|
Remaining Defendants and Counts in Civil Suits; Judge Beaty Retains Some, Drops Others
|
|
Topic Started: Mar 31 2011, 08:15 PM (1,533 Views)
|
|
MikeKell
|
Apr 1 2011, 09:05 PM
Post #16
|
|
Still a Newbie
- Posts:
- 1,422
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #77
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
The fact that the leading charges in each case stuck means that the strongest points and the most damning ones are the ones going forward. (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th in one case, 1st, 2nd, 5th in the other)
|
|
|
| |
|
sceptical
|
Apr 1 2011, 10:53 PM
Post #17
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,874
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #264
- Joined:
- Apr 30, 2008
|
- sceptical
- Mar 31 2011, 09:30 PM
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, I erred in my summary of Count 11 in Carrington-- the one that does name Brodhead. It was not about FERPA. I have finally been able to get a copy of the First Amended Carrington complaint.
Judge Beaty did allow this cause of action to go forward.
Here is Count 11 for your use:
- Quote:
-
COUNT ELEVEN CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD THROUGH ABUSE OF CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONSHIP
(Against Defendants Duke University, Richard Brodhead, Tallman Trask, Sue Wasiolek, J. Wesley Covington) 549. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in Paragraphs 1 through 548 above as if set forth fully herein. 550. A relationship of trust and confidence existed between defendant Sue Wasiolek and the plaintiffs, whom she voluntarily undertook to advise during the lacrosse rape hoax crisis. This confidential relationship was based upon her official role as Dean of Students and her status a trusted and authoritative advisor to students in difficulty; her role as an attorney bound by canons of legal ethics and upright dealing; and her role as an authorized representative and agent of Duke University to its students. She stood in a special relationship of mutual benefit and control with respect to the lacrosse players. Defendants Richard Brodhead and Tallman Trask held similar positions of authority at Duke University, and enjoyed a similar relationship of trust and confidence with plaintiffs. Due to this relationship of trust and confidence, the above-named defendants were bound in equity and good conscience to act in good faith and with due regard for the interests of plaintiffs, who reposed confidence in them. 551. Defendants abused their relationship of trust and confidence to harm the plaintiffs. Defendant Wasiolek did so by advising the plaintiff lacrosse players not to tell 183 their parents of the rape allegations made against them and of the legal jeopardy facing them, and advising them not to seek and obtain legal representation, in violation of North Carolina rules of professional ethics. Among other Duke officials, Defendant Brodhead contributed to this constructive fraud by reinforcing and reaffirming that the Duke administration stood in a relationship of trust and confidence with the players, and Defendant Trask contributed to it by reinforcing Wasiolek’s advice to the players not to procure legal representation. This conduct was directly contrary to the plaintiffs’ interest, placed them in grave legal jeopardy, and had the direct and predictable effect of prolonging and exacerbating the rape hoax crisis, and thereby harmed plaintiffs. 552. These defendants also abused their relationship of trust and confidence with the plaintiffs by steering them to defendant Wes Covington for confidential advice and guidance, including legal advice. Wasiolek and Covington also exploited the unique relationship of trust, confidence, and authority that Coach Pressler enjoyed with the plaintiffs by using Pressler as a conduit for their advice, and a promoter of Covington. Covington and Wasiolek also used Pressler’s relationship with the plaintiffs to arrange for uncounseled interrogations with the Durham Investigators that were contrary to the plaintiffs’ legal interests. 553. Defendant Wes Covington enjoyed a position of trust and confidence with the plaintiffs. This position was created by his holding himself out to them as their lawyer and/or confidential counselor, and was reinforced by Wasiolek’s recommendation that the plaintiffs seek his confidential advice and her representation that he was acting on 184 their behalf. Covington collaborated with Wasiolek and other Duke officials in abusing this position, and subordinating the interests of the plaintiff lacrosse players to the interests of Duke University and its officials. 554. In abusing their positions of trust and confidence, above-named defendants were motivated by the desire to serve and protect Duke University’s and their own personal interests over the interests of the plaintiffs. Defendants did not disclose this conflict of interest to the plaintiffs. 555. Plaintiffs suffered injuries as a direct and foreseeable consequence of the abuse of these positions of trust and confidence. Among other things, this abuse prevented them from procuring independent legal representation at the critical initial stages of the rape hoax investigation. It foreseeably and proximately caused the prolonging of the rape investigation and the resulting emotional distress, permanent reputational harm, loss of educational opportunities, and other injuries to plaintiffs. It also enhanced the injury inflicted on the plaintiffs by other defendants in the rape hoax crisis. 556. The actions of defendant Duke officers and employees in perpetrating this constructive fraud were performed in the scope of employment. Duke’s officers, directors, trustees and/or managers participated in, ratified, and condoned the fraud. 557. This constructive fraud was fraudulent, willful and wanton, and malicious.
