Notice UPDATE 12-15-11: All of the buttons work appropriately, however, I have not been able to solve the problem with returning straight to the directory. I will continue working to try and resolve that problem. Sorry about the inconvenience.
Click on the link below to access. All narrative is on the flog, so get ready to read fast. At the end of the three minute flog is a directory for documents.
http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/harrvduke.html
Enjoy and become enlightened!
173 comments:
Well, there you have it, folks. Trevor Shrp is, in fact, part of the GEEHAW. He is an unethical scalawag.
FACTS:
1. Sidney did not present ONE teeny tiny ounce of proof to back up his assertions.
2. He was on private property.
3. Duke is not the State and was not acting as the State.
4. Sidney directly violated specific aspects of Duke's written policy on solicitation.
5. His worthless groundless baseless and silly law suit has and will go no place.
6. He now resorts to the Tracey Cline tactic of personal name-calling against Trevor Sharp. Even for Sid, that's a nasty childish and offensive thing to do.
Sooooo, welcome to the GEEHAW jungle, Trevor Sharp. Way to go, Sid, once again, you open your mouth and prove, beyond all doubt, what a sad little man you are.
Poor Sid...I told you that “He who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client”
You're claiming that one of the reasons you should be able to continue with this frivolous law suit is that you can't access the law library at the federal courthouse?
You DO realize there are other law libraries open to the public, right?
Did Tracey Cline help you with any of this?
Maybe both you and Tracey sought out Nifong's assistance.
Either way, I can see your pitiful attempt at a lawsuit ending the same way that Cline's motions to remove Judge Hudson did.
I must give you credit, however, Sid. Very few people are willing to display their ignorance in such a public manner.
Kudos to you.
Among many reasons this whole business is trumped up and pathetic is Sid's notion that Duke is somehow threatened by his misguided and "harmless" J4bathrobe boy" little club. That idea, by itself, is comical. There is so much about this whole flopblob and the silly carpetbagger conspiracy that is laughable. Now, we have Sid trying to appear even more puffed up and self-inflated by claiming that Duke "has it in for him". Give me a break.....
Oh yeah, and the restorative justice piece....? money for sid (his committee, yeah, right) and Sid's autographed picture for sale in the Duke Store. Hilarous....
This really does smack of a Cline-esque meltdown. In fact, we can add a new phrase to the "fonging" language. To "SiCline". i.e, to manufacture righteous indignation, accompanied by large doses of conspiracy (crop circles and black helicopters flying over Duke); to fantasize and ever-widening secret society wholly bent on destroying the "victim".
"forced to never set foot on Duke campus again"....??? by who, Rae Evans? Shirley Temple? The tooth fairy?
You think Duke has posted border guards with pictures of Sid saying, "if this man shows up, drag him to the dungeon beneath the Quad"....
Speaking of trying to get money....most of us recall how Sid attacks the accused lacrosse players for filing lawsuits...and equally gets all twisted up about Duke settling with them.
I recently came across an interesting older post from Durham In Wonderland that showed how Mangum (coincidence, anyone???) picked players out of the "line up" who came from wealthy towns. She picked Reade S....his home was listed as top per capita income on census bureau site. She picked D. Evans....fourth in per capita....and she picked C. Finnerty....eighth in income (but she knew the story about the incident in Washington by then and probably figured he would be a good target). She also picked two other players (second and third income rankings from the Census) who were NOT EVEN AT THE PARTY. Now, of course, this is just all idle speculation and surely Sister didn't say "I am gonna get paid by some white boys"....and surely she didn't actually picked the ones who she thought might have the deepest pockets. Surely not. (their home towns were listed on the team photo).
So, now, we have Sid, telling us that Duke ought to pay him (excuse me, his committee) $1000 per month for 20 years as part of the Restorative Justice settlement Sid wants. Of course, surely Sid wouldn't just think up how he might personally profit by targeting deep-pocket Duke. Surely not.
Hypocrisy, anyone????
I have refrained from much commentary on Sid's lawsuit and the recommended dismissal thereof. However, I would observe that the Duke University Police Officer was acting as the State. NCGS § 74E-6(b)(1). Further, NCGS § 74E-6(d)reads: Campus Police. -- Campus police officers have the powers contained in subsection (c) of this section and also have the powers in that subsection upon that portion of any public road or highway passing through or immediately adjoining the property described in that subsection, wherever located. The board of trustees of any college or university that qualifies as a campus police agency pursuant to this Chapter may enter into a mutual aid agreement with the governing board of a municipality or, with the consent of the county sheriff, a county to the same extent as a municipal police department pursuant to Chapter 160A.
For reference NCGS § 74E-6(c) reads: All Company Police. -- Company police officers, while in the performance of their duties of employment, have the same powers as municipal and county police officers to make arrests for both felonies and misdemeanors and to charge for infractions on any of the following:
(1) Real property owned by or in the possession and control of their employer.
(2) Real property owned by or in the possession and control of a person who has contracted with the employer to provide on-site company police security personnel services for the property.
(3) Any other real property while in continuous and immediate pursuit of a person for an offense committed upon property described in subdivisions (1) or (2) of this subsection.
Sid did not file against the DUPD and he did not name the officer. Had he done so, I think the state action issue would have gone his way. Of course, there is a reason one hires a lawyer to do legal work.
Walt-in-Durham
With respect, there was significant material presented (from Duke) that would argue the point about the "State" issue entirely differently. The Duke police actually did nothing, took no action with, for, or against Sid. Sid provided no evidence that the duke police did anything to him. The security guard, not the duke police, took specific action(s) toward Sid....and security guards do not, as I understand it, have the same standing in relation to acting as the State.
Lance the Intern said...
I must give you credit, however, Sid. Very few people are willing to display their ignorance in such a public manner.
Kudos to you.
Lance, answer me this: Did Magistrate Judge Sharp lie about when Harr began handing out j4n cards, or not?
Anonymous said...
Well, there you have it, folks. Trevor Shrp is, in fact, part of the GEEHAW. He is an unethical scalawag.
FACTS:
1. Sidney did not present ONE teeny tiny ounce of proof to back up his assertions.
2. He was on private property.
3. Duke is not the State and was not acting as the State.
4. Sidney directly violated specific aspects of Duke's written policy on solicitation.
5. His worthless groundless baseless and silly law suit has and will go no place.
6. He now resorts to the Tracey Cline tactic of personal name-calling against Trevor Sharp. Even for Sid, that's a nasty childish and offensive thing to do.
Sooooo, welcome to the GEEHAW jungle, Trevor Sharp. Way to go, Sid, once again, you open your mouth and prove, beyond all doubt, what a sad little man you are.
As I challenged Lance, can you actually say with a straight face that Magistrate Judge was telling the truth when he stated that Harr began handing out business cards after the interview concluded? I think not.
Sid - Do you admit that you handed out the business cards both before and after the event?
The point here is that handing out business cards, wearing the shirt, etc........AT ANY POINT...violated Duke's explicit written solitation policy. Sid did not get prior approval to engage in the behaviors he admitted, and he violated Duke's policy. Period. Nor is J4N aligned with Duke's approved student activity, as is also required, by prior approval. Also, as a reminder, Sid has not presented one shred of proof that his behavior was as he described.
For what reason would anybody think Sid would wear a nifong T-shirt to an educational event involving a Supreme Court judge in the Duke law school building? HMMMMM???? Would it, perhaps, be to promote his "cause"? If so, he did not get prior approval to engage in this self promotional behavior.
Having worked in and around Duke, and other university campuses, for many years.....I can say that the university is typically VERY strict about limiting such promotional activities on campus....particularly when people other than students and/or faculty are involved. I was at a university meeting about three years ago when somebody stood up in the audience and began speaking about the great holocaust "hoax"....it was a local branch of the Klan. The person was removed from the meeting, resisted, and wound up being arrested.
I see no difference here. There is a policy. Sid violated it. Period. He wants to claim there was some kind of conspiracy and that Duke was all scared of having him on campus, so they kicked him off. Bull.
Sid said "...Did Magistrate Judge Sharp lie about when Harr began handing out j4n cards, or not?"
I don't know, Sid. Is it a lie if he thinks he's telling the truth?
LOLOL. Lance gets the bullseye of the week! hysterically funny comment, Lance.
Thanks, but the hysterically funny comment of the week must go to Judge Jim Hardin.
In the hearing today regarding the "mistaken" motions Tracey Cline made seeking confidential prison records, Judge Hardin told Cline:
""I know that you are aware lawyers should not knowingly make a false statement...As professionals, we have to rely on each other's character."
"sinisterly"?, Sid? Realllllly? wow, I bet those guys at Duke are just terrified of you. Jeepers, what a powerful fella you are. "Unethical, biased, lying" Trevor Sharp? "Forced to never set foot in the Duke campus"? By whom? Good lord, guy, you need help. Get some counseling. And soon.
Lance the Intern said...
Sid - Do you admit that you handed out the business cards both before and after the event?
This is what I admit happened. Before the interview began, while waiting for it to begin, I engaged in conversations with about a half dozen or so individuals. During these conversations, some with students, I handed out my "j4n" business card, and collected some cards when I could.
After the interview concluded, I was walking towards the building's exit with the intent of catching the bus home. Tom Breen, an Associated Press reporter, came up to me and asked me if I would give my impression of the event. I spoke with him a bit, and since he was a member of the media, I sought to exchange business cards. (An instructor of mine once said that the reason for having business cards is so that you can use them to obtain business cards with contact information from others.)
Right after we exchanged cards and I was headed for the exit, the Security Guard approached me.
Walt said...
I have refrained from much commentary on Sid's lawsuit and the recommended dismissal thereof. However, I would observe that the Duke University Police Officer was acting as the State. NCGS § 74E-6(b)(1). Further, NCGS § 74E-6(d)reads: Campus Police. -- Campus police officers have the powers contained in subsection (c) of this section and also have the powers in that subsection upon that portion of any public road or highway passing through or immediately adjoining the property described in that subsection, wherever located. The board of trustees of any college or university that qualifies as a campus police agency pursuant to this Chapter may enter into a mutual aid agreement with the governing board of a municipality or, with the consent of the county sheriff, a county to the same extent as a municipal police department pursuant to Chapter 160A.
