Tuesday, February 5, 2013

February 18th Hearing

 
Click on the link below to view the flog and the directory. 
They both have links to each other.

LINK to Flog:  http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog25/flog25.html

LINK to Directory:  http://www.justice4nifong.com/direc/flog/flog25/flog25direc.html

Transcript of the flog is below
Word count: 1,125
 At the October 24, 2012 meeting of the North Carolina State Bar’s Authorized Practices Committee meeting held in Raleigh, a decision was made to file a civil complaint against Harr enjoining him from assisting Crystal Mangum, the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser who is currently facing murder charges.
 
The impetus behind the legal action stemmed from two documents Harr filed in Mangum’s case on August 7, 2012… one a petition for writ of mandamus to have the Larceny of chose in action charge against her dismissed, and the other to order her attorney, at the time, Woody Vann, to turn over all discovery which he had been withholding to her.
 
Harr drafted and signed these documents as a third party Pro Se petitioner and stated in the filings his arguments for having standing in the case.
 
 The motion for a preliminary and permanent injunction against Harr was filed in the Wake County Courthouse in downtown Raleigh on December 4, 2012.  In addition to mentioning the two petitions filed in August, the State Bar plaintiff also mentioned the previous incident addressed and resolved in the Bar’s July 17, 2012 meeting.

 
 Also the Bar included in its complaint the August 13, 2012 letter Harr had written to Judge Orlando Hudson… which it evidently considered to be the province of licensed attorneys.  This transgression was never mentioned in the Letter of Notice the Bar sent to Harr in late August.

 
 Harr responded to the civil suit on December 17, 2012, in a filing that denied that his petitions breached any law against lawyerly conduct as he was solely representing himself.

 
 He furthermore asserted that the motions he drafted and filed for Crystal Mangum had been settled earlier and that he was within his legal rights to send a letter to a judge advocating for position or cause.

 
 In addition to defending against the State Bar’s allegation, Harr filed two motions of his own… one to waive the general statutes that prohibit him from legally representing Mangum in Court, and the other to have oral arguments.

 
 The reasons given for allowing him to represent Mangum were that she could not find a defense attorney that would be willing to attack the state’s deputy chief medical examiner, Dr. Clay Nichols, and willing to place Daye’s death on Duke University Hospital.

 
 Finally, Harr requested oral arguments to better express his position to the presiding judge… something which was denied him in his discrimination lawsuit against Duke University in 2011.  Like Duke University, the Plaintiff State Bar has an exceedingly weak case against Harr and has no likelihood of prevailing in open court.

 
 To improve its odds and lessen its exposure to ridicule and embarrassment, the State Bar, relying on Rule 12(c) in the state’s Civil Procedures, filed on January 14, 2013, a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.  This is a motion Harr believes to be rarely used, and definitely one of desperation. 

 
 Such a motion, if granted, would dispense with oral arguments in open court, which Harr had specifically requested in his initial response… with the ruling being made behind closed doors of the judge’s chamber based upon the pleadings filed alone.  In essence, it would once again deprive Harr of his day in court… this time as a defendant.

 
 Harr filed his response in the Wake County Courthouse two weeks later… strenuously objecting and renewing his call for oral arguments in open court.

 
 Plaintiff State Bar had sought to schedule the hearing on Monday, February 18, 2013… Presidents’ Day, a federal holiday.  A clever move on the part of the Bar to lessen the attention the event would receive otherwise.

 
 On January 30, 2013, Harr received notice that the hearing would take place in Courtroom 10-C, before the honorable Judge Carl R. Fox.

 
 The following day, Harr researched the web for information about the black-rober and learned the following about Carl R. Fox:
  1. he graduated from UNC-CH with a B.A. degree;
  2. he graduated from UNC- CH School of Law with a law degree;
  3. he worked as a district attorney in Orange County from 1984 until 2005; and
  4. he has since been an Orange County Superior Court judge in Chapel Hill.
The significance of the above is that for more than forty years, the North Carolina Medical Examiner’s office has been at UNC-CH… moving in mid-January 2013 to its new facility in Raleigh.

 
 Therefore, throughout his more than two decades-long career as a prosecutor, Judge Fox had a close relationship with the Orange County medical examiner and its forensic team.

 
 As a result, it can be assumed that he: (a) developed a strong working relationship with those medical examiners; (b) might have fostered friendships with those medical examiners; (c) could possibly personally know Dr. Nichols and communicated with him; and (d) developed a fierce loyalty with the Orange County medical examiners secondary to his professional and collegiate ties with them and UNC-CH.

 
 The conflict of interest clearly arises when one considers that the basis of Harr’s advocacy on Mangum’s behalf is due to the fact that her first degree murder charge is based on an autopsy report on Reginald Daye by the state’s deputy chief medical examiner… Dr. Clay Nichols, the Orange County Medical Examiner at UNC-CH.

 
 The extensive fraudulence of the Nichols’ Autopsy Examination Report is widely known by the mainstream media, the Durham prosecutors, Mangum’s defense attorneys, Mangum’s defense expert witness forensic pathologist Dr. Christena Roberts, the North Carolina State Bar, the North Carolina Medical Board, politicians, civil rights leaders, and others.

 
 Unfortunately there has been a concerted effort by all to conceal the spurious nature of the autopsy report… so egregious and damaging that it, alone, should be grounds for the dismissal of the murder charge Mangum now faces.

 
 On February 1, 2013, Harr filed a Motion for Disqualification of Judge Carl R. Fox on the Claim of Partiality… for a reasonable person with full knowledge of the facts would believe that Harr could not receive an impartial ruling from Judge Fox.

 
 North Carolina General Statutes and Canon 3(C)(1)(a) state that the “due process clause imposes on the trial judge the duty of absolute impartiality,” and provides that “upon the motion of any party, a judge should disqualify him or herself in any proceeding in which his or her impartiality may be reasonably questioned…”

 
 Harr requested that the hearing to be heard by Honorable Judge Paul C. Ridgeway, a Superior Court Wake County judge with no substantial ties to Orange and Durham Counties.   

 
 The ball is now in Judge Carl R. Fox’s courtroom… the question being, will the black-rober recuse himself or fight to preside over the scheduled February 18th hearing.

 
 Stay tuned.   nn


168 comments:

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
Sid -- You "filed [your]response to the case" on January 28. When do you expect to have all of the pleadings online?


Supreme Poster, sorry about the delay, but a lot has been going on since I filed my response. A lot more may happen before the hearing date of February 18th, but the current Super-Flog should give you much enlightenment.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Supreme Poster, sorry about the delay, but a lot has been going on since I filed my response. A lot more may happen before the hearing date of February 18th, but the current Super-Flog should give you much enlightenment."

You have never published anything which could be characterized as "super".

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Your letter to Judge Hudson is yet another compendium of unsupported allegations you have made.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

The rest of said directory for you flog is only more evidence that you consider your self above the law.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Based on the review of your flog documents, you haven't less chance of beating the NC STATE Bar than the chance of a piece of raw meat in a pool of piranhas of beating the piranhas.

Anonymous said...

Funniest bucket of bull harr has produced to date. Pride goeth before the fall, bro....and you are gonna land squarely on your Luke Skywalker backside. Oh, I forgot.....Luke is an evil white oppressor. Who are you supposed to be....R2D2? Yoda?

Anonymous said...

You cannot practice law in NC without a license. Period. End of story. Sorry, Atticus.

Anonymous said...

Same old repetitive dribble, same old cut n paste sidney, same old bull.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

Good luck with the hearing, Sid. From your response admitting your guilt, it's going to go quickly. My hope for you is that you don't end up with jail time under the "such other and further relief as the court may deem fair and equitable" clause.

Anonymous said...

Don't you love it~~~ Sidney has his zany completely irrelevant best. Wont it be fun to hear his explanation of why the hearing goes against him. Place your bets here, folks. Sidney is going to get his wannabe lawyer backside handed to him on a plate........and the reason will be...Tah Dah!!! because he is black and because he is a Mangum groupie. The evil queen of the conspiracy, the grand dragon, rae evans, will instruct the judge on the outcome that will be rendered against poor little sidney. of course she will......

Anonymous said...

sidney, if you are not trying to make this a racist issue, why did you ask the NC Bar committee to give you race data?
Is it your plan to claim that the NC Bar is deliberately racist in its actions taken against those who attempt to practice law without a license in NC? If so, what grounds do you have for making this claim?
Do you claim that all court appointed defense attorneys are racist and working for Rae Evans? All judges? Is Shella a racist? Does he work for evil white oppressors? Is Judge Hudson a racist? is he working for Rae Evans?

Walt said...

Well Sid, I read important parts of your responses and the bar's motion. You don't really leave the court any room to rule for you. Again, you do a good job of illustrating just how valuable a good legal education is.

Walt-in-Durham

guiowen said...

Sidney,
I'm afraid you're going to be sent to bed without dinner, once again.
Remember my posting of 10:16, Jan. 28. It's your best hope of avoiding this horrible punishment.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous February 6, 2013 at 4:38 AM:

SIDNEY thinks Jedi knights are evil white oppressors who play mind tricks on unsuspecting people to cover up the carpetbagger jihad. I guess SIDNEY is unfamiliar with Mace Windu.

Anonymous said...

The NC Bar is thought, in some quarters, to be about as powerful as my overhand fastball......which wouldn't knock down milk cartons at ten feet. Perhaps sidney will get his knuckles rapped, perhaps spanked and sent to time out. Dunno. Actually it's pretty obvious that Harr wants to drag out the "poor senior citizen, retired physician, persecuted black man, walking to the library to use the computer" self-pitying excuse. I can't wait.......

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Well Sid, I read important parts of your responses and the bar's motion. You don't really leave the court any room to rule for you. Again, you do a good job of illustrating just how valuable a good legal education is.

Walt-in-Durham


Walt, answer me this. Do you believe that Judge Fox should recuse himself?

