Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Duke Files New 732 Page Answer in Civil Suits; Duke Denies Fraud; Text of McFadyen Answer
Topic Started: Apr 15 2011, 01:22 AM (2,906 Views)
sceptical

732. Duke University specifically denies that the Bulletin of Duke University
2005-2006 is a contract. Duke University further denies any of the policies outlined in
the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006 comprise a contract between Duke University
and Plaintiffs. To the extent that Paragraph 732 purports to characterize the content of
the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006, Duke University denies the characterization.
Duke University admits that the Bulletin provides that “An interim suspension from the
university may be imposed by the dean of the school or college or the vice president for
student affairs, or designee, and shall become effective immediately without prior notice
whenever there is evidence that the continued presence of the student poses a substantial
and immediate threat to him/herself, to others, or to the university community. A prompt
investigation and resolution shall follow the interim suspension.” Duke University denies
the remaining allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 256 of 460
257
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
733. Duke University specifically denies that the Bulletin of Duke University
2005-2006 is a contract. Duke University further denies that any of the policies outlined
in the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006 comprise a contract between Duke
University and Plaintiffs. Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
734. Duke University specifically denies that the Bulletin of Duke University
2005-2006 is a contract. Duke University further denies that any of the policies outlined
in the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006 comprise a contract between Duke
University and Plaintiffs. Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
735. Duke University specifically denies that the Bulletin of Duke University
2005-2006 is a contract. Duke University further denies that any of the policies outlined
in the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006 comprise a contract between Duke
University and Plaintiffs. To the extent that the paragraph purports to characterize the
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 257 of 460
258
content of the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006, Duke University denies the
characterization. Duke University admits that at the time the email was publicly released
that Duke University was concerned about Plaintiff McFadyen’s safety and well-being.
Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
736. The claims against Provost Lange were dismissed by the Court’s Order of
March 31, 2011.
Duke University specifically denies that the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-
2006 is a contract. Duke University further denies that any of the policies outlined in the
Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006 comprise a contract between Duke University
and Plaintiffs. To the extent that Paragraph 736 purports to characterize the contents of
the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006, Duke University denies the characterization.
Duke University denies that President Brodhead and Provost Lange issued an interim
suspension for Plaintiff McFadyen. Duke University admits that Associate Dean Bryan
heard Plaintiff McFadyen’s case and that Plaintiff McFadyen accepted full responsibility
for what he did. Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
President Brodhead denies that he issued an interim suspension for Plaintiff
McFadyen. President Brodhead denies the remaining allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 258 of 460
259
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
737. Duke University specifically denies that the Bulletin of Duke University
2005-2006 is a contract. Duke University further denies that any of the policies outlined
in the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006 comprise a contract between Duke
University and Plaintiffs. To the extent that Paragraph 737 purports to characterize the
contents of the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006, Duke University denies the
characterization. Duke University admits that Plaintiff McFadyen was placed on interim
suspension. Duke University admits that Associate Dean Bryan heard Plaintiff
McFadyen’s case and that Plaintiff McFadyen accepted full responsibility for what he
did. Duke University further admits that Associate Dean Bryan did not find him
responsible for any violation and reinstated his status as a student. Duke University
denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
738. Duke University specifically denies that the Bulletin of Duke University
2005-2006 is a contract. Duke University further denies that any of the policies outlined
in the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006 comprise a contract between Duke
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 259 of 460
260
University and Plaintiffs. Duke University admits that Plaintiff McFadyen was placed on
interim suspension. Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
739. The claims against Provost Lange and Vice President Moneta were
dismissed by the Court’s Order of March 31, 2011.
Duke University specifically denies that the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-
2006 is a contract. Duke University further denies that any of the policies outlined in the
Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006 comprise a contract between Duke University
and Plaintiffs. To the extent that Paragraph 739 purports to characterize the contents of
the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006, Duke University denies the characterization.
Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
President Brodhead denies the allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
To the extent that the heading that precedes Paragraph 740 is construed as
allegations, the Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and
Duke SANE Defendants deny the allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 260 of 460
261
740. The claims against Vice President Moneta and Associate Dean Bryan were
dismissed by the Court’s Order of March 31, 2011.
Duke University specifically denies that the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-
2006 is a contract. Duke University further denies that any of the policies outlined in the
Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006 comprise a contract between Duke University
and Plaintiffs. To the extent that Paragraph 740 purports to characterize the content of
the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006, Duke University denies the characterization.
Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
741. The claims against Vice President Moneta and Associate Dean Bryan were
dismissed by the Court’s Order of March 31, 2011.
Duke University specifically denies that the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-
2006 is a contract. Duke University further denies that any of the policies outlined in the
Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006 comprise a contract between Duke University
and Plaintiffs. To the extent that Paragraph 741 purports to characterize the content of
the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006, Duke University denies the characterization.
Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
President Brodhead denies the allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 261 of 460
262
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
742. The claims against Vice President Moneta were dismissed by the Court’s
Order of March 31, 2011.
Duke University denies the allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
743. The claims against Associate Dean Bryan were dismissed by the Court’s
Order of March 31, 2011.
Duke University admits that the Undergraduate Judicial Board suspended Plaintiff
Wilson for two semesters. Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
To the extent that the heading that precedes Paragraph 744 is construed as
allegations, the Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and
Duke SANE Defendants deny the allegations.

snip (General denial paragraphs)