For reference NCGS § 74E-6(c) reads: All Company Police. -- Company police officers, while in the performance of their duties of employment, have the same powers as municipal and county police officers to make arrests for both felonies and misdemeanors and to charge for infractions on any of the following:
(1) Real property owned by or in the possession and control of their employer.
(2) Real property owned by or in the possession and control of a person who has contracted with the employer to provide on-site company police security personnel services for the property.
(3) Any other real property while in continuous and immediate pursuit of a person for an offense committed upon property described in subdivisions (1) or (2) of this subsection.
Sid did not file against the DUPD and he did not name the officer. Had he done so, I think the state action issue would have gone his way. Of course, there is a reason one hires a lawyer to do legal work.
Walt-in-Durham
As I explained in my complaint, the reason one does not hire a lawyer when going up against a big, powerful corporation is because the attorney that you most likely hire will be bought off by the defendants one is fighting. Also, if the attorney is acting in good faith, most individuals cannot hope to win a battle of financial attrition that a defendant like Duke can institute.
Regarding the Duke Police, all he did was respond to the Security Guard's summons. I don't recall him saying a word to me, although he did walk behind me with the security guard to the bus. Why should the police be named as a defendant? For that matter, the Security Guard was only doing as he was instructed by the higher-ups. If anything, I am grateful to the security guard and the Duke Police officer for using good judgment and not arresting me.
Anonymous said...
"sinisterly"?, Sid? Realllllly? wow, I bet those guys at Duke are just terrified of you. Jeepers, what a powerful fella you are. "Unethical, biased, lying" Trevor Sharp? "Forced to never set foot in the Duke campus"? By whom? Good lord, guy, you need help. Get some counseling. And soon.
Duke University does not fear me. At least not yet. Duke has the media on its side, as well as the Magistrate Judge. However, what it does not have on its side is justice. Justice rides with me.
Regarding Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp, the fact is that he lied by saying that I began handing out cards after the conclusion of the interview. Secondly, he made the statement for the purpose of misleading the Court... which shows his bias. Finally, it is unethical for a judge to be dishonest and biased when adjudicating.
Sid -- You realize that you're admitting that the ONLY person that could have been acting as the state in this whole affair actually did nothing, right?
Since your lawsuit does not provide ANY evidence that you were discriminated against in any way by either Brodhead or Levi, and Duke University was not acting as the State, it should rightly be thrown out.
Sid said "Regarding Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp, the fact is that he lied by saying that I began handing out cards after the conclusion of the interview.
So if he amended his document to state that you began handing out cards before and after the interview, his document would be correct?
I'll ask again -- Is it a lie if he thinks he's telling the truth?
Oh so sharp lied to mislead the court? Kinda like nifong lied? Or was that different? And if sharp lied but thought he was telling the truth, then, like Nifong, he was not lying. And of course Sharp had anreason to mislead the court because duke bought him off. And thus Sahrp joins the heehaw. Lets see. Evans duke the media mangum' attorney, the durham police, now sharp. Wow, the conspiracy net is getting bigger and bigger.
And of course sid wore a t shirt to an educational event in the law school featuring a supreme court justice just because he felt like it. Is a t shirt appropriate attire for this setting? Did sid wear the shirt to draw attention to himself? Was he handing out business cards? Did he violate duke' s policy?
Good lord, Sid. We had hoped for more entertainment value than this.
Lance the Intern said...
Sid said "Regarding Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp, the fact is that he lied by saying that I began handing out cards after the conclusion of the interview.
So if he amended his document to state that you began handing out cards before and after the interview, his document would be correct?
I'll ask again -- Is it a lie if he thinks he's telling the truth?
You cannot begin to do something twice. I began handing out cards before the interview... Period. After the interview I "continued" to hand out only one card to a non-student/non-employee of Duke who approached me as I was minding my own business and heading for the exit.
If Magistrate Judge Sharp believed that I began to hand out business cards after the interview, even though my complaint and all documents state that I handed them out before the interview, then I would call that a mistake, instead of a lie... and I would view him to be totally inept. He willfully made the statement which was calculated to mislead the reader to be supportive of the defendants' position... Period.
Thereby, go ye enlightened.
"You cannot begin to do something twice. I began handing out cards before the interview... Period."
Sid -- Does this work better for you:
"So if he amended his document to state that you began handing out cards before and again after the interview, his document would be correct?"
even though my complaint and all documents state that I handed them out before the interview, then I would call that a mistake, instead of a lie... and I would view him to be totally inept.
Did Mike Nifong lie when he said that he'd produced all of the DNA evidence when he in fact had not? Was that a lie or was he totally inept?
"As I explained in my complaint, the reason one does not hire a lawyer when going up against a big, powerful corporation is because the attorney that you most likely hire will be bought off by the defendants one is fighting."
So why wasn't Duke able to buy off the lawyers representing the innocent, falsely accused lacrosse players?
Hey Sid, Where is Kenny boy? Why isn't he chiming in to defend your ridiculous lawsuit and the other nonsense you post at this website?
There is a written policy regarding solitation at Duke. You violated the policy. You were on private property. Duke is not an agent of the State. They had every right to remove you.
Quit bitchin'
"As I explained in my complaint, the reason one does not hire a lawyer when going up against a big, powerful corporation is because the attorney that you most likely hire will be bought off by the defendants one is fighting."
Why hasn't Duke bought off the attorneys of the unindicted Lacrosse players who are suing them? Why has the city of Durham not bought off the attorneys of the people who are suing them instead of paying millions to their own lawyers?
Lance the Intern said...
"You cannot begin to do something twice. I began handing out cards before the interview... Period."
Sid -- Does this work better for you:
"So if he amended his document to state that you began handing out cards before and again after the interview, his document would be correct?"
even though my complaint and all documents state that I handed them out before the interview, then I would call that a mistake, instead of a lie... and I would view him to be totally inept.
Did Mike Nifong lie when he said that he'd produced all of the DNA evidence when he in fact had not? Was that a lie or was he totally inept?
Here is the way the Magistrate Judge could accurately put it: "Harr began handing out cards before the event, and then after the event he handed out one card." That is an accurate statement.
Mike Nifong did not lie when he stated that he produced all of the DNA records because he believed that statement to be true. It could have been incorrect, but if he believed it to be true, then it was not a lie, and he is not inept as a result.
The problem with Magistrate Judge is that his recommendation included a statement that was blatantly false and not supported... How could he possibly believe it to be true when there is nothing in any of the documents to support the statement. Furthermore, the incorrect statement works to the distinct advantage of the defendants, which shows his bias.
Anonymous said...
"As I explained in my complaint, the reason one does not hire a lawyer when going up against a big, powerful corporation is because the attorney that you most likely hire will be bought off by the defendants one is fighting."
Why hasn't Duke bought off the attorneys of the unindicted Lacrosse players who are suing them? Why has the city of Durham not bought off the attorneys of the people who are suing them instead of paying millions to their own lawyers?
The attorneys for the un-indicted Lacrosse players smell fiduciary blood... that's why they filed the ridiculous lawsuit against Duke to begin with. Besides, any attorney worth his salt should be able to prevail against the un-indicteds while wearing a blindfold and with both hands tied behind his back. Duke should easily win in court. In my case, Duke knows that it will lose if the case goes to trial.
Now if you retain an attorney to file a legitimate lawsuit against Duke, you can bet that your lawyer will not only bill you, but sell you down the river too... working both sides of the street.
So -- in your judgment, If Mike Nifong makes incorrect statements (because he believes them to be true) he is not inept. If, however Judge Sharp makes incorrect statements (because he believes them to be true) he IS inept.
Interesting logic you got there, Sid.
Nothing that isn't a real crime makes a man appear so contemptible and little in the eyes of the world as inconsistency.
Joseph Addison
"Now if you retain an attorney to file a legitimate lawsuit against Duke, you can bet that your lawyer will not only bill you, but sell you down the river too... working both sides of the street."
Sideny, you fail to make sense. If you had a case against Duke and if a significant amount of money was involved(you yourself said in an earlier blog that if anyone deserved a payment of $20 million from Duke, you did), any good trial lawyer would have taken the case on a contingency fee basis. That meant he could not have billed you for anything if he had not won a judgment for you.
How could an attorney handling your case on a contingency fee basis have charged you for his services and at the same time accepted a payoff from Duke for not winning a judgment in your favor?
The fact that you are not represented by counsel is an admission on your part that no competent lawyer thinks you have a case against Duke.
"The attorneys for the un-indicted Lacrosse players smell fiduciary blood... that's why they filed the ridiculous lawsuit against Duke to begin with. Besides, any attorney worth his salt should be able to prevail against the un-indicteds while wearing a blindfold and with both hands tied behind his back. Duke should easily win in court. In my case, Duke knows that it will lose if the case goes to trial."
Sideny, you have said in your blog that Duke could have prevailed easily in court against the 3 innocent, falsely accused lacrosse players. So why did Duke pay them each a settlement?
Open mouth, insert foot, Sid. You can't have it both ways.
Did other readers appreciate the irony of Duke citing McFadyen in its reply?
Duke cited this case as being directly on point—Duke’s employees enforced Duke’s policies in restricting the speech of its students—and noted that the same court recently dismissed similar claims in that case. As his readers are aware, Sidney discussed McFadyen on this blog and characterized the lawsuit as being totally without merit. With his total rejection, Sidney implicitly rejected the arguments made by the plaintiffs and accepted Duke’s defense as valid.
In his own lawsuit, Sidney seeks to advance the plaintiff arguments he earlier dismissed as without merit and to overturn the Duke arguments he previously found compelling. He seeks a different conclusion than the court reached in McFadyen (with which he agrees).
