Duke Lacrosse Players to File Federal Suit Against University

[77devil]

The repercussions of this tragic incident just won't go away. It will be interesting to see how the University responds. Can't imagine it will entertain a settlement with 38 players/families which means protracted civil litigation.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601079&sid=ao_vvo8h2QUU&refer=home

[pamtar]

If was the main three I could understand. I don't see 38 students winning. Keep in mind the school was simply reacting to charges brought by an elected official. They should not be held liable for decisions they made based on Nifong's mistakes. Plus, the party included underage drinking, prostitutes, etc.. Couldn't Broadhead rightfully suspend the season based on that alone?

[gus]

On what grounds are they suing?

This is one of the many reasons why I thought the University shouldn't have settled the earlier suits. If they give any money to the other players, I think *I* will sue.

[Bluedog]

On what grounds are they suing?

This is one of the many reasons why I thought the University shouldn't have settled the earlier suits. If they give any money to the other players, I think *I* will sue.

The university only settled with the indicted players, not the unindicted players. Although they did offer to pay for the unindicted players legal fees, but were turned down.

The lawsuit hasn't been filed yet, but according to the "case summary" they are suing Duke on these alleged grounds:

"Intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress based on the false
and misleading information about the medical and physical evidence of
rape provided by Levicy [Duke hospital nurse] to the Durham Investigators"

"Fraud, negligent misrepresentation, abuse of process, and violations of
fourth amendment rights based on Duke University’s disclosure of
confidential key card reports to the Durham Investigators"

"Breach of duty based on Duke’s special relationship with its student
athletes. Duke failed in its duty to seek to protect these students from
harassment...

"Breach of contract for Duke’s failure to follow and enforce its own antiharassment
policy, cancellation of the lacrosse season, violation of
procedural rights."

See http://www.bork.com//downloads/Case%20Summary%202.21.2008.pdf

The full lawsuit will be filed later today and can be read at www.dukelawsuit.com.

Obviously, not good for the university's PR....this case should take a while. The HBO movie is starting up again as well since the writer's strike just ended and have already spoken with The Chronicle's main editor during the case.

[greybeard]

The university only settled with the indicted players, not the unindicted players. Although they did offer to pay for the unindicted players legal fees, but were turned down.


This surprises me. On the LAX board it was the view of the many that the University would and should never pay the fees. What is your source on this? Is it reliable? I can't imagine that legal-fee reimbursement would not be a key element of a lawsuit that the players would bring. Interesting.

[Bluedog]

This surprises me. On the LAX board it was the view of the many that the University would and should never pay the fees. What is your source on this? Is it reliable? I can't imagine that legal-fee reimbursement would not be a key element of a lawsuit that the players would bring. Interesting.

Here's the source:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/story/837956.html

"In an effort to avoid destructive litigation, Jarmul said in the statement, Duke offered months ago to reimburse attorney fees and other expenses to the unindicted players.

'We were and remain disappointed those offers were not accepted.' the statement said. 'We will aggressively defend the university in this matter.' "

That is the statement after the first of the lawsuits from unindicted players (i.e. not this one). You can read the full Duke statement, I think, on the Dukenews site somewhere....It also says the same thing; that they offered to pay all the legal fees, but were turned down.

[pfrduke]

The university only settled with the indicted players, not the unindicted players. Although they did offer to pay for the unindicted players legal fees, but were turned down.

The lawsuit hasn't been filed yet, but according to the "case summary" they are suing Duke on these alleged grounds:

"Intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress based on the false
and misleading information about the medical and physical evidence of
rape provided by Levicy [Duke hospital nurse] to the Durham Investigators"

"Fraud, negligent misrepresentation, abuse of process, and violations of
fourth amendment rights based on Duke University’s disclosure of
confidential key card reports to the Durham Investigators"

"Breach of duty based on Duke’s special relationship with its student
athletes. Duke failed in its duty to seek to protect these students from
harassment...

"Breach of contract for Duke’s failure to follow and enforce its own antiharassment
policy, cancellation of the lacrosse season, violation of
procedural rights."

See http://www.bork.com//downloads/Case%20Summary%202.21.2008.pdf

The full lawsuit will be filed later today and can be read at www.dukelawsuit.com.

Obviously, not good for the university's PR....this case should take a while. The HBO movie is starting up again as well since the writer's strike just ended and have already spoken with The Chronicle's main editor during the case.

Claims 2 and 3 seem like out and out losers. If the University is already collecting your card information, I think your right to privacy in it is already out the window (although a stickier and more interesting question could be whether a student could insist that the University not monitor his/her comings and goings).

Claim 3 would require the creation of a whole new category of special relationship, which courts are loathe to do. Saying that there is a special "University-athlete" relationship, separate from the "University-student" relationship, is a reach in and of itself. Further saying that the relationship triggers a specific duty on the part of the University to protect its athletes from harassment by the DA's office is, at least in my opinion, completely unsupportable.

Claim 1 looks like straight vicarious liability, and may have merit.

Claim 4 looks like the big ticket, particularly if they can establish that they should have been entitled to procedural due process before getting the season canceled. Although, now that I think about it, there are two problems: 1) private entities aren't required to give procedural due process; 2) what's the harm that can be shown by having the season canceled?

All in all, whether or not you believe the unindicted players were wronged by Duke, this lawsuit seems unlikely to provide them with meaningful financial recovery (absent a settlement).

[greybeard]

This surprises me. On the LAX board it was the view of the many that the University would and should never pay the fees. What is your source on this? Is it reliable? I can't imagine that legal-fee reimbursement would not be a key element of a lawsuit that the players would bring. Interesting.

Thanks. This should be an object lesson for all, including yours truly. The "debate" on the LAX board about whether the university should pay the legal fees of the unindicted players was at times ferocious, albeit I now see if this report is accurate, oh so moot. Peace.

[SoCalDukeFan]

when you settle easily on generous terms you are open for more lawsuits.

When you handle cases like this as Duke did, then you are also open to lawsuits.

My guess is that Duke(Brodhead, Steel etc) want to avoid Discovery and will settle.

SoCal

[greybeard]

when you settle easily on generous terms you are open for more lawsuits.

When you handle cases like this as Duke did, then you are also open to lawsuits.

My guess is that Duke(Brodhead, Steel etc) want to avoid Discovery and will settle.

SoCal

Done. My guess, a nickel's worth anyway, is that the plaintiffs want discovery and believe that the facts are worser than Brodhead's severest critics have imagined, which is pretty darn worse.

Also, my nickel says that it will take much more than money, which means that the lawsuit will place Brodhead and the Trustees in what my uncle Mo, a Checkers' expert, liked to call a pair of pants--you get jumped either way.

We'll see.

[Jim3k]

Done. My guess, a nickel's worth anyway, is that the plaintiffs want discovery and believe that the facts are worser than Brodhead's severest critics have imagined, which is pretty darn worse.

Also, my nickel says that it will take much more than money, which means that the lawsuit will place Brodhead and the Trustees in what my uncle Mo, a Checkers' expert, liked to call a pair of pants--you get jumped either way.

We'll see.

My bet is that the plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action and the matter is dismissed upon the filing of the appropriate motion.

1. What the SANE nurse did or didn't do has no bearing on these plaintiffs. There is no vicarious liability as to these plaintiffs. This information was release by the PD and by Nifong, not Duke or the Duke PD (IIRC). Besides, it would have inevitably come out, since it was part of a criminal investigation.

2. The key card information was not privileged by any statute and the police were within their rights to use it to assist in their investigation. There is a school of thought that this information was protected by FERPA. It is not, since it has nothing to do with academic records.

3. There is no special (fiduciary) relationship between a university and its athletes obligating the school to treat them better than other students.

4. Generally speaking policies such as these are not contractual. Moreover, what harassment did those athletes face? Their season was canceled, but that is a non-sequitur. There was a public demonstration against sexual misconduct by students, teaches and members of the community. For there to be actionable harassment, there must be ongoing conduct that the entity either approves or ignores with knowledge. Those harassment policies also are aimed students who are members of a protected group or who must deal with unwanted demands for favors. That didn't happen here.

The last may require discovery. But not much. It ain't going anyplace after that.

[dukie8]

i agree. the claims against duke will be dismissed due to the fact that they have failed to state a cause of action. it wasn't mentioned earlier but Intentional Inflication of Emotional Distress is virtually impossible to win. the conduct has to be over-the-top egregious and without a doubt intentional. there is no chance that this cause of action survives for very long.

[greybeard]

My bet is that the plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action and the matter is dismissed upon the filing of the appropriate motion.

1. What the SANE nurse did or didn't do has no bearing on these plaintiffs. There is no vicarious liability as to these plaintiffs. This information was release by the PD and by Nifong, not Duke or the Duke PD (IIRC). Besides, it would have inevitably come out, since it was part of a criminal investigation.

2. The key card information was not privileged by any statute and the police were within their rights to use it to assist in their investigation. There is a school of thought that this information was protected by FERPA. It is not, since it has nothing to do with academic records.

3. There is no special (fiduciary) relationship between a university and its athletes obligating the school to treat them better than other students.

4. Generally speaking policies such as these are not contractual. Moreover, what harassment did those athletes face? Their season was canceled, but that is a non-sequitur. There was a public demonstration against sexual misconduct by students, teaches and members of the community. For there to be actionable harassment, there must be ongoing conduct that the entity either approves or ignores with knowledge. Those harassment policies also are aimed students who are members of a protected group or who must deal with unwanted demands for favors. That didn't happen here.

The last may require discovery. But not much. It ain't going anyplace after that.

Interesting. I have not read the complaint but I do have a second nickel. If, as has been reported in some paper, the university offered to pay the legal fees of all 38 of these guys, some of whom spent in triple figures, I have to think that there must be some there there. Lawyers like money, and the kids and their families are out of pocket, like I said some considerably. There are two other suits taking place. Either all of them are nuts, or there is something to this suit. A nickel is on the latter. ;)

[77devil]

My bet is that the plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action and the matter is dismissed upon the filing of the appropriate motion.

We'll have to wait and see. The plantiffs' attorney is a serious D.C. litigator. Seems unlikely he would file if the suit was as thin as you suggest.

[SoCalDukeFan]

While this is on liestoppers I think it is accurate.
Explanation of a parent as to why they are part of the suit.

This is not a legal justification for the suit as I see it but very interesting reading.

http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=6176

SoCal

[Duvall]

We'll have to wait and see. The plantiffs' attorney is a serious D.C. litigator. Seems unlikely he would file if the suit was as thin as you suggest.

Having practiced against serious D.C. litigators, I can say that this is in no way true.

[formerdukeathlete]

Having practiced against serious D.C. litigators, I can say that this is in no way true.

And, if after reading the complaint, folks feel the complaint fails to state causes of action which will suvive motions to dismiss, then offer this commentary and your reasons why.

what the University paid the 3 indicted players, what was accepted in full settlement by these players may pale in comparison to what may be awarded by a jury, if this gets before the jury.

It seems the players wanted much more of an admission of mistakes, wrong doing on the part of Brodhead, and that he would have made a much broader apology with much more contrition.

It has always been my position that had the University simply been willing to withhold judgment, avoid taking actions which implied guilt on the part of the players, and to have respected privacy rights of the students, Nifong would never have been able to obtain an indictment. Brodhead is most at fault in this.

Perhaps the players would accept as part of a settlement Brodhead's dismissal.

[snowdenscold]

Perhaps the players would accept as part of a settlement Brodhead's dismissal.

Replace "her" with "it" (referring to your call for Brodhead's firing) and go here: http://www.despair.com/persistence.html

[TampaDuke]

When you handle cases like this as Duke did, then you are also open to lawsuits.

But if Duke had handled the case as appears to be suggested by the lawsuit,
it could leave itself open to even greater liability to alleged victims whenever Duke students are involved in criminal allegations. I often encounter this dilemma in my practice and my usual rule of thumb is that, where you are faced with a risk of writing a check no matter which option you choose, opt for the check(s) with the nuisance-level damages rather than the one with "millions" written on it.

FWIW, I agree with Jim3K that, on its face, these claims appear flimsy at best. My guess is that they are banking on Duke's willingness to put up $$ to avoid the adverse exposure, significant defense costs and possible discovery, etc. In my experience, this happens all the time.

Just my $.02.

[formerdukeathlete]

Replace "her" with "it" (referring to your call for Brodhead's firing) and go here: http://www.despair.com/persistence.html

Yes, thank you for the snide inuendo.

If you have a chance, and not enough time to read the complaint, watch the 50 minute press conference when the lawyers announced the lawsuit, responded to questions, also watch Mr. Henkleman's comments about why he joined the lawsuit. It seems that there is much to fault Brodhead for in his handling of the lacrosse matter. Jay Bilas and I share the same opinion about him, and I consider this pretty darn good company.

And, who was the first person on this Board to comment that Duke mishandled the lacrosse matter,? why me, of course, and I bore tremendous criticism and ridicule for doing so. Yes, this is leadership, getting out in front of an issue, even when you stand nearly alone, when you believe in the correctness of your position. Perhaps if many more had gotten what I saw so quickly and voiced similar criticisms of the Duke admin at the time, ameliorative measures could have been taken to alleveate much of the suffering, injustice, and this lawsuit, and others might have been avoided.

So Brodhead got his contract renewed. And, I offer no prediction of whether he will be dismissed. Watch the press conference, read the complaint, and offer some cogent comments, please.

