# Nifong Does The Hokey Pokey **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 1, 2007, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684 "2007-09-01T00:01:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684/21 "2007-09-03T21:45:15Z")
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim] What I said was correct and I stand by it. Thousands is “many”. [/QUOTE] C’est la vie. You were patently wrong when you said “Prosecutors are frequently known for spouting off to the press and mis-characterising very shaky evidence as being convincing proof.” And, as long as you recognize that prosecutorial misconduct happens in a vast minority of cases, you can stand by your “many”. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2007, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684/22 "2007-09-03T21:48:14Z")
Come back when you learn reading comprehension. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2007, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684/23 "2007-09-04T00:07:25Z")
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim] Come back when you learn reading comprehension. [/QUOTE] :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2007, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684/24 "2007-09-04T15:49:18Z")
[QUOTE=Hamlet] C’est la vie. You were patently wrong when you said “Prosecutors are frequently known for spouting off to the press and mis-characterising very shaky evidence as being convincing proof.” And, as long as you recognize that prosecutorial misconduct happens in a vast minority of cases, you can stand by your “many”. [/QUOTE] Do you think prosecutorial misconduct occurs only in cases where it is cited as a factor in dismissing charges, reversing convictions or reducing sentences? I honestly don’t know how common it is, but to limit its occurence to when people actually get called on it seems a little optimistic to me. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2007, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684/25 "2007-09-04T20:11:28Z")
[QUOTE=Hamlet] C’est la vie. You were patently wrong when you said “Prosecutors are frequently known for spouting off to the press and mis-characterising very shaky evidence as being convincing proof.” And, as long as you recognize that prosecutorial misconduct happens in a vast minority of cases, you can stand by your “many”. [/QUOTE] Forgive me if I’m misremembering the following… I think it’s fair to point out that **Hamlet** either is or was himself a prosecutor at one point, which obviously doesn’t affect the truth of falsity of the statements at issue but does indicate some personal knowledge of the issue. Of course, it may also give rise to the inference of bias. So let me add that during the years I worked as a defense attorney, my observations agree with **Hamlet** ’s – such conduct was extremely rare. I had my own gripes about certain practices by certain prosecutors, but I don’t know a defense attorney that didn’t, and those gripes didn’t extend to the kind of conduct we’re discussing here. (On the other hand, I must admit I wasn’t defending headline-making cases, so my own experience might be discounted). ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2007, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684/26 "2007-09-04T22:25:38Z")
[QUOTE=villa] Do you think prosecutorial misconduct occurs only in cases where it is cited as a factor in dismissing charges, reversing convictions or reducing sentences? I honestly don’t know how common it is, but to limit its occurence to when people actually get called on it seems a little optimistic to me. [/QUOTE] No need to limit it to that. On the other hand, any assertions about how often it actually happens need to be backed up by facts to carry any weight. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2007, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684/27 "2007-09-04T23:01:47Z")
From the same cite I used in post 17, [here is another page.](http://www.publicintegrity.org/pm/default.aspx?act=main) This was a review of 11,452 convictions that were appealed because of claims of prosecutorial misconduct – there may have been other grounds for appeal as well, but all made this claim. Of these, 2012 convictions were overturned or sentences reduced by rulings that cited prosecutorial misconduct. There were “thousands” more in which judges cited misconduct that apparently did not rise to the level of seriousness that merited a reversal. Is it unreasonable to say that is another 2000 or more? Which means that judges agreed there was some degree of misconduct by prosectors on more than 30% of cases appealed on those grounds. This does not include any convictions that were not appealed, or any appealed on other grounds, or mistrials, or any that didn’t result in a conviction in the first place. The Duke case would fall in this last category – or maybe not, since a more reasonable prosecutor probably would not have filed charges. Any way you look at the Duke case, however, it would not be included in a study with this methodology. So, yes, I would say misconduct is frequent, if not a large percentage of the total cases tried in American courts. **Hamlet** also scoffed at my comment that such misconduct happens every week. Well, this study covered a 33 year period, and counted up 4000 instances of prosecutorial misconduct. That works out to more than twice a week. And I would argue that there are probably many cases of misconduct that never found their way into this study – and probably never could, as the research involved in reviewing trial transcripts would be too big a task. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2007, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684/28 "2007-09-04T23:40:47Z")
A little more research at the website for the [Center for Public Integrity](http://www.publicintegrity.org/pm/search.aspx?act=nat&hid=y) shows me that I have WAY underestimated the number of “harmless” episodes of misconduct. Their number is 8709, compare to my estimate of 2000. So make that a rounded 10,000 cases in 33 years. That works out to about 6 per week. Even if you only count actual reversals or sentence reductions, it’s still more than one per week. And doesn’t count mistrials, findings of innocence, blahblahblah… ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2007, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684/29 "2007-09-04T23:50:09Z")
Actually, Bricker or other lawyers, I have a question. I had no idea an appeal could result in a reduced sentence rather than a reversal. How would that work? I can’t imagine the appeals judges would make a ruling like “That behavior is good for x years off your sentence.” I thought the convictions were either overturned or affirmed. ---
**Author:** ![Xema](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/9de053/32.png) [@Xema](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Xema)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2007, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684/30 "2007-09-05T03:03:55Z")
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim] I had no idea an appeal could result in a reduced sentence rather than a reversal. How would that work? [/QUOTE] IANAL, but one possibility is that the appeal says, in effect, “I don’t dispute the trial or verdict, but I was given a sentence not appropriate for my crime.” ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2007, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684/31 "2007-09-05T14:34:32Z")
[QUOTE=seenidog] As far as I am concerned, Nifong should serve the same time as those he tried to railroad would have served had he suceeded. One day is not even a slap on the wrist, it is an insult to the justice system. [/QUOTE] Abso-fraggin-lutely. This is a mockery of justice. :mad: ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2007, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684/32 "2007-09-05T14:55:22Z")
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim] From the same cite I used in post 17, [here is another page.](http://www.publicintegrity.org/pm/default.aspx?act=main) This was a review of 11,452 convictions that were appealed because of claims of prosecutorial misconduct – there may have been other grounds for appeal as well, but all made this claim. [/QUOTE] Hold on! This study classifies “Courtroom misconduct” as “making inappropriate or inflammatory comments in the presence of the jury; introducing or attempting to introduce inadmissible, inappropriate or inflammatory evidence; mischaracterizing the evidence or the facts of the case to the court or jury; committing violations pertaining to the selection of the jury; or making improper closing arguments.” That’s a pretty wide brush. The prosecutor who attempts to introduce evidence and is overruled has not committed misconduct in the ordinary way the reader thinks of the term, yet he seems to be covered by this definition. even if he’s NOT overruled, he’s covered by the definition: Consider a trial at which the prosecutor seeks to admit evidence of a prior molestation conviction against a man accused of molestation. The judge rules that the prior act is sufficiently similar to the charged one to show a “common plan, scheme, or motive,” which is the correct standard for 404(b) evidence. Conviction ensues. On appeal, the appellate court decides that the trial court was wrong: as a matter of law, the prior act did NOT have sufficient similarity to the charged act to count as a 404(b) exception. This study seem to call that prosecutorial misconduct. I absolutely disagree that the prosecutor has done anything wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2007, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684/33 "2007-09-05T15:06:40Z")
