Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Duke Lacrosse Lawsuits to Move Forward, Judge Rules; Discovery ahead !!
Topic Started: Mar 31 2011, 04:21 PM (12,246 Views)
abb
Member Avatar

They will all rat each other out. That is what dishonorable people do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

There ain't SQUAT in The (Duke) Chronicle about the court's decision.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rullie
Member Avatar

The lights have been turned on, and the roaches have nowhere left to hide.
Happy April Fools day, Brodhead,and subordinate roaches of Duke and Durham.
Just think of the fun, after 5 years, the arrogant accusatory snobs are now defendants facing discovery examination.What a soothing salve reading the depositions will be.
This case, along with the Dr. Potti scandal will surely cause a purge in leadership at Duke.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
This case, along with the Dr. Potti scandal will surely cause a purge in leadership at Duke.


Hmmm. . . I'd like to think so, but who is going to force a change in leadership--the Duke Board of Lemmings (Trustees)?

They are a self-replicating body, answerable to no one but themselves.

They haven't acted thus far, and have accepted having to pay out $100 million or more just to keep from
having certain of their number testify under oath.

Is Dan Blue suddenly going to stand up and say, that he never knew that the lacrosse case was a frame-up
which violated Duke students' constitutional rights?

And that Duke failed its students in every way possible? Shocking!

Since he was on the Board at the time, and is a longtime friend of William Barber, I don't think he can say
that with a straight face.

As well, he solidly backed Brodhead and "affirmed" his leadership when he was up for review.

So, if anything happens now, it will only be because IMHO the bad PR will become terrible PR if they do nothing.

They should show up in a body, to answer questions from the media and especially
from stakeholders, as to how Duke has fared under their oversight.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

abb
Apr 1 2011, 08:04 AM
They will all rat each other out. That is what dishonorable people do.
That's right.

Notice how the Duke statement blames both Nifong and the Durham Police. Even Judge Beaty noted in his opinion that the parties were blaming each other.

Out of the morass of accusations and counter-accusations, we now may very well get a glimmer of the truth.

It is important to remember that Bob Ekstrand clearly stated he did not put all of his explosive information into the McFadyen lawsuit. He kept some important evidence in reserve. Stay tuned.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Baldo
Mar 31 2011, 09:35 PM
"We have a number of documents here that we received in Discovery. We are going to be going over each and every one."

Posted Image

You look a little pale, do you need a glass of water?

What Judge Beaty did was "bad enough".
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

No fooling, sceptical, thank you for your work yesterday. Grace under pressure.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Carrington ruling online:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/52033039/Carrington-v-Duke-Memorandum-Decision-on-Summary-Judgment

ETA: use the "book format" (choice on menu at bottom); it's much easier to use than the "scroll" version
Edited by Quasimodo, Apr 1 2011, 10:28 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Truth Detector
Apr 1 2011, 09:06 AM
Baldo
Mar 31 2011, 09:35 PM
"We have a number of documents here that we received in Discovery. We are going to be going over each and every one."

Posted Image

You look a little pale, do you need a glass of water?

What Judge Beaty did was "bad enough".
Good Morning, President Brodhead. Sir, did you sleep... HERE... all night?
Well, your suit looks rather crumpled..and you gave the cleaning staff a fright.
Let’s begin my morning briefing...the “ruling” must be addressed.
The media keeps calling...Sir, are you underneath the desk?

Sir, it’s so hard to hear you..What’s that? “wound? and salt?
Do really want to say that it was all Wahneema’s fault?
Alright...”Duke made some mistakes”...”Nifong’s the reason why.”
Tell them how YOU have suffered...???? Uhh...better let that last part slide.

Emphasize “the facts kept changing”...yeah, we tried that spin.
Problem is...that TRUTH is constant...if you WAIT till “facts” are in.
There are some rumors flying...that Steele will dump it on YOU... fast.
Sir, you’ve spilled your Milkshake...Oh, is that Maalox in that glass?

Well, that completes our briefing. What’s on your calendar to do?
Representing Duke’s values, as personified in YOU?
Best to get things scheduled...before the depositions start.
You can BET.... the toughest questions...won’t be just...on the lawyers part.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

Quasimodo
Apr 1 2011, 08:35 AM
Posted Image
Absolutely on target!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

CARRINGTON:

Quote:
 

In this case, Plaintiffs contend that they have stated claims for ordinary negligence based on their allegations that Levicy made false statements to investigators, apart from any medicalcare provided to Mangum. However, even if the conduct alleged as to Defendant Levicy did not comply with professional standards or fell below a reasonable standard of care, Plaintiffs canonly bring a negligence claim for the alleged failure to meet the standard of care if Levicy owed a duty of reasonable care
to the Plaintiffs .

