| Remaining Defendants and Counts in Civil Suits; Judge Beaty Retains Some, Drops Others | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 31 2011, 08:15 PM (1,530 Views) | |
| sceptical | Mar 31 2011, 08:15 PM Post #1 |
|
Here is a comprehensive list after Judge Beaty’s ruling of the remaining defendants and counts in the three civil suits stemming from the Duke lacrosse frame-up. Abbreviations: McF = McFadyen et al v. Duke et al Car = Carrington et al v. Duke et al Evans= Evans et v. Durham et al (there are no claims against Duke or its employees in this suit because of a previous settlement) The counts in each case are different; I will try to list those in a later posting. ADDISON: McF Count 5, Car Count 25; Evans Counts 4, 13 BAKER: McF Counts 1, 2, 5, 13; Car Counst 21, 25, 27; Evans Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 BRODHEAD: McF Count 18; Car Count 11 BURNESS: McF Count 18 CHALMERS: McF Counts 1, 2, 5, 13; Car Counts 21, 25, 27; Evans Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 CLARK: McF Count 18; Evans Counts 1, 2, 3, 13, 14 COUNCIL: McF Counts 1, 2, 5, 13; Car Counts 21, 25, 27; Evans Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 DEAN: McF Count 24; Car Counts 3, 23 DRUMMOND: McF Count 24; Car Counts 3, 23 DZAU: McF Count 18 GOTTLIEB: McF Counts 1, 2, 5, 18; Car Counts 21, 23, 25; Evans Counts 1, 2, 3, 13, 14 GRAVES: McF Count 24; Car Counts 3, 23 HIMAN: McF Counts 1, 2, 18; Car Counts 21, 23, 25; Evans Counts 1, 2, 3, 13, 14 HODGE: McF Counts 1, 2, 5, 13; Car Counts 21, 25, 27; Evans Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 LAMB: McF Counts 1, 2, 5, 13, 18; Car Counts 21, 25, 27; Evans Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 LEVICY: McF Counts 1, 2, 18; Car Counts 21, 23 MEEHAN: McF Count 18; Evans Counts 1, 2, 3, 13, 14 NIFONG: McF Counts 1, 2, 5, 18; Evans Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14 RIPBERGER: McF Counts 1, 2, 5, 13; Car Counts 21, 25, 27; Evans Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 RUSS: Car Counts 21, 25, 27; Evans Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 SMITH: McF Counts 2, 24 STEEL: McF Count 18 TRASK: Car Count 11 WASIOLEK: Car Count 11 WILSON: McF Counts 5, 18; Car Counts 23, 25; Evans Counts 1, 2, 3, 13, 14 DUKE HEALTH: McF Counts 18, 32; Car Counts 3, 23 DUKE UNIVERSITY: Mc F Counts 18, 21, 96, 24, 32; Car Counts 3, 8, 11, 19, 23. CITY OF DURHAM: McF Counts 1, 2, 5, 18,25, 26, 41; Car Counts 21, 23, 25, 30, 31, 32; Evans Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 13, 14, 16, 17, 23 DSI: McF Count 18; Evans Counts 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 21 Dismissed from McFadyen: Defendants Humphries, Cooper, Garber, Schwab, Fleming, Best, Stotsenberg, Lange, Trask, Moneta, Haltom, Dawkins, Wasiolek, Bryan, Private Diagnostic, Manly, Arico, Mihaich, Evans, Soukup, Michael, Clayton, and the Duke Police Department. Dismissed from Carrington: Defendants Lange, Moneta, Burness, Dzau, Mihaich, and Arico. With respect to Duke University, there are remaining counts against Brodhead, Steel, Burness, Levicy, Trask, Wasiolek, Dean and others. Arico, Manley, and Moneta were dismissed. (Please let ne know any errors; this was done rapidly). Edited by sceptical, Mar 31 2011, 08:42 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Mar 31 2011, 08:38 PM Post #2 |
|
REMAINING COUNTS IN EVANS LAWSUIT 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 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: SUPERVISORY VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983......................................113 SECURITY).........................................................................................................126 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND CONSPIRACY.......................................127 FOURTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND CONSPIRACY.......................................130 SIXTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE BY DURHAM POLICE...........133 SEVENTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HIRING, TRAINING, DISCIPLINE, AND RETENTION BY DURHAM POLICE...............................................................134 TWENTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HIRING, TRAINING, DISCIPLINE, AND RETENTION BY THE DNA SECURITY DEFENDANTS...............................141 The counts that were removed included many of the counts involving conspiracy and infliction of emotional distress. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 31 2011, 08:50 PM Post #3 |
|
Thanks for this; it will be a help. |
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Mar 31 2011, 09:00 PM Post #4 |
|
