FIVE Years LATER the sicko Duke Administration answers for their sick behavior
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO THE DUKE DEFENDANTS’
ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING COUNT 21
s1.zetaboards.com
(snip)
They complain that Plaintiffs seek documents relating to the public relations
strategy that drove the Duke Defendants’ conduct and decisions in responding to
Crystal Mangum’s false accusations. Specifically, they assert that “the firing of former
Head Coach Mike Pressler,” “President Brodhead’s television interviews,” the
establishment of “a committee to examine the culture of the lacrosse team,” and the
“decision to cancel the remainder of the Duke University Men’s Lacrosse 2006
Season” are all irrelevant to the suspensions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ breach of
contract claims. Defs.’ Reply 7-8. This is extraordinarily misleading to the Court.
Duke ignores the glaring fact that all of the events cited above occurred on
April 5, 2006, the same day (within hours) that Ryan McFadyen was unilaterally
suspended in violation of every procedural protection the University promises to all
students before taking such action, giving rise to his breach of contract claim. In fact,
all of the events – including the suspension of Ryan McFadyen – were discussed
together in Duke’s publically issued Statement on April 5, 2006 and President Richard
Brodhead’s April 5, 2006 Letter to the Community; both the Statement and Letter to
the Community were posted together on Duke University’s website on April 5, 2006.
Furthermore, President Brodhead announced these events and the University’s
decisions together during nationally televised interviews he gave on April 5, 2006.
Duke also ignores the correspondence among its most senior administrators
(e.g., the President of the University, the Provost, and the Vice President for Student
Affairs) which show that the their April 5th
decisions were all closely related and were
all driven by the Duke Defendants’ media and public relations “strategy” and “script.”
For example, in an email from President Brodhead to Vice President for Student
Affairs Larry Moneta, the President states:
“Friends: a difficult question is, how can we support our
lacrosse players at a devastatingly hard time without
seeming to lend aid and comfort to their version of the
story? We can’t do anything to side with them, or even,
if they are exonerated, to imply that they behaved with
honor. The central admin can[’]t, nor can Athletics.”
Exhibit 2 (President Brodhead’s email to VP Larry Moneta) (emphasis supplied). In
response to President Brodhead’s email, Vice President Moneta wrote: “The dilemma,
of course, is with public acknowledgement of our support without feeding the
‘coverup’ [sic] allegations…” See id. (Email from VP Moneta to President Brodhead
dated April 10, 2006).
Later, President Brodhead reported to Provost Lange that he and Chairman of
the University’s Board of Trustees Robert Steel have been faithful to the PR “script”
saying:
“I have been careful not to say that I am confident the
players are innocent though certainly a large number of them are
of the criminal charge. I continue to her [sic] this message
and so does Bob Steel, who will beat up on me about it
again later today.”
Exhibit 3 at 2 (Emails from President Brodhead to Provost Lange dated April 24,
2006) (emphasis supplied). President Brodhead reminds Provost Lange that all of
them “need to be on script” regarding Plaintiffs and their teammates. See id. at 1.
1
But that is not all. 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 University’s “strategy” and “script” of course, were designed by the
consulting firms targeted by Plaintiffs’ subpoenas. Because Plaintiffs’ suspensions
were driven by the University’s “strategy,” Plaintiffs’ subpoenas seeking documents
relating to that “strategy” is well within the scope of discovery and this Court’s two
Orders.
From the beginning of this litigation, Plaintiffs alleged that Plaintiffs’
suspensions were driven entirely by Duke’s decision to protect its corporate brand at
the expense of the Plaintiffs’ good names and their reputations.
Plaintiffs even embedded footage of
Duke’s President executing Duke’s media strategy on nationally broadcast interviews
in which he announces that Ryan McFadyen was suspended without notice or
hearing, thereby subjecting him to national and international public obloquy on the
eve of indictments.
Finally, Duke is plainly aware that the materials sought in Plaintiffs’ subpoenas
to Duke’s public relations consultants will produce materials that evince their willful
and wanton conduct, their malice, their deliberate indifference to Plaintiffs’ rights, and
their participation in and ratification of that wrongful conduct by their officers,
directors, and managing employees. The materials are therefore directly relevant to
Plaintiffs’ entitlement to punitive damages, for the egregiously wrongful conduct
accompanying the conduct giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract and
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
Plaintiffs have not violated Rule 26 or the Court’s two Orders in any way. The
Duke Defendants ignore this Court's rule limiting reply briefs solely "to discussion of
matters newly raised in the response." LR 7.3. Instead, they abandon most of their
opening arguments (e.g., claims of "confidential commercial information,"
"harassment," and the need for a "general protective order") and fashion entirely new
arguments to support their purported need for a protective order preventing Plaintiffs
from discovering the materials sought in their subpoenas. Such shifting of claims and
contentions in a reply brief is precisely what LR 7.3(h) forbids. Thus, even if Duke's
new contentions had merit (and they do not), they would be entitled to no weight in
this Court's consideration of Duke's unfounded motion for protection from
subpoenas directed to other entities.
The Motion should be denied.
    Quasimodo Yesterday, 9:58 PM Post #2
Posts:15,530Group:Tier1Member#17Joined:Apr 28, 2008
 Quote:
“Friends: a difficult question is, how can we support our
lacrosse players at a devastatingly hard time without
seeming to lend aid and comfort to their version of the
story? We can’t do anything to side with them, or even,
if they are exonerated, to imply that they behaved with
honor. The central admin can[’]t, nor can Athletics.”
That says it all ...
Quasimodo Yesterday, 10:00 PM Post #3
Posts:15,530Group:Tier1Member#17Joined:Apr 28, 2008
Quote:
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.
cks Yesterday, 10:17 PM Post #4
Posts:4,556Group:Tier1Member#445Joined:Mar 1, 2009
Wow!
Quasimodo Yesterday, 10:19 PM Post #5
Posts:15,530Group:Tier1Member#17Joined:Apr 28, 2008
Quote:
Brodhead April 24, 2006, 7:46 AM
Subject: alienated lacrosse players and coaches
I have been careful not to say that I am confident the players are innocent though certainly a large number of them are of the criminal charge. I continue to her (sic) this message and so does Bob Steel,
who will beat up on me about it again later today. If either of you have ideas about this, pls let me hear them. Trouble is, by “reach out” they mean something different from having a chat with Chris Kennedy or
someone from CAPS. I believe they want an acknowledgement of their innocence, and that’s where we are stuck. Or maybe they just want someone to meet with them and show a humane face? I have done that with 2 sets of parents in the last week and it went fine. I am mindful, here, that even Mr. Nifong spoke of wishing to lift the cloud of suspicion from those who will not be charged.
"I have been careful not to say that I am confident the players are innocent"
THIS IS AFTER THE DNA RESULTS WERE KNOWN.
Edited by Quasimodo, Yesterday, 10:20 PM.
chatham Yesterday, 10:25 PM Post #6
Posts:5,844Group:Tier1Member#308Joined:May 2, 2008
It's almost like proof there was a frame.
Quasimodo Yesterday, 10:32 PM Post #7
Posts:15,530Group:Tier1Member#17Joined:Apr 28, 2008
Peter Lange's response to Brodhead, 8:14 AM
Quote:
My view is that the absence of contacts with the assistant coaches--if true--and low contact with the players is probably mistaken. I think Sue, perhaps Larry, and possibly Kathleen could seek them out and have a conversation that, without committing on the facts, offers support as they end the year and take their exams. We could also let them know that we are anxious for the case to be definitive and hence the cloud over the non-involved, whether all or some, to be lifted. And don’t you have an occasion this week with the seniors eve at your home? Or is that next week?
Now here’s for me the downside: 1 ) It is possible that the DA has so screwed up this case that the guilty will never be found so, even though there are some; 2) the biggest cloud is that there was some cover-up b some--that is, some know more than they are saying.
I know these are both obvious points but they need somehow to be kept in mind even as we do the support thing.
This sounds to me as if Lange still believes in the possibility of guilt.
Did Brodhead also believe in that possibility--and was he misleading others at Duke as to the PR line that
was being followed?
Because Alleva was being "crucified" for deviating from the official line in public, and on March 28.
Was Lange NOT a part of the CMT?
Quasimodo Yesterday, 10:40 PM Post #8
Posts:15,530Group:Tier1Member#17Joined:Apr 28, 2008
Brodhead response, 1:22 PM
Quote:
Well, that’s it in a nutshell. I do think Sue and Kathleen cd do it--doubt they would welcome Larry---and perhaps Joe should do something? But they all need to be on script, as far as what we’re saying about the legal dimensions. Did you ever see the movie with Edward Norton about the catholic elementary school?
"Primal Fear"--"an altar boy is accused of murdering a priest, and the truth is buried several layers deep."