I am interested in hearing Sidney’s arguments. I can only speculate. He may argue that Duke owes a greater responsibility to visitors to its campus than it owes to its students. He may argue that pro-Nifong speech is protected speech, but anti-Nifong speech is not. He may argue that he—and not Duke—has the right to interpret Duke’s rules and that Duke’s interpretation of these rules does not apply to him without his consent. He may continue to argue that he is the victim of a massive conspiracy.
Nevertheless, he must explain why the decision reached in McFadyen is correct, but is not applicable to his case.
Sidney, we await your efforts to enlighten us!
Lance the Intern said...
So -- in your judgment, If Mike Nifong makes incorrect statements (because he believes them to be true) he is not inept. If, however Judge Sharp makes incorrect statements (because he believes them to be true) he IS inept.
Interesting logic you got there, Sid.
Nothing that isn't a real crime makes a man appear so contemptible and little in the eyes of the world as inconsistency.
Joseph Addison
Let's go through this once more. Mike Nifong made a statement that all of the discovery had been turned over to the defense. Believing that statement to be true, he did not lie, even if he was mistaken and a page or two was accidentally not included. Neither ineptitude nor lying.
Magistrate Judge Sharp made statements that were contrary to what was presented in the document that he used to re-state facts. If he believed the error-filled statement he made, then he is inept. If he purposely conjured up the statement for the purpose of misleading the Court (as I believe he did), then he is lying.
Anonymous said...
"Now if you retain an attorney to file a legitimate lawsuit against Duke, you can bet that your lawyer will not only bill you, but sell you down the river too... working both sides of the street."
Sideny, you fail to make sense. If you had a case against Duke and if a significant amount of money was involved(you yourself said in an earlier blog that if anyone deserved a payment of $20 million from Duke, you did), any good trial lawyer would have taken the case on a contingency fee basis. That meant he could not have billed you for anything if he had not won a judgment for you.
How could an attorney handling your case on a contingency fee basis have charged you for his services and at the same time accepted a payoff from Duke for not winning a judgment in your favor?
The fact that you are not represented by counsel is an admission on your part that no competent lawyer thinks you have a case against Duke.
The fact that I am not represented by counsel shows that I am smart enough not to waste my money. Truth be told, I never even gave a nanosecond of a thought to retaining an attorney.
That my case is strong is without doubt. Likewise, that I suffered greater injustice than the Duke Lacrosse defendants, I believe is not questionable. Is my compensation worth more than $20 million... I do not believe so, but then, I am not an avaricious person.
Do you believe that Duke University should have settled out of court with the Duke Lacrosse defendants for $20 million each? If so, why?
Regarding a case against Duke, I would not entrust an attorney to represent me for the likelihood of said attorney selling me down the river for some high end compensation in the future. Duke has a lot of money, power, and influence and can provide much in the way of under-the-table compensation for those attorney who sellout their clients to the benefit of Duke.
Anonymous said...
"The attorneys for the un-indicted Lacrosse players smell fiduciary blood... that's why they filed the ridiculous lawsuit against Duke to begin with. Besides, any attorney worth his salt should be able to prevail against the un-indicteds while wearing a blindfold and with both hands tied behind his back. Duke should easily win in court. In my case, Duke knows that it will lose if the case goes to trial."
Sideny, you have said in your blog that Duke could have prevailed easily in court against the 3 innocent, falsely accused lacrosse players. So why did Duke pay them each a settlement?
That is precisely what I would like to know. Do you think Duke made a reasonable decision when it decided to fork over $20 million to each of the defendants without so much as putting up a fight?
I believe one of the reasons Duke did it was because Attorney Cheshire convinced them that the insurance company would cover the cost and it would be no out of pocket expense for them. When the insurance company refused to go along, Duke was quick to file a ridiculous lawsuit against it.
Please give me some enlightenment on why Duke made such an outrageous settlement.
Harr Supporter said...
Did other readers appreciate the irony of Duke citing McFadyen in its reply?
Duke cited this case as being directly on point—Duke’s employees enforced Duke’s policies in restricting the speech of its students—and noted that the same court recently dismissed similar claims in that case. As his readers are aware, Sidney discussed McFadyen on this blog and characterized the lawsuit as being totally without merit. With his total rejection, Sidney implicitly rejected the arguments made by the plaintiffs and accepted Duke’s defense as valid.
In his own lawsuit, Sidney seeks to advance the plaintiff arguments he earlier dismissed as without merit and to overturn the Duke arguments he previously found compelling. He seeks a different conclusion than the court reached in McFadyen (with which he agrees).
I am interested in hearing Sidney’s arguments. I can only speculate. He may argue that Duke owes a greater responsibility to visitors to its campus than it owes to its students. He may argue that pro-Nifong speech is protected speech, but anti-Nifong speech is not. He may argue that he—and not Duke—has the right to interpret Duke’s rules and that Duke’s interpretation of these rules does not apply to him without his consent. He may continue to argue that he is the victim of a massive conspiracy.
Nevertheless, he must explain why the decision reached in McFadyen is correct, but is not applicable to his case.
Sidney, we await your efforts to enlighten us!
Let me try to explain this as clearly as possible.
1. I was solicited to attend the event on Duke campus.
2. The event was open to the public... even though on private property it was serving as a place of public accommodation.
3. I acted as others similarly situated, that is, I behaved the same as did everyone else.
4. I had been on Duke's campus many times before, both wearing my "j4n" tee shirt and handing out business cards without any problems.
5. At the conclusion of the event I was headed for the bus stop when I was intercepted by the security guard.
This incident had nothing to do with pro or anti-Nifong speech or any interpretation of rules and regulations. It was a case of discrimination plain and simple.
Thereby go ye enlightened.
This incident had nothing to do with pro or anti-Nifong speech or any interpretation of rules and regulations. It was a case of discrimination plain and simple.
I asked you to compare your case with the dismissed claims in McFadyen. You supported the non-uniform restriction of speech in that case. Why do you deserve more protection than you provide to others?
Enlightenment requires that you answer the question raised to you.
No it has nothing to do with discrimination. Playin the race card,sid? Claiming discrimination on what grounds? You violated duke's policy , manufactured a little melodrama, and now want to bore us to death with your whining.
Duke responded appropriately to your nuisance suit.
You da man Kenny, you da man.
Sid,
Why did you wear your j4n t-shirt to the interview?
"I had been on Duke's campus many times before, both wearing my "j4n" tee shirt and handing out business cards without any problems."
So you didn't get caught. That does not excuse you from violating Duke's solicitation policy.
"That is precisely what I would like to know. Do you think Duke made a reasonable decision when it decided to fork over $20 million to each of the defendants without so much as putting up a fight?"
No. I think they should have settled with each defendant for a lot more, considering the pain and grief and reputational damage Duke caused them.
"The fact that I am not represented by counsel shows that I am smart enough not to waste my money."
The fact that you are not represented by counsel shows your case is without merit and no respectable attorney would take it.
"I believe one of the reasons Duke did it was because Attorney Cheshire convinced them that the insurance company would cover the cost and it would be no out of pocket expense for them. When the insurance company refused to go along, Duke was quick to file a ridiculous lawsuit against it."
Do you honestly believe that? Had Duke prevailed in court, they would have had no out of pocket expense. The insurance company would have covered the legal expense.
However, they settled because the plaintiff's counsel convinced them their liability insurance company would have paid the settlement.
You showing the world what a great legal eagle you are not.
"I acted as others similarly situated, that is, I behaved the same as did everyone else."
So, you are saying other people were handing out business cards and soliciting people to visit their web sites? You are also saying, therefore, that you were the only person penalized.
You will have a tough time proving it in court.
"Please give me some enlightenment on why Duke made such an outrageous settlement."
The obvious enlightenment is that Duke did not want to defend the case in open court.
That is the most logical reason why a defendant would settle a case rather than go to trial.
Ask your "friend" Professor Coleman if you do not believe me.
"Duke has a lot of money, power, and influence and can provide much in the way of under-the-table compensation for those attorney who sellout their clients to the benefit of Duke."
The question again is why did Duke not attempt to get the attorneys of the Lacrosse players to "sellout their clients" to benefit Duke.
Your allegation that they did it because one of the plaintiffs' attorneys convinced Duke they would not have to pay the settlement is totally unbelievable and the figment of your deluded imagination.
"Do you believe that Duke University should have settled out of court with the Duke Lacrosse defendants for $20 million each? If so, why?"
No I do not. I think they should have settled with each of them for $100, and even that would not have adequately compensated the innocent, falsely accused lacrosse players for the defamation they suffered at the hands of Duke.
"That my case is strong is without doubt. Likewise, that I suffered greater injustice than the Duke Lacrosse defendants, I believe is not questionable."
Sideny, that is for the court, not you, to decide.
Yes you are avaricious. Otherwise, you would not have said that you were more entitled to a $20 million dollar settlement than were the innocent, falsely accused lacrosse players.
After all, you were not arrested and did not have to serve any jail time.
"That my case is strong is without doubt."
What does your "friend" Professor Coleman say about that?
"Do you believe that Duke University should have settled out of court with the Duke Lacrosse defendants for $20 million each? If so, why?"
No I do not. I think they should have settled with each of them for $100, and even that would not have adequately compensated the innocent, falsely accused lacrosse players for the defamation they suffered at the hands of Duke.
I should have said Duke should have settled with them for $100 each.
Sorry for the typo
"Do you believe that Duke University should have settled out of court with the Duke Lacrosse defendants for $20 million each? If so, why?"
No I do not. I think they should have settled with each of them for $100, and even that would not have adequately compensated the innocent, falsely accused lacrosse players for the defamation they suffered at the hands of Duke.
I should have said Duke should have settled with them for $100 each.
Sorry for the typo"
I typoed again. I should have said that Duke should have settled for $100 million each.
"This incident had nothing to do with pro or anti-Nifong speech or any interpretation of rules and regulations. It was a case of discrimination plain and simple."
That is for the court, not you, to decide. Your opinion has no legal weight unless you can support it with hard evidence.
This is comical. Sid has no nifong silliness to whine about. His favorite victim is going to trial for murder. His nifong camp follower is the laughingstock of the durham justice system. Victoria P lost her bid for office. Sigh,........ What's a J4N loonie to do???????? This funny lawsuit that reads like As the World Turns. ..... Come on sid. Even you can recognize boring material when you read it. What we need is a little Nifong corruption and righteous indignation fodder.
We want melodrama! We want melodrama! Bring back the heehaw. Where are the evil white oppressors?
On a side note, it sure looks like you're having a difficult time figuring out the "flog" technology.
Not surprising.
Interesting take on Tracey Cline from a lawyer currently practicing in Durham:
http://www.bpm-law.com/please-make-it-stop-the-judicial-meltdown-in-durham/
Anonymous said...
Sid,
Why did you wear your j4n t-shirt to the interview?
Because I wanted to. What's wrong with that? It is not an anti-Duke shirt. It's not an anti-Durham shirt. Besides, I where it whenever I go to Durham, whenever I volunteer, whenever I attend anything political. I had worn that very same "j4n" tee shirt on Duke campus many times prior to that (including all three days of the John Hope Franklin conference which was held on April 8 through 10, 2010) and no one ever said anything to me. I never had a problem wearing it. Besides, Duke, in its May 10, 2010, never complained about the tee-shirt... It only complained that I handed out the j4n business cards and asked their recipients to visit the website.
Anonymous said...
"Do you believe that Duke University should have settled out of court with the Duke Lacrosse defendants for $20 million each? If so, why?"
No I do not. I think they should have settled with each of them for $100, and even that would not have adequately compensated the innocent, falsely accused lacrosse players for the defamation they suffered at the hands of Duke.
I should have said Duke should have settled with them for $100 each.
Sorry for the typo"
I typoed again. I should have said that Duke should have settled for $100 million each.
Duke University did not arrest, prosecute, nor accuse the Duke Lacrosse defendants of anything. Duke University did warn the lacrosse coach beforehand to rein in his players... which he obviously failed to do as there was under-aged drinking and racial slurs shouted by the partygoers.
What I am trying to understand is what did Duke University do to Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans to coerce it into making a settlement... especially one worth $20 million each? What did Duke University do?
In my case, I wrote Duke a very complimentary letter and, in return, it attempted to put me in jail... just for being a supporter of Mike Nifong. Duke should have stood up to Cheshire and his Duke Lacrosse clients and rushed to settle its case with me.
Lance the Intern said...
On a side note, it sure looks like you're having a difficult time figuring out the "flog" technology.
Not surprising.
The problem I'm having technically, as it seems many others are having, is returning to a previous or parent scene using Flash. This was the first time I attempted to do it, and it was not successful. In the future, I will place everything within the same scene and avoid this problem... unless I learn the correct code to deal with the problem.
What I am trying to understand is what did Duke University do to Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans to coerce it into making a settlement... especially one worth $20 million each? What did Duke University do?
Violated FERPA, for one. it's a federal law that allows students and their families to control the disclosure of information from the student school records.
"What I am trying to understand is what did Duke University do to Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans to coerce it into making a settlement... especially one worth $20 million each? What did Duke University do?"
We'll never know because Duke insisted on a confidentiality agreement.
Whatever, a defendant settles a case rather than defend it in open court usually because it can not defend it in open court.
Sideny, why do you find that so hard to comprehend?
That you say they could have prevailed in open court has no legal weight.
"...[Mike Pressler] obviously failed to [control his players] as there was under-aged drinking and racial slurs shouted by the partygoers."
Sideny, present any hard evidence you have that the party was the drunken out of control orgy you claim it was.
If those descriptions come from the Fong, he has been publicly discredited.
"In my case, I wrote Duke a very complimentary letter and, in return, it attempted to put me in jail... just for being a supporter of Mike Nifong. Duke should have stood up to Cheshire and his Duke Lacrosse clients and rushed to settle its case with me."
Sideny, you violated Duke's solicitation policy and they directed you to cease. By your own admission you were not arrested, were not required to do jail time, and you were not publicly humiliated the way the Lacrosse players were.
Why don't you ask your "friend" Professor Coleman settled rather than defend the case. Are you afraid to?
Aside from the FERPA violation, well, lets see........what else?? Disrupted their education, humiliated them in the classes they were allowed to attend before leaving campus, refused to even meet with their attorneys to discuss what had transpired, made judgemental condeming statements in public (Burness, among others), refused to provide adequate security for the students to even feel safe walking across campus, by NOT acting, refused to rein in or discipline students and faculty who participated in the pot-banging "Castrate them" parade......just to name a few little problems, Sid. Oh, yeah, and refused to honor the university's stated policy of advocating for, protecting, and providing for the safety and security of its students.
I wish these boys had gotten 50Mil....and before it's all over, I hope, by god, that they do!
First you say your support of Nifong had nothing to do with what you say happened to you....you said it was discriminaiton. Now you say they attempted to put you in jail, because you support Nifong. Just exactly how would a University "attempt" to put you in jail? And, I believe you left the campus, did not go to jail, did not pass Go.
Yes, there was underage drinking. YeeGADS, how wicked can you get!!! College students being stupid and drinking....Oh MY GOD, civilization is crumbling. Racial slurs? ONE, I repeat, ONE remark was made by ONE lacrosse student. Sister's dancin' partner testified that the "cotton shirt" remark was made AFTER she hurled a racial slur at the player who made the shirt remark. He made it in response to HER SLURS. But, I guess that doesn't count, does it, Sid?
Racial slurs are stupid, low class and totally wrong.....no matter WHO uses them. But,you, Sid, seem to think that racism is a sickness that affects only white people. You are wrong.
Lance the Intern said...
What I am trying to understand is what did Duke University do to Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans to coerce it into making a settlement... especially one worth $20 million each? What did Duke University do?
Violated FERPA, for one. it's a federal law that allows students and their families to control the disclosure of information from the student school records.
Okay, so your position is that Duke should pay $20 million to every student with whom it violates the FERPA law... right?
Anonymous said...
"What I am trying to understand is what did Duke University do to Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans to coerce it into making a settlement... especially one worth $20 million each? What did Duke University do?"
We'll never know because Duke insisted on a confidentiality agreement.
Whatever, a defendant settles a case rather than defend it in open court usually because it can not defend it in open court.
Sideny, why do you find that so hard to comprehend?
That you say they could have prevailed in open court has no legal weight.
Duke wanted a confidentiality agreement because it didn't want anyone to know it was forking over $20 mil to each of the three defendants.
Here's what I think happened:
(1) Duke, under a confidentiality agreement, forked over $20 mil to each of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants.
(2) Duke expected the insurance company to cover the loss.
(3) Duke bigwigs who agreed to the payout received kickbacks from the avaricious defense attorneys.
It's the only logical explanation.
Anonymous said...
"...[Mike Pressler] obviously failed to [control his players] as there was under-aged drinking and racial slurs shouted by the partygoers."
Sideny, present any hard evidence you have that the party was the drunken out of control orgy you claim it was.
If those descriptions come from the Fong, he has been publicly discredited.
I believe my statement was that there was "under-aged drinking" and "racial slur" being shouted by the partygoers, which is confirmed in the biased media. I'm sure there was illicit drug use going on too.
However, your description of it being an out of control drunken orgy is probably closer to the truth than my statements.
Anonymous said...
"In my case, I wrote Duke a very complimentary letter and, in return, it attempted to put me in jail... just for being a supporter of Mike Nifong. Duke should have stood up to Cheshire and his Duke Lacrosse clients and rushed to settle its case with me."
Sideny, you violated Duke's solicitation policy and they directed you to cease. By your own admission you were not arrested, were not required to do jail time, and you were not publicly humiliated the way the Lacrosse players were.
Why don't you ask your "friend" Professor Coleman settled rather than defend the case. Are you afraid to?
Okay, so you're saying that Duke has a policy that prevents individuals from handing out business cards? ..that Duke has a policy that prevents individuals from inviting someone to visit their website? .. that Duke has a policy that prevents individuals from handing out business cards and inviting them to visit their website?
For the sake of argument, is violating a Duke University policy worthy of being arrested and put in jail? Is it a criminal act to violate a Duke Lacrosse policy?
If you can give me a direct link to the policy which I allegedly violated, I would be very much appreciative.
I meant to say a "Duke University policy" in my previous reply.
Every now and then, even I make a mistake.
"Okay, so your position is that Duke should pay $20 million to every student with whom it violates the FERPA law... right?"
Well -- I'm all for any institution being punished for violating federal law. Aren't you?
Of course, neither of the Duke LAX 3 had to make up an incident to claim that any laws were violated (FERPA being just one example of what could be many more), unlike you.
So DU gave up (in your estimation) $20 million dollars (you keep throwing this figure out as if it were true -- but the terms of the settlement were never disclosed). Even if this were true, imagine what happens if the news gets out to every prospective student (and parent) that DU has violated a federal law that was specifically created to protect students from this type of behavior . What do you think would happen to enrollment at DU?
Believe me, DU settled because they could keep the settlement confidential. There's no way they wanted this to go to court.
Anonymous said...
This is comical. Sid has no nifong silliness to whine about. His favorite victim is going to trial for murder. His nifong camp follower is the laughingstock of the durham justice system. Victoria P lost her bid for office. Sigh,........ What's a J4N loonie to do???????? This funny lawsuit that reads like As the World Turns. ..... Come on sid. Even you can recognize boring material when you read it. What we need is a little Nifong corruption and righteous indignation fodder.
Mr. Nifong has not been and is not corrupt, therefore, unlike other blogs such as Liestopper and Durham-in-Wonderland, I am unable to violate my ethical standards and concoct such false fodder. Actually, my case against Duke is the most important and relevant lawsuit to hit the Tar Heel courts in decades. Keep in mind, I am fighting for your rights.
Thereby, go ye enlightened.
Sid says "Okay, so you're saying that Duke has a policy... that prevents individuals from handing out business cards and inviting them to visit their website?"
As has been explained to you numerous times (with links provided), Duke has a solicitation policy that you violated. You don't like that -- we get it.
Your not liking the policy doesn't mean that you can ignore it. In all probability, the "flattering letter" you wrote drew attention to the fact that you were violating the policy. hoist on your own petard, as it were.
"For the sake of argument, is violating a Duke University policy worthy of being arrested and put in jail?
I do not know. Show me someone who's actually been arrested and put in jail for violating a DU policy, and I'll ask them.
Lance the Intern said...
"Okay, so your position is that Duke should pay $20 million to every student with whom it violates the FERPA law... right?"
Well -- I'm all for any institution being punished for violating federal law. Aren't you?
Of course, neither of the Duke LAX 3 had to make up an incident to claim that any laws were violated (FERPA being just one example of what could be many more), unlike you.
So DU gave up (in your estimation) $20 million dollars (you keep throwing this figure out as if it were true -- but the terms of the settlement were never disclosed). Even if this were true, imagine what happens if the news gets out to every prospective student (and parent) that DU has violated a federal law that was specifically created to protect students from this type of behavior . What do you think would happen to enrollment at DU?
Believe me, DU settled because they could keep the settlement confidential. There's no way they wanted this to go to court.
Hey, Lance.
The enrollment at Duke will have a problem because its tuition is too high. It's high to pay the salaries and compensation packages for the University bigwigs. Enrollment won't suffer because of some alleged FERPA violation. Give me a break.
Also, the tuition will increase because the school will try and recoup the $60 million it blew on its ridiculous settlement with the Duke Lacrosse defendants.
As far as violating federal law... I could accept a fine in the range of $2,000... or so. $20 million each... don't you think that's excessive? Really.
Anyway, I hope everything is going well in your internship.
Sid - Did you know that North Carolina is a "loser pays" state? Basically, The defendant offers to pay an amount they believe is reasonable (an "offer of judgment"), and if the plaintiff fails to accept it and goes forward to trial and recovers an amount that is less than the offer, then the defendant can ask the judge to make the plaintiff pay all of the defendant's court costs.
Has there been an offer of judgment filed in your case?
Gonzaga University had to pay out $700,000 after losing a case when it was determined that an instructor violated FERPA by handing over a students' grades to a potential employer without consent.
Was the Duke FERPA violation worse? Debatable, I guess. What I can say is that there was a great deal more alleged than just FERPA (I used that as an example-- not to suggest it was the ONLY thing DU was guilty of).
You can read the lawsuit if you wish -- Conspiracy, violations of 4th and 5th amendment,deprivation of rights. It's all right there.
Thank you for the well wishes. The intership is going great.
Boring- boring. Boring. Where is wahneeeeeeema? I would rather llisten to victoria peterson and her argle bargle than sid. Geez, guys, this is worse than Oh Canada!
Sid loves to manufacture self inflation. Come on, fella, enlighten us with your brillance. (Gagging sounds.....)
"believe my statement was that there was 'under-aged drinking' and 'racial slur' being shouted by the partygoers, which is confirmed in the biased media. I'm sure there was illicit drug use going on too."
Sideny, what you believe is of no consequence. Whatever you might be sure of is usually a delusion.
Evidence is out there that only one lacrosse player who used a racial slur and that was in response to a slur directed at him by kim roberts/pittman/whoever.
As a number of readers have pointed out, underaged drinking is such a part of the fabric of college life that it were a felony most college classes would be held behind barbed wire topped walls.
"...unlike other blogs such as Liestopper and Durham-in-Wonderland, I am unable to violate my ethical standards and concoct such false fodder."
What ethical standards???
"Also, the tuition will increase because the school will try and recoup the $60 million it blew on its ridiculous settlement with the Duke Lacrosse defendants."
If Duke, as you have claimed, could have avoided paying any settlement by buying off the plaintiffs' lawyers, why did they settle?
Don't try to tell me it was because one of those plaintiffs' attorneys advised them their insurance company would absorb the costs.
Sideny, Duke does have a policy on solicitation which can be accessed by googling the term "Duke University Solicitation policy". You are obviously afraid to do it.
You are obviously afraid to confront any truth.
As I said previously, it is up to the court to decide. You seem to think it is up to you to decide.
Is that you motormouth? All we need is Kilgo and Kenny, and it will be just like old times.
"the most important law suit to hit the tar heel courts"....wheeeeeee, I am so impressed.
Bring back bathrobe boy......at least Nifong is fun to watch.
so, I have a suggestion, Sidney. How about you contact your pal, professor coleman, and ask him to weigh in with his opinion on the merits of your famous law suit......agreeing that if he says it has no merit, then it has no merit! professor coleman is, IMHO, one of the best at Duke.....with a level head and a reasonably unbiased view. So, call him up and ask him to play Judge Judy Coleman for a day. As we said in the fourth grade, "I double dog dare you"...
The written duke solicitation policy
The Duke University campus is designated as a educational space for the intellectual growth and enjoyment of its community members. Duke University values the privacy of its student, staff, & faculty and has adopted the following guidelines for the appropriate activities of sponsored off-campus businesses, organizations or other entities that wish to visit campus and interact with members of its community. As the office charged with student organization record keeping and policy-making the Office of Student Activities and Facilities (OSAF) reserves the right to generate and alter the policy below.
Definition of Solicitation
Solicitation is defined by the act of interceding into a Duke community member's space in order to request information or communicate information about products, services, or events that are not related to Duke University or its educational mission.
Student Organization Sponsorship
Recognized student organizations may sponsor off-campus entities to solicit on university property. The following conditions apply:
The off-campus entity's purpose must align directly with the listed mission of the recognized student organization,
The solicitation activity must be registered with the OSAF prior to engaging Duke community members,
A member of the recognized student organization must remain with the off-campus entity's representatives for the duration of their time on university property, and
Representatives from the off-campus entity must abide by all local, state, and federal laws as well as university policies.
The sponsoring student organization will be held responsible and accountable for off-campus representatives' behavior and actions while on university property.
Sid you violated this policy. Period
Sid Supporter said...
Sid - Did you know that North Carolina is a "loser pays" state? Basically, The defendant offers to pay an amount they believe is reasonable (an "offer of judgment"), and if the plaintiff fails to accept it and goes forward to trial and recovers an amount that is less than the offer, then the defendant can ask the judge to make the plaintiff pay all of the defendant's court costs.
Has there been an offer of judgment filed in your case?
First, thank you for the enlightenment, as I was unaware of such.
Duke never offered to adress my concerns or settle, most likely because it felt that it had the media and the courts on its side. Had I received adequate assurances initially that Duke accepted responsibility for my mistreatment and that it was willing to follow the principles of "restorative justice" to make me whole (once again feel comfortable returning to its campus), then this issue could've been quickly resolved and I would not have even sought any financial compensation. However, that window of opportunity was very short. But Duke never made a good faith effort to work with me.
Lance the Intern said...
Gonzaga University had to pay out $700,000 after losing a case when it was determined that an instructor violated FERPA by handing over a students' grades to a potential employer without consent.
Was the Duke FERPA violation worse? Debatable, I guess. What I can say is that there was a great deal more alleged than just FERPA (I used that as an example-- not to suggest it was the ONLY thing DU was guilty of).
You can read the lawsuit if you wish -- Conspiracy, violations of 4th and 5th amendment,deprivation of rights. It's all right there.
Thank you for the well wishes. The intership is going great.
Hey, Lance.
So, you're telling me that Gonzaga University paid $700,000 to a student who's grades it had given to a prospective employer? Hard for me to believe. If you could send me a link to the story, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise I'll try to google it.
Anonymous said...
Boring- boring. Boring. Where is wahneeeeeeema? I would rather llisten to victoria peterson and her argle bargle than sid. Geez, guys, this is worse than Oh Canada!
Sid loves to manufacture self inflation. Come on, fella, enlighten us with your brillance. (Gagging sounds.....)
Actually, I'm really very modest and introverted... sorta like Michael Jackson when he's off stage. However, in order to be an effective advocate, I must put my name and face out there... I can't do it as an anonymous and still retain credibility. So, self-inflating, I'm not.
Anonymous said...
"Also, the tuition will increase because the school will try and recoup the $60 million it blew on its ridiculous settlement with the Duke Lacrosse defendants."
If Duke, as you have claimed, could have avoided paying any settlement by buying off the plaintiffs' lawyers, why did they settle?
Don't try to tell me it was because one of those plaintiffs' attorneys advised them their insurance company would absorb the costs.
Of course Duke expected the insurance company to reimburse them for that outlandish settlement payout. Not only was its feelings hurt when the insurance company refused, Duke then went about filing a ridiculous lawsuit against the insurance company to try and make it give them the $60 mil. After wasting much money in attorney fees, Duke relented and both sides agreed to drop their actions against the other.
Fact is that Duke should never have settled with the Duke Lacrosse defendants... however, it should have jumped at the chance to settle with me.
Anonymous said...
"the most important law suit to hit the tar heel courts"....wheeeeeee, I am so impressed.
Bring back bathrobe boy......at least Nifong is fun to watch.
so, I have a suggestion, Sidney. How about you contact your pal, professor coleman, and ask him to weigh in with his opinion on the merits of your famous law suit......agreeing that if he says it has no merit, then it has no merit! professor coleman is, IMHO, one of the best at Duke.....with a level head and a reasonably unbiased view. So, call him up and ask him to play Judge Judy Coleman for a day. As we said in the fourth grade, "I double dog dare you"...
Sorry, but you cannot goad me into doing something as stupid as what you just suggested. Not only am I goad-proof, but I am also double-dog-dare-proof.
oooo, I am impressed. not self inflating....not goadable. wowowee. that's so you....
if there were a scale for laughter at this hilarious nonsense of a flub, the needle would be bustin' the top.
I kinda like the suggestion that you ask Coleman to weigh in, him being your bosom buddy and all.....and, him being right there when this terrible mistreatment happened. and all.
you violated duke policy. period. that is why you have no case. and that is why duke wouldn't do your "restorative justice" dance, Wahneeeeema-Victoria-Sidney. Funny, man. Funny
Anonymous said...
The written duke solicitation policy
The Duke University campus is designated as a educational space for the intellectual growth and enjoyment of its community members. Duke University values the privacy of its student, staff, & faculty and has adopted the following guidelines for the appropriate activities of sponsored off-campus businesses, organizations or other entities that wish to visit campus and interact with members of its community. As the office charged with student organization record keeping and policy-making the Office of Student Activities and Facilities (OSAF) reserves the right to generate and alter the policy below.
Definition of Solicitation
Solicitation is defined by the act of interceding into a Duke community member's space in order to request information or communicate information about products, services, or events that are not related to Duke University or its educational mission.
Student Organization Sponsorship
Recognized student organizations may sponsor off-campus entities to solicit on university property. The following conditions apply:
The off-campus entity's purpose must align directly with the listed mission of the recognized student organization,
The solicitation activity must be registered with the OSAF prior to engaging Duke community members,
A member of the recognized student organization must remain with the off-campus entity's representatives for the duration of their time on university property, and
Representatives from the off-campus entity must abide by all local, state, and federal laws as well as university policies.
The sponsoring student organization will be held responsible and accountable for off-campus representatives' behavior and actions while on university property.
Sid you violated this policy. Period
As I have always stated, Duke's policy on solicitation does not prohibit it, but sets forth guidelines under which off-campus businesses, organization, and entities are permitted to solicit its students. First of all, I was a guest at the Duke campus, waiting for the "open to the public" event featuring Justice Breyer to being. I was not there as an organization, a business, or an entity for the purpose of conducting solicitation.
Duke University, in trying to come up with an excuse for mistreating me (other than the truth... which was because I am a Nifong supporter), came up with the lame excuse of solicitation... which doesn't fit any of my activity on its campus. Handing out a business card during the course of a conversation and inviting someone to visit one's website, would not be construed by an objective observer to be anything close to "solicitation."
Therefore I am totally innocent of such a ridiculous charge.
Thereby go ye enlightened.
well, no, sid.....you did violate their policy. plain and simple. but....hey, this is america......go for it, pal. sue their brains out. get yourself a big fat settlement check and fund nifong's law license restoration campaign.
Sid -- I think it might be an appropriate time for you to check with a legal resource (like Dr. Coleman or even Mike Nifong). If, as you say, Duke has the courts on its side, and this case goes to court and is thrown out as a frivolous lawsuit, you might find yourself paying Duke's legal fees.
"Sorry, but you cannot goad me into doing something as stupid as what you just suggested."
You call it stupid to consult a real lawyer for legal advice?
If you needed surgery, would you do it on yourself?
"Fact is that Duke should never have settled with the Duke Lacrosse defendants... however, it should have jumped at the chance to settle with me."
Sideny, what you say here is legally meaningless.
I suggest you consult your friend, Professor Coleman. A corporate defendant settles with a plaintiff because it believes it can not prevail in open court. A corporate defendant goes to court because it believes it can prevail.
"Of course Duke expected the insurance company to reimburse them for that outlandish settlement payout."
Sideny, this is something else you should consult Professor Coleman about.
If Duke were able to prevail in court, it would not have settled with the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players and expected the liability insurance company to foot the bill.
"Duke never offered to adress my concerns or settle, most likely because it felt that it had the media and the courts on its side."
Sideny, translated into a common sense statement, Duke believed it could prevail in court and saw no reason to offer you a settlement
"Handing out a business card during the course of a conversation and inviting someone to visit one's website, would not be construed by an objective observer to be anything close to 'solicitation.'"
Sideny, that s for the court to decide after hearing ALL the evidence, not just your allegations.
Judging from your opinions in the case of the falsely accused, innocent Duke Lacrosse players, I say you believe you are the only party to this suit who should be allowed to present evidence.
"Fact is that Duke should never have settled with the Duke Lacrosse defendants... however, it should have jumped at the chance to settle with me."
Sideny, without hard evidence to support your clim, that is just another unsupported allegation, not a fact.
"So, self-inflating, I'm not."
Sideny, if you believe all the unsupported, unproven allegations you have authored, you have a serious case of megalomania.
"Sorry, but you cannot goad me into doing something as stupid as what you just suggested. Not only am I goad-proof, but I am also double-dog-dare-proof."
Sideny, I think you are admitting that no capable lawyer wants anything to do with your case.
"Also, the tuition will increase because the school will try and recoup the $60 million it blew on its ridiculous settlement with the Duke Lacrosse defendants."
Duke will icrease tuition to recover the amount of the settlement because it could not defend itself in open court.
I suggest you ask your "friend" Professor Coleman about why Duke settled.
"I can't do it as an anonymous and still retain credibility. So, self-inflating, I'm not."
Sideny, even though you take responsibility for your statements, you have not established one shred of credibility. One does not establish credibility by repeatedly making unsupported allegations.
"Okay, so your position is that Duke should pay $20 million to every student with whom it violates the FERPA law... right?"
I am not Lance the Intern.
If Duke caused any student as much damage it caused the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players, they should pay them a lot more regardless of whether or not a FERPA violation was involved.
I remind you again, a corporate defendant settles with a plaintiff because it can not prevail in court. And it is not credible to believe a corporate defendant would settle with a plaintiff because of advice of one of the plaintiff's attorneys.
Sideny, I have left these posts to goad you into further revealing what a deluded megalomaniac you are.
Sideny, your directory doesn't work properly.
One important question you duck answering is, why you do not intend to call Professor Coleman as a witness on your behalf. According to you he was an eyewitness to what happened. His testimony would be hard evidence which would either make or break your case.
My opinion is, you do not plan to call Professor Coleman a) because you really do not have a personal friendship with him and b) his testimony would be unfavorable to your case. He would not corroborate your story.
Sideny, in your complaint, you present no evidence to corroborate what happened to you. I say again, you refuse to subpoena Professor Coleman, who was an eyewitness. You expect the court to accept your complaint on face value and meet your demands. It doesn't work that way. You have to make your case. Judging from your complaint, with its lack of evidence, you do not have a case.
Sideny, you do seem to admit in your own complaint that you did not behave in a dignified, restrained manner.
Sideny, judging from your reply to the motion to dismiss, you seem to think you are above the law. You seem to think you are the judge and/or jury and that the official judicial system should simply accept your own judgment regarding you own lawsuit.
Sideny, you say Duke is vigorously trying to have your suit dismissed because it can not defend successfully in court.
Duke is fighting intensely to have the lawsuits filed against it without discovery taking place and without the cases being tried in court.
So how do you come to your conclusion that Duke would prevail in court against them?
Sideny, you fail to recognize that you have to comply with the procedural rules and have to make your case. You need to do more than simply present your complaint to the court as meritorious. Since you are the one asserting the complaint, you have to prove the complaint has merit. You have offered no evidence.
Sideny, you said you believe that Duke Law School officials, knowing you were planning to attend this certain event, plotted to harass you and possibly arrest you. That is not good enough. You have to present evidence that they actually did.
Just ask your "friend", Professor Coleman.
Sideny, you simply haven't presented any factual evidence that you do have a case against Duke. That is why the magistrate's ruling or whatever is that your case be dismissed.
Sideny, you say the magistrate's ruling was false and misleading with regard to the facts. You have not established any facts.
The deal is, you have to prove your case. Asserting your case is not proof.
The most significant indication that you have no case is that you refuse to call Professor Coleman as a witness although you designate him as a witness to what happened. When there is an eyewitness and the plaintiff refuses to call that witness on his behalf, the usual reason is that eyewitness's testimony will not corroborate your case.
Sid Supporter said...
Sid -- I think it might be an appropriate time for you to check with a legal resource (like Dr. Coleman or even Mike Nifong). If, as you say, Duke has the courts on its side, and this case goes to court and is thrown out as a frivolous lawsuit, you might find yourself paying Duke's legal fees.
Duke is trying its darnedest to get the case dismissed as it dreads going to court against me with its pathetic defense. Anyway, there's no way that I'm going to pay their legal fees. That's pure fantasy on your part.
Anonymous said...
"Sorry, but you cannot goad me into doing something as stupid as what you just suggested."
You call it stupid to consult a real lawyer for legal advice?
If you needed surgery, would you do it on yourself?
Definitely not brain surgery or open heart surgery, but some minor surgery that would not require general anesthesia... I most certainly would operate on myself.
Note, the above post was one which I accidentally posted twice, so I deleted one of them.
Anonymous said...
"Duke never offered to adress my concerns or settle, most likely because it felt that it had the media and the courts on its side."
Sideny, translated into a common sense statement, Duke believed it could prevail in court and saw no reason to offer you a settlement
Of course Duke thought it could prevail because it had the media on its side, and it was counting on the court to dismiss the case and prevent it from going to trial.
That's the way that big businesses and mega-corporations do to the ordinary people it tramples on with impunity. They don't imagine that the ordinary people would dare go up against their big powerful legal machine.
Dr. Harr -- I'm asking you to check with a legal expert. North Carolina IS a "loser pays" state. If this goes to court and you lose,you will not have a say in whether or not you pay for their legal fees. If the defendants ask and the judge determines that you pay, you pay.
That's not "fantasy".
I can just see the retired Dr. Harr attempting to collect a delinquent medical bill from himself. Oh, brother.
Sid writes this silly blob because he thinks he is funny, he thinks he is clever, he likes to annoy others, and he apparently has nothing better to do. The entire "committee" is nothing more than a tasteless joke and a waste of time. Too bad the good doctor doesn't think he could put his time to better use in something constructive. As it is, this whole thing is simply a charade.
"That's the way that big businesses and mega-corporations do to the ordinary people it tramples on with impunity. They don't imagine that the ordinary people would dare go up against their big powerful legal machine."
