Supplemental Briefs to Judge Beaty by Defendants

Pages:
1
2

Supplemental Briefs to Judge Beaty by Defendants; Up on Justia Now
Topic Started: Jun 25 2009, 01:45 PM (955 Views)
sceptical	Jun 25 2009, 01:45 PM Post #1
Posts: 1,052 Group: Tier1 Member #264 Joined: Apr 30, 2008	(For Duke Defendants) http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2007cv00953/47494/120/ (For DNASI, Richard Clark) http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2007cv00953/47494/121/ (For Durham Police Department Defendants) http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2007cv00953/47494/122/ (For City of Durham, Gottlieb, Himan) http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2007cv00953/47494/123/ Edited by sceptical, Jun 25 2009, 04:47 PM.



sceptical	Jun 25 2009, 03:12 PM Post #2
Posts: 1,052 Group: Tier1 Member #264 Joined: Apr 30, 2008	This is going to require some time for analysis. Judge Beaty will certainly throw out some of the counts-- the question is whether enough will remain to allow discovery and depositions.



chatham	Jun 25 2009, 03:55 PM Post #3
Posts: 2,721 Group: Tier1 Member #308 Joined: May 2, 2008	is nifong absent or will he show up later?



nyesq83	Jun 25 2009, 04:22 PM Post #4
Posts: 509 Group: Members Member #239 Joined: Apr 29, 2008	It's kind of a catch-22. The plaintiffs need to have discovery to get the facts to prove the allegations and they have to allege facts that they haven't yet discovered... We knew it would be tough going. These filings drive that point home.



sceptical	Jun 25 2009, 04:33 PM Post #5
Posts: 1,052 Group: Tier1 Member #264 Joined: Apr 30, 2008	The above links are to the Briefs for McFadyen v Duke (Ekstrand's suit). There are additional briefs for Evans v Durham (This is Nifong's response) http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2007cv00739/46882/97/ (For the police defendants) http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2007cv00739/46882/99/ (For City of Durham) http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2007cv00739/46882/100/ (For DNASI, Richard Clark) http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2007cv00739/46882/98/ Edited by sceptical, Jun 25 2009, 04:39 PM.



Quasimodo	Jun 25 2009, 05:07 PM Post #6
Posts: 4,650 Group: Tier1 Member #17 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	nyesq83 Jun 25 2009, 04:22 PM It's kind of a catch-22. The plaintiffs need to have discovery to get the facts to prove the allegations and they have to allege facts that they haven't yet discovered... This is why Judge Beaty's initial decision not to allow discovery at the start was IMHO an error. In fact, I would even add that this is a reason for the plaintiffs to once again petition the judge to permit discovery to proceed now, lest he hinder their ability to seek redress. Edited by Quasimodo, Jun 25 2009, 05:23 PM.



Quasimodo	Jun 25 2009, 05:35 PM Post #7
Posts: 4,650 Group: Tier1 Member #17 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	[Nifong reply] EVANS et al v. DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, CITY OF et al Doc. 97 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DAVID F. EVANS, ET AL.,Plaintiffs (snip) Another conclusory allegation, in Paragraph 56 at Page 14, is that Nifong and others, acting at the direction of others, tried to intimidate and discredit police offers. Paragraph 67 at Pages17-18 is but another,conclusory repeat of prior allegations. So too is Paragraph 89at page 33. And Paragraph 99 at Page 25, and Paragraph 106 at Page 28, as well as Paragraphs 118-119 at Page30. There is simply no end to the conclusory allegations in the amended complaint. Put another way, take out all the conclusory allegations condemned, or held wanting,in Twomblyand Iqbal and what is left? Little, very little. [Ergo, another demonstration that there needs to be Discovery for Plaintiffs to obtain a fair considertion of their claims.] It must be remembered that the complaint in this case, though utilized to begin the lawsuit, was hardly written for the Court alone. Rather it was clearly written for the New York Times,the Washington Post, Court TV,and of course the parents of the three plaintiffs. [Nobody, but nobody, associated with the Plaintiffs in this case, would write anything for the special attention of the New York Times or Court TV.] Did it have tobe 162 pages long, with 566 conclusory only? Of course not, but it has served its advertising purpose. [Utter hypocrisy coming from anyone associated with the prosecution of the lax players--remembering the abuse of the media by Nifong; the threats to McFadyen to release his email to the press (and its subsequent release); the threats to the non-lax players at the party to make them publicly part of the case; etc.] Edited by Quasimodo, Jun 25 2009, 05:35 PM.



