Well Sid has been at it again. He filed his response to Duke's response. In many ways, these two litigants deserve each other. It's sort of pot calling the kettle black sort of litigation. However, Duke does have the law and equity on its side. Sid did file this case once, he lost on the merits. Now he wants to do it again, just exactly the same way. What's the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and expecting a different result. That's Sid. For the good of all litigants, we cannot allow endless re-litigation of the same claims over and over again.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt -- Apparently we need your permission to read Sid's document.
ReplyDeleteFIFY
DeleteWalt
Essentially, Duke is asking for no penalty. In seeking an injunction from a third (or fourth... ) lawsuit, they are merely asking the court to prohibit Harr from doing what he already has no right to do--namely, re-litigate a case that has been decided.
ReplyDeleteOnly Sidney is unaware of how lucky he is.
Sid probably doesn't understand how lucky he is. Duke's lawyers probably talked the university into not seeking damages because they figured they'd never collect them from Sid. He's broke. He squandered his talent as a M.D. and now he's broke. Sad situation really.
DeleteWalt
Hey, Walt. If my permission is needed for any outcome that will provide enlightenment, I will be glad to give it.
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that as hard as Duke is fighting to keep my case from going to court that it knows that it will likely lose. If Duke was up against a frivolous case it would just go ahead and fight it out in the courtroom and be done with it.
I fixed the permissions. The error was mine.
DeleteI think you're reading too much into Duke's 12(b)(6) and Rule 11 motions. They won the first time and they don't want to have to do it again and again. I think you are misunderstanding the law. Under 12(b)(6) everything you plead is taken as true and all reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom. To lose on 12(b)(6) means that even with that high bar, you didn't set out a case. You're going to lose again and get an injunction.
I would say this is probably not a good case for you to engage in your usual name calling of the Magistrate when he rules against you. But, I know you won't take good advice. You're hard headed.
Walt
Walt,
ReplyDeleteI thought it would be helpful to your readers, who may not have followed Sidney's initial lawsuit. I quote remarkable language from the order:
In his 34 pages of objections, much of which is a diatribe on Plaintiff’s perception that former state prosecutor Michael Nifong (who was disbarred for prosecutorial misconduct in connection with his prosecution of alleged crimes by certain members of the Duke University lacrosse team who were later declared innocent of all charges by the North Carolina Attorney General) was mistreated by the media and others, Plaintiff takes the extraordinary tact of repeatedly maligning the motivations and personal integrity of the United States Magistrate Judge and thus this court. Among the charges Plaintiff levies about the Magistrate Judge are that he is “lying to th[is] Court in his recommendation” (Doc. 15 at 1), engaged in “flagrantly unethical, egregious and biased professional misconduct in favoring Defendants” (id.), “attempts to mislead the Court” (id. at 3), engaged in “nothing more than purposeful fabrication” (id.), “offer[ed] up some esoteric legalese mumbo- jumbo to support his decision” (id. at 5), “blatantly lied . . . with the intent to mislead the Court for the purpose of gaining from the Court a favorable decision for Defendants” (id. at 22), “tried to concoct a reason [to support his conclusion]” (id.), “indulged in making misleading and unsubstantiated pronouncements” (id.), uttered “lies [that are] neither innocent nor misstatementsbut rather calculated to deceive and mislead the Court” (id.), “prevaricated and misled the Court in his recommendation . . . performing more like an attorney for the Ellis & Winters law firm in Greensboro, North Carolina, which is representing Defendants” (id. at 27), “lie[d] on behalf of Defendants in order to mislead the Court in an attempt to get a ruling in favor of the powerful Defendants” (id.), and chose to “purposely lie to the Court about facts of the case, in an attempt to mislead the Court to rule in favor of one of the parties, [which is] the most severe manner of misconduct” (id. at 33). Plaintiff asks that the court “place appropriate sanctions against [the Magistrate Judge] for lying to the Court in an attempt to mislead it in favor of Defendants.” (Id. at 34.)
This leaves the issue of Plaintiff’s gratuitous and vile invective directed at this court. Such comments were totally unnecessary for, as explained above, the factual distinction Plaintiff pressed was wholly irrelevant to the legal issues raised by the motion to dismiss his complaint.3 Neither the liberal pleading rules nor generous pro se practices of the courts has eliminated “the time honored notion that the law and the courts of the United States are important parts of American society worthy of respect.” Theriault v. Silber, 579 F.2d 302, 303 (5th Cir. 1978) (dismissing an appeal with prejudice because the pro se appellant’s notice of appeal contained “vile and insulting references to the trial judge”). Plaintiff’s pro se status is not an excuse to engage in abusive conduct, and Plaintiff is warned against further personal attacks on the Magistrate Judge or any judicial officer of the federal courts. See id; 18 U.S.C. § 401(1) (providing power to punish misbehavior by fine or imprisonment, or both). The court will not hesitate in appropriate cases to exercise its full contempt and other powers in order to protect the dignity of the nation’s judicial system as a forum for the thoughtful resolution of legitimate grievances. Plaintiff is admonished to conduct himself accordingly.
After this warning, I would expect that a repeat performance would be rewarded with a contempt citation.
"the nation’s judicial system as a forum for the thoughtful resolution of legitimate grievances. Plaintiff is admonished to conduct himself accordingly."
DeleteI am not sure the phrase "thoughtful resolution" is what Sid or Duke has in mind.
Walt-in-Durham