RSSFormer Duke Lacrosse Player Kyle Dowd Files Law Suit Against Duke University … Let the Games Begin
So suddenly the Duke lacrosse players are the victims? Really? Who created the environment
that lead to the rape allegations?
Former Duke Lacrosse player, Klye Dowd, has filed a law suit against Duke University and visiting associate professor Kim Curtis. Dowd is accusing professor Kim Curtis of failing him because he was a part of the Duke lacrosse team. This thing is now bordering on the completely insane.
See lawsuit and court documents here.
Kyle Dowd filed the lawsuit Thursday against against Duke University and visiting associate professor Kim Curtis. Dowd, who graduated with David Evans in May 2006, was not indicted in the rape case but says that Professor Curtis gave him and another lacrosse player in class a failing grade in class as a form of retaliation after the Duke Lacrosse scandal broke. The two players were apparently receiving passing grades until the scandal, and Duke University revised their grades upward months after graduation. (ABC11)
So now the pendulum has swung back to the virtuous lacrosse team? However, before everyone starts praising the members of the virtuous, pious and innocent Duke lacrosse team as drummed by the MSM; let us remember some simple facts.
-
Who created the atmosphere and the environment that allowed the allegations by the dancer that was hired March 13, 2006?
-
Who hired the exotic dancer for their party?
-
Who failed to mitigate the damages that occurred by having a party with a stripper?
-
Who brought unwanted attention, adverse publicity and negative press to Duke University by creating at atmosphere in the first place?
The question that really needs to be asked is would any of the alleged allegations of rape, contradiction of stories, actions by DA Mike Nifong ever have occurred if the Duke lacrosse team had had a party that did not include a stripper? The answer is no. So who really created this nightmare? And you have the nerve to sue a University for “unjust enrichment”.
Duke is being sued for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. Curtis and Duke are being sued for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and punitive damages. For all but one of those claims the lawsuit states that the plaintiffs were damaged in excess of $10,000.
Hopefully Duke will counter-sue for the negative image that the Duke lacrosse team has provided to potential college candidates. Duke University tries to pass itself off as one that has the highest of moral and academic standards. At the very least Duke lacrosse members should have been suspended for having a party with a stripper. Was everyone at the party drinking alcohol of age? Hmm? There is supposed to be an athletic moral standard that is supposed to be followed. Before the media now reverses their field and jumps on the Duke lacrosse team, please spare us their innocence and virtue.
Former Duke Lacrosse Player Sues University for Failing Grade
So if the grade was changed to a “D” and he passed and graduated … where’s the damage?
Dowd, who was not charged in the case, claims in his lawsuit that visiting professor Kim Curtis engaged in “outrageous and unethical conduct” when she gave him an F in a politics and literature class. The lawsuit claims he had earned C’s on his assignments until that point.
The university later changed Dowd’s grade to a D, citing a calculation error. But Dowd claims the incident nearly kept him from graduating.
Dowd and his parents are asking for the grade to be changed to a “P” for passing, and want $60,000 in damages.
If you liked this post, you may also like these:
Comments
12 Responses to “Former Duke Lacrosse Player Kyle Dowd Files Law Suit Against Duke University … Let the Games Begin”
Leave a Reply
No strippers, games with girls, no dating, hand holding, not so much a visit to the parlor…pen the nose, not a smell. Is saltpeter real?
How they got into the situation is not exactly the same as what got them arrested and found guilty by being of rich white boys. And powers ‘failing’/falling from there on.
However, as a personal way of thinking I do not like lawsuits any more than lawyers. I would love to see the boys try to go back to school, get jobs off the huge publicity even… move on with life. But I imagine the lawyers want to grab the funds out of umbrella insurance policies of the school and administrators. I hoped for much better than this average jerk action. Maybe lawyer fees stacked up. It is getting very difficult to keep aspects of real matter separated, but I still think the dancer is at fault for lifestyle worse than a nude dancer while never geeting close to a related truth. It is ok to put blame where it goes, sharing blame, where it comes as a side to the overwhelming important claim? Shameful. A rape accusation not a common ‘where did this argument begin’ with a spouse.
_______
SM: Not entirely true … there is a thing called the chain rule.
You can have a party w/o the need for a stripper. Trust me, I was no prude in college … played Rugby. I think I know a few things about college partying as our team was infamous for them.
However, without exposing themselves to the dancer and having hired her … none of what transpired afterwards could ever have occurred. They bare fault for creating the atmosphere.
Also, if my college Rugby team had ever been caught having hired a stripper for a party we all would have been booted of the team and probably faced college suspensions.
Red
I also agree that these fellas were engaging risky behaviour by hiring the stripper. The basis for his lawsuit is a failing grade? Bogus, let him retake the course and tests.
My qualm is that when a entity, whether private or public makes important decisions based on allegations, before investigations or trials.
I for one do not like lawsuits, they cost us all plenty, but what happens when the line of personal rights is crossed?
We have a mayor in a adjoining town, that suspended a cop with out pay, based on an allegation. The cop sued, won his back pay and then some, at the taxpayers expense.