779. To the extent that this paragraph relates to Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information, it is a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
for the Duke SANE Defendants to disclose any of Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information. Absent a court order authorizing such disclosure, the Duke SANE
Defendants are unable to respond. Therefore, the Duke SANE Defendants deny the
allegations seeking information relating to Ms. Mangum’s protected health information.
Nurse Levicy specifically denies “colluding” with former District Attorney
Nifong, Officer Himan, Officer Gottlieb, or anyone else as alleged in the Second
Amended Complaint. Nurse Levicy also specifically denies that she was involved in any
effort to “fabricate proof” as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint. Nurse Levicy is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
remaining allegations and, therefore, denies the remaining allegations.
The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants and
remaining Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
To the extent that the heading that precedes Paragraph 780 is construed as
allegations, the Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and
Duke SANE Defendants deny the allegations.
780. Nurse Levicy specifically denies that she made any statements to members
of the Durham Police Department that were false or misleading or inconsistent with the
examination of Ms. Mangum. Nurse Levicy is without knowledge or information
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 270 of 460
271
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore,
denies the remaining allegations.
The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants and
remaining Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
781. To the extent that this paragraph relates to Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information, it is a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
for the Duke SANE Defendants to disclose any of Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information. Absent a court order authorizing such disclosure, the Duke SANE
Defendants are unable to respond. Therefore, the Duke SANE Defendants deny the
allegations seeking information relating to Ms. Mangum’s protected health information.
The Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore, deny the remaining
allegations.
The Duke University Defendants and the Duke University Police Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
782. To the extent that this paragraph relates to Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information, it is a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
for the Duke SANE Defendants to disclose any of Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information. Absent a court order authorizing such disclosure, the Duke SANE
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 271 of 460
272
Defendants are unable to respond. Therefore, the Duke SANE Defendants deny the
allegations seeking information relating to Ms. Mangum’s protected health information.
DUHS and Nurse Levicy admit that on March 14, 2006, Nurse Levicy had
completed her SANE training and that she participated in the sexual assault examination
of Ms. Mangum.
The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke
SANE Defendants admit that Michael Nifong was the District Attorney for Durham
County. With respect to subparagraphs B and D, the Duke University Defendants, Duke
University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants admit that videos, referenced
as Attachments 21 and 22 to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, have been filed
with the Court. The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the remaining allegations, including the allegations contained in
subparagraphs A, B, C, D, and E, and, therefore, deny the remaining allegations,
including the allegations contained in subparagraphs A, B, C, D, and E.
783. Nurse Levicy denies the allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 272 of 460
273
To the extent that the heading that precedes Paragraph 784 is construed as
allegations, the Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and
Duke SANE Defendants deny the allegations.
784. The claims against Nurse Arico were dismissed by the Court’s Order of
March 31, 2011.
DUHS and Duke University admit that Nurse Arico participated in an interview
and an article about that interview appeared in The Herald-Sun on April 1, 2006. To the
extent Paragraph 784 characterizes statements made by Ms. Arico, DUHS and Duke
University deny that characterization. DUHS and Duke University deny that Nurse Arico
described the medical examination of Ms. Mangum in any respect. Duke University and
DUHS admit that in Nurse Arico’s interview with The Herald-Sun reporter she answered
general questions about sexual assault examinations and described the examination as a
combination of interviews and examinations of the person making the complaint, without
any reference to Ms. Mangum’s examination. Duke University and DUHS deny the
remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
To the extent that the heading that precedes Paragraph 785 is construed as
allegations, the Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and
Duke SANE Defendants deny the allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 273 of 460
274
785. To the extent that this paragraph relates to Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information, it is a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
for the Duke SANE Defendants to disclose any of Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information. Absent a court order authorizing such disclosure, the Duke SANE
Defendants are unable to respond. Therefore, the Duke SANE Defendants deny the
allegations seeking information relating to Ms. Mangum’s protected health information.
DUHS and Nurse Levicy deny that the sexual assault examination was
“abandoned” as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint. DUHS and Nurse Levicy
also specifically deny that Nurse Levicy failed to produce the sexual assault examination
report on March 21, 2006. Nurse Levicy also specifically denies that she “re-created,”
“falsified,” “fabricated,” “revised,” “annotated,” or “conformed” any part of the medical
record for the examination of Ms. Mangum as alleged in the Second Amended
Complaint. DUHS and Nurse Levicy admit that Duke University Hospital was served
with a subpoena for Ms. Mangum’s medical records on March 21, 2006. DUHS and
Nurse Levicy further admit that DUHS complied with the subpoena as it was legally
required to do. DUHS and Nurse Levicy further admit that computer generated WellSoft
medical records were provided to Officer Himan on or about April 5, 2006, after it was
discovered that they had not been produced on March 21. DUHS and Nurse Levicy deny
the remaining allegations, including the allegations contained in subparagraphs A, B, and
C.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 274 of 460
275
The Duke University Defendants and the Duke University Police Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations, including the allegations contained in subparagraphs A, B, and C, and,
therefore, deny the remaining allegations, including the allegations contained in
subparagraphs A, B, and C.
786. Nurse Levicy specifically denies that she falsified or fabricated any part of
the medical record for the examination of Ms. Mangum. Nurse Levicy denies the
remaining allegations.
DUHS denies the allegations.
The Duke University Defendants and Duke University Police Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
787. DUHS and Nurse Levicy deny the allegations.
The Duke University Defendants and Duke University Police Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
788. Nurse Levicy admits that she had a limited number of conversations with
Officer Himan, Officer Gottlieb, former District Attorney Nifong, and Investigator
Wilson and responded to their questions regarding the sexual assault examination. Nurse
Levicy specifically denies making any false statements or statements that were
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 275 of 460
276
inconsistent with the examination of Ms. Mangum. Nurse Levicy denies the remaining
allegations.
The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and
remaining Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
789. To the extent that this paragraph relates to Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information, it is a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
for the Duke SANE Defendants to disclose any of Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information. Absent a court order authorizing such disclosure, the Duke SANE
Defendants are unable to respond. Therefore, the Duke SANE Defendants deny the
allegations seeking information relating to Ms. Mangum’s protected health information.
Nurse Levicy specifically denies that she made any false statements or statements
that were inconsistent with the examination of Ms. Mangum. Nurse Levicy denies the
remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore, deny
the remaining allegations.
The Duke University Defendants and Duke University Police Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 276 of 460
277
790. The claims against Nurse Arico were dismissed by the Court’s Order of
March 31, 2011.
To the extent that this paragraph relates to Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information, it is a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
for the Duke SANE Defendants to disclose any of Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information. Absent a court order authorizing such disclosure, the Duke SANE
Defendants are unable to respond. Therefore, the Duke SANE Defendants deny the
allegations seeking information relating to Ms. Mangum’s protected health information.
DUHS specifically denies that Nurse Arico made statements describing the
examination of Ms. Mangum in any respect. DUHS denies the remaining allegations.
Nurse Levicy specifically denies that she “fabricated forensic medical evidence”
as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint. Nurse Levicy also specifically denies
making any statements that were inconsistent with the examination of Ms. Mangum.
Nurse Levicy denies the remaining allegations.
The Duke University Defendants and Duke University Police Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
791. The claims against Nurse Arico were dismissed by the Court’s Order of
March 31, 2011.
To the extent that this paragraph relates to Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information, it is a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
Case 1:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
647. To the extent that this paragraph relates to Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information, it is a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
for the Duke SANE Defendants to disclose any of Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information. Absent a court order authorizing such disclosure, the Duke SANE
Defendants are unable to respond.


