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.
Read up on “false lights”, Jude24. And remember — these professors are persons who are authority figures in a presumed position to know more than then general public about the parties involved and the circumstances of the case.
Show me, using the words of the ad posted above, where there were any "factual assertions."
You cannot do a libel prosecution based on "implication" without citing the offending words. Libel prosecutions require affirmative pleading of the libelous words.
Yeah, that second letter was written only AFTER it became clear that Nifong’s case had fallen apart completely. The idiot professors looked around and decided to cover their stupid behinds by hustling out a letter that harumphed that the first letter was “misinterpreted”.
You’re right. There is no viable lawsuit against the professors. Now there is going to be a HUGE lawsuit against the county and the prosecutors office. I’d hate to be their insurance carrier.
It sounds like they’re blaming their students for the letter. What unbelievable cowardice. I hope they are all sued into oblivion.
Right and post# 165 is an excellent justification for a civil suit.
If I were the plaintiff's attorney, I'd file against the State of North Carolina. It weren't for nothing that the caption of the case was "People of the State of North Carolina v. [LAX players]." Nifong was an agent of the State in all this.
If there is ever any discovery, I suspect we will find out that the words cannot be attributed to anyone. I have always had a feeling that the quotes were fabricated.
The rad prof who wrote the ad has conceded that the "quotes" were derived from her "notes." IOW, these were not direct quotes. Whether they are anything close to accurate, or were uttered in reference to this matter, who knows.
Not really. Maybe you'd have a point if they were administrators, but these guys were just college professors making an intellectual point.
Read up on “false lights”
The elements required for a "false lights" claim are 1.) highhly offensive material, and 2.) malice. Let's assume the Duke 88 ad is highly offensive (which is a very tenuous assumption. Any reference to the defendants is oblique at best). Even so, there is no evidence that the Duke 88 acted with malice, that is, with a reckless disregard for the truth. Instead, they acted with reasonable reliance upon the facts as they were relayed in the media, which reported the facts as they were relayed by Nifong.
"False lights" doesn't rescue a libel prosecution here.
Good. Take them down hard.
In May, I wrote an "Open Letter to Paula Mclain, Professional Black Person" because she had classified on the Net as "rascist" rational e-mails asking her to reconsider and recant. By "rational," I mean using polite language and not written in crayon.
Here's a link to that prior article.
To that prior article, I would add this: Professor Mclain, you are even dumber than I thought you were. And that is a very high standard. You have repeated your canard, which increases the damages. And you have advanced the absurd defense that the words do not mean what they plainly say.
I sincerely hope that you are sued and lose so badly that you are stripped of your house, your car and your job, and that you wind up in the streets of Durham as a bag lady. That is all that you have the talents to perform, given your dubious career as a Professor at Duke.
Oh, and have a nice day.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article, "Bar Fight in the Blue Ridge: The Battle for NC 11"
The point is to make them squirm, make them worry, make them miserable, make the hire attorneys, deride them in court papers, and in public, make Duke worry, make their families worry, let the students they propagandize see the other side of their profs.
The left has permeated our govs, our culture, our media, and our schools with their relentless ruthlessness.
It is past time to unleash hell on them.
While I am against frivolous lawsuits like the judge who thinks his pants are worth $57 million and is a total fool who also needs to be disbarred, IMO, I am for these professors getting sued and sued big.
They not only got all puffed up and signed a letter that they then paid to publish nationwide, they were wrong from the start.
I do not think it was their place to even comment beyond the cocktail circuit.
Everyone has a right to their opinion, but until more of the evidence was in, they sure hung themselves out on a limb. When that limb gets sawed off, the kids deserve to get recompensed for the slander the professors caused.
As a matter of law, there are no linkages. Libel and defamation torts rely solely upon the words spoken and/or written - not "implications.". Parole evidence is admissible to demonstrate the meaning of any ambiguous terms within the four corners of the documents, but it cannot be used to prove the substantive elements of the cause of action.
As 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.
Those are all statements of opinion - opinions which are, per se, protected by the First Amendment.
More importantly, however, defamation torts require the element of malice - that is, that the speaker's act with reckless disregard for the truth of the matter asserted. This cannot be demonstrated - instead, the Duke 88 acted in reasonable reliance upon the facts as they were reported in the news media at the time - and the news media reported the facts as relayed to them by Mike Nifong.
Excellent. Put all these Commie bastards in the poor-house.
I am feeling even nastier about their behavior:
I want them unable to EVER work in the “education” system EVER again.
I don’t want our children “learning” from this type of teacher who thinks they are so darn elite.
Question of fact. There is sufficient evidence to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings.
Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of idiots.
Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 11 Sanctions (which every jurisdiction I know of has an analogue). Bringing a frivolous lawsuit - one that the attorney knows has no basis in law or fact - subjects the lawyer to a fairly substantial fine.
The civil courts do not exist for us to make a point. They exist to remedy torts.
The point is to make them squirm, make them worry, make them miserable, make the hire attorneys, deride them in court papers, and in public, make Duke worry, make their families worry, let the students they propagandize see the other side of their profs.
That's called harassment, and is illegal - and will get you reprimanded, if not disbarred. I like my law license, thank you kindly.
That's okay. Just admit your bias.
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.