Commentaries, Global Warming, Opinions   Cover   •   Commentary   •   Books & Reviews   •   Climate Change   •   Site Links   •   Feedback
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - John 8:32
WEBCommentary Contributor
Author:  Michael J. Gaynor
Bio: Michael J. Gaynor
Date:  January 29, 2007
Print article - Printer friendly version

Email article link to friend(s) - Email a link to this article to friends

Facebook - Facebook

Topic category:  Other/General

Alton Maddox: Nifong Is A White Racism Victim

Wikipedia: "Alton H. Maddox, Jr. is a lawyer who was disbarred following his involvement in the Tawana Brawley hoax. Maddox, C. Vernon Mason and the Reverend Al Sharpton were successfully sued over the matter and ordered to pay damages to Steven Pagones, the assistant district attorney [they] defamed."

It figures that Mr. Maddox is championing Durham County, North Carolina District Attorney Michael B. Nifong as a hero being destroyed by white racists.  (I'd ask for an explanation as to why the late Ed Bradley sided with those alleged white racists, but I don't want to elicit defamation of a dead man who was able to see beyond skin color and focused on what is true instead of what some people wish to be true.)

The New York Times would deny it is true, but Black Star News claims to be New York's leading investigative newspapers, and when it came to the Duke case, Black Star News has stuck to its story while The New York Times seems to have seen the error of its wicked ways.

Black Star News' take on what is happening in the Duke case: "For daring to pursue a Black woman's rape charges against white males Nifong is being driven out of town and the practise of law."

Is Black Star News oblivious to egregious prosecutorial abuse, conspiracy to conceal exculpatory evidence, making materials misrepresentations to opposing counsel, the court and the North Carolina State Bar, or is all that and more acceptable when done in pursuit of what Black Star News deems "a greater good"?

Alton Maddox Jr.'s Black Star News article is incredible.

Mr. Maddox predictably (and pathetically) portrayed Mr. Nifong as a victim of white racists, like Crystal Gail Mangum, NOT as a self-destructive unprincipled opportunistic, like Ms. Mangum.

"A recent 'editorial' in the Wall Street Journal was titled 'The Michael Nifong Scandal.' This description defies logic."

If that really were so, then 'logically," whatever Mr. Nifong did or omitted to do in order to convict Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans (aka the Duke Three) is somehow justified, even though Ms. Mangum's latest version of what happened to her during that foolish party last March is that she's not certain anyone raped her and she's now sure that Reade Seligmann didn't rape or assault her (even though she used to be sure he did).

"A scandal has a moral connotation. It would apply to the pedophiles in the Catholic Church who masquerade as priests."

When Mr. Maddox is right, he's right! (Even a broken clock is right twice a day.)

"This term should have no relationship to a prosecutor seeking justice for a sexually abused woman of African ancestry. To be sure, a prosecutor charging white, privileged males for the sexual abuse of a Black woman is unprecedented. Thus, Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong is a traitor to the history and precepts of white supremacy."

So "justice" is a code word for INJUSTICE, in the Duke case, framing young men on bogus charges because their accuser is a black woman and they are whites from wealthy families or very wealthy families.  Under the Constitution, even white males from wealthy families are entitled to due process and equal protection of law!

Mr. Maddox went  Humpty Dumpty.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

Mr. Maddox is not "master."

"In 400 years, no white man has ever gone to prison for raping a Black woman. Either Black women are not sexually attractive to white males or Black women find white men sexually irresistible. The former is untrue. See Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hennings. The latter is also untrue. See Melton A. McLaurin’s 'Celia A Slave.'"

I doubt that Mr. Maddox's statistics can be trusted, but even assuming that he is right, it does NOT follow that innocent young white men who passed polygraph tests should go to prison for NOT raping a black woman, because some other white men should have been imprisoned for raping other black women at other times and places?

No, Mr. Maddox.  That's NOT justice.

