Friday, January 16, 2009

Is Nifong Paying by the Line?

In one of the stranger filings of the civil suit, Nifong attorney James Craven demands that the suit against his client be dismissed--in an 11-line brief.

Under the law, the disgraced ex-attorney had absolute immunity for all actions taken as DA. But how does Craven address in these eleven lines the police notes and actions showing how Nifong also acted in a police supervisory role--for which he doesn't have absolute immunity?

Craven simply ignores the material--and then, incredibly, urges the judge to incorporate into his brief the arguments of . . . Linwood Wilson, who is acting as his own attorney.

So, Nifong has a lawyer who has chosen to rely on the legal musings of a fired DA investigator who isn't even an attorney. Quite remarkable.


Anonymous said...

It seems appropriate that Nifong has an attorney named "Craven."

We have to remember that Nifong is a sociopath, a lying sociopath, so his behavior is going to border on the arrogant. Nifong is convinced that he never had to play by the rules because he is the Great Michael Byron Nifong.

Debrah said...

Nifong is a typical, as well as a very ordinary, guy who went to law school, passed the bar exam.....didn't have the charisma to play with the big he began his career working for free in the Durham district attorney's office.

(For what?) three decades ago?

He stayed there until Mike Easley---an NCCU law school graduate and one of the dumbest governors NC has ever had---appointed him to the primo position of DA!

After Mikey fell into such a position of power how could he allow it to slip through his hands?

Reade, Collin, and David were to have been his ticket.

Nifong is a pitiful Morris Dees wannabe without a Morris Dees case.

And after having read a bit about Dees lately, he evolved into quite an opportunist, himself.

Anonymous said...

The certificate of service is actually longer than the "Motion" itself! Yjis must be a first.

Gary Packwood said...

Seems to me they are all treading water in what they think is the shallow end of the pool waiting for the Duke/Durham swan-drive settlement action towards the deep end of the pool.

Effortless Perfection in their paper work while waiting for the big splash.

A tsunami perhaps?

Anonymous said...

Note that he references Jan 15 2008 as well when he points to Linwood's brief.

Anonymous said...

Right on, Jerry M! Nifong filed two half-pages of legal "argument," a blank page, and four pages of Certificates of Service. What a griffter doofus! The highlight of Craven's career is to have sent a one page motion and a one page brief in support to Barry Scheck. Now my post is longer than Nifong's legal pleading. Wait, not yet. Now it is.

Anonymous said...

Note that he references Jan 15 2008 as well when he points to Linwood's brief.

1/16/09 9:35 PM

Correct, that was Linwood's first response in Evans.

Anonymous said...

My bad. It was Jan 15 2008. A year and a day before. Hard to believe we are reaching a full year of just the lawsuit responses.

Anonymous said...

Is Craven a Communist?

Anonymous said...

One would think that a time would come when one could no longer be shocked. Today is not that day.

It appears that Bob Steel who was Under Secretary of the Teasury for Domestic Finance, serving as the principal adviser to the Secretary on "matters of doemstic finance", leading "the Department's activities with respect to the domestic financial system, fiscal policy and operations, governmental assets and liabities, and related economic and financial matters" has out done himself.

1. In the fall the Treasury issues a tax rule that benefits banks that acquire other troubled banks.

2. Bob Steel leaves the Treasury to go to work for a troubled Wachovia bank.

3. Bob Steel cuts a deal with CITI, but changes his mind and does a deal with Wells Fargo to save Wachovia.

4. Wells Fargo acquires Wachovia for $14.8 billion.

5. Wells Fargo receives a $20 billion tax savings. Of course this means you and I paid Wells Fargo over $5 billion to acquire Wachovia.

6. Tax break is repealed.

Is it just me or did Bob Steel just leave at least $5 billion on the table?

Mr. Steel has more stamina than anyone I know. He's screwed the Lacross team, Duke, Wachovia, and the American taxpayer. At some level, though disgusted, I'm impressed.

This should give the Klan of 88 another reason to hate white males.