That order may shortly be forthcoming...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

(791 contd) DUHS specifically denies that Nurse Arico made statements describing the
examination of Ms. Mangum in any respect. Nurse Levicy and DUHS specifically deny
condoning or ratifying any statements made by former District Attorney Nifong. Nurse
Levicy and DUHS deny the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore, deny
the remaining allegations.
The Duke University Defendants and the Duke University Police Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.

snip

793. To the extent that this paragraph Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information, it is a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
for the Duke SANE Defendants to disclose any of Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information. Absent a court order authorizing such disclosure, the Duke SANE
Defendants are unable to respond. Therefore, the Duke SANE Defendants deny the
allegations seeking information relating to Ms. Mangum’s protected health information.
Nurse Levicy specifically denies that she made any statements that were
inconsistent with the examination of Ms. Mangum. Nurse Levicy further specifically
denies that she tailored statements to conform to the District Attorney’s evidentiary needs
or his desires to pursue the case. Nurse Levicy denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore, deny
the remaining allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 279 of 460
280
Duke University Defendants and the Duke University Police Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
794. Nurse Levicy specifically denies that she proffered fraudulent testimony at
any time. Nurse Levicy also specifically denies making any statements that were
inconsistent with the examination of Ms. Mangum. Nurse Levicy is without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and,
therefore, denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore, deny
the remaining allegations.
The Duke University Defendants and the Duke University Police Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
795. To the extent that this paragraph relates to Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information, it is a violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
for the Duke SANE Defendants to disclose any of Ms. Mangum’s protected health
information. Absent a court order authorizing such disclosure, the Duke SANE
Defendants are unable to respond. Therefore, the Duke SANE Defendants deny the
allegations seeking information relating to Ms. Mangum’s protected health information.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 280 of 460
281
Nurse Levicy admits that she responded to multiple questions about condoms
during her interview with Investigator Wilson on January 10, 2007. To the extent
Paragraph 795 characterizes statements made by Nurse Levicy, Nurse Levicy denies that
characterization. Nurse Levicy specifically denies that she proffered fabricated testimony
at any time and Nurse Levicy specifically denies making any statements that were
inconsistent with the examination of Ms. Mangum. Nurse Levicy denies the remaining
allegations.
The Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore, deny the
remaining allegations.
The Duke University Defendants and the Duke University Police Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
796. To the extent Paragraph 796 characterizes statements made by Nurse
Levicy, Nurse Levicy denies that characterization. Nurse Levicy denies the remaining
allegations.
The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants and the
remaining Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
797. Nurse Levicy specifically denies that she made statements that were
inconsistent with the examination of Ms. Mangum. Nurse Levicy also specifically denies
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 281 of 460
282
proffering any “new testimony” or testimony that was “calculated” to “rebut” evidence.
To the extent Paragraph 797 characterizes statements made by Nurse Levicy, Nurse
Levicy denies the characterization. Nurse Levicy denies the remaining allegations.
The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants and
remaining Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
798. Nurse Levicy admits that she met with Investigator Wilson and Officer
Himan on the evening of January 10, 2007. Nurse Levicy specifically denies that she
ever proffered “fabricated” testimony or made statements inconsistent with the
examination of Ms. Mangum. Nurse Levicy is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore,
denies the remaining allegations.
The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants and
remaining Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
799. The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and
Duke SANE Defendants specifically deny any participation in any sort of conspiracy as
alleged within this Second Amended Complaint.
To the extent that Paragraph 799 characterizes any statements made by Nurse
Levicy, Nurse Levicy denies the characterization. Nurse Levicy specifically denies
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 282 of 460
283
making any statements that were inconsistent with the examination of Ms. Mangum.
Nurse Levicy denies the remaining allegations.
snip

811. Duke University denies any sort of participation in any sort of “Duke-
Durham Joint Command” as alleged within this Second Amended Complaint. Duke
University is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth
of the allegations and, therefore, denies the allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
To the extent that the heading that precedes Paragraph 812 is construed as
allegations, the Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and
Duke SANE Defendants deny the allegations.

snip

814. The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and
Duke SANE Defendants deny that they took any actions that violated “Plaintiffs’
federally protected rights.” The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police
Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore, deny
the remaining allegations.

snip

817. Duke University denies that any member of the Duke Police Department
“colluded” with Officer Himan and Officer Gottlieb as alleged within this Second
Amended Complaint.

snip
Edited by sceptical, Apr 15 2011, 12:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Duke University specifically denies that the Bulletin of Duke University
2005-2006 is a contract.
Duke University further denies any of the policies outlined in
the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006 comprise a contract between Duke University
and Plaintiffs.
To the extent that Paragraph 732 purports to characterize the content of
the Bulletin of Duke University 2005-2006, Duke University denies the characterization.
Duke University admits that the Bulletin provides that “An interim suspension from the
university
may be imposed by the dean of the school or college or the vice president for
student affairs, or designee, and shall become effective immediately without prior notice
whenever there is evidence that the continued presence of the student poses a substantial
and immediate threat to him/herself, to others, or to the university community. A prompt
investigation and resolution shall follow the interim suspension.


