Today's items — updated:
Scott Michels / ABC News:
Duke Lacrosse Players, Families Consider Lawsuit Against University -- 'Majority' of the Players Have Hired a Lawyer and May Sue Duke -- A group of current and former Duke University lacrosse players and their families may sue the school over its treatment of the team in the aftermath of the Duke rape scandal, some of the families and their lawyer told ABC News.
Charles Cooper, a prominent Washington, D.C., attorney, confirmed that "a large majority" of the players and their families have hired him to explore the possibility of suing the university. Cooper would not comment on the basis of any potential lawsuit or whether or when one might be filed.
But, several families who have retained Cooper, most of whom spoke only on the condition of anonymity, said that they expected a decision to be made soon and that a suit probably would be filed. They said they were angry about the way the university; its president, Richard Brodhead; and some of the faculty treated the entire team after a black woman accused several white players of raping her at a team party. [...]
ABC News Reports on Suit Against Duke University, Charles Cooper of DC is Attorney for LAX
KC Johnson: ABC on Lawsuit Possibility
Duke Lacrosse Players, Families Consider Lawsuit Against University
"False Light", a new cause of action? -- FALSE LIGHT is a legal tort similar to DEFAMATION, and is described by Wikipedia as follows:
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability for invasion of privacy, [...]
- Court of Public Opinion Conference Schedule
- More Bryan
- More Marketing 101 from DNA Security
- Denigrating Procedure
- Bilas: Brodhead, Steel Should Resign [5 stars]
- A Crisis for Peter Wood?
From the beginning, President Brodhead abdicated his responsibility as Duke’s leader to stand up for fairness and truth. Instead, President Brodhead chose the path of political expediency. He failed to effectively counter factually inaccurate and inappropriate statements about Duke and its students, failed to forcefully speak out against procedural irregularities, and failed to take appropriate action in response to repeated attacks upon the due process rights of Duke’s students. That is unacceptable...source:
President Brodhead should resign or be dismissed...
the resignation of Mr. Steel and any board members that acted in lock step with President Brodhead are also appropriate.
Duke Magazine / Forum -- Lacrosse: The Latest Round -- See other letters including one from G88 member, Wahneema Lubiano.
What does Duke gain by keeping Brodhead in place? Is the Brodhead academic cancer incurable? Forget Brodhead's guilt presuming rhetoric in March and April 2006. As one DIW commenter said, his months and months of "silence ate like cancer at justice, honor and hope."
Jay Bilas, Calls for Brodhead (and Steel) to resign
Duke Basketball Report:
Bilas in Duke Magazine
LS forum: Mr. Ofuscation's Latest product
Four Emmys For 60 Minutes --
The Duke Rape Case
Correspondent Ed Bradley
Executive Producer Jeff Fager
Executive Editor Patti Hassler
Senior Broadcast Producer Michael Whitney
Senior Producer Michael Radutzky
Producer Tanya Simon
The Neverending Story [see comments] -- If you thought the $30-million lawsuit against Durham was the end of the lacrosse litigation, think again. According to blogger KC Johnson, "Duke, its administrators, and its extremist professors are not out of the legal woods yet.... A high-powered legal team representing most of the other 44 members of the 2006 lacrosse team is exploring a possible lawsuit."
Johnson added that the grounds for such a suit could include "mistreating the entire team, including misleading smears of the players by Duke President Richard Brodhead and dozens of professors." In this scenario, attorneys would likely argue that those "misleading smears" were slanderous and asserting that Duke should be held liable for the actions of its employees.
A more creative rationale could hold that participation on the 2006 team constituted a de facto contract to play for the University. Because Board of Trustees Chair Bob Steel admitted that negative publicity ended the team's season (Steel told The New Yorker he did it "to stop those pictures... it doesn't necessarily mean I think it was right"), attorneys might argue that this justification was not sufficient to legally void that contract. [...]
Durham residents are responsible for Nifong
In her Sept. 22 letter, Cindy Wrenn stated, "They (the Duke three) should be suing Mike Nifong and the woman who falsely accused them of rape" and she also asserts, "They (Durham's citizens) had nothing to do with what happened." That is completely illogical.
The citizens of Durham elected Mike Nifong as their DA last November, long after it was abundantly clear (multiple DNA results, solid alibi documentation, lie detractor examinations, non-corroborative testimony from the second "dancer," ever-changing accusations from the accuser, bogus photographic-array lineups, Nifong's outrageous prosecutorial misconduct, and so much more), that the lacrosse case was without merit and no criminal charges were warranted.
This is not my opinion. It is the factual conclusion reached by North Carolina Attorney General Cooper and his professional, unbiased investigators. Durham's citizens had the opportunity to evaluate all this information and to deny Nifong election. They did not do so. Therefore, Durham's citizens are accountable for their miserable electoral decisions. Further, Durham's citizens are financial responsible for the criminal misdeeds of their police force and their prosecutor.