Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Nifong's Appeal of Bankruptcy Order; Did Not Happen
Topic Started: Feb 10 2009, 10:17 AM (1,773 Views)
Acc Esq

I just realized that the final time to appeal Judge Beaty's order affirming the Bankruptcy Court's decision to lift the stay and transfer his case back to US District Court expired last week. Judge Beaty's Order was entered on 12/4. The normal time to appeal is 30 days, but there is an additional 30 day window in which the court may in its discretion permit a tardy appeal. After 60 days, however, the decision is unappealable. I was anticipating and following his filing in response to the civil suits so closely that I did not notice the lapse of the time to appeal. This is one potential source of delay that is no longer an obstacle to discovery and trial. Still to come are the rulings on the motions to dismiss and appeals of the immunity rulings.

And, as I was thinking about items like this that are obscured, I had another realization. On PACER I noticed that Nifong is a defendant in a pro se prisoner's lawsuit filed last June. He is being defended in that case by the AG's office. This made me appreciate all the more the significance of Cooper's decision not to undertake or pay for Nifong's defense in the civil cases. This was a statement by Cooper that is almost as strong as his declaration of actual innocence of RCD. Both decisions are virtually unprecedented and required a degree of political courage. Normally, the State would be expected to provide some sort of representation to a prosecutor who is sued civilly -- much of what Nifong did was in his judicial role as prosecutor for which the law provides him absolute immunity and (with apologies to Prof. Anderson) the State therefore has an institutional interest in making sure its prosecutors receive the full benefits of this protection. And bad faith does not vitiate absolute immunity.

Roy Cooper should be commended as much for this decision as his declaration of innocence -- not so much for the decision itself, but rather for the moral and political courage and fortitude to take an unconventional position because he believed it was the right thing to do. I do not live in NC but I will contribute to any campaign of his for higher office.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

Thanks for that information!

I give a lot of credit to Roy Cooper as well. The two decisions he made --
to declare innocence AND to not pay for Nifong's legal defense -- reveal the
depth of Nifong's wrongdoing. My guess is that there may even be some
nefarious things that Nifong did that we are not even aware of.
Edited by MikeZPU, Feb 10 2009, 11:35 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

It is rumored that NC AG Cooper received pressure to "find" something on these guys to mitigate the damage his findings would caused those that pushed this Frame/Hoax. He didn't, and as one of my friends who is a Judge told me. "Innocent, Do you realize how rare that was from a AG? Do you know what he was saying to every attorney in the USA? It was clear to us!"

The defense team praise Cooper, Coman, and Winstead.

Nifong on the other hand didn't answer the lawsuit but filed for Bankruptcy. Apparently he didn't think he had immunity either. Maybe it's the one legal opinion he is right about!

However, as an aside, let's not forget some comments after that declaration of innocence

"I will always believe in the back of my mind that something happened in that house that wasn't quite right." -- Georgia Goslee

"Since we haven't gone through a normal legal process, we don't know what really happened. The fact the charges were dropped doesn't mean nothing happened. It just means information wasn't collected appropriately enough to go forward.” -- Duke biology professor Sheryl Broverman

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2007/04/cooper-coman-winstead-three-new-heroes.html

A Biology Professor at Duke who disregards swabs and the results of two DNA labs. She is instructing her students in Biology at Duke.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Baldo
Feb 10 2009, 11:33 AM
It is rumored that NC AG Cooper received pressure to "find" something on these guys to mitigate the damage his findings would caused those that pushed this Frame/Hoax. He didn't, and as one of my friends who is a Judge told me. "Innocent, Do you realize how rare that was from a AG? Do you know what he was saying to every attorney in the USA? It was clear to us!"

The defense team praise Cooper, Coman, and Winstead.

Nifong on the other hand didn't answer the lawsuit but filed for Bankruptcy. Apparently he didn't think he had immunity either. Maybe it's the one legal opinion he is right about!

However, as an aside, let's not forget some comments after that declaration of innocence

"I will always believe in the back of my mind that something happened in that house that wasn't quite right." -- Georgia Goslee

"Since we haven't gone through a normal legal process, we don't know what really happened. The fact the charges were dropped doesn't mean nothing happened. It just means information wasn't collected appropriately enough to go forward.” -- Duke biology professor Sheryl Broverman

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2007/04/cooper-coman-winstead-three-new-heroes.html

A Biology Professor at Duke who disregards swabs and the results of two DNA labs. She is instructing her students in Biology at Duke.
It was not only Georgia Goslee that said what she said, it was also nifong himself who said a very similar sentence at his disbarment hearing. And those words by nifong really did piss off Dave Evans father. And I further believe that if there was a convincing speech behind the civil suits initated by the rest of the players and families, it was Mr Evans who made it..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeZPU

chatham
Feb 10 2009, 02:39 PM
It was not only Georgia Goslee that said what she said, it was also nifong himself who said a very similar sentence at his disbarment hearing. And those words by nifong really did piss off Dave Evans father. And I further believe that if there was a convincing speech behind the civil suits initated by the rest of the players and families, it was Mr Evans who made it..
One thing I remember Nifong saying at his disbarment hearing is that
he still believed "something happened." He followed that by saying
"for all those people at the party to scatter like that, something must have happened."
(I may not have his words exactly right.)

