Monday, August 30, 2010

Prosecutors lie and work with defense team to pressure man who’s maintained his innocence to accept guilty murder plea

Exposure of typical widespread prosecutorial misconduct was once again made apparent in an article in August 29, 2010’s The News & Observer, titled “‘Bloody’ evidence misused to elicit plea deal in death.” The article by J. Andrew Curliss actually eschewed the paper’s PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) Policy by actually mentioning the name of the prosecutor responsible for the prosecutorial misconduct, Durham Prosecutor Freda Black… even though buried deep in the article, it was nonetheless mentioned. Mr. Curliss deserves kudos for this, but it is not surprising (as he has taken on former Governor Mike Easley and other heavyweights with his investigative reporting). The article about the injustice against Derrick Allen, who was recently granted a new trial, only reinforces the contention that North Carolina follows a tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.”

In the summer of 1999, Durham prosecutors, led by Freda Black, were pursuing the death penalty against Derrick Allen for allegedly killing and sexually assaulting the two-year old daughter of his girlfriend. When Black received confirmatory lab results stating that what was presumed to be blood stains on the victim’s clothing was in fact not blood, the prosecution changed course and sought a plea deal. In offering the deal, prosecutors lied to defendant Allen, who had always maintained his innocence, telling him that their was blood on the child’s garments. They offered a deal which would remove the death penalty from consideration in exchange for a lengthy prison sentence.

Although he knew of his innocence, Allen agreed to pleading guilty to committing a murder which he knew that he did not commit because of what he believed to be honest and accurate lab results, and because his own defense attorneys expended their efforts in advising him to accept the offered plea deal rather than preparing for his defense against the charges in court. Unfortunately, and all too often, defense attorneys pressure their clients to accept deals even when they know it is not in their clients' best interests. The reasons may be due to shear laziness or in the form of incentives, but let there be no doubt that defense attorneys often purposely work with prosecutors to get their clients to plead guilty… even in a case that is weak and has no credible evidence.

A “Minister of Justice” would not lie about such important evidence in order to wring out a knowingly false admission of guilt. To make it more palatable for the defendant to enter into a plea deal despite insisting upon his innocence, the Alford Plea was introduced. It is the same tool that was successfully used by the prosecutors in the James Arthur Johnson case. Unfortunately, although it facilitates the prosecution’s ability to obtain a plea deal, it has no legal bearing or benefit to the defendant. In other words, the Alford Plea is nothing more than a “legal Jedi Mind-trick”… just another sinister weapon in the prosecutor’s arsenal to gain an unfair advantage over the defendant.

Wake prosecutor Tom Ford tried unsuccessfully to force Gregory Taylor to enter into a plea deal which included fingering another innocent man (an African American) for a murder that neither of them committed. Taylor stood on his principles and refused to implicate a man he knew to be innocent, and therefore he was subjected to the wrath of Ford who convicted him with phony and misleading blood testimony… not unlike that used by Prosecutor Black to sway Derrick Allen to admit guilt. Sadly, Taylor served 17 years of a life sentence before he was cleared by a three judge panel in February 2010. During this hearing, Ford, the original prosecutor in 1992, fought to keep Taylor behind bars for the rest of his life based solely on the testimony of two witnesses who offered statements in exchange for a reduction of their time of incarceration. Tom Ford, and his district attorney, Colon Willoughby, are definitely not “Ministers of Justice.”

In another article by Mr. Curliss, titled “Defense sees evidence 12 years after plea deal,” he explains that the defendant, Derrick Allen and his current attorneys are seeing for the first time important evidence about the murder and sex charges brought against him 12 years ago. Evidence of particular importance that prosecutors held back from the defendant was a statement by the state’s main witness against Allen in which she stated that she and Allen had an intimate relationship that had turned sour and that she considered him her enemy. Since his incarceration more than a decade ago, Mr. Allen has been trying to obtain all evidence prosecutors had in their file, but prosecutors have been reluctant to release it to him.

So with regards to his case 12 years ago, Prosecutor Black withheld from defendant Allen crucial lab evidence regarding alleged “bloody” stains, withheld from Allen crucial information about a witness statement that was favorable to the him, and she lied to the Allen about results of a lab test in order to coerce him into accepting a plea deal instead of a possible death penalty conviction.

Former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong has never purposely withheld evidence from defendants, including the Duke Lacrosse defense teams (although the media has grossly misled the public into believing that he did just that). Furthermore, he has never lied to the defense to give the impression that he had incriminating evidence for the purpose of forcing a defendant to accept a plea deal. Mr. Nifong has always maintained an open file policy which granted the defense counsel complete access to the prosecution’s evidence… he did this for more than two decades before it was mandated into law. He has prosecuted in good faith to uphold equal justice for all, not unlike principles that guided Wyatt Earp and Eliot Ness. And Mr. Nifong acted independent of pressures brought by his superiors and public sentiment… actions were guided by his overriding desire to see that justice prevailed. In the Duke Lacrosse case, he proceeded with his prosecution of the defendants despite its unpopularity with the Attorney General’s Office, Duke University, the media, and the general public. He prosecuted despite the fact that by doing so it markedly damaged his chances for being elected to the post of Durham district attorney. And, like another courageous man in history, Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Beckett, Mr. Nifong suffered the consequences.

Yet, it is Mr. Nifong that the state persecutes and the media crucifies. Prosecutors like Freda Black, Tom Ford, Bill Wolfe, and others of their ilk are protected by the Attorney General’s Office and the media, in general. The articles in The News & Observer by Mr. Curliss are an unexpected and pleasant change from the PAPEN Policy. Without doubt, had Joseph Neff authored the story, the identity of the prosecutor responsible for the misdeeds and malfeasance against Derrick Allen would not have been mentioned.

Because of problems with the SBI lab, as exposed during the Greg Taylor hearings and which are really reflections on the prosecutors, Derrick Allen now has an opportunity to get justice. However, even if he is found “not guilty” on re-trial, if the prosecution chooses that route, do not expect for Governor Bev Perdue to issue a pardon. Do not expect to see him compensated for a dozen years wrongfully spent behind bars. The North Carolina justice system does not work that way… it is not fair. In North Carolina, justice tends to benefit those who are well-heeled, privileged, and not people of color.

Likewise, do not expect an upsurge in demands for sanctions or disciplinary actions against Prosecutor Black by the media, the governor, the Attorney General’s Office, or the public. After all, Allen does not come from a family of wealth, power, and privilege, so injustice meted out to him is readily tolerated by the Tar Heel masses. To paraphrase Rae Evans (mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans) and put things in perspective, Prosecutor Freda Black, in pursuing and prosecuting Derrick Allen, picked on a person from the “right” family to indict… namely one that is poor, disenfranchised, and of color. Because Mr. Nifong picked on people to indict who came from the “wrong” families, the avenging agenda of the Carpetbagger Jihad that calls for his total destruction in appropriate in the eyes of many.


38 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sid -- In "Million Dollar bail...a case comparison - Part 11", you stated that Mr. Tart was just placed on house arrest and was not given bond.

Another poster has challenged you on this. This poster apparently knows Mr. Tart and knew the victim as well, and has stated that Mr. Tart's family paid his bail.

You need to either provide evidence to support YOUR side of this story, or apologize for your lack of information AND correct the erroneous statements you have made.

Anonymous said...

Freda Black, huh?

Is she still pissed over
Mike taking away her parking space?

There is much more to this story.

Ask Linwood.

Anonymous said...

NC State Bar v/ Mike Nifong (hereafter identified as "Defendant":


"Did Defendant by representing to the Court that he had provided all potentially exculpatory evidence,
a, make false statements of material fact or law to a tribunal in violation of Rule 3.3(a)(1)?" The answer is yes.
b, engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation in violation of Rule 8.4(c) of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct?" The answer is yes.

Anonymous said...

All you need to know is presented here:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/1507052/

Anything else Sid states here is complete and utter BS.

Anonymous said...

Police suspects:

38 Breck Archer MIDFIELDER 6-0 190 Jr. Sea Cliff, N.Y., (Taft),
31 Bo Carrington MIDFIELDER 6-4 220 So. Charlottesville, Va. (Covenant School)
37 Casey Carroll DEFENSE 6-2 180 Jr. Baldwin, N.Y. (Baldwin)
29 Mike Catalino MIDFIELDER 6-0 200 Fr. Webster, N.Y. (Webster Schroeder)
17 Tom Clute DEFENSE 6-1 190 Fr. Potomac, Md. (Bullis)
46 Kevin Coleman DEFENSE 6-2 185 Sr. Ridgewood, N.J. (Delbarton)
19 Josh Coveleski ATTACK 6-4 205 So. Dover, Del. (Ceasar Rodney)
22 Ned Crotty MIDFIELDER 6-1 180 Fr. New Vernon, N.J. (Delbarton)
40 Matt Danowski ATTACK 6-0 190 Jr. Farmingdale, N.Y. (Farmingdale)
8 Ed Douglas MIDFIELDER 6-2 170 Sr. Baltimore, Md. (Gilman)
15 Kyle Dowd MIDFIELDER 5-9 175 Sr. E. Northport, N.Y. (Northport)
6 David Evans DEFENSE 5-10 190 Sr. Bethesda, Md. (Landon)
13 Collin Finnerty ATTACK 6-3 175 So. Garden City, N.Y. (Chiminade)
12 Dan Flannery ATTACK 5-11 190 Sr. Garden City, N.Y. (Garden City)
7 Gibbs Fogarty ATTACK 5-10 175 Fr. Chevy Chase, Md. (Landon)
25 Zack Greer ATTACK 6-2 185 So. Whitby, Ontario (All Saints Catholic)
23 Erik Henkelman DEFENSE 5-10 175 Sr. Swathmore, Pa. (Episcopal)
49 Jay Jennison DEFENSE 6-4 205 So. Richmond, Va. (St. Christopher’s)
26 Ben Koesterer MIDFIELDER 6-1 195 So. Cazenovia, N.Y. (Cazenovia)
11 Fred Krom MIDFIELDER 5-10 185 Jr. Summit, N.J. (Delbarton)
1 Peter Lamade MIDFIELDER 5-9 180 Jr. Chevy Chase, Md. (Landon)
36 Adam Langley ATTACK 5-9 165 So. Glenview, Il. (Glenbrook South)
2 Chris Loftus ATTACK 5-8 160 So. Syosset, N.Y. (Syosset)
4 Dan Loftus GOALIE 5-9 160 Jr. Syosset, N.Y. (Syosset)
34 Kevin Mayer DEFENSE 6-0 185 So. Great Falls, Va. (Potomac School)
44 Tony McDevitt DEFENSE 6-0 205 Jr. Philadelphia, Pa. (Penn Charter)
41 Ryan McFadyen DEFENSE 6-6 225 So. Mendham, N.J. (Delbarton)
42 Glenn Nick DEFENSE 6-1 190 Sr. Garden City, N.Y. (Garden City)
77 Nick O’Hara DEFENSE 5-10 190 Jr. Orachard Park, N.Y. (Orchard Park)
28 Dan Oppedisano MIDFIELDER 5-11 195 Jr. Garden City, N.J. (Garden City)
32 Sam Payton MIDFIELDER 5-11 185 Fr. Cos Cob, Conn. (Brunswick)
18 Brad Ross MIDFIELDER 6-0 190 So. Darnestown, Md. (Bullis)
5 KJ Sauer MIDFIELDER 6-1 190 Sr. East Rockaway, N.Y. (Lynbrook)
20 Steve Schoeffel MIDFIELDER 5-8 165 Fr. Charlottesville, Va. (Covenant)
30 Rob Schroeder GOALIE 6-0 210 So. Summit, N.J. (Summit)
45 Reade Seligmann MIDFIELDER 6-1 215 So. Essex Fells, N.J. (Delbarton)
50 Devon Sherwood GOALIE 5-10 160 Fr. Freeport, N.Y. (Baldwin)
47 Dan Theodoridis DEFENSE 6-1 205 Fr. Norwalk, Conn. (Norwalk)
24 Bret Thompson MIDFIELDER 6-0 185 Sr. Chevy Chase, Md. (Georgetown Prep)
3 Chris Tkac DEFENSE 6-0 185 Fr. Gaithersburg, Md. (Landon)
14 John Walsh MIDFIELDER 5-11 190 Jr. Bethesda, Md. (Landon)
9 Michael Ward MIDFIELDER 6-0 195 Jr. Setauket, N.Y. (Ward Melville)
48 Rob Wellington MIDFIELDER 6-3 200 So. Dallas, Texas (Highland Park)
21 Matt Wilson MIDFIELDER 6-0 185 Jr. Durham, N.C. (Durham Academy)
43 William Wolcott DEFENSE 6-0 190 Sr. Dallas, Texas (St. Mark’s)
27 Michael Young MIDFIELDER 6-0 180 So. Manhasset, N.Y. (Chaminade)
10 Matt Zash MIDFIELDER 5-11 190 Sr. Massapequa, N.Y. (Massapequa)

Anonymous said...

* *









THE COWARD GANG RAPISTS




OF DUKE UNIVERSITY










* *

Anonymous said...

Sydney, you forgot to mention this in your explanation of how you're giving Crystal legal advice without a license:

"One DSS intake specialist testified that Mangum told her the children were living with her, not Murcherson - a fact that qualified her for government subsidies.

Was she lying to get the welfare check, or were her kids really living with her? Either way she's breaking the law, and subject to revocation.


Sydney says - By following my advice, she avoided jail, even though she was punished with a condition that she have no physical contact with her children. I can live with that.

That's mighty white of you, bro. Hell they're not your kids, right?


Have you 'advised her to quit violating the terms of her release, and to stop lying to the court and the DSS in an effort to scam the State out of welfare funds?

Whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Sydney? said...

From the previous thread, one Anonymous to another:

Anonymous #1 - Sid, what's this about a lawsuit filed in Durham Superior Court seeking the Duke lacrosse rape investigation files?

Anonymous #2 - Where is this information coming from?
-------

Unfortunately, in NC, criminal investigation files are not subject to enforceable FOI requests; this is by specific statute.

The alleged suit attempting to gain access to the Duke lacrosse files is doomed to failure.

Anonymous said...

Great. Now the carpetbaggers are trying to starve Crystal's children.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous - Great. Now the carpetbaggers are trying to starve Crystal's children.

LOL. You don't have much faith in the father or her extended family, do you?

Her DDS problem came about because she applied for welfare claiming dependents that she is not supposed to have custody of.

Those kids are at risk every day that they are exposed to Crystal.

guiowen said...

Anonymous 1:14 p.m.:

"That's mighty WHITE of you, bro. Hell they're not your kids, right?"

Watch out, some of the trolls here will get you for racially insensitive statements!

Anonymous said...

guiowen, Sydney's I can live with that was so crass and over the top that I though he deserved the comment.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 12:23pm:

Another ad hominem attacker who is unable to present intelligent ideas supported by credible evidence.

The failure to make any intelligent statement implies an acknowledgment that the defendants were unjustly prosecuted.

Anonymous said...

What do you call the posters who attack Crystal?

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 3:26 30/98/10 said, "Great. Now the carpetbaggers are trying to starve Crystal's children" .................. ... This is not only unjust but is evil. Despite all the lies, Crystal Mangum is a good Mother and her children have always been well taken care of. People of credibility, unlike the hate mongers, can attest to this fact and absolutely no one can prove the contrary. Extending impossible bail conditions to deprive her children of their Mother is just one more desperate attempt to force Crystal into accepting a plea bargain for a crime she did not commit.

guiowen said...

Kenhyderal,
Don't worry about the children. Sidney can live with that.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sydney, you forgot to mention this in your explanation of how you're giving Crystal legal advice without a license:"


Since when does it take a law license to give someone advice on legal matters? I have never represented myself as an attorney, and I collect no money or receive any compensation from people to whom I give advice.

I repeat that I can live with Ms. Mangum being free from the Durham County Detention Center, if it means that she is unable to have physical contact with her children. At least she can phone them at any time of the day or night and write letters to them. If you are concerned about her loss of parenting rights due to actions of the court, I suggest you contact the prosecutor who designated the children as being "victims" of Ms. Mangum, and ask them to rescind those complaints.

Anonymous said...

Sidney - If you are concerned about her loss of parenting rights due to actions of the court,

Not at all. That is a function of Crystal's actions on the February night in question.

Do you care to comment on the testimony that you left out, Sydney? That of the DSS worker who said that Crystal told her that the kids were living with her?

Have you advised her to quit lying, especially since she obviously can't keep her lies straight.

Was she lying to get the welfare check from DSS, or were her kids really living with her?

kenhyderal said...

Crystal has now been deprived of the ability to work and support her children as she has always done, in the past.

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal - Crystal has now been deprived of the ability to work and support her children as she has always done, in the past.

How so, ken? Can she not leave her house during specified times, probably during the day, for work? That was part of her pre-trial release stipulations before; was that rescinded when she was caught lying to the court and violating the terms of her release?

She 'supported' her kids by foisting them off on relatives and friends while she turned tricks all night, ken. Beyond that, she's a welfare ho, not to be confused with someone who is working to support her kids.

Anonymous said...

Sidney - Since when does it take a law license to give someone advice on legal matters? I have never represented myself as an attorney, and I collect no money or receive any compensation from people to whom I give advice.

Q: May a non-lawyer do legal work for a relative, friend, or another person if the non-lawyer does not charge any money or fees for such work?

A: No. It is a violation of North Carolina's unauthorized practice of law statutes for a non-lawyer to practice law regardless of the relationship with the individual for whom the services are provided and regardless of the fact that no fees are charged. This is because the potential for harm still exists.
----

Do you have any more questions, Sidney?

Harr Supporter said...

I believe I can explain why Dr. Harr believes that Nifong's statement that "there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty and Mr. Evans committed any crimes for which they were indicted – or any other crimes against Ms. Mangum...." is consistent with his decision to prosecute. Nifong said he believed Mangum was credible when she alleged an attack and selected her attackers. He did not see evidence to overcome his belief.

Nifong did not interview Mangum or discuss her allegations with her. He was not required to do so. As a result, he had no direct basis to conclude that she was not credible. Nifong never read the discovery file. He regularly failed to review discovery until the night before trial. The court rejected defense attempts to require Nifong to read the file, so he was not required to do so. As a result, he was not aware of information in it that cast doubt on Mangum's credibility. The DPD did not conduct a bona fide investigation. They failed to interview relevant witnesses, investigate physical evidence and reconcile conflicts in the evidence. As a result, the DPD investigation did not prove that Mangum was not credible. Finally, Nifong refused to accept potentially exculpatory evidence from the defense. Although ethics rules preclude a prosecutor from avoiding unhelpful evidence, Nifong was entitled to ignore these rules because they are rarely enforced.

The special prosecutors had evidence Nifong "did not have" because they read the evidence provided to the defense, interviewed Mangum and conducted a bona fide investigation. When Nifong became aware of this "new" evidence, he concluded that the evidence he originally believed to be credible was no longer credible.

However, Nifong's statement is not an admission that nothing happened or that the defendants were not guilty of crimes against Mangum. The fact that Nifong is not aware of credible inculpatory evidence does not mean that such evidence cannot exist or that an assault could not possibly have occurred. Dr. Harr concludes: "The admission by Mr. Nifong that no credible evidence existed does not necessarily exclude the possibility that a credible case could be built against the defendants."

