Nifong attorney Jim Craven has filed a reply supporting his appeal of a lower-court ruling, which denied the disgraced ex-DA an opportunity to use bankruptcy protection to bow out of the civil suit. Even by the standards of Nifongesque legal theory, this was a bizarre document.
It’s only three pages (is Nifong paying his legal fees by the line?). The highlights of his argument—which, again, comes in a motion to overturn a lower-court ruling:
1.) Truisms. The original decision, which Nifong lost, was “not an open and shut proposition.” So what?
2.) Character assassination by insinuation. Of the players’ attorneys: “Their method of attack is a most tortured analysis of the line of cases we rely on, coupled with their customary righteous indignation we have become accustomed to since this case began, with adjectival surplus.” Some might say that Attorney Craven was self-projecting in that sentence.
3.) Irrelevancies. The case can somehow be compared to that of “Spot Mozingo of Darlington,
4.) Withhold information. In response to the plaintiffs’ comment that Nifong had refused to produce his homeowner insurance policies, “If they truly believe that a garden variety homeowners’ policy would cover official acts of an elected District Attorney, their faith in the insurance industry of this country is sadly misplaced.” Attorney Craven didn’t seem to say he was willing to provide the information, however. I guess he thinks the legal system should just accept Mike Nifong’s word at face value.
Craven closes with a threat to appeal a negative judgment to a higher court—“the matter is unlikely to end here, as surely whichever side does not prevail will proceed on to
Best of luck to him.