Posted on 12/04/2008 2:59:16 PM PST by abb
A federal judge on Thursday rejected the appeal of fallen prosecutor Mike Nifong to keep his case in bankruptcy court.
The ruling opens the door for the three exonerated lacrosse players to again pursue malicious prosecution allegations against the former district attorney.
In October 2007, Dave Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann filed suit against Nifong, the city of Durham and its police department. The players claimed they suffered personal injury and emotional distress while the prosecutor, police and city pushed ahead with a gang-rape case that was flawed from the start.
In their civil suit, the players allege the concealment and fabrication of evidence, the utterance of false public statements, witness tampering and obstruction of justice.
In a hearing Thursday before James A. Beaty, the federal district court judge assigned to the case, Jim Craven, the lawyer representing Nifong, disputed the players’ claims of personal injury.
It was because of those claims that a federal bankruptcy court judge decided this spring to send the case back to federal District Court, where such issues are usually decided.
Nifong filed for bankruptcy protection on Jan. 15, a legal maneuver that put the players’ case on hold for months.
In the bankruptcy filing, Nifong listed assets of $243,898 and the potential debt of $180.3 million — including $30 million to each of the lacrosse players who had sued him at the time.
Bankruptcy rules would not have protected Nifong if a judge found that he willfully and maliciously prosecuted the players. So attorneys for the players argued that those legal matters should be heard first.
Only three members of the 2006 Duke lacrosse team have not filed suit.
The players spent nearly 13 months fighting charges that were dropped in April 2007 by state Attorney General Roy Cooper.
Cooper took the unusual additional step of specifically declaring them innocent of the crimes alleged by an escort service dancer hired to perform at a lacrosse team party in March 2006
Whore monger = Whore. Exact enough?
Flawed my ass!
Unless flawed translates roughly into "completely fabricated and pursued by two very dishonorable individuals".
Justice Department statistics show virtually zero rapes of Black women by White men, zero!
No. None of the boys were "mongers"--sellers of CGM's services. As I recall, Reade was so disgusted with the "entertainment" at the party that he left early, Nifong and "Durham's Finest" were still trying to prove that he was at the party even after he had been criminally charged.
Yep, she is true garbage. Ever hear "Birds of a feather, flock together"? I think it applies. These guys remind me of the upper crust guys in the movie, A scent of a woman. Sure they got dealt some horrible cards by the Chrystal and Nofong. I am glad they were cleared, but I do not respect them.
Well then, I’m glad one showed some class.
LMAO! That nails it, from an accurate description standpoint!
That’s the most wrongheadedly ignorant post I’ve seen today.
Yep, you’ve proven it. My assertion is 100% correct. And you’re boldly arrogant about it.
Hiring crack whores for your entertainment isn't exactly what I would call upstanding behavior. Obviously you think different. Different strokes for different folks!
Finnerty is the guy that gang-beat a hotel patron for no reason in a hotel lobby if I remember right. A pox on both their houses.
You initially asserted “The guys in this case are of the same class of the hooker.”
One of the guys provably left the scene, and at least one, if not both of the others, weren’t involved in hiring the crack whore for a stripper gig. Yet still you stand tall in your arrogant ignorance with “Hiring crack whores for your entertainment isn’t exactly what I would call upstanding behavior.”
And is watching, or even hiring, a stripper in the same class for you, as being/utilizing a hooker?
If so, you have a weird schema for classifying unclassy behavior. The local law differs with you substantially. The stripper part - not illegal. The whore/perjurer part - very illegal.
The law does not set the standard for morality.
So you’re dead wrong about one of the guys, at least. A fact that you seem to have a hard time admitting.
That leaves the unanswered direct question you are avoiding:
Is watching, or even hiring, a stripper in the same class for you, as being/utilizing a hooker?
Will wait for God to sort all that out.
I will say that Crystal was just as used by the black political leadership and the DA's office as she ever was by those lacrosse players, though.
Where does the other $90 million in debt come from?
Nail him to the wall...and the Duke so call professors!
Is watching, or even hiring, a stripper in the same class for you, as being/utilizing a hooker?
A stripper is pretty pointless without an audience. Same goes for the whore with out the John. They should be judged as a pair. Sure there are different levels of debaucthery, but that is besides the point, I'm talking upright little angels v. nasty little devils. Hey, I'll admit I haven't always been an angel, but luckily we are not talking about me!
Merry Christmas FONG!
For starters, define “these guys”.
Is the guy who left the scene when he found out what was going down “better than the whores they [he didn’t] contracted”? He left before the whores hit the scene.
And the DA was white, so I don’t know that “the black political leadership” has to do with anything.
You and Mark can sit in the “hopelessly ignorant but still feel compelled to let everyone know about it” box on this one.
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.