Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Hiring Gorelick; John in Carolina from 2009
Topic Started: Apr 7 2011, 08:10 AM (809 Views)
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/02/chronicle-reports-gorelicks-hiring-look.html

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2009

The Chronicle Reports Gorelick’s Hiring: A Look Back


Just over a year ago– Feb. 7, 2008 to be exact - The Chronicle (TC) ran a story headlined: “University hires lawyer for civil suit.” Here’s that TC in full with my comments following below the star line.

TC began - - -

Duke has hired former U.S. deputy attorney general Jamie Gorelick to assist in the defense against the federal civil rights lawsuit filed by three unindicted members of the 2005-2006 men's lacrosse team, University officials confirmed Wednesday.

"At different times, we hire different attorneys depending on what skills we are looking for," said John Burness, senior vice president for public affairs and government relations. "Jamie Gorelick is one of the most respected lawyers in this country and having her on our team of lawyers working on this matter will be very helpful."

Professor of Law Thomas Metzloff said Gorelick will be able to help by sorting through the 379-page-long complaint and thinking through the "creative" civil rights theories it employs.

(snip)

"It is good to have that level of expertise to make sure you have a consistent and coordinated level of response," Metzloff said.

[Is that what we saw from Gorelick's responses?]

(snip)

"'Consortium' is not a legal term to me," Metzloff said. "The average complaint is less than 20 to 30 pages, but it depends on the context of the complaint. I read thousands of complaints, and this one is significantly longer than any I have heard of."

(snip)

Duke administration officials have said the lawsuit was misdirected toward the University-a sentiment Metzloff echoed.

"I'd like this whole thing to go away," he said.

[Can't the Duke law school do better than to have ONE professor say he thinks the complaint is too long? Was
he around to watch the railroading of innocent Duke students in 2006, and that didn't upset him any?]


*******************************************

Comments:

My reactions reading the story today are the same as they were last Feb. 7: It’s very one-sided and fails to report what Gorelick’s hiring really meant.

I’ve no problem with TC’s repeated quoting of Professor Metzloff, beginning with his sneering reference to the complaint's "’creative’" civil rights theories[.]”

But why is Metzloff, who in TC’s story just echoes what we’d already heard from the Allen Building, the only attorney TC quotes?

Any candid attorney could’ve told TC what it should have told its readers: Duke’s hiring Gorelick meant Duke - - contrary to its dismissive public comments about the complaint - - realized it was in for a very tough battle defending itself against the complaint’s allegations.

But the story makes no mention of TC trying to get a reaction from anyone other than Metzloff and VP Burness.

I can understand TC placing early in the story Duke’s public explanation for hiring Gorelick:

"At different times, we hire different attorneys depending on what skills we are looking for," said John Burness, senior vice president for public affairs and government relations. "Jamie Gorelick is one of the most respected lawyers in this country and having her on our team of lawyers working on this matter will be very helpful."

But TC failed its readers by not questioning Burness once he’d provided his bromide explanation.

The two most obvious questions TC should have asked Burness were: “Doesn’t hiring Gorelick mean Duke takes Eckstrand’s complaint very seriously?” and “Gorelick’s had very little, if any, experience litigating in the complex areas the Ekstrand suit involves. So why was she selected?”

I can't find anything in TC's story the Allen Building could complain about. On the other hand, TC readers were shorted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://dukechronicle.com/node/114498

Lobbying for education (Duke Chronicle)
By Jason Wagner
June 10, 1998

(snip)

"University leaders must juggle government relations and public affairs," Hartle noted. "[Senior Vice President for Public Affairs John] Burness is just a classic big-picture person," Hartle said. "He understands how a variety of pieces fit together and how colleges and universities can make their case."

(snip)

The announcement of the Contract with America-the Republican party's 1994 national Congressional platform-sparked major University lobbying efforts on a scale not seen for several years, Burness said.

"The University receives about 30 percent of its funding from the federal government,"
Burness said, so any cutback could evolve into a huge new financial burden.

[How would the government's application of sanctions for violations of FERPA (and lying to the court
afterwards about it) impact Duke?]


"I think when the Contract was on the table it sort of was a wake-up call," he added.