So how did the three innocent falsely accused lacrosse players go after Duke and win in spite of Duke's "big powerful legal machine"? I say again, if Duke settled with the innocent, falsely accused lacrosse players, it was because its "big powerful legal machine" did not want to take them on in open court.
If it was, as you suggest, because Duke was advised, for whatever reason, to settle by a plaintiff's attorney, where was Duke's "big powerful legal machine" at the time?
I'm thinking Sid just found out what the going rate per hour is for Ellis and Winters, LLP and is somewhere quietly cr@pping his drawers.
What's the over/under on how long before this case quietly goes away?
Maybe sid ought to go back over to duke in his t shirt and march around with the pot banger crowd, yelling "castrate" the blue devils! He seems particularly fond of his own picture in his little shirt! I wonder if the club has a secret hanshake and a secret decoder ring.
One thing i will say for j4n..........it wins the grand prize in the category " poorly written flop authored by a self righteous hypocrite who cannonizes an amoral former attorney". As bill engvall says , " here's your sign"!
"Definitely not brain surgery or open heart surgery, but some minor surgery that would not require general anesthesia... I most certainly would operate on myself."
Judging from the knowledge or lack thereof you have of the legal process, I think you would probably try to sue yourself for malpractice if you got less than a perfect result.
"Duke is trying its darnedest to get the case dismissed as it dreads going to court against me with its pathetic defense."
Sideny, you claim that Duke is represented by a powerful legal machine. Then you say Duke is afraid to go to trial against you who is representing himself.
Can we say inconsistent, boys and girls?
Harr Supporter said...
Did other readers appreciate the irony of Duke citing McFadyen in its reply?
Duke cited this case as being directly on point—Duke’s employees enforced Duke’s policies in restricting the speech of its students—and noted that the same court recently dismissed similar claims in that case. As his readers are aware, Sidney discussed McFadyen on this blog and characterized the lawsuit as being totally without merit. With his total rejection, Sidney implicitly rejected the arguments made by the plaintiffs and accepted Duke’s defense as valid.
In his own lawsuit, Sidney seeks to advance the plaintiff arguments he earlier dismissed as without merit and to overturn the Duke arguments he previously found compelling. He seeks a different conclusion than the court reached in McFadyen (with which he agrees).
I am interested in hearing Sidney’s arguments. I can only speculate. He may argue that Duke owes a greater responsibility to visitors to its campus than it owes to its students. He may argue that pro-Nifong speech is protected speech, but anti-Nifong speech is not. He may argue that he—and not Duke—has the right to interpret Duke’s rules and that Duke’s interpretation of these rules does not apply to him without his consent. He may continue to argue that he is the victim of a massive conspiracy.
Nevertheless, he must explain why the decision reached in McFadyen is correct, but is not applicable to his case.
Sidney, we await your efforts to enlighten us!
My case bears absolutely no resemblance to that of McFadyen. First of all, I was not discriminated against because of public speech or expression. I was discriminated against because of my opinions... what I believed, and what I thought. In my private conversations - one on one with an individual - I may have invited the person to visit my website. Big deal. Does Duke University presume to be able to monitor and regulate private conversations between all individuals who are on its camp? That would be absurd.
My actions and behavior - which were no different than others similarly situated - on April 14, 2010, did not warrant the mistreatment I received by Duke.
Anonymous said...
"Handing out a business card during the course of a conversation and inviting someone to visit one's website, would not be construed by an objective observer to be anything close to 'solicitation.'"
Sideny, that s for the court to decide after hearing ALL the evidence, not just your allegations.
Judging from your opinions in the case of the falsely accused, innocent Duke Lacrosse players, I say you believe you are the only party to this suit who should be allowed to present evidence.
You are incorrect. Duke should feel free to present any information it can. I would like to see what evidence they may have. I have laid my evidence out on the table... which includes an audio recording. In addition, I have presented all of the letters I have sent and all the letters I have received from Duke.
What evidence could Duke University possibly have to help in its defense?
Anonymous said...
Sideny, you simply haven't presented any factual evidence that you do have a case against Duke. That is why the magistrate's ruling or whatever is that your case be dismissed.
Simply put, my case is as follows:
1. I was solicited by Duke to attend a public event held on its campus;
2. I went to the site on campus (a place of public accommodation);
3. I was acting as others similarly situated (not demonstrating, holding banners, chanting, or causing a disruption or disturbance);
4. Upon leaving the event, I was singulary discriminated against by having the security guard approach me and told to leave the property wihout any explanation as to why... the entire event causing me much embarrassment and humiliation.
That's it in a nut shell.
Anonymous said...
I can just see the retired Dr. Harr attempting to collect a delinquent medical bill from himself. Oh, brother.
Sid writes this silly blob because he thinks he is funny, he thinks he is clever, he likes to annoy others, and he apparently has nothing better to do. The entire "committee" is nothing more than a tasteless joke and a waste of time. Too bad the good doctor doesn't think he could put his time to better use in something constructive. As it is, this whole thing is simply a charade.
First of all, I would charge myself a modest fee based on my ability to pay.
Second, I do not believe it is a waste of time to fight to protect my and your right to freedom of opinion.
I was solicited by Duke to attend a public event held on its campus;NO, YOU RESPONDED TO AN OPEN ANNOUNCEMENT OF AN EVENT, NOBODY CALLED YOU UP FROM DUKE AND SAID, SIDNEY, PLEASE COME
2. I went to the site on campus (a place of public accommodation); NO SUCH THING, IN THIS CONTEXT. THE EVENT TOOK PLACE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY
3. I was acting as others similarly situated (not demonstrating, holding banners, chanting, or causing a disruption or disturbance); YOU VIOLATED THE POLICY, FIRST OF ALL, BY NOT GAINING PRIOR APPROVAL TO ENGAGE IN THE BEHAVIOR OF HANDING OUT CARDS AND INVITING SOMEONE/OTHERS TO LOOK AT YOUR WEB SITE. WE ARE NOT STUPID, SIDNEY.
4. Upon leaving the event, I was singulary discriminated against by having the security guard approach me and told to leave the property wihout any explanation as to why... the entire event causing me much embarrassment and humiliation. NO, YOU WERE TOLD WHY. YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE REASON.
THAT'S IT IN A NUTSHELL
Anonymous said...
"Duke is trying its darnedest to get the case dismissed as it dreads going to court against me with its pathetic defense."
Sideny, you claim that Duke is represented by a powerful legal machine. Then you say Duke is afraid to go to trial against you who is representing himself.
Can we say inconsistent, boys and girls?
What's inconsistent? Duke is represented by Ellis & Winters LLP, which I believe to be a powerful legal "machine." Okay? Duke filed a motion to dismiss because it didn't want to go to court. Right? After I answered the defense motion, Duke filed another document with the court... a Brief in further support of the motion to dismiss. They really don't want this case to go to court, and they have muzzled the media to prevent them from reporting on it.
Dear Sid, there is no such thing as freedom of opinion per se as some kind of constitutionally guaranteed right. Freedom of SPEECH is the EXPRESSION of an opinion, a behavior, an action. An opinion is a thought. We hold opinions, we have thoughts. It is only when we ACT on those thoughts and opinions, i.e, speak them, express them,.....that the Constitution, Bill of Rights, laws, regulations, etc. come into play. I am not a lawyer, so don't try to dazzle us with your pseudo madeup legal argle bargle. But, even I know the difference between an holding an opinion and ACTING on an opinion.
YOU, PAL, ACTED ON YOUR OPINIONS IN A MANNER THAT VIOLATED DUKE POLICY.
Sid Supporter said...
Dr. Harr -- I'm asking you to check with a legal expert. North Carolina IS a "loser pays" state. If this goes to court and you lose,you will not have a say in whether or not you pay for their legal fees. If the defendants ask and the judge determines that you pay, you pay.
That's not "fantasy".
That doesn't even make sense. If a plaintiff can survive the defense's motion to dismiss, then the Court has, in essence, affirmed that the case is worthy of being taken to trial.
Give me just one example of a plaintiff who lost a case being forced to pay the defendant.
Geez, I kinda hope this , uh, "case" does go to court. I would pay for a ticket to see Sid wearing his little club shirt, yelling that he had been the victim of evil discrimination by the heehaw. then, we would spend the next year hearing that the judge is part of the great yipppeee conspiracy, too. Fodder for endless whining by the world's worst writer.
Oh, and Sid, you are DEAD WRONG about escaping payment of fees if you lose. I hope you have a fat wallet
"Give me just one example of a plaintiff who lost a case being forced to pay the defendant."
Maybe this is not exactly what you wanted to hear. A man successfully sued the Westboro Baptist Church. The erdict was overturned in the Federal Courts. The Supreme Curt decided for WBC. The plaintiff was ordered to pay WBC's legal expenses.
"What's inconsistent? Duke is represented by Ellis & Winters LLP, which I believe to be a powerful legal "machine." Okay? Duke filed a motion to dismiss because it didn't want to go to court. Right? After I answered the defense motion, Duke filed another document with the court... a Brief in further support of the motion to dismiss. They really don't want this case to go to court, and they have muzzled the media to prevent them from reporting on it."
If you believe this, boys and girls, you believe the moon is made of green cheese, or that the innocent, falsely accused lacrosse players are actually guilty.
"I would like to see what evidence they[Duke] may have. I have laid my evidence out on the table... which includes an audio recording. In addition, I have presented all of the letters I have sent and all the letters I have received from Duke."
Sideny, you haven't presented any evidence. You have made unsupported allegations. That you will not call your "friend" Professor Colemam, an eyewitness according to you, indicates you have no case.
"I was discriminated against because of my opinions... what I believed, and what I thought. In my private conversations - one on one with an individual - I may have invited the person to visit my website."
Sideny, it is not enough to make an assertion. You have to prove your case. I suggest you consult your "friend" Professor Coleman as to how you should prove your allegations.
"So, call him up and ask [Professor Coleman] to play Judge Judy Coleman for a day. As we said in the fourth grade, 'I double dog dare you'..."
