| Duke Lacrosse Lawsuits to Move Forward, Judge Rules; Discovery ahead !! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 31 2011, 04:21 PM (12,247 Views) | |
| Baldo | Mar 31 2011, 09:35 PM Post #106 |
|
"We have a number of documents here that we received in Discovery. We are going to be going over each and every one."![]() You look a little pale, do you need a glass of water? |
![]() |
|
| sdsgo | Mar 31 2011, 09:46 PM Post #107 |
|
Big Billy Goat Gruff finally crossed the bridge. The decisions are so simple, so intuitively appealing, and so right. If you knowingly do wrong - you will be held accountable. Judge Beaty tossed out the legal mumbo-jumbo and dealt with each defendant as an individual. He saw no grand conspiracy, just individuals who said or did things that any responsible citizen would know were wrong. Today, I’m proud to be pro-judge. God Bless all the families and all of you Liestoppers too. |
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Mar 31 2011, 09:50 PM Post #108 |
|
What are the goals of these civil lawsuits? Truth, Accountability & Responsbility. It really doesn' t matter that much whether there are 2 or 20 counts against Brodhead-- as long as there is even one, he will have to testify under oath about the lacrosse frame-up. The same goes for Steel, Burness, Trask, Wasiolek, Levicy and the rest of the Duke conspirators. Sure, it would be great to have Arico and Manley and a few others, but the lawyers will be able to depose the key conspirators. I am sure the plaintiff's lawyers are unhappy that Durham was taken off the hook for punitive damages, but the case isn't really just about money. I haven't read all of Judge Beaty's opinions but he seems to have a clear understanding of what happened. He focuses on the Fourth Amendment violations but also acknowledges to a limited degree the obstruction of justice which occurred. While I wish he would have allowed more counts to stand, there are more than enough charges to blow the case open. Edited by sceptical, Mar 31 2011, 09:52 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Mar 31 2011, 10:05 PM Post #109 |
|
From the AP in the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/judge-lets-former-duke-lacrosse-players-pursue-civil-lawsuit-against-prosecutor-investigators/2011/03/31/AFPzZ1CC_story.html
I am pleased that one of the lead attorneys agrees with our assessment that this is a victory for the lacrosse players and their families. |
![]() |
|
| genny6348 | Mar 31 2011, 10:15 PM Post #110 |
|
Genny6348
|
Late to the party, but still doing a HAPPY DANCE!! Finally we may learn the truth - ON WITH DISCOVERY!!
|
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Mar 31 2011, 10:16 PM Post #111 |
|
Here is an incomplete list of the remaining charges against the defendants which Judge Beaty felt were credible enough to go forward on: CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE FABRICATION OF FALSE EVIDENCE MAKING FALSE PUBLIC STATEMENTS MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND CONSPIRACY OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND CONSPIRACY NEGLIGENCE BY DURHAM POLICE NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HIRING, TRAINING, DISCIPLINE, AND RETENTION BY DURHAM POLICE FRAUD These and the other remaining counts are more than enough to explode open the lacrosse frame-up. |
![]() |
|
| Walt-in-Durham | Mar 31 2011, 11:24 PM Post #112 |
|
A motion for summary judgment (MSJ) cannot be appealed unless it disposes of the case. Thus, granting a MSJ completely is a final appealable order. A denial in total is not. Partially granting and partially denying, as is the case here, might be appealable as to the issues where the order is final. For example, the count seeking damages for emotional distress. However, I look for the case to move forward to discovery rather than appeal. The really good news here is this is a ruling on the, in my opinion, weaker cases. Further, I look for AIG to open serious settlement negotiations now. They were apparently willing to test the waters a bit to see how the judge might rule. Now they know and it's time to start talking dollars and sense. (Yes, I meant sense something that has been in short supply at city hall and police HQ.) Walt-in-Durham |
![]() |
|
| nyesq83 | Mar 31 2011, 11:35 PM Post #113 |
|
Congratulations to the plaintiff attorneys. I was worried about the sufficiency of the emotional distress and other claims. But hopefully some discovery will get started some day soon. |
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Mar 31 2011, 11:52 PM Post #114 |
|
Reasonably good summary by Ray Gronberg in the Herald-Sun: http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/12584208/article-Judge-rules-on-lacrosse-suits?instance=homesecondleft There is also this from Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-01/duke-lacrosse-players-suit-over-false-rape-claim-may-proceed-judge-says.html Edited by sceptical, Mar 31 2011, 11:56 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Concerned | Apr 1 2011, 12:53 AM Post #115 |
|
I'm just catching up......such great news! I'm thinking about the families tonight. |
![]() |
|
| 60slib | Apr 1 2011, 03:55 AM Post #116 |
|
Great news. I heard about the ruling on Fox News. It was just a quick mention in the middle of the night (right after RedEye I think) but that should mean it will be covered in the morning on Fox and Friends. Of course all I need is Liestoppers. I'm so glad you're all still here and still the best source for all things Hoax related. Thank you. You are really quite remarkable. |
![]() |
|
| cks | Apr 1 2011, 07:00 AM Post #117 |
|
Woke up in the middle of the night to hear just a snippet on the local news - thought I must be dreaming....then checked in at Liestoppers first thing this morning to find out that it was no April's Fools - that it was indeed good news. Oh glorious day! |
![]() |
|
| chatham | Apr 1 2011, 07:41 AM Post #118 |
|
Text of Duke statement on lacrosse litigation. This apparently refers to the McFadyen lawsuit. “This lawsuit is another unfortunate result of the misdeeds of former Durham County prosecutor, Mike Nifong, and the Durham police. However, this suit is misdirected against the university. Duke University reasonably relied on the statements of a prosecutor whose path of destruction could be stopped only by the North Carolina Attorney General. “Duke made some mistakes when the allegations first surfaced in the spring of 2006. The cause of any harm felt by the players, however, clearly lies with parties other than Duke. Nevertheless, to avoid putting the entire community through destructive litigation, the university offered many months ago to reimburse the attorneys' fees and other out-of-pocket expenses of the players whose lives were disrupted but who were not indicted. We were and remain disappointed those offers were not accepted. We will aggressively defend the university in this matter.” Check with Fact Checker very late tonight or tomorrow morning. Posted by To reach Fact Checker at 6:28 PM from factchecker |
![]() |
|
| nyesq83 | Apr 1 2011, 07:48 AM Post #119 |
|
"Mistakes were made" |
![]() |
|
| chatham | Apr 1 2011, 08:02 AM Post #120 |
|
It would not surprise me if Duke told the March meeting with the bigs that if the case went south that is what they would claim thier responsibility was. We only went along because that is what we were told. Well, Duke and specifically Brodhead were told the other side also and chose to ignore it. |
![]() |
|
| 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