[QUOTE=Boyo Jim] Actually, Bricker or other lawyers, I have a question. I had no idea an appeal could result in a reduced sentence rather than a reversal. How would that work? I can’t imagine the appeals judges would make a ruling like “That behavior is good for x years off your sentence.” I thought the convictions were either overturned or affirmed. [/QUOTE] There are two possibilites. First, an appeal may complain that the trial judge improperly admitted or considered evidence at sentencing. For example, suppose the judge at sentencing says something like, “And in addition to committing the crime, you didn’t have the decency to plead guilty – you insisted on a trial! Now you’re going to pay for wasting my time and the jury’s time.” That suggests the judge is basing his sentence not on permissible factors, but on his ire that the accused exercised his right to a trial. Or (much more realistically) the judge may refuse to hear mitigating evidence, or improperly admit aggravating evidence. An appeals court may find no fault with the trial, but rule that the court improperly considered evidence at sentencing. To cure this, it may remand for sentencing before the same judge… or even before a different judge, if the error was of a nature that asking the same judge to correct it does not seem judicially prudent. Secondly, and this comes up in federal practice much more than state practice (at least much more than MY state’s practice) the trial judge may have made a computational error in sentencing guidelines. The federal system has a truly byzantine system of points and sentencing levels, and an error in computing the proper credits, levels, and so forth can simply be fixed by the appellate court. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2007, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684/34 "2007-09-05T21:06:56Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] Hold on! This study classifies “Courtroom misconduct” as “making inappropriate or inflammatory comments in the presence of the jury; introducing or attempting to introduce inadmissible, inappropriate or inflammatory evidence; mischaracterizing the evidence or the facts of the case to the court or jury; committing violations pertaining to the selection of the jury; or making improper closing arguments.” That’s a pretty wide brush. The prosecutor who attempts to introduce evidence and is overruled has not committed misconduct in the ordinary way the reader thinks of the term, yet he seems to be covered by this definition. even if he’s NOT overruled, he’s covered by the definition: Consider a trial at which the prosecutor seeks to admit evidence of a prior molestation conviction against a man accused of molestation. The judge rules that the prior act is sufficiently similar to the charged one to show a “common plan, scheme, or motive,” which is the correct standard for 404(b) evidence. Conviction ensues. On appeal, the appellate court decides that the trial court was wrong: as a matter of law, the prior act did NOT have sufficient similarity to the charged act to count as a 404(b) exception. This study seem to call that prosecutorial misconduct. I absolutely disagree that the prosecutor has done anything wrong. [/QUOTE] That may be, but the study claims that their inclusion is based on the rulling of the appeals courts. Misconduct was cited in the decisions by the appellate judges, not merely inferred by the Center’s case reviewers. [Here](http://www.publicintegrity.org/pm/default.aspx?act=main) is what the study cites as misconduct: > [@](#): > > Courtroom misconduct (making inappropriate or inflammatory comments in the presence of the jury; introducing or attempting to introduce inadmissible, inappropriate or inflammatory evidence; mischaracterizing the evidence or the facts of the case to the court or jury; committing violations pertaining to the selection of the jury; or making improper closing arguments); > Mishandling of physical evidence (hiding, destroying or tampering with evidence, case files or court records); > Failing to disclose exculpatory evidence; > Threatening, badgering or tampering with witnesses; > Using false or misleading evidence; > Harassing, displaying bias toward, or having a vendetta against the defendant or defendant’s counsel (including selective or vindictive prosecution, which includes instances of denial of a speedy trial); > Improper behavior during grand jury proceedings. Note that this does NOT include much of the behavior attributed to Nifong – the leaked press stories, and mischaracterization of the evidence to the press, among others. He seems to have mis-represented evidence to a judge, and withheld evidence from the defense as well, and had this gone to trial and a conviction resulted, that behavior would presumably have landed him among the type of cases cited in the study. I would like to hear your interpretation of what DOES constitute prosecutorial misconduct. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2007, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684/35 "2007-09-05T21:32:27Z")
