Wednesday, October 01, 2008

A Craven Filing

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, South Carolina.” And, Craven muses, “Will radiologists be needed as witnesses?”

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.

5.) Defiance. “They already have all they will ever get from him, and if they don’t understand that, their counsel do.” Is Craven suggesting that Nifong would defy a negative judgment in the civil case? It’s hard to interpret those words in any other way.

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 Richmond.”

Best of luck to him.


Anonymous said...

Is Craven a Communist?

Anonymous said...

Assuming Nifong loses does that mean that he would be liable to the players after his bankruptcy is discharged?

skwilli said...

Nifong needs a new lawyer. I can do better than this guy reading "Lawyering for Dummies". I could even use bigger words, like "Lawyering" and "ineptitude".

Gary Packwood said...

I wonder how many times the judge will have seen AG Roy Cooper's ad on TV before he rules on this motion?

Do you feel lucky, Judge?

There but for the grace of God go you.

Anonymous said...

Beyond belief weird. As someone who was recently banned from the Liestoppers discussion board for suggesting (for the second time) that it was time to pack it in and move on to things that were more material to our lives, this one is extraordinarily strange. Is Mike really paying for this idiocy?
C. Thomas Kunz (Liestoppers banned id CTK1).

Anonymous said...

Inre 11:17: " was time to pack it in and move on to things that were more material to our lives"

This is material. The moral bankruptcy exhibited in this hoax, scales across many boundaries. All of which should be enough to generate concern for our society at large.

That we have a Chairman of the Duke Board of Trustees who hires someone who pillaged FNMA to represent Duke supports my point.

That Duke continues to hire and promote academic frauds supports my point.

We are in an economic melt down and we need leadership with some moral authority.

We have none. Worse, those that are deciding our fates are complicit or have vested interest in the outcome.

The soft acceptance of people who are unable to make uncomfortable decisions is destroying our economy.

We're all going to pay for our lazy ways. Acceptance of the PC bull shit must end now.

Check out the yields on G.E. credit default swaps relative to one year, no three months, no three weeks, no three days ago. Then consider if commercial paper is a part of the pending pork plan.

ACORN was in line for money at one point, does that set off any alarms that we're being lead by those that really don't care about we, the people?

The lunacy must stop. We are treading on very thin ice.

Please explore the CRA and its expansion and the impact it is now having on our economy.

Please check out Barney Franks' response to FNMA reform efforts. Yet he is the guy defining the solution.

Why isn't the MSM digging in on this conflict?

Who was at FNMA when they expanded, cooked the books and took enormous bonus funds? She might be a Duke attorney. (Ken Lay was an amateur in relative terms)

Who did FNMA donate funds to in order to protect their position? It might be three current and former presidential candidates.

Who dated a senior FNMA official and now sits as the Chairman of the banking committee?

Why do we have a Sec. of the Treasury, who is a Wall Street guy in a position of deciding which investment banking firms and banks survive? I didn't elect him.

I don't think I have ever been more beaten down, than I am right now.

This PC nonsence is killing us. This "pack it in" bull shit is why we are where we are today. Passive acceptance of the dangerous left has got to stop. It's time to move them out of positions of power and hold them accoutable.

Anonymous said...

"As someone who was recently banned from the Liestoppers discussion board for suggesting (for the second time) that it was time to pack it in and move on to things that were more material to our lives"

I'm not sure why you expected that suggestion to be well-received. You may know when it's time for you to move on; what makes you think you'll know when it's time for someone else? Either it is going to be time for them, in which case it's unlike that they require you to point it out, or it isn't time for them, in which case you do no one favors by trying to push them onwards.

One Spook said...

KC Writes:

"5.) Defiance. “They already have all they will ever get from him, and if they don’t understand that, their counsel do.” Is Craven suggesting that Nifong would defy a negative judgment in the civil case? It’s hard to interpret those words in any other way.

I think Craven is suggesting that they cannot get any money from Nifong. I believe any competent judge would consider that argument irrelevant on its face.

One Spook

Anonymous said...

If one thinks about how Nifong ran this case when he still was being treated with deference by the courts and media, this definitely is a continuation of his legal approaches to an issue. For example, he was constantly changing the timeline (it only took five or 10 minutes and just seemed like 30 minutes).

We are dealing with a sociopath, and this is not the first time I have made that comment. Now, one does not suddenly become a sociopath; that is a character trait that is consistent -- and recognizable.

Ronald Stephens testified at Nifong's contempt hearing that Nifong was a "man of his word," blah, blah, blah. Now, don't tell me that Nifong suddenly had changed character; no, the lacrosse case further revealed his character. There is a difference.

Nifong's sociopathic ways benefited Stephens and others in the DA's office, as one never could get a handle on him. In the traffic division, his personality was unpredictable and that kept the people charged with violations off balance. Because the DA and his minions had near-absolute power in the North Carolina court system, this character flaw proved to be useful in making sure the prosecutors always had an upper hand.