[pfrduke]

And, who was the first person on this Board to comment that Duke mishandled the lacrosse matter,? why me, of course, and I bore tremendous criticism and ridicule for doing so. Yes, this is leadership, getting out in front of an issue, even when you stand nearly alone, when you believe in the correctness of your position. Perhaps if many more had gotten what I saw so quickly and voiced similar criticisms of the Duke admin at the time, ameliorative measures could have been taken to alleveate much of the suffering, injustice, and this lawsuit, and others might have been avoided.

Congratulations, you're a true patriot, hero, and rebel. Your sense of superiority and 75 cents will earn you a well-deserved Dr. Pepper.

[dukie8]

And, who was the first person on this Board to comment that Duke mishandled the lacrosse matter,? why me, of course, and I bore tremendous criticism and ridicule for doing so. Yes, this is leadership, getting out in front of an issue, even when you stand nearly alone, when you believe in the correctness of your position. Perhaps if many more had gotten what I saw so quickly and voiced similar criticisms of the Duke admin at the time, ameliorative measures could have been taken to alleveate much of the suffering, injustice, and this lawsuit, and others might have been avoided.

if this were true, big deal. even the blind squirrel finds an acorn every once in awhile. you call yourself a leader when, in the rare instance that you actually write something that people agree with, nobody sides with you? some leader.

[JG Nothing]

And, who was the first person on this Board to comment that Duke mishandled the lacrosse matter,? why me, of course, and I bore tremendous criticism and ridicule for doing so.
Get over yourself. You got criticized for making ridiculous comments. The most memorable one was your assertion that the lacrosse players were innocent because they would not rape an "ugly" and "flat-chested" woman and they could get sex elsewhere if they wanted it.

[greybeard]

Snarliness or whateveritisthatiDBRcallsit that is being directed at formerdukeathlete, in my opinion, is uncalled for and would be inappropriate even if were otherwise. The guy nailed it from the outset and got nailed here repeatedly and unfairly for calling it on the button.

His current perspective that Brodhead opened the gates for Nifong to walk through should not be cast aside so easily and certainly not so snidely. If it turns out that there were any communications between Brodhead's people and Nifong's about this, well, why don't we just waiit and see what washes out before we go throwing anyone under the bus anymore about this mess.

[JG Nothing]

Snarliness or whateveritisthatiDBRcallsit that is being directed at formerdukeathlete, in my opinion, is uncalled for and would be inappropriate even if were otherwise. The guy nailed it from the outset and got nailed here repeatedly and unfairly for calling it on the button.

If anything is uncalled for, it is the way FDA has presented himself in the past. He frequently made annoying comments, often sexist or misogynistic, simply to get a rise out of people. He continued that practice when commenting on the lacrosse case. He was not criticized for asserting the innocence of the lacrosse players; he was criticized for how he did it.

[greybeard]

If anything is uncalled for, it is the way FDA has presented himself in the past. He frequently made annoying comments, often sexist or misogynistic, simply to get a rise out of people. He continued that practice when commenting on the lacrosse case. He was not criticized for asserting the innocence of the lacrosse players; he was criticized for how he did it.

He was criticized, nope bashed, for criticizing Brodhead. That's the list. That also was wrong.

[formerdukeathlete]

If anything is uncalled for, it is the way FDA has presented himself in the past. He frequently made annoying comments..... He continued that practice when commenting on the lacrosse case. He was not criticized for asserting the innocence of the lacrosse players; he was criticized for how he did it.

If you read the complaint and watch the press conference, it seems that much of what is asserted by the plaintiffs as actionable were actions, statements, omissions by Brodhead. Early on, I pointed out that Brodhead made the matters worse and increased the perception that, implied that the players were guilty, when most who met with the players and who were familiar with the circumstances thought it was a hoax from day one.

And, the lacrosse case is not the first issue which I have been in front of. How about the need to fix up Wade and remove the running track?

I think the biggest problem with posts about the lacrosse case was that posters were so politically correct they presumed the players guilty. Facts, circumstances did not support this.

[JasonEvans]

Lets try to tone the anger and the arguments down a bit in this thread, ok guys.

Wild, unsupported allegations that have no evidence to back them up will not be tollerated in this thread or anywhere on the DBR boards.

-Jason

[Stray Gator]

For the benefit of those who want to "keep score" on the accuracy of their predictions about the consequences of the lacrosse controversy for Duke, we know that the Annual Fund set a new record for contributions last year, and last month the University announced the following additional good news regarding applications for undergraduate admission:

Duke University has received more than 20,250 applications for admission to the class entering this fall -- the largest number in school history. Applicants will be competing for about 1,665 places for first-year students.

Last year 19,206 applications were received, which at that time was the second highest in school history.

...In addition to setting a record for the total number of applications, records were set among students applying to Trinity College of Arts and Sciences, students from North Carolina, international students, and Latino and Asian students.

“We’ve also noticed a significant increase among children of alumni applying,” Guttentag said. “Last year we received just over 750 applications from children of alumni, which was a record at the time, and this year’s total will be at least 10 percent higher than that.”

Significant increases were also seen among applicants from Florida, Texas, Virginia, Massachusetts, Michigan and Alabama.

“As always, it will take us until late March to evaluate all of these applicants, but I’m delighted with what we’ve already seen in this year’s applicant pool,” Guttentag said. “We’ve received over a thousand more applications than last year, and we’re noticing already how interesting this year’s applicants are. This year’s pool represents one of the strongest -- if not the strongest -- group of applicants we’ve seen.”

[JasonEvans]

For the benefit of those who want to "keep score" on the accuracy of their predictions about the consequences of the lacrosse controversy for Duke, we know that the Annual Fund set a new record for contributions last year, and last month the University announced the following additional good news regarding applications for undergraduate admission:

Duke University has received more than 20,250 applications for admission to the class entering this fall -- the largest number in school history. Applicants will be competing for about 1,665 places for first-year students.

Last year 19,206 applications were received, which at that time was the second highest in school history.

...In addition to setting a record for the total number of applications, records were set among students applying to Trinity College of Arts and Sciences, students from North Carolina, international students, and Latino and Asian students.

“We’ve also noticed a significant increase among children of alumni applying,” Guttentag said. “Last year we received just over 750 applications from children of alumni, which was a record at the time, and this year’s total will be at least 10 percent higher than that.”

Significant increases were also seen among applicants from Florida, Texas, Virginia, Massachusetts, Michigan and Alabama.

“As always, it will take us until late March to evaluate all of these applicants, but I’m delighted with what we’ve already seen in this year’s applicant pool,” Guttentag said. “We’ve received over a thousand more applications than last year, and we’re noticing already how interesting this year’s applicants are. This year’s pool represents one of the strongest -- if not the strongest -- group of applicants we’ve seen.”

This is terrible news. I need fewer people to apply, not more, if my 11-year-old son is going to have any chance of getting in when he graduates from high school.

Sadly, he has his daddy's genes, so he won't be getting in on his brains.

--Jason "Stray, do alumni kids get in at a significantly higher rate than non-alums?" evans

[throatybeard]

Far higher. I'm sure this has gone down, but in my class, 70% of early-decision legacies got in. I'm certain there's no other way I'd have gotten in.

[Stray Gator]

This is terrible news. I need fewer people to apply, not more, if my 11-year-old son is going to have any chance of getting in when he graduates from high school.

Sadly, he has his daddy's genes, so he won't be getting in on his brains.

--Jason "Stray, do alumni kids get in at a significantly higher rate than non-alums?" evans

So-called "legacy" applicants--those whose parents (and sometimes siblings) are alumni of Duke--generally do get an extra "favorable bump" in the admissions process, though I don't think it's quite as significant an influence as it was in the past. Among regular decision candidates, my understanding is that being a "legacy" can still make a difference when it comes down to the line-drawing between applicants who have relatively similar credentials and qualifications. Of course, "legacies" who also apply for Early Decision improve their prospects substantially--you might say they get a "double favorable bump."

[dukie8]

For the benefit of those who want to "keep score" on the accuracy of their predictions about the consequences of the lacrosse controversy for Duke, we know that the Annual Fund set a new record for contributions last year, and last month the University announced the following additional good news regarding applications for undergraduate admission:

Duke University has received more than 20,250 applications for admission to the class entering this fall -- the largest number in school history. Applicants will be competing for about 1,665 places for first-year students.

Last year 19,206 applications were received, which at that time was the second highest in school history.

...In addition to setting a record for the total number of applications, records were set among students applying to Trinity College of Arts and Sciences, students from North Carolina, international students, and Latino and Asian students.

“We’ve also noticed a significant increase among children of alumni applying,” Guttentag said. “Last year we received just over 750 applications from children of alumni, which was a record at the time, and this year’s total will be at least 10 percent higher than that.”

Significant increases were also seen among applicants from Florida, Texas, Virginia, Massachusetts, Michigan and Alabama.

“As always, it will take us until late March to evaluate all of these applicants, but I’m delighted with what we’ve already seen in this year’s applicant pool,” Guttentag said. “We’ve received over a thousand more applications than last year, and we’re noticing already how interesting this year’s applicants are. This year’s pool represents one of the strongest -- if not the strongest -- group of applicants we’ve seen.”

hysterical :)

[DevilAlumna]

This is terrible news. I need fewer people to apply, not more, if my 11-year-old son is going to have any chance of getting in when he graduates from high school.

Sadly, he has his daddy's genes, so he won't be getting in on his brains.

--Jason "Stray, do alumni kids get in at a significantly higher rate than non-alums?" evans

Time to start bumping up those donations, Jason! :D

[greybeard]

For those interested in keeping score, let us remember that some folks asserted that Duke would never ever offer to pay the litigation expenses of the unindicted players. Formerdukeathlete was not one of them.

[xenic]

While this is on liestoppers I think it is accurate.
Explanation of a parent as to why they are part of the suit.

This is not a legal justification for the suit as I see it but very interesting reading.

http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=6176

SoCal

From the link:

But surely the legal system would work; surely, in the face of such serious false allegations, Duke would stand up for Erik and his teammates. They were their students, they were the players Duke had pledged to support. But the legal system wasn’t working; and Duke, rather than providing the hoped for support, coldly turned away and abandoned these young men.
1) the legal system did work. The charges were dismissed.
2) In what part of the legal system is Duke obligated to stand up for its students?
3) Um, when does Duke pledge to support its students? I don't remember hearing that at convocation.

[blueprofessor]

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-revelations-from-civil-suits.html
Best regards.

[Clipsfan]

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-revelations-from-civil-suits.html
Best regards.

That's an obviously biased presentation of the events. Similarly to what I did when the case initially broke, I'll choose to withhold judgment until after more of the facts are known.

[formerdukeathlete]

Get over yourself. You got criticized for making ridiculous comments. The most memorable one was your assertion that the lacrosse players were innocent because they would not rape an "ugly" and "flat-chested" woman and they could get sex elsewhere if they wanted it.

Your comments mischaracterize what I said and absolutely, certainly do not include the context. I also find it amazing that some so arrogantly throw insults my way, with the supposition that I am an intellectual lightweight. One of my great strenghts in life is that I sift through the noise and get to the bottom of an issue early on. I did this with the lacrosse matter, and I was the first person on this board to start the process of persuading others that the boys were innocent and that this whole hoax did not make sense. I think it is fair to say that a number of folks were biased against the lacrosse players. My comments went against the grain with many. Yet, many of my points proved to be valid. And, for doing this, for helping move the discussion in this fashion, I will not "get over myself." I do not accept your negative comment.

The point you refer to above is something which would have occurred to a jury evaluating the false accuser's false testimony. One of the things one of the defense attorneys told me was that the boys found the false accuser to be repugnant, unattractive would be too kind a word. So what would have been the motivation of the boys in her insane world of false accusations? That the boys hated black women, so much so that rape as an act of violence would have been perpertrated against her? Well, it is quite clear to many that the three indicted players were far from being racists. And, by all accounts about the party no racial slurs had been thrown anyone's way until after Kim Roberts slung some racial slurs at the boys, and then one boy and only one used the n word with Roberts.

CM's story was unbelievable for a number of compelling reasons - changing her story, history of drug use, drugs in her system, history of mental illness. Two fairly cogent points (if not quite as compelling) which the jury would have considered were that she was unattractive and the boys were not racists with a pattern of behavior exhibiting hatred toward black women.

[johnb]

Crummy things happened. The players had a rough time. The Duke administration scored--in my book--a B- in its handling of the situation, but its suboptimal behavior was influenced by prosecution that was historically bad. I can't help but think negative thoughts about the lawsuit.

[killerleft]

Perhaps all the lawsuits, if not settled out of court, will finally shed light on some accusations that have been made against Duke and others. These rumors (or truths, as they might be) can then be seen for what they represent.

I can't see how the truth of the matter can be a bad thing, at least for those of us who want to know. If the Duke administration is not guilty of punishable offenses, then I would like to know that. I posted some things that require an apology if that is true.

P.S. For anybody who has forgotten, my connection to Duke is only as a fan of the school and sports teams.

[greybeard]

Crummy things happened. The players had a rough time. The Duke administration scored--in my book--a B- in its handling of the situation, but its suboptimal behavior was influenced by prosecution that was historically bad. I can't help but think negative thoughts about the lawsuit.

