| The bankruptcy stall; doesn't Judge Beaty know the law? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 30 2011, 07:52 AM (584 Views) | |
| Quasimodo | Mar 30 2011, 07:52 AM Post #1 |
|
(hat tip: tidbits)
|
![]() |
|
| Walt-in-Durham | Mar 30 2011, 08:55 AM Post #2 |
|
"[So why wasn't the Nifong bankruptcy process delayed until after the above were determined?]" It was. Nifong filed bankruptcy, as is his right. The plaintiffs objected to the dischargeability of their claim against him. The Bankruptcy Court agreed that the claim as stated was non-dischargeable and should be abandoned to the District Court where it could be better determined. Nifong's bankruptcy has thus been delayed. Walt-in-Durham |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 30 2011, 09:32 AM Post #3 |
|
Hmmm...but then does that mean that if the bankruptcy court determined that the plaintiffs had alleged a sufficient claim against Nifong as would require it to be determined by the court, that the claim is also sufficient--if accepted as true--to require the court to permit the plaintiffs' suits to proceed (and not be dismissed)? Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 30 2011, 09:40 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Walt-in-Durham | Mar 30 2011, 11:56 AM Post #4 |
|
Non-dischargeable does not mean Nifong necessarily loses on the merits. Only that the claim as framed now is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. If the District Court ever clarifies, it may be dischargeable in bankruptcy. Probably won't be though. Walt-in-Durham PS: I have posted elsewhere on this board that I see ample evidence of both police and prosecutorial misconduct that I don't think the case will be dismissed at Summary Judgment. I don't know why Beaty is dragging his feet. No matter how he rules, somebody is going to appeal. The only thing for Beaty to do is pick a brief that he thinks will hold up better at the 4th Circuit, adopt it and make his ruling. But, he's not the first judge to get a case of appeals fright. |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Mar 30 2011, 05:37 PM Post #5 |
|
I have no idea what is happening, but its pretty pathetic that the 2006 Duke Lacrosse Team, their Families, and Coaches can't get any movement in the Legal System. It is taking sooo long. One day whether on appeal or not this case will move out of what I see is the protection by some of dirty rotten secrets. |
![]() |
|
| sdsgo | Mar 30 2011, 08:55 PM Post #6 |
|
Baldo, I think Judge Beaty was waiting for today's opinion in Connick v. Thompson. Not good news. Supreme Court Decides Connick v. Thompson |
![]() |
|
| Walt-in-Durham | Mar 30 2011, 09:20 PM Post #7 |
|
I have not had a chance to read the whole opinion, but the news reports are not good. It may leave only the lineup as a section 1983 claim against Nifong. Everything else may be state law. Walt-in-Durham |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 30 2011, 10:08 PM Post #8 |
|
Haven't looked at the whole thing; but I think that it does not include a situation where the DA willfully and maliciously conceals evidence. It appears to have a very narrow focus, which is not really applicable to a situation in which there is a deliberate frame. (But I haven't studied the whole thing.) "The District Court should have granted Connick judgment as a matter of law on the failure-to-train claim because Thompson did not prove a pattern of similar violations that would “establish that the ‘policy of inaction’ [was] the functional equivalent of a decision by the city itself to violate the Constitution. OTOH, Durham accepted what was done and defended the DPD's actions, saying that the police were in control every step of the way. It promoted those who were involved (Addison), indicating approval of their actions. And so on. I think there is more than enough to indicate that the city approved what was done in the lax case--ie, it approved violations of the constitution. (But, as noted, I haven't gotten to the whole thing yet.) |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 30 2011, 10:13 PM Post #9 |
|
I wonder, however, if based on this new SCOTUS decision, the defendants will now want to make MORE motions trying to incorporate this case. Of course, if you wait long enough there will always be more decisions and more SCOTUS rulings. I think at some point the judge has to rule on the law as it is unless he wants to show that he has surrendered control of his courtroom and the process. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Mar 30 2011, 11:25 PM Post #10 |
|
I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I had read articles on the ruling and considered it to be a weak excuse for allowing ignorance as an excuse ...as if the prosecutors were not familiar with Brady. A great many people that do not practice law understand the basic concept of what Brady is about. Anyway, it seems like ignorance is the excuse, where as an intentional act applies to Nifong and his co-conspirators. What am I missing that Beaty gets from this case? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |



]



3:31 AM Jul 11