(snip)

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Why would you hire Gorelick if you thought the case was a slam-dunk to be dismissed,
and that you hadn't done anything?

Why would Durham, which would never have to spend more than $500,000 UNLESS IT WAS SHOWN
TO HAVE ACTED CRIMINALLY, spend $4.5 million on additional attorney fees?

Why don't the Duke stakeholders and the Durham taxpayers have a right to have the answers
to these questions?

(And why isn't anybody in the media asking them?)

Edited by Quasimodo, Apr 7 2011, 08:26 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo


There's a certain mindset which says that "sometimes good people have to suffer for the good of the organization" (can't remember at present just who said that. . .)

Jamie Gorelick is reported to have been ready to charge the LAPD with federal civil rights violations if O. J. Simpson had been found guilty. IOW, she would have been ready to launch an investigation to appease a segment of public opinion. The LAPD would then have been investigated, not on the basis of whether or not there might have been civil rights violations, but on the basis of whether or not public opinion had to be appeased.

I have to wonder if the lax case had been dismissed early, whether or not a similarly-minded DOJ might not have launched an investigation to appease the cries of outrage from the local community.

("Sometimes good people have to suffer for the good of the organization")

Surely Victoria Peterson would have demanded as much.

That is a nightmare--Justice reduced to PR.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

What's wrong with bureaucrats making a bundle? This is America, ain't it?

Quote:
 

Ralph Nader
Robert Weissman
P.O. Box 19312
Washington, D.C. 20036

September 25, 2006

Chairman Christopher Cox
Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, NE
Washington, DC 20549

Dear Chairman Cox,

As you continue to investigate the Fannie Mae accounting debacle, we are writing to urge you to seek civil sanctions, including disgorgement, from senior executives who profited directly from the misconduct at Fannie Mae, and that you urge the Department of Justice to give careful consideration to criminal prosecution of these individuals.

(snip)

Top officers at Fannie Mae benefited personally from the ensuing wrongdoing.

According to OFHEO vi, each of Fannie Mae's most heavily compensated executives derived more than half of their massive payouts from compensation components tied to attaining EPS goals:

* Fannie Mae CEO and Chair Franklin Raines obtained $90,128,761 in compensation from 1998 to 2003. Of this amount, $52,815,708 was derived from components tied to attaining EPS goals.


* Fannie Mae CFO Timothy Howard received $30,155,029 in compensation from 1998 to 2003. Of this amount, $16,764,405 was derived from components tied to attaining EPS goals.


* Fannie Mae Vice Chair Jamie Gorelick received $26,466,834 in compensation from 1998 to 2003. Of this amount, $14,898,778 was derived from components tied to attaining EPS goals.

[Yes, that's $26 MILLION]


* Then-Chief Operating Officer and current Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd received $26,306,057 in compensation from 1998 to 2003. Of this amount, $14,562,380 was derived from components tied to attaining EPS goals.


* Executive Vice President Robert Levin received $26,418,623 in compensation from 1998 to 2003. Of this amount, $15,272,645 was derived from components tied to attaining EPS goals.

(snip)

Unless evidence emerges that contradicts the findings of the OFHEO report, the Fannie Mae case presents a classic set of precise facts and abuses for disgorgement and other sanctions. Here, according to OFHEO, it was the very collaboratively planned executive compensation system itself that drove the wrongdoing. Failure to obtain disgorgement from the senior executives who committed this wrongdoing, motivated in significant part by awareness of how the accounting manipulations would benefit their personal wealth, would be a gross injustice, and seriously undermine the deterrent message that the SEC and OFHEO properly desire to communicate in this case.

(snip)

We look forward to your reply, and based on your public comments that civil penalties including disgorgement are under consideration, we hope that the SEC is planning to take aggressive action to sanction the individuals who carried out and facilitated the lengthy wrongdoing at Fannie Mae.