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Levicy owed them a “duty to exercise due care in collecting, assessing, analyzing, and reporting thephysical and medical evidence derived from Duke’s examination of Mangum.” However, the Court finds that there is no basis to support the contention that a sexualassault nurse examiner owes a duty to the general public, or to individuals who are members of the public who may subsequently be targeted during a police investigation.

Plaintiffs have cited no North Carolina or Fourth Circuit cases supporting such a duty, and this Court concludes that North Carolina public policy would not support imposing such sweeping potential liability onhealth care professionals for providing assessments and reports to police officers.

Indeed, the Fourth Circuit has rejected third party claims that would impose a duty on a physician to thirdparties, where such a duty could interfere with the physician’s primary duty to the patient.


However, the examination by a SANE is NOT ministering to the 'patient', but collecting evidence for a future
investigation and trial.

I think Beaty is wrong here.


Quote:
 


Therefore, the Court concludes that a nurse or other medical professional does not owe a duty of care to the general public or members of the public who may subsequently be investigated by police based on informationprovided to the police by the medical professional.

Thus, even if at least some of the conduct
alleged as to Defendant Levicy fell below a reasonable standard of care, Plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim for negligence because they have not asserted facts that would support thecontention that Defendants owed a duty of reasonable care to them.


IOW, a nurse who falsifies records or "corrects" them after the fact, is now free to do so, because
she owes no duty to those who may be investigated? (At least, she has no civil liability?)

Edited by Quasimodo, Apr 1 2011, 10:08 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

CARRINGTON:

Quote:
 
It is not sufficient to state simply that all 47 Plaintiffs suffered“severe emotional distress,” and, Plaintiffs have failed to detail the specifics of each Plaintiff’s emotional or mental disorders, condition, or diagnosis.


There are 47 plaintiffs; does he want each one to add two pages to the Complaint--for another 94 pages? After he complained
about the length?

Doesn't a statement of fact have to be accepted as true at this stage of the proceedings? The question now
is whether the plaintiffs have alleged adequate grounds for their suits to continue.

Why is he ruling on a matter of FACT, when that FACT should be presented to the jury (to decide whether there
was emotional distress or not)?

So he is already granting summary judgment to the defendants, without seeing the evidence because he is
asserting that the FACT was not proven?

Does it have to be proven now, at this stage of the proceedings, instead of at trial?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Locomotive Breath

A Christmas Song for Mike Nifong

DA's roasting on a hellish fire
Flames are licking at his toes
Mournful chants are sung by a choir
Of tortured souls sent down below

Everybody knows, a false charge from a lyin' ho'
Will surely send you straight to hell
Wicked fiends, with their eyes all aglow
Will make it hard to sleep too well

They know that Nifong's gotta pay
He's loaded lots of guilt and bad deeds on his way
And every laxer mom is gonna spy
To see if Michael really knows how to cry

So I'm offering this simple gaze
From now to time beyond our view
Although it's been said many times, many ways
Immolation for you.

IM-O-LA-TION for you
====
After a fashion, Merry Christmas!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

CARRINGTON:

Quote:
 
In the present case, based on the allegations in the AmendedComplaint, the Court concludes that there is no factual allegation to state a plausible claim thatGottlieb, Himan, or Wilson made any false representation to Plaintiffs related to the key cardreports, nor is there any basis that would give rise to a duty by Gottlieb, Himan, or Wilson to Plaintiffs to disclose information regarding the key card reports.

Moreover, the allegations of a “conspiracy” are not sufficient to create a cause of action against Gottlieb,Himan, and Wilson based on the allegedly fraudulent actions of Duke employees Drummond,Hendricks, Graves, and Dean.

Finally, Plaintiffs also have not alleged any basis to hold the City of Durham liable for the alleged fraud by Duke.

(snip)

However, the fraud claim brought by the Plaintiff Players in Count 8 against Drummond, Hendricks, Graves, Dean, and Duke related to the key card reports is sufficient to state a claim and provide adequate notice to Defendants of the basis of the claim, and that claim will therefore be allowed to continue
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply