Posted on 04/15/2008 1:15:45 PM PDT by abb
WINSTON-SALEM -- U.S. District Court Judge James Beaty Jr. on Tuesday denied a motion for sanctions filed by Duke University and the City of Durham and ruled that the legal team for 38 members of the 2005-06 Duke lacrosse team had violated ethical rules by using a Web site, news conference and news release to publicize the filing of their case.
The players have filed a civil rights lawsuit against Duke and the city, demanding reparations arising from the since dismissed Duke lacrosse sexual offense case.
Beaty also ruled, however, that the content published on that Web site -- www.dukelawsuit.com -- amd any links from it are the responsibility of the defense team.
ping
Sounds reasonable.
And why am I not surprised that a piece of slime like Jamie Gorelick would end up defending Duke and the city of Nifongville in this entire mess?
}:-)4
cuz Gorelick is a bureaucratic lobbyist and not a real lawyer. she uses the law to accomplish political means but now she has to deal with REAL lawyers with REAL issues. Welcome to the world Jamie!
When Jaime Gorlick, or others like her, appear on CNN or MSNBC, is there no way that the bottom-of-the-screen identifier can read, “piece of slime?” Over the years, I’ve been noting those bottom-of-the-screen identifiers, and, so far, the best I’ve seen has been, “mystic visionary.” :)
Let’s see...It was totally fair for the 88 faculty members to run a full page ad that accused the lacrosse players of rape, but it is not fair for the former accused players’ supporters to operate a website? Only in Durham.
Yes it does!
U.S. District Court Judge James Beaty Jr. on Tuesday denied a motion for sanctions filed by Duke University and the City of Durham and ruled that the legal team for 38 members of the 2005-06 Duke lacrosse team had violated ethical rules by using a Web site, news conference and news release to publicize the filing of their case.
Shouldn't that be: "had not violated ethical rules...."??????
Duke faculty, the City of Durham and Knifedong immediately condemned those player who were vindicated and proven innocent. I hope the BS university and the City pays through the nose on this.....then again why should those arrogant elitists even care?
A classic example of BS political correctness and individual greed ruined a community and the names of innocent young adults, not ot mention the finances of those 3 families of the accused.
I am curious myself - which is it?
Does the title agree with the text?
Same thoughts I had. Still don’t know the answers, but any time Jamie Gorelick gets kicked in the a$$ is a good time for all of us.
updated now.
http://www.heraldsun.com/durham/4-942891.cfm?
Judge denies Duke, Durham motion to silence lacrosse lawyers
By RAY GRONBERG : Staff writer
gronberg@heraldsun.com
Apr 16, 2008
WINSTON-SALEM — U.S. District Court Judge James Beaty Jr. on Tuesday denied a motion for sanctions filed by Duke University and the City of Durham and ruled that the legal team for 38 members of the 2005-06 Duke lacrosse team had not violated ethical rules by using a Web site, news conference and news release to publicize the filing of their case.
The players have filed a civil rights lawsuit against Duke and the city, demanding reparations arising from the since dismissed Duke lacrosse sexual offense case.
Beaty also ruled, however, that the content published on that Web site — www.dukelawsuit.com — amd any links from it are the responsibility of the defense team.
There’s no reason for Duke to exist.
May the players bankrupt the staffs pension funds.
“Not” according to link.
Update at #14 - now I get it.
Man, reporters are awful writers.
Man, reporters are awful writers.
Thems are what yer colleges are putt’in out thar these days!
My boss was a 24 year old journalism grad right out of college and he wrote our monthly statewide newsletter. Not only was he boring but he was a pitiful writer as well. But, journalists all think they are soooo cutting edge, so on the pulse, so entitled - OK I gotta stop before I really get upset.
Judge refuses to shut down Duke lacrosse case Web site
By Dan Galindo
JOURNAL REPORTER
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
A judge today denied an effort by attorneys for Durham and Duke University to shut down www.dukelawsuit.com, a Web site run on behalf of 38 Duke lacrosse players who are suing Durham, Duke and others over how they handled the 2006 investigation into a reported rape at a party attended by players.
James A. Beaty Jr., a U.S. District Court judge, cautioned attorneys on both sides from saying anything publicly about the case that could prejudice a jury, but said he did not see a reason to order the Web site shut down.
Don Cowan, a Greensboro attorney representing Duke, also had asked Beaty to declare that attorneys for the players had violated N.C. State Bar rules governing trial publicity.