Sincerely,

Ralph Nader
Robert Weissman
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maggief

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1462207/posts

Able Danger, 9-11 Report, Gorelick, and so much more...
various FR links & stories | 08-12-05 | the heavy equipment guy

Posted on Friday, August 12, 2005 2:19:36 PM by backhoe

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52625-2004Sep26?language=printer

Gorelick has told friends that she would seriously consider an offer some day to serve as defense secretary ...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2172976/posts

DAG Eric Holder was repeatedly told the “Wall” was blocking intel sharing
911FamiliesForAermica.org ^ | January 27, 2009 | Tim Sumner

Three times during his tenure as Deputy Attorney General, Eric Holder was made fully aware that intelligence sharing with the Criminal Division was not taking place. As the officer in charge of day-to-day operations at the Department of Justice, his lack of due diligence ensured that the ‘Wall’ between the intelligence and criminal divisions of the FBI that Jamie Gorelick had built would remain in place for the foreseeable future. The ‘Wall’ stood as the Clinton administration and intelligence community saw the rising threat of al Qaeda, Ramzi Yousef was prosecuted for making the bomb used in the 1993 attack upon the World Trade Center and “Bojinka” plot to bomb American jetliners, and our embassies in Africa were attacked in 1998.

(snip)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2090020/posts

Countrywide Made Home Loans to Gorelick, Mudd
The Wall Street Journal ^ | 9/25/08 | GLENN R. SIMPSON

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2046736/posts

Guess who’s been involved intimately with Fannie Mae (Anyone remember Jamie Gorelick?)
Rush Limbaugh .com ^ | 7/16/08 | The Maha

From the Maha -

Guess who’s been involved intimately with Fannie Mae? Does the name Jamie Gorelick ring a bell? This woman is everywhere, and Jamie Gorelick got a 26 million payout when she left the place. Jamie Gorelick got 26 million to leave, one of Clinton’s guys, Franklin Raines, Franklin Raines, he was kicked out after corrupting the place. He left shortly before he was taking it in the shorts, but he got out of there with no penalty whatsoever. What is it with these Clinton people? This is why we don’t get any tell-all books on the Clinton administration because they were all set up in these sweetheart deals — money, money, money, money — I still can’t get over this. Congress is not helping poor old Doug Gylfe, so now we have millions of Americans who are priced out of home ownership, which is how this all started. “Any rescue policy to stem forecloses could artificially prop up home prices and perpetuate the affordability crisis,” yet I’ll guaran-damn-tee you if government did nothing and home prices continue to fall then tomorrow the AP would write a story whining and moaning about the lack of asset value for people who still do own their houses. We just can’t win with these people.

(snip)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2085666/posts

Mistress of Disaster: Jamie Gorelick
American Thinker ^ | September 19, 2008 | C. Edmund Wright

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2535774/posts

THEY’RE HERE (WTH??? Jamie Gorelick at the White House/BP meeting!!!)
politico ^ | 6/16/2010 |

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2526486/posts

Gorelick to Head BP Legal Team
Main Justice ^ | June 2, 2010 | Ryan J. Reilly

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2690088/posts

The Politics of Picking an FBI Director (Jamie Gorelick considered by the rookie Hussein? WTF!)
Wall Street Journal ^ | 3/16/11 | Evan Perez
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA


No 1:08-cv-119


EDWARD CARRINGTON, et al.
Plaintiffs,

v.
DUKE UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.

Response of Duke Defendants and
SANE Defendants to Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Require Defendants to Participate in
the Rule 26(f) Discovery Conference

NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiffs have asked the Court to require Defendants to participate in a discovery
conference, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f), or to set an initial
scheduling conference, even though Defendants have filed motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’
225-page complaint. The Court should deny Plaintiffs’ request.

First, the Federal and
Local Rules do not mandate that the parties convene a discovery conference at this time.

Second, it is premature to commence discovery now, when resolution of the motions to
dismiss may eliminate several issues and parties or may result in the dismissal of the
complaint in its entirety.

[How would it have been premature, when if ANY of the complaints were accepted,
all these persons could still be deposed anyway, even if their personal liability were no
longer an issue?]


Third, there is ample case law supporting the wisdom of
beginning discovery after the Court’s ruling on dispositive motions, particularly under the
circumstances of this case.

[See above.]

