Monday, July 14, 2008

A DIW Contest

Two recent breathtaking assertions prompt this two-part DIW contest.

Part One.

Duke attorneys Jamie Gorelick and Dan McLamb wrote,

[The lacrosse players] contend that Duke and its employees violated their legal rights by providing the police with information about the alleged rape during the investigation. They also contend that the University had a legal obligation to quell public debate about the alleged rape. In essence, Plaintiffs argue that the University had a legal duty to stand between themselves and the prosecutor, and to try to prevent the police and prosecutor from investigating them for a very serious crime.

I have followed the case very closely. Unfortunately, I seem to have missed the filing or statement in which an attorney for the unindicted players made such assertions.

Contest participants are, therefore, urged to identify the statement to which the Gorelick/McLamb brief refers. To account for the Duke attorneys’ possible confusion, the contest will accept even a statement by an attorney in the criminal case arguing “that the University had a legal duty to stand between themselves and the prosecutor, and to try to prevent the police and prosecutor from investigating them for a very serious crime.”

Part Two.

Yesterday’s N&O contained the following passage about Board of Trustees chairman Bob Steel’s performance in the lacrosse case.

Steel said in such a situation many decisions are made, sometimes based on incorrect information. “There’s no way you can go through something like that and do everything perfectly.”

Contest participants are urged to identify which piece of correct information—if known to the Duke administration—would have caused the administration to pursue a different policy. Three points need to be kept in mind:

1.) At the time of Mike Nifong’s pre-primary publicity crusade (late March/early April 2006), Duke administrators knew that a key Nifong claim—that the players had erected a “wall of silence” and refused to give their version of events to police—was false. Yet not only did administrators decline to reveal this information, there’s no evidence that their knowledge of this correct information had any impact on their approach to the case at the time.

2.) Two months after public revelation of Mike Nifong’s most serious procedural breach—instructing the Durham police to run the rigged April 4, 2006 lineup—President Brodhead declined a request from Friends of Duke University to publicly demand that Duke students receive the same due process rights as all other residents of Durham. Instead, he wrote, a trial would allow “our students to be proved innocent.” No evidence exists that their knowledge of the correct information about the rigged lineup had any impact on administrators’ approach to the case at the time.

3.) Apart from Prof. Petters (and, briefly before their subsequent retreats, Profs. Thorne and Moreiras), the Group of 88—the key campus pressure group on the case—appeared impervious to any new, correct information after they issued their statement on April 6, 2006.

Contest answers will be posted Friday.

[Update, 6.45pm: Prize for anyone who can actually identify the statements to which Gorelick and McLamb referred: One share of Wachovia stock.]


Anonymous said...


Last night, I had a dream that I had won $200 million in a contest. (No kidding; I really did have that dream.)

Somehow, I think I have a better chance actually winning that $200 million than I would finding in the filings something that matched the Gorelick statement.

The Steel quote also is a howler. I do not forget that Anne Blythe, a co-author of the infamous "Dancer Recalls Details" article, also was a co-author of the Steel whitewash article.

A great irony is that the Duke/Durham responses claim that the players and their families are demanding that they be legally exempt from the consequences of their actions. It seems to me that it is people from Duke University and Durham who are demanding that they not have to face any consequences for lying, manipulating and fabricating evidence, and defrauding not only the families but the very system of justice itself.

Now, perhaps you might want to host a contest in which people try to find examples of how Durham, Duke, and later Nifong hold that they really are above the law and do not have to pay attention to those little details that the rest of us peons must obey. You would be quite busy going over the entries!

Anonymous said...

oops!!! You left one out. After the players were declared innocent there was no apology from Duke until it was pried out of Brodhead's little head. And then it was more for the BOT than something with substance.

W. R. Chambers said...

Admission: I don't have the time to fact-check the Gorelick statement and so I'll hazard a guess.

1. The Gorelick statement, although styled as a statement of fact is something quite different. It is "legal" argument, an attempt at persuasion. Perhaps her sentence should have begun something like, "In effect,...." or "In essence....." There is a line between attempts to persuade and attempts to mislead. Crossing it puts one's credibility in issue. Making misrepresentations to a court is not only unethical and unwise, it can be punishable. But Gorelick's statement is neither unethical nor punishable. It may have been unwise. In my experience, judges do not appreciate attempts to persuade them to exercise their power to dismiss a claim that was filed based on an argument about a claim that was not filed.

