tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post4646433088540322221..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Setback for Durham?kcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-21208272889398044382009-01-25T15:51:00.000-05:002009-01-25T15:51:00.000-05:00"CGM & Mike Nifong still have many many s..."CGM & Mike Nifong still have many many supporters because they believe Crystal & believe Mike Nifong was punished too harshly.They just don't blast it on a blog."<BR/><BR/>Brawhaha (is that how you spell that gleefully malicious laugh?)<BR/><BR/>I love this. Poor little solitary soul has delusions of the mob (the pot-bangers, Klan of 88, et al) still agreeing but silent. Sure, those who marched, protested, threatened, lied, made wanted posters, and on and on, still believe but can't be bothered to make comments on a blog.<BR/><BR/>Awww, the longing for the days of past glory, mob rule, when false allegations actually carried the day.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-27952775920495452792009-01-25T15:28:00.000-05:002009-01-25T15:28:00.000-05:00To Anonymous 1/25/09 11:49 AM:"CGM & Mike...To Anonymous 1/25/09 11:49 AM:<BR/><BR/>"CGM & Mike Nifong still have many many[!!!] supporters because they believe Crystal & believe Mike Nifong was punished too harshly.They just don't blast it on a blog."<BR/><BR/>I guess you have never read the delusional ravings of the justice4nifong gang of THREE on their justice4nifong blog. Since I stopped posting hardly anyone posts there. Most of the comments posted there supported neither cgm nor nifong nor the delusional head blogger.unbekanntehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04156000065948879683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-46996727050552312352009-01-25T13:44:00.000-05:002009-01-25T13:44:00.000-05:00To the 11:49 am:You owe KC an apology. Before you ...To the 11:49 am:<BR/><BR/>You owe KC an apology. <BR/><BR/>Before you make charges, you should make certain that you are aware of the facts. <BR/><BR/>You have failed to do so. <BR/><BR/>Both of those subjects have been addressed on this blog on many occasions in the past. I suggest that you reread all of the posts through the blog archive. I am not going to do your research for you. <BR/><BR/>The players have admitted to the "cotton shirt" remark in response to a slur first uttered by Kim. Jason Bissey stated that he heard that retort. Kim has admitted to initiating that exchange. <BR/><BR/>Kim has also charged that one of the players used the n-word during that exchange, a charge denied by the players. Bissey did not hear that word used.<BR/><BR/>Crystal charged that the players used racial slurs during the alleged attack and when they started their performance. Kim did not support that allegation. <BR/><BR/>None of the indicted players were involved in this exchange. Finnerty and Seligmann had left before the argument began. <BR/><BR/>Crystal initially claimed that Kim had stolen her money. In Evans' written statement, he indicated that a couple of the players, angry that they had paid $800 for a several minute performance, had taken some of Crystal's money. Evans stated that he insisted that the players replace the money. Crystal also indicated that she may have deposited it. <BR/><BR/>I am appalled that you suggest that either of these charges can be compared with the actions of Nifong and the Durham Police. <BR/><BR/>Publicly available information from the filings in the criminal case, the AG’s report, and Nifong’s disbarment and criminal contempt hearings provide substantial evidence to support the allegation that Nifong and Durham police officers committed crimes as they deliberately framed three Duke students for a sexual assault they knew had never occurred. <BR/><BR/>Credible evidence strongly supports the accusation that Gottlieb and Himan obstructed justice, committed and suborned perjury, intimidated witnesses, and ignored, fabricated and withheld evidence. <BR/><BR/>The complete failure of their supervisors to properly oversee their actions in a highly publicized case belies the explanation that “rogue” investigators led by a “rogue” DA abused their authority. Moreover, the DPD’s failure to discipline any officers for their role in this case can be seen to have validated these actions. <BR/><BR/>Again, KC has discussed both of these allegations in earlier posts. Your 11:49 am post is thus based on a flawed premise. <BR/><BR/>I await your apology.JSwifthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07758976125626982551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-56742187085075085942009-01-25T13:31:00.000-05:002009-01-25T13:31:00.000-05:00"Why does no one here ever talk about the drunkard..."Why does no one here ever talk about the drunkards using racial slurs against the dancers or about someone stealing money from one of them. We know it was in the files. Even Cooper reported on the money."<BR/><BR/>Who was drunk? Certainly not the three defendants. Who used racial slurs? The only allegations of that came from the two dancers, whose other "recollections" have been shown to be fabrications.<BR/><BR/>Money? They were hired for a two-hour show at $800, but had to quit after four minutes due to their own inebriation. They shouldn't have been paid at all.<BR/><BR/>And, on the same topic, where did Crystal get her $2000? Does she report all her income on her IRS forms?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-381330810860365422009-01-25T12:46:00.000-05:002009-01-25T12:46:00.000-05:00Let's see emails and memos and calendars. Open up ...Let's see emails and memos and calendars. Open up hard drives and phone logs. Time to swear in witnesses. It's discovery time!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-56741986870880023142009-01-25T11:49:00.000-05:002009-01-25T11:49:00.000-05:00CGM & Mike Nifong still have many many support...CGM & Mike Nifong still have many many supporters because they believe Crystal & believe Mike Nifong was punished too harshly.They just don't blast it on a blog.<BR/><BR/> Why does no one here ever talk about the drunkards using racial slurs against the dancers or about someone stealing money from one of them. We know it was in the files. Even Cooper reported on the money.<BR/><BR/>Will I get an answer, KC?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-65298148268321154892009-01-24T20:17:00.000-05:002009-01-24T20:17:00.000-05:00All below are right....not sure where my brain was...All below are right....not sure where my brain was. It's Rule 12(b)6. Ugh, long week.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-16545778481323553682009-01-24T15:45:00.000-05:002009-01-24T15:45:00.000-05:00To the 2.56:Many thanks for your advice on consult...To the 2.56:<BR/><BR/>Many thanks for your advice on consulting with a "good civil rights lawyer."<BR/><BR/>While I'm not a lawyer, I do teach constitutional history, and am quite familiar with the <I>Saucier</I> test.kcjohnson9https://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-60080897647049531692009-01-24T15:05:00.000-05:002009-01-24T15:05:00.000-05:00Anonymous 12:27 PM:A motion to dismiss for failure...Anonymous 12:27 PM:<BR/><BR/>A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted is under Rule 12(b)(6), not Rule 11. Rule 11 is for sanctions against the other party for misconduct.<BR/><BR/>Also, a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment can be made at any time, not just after the close of discovery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-85672063739180360882009-01-24T14:56:00.000-05:002009-01-24T14:56:00.000-05:00KC, I know you're not a lawyer and I appreciate th...KC, I know you're not a lawyer and I appreciate the work you've done on this site, but you've got Pearson v. Callahan exactly 180 degrees backward.<BR/><BR/>Before Pearson, the qualified immunity was governed by a case called Saucier v. Katz. Under the Saucier rule, judges were required to first decide whether a plaintiff's constitutional rights had been violated, and then only after deciding that a violation had occurred, to decide the issue of qualified immunity.<BR/><BR/>The rationale was that by deciding the constitutional question, even if the case would ultimately be dismissed on qualified immunity grounds, the courts would still develop and articulate the constitutional standards that government officials need to abide by. <BR/><BR/>Government officials have qualified immunity unless they violate "clearly established" law. The concern in Saucier was that if judges keep dismissing cases on qualified immunity grounds, then the law will never become clearly established.<BR/><BR/>In Pearson, the court overturned the Saucier rule, allowing courts to decide either issue first, as they see fit. In other words, the discretion the court talked about in Pearson is the discretion to NOT decide a plaintiff's constitutional claims, but to instead just dismiss the case on qualified immunity grounds.<BR/><BR/>The passage you quote about the factual basis of plaintiff's claims being hard to identify without full discovery was an explanation of why the court should be able to dismiss the case without deciding plaintiff's constitutional claims at all.