Stimulus Plan Repeals Big Tax Breaks for Banks

"...To address the financial industry meltdown, the Treasury Department last fall issued a new tax rule to make it more attractive for healthy banks to buy troubled ones hit hard by the mortgage crisis. It allowed healthy banks to avoid billions of dollars in taxes by offsetting their profits with the losses of the banks they acquire.

Before, the merged bank could write off only a limited amount of the losses. Removing much of the restrictions enabled the acquiring banks to make huge reductions in their tax liabilities.

In some cases, the tax breaks exceeded the cost of acquiring the troubled banks. Wells Fargo & Co. (WFC), for example, made a bid to acquire Wachovia Corp. (WB), just days after the change in tax rules was issued Sept. 30. Wells Fargo paid $14.8 billion in a stock deal to buy Wachovia, but stands to reap about $20 billion in additional tax savings from the transaction, according to analyses by private tax experts..."

Anonymous said...

Inre: my prior post regardng the tax deal...

"...Some members of Congress felt the Treasury Department overstepped its authority in issuing the notice, which had the practical effect of enacting a new tax break..."

"overstepped ...authority"

Bob Steel...Treasury...Duke...Wachovia

Pattern of behavior...

Really, how can anyone be shocked?

Anonymous said...

Off-topic, but I thought this was interesting:

The Huffington Post now has a link that allows you to see political contributions. One of the ways to search is by "Employer" or "Occupation".

When I searched for "Duke", "Duke Univ" and "Duke University", it showed that a total of 342 people had donated to Democrats, 23 to Republicans. When I did the search for "Brooklyn College", it showed 40 contributors to Democrats (yes, KC, you're in there!) and one to Republicans. When I searched "Occupation" for "Prof" or "Professor", it showed 17,110 for Democrats, 1,268 for Republicans.

Anonymous said...

Re: Huff Post - interesting that Bill Chafe donated to John Edwards. Seems like secret racism to me.

Anonymous said...

Inre: Steel - Treasury - tax breaks - Wachovia.

It would be very interesting to know what was conveyed to Ken Lewis at BofA and by whom regarding the Merrill Lynch deal.

Did BofA go back to the well for more TARP money because the Merrill deal was much more toxic than expected?

Was BofA originally operating on the basis that they would receive a similar tax break to acquire Merrill Lynch?

Why else would they agree to the deal with only one weekend of due diligence in an environment of fast declining asset values?

Did BofA have the rug pulled out from under them since Merrill was a non-bank institution and NOT eligible for the same tax breaks Wells Fargo received?

Did the opening of the discount window to non-bank institution imply a different tax treatment?

Who was involved in opening the discount window for non-bank institutions?

Why Bob Steel, that's who.

Anonymous said...

Steele's stamina is overshadowed by his arrogance, egotism and nassicism. What a string of failures he has to be proud of: 1) Forced the selection of Dickie Brodhead as President 2)Allowing the growth and protection of pseudo -scienrific departments making Duke the laughing stock of American academia 3) Mishadling of the Lacrosse situation 4)Blatant refusal to direct his university to take a stand against Nifong's dishonesty 4) Failure to lead Duke out of the muck of political correctness 4)Failure to step down as CHair thus allowing the Board at Duke to choose new Board Chair and new President 5)Total mishandling of Wachovia and causing its ultimate demise because he couldn't make up his mind 5) Heading the "crack" team of advisors who helped lose $1 Billion in investments for Duke.

I'll bet his family is so very proud of what Bobby has accomplished.

He is a real "snake oil" salesman. Very dangerous man.

Anonymous said...

is this so surprising ?

After all, Nifong is in severe financial straits, and no longer has the DA's office to pick up any costs. He cannot afford much for legal expenses.

Any lawyer working for Nifong must know that any substantial bill they make cannot be paid by Nifong; that is the crux of the argument that the lawyer is making to other plaintiffs.

the targets of this action are duke, and durham; they have deep pockets. Nifong is lawyer-proof, because he doesn't have any money left.


Anonymous said...

OK... 11 lines is nice, but how cool would it be if they did it in Haiku?

Fails to state a claim
No standing for injunction
D.A. is immune


Anonymous said...

Could the response be a simple "res ipsa loquitur"?

There you have it.

Nifong's "response" clearly shows, he has no defense. He cites no authority, no precedence, nothing.

Anonymous said...

Nifong's "filing" borders on insult. No self-respecting federal judge will suffer such foolishness. To do so would simply risk demeaning the court. The judge has got to be pissed.

Regardless, you can stick a fork into Nifong--he's toast. Game, set, match--over.

Tick, tock, tick, tock--Mikey (and Cy).

Anonymous said...

"Nifong's 'response' clearly shows,
he has no defense. He cites no authority,
no precedence, nothing."

The Truth is the Greatest Defense.

Why does KC Johnson continue to hide
the exculpatory evidence in Nifong's defense,
evidence sworn under oath, yet concealed
by Johnson from his readers ?

Ex-prosecutor said...

Looks to me like a response filed by a lawyer who got stiffed for his fee.

Anonymous said...

Btw, regarding the campaign contributions site cited above, it shows that of the contributors who identified their occupation as "journalist", "reporter", or some variation of those, 650 donated to the Democrats, 62 to the Republicans.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 1/17/09 9:22 PM:

If there is evidence exonerating Mike Nifong given under oath, it is part of the public record. Please tell us where we might view the evidence. Why are you so reluctant to reveal the evidence?

You sound more and more like Wendy Murphy. If you are Wendy Murphy, if you are aware of exonerating evidence, why are you not down here defending Mike Nifong?

wayne fontes said...

Anonymous said...

"Nifong's 'response' clearly shows,
he has no defense. He cites no authority,
no precedence, nothing."

The Truth is the Greatest Defense.

Why does KC Johnson continue to hide
the exculpatory evidence in Nifong's defense,
evidence sworn under oath, yet concealed
by Johnson from his readers ?

1/17/09 9:22 PM

I guess the new tactic is to ask a question of KC while insinuating that KC is with holding some evidence. Why direct that question to KC? Nifong was given the chance to explain his actions at the disbarment hearing. He offered no credible explanation as to why he ever brought charges against the players. He knew the purpose of the proceedings was to strip his law license. An ideal opportunity to present "the exculpatory evidence in Nifong's defense,
evidence sworn under oath, yet concealed
by Johnson from his readers ?".

Don't you think so Anon 9:22

Anonymous said...

Wayne suggests this is a "new tactic" from (I like the way Gregory put it )"the cute little troll." I think it's just the same original tactic, lies, false allegations, attack anyone and everyone.

At least when it's done to advance a claim of Nifong's "innocence" (as opposed to advancing a claim of innocent young men's guilt) it is laugh out loud funny.

Greg Toombs said...

Why does Anon 1/17/09 9:22 claim to know what the 'exculpatory evidence' is and yet fails to provide it?

Ain't got it, do you?

Anonymous said...

Is KC afraid of what anon 9:22 knows?


Anonymous said...

Trolls are parasitic entities.

Please, stop feeding the troll.

Anonymous said...

Jim Craven happens to be a "real lawyer" and a good one (as opposed to some Public Relations puke or business hack or insurance industry reptile who happens to have a law license), and although I have no inside info about his deal with Nifong, it's clear enough that for some perceived courtesy or closeness in the past, Craven is simply doing Nifong a favor by putting in some kind of appearances for him, and if Craven is getting paid at all, I bet anything it's way less than his usual rate.

But even if Craven is a nice guy (which he is), there's obviously a limit to how much time he can afford to waste on Mike Nifong.

Still, Craven would feel compelled to say more in Nifong's defense, if there was any defense, so I agree with KC that Craven's silence speaks volumes -- about his client.

unbekannte said...

To Anonymous 1/19/09 12:50 PM:

Please tell us what anon 9:22 knows.

Whatever anon 9:22 promises, he/she/it is awfully reluctant to deliver, just like Mike Nifong is awfully reluctant to defend the lawsuit against him.

unbekannte said...

Another To Anonymous 1/19/09 12:50 PM:

Please tell anon 9:22 to speak up about what he/she/it knows. I'd like a good scare.