2. Steele's comment implies that he was misled, that he made some decisions based on incorrect information. Is it possible that "Duke" had all the correct information it needed but that Steele didn't?

Note: If I win any money I plan on giving half of it to the Duke law school to establish a program for the study of the prosecutorial function and the training of prosecutors. The other half I would try to make available for Crystal Magnum for the purpose of making it possible to receive whatever otherwise uncovered health care she and her family may need and as a kind of compensation for the way that the prosecutor used her and abused her for his own if not pleasure than at least personal gain.


Anonymous said...

"Contest participants are, therefore, urged to identify the statement to which the Gorelick/McLamb brief refers."

It refers to that which exists in the Alice-In-Wonderland world of the meta-narrative.

"Contest answers will be posted Friday."

An obvious desire to take a day off from posting.

You didn't tell us the prize.

Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

I think the basis for these and other statements can be found in the city's proud motto:

Durham North Carolina - A Constitution Free Zone

Anonymous said...

Unfortunately for Duke, you have to defend a lawsuit with the facts you have, not the fact you wish you had.


Anonymous said...


I will pass on the first part, but here is my take on the second part:

Had the OB-GYN resident or her attending corrected the public statements by Tata Levicy that "Blunt trauma" was evident at the time of the DUMC examination (and by public I mean comments to investigators, the press, or anyone else with whom Ms. Levicy or spoke or who read her report) the University could have found a way to due their duty on behalf of their students, and at the same time saved themselves several hundred million dollars in awards to plaintiffs, attorneys, and lost contributions by their alumni.

This entire debacle could have and should have been stopped at the time of the completion of the SANE report.

That is wasn't is causative in the personal injury to the LAX team.

That it wasn't allowed for an abusive and criminal conspiracy orchestrated by the now disgraced and debarred Mike Nifong.

Just sayin'.


Anonymous said...

I appreciate that you posts these and ridicule them here. However, to paraphrase Harry Reid: "This war is lost".

Gorelick is probably the next Attorney General. New Sec. of Education is Brodhead or Gang8 member and new racialist "speech codes" will be mandated in every educational institute.

Various domestic terrorists (Bill Ayers et al) and other marxists who are in charge of indoctrinating the next
generation of teachers at Barnard and elsewhere, will get even more power (if it is even possible anymore). Marxist NY Teachers Union head Randy Weingarten run unopposed to the post of head indoctrinator for national UFT. California made it illegal to homeschool your own kids, without the re-education by state propaganda machine. The list goes on.

It is hopeless. Now I know how Soviet dissenters felt in the 1970s.

Anonymous said...

``In essence, plaintiffs argue that the university had a legal duty to stand between themselves and the prosecutor, and to try to prevent the police and the prosecutor from investigating them for a very serious crime,''

Above is a different web version. Your blog dosen't include "In essence". Think that matters?

kcjohnson9 said...

To the 1.10:

I would urge you to recheck the post, which reads as follows:

"Duke attorneys Jamie Gorelick and Dan McLamb wrote,

"'[The lacrosse players] contend that Duke and its employees violated their legal rights by providing the police with information about the alleged rape during the investigation. They also contend that the University had a legal obligation to quell public debate about the alleged rape. In essence, Plaintiffs argue that the University had a legal duty to stand between themselves and the prosecutor, and to try to prevent the police and prosecutor from investigating them for a very serious crime.'"

Emphasis added, just so you could pick it up. Sorry you missed it the first time.

Anonymous said...

Red Herring

“The term "red herring" originates from the tradition whereby young hunting dogs in Britain were trained to follow a scent with the use of a "red" (salted and smoked) herring (see kipper). This pungent fish would be dragged across a trail until the puppy learned to follow the scent. Later, when the dog was being trained to follow the faint odor of a fox or a badger, the trainer would drag a red herring (which has a much stronger odor) across the animal's trail at right angles. The dog would eventually learn to follow the original scent rather than the stronger scent." Wiki

Instead of responding to the facts accepted as true for the purposes litigating the Civil Complaint as per Rule 12, Jamie and company make up a “red herring” to distract from the real issues. Most of the responses don’t address the civil complaints, because they can’t. But that Jamie sure can bill for her services and the Duke BOT continues with their heads in the sands.

Jamie, it won’t work! In part thanks to the incredible work of KC & Stuart and the Blog Hooligans! But mainly because the plaintiffs have good attorneys and most importantly, truth is on the side of the players.

Burness and Moneta knew who Gottlieb was and that he had it in for the Duke Students. They also knew the captains had co-operated fully and that Duke PD thought it was a false accusation made by a woman they knew was of doubtful credibility. But instead of standing up to the corruption of the PD & Nifong and the Durham & Duke mob, they helped Nifong and DPD, by covering up what Duke PD knew and what Levicy did. Steel & Brodhead simply sacrificed the team to the prism of race, class, and gender. Brodhead trotted himself out with Rev Barber and the rest of the Durham Black leaders as being men of dignity during very troubled times guiding the community through a racial divide. It was, of course false, and they all knew it.

All very Machiavellian! However what Steel & Brodhead forget is that Niccolò Machiavelli, was removed from office and tortured. He retired and now his name is a legacy which “describes one who deceives and manipulates others for gain”

The whole affair was a Red Herring and it just continyes

KC, you're the tops!


Anonymous said...

Just received a reply form KC my answers were correct.


Anonymous said...

Slightly OT:

I'm an attorney and after studying the actions of college professors in this case, I've decided I will never allow a professor on a jury if I can avoid it. At least, not if my client is in the right.

The reason? Professors seem to know a lot of stuff that simply isn't true. And they cling fiercely (due to ego?) to these "certainties" (metanarratives?) no matter what the real-world evidence. In other words, ignorance is curable, but to paraphrase a comedian's fond saying, "You can't fix mistaken intellectualism."

I've never had a professor on a jury. I'm wondering if any other attorneys have any thoughts on this.

Anonymous said...

" identify the statement to which the Gorelick/McLamb brief refers."

So do contestants have to prove they are certified mind readers or psychics? To show they have access to the delusions that were the foundation of the case and now the defense?

"The statement" like so much else must have occured only in someone's mind.

No attorney or anyone else actually on the side of the falsely accused were deluded enough, dishonest enough stupid or crazy enough to have made such a statement. But, of course, that doesn't mean some of the "others" didn't hear it.

Anonymous said...

The prize of a share of stock could be extremely valuable - it would give one the ability to raise a question at the next stockholder's meeting of the incoming chairman Mr. Steele. Wouldn't that make for an intersting time if someone were to press him about his statements regarding the lax hoax. As my father was fond of saying "things always have a way of coming and biting you in the rear whe you least expect it".

Anonymous said...

The considerations that would have caused Duke's administration to pursue a different policy: that the lacrosse players could, and would, fight back effectively, bringing Duke's bad faith into public view; and that many people would care about Duke's bad faith conduct.

Anonymous said...

The whole "In essence" construct is a simple ad hominim. If it's not obvious to you that this is the "essence" of the plaintiffs' argument, then you're just stupid, dense, lacking in judgement, uncool, inferior to your obvious intellectual superiors...

(If you had ever been a junior-high girl you would have recognized the CoolKid/MeanGirl pulling of rank immediately.)

Anonymous said...

Interesting background info (at Volokh) about Gorelick. Sounds like a great political hack.
Jamie Gorelick's ties to Fannie Mae and What She's Doing Now

"Jamie Gorelick was one of the Fannie executives who benefited from inflated bonuses based on Enron-style accounting. She was Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae from 1997 to 2003 (Fannie’s fraudulent accounting scheme was made public in 2004).

This is the same Jamie Gorelick who was Deputy Attorney General in the mid 1990s and was reported to have been the author of the Clinton Administration’s WALL against sharing intelligence data between foreign and domestic agencies. Without the policies instituted by Gorelick still in place in 2001, officials might have learned more about the 9/11 attacks before the planes hit the buildings. "

Anonymous said...

Gorelick seems to be embroiled in the Fannie Mae mess:

Falsely inflated results so that executives like Gorelick could get huge six-figure bonuses?

Shades of Enron!

Bruce Hayden said...

Gorelick is probably the next Attorney General.

Doubtful, given her role with her FBI "wall", Fannie Mae, and this. But thanks to Fannie Mae, she probably won't ever need the money either.

Anonymous said...

Oh boy Jamie! Those chickens are coming home to roost!

Anonymous said...

"Prize for anyone who can actually identify the statements to which Gorelick and McLamb referred: One share of Wachovia stock."

Second place is two shares?

Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

To the 6:56 attorney:
Just as there are good and bad lawyers, so are there good and bad professors. You would be doing professors a favor anyway, by not selecting them.

I am not a professor, but jury selection is a joke, people are not tried by a "jury of their peers" One of the concerns of this case was whether the 3 young men would get a fair trial in Durham (if it came to that) Until the jury system is fixed the answer is no, for everyone, anywhere. I get summoned to the Court House in Durham every 2 years for jury duty. (It is easier to go for the day rather than ask the judge to let me out)
I have been a victim of a violent crime, lived in a house where there was domestic violence, am in the medical field, have raised 2 young men (some would say priveleged - but by no means are we wealthy) have a college education and work experience in a variety of settings, and every time I am eliminated, because I may know too much to suit either side of a case. The jury pay is rediculous, the parking is not close, and don't be late, otherwise the jury workers turn nasty. (the judges and lawyers can be late though)You can't take notes, and the process is often obviously not fair and often slow, (not much regard for the juror's time) and very intimidating, not to mention not private(questions are asked of jurors in an open court- questions that we should not be answering for privacy protection) and then I have to make up my work on my own time. Jury duty being an important, civic duty is a joke, if it was so important it would be managed much better.
So until the system is fixed, these young men had as much chance in Durham as anywhere else in getting a fair trial. Maybe
Broadhead and Steel and others need to spend some time in the courtroom before they are so careless with their students freedom and rights. It truly can be a sad and scary place and "justice" is often slow. (wasn't it 385 days for these young men?)

Debrah said...

TO 11:25 AM--

The travesty started with the grotesque media coverage.

The N&O seems to be doing some hand wringing over their latest alleged rape case.

Gary Packwood said...

Contest participants are, therefore, urged to identify the statement to which the Gorelick/McLamb brief refers.
From day # 1 Duke associated Ryan's skin 'em' irony tinged e-mail with the rape charges and thus any effort to stop the investigation of Ryan or his e-mail account was seen as that statement.
Contest participants are urged to identify which piece of correct information—if known to the Duke administration—would have caused the administration to pursue a different policy.
The speed at which the Duke Women's Center organized and launched the Castrate March along with the fact that Duke Women's Center personnel (and students) had been stalking the organizers of fraternity parties for many months (as detailed in the June 2006 Women's Center) newsletter.

Anonymous said...

From the Los Angeles Times online:

By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 15, 2008
A federal appeals court upheld a $15 million jury verdict for three Los Angeles police officers who alleged they were falsely arrested and prosecuted as part of the Rampart corruption scandal.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said there was evidence to support the jury's verdict that the city and the Los Angeles Police Department violated the officers' constitutional rights by arresting and charging the men without an adequate investigation.

--snip --

Anonymous said...

I would think that Broadhead would jump at the chance to come to court to "prove his innocence". Right?

Debrah said...

I've taken a look at this post. It's clever; however, its requirement is finding specific needles in the haystack of the Hoax.

Needles designed to fog the atmosphere for an escape.

This is a technical challenge which can be met by taking the time to review past Wonderland posts which many here have committed to memory.

I see that some have successfully met the challenge and will be rewarded the treasure.

Wachovia stock! ( A name you can believe in.)

Some are comforted by words recorded as facts.

There are thousands of quotes and thousands of opinions making up the various stages of the Hoax.

It's amusing to go back and review the absurdities and now the pretzel logic attorneys for Duke are trying to employ.

Someone should explain to Gorelick and company that their adventitious elimination of reality in this case will have no spontaneous effect on the way it is viewed by the millions of people in this country who witnessed what occurred.

Duke's administration and Durham's city officials are convinced that they can rely on some judge to follow their lead and help them escape.

They will need a judge who is capable of providing aid or direction in the solution of a problem, otherwise unjustified or incapable of justification.

With this amusing post, KC has chosen the heuristic path--heightening curiosity with further scholarly exploration.

In my comments on the previous post "Steel to Wachovia", and before I was intercepted, I referenced this same N&O cover-up article praising Steel......

.......along with a link to a video which would have provided an invaluable first hand view of the kinds of people who have actually helped build the bizarre culture of Duke and Durham.

People like Steel, Brodhead, Burness, Coach K, and various old timers from the Duke family who are descendants of the university's founder are all in the same "culture club".....(no Boy George among them....LIS!).

Like Pressler's book, it doesn't matter what the truth is or what the facts might show, this "culture club" has its requirements.

For these people inside their bubble of indoctrination, no facts will dissipate the tropism that assigns a certain narrative and role to all black people and another distinct role to all white people.

