Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Will Duke buy another confidentiality agreement?
Topic Started: Apr 1 2011, 02:42 PM (3,969 Views)
Joan Foster

I'd just like to add...that whatever these families decide...I would never criticize. We have not walked in their shoes, nor do we know the full stories. If they settle, then God Bless them, that is their right.

I'll always think of them as one of the most tenacious, and principled group of people ever to unfortunately live out a tragedy in the public eye. :rose:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

I believe a price can be set to eliminate the cases and walk away happy.

How much would it cost to assure all the plaintiffs that the guilty parties learned a lesson and it is unlikely to ever happen again?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

kbp
Apr 2 2011, 04:55 PM
I believe a price can be set to eliminate the cases and walk away happy.

How much would it cost to assure all the plaintiffs that the guilty parties learned a lesson and it is unlikely to ever happen again?
I know what my price would be. Jail time. Not negotiable.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

lol @ Abb

I am confused about the insurance settlement. Is AIG or their subsidiary still responsible for any future cost as payout or would there be a cap on that? Is the insurance a new policy? I guess I am trying to understand how they fit into the March 2006 event.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

abb
Apr 2 2011, 05:01 PM
kbp
Apr 2 2011, 04:55 PM
I believe a price can be set to eliminate the cases and walk away happy.

How much would it cost to assure all the plaintiffs that the guilty parties learned a lesson and it is unlikely to ever happen again?
I know what my price would be. Jail time. Not negotiable.
LOL!

If you're hoping for criminal punishment to result from the lawsuits (follow), you'll never be satisfied.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

Well, there will never be jail time (though there should.....and longer than the sleepover that Mikey had at the local hoosegow).

Joan is right - tha twhatever the families decide to settle for - no one should ever criticize their decision.

That said, a full public apology would and should be front and center - no waffling (as in mistakes were made......) but a full frontal apology beginning with the words that "I knowingingly allowed myself so cast aside the very principles that I profess to believe.....that a person is innocent until proven guilty.....and instead swallowed the politically correct mantra that no white athlete could be anything but guilty......"
Edited by cks, Apr 2 2011, 06:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

kbp
Apr 2 2011, 05:26 PM
abb
Apr 2 2011, 05:01 PM
kbp
Apr 2 2011, 04:55 PM
I believe a price can be set to eliminate the cases and walk away happy.

How much would it cost to assure all the plaintiffs that the guilty parties learned a lesson and it is unlikely to ever happen again?
I know what my price would be. Jail time. Not negotiable.
LOL!

If you're hoping for criminal punishment to result from the lawsuits (follow), you'll never be satisfied.
Perhaps. But that's what will set things right. The only thing tyranny understands is power and retribution.

Period.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Walt-in-Durham

chatham
Apr 2 2011, 05:07 PM
lol @ Abb

I am confused about the insurance settlement. Is AIG or their subsidiary still responsible for any future cost as payout or would there be a cap on that? Is the insurance a new policy? I guess I am trying to understand how they fit into the March 2006 event.
There is a cap. $5,000,000. Durham is responsible for the first $500,000 and AIG is responsible for the rest. Under North Carolina's version of sovereign immunity no municipality, nor the state may be sued in tort unless they waive sovereign immunity by purchasing liability insurance. Durham waived sovereign immunity by purchasing a liability policy. Thus, the city's only liability is for the deductible. Further, liability is limited to the amount of insurance purchased. Thus, if a jury awarded $1.0 billion against Durham, the city's insurance carrier would only be responsible for $4.5 million and the city for half a million. No recovery for the amount exceeding $5.0 million. There is an exception for intentional acts which are not insurable. Further the doctrine only covers tort cases. Thus if the city defaults on billion dollars worth of bonds, it is still on the hook.

That's why I continually say that Durham is not exposed to large financial damages in this case. Judge Beaty dismissed the punitive damage claim, the only claim that could have gone beyond the sovereign immunity doctrine. (As I have long expected.) The only possible reason for Durham to spend even the first cent defending this case is it wants to avoid the imposition of an outside monitor over the DPD.