|
|
|
| |
|
Payback
|
Apr 1 2011, 11:50 PM
Post #18
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,620
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #288
- Joined:
- May 1, 2008
|
Thank you, sceptical, oh great benefactor! I will redo the paragraph on Van de Velde now, using this as a guide.
|
|
|
| |
|
Deleted User
|
Apr 1 2011, 11:54 PM
Post #19
|
|
Deleted User
|
Who pays for Brodhead's defense? Himself, or Duke? If I were RB or RS, I think I would volunteer to teach kindergarten in Siberia, ASAP.
|
|
|
| |
|
Baldo
|
Apr 2 2011, 12:01 AM
Post #20
|
|
- Posts:
- 59,953
- Group:
- Global Moderators
- Member
- #45
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
ARTICLE XXIX. INDEMNIFICATION
1.Every Trustee and Officer of the University shall be indemnified to the full extent permitted under the provisions of the North Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act currently in effect and as that statute may be amended from time to time. http://trustees.duke.edu/governing/bylaws.php
Brodhead's defense will be paid by Duke
|
|
|
| |
|
Payback
|
Apr 2 2011, 12:20 AM
Post #21
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,620
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #288
- Joined:
- May 1, 2008
|
- Baldo
- Apr 2 2011, 12:01 AM
ARTICLE XXIX. INDEMNIFICATION
1.Every Trustee and Officer of the University shall be indemnified to the full extent permitted under the provisions of the North Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act currently in effect and as that statute may be amended from time to time. http://trustees.duke.edu/governing/bylaws.phpBrodhead's defense will be paid by Duke I've just been retyping much of what sceptical posted from Count 11. What incalculable harm Brodhead has done Duke, and Duke gets to pay his defense. And Brodhead will hang on to his job until he's finally forced out, in order to keep the legal protection of Duke?
Steel may have deserved all this for stuffing Brodhead down the university's throat, but Duke really did not deserve Brodhead. All this makes you sorry for a whole lot of people connected to Duke.
|
|
|
| |
|
jarms
|
Apr 2 2011, 06:50 AM
Post #22
|
|
- Posts:
- 351
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #443
- Joined:
- Feb 28, 2009
|
- Payback
- Apr 2 2011, 12:20 AM
- Baldo
- Apr 2 2011, 12:01 AM
ARTICLE XXIX. INDEMNIFICATION
1.Every Trustee and Officer of the University shall be indemnified to the full extent permitted under the provisions of the North Carolina Nonprofit Corporation Act currently in effect and as that statute may be amended from time to time. http://trustees.duke.edu/governing/bylaws.phpBrodhead's defense will be paid by Duke
I've just been retyping much of what sceptical posted from Count 11. What incalculable harm Brodhead has done Duke, and Duke gets to pay his defense. And Brodhead will hang on to his job until he's finally forced out, in order to keep the legal protection of Duke? Steel may have deserved all this for stuffing Brodhead down the university's throat, but Duke really did not deserve Brodhead. All this makes you sorry for a whole lot of people connected to Duke. Payback, the indemnity obligation would apply based on when Brodhead's conduct occurred, not when final judgment is rendered. Thus, he could retire today and still be indemnified if her were found liable for the frame 10 years from now.