Walt said...

"Walt, answer me this. Do you believe that Judge Fox should recuse himself?"

No. Certainly not based on your motion.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Your latest screed is another manifestation of your belief that you are above the law.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The impetus behind the legal action stemmed from two documents Harr filed in Mangum’s case on August 7, 2012… one a petition for writ of mandamus to have the Larceny of chose in action charge against her dismissed, and the other to order her attorney, at the time, Woody Vann, to turn over all discovery which he had been withholding to her."

You here admit you practiced law without a license.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The reasons given for allowing him to represent Mangum were that she could not find a defense attorney that would be willing to attack the state’s deputy chief medical examiner, Dr. Clay Nichols, and willing to place Daye’s death on Duke University Hospital."

You have never established as fact that Reginald Daye's death was the responsibility of DUMC.

Anonymous said...

If that photo is a picture of Reginald Daye, you are beyond contempt for posting it here. That is an obscene act on your part....how dare you show such disrespect. shame on you.....and shame on the person who took the photo and gave it to you. If it was a Duke employee, they need to be fired today and held accountable for violation of a federal law.

Anonymous said...

Idiotic post by Harr.

Anonymous said...

Oh, I get it.........not only will Harr claim he is the victim of the Bar because he is black and is a Mangum groupie, he will also claim that Fox is part of the Grand Dragon's conspiracy! wheeeeee

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Finally, Harr requested oral arguments to better express his position to the presiding judge… something which was denied him in his discrimination lawsuit against Duke University in 2011."

Your suit against Due University was dismissed because you had established no case against Duke.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The extensive fraudulence of the Nichols’ Autopsy Examination Report is widely known by the mainstream media, the Durham prosecutors, Mangum’s defense attorneys, Mangum’s defense expert witness forensic pathologist Dr. Christena Roberts, the North Carolina State Bar, the North Carolina Medical Board, politicians, civil rights leaders, and others."

You have not established that Dr. Nichols report is fraudulent, let alone that it is extensively fraudulent. You are reluctant to reveal what qualifies you or disqualifies you to evaluate Dr.Nichols' report.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"North Carolina General Statutes and Canon 3(C)(1)(a) state that the 'due process clause imposes on the trial judge the duty of absolute impartiality,' and provides that 'upon the motion of any party, a judge should disqualify him or herself in any proceeding in which his or her impartiality may be reasonably questioned…'”

You have not established any grounds that Judge Fox's impartiality may be reasonably questioned. This argument is based on your contention that Dr. Nichols' report is fraudulent, and you have no established that as fact.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Unfortunately there has been a concerted effort by all to conceal the spurious nature of the autopsy report… so egregious and damaging that it, alone, should be grounds for the dismissal of the murder charge Mangum now faces."

You have not established as fact that Dr. Nichols' report is spurious or that anyone in authority is trying to conceal it.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"On February 1, 2013, Harr filed a Motion for Disqualification of Judge Carl R. Fox on the Claim of Partiality… for a reasonable person with full knowledge of the facts would believe that Harr could not receive an impartial ruling from Judge Fox."

SIDNEY, what you have established is only that you are an unreasonable eron who believes he is above the law.

Anonymous said...

On 2/7 at 8:54 pm Anonymous said:

SIDNEY HARR:

"'North Carolina General Statutes and Canon 3(C)(1)(a) state that the 'due process clause imposes on the trial judge the duty of absolute impartiality,' and provides that 'upon the motion of any party, a judge should disqualify him or herself in any proceeding in which his or her impartiality may be reasonably questioned…'”

You have not established any grounds that Judge Fox's impartiality may be reasonably questioned. This argument is based on your contention that Dr. Nichols' report is fraudulent, and you have no established that as fact."

More importantly, Dr. Nichols' report isn't even an issue in this case. The sole issue in this case is whether Sidney is practicing law w/o a license. Dr. Nichols' report and Judge Fox's relationship with her office is immaterial and irrelevant to this inquiry.

Walt said...

More importantly, Dr. Nichols' report isn't even an issue in this case. The sole issue in this case is whether Sidney is practicing law w/o a license. Dr. Nichols' report and Judge Fox's relationship with her office is immaterial and irrelevant to this inquiry.

Ding-Ding-Ding!

Ladies and gentlement, we have a winner.

Break the Conspiracy said...

Walt,

You would be correct in an ordinary case. But this case, as we all know, is extraordinary and requires extraordinary measures. Sidney has been consistent.

1. Mangum is innocent of all crimes. She was the victim of a brutal beating by Daye.

2. Mangum is the victim of a vendetta prosecution because of her role in the Duke case.

3. Rae Evans leads a widespread conspiracy that includes, among others, the former lacrosse players, Duke University, Duke Medical Center, the City of Durham, the Durham Police, the Durham Fire Department, the Durham DA's office, the NC governor, the NC Attorney General, the NC general assembly, local, state and national media, civil rights organizations, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges, local politicians, the State Medical Examiner, other doctors, and the California Franchise Tax Board.

4. Sidney established this conspiracy when he discovered that Evans worked at CBS for 10 years ending 25 years before she threatened on 60 Minutes that "Nifong would pay..." CBS did not disclose her employment.

5. Dr. Nichols is guilty of criminal fraud in signing a fraudulent autopsy report.

6. Dr. Roberts has concluded that Nichols committed fraud, but she is afraid to issue a report that states this conclusion. She lied to Mangum when she stated that the report was basically correct.

7. Chris Shella and Woody Vann conspired with prosecutors to induce Mangum to plead guilty and not go to trial.

8. Sidney Harr is the only person who can save Mangum.

9. Harr did not know that he was practicing law without a license when he drafted motions for Mangum. He said he was sorry and promised not to do it again. Case closed.

10. Harr does not believe that he was practicing law without a license when he file Writs of Mandamus pro se. He insists he was representing himself. Harr does not believe the commenters on this blog and the Bar when they have stated that one is not permitted to file motions in a criminal case when one is not the defendant. He is too busy to read the statue and see if these comments are correct. Besides, he does not have Internet at home, and time at the library is precious.

11. If the law does not permit Harr to file motions, then the law is wrong. He has independent standing. He would be able to cite cases that proved this, but he does not have access to a law library.

12. Harr should be permitted to serve as Mangum's attorney on this case due to extenuating circumstances. Because of the widespread conspiracy, he is the only person able to defend Mangum. His lack of legal education is offset by his dedication. His level of legal knowledge is apparent in his filings and blogs.

13. He was not able to cite cases to support his unusual remedy: that statues be waived to permit him to act as an unlicensed attorney. As noted above, he does not have Internet or access to a law library. Even so, there are no precedents. No defendant in the history of the world has faced so widespread a conspiracy.

You all may be naysayers. I for one wish him the best of luck.

guiowen said...

Break, I've explained to Sidney how he should treat this, what arguments he should make. The State Bar has no more right to keep Sidney from filing motions, than the Chefs' guild to prevent you or me from serving a home-made dinner to a group of our friends.
The argument that the Bar is acting in restraint of trade is a valid one. An unbiased judge should be able to understand this.

Anonymous said...

Break you are a world class satire writer.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

Aren't all judges in North Carolina also members of the NC State Bar as well? Perhaps Sid should have sought a change of venue (Canada, anyone?) for this hearing.

Walt said...

Guiowen wrote: "The argument that the Bar is acting in restraint of trade is a valid one. An unbiased judge should be able to understand this."

Not where the state bar is a state agency acting as a soverign, as it does in North Carolina. When the state bar exercises the soverign power of the state to compel or regulate the practice of law it does so in compliance with the antitrust laws of the United States. GOLDFARB v. VIRGINIA STATE BAR, 421 U.S. 773 (1975), PARKER v. BROWN, 317 U.S. 341 (1943). Of course, I would not expect Sid to follow a law that he finds inconvenient.

Walt-in-Durham


guiowen said...


Walt said...

'Guiowen wrote: "The argument that the Bar is acting in restraint of trade is a valid one. An unbiased judge should be able to understand this."

'Not where the state bar is a state agency acting as a soverign, as it does in North Carolina.'

Ah, but Sidney's argument is precisely that the bar is a private entity, not a state agent. That being so, Sidney is merely acting in accordance with his conscience rather than with man-made laws. Sidney is willing to suffer the consequences -- go to prison if necessary -- to follow the dictates of his conscience. This is truly Nifongian courage.

Nifong Supporter said...


Break the Conspiracy said...
Walt,

You would be correct in an ordinary case. But this case, as we all know, is extraordinary and requires extraordinary measures. Sidney has been consistent.

1. Mangum is innocent of all crimes. She was the victim of a brutal beating by Daye.

2. Mangum is the victim of a vendetta prosecution because of her role in the Duke case.

3. Rae Evans leads a widespread conspiracy that includes, among others, the former lacrosse players, Duke University, Duke Medical Center, the City of Durham, the Durham Police, the Durham Fire Department, the Durham DA's office, the NC governor, the NC Attorney General, the NC general assembly, local, state and national media, civil rights organizations, prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges, local politicians, the State Medical Examiner, other doctors, and the California Franchise Tax Board.

4. Sidney established this conspiracy when he discovered that Evans worked at CBS for 10 years ending 25 years before she threatened on 60 Minutes that "Nifong would pay..." CBS did not disclose her employment.

5. Dr. Nichols is guilty of criminal fraud in signing a fraudulent autopsy report.

6. Dr. Roberts has concluded that Nichols committed fraud, but she is afraid to issue a report that states this conclusion. She lied to Mangum when she stated that the report was basically correct.

7. Chris Shella and Woody Vann conspired with prosecutors to induce Mangum to plead guilty and not go to trial.

8. Sidney Harr is the only person who can save Mangum.

9. Harr did not know that he was practicing law without a license when he drafted motions for Mangum. He said he was sorry and promised not to do it again. Case closed.

