Posted on 12/18/2007 11:12:12 AM PST by Locomotive Breath
By Tamara Gibbs
DURHAM -- In a filing Tuesday in Federal Court, unindicted Duke Lacrosse players are suing Duke University, the City of Durham, Duke University professors, Mike Nifong and the DNA lab involved in the case.
The suit also names doctors and nurses who treated the alleged victim the night she claimed she'd been raped at a party. The players are also suing City Manager Patrick Baker and former Durham Police Chief Stephen Chalmers. As part of the investigation, the unindicted players had to give up DNA samples and were named in the school paper.
In the 404-page lawsuit, the players say that Duke University, the City of Durham and the other defendants were part of a "conspiracy to railroad 47 Duke University students" based on "the transparently false claim of rape, sexual offense, and kidnapping made by a clinically unreliable accuser." Also in the lawsuit, the players say that the accuser's claim was "taken virtually from her lips and fashioned into a weapon in the hands of those who would leverage outrage."
snip
(Excerpt) Read more at abclocal.go.com ...
Do you think they'd all be happy if they won the suit and then the jury awarded each of them one dollar in damages?
Are you serious about the Dukie liberal clientele? Do you really want proof that they sided with the accuser?
Wasn't that the subject of about every news report early on?
Frankly, I'm puzzled by the question. Why do you think the fired the coach? Why disband the team for that season? Why the public statements of supports for the stipper/ho and "raped" women, in general?
(and why use the word chaplain in conjunction with "lying" except to inflame?)
Its less pain inflicted than they would like, but theyd be very happy with having gone through Discovery, first and foremost..You dont know ANYTHING about what happened here, do you? Just spouting your bigotry for all the world to see, how enobling.
For starters, how about 88 proffessors at your college denouncing you and your teammates as being rapists and thugs, in a huge ad, without proof or provocation, for all the world to see, when youre paying close to 50 grand a year in fees?
They want vindication, plain and simple. A big monetary award inflicts pain, but Discovery works well, also. Problem is, you need to ask for the former in order to get to the latter.. .Next time you comment on something you should know what youre talking about, Mr Moral.
Do you get the feeling you are being Nifonged on this thread?
So Now I'm a bigot, huh?
Insults are the last refuge of a man who has no argument.
Keep it up.
That should read 'Gang of 87'. One has recanted. As for the remaining 87, I couldn't agree more. They would be my primary target. After winning a huge judgement, I would offer to forfeit it in exchange for the immediate firings of those 87 professors. The impact of the City of Durham and Nifong pales in comparison to the future impact each of these professors will make if allowed to keep their positions of indoctrinating future students.
What's this "clientele" business? The Duke defendants in the suit are administrators, employees with direct involvement (such as the nurse referenced), and members of the Crisis Management Team, including BOT chairman Robert Steel. I don't think the term "clientele" applies, do you?
Do you really want proof that they sided with the accuser?
Hold on now. You have been using the term "believed" in your posts, now you have switched to "sided". Words mean things, and the two terms have very different meanings. Of course they sided with the accuser. No one is disputing that.
As I said in #279, the key point in the lawsuit is that the defendants knew she was lying yet proceeded anyway.
Now, do you have any justification for your repeated claims that the defendants in the lawsuit believed the accuser?
ROFLMAO!! IF Shrillary were foolish enough to pursue such a case the “discovery” would blast the Clintonistas out of public life forever. Which of course is just one of many reasons why she would never dare to pursue such a case....
“Sided” and “believed” is the basis of your argument now? LOL.
This is really reaching, you know.
Here they take out a huge ad in a paper with their names attached, and they do NOT believe the woman as they put their names to that ad?
Really, I think it would the burden of proving they did NOT believe her is upon you and not on me to prove that they did. I have the ad as evidence. I have their public statments as evidence.
I have their history as politically correct observers and commentators on all things sociological in my favor. These people “believe” that victims are blamed, accused, downtrodden, etc.
Your comment suggests that ALL liberals disbelieve what they write. The real danger with them, my friend, is that they fall under the heading of “true believers.”
Do you think the nurse did NOT see signs of unususal sex on/in the body of the stripper?
P-Marlowe, isn’t it odd that you’re now a bigot and I’m a liar?
Here is one final question that I think is telling, and I also think they will not answer:
“If this “team” had NOT had the stripper/ho at their team party, would any of this have happened?”
I’ve noticed you are being Nifonged, too. Now you’re a bigot because you believe the young men were braindead to have a stripper/ho at a team party.
If the “team” had NOT had the stripper/ho at the team party, would ANY of this have come about?
That makes no sense. I was simply calling you on your attempt to switch terms in the middle of an argument.
Here they take out a huge ad in a paper with their names attached, and they do NOT believe the woman as they put their names to that ad?
LOL! You were talking about defendants in the lawsuit. The Gang of 88 were not named. Care to try again?
Your comment suggests that ALL liberals disbelieve what they write.
