| Duke Files New 732 Page Answer in Civil Suits; Duke Denies Fraud; Text of McFadyen Answer | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Apr 15 2011, 01:22 AM (2,906 Views) | |
| sceptical | Apr 15 2011, 12:38 PM Post #61 |
|
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: |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 15 2011, 12:39 PM Post #62 |
|
That order may shortly be forthcoming... |
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Apr 15 2011, 12:43 PM Post #63 |
|
(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.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 15 2011, 12:45 PM Post #64 |
|
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? |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 15 2011, 12:47 PM Post #65 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Apr 15 2011, 12:49 PM Post #66 |
|
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 |
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Apr 15 2011, 12:54 PM Post #67 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 15 2011, 01:00 PM Post #68 |
|
|
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Apr 15 2011, 01:00 PM Post #69 |
|
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. |
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Apr 15 2011, 01:04 PM Post #70 |
|
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: |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 15 2011, 01:04 PM Post #71 |
|
Why is "evidence" in quotes? It was the EVIDENCE, stupid! |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 15 2011, 01:05 PM Post #72 |
|
That's enough... |
![]() |
|
| Payback | Apr 15 2011, 01:08 PM Post #73 |
|
"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.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Apr 15 2011, 01:09 PM Post #74 |
|
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!") |
![]() |
|
| sceptical | Apr 15 2011, 01:10 PM Post #75 |
|
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 |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







3:28 AM Jul 11