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 “let’s 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 Duke 88...the professors who signed the now infamous letter adjudging the lacrosse players guilty and worse...”
You know what these professors are - probably the most LEFT of the LEFTIST professors at Duke. They need to loose big time; money, position. Duke should fire each of them. They need to be subjects of a ZERO TOLERANCE policy applied to professors. They are part of the evil system that breeds the likes of Nifong.
Sounds good to me. The smugness and hate America attitude of the academic class in this country is rarely addressed. Maybe making examples out of these 88 jerks is just what is needed to help temper the kneejerk reactions to the accusatory grandstanding by the leftists in this country.
Say, maybe a grand civil suit against the race baiters would be a good idea too.
That was my response as well. Times like these make me wish I was practicing law again.
That said, I'm now a professor. I can't imagine writing a public letter like that. The only way you do something that stupid is if you think everyone else will agree with you; which, sadly, is often the case on campuses.
Yes, in judo and effective counter-attack you must use the enemies main thrust, main forces, main lines of action, to work against him. So yes, to defeat the law suit happy — sue them until they cry “no more, not ever, no more”.
This is my statement. I will defend it.
You must read the ad within the larger context of the news to which it is referring. That news was that these young men had committed rape.
When you're reviewing a libel allegation to see if it is well founded you don't leave common sense at the door and parse individual words in isolation of the context in which there were uttered.
You shouldn't apologise, I should for not reading carefully enough.
I'm sorry.
In the end, DUKE will end up paying the Bill for this nightmare, and tuitions will SKYROCKET, because of it.
Below is the full text of the "Group of 88" ad. Every word would prove critical in any civil action:
We are listening to our students. We’re also listening to the Durham community, to Duke staff, and to each other. Regardless of the results of the police investigation, what is apparent everyday now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism, who see illuminated in this moment’s extraordinary spotlight what they live with everyday. They know that it isn’t just Duke, it isn’t everybody, and it isn’t just individuals making this disaster.But it is a disaster nonetheless.
These students are shouting and whispering about what happened to this young woman and to themselves.
. . . We want the absence of terror. But we don’t really know what that means . . . We can’t think. That’s why we’re so silent; we can’t think about what’s on the other side of this. Terror robs you of language and you need language for the healing to begin.The students know that the disaster didn’t begin on March 13th and won’t end with what the police say or the court decides. Like all disasters, this one has a history. And what lies beneath what we’re hearing from our students are questions about the future.This is not a different experience for us here at Duke University. We go to class with racist classmates, we go to gym with people who are racists....It’s part of the experience. [Independent,29March2006]
If it turns out that these students are guilty, I want them expelled. But their expulsion will only bring resolution to this case and not the bigger problem. This is much bigger than them and throwing them out will not solve the problem. I want the administration to acknowledge what is going on and how bad it is.
Being a big, black man, it’s hard to walk anywhere at night, and not have a campus police car slowly drive by me.
Everything seems up for grabs--I am only comfortable talking about this event in my room with close friends. I am actually afraid to even bring it up in public. But worse, I wonder now about everything. . . . If something like this happens to me . . . What would be used against me--my clothing? Where I was?
I was talking to a white woman student who was asking me “Why do people -- and she meant black people -- make race such a big issue?” They don’t see race. They just don’t see it.
You go to a party, you get grabbed, you get propositioned, and then you start to question yourself. [Independent, 29 March 2006]
. . . all you heard was “Black students just complain all the time, all you do is complain and self- segregate.” And whenever we try to explain why we’re offended, it’s pushed back on us. Just the phrase “self-segregation”: the blame is always put on us. [Independent, 29 March 2006]
. . . no one is really talking about how to keep the young woman herself central to this conversation, how to keep her humanity before us . . . she doesn’t seem to be visible in this. Not for the university, not for us.
I can’t help but think about the different attention given to what has happened from what it would have been if the guys had been not just black but participating in a different sport, like football, something that’s not so upscale.
And this is what I’m thinking right now – Duke isn’t really responding to this. Not really. And this, what has happened, is a disaster. This is a social disaster.
This ad, printed in the most easily seen venue on campus, is just one way for us to say that we’re hearing what our students are saying.