Very understandable. The grade I think is debatable. But, rather than quibble about Bs or Cs or Ds (there was also an F thrown in there if I remember correctly), the more relevant inquiry it seems to me is whether the administration scored well enough to deserve the support it has received from the Trustees in the aftermath of the discredited prosecution, and what, if anything, does that support have to do with the lawsuit and the others that are pending?

Or, it might be just about money, as so many posit.

[77devil]

Having practiced against serious D.C. litigators, I can say that this is in no way true.

Please submit names to substantiate the hyperbole?


The University is starting a new round of spin control to suppress information already in the public domain by filing a motion to shut down a website about the case while maintaining its own.

http://www.dukelawsuit.com/2008/03/statement-about-dukes-motion-to-shut.html

http://www.bork.com/downloads/Carrington-Duke_MemoSupportMotionDoc11.pdf

http://news.duke.edu/lacrosseincident/

[Highlander]

Please submit names to substantiate the hyperbole?


The University is starting a new round of spin control to suppress information already in the public domain by filing a motion to shut down a website about the case while maintaining its own.

http://www.dukelawsuit.com/2008/03/statement-about-dukes-motion-to-shut.html

http://www.bork.com/downloads/Carrington-Duke_MemoSupportMotionDoc11.pdf

http://news.duke.edu/lacrosseincident/

I don't see anything on Duke's website about this lawsuit, only a compilation of press releases on a case that was closed almost a year ago. The last press release I saw there was from Spring 2007.

Dukelawsuit.com, on the other hand, is a site sponsored by the lawyers for the plaintiffs and dedicated towards promoting their point of view. I have no problem if Joe Q. public wants to set up such a site, but I do have a problem when a lawfirm decides to. They need to try their case in court, not in the media.

The dukelawsuit website is, by its very definition, an attempt by the plaintiffs at media spin control. Duke, on the other hand, has done nothing to "spin" this lawsuit, other than deny the charges and state they would defend themselves. Asking the plaintiffs to do the same sounds like a fair compromise to me.

To me it certainly seems like the plaintiffs want to force Duke into a settlement rather than take it to court, and plan to sling as much mud as they can before a judge tells them not to.

[greybeard]

I don't see anything on Duke's website about this lawsuit, only a compilation of press releases on a case that was closed almost a year ago. The last press release I saw there was from Spring 2007.

Dukelawsuit.com, on the other hand, is a site sponsored by the lawyers for the plaintiffs and dedicated towards promoting their point of view. I have no problem if Joe Q. public wants to set up such a site, but I do have a problem when a lawfirm decides to. They need to try their case in court, not in the media.

The dukelawsuit website is, by its very definition, an attempt by the plaintiffs at media spin control. Duke, on the other hand, has done nothing to "spin" this lawsuit, other than deny the charges and state they would defend themselves. Asking the plaintiffs to do the same sounds like a fair compromise to me.

To me it certainly seems like the plaintiffs want to force Duke into a settlement rather than take it to court, and plan to sling as much mud as they can before a judge tells them not to.

First, you badly misrepresent what the duke webcite says and what its intent is--it parses Brodhead's pronouncements to make them oh so appropriate and proper in all respects and throws in the plaintiffs' rejection of what apparently was a settlement offer, usually nondiscloseable, to prejudice the public against their cause before it is heard.

Second, your suggestion that you anticipate "mud slinging" and would on that basis subject the plaintiffs to a prior restraint of their right to speak astounds. Duke University is clearly trying to have it both ways; maybe it will succeed but it won't be because they or you are right.

[dpslaw]

It seems to me that some of you folks want to have it both ways. Nifong was disbarred for his pre-trial statements, among other ethical violations.

[pfrduke]

It seems to me that some of you folks want to have it both ways. Nifong was disbarred for his pre-trial statements, among other ethical violations.

What does this have to do with the liability that Duke University and its Trustees may potentially face in this lawsuit?

[Highlander]

First, you badly misrepresent what the duke webcite says and what its intent is--it parses Brodhead's pronouncements to make them oh so appropriate and proper in all respects and throws in the plaintiffs' rejection of what apparently was a settlement offer, usually nondiscloseable, to prejudice the public against their cause before it is heard.


I'll be honest, Greybeard. I usually don't read your posts. In this case I did only b/c you misconstrued what I was trying to say.

First, you're mixing your sources. It's obvious you haven't read the website, because it says absolutely nothing about the new lawsuit. It lists a factual account of what happened during the criminal case against the Duke lax 3. It is not about the civil suit.

The statement from Duke you're referring to was a written, 3 sentence response to the 6-7 page complaint the plaintiffs filed. Considering all the mud the plaintiffs threw at Duke in their very public filing (and topped off with a website and an hour long press conference), a 3 sentence response by Duke hardly seems like mud slinging to me. But to each his own.

Also, I think offers like that are nondiscloseable only if they are accepted. In this case, it was rejected by the plaintiffs and later disclosed by Duke.



Second, your suggestion that you anticipate "mud slinging" and would on that basis subject the plaintiffs to a prior restraint of their right to speak astounds. Duke University is clearly trying to have it both ways; maybe it will succeed but it won't be because they or you are right.

Anticipate? Anticipate? Read the lawsuit, my friend. It's 6-7 pages of one sided mudslinging. If that's not enough for you, check out their website or listen to the hour long press conference their lawyers gave. Read "It's not about the truth." Read Pressler's 3 or 4 lawsuits. Believe me, there is plenty of mud being slung at Duke. Arguing that the plaintiffs have, to date, shown "prior restraint" in contrast to Duke's response is pretty ridiculous, IMO.

It's very simple in my mind. The lawyers of the Lax players are trying to do to Duke exactly what Nifong did to the lax players - try the case in the court of public opinion. The whole reason for creating the website is to provide a very public forum to throw mud at Duke. It's not material to the case and may very well influence a potential jury (no doubt the plaintiff's intent). Asking them to shut it down and stick to the legal process is not only fair, it's prudent.

[Highlander]

What does this have to do with the liability that Duke University and its Trustees may potentially face in this lawsuit?

I think he was referring to Greybeard's statement above of the Lawyer's "right to speak" via the website to the public. Nifong was disbarred in part for similar actions.

It ultimately undermines the legal system and the ability of said system to answer the questions of liability you pose. Although it doesn't answer the question of their liability, but it may make it more difficult for the plaintiffs to prove (or try) it.

[greybeard]

I'll be honest, Greybeard. I usually don't read your posts. In this case I did only b/c you misconstrued what I was trying to say.

First, you're mixing your sources. It's obvious you haven't read the website, because it says absolutely nothing about the new lawsuit. It lists a factual account of what happened during the criminal case against the Duke lax 3. It is not about the civil suit.

The statement from Duke you're referring to was a written, 3 sentence response to the 6-7 page complaint the plaintiffs filed. Considering all the mud the plaintiffs threw at Duke in their very public filing (and topped off with a website and an hour long press conference), a 3 sentence response by Duke hardly seems like mud slinging to me. But to each his own.

Also, I think offers like that are nondiscloseable only if they are accepted. In this case, it was rejected by the plaintiffs and later disclosed by Duke.



Anticipate? Anticipate? Read the lawsuit, my friend. It's 6-7 pages of one sided mudslinging. If that's not enough for you, check out their website or listen to the hour long press conference their lawyers gave. Read "It's not about the truth." Read Pressler's 3 or 4 lawsuits. Believe me, there is plenty of mud being slung at Duke. Arguing that the plaintiffs have, to date, shown "prior restraint" in contrast to Duke's response is pretty ridiculous, IMO.

It's very simple in my mind. The lawyers of the Lax players are trying to do to Duke exactly what Nifong did to the lax players - try the case in the court of public opinion. The whole reason for creating the website is to provide a very public forum to throw mud at Duke. It's not material to the case and may very well influence a potential jury (no doubt the plaintiff's intent). Asking them to shut it down and stick to the legal process is not only fair, it's prudent.

Settlement discussions are inadmissible in court and usually are subject to confidentiality rules. Since this offer was made before a suit was filed, Duke apparently was under no constraints. That said, shaddy doings to say the least designed to poison the well against the plaintiffs in a manner that flouts the spirit if not the letter of the law. In short, plain old fashion mud slinging.

Lawsuit allegations are not mudslinging. If Duke has answers, they will be made in court and each side will have the opportunity for factual and legal argument.

If you say that the account of Brodhead's words and deeds on that website is anything approaching accurate and fair we got nothing to talk about.

The administration has had the pulpit to itself from the beginning and, at least from the perspectives of 38 Duke students, badly misused it to throw them under the bus. One guy got a much publicized undeserved and retaliatory F. Duke did nothing to the instructor who abused the authority Duke invested in her. What does that say to his 38 teammates?

Having their lawyer set up a website insures at least that what is said on their behalf on the net in that venue will be subject to judicial scrutiny. Why is that not enough?

[Highlander]

Settlement discussions are inadmissible in court and usually are subject to confidentiality rules. Since this offer was made before a suit was filed, Duke apparently was under no constraints. That said, shaddy doings to say the least designed to poison the well against the plaintiffs in a manner that flouts the spirit if not the letter of the law. In short, plain old fashion mud slinging.

Lawsuit allegations are not mudslinging. If Duke has answers, they will be made in court and each side will have the opportunity for factual and legal argument.

If you say that the account of Brodhead's words and deeds on that website is anything approaching accurate and fair we got nothing to talk about.

The administration has had the pulpit to itself from the beginning and, at least from the perspectives of 38 Duke students, badly misused it to throw them under the bus. One guy got a much publicized undeserved and retaliatory F. Duke did nothing to the instructor who abused the authority Duke invested in her. What does that say to his 38 teammates?

Having their lawyer set up a website insures at least that what is said on their behalf on the net in that venue will be subject to judicial scrutiny. Why is that not enough?

To PFRDuke's point above, you among others lambasted Nifong's 70 some odd press conferences on the criminal case. I doubt you would have thought it appropriate for Nifong to set up his own website touting his point of view. Yet here, because you agree with the speaker, it's OK.

And I agree, if you think a 7 page list of complaints (some completely without merit) levied against Duke is not in any way mudslinging, yet Duke's 3 sentence response to said complaint is, then we really will have to agree to disagree.

Lawyers aren't supposed to try their case in the media. Creating a website to prosecute a case is doing exactly that.

[Cavlaw]

The complaint is actually 225 pages; the 7 page thing is just a summary. I read the complaint last night (it's posted in its entirety on WRAL).

[greybeard]

To PFRDuke's point above, you among others lambasted Nifong's 70 some odd press conferences on the criminal case. I doubt you would have thought it appropriate for Nifong to set up his own website touting his point of view. Yet here, because you agree with the speaker, it's OK.

And I agree, if you think a 7 page list of complaints (some completely without merit) levied against Duke is not in any way mudslinging, yet Duke's 3 sentence response to said complaint is, then we really will have to agree to disagree.

Lawyers aren't supposed to try their case in the media. Creating a website to prosecute a case is doing exactly that.

Duke has and continues to put out its "story" about its handling of the LAX mess through its website. If the lawyer breaks any ethical rules on his site, the judge can sanction him. The lawsuit is what it is. You call it mud slinging. We'll see what the judge and then perhaps a jury thinks. Until then, I am not in favor of prior restraint. You are, it's a free country, or at least that's what I think.

[greybeard]

To PFRDuke's point above, you among others lambasted Nifong's 70 some odd press conferences on the criminal case. I doubt you would have thought it appropriate for Nifong to set up his own website touting his point of view. Yet here, because you agree with the speaker, it's OK.

And I agree, if you think a 7 page list of complaints (some completely without merit) levied against Duke is not in any way mudslinging, yet Duke's 3 sentence response to said complaint is, then we really will have to agree to disagree.

Lawyers aren't supposed to try their case in the media. Creating a website to prosecute a case is doing exactly that.

The right to petition the government, which includes filing lawsuits, is protected by the Bill of Rights. Baseless lawsuits are thrown out and at times sanctionable. You call the complaint mud slinging. I prefer to let the judge and then perhaps a jury pass upon it. That's the way it is done.

Duke has and continues to try its case--its handling of the LAX mess--in the media and its own website, putting its spin on things. It ventures into territory of highly questionable ethics in putting out its settlement offer, in an attempt to prejudice. Fair enough.

If the plaintiff's lawyer says something improper on his website, let's let the judge handle it. I am not in favor of prior restraint. It is a quaint notion that has something to do with the Constitution.

Likening the plaintiff's lawyer to Nifong is beyond irresponsible. Accusing me of a double standard is unwarrented. Unfortunate that you see things that way. It is a free country though, at least as I see it.

[Channing]

my .02 on the situation -

Short of a gag order from the judge, the Lax players would be stupid not to play the media angle. The massive amt of media support that followed the initial debacle that was the Duke Lax case has swung a lot of sympathy towards the Lax players. Make no mistake about it - the civil system is not about playing fair. Its about doing everything you can to get your client the best possible outcome, and if that means going out into the public to put your story out there, so be it. On top of that, that lax players have absolutely no reason to "play fair." No matter what the reason, they were thrown under the bus by the administration. The administration never came to their support when Nifong was claiming there was a "wall of silence" or even when the wanted posters were posted around Duke's campus. If I were a lax player I would probably be doing the same thing.

On a different note - I am sure the lax players are looking for a settlement. There is no longer the need to "clear their name." Rather than get involved in timely/ costly litigation that could take years, a settlement gets them their monetary recompense much sooner.

