like, and they rip him to pieces solely because he doesn't agree.
"Yes I love goading these wretches, because with IQ levels the size of fingernail clippings, they never, ever fail to do exactly what I expect of them, they're so dumb and racist.
"Nothing like having someone prove your point each and every time.
"Hail Kramer, cretins (not you, Middle Aged White Guy Raised In The South)"
The problem with Professor Joyner is that he surely knows better. I (and others) have criticized him for his legal positions in the Duke case. He is monitoring the Duke case for the North Carolina NAACP, which has its own agenda and, as Professor Robert K.C. Johnson has pointed out, the NAACP has changed its legal positions for Duke case purposes, a sign that something is wrong.
When the author of a treatise on North Carolina criminal procedure law says that a grand jury indictment makes the existence of probable cause "a fact" (that is, something fixed and unchangeable) instead of just a grand jury determination of what is supposed to be a fact but may be a mistake, then that author goes too far.
In the Duke case, there either was or was not probable cause; a grand jury determined that there was, based on the story told (which Mr. Nifong changed) and selective evidence presented (some wrongfully obtained) and without the benefit of any evidence of innocence. As Sol Wachler, the former Chief Judge of New York State's highest court famously commented, a prosecutor can "indict a ham sandwich."
Mr. Michaels again:
"Rez, you and Lizza are so predictably racist it isn’t funny. All I had to do is open the thread, and award winning dummies like you just walk right in like rats to a trap. I said your cause was turning into a racist cause – that’s the connection to Richards’ rant, and I also predicted that you would make excuses for him just because he was being nonracially heckled by two Black guys.
"So in your world, it was perfectly OK for Richards to spew the N-word five times just because he was being heckled, like most night club comedians usually are.
"You are sick, rez, always have been, always will be. It’s a good thing the rest of America in no way agrees with you."
"Cash... my man... can zat b u?
These lacrosse players are innocent... and you know it. To sit back and watch innocent men railroaded into a racially inspired conviction cannot be good, and it most certainly will not be good for Durham's Black community.
"Why get distracted by racists on this board, or elsewhere. Forget them. But don't give up on justice.
"Project Innocence... get ready for another run."
"Do you have ANY idea how incredibly racist you sound?
"And what 'issues' surrounding the Duke case are you talking about? The case is the case, and 'issues' have nothing to do with it.
"Clearly, there are racial problems in Durham. But, they do not have, and should not have, any bearing on the guilt or innocence of someone accused of a crime.
"At this point, many of us DO hope the case goes forward. It will be the basis for a subsequent Civil Rights Case against Nifong and others.
"Frankly, I'm starting to wonder if you're not PJ. These kinds of racially intolerant and stereotyping remarks are just the kind of thing PJ posts.
"And, for the record, I found Kramer's remarks to be disgusting, inappropriate, unwelcome, and -- apparently -- racist as Hell."
That's because they ARE, Epublius!
Ironically, Mr. Richards' racist rant prompted Mr. Michaels to publicly post his opinion on the merits of the Duke case.
Mr. Michaels referred to the members of the 2006 Duke Men's Lacrosse Team as "a bunch of drunken, perverted, dishonest athletes who went behind their coaches back to commit a minor crime, only to be accused of a major crime, just because they thought they were men enough to hire lost women to debase themselves for their pleasure."
Thank you, Mr. Michaels.
Having seen what the prosecution had when the Duke Three were indicted on rape, kidnapping and sexual assault charges, all in the first degree, you know there was not evidence to support ANY of those felony charges.
If there was sufficient evidence to support charges of underage drinking, facilitating underage drinking or making excess noise against anyone, then those charges should have been pursued.
BUT, it was NOT illegal for the strippers to be hired or to strip for money.
Pursuing bogus felony charges in lieu of a charge (or charges) you want to pursue that is (or are) not a felony (or felonies) or even a crime (or crimes) is perverting the criminal justice system.
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.