(snip)


Counsel for the Duke
Defendants and SANE Defendants again explained the futility and inefficiency of
commencing discovery now
and proposed several preservation protocols designed to
address the concerns that Plaintiffs articulated
in their motion – including (i) the imaging
of computer hard-drives belonging to any individually-named parties and some others
who likely have discoverable, non-privileged information;

(ii) the preservation of
electronic mail messages sent to or by individuals who likely have discoverable
information;

(iii) the preservation of any internet communications and internet-based
profiles maintained by individually-named parties; and

(iv) the adoption of an end-date
for document preservation purposes.


[Let's see how much of that remains]

In addition, the parties agreed to exchange, by June
30, 2008, letters in which they would delineate the preservation steps they have taken to
date – including the names of custodians whose information has been preserved.

[But Durham has already said it may not have preserved emails from before August 2007--as if poor
innocent Durham never suspected those emails might be relevant to an upcoming lawsuit,

any more than the DPD ever suspected that radio calls about the lacrosse case ought to be preserved
for that case (or if not, at least after they were requested in court by defense counsel)]



In light of the parties’ agreement to exchange by the end of the month information
regarding their preservation efforts, counsel for the Duke Defendants and the SANE
Defendants asked Plaintiffs’ counsel to withdraw their motion pending the exchange of
information – on the premise that it is premature to invoke the judicial apparatus where
Plaintiffs’ electronic and other document preservation concerns are in the process of
being addressed.


[We'll see how effective Gorelick's promise that these records will be preserved is going
to be .]


Plaintiffs’ counsel expressed an unwillingness to withdraw their motion
even temporarily because, in addition to preserving data, Plaintiffs wish to begin the full
range of discovery, including the preservation of “memories” – in other words, they
would like to begin depositions now. (Ex. 5, Summary of Parties’ 6/3/08
Teleconference;2 Ex. 6, 6/16/08 Email from Moss; Pls.’ Mot. at 3 (noting that
“memories fade” as justification for commencing discovery now
).)


(snip)


If discovery were to proceed before resolution
of the motions, it will result in wasteful inefficiencies, including the likely need to ask
this Court to resolve disputes such as requests for information that may be irrelevant or
otherwise improper once the motions are decided and attempts to depose witnesses who
may have no knowledge of the issues,
if any, that survive a ruling on the motions.
[/b
]

(snip)


Discovery in these cases will be extensive.

[I would imagine so. . . ]

For example, the City of Durham has
at least 60 document custodians.
There is a total of 53 plaintiffs, all of whom presumably
have email accounts, computer hard-drives and internet Facebook or other web-based
profiles. Discovery, including the production of electronically stored information from
multiple servers and hard-drives, must be coordinated across multiple parties in 4 federal
actions.

[Does anyone think it likely Durham has preserved all this?]



(snip)

4.
The Facts In This Case Do Not Support An Argument That Discovery Should
Commence Now Or That Plaintiffs Would Be Harmed If It Does Not.

(snip)

Defendants, including the Duke Defendants and SANE Defendants, have sought to
negotiate a reasonable preservation protocol with Plaintiffs that would address legitimate
concerns regarding preservation of information, while allowing the Court to decide
without discovery distractions which, if any, of Plaintiffs’ claims will survive the motions
to dismiss. See In re Graphics Processing Units Antitrust Litig., 2007 WL 2127577, at *5
(concluding that “first resolving the motions to dismiss is the better course. After full
ventilation of the viability vel non of the complaint, we will all be in a much better
position to evaluate how much, if any, discovery to allow.”)
.



Respectfully submitted, this the 16th day of June, 2008.

/s/ Jamie S. Gorelick
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/

Friday, June 20, 2008
Ironies

In light of recent filings, this item passed onto me by a reader is ironic.

National Association of College and University Attorneys: 48th Annual Conference


June 22-25, 2008, Session 3H: “The Best Defense: Navigating Complex Criminal Matters on Your Campus,” Monday, June 23, 11:15 a.m. - 12:30 p.m.

Marriott Marquis at Times Square
1535 Broadway
New York, NY 10036

NACUA’s 48th Annual Conference will be held from Sunday, June 22nd to Wednesday, June 25th in New York City. This conference will provide strong educational training, professional development, and networking opportunities for attendees.