1 ) in the Fourth Circuit (unlike most other jurisdictions) a student handbook is not a contract;

2 ) Other courts have ruled that a student is denied due process when his education (for which he
has paid) is interrupted by a suspension WITHOUT DUE PROCESS of some kind--a chance to present
his own side of the case and be heard.

Is Duke here saying that its rules--which deny any kind of process and permit a dean to suspend
a student immediately WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE--is in fact a legally permissible process
because it is outlined in the Bulletin?

3 ) Where was the "prompt investigation and resolution" which the Bulletin mandates?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Duke University admits that at the time the email was publicly released
that Duke University was concerned about Plaintiff McFadyen’s safety and well-being.


:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

820. Duke University and Sergeant Smith admit that the Durham Police
Department notified members of the Duke University Police Department before visiting a
Duke University Residence Hall on April 13. Duke University and Sergeant Smith deny
the remaining allegations.
To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 820 are construed to include any of the
remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, or Duke
SANE Defendants, the remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police
Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants deny the allegations. The remaining Duke
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 288 of 460
289
University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants
are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
remaining allegations and, therefore, deny the remaining allegations.

snip

823. Duke University and Sergeant Smith admit that members of the Durham
Police Department notified the Duke University Police Department before members of
the Durham Police Depart
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

820. Duke University and Sergeant Smith admit that the Durham Police
Department notified members of the Duke University Police Department before visiting a
Duke University Residence Hall on April 13. Duke University and Sergeant Smith deny
the remaining allegations.
To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 820 are construed to include any of the
remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, or Duke
SANE Defendants, the remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police
Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants deny the allegations. The remaining Duke
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 288 of 460
289
University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants
are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
remaining allegations and, therefore, deny the remaining allegations.
snip


823. Duke University and Sergeant Smith admit that members of the Durham
Police Department notified the Duke University Police Department before members of
the Durham Police Department visited a Duke University Residence Hall. Duke
University and Sergeant Smith deny the remaining allegations.
To the extent “Duke Police” is construed to include any of the remaining Duke
University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, or Duke SANE Defendants,
the remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and
Duke SANE Defendants deny the allegations. The remaining Duke University
Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
remaining allegations and, therefore, deny the remaining allegations.
824. To the extent “police misconduct” is alleged against any of the Duke
University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants or Duke SANE Defendants,
the Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE
Defendants deny the allegations. Duke University and former Associate Vice President
Graves admit that former Associate Vice President Graves issued a statement on April
14, 2006, that contained the language quoted in Paragraph 825. To the extent that the
paragraph purports to characterize a public statement made by former Associate Vice
President Graves, Duke University and former Associate Vice President Graves deny the
characterization. To the extent that the allegations suggest that the language quoted
constitutes the entire statement, Duke University and former Associate Vice President
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 290 of 460
291
Graves deny the allegations. Duke University and former Associate Vice President
Graves deny the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore, deny the remaining
allegations.
825. Duke University and former Associate Vice President Graves admit that
former Associate Vice President Graves issued a statement on April 14, 2006 that
contained the language quoted in Paragraph 825. To the extent that the paragraph
purports to characterize a public statement made by former Associate Vice President
Graves, Duke University and former Associate Vice President Graves deny the
characterization. To the extent that the allegations suggest that the language quoted
constitutes the entire statement, Duke University and former Associate Vice President
Graves deny the allegations. Duke University and former Associate Vice President
Graves deny the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, remaining Duke University Police
Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the
allegations.

