justice4nifong: Lawsuit filed against the State of North Carolina

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Lawsuit filed against the State of North Carolina

418 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 418 Newer› Newest»

A Lawyer said...: Frankly, I don't know or care what Duke has or hasn't done (I don't live in NC). I came to this thread to comment on Dr. Harr's lawsuit. So far, I have not seen anyone attempt to defend its legal validity. It is almost the textbook example of a frivolous lawsuit.; August 26, 2013 at 4:54 PM
Anonymous said...: you kinda had to follow along with what was written in the paper at the time

you find it if you don't believe me and think duke was playing nice with that woman and her child - that was not what was in the news; August 26, 2013 at 5:08 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said August 26, 2013 at 5:08 PM

"you kinda had to follow along with what was written in the paper at the time

you find it if you don't believe me and think duke was playing nice with that woman and her child - that was not what was in the news".

You are admitting you can not provide a link to the story, which suggests you are fabricating.; August 26, 2013 at 5:14 PM
Anonymous said...: you are a pain in the ass to talk to because you always make allegations about people that are not supported and you can look right back at their comment and see that its not true nor supported - which makes it very abusive in talking with you - and - maddening ... but ... i'll be patient

no ... i do not want to look it - i could if i wanted to - but - like i've said - i do not want - so i won't

anyway, you are wrong; August 26, 2013 at 5:26 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 26, 2013 at 5:26 PM

"you are a pain in the ass to talk to because you always make allegations about people that are not supported and you can look right back at their comment and see that its not true nor supported - which makes it very abusive in talking with you - and - maddening ... but ... i'll be patient

no ... i do not want to look it - i could if i wanted to - but - like i've said - i do not want - so i won't

anyway, you are wrong"

No, I've called you out for fabricating and you can't deny that."; August 26, 2013 at 5:41 PM
Anonymous said...: you provide proof to support your allegation that i fabricating the story of the incident as it was portrayed in the news - since that it my source of information about the death and the way it happened and how things were dealt with by Duke

not only that, but perhaps the comments are still there - maybe not - they were not very nice at all - because it was duke - and then because the woman and her deceased child were illigal immigrants from mexico

it was a real eye opener for many; August 26, 2013 at 5:46 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 26, 2013 at 5:46 PM:

"you provide proof to support your allegation that i fabricating the story of the incident as it was portrayed in the news - since that it my source of information about the death and the way it happened and how things were dealt with by Duke

not only that, but perhaps the comments are still there - maybe not - they were not very nice at all - because it was duke - and then because the woman and her deceased child were illigal immigrants from mexico

it was a real eye opener for many"

The way this works is you prove your allegations. You don't even try. That suggests you are fabricating.; August 26, 2013 at 6:18 PM
Anonymous said...: no, i've plainly stated that i don't want to provide the proof - as in i don't feel like rehashing the child's death further out of respect for the child and for her family

do you have a problem understanding that - i hadn't mentioned the second obvious part - but it is obvious to most i'm sure - not that you are correct in your harassment for me to provide the proof since you can just as easily read it if it still there if you want. i didn't exactly enjoy the experience of reading about it and seeing it on the news the first time around i assure you. but, hey, have at it; August 26, 2013 at 7:32 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:32 wrote: "no, i've plainly stated that i don't want to provide the proof - as in i don't feel like rehashing the child's death further out of respect for the child and for her family"

That is not proof of your claim that Duke kills people. That is one incident of medical negligence. Your proof fails in that it does not put one tragedy into context. How many cases of medical negligence are there at DUHS? How many at comparable teaching hospitals? How does this compare? Your problem is, you are not offering proof, simply an appeal to emotion. That is not persuasive. You fall into the same trap Sid does. You make allegations without proof.

Walt-in-Durham; August 26, 2013 at 8:59 PM
Anonymous said...: no walt, the problem is that if you were here in nc reading the news during that time you were fully emotionally traumatized by the event and the crass insensitivity to the mother by Duke. so go read it - your argument fails because this is a blog - not a court room - and i was simply giving an example of duke killing someone - which is an obvious answer since it was so publizied - and if it was emotional - it is because that is the way it occurred in the experiences of most who were aware of the situation and watching/reading the news. Quite a few people got really upset over that.

why so mean about it? you know i'm right; August 27, 2013 at 2:37 AM
Anonymous said...: and walt, if you wanted examples of duke killing people compared to DUHS or UNC killing people you should have said so. i can give you examples of DUHS - as that is frequently (or was) in the news with the way they kill mental health patients - UNC - nothing pops to mind at this time. They are not in the news as much.; August 27, 2013 at 3:19 AM
Anonymous said...: oh - i thought you meant DHHS.

anyway - the point is i can't even talk about a death at the hands of duke that was well documented in the media without you'll getting all duke has to be great huffy on me.

so, in order to see a doctor at duke, you have to be willing to put up with duke has to be great huffy in order to do so?

that truly sucks about duke, don't you know; August 27, 2013 at 3:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 26, 2013 at 7:32 PM

"no, i've plainly stated that i don't want to provide the proof - as in i don't feel like rehashing the child's death further out of respect for the child and for her family"

Which is you saying you CAN'T provide proof, which in turn suggests you are fabricating.

"do you have a problem understanding that - i hadn't mentioned the second obvious part - but it is obvious to most i'm sure - not that you are correct in your harassment for me to provide the proof since you can just as easily read it if it still there if you want. i didn't exactly enjoy the experience of reading about it and seeing it on the news the first time around i assure you. but, hey, have at it"

I understand perfectly. You are desperate to C your fabricating A.; August 27, 2013 at 4:41 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 27, 2013 at 2:37 AM

"no walt, the problem is that if you were here in nc reading the news during that time you were fully emotionally traumatized by the event and the crass insensitivity to the mother by Duke. so go read it - your argument fails because this is a blog - not a court room - and i was simply giving an example of duke killing someone - which is an obvious answer since it was so publizied - and if it was emotional - it is because that is the way it occurred in the experiences of most who were aware of the situation and watching/reading the news. Quite a few people got really upset over that.

"why so mean about it? you know i'm right"

You delude yourself into believing you are right and you believe you can delude people into believing you are right-just like SIDNEY.; August 27, 2013 at 4:44 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said August 27, 2013 at 3:19 AM

"and walt, if you wanted examples of duke killing people compared to DUHS or UNC killing people you should have said so. i can give you examples of DUHS - as that is frequently (or was) in the news with the way they kill mental health patients - UNC - nothing pops to mind at this time. They are not in the news as much."

You say you can give examples but you do not. That is why I believe you are fabricating.; August 27, 2013 at 4:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 27, 2013 at 3:37 AM

oh - i thought you meant DHHS.

anyway - the point is i can't even talk about a death at the hands of duke that was well documented in the media without you'll getting all duke has to be great huffy on me.

so, in order to see a doctor at duke, you have to be willing to put up with duke has to be great huffy in order to do so?

that truly sucks about duke, don't you know"

Again you are making allegations you can not prove, which suggests you have made up your allegations out of thin air. Now you are trying to C your fabricating A.; August 27, 2013 at 4:49 AM
Anonymous said...: you like to read yourself argue don't you

you are wrong

go read it

i am not providing links obviously

have fun reading yourself argue with yourself

ciao; August 27, 2013 at 4:57 AM
Anonymous said...: There is a post on the appropriately named Liestoppers this AM(http://s1.zetaboards.com/Liestoppers_meeting/topic/5216464/1/), that Scott Holmes wants to withdraw as Crystal's counsel.

Lest SIDNEY start to crow, Crystal is wants to keep Scott Holmes as her counsel. Does that suggest she is unhappy with him? Does that suggest she is unhappy with his decision to keep SIDNEY away? No.; August 27, 2013 at 6:28 AM
Anonymous said...: The guy involved with Jessica Santillian and her family was Mack Mahoney. He claimed to be her "godfather". Mahoney set up a web site that was supposedly going to raise money to give to the family and to pay medical bills. None of the money ever went to the family and all of Santillian's care was free. Mahoney was barred from being in the ICU because he took photos of the patient and Duke staff, without consent, and published them on his web site. (a HIPPA violation). The family, the mother in particular, continues to this day to express her gratitude to Duke and to Dr. Jaggers. Duke never once denied fully responsibility. Bill Fulkerson went on 60 Minutes and publicly discussed the case, what happened, how the mistake was made, etc....in full detail.
Poster, you obviously know nothing about what happened. It was a terrible medical mistake and ended up costing Santillian her life. Nobody ever denied it or made any attempt to cover it up.
However, in that same year, Duke SAVED the lives of 94 transplant victims.
There are volumes of detail on the case, readily available on the internet, poster. Anybody who is interested in learning the TRUTH, can find out exactly what happened. I suggest you do so.; August 27, 2013 at 6:49 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Interesting. I just watched the Shan Carter Flog.
Shan came from what can be considered a "normal" family -- father, mother, sisters....He moved around a bit due to his father's career in the miltary, but that's not uncommon, either.
He was a smart kid, but didn't really apply himself...

So far, he could be my son.

BUT -- he began to sell drugs in his teens....Something Sid barely touches on here.
I'd like to know more about why a kid like Shan starts down this path. It certainly seems like his family situation was not one that would lead to this....

Although a psychoanalysis of Shan and why he resorted to selling drugs might be informative, my intent was to tell his story rather than delve into his motives. Maybe he did it out of boredom or for what he considered easy money. I don't know. He was young, and though intelligent, was immature and made serious mistakes.; August 27, 2013 at 7:42 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Oh, I get it, sidney..........Scott Holmes is yet another attorney who is in on the fix and who is kissing duke's behind, right? is that it? Holmes, a guy with a reputation for being an outstanding spokesperson for social justice, fairness, and for representing people who can't pay huge fees? That Holmes? The man who is a Quaker? The guy who does countless hours of volunteer work? That Holmes?
You really are a scumbag, you know that, sidney. you really are.

I think we're talking about the same Scott Holmes.

If Holmes really had Crystal's best interests in mind, he would've filed a motion to dismiss both of the trumped up charges against her long ago. After being in control of her case for five months he has conducted no investigation and filed no motions on her behalf.

Without doubt, he's a co-conspirator who was unable to deliver by having Crystal accept a plea deal, and is now ready to jump ship.; August 27, 2013 at 7:48 AM
Anonymous said...: Hey, Walt, I wonder who has an action again Mangum at this point? (see the Holmes explanation re his request to withdraw due to conflict of interest). Who posted her bond money?
I cannot believe Mangum is dumb enough to be trying to get a written report from Roberts. Get it, and it immediately goes to prosecution...and, it will do nothing but substantiate Nichols. Must be Harr at it again. Dumb and dumber; August 27, 2013 at 7:50 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
...this scott holmes, sidney? this one?...
....."Scott graduated with honors from the University of North Carolina Law School in 1998. He graduated with highest honors from UNC Chapel Hill for a thesis in history and won the Worth Award for excellence in philosophy. While at UNC Law, he received the Alan Berman Scholarship for Commitment to Civil Rights, and helped organize conferences on race, class and gender. While in law school, he published the article: From Workers’ State to Work Without Pay: Labor Reform in the Russian Federation 23 N.C. J. INT’L. & COMM. REG. 341 (1998).

After law school, Scott clerked with Chief Judge John Martin of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. He worked as a public defender in Durham, and with a local non-profit the Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina. He worked with a coalition of legal aid organizations to challenge the racially restrictive zoning ordinances imposed by the Town of Tarboro after Hurricane Fran. ".....

Nice, sidney.....and you.....the professional con artist have the balls to criticize Holmes.

I admire Scott Holmes' achievements, both professionally and socially.

However, one's accomplishments are no substitute for one's integrity... the two are not interrelated.; August 27, 2013 at 7:52 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
Hey, Walt, I wonder who has an action again Mangum at this point? (see the Holmes explanation re his request to withdraw due to conflict of interest). Who posted her bond money?
I cannot believe Mangum is dumb enough to be trying to get a written report from Roberts. Get it, and it immediately goes to prosecution...and, it will do nothing but substantiate Nichols. Must be Harr at it again. Dumb and dumber

The truth will clear Mangum of the ridiculous charges she now faces. Mangum's attorneys, the prosecutors, the media, and everyone except the trusting public know that the Nichols Autopsy Report is fraudulent and false. That is why no one, not even Mangum's own attorneys, want her to see a report by Dr. Roberts.

Sorry, my friend... but you have been misled.; August 27, 2013 at 7:57 AM
Anonymous said...: Bull crap.....the professional victim, con artist and serial suit filer, wants to pontificate about integrity. What's the matter, sidney, get your feelings hurt because you have been exposed for what you are?
You wouldn't know integrity if it bit you in the ass.; August 27, 2013 at 8:03 AM
Anonymous said...: The truth will be for the jury to determine. Not you, bro.
Go file another suit.....perhaps you could sue God....or Rae Evans....or the Pope....or Miley Cyrus....or Zimmereman.....or, Eve Carson....ooops, can't see Carson, can we, sidney?; August 27, 2013 at 8:04 AM
Anonymous said...: i didn't actually want to read about that case any more, thank you

like i said, it was bad enough when it happened

like when the mother was begging for a new heart

and everyone's on the tear edge of their seat wondering if duke will be able to save her and if and when someone else will die in order to save her, and can this miracle be performed after such a screw up and you weep with the mother as jessicas body basically attacks and falls apart on her - and you could think about that - but you try hard not to, and then a cowboy from the boonies steps in and makes a fund - and you wonder about that but not too much - because your still trying to not think about jessica falling apart inside ... so ... yeah ... i was there so to speak

it sucked; August 27, 2013 at 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Although a psychoanalysis of Shan and why he resorted to selling drugs might be informative, my intent was to tell his story rather than delve into his motives. Maybe he did it out of boredom or for what he considered easy money. I don't know. He was young, and though intelligent, was immature and made serious mistakes."

Your intent is to get a pass for a murderer who killed two people in the course of committing felonies, one person killed being an innocent 8 year old boy.; August 27, 2013 at 9:53 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I think we're talking about the same Scott Holmes.

"If Holmes really had Crystal's best interests in mind, he would've filed a motion to dismiss both of the trumped up charges against her long ago. After being in control of her case for five months he has conducted no investigation and filed no motions on her behalf."

He did say he would tolerate no interference from you, which was the best thing to happen to Crystal since she killed Reginald Daye.

"Without doubt, he's a co-conspirator who was unable to deliver by having Crystal accept a plea deal, and is now ready to jump ship."

Since it is you calling him a co conspirator, that raises plenty of doubt.; August 27, 2013 at 9:56 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I admire Scott Holmes' achievements, both professionally and socially.

However, one's accomplishments are no substitute for one's integrity... the two are not interrelated."

With you they are. You have neither.; August 27, 2013 at 9:57 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"The truth will clear Mangum of the ridiculous charges she now faces. Mangum's attorneys, the prosecutors, the media, and everyone except the trusting public know that the Nichols Autopsy Report is fraudulent and false."

No one alleges that but you, and tour background(or lack thereof) shows you are incapable of making such a judgment.

"That is why no one, not even Mangum's own attorneys, want her to see a report by Dr. Roberts."

If Dr.Roberts' report did discredit Dr. Nichols' report, the defense attorneys would want to know. It would be in Crystal's interest.How do I know he has Crystal's interest at heart. He told you your involvement was not desired or needed.

"Sorry, my friend... but you have been misled."

The only one trying to mislead anyone is you and you are too stupid to be able to mislead anyone.; August 27, 2013 at 10:03 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 27, 2013 at 8:17 AM

"i didn't actually want to read about that case any more, thank you

like i said, it was bad enough when it happened"

Translated, you are running away after being called out as a fabricator.; August 27, 2013 at 10:06 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Crystal is trying to have Scott Holmes remain as hr counsel. What does that signify?; August 27, 2013 at 10:09 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 27, 2013 at 8:17 AM

"i didn't actually want to read about that case any more, thank you

like i said, it was bad enough when it happened"

Translated, you are running away after being called out as a fabricator.

nice, you do that a lot
make false allegations about people and things on this blog - like now - take everything and twist to your delusional allegation with absolutely no evidence nor support - you do that a lot on this blog.

you have no idea what happened and yet you accuse someone who was a news/media witness following along with the drama a fabricator because what happened does not fit your duke is great world view.

why is that?; August 27, 2013 at 10:39 AM
A Lawyer said...: If Holmes really had Crystal's best interests in mind, he would've filed a motion to dismiss both of the trumped up charges against her long ago.

On what ground should he have moved to dismiss? Under which provision of the North Carolina Rules of Criminal Procedure?; August 27, 2013 at 10:50 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 27, 2013 at 10:39 AM

"Anonymous August 27, 2013 at 8:17 AM

"i didn't actually want to read about that case any more, thank you

like i said, it was bad enough when it happened"

Translated, you are running away after being called out as a fabricator."

nice, you do that a lot make false allegations about people and things on this blog - like now - take everything and twist to your delusional allegation with absolutely no evidence nor support - you do that a lot on this blog.

you have no idea what happened and yet you accuse someone who was a news/media witness following along with the drama a fabricator because what happened does not fit your duke is great world view.

why is that?"

You make it so obvious you are a fabricator who is now trying to C his/her A.; August 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM
Anonymous said...: no, you make it obvious that all you have to say is false allegations that have no merit at all - all the while complaining and accusing others of false allegations

you do that a lot

actually, i'm just tired of arguing with you - all you want to do is accuse me of a falsehood instead of actually being smart and actually reading what happened or accepting that my version is how i experienced that it happened - not the your lying - duke is great and you can't prove otherwise flip you always give

it's ok tho, i've said enough

you're wrong anyway, like i said; August 27, 2013 at 11:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 27, 2013 at 11:35 AM

"no, you make it obvious that all you have to say is false allegations that have no merit at all - all the while complaining and accusing others of false allegations

you do that a lot

actually, i'm just tired of arguing with you - all you want to do is accuse me of a falsehood instead of actually being smart and actually reading what happened or accepting that my version is how i experienced that it happened - not the your lying - duke is great and you can't prove otherwise flip you always give

it's ok tho, i've said enough

you're wrong anyway, like i said"

So you are going to run away after being outed as a fabricator.

Bye.; August 27, 2013 at 11:57 AM
Anonymous said...: i wasn't running away - i said ciao to you because i am not going to argue with you anymore about being a fabricator because i am not - you are for calling me a fabricator

the end

ciao

... and all that; August 27, 2013 at 12:11 PM
Anonymous said...: here - let's argue about this:

what happened was stupid fracking horrible to watch - it was emotionally and psychologically and mentally abusive to most (as in many, lots of people), so much that there was this national apology and explanation and - wait - propaganda marketing op that just couldn't be denied - so hey - why not

anyway, there is absolutely nothing to say that the whole thing was not a staged 'event' similar to the lacrosse 'event' as you look back at both and compare over time ... i am not saying that it was a staged 'event' - i am saying there is nothing prohibiting the possibility that it was.

even you admit the whole thing was a race-baiting campaign 'event' as far as the lacrosse case goes.

anyway, it is sad that Duke has come to that in the eyes of many. I agree with you on that.; August 27, 2013 at 12:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said August 27, 2013 at 12:11 PM

"i wasn't running away - i said ciao to you because i am not going to argue with you anymore about being a fabricator because i am not - you are for calling me a fabricator

the end

ciao

... and all that"

You are running away because you have been exposed as a fabricator. You are not the first person who has abandoned this blog after being outed as such. Don't feel lonely.; August 27, 2013 at 2:17 PM
Anonymous said...: you know, i've been wondering about you recently, as far as your inability to follow along in the conversation without having to repeat some malicious false accusation for your own amusement or benefit or what? repeatedly, over and over

why do you do that?; August 27, 2013 at 2:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 27, 2013 at 2:28 PM

"you know, i've been wondering about you recently, as far as your inability to follow along in the conversation without having to repeat some malicious false accusation for your own amusement or benefit or what? repeatedly, over and over

why do you do that?"

Why did you fabricate in the first place?; August 27, 2013 at 3:02 PM
Anonymous said...: here:

ponder this one then:

why do you?

you are beginning to seem a bit off btw - just in case you were not aware of how off you sound; August 27, 2013 at 3:06 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 27, 2013 at 3:06 PM

here:

ponder this one then:

why do you?

you are beginning to seem a bit off btw - just in case you were not aware of how off you sound"

Why did you fabricate in the first place?; August 27, 2013 at 3:25 PM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:50 AM wrote: "Hey, Walt, I wonder who has an action again Mangum at this point? (see the Holmes explanation re his request to withdraw due to conflict of interest)."

Cannot comment about the civil case.

Walt-in-Durham; August 27, 2013 at 3:39 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Sorry, my friend... but you have been misled."

No Sid, it is you who has been doing the misleading. At every turn in this case you have attempted to mislead with falsehoods, wild allegations that you never proved, and downright traitorous behavior toward Crystal. Of course, thanks to your breach of the attorney client confidence, the prosecution knows exactly what the defense expert will say and they also know (as does everyone else) that the autopsy is truthful.

Walt-in-Durham; August 27, 2013 at 3:42 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "If Holmes really had Crystal's best interests in mind, he would've filed a motion to dismiss both of the trumped up charges against her long ago."

He did have Crystal's best interests in mind, that's why he did not file a frivolous motion. Every other lawyer on the case has taken the same action because they too had Crystal's best interests in mind.

Walt-in-Durham; August 27, 2013 at 3:45 PM
Anonymous said...: That is serious bs that Ms. Mangum cannot get a lawyer without a conflict of interest to assist in her defense against murder charges in Durham (NC?).

And that the predominately black college in Durham houses a professor who is assisting in a civil case against Ms. Mangum and the professor that is currently assisting in her criminal defense who just took a job there is now wanting out due to a conflict of interest with the other professor lawyer.

1. If Ms. Mangum was a student at this same college, does that create a conflict of interest for any professor lawyer to stand against her?

2. How is Ms. Mangum supposed to find a lawyer to assist her against a civil case if she cannot even obtain a criminal lawyer to assist her in durham without a conflict of interest?

Perhaps Ms. Mangum should/could put her foot down, and at this point take her complaint about the inability to find a lawyer without a conflict of interest in NC to represent her to the highest authority necessary in order to make the issue known and have it resoved for herself (and hopefully others as well as all are in the same position in regards to lawyers with conflicts of interest to duke in this state).; August 28, 2013 at 3:59 AM
Anonymous said...: She should/could use this as a perfect opportunity to demand that the Durham public defenders office be manned by persons without a conflict of interest to Duke. For one thing, there are probably very few duke people who will need the assistance of the public defenders office in all probability due to income levels, and another - there has to be a law against it - like the constitutional right to have equal protection and representation in a court of justice.

How does the the Durham public defenders office get away legally with not being able to provide services free from conflict of interest with Duke to its patrons, in Durham especially?; August 28, 2013 at 4:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 28, 2013 at 3:59 AM

"That is serious bs that Ms. Mangum cannot get a lawyer without a conflict of interest to assist in her defense against murder charges in Durham (NC?)."

Crystal has had lawyers without conflict of interest whom she dismissed.

"And that the predominately black college in Durham houses a professor who is assisting in a civil case against Ms. Mangum and the professor that is currently assisting in her criminal defense who just took a job there is now wanting out due to a conflict of interest with the other professor lawyer."

You imply no one should sue Crystal, that she should get a pass for all her sociopathic activity.

"1. If Ms. Mangum was a student at this same college, does that create a conflict of interest for any professor lawyer to stand against her?"

Probably not(my opinion as a layman who knows something about the legal system).

"2. How is Ms. Mangum supposed to find a lawyer to assist her against a civil case if she cannot even obtain a criminal lawyer to assist her in durham without a conflict of interest?"

I believe in the civil justice system a defendant is not entitled to a lawyer paid for by a taxpayer.