Some human beings are educable. Others only trainable.

Even though these people are well-educated and many have wealth beyond imagination, they are blissfully ignorant about so many of life's realities......

......possessing views and ways of looking at every day life which never question the approved narrative among the elite.

Not adhering to these strict rules of munificent condescension will definitely get you dropped from the cocktail party guest list at the Washington Duke Inn.

The Trinity Park residents, hangers-on and wannabes along with Durham officials--both making up the second and third wrung on the ladder of the "culture club"--confer and share as needed. Each quid pro quo builds another network.

Wasn't it Steel who said that it didn't matter what actually happened, those news clips and loops of the lacrosse players on the field practicing had to stop?

Duke had to make sure that they effectively annihilated the existence of the team to placate and please the members of the "culture club" who have a certain special understanding and historic need.

It's like a code that has to be cracked. Nothing will ever be over until it is.

Facts are secondary.

In 1990 there was a film shot around one of the mansions in Durham's Forest Hills called "The Handmaid's Tale".

The story was one of a bizarre and abusive culture forced upon people with a kind of engineered plan for how life should be lived.

How was anyone to know that this would be the dress rehearsal for what was to happen to three unsuspecting men living in Durham in the year 2006?

Anonymous said...

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.

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.” Responding to a question on why she would advise anyone to speak to the police without benefit of counsel given the allegations of a gang rape, Wasiolek predicted that everything would go away, because the Durham police told her the witness was not credible. That such legal advice came from a J.D. (from North Carolina Central Law School) is amazing.

According to recollections from many participants, the meeting ended with parents frustrated and upset at Duke’s handling of events. But in an interview published two days later in the Duke Chronicle, Moneta presented a radically different picture of the meeting’s tone. The Chronicle summarized his remarks in the following way: “the parents were frightened and nervous for their children.” Any fair-minded outsider would have interpreted this kind of reaction from parents as consistent with a belief in guilt.

Moneta, meanwhile, soon repudiated the position on innocence he had taken at the meeting, writing, “Not sure what I blurted in the heat of the conversation. What I’ve consistently said to parents is that I hope that all the players are exonerated but until the facts are finally determined, I take no position on the matter.”

It seems to me that maybe at some point the "Hang-em High" crowd at Duke must have actually read the FERPA rules. After all, parents could not be informed (per Wasnolike) but the police (and ultimately the press) were given unfettered access to privileged student information.
With advocates like Mo'notta, Wasnolike, and Boardhead, what more could the students and parents have wanted????? They easily could have just turned over their sons to the "Castrate" crowd for the Duke version of social justice. Oh if they only hadn't misplaced their looking glasses. Their rose colored glasses have become opaque in the ivory towers of the institution.
88 bottles of beer on the wall!

Anonymous said...

Back in the day, a cautionary "let's not jump to conclusions until all the facts are in" would have been perceived as a gesture of civic responsibility, not an attempt "to quell public debate" about a criminal investigation. (What does "public debate" have to do with a criminal investigation, anyway? The public gets to vote on police procedures or clues or facts of the case?)

Today, under the Gorelick Doctrine, that, plus "sorry, we can't give you information protected under the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 without a subpoena from a federal court," constitute, in essence, an attempt "to stand between [a criminal suspect] and the prosecutor" and "to prevent the police and prosecutor from investigating... for a very serious crime."

So now responsible officials (lumping certain university administrators into this category solely for argument's sake) are precluded from ordinary moral decency or upholding federal statutes, if not their own handbook policies, lest they, in essence, obstruct justice.

Someone should trot out the Gorelick Doctrine the next time there's a highly-publicized criminal investigation in an emotionally-charged atmosphere and see who howls the loudest.

dave in l.a.

Anonymous said...

Ah yes, and the police, in The Handmaid's Tale used their powers to make certain that the metanarrative would be the only version of events. One should read the story if one wants a chilling tale of what could so easily happen if the wrong people are allowed to populate the halls of power.

Debrah said...

A postcard from the edge of The Diva World:

Stellar journalist Kristin Butler who is working at the N&O this summer has been featured on MSNBC today in audio reports on the woman found dead in Cary yesterday.

She has a good voice for reporting as well as being a fine writer.

Anonymous said...

A SHARE OF WACHOVIA STOCK!?! Why don't you give a prize that has some value, like Confederate money?

Anonymous said...

Which Friday was that?