snip

827. Former Chairman Steel denies the allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
828. President Brodhead and Duke University admit that President Brodhead
announced the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee on April 5, 2006. President Brodhead
and Duke University further admit that on April 5, 2006, the remainder of the 2005-2006
lacrosse season was cancelled and Coach Pressler resigned. President Brodhead and
Duke University deny the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 292 of 460
293
829. President Brodhead admits that he was interviewed by Kelcey Carlson of
WRAL. To the extent this paragraph purports to characterize a public statement by
President Brodhead, Duke University and President Brodhead deny the characterization.
President Brodhead and Duke University deny the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
830. The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and
Duke SANE Defendants admit that a video, referenced as Attachment 26 to Plaintiffs’
Second Amended Complaint, has been filed with the Court. The Duke University
Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
remaining allegations and, therefore, deny the remaining allegations.
831. Duke University denies the allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
832. Duke University admits that President Brodhead appointed a committee
headed by Professor James Coleman to examine the disciplinary records of the lacrosse
players, as well as that of students on several other Duke University sports teams, over
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 293 of 460
294
the previous five years. Duke University and President Brodhead deny the remaining
allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
833. Former Chairman Steel denies the allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
834. Duke University admits that Professor Coleman was interviewed by
National Public Radio on April 7, 2006, and May 2, 2006. To the extent this paragraph
characterizes the interviews of Professor Coleman, Duke University denies the
characterization. Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
835. Duke University admits that the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review Committee that
was chaired by Professor Coleman conducted numerous interviews of people that had
knowledge of the conduct of the members of the lacrosse team, which included, among
others, members of the athletic department, a representative group of parents of lacrosse
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 294 of 460
295
player, generations of Duke University alumni, and parents and friends of Duke
University lacrosse players. Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
836. Duke University admits that the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review Committee
conducted numerous interviews which included, among others, interviews with members
of the athletic department, a representative group of parents of lacrosse players,
generations of Duke University alumni, and parents and friends of Duke University
lacrosse players. Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
837. Former Chairman Steel denies the allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
838. The claims against Vice President Moneta and Associate Dean Bryan were
dismissed by the Court’s Order of March 31, 2011.
Duke University denies that Vice President Moneta and Associate Dean Bryan
provided any “false” or “misleading” information as alleged within the Second Amended
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 295 of 460
296
Complaint. To the extent this paragraph characterizes the Report of the Lacrosse Ad Hoc
Review Committee, Duke University denies the characterization. Duke University
admits that the Report of the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review Committee noted that “Duke
Lacrosse has been described as having a ‘clannish’ or ‘pack’ culture that is distinct from
other Duke athletic teams and organized groups on campus.” Duke University further
admits that the Report of the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review Committee noted that “. . .the
alcohol related misconduct by members of the lacrosse team is deplorable . . .” Duke
University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
839. To the extent this paragraph characterizes the Report of the Lacrosse Ad
Hoc Review Committee, Duke University denies the characterization. Duke University
admits that the committee examined the disciplinary records of Duke University’s
lacrosse players, as well as the disciplinary records of members of other sports teams at
Duke University. Duke University denies that the Committee “lacked a body of data
relating to Duke students generally.” Duke University admits that the Lacrosse Ad Hoc
Review Committee found that the lacrosse players “repeatedly violated the law against
underage drinking” and that they had “drunk alcohol excessively.” Duke University
further admits that, in addition to reviewing statistics, Professor Coleman and his
committee based their review on numerous interviews which included, among others,
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 296 of 460
297
members of the athletic department, a representative group of parents of lacrosse players,
generations of Duke University alumni, and parents and friends of Duke University
lacrosse players. Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
840. Duke University denies the allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
841. Duke University denies the allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
842. The claims against Vice President Moneta and Associate Dean Bryan were
dismissed by the Court’s Order of March 31, 2011.
Duke University denies that Vice President Moneta and Associate Dean Bryan
provided any “unreliable” information or in any way led the Committee “to false and
misleading conclusions” as alleged within the Second Amended Complaint. Duke
University denies the remaining allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 297 of 460
298
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
843. The claims against Vice President Moneta and Associate Dean Bryan were
dismissed by the Court’s Order of March 31, 2011.
Duke University denies the allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
844. The claims against Vice President Moneta and Associate Dean Bryan were
dismissed by the Court’s Order of March 31, 2011.
Duke University admits that Eddie Hull, Dean of Residence Life and Housing and
Executive Director of Housing Services, was interviewed by the Lacrosse Ad Hoc
Review Committee. To the extent this paragraph characterizes statements made by Dean
Hull to the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review Committee, Duke University denies that
characterization. Duke University admits that Dean Hull discussed the role of the
Residential Coordinators and the ongoing problems the Residential Coordinators had
with disciplinary issues in the residential dorms. Duke University specifically denies that
the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review Committee Report is “rife with false premises and facially
implausible conclusions.” Duke University denies the remaining allegations in the
introductory paragraph.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 298 of 460
299
To the extent that the allegations in subparagraphs A, B, C, D, and E purport to
characterize the Report of the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review Committee, Duke University
denies the characterizations.
With respect to the allegations in subparagraph A, Duke University admits that
data was broken down to identify off-campus incidents that involved lacrosse players and
that 50% of the noise ordinance cases involved lacrosse players. Duke University denies
the remaining allegations in subparagraph A.
With respect to the allegations in subparagraph B, Duke University admits that
33% of the open container cases involved lacrosse players. Duke University denies the
remaining allegations in subparagraph B.
With respect to subparagraph C, Duke University denies the allegations in
subparagraph C.
With respect to subparagraph D, Duke University is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore,
denies the allegations.
With respect to subparagraph E, to the extent this paragraph characterizes any
communications between the Chair of the Student Judicial Processes Committee and
Captain Sarvis, Duke University denies the characterization. Duke University admits that
the Chairman of the Student Judicial Processes Committee sent an email asking District 2
Captain Sarvis if it was possible to get “annual totals of the number of complaints
received, number of citations issued, and any breakdown (e.g., noise, property damaged)
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 299 of 460
300
related to off-campus Duke students.” Duke University admits that Captain Sarvis
responded to the email that he found approximately 53 individuals with either citations or
arrests in the resident areas since September 2003. Duke University admits that Captain
Sarvis explained that “All of these were forwarded to Duke Campus Police who I believe
forwarded to the Judicial Affairs Office.” Duke University further admits that in his
email, Captain Sarvis explained that the “majority of citations I have are to actual
residents who live in the area. Most of them were noise ordinance violations.” Duke
University denies the remaining allegations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
785. . .

DUHS and Nurse Levicy deny that the sexual assault examination was
“abandoned”
as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint.

[Well, it wasn't completed. Why did they stop?]

DUHS and Nurse Levicy
also specifically deny that Nurse Levicy failed to produce the sexual assault examination
report on March 21, 2006. Nurse Levicy also specifically denies that she “re-created,”
“falsified,” “fabricated,” “revised,” “annotated,” or “conformed” any part of the medical
record for the examination of Ms. Mangum
as alleged in the Second Amended
Complaint.

[This is ridiculous. Don't the documents exist with her own erasures and emendations?]

DUHS and Nurse Levicy admit that Duke University Hospital was served
with a subpoena for Ms. Mangum’s medical records on March 21, 2006
.

[When was Duke University served? I thought Gottlieb went straight to Levicy, bypassing
all the administrators.]


DUHS and
Nurse Levicy further admit that DUHS complied with the subpoena as it was legally
required to do.

[if Duke was never served, why and how did it "comply", and how was it 'legally required
to do so'?]


