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 (2,905 Views)
sceptical

Hey guys & gals.

This is the gist of the McFadyen reply by Duke. I apologize for not doing it in a more concise and organized manner, but I thought it was important to get the text up.

Gotta go now, but I am sure I and others will have a lot of commentary in the hours ahead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
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


Unbelievable...




Edited by Quasimodo, Apr 15 2011, 01:18 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

sceptical
Apr 15 2011, 01:12 PM


This is the gist of the McFadyen reply by Duke. I apologize for not doing it in a more concise and organized manner, but I thought it was important to get the text up.

Thanks!

This was a lot of work, but very needed.

:toast: :toast:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
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


So why did it join in a farce with Nifong in 2006 to get cover for having turned over the info?

How far can you go in a motion with regards to denying provable facts, and is there a sanction for
wasting the court's time having to demonstrate that statements are blatantly false?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

The Duke higher ups are denying a lot of stuff they are responsible for Are not they responsible for the actions of all their employees? Is not Brodhead top dog? Is not steel top top dog? I get itnow. Anyone can do anything they like as long as the uppiity snobs dont know about it. lol ol

What a place brodhead and steel made.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
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.


1 ) Is Sgt. Smith going to be made the fall guy?

2 ) Doesn't he know about FERPA? Did he provide DukeCard reports to the DPD
WITHOUT a subpoena?

3 ) Is Duke trying to say that the Cards were provided only AFTER the receipt of
a subpoena?


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

chatham
Apr 15 2011, 01:31 PM
The Duke higher ups are denying a lot of stuff they are responsible for Are not they responsible for the actions of all their employees? Is not Brodhead top dog? Is not steel top top dog? I get itnow. Anyone can do anything they like as long as the uppiity snobs dont know about it. lol ol

What a place brodhead and steel made.
"The buck stops here."

-- Donna Shalala.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
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.


They know nothing...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
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.”


And if it is proven that they did, in fact, have such an objective?


Are former Chairman Steel, President Brodhead, former Senior Vice President
Burness, and Chancellor Dzau guilty of perjury? Or doesn't it matter what
you say to the court in a motion?

Can you, as Morey said, lie to the court because a trial hasn't started yet?


Edited by Quasimodo, Apr 15 2011, 01:47 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

Quasimodo
Apr 15 2011, 01:15 PM
sceptical
Apr 15 2011, 01:12 PM


This is the gist of the McFadyen reply by Duke. I apologize for not doing it in a more concise and organized manner, but I thought it was important to get the text up.

Thanks!

This was a lot of work, but very needed.

:toast: :toast:
Thanks! I've gone back and edited out some of the repetitive denials in an attempt shorten it.

Were the lawyers paid by the hour for this?? :roflmao:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
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.


Again, they know nothing...

But they seem to admit the need for discovery...
Edited by Quasimodo, Apr 15 2011, 02:02 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
881. Duke University denies that a Political Action Committee, Duke Students
for an Ethical Durham, sought prior permission to conduct a voter registration drive.


This is a matter of fact for a jury to decide.

If this is easily shown to be a false statement, then where is the credibility of the defendants?


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jack Wade

A jury isn't going to decide anything about the voter drive, or FERPA violations. Beaty's order took both those issues off the table. The DukeCard stuff is only an issue as regards the Duke's handling of the after-the-fact warrant, not for the mere fact of it having been given over. Duke covered those in its answer only because answers entail a paragraph-by-paragraph response to the original suit.
Edited by Jack Wade, Apr 15 2011, 04:20 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Jack Wade
Apr 15 2011, 04:10 PM
A jury isn't going to decide anything about the voter drive, or FERPA violations. Beaty's order took both those issues off the table. The DukeCard stuff is only an issue as regards the Duke's handling of the after-the-fact warrant, not for the mere fact of it having been given over. Duke covered those in its answer only because answers entail a paragraph-by-paragraph response to the original suit.
But they still admitted the voting issue in a sworn document. And that's enough to bring in the justice department on a voting rights issue.

I ain't forgetting about it. I still to this day remember the screaming match I had with that Assistant US Attorney about it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Is this true that the FERPA violations don't matter legally? What was that reasoning?
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