"On Sunday, '60 Minutes' claimed that the Duke rape case is “unraveling” before our eyes. This is also untrue. Instead, the legal system is destroying Michael Nifong before our very eyes. The North Carolina General Assembly and Congress are holding the hammers."

What is unfortunate is that it's taken so long for the truth to catch up to the lies.

The problem is not with the late Ed Bradley, a black man, or Leslie Stahl, a white woman, but with you and your supporters, Mr. Maddox.  The United States Justice Department should have intervened long ago.  Congress has not acted, and only nine of 435 members of the House of Representatives have called for the United States Justice Department to act. North Carolina's Governor and Legislature have plenty of good work to do, and they should have acted sooner.

"In only one other case, in American jurisprudence, has an attorney been destroyed amid a criminal proceeding. The New York Legislature and Congress were holding the hammers. This is a breach of the 'separation of powers' doctrine.

This is nonsense.

"It was People v. Sharpton wherein a grievance committee gave me the option of doing in my client, Rev. Al Sharpton or else. I chose 'or else.' It would have been unethical to do otherwise. The hammer was designed to undermine Sharpton’s rights under the Sixth Amendment."

In "Wonderland," it somehow makes sense that the "ethical" ones are Messrs. Maddox and Nifong.  Apparently you don't understand the Sixth Amendment, Mr. Maddox.

"Only two attorneys in the history of American jurisprudence have ever sought to secure justice for Black females raped by white men. The modus operandi has been the same in both cases. In the Duke case, CBS-TV is leading the charge. In the Tawana Brawley case, CBS-TV also led the charge aided and abetted by the New York Times."

The New York Times led the charge FOR the Duke case hoax.  And neither Tawana Brawley nor Ms. Mangum was raped, as claimed, so CBS has been exposing a hoax, as it should.

"Blacks demonstrated in front of CBS headquarters for weeks while this criminal enterprise was engaging in media defamation against a fifteen-year-old girl, a victim of white terrorism and sexual abuse. It is in CBS’ genes."

How well does "the Big Lie" technique work for Mr. Maddox?

"Pre-trial publicity is not new to American jurisprudence. It is usually designed to poison the community against the accused before trial. A potential jury, therefore, sits as junior prosecutors. In the Duke case, prejudicial, pre-trial publicity is aimed at the victim. The media took the same approach in the Brawley case. Nifong did not indict those three Duke lacrosse players. A grand jury in Durham County, North Carolina indicted them. CBS should target the grand jury and review the grand jury minutes before recruiting a lynch mob for Nifong."

First, Mr. Nifong poisoned the atmosphere with improper, incendiary statements that required the defense to rebut.

Second, if  there were grand jury minutes to review, I'd be delighted.  Not in North Carolina, where securing an indictment is easy and the accused has no right to address the grand jurors.

"Since the indictments are still in play, a judge must believe that where there is smoke there must also be fire. Otherwise, the indictments, in the Duke case would have been dismissed months ago. A judge and not a prosecutor has the authority to dismiss an indictment."

If Mr. Maddox had paid attention to the law, he might not have been disbarred.  A prosecutor can dismiss an indictment.  In addition, there are some ground upon which a judge can dismiss, upon motion, in North Carolina, and, as I have explained many times, one of them IS applicable:  the accuseds' constitutional rights were flagrantly violated and they were irreparably prejudiced by the violation. 

But don't blame the defense lawyers for not making the motion before pro-Nifong Judges Stephens and Titus..  If they give the opportunity to Judge Smith to dismiss, by making the motion, don't be surprised if he grants it.  He should.

"Unlike the credibility issues in the Duke rape case, there was no eyewitness testimony and no scientific evidence including DNA to connect six boys to the rape of the Central Park jogger, Patricia Meili. Nonetheless, CBS was organizing a lynch mob against innocent boys. An admission alone is always insufficient to establish any crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

"Yet, five of those six boys were falsely imprisoned for years and the New York Court of Appeals upheld those baseless convictions.

"In order for an indictment to be dismissed, there must not only be insufficient evidence of the top count of the indictment but also the lack of evidence of lesser-included offenses. So far, the judicial system must believe that something happened. To be sure, something did happen."