[pfrduke]

The complaint is actually 225 pages; the 7 page thing is just a summary. I read the complaint last night (it's posted in its entirety on WRAL).

I'd be curious to hear your reaction to it - I read it last weekend. It seemed to me that there were more than a handful of claims that would get by a motion to dismiss.

[Highlander]

The right to petition the government, which includes filing lawsuits, is protected by the Bill of Rights. Baseless lawsuits are thrown out and at times sanctionable. You call the complaint mud slinging. I prefer to let the judge and then perhaps a jury pass upon it. That's the way it is done.

Calling it mudslinging and arguing the right to file the suit are two different things. I did the former, not the latter.


Duke has and continues to try its case--its handling of the LAX mess--in the media and its own website, putting its spin on things.

Really? Duke's website (http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/announce_archive.html) hasn't been updated since July '07. The last press statement listed is almost a year old (April '07). If Duke is continually trying their case in the media as you suggest, they're being awfly quiet about it IMO. Had you said "state" instead of "try" its case, and removed the reference to "continues to," I would have agreed with your statement, btw.


If the plaintiff's lawyer says something improper on his website, let's let the judge handle it. I am not in favor of prior restraint. It is a quaint notion that has something to do with the Constitution.

Likening the plaintiff's lawyer to Nifong is beyond irresponsible. Accusing me of a double standard is unwarrented. Unfortunate that you see things that way. It is a free country though, at least as I see it.

All I'm saying is that if prosecutors don't have to conform to prior restraint, then that notion must apply to ALL prosecutors, not just the ones arguing the positions you agree with. A judge punished Nifong pretty harshly for his lack of prior restraint in the criminal trial. If Duke's motion is upheld, it will reinforce my opinion that these civil lawyers overstepped their bounds, just like Mike.

[Indoor66]

All I'm saying is that if prosecutors don't have to conform to prior restraint, then that notion must apply to ALL prosecutors, not just the ones arguing the positions you agree with. A judge punished Nifong pretty harshly for his lack of prior restraint in the criminal trial. If Duke's motion is upheld, it will reinforce my opinion that these civil lawyers overstepped their bounds, just like Mike.

Well reasoned post. Who ever wanted to be like Mike?

[Cavlaw]

I'd be curious to hear your reaction to it - I read it last weekend. It seemed to me that there were more than a handful of claims that would get by a motion to dismiss.
Well, I'm not a litigator, so I'm not the most qualified person to evaluate it. I'll just say I'm curious to see plaintiffs' response to the inevitable MTD for failure to state a claim with respect to most of the counts they set forth in the complaint. A number of their assertions about duties owed to the plaintiffs are surprising to me, and I want to see the theories they advance.

[greybeard]

Calling it mudslinging and arguing the right to file the suit are two different things. I did the former, not the latter.

Really? Duke's website (http://www.dukenews.duke.edu/mmedia/features/lacrosse_incident/announce_archive.html) hasn't been updated since July '07. The last press statement listed is almost a year old (April '07). If Duke is continually trying their case in the media as you suggest, they're being awfly quiet about it IMO. Had you said "state" instead of "try" its case, and removed the reference to "continues to," I would have agreed with your statement, btw.


All I'm saying is that if prosecutors don't have to conform to prior restraint, then that notion must apply to ALL prosecutors, not just the ones arguing the positions you agree with. A judge punished Nifong pretty harshly for his lack of prior restraint in the criminal trial. If Duke's motion is upheld, it will reinforce my opinion that these civil lawyers overstepped their bounds, just like Mike.

There is an official duke-edu website that is included in the original post that says different--that indeed "sells" a defense of Brodhead and an implicit condemnation of the 38 plaintiffs for failing to take the cash offered. I'd call this advocacy whenever it was originally posted; they ain't takin it down.

Prosecutors in a criminal investigation are held to a different standard than lawyers in a civil suit. Just the reality.

It is far better from Duke's perspective to have this be a website published by the plaintiffs' attorney, who is subject to greater scrutiny by the court since he is a member of the bar.

You might see the plaintiffs' attorney and Nifong in the same light. I don't. Like I said, it's a free country unless you have your way and a prior-restraint injunction after Duke and the administration have had their propaganda machine running full time since the LAX case first surfaced.

We are at this point, whether rightly or wrongly, precisely because, among other perceived and alleged wrongs, the plaintiffs believe that that propaganda machine, headed by Brodhead, threw these kids under the bus PUBLICLY and REPEATEDLY from day one.

Now you want a court to deny them the right to speak because you are afraid of what they might say? That is your right, like I say, it's a free country, even for LAX players who chose to go to Duke. That is my consistent position and I'm sticking to it, call me what you will.

[Highlander]

There is an official duke-edu website that is included in the original post that says different--that indeed "sells" a defense of Brodhead and an implicit condemnation of the 38 plaintiffs for failing to take the cash offered. I'd call this advocacy whenever it was originally posted; they ain't takin it down.


You have to actually visit the website to know what it says. Here it the link again: http://news.duke.edu/lacrosseincident/.

Please click on it and show me where it says anything about the defendents not taking the cash, explicitly or implicitly.

Thanks.

[greybeard]

You have to actually visit the website to know what it says. Here it the link again: http://news.duke.edu/lacrosseincident/.

Please click on it and show me where it says anything about the defendents not taking the cash, explicitly or implicitly.

Thanks.

Sorry for the misstaken citation. The correct citation would be to the news observer edition linked earlier by, I think it was, Bluedog. That article quoted a Duke admininistrator publicly birddogging the unindicted LAX players turning down Duke's offer to pay attorney's fees as an act of largess to avoid litigation.

I always and repeatedly saw the need to reimburse all the LAX players, unindicted and indicted, not under the threat of a lawsuit, but because they took a bullet that had force only because they went to Duke and there was an historic sense of aggrievement against Duke among the local populace that went beyond normal town and gown issues.

Now, we do not need to do that dance again (you think), but the idea that Duke put forth that they were paying to avoid a lawsuit serves, in my mind and probably the plaintiffs' also, to add insult to injury. Duke failed to stand behind them when it should have and now implies that they are being offered a payoff because they are holding Duke hostage for ransom based upon an allegedly unjust and unfounded (Duke's words) threat to sue.

You perpetuate that myth. This case had no legs if the town didn't hate Duke, and how the Duke fortune has been and continues to be used to build a white castle on the hill. Brodhead has fought town and gown battles before, but not one of this dimension.

In my view, the unindicted players feel aggrieved by Brodhead's strategy, and that that is the gravemen of their lawsuit. Had Duke taken the high ground in the aftermath of the Cooper report and immediately offered to pay all legal expenses and funded in dramatic terms a public defender's office in Durham ,the context of this discussion from my perspective would be much different. That, and a few other moves by the Trustees (nope, I'm not going there), and this conversation would not be happening.

Or, it might be about money and your advocacy of a prior restraint injunction might comport with the American tradition of free speech. I just do not happen to think either is the case.

[xenic]

The right to petition the government, which includes filing lawsuits, is protected by the Bill of Rights. Baseless lawsuits are thrown out and at times sanctionable. You call the complaint mud slinging. I prefer to let the judge and then perhaps a jury pass upon it. That's the way it is done.

Duke has and continues to try its case--its handling of the LAX mess--in the media and its own website, putting its spin on things. It ventures into territory of highly questionable ethics in putting out its settlement offer, in an attempt to prejudice. Fair enough.

If the plaintiff's lawyer says something improper on his website, let's let the judge handle it. I am not in favor of prior restraint. It is a quaint notion that has something to do with the Constitution.

Likening the plaintiff's lawyer to Nifong is beyond irresponsible. Accusing me of a double standard is unwarrented. Unfortunate that you see things that way. It is a free country though, at least as I see it.

Well, condemning actions from one party while supporting the same actions from the other sure looks like a double standard to me. What would you call that?

[xenic]

my .02 on the situation -

Short of a gag order from the judge, the Lax players would be stupid not to play the media angle. The massive amt of media support that followed the initial debacle that was the Duke Lax case has swung a lot of sympathy towards the Lax players. Make no mistake about it - the civil system is not about playing fair. Its about doing everything you can to get your client the best possible outcome, and if that means going out into the public to put your story out there, so be it. On top of that, that lax players have absolutely no reason to "play fair." No matter what the reason, they were thrown under the bus by the administration. The administration never came to their support when Nifong was claiming there was a "wall of silence" or even when the wanted posters were posted around Duke's campus. If I were a lax player I would probably be doing the same thing.

On a different note - I am sure the lax players are looking for a settlement. There is no longer the need to "clear their name." Rather than get involved in timely/ costly litigation that could take years, a settlement gets them their monetary recompense much sooner.

So, you are suggesting that getting metaphorically thrown under a bus is something that entitles one to compensation? Why?

[xenic]

Sorry for the misstaken citation. The correct citation would be to the news observer edition linked earlier by, I think it was, Bluedog. That article quoted a Duke admininistrator publicly birddogging the unindicted LAX players turning down Duke's offer to pay attorney's fees as an act of largess to avoid litigation.

I always and repeatedly saw the need to reimburse all the LAX players, unindicted and indicted, not under the threat of a lawsuit, but because they took a bullet that had force only because they went to Duke and there was an historic sense of aggrievement against Duke among the local populace that went beyond normal town and gown issues.

Since you assert this once again, I'll ask once again: Should Duke reimburse me for the underage drinking and open container violation that I got because I was a Duke student?


You perpetuate that myth. This case had no legs if the town didn't hate Duke, and how the Duke fortune has been and continues to be used to build a white castle on the hill. Brodhead has fought town and gown battles before, but not one of this dimension.
Have you ever been to Durham?

[Jarhead]

This whole thing is so embarrassing to me that I can't sleep at night worrying. This is the first time for me to access this thread, and the first time I have actually seen the complaints listed. My cohorts down here on the golf course, have been saying bad things to me about these 38 money grabbers causing me much distress. I think I need to sue somebody, but being an old septuagenarian veteran, I cannot afford a lawyer. Based on those complaints, I think I have a complaint of my own. Can I indulge on one of you guys to do some pro bono work on my behalf, so I can grab some of that grabbed money to ease my distress? Enough, already!

Hey, folks, it's really raining down here. It has been for hours. That cheers me up, and I'll be able to sleep tonight.

[greybeard]

Well, condemning actions from one party while supporting the same actions from the other sure looks like a double standard to me. What would you call that?

I'm sure it does. It doesn't to me. Different cases under a little thing called the law. Sorry, it gets in the way sometimes.

[greybeard]

Since you assert this once again, I'll ask once again: Should Duke reimburse me for the underage drinking and open container violation that I got because I was a Duke student?

Nope. You were drinking underage and no prosecutor tried to make a career playing off longstanding antipathy to Duke by prosecuting you when he knew the evidence was to the contrary and got the support of a sizeable portion of the city because you went to Duke, or are the facts regarding your underage drinking conviction different?

Have you ever been to Durham?

Nope, but I've been around. A friend of mine, a very dear friend, was the victim of what passes for the criminal justice system in Durham many years ago, that involved all kinds of bad things for officialdom. One thing that did not happen to my friend; Duke and his professors stood solidly behind him, quietly but quite forcefully as a matter of fact. Not too, too many years ago, we tried to get a belated pardon. I got some familiarity with the justice system down in Durham, you betchya!

[xenic]

I'm sure it does. It doesn't to me. Different cases under a little thing called the law. Sorry, it gets in the way sometimes.

The law huh? So, when the prosecution (Nifong) made their case public, it was wrong. When the prosecution (LAX players) makes their case public, it is right.
When the defense (LAX players) made their case public it was right. When the defense (Duke) made their case public it was wrong.
Perhaps the pattern is that you have some sort of blind loyalty to LAX players.

[xenic]

Nope, but I've been around. A friend of mine, a very dear friend, was the victim of what passes for the criminal justice system in Durham many years ago, that involved all kinds of bad things for officialdom. One thing that did not happen to my friend; Duke and his professors stood solidly behind him, quietly but quite forcefully as a matter of fact. Not too, too many years ago, we tried to get a belated pardon. I got some familiarity with the justice system down in Durham, you betchya!


So, you are well acquainted with the public opinion and feelings in Durham due to second, third and nth hand information. Enough so to disagree with people that have first hand information.

Care to give more details about your friend? As it is, your "I have a friend" story sounds to me like something entirely made up. Let's deconstruct your story a bit more. We know that the Duke Administration has little to no control over what individual professors say and do, could you please expand on what the Duke Administration did or did not do for your friend? Actually, could you please explain what that whole sentence means? My reading is this: "One thing that didn't happen to my friend is the Duke and his professors standing behind him"... meaning that Duke did not support him? Is this an example of what you think Duke should have done? Is it an example of Duke having a pattern of not doing what you think they should be doing?... basically, as with all of your writing, I have no idea what your examples are supposed to mean.

[Channing]

So, you are suggesting that getting metaphorically thrown under a bus is something that entitles one to compensation? Why?

I am not saying that being thrown under the bus necessarily calls for compensation (although there is the potential for Negligent or Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - but that gets more legal than my basic point). My point is that I see no reason why the players, who have obviously decided that they would like to sue the school, have any incentive to "play nice." If their lawyers think that getting the story out into the media is going to provide the best opportunity for them to recover what they think they deserve - well then thats what is going to happen.

