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.
Well, maybe 77 out 88 wouldn't. ;-`
--Nietzsche
I love the fact that these booger eating morons stated, in writing, and then signed their names to it, and then published it, that the accused were guilty!!!
It seems to me that this is a slam dunk... Of course, they’ll claim that it’s their First Amendment right to say such things, and of course, it is. However, the First Amendment doesn’t protect one from the consequences of exercising that right, and it doesn’t protect one against slander or libel.
And since the accused were NOT public figures (other than the fact that they were named in the indictments), the 88 will lose out on the less stringent interpretation of those laws as well.
I’d love to see them lose everything they own, and have their wages garnished!
Mark
Regarding your written and published claim “We are listening to our students.”
Identify by name, student number and any other applicable means of identification each and every student listened to regarding this matter. Identify where and when each “listening” conversation took place. Identify where these memorizations of these “listneings” if any now reside and in whole custody they have been since they were memorialized.
Identify how each of these students you listened to were chosen by you to be “listened to.” Identify the age, gender, racial, educational and pertinent experiences of each student so “listened to.”
Identify each and every step you took to ensure a cross section of students in the cross section of age, gender, racial, educational and pertinent experiential level of these students and how they related to all the students of Duke, all students in Durham County, all students in North Carolina and all students in the United States.
Identify each and every course you have taken in statistical sampling and how you applied the lessons learned in these classes to each “listening” interview you conducted.
Identify how you applied the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) of the American Society of Certified Public Accounts to selecting, conducting and memorializing the results of the “listening” sessions you have claimed to conduct.
and it goes on.....
These are just about 5% of my first set of interrogatories generated by the first sentence of their letter.
They cannot win!
You're not correct under the Restatement 2d (Torts) 652, see, for example Thompson v. Close-Up, Inc., 277 App.Div. 848 (1st Dept. 1950).
Only against Nifong, but there's a good chance that the immunity will be waved, since he knowingly made false statements AND withheld exculpatory evidence, actions that as completely outside his position as a prosecutor. In effect, I believe that he opened himself up to both civil and criminal charges. (of course, I'm not a lawyer, so what the hell do I know. But one can always hope.)
Mark
I imagine there was some theme running in the liberal mindset, about black women being relegated to demeaning work and it being easier for many whites to regard them in degrading ways, than whites.
(And know what? Pretty much, I think that's still true, much, much, much too often -- subtly, or otherwise. That, from what I've witnessed.)
If so, your interrogatories would be "unduly burdensome," and they'd be thrown out. Keep it up, and you'd be thrown out for harassment.
For example: Identify how you applied the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) of the American Society of Certified Public Accounts to selecting, conducting and memorializing the results of the “listening” sessions you have claimed to conduct.
They're not accountants. Why would they follow GAAP?
You seem to have lost all objectivity. Let it go.
Classic example+
WCBS in NY does live report about high class call girls invading high cost residence sections of Manhattan. Very good looking young woman in mink coat walks in front of camera. Camera follow her as she strolls down street. She is actually a physician on way to party.
They never say she is hooker, but there is an inference.
$5,500,000.
Aw... C’mon! Don’t sugarcoat it.. Tell us how you really feel!!
Still ... I could draw some older water and argue against that modern restriction on the term, and attempt to re-tie the term to the common and otherwise proper using, malice, meaning to intend to cause harm, but that would be counter to modern law -- as Jude24 has said.
With regard to an action against me, the Group of 88 have made themselves public figures, as best I understand, so any action against anyone commenting in any way at all against them would be be just about impossible. Nevertheless, you can be sued for anything, and a silly court can be found to proceed on it in many cases, if the will is there to find such a silly court. How far things then go is another story.
However, in the case against the 88 -- they are, as professors at the University, insiders, as a group allied to a cause -- they have some "august" standing. Their statements from that raised platform of insider authority, and as august members of the faculty -- would be expected to bring quite a respect from the greater community.
So what they say would be expected to have more import and fidelity to the facts of the situation than an ordinary citizen, outside the halls, outside any knowledge of parties to the accused case of rape.
To then speak -- in the context of time and place -- so aggravatingly in public to prejudice the case against the defendants, without taking the time or due diligence to conduct an inquiry into the facts, presumably because of their own well-evident prejudices and extremes of bias to a class of people -- that is reckless disregard towards the truth. That is "actual malice".
And to continue a basic protection against slander and libel that I have applied in may posts -- "This all is my opinion!"
BRING ON THE TAR N FEATHERS.......HOTCHA...
HEAR HEAR...
Absolutely NOT. When was the last time you saw a 200 page Plaintif's First Set of Interrogitories? That's typical these days in some litigation. Let Defs admit they kept no such records, made no attempt to get statistically fair sample. I have no problem with that... it’s just that they helped me make my case that they were prejudiced against my clients.
This isn't complex litigation. The statistics are pretty much irrelevant.
They might argue that Durham 3 were Public Figures, but that would fail because the Durham 3 did little to make themselves Public Figures. They didn’t want to be part of this, they didn’t run for office. Tehy became known through the uninvited actions of others.
Profs status as PFs does not protect them against litigation. It only protects someone who libeled or slandered them.
Folks let us not forgett the dim/lib mantra that guides us situations such as this ...i.e.
‘it’s not the guilt or innosence of the accused but the seriousness of the charge....’
oh yeah.....
do i smell doube-edged sword here? heh heh heh
Don't think so - I live in TN but if I go visit NC and commit a crime, I do not get prosecuted by the feds, I get charged and prosecuted in the local court where the offense took place.
If I commit a crime and use the interstate highway and cross state lines in commission of the crime, the feds can have jurisdiction. If they kidnapped the Crystalho and took her across state lines, then it would be a federal kidnapping case, for example.
Two words: Actual Harm.
Duke U will also be a major target worth millions. By suspending the three boys and disbanding the team they certainly prejudged the boys’ guilt and thereby defamed them.
The suspension of the team, canceling of season and firing of the coach very probably are actionable. Unfortunately, I don't see that the "Otherwise-Unemployable-Eighty-Eight" can be shown to have done anything that's likely to ever go to trial; they might be induced to settle for small amounts under the assumption that a judge would let the case go forward.
As disheartening as it is, the likely outcome of this whole affair is: no serious punishment for the Professors--who I agree have behaved unethically and unprofessionally but probably not actionably--and the addition of yet another 3-6 credits in "diversity" for already overburdened students in hard-science and engineering.
Believe it can't happen? That is exactly what happened at my Alma Mater. In response to a hoax perpetrated by a black student, the University mandated reeducation/sensitivity training for everyone. This despite the fact that in a great many of the mathematically oriented curricula it was already nearly impossible to fit the required credit load into 4 years. After the hoax was exposed, the university maintained that the "controversy" surrounding the affair showed how necessary "diversity appreciation" was, and anyway, this kind of thing happens all the time, it just isn't reported...
Uh-huh.
A liberal using the propositional calculus is like a fish using a bicycle.
This kind of bad behavior on the part of universities isn't going to be remedied until Alumni start demanding accountability from Administrators, and believe me, that is never going to happen.
Don’t forget Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. They went on TV and adjudged the Lacrosse players “guilty” as well.
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.