Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Will Duke buy another confidentiality agreement?
Topic Started: Apr 1 2011, 02:42 PM (3,966 Views)
MikeGaynor

The Court permitted discovery to proceed.

Excerpt:

In addition, Plaintiffs have alleged that Steel and Dzau participated in the creation of false
reports, and that Steel, Brodhead, Dzau, and Burness engaged in obstruction of justice by
attempting to conceal their participation in the alleged conspiracies to avoid liability in future
lawsuits. In support of this allegation, Plaintiffs point to an e-mail among Duke officials
regarding the need to meet to “get their stories straight,” with additional instructions to destroy
the e-mail immediately. (Second Am. Compl. ¶1198). While not evidence of obstruction in and
of itself, these allegations at least raise a plausible claim that Defendants acted with intent to
obstruct justice, including intent to obstruct Plaintiffs’ ability to obtain a legal remedy. It will
ultimately be Plaintiffs’ burden to establish actual obstruction of justice by these Defendants,
but the Court will allow this claim to go forward at this time.

Duke settled with the Duke Three and got a confidentiality provision for a payout.

How much would it be worth to Duke, Steel, Broadhead (and the PC extremists generally) to settle confidentiallly and would the plaintiffs be willing to settle confidentially?

Some things are more important than money--like exposing the way radicals have taken control of much of America's educational system (preferably before Election Day 2012).

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Hi Mike! Wonderful to "see" you again!

I agree whole-heartedly with your post. I pray we will see these villains..and the ideology they "serve"... thoroughly exposed.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/2011/04/go...r-calendar.html

Posted Image

Just don't tell Sue's parents!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kerri P.
Member Avatar

Baldo
Apr 1 2011, 03:19 PM
Perfect...... :roflmao: :roflmao:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

"How much would it be worth to Duke, Steel, Broadhead (and the PC extremists generally) to settle confidentiallly and would the plaintiffs be willing to settle confidentially?"

The price would have to include dropping lawsuits against all others besides Duke, would it not?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeGaynor

Not necesssarily. Not all parties have to settle.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

MikeGaynor
Apr 1 2011, 04:09 PM
Not necesssarily. Not all parties have to settle.
Mike, it's my guess that it is highly unlikely ALL parties would settle.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

Joan Foster
Apr 1 2011, 04:16 PM
MikeGaynor
Apr 1 2011, 04:09 PM
Not necesssarily. Not all parties have to settle.
Mike, it's my guess that it is highly unlikely ALL parties would settle.
Can't see Linwood giving up any opportunity to display his legal skills for all and assundry.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

Just checked the justice 4nifong site - nothing at all posted about the Beatty's rulings. Guess they are too busy working on the super dooper graphics - looks like something designed by a junior high student (actually, that is probably an insult to your average junior high student).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

REPOST:
Quote:
 

In the area of civil law, nothing is more questionably moral than settlements. . .
While in some cases they do indeed reflect the best interests and personal wishes
of the parties to the action, in most situations they merely serve to silence the story
in return for a cashier's check. The reflexive impulse towards settlements has turned courtroom
lawyers into backroom negotiators. It has removed face to face, direct encounters
between the parties. And it has robbed the legal process of the therapeutic, healing
potential of bringing together the community in the search for the truth.

The problem is that lawyers who encourage settlements mistakenly presume that the telling
of the story is of no consequence to providing relief.

(The Myth of Moral Justice)



Of how much value to the plaintiffs would public questioning of Brodhead, Steel, Burness,
Trask, Wasiolek, and others be?

And in the presence of the plaintiffs? And where the community could hear it?

How much would this advance their feeling that justice had been done?

How much will their healing be retarded if this is not done
?

Quote:
 



A settlement amounts to an entirely lawful, economically efficient bribe. It is a gag order
without a judge issuing an actual order.

It is the whole noise of the judicial system drowning out the heartache.

What a settlement says between the lines... is the following:

If you sign this agreement and cash this check, you can no longer carry a public grudge.
You cannot speak ill of me. I know you came here to speak, but I am paying you to shut up.
You cannot tell the world what I have done to you, or how I have failed you. In fact, the
receipt of this check is in no way an admission of any fault on my part at all. It is simply
offered to make you go away, along with your story, which I never wanted to hear anyway.
Enjoy your money, because that's all the satisfaction you can take away from this lawsuit.
And never, absolutely never, complain about this matter again--to me or to anyone.

What is moral about such a resolution?

(The Myth of Moral Justice)


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

cks
Apr 1 2011, 04:27 PM
Just checked the justice 4nifong site - nothing at all posted about the Beatty's rulings. Guess they are too busy working on the super dooper graphics - looks like something designed by a junior high student (actually, that is probably an insult to your average junior high student).
Now cks, be fair. As I said on another thread, the good Doctor has to now tie Beaty in as a covert operative to the Carpetbagger Jihad. This is quite a challenging piece of fiction writing even with his vast experience.

I sympathize,

:dsk:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

BTW, litigants do not have to agree to confidentiality.

That does not have to be included in an agreement.

Even if amounts are kept confidential, litigants do not have to agree to be bound
not to speak about other issues or about the opposite side.

All these things are negotiable, and need not be given up.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Walt-in-Durham

cks
Apr 1 2011, 04:22 PM
Can't see Linwood giving up any opportunity to display his legal skills for all and assundry.
Hey, Linwood has done just as well as all the other defense counsel combined and he hasn't paid a cent.

Walt-in-Durham
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

Joan Foster
Apr 1 2011, 04:33 PM
cks
Apr 1 2011, 04:27 PM
Just checked the justice 4nifong site - nothing at all posted about the Beatty's rulings. Guess they are too busy working on the super dooper graphics - looks like something designed by a junior high student (actually, that is probably an insult to your average junior high student).
Now cks, be fair. As I said on another thread, the good Doctor has to now tie Beaty in as a covert operative to the Carpetbagger Jihad. This is quite a challenging piece of fiction writing even with his vast experience.

I sympathize,

:dsk:
Joan - as always, you are so right........my horoscope said today that I should be more kind and considerate!
:laughin: :laughin: :laughin:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Walt-in-Durham
Apr 1 2011, 04:36 PM
cks
Apr 1 2011, 04:22 PM
Can't see Linwood giving up any opportunity to display his legal skills for all and assundry.
Hey, Linwood has done just as well as all the other defense counsel combined and he hasn't paid a cent.

Walt-in-Durham
Best post of the day!!!

:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply