Infamous "Duke 88" (Professors Who Adjudged Lacross Guilty) To be Huge Civil Suit Targets

Dinner with other lawyers | MB26

[Northern Alliance]

The source of this analysis is exactly who?

[common denominator]

Can they nail Nancy Grace while they are at it?

[Jeffrey_D.]

Good.....you do Reap what you Sow !!!!

[Plains Drifter]

Thank’s

[eleni121]

Thus to tyrants.

I say

Sue the pants off the Duke fortune as well as the University-—they failed in their duty of “in loco parentis”

[af_vet_1981]

The real targets will be the Duke 88.

Let it be.

[fidèle]

If it were you or your child I bet you’d think differently.

Somehow things done to you that affect your real life give such a different perspective from the one given while enjoying anonymity behind a computer screen in the comfort of your armchair.

[gracesdad]

The hypocrisy on this thread is breathtaking. May as well just make Edwards the lead in the lawsuit.

[Inquisitive1]

http://listening.nfshost.com/listening.htm

[word_warrior_bob]

I think this miserable excuse for a human being is trying to choose his own punishment, as if being disbarred is some great tragedy for a lawyer, prison is for “real” criminals.

This despicable cretin violated the public trust and in the name of his insatiable lust for power and would have had NO TROUBLE putting those boys in prison for 20 years or more for crimes he knew they were not guilty of.

My Nifong rant.

I honestly believe he needs to be in jail for 20 years before he’s eligible for
parole, he’s a dangerous criminal, he was willing to railroad innocent young men into long prison terms. As for the argument that murderers aren’t serving 20 years, etc., THAT’S WRONG TOO!!

If I woke up tomorrow and found out that Mike Nifong hung himself or put a bullet in his pituful brain I would feel no sadness. If he doesn’t serve a long stretch in prison there’s something really wrong here.

[Krankor]

Unless they want to file nuisance suits to see what they can get or to just aggravate the faculty members who signed the ad, this is a waste of time. There’s bothing libelous in this ad. The ad deals mostly with “racial climate” rather than any real specifics of the case. Let’s face it, the lacrosse guys were drinking and some of them made some nasty racial comments. Even if they did win at trial level in front of a sympathetic jury, an appeals court would overturn it.

[rabscuttle385]

“We thank the following departments and programs for signing onto this ad with African & African American Studies: Romance Studies; Psychology: Social and Health Sciences; Franklin Humanities Institute; Critical U.S. Studies; Art, Art History, and Visual Studies; Classical Studies; Asian & African Languages & Literature; Women’s Studies; Latino/a Studies; Latin American and Caribbean Studies; Medieval and Renaissance Studies; European Studies; Program in Education; and the Center for Documentary Studies. Because of space limitations, the names of individual faculty and staff who signed on in support may be read at the AAAS website:http://www.duke.edu/web/africanameric";

All worthless.

[MonicaG]

Great post, thanks for sharing about the dinner conversation. I hope that justice is served on the Duke 88 in this lifetime.

[gracesdad]

Art is worthless? History is worthless?

I’ll have to disagree with your definition of worthless.

[JCEccles]

Has Al Sharpton ever paid a dime for inciting the Tawana Brawley outrage?

I would like to be optimistic about this, but I find that very difficult inasmuch as the targets of the lawsuits are prominent liberals.

[MinuteGal]

I read the ad very carefully. To me it looks like the ad was vetted by their attorneys......and there's nothing-to-little in it to be legally libelous.

There are strict standards to be met before libel suits can be successful, although, of course, anyone can sue for libel.

I don't think we should get too excited about the evil 88 getting a payback.

As a disclaimer, I'm not an attorney, I only play one on TV.

Leni

[MinuteGal]

I read the ad very carefully. To me it looks like the ad was vetted by their attorneys......and there's nothing-to-little in it to be legally libelous.

There are strict standards to be met before libel suits can be successful, although, of course, anyone can sue for libel.

I don't think we should get too excited about the evil 88 getting a payback.

As a disclaimer, I'm not an attorney, I only play one on TV.

Leni

[MinuteGal]

Sorry for the double post.

I plead no contest.

Leni

[sirchtruth]

If it were you or your child I bet you’d think differently.

Somehow things done to you that affect your real life give such a different perspective from the one given while enjoying anonymity behind a computer screen in the comfort of your armchair.

That doesn't matter in the least bit when it comes to the legality of what this gang of 88 signed. It may have been shotty, but not slanderous. There was no liable, or slander unless I'm missing something.

Infact if you read the statement, no one even accused these boys, indirectly. Like I said, all the statement inferred was, liberal dribble, that's it.

[trubolotta]

As taught on today’s college campus, art and history are worse than worthless. They provide the victim justification that enables each student to blame there own shortcomings, inadequacies and severe character flaws on someone else. It is insidiously woven throughout the liberal art curriculum.