- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Second Amended Complaint Filed by Evans, Finnerty, Seligmann Attorneys; After Judge Beaty Allows Amended Complaint | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 20 2010, 12:35 AM (1,262 Views) | |
| sceptical | Feb 20 2010, 12:35 AM Post #1 |
|
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2007cv00739/46882/116/ Filed by Charles Davant 2/18/10 The Second Amended Complaint adds a 23rd cause of action incorporating state law claims (see para 567-571). Edited by sceptical, Feb 20 2010, 12:40 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Feb 20 2010, 12:41 AM Post #2 |
|
Thanks Sceptical. Here is the PDF http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2007cv00739/46882/116/0.pdf |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Feb 20 2010, 12:48 AM Post #3 |
|
Crystal gets thrown in jail and things starts happening Just saying |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Feb 20 2010, 01:00 AM Post #4 |
|
MOTION TO DISMISS from Nifong :
That's it. I can show one photo of Nifong making the choke-hold-that-didn't-happen pose, which will effectively deal with his "absolute immunity" claim for his acting solely within his role as DA... |
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Feb 20 2010, 01:08 AM Post #5 |
|
Here's the new 23rd cause of action in the 2nd amended complaint: TWENTY-THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF ARTICLE I, SECTION 19 OF THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION (Against the City of Durham directly and based on the actions of City employees and agents in their official capacities) 567. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations made in paragraphs 1-566 above. 568. As a direct and foreseeable result of the actions of the City and its employees and agents, Plaintiffs have suffered deprivations of the rights guaranteed to them under Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution. 569. As a direct and foreseeable consequence of each of these deprivations, Plaintiffs have suffered economic loss, physical harm, emotional trauma, loss of liberty, loss of privacy, loss of education, and irreparable harm to their reputations. 570. As a further consequence of these deprivations, Plaintiffs were required to retain counsel to represent them in the criminal proceedings pursued against them, and incurred expenses associated with defending against the unlawful criminal proceedings initiated and sustained by Defendants. 571. Plaintiffs plead this cause of action as an alternative remedy, should the City prevail in its contention that the other state-law causes of action pleaded herein are barred in whole or part by principles of governmental immunity. |
![]() |
|
| Kerri P. | Feb 20 2010, 01:37 AM Post #6 |
|
Finally this judge has gotten off his azz and is doing his job, I guess Crystal's stunt yesterday didn't help the defendants cases any. Here's what the defendants are thinking: |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 20 2010, 05:43 AM Post #7 |
|
It ain't the law, it's the politics. Always has, always will be. |
![]() |
|
| sdsgo | Feb 20 2010, 06:27 AM Post #8 |
|
Order of the Court signed February 16, 2010. ORDER
Concur with Kerri. City's reply
Edited by sdsgo, Feb 20 2010, 06:47 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| chatham | Feb 20 2010, 08:54 AM Post #9 |
|
FYI - Article 1, Sec. 19 of the NC state constitution states: Sec. 19. Law of the land; equal protection of the laws. NO PERSON SHALL BE TAKEN, IMPRISONED, OR DISSEIZED OF HIS FREEHOLD, LIBERTIES, OR PRIVILEGES, OR OUTLAWED, OR EXILED, OR IN ANY MANNER DEPRIVED OF HIS LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY, BUT BY THE LAW OF THE LAND. NO PERSON SHALL BE DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS; NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE SUBJECTED TO DISCRIMINATION BY THE STATE BECAUSE OF RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN. |
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Feb 20 2010, 09:19 AM Post #10 |
|
This confirms speculation that Beaty was in fact waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on the Pottawattamie case, which was dismissed 1/4/10 after an out of court settlement. I hope and suspect that things willl move faster now. |
![]() |
|
| abb | Feb 20 2010, 09:23 AM Post #11 |
|
The cynic in me says Beaty was looking for anything to hang his hat on. He'll have to come up with another excuse on which to blame his drag-assing. |
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Mar 8 2010, 10:09 PM Post #12 |
|
Linwood Wilson has been the second defendant in Evans v Durham to file a response to the Second Amended Complaint. He is his own "attorney" and the response shows that. What is the old saying-- the individual who defends himself has a fool for a client? http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2007cv00739/46882/119/ Edited by sceptical, Mar 8 2010, 10:34 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Kerri P. | Mar 8 2010, 10:18 PM Post #13 |
|
Only three pages long!!! sceptical your right he has a fool for a client. Reading those reminds me of something Liefong would write. |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Mar 8 2010, 10:33 PM Post #14 |
|
Well a fool might spend money on a defense they know is impossible. At least Linwood knows "He's F**ked!" |
![]() |
|
| duke09parent | Mar 10 2010, 07:37 PM Post #15 |
|
Amazing to me how slow this case is moving. In my state (Virginia) the guideline in state court is to try a case within a year of its filing, which is sometimes breached for difficult cases. In Federal court the fuse is shorter. No trial date set? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2







7:14 PM Jul 10