So, Nifong does stay within his character to the very end, and F. Scott Fitzgerald did write that "character is fate." Unfortunately, the legal system has treated this lying sociopath with too much deference for too long.

Debrah said...

I would urge everyone to read Page 424 from the new updated version of UPI......the epilogue.

It provides a fantastic retort to the kind of unbelievable--as well as false and deluded--attempts at outrage equivalency by those who continue to minimize the ordeal of the lacrosse players.

Go get this book!

Anonymous said...


Sorry you were banned. I felt that you were entitled to your opinion as long as you were not abusive to anyone else.

I also felt that I wasn't ready to move on because of the information that was still being withheld by those individuals involved in the frame. I believe that this information could be revealed through discovery.

I also believe that if the lawsuits get carried through, the bad publicity Durham, Nifong, the police department and others will get could have lasting positive changes. These could include [but are not limited to] - appropriate line ups, speedy trials, grand jury transcripts, and depriving DA's of the ability to "shop for judges".

I'll keep watching for KC's updates and the info on the lawsuits in Liestoppers.

It's not time to pack it won't be until we end the abuse of the justice system and deprivation of civil rights based on race.

Ex-prosecutor said...

Every homeowner's policy that I am familiar with has exclusions for intentional acts, as well as those which are "intended or expected." Thus, a trial as to whether Mr. Nifong's acts are of the type for which insurance liability is excluded requires an examination of all his acts. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' claims are relevant, as as are the records they seek, and Mr. Nifong's responses are specious.

For instance, if I am sitting on my porch, cleaning a rifle and drop it, firing a round into my neighbor who is cutting the grass, my homeowner's insurance would cover the act if unintentional or negligent, but not if I was settling a score with my neighbor.

It is not uncommon, after a judgment against a person insured under a homeowner's policy, for there to be a second lawsuit, pitting the insured against the insuror, the latter claiming the act was intentional and, thus, excluded from coverage.

Jim in San Diego said...

The thread title, "A Craven Filing" contains an unintentional(?) double entendre.

I had forgotten attorney Jim Craven was Mr. Nifong's attorney.

Therefore, I just assumed you were describing the filing as "craven".

Which it is.

Jim Peterson

unbekannte said...

I again watched the You Tube video of the ABC Nightline report on the disintegration of Nifong's case against the Lacrosse players. One part I particularly remember is Nifong before the NCCU forum telling the crowd that his presence at the forum meant the case was not going away.

Now we have the spectacle of Nifong's pitiful, desperate efforts to make the case go away.

Poetic Justice, is it not?

Debrah said...


Duke urged to preserve liberal education focus

By Gregory Childress : The Herald-Sun
Oct 3, 2008

DURHAM -- On the day Duke University honored its founders, a university economics professor with more than 50 years of experience warned that the university is under attack by "powerful forces that "threaten the survival of liberal education."

Craufurd Goodwin, James B. Duke Professor of Economics, said there has been an unfortunate move away for a liberal education designed to free one's mind. Instead, Goodwin said, many students arrive on campus with the sole intent of career preparation.

"We are being pushed constantly toward vocational training and thus far we have done little to resist," Goodwin said.

Ironically, Goodwin said, the two major threats come from within the university. He said one is from students and parents who push to make education job-related, and who view tuition as an investment that must pay dividends.

"Why, they ask, should we waste time on anything that will not facilitate the job search or at the very least admission to the next level of higher education," Goodwin said.

The other threat, Goodwin said, comes from faculty who have come to believe that graduate and professional school should be the main focus of the university's best undergraduates. He said steering them toward "pre-law, pre-medicine, pre-business and pre-Ph.D curricula" constrains the "free choice" students should have as undergraduates.

"These faculty seem not to accept that the best undergraduate education is pre-life," Goodwin said.

The emphasis on career-building, Goodwin said, has left the university unbalanced. He noted that the economics department serves one-fifth of the majors in Trinity College.

"I would like to think that this is because of the excitement of our field and our brilliant teaching," Goodwin said. "But I know that, to the contrary, this is because economics sound most like a way station to Wall Street."

Goodwin said one way to fight against the threats is to integrate the fine arts and humanities throughout all disciplines at Duke. He said that for too long, the university has isolated the humanities and arts, thinking of them as occasional sources of entertainment but largely unconnected to the rest of the university.

"They should be thought of instead as purveyors of enlightenment for scholars at all levels and relevant fields from mathematics to public policy, from law to engineering," Goodwin said. "There need not be two cultures."

Goodwin also highlighted the major challenges Duke has faced and successfully met since it's founding in 1924, which include correcting racial injustices on campus and making the university an international entity. And, as directed by founder James Buchanan "Buck" Duke, Goodwin said the university has created an excellent undergraduate school, a magnificent library, exceptional profession schools of divinity, law, medicine, engineering and business and a first-class school of post-graduate studies."

"The only directive of the founder that has been ignored is to establish a school for training teachers, and that is a shame," Goodwin said.