"Perhaps Ms. Mangum should/could put her foot down, and at this point take her complaint about the inability to find a lawyer without a conflict of interest in NC to represent her to the highest authority necessary in order to make the issue known and have it resoved(sic) for herself (and hopefully others as well as all are in the same position in regards to lawyers with conflicts of interest to duke in this state)."

I say again, rephrasing, Crystal does not have a lawyer with no conflict of interest because she has fired lawyers who have been representing her.

Also, Scott Holmes was not part of the Public Defender's office.; August 28, 2013 at 4:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 28, 2013 at 4:15 AM

"She should/could use this as a perfect opportunity to demand that the Durham public defenders office be manned by persons without a conflict of interest to Duke. For one thing, there are probably very few duke people who will need the assistance of the public defenders office in all probability due to income levels, and another - there has to be a law against it - like the constitutional right to have equal protection and representation in a court of justice.

How does the the Durham public defenders office get away legally with not being able to provide services free from conflict of interest with Duke to its patrons, in Durham especially?"

Document that the lawyers in the public defender's office have conflicts of interest with Duke.

I again say that Crystal had lawyers with no conflict of interest with Duke or anyone. She fired them.

Scott Holmes was not part of the Public Defender's office when he agreed to represent Crystal. He was legally and ethically required to disclose any potential conflict of interest.

Finally, Crystal has requested that Scott Holmes continue to represent her.; August 28, 2013 at 5:03 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at wrote: "That is serious bs that Ms. Mangum cannot get a lawyer without a conflict of interest to assist in her defense against murder charges in Durham (NC?)."

She had no problem getting lawyers without conflicts. Woody Van and Chris Shella didn't have a conflict. The PD office didn't have a conflict. She just doesn't like the lawyers that don't have a conflict of interest. That is not a conflict of interest.; August 28, 2013 at 9:00 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 4:15 wrote: "She should/could use this as a perfect opportunity to demand that the Durham public defenders office be manned by persons without a conflict of interest to Duke."

Note, this situation is not a conflict for Duke.

"How does the the Durham public defenders office get away legally with not being able to provide services free from conflict of interest with Duke to its patrons, in Durham especially?"

Note, again, this is not a Duke conflict. The Public defender has provided two lawyers who did not have a conflict if interest and Crystal fired them because she didn't like what they told her. That's not a conflict of interest problem for the PD office.

Walt-in-Durham; August 28, 2013 at 9:09 AM
Anonymous said...: She had Jones. He quit because of Harr. She had Vann.....twice. She had Shella. She WANTED Holmes, specifically, and got him. She has not paid a damn dime for legal representation. Now, Holmes is likely just trying to play it straight and narrow......in the interest of disclosure and in compliance with the requirements of his profession. What the hell does Mangum want? Atticus Finch? Johnny Cochan (he would be funny, even dead.....) The woman needs to shut the hell up and be glad ANY attorney would handle her case!
I hope the judge lets Holmes stay. She WANTS him, for crying out loud. Don't you love Harr......the serial victim, predatory suit filer.....yelling about integrity. Another poster has it right.....sidney wouldn't know integrity if it bit him in the ass.

Thanks, walt, appreciate that you can't comment on a civil matter. Interesting though.......I'm guessing....; August 28, 2013 at 11:30 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "Sorry, my friend... but you have been misled."

No Sid, it is you who has been doing the misleading. At every turn in this case you have attempted to mislead with falsehoods, wild allegations that you never proved, and downright traitorous behavior toward Crystal. Of course, thanks to your breach of the attorney client confidence, the prosecution knows exactly what the defense expert will say and they also know (as does everyone else) that the autopsy is truthful.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, what's your favorite color?

I want to buy you a big, fluffy crying towel in the color of your choice for when you are struck with reality when the prosecution finally admits the autopsy report is a humonguous fraud. If I were still practicing, I'd get you a prescription for a couple of Valiums, too.; August 28, 2013 at 12:52 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
She had Jones. He quit because of Harr. She had Vann.....twice. She had Shella. She WANTED Holmes, specifically, and got him. She has not paid a damn dime for legal representation. Now, Holmes is likely just trying to play it straight and narrow......in the interest of disclosure and in compliance with the requirements of his profession. What the hell does Mangum want? Atticus Finch? Johnny Cochan (he would be funny, even dead.....) The woman needs to shut the hell up and be glad ANY attorney would handle her case!
I hope the judge lets Holmes stay. She WANTS him, for crying out loud. Don't you love Harr......the serial victim, predatory suit filer.....yelling about integrity. Another poster has it right.....sidney wouldn't know integrity if it bit him in the ass.

Thanks, walt, appreciate that you can't comment on a civil matter. Interesting though.......I'm guessing....

Clayton Jones, who is paid by the state, is a conflict of interest for defendant Crystal Mangum (as are all public defenders on the State payroll), because he has an inherent desire to help the state win... or at least be subjected to the least embarrassment possible.

Also, for the record, Jones never represented Mangum in the current murder case!

Let me know if further ellucidation is required.; August 28, 2013 at 12:56 PM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Sid wrote: "If Holmes really had Crystal's best interests in mind, he would've filed a motion to dismiss both of the trumped up charges against her long ago."

He did have Crystal's best interests in mind, that's why he did not file a frivolous motion. Every other lawyer on the case has taken the same action because they too had Crystal's best interests in mind.

Walt-in-Durham

Yes, Walt. All attorneys representing Mangum during the murder case have taken the same action... which is NO action. That's the problem. At least I filed a couple of motions to dismiss.; August 28, 2013 at 12:58 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Walt, what's your favorite color?

I want to buy you a big, fluffy crying towel in the color of your choice for when you are struck with reality when the prosecution finally admits the autopsy report is a humonguous fraud. If I were still practicing, I'd get you a prescription for a couple of Valiums, too."

That's not going to happen because the autopsy report is not fraudulent.; August 28, 2013 at 1:01 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"
Clayton Jones, who is paid by the state, is a conflict of interest for defendant Crystal Mangum (as are all public defenders on the State payroll), because he has an inherent desire to help the state win... or at least be subjected to the least embarrassment possible."

Another uncorroborated allegation.; August 28, 2013 at 1:03 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Yes, Walt. All attorneys representing Mangum during the murder case have taken the same action... which is NO action. That's the problem. At least I filed a couple of motions to dismiss."

What made you think you had standing in the case? Your delusions of megalomaniacal grandeur, probably.; August 28, 2013 at 1:05 PM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: "Walt, what's your favorite color?"

Sid -- What's the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?; August 28, 2013 at 1:54 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Clayton Jones, who is paid by the state, is a conflict of interest for defendant Crystal Mangum (as are all public defenders on the State payroll), because he has an inherent desire to help the state win... or at least be subjected to the least embarrassment possible."

Again Sid comes out in favor of trampling constitutional rights. Now only are you dreadfully wrong, but thankfully the U.S. Supreme Court has already decided you are wrong. Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963. There will always be people like Sid who want to trample on our constitutional rights, that is why it is important for all of us who believe in the constitution and the rule of law to oppose him.

Walt-in-Durham; August 28, 2013 at 2:36 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Yes, Walt. All attorneys representing Mangum during the murder case have taken the same action... which is NO action."

That is where you are wrong. The lawyers on Crystal's case worked hard, they filed at least five motions for bond reduction, they investigated the case, they went so far as to follow up on your initial claim about errors in the autopsy and found that the autopsy was right. Of course, you harmed the defense by violating Crystal's confidence and published the defense expert's report. Not only did you violate her confidence, but you did remarkable harm to her case. To cover up your harm you have made scandalous allegations against an honest physician. Shameful, Sid, just shameful.

"At least I filed a couple of motions to dismiss."

In violation of the law. And, you assured us that the Bar and then the court would see things your way. They didn't.

Walt-in-Durham; August 28, 2013 at 2:42 PM
A Lawyer said...: Dr. Harr:

Earlier in this thread, you wrote, "Not being a lawyer, I do not pretend to know all of the rules and doctrines." One of the rules you apparently don't know is about pre-trial motions in criminal cases. Generally speaking, claims that the defendant is innocent, that the prosecution's evidence is fraudulent, or that the defendant has an affirmative defense (such as self-defense) cannot be raised by pre-trial motion; they must be raised at trial. (Some states allow a pre-trial motion to dismiss based on "stand your ground" laws, but my understanding is that NC has no such law, or at least not one applicable to Ms. Mangum's case.)

A typical pre-trial motion to dismiss is one which argues that, even if every fact alleged in the indictment were true, the defendant would still be entitled to dismissal because of legal grounds (statute of limitations; indicted in the wrong county; statute allegedly violated is unconstitutional; etc.) The reason no lawyer representing Ms. Mangum has moved to dismiss is because their is no proper motion which she could make-- the indictment, if it were true, alleges violations of the murder and larceny statutes. If it isn't true, that will be decided at trial, but not before.

I hope you are now enlightened.; August 28, 2013 at 3:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Nothing that any sane person says is going to have an impact on harr. He is nothing but a lunatic, a liar, a con artist and, apparently, a shyster who spend his time filing law suits that have no merit, that eat up valuable court time, that waste other's time, and that serve no purpose AT ALL> Sidney has written shameful lies about so many people. I look forward to the day.....and it WILL come....when he gets what he deserves.....from a judge.; August 28, 2013 at 4:42 PM
Anonymous said...: Walt, you say there is no Duke involved in this case, so therefore no concern about whether the PD department or Ms. Mangum's lawyer has a conflict of interest with Duke.

However, Walt, since Mr. Daye died under Duke's care, Duke IS part of the case.

In addition, that care is in question.

Therefore, whether or not Ms. Mangum's lawyer has a conflict of interest with Duke is important to this particular case.

Also, there is no way a person with a conflict of interest with Duke would be able to represent Ms. Mangum due to the conflict of interest created with the Duke Lacrosse case with Ms. Mangum.

I am surprised you try to ignore that, nor do you address or acknowledge the conflict.; August 28, 2013 at 5:10 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said August 28, 2013 at 5:10 PM

"Walt, you say there is no Duke involved in this case, so therefore no concern about whether the PD department or Ms. Mangum's lawyer has a conflict of interest with Duke.

However, Walt, since Mr. Daye died under Duke's care, Duke IS part of the case."

No it isn't.

"In addition, that care is in question."

No it isn't

"Therefore, whether or not Ms. Mangum's lawyer has a conflict of interest with Duke is important to this particular case."

That is not so. Duke's care of Reginald Daye was not the cause of his death. The stab wound inflicted by Crystal was.

"Also, there is no way a person with a conflict of interest with Duke would be able to represent Ms. Mangum due to the conflict of interest created with the Duke Lacrosse case with Ms. Mangum."

The Duke Lacrosse case had nothing to do with the Reginald Daye killing.

"I am surprised you try to ignore that, nor do you address or acknowledge the conflict."

There is nothing to ignore. You are fabricating something out of nothing.; August 28, 2013 at 5:36 PM
Anonymous said...: The duke lacrosse case obviously has something to do with Ms. Mangum - therefore she has a conflict of interest (that could be described as negative) with duke - therefore a lawyer with a conflict of interest with duke that is positive vs. Ms. Mangum's negative conflict of interest is in conflict (of interest).

What law or rule or procedure (s) cover conflict of interest and the interpretation of conflict of interest? How is conflict of interest decided?; August 28, 2013 at 6:53 PM
kenhyderal said...: Scott Holmes wants off the case because Crystal will not plead guilty to crimes she did not commit. The conflict of interest he claims is indirect and tenuous at best. It appears to be a contrived excuse. I hope the Judge will not accept it as sufficient cause to let him abandon Crystal. The practice of extreme over-charging, exorbitant bail conditions, the lack of a speedy trials and inadequate funding for public defenders makes North Carolina's Justice system an utter disgrace; especially for the poor and minorities.; August 28, 2013 at 9:30 PM
Anonymous said...: In Durham (and perhaps elsewhere in NC) if you gave the PD's office more money they would probably hire even more duke grads, or pay the duke grads and others who have shown loyalty to the duke grads and their 'clan' higher salaries ...

i could be wrong of course
you never know; August 28, 2013 at 10:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 28, 2013 at 6:53 PM

"The duke lacrosse case obviously has something to do with Ms. Mangum - therefore she has a conflict of interest (that could be described as negative) with duke - therefore a lawyer with a conflict of interest with duke that is positive vs. Ms. Mangum's negative conflict of interest is in conflict (of interest)."

What you ignore is that the phoney rape case had nothing to do with the killing of Reginald Daye.

"What law or rule or procedure (s) cover conflict of interest and the interpretation of conflict of interest? How is conflict of interest decided?"

Irrelevant question since there is no conflict of interest with Duke.; August 29, 2013 at 4:27 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Scott Holmes wants off the case because Crystal will not plead guilty to crimes she did not commit."

Presuming something as fact which has not been demonstrated as fact.

"The conflict of interest he claims is indirect and tenuous at best. It appears to be a contrived excuse. I hope the Judge will not accept it as sufficient cause to let him abandon Crystal."

So says KENHYDERAL who believes that the word of a non existent anonymous witness is proof that Crystal was raped. Whatever, I also hope the Judge will not allow Scott Holmes to withdraw. That is the best assurance that SIDNEY will be kept away from the case.

"The practice of extreme over-charging, exorbitant bail conditions, the lack of a speedy trials and inadequate funding for public defenders makes North Carolina's Justice system an utter disgrace; especially for the poor and minorities."

However, you do not think that charging innocent men with a crime that never happened is wrong. You do not think imposing an exorbitant bail on them wrong. The name of that is hypocrisy.; August 29, 2013 at 4:33 AM
Anonymous said...: How is understanding conflict of interest irrevelant to this case since the latest lawyer is getting ready to recluse himself for conflict of interest?; August 29, 2013 at 5:23 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 6:53 PM wrote: "What law or rule or procedure (s) cover conflict of interest and the interpretation of conflict of interest?"

North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically rules 1.7 - 1.13.

The basic rule (and there is a lot more detail) is a lawyer cannot represent a client if you represent someone or some organization with a directly adverse interest. For example, a lawyer may not represent both the husband and the wife in a divorce.

"How is conflict of interest decided?"

Like every other legal issue. Look at the law and the decisions. Apply the law and the decisions to the facts at hand.

Going to my example of the husband and wife seeking legal representation in a divorce. They both go to the lawyer's office saying they want a divorce. Rule 1.7 says the lawyer cannot represent both parties with adverse interests. In that situation, the lawyer tells the people he cannot represent them both and one must be the client. The people have the option then of walking out of the lawyer's office, or agreeing that the lawyer will only represent one of them. If a subsequent dispute arises, complaint can be made to the NC State Bar. (Sid is painfully familiar with that issue.) Or, complaint can be made to the judge hearing the case. (Less often used, but a favorite ploy of big companies in litigation.)

Turning to Holmes new conflict, one of the other lawyers in the NCCU legal clinic (a firm or association under the Rules of Professional Conduct, note that NCCU in general is not a firm or association for purposes of the RPC) represents someone adverse to Crystal. That is not a direct conflict as we have looked at above in the divorce context. However, it is a Rule 1.10(a) imputed conflict of interest.

Note this is a NCCU legal clinic imputed conflict. NCCU legal clinic represents a civil client with a claim adverse to Crystal. Holmes is associated, now, with NCCU legal clinic. Thus the private client at NCCU with the adverse interest to Crystal presents a conflict for Holmes.

Under the rules, Crystal and the other client can both waive the conflict and Holmes can agree with the clinic that he will have no contact with the case adverse to Crystal and will not assist Crystal with the civil case. If the Superior Court rules that Crystal has given a knowing and intelligent waiver of the conflict and the other client has as well, then Holmes can continue to represent Crystal. If the other client won't waive, then he cannot.

Walt-in-Durham; August 29, 2013 at 5:38 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 10:01 PM wrote: "In Durham (and perhaps elsewhere in NC) if you gave the PD's office more money they would probably hire even more duke grads, or pay the duke grads and others who have shown loyalty to the duke grads and their 'clan' higher salaries ..."

Graduating from a particular law school does not create an interest such that the lawyer has a conflict with everything that has anything to do with that university. I graduated from Indiana University school of law, that does not mean that I have a conflict in every case that the State of Indiana or even Indiana University is a party to. In fact, I don't. To claim otherwise is foolish.

Walt-in-Durham; August 29, 2013 at 5:45 AM
Anonymous said...: So now Holmes has all the discovery in the case and can assist against Ms. Mangum in the civil case?

Isn't there a law or rule against that?

Thank you for the answers btw.
I will have to read more (as usual).
Thanks.; August 29, 2013 at 5:54 AM
Anonymous said...: It does seem a bit foolish - until you look at how duke operates - and basically threatens people (even their own) if they upset the duke were great and our donors need to believe that so shut the hell up or don't get caught or don't say anything negative about duke ever fear mongering they've got going on - as practice - as procedure - as news - as the way it is - for duke and durham

i think that needs to be considered in every case involving duke, don't you?; August 29, 2013 at 5:58 AM
Anonymous said...: Just read Sid's response to the Indy Week article. It starts off by stating "Let's assume that everything written about me in John Tucker's Aug. 21 INDY Week article ("The avenger") is absolutely true..."

That really flies in the face of Sid's comment that he was "subjected to a one-sided hatchet job".

But -- As Sid is fond of saying, the truth will set you free.; August 29, 2013 at 6:52 AM
Lance the Supreme Poster of Enlightenment said...: For those that would like to read Dr. Harr's full response, it can be found here.; August 29, 2013 at 6:56 AM
Anonymous said...: uh oh, mistral-recluse is baaaaaack!!!! I thought there was a familiar rambling, incoherent tone to the posts......and, "recluse himself, bless his pointed head, is with us once again. Perhaps we will all be treated to the, "Im' being bullied, I'm leaving, bye, waaaaah, hello, Im' back" scenario again.
hoooooray for mistral!
by the way, "recluse", scott holmes does NOT want to quit the case and Mangum does NOT want him to quit. He is required to disclose what he perceives to be a conflict....and I respect him for it.; August 29, 2013 at 6:57 AM
Anonymous said...: well since it will become quite apparent sooner or later if there is a civil case brewing, then he had no other choice did he?

I question the reasons and circumstances for him getting the job in the first place at this point.

Seems like how things typically operate in Durham / Duke land if you ask me.; August 29, 2013 at 7:13 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR(from his reply):

"At day's end, the aforementioned has no bearing on the following four irrefutable facts related to Duke lacrosse victim/accuser Crystal Mangum's criminal case in which she is charged with murder in the death of boyfriend Reginald Daye: (1) the April 14, 2011, autopsy report on Daye by the state medical examiner is false and fraudulent; (2) Duke University Hospital is solely responsible for Daye's death due to an errant esophageal intubation; (3) the larceny charge against Mangum lacks probable cause as Daye even admitted to giving the alleged stolen cashier's checks to her, and prosecution lacks an eyewitness; and (4) the governor, lieutenant governor, N.C. state and federal politicians, the N.C. State Bar, the N.C. Medical Board, civil rights organizations and media, both local and national, are all aware of the injustices in the vendetta prosecution of Mangum (as payback for her role in the Duke lacrosse case) and have elected to remain silent and idle."

All these so called irrefutable facts are allegations for which SIDNEY has no proof. Since SIDNEY has offered no proof to back them up, they do not require refutation. Because they do not require refutation does not render them true.

One thing that is obviously refutable is that Crystal is the victim/accuser in the Duke rape case. She is the victimizer/false accuser, all of which is supported by the evidence in the public record that no rape took place.; August 29, 2013 at 7:22 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

Your background is relevant to the Reginald Daye killing. You assert(without proof) that the autopsy report is fraudulent. Your background shows you do not have the credentials or experience to render that judgment as a retired physician.; August 29, 2013 at 7:24 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous August 29, 2013 at 5:54 AM

"So now Holmes has all the discovery in the case and can assist against Ms. Mangum in the civil case?"

You have just opined that someone has a cause for civil action against Crystal.

Care to speculate what that cause for action might be? If it is wrongful death, that would suggest Crystal is responsible for the death or Reginald Daye.

You ought to be more careful about what you say.; August 29, 2013 at 7:27 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 5:54 AM wrote: "So now Holmes has all the discovery in the case and can assist against Ms. Mangum in the civil case?"

Of course he can't.

"Isn't there a law or rule against that?"

Of course there is. Rule 1.9 of the NC Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits Holmes from using the information he had access to in the criminal case against Mangum. Of course, Sid breached the confidence as to much of the criminal discovery so anything he posted here can be used against Crystal by anyone. With friends like Sid, Crystal doesnt' really need any enemies.

Walt-in-Durham; August 29, 2013 at 7:43 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 5:58 AM wrote: "
It does seem a bit foolish - until you look at how duke operates - and basically threatens people (even their own) if they upset the duke were great and our donors need to believe that so shut the hell up or don't get caught or don't say anything negative about duke ever fear mongering they've got going on - as practice - as procedure - as news - as the way it is - for duke and durham"

Another allegation without proof.

"i think that needs to be considered in every case involving duke, don't you?"

I do not, nor does the law. Duke, like everyone else is subject to the rule of law.

Walt-in-Durham; August 29, 2013 at 7:47 AM
Anonymous said...: Then what rule of law covers how Duke uses fear tactics, actual, intentional, malicious, and well-known fear and political tactics to gain the upper edge so to speak and remain donor worthy in the eyes of those whom they court?

They are very aggressive and obvious in this behavior, and it has created a hostile environment at Duke and in the Durham judicial system and communities, and throughout NC, etc. because of these deliberate tactics that Duke employs as practice and procedure.; August 29, 2013 at 8:46 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 8:46 AM wrote: "Then what rule of law covers how Duke uses fear tactics, actual, intentional, malicious, and well-known fear and political tactics to gain the upper edge so to speak and remain donor worthy in the eyes of those whom they court?"

Again allegation without corroboration. All such allegations are taken as untrue.

Walt-in-Durham; August 29, 2013 at 9:18 AM
Walt said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; August 29, 2013 at 9:18 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 4:33 said: "a non existent anonymous witness" ............ This is an oxymoron. Anonymous also said: " charging innocent men with a crime that never happened is wrong"............ Probable Cause; August 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

""a non existent anonymous witness" ............ This is an oxymoron."

To you, maybe. The fact is you are relying on the testimony of Kilgo's anonymous lacrosse player friend to justify your belief that Crystal was raped. As you have never proven he exists, he is an anonymous non existent witness.

"Anonymous also said: " charging innocent men with a crime that never happened is wrong"............ Probable Cause".

Probable cause: "Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime, thereby warranting his or her prosecution".

Why do you not detail how probable cause was established to believe any one raped Crystal on the night of 13/14 March 2006.; August 29, 2013 at 10:34 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

The previous definition was taken from the Free Online Legal Dictionary.; August 29, 2013 at 10:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said August 29, 2013 at 8:46 AM

"Then what rule of law covers how Duke uses fear tactics, actual, intentional, malicious, and well-known fear and political tactics to gain the upper edge so to speak and remain donor worthy in the eyes of those whom they court?

They are very aggressive and obvious in this behavior, and it has created a hostile environment at Duke and in the Durham judicial system and communities, and throughout NC, etc. because of these deliberate tactics that Duke employs as practice and procedure."

Establish as fact that Duke uses "fear tactics, actual, intentional, malicious, and well-known fear and political tactics to gain the upper edge".

Unless you can, you are making uncorroborated allegations. You are also fabricating.; August 29, 2013 at 10:38 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Rephrase:

What established probable cause that someone at the Lacrosse party raped Crystal after forensic evidence and medical evidence established that the kind of rape Crystal described had not happened.; August 29, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Walt said...
Anonymous at 6:53 PM wrote: "What law or rule or procedure (s) cover conflict of interest and the interpretation of conflict of interest?"

North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically rules 1.7 - 1.13.

The basic rule (and there is a lot more detail) is a lawyer cannot represent a client if you represent someone or some organization with a directly adverse interest. For example, a lawyer may not represent both the husband and the wife in a divorce.

"How is conflict of interest decided?"

Like every other legal issue. Look at the law and the decisions. Apply the law and the decisions to the facts at hand.

Going to my example of the husband and wife seeking legal representation in a divorce. They both go to the lawyer's office saying they want a divorce. Rule 1.7 says the lawyer cannot represent both parties with adverse interests. In that situation, the lawyer tells the people he cannot represent them both and one must be the client. The people have the option then of walking out of the lawyer's office, or agreeing that the lawyer will only represent one of them. If a subsequent dispute arises, complaint can be made to the NC State Bar. (Sid is painfully familiar with that issue.) Or, complaint can be made to the judge hearing the case. (Less often used, but a favorite ploy of big companies in litigation.)

Turning to Holmes new conflict, one of the other lawyers in the NCCU legal clinic (a firm or association under the Rules of Professional Conduct, note that NCCU in general is not a firm or association for purposes of the RPC) represents someone adverse to Crystal. That is not a direct conflict as we have looked at above in the divorce context. However, it is a Rule 1.10(a) imputed conflict of interest.

Note this is a NCCU legal clinic imputed conflict. NCCU legal clinic represents a civil client with a claim adverse to Crystal. Holmes is associated, now, with NCCU legal clinic. Thus the private client at NCCU with the adverse interest to Crystal presents a conflict for Holmes.

Under the rules, Crystal and the other client can both waive the conflict and Holmes can agree with the clinic that he will have no contact with the case adverse to Crystal and will not assist Crystal with the civil case. If the Superior Court rules that Crystal has given a knowing and intelligent waiver of the conflict and the other client has as well, then Holmes can continue to represent Crystal. If the other client won't waive, then he cannot.

Walt-in-Durham

Walt, A lawyer, Supreme Poster, and others, thank you for your contributions regarding law... which may or may not be completely accurate.

Holmes wants off the case... he tried to get off the case last Monday, and tomorrow, he will be allowed by Judge Paul Ridgeway to be released as Mangum's attorney... after spending five months on her case conducting no investigation, and with the only motion filed being one to withdraw from the case. Some representation, huh!!

I don't blame him for wanting off the case, as his heart is not in finding Mangum innocent, but rather in protecting Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner. He failed in his attempt to try and coerce Mangum into accepting a plea deal.; August 29, 2013 at 12:17 PM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"I don't blame [Holmrs] for wanting off the case, as his heart is not in finding Mangum innocent, but rather in protecting Duke University Hospital and the medical examiner. He failed in his attempt to try and coerce Mangum into accepting a plea deal."

Your uncorroborated allegations(many of which you simply are not competent to make) do not establish that Duke or the Medical Examiner need to be protected against anything; August 29, 2013 at 12:52 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 10:34 said: "Apparent facts discovered through logical inquiry that would lead a reasonably intelligent and prudent person to believe that an accused person has committed a crime, thereby warranting his or her prosecution"...........A Grand Jury indicted. The intelligent and prudent former DA Mike Nifong made a compelling presentation to the Grand Jury; August 29, 2013 at 1:10 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"A Grand Jury indicted. The intelligent and prudent former DA Mike Nifong made a compelling presentation to the Grand Jury"

KENHYDERA goofs again. Corrupt DA NIFONG did not appear before the Grand Jury. Police officers did.

What compelling presentation did they make. Did they say that the only DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of the Lacrosse players DA NIFONG wanted indicted? Did they say that the forensic evidence and the Medical evidence showed no evidence of rape? Did they tell the Grand Jury that Crystal could not reliably identify any member of the Lacrosse team as her assailant? Did they tell the Grand Jury that the lineup results in which the three suspects were identified was not properly conducted? Did they tell the Grand Jury that two of the three suspects had not been present at the time of the alleged crime? Did they say that Crystal alleged that the third suspect, clean shaven David Evans, had a mustache at time of the alleged crime?

If that had been the information presented to the Grand Jury, there would have been no indictments. The only way that a compelling presentation could have been made to the Grand Jury was that the presenters perjured themselves.; August 29, 2013 at 1:35 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Here's to you for reliability.

I invite you to stick your foot in your mouth. You stick your whole leg in up to the knee, then bite it off, then swallow it.

Right on, KENHYDERAL; August 29, 2013 at 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

What compelling evidence did corrupt DA NIFONG have to present to the Grand Jury?; August 29, 2013 at 1:41 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 1:35 said:"KENHYDERA goofs again. Corrupt DA NIFONG did not appear before the Grand Jury. Police officers did............. If I got it wrong so did Duke Univeristy
The University released a statement at approximately 5 p.m. detailing what top administrators knew about the events Monday.
"We are aware that the district attorney made a presentation to the grand jury today, but we have no knowledge about the contents of his presentation, and no information about the grand jury's deliberations has been released," John Burness, senior vice president for public affairs and government relations, said in the statement. "At this point we remain unclear about the precise status of this case and we must simply wait for news of today's proceedings."; August 29, 2013 at 1:50 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 1:41 said: "What compelling evidence did corrupt DA NIFONG have to present to the Grand Jury?"........ It was sealed.; August 29, 2013 at 1:53 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous @ 1:41 said: 'What compelling evidence did corrupt DA NIFONG have to present to the Grand Jury?'........ It was sealed."

Obvious dodge on your part.

Well consider this. You have admitted that Colin Finnerty and Reade Seligman were falsely accused. How could DA NIFONG have obtained indictments against them had he not had presented perjured evidence?; August 29, 2013 at 3:10 PM
Anonymous said...: IF Duke was being threatening or unconstitutional or fear mongering for a better term in order to create undue conflict of interest or silence others or prevent them from assisting others out of fear or forced or displaced loyalty, what law or rule would this type behavior fall under, not just for Duke, but for anyone?; August 29, 2013 at 3:34 PM
Anonymous said...: "IF Duke was being threatening or unconstitutional or fear mongering for a better term in order to create undue conflict of interest or silence others or prevent them from assisting others out of fear or forced or displaced loyalty, what law or rule would this type behavior fall under, not just for Duke, but for anyone?"

Why don't you at least attempt to convey a coherent thought?; August 29, 2013 at 4:05 PM
Anonymous said...: why don't you fracking stop attacking me?; August 29, 2013 at 5:08 PM
Anonymous said...: ""IF Duke was being threatening or unconstitutional or fear mongering for a better term in order to create undue conflict of interest or silence others or prevent them from assisting others out of fear or forced or displaced loyalty, what law or rule would this type behavior fall under, not just for Duke, but for anyone?"

"..it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."; August 29, 2013 at 5:31 PM
Anonymous said...: You have serious issues you do know that right?

Just because the lacrosse case happened doesn't give you the right to turn around and attack anyone who says something not to your liking about duke (or durham).

You are an example of some of what I am talking about btw.

You do know that right?

What law(s) covers that type behavior, and exanded into the judicial and legal realm like I was speaking of?; August 29, 2013 at 5:53 PM
Anonymous said...: "You have serious issues you do know that right?

Just because the lacrosse case happened doesn't give you the right to turn around and attack anyone who says something not to your liking about duke (or durham).

You are an example of some of what I am talking about btw.

You do know that right?

What law(s) covers that type behavior, and exanded into the judicial and legal realm like I was speaking of?"

"Would the fountain of your mind were clear again, that I might water an ass at it."; August 29, 2013 at 5:59 PM
Anonymous said...: "why don't you fracking stop attacking me?"

"You speak unskilfully: or, if your knowledge be more, it is much darkened in your malice."; August 29, 2013 at 6:43 PM
Anonymous said...: "Hey, Walt.

I already filed the lawsuit. I filed it hours before first posting it online."

"Even if your writings were from an angel from heaven I would take this horrible document, and, after having used it as toilet paper, wipe its nose."; August 29, 2013 at 6:47 PM
Anonymous said...: ""You have serious issues you do know that right?

Just because the lacrosse case happened doesn't give you the right to turn around and attack anyone who says something not to your liking about duke (or durham).

You are an example of some of what I am talking about btw.

You do know that right?"

"The reward of such flattery is what your crass stupidity deserves. Therefore, we shall turn from you, a sevenfold stupid and blasphemous wise person."; August 29, 2013 at 6:50 PM
Anonymous said...: ""Hey, Walt.

I already filed the lawsuit. I filed it hours before first posting it online."

"You do nothing with all your profusion of words but fight a fire with dry straw."; August 29, 2013 at 6:52 PM
Anonymous said...: "I am not a publicity seeker... I have no desire to draw attention to myself. I am a truth and justice seeker."

"In appearance and words you simulate modesty, but you are so swollen with haughtiness, arrogance, pride, malice, villainy, rashness, superciliousness, ignorance, and stupidity that there is nothing to surpass you.; August 29, 2013 at 6:56 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous said : " You speak unskilfully: or, if your knowledge be more, it is much darkened in your malice".................. To paraphrase Lucio Come, sir, He knows what he knows; August 29, 2013 at 9:01 PM
Anonymous said...: I am lucky to speak at all thank you and if malice is communicated it is perceived that way by you only I am sure.; August 29, 2013 at 9:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Did you ever wonder if perhaps it is more wise to try to understand what someone is saying, instead of accusing them of your inability to try to understand?

I am asking what the law is, what rules govern what I am trying to say. That way I can say what I am trying to say in a way that could be understood in legal terms.

I am sure you understand that, though. Do you?; August 29, 2013 at 9:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Mistrial Recluse...........wheeeeeee!; August 30, 2013 at 4:24 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous said : " You speak unskilfully: or, if your knowledge be more, it is much darkened in your malice".................. To paraphrase Lucio Come, sir, He knows what he knows".

And nothing plus nothing equals nothing.; August 30, 2013 at 4:29 AM
Anonymous said...: "Did you ever wonder if perhaps it is more wise to try to understand what someone is saying, instead of accusing them of your inability to try to understand?

I am asking what the law is, what rules govern what I am trying to say. That way I can say what I am trying to say in a way that could be understood in legal terms.

I am sure you understand that, though. Do you?"

"Such loose, lame, empty talk, set forth on the basis of your own reason and idiosyncrasy, would lead me to believe first of all that your opinions amount to nothing.:; August 30, 2013 at 6:43 AM
Anonymous said...: "Did you ever wonder if perhaps it is more wise to try to understand what someone is saying, instead of accusing them of your inability to try to understand?

I am asking what the law is, what rules govern what I am trying to say. That way I can say what I am trying to say in a way that could be understood in legal terms.

I am sure you understand that, though. Do you?"

"You are like the ostrich, the foolish bird which thinks it is wholly concealed when it gets its neck under a branch. Or like small children, who hold their hands in front of their eyes and seeing nobody imagine that no one sees them either. In general, you are so stupid that it makes one feel like vomiting."; August 30, 2013 at 6:46 AM
A Lawyer said...: IF Duke was being threatening or unconstitutional or fear mongering for a better term in order to create undue conflict of interest or silence others or prevent them from assisting others out of fear or forced or displaced loyalty, what law or rule would this type behavior fall under, not just for Duke, but for anyone?

Poster, I am not piling on like some others here, but what you wrote is literally incomprehensible.

"If Duke was being threatening"-- whom did Duke threaten? What was the threat?

"or unconstitutional"-- a meaningless statement; how can a University be unconstitutional?

"or fear mongering for a better term"-- not a better term, actually; how can a University be "fear mongering"? What fear are they instilling? In whom? How?

"to create undue conflict of interest"-- what conflict of interest? Between who and whom? And how can "fear mongering" create a conflict of interest?

"or silence others"-- Who is Duke silencing? How?

"or prevent them from assisting others out of fear or forced or displaced loyalty,"

Who is Duke preventing from assisting whom? And what is "forced or displaced loyalty"?

"what law or rule would this type behavior fall under, not just for Duke, but for anyone?"

I have no idea, because your question is full of terms that are vague, unclear or simply meaningless ("if Duke was being unconstitutional").

To the extent I can discern any meaning in your question, the answer is "it depends." If Duke tried to "silence" you by paying people come on this message board and post that you are an idiot, that would be legal (not that I believe that is happening). If Duke tried to silence you by sending men with guns to your house who threatened to shoot you if you posted anything negative about Duke, that would be a crime. Beyond that, I can't answer your question unless you clarify it.; August 30, 2013 at 8:19 AM
kenhyderal said...: Stop being disingenuous, pretending you don't know what the poster is saying. The poster is expressing himself well enough that anybody can understand his points. Only those, like you, who chose to ridicule, not because of his articulation but because you disagree with his premise, pretend otherwise.; August 30, 2013 at 9:32 AM
A Lawyer said...: Ken,
If you know what that poster is trying to say, please rephrase it for me. I have no idea what he means, and I spelled out some of my uncertainties.; August 30, 2013 at 9:35 AM
Anonymous said...: I'll bite...When the anonymous poster states:
"IF Duke was being threatening or unconstitutional or fear mongering for a better term in order to create undue conflict of interest or silence others or prevent them from assisting others out of fear or forced or displaced loyalty, what law or rule would this type behavior fall under, not just for Duke, but for anyone?"

What is YOUR interpretation of what the poster is saying?; August 30, 2013 at 9:37 AM
Anonymous said...: Sorry for any confusion -- The last anonymous post was meant for kenhyderal, not for "a Lawyer".; August 30, 2013 at 9:40 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Stop being disingenuous, pretending you don't know what the poster is saying. The poster is expressing himself well enough that anybody can understand his points. Only those, like you, who chose to ridicule, not because of his articulation but because you disagree with his premise, pretend otherwise."

You should take your own avice. Stop playing dumb and explain what justified corrupt DA NIFOMG seeking indictments against three members of the Lacrosse team. There was no physical or forensic evidence of a rape. Crystal could not reliably identify any member of the Lacrosse team as an assailant. Where was the probable cause.; August 30, 2013 at 9:52 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 9:37 said: " What is YOUR interpretation of what the poster is saying?".............. The poster is simply saying that the people of Durham, from top to bottom, are intimidated by Duke. Duke calls the shots. Most are fearful of getting into any sort of conflict or dispute with them. Claiming a conflict of interest is an easy way to back down from Duke while saving face. Who, in Durham, can't make the tenuous claim to a conflict of interest with them. Duke does what it wants, when it wants and who it wants and they, figuratively speaking, "get away with murder". They not are even adverse to violating peoples Constitutional Rights, wherever they think they can get away with doing so.; August 30, 2013 at 2:26 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 9:52 said: "Where was the probable cause".. The 18 member Grand Jury saw probable cause.; August 30, 2013 at 2:30 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Anonymous @ 9:52 said: "Where was the probable cause".. The 18 member Grand Jury saw probable cause."

Since their proceedings are sealed and no record is made of what was presented, their finding adds nothing to the record. The question for you is, what evidence or facts do you point to for probable cause. A grand jury indictment is neither evidence nor fact. So, tell us exactly what you saw as evidence that would lead you to believe there was probable cause.

Walt-in-Durham; August 30, 2013 at 2:41 PM
kenhyderal said...: Sworn statements from disinterested parties who say Crystal arrive unimpaired. Statements from The Durham Outtake Center and from Durham Police. The findings of Nurse Levicy and Dr. Manley. The finding of DNA extracted from sperm that could not be explained by Crystal's consensual sexual history.; August 30, 2013 at 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Sworn statements from disinterested parties who say Crystal arrive unimpaired. Statements from The Durham Outtake Center and from Durham Police. The findings of Nurse Levicy and Dr. Manley. The finding of DNA extracted from sperm that could not be explained by Crystal's consensual sexual history.

Kenny,

Your list of items that you claim constitute "probable cause" contain nothing to implicate any of the defendants, and, as you know, the DNA finding cleared the defendants from having committed the specific acts Crystal alleged. Probable cause must implicate the specific defendants.

So, where is your probable cause?; August 30, 2013 at 3:24 PM
Anonymous said...: The 18 member Grand Jury saw probable cause.

In the same way, grand juries indicted Crystal for arson in 2010 and first degree murder in 2011.

I trust that you likewise believe that probable cause existed in both cases.; August 30, 2013 at 3:27 PM
Anonymous said...: The Durham ACCESS Center, Kenny Troll., FOUND nothing. They took a statement from Mangum, who, by that time, had already changed her story twice. The police.......they FOUND that Mangum was intoxicated, refusing to answer, drunk on her ass, and saying she was raped once minute, and saying she was not raped, the next minute. Levicy and Manley? Don't be laughable. Levicy was completely discredited at the Nfong hearing, made to admit that what Mangum about no use of condoms....and later.....use of condoms was a contradiction. Manley? Didn't even have a clue.....was a rotating resident who found nothing except "some" edema "consistent with sexual activity". EVery person at the party, including the three Mangum FALSELY accused of raping her (in mid air, apparently, defying gravity).....had a DNA test.....and NONE matched of the sperm found in the sperm bank, Mangum. Ridiculous, troll. Consensual sex? Yes, Troll , you got that one right......Mangum consented ALOT. She was just reaaaaaalllly friendly.; August 30, 2013 at 3:27 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous @ 9:52 said: "Where was the probable cause".. The 18 member Grand Jury saw probable cause."

Maybe you should ask what the Grand Jury did not see. The Grand Jury did not see the exculpatory evidence.; August 30, 2013 at 3:38 PM
A Lawyer said...: kenhyderal said...
Anonymous @ 9:37 said: " What is YOUR interpretation of what the poster is saying?".............. The poster is simply saying that the people of Durham, from top to bottom, are intimidated by Duke. Duke calls the shots. Most are fearful of getting into any sort of conflict or dispute with them. Claiming a conflict of interest is an easy way to back down from Duke while saving face. Who, in Durham, can't make the tenuous claim to a conflict of interest with them. Duke does what it wants, when it wants and who it wants and they, figuratively speaking, "get away with murder". They not are even adverse to violating peoples Constitutional Rights, wherever they think they can get away with doing so.

How does your interpretation fit with the original poster's concluding question, "what law or rule would this type behavior fall under, not just for Duke, but for anyone?"; August 30, 2013 at 3:46 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDEARAL:

"Sworn statements from disinterested parties who say Crystal arrive unimpaired."

There were also sworn statements that Crystal was impaired when she arrived. It adds up to it has not been established as fact that Crystal was unimpaired.

"Statements from The Durham Outtake Center and from Durham Police."

What the Durham Access Center did was to ask Crystal if she had been raped. Proper procedure would have been to ask, Did something happen to you, a question which does not suggest the answer.

"The findings of Nurse Levicy and Dr. Manley."

Nurse Levicy found nothing. The only physical finding noted by Dr. Manley was diffuse vaginal edema. Female sexual arousal can cause diffuse vaginal edema. The finding of whitish fluid in Crystal's vagina was meaningless. Forensic testing established it was not semen, which is inconsistent with Crystal's allegation of a semen depositing rape.

"The finding of DNA extracted from sperm that could not be explained by Crystal's consensual sexual history."

Here you are demonstrating your guilt presuming racism. The lack of semen on the rape kit established that the DNA was not deposited on the night of 13/14 March.

Answer the question which you have been dodging. Explain why, after Crystal alleged a semen depositing rape, why there semen was not found on the rape kit. Speculation unsupported by evidence does not explain it.; August 30, 2013 at 3:46 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 3:24 said: " Your list of items you claim constitute "probable cause contain nothing"....... Those items combined with what I have been told by Crystal and by Kilgo do constitute probable cause, to me, that Crystal was sexually assaulted but, more importantly, it was the Grand Jury not me who after hearing evidence found probable cause; August 30, 2013 at 3:48 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

I add, the original statements of the Duke police were that Crystal said first, Yes I was raped, then No I wasn't before finally settling on Yes I was. Detective Shelton believed Crystal had not been raped.; August 30, 2013 at 3:48 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Those items combined with what I have been told by Crystal and by Kilgo do constitute probable cause, to me"

So? Crystal lied, and you are too much of a racist to realize. Kilgo gave you a statement from a non existent witness. Zero plus Zero is still Zero.

"that Crystal was sexually assaulted but, more importantly, it was the Grand Jury not me who after hearing evidence found probable cause".

What the Grand Jury heard was corrupt DA NIFONG's version of the evidence which did not include the evidence that the DNA found on Crystal's person did not match the DNA of the suspects.; August 30, 2013 at 3:54 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous @ 9:37 said: " What is YOUR interpretation of what the poster is saying?".............. The poster is simply saying that the people of Durham, from top to bottom, are intimidated by Duke. Duke calls the shots. Most are fearful of getting into any sort of conflict or dispute with them."

Explain why Duke University settled with the falsely accused Lacrosse players rather than defend against them in court.; August 30, 2013 at 3:58 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous @ 9:52 said: "Where was the probable cause".. The 18 member Grand Jury saw probable cause."

That is an admission that none of the known facts of the case established probable cause. The known facts are: no physical or forensic evidence of rape; Crystal's multiple non credible statements; the only DNA found on Crystal did not match the DNA of any suspect.; August 30, 2013 at 4:02 PM
Anonymous said...: Kenny notes: more importantly, it was the Grand Jury not me who after hearing evidence found probable cause

In the same way, Kenny argues strenuously against Sid that probable cause existed to charge Crystal with arson in 2010 and first degree murder in 2011. In both cases, Crystal was indicted by a Grand Jury.

Kenny believes that Sid fails to take the judgment of the Grand Juries properly into account.; August 30, 2013 at 5:14 PM
Walt said...: Kenhyderal wrote: "Sworn statements from disinterested parties who say Crystal arrive unimpaired."

First Ken, you provided a reasoned answer, that's good. Thank you.

Who made those statements? When? Where does one find those?

"Statements from The Durham Outtake Center and from Durham Police."

I think you mean the Durham Crisis Center which is a mental health and substance abuse treatment organization. The DPD took Crystal there because they thought she was drug impaired. Once it became obvious to the Crystal that involuntary commitment was where DCRC was thinking she claimed rape. At that point, DCRC sent her to the emergency room. Not really probable cause, but just the DCRC following their own procedure. What DPD reports? Or are you referring to the un-sworn statements of CPL Addison?

"The findings of Nurse Levicy and Dr. Manley."

Levicy didn't make any findings, but Dr. Manley did. Mostly negative findings. Those certainly did not support the charge of rape.

"The finding of DNA extracted from sperm that could not be explained by Crystal's consensual sexual history."

This is the most telling of the facts available at the pre-indictment phase. However, let's look at the timeline. All white Lacrosse team members gave, under court order, DNA samples. Those samples were tested by the SBI and on April 10, the SBI reported back that none were a match to the DNA retrieved from Crystal. The first indictments were handed down on April 18. Thus, the available DNA did not support probable cause for the three indictments handed down.

My own personal theory of the crime is: Crystal was raped at some point. She doesn't know by whom. She doesn't know exactly when. But, it wasn't at the lacrosse party. Probably sometime earlier. There are five viable suspects, just none of them lacrosse players.

I certainly don't see any probable cause after April 10 and before April 18 when the indictments were handed down. That's Nifong's first trouble point. He was in violation of Rule 3.8(a).

Nifong's next problem came when DNASI issued its report from the differential DNA testing. That removed all suspicion from the three indicted men and everyone else who had been identified. From then on his prosecution was further in violation of Rule 3.8(a). He had no probable cause to proceed against the defendants.

Walt-in-Durham; August 30, 2013 at 5:20 PM
Anonymous said...: The judge recommended that Vann be put back on the case per the prosecutors request and against Ms. Mangum's request. Wasn't it Vann who was recently caught in a prostitution sting in Wake Forest?

