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.
And I just took a look, and found the page on the Wayback Machine at archive.org.
The biggest prize in this whole charade is Duke University's endowment, which I believe is worth something on the order of $5-$6 BILLION. A scenario in which a university of Duke's stature loses even 10% of its endowment in a massive civil suit would do more to clean up the sh!t that passes for "higher education" than even the fear of death would.
But they do suddenly become “ethical”, and concerned about destroying someones reputation and livelihood from frivolous lawsuits, or even the threat of a lawsuit, when it is their own being threatened.
Actually it happens a lot. You'd be surprised. Every month they publish the names of lawyers who have been disbarred. As an attorney this is about the only thing we read in our monthly Lawyer Magazine. The rest of the articles are usually nothing more than self promotion by the authors.
I am constantly looking to see what gets lawyers in trouble and making sure I don't do any of that stuff. It's also kinda fun to know that your adversary on some case that you lost just got his ticket pulled.
The trustees all need to resign. The chair said that if anything is done to Brodhead, it shoudl also be done to them. They shirked their duty and see no wrong.
Please, say you will not "practice" law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We have enough trouble here with what we have.
Or, did they remind the rest of the university that they were guilty of soliciting a lewd dancer into lewd dancing with them (and lap dancing is pretty much sex shielded by clothing).
Likely, somewhere in between.
I hope these outspokeen and perhaps somewhat misguided and mistaken people on campus won't be lynched, either
great news.
There are very few children in the university setting.
You hold/held your professors in no higher esteem or to no higher level of conduct or ability than the average Jane or Joe walking the streets?
There certainly aren't specialized tort laws regarding defamation for college professors - and I am unwilling to become an activist lawyer to create them. You take the law as it now exists. The Courts are not the place to remedy such problems.
Above all else, this is the biggest and best news I've been waiting to hear. I sure hope you're right...........
That said, the parents and alumni should do all they can to get Duke to fire these idiots.
The “88” couldn’t help themselves. So self important, they no doubt assumed the world was breathless, awaiting academia’s take on the alleged incident. Had something actually happened, such as the woman being paid good money to drop panty and service a “john”, the “88” probably wouldn’t have cared.
More info on US Bar Associations, and their priorities.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010222
The word still has no valid place in your statement. Libel and Slander have been crimes since the founding of this nation. Abandoning those civil protections marks a further degredation of society, not some form of enlightenment.
What I find somewhat curious and unexplored about this is the claim of “racism”. I find some black women attractive. I find some oriental women attractive. I also find some white women to be outright ugly. Does this make me a racist? I’m not into lewd dancing, but that is related to sex last I checked, and since when has any liberal been against that under any circumstances?
The law is no respecter of persons. (In theory anyway).
I personally hold the first amendment in high esteem. I have read the statements of the 88 and I find no grounds for liability. They were commenting upon the news. Now maybe they may have been in violation of their employment contracts, but they were not in violation of the first amendment.
Please, say you will not "practice" law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We have enough trouble here with what we have.
Jude would be a welcome addition to any juridiction. If he does not choose to practice in Pennsylvania, it is your loss.
Sorry jude, I know you are perfectly capable of defending yourself on this forum, but sometimes, I can't help myself.
To the parents, they are.
I'm sure that existing law can determine whether or not the "88" were reckless in their pontifications on the Duke lacrosse players. As I'm sure the most ethical officers of the courts would say: 'everyone who believes themselves to be wronged should settle it in court and not in an alley while wielding a baseball bat'.
Your opinion, as always, has been noted.
I was the victim of a friovolous suit, and couldn't do a darn thing about it. And they even entered obviously faked evidence into the permanent record. I'd wager there are a hundred victims like me for every lawyer who gets even a little smack.
However. There are cases before judges and then there are cases before Juries. There are a lot of humiliated, seething and outraged registered voters (jury pool) in the counties at and around Duke. I don't think they'd be inclined to think "frivolous" of these Lacrosse plaintiffs after their lives have been so damaged.
There's a legal theory out there--
BTW, since I have your ear, what is "light litigation" or "country code"?
The parent's attitudes are irrelevant to this discussion. We're talking about academics who teach legal adults.
I'm sure that existing law can determine whether or not the "88" were reckless in their pontifications on the Duke lacrosse players
It's pretty much resolved as a matter of law - they weren't. You just don't like the result.
As I'm sure the most ethical officers of the courts would say: 'everyone who believes themselves to be wronged should settle it in court and not in an alley while wielding a baseball bat'.
And sometimes you have to accept that you just got screwed.
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.