Posted on 01/16/2008 12:06:35 PM PST by abb
Former District Attorney Mike Nifong filed for bankruptcy protection Tuesday as city leaders, police and other officials began answering one of the federal civil-rights lawsuits triggered by the Duke lacrosse case.
Meanwhile, the first replies from defendants in the Evans/Finnerty/Seligmann lawsuit came Tuesday from Nifong's former investigator, Linwood Wilson, and DNA Securities Inc., the Burlington lab that tested samples gathered from the players and stripper who falsely accused them.
Late Tuesday, dismissal motions were also filed on behalf of City Manager Patrick Baker, former Police Chief Steve Chalmers, Deputy Police Chief Ron Hodge, Maj. Beverly Council, Maj. Lee Russ, Capt. Jeff Lamb and Lt. Mike Ripberger and separately, on behalf of Investigator Ben Himan, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, then-Cpl. David Addison and the city of Durham.
Nifong had not filed a motion for dismissal by Tuesday night's 11:59 p.m. deadline.
Nifong's bankruptcy petition said the disgraced and disbarred former prosecutor is facing up to $180.3 million in debt, the vast majority of it should he be found liable in pending civil rights cases filed by two groups of lacrosse players.
The petition listed prospective and separate $30 million debts to David Evans, Collin Finnerty, Reade Seligmann, Breck Archer, Ryan McFadyen and Matt Wilson.
Nifong secured indictments of Evans, Finnerty and Seligmann on what turned out to be false charges of rape, sexual assault and kidnapping. Archer, McFadyen and Wilson were not indicted, but say they were also harmed by a malicious drive to prosecute orchestrated by Nifong, Durham police and officials at Duke University.
The former DA claims ownership of a house, car and clothing worth a combined $243,898. He also has $9,210 in monthly income through his state pension and his wife's paycheck.
Nifong's listed potential creditors include the six men who've already sued him, most of the other members of Duke's 2005-06 men's lacrosse team and all of his fellow defendants in the two civil rights lawsuits triggered by the lacrosse case.
His petition shields most of his assets and forces anyone trying to recover money from him to work with a federal bankruptcy judge.
In the Evans/Finnerty/Seligmann lawsuit, lawyers for the city government were expected to argue that the city bears no responsibility for any of Nifong's actions, including his decision to seek indictments of the three players.
They were also likely to stress that prosecutors don't have to present exculpatory evidence to grand juries.
They were expected to contend that prospective defendants had no right under the Constitution to expect a police department to conduct an investigation in a certain way. Moreover, since the men never went to trial, there was never an opportunity for some of the things officials did to become a constitutional violation.
The city's case is also likely to rest heavily on the contention that the grand jury's decisions to indict the three men shielded police from liability.
The players' claim against the city, however, argues that false statements about the case made by officials like Hodge and Addison biased the grand jury against the lacrosse team.
Moreover, they contend that the department used an against-policy photo lineup to secure identifications of three suspects after senior officials brought pressure to bear on detectives. The suit also claims that authorities fabricated evidence against the players.
The early filings by Wilson and DNA Security sought dismissal of the lawsuit and rested heavily on legal argumentation. There was little discussion of the facts of the case.
Acting as his own lawyer, Wilson claimed immunity for any wrongful actions under a legal doctrine designed to shield government officials from lawsuits.
The U.S. Supreme Court, he said, has long held that prosecutors and their subordinates should enjoy absolute immunity from civil-rights claims stemming from official decisions to press criminal charges. It recognized that immunity "could result in situations where people were harmed by a dishonest prosecutor and had no legal redress," he said.
Wilson asserted that the immunity doctrine covered all his actions in the case, including his alleged attempts to intimidate an alibi witness for Seligmann and any role he played in hiding DNA evidence favorable to the players from their defense team.
Moreover, some of the supposed faults with the prosecution of the players weren't violations of federal law because they didn't include elements of racial or class bias, he said.
DNA Security's lawyer followed Wilson's filing by arguing that lab personnel accurately reported to Nifong the findings of their tests -- tests that tied DNA from multiple men but no lacrosse players to the accuser.
But the decision to withhold those findings and seek indictments of the players was Nifong's alone, they said, adding that the law didn't require the lab's staff to relay its findings directly to the defense.
Lawyers for Baker, Chalmers, Hodge, Council, Russ, Lamb and Ripberger filed their dismissal motion at about 10:50 p.m. Tuesday. The others followed after 11 p.m.
Their 50-page brief supporting the motion argued that claims targeting specific city officials duplicate claims against the city government generally. It also contended that the players didn't make any specific claim against Council or Russ.
The filings for Baker and the police commanders also acknowledged that the case law concerning civil-rights claims arising under Fourth Amendment strictures against unreasonable searches and seizures is "an unsettled area" of law.
They contend there was no constitutional violation because the players never went to trial.
In addition, "White Duke lacrosse players are not a protected class recognized as needing protection by the government" under federal civil-rights law, lawyers for Baker and the police commanders said.
Himan's lawyer said the detective did his duty by giving Nifong all the evidence available to police, including exculpatory evidence.
Defense responses in the Archer/McFadyen/Wilson civil-rights case remain weeks away.
In addition, "White Duke lacrosse players are not a protected class recognized as needing protection by the government" under federal civil-rights law, lawyers for Baker and the police commanders said.
ping
Glad to hear this bastards life is a living hell.
I see. So we must belong to a “protected class recognized as needing protection by the government” before we are allowed civil rights as guaranteed under the Constitution? Thank you for that civics lesson, Mayor Baker.
WTF. The case should not even be brought to the GJ if such evidence exists.
“White Duke lacrosse players are not a protected class recognized as needing protection by the government”
Talk about brazen racism on display!
Heres hoping he never has two nickles to rub together........ever
This kind of news makes me very happy . . . that a liberal coward and dirtbag got HIS! I’m excited. I hope he gets a job maybe at Wal-Mart passing out carts. Or maybe that would be too good for the creep!
And may he live a long long time.
Pretty much defines the mindset of this case from the beginning.
I can only hope here that at some point, a judge will openly question the qualifications to practice law of the lawyer that actually asserted this!
“They contend there was no constitutional violation because the players never went to trial.”
That’s the same SH!T we got. Bologna!!! It’s a racket and a rip off.
Bingo!
180 million???
How is that even possable???
who in Gods name does He owe that to???
His Lawyers????
180 Million??? why hasen’t anyone noticed this???
I’ll be happy when I read about his suicide.
I looked up the defintion of “white trash” and saw Nifong’s picture. The Great Oz Has Spoken
6 Lacrosse players suing * $30 mill /player = $180 million dollars.
You include all liabilities in a bankruptcy petition, even those you are contesting, if you want debt discharge, in other words if you know what's good for you.
30 million each for 6 lacrosse players = 180 million.
Pretty balls response on the part of the missing in action Chief of Police.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.