No, Mr. Maddox.  There has not been a motion to dismiss, yet.  Instead, the defense pursued proof that Mr. Nifong has committed egregious prosecutorial abuse and obtained it.  The North Carolina State Bar agreed.  Mr. Nifong is doomed, not for prosecuting whites for raping a black woman, but for ignoring his duty to be a fair and impartial minister of justice.

"Typically, there is always overcharging in the drafting of accusatory instruments. The mere fact that a count of the indictment is dismissed is not equivalent to pronouncing a suspect either legally or morally innocent. These players are certainly not choirboys and they are, at least, presumptive racists."

There is a presumption of innocence, not a presumption or guilt or a presumption of racism, Mr. Maddox.

"These players engaged in identity theft to secure the presence of two Black strippers for a KKK-type rally. They gave false names to the escort service. The escort service was never told that two Black females would have to perform before a white mob of drunken, racist hooligans. This is criminal fraud."

Actually, black strippers were NOT requested and there was no "mob of drunken, racist hooligans."  Not even Nifong has accused the lacrosse players of "criminal fraud" or "identity theft."  Merely using an alias is not identity theft.  PS  "Hooligan" is an ethnic epithet!

"Strip joints employ bodyguards to protect strippers because it is well-known that a mob of drunken and unruly males will, biologically, take matters into their own hands. These females have civil claims in addition to criminal prosecutions. In addition, there is no question that these racist jocks hurled racist epithets at these women. The use of the word “nigger” to degrade a Black person is, in itself, an assault. This lewd atmosphere reeked of white terrorism and gave rise to sundry hate crimes.

Blasphemy is not a crime, but the use of the N word is? 

If '[t]hese females thinks they have "civil claims," they can pursue them and answer the counterclaims.

Do the lacrosse players have civil claims against Mr. Maddox for calling them "racist jocks" and claiming they "hurled racist epithets at these women."  How many of the 46 white team members "hurled racist epithets"?  Didn't one of those women (Kim Roberts Pittman) say on national television that Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and David Evans did NOT use such language at the party?

"The most important question in this case, based on biology, should be answered in a court of law. After the white lacrosse players watched this Black female shake her butt and private parts, in a sexually arousing fashion, did their white phalluses come to attention? Being full-blooded males, what made the phalluses come to 'at ease?' In other words, what happened next? This is the answer that North Carolina is seeking to cover up."

What is supposed to be sexually arousing about a stripper falling on the floor and going into a bathroom?

What a prosecutor is supposed to do is investigate possible crimes in order to ascertain whether prosecution is appropriate, not investigate to satisfy the prurient interest of a disbarred attorney or an attorney about to be disbarred.

"The media and the defense lawyers in the Duke case have misled the public. In every lawsuit, there are two methods of proof: direct and circumstantial. Of the two methods of proof, circumstantial evidence is the strongest. No need exists for direct evidence in this case."

Which is the scarier thought: Mr. Maddox believes what he writes or writes what he writes even though he knows it's ludicrous?  There is no physical evidence when there would be if there had been a crime, as claimed; the credibility of ex-convict stripper Ms. Mangum is nil; and Ms. Mangum's claims are unconfirmed, unlikely and unqualifiedly denied.

"The complaining witness’ purportedly inconsistent statements are a reflection of problems of class and race in this society. In 1997, before a national television audience, Eliot Spitzer actually commanded Rev. Al Sharpton to change his story by boycotting his own defamation trial."

Mr. Maddox was babbling.

"He did except when he was ordered to appear by the plaintiff, Steven Pagones. Attorney Johnnie Cochran, an ancestor, was the host of the Court-TV program. Sharpton was behaving the way any Black person is expected to behave in a white supremacist system."

More babbling.

"When a Black woman accuses white men of rape, all bets are off. Warfare ensues. Anyone who seeks to protect a Black female victim had better prepare for a life of poverty. Gov. Spitzer and his mentor, Robert Abrams, are of this view in New York and no self-respecting Black female should support them."