DUHS and Nurse Levicy further admit that computer generated WellSoft
medical records were provided to Officer Himan on or about April 5, 2006, after it was
discovered that they had not been produced on March 21.
DUHS and Nurse Levicy deny
the remaining allegations, including the allegations contained in subparagraphs A, B, and
C.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

845. To the extent this paragraph characterizes the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review
Committee Report, Duke University denies the characterization. Duke University admits
that the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review Committee Report noted that “in contrast to their
exemplary academic and athletic performance, a large number of the members of the
[lacrosse] team have been socially irresponsible when under the influence of alcohol.
They have repeatedly violated the law against underage drinking. They have drunk
alcohol excessively. They have disturbed their neighbors with loud music and noise,
both on-campus and off-campus. They have publicly urinated both on-campus and off.
They have shown disrespect for property. Both the number of team members implicated
in this behavior and the number of alcohol-related incidents involving them have been
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 300 of 460
301
excessive compared to other Duke athletic teams. Nevertheless, their conduct has not
been different in character than the conduct of the typical Duke student who abuses
alcohol. Their reported conduct has not involved fighting, sexual harassment, or racist
behavior. Moreover, even the people who have complained about their alcohol-related
misconduct often add that the students are respectful and appear genuinely remorseful
when they are not drinking.” Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
846. The claims against Provost Lange, Vice President Moneta, former
Secretary Haltom, and Executive Vice President Trask were dismissed by the Court’s
Order of March 31, 2011.
Duke University admits that the Report of the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review
Committee was released on May 1, 2006. Duke University further admits that Reade
Seligmann and Colin Finnerty had been indicted prior to the release of the Report of the
Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review Committee. Duke University and President Brodhead admit
that President Brodhead did not meet with the lacrosse players’ lawyers to review
“evidence.” Duke University and President Brodhead deny the remaining allegations.
Former Chairman Steel, former Senior Vice President Burness, and Chancellor
Dzau deny the allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 301 of 460
302
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
847. The claims against Provost Lange, Vice President Moneta, former
Secretary Haltom, and Executive Vice President Trask were dismissed by the Court’s
Order of March 31, 2011.
Duke University, former Chairman Steel, President Brodhead, former Senior Vice
President Burness, and Chancellor Dzau specifically deny that they “forced the
conclusion” of the Ad Hoc Committee’s investigation. Duke University admits that the
Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review Committee report was released on May 1, 2006, accompanied
by a press conference. Duke University further admits that at the time the Ad Hoc
Review Committee Report was issued two lacrosse players had been indicted. Duke
University is without knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of whether
the press conference was “attended by virtually every national and local media outlet.”
To the extent this paragraph characterizes a statement made by Professor Coleman at the
press conference, Duke University denies the characterization. Duke University admits
that the Report of the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review Committee noted that “the Committee
believes [the] disciplinary record of lacrosse players over the last five years has been
problematic, especially since the fall of 2003,” but the Committee also reported that the
lacrosse team’s conduct was not different in character from the conduct of “the typical
Duke student who abuses alcohol.” Duke University, former Chairman Steel, President
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 302 of 460
303
Brodhead, former Senior Vice President Burness, and Chancellor Dzau deny the
remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
848. To the extent this paragraph characterizes the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review
Committee report and remarks made by Professor Coleman, Duke University denies the
characterizations. Duke University is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief about the truth of the allegations in the first and second sentences of
Paragraph 848 and, therefore, denies the allegations in the first and second sentences of
Paragraph 848. Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
849. To the extent this paragraph characterizes the Lacrosse Ad Hoc Review
Committee report, Duke University denies the characterization. President Brodhead
admits that he spoke at a meeting of the Durham Chamber of Commerce on April 20,
2006. To the extent this paragraph characterizes a statement made by President Brodhead
at the Chamber meeting, President Brodhead denies the characterization. Duke
University and President Brodhead deny the remaining allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 303 of 460
304
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
850. Duke University admits that the report prepared by the Lacrosse Ad Hoc
Review Committee was released on May 1, 2006, accompanied by a press conference.
Duke University denies that the report was “grossly misleading”. Duke University is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
remaining allegations, including the allegations contained in subparagraphs A, B, C, and
D, and, therefore, deny the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations, including the allegations contained in
subparagraphs A, B, C, and D, and, therefore, deny the remaining allegations.
851. Former Senior Vice President Burness admits that he did not send a copy of
the Ad Hoc Committee’s report to the Plaintiffs, their teammates, or their legal counsel
before the report was released publicly. Former Senior Vice President Burness is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
allegations and, therefore, denies the remaining allegations.

snip

853. Former Chairman Steel specifically denies issuing any sort of “Directive”
as alleged within this Second Amended Complaint. Former Chairman Steel denies the
remaining allegations.
Duke University and Sergeant Smith admit that on or about March 31, Sergeant
Smith provided DukeCard information to the Durham Police Department for March 13-
14, 2006, for some of the members of the 2005-2006 Duke University men’s lacrosse
team. Duke University and Sergeant Smith admit that the DukeCard reports provided
information on when and where some of the members of the Duke University men’s
lacrosse team swiped their Duke University identification cards on Duke University’s
campus on March 13-14, 2006. Duke University and Sergeant Smith deny the remaining
allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants deny the allegations.
854. The allegations in Paragraph 854 call for a legal conclusion to which no
response is required. To the extent that a response is required, the Duke University
Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants deny the
allegations.
855. Duke University admits that the DukeCard data reports contained publiclyobservable
information about the students’ comings and goings and their purchases.
Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 306 of 460
307
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
856. Duke University admits that the DukeCard reports contained publiclyobservable
information about the students’ comings and goings and their purchases.
Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
857. The claims against Officer Stotsenberg were dismissed by the Court’s
Order of March 31, 2011.
Duke University and Sergeant Smith admit that Sergeant Smith provided
DukeCard reports to the Durham Police Department. Duke University and Sergeant
Smith are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of
the allegations contained in the second sentence of Paragraph 857 and, therefore, deny
the allegations contained in the second sentence of Paragraph 857. Duke University and
Sergeant Smith deny the remaining allegations.
Former Chairman Steel specifically denies issuing any sort of “Directive” as
alleged within this Second Amended Complaint. Former Chairman Steel is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
allegations and, therefore, denies the remaining allegations.