REMAINING COUNTS IN McFADYEN LAWSUIT FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: SEARCH AND SEIZURE IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & CONSPIRACY .......................................................................... 286 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: SEARCH AND SEIZURE IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 & CONSPIRACY .......................................................................... 289 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: FALSE PUBLIC STATEMENTS IN VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. §1983 .............................................................................................. 298 THIRTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: SUPERVISORY LIABILTIY FOR VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ................................................................................................ 346 EIGHTEENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: COMMON LAW OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & CONSPIRACY............................................................................... 375 TWENTY-FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: FRAUD .................................................................................................... 391 TWENTY-FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENCE (DURHAM POLICE) ..................................................... 394 TWENTY-SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: NEGLIGENT HIRING, RETENTION,SUPERVISION, TRAINING & DISCIPLINE (DURHAM POLICE) ..................... 395 FORTY-FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE I AND ARTICLE IX OF THE NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION AND CONSPIRACY................................................. Again, the counts involving conspiracy and infliction of emotional distress were dropped, as well as some of the negligence charges. Edited by sceptical, Mar 31 2011, 09:22 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Payback | Mar 31 2011, 09:05 PM Post #5 |
|
sceptical, please, which of these is the Count 11 that Brodhead is still charged with? |
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Mar 31 2011, 09:10 PM Post #6 |
|
Payback, Brodhead is charged in the McFadyen suit, which I have not yet been able to post yet. |
![]() |
|
| Payback | Mar 31 2011, 09:16 PM Post #7 |
|
You are rushing for the common good and I should not delay you --but Brodhead is charged with obstruction of Justice in the McF case, Count 18, right? and he's charged with Count 11 in the Car Case and that charge is for ---you will tell us when you can. Obstruction of justice sounds good; conspiracy would have been better. |
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Mar 31 2011, 09:24 PM Post #8 |
|
Again, I apologize for my haste. I have edited the above lisitng of remaining counts to indicate that it is the remaining counts in the McFadyen case (and not Carrington as originally posted). The way it stands now is correct. |
![]() |
|
| Payback | Mar 31 2011, 09:26 PM Post #9 |
|
Forgive me for hounding you, sceptical. |
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Mar 31 2011, 09:30 PM Post #10 |
|
Count 11 in Carrington: CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD THROUGH ABUSE OF CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP This count concerns the FERPA violations, and Brodhead is charged along with Trask, Wasiolek, and Duke University. Payback, while this is not the "sexiest" charge, it is enough to get Brodhead deposed under oath. (I am having trouble copying my pdf file of the Carrington case). |
![]() |
|
| Payback | Mar 31 2011, 09:45 PM Post #11 |
|
I tell you, sceptical, "constructive fraud" ought to work pretty well as a label for Brodhead's career. He and Potti. I do have to find out what "constructive" means in this context before I start throwing it around. |
![]() |
|
| Payback | Mar 31 2011, 09:47 PM Post #12 |
|
I tell you, sceptical, "constructive fraud" ought to work pretty well as a label for Brodhead's career. He and Potti. I do have to find out what "constructive" means in this context before I start throwing it around. Definitions of constructive fraud on the Web: Constructive fraud comprises all acts or omissions or concealments involving breach of equitable or legal duty or trust or confidence wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn * Constructive fraud is a legal fiction used in the law to describe a situation where a person or entity gained an unfair advantage over another by deceitful, or unfair, methods. Intent does not need to be shown as in the case of actual fraud. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_fraud My my my so what Brodhead was guilty of when he lied about me in the New York TIMES was "constructive fraud!" The word "lie" does come up in some of the definitions. You know,Richard H. Brodhead has been guilty of constructive fraud for how long? The whole academic career, when you look at how he claimed to know who was in the School of Hawthorne and did not have any idea who enrolled there! Sometimes you hear the term that explains it all. Yes, sceptical, I will settle for "constructive fraud" (and "obstruction of justice" for backup). Edited by Payback, Mar 31 2011, 09:52 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Walt-in-Durham | Mar 31 2011, 11:38 PM Post #13 |
|