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

Walt-in-Durham
Apr 2 2011, 06:50 PM
chatham
Apr 2 2011, 05:07 PM
lol @ Abb

I am confused about the insurance settlement. Is AIG or their subsidiary still responsible for any future cost as payout or would there be a cap on that? Is the insurance a new policy? I guess I am trying to understand how they fit into the March 2006 event.
There is a cap. $5,000,000. Durham is responsible for the first $500,000 and AIG is responsible for the rest. Under North Carolina's version of sovereign immunity no municipality, nor the state may be sued in tort unless they waive sovereign immunity by purchasing liability insurance. Durham waived sovereign immunity by purchasing a liability policy. Thus, the city's only liability is for the deductible. Further, liability is limited to the amount of insurance purchased. Thus, if a jury awarded $1.0 billion against Durham, the city's insurance carrier would only be responsible for $4.5 million and the city for half a million. No recovery for the amount exceeding $5.0 million. There is an exception for intentional acts which are not insurable. Further the doctrine only covers tort cases. Thus if the city defaults on billion dollars worth of bonds, it is still on the hook.

That's why I continually say that Durham is not exposed to large financial damages in this case. Judge Beaty dismissed the punitive damage claim, the only claim that could have gone beyond the sovereign immunity doctrine. (As I have long expected.) The only possible reason for Durham to spend even the first cent defending this case is it wants to avoid the imposition of an outside monitor over the DPD.

Walt-in-Durham
Thanks Walt.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Walt-in-Durham
Apr 2 2011, 06:50 PM
The only possible reason for Durham to spend even the first cent defending this case is it wants to avoid the imposition of an outside monitor over the DPD.

Walt-in-Durham
I think it's much more simple than that - they don't want the truth known. That is, that the DPD is an organization that pays no attention to the Rule of Law and does whatever it wants to get the results it wants.

After The Frame, the ginned up SWAT raids on Dukies over a Fed-Exed box of weed to a fictitious name, and the other SWAT raids on a frat house for underage drinking, we know what the bastards are: jack-booted thugs that have badges and guns who extract tribute from the law-abiding to fund their comfortable stipends.

This is why the Mob is no longer a viable business model. Government - at all levels - has copied their method of operation and the Mob can no longer compete!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
MikeKell
Member Avatar
Still a Newbie
Keep in mind there are crimes yet to be committed. Bonds isn't being prosecuted for steroids, but for the accusation of lying about it. Clinton wasn't impeached for infidelity, but for lying about it in a sworn deposition in a civil case. In my worst moments, I am hoping FOR perjury traps so delicate that the Duke leadership will find themselves preparing for jailtime themselves.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

MikeKell
Apr 2 2011, 10:50 PM
Keep in mind there are crimes yet to be committed. Bonds isn't being prosecuted for steroids, but for the accusation of lying about it. Clinton wasn't impeached for infidelity, but for lying about it in a sworn deposition in a civil case. In my worst moments, I am hoping FOR perjury traps so delicate that the Duke leadership will find themselves preparing for jailtime themselves.
Thank you! That certainly sends some of us off to bed with pleasant thoughts!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

It is said that the cover-up is often worse than the crime e.g. Watergate.

With the lacrosse case, I suspect we are going to find a massive conspiracy to cover-up initial mistakes by Nifong, Duke and the Durham Police. The e-mails alone should make for great reading. I also look forward to any minutes or records of Duke's "Crisis Management Team."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

I want to drop an off-topic comment in here.

I have been revising some of my old posts from the pinned series to put into my blog now that Judge Beaty has ruled. I am bringing them somewhat up to date, and even the ones not much revised take on a new light now that there will be a Discovery process on charges of obstruction of justice and constructive fraud. I may repeat myself just the least bit, but I think this is the time to keep up with whatever pressure the Truth, openly expressed, can put on the damaged psyche of Richard H. Brodhead.

Sunday Morning: I just put up on my blog my Amazon review of UNTIL PROVEN INNOVENT from 27 September 2007. Some people may have forgotten or may never have known. Let them go read for themselves about Brodhead's 2006 "moral meltdown." (Ekstrand's great phrase.)

Question: How many moral meltdowns can you experience and have anything of substance left, especially if you don't have much of substance to start with?
Edited by Payback, Apr 3 2011, 10:10 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

MikeKell
Apr 2 2011, 10:50 PM
Keep in mind there are crimes yet to be committed. Bonds isn't being prosecuted for steroids, but for the accusation of lying about it. Clinton wasn't impeached for infidelity, but for lying about it in a sworn deposition in a civil case. In my worst moments, I am hoping FOR perjury traps so delicate that the Duke leadership will find themselves preparing for jailtime themselves.
Somewhere in that process it involves a prosecutor looking to further their professional / political career by charging government and/or educational system employees.

The cases you cite were federal investigations, all hot topics in the headlines before the charges were filed.

We may have better luck waiting for Santa Claus to put them all on the "naughty" list ...which, when veiwing it in a financial nature, may someday produce a lump of coal for many of them.
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