Dr. Harr can fill in what I have missed. I am sure you agree that Nifong acted in good faith.

Anonymous said...

The pricks stole her money.

Harr Supporter said...

I find the interest with Mangum's allegation that someone stole her money to be somewhat obsessive (we have seen repeated anonymous accusations of the alleged theft). I do not see the direct link to the flawed investigation and prosecution of the sexual assault charges. My understanding is that none of the former defendants are suspects in the alleged theft.

I agree that Mangum's allegation of the theft of her money had support in Evans' statement. It is not clear how or whether the DPD uncovered enough evidence to dismiss this allegation without further investigation. The DPD reports do not address investigation of the alleged theft. As a result, the apparent decision by the DPD not to investigate the theft allegation provides additional support for the suggestion that the DPD was either completely incompetent or was engaged in a deliberate frame. I take these comments as agreement with that thesis.

Because the comments have been intentionally obscure, I do not understand what drives the obsession. I can think of only two explanations: the commenters (1) want to take every opportunity to cast the lacrosse players in a bad light or (2) believe that the sexual assault prosecution was an attempt to solve the alleged misdemeanor theft. Because I am sure that these comment are intended to be relevant to the discussion of the assault case, I assume that they are advancing the theory that the sexual assault case was an attempt to solve the alleged theft.

That is an interesting theory.

The DPD charged three random players with multiple felonies—rape, sexual assault and kidnapping—in order to solve a misdemeanor theft case. Mangum alleged that someone stole her money, but there was insufficient evidence to identify the thieves. She didn't know what happened to it. The amount was also unclear (the players paid her $400, not $800 as Dr. Harr alleged on an earlier thread; she also claimed she left $2,000 in the back of Off. Barfield’s patrol car).

Harr Supporter said...

This is ingenious. The DPD charged three players at random with felonies, betting that the thieves would admit their guilt to save innocent men from a life in prison for a crime that never occurred. I understand why Mangum would go along with it: the DPD either threatened her or convinced her that this was the best way to get her money back. It also explains why Mangum does not remember any details of the invented sexual assault; she forgot what she was supposed to say.

I understand why other players would have admitted that they took Mangum’s money in order to save their teammates from an unjust conviction. How would this strategy work if Kim had taken the money, as Mangum first alleged? She would not have cared about the players. Because she was on probation, Kim would have been worried about herself. Similarly, what if the money had been left in Off. Barfield’s car, and he kept it? Would he have been willing to admit that he took it?

I’m not sure that I believe that this strategy makes Nifong appear honorable. It does not address the lack of credible evidence for the felony charges that Nifong has conceded. Dr. Harr has complained about Mangum being overcharged in her recent episode. I would think that the suggestion that Nifong charged people at random with felonies in order to solve a minor crime allegedly committed by others would not be entirely ethical.

I still do not understand why the DPD chose not to investigate the theft if they believed that someone had taken Mangum’s money. After all, Gottlieb and Himan were in a property crimes unit, not a sexual assault team. This strategy of inventing a rape to solve a misdemeanor seems a bit far-fetched.

On the other hand, this theory provides some support for the theory that the DPD overcharged Mangum to keep her in line. This strategy could have exposed the DPD to civil damages. They wouldn't want Mangum to testify that the DPD invented the crime and told her what to say.

Perhaps this theory wins Dr. Harr's contest for alternative explanations of Mangum's legal problems. Dr. Harr, does this explanation win your prize?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5:16 pm:

Do you give all misdemeanors this much attention?

Anonymous said...

1 Peter Lamade MIDFIELDER 5-9 180 Jr. Chevy Chase, Md. (Landon)

41 Ryan McFadyen DEFENSE 6-6 225 So. Mendham, N.J. (Delbarton)

Anonymous said...

Friends of Crystal make note: the whore
lawyers have confessed all three indicted
perps had no alibi, and were all present
in the lacrosse party house at the same time,
during the period after the stripping had stopped
and the above named pricks stole the victim's money.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous August 31, 2010 9:56 PM -
Friends of Crystal make note:

Failed to note (in making his ridiculous claims) that Nifong never sought investigation nor charges for the alleged 'theft' of CGM's money. Nor that CGM never accused any lax player of the alleged theft, but did accuse plenty of others.

Anonymous said...

FOR IMMEIATE ([b][i]sic[/b][/i]) RELEASE: 31 August 2010

Media Contact: Vincent Clark
email: vince@firefilmz.com
phone: (323) 306-4971

Mangum Raises Questions about Durham County Social Services

(Durham, NC) - Crystal Mangum has asked for an investigation into actions by certain officials of the Durham County Department of Social Services (DSS). The essence of her complaint is that unauthorized DSS officials accessed and disseminated personal information from her files.
-------

Too funny. This after Crystal's new attorney demanded that Sidney's Gang of Clowns stay out of the case.

Clark refused to release the formal request to DSS w/ this press release. No news media has as yet picked up this ground-shattering 'news'.

kenhyderal said...

@ Anonymous August, 31 2010 : 3:59 P.M................................All of your allegations are false and defamatory.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney - Since when does it take a law license to give someone advice on legal matters? I have never represented myself as an attorney, and I collect no money or receive any compensation from people to whom I give advice.

Q: May a non-lawyer do legal work for a relative, friend, or another person if the non-lawyer does not charge any money or fees for such work?

A: No. It is a violation of North Carolina's unauthorized practice of law statutes for a non-lawyer to practice law regardless of the relationship with the individual for whom the services are provided and regardless of the fact that no fees are charged. This is because the potential for harm still exists.
----

Do you have any more questions, Sidney?"

I have never done legal work for Ms. Mangum or anyone else. To give my opinions and advice on legal matters is not practicing law. It's that simple.

guiowen said...

Kenhyderal,

"@ Anonymous August, 31 2010 : 3:59 P.M........All of your allegations are false and defamatory."

Here I thought that (although we don't agree much on anything) you were at least a reasonable person, with whom one could have a normal conversation. Can't you do better than this?

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal - @ Anonymous August, 31 2010 : 3:59 P.M................................All of your allegations are false and defamatory.

You said that she had 'always worked to support her kids', ken.

What do you suggest were 'false and defamatory'?

That she 'supported' her kids by foisting them off on relatives and friends while she turned tricks all night?

That is beyond dispute, bro. Or do you have knowledge that her kids were with someone even less appropriate than her family and friends the night of the party, and every night the previous weekend when her driver acknowledged that he was driving her to hotel 'appointments'?

That she's a welfare ho?

A ho she is, there is too much evidence to deny that. She's been on the government dole since before she stated having babies. That may not be a bad thing, but it sure ain't 'working' as you declared.

Anonymous said...

Sidney - To give my opinions and advice on legal matters is not practicing law. It's that simple.

It's evident that you're that simple.

What say we send a .pdf copy of the posts wherein you delineate the opinion[s] and advice that you have given Crystal, and see what the authorities say about it. I just happen to have copies right here.

You'll be quite surprised by their answer.

kenhyderal said...

@ Anonymous September 1, 2010 :1:40 P.M. ................. Evidence? Hearsay!

kenhyderal said...

@ Guiowen September 1, 2010 : 11:14 A.M. ......."all progress depends on the unreasonable man" G.B.Shaw: Maxims for Revolutionists. ..... God knows, the North Carolina system of juctice needs a revolution.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney - To give my opinions and advice on legal matters is not practicing law. It's that simple.

It's evident that you're that simple.

What say we send a .pdf copy of the posts wherein you delineate the opinion[s] and advice that you have given Crystal, and see what the authorities say about it. I just happen to have copies right here.

You'll be quite surprised by their answer."


I'll be surprised if they answer, period. If by some miracle you receive a response, signed by someone, e-mail it to me, and I will post it on the website or blog (unedited, of course and without direct commentary.)


The next post deals with the SBI lab blame game. It's the prosecutors who are at fault! Check it out. See if you don't agree with me on this.