[xenic]

I am not saying that being thrown under the bus necessarily calls for compensation (although there is the potential for Negligent or Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - but that gets more legal than my basic point). My point is that I see no reason why the players, who have obviously decided that they would like to sue the school, have any incentive to "play nice." If their lawyers think that getting the story out into the media is going to provide the best opportunity for them to recover what they think they deserve - well then thats what is going to happen.

A reasonable point... though not what I gathered from your original post.
I agree with you to some extent that if you think you are in the right you should fight hard for what is right. That being said, I'm not at all convinced that the players are in the right here... Just because you can make a money grab doesn't mean you should. Though I suppose it is becoming the American Way to try to get rich by taking rich people to court whenever there is any chance of a payout, rather than when there are actual damages. IMO this looks like a money grab by some people with some bitter feelings towards Duke.

[greybeard]

So, you are well acquainted with the public opinion and feelings in Durham due to second, third and nth hand information. Enough so to disagree with people that have first hand information.

Care to give more details about your friend? As it is, your "I have a friend" story sounds to me like something entirely made up. Let's deconstruct your story a bit more. We know that the Duke Administration has little to no control over what individual professors say and do, could you please expand on what the Duke Administration did or did not do for your friend? Actually, could you please explain what that whole sentence means? My reading is this: "One thing that didn't happen to my friend is the Duke and his professors standing behind him"... meaning that Duke did not support him? Is this an example of what you think Duke should have done? Is it an example of Duke having a pattern of not doing what you think they should be doing?... basically, as with all of your writing, I have no idea what your examples are supposed to mean.

Can't give details.

Many years ago, very questionable prosecutorial conduct caused a dukie to be automatically deportable, do not pass go, do not collect 200 bucks. He was allowed to stay through graduation due to support from administration and faculty support.

We became like brothers years later. Tried for a pardon. Some of the folks from his Duke days, including the judge in his criminal case, supported the effort; it didn't work. I was intimately involved in preparing the paperwork.

Sorry that you don't believe me; 1000 percent true. Some of the details would make you stand up and take notice, Xman. It would definitely strike a cord in you. While we have disagreed about this lax thing, you strike me as a richeous guy. So is my brother. Peace, including on the LAX thing.

[formerdukeathlete]

So, you are suggesting that getting metaphorically thrown under a bus is something that entitles one to compensation? Why?

I suggest reading the complaint which outlines causes of action which the plaintiffs assert entitled them to compensation under the law.

The University's release of privacy act information before warrants were issued lead to finding of the crank e-mail as well as facilitated the quick and dirty lax player only lax photo lineup.

The University's (Hospital's) sex assault nurse falsified or negilgently prepared a report that a sexual assault had occurred, which was not supported by the physical examination.

The University suppressed information which strongly suggested the lax players were innocent.

University actions, rashly, implusively, made after the incorrectly released e-mail was made public, implied the team and coach had done great wrongs.

And the list goes on, and includes Brodhead statements which implied the players were guilty, when he should have known a lot better.

Then causes of action based on negligence, defamation, infliction of emotional distress (the elements of which are outlined in bar review materials or a torts outline I am sure you can get your hands on) and these and other facts, if proven, would entitled the players, all 38 to compensation for damages including legal fees and other damages.

In negligence, failure to abide by reasonable standards of care (such as failure to abide by federal privacy laws), which failure is the proximate (but for) cause of damages, is actionable.

I submit that had the University held back and not turned over privacy act protected student information, had the Universtiy not fired the coach and cancelled the season, had the nurse not falsified the rape kit report, had the University not suppressed information (such as that CM claimed 20 men raped her and was drunk and drugged up), the case would never have made it to the grand jury let alone resulted in an indictment.

This is the but for, the proximate element of causation.

The plaintiffs assert the Unversity made matters worse, and but for the University's actions, inactions, the players would have played their 2006 season, CM would have been sent to the psychiatric ward, and the plaintiffs' would not have suffered their damages - this is the crux of the case.

It is much more than a "throwing under the bus."

[Shammrog]

The law huh? So, when the prosecution (Nifong) made their case public, it was wrong. When the prosecution (LAX players) makes their case public, it is right.
When the defense (LAX players) made their case public it was right. When the defense (Duke) made their case public it was wrong.
Perhaps the pattern is that you have some sort of blind loyalty to LAX players.


Except you are missing the fact that a LOT of what Nifong made public was wrong. And he knew it was wrong.

Not to mention that the LAX trial was a criminal case, and this is a civil case.

[Highlander]

FDA - I had a nice long post, but decided against it. Your post is filled with idle speculation (i.e. Duke gave the cops the email), quantum leaps to conclusions (the email caused the faulty lineup), and implied wrongdoing (the nurse "falsified" the rape kit) for me to respond to with any reasoned response. We're so far apart that we're not even speaking the same language. And I know it wouldn't do any good b/c it won't change your mind. Good news is that I can live with that.

I might as well try to convince a Tar Heel that Coach K is a better coach than Dean Smith.

[pfrduke]

Duke has and continues to put out its "story" about its handling of the LAX mess through its website. If the lawyer breaks any ethical rules on his site, the judge can sanction him. The lawsuit is what it is. You call it mud slinging. We'll see what the judge and then perhaps a jury thinks. Until then, I am not in favor of prior restraint. You are, it's a free country, or at least that's what I think.

Well, in Duke's (and Highlander's) defense, there's a chance that the "dukelawsuit" website and the statements of the players' attorneys in press conferences amount to ethical violations. North Carolina (like all states) adopts rules of professional conduct for attorneys. One of those rules is that an attorney involved in a lawsuit is barred from making extra-judicial statements (such as statements to the press) that "have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing" the proceedings in the lawsuit. Basically, it's an ethical bar against litigating through the media. There are carveouts - a lawyer does not have to be completely quiet about a case, and can disclose the general nature of the claim, information in the public record, and the schedule of the proceeding, etc. And there are different rules for attorneys and parties - the plaintiffs (and their parents) can say a lot more than their attorneys can (as can the University).

One of the things about being a lawyer is that you waive some of your first amendment rights when you join the profession, at least when you're acting in the scope of your professional responsibilities. This is an example - lawyers waive the right to make certain communications to the public about cases that they are involved in. If the plaintiffs' lawyers here broke this rule (and I offer no opinion as to whether they did or not), it's dirty pool on their part, and both an ethical and legal violation. Shutting down the website under those circumstances is not a prior restraint.

[formerdukeathlete]

FDA - I had a nice long post, but decided against it. Your post is filled with idle speculation (i.e. Duke gave the cops the email), quantum leaps to conclusions (the email caused the faulty lineup), and implied wrongdoing (the nurse "falsified" the rape kit) for me to respond to with any reasoned response. We're so far apart that we're not even speaking the same language. And I know it wouldn't do any good b/c it won't change your mind. Good news is that I can live with that.
...

Regarding some of the facts: Duke does not dispute that it turned over photos, student records, e-mails before warrants were issues. Duke Hospital I believe now acknowledges that the sexual assault nurse report was not supported by the physical examination. Duke admits that "mistakes were made" in its handling of the lacrosse case.

So the question is, would this case have ever gotten off the ground but for Duke's actions and mistakes? Did Duke's actions cause harm to the players? Do the players have causes of action with which they will succeed in court?

Part of what the players and parents seek is an expose of Duke's actions.

[Indoor66]

Regarding some of the facts: Duke does not dispute that it turned over photos, student records, e-mails before warrants were issues. Duke Hospital I believe now acknowledges that the sexual assault nurse report was not supported by the physical examination. Duke admits that "mistakes were made" in its handling of the lacrosse case.

So the question is, would this case have ever gotten off the ground but for Duke's actions and mistakes? Did Duke's actions cause harm to the players? Do the players have causes of action with which they will succeed in court?

Part of what the players and parents seek is an expose of Duke's actions.

I ask: to what end do they want to "expose" Duke's actions? It appears to me to be a money grab. That's OK but let's see it for what it is.

[Highlander]

Regarding some of the facts: Duke does not dispute that it turned over photos, student records, e-mails before warrants were issues. Duke Hospital I believe now acknowledges that the sexual assault nurse report was not supported by the physical examination. Duke admits that "mistakes were made" in its handling of the lacrosse case.



Sources please on what Duke turned over an when. I am aware of they keycard access. The email UID/PWDs I thought were handed overy by the players voluntarily. All I have seen on the McFayden email was that it was given to the police by a "confidential source" who was never named.

I don't question that the nurse's report was wrong (although she did have bruises and had intercourse fairly recently). You stated it was "falsified." Claiming that it was "falsified" implies the nurse's false report was done with malicious intent, and there is no evidence to support that. You can certainly argue she was negligent, but arguing she did it deliberately is a stretch. That was why I called it out.

As for "mistakes were made," it's also fair to note that the players acknowledged that hosting the party in the first place was a mistake on their part.

[formerdukeathlete]

.....I don't question that the nurse's report was wrong (although she did have bruises and had intercourse fairly recently). You stated it was "falsified." Claiming that it was "falsified" implies the nurse's false report was done with malicious intent, and there is no evidence to support that. You can certainly argue she was negligent, but arguing she did it deliberately is a stretch. That was why I called it out.

As for "mistakes were made," it's also fair to note that the players acknowledged that hosting the party in the first place was a mistake on their part.

Please note above that I suggested the report had been falsely or negligently prepared.

Yes, the players had a party, where alcohol was served and out of boredom they called for strippers who danced for a few minutes.

But in doing so they did not "assume the risk" regarding the University's mistakes and unfortunate actions.

[77devil]

I ask: to what end do they want to "expose" Duke's actions? It appears to me to be a money grab. That's OK but let's see it for what it is.

No one but the plaintiffs can say what their motivation is. Perhaps they want significant reforms in University policies and procedures pertaining to such matters; or perhaps consistent enforcement of the current ones such as the faculty handbook. Perhaps they want heads to roll for what they perceive as highly prejudicial and negligent conduct by members of the the administration and faculty. Or perhaps they are in it for the money as you believe. I don't profess to judge their purpose. We will simply have to wait and see.

I do believe the conduct of certain members of the administration and faculty was deplorable and there has been no serious attempt at institutional change as a consequence. Regardless of the motives of the plaintiffs, if the full exent of what transpired within the University becomes public and leads to meaningful reform, it will have been worth it in my opinion; and Duke should become stronger for it in the long run.

What would the Board do if the University offered to settle for a substantial monetary sum and the plaintiffs countered with a significantly reduced monetary settlement, eg. costs incurred, and demanded reforms and the resignation or dismissal of certain administration and faculty instead?

[Highlander]

Please note above that I suggested the report had been falsely or negligently prepared.




I submit that had the University held back and not turned over privacy act protected student information, had the Universtiy not fired the coach and cancelled the season, had the nurse not falsified the rape kit report, had the University not suppressed information (such as that CM claimed 20 men raped her and was drunk and drugged up), the case would never have made it to the grand jury let alone resulted in an indictment.


At one point you did use or, but you omitted it in your conclusion (emphasis added above), thereby implying your opinion on the matter. Either way, by suggesting it not once, but twice in your post, you implied the nurse did something maliciously wrong, when no facts support that conclusion.

I am interested in reading a link supporting what you've stated regarding what Duke disclosed and when, because your statement doesn't match what I have read on the matter. Can you provide?

[Indoor66]

No one but the plaintiffs can say what their motivation is. Perhaps they want significant reforms in University policies and procedures pertaining to such matters; or perhaps consistent enforcement of the current ones such as the faculty handbook. Perhaps they want heads to roll for what they perceive as highly prejudicial and negligent conduct by members of the the administration and faculty. Or perhaps they are in it for the money as you believe. I don't profess to judge their purpose. We will simply have to wait and see.

I do believe the conduct of certain members of the administration and faculty was deplorable and there has been no serious attempt at institutional change as a consequence. Regardless of the motives of the plaintiffs, if the full exent of what transpired within the University becomes public and leads to meaningful reform, it will have been worth it in my opinion; and Duke should become stronger for it in the long run.

What would the Board do if the University offered to settle for a substantial monetary sum and the plaintiffs countered with a significantly reduced monetary settlement, eg. costs incurred, and demanded reforms and the resignation or dismissal of certain administration and faculty instead?

I would be shocked and ashamed if they paid off such youthful, childish blackmail.

[formerdukeathlete]

I would be shocked and ashamed if they paid off such youthful, childish blackmail.

What he suggests as a possibility might not be that far from what is contemplated by the plaintiffs. And, I can see a few points that suggest their motivation is far from childish. Concern that mistakes not be repeated. Belief that admins. who did what is alledged should be terminated for what they did. Belief that the Board of Trustees might need to be re-configured.

Highlander, If you have a chance read the first complaint (filed by McPhayden and two other players) whch provides in detail what Duke provided on a warrantless basis. Let's not forget the warrantless 3:00 am search of the players living quarters which Duke police facilitated. Regarding the McPhayden e-mail, I believe it was turned over along with tons of privacy protected student information very early on. Later it was listed on a warrant as a reason for the search of the Buchanan street house. It was in the police coffers well before it was leaked to the press (around the same time it was listed on a warrant). I have my own opinion on who leaked this to the press. This is something which may come out in the ongoing litigation.