Partner Jamie Gorelick, Co-Chair of WilmerHale's Defense, National Security and Government Contracts Practice Group and Chair, Public Policy and Strategy will be a featured speaker along with Kent Alexander of Emory University and Pamela Bernard of Duke University, on a panel discussing navigating complex criminal matters on college campuses.

Any DIW readers who attend the session are invited to pass along a report.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://www.wilmerhale.com/jamie_gorelick/

Ms. Gorelick was one of the longest serving Deputy Attorneys General of the United States, the second highest position in the Department of Justice.


Professional Activities

Ms. Gorelick has written numerous scholarly articles and is the co-author of a leading treatise on the maintenance of corporate documents, Destruction of Evidence (Wiley 1983).

She is a frequent lecturer on corporate governance and business ethics and was the 2004 Raytheon Lecturer on Business Ethics at Bentley College.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/

Monday, June 23, 2008
A Gorelick Essay

As mentioned below, Duke civil attorney Jamie Gorelick is presenting today at the NACUA conference, held in Manhattan’s Marriot Marquis hotel. Her topic: “The Best Defense: Navigating Complex Criminal Matters on Your Campus.”

An essay prepared by Gorelick and Christopher Zimmermann provides background for her talk.

(snip)

Gorelick and Zimmermann write,

If the witness is an employee of the college or university, he or she may have a duty to cooperate set forth in employee handbooks and policies pursuant to which the organization has the right to demand cooperation . . . Refusal to cooperate with the investigation, including maintaining its confidentiality, may amount to a breach of loyalty and become grounds for termination. [emphasis added]

In her recent filing, however, Gorelick outlined a radically different conception of the power of “employee handbooks and policies pursuant to which the organization has the right to demand cooperation.” According to Gorelick’s motion to dismiss, employee handbooks (like the Duke faculty handbook) or “policies pursuant to which the organization has the right to demand cooperation” (like Duke’s anti-harassment policies) are little more than scraps of paper. The university has no obligation to enforce them; professors and students can, apparently, violate them at will.

[Judge Beaty agreed. According to a poster in another forum, the Fourth Circuit may be the only forum to
still hold that student handbooks are not an enforceable contract. ]


Up until the lacrosse case,
Duke’s approach to enforcement of “employee handbooks and policies pursuant to which the organization has the right to demand cooperation” corresponded more to Gorelick’s position in her essay than in Gorelick’s position in her motion to dismiss.

This record, of course, raises the obvious question: how can a Duke student (or a Duke parent) know when the University will choose to enforce its “employee handbooks and policies pursuant to which the organization has the right to demand cooperation”—if, on the one hand, a violation of these policies could “amount to a breach of loyalty and become grounds for termination,” but on the other hand, violations of these policies might be ignored, on the grounds that the University has no legal obligation to enforce its own policies?

[According to Judge Beaty, it can't.]


Gorelick offers no answer. Had she done so, she might have provided the obvious response to this obvious question: the university will enforce its “employee handbooks and policies pursuant to which the organization has the right to demand cooperation,” except when doing so will arouse the wrath of the politically correct on campus. In such cases, the university will not obstruct advocates of the dominant race/class/gender faction.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Quasimodo
Apr 7 2011, 09:34 AM
Quote:
 
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/

Monday, June 23, 2008
A Gorelick Essay

As mentioned below, Duke civil attorney Jamie Gorelick is presenting today at the NACUA conference, held in Manhattan’s Marriot Marquis hotel. Her topic: “The Best Defense: Navigating Complex Criminal Matters on Your Campus.”

An essay prepared by Gorelick and Christopher Zimmermann provides background for her talk.

(snip)

Gorelick and Zimmermann write,

If the witness is an employee of the college or university, he or she may have a duty to cooperate set forth in employee handbooks and policies pursuant to which the organization has the right to demand cooperation . . . Refusal to cooperate with the investigation, including maintaining its confidentiality, may amount to a breach of loyalty and become grounds for termination. [emphasis added]

In her recent filing, however, Gorelick outlined a radically different conception of the power of “employee handbooks and policies pursuant to which the organization has the right to demand cooperation.” According to Gorelick’s motion to dismiss, employee handbooks (like the Duke faculty handbook) or “policies pursuant to which the organization has the right to demand cooperation” (like Duke’s anti-harassment policies) are little more than scraps of paper. The university has no obligation to enforce them; professors and students can, apparently, violate them at will.