It w3ouldn't be funny at all if Sideny tried to argue his "case" before Judge Judy. She would devour him just as thoroughly as a bonfire devours a piece of tissue paper.
"That doesn't even make sense. If a plaintiff can survive the defense's motion to dismiss, then the Court has, in essence, affirmed that the case is worthy of being taken to trial."
Sideny, that is true. It is also true that if the court dismisses the complaint, it believes the case is not worthy of being taken to trial.
Consider this again. The court, not you, decides if your case is worthy to go to trial.
"My actions and behavior - which were no different than others similarly situated - on April 14, 2010, did not warrant the mistreatment I received by Duke."
Sideny, you have to prove that. That you assert it as you do does not make it fact.
Sid -- The 1st Amendment clearly states that only the government is prohibited from restricting speech.
DU is NOT the government, therefore, they can restrict speech. Why do you have such difficulty grasping this concept?
Thismis just Sid's way of drawing attention to himself. Nothing more. Just a sad little pathetic racist trying to get attention Thats it. He represents nothing. He leads nothing. He offers nothing. He contributes nothing. The silliness of this whole flub is epitomized in the picture of Sid in his t shirt. What a sorry waste of time. Sid you wanna be a man and do something decent? Give your time and money to a worthy cause. I would suggest, for starters, the Foundation established in memory of Eve Carson who was slaughtered by two amoral scumbags. Why not donate some of your time to something that actaully matters instead of yabbering on endlessly about your false injury at the hands of the evil heejaw at duke Give us all a break and spend five minutes remembering eve carson and mr mahato instead of running your mouth about yourself. Personally i dont give a hoot about your ridiculous rantings. What a sorry waste of bandwidth
"Was the Duke FERPA violation worse?"
I would say yes. Duke intentionally violated FERPA in an effort to disrupt the education of its own students.
Walt-in-Durham
Sid may have a claim, Duke did treat him poorly. Not unlike it treated three innocent students.
However, Sid elected to proceed under 28 USC 1343 for discrimination based on his opinions. As Duke correctly points out, section 1343 must be applied to individuals and Sid must show that the individuals named acted under the color of state law. Sid failed to sue the one person involved in this matter who did act under the color of state law. Thus, Duke is correct, Sid's case fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt said "Sid failed to sue the one person involved in this matter who did act under the color of state law. Thus, Duke is correct, Sid's case fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted."
by Sid's own admission, the one person who could be considered as acting under color of state law (the Duke Police Officer) did nothing. There is no grounds for a claim.
My case bears absolutely no resemblance to that of McFadyen.
I commend you for finally being willing to discuss an issue. You generally ignore comments or make ridiculous straw man arguments when faced with opinions with which you disagree.
I disagree with your conclusion. McFadyen is directly on point. That case also involved the selective application of Duke’s rules. Duke (Duke Police) stopped students from organizing a voter registration drive at a football game. Duke permitted a non-student group (the Monks campaign) to engage in the same activity at the same game. Duke clearly applied its rules differently to different groups—different opinions allegedly drove the disparate treatment.
Even after the students agreed to abandon their registration drive, Duke Police refused to permit students even to wear t-shirts that promoted that cause. That refusal is based on the opinions of the students. That refusal helps clarify that you violated Duke’s rules when you wore a t-shirt that promoted a cause (even if Duke’s letter did not note that violation).
The court found that Duke, as a private institution, has the right to restrict behavior (such as giving out business cards and wearing a t-shirt that promotes a cause) and is permitted to discriminate based on opinion. It is not required to treat everyone equally. Your removal from campus and the students’ treatment are consistent with those rights. Duke does not have to be fair.
While I disagree with your conclusions, I find your comment a reasonable attempt to differentiate your case from a previously decided case. You would have been well served to have made this argument, but in more detail, in your filing. Instead you dismissed the Magistrate’s analysis of cases as “esoteric legalese mumbo-jumbo.” You did not debate the legal issue, but resorted to whining about your mistreatment, belatedly playing the race card, making baseless charges and ad hominem attacks on the Magistrate and providing a rambling discussion of other cases that are irrelevant to your own case, sometimes making bizarre accusations. You made no attempt to address the Magistrate’s reasons for making his recommendation.
I found your final filing to be frivolous.
Anonymous said...
"Give me just one example of a plaintiff who lost a case being forced to pay the defendant."
Maybe this is not exactly what you wanted to hear. A man successfully sued the Westboro Baptist Church. The erdict was overturned in the Federal Courts. The Supreme Curt decided for WBC. The plaintiff was ordered to pay WBC's legal expenses.
Thank you for the reference. You may be right. But I'm not worried because I do not expect to lose. The defendants' best chance is to keep me from getting to the courtroom. They know it, just as do I. Once I do get to present my case before a jury, it's all over.
Anonymous said...
"I would like to see what evidence they[Duke] may have. I have laid my evidence out on the table... which includes an audio recording. In addition, I have presented all of the letters I have sent and all the letters I have received from Duke."
Sideny, you haven't presented any evidence. You have made unsupported allegations. That you will not call your "friend" Professor Colemam, an eyewitness according to you, indicates you have no case.
Why should I call Professor Coleman. His statements are on the audio recording... they're a matter of record. The recording has been posted on my website for more than a year.
Anonymous said...
Geez, I kinda hope this , uh, "case" does go to court. I would pay for a ticket to see Sid wearing his little club shirt, yelling that he had been the victim of evil discrimination by the heehaw. then, we would spend the next year hearing that the judge is part of the great yipppeee conspiracy, too. Fodder for endless whining by the world's worst writer.
Oh, and Sid, you are DEAD WRONG about escaping payment of fees if you lose. I hope you have a fat wallet
I don't have a fat wallet... and I'm not worried about losing this case against Duke. That's not in my future.
You are very astute, however, as I will wear my tee-shirt in court, if I can get away with it.
"They know it, just as do I. Once I do get to present my case before a jury, it's all over."
Sideny, you are correct. It will be all over for you.
"Why should I call Professor Coleman. His statements are on the audio recording... they're a matter of record. The recording has been posted on my website for more than a year."
Sideny, you have to afford your opponent the chance to cross examine a witness. I suspect that unless you call Professor Coleman personally, his statement would not be admissable.
Did you ever think Duke would call Professor Coleman as a witness?
Welcome back Motormouth.
Merry Christmas to Sid, Kilgo and all my friends at J4N.
Your humble public servant,
Mike
Who is motormouth?
Anonymous said...
"Who is motormouth?"
See the comments to this post:
http://justice4nifong.blogspot.com/2011/04/postmortem-shenanigans-and-media.html
http://justice4nifong.blogspot.com/
2011/04/postmortem-shenanigans-and-media.html
I am not he
"Why should I call Professor Coleman. His statements are on the audio recording... they're a matter of record."
Those statements are not sworn testimony. Did you ever think that Duke would call him as a witness?
And Merry Christmas to you, Mikey.
We do not know tht"duke treated sidney poorly". All we know is his version of events. What if sid was being obnoxious, making a scene handing out his stuff, talking, putting on his usual show? What if he violated the duke solicitation policy? In other words, what if duke acted entirely appropriately and even conservatively? I have seen the public behavior of some of the j4n people on his flop. Victoria, wahneeema, etc. they act like buffoons and loud mouthed arrogant jackasses in public. So maybe we are not getting quite the whole story here. Just sayin'..........
Anonymous said...
"Why should I call Professor Coleman. His statements are on the audio recording... they're a matter of record."
Those statements are not sworn testimony. Did you ever think that Duke would call him as a witness?
I have no problem with Professor Coleman taking the stand. If it is necessary to call him to testify, I will. If the defendants call him to testify, so much the better.
Is there any reason why I should fear having Professor Coleman testify?
Anonymous said...
We do not know tht"duke treated sidney poorly". All we know is his version of events. What if sid was being obnoxious, making a scene handing out his stuff, talking, putting on his usual show? What if he violated the duke solicitation policy? In other words, what if duke acted entirely appropriately and even conservatively? I have seen the public behavior of some of the j4n people on his flop. Victoria, wahneeema, etc. they act like buffoons and loud mouthed arrogant jackasses in public. So maybe we are not getting quite the whole story here. Just sayin'..........
I had been on Duke campus numerous times and had never been accused of misbehavior. My actions on that date were appropriate as all others in attendance. The only thing Duke can accuse me of is handing out business cards and inviting the recipients to visit my website... and I even did that discriminately with some of the people with whom I was engaged in conversation. Also, I had exchanged business cards and handed out business cards in the past without incident. This was a planned scheme to arrest me... period.
"The only thing Duke can accuse me of is handing out business cards and inviting the recipients to visit my website."
This meets Duke's definition of solicitation, Sid. So technically, you're saying that the only thing that Duke can accuse you of is solicitation.
Which is an appropriate reason for them to ask you to leave.
It's incredible to me that you keep falling back on the "but I've done this before!" argument. Just because you've done it before doesn't make it any less a violation of DU policy. It just means that DU was lax in enforcing the policy.
"Is there any reason why I should fear having Professor Coleman testify?"
Sideny, youtell us. Earlier in your blog you said you did not intendto call Professor Coleman. That would indicate you woud fear what he would say under oath.
"I had been on Duke campus numerous times and had never been accused of misbehavior. My actions on that date were appropriate as all others in attendance. The only thing Duke can accuse me of is handing out business cards and inviting the recipients to visit my website... and I even did that discriminately with some of the people with whom I was engaged in conversation. Also, I had exchanged business cards and handed out business cards in the past without incident. This was a planned scheme to arrest me... period."
Sideny, again, it is not enough to make the assertions. You have to prove them. Fro what I have read in your blog and in the legal filings, you offer assertions, not proof.
Well...It seems one question has been answered -- Who Sid is getting his "legal advice" from.
Check out the recent post here regarding ANOTHER civil rights lawsuit filed in Durham -- this time by renowned Pro Se Attorney....Glenwood Wilson.
My Mistake -- I meant LINWOOD Wilson....
Post a Comment