|
|
|
| |
|
Payback
|
Apr 3 2011, 11:25 AM
Post #23
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,620
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #288
- Joined:
- May 1, 2008
|
Thanks, jarms. I assume, then, that Brodhead is not picking up any of the legal fees for the suit by Van de Velde that was reinstated in December 2007 and is racing toward trial. Yale is paying? Baldo, was it, who had an image of a billboard showing what Brodhead was costing Duke? If we could only have that as a LieStopper logo.
|
|
|
| |
|
MikeZPU
|
Apr 3 2011, 12:36 PM
Post #24
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,671
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #92
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
Wow -- I go away to Disney World for a couple days, and don't buy internet time (interesting story later), and what we've all been waiting for finally happens!
Now, I have to go and digest it all. Thanks so much for posting all of this, and for the analysis presented so far!
And Mangum was arrested again! My gosh, I'll never go a couple days without internet again
|
|
|
| |
|
abb
|
Apr 3 2011, 12:54 PM
Post #25
|
|
- Posts:
- 39,832
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #4
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- MikeZPU
- Apr 3 2011, 12:36 PM
Wow -- I go away to Disney World for a couple days, and don't buy internet time (interesting story later), and what we've all been waiting for finally happens! Now, I have to go and digest it all. Thanks so much for posting all of this, and for the analysis presented so far! And Mangum was arrested again! My gosh, I'll never go a couple days without internet again  "I was taught when I was a young reporter that it's news when we say it is. I think that's still true -- it's news when 'we' say it is. It's just who 'we' is has changed" David Carr (b. 1956). US Journalist, NY Times Reporter. CNN "Reliable Sources", Sunday, August 10, 2008.
|
|
|
| |
|
MikeZPU
|
Apr 3 2011, 02:40 PM
Post #26
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,671
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #92
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
Hey Dick: how's all the millions you shelled out to Jamie Gorelick working for you?
Edited by MikeZPU, Apr 3 2011, 02:41 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Payback
|
Apr 3 2011, 04:44 PM
Post #27
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,620
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #288
- Joined:
- May 1, 2008
|
- MikeZPU
- Apr 3 2011, 12:36 PM
Wow -- I go away to Disney World for a couple days, and don't buy internet time (interesting story later), and what we've all been waiting for finally happens! Now, I have to go and digest it all. Thanks so much for posting all of this, and for the analysis presented so far! And Mangum was arrested again! My gosh, I'll never go a couple days without internet again  Not one great thread to follow but two!!! Mike, is your head still spinning?
|
|
|
| |
|
Quasimodo
|
Apr 3 2011, 04:57 PM
Post #28
|
|
- Posts:
- 38,127
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #17
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Payback
- Apr 3 2011, 11:25 AM
a billboard showing what Brodhead was costing Duke? If we could only have that as a LieStopper logo.
|
|
|
| |
|
MikeZPU
|
Apr 3 2011, 07:49 PM
Post #29
|
|
- Posts:
- 11,671
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #92
- Joined:
- Apr 28, 2008
|
- Payback
- Apr 3 2011, 04:44 PM
Not one great thread to follow but two!!! Mike, is your head still spinning? For sure! I am reading through KC's summary of Beaty's decisons on what counts move forward.
I wonder if Walt can give us a clarification on one particular statement by KC:
"As I noted yesterday, the university did score a victory in the dismissal of claims against the most virulently anti-lacrosse member of the upper administration, Larry Moneta, who would have been a disaster for the university in any deposition."
Even if the claims against Moneta are dismissed, isn't there still the possibility that he can be deposed?
|
|
|
| |
|
Payback
|
Apr 3 2011, 07:51 PM
Post #30
|
|
- Posts:
- 2,620
- Group:
- Tier1
- Member
- #288
- Joined:
- May 1, 2008
|
- Quasimodo
- Apr 3 2011, 04:57 PM
- Payback
- Apr 3 2011, 11:25 AM
a billboard showing what Brodhead was costing Duke? If we could only have that as a LieStopper logo.
 I am inordinately fond of this. In fact, I love this and wish I could see it full size, in real life.
|
|
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|