[Judge Beaty agreed. According to a poster in another forum, the Fourth Circuit may be the only forum to
still hold that student handbooks are not an enforceable contract. ]


Up until the lacrosse case,
Duke’s approach to enforcement of “employee handbooks and policies pursuant to which the organization has the right to demand cooperation” corresponded more to Gorelick’s position in her essay than in Gorelick’s position in her motion to dismiss.

This record, of course, raises the obvious question: how can a Duke student (or a Duke parent) know when the University will choose to enforce its “employee handbooks and policies pursuant to which the organization has the right to demand cooperation”—if, on the one hand, a violation of these policies could “amount to a breach of loyalty and become grounds for termination,” but on the other hand, violations of these policies might be ignored, on the grounds that the University has no legal obligation to enforce its own policies?

[According to Judge Beaty, it can't.]


Gorelick offers no answer. Had she done so, she might have provided the obvious response to this obvious question: the university will enforce its “employee handbooks and policies pursuant to which the organization has the right to demand cooperation,” except when doing so will arouse the wrath of the politically correct on campus. In such cases, the university will not obstruct advocates of the dominant race/class/gender faction.
"This record, of course, raises the obvious question: how can a Duke student (or a Duke parent) know when the University will choose to enforce its “employee handbooks and policies pursuant to which the organization has the right to demand cooperation”—if, on the one hand, a violation of these policies could “amount to a breach of loyalty and become grounds for termination,” but on the other hand, violations of these policies might be ignored, on the grounds that the University has no legal obligation to enforce its own policies?"



I have a tough time following any that disagree with how Beaty ruled on the issue. The "employee handbooks and policies" seem like a part of an agreement between the EMPLOYER and the EMPLOYEES. Duke has many agreements (contracts) with other parties.

How does an agreement between Duke and a student then provide the student with some right to agreements Duke has with other parties if it is not specifically incorporated into the agreement between Duke and a student?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Gorelick Argument:

A patient was brought to the hospital claiming an atrocious deed had been done to her; the hospital staff rendered her assistance, as they should have done; and subsequently, when the police officers and prosecutor carrying out the investigation asked a hospital employee for information, the employee cooperated. There is nothing tortious, much less a violation of civil rights, in this conduct
.


And according to Judge Beaty, there isn't, even if the hospital employee errs or lies about the results of a SANE exam
(the purpose of which is to gather evidence).




POSTER COMMENT:

Quote:
 
The implication: if a medical professional whose job is to provide authorities with accurate information about a possible crime instead “cooperates” with police by providing false information; and if that individual is a SANE nurse-in-training who shouldn’t have been in that position in the first place; and if that SANE nurse-in-training’s supervisor publicly supports the false or misleading findings . . . well, that’s the way “our system of justice” is supposed to work.

It’s hard to believe many judges would find that argument persuasive
.

Edited by Quasimodo, Apr 7 2011, 10:24 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Did you write this memorandum in 1995 that helped establish
the so-called walls between the FBI and CIA?

Ms. Gorelick said:

No. And again, I would refer you back to what others on the
commission have said. The wall was a creature of statute. It
existed since the mid-1980s. And while it is too lengthy to
go into, basically the policy that was put out in the mid
1990s, which I didn't sign, wasn't my policy in any way. It
was the Attorney General's policy, was ratified by Attorney
General Ashcroft's deputy as well on August of 2001.


In other words, Ms. Gorelick, notwithstanding the fact that her
initials as Deputy Attorney General appear on the very memos

considering recommendations, both pro and con, with regard to
establishing these procedures, in spite of the fact she appears by
these documents to have been intimately involved in the adoption and
establishment of these procedures, said: I didn't sign this memorandum
and it wasn't my policy.


http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s042804b.html
Edited by Quasimodo, Apr 7 2011, 10:21 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

I stand corrected:

REPOST from 2008



Quote:
 


I. PLAINTIFFS FAIL TO STATE A CLAIM UNDER 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985/1986
(COUNTS 16-17)
Plaintiffs concede (Pl. Duke Opp. 32) that, to state a claim under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1985, they must establish “some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously
discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.” Duke’s opening brief explained (at 34-39) why Plaintiffs fail to
satisfy this element, and Plaintiffs’ arguments in response are without merit.

