| Viewing Single Post From: Supplemental Briefs to Judge Beaty by Defendants | |
|---|---|
| Baldo | Jul 14 2009, 12:20 PM |
|
 As just a amateur that point strikes me. Of course what the defendants's attorneys are actually doing is omitting the crucial parts of Iqbal. It seems to me the main point of the Iqbal Scotus decision was to demand you just can't state a claim and expect to move into a discovery phase. Cause and Effect must be present. Again SCOTUS did not dismiss Iqbal's claims, it left standing those against lower supervisory and those with direct conduct, it didn't even dismiss the claims against the US AG nor the FBI Director. It sent those back to the appeals court to see if they should allow a refiling to include more direct cause and effect. It seems to me Judge Beaty is just being prudent. Jamie should have known Beaty would demand briefs. Surely she must have, but like I said I am not sure it was the right strategy to file that motion now. IMHO It's an early Hail Mary. The three lawsuits are full of cause and effect. In fact we have the works of the NC State Bar, the NC SP's, and the Court of Judge Smith. I doubt there is a better documented case to pass the Iqbal Bar, if not, no case ever will and might as well ban lawsuits. The words of Duke Law Professor Robert P. Mosteller are aptly applied to this issue. The Duke lacrosse case was a disaster—a caricature. The case, which involved false rape charges against three Duke University lacrosse players, began with gang rape allegations by an exotic dancer at a team party in March 2006 and ended with the declaration of their innocence in April 2007 and the disbarment of Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong in June of that year. Often a full examination of the facts of a notorious case reveals that events were ambiguous and the reality is not as bad as early reports suggested. This case does not fit that pattern; it gets worse on inspection. At the end of a five-day disciplinary hearing, Lane Williamson, chair of the North Carolina State Bar’s hearing panel, called the case a “fiasco” and reiterated the term, giving assurance that it was “not too strong a word.” http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1106&context=duke_fs I am looking forward to what real attorneys on the Plaintiff side think. Edited by Baldo, Jul 14 2009, 12:21 PM.
|
 |
|
| Supplemental Briefs to Judge Beaty by Defendants · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers | |
10:12 AM Dec 3
