sceptical

Jul 1 2009, 09:07 AM

What's the old phrase to describe how lawyers operate? "The meter is ticking..."

At $500 per hour or more, Jamie ensured more billable hours for her firm and those of the other lawyers by filing her brief to bring in Iqbal.

chatham

Jul 1 2009, 10:40 AM

I am guessing that she did what she did to get more (a lot more) of what the plaintiffs know out into the public domain. If she knows what the plaintiffs have then there are no or very few secrets left. The defense argument in court can be made a whole lot easier than not having that information before depositions or trials start. I think it is more than just getting paid a lot of money to make her law firm richer. I dont think every lawyer on the other side of something needs a John Grisham novel behind their reasoning for doing something. She is a smart lawyer and the plaintiffs are up against a lot of outside lawyer and political influence with this case.

Quasimodo

Jul 1 2009, 08:17 AM

4.) Linwood Is Back

The always entertaining Attorney pro-se Linwood Wilson, proving again the aphorism that a man who represents himself has a fool for a client, filed a three-paragraph memo on the matter, asserting the following: “In order not to be repetitive and overbearing on the court, Defendant Linwood Wilson joins Defendants Mark Gottlieb, Benjamin Himan, and the City of Durham, North Carolina, Durham Supervisors, in their Supplemental Briefs In [sic, cap.] Support of their [sic, cap.] Motions to Dismiss.”

Yet the whole thrust of Attorney Wilson’s previous arguments has been that his client, fired ex-Nifong investigator Wilson, should not be considered in any way a Durham employee, and that his legal status as an employee of Nifong gave him absolute immunity for any of his misdeeds. So why, now, are Wilson’s interests and those of former DPD members Himan and Gottlieb aligned? The Wilson brief doesn’t say.

Perhaps Attorney Wilson can consult with Client Wilson and file a supplemental brief in the future.

Baldo

Jul 1 2009, 09:02 AM

KC makes some great point in responding to the defendant's filings. We shall see what the Plaintiff's responses are.

I have been pondering a question.

Was Jamie's filing a mistake for some of the defendants at this time? Did she expect a dismissal of the complaint by Judge Beaty? Surely she must have expected Judge Beaty to request briefs. Did that serve the best interest of the defendants?

The question seems to be. Have the Plaintiffs presented enough evidence in their prior to Iqbal filing to pass the new bar level that Iqbal seems to demand? At the worst I fully expect Judge Beaty to allow the Plaintiff's attorney to reformulate their complaints to include more evidence to show each defendant's action were calculated to deny the plaintiff's civil rights and in actuality harm them by illegal, discriminatory, and deceitful actions.

It seems Jamie's filing opens the door for more damning information to come out prior to depositions. Was it a cure which will eventually kill the patient?

Personally I believe Duke should have settled the claim and removed themselves from the other Durham miscreants. By now I imagine they will have spent tens of millions just to fight this when they could have separated themselves with that money in a settlement. But that's rub, maybe they can't!

Quasimodo

Jul 1 2009, 08:05 AM

More from KC:

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

The Iqbal Briefs: The Falsely Accused Players

(snip)

1.) The Most Craven Defendant

It appears as if disgraced ex-DA Mike Nifong has taken time away from writing poetry and singing in the church choir to write legal memoranda. Though the nine-paragraph brief filed on his behalf was signed by James Craven, its tone and content suggests that much of the drafting came from the disbarred Nifong himself.

The brief features the combination of poor lawyering, ill-concealed rage, and treacly self-pity for which Nifong became infamous during the case itself. The nine paragraphs include almost nothing in terms of plausible legal analysis. Instead, Nifong uses his filing to lash out at the three innocent people he tried to send to jail, and at their parents—even though his doing so runs the risk of alienating Judge Beaty.

(snip)

Footnotes in legal briefs normally reference additional case law, or explicate a minor point not significant enough for inclusion in the body of the text. Not so, however, for the Craven Nifong. Footnote 1 merely says, “Does it?” Even more stunningly, footnote two—which follows the word “innocent”—reads, en toto, “Were they?”

(snip)

The Craven Nifong also uses his experience as a formerly regular participant in local, state, and national media to reinvent himself as a media critic. “It must be remembered,” he sniffs, “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.”

(snip)

”And perhaps the disgraced ex-DA has forgotten that throughout the case, the New York Times served as his de facto stenographer, even to the point of producing major articles riddled with factual errors that slanted the portrayal on his behalf. Why the “parents of the three plaintiffs” would expect fair, much less sympathetic, coverage from the Times the Craven Nifong never says.

(snip)

Baldo

Jul 1 2009, 11:55 AM

At the level Jamie plays it is about Money & Power. She has used her political clout to cash in before. She was Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae from 1997 to 2003 when most of the fraudulent accounting schemes were going on. Did she personally know about it? I don't know, but she was second in command and she has escaped investigation.

teach1975

Jul 1 2009, 04:21 PM

Nifong/Craven's "'were they' innocent" somewhat seems to go against Nifong's early "apology" I use quotes b/c it really wasn't much of an apology.

read to the court (in part)

"I agree with the attorney general's statement that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty or Mr. Evans committed any of the crimes for which they were indicted or any other crimes against (the accuser) during the party that occurred on March 13th and 14th, 2006, at North Buchanan Boulevard in Durham.

Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Evans were entitled to the presumption of innocence when the were under indictment. Surely they are entitled to more than that now as they go forward for the rest of their lives, and that is what the attorney general tried to give them in his declaration that they are innocent."

he says they were entitled to the presumption of innocennce and more so as they move forward... i guess he forgot he read that....

I should not be suprised after all it is the fong.

nyesq83

Jul 1 2009, 09:57 AM

[At the article site, there is a picture of Hudson. I forgot or never knew that he is African-American]

Duke Lacrosse Grand Jurors Could Be Punished for Speaking Out


Posted: Feb 7, 2007
Updated: Feb 8, 2007

Durham, N.C. — Two former members of the grand jury that indicted three Duke lacrosse players could be charged with contempt for talking about the case.

This all comes as Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong faces his own State Bar trial for talking too much to the media early in the case.

Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Orlando F. Hudson Jr. said he could not believe it when he heard the two grand jurors on an ABC Television program talking about the Duke lacrosse case Tuesday morning.

"It was pretty clear to me that the jurors are in violation of North Carolina law," Hudson told WRAL on Wednesday.

...

The judge called the grand jury process the most sacred in the judicial system.

...

The judge would not talk about details about what he might do, but he said grand jurors who discuss a case can be charged with contempt of court, a misdemeanor offense that can carry up to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine.

The two jurors did not show their faces during the interview. Hudson said that could make it difficult to identify them, but he said he could call in all the grand jurors from that session and put them under oath to find out who talked.

...

Reporter: Julia Lewis
Photographer: Keith Baker
Web Editor: Ron Gallagher
Copyright 2009 by Capitol Broadcasting Company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.