Sunday, April 3, 2011

Update on the Un-Indicted Duke LAXer’s attempted money-grab




I spent the better part of last evening skimming the 223 page March 31, 2011 ruling issued by U.S. District Judge James A. Beaty on the complaint filed by the three un-indicted “Duke Lacrosse Defendant wannabe’s” Ryan McFadyen, Matthew Wilson, and Breck Archer. Three civil case plaintiffs who want to parlay their evening of bacchanal barbarianism at a beer-guzzling, stripper ogling, under-aged drinking party in March 2006 into a big pay day… and I’m not referring to the peanutty candy bar.

These three lads were never charged with a crime related to that evening of debauchery and criminality, and they were not arrested. Ryan McFadyen, in fact, invited closer scrutiny by his hateful and threatening e-mail about the night’s entertainers, though when exposed, he stated that it was just a harmless joke. In the atmosphere of events that night, talking about skinning strippers alive is cruelty at its worst and insensitivity on a grand scale at best. However, such an action as McFadyen’s befits the well-earned reputation that the Duke Lacrosse players had cultivated over the years.


The lawsuit by the three Un-Indicteds listed 29 defendants (I don’t believe any janitors at Duke were included), and claimed 41 counts of deprivation of their civil rights. What a joke. Plaintiffs had the gall to claim that they suffered emotional distress on many of the counts, which Judge Beaty wisely dismissed. The claims were so ludicrous that even the plaintiffs themselves could not support them in writing. I, however, believe that the Un-Indicted Threesome did suffer severe emotional distress… only not at the hands of the defendants. When they learned that the three Duke Lacrosse defendants settled out of court with Duke University for $20 million each, they were extremely distressed. And since Duke was in the gifting mood, they wanted some of that charity.


Greed by the Un-Indicted and their avaricious attorneys are what has fueled this ambitious, though ridiculous, legal storm surrounding the Duke Lacrosse case, and it was undoubtedly brought about by Duke University’s excessive largess in settling with the three original Duke Lacrosse defendants without a fight. Well, Duke is now willing to put up a vigorous defense, but it is too little and too late, as the wolves are loose and in search of their pecuniary prey, which has spread to encompass the deep pockets of the cash-strapped city of Durham and any individual with even the remotest and most benign contact with the case.


Although the judge complained about the plaintiff’s submissions being long on wind, his ruling which comes close to requiring a half ream, surely could have been condensed. My ruling in the Un-Indicted’s case would have taken no more than three pages total, considering that the first two pages list all of the defendants and the counts. No doubt I would have tossed out all of the Un’s charges.


In most circumstances, the setting of precedence is taken into consideration, but as has been show to be clear with all of its singular rulings and the total disregard for the rule of law, what happens in the Duke Lacrosse case stays with the Duke Lacrosse case. It gets special treatment by the state of North Carolina, the biased media, and the misguided public. So, it is safe to say that defendants such as Gregory Flynt Taylor, James Arthur Johnson, Floyd Brown, Levon “Bo” Jones, Alan Gell, and Erick Daniels will never be afforded the wide breadth of opportunity to pursue recompense in the civil courts for losses incurred when wrongfully charged, convicted and incarcerated. If that was the case defense attorneys like David Rudolf, Joseph B. Cheshire V., James Cooney, and Wade Smith would have already filed civil suits against prosecutors, investigators, and labs for these victims of Tar Heel injustice. Joe Cheshire won’t be filing a civil suit on behalf of his client Gregory Taylor against Prosecutor Tom Ford. It ain’t gonna happen. In fact, Cheshire has not one disparaging word to say about Ford, who used perjured testimony from felons in exchange for leniency and hocus-pocus forensics to win a murder conviction against Taylor and a life sentence. Cheshire even considers Ford to be an estimable courtroom opponent.


What did not come as a surprise when going over the ruling is that as many counts as humanly possible that were lodged by the Un-Indicteds against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong were kept intact. As has been long demonstrated, Mr. Nifong is the sole designated lightning rod for all of the state’s justice system ills. He has been in a biblical sense sacrificed to atone for sins of his fellow prosecutors… not unlike another man from Nazareth. Discount fairness, ethics, and the rule of law when dealing with Nifong. This biased media, wealth-idolizing, capitalistic society encourages keeping the heel on the necks of the downtrodden and heeping praise, privilege, and riches on the well-heeled.


I dread reading the opinions with regards to the complaints by the original Duke Lacrosse defendant threesome as they seek to enhance the $20 mil gifted to them by Duke resulting from a shakedown of the institution by their high-profile attorneys. Think I’ll take a break for a couple of days before slogging through that morass of legalese mumbo-jumbo. Although I venture to say that I am sure to be disappointed by what I find, at least I believe that it will be more palatable than the civil complaint filed by McFadyen, Wilson, and Archer. Keep in mind that these Un-Indicted gold diggers were never even charged with a crime.  <>

Below is a link to Part 14 of Episode V of “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper.” Be sure to check out the commentary which follows by clicking the upper left blue button. At the end of the commentary is a link for feedback. Enjoy.


LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/sdcDirec/sdcEpv/sdc175.htm

70 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sid,

No comment on Crystal's most recent arrest?

Anonymous said...

Sid,

You misused the word "defendant" a number of times. In the civil suits, the players are the "plaintiffs." I suggest that you correct you mistake.

Anonymous said...

To compare Mike Nifong to Jesus Christ is the foulest blasphemy.

Anonymous said...

Crystal Mangum has been arrested on a charge of stabbing her boyfriend in the chest. Said boyfriend is now at DUMC undergoing treatmrnt for serious injuries.

A poster at DIW has suggested SidneyHarr will claim the police stabbed the victim and then arranged the situation so that Ms. Mangum would get the blame.

Sidney is so upset that the civil lawsuits are going forward he just might do that.

Sidney said that he would have just dismissed the suits of the unindicted players. Sidney has also repeatedly said that the fact that none of the three indicted
Lacrosse players ever perpetrated any crime against Ms. Mangum does not render them innocent.

Anonymous said...

Sidney talks a great deal about the supposed pre party reputation of the Duke Lacrosse team. Ms. Mangum has a history of criminal behavior starting years before the night of March 13-24, 2006. Yet, Sidney ignores her documented history of violent criminal behavior. He calls it all the product of a "carpetbagger jihad".

He also declares the Lacrosse players guilty of a heinous crime even though there is no evidence said crime ever took place.

That says a lot about Mr. Harr.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

Will Mani Dexter represent Crystal again?

Anonymous said...

Sid,

Have you and the Committee visited Crystal yet? Have you started planning her defense?

Anonymous said...

That cartoon is pretty funny but it does show an important truth about this case-the lacrosse players liked white women not ugly black prostitutes like Crystal Mangum.

Anonymous said...

This time they better put the whore away for good.With the exceptions of the lacrosse players,who would never have wanted to have sex with Crystal,all of her other crime victims have been black but some AA's are still defending her.Maybe Dr.Watson is right about his theories of racial IQ differences.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, had the case gone to trial, what specific evidence could Mr. Nifong presented to show a crime had happened and that the Lacrosse players were the perpetrators?

Anonymous said...

"Crystal Mangum has been arrested on a charge of stabbing her boyfriend in the chest. Said boyfriend is now at DUMC undergoing treatmrnt for serious injuries."

His blood is on your hands, Sid.

Anonymous said...

Sid is probably going to claim that the carpetbagger jihad paid off the boyfriend to put the knife into Ms. Mangum's hands, and then he grabbed her hands and force the knife into his chest multiple times.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, answer this question which I base on a comment by Perofessor Johnson in DIW. If Duke University had nothing to fear from the innocent Duke Lacrosse players, then why would they cave in to pressure from their lawyers for a settlement and then insist upon a confidentiality clause?

Remember, the Lacrosse players are innocent not because anyone proclaimed them so but because they committed no crime.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, here is a headline from across the ocean regarding Ms. Mangum (emphasis added):

"Former stripper who LIED about being raped by Duke University lacrosse players charged with stabbing her boyfriend"

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373074/Former-stripper-lied-raped-Duke-University-lacrosse-players-charged-stabbing-boyfriend.html#ixzz1IZIze7ep

Anonymous said...

Sidney, have the carpetbaggers bought out the editors of THE DAILY MAIL?

Robert said...

can we get a few words about Magnum's scholarship? How is that going for her? Does she have her Masters yet?

Robert said...

"He has been in a biblical sense sacrificed to atone for sins of his fellow prosecutors… not unlike another man from Nazareth."

Terrific- so he's Jesus now.

"Discount fairness, ethics, and the rule of law when dealing with Nifong."

HOW IRONIC seeing as Nifong discounted the exact same things himself!

Anonymous said...

Sidney must be having an extraordinarily difficult time figuring out how he is going to blame this on the carpetbaggers.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

I agree that you misused the word defendents when referring to the lax players.
You also mention that they were not indicted, they were, they were also arrested, why else to you have to post 400K dollars in bail money? The indictment also meant they did not get a probable cause hearing, like CGM is getting in her most recent arrest.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sid,

You misused the word 'defendant' a number of times. In the civil suits, the players are the 'plaintiffs.' I suggest that you correct you mistake."


Thank you for bringing it to my attention. It is very much appreciated and I will correct it immediately.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"To compare Mike Nifong to Jesus Christ is the foulest blasphemy."


Actually, I think a valid case can be made. Like the Man from Nazareth, Mike Nifong was persecuted by the state, and crucified in the media. The Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong will help resurrect him.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Crystal Mangum has been arrested on a charge of stabbing her boyfriend in the chest. Said boyfriend is now at DUMC undergoing treatmrnt for serious injuries.

A poster at DIW has suggested SidneyHarr will claim the police stabbed the victim and then arranged the situation so that Ms. Mangum would get the blame.

Sidney is so upset that the civil lawsuits are going forward he just might do that.

Sidney said that he would have just dismissed the suits of the unindicted players. Sidney has also repeatedly said that the fact that none of the three indicted
Lacrosse players ever perpetrated any crime against Ms. Mangum does not render them innocent."


I didn't find any poster at DIW. Regarding the innocence of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, just because the Attorney General proclaims that they're innocent, does not make them so.

Anonymous said...

"Regarding the innocence of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, just because the Attorney General proclaims that they're innocent, does not make them so."

Sidney, read carefully. What makes them innocent of the charges for which they were indicted is that no crime was ever perpetrated against Ms. Mangum on the night of 13-14 March 2006, not by any Lacrosse player, not by anyone.

What hard evidence is there that said crime ever happened?

Anonymous said...

"Actually, I think a valid case can be made."

That only shows how far off is what you call "thinking".

Mike Nifong perpetrated one of the grossest cases of prosecutorial misconduct in American history. That is hardly Christ like.

Did Linwood Wilson teach you how to think of Jesus Christ?

Anonymous said...

Sidney, why do you declare guilty three innocent men accused of a crime which has been shown by hard evidence never happened?

What legal authority do you have to declare anyone guilty?

Anonymous said...

"I didn't find any poster at DIW."

You did not look very hard.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, to ask the question in other words, what makes the Lacrosse Players guilty?

Anonymous said...

Sidney, do you or do you not agree that people who have committed no crime are innocent?

What evidence is there that any Lacrosse player ever perpetrated any crime on the night of 13-14 March 2006.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, what evidence can you present that a sexual assault was perpetrated against Ms. Mangum on the night of 13-14 March 2006? Her word is nothing more than allegation if not supported by evidence. That a sexual assault could happen and leave no evidence is not evidence that it did happen.

If one has no evidence of any crime, only an unsupported belief that a crime did happen with no evidence being left, then has no legal option than to believe the alleged perpetrators are innocent.

your belief that a crime did happen is more than unsupported. It is unsupportable.

Anonymous said...

Don't confuse Sid with facts. He's into narratives here. The facts don't matter.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, what makes a person guilty of a crime?

Anonymous said...

Sidney, who conferred on you the authority to decide whether or not people are innocent.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, by what moral authority do you make judgments on anyone?

Anonymous said...

Sidney must still be stewing trying to figure out how to blame Judge Beaty's decision and Crystal Mangum's arrest on the carpetbagger jihad.

Anonymous said...

Show Mangum in that cartoon with the knife.

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

Sydney, you have asserted several times that it was RCD who insisted on a confidentiality agreement in re: Duke's settlement with them.

That flies in the face of common sense and common practice - wtf makes you think it wasn't Duke who insisted on confidentiality? It's the payor that doesn't want the details revealed.

BTW, I agree w/ a previous poster - you should include Crystal with the knife in your latest cartoonish effort.

Anonymous said...

sidney is still trying to figure out how he can blame Judge Beaty's decision and Crystal Mangum's latest run in with the law on the carpetbaggers.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, I again say, you make an issue of the Lacrosse team's alleged reputation, a reputation alleged mainly by Mike Nifong and the Gang of 88. Yet you ignore Crystal Mangum's history of documented serious run ins with the law, a history which began before her encounter with the Lacrosse team. Why?

Anonymous said...

I say again, Sidney says the opinion of AG Cooper does not render the Lacrosse players innocent. How about the issue of whether or not they committed a crime?

Yes, they were accused of a crime, but not on the basis of any hard evidence. All the hard evidence in the case, even the evidence non-expert Sidney calls non exculpatory, shows that the crime of which they were accused never happened.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, if Mike Nifong was crucified in the media, like the two thieves, he got what he deserved. Unlike the good thief, he has never repented.

Mike Nifong convicted himself in the media out of his own mouth via his inflammatory, guilt presuming statements by which he also sought to undermine the rights of the Duke Lacrosse players.

Anonymous said...

Judge James Beaty in re: Mike Nifong -
“The intentional use of false or misleading evidence before a grand jury to obtain an indictment and arrest without probable cause is exactly the type of unreasonable search and seizure that the Fourth Amendment was designed to protect against, and would violate the most fundamental concepts of due process,”

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney, why do you declare guilty three innocent men accused of a crime which has been shown by hard evidence never happened?

What legal authority do you have to declare anyone guilty?"


If you go through all of my blogs line by line you will never find a statement I made that proclaimed the three Duke Lacrosse defendants were guilty of any crime. I never said that! The crime of under-aged drinking was committed at the party, and racial epithets were shouted out by partygoers. The Duke Lacrosse players did have sullied reputations and run-ins with the law, but I never stated that any of them were guilty of a crime. At the same time, they are not innocent of any crime just because Roy Cooper proclaimed them to be. Innocence is determined by a jury or judge in lieu of a jury.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney, who conferred on you the authority to decide whether or not people are innocent."


No one conferred that authority on me to determine innocence. That is the duty of a jury or judge in lieu of a jury. I have no more a right to confer innocence on someone than does Attorney General Roy Cooper. Neither of us have that right, but the media is conferring it on Cooper.

Anonymous said...

"At the same time, they are not innocent of any crime just because Roy Cooper proclaimed them to be. Innocence is determined by a jury or judge in lieu of a jury."

For people like the Lacrosse players who never committed any crime, why must their innoc ence be decided by a jury. The evidence, including the evidence you label as non exculpatory shows with 100% certainty that no crime took place on the night of 13-14 March at 610 Buchanan Avenue.

The guilt or innocence of such people such as Alan Gell or Gregory Taylor or Erick Daniels or Darrell Hunt was determined by a jury. Do you deny that?

Anonymous said...

Sidney, you refuse to acknowledge that the Lacrosse players are in fact innocent. Therefore, even if you have never said so, you have declared them guilty in your blog.

Anonymous said...

"No one conferred that authority on me to determine innocence."

So why do have you argued from day one of your blog that the Lacrosse players are not innocent? You are making a judgment there.

Anonymous said...

"...I never stated that any of them were guilty of a crime."

Every time you have said in your blog that the Lacrosse players were not innocent, you have declared them guilty of the crime of raping Crystal Mangum.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, I again remind you that the reputation of the Lacrosse team was conferred upon them by Michael Nifong and the gang of 88.

Crystal's reputation as a criminal is the result of several documented run ins with the law. The latest was this case in which she has been charged with stabbing her boyfriend in the chest.

Why do you suppress Crystal's well deserved reputation as a criminal?

Anonymous said...

Sidney, do you or do you not agree, a person who has not committed a crime is innocent, even though that person has never been tried before a jury?

There is no evidence that the crime alleged to have happened on the night of 13-14 March 2006 did not happen.

The Lacrosse players could not have committed the crime with which they were charged, the crime of which you obviously believe they are guilty.

Why, therefore, should they have been tried before a jury?

Who gave you the authority to decide that?

Anonymous said...

I ask you again, why should people whom evidence shows that they could not have committed the alleged crime have to go before a jury for trial?

By your own admission, juries often convict innocent people.

Anonymous said...

"...racial epithets were shouted out by partygoers."

It has been documented with 100% certainty that the only racial epithet was provoked by dancer Kim Roberts. Ms. Roberts herself admitted that.

Anonymous said...

I say again, Sidney, Mr. Cooper never conferred innocence on anyone.

Mr. Cooper said, he and his investigators concluded from their investigation that no crime had happened, that the accused were therefore innocent.

They were innocent by virtue of the fact that they had committed no crime.

Why do you,via your blog, insist that they are guilty, that Mr. Cooper should not have expressed his belief in their innocence?

You have been expressing your belief for years that they are guilty.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, if you do not believe they are guilty, why do you insist there has been a vast carpetbagger jihad operating to keep the charges from being tried in court?

Anonymous said...