I don't support them, but NOT because they excuse rape based on race: they don't.

"Before the Civil War, courts routinely ruled that it was legally impossible for a white man to rape a Black woman. Today, through media and politics, most Blacks still embrace pre-Civil War law. This results from brainwashing. See 'The Manchurian Candidate.' The only antidote to propaganda is critical thinking.

Right about pre-Civil war rulings; wrong about most blacks being brainwashed into believing the law is unchanged.

"An effort is afoot to stop effective advocacy by Black lawyers. I need your support immediately to fight off impending disbarment in a protracted struggle. The federal litigation is on appeal. Please send any expression of support to UAM Legal Defense Fund, c/o Alton H. Maddox, Jr., 16 Court Street, Ste. 1901, Brooklyn, NY 11241. The struggle must continue. Asante sana.

"See: Blueprint to End Police Terrorism, the December 14, 2006 Order of the U.S.D.C., E.D.N.Y., and New York Blacks Waving the White Flag at For further information call UAM at 718-834-9034."

Can Mr. Nifong afford to make a contribution?

Having referred to the Duke case as "Tawana Brawley Two" last May, I was delighted to read Alton Maddox' "150 Years After Dred Scott," posted on January 25, 2007 and published in New York Amsterdam News (part of the BlackPressUSA Network).

"Three Duke University lacrosse players will be able to walk away from charges of kidnapping and sexual abuse of a Black female because white politicians used their clout to interfere with the administration of justice in a state prosecution."

Right about the result, wrong about the cause.  The charges will be dismissed because they are bogus.

"The suspects include three members of Congress Walter B. Jones, Peter King and Carolyn McCarthy. These members of Congress claim that Durham District Attorney Michael Nifong is violating the civil rights of three white, privileged students. Is this naked racism and an abuse of power? They fail to claim, however, that Nifong abused the grand jury."

Oversimplication by the apparently overwrought Mr. Maddox.

And Mr. Nifong DID abuse the grand jury, by misleading it.

"Nifong has had to relieve himself of his prosecutorial duties to defend a disciplinary complaint made by the North Carolina State Bar while the Congressional Black Caucus has buried its head in the sand. Given the fact that prosecutorial discretion is not reviewable and prosecutors enjoy qualified immunity, these ethics charges are suspect."

Qualified immunity does NOT make the ethics charges suspect.  The ethics charges do not involve immunity.

"Nifong only agreed to drop the rape charges against the white males. This will still expose their conduct in a public trial. Disciplinary charges are routinely conducted in kangaroo proceedings. Nifong is in an uphill fight. This complaint opens the door for a special prosecutor to drop all charges."

The charges never should have been pursued.  They should be dropped after being reviewed.  Regardless of Mr. Maddox' attitude.

"This same modus operandi happened in the Tawana Brawley case. White members of the New York Legislature filed a disciplinary complaint against me while its Black members buried their heads in the sand. White people benefit from Machiavellian politics, while Blacks must suffer from plantation politics."

Why do blacks and whites agree Mr. Maddox is soooo wrong?   It couldn't be Mr. Maddox' fault, could it?

"Nifong is charged with making misleading and inflammatory statements. I was charged with making false statements against Tawana Brawley’s abusers. Through legal pleadings, Spitzer has admitted that Robert Abrams usurped the authority of the grand jury and, thus, falsely claimed that Tawana Brawley had perpetuated a 'hoax.'"

It's all about Mr. Maddox and so many people being out to get him!

Ms. Brawley and Mr. Maddox, Ms. Mangum and Mr. Nifong, they deserve each other.

Michael J. Gaynor

Send email feedback to Michael J. Gaynor

Biography - Michael J. Gaynor

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,,, and 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.

Gaynor's email address is

Read other commentaries by Michael J. Gaynor.

Copyright © 2007 by Michael J. Gaynor
All Rights Reserved.

[ Back ]

© 2004-2024 by WEBCommentary(tm), All Rights Reserved