Posted on 06/17/2007 6:25:09 AM PDT by MindBender26
A group of local lawyers all went to dinner least night.
Topic was Nifong and the damages NC will pay to the accused. There are questions of sovereign immunity, of course, and other issues but we all agreed that this was only the tip of the litigious iceberg.
In the civil litigation that is sure to follow, Nifong is one target, with few dollars, etc. The real targets will be the Duke 88. These are the professors who signed the now infamous letter adjudging the lacrosse players guilty and worse. That letter was then published as a full page ad in local newspapers and reprinted across the country..
These professors acted as individuals, with no corporate protection, insurance or shield. They acted outside their employment by Duke, etc. As such, they can be attacked and picked off, one at a time, with full and unrestricted individual liability, as targets of libel, slander and false light litigation. With no insurance, they wil even have to pay for their own lawyers.
Plaintiffs are well within statute of limitations.
Of course, as soon as one professor is served, he/she will go running to his/her lawyer. Their lawyer will play lets make a deal by implicating others. Then they will sue the most hated professor, which will set the high dollar damages expectation for the rest of the cases. Others will then want to settle fast.
Even better, each of the three plaintiffs cam move separately against all 88 individually. The profs will fold like a house of cards.
Lots of fun. Big dollars.
The source of this analysis is exactly who?
Can they nail Nancy Grace while they are at it?
Good.....you do Reap what you Sow !!!!
Thank’s
Thus to tyrants.
I say
Sue the pants off the Duke fortune as well as the University-—they failed in their duty of “in loco parentis”
Let it be.
If it were you or your child I bet you’d think differently.
Somehow things done to you that affect your real life give such a different perspective from the one given while enjoying anonymity behind a computer screen in the comfort of your armchair.
The hypocrisy on this thread is breathtaking. May as well just make Edwards the lead in the lawsuit.
I think this miserable excuse for a human being is trying to choose his own punishment, as if being disbarred is some great tragedy for a lawyer, prison is for real criminals.
This despicable cretin violated the public trust and in the name of his insatiable lust for power and would have had NO TROUBLE putting those boys in prison for 20 years or more for crimes he knew they were not guilty of.
My Nifong rant.
I honestly believe he needs to be in jail for 20 years before hes eligible for
parole, hes a dangerous criminal, he was willing to railroad innocent young men into long prison terms. As for the argument that murderers arent serving 20 years, etc., THATS WRONG TOO!!
If I woke up tomorrow and found out that Mike Nifong hung himself or put a bullet in his pituful brain I would feel no sadness. If he doesnt serve a long stretch in prison theres something really wrong here.
Unless they want to file nuisance suits to see what they can get or to just aggravate the faculty members who signed the ad, this is a waste of time. There’s bothing libelous in this ad. The ad deals mostly with “racial climate” rather than any real specifics of the case. Let’s face it, the lacrosse guys were drinking and some of them made some nasty racial comments. Even if they did win at trial level in front of a sympathetic jury, an appeals court would overturn it.
All worthless.
Great post, thanks for sharing about the dinner conversation. I hope that justice is served on the Duke 88 in this lifetime.
Art is worthless? History is worthless?
I’ll have to disagree with your definition of worthless.
I would like to be optimistic about this, but I find that very difficult inasmuch as the targets of the lawsuits are prominent liberals.
There are strict standards to be met before libel suits can be successful, although, of course, anyone can sue for libel.
I don't think we should get too excited about the evil 88 getting a payback.
As a disclaimer, I'm not an attorney, I only play one on TV.
Leni
There are strict standards to be met before libel suits can be successful, although, of course, anyone can sue for libel.
I don't think we should get too excited about the evil 88 getting a payback.
As a disclaimer, I'm not an attorney, I only play one on TV.
Leni
I plead no contest.
Leni
Somehow things done to you that affect your real life give such a different perspective from the one given while enjoying anonymity behind a computer screen in the comfort of your armchair.
That doesn't matter in the least bit when it comes to the legality of what this gang of 88 signed. It may have been shotty, but not slanderous. There was no liable, or slander unless I'm missing something.
Infact if you read the statement, no one even accused these boys, indirectly. Like I said, all the statement inferred was, liberal dribble, that's it.
As taught on today’s college campus, art and history are worse than worthless. They provide the victim justification that enables each student to blame there own shortcomings, inadequacies and severe character flaws on someone else. It is insidiously woven throughout the liberal art curriculum.
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.