| Duke Lacrosse Lawsuits to Move Forward, Judge Rules; Discovery ahead !! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 31 2011, 04:21 PM (12,250 Views) | |
| sceptical | Mar 31 2011, 06:34 PM Post #61 |
|
Scorecard for the Evans suit:
AMEN, AGAIN! |
![]() |
|
| Payback | Mar 31 2011, 06:34 PM Post #62 |
|
There's not an academic department in the country that could rival the explicators we have here. Thank you all. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 31 2011, 06:36 PM Post #63 |
|
Again, I find this remark objectionable. Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 31 2011, 06:36 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| diet_dr_pepper | Mar 31 2011, 06:37 PM Post #64 |
|
Me too. I saw it on Free Republic. I'm just glad some of you are explaining the legal stuff in plain English! |
![]() |
|
| Joan Foster | Mar 31 2011, 06:39 PM Post #65 |
|
Does this mean there is no recourse against Durham? Can "parts" be appealed? |
![]() |
|
| sdsgo | Mar 31 2011, 06:40 PM Post #66 |
|
Congradulations to all the plaintiffs!! |
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 31 2011, 06:40 PM Post #67 |
|
Evans opinion pdf. http://lincolnparishnewsonline.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/evans-opinion033111.pdf |
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 31 2011, 06:43 PM Post #68 |
|
http://www.aolsvc.merriam-webster.aol.com/dictionary/explicators ex·pli·cate verb \ˈek-splə-ˌkāt\ ex·pli·cat·edex·pli·cat·ing Definition of EXPLICATE transitive verb 1: to give a detailed explanation of 2: to develop the implications of : analyze logically |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 31 2011, 06:43 PM Post #69 |
|
Again, doing this fast, may be incorrect in some areas: EVANS:
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND SEIZURE IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983....................................................................................................97 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983....................................................................................................98 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION: FABRICATION OF FALSE EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983..................................................................................................100 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: MAKING FALSE PUBLIC STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983..................................................................................................102 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (MONELL V. DEP’T OF SOCIAL SERVS., 436 U.S. 658 (1977))......................104 A. Officials with Final Policymaking Authority for Durham Police Approved the Unconstitutional Conduct of Their Subordinates...............105 B. Durham Police Had an Established Policy or Custom Permitting Officers to Publish Premature Conclusions of Criminality and Guilt...........................................................................................................106 C. Durham Police Had an Established Policy or Custom Targeting Duke University Students for Harassment Through Selective and Improper Enforcement of the Criminal Laws...........................................107 D. Officials with Final Policymaking Authority Failed to Exercise Adequate Supervisory Responsibility over Nifong...................................108 E. Officials with Final Policymaking Authority Failed to Exercise Adequate Supervisory Responsibility over Gottlieb.................................110 F. After Being Given Final Policymaking Authority over the Durham Police Investigation, Nifong Directed Officers to Engage in Constitutional Violations.........................................................111 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: SUPERVISORY VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983......................................113 A. The Supervisory Defendants’ Failure to Supervise the Investigation Resulted in Violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights.........................................................................................................113 B. The Supervisory Defendants’ Failure to Control and Supervise Gottlieb Led to Violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights................115 C. The Supervisory Defendants’ Failures to Train, Control, and Supervise Addison Led to Violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional Rights.........................................................................................................116 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983.....................................118 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) (OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE).........................................................................120 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) (WITNESS TAMPERING)..................................................................................122 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3).................................123 ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (DURHAM POLICE)...............................................................................................................124 TWELFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: CONSPIRACY IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1986 (DNA SECURITY).........................................................................................................126 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND CONSPIRACY.......................................127 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND CONSPIRACY.......................................130 FIFTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND CONSPIRACY.....................................................................................................132 SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE BY DURHAM POLICE...........133 SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HIRING, TRAINING, DISCIPLINE, AND RETENTION BY DURHAM POLICE...............................................................134 EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY DURHAM POLICE.............................................................................................137 NINTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY DURHAM POLICE (DURHAM POLICE STATEMENTS)..............................138 TWENTIETH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE BY THE DNA SECURITY DEFENDANTS............................139 TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HIRING, TRAINING, DISCIPLINE, AND RETENTION BY THE DNA SECURITY DEFENDANTS...............................141 TWENTY-SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS BY THE DNA SECURITY DEFENDANTS........... -------------------- |
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Mar 31 2011, 06:43 PM Post #70 |
|
But read what Judge Beaty says just after that remark complaining about the complexity of the lawsuit:
Edited by sceptical, Mar 31 2011, 06:44 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 31 2011, 06:47 PM Post #71 |
|
Cursory quick first look-- the judge appears not to appreciate the "conspiracy" allegations, nor the infliction of emotional distress. I would have thought both of these (but especially the latter) was a slam-dunk. And again--cursory first look only-- is this narrowing the defendants down basically to a few police officers (while it requires the plaintiffs to specifically note what each of the superior officers did, in order for complaints against them to continue)? |
![]() |
|
| Bill Anderson | Mar 31 2011, 06:52 PM Post #72 |
|
Na-na-na-na, na-na-na-na, hey, hey, Goodbye! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8TGHON0Bn4
|
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 31 2011, 06:53 PM Post #73 |
|
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2011/03/duke-lacrosse-civil-suit-allowed-to.html Thursday, March 31, 2011 Duke Lacrosse Civil Suit Allowed To Move Forward A federal judge in the Middle District of North Carolina has allowed a civil lawsuit by Duke lacrosse players wrongly accused of rape to move forward. The 98-page opinion is below, granting in part and denying in part motions to dismiss. While it will take a while to analyze the opinion, this part jumped out at me (pp 49-50): "Having considered Plaintiffs’ contentions in the present case with respect to the City, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a claim for Monell liability against the City at this stage in the case. Specifically, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have alleged that the City had a policy of targeting Duke students that led to multiple constitutional violations against Duke students, particularly by Gottlieb, and that the City through its final policymaking officials nevertheless continued the policy and ratified and condoned those violations. Plaintiffs have stated a plausible claim that this condoning of constitutional violations in the enforcement of the policy led to the constitutional violations and injuries alleged by Plaintiffs in the present case.[11 Whether evidence exists to support this contention is not a question before the Court on the present motions. Of course, at later stages in the case, Plaintiffs will be required to present evidence to support these contentions, including evidence to establish the existence of an official policy or custom, and proof that the policy was the cause of the constitutional violation and injuries alleged here." What this means is the the plaintiffs now will get to take depositions, subpeona evidence and otherwise find out precisely what went on in the City of Durham which led to their almost being railroaded. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 31 2011, 06:55 PM Post #74 |
|
True; but that still does not mean that he has not (likely) directed the focus of the suits towards only a few police officers directly involved in the bogus warrants (and therefore away from everyone else). Maybe I am being too skeptical... Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 31 2011, 06:55 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| abb | Mar 31 2011, 06:57 PM Post #75 |
|
Trust me, those cops AIN'T going down by themselves!
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |








3:30 AM Jul 11