Joan Foster	Jun 25 2009, 05:40 PM Post #8
Posts: 3,742 Group: Tier1 Member #427 Joined: Jan 8, 2009	Quasimodo Jun 25 2009, 05:35 PM [Nifong reply] EVANS et al v. DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA, CITY OF et al Doc. 97 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA DAVID F. EVANS, ET AL.,Plaintiffs (snip) Another conclusory allegation, in Paragraph 56 at Page 14, is that Nifong and others, acting at the direction of others, tried to intimidate and discredit police offers. Paragraph 67 at Pages17-18 is but another,conclusory repeat of prior allegations. So too is Paragraph 89at page 33. And Paragraph 99 at Page 25, and Paragraph 106 at Page 28, as well as Paragraphs 118-119 at Page30. There is simply no end to the conclusory allegations in the amended complaint. Put another way, take out all the conclusory allegations condemned, or held wanting,in Twomblyand Iqbal and what is left? Little, very little. [Ergo, another demonstration that there needs to be Discovery for Plaintiffs to obtain a fair considertion of their claims.] It must be remembered that the complaint in this case, though utilized to begin the lawsuit, was hardly written for the Court alone. Rather it was clearly written for the New York Times,the Washington Post, Court TV,and of course the parents of the three plaintiffs. [Nobody, but nobody, associated with the Plaintiffs in this case, would write anything for the special attention of the New York Times or Court TV.] Did it have tobe 162 pages long, with 566 conclusory only? Of course not, but it has served its advertising purpose. [Utter hypocrisy coming from anyone associated with the prosecution of the lax players--remembering the abuse of the media by Nifong; the threats to McFadyen to release his email to the press (and its subsequent release); the threats to the non-lax players at the party to make them publicly part of the case; etc.] This is so obnoxious. Is this typical of these kinds of briefs?



~J~ is in Wonderland	Jun 25 2009, 05:58 PM Post #9
~J~ is in Wonderland Posts: 3,581 Group: Tier1 Member #12 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	Can I ask a stupid question? Why would Nifong sent a copy to Linwood?



RighteousThug	Jun 25 2009, 06:30 PM Post #10
Hoolie back by popular demand! ;>) Posts: 254 Group: Tier1 Member #162 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	~J~ is in Wonderland Jun 25 2009, 05:58 PM Why would Nifong sent a copy to Linwood? There are no stupid questions, just stupid people asking good questions. j/k!! All attorneys of record receive a copy of every filing. Linwood is pro se (representing himself) last I looked.



Tidbits	Jun 25 2009, 08:19 PM Post #11
Posts: 5,242 Group: Tier1 Member #141 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	Linwood has the best attorney.



Tidbits	Jun 25 2009, 08:21 PM Post #12
Posts: 5,242 Group: Tier1 Member #141 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	Methinks briefs filed by the defendants are not objective and should not be deemed correct. They probably want the claims dismissed. That doesn't mean that they are entitled to have the claims dismissed. But, it does make it likely that they will claim that the claims should be dismissed. Consume their briefs with a salt shaker handy.



sceptical	Jun 25 2009, 10:25 PM Post #13
Posts: 1,052 Group: Tier1 Member #264 Joined: Apr 30, 2008	Tidbits Jun 25 2009, 08:21 PM Consume their briefs with a salt shaker handy. The police defendants blame Levicy and Nifong and claim they were carrying on a normal police investigation. Right. They also suggest that supervisors are not responsible for the actions of those under them. Right. They also claim there was no conspiracy because there are other explanations for the behavior of the defendants.. Right. They also claim there are insufficient facts yet they want all counts dismissed to preclude discovery to find additional facts. Edited by sceptical, Jun 25 2009, 10:33 PM.



Tidbits	Jun 25 2009, 10:48 PM Post #14
Posts: 5,242 Group: Tier1 Member #141 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	Joan Foster Jun 25 2009, 05:40 PM It must be remembered that the complaint in this case, though utilized to begin the lawsuit, was hardly written for the Court alone. Rather it was clearly written for the New York Times,the Washington Post, Court TV,and of course the parents of the three plaintiffs. Did it have tobe 162 pages long, with 566 conclusory only? Of course not, but it has served its advertising purpose. This is so obnoxious. Is this typical of these kinds of briefs? It is better than spitting on the judge. But, not much better. It is not common. It is the kind of thing that makes a judge angry at the author. It makes a judge smile when upholding a damage award. The judge can award fees to the "prevailing party." The amount may have just gone up.



sdsgo	Jun 25 2009, 10:52 PM Post #15
Posts: 785 Group: Tier1 Member #65 Joined: Apr 28, 2008	I agree with Tidbits. This is simply one more step on a long journey. I look forward to the plaintiffs’ responses next month. Oh, by the way, Tidbits - they “probably” want the claims dismissed?
Posts: 785 Group: Tier1 Member #65 Joined: Apr 28, 2008


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
2