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 (2,903 Views)
Quasimodo

Joan Foster
Apr 15 2011, 04:39 PM
Is this true that the FERPA violations don't matter legally? What was that reasoning?


I think Judge Beaty said that anything recorded on the Duke cards (ie, purchases made) was done publicly, so there was no loss of privacy. (I still wouldn't want every purchase I made on a credit card made public; and I think to do so would be an invasion of my privacy.)

(My own cynical view is that Beaty wants to get Duke off the hook for as much as possible, and in the end will
focus the case entirely on a couple of rogue cops, who helped a rogue prosecutor. That's it.)

The only penalty for violating FERPA is that the federal government CAN, if it wants,
cut off your federal funds.

Duke gets hundreds of millions a year (and maybe more) in grants for studies, etc.

The feds COULD, if they want, penalize Duke as an example to other universities across the country.

(However, my bet is that they don't...)
Edited by Quasimodo, Apr 15 2011, 04:48 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

thanks, Quasi. Then FERPA is toothless and meaningless. Duke knew that I suppose.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sceptical

While the FERPA violation itself is toothless, it is important as part of a pattern of obstruction of justice faced by Duke.

Now Duke claims that its administrators and legal affairs did not know that Duke Police turned over the key card information-- this astounding admission strains credulity with all that was happening at the time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Quasimodo
Apr 15 2011, 07:26 AM
Quote:
 
"One of the most important reasons for civil lawsuits, for civil rights lawsuits, is not just to get compensation for somebody who's been wrongly convicted, but to publicize the causes of that miscarriage of justice. That's why people sue -- to bring about change, to bring about reform. It's not just about compensation. ..."-


That's what Duke doesn't want.

And it will play rough to get it (as it has all along throughout the case...)



(speculation alert!)

ARTICLE:
Thursday's filings, which covered 732 pages

Quasi:
Some of the other denials, however, are unbelievable. To say that Levicy did not mischaracterize the findings of the SANE exam contradicts the testimony of Gottlieb, Himan, and Levicy's own admission what she told them

FILING:
"the Duke University Defendants, Duke
University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants"
(1,2 & 3 - denying any knew what the others were doing - that's convenient!)


????????? WHAT'S THE BEST WE CAN HOPE FOR ?????????

The thousands upon thousands of pages of information is an overload! How admission or denial of one thing is tied to one or more other issues adds a maze of further confusion.

Thru today, there is little, if anything, about the cases out there that I have not read at least a couple times, including the complaints and defendants responses. It is just too much for one to remember all of and you have to continue refreshing yourself to just remember the more important parts of the mess. (Quasi & Sceptical are among the few here that read and re-read constantly - MY THANKS TO BOTH!)

I hope that when the final verdict comes in, there is a little guilt left that any person in the public can understand, not some technical error type reason for any judgment made.

It seems like it has grown so large that the message of the TRUTH could very easily get lost in the process.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Myself:
Quote:
 
FILING:
"the Duke University Defendants, Duke
University Police Defendants, and Duke SANE Defendants"
(1,2 & 3 - denying any knew what the others were doing - that's convenient!)


I'm short on time to read all this, but from what I am reading it is difficult at times to understand if the attorney is representing 1, 2, and/or 3 while discussing what 1, 2, and/or 3 knew of 1, 2, and/or 3 doing.

The "DukeCard" denials stick out in my confusion here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo



THEY CHOOSE TO INTERVIEW IRVING JOYNER!!

Quote:
 
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/9450202/

Duke denies wrongdoing in lacrosse lawsuits

(snip)

In its answer to the suits, Duke said the university, President Richard Brodhead and other high-ranking staff members did nothing illegal or improper. The players' allegations are based on a number of false premises, the university said.

Irving Joyner, a law professor at North Carolina Central University and a close observer of the case,
said he believes third-party liability is a major part of the defense. Under that theory, Duke maintains that any wrongdoing was caused by Crystal Mangum and Nifong – two people not connected to Duke in any way.

"What they're claiming is that what they did was what they would normally do when confronted with this kind of situation and provided the information that was truthful as best they could provide it to these young men and did not do anything to harm them," Joyner said.

(snip)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Irving Joyner, a law professor at North Carolina Central University and a close observer of the case
,

WHY DON'T THEY IDENTIFY HIM AS THE NAACP APPOINTED WATCHDOG, WHO BACKED NIFONG EVEN AFTER IT WAS REVEALED
IN THE DEC. 15 HEARING THAT NIFONG HAD HIDDEN EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE??
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo



Why don't they interview KC Johnson? He is what could be called "a close observer of the case".


Edited by Quasimodo, Apr 15 2011, 06:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 

102. Duke University admits that on March 14, 2006, the dispatcher at the Duke
University Police Department received a call from Durham 911
informing him that
Durham 911 had received a call reporting racial slurs being made at a house at 610 North
Buchanan Boulevard

[Interesting; the dispatcher called DUPD, not DPD. But the DPD responded?? And within
two minutes??]


Duke University admits that President Brodhead, Executive Vice President Trask,
Vice President Moneta, Provost Lange, former Senior Vice President Burness, and
former University Secretary Haltom attended meetings to respond to the situation created
by the accusations against the lacrosse players.
Duke University denies the remaining
allegations.

President Brodhead and former Senior Vice President Burness admit that they
attended meetings to respond to the situation created by the accusations against the
lacrosse players. President Brodhead and former Senior Vice President Burness deny the
remaining allegations.

Chancellor Dzau denies that he participated in meetings or communications to
respond to the situation created by the accusations against the lacrosse players.

Duke University admits that the Duke University Police Officers who were at the
Duke University Medical Center on March 13-14, 2006, were asked to prepare written
statements regarding any information they might have about the night of March 13-14
relating to Ms. Mangum’s allegations in order to comply with the request for information
made by the District Attorney’s Office.
Duke University admits that the statements were
memoranda addressed to the Office of Durham County District Attorney. To the extent
this paragraph purports to characterize the statements made by the Duke University
Police officers, Duke University denies the characterizations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kerri P.
Member Avatar

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/9450202/
Duke denies wrongdoing in lacrosse lawsuits
Posted: 5:55 p.m. today
Updated: 7:02 p.m. today

Durham, N.C. — Duke University has denied all allegations made in lawsuits by dozens of former lacrosse players impacted by false rape claims.

More than three dozen players who were never indicted in a 2006 investigation accused the university of fraud, negligence, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

In March 2006, Crystal Mangum claimed three white lacrosse players trapped her inside a bathroom at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd., where she was performing as a stripper at a team party, and raped and sexually assaulted her.

The university immediately ended the lacrosse team's season and forced the coach to resign, and investigators collected DNA samples from all of the players.

Mangum's story about the incident was so inconsistent that state officials later declared the players innocent, saying there was no credible evidence against them.

Duke had asked that it be dropped as a defendant in the suits, which also name former Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong and police investigators. A federal judge denied the university's request last month.

In its answer to the suits, Duke said the university, President Richard Brodhead and other high-ranking staff members did nothing illegal or improper. The players' allegations are based on a number of false premises, the university said.

snip.....

Added: There's a short video.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

Excerpt from Fact Checker

...732 pages. We told you Duke's tactic is to wiggle, delay, obfuscate and try to wear out the plaintiffs. It is spending H U G E sums of money on these lawsuits.

Bottom line: we want Brodhead and former Trustee chair Bob Steel under oath, under subpoena, bringing records, testifying in depositions about their roles.....snipped

http://dukefactchecker.blogspot.com/2011/04/brodhead-in-china-peter-provost-zips-up.html
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply