Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Trouble for Wendy Murphy

A Nebraska judge has dismissed a motion filed by Wendy Murphy, and has suggested that Murphy violated Nebraska law by filing a motion (in a sexual assault case) even though she is not licensed to practice in the state.

Georgia Goslee--who is licensed to practice in North Carolina--said she wasn't familiar with statutes there. And now Wendy Murphy wants to practice in Nebraska, even though she's not licensed.

They make quite a pair.

107 comments:

Anonymous said...

What....you mean Murphy engaged in irresponsible activity? Whoda thunk it??

Anonymous said...

she's also opening herself up to a host of ethical complaints and a malpractice suit from the woman who's she's trying to represent.

From the client's perspective - a very important motion just got tossed out of court solely because her attorney was incompetent and misrepresented herself. Malpractice suits have been filed and won on far less than that.

Anonymous said...

It's also funny to watch Wendy get homer'd - which is what happens when the big city lawyer from back east tries to push the small hometown judge around.

cue Strother Martin - "what we have here is a failure to communicate...."

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

Damn! Once again, the world sees the picture of the man accused of rape but not the woman accusing him. This isn't fair!

Look, dammit, in my youth I fought hard to end oppression of women. What I did NOT fight for was to make women become oppressers themselves. And that's just what these rape laws do!

No Justice, no peace said...

KC thanks for the effort regarding the chart in a prior post. If you've not read Edward Tufte's "Envisioning Information", I recommend you do so. It is excellent. Among other publications, he also wrote a keen pamphlet "The Cognitive Style of PowerPoint" which provides great guidance if one ever gives presentations.

"Escaping this flatland is the essential task of envisioning information - for all the interesting worlds, (physical, biological, imaginary, human)that we seek to understand are inevitably and happily multivariate in nature. Not flatlands" - Edward Tufte, Envisioning Information

www.edwardtufte.com

One Spook said...

Perhaps even more interesting than the radical Ms Murphy's attempt to practice law in a State where she is not admitted to practice, is the policy statement of the newspaper wherein the article appeared with respect to reader (user) comments, to wit:

"Publishing opinions about the guilt, innocence or character of the accused in open criminal cases can affect that person's constitutional right to a fair trial. For that reason, JournalStar.com has chosen not to accept user comments on this story.

Had such faulty logic been applied to a blog such as KC's via a legal challenge by the Klan of 88 et al, KC's entire effort would have been non-existent.

Apparently in the eyes of the Journal Star, free speech only applies to their newspaper and not to its readers.

"Free Speech" indeed!

One Spook

wayne fontes said...

Off topic but a truly amusing Wendy story. Wendy gives her opinion of a nine foot snow penis in her own special way.

Anonymous said...

Four years ago, Kobe Bryant fought the same battle. He tried to stop the Colorado prosecutor from referring to his accuser as a "victim."

The prosecutor and self-announted protectors of "victims" all insisted that denying the "victim" the label of "victim" was a horrific "regression" in the law and would victimize the woman again.

The eventual Bryant victory is denying the label to his accuser does not mitigate the creepy tone of the argument: none of the shrill "defenders of the victim" seem to understand that the accused was entitled to a fair trial. That their labels assume guilt or at least a crime.

To know that Murphy was a prosecutor is chilling: even if she's not into the Nifong school of holding the DNA, imagine someone like her chasing you for felony time.

Anonymous said...

now one knows why massachusetts is the vrazies legal jurisdiction in the world..theyre as crazy as she is

Anonymous said...

Is Murphy a Communist?

Anonymous said...

No, she's a garden variety a$$hole!

gak said...

Can someone point me in the general direction to read up on Ms. Goslee's display of astute legal prowess. I ask this question seriously. There are gaps I'm trying to fill in.

Thanks
GAK

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

While from the right the lovely and talented Anne Coulter has chimed in again:

The New York Times alone has mentioned the Scottsboro Boys case from the 1930s nearly 20 times since 2002 (expanding the "news" part of "newspaper" just a bit), so I think I'm entitled to spend at least one more week luxuriating in the Duke lacrosse players' total vindication and the exposure of a Southern liberal prosecutor as a corrupt hack.

To read her entire column and many here would do well to read it and think a long time about it click below:

NAPPY-HEADED HOAX

Anonymous said...

Can you say pro hac vice motion?

Anonymous said...

Boy, I wonder when the shemale Coulter will start luxuriating in the exposure of Abu Gonzalez as a corrupt flunky for an administration of corrupt flunkies. Oops, that's right, they all love jeebuz, so that makes it A-OK.

Tell me again JLS when Abu and the gang are coming down to Durham to make sure that "justice" is done?

Anonymous said...

Sometimes the wheels of justice turn slowly, but at least they are still turning against Wendy. Hopefully the misdemeanor charge will be pursued with great vigor. She had no mercy or understanding for the plight of the Duke lacrosse players (in effect declaring them guilty from day one), so why should anyone have any mercy for her cornered position in Nebraska. Go Huskers.

Anonymous said...

"Can you say pro hac vice motion?"

Please. You expect somebody like Wendy Murphy to actually know something about practicing law? The woman is nothing but a shrill media whore, brought on purely for "entertainment value." She's no more a real lawyer than I'm a brain surgeon.

inman said...

I know this is off topic....but in the comment section of "The Depositions and the Whichard Committee, II" Gary Packwood suggested that I visit the initial post on this blog.

I did.

And I am somewhat troubled.

KC stated in observing appropriate behavior (April 16, 2006):

"The second is Duke's president, Richard Brodhead. He--quite appropriately, it seems to me--suspended and then cancelled the lacrosse season; based on the most benign interpretations of their actions, many of the lacrosse players were guilty of conduct unbecoming university students and gravely embarrassing the school. He's reached out to students and administrators at NCCU. At the same time, he's avoided any rush to judgment--unlike a handful of Duke professors, led by Afro-Am studies professor Houston Baker, who essentially advocated dismissing the lacrosse students from school."

I disagree with KC's initial read on Brodhead and the decision to suspend the lacrosse team. I refer all to my letter of March 30, 2006 (16 days before this post) in the Chronicle for my position at the time.

KC....with all due respect and great admiration for your style and substance....

...you appear to have changed your mind at some point. When? and Why? This is germaine.

Am I wrong? Please so inform me, if I am.

Again with great respect,

I am yours very truly,

Thomas Inman
Trinity '74

Anonymous said...

Yes, a Motion to Practice Pro Hac Vice takes about 5-30 minutes to prepare, depending upon the local jurisdictional requirements.

This was simply another example of Murphy's belief that the ends justify the means.

She thought her gallant effort on behalf of the rape "victim" justified her violating local laws or rules.

S = (L x A) + 53

Answer key:

L = loudness
S = stupidity
A = arrogance

Needless to say, the equation conclusively establishes that Murphy is stupid.

K.C. rules the blogosphere! All liars, cheats and troublemakers need tremble! Floyd says: "MOO." Gregory

Anonymous said...

Off topic - Anne Coulter has a great article called "Nappy haired Hoax" With all the bad stuff out there, this article is a welcome relief on the truth,

KC Johnson said...

To the 8.19:

I changed my mind about Brodhead with the June 5 statement--which badly distorted both the substance of the Coleman Committee report and the revelations about the case from the media.

In my initial post on the case, I mistakenly assumed, among other things, that Brodhead had been blindsided by the allegations.

Trying to get a sense of what Brodhead knew and when he knew it was my motive for these two posts from last fall, which gave me a much clearer sense of Brodhead's actions.

Anonymous said...

Wendy is a moron. Her Nebraska excursive demonstrates, again, that she is a lawyer with no respect for the law.

Her "fame" is writ large only because of her appearances on cable TV. She's a non-entity within the scholarly legal community, and justly so. Hopefully, her 15 minutes of fame is nearing its end.

Anonymous said...

a partial defense of the journal-star's refusal to accept commentary: IF they have a policy of not accepting comments on any open criminal case, and IF they have a parallel policy of not printing letters to the editor opining on the guilt or innocence of any persons currently charged with a crime, then they are blameless in conforming to a general business policy. We may disagree with the policy, but it's their policy and their paper, and they can set it however they want to.

Those are some big if's, however. If this is something they just cooked up on the spur of the moment for this case only then it looks pretty shady.

but remember one technical point regarding posting on other people's websites, including this one - all posts happen only with the permission of the owner. No permission, no posts. Free speech is a fine ideal, but no one gets free speech on someone else's dime.

wayne fontes said...

Anonymous said...

Is Murphy a Communist?

Jul 11, 2007 7:22:00 PM

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Actually Murphy is a wiccan. While I don't have the photographic evidence yet the word is she must have the blood of male infants to maintain her raven locks. I'm working on it.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure Wendy filed a pro hac vice motion, and then never bothered to see whether it was approved or not. Although in many jurisdictions it's a formality, the judge in the case always retains the right to say "NO", and it looks like that's what he's done in this case.

TaterCon said...

There is no "equal protection" right to practice law pro hac vice in a state other than one's own. Nor is there a right to due process in a judge's discretionary grant of pro hac vice priveleges or revocation thereof.

At least that's the way it is here in North Carolina, where I practice.....

Anonymous said...

Coulter's_Latest

Debrah

an angry inman said...

Kc..thank you for your reply...I've reviewed the first of your suggested posts. A singularly chilling quote:

"At a tumultuous meeting, the parents urged the assembled Duke officials (Trask, Alleva, Dean of Student Life Sue Wasiolek, and Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta) to say publicly what all already had told them privately: that they believed the team was innocent. When the quartet refused to do so, the parents asked to meet with Brodhead. That request also was denied."

Huh? Is this true? Four Duke representatives decided that they could not publicly support the innocence of the players? After stating that they believed in their innocence??? Excuse me... but where in the PC handbook does that play appear???????

Also, stunning: "Administrators present at the meeting struggled to avoid contradictory stories. When asked why, given the seriousness of the charges, Duke officials hadn�t contacted the parents, Wasiolek cited FERPA regulations. Moneta, on the other hand, pointed to practicality concerns, reportedly remarking, �Do you know how many calls we get from the Durham police about our students? If we called a parent for every complaint we get we would be calling parents every weekend.� "

I leave others to parse that statement...for I am about to gag....

Anonymous said...

I seriously doubt anybody said "no", she just is such an idiot she didn't file the necessary application. I doubt she's ever appeared in a courtroom outside her little stint in MA.

Newport

Anonymous said...

It looks like Wendy Murphy is jealously guarding the "R" word. She claims her client, the alleged victim, should be able to use that word during the criminal trial.

Murphy's client said she wants to point to the defendant and say, "He raped me." The judge is only allowing use of the words "sex" or "intercourse," and not "rape."

Murphy's client claims that if she uses the word "sex" instead of rape, it will seem the intercourse was consensual. This seems disingenuous to me, but I'll get to that later.

To me, the most significant use of the word "rape" is not from the lips of the alleged victim, but from the lips of the expert witnesses. Allowing a doctor or SANE to use the word (and therefore the legal conclusion) is usurping the jury's duty. And that is true without going into the fact that a SANE cannot know that a rape occurred.

I think Murphy is being a little disingenuous at best in her claims. She argues that the word "sex" hamstrings her client, but she is blabbing about it all over the media, and, moreover, why wouldn't something like this work: "He FORCED me to have intercourse while I was passed out. He jammed his DAMN PENIS into me, [sobbing] and, God, I did not consent!"

Murphy is guarding the "R" word like the NAACP guards the "N" word. Somebody needs to alert them that Coulter has used it in the title of her new article!

K.C. Johnson was the fourth astronaut on the moon, and he invented Gatorade at the University of Florida! MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Newport, I agree. Floyd concurs!

inman said...

Again off topic for which I sincerly apologize, but this is important:

November 30, 2006 KC states:

"In this case,” said Nifong (covering all his political bases), “where you have the act of rape—essentially a gang rape—is bad enough in and of itself, but when it’s made with racial with racial epithets against the victim, I mean, it’s just absolutely unconscionable . . . My guess is that some of this stonewall of silence that we have seen may tend to crumble once charges start to come out.”

There are more stunning revelations on this post, as well. I will simply refer others to read the history.

UN-friggin-fuggin-gosh-durn-this-can't be true--believable.

I'm not an attorney but surely there is an attorney who is an advocate of basic consitutional rights who would like this case.

Please, let's identify that attorney and figure out how to fund the litigation.

Best to all.

Anonymous said...

Nebraska Judge - You go girl!! And you too, Ann Coulter.

Anonymous said...

Wendy Murphy just got herself in some very hot water. Practicing law without a license is a crime (license goes by state), and it violates her own Commonwealth's rules of professional responsibility. She should have filed a Motion for admittance pro hoc vice, but she did not. The reason may be simply that no lawyer in Nebraska would sign it and sponsor her. Ouch, baby.

The hammer may very well be on the way up, because she has done little but embarass Mass. and herself over the last year. Her actions have shone a very bad light on the profession, and this provides a prime opportunity to suspend her license and get rid of her.

Stupid move on her part, deliciously stupid for those of us who can't stand her, however.

-Esquire-
-Maryland-

ben tillman said...

"Can you say pro hac vice motion?"

According to the linked article, Murphy filed a pro-hac-vice motion along with the other motion. The judge is being ridiculous.

ben tillman said...

"Murphy's client said she wants to point to the defendant and say, 'He raped me.' The judge is only allowing use of the words 'sex' or 'intercourse,' and not 'rape.'"

If that's really what the judge is doing, it's outrageous. If the judge is preventing people other than the accuser from saying "rape and "victim" during the evidentiary portion of the trial, that sounds like a good idea.

duke09parent said...

*****************
"Can you say pro hac vice motion?"

According to the linked article, Murphy filed a pro-hac-vice motion along with the other motion. The judge is being ridiculous.
**************

No, the article said she filed the motion in the trial court first and the next day filed her motion to be admitted with the Nebraska Supreme Court. That in itself is a little odd. Here the pro hac vice motion would be in the trial court, too, to be signed by a lawyer licensed here. Maybe Wendy couldn't find any lawyer in all of Nebraska willing to move her admission.

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

re: ben tillman

My first reaction was similar to yours, but I read the article and a couple linked to it. This is a case where both side agree they engaged in sex. She will of course get to testify that she did not consent. But despite what Murphy or Nifong might wish, the JURY are the triers of fact.

That is the jury decides whether the sex in this case was rape or not. It is not woman who claims to be a victim of rape is NOT the trier of fact. All she can testify to is the sex and her claim of consent. It is only rape in the eyes of the law if the jury says it was rape.

Anonymous said...

Wendy Murphy and Georgia Goslee are loons.

Both used to be on Dan Abrams' show when this Hoax first began and only he could handle such idiots without their mikes having to be cut.

However, you could plainly see that he thought Goslee was an irrational nut, and he would always draw her out and show what a truly narrow-minded person she is. I had never even heard of the woman before this case.

Wendy Murphy has some of the same craziness of Nancy Grace. Both are always obsessed with "getting" someone and preaching "the law"......ranting through their flared thin slits for lips.

With Grace now in the "family way"--thanks to fertility treatment for women whose ovaries have jumped the shark......

.....and Wendy Murphy's law license now in jeopardy.....cable news may be rid of some dead weight.

Debrah

ben tillman said...

"All she can testify to is the sex and her claim of consent."

In other words, you are saying she can say it was rape.

"It is only rape in the eyes of the law if the jury says it was rape."

And it is only rape in the eyes of the jury if the accuser says it was rape, and they believe her. The accuser really *must* say she was raped.

ben tillman said...

"No, the article said she filed the motion in the trial court first and the next day filed her motion to be admitted with the Nebraska Supreme Court."

It quotes Murphy as saying she filed a motion for permission to file a motion. In these circumstances, that means a pro-hac-vice motion.

Anonymous said...

What the Judge did was not ridiculous. What the Judge did was follow the LAW. Seems strange to people from Durm. (1) File motion to practice pro hac vice, (2) get the judge to rule on it, (3) THEN practice law.

On another note, Murphy obviously pissed off the Judge by vitiating his pretrial ruling on the motion in limine by going public with the case. Now, everybody in Nebraska has heard about the controversy thanks to Wendy Loony.

I am beginning to see that Murphy keeps showing up in these rape cases. I know she "teaches" a course on the subject at a "law school." I'm beginning to think that she is only seeking the type of "brand recognition" that, for example, P.T. Barnum had with midgets and siamese twins.

My question: Shouldn't the Judge's ruling be taken a step further: The media should also use the words "sex" or "intercourse" in describing a defendant in such a case?

Of course, we couldn't call it a media-sponsored "rape shield policy" because it has the word "rape" in it. Also, there is already a media-sponsored rape shield policy, so stupid people would be confused.

I checked on Yahoo, and a search for the words "rape, Duke, Lacrosse" brought up about 1,440,000 hits. Do you think that prejudiced the innocent Duke students?

K.C. Johnson invented butter and the bowler hat while playing water polo! - From: "Fun with K.C. Johnson Trivia" (4th Ed. 1999, Random House) Gregory

ben tillman said...

"What the Judge did was not ridiculous. What the Judge did was follow the LAW. Seems strange to people from Durm. (1) File motion to practice pro hac vice, (2) get the judge to rule on it, (3) THEN practice law."

Since the judge denied the motion for admission, she didn't practice.

Anonymous said...

To those who mentioned Georgia Goslee, check out her website for some real amusement:

http://www.georgiagosleelaw.com/index.jsp

-Try clicking on "attorneys"; she's the only one (guess she can't distinguish the singular from the plural). Note her assertion that her experience includes, "professor of law, Geneva, Switzerland". Aren't you just dying to know the name of the school in Switzerland (conspicuous in its absence) where she was a "professor of law"?

-Check out the two different "professional profiles". Not sure why the first is necessary, since there's nothing there, but the second is hilarious: a rambling statement of her "qualifications". She's got more credentials as a fitness instructor than as a lawyer. She has NO credentials in grammar or syntax, as the second web page proves.

- Check out the three separate links for "Criminal Law Newsletter"; all three pages are empty. Guess she didn't make the law review.

Anonymous said...

I have a question.

Perhaps it's getting late and from all the reading I'm getting eye strain, but I keep reading this "MOO" inside posts occasionally.

Please someone translate what this means...this "Floyd" and "MOO".

How can I learn if I don't ask questions?

Debrah

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

re: ben tillman

Again if I read this right, she gets to testify to the elements of the crime of rape, not say the elements of the crime of rape were met. I am not an attorney and you sound like you are, but this makes some sense to me.

The jury are the triers of fact. They listen to testimony about the elements of an alledged crime and they get to determine if they believe all the elements are met. That is the jury gets to conclude it was rape or not, not the complaining witness.

It makes some sense to me in the same line of not dragging defendants for trial in orange jumps suits. Rape is a pretty loaded word and it sounds like this judge thinks in a case where the only issue is consent highly prejudical against the defendant. He might come to a different conclusion where there was clearly a rape and the issue was identity rather than a case where there clearly was sex and the issue is consent.

Anonymous said...

Floyd Taylor is one of the guys Mangum claimed raped her in Creedmoor. She told Himan in an interview that the Creedmoor authorities indicated that Floyd was in prison for a long time because he murdered his Grandmother by pushing her down some stairs.

The problem is: There is no record of any criminal behavior by this Floyd Taylor in all of North Carolina.

There is a "Floyd Taylor" listed in the NC databases, but he is an old white guy who had a bunch of DWI's. Also, there are no Floyd Turners, Floyd Tailors or Floyd Thayers.

Thus, it appears that Mangum made up another lie. Since Floyd Taylor was the first of Precious' many rape hoax victim, some of us like to think that we could solve all of the remaining issues if only we could find him.

"Moo" is what a cow says while it chews cud, before it makes cow paddies, during a rainstorm and right before the bolt goes through its brain. It is also a lame acronym for "my opinion only."

K.C. Johnson killed Chuck Norris and two of Chuck Norrises' best clones in a loser-dies cage match. The Chuck Norris you see on TV is all CGI. -- "Fun with K.C. Johnson Trivia" (3rd ed., 2004 Penguin Pub.) MOO! Gregory

Gary Packwood said...

inman said...

...I know this is off topic....but in the comment section of "The Depositions and the Whichard Committee, II" Gary Packwood suggested that I visit the initial post on this blog.
...I did.
...And I am somewhat troubled.
::
Here is my recommendation to you Inman.

I suggest you go to the front page of this Blog and type in the search phrase in the search window ...ZIP CODE and read what has been learned.

What did you find troubling about Zip Code data?
::
GP

Anonymous said...

re: ben tillman, in response to: "Since the judge denied the motion for admission, she didn't practice."

Not true - she gave a Nebraska client legal advice, and filed a motion for her in a Nebraska Court, which was thrown out. (the original subject of this thread)

That's a textbook case of unauthorized practice of law. Not sure if you're a lawyer or not, but lawyers know (or are darn sure supposed to know) that you never go outside your own state with legal advice (and certainly not legal actions!) unless you've gotten permission beforehand. New York lawyers can't work in Florida. California lawyers can't work in Arizona - it's the rule all over.

necessary caveat - many states have reciprocal agreements with other states that make cross-border practice a lot easier, but obviously Nebraska and Massachusetts do not.

Pro hac vice (roughly put, for this case only)is always up to the discretion of the trial judge. Piss him or her off, and all you can do is go home.

ben tillman said...

"The jury are the triers of fact. They listen to testimony about the elements of an alledged crime and they get to determine if they believe all the elements are met. That is the jury gets to conclude it was rape or not, not the complaining witness."

In other words, the jury gets to decide the truth or falsity of anything a witness says, so the witnesses can't say anything until after the jury has reached its verdict.

Anonymous said...

Floyd also sez there ain't no way Wendy gets disbarred. Mass Bar probably more than happy to have her practicing in Kansas and on the tee vee in Hollywood!

Mr X

Anonymous said...

To Gregory--

The trivia is interesting, but I can't seem to get to this "Moo" shtick.

We all have our little eccentricities. That must be yours.

Debrah

ben tillman said...

"Not true - she gave a Nebraska client legal advice, and filed a motion for her in a Nebraska Court, which was thrown out. (the original subject of this thread)"

The article doesn't say she was a client, and the article doesn't say anything about legal advice.

"Not sure if you're a lawyer or not, but lawyers know (or are darn sure supposed to know) that you never go outside your own state with legal advice...."

We do it all the time. Judges too, because they have to. Only the California bar ever contends that there's anything wrong with it.

Anonymous said...

Debrah -
Thank you for asking about the MOOs. I was wondering too...

KC et al -
I have been reading these blogs since last year but haven't said anything because I don't live in the States & your justice system isn't really something I have a right to criticise, but CRIKEY mate, these characters really do have a few kangaroos loose in the top paddock!

Anyway, KC & you guys who are writing such well-considered posts, keep up the good work. The case itself may reflect the dark side of the American justice system, but all of the righteous indignation, so intelligently expressed, reflects 1000 times stronger the noble side of ordinary American citizens.

PS I heard that KC invented vegemite, cricket, AND Aussie Rules footy!

mac said...

Somewhere in Kansas someone lost a house in a tornado, and it was last seen to have landed on Ms. Murphy.

Interesting post on the giant snow phallus that Murphy took exception to:
I remember seeing paintings at art shows where the artist painted nothing
but female crotches (you may have seen the same kind of work.)
The artists appear not to know how to use color, light, value,
perspective, contrast nor composition. Does Murphy equate
those ugly, garish works with Nazi flags,
Confederate flags etc?
All you need is one guess...

Toto just peed on the witch's shoes
before they got all rolled-up and all!

Anonymous said...

Wendy Murphy will never be raped! Is she the father of Mary Cheney's baby?

Ralph Phelan said...

"Murphy's client claims that if she uses the word "sex" instead of rape, it will seem the intercourse was consensual."

How about "Hump?"

Anonymous said...

"Only the California bar ever contends that there's anything wrong with it."

Looks like Nebraska might be voicing an objection or two.

duke09parent said...

***************
We do it all the time [give advice to out of state clients]. Judges too, because they have to. Only the California bar ever contends that there's anything wrong with it.
***********

No sir, not on matters of state law. On U.S. Constitutional Law, yes. But if someone asks me a question on a matter outside my license states (mid-Atlantic and not N.C.) and it involves the other state's laws, I ALWAYS couch any advice on what my own states would do with the question and that I don't know what Nebraska, for instance, might do with it. In my home state a pro hac vice motion means that the out of state counsel will associate with an in state lawyer and commits to learning the local procedures. To assume she would be admitted (apparently without a Nebraska lawyer joining the motion) and to file a substantive motion before being admitted is the kind of mindless hubris we associate with Murphy.

The substance of her motion is debatable. I probably agree with you. But Murphy was in contempt of court as far as I'm concerned and ought to be required to associate with a Nebraska lawyer, who must appear with her at every court hearing, if she is to continue with the case. She ought also to be smacked with a substantial fine, payable to the state's literacy fund.

Anonymous said...

Wendy and Georgia's careers are over. They have proven their ignorance, racism and hate outways any knowledge they have of the law.

Ralph Phelan said...

"The substance of her motion is debatable."

Saying "She can testify as to her observations and perceptions regarding what occurred. Determining whether or not what occurred is "rape" is a mattter of both fact and law, and I'm not going to allow anyone to assume the conclusion." strikes me as pretty reasonable. What legal basis is there for asking this order be overturned?

duke09parent said...

ralph,
The righteousness of one's cause does not justify improper means of pursuing it. That should be one of the lessons of the Duke case. Wendy, we know from her past, does not believe in that concept. She would say, who cares about due process if the bastards are guilty of heinous conduct? The answer is that a great many of us do, particularly the ones who aren't guilty of what you suspect us of.

So, I don't really care a lot about the substance (the righteousness) of her motion. She's willing to cut corners to get at what she believes is right. Lawyers who take that stance should be disciplined.

Anonymous said...

There is an MP3 file of a conversation between Wendy Murphy and John Gibson, from June 15, 2007, the URL is http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/iblog/C168863457/E20070617173741/index.html. Ms. Murphy still believes in Mr. Nifong. When asked about Attorney General Cooper's declaration that the Duke Lacrosse players are innocent, she asks, who are you going to believe, the Attorney General or the DA. She states that the finding of other males' DNA on Crystal Mangum's underwear means only that Crystal does not wash her underwear, that it is old, degraded DNA, and had no probitive(sp?) value. She says that Nifong probably has a multi million dollar book deal in the works and when his book is published, the truth will become known, She says will reserve her judgement on the innocence of the three until the case file is released.

Ms. Murphy obviously still believes Nifong has evidence of a crime and evidence of the guilt of the Duke LaCrosse players which he has never revealed to any one, not to the court, not to the presiding judge, not to the North Carolina Attorney General, not to the North Carolina Bar during his ethics trial.

I wonder if Ms. Murphy has ever watched Judge Judy. One of Judge Judy's commonly used phrases: "If it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true."

Anonymous said...

What is really funny is that a motion in limine, which is what the defense attorney in the Nebraska case filed, asks that no party or attorney or witness mention the subject matter in the motion.

In this case, the subject of the motion in limine was use of the words "rape" and "sexual assault."

Now, motions in limine are also only ADVISORY warnings, and, in every motion I've seen granted by a Judge, the person supposedly hamstrung by the motion has the opportunity at the trial to raise the issue again, make an offer of proof, and let the Judge decide the issue for a final time.

In other words, there was NO FINAL RULING for the appellate court to base a decision on. There wasn't even a true interlocutory order, as the Judge could change his mind.

Appellate courts rarely decide issues that are moot or which may easily become moot before the case properly reaches them.

Now, I know the trial judge in the Nebraska case did adhere to that ruling in the first trial of the case, but the ruling is still only advisory in the present case.

As for the merits of the ruling, I think it has merit, but it seems like this judge is really anal about sticking to the true issues of the case. Of course, either Judge Ito or Seidlin should pay close attention to this judicial style.

Wendy, I believe, is making a big issue about it because she is clumsily seeking the same type of national attention that marketing genius Jack Kevorkian received.

Step 1: Piss off the authorities, Step 2: Put the authorities in the media spotlight, and,
Step 3: Screw up in a graceless manner, begging the authorities to come down on you.

_________________

In 2005, K.C. Johnson traveled back in fiction to confront the giant squid and save Captain Nemo from the subsequent depression it caused using modern psychiatric techniques and drugs. -- From: "Getting to Know K.C. Johnson," READER'S DIGEST, at pp. 67-68 (May 2007)

[Note: K.C. traveled back in the book, not the movie] Moo! Gregory

Anonymous said...

duke09parent said...

"ralph,
The righteousness of one's cause does not justify improper means of pursuing it. That should be one of the lessons of the Duke case. ..I don't really care a lot about the substance (the righteousness) of her motion. She's willing to cut corners to get at what she believes is right."

-------

Judges have to be ASKED first, and they have to give their PERMISSION first. (You don't submit a substantive Motion in another jurisdiction, _together with_ your Motion to be admitted pro hac vice.)

In this regard, it's a little bit (dare I say it?) like intercourse. Which makes Wendy Murphy (yeah, I'll say it) guilty of acting like a rapist.

Throw the book at her -- she's a menace to justice.

Anonymous said...

To anon @ 12:11: Forced legal intercourse, hmmm, I love it! Sweet analogy. Although I think you should avoid using the "R" word to describe what Murphy attempted to do!

_____________

During one of his many time travels, K.C. Johnson challenged Houdini to an escape contest in October 1926. Heard from Harry lately? -- From: "K.C. Johnson, The Untold Story" (Doubleday 2012)
MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

As a lay person the Nebraska judge seems to have gone overboard.

The man is CHARGED with rape/sexual assault, he is on trial for rape/sexual assault, to force the victim to call what happened 'sex' or 'sexual intercourse' seems ridiculous.

The alleged victim gets on the stand and tells what happened from her perspective: she was raped, the jury either believes her or not.

What's next, a witness to a viscious assault isn't allowed to call it an assault or a beating, but has to say he saw 'non consensual physical contact of an aggressivew nature'?

The jury is the trier of fact, that shouldn't negate a witness testifying in their own words.

If this kind of anti victim attitude continues we will end up unable to charge anyone with a crime at all...how could we 'accuse' them of a crime when a jury hasn't decided a crime occurs, the very idea of charging someone with murder/rape/robbery harms their good name and they are innocent until proven guilty

This judge is taking things to stupid extremes, if the State is bringing the case they believe the woman is a victim, the man has been charged and is on trial for a crime, to gag the chief witness in an orgy of politcal correctness is counter productive and against the interests of justice.

Ralph Phelan said...

"ralph,
The righteousness of one's cause does not justify improper means of pursuing it."

I'm just kind of curious whether her motion is as wrong on the merits as its mode of submission was. If a real lawyer were to submit it properly, would it have a hope in heck?

From what I hear elsewhere most of what the judge is requesting is standard practice in most courtrooms already, and there are aspects both of the case itself and its attendant publicity that would justify extra steps. What kind of justification do you usually need to get a judge to change his mind in such a matter?

Anonymous said...

TO 6:24AM--

Hello to you mate from the Land Down Under!

Nice post.

Debrah

Anonymous said...

To "mac" (6:44AM)--

That was a good one.

:>) LOL!!!

Debrah

mac said...

anon 12:01

I'd like to see Judge Joe Brown tackle Wendy.

I'd like to see a real judge shackle Wendy.

Ralph Phelan said...

"The alleged victim gets on the stand and tells what happened from her perspective: she was raped..."

See above. "He held a knife to my throat and told me he'd kill me if I didn't do what he said." is a statement of fact. "He raped me" is the obvious legal conclusion, but still the juriy's decision to make, not the witness's.

"I remember drinking with him at a bar. The next thing I knew I woke up under him with no memory of how I got there. I told him to stop and he did." is a statement of fact agreed to by the defendant. Whether that constitutes "rape" is what the trial is all about, and in general witnesses and lawyers are not allowed to assume their conclusions.

mac said...

Debrah,
Thanks!

I'm waiting for someone to ask Wendy to practice law
in some Sharia Law hellhole in
Pakistan (or wherever the Palestine
saw scaled viper makes its lair.)

She wouldn't need her law license as long as she wore the right
burqa.

Anonymous said...

Thankfully, DNA has taken most of the he said/she said out of play. With the technology, rarely will we hear the "old fashion ways" again.
I always called it a rape kit, but think the collection kit is better. The word rape is a charged word and lends itself to condemming the defendant.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, it is idiotic to say a witness cannot 'conclude' what she thinks happened to her.

It is up to the jury to determine whether what she thinks/says does or does not meet the burden of proof in a criminal case.

Don't you think some jurors are going to think to themselves 'why doesn't she say she was raped, why is she calling it 'sex'...she must have consented, otherwise she would be saying 'he raped me'??

Many times an alleged victim is raked over the coals in court for failing to say 'rape' in a timely enough manner, the defense attorney will ask her why she didn't report the 'rape' or why she didn't tell anyone she was 'raped'...

Now we have the opposite...the woman has said she was raped all along to everyone who would listen and the judge won't allow her to use her own words to describe what happened to her, he is in effect censoring her speech and HE is deciding how she can describe her own experience.

The system already bends over backwards for criminals and hamstrings the police at every turn, now, in the interest of 'justice' we have a judge scripting what a witness can say about her direct experience.

Sorry, this is wrong.

Ralph Phelan said...

From another article about the subject:

"“In my mind, what happened to me was rape,” said Bowen"

Under normal rules of justice,
what happened in her mind is irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. What happened in the real world is (did he perform actions that constitute a crime) and what happened in his mind is (did he know it was a crime) but her mental state is relevant only to the punishment stage if he is found guilty.

Of course in the world of "feminist jurisprudence" as promoted by Murphy and many faculty members, both at Duke and elsewhere, the woman's frame of mind is all that matters. If she says she was raped she was in fact raped whatever the facts, if she said she felt uncomfortable she was in fact harrassed whatever the facts, etc. Being male, that's not a world I want to live in.

Anonymous said...

How is the jury supposed to reach a fair verdict when the chief witness cannot recount events in her own words?

This is another example of rape victims being treated differently and WORSE than victims of other crimes.

Any judge would be laughed out of court if he told a robbery victim that he couldn't say 'the defendant stole my wallet' but had to find a different way to explain what happened because 'stole' is too prejudicial.

Ralph Phelan said...

1:37

"judge won't allow her to use her own words to describe what happened to her, he is in effect censoring her speech and HE is deciding how she can describe her own experience."

Judges do that all the time under the standard rules of evidence. When they don't one side or the other jumps up and yells "Objection!" If the judge didn't make this ruling, the defense would object every time she said the word "rape" and be sustained. The judge is just saving wear-and-tear on his gavel arm.

"The system already bends over backwards for criminals and hamstrings the police at every turn"

Hoo boy, are you at the wrong website! But if you really believe that, stick around and do a bit of reading. Also check out "liestoppers" page 2.

"scripting what a witness can say about her direct experience."

On the contrary, demanding that she stick to her direct experience only ("Just the facts, ma'am.") The question at hand is not how she feels, but what happened, and whether what happened matches the legal definition of rape.

By the way, just a shot in the dark ... how many Women's Studies classes have you taken?

Anonymous said...

Since when is it standard to prevent women from saying they were raped in court?

It isn't, so your argument doesn't really hold much water.

