It's the liberal's fall back position now that Nifong has crashed and burned.
Watch the liberal talking heads on TV. They're starting to sound like the church lady.
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 state has done right by these families. The parents are class acts, the kids are amazing. I think what they should do is approach the state, say, “Here’s our legal expenses, please pay this, and thank you for doing the right thing”. Then, they should sue the pants off Duke and its president, any professors who said defamatory things, the County of Durham, the tramp, and, of course, Nifong. Maybe they can wait to settle with the state based on whether the state pursues criminal action against Nifong. He has clearly violated civil rights statutes, and the case against him is no different than it would be against a Klan sheriff who locks up an innocent black person because he wants to curry favor with his buddies.
I have never heard of either.
I will practice in whatever jurisdiction I am assigned.
There is no lawsuit here. Anyone who thinks there is doesn’t understand first amendment law. It was in very poor taste for Duke professionals to sign onto a letter in which there was a pervading assumption of guilt. The letter is irresponsible to a degree that the administrators could take action—but most likely will not have the inclination, fortitude, or practical power to do so. Unless the students stand up, that’s where it ends.
C’mon now! Don’t go maligning jude24. He has tried his best to give us his interpretation of the law based on his knowledge. It’s a reality check from the way he reads it and there is nothing wrong with that.
Shhh. If more people took that attitude, we'd both be out of a job. :-)
I'm not sure ethical officers of the courts can comprehend that.
Just saying, you see.
First Amendment and all.
Which came into existance in large part through the ad. This add recklessly created an intensified climate of racial strife. That was real damage. It helped bring in the black panthers. And it absolutely is therefore actionable in a court of law. Or many separate courts, as the 46 families live in various jurisdiction.
Be sure to get the whacko feminist profs who were so quick to presume that the men were guilty because they were rich, white men.
Good ole boys hate LaCross players as much as they hate any minority.
It's the liberal's fall back position now that Nifong has crashed and burned.
Watch the liberal talking heads on TV. They're starting to sound like the church lady.
I think that's altogether reasonable. I had to do that, myself. But you don't always have to accept it.
Sometimes there's a way to get creative. A flagrant injustice, combined with outrageous political/cultural posturing... involving an institution with considerable clout, cash, prestige...crushing some young people (and there is still a whiff of locum parentis in colleges)--looks to me like ka-ching ka-ching for someone inventive.
Incestuousness is a pretty fair assessment for the ways the "law" and "officers of the court" seem to operate.
I've found it best to take each and every utterance from the aforementioned with 20 grains of salt.
Seems like there is 1983 case against durham and Nifong, but Duke and the 88 are a long shot.
Unless the letter from the Duke 88 actually NAMED the three lacrosse players, I don’t see how they can be sued. Sure the letter was despicable, and it showed for everyone the blatant knee jerk liberalism of a large number of Duke professors, but it may not be legally actionable.
Some good ole boys actually do like to whip the ball around, on occassion. It goes real good with a cool brew and a slug of chew.
No disagreement from me but what we are getting is the opinions of people who are in the profession. In court, if it gets there, one will win and the other will lose. Who is right and what is just are another matter.
I would like to see us adopt the British system where, if you bring a civil suit against a person and subsequently lose, you are liable to pay their legal expenses. I would like to add: If the “loser” can’t afford to pay, then the attorney who took on the case to represent them would have to pay. I wonder what that would do to the number of “slip-and-fall” cases in the US?
After all, no one knows what a jury will do and the law is claimed to be an ever evolving art, eh?
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.