snip

861. The claims against Officer Stotsenberg and former Vice President Dawkins
were dismissed by the Court’s Order of March 31, 2011.
Former Chairman Steel specifically denies issuing any sort of “Directive” as
alleged within this Second Amended Complaint. Former Chairman Steel is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
allegations and, therefore, denies the remaining allegations.
Sergeant Smith admits that he provided DukeCard reports to the Durham Police
Department. Sergeant Smith denies the remaining allegations.
Duke University and former Director Drummond deny the allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
862. Former Chairman Steel specifically denies issuing any sort of “Directive”
as alleged within this Second Amended Complaint. Former Chairman Steel denies the
remaining allegations.
Duke University denies the allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 309 of 460
310
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
863. The allegation in the last sentence calls for a legal conclusion to which no
response is required. To the extent that a response is required, Duke University denies
the allegation.
Duke University admits that on May 31, 2006, it was served with two subpoenas
by the District Attorney, one for the home addresses of the lacrosse players and the other
one for DukeCard information. Duke University is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore, deny
the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and the Duke University Police Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the
allegations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

864. Duke University admits that representatives of Duke University sent letters
to the forty-seven members of the men’s lacrosse team and their criminal defense
attorneys representing lacrosse players. To the extent this paragraph characterizes the
letters sent by representatives of Duke University, Duke University denies that
characterization. Duke University admits that it had no knowledge at the time that the
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 310 of 460
311
letters were sent that the DukeCard information had been previously provided to the
Durham Police Department. Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
865. The claims against Lieutenant Stotsenberg and former Vice President
Dawkins were dismissed by the Court’s Order of March 31, 2011.
Sergeant Smith admits that he provided DukeCard reports to the Durham Police
Department. Sergeant Smith denies knowing that the “subpoena was a fraud.” Sergeant
Smith is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of
the remaining allegations and, therefore, denies the remaining allegations.
Duke University, former Director Drummond, the remaining Duke University
Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants deny that
they had any knowledge that the DukeCard information had been provided to the Durham
Police Department. Duke University, former Director Drummond, the remaining Duke
University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants
further deny any knowledge that the “subpoena was a fraud.” Duke University, former
Director Drummond, the remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police
Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore, deny
the remaining allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 311 of 460
312
866. The claims against Lieutenant Stotsenberg and former Vice President
Dawkins were dismissed by the Court’s Order of March 31, 2011.
Sergeant Smith admits that he provided DukeCard reports to the Durham Police
Department. Sergeant Smith denies the remaining allegations.
Duke University, former Director Drummond, the remaining Duke University
Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants deny that
they had any knowledge that the DukeCard information was provided to the Durham
Police Department. Duke University, former Director Drummond, the remaining Duke
University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants
deny the remaining allegations.
867. The claims against Lieutenant Stotsenberg and former Vice President
Dawkins were dismissed by the Court’s Order of March 31, 2011.
Sergeant Smith admits that he provided DukeCard reports to the Durham Police
Department. Sergeant Smith is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore, denies the remaining
allegations.
Duke University, former Director Drummond, the remaining Duke University
Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants deny they
had any knowledge that the DukeCard information was provided to the Durham Police
Department. Duke University, former Director Drummond, the remaining Duke
University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 312 of 460
313
admit that there was a hearing on a motion to quash the subpoena for the DukeCard
information. Other than court records, Duke University, former Director Drummond, the
remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke
SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore, deny the remaining allegations.
868. The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants and
the Duke University Police Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient
to form a belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
869. Upon information and belief, the Duke University Defendants, Duke
University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants admit that the court granted
the motion to quash the subpoena for the DukeCard information. Other than court
records, the Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke
SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore, deny the remaining allegations.
870. The claims against Lieutenant Stotsenberg and former Vice President
Dawkins were dismissed by the Court’s Order of March 31, 2011.
Sergeant Smith admits that he provided DukeCard reports to the Durham Police
Department. Sergeant Smith is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore, denies the remaining
allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 313 of 460
314
Duke University admits that in 2007, Robert Ekstrand, counsel for Plaintiffs in this
action, contacted Duke University about a release of the DukeCard information. Duke
University further admits that, upon investigation, Duke University learned that Sergeant
Smith had released the information to the Durham Police Department. Duke University
denies that it knew that the information had been released to the Durham Police
Department before 2007. Duke University is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore,
denies the remaining allegations.
Former Director Drummond, the remaining Duke University Defendants, the
remaining Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants deny that
they had any knowledge that the DukeCard information was provided to the Durham
Police Department. Former Director Drummond, the remaining Duke University
Defendants, the remaining Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE
Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the
truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore, deny the remaining allegations.

snip

873. The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and
Duke SANE Defendants specifically deny any participation in any sort of conspiracy as
alleged within this Second Amended Complaint. The Duke University Defendants, Duke
University Police Defendants and the Duke University Police Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
allegations and, therefore, deny the remaining allegations.
To the extent that the heading that precedes Paragraph 874 is construed as
allegations, the Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and
Duke SANE Defendants deny the allegations.
874. Upon information and belief, Duke University admits that members of the
men’s lacrosse team were involved with Duke Students for an Ethical Durham, a Political
Action Committee that engaged in voter registration efforts. Duke University is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the remaining
allegations and, therefore, denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.