I don't need to take a woman's studies class to know that forcing an alleged rape victim to call her rape 'sex' is wrong and is not necessary to preserve the defendant's right to a fair trial.

The logical conclusion to that line of thinking is that we can't charge anyone with a crime, because the charge itself is prejudicial, we can't let the prosecutor say "he's guilty of murder' because that is prejudicial, we can't let the ME conclude 'it was a homicide' because that is prejudicial.

This woman's direct experience is that she says she was raped, the defense is free to challenge her on that on the stand, forcing her to call what she says is rape 'sexual intercourse' is crazy.

Anonymous said...

Her perspective is that WHAT HAPPENED is that she was raped.

Why can't she say this? This is a stupid judge and a stupid ruling.

Anonymous said...

"I was walking home and the defendant came up to me and we went into an alley [can't say 'he dragged me' too prejudicial], he told me to do what he said [can't say 'threatened' too prejudcial' where we then had sex [can't say 'rape' too prejudicial].

Ridiculous and insane.

Anonymous said...

This woman shouldn't even bother coming to court on this case, she's risking getting sent to jail for contempt if she uses one of the banned words like 'rape, or sexual assault kit'....

I'm sure the woman haters on this blog would love to see an alleged rape victim sent to jail for saying she was raped in a trial about her rape, cause ALL women lie about rape and should be punished for making such a vile unfounded accusation.

Ralph Phelan said...

"Since when is it standard to prevent women from saying they were raped in court?"
Go read the threads on Liestoppers and TalkLeft.

"we can't let the prosecutor say 'he's guilty of murder'"
Only in opening and closing presentations, not during presentation of evidence.

"It isn't, so your argument doesn't really hold much water."
Go learn a little bit about the law.

"This woman's direct experience is that she says she was raped"
Yes, I'm sure she has experienced saying that.

With writing/thinking skills like this I doubt you're a Women's Studies student. You've got to be a post-doc at least, maybe even tenured faculty.

Ralph Phelan said...

"the woman haters on this blog"

Tenured faculty for sure.

Anonymous said...

Any judge who got Evil Wendy can not be all that bad.

ben tillman said...

"But Murphy was in contempt of court as far as I'm concerned and ought to be required to associate with a Nebraska lawyer...."

That may be the rule in Nebraska, and, if so, she may be in trouble. I was merely responding to those who derided her failure to file a motion for admission pro hac vice. She filed one (apparently), even if it may not have been in accordance with the rules.

ben tillman said...

"The question at hand is not how she feels, but what happened, and whether what happened matches the legal definition of rape."

There *isn't* a legal definition of rape in Nebraska. The crime is called something else.

ben tillman said...

Some other things this judge won't let the jury hear:

According to Bowen, jurors also couldn't be told that the vial containing her urine sample broke on the way for testing for so-called "date-rape drugs." Or that the same defendant had twice before been arrested - but not convicted - for rape, and in all three cases, the women couldn't account for a chunk of time.

Anonymous said...

How could anyone take Wendy Murphy seriously? She is such a joke and is not even worth mentioning.

How could Harvard ever allow to be a guest lecturer? She is not only a lunatic, she doesn't appear to know the basis principles of our legal system. How did she get her law license?

wayne fontes said...

To Ben Tillman:

Can you provide links to Safi's prior trials. I can't verify what you are saying.

mac said...

Murphy could play a very believable Nurse Ratched -
(but then so could many in this story.)

She'd just be more believable
than most.

Tawny said...

Ah! So like a tsunami the truly "brillant" legal analyst Wendy Murphy has surfaced again.

For those of you who can't get enough of the wisdom and compassion of Wendy Murphy, Amazon will now allow you to preorder a copy of her book, "And Justice For Some."

Some obscure publishing house [Sentinel HC] is offering a tome featuring Wendy's unsurpassed insights into "our twisted legal system" at the bargain basement price of $17.13 [cut from $25.06].

The book will escape, I beg your pardon, be released on September 6, 2007. Although I can't tell if it went to press before the Duke case concluded, the brief editorial review provided seems to hauntingly read like one of Murphy's Duke Hoax screeds. To quote:

1. "In many states, for instance, defendants can subpoena a victim's private medical and counseling records without any justification." But this is for the judge to decide and many factors must be weighed. I recall an actual case where a neighbor swore he heard a woman scream as her husband allegedly pushed her out the window. However, his medical history confirmed that for decades the neighbor had been treated for auditory hallucinations. This was relevant evidence and I can't help but imagine CGM's medical records might prove equally illuminating.

2. We also breathlessly learn that vile defense attorneys "can threaten victims with brutal cross-examinations if they dare to testify." But, certainly even someone like Murphy must aware that we have an adversarial system and cross-examination is part of that procedure.

Predictably, Murphy assumes that all accusers are victims and by implication we must take their word for the alleged crime without subjecting them to the indignation of actually testifying. I can almost envison Murphy sobbing over her keyboard as she agonizes over what might have occurred had the helpless, exploited CGM actually been forced to testify to the non horrors inflicted on her in that now infamous bathroom.

3. Murphy even has the nerve to whine about "defense attorneys who take big money" [relatively well heeled defendants apparently deserve no justice] and then "twist the Bill of Rights beyond recogniation." This is especially noxious coming from someone who has declared how unfair it was to be considered un American just because you didn't believe in the presumption of innocence.

Well,I think we can imagine those individuals that Murphy subjectively determined deserve justice. Certainly not many defendants. This was the woman, after all, who once stated(24 May 2006) “Over 99 percent of cases indicted are in fact legitimate; the guys are guilty.”

For some reason, Murphy's assertion reminds me of a comment once made by Disraeli that, "There are three kinds of lies, lies, damn lies and statistics." Can't imagine why that came to mind.

mac said...

#3 "...the guys are guilty."
That's why they call it libel.

Ralph Phelan said...

"I was merely responding to those who derided her failure to file a motion for admission pro hac vice. She filed one (apparently), even if it may not have been in accordance with the rules. "

Filing it incorrectly demonstrates that she doesn't know enough about Nebraska law to practice there.
Starting to practice before it was approved is indefensible in any jurisdiction.