Isn’t there some sort of morals clause one signs in college when particpating in college athletics or academics?
The media has it, so should Universities to protect their good name. No, you do not have to be a prude, but hiring a stripper? That is sooo STUPID!
Was this party “over-the-top”? — YES!!.
Did the DA and the university over-react? — not only YES, but WAY “over-the-top” YES!!!.
The boys suffered a lot more than a “wild party” merited. Their lives were potentially ruined.
I hate lawsuits also, but I have to agree they should sue and win.
Yes, these boys created the environment where this situation occurred. However, if he can prove that the failing grade was simply a matter of kicking members of the Lacrosse team while they were down, then it should be punished. If I ever have children, they will not be allowed to even apply to Duke. If his claims were true, I hope the professor gets fired.
Yeah, I guess giving the “boys” money for immoral conduct and disgracing the name of the university IS the American way. Another victory over morality and decency, and here is a bag of wampum for all the trouble that you brought on yourself. Poor, poor boy.
If I were Dean I would keep their collective rear ends out and have them go to a school that could accomodate their carnal proclivities, like maybe some college in Tijuana.#;-)
Oh well.
Hey,
I am a Duke grad, and we just gave a 50′th birthday party for my best friend who is also a Duke grad. We hired a male stripper, some adult beverages were consumed, and pictures were taken. There may even have been some complaints from the neighbors. So here are some “simple” facts:
Who created the atmosphere and the environment that allowed the allegations by the dancer that was hired?
Who hired the exotic dancer for the party?
Who failed to mitigate the damages that occurred by having a party with a stripper?
Who brought unwanted attention, adverse publicity and negative press to Duke University by creating at atmosphere in the first place?
Umm, could you post your real name and info, so we could see if maybe you were involved in any similar situations?
I agree that the boys acted inappropriately by hiring a stripper for their party. Does that make it ok for a professor to give Dowd a failing grade because he was on the lacrosse team? How inappropriate is that from an adult who is supposed be a role model for our college students?
What happened to a person being innocent until proven guilty? It’s the professor’s job to grade a student based on their work, not fail him because of the professor’s personal judgement.
Misbehavior by a college student does not justify misbehavior by the professor. In fact I think it’s worse on the professor’s part. She is the adult.
I hate to say this, but hiring strippers is not a crime. And at a rate of $200 each its not explotation, its probably up to par with what those ‘high price lawyers’ make.
An Open Letter to Michael Nifong
by William L. Anderson
Hello, Mike. Had I written this open letter last summer, I doubt you would have heard of me, but my sources in Durham (and they are good sources, Mike) tell me that I pretty much am on your enemies list. I’m glad I could accomplish that feat, but from what I can tell, that list is getting longer while we speak.
However, in this letter, I come to you in peace. I’m offering you advice, good advice, I might add, and if I were you, I would take it. Don’t get me wrong. I really hope that you not only lose your law license and your job, but since you were trying to take away the lives of three young men who had committed no crimes, I do hope that you have the opportunity to do a stretch in prison, or at least have to face that horrifying prospect. After all, there are people in this country who belong behind bars, and you are one of them.
But even though I want you to go to prison, I am going to offer you advice that I think very well not only could keep you out of what Lew Rockwell calls the crowbar motel, but also could save your career. Think about that, Mike. I am trying to help you keep your law license, your freedom, and maybe even your job, so you need to listen to me.
The first and most important thing is that you need to drop the kidnapping and sexual assault charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans. I mean drop the charges the way that Duke University receivers drop passes at crucial times during a close football game. Those charges need to disappear, and fast, for if you insist on pushing them forward, it only will get worse for you.
As I give you this advice, let me caution you not to listen to people like Wendy Murphy. She has been on television championing your cause, and wrote this abomination of an op-ed for USA Today that declared your dropping the rape charges, but keeping the others, to be a “brilliant move.” Trust me, Mike; you don’t want Murphy being your only cheerleader, for I can give you a list of law-abiding and respectable people who would refuse to spit on her grave only because they hate standing in long lines.
No, listen to me. Dropping those charges leads to my second point. For the past nine months, you have been telling the world you had a great case. Last spring, while reading something by your political allies, I saw where you had a “mountain of physical evidence” that pointed toward those three men having committed what the black journalist Cash Michaels called a “brutal rape.”
As you know, that mountain never was on your side; it was on the other side. My guess is that you had that figured out the minute you spoke to Brian Meehan of the DNA lab last April (before you secured the indictments against Reade and Collin), as he gave you the bad news that the only thing DNA was going to do would be to further discredit Crystal and, by definition, your case.
That is when you made your biggest mistake. You lied, and then tried to cover the lie, and when you were caught, you gave a litany of excuses that rivals anything John Belushi would have given in one of his movies. Despite Murphy’s contention that you simply were trying to protect the “privacy” of the unindicted lacrosse players, reason tells the rest of us that you were not too worried about protecting people whom you publicly had labeled “hooligans” and “rapists.”