Guilt or innocence is established by whether or not guilt could have been proven beyond reasonable doubt. If it can be shown pretrial that guilt could not have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt why should the case go to trial.

You argue that evidence which raised doubt about a defendants guilt has been withheld from many wrongfully convicted defendants and that such withholding of evidence justified a finding of innocence.

Therefore, when evidence IS known that raises doubt about guilt, should that not mean a case should not go to trial? Do you defend Tracy Cline for taking Leon Brown to trial? The Jury foreman in that trial reprimanded Ms. Cline for taking the case to trial. He said Ms. cline had no evidence.

You have never included the Leon Brown trial in your blog as an example of prosecutorial misconduct, have you?

The evidence gathered in the Duke Rape hoax clearly indicated no crime had happened. An ethical prosecutor would have recognized that and not indicted anyone for tha alleged crime.

Kilgo said...

----------------------((((((























----------------------((((((
































----------------------((((((

Kilgo said...

...



Sidney,

It saddens us greatly to see the ongoing

victimization, torment and abuse of Crystal Mangum.


We take heart in the knowledge

she has good friends who continue to stand by her

and give her support.



Sidney,

You should let Ms. Mangum know

the recent devastating blows to the

carpetbagger's legal jihad

will someday result in Ms. Mangum's

and Mr. Nifong's complete and total

vindication.





...

Kilgo said...

----------------------((((((





















----------------------((((((









































----------------------((((((

Anonymous said...

.



















Any comment on Crystal's arrest? I think we all know that Crystal stabbed her boyfriend seven times in self-defense. I'm sure that the booking photographs will show her injuries.














































































.

Anonymous said...

Oh look, its back! Hi Kilgo! Did your attorney say it was ok to start blogging again? Or did you miss the lacrosse boys penises?

Anonymous said...

Sidney
If you are actually in contact with M. Nifong you need to tell him that it would be in his best interest, seriously, to tell the truth when he is deposed in the on-rushing lawsuits.
It might be painful for him to name names and point out, in detail, the crimes of his many co-conspirators.

Kilgo said...

----------------------((((((



----------------------((((((



----------------------((((((



Sidney,

The Gig is up for the Carpetbagger lawsuits.

The Judge has narrowed them into a corner

from which they cannot escape.




----------------------((((((



----------------------((((((



----------------------((((((

guiowen said...

To everyone:
Don't feed the troll!

Anonymous said...

Kilgo

Either tell us your vast, extensive knowledge of the fraudulent rape case or go crawl back into your hole.

Anonymous said...

What Kilgo really knows about the Duke rape hoax:

unbekannte said...

He squirms like a worm
He quacks like a duck
Silly chicken killy
Knows he's f----d

Acknowledgement to Ben Himan

Nifong Supporter said...

I will comment about the Crystal Mangum case in a blog as soon as I have more information about it. Because the media is so biased when it comes to Mike Nifong, it is hard to believe anything it presents. And because it takes its orders from the Powers-That-Be, it is very selective in the stories that it chooses to cover. As I have known for some time, stories that are supportive or show Nifong in a positive light are deemed not to be "newsworthy." Therefore, to get fair and accurate information, it is best to keep up with this blog site. A prime example of the bias in media reporting is the local media's failure to mention the discrimination lawsuit I filed in Federal Court on April 5, 2011. The complete document can be accessed by a link that will be included in the upcoming blog which I will post momentarily. I would be interested in your comments about that!

Anonymous said...

Kilgo, in case you haven't noticed, Mike Nifong, the City of Durham and Duke University are the people trying to keep the case from going to trial, trying to keep discovery from happening.

Are you the individual who, on the MSNBC, boards was confidently predicting the criminal case would go to trial, the Lacrosse player would be convicted and that Mike Nifong would be revealed as a true American hero?

Anonymous said...

Sidney, I am still wondering how you will contrive to spin this situation as a product of the carpetbagger jihad.

Anonymous said...

It would be in M. Nifongs interest to tell the truth now because it is going to come out anyway and doing so would help along the process of repairing some, but not all, of the things that this case has damaged.
Lots of people have come to believe that he must be barely human to behave the way he has. Surely, his life would improve if some people began to see a human side. That is in reach for him, imho.
He should just confess everything. He has nothing to lose at this point.

Anonymous said...

"Therefore, to get fair and accurate information [about Mike Nifong and his prosecution of the Duke Lacrosse players], it is best to keep up with this blog site."

Sidney, this is but another manifestation of your delusions of grandeur.