Posted on 01/06/2009 4:12:27 AM PST by abb
Folks, I just got the news from Thomas Loflin, III - attorney for Elmostafa.
"I am at long last pleased to inform you that Mr. Elmostafa has settled his malicious prosecution action against Hecht's, its security guard, and Hecht's successor corporations, the main one of which is Macy's Inc."
"The settlement came just before we were to go to court on cross-motions for summary judgment as to the issue of liability on December 1st, and before court-ordered mediation set for December 15th. We had a trial date of March 30th (2009)."
The amount of money settled for can not be disclosed as it was a confidential settlement. The only thing Mr. Loflin could say was that it was 'settled on a basis satisfactory to both parties'.
However, I have since discovered via the grapevine that the attorney representing Hecht's in its settlement with Elmo was the same attorney who represented Duke in its settlement with Reade, Dave and Colin. That is interesting to me because it indicates the connection between Duke and Elmostafa. But what I find even more interesting is that defendants' attorneys settled before mediation. Now, of course, nearly all cases are settled before trial - but not before mediation. Mediation, however, (at least in California) requires one important thing - that both sides present ALL evidence. Whether it is the same for North Carolina is something I don't know. (I would be very interested in hearing any legal opinion about that.) Anyway, as I see it, settling before mediation is in my opinion a tacit admission that defendants' case was quite bad - and quite embarrassing.
Anyway, the case settled and I am delighted. I also heard through the grapevince the delightful rumor that the amount which Elmo settled for was VERY good! Super! Personally, I can't think of an individual (outside of Dave, Reade and Colin) who deserves financial largesse more - considering what Elmo went through. Perhaps this explains why he has now returned to the Sudan to gather his wife and children and extended family and bring them all to Durham. Good for him!
That was a great way to close out 2008. And a great way to start 2009!
God bless Elmo!
http://www.rd.com/your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/cabdriver-witness-in-the-duke-rape-case/article49140.html The Key Witness A cabdriver caught up in the Duke University rape case dares to tell the truth.
http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/video-moezeldin-elmostafa-is-a-true-hero/7420185
The Key Witness A cabdriver caught up in the Duke University rape case dares to tell the truth.
ping
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1355930.html
New Durham district attorney sworn in
Thanks...it’s nice to get good news for a change.
Elmo was voted Hero of the Year for 2006 by Reader’s Digest.
You’d think the city of Durham would honor him for that.
You’d also think he’d be sent around to schools to talk—an immigrant who refused to lie for a prosecutor—and serve as a great example of citizenship.
But so far the city of Durham wants nothing to do with him, because he is a reminder of their own corruption (which they prove by shunning him), IMHO.
Elmo was voted Hero of the Year for 2006 by Reader’s Digest.
You’d think the city of Durham would honor him for that.
LOL!
Did Elmostafa also sue the DPD and/or Durham?
I can’t recall ...
Now he can probably live anywhere he wants.
Here’s our thread from when he filed the suit. I don’t remember either about the DPD/DA.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/667225/1/
Thanks for the good news! Elmo was one of the unsung heroes of this incredible story.
Thanks, abb!
An ill wind lit Elmo’s fire.
Good. I like the liestoppers blog and board, and posted there a few times. The whole case is a window into the political correctness and corruption, especially around issues of race and gender, that have infested important social institutions including major universities, city governments, police departments, prosecutors’ offices, and even hospitals.
Thanks for the ping
I'm not an attorney, but I'm 99% sure NC is different. I'm a civil law paralegal and there is no such requirement in our civil mediations.
http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/durham/4-1064024.cfm
Lacrosse cabbie, Macy’s settle suit
BY RAY GRONBERG : The Herald-Sun
gronberg@heraldsun.com
Jan 7, 2009
DURHAM — Cabbie Moezeldin Elmostafa and the proprietors of the Macy’s department stores have settled the lawsuit he filed against the chain in connection with a 2003 shoplifting incident.
The two sides agreed to a deal just before Thanksgiving, and filed dismissal papers on Dec. 15, said Tom Loflin, the lawyer for Elmostafa, who emerged as an alibi witness for one of the defendant’s in the Duke lacrosse case.
“All I can say ... is that the lawsuit was settled in a manner satisfactory to both sides,” Loflin said. “Your readers can draw their own inferences from that. It was a lawsuit for monetary damages.”
Loflin said the agreement came only days before the two sides were scheduled to argue the retail chain’s motion to dismiss the case.
In his suit, Elmostafa contended that the chain wronged him in 2003 by allowing a security guard to accuse him of helping a shoplifter, Lisa Hawkins, steal five handbags from what was then the Hecht’s at Northgate Mall.
Both sides agree that Elmostafa drove Hawkins to the store and then drove her home. The guard, Jonathan Massey, swore out an arrest warrant against the cabbie but authorities at the time didn’t serve it.
But Elmostafa was tried and acquitted on an aiding-and-abetting charge in 2006 after he came to public awareness as an alibi witness for one of the defendants in the Duke lacrosse case.
Loflin argued that former District Attorney Mike Nifong had aides resurrect the shoplifting incident to put pressure on Elmostafa to change his story in the lacrosse case.
“We were one of the last on the lacrosse litigation train, the last to be charged and all that, but we’re probably the first out of it, except that Mr. Elmostafa is probably going to end up as a witness in some of the players’ civil cases,” Loflin said.
The cabbie’s 2006 acquittal came after Loflin argued that Massey had exaggerated the case against him by claiming he sped away from the store after Hawkins got back in his taxi.
Loflin also contended that even if he saw the bags, Elmostafa didn’t know they were stolen.
In court papers, Macy’s said there was no malice behind the decision to take out the warrant against Elmostafa.
Massey and a Durham Police Department officer who was moonlighting as mall security the night of the incident, Vernon Harris, both said in affidavits that video showed Hawkins was inside Hecht’s for only about 44 seconds.
They both said they thought there was probable cause to charge Elmostafa. Massey said he’d also cleared the decision to do so with his supervisor, Arthenia Davis.
Massey and a Northgate Mall security guard, James Parham, said in affidavits that security at the shopping center had been fighting a running battle in 2003 with cabbies who were helping shoplifters.
Parham said he’d watched several times that summer as shoplifters eluded authorities by jumping into waiting cabs.
The situation got to the point where mall security told cab drivers that if they were waiting for a dropped-off passenger to return, they had to cruise the parking lot rather than loiter at the curb, he said.
Massey and Harris said in their affidavits that when they talked to Elmostafa about the Hawkins incident, he told them Durham law forced him to accept her as a passenger.
City law does in fact bar on-duty cabbies from refusing a would-be fare unless they have reason to believe transporting the person might be “unsafe for the driver.”
The law also bars cabbies from helping passengers procure drugs or prostitutes, but says nothing about shoplifting. It further says a cabbie can’t take passengers anywhere other than the destinations they specify.
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.