It suggests nothing of the sort. No more than yours suggests that liberals never knowingly lie.
The real danger with them, my friend, is that they fall under the heading of "true believers."
Why should I listen to anything said about the danger of liberal "true believers" from someone willing to carry their water?
Do you think the nurse did NOT see signs of unususal sex on/in the body of the stripper?
That is exactly what the record shows. The NC AG said there was no medical evidence to corroborate the accuser's story.
My turn, and please don't dodge this question: Do you have any evidence that the nurse DID see such signs - yes or no?
P-Marlowe, isn't it odd that you're now a bigot and I'm a liar?
At least he has the honesty to admit he is enabling left-wing racist corruption at Duke and Durham. Do you?
"If this "team" had NOT had the stripper/ho at their team party, would any of this have happened?"
No.
Now, I will ask again: what is the basis for your claim that the defendants believed the accuser's story?
From the article originally posted....the very first line.
And don't forget to address the questions in #331.
XVI. THE CONSPIRACY TO RETALIATE AGAINST PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR TEAMMATES FOR EXERCISING THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS....
F. The Duke University Faculty’s Public Acts
Duke University is named as one of the defendant's and section 16, para F specifically mentions the acts of the faculty. The issue isn't really whether this suit includes the professors (it does as demonstrated above,) but it is about my original post #172. You'll probably not notice that in it I say I have no sympathy for either the players or the liberals. I conclude by saying I wish we could see all parties for stupidity.
"Carry Water?" If saying that I have no sympathy for those whose stupid act brought consequences, then I guess that's carrying water. And especially if I refer to both the liberal faculty and the players as stupid.
Do you have any evidence that the nurse DID see such signs - yes or no?
Yes. Her report. Your link even provided a review of her reports. Also, the case included testimony that the woman had DNA from a variety of partners and there was even testimony of a sex toy used. I don't find it surprising at all that that nurse found evidence of sex. In fact, since that was the charge of the players' lawyers -- multiple sex partners prior to the strip act at the players' party -- then I would hope that the nurse had noticed signs of sex.
I don't admit to enabling racist, left-wing corruption. Neither did P-Marlowe.
From your #308: Why are refusing to back up your claim that the peripheral players in the suit believed the accuser?
Peripheral players was my claim? Defendants was my claim?
My claim is at #172. Go read it.
Isn't that what Nifong said about the Duke players?
You flat out said in #172 that you had no sympathy for the lawsuit and didn't care whether they won or lost. Now that is music to the ears of the corrupt at Duke & Durham. The laxers have already exposed and punished. Not so for the defendants.
They have yet to be held accountable, and you have been trashing what will probably be the only opportunity to expose and punish their wrongdoing. That, my friend, is carrying their water.
I don't find it surprising at all that that nurse found evidence of sex.
You said unusual sex. In any event, the NC AG himself said there was no objective evidence to support the accuser. And this nurse was to be Nifong's key medical witness.
I don't admit to enabling racist, left-wing corruption. Neither did P-Marlowe.
Sure he did:
ME: So you're willing to trash an effort to expose and punish wrongful actions on the part of Duke and Durham because YOU think Americans are sue happy, and that these guys are greedy little bastards.
P-M: Yep.
Furthermore, he accepted the principle by saying I would be helping to enable the laxers' wrongful acts by trashing his efforts to expose and punish. He would be correct - IF they had they not already been exposed and punished beyond what is reasonable.
Peripheral players was my claim? Defendants was my claim?
These were your words: If you take the risk, and you get burned, then I don't care if you win a lawsuit against peripheral folks.
Liar.
Are you a lunatic or are you just obsessed with making sure everyone agrees with you.
So, you agree my word was “peripheral.” Good. I actually remember using that word. That would include the 88 who took out the full page ad. That ad is mentioned in the lawsuit.
I have no sympathy for either side and couldn’t care less if the players win or lose, BECAUSE, as you have agreed, their own dumb act was the precipitating cause of the lawsuit.
You owe me an apology for calling me a liar. The peripheral players are mentioned in the lawsuit.
The sex toy constitutes unusual sex.
“sex toy constitutes unusual sex.”
LOL! Maybe for the inhibited.
You accepted that you were trashing the effort to expose and punish the wrong doers:
ME: So you're willing to trash an effort to expose and punish wrongful actions on the part of Duke and Durham because YOU think Americans are sue happy, and that these guys are greedy little bastards.
YOU: Yep.
_______________________________
You then stated this:
Are you going to trash my efforts to expose and punish these wrongdoers? If so then YOU are enabling these wrongdoers to get away with their wrongdoing.
As I said above, I would agree with your assertion about enabling the laxers' wrongful acts IF their exposure and punishment had not already occurred.
So you DID accept that you were trashing the effort to expose and punish the wrongdoers at Duke and Durham, and you DID assert that trashing an effort to expose and punish the laxers' would constitute enabling their wrongdoing.
Seems pretty clear to me that you have already accepted the enabling charge.
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.