Thursday, April 7, 2011

What the media doesn’t want you to know: I filed a lawsuit against Duke


Being within a week of the one year anniversary of that most despicable incident that I experienced on the Duke, I was forced to preserve my legal rights by filing a lawsuit against Duke University. I made the trip to Greensboro on April 5th to file the civil papers with clerks in the Federal Court, and the summons and complaints were mailed out that same day.


It was my hope to reasonably settle things with Duke University, and I provided every opportunity to reach a resolution based on the principles of “restorative justice.” Duke’s rebuff, combined with the reluctance of the U.S. Department of Justice to intervene and my so-called political representatives lacking the will and courage to get involved, I was left with no alternative than to take action by filing the complaint.


It is evident in retrospect that Duke utilized information in my pleasant and complimentary letter of April 12, 2010 to ambush me two days later on the 14th of April. The guard was sent to remove me from the campus, and without reason kept threatening to arrest me. I was upset and being kicked off the campus, but compliant, and did not warrant Duke police backup being called in as I was not belligerent, hostile, or threatening. The reason the police was called in was to arrest me, however the security guard and police did not anticipate that I would run into a friend of mine, James Coleman – a Duke law professor, who would intercede on my behalf. Had Professor Coleman not come along when he did, I might still be languishing in a Durham County jail cell.


Duke’s actions against me were outrageous and unwarranted and they should be held accountable. Politicians and the U.S. Department of Justice are not going to do that, which leaves it solely up to me… and that’s a shame.


The media, which gets its marching orders from the powerful and well heeled, will no doubt keep its distance from this story. Therefore, to keep abreast of this ongoing drama, stay tuned to this blog. I will keep you informed.

A link below will take you to the fifteen page complaint. LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoB1/cvDuke040511.htm For additional information about the case, including audio recording and transcript LINK: http://justice4nifong.com/direc/irepoDirec/irepoB/irepoBopen.htm

77 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sidney, who is representing you in your complaint?

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

Quit fosdicking around, Sydney. We want to hear the scoop on Bunny-Boiler Mangum, and what advice the Friends are going to give her this time.

Why do you always want to make it about you?

Anonymous said...

You should get Linwood Wilson to represent you, Sydney. While no more successful than the other defendants' attorneys, he has been much more cost effective.

Anonymous said...

Sidney I have read your multi page complaint. ?You probably have no attorney because no rational attorney would push such a delusion of grandeur.

Or is it you believe you are too important and too significant to the world at large to have delusions of grandeur.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, give us the specific reasons why your US Representative declined to intervene with Duke University on your behalf. Could you quote the reasons word for word.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, a number of us are still waiting to read how you are going to connect Crystal's latest run in with the police to the carpetbagger jihad.

Anonymous said...

$1000/Month for the next 20 years? Greed....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...

Anonymous said...

Sidney, you say you believe that Duke settled with the Lacrosse players for millions of dollars even though the Lacrosse players had no case. You also say you believe that DNASI turned over all the results of their testing of the rape kit, then the Defense Attorneys removed the information of non-Lacrosse player DNA from the results they had received and accused Mike Nifong of withholding the results.

Now you say the public does not know of your civil rights complaint against Duke because the mainstream media is suppressing the information.

Do you really believe you have any credibility?

Didn't you say once that Mike Nifong could have made the criminal case against the defendants even though he had no credible evidence against them.

Do you ever go back and read what you wrote?

Anonymous said...

Sidney, why has James Coleman never posted anything on your blog supporting your belief that Mike Nifong acted within acceptable standards of behavior for a prosecutor when he prosecuted the Lacrosse players?

Anonymous said...

I find it surprising that you are a friend of James Coleman.His report exposed all of the lies Nifong had told about the lacrosse team and referred to them as victims of a rogue prosecutor who pandered to the black community when he was interviewed on 60 minutes.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, isn't it a bit peculiar that Duke caved in to the Lacrosse players and settled with them, but they are making no attempt to settle with you over "that most despicable incident".

Maybe you are dreaming of Duke caving in to you to the tune of $20 million.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, isn't it odd that Crystal has not filed a civil suit against the men she identified as rapists?

If Crystal's case had merit, every contingency fee hungry lawyer in the country would have camped out on her doorstep begging to represent her.

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 12:57pm - every contingency fee hungry lawyer in the country would have camped out on her doorstep begging to represent her.

Willie Gary met with the family early on, and was never heard from again in re: the hoax/frame.

That told people all they needed to know about Crystal's BS,

Anonymous said...

Sydney, did you create and distribute a press release regarding the filing of your suit?

Brod Dickhead said...

Sidney, I know a Durham lawyer who will represent you pro bono. His name is Mike Nifong.

I was just wondering if you have ever heard of him?

What's that?.....

This blog is about him? Oh sorry!

He's been disbarred?.....

Since when has that ever mattered in Durham anyway?

I hear Duke is willing to settle with you - they are offering one barrel of tar and a bucket of feathers and if you behave nicely, a sweetener of one watermelon and carton of fried chicken.

You would be well advised to accept their offer!!!!

Harr Supporter said...

Sidney,

Like most of your readers, I believe Duke treated you badly. I wish you success in your lawsuit.

Whether your treatment rises to a violation of a constitution right remains to be proven. Some readers have noted that Duke, as a private actor, is not required to safeguard freedom of speech as provided in the First Amendment. You have provided no analysis or precedent to support your claim.

I will also be interested to see how you differentiate Duke's failure to allow you to freely express your opinion with Duke's failure to allow free expression in other cases. You have derided the lawsuits against Duke filed by non-indicted players as not worthy of consideration.

McFadyen, for example, was suspended from school (a more onerous punishment than your removal from campus) for his e-mail parody of American Psycho. Duke violated its disciplinary procedures in this suspension. While I agree that his e-mail was in bad taste, you have not explained why an ill-considered parody of a popular book and film, included in the syllabus for several Duke courses, is not protected speech. Similarly, Duke students, including unindicted players, who organized a voter registration campaign for Lewis Cheeks were prevented from carrying out their campaign and were required to turn their shirts inside out (you have not claimed that you were required to turn your Committee shirt inside out, so you apparently faced fewer restrictions). At the same event, campaign workers for Steve Monks were able to conduct a similar voter registration without restriction. Voter registration per se apparently did not trigger Duke's ban.

I welcome your explanation of how your apparent approval of Duke's limitation on speech in other cases supports your position in your lawsuit. A cynic may conclude that you favor protection of the freedom of speech only when you approve of the protected speech and favor limitations when you disapprove of the speech.

We await your memorandum of analysis. I urge that you post it on your website as soon as you have filed it. There appears to be some delay in posting filings on the Justia site.

Anonymous said...

The Herald Sun reported today that the Committee on Justice for Sidney Harr plans to launch its new website, www.justice4harr.

Anonymous said...

Sisney, a commenter on Liestoppers made this point. Your J4N committee is so desperate for support and donations you file this frivolous lawsuit to coerce support.

It should be a revelation to you as to how many people actually do believe in your cause, and as to how many people DO NOT.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, this is truly pitiful. You are so intent on conducting your personal vendetta against people who, so far as I can see, have never done anything to you, you ARE trying to coerce Duke into financing it.

This is the same Duke, incidentally, who wanted the Lacrosse players tried, convicted, and then sorted out on appeal because it would have been better for Duke.

Duke, via its settlement with them, seems no longer interested in conducting any such vendetta. I am sure the gong(sic) of 88 still hates them. But Duke does not share your desire to persecute them them.

Incidentally, have you considered, when your frivolous lawsuit is dismissed, you might get stuck with paying Duke's legal fees.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, this is what Christine Flowers, a columnist with the Philadelphia Daily News, had to say about Crystal Mangum:

"Mangum was never raped by the Duke lacrosse players she accused in 2006. All charges were dropped by the North Carolina attorney general more than a year later, and the boys were declared "actually innocent." Those unfamiliar with the criminal system need to know how rare it is to be found "innocent." Many defendants get off on doubt and technicalities, procedural irregularities that force a judge to dismiss the charges.

Not here. The three athletes were absolved of all guilt by the state's highest prosecutor.

And it never should've taken a year to clear them.

But that's what happens when the system believes a poor black woman over rich white men simply because she's poor, black and a woman, and they're rich, white and male."

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney, who is representing you in your complaint?"


I am representing myself "pro se." I had hoped that the U.S. Department of Justice would have taken the case, but they refused. From my past life experiences, had I hired an attorney in North Carolina, most likely he/she would have taken my money and worked against my best interests. So I'm better off representing myself because I know I won't sell myself out.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney I have read your multi page complaint. ?You probably have no attorney because no rational attorney would push such a delusion of grandeur.

Or is it you believe you are too important and too significant to the world at large to have delusions of grandeur."


Not to seek representation by an attorney was my choice, as I previously stated. Why pay to have an attorney sabotage my case? At least I have a good chance of prevailing by representing myself.

Where do you come up with this "importance" and "delusions of grandeur" stuff? I don't think I should be harassed, humiliated, threatened, intimidated, and nearly arrested just because I believe that Mike Nifong was singularly and unjustly disbarred.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney, give us the specific reasons why your US Representative declined to intervene with Duke University on your behalf. Could you quote the reasons word for word."


Thank you for your question. I will plan on posting a blog on Sunday about their responses and include links to the actual letters themselves.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney, a number of us are still waiting to read how you are going to connect Crystal's latest run in with the police to the carpetbagger jihad."


I do not have any information on the most recent incident involving Ms. Mangum, so it's difficult for me to comment. However, I will say that the Carpetbagger Jihad Agenda has successfully used the media to play Jedi-Mind tricks on the public. That is why there is so much irrational anti-Nifong, anti-Mangum, and anti-Nifong supporter hysteria in the state and nationwide.

Anonymous said...

"I am representing myself "pro se."

Isn't there an Abraham Lincoln quote about this? Something about having a fool for a client?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"$1000/Month for the next 20 years? Greed....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..."


You left out much that was in the lawsuit about the payment, such as the following:
1)The monthly payment ends once Mr. Nifong's law license is reinstated. Therefore, Duke could pay as little as $1,000.
By not requesting an upfront payment, it will not hemorrhage the institution financially and require further financial burden on the students.
2) The money does not go to me for my personal use. Some of the money is proposed to go to produce goods, such as "j4n" tee shirts and other merchandise to be given free to Duke so that it can sell it in its bookstores and gift shops. Full profit to help offset the measly amount of $1,000 a month.
3) I did not seek punitive damages, which I deserve because of Duke's premeditated and malicious attack against me.

A prime example of greed would be the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their avaricious attorneys who shook down Duke for at least $20 mil each and are seeking an additional $10 mil each from the cash-strapped city of Durham.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney, why has James Coleman never posted anything on your blog supporting your belief that Mike Nifong acted within acceptable standards of behavior for a prosecutor when he prosecuted the Lacrosse players?"


Because James Coleman does not believe it. I consider James to be a good friend, even though we disagree totally with regards to Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case. However, because we do not agree on this volatile subject, that does not mean we cannot be friends. I used to always drop by his office whenever I was on the Duke campus just to say hello to him. This is something that I will really miss, and is a major reason for my distress at the treatment by Duke that prevents me from returning to its property.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney, isn't it a bit peculiar that Duke caved in to the Lacrosse players and settled with them, but they are making no attempt to settle with you over 'that most despicable incident'.

Maybe you are dreaming of Duke caving in to you to the tune of $20 million."


Unlike the Carpetbagger families and their attorneys, this has never been about money for me. As I plainly state in the lawsuit, I seek "restorative justice."

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney, this is what Christine Flowers, a columnist with the Philadelphia Daily News, had to say about Crystal Mangum:

'Mangum was never raped by the Duke lacrosse players she accused in 2006. All charges were dropped by the North Carolina attorney general more than a year later, and the boys were declared 'actually innocent.' Those unfamiliar with the criminal system need to know how rare it is to be found 'innocent.' Many defendants get off on doubt and technicalities, procedural irregularities that force a judge to dismiss the charges.

Not here. The three athletes were absolved of all guilt by the state's highest prosecutor.

And it never should've taken a year to clear them.

But that's what happens when the system believes a poor black woman over rich white men simply because she's poor, black and a woman, and they're rich, white and male.'"


It is obvious that columnist Flowers does not have an understanding of the rule of law and the criminal justice system. An Attorney General is not capable of proclaiming "innocence." The Attorney General is of the executive branch of government, not judicial. In our system of justice proclamations of "innocence" come from juries, or a judge in lieu of a jury!!

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney, this is truly pitiful. You are so intent on conducting your personal vendetta against people who, so far as I can see, have never done anything to you, you ARE trying to coerce Duke into financing it.

This is the same Duke, incidentally, who wanted the Lacrosse players tried, convicted, and then sorted out on appeal because it would have been better for Duke.

Duke, via its settlement with them, seems no longer interested in conducting any such vendetta. I am sure the gong(sic) of 88 still hates them. But Duke does not share your desire to persecute them them.

Incidentally, have you considered, when your frivolous lawsuit is dismissed, you might get stuck with paying Duke's legal fees."


Did you read my complaint? How can you suggest Duke did nothing to me? Duke harassed me, humiliated me, threatened me, and Duke would have arrested me had I not run into Professor Coleman who interceded with the guard on my behalf. It was a set-up, premediated by Duke and malicious to the extreme.

Anonymous said...

No, Sid...All Duke did is kick you off campus for soliciting. You've already stated on this site that you're guilty. You've admitted that you were handing out business cards/website info (for a website that offers a service -- the reinstatement of Mike Nifong's law license).

Anonymous said...

"...Duke would have arrested me had I not run into Professor Coleman who interceded with the guard on my behalf."

What does Professor Coleman say about this.

Anonymous said...

"Did you read my complaint?"

Yes.

I will believe your allegations when, if ever a judge or jury rules in your favor.

The fact that you believe your allegations have merit does not make it so. You have to make your case.

Anonymous said...

"From my past life experiences, had I hired an attorney in North Carolina, most likely he/she would have taken my money and worked against my best interests."

In other words, no rational ethical attorney would take your case.

Anonymous said...

"An Attorney General is not capable of proclaiming 'innocence.'"

Neither are you capable of establishing the merit of your complaint. You have to make your case.

The Attorney General is capable of reviewing the evidence and concluding that no crime has occurred. If he concludes, if no crime had happened then those accused of said crime must be innocent. He can logically come to no other conclusion.

His right to free speech under the First Amendment guarantees his right to communicate that opinion.

Do you or do you not believe in free speech?

Anonymous said...

"Where do you come up with this "importance" and "delusions of grandeur" stuff?"

From your delusion that the Lacrosse players are guilty of raping Ms. Mangum, that is one source.

Another is your belief that the Department of Justice should prosecute Duke in civil court for forcing you to comply with its policy on solicitation.

Another is your belief your opinion that the Lacrosse players are guilty should count more than the opinion of the Attorney General. You would not be expressing your opinions if you believed the Lacrosse players are innocent.

Anonymous said...

"How can you suggest Duke did nothing to me?"

I read your account. I read Duke's policy on solicitation. I concluded you violated Duke's policy.

In accord with the principle of, he who asserts must prove, it is your obligation to prove Duke did violate your civil rights. The fact that you made your allegation does not prove it.

Of course I have no right to decide whether or not youyr complaint has merit. That is up to the court. I am entitled to my opinion and I am entitled to express it.

Anothe manifestation of your delusion of grandeur is your belief that no one may old or express an opinion different from yours.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, even you know the Bar will not simply restore Mr. Nifong's law license. De facto, you are trying to shake down Duke for a lot of money.

I think it highly unlikely very many people are supporting your vendettsa against the Lacrosse players.

Anonymous said...

Specify what irrational anti Nifong, anti Mangum publicity is out there?

Nifong attempted to perpetrate a gross act of prosecutorial misconduct. What evidence did he have that justified his indictment of three innocent men. They are innocent because they perpetrated no crime against anyone. You have never come up with any. You have simply argued that the exculpatory evidence was not exculpatory. That opinion of yours is another example of your delusions of grandeur.

Ms. Mangum's allegations not reliable. Her identifications of the three Lacrosse players were not reliable.That's all Mr. Nifong had.

Anonymous said...

"I did not seek punitive damages, which I deserve because of Duke's premeditated and malicious attack against me."

Sidney, I say again, that is not a verdict you can make. The court decides the case based on what kind of case you can make. You can not just allege such conduct. You have to prove it.

Anonymous said...

"It was a set-up, premediated by Duke and malicious to the extreme."

Sidney, that decision is up to the court. If you can make your case, then the court will find for you. You cannot make your case by simply asserting it.

Of course, judging from your opinions on the innocent or guilt of the three Lacrosse players, you are unaware of the concept of innocence. You believe that Ms. Mangum's allegation devoid of proof should have been enough for a guilty verdict.

It is another manifestation of your delusions of grandeur that you believe the court could simply accept your complaint, that you should not have to make your case.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, I believe you do not want to comment about Ms. Mangum's latest situation.

Anonymous said...

What a maroon!

Anonymous said...

"A prime example of greed would be the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and their avaricious attorneys who shook down Duke for at least $20 mil each..."

Sidney, how could they have done that if they did not have a case against Duke? If they had no case, Duke would have defended any lawsuit they would have filed, Instead Duke settled and insiste on confidentiality.

Anonymous said...

"It is obvious that columnist Flowers does not have an understanding of the rule of law and the criminal justice system."

You obviously do not, as evidenced by your description of Mr. Nifong's grossly unethical conduct as well within acceptable standards of behavior for a prosecutor.

Mr. Nifong prosecuted three innocent men for rape when he had evidence that no rape had occurred.

The Lacrosse players are innocent because they did not commit the crime of which they were accused.

Kilgo said...

Wow ! This shill for the Lacrossers

is certainly getting desperate.


He must finally realize

the Lacrosse Civil Suits

have been blown out of the water.

A Ringing Success ! ! !

Yessir-re ! ! !


Where is that Brilliant Durham Legal Analyst

and why isn't he here gloating about

Bob Ekstrand's

ONE- COUNT VICTORY ? ?

Anonymous said...

Depositions, depositions, depositions.


Investigators who don't investigate.

Gottlieb

Himan

Wilson



Supervisors who don't supervise.

Chalmers

Hodge

Russ

Lamb

Ripberger



Prosecutors who prosecute

With "no credible evidence"



Was this a deliberate frame?

Or was this simply the biggest collection

of incompetent morons

in the history of law enforcement?


We shall see...

Discovery is coming





.

Anonymous said...

Kilgo, go indulge yourself in your own delusions of greatness and grandeur.

Tell us what you know about the Lacrosse case.

OOPS! I forgot. You already have. What you have told us follows below:













The preceding has been the sum total of Kilgo's knowledge about the Lacrosse case.

Anonymous said...

"It is obvious that columnist Flowers does not have an understanding of the rule of law and the criminal justice system."

Sidney, you would not say that unless you believed that the Lacrosse players were guilty of raping Crystal Mangum.

No crime ever happened on the night of 13-14 March 2006 at 610 Buchanan Avenue. Therefore, the accused Lacrosse players could not have perpetrated any crime. Therefore they ARE innocent.

Anonymous said...

Kilgo, tell us, from your fount of knowledge of the Duke Lacorsse case, why Duke, Mike Nifong and the City of Durham have been fighting to have the lawsuits dismissed rather than go on to discovery?

Why did Duke settle with the Lacrosse defendants if they could have defended themselves?

Anonymous said...

"In our system of justice proclamations of "innocence" come from juries, or a judge in lieu of a jury!!"

Sidney, you are neither judge nor jury. So by what authority do you deny the innocence of three men who m never committed any crime, who did not commit the crime of which they were charged.

Anonymous said...

Kilgo,
I've archived and printed all your blog posts before you erased them. So when discovery starts and your IP address is found I'll have them to submit to the court. Have a nice day!

Anonymous said...

He's squirming like a worm
He's quacking like a duck
Silly chicken killy
Knows he's f----d

Anonymous said...

"In our system of justice proclamations of "innocence" come from juries, or a judge in lieu of a jury!!"

Juries found Alan Gell, Darrell Hunt and Gregory Taylor guilty. Did that make them guilty?

Although you are neither judge nor jury, you seem to think you can make the Lacrosse defendants guilty. Why else do you persist in denying their innocence.

Anonymous said...

Sidney,

On the main committee website, you have a highly misleading headline for a story from July 14, 2010. Your headline proclaims "Crystal Mangum... the falsely accused. Innocent... "

http://justice4nifong.com/direc/newsDirec/
news16s.htm

A reader of the headline may have reached the erroneous conclusion that a judge or jury had found Crystal not guilty.

As you have reminded us repeatedly, in our system of justice, a declaration of innocence can come only from a judge or jury. Crystal's case had not been heard when that story was posted. No judge or jury had found Crystal not guilty of charges. You story appears to rely on Crystal's statement. In our system, we do not permit defendants to proclaim themselves innocent.

In her subsequent trial, a jury found her guilty of misdemeanors and could not reach a verdict on the felony arson charge. That charge was dismissed.

As a result, I am sure that you agree that Crystal is not "innocent" of felony arson. No judge or jury reached this verdict.

I ask that you practice "restorative justice" in this case.

1. You must admit responsibility for your actions.

2. You must apologize to your victims (i.e., your readers).

3. You must compensate your victims for their losses. Here I propose that you explain how you made this mistake.

4. You must take steps to prevent the recurrence of this offense.

Kilgo said...

..

Whoopee ! !

Kilgo has his own Archivist

and Personal Secretary ! !

Would Kilgo's very own personal secretary

please print out and form a nicely bound

volume of the writings of Kilgo, and send

it to Kilgo's Duke Classmate, James Cooney.

Oh, wait. We need a title.

How about :


" Whores, Thieves and Liars"

How the Duke Lacrosse Mafia Beat the Rap

in the Notorious Duke Sex Scandal.

..

Anonymous said...

Notorious Duke Sex Scandal.

Kilgo,

You have slight error here. A sex scandal requires sex. I believe you mean "Notorious Duke Malicious Prosecution Scandal."

I believe you should practice "restorative justice" as well.

1. You must admit responsibility for your actions.

2. You must apologize to your victims (i.e., your readers).

3. You must compensate your victims for their losses. Here I propose that you explain how you made this mistake.

4. You must take steps to prevent the recurrence of this offense.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'...Duke would have arrested me had I not run into Professor Coleman who interceded with the guard on my behalf.'

What does Professor Coleman say about this."


I don't know. I've never heard him comment on the incident. But why do you think the Duke Police officer was called by security?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'From my past life experiences, had I hired an attorney in North Carolina, most likely he/she would have taken my money and worked against my best interests.'

In other words, no rational ethical attorney would take your case."


I do not know of an attorney in North Carolina practicing discrimination/civil rights law who I would completely trust to handle my case.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"'In our system of justice proclamations of "innocence" come from juries, or a judge in lieu of a jury!!'

Sidney, you are neither judge nor jury. So by what authority do you deny the innocence of three men who m never committed any crime, who did not commit the crime of which they were charged.
"

Not sitting on a jury and not being a judge, I make no attempt to proclaim or deny innocence or guilt on the Duke Lacrosse defendants... and neither should the attorney general.

The real problem arises when the media gives credence to Cooper's proclamation and misleads the public by falsely defining the Duke Lacrosse defendants as "innocent" or "exonerated." That is simply not true.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

You j4n shirts alone may have constituted solicitation.

Anonymous said...

Sid,

Where is the "restorative justice" you owe your readers?

Anonymous said...

"I don't know. I've never heard him comment on the incident. But why do you think the Duke Police officer was called by security?"

If he will not comment it is logical to conclude Professor finds nothing to support.

Maybe the Duke Police officer was called because you did not comply with his instructions to leave because you were violating Duke's policy on solicitation.

What you say about your situation can not be trusted. You are saying that three men who committed no crime can not be presumed innocent.

And you think you understand the judicial system!

Anonymous said...

"Not sitting on a jury and not being a judge, I make no attempt to proclaim or deny innocence or guilt on the Duke Lacrosse defendants... and neither should the attorney general."

By posting on your blog that the Lacrosse players can not be presumed innocent, you are making a judgment, a judgment that the Lacrosse players are guilty.

You therefore are setting yourself as a judge and/or jury or both.

Anonymous said...

Once again Kilgo makes portentious threats. He has done so in the past and has never delivered.

He has made claims of extensive intimate knowledge of the Duke Rape hoax. Every time he has been challenged to show what he knows, he slinks away.

Why should we expect anything different now?

Anonymous said...

"I do not know of an attorney in North Carolina practicing discrimination/civil rights law who I would completely trust to handle my case."

In other words you know of no such attorney who believes you have a meritorious complaint.

Your complaint becomes meritorious when a judge or jury, which you are not, decides it is. It does not become valid just because you file it.

Your attitude is not surprising considering you believe Crystal's allegations of rape were meritorious even after the evidence showed she had not been raped.

Anonymous said...

"The real problem arises when the media gives credence to Cooper's proclamation and misleads the public by falsely defining the Duke Lacrosse defendants as "innocent" or "exonerated." That is simply not true."

Why is it not true? The last time I heard anything, a person who has not committed any crime is innocent.

The last time I heard, when people are charged with a crime and the evidence shows they did not perpetrate the crime, that the crime of which they are accused never happened, they are exonerated.

What evidence can you present to corroborate Ms. Mangum's claims that the three Duke Lacrosse players raped her. Unsubstantiated allegations of a beer guzzling party are not corroboration.

The only racial epithet hurled was at Ms. Roberts and was, by her own admission, provoked by her.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, why do you not believe the three Lacrosse defendants are innocent? What crime did they commit?

Just because you believe Crystal Mangum and Mike Nifong, that does not make them guilty. In your own words, only a judge or jury can do that. By your own testimony, a verdict of guilty in a criminal trial may not always be a correct verdict.

Anonymous said...

"I don't know. I've never heard him comment on the incident. But why do you think the Duke Police officer was called by security?"

According to your own account, you were on Duke's campus soliciting support for your campaign against the Lacrosse players. You refused to cease and desist.

Anonymous said...

Kilgo:

Tell us what are your reasons for believing to us that any sex scandal ever happened.

Anonymous said...

Durham Idiot would be a better title Killy

Kilgo said...

Whoopee ! !

Killy has a New Editor !

Remember the Good Old Days, Ubes ?

QUACK QUACK QUACK

Kilgo said...

This is where Gowen will shout:

DON'T FEED THE TROLL !!

Yes, we love the smell of a

Lacrosse Locker Room

in the morning.

Anonymous said...

Kilgo, tell us why you believe there was a sex scandal at Duke.

Anonymous said...

Definition of quack from online dictionary: "A charlatan; a mountebank."

What Kilgo says about himself: "QUACK QUACK QUACK".

Kilgo tells us in triplicate what he is.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
"Sidney,

On the main committee website, you have a highly misleading headline for a story from July 14, 2010. Your headline proclaims 'Crystal Mangum... the falsely accused. Innocent... '

http://justice4nifong.com/direc/newsDirec/
news16s.htm

A reader of the headline may have reached the erroneous conclusion that a judge or jury had found Crystal not guilty.

As you have reminded us repeatedly, in our system of justice, a declaration of innocence can come only from a judge or jury. Crystal's case had not been heard when that story was posted. No judge or jury had found Crystal not guilty of charges. You story appears to rely on Crystal's statement. In our system, we do not permit defendants to proclaim themselves innocent.

In her subsequent trial, a jury found her guilty of misdemeanors and could not reach a verdict on the felony arson charge. That charge was dismissed.

As a result, I am sure that you agree that Crystal is not 'innocent' of felony arson. No judge or jury reached this verdict.

I ask that you practice 'restorative justice' in this case.

1. You must admit responsibility for your actions.

2. You must apologize to your victims (i.e., your readers).

3. You must compensate your victims for their losses. Here I propose that you explain how you made this mistake.

4. You must take steps to prevent the recurrence of this offense."


You make a valid point, and I will be more than happy to oblige, once WRAL, ABC-11, NBC-17, The News & Observer, and MSNBC do the same with regards to their false and misleading statements. I have written them and tried to have them correct their misstatements, but they won't. At least I will admit that my comments would have been more appropriate for a blog than a news venue.

Thanks for calling it to my attention. I will be more careful in the future.

Now try to get a similar statement from the biased mainstream media.

Next, a blog which addresses a question by a commenter. Be sure to check out the latest Part 15 of "The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper."

Nifong Supporter said...


A flog will be produced about this topic in the near future.