[QUOTE=Bricker] …Consider a trial at which the prosecutor seeks to admit evidence of a prior molestation conviction against a man accused of molestation. The judge rules that the prior act is sufficiently similar to the charged one to show a “common plan, scheme, or motive,” which is the correct standard for 404(b) evidence. Conviction ensues. On appeal, the appellate court decides that the trial court was wrong: as a matter of law, the prior act did NOT have sufficient similarity to the charged act to count as a 404(b) exception. This study seem to call that prosecutorial misconduct. I absolutely disagree that the prosecutor has done anything wrong . [/QUOTE] That is a good point, and I’m not entirely certain how this study would handle it. But my interpretation of their methodology is that if the appeals judge ruled it was some form of judicial error that allowed this evidence in, it would not be in the study, and would only be in the study of the appeal judge cited improper behavior by the prosecutor. The website includes a databse listing the citations of every one of the thousands of cases. If you as an attorney would have easy access to find and read a smattering of these opinions, I would welcome some more feedback. You know, I’m not trying to claim here that the justice system is corrupt and riddled with abusive prosecutors. All I said was that abuses happen pretty often. And I get somewhat riled when people like **Hamlet** come along and post things like “ **Your statments are little more than an inflammatory pile of crap**.”, and “ **you’re still pathetically wrong.**..” and “ **You were patently wrong** …” Talk about statements being inflammatory piles of crap… There is no need for attacks like that, right from his first post. I will not respond in kind, but I am not kindly disposed to what amount to personal insults. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684/36 "2007-09-06T05:23:32Z")
[QUOTE=Diomedes] But I’m not quite sure what you’ve got against Broadhead. He stayed as far out of the mess as he could; the Duke faculty (or at least the 88, or however many morons there were) are definitely blameworthy here. [/QUOTE] Ten questions from K C Johnson’s blog, _Durham-in-Wonderland_, reprinted with permission. > [@](#): > > 1.) On April 20, 2006, President Brodhead made his first off-campus appearance after the arrests of Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty. He told members of the Durham Chamber of Commerce, “If our students did what is alleged, it is appalling to the worst degree. If they didn’t do it, whatever they did is bad enough.” > > In retrospect, does the president consider those remarks to be appropriate? And what did Seligmann and Finnerty—who attended a party they played no role in organizing and drank some beer—do that was “bad enough”? > > 2.) That same day—appearing at a Duke panel described as combating the “culture of crassness“ on campus—the president shared the platform with Dinsushika Mohottige, the only person to admit to publicly distributing the vigilante posters with the lacrosse players’ photos; and Group of 88 member Mark Anthony Neal, who affirmed, “I have an alter ego—my intellectual alter ego. My intellectual alter ego is thugniggaintellectual—one word . . . I wanted to embody this figure that comes into intellectual spaces like a thug, who literally is fearful [sic] and menacing. I wanted to use this idea of this intellectual persona to do some real kind of ‘gangster’ scholarship, if you will. All right, just hard, hard-core intellectual thuggery.” > > In retrospect, does the president believe that appearing with these two individuals communicated a message that he was serious about combating a “culture of crassness”? > > 3.) In his April 5, 2006 “letter to the Duke community,” President Brodhead affirmed, “I pledge that Duke will respond with appropriate seriousness when the truth is established.” > > On April 11, 2007, the truth was made public, yet the administration’s subsequent response has been a desire to move on. > > What occurred between April 2006 and April 2007 that caused the president to abandon his April 5, 2006 pledge to “respond with appropriate seriousness when the truth is established”? > > 4.) The Group of 88’s statement—for which, in a January 2007 statement, the overwhelming majority of signatories remaining at Duke refused to apologize—claimed the formal endorsement of five academic departments. > > In fact, it appears as if none of the five departments ever had a vote on the statement, much less formally endorsed it. > > Was any action taken against the person or persons responsible for falsely listing the official endorsements in this instance? And what concrete steps has the president taken to ensure that, in the future, Duke academic departments are not falsely listed as endorsing, in their official capacities, public statements? > > 5.) In late March 2006, a student named Chauncey Nartey sent an e-mail to the Presslers considered so threatening that Sue Pressler filed a report with the Duke Police. Shortly thereafter, Mike Pressler informed Larry Moneta about the e-mail; President Brodhead was informed about the e-mail no later than a May 2006 meeting with the lacrosse players. > > Subsequently, Nartey was: (1) one of five students named to the Campus Culture Initiative; (2) one of a handful of students selected to share the platform with the president at one of the “Duke Conversation” events; and (3) one of around two dozen students who received the Griffths service award. (The latter two developments occurred after the fraternity of which Nartey was president was suspended by its national organization.) > > Could the president explain the administration’s decision to shower a student like Nartey with honors and awards? > > 6.) No later than April 7, 2006, a coach informed President Brodhead of allegations of in-class harassment by members of the arts and sciences faculty against members of the lacrosse team. > > What steps—if any—did the administration take to investigate these allegations? As part of this investigation—if any, in fact, occurred—why did no one from the Brodhead administration speak to any member of the lacrosse team about their in-class experiences? > > 7.) Chapter Six of the Duke Faculty Handbook opens with the following passage: “Members of the faculty expect Duke students to meet high standards of performance and behavior. It is only appropriate, therefore, that the faculty adheres to comparably high standards in dealing with students . . . Students are fellow members of the university community, deserving of respect and consideration in their dealings with the faculty.” > > Does the president believe that—with their actions and/or statements in the lacrosse case while a member of the Duke faculty—Grant Farred, Karla Holloway, Ken Surin, and Peter Wood conformed to the Handbook’s provisions, particularly the requirement to treat all Duke students with “respect and consideration”? > > If so, how? If not, in what ways were Farred, Holloway, Surin, and Wood disciplined? > > 8.) In his summer 2006 response to the Friends of Duke University open letter, the president stated that he was “eager for our students to be proved innocent” at trial. > > Does the president still believe that the purpose of a trial would have been for the students to prove their innocence? > > 9.) Evan Thomas’ Newsweek review of Until Proven Innocent opened with the following passage: > > On March 28, 2006, the four co-captains of the Duke lacrosse team accused of gang-raping an exotic dancer met with university president Richard Brodhead. One of the captains, David Evans, emotionally protested that the team was innocent and apologized for the misbegotten stripper party. “Brodhead’s eyes filled with tears,” write Stuart Taylor Jr. and KC Johnson in their new book on the case, “Until Proven Innocent” (420 pages. Thomas Dunne Books. $26.95). Brodhead “said that the captains should think of how difficult it had been for him.” The misbehavior of the players, said Duke’s president, “had put him in a terrible position.” Listening to Brodhead, Robert Ekstrand, a lawyer representing the captains and many of their teammates, “felt his blood starting to boil,” write Taylor and Johnson. “Here, he thought, is a comfortable university president wallowing in self-pity in front of four students who are in grave danger of being falsely indicted on charges of gang rape, punishable by decades in prison.” > > In his report of the president’s April 2006 appearance before the Durham Chamber of Commerce, WRAL’s Dan Bowens noted, “For a few minutes, the school president, who has answered questions on a rape investigation involving members of the university’s men’s lacrosse team for the past month, needed time to vent among colleagues.” > > Does the president consider himself a “victim” of the lacrosse affair; and, if so, in what way? > > 10.) In light of what everyone has witnessed over the past eighteen months, does the president believe that the Duke arts and sciences faculty suffers from a “groupthink” mentality that—in many departments—prevents the free and unfettered pursuit of truth? > **[Durham-in-Wonderland](https://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/)** > > Comments and analysis about the Duke/Nifong case (2006-2014). ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [September 6, 2007, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684/37 "2007-09-06T12:25:32Z")
> [@](#): > > DURHAM - Interim District Attorney Jim Hardin has asked the State Bureau of Investigation to determine whether anyone should be prosecuted as a result of the Duke lacrosse case. [http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime\_safety/duke\_lacrosse/story/694041.html](http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/story/694041.html) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nifong-does-the-hokey-pokey/417684.md?page=1)