<BR/><BR/>Now, it's certainly an open question how the new rule will play out in practice, and whether it will ultimately be helpful or harmful for plaintiffs, but it seems like quite a large stretch to spin this as a loss for Durham.<BR/><BR/>Again, I appreciate the work you're doing, but your analysis would be much improved if you consulted with a good civil rights lawyer before posting about technical legal issues.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-41351947532284989792009-01-24T14:46:00.000-05:002009-01-24T14:46:00.000-05:00Although I'm fond of most of the posts here, I thi...Although I'm fond of most of the posts here, I think this post is drawing unwarranted conclusions about the Supreme Court's decision. Pearson will have little or no effect on this case. It merely changes a procedural rule: instead of requiring courts to analyze constitutional violations prior to determining qualified immunity, courts now have discretion to skip to the qualified immunity determination. If any of the defendants are protected by qualified immunity, they're going to win, and if they're not protected, they're going to lose (assuming they're a constitutional violation). Pearson will have no effect on this.<BR/><BR/>Btw, the previous poster presumably meant Rule 12, not Rule 11.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-53974005344692744732009-01-24T12:27:00.000-05:002009-01-24T12:27:00.000-05:00Folks, a bit of civil procedure. Currently before...Folks, a bit of civil procedure. Currently before the court are motions to dismiss under Rule 11. The standard is, under no circumstances as alleged in the complaint can there be liability. A Rule 11 motion is NOT summary judgment. <BR/><BR/>Summary Judgment is under Rule 56 and only comes after discovery is complete. The standard here is, after looking at all record evidence, no reasonable jury (given the law) could find for Plaintiff.<BR/><BR/>A Rule 11 motion is very difficult for a Defendant to win. The majority of the Rule 11 motions in this case will be denied and discovery will eventually commence. In federal practice, it takes 9 to 12 months for discovery to be completed. At that point Rule 56 motions will be filed and can take as long as 12 months to be ruled upon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-27575462369911055552009-01-24T12:01:00.000-05:002009-01-24T12:01:00.000-05:00According to Reuters, SEC has, appropriately, laun...According to Reuters, SEC has, appropriately, launched an investigation into Robert Steele's comments publicly about the stability of Wachovia while he was, secretly, trying to dump it. He has now ruined two venerable institutions by his poor leadership as chair, Wachovia Corp and Duke University.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-48296231801727175662009-01-24T09:16:00.000-05:002009-01-24T09:16:00.000-05:00Anonymous 1/23/09 9:46 PM said... ...Grab your wal...Anonymous 1/23/09 9:46 PM said... <BR/><BR/>...Grab your wallets Durhamites--the tax man commeth--and its the former Duke Lax team!<BR/>::<BR/>Exactly but did you notice that The City of Durham and Durham County are talking merger again? Perhaps they are trying to figure out a way to spread the pain when 'the tax man commeth'?<BR/>::<BR/>GPGary Packwoodhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05177986821224068759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-59569570141222420592009-01-24T09:10:00.000-05:002009-01-24T09:10:00.000-05:00Is Alioto a Communist?Is Alioto a Communist?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-49769732564916218492009-01-24T00:18:00.000-05:002009-01-24T00:18:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.One Spookhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00592774438681904368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-46091251690636970812009-01-23T23:33:00.000-05:002009-01-23T23:33:00.000-05:00Well, this puts the Federal Judge in the LAX case ...Well, this puts the Federal Judge in the LAX case in a pickle. He either has to allow full discovery of any issue related to the Summary Judgment Motions, or risk being over-turned on appeal because he did not. Of course, he could just deny all the motions! <BR/><BR/>*******************<BR/><BR/>I felt the way some courts handled discovery before hearing dispositive motions was unfair -- even when it benefited me in the representation of a defendant. Good to see that the SCOTUS is not naive enough to believe that defendants would be forthcoming before a Summary Judgment hearing (even though the rules require automatic discovery of some information). <BR/><BR/>********************<BR/><BR/>Did you hear that? That was the sound of Durham and Duke opening their velcro wallets. They cannot afford discovery, too many careers hang in the balance.