| Will Duke buy another confidentiality agreement? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 1 2011, 02:42 PM (3,967 Views) | |
| NDLax84 | Apr 5 2011, 11:14 PM Post #76 |
|
Let me tell you something, pendejo.
|
I would be very disheartened to find this to be true of the plaintiffs. If it turns out to have really been about finding the happy number, and not about exposing Institutional and Governmental abuse of innocent citizens in conspiratorially affirmative disregard of the protections guaranteed those citizens under the Constitutions of North Carolina and the United States, I, for one of many, will be disgusted. "I would smile and say, "Dick, you've picked on the wrong families, and you and all your cronies will pay, every day for the rest of your lives." I do so hope that these families are cut of the same cloth as Rae Evans. MOO Edited by NDLax84, Apr 5 2011, 11:15 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| agatha | Apr 6 2011, 06:55 AM Post #77 |
|
Not just any jail time, a long stay in a state prison. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Apr 6 2011, 09:31 AM Post #78 |
|
The PEOPLE who must pay for any liability the defendants created need something to keep it fresh in their memories …something like an annual tax bill or budget reductions. How do you make them pay the most? What is a high enough price? |
![]() |
|
| sdsgo | Apr 6 2011, 06:32 PM Post #79 |
|
NDLax84 From my previous post: "The only reason the parties won’t settle is that they can’t agree on a price." ..."I suspect that we’ll learn that a few people were not as bad as expected while others were outright scoundrels. Many, for whatever reason, simply crossed the line between acceptable behavior and obstruction of justice." ..."I suspect that you’re really going to enjoy the next year. " The price (not just $'s) depends on the facts uncovered or proven during the discovery process. So, don't worry about the final resolution now; just enjoy discovery. The future will take care of itself. |
![]() |
|
| NDLax84 | Apr 6 2011, 08:47 PM Post #80 |
|
Let me tell you something, pendejo.
|
sdsgo, I wasn't taking issue with your post, per se, and apologize if you equated my picking up upon one line to disagreement with your general sentiment. I get the upshot of what you were saying. I highlighted the line I did merely as a springboard to articulating my biggest fear. I don't think it will prove well-founded, as I do believe the impetus behind commencement of these suits in the first instance was morally frounded. I just hope the claimants will not lose sight of that initial impetus when presented with the offer they can't refuse. |
![]() |
|
| kbp | Apr 6 2011, 09:33 PM Post #81 |
|
The RCD case against Durham should be a given to go all the way. |
![]() |
|
| NDLax84 | Apr 6 2011, 10:33 PM Post #82 |
|
Let me tell you something, pendejo.
|
As we say to our attack on EMO: "GREEN LIGHT!!!" |
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Apr 6 2011, 10:37 PM Post #83 |
|
I have always wondered why Duke has been willing to spend tens of millions of dollars in settlement costs and legal fees to avoid depositions and litigation. There must be some devastating information they must be trying to protect. I think it is clear that the lacrosse players and parents in the Carrington suit will not be silenced by a settlement offer that does not bring out the facts and provide accountability. I also cannot see Ekstrand's clients (McFadyen et al) settling for a confidential agreement since they were harmed even more by Duke than the other unindicted players. It's not about the money at this point, since Reade, Collin and Dave already were paid off by Duke, and the unindicted players long ago rejected an offer by Duke for their legal fees and expenses. The strategy by Duke and its lawyers (e.g. Jamie Gorelick) to buy silence has failed, despite the millions expended so far. The strategy by Duke to delay has partially suceeded. After Judge Beaty's comprehensive ruling, I don't see any way Duke can avoid depositions eventually. |
![]() |
|
| Baldo | Apr 6 2011, 11:20 PM Post #84 |
|
I signed up April 2006 to Court TV when I thought an injustice was being done. Over the next few months I quickly had my suspicions realized. Like many of you I spent a lot of time on this case. I believe those players & families are the only ones who know what they went through. It is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal one. I can't imagine any settlement without a stipulation of facts, an apology, and compensation including punitives for the real damage they have suffered. Five years old today Ryan McFadyen and his Family had their world ripped apart. What happened to them was horrible. Nifong knew the facts of the case and with Judge Stephens tried to destroy that Family, and yes I still think Judge Stephens deserves to be censured. Brodhead must go. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Apr 7 2011, 07:12 AM Post #85 |
|
Deleted User
|
Does anybody know where the money is coming from to pay for Duke's defense? At what point do we see the costs average out to $1 million per enrolled student? Will the BOT, who is charged with the protection of the university, eventually see the light and realize that some acts of contrition might save this university? |
|
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 7 2011, 07:23 AM Post #86 |
|
Duke is a private tax exempt charity; ultimate oversight of how it handles its funds rests with the AG. If there is a conflict of interest in having the trustees spend Duke's money on what may be considered their own (and not Duke's) defense, then the normative course would be for those trustees to recuse themselves with regards to any decisions about trial matters and let an interim set of trustees appointed by the court or the AG, appointed for the purpose, handle the defense expenditures. In fact, that is routine in Britain, whenever the trustee handling of a trust is called into question. Duke stakeholders need to petition the AG to examine exactly how much the trustees are spending, and whether or not there is a conflict of interest; and to what extent the beneficiaries of the charity--the students and faculty--may see their interests harmed. Even a few requests may prod the AG's office to at least open a file (for CYA purposes if nothing else). Contact form: http://www.ncdoj.gov/Home/ContactNCDOJ.aspx Attorney General’s Office 9001 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-9001 Telephone: (919) 716-6400 Fax: (919) 716-6750 |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |






3:30 AM Jul 11