Quasimodo Yesterday, 10:45 PM Post #9
Posts:15,530Group:Tier1Member#17Joined:Apr 28, 2008
Email address for the review committee for President Brodhead:
pres-review@duke.edu
chatham Yesterday, 10:48 PM Post #10
Posts:5,844Group:Tier1Member#308Joined:May 2, 2008
Lange did not believe in the possibility of guilt. Lange clearly stated that there were guilty and they would never be found. Could Lange be that stupid to think nifong could mess up the case that bad? Does not make any sense especially after the DNA came back.
In the back of my mind I am wondering if Lange was trying to make brodhead look bad???
Quasimodo Yesterday, 10:51 PM Post #11
Posts:15,530Group:Tier1Member#17Joined:Apr 28, 2008
"Primal Fear" synopsis:
Quote:
fandango.com
A high-profile slaying becomes the case of an ambitious attorney's career in this legal thriller based on the novel by William Diehl. Richard Gere stars as Martin Vail, a famed defense lawyer who volunteers his services to Aaron Stampler (Edward Norton), a Kentucky teenager charged with the murder of a Chicago archbishop. Covered with blood, Aaron was captured after a foot chase broadcast live on TV, making a gleeful Vail certain that he could raise his profile by defending the obviously guilty suspect. Assigned to prosecute is Assistant District Attorney Janet Venable (Laura Linney), who is Vail's ex-girlfriend. Vail's case becomes more complicated than he expected when a psychologist, Dr. Molly Arrington (Frances McDormand) concludes that Stampler suffers from multiple personality disorder. Vail also uncovers evidence that the archbishop was involved in a corrupt land scheme and may have molested young parishioners. Now the cynical, opportunistic attorney is faced with a daunting prospect, a client who may actually deserve his best defense. Its shocking, twist ending made Primal Fear (1996) a big box office hit and earned Norton, in his screen debut, an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor.
Odd, to me, that Brodhead would suggest a movie in which an "obviously guilty" suspect may not be so guilty; instead of
a movie about an open-and-shut rape.
IIRC (I may not), the Church (the "institution" in this instance) is more interested in cover-up and PR than in getting the truth out...
pjr Yesterday, 11:21 PM Post #12
Posts:155Group:MembersMember#242Joined:Apr 29, 2008
Even though we all knew in general what was going on behind the scenes, seeing some of the actual words amplifies the nefariousness. One can just imagine the poor quality of the advice that they were paying for. If it doesn't consider innocence, or says something to the effect that it doesn't matter whether people were innocent or guilty, then their situation grows even worse.
Words/phrases like "crucifying" and "beating up" those that strayed that far down the timeline are going to be killers to a jury. What about the Duke beat cops? What words will describe the treatment that their officers on the scene got, I wonder? Doing this when there were red flags signalling innocence in indefensible.
Quasimodo Yesterday, 11:22 PM Post #13
Posts:15,530Group:Tier1Member#17Joined:Apr 28, 2008
Quote:
or even,
if they are exonerated, to imply that they behaved with
honor
What kind of educator--what kind of person-says that?
Quasimodo Yesterday, 11:24 PM Post #14
Posts:15,530Group:Tier1Member#17Joined:Apr 28, 2008
Quote:
Words/phrases like "crucifying" and "beating up" those that strayed that far down the timeline are going to be killers to a jury. What about the Duke beat cops? What words will describe the treatment that their officers on the scene got, I wonder?
Very telling....
Quasimodo Yesterday, 11:27 PM Post #15
Posts:15,530Group:Tier1Member#17Joined:Apr 28, 2008
How much of Duke's money has been spent to keep this from becoming public?
And in order to protect what--Duke? Or Brodhead and Steel and the rest?
MikeZPU Yesterday, 11:31 PM Post #16
Posts:3,659Group:Tier1Member#92Joined:Apr 28, 2008
I hope and pray that Judge Beatty makes the right decision and allows
Eckstrand to subpoena Duke's correspondence with the two PR firms.
I think they will paint a devastating picture for Duke.
pjr Yesterday, 11:32 PM Post #17
Posts:155Group:MembersMember#242Joined:Apr 29, 2008
QuasimodoFeb 3 2012, 11:27 PM
How much of Duke's money has been spent to keep this from becoming public?
And in order to protect what--Duke? Or Brodhead and Steel and the rest?
The money in these sums are important, I get it. But it's almost as if they still want to hang onto the old narrative forever, and to retain the right to use the same treatment for future sinners against the Code of the Politically Correct. It was such a powerful tool, undoubtedly greatly lamented.
MikeZPU Yesterday, 11:37 PM Post #18
Posts:3,659Group:Tier1Member#92Joined:Apr 28, 2008
QuasimodoFeb 3 2012, 09:58 PM
Quote:
“Friends: a difficult question is, how can we support our
lacrosse players at a devastatingly hard time without
seeming to lend aid and comfort to their version of the
story? We can’t do anything to side with them, or even,
if they are exonerated, to imply that they behaved with
honor. The central admin can[’]t, nor can Athletics.”
That says it all ...
This is an absolutely nonsensical and lame excuse by Brodhead to throw the
LAX players under the bus and to feed them to the angry mob.
I wish The Chronicle would print these emails.
Edited by MikeZPU, Yesterday, 11:48 PM.
MikeZPU Today, 12:08 AM Post #19
Posts:3,659Group:Tier1Member#92Joined:Apr 28, 2008
QuasimodoFeb 3 2012, 09:58 PM
Quote:
“Friends: a difficult question is, how can we support our
lacrosse players at a devastatingly hard time without
seeming to lend aid and comfort to their version of the
story? We can’t do anything to side with them, or even,
if they are exonerated, to imply that they behaved with
honor. The central admin can[’]t, nor can Athletics.”
That says it all ...
Just think about what Brodhead is saying here.
Brodhead indicates that he is fully aware that the LAX players
are suffering through a "devastatingly hard time."
But what is Brodhead worried about? If they're exonerated, he's worried
that they might be expected to say something nice about the LAX players.
Right now, this is even too much for me to handle.
LTC8K6 Today, 12:32 AM Post #20
Assistant to The Devil Himself
Posts:11,506Group:Tier1Member#15Joined:Apr 28, 2008
MikeZPUFeb 4 2012, 12:08 AM
QuasimodoFeb 3 2012, 09:58 PM
Quote:
“Friends: a difficult question is, how can we support our
lacrosse players at a devastatingly hard time without
seeming to lend aid and comfort to their version of the
story? We can’t do anything to side with them, or even,
if they are exonerated, to imply that they behaved with
honor. The central admin can[’]t, nor can Athletics.”
That says it all ...
Just think about what Brodhead is saying here.
Brodhead indicates that he is fully aware that the LAX players
are suffering through a "devastatingly hard time."
But what is Brodhead worried about? If they're exonerated, he's worried
that they might be expected to say something nice about the LAX players.
Right now, this is even too much for me to handle.
That's some kind of twisted self-serving logic...
I'm glad I can't understand the thought process behind it...
sdsgo Today, 1:14 AM Post #21
Posts:1,292Group:Tier1Member#65Joined:Apr 28, 2008
Someone once told me, "Truth is a function of time." Well the time has finally come hear the truth.
Thanks Quasi.
Quasimodo Today, 7:47 AM Post #22
Posts:15,530Group:Tier1Member#17Joined:Apr 28, 2008
Quote:
"Truth is a function of time."
Lies are always in a hurry lest they be found out.
Truth is patient...
abb Today, 7:49 AM Post #23
Posts:18,538Group:Tier1Member#4Joined:Apr 28, 2008
Anyone have the Alleva deposition PDF doc? Or is it at pacer?
Edited by abb, Today, 7:49 AM.
 abb Today, 8:11 AM Post #24
Posts:18,538Group:Tier1Member#4Joined:Apr 28, 2008
Edited by abb, Today, 8:11 AM.
abb Today, 8:11 AM Post #25
Posts:18,538Group:Tier1Member#4Joined:Apr 28, 2008
abb Today, 8:12 AM Post #26
Posts:18,538Group:Tier1Member#4Joined:Apr 28, 2008
Quasimodo Today, 8:40 AM Post #27
Posts:15,530Group:Tier1Member#17Joined:Apr 28, 2008
The whole emphasis is on fear that the university will be accused of covering up for its students--IOW, it's a
PR response.
As well, if Brodhead specifically chewed out Alleva on March 28,
Quote:
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.
then are Brodhead's communications with Lange--suggesting that perhaps some of the players
are guilty and perhaps some others are keeping silent--
just a pose?
Is is just posing before the rest of Duke's staff?
Is he even attempting to create a paper trail for the record?
Quote:
[April 24] “I have been careful not to say that I am confident the
players are innocent though certainly a large number of them are
of the criminal charge.
because IMHO there is no way that he could not have known by April 24 that there was no chance
any of the players were guilty. The DNA results had been made public by then; and there is every
reason to believe IMHO that in meetings in late March it was decided that there would have to be
arrests made whether any students were guilty or not, and that Brodhead was aware of this.
Quote:
I believe they want an acknowledgement of their innocence, and that’s where we are stuck.
Why is Duke "stuck"? If it knows they are innocent, why is Duke "stuck" about saying so?
Certainly Duke--in the person of Brodhead--was more than willing to say that "What they did is bad enough".
So what restraints exist to prevent him from saying--now that he has more information--"they are innocent"?
(MOO)
sceptical Today, 8:43 AM Post #28
Posts:2,381Group:Tier1Member#264Joined:Apr 30, 2008
These documents are explosive, and I am sure are just a small segment of what Bob Eckstrand has in his arsenal.
When Brodhead talks about "honor" I believe he is referring to his visceral feelings about the lacrosse party-- hiring strippers, especially of color, to perform at a team function. Of course, several other Duke groups and teams had hired strippers, and the fact that the strippers were of color was not what the team members expected.
Still, to an old-fashioned liberal such as Brodhead, the circumstances of the party were abhorrent.
History, however, will show that Brodhead and his co-conspirators were the scum-bags, and not the lacrosse players.
chatham Today, 8:56 AM Post #29
Posts:5,844Group:Tier1Member#308Joined:May 2, 2008
Why is Duke "stuck"? If it knows they are innocent, why is Duke "stuck" about saying so?
======================
NAACP
chatham Today, 8:58 AM Post #30
Posts:5,844Group:Tier1Member#308Joined:May 2, 2008
I will bet that what we discover here about what brodhead did will also fill in a lot of gaps as to how brodhead handled his Yale Van der Velde incident.
Quasimodo Today, 9:12 AM Post #31
Posts:15,530Group:Tier1Member#17Joined:Apr 28, 2008
chathamFeb 4 2012, 08:58 AM
I will bet that what we discover here about what brodhead did will also fill in a lot of gaps as to how brodhead handled his Yale Van der Velde incident.
See the thread, "The Silent Treatment".
Pure Brodhead.
chatham Today, 9:21 AM Post #32
Posts:5,844Group:Tier1Member#308Joined:May 2, 2008
“I have been careful not to say that I am confident the
players are innocent though certainly a large number of them are
of the criminal charge. I continue to her [sic] this message
and so does Bob Steel, who will beat up on me about it
again later today.”
=========================
So who is leading this parade? Sounds like steel even though steel claimed that brodhead was and everything brodhead did was supported by the BOT.
pjr Today, 10:17 AM Post #33
Posts:155Group:MembersMember#242Joined:Apr 29, 2008
Richard Brodhead 3/28/2006 to the public: " I have confidence in the authorities to find the truth and to take whatever legal steps are necessary in the best interests of the community."
Richard Brodhead 4/24/2006 to Lange: "I have been careful not to say that I am confident the
players are innocent though certainly a large number of them are
of the criminal charge."
Quasimodo Today, 10:22 AM Post #34
Posts:15,530Group:Tier1Member#17Joined:Apr 28, 2008
Robert K. Steel, Letter to the Duke Community, April 11, 2007 (one day after the Attorney General declared
the students to be innocent) :
Quote:
Throughout the past year President Richard Brodhead consulted regularly with the Trustees and has had our continuing support. He made considered and thoughtful decisions in a volatile and uncertain situation. Each step of the way, the board agreed with the principles that he established and the actions he took. As we look back -- and with the benefit of what we now know -- there is no question that there are some things that might have been done differently. However, anyone critical of President Brodhead should be similarly critical of the entire board.
OK. I take Steel at his word...
abb Today, 4:55 PM Post #35
Posts:18,538Group:Tier1Member#4Joined:Apr 28, 2008
PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO THE DUKE DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING COUNT 21
lincolnparishnewsonline.files.wordpress.com
Payback Today, 6:33 PM Post #36
Posts:1,542Group:Tier1Member#288Joined:May 1, 2008
chathamFeb 4 2012, 08:58 AM
I will bet that what we discover here about what brodhead did will also fill in a lot of gaps as to how brodhead handled his Yale Van der Velde incident.
Oh, yes, indeed!
abb Today, 7:03 PM Post #37
Posts:18,538Group:Tier1Member#4Joined:Apr 28, 2008
lincolnparishnewsonline.wordpress.com
LSU AD Alleva Deposed in Duke Lacrosse Suit
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
As soon as we get a copy of the deposition, we will post it.
abb 26 minutes ago Post #38
Posts:18,538Group:Tier1Member#4Joined:Apr 28, 2008
One of my buddies in Baton Rouge has picked up the story.
thehayride.com |