Mike, I can assure you that Judge W. Osmond Smith III was not taken in by your various excuses that range from “I didn’t know” to “the dog ate my homework” to “no harm, no foul.” Maybe another judge might have looked the other way before this case became The Story nationally. When the Los Angeles Times is writing editorials calling for your head on a platter, you have to understand that this no longer is a Durham case. It is a national case, and you cannot stuff that thing back into your little jurisdiction.
Thus, literally everything you bring into that courtroom on February 5 is going to undergo scrutiny from every news outlet and every legal analyst in the country, not to mention overseas. Believe me, that is not something you want to happen, as the outright dishonesty of your “evidence” is going to be hung out for the world to see. It is one thing for that to happen in the current arena dominated by writers and talking heads, where nothing official has happened.
However, once you put this dreck before a judge, and the court gets to see exactly what your “evidence” really is, you are going to be in much more trouble than you are now. At this moment, you still are guilty only of “bad judgment.” If you walk into that courtroom with your witness in tow, your “investigators,” and your “medical evidence” (or, better put, your medical non-evidence), at that point you are going to be seen as the D.A. who has perpetrated a fraud. At that point, Mike, you will have openly committed a crime for which will make you vulnerable to spending time in the crowbar motel. That is fraud, Mike, and I am using that term in the legal sense.
There is a way out. You can go to the courthouse today – right now, I urge you – and make the following declaration:
I am announcing today that I have dropped all charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans. There will be no further charges, and no more investigations of the alleged events that occurred on March 13 and 14, 2006.
At the time the accuser made the charges, my conversations with police officers led me to believe there had been a rape and sexual assault of the woman in question. As a prosecutor, I was duty-bound to investigate and the information that police gave me was of the type that required me to pursue this case and seek the indictments.
However, after further examination of the charges, I no longer can conclude that they are credible, and if I am not sure myself of the credibility of the accusations, by law I cannot further pursue this matter in a court of law. From the start, I have made it clear that this office takes rape allegations seriously, and we will investigate those allegations.
I do regret any actions I took which might have appeared to be overzealous, but at no time did I act against the letter or spirit of the law. While I take responsibility for mistakes that I might have made during this episode, let me assure all of you that those mistakes were made in the pursuit of what I thought was a just course of action.
Granted, about everything I have written for you is a lie, but since you already have lied repeatedly as an officer of the court, one more lie won’t hurt you, especially since it will have been told in the course of your ending this legal fraud. After all, you did not make the initial rape allegations; it was a woman with a history of drug abuse, prostitution, and mental problems (she was hospitalized in 2005 for those). She was trying to keep from being involuntarily committed to a mental institution when she made the charges, and that hardly was your fault.
But if you drop the charges with the above declaration, you have something you can bring to the representatives of the North Carolina Bar Association, who already have summoned you to appear before an investigative body. You can claim you were trying to make sure that a possible rape victim who is black and poor would receive justice. You can claim you were overzealous, but sincere in your actions.
(You might even try to repeat some of the acting talent you showed when you demonstrated on national television the alleged choke hold that the accused put on the woman. You sure were convincing when the cameras were on you.)
If the members of the legal cartel – I mean, your fellow attorneys of this august body – act within their usual scope of things, you might just get off with a reprimand, provided you have not tried to bring a lying accuser, lying police officers, and anyone else who would be torn apart by defense attorney, into a court of law. If you go that far, you can bet that the authorities will have no choice but to throw you to the wolves.
Remember, there are prosecutors in North Carolina who tried to get someone executed, even though they had exculpatory evidence in their possession (which they failed to give to the defense of Alan Gell). They got off with bare reprimands, and both of them are gainfully employed in the law. You might want to speak to David Hoke and Debra Graves about how to grovel in front of the Bar Association investigative committee, so that you, too, can get your free get-out-of-jail card.
Above all, Mike the key is dropping these charges now. Take my advice, please. I may not like you, but I believe that it would be best for everyone involved if you were to punt, including you. If you refuse to take my advice and continue this fraud, then people who have some authority over you are going to dismiss the charges, and then they will deal with you. Mike, you have an opportunity to see that this humiliating experience does not happen, and I recommend that you take the proper course of action today.
December 29, 2006
William L. Anderson, Ph.D. [send him mail], teaches economics at Frostburg State University in Maryland, and is an adjunct scholar of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com/anderson/anderson161.html
zzzzzzz….
wha? William L. Anderson open letter(cheerfully provided to us by Burt Wats) finished?
Bravo! Encore! Touche! ….and all of that. Now give that man a tank of oxygen to replace the huffing and puffing he provided us with so he can get on with his so-called Ph.D. life.
Phew! As if the whole lot of all these scallawags(from da Dukesters to the trollop to the DA and his entourage) involved in this muck and mire are deserving of anything less than the embarassment they so richly earned and deserve. Fie!
After hearing about the group of 88, it would not surprise me to find that some of the teachers turned to such methods to make their point. I’ve encountered similar experiences. Quite frankly, I firmly believe that the whole justice system in “Wonderland” needs to be overhauled. Crooked cops and DA’s, Teachers that will openly hang a group of men before the facts are found…I believe Duke University needs to address its faculty as pertains to such matters. I wish the boys well and hope that Duke learns something from this (probably not)!