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that the connection between the Lacrosse Case and the Bank Loan mess is the ability of smart people to just deny the reality that is right in front of their eyes to help support a veiw of the world based on their own predjudice and self interest. That the cases are connected through Steel and Gorlick makes it even more ironic. the main stream media has lost all credibility in not reporting the facts and responsibilities of those involved.

Debrah said...

Debut of lacrosse accuser's book delayed

By Gregory Childress : The Herald-Sun
Oct 3, 2008

DURHAM -- The scheduled release of a book by Crystal Gail Mangum, the Durham woman who falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of rape, has been pushed back a few weeks.

The book, a memoir titled "The Last Dance for Grace: The Crystal Mangum Story," in which Mangum breaks her silence on the infamous case, had been scheduled for release on Wednesday.

But Vincent "Ed" Clark, who has been helping Mangum manage her affairs since the lacrosse case, said the release was delayed because the book's copy editor got sick. Clark said the new release date will likely be Oct. 22 and that he is planning a media event to coincide with the release.

"It'll probably be in Durham or Charlotte," Clark said.

The book is being published by fire! Books, which Clark owns with two partners.

Clark also said a Web site should be up and running by Oct. 18 that contains excerpts of the book. He said the site will also have pictures, video and a place where people can order the book. The online "e-version" will go for $15.99 and a hard cover copy for $24.99, Clark said.

Clark stressed that the book isn't entirely about the lacrosse case. He said Mangum, a recent N.C. Central University graduate, writes about her troubled adolescence and making bad choices, particularly when it came to men. He said she hopes that by writing the book that she can help young people make better decisions than she has.

"The story that we're trying to tell is that Crystal [Mangum] is a real person," Clark said. "The error people make is that because she was doing that kind of work [working as a stripper] that she is a bad person."

Clark said Mangum never intended to hurt anyone, but dodged questions about whether she still contends she was assaulted in the lacrosse house.

"I'll leave that nugget for the press event," Clark said.

The Herald-Sun named Mangum for the first time in August because of her decision to publish a book and use her name in the title.

Debrah said...

Interesting news.

A new deal

Anonymous said...

HSKAXMOM: My point in trying to get us to move on is that, at some point, events move on. Sure, we can all focus on how the team was screwed by the false accusations. But, in all seriousness, it's years later and everyone has to move on at some point. Life moves on, people move on, lacrosse players move on. Blog hooligans move on. The world is going to hell in a handbasket financially. Perhaps our focus at this point should be on some real world things that really matter.

C. Thomas Kunz

Anonymous said...

Gee, thank you 12:53 am for your thoughts. Who said I thought my opinion would be well received? I actually thought it would be not well received. Thus my banning at Liestoppers. It's hard to believe but I will have to go through the rest of my life without access to the Liestoppers Discussion Board. What a shame. As a Durham resident, a lawyer and a fervent student of the hoax, I thought I might add a bit of perspective from time to time but, if the Liestoppers don't want me, so be it.

unbekannte said...

First, in response to debrah's post headed by "What", 40 years ago I graduated from a College which described itself as a Catholic liberal Arts College. Viet Nam was going on. For many professors, especially in the Philosophy Department, Liberal Arts seemed to be an excuse for avoiding rigorous scholarship and for condemnation of anyone whose attitude was perceived as not liberal. Pseudo intellectual liberal arts professors have been around a long time.

Second, on page 404, in the latest edition of UPI, Professor Johnson mentions Wendy Murphy. Wendy gave an interview to John Gibson some time after April 11, which was another collection of unbelievable charges about the Duke Case. She stated she believed Mike Nifong had evidence of the Lacrosse Players guilt which he had not yet shown to anyone, not even to the Attorney General, not even to the State Bar Disciplinary Commission. She stated further she believed Nifong had a lucrative deal for a book which, when published, would finally tell the truth. I bet Wendy is now desperately avoiding interviewers who want to question her about the Duke case, who want to ask her, where is Nifong's stealth evidence, where is his book. Maybe there is no book because Wahneema Lubiano is ghost writing it for him.

Then, on page 405, Professor Johnson writes about Grant Farred suggesting that perjury on the part of Lacrosse players had something to do with the exoneration of the accused. If I remember correctly, the MacFayden email was released after Ryan MacFayden refused to give testimony to the DA that would incriminate the indicted players. Nifong also threatened to file charges of aiding and abetting against Lacrosse players who did not give incriminatory testimony. I believe Professor Johnson made the point, any incriminatory testimony against the indicted players would be perjured testimony, because no crime had been committed. I say, Nifong used his office to suborn perjury. The last time I looked, subornation of perjury was a crime. Maybe there are technical, legal explanations, but I notice Nifong was never prosecuted for subornation of perjury.

Anonymous said...

This has to be the worst brief I have ever read.

Anonymous said...

Craven is correct that no standard homeowners policy would cover torts committed in office by a District Attorney, at least not in North Carolina. It would be to Nifong's advantage if it did, as the carrier would owe him a civil defense.

The reason to oppose producing the policy is that it might allow Nifong's creditors, past and future, to further glean his assets.