Ralph Phelan said...

"According to Bowen, jurors also couldn't be told ..."

According to Bowen the fact that she feels she was raped means she was. She's a professional "victims advocate" associated with Wendy Murphy.

I think we'll all be safer from making judgements based on incorrect facts if we assume anything Bowen says is inaccurate until demonstrated otherwise.

Anonymous said...

if we assume anything Bowen says is inaccurate until demonstrated otherwise.


In other words, assume the alleged victim is a liar or a hysteric who 'regrets' her bout of consensual sex with the defendant unless she can 'prove' it was rape with something other than her own testimony, which should be pretty well IMPOSSIBLE since there were no witnesses to the act and since her urine sample was destroyed, thus, making it impossible to prove she was given any drug.

Nice. But, hey, you aren't a men's rights, woman hater, nope, not at all, not even a little bit.

You probably think the guy in PA who has now been acquitted of raping NINE women in two states who all claimed he drugged them just happens to run into crazy feminazis all the time...it can'
t be that he's well, you know, a sexual predator who keeps getting acquitted because they system is prejudiced against rape victims.

Nah, that would be wrong.

Anonymous said...

PS

The nice judge also banned the terms 'sexual assault kit' and 'sexual assault nurse'

Apparently, even though the sexual assault nurse is, well, a sexual assault nurse, she can't be called that, she has to be called a sexual examination nurse and the rape kit has to be called a sexual examination kit.

If I was to guess, I would guess this judge has never tried a rape case before and has some serious issues with women.

The last trial was 8-5 leaning toward guilt.

Ralph Phelan said...

"In other words, assume the alleged victim is a liar..."

Not all alleged victims. Only those who choose to associate themselves with Wendy Murphy.

Anyone who has followed the Duke case with even the slightest bit of attention has noticed the "victims rights" lobby in general and Wendy Murphy in particular telling bald-faced lie after bald-faced lie.

So don't waste my time unless you've got a quote from a credible source - and no, that does not necessarily include anything published in the New York Times.

Ralph Phelan said...

"If I was to guess, I would guess this judge has never tried a rape case before and has some serious issues with women."

And of course you would have to guess, because you're too lazy to do any actual research. Or is it that you're afraid that if you do research you might be exposed to new facts that could disturb your "truths"?

Anonymous said...

The Duke case was never about rape, but votes and election. Of folk do not understand that, they have no understanding of this event.

Ralph Phelan said...

"In other words, assume the alleged victim is a liar or a hysteric who 'regrets' her bout of consensual sex with the defendant unless she can 'prove' it was rape with something other than her own testimony, which should be pretty well IMPOSSIBLE since there were no witnesses to the act"
Not assume she is, not assume she isn't, just hold open the possibility she might be. As a juror I'd be faced with two hypotheses as to what happened that night, each supported by witness testimony, and have no way to distinguish which was true. Sorry, but that's "reasonable doubt."

"and since her urine sample was destroyed, thus, making it impossible to prove she was given any drug."
It really sucks that the cops screwed up and destroyed physical evidence. They're either allowing a guilty person to go free or preventing an innocent person from fully clearing his name. Either way it's bad.

But it's not the first time police incompetence has blown a case and it won't be the last. In fact it's pretty common, it just doesn't usually make as big a splash as it did with O. J. Simpson. Welcome to the ugly, half-assed reality of the legal system.

Anonymous said...

In other words, you would never, as a juror, vote to convict a man of rape without an independant witness to the act, despite what the law says, since you have just said that with two hypothesis supported by witness testimony you would have 'no way' to distinguish which was true.

What a coward you must be. That is the job of the jury, to determine who is credible and believable and to determine whether the prosecution's evidence supports a guilty verdict beyond a reasonable doubt.

YOu probably think juries find people innocent, too.

According to you, it would be impossible to get a conviction on any kind of rape charge, no matter how preposterous the defendant's 'hypothesis' was, because there would always be two competing narratives. Any 'fact' can also be spun by both sides, injuries could have come from consensual rough sex, or from a fight that occured after the 'consensual' sex....

The saddest part of the Duke fiasco is it gives people like you, with a deep seated belief that most women who say they were raped are liars, more amunition. Who knows how many rapists will go free because of Mike Nifong's criminal acts?

Ralph Phelan said...

Damn, you sure do a lot of jumping to conclusions and extrapolating statements in ridiculous directions.

Making false inferences about the beliefs of anyone who disagrees with you about any single point in your agenda is a very effective debating style, and really makes we want to side with you.

It's been fun, bye.

Anonymous said...

As a juror I'd be faced with two hypotheses as to what happened that night, each supported by witness testimony, and have no way to distinguish which was true. Sorry, but that's "reasonable doubt."
----------------------------

Your words, not mine, the meaning is crystal clear, no inference needed.

Anonymous said...

11:12 --

"In other words, you would never, as a juror, vote ..."

Hey, how come you're so terrified of actually sticking with the words that were said? How come you can only seem to argue by inventing new words which were never said by anyone and insisting that these words, completely your creation, represent what someone else thinks or would do in a hypothetical situation?

Your word for the day, 11:12, is "straw man". Look it up.

Ralph Phelan said...

Sigh. Couldn't help myself, I'm back. Thanks to my poor writing you actually have an arguable point. I'll admit to leaving an ambiguity while continuing to protest the way you resolved it. I'll be more precise:

Given a situation where I've got two conflicting witnesses, no physical evidence, and either (a) no evidence to impeach the credibility of either witness or (b) evidence impeaching the credibility of both witnesses, I will vote to acquit.

"Date rape" cases are inherently hard to prove. I'm sure you'd like to find a way to make them easier to get convictions in, but taking the risk of randomly throwing innocent people in jail is not a solution I consider acceptable.

Anonymous said...

Goolee insisted through the entire affair, on calling Crystal the "young lady." Obviously, Crystal is neither young or a lady. goolee by far, was the dumbest of the dopey TV woman.