And I remember Reade shaking his head in disgust when Nifong said that.

And I remember the chair of the bar panel Lane Williamson commenting on the
"something happened" claim by Nifong saying that "I and the rest of the world know otherwise"
(that nothing happened) at the end of the proceedings.

Unfortunately, Lane does not speak for certain members of the Duke faculty.

And this goes back to not interviewing the "suspects" before charging them.
Dave Evans explained multiple times that he asked everyone to leave because
he had been previously cited with a noise violation and was worried about that
happening again. Nifong should have known that simple explanation.
Edited by MikeZPU, Feb 10 2009, 03:20 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

We know why they left. Onerous fines imposed by the City if they were found at the site of the noise complaint.

BTW There were plans by some members of the community to increase those to $700 after two citations.

But never mind Durham's thugs & the DPD were playing catch and release
Edited by Baldo, Feb 10 2009, 03:27 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Four professors from the Economics Dept. at Duke signed on to an ad in the Wall Street Journal against the stimulus. These were probably the same four who spoke up against the frame. The rest of the Duke faculty are a bunch of gutless wonders.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill Anderson
Member Avatar

Baldo
Feb 10 2009, 11:33 AM
It is rumored that NC AG Cooper received pressure to "find" something on these guys to mitigate the damage his findings would caused those that pushed this Frame/Hoax. He didn't, and as one of my friends who is a Judge told me. "Innocent, Do you realize how rare that was from a AG? Do you know what he was saying to every attorney in the USA? It was clear to us!"

The defense team praise Cooper, Coman, and Winstead.

Nifong on the other hand didn't answer the lawsuit but filed for Bankruptcy. Apparently he didn't think he had immunity either. Maybe it's the one legal opinion he is right about!

However, as an aside, let's not forget some comments after that declaration of innocence

"I will always believe in the back of my mind that something happened in that house that wasn't quite right." -- Georgia Goslee

"Since we haven't gone through a normal legal process, we don't know what really happened. The fact the charges were dropped doesn't mean nothing happened. It just means information wasn't collected appropriately enough to go forward.” -- Duke biology professor Sheryl Broverman

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2007/04/cooper-coman-winstead-three-new-heroes.html

A Biology Professor at Duke who disregards swabs and the results of two DNA labs. She is instructing her students in Biology at Duke.
This is quite interesting to hear from a biology professor, one trained in the scientific method. One of the fundamentals of scientific method is that the system is based on skepticism. One generally is not going to have a probability of 1 in rejecting the null hypothesis.

In the LAX case, the DNA testing took place after Julie Manly swabbed every place that Crystal claimed she had been violated, and there is no way that she could not have picked up where Reade, Collin, and David were supposed to have gone. Furthermore, the probabilities that their DNA could have been found on Crystal following the test most likely were one in billions or even trillions.

So, Sheryl Broverman is making this following statement: A probability even such as one in a trillion represents "proof" that something "could have happened." This is a preposterous claim, one that defies everything we know in science.

Yet, she continues to be permitted to teach at Duke. Here is a science teacher claiming that one can turn scientific method upside down -- and still call it science. You have to understand what she is saying, and the significance of her statement.

I find it astounding that someone who teaches science at a "prestigious" university like Duke can make this statement and get away with it. What would happen if she were to say, "I believe in Intelligent Design." Would she get away with that? I doubt it, and I can assure you that the probabilities in the area of Intelligent Design Theory are much greater than those in the LAX case, yet she continues to be a "true believer."

:bill:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill Anderson
Member Avatar

Truth Detector
Feb 10 2009, 06:39 PM
Four professors from the Economics Dept. at Duke signed on to an ad in the Wall Street Journal against the stimulus. These were probably the same four who spoke up against the frame. The rest of the Duke faculty are a bunch of gutless wonders.
Who were they? I was not aware of this, and would be interested to know. This "stimulus" is a fraud, a total fraud, but it is a political masterstroke. It will impede the economic recovery, but will be a great patronage vehicle, especially since most of the spending is supposed to take place next year around the elections.