[xenic]

I submit that had the University held back and not turned over privacy act protected student information,
What was protected? the student's e-mail? I'm pretty sure part of the terms of using the university's e-mail system include giving up privacy. (at least it used to)


had the Universtiy not fired the coach
I still stand by this decision, though I think the timing was extremely poorly chosen. Part of the reason so many people, including me, believed the charges was because of the reputation the LAX players had built for themselves. IMO it is reasonable to hold the coach at least partly responsible for this... especially when it is something that spans many years.


and cancelled the season
perhaps, but is there really a legal requirement for Duke to continue fielding a team of any sort? (outside of Title IX)?


had the nurse not falsified the rape kit report,
This is the first I have heard that the nurse lied. Perhaps her assessment was wrong, but you are suggesting malicious intent. Got any evidence to back that up?


had the University not suppressed information (such as that CM claimed 20 men raped her and was drunk and drugged up),
Why is it Duke's responsibility to make this public. Wasn't it already at least 2nd hand knowledge? Didn't this information come from a DPD officer talking to a DUPD officer?



the case would never have made it to the grand jury let alone resulted in an indictment.
Got any way to prove that Nifong wouldn't have lied and cheated more to get this to go to trial regardless of what Duke did?

[xenic]

Except you are missing the fact that a LOT of what Nifong made public was wrong. And he knew it was wrong.


And you are going to go ahead and believe the prosecution in this case?

[Highlander]

What he suggests as a possibility might not be that far from what is contemplated by the plaintiffs. And, I can see a few points that suggest their motivation is far from childish. Concern that mistakes not be repeated. Belief that admins. who did what is alledged should be terminated for what they did. Belief that the Board of Trustees might need to be re-configured.

Highlander, If you have a chance read the first complaint (filed by McPhayden and two other players) whch provides in detail what Duke provided on a warrantless basis. Let's not forget the warrantless 3:00 am search of the players living quarters which Duke police facilitated. Regarding the McPhayden e-mail, I believe it was turned over along with tons of privacy protected student information very early on. Later it was listed on a warrant as a reason for the search of the Buchanan street house. It was in the police coffers well before it was leaked to the press (around the same time it was listed on a warrant). I have my own opinion on who leaked this to the press. This is something which may come out in the ongoing litigation.

I found the complaint here (http://media.newsobserver.com/content/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/story_graphics/20071219_lawsuit.pdf). I don't have time to read all 335 pages of it, so I searched for 'email' to find any reference to where Duke handed over the player's email info. I couldn't find any.

[xenic]

What he suggests as a possibility might not be that far from what is contemplated by the plaintiffs. And, I can see a few points that suggest their motivation is far from childish. Concern that mistakes not be repeated. Belief that admins. who did what is alledged should be terminated for what they did. Belief that the Board of Trustees might need to be re-configured.

Highlander, If you have a chance read the first complaint (filed by McPhayden and two other players) whch provides in detail what Duke provided on a warrantless basis. Let's not forget the warrantless 3:00 am search of the players living quarters which Duke police facilitated. Regarding the McPhayden e-mail, I believe it was turned over along with tons of privacy protected student information very early on. Later it was listed on a warrant as a reason for the search of the Buchanan street house. It was in the police coffers well before it was leaked to the press (around the same time it was listed on a warrant). I have my own opinion on who leaked this to the press. This is something which may come out in the ongoing litigation.
You keep talking about warrantless searches. AFAIK, students do not own their dorm rooms, and the university is allowed to enter, inspect, and search them at any time for any reason.

[Cavlaw]

Xenic,

2 quick points - (i) there is no prosecution in current case, they're called plaintiffs and (ii) AFAIK, the university is little different than a landlord and has no right to enter a dorm without (A) consent, (B) a warrant or (C) exceptional circumstances.

In light of (ii), I'm not sure if the keycard records are protected (though other materials were turned over).

EDIT - here's a link (http://www.campusprogress.org/features/886/the-secret-service-knocks-once/index.php) to an article on campusprogress that may be of interest.

[Highlander]

Good article Cavlaw. One interesting part:

"Most universities require students living in dorms to sign a detailed Housing Agreement that addresses this issue. Stanford’s version is typical. It reads in part, “The University reserves the right to enter any room at any reasonable time…for the purpose of inspection, maintenance or repair. The University reserves the right to enter at any time in cases of emergency.” By voluntarily consenting to this policy, students accept that the university can enter their rooms under these limited circumstances."

I wouldn't consider dorm repair to be an exceptional circumstance, and situations like that are covered in most housing agreements (assuming Duke's is similar here), so I don't necessarily agree that consent or a warrant are required by the university to enter a dorm room.

It goes on to explain what would constitute an inspection. Comparing it to the Duke situation, my reading of it states that the University was well within their rights to allow the police access to the Dorm's common areas. Students don't own the common areas in a dorm; the university does. Entry into student rooms by the DPD without consent, however, is an issue.

Cavlaw - do you have a link for what information Duke handed over to the police w/o a warrant? By this point, I would imagine it would be common knowledge, but I can't seem to get/find a straight answer.

[xenic]

Xenic,

2 quick points - (i) there is no prosecution in current case, they're called plaintiffs and (ii) AFAIK, the university is little different than a landlord and has no right to enter a dorm without (A) consent, (B) a warrant or (C) exceptional circumstances.

In light of (ii), I'm not sure if the keycard records are protected (though other materials were turned over).

EDIT - here's a link (http://www.campusprogress.org/features/886/the-secret-service-knocks-once/index.php) to an article on campusprogress that may be of interest.

i)Right, Sorry about that... the points all still stand if you replace prosecution with plaintiff.... not sure why I messed that up, but thanks for correcting me.

ii) here's one link (http://www.lawforkids.org/speakup/view_question.cfm?id=487&topic=School) discussing this issue, and it seems to cover what I remember. The housing agreement that I think I remember had provisions for allowing the university to search it... I think I remember being unhappy about the university claiming this power... that being said, I do remember them getting a warrant to search a friend's room a few years back.

Regardless, I think that the the complaints of the university not standing up for the players seem like they're asking the university to take an in loco parentis role (ignoring all the battles fought to throw this role off in the past). It seems a bit disingenuous to me to be also complaining that the university also violated their rights by the search... IMO they're trying to have it both ways... take the benefits of in loco parentis with none of the drawback.

[xenic]

Xenic,

EDIT - here's a link (http://www.campusprogress.org/features/886/the-secret-service-knocks-once/index.php) to an article on campusprogress that may be of interest.

Interesting article. One thing I question... is the secret service really a law enforcement organization? or are they really just glorified body guards?

[Indoor66]

Interesting article. One thing I question... is the secret service really a law enforcement organization? or are they really just glorified body guards?

It is the law enfocement of the Treasury Department. Check out the website: http://www.secretservice.gov/

[xenic]

It is the law enfocement of the Treasury Department. Check out the website: http://www.secretservice.gov/

Huh. I don't think I ever knew that. Seems like kind of a strange dual mission. Thanks for the link/education.

[Indoor66]

Huh. I don't think I ever knew that. Seems like kind of a strange dual mission. Thanks for the link/education.

Actually, it is now, formally, under Homeland Security.

[greybeard]

So, you are well acquainted with the public opinion and feelings in Durham due to second, third and nth hand information. Enough so to disagree with people that have first hand information.

Care to give more details about your friend? As it is, your "I have a friend" story sounds to me like something entirely made up. Let's deconstruct your story a bit more. We know that the Duke Administration has little to no control over what individual professors say and do, could you please expand on what the Duke Administration did or did not do for your friend? Actually, could you please explain what that whole sentence means? My reading is this: "One thing that didn't happen to my friend is the Duke and his professors standing behind him"... meaning that Duke did not support him? Is this an example of what you think Duke should have done? Is it an example of Duke having a pattern of not doing what you think they should be doing?... basically, as with all of your writing, I have no idea what your examples are supposed to mean.

Like I said, sorry you don't believe me, but I can't go into detail. Suffice it to say, Xenic, that, in that instance, the then Duke administration and my friend's professors were quite proactive in support of a Duke student. Years later they stood up and supported him again. Part of what makes Duke the fabled institution it is. By the way, you should be happy to know that, with the support of many, including some from his old Duke ties, my friend miraculously won a suspension of deportation about five years ago, and is now a permanent resident alien. You don't want to know what the odds were against that. Duke's having stood behind him those many years ago was completely vindicated. It was also a wonderful act of faith.

On advice from a good friend, I am bowing out of the current debate. This current issue, unlike the LAX case itself and its immediate aftermath, is an inside issue for Dukies to hammer out. I never had the good fortune.

[JG Nothing]

Were Nifong and the false accuser included in the lawsuit? If not, does anyone know why?

[formerdukeathlete]

Were Nifong and the false accuser included in the lawsuit? If not, does anyone know why?

Nifong is in federal bankruptcy and the false accuser is insolvent.

[Shammrog]

And you are going to go ahead and believe the prosecution in this case?

There is no prosecution; this is a civil case, which is a totally different forum.

I am not going to *disbelieve* what the plaintiffs say in this case, especially given the things Duke did that I already know to be true. Now, I certainly am not going to believe all of it either, at least until Duke responds. Most likely we won't see this until the case goes to court.

[formerdukeathlete]

Good article Cavlaw. One interesting part:

"Most universities require students living in dorms to sign a detailed Housing Agreement that addresses this issue. Stanford’s version is typical. It reads in part, “The University reserves the right to enter any room at any reasonable time…for the purpose of inspection, maintenance or repair. The University reserves the right to enter at any time in cases of emergency.” By voluntarily consenting to this policy, students accept that the university can enter their rooms under these limited circumstances."

I wouldn't consider dorm repair to be an exceptional circumstance, and situations like that are covered in most housing agreements (assuming Duke's is similar here), so I don't necessarily agree that consent or a warrant are required by the university to enter a dorm room.

It goes on to explain what would constitute an inspection. Comparing it to the Duke situation, my reading of it states that the University was well within their rights to allow the police access to the Dorm's common areas. Students don't own the common areas in a dorm; the university does. Entry into student rooms by the DPD without consent, however, is an issue.

Cavlaw - do you have a link for what information Duke handed over to the police w/o a warrant? By this point, I would imagine it would be common knowledge, but I can't seem to get/find a straight answer.

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2008/01/09/News/3.Unindicted.Laxers.Sue.University-3148134.shtml

the provision above regarding consent to enter dorm rooms is of the "toilet is leaking and must be fixed immediately" when u employees would not be expected to be going through personal items, confiscating laptops, etc., or "builing is on fire" and I would submit that the waiver would not hold up with respect to federal privacy rights of students. Certainly Duke knew that the Durham police looked to find stuff to nail the lacrosse players, yet the police had not presented probable cause before a judge to obtain a warrant for the 3:00 am searches.

The link above is to a Chronicle article regarding the January 08 lawsuit filed against the U. by 3 players. I believe this suit may be, is being consolidated within the suit by the 38 players. My link to this complaint has expired, however, if you get to it, it outlines in detail what was given by Duke and when (without and before any warrants had been issued).

[JG Nothing]

Nifong is in federal bankruptcy and the false accuser is insolvent.

Are lawsuits against people with no assets prohibited?

[formerdukeathlete]

Are lawsuits against people with no assets prohibited?

I believe filing a new lawsuit in federal court against a defendant regarding a matter (mishandling lacrosse case, prosecutorial misconduct) which pre-dated the filing for federal bankruptcy protection by such defendant is prohibited with respect to such defendant.

Aside from that, one can sue an insolvent person for damages. However, if there are no assets to seek to recover, and no other purpose, such as to seek to prevent future actions by a defendant, or to seek an apology, etc., what is the point?

[Highlander]

http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2008/01/09/News/3.Unindicted.Laxers.Sue.University-3148134.shtml

the provision above regarding consent to enter dorm rooms is of the "toilet is leaking and must be fixed immediately" when u employees would not be expected to be going through personal items, confiscating laptops, etc., or "builing is on fire" and I would submit that the waiver would not hold up with respect to federal privacy rights of students. Certainly Duke knew that the Durham police looked to find stuff to nail the lacrosse players, yet the police had not presented probable cause before a judge to obtain a warrant for the 3:00 am searches.

The link above is to a Chronicle article regarding the January 08 lawsuit filed against the U. by 3 players. I believe this suit may be, is being consolidated within the suit by the 38 players. My link to this complaint has expired, however, if you get to it, it outlines in detail what was given by Duke and when (without and before any warrants had been issued).

Here (http://rlhs.studentaffairs.duke.edu/housing/licenseinformation/ugterms0809.html) is a link to Duke's housing policy. Note clause XIV, b:


University personnel may enter a resident’s room or apartment without the resident being present to complete maintenance tasks, to conduct health and safety checks, to conduct inspections regarding availability of space, and to take care of an emergency or any equipment failure which is causing damage or poses a hazard to persons or property. Entry into a room or apartment for non-emergency reasons will be made during reasonable hours with notice to the assigned residents when possible.

According to this, Duke can enter rooms outside of emergency or maintenance scenarios for a couple of different reasons, none of which really apply here. But my point stands that Duke can enter a room to perform a number of different tasks without the consent of the renter.

However, Duke didn't grant the police access to the rooms. From what I understand, they gave them access to the dorms, which includes only the common areas. That's a little different in my mind. Students do not own the common areas, any more than they own the library or a classroom. Duke could have demanded a warrant, but since consent was given the Police didn't need one. It isn't illegal, nor is it a violation of student civil rights to allow a police officer access to a commons room, IMO.

The real issue is whether the students in question gave the DPD consent to enter their rooms. By this point Campus police were gone, and unless the plaintiffs can prove that the Campus police knew the DPD were going to conduct a warrantless search of student dorm rooms without the consent of the owners, there is limited liability to Duke. Plus we are talking about the Police department here, not some random schmoe off the street. Under normal circumstances, there is no reason for Duke to refuse a request like this.

As to the complaint link being expired, I provided a current link to the actual compliant earlier in this thread. Here (http://media.newsobserver.com/content/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/story_graphics/20071219_lawsuit.pdf) it is again. My issue is that the complaint is around 400 pages, and it isn't clear to me by perusing through it what Duke provided and when. You claim it's there. I'm just asking for a page # so I can see it.

On a side note, from your article below, it seems Coleman agrees with me that the complaint is poorly written. See excerpt (http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2008/01/09/News/3.Unindicted.Laxers.Sue.University-3148134.shtml) below:


"Coleman added that it appeared that because much of the complaint was devoted to mapping out the history, it blurred the actual causes for action.

"I think they ought to be forced to state them in a way that doesn't require people to read 400 pages to figure it out," he said."
Amen, brother

[Cavlaw]

I believe filing a new lawsuit in federal court against a defendant regarding a matter (mishandling lacrosse case, prosecutorial misconduct) which pre-dated the filing for federal bankruptcy protection by such defendant is prohibited with respect to such defendant.

Aside from that, one can sue an insolvent person for damages. However, if there are no assets to seek to recover, and no other purpose, such as to seek to prevent future actions by a defendant, or to seek an apology, etc., what is the point?
I think the point would be instances where the defendants can be found jointly and severally liable (not sure what the rules in NC are, but likely allows it in negligence). However, the bankruptcy stay prohibits any action on cases pending against Nifong until the bankruptcy action is completed, and the plaintiffs presumably made a decision that the value of adding Nifong as a defendant (in terms of higher odds of success and higher award in a jury trial) was outweighed by the detriment to the case (further back in time in the mids of jurors, dispersion of witnesses, etc.) of waiting for the bankruptcy action to conclude.

[formerdukeathlete]

Here (http://rlhs.studentaffairs.duke.edu/housing/licenseinformation/ugterms0809.html) is a link to Duke's housing policy. Note clause XIV, b:



According to this, Duke can enter rooms outside of emergency or maintenance scenarios for a couple of different reasons, none of which really apply here. But my point stands that Duke can enter a room to perform a number of different tasks without the consent of the renter.

However, Duke didn't grant the police access to the rooms. From what I understand, they gave them access to the dorms, which includes only the common areas. That's a little different in my mind. Students do not own the common areas, any more than they own the library or a classroom. Duke could have demanded a warrant, but since consent was given the Police didn't need one. It isn't illegal, nor is it a violation of student civil rights to allow a police officer access to a commons room, IMO.

The real issue is whether the students in question gave the DPD consent to enter their rooms. By this point Campus police were gone, and unless the plaintiffs can prove that the Campus police knew the DPD were going to conduct a warrantless search of student dorm rooms without the consent of the owners, there is limited liability to Duke. Plus we are talking about the Police department here, not some random schmoe off the street. Under normal circumstances, there is no reason for Duke to refuse a request like this.

As to the complaint link being expired, I provided a current link to the actual compliant earlier in this thread. Here (http://media.newsobserver.com/content/news/crime_safety/duke_lacrosse/story_graphics/20071219_lawsuit.pdf) it is again. My issue is that the complaint is around 400 pages, and it isn't clear to me by perusing through it what Duke provided and when. You claim it's there. I'm just asking for a page # so I can see it.

On a side note, from your article below, it seems Coleman agrees with me that the complaint is poorly written. See excerpt (http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2008/01/09/News/3.Unindicted.Laxers.Sue.University-3148134.shtml) below:

Amen, brother

I spoke with a lacrosse parent specifically about the 3:00 am warrantless dorm search. This one really rubbed the parents the wrong way, he said. Duke and Durham knew the kids were all represented by counsel at this point. Duke provided access to the dorms. Durham cops, and if Duke cops were no longer present it was because they knew what was going on could be an embarrassment to the University, then pounded on doors of kids at 3:00 am and demanded to speak with them (knowing they were represented by counsel) and sought entry to the dorm rooms. Hate to tell you, anything found by the cops in these rooms under these circumstances would be ruled inadmissible in a criminal proceeding as an unconsented warrantless search. C'on, 3:00 am, banging, shouted demands?!!

Duke is not entitled to violate privacy rights of its students nor can the students effectively waive such rights particularly if the waiver sought to be enforced in part and parcel of a criminal proceeding.

I kind of disagree about the complaint. While it goes into the history of various practices, this would be relevant in proving "conspiracy."

I particularly liked the part about how Duke helped author Durham's "no tolerance policy" toward Duke students.

[xenic]

There is no prosecution; this is a civil case, which is a totally different forum.


Already been corrected and apologized for.

[xenic]

I spoke with a lacrosse parent specifically about the 3:00 am warrantless dorm search. This one really rubbed the parents the wrong way, he said. Duke and Durham knew the kids were all represented by counsel at this point. Duke provided access to the dorms. Durham cops, and if Duke cops were no longer present it was because they knew what was going on could be an embarrassment to the University, then pounded on doors of kids at 3:00 am and demanded to speak with them (knowing they were represented by counsel) and sought entry to the dorm rooms. Hate to tell you, anything found by the cops in these rooms under these circumstances would be ruled inadmissible in a criminal proceeding as an unconsented warrantless search. C'on, 3:00 am, banging, shouted demands?!!
A. as noted several times above, this is not a criminal case.
B. Aside from being rude, what is illegal about: knocking at 3am? asking to speak with someone? (maybe someone here due to the whole lawyer thing, but again, what part did Duke play in that?) asking to enter their room?
C. If the student's had lived in a house or an apartment then the cops wouldn't have needed Duke's help to knock on the door. I don't think it is Duke's responsibility, or even their right, to allow students to hide inside their dorm room from the cops.

[formerdukeathlete]

A. as noted several times above, this is not a criminal case.
B. Aside from being rude, what is illegal about: knocking at 3am? asking to speak with someone? (maybe someone here due to the whole lawyer thing, but again, what part did Duke play in that?) asking to enter their room?
C. If the student's had lived in a house or an apartment then the cops wouldn't have needed Duke's help to knock on the door. I don't think it is Duke's responsibility, or even their right, to allow students to hide inside their dorm room from the cops.

I have been going back and forth with Highlander about Duke giving up information and its students on a warrantless basis. For example, putting on a disk all of the photos of the players, giving up emails. Duke also facilitated a warrantless search of the players dorm., as the Durham police challenged players after awakening them at 3:00 am and in some cases then went through their dorm rooms, after being let into the dorm(s) by Duke police. Yes Duke police and Durham police were coordinated in this respect to try to coerce the players - who, at the time,very importantly ,were known by Duke and Durham to have been represented by counsel and who at this point may have declined further interviews with police. What Duke did on this early morning is among the wrongful acts for which the plaintiffs seek to recover damages and any appropriate relief in their civil actions.

Now, take your example of an apartment building. A suspect lives there, and the police want to confiscate anything they find in the apartment after they gain access by yelling outside at 3:00 am. I can tell you in virtually all cases, with anything close to the level of planning and coordination which went into the Duke and Durham raid on the players, the police would have gotten a warrant - or, they would not have bothered the suspect at 3:00 am. Otherwise, the whole thing smells like intimidation and an effort to subvert the suspect's rights.

[pfrduke]

I have been going back and forth with Highlander about Duke giving up information and its students on a warrantless basis.

You use "warrantless" like it automatically equals "wrong." That's simply not true. The police can access a lot of information legitimately without needing to obtain a warrant.


For example, putting on a disk all of the photos of the players

This is not a 4th Amendment violation, nor can I see how it would be actionable. Why would the police need a warrant for photos in the possession of the University?


giving up emails

This is probably not a 4th Amendment violation. There may be ongoing litigation about it, but the idea is that you don't have privacy on a network that's not yours. For example, it is my understanding that the police can request from your employer (and your employer can provide with impunity) any email you send using your company's network without a warrant. This potentially includes email on your non-work account (e.g., gmail) if you're using the company's network. Similarly, the network used for emails while on campus belongs to the University, and I'm not sure that individuals have a right to privacy in emails sent over a third party's network. This is fuzzier than the photo issue, but I'm reasonably confident it's not a violation of any right to privacy


Duke also facilitated a warrantless search of the players dorm., as the Durham police challenged players after awakening them at 3:00 am and in some cases then went through their dorm rooms, after being let into the dorm(s) by Duke police.

First, as discussed by xenic above, the University has every right to permit police to enter dorm buildings, which are common areas, and not any individual's private living quarters. Second, consent is an exception to the warrant requirement. If the players allowed the police into their rooms, the police did not need a warrant. If the police forced themselves in after being refused access, that would be a problem. The time of the visit and the manner of the encounter are elements going to whether there was actual consent, but I'm reasonably confident that showing up at three in the morning and "banging on doors" would not automatically indicate that consent was not freely given if, in fact, the players permitted the police to enter the rooms. Also, on this "warrantless search" point, I'm 99% positive that you cannot recover damages for a Fourth Amendment violation unless there was physical harm to person or property. Emotional distress alone is not compensable. You can get nominal damages, so the case wouldn't be thrown out on those grounds, but you can't get emotional distress damages just because the cops conducted a warrantless search at 3am. You could only recover actual damages if they a) broke something of yours or b) physically harmed you.

[formerdukeathlete]

You use "warrantless" like it automatically equals "wrong." That's simply not true. The police can access a lot of information legitimately without needing to obtain a warrant.This is not a 4th Amendment violation, nor can I see how it would be actionable. Why would the police need a warrant for photos in the possession of the University?
This is probably not a 4th Amendment violation. There may be ongoing litigation about it, but the idea is that you don't have privacy on a network that's not yours. For example, it is my understanding that the police can request from your employer (and your employer can provide with impunity) any email you send using your company's network without a warrant. This potentially includes email on your non-work account (e.g., gmail) if you're using the company's network. Similarly, the network used for emails while on campus belongs to the University, and I'm not sure that individuals have a right to privacy in emails sent over a third party's network. This is fuzzier than the photo issue, but I'm reasonably confident it's not a violation of any right to privacy. First, as discussed by xenic above, the University has every right to permit police to enter dorm buildings, which are common areas, and not any individual's private living quarters. Second, consent is an exception to the warrant requirement. If the players allowed the police into their rooms, the police did not need a warrant. If the police forced themselves in after being refused access, that would be a problem. The time of the visit and the manner of the encounter are elements going to whether there was actual consent, but I'm reasonably confident that showing up at three in the morning and "banging on doors" would not automatically indicate that consent was not freely given if, in fact, the players permitted the police to enter the rooms. Also, on this "warrantless search" point, I'm 99% positive that you cannot recover damages for a Fourth Amendment violation unless there was physical harm to person or property. Emotional distress alone is not compensable. You can get nominal damages, so the case wouldn't be thrown out on those grounds, but you can't get emotional distress damages just because the cops conducted a warrantless search at 3am. You could only recover actual damages if they a) broke something of yours or b) physically harmed you.

The 3:00 am occurrence burns in the minds of lax players and parents, why?

Because they believe that Duke and Durham coordinated harrassment intending to elicit information, admissions, confessions, at a time when the players were represented by counsel. Parents knew the kids were innocent. They saw this as Duke and Durham continuing to railroad their kids.

anything found that early am would have been thrown out, imo, as being found without a warrant and without actual consent, under the circumstances

Also, check federal statutes re student rights.

[xenic]

For example, putting on a disk all of the photos of the players
You mean like their profiles on GoDuke.com? How is this in any way a violation of the student's privacy?


Duke also facilitated a warrantless search of the players dorm., as the Durham police challenged players after awakening them at 3:00 am and in some cases then went through their dorm rooms, after being let into the dorm(s) by Duke police.
If the players lived anywhere else in the city, the Durham police wouldn't have needed Duke's help to knock on the doors at 3AM. Why should their status as on-campus residents confer them special rights?


Yes Duke police and Durham police were coordinated in this respect to try to coerce the players - who, at the time,very importantly ,were known by Duke and Durham to have been represented by counsel and who at this point may have declined further interviews with police.
I'm sure their lawyers told them this also. Why didn't they decline? IANAL, is it illegal for the police to talk to someone that has a lawyer when the lawyer isn't present? I don't remember the timeline perfectly. Did these interviews happen before or after the accusations of individuals? Doesn't it matter a great deal if the interviewees were charged?




On a slightly different note, I would like to know if you have ever been wrong about anything?

[xenic]

Also, check federal statutes re student rights.

To which rights are you referring?

[formerdukeathlete]

..........If the players lived anywhere else in the city, the Durham police wouldn't have needed Duke's help to knock on the doors at 3AM. Why should their status as on-campus residents confer them special rights?


I'm sure their lawyers told them this also. Why didn't they decline? IANAL, is it illegal for the police to talk to someone that has a lawyer when the lawyer isn't present? I don't remember the timeline perfectly. Did these interviews happen before or after the accusations of individuals? Doesn't it matter a great deal if the interviewees were charged?..........

Regarding federal statutes, one could start with FERPA
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html

It is safe to say that University actions in offering up student information without warrants may have violated this Act.

