tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post8197619425445554060..comments2024-02-24T05:19:10.949-05:00Comments on Durham-in-Wonderland: Coleman: Durham Likely Will Settlekcjohnson9http://www.blogger.com/profile/09625813296986996867noreply@blogger.comBlogger173125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-46885771251678949022007-09-01T10:17:00.000-04:002007-09-01T10:17:00.000-04:00Durham-In-Wonderland continues to publicize facts ...Durham-In-Wonderland continues to publicize facts the public needs to know in order to understand and react to what was done and what continues to be done in the name of justice in Durham. When someone behaves as Nifong did, there are, inevitably, enablers, people who either actively assist or who stand silently by. It is never just one person who perverts the judicial process. When (if) the injustice comes to light, the enablers should be called to account every bit as much as the person at the center of attention. The public now knows something important about Judges Stephens and Morey and ADA Paul. Morey in particular has given reason for the judiciary in North Carolina to investigate her fitesss as a judge. It is hard to believe that in the context of a criminal case, the judiciary in North Carolina would tolerate any lawyer misleading any judge in pre-trial matters. Most cases don't reach the trial stage. What happens in pre-trial proceedings, including in pre-trial conferences, affect the outcome of criminal cases. Even if they didn't, it hard - impossible - to justify the notion that lawers can EVER mislead a judge. If nothing is done about Judge Morey, that failure to act on the part of the North Carolina judiciary will indicate that same enabling that made it possible for Nifong undermine the legal system, continues to infect the legal system. The press is calling Judge Morey to account for allowing he personal feelings for Nifong to overcome her professional responsibility. What will the North Carolina judiciary do?W. R. Chambershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10827973470339715021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-29962187845127011042007-08-29T19:56:00.000-04:002007-08-29T19:56:00.000-04:00Joe Sweet,Re: OJ jury.I came to the same conclusio...Joe Sweet,<BR/><BR/>Re: OJ jury.<BR/><BR/>I came to the same conclusion about LAPD evidence tampering.<BR/><BR/>And yes it was fair.<BR/><BR/>If LA had taken the verdict to heart it might have cleaned up the LAPD. Which might have prevented the Rampart scandal.<BR/><BR/>You know. The one where the LAPD was found to have people on the force who murdered under color of law.<BR/><BR/>A corrupt police force is worse than one murderer going free.M. Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09508934110558197375noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-28363899095496626072007-08-29T17:14:00.000-04:002007-08-29T17:14:00.000-04:00A number of comments here have gloated over the lo...A number of comments here have gloated over the loss to the Durham taxpayers due to the Durham voters support of Mike Nifong. While I agree that the LAX 3 deserve a substantial settlement from Durham, even if it bankrupts the city, I question if the taxpayers deserve to pay it. To me the question is, do the voters who supported Mike Nifong correspond to the taxpayers who will have to pay the settlement or is it the case that those voters pay little or no tax and the taxpayers whose pockets the settlement will come out of did not support Nifong?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-60484759764378770722007-08-29T17:10:00.000-04:002007-08-29T17:10:00.000-04:00You see, injured people don't sue you ... pissed-o...<I>You see, injured people don't sue you ... pissed-off injured people sue you. </I><BR/><BR/>That is such an important point. I'm in Chicago, where as you may know a storm cost us power for several days. There's a way to apply to the city for compensation for food that went bad, etc. I think some of that has to be paid by ComEd. I'm not going to do it. Why? Because I know that ComEd guys were out there cutting fallen trees to get at power lines at <I>3 am on Sunday morning.</I> Because the guys who finally got to my house, despite the fact that they'd probably worked 70 hours in the last week, were courteous, helpful, and got the job done in an hour. And I would not dream of punishing that dedication for a couple of hundred bucks. Their commitment was worth thousands, as far as I'm concerned.Michaelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13398730540934226860noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-33493882071363769722007-08-29T16:50:00.000-04:002007-08-29T16:50:00.000-04:00"I hope the LAX 3 put all of these clowns into Cha..."I hope the LAX 3 put all of these clowns into Chapt. 11, every single one of them."<BR/><BR/>Even those of us who voted against Mr. Nifong? It's interesting that those of us who felt the lacrosse players were unjustly accused could find no support from the administration of the school they attended. Perhaps Mr. Broadhead has not heard of due process.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-31433598183155862872007-08-29T16:26:00.000-04:002007-08-29T16:26:00.000-04:00Every player should recieve at least one million a...Every player should recieve at least one million and the indicted guys 10 million each.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-50827027506467585552007-08-29T14:12:00.000-04:002007-08-29T14:12:00.000-04:00I would say right about now Durham insurer already...I would say right about now Durham insurer already has the means to not pay one red cent to them. Most insurance companies have "reasonable care" and "due diligence" clauses in their contracts. So once Durham gets hauled into court and it is disclosed in court records of their lack of due diligence and proper procedure the insurance company is going to turn to the Mayor and say, -- "Have a nice day, but don't call us."<BR/><BR/>I would not be surprised that Durham has to float a bond issue to pay for it.Tucanae Serviceshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11935170696138248693noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-75586812258360528532007-08-27T18:37:00.000-04:002007-08-27T18:37:00.000-04:00$50-100K? About a year's salary for a Gang 88 me...$50-100K? About a year's salary for a Gang 88 member. That's what they sell for these days, right?<BR/><BR/>Far too little for the All-American champions/ athletes these quys are.<BR/><BR/>And FAR too little for the toll on the families, the community, and the faith and trust lost.<BR/><BR/>But then. Maybe no amount of money can really compensate. It is just symbolic.<BR/><BR/>Loss a leg at Duke? I'd guess they might tell you that what they lost was in some ways far more valuable than a leg. At least a prosthesis can replace a leg.<BR/><BR/>How do you get back trust, innocence, reputation, family health, community trust, Pritcher's dream career, and the time and energy of thousands of people whose lives are touched by the drama?<BR/><BR/>Nope. Not enough money anywhere to do it. But it can be a start.<BR/><BR/>Maybe the guys will actually use it to do something wonderful, like fund a foundation to defend TRUE civil rights. Or start a school of journalism which goes back to an old-fashioned respect for truth. ( Not my original thought. Borrowed from another blogger somewhere)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-15441697604546664502007-08-27T13:47:00.000-04:002007-08-27T13:47:00.000-04:003.34 writes: "How about 50-100 K each. It's not li...3.34 writes: "How about 50-100 K each. It's not like they cut off the wrong leg at Duke Hospital."<BR/><BR/>Incredible. Would *you* be willing to submit yourself the the Hell the Lax 3 endured for "50-100K?"<BR/><BR/>You are clearly out of your mind or a troll (or both).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-71749177989861575332007-08-27T13:28:00.000-04:002007-08-27T13:28:00.000-04:00"If I'd been on the OJ jury I'd have concluded tha..."If I'd been on the OJ jury I'd have concluded that the police had planted evidence in at least two instances, and that therefore I couldn't trust them, so I'd have been forced to vote to acqyuit someone I thought was *almost* certainly guilty."<BR/><BR/>That's a tough one, Ralph! I can't for the life of me believe the greater good was served by letting a double-murderer walk away scot-free.<BR/><BR/>I was absolutely stunned by the outcome, and felt it sent a horrible message. <BR/><BR/>I see the Butcher of Brentwood's book "If I Did It" has done a landslide business with pre-orders. How wretched!<BR/><BR/>I wouldn't buy it, nor borrow it from a library...but that's just me!joe sweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11984964602100820626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-54227178139526543252007-08-27T13:05:00.000-04:002007-08-27T13:05:00.000-04:00to Gary Packwood (7:05pm) - Your questions regardi...to Gary Packwood (7:05pm) - <BR/><BR/>Your questions regarding the underwriting process and the claims process are intertwined, but not necessarily related in this case. From my perspective, here's the issues re: your questions:<BR/><BR/>Underwriting - the insurers always have two "outs" in the event they have a ruanway loser as an insured - they can cancel the policy immediately (subject to certain restrictions in the policy regarding notice to the Named Insured and other statutory conditions), or they can non-renew. However, in either case, the insurer is going to end up on the short end of the stick in respect of the one case that brought the insured's "issues" to light. In the Duke case, the insurer is going to make some payment (assuming a plaintiff's verdict), since they cannot cancel ab initio absent some sort of overarching legal reason, such as a material misstatement in the application, etc.<BR/><BR/>When already faced with a large whole in the wallet, some insurers will seek to recoup some of their losses by renewing the policy, at a significantly higher premium, and with vastly expanded exclusionary language to "laser out" the types of claims that have already occurred. In the case of Durham's policy, it is quite reasonable to presume that there was a rather thin (i.e., very few potential insurers) market <B>before</B> the rape hoax came to light; following the knowlege of the case, I suspect that number was reduced to no more than maybe three. There would be the former incumbent carrier, seeking to make some recoupment, and maybe one or two bottom-feeders trying to hit a home run on the premium side while hoping that the city would be extra-prudent in its actions. In any event, the underwriters will either walk away altogether, or they will "<I>underwrite</I> the problem".<BR/><BR/>In situations such as the Duke case, you can do all the "risk management" surveying you like - the problem is one that is called a "moral hazard"; i.e., the insured (Durham) is acting as if they have no actual exposure to financial loss, both through their reliance on the insurance protection, and some (usually) misguided faith in the concept of sovereign immunity.<BR/><BR/>As for claims practice - in that area, I am less directly certain of who can do what to whom. The policy likely turns over to the insurer all rights of subrogation against any other parties in the case (i.e., allows the insurer to seek contribution from any other legally liable parties); <B>however</B>, it does not give the insurer carte blanche to sue anybody they wish. Your example of the credentialling authority(-ies) suggests that you believe that the credentialling process could be characterized as a direct cause of the damages to the players and their families. I wouldn't want to be the lawyer trying to make that argument - credentialling is not a warranty of capability or guarantee of some professional liability - it just certifies (I suspect) that the city has the proper documents and procedures and training in place, not that those items will actually be adhered to.<BR/><BR/>My comment about the settlement involving some Duke money is mainly predicated on the inherent "threat" to the University that would be caused by forcing the city into bankruptcy as a result of the rape hoax situation. You should bear in mind that the insurer will likely have access to any number of city documents that have not yet seen the light of day in perfecting its case, and certain documents (perhaps those involving contacts among and between the DUPD and the DPD, as well as Broadhead and the City Council/Mayor) might be those that Duke would prefer to keep buried. <BR/><BR/>Many people pay little attention to the power of public ridicule in many civil cases, and the fact that deep pockets can be accessed rather quickly if the pockets' owners (in this case, the Duke Administation and PD) might be shown to be far more responsible for the hoax than is presently known. Up until now, the City and the University's goals were roughly parallel - if they each insisted they acted reasonably (and, if they maintained a common front in that regard), they could rely on their mutual self-interest to perhaps weather the storm.<BR/><BR/>Once the University settled with the players, the mutuality was severed somewhat, and the city might be forced to throw the University into the meat grinder in order to save itself. In that case, money can forestall an awful lot of bad publicity if and when a settlement can be reached.<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the long (and long-delayed) response -- I was out of town actually working for a living and didn't have a chance to see your comments from yesterday.<BR/><BR/>drewskiAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-71415533497941006392007-08-27T12:53:00.000-04:002007-08-27T12:53:00.000-04:00"jamil hussein said... Gonzales resigned. Let's jo..."jamil hussein said... <BR/>Gonzales resigned. Let's join the "Mike Nifong for Attorney General" bandwagon!<BR/><BR/>After nifonq-like prosecutor Janet Reno and pro-illegal Gonzales Nifong should be fine." <BR/><BR/>On a related note Jamil, how about Janet "I didn't start the fire" Reno as Nifong's replacement in Durham? I hear she's not too busy these days...joe sweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11984964602100820626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-22737743514861530582007-08-27T12:43:00.000-04:002007-08-27T12:43:00.000-04:00"M. Simon said... Barry Sheck is an extractor. May..."M. Simon said... <BR/>Barry Sheck is an extractor. May he extract the maximum from Durham. <BR/><BR/>Perhaps an opportunist is exactly what Reade was looking for."<BR/><BR/>Funny, judging from his performance in the OJ trial, I thought Barry Scheck was a proctologist!<BR/><BR/>My bad!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-76125661855147413072007-08-27T12:39:00.000-04:002007-08-27T12:39:00.000-04:00"Durham taxpayers think their tax load is high alr..."Durham taxpayers think their tax load is high already? They won't believe the tax increase that awaits them for their implicit culpability for the Hoax. Couldn't happen to better and more deserving wackos. I, too, 'raise my glass.'" <BR/><BR/>Here's a thought that might take some of the sting out of the tax hike that will be imposed on Durham taxpayers who had NOTHINGto do with perpetrating the Hoax, while penalizing some of the really Bad Guys: <BR/><BR/>Impose a real estate tax on Duke University! <BR/><BR/>This assumes that Duke currently does not pay real estate taxes, as a so-called non-profit. If true, Durham property owners are already subsidizing Duke, who then pays generous salaries & bennies to the Klan of 88 et al.<BR/><BR/>The idea has been bandied about in our state with respect to local colleges and universities, so why not the Big One in Durham? They certainly helped fan the flames of this outrageous Hoax!joe sweethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11984964602100820626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-8564496648331032722007-08-27T11:05:00.000-04:002007-08-27T11:05:00.000-04:00Gonzales resigned. Let's join the "Mike Nifong for...Gonzales resigned. Let's join the "Mike Nifong for Attorney General" bandwagon!<BR/><BR/>After nifonq-like prosecutor Janet Reno and pro-illegal Gonzales Nifong should be fine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-59054257902118043222007-08-27T10:13:00.000-04:002007-08-27T10:13:00.000-04:00I'm still guessing that Durrhh will eventually nee...I'm still guessing that Durrhh will eventually need to reorganize as something other than a city in order to avoid something worse.<BR/><BR/>Anyone remember when D.C. was run by the Feds? It had to be; it was a 3rd world country up to that point. As is Durrhh, apparently.<BR/><BR/>If I were a medium-income landowner with any substantial property in Durrhh, I'd be pretty nervous about now: if Durrhh doesn't reorganize, they may follow Mugabe's sordid path, and private property will be a thing of the past - (raise taxes enough, and it's basically the same result.)machttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14248016116043347912noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-23551160435211932222007-08-27T09:18:00.000-04:002007-08-27T09:18:00.000-04:00"David said... I'm fairly sure the city's insuranc..."David said... <BR/>I'm fairly sure the city's insurance will cover, even if the torts were intentional by Nifong and other individuals. The <BR/>argument goes that these acts were not intentional on the part of the insured, i.e., the city of Durham."<BR/><BR/>What if they can find evidence that it was intentional by the City Manager or even the Mayor?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-52232442365083794932007-08-27T08:56:00.000-04:002007-08-27T08:56:00.000-04:00"If you look at a race-charged cases in the last 1..."If you look at a race-charged cases in the last 15 years (and with this one, now three spring to mind), have many have clearly reached the right result under the evidence? O.J.?"<BR/><BR/>If I'd been on the OJ jury I'd have concluded that the police had planted evidence in at least two instances, and that therefore I couldn't trust them, so I'd have been forced to vote to acqyuit someone I thought was *almost* certainly guilty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-19278342296971179202007-08-27T08:33:00.000-04:002007-08-27T08:33:00.000-04:00Are punitive damages available in suing a municipa...Are punitive damages available in suing a municipality in NC? Actual damages are no doubt significant in this case and perhaps exceed the liability coverage, but without punitive damages Durham learns little.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-3126504061832316502007-08-27T07:14:00.000-04:002007-08-27T07:14:00.000-04:00I meant to add to my speculation on the Group of 8...I meant to add to my speculation on the Group of 88's wall of silence (8/26/09 9:29pm) that the telling point about the improbability of a Lacrosse Team consipiracy was not my own. I encountered that observation some weeks ago in a comment by one of DiW's insightful reg'lars (perhaps Cedarford or RR Hamilton or Esq. in MD?). <BR/><BR/>But Verizon Online decided that I'd spent enough time browsing the InterWeb last night, so that was that.AMachttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08872008617279528583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-51848143995352453062007-08-27T03:34:00.000-04:002007-08-27T03:34:00.000-04:00How about 50-100 K each.It's not like they cut off...How about 50-100 K each.<BR/><BR/>It's not like they cut off the <BR/>wrong leg at Duke Hospital.<BR/><BR/>Gang of 88 was nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-81542273676438419722007-08-27T02:48:00.000-04:002007-08-27T02:48:00.000-04:00Anonymous said... rrhamilton,reference your 2:02 p...<I>Anonymous said... <BR/>rrhamilton,<BR/>reference your 2:02 post:<BR/>I agree with your thoughts on apologizing regarding potential CIVIL PROCEEDINGS.<BR/>The PD situation is different however because the cops could potentially be charged with felony criminal conduct.<BR/>In light of possible criminal charges, would your advice be the same?<BR/>As a side note, I follow DIW daily, but rarely post. I always find your comments insightful and well thought out. <BR/><BR/>8/26/07 8:43 PM </I><BR/><BR/>My word, I have a fan! That is such an honor, even if it is only one.<BR/><BR/>As for your question ... It's true that my 2:02 AM post only addressed ordinary negligence, and was a response to a comment about liability for medical professionals. <BR/><BR/>Most civil negligence cases do not carry the potential for criminal liability. For example, if you have used your car to pancake a small child, I would <B>not</B> advise you to say in front of the child's dad and the investigating officer, "I'm so sorry, but I had just finished my sixth scotch and was speeding so fast that I couldn't stop when the little boy chased his soccer ball into the street." Whenever you sense the potential for criminal liability, I would advise you to make as few statements as reasonably possible before consulting an attorney.<BR/><BR/>I apologize for this brief reply, but it is now very late. I hope I haven't lost my only fan already.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-73036224742742898502007-08-27T00:57:00.000-04:002007-08-27T00:57:00.000-04:00TO Duke Prof--Perhaps.:>)TO Duke Prof--<BR/><BR/>Perhaps.<BR/><BR/>:>)Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-33399808830945416032007-08-27T00:44:00.000-04:002007-08-27T00:44:00.000-04:00"But deep down.....they are embarrassed about wher..."But deep down.....they are embarrassed about where they now find themselves . . ." You are giving them undeserved credit for having a conscience.<BR/><BR/>Duke ProfAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-32542246.post-20313898900077022442007-08-27T00:22:00.000-04:002007-08-27T00:22:00.000-04:00I have to agree with Gary Packwood's analysis of t...I have to agree with Gary Packwood's analysis of the Gritty Gang and their misguided janissaries.<BR/><BR/>They do not think KC is a crank...not deep down...when they are alone with their thoughts.<BR/><BR/>They also know very well that this blog is full of a panorama of people...from all backgrounds and persuasions....if they read at all.<BR/><BR/>Their only mindless and aimless defense against their own racist and bigoted behavior is <I>projection</I>.<BR/><BR/>They know that the entire country saw and knows well what those teaching at Duke did to their own students.<BR/><BR/>Some post nasty remarks to KC and the rest of us in hopes of convincing onlookers--and maybe even some participants--that we are all wrong about them and are just crackpots...or whatever.<BR/><BR/>But deep down.....they are embarrassed about where they now find themselves...on the human scale.<BR/><BR/>They have a bitter <I>envy</I> of KC right now. That much is clear.Debrahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04567454727276881424noreply@blogger.com