Some of these things were said by a mixed (in every way possible) group of students on Wednesday, March 29th at an African & African American Studies Program forum, some were printed in an issue of the Independent that came out that same day, and some were said to us inside and outside of the classroom.
We’re turning up the volume in a moment when some of the most vulnerable among us are being asked to quiet down while we wait. To the students speaking individually and to the protestors making collective noise, thank you for not waiting and for making yourselves heard.
We thank the following departments and programs for signing onto this ad with African & African American Studies: Romance Studies; Psychology: Social and Health Sciences; Franklin Humanities Institute; Critical U.S. Studies; Art, Art History, and Visual Studies; Classical Studies; Asian & African Languages & Literature; Women’s Studies; Latino/a Studies; Latin American and Caribbean Studies; Medieval and Renaissance Studies; European Studies; Program in Education; and the Center for Documentary Studies. Because of space limitations, the names of individual faculty and staff who signed on in support may be read at the AAAS website:http://www.duke.edu/web/africanameric/
Notice the topic of the ad. The ad says absolutely nothing about the guilt or innocence of the Lacrosse team. It was far more concerned with broader social trends of racism, as demonstrated by the media coverage of the event, and with the general campus atmosphere of what the libs there would probably call "white privilege." This is essentially political speech, protected under the First Amendment, and not defamation or libel.
It may suck to be those boys wrongly accused of a crime they did not commit - and the parties responsible should have to pay. That does not mean, however, that everyone who expressed an opinion about what this case meant libeled those boys. The slander was by Crystal Magnum and by Mike Nifong - not these liberal professors.
>>>“Telephone number-level damages… with area codes!”
Schadenfreude. :)
Does the City or County have liability - Nifong was representing the City or County, right?
When you're reviewing a libel allegation to see if it is well founded you don't leave common sense at the door and parse individual words in isolation of the context in which there were uttered.
Thanks. Ok, I got it. You're talking about the totally context of the ad and the foundation of why it was constructed.
I can see how the context would accuse these boys. Good point.
The timing of it.
Given that the ad was released at the time the players were accused, it was perceived as tying racism to the incident. Geez, it wasn't that long ago -- don't you remember this ad being interpreted as the Group of 88 supporting the students and the university against the accused lacrosse players?
Back then the 88 didn't object to that characterization. Back then those 88 weren't saying, "No, no, no. That ad was not judging the players! They're innocent until proven guilty!"
Only NOW are they making these statements.
This is the happiest thread I have seen in a very long time.
When you're reviewing a libel allegation to see if it is well founded you don't leave common sense at the door and parse individual words in isolation of the context in which there were uttered.You must read the ad within the larger context of the news to which it is referring. That news was that these young men had committed rape.
I can see how the context would accuse these boys. Good point.
post# 165
I don't see this as a free speech issue.
If they knowingly or carelessly "poured gasoline on the fire", so to speak, and it was a contributing factor in Nifong's actions which damaged the defendants, then they are liable. IMO.
Keep in mind this will be a civil case not a criminal case.
Of course not. But there is a difference between uttering an opinion and making factual assertion--even by implication--that a person has committed a foul crime. And some people who thought they were uttering opinions have later found out from a jury, much to their consternation, that they committed slander or libel.
Sometimes we get a little lazy and forget that there is speech that even the First Amendment does not protect.
But it was perceived by the students, by the university, by the town, and by the press as condemning the players. And the Group of 88 did nothing to correct that perception.
Until now.
And I say it's too little, too late.
Right. the timing is the issue as well as the context. This ad accusses these boys because of the context inwhich it was written. And it was done publically, which is worse!
I don’t know and I’m not an attorney, but the linkages are so damn clear. Is there any doubt that the ad is saying that what happened on March 13 was evidence (i.e. assumed into fact) of the climate of fear and racism? What happened on March 13? Who doesn’t know what happened. The first paragraph seems pretty clear to me who they are talking about as “proof” of a racist “problem” at Duke.
To paraphrase another poster, this ad didn’t pop out of a vacuum and uses an incident to justify its publication. The incident has been pre-judged.
Like I said earlier, let the 88 twist in the wind.
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.