:bill:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

Bill Anderson
Feb 11 2009, 08:01 AM
Truth Detector
Feb 10 2009, 06:39 PM
Four professors from the Economics Dept. at Duke signed on to an ad in the Wall Street Journal against the stimulus. These were probably the same four who spoke up against the frame. The rest of the Duke faculty are a bunch of gutless wonders.
Who were they? I was not aware of this, and would be interested to know. This "stimulus" is a fraud, a total fraud, but it is a political masterstroke. It will impede the economic recovery, but will be a great patronage vehicle, especially since most of the spending is supposed to take place next year around the elections.

:bill:
I believe one of them was Mike Munger. He was mentioned on the Rush Limbaugh show yesterday. He also ran on the libertarian ticker for governor in NC.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

Here is the ad that was in the Wall street Journal

http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/cato_stimulus.pdf

There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jump start the economy
PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009



With all due respect
Mr.President, that is not true.


Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.


The signors from Duke were

JOHN COLEMAN, Duke University
MICHAEL MUNGER, Duke University
ADRIANO RAMPINI, Duke University
JUAN RUBIO-RAMIREZ, Duke University
EDWARD TOWER, Duke University

(I guess there is still some brain power at Duke that hasn't succumbed to Dickie)
Edited by Baldo, Feb 11 2009, 08:30 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

BTW here is the Cato Web Site about the ad and their reaction to the stimulus.

http://www.cato.org/fiscalreality
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
HSLAXMOM

Bill Anderson
Feb 11 2009, 07:59 AM
Baldo
Feb 10 2009, 11:33 AM
It is rumored that NC AG Cooper received pressure to "find" something on these guys to mitigate the damage his findings would caused those that pushed this Frame/Hoax. He didn't, and as one of my friends who is a Judge told me. "Innocent, Do you realize how rare that was from a AG? Do you know what he was saying to every attorney in the USA? It was clear to us!"

The defense team praise Cooper, Coman, and Winstead.

Nifong on the other hand didn't answer the lawsuit but filed for Bankruptcy. Apparently he didn't think he had immunity either. Maybe it's the one legal opinion he is right about!

However, as an aside, let's not forget some comments after that declaration of innocence

"I will always believe in the back of my mind that something happened in that house that wasn't quite right." -- Georgia Goslee

"Since we haven't gone through a normal legal process, we don't know what really happened. The fact the charges were dropped doesn't mean nothing happened. It just means information wasn't collected appropriately enough to go forward.” -- Duke biology professor Sheryl Broverman

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2007/04/cooper-coman-winstead-three-new-heroes.html

A Biology Professor at Duke who disregards swabs and the results of two DNA labs. She is instructing her students in Biology at Duke.
This is quite interesting to hear from a biology professor, one trained in the scientific method. One of the fundamentals of scientific method is that the system is based on skepticism. One generally is not going to have a probability of 1 in rejecting the null hypothesis.

In the LAX case, the DNA testing took place after Julie Manly swabbed every place that Crystal claimed she had been violated, and there is no way that she could not have picked up where Reade, Collin, and David were supposed to have gone. Furthermore, the probabilities that their DNA could have been found on Crystal following the test most likely were one in billions or even trillions.

So, Sheryl Broverman is making this following statement: A probability even such as one in a trillion represents "proof" that something "could have happened." This is a preposterous claim, one that defies everything we know in science.

Yet, she continues to be permitted to teach at Duke. Here is a science teacher claiming that one can turn scientific method upside down -- and still call it science. You have to understand what she is saying, and the significance of her statement.

I find it astounding that someone who teaches science at a "prestigious" university like Duke can make this statement and get away with it. What would happen if she were to say, "I believe in Intelligent Design." Would she get away with that? I doubt it, and I can assure you that the probabilities in the area of Intelligent Design Theory are much greater than those in the LAX case, yet she continues to be a "true believer."

:bill:


If I recall Sheryl Broverman not only made this statement, she was one of the Duke professors on the stage with Brodhead and Narnley [sp?] in the rehab tour. I think I remember seeing a photo of Narnley on stage and Broverman was next to him.

I believe that the only reason she didn't get to be part of the 88 was that she was in Africa then.

Does anyone else remember this stuff about her or how I can find it? [I think some was in DIW and some in the old Liestoppers.]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/04/broverman-clarifies.html

She had a nuance denial.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Baldo
Feb 11 2009, 08:32 AM
BTW here is the Cato Web Site about the ad and their reaction to the stimulus.

http://www.cato.org/fiscalreality
We must assume I suppose that these five econ. professors are part of the "chattering class" that Chucky Schumer described yesterday on the Senate floor.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply