Wednesday, February 8, 2012

In a David v. Goliath legal battle, Duke University takes unfair advantage



Click on following link to view the flog.
LINK: http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog14.html



Part One – An accurate retelling of events leading to Harr’s legal action against Duke

Honesty and fairness are the two most important characteristics for any judge to possess. In his November 16, 2011 recommendation to the Court, United States Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp demonstrated his lack of both by flat out lying to the Court with the intention of misleading the Court for the purpose of achieving a ruling in favor of the defendants from Duke University. That the Duke defendants’ defense against the discrimination complaint made by the Plaintiff Sidney B. Harr was extremely weak was evidenced by the magistrate judge’s unethical conduct in propping up defendants’ position with lies.

Because of the well-known prejudice of the mainstream media against Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum, Nifong supporters and others considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case, the public at large is unfamiliar with the discriminatory and malicious acts of Duke University on April 14, 2010. A concise review of this important case will ensue.

Prior to that date of April 14, 2010, Sidney Harr, the Lay Advocate for the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, had visited Duke University on numerous occasions… as an invited guest to public conferences, a book-signing, and other public forums. Harr also at times ventured onto the grounds to say “hello” to a few of his friends, including Law Professor James Coleman and Political Science Chair Mike Munger. In addition Harr had taken in cultural events offered at the Nasher Museum, which is situated on Duke University property, as well as having sat in attendance at Easter mass in the Duke Cathedral.

Harr enjoyed and valued his visits to the Duke campus – whether for enjoyment, enlightenment, or both – and even stated as much. After attending a three day John Hope Franklin conference at Duke Law School on Law, Politics, and Race, Harr took the time to write letters to the university President Richard Brodhead and law school dean David Levi, expressing his appreciation for the wonderful programs that Duke produced for the public’s benefit. Because Harr had previously placed President Brodhead in his educational comic strip, “The MisAdventures of Super-Duper Cooper,” he wanted to assure that President Brodhead harbored no ill will, so he was sure to show other comic strip examples in which Harr utilized self-deprecating humor.

Harr also went to great lengths to express his view that even though he was a supporter of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, that that had nothing to do with his attitude towards Duke University… which at the time was full of nothing but admiration.

And finally, to show his support for the programs Duke put on for the public, Harr wrote in his letters that he planned on attending the interview of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer… which was scheduled two days later, on April 14, 2010. What is so diabolical about this is that the information that Harr gave of his intention to be in attendance at the April 14th event was used to set a trap in which to arrest Harr for trespassing. The apparent animosity which led the Duke University officials to plot to place Harr behind bars was the fact that he was a well known and outspoken supporter of Mike Nifong. That Harr is an African American also entered into their designs to have him incarcerated, as the criminal justice system in the Tar Heel state is quick to place innocent black people in jail with impunity… even without justification or cause. The arrest of Knightdale resident Carletta Alston, who was held in jail for twelve months by Wake County prosecutor Tom Ford, is a prime example.

Because Harr sent the complimentary letters on Monday, April 12, 2010, he assumed that they would have reached Duke University the morning of Wednesday, April 14th, the day of the event. Harr believed that on that particular morning, both defendants Brodhead and Levi would have been busy with preparations for their distinguished guest, and would not have had the luxury of engaging in a plot against him. He surmised that one of their assistants, probably that of Dean Levi, cooked up the scheme and ordered the security guard to initially confront Harr and then call in the Duke campus police to make the arrest.

Now, had the letter reached Duke University a day earlier, on Tuesday, April 13, 2010, then that would have given defendants Brodhead and Levi ample time to become involved in the skullduggery. Make no mistake that the security guard had been summoned for this mission by someone in the office of the recipients of Harr’s letters because Harr enclosed a “j4n” business card in both letters… and the security officer acknowledged having a “j4n” business card in his possession when he confronted Harr.

At the conclusion of the event, Harr exited the large room and was heading for the exit when he was approached by Tom Breen of the Associated Press. Mr. Breen proceeded to ask Harr of his impressions of interview with the justice. Was Mr. Breen in collusion… part of the conspiracy against Harr? Possibly, as of all the people in attendance, Harr was the only one he saw Mr. Breen interview… and Harr who sat near the front of the large standing room only crowd, was one of the final people to emerge from the room’s rear exit.

Per his custom, Harr always exchanged his business card with media-types when the opportunity arose, and so he and Mr. Breen traded business cards during their brief encounter, and Harr continued to walk towards the building’s exit for the purpose of catching a bus to return home to Raleigh. Before he could reach the exit door, Harr was intercepted by a uniformed security guard, K. Harris.

The security guard informed Harr that he would have to immediately leave the campus, but could not give a reason, stating only that the “building manager” ordered him to remove Harr from university property. Harr was moving with the guard towards the door while he tried to get an audience with the building manager or obtain an understanding from the guard for his being thrown off campus. Throughout the conversation, the guard kept threatening to arrest Harr… again without provocation. Because Harr’s behavior was no different from others similarly situated, he came to the immediate realization that he was being discriminated against because of his support for Mike Nifong. He also realized that his future visits to Duke University property and venues were in jeopardy… pending a satisfactory resolution… which at the moment seemed extremely remote.

As the security guard ushered Harr to the exit, Harr saw his friend, Duke Law Professor James Coleman, and flagged him down. With his audio recorder running Harr explained his predicament and Professor Coleman vigorously interceded with the guard on Harr’s behalf. Coleman also attempted to calm down Harr who was visibly upset at being asked to leave the campus. In a hurry to catch a plane, Professor Coleman brokered a settlement of sorts with the security guard before leaving. The brief intervention by Professor Coleman saved Harr from being arrested, as the Duke police had already been summoned by the security guard and he arrived shortly thereafter in a patrol car.

As if the incident within the building wasn’t embarrassing and humiliating enough, the uniformed guard and police officer closely followed Harr, despite his protestations, to the bus stop whereupon he caught a bus that would take him off Duke University property and to the downtown bus terminal… thus ending his campus nightmare.

It was obvious to Harr that any future return to Duke property would be dependent upon one of two things occurring. First, if Duke University was able to give a logical explanation for its treatment of Harr on April 14th, which was, in essence, exceedingly improbable. Secondly, if Duke University would accept responsibility for its misconduct and take other measures of restorative justice to see that mistreatment of Nifong supporters did not recur in the future. Harr was banking on the latter when he wrote individual letters in April and May of 2010 to President Brodhead, Dean Levi, and Pamela Bernard, the general counsel of Duke University.

All hopes for a resolution which would enable Harr to return to Duke campus without fear of being abused, harassed, and/or arrested, were dashed by a May 10, 2010 letter from the Duke University spokesman Mike Schoenfeld. Far from being conciliatory, the letter was accusatory… alleging that Harr had repeatedly violated its policy against solicitation by handing out business cards and asking their recipients to visit his website. This was the best excuse that Duke University could concoct for its mistreatment and near arrest of Harr. Correspondence between the parties concluded with May 15, 2010 letters by Harr to Brodhead, Levi, and Bernard in which he expressed his disapproval and dissatisfaction with Schoenfeld’s letter of May 10th.

During the ensuing months, Harr unsuccessfully tried to get civil rights organizations and individuals to intervene with Duke University on his behalf. On April 5, 2011, with the one year anniversary of the incident fast approaching, Harr reluctantly filed his complaint in federal court in order to protect his legal rights from any statute of limitation provisions.


Part 2 – Serious problems with Magistrate Judge Sharp’s recommendation to the Court

The complaint that Harr filed was based upon his civil rights being violated by Duke University for discriminating against him because of his beliefs, thoughts, opinions and allegiances… which were in favor of Mike Nifong. Because of his strongly held position regarding Mr. Nifong, Harr was singularly targeted in a conspiracy intended to culminate in his arrest… presumably on a trespassing charge, and most likely with other charges, such as interfering with a public officer, tacked on.

The defendants through their attorney from the Greensboro law firm of Ellis & Winters LLP, never denied the factual nature of the events stated by the plaintiff Harr, in large measure because Harr audio recorded much of his conversation with the security guard. From what I could ascertain from the confusingly esoteric legalese mumbo-jumbo spewed by Attorney J. Donald Cowan in his motion, the defense proffered by Duke was mainly that the named defendants were not involved in the April 14th incident, and that Duke University was not an agent of the state.

A timeline of events that followed Harr’s filing of his complaint on April 5, 2011 are as follows:
April 15, 2011 – the Defendants file a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint;
May 6, 2011 – Plaintiff Harr files a Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss;
May 16, 2011 – Defendants file a Response in Further Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss;
May 20, 2011 – Harr sends a letter to the Court expressing his displeasure at being denied the opportunity to respond to the Defendants’ May 16, 2011 filing;
November 16, 2011 – Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp files his Recommendation to the Court regarding the motion by the defense; and
December 8, 2011 – Harr files a timely response with the Court about the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.


The problem with Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp’s Recommendation begins with the first sentence in the second paragraph in which he states: “The following factual allegations are made in Plaintiff’s complaint.” By allegedly basing the facts on statements made by the Plaintiff, he sets the stage in which the facts he is about to re-state are not likely to be in dispute by the Plaintiff.

On page two, line eight, the calculated lies begin with the following statement: “After the interview concluded, Plaintiff began handing out business cards of the Committee and was asked by a reporter for the Associated Press for an interview.” This is totally false as neither Harr, nor the Defendants’ stated that Harr began handing out business cards at the conclusion of the Justice Breyer interview. Specifically, Harr stated the following in his complaint:

“14. While waiting for the event, Plaintiff, per his usual custom when on the Duke campus, stopped by the office of Duke Law Professor James Coleman (hereinafter “COLEMAN”) to say “hello.” COLEMAN was not in his office, so Plaintiff returned to the building’s lobby to read his book.
15. While waiting and between stints of reading, Plaintiff struck up conversations with about a half dozen individuals, a few of whom were law students. Plaintiff handed out a few COMMITTEE business cards to some of the people with whom he had conversed, and collected business cards from those who had some.”

The complaint explicitly states that the cards were handed out while Harr was waiting for the interview to begin, and it further states that they were not handed out indiscriminately, but to those individuals with whom Harr was engaged in dialogue.

Magistrate Judge Sharp falsely states that “Plaintiff began handing out business cards of the Committee and was asked by a reporter for the Associated Press for an interview.” This is a fabrication because it suggests that the reporter Tom Breen witnessed Harr distributing cards, and as a result asked him for an interview. There is nothing in Plaintiff Harr’s complaint to suggest such a scenario. In fact, Harr’s complaint reads as follows:

“17. At the event’s conclusion, Plaintiff, who was seated about a third of the way in the front of the packed lecture hall, filed out of the large room en mass with others in attendance.
18. On leaving the room, a gentleman approached the Plaintiff and introduced himself as Tom Breen of the Associated Press. Plaintiff was under the assumption that he was randomly chosen by the reporter from the attendees to give his thoughts about the event. After briefly giving his opinions, the Plaintiff began telling Mr. Breen about his advocacy for NIFONG, and the two exchanged business cards.”

Magistrate Judge Sharp’s reconstruction of the event implied that Harr’s actions induced the reporter Mr. Breen to seek an interview with him. The truth, as stated in Harr’s complaint, is that Harr was leaving the room as others similarly situated when he was approached by Mr. Breen… and that he was not handing out business cards. In fact, per Harr’s complaint, the two were well into their brief conversation when the business cards were exchanged. Furthermore, the card Harr gave to Mr. Breen was the only business card he handed out after the conclusion of the Justice Breyer interview.

Finally, Magistrate Judge Sharp falsely states, “After this interview (with Mr. Breen), Duke campus security approached Plaintiff and advised him he would have to leave the campus. The security officer told Plaintiff that the ‘building manager’ was having him removed. When Plaintiff protested, the security officer called for campus police to meet them.” This, again, is a prevarication which is not substantiated in Harr’s complaint.

In this instance the interpretation of the word “protesting” is of vital importance and Magistrate Judge Sharp uses it to imply that Harr protested being removed from Duke property, as though he were an occupier. To appreciate the essence of the proper interpretation, it should be put into context as is stated in Harr’s complaint which follows:

“21. When Plaintiff asked SECURITY who was responsible for kicking him off campus, SECURITY replied, ‘the building manager.’ Plaintiff asked SECURITY to take him to see the building manager, and SECURITY refused.
22. As an upset and protesting Plaintiff was being escorted to the nearest exit of the building, Plaintiff saw COLEMAN and flagged him down in order to express what Plaintiff considered to be his unwarranted expulsion from the campus…”

That Harr was protesting his “treatment” is further evidenced in paragraph 23 which reads: “COLEMAN tried his best to defuse the issue and calm down Plaintiff who was highly indignant by his treatment.”

Magistrate Judge Sharp failed to mention that in Harr’s complaint, he stated that he was in compliance with the security guard with regards to leaving the campus. The magistrate judge also failed to mention that the security guard repeatedly threatened Harr with arrest. And the magistrate judge failed to mention Harr’s contention that Duke police was summoned without provocation. That paragraph reads as follows:

“26. Plaintiff who was not submissive but more agitated at his mistreatment – not unlike Harvard University’s Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. – was in compliance with SECURITY and walking towards the bus stop while seeking answers to why he was being kicked off the campus. Nonetheless, SECURITY continued to threaten Plaintiff with arrest, and then without provocation called in backup from Duke University campus police.”

That Harr protested his unwarranted and humiliating treatment by security is not at issue, and in itself did not warrant calling in police. The fact is that Harr never refused to leave Duke University property and even stated that he was in compliance with SECURITY.


Part 3 – Reasons behind the magistrate judge’s false and misleading statements

That the recommendation by Magistrate Judge Sharp contains false and misleading statements is indisputable, and directly questions the honesty of the magistrate judge. The reason that the magistrate judge misrepresented the facts of the complaint by Harr, is directly linked to his pronounced prejudice in favor of the defendants from Duke University… as the facts of the incident in question lay the groundwork for the conclusions drawn by the magistrate judge and the impressions developed by the Court upon which to make its rulings.

It is imperative that the re-stated facts be accurate, as they are the foundation upon which conclusions are made and decisions are reached. For example, in a June 17, 2007 online article titled: “Nifong’s punishment is extreme, appropritate,” by MSNBC Senior Legal Analyst Susan F. Filan, she states as fact that Mr. Nifong asked his son to attend his disciplinary hearing.

When notified of the passage, Mrs. Nifong emphatically stated that Ms. Filan’s statement was totally false. She went so far as to say that Mr. Nifong asked his son not to attend… but that his son insisted in order to show support for his beleaguered father.

Ms. Filan, using this untruthful premise as a basis, then reached the conclusion that he asked his son to come as a ploy in order to gain sympathy, leniency, and pity… and she trounces Mr. Nifong’s character and role as a father with the rhetorical question, “Why put your son through this?”

That the media is biased against Mike Nifong is clearly demonstrated by the fact that letters that pointed out these gross mistakes and mailed to NBC Universal President and CEO Jeff Zucker, MSNBC President Phil Griffin, Vice president and General Counsel Rick Cotton, and the MSNBC Legal Department were returned to the sender Harr unopened.

By misstating that Harr began handing out business cards upon the conclusion of the Justice Breyer interview, Magistrate Judge Sharp is trying to make a trespassing case for the defendants to use against Harr. When Harr was handing out the business cards prior to the interview, he was a guest of the campus waiting for the event, which was open to the public, to begin. However, upon the conclusion of the event, Harr was no longer under the umbrella of being an invited guest. The slack and misleading representation of Harr following the Justice Breyer interview is that of a peddler indiscriminately handing out business cards as though they were flyers being given to passersby.

With respect to reporter Tom Breen, Magistrate Judge Sharp implies that Harr’s alleged actions attracted Mr. Breen… not that the reality that Mr. Breen had targeted Harr and approached Harr as he was leaving the lecture room walking as those around him, and not talking or handing out cards.

Finally, Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp takes the liberty of misinterpreting Harr’s statement that he was protesting his treatment by the security guard, and not refusing to leave the Duke University campus grounds. Harr’s statement goes so far as to state that he was complying with the security guards demands that he leave the campus.

A significant point here is that Harr was upset, agitated, and indignant at the unexpected and unwarranted turn of events following the Justice Breyer interview. It was during his confrontation with the security guard that two realizations were swiftly evident to Harr: (1) the actions taken against him were unleashed because he was a supporter of Mike Nifong; and (2) that unless a satisfactory resolution regarding this incident soon followed, that it was likely that he would never be able to return to any of Duke’s properties or venues. That Harr highly valued the programs and events offered at Duke University, and stated so in his letters of April 12, 2010 to defendants Brodhead and Levi, as well as is documented in his complaint, is confirmed by his reaction when he realized the implications of being asked by the security guard to leave the Duke campus. In other words, the damages sustained by Harr by Duke defendants’ actions are significant.

On the other hand, had Harr acted calmly and taken in stride his forced removal from the university campus, then one could more likely surmise that Duke’s mistreatment of Harr was of no major consequence to him. That Harr’s reaction tended to be more volatile is proportional to his perceived sense of loss and the damages he incurred.

What is extremely chilling and disappointing about the legal process thus far is that a magistrate judge would recommend to the Court that the legitimate complaint filed by Harr be dismissed… especially in lieu of the fact that Duke defendants’ actions were premeditated and filled with malice. The university’s response to the kind and complimentary words of Harr was to use the supportive information contained therein to cobble a scheme in which to place its author in jail… an action beyond cruel.


Part 4 – Why this case is important to everyone

The importance of this case cannot be emphasized enough, as its implications go far beyond actions suffered by Harr. This case has relevance for all citizens who go to private property that is a place of public accommodation. Although Duke University is a prime example, being a private institution on private property which holds many events for which it solicits the public to attend its campus buildings, museum, chapel, library, cathedral and other venues, what happen to Harr would have meaning for any private business catering to the public. For example, could a privately owned establishment on private property discriminate against a patron because of his/her belief regarding the death penalty, abortion, or any other controversial topic? Could a privately owned sports bar have a customer removed because his allegiance as displayed by his apparel is for a ball team other than the one favored by the proprietor? These examples are similar to the incident that happened to Harr on Duke’s campus in April 2010.

Duke University knows that it is on the wrong side of justice in this case, but feels that it can trample on the rights of most individuals because it has the media on its side, and to an extent, as recently revealed by Magistrate Judge Sharp’s recommendation, the courts. The media has had full knowledge of the discriminatory acts by Duke early on, but has refused to cover the story. That the mainstream media is under the control of Duke University in this particular instance, and that it can be unfairly controlled by those in powers, is evident. Duke has heavily relied upon the media to keep its disgraceful and embarrassing misconduct against Harr hidden from the public.

As a point of contrast, when two lesbians were asked by a security guard in 2010 to leave a shopping mall in Raleigh, North Carolina, because they briefly showed affection publicly, the media ran with the story… giving it extensive coverage in print and on air. Both locally, and nationally, and where it was even the topic of a cable news program. As a result, the offenders quickly acquiesced to the grievances of the lesbians, who had the full support of the ACLU, Gay and Lesbian groups, and others.

Harr on the other hand was blindsided by Duke University, wherein a premeditated conspiracy was launched against Harr with the intention of putting him behind bars… his offense, being a supporter of Mike Nifong… because of his beliefs, thoughts, and opinions. And not because of any actions committed by him. Yet, the media, acting in unison, has kept this egregious discriminatory act by Duke University secreted away.

Because the U.S. Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp not only sided with defense attorneys for Duke, but felt the need to reinforce its weak defense with lies about facts of the case and misleading statements, it seems to me that Duke felt it has the courts, as well as the media, in its back pocket.

Ramifications of the Motion to Dismiss are far-reaching if Duke University is allowed to abuse it in court. The motion could be used by mammoth institutions and mega-corporations to fend off legitimate and worthy complaints by individuals they have wronged, by relying on the court to dismiss legal actions against them without the arguments even being heard by a jury. This would be the equivalent of giving Goliath a Kevlar body suit with riot headgear before sending him out to do battle with David. Talk about an uneven playing field…

But Harr is not fighting for any advantage, or even a level playing field. All he wants is the opportunity to engage Duke University and its defense team on the playing field. Despite Duke’s many advantages in its pecuniary coffers and legal expertise over Harr, Harr remains confident that he will prevail because he has justice on his side… and he is fighting for the legal rights of all ordinary individuals who have been trampled upon by the big and powerful.



183 comments:

Anonymous said...

Dear Sid,
BULL. Take your meds.

Walt said...

Sid, when you need a conspiracy theory to explain something, you're probably a nut.

Walt-in-Durham

Lance the Intern said...

" Could a privately owned sports bar have a customer removed because his allegiance as displayed by his apparel is for a ball team other than the one favored by the proprietor?"

Yes. This obviously shows you know nothing about civil rights.

Just an FYI -- The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Here's a real life example for you that is very much similar to your sports bar analogy:

A court recently decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

Anonymous said...

Right! Brodhead sat down with his high level team and, shaking in fear over the imminent appearance of the mighty Sid-David, they cooked up a devious scheme to have Goliath, the security guard, escort Sid-David to the bus stop. Hilarious. Absolutely bleepin hilarious! Best ever, Sid-David

Anonymous said...

Sid-nonny:"That the Duke defendants’ defense against the discrimination complaint made by the Plaintiff Sidney B. Harr was extremely weak was evidenced by the magistrate judge’s unethical conduct in propping up defendants’ position with lies."

Sid-ninny, you are the only one, with the exception of Ken-ninny-hyderal, who thinks Duke's defense is weak.

What shows that your case is weak is that you are representing yourself and not retaining a lawyer.

The explanations you give as to why you do not retain a lawyer are not plausible.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "What is so diabolical about this is that the information that Harr gave of his intention to be in attendance at the April 14th event was used to set a trap in which to arrest Harr for trespassing."

In legal terms you are assuming facts not in evidence. You are alleging a conspiracy on the part of Duke.You have not established as fact the existence of said conspiracy.

Anonymous said...

The graphic would have been much funnier if Sid-David had been wearing his J4N shirt.
conspirators creepin out of the bushes everywhere these days, it seems. And all of them, locking and loading on Captain Justice, aka, Sid David. Lord, it must be such a burden to be Sid David

Lance the Intern said...

And now Tom Breen is part of the conspiracy.

I think Sid is approaching the Grand Unification Theory of conspiracies.

Let's reiterate the players:

1) Dick Brodhead
2) David Levi
3) an unnamed "assistant" to Levi
4) Duke University
5) Tom Breen
6) The "mainstream media"
7) The Duke Police
8) Mike Schoenfeld
9) The ACLU
10) The NAACP
11) Goliath in Kevlar (?)

Sid -- Feel free to add any I've missed.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Because of the well-known prejudice of the mainstream media against Mike Nifong, Crystal Mangum, Nifong supporters and others considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the wrong end of the Duke Lacrosse case, the public at large is unfamiliar with the discriminatory and malicious acts of Duke University on April 14, 2010."

Again you assume facts not in evidence. You have not established that the media are prejudiced against you because of your advocacy for Mike Nifong.

That they do not take you seriously is because you offer up fantastic allegations which you do not support with evidence. That is not pprejudice.

Anonymous said...

Bottom line, once again, Sidney.....put up or shut up, as they say. If your version of the great Conspiracy to Hurl Sid IN, not under, the Bus is accurate, then get yourself a lawyer and proceed to do battle with the mighty hordes in court. Otherwise, keep rattling your teeth and spewing this argle bargle....because it is truly fun to read.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "A concise review of this important case will ensue."

Again you assume a fact not in evidence. Your lawsuit against Duke is not important in the general scheme of things.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Harr believed that on that particular morning, both defendants Brodhead and Levi would have been busy with preparations for their distinguished guest, and would not have had the luxury of engaging in a plot against him."

Another example of Sid-ninny assuming facts not in evidence. It has not been established that the above named individuals were conspiring against Sid-ninny.

Anonymous said...

Oh, goodness, Lance, you've left out: Rae Evans, the entire NC justice system, the Governor, Sister's attorney, the Duke doctors, Dr. Nichols, ......I list these obviously wicked people here because, as you note, all these separately moving pieces of the GREAT CONSPIRACY AGAINST SIDNEY, will eventually be linked together, by CSI-Sid, and shown to be masterminded and led by none other than, the Grand Dragon of the KKK!!

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "He surmised that one of their assistants, probably that of Dean Levi, cooked up the scheme and ordered the security guard to initially confront Harr and then call in the Duke campus police to make the arrest."

Here you acknowledge you are assuming a fact not in evidence. Surmising there was a cinspiracy does not establish the existence of said conspiracy.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Was Mr. Breen in collusion… part of the conspiracy against Harr? Possibly, as of all the people in attendance, Harr was the only one he saw Mr. Breen interview".

Again Sid-ninny has not established the existence of a conspiracy. He has admitted he only surmised the existence of said conspiracy.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Per his custom, Harr always exchanged his business card with media-types when the opportunity arose, and so he and Mr. Breen traded business cards during their brief encounter".

This is not what you said before. You said you were passing out business cards to people other than Mr. Breen and asking people to visit your web site.

Do you plan to call Mr. Breen to testify for you?

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "The security guard informed Harr that he would have to immediately leave the campus, but could not give a reason, stating only that the “building manager” ordered him to remove Harr from university property. Harr was moving with the guard towards the door while he tried to get an audience with the building manager or obtain an understanding from the guard for his being thrown off campus. Throughout the conversation, the guard kept threatening to arrest Harr… again without provocation."

What do the security guard and business manager say. Do you plan to question them, should your case go to trial? You know that would allow Duke to cross examine.

I think, since you allege there was no provocation, you would have the burden of proving that.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "First, if Duke University was able to give a logical explanation for its treatment of Harr on April 14th, which was, in essence, exceedingly improbable."

So you are again assuming that Duke acted without provocation, rather than meeting your burden as plaintiff of proving it.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Secondly, if Duke University would accept responsibility for its misconduct and take other measures of restorative justice to see that mistreatment of Nifong supporters did not recur in the future."

Again, you expect the court to accept your allegations at face value, thereby avoiding your obligation as plaintiff to prove the allegations.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Coleman also attempted to calm down Harr who was visibly upset at being asked to leave the campus."

Here you admit you were not behaving appropriately.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Far from being conciliatory, the letter was accusatory… alleging that Harr had repeatedly violated its policy against solicitation by handing out business cards and asking their recipients to visit his website."

Sid-ninny, you did admit in your blog that you did hand out business cards and tried to get people to visit your web site.

It is up to the Court to decide whether or not you violated Duke's solicitation policy.

What you did does fit the definition of Duke's policy, judging from what I have read -far better than "paring knife" fits being the only term which fits the definition of "kitchen knife".

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "During the ensuing months, Harr unsuccessfully tried to get civil rights organizations and individuals to intervene with Duke University on his behalf."

Which would indicate civil rights organizations did not believe you had a case. You have to prove your case. Making allegations without supporting evidence is not proving your case.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny, so far this flog has shown only that you are a deluded megalomaniac.

I'll be back when I have the time.

dhall said...

Anonymous @ 7:28 -- I still occasionally lurk here, and I found your comment so funny, I used your idea as my Blogger image....Hope you don't mind

Anonymous said...

sure, dhall. No offense to Biblical David intended, of course.....

Anonymous said...

of course, Sid (along with courageous vicky) is one of those "tolerant" people as far as LGBT folks are concerned. We can live in his neighborhood, I suppose, but god forbid we put the same last name on our mailbox. anyway, to demonstrate his "tolerance", let's all note that, of all the stories he could have picked to illustrate his point about the lack of national spotlight on the great Sid David battle against Goliath, Sid just Happened to pick the news story about the two lesbians who got rousted for swapping lip gloss down in Raleigh at an upscale shopping center. Sid says this gay story story got great coverage with the implication, of course, that his Christian black heterosexual non-story should have gotten far more coverage than the wicked perverse disease ridden smackie-mouth parking lot fiasco. Geez, those nasty lesbians have all the fun, right, Sid, while you just pine away down in Raleigh....a national story seeking a stage.
But, remember, folks, Sid and courageous vickie are "tolerant liberals"......

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "The complaint that Harr filed was based upon his civil rights being violated by Duke University for discriminating against him because of his beliefs, thoughts, opinions and allegiances… which were in favor of Mike Nifong. Because of his strongly held position regarding Mr. Nifong, Harr was singularly targeted in a conspiracy intended to culminate in his arrest… presumably on a trespassing charge, and most likely with other charges, such as interfering with a public officer, tacked on."

You are again assuming facts not in evidence. You have to prove your case. So far you have proven nothing.

kenhyderal said...

Universities have anti-solicitation policies in order to protect students from being solicited by sales people or by recruiters. The policies are usually broad based enough that they can be arbitrarily enforced. I would invite anyone who has the opportunity to conduct a small experiment by handing out their business cards to students,faculty or guests at any function on the campus, inviting them to visit a web-site. Do this experiment even in view of campus police or building security and see if you also receive the same treatment. I'm sure the results of such an experiment will cause you to conclude that Dr. Harr was singled out. The way Duke University handled The Lacrosse case was very embarassing and extremely costly to the institution and they would like to see this, somehow, all be forgotten. They used their anti-solicitation policy as an excuse to silence Dr. Harr who continues to embarass them about their scandalous settlement with the accused players

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Plaintiff returned to the building’s lobby to read his book.
15. While waiting and between stints of reading, Plaintiff struck up conversations with about a half dozen individuals, a few of whom were law students. Plaintiff handed out a few COMMITTEE business cards to some of the people with whom he had conversed, and collected business cards from those who had some.”

You are admitting you were on campus, trying to stir up interest in your cause, which cause had nothing to do with Duke. Ergo, you were violating Duke's policy on solicitation

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Dr. Harr... continues to embarass them[Duke] about their scandalous settlement with the accused players.

What scandalous settlement? If Duke settled with the Lacrosse players, it was because they could not defend in court the charges the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players would have filed against them.

None of this would have happened had Crystal not falsely accused the Lacrosse players of raping her.

In this latest flog, what Sid-ninny again shows is that he is a deluded megalomaniac.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "This, again, is a prevarication which is not substantiated in Harr’s complaint."

Sid-ninny your complaint substantiates nothing.

Anonymous said...

The problem with good old Kenny Boy is that he seems to have what I would term as "Blindus Brainus" syndrome.....no sense, no brain. He wishes us to assume, along with him, that whatever Sid-David has said is true.....because mighty Sid-David says it is.
OK, Kenny, go for it....if you wanna believe that Captain Justice is telling the truth, have at it. I am sure that Duke is just terrified of Sid and his world famous crusade to restore bathrobe boy to lawyer-ing. Gosh, Erwin Rd. must be all a-twitter. Let's hear it for Kenny......he gets the "Swallow it All" award for the week.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "This, again, is a prevarication which is not substantiated in Harr’s complaint."

So you think your complaint should be taken at face value as true. Si-ninny you have to prove your allegations.

As the Nifong wrongful prosecution against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players should have taught you, trying to prevail with no evidence to support you does not work.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "That Harr protested his unwarranted and humiliating treatment by security is not at issue, and in itself did not warrant calling in police. The fact is that Harr never refused to leave Duke University property and even stated that he was in compliance with SECURITY."

Sid-ninny, you have not established as fact that your treatment was unwarranted.

You said previously in this post that Professor Coleman had to calm you down. That suggests to me you were resisting Duke security.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "That the recommendation by Magistrate Judge Sharp contains false and misleading statements is indisputable, and directly questions the honesty of the magistrate judge."

You have not established this as fact.You have merely allege it. What is established as fact by your wn words is that you did not like Magistrate Sharp's ruling. That does not render it false or distorted.

You again show, you expect your unsubstantiated allegations to be accepted at face value as true.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "It is imperative that the re-stated facts be accurate, as they are the foundation upon which conclusions are made and decisions are reached."

You are again expecting your unsupported allegations to be accepted at face value as true.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "That the media is biased against Mike Nifong is clearly demonstrated by the fact that letters that pointed out these gross mistakes and mailed to NBC Universal President and CEO Jeff Zucker, MSNBC President Phil Griffin, Vice president and General Counsel Rick Cotton, and the MSNBC Legal Department were returned to the sender Harr unopened."

You are again presuming as fact that the media is biased against you, something you have not established as fact.

The letters were probably returned to you because NBC, considering the unsupported allegations and errors you have posted as true on your blog, did not believe you were worthy of a reply. That in turn probably wrankled your deluded megalomania.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "The slack and misleading representation of Harr following the Justice Breyer interview is that of a peddler indiscriminately handing out business cards as though they were flyers being given to passersby."

Only in your deluded megalomaniacal imagination.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Finally, Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp takes the liberty of misinterpreting Harr’s statement that he was protesting his treatment by the security guard, and not refusing to leave the Duke University campus grounds. Harr’s statement goes so far as to state that he was complying with the security guards demands that he leave the campus."

You state previously that Professor Coleman had to calm you down. Why would you have to be calmed down if you were complying with security?

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "The reason that the magistrate judge misrepresented the facts of the complaint by Harr, is directly linked to his pronounced prejudice in favor of the defendants from Duke University… as the facts of the incident in question lay the groundwork for the conclusions drawn by the magistrate judge and the impressions developed by the Court upon which to make its rulings"

You are once again in this self pitying flog presuming facts not in evidence.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "And the magistrate judge failed to mention Harr’s contention that Duke police was summoned without provocation."

Your own description of your condition during this incident suggests security had cause to call the Duke police.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "What is extremely chilling and disappointing about the legal process thus far is that a magistrate judge would recommend to the Court that the legitimate complaint filed by Harr be dismissed… especially in lieu of the fact that Duke defendants’ actions were premeditated and filled with malice."

You again state that you should not have to meet your burden as plaintiff of proving your case. You want your complaint to be accepted at face value as true.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "The university’s response to the kind and complimentary words of Harr was to use the supportive information contained therein to cobble a scheme in which to place its author in jail… an action beyond cruel."

You again are presuming facts ot in evidence. You are again trying to evade your burden as plaintiff to make your case.

Anonymous said...

Here is what I think happened that day.....
Sid shows up. Starts blathering about poor Nifong to passersby, handing out his propoganda, ranting, etc. annnoying other people.
somebody calls security and reports what has been going on. Security shows up.
sidney gets his panties in a knot and goes all righteous. Coleman wanders by. Sidneys sees an opportunity to pull the "I am just a good single mom, working my way through college, trying to support my children" line.....only this time it's "I am just a poor retired physician, a black man, trying to stand up for the Fongster and the nasty white people are all picking on me". Coleman looks at Sidney like Sidney has grown a third eyeball and tells Sidney to chill. Sidney assumes to handcuffed marytr position, waddles off to the bus, and shouts, as he is departing, "I shall overcome....!!!"
Seeeee, sidney, it's easy to present all kinds of versions for what you did! My version is just as true as yours.....and I have just as much evidence to back it up as you do...for your version.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "The media has had full knowledge of the discriminatory acts by Duke early on, but has refused to cover the story."

Sid-ninny is throwing a tantrum because what he calls the biased media will not give him publicity.

Sid-ninny, to prove that to the court, you would have to subpoena representatives of said media and depose them.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny, Ken-ny.

Anonymous said...

Bahahahahahahahahahaha

Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Duke University knows that it is on the wrong side of justice in this case, but feels that it can trample on the rights of most individuals because it has the media on its side, and to an extent, as recently revealed by Magistrate Judge Sharp’s recommendation, the courts."

Sid-ninny, you have to prove that "Duke University...is on the wrong side of justice". You have proven nothing. You have made a number of unsubstantiated allegations. Then you have rambled about the uneven playing field. What you think is an even playing field is the court accepting as truth your allegations without you having to prove them.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Part 4 – Why this case is important to everyone"

This case is not important to aanyone except you.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "The media has had full knowledge of the discriminatory acts by Duke early on, but has refused to cover the story."

That the media does not take you or your vendetta against three innocent, wrongfully accused, wrongfully prosecuted men seriously does not indicate they have kowledge of any discriminatory acts on the part of Duke.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "That the mainstream media is under the control of Duke University in this particular instance, and that it can be unfairly controlled by those in powers, is evident."

It is not evident. This yet another example of what you consider a level playing field. that you should not have to meet your obligation to prove your case, that your allegations should be accepted at face value as true.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Because the U.S. Magistrate Judge P. Trevor Sharp not only sided with defense attorneys for Duke, but felt the need to reinforce its weak defense with lies about facts of the case and misleading statements, it seems to me that Duke felt it has the courts, as well as the media, in its back pocket."

It was more about your lack of a case against the people you sued.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Ramifications of the Motion to Dismiss are far-reaching if Duke University is allowed to abuse it in court. The motion could be used by mammoth institutions and mega-corporations to fend off legitimate and worthy complaints by individuals they have wronged, by relying on the court to dismiss legal actions against them without the arguments even being heard by a jury."

This is similar to the argument you have espoused, that Crystal had a right to have her case heard by a jury. If it is evident pre trial that the defendants were falsely accused(which was what happened in the Lacrosse case), the defendants should not be brought to trial. In any event, the accusing witness has no right to have his/her accusations heard by a jury.

If you have no case in a civil lawsuit, you have no right to have your suit heard by a jury. This blog post shows you have no case against Duke.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Harr on the other hand was blindsided by Duke University, wherein a premeditated conspiracy was launched against Harr with the intention of putting him behind bars…"

You demonstrate again your suit is nothing but a collection of unsupported allegations.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "But Harr is not fighting for any advantage, or even a level playing field."

No, you are fighting to have your unsupported allegations accepted at face value, to evade your obligatio as a plaintiff to prove your case.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "he[Harr] is fighting for the legal rights of all ordinary individuals who have been trampled upon by the big and powerful."

No, "he[Harr]" is conducting a racially motivated vendetta against three innocent Caucasian men because they were not wrongfully convicted of raping a black woman.

There were multiple injustices perpetrated against the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players which Sid-ninny says were a proper prosecution.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Harr remains confident that he will prevail because he has justice on his side…"

No, Sid-ninny wants toprevail without meeting his obligation to prove his case.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "he[Sid-ninny] is fighting for the legal rights of all ordinary individuals who have been trampled upon by the big and powerful.'

I guess Sid-ninny believes the Lacrosse players were not ordinary citizens. He approved of DA Mike Nifong's trampling all over their rights in order to wrongfully convict them.

Mr. Nifong had the power of the state and of the DPD behind him.

Did Sid-ninny approve of this wrongful prosecution because the Lacrosse players were Caucasian? It seems to me he conducts his vendetta against them because they are Caucasian.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny" :An accurate retelling of events leading to Harr’s legal action against Duke".

Wrong! A retelling of events leading to Harr's legal action against Duke, alleged by Harr to be accurate>

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "All he wants is the opportunity to engage Duke University and its defense team on the playing field."

Wrong! All he(Sid-ninny) wants is to have his case decided in his favor without having to make his case.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "The motion[to dismiss Sid-ninny's lawsuit] could be used by mammoth institutions and mega-corporations to fend off legitimate and worthy complaints by individuals they have wronged.

Why would they do that, if they can buy off the plaintiffs' attorneys, as you have alleged.

You have to prove your action is worthy and legitimate. There are pre trial conferences and depositions and hearings in any civil process. If it can be shown in the pre trial proceedings that a lawsuit is without merit, the defendant can move, albeit not always successfully, for a summary judgment in its favor.

I say again. As a plaintiff, you have an obligation to prove your case. You want your case decided in your be decided in our favor without you having made your case.

I say, that indicates you have no case.

It is remindful of Mr. Nifong's actions early in the Duke Lacrosse case. He had no ase but he tried to get a conviction by proclaiming he did.

Why am I not surprised that you would try something so Nifongian.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "This would be the equivalent of giving Goliath a Kevlar body suit with riot headgear before sending him out to do battle with David".

What Sid-ninny wants is the equivalent of stripping Goliath of all his armor, tying him down with steel chains, and having David shoot him with a Barrett Sniper rifle at a range of maybe 100 yards(I do know that a Barrett sniper can hit a target at 1000 yards or more).

Glass houses, Sid-ninny

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Harr on the other hand was blindsided by Duke University, wherein a premeditated conspiracy was launched against Harr with the intention of putting him behind bars… his offense, being a supporter of Mike Nifong… because of his beliefs, thoughts, and opinions."

That has to be decided by the court, and by its hearing more than that you want your statements taken at face value as true.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny, actually rather than this flog being an earth shaking epic event, it is a rehash of what Mike Nifong did early in the Duke Lacrosse case, vouching for his case when he had no evidence to support his case.

Again, why am I not surprised that a Nifong Supporter would try to do something like this.

Anonymous said...

From Me: "I say again. As a plaintiff, you have an obligation to prove your case. You want your case decided in your be decided in our favor without you having made your case."

I should have said I say again. As a plaintiff, you have an obligation to prove your case. You want your case decided in your be decided in your favor without you having made your case.

Nothing Sid-ninny has ever done has been in any one's favor but his own.

Anonymous said...

All of this Harr righteous indignation is nothing but silly nonsense.....just the same old tired and boring crap from a sad little man who has nothing better to do with his time to conjure up demons and conspirators. There is zero point is arguing with Sid because Sid does not have the slightest intention of listening, thinking, proving, or doing much of anything.....but spewing more of his little fables. What a pathetic waste of time........and this from a person who claims he is a retired physician, has a four alarm come-apart about evil white republicans who "don't care about the poor".
wow, sid, did you happen to hear about the union leader for a teacher's union (who makes north of 400K per year) who commented that "life isn't always fair" when questioned about voucher use and the inability of poor people to send their kids to private schools? did you, sid? did you know this fellow is a card carrying democrat? Did you, Sid?
Did you know that there are poor people who have to chose between medicine and food in YOUR neighborhood. (they are everywhere). What have YOU done to care for the poor? Zip. that's what, pal. zip. Because you would rather spend your time whining over some manufactured fantasy of bloated self importance and bleating about poor professional victim, Mangum.
Give us a break.........put a sock in it your whining and go DO something, hand over a dime to soembody, hand out a meal, help somebody out, ....and, while you are at it.....apologize to the Daye family.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Sid, when you need a conspiracy theory to explain something, you're probably a nut.

Walt-in-Durham

Facts are facts, Walt. The Magistrate Judge did not state the truth in his recommendation regarding when I handed out j4n cards. The media did not report on the discrimination or the lawsuit I filed against Duke. The security guard could not give me an excuse for kicking me off the campus and refused to take me to the person who ordered me off campus. The security guard called in the Duke police. The ACLU refuses to look into the discrimination allegations. These are all facts that point directly to conspiracy. No doubt about it.

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Intern said...
" Could a privately owned sports bar have a customer removed because his allegiance as displayed by his apparel is for a ball team other than the one favored by the proprietor?"

Yes. This obviously shows you know nothing about civil rights.

Just an FYI -- The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Here's a real life example for you that is very much similar to your sports bar analogy:

A court recently decided that a motorcycle club had no discrimination claim against a sports bar that had denied members admission to the bar because they refused to remove their "colors," or patches, which signified club membership. The court held that the refusal of service was not based on the club members' unconventional dress, but was to protect a legitimate business interest in preventing fights between rival club members.

The case you cite is a special case. Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong members are not a rowdy bunch. Surely I posed no threat to Duke at that time, or at any other time prior when I was on campus. Your analogy misses the mark. Sorry.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Right! Brodhead sat down with his high level team and, shaking in fear over the imminent appearance of the mighty Sid-David, they cooked up a devious scheme to have Goliath, the security guard, escort Sid-David to the bus stop. Hilarious. Absolutely bleepin hilarious! Best ever, Sid-David

Correct, to a point. Their main objective was to have me arrested. That was thwarted when Professor James Coleman happened to pass by... thank goodness.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid-nonny:"That the Duke defendants’ defense against the discrimination complaint made by the Plaintiff Sidney B. Harr was extremely weak was evidenced by the magistrate judge’s unethical conduct in propping up defendants’ position with lies."

Sid-ninny, you are the only one, with the exception of Ken-ninny-hyderal, who thinks Duke's defense is weak.

What shows that your case is weak is that you are representing yourself and not retaining a lawyer.

The explanations you give as to why you do not retain a lawyer are not plausible.

Representing myself is a sign of intelligence, because it is unreasonable to believe that a law firm will be motivated to work in my best interests when they can sell me out to Duke and get rewarded from both camps.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
The graphic would have been much funnier if Sid-David had been wearing his J4N shirt.
conspirators creepin out of the bushes everywhere these days, it seems. And all of them, locking and loading on Captain Justice, aka, Sid David. Lord, it must be such a burden to be Sid David

If I could've fit it in somehow, I would've.

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Intern said...
And now Tom Breen is part of the conspiracy.

I think Sid is approaching the Grand Unification Theory of conspiracies.

Let's reiterate the players:

1) Dick Brodhead
2) David Levi
3) an unnamed "assistant" to Levi
4) Duke University
5) Tom Breen
6) The "mainstream media"
7) The Duke Police
8) Mike Schoenfeld
9) The ACLU
10) The NAACP
11) Goliath in Kevlar (?)

Sid -- Feel free to add any I've missed.

You did a pretty good job, but you left off the security guard, and I would be inclined to add (as enablers) Durham politicians and community leaders.

However, as I have stated, and as the security guard stated, he was ordered to take part in this incident, as was the Duke Police. They were pawns of the conspirators who acted to protect their jobs... so I naturally harbor no grudge towards them.

Lance the Intern said...

Sid, you wrote:

"Could a privately owned sports bar have a customer removed because his allegiance as displayed by his apparel is for a ball team other than the one favored by the proprietor?"

I gave you a real life example of a situation where this occurred, so the obvious answer is YES -- a private sports club CAN have a customer removed.

My response had nothing to do with j4n committee per se, but is definitely analogous to the sports bar example you gave.

Don't like it? Find better examples.

In case you missed it, you have not proved that Duke violated your rights based upon "race, color, religion, or national origin."

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Bottom line, once again, Sidney.....put up or shut up, as they say. If your version of the great Conspiracy to Hurl Sid IN, not under, the Bus is accurate, then get yourself a lawyer and proceed to do battle with the mighty hordes in court. Otherwise, keep rattling your teeth and spewing this argle bargle....because it is truly fun to read.


I don't know what you're talking about, but I am putting up, as they say... I filed a lawsuit against Duke.

Lance the Intern said...

"You did a pretty good job, but you left off the security guard, and I would be inclined to add (as enablers) Durham politicians and community leaders. "

Wow, Sid. Just Wow. Still have your copy of DSM-IV-TR?

Check it for "querulous paranoia". Seek help -- seriously.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Representing myself is a sign of intelligence, because it is unreasonable to believe that a law firm will be motivated to work in my best interests when they can sell me out to Duke and get rewarded from both camps."

Your expectation, that the court would accept your allegations as true without you having to prove them shows that representing yourself is not a sign of intelligence.

You have yet to explain why Duke settled with the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players rather than defend in court or pay off their attorneys.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "However, as I have stated, and as the security guard stated, he was ordered to take part in this incident, as was the Duke Police. They were pawns of the conspirators who acted to protect their jobs... so I naturally harbor no grudge towards them."

Again, Sid-ninny presumes as fact that a conspiracy existed. He is trying to dodge his obligation as plaintiff to prove his case.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "I don't know what you're talking about, but I am putting up, as they say... I filed a lawsuit against Duke."

And you are expecting the court to accept your unsubstantiated allegations as true, trying to evade your obligation as plaintiff to prove your allegations. You are not putting up anything, Sid-ninny.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "If I could've fit it in somehow, I would've."

What you are trying to fit in is that the court should accept yoour allegations as true without your proving them, an indication you have no case.

Anonymous said...

Lance the Intern:
"1) Dick Brodhead
2) David Levi
3) an unnamed "assistant" to Levi
4) Duke University
5) Tom Breen
6) The "mainstream media"
7) The Duke Police
8) Mike Schoenfeld
9) The ACLU
10) The NAACP
11) Goliath in Kevlar (?)

Sid -- Feel free to add any I've missed."

Sid-ninny left off AG Cooper, Joe Cheshire, Brad Bannon(who exposed Ni-nny-fong's attempt to conceal exculpatory evidence) and Mrs. Rae Evans, plus a whole lot of carpetbagger jihadists whose existence he has not proven.

Anonymous said...

I say with a bit of chagrin, I have missed the obvious. Sid-ninny just like Ni-nny-fong before him is trying to try his case in the Court of Public Opinion, hoping the finding of that court will influence the trial court. Well, what can you expect from someone who argues that Ni-nny-fong's wrongful prosecution of the Lacrosse players was conducted in accord with Standards of Ethics for a prosecutor.

The media is not giving Sid-ninny a platform to preach to the Court of Public opinion. The media does not consider his lawsuit newsworthy. For that, in my own opinion, he calls the media biased against him.

Anonymous said...

Can we all say, BORING!!!! lord, sid, take your meds.

Anonymous said...

Gosh, Sid-David, maybe you ought to brush up on your David stories and history. Old David had himself a bit of a dust-up or two, as I recall, and he certainly wasn't the standard bearer for truth, justice and the socialist way

Anonymous said...

I love the third person style, Sid...."Harr is fighting to....Harr did this Harr did that". cute. totally ineffective, but, cute.
How's courageous vickie these days? Beating up gay people? Marching with the Westboro crowd? Picketing the court house?

Anonymous said...

Hey Sid, tell us the names of the people on your committee? your enormous list of members? Or is it a secret club, with decoder rings and secret handshakes?

Anonymous said...

Hey there, Sid.........I glanced at your Facebook page and noted that Ronald G Nifong "liked" one of your flop entries. Nice....what a small world.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Hey Sid, tell us the names of the people on your committee? your enormous list of members? Or is it a secret club, with decoder rings and secret handshakes?

If you visit the official "Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong" website, you will find not only a list of the members, nearly two dozen, but also photographs of their faces. Our members are courageous to put their names and faces behind a cause that has been villified by the media.

You could not join our group because you are anonymous.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Our members are courageous to put their names and faces behind a cause that has been villified by the media."

Villifying three innocent Caucasian men because they were not convicted of rape when falsely accused by Crystal Mangum is not courage.

The media, as you have back-handedly admitted is ignoring you. The only people engaging in villification are you and your J4N gang.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
All of this Harr righteous indignation is nothing but silly nonsense.....just the same old tired and boring crap from a sad little man who has nothing better to do with his time to conjure up demons and conspirators. There is zero point is arguing with Sid because Sid does not have the slightest intention of listening, thinking, proving, or doing much of anything.....but spewing more of his little fables. What a pathetic waste of time........and this from a person who claims he is a retired physician, has a four alarm come-apart about evil white republicans who "don't care about the poor".
wow, sid, did you happen to hear about the union leader for a teacher's union (who makes north of 400K per year) who commented that "life isn't always fair" when questioned about voucher use and the inability of poor people to send their kids to private schools? did you, sid? did you know this fellow is a card carrying democrat? Did you, Sid?
Did you know that there are poor people who have to chose between medicine and food in YOUR neighborhood. (they are everywhere). What have YOU done to care for the poor? Zip. that's what, pal. zip. Because you would rather spend your time whining over some manufactured fantasy of bloated self importance and bleating about poor professional victim, Mangum.
Give us a break.........put a sock in it your whining and go DO something, hand over a dime to soembody, hand out a meal, help somebody out, ....and, while you are at it.....apologize to the Daye family.

Why should I apologize to the Daye family?

Just because I frequently attack Republicans, it doesn't mean I give Democrats a free ride. I've criticized Governor Perdue for not granting a pardon to Erick Daniels. I've criticized Democratic Congressmen Miller and Price, along with Durham Democrats Michaux, Hall, McKissick, and others who have remained silent in the face of injustice. I judge politicians on their individual merits and not as a group. As far as the union leader goes, I think he is overpaid, too.

Lance the Intern said...

From the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"The clinical form of litigious paranoia presents uniform characteristic features which are recognized in every civilized community. The basic emotion is vanity, but added to that is a strong element both of acquisitiveness and avarice. Moreover the subjects are, as regards character, persistent, opinionative and stubborn. When these qualities are superadded to a mind of the paranoiac type, which as has been pointed out, is more influenced by the passions or emotions than by ordinary rational considerations, it can readily be appreciated that the subjects are capable of creating difficulties and anxieties which sooner or later may lead to their forcible seclusion in the interests of social order.
It is important to observe that the rights such people lay claim to or the wrongs they complain of may not necessarily be imaginary. But, whether imaginary or real, the statement of their case is always made to rest upon some foundation of fact, and is moreover presented, if not with ability, at any rate with forensic skill and plausibility. As the litigants are persons of one idea, and only capable of seeing one side of the case - their own - and as they are actuated by convictions which preclude feelings of delicacy or diffidence, they ultimately succeed in obtaining a hearing in a court of law under circumstances which would have discouraged any normal individual. Once in the law courts their doom is sealed. Neither the loss of the case nor the payment of heavy expenses have any effect in disheartening the litigant…. In spite of the alienation of the sympathy of his relations and the advice of his friends and lawyers the paranoiac continues his futile litigation in the firm belief that he is only defending himself from fraud or seeking to regain his just rights. After exhausting his means and perhaps those of his family and finding himself unable to continue to litigate to the same advantage as formerly, delusions of persecution begin to establish themselves. He accuses the judges of corruption, the lawyers of being in the pay of his enemies and imagines the existence of a conspiracy to prevent him from obtaining justice..."


Seek help Sid, seriously.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "I've criticized Democratic Congressmen Miller and Price, along with Durham Democrats Michaux, Hall, McKissick, and others who have remained silent in the face of injustice."

To put it more accurately, you spewed anger at those individuals because they do not support the injustice ou are tryng to perpetrate against the innocent, falsely accused Duke Lacrosse players. Also, they do not buy into your deluded megalomania.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Why should I apologize to the Daye family?
"

Because you libeled Reginald Daye.

Anonymous said...

so, you have not added even ONE new member to the "movement" since you published the web site. wow, some momentum for this nationalc ause! way to go, mr. socialism.
also, the point of the reference to the DEMOCRAT union boss was not his personal salary; it was his apparently callous remark about "life is not fair" in reference to poor people.......and mentioned because of your myopic focus on "Mitch" and the Republicans.
God, sid are you really that dense?
Has ronnie Nifong joinedthe movement?

Anonymous said...

It is not courageous to refer to gay people as disease ridden perverts. It bigoted racist bull crap, endorsed by YOU.

Lance the Intern said...

Shockingly, Sid's favorite active DA, Tracey Cline,is now seeking to delay Monday's inquiry that will determine whether she should be permanently removed from her elected office.

Her reason?
"I need to move to continue the hearing from Monday because I do not have any attorney and I have been physically sick for over a week and presently I am not physically at my best," Cline wrote. "If necessary I can provide medical documentation."

Yeah....And her dog ate her law license.

You can read more about it here

Lance the Intern said...

Just a quick addendum -- Apparently, Tracey Cline didn't actually file the motion to delay her hearing with the court clerk. Rather, she e-mailed it to the judge.

I can't say that I've ever heard of that...

Anonymous said...

Maybe Sid-ninny will use this to try to prove the carpetbagger jihad exists.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Sid-ninny, are you going to lend Tracey your legal expertise?

Anonymous said...

This comes from an interview on Good Morning America on October 31, 2006. (http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/LegalCenter/story?id=2617301&page=1#.TzZxEF25Z94).

Regarding the party, which Sid-ninny alleges was a beer guzzling, stripper ogling event: "It was kind of boring to be quite honest," he said. "We were just sitting around. And there was nothing to it. It was very boring. I was itching to get out of there, because it was. I'd rather be going to sleep personally to tell you the truth." That does not sound like a beer guzzling, stripper ogling event."

And(for good measure):

"[Devon] Sherwood said he found it 'impossible' to believe that the rape allegations are true.
'I'm 100 percent confident,' he said. 'I know nothing indeed happened that night at all.'"

Devon Sherwood was not under any suspicion at all because Crystal had falsely accused Caucasian members of the team of raping her.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny, you have said a day or reckoning is coming for all the anti nifong forces. When?

All the posts to this blog entry have, with the exception of your own, have come from anti nifong forces.

Why haven't the pro nifong forces (with the exception of Ken-ninny-hyderal) have posted nothing.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "I'm sure the results of such an experiment will cause you to conclude that Dr. Harr was singled out.I'm sure the results of such an experiment will cause you to conclude that Dr. Harr was singled out [by Duke University].

So, Ken-ninny, you believe the court should accept Sid-ninny's allegations at face value rather than have Sid-ninny prove them

Anonymous said...

From me: "Why haven't the pro nifong forces (with the exception of Ken-ninny-hyderal) have posted nothing."

I should have said Why haven't the pro nifong forces (with the exception of Ken-ninny-hyderal) posted anything?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid-ninny: "That Harr protested his unwarranted and humiliating treatment by security is not at issue, and in itself did not warrant calling in police. The fact is that Harr never refused to leave Duke University property and even stated that he was in compliance with SECURITY."

Sid-ninny, you have not established as fact that your treatment was unwarranted.

You said previously in this post that Professor Coleman had to calm you down. That suggests to me you were resisting Duke security.

Au contrare, mon ami. Just because I was upset and protested my treatment does not mean that I resisted or refused to leave the campus. The security guard intercepted me just outside the classroom door, and we walked toward the exit and outside the building while I protested being asked to leave and tried to get an understanding as to how and why I was forced to leave.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Gosh, Sid-David, maybe you ought to brush up on your David stories and history. Old David had himself a bit of a dust-up or two, as I recall, and he certainly wasn't the standard bearer for truth, justice and the socialist way

The David-Goliath analogy was used to represent the apparent disparity between me and Duke University when it comes to money, power, influence, and legal training. But not for Lady Justice, I am definitely outgunned.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "But not for Lady Justice, I am definitely outgunned."

Lady Justice has never been on our side.

Lady Justice is not on your side in this case because you have no case.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "The security guard intercepted me just outside the classroom door, and we walked toward the exit and outside the building while I protested being asked to leave and tried to get an understanding as to how and why I was forced to leave."

It seems to me your were giving the guard a hard time.

Do you intend to depose the security guard?

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny, I should have said:

Lady Justice has never been on your side.

Harr Supporter said...

Anonymous 2/8 12:27 speculates that Sidney may have annoyed others.

Sidney claims: the security guard had been summoned for this mission by someone in the office of the recipients of Harr’s letters because Harr enclosed a “j4n” business card in both letters… and the security officer acknowledged having a “j4n” business card in his possession when he confronted Harr.

There are other explanations for the “j4n” card.

For example, one of Sidney’s conversation partners may have given the card to the building manager with complaints about his behavior. The building manager could have given it to the security officer with orders that Sidney be asked to leave campus. When the interview began before his removal, the security officer may have been told to watch Sidney for any disruption, but to take no action until the end of the program unless necessary.

Why might someone complain about his behavior? I speculate.

Did Sidney insult his conversation partners (even if he did not intend to do so) in the same way that he regularly insults his readers? (I recognize that many readers insult Sidney as well.)

Sidney regularly insults the intelligence of his readers with his disingenuous responses, preposterous presumptions, inane legal theories, transparent double standards, straw man arguments, magical sources, ignorance of the facts, avoidance of any meaningful discussion of adverse information, botched analysis and inability to learn from his mistakes. A discussion of the Carpetbagger Jihad may have caused some to question whether he was delusional. In spite of these failings, Sidney offers “enlightenment.” Some people may object to being described as “sheep,” “weak-minded,” “brainwashed,” “victims of Jedi-mind tricks” and other derogatory terms, particularly by a pompous fool with no knowledge. One or more of his conversation partners may have tried to end the conversation. If so, would Sidney have ended the conversation as desired or would he persist in spouting nonsense, thinking that he could win converts to his cause?

Sidney has not detailed his conversations. Although case law supports Duke’s right to discriminate against Sidney for his “opinions” even if his narrative is accurate, this may not have been discrimination as Sidney contends. If Sidney annoyed others, Duke may have been justified in its decision to ask him to leave.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know when Mangum's murder trial will start? She'll probably try to blame the lacrosse players even though no white man would ever touch her.

Anonymous said...

Harr is a hypocrite and a racist. End of old tired story.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it just amazing how Harr completely ignores the embarrassment that is Tracey Cline? The woman cannot spell, cannot write a third grade sentence, cannot remember how to file motions, cannot tell the difference between truth and lies....and, apparently, cannot figure out how to hire counsel. The good doctor ignores the elephant in the Durham living room while he drones on about his fight against the evil empire.
RIP, Whitney Houston, RIP.

Lance the Intern said...

Tracey Cline received a week delay in her removal hearing this morning. She was seeking a delay until the end of February.

Judge Hobgood also said he would hear motions to quash efforts to call editors and a reporter from The News & Observer, as well as a defense attorney, to testify.

Cline had tried to get these motions delayed until next week as well.

Nifong Supporter said...


Harr Supporter said...
Anonymous 2/8 12:27 speculates that Sidney may have annoyed others.

Sidney claims: the security guard had been summoned for this mission by someone in the office of the recipients of Harr’s letters because Harr enclosed a “j4n” business card in both letters… and the security officer acknowledged having a “j4n” business card in his possession when he confronted Harr.

There are other explanations for the “j4n” card.

For example, one of Sidney’s conversation partners may have given the card to the building manager with complaints about his behavior. The building manager could have given it to the security officer with orders that Sidney be asked to leave campus. When the interview began before his removal, the security officer may have been told to watch Sidney for any disruption, but to take no action until the end of the program unless necessary.

Why might someone complain about his behavior? I speculate.

Did Sidney insult his conversation partners (even if he did not intend to do so) in the same way that he regularly insults his readers? (I recognize that many readers insult Sidney as well.)

Sidney regularly insults the intelligence of his readers with his disingenuous responses, preposterous presumptions, inane legal theories, transparent double standards, straw man arguments, magical sources, ignorance of the facts, avoidance of any meaningful discussion of adverse information, botched analysis and inability to learn from his mistakes. A discussion of the Carpetbagger Jihad may have caused some to question whether he was delusional. In spite of these failings, Sidney offers “enlightenment.” Some people may object to being described as “sheep,” “weak-minded,” “brainwashed,” “victims of Jedi-mind tricks” and other derogatory terms, particularly by a pompous fool with no knowledge. One or more of his conversation partners may have tried to end the conversation. If so, would Sidney have ended the conversation as desired or would he persist in spouting nonsense, thinking that he could win converts to his cause?

Sidney has not detailed his conversations. Although case law supports Duke’s right to discriminate against Sidney for his “opinions” even if his narrative is accurate, this may not have been discrimination as Sidney contends. If Sidney annoyed others, Duke may have been justified in its decision to ask him to leave.

Hah. Nice try, but your explanation is silly... but good for a chuckle. Now, if I'm in a conversation with someone, and they say something with which I disagree, the first thing I'm going to do is run to the business manager and complain... right? Of course not. Like in the movie "A Few Good Men" some people just can't handle the truth, but to go ballistic by going to security, campus police, the building manager or anyone else is ridiculous. If someone says something I find offensive, I just move on. I'm definitely not going to run crying to security. Besides, I don't force my beautiful "j4n" business card on anyone. If someone doesn't want one when offered, I just hold on to it. Likewise, if I don't want someone's card (I can't think of an instance when I turned one down), I'll politely decline it... or if I take it, I'll discreetly dispose of it later. What's the big deal? Throw someone in jail just because he made a statement someone found offensive? Give me a break.

Anonymous said...

Lance, were her writings/behavior this bad before she became DA?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid-ninny: "But not for Lady Justice, I am definitely outgunned."

Lady Justice has never been on our side.

Lady Justice is not on your side in this case because you have no case.

I'd like to make a correction. Lady Justice is on our side, as I am fighting for your rights as well as mine, and every other freedom loving American... even those Tea Party Republicans.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid-ninny: "The security guard intercepted me just outside the classroom door, and we walked toward the exit and outside the building while I protested being asked to leave and tried to get an understanding as to how and why I was forced to leave."

It seems to me your were giving the guard a hard time.

Do you intend to depose the security guard?

I was not giving the security guard a hard time... the reverse is true. He had no business even approaching me as I was acting as others similarly situated.

I protested my treatment because I was reasonably upset at being harassed and humiliated by the guard. Furthermore, I was upset at being unable to attend events at Duke in the future if the sitation was not quickly resolved. If the case goes to trial, I very well might get a deposition, but more likely than not, I'll just call him to testify.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Like in the movie 'A Few Good Men' some people just can't handle the truth".

And you, Sid-ninny, are one of them

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "If someone says something I find offensive, I just move on".

Wrong! If that were true you waould not be suing Duke University over this incident.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Throw someone in jail just because he made a statement someone found offensive? Give me a break."

According to you, you were not thrown in jail. And you have not established as fact that anyone at Duke conspired to do so.

Your whole blog has been about your outrage that the innocent Duke Lacrosse players were not thrown in Jail because of false rape charges.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "I'd like to make a correction. Lady Justice is on our side, as I am fighting for your rights as well as mine, and every other freedom loving American... even those Tea Party Republicans."

What correction. Your blog speaks for itself. You are fighting for no one's rights. You have condoned Mr. Ni-nny-fong's attempts to violate the rights of the Lacrosse players as mild attempts to encourage witnesses to come forth.

Your current flog/blog/whatever is no attempt to fight for anyone's rights. It is an attempt on your part to make your case in the court of public opinion rather than a court of law.

How Nifongian!

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "I was not giving the security guard a hard time... the reverse is true. He had no business even approaching me as I was acting as others similarly situated.

I protested my treatment because I was reasonably upset at being harassed and humiliated by the guard."

So why not put him under oath and depose him. If you had a lawyer, that s what he would do.

Just ask your friend, Professor Coleman.

Anonymous said...

"Lance, were her writings/behavior this bad before she became DA?"

I am not Lance and I know nothing of Trace's writing skills other than what has been recently published. Pre Lacrosse case, there was documentation of questionable legal skills.

She prosecuted Frankie Washingto, a black man, for multiple crimes, including rape, burglary abd home invasion. He languished in jail for 4 years, waiting for SBI to test evidence. Ms. Cline blamed the crime lab for the delay. Evidence later showed Ms. Cline had not submitted the evidence for three years.

When the evidence was finally tested, it exonerated Mr. Washington.

URL: http://www.escapetyranny.com/tag/frankie-washington/

Anonymous said...

Another example of Tracey Cline's legal abilities, or lack thereof:

Tracey Cline prosecuted Leon Brown for rape.She promised the Jury she would prove Mr. Brown guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Jury acquitted Mr. Brown. The Jury foreman rebuked Ms. Cline for wasting the Jury's time by prosecuting a case in which the defendant was was obviously not guilty.

Among other things, DNA taken from the victim did not match Mr. Brown's DNA.

Mr. Brown sat in jail for a year awaiting trial.

URL: http://z10.invisionfree.com/FODU_Open_Board/index.php?showtopic=1&st=40

Anonymous said...

With reference to the above cases, both defendants were Black.

Ms. Cline is Black.

Sid-ninny is Black.

In all his blogging about unethical prosecutors, Sid-ninny never mentioned either Tracey Cline or these two men she victimized.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny, your most recent posts show only you are a deluded megalomaniac.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "If the case goes to trial, I very well might get a deposition, but more likely than not, I'll just call him to testify."

If you had a lawyer, said lawyer would want to depose the security guard before trial. Just ask your friend Professor Coleman.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal, I have left more comments for you on Sid-ninny's blog post entitled "The misguided and unenlightened hurt themselves".

You would first have to post a comment to get to page 2. I do not know why that is.Ask Sid-ninny>

Lance the Intern said...

"Sid-ninny, your most recent posts show only you are a deluded megalomaniac."

I think he fits the classic definition of litigious paranoid. You can see this in his use
the legal system as a vehicle to act out delusional concerns and retaliatory fantasies against Duke University.

You can also see his paranoid distortions in his unfounded suspicions in regard to
the fairness of the proceedings, the judge, and even his own potential lawyers (note his consistent excuses for acting as his own "pro se" lawyer).

Sid should seriously consider seeking professional help.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid-ninny: "If someone says something I find offensive, I just move on".

Wrong! If that were true you waould not be suing Duke University over this incident.

No, you're wrong. Duke can say anything it wants to me, no matter how offensive. However, when it discriminates against me, embarrasses me, and attempts to arrest me, then I have a serious problem with that. I'm suing Duke because of its treatment of me, not because of anything the institution said.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid-ninny: "Throw someone in jail just because he made a statement someone found offensive? Give me a break."

According to you, you were not thrown in jail. And you have not established as fact that anyone at Duke conspired to do so.

Your whole blog has been about your outrage that the innocent Duke Lacrosse players were not thrown in Jail because of false rape charges.

Why do you think the Duke Police was summoned... to hold the security guard's hand?
Common sense will tell you that he was called for the purpose of placing me under arrest. Period. It was premeditated and malicious, and only the fortuitous appearance of Professor Coleman prevented me from winding up in jail.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid-ninny: "If the case goes to trial, I very well might get a deposition, but more likely than not, I'll just call him to testify."

If you had a lawyer, said lawyer would want to depose the security guard before trial. Just ask your friend Professor Coleman.

You are probably correct. A lawyer would most likely want to depose the security guard before trial. Then he would charge a fee for preparing for and conduction the deposition. Right? Or do you think the lawyer would depose the security guard for free? I don't think so...!

If the case goes to trial, and my investigation uncovers information which leads toward deposing the security guard, or anyone else, then I will.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid-ninny: "If the case goes to trial, I very well might get a deposition, but more likely than not, I'll just call him to testify."

If you had a lawyer, said lawyer would want to depose the security guard before trial. Just ask your friend Professor Coleman.

You are probably correct. A lawyer would most likely want to depose the security guard before trial. Then he would charge a fee for preparing for and conduction the deposition. Right? Or do you think the lawyer would depose the security guard for free? I don't think so...!

If the case goes to trial, and my investigation uncovers information which leads toward deposing the security guard, or anyone else, then I will.

Anonymous said...

"... and my investigation uncovers information."

Is Linwood Wilson helping you with this "investigation"? I hear he's available....

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Common sense will tell you that he[the Duke Police] was called for the purpose of placing me under arrest. Period. It was premeditated and malicious".

Common sense has no legal weight. You have to prove your allegations, not just assert them as "common sense".

From what I read in this post, you can not prove your allegations.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Then he would charge a fee for preparing for and conduction the deposition. Right?"

Not necessarily.

If the lawyer were representing you on a contingency fee basis, he would not charge you a fee if you recovered damages. The cost of the deposition would come out of the award you received. If you had received no damages, you would not ave been charged a fee.

Just ask your friend, Professor Coleman.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "If the case goes to trial, and my investigation uncovers information which leads toward deposing the security guard, or anyone else, then I will."

Depositions in a civil suit are taken before the case goes to trial. Just ask your friend, Professor Coleman.

One probable reason why Duke settled with the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players is they did not want to testify under oath about what they did in the Lacrosse wrongful prosecution. Depositions are given under oath which means lying on a deposition is perjury.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "I'm suing Duke because of its treatment of me, not because of anything the institution said."

So say you.

It is another matter whether a court will find that Duke "discriminate[d] against me, embarrasse[d] me, and attempt[d[ to arrest me".

You have offered nothing in the way of evidence. What you or any other person may claim as "Common sense" is not evidence in a court of law.

As your friend Professor Coleman>

Anonymous said...

Correction

I posted "If the lawyer were representing you on a contingency fee basis, he would not charge you a fee if you recovered damages. The cost of the deposition would come out of the award you received. If you had received no damages, you would not ave been charged a fee."

I should have posted:

If the lawyer were representing you on a contingency fee basis, he would not charge you a fee unless you recovered damages. The cost of the deposition would come out of the award you received. If you had received no damages, you would not have been charged a fee.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny:

Your problem is that you think the truth of your allegations is self evident.

That is for the court, not you, to decide. Should the court decide your the truth of your allegations is not self evident, you will have to prove them.

The court system is based on the principle of, he who asserts must prove. The defense is under no obligation to disprove your allegations.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney, Sid-ney.

Anonymous said...

You da man, Sid, you da man.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know when drunk prostitute Crystal Mangum's murder trial is starting?

Anonymous said...

Sidney, for pete sake, find something else to whine about it......this subject is putting us all to sleep. Can't you come up with a more interesting conspiracy episode? black helicopters? crop circles? the end of the world in december as caused by the heehaw white people? Dave Evans' mother being exposed as the head of the Klan? Houston Baker exposed as the secret love child of George Bush and Michelle Obama? Come on, surely there is another "epic" flub coming soon that will tell us how white people are responsible for the earth tilting on its axis.

Anonymous said...

"In a David v. Goliath legal battle, Duke University takes unfair advantage"

Sid-ninny, what you call an unfair advantage is that the court does require you to prove your case.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "The Magistrate Judge did not state the truth in his recommendation regarding when I handed out j4n cards. The media did not report on the discrimination or the lawsuit I filed against Duke. The security guard could not give me an excuse for kicking me off the campus and refused to take me to the person who ordered me off campus. The security guard called in the Duke police. The ACLU refuses to look into the discrimination allegations. These are all facts that point directly to conspiracy. No doubt about it"

Unfortunately for you, Sid-ninny, these are not "facts that point directly to conspiracy".

It is up to you to prove "facts that point directly to conspiracy". Since you have only alleged, not proven there is "doubt about it".

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid-ninny: "Common sense will tell you that he[the Duke Police] was called for the purpose of placing me under arrest. Period. It was premeditated and malicious".

Common sense has no legal weight. You have to prove your allegations, not just assert them as "common sense".

From what I read in this post, you can not prove your allegations.

Of course common sense has legal weight. What do you think circumstantial evidence is based on?

Can you give a logical explanation for the Duke Police to be summoned other than for the purpose of placing me under arrest?

.... didn't think so.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid-ninny: "Then he would charge a fee for preparing for and conduction the deposition. Right?"

Not necessarily.

If the lawyer were representing you on a contingency fee basis, he would not charge you a fee if you recovered damages. The cost of the deposition would come out of the award you received. If you had received no damages, you would not ave been charged a fee.

Just ask your friend, Professor Coleman.

That's basically what I said. If I did prevail (a sure thing), the attorney would take money to reimburse himself for the deposition from the award given to me. If I prevailed in court, my contingency attorney would have benefitted by having gone through
the deposition. Right? ... and the money to pay from it would be taken from money awarded to me. Right?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid-ninny: "If the case goes to trial, and my investigation uncovers information which leads toward deposing the security guard, or anyone else, then I will."

Depositions in a civil suit are taken before the case goes to trial. Just ask your friend, Professor Coleman.

One probable reason why Duke settled with the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players is they did not want to testify under oath about what they did in the Lacrosse wrongful prosecution. Depositions are given under oath which means lying on a deposition is perjury.

Perhaps a better way of saying "if my case goes to trial" would be to have stated "if my case survived the defendants' Motion to Dismiss."

Regarding the shakedown of Duke by the Carpetbagger families' avaricious attorneys, what could Duke University possibly have done against the Duke Lacrosse defendants to warrant shelling out $20 mil to each?

Convince me... please.

Lance the Intern said...

"If I did prevail (a sure thing), the attorney would take money to reimburse himself for the deposition from the award given to me."

Litigious paranoia showing again, Sid. You should up your dosage and seek counseling.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Regarding the shakedown of Duke by the Carpetbagger families' avaricious attorneys, what could Duke University possibly have done against the Duke Lacrosse defendants to warrant shelling out $20 mil to each?"

Precisely my point. Duke settled with the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players because they could not defend against what they would be charged with. It was a de facto admission of wrongdoing on the part of Duke.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Can you give a logical explanation for the Duke Police to be summoned other than for the purpose of placing me under arrest?"

Judging from what I read in your postings, the Duke Police were summoned because you were giving the Security guard a hard time.

Sid-ninny, you have to prove that the Duke police were summoned as a result of the conspiracy you allege. You do allege there was a conspiracy on the part of high ranking Duke officials to arrest you.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Regarding the shakedown of Duke by the Carpetbagger families' avaricious attorneys, what could Duke University possibly have done against the Duke Lacrosse defendants to warrant shelling out $20 mil to each?"

Sid-ninny, my opinion as to what Duke could have done is irrelevant. What is relevant is what Duke hought.

Duke settled with each defendant for whatever amount because it could not defend against whatever charges would be filed. Duke was admitting, we wronged you to the extent of the settlement we are willing to pay.

Anonymous said...

Sidninny: "Of course common sense has legal weight. What do you think circumstantial evidence is based on?"

So, what evidence do you have, circumstantial or otherwise, that Duke engaged in a conspiracy against you?

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Perhaps a better way of saying 'if my case goes to trial' would be to have stated 'if my case survived the defendants' Motion to Dismiss.'"

Sis-ninny, a defendant makes a motion to dismiss because it believes the plaintiff has no case. If you can convince the court you have a case, then your case would survive a defendant's motion to dismiss.

Again, from what I have read from the legal documents and this blog entry, you have no case. You are making a series of unproven allegations and failing to support them with evidence.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Convince me... please[that Duke should not have settled with the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players}"

Sid-ninny, you were not a party to that situation. How about you try to convince Duke that they should not have settled.

Anonymous said...

ok, so how about a Harr flop on how the hip-hop/rap music, spewed by mostly black, uh, so-called "artists" contains enough filth, obscentiy and horrible disrespect toward women.....to make the "beer guzzling debauchery" party (the lacrosse non-event) seem like church service at the A.M.E.Baptist. How about we compare the disrepect and objectification of women in rap music to the so-called "victimization" of Mangum by the lacrosse players who hired her to dance. You think the filth barfed up by these "artists" is OK, because they are black? You think it is OK to refer to women as "holes"? I wish I could repeat lyrics but it is just too disgusting. I am sure we will hear that the damage done to sister by hiring her to do "exotic dancing" was FAR worse than the pondscum "music" that fills the ears of our children. And, yes, I know eminem is white....and yes, I feel exactly the same way about the trash that comes out of his mouth. However, 97 of the current top 100 rap/hip-hop "tunes" were produced and "sung" by black, gag me, "artists".
So, tell us all now, just how terribly disrespectful these boys were to Mangum and how it is just a cultural difference that makes it OK for rap music to encourage and glorify males who "xxxx holes" and "pop MF police".
As a person of color, I can hardly wait to hear it, bro.....

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "That's basically what I said. If I did prevail (a sure thing), the attorney would take money to reimburse himself for the deposition from the award given to me. If I prevailed in court, my contingency attorney would have benefitted by having gone through
the deposition. Right? ... and the money to pay from it would be taken from money awarded to me. Right?"

You got that right, Sid-ninny. That is how a contingency fee works.

Deposing a witness for the opposite side is a part of what I believe you call reciprocal discovery. You have a chance to find out ahead of time how strong a case the other side has.

I believe it is a legal principle that a lawyer should never ask a question to which he does not know the answer. It means a lawyer should never allow himself to become surprised at trial. If said lawyer does not depose the opposition witnesses pre trial, he is risking being surprised.

You again display your legal expertise, or lack thereof.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny, considering your lack of legal expertise, you are being awfully arrogant presuming you will prevail at trial.

You are proving the saying, a person who represents himself in court has a fool for a client.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Of course common sense has legal weight."

Common sense would have told any one except maybe a corrupt prosecutor or a deluded megalomaniac that the innocent Lacrosse players were falsely accused by Crystal Mangum and therefore were in fact innocent.

Yet you reject the fact that the innocent Lacrosse players are innocent.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "That's basically what I said. If I did prevail (a sure thing), the attorney would take money to reimburse himself for the deposition from the award given to me."

But if you did not prevail(the most likely outcome) you would owe the lawyer nothing.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "That's basically what I said. If I did prevail (a sure thing)"

If you really thought it a sure thing you would prevail, you would not be doing all the ranting and raving in the court of public opinion about how the odds are against you.

The odds are against you because you have no case.

Anonymous said...

Why don't you just shut up about how you are going to prevail at trial and simply proceed with a law suit, then, Sid? Last I heard, your so-called complaint got pitched. So, if you think you have a case, then stop whining about it and have at it. Frankly, we don't give a damn....because we ALL know that (a)you have no case, (b)you are a racist hypocrite, and (c)you need to see a mental health professional.

Harr Supporter said...

Sidney: Hah. Nice try, but your explanation is silly... but good for a chuckle. Now, if I'm in a conversation with someone, and they say something with which I disagree, the first thing I'm going to do is run to the business manager and complain... right?

Of course not... and that was not what I suggested in my speculation... right?

What I suggested in my speculation (I do not know how you actually behaved, so I conceded it was speculation) was not that you merely said something which with your conversation partner disagreed, but that you did so in a way that your conversation partner found insulting, your conversation partner made attempts to terminate the conversation, and that you refused to end the conversation, continuing to spout nonsense.

I ask you: If you found someone insulting and you could not get rid of them after several attempts, would you complain?

I noted that I find your use of straw man arguments to be insulting. You responded to me with a straw man argument.

You avoided questions about your behavior prior to the interview. I ask because you regularly insult your readers on this blog (and insulted me with your response).

1. Did you insult your discussion partners in derogatory terms (e.g., call them brainwashed or weak-minded)?
2. Did you insult the intelligence of your discussion partners (e.g., propose preposterous conspiracy theories or inane legal theories or make straw man arguments)?
3. Most importantly, did you end the conversation if your discussion partners indicated they did not wish to continue or did you persist with your talking points?

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Can you give a logical explanation for the Duke Police to be summoned other than for the purpose of placing me under arrest?"

Even if the Duke police were summoned, it is not a foregone conclusion that they intended to arrest you as part of a high level Duke conspiracy against you. If that were so, Professor Coleman would not have been able to prevent your arrest.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Convince me... please[that Duke should not have settled with the innocent, falsely accused Lacrosse players}"

Sid-ninny, that statement presumes that it matters what you think. So far, considering the magistrate's recommendation to dismiss your suit against Duke, no one believes what you think, let alone that it matters what you think.

Anonymous said...

Calling Sid a moron is an insult to morons.

Anonymous said...

Sid, you can preach all you want on this site....it's yours, after all....about your non-case. Believe me, none of us gives a damn. So, type away.....and use up all the bandwidth you wish.
Personally, I find the bus schedule more entertaining than your writing....

kenhyderal said...

Anonymous @ 8:33 AM said " Common sense would have told any one except maybe a corrupt prosecutor or a deluded megalomaniac that the innocent Lacrosse players were falsely accused by Crystal Mangum and therefore were in fact innocent"..... Crystal did not falsely accuse anyone. That would be a crime. She claimed that she was raped at 610 N Buchanan. Subsequently, she was subjected to a flawed photo idenification line-up and asked to point out the persons who raped her and asked what names she heard them referred to.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Crystal did not falsely accuse anyone. That would be a crime. She claimed that she was raped at 610 N Buchanan."

Whether or not she was formally charged with a crime, she did falsely accuse three Lacrosse players of raping her. Read her statement. Read in "Rush to Injustice" the transcript of the improper lineup.

Besides, the SBI Crime lab did not find any male bodily fluids on the rape kit. The result of the rape kit show no one had intercourse, forced or otherwise, on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

Anonymous said...

kenhyderal said...
"Crystal did not falsely accuse anyone. That would be a crime. She claimed that she was raped at 610 N Buchanan. Subsequently, she was subjected to a flawed photo idenification line-up and asked to point out the persons who raped her and asked what names she heard them referred to."

Bahahahahahaha. You da man, Kenny, you da man.

Anonymous said...

I said: "The result of the rape kit show no one had intercourse, forced or otherwise, on the night of 13/14 March 2006."

I should have said: The result of the rape kit show no one had intercourse, forced or otherwise, with Crystal on the night of 13/14 March 2006.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Subsequently, she(Crystal) was subjected to a flawed photo idenification line-up and asked to point out the persons who raped her".

She was shown that lineup because she accused members of the Lacrosse team of raping her.

kenhyderal said...

Crystal had no idea who was a Lacrosse Player or even who these people were. All she knew was the address.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal: "Crystal had no idea who was a Lacrosse Player or even who these people were. All she knew was the address."

So why did she accuse members of the Lacrosse team of raping her, especially after she hadn't been raped in the first place?

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal

Go to Crystal's statement, given to the police before any lineup. She accused members of the Lacrosse team of raping her.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Sidney, how's courageous Vickie......strung up any deviants lately? Been to "tolerance" classes?

Anonymous said...

We all know why Sidney-David is being silent about Cline....because she is an embarrassment to him......being Nifong's gal friday. It kinda messes up the Harr fantasy, doesn't it, sidney? Corrupt Nifong spawns "ignert" Cline....who apparently failed third grade spelling.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal, The evidence gathered in the case showed that Crystal was not raped. Even if she did not falsely accuse any Lacrosse player(and I contend she did) she did set up a situation n which some innocent man would be charged.

Anonymous said...

Ken-ninny-hyderal Whatever Crystal did do, it was bad enough(acknowledgement to Duke President Brohead.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Sid-ninny: "That's basically what I said. If I did prevail (a sure thing)"

If you really thought it a sure thing you would prevail, you would not be doing all the ranting and raving in the court of public opinion about how the odds are against you.

The odds are against you because you have no case.

Au contrare, mon ami. I began ranting and raving after the magistrate judge recommended that my lawsuit be dismissed, and in doing so based his recommendation on false restatement of fact which he attributed to me. Then, and only then, did I go ballistic... so to speak. Prior to that, my discussions on the topic were relatively mild and infrequent.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
We all know why Sidney-David is being silent about Cline....because she is an embarrassment to him......being Nifong's gal friday. It kinda messes up the Harr fantasy, doesn't it, sidney? Corrupt Nifong spawns "ignert" Cline....who apparently failed third grade spelling.


Wrong again, Anonymous. In but a matter of minutes I will post my blog about the imbroglio surrounding Tracey Cline.

Amigo, prepare to be enlightened!!

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Amigo, prepare to be enlightened!!"

A deluded megalomaniac is incapable of enlightening anyone, least of all himself.

Anonymous said...

Sid-ninny: "Au contrare, mon ami. I began ranting and raving after the magistrate judge recommended that my lawsuit be dismissed, and in doing so based his recommendation on false restatement of fact which he attributed to me. Then, and only then, did I go ballistic... so to speak. Prior to that, my discussions on the topic were relatively mild and infrequent."

Your behavior is similar to Tracey Cline's behavior towards Judge Orlando Hudson. You are outraged because the judge did not find in your favor.

In any event, your filings and your ranting and raving clearly show you have no case.