10. Harr does not believe that he was practicing law without a license when he file Writs of Mandamus pro se. He insists he was representing himself. Harr does not believe the commenters on this blog and the Bar when they have stated that one is not permitted to file motions in a criminal case when one is not the defendant. He is too busy to read the statue and see if these comments are correct. Besides, he does not have Internet at home, and time at the library is precious.

11. If the law does not permit Harr to file motions, then the law is wrong. He has independent standing. He would be able to cite cases that proved this, but he does not have access to a law library.

12. Harr should be permitted to serve as Mangum's attorney on this case due to extenuating circumstances. Because of the widespread conspiracy, he is the only person able to defend Mangum. His lack of legal education is offset by his dedication. His level of legal knowledge is apparent in his filings and blogs.

13. He was not able to cite cases to support his unusual remedy: that statues be waived to permit him to act as an unlicensed attorney. As noted above, he does not have Internet or access to a law library. Even so, there are no precedents. No defendant in the history of the world has faced so widespread a conspiracy.

You all may be naysayers. I for one wish him the best of luck.



Hey, Break.

Thanks for your comments. I couldn't have responded to Walt any better than you did, and, of course, your statements are absolutely correct.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"The reasons given for allowing him to represent Mangum were that she could not find a defense attorney that would be willing to attack the state’s deputy chief medical examiner, Dr. Clay Nichols, and willing to place Daye’s death on Duke University Hospital."

You have never established as fact that Reginald Daye's death was the responsibility of DUMC.


Two documents, one by a respiratory therapist and the other by a physician, confirm that the initial intubation of Reginald Daye was esophageal... and it was the esophageal intubation which was left in place which led to Daye's brain death and cardiac arrest.

What part of this explanation does not register cerebrally? Let me know if further elucidation is required.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"
Two documents, one by a respiratory therapist and the other by a physician, confirm that the initial intubation of Reginald Daye was esophageal..."

No they do not.

"and it was the esophageal intubation which was left in place which led to Daye's brain death and cardiac arrest."

If so, it does not negate the fact that the intubation was necessitated by the complications of the stab wound inflicted by Crystal. Reginald Daye ended up in the hospital because Crystal stabbed him. Had he not required medical treatment, he would never had complications of said treatment. You have not established as fact that Crystal acted in self defense.

What part of this explanation does not register cerebrally? Let me know if further elucidation is required.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"What part of this explanation does not register cerebrally? Let me know if further elucidation is required."

What explanation. Uncorroborated allegations explain nothing.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Hey, Break.

Thanks for your comments. I couldn't have responded to Walt any better than you did, and, of course, your statements are absolutely correct."

You are absolutely delusional.

Walt said...

"Ah, but Sidney's argument is precisely that the bar is a private entity, not a state agent. That being so, Sidney is merely acting in accordance with his conscience rather than with man-made laws. Sidney is willing to suffer the consequences -- go to prison if necessary -- to follow the dictates of his conscience. This is truly Nifongian courage."

Except that the State Bar is a regulatory agency in NC. The North Carolina Bar Association is the voluntary and non-regulatory group. The NCBA is very different from the North Carolina State Bar which is prosecuting him. The NCSB is the regulator, a state agency, charged by the Legislature through statute with the regulation of the practice of law. Regulation which then is compulsory under the Sherman Act. Just because there is some confusion in your mind and Sid's usual decision to ignore the inconvenient is not an expression of courage. Rather it is an expression of his delusion and your confusion.

Walt-in-Durham

guiowen said...

Walt said
"Just because there is some confusion in your mind and Sid's usual decision to ignore the inconvenient is not an expression of courage. Rather it is an expression of his delusion and your confusion. "

I don't think you understand my point. I am more than willing to let Sidney go to jail if necessary to correct what he considers an injustice, and to prove that he possesses Nifongian courage.

Anonymous said...

W
H
E
R
E

I
S

K
E
N
N
Y

T
H
E

T
R
O
L
L
?

Anonymous said...

Has the Raleigh Public Library clamped down on SIDNEY wasting their time by abusing their computers?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

"
Two documents, one by a respiratory therapist and the other by a physician, confirm that the initial intubation of Reginald Daye was esophageal..."

No they do not.

"and it was the esophageal intubation which was left in place which led to Daye's brain death and cardiac arrest."

If so, it does not negate the fact that the intubation was necessitated by the complications of the stab wound inflicted by Crystal. Reginald Daye ended up in the hospital because Crystal stabbed him. Had he not required medical treatment, he would never had complications of said treatment. You have not established as fact that Crystal acted in self defense.

What part of this explanation does not register cerebrally? Let me know if further elucidation is required.


The sad fact of the matter is that Daye was an alcoholic, it it was problems with delirium tremens that resulted in his move to the Surgical Intensive Care Unit on his third postoperative day.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Has the Raleigh Public Library clamped down on SIDNEY wasting their time by abusing their computers?


I am not an abuser of computers or women.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The sad fact of the matter is that Daye was an alcoholic, it it was problems with delirium tremens that resulted in his move to the Surgical Intensive Care Unit on his third postoperative day."

You have not established these as facts, sad or otherwise.

You do require not further elucidation, you have been in the dark since the onset of this blog.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I am not an abuser of computers or women."

You are an abuser of both. You use computers to push your racially motivated vendetta against the innocent Duke Lacrosse players. You abuse Crystal because you use her to push your agenda.

Sherleen said...

After watching the Investigation Discovery program on Crystal I found this blog- and was wondering Mr. Harr if you are willing to retract several comments you made previously that Crystal herself contradicts- the first being your allegation that the Durham Police Dept set her ex- boyfriend's clothes on fire when Crystal herself admits on camera, with a smile, that SHE set the fire? How do respond to that?

Anonymous said...

Sidney Harr is a known liar and racist. He never admits to his lies, even when he is caught in them. He will not admit that he has interfered with Mangum, illegally posted PHI in violation of HIPPA, has lied about Reginald Daye and has repeatedly tried to get away with playing lawyer. He also has zero credibility in his apparently fantastical fable about his background. A truly pathetic sad little man

guiowen said...

Sidney gets information from reliable sources. Unfortunately his sources frequently turn out to be unreliable. When he is given proof that the information was incorrect, he points out that it is impossible to check on every one of his sources' reliability.

Anonymous said...

I saw the picture of the deceased, Reginald Daye, on this latest posting by Sidney Harr. That really is a new low for this amoral man. Truly a scummy thing to do, sidney. shame on you....and shame on whoever it was at the hospital who took this photo. I hope they get caught and FIRED. Dunno, maybe it was you....creeping in, violating the law, and taking pictures of this man.

Anonymous said...

It's very clear that Harr thinks he is above the law, as so many others have correctly noted. This whole silly rambling nonsense, the repeated behaviors of playing lawyer without a license, the interference with Mangum, the hilarious non-suit against Duke, the repetitive lying, overblown racist bull.........I look forward to Feb 18th and I sincerely hope Harr feels the full extent of the court's judgment.......

Anonymous said...

Too bad somebody from Mr. Daye's family hasn't filed suit against Sidney Harr. My guess is that the family does not have the resources to do. Honestly too bad. Harr is an unethical nasty little man.

Anonymous said...

As another poster has so clearly stated, the question is whether Harr practiced law without a license....not just once, but several times, including AFTER he had been warned to cut it out, and AFTER he had agreed to stop. Period....nothing else is at issue.

Anonymous said...

gee, sidney, why you pitchin' a bitch over the judge? The smart thing to do is keep your mouth shut, and, after they throw da book at you, then come back and whine that tha judge, he be prejudiced agin you! and file an a-peel, all the way to the big old soooopreeem court. as they say in Carolina, there you go!!

Anonymous said...

regarding a suit against SIDNEY, SIDNEY is probably judgment proof and a successful suit would get nothing. Like Tawana Brawley before him, SIDNEY would default on a suit rather than have to testify via deposition.

On the other hand, there is an option of filing a wrongful death suit against Durham for its failure to deal properly with Crystal' previous criminal behavior. There might be enough for some attorney to file suit on a contingency fee basis.

Anonymous said...

To followup my last comment, a suit against Durham for failing to deal appropriately with Crysta might lead to the opening of every record concerning Crystal.

Nifong Supporter said...


Sherleen said...
After watching the Investigation Discovery program on Crystal I found this blog- and was wondering Mr. Harr if you are willing to retract several comments you made previously that Crystal herself contradicts- the first being your allegation that the Durham Police Dept set her ex- boyfriend's clothes on fire when Crystal herself admits on camera, with a smile, that SHE set the fire? How do respond to that?


Hey, Sherleen, and welcome.

I respond by saying that Ms. Mangum misled me about her involvement with the 2010 bathtub fire. Keep in mind that Perry Mason's clients lied to him all of the time, but that didn't make them guilty.

You will also note that in the Discovery documentary it left out the fact that the Durham Fire Department was called and that during the fifteen minutes that it took for the firemen to arrive at the scene, the police took no action to extinguish the fire.

It was the police's inappropriate restraint to douse the bathtub fire (all that was required was to turn on the water with the faucet) along with the overcharging of Mangum that gave credence to Mangum's statement to me that absolved her of any involvement.

I will not retract the comments as they are part of the record, but I will state that my statements based on incorrect information I received, are inaccurate. Keep in mind, that the Durham police actions (or lack thereof) are in large measure responsible.

Also, keep in mind that the documentary failed to show that the fire department was called by police or that the fire department even showed up... which is misleading also. By not acknowledging that the Durham police failed to try and douse the fire and instead calling the fire department, it covers up the fact that the police were congering up a plot to charge Mangum with arson. In this way the documentary did shield the Durham Police Department. The main question being why the Durham Police took no action to put out the fire?

Thanks again for your comment, and feel free to continue to contribute intelligent comments and questions.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
I saw the picture of the deceased, Reginald Daye, on this latest posting by Sidney Harr. That really is a new low for this amoral man. Truly a scummy thing to do, sidney. shame on you....and shame on whoever it was at the hospital who took this photo. I hope they get caught and FIRED. Dunno, maybe it was you....creeping in, violating the law, and taking pictures of this man.


The photograph of Daye in bed was included in the prosecution discovery, so I believe that someone affiliated with the Durham Police Department took the photograph. I do not understand why you find the photograph so offensive. The photograph was most assuredly taken postoperatively and prior to delirium tremens setting in.

Also, keep in mind that I am not a violater of the law.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Too bad somebody from Mr. Daye's family hasn't filed suit against Sidney Harr. My guess is that the family does not have the resources to do. Honestly too bad. Harr is an unethical nasty little man.


For what? Why should the Daye family file a lawsuit against me?

I had nothing to do with his death, his alcoholism, or his reputation. I never even met the man.

Unfortunately the Daye family is being used by Durham prosecutors and police... pretending that they cared about Reginald Daye... a black man with a criminal record.
The police even gave him the alias of Richard Dong... racial, inappropriate and vulgar. At least Duke University Hospital had the decency to change the alias from Richard Dong to Richard Douglas.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
gee, sidney, why you pitchin' a bitch over the judge? The smart thing to do is keep your mouth shut, and, after they throw da book at you, then come back and whine that tha judge, he be prejudiced agin you! and file an a-peel, all the way to the big old soooopreeem court. as they say in Carolina, there you go!!


Judge Carl R. Fox cannot rule impartially in my case because of the conflict of interest that exists due to his strong ties to Orange County, the Orange County Medical Examiner, and UNC-CH. The crux of the murder charge against Mangum has to do with the fraudulent autopsy report produced by Dr. Clay Nichols of the medical examiner's office which was located at UNC-CH. Mr. Fox has probably worked closely with that medical examiner's office during his more than two decades career as an Orange County prosecutor. Naturally, his inclination is to protect it.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
As another poster has so clearly stated, the question is whether Harr practiced law without a license....not just once, but several times, including AFTER he had been warned to cut it out, and AFTER he had agreed to stop. Period....nothing else is at issue.


WRONG-O!! The issue before the Court on February 18th is whether or not the judge should make a ruling based on the pleadings alone. You see, the plaintiff State Bar does not want to argue the case in course as it is aware that I will likely prevail... and also it wants to shield from the public the atrocities of the medical examiner and prosecutors in trumping up the fraudulent murder charge against Mangum. It also doesn't want Daye's true cause of death (esophageal intubation by Duke University Hospital staff) to be repeatedly brought up... although the mainstream media can be counted upon to do its best to keep it concealed from the people.

On February 18th, I will be fighting to have oral arguments held in open court while the plaintiff State Bar will be trying to deprive me of my day in court by having the judge make a summary ruling behind the closed doors of his chamber based upon the pleadings alone.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
To followup my last comment, a suit against Durham for failing to deal appropriately with Crysta might lead to the opening of every record concerning Crystal.


It seems to me that you are lawsuit-happy. The only person with a legitimate suit against the city of Durham is Mangum... for malicious prosecution.

As far as the Daye family goes, it could try and file a malpractice lawsuit against Duke University Hospital. The esophageal intubation was responsible for his brain death.

Anonymous said...

SIDNET HARR:

"I respond by saying that Ms. Mangum misled me about her involvement with the 2010 bathtub fire. Keep in mind that Perry Mason's clients lied to him all of the time, but that didn't make them guilty."

In other words, Crystal lie to you and you believed her. Perry Mason is a fictional character. His clients, like the carpetbaggerb jihad, do not exist.

"You will also note that in the Discovery documentary it left out the fact that the Durham Fire Department was called and that during the fifteen minutes that it took for the firemen to arrive at the scene, the police took no action to extinguish the fire."

As someone once told yo, the Durham police behaved properly, calling the DFD to handle the fire Crystal set an you blame them for the damage Crystal caused."


It was the police's inappropriate restraint to douse the bathtub fire (all that was required was to turn on the water with the faucet) along with the overcharging of Mangum that gave credence to Mangum's statement to me that absolved her of any involvement."

Again, Crystal lit the fire, without being there you presume the fire was easily extinguishable, and you blame the DPD for the damage Crystal caused.

'I will not retract the comments as they are part of the record, but I will state that my statements based on incorrect information I received, are inaccurate. Keep in mind, that the Durham police actions (or lack thereof) are in large measure responsible."

Boy are you delusional.

"Also, keep in mind that the documentary failed to show that the fire department was called by police or that the fire department even showed up... which is misleading also. By not acknowledging that the Durham police failed to try and douse the fire and instead calling the fire department, it covers up the fact that the police were congering up a plot to charge Mangum with arson."

Like the carpetbagger jihad, this is another unbelievabe piece of fiction you try to pass of as truth.

"In this way the documentary did shield the Durham Police Department."
No it didn't.


"The main question being why the Durham Police took no action to put out the fire?"

The readily obvious answer, excpt to a delusional megalomaniac like you is, it was the proper way to deal with the fire.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The photograph of Daye in bed was included in the prosecution discovery, so I believe that someone affiliated with the Durham Police Department took the photograph. I do not understand why you find the photograph so offensive. The photograph was most assuredly taken postoperatively and prior to delirium tremens setting in."

It is still something which you, the lawbreaker who practices law without a license, had no right to publish. If you had any sense of decency, you would not have published it. Your sense o decency is truly nifongian is that you use any means, no matter how foul to push your agenda

"Also, keep in mind that I am not a violater of the law."

Another lie you tell for which you will soon get credit.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"For what? Why should the Daye family file a lawsuit against me?"

You libeled Mr.Daye.

"I had nothing to do with his death, his alcoholism, or his reputation. I never even met the man."

There was no alcoholism for you to know about.

"Unfortunately the Daye family is being used by Durham prosecutors and police..."

No they are not, another malicious falsehood you publish.

"pretending that they cared about Reginald Daye... a black man with a criminal record."

Another malicious falsehood you publish about him. You have also tried to brand him an habitual abuser of women by concealing evidence he was not.

"The police even gave him the alias of Richard Dong... racial, inappropriate and vulgar. At least Duke University Hospital had the decency to change the alias from Richard Dong to Richard Douglas."

The police gave him the alias to protect him.And you admit you illegally accessed confidential information. Paraphrasing Joseph Welsh, have yo no sense of decency? If you were truthful(which you have shown you never are) you woul answer, No I do not.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"On February 18th, I will be fighting to have oral arguments held in open court while the plaintiff State Bar will be trying to deprive me of my day in court by having the judge make a summary ruling behind the closed doors of his chamber based upon the pleadings alone."

Sid -- You've admitted that you're guilty of the charges alleged in the original complaint, and that you plan to continue to provide legal advice to Crystal Mangum.

There's no reason to hear oral arguments once you've admitted your guilt.

Really, what part of this don't you understand?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR: "Judge Carl R. Fox cannot rule impartially in my case because of the conflict of interest that exists due to his strong ties to Orange County, the Orange County Medical Examiner, and UNC-CH. The crux of the murder charge against Mangum has to do with the fraudulent autopsy report produced by Dr. Clay Nichols of the medical examiner's office which was located at UNC-CH. Mr. Fox has probably worked closely with that medical examiner's office during his more than two decades career as an Orange County prosecutor. Naturally, his inclination is to protect it."

As some have pointed out to you, the autopsy report has no relevanc to whether or not you practiced law without a license. That and you have not established as fact that Judge Fox has cause to be unfair. Your delusions of grandeur and your uncorroboratd allegations are proof of nothing.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"On February 18th, I will be fighting to have oral arguments held in open court while the plaintiff State Bar will be trying to deprive me of my day in court by having the judge make a summary ruling behind the closed doors of his chamber based upon the pleadings alone. "

In agreement with Lance the illuminator I say, why waste the taxpayers' money holding a hearing after you have admitted your guilt?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"It seems to me that you are lawsuit-happy. The only person with a legitimate suit against the city of Durham is Mangum... for malicious prosecution."

She does not. Unlike the defendants falsely accused by Crystal of rape, there is probable cause to believe Crystal committed a crime.

"As far as the Daye family goes, it could try and file a malpractice lawsuit against Duke University Hospital. The esophageal intubation was responsible for his brain death."

You have not at all shown there was malpractice. Considering your lack of professional credentials(the most logical reason you will not reveal your credentials is you have none), you are incapable of knowing what proper medical care is, hence incapable of knowing what improper medical care is.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"The issue before the Court on February 18th is whether or not the judge should make a ruling based on the pleadings alone. You see, the plaintiff State Bar does not want to argue the case in course as it is aware that I will likely prevail... and also it wants to shield from the public the atrocities of the medical examiner and prosecutors in trumping up the fraudulent murder charge against Mangum. It also doesn't want Daye's true cause of death (esophageal intubation by Duke University Hospital staff) to be repeatedly brought up... although the mainstream media can be counted upon to do its best to keep it concealed from the people."

Boy are you delusional.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY wastes another library time, using its computers to push his racially motivated agenda.

Anonymous said...

Harr is a racist liar.. Period.

Walt said...

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"Sid -- You've admitted that you're guilty of the charges alleged in the original complaint, and that you plan to continue to provide legal advice to Crystal Mangum.

There's no reason to hear oral arguments once you've admitted your guilt."


Ding-Ding-Ding, we have a winner.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Posting the photo of Daye is a cheap no class thing to do.....typical of Harr, a racist no class liar.

Anonymous said...

What is going to happen when Harr violates the law again and plays lawyer to Mangum? Jail time?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous February 11, 2013 at 4:40 PM

"What is going to happen when Harr violates the law again and plays lawyer to Mangum? Jail time?"

It would be the best thing that could happen to Crystal. Let's hope there is an injunction which SIDNEY will ignore and up jailed at least 30 days for contempt.

Anonymous said...

Assuming the Daye case actually goes to court, what evidence/support, if any, does Mangum ACTUALLY have to prove she was acting in self defense? The damage to the apartment itself could be explained as a drunken fight with both of them engaged in physical violence. There is no evidence of a beating. (No, sidney, none. zip.) Daye's statement sounds like he admitted that he got upset and struggled with Mangum. I would expect the prosecutor to ask why Mangum didn't leave when she had more than one opportunity to do so. The checks in her purse, despite Harr's nonsense arguments, are going to be brought in. The overhearing of a female yelling, "I/m going to fxxx you up">..is going to be a problme for Mangum. The witnesses from Daye's past who will say he was not violent with them, etc....also an issue.
IF this goes to court, it sounds like something less than first degree murder. As of now, nobody but Harr has said anything, at all, about a plea deal. Correct me if I am wrong, Walt, Guiowen, Lance.

Anonymous said...

Amazing, isn't it.....that Harr, supposedly a physician, would have no issue with posting the photo of Mr. Daye. This is not only immoral, it is also a clear violation of HIPPA. Because Harr got the photo from Mangum, as he claims, has nothing to do with whether Harr should have posted this photo. I guess it's true, though.......you can't teach an old dog new tricks, and you can't teach an old man new, or any, ethics. Shame on sidney harr.

Anonymous said...

I have posted the following before......but it bears repeating....
I talked to friends who are both LEOs and firemen. They ALL said the police officers did exactly the right thing in the incident in the Walker apartment. The officers had one primary responsibility......and that was to ensure the safety of any persons near the fire. PERIOD. There job was NOT to put the fire out. Everybody who has a brain and reads harr's ramblings, realizes that he has NO CLUE how bad the fire was, whether it had already gone into the walls, whether there were other fires, whether there was electrical wiring in the walls that could conduct and spread the fire, whether there were firewalls between the units, etc. Harr knows NOTHING about fire/combustion management, exposure, flashpoints, and many other aspects of fire containment that were likely in play....in a multi-unit dwelling. His comments, according to the LEOs and firemen I talked to, are IDIOTIC. Again, to a person, they ALL said the officers did the right thing........
Harr intentionally lied when he said the officers started the fire. then, because he is a gutless racist man, he refused to admit to HIS lies (saying it was mangum's distortion) and, instead, tried to create a diversion.......and ranting about the LEOs.

Anonymous said...

Harr, you are a violator of the law. Clearly. There is NO documentation that Reginald Daye was an alcoholic. Nor is there ANY documentation that he was suffering from DTs. The documentation shows that Ativan was given from DAY ONE, not from the time that DTs were to be ruled out, along WITH other causes for his symptoms, including infection. (which was FAR more likely). You are totally WRONG in your assertions. There was absolutely no justification for posting the photo of Mr. Daye. NONE. You are an unprincipled deceitful person.

Anonymous said...

From Feb 18 until Mangum's court date in July, it will be of interest to note whether Harr complies with the injunction order that is, no doubt, going to be handed down. It will also be interesting to see whether mangum wakes up, changes her mind, and get herself an attorney. she might wait until the last minute and then try to delay her court date, even further, by saying she has decided she needs a lawyer and that the lawyer needs time, etc. I wonder if the judge would put up with that sort of delay tactic.
there is nothing in mangum's behavior that says she is truly suffering because she can't see her children....this is only a fig in the tree of Harr's brain.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous February 13, 2013 at 6:10 AM;

I say again, the best thing that could happen to Crystal would be if SIDNEY did fail to comply with the injunction and ended up jailed for an indefinite period for contempt. Also, then he could not get to the Library.

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"Sid -- You've admitted that you're guilty of the charges alleged in the original complaint, and that you plan to continue to provide legal advice to Crystal Mangum.

There's no reason to hear oral arguments once you've admitted your guilt."

Ding-Ding-Ding, we have a winner.

Walt-in-Durham


Walt, the original complaint about the motions I filed were resolved in the Bar's July 2012 meeting. The current complaint and injunction has to do with the petitions I filed as a Pro Se third party which I do not believe is a lawyerly act.

Also, the term "legal advice" is very ambiguous and vague. If I give her my opinion about what I would do in a hypothetical case, that would not be providing legal advice.

Comprende?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Anonymous Anonymous February 13, 2013 at 6:10 AM;

I say again, the best thing that could happen to Crystal would be if SIDNEY did fail to comply with the injunction and ended up jailed for an indefinite period for contempt. Also, then he could not get to the Library.


I am clearly the best thing that has happened to Crystal, as Break has already intelligently stated. I have the medical knowledge to understand what happened to Daye, and the one who has placed her interested before that of the medical examiner and Duke University Hospital. Why else is the State Bar so desperate to have me taken off the case? It's trying to affect the outcome of the case, just like it did with the Duke Lacrosse case when it removed Mike Nifong as prosecutor.

Anonymous said...

You are incorrect in your response to Walt. The point here is that you were warned to cease/desist....you said you would comply with the warning....and you did not. There is NO SUCH THING as Pro Se/third party in this criminal case. Pro Se, as you have been told repeatedly, applies to the Defendant ONLY. The court will decide, based on the statutes, etc, what constitutes legal advice....not you.

Anonymous said...

"taken off the case"??? Now that's funny. You were never "ON the case"? Please..................
I would suggest to you that you need to study up on words like satire, irony and sarcasm as you read Break's words. They could not be any more obvious.....

A lawyer said...

Dr. Harr:

The reason a motion for judgment on the pleadings is proper is that there is no dispute as to the facts. The Bar alleges that you prepared and filed certain motions in Ms. Mangum's case, and you admit that. The only issue for a court to decide is a question of law: does filing those motions constitute the unlawful practice of law?

When the facts are undisputed, the judge decides the case on the papers; no trial is needed, because the judge is the one who gets to decide legal issues.

A lawyer (but not YOUR lawyer, so nothing I say is legal advice you should rely on)

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
Harr, you are a violator of the law. Clearly. There is NO documentation that Reginald Daye was an alcoholic. Nor is there ANY documentation that he was suffering from DTs. The documentation shows that Ativan was given from DAY ONE, not from the time that DTs were to be ruled out, along WITH other causes for his symptoms, including infection. (which was FAR more likely). You are totally WRONG in your assertions. There was absolutely no justification for posting the photo of Mr. Daye. NONE. You are an unprincipled deceitful person.


Me... broke a law? What law? If so, why don't you report it to the police?

Fact is that you cannot even recite the law that I am alleged to have broken.

Dr. Clay Nichols, however, broke the law by producing a fraudulent autopsy report.

Reginald Daye admitted to the social worker that he was an alcoholic. Daye's alcoholism is basically an acknowledged fact. That he suffered from delirium tremens is easily evidenced by the medical records, as well.

Regarding the photo of Daye in the hospital, I think that it was a nice image and I found nothing objectionable about it. I don't understand your complaint.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
You are incorrect in your response to Walt. The point here is that you were warned to cease/desist....you said you would comply with the warning....and you did not. There is NO SUCH THING as Pro Se/third party in this criminal case. Pro Se, as you have been told repeatedly, applies to the Defendant ONLY. The court will decide, based on the statutes, etc, what constitutes legal advice....not you.


I said I would cease and desist from drafting motions on behalf of Crystal... I did not say that I would cease and desist from filing Petitions as a Pro Se Petitioner third party! The petitions, not the motions, are the subject of the civil complaint against me by the Bar.

Please notify me if further elucidation is required.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"The current complaint and injunction has to do with the petitions I filed as a Pro Se third party which I do not believe is a lawyerly act."

Except you *CANNOT* file pro se as as 3rd party in a criminal case. What you *believe* or do not *believe* does not matter.

Why can't you get that through your head?

Finally, "legal advice" is not a vague or ambiguous term. it means:

"assessment and application of principles of law to a particular factual situation. It involves the application of legal principles to facts in a manner that (1) in effect predicts a specific resolution of a legal issue or (2) directs, counsels, urges, or recommends a course of action by a disputant or disputants as a means of resolving a legal issue."

You have specifically violated #2 above in your interactions with Crystal Mangum.

Nifong Supporter said...


A lawyer said...
Dr. Harr:

The reason a motion for judgment on the pleadings is proper is that there is no dispute as to the facts. The Bar alleges that you prepared and filed certain motions in Ms. Mangum's case, and you admit that. The only issue for a court to decide is a question of law: does filing those motions constitute the unlawful practice of law?

When the facts are undisputed, the judge decides the case on the papers; no trial is needed, because the judge is the one who gets to decide legal issues.

A lawyer (but not YOUR lawyer, so nothing I say is legal advice you should rely on)


Face it... the reason the Plaintiff Bar wants a judgment based on pleadings is so that an oral argument in open court does not take place, as it would subject the State Bar to much embarrassment. This is nothing more than a ploy using Rule 12(c) to deprive me of my day in court... and to have a summary judgment. This is outrageous, especially since I am the defendant in this case.

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
"The current complaint and injunction has to do with the petitions I filed as a Pro Se third party which I do not believe is a lawyerly act."

Except you *CANNOT* file pro se as as 3rd party in a criminal case. What you *believe* or do not *believe* does not matter.

Why can't you get that through your head?

Finally, "legal advice" is not a vague or ambiguous term. it means:

"assessment and application of principles of law to a particular factual situation. It involves the application of legal principles to facts in a manner that (1) in effect predicts a specific resolution of a legal issue or (2) directs, counsels, urges, or recommends a course of action by a disputant or disputants as a means of resolving a legal issue."

You have specifically violated #2 above in your interactions with Crystal Mangum.


Supreme Poster, as I have acknowledged, I am not a lawyer and do not know whether or not I am permitted to file a petition as a third party... which I believe I am. However, if I am mistaken, then, I have committed a mistake, and to my knowledge it is not a crime to make a mistake.

We all have our opinions, and I do believe that the First Amendment protects my right to give my opinion on any topic... even a legal one.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Walt, the original complaint about the motions I filed were resolved in the Bar's July 2012 meeting. The current complaint and injunction has to do with the petitions I filed as a Pro Se third party which I do not believe is a lawyerly act.

Also, the term "legal advice" is very ambiguous and vague. If I give her my opinion about what I would do in a hypothetical case, that would not be providing legal advice."

Boy are you deluded.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I am clearly the best thing that has happened to Crystal, as Break has already intelligently stated. I have the medical knowledge to understand what happened to Daye, and the one who has placed her interested before that of the medical examiner and Duke University Hospital. Why else is the State Bar so desperate to have me taken off the case? It's trying to affect the outcome of the case, just like it did with the Duke Lacrosse case when it removed Mike Nifong as prosecutor."

Boy are you even more deluded.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Me... broke a law? What law? If so, why don't you report it to the police?"

You show again you like o dodge issues and you believe you were above the law.

"Fact is that you cannot even recite the law that I am alleged to have broken."

What significance does that have since it is the court which will make the determination in the case?

"Dr. Clay Nichols, however, broke the law by producing a fraudulent autopsy report."

You lie.

"Reginald Daye admitted to the social worker that he was an alcoholic."

Reginald Daye admitted to the social worker he had drunk heavily in the past. That is not enough to have him diagnosed as alcoholic. If you had been a competent physician you would have known that.

"Daye's alcoholism is basically an acknowledged fact."

It is one of your uncorroborated allegations, nothing more.

"That he suffered from delirium tremens is easily evidenced by the medical records, as well."

That is another one of your uncorroborated allegations.

"Regarding the photo of Daye in the hospital, I think that it was a nice image and I found nothing objectionable about it. I don't understand your complaint."

That is because you are self centered, delusional, and an egomaniac, all of which are nothing to be proud of. They are flaws to be cured of.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"and to have a summary judgment. This is outrageous, especially since I am the defendant in this case."

A defendant who has admitted his own guilt in his "response".

How many trials have you seen go to oral arguments when the defendant pleads guilty?

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

"However, if I am mistaken, then, I have committed a mistake, and to my knowledge it is not a crime to make a mistake."

Repetition is the key to learning, so repeat this at least 15 times, Sid:

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse"

Anonymous said...

dear sidney, ignorance of the law is no excuse. fifth graders can read these words and understand them.
yes, you made a mistake. you broke the law. and you think calling it a mistake makes it ok. I guess mangum made a mistake when she shot reginald daye or when she lied about the LAX hoax. Mistake? LOL.

As you have been told repeatedly, there is no such thing as pro se for a third party in a criminal case. you had no standing. you have no standing. you were never on the case. your opinions are same as mine....worth zip in a court of law.
What constitutes the practice of law is clearly defined in the statutes. Legal advice is also clearly defined.
You broke the law.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Supreme Poster, as I have acknowledged, I am not a lawyer and do not know whether or not I am permitted to file a petition as a third party... which I believe I am. However, if I am mistaken, then, I have committed a mistake, and to my knowledge it is not a crime to make a mistake."

That is funny, because there is no evidence any Lacrosse player ever committed any crime against Crystal but you believe they should have been charged, tried and convicted.

"We all have our opinions, and I do believe that the First Amendment protects my right to give my opinion on any topic... even a legal one."

You believe the New Black Party had the right to make loud guilt presuming statements in the Lacrosse case but you object to AG Cooper's expression of belief in the innocence of the Lacrosse players, based on a thorough examination of the evidence in the case.

"Let me know if further elucidation is required."

One who has never provided elucidation in his life is incapable of providing further elucidation.

Let ME know that YOU are sorely in need of elucidation and illumination.

Anonymous said...

Judge, I wanna state my case. I wanna take you back to 2002 when Crystal mangum was first abused by Rae Evans. I know it makes no sense, but I want to tell MY story!
Judge: The plaintiff's request for a permanent injunction is granted. Next case.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"I said I would cease and desist from drafting motions on behalf of Crystal... I did not say that I would cease and desist from filing Petitions as a Pro Se Petitioner third party! The petitions, not the motions, are the subject of the civil complaint against me by the Bar."

You have not explained what legal principle says you can file a pro se petition in a criminal case in which you are not a party. The law says, as has been explained to you better more knowledgeable people than I, that only a defendant in a criminal case can file a pro se petition.

You show again you believe you are above the law.

Anonymous said...

What law did you break? How about the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule? You know -- the one that governs WHO and WHAT and UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS a person's medical information can be used.

It's apparently a violation of a person's civil rights to publish their medical information without authorization.

Don't worry, Sid...The Office of Civil Rights have been notified, with specific links to your blog entries containing Mr. Dayes' medical information.

If what you've done here represents a violation of HIPAA, I'm sure they'll let you know.

Have a nice day!

Anonymous said...

.....once again....."pro se is a Latin phrase meaning "for oneself" or "on one's own behalf". This status is sometimes known as propria persona (abbreviated to "pro per")." Pro Se, in criminal cases is, by definition, representation of oneself by the Defendant. There is no such thing as third party Pro Se standing in a criminal case. Harr can rant all he wants......he is wrong.

Anonymous said...

HIPPA is a federal law with severe penalties for violations by individual providers and institutions. I will be anxious to see how/whether Harr can weasel out of being held in violation of HIPPA. I am personally aware of several incidents where individuals unlawfully obtained and published/used Protected Health Information (PHI). Fines were in the 50K range. I have no idea whether Harr will ever be held accountable for publishing Daye's information, but I sure do hope he will.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

FWIW -- I believe that publishing Reginald Daye's medical records was Sid's overzealous attempt to assist CGM. I don't think he meant to violate any laws (if he even actually has violated any).

I also tend to take threats from anonymous posters like "The OCR has been notified" with a grain of salt.

With that said, I think it's in Sid's best interest to remove Mr. Daye's medical data from the web altogether.

Anonymous said...

HIPPA Penalties....Please note the word "individual" and the words "malicious harm" in the following paragraph:......"Criminal Penalties. A PERSON (emphasis, mine) who knowingly obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of the Privacy Rule may face a criminal penalty of up to $50,000 and up to one-year imprisonment. The criminal penalties increase to $100,000 and up to five years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves false pretenses, and to $250,000 and up to 10 years imprisonment if the wrongful conduct involves the intent to sell, transfer, or use identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain or MALICIOUS HARM (emphasis, mine) The Department of Justice is responsible for criminal prosecutions under the Privacy Rule." Source: Fed Gov. HIPPA FAQs. The Privacy Rule noted here refers to information that can identify an person/individual. Clearly, Harr published Protected Health Information (PHI), with the intent to maliciously harm Reginald Daye, in violation of the Privacy Rule.

Anonymous said...

Lance, I figure that if Harr were going to get his fanny in trouble over the HIPPA violation, he would have already been put on notice. Nonetheless, I think he did willfully publish PHI with intent to do damage to Daye.....and that's a violation of the law. Whether he ever gets brought up for it, who knows. I kinda doubt it. If he were smart, he would remove PHI from his site right now. but, hey, nobody ever accused harr of being smart.

Anonymous said...

One might also ask how a dead person can be maliciously harmed. I suppose Harr is going to hide behind that loophole, thumbing his nose at the law. The law does speak to this point, however, and I believe the penalties can and do apply, even for disclose of PHI of deceased persons.

Anonymous said...

You must comply with the regulations for protected health information (PHI) of a deceased person the same way you would for living persons. The rules are in effect for as long as you maintain the information.

Anonymous said...

......With regard to whether Harr, an individual who does not work for a Covered Entity(CE) can be pursued for a HIPPA violation......"in an unmistakable signal that HIPAA violations are being taken seriously these days, AISHealth.com is reporting that the U.S. Department of Justice has brought a criminal indictment against an individual who was not an employee of a covered entity (CE). What makes this case unusual, according to experts quoted in the article, is that prior to the passage of HITECH in 2009, only CEs were liable for criminal charges for breaches under HIPAA. However, under a little-known provision of HITECH, even individuals who are not employees of a CE can now face criminal prosecution for HIPAA violations....."
Not a lawyer, but this sure says to me that Harr could be charged....whether he ever will be is another matter. but he certainly could be.....

Anonymous said...

More information regarding HIPAA and deceased individuals can be found here.

Anonymous said...

Lance, I doubt Harr actually intended to violate HIPPA. Nonethless, it seems fairly clear that he did, in fact, do so. And, as you point so, ignorance of the law is no excuse. I doubt Harr intended to violate the law when he filed what he describes as pro se/third party petitions. I doubt he intended to violate the law when he go himself into enough trouble to be arrested and handcuffed, per his description in of past episode in his life. Lack of intent and ignorance don't give us a pass, right?
Those of us with some knowlege of HIPPA have been telling Harr for many months that he violated HIPPA. He didn't care then, and he doesn't care now. That's plain. It is particularly obnoxious for a physician, if he is one, to violate patient privacy rights in this way. HIPPA has been around for many years; either Harr is lying when he says he is a retired physician, or he is lying when he claims ignorance of HIPPA. "Do no harm" is a lifetime oath...except in his case, apparently.

Break the Conspiracy said...

Readers do not understand Sidney's arguments:

Sidney does not admit to practicing law without a license. He admits only to actions (filing Writs of Mandamus) that the Bar alleges violate the law. Sidney believes there is a significant difference.

Many commenters told Sidney he is not permitted to file motions or petitions in criminal cases where he is not the defendant. Sidney does not believe these commenters. The Bar made the same allegation. Sidney does not believe the Bar. Sidney believes he has no obligation to determine whether his actions are legal--even after it has been alleged they are not. He did not read the statute. He did not search for cases that support his contention. He filed a third Writ in November--after his earlier filings had been alleged to constitute the unauthorized practice of law.

Some question whehther ignorance of the law is a valid defense. Sidney takes that one step further--he claims willful ignorance as his defense. Sidney believes he cannot be held responsible if commenters and the Bar are correct and he violated the law. He does not have Internet at home and does not have access to a law library, so he cannot conduct research. He believes he is not guilty because he did not intend to violate the law. Sidney contends that oral arguments are required to determine his intent.

Sidney's second argument is even more compelling. He argues for equitable relief.

If the Bar is correct, and Sidney's activities constitute the unauthorized practice of law, that violation is unimportant. Sidney alleges Mangum is the victim of a vendetta prosecution orchestrated by a widespread conspiracy. All defense attorneys are either part of the conspiracy or cowered by it. Without his legal assistance, Mangum will be denied effective counsel.

Because Sidney has not read the statute, he does not know whether it provides for exceptions or waivers. This is unimportant. He concludes the Court must take extraordinary action and grant a waiver irrespective of whether it has the power to do so. He fails to identify a case in which a court has taken this action. Sidney contends oral arguments are necessary to determine what extraordinary measures are necessary.

Oral arguments will demonstrate Sidney's legal expertise. The naysayers on this blog cannot appreciate his knowledge because they have been brainwashed by the biased media. Sidney recognizes the potential for damage from improper legal advice provided by unqualified practitioners. Oral arguments will allow the Court to see that danger is not present in this case. Despite his lack of legal training, Sidney recognizes the relevant legal issues.

The Court surely will conclude that Mangum is well served with Sidney acting as her attorney. Justice requires it.

Anonymous said...

Break, you are a riot..... love the sarcasm......

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't it be funny if Break is really Sidney? Or, perhaps Sidney's wife? Or perhaps it's the troll? Or maybe it's the bigot in residence, Peterson. No, couldn't be Victoria....she can't manage to string together three sentences with subject and verb agreement. Ah, maybe it's the Fongster himself!

guiowen said...

Break,
I agree with you, but would like to add the following.
If I understand Sidney correctly, he believes that the Bar has no more right to prevent him from giving legal help to a friend, than the health department to prevent him from giving a dinner party to his friends.
After all, it is easier to poison your friends accidentally than to hurt a friend with legal advice.
Now, no one has yet suggested that the state can force us to use licensed caterers whenever we give a party. By reductio ad absurdum, it follows that the state has no right to keep Sidney from helping Mangum.
If I understand Sidney correctly, he is willing to go to jail so as to prove to the world his dedication to fair play in a court of law.
This is truly Nifongian courage.
We who lack this courage can only look in awe at this.


Anonymous said...

Break the Conspiracy:

"Oral arguments will demonstrate Sidney's legal expertise."

Indeed they will.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:

"Wouldn't it be funny if Break is really Sidney? Or, perhaps Sidney's wife? Or perhaps it's the troll? Or maybe it's the bigot in residence, Peterson."

Maybe it's Cy Gurney.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:

"Wouldn't it be funny if Break is really Sidney? Or, perhaps Sidney's wife? Or perhaps it's the troll? Or maybe it's the bigot in residence, Peterson."

Maybe it is Cy Gurney-or maybe her infamous husband.

Anonymous said...

The other day a friend told me he had a brain tumor. Being the good friend I am, and being convinced in my own mind that I am the world's greatest surgeon, I decided to help my friend out. I cut his head opened and removed his tumor, at no charge to him. Unforunately he died and the police are telling me it was my fault. I didn't know I had to have a license to cut his head open. They are just picking on me because I am the world's greatest surgeon.

Anonymous said...

No wonder Cy goes by Gurney........:)

Anonymous said...

Harr wants to blame an error at Duke, involving intubation, as the cause of death for Reginald Daye. Wrong.
First, Daye was suspected of having DTs, but this suspicions was NOT confirmed. He was also suspected of having an abdominal infection. Anybody who has a medical background knows about differential diagnosis and ruling out possible diagnoses. No confirmation of DTs was EVER made. Second, a decision was made to do a contrast image and the contrast was administered via a nasogastric tube. The contrast is what caused the vomiting and possible aspiration...NOT the later intubation. After an episode of vomting, THEN a decision to do the intubation was made. Daye had already vomited before intubation, not because of it. It's perfectly clear in the notes which Harr illegally posted here. By the way, it is not all that uncommon for patients to vomit when contrast is administered via an NG tube, especially considering the shape Daye was in. Again, DTs were not confirmed, only suspected, as part of a differential or rule-out process. The claim that Daye was some kind of staggering drunken woman beating alcoholic is not supported by any evidence at all. In fact, there IS evidence that he was NOT violent, as stated by two women with whom he had prior relationships.

Anonymous said...

He was stabbed. He died.
Nichols.... Correct.

Anonymous said...

A female voice, in Daye's aparment, was overhead to say, "I'm gonna fxxx you up!". Does this sound like a woman, terrified in fear, trying her best to escape the wild drunken mad man. Or, does it sound like an angry, sewer-mouthed, female criminal with a history of violence against property and persons, and a history of threatening to use a knife on another person? hmmmm....

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

The days have dwindled down.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

February 18 is approaching. Your foot is so deeply stuck in your mouth you will never extract it.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

Comparing yourself to DA NIFONG is like comparing yourself to Josef Mengele.

Anonymous said...

Are they ever going to put that ugly hooker on trial?

Anonymous said...

I am willing to bet we are going to be subjected to a long and utterly fantastical rant from Sidney Harr about how he got railroaded, how his freedom of speech rights were violated, how the entire NC justice system and every lawyer/judge in it are crooked, how all his troubles stem from Harr's efforts to defend poor Mangum, etc. Can't wait to read it.............
Harr should have, long ago, focused his efforts to: (a)help raise bail for Mangum, (b)help raise money for an attorney that Mangum (not him) found acceptable, (c)push NC for a speedy trial law, and (d)help raise money to support Mangum's children. ......assuming, of course, he cares about any of this. None of these activities would have gotten him into trouble for practicing (bad) law without a license.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

For you Sid:

Well... you didn't wake up this morning,
'cause you didn't go to bed.
You were watching the whites of your eyes turn red.
The calendar on your wall is ticking the days off.

You've been reading some old letters.
You smile and think how much you've changed.
All the money in the world couldn't buy back those days.

You pull back the curtains, and the sun burns into your eyes.
You watch a plane flying across a clear blue sky.
This is the day your life will surely change.
This is the day when things fall into place.

You could've done anything, if you'd wanted.
And all your friends and family think that you're lucky.
But the side of you they'll never see
Is when you're left alone with the memories
That hold your life together like -- GLUE

You pull back the curtains, and the sun burns into your eyes,
You watch a plane flying across a clear blue sky.
This is the day your life will surely change.
This is the day when things fall into place.

This is the day your life will surely change...
(repeat to fade)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous February 18, 2013 at 5:37 AM

I believe you are being optimistic. I think SIFDNEY"s next creed will be incredibly off the wall wy out in left field.

Anonymous said...

I heard a rumor.......that Mangum was reconsidering her decision to represent herself and looking, yet again, for an attorney. anybody else heard this? would not surprise me......

A lawyer said...

So what happened at yesterday's hearing? Any word from our host?

Anonymous said...

It usually takes Sidney a week or more to digest an event and then spin it into something that he thinks reflects favorably on him. Expect an update no sooner than the middle to end of next week.

Anonymous said...

My prediction remains.....we will be treated to a tirade against the entire NC justice system, every lawyer in it, every judge.....we will hear about how this evil perpetrated by Rae Evans against Harr is the great conspiracy and how white oppressors control the entire solar system. It will be a major rehash of 90% of the same bull he has been slinging for several years.......plus a fresh infusion of hate, racist nonsense, lies and distortions. Get ready. Here comes a new avalanche....

Nifong Supporter said...


A lawyer said...
So what happened at yesterday's hearing? Any word from our host?


Lawyer, I got trounced. The Bar was granted its injunction in which it claimed that the petition for writ could not be submitted by a third party.

I did however mention at court that Mangum couldn't get decent representation because defense lawyers' top priority would be to protect the medical examiner and Duke University Hospital. I also mentioned in court that the medical examiner's report was fraudulent and false in its findings and conclusion, and I mentioned that Daye died as a result of an esophageal intubation and not anything related to the stab wound... which was "non-fatal."

I also mentioned that the mainstream media has clammed up its reporting to protect the medical examiner and Duke University Hospital.

I may have been clobbered, but at least, as Governor McCrory would say, I'm not sitting on my butt in the face of injustice like the NAACP, the ACLU, the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and others.

I hope you continue to comment to this site.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
It usually takes Sidney a week or more to digest an event and then spin it into something that he thinks reflects favorably on him. Expect an update no sooner than the middle to end of next week.


Naysayers, non-believers, ill-willers, detractors, and others of your ilk,

Your misguided beliefs are far off the mark as I have not been spinning my wheels pouting over the Presidents' Day hearing outcome. I am moving on, almost completing a flog... which I hope to have posted tomorrow or Friday at the latest.

I'm not one to let grass grow under my shoes.

Anonymous said...

So Mangum makes bond. God help the men of Durham. Actually, I am glad she is gonna get out of jail. She will have no excuses, now, with regard to preparing her defense. Wonder how long it is going to take before the pole vaulting resumes?
Harr's "comments" in court make no difference. Not relevant at all.

Anonymous said...

It remains to be seen whether Harr will continue to break the law and violate the court's order regarding unlicensed practice of law. Any further misbehavior will put him at risk for serious penalties, including jail time and fines. We shall see...

Meantime, with Mangum making bail, she will be free to have contact with Harr.

Anonymous said...

Harr's "commentary" is in the Durham News. Nothing actually new in it and, of course, it does not include the outcome of the hearing. I wonder if the DN will have the cojones to publish the outcome as followup.

Anonymous said...

So, Mangum is loose again. Wheeee. Bonded out. Only in Durham...murder charge and she's free on bond. Kinda hard for the racist crowd (Harr, Peterson, et al) to claim unfair treatment when a convicted felon, facing a murder charge, is allowed out. Wouldn't it be funny if Harr put up the bail and Mangum skipped? Hilarious!

Anonymous said...

So, the Committee's request for a permanent injunction was granted, right, sidney? And, of course, you are going to be a law abiding guy and not try to work around the edges....giving Mangum advice on the downtown, right, sidney?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Lawyer, I got trounced. The Bar was granted its injunction in which it claimed that the petition for writ could not be submitted by a third party."

Remember your prdictions that you would totally rout the Bar?

"I did however mention at court that Mangum couldn't get decent representation because defense lawyers' top priority would be to protect the medical examiner and Duke University Hospital. I also mentioned in court that the medical examiner's report was fraudulent and false in its findings and conclusion, and I mentioned that Daye died as a result of an esophageal intubation and not anything related to the stab wound... which was "non-fatal."

All of that was and is irrelevant to the issue being litigate, whether or not you practiced law without a license. Your allegations about Dr. Nichols and the defense attorneys and the case of death remain allegations which you have not established as fact.

"I also mentioned that the mainstream media has clammed up its reporting to protect the medical examiner and Duke University Hospital."

This is also nothing but an unproven allegation.

"I may have been clobbered,"

Indeed you have!

"but at least, as Governor McCrory would say, I'm not sitting on my butt in the face of injustice like the NAACP, the ACLU, the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and others."

No, you are sitting on your butt, misrepresenting unproven allegations as fact and concealing evidence.

Right on SIDNEY-minion-of-satan-HARR

I hope you continue to comment to this site.

Anonymous said...

Come on, sidney, tell us about the evil white people and the NC justice system and Sister and you and Victoria and all that crap.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Naysayers, non-believers, ill-willers, detractors, and others of your ilk,"

Meaning all of us who do not buy into SIDNEY's racist motivated vendettas.

"Your misguided beliefs are far off the mark as I have not been spinning my wheels pouting over the Presidents' Day hearing outcome."

Yes you have.

"I am moving on, almost completing a flog... which I hope to have posted tomorrow or Friday at the latest."

Which will show the extent of your pouting.

"I'm not one to let grass grow under my shoes."

No self respecting grass would want to grow under your shoes.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

To my other comments I add, you defame a dead man who can not defend himself. Now THAT is courage which is truly Nifongian.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "...I got trounced. The Bar was granted its injunction in which it claimed that the petition for writ could not be submitted by a third party."

Told you so. Hope you enjoy the injunction.

Walt-in-Durham

Anonymous said...

Harr will ignore the injunction just like Mangum ignores the law. Both of them think they are above the law. Bet she doesn't make it to July without assaulting somebody else...or getting herself into some kind of trouble again. Guys, if you live in Durham and see this woman.....R-U-N!!

Anonymous said...

Let's see.....which one of Sister's fictional ailments will kick in? Back problems? Hives? Itching? Certainly she is gonna need her handy supply of those wonderful little pills. And, of course, if she finds herself in another incident of some kind, you can bet that her SugarDaddy Sidney will be there in a flash, depending her....because the big bad evil white oppressors framed her. Watch, folks, the soap opera is about to be back LIVE in Durham.

Anonymous said...

Ooops, typed "depending".....meant defending......my apology.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

So -- The Bar was granted the injuction. No surprise there. What about the "cost of the action taxed to the defendant" and "such other and further relief as the court may deem equitable"?

Come on, Sid -- enlighten us..

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Sid wrote: "...I got trounced. The Bar was granted its injunction in which it claimed that the petition for writ could not be submitted by a third party."

Told you so. Hope you enjoy the injunction.

Walt-in-Durham


Walt,

Like I said, when I see injustice I do not, as Governor McCrory would put it, just sit on my butt like the NAACP, the ACLU, the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, politicians, and community leaders.

Mangum is out and she will prevail in the malicious and trumped up charges against her... which'll be a much bigger deal than the State Bar's injunction against me. (Hah!)

Nifong Supporter said...


Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...
So -- The Bar was granted the injuction. No surprise there. What about the "cost of the action taxed to the defendant" and "such other and further relief as the court may deem equitable"?

Come on, Sid -- enlighten us..


Why do you ask, Supreme Poster? Do you want to set up a fund to pay it?

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
So, Mangum is loose again. Wheeee. Bonded out. Only in Durham...murder charge and she's free on bond. Kinda hard for the racist crowd (Harr, Peterson, et al) to claim unfair treatment when a convicted felon, facing a murder charge, is allowed out. Wouldn't it be funny if Harr put up the bail and Mangum skipped? Hilarious!


Since I didn't put up the bail, your dream-case scenario will never come to fruition. Sorry, Charlie.

Nifong Supporter said...


Anonymous said...
It remains to be seen whether Harr will continue to break the law and violate the court's order regarding unlicensed practice of law. Any further misbehavior will put him at risk for serious penalties, including jail time and fines. We shall see...

Meantime, with Mangum making bail, she will be free to have contact with Harr.


To my knowledge, the order never said that I couldn't have any communication or contact with Mangum... a loophole?

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

No, Sid -- there's no "loophole"...Did you not bother to read the Bar's injunction? You are prohibited from "providing any...legal advice...including but not limited to...advising others to file certain pleadings with the court."

In regards to my earlier question -- well, I'm interested to hear what kind of hot water you're in, what with the annymous poster from February 13 concatcting the OCR about your posting of Mr. Daye's medical records on your site.

We may need to set up fund for you, after all.

Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...

Wow -- lotta typos there. I'm blaming it on the norovirus I'm attempting to recover from :)

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Walt,

Like I said, when I see injustice I do not, as Governor McCrory would put it, just sit on my butt like the NAACP, the ACLU, the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, politicians, and community leaders."

Considering your actions regarding the Lacrosse case, you are incapable of recognizing true injustice. How Nifongian.

Mangum is out and she will prevail in the malicious and trumped up charges against her... which'll be a much bigger deal than the State Bar's injunction against me. (Hah!)

What trumped up malicious charges?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Since I didn't put up the bail, your dream-case scenario will never come to fruition. Sorry, Charlie."

You might not have put up the bail. It is not at all certain that Crystal will not pull a Tawana Brawley and skip town.

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"To my knowledge, the order never said that I couldn't have any communication or contact with Mangum... a loophole?"

If you give legal advice to Crystal you violate the injunction. So far as your knowledge, what knowledge?

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Like I said, when I see injustice...."

The problem is you perpetrated the injustice by breaching Crystal's attorney client privilege and by revealing her theory of defense. You violated Crystal's right to counsel, competent counsel, by filing motions which were at best spurious and at worst harmful to her cause. By violating her attorney client privilege, you confirmed the state's theory on death. You can tell Crystal all you want about how you are helping her, but the truth is you have harmed her at every turn. With friends like you, she really doesn't need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham

Nifong Supporter said...


Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Like I said, when I see injustice...."

The problem is you perpetrated the injustice by breaching Crystal's attorney client privilege and by revealing her theory of defense. You violated Crystal's right to counsel, competent counsel, by filing motions which were at best spurious and at worst harmful to her cause. By violating her attorney client privilege, you confirmed the state's theory on death. You can tell Crystal all you want about how you are helping her, but the truth is you have harmed her at every turn. With friends like you, she really doesn't need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham


Hah, Walt. Her theory of defense? That's simple... the TRUTH!

The prosecutors know that the autopsy report is full of lies, and they are aware that an esophageal intubation caused Daye's death.

They also know that Mangum stabbed Daye (non-fatally) in self-defense.

What Crystal needs is friends like me instead of turncoat attorneys whose priorities are to protect the medical examiner and Duke University Hospital.

Let me know if further elucidation is required.

Walt said...

Sid wrote: "Hah, Walt. Her theory of defense? That's simple... the TRUTH!"

You know even less about the art of persuasion than you know about the law.

"The prosecutors know that the autopsy report is full of lies, and they are aware that an esophageal intubation caused Daye's death."

Perhaps, but you disclosed the defense own expert's oral report that concluded the autopsy's conclusion was correct. Previously Crystal had the ability to keep that report out of evidence. Thanks to you, the state knows about it and can use the defense own expert to challenge any subsequent evidence to the contrary. Not a smart move, not a persuasive move.

"They also know that Mangum stabbed Daye (non-fatally) in self-defense."

But, he did die subsequent to her stabbing him. I have told you many times before that you have to explain why the prevailing NC case law is wrong here. You not only have failed to explain or even cite a case. You have completely ignored the law. Not persuasive, Sid. Not at all.

"What Crystal needs is friends like me instead of turncoat attorneys whose priorities are to protect the medical examiner and Duke University Hospital."

Pure delusion. Get a grip on reality.

"Let me know if further elucidation is required."

You are the one who refuses to provide elucidation. So far you have filed frivolous motions. You have gotten yourself an injunction. You have waived confidentiality to the harm of Crystal. But, please go forward this train wreck is too much fun to watch.

Walt-in-Durham


Anonymous said...

Maybe, if Crystal does not skip bail and goes to trial, she will call on SIDNEY as an expert witness. SIDNEY will launch one of his irrelevancy filled compilations of uncorroborated allegations. The Judge admonishes SIDNEY to confine himself to relevant testimony. SIDNEY refuses. The judge cites him for contempt and incarcerates SIDNEY for the duration of the trial. Now wouldn't that be the best break for Crystal?

Anonymous said...

SIDNEY HARR:

"Let me know if further elucidation is required."

Since you have never provided any elucidation in the first place, how can you provide further elucidation?