<BR/><BR/>********************<BR/><BR/>As always, and I'll say it slowly this time: T h e s e a r e m y o p i n i o n s o n l y. MOO! GregoryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-23271271101432472962009-01-23T23:19:00.000-05:002009-01-23T23:19:00.000-05:00I was among those fortunate to attend the book sig...I was among those fortunate to attend the book signing in Washington, D.C. for UPI. Among the attendees was Justice Samuel Alito, with whom I had a long conversation about the Duke lacrosse case (I also had a conversation with journalist Sam Donaldson... but that's another story).<BR/><BR/>Never in my life did I expect to have an opportunity to visit with a Supreme Court Justice, and here was one in which the Justice had a sincere interest in the various injustices revealed in the Duke lacrosse case. I remember thinking then, "If only a way could be found to get a Duke lacrosse trial to the Supreme Court!". That seemed unlikely then, as it does now... but, one never knows. We never thought that we'd hear the word "Innocent"... but we did!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-4743978255366128122009-01-23T22:49:00.000-05:002009-01-23T22:49:00.000-05:00To 9:42,No one can ignore Supreme Court rulings or...To 9:42,<BR/><BR/>No one can ignore Supreme Court rulings or language like this and not expect to be overturned and embarrassed on appeal...something every sensible judge tries to avoid. Obviously in the Duke case a lot of people ignored a lot of important laws/ judicial decisions protecting the rights of the accused, but this is instruction intended for a judge not a policeman. So, NOT EVEN IN NC will they try to ignore this! <BR/><BR/>I thought the case was already clear of summary judgment, but this really seals the deal. Excellent news. And, yes, bad news seems to pile on top of bad news for Durham/Duke.<BR/><BR/>BA, Very glad to hear Samuel Alito is paying attention to UPI. That's very good news, too!<BR/><BR/>ObserverAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-3291246982318819832009-01-23T22:20:00.000-05:002009-01-23T22:20:00.000-05:00The sad part is that there are some good, decent p...The sad part is that there are some good, decent people in Durham. Unfortunately, there are far too many ambulance chasers, how can we possibly help out the ambulance chaser types. Hey are a truly pathetic bunch. Like dome of the big league athletes, I guess it's time for these Gang 88 members to go find a nice rock and crawl under.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-32891026399006967612009-01-23T21:46:00.000-05:002009-01-23T21:46:00.000-05:00Is it just me, or are others also sensing that it ...Is it just me, or are others also sensing that it is beginning to rain sh*t in Durham. As this long and ever-winding Hoax approaches end-game, increasingly--and with accellerating velocity--breaks continue run against Durham, Duke, Broadhead, G88, Steele, et al. Dicta from the Pearson decision is yet another sign--albeit subtle--of good things to come.<BR/><BR/>Grab your wallets Durhamites--the tax man commeth--and its the former Duke Lax team!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-18202490123701296772009-01-23T21:42:00.000-05:002009-01-23T21:42:00.000-05:00Wow, what a legal education we are getting here. T...Wow, what a legal education we are getting here. Thanks for being on top of this ruling. Did you discern this Prof. Johnson or did somebody tip you off to the implications for Durham arising from this ruling? How easy would this ruling be to ignore by a judge somewhere (say in North Carolina)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-17634302731610652612009-01-23T20:36:00.000-05:002009-01-23T20:36:00.000-05:00On the same note, I remember that Sam Alito attend...On the same note, I remember that Sam Alito attended the party in Washington, D.C., that was held to honor K.C. and Stuart for their book. Hmmm. One hopes that the good sense in UPI might even rub off on the courts!<BR/><BR/>Durham has been demanding that its employees be granted immunity precisely to <I>avoid</I> discovery. The SCOTUS decision is not going to be very helpful in that regard, and it provides a nice roadmap for Judge Beaty.<BR/><BR/>However, if I know the attorneys for Durham, they are going to insist that <I>Pearson</I> lets them off the hook. Sorry, folks, it doesn't work that way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com