[Does anyone doubt that Duke students were treated differently from other students--such as those at NCCU?]



Plaintiffs’ argument (Pl. Duke Opp. 31) that white men are a protected class under
§ 1985 finds no support in Supreme Court or Fourth Circuit precedent. As demonstrated
in Duke’s opening brief (at 34-35), the Supreme Court and the Fourth Circuit have
stressed that § 1985 was intended to protect an exceedingly limited category of persons.

[Utter nonsense. First, if the disparity between the way Duke students are treated and the way NCCU students are treated was reversed, there would be an immediate (and proper) cry of discrimination. And because the US Constitution requires that all citizens be treated equally under the laws, such a claim of discrimination may also be made on behalf of Duke students. To assert otherwise is to dismiss the entire concept of equal protection of the laws. Jamie Gorelick needs to go back to law school, IMHO.]

(snip)

Indeed, both courts have expressed substantial doubt that § 1985 protects any
class other than African-Americans
. Although the Fourth Circuit has never squarely
addressed whether § 1985 reaches conspiracies against white men, Buschi v. Kirven, 775
F.2d 1240, 1258 (4th Cir. 1985), strongly suggests that the court of appeals would reject
that position—as other courts have done.

[There can be no law which applies only to one class, group, or race, under the US Constitution.]

Buschi concluded that “the
class protected [under § 1985(3)] can extend no further than to those classes of persons
who are, so far as the enforcement of their rights is concerned, in unprotected
circumstances similar to those of the victims of Klan violence.”


[And what is more similar to the acts of the Klan, than the acts of the New Black Panther Party threatening with death defendants in this case? Or the NBBP threatening to see that justice was done?

I really think that the news media ought to be interested in Jamie Gorelick's contentions about the limiting of Constitutional protections to citizens of only one race. This was tried before, in a case called DREAD SCOTT, in which the US constitutional protections were expressly said NOT TO APPLY to members of one race. That case has been overturned by case law and by specific amendments to the Constitution addressing that decision.

Do the defendants in this case (and Jamie Gorelick) now argue that DREAD SCOTT was right
in its determination that US Constitutional provisions could be limited to members of one race only? Was the intent of all of our civil rights laws to DIMINISH the rights which some citizens had, or to EXTEND to ALL our citizens, the common rights of all?
]


But Judge Beaty corrected me--there were no acts perpetrated against the lacrosse players
which were similar to klan violence; and they are denied the right to sue under the civil rights
laws because of their color and because there has not been a long history of discrimination
against persons of their color... Jamie Gorelick was quite correct.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

POSTER COMMENT from DIW (2008)

Quote:
 


Jamie Gorelick was hired for her extraordinary political skills. While her abilities as a litigator leave something to be desired, nobody but nobody can backstab and scheme like Gorelick. Duke knew it would pay her an ungodly sum of money, but their strategy has been, is and will be trying to make the lacrosse players the bad guys in all of this. As a point of reference, when I was at an alumno event in the fall, administrators boasted that those of us who thought Brodhead should leave for Duke to get a fresh start should just be patient until we heard about the high school histories of these players. High school! That is vintage Gorelick -- to threaten to publicize events from 10th grade to intimidate them into settling and, more importantly, to try to win the PR battle. And make no mistake, to Duke this is not about right or wrong, or even money -- it is about who controls the PR angle. I would not be surprised if Duke has been investigating parents and siblings for dirt. Any port in a storm.

There were many alums who were unhappy when Duke chose Gorelick because we all knew where it was going. Quite expensive and in the end destructive to everyone.

Amazingly, based upon what I know from alum circles and the lacrosse worlds, if Duke had simply apologized (and meant it), this whole episode would be behind them. Instead, Duke chose to engage in scorched earth tactics. While I will hate to see my school embarrassed, unfortunately that may have to happen before they stop.
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