Friday, October 05, 2007

The Lawsuit

Here it is thanks to abclocal;

DAVID F. EVANS; COLLIN FINNERTY; and READE SELIGMANN,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CITY OF DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA; MICHAEL B. NIFONG; MARK GOTTLIEB; BENJAMIN HIMAN; DAVID ADDISON; LINWOOD WILSON; STEVEN CHALMERS; BEVERLY COUNCIL; RONALD HODGE; JEFF LAMB; STEPHEN MIHAICH;
MICHAEL RIPBERGER; LEE RUSS;
DNA SECURITY, INC.; RICHARD CLARK; and BRIAN MEEHAN,Defendants.

PDF of Lawsuit

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wow! What a lawsuit.

Bend over Durham your just rewards is coming!

Anonymous said...

To David, Reade, and Collin,

Do you intend to sue the principal perpetrator of the hoax, the protein-enriched whore, Crystal Gail Mangum?

Anonymous said...

1:26: You oversimplify.

Action items are civil rights violations by entities in official capacity. They cite 14th Amendment to pray relief in a federal court. (They should have invoked diverse citizenship, and did.) Action against FA would be based on her slander and hard to prosecute. Foremost, plaintiffs ask the court to appoint a "Monitor" to prevent future injustice against other parties. Certainly they themselves plan to spend the rest of their lives staying out of Durham. How would the court "monitor" the behavior of FA? As an afterthought, plaintiffs ask for damages (without naming numbers.) The City of Durham in its official capacity has the visible asset of taxing power; a "deep pocket." FA in her official capacity has "no pocket" in either figurative or literal senses. Don't go into visible assets. And DNA repositories don't count.

-- no, not that Glenn

Anonymous said...

I am getting a little tired of Crystal being left out of the mix again!! She should be named as a defendant! She has caused so much upheaval, yet she remains unscathed. It just doesn't seem right.

Anonymous said...

"She should be named as a defendant!"

If she were a defendant, then she could be a martyr. More importantly, her neighbors will be cursing her name for the next 20 years as they pay taxes to cover her lies

Anonymous said...

she should be the main one sued as she was the one supposedly giving the false accusation. that she was not charged by Cooper is one of the biggest and most laughable things about his whole innocence statement and weakens it in the eyes of the public,especially since he implied she is mentally unstable but produced no medical exam at the time of her interviews with him and the special prosecutors to support his statements. And if she is a martyr, so what do you people care? She would be a martyr to the black people of Durham and since when have you people on Listoppers ever given a care to what they think?

Anonymous said...

You cannot get blood from a stone, and for all of the perpetrated hoaxes, the true responsibility lies with the system, which so erroneously failed to do. Therefore rendering the state completely liable.
Rhonda

Anonymous said...

To 2:46,

CGM isn't liable for the state's actions to violate the civil rights of Reade, Dave and Collin, which is what this suit is about. She could be sued as an individual in a separate suit filed in state court, but to what end?

Anonymous said...

I do not agree. Here we have a drunk, dumb hooker who wants to stay out of detox. How was she to know that Nifong and three judges would so betray our system of justice? We have no public statement from this woman - Did the NO article reflect her statements or the views of the author?

Anonymous said...

It is all about money and politics.
Rhonda Fleming