- The Washington Times - Saturday, February 3, 2007

We now know of the gross abuse of prosecutorial power in the Duke rape case. Durham District Attorney Michael B. Nifong indicted three Duke University lacrosse players last April without any corroborative evidence. The only “evidence” was the conflicted testimony of the accuser, an escort service “stripper” who performed at a team party. Her testimony has been challenged by the other black female stripper performing that night. DNA from five men was found on specimens from the accuser’s underpants, vagina and rectum — but none of it belonged to the three defendants.

Mr. Nifong knew this before he indicted the trio and conspired with the director of the testing laboratory to conceal this exculpatory evidence from both the defense attorneys and the judge.

Mr. Nifong’s reason for pursuing such a flimsy case is clear. The electorate in Durham is more than 40 percent black. At the time the accusation was made, he was trailing in the Democratic primary to a woman he once fired. If he lost, it was unlikely the winner would keep him on, and his pension has not yet vested. Mr. Nifong won the election.

After it had become clear Mr. Nifong’s case was falling apart, the parents of the accused appeared on national television to tell their sons’ side of the story — their absolute and complete innocence. Since Mr. Nifong faces a hearing before the North Carolina bar association that could result in his disbarment, he ceded the case to the State District Attorneys Office.

This newspaper reported that a new verb has been coined, to “nifong.” It is a synonym for “to frame.” Others have coined the definition, “We can ‘Nifong’ someone when we trump up criminal charges based on flimsy evidence allegedly for political purposes.”

There is a close parallel with the Duke case in the false rape allegation by a character-challenged female midshipman on Midshipman Lamar Owens, a star quarterback on the 2005 football team who has still not graduated with his class in May 2006. The latter case is even more egregious because it reveals a pervasive, systemic application of absolute power by Superintendents at the U.S. Naval Academy in carrying out the agenda of the nation’s radical feminist movement. Take a look at the evidence.

I wrote in Forum articles on this subject during the late 1990s. “Academy politics and consequences,” (Feb. 21, 1999) described the case of Midshipman Michael Pilson Jr., which mirrors that of Midshipman Owens. Midshipman Pilson was expelled for having consensual sex with a female midshipman who was allowed to graduate. Midshipman Owens is awaiting an administrative decision by the Navy on whether to follow the Pilson precedent.

In the intervening years it has become apparent the situation has deteriorated further. The miscarriage of justice in the Owens case shows just how far the Looming American Matriarchy has penetrated the Academy under the near absolute power a superintendent invokes to further his career goals. The military judge at the pretrial hearing reprimanded Vice Adm. Rodney P. Rempt for attempting to bias the proceeding against the defendant. The judge concluded there was an “appearance of unlawful command influence” in the case. The judge declared, “This is almost trial by public policy, trial by press release.”

Thus, the Naval Academy rape case from its start resembles the Duke Lacrosse rape case, where three innocent team members were publicly “nifonged” by the Durham District Attorney. Lamar Owens was “Rempt-raped” by the superintendent. One is Rempt-Raped when one’s name, honor, character and future have been maliciously destroyed by a male or female agent of the radical feminist matriarchy — a superior officer whose position and power is used to further his or her career at the expense of justice in a case of a false sexual accusation by a female.

Immediately after the accusation, Vice Adm. Rempt gave the alleged victim and supporting female witnesses complete immunity for any and all violations of Academy rules, including underage drinking in return for their testimony against Midshipman Owens. A nurse who examined the woman a few days after the incident said the woman showed no physical signs of rape when she conducted a rape kit exam. The military judge criticized the prosecution’s case on several occasions, questioning the qualifications of one of its expert witnesses and saying the defense had taken the alleged victim’s testimony apart “like a Swiss watch.”

The most devastating blow to the conduct of the case came during the prosecution’s closing statement, when the judge told the jury that prosecutors had misrepresented a witness’ statement that the accuser had said, “I have been raped.” After checking the court transcript, the military judge determined the prosecutors had made a “grave error.”

Michael Nifong is being harshly disciplined for his egregious prosecutorial behavior in the Duke Rape Case. Why has there been no such call for sanctions against Vice Adm. Rodney P. Rempt? His conduct was equally egregious in carrying out the vendetta against Lamar Owens at the U.S. Naval Academy.

The answer rests at the “political” source of power in each case. In North Carolina, it is at a very low level of governance. At the Naval Academy, it has its origin in the Congress and executive branch of the U.S. government. And the latter are driven solely by politicians doing the bidding of the radical feminists.

Why is there no outcry for the public censure of Vice Adm. Rempt for his Rempt-rape of Midshipman Owens? He is furtively fighting for his reputation by delaying the decision on Midshipmen Owens until soon before his expected retirement this coming summer, while Midshipman Owens languishes at the Naval Shipyard, awaiting punishment. Michael Nifong — meet Rodney Remp.

GERALD L. ATKINSON

Retired U.S. Navy commander

and editor and publisher of the Eternal Vigilance journal.

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide