Click the baby's bottle!
Many thanks, JoeProBono
Uh oh! This little guy is already breathing fire.
He's going to be a mean one!
Donate monthly to keep the mean dragons away
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 02/04/2012 5:00:45 PM PST by abb
LSU AD Alleva Deposed in Duke Lacrosse Suit Posted by: Walter Abbott on Saturday, February 4, 2012, 18:20
Louisiana State University (LSU) Athletic Director Joe Alleva was deposed last month in a lawsuit filed nearly five years ago regarding the notorious Duke Lacrosse Case, where a prostitute falsely accused three Duke University lacrosse players of rape.
Alleva was Duke’s athletic director at the time and was famously quoted as telling lacrosse coach Mike Pressler as he was cancelling the team’s season that “It’s not about the truth anymore,” because of the intense media coverage of the controversy.
Mike Nifong, the district attorney who filed the bogus charges was later disbarred and spent a night in jail for his role in the attempted lynching.
From the latest filing in McFadyen v Duke:
During his deposition on January 20, 2012, Mr. Alleva testified that he made positive and truthful statements about Plaintiffs and their teammates’ character at the University’s press conference on March 28, 2006.
See here the court filing.
See here earlier coverage of Joe Alleva at Lincoln Parish News Online (LPNO).
Archive for the ‘Joe Alleva’ Category
ping
Saying the wheels of justice turn slowly would be a gross understatement.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
How many continuances were granted to the defendants?
Mike Nifong, the district attorney who filed the bogus charges was later disbarred and spent a night in jail for his role in the attempted lynching.It was a pleasure reading that again. :')
I am glad they are suing Duke however. The whorehouse that passes for a university needs shut down, period and permanently.
Take a look here at this thread and see a couple of emails between Duke U administrators that were exhibits in the latest filings.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/4677109/1/?x=50#new
If I’d had my druthers, Mike Nifong would’ve spent a helluva lot more time than that in jail. He didn’t seem to care one whit whether or not those young men spent any time behind bars. Thank God AG Cooper had the chutzpah to declare them innocent, which was an incredible declaration!
On April 2, 2011, Magnum was arrested for allegedly stabbing and seriously injuring her boyfriend. She was charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious bodily injury, a class C felony in North Carolina. Her boyfriend later died in the hospital. Magnum is currently being held in jail under a $300,000 secured bond, which was set prior to her boyfriend's death. On December, 2011 she was deemed mentally competent to stand trial for his murder.
This 32-year old mother of three is a real piece of work.
She was also charged with 5 counts of arson and ID theft.
THAT is who the cops believed over all these men.
There is a HUGE lesson, there.
The charges were upgraded (downgraded?) to Murder One.
http://www.heraldsun.com/view/full_story/12840192/article-Crystal-Mangum-indicted-for-murder
Crystal Mangum indicted for murder
Richard Brodhead is still fighting for his job when he should have been crucified years ago.
Quite possible. So why do the judges allow these continuances. So why do the plaintiffs permit their lawyers to acquiesce to the defendants continuances.
The problem (if you want to call it that) is civil discovery. It takes a long time. You have to make the other side cough up documents, review them, interview witnesses, check their stories out, find corroboration, then take depositions. Those depositions generally "lead to the discovery of admissible evidence," so you rinse, and repeat. Then there are experts to hire, interview, depose.
Five years is not a long time for a case like this, with hundreds of witnesses and many disputed facts, plus a core issue of 'intent' which is very difficult to prove.
Also part of the problem (and this is a problem) is legal malpractice claims. Lawyers turn over every doggone stone for the same reason that doctors order tons and tons of unnecessary tests -- to cover their hindquarters in the event of a malpractice suit.
We certainly don't want to go back to the pre-Civil Practice Act days, when it was 'trial by ambush' with no discovery and demurrer pleading. (I can just barely remember those days, which will inform you that I am ancient.) But discovery abuse could be ameliorated if lawyers could get some protection from abusive malpractice claims.
In this particular case - that I have been following and writing about for nearly six years - the judge (James Beaty, Jr., NC Middle District) is allowing things to drag out far too long. I don’t trust him at all.
So when do we learn what role the police chief played in all this?
He disappeared immediately, supposedly to care for his sick mother.
What is/was his relationship with Crystal? Father of her children? Her employer?
Personally I see little room for Duke’s officers to stand on.
Their intent is obvious and their actions speak for themselves. I only see their dragging this case out as doing more harm than good to the university.
At least state court judges usually have to stand for re-election, so if they don't do their jobs they get bounced.
I'll defer to you because I don't know the man from Adam's house cat -- but five years in a Federal suit is nothing. You may not trust him, but that's not a reason for distrust.
To pick a nit, the Attorney General declared that no crime had been committed. I've used this against several liberal back-bench lawyer-wanna-bees that complain about the "AG declaring them innocent without a jury hearing".
He’s one of the defendants in the suits. We’ll get to him (Chalmers) eventually.
When you're dealing with the 'intentions' of people, you have to cover every base because they will try to explain bad motivations away with some excuse.
I agree with you that the longer this drags on, the worse it looks for Duke. Of course, the initial scandal was bad enough - this just keeps it in the news.
My daughter was applying to colleges about the time this all broke, and we crossed Duke off the list. Even though my mom was Duke '48.
Though I never defended a high-profile case like this, I would think that somebody should have contemplated settlement very, very seriously rather than let things drag on this long. But the same pride and liberal delusions, plus blind belief in their own perfection, led to the scandal in the first place and will probably lead them to go to trial. They might get lucky, but they may have a hard fall.
An interesting thing about trying this in federal court is that Duke will not get a Durham jury. The panel will be drawn from all over the division (five counties), and I don't think Duke will get much sympathy outside its immediate orbit.
No one seemed to bat an eye when the chief dropped out of sight. I can’t wait until he is deposed.
You may be right, but I definitely heard Cooper say that the three were innocent. As soon as he proclaimed it, there were gasps from those gathered.
A NIGHT?
He tried to put boys he knew not to be guilty in jail to gain a political advantage in an election and spends ONE NIGHT in jail?
THAT SHOULD BE MANDATORY 20 YEARS (in general population- A prosectutor would have a lot of fun there with guys he probably sent there)
A NIGHT?
He tried to put boys he knew not to be guilty in jail to gain a political advantage in an election and spends ONE NIGHT in jail?
THAT SHOULD BE MANDATORY 20 YEARS (in general population- A prosectutor would have a lot of fun there with guys he probably sent there)
Of course shysters pile up billable hours, that’s their job! And where did you get the idea that in an adversarial judicial system “justice” is the shyster’s job!?
Hypothetical: I get caught for felony theft. I hire an attorney. If I find out that rascal has taken my money and is working for “Justice” as opposed to getting me off, I’ll have him before the Ethics Board, have him on the wrong end of a civil suit, and might well get him disbarred!
Actually Duke is a pretty good school. Just give them the SMU “death penalty” on all intermural NCAA sports as happened to SMUs football program.
Broadhead. Isn’t that the name of a certain kind of catfish?
The Duke Lacrosse case wasn’t the first time.
While at Yale he tried to destroy James Van de Velde’s career:
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/070611
Truly a despicable sack of ...Broadhead.
By the way, note how far ahead of the curve this Van de Velde guy was at the time.
Actually, its the plaintiffs who are resistant to a settlement. We over at Liestoppers have some limited contact with them, and infrequently correspond.
You see, the entire thing was a frameup from the start. The cops, Duke, Nifong - all of them knew there was no rape from the beginning and before it hit the headlines. But they pushed it anyway, for various reasons - DA Nifong, to win an election; Duke, to curry favor with the Marxist crowd on campus; the cops, to settle old scores with uppity students; the prostitute accuser, to score a big payday. And so on.
The plaintiffs overarching goal is that the truth of the attempted lynching be exposed for the world to see. It isn't about settlements or money.
It's about the truth.
As it should always be. More power to the TRUTH!
How often does that happen, not “not guilty”, not “innocent”, but “no crime in the first place?” Especially in a case of this seriousness and publicity. Rare? Rare-squared? Off the graph? Never heard of it?
That being the case, all bets are off.
Duke has offered a substantial sum in settlement, which has been refused? Then the defendants will twist and turn and try to delay the trial, but the whole purpose of delay on the part of the defense is to try to leverage a settlement. If the plaintiffs aren't interested in a settlement, then all the delay in the world will, in the end, do no good.
And sooner or later the judge is going to deny a motion for extension of discovery time, and set a trial date.
If they are just deposing Alleva, though, and haven't yet deposed the police chief, and the defendants are filing motions for protective orders to limit discovery, we are probably not near the end of discovery.
But this could get . . . interesting.
I was completely blown away. I don't recollect EVER hearing any public official say anything so absolutely uncompromising. That's the point at which you say, "Uh-oh." Especially if you're in the DA's office.
FYI, Locomotive Breath (who has followed the case from the very beginning) was actually AT that press conference. He was denied access to the room because of overcrowding. At least that was the excuse used.
Yes. Lots of discovery yet to go, and all of it very revealing. Which is why Duke U has spent uncounted millions trying to prevent it.
One other tidbit: There’s no statute of limitations on felonies in North Carolina. And since it was a deliberate attempt to pin a rap on innocent people, there’s plenty to go around.
Although some have moved on to other higher ed jobs, most are still at Duke. It will take lots of work to root them out.
Before you take depositions, you have to have the documents to pin the deponent down. So the plaintiffs sent requests for production to Duke and the other defendants. Duke filed motions for protective order, those were heard and the judge ordered them to produce documents, which they then produced in a "document dump" of thousands of irrelevant similar items. The plaintiffs' lawyers (actually, their paralegals and summer associates) sat around and sifted through the silt of thousands of documents to come up with the nuggets of evidentiary gold.
Those items lead, of course, to more items which the defendants had hoped to avoid producing. Another round of motions to compel/for protective order ensues - and it looks like that's what we're seeing as depositions get under way.
The judge is probably getting irritated about now. If the plaintiffs can show that one or more defendants have been playing 'hide the ball' with documents, things may get pretty intense.
We'll await developments with interest. It seems clear to me that there was malfeasance at the bottom of this (that was pretty darn clear as soon as the AG made his bombshell announcement). Just how blatant will depend on the documents that surface -- and how truthful the deponents are under oath.
The justification given me was that only media were being allowed in. The announcement was made at the RBC center which seats $18,000 so overcrowding was not exactly an issue. One other main member of liestoppers was there and she told me that CGM and some of her enablers also were there and trying to get in.
The justification given me was that only media were being allowed in. The announcement was made at the RBC center which seats 18,000 so overcrowding was not exactly an issue. One other main member of liestoppers was there and she told me that CGM and some of her enablers also were there and trying to get in.
Ah, yes, now I remember. I would have given lots of money to have been there with you that day.
http://thehayride.com/2012/02/joe-allevas-story-shifting-duke-lacrosse-problem/
Joe Alleva’s Story-Shifting Duke Lacrosse Problem
Posted by: Walter Abbott on Sunday, February 5, 2012, 15:37
Tagged with: Duke Lacrosse Case LSU
Having reported on LSU athletic director Joe Alleva’s having been deposed in the Duke Lacrosse lawsuit earlier this morning, we now bring you some of his deposition. Alleva’s statements don’t particularly favor his credibility or help his former employer.
Alleva said this six years ago, March 28, 2006:
Statement by Athletics Director Joe Alleva Responding to Student Request to Suspend Season
Durham, N.C. – I completely agree with President Brodhead’s statement and appreciate his leadership throughout this trying situation. As unsettling as this has been for our entire community, dealing with difficult circumstances is part of the educational process. In a meeting this morning, our student-athletes made it clear to us that their behavior was inappropriate and recommended the suspension of their own season until the legal process is complete. Both President Brodhead and I agreed with them. Quite simply, it would not be in the best interest of the student-athletes, the coaches, or our entire University community to continue competition given the seriousness of the allegations. The Duke University Department of Athletics has always attempted to maintain the highest standards on and off the playing fields, and we will continue to do so as we move beyond the uncertainty in this current situation involving our lacrosse program.
Now he’s changed stories:
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO THE DUKE DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING COUNT 21
Further proof of Duke’s media strategy has recently been established in former Athletic Director Joe Alleva’s sworn testimony. During his deposition on January 20, 2012, Mr. Alleva testified that he made positive and truthful statements about Plaintiffs and their teammates’ character at the University’s press conference on March 28, 2006. Mr. Alleva testified that he was “crucified” immediately afterwards for making those statements by President Brodhead himself and in front of the Crisis Management Team, all of whom knew how “off-message” Mr. Alleva’s truthful, positive statements about Plaintiffs were.
The question now is why did Alleva wait six (6) years to speak out? Why didn’t he speak up in March of 2006 and put a stop to the attempted lynching of his student athletes?
Here is the case file. There are two other lawsuits, but this is the one that has the most recent activity.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/north-carolina/ncmdce/1:2007cv00953/47494/
It was mostly a waste of time. When I couldn’t get in, I had to go back to work and listen to the presser on the radio. “J” who was there with one other told me later they watched it in a nearby bar.
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.