Does that affect his ability to serve as Ms. Mangum's lawyer in a competent legally sound manner - or will he too have to withdraw if appointed at some time?; August 30, 2013 at 5:24 PM
Anonymous said...: No. Shella was caught in the prostitution sting.; August 30, 2013 at 5:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Shella's arrest does not affect Vann's ability to serve as Mangum's lawyer. I do not understand why you think it would.; August 30, 2013 at 5:32 PM
Anonymous said...: I wonder if Vann will ask Sid to serve as an expert witness now that the Indy has established Sid's credentials.; August 30, 2013 at 5:37 PM
Anonymous @3:24 said...: Kenny misleadingly quotes me: "Your list of items you claim constitute 'probable cause' contain nothing..."

As he knows, my statement continued....to implicate any of the defendants.

My post discussed the DNA evidence cited by Kenny as providing evidence that none of the defendants committed the specific acts alleged by Crystal.

Kenny, you owe my an apology for your misleading quote.

Also, answer the question. Probable cause requires credible evidence not just that a crime was committed, but also that the persons charged committed that crime.

You have provided a non compelling list of items that support the theory that Crystal was attacked. You provided nothing to support the theory that, if an attack had occurred, the defendants committed it.

Why not?; August 30, 2013 at 6:00 PM
kenhyderal said...: I apologize for posting a abbreviation of your quote that could possibly cause it to be misconstrued. Two of the three were wrongly indicted. Subjecting Crystal to the flawed photo line-up and telling her that her perpetrators were definitely present in the photographs she was shown caused her to make this misidentification; August 30, 2013 at 8:40 PM
Anonymous said...: Wasn't she asked to simply identify people who were at the party?

From what I understand, she never identified a person as someone who was a rapist, only someone who was at the party.; August 30, 2013 at 9:26 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Two of the three [indicted] were wrongly indicted. Subjecting Crystal to the flawed photo line-up and telling her that her perpetrators were definitely present in the photographs she was shown caused her to make this misidentification".

Again, she could have said, I don't recognize anyone. She did not.

David Evans was also wrongfully indicted. Crystal said he had a mustache at the time of the alleged rape. He did not. Kilgo's claim that his anonymous, non existent Lacrosse player saw a picture of him with a mustache is evidence of nothing.

The lineup was conducted at the order of corrupt DA NIFONG because he wanted to indict members of the Lacrosse team for the non rape. That was the only thing he could have presented to the Grand Jury as probable cause.

What it adds up to is that corrupt DA NIFONG had three innocent men indicted without probable cause. Your claim that he did have probable cause is evidence of your guilt presuming blatant unrepentant racism.; August 31, 2013 at 3:42 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

The judge and the prosecution want to have Woody Vann appointed to represent Crystal, arguing he knows the case. The judge says the trial will go forward.

Crystal says she does not want Woody Vann.

The judge told Crystal she was entitled to counsel but not entitled to pick and choose her counsel. So far as what Dr. Roberts found, she had to take that up with her lawyer.

Sounds like the judge is getting tired of Crystal trying to play the system.

I read all this on the appropriately named liestoppers.; August 31, 2013 at 3:47 AM
Anonymous @3:24 said...: Kenny admits: Two of the three were wrongly indicted.

In other words, contrary to his earlier claim, there was no probable cause.

I ask that you apopogize for your mistake.; August 31, 2013 at 6:07 AM
Anonymous said...: If the Durham Public Defenders office cannot represent the public in a very serious concern about Duke and the Medical Examiner in their ability to successfully and professional and responsibly and fairly treat a patient at Duke Hospitals and have results of any harm reported without a massive political or deliberate harmful agenda involved in the treating and reporting of same - then they are not protecting the rights and safety of the public, not just Ms. Mangum, or whoever.

Anyone who enters the realm of durham/duke land is potentially at the mercy of Duke.

What Duke does to one, they can and will (and probably have), done to another, or will again.

They are NOT saints in devil skin - and pulling the wool over the public's eye has gotten harder for them, which they are trying to deny.

The health and well-being of the public are not the goals of either Duke nor the Public Defender's office if justice is not administered equally and with responsible and professionally legal protection for all, not just one or the other or none, and not just for Duke.

More than justice is negatively affected when the Public Defender will not protect even one from Duke or the Medical Examiner or anyone else's involvement and conjunction with Duke that causes harm to any.; August 31, 2013 at 7:57 AM
Walt said...: Anonymous at 7:57 AM, you remind me of this old joke:

Defense Lawyer cross examining the Medical Examiner: Sir how many of your patients have died?

Medical Examiner: All of my patients are dead before they get to me.

Walt-in-Durham; August 31, 2013 at 8:11 AM
Anonymous said...: joke i just made up:

ME to Duke: so you want that *** to pay, eh.

Duke to ME: yeah, just like everyone else; August 31, 2013 at 8:26 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous@ 3:42 said: "Kilgo's claim that his anonymous,(non existent)(parenthesis mine because it's an oxymoron)Lacrosse player saw a picture of him with a mustache. .............. That should read "has" a picture of him with a mustache; August 31, 2013 at 8:58 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 6:07 said: Kenny admits: Two of the three were wrongly indicted. "In other words, contrary to his earlier claim, there was no probable cause"........Wrongful indictment never means there was not probable cause; August 31, 2013 at 9:03 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous@ 3:42 said: "Kilgo's claim that his anonymous,(non existent)(parenthesis mine because it's an oxymoron)(parenthesis mine-said anonymous Lacrosse player does not exist)Lacrosse player saw a picture of him with a mustache. .............. That should read "has" a picture of him with a mustache".

All that means is that Kilgo's non existent Lacrosse player friend has a non existent picture of David Evans with a mustache.; August 31, 2013 at 9:09 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous @ 6:07 said: Kenny admits: Two of the three were wrongly indicted. "In other words, contrary to his earlier claim, there was no probable cause"........Wrongful indictment never means there was not probable cause".

In this case it did. You are too blatantly and unrepentantly racist to see that.; August 31, 2013 at 9:10 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Wrongful indictment never means there was not probable cause".

What justification did corrupt DA NIFONG have for seeking indictments against 3 men when there was no physical or forensic evidence implicating them in the alleged crime, when her identifications of the three men, including David Evans, were not reliable?

He had none.

Therefore he could not have established probable cause that these three men had raped Crystal. The only way he could have indictments was to have presented to the Grand Jury perjured evidence.; August 31, 2013 at 9:42 AM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declared_death_in_absentia

It describes the circumstances under which an individual can be declared legally dead, one of which is that the person has disappeared completely for 7 years.

It has been more than 7 years since Crystal falsely accused the Lacrosse players of raping her. No one, save Kilgo, has claimed to have contact with his anonymous Lacrosse player friend. Since then Kilgo has vanished from the blogosphere. Ergo, for an extended length of time there has been no evidence that this anonymous Lacrosse player exists.

Unless he does turn up, and that becomes more and more unlikely with the passage of more time, there is no evidence he exists.

So justify why Kilgo's claim should be considered evidence when there is no evidence that the source of the evidence even exists.; August 31, 2013 at 9:52 AM
Anonymous @3:24 said...: Kenny falsely claims: Wrongful indictment never means there was not probable cause

I assume that you misspoke.

What you intended to claim is that Wrongful indictment does not necessarily mean there was not probable cause

Nevertheless, despite several requests you have failed to provide any credible evidence that would implicate any of the defendants.

I will repeat my earlier comment which requested that you stop avoiding questions reasonably posed to you.

Answer the question. Probable cause requires credible evidence not just that a crime was committed, but also that the persons charged committed that crime. What evidence implicated the defendants?

You have provided a non compelling list of items that support the theory that Crystal was attacked. You provided nothing to support the theory that, if an attack had occurred, the defendants committed it.

Why not?

I ask that you apologize for your disingenuous replies.; August 31, 2013 at 10:12 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
SIDNEY HARR:

The judge and the prosecution want to have Woody Vann appointed to represent Crystal, arguing he knows the case. The judge says the trial will go forward.

Crystal says she does not want Woody Vann.

The judge told Crystal she was entitled to counsel but not entitled to pick and choose her counsel. So far as what Dr. Roberts found, she had to take that up with her lawyer.

Sounds like the judge is getting tired of Crystal trying to play the system.

I read all this on the appropriately named liestoppers.

Of course, Coggins-Franks wants Woody Vann to represent Crystal. Coggins-Franks and Vann make a good team... they probably developed rapport, and undoubtedly have the same objective - to have Mangum accept a plea deal.; August 31, 2013 at 10:38 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: Anonymous said...
I wonder if Vann will ask Sid to serve as an expert witness now that the Indy has established Sid's credentials.

Vann won't call me to testify because he does not seek a full acquittal for Mangum. He's going to try and get Crystal to accept a plea deal.; August 31, 2013 at 10:42 AM
Nifong Supporter said...: HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
Important Announcement.

Barring any unforeseen adverse circumstances, a new flog will be posted tomorrow, Sunday, September 1, 2013. Should be posted no later than 2:00pm Eastern time.; August 31, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Of course, Coggins-Franks wants Woody Vann to represent Crystal. Coggins-Franks and Vann make a good team... they probably developed rapport, and undoubtedly have the same objective - to have Mangum accept a plea deal."

More delusional raving about the non existent conspiracy to het Crystal.; August 31, 2013 at 11:08 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"Vann won't call me to testify because he does not seek a full acquittal for Mangum. He's going to try and get Crystal to accept a plea deal."

That presumes a fact not in evidence, that the delusional ravings you would call testimony would be enough to get Crystal an acquittal. It would only demonstrate what an incompetent crock you are.; August 31, 2013 at 11:10 AM
Anonymous said...: SIDNEY HARR:

"HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
Important Announcement."

More garbage forthcoming from SIDNEY. Hold your breath.

"Barring any unforeseen adverse circumstances, a new flog will be posted tomorrow, Sunday, September 1, 2013. Should be posted no later than 2:00pm Eastern time."

Which means SIDNEY will be reposting his his delusional ravings again.; August 31, 2013 at 11:13 AM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 10:12 said: "Probable cause requires credible evidence not just that a crime was committed, but also that the persons charged committed that crime. What evidence implicated the defendants".............. I outlined the evidence that made me come to the conclusion that there was probable cause. The evidence given to the Grand Jury, although sealed, caused them to come to the same conclusion.; August 31, 2013 at 1:12 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"I outlined the evidence that made me come to the conclusion that there was probable cause."

You outlined nothing hat would establish probable cause.

"The evidence given to the Grand Jury, although sealed, caused them to come to the same conclusion."

DA NIFONG presented perjured evidence to the Grand Jury. I say that because the real evidence developed in the case, not the presumptions you represent as evidence, did not establish that a crime had been committed.; August 31, 2013 at 1:26 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

Explain how the indicted Lacrosse players were implicated in the crime when there was no evidence to link them to the crime.; August 31, 2013 at 1:27 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 1:26 said: "DA NIFONG presented perjured evidence to the Grand Jury".............. This is completely false.; August 31, 2013 at 2:27 PM
kenhyderal said...: Anonymous @ 1:27 said: "Explain how the indicted Lacrosse players were implicated in the crime when there was no evidence to link them to the crime" Read my post of 3:09 8-30-13 for my take on the evidence. In my opinion that raises the probability that a crime happened. One of the indicted had means, motive, and opportunity; August 31, 2013 at 2:36 PM
Anonymous @3:24 said...: Kenny claims:

Kenny is correct. Only Inv. Ben Himan and Sgt. Mark Gottlieb testified and had an opportunity to perjure themselves.; August 31, 2013 at 2:45 PM
Anonymous 3:24 said...: Kenny asserts: One of the indicted had means, motive, and opportunity

You provide weak support for the allegation that Crystal was sexually assaulted. You provide none to implicate any of the defendants. You assert that one defendant had the means, motive and opportunity, but provide no evidence. You ignore the others completely.

The weak evidence that a crime may have occurred justified an investigation. There was none. Instead, they rigged an identification procedure to select defendants and abused a flawed grand jury process.

Perhaps that is how justice works in Canada.

That makes even NC look good.; August 31, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Walt said...: Sid wrote: "Vann won't call me to testify because he does not seek a full acquittal for Mangum."

How wrong you are. As an expert (you didn't treat, so all you can do is offer an opinion and nothing more) you are directly contradicted by not one, but two other experts. Further, you have yet to write a single thing that suggests you have any medicine or science to base your claims upon. You have consistently misrepresented the law and the science. If Vann wanted to send Crystal's case to a quick conviction, listing Sid as an expert would be the way to do it.

"He's going to try and get Crystal to accept a plea deal."

If he can't get another continuance, that's probably in her best interests. She has no defense. Thanks to Sid's breach of the attorney client privilege everyone knows that there is no medical defense. She has no battered spouse defense, again thanks to Sid's breach of the attorney client privilege we've seen the state's discovery that discounts that notion. (Not that Crystal ever had much of a defense there.) With Sid sidelined by the bar, Crystal can't file any more motions designed solely to delay the proceeding. It's time for serious plea negotiations or Crystal needs to do some prison planning.

Walt-in-Durham; August 31, 2013 at 3:03 PM
Anonymous said...: kenny hissy, you can run your mouth till Jesus comes.....Mangum LIED. Nifong LIED. You just can't stand it that the "rich white boys" didn't rape her, can you? It just pisses you off....

too bad.....; August 31, 2013 at 4:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Why I Oppose Fracking:

So like with the hydraulic fracking, and how the continental plate that comprises most of NC and is smashed between and against other major continental plates is made up of this really old and compressed quartz in many places, there is an ability to 'feel' earthquakes happen many miles away in NC before they even happen by anything comprised of water.

Fracking waste water is affected by earthquakes that occur even on the other side of the globe.

NC, sitting on one of the oldest continental plates in the USA, has the ability to crumble under the pressure of ill placed earthquake risks like those caused by hydraulic fracking.

And, when eartjqiales do occur on this continental shelf comprising NC and much of eastern seaboard,

(like when there was that big earthquake in PA, and NC shook like it was having its own earthquake, even though it was not a very large earthquake in comparison to other earthquakes that occur regularly around the world),

there is a VERY REAL probability of major damage to many in NC and on the eastern seaboard.

And, yet, this is even an option for NC or the eastern seaboard affected by the same continental shelf risks?

And Duke is in charge of the advisory committee for fracking hazards in NC?

bs if it goes forward and there are major earthquakes and earthquake damage in NC after knowing the risks of earthquakes in NC. major bs; August 31, 2013 at 4:13 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDRAL:

"Anonymous @ 1:27 said: "Explain how the indicted Lacrosse players were implicated in the crime when there was no evidence to link them to the crime" Read my post of 3:09 8-30-13 for my take on the evidence. In my opinion that raises the probability that a crime happened. One of the indicted had means, motive, and opportunity".

None of the indicted players had motive or opportunity to rape Crystal. Your statement is racist-you are saying that since the white boys were at the scene of the crime alleged by the black woman, they must be suspected. Your opinion is worthless.

I say again, you are ducking. You can not come anything even remotely resembling probable cause.; August 31, 2013 at 5:53 PM
Anonymous said...: KENHYDERAL:

"Anonymous @ 1:26 said: "DA NIFONG presented perjured evidence to the Grand Jury".............. This is completely false."

No it isn't.

What is completely false is that corrupt DA NIFONG had probable cause to indict anyone for the rape of Crystal Mangum. There was no evidence she was raped.; August 31, 2013 at 5:56 PM
Anonymous said...: No way any white man would touch Crystal Mangum.She's disgusting.; August 31, 2013 at 10:58 PM
Anonymous said...: There is no way Ms. Mangum can be found quilty of murder beyond a shadow of a doubt due to the descrepencies between Duke and the Medical Examiner reports.

Dr. Harr, do you have solid evidence that Duke docs decided to do the extra procedure that caused Mr. Daye to be intubated improperly only because they had him in the special unit they had taken him to, and NOT because it was medically necessary to alleviate the immediate issues for why he was in the special unit to begin with? I am trying to ask if they decided to do this procedure because they wanted to, not because it was medically necessary to save his life?; September 1, 2013 at 3:32 AM
Anonymous said...: Do you think that if there was a way to require the companies responsible for fracking to pay for the insurance that would be needed to repair, replace, or reimburse for all the damage and lives lost that might occur as the results of earthquakes (any) after fracking occurs - that they would stop considering it as a viable money or energy maker?; September 1, 2013 at 3:47 AM
Anonymous said...: "Anonymous September 1, 2013 at 3:32 AMSeptember 1, 2013 at 3:32 AM

"There is no way Ms. Mangum can be found quilty(sic) of murder beyond a shadow of a doubt due to the descrepencies(sic) between Duke and the Medical Examiner reports."

There are no discrepancies.

"Dr. Harr, do you have solid evidence that Duke docs decided to do the extra procedure that caused Mr. Daye to be intubated improperly only because they had him in the special unit they had taken him to, and NOT because it was medically necessary to alleviate the immediate issues for why he was in the special unit to begin with?"

SIDNEY has no evidence of anything.

"I am trying to ask if they decided to do this procedure because they wanted to, not because it was medically necessary to save his life?"

You are showing only that you are seriously deluded.; September 1, 2013 at 5:04 AM
Anonymous said...: ok, i'll bite

explain deluded and exactly what about I just said could be described in any way as deluded?

you are seriously wrong in there being no proof

have you even read the reports yet?

is your job to be tiring on purpose and does duke pay you to do it?; September 1, 2013 at 5:28 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 1, 2013 at 5:28 AM

"ok, i'll bite

"explain deluded and exactly what about I just said could be described in any way as deluded?"

You believe in something which isn't there, e.g. the so called "descrepencies(sic) between Duke and the Medical Examiner reports."

"you are seriously wrong in there being no proof"

No I'm not. You have provided the proof that you believe inthings which aren't there.

"have you even read the reports yet?"

I have read SIDNEY's delusions. There are no other reports. If there were, you would have quoted them.

"is your job to be tiring on purpose"

I just like to let deluded people know they are deluded.

"and does duke pay you to do it?"

No, I am donating my time and effort as a public service.; September 1, 2013 at 6:20 AM
Anonymous said...: no one has to prove anything on this blog for you

why do you think they do?

you are deluded to think someone is going to come on this blog and provide proof when they talk about things that happen that are well documented in the news if you care to read it, follow along with it, or even think about it

that is where i get my news - the news

you should go talk to yourself in the mirror if you think you are providing a public service if duke turns around and kills you for doing so - because they can - so they do

its called a hipprocratic oath that is the main law most, if not all, should follow if associated with duke due to their major medical influence and presence in the lives of many; September 1, 2013 at 8:00 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 1, 2013 at 8:00 AM

"no one has to prove anything on this blog for you

why do you think they do?"

The simple answer is, unless you can corroborate your allegations they are just uncorroborated allegations, nothing more.

"you are deluded to think someone is going to come on this blog and provide proof when they talk about things that happen that are well documented in the news if you care to read it, follow along with it, or even think about it

that is where i get my news - the news"

That is an admission that you can not corroborate your allegations. In turn, that suggests you are fabricating your allegations.

you should go talk to yourself in the mirror if you think you are providing a public service if duke turns around and kills you for doing so - because they can - so they do

its called a hipprocratic oath that is the main law most, if not all, should follow if associated with duke due to their major medical influence and presence in the lives of many; September 1, 2013 at 8:07 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 1, 2013 at 8:00 AM

"no one has to prove anything on this blog for you

why do you think they do?"

Why do you think anyone should accept your allegations without proof?

"you are deluded to think someone is going to come on this blog and provide proof when they talk about things that happen that are well documented in the news if you care to read it, follow along with it, or even think about it that is where i get my news - the news"

If it is well documented in the news, you should be able to give a reference to the documentation. I have often provided links to items I am reporting. If you are not, it suggests you have no news items to link to, which suggests you are fabricating your allegations.

"you should go talk to yourself in the mirror if you think you are providing a public service if duke turns around and kills you for doing so - because they can - so they do"

Provide evidence that Duke University Hospital ever deliberately killed anyone.

"its called a hipprocratic(sic) oath that is the main law most, if not all, should follow if associated with duke due to their major medical influence and presence in the lives of many"

You can't even spell "Hippocratic" correctly. That suggests you do not know of what you speak.

You again have given evidence that you are seriously deluded.; September 1, 2013 at 8:16 AM
Anonymous said...: no, its an admission by you that you rather accuse someone of however you term it for whatever reason you deem is your deluded public service self-appointed task in order to annoy, troll, and accuse people on this blog - for you own and dukes edification

duke doesn't pay you?
how odd
you should inquire at the public relations department for a paid position; September 1, 2013 at 8:17 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 1, 2013 at 8:17 AM

"no, its an admission by you that you rather accuse someone of however you term it for whatever reason you deem is your deluded public service self-appointed task in order to annoy, troll, and accuse people on this blog - for you own and dukes edification"

I am sure annoying you, aren't I?

"duke doesn't pay you? how odd you should inquire at the public relations department for a paid position"

Why. The satisfaction I get by exposing you as a fabricator is remuneration enough.; September 1, 2013 at 8:22 AM
Anonymous said...: really

why?; September 1, 2013 at 8:25 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 1, 2013 at 8:25 A

"really

why?

M"

You, like SIDNEY, are a chronic fabricator who believes he(or she, maybe) is a great thinker. You do not like being shown you are not.; September 1, 2013 at 8:28 AM
Anonymous said...: seriously

so, because you think i think i am a great thinker, you think that gives you the right to purposely troll me, annoy me, and falsly accuse me (not to mention the fact that if i actually did not ignore you most of the time because of your public service for duke inspired actions on this blog, i am required to be subjected to reading you do the same thing to all others who have anything not to your liking to say about duke).

it gets tiring - like i said

leave me out of your public service please

thanks; September 1, 2013 at 8:38 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous September 1, 2013 at 8:38 AM

"seriously

so, because you think i think i am a great thinker, you think that gives you the right to purposely troll me, annoy me, and falsly accuse me (not to mention the fact that if i actually did not ignore you most of the time because of your public service for duke inspired actions on this blog, i am required to be subjected to reading you do the same thing to all others who have anything not to your liking to say about duke)."

What makes you think this is a public service for Duke. It is a public service for the people you expect to take you seriously.

And boy, now you are stark raving mad.

"it gets tiring - like i said

leave me out of your public service please

thanks"

All you have to do to avoid me is to stop posting your uncorroborated allegations.; September 1, 2013 at 8:49 AM
Anonymous said...: well, since i feel i have the right to talk about things i read in the news on this blog without having to provide you links that you could just as easily obtain for yourself, and you, in all your self-appointed public service glory, feel you have the right to whine constantly about that because it amuses you to do so as your main motivation, i think you should keep your public service to yourself

thanks

go read about - i already told you i didn't NOT want to read about jessica falling apart, being taken apart, and dying (and her mom getting treated like true crap) at the hands of duke again - nor do most probably - you are seriously being a troll

stop

thanks; September 1, 2013 at 9:06 AM
Anonymous said...: Anonymous said September 1, 2013 at 9:06 AM

"well, since i feel i have the right to talk about things i read in the news on this blog without having to provide you links that you could just as easily obtain for yourself, and you, in all your self-appointed public service glory, feel you have the right to whine constantly about that because it amuses you to do so as your main motivation, i think you should keep your public service to yourself

thanks

go read about - i already told you i didn't NOT want to read about jessica falling apart, being taken apart, and dying (and her mom getting treated like true crap) at the hands of duke again - nor do most probably - you are seriously being a troll

stop

thanks"

You are acting, again, in a way that suggests you are fabricating your allegations.

Your right to express yourself does not prohibit me or anyone else to express an opinion about what you are saying. My opinion is you are fabricating.; September 1, 2013 at 10:14 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 418 Newer› Newest»

Sunday, August 18, 2013

Lawsuit filed against the State of North Carolina

418 comments:

Facebook Badge

Subscribe!

Labels

Blog Archive

About Me