snip

876. The claims against Provost Lange, Vice President Moneta, former
Secretary Haltom, and Executive Vice President Trask were dismissed by the Court’s
Order of March 31, 2011.
Former Chairman Steel, President Brodhead, former Senior Vice President
Burness, and Chancellor Dzau specifically deny any “objective” as alleged within this
Second Amended Complaint “to force a trial on Mangum’s allegations.” Former
Chairman Steel, President Brodhead, former Senior Vice President Burness, and
Chancellor Dzau deny the remaining allegations.
Duke University admits that on September 30, 2006, an official from the Athletic
Department requested members of the Duke Students for an Ethical Durham, which was
not a registered Duke student organization, not to hold a voter registration drive in the
Wallace Wade stadium area. Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
877. The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and
Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 316 of 460
317
878. Duke University admits that it supports voting and non-partisan voter
registration efforts. Duke University admits that there are voter registration activities
underway at Duke University that are sponsored by students and in conformity with
federal mandates. Duke University is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore, denies the
remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
879. Duke University admits that there are voter registration activities underway
at Duke University that are sponsored by students and in conformity with federal
mandates. Duke University is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the remaining allegations and, therefore, denies the remaining
allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
880. Duke University denies the allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 317 of 460
318
881. Duke University denies that a Political Action Committee, Duke Students
for an Ethical Durham, sought prior permission to conduct a voter registration drive.
Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke
SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about
the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
882. The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and
Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
883. Duke University admits that on September 30, 2006, an employee from the
Athletic Department asked members of the Duke Students for an Ethical Durham not to
continue the voter registration drive in the parking lot adjacent to Wallace Wade Stadium.
Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
884. The Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and
Duke SANE Defendants specifically deny that they were a part of any type of
“consortium” as alleged within this Second Amended Complaint. The Duke University
Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants deny the
remaining allegations.
Case 1:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
. Duke University and President Brodhead admit
that President Brodhead did not meet with the lacrosse players’ lawyers to review
“evidence".


Why is "evidence" in quotes? It was the EVIDENCE, stupid!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
883. Duke University admits that on September 30, 2006, an employee from the
Athletic Department asked members of the Duke Students for an Ethical Durham not to
continue the voter registration drive
in the parking lot adjacent to Wallace Wade Stadium.
Duke University denies the remaining allegations.


That's enough...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Payback
Member Avatar

"President Brodhead and former Director Dean are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the allegations in
subparagraphs A and B and, therefore, deny the allegations in subparagraphs A and B."

How strange! Brodhead knew at once that the lacrosse players were guilty. BELIEF OF IT OPPRESSED HIM ALREADY, the moment he heard a report of rape and sodomy and beating. He already had knowledge or information about some male student somewhere urinating off a porch, so he knew ALREADY that whatever the lacrosse players were accused of, whatever they had actually done was bad enough, and worse.

And here he is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief! Is he saying this under oath?

What a wild whirling goes on in his skull.
Edited by Payback, Apr 15 2011, 01:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
864. Duke University admits that representatives of Duke University sent letters
to the forty-seven members of the men’s lacrosse team and their criminal defense
attorneys
representing lacrosse players. To the extent this paragraph characterizes the
letters sent by representatives of Duke University, Duke University denies that
characterization. Duke University admits that it had no knowledge at the time that the
letters were sent that the DukeCard information had been previously provided to the
Durham Police Department
. Duke University denies the remaining allegations.


And if that turns out to be contrary to fact, is that another instance of perjury (or does that have to
be stated under oath in a deposition)?

And if what is stated in a deposition contradicts what is stated to the court in a motion,
is there any sanction for that if it is not perjury?

(And if not, then why not simply lie all the time in motions? Why not play, "Catch me if you can!")
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

890. Duke University admits that President Brodhead asked William G. Bowen
and Julius Chambers to review the handling by the administration of Duke University,
including the Athletic Department, of the allegations against lacrosse team members
associated with the party held on March 13-14 at 610 North Buchanan Boulevard. Duke
University admits that William G. Bowen and Julius Chambers prepared a report that
included findings and conclusions. To the extent this paragraph purports to characterize
the contents of the Bowen Committee’s report, Duke University denies the
characterization. Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
891. Duke University admits that the Bowen Committee issued a report. Duke
University denies that the Bowen report “concluded that defense attorneys were to
blame.” To the extent this paragraph purports to characterize the contents of the Bowen
Committee’s report, Duke University denies the characterization. Duke University is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the
Case 1:07-cv-00953-JAB -WWD Document 195 Filed 04/14/11 Page 321 of 460
322
allegations regarding a City of Durham investigation and, therefore, denies these
allegations. Duke University denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
892. Duke University denies the allegations.
To the extent the allegations in Paragraph 892 are alleged against any of the
remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants, or Duke
SANE Defendants, the remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police
Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants deny the allegations.
893. Duke University denies the allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
894. To the extent this paragraph purports to characterize a statement made by
former Senior Vice President Burness, former Senior Vice President Burness denies the
characterization. Former Senior Vice President Burness denies the remaining allegations.
The remaining Duke University Defendants, Duke University Police Defendants,
and Duke SANE Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a
belief about the truth of the allegations and, therefore, deny the allegations.
895. Former Senior Vice President Burness denies the allegations.

snip

(The rest of the Answer is a count-by-count denial).


This the 14th day of April, 2011.
/s/ J. Donald Cowan, Jr.
J. Donald Cowan, Jr.
N.C. State Bar No. 0968
Email: don.cowan@elliswinters.com
Dixie T. Wells
N.C. State Bar No. 26816
Email: dixie.wells@elliswinters.com
Ellis & Winters LLP
333 N. Greene Street, Suite 200
Greensboro, North Carolina 27401
Telephone: (336) 217-4193
Facsimile: (336) 217-4198
Counsel for Duke University Defendants
and Duke University Police Defendants
/s/ Dan J. McLamb
Dan J. McLamb
N.C. State Bar No. 6272
Email: dmclamb@ymwlaw.com
Yates, McLamb & Weyher, LLP
421 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1200
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone: (919) 835-0900
Facsimile: (919) 835-0910
Counsel for Duke SANE Defendants
Case
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