Beaty said he considered a two-part test - Did the players’ attorneys initiate contact with the media? And would those comments have a substantial chance of tainting a jury pool? - in ruling against Cowan.
Cowan said that by holding a press conference before filing their lawsuit and making statements not included in the lawsuit, the players’ attorneys had gone beyond what an attorney can say publicly and were “trying the case in the media.”
Charles Cooper, an attorney for the players, said that the players had to make their case publicly to counter intense coverage of the investigation into the alleged rape, which ended with the prosecutor, Mike Nifong, disbarred for his misconduct in the case.
Attorney General Roy Cooper declared that the players were innocent and that the accuser’s story did not add up.
The 38 players are asking for damages from the university, Durham and several individuals, accusing them of inflicting emotional distress.
The three accused players filed their own lawsuit in October against Nifong, Durham and others. They reached a settlement with Duke.
Not much good at reporting either. Reading a newspaper causes brain shrinkage.
Good news...I don’t know anything about these civil suits but it’s a shame the 88 profs weren’t named in it too.
It is going to be fun watching her and her client get OWNED by the justice system over and over again.
another piece of good news is that the Duke Athletic Director is gone. He was a poor excuse for for AD at any major university/
The bad news is that LSU hired him. They will learn in time that he long ago demonstrated the Peter Principal.
The real good news is that now these proceedings won’t be secret. The public will be able to read motions and court documents (and let the chips fall where they may).
‘No cover-up!’, at least, not this time; or not so far, anyway.
The original version makes no sense, the current version does.
If someone subscribes, they might look at that last sentence as well. It doesn't seem to make much sense, either.
Gorelick is also a money-grubber. Her name and photo showed up in a Washington Post story years ago about members of the Board of Fannie Mae or a related loan agency. She made millions in bonuses, based on the figures they had provided. However, I have not been able to find any more on her role.
Is still another Clinton pay-off?
FR posters: If you have anything significant on this piece of crap, please post it here for all to see, or send it to me as a private reply.
Thanks.
Attorney Michael Gaynor had this to say in response to Cash Michael's articles and biased reportings:
Snip: "The venue motion accuses the NC NAACP, and specifically its president, Dr. William Barber, of taking part in the Black 'outrage' in Durham.
"In fact, Dr. Barber joined with Durham Mayor Bill Bell, NCCU Chancellor James Ammons, and even Duke University Pres. Richard Brodhead, in calling for calm in the community, cautioning against a 'rush to judgment.'
"Barber and Ammons even issued public statements blasting the militant New Black Panther Party for coming to Durham, saying that the prospect of violence was neither wanted nor needed.
"And the NC NAACP president issued a 10-point position paper on the Duke case, calling for no favoritism in the criminal probe, and for citizens to give the justice system 'a chance to determine the truth.
"I think that the people in Durham — white and Black — considering all of the dynamics that have gone on in this case, have been quite reflective, and quite patient,' Dr. Barber said. 'We have good people who are willing to make very sound and clear judgment on the case.'
"Barber adds that it was the NC NAACP that demanded that the case not be tried in the newspapers and television when the defense attorneys themselves began to pile on the accuser."
Mr. Gaynor responds: WHY IS THERE NEVER ANY SPECIFICATION WHEN I ASK WHAT THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS SUPPOSEDLY DID THAT WAS IMPROPER? Could it be that they did not do anything improper? If not, please specify! And file an ethics complaint.
Mr. Michaels:
"The motion also alleges that 'The NAACP Chapter in Durham County has included a "Duke Lacrosse Update" on its website.'
Gaynor: "Problem — the Durham NAACP doesn't have a website, and hasn't had one all year, officials there say. A member may have started his or her own "Update" page, but not under the auspices of the organization."
Gaynor: How clever!
--->end snip
It was AFTER all the "guilty before Innocent" baiting at Duke, in the press, on TV, in Durham -- that defense began to ask questions.
It was then the NC NAACP began saying fluffy crap like "this shouldn't be tried in the media". That is, they said this AFTER they'd already painted the case.
Mad Hatter: No Room! No Room!
When the Duke Lacrosse case happened, the "adults" were definitely not in charge, did not behave like civilized adults, nor they in any way attempt to quell the Rev-Wright-type moonbats from doing major damage, just steps before The New Black Panthers showed up to do more.
And all those so-called "grown-ups" in charge -- from Professors to Administration -- are all damned Democrats.
Yes!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.