We get back to the issue of the 3:00 am shock troop dorm raid. What makes this different than the police banging on anybody's door at 3:00 am? Plenty - the kids were part of an ongoing investigation, and the police knew they were all represented by counsel. There are a number of ethical and legal issues in what Duke police and Durham police did that night. A better route would have been for Durham to have gone before a judge, stated probable cause for a search warrant, obtained the warrant if possible and then proceeded. Problem with all of that. There was not (really, in any sane, objective sense) probable cause. At this time, Nifong made the comment to staff that "we are fu*ked." He was grasping at straws, ignoring exculpatory evidence and hoped the shock troop 3:00 am shake down would yield some spontaneous confession and ill-gotten forced consentual search gains. The whole thing stunk.

[Highlander]

Regarding federal statutes, one could start with FERPA
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html

It is safe to say that University actions in offering up student information without warrants may have violated this Act.

We get back to the issue of the 3:00 am shock troop dorm raid. What makes this different than the police banging on anybody's door at 3:00 am? Plenty - the kids were part of an ongoing investigation, and the police knew they were all represented by counsel. There are a number of ethical and legal issues in what Duke police and Durham police did that night. A better route would have been for Durham to have gone before a judge, stated probable cause for a search warrant, obtained the warrant if possible and then proceeded. Problem with all of that. There was not (really, in any sane, objective sense) probable cause. At this time, Nifong made the comment to staff that "we are fu*ked." He was grasping at straws, ignoring exculpatory evidence and hoped the shock troop 3:00 am shake down would yield some spontaneous confession and ill-gotten forced consentual search gains. The whole thing stunk.

The key throughout your entire post is that the actions committed were by DPD and Nifong, not by Duke. The most nefarious thing you have said about Duke is that they cooperated with (or didn't stonewall) the authorities in their investigation. Sure Duke could have stopped the police and demanded a warrant to enter the dorm. Had they done so, I guarantee Nifong would have been on national TV the next morning accusing Duke of stonewalling his investigation and trying to cover up a crime. Don't forget that although false, the prevailing public sentiment at the time was that the Lax players were guilty.

I certainly think it's fair to criticize Duke's decision to stand aside and let the police conduct their investigation. It's also easy in 20/20 hindsight to say standing up against prevailing sentiment (at the very real risk of being wrong) in the interest of the Lax team was what they should have done rather than trust the DA and the DPD. However, trusting the DA and local authorities shouldn't make them guilty of some sort of conspiracy.

I agree the 3am questioning session smells (especially considering what we know now) like Nifong was grasping at straws. Even so, you've failed to show how it was illegal, or required a warrant when the residents consented to the officer's request to enter their rooms.

You keep saying Duke gave the police private information, yet when I ask you for a list of what it was, you haven't delivered. I even gave you a link to the complaint and asked for a page #. I haven't seen anything but vague references to pictures and emails even suggested. For that reason, I'm beginning to believe that no such list exists, and that you're just speculating what information was exchanged.

[formerdukeathlete]

...........The most nefarious thing you have said about Duke is that they cooperated with (or didn't stonewall) the authorities in their investigation. Sure Duke could have stopped the police and demanded a warrant to enter the dorm. Had they done so, I guarantee Nifong would have been on national TV the next morning accusing Duke of stonewalling his investigation and trying to cover up a crime. Don't forget that although false, the prevailing public sentiment at the time was that the Lax players were guilty.

I certainly think it's fair to criticize Duke's decision to stand aside and let the police conduct their investigation. ................However, trusting the DA and local authorities shouldn't make them guilty of some sort of conspiracy.

I agree the 3am questioning session smells (especially considering what we know now) like Nifong was grasping at straws. Even so, you've failed to show how it was illegal, or required a warrant when the residents consented to the officer's request to enter their rooms.

You keep saying Duke gave the police private information, yet when I ask you for a list of what it was, you haven't delivered. .........I haven't seen anything but vague references to pictures and emails even suggested. For that reason, I'm beginning to believe that no such list exists, and that you're just speculating what information was exchanged.

The most nefarious things, if proven, discovered to be true, in the litigation process:

- suppression of evidence, requiring the revision of an initial Duke police report which initially mentioned that CM said 20 guys, then 5, then x, then x+1 hade raped her.

- fraudulently prepared nurse rape report. At the very least it was negiligently prepared. In my own informal discussions with physicians about this, they do not understand how a rape report could be so inaccurately prepared.

Regarding the shock troop assault on the players dorms at 3:00 am which Duke helped plan, coordinate, I suggest as an attorney, under the circumstances, what Duke did was illegal. It was designed to undermine the players constitutional right to and use of counsel during an ongoing investigation. It was designed to catch the players off guard, to force spontaneous confessions. I presume you are also an attorney. If you see nothing wrong with what Duke did, and feel Duke had no choice but to facilitate this planned warrantless entry and subversive measures on the part of the Durham police, I cannot respond in any way which could get us on the same wavelength.

What I think I hear you saying is that you do not think Duke violated the students rights to privacy or FERPA rights. Take the McFayden email. It and all other lacrossee player emails were poured over by Duke and Durham police, shared with Durham police before any warrants were issued. Then, the McFayden e-mail was listed as an element of probable cause in a warrant to search the Buchanan Street house. How did Durham get the email before ever mentioning the word email on any warrant? Why, because Duke shared all of this information and the manner in which Duke did so most likely, imo, broke federal law.

I think the more you dig into the matters of how Duke handled things, the more you become disheartened, and the more you feel sadness for the way Duke treated this kids. In my opinion, had Duke stood its ground, relying on the impressions of Duke officials and exculpatory evidence provided to Duke or available to Duke, none of this would have happened. Duke made matters worse. Yes, there might have been a little bad pr if Duke had refused Durham the gestapo like 3:00 am shock troop dorm raid. But, this would have also provided Duke with an opportunity to share what it knew about events and the players.

[Highlander]

The most nefarious things, if proven, discovered to be true, in the litigation process:

- suppression of evidence, requiring the revision of an initial Duke police report which initially mentioned that CM said 20 guys, then 5, then x, then x+1 hade raped her.

- fraudulently prepared nurse rape report. At the very least it was negiligently prepared. In my own informal discussions with physicians about this, they do not understand how a rape report could be so inaccurately prepared.

Regarding the shock troop assault on the players dorms at 3:00 am which Duke helped plan, coordinate, I suggest as an attorney, under the circumstances, what Duke did was illegal. It was designed to undermine the players constitutional right to and use of counsel during an ongoing investigation. It was designed to catch the players off guard, to force spontaneous confessions. I presume you are also an attorney. If you see nothing wrong with what Duke did, and feel Duke had no choice but to facilitate this planned warrantless entry and subversive measures on the part of the Durham police, I cannot respond in any way which could get us on the same wavelength.

What I think I hear you saying is that you do not think Duke violated the students rights to privacy or FERPA rights. Take the McFayden email. It and all other lacrossee player emails were poured over by Duke and Durham police, shared with Durham police before any warrants were issued. Then, the McFayden e-mail was listed as an element of probable cause in a warrant to search the Buchanan Street house. How did Durham get the email before ever mentioning the word email on any warrant? Why, because Duke shared all of this information and the manner in which Duke did so most likely, imo, broke federal law.

I think the more you dig into the matters of how Duke handled things, the more you become disheartened, and the more you feel sadness for the way Duke treated this kids. In my opinion, had Duke stood its ground, relying on the impressions of Duke officials and exculpatory evidence provided to Duke or available to Duke, none of this would have happened. Duke made matters worse. Yes, there might have been a little bad pr if Duke had refused Durham the gestapo like 3:00 am shock troop dorm raid. But, this would have also provided Duke with an opportunity to share what it knew about events and the players.

You are entitled to your opinion that cooperating with the police was a mistake on Duke's part, but I think you've grossly overstated Duke's role in planning and executing the "raid."

As for the email, the only thing I ever saw regarding where it came from was from a "confidential source." I just can't conclude that the Duke administration is the source without seeing some evidence to support that conclusion. I am interested in what federal laws you think Duke might have broken if they were in fact the ones that handed over the email. Can you elaborate? Is email considered personal property or something?

[xenic]

Yes, there might have been a little bad pr if Duke had refused Durham the gestapo like 3:00 am shock troop dorm raid. But, this would have also provided Duke with an opportunity to share what it knew about events and the players.


A little bad pr? If Duke had done this, all we would be hearing about, to this day, would be how Duke flexed its muscles to get some guilty students off.

[77devil]

I would be shocked and ashamed if they paid off such youthful, childish blackmail.

Blackmail is a crime. Perhaps you should choose your libelous words more carefully. Or are you really suggesting that the plaintiffs would blackmail the University?

[Jarhead]

Call it what you will. To me it is money grabbing. The lax-3 have the only legitimate claim and they settled with the University out of court. These other guys have been hoodwinked by somebody into believing that their inconvenience stacks up as damages. We have a whole lot of people here that are welcoming another shot at Brodhead's administration. Well, take your shot, and then...9F 9F.

[77devil]

Call it what you will. To me it is money grabbing. The lax-3 have the only legitimate claim and they settled with the University out of court. These other guys have been hoodwinked by somebody into believing that their inconvenience stacks up as damages. We have a whole lot of people here that are welcoming another shot at Brodhead's administration. Well, take your shot, and then...9F 9F.

If you say so, it must make it true.

[JG Nothing]

If you say so, it must make it true.

Jarhead said "To me it is money grabbing" (my italics). He did not make an absolute claim as you imply. Regardless, Jarhead is certainly not alone in his view. I certainly have questions about the motivation. If the lawsuit is primarily about justice and holding people accountable for their actions in a court of law (as implied by Steven Henkelman), then I do not understand why the false accuser and Nifong were not also sued. This whole mess was intiated by the lies of the accuser and sustained by the blind obsession and immorality of Nifong.

[Jarhead]

Thanks, JG Nothing. You are Something. I agree totally with your post.

[77devil]

Jarhead said "To me it is money grabbing" (my italics). He did not make an absolute claim as you imply. Regardless, Jarhead is certainly not alone in his view. I certainly have questions about the motivation. If the lawsuit is primarily about justice and holding people accountable for their actions in a court of law (as implied by Steven Henkelman), then I do not understand why the false accuser and Nifong were not also sued. This whole mess was intiated by the lies of the accuser and sustained by the blind obsession and immorality of Nifong.

Everyone is free to believe what they want. I choose not to presume their motivation until the matter plays itself out. As Duke student athletes, I give them the benefit of the doubt that they have a larger purpose. I pondered one possible scenario in an earlier post.

My entry into this fray was the result of another poster accusing the plaintiffs of blackmail which I stated was a poor choice of words given that it is a crime. Jarhead chose to parse it from there. So be it.

[House G]

http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/12584208/article-Judge-rules-on-lacrosse-suits?instance=homesecondleft

[cspan37421]

The wheels of justice turn slowly ... but at least they still turn.

[ncexnyc]

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/03/police-duke-lacrosse-accuser-crystal-mangum-stabbed-boyfriend/

Things just keep getting better and better for this young lady.

[Newton_14]

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/04/03/police-duke-lacrosse-accuser-crystal-mangum-stabbed-boyfriend/

Things just keep getting better and better for this young lady.

Here is the WRAL link. Supposedly she stabbed the guy multiple times in the torso and he is at Duke Hospital in bad shape.

From the article:

Crystal Mangum, 32, is charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. She is being held without bond.

Maybe this time they put her in jail for a very long time. Both Duke and the Durham community could use a break from her.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/9377710/

[jafarr1]

link (http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/04/03/north.carolina.lacrosse.accuser/index.html?hpt=T2)

Odds that Nancy Grace mentions this?

[uh_no]

link (http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/04/03/north.carolina.lacrosse.accuser/index.html?hpt=T2)

Odds that Nancy Grace mentions this?

she has children???!?!?!?!? couldn't feel worse for them

[MCFinARL]

she has children???!?!?!?!? couldn't feel worse for them

Yes, that's always been the saddest part of her very sad story. If I recall correctly, they were present during the last incident when she set her then-boyfriend's close on fire in the bathtub. We can only hope that there is a sane and loving relative to look after these kids, who have obviously had a rough go so far.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Anyone know what he is doing at this time?

Thanks
SoCal

[77devil]

My bet is that the plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action and the matter is dismissed upon the filing of the appropriate motion.

The judge ruled that multiple claims of conspiracy and obstruction of justice, fraud, and negligent supervision may proceed against the University and its employees. I hear the shredding machines warming up, but then there's those nasty electronic records that are so hard to purge.


Having practiced against serious D.C. litigators, I can say that this is in no way true.

Well, apparently this one was much better than the ones you've encountered.


And, if after reading the complaint, folks feel the complaint fails to state causes of action which will suvive motions to dismiss, then offer this commentary and your reasons why.

what the University paid the 3 indicted players, what was accepted in full settlement by these players may pale in comparison to what may be awarded by a jury, if this gets before the jury.

It seems the players wanted much more of an admission of mistakes, wrong doing on the part of Brodhead, and that he would have made a much broader apology with much more contrition.

It has always been my position that had the University simply been willing to withhold judgment, avoid taking actions which implied guilt on the part of the players, and to have respected privacy rights of the students, Nifong would never have been able to obtain an indictment. Brodhead is most at fault in this.

This seems about right.

[Jarhead]

Looks to me that some folks are grinding the same axes they were a few years ago. Here we go again. Try reading some of the earlier posts in this thread for some enlightenment.