For those who wish to remain in law enforcement or wish to continue practicing law obstruction of justice is a career killer. For those who wish to ever serve as expert witnesses, obstruction of justice is a career killer. That probably won't bother any of the Gang of 88 as their scholarship is so thin that the will never get a call to be an expert witness. But for Dzau and nurse Tara the obstruction charge is a killer. In a few years Dr. Dzau retires and wants to line his pockets testifying in medical malpractice actions. Just imagine the beginning of cross examination: Counsel: "Doctor, as the result of a March 31, 2011 court order Duke University paid a sum of money on your behalf to settle civil charges that you obstructed justice?" (Note the court reporter inserts the ? mark it's not really a question, just the lawyer making a statement.) Dr. Dzau: "..." It really doesn't matter what he says, the jury isn't going to believe him. Walt-in-Durham |
![]() |
|
| Payback | Mar 31 2011, 11:40 PM Post #14 |
|
This is a rambling exercise based upon a number of Internet definitions which I paraphrase below. It is not meant to instruct Mike Gaynor on intricacies of the law. I am just fascinated by the term “constructive fraud” as the key to Richard H. Brodhead’s career. At bottom, Richard H. Brodhead has gone through his career passing himself off as more competent than he is, and this to the detriment of others. His THE SCHOOL OF HAWTHORNE was a product of constructive fraud, since anyone taking on that project should have found out who the students in Hawthorne’s classes really were, and he has damaged others since anyone who wanted to do a serious book of the subject will be denied a contract. Any publisher would say, “There’s already a book on the subject by the man who is now the great President of Duke University.” I will have to brood over just how his treatment of James Van de Velde constitutes constructive fraud. I’ll bet you that it does. When Steel praised Brodhead as a scholar (not a critic but a scholar) Brodhead stood by smiling and thereby tacitly took credit for skills he never possessed; he also stood by smiling while Steel praised his responsible behavior toward students during his long career. By not disowning what Steel said, Brodhead set up the expectation that he would be a rigorous administrator who would know when works of extreme Political Correctness were not of any scholarly value and he set up the expectation that he would protect students of Duke University from anyone who would falsely accuse and abuse them. Brodhead let everyone think he was competent to be President of Duke University when he was not, and whether or not he was committing deceit does not matter: he was guilty of constructive fraud. I see constructive knowledge defined as information that a person is presumed by law to have, regardless of whether he or she actually does, when such knowledge is obtainable by the exercise of reasonable care. A reviewer of a major biography in the New York TIMES, according to this definition, is presumed to have such knowledge as is obtainable by the exercise of reasonable care in reading the book being reviewed even if the reviewer had not known about such things before accepting the job and taking pay for reviewing a book. By this definition Richard H. Brodhead had constructive knowledge of the facts which he then misrepresented. You are guilty of constructive fraud if you gain an unfair advantage over another (as in damaging his reputation so that you look superior to him) by deceitful, or unfair, methods. Certainly by this definition Brodhead was guilty of constructive fraud in his review of the second volume of my biography in the New York TIMES. A Dean at Yale represents himself to the New York TIMES as being competent to review a biography based on archival research. When he is not so competent or else deceitfully behaves as if he were incompetent, that Dean at Yale is breaching the TIMES’ trust and confidence in him by failing to do his duty to write a competent review. Whether or not Brodhead intended with evil intent to injure me by the lies does not matter, he is guilty of constructive fraud by harming me in a situation where he deceitfully characterized my work. He could have been just having fun, being witty, and still be guilty of constructive fraud. In passing himself off as a competent reviewer to the New York TIMES Brodhead imposed upon the newspaper and went on to violate public and private trust or confidence in him, thereby depriving the paper and the public and me of an honest and fair review. Again, even if Brodhead was merely stupid or ignorant does not matter: he breached a duty to write an honest review which incorporated the knowledge that we have to assume he had access to since it was there on the pages of the book being reviewed. Brodhead’s breach of his duty to the New York TIMES resulted in a tendency to deceive the TIMES and the reading public. Brodhead committed constructive fraud when he did not disclose his incompetence to review a biography based on archival research. Image what will happen when Robert Ekstrand takes up Brodhead’s constructive fraud—Ekstrand, whose blood boiled as he witnessed one of Brodhead’s moral meltdowns! Edited by Payback, Mar 31 2011, 11:41 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Apr 1 2011, 12:04 AM Post #15 |
|
Yep, that's a big one! The Defendants will be sweating Discovery and the depositions. It will follow them for quite a while. just like being on the cover of Newsweek! 2006 Duke Lacrosse Team, Families, and Coaches it is your time now. Edited by